.(x (o TESTING FARMS IN THE SOUTH FOR EFFICIENCY IN MANAGEMENT C. L. GOODRICH Agriculturist UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 83 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Contribution from the Office of Farm Management H. C. TAYLOR, Chief „, . - , r. r February, 1920 Washington, u. L.. WASHINGTON : QOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1820 i':.c^&os^ "PRACTICAL TESTS, by the application of which ex- tension workers, county agents, and farmers them- selves may roughly determine whether or not a given farm in a group is being efficiently managed, are outlined in this circular. These tests have been formulated with special reference to the Southern States. TESTING FARMS IN THE SOUTH FOR EFFICIENCY IN MANAGEMENT. JT IS THE DUTY AND PRIVILEGE of the farmer so to man- age his land, labor, and working equipment as to produce the largest net return without hazard to his personal rights and obli- gations. This net return is dependent upon the efficiency with which he manages and combines the many factors which influence the success of his business. Some of the more important of these factors are: (1) The produc- tion of family and farm supplies; (2) the yield per acre of crops; (3) the production per head of live stock; (4) the organization of the crop acreage; and (5) adjustment between labor requirements and labor supply. There are also certain secondary factors directly influencing the main factors. This circular is intended to present a simple method of testing the farmer's influence and efficiency in dealing with these factors, and to give some general standards of efficiency for the use of farm management, extension workers, county agents, farmers, and others, with special reference to agricultural conditions in the South. These tests should be based on farm surveys, business summaries, and farm-practice records for the communities in which the farms consid- ered are located. A business summary should be prepared for each farm, an average summary for all the farms in the community group, and an average summary for a given number of the best farms in the group. With these summaries as a basis the farms should be measured individually, applying the tests in the order given, or in such order as circumstances and good judgment may suggest. In the follow- ing pages an exposition of these tests is given, with illustrative data and standards. These figures are based on prewar records and con- ditions, but it is believed that the principles involved will not be changed by war prices and costs. FAMILY AND FARM SUPPLIES. 1 . Is the farm producing such of the family foods as are adapted to local conditions in ample quantities for the welfare of the family 9 The value of the family living furnished directly from the farm is one of the important factors determining the amount of the income of the farm and the degree to which the farm business is safe and profitable. This is especially true of the smaller farms. 3 4 Department Circular 83, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. The garden and live stock which supply the larger part of the family food are usually cared for at times that interfere compar- atively little with the regular farm commercial enterprises, and by labor which otherwise would not be utilized. Further, it has been found that, up to a considerable size of farm business, when the family food is produced on the farm, this item, pi as the fuel and shelter furnished by the farm, amounts to an equivalent of the rent for the entire farm or interest on the whole farm investment. As an illustration, in a community in Brooks County, Ga., that makes a specialty of producing its own farm food and farm feeds, the families on 106 farms consumed in 1914 food ranging in value per family from $104 to $1,283 and averaging $526. Approximately 85 per cent of this food was produced on the farms where the food was consumed. On farms having less than 75 acres of crop land, the part of the food produced on the farm amounted in value on an average to 48 per cent of the net income; and on farms having 250 acres or more of crop land the part of the food produced on the farm similarly amounted to 18 per cent of the net income. (See U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 648.) On 149 farms pretty evenly distributed in Gaston County, N. C, Troup County, Ga., and McLennan County, Tex., the average family consumed food to the value of $454. Sixty-nine per cent of this food was produced on the farm. Table I, taken from Farmers' Bulletin 1015, ''Producing family and farm supplies on the cotton farm," presents the kind and quan- tity of farm foods consumed annually by the average adult person on the 255 farms mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs; two children of 12 years or under being considered equivalent to one adult : Table I.— Average annval consumption of various articles of food per adult person by 250 farm families in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. Article. Vegetables: Beans pecks. Beets do. . . Cabbages head. Cucumbers pecks. Melons number. Onions pecks. Peas do... Potatoes (Irish) bush. Potatoes (sweet) do. . . Sweet corn doz. Tomatoes pecks . Turnips do. . . Fruit: Apples bush. Pears do. . . Peaches do. . . Grapes do . . . Berries qts. Amount con- sumed per adult person. 5.7 3.5 14 2 15 1.5 1.13 2 5.11 6.8 4.1 4.5 1.4 .3 1.5 .25 11.5 Article. Cereals: Com meal lbs. Flour do. . . Sirups galls. Sugar 54 pounds= sirup galls . Dairy products: Butter ) Buttermilky=milk qts. Milk ) Beef lbs. Pork and lard do. . . Poultry products: Poultry lbs . Eggs doz . Amomit con- sumed per adult person. 156 224 4 8.2 12 138 57.5 28.4 Testing Farms in the South for Efficiencij. 5 Until similar standards can be worked out for a given community, Table I may be used as an aid in determining the approximate amount of foods to be provided for any given farm family, the number of farm animals needed to produce the animal products, and the amount of land needed for growing the plant products. The weU-managed farm will be planned for producing for home consumption garden vegetables and fruits, cereals, sirup, dairy and poultry products, and meat. Farmers' Bulletin 1015 suggests for an average family of five adult persons, or their equivalent, a vegetable garden of two- thirds of an acre, a fruit garden of one-half acre, one-third of an acre for a winter supply of white potatoes, one-half acre for late sweet potatoes, one- half acre of sugar cane for sirup and sugar, and 1 acre of corn for corn meal. These items make up a total of 3^ acres for plant products. 2. Is the farm "producing the necessary feeds for the proper feeding of (a) the family live stoclc, (b) the farm worlc stock, and (c) the commercial live stocJc of the farm., as far as they can he produced econonfiically under local conditions? Farm management studies in the Southern States indicate that the most profitable farms not only produce the necessary farm feeds, but have a surplus of them to sell; and that usually on the farms pro- ducing a surplus the live stock is of better quality and is better cared for than on farms where staple feeds are bought. FEED FOR FAMILY LIVE STOCK. In Farmers' Bulletin 1015, a plan is suggested for providing the average farm family with animal food products, according to which there should be kept 2 cows, 40 fowls for furnishing eggs and poultry meat, and for each adult person or equivalent one pig should be raised annually. Enough calves should be raised to replace each cow reaching the age of 8 years. It is calculated that this family live stock will require 1 ton of corn and cob meal, 1,234 pounds of cotton- seed meal, 55 bushels of corn, 40 bushels of oats, 4,200 pounds of cowpea hay, 2,100 pounds of oat hay, 4,200 pounds of corn roughage, green forage from 2 acres, and 5 acres of pasture or their equivalent. At average yields for the cotton region these products will require 5 J acres of corn, 3 J of oats and oat hay, and 2 acres of soiling crops, making a total of 10 acres of crop land, besides the 5 acres of pasture. FEED FOR WORK