AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF FARM LAYOUT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY WILLIAM IRVING MYERS Reprinted from Memoir 34, Jur>e, 1920 AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF FARM LAYOUT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY WILLIAM IRVING MYERS Reprinted from Memoir 34, June, 1920 ^9^^ i I'^n/M'lv Of ^^'^R<«6I92| UO^i 1 CONTENTS PAGE Location and description of farms studied 389 Methods of investigation 391 How farm layouts have developed 395 Farm layout 410 Size of fields 410 Effect of size of fields on labor 410 Effect of size of fields on economy of fencing and of land 414 Conclusions on effect of size of fields 415 Shape of fields 424 Effect of shape of fields on labor 424 Effect of shape of fields on economy of fencing and of land 428 Conclusions on effect of shape of fields 428 Location of fields with respect to buildings 434 Obstructions in fields 452 Swampy spots 452 Open ditches and streams 452 Stone piles 458 Trees 459 Fences 459 Relation of type of farming to fencing practice 461 Western New York 461 Southern New York 462 Southeastern New York 463 Central New York 464 Distribution of fence on farms 464 Economy of fencing 466 Land occupied by fences 467 Proportion of farm area in fenced fields 472 Relative advantages and disadvantages of fenced and uufenced crop fields .... 473 Gates 476 Cost of fence maintenance 476 Farm lanes and driveways 479 Utility of lanes 479 Width of lanes 483 Crop land 487 Pasture land 489 Woodland 493 Public highways 500 The farmstead 504 Tenant houses 510 Relation of farm layout to other factors 513 How to plan a farm rearrangement and follow out the plan 514 Actual rearrangements of some New York farms as made by owners 515 Rearrangement of two central New York farms 516 The first farm 516 The second farm 529 Rearrangement of a northern New York farm 52") Rearrangement of a western New York farm 528 385 366 W. I. Myers PAGE Possible rearrangements of some New York farms r).']!) PossiVile rearrangement of two central New York farms f)'M\ The first farm FylV) The second farm o-l'J Possible rearrangement of a western New York farm r)40 Land utilization 551 Summary 501 AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF FARM LAYOUT AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF FARM LAYOUT W. I. Myers The investigation reported in this memoir had two objects. The first was to study the principles of farm layout, and determine their relative importance as an aid to individuals in rearranging their farms to secure tlie most efficient use of labor and land; the second was to study the utilization of land on the typical farms considered, as a public problem of land utilization, with particular reference to the possibilities of increasing the area of crop land to meet the needs of an increasing population. Labor efficiency has always been the keynote of American agriculture. American farmers have wasted land but they have produced more product to the worker than any other farmers in the world. They have economized in labor, which was scarce, and wasted land, which was plentiful. The good free lands in North America are now practically exhausted and the pinch of land scarcity is beginning to be felt. The future problem of American farmers is more difficult. It involves a better utilization of land, a greater intensity of cultivation, and, at 1he same time, the maintenance of a high productivity per worker. The lust requirement is perhaps the most important, for, unless a high pro- ductivity per worker is maintained, the agricultural class will become a peasant class similar to that of European countries. Farm layout offers one means of saving land and labor. A properly planned farm layout should make the most advantageous utilization of the land, and at the same time secure the greatest efficiency of labor. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF FARMS STUDIED For several years the Department of Farm Management of the New York State College of Agriculture has been conducting cost-accounting investigations on New York farms, in cooperation with the Office of Farm Management of the United States Department of Agriculture. Author's acknowledgments. These studies were made under the dirertion of Professors G. F Warren and K. C. Livermore, of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Alanagement at Cornell University. Messrs. L. E. Harvey and C. V. Nloble assisted in mapping the farms. Surveyitig instru- ments were furnished by the Department of Rural Engineering. The farm maps were traced and lettered by Miss C. L. Garrett, Professor J. E. Reyna, and Professor J. L. Strahan. To these and to all others who have cooperated in the work, the writer is indebted. 389 X 390 W. I. Myers Since 1915 annual maps of the farms on which cost accounts were bcins lvei)t have liecn made by the writer, primarily to increase the value and accuracy of the accounts. Blue jirints of the farm maps were returned to each farmer for his own use. The data for the following studies of fai-m layout wei-e obtained from these maps, supi)lemented by information furnished by the farmers and in some cases by data from the cost accounts. Fig. 07. location of farms studied The location of tlie fifty-three farms considered in these studies is shown in figure 67. Most of these farms are larger than the average farm, their average area being 173.4 acres as compared with an average of 103.2 acres for the farms reported in the state census of agriculture for 1918. Altho larger, better organized, better managed, and more profitable than the average farm, they are all real farms, on which the operator is a laborer. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 391 Most of the important types of farming in New York State are repre- sented among the fai-ms studied. Twenty-four of the farms are located in western New York. These farms are devoted largely to fruit and general farm crops. Some fruit is grown for sale on nearly all of them, wliile ten are intensive fruit farms. Two of the farms in this region produce truck crops for the Buffalo market. Little stock is kept in this region, only two farms having more than six cows. Eleven farms are located in southern New York. Dairying is here the principal enterprise and few crops are grown for sale. Two of the farms in this region raise some truck crops for local markets, and two farms grow some tobacco. Twelve farms are located in the general farming region of central New York. Dairying is an important enterprise on these farms, but con- siderable quantities of various crops are grown for sale. Four farms are located in southeastern New York. Three of these are intensive dairy farms, while the fourth, in the Hudson Valley, produces fruit and truck crops for local markets. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION In mapping these farms, many different methods were tried in an effort to combine a reasonable degree of accuracy with speed. The first farms were mapped with only a 100-foot steel tape, all lines and any necessary angles being measured. Where farms are rectangular in outline, with rectangular fields, this method is the most rapid and satisfactory. .Where farm or fence lines are crooked it is impracticable, and, since most New York farms are at least partly irregular, some means must be found to map these irregular lines. Hand compasses and general-purpose levels were tried and discarded. The method that was found most satisfactory was to use a steel tape for measuring the boundaries and all straight lines in a farm, and a surveyor's transit for mapping the irregular parts. On most farms it was necessary to run only a short traverse with a transit, locating the corners of all irregular lines accessible from each station by the horizontal angle and the distance to each. All distances were read by stadia. When targets are used, this method is both rapid and accurate. In all cases the present farm fences were mapped, and no effort was made to run out the deed lines. Deed descriptions were obtained in some cases for checking purposes, but in many deeds the descriptions were inaccurate. 392 W. I. Myers In addition to the measurements of the different parts of the farms, other data were obtained in the mapping. Every change in the Idnd of fence was recorded in the field notes, and from tliis record the kinds of fence, and tlie number of rods of each kind on every farm, were found. The width of the strip of land occupied by each kind of fence, with different crops, was measured. Where the width of the strip varied along the edge of a field, the average width was estimated and checked by frequent measurements. The area of the land in crop fields occupied by swampy spots, streams, open ditches, driveways, trees, stone outcrops, stone piles, and barns was measured, as well as the crop land untillable because rough, or wasted because of proximity to woods. All important buildings and the divisions of the farmstead were measured and located. Where possible, the history of the fields and the farm was learned from the owner. Data were obtained on the character of the pasture land. Woodlots were located, and notes were taken on the suital^ility of the land for other purposes. Orchards were classified by Idnds, and as to whether or not they were bearing. In short, an effort was made to get as complete information as possible concerning the utilization of all the land on these farms. The farm maps were drawn to a uniform scale of 200 feet to the inch. Except for very large and very small farms, these proportions are satis- factory. In addition to farm and field lines, the kinds of fence and all the physical features of the farm were shown on the maps. This necessi- tated the provisions of a set of s^^anbols which could be drawn rapidly. Some ideas for these symbols were obtained from the conventional signs adopted as rc^commended practice by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The symbols used are shown in figure 68. Areas of fields and other farm divisions were obtained from the maps Ijy the use of a i)lanimeter. After ascertaining an area in square inches by averaging four or five observations of the planimeter, this area was reduced to square feet and then to acres. The area of each crop field was designated by two figures, the top figure representing the gross area included within the l^oundaries of the field, and the lower figure the area actually in crops, after deducting the land occupied by fences, stone piles, streams, and other oljst ructions. The accuracy of the maps and of the areas of the different divisions in all cases was checked by observation by the farmers. The areas of An Economic Study of Farm Layout 393 LEGEND 7e?r?/Pordfru fi^/a d/{//sion__ l.<3r?e SmooZ/y wire /^/7ce Sfon6' fence. Bsrde^ /i//re /ence Sfr<3J^^^ ra^/ or doan:/ /e/7ce. II M M K '* i > II " 3ri/s/7, s/ump, orJiec/c^^ /^nca- Pr<3i?7<3c^e orc^J/c/7 roi/ere<^^ Ordind^e or (^//c/? uncoi/'^ere^ Creek or r/ver Marsh or Jivainpi/ J^nd Fruif frees bedriryt^^ Frujf fr^es nof ^e^rina lA/oods oooo o oooo Sfvne pj/e ddre rocAs , Rdz/rod>e farms were cleared first. About 1845 the main road was put thru south of B, C, and D, and at tibout the same time farm C was sold by its first owner. The new owner of An Economic Study of Farm Layout 399 Fig. 69. development of a central new yobk fakm - Original plan, showing outlines of farms A, B, C, D, and E when settled 400 W. I. Myers farm C never lived in the original log house at the north end of the farm, but changed the location of the farmstead to the extreme southeastern corner of this farm on the new road. He moved the original barn to the new farmstead and built a new house, living for a time during the summer in the old barn wliile the house was under construction. After clearing the south end of farm C, this man began the present consolidation by buying 25 acres of D, on the west of his farm. After clearing this he bought the remaining 25 acres of D. About this time the road run- ning north thru farm D was moved west to its present location as the western boundary of tliis farm, in order to avoid a steep hill, and the road running across the north ends of farms B and C was abandoned. The owner of farm CD died and the land was inhei-ited by a son who con- tinued the process of coml^ination begun by his father. He first bought farm B, on the east of the farm inherited. This made him the owner of three of the original 50-acre farms, B, C, and D. The 12-acre lot E also came under his management thru inheritance by his wife. After cutting the remainder of the timl^er from farm B, the owner of farms B, C, D, and E took advantage of a good opportunity and sold tliis farm. The location of the farmstead of farm C was in the southeastern corner of the farm, adjoining one of the crop fields of farm B. Because of this iwoximity, poultry from the farmstead of farm C did more or less damage to the crops in the adjoining field and caused some ill feehng between the neighbors. Partly to avoid this difficulty, and partly because it was a better field, the owner of farms B, C, D, and E retained tliis 10-acre field in selling fai-m B, and sold instead a larger field from the north end of farm C. The outline of the farms at this stage of their development is shown by figuie 70. In 1899 farms C, D, and E were purchased by the present owner. Two years later this farmer bought farm A, which had been an independent unit up to tliis time. In 1918 he bought farm B, thus bringing under one management land which was in five different farms eighty years earlier. The last two stages in the development of this farm are shown in figures 71 and 72. The area of the combined farms is 216 acres, a moderately large family farm. Probably it is no larger in terms of human labor than a similar farm of half the area eighty years ago. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 401 Fig. 70. development of a central new york farm — ii The original farms C, D, and E have been combined, but A and B are separate farm units 402 W. I. Myers 54 <3. jFlG. 71. DEVELOPMENT OF A CENTRAL NEW YORK FARM — HI In 1S99 farm CDE was purchased by the present owner and two years later farm A was added, making the combined farm area 162 acres An Economic Study of Farm Layout 403 Fig. 72. development of a central new tork farm — iv In 1918 farm B was purchased, thus bringing the five smalliOriginal farms into one farm of 210 acres 404 W. I. Myers This is not an isolated case. A similar process has been going on in all parts of the State as the development of farm machinery has increased the effectiveness of human labor and consequently the area of land that can be farmed to best advantage by one family. Other forces, however, are pulUng against this tendency to increase the size of farms. Every farm changes hands at least once in a generation. Tenants and other persons of small means often wish to buy small farms at first, because of lack of capital, with the expectation of buying more land later if successful. There is also a constant tendency to divide farms among the heirs when Fig. 73. plan of a western new york farm in 1906 The area of the farm at this time was 110 acres, 35 acres having already been added to the original 75-acre farm farms change hands l)y inlioritance. Tlio result of these conflicting forces is a slow increase in the average size of farms. The jilan of a western New York farm in 1906 is shown in figure 73. The area of the farm was then about 110 acres, 35 acres having been added to the original farm of 75 acres l^efore that time. In this vicinity much of the land was surveyed into rectangular farms of from 50 to 100 acres, three-(|uaiteis of a mile long. Sucli long, narrow farms were never aciapted to economical operation. Laiul at the end of one farm, three- quarters of a mile from the buildings and too remote for economical operation, is usually dire(;tly across the road from the farmstead of another An Economic Study of Farm Layout 405 farm which in turn has fields three-quarters of a mile away. This mistake in laying out farms has cost New York farmers many thousands of dollars in lost time traveling to and from remote fields. In 1907 an adjoining farm of 05 acres was added to the farm just mentioned. The plan of this lai-ger farm of 175 acres is shown in figure 74. No further change was made in the size of this farm until 1917, when the 100-acre farm across the road was rented and added to the 175 acres Fig. 74. plan of the same farm in 1907 The area of the farm at this time was 175.8 acres, the adjoining farm of 05 acres having been acquired by purchase already owned. The plan of the combined farms is shown in figure 75. It is probable that the smaller farm will be purchased within a few years and made a permanent part of the larger farm, since it would be more valuable as a part of this farm than as an independent unit. In this region a farm of 100 acres is too small for economic operation, because a large part of the land is so rough or so wet as to be adapted only for pasture. The area of crop land in this 100-acre farm, 37 acres, is too small to allow of efficient use of labor and machinery with general farm crops when fanned independently, and the land is not adapted to intensive 40G W. I. Myers An Economic Sti'dv of Farm Layout 407 cropping. In this case the small farm makes a valuable adjunct to the Lirger farm. The pastiu'e is needed in pastvu'ing the large herd of cows kept on the larger farm. The barn is convenient for keeping young s^ock thru the winter, and the house is well located for the houK^ of a hired man. The crop land is convenient to the farmstead of the larger farm. The present farm of 275 acres is not too large for a family farm in this region. It is smaller in terms of human labor than the 21G-aci-{^ farm whose history is given in the preceding pages. i I i' 1 ■ c- jo,^ - ^/a^ ^j rc/s A-^0a-e.'0./5rz/s' ' ',?>»»»i,'^l»J:*»;»?>. Fig. 76. plan of a western new york fritit farm in 1917 showing the original fakms that have been combined into one farm business The very long, narrow farms found in this region are inconvenient to work and result in much wasted labor In this process of combining hirms to keep pace with changing con- ditions, it has not alwa3\s been possible to procure land adjacent to the farm already owned. The plans of four farms in western New Yoi'k which have been combined into one farm business are shown in figure 76. In tliis region the farm land was first survej^ed into areas of 160 acres, and these were later cut up into small farms of from 20 to 50 acres. Because of the value of frontage on the main highway along which these farms are located, the small farms were made very long and narrow. Farm A was an extreme example of this arrangement, being more than 200 rods long and only 15 rods wide. Such a layout is economical of 408 W. I. Myers road frontage but extremely wasteful of labor, land, and fencing. The long distance which must be traveled to the remote fields of even a 20- acre farm is readily apparent. Furthermore, with the type of fence used on many of these farms this arrangement is very wasteful of land. The present owner of these farms bought the two farms A and B in 1888. At this time large osage-orange hedges formed the eastern boundary of farm A, and also the line between farms A and C. These hedges wasted more than a rod of land on each side. In adtlition a driveway was neces- sary to give access to the back fields. The two hedgerows and the drive- way made untillable al)out one-sixth of the area of farm A as far back as they extended. In 1904 farm C was added to farms A and B, making the farm area 76 acres. Having control of farms A and C-, tliis farmer pulled out the hedge between them, thereljy gaining about an acre and a quarter of land as well as eliminating one driveway. In 1916 farm D, of 20 acres, was added, bringing the farm up to the size here shown. Further addi- tions have since l)een made. This farm is located in one of the most prosperous agricultui-al regions of the State. The land is largely devoted to fruit and other intensive crops. The acces8il)ility of the fields from the farmstead is far more ini]:)ortant under tliesc conditions than where only extensive croi)s are grown. Altho nuich smaller in area, tliis farm is larger in terms of human lal)or than the 27r)-acre farm discussed just previously. A farm representing an extreme case, in wliich twenty-two jjarcels of land have been coml)ined to form one farm of 150 acres, is shown in figure 77. Some of these parcels were town lots of the decadent village in which the farm is located. The scattered, patchwork ai:)pearance of tliis farm shows the difficulties that have been encountered in trying to procure enough land to make a farm of reasonable size. The foregoing examples are intended to give typical illustrations of the combination of farms in response to changing methods of production. Not all farms art^ composed of as many parts as the examples given. These farms are larger today than the average farm, and hence they would bo expected to l)e made up of more parts. As larger and more improved macliines come into use, the problem of reari'anging farms to permit the economical use of machinery becomes more important. Every new, improved farm machine is a new argument for a better farm layout. The newest farm machine, the tractor, is no An Economic Study of Farm Layout 409 exception to this rule. One of the striking facts brought out by an investi- gation of tractors in IlHnois^ is that a third of the tractor owners increased the size of their farms after purchasing tractors. In so far as tractors come to be used in this State, it may be expected that they will tend to continue the Fig. 77. plan of a southern new york farm This farm represents an extreme case in which twenty-two parcels of hind have been combined to form one farm of 154.3 acres. The scattered, patchwork appearance of this farm shows the difficulties that have been encountered in trying to acquire enough land to make a farm of reasonable size process of combination of farms begun when the first labor-saving machine came into use, nearly a century ago. It may also reasonably be expected that the tractor will give greater impetus to the rearrangement of farms, because large fields are necessary for economical operation. ' Tractor experience in Illinois, page 7. Farmers' bul. 963. 1918. By Arnold P. Yerkes and L. M. Church. U. S. Dept. Agr. 410 W. I. Myers The response to the conditions that have made desirable some rearrange- ment of farms has l^een varied. A few persons have rearranged farms too rapidly, giving undue importance to this phase of farm management and f)ften incurring greater expense in making the rearrangement than is justi- fied by the saving to be made. To this class of persons would lielong many rich men, some over-enthusiastic students, and a few farmers. On the other hand, most farmers have not made these readjustments as rapidly as would proba])ly l)e justified. Agricultiu'al conditions for the decade pre- ceding 1915 justified a more rapid rearrangement of farm layouts than any other period since the Civil War, and these conditions may reasonably b'3 expected to continue. The layout of a farm is far from being the most important factor for success in farm management. For this reason the improvements of farm layout should always be subsidiary to the main ])usiness of farming, which is the producing of food. Plans for a satisfactory rearrangement require much thought and time. Both the changes to be made and the order in which they are to be made sliould be determined in advance. Any one planning to rearrange a farm should Ijc very sure of his plans and then should procf^ed slowly. FARM LAYOUT SIZE OF FIELDS The most important factor in the layout of farms is the size of ilu^ farmed fields. Size of fiekls affects not only the efficiency of labor, but also the economy of fencing and of land. Ejfect of size of fields on labor The most important effect of size of fields is on the labor required for the different field operations. For economy of labor, fields should be large. The importance of size of fields as affecting labor depends on the numlxn- of horses driven, and on the operation to be performed. The negro with one nude can farm small fields, but when three- to six-horse teams are used, fields should be large. With tractors it is even more important that fields should be large. It is more important to have large fields for plowing than for mowing. Large fields are not usually mowed all at once, but in two or more parts. In order to determine the effect of size of fields on the labor required for various farm operations, a study was made of the labor records, for the years An Economic Study of Farm Layout 411 1914 to 1917, of the farms on which cost accounts have been kept by the owners in cooperation with the New York State College of Agriculture and the Office of Farm Management of the United States Department of Agri- culture. In these cost accounts an account is kept with each crop rather than with each field. On many farms two or more fields of the same crop are produced and the labor records for the different fields are not kept separate. For this study, only those records were included in which only one field of a given crop was grown, or in which the records of the different fields had been kept separate. In all cases the data are actual time records kept by farmers. The effect of size of fields on the labor required for various farm operations is shown by tables 3 to 8. In considering the results of these tables it should be borne in mind that the larger fields are TABLE 3. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Plow an Acre Size of fields (acres) Number of fields Average size of fields (acres) Average length of fields (rods) Time required to plow one acre Man hours Hor.se hours Less than 2 2-4 9. 40 57 78 40 27 1.02 3.48 7.24 11.68 20.20 20. () 34.() 49.9 54.7 77.9 8.5 6.5 6.2 5.7 5.1 19 8 15 5-9 9. 16 '* 10-14.9 14 3 15 or more 13 2 Total 242 ""7^51 ""45.'4 5^8 Average 14 8 usually found in regions of more level topography. Large fields are usually found also on the larger farms. Since both of these correlated factors have an effect on the labor required for various farm operations, it is prolxable that the results due to size of fields alone are less than the figures indicate. Apparently the saving of labor in plowing effected with larger fields, as shown in table 3, is not due to the use of more horses per team, since there is httle variation in the average number of horses per man between the smallest and the largest fields. One of the reasons for the saving of labor with large fields is the time lost in turning in small fields. If the fields 412 W. I. Myers wei'c plowed with a 14-incli plow, 110 turns to the acre would 1)0 required in plowing fields of 1 acre, but only 29 turns to the acre would be required in the 27-acre fields. The necessary time required to turn a three-horse team and the plow, and get ready to start back, was found to average about a half minute. In addition to the time necessarily lost in turning, there is a tendency to rest oftener when turns are frequent. TABLE 4. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Roll an Acre Size of fields (acres) Number of fields Average size of fiL'lds (acres) Average length of fields (rods) Time required to roll one acre Man hours Horse hours Less than 3 9 15 29 11 12 1.58 3.91 7.47 11.09 20.97 22.0 41.2 49.8 48.5 85.9 1.18 0.95 0.08 0.77 0.65 2.36 3-4 9 1.90 5-9 9 1 36 10-14.9 1.54 15 or more 1.30 Total 7f. '"8'SI ' '56^4 "'o'72 Average ... . . 1 44 The saving of time in rolling large fields (table 4) is proportionately as great as that in plowing large fields, but, since rolling is a rapid operation, the total hours saved per acre are less in rolling than in plowing. TABLE 5. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Drill an Acre An Economic Study of Farm Layout 413 TABLE 6. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Mow an Acre Size of fields (acres) Number of fields Average size of fields (acres) Average length of fields (rods) Time required to mow one acre Man hours Horse hours Less than 2 11 21 11 7 1.54 3.35 7.08 15.73 28.5 37.0 46.2 61.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 2 6 2-4.9 2 4 5-9.9 2 10 or more 2 Total 50 '"5"50 ""40'S LI Average 2 2 Size of fields is less important in mowing (talkie 6) than in most other farai operations. One reason for this tlifference is that large fields usually are not mowed as one field but are mowed in two or more parts. TABLE 7. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Cut and Bind an Acre OF Corn with a Corn Harvester Size of fields (acres) Number of fields Average size of fields (acres) Average length of fields (rods) Time required to bind one acre of corn Man hours Horse hours Less than 5 7 9 6 3.63 7.12 14.40 43.4 48.7 70.1 2.3 2.1 1.8 6.6 5.4 5.5 5-9.9.. 10 or more Total 22 s'o *52'9 2^0 Average 5.6 The cost-account data on which these studies were based could not be used for studying the effect of this factor on dragging and cultivating. However, there is every reason to suppose that, in these operations as in the others, larger fields give more effective use of labor. The saving of labor by large fields in any one operation may not be important, but the aggregate saving in several operations is worthy of careful con- sideration. 414 W. I. Myers TABLE S. Relation of Size of Fields to Labor Required to Cut and Bind an Acre OF Grain with a Grain Harvester Size of fields Number of fields Average size of fields (acres) Average length of fields (rods) Time required to bind one acre of grain Man hours Horse hours Less than 2 2-4 9 10 30 34 15 IS 1.17 3.54 7.09 11.69 20.47 22 2 37/2 45.7 49.7 77.8 2.22 L61 1.33 1.38 1.23 5.77 4.22 5-9 9 10-14 9 3.81 3.74 15 or more 3.6G Total .... 107 '"s'44 ""47'l " r34 Average 3.87 EJfed of size of fields on economy of fencing and of land Fences around crop fields make 'more or less land untillable. With fields of a constant shape, the larger the field, the fewer rods of fence to tiie acre are required to inclose it. Therefore, with larger fields a smaller proportion of the area is occupied by fences. If a square field of 1 acre is fenci^.l, about 50 rods of fence are required to inclose it; if a square field of 10 acres is fenced, only 16 rods of fence to the acre are recjuired to inclose it; while only 8 rods of fence to the acre are required to inclose a square field of 40 acres. If the width of the land occupied by fences in the three fields were uniform, the amount of waste land to the acre would be twice as much in the lO-acre field as in the 40-acre field, and more than six times as much in the 1-acrc field as in the 40-acre field. A study was made of the relation of size of fields to economy of fencing and of laud for the fenced crop-fi(>lds on the fifty-three New York farms. All fields of a given size are included, regardless of shape. The results are shown in taJ)Ie 0. In tlu^se i-esults, the numl:)er of I'ods of fence to the acre includes all of the fence around each field. When a fence serves for two fields, the amount of fence necessary for each would be correspondingly reduced. The importance of the effect of size of fields on land occupied })y fences and on the amount of fencing depends on the value of the land, on the amount of cro^i land fenced, and on the cost of fence maintenance. If An Economic Study of Farm Layout 415 the farm were divided into 2-acre fenced fields, about 4.5 per cent of the crop land would be occupied by fences; or, in other words, of every 100 acres of crop land, only 95.5 acres would be available for producing crops. TABLE 9. REL.'i.TiON OF Size of Fields to Economy of Fencing and of Land in Crop Fields Completely Fenced Size of fields (acres) Number of fields Average size of fields (acres) Rods of fence to the acre Per cent of crop land occupied by fences Less than 4 . . 26 41 &1 27 24 12 2.15 6. 30 9.84 13.28 18.44 38.. 33 36.7 21.1 16.7 15.1 12.7 9.0 4 frl 4-7.9 3,75 8-11.9 2 66 12-1.5 9 2 26 16-23 9 1 S5 24 or more . 1 12 Total 194 1L37 ' is'i Average 2 29 Conclusions on effect of size of fields The preceding studies show that large crop fields give greater economy of labor than do small fields. The effect of size of fields on labor, on any farm, depends on the number of horses driven to a team and on the crops grown, but it is important on every farm. The effect of size of fields on the economy of fencing and of land depends on the proportion of the crop area fenced, on the value of the land, and on the cost of fence maintenance, but it is important on most farms. For these reasons farmed fields should be as large as conditions will permit. The size of the farm, the type of farming, and the length of the rotation or rotations followed, Hmit the size of fields on any farm. With the practice of more or less definite crop rotations, it is desirable to have as many fields as there are years in the rotation, and to have the fields of approximately equal size. With 100 acres of land available for general crops and a five- years rotation, the most desirable size of field would be 20 acres. Tliis would give five 20-acre fields. On some farms, two distinct rotations are followed — a short rotation of more intensive crops on fields near the build- ings, and a longer rotation of more extensive crops on the remoter fields. 416 W. I. Myers I® rP ' ,«.,« '3 5", ■)\ " * » \' I, » =■ Kb e s ft &; 1 An Economic Study of Farm Layout 417 Under these conditions a greater number of fields would be desirable, the number and size depending on the length of the rotations and the area of land available for crops. Where truck crops are grown, many fields of small to medium size are necessary. Fig. 79. a farm having about the same chop area as the farm shown in figure 7s, but divided into seven fields of good size and shape A five- or six-years rotation is followed, the remainder of the land being used for minor crops. There are no road fences and the fields are farmed to the edge of the road Farm area, 108.8 acres Average size of farmed fields, 10.3 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 50 rods Physical features, such as shai^e of farm, differences in soil or drainage, streams, and swamps, often make it impossible to have all the farmed fields as large as the crop area and the rotation would make desirable. In such cases two, or even more, fields may be farmed together as one course of the rotation. 418 W. I. Myers ^ ^ fXs ' (TO Fig. 80. A FARM OF MODERATE SIZE DIVIDED INTO NINETEEN FIELDS, MO.STLT OF SMALL SIZE The patch of woods surrounded by orop land occupies an untillablo rock outcrop Farm area, 191.7 acres Average size of farmed fields, 5.7 acres Average distance to farmetl fields, 77 rods An Economic Study of Farm Layout 419 Fig. 81. another farm of the same size as that shown in figure 80, but divided into four large fields for the main rotation (corn, oats, hay two tears) and four small fields for beets, potatoes, alfalfa, and other minor crops Farm area, 205.7 acres Average size of farmed fields, 11.2 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 53 rods 420 W. 1. Myeu« . Ftiriii fields are often smaller than is either necessary or desirable. On many farms, little attention has been i)aid to the enlarging of fields to ]x>rniit more effective use of labor and machinery. The crop area is still cut. up into small fields by the original stone rows or fences built when the land was cleared, because it is easier in any one year to farm around Fig. .S2. an example of patch farming The crop land was fainifil in twenty-four fields averaging 4.5 acres each. There were three patches of corn, five of oats, one of jjotatoes, one of buckwheat, and fourteen of hay on this farm in 1914. There were few obstacles to prevent the enlarging of the fields, and this has been done since the map was made Farm area, 212 afrcs Average size of farmed fields, 4.5 acres these <)l)structions th;ui to remove them. Furthermore, there are con- stant forces tending toward smaller fields. Perhaps the seeding on part of a meadow fails. The patch is plowed up, and thereafter is often farmcHl as a sei )arate field. A drought may prevent planting the entire field to the desired ciop. The farms included in this investigation average sligiitly less 1li;iii 100 a,cies of general crop land (other than fruit) to the farm, An Economic Study of Farm Layout 421" divided into eleven fields averaging 9 acres each. On most of these farms a three- to six-years rotation is followed. The fields are smaller and more numerous than is either necessary or desirable. Yory often, several small Fig. S3, a farm smaller in total area but a little larger in crop area than that SHOWN IN FIGURE 82 The fields arc large and most of them are of good .shape Farm area, 163 acres Average size of farmed fields, 16.7 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 43 rods patches of a given crop are grown on one farm without any real reason. Much time that is lost in farming these scattered patches could be saved by bringing them together into one field. 422 W. I. Myers There are many factors that make difficuh or even impossible the task of enlarging farm fields to the size most desirable. On some farms, physi- FlG. 84. A LARGE FARM DIVIDED INTO TWENTY-ONE CROP FIELDS AVERAGING 12 ACRES EACH Farm area, 293.1 acres Average size of farmed fields, 12 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 70 rods cal features will partially prevent the combining of small fields into larger fields. ( )n other farms, the prospective savings with larger fields do not justify the expense necessary to make them. On many farms, however, An Economic Study of Farm Layout 423 the readjustments can be made very easily. In any case the problem, is worthy of careful consideration. Maps of several New York farms of various sizes, which present striking contrasts in the average size of farmed fields, are shown in figures 78 to 85 (pages 416 to 423). Z50 SOO 7,SO 'm^^"ss''^h\ IVO OP5 30.63. o '^m^^miQs^k Fig. 85. a smaller farm than that shown in figure 84, BUT with its six CROP FIELDS AVERAGING 27 ACRES EACH Farm area, 204.4 acres Average size of farmed fields, 27 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 30 rods 424 W. I. M^-ERS SHAPE OF FIELDS The shape of farm fields Hkevvise has an important effect on the eco- nomical use of labor, fencing, and land. Effect of shape of fields on labor It is a fact commonly accepted that more time to the acre is required for performing farm operations in fields of irregular shape than in fields of regular shape. In order to determine the effect of this factor on the time required for plowing an acre, E. L. Baker kept a careful record- of the time required to plow fields of different shapes. The dimensions and shapes of the fields are indi- cated in figui'e 80. All conditions were made as uniform as possible. Small areas were takcMi in order to secure uniformity of soil and moisture conditions. All the fields were plowed by the same man and team. A part of a forenoon and a part of an afternoon were spent in plowing each field in order to obviate any diftei'ence in freshness of the team. A Wiard walking plow was used, turning a furi'ow 14 inches wide and 8 inches deep. Field A was plowt^d lengthwise, fis indicated by the arrows in the dia- gram. Field B, (>qual in size to field A, was plowxxl the short way. Field C was triangular in shape and was i)lowed the long way. The time i-equired to plow each field -and the rate of jilowing to the acre are shown in table 10. Altho fields A and B are of the same size, about 14 per cent more time was ]-equired to i)low field B. This was due to the shoi'tei- furrows and more frequent turns in field B, which wasted considerable time. It re- quired 22 per cent more time to plow the triangular field C than to ]:)low field A. Altho the average length of fm-rows in fields B and C are the same, seven per cent more time was required to plow field C. The Fig. S6. DIMENSIONS AND MANNER OF PLOWING OF FIELDS OF VARIOUS SHAPES - Eoonomical effects of shape and size of fields upon agriculture. By E. L. Baker. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economies and Farm Management, Cornell University. (Unpublished.) 1909. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 425 . steadily diminishing length of fiu-rows in field C worried the horses more than did the short fm-rows of the same average length in field B. TABLE 10. Relation of Shape op Fields to Time Required to Plow an Acre Field Size of field (square feet) Time required to plow field Timp required to plow one acre at same rate A 28,141 28,141 17,976 218 min. 248 min. 170 min. B C Any irregular shape for a farm field is undesirable. The larger the proportion of the area of a field in short rows, the worse is the shape of the field and the greater is the amount of labor wasted in farming it (fig. 87). Fig. 87. small, irregular fields, which waste labor and land and are expensive to fence Triangular fields have the largest proportion of short rows and are the most wasteful of labor. Square fields are bad if they are small, because with mowing or other operations that require going around the field the bouts become extremely short near the finish; if they are large enough to be cut in two for these operations, however, they are satisfactory. For 420 W. I. Myers fields of moderate size, the oblong shape is the best. The most desirable proportions depend somewhat on the size of the field and on the number of operations to be performed crosswise of the field. Oblong fields from one and one-half to three times as long as their width are usually satisfactory (fig. 88). Small fields should be proportionally longer than large fields, in order to provide longer rows. Fields long in proportion to their width are very conveniert for plowing and other operations performed length- wise, ])ut are inconvenient for dragging or cultivating crosswise. They Fig. 88. a larue rectangular field adapted to economical operation This field is lOf) rods long and 10 rods wide also require more travel with an empty wagon. In New York State little cultivating is done crosswise, and hence this drawback is not impor- tant. When a tractor is used, the length of the field is the most important consideration. The importance of the effect of shape of field on labor varies inversely with the size of the field. The smaller the field, the more important is its shape; the larger tlie field, the less important shape becomes. Even the short rows in a large field may be longer than the longest rows in a small field. A dozen short rows in a 2-acre field may mean a considerable proportion of time wasted, while the effect of the same number of short rows on th(> labor necessary to farm a 20-acre field would be small. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 427 The importance of the effect of shape of field on labor depends also on the operations to be performed, and hence on the crops grown. The more intensive crops require a greater nmnber of operations, and therefore a Fig. 89. a small farm in central new york having badly shaped fields Efficient use of labor is impossible in fields like these Farm area, Co.4 acres Average size of farmed fields, 2.7 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 44 rods larger amount of time is wasted by growing such crops in irregular fields. With extensive crops such as hay or alfalfa, the waste of time in irregu- lar fields is less important. This fact is recognized by farmers, and very badly shaped fields are usually kept in hay as much of the time as possible. 428 W. 1. Myers Ejfcd of aha-pe of fields on economy of fencing and of land Square fii'lds require the fewest rods of fence to the acre for a given size. A square field of 10 acres would require^ KiO rods of fence to inclose it. A rectangular field 80 by 20 rods would include the stune area but would require 200 rods of fence. With the annual cost of fence maintenance at o - zea. -7./ a- T / / 1- sja. - J 3 <3 ■ J - 2.pj. -6.a<3,- V-.^A* » APPleS" " JCALE IX FfCr Fig. 90. a small farm in western new york having some well-shaped and some badly shaped fields P'iolds A and E aro hilly, and are thorpforo farniod .separately. The unnecessary fence between fields E and F makes it impossible to farm into the shar|) corner of either field. Wide fence rows, full of stone and brush, occupy 5 per cent of the crop land of this farm. Land is worth $120 an acre F.arm area, (i9 acres Average size of farmed fields, 4..'") acres Average distance to farmed fields, 79 rods () cents a rod, it would cost S2.40 a year more to keep the rectangular fiekl fenced. Conclusions on effect of f^hape of fields For the field of oi'dinary size, the ol^long shape permits the most efficient use of labor, while the squai-e shape is the most economical of fencing and of lantl. For pastures, therefore, the most economical shape is square, because tliis provides the shortest line of fence and only four corner posts. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 429 Saving labor is usually more ini[)ortant than saving land and fencing, and hence oblong shapes are the most desirable for crop fields of moderate size. Very large crop fields may be square to save fencing, and yet be long enough to permit of efficient use of labor. Irregular shapes should be avoided when this is possible without too great expense. The shape of farm fields has been affected by topography, drainage, streams, soil, and other natural factors, as well as by the manner in which Fig. 91. a crooked farm in southern new tork with irregular fields The crooked Vjoard fence between fields D and E makes 2.5 acres of short rows in field D and 1.5 acres of short rows in field E. By straightening the fence all the short rows in field E and most of those in field D could be eliminated, surv^eyed The crooked outline of the farm is due to the way in which this section was Farm area, 101.5 acres -Average size of farmed fields, ll.fi acres Average distance to farmed fields, 4S rods the farms were cleared. On the farms included in this investigation 42 per cent of the crop land was in fields that were ai)proximately oblong in shape, 8 per cent was in square fields, and 50 per cent was in irregular fields. The proportion of the crop area in badly-shaped fields varies in different agricultural I'cgions of the State, being 41 per cent on twenty- four western New Yoi-k farms included in this study, 52 per cent on eleven southern New York farms, 57 per cent on twelve central New York farms, and 75 per cent on four southeastern New York farms. The worst-shaped fields are found in that part of the State which was 430 W. I. Myers settled first. Fortunately, in this ref2;ion a large part of the crop area is in hay, and the shape of the fields is therefore less important than if a larger proportion of intensive crops were grown . The best-shaped fields are found r , 5.^ a. 5.3 3. p^ G./a-. C- e.Ga. 6.-9-3. X. /6.3 a. a- /2.5 a. /2.3a. 250 —\ — soo I sc^LC //v r££: r 750 Fig. 92. a good farm layout in central new york Most of the fields aro of good size and shape. A four- or five-years rotation is followed. Fields .4 and C, B and G, H and I, and E and F have been farmed together, each pair of fields making up a course in the rotation. There are some unnecessary fences which could easily be removed Farm area, 126. .3 acres Average size of farmed fields, 10.5 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 32 rods in that part of the State which was settled last, the western part. Even in this region, however, there is considerable opj^ortunity for improvement. In some cases the shape of the fields is the result of natural features, and rearrangement to secure fields of better shape is impossible. In An Economic Study of Farm Layout 431 other cases the cost of improving the shape of the fields would be greater than any possible saving to be made. In many cases such improvements can be made easily and at reasonable expense. Before undertaking any Fig. 93. layout of a farm in southeastern new york The irregularly shaped fields are liounded by stone fences which make rearrangement difficult. Much time is wasted owing to the small, irregular fields in this region Farm area, 150 acres Average size of farmed fields, 6.2 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 47 rods rearrangement, the probable savings and costs should be given careful consideration. Plans of farms illustrating desirable and undesirable shapes of fields are shown in figures 89 to 95 (pages 427 to 433). 432 W. I. Myers sa. .9g. Fig. 94. a farm layout in northern new york By tiling the open ditches tlie size and shape of these fields could be greatly improved. Some improvement could be made without any expense Farm area, 104. .5 acres Average size of farmed fields, (1.9 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 96 rods An Economic Study of Farm Layout 433 y .■& Q I 1 -1' [^fti Rsr^ ^^rjK 1 ^ ^ 1 ^ ^^ 1 '^'^ r^j R> ^ -^^ ^ tf < Ix M » o 1 is »:c^ w ^=^ ?1 ==.-§ :<5 Pi H ?■? «a a ^ g o ^■2 'a. l/J So« < --5^1^ fe S^-s^ o 53 M tifl s: pSf^ > a. f^« 434 W. I. Myers LOCATION OF FIELDS WITH RESPECT TO BUILDINGS Travel between barns and crop fields is not directly productive work. It is merely getting ready to do something. For this reason crop fields should be as readily accessible to the farmstead as possible. The importance of the effect of tliis factor depends principally on the distance traveled and on the crops grown. For any given rotation of crops, the relative values of near-by and distant fields can be easily deter- mined. With a five-years rotation of silage corn, oats, wheat, hay, the minimum number of trips to the acre, with average yields, would be about as follows: Man trips Horse trips Silage corn (including 10 loads of manure to the acre to the acre to the acre) 18.0 48.0 Oats 3.5 8.0 Wheat 3.5 8.0 Hay 2.1 3.8 Hay 2.1 3.8 Total above rotation 29.2 71 .G Annual average for aliove rotation (approxi- mately) 6 14 If a field is a half mile distant from the barn, each round trip means a mile of travel, or at least 6 man miles and 14 horse m.iles of travel for each acre each year with the above rotation. This would reciuire at least 2 hours of man time and 4.5 hours of horse time, which, at 30 cents an hour for man labor and 20 cents an hour for horse labor, would cost about $1.50. Since .$1.50 is G per cent interest on $25, it is evident that a field adjoining the barn would be worth about $25 an acre more for general farming than an equally good field a half mile away under the conditions given. The average distance between farmstead and fields depends chiefly on the size of the farm, the shape of the farm, the location of the farmstead with respect to the fields, and the size and arrangement of the fields. Other factors remaining constant, the larger the farm, the greater is the distance l^etween farmstead and fields. This is one of the most important factors limiting the size of farms. If the size of a farm be indefinitely An Economic Study of Farm Layout 435 increased, a point will be reached where the advantages of greater size are offset by the time lost in travel between buildings and fields. Any further increase in size then means a duplication of buildings. The shape of the farm is nearly as important as the size in its effect on distance to fields. All long, narrow shapes are bad, since they mean that much of the land is farther from the buildings than it would be if the farm were more nearly square (fig. 96). Square or nearly square farms permit the most convenient arrangement of fields with respect to buildings (fig. 97). The ideal arrangement is to have half of the land on each side of the highway, with the buildings in the center of the farm (fig. 98) . By this arrangement the travel to fields may be reduced to a minimum, and yet the advantages of living on the highway are retained. With any shape of farm and with the usual systems of farming, the most advan- tageous location for the buildings from the standpoint of labor efficiency is in the center of the crop land; but if this necessitates locating the build- ings away from the liighway, the disadvantages of the plan moi'e than offset the saving of labor except in the case of very large farms. It is in some cases possible to put the house on the road by running a road thru the farm. When this can be done, the advantages to be gained much more than offset the value of the land lost. A location in the middle of the side of the farm on the road, is usually preferable to one in the corner nearest town. It is usually desirable to have as many fields as possible corner on the farmstead. Often the average distance to the nearest corner of the crop fields can be reduced by enlarging the fields. Because of the greater cost of farming distant fields, farmers tend to keep such fields in less intensive crops. In New York, fields too remote to be cultivated economically are kept in hay almost continuously. If the hay from such fields is to be sold, it is usually stacked or drawn to a near- by barn rather than to the main buildings. Fields too distant to be profitably cropped with hay are used for pasture. By such plans farmers have adjusted their practice to make the best of bad field arrangements. On many farms, the remote fields are never manured and are contin- ually getting poorer. Frequently such fields, too distant to be farmed economically by their owner, are directly across the road from a neighbor's house. The best way to put the buildings in the middle of the farm is to buy the land across the road when tliis is possible. 41G W. I. Myers '^ 'S 9'/ \ 'S£'2 K O On I ,1 ^ ^* • m S ^ 05 m > © IS E 2H«J La ea H ^ m--3 O — o 2 !; o & o o g "^ 2 C2 T i S £ ^ 3 "^ M OJ M * O^ M o S " E C5 5 S So «= S =3^ > - A -3 O oO 3 „ C oj -^ "^ O J= 2 c S ^ t- "^ ^ G o SB'S 3 e s'^ s ^ S g~ o — -- ^« g_tc 2 ^^■- p . o e:^5 p — 7^ > 03 0^ o P '^'O be c to 0"-' 03 03 t-J3e« 5-9 S £j £ t- u. s > > An Economic Study of Farm Layout 437 Fig. 97. a much larger farm than that shown in figure 9G, but with about the same average distance to fields This farm is made up of four original farms. Many fields have been oombined and enlarged and the process is still goins on. Most of the fields are of good size and shape, hut there is opportunity for further iniiirovenient Farm area, 369.1 aere.s Average size of farmed fields, 10.1 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 8C rods 438 W. I. Myers As has previously been pointed out, the inaccessibihty of the fields on many farms is a natural consequence of the way in which farm laj'outs have developetl. In the first place, little attention was paid to this consideration in laying out farms for settlement. Again, as farms have D' E' r' D C r /'AR/^JTSAC /^ARMSTCAD A B C A B' c Fig. 9S. two good farm layouts If a lOO-aore farm had citlu'r of J these .field arrangements, the average distance to fields would he le than 30 rods been combined it has not always been possible to buy land adjacent to the farm already owned. Just as the layout of some farms has been im- proved by combination, that of others has been made worse. Within reasonable limits it is more important to have enough land than to have it convenient for working; or, in other words, the advantage of having more land may offset the disadvantages of an inconvenient location. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 439 g M 03 2 O 01 ^ c-a >,« ci q C n W '^ :5 V a CO S ? ^ r ^ ° m« « S ooo — 03 o SI c-o . V a a S S S §^0 7i C > S 0) c3j3 U 0) OJ 03 M M rH C3 oj 440 W. I. Myers It is i5ro)):il)ly worth while to see what an ideal arrangement is like, even tho such an ideal is unattainable in most cases. Reahzing the importance of a convenient arrangement, one can plan an arrangement Fig. 100. a farm plan with the farmstead in the corner most distant from the fields, the worst possible arrangement This f;irm might ho four times as large with no gicat the principal disadvantages of a farm four tin Farm area, 83. (> acres Average size of farmed fields, 4.1 acres Average distance to farmed fields, [)l rods verage distance to the fields. Such a plan has as large, with none of the advantages for his farm which will approximate this ideal as closeh^ as conditions l)(>rmit. Farms illustrating good and pooi- arrangements with regard to this factor are shown in figures 99 to ill (pages 439 to 451). An Economic Study of Farm Layout 441 a eoo -^oo eoo eoo._ / I . " I I I I =1 T SCALC //v rccr - ^.5.95^ J P-'^^-S.Qd. /2,3a. ^•^^1 \/2.2aA 3,93. '3.7 3. •I Ui ■-^APPLEl m -"/^rruL.- I |ooc o o o I fi'o O 'j o o o ■io o o o o \/./al ; \0-.3af^-^ n-.53.' 1 o^ ^o o"o o" o/JPPL€° ° PEN TCP {\OPCH/JRP U 3.G3. \ 3.5a.\ Fig. 101. A FRUIT farm in western new YORK The part north of the raih-ond was originally a separate farm. The average dis- tance to fields is as great as for many farms three or four times as large. The woodlot occupies tillable land which is too valuable for producing lumber Farm area, 97.5 acres Average size of farmed fields, 5.1 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 90 rods 442 W. 1. Myeks Fig. 102. a central new york farm There are few interior fences or other barriers to prevent planning a satisfactory field arrangement for this farm Farm area, 14fi 5 acres Average size of farmed fields, S.5 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 70 rods An Economic Study of Farm Layout 443 Fig. 103. A WESTERN NEW YORK FARM ON WHICH THE FARMSTEAD IJ^ AWAY FROM THE MAIN ROAD IN THE CENTER, The farmstead was originally located in field K. There is no suitable building site along the highway because the highway is so much above the adjoining land. Under these conditions the present location is the best possible Farm area, 114. .5 acres Average size of farmed fields, 9.1 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 3o rods /l ^^ W. I. Myers W j:/3.aa. Fig. 104. a southern new york farm The farmstead is situated in the center of the crop area, on the road. The average distance to fields is about one-fourth that on the farm shown in figure 99. The deed of this farm specifies lUO acres, more or less Farm area, 144.5 acres Average size of farmed fields, i\.'.^ acres Average distance to farmed fields, 29 rods An Economic Study of Farm Layout 445 ;f^,, J§;^!?ir^ "" c3 S M 2 S fl C — 'C 1) « J5 O bt+^ a '3 cj " M c bO o 2^^ >< (S OJ OlO ■c-flM ta 0^ 4) fi^ ^ 5^6 < 8SS « .2 J:-c H ^ +j z; 3-0 O w X! O U o CO I.'-'O T) g ™2 So 0(N H C3r-l o < •O ^- 62 ■T3-T3 « ."sS o ° S S ■5 O " Q c "^ ^ Oi 446 W. I. Myers FiCx. 106. ANOTHER POOR LAYOUT The fields on this faitn are small iiiid iriegular, and the farmstead is as far from the fields as possible Many of the fence rows are so full of stone that it would not pay to clear them. The crooked fields ar^ not due to topography, but largely to the manner of clearing Farm area, 211.1 acres Average size of farmed fields, 7.N acres Average distance to farmed fields, 113 rods An Economic Study of Farm Layout 447 0:li%i Fig. 107. a common fasm l.\tout in western new yohk Field O, at the back end of this farm, is directly across the road from the house of an adjoining farm. This field is 183 rods from the owner's barn, up hill, and is too far away to be cropped econonjicaliy even tho it is the best field on the farm. It should Vjc worth from $25 to $30 an acre more to the neighbor than to the present owner Farm area, 17.5.8 acres Average size of farmed fields, 8.7 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 104 rods 448 W. I. Myers o oX^ Lr^ o - o"^ . o "^ \° o o oMJ o i w ° '?' > > « O ^ An Economic Study of Farm T.ayout 449 Fig. 109. a good farm layout in western new york All of the fields can he reached from the farmstead with a mini- mum of travel. The fields aie larsrc, but some of them are very irreg- ular. Field A has rows 100 rods long and is almost ideal lor etbcient operation Farm area, 204.4 acres Average size of farmed fields, 27 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 30 rods 450 W. I. Myers w o: o in SS ^ H ■nti g C =3 tf M U S6 h O ■5 si sS a)-d O e2 ''^S ^cS 2-2 a rts < o iS "0^ CI r- ?; ^■2 as J3 03 C3 << II O Is u O-O Cl m"0 <1 (U fe -T-, « o3 M 60 « 3 o H 03 c3 '- 3 a) 0) o ' a -< ■" S P^ =^ An Economic Study of Farm Layout 451 Fig. 111. A CENTRAL NEW YORK FARM OF APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AREA AS THAT SHOWN IN FIGURE 110, BUT WITH AN AVERAGE DISTANCE TO FIELDS ONLY ONE-FOURTH THAT OF THE OTHER FARM Obviously this farmer has a decided advantage in producing crops Farm area, 102 acres Average size of farmed fields, 10.9 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 33 roda 452 W. I. Myers OBSTRUCTIONS IN FIELDS The difficulties in farming the small, irregularly shaped fields found on many farms are in some cases further increased by obstructions of various kinds. Not only do these obstructions waste land, but, what is usually more important, they waste labor in farming around them. Sivatnpij spots Wet, swampy spots in cultivated fields are frecjuently found on farms located on the heavier soils of the State. On the fift>'-three farms included in these studies ;i total of more than 30 aci'cs of laud in ci-opped fields was occupied by such waste areas, or an average of nearly 0.() acre for each farm. In addition to this, much crop land needs some drainage. The area given includes oiily land in croi)ped fields actually untillable because too wet. Not only do these wet. swami)v places waste land that is otherwise good, l)Ut they hinder the culiivation of the remainder of the fields in which they are located. Where such areas can l)e di'ained (\-isily, it frequently pays to di'ain them because of the saving of land and labor. The plan of a westei'U New York fai-m is shown in figui'e 112. In 1917 the swampy jiatch in field R was drained l)y a line of tile running to the corner of the oi)en ditch in field B. Sixty rods of tile was necessary. The total cost of the jo1) including work and tile, as shown l)y cost accounts, was $103, or ai)proximaiely SI. 70 a rod. Six-tenths of an acre of crop land, worth $00, was gained. The net cost of the improvement was, there- fore, $43. The work w;is done by farm labor at ockl times. At the same time the brush row between fields P and R was cleared, i^ermitting fields P, R, and S to be farmed as one field of 21 acres. This arrangement allowed the elimination of the driveway to field S. The saving in land and labor with the new arrangement will pay for the entire cost in a few years. Open (I itches (tiid streams On i]\v farms studied, a tolnl of .■)7.2 aci-es of land in cropped fields, or an average of about 0.7 acre foi' ea,ch farm, was occupied by open ditciies or hy streams (figs. 113 ;uid 114). Open ditches are continually filling up with dirt and weeds, so that the annual ui)keep is a considerable itcMn. More impoi-tant is the fact that they often divide the crop land i'lto fields of irregular shape. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 453 «2 o o J3 — j= o O'-C |« ^ CO ^2 «3 a -a 0) o 2 ci o § "^ "^ m t-. OJ > «3 "3 & E.S 454 W. 1. Myers Frequently the possible saving- of land and labor justifies the elimina- tion of these obstructions to cultivation. An improvement of this kind is shown in figures 115 and 11(3. Plan I in figure 115 shows the laj^out of 50 acres which form part of a farm of 160 acres. The open ditch shown in this plan divided this area, as indicated, into irregular fields. With all 1 -. ^, -T;. y / j i «.„ ,~ .1,7 »*■ •e ' :•' ■;' -^i „'» •V / '. •'1 Fig. 113. a westeen new york farm having many fields of irregular shape, most OF THESE being DUE TO OPEN DITCHES GROWN UP TO ALDERS. THE DITCHES COULD BE EASILY TILED Farm area, 153. .3 acres Average size of fanned fields, .5.9 acres Average distance to farmed fields, .53 rods the fields in corn there would have been more than two hundred short rows. The ditch was grown up to brush and wasted a considerable area of land. In the fall of 1910 this ditch was tiled up to the south end of field T. In the spring of 1917 the land along the ditch was cleared and plowed for cropping. The costs of making this imi)rovement were as follows: An Economic Study of Farm Layout 455 Fig. 114. a western new york farm on which a considerable area of land is wasted BY streams The small stream in field G wastes 1.7 acres of land and makes the remainder of the field difficult to farm. By deepening and straigntening the stream bed, or by tiling it, this field could be greatly improved. About the same area of land is wasted by another small stream in field J. Land is worth $10U an acre here Farm area, 100.2 acres Average size of farmed fields, 9.4 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 54 rods 456 W. I. Myers Cost of 123 rods of tile drain ; 1000 two-inch tile, 14 inches long $16.32 350 three-inch tile, 14 inches long 8 . 75 325 four-inch tile, 14 inches long 14.62 55 six-inch tile, 14 inches long 3 . 85 1 roll roofing to cover joints 2. 50 331 hours man labor 44 . 12 98 hours horse labor 9 . 80 98 hours use of equipment 2 . 94 Total cost of 123 rods of tile drain $102.90 Cost per rod 0.84 -Sis ■) ;i i I' I I ! \ I P-J2.S^. \ \ 1 -L,i Fig. 115. plans of a SO-acre tract showing arrangement before and after tiling AN open ditch In the fall of 1916 and the spring of 1917, the open ditch was tiled .as shown and the land formerly occupied by it was cleared for cropping. After completing the tiling, clearing the worthless orchard, and moving the tenant house, the owner will work the tract in two large, oblong fields, as shown in III An Economic Study of Farm Layout 457 Cost of clearing land for cultivation : 49 hours man labor $ 7 . 39 74 hours horse labor . . 15.16 74 hours use of equipment 2 . 63 Total cost of clearing land for cultivation $25. 18 Total cost of laying tile and dealing land $128 .80 Cost per rod of laying tile and clearing land 1 . 04 Fig. 116. the s.^me field (fig. 115) in 191 S after the tiling of the open ditch AND the clearing OF THE LAND FOR CULTIVATION One acre of land, worth $75, was gained, making the net cost of the improvement $53.08. The saving in labor made possible by enlarging and improving the shape of the fields will pay this in a short time. The work was all done by farm labor in the late fall and early spring, when other work was not pressing. Plan III shows this owner's ultimate plan for this part of his farm. The house shown in Plan II is too far away from the main farmstead and will be moved to a more convenient location. The apple trees have never borne a commercial crop. They will be cut for firewood and the remaindei- of the ditch will be tiled, making possible the division of this tract into two rectangular fields of 24.2 acres each, 160 rods long. Since a tractor is used on this farm, the new arrangement will make possible an important saving in labor. 458 W. I. Myers StoJie piles The abundant crop of stones found on a large part of the farm land of the State has given rise to many farm layout problems. In early days, when labor was cheap, stone fences furnished an excellent way of getting ■*Wrft5*!WW^fSW-'W**™~***" Fig. 117. small, SCAT'lt>uiU) mu.m. lu.i.s wimll WASTE BOTH LAND AND LABOR Fig. 118. a large stone pile in the corner of a crop field This stone pile occupies little land and does not interfere with cultivation. The stones are convenient for drawing if needed for improved highways An Economic Study of Farm Layout 459 rid of surplus stones. In more recent times, changed conditions have made stone fences not only too expensive to build but also undesirable. On many farms the surplus stones have been thrown into small piles scattered at random over the different fields (fig. 117). Not only do such piles waste more land than do larger piles (fig. 118), but they waste labor in farming around them. Trees Some trees in pasture fields are desirable or shade; but trees in culti- vated fields are inconvenient to farm around, and they damage the crop for a considerable area. On one of the farms included in this study a worth- less apple orchard was cleared for cultivation in 1916. There were twenty- seven trees from sixty to seventy j^ears old, averaging from 18 to 24 inches in diameter. They occupied an area of 0.6 acre. The cost of cutting the trees and clearing the land for cultivation was as follows: 50 pounds dynamite and wages of expert $17.00 239 hours man labor 31 .86 36 hours horse labor 3 . 59 36 hours use of equipment 1 . 04 Total cost $53 .49 Six cords of 4-foot firewood was cut, worth $6.50 a cord, or a total of $39. Six-tenths of an acre of crop land, worth $45, was gained. In this case the cost of clearing the orchard was more than paid by the value of the wood and of the land gained. FENCES The early settlers on New York farms made fences of rails, stumps, or stones, or of combinations of these materials. These fence rows were difficult to mow and keep cleared, and consequently were ideal for the propagation of brush and trees. As more surface stones were picked up from the land, they were often thrown into the fence rows. Changing conditions have made desirable the ehmination of many fences in order to permit the enlargement of fields, but the wide, stony, brush-grown fence rows have proved a serious obstacle to this change. The increase in land values has made the land occupied by fences a factor worthy of con- 460 W. I. Myers sidei-ation. Labor is no longer cheap, and fencing materials must be purchased at increasing prices. As a result of these changes, the problem of fencing farms suital)ly and economically has become an important one. The various kinds of fences found on the fifty-three farms studied are given in table 11, together with data concerning the amount of each kind found: TABLE 11. Kinds of Fences and Amounts of Each on 53 New York Farms Kind of fence Woven wire Barbed wire Stone Worm rail Board Straiglit rail Brush Smooth wire Railroad-owned (all v/oven wire) Hedge Stone pile Stump Picket Barn Total Total length of fence Rods 355 797 5 492 -1 777.5 067 3 903 . 1 990.0 (315.2 772.3 711 S 583.3 52(>.l 43C).7 279.0 80,307 2 Miles 8S . (i 83 . 7 20.3 18.1 9.6 9.1 6.2 5 2.4 2.2 T^s 1.6 1.4 9 250 9 Length of fence per farm (rods) 535.0 505.6 122.5 109.0 57 9 54.8 37.5 30.5 14.6 13.4 11 9.9 8.2 5.3 1,515 2 Per cent of total fencing 35.3 33 4 8.1 7.2 3.8 3.6 2.g 2 10 0.9 0.7 7 0.5 0.3 100.0 It is difficult to define a fence. In table 11, any well-d(>fined barrier to cultivation between crop fields, and all pasture fences in use, are considered to be fences. This explains the inclusion of stone-pile and brush fences as separate classes in the table. They waste land, but, will not turn stock. On the other hand, many wire fences will not tiu'n stock. In general, the more land a icnco wastes, the less efficient it is in performing the most important function of a fence. Woven wire and barbed wire are the most important fencing materials us(h1 on New York farms, as shown in table 11. Together they constitute moi'(> than two-tliii'ds of the fences found on these farms. They are practi- cally the only kinds of fence being built under present conditions, and hence they will become more important as they replace other types. On these farms a little more woven-wire than barbed-wire fence was found. Stone An Economic Study of Farm Layout 461 fences were important in the southeastern and western parts of the State, but made up only eight per cent of the total fence. \^irginia, or worm rail, fences are still found on many farms. These and other wooden fences have survived from earlier days when lumber was cheap. They are too expensive to build and maintain under present conditions, and are rapidly being replaced by wire fences. Board fences will continue to be used to some extent as barnyard fences to shelter stock from winds. Relation of type of farming to fencing practice The relative importance of different types of fencing varies widely in different parts of the State. This is to be expected, since the respective localities shown in table 12 represent distinct types of farming, with differ- ent fence requirements. TABLE 12. Important Kinds of Fencing in Different Regions of New York Western New York 24 farms Southern New \ork 11 farms Southea.stern New York 4 farms i Central New York 12 farms Kind of fence Per cent of total fencing Kind of fence Per cent of total fencing Kind of fence Per cent of total fencing Kind of fence Per cent of total fencing Woven wire. . Barbed wire . Worm rail . . . Stone Straight rail . Hedge 55.1 11.1 10.0 8.3 5.5 2.2 Barbed wire . Board Woven wire . Worm rail. . Stone Smooth wire. W.8 S.9 8.5 6.0 3 1 1.4 Barbed wire Stone Straight rail Board Worm rail. . Smooth wire. 52.0 35 7 4.5 3.8 15 0.6 Barbed wire Woven wire Worm rail. . . Board Straight rail Stone 37.2 36.5 5.3 4.2 3.6 3.4 Western New York The twenty-four farms included in the western New York group are located in the counties of Erie, Clenesee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Ontario, Orleans, Seneca, and Yates. On these farms more than half of the fencing was of woven wire, while barbed wire formed but 11 per cent of the total. Worm rail, stone, straight rail, and hedge follow next, in order of use. These types are rehcs of earlier times, and all except the stone are rapidly disappearing. 462 W. I. Myers The farms in this group are largely devoted to fruit and general farm crops. The farms averaged 128.G acres, of which 97.1 acres were in crops. They had an average of five cattle units and IG acres of permanent pasture per farm. Only two of the farms had more than six cows. On three farms a few sheep were kept. Land in this region is relatively high-priced, these farms averaging $120 an acre. Under such conditions, the experience of these farmers indicates that woven wire is the most desirable kind of fence. The small areas of permanent pasture are usually pastured by the family cow and the horses, with occasionally a few sheep. Barbed wire is too dangerous where horses form a considerable proportion of the stock pastured, and it will not restrain sheep. In answer to the question " What Idnd of fence do you consider best for your conditions?" all the farmers except one in this region expressed a preference for woven wire with one strand of barbetl wire on the top. The single exception was the owner of a farm with no pasture, who preferred no fence at all. Perhai)s even more reliable than these answers as an indication of the most desirable fence for western New York conditions is the record of fence purchases. Cost accoimts on these farms for the years 1914 to 1917, show that a total of 1070 rods of woven wire fencing have been bought and but 1814 rods of barJDed wire. This amount of barbed wire is little more than enougli to furnish a single strand of barbed wire to put ab'ove the woven wire. Southern New York Tlie ekn'en south(M'n New York farms are located in the counties of Cat- taraugus, Chemung, Wyoming, and southern Cortland. Barbed wire constitutes al:)Out two-thirds of the fence on the farms studied in this region, with smaller amounts of board, woven wire, worm rail, stone, and smooth wire. As in other regions, the bo.ard and worm-rail fences are fast being supplanted by wire fencing. These farms averaged IGG acres each, of which 101. G acres were in crops and 49.6 acres in permanent pasture. They had an average of 22.1 cattle units to each farm, and all but two of the farms had more than six cows. Land in this region is i-elatively cheap, these farms avci-aging $67 an acre. Under these conditions barbed wire has been proved by experience to be the most (h^sirable fence, considering all factors. The typical fence in this region is of three- or four-strand barbed wire. Where large areas of An Economic Study of Farm Layout 463 cheap pasture land are to bo inclosed, this in undoubtedly the cheapest fence that will satisfactorily turn stock. The pi-incipal stock pastured is cattle. As the number of horses pastured is comparatively small, the danger of injury to stock- by barbed wire is not great enough to justify inclosing the large areas of pasture by a more expensive fence, such as woven wire. Again, it is difficult to stretch woven wire where the topog- raphy is as rolling as it is in most of this regi,on. All except two of the farmers in this group believed barbed wire to be the best fence for their conditions, considering all factors. These two expressed a preference for woven wire because of danger of injury to stock by barbed wire. The typical fence favored by most of these farmers was a four-strand barbed wire, stretched tight, with chestaiit. posts. The cost accounts on these farms show that a total of 1913 rods of barbed wire was purchased during the years 1914 to 1917, as against 140 rods of woven wire. This would indicate that nearly four rods of barbed wire fence are being built on these fariiLs to one rod of woven wire. Southeastern New York There were only four farms studied in southeastern New York, all of these being located in Orange County. Barbed wire leads in the kinds of fence found on these farms, constituting more than half of the total fenc- ing. Stone fence forms more than a third of the total, and the small remainder is made up of straight rail, board, worm rail, and smooth wire. Less wooden fence is found in this section of the State than in other sec- tions. This is to be expected, since this region was settled first and practi- cally all of the wooden fence materials have now disappeared. The four farms in this region averaged 13.5.1 acres eaclx, of which 72.3 acres were in crops and 52.6 acres were in i")ermanent pasture. They had an average of 22.4 cattle units to each farm, being interi-sive dairy farms with one exception. Land iii this region is relatively chec'iji. Under these conditions, barbed wire has ])een found to be the most satisfactory fence, utility and price considered. The typical fence in this region is three- strand barbed wire with more or less stone along the bottom. The same conditions that make barbed wire the most desirable fence in southei'U New York obtain in this region — large areas of cheap pasture land, uneven topography, and cattle the principal stock pastured. Four-strand barbed wire, stretched tight, with chestnut or oak posts, was considered by these 464 W. I. Myehs dairymen to be the best fence for their conditions. Cost accounts on these farms show that 1544 rods of barbed wire have been purchased (hiring the years 1914 to 1917, as against 30 rods of woven wire. Ccniml New York The twelve farms inckided in the central New York group are located in the counties of Cayuga, Onondaga, Oswego, and Tompkins. On the farms studied in this region, barbed wire and woven wire fences are of equal importance, each constituting a little more than a third of the total fence. Worm rail, board, straight rail, and stone are found in small amounts. These farms averaged 275 acres each, of which 156.3 acres were in crops and 99 acres were in permanent pasture. They had an average of 31.3 cattle imits to each farm, and all farms except one had more than six cows. Laud is neither as cheai) as in southern New York noi- as high as in western New York, averaging $74 an acre on the farms studied. The average size of these farms was mucli larger than that of the farms in other regions, due to the inclusion of four unusually lai'ge farms. This region represents con- ditions intermediate lietwcen those of southern and those of western New Yoik, and it is but natural that fencing practice should likewise be inter- mediate. On six of the twelve farms, woven wire was used the most for fencing. All except one of these were dairy farms, but they grew large areas of geiieral crops as well. On the other six farms, barbed wire was used the most for fencing. These were all more intensive dairy farms. They had aljout the same area of pasture and the same numl^er of cows, but land was clieaper, averaging .^54 an acre as against $90 an acre for the six farms having a largei" proportion of woven wire. The determining factor seemed to be the value of the land. In New York cheap land is usually fenced with a cheap fence, Ijarbed wire, while good land justifies the best fence, woven wir(\ Little barbed wire fencing is found on New York fiu-ni land worth $100 or more an acre. Distribution of fence on farms The division of fai'm fences into four general classes with reference to their location on tlie farm, is shown in table 13. Practically no temporary interioi- fen(;(^s were found on the farms studied, and so this classification is omitted. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 465 TABLE 13. Relation of Size of Farms to Distribution of Fence Size of farms (acres) Number of farms Road fence (per cent) Boundary fence (per cent) Interior fence (per cent) Farmstead fence (per cent) Less than 100 13 18 15 7 9 12 15 16 46 41 38 35 43 45 46 48 2 100-159.9 160-239 9 240 or more 2 1 1 Total 53 13 39 46 Average 2 Not all of the roadside or the boundary lines or the field division lines of farms are fenced. The figures given in table 13 are concerned only with fenced farm divisions. In table 14 is shown the distribution of all farm division hues, both fenced and uiifenced, and how the distribution is affected by the size of the farm. TABLE 14. Relation of Size of Farms to Distribution of Farm Division Lines Size of farms (acres) Number of farms Farm roadsides (per cent) Farm boundary lines (per cent) Interior field division lines (per cent) Farm- stead division lines (per cent) Less than 100 13 IS 15 7 11 15 17 19 36 33 32 33 51 50 50 47 2 100-159.9 1 160-239.9 1 240 or more 1 Total 53 16 33 50 Average 1 The relation of size of farms to the proportion of farm division fines fenced is shown in table 15. The larger farms were more completely fenced, 84 per cent of all farm divisions of the largest farms being fenced as compared with only 65 per cent for the smallest farms. Nearly as large 466 W. I. Myers TABLE 15. Relation of Size of Farms to Proportion of Farm Division Lines Fenced Num- ber of farms Per cent fenced 8ize ol larins (acres) Roadsides Boundary lines Interior field division lines Farm- stead division lines Total farm division lines Less than 100 L3 IS 15 7 52 53 64 72 82 84 91 89 55 61 70 85 78 88 88 75 65 100-150 68 l()0-239 9 . . 