A92-329-10,000-L18O

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR XEQREW

conmcn STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS  ‘I 

fi-r-‘Q
, r" l’
< \ ‘xvv
BULLETIN NO. 395 L NSMKAYuQM N; 

\\\\\

DIVISION OF FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS

IN COOPERATION WITH BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE
BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT
OF TEXAS

 

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS
T. O. WALTON, resident

 

S'1‘A'1‘1UN STAFFT

ADMINISTRATION:
A B. CONNER, M. S., Director
R. E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director
J. M. SCHAEDEL, Secretary
M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk
J. K. FRANcKLOw, Assistant Chief Clerk
CHESTER HIOGs, Executive Assistant
C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant
CHEMISTRY:
G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist
S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist
E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Chemist .
WALDO H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist
VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist _
H. S. OSGOOD, M. S., Assistant Chemist
T. L. OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist
J . G. EvANs, Assistant Chemist _
ATHAN J. STERGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist
G. S. CRENsRAw, A. B., Assistant Chemist
JEANNE M. FUEGAS, Assistant Chemist _
HANs PLATENIUs, M. Sc., Assistant Chemist
HORTICULTURE:
HAMILTON P. TRAUB, Ph. D., Chief
—i———-—, Berry Breeder
RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY:
J. M. JONES,  M., Chief; Sheep and Goat
Investigations
J. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal ‘Hiisbandman;
Breeding Investigations
STANLEY P. DAvIs, Wool Grader
ENTOMOLOGY:
F. L. THOMAS, _Ph. D., Chief; State
Entomologist _
H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist
R. K. FLETCHER, M. A., Entomologist
. L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist
RANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist
. C. GAINEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist
. J. TODD, B. S., Entomologist
. F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist _
. E. MOGREGOR, JR., Acting Chief Foulbrood
Ins ector
OTTO AcKENsEN, Foulbrood Inspector
AGRONOMY: _
E. B. REYNOLDs, M. S., Chief _ _
R. E. KARPER, M S., Agronomist; Grain
Sorghum Research _
C. MANOELsDORE, Sc. D., Agronomist;
in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi-
-gations

i/"TJOQWQ

D. T. KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton
Breeding _

H. E. REA, . S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot
Investigations _

W. E. FLINT, B. S., Agronomist

PUBLICATIONS:

A. D. JAcKsoN, Chief

 

VETERINARY SCIENCE: _
*M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief
H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian
F. E. CARROLL, D. V. M., Veterinarian

PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY
J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., ie
W. N. EzEKIEL, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist ant

‘ Laboratory Technician

W. J. BAGH, M. S., Plant Pathologist
J. PAUL LUsK, S. M., Plant Pathologist
B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist

FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS:
L. GABBARD, M. S., ie
W. E. PAULsON, Ph. D., Marketing Research
Specialist
C. A. BONNEN, M_. S., Farm Management
Research Specialist _ _
V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist
**J. F. CRIswELL, B. S., Assistant; Farm Records
and Accounts

**J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant; Ranch Records
and Accounts

RURAL HOME RESEARCH:

JEssIE WHITACRE, Ph. D., Chief _

MAMIE GRIMEs, M. S., extile and Clothing

Specialist _ _

EMMA E. SUMNER, M. S., Nutrition Specialist
SOIL SURVEY: _
**W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief

E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor

T. C. REITCH, B. S., Soil Surveyor

L. G. RAGSDALE, B. S., Soil Surveyor
BOTANY:

———————————, Chief

SIMON E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist
SWINE H) SBANDRY: _

FRED HALE, M. S., Chief
DAIRY HUSBANDRY:

. C. COPELAND, B. S., Dairy Husbandman
POULTRY HUSBANDRY:

R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief
***AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING:
MAIN STATION FARM:

G. T. McNEss, Superintendent
APICULTURE (San Antonio):

H. B. PARKs, B. S., Chief

A. H. ALEx, B. S., Queen Breeder
FEED CONTROL SERVICE:

F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief
. . PEARCE, Secretary
. ROGERs, Feed Inspector
. WOOD, Feed Inspector
. . KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector
. NORTHCUFT, JR., B. S., Feed Inspector
ID EY D. REYNOLDs, JR., Feed Inspector
P. A. MOORE, Feed Inspector

um
EU

éwé
OPE

U!
Z’

SUBSTATIONS

No. 1, Beeville, Bee County:
R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent
No. 2, Troup, Smith County:
P. R. JOHNSON, B. S., Act. Superintendent
No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County:
R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent
No. 4, Beaumont, Jeflerson County:
R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent
No. 5, Temple, Bell County:
HENRY DUNLAVY, M. S., Superintendent
B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist
II. E. REA, B. _S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot
Investigations
SIMON E. WOLFE, M. S., Botanist; Cotton Root
Rot Investigations
No. 6, Denton, Denton County:
P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent
No. 7, Spur, Dickens County:
R. E. DIcKsON, B. S., Superintendent
W. E. FLINT, B. S., Agronomist
No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County:
D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent
FRANK GAINEs, Irrigationist and Forest
Nurseryman
No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County:
J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent

No. 10, Feeding and Breeding Station, near
College Station, Brazos County:
M SHERWOOD, M. S., Animal Husband-
man in Charge of Farm
L. J . McCALL, Farm Superintendent

No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County:
H. F. MORRIS, M. S., Superintendent
**No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County:
J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent
**J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Junior Agronomist
No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties:
W. H. DAMERON, B. S., Superintendent
E. A. TUNNICLIFF, D. V. M., M. S.,
Veterinarian
V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist
**O. G. BABCOCK_, B. S., Collaborating
Entomologist
O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd
N0. l5, Weslaco, Hidalgo County:
W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent
SHERMAN W. CLARK, B. S., Entomologist
W. J. BAciI, M. S., Plant Pathologist
No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County:
E. J. WILSON, B. S., Superintendent
J. PAUL LUsK, S. 1VI., Plant Pathologist

Teachers in the School of Agriculture ‘Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station:

. . BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology

w~>w;p<wo
PUT/J

TAs of May 1, 1929.

. W. ADRIANcE, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