STOCK. The work stock in the South is usually fed on grain and dry rough- age during the fall, winter, and early spring. During the rest of the year this is supplemented on many farms by pasture and green feed, such as rye, sorghum, and corn. A fair provision per head of work stock would be 60 bushels of corn, 40 bushels of oats, and 3 tons of 6 Department Circular 83, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. roughage; the last item may consist of 1^ tons of cowpea hay or velvet-bean hay, 1 ton of oat straw and one-half ton of corn roughage. To provide this feed at average yields will require 3J. acres of corn, 2 of oats, 2 of cowpea hay, and 1 of pasture and green feed. (See Farmers' Bulletin 1015.) The feeds above suggested for the family live stock and the work stock are not necessarily the best for all farms and all conditions. They are good staple feeds and are suggested as illustrating the procedure in applying this farm test. Other feeds may be substituted, according to the judgment of the person making the test or planning the farm organization. ACRES NEEDED TO SUPPORT A 2-MULE FAMILY FARM. On the basis of feeding suggested and at average yields per acre for the South the following acreages of food and feed crops will be required to feed properly a 2-mule family farm, averaging five adult persons or their equivalent. Table II.- — Acres needed to support a 2 -Tnule family farm. [Figures in parentheses are for by-products or second crops.] Item. Gar- den. Sugar cane. Corn with cow- peas. Corn rough- age. Oats and oat hay. Cow- peas or velvet beans. Soil- ing crops. Cot- ton seed. Pas- ture. Vegetables ! White potatoes . Sweet potatoes Fruit Meal for family i Sirup i Cows (2) 2 2 (9) 1^ 2 (3) 2 (6i) 5 Chickens (40) Hogs (5). . . (5) Work stock (2) (44) 4 (4) 2 Total 2 h 13i (13J) 7^ (7) 2 (61) 7 Omitting by-products and second crops, the above-tabulated acreage requirements total 25^ acres of crop land and 7 acres of pasture, or 12| acres of crop land and 3^ acres of pasture per mule for the 2-mule farm. A second crop is taken from 7 of the crop acres, and cowpeas or peanuts should be planted between the corn rows. These requirements are intended as a liberal provision for the family feed and for food for the farm live stock. In addition, there should be a surplus of garden stuff and dairy and poultry products to sell or exchange for groceries. The foregoing acreages are calculated on the basis of average yields, which have been used by way of illustration. Many farms produce better yields than these, and those with average or less- than-average yields should better them. With higher yields the acreages above estimated can be reduced, or they can be maintained and a larger surplus sold. Testing Farms in the South for Efficiency. 7 COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES. 3. Aside from providing for its own needs, are the crops and live stock the farm, is producing for sale to the nonproducers of the community, or for export to other communities, such as can he made profitdble when produced and sold locally or ex- ported f The best guide here is the practice of the community; enterprises should be adopted that are found generally on its farms. In most parts of the South cotton is the staple crop, but a limited demand from the nonproducers of the community for some product not gen- erally grown locally, and for which many local farms are not adapted, will sometimes afford a few farms opportunity for expansion. For instance, the plan suggested for providing dairy products if followed generally, should produce surplus calves that will be help- ful in developing here and there cattle-raising and cattle-feeding farms. Some farms will be specially adapted to this purpose by having an abundance of suitable but unsalable by-products, cheap pasture, or pasture land unadapted to cropping. Other farms may develop a con- siderable business in the production of pork, or of pigs for supplying farms where brood sows are not kept. An occasional farmer will develop a business of producing seeds of some particular farm crop or crops to meet the needs of those lacking suitable skill and experience for such production. Outside communities may need some product like pork, sirup, fruit, or truck, which, because of climatic or other limitations, they can not produce, but which can be provided by the local community. Such enterprises should be taken up gradually and after full investigation as to their economic value. YIELDS PER ACRE. 4. Are the yields per acre of the farm crops satisfactory f Are they high enough to make the best possible returns for cap- ital and labor expended in producing themf Farm-management studies indicate that on farms of the same type and size higher yields per acre are usually accompanied by larger net incomes, and lower yields by lower net incomes. In a group of 110 farms in Anderson County, S. C, cotton on farms yielding less than 240 pounds per acre, selling at 11 J cents per pound in 1914, did not pay the cost of production; that is, did not pay current expenses for the crop and give a fair return for the time and labor spent on the crop and a fair rent for the land used in growing the crop. On the farms that averaged a higher yield than one-half bale per acre the cost of production receded on an average practically 1 cent per pound for every 60 pounds increase in yield per acre. (See Department of Agriculture Bulletin 651. A Farm Management Study in Anderson County, S. C.) 8 Department Circular 83, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. In a group of 24 farms of 50 acres or less of crop land worked by their owners in Sumter County, Ga., in 1913, 13 farms, having cotton yields of 250 pounds or less per acre, had an average farm income of $210, a poor return for the use of the land and the farmer's time and labor; while 11, with yields of cotton of over 250 pounds per acre, had an average farm income of $348 (Table III). In another group of 41 farms in the same county (Table III), ranging in size from 51 to 100 acres of crop land, 15 farms having yields of 250 pounds or less of cotton per acre had an average farm income of $447, while 26 in the same group with yields of cotton above 250 pounds had an average farm income of $728. In another group of 39 farms (Table III) ranging in size from 101 to 150 acres of crop land, 1 1 farms having a cotton yield of 250 pounds per acre or less received an average farm income of $676, while 28 with yields above 250 pounds per acre had an average farm income of $1,306. In still another group of 31 farms ranging in size from 151 to 250 acres of crop land 11 farms with cotton yields of 250 pounds or less per acre had an average farm income of $1,379, while 20 with yields above 250 pounds had an average farm income of $2,326. These data are presented in Table III, together with some related factors. Table III. — Average farm incomes on/arms in Sumter County, Ga., having cotton yields of 250 pounds and under per acre andfarm,s having cotton yields of over 250 pounds."- Size groups and yields per acre. Number of farms. Average yield cotton per acre. Average farm income. Average crop land. Average crop land per mule. Average percent- ages of crop land in cotton. Farms of 50 acres and less of crop land: 13 11 15 26 11 28 11 20 Lhs. 202 255 216 324 213 313 208 353 $210 348 447 728 676 1,306 1,379 2,626 Acres. 38 29 72 74 121 121 197 197 Acres. 23 21 21 25 27 27 30 27 46 46 Farms of 51 to 100 acres of crop land: 48 48 Farms of 101 to 150 acres of crop land: 250 pounds cotton and less 54 Over 250 pounds cotton 53 Farms of 150 to 250 acres of crop land: 250 pounds cotton and less 58 56 a U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Bull. 492. In the group of small farms averaging 29 acres of crop, an average yield of 355 pounds of cotton is required per acre to make an average farm income barely sufEcient to pay a fair rental for the use of the land and give the operator ordinary wages for his labor and manage- ment in addition to supplies furnished the family from the farm, which are not included in the farm income in this table. Not until we reach the group with an average of 121 crop acres do we find that Testing Farms in the South for Efficiency. 