76 2-10 or more 84 Total Average 53 02 87 ""69 ' ' ' '83 74 a proportion of tlio farm l)oun(lary lines of small farms were fenced as of tiie large farms, hut a much smaller proportion of the roadsides and the interioi' field division lines. Economy of fencing The relation of size of farms to economy of fencing is shown in table 10. In comparing the rods of fence to the acre on these farms as shown l)y the " Fenced " columns in the table, it should be remembered that the larger farms are more completely fenced. The '' Total " columns in table 16 show the economy that would obtain with larger farms if all TABLE l(i. Relation of 8ize of Farms to Economy of Fencing Num- ber of farms Rods por acre Size of farms (acres) Farm roadsides Farm boundary lines Interior field division lines Farmstead division lines Total farm division lines Total 1 Fenced Total Fenced Total Fenced Total Fenced Total Fenced Less than 101).. KHM.V.I.it UU)-23 Mt'A Fig. 120. a woven wire fence hk i \\ i kn two cornfields Even under tlio most, favorable eonditions, fences make untillahle a considerable strip of ground. This wire fence occujiies a strip of land li feet wide practically no land; but with a fence separating two general crop fields, the width of the strip of land made untillahle, as shown by table 18, would be doubled, and the lunnber of rods of fence required to waste one acre of land would be one-half of that given in the table. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 469 TABLE 18. Relation of Kind of Fence and Crop to Land Occupied by Fences Kind of fence Width of land made untillable, in feet (one side of fence only) Hay Small grain Culti- vated crop Average Rods of fence necessary to occupy one acre Value ot land occupied by each rod of fence, at $100 an acre Smooth wire Smooth wire and stone . . . Board fence Board fence and stone .... Woven wire Woven wire and stone .... Barbed wire Barbed wire and stone .... Straight rail Straight rail and stone .... Laid stone fence Laid stone fence and stone Stone pile Stump Worm rail Worm rail and stone Brush Hedge 2.3 6.1 2.6 6.0 2.6 5.3 2.9 5.9 3.4 5.5 4.4 8.5 5.7 5.4 5.0 8.4 9.4 7.7 3.0 7.2 3.1 5.0 3.3 6.6 3.4 8.4 3.5 7.4 4.8 11.8 6.0 5.8 6.1 8.8 11.7 10.6 3.8 7.7 3.4 7.2 3.4 7.0 3.7 7.6 3.9 9.0 5 5 12.3 6.1 7.0 7.6 11.7 7.0 10.4 3.0 7.0 3.0 6.1 3.1 10.9 5.9 6.1 6.4 9.6 9.4 9.6 871 377 871 435 852 419 793 362 733 362 539 243 445 435 411 274 282 276 $0,115 0.265 0.115 230 117 0.239 0.126 0.276 . 136 0.276 0.186 0.411 225 230 0.243 0.365 0.355 0.362 With any fence, the width of land made untillable is least when the field is in hay and greatest when the field is in a cultivated crop. This is to be expected, since it is possible to get closer to the fence with a mower than with other tools. When small grains are grown, the width of the strip of waste land is greater than when hay is grown but less than when a cultivated crop is grown. The differences are not important but they are perceptible. The width of waste land along many fences is increased by the accumu- lation of stones that have been taken from the field and thrown along the fence. Even a few stones along a fence are enough to double the necessary waste. The stones that project farthest out into the field determine the width of waste along the entire side of a field. These results show that the presence of stone along a fence approximately doubles the width of the strip of land occupied. 470 W. I. Myers Smooth wire, board, and woven wire fences occupied tire least land on these farms (fig. 121). Smooth wire will not turn stock satisfactorily and board fence is ol)Solete. Woven wire stretched tight with a strand of barbed wire on top turns stock satisfactorily without danger of injury and occupies little land. Putting a strand of barbed wire above woven wire fence has become an ahnost universal practice on New York farms. With- out any tlanger of injuring stock, it prevents stock from crowding down the fence and tliereby ruining it. Barbed wire and straight rail fences waste slightly more land than does woven wire. It is imi^ossible to cultivate as close to barbed wire as to Fig. 121. On the left tlie brush is cut and the fence occupies luit two feet of hind the fence occupy a strip of hind (i fee) \vid( TWO SIDES OF A WOVEN WIRE FENCE On the right the brush and woven wire, because of danger of injury t-o liorses. Straight rail fence would be too expensive to build new, but it furnishes a satisfactory way of using old but sound fence rails. Bai-bed wire is the cheapest satisfac- tory fence for inclosing large areas of cheap cattle pasture. Stone fences are wider than wire fences and necessarily occupy more land. Stone-pile fence does not really deserve the name of fence. It functions as a fence only in being a barriei' to cultivation and in wasting land. In eai'ly times stone fences furnished a satisfactory way of getting rid of surplus stones; in the present day they ai-e serious barriei-s to the enlargement of fields, because of the expense of removing them. Good use has been made of some stone fences in the improvement of roads. Many An Economic Study of Farm Layout 471 stone fences, particularly in the soiitlieastern part of the State, are so wide and so high that the saving thru larger fields would not justify their removal unless the stones could be used for some such purpose. Stump and worm rail fences waste much land, harbor weeds and wood- chucks, and do not turn stock satisfactorily. Unless land is very cheap it will usually pay to replace such fences with wire. Brush and hedge fences (figs. 122 and 123) are the most wasteful of land of all fences found on the farms studied. Neither of these fences Fig. 122. an untrimmed hedge occupying a strip of land .3 rods wide where land IS worth $150 AN acre Every rod of this fence occupies nearly $3 worth of hind. The cost of clearing 60 rods of similar hedge on this farm was SO cents a rod has a place on any New York farm, but unfortunately both are expensive to eradicate. Hedge fences are expensive to trim, but more expensive to let go. They waste much land, harbor insect pests and woodchucks, and do not turn stock satisfactorily. On land worth $100 an acre, the land actually occupied on both sides of an average hedge fence would be worth 72 cents a rod. In addition to the land actually occupied, hedge fences injure the crop for a considerable distance on each side. 472 W. I. Myers ^j Fir;. 123. a closely trimmed hedge Even closely trimniod hcducs ocriipy a wide strip of land. This hedge actvially makes untillable a strip of land 10 feet wide and injures the crop for some distance beyond this Proportion of farm area in fenced fields The proportion of farm area in fenced fields on the fifty-three farms inckided in this study, in its rehition to the size of the farms, is given in table 19. This taVjle shows a smaller proportion of crop area and of total fai'iii area in fenced fields on the smaller farms than on the larger one.s. The group of small farms includes a larger projjortion of fruit and crop farms TABLE 19. Relation of Size of Farms to Proportion of Farm Area in Fenced Fields Size of farms (acres) Num- ber of farms Average size of farms (acres) Per cent of area in fenced fields Crop land Pasture land Woods not pastured Total Less than 100 . . 13 20 20 7(i 2 127.4 282.6 26 34 47 100 100 100 42 38 16 39 100-174 9. . . 48 175 or more 64 Total 53 '■'i73'4 " "40 ' " 100 23 Averagi^ 57 An Economic Study of Farm Layout 473 on which little stock is kept. On such farms fenced fields are often unnecessary and undesirable. The proportion of crop and farm area in fenced fields in its relation to the number of acres to each cow, is as shown in table 20: TABLE 20. Relation of Number op Acres to Each Cow to Proportion of Crop AND Farm Area in Fenced Fields Number of acres to each cow Number of farms Average number of acres to each cow Average size of farms (acres) Average number of cows to the farm Per cent of area in fenced fields Crop land Farm area 20 or more 20 12 16 40.4 14.7 7.1 113.1 277.6 165.9 2.8 18.9 23.5 26 40 42 31 10-19 63 Less than 10 63 Total *48 "'l2'5 "l7L8 "is;? "'36 Average 54 * In this tabulation five farms were omitted because some sheep were kept in addition to the rows Relative advantages and disadvantages of fenced and unfenced crop fields The question of fencing crop fields is one of considerable importance to farmers. There are many advantages and Ukewise many disadvantages in this practice. If fields are fenced, the stock can be pastured earher in the spring and later in the fall than is otherwise possible, as well as in midsummer when permanent pastures are poor. Pasture is of the most value at these times, because it takes the place of barn feed. Cornfields can be pastured after the corn has been put into the silo; the scattered ears and stalks furnish a considerable amount of valuable feed. If seeding is done v/ith wheat, the oat stubble may be pastured. Even in a stubble field the grass in the fence rows furnishes some feed, while the pasturing saves mowing by hand. Old meadows can be pastured in the fall and spring before they are plowed for corn. Aftermath in meadows is fre- quently pastured. It furnishes feed when permanent pastures are usuall}^ poor. The disadvantages of fencing crop fields are also numerous. Fences prevent the adjustment of field lines to changed conditions. In going to 474 W. I. Myers a fenced field, it is necessary to go around to the gate. When fields are fenced thei'e is a tendency to turn stock on them at times when the crops and the land will be injured. Fence fines occupy a considerable area of land (figs. 124 and 125). In addition to the land that is left untilled, there is a waste in the crops that are injured along a fence by turning. The actual loss by fences is i^'obably double the figures given in table 18 (page 469). The cost of maintaining fences is an important item and it is rapidly be- FlG. 124. UNNECESSARY WASTE OF LAND BY FENCING Every rod of this fence wastes land worth $1, besides furnishing an ideal protection for weeds, brush, and woodchucks. Field fcncrs are unnecessary in this region since little stock is kept coming more important. The actual cost of maintenance varies with the type of fence. It was probably between 5 and 10 cents a rod a year on most farms in 1919, when this study was made. In unfenced fields the aftermath and stubble not pastured are not entirely wasted if left on the land, as th(\v serve as green manure and help to keep up the supply of hvunus. Th(^ value of the feed from meadows depends on the cost of the feed which it replacc^s. If it replaces ]iasture, its value is appi'oximately equal to the cost of pasture, usually about $1 to $2 a month for each cow. If An Economic Study of Farm Layout 475 it replaces barn feed its value is approximately the cost of barn feed, which is very much higher than the cost of pasture. Cost accounts were kept in 1916 and 1917 on forty of the farms included in these studies. On twenty of these the meadows were pastured to a greater or less extent. On eighteen farms of twenty-six which had ten or more units of stock other than horses to pasture, the permanent pasture was supplemented by pasturing meadows; of the other eight, one could Fig. 125. xtnfenced field lines which occupy no land and do not interfere with ci'ltivation On this farm little stock is kept and fenced crop ficldi arc both unnecessary and undesirable not pasture meadows because the soil was too sandy to hold gi'ass well, and three had large areas of very cheap permanent pasture but little crop land. The farmers who pastured their meadows secured an average amount of pasture equivalent to the pasture of twenty-one cows for one month. This was equivalent to about one-fifth of the total pasture on these farms. The extra fence necessary for the fenced crop fields on these farms, in addition to permanent pasture, boundary, and lane fence, aver- aged 285 rods for each farm. At 6 cents a rod the cost of maintaining this extra fence would be $17.10 a year. 476 W. I. Myers Gates Gates should be placed where they will give the most convenient access to fields; usually this means as close to the corner of the field nearest the buildings as the natiu'c of the ground will permit. Where a gate is incon- veniently locatcnl, time or crops or both are wasted. On one of the farms studied, the gat(> to a 10-acre crop field fronting on the road was in the corner of the fence farthest from the buildings. This location made the distance from the barn to the field 27 rods longer, and every round trip to the field 54 rods longer, than if the gate had been in the nearest corner. With an average of six man trips and fourteen horse trips an acre in a year, about ten m;ui miles and twenty-four horse miles of unnecessary travel each year is required to farm this field with the present arrangement. The location of the gate is far more important than its construction. Farmstead gates which are opened and closed many times daily should be hinged so as to swing easily. Gates that swing both ways are preferable for such conditions. The weakest point in such gates, however, is the hinge, and therefore field gates are seldom hinged. The typical farm gate is the ordinary shde gate made of boards. This is easily built, cheap, and substantial. Cost offence maintenance The combination of the data obtained in these studies with the cost- accounting records kept by the farmers made it possible to compute the actual cost of upkeep of the fences on these farms. The i-ecords for 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917 were used, and all the farms were included each year for which sufficient data were available. A total of 1 05 records were obtained, representing forty-one farms. The data arc given in tables 21 and 22. The cost of work done in repairing and improving farm fences was obtained from the cost accounts. The actual hours of labor were taken from the work reports kept by farmers, and the cost per hour of man and horse labor is the actual farm cost for that year. Both labor and other costs of building new fence are included as upkeep costs, since with a number of farms it is a safe assumption that the new fence built in any year will approximat(>ly represent the normal necessary replacement. The labor data for mowing fence rows were obtained partly from the cost accounts and partly by estimates of the farmers. The cost per hour was taken from the cost accounts in each case. The amounts and cost of fencing, gates, posts, and other materials purchased, were taken from the An Economic Study of Farm Layout 477 cost accounts in each case. The amount of crop land occupied by fences was obtained from the data given in these studies. The value of the land occupied by fences was determined for each farm from the area of land actually occupied and the value of this land as given in the accounts. Rental at 5 per cent on the value of land occupied was included as part of the cost of maintaining fences. The number of posts cut from farm wood- lots, and their value before cutting, were obtained from estimates by the farmers. The labor of getting out and spUtting posts is included in the other labor on fences. In computing the amount of fence maintained to each farm, it has been assumed that each farmer maintains half of the boundary fence of his farm. Wliile not always true in individual cases, this should closely approximate the truth for a group of farms. All fences maintained by railroads, liighway fences maintained by the State, and stone-pile and brush fences, were deducted in determining the amount of fence maintained to each farm. The present farm value of each kind of fence was determined from estimates by the farmers. Interest at 5 per cent on the present value of fences was included as one of the costs of maintaining them. TABLE 21. Kinds, Amounts, and P"'arm Values op Fencing Maintained for Which THE Cost of Maintenance was Determined \ Total of 105 farm records Per farm record Average value per rod of fence Kind of fence Rods Value Rods Value Woven wire 40,790 45,896 8,773 8,719 6,108 4,372 6,318 $18,422.21 11,288.81 1 , 553 . 75 1,(M6.19 1,353.45 1,011.18 1,063.45 388.5 437.1 83.6 83.0 58.2 41.6 60.2 $175.45 107.51 14.80 15.68 12.89 9.63 10.13 $0 45 Barbed wire 25 Stone 0.18 Worm rail 19 Board 22 Straight rail ... 23 Other kinds of fencing 0.17 Total 120,976 $36,3.39.04 1,152.2 $346.09 As shown in table 21, the average amount of fencing maintained to each farm was 1152 rods, or 3.6 miles, valued at 30 cents a rod. The average farm value of the fences in their present condition was $346.09 a farm, or about $2 an acre. 478 W. I. Myers TABLE 22. Cost of Maintaining Farm Fences on Forty-one New York Farms FOR THE Years 1914 to 1917, Inclusive (105 farm records, including 120,976 rods of fence) Total of 105 farm records Per farm record Cost per rod of fence 1 main- tained Item Amount Cost Amount Cost LalDor : Fence rei);iirs: Man labor 7,414 hrs. 2,536 hrs. 2 , 536 hrs. $1,305.33 396.36 115.65' 70.6 hrs. 24.2 hrs. $12.43 3.77 1.10 Horse labor Equipmi nt use Total $1,817.^4 .$439.55 132.58 36.28 $17.31 .$4.19 1.26 0.34 $0,015 New fence: Man labor 2,188 hr.s. 743 hrs. 743 hrs. 20.8 hrs. 7.1 lu-s. Horse labor Equipment use Total $608.41 iW4.91 28.20 9.60 .$5.79 1H.24 0.27 0.09 $0,005 Mowing fence rows: Man labor 2,405 hrs. 190 hrs. 190 hrs. 22.9 hrs. 1.8 hrs. Horse labor Equipment use Total W82.71 $4.60 $0.00i Total labor cost $2,908.46 $27.70 $0,024 Materials purchased : Fence posts 1,891 1 , ()95 rods 6,612 lbs. 386 lbs. 614 lbs. $246.17 540.22 253.33 14.. 38 29.75 47.60 18.0 16.1 rods 63.0 lbs. 3.7 lbs. 5.8 lbs. .$2.34 5.14 2.41 0.14 0.28 0.45 $0,002 Woven wire Barbed wire 0.004 0.002 Other wire 0.0001 Staples 0002 Lumber for gates 0.0004 Total cost of materials $1,131.45 $10.77 $0,009 Other costs: Rental at 5 per cent on value of land occupied bv fences . . . $ 681.01 385.98 1,816.87 $ 6.49 3.68 17.30 $0,006 Value, before cutting, of posts cut from farm woodlots Interest at 5 per cent on present farm value of fence maintained 6,4.55 posts ()1 .5 posts 0.003 0.015 Total of other costs $2,883.86 $27.47 $0,024 Entire total cost $6,923.77 .$65.94 .$0,057 An Economic Study of Farm Layout 479 The average cost of maintaining fences on these farms for the four years was 5.7 cents a rod. With 1919 prices this cost would be about doubled. The average costs by years for these farms are as follows: 23 farms, 1914 5.8 cents a rod 33 farms, 1915 5.7 cents a rod 26 farms, 1916 5.5 cents a rod 23 farms, 1917 5.9 cents a rod 105 farm records, four years 5.7 cents a rod The variation on individual farms ranged from 2 to 12 cents a rod. Farm costs for any one year are greatly affected by the amount of fencing done in that year, but with a group of farms this factor is stabilized. The cost by the rod of maintaining fence depends on the kind of fence. On fifteen farms having 75 per cent of barbed wire fence and only 7 per cent of woven wire, the average cost of maintaining fence was 4.9 cents a rod. On seventeen farms having 70 per cent of woven wire fence and only 4 per cent of barbed wire, the average cost was 6.8 cents a rod. On twenty-one fai'ms having 26 per cent of woven wire fence and 28 per cent of liarbed wire, the average cost was 5.5 cents. Of the fences having posts, one post was used for every 12.3 rods of fence each year. Since posts are usually set about a rod apart, it appears that the posts lact about twelve years. FARM LANES AND DRIVEWAYS In this discussion the word lane designates a fenced private passageway which is primarily used to make pastiu'es accessible to buildings. Altho used for other purposes also, lanes are arranged chiefly to save time in getting stock to and from pasture. They are therefore necessarily fenced. The word drivewan is employed to designate the land primarily devoted to use as a passageway to crop fields. Driveways therefore need not be fenced. They may vary in location from year to year. Driveways are necessary on practically every farm, while lanes are not. Utility of lanes Whether or not lanes are needed, their width, and the area of land to be devoted to them, depend chiefly on the size of the farm, the shape of the farm, the area of crop land, the value of the farm land, and the amount of stock kept. 480 W. I. Myers On the farms included in tliis study, 51.5 acres of land were devoted to farm lanes and driveways, or slightly less than an acre to each farm. Of this area 24.8 acres were in lanes wliich were pastured by stock, 13.1 acres were in fenced driveways not pastured, and 13.6 acres were in unfenced driveways. The average width of lanes pastured was 39 feet, of fenced driveways 25 feet, and of unfenced driveways 11 feet. The fenced driveways were formerly used as lanes for stock. Since they are no longer necessary for this purpose, they waste a considerable area of land. Assuming the width of the unfenced driveways given above (11 feet) as necessary, the fenced driveways waste about 8 acres of land. Most of this could be reclaimed for crops at a reasonable cost. The larger farms included in this study had a smaller proportion of their area in lanes and driveways, than the smaller farms. The farms of less than 100 acres had 0.9 per cent of the farm area in lanes and driveways, wliile on farms of more than 175 acres 0.4 per cent of the farm area was used in this way. The corresponding proportions of the crop area were 1.2 per cent and 0.7 per cent, respectively. The shape of the farm is usually of more importance than its size in its effect on the proportion of the farm area necessary for lanes and driveways. Long, narrow farms, in addition to their other disadvantages, require much larger proportions of their areas for this use. On one farm a part only 440 feet wide had a necessary driveway 10 ioot wide thruout most of its length. As far back as the diiveway extcnitled it occupied about 4 per cent of the crop land. This is in a region where land is worth about S150 an acre. The plan of this farm is shown in figure 99 (page 439). The long, narrow farm sho\vn in figure 96 (page 43()) has 1.6 per cent of its area in lanes and diiveways. Striking contrasts in this respect are presented in figures 105 (page 445) and 109 (page 449). The elongated farm has 1 per cent of its area in lanes and driveways, while the com- pact farm of the same size has only one-seventh as much land devoted to this purpose. The necessity for farm driveways depends somewhat also on the arrangement of i^ublic roads. Farms which are so divided by public roads that the fields are readily accessible, often need but few private driveways. However, public roads do not take the place of lanes for stock. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 481 ^vM^ °- 21.7 a ^'le.Z^. .n. The question as to whether or not a lane would be advantageous on a given farm depends on its cost and on the saving in labor that it would effect. If much stock is kept and the pasture is not adjacent to the buildings, a lane would usu- ally be justifiable. Part of the layout of a farm of 368 acres is shown in figure 126. On this farm a lane connects the barns with the night pas- ture, but the cows are driven up the road to the day pas- 1 vn-e. The distance from the Ixirnyard gate to the gate of the day pasture is 148 rods. Two round trips must be made daily with the fifty cows kept on this farm, tak- ing the cows to pasture in the morning and going after them at night. This makes the distance traveled daily neailytwo miles and the time consumed with a herd of tliis size an hour a day. The nor- mal pasture season on this farm is about 150 days, and this means 150 hours spent in driving cows. This work comes during the crop-grow- ing season, when time is most valuable. At 30 cents an hour the cost of driving cows would be $45 a year. A way in which this farm ^^ j26. plan of a central new york dairy might be rearranged with a farm, showing the present route to the day lane 4 rods wide running be- pasture , , . 1 Ti Since there is no lane to this pasture, the herd of fifty cows must tween neldS A and 13, con- be driven up the highway to and from this field each day wsr\ 1 1-/6 4^ T 482 W. I. M-iTERS Fig. 127. plan of the farm shown in figure 120, illustrating how a lane could be run from the barnyard to the pasture, between fields a and b Such a lane would save much time, besides greatly lessening the danger of injury to the cattle by automobiles necting the barnyard with the day pasture, is shown in figure 127. Some grain is fed to the cows all summer on this farm, and with such a lane very few trips would be required to get the cows. A lane of this width would occupy 3.3 acres of crop land worth .S60 an acre. Interest at 6 per cent on 3.3 acres of $60 land would amount to $11.88 a year. This land would not be wasted but would furnish considerable pasture. The length of good fence necessary for fencing tliis lane would be 2G4 rods. The dilapidated stone wall more than half a rod wide wliich separates fields A and B would not make a satis- factory lane fence, and there- fore two new fences would be necessary. Since this lane would be used only by cattle, a four-strantl barbed wire fence would l^e satisfactory. The annual cost of maintain- ing such a fence in 1918 would have been about $18. ITsing the figures given, the cost of land and fence for tliis lane would be about $30 a year. In this case a lane would effect a saving above An Economic Study of Farm Layout 483 all costs of about $15 a year, besides furnishing some feed. It would also lessen danger of injury to cows by passing automobiles. If only one extra fence needed to be maintained, or if the pasture were used both night and day, the saving would be greater. Width of lanes Generally speaking, the width of a lane should be proportional to the number of cows using it. On the farms here under consideration, the average width of the lanes for herds of ten cows or less was 1.5 rods, for herds of from ten to twenty cows 2 rods, for herds of from twenty to thirt}'' cows 3 rods, and for herds of more than thirty cows 4 rods. Wide lanes have many advantages. There is less danger of injury to cows thru crowding, and because of less crowding the cost of maintaining fences is less. Narrow lanes afford practically no feed at any time. In wet weather they are converted into mud holes, with the result that the cows come out with muddy legs and udders. Wide lanes preclude these disadvantages and furnish a considerable quantity of feed. They are substantially elongations of the pasture. The proper width for a lane depends also on the character of the land, as well as on the number of cows using it. With wet land the lanes need to be wider in order to obviate mud holes. Undoi- ordinary conditions tlie average widths given in the preceding paragraph should be satisfactory. The lane to the night pasture shown in figure 126 has good proportions for average soil conditions. It is used by fifty cows and varies from 4 to 5 rods in width. In spite of the advantages of wide lanes it is not always advisable to have them. On long, narrow farms, a lane wide enough to furnish feed may take up too large a proportion of the tillable land. Under such a condition it may be better to waste land in a narrow lane than to make it wide enough to furnish pasture. The location of most lanes is already fixed. New lanes should be so located that they run parallel to farm and field lines, in order not to make irregular fields. A poorly planned lane is shown in figure 128. Its direction was determined by the location of the buildings and the wet, untillable pasture at the back of the farm. Running the lane straight from the barns to this field, diagonal to the farm boundaries, made nec- essary many short rows on both sides. A peach orchard was planted with rows parallel to the lane, which made changing the lane difficult. 