9 an average yield of less than 215 pounds of cotton per acre made an average farm income sufficient for rent and farmer's wages. It will be noted that within the size groupings the acres of crop land, acres of crop land per mule, and percentages of crop land in cotton practically counterbalance; the influence of these factors is therefore eliminated from the figures showing influence of yields. In Brooks County, Ga., the best-paying 25 farms of all sizes in a group of 110 farms yielded an average of over 315 pounds of cotton per acre, while average yields of less than 200 pounds per acre did not pay the cost of production. In Anderson County, S. C, it was foimd that the influence of yield on cost of production was just as marked with corn as it is with cot- ton, and that under prewar conditions corn did not pay cost of pro- duction when yields averaged less than 17 bushels per acre (U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 651). In Brooks County, Ga., it was found that corn did not pay a margin over cost of production with yields under 18 bushels (U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 648). In all parts of the cotton country where similar studies have been made, not only with cotton and corn, but with other crops, the find- ings teach the principle that the general tendency is for the cost per bushel and per pound to grow less and the net income of the farm to grow greater as the number of bushels or pounds per acre increases. 5. Is the farm maJcing special efforts toward the use of avail- able farm manures, including the planting and growth of summer and winter catch and cover crops of small grains or legumes between the rows of cotton, corn, or other intertilled crops and on open fields and idle land to conserve and improve the fertility of the soil and thereby increase the yields of the succeeding crops f 6. Are the varieties of the crops grown on the farm the best varieties for large yields and profitable production under the existing conditions f Is special attention paid to the selection and care and testing of farm seeds, having in view perfect stands and large yields? 7. Are the methods of soil preparation and the cultivation and handling of crops in accordance with the best Tcnown prac- tices for the region, and are they adequate for the most profitable production? 8. Is the farm making judicious use of commercial fertilizers in accordance with the best known practice for tlie region? The State college of agriculture and the experiment stations should be consulted as to the best crop varieties, the best methods of select- ing and caring for seeds, and the best tillage and fertilizer practice for the community. ] 55903°— 20 2 10 Department Circular 83, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. QUALITY OF LIVE STOCK. 9. Is the quality of the farm, live stock satisfactory? This test has reference to the family live stock as well as to the work stock and stock kept expressly for commercial purposes. It does not pay to grow low-grade or scrub stock of any kind; and there is room for improvement along this line on most cotton farms. We have no records of the influence of production per head of live stock on farm income in the cotton States, but in a survey made in Chester County, Pa., on 289 commercial dairy farms, it was found that the 48 farms receiving $50 and less income per cow had labor incomes 45 per cent below the general average, while 28 farms with receipts per cow of more than $120 had labor incomes 75 per cent above the average and were the most profitable of the group. (U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 341.) 10. Is the management of the live stock on the farrn, both productive stoclc and worTc stocTc, in accordance with the hest known practice for the region f Farmers' Bulletins 743, "Feeding of dairy cows;" 528, "Hints to poultry raisers;" and 874, "Swine management," will be useful in this connection. It will be well also to consult the college of agri- culture and experiment stations for advice on the kinds, breeds, and care of live stock suited to the region. 11. Aside from the family live stock and the work stock, is the farm carrying enough productive stock to consume surplus pasture and unsalable crop hy-products and convert them into profitable form ? ORGANIZATION OF THE CROP LAND. 12. Are the crop acreages of the farm adjusted to each other for highly profitable production? The efficient adjustment or organization of the crop land will depend on (a) the acreage necessary to supply the family and farm needs; (&) the economic importance of enterprises adapted to the region, particularly as to market demand and the relation of prices to costs of production and marketing; (c) the seasonal labor require- ments of the enterprises; {d) the supply of labor and its cost; (e) the fertility of the soil; (/) the topography of the farm; {g) the size of the farm. In the Southern States cotton is the predominating market crop, because of its adaptability to soil, climate, and labor conditions and to the great demand for it in regions where it can not be produced. Hence, in those parts of the cotton belt where the menace of the boll Testing Farms in the South for Efficiency. n weevil and shortage of labor are not severe, and with the exception of special localities where the competition of other enterprises is strong, the procedure in testing the organization of the crop land should be as follows: Has the farmer set aside sufficient acreage to provide well for the family and farm foods and feeds ? Part of the crops grown for these purposes should be legumes for enriching the ration and improving fertility. (Consult Farmers' Bulletin 1015.) After providing for family and farm supplies, has the farmer set aside for cotton as many acres as can be cared for properly and har- vested with the available farm equipment and such outside assist- ance as can be relied upon? After providing for farm needs, xucluding fertility, and for such acreage of cotton as can be cared for well, has the remainder of the land, if there is any, been devoted to other enterprises in the order of their importance? Such enterprises are: Increasing the acreage of food and feed crops for sale or for extending the productive live-stock enterprises; adding some other commercial enterprise, such as peanuts, or soy beans, for feed or oil; or some more intensive enter- prise like sirup making or truck growing. But these added enter- prises must not seriously compete with the cotton in its labor require- ments or tend to diminish the fertility of the soil. As a guide in testing the cropping system until local standards can be worked out, we may take as general standards the records from some surveys that have been made in the cotton country. In the Sumter County, Ga., survey, previously referred to (U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Bulletin 492), there were nine 1-mule cotton farms operated by white owners; the best five of them averaged 23 acres of crop land per mule. Of this, 9.8 acres, or less than half, was planted to cotton. The remainder was divided as follows: 7.2 acres in corn, 2.7 in oats or oat hay, 3.6 were second-cropped with cowpea hay, leaving 3.3 acres for miscellaneous purposes. (See Table IV.) Of twenty-three 2-mule farms the best five averaged 30.2 acres of crop land per mule. Of this, 10.6 acres were planted to corn, 3.9 to oats and oat hay, 2 acres were second-cropped with cowpea hay, 14 acres were devoted to cotton, and 1,7 to miscellaneous crops (Table IV). Of twenty-five 3-mule farms the best five averaged 32.58 acres of crop land per mule, of which 17.47 acres were planted to cotton, the remainder going largely into food and feed crops (Table IV). Of eighteen 4-mule farms the best five averaged 30 acres of crop land per mule; 18.85 of this went into cotton, the remainder being planted to supply crops (Table IV). 