484 W. I. Myers /o. 03. 9,93, I ' • • ' 9 % \ • • • • o,zn* 00 o o/_ 5 ,7 3, o 0000000 o b o o o o o o o^-3»/ 3' o 00000 00 A/- 5.7 a. 5,63. O- //. /3. /o,7a. Fig. 128. farm plan showing a poorly laid out lane Till' hiiie was run from the building.s to the pasture at the back end of the farm, diagonal to the farm liouudaries. A peach orchard was later planted, with its rows parallel to the lane, making it difficult to clriiicf the lane. The diagonal course of this lane necessitated short rows and was the cause of much wasted lal.or An Economic Study of Farm Layout 485 This lack of foresight has aheady cost a considerable amount in farm- ing unnecessary short rows. On some farms with Httle stock, lanes are unnecessarily wide and thus waste valuable crop land. The plan of a western New York farm is lA'OOiJS At^O PASTuaC- 7 5 3 I ki Fig. 129. plan of a western new tork fruit farm showing an unnecessary wide lane which occu- pies 1.2 acres of tillable land between fields F AND G shown in figure 129. The lane between fields F and G is between 3 and 4 rods wide and occupies 1.2 acres of crop land worth $125 an acre. This lane leads to a pasture in a creek bottom, used for pasturing colts and heifers. It is too distant from the barns to be used for pasturing other stock. Two cows are kept for home use. A lane leads from the barns 486 W. I. Myers to the pasture used by the cows and the horses. A way in which the same farm could be rearranged with an unfenced driveway replacing the former wide lane is shown in figure 130. The wide lane is not needed for pasture. For the type of farming followed, there is ample pasture C^O^ LA^C> Fig. 130. plan illustrating how the unneces- sary LANE shown in FIGURE 129 COULD BE ELIM- INATED, SAVING AN ACRE OF GOOD LAND AND THE UPKEEP OF 150 RODS OF FENCE land which can hv used for nothing else. The ehmination of this lane would add about an acre of good land to the croj^ area and save the upkeep of 150 rods of fence. The saving would amount to about S15 or $20 a year. Even if the advantages of a lane in this case were sufficient to pay the cost of fence upkeep, the lane is too wide for the amount of stock An Economic Study of Farm Layout 487 kept. A lane of half this width would give ample room and save one-half of the land in the present lane. (3n a few farms having no permanent pasture, the lane is made wide enough to pasture the family cow until she can be turned out in the meadows, after haying. CROP LAND Crop land is the highest grade of farm land. The area adapted to crop production is relatively more limited than the area adapted to pasture and forestry. Crop land produces a greater net value of product to the acre than do other farm lands, and is therefore more valuable. For these reasons, all the land that can be economically worked under conditions existing at a given time is usually cropped at that time. Changing agricultural conditions affect both the amount and the quality of crop land. The change from hand labor to machine methods of production has reduced considerable areas of land in New York from crop land to pasture, since land that was not adapted to the use of machinery could no longer be economically cultivated. The opening-up of the rich lands of the Middle West had a similar effect in reducing crop land to pasture. There is a large amount of farm land in New York State which is adapted for use only as pastiu'c. If, therefore, land that can be economi- cally cropped is used as pasture land, it loses its advantage and competes directly with cheap land wliich is good only for pasture. For tliis reason, usually little stock is kept unless part of the land is suited only for pasture, and practicall}^ all of the land adapted to economic crop production is used for crops. To be suitable for crop growing, land must be not only adapted to cultivation by machinery but also reasonably fertile. Not all the land suitable for crop growing can be cultivated economically, however. Some of it may be so far from the buildings, or in such small, irregular fields, that farming it does not pay. A large part of the tillalole land now in permanent pasture is too far away to be worked to advantage by its present owners. Such land is frequently convenient to the farmstead of an adjoining farmer. Readjustments in ownership which would permit each farmer to work the land most convenient to his farmstead would increase the area of crop land as well as increase the efficiency of labor. The utilization of land in cropped fields on the farms studied is shown in table 23 : 488 W. I. Myers TABLE 23. Land in Cropped Fields on 53 New York Farms Amount of land in cropped fields Land in cropped fields not producing a crop Fence rows Swampy land Streams Open ditches Driveways in crop fields Rough or steep laud Land shaded by woodlots Trees in fields Stone outcrops Barns in fields Stone piles Total crop land not producing a croj). Land in cropped fields producing a crop: Crops other than fruit: Not rotated : Permanent meadow Gardens, etc Total not rotated Rotated : General crops Truck crops Crop land sometimes pastured Total rotated Total crops other than fruit Fruit: Home and tenant orchards Commercial fruit: Bearing Not bearing Total commercial Total fruit Total area of all crops Total area of farms Total number of acres G, 076. 86 Number of acres per farm 114.66 Per cent of total farm area 66.12 Per cent of total area of cropped fields 100 00 102. 2S 30 34 24 4C> 12 66 11.43 11.27 6.68 5.25 2.17 2.15 1.42 210.11 1.93 57 46 24 0.22 21 0.13 0.10 0.04 04 0.03 3.96 1.11 0.33 27 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.06 02 02 0.02 2 29 1.68 0.50 40 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.11 09 04 04 0.02 3.46 106.07 28.70 2.00 0.54 1.^.77 4,417.06 88 . 38 645.85 2.54 83.34 1.67 12.19 1.15 0.31 1.47 48.06 9() 7.03 5,151.29 5,286.06 97.19 99.74 56.05 57.51 44.76 351.55 184.38 0.84 6.63 3.48 0.49 3.82 2.01 535.93 10 11 580.69 10.96 5.83 6.32 1.75 0.47 2.22 72 69 1 45 10.63 84.77 86.99 0.74 5.79 3.03 8.82 9.56 5,866 75 9,191 06 110.69 173 42 63.83 100 00 96.54 An Economic Study of Farm Layout 489 The proportion of land occupied by obstructions in fields devoted to crops other than fruit, on farms of different sizes, is shown in table 24. With fruit crops very little land is made untillable by fences, open ditches, streams, or other causes, and the inclusion of land devoted to fruit would TABLE 24. Relation of Size of Farms to Proportion of Area of Cropped Fields Occupied by Obstructions Size of fMrrn.'^ Less than 100 acres 100-174.9 acres 17-") acres or more All farms Per cent of area of cropped fields occupied by obstructions i< ence rows Swampy land Streams Open ditches Driveways in crop fields Rough or steep land Land shaded by woodlots Trees in fields Stone outcrops Barns in fields Stone piles Total land in cropped fields occupied by obstructions (not producing a crop). . . . Land in cropped fields producing a crop . . 2.42 0.87 0.(33 0.20 0.49 0.43 0.18 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.02 5.48 94.52 1.78 0.92 0.3S 38 23 0.28 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 4.18 95.82 1.79 0.31 45 0.16 13 0.08 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.02 3 25 96 . 75 1 84 0.55 44 23 20 17 13 10 03 04 03 3 76 96 24 tend to obscure the effect of any factor on the proportion of crop land made untillable by these agents. The most important reason for the bet- ter utihzation of crop land on the larger farms is that a smaller propor- tion of the crop area is occupied by fences. The larger fields of the large farms require less fence to the acre, and therefore less land is occupied by fence rows. PASTURE LAND Pasture land is intermediate in grade between crop land and woodland. In some parts of the State there are considerable areas of land wliich cannot be economically tilled but on which bluegrass or other pasture plants thrive. Tliis land may be either too wet, too dry, too steep, too 490 W. I. Myers stony, too distant, or of too heavy soil for economic crop production, or it may \x) bottom land subject to overflow. Such areas can generally be used best as ix^rmanent pasture. If the land is not suitable for pasture it should be put into a woodlot. In other parts of the State nearly all of the land is tillable and cr.n be farmed satisfactorily. Even in such regions there is some broken la:id along streams which can best be utilized as permanent pasture, but most of the tillable land is cropped. A few exceptional regions may be found where good tillable land is kept in pasture a large pai't of tlie time because it is peculiarly adapted to that pur})ose. (Jut side of these favored regions there is a tendency to keep Httle stock unless part of the land is suited only for pasture. In regions where practically all of the farm land is tillable, the farmers who keep stock often rotate pastures since l)y this practice more stock can be kept on a given area. Rotated pastures are usually better on light soils or with other conditions under which blue- grass tloes not thrive. The classification of jxisture k;nd on the fa,i-ms studied i; shown in tal)le 25. Pasture Ij.ud classified as " Tillal)l(' " includes all land ready for cultivation which is as good as the land now in crops. The amount under " Could be made till >J)le " includes land which at reasonable expense could 1);' m:id:' as good 1ill:'J)le land as that now under cultivation. In the case of " Woods ])astured," it would of course be necessary to clear the land of trees. Of the fifty-three farms here inchukxl, only three h^d no pasture land. All of these are located in western New York and ke})t little stock. Of the fifty farms having pasture, forty-five depended primarily on permanent pasture while five dej^nKled principally on rotated pasture. Nine of the forty-five fai-ms depending primarily on permanent pasture supplemented this by some rotated jxisture. .Ml excej^t one of these nine farms were intensive dairy farms. They had an average of 22.8 acres of rotated pasture, 92.3 acres of permanent pasture, and oO.o cattle units, to each farm. Of the five farms depending primarily on rotated pasture, only two had more th;ui six cows. They liad an average of 18.1 acres of rotated pasture and 2.9 acres of permanent pasture to each farm. The total pasture area occupied aliout 30 per cent of the area of these fifty-three farms, or ')l.[) acres per farm. The 881.49 acres of woodland pasture was estimatetl l^y these farmers to fui'nish feed equivalent to An Economic Study of Farm Layout 491 TABLE 25. Cla-;-ification of Pasture Land on Fifty-thrse New York Farms • Total number of acres Number of acres per farm Per cent of total farm area Per cent of total pasture area Permanent pasture: Cleared : Tillable: Lanes . . 17.46 200. 4G 0.33 3.78 0.19 2.18 63 Other land 7 29 Total tillable 217.92 G.20 840.31 4.11 0.12 15.85 2.37 0.07 9.14 7 92 Could be made tillable: Lanes 23 Other land 30 54 Total which could be made till:',bl ■ Not tillable 846.51 542.37 15.97 10.23 9.21 5.90 30. 76 19 71 Total cleared 1,606.80 30.32 17.48 58 39 Woods pastured: Tillable if cleared 395.79 89.83 395.87 7.47 1.69 7.47 4.31 0.98 4.31 14 38 Could be made tillable 3 26 Not tillable 14 39 Total woods pnsiured 881.49 16.63 9 . 59 32.04 Area of cleared pasture to which woods pastured is equivalent 176.44 3.33 Total permanent pasture 2,488.29 46.95 27 07 90.43 Crop land temporarily pastured 233.33 4.97 2.87 9 57 Total pasture area 2.751.62 51.92 29.94 100.00 Area of cleared pasture to which totsA pasture is equivalent 2,046.57 38.61 22.27 74 . 38 Total farm area 9,191.06 173.42 100.00 176.44 acres of cleared pasture. The 51.9 acres of all pasture per farm was thus equivalent to 38.6 aci'es of cleared pasture, or 2.3 acres of cleared pasture for each cattle unit on these farms. Permanent pasture made up 90 per cent of the total pasture area. About two-thirds of the area 492 W. I. Myers of the permanent pasture was cleared, l)ut since it took al^out 5 acres of woods pasture to furnish as much feed as 1 acre of cleared pasture, the latter furnished about 90 per cent of the feed. Only a small part, one-seventh, of the cleared permanent pasture was then tillable, but more could be made tillable at reasonable expense. If conditions war- ranted, about two-thirds of the cleared permanent pasture land on these farms could be used for producing crops. In general the selection of the pasture land on these farms followed the principles already discussed. The greater part of the pasture land was not adapted to crop production. In some cases this untillable pasture was supplemented by small areas of rotated pasture, consisting usually of the remoter crop fields. In general, the farms that had little or no untillable land kept little stock. The location of the pastures on most farms is determined by the char- acter of the land. Land that is not suited to crop production is used for pasture, whatever its location. Where the land of a farm is uniform and choice is possible, it is usually best to pasture the land that is remotest from the buildings. Long experience has proved that this plan is usually the best. The moi-e conveniently located fields are worth more for cultivation, and labor is saved l)y jiasturing the fields which cannot be farmed as advantageously. Distance from Iniildings is less important with pasture than witli crop land, for where llie barns and the pasture are connected l)y a lane the stock do most of the traveling. It is very advantageous, however, to have a night pasture convenient to the build- ings. Altho this need not be as large as the day pasture, it should be large enough to furnish some feed. Aside from interest and taxes, the principal cost in the upkeep of pastures is the cost of maintaining fences. Since the amount of fence to the acre is affected by both the size and the shape of the field, these factors are of some importance. The relation of the size of the field to the cost of fence maintenance is shown in table 26. Assuming that the costs of maintaining all pasture fence are chargeable to the pastures, at cents a rod the cost of maintaining the fences around the 2-acre j:)astures in table 2(3 would be $2.45 an acre. This is as much as the usual rent of land worth $40 an acre. A consideral)le proportion of pasture land is worth only $20 or .$25 an acre. Because of this, in regions where land is cheap small patches are often seen lying idle. On the basis of the An Economic Study of Farm Layout 493 TABLE 26. Relation of Size of Pastures to Economy of Fencing Size of pasture fields (acres) Number of fields Average size of fields (acres) Rods of fence to the acre Annual cost of fence maintenance per acre at 6 cents a rod Less than 4 29 25 12 12 12 17 13 2.07 5.75 9.75 14.02 19.72 36.03 84.46 40.8 25.2 19.0 19.2 13.6 10.6 6.4 $2.45 4-7.9 1.51 8-1L9 1.14 12-15.9 1.15 16-23.9 0.82 24-49.9 0.64 50 or more 38 Total ... 120 '26!36 ""ii!8 Average $0.71 difference in cost of maintaining fences, the 84-acre pastures would be worth about $35 an acre more than the 2-acre pastures, since it costs $2.07 an acre less each year to keep the large pastures fenced. For these reasons, land that is to be pastured should be arranged in as large fields as possible. Usually part of the pasture fence is line fence, half of which is maintained by neighbors, and part may serve other purposes. An ideal pasture would be square, but the utilization of the different grades of farm land for the purposes to which each grade is best adapted is far more important than shaj^e of the pasture. This factor, not economy of fencing, usually determines the shape of pasture fields. WOODLAND Woodland is the lowest grade of farm land. There are large areas in the country which are too steep or too remote, or on which the soil is too rocky or too poor, to produce economically any other crop than woods. To utilize land that is suitable for higher uses as woodland, is to put it in direct competition with the large areas which are suited only to timber production and on which timber can be produced at much lower cost. For these reasons farm woodlots should be located on land that is too rough, too steep, too poor, or too remote to be used economically for crop production or for pasture. 494 W. I. Myers Much of the farm land of the State was originally cleared without due reference to topography or to the character of the soil. As a result many woodlots occupy level, rich, tillable land, while poor, barren hillsides, too steep for crops or even for good pasture, \veYe cleared. In order to correct these mistakes in clearing, some readjustments were necessary. It did not take many years of experience to determine that some land had been cleared l)v mistake. Part of this Lind has already gone back into forest. More shoidd go. On the other hand, the increasing scarcity of good lantl as reflected in higher prices has stimulated the clearing of some of the woodlots on the highest-priced land. As time goes on, this process may be expected to continue. The proportion of woodland on the farms studied, and the purposes to which it is adapted, in the opinion of the writer, are shown in table 27. The woodland classed as '' Tillal)k' if cleared " would be approximately as good land as that now under cultivation. Woodland classed as ''Could be made tillable " includes land which, after clearing, could be made tillable at reasonable expense either ))y drainage, by clearing of stone, or by other means. Woodland not tillable is divided into two classes, that which would make good pasture after clearing and that which is suited oidy for woodland. Of the fifty-three farms includetl in this study, forty-three, or about four-fifths of the total, had woodlots. A larger proportion of the large farms had woodland. Of thirteen farms containing less than 100 acres, eight had woodlots; wliile of twenty containing more than 175 acres, all except one had some woodland. The average area of woodland per farm was 21.() acres, or about 12 p(>r cent of the farm area. The proportion of the farm area in woodland is less on the smaller farms tlian on the larger farms. On the smaller fainis land is g(>nci'a,lly too scarce to be used for forestr,y jourposes. About half of the woodland on these farms, if cleared, would make as good tillable land as that now under cultivation, without additional expense. In addition to this, about one-seventh of the area of woodland could be made tillable at reasonalile expense, after clearing. Most of the remaining woodland would make good pasture land if cleai-ed. About 10 ppr cent of the total area of wootUand on these farms is suited only for timber production. An Economic Study of Farm Layout TABLE 27. Classification of Woodland on Fifty-three New York Farms 495 Total number of acres Number of acres per farm Per cent of total farm area Per cent of total woodland area Woodland pastured: Tillable if cleared 395.79 89.83 297.09 98. 7S 7.47 1.69 5.61 1.86 4.31 0.98 3.23 1.07 34 64 Could be made tillable 7 86 Not tillable: Suitable for pasture 26 00 Suitable only for woodland 8 65 Total not tillable 395.87 7.47 4.31 34 65 Total woodland pastured 881.49 16.63 9.59 77 15 Woodland not pastured: Tillable if cleared 151.89 r>4.33 22.30 22.58 2.87 1.21 0.42 0.43 1.65 0.70 0.24 0.25 13 2!) Could be made tillable 5 63 Not tillable: Suitable for pasture Suitable only for woodland 1 95 1 98 Total not tillable 44.88 0.85 0.49 3 93 Total woodland not pastured 2(U . 10 4.93 2.84 22.85 All woodland: Tillable if cleared 547.68 154.16 319.39 121.36 10.33 2.91 6.03 2 '^9 5.96 1.6S 3.48 1.32 47 93 Could be made tillable Not tillable: Suitable for pasture 13.49 27 95 Suitable onlj' for woodland 10 62 Total not tillable 440.75 8.32 4.80 38 57 Total woodland area 1,142.59 21.56 12.43 100 00 Total farm area 9,191.06 173.42 100.00 It should not be inferred from this that all of the woodland suited to crops or pasture should be cleared at once. Some of it should never be cleared. In deciding whether to cut or to leave a woodlot, the most important considerations are the value of the land for other purposes, and the kind of timber in the woodlot. Where land is moderately high in price it will seldom pay to leave good level tillable land in woods. ITsually it will be best to cut the timber and gradually clear such land. It seldom 496 W. I. Myers pays to reforest land woi'th more than $10 an acre, but it may pay to leave a growing stand of valuable timber until maturity on land worth more. Practically all of the farm land in New York State which will make good crop or pasture land is too valuable to be used for commercial timber production. Farm woodlots are often justified on land that is too valuable for commercial forestry purposes. In producing fence posts, firewood, and lumber for home use, a farmer is saving himself the retail prices of these products. In selling lumber he must sell on a wholesale market. The saving between the retail and the wholesale prices of these products, and the saving in ha.uling both ways, will pay the interest on higher-priced land. A few woodlots have value as windbreaks. While less important in New York State than on the western plains, a windbreak is very desirable for buildings located in an exposed position. This consideration is negligibU^ on most farms, however, as the woodlots are not usually located so as to be of any use for this purpose. On the other hand, woodlots frequently injure adjacent crop land ])y their shade or by keeping the land too wet. The width of the strip of land wasted because of proximity to woodlots varies from 1 to 4 rods. On the farms included in this study, al:)out 7 a.eres of crop land in fields adjacent to woodlots was thus wasted. This iiicica,ses somewhat the expense of maintaining woodlots. Most fai-ms have more woodland than is needed for home u-se, and much of tliis woodland has little or no valuable timber. Where such land is suited to ci-ops or pasture, it will usually pay to cut the timber in order that the land may be used for the purpose which pays best. Pasture is a more valuable crop than timber, and the returns from pasture are not so long deferred. On these farms an average of 11.8 rods of fence was required to inclose an acre of pasture (tal)le 2(), page 493), and the annual cost of fence maintenance, at 6 cents a rod, would therefore be 71 cents an acre. If 2 acres of pasture will support a cow for the pasture season, and if the value of her pasture is $10, the returns from an acre will pay for fence maintenance, taxes, and interest at 6 per cent on a value of al)out $60 an acre. On the same basis, if 3 acres of pasture are needed to support a cow, the land is wortli about $37 an acre as pasture; if 4 acres are needed for each cow, the land is worth $25 an acre; and if 5 acres are needed for An Economic Study of Farm Layout 497 each cow, the land is worth $18 an acre. If more than 5 acres are needed to support a cow, it may be worth while to consider the possibilities of the land if it is allowed to remain in forest. After the owner has decided to clear a woodlot, the question arises as to whether it should be cleared at once or pastured until the stumps rot. In deciding tliis point, it is necessary to consider how great is the need for the land, how good pasture it will make, the cost of clearing, and how near the land is to the buildings. (3ften, if land is needed at once, cleared land can be bought more cheaply than woodland can be cleared. Clearing land at once puts today's high-priced labor in competition with the cheaper labor of the past, when most of the land was cleared. Usually pasture land is needed, and such cut-over land can be pastured to good advantage until the stumps rot. This usually requires from ten to twenty years and then the land can be cleared cheaply. About four-fifths of the woodland on the farms studied was pastured. Most of the woodland which was not pastured was either not convenient for pasturing or not worth pasturing. Undoubtedly pasturing injures woodlots to some extent. Where land is worth $20 or more an acre as pasture, the more important question is as to whether woods should be allowed in the pasture. Five acres of woodland pasture was considered equivalent to one acre of cleared pasture on these farms. It is well to have some trees in a pasture, to provide shade. Pasture in open woods is often as good as cleared pasture. It may be possible to produce wood and posts for home use by this arrangement without serious injury to the pasture. The plan of a western New York farm is shown in figure 131. The location of the woodlot V, on level, tillable land near the buildings, is typical of many farms. Such laud is too valuable for forestry purposes. Cleared tillable land in this region is worth $100 or more an acre. While this large area of level, tillable land has been left in woods, many fields far from the buildings have been cropped. Field R, which has been cropped regularly, is 188 rods farther from the buildings than woodlot V. For general farm purposes, with 1918 labor prices, field V would be worth from $30 to .