12 Department Circular 83, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. Of nineteen 5-mule farms the best five averaged 27.1 acres per mule and planted 15| of this in cotton (Table IV). The best five of fifteen 6-mule farms averaged 34J acres of crop land per mule and planted 19 J acres of this in cotton (Table IV). Table IV gives the average organization per mule of the crop land for each group of five best farms and averages for the six groups. These best farms grade high in acres per mule, yields, organization, and resulting income. Table IV. — Organization of crop land per mule on 30 cotton farms in a group of 109 farms in Sumter County, Ga. ( U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 492.) Averages acres of — Aver- age total acres of crops per mule. Pro- duc- tive work- days on crops per mule. Aver- Farm groups." Cotton per mule. Corn per mule. Oats and oat hay per mule. Cow- pea hayb per mule. Mis- cella- neous crops per mule. age farm in- come per mule. Best five l-mule farms 9.8 14 17.47 18.85 15.5 19.5 7.2 10.6 11.8 8.5 8.1 9.83 2.7 3.9 1.6 1.73 1.9 3.66 3.6 2 2 ""i.'32' 2.45 3.3 1.7 1.71 1.05 1.18 1.56 26.6 32.2 34.58 30.08 28 37 98 133 147 145 124 161 $419 Best five 2-mule farms 353 Best five 3-mule farms 430 Best five 4-mule farms 458 Best five 5-mule farms 330 Best five 6-mule farms 380 Average for 30 farms 15.85 9.33 2.58 1.90 1.81 31.41 135 395 a Selected on the basis of farm income. Same groups as in Tables V, X, and XIX. 6 The cowpea hay is second crop, grown after oats or some other early crop. By referring back to Table II it will be seen that apparently only one of the groups of best farms, that of the l-mule farms, came near the standard set for providing for the family and farm needs. Most of the farms represented in the table could probably be made more efficient along these lines. Some additional facts as to tilled acres per farm and per mule, per cent of land in cotton, yields of cotton and corn per acre, and the farm income are given in Table V. Tablk V. — Average of total tilled acres, tilled acres per mule, per cent of land in cotton, yields of cotton and corn, farm income per mule, and total farm income, for 30 farins in Sumter County, Ga. ( tl. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 492.) Farm groups." Aver- age total tilled acres per farm. Aver- age tilled acres per mule. Aver- age per cent of land in cot- ton. Aver- age yield per acre of cot- ton. Aver- age yield per acre of com. Aver- age farm in- come per mule. Aver- age total farm in- come. Best five l-mule farms 23 60.4 97.75 120.3 133.4 207.3 23 30.2 32.58 30 26.68 34.55 44.3 45.7 54.16 61.46 58.3 56.7 Lhs. 311 298 304 321 298 284 Bush. 28.1 15.7 13.8 14.6 12 16.6 $479 353 430 458 330 380 $4ie Best five 2-mule farms 705 Best five 3-mule farms 1,291 Best five 4-mule farms 1,833 Best five 5-mule farms. . . . • 1,650 Best five 6-mule farms 2,283 Average for 30 farms. . 29.58 53.44 302.7 16.8 405 a Same groups as in Tables IV, X, and XIX selected on basis of farm income from a group of 109 farms. Testing Farms in the South for Efficiency. 13 The difference between tilled acres per mule in this table and acres of crops per mule in Table IV is the amount of land that was cropped a second time, and amounts here to the acreage in cowpeas after oats. Cowpeas planted between the rows of corn are not included in this second-crop acreage. In Brooks County, Ga., a study was made on an area of light sandy loam (U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 648). In order to obtain profitable yields on this light soil, it was necessary to pay particular attention to the maintenance of soil fertility, and a system was developed which gives a smaller relative acreage to cotton and pays particular attention to legume crops and hogs. The hogs graze on wild pasture and winter grain, doing considerable harvesting of the corn and peanuts and gleaning other crop fields. Table VI gives the organization of the crop land for farm groups similar to those treated in Tables IV and V. Table Y1.— Organization of crop land per mule on SO farms in a group of 85 farms in Brooks County, Ga. {U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 648.) Average acres of— Aver- Farm groups, a Cot- ton per mule. Com per mule. Pea- nuts In com per mule. Pea- nuts per mule. Oats and rye per mule. Cow- pea hay per mule. Mis- cel- lane- ous crops per mule. Crops per mule. age days' work on crops per mule. Best five 1-mule farms Best five 2-mule farms Best five 3-mule farms Best five 4-mule farms Best five 5-mule farms Best five 6-mule farms 8.9 8.1 12.13 6.55 9.10 6.73 13.8 15.5 11.2 15.85 13.34 11.48 13.4 15.4 7.2 12.9 8.1 6.53 "'"i."5"" 1.73 3.5 .76 4.73 1.2 2.25 7.27 6.3 7.7 6.46 0.8 2.05 7.07 3.85 3.86 4.53 1.83 4.42 3.00 4.31 4.66 4.05 26.53 33.82 42.40 40.36 39.38 37.98 97 125 134 125 132 119 Average for 30 farms . . 8.57 13.53 10.59 2.04 5.20 3.69 3.71 36.74 122.3 a Selected on the basis of farm income. Same groups as in Tables VII, XI, and XX. For each mule these farms carried an average equivalent of three mature cattle, including dairy stock and sixteen 200-pound hogs including two brood sows. It will be noticed that cotton has been reduced to about one-half the acreage on the Sumter County farms, and that corn, peanuts, hogs, and miscellaneous crops have taken a more prominent place. Further facts relative to these Brooks County farms are given in Table VII. Among the important miscellaneous crops were watermelons, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, and sugar cane. 14 Depavlment Circular S3, (J. S. Depl. of Agriculture. Table VII. — Averages of total tilled acres per far ra, tilled acres per mule, percentage oj tilled land in cotton and com, yields of cotton and com, number of hogs, and net income on groups of farms in Brooks County, Ga. ( U. S. Department of Agriculture Bul- letin 648.) Aver- Aver- Aver- Aver- . age age Aver- Aver- age Aver- age per per age age eqmv- age age total tilled acres cent cent yields yields alent net Farm groups. i tilled acres of tilled of tilled of cotton of corn of ma- ture income per in- come per mule. acres acres per per hogs per farm. in cot- m acre. acre. per farm.i' ton. corn. mule. Lbs. Bush. Best five 1-mulef arms 25.33 25.33 35.92 53.34 300 12 10.6 S577 $577 Best five 2-mule farms 65.7 32.87 27.51 45.51 318 15 18.5 555 1,112 Best five 3-mule farms 109.1 36.29 33. 89 31.27 302 14 17.8 1,742 Best five 4- mule farms 144.6 36.15 17.9 43.67 324 14 17.3 514 2,056 Best five 5-mule farms Best five 6-mule farms 17.^. 8 199. 2 33.16 33.2 28.32 20.74 37.58 34.73 299 323 13 14 14.8 17 490 427 2,488 2,561 32.83 27.4 41.0 311 13.7 16 524 o Selected on the basis of farm income from a group of 85 farms, same groups as in Tables VI, XI, and XX. b Net income includes what the farm furnished the family. LABOR UTILIZATION. 13. Are the labor requirements of the productive enterprises of the farm as organized sufficient to maJce the test utilization of the worlc-stocTc equipment necessary to operate the farm? As a measure for this test, we may use the experiences of the more successful farms of the tj^pe in the community. For example, turning back to Tables IV and V, we find that on the best 1-mule farms in the Sumter County community an average of 27 acres of crops on 23 acres of crop land were worked with one mule. Therefore we should expect that the mtde requirements on farms of this type that have less than 23 acres of tilled land or 27 acres of crops are not sufficient to utihze properly the labor of the one mule necessary to operate the farm. Likewise, on the best 2-mule farms of the community, 60 acres of crop land and 64 acres of crops were worked with a 2-mule equip- ment, and we should expect that the mule-labor requirements on farms of this type that have less than 60 acres of crop land or 64 acres of crops are not sufficient to utilize properly the labor of a 2-mule farm. By the same reasoning we should expect that the labor require- ments of a farm of this type of less than 98 acres of crop land, or 104 acres of crops, would not be sufficient to use, the labor of three mules with the best efficiency, and so on, with the larger mule equipments. For farms of the Brooks County type, as shown in Tables YI and VII, anything smaller than 25 acres of crop land or 26^ acres of crops for a 1-mule farm, 66 tilled acres for a 2-mule farm, 109 acres of crop \' ' Teslinii Farms in the Soiitli for Efficiency. 