$35 an acre more than field R, on the basis of location alone. It is also better land. Field R is but a few rods from a neighbor's barn, but it is 234 rods away, uphill, from the barn of the man who farms it. 498 W. I. Myers A.N Economic Study of Farm Layout 499 The plan of another western New York farm having a woodlot located on good tillable land is shown in figure 132. On this farm the wood- land is being gradually cleared for cultivation as opportunity offers. In this case the land is being cleared at once, without waiting for the stumps to rot. During 1916 and 1917 about two acres of land on the north and east sides of the woodlot were added to the cultivated area. In a few years the entire woodlot will be cleared and under cultivation. Crop land here is worth $125 an acre. These readjustments in the utili- zation of woodland will not come in a day. In addition to the owner of the farm shown in figure 132, four other farmers out of the forty- three having woodlot s have definitely planned to clear them for cultivation. On some of these farms the timber has already been cut. On most of them the stump lots will be pastured for a term of years before final clearing. The farmers having high-priced land are naturally the first ones to begin clearing woodland. The present high price for firewood is enabling some farmers to make wages cutting wood- land which has no valuable timber, and so is stimulating the process. As population increases and the conse- quent scarcity of land relative to popu- lation is reflected in higher land i)rices, the area of crop land in New York will be considerably increased in this way. Fig. 132. another uneconomic wood- lot OCCUPYING TILLABLE LAND TOO VALUABLE FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION This woodlot is being gradually cleared for cultivation, the work being done in slack periods. Nearly all of this farm south of the road was originally swampy pasture. It was reclaimed for cultivation by a complete .system of tile drains. ( )nly valuable crop land would be worth reclaiming at such expense. Small fields are nec- essary on this farm as the land is largely devoted to truck crops Farm area, 10S.4 acres Average size of farmed fields, 4 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 52 rods 500 W. I. Myers ^ / L... PUBLIC HIGHWAYS In most parts of New York State the owner of a farm holds title to the land in the adjacent highway, the only right of the public to the latter being the right to its free and uninterrupted use for highway purposes. The area of a farm as given in the deed therefore usually includes the area of all roads running thru the farm and one-half the area of roads bounding the farm. While land in highwa.ys is techni- cally owned by the owners of adjacent farms, little of this land is used for producing crops and so it adds nothing directly to the farm income. However, the importance of good roads is so great in eco- nomic farm operation that the land necessarily occupied by good, well-planned roads is one of the most valuable assets of a farm. In that part of the State which was settled last, much of the land was laid out in squares, with straight roads in so far as topography per- mitted. Since this section is relatively level, the highways as a rule are straight. In the eastern and southeastern parts of the State, which were settled first, the roads were not planned, but developed, like the farm layoilts, largely by chance. In general the roads tend to follow the topography of the land, avoiding the steepest grades. Even where there are no grades to avoid, many of the highways are crooked (rtg. 133). The most serious effect of these crooked roads on farm Fig. 133. plan of a southern new york farm The crooked hiRhways which cross this farm not only occupy much hind but also cause the irregular shape of several of the fields. The area of the right of way of the highway is 5.1 per cent of the farm area. Part of the roadside is cropped, the area of the highway not in crops being 3.7 per cent of the farm area Farm area, 72.7 acres Average size of farmed fields, 0.5 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 35 rods An Economic Study of Farm Layout 501 layout is that they divide many farms into irregularly shaped parts which are inconvenient to work and difficult to fence. The amount of land in highways on the farms studied is shown in table 28. The average area of highways per farm was 3.13 acres, or 1.8 per cent of the total farm area. Apparently size of farm has Httle effect on the proportion of the area in highways. On farms of less than 100 acres TABLE 28. Land in Highways on Fifty-three New York Farms Total number of acres Number of acres per farm Per cent of total farm area Per cent of area of legal right of way of highways Land in highways not cropped 144.75 2.73 1.57 87.19 Land in highways cropped: General crops 16.57 4.69 0.31 0.09 0.18 0.05 9 98 Apple trees 2 83 Total land in highways cropped 21.26 0.40 0.23 12 81 Total land in highways 166,01 3.13 1.81 100 00 Total farm area 9,191.06 173.42 100.00 the proportion of the farm area in legal right of way of highways was 1.8 per cent, on farms between 100 and 175 acres in size it was 2.1 per cent, and on farms of more than 175 acres it was 1.7 per cent. There was considerable variation for the different farms, the proportions varying from 0.4 to 5.1 per cent. In the purchase of a farm the proportion of the area occupied by roads is of some importance, as every acre so used reduces by that amount the productive area of the farm. About one-eighth of the total area of highways on these farms was producing crops. In a few cases apple trees were planted along the highway, thus utilizing land that would otherwise have produced only weeds. The principal disadvantages of this way of utilizing roadsides is the inconvenience of spraying and taking care of a single row of trees. Further, while the fruit as well as the land belongs to the farmer as much as does any crop on his farm, he will probably harvest a smaller proportion 502 W. I. Myers of it because of its convenience to travelers. The greater part of the area of the roadside cropped on these farms was in general crops. On some farms road fences were not maintained and the fields were tilled to the road ditch, all the land not actually occupied by the road being thus utilized. The usual width of a country highway in New York is 3 rods, but occasional highways are 4 or even 5 rods wide. The public has the right to free and uninterrupted use for highway purposes of such a proportion Fig. \'M. a stone row which renders iseeess an acre of land worth SlOO By clearing away these ^^tones a strip of Innd L' rods widi' eould l)e added to tlie adjoining field of this land as is necessary for the traffic. The actual width of a well- graded dirt road is very seldom more than H rods, while the width of macadam roads is usually less than 2 rods. The traveled area of many countiy roads is less than 1 rod in width. Where the roads are fenced, the balance of the right of way is usually covered with grass, weeds, and brush. The state highway law requires each property owner to mow his roadsides twice each year. They are usually mowed once, but the hay obtained is dusty and of very poor ciuality. Most farmers would be ghid if some one would mow their roadsides for the hay. In other words, the I'oadsides of most farms are worse than merely useless, since constant expense is necessary to keep the weeds down. Road fences are An Economic Study of Farm Layout 503 no longer obligatory in New York, as stock running loose on the highway is regarded as trespassing. Consequently, where road fences are unnec- essary, their removal would result in a twofold saving. Not only would a considerable area be added to the crop land, but the labor of mowing roadsides would be saved (figs. 134 and 135). Such a change would not interfere in an}- way with the usefulness of the i-oads as highways and would improve the appearance of the roadsides. Certainly a road Fig. 135. where road fences are unnecessary their removal permits farming to the road ditch This road occupies less than a rod of land bordered by well-cared-for crops presents a far more attractive appearance than one bordered by brush and weeds. On these farms about 21 acres have already been added to the crop area by reclaiming useless roadsides. By eliminating unnecessary road fences about 30 acres more could be added to the land in crops. The width of the strip of land gained depends on the width of the road and the topography of the land. Where the road is of ordinary width and is not bordered by steep banks, a strip of land fi'om I to 1 rod wide can usually be added to the crop land on each side. 504 W. I. Myers The question of fencing roadsides depends primarily on the stock kept on the farm. It is of course necessary to fence pastures bordering on the road, and where much stock is kept it is frequently profitable to fence some crop fields in order to pasture the aftermath. In New York it seldom j)ays to fence against stock driven along the road. The average length of roadside on these farms was 324 rods, 62 per cent of which was fenced. The proportion of roadside fenced varied for all the farms, from 52 per cent on the farms of less than 100 acres, to 72 per cent on farms of more than 240 acres. Many road fences are barriers only to cultivation, being of no use whatever in turning stray stock. Where such useless or unnecessary fences can be removed at a reasonable cost, the double saving of land and labor will usually justify the expense. THE FARMSTEAD The farmstead, as the term is here used, is that part of the farm which is occupied by the main group of farm buildings, together with any adjoining yards or paddocks, the home orchards, and the home garden. A part of the area of every farm must be devoted to these purposes, the size of the necessary area depending on the size of the farm, the type of farming, and other factors. Aside from the orchard, the garden, and the paddoclcs, every acre devoted to use as farmstead reduces by that amount the productive area of the farm. Land necessarily occupied by well-planned buildings is usefully employed and adds to the value of the farm. Since the farmstead usually occupies the best tillable land, it is essential that it be well planned in order to make the best use of land as well as of labor. The location of the farmstead with reference to fields has already been discussed. The ideal location for a fai-mstead is on a public road in the centei' of the crop area. With farms of small or moderate size it is best to locate the farmstead as near the center of the crop land as it can be placed and still he on the road. With very large farms the importance of saving labor in travel to and from fields is so great that it is best to locate the farmstead at the center of the farm. While it is advantageous to have reasonably close neighbors, it is not usually preferable to have them directly across the road. The neighbor's children, dogs, and chickens will give less trouble if the houses are some An Economic Study of Farm Layout 505 distance apart. It is a distinct advantage to own and control both sides of the road. The ideal location for a farmstead is on a slight elevation, sufficient to give good drainage but not enough to make hauling difficult. Altho less important in New York than in the West, it is advisable to have the farmstead sheltered from strong prevailing winds by a windbreak. Frequently the buildings of a farmstead are on both sides of the road, the house being on one side and the barns on the other. This arrangement is usually bad. There is great danger of injury to persons and stock by automobiles running between the house and the barn. The barns and the necessary implements near by do not make an attractive view either from the front windows of the house or from the road. The house should be located far enough from the road to escape the dust but not far enough to make too large a lawn. The distance from the house to the edge of the road on the farms studied varied from 30 to 160 feet, averaging about 65 feet. Where the distance was greater than 100 feet the lawns were not usually well kept. The best location for the barn is at a convenient distance behind the house. With such an arrangement the piles of lumber and the necessary tools can be kept out of sight from the road, and this location is preferable from every point of view. The utilization of the land in farmsteads on the farms included in this study is shown in table 29. The average size of the garden area included in the farmsteads of these farms was about one-third of an acre to each farm. Three farms had gardens in crop fields which were not included in the table. Including these, the area of garden to each farm was about 0.4 acre. Forty-seven out of fifty-three farms had gardens large enough to be recognized as such. Of the six farms having no garden, three were truck farms and hence needed none. In addition to the definite garden area, most farmers grew potatoes in the crop fields for home use. The farm garden should be one of the most profitable enterprises on a farm. By proper arrangement, little more time is required to take care of the garden than to take care of a similar area in potatoes or corn. Since garden work conflicts with work on crops, the garden should be arranged to save labor. It should be located near the house for convenience in working. The area necessary depends on the size of the family. In this study, on the farms where the family consisted of the equivalent of three adults the average size of garden was 0.3 acre; on those where oOG W. I. Myers the family consisted of the equivalent of more than three but less than five adults, the average size of garden was 0.4 acre; and on those where the family consisted of the equivalent of five or more adults, the average size of garden was 0.6 acre. This is an average of about 0.1 acre of garden to each adult person or equivalent. TABLE 29. Land in Farmsteads on Fifty-three New York Farms - Total number of acres Number of acres per farm Per cent of total farm area Per cent of total farmstead area Farmstead crops: Home garden: 1.5.98 2.35 0.30 0.04 0.17 9.80 18.. 33 40.54 2.90 0.35 0.76 0.05 0.44 0.03 Home orchard: Apple 24.87 Mixed fruit 1.78 Total home orchard 43.44 2.63 12.09 17.10 0.82 0.05 0.24 0.32 0.47 0.03 0.14 26.65 Other farmstead crops . . 1.61 Pasture : Paddock 7.78 Pasture in orchard Total farmstead pasture 29.85 . 56 Land occupied by buildings, lawns, barn- yards, drives, etc 88 . 28 1.67 0.96 54.15 Total farmstead area (less double cropping) 163.02 3.08 1.77 100.00 Total farm area 9,191.06 173.42 100.00 The average size of home orchards was about 0.8 acre to each farm. Thirty-two farms out of the fifty-three had separate home orchards. Of the twenty-one farms not having home orchards, nineteen had commercial orchards from which fruit for home use was obtained, and the other two were in regions where apples do not thrive. The average area of home orchards for the farms having such orchards was 1.36 acres. More than An Economic Study of Farm Layout 507 90 per cent of the area of home orchards was in apples, the remainder being devoted to mixed fruits. The average area in paddocks for all farms was 0.24 acre. Only eleven farms out of the fifty-three had such farmstead pastures, and the average area of paddocks for these farms was 1.15 acres. Barnyards which afforded no pasture were not included in this classification, but were considered as land occupied by buildings and yards. In lieu of other paddocks, eight farms used the home orchards for this purpose, this being an average of about 2.15 acres for these farms, or 0.32 acre for all the fifty-three farms. All the farms pasturing orchards were located in regions where apples are a very uncertain crop. By pasturing such orchards some return is secured every year, and occasionally some apples are obtained in addition. Where hogs or cattle are kept it is advantageous to have small paddocks or pastures close to the buildings. These may be used for calf, hog, bull, or horse pastures, as the case may require. If land is not too limited, the saving in labor effected by the use of such pastures will often amount to good rental for the land so used. The area of land occupied by buildings and yards averaged 1.67 acres to each farm (table 30). This included the lawns and barnyards as well as the actual building sites. The lawns on these farms ranged from nothing up to about one-half acre. A few farmers had their gardens in their front yards. Lawns more than half an acre in size are seldom found on the farms of men who make their living from the soil. Far more important than the waste of good land is the fact that a large area of land occupied by buildings usually indicates scattered buildings and a resulting waste of labor in doing work. The plan of a farmstead with scattered buildings, requiring nuich unnecessary travel, is shown in figure 136. Several hundred miles of walking would be saved every year with well-arranged, concentrated buildings. Altho fire risk is somewhat greater, fire insurance is cheaper than wasted labor and materials in scattered, inconvenient buildings. The barns must be at least 100 feet from the house if the lowest insurance rates are to be obtained. This is usually far enough so that unpleasant barn odors may be avoided, and any increase in distance beyond this sacrifices some labor. On the farms studied, the average distance from the house to the nearest door of the horse barn was about 130 feet and to the nearest door of the cow barn about 200 feet. 508 W. I INIyers TARLK aO. Uel-vtion of Size of F.vkms; to Area and PRoroRTiox of Land in F.UiMSTEAD ."^izo of farms \!ioros) Loss than UHl UX> to 174.0 17.". or nioro .\11 farni.-i than UH> 100 to 174.0 17.". or more All farms .\oros p or farm I 'or oont o farm aro I Fiirmstcad oiops: Homo sarxlon: Soparato i;arvloi\ Oanion in orohan.1 . . . 0.-21 . 0:^ O.3.". 0.0'. 0.31 0.02 0.30 0.0,". 0.28 0.27 0.11 0.17 Total homo snuxlon. Homo oroharvl: App'.- O.l'it 0.-^7 O.U 0.40 . Ot'. O.Oii 0.33 1 . 20 0.01 0.3."> . 70 0,00 0.,3(; 0.14 0..".2 O.O.". 0.42 O.Ml 0.44 0.03 Total homo orohanl Othor fariustoail cro(v<. . . Pa^turo: PavUook. Pastiirt> in orohar\l. o.;4S 0.07 0.18 0.72 0.02 0.11 0.2S 1.21 0.07 0.41 . .".S 0.82 0.0,-. 0.24 0.32 O.otl 0.00 0.24 0.7.7 0.02 O.OS 0.43 0.02 O.Io 0.47 0.03 0.14 Total farmstoad pas- O.lS 0.30 . i^O 56 Land ocoupioxl by buiKiiiiiKi. lawns, etc l..">-^ 1.41 2.02 1.07 1.00 l.U 0.71 0«00 Total farmstoad (.loss doublo oroppititfl :^.3t> 2.1U 4.02 3.08 3 . 10 2.0.i 1.42 1.78 Total farm arva 7t> . -2 127.30 282. t>o 173.42 lOO.lX) uxvw 100.00 UX1.lX> The averasi'o size of the fannstoads on these farms \v:i^ 3. OS acres each, or 1.7S per oont i^t the total farm area. A Uttle less than one-half — 46 ivr eent — of the total area of the farmsteads was producing some crop, either as garden, orchard, paddock, or otherwise. The location and the arrangement of nuv^t farmsteads are fixed. Since in many cases farmsteads have developtni without a definite plan, many of them are not well adapted to present conditicMis. In spite of tliis. it seldom pays to make revolutionary changes Ivcaiise of the expense invohed. In some cases when farms are combined, the location and the arrangement of the farmstead are so bad that it would pay to plan a new farmstead ui a convenient location. Usually, however, changes should be gradual. After a cai-eftil study of the farm conditions, a long- time plan for the farmstead and building development should be made. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 509 Gradually, as conditions may justify, changes may be made in accordance with this plan, so that in a reasonable length of time a farmstead will be developed wjiich is well planned and is adapted to existing conditions. ORCMARO AND PADDOCK 2 J a. OP£f^ATOR'S PUBLIC f?OAP !~ Fig. 136. an arrangement requiring much unnecessary travel The area of land oocupied by tho buildings of this farmstead is 2.82 acres, or \\ per cent of the farm area. More than 700 miles of walking would be saved yearly if the cow barn were 300 feet nearer the house Two well-planned farmsteads are shown in figure 137. Plan I represents the farmstead of a western New York fruit and general farm. Both the owner's house and the tenant house are near the barns, and yet the houses are far enough apart to enable two ordinary families to Uve haraioniously. Both houses are perhaps located a little too close to the road, but since this is a concrete highway there is little dust. The area occupied by build- ings is 1.22 acres, or 1 per cent of the farm area. The barns, rearranged in 1915 by the present owner, are centrahzed in order to save time in doing 510 W. I. Myers the chores. Plan II represents the fjirnistead of a western New York general farm. Here, also, labor is saved by having both the owner's house and the tenant house convenient to the barns, and the barns central- ized. The owner's house and the tenant house are separated by a part- ir PL/S^iC R-riAO Fig. 137. two well-planned farmsteads nership garden, while two orchards furnish an abundance of fruit for home use and some for sale. The area occupied by the buildings of tliis farm- stead is 1.84 acres, or 0.9 per cent of the total farmai-ea. Altho not ideal, both farmsteads are conveniently arranged and well adapted to their respective conditions. TENANT HOUSES Many of the present New York farms are combinations of two or more original farms or parts of farms. Usually each part of the present farm has separate buildings, and, since two farmsteads were unnecessary after combining, the extra house has in many cases been used as a tenant house for the hired man. In some cases inconveniently located houses have been moved to a convenient location near the main farmstead. On many farms tenant houses are still foimd in their original location, far from the main farmstead and causing the waste of much time in useless travel. From the standpoint of labor efficiency, tenant houses should be located as near the main farmstead as possible because many trips must be made daily from the hired man's house to the barns. Of course the tenant house should not be too near the barns. A distance of 100 feet is necessary to satisfy insurance regulations. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 511 In order that the two families may live in harmony, it is advisable that the tenant house be located not too close to the owner's dwelUng. Each family wishes a certain amomit of privacy in its domestic life, but with adjoining houses this is impossible. If the two houses are 20 rods apart both families will be happier and they will be better neighbors. The location of the tenant houses shown in figure 137 illustrates very satisfactory compromises of these conflicting specifications. Privacy of the two families is secured in each case without sacrifice of convenience. A striking contrast to these farms is presented by the arrangement shown in figure 136 (page 509). The tenant house on this dairy farm is located 127 rods,from the cow barn. The hired man makes three round trips daily on week days and two on Sundays, and in doing this he travels 810 miles a year between his home and the cow barn. When walking is bad across the fields, his trip is longer. If the tenant house were located 100 feet from the barn, less than 40 miles of walking in a year would be necessary. To walk the extra distance necessary with the present location, at an ordinary speed of three miles an hour, would require 257 hours, or nearly twenty- six days. At $2.25 a day the time wasted in useless travel amounts to $58 a year. This tenant house is valued at .S400. If it could be moved to a convenient location for $400, the time saved would pay about 15 per cent interest on the investment. While not all of this traveling is done during working hours, the farmer nevertheless pays for it all in lowered efficiency of the man. A hired man working hard every day does not need any such amount of additional exercise. In this particular case the hired man's wife milks twice daily, as is the custom in southeastern New York. In her two i-ound trips daily the hired man's wife walks 571 miles a year. The two thus walk 1381 miles a year between their house and the barns. Probably the wife gets no extra compensation for her additional exercise, so that it involves no direct financial outlay. It is quite certain, however, that a conveniently located tenant house would go a long way toward settling labor troubles on this farm and would prove an excellent investment for the owner. Another inconveniently located tenant house is shown in figure 138. The distance from the tenant house A to the cow-barn door is 140 rods. At present a milking machine is used on this farm, and so the hired man does not milk in the mornings. He thus makes tvm round trips daily, or 630 miles a year. At $2.50 a day the time thus spent would amount 512 W. I. Myers ' I Mouse 1 A HOUi£ ; Ai to $52.50 a year. Half of these trips come out of the operator's time directly. The other half he pays for indirectly, perhaps unconsciously. Such a walk would be recreation to a factory woi'ker or a clerk, but to a man who works hard at physical labor all day it is a part of the day's work. Probalily this tenant house would be worth .f 500 or $(500 more if it were located in the orchard near the main farmstead. The owner of this farm recently Iwught the small intervening farm, on which is locatetl tenant house B. The distance from here to the cow-barn is 56 rods less than from tenant house A. With two trips a day this location would save 252 miles of walking in a year and perhaps $21 worth of time. The owner plans to move tenant liouse A to the location indicated as tenant house A'. This location is surely sufficiently remote from the main farmstead. On the farms included in this study, the average dis- tance from tenant houses to their respective farmsteads was 72 rods. Assuming a minimum of two round trips daily, this distance means 324 miles of travel in a year. A distance of 20 rods would be nnich better. Of the fifty-three farms studied, thirty-two had one or more tenant houses, the total number of houses being forty-five. Forty-two of the L Fig. 138. plan showing improvement in location OF tenant house The hired man on this farm formerly lived in tenant house A, 140 rods distant from the main farm barns. This location necessitated a minimum of ()30 miles of walking yearly between the tenant house and the barn. In 191S the owner purchased the intervening farm and the hired man moved into tenant house B. This location is .o(3 rods nearer the barn and saves at least 250 miles of walking, or about 80 hours, in a year An Economic Study of Farm Layout 513 forty-five tenant houses had gardens, the average size of garden being 0.3 acre (table 31). In addition to a garden, eighteen of the hired men were furnished potatoes from the farm crop. The size of gardens ranged from 0.1 acre to 1.2 acres. Where hired men are given large gardens they are TABLE 31. Tenant Houses on Fifty-three New York Farms Gardens Orchards Land occupied by buildings Total area Area occupied by 45 tenant houses (acres) 13.28 1.32 19. (M 34.24 Average area occupied by each tenant house (acres) 30 0.03 0.44 0.76 not usually furnished potatoes for winter use in addition. The area of land necessary to grow the potatoes furnished to the hired men was about 4.6 acres, or an average of 0.1 acre to each tenant house. Only two of the forty-five tenant houses had separate orchards for the hired man's use. On most farms the hired man is given such fruit as the farm produces, but does not have a separate orchard. On most farms not enough attention has been paid to the location and arrangement of tenant houses. The house should, of course, be comfort- able. The garden should be ample in size, usually from half an acre to an acre. Few hired men will leave a good garden in midsummer. A little care and attention in these matters will make for more efficient work and better-satisfied hired men. In times of labor shortage these considera- tions gain added importance. RELATION OF FARM LAYOUT TO OTHER FACTORS The preceding discussions give some of the specifications for an ideal farm layout, but the layout of most farms is far from ideal. Farm lay- outs have developed, not according to a well-laid plan, but largely according to chance, and as a result they are not adapted to present conditions. 