15 land or 127 acres of crops for a 3-mule farm would not have labor re- quirements sufficient to utilize properly the work-stock equipment necessary to operate them. While these figures represent the averages of the best farms in the various groups, and make an excellent and conservative guide, they do not represent the highest possible efficiency. For instance, in the group of the five best 3-mule farms in Sumter County, there was one farm on which each mule worked an average of 20 acres of cotton, 16f acres of corn, IJ acres of oats, followed by IJ acres of cowpea hay, and 1.41 acres of miscellaneous crops, or a total of 40.71 acres of crops per mule, and each mule worked an average of 187 days, which is a very good average, considering that there are about 230 days in the year available for crop work in this region. With a cotton yield of 290 pounds per acre, the farm income of this farm was $632 per mule, or $1,896 for the 3-mule farm. If it is found that the labor requirements of the farm are not suffi- cient to reach high efficiency in utilizing the available time of the work-stock equipment necessary to operate the farm, is it possible to bring into use idle tillable land, to reclaim wild land, or to rent addi- tional land and thus increase the efficiency of the farm labor and equipment ? 14. Is the present equipment of work stocl' sufficient to operate the farm efficiently? As a measure for this test, we may again use Tables IV, V, VI, and VII, or similar tables compiled for the community in which the farm is located. If it is found that the work-stock equipment is not sufficient to operate the farm properly, is it possible to add more work stock or by renting out a few acres bring the farm to a size that can be oper- ated efficiently by the present outfit ? 15. Are the man-lahor requirements of the productive enter- prises of the farm as organized sufficient to m,aJce the best utili- zation of the time of the regular men necessary to operate the farm? As a basis for this test we may use the experience of the best farms of the community. For illustration and general standards we may take the Simiter and Brooks County, Ga., groups of best farms. On the southern farms one or more men are occupied regularly in management, and work the entire year. Other laborers or members of the family are employed to work by the acre, by the hundred- weight of crop, or by the day, at such work as chopping and hoeing, picking cotton, or other miscellaneous work, and are paid for the actual time employed. 16 Department Circular S3, U . S. Dept. of Agriculture. AVAILABLE DAYS. If from the total number of days in each month we deduct Sundays' holidays, rainy days, and other days not suited for field work, we get a set of numbers which represent approximately the days in each month that are available for field work on the farm. The sums of these numbers will be the total number of days available for field work during the year. If wo add together the number of available days for each regular man on the farm for the time he is employed we will have the total time available for regular field work. For example, the following days per month were found to be available for field work in Sumter County, Ga. Table VIII. — Days available for field vjork per month in central Georgia. Months. as 1-5 1 i < S- S 1 t < a ft O 1 1 ft "3 1 Days available 16 15 19 19 21 20 21 21 20 20 20 18 230 A man working the entire year will be able to work in the field 230 days, provided there is sufficient work to keep him busy, and a man working seven months, from January 1 to July 31, will be able to work in the field 132 days, if that much work is provided for him. Table IX gives the same data for communities in southern Georgia : Table IX.— Days available for field work per month in southern Georgia. Months. 3 1 .4 t < ^ s 1 l-s a < a ® 5" si o O S 1 si 1 S 3 o EH Days available 18 18 20 22 21 20 20 21 22 22 22 19 245 One man working the entire year and two men working six months each from January 1 would be able to do a total of 483 days of field work, an average of 161 days per man, provided there was that much work to be done. WORK DAYS REQUIRED. If on a given farm we find the number of days necessary to do the contract and miscellaneous day wage work and subtract the amount from the total number of days' work required by aU the productive enterprises, the remainder wiD be the number of productive days' work required of the regular men of the farm. Testing Farms in the South for Efficiency. 17 If we divide this number of productive days' work required of the regular men of the farm by the number of days available for field work at their command, we will get a number expressing the percentage of efficiency with which their time has been utilized. For example, the group of five best 4-mule farms in the Sumter County community (see Tables IV, V, and X) has an average of 4.8 regular men per farm. These men had a total of 1,016 days available for field work. There was a total of 1,184 days' work required by the productive enterprises. Of these, 512 were cared for by contract and miscellaneous hired and family labor, leaving 671 days for the regular men. This means 212 days available per regular man, of which 140 days, or 66 per cent, were required for and utilized on productive enterprises. UTILIZATION OF MAN LABOR. Table X gives the average number of men, the days available per regular man, the number of days' work required per regular man on productive enterprises, and the per cent of the time utilized on the groups of best farms in the Sumter County community. Table X. — Utilization of regular man labor on groups of farms in Sumter County, Gd. ( U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 492.) [Average figures.] Regular men per farm. 'f Days per regular man. Per cent of available time used on pro- ductive enterprises. Farm groups, a Available for field work. Work on productive enterprises required, c Best five 1-mule farms Men. 1.2 2.4 4.2 4.8 5 7 Days. Days. 218 94 217 115 Per cent. 43 Best five 2-mule farms 53 Best five 3-mule farms 177 212 205 192 118 140 135 143 67 Best five 4-mu]e farms 66 Best five 5-mule farms 65 Best five 6-mule farms 74 204 124 61.3 a Selected from 109 farms on the basis of farm income. Same groups as in tables IV, V, and XIX. 6 Operators, croppers, and men employed by the month for a whole or part of the year. Two hundred and thirty days in the year are available for field work for a man on the farm the entire year. c This figure is found by deducting cotton picking and other contract and miscellaneous family and hired labor performed on the enterprises from the total man-labor requirements of the enterprise and divid- ing the remainder by the number of regular men. Table XI gives the same facts for the groups of best Brooks County farms. 18 Department Circular 83, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. Table XI. — Utilization of regular man labor on groups of farms in Brooks County, Ga. ( U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 640.) [Average figures.] Farm groups, a Regular men per farm. 6 Days per regular man. Available for field work. Work on productive enterprises required, c Per cent of available time used on pro- ductive enterprises. Men. Best five Best five Best five Best five Best five Best five 1-mule farms . 2-mule farms. 3-mule farms . 4-mule farms. 5-mule farms . 6-mule farms . 1 2.4 3.4 4.2 5.4 6.5 Days. 243 220 203 170 192 187 115 144 147 119 140 136 Per cent. All farms. 202.5 133.7 a Selected on the basis of farm income, same groups as in Tables VI, VII, and XX. 6 Operators, croppers, and men [employed by the month for a whole or part of the year. Two hundred and forty-five days in the year are available for field work for a man on the farm the entire year. c This figure is found by deducting cotton picking and other contract and miscellaneous family and hired labor performed on the enterprise from the total man-labor requirements of the enterprise and dividing the remainder by the number of regular men. These figures give us an idea of what may be expected in the utiUzation of regular man labor on well-organized farms like those considered in Tables IV and VII in the regions where those farms are located. Under test 13 (p. 14) the measures of mule labor utilization sug- gested are the number of acres of crop land and the number of acres of crops worked per mule. Under test 15 (p. 15) the measure of labor utilization employed is a percentage figure representing the relation of the total number of days' work required per regular man to the number of days avail- able for field work per regular man. In checking up the influence of organization on labor efficiency it may sometimes be desirable to compare the labor available with that required by months or fractions of a month throughout the year. Such a comparison will show in what months, if any, the labor is not fully utilized, and will serve as a guide in readjusting the acreages of the enterprises, in extending the present organization over more acres, or in adding other enterprises. For such monthly comparisons of the labor required and the labor available it will be necessary to determine for the individual farm or for the farm communities : First. The number of days in each month on which labor can usually be performed after deducting Sundays, holidays, rainy days, and days when the soil is not in condition to work. Second. The average practice in working the crops and the labor required per acre for the farm in question or for the region. Third. The distribution of this labor by months or fractions of a month throughout the year. Testing Farms in the South for Efficiency. 19 By way of example the above data for central Georgia are given in Tables XII, XIII, XIV, and XV. Table XII. — -Number of days available for field work per month in central Georgia. Months. 1 2 1 1^ i < ^ s 1 i ■< 1 O a ® > o !z; 1 i Days available 16 15 19 19 21 20 21 21 20 20 20 18 230 Table XIII. — Field practice and labor requirements for som£ crops in central Georgia. {About 100 farms.) Operation. Sweet potatoes. Sugar cane. Sorghum. Com. Cotton. Man days. Horse days. Man days. Horse days. 0.20 1.28 Man days. Horse days. Man days. Horse days. Man days. Horse days. 0.10 .59 0.11 .50 0.22 1.05 0.11 .50 0.22 1.05 0.12 .67 0.24 Break 0.65 .25 .14 1.25 1.40 Harrow .28 .06 .64 .53 .35 1.72 .80 .16 .99 .35 '"i.'72' .16 .20 .14 .06 .95 .47 .36 .13 .07 1.18 .16 .20 .14 .06 .95 .47 .36 .13 .07 1.18 .19 .46 .20 .16 1.42 1.30 .40 Bed .53 Fertilize .94 1.50 1.88 1.29 .80 "i.'62' .20 Plant .16 Harrow and cultivate 1.54 .50 .50 .93 7.06 .99 6.70 .06 .56 3.00 1.34 .70 ,35 .13 3.50 .40 1.50 ■"""" Total 9.65 4.69 15.75 7.19 3.62 3.98 3.75 3.83 11.28 5.16 Table XIV. — -Field practice and labor requirements for some crops in central Georgia. {About 100 farms.) Operation. Fruit Peanuts. White potatoes. Oats and rye. Cowpea hay. Man days. Horse days. Man days. Horse days. Man days. Horse days. Man days. Horse days. Man days. Horse days. Break 0.52 0.50 0.60 0.80 0.60 1.20 0.59 1.66 0.29 .73 .10 0.44 Seed .03 .20 1.00 .30 .86 1.50 1.24 1.00 .25 2.79 .40 .20 Lay ofl .20 .20 .30 .70 .50 1.24 Fertilize .23 .09 1 .25 .09 Plant .80 .80 1.10 .20 .80 1.10 1.52 Hoe 1.18 4.89 .75 .92 .25 1.50 a3.50 O2.00 1.60 .70 .40 .31 .30 .23 .22 .37 .35 .28 .58 .37 .45 .68 .07 Prnnft. . 61.05 61.30 Bale.. .70 .31 Total 9.32 4.53 6.10 2.70 9.74 6.09 1.55 2.28 1.75 1.61 Total for peanuts hogged off. ?> Total for cowpea hay not baled. 20 Department Circular 83, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. Table XV. — DistribiUion by months of the average number of days of man labor and horse labor expendedin growing 1 acre of each of the following crops in central Georgia. (About lOOfarms.) Crops. 1 ja" P. & s 6 1-5 3 < 1 1 O » a o 1 ft o Eh Vegetables: Man days.. Horse do 0.50 .39 1.44 1.04 .64 .26 0.73 1.01 .44 .42 .39 .75 2.06 1.85 .61 .70 2.07 1.45 .29 .18 .97 .62 2.42 1.05 1.19 .36 1.78 .55 1.85 .69 3.00 .56 2.33 .44 1.84 .90 .99 .18 .57 .29 2.10 1.55 .38 .38 .50 .12 1.81 .80 1.77 .63 1.59 .55 .07 .08 .97 .46 .70 .50 2.75 .33 0.20 16. 84 9.32 Fruit: Man days.. .54 .60 .75 .36 2.09 1.00 8.21 2.16 1.36 1.11 .64 .26 .19 .47 .19 .47 9.32 Horse do 4 53 Sweet potatoes: Man days.. 9 65 Horse do 4.69 Late white potatoes: 3.58 2.27 1.27 .82 Horse do Sugar cane: Man days.. .43 .93 .20 .42 .20 .42 .64 1.04 .25 .59 .25 .59 .99 .73 .29 .56 .29 .56 .09 .19 .33 .34 .39 .34 .39 1.37 .57 .51 .62 .51 .62 .13 .10 .79 .72 .59 .55 .34 .43 .42 .31 .30 .44 1.90 .65 1.05 .57 15 75 Horse do 7. 19 Sorglium fed green: Man days.. .50 .12 .93 .50 .12 3.62 Horse do 3.96 Com: Man days.. Horse do .35 .17 .37 .87 .21 .21 .35 .18 3.73 3.85 Oats: Man days. . .16 .12 .16 .23 .38 .88 .38 .42 1.55 Horse . . do 2.28 Cow peas for hay: Man days. . 1.09 Horse do 1.60 1.35 1.27 .54 1.30 Peanuts hogged off: Man days.. 3.50 Horse do 2.00 Cotton: Man days.. Horse do .38 .79 .31 .64 .33 .43 .63 .68 .32 .34 2.11 .18 2.32 .20 2.32 .19 .24 .60 11.28 5.16 Witli data similar to the above in hand, a farm organization can be tested in detail for its efficiency in utilizing the labor of man and horse equipment necessary for its operation. The following example is given by way of illustration: APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL FARM. A certain farm in central Georgia has 59.5 acres of crop land, 65 acres of permanent tillable pasture land, 10 acres occupied by build- ings, roads, and waste, and 178 acres of woods. The family on this farm consists of 5 adults and 5 children under 16 years of age, or an equivalent of 7| adults. In 1914 the live stock on this farm consisted of 2 mules, 2 cows, 6 head of young stock, 2 brood sows, 12 pigs and shoats, 59 poultry, and 20 stands of bees. The crop land was divided as follows: I acre of garden, 1 acre of sweet potatoes, J acre of sugar cane, 30 acres of corn, 10 acres of oats and rye followed by 8 acres of cowpeas and velvet beans for hay, 4 acres of peanuts for hogs, and 14 acres of cotton. Table XVI gives the mule labor available and the mule-labor re- quirements of these crops, by months. The first line of this table Testing Farms in the South for Efficiency. 21 gives the days of mule labor available each month from 2 miiles. These amounts are found by multiplying the number of days avail- able for field work in each month in Table XII by 2, the number of mules. Then follows the number of mule-days required each month by the crops of this farm on the basis of average practice for the region. These figures are found by multiplying the acre requirements of the crops for each month in Table XV by the number of acres of the crop grown. The total requirement of the 59J acres of crop land or 67^ acres of crop for each month is then subtracted from the labor available for that month, and in the last line is found the number of unused mule-days for each month. Table XVI. — Mule labor data on a farm in central Georgia. 1 u ^ a 3 < a. m O S3 i 1 ft •3 Days of mule labor available from 2 32.00 30.00 38.00 38.00 42.00 40.00 42.00 42.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 36.00 460 00 Days of mule labor required by crops: Garden vege- tables, J acre... .10 .26 .23 12.60 .25 .75 .28 17.70 .46 .70 .18 16.80 .36 .62 .08 11.70 .26 .55 .14 18.60 1.00 .17 .44 .18 12.90 3.10 3.52 2.60 7.98 .23 .29 .10 .20 .16 .14 .46 .08 5.10 8.70 1.68 2.33 Sweet potatoes, 1 acre .36 .54 5.40 .26 ii'io' 4.69 Sugar cane, \ acre 1.79 Com, 30 acres 114.90 Oats and rye, 10 acr&s. . . 1.20 1.84 8.80 3.36 22.80 Cowpeas and vel- vet-bean hay, 8 acres 10.40 Peanuts , 4 acres. . 5.40 7.56 8.00 Cotton, 14 acres.. 11.06 8.96 6.02 9.52 4.76 2.52 2.80 2.66 8.40 72.44 Total required (for crop land , 594 acres : acres of crops, 67^). 