514 W. I. Myers The farm plans included in these pages illustrate, in the main, all the unde- sirable features of farm layout and few of the good features. And yet these are the plans of prosperous farms, larger, better organized, and more profitable than the average New York farm. Some of these farms never were well arranged. Others were once well arranged, but changes in their area or in agricultural conditions have made them unsuited to present conditions. Only a few of them, indeed, are even reasonably well arranged to meet present conditions. It is therefore evident that the main problem of farm layout is the problem of rearranging farms to meet conditions of the present day and of the probable future. On most New York farms it would not be possible to make an arrange- ment that would satisfy all the requirements of an ideal farm layout. There are natural limitations which prevent many farms from ever having even a moderately good layout. Perhaps the most important of these natural limitations is topography. Given fairly fertile land, its topography usually determines whether it shall be crojiped or pastured. If it is too steep for machine operation, it must be pastured. In the hilly parts of New York it is necessary to crop all the land that is level enough. The field lines of such farms, therefore, follow the contour lines, and small, crooked fields are the usual result. Since topography cannot be altered, the shape and the size of fields on many farms are limited by this factor. Soil differences limit the development of farm layout to some extent. It is preferable to have all the soil in one field fairly uniform. In most cases the differences in soil between adjoining fields are not great enough to make this factor important. Differences in drainage also are important in combining fields. All the land in a field should have uniform drainage, otherwise the whole field must wait for the wet land to dry. The drainage can be made uniform in many cases by tiling wet areas. HOW TO PLAN A FARM REARRANGEMENT AND FOLLOW OUT THE PLAN In spite of natural limitations it is possible and practicable to greatly improve the layout on nearly all farms. Thei-e is no one particular layout to fit all cases. Every farm presents an individual problem which must be studied and considered separately. The first ste}:) in j^lanning a rearrangement is to study the farm and the conditions surroimding it. For this purpose it is well to have a map of An Economic Study of Farm Layout 515 the farm. This need not be an engineer's map, accurately drawn to scale; a rough plan showing the relative sizes, shapes, and locations of the various fields will serve. The more accurate the map, the worse, usually, will it make the farm look. In addition to the map, it is necessary to have a thoro knowledge of the soil and drainage conditions, and of the topog- raphy of the different parts of the farm. The second step in planning a rearrangement is to decide on the cropping plan or rotation that is to be followed. While it is not possible to follow a rigid crop rotation on most farms, it is advisable to follow a fairly definite cropping plan. Knowing the crops that are to be grown, the acreage needed for each, and the crop area, a cropping plan can be made which will satisfy these requirements. If two rotations are followed, two sets of fields, perhaps of different sizes, will be required. After studying the farm and deciding on the system of farming and the crop rotation to be followed, plans should be made for the long-time development of the farm which will provide as good a layout as the natural limitations will permit. The plans should be developed slowly and the work should be done at odd times. The savings to be made are seldom large enough to pay the entire cost in one year. If properly planned, such work helps in the labor distribution by keeping the men profitably employed when there is little other work to be done. Small fields can gradually be combined into larger units without radical changes in the rotation. It is usually unnecessary and unwise to plow up a good new seeding in order to combine two fields; the same results might be accomplished in a year or two by repeating a crop on one of the fields, or by leaving down a piece of hay for another year. In buying a farm the layout is worthy of careful consideration. Before buying, a map or rough plan of the fields should be made, indicating the area and the important natural features of each. ACTUAL REARRANGEMENTS OF SOME NEW YORK FARMS AS MADE BY OWNERS While on most farms the rearrangement of the layout to meet conditions of the present day has received Uttle attention, on some farms such changes have been and are being made. A few of these rearrangements are described in the following pages. 51G W. 1. Myeils REARRANGEMENT OF TWO CENTRAL NEW YORK FARMS The first farm In figure 139 is shown the plan of three central New York farms as exist- ing in 1914. These farms were owned at that time by one man but were I Fig. 139. plan of three central new york farms as operated in 1914 The tillable land of these farms was divided into sixty-four small fields, averaging 4.3 acres each Farm area, 646.4 acres Average size of farmed fields, 4.3,acres run as separate iniits, two being rented and the third being operated by the owner. The topography of the section is rolling, a considerable pro- l^ortion of the farm areas being in untillal)le permanent pasture. The important crops grown are silage corn, cabbage, hay, oats, potatoes, and An Economic Study of Farm Layout 517 buckwheat. Dairying is the most important enterprise. Milk, cabbage, hay, and buckwheat are the principal products sold. These farms were excellent examples of patch farming, the tillable land being tUvided into sixty-four general crop fields averaging 4.3 acres each. On the three farms there were in 1914 a total of eight patches of corn, nine of oats, thirty-eight of hay, two of millet, two of cabloage, four of potatoes, and one of buckwheat. Some of these patches were farmed together when in hay, but the land had been plowed in the sixty-four fields shown on the map. There was no particular reason why these farms should be worked in such patches, except that they always had been farmed that way. Practically the only interior fences were the pasture fences, wliich were made irregular by natural conditions of topography and drainage. Fields J^, K^, L-, M', N-, 0^, and P' had never been manured, to the knowledge of the present owner. Fields G^ and H^ had been manured but once. The field marked "Another owner," in the center of these farms, belongs to and is farmed by a farmer living more than a haK mile away. The owner of this patch continues to farm this land at such a disadvantage, rather than trade it for a like area of land adjacent to his buildings, having refused such an offer from the former owner of these farms. In the spring of 1915 these farms were purchased by their present owner, who was able to make only a small payment and gave a mortgage for the remainder of the purchase price. He worked the entire area as one farm, but he used all the farmsteads. Farmstead 2 was the real center of farm operation because it was the one most centrally located. The cows were kept here and the house was occupied by one hired man. The house at farmstead 1 was occupied by the owner, who kept his team and some young stock in the adjoining barns. The house at farmstead 3 was occupied by another hired man, who kept his team in the barn adjoining. The fourth house was used for the other regular hired man. By this plan of operation some of the disadvantages of the large 'area were overcome. Each worker had his team convenient to his house, and, when choice was possible, worked in the fields that were the most convenient. All the men helped with the milking at the main farmstead, but the young stock were located at one of the other two barns. Hay for sale was drawn to the most convenient barn. Oats were threshed from the two barns where the straw was needed. Before starting spring plowing the first year, the new owner had decided on a plan of rearrangement and had the work on it well under way. The 518 W. I. Myers clev(^lopment of the plan has been progressing slowly each year up to the present time. The plan of the farm in 1917 is shown in figure 140. As shown by this map, there are now twelve crop fields averaging 23.4 acres i»i >>» ,»«*; •»'% •'.••^•i I V-*»y* '*'*•%* » Fig. 140. the farm .shown in figure 139, after rearrangement The change from si.xty-four small crop fields to twelve large crop fields required the removal of less than 300 rods of fence Farm area, 640.4 acres Average size of fanned fields, 23.4 acres x\v2rage distance to farmed fields, 117 rods each, instead of sixty-four fields of 4.3 acres each. These changes have involved Httle expense and have necessitated the removal of but few fences. Seven fields were combined to form field S, of 38 acres, without taking out a fence. Five fields were combined to form field H, also without removing An Economic Study of Farm Layout 519 a fence. Ten fields have been combined to form fields J and K, and these will later be farmed as one field. Nine fields have been combined to form field F, 42 acres, by taking out 60 rods of barbed wire fence. Six fields have been combined to form field C by taking out 40 rods of barbed wire fence. Seven fields have been combined to form field A, which is farmed in two parts. When opportunity offers, the stone line inclosing 5 acres of this field will be removed and the 26 acres will be farmed as one field. Nine fields have been combined to form field L by clearing an acre of worth- less orchard, taking down 30 rods of rail fence, and removing 65 rods of stone fence. This stone fence and the two large stone piles formerly in field T were removed without charge, in return for the providing of a site for a stone crusher which crushed the stone for the construction of a county road thru the farm. The remaining 40 rods of stone and brush fence projecting clown into this field will be removed when opportunity offers. Three fields have been combined to form field N, and five to form field O, without any expense. In addition to these changes many trees have been removed from the crop fields for firewood. The present plan of this farm is not an ideal layout. Many of the fields are irregular in shape and must always remain so because of topogi'aphy. The shape of a 40-acre field is far less important, however, than the shape of a 4-acre field. There are some short rows in field F, but most of the rows in the field will be from 70 to 100 rods long. The changes thus far brought about have been made at small expense and have been paid for by the saving of labor made possible by larger fields. The owner has been heavily in debt and has not allowed work on improvements to inter- fere with more important work on crops. His most important job just now is paying for his farm, and nothing should be allowed to interfere with this. The present arrangement of this farm can be improved materially in the future, when the owner's finances warrant the necessary outlay. The shape of fields F and C can be improved by reclaiming some of the adjoin- ing pasture land. This will necessitate drainage and the clearing off of some stone. Fields J and K can be enlarged and improved in shape by adding some of the pasture land toward the creek. By tiling some of this pasture, it can be made the best crop land on the farm. Fields N and O will be combined by reclaiming some of the pasture P. Field L can never be made regular in shape because of natural conditions, but it may be improved somewhat by extending it toward field S and taking 520 W. I. Myers in part of field P. Field E may be improved and enlarged by drainage, or it may be turned back into pasture. It is rather distant and is not especially good lantl. The corner of woods in field A will probably be cleared off and this area added to the crop land. The pastures also could be improved by the cutting of some timber. There is, however, plenty of pasture for the stock now kept, and this change would be one of the last to be made. This fai'm is larger in area than most farms, l)ut the same principles could have been worked out on a smaller scale on any one of the three farms of which it is composed. It illustrates very well what great improve- ments can frequently be made at slight expense, by good management. The second farm The original plan of the various parcels of land which have been com- bined into one centi'al New York farm is shown in figure 141, The present area of the farm is 478 acres, and the land was purchased in nine different parcels fi'om as many owners. Some of the persons from whom the present owner bought had already b(»gun the work of combination, so that this farm represents fifteen different farms or parts of farms to the knowledge of the former owners. Except for j)arecls A and B, the topography of these farms is practically level. There are no physical reasons for the small, irregular fields. The principal crops grown are corn, oats, whcnit, and hay. Considering its tojiograjihy, parcel B had a fairly good layout, the irregu- lar boundaries of the fields being due largely to this factor. The crop land north of the pasture field 11 was divided into five fields for a five- years rotation. Fields 6 and 10 were cropped but should have been pas- tured. Both fields ar(^ extremely steep. Little stock was kept on this farm, the only field jxistuivd being 11. Parcel C was a level tract of 100 acres divided into twenty-four small, irregular fields. Except for the road and the woods, the whole farm might have been worked in one field, there being no physical obstacles to this. Fields 9 and 12 were the first fields cleared, evidently because they had drier, warmer soils than the remainder of tjie farm. They happened to be laid out diagonally to the farm l)oun(la,ries, and this accident apparently determined the layout of the whole farm. For many years the farm was worked in these small, irregular fields, because it was easier in any one An Economic Study of Farm Layout 521 year to do this than to remove the obstructions. Little stock was kept, and this was pastured on the best tillable land on the farm. The little manure produced was spread on the fields near the buildings. Fields 20, Fig. 141. plan of fifteen farms and parts of farms which have been cobibined into one farm of 477.8 acres The crop land of these farms was divided into sixty-nine small, irregular fields, averaging 4.2 acres each, lixcept for a part of parcel B the land was practically level 21, 22, 23, 14, 15, and 18 had not been manured for at least eleven years. Fields 20 and 21 were formerly farmed as one field, as also were fields 22 and 23. Being divided one year by accident, they were farmed afterward 522 W. I. Myers as separate fields. There were few fences, and the whole farm could have been rearranged with little trouble and expense. Most of the land in parcels D, E, F, and H had originally been included in one farm, with the buildings as shown in parcel E. When the owner of this farm died without leaving a will, the land was divided by the court among the eight heirs, giving each a little piece of crop land and a little piece of woods. This division destroyed the value of the land for farming because each tract was too small. Some of the tracts had already been combined when purchased by the present owner. Parcel G, a tract of 50 acres, was part of a larger farm. Parcel I had originally been two farms, with building centers as shown. This farm, which is practically level except in the southern part, was divided into twenty-eight small fields. There were several crooked hedgerows which caused irregular fields and wasted much land. Two small open ditches also helped to make the fields irregular. In all there were one hundred and six fields in tlie land now occupied by this farm. Little stock was kept and there were few good fences. Some land was cropped which was good only for pasture, and some of the best tillable land was pastured. The woodlots occupied It^vel tillable land except in the southern part of farm I, but contained little good timber. The crop land was divided into sixty-nine small, irregular fields, averaging 4.2 acres each. In 1907 the present owner of this farm bought parcel B, subject to lease. Possession was not secured, therefore, until 1908. In the next two years a few changes were made in the arrangement of this farm. Fields 6 and 10, wliich were too steep to be farmed ecofiomically, weie fenced and pastured. The brush in the pasture field 11 was cut, and some tile was laid in field 12. In 1910 parcel C was purchased, and this step entirely changed the plans of rearrangement. Before the rearrangement of these farms had progressed far, parcel I was Ixjught, in 1912. The remainder of the present farm was ])urchased in 1914 and 1915. The results of the work of ten years on the development of this farm layout are shown in the farm plan for 1918, figure 142. Instead of sixty- nine small, irregular crop fields, there are now five main crop fields averaging about 50 acres each, convenient to the buildings. To plow the sixty-nine crop fields of the old arrangement with a 14-inch plow would require about 20,000 turns at the ends of the fiekl, while to plow the five An Economic Study of Farm Layout 523 50-acre fields requires but 6000 turns. More important than the saving in turning by the farming of large fields is the gain in eflficiency result- FlG. 142. THE FARM SHOWN IN FIGURE 141, AFTER REARRANGEMENT Instead of sixty-nine small, irregular rrop fields, there are now five main crop fields averaging 50 acres each, convenient to the buildings. The average distance to the farmed fields is GO rods Farm area, 477.8 acres Average size of farmed fields, 28.5 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 60 rods ing from the driving of more horses to each man and the use of larger machines. Dragging is done with four horses instead of two. A four- horse drill has replaced the two-horse drills and a four-horse binder is 524 W. 1. Myers used. Larger fields permit the effective use of larger machines and more horses to the team, and thus greatly increase the efficiency of labor. The present layout provides for a better utilization of land. About 6 acres have been added to the crop land by eliminating hedgerows and useless fences. The entire farm is now fenced but the fences occupy only 2.8 acres. About an acre was added to the crop land by tiling open ditches, while a much greater area which had previously been in permanent hay was thus made tillable. About 26 acres which had previously been lying idle in brush or swamp were made productive by including them in the pastures. In addition to this, 45 acres of woodland were added to the pas- ture area. Thirty-six acres of land which was too steep or too wet to be cultivated, but which had formerly been in crops, were added to the pas- ture land. In addition, 8 acres of poorer crop land were utilized in pad- docks near the buildings. Fifty-two acres of the best land on the farm, wliich had formerly been pastured, were added to the crop land. The arrangement of pastures in this layout is very convenient. Each of the main crop fields can be connected with a permanent pasture, and hence with water when temporarily jiastured. The paddock of 6 acres south of the main farmstead forms a wide lane to the main pasture. There will certainly be no waste land in this lane. The small pastin-es for the bull and the hogs save much time. The other pastures are likewise so arranged as to open up near the buildings. The four small crop fields, F, G, H, and I, are used for a rotation of beets, potatoes, and other minor crops. Field T has been kept in alfalfa most of the time. Field N is too distant to be worked to advantage and will probably be disposed of. It adjoins a larger field of another farm, shutting tliis field off from the highway. Fields P, Q, and R are used for stock kept at the adjacent farmstead. The houses designated as No. 2 and No. 3 are used as tenant houses for hired men. Along with the fields, the buildings of these farms have likewise been rearranged to adapt them to present conditions. The main farmstead has been developed at the center of the farm convenient to the fields. A house and a few barns were already located here. By using these barns and the frames and linnber from the other barns scattered over the original farms, a well-planned centralized set of buildings has been developed. They have adequate storage capacity and are conveniently arranged for work. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 525 Further changes will be made in the future. The woods will be cut from field L, and the land will be pastured until the stumps rot and will finally be added to the crop area. The southern part of field A is rather poor. When the present fence gives out, a new fence will probably be put thru from the cast end, parallel to the farm boundary, thus adding a few acres to the pasture. To replace the area lost, fields F and G may be added to field A. One of the more distant tenant houses will probably be moved to a location near the main farmstead. This will save much useless walking. The changes in this farm have been made more rapidly than would ordinarily be justified, but they have not interfered with the successful operation of the farm. The original small fields have been gradually com- bined into larger units without seriously interfering with crop production. REARRANGEMENT OF A NORTHERN NEW YORK FARM The plan of a northern New York farm as existing in 1912 is shown in figure 143. This farm was rather long and narrow, with the buildings at i-5'5a. I l-5.2a Ij t-8.8 . ' -8.7 , V 1 8 a [:: ^>?j5/ii//?r-!4.9 a K-5-2 ."^^ '-10; Fig. 143. plan of a northern new york farm in 1912 Farm area, 1 1 <1 a''res Average size of farmed fields, 7.-1 acres Average distance to farmed fields, 74 rods one end. There were eleven farmed fields averaging 7.4 acres each, the average distance to the nearest corners of the fields being 74 rods. The owner of the farm wanted more land, and in 1913 he purchased the 118-acre farm directly across the road, making a total farm area of 234 52G W. I. Myers An Economic Study of Farm Layout 527 528 W. I. Myers acres. The crop land of the new farm was more convenient for farming than the land on the original farm. Altho the farm was doubled in size by the purchase, the average distance 'traveled to fields was actually decreased from 74 rods to 64 rods. The plan of the two farms is shown in figure 144. By this combination two small farms, either one of which was too small to furnish a satisfactory living with the type of farming made necessary by soil and other conditions, were combined into one farm large enough to be operated successfully and economically. The large area of pasture on the newly purchased farm was needed for keeping a good-sized herd of cows. It was easily reached by the lane and a cattle-pass under the rail- road. The other house was used for a hired man, and the other barn for young stock. Since 1913 many of the fields have been com])ined and enlarged. The plan of the farm as it existed in 1917 is shown in figure 145. There are four main fields — F, H, R, and S — of good size and shape, and several smaller fields. The small fields A, B, C\ D, and E are pastured in rotation. The soil is very sandy and does not hold grass well. : The changes that have been made in the field arrangement did not require the moving of a single fence. All that was needed was a little care and thought in planning crops so that the fields coukl be coml^ined. There is still opportunity for further improvement in the layout. This plan shows one example of locating the buildings in the middle of the farm by buying the land across the road. Not only was the layout improved by this means, but one successful farm was made of two unprofitable ones. \ REARRANGEMENT OF A WESTERN NEW YORK FARM The plan of a western New York farm as it existed in 1910 is shown in figure 140. The farm is located in a general farming region where little stock is kept. Two cows were kept on the farm for home use. There was no other stock except horses. Apples, peaches, potatoes, cabbage, and wheat are grown for sale in this section, also corn, hay, and some oats for fai'm use. The topography is gently rolling and nqarly all of the land is tillable. The soil vaiies in different parts of the; ft^rm, but in general it is a fine sandy loam.j ' . i An Economic Study of Farm Layout 529 - F^^ru^f: W^>^'-'- ,aa. F£:/iCH£5- o o o o o o o o o o o o o O L-5,7a, ° o O O o o o o o o o o o o o, o o o Vj. ?< o o 'a. o o o o o o A/- 7,3 a. 7,0 a. ry 9,5a. . ^-9. /a. /ippi£:5 1 u u — u u u — CT Fig. 146. bearrangement of a western new tork farm — i Plan in 1910, before rearrangement 530 W. I. Myers This plan illustrates the chance way in wliich most farm arrangements have developed. Field E happened to be a wet piece of land and was therefore put into pasture. Tliis made a lane necessary. The lane was run directly from the bam to the pasture, diagonal to the farm lines. A peach orchard was planted along the lane, with rows parallel to it, thus fixing its location permanently. Every field on the farm was irregular in shape, with a greater or less number of short rows. Even fields of fairly good size which could have been farmed in one piece were farmed in small patches; field F, for example, in 1912 was divided into four patches, of corn, potatoes, cabbage, and beans, respectively, with the rows running crosswise, as the field lines indicate. The fence lines were full of stone and brush and wasted much land. The brush and stone fence between fields H and I occupied a strip of land al^out 24 feet wide. The rail and stone fence iDetween fields A and B occupied a strip of land 14 feet wide. The farm was purchased by the present owner in the fall of 1912 and he began clearing up at once. After a careful study of conditions he planned a rearrangement, and l)egan to work out his plan gradually, as opportunity permitted. In 1912, 40 rods of the old rail and stone fence between fields A and B was removed. In 1913, 2.5 acres of the pasture F (fig. 147) was added to the crop land of field H, a woven wire fence was built inclosing field F, and the old rail pasture fence was removed from field H. Also, a woven wire fence was built between the wet pasture I and the old orchard M. In 1913 and 1914, the two cross fences were cleared out of field K, which appears as the first field of the new layout, a rectangular field of 13.8 acres. Al)out 100 loads of stone from these fences were drawn to the barnyard. In 1914 an old stone line was removed from field S. This permitted fields R and S to be farmed in two fields, instead of three as theretofore. Other minor changes made in 1914 were the removal of the I'oad fence of field K, the completion of the lane fence, and the removal of the stone and brush fence between fields J and L. Field G was put in alfalfa to save farming the short rows caused by the lane along the side. The plan of the farm in 1915, now lieginning to take shape, is shown in figuie 148. In tlie spring of 1915, the rail fence north of field C, running across fields A and (\ was removed. Ajiple trees were set out in field I. The fence between fields E and II was cleared away, as well as the fence south of field C Thei-e were 30 loads of stonc^ in these fences. A start was made also in removing the stone wall south of field L. Perhaps the most impor- tant work done in that year was the rearrangement of the farm buildings. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 531 ^- /^.5a /^. /c^ /^, /a. ^\/^,3 a. 1/3* 6 3» / I I J L 1° o o o "O — J U u u o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0-5.7a, o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o p-3. /a. o o o o o o o o ^-5. 6 a. 5- //./3. /o,6a. Fig. 147. rearrangement of a western new york farm — ii Farm plan in 1914. Some old fences have been removed and field K appears as the fiist field of the rearrangement 532 W. I. Myers J 3 o.z-a. o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o o o/- 5 *7 3* o o o o o o o o ^ o o o o o o o c//-3#/<5'. o o o p o o o o ^-5. 6 a. o //, /a^ ~/o.7a. Fig. 148. rearrangement of a western new york farm — iii Farm plan in I'JIS. More fences have been removed and fields A and B begin to take shape. The farm buildings were rearranged in 1915 An Economic Study of Farm Layout 533 ^ B \o o o o o O O O Q o C /9.^a.\/7. 9a:.-^.6a. /6'\9aJ7.6a:" II, .ued in the winter to use up bean pods and other roughage. In An Economic Study of Farm Layout 547 1915 field K of the crop land was pastured, in addition to the small area of permanent pasture, field I. The layout of this farm was fairly good considering natural obstacles. There were ten crop fields in 1915, averaging 8.8 acres each in size and reasonably convenient to the buildings. The irregular shape of the fields was caused by a large open ditch which drained a considerable area of the land. This farm was made up of three parts, as its outline indicates. Fig. 158. plan of a western new york farm in 1915 Farm area, 121.3 acres Average size of fanned fields, 8.7 aeres Average distani'e to farmed fields, (iO rods In 1916 the owner sold about 20 acres of his farm, and bought the run- down 90-acre farm adjoining his own on both sides of the road. The area sold comprised the fields L and M of the 1915 plan. These fields adjoined a neighbor's barn, and the owner was able to sell them to excellent advan- tage. They were bounded by a road on two sides, 7 per cent of thi>ir area thus being made untillable. The plan of the combined farms as they appeared in 1916 is shown in figure 159. The newly bought farm had been owned by an old man who had rented a considerable proportion of the land for several years. The farm was divided into eight rather small 548 W. I. Myers An Economic Study of Farm Layout 549 crop fields, separated by wide hedgerows of brush and stone. The pres- ent owner has ah-eady begun the work of clearing up the farm and enlarg- ing the fields. In 1917 the swamp hole in field R was tiled and the hedge- row between fields P and R was cleared out. By making these changes, fields P, R, and S were combined into one field of 21 acres, winch was sowed to wheat in the fall. The fence between fields J and K has been taken out, and these fields will be farmed as one field of about 27 acres. Other changes will be made as rapidly as is possible without interfering with the farm work. A possible rearrangement of this farm is shown in figure 160. This plan would provide for seven crop fields — three fields of about 27 acres each for the major rotation, three fields of 8 acres each for a minor rota- tion, and one field for alfalfa. The major rotation would be the common one in this region, consisting of beans, wheat, clover. The minor rota- tion would be silage corn, oats, wheat. In this section of the State, where Httle hay is needed for feed and other crops are more profitable for sale, there is a tendency to shorten rotations by omitting hay. Clover is seeded with wheat, but, instead of being cut, is plowed under in the spring for corn or potatoes. The advantage of the cropping system outlined is that corn silage wanted for feed will be grown in fields near the barn. Field A in the proposed rearrangement would be formed by combining fields J and K of the present layout. Field B would be formed by com- bining fields L, M, N, and O. This would require clearing a considerable amount of brush and stone fence rows and would take some time. Possibly these stones might be disposed of for use on an improved road. Field C would be formed by combining the present fields P, R, and S, and taking in some of the tillable land in the adjoining pasture. The present crop field V, too wet and too remote for profitable farming, would be pastured or sold to the farmer near whose house it is located. The arrangement of fields D, E, and F is based on the assumption that the present open ditch can be tiled. The owner is planning to tile this ditch if it can be done without too great expense. Tlie imjjrovement in the shape of the fields, the elimination of the labor of keeping the ditch clear, and the saving of land, would be worth considerable efi"ort and expense. If the ditch cannot be economically tiled, the shape of the fields of the minor rotation would not be so good but the proposed rearrangement would not be affected otherwise. 550 W. I. Myers An Economic Study of Farm Layout 551 The woodlot Z contains no valuable timber, and occupies level tillable land which will eventually be added to the crop land. Already a strip along the north side which shaded the adjoining crop fields has been cut. Crop land m this region is worth from $100 to $125 an acre. By the changes suggested a good field arrangement would be secured in a few years. The changes already made have resulted in a great im- provement. By selling off two of the more distant fields and buying land nearer to the buildings, the layout of two farms was improved. The buildings of the present farm are as near the center of the crop area as is possible with farms of this shape. The saving of labor and land made possible by the further improvement in arrangement as suggested, would in a few years pay the cost of making the changes. LAND UTILIZATION A complete inventory of the land on the farms included in these studies is presented in table 32. The areas given under the different headings will not check in all cases with corresponding areas in previous pages. TABLE 32. Inventory of Land on Fifty-three New York Farms Total number of acres Number of acres per farm Per cent of total farm area Farmsteads: 15.98 0.30 17 Home orchards: Apple 40.54 2.90 0.76 0.05 0.44 03 Mixed fruit 43.44 0.82 0.47 Other farmstead crops 2.63 12.69 88.28 0.05 0.24 1.67 03 Paddocks 0.14 0.96 Land occupied by buildings, lawns, etc Total farmsteads 163.02 3.08 1 77 Tenant houses: Gardens 13 28 1 32 19.64 25 0.02 0.37 14 Orchards 01 Land occupied bv buildings 21 Total area tenant houses 34.24 0.65 37 552 W. I. Myers TABLE 32 (continued) Total number of acres Number of acres per farm Per cent of total farm area Public roads not in crops 144.75 2.73 1,57 Woodland not pastured: 151.89 (U.33 2,87 1.21 1 65 Could be made tillable . 70 Not tillable: Suitable for pasture 22 . 30 22.58 42 0.43 24 Suitable only for woodland 25 Total not tillable 44.88 0,85 0.49 Total woodland not pastured 2()1 . 10 4,93 2,84 Permanent pasture other than paddocks: Cleared pasture: Tillable: Lanes 17.46 187.77 0,33 3,54 19 Other land 2.04 205.23 3,87 2 23 Could be made tillable: Lanes . f).20 840.31 0.12 15,85 07 Other land 9 14 Total cleared pasture which could be made • tillable 846.51 15 97 9 21 Not tillable 542 37 1,594.11 10,23 5.90 30 08 17.34 Woodland pastured : Tillable if cleared 395.79 89.83 7.47 1,69 4.31 Could be made tillable 0.98 Not tillable: Suitable for pasture 297.09 98.78 5,61 1,86 3.23 Suitable only for woodland 1 07 Total woodland pastured not tillable 395.87 7,47 4.31 Total woodland pastured 881,49 16 63 9.59 Total permanent pasture 2,475 60 46 71 26 93 An Economic Study of Farm Layout 553 TABLE 32 (conUnued) Land in cropped fields (other than gardens and farm stead crops) : Land in cropped fields not producing a crop : Fence rows Swampy land Streams Open ditches Driveways in crop fields Rough or steep land Land shaded by woodlots Trees in fields Stone outcrops Barns in fields Stone piles Total land in cropped fields not producing a crop Land in cropped fields producing a crop: Crops other than fruit: Not rotated: Permanent meadow Rotated: General crops Truck crops Rotated pasture Total rotated Total crops other than fruit Fruit (other than home orchards) : Apples: Bearing Not bearing Total apples Peaches : Bearing Not bearing Total peaches Pears : Bearing Not bearing Total pears Total number of acres 102.28 30. ;m 24.46 12.06 11.43 11.27 6.68 5.25 2.17 2.15 1.42 210.11 100.07 4,413.87 88.38 645.85 5,148.10 5,254.17 247.45 150.35 397.80 37 . 53 10.17 53.70 25 . 70 7.82 33.52 Number of acres per farm 1.93 0.57 0.40 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.13 0.10 0.04 04 0.03 3.96 2.00 83 . 28 1.07 12.19 97 . 13 99 . 14 4 07 2.84 7.51 71 31 1.01 0.48 0.15 0.03 Per cent of total farm area 1 11 33 27 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 2 29 1.15 48.02 0.96 7.03 2.69 1.64 4 33 41 0.18 0.58 0.28 0.09 0.36 554 W. I. Myers TABLE 32 (concluded) I;and in cropped fields (other than gardens and farm- stead crops) (continued) : Land in crojiped fields producing a crop (coniinued): Fruit (other than home orchards) (coniinued): Plums or prunes, bearing Cherries: Bearing Not bearing . Total cherries . Grapes: Bearing Not bearing. Total grapes Mixed fruits, bearing . Roadside apples: Bearing Not bearing Total roadside apples Total fruit otlier than home orchards . Total crops (including fruit) Total number of acres Number of acres per farm G.02 0.90 6.92 22 . 2S 7.02 29 . 30 3.44 1.90 2.12 4.02 Total land in cropped fields (other than gardens and farmstead crops) Other land: Lanes not included in |)asture or cropped fields Pasture land occupied by streams Land other than pasture or crop land occu i ci by streams Steep land not in cropped fields Brushlot (waste) I'nused farmsteads Village lots Total other land . Total area of farms . 535.93 5,790.10 (•),000.21 0.14 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.42 0.13 0.55 0.0(3 0.04 0.04 O.OS 10.11 109 . 25 113.21 15.07 23.97 2!). SO 25.33 11.3(1 5.01 4.00 112.14 9,191 03 0.30 0.45 0.51 0.4S 0.21 0.09 0.08 Per cent of total farm area 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.24 O.OS 0.32 0.04 0.02 0.02 04 5 S3 03.00 65 28 0.17 0.2') 0.29 0.2S 0.12 0.05 O.Ol 2.12 173.42 1.22 100.00 An Economic S'itjdy of Farm Layout 555 This is due to the fact that some classes of land have heretofore been included under two different classifications. For example, woodland pas- ture was included as woodland in table 27 (page 495) and also as pasture in table 25 (page 491). Home gardens and orchards were likewise included in the study of land in farmsteads and also in the study of land in crops. In table 32 there are no duplications. A comparison of the present use of land on these farms with that on the average New York farm is given in tal>le 33. Not only are the farms TABLE 33. Comparison of the Present I'se of Land on the Farms Studied, with That on the Average New York Farm Number of acres per farm Per cent of total farm area Average of 185,051 farms in 1918 census of New York Average of 53 New York farms studied 185,051 New York farms 53 New York farms studied Crops other than fruit 45.61 3.22 94.17 10.11 44.21 3.12 54 30 Fruit 5 83 All crops. . 48.83 104.28 47.33 60 13 Tillable pasture Other cleared pasture 12.34 12.96 8.84 26.21 11 96 12.56 5.10 15 11 Total cleared pasture 25.30 35.05 24.52 20 21 \^ oods pastured 11.55 16.63 11.20 9 59 Total pasture 36.86 51.68 35.73 '^9 80 ^Voods not pastured 10.81 3.83 2.84 4.93 12.53 10 48 3 71 2.75 2 84 Farmsteads, roads, and lanes 7 23 Use not reported Total farm area 103.17 173.42 100,00 100 00 included in these studies nuich larger than the average, but they liaA-e a larger proportion of their land in crops and a smaller proportion in pasture than do the farms reporting in tiie last census of New Yoik agriculture.'- 3 Census of the agricultural resourcps of New York. Census of 1017 taken by order of the New York State Food Supply Commission. Census of 1918 taken by order of the New Yoik State F'oocl Commi-s- sion. 1919. r)r)G W. I. Myers Sixty per cent of the area of those farms was in crops, as compared with 47 per cent for the State. About 30 per cent of the area of these farms was in pasture, as compared with nearly 36 per cent for the State. The propoi-tion of the land in woods not pastured was much lower on the farms included in these studies, 2.84 per cent, as compared with 10.48 per cent f(^r all farms reporting in the census. The proportion of the area of the farms here considered in farmsteads, lanes, roads, fence rows, and other olDstructions, is approximately equal to the sum of the percentage of land so classified and of land with use not reported in the census. The relation of size of farms to the proportion of land producing crops is shown in table 34: TABLE 34. Relation of Size of Farms to Proportion of Land Producing Crops Size of farms (acres) Less than 100 100 1() 174.9 175 or more All farms Per cent of tt )tal farm area Land producinu; a crop: Crop.s otiier than fruit: Home gardens . 2S 09 07 1 4S .53.57 27 02 10 0.50 00.53 0.11 02 0.18 1.30 54.41 0.17 Other farmstead crops Tenant gardens 03 0.14 Permanent meadows 1.15 Rotated crops 50.01 Total crops other than fruit 55.49 01.47 50.08 .57.50 Fruit: Home orchards 0.50 0..57 ""7;02 43 0.02 3.10 47 Tenant orchards 01 Other fruit 18 38 5. S3 Total fruit 18.88 . 7.59 3.55 31 Total cultivated crops 74 37 09.00 59 03 03.81 Permaneat pasture : Cleared pasture 9 .57 5.. 35 10.82 3.78 19.17 12.95 17 48 Woodland pasture 9 59 Total permanent pasture 14 92 20.00 .32.12 27.07 Woodland not pastured 2 35 2 13 3.25 2.84 Total land producing a crop 91.C>4 91.79 95.00 93.72 An Economic Study of Farm Layout 557 TABLE 34 (concluded) Size of farms (acres) Less than 100 100 to 174.9 175 or more All farms Per cent of total farm area Land not producing a crop: Main farmstead occupied by buildings .... Land occupied by tenant liouses 1.99 0.22 1.48 1.11 0.11 1.77 0.71 0.26 1.50 96 21 Public roads not in crops 1.57 Land in cropped fields occupied by: Fence rows 1.48 52 0.36 0.12 0.32 0.2G 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.01 1.14 59 24 0.25 0.15 24 O.OG 01 01 0.03 0.02 1.04 0.19 26 09 08 05 07 0.08 '" 02 0.02 1 11 Swampy spots 33 27 Open ditches 0.14 Driveways 12 Rough or steep land 12 Land shaded by woods 0.07 Trees in fields . . . 06 Stone outcrops 02 Barns in fields 02 Stone piles 0.02 Total land in cropped fields not pro- ducing a crop 3.32 2.74 1.90 2.29 Lanes not included in pasture or croppecl- fields 0.19 0.01 1.01 0.22 0.58 31 0.94 0.45 0.15 0.16 16 02 ""o'07 0.07 0.17 Pasture land occupied by streams Land other than pasture or crop land occupied by streams 0.26 0.29 0.28 0.12 0.13 05 Village lots 0.04 Total land not producing a crop 8.35 8.23 5.00 6.24 Nearly 94 per cent of the land in these farms was producing some kind of a crop, either field crop, garden, orchard, pasture, or woods. While the value of these different crops varies widely, they are all contributing directly, in some measure, to the farm income. The remainder of the land in these farms, 6.24 per cent, was not producing a crop. Most of this land was not wasted because it was necessary to the proper organi- zation of the business, but it contributed nothing directly to the farm 558 W. I. Myers income. The greater proportion of the land not producing a crop was occupied by obstructions in crop fields, farmsteads, pubHc highways, and tenant houses. A study of these farms indicates that the area of land suitable for crop- ping can be consider;ibly increased if conditions warrant. Altho most of the good agricultural land in America is now in farms, the productivity of farms can l)e greatly increased by a more intensive utilization of land. A proper utilization of land infers not only that as large a proportion of the land as possil)lc shall be productive, but that the land shall be devoted to tlie pin'})Ose which pays best. Farmers are not now making the maxi- mum utilization of their land because it is not profitable to do so. Some ways of increasing the crop area on the farms studied are pointed out in table 35: TABLE 35. Possible Increases in the Crop Area of Fifty-three New York Farms Total number of acres Number of acres per farm Per cent of total farm area Public roads on which roadsides could be tilled 30.00 0.57 0.33 Woodland not pastured: Tillable if cleared 151.89 48.94 15. 39 2.87 0.92 0.29 1.65 Could be made tillable, after clearing, by drainage. . . . Could be made tillable, after clearing, by removing stones 0.53 0.17 Total woodland not pastured that could be tilled 216.22 4.08 2.35 W aodland pastured : Tillable if cleared Could be made tillable, after clearing, by drainage. . . . 395.79 89.83 7.47 1.69 4.31 0.98 Total woodland pastured that could be tilled 485.62 9.16 5.28 Cleared pasture other than lanes and paddocks : Tillable 187.32 .3.53.19 292.92 61.30 132.90 3.53 6.66 5.53 1.16 2.51 2 •04 Could be made tillable by drainage Could be made tillable by clearing away stones. . . . Could be made tillable by clearing away stones and brush 3.84 3.19 67 Could be made tillable by clearing away stones and by drainage 1.45 Total cleared pasture, other than lanes and paddocks, that could be tilled 1,027.63 19.39 11.18 An Economic Study of Farm Layout 559 TABLE 35 (concluded) Fenced driveways not used for stock, which could be tilled Crop land occupied bj' obstructions: Fence rows Open ditches Streams Swampy spots Stone piles Trees in fieldj Land shaded by woodlots Rough land Driveways in crop fields Barns in crop fields Total crop land occupied by obstructions, which could be tilled Other land that could be tilled : Brushlot LTnused farmsteads Total other land that could be tilled Total land that could be added to crop area Present area of all crops Possible future area of all crops Total area of farms Total number of acres .00 35.28 8.35 9.85 31.00 L08 5.25 6.68 2.26 2.15 75 102.65 11.36 5.01 16.37 1,886.49 5,866.75 7,753.24 Number of acres per farm 0.15 0.67 0.16 0.19 0.5S 02 10 0.13 0.04 04 01 1.94 21 0.09 0.31 35.59 110.69 146.29 Per cent of total farm area 0.09 0.38 09 11 34 01 06 07 02 02 0.01 1.12 0.12 0.05 0.18 20.53 63.83 84.36 9,191.06 173.42 100.00 By rearranging these farms so as to reclaim as much as possible of the land that is now unproductive, about 157 acres could be added to their crop area. This would be an increase of 3 acres of crop land to each farm, or an increase of 2.7 per cent in the crop area. This increase would come out of land which is now unproductive because it is occupied by unneces- sary fences, swampy spots, and other obstructions, and would not decrease either pasture or woodland. Probably the land gained would seldom pay for the expense of rearrangement, but the saving of labor is usually more important than the land gained. Where unnecessary stone fences 560 W. I. Myers can be used for improving roads, a threefold saving results: the removal of the stones permits the enlarging of fields and thereby saves labor in growing crops, the improvement of the roads saves labor in marketing the crops, and some land is gained for crop production. If, in addition to the foregoing changes, all woodland suitable for crop production or for pasture were cleared, about 700 acres could be added to the crop land of these farms without decreasing the effective area of per- manent pasture. This would mean an increase of 13.2 acres of crop land to each farm, or an increase of 11.9 per cent of the crop area, but it would decrease the farm wood and lumber supply about 90 per cent. The area of woodland to each farm would be reduced from 21.5 acres to 2.3 acres. In addition to this woodland which is good for no other purpose, some trees might be grown in the pastures. If as much as possible of the unproductive land on these farms were reclaimed, if all woodland suitable for other purposes were cleared, and if all land suited to ci-op production were used for that purpose, the area of crop land could be increased about 1886 acres. This would be an in- crease of 35.6 acres to each farm, or an increase of about one-third in the crop area at the expense of the area of woodland and pasture. As in the preceding case, the area of woodland to each farm would be reduced from 21.5 acres to 2.3 acres, this woodland being suitable for no other purpose. This rearrangement would also reduce by one-half the effective area of permanent pasture, leaving but 17 acres of cleared permanent pasture to each farm. The changes would reduce the farm supply of wood and lumber, and, vniless some change were made in the system of farming, woidd necessitate a reduction in the amount of livestock kept. Increasing the crop area will mean, not cheaper food, but higher- priced food, because low prices would not justify the expense involved in making these changes. It is better to have more food, even at a higher price, than not to have food when it is needed. Clearing land for culti- vation is a long and laborious process. After the trees are cut, it takes about ten to twenty years for the stumps to rot so that the land can be cleared cheaply. In most cases it is better to pastiu-e the land while the stumps are rotting than to clear at once. While, in a general way, the land adapted to crop production will be added to the crop area when conditions justify the addition, the response to these conditions is neces- An Economic Study of Farm Layout 561 sarily slow. At the present time some woodland occupying valuable tillable land is being cut over and will eventually be added to the crop area. Probably there are more farmers who own woodland occupying tillable land too valuable for forestry purposes, who should be thinking about making similar changes. But land must have another advantage besides being tillable before it will be cropped. It must be near enough to its owner so that it can be cropped economically. Much land now in tillable pasture would be cropjied if it were not too remote from its present owner. Such land is usually near enough to some one to be cropped to advantage. Readjust- ments in ownership which would permit each farmer to farm the land most convenient to his buildings would be desirable from a public as well as from a private point of view. In most cases such readjustments can now be made only with difficulty. SUMMARY This memoir reports the results of a study of the layouts of fifty-three New York farms, the object being to trace the development of farm layouts, to study the principles of efficient farm field arrangements, and to study the utilization of land on these typical farms with particular reference to the possibilities of increasing the area of crop land to meet the needs of an increasing population. Most of the farm land of New York was originally covered with forests. A large part of this land was divided into farms and cleared for farming when hand-labor methods of agriculture prevailed. Sul)sequent changes in economic conditions and in methods of agricultural production, and their consequent effect on farms and farming, have given rise to most of the present problems of farm layout. Changes in farm layout have not kept pace with changing agricultural conditions, and as a result most farms now need rearranghig. Plans of farms here shown illustrate the historical development of the laj^out of typical New York farms. Large crop fields give greater economy of labor, fencing, and land. Hence farmed fields should be as large as the size of farm, the type of farming, the length of rotation, and physical factors, will permit. For crop fields of ordinary size the oblong shape gives the most efficient use of labor, while the square shape is the most economical of fencing and of land. Saving labor is usually more important than saving land and 562 W. I. Myers , fencing, and therefore oblong shapes are most desirable for crop fields of moderate size. Very large crop fields may be square to save fencing, and yet be long enough to permit the efficient use of labor. The distance from farmstead to fields should be made as short as possible in order to save useless travel. With farms of moderate size the farmstead should be located- as near the center of the farm as it can l)e placed and still be on the highway. The ideal arrangement is to have half of the land on each side of the highway, with the buildings in the center of the farm. Crop fields should be free from obstructions, such as swampy spots, open ditches, streams, trees, stone piles, and unnecessary fences. The question of fencing farms suitably and economically is becoming increasingly important. Data are herein presented showing the amount of each Idnd of fencing foimd on these farms, the adaptation of fencing practice to local conditions in different parts of the State, the distribution of fence on farms, the proportion of farm division lines that are fenced, the relation of size of farm to economy of fencing, the amount of land occupied by fences, the proportion of the farm area inclosed by fence, and the farm cost of fence maintenance. Farm lanes and driveways should be carefully planned for efficiency of labor, fencing, and land. The area of land utilized in lanes on the farms studied is given, as well as the average width of lanes with different amounts of stock. The proper utihzation of farm land is also important. Data are presented showing the amount of land in cropped fields occupied by fences, swampy spots, streams, and other obstructions, and by different classes of crops, on the farms studied, the relation of size of farms to the proportion of the area of cropped fields occupied by obstructions, the classification of pasture land, the relation of size of pastures to economy of fencing, the cUssification of woodland, and the present use of land in highways and farmsteads. Many farm plans are given illustrating desirable and undesiral^le features of farm layouts. These plans emphasize the fact that most farms need rearranging to adapt them to present conditions. In addition to the preceding factors, physical features such as soil, drainage, and topography should also be considered in planning a farm layout. An Economic Study of Farm Layout 5G3 The logical procedure in planning the rearrangement of a farm is: 1. To study carefully the farm and the local conditions. 2. To decide on the cropping plan or rotation. 3. To make a plan for the long-time development of the farm which will provide as good a layout for the conditions as the natural limitations permit. 4. To carry out plans slowly, doing the work at odd times; to do the most important things first; not to let this work interfere with work on crop production. Plans are included in the bulletin illustrating different stages in the actual rearrangements of some New York farms as made by owners, and possible rearrangements of other farms which have been started but are not yet completed. These plans ai-e accompanied by descriptions of the farms, of local conditions, and of the procedure followed in carrying out the plans for rearrangement. A complete inventory of the land on these farms is given, showing the present use of all land. Data are presented comparing the use of land on these farms with that on the average New York fai-m, and also showing possible increases in the crop area of the farms studied by reclaiming land now unproductive and by utilizing for crops land which is now occupied by pasture or woods but which would be suitable for ci'op production. If the farms studied may be considered as typical, substantial increases can be made in the crop area of New York farms to meet the prospective needs of an increasing population. Memoir 31, .4 Siudi/ of Selections for the Si-r, Shape, and Color of Hens' Eggs, the third preceding number in this series of pubhcations, waa mailed on August 21, 1920. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 001 437 814 5 •