24.25 27.92 24.16 22.28 33.51 30.89 8.42 .20 14.84 18.96 8.96 22.76 237.15 Remaining mule labor (days) 7.75 2.08 13.84 15.72 8.49 9.11 33.58 41.80 25.16 21.01 31.04 13.24 222.85 23.67 66 90 132.28 This farm is working 29f acres of land per mule, on which it grows 33f acres of crops per mule. This is considerably above the average, but is using only 52 per cent of the mule days available for field work. The available mule labor for February is pretty well used up, but during the three soil-preparation months of January, February, and March there is a surplus of 24 mule days. In the planting and culti- vation months there are 67 days, and during the remainder of the year there are 132 days not used, making a total of 223 mule days, or 48 per cent of the total available mule days still to be used if desired and conditions permit. 22 Department Circular 83, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. According to the standards set up in test 1 (p. 3), this 2-mule farm, with a family of 7^ adults or their equivalent, should provide for home use 1 acre of garden vegetables, f acre of fruit, | acre of late white potatoes, f acre of sweet potatoes, and f acre of sugar cane. The record of the farm shows that there was i acre of garden, no fruit, 1 acre of sweet potatoes, and | acre of sugar cane. So, by way of illustration, suppose that in the way of reorgani- zation we add to the crops of this farm f acre of garden vegetables, f acre of fruit, and J acre of white potatoes. The farm was planting plenty of sweet potatoes and had 20 stands of honey bees to supply sweets in addition to the I acre of sugar cane; therefore we will not increase the sweet-potato and sugar-cane area. The family live stock on this farm is ample for family needs, as the records show some butter sales from the two cows, sales of eggs from the flock of 59 head of poultry, and some sales of meat from the 12 pigs and shoats on hand at the beginning of the year. According to approximate standards suggested imder test 2 (p. 6), this live stock will require the acreage of crops indicated in Table XVII. Table XVII. — Acreage of crops needed to feed the indicated farin live stock. [The parentheses indicate a second product, second crop, or double use of the land.] Kind of live stock. Com. Com rough- age. Oats and oat hay. Cow- pea hay. Soil- ing crops. Pas- ture. 2 cows Acres. 2 3 3 2 3.5 7 1.5 Acres. (9) (8.5) Acres. 1.5 3.5 3 Acres. (3) (4) A cres. 2 Acres. 5 7 69 pouRry 2 brood sows 12 pigs and shoats (14) •7 2 mules (4.5) 4 (4) Family meal . Total 22 (22) 12 (11) 2 14 In the way of live-stock feed crops, the farm has planned for 30 acres of com, 10 acres of oats and rye, 8 acres of cowpea and velvet bean hay and 65 acres of pasture. It has also provided 4 acres of peanuts for hog grazing. On the basis of the standards proposed in test 2, the stock requirements of this farm, as worked out in Table XVII, call for 2 more acres of oats, 3 more acres of cowpea hay, and 2 acres of sorghum for green feed. There is also a surplus of 8 acres of com, for which other crops may be substituted, if desired. The mule labor required by the additional family food crops and live-stock feed crops needed to meet the standards given are found in Table XVIII (p. 24). In the first line of that table are given the amounts of mule labor not used, as shown in Table XVI. Then follow the labor requirements of the additional maintenance crops in lines 2 to 7. The total requirements of these crops by months in Hne 8 are subtracted from the surplus mule labor, shown in the first Testing Farms in the South for Efficiency. 23 line. The remainders in line 9 show a shortage of nearly one-fifth of a day in February, but there is sufficient surplus in January and March to take good care of this, as the work in these months is not definitely fixed as to time and can be shifted. Now, suppose we discard the surplus 8 acres of corn not needed for the farm feed and add the labor of these 8 acres to the mule labor that remains in line 9. In line 11, the totals resulting from these additions, will be found new monthly amounts of mule labor still available, and it is proposed that the most of this labor be utilized in growing more cotton, the principal commercial crop of the region. We find the smallest amount of surplus mule labor in February, namely, 4.54 days. This divided by 0.64 day, the mule labor required for 1 acre of cotton in February, as foimd in Table XV, would limit us to not more than 7 acres. However, the labor during the three preparation months of January, February, and March is not definitely fixed as to time, and by shifting the work we can handle a larger acreage. It might be possible to handle 15 acres with the 28 days available for the three months. This number of acres might also possibly be taken care of in the month of June, which has the lowest amount of surplus mule labor in the planting and cultivation months. In both instances, however, we would be running on a very narrow margin, so we will proceed on the basis of adding 10 acres of cotton to use this surplus labor. The labor requirements of the additional 10 acres of cotton are found in line 12 of the table. Subtracting these amoimts from the available amounts in line 11, we still have a surplus of mule labor as shown in line 13. This surplus is largest in the last half of the year. It will be desirable, therefore, to add some crop that will use labor during the latter part of the year. Referring to Table XV, we find that we have such a crop for this region in late white potatoes, and it is proposed that we add 3^ acres of this crop. Also, as this crop occupies the ground only in the latter part of the year, it will be desirable to occupy the land during the early part of the year with some crop that does not require much spring and summer handling. We find such a crop in oats or rye, which may be grown for grain, for green feed, or for grazing, or to be turned under for soil improvement. The one-half acre of white potatoes for family use, with the 3 J now imder consideration for market purposes, will require 4 acres of oats to precede them. We have 1 acre of the 12 acres of oats pro- vided for the live stock that has no crop after it, so we will need 3 additional acres of oats. The monthly labor requirements of the 3 acres of oats and the 3^ acres of potatoes appear in lines 14 and 15 of Table XVIII and the monthly sums in line 16. These amounts taken from the available time in line 13 still leave a good working surplus of mule labor. 24 Department Circular 83, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. Table X.YIII.— Adjustment of crops to use surplus male labor. 03 1 1-3 1 i < i H-J 1 •< 1 t o o O B f.; i ft "3 o Eh Mule labor not used (days) see Table XVI) (1) a7.75 a2.08 313.84 15.72 8.49 9.11 33.58 41.80 25.16 21.04 31.04 13.24 222.85 Crop requirements of— Garden vegeta- bles, J acre... (2) 0.29 .78 0.76 .32 1.39 1.09 .14 0.79 .27 0.52 .42 0.68 .14 .78 .24 .69 .24 0.60 0.47 0.41 .06 .25 1.74 .03 Fruit, f acre... (3) 0.45 .50 0.83 Late white pota- toes, J acre... (4) 1.14 .24 .41 1.76 1.26 .24 .20 .62 1.32 1.10 Cowpea hay, 3 acres (6) Sorghum, 2 acres, .84 I.IS 1.12 .78 1.24 .94 Total (8) 1.91 2.26 2.51 2.01 2. .50 3.98 2.67 1.98 4.14 3.09 .95 1.77 Subtract line (8) fromlme (1): Mule labor re- maining... (9) Mule labor for 8 acres 5.64 3.36 -.18 4.72 11.33 4.48 13.71 3.12 5.99 4.50 5.13 3.44 30.91 39.82 21.02 17.95 1.36 30.09 1.44 11.47 3.76 Total mule labor in lines (9) and (10) . .(11) 69.00 64.54 615.81 16.83 10.49 8.57 30.91 39. 82 21.02 19.31 31.53 15.23 Cotton, 10 acres. (12) C7.90 C6.40 C4.30 6.80 5.40 5.70 3.40 1.80 2.00 1.90 6.00 Subtract (12) from (11): Remaining mule labor (13) m (d) m 10.03 5.09 2.87 27.51 39.82 19.22 17.37 26.63 9.23 Oats, 3 acres (14) Late white potatoes, 3.5 acres (15) .30 .93 .36 5.43 7.94 2.64 2.87 2.61 1.75 3.50 Total of (14) and (15) (16) 30 .93 5. 79 7. 94 5.51 4.36 3.50 Remaining mule la- bor (days); sub- tract (16) from (13) . W W C) 10.03 4.79 1.94 4.72 31.88 13.71 12.95 26.13 9.23 125. 59 a Total for January, February, and March, 23.17. 6 Total for January, February, and March, 28.81. c Total for January, February, and March, 18.60. d Total for January, February, and March, 10.21. Our reconstructed crop system now stands as follows: Garden vegetables, 1 acre; fruit, f acre; late white potatoes, 4 acres; sweet potatoes, 1 acre; sugar cane, I acre; sorghum, 2 acres; corn, 22 acres; oats, 15 acres; cowpea hay, 11 acres; peanuts, 4 acres; cotton, 24 acres; or 70 acres of crop land and 85 acres of crops. This is 35 acres of crop land and 42J acres of crops per mule, as compared with 29f acres of crop land and 33 f acres of crops per mule as originally organized, and we are using 72 per cent of the mule labor as compared with 52 per cent under the old organization. Testing Farms in the South for Efficiency. 25 As reorganized, these crops can be arranged in a 4-field, 4-year rotation, as follows : Field 1. 17 acres of cotton. Field 2. 12 acres of corn with cowpeas, 4 acres of peanuts, 1 acre of sweet potatoes. Field 3. 7 acres of cotton, 10 acres of corn with cowpeas. Field 4. 15 acres of oats, followed by cowpeas and potatoes, 2 acres of sorghum. This rotation does not include the vegetable garden, the fruit, and the sugar patch, which will not very well fit into the rotation. This reorganization is worked out on the basis of mule labor being the main limiting factor. We have assumed that all the crops, including the additional cotton, can be handled by the family with such additional outside man labor as is available. It has been pos- sible to extend the total acreage of crop land because of the large acreage of tillable pasture, which was in excess of live-stock needs. Had there been no surplus tillable land on which to extend the crop area it would be necessary to rent additional land until some of the woodland could be cleared or more land bought. Had no additional crop land been available changes in the organization could have been made only by reducing acreages of some of the crops to make room for increasing the acreages of others or for adding new crops. The reorganization worked out here is not suggested as the best one for this farm. Others might have been presented, but this has been given simply to illustrate a method of testing and changing organization for efficiency in the use of mule labor. The effect of organization on efficiency in the use of man labor may be worked out in the same manner. WORKING CAPITAL. 16. Is the working capital per mule adequate for efficient operation ofthefarmf Here again the averages for the best farms of the community may be used as a measure in this test. Tables XIX and XX give by way of illustration the working capital per mule and per farm and its distribution to live stock, implements and machinery, feed and supplies, and cash to run the farm, in the Sumter County and Brooks County farm communities, and as general standards for the regions in which these communities are located. 26 Department Circular 83, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. Table XIX. — Distribution of working capital, working capital per mule, and working capital per farm on groups of Sumter County, Ga., farms. ( U. S. Department of Agri- culture Bulletin 492.) Average value of — Average cash to run farm per mule. Average total working capital per mule. Farm groups.o Work stock per mule. Produc- tive live stock per mule. Imple- ments and machin- ery per mule. Feed and supplies per mule. Average total working capital per farm. Best five l-mule farms . . $185 la-i 160 196 163 108 •153 79 57 43 30 23 $63 68 51 54 43 60 S34 140 108 102 109 98 .?115 115 145 114 158 93 S450 597 521 509 503 382 S450 1,194 Best five 3-mule farms 1,563 2,036 Best five 5-mule farms 2,515 Best five 6-mule farms . . . 2,292 Average for 30 farms 168 48 56 99 123 494 a Selected on basis of farm income; groups same as those in Tables IV, V, and X. Table XX. — Working capital perform and per mule, and its distribution to work stock, productive live stock, implements and machinery, feed and supplies, and cash to run the farm for groups of farms in the Brooks County, Ga., community. ( U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 648.) Average value of— Average cash to run farm per mule. Average total working capital per mule. Farm groups." Work stock per mule. Produc- tive live stock per mule. Imple- ments and machin- ery per mule. Feed and supplies per mule. Average total working capital per farm. Best five l-mule farms $136 152 159 171 217 168 $95 141 109 100 90 103 $40 116 106 87 87 87 $206 207 192 212 167 151 $11 10 25 34 20 60 $478 626 591 604 581 569 $478 Best five 2-mule farms 1,252 1,773 Best five 4-mule farms 2,416 2,905 3,414 Average for 30 farms 167 106 87 189 26 575 a Selected on the basis of farm income; groups the same as those in Tables VI, VII, and XI. The tests and examples given in the foregoing pages deal with the most important and fundamental factors that influence effi- ciency in the management of the farm, and they are sufficient to illustrate the method suggested and also to give some general stand- ards for use in the South until standards can be established for local communities. OTHER TESTS. Other tests may follow, dealing with the various items of expense, the sources of income, farm practice in caring for crops and live stock, the organization of the farm land as a whole, the size, shape, and general layout of the crop land with reference to greater effi- ciency in the use of labor and machinery, the location and plan of the farm buildings with reference to sanitation and convenience and the saving of time and labor, and so on in as great detail as may be desired. Testing Farms in the South for Efficiency. 27 PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RELATING TO FARM MANAGEMENT. Buildiag up a Run Down Cotton Farm. Farmers' Bulletin 326. A Profitable Cotton Farm. Farmers' Bulletin 364. Replanning a Farm for Profit. Farmers' Bulletin 370. What the Farm Contributes Directly to the Family Living. Farmers' Bulletin 635. An Example of Intensive Farming in the Cotton Belt. Farmers' Bulletin 519. A System of Farm Cost Accounting. Farmers' Bulletin 572. A Method of Analyzing the Farm Business. Farmers' Bulletin 661. Waste Land and Wasted Land on the Farm. Farmers' Bulletin 745. The Use of a Diary for Farm Accounts. Farmers' Bulletin 782. Soy Beans in Systems of Farming. Farmers' Bulletin 931. How Live Stock is Handled in the Blue Grass Region of Kentucky. Fanners' Bul- ' letin812. Making Hay on Trucks. Farmers' Bulletin 956. Systems of Hog Farming in the Southeastern States. Farmers' Bulletin 985. Farm Practices that Increase Crop Yields in the Gulf Coast Region. Farmers' Bul- letin 986. Farm Practices that Increase Crop Yields — Kentucky and Tennessee. Farmers' Bulletin 981. Farm Household Accounts. Farmers' Bulletin 964. Crop Systems for Arkansas. Farmers' Bulletin 1000. Producing FamUy and Farm Supplies on the Cotton Farm. Farmers' Bulletin 1015. Ways of Making Southern Mountain Farms more productive. Farmers' Bulletin 905. What is Farm Management? B. P. I. Bulletin 259. A Study of the Tenant Systems of Farming in Yazoo-Mississppi Delta. Department Bulletin 337. Value to the Farm Family of Food, Fuel, and Use of House. Department Bulletin 410. Farming in the Blue Grass Region. Department Bulletin 482. An Economical Study of Farming in Sumter County, Ga. Department Bulletin 492. Farm Practice in the Cultivation of Cotton. Department Bulletin 511. The Seasonal Distribution of Labor in Chester County, Pa. Department Bulletin 528. The Business of 10 Dairy Farms in the Blue Grass Region of Kentucky. Depart- ment Bulletin 348. A Farm Management Survey in Brooks County, Ga. Department Bulletin 648. A Farm Management Study in Anderson County, S. C. Department Bulletin 651. Influence of a City on Farming. Department Bulletin 678. A Study of Farming in Southwestern Kentucky. Department Bulletin 713. A Farm Management Study of Cotton Farms of Ellis County, Tex. Department Bulletin 659. Farm Management Practice in Chester County, Pa. Department Bulletin 341. Status of Farming in the Lower Rio Grande Irrigated District of Texas. Department Bulletin 665. Value of Records to the Farmer. Yearbook Separate 735. ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PBOCrHED FEOM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 5 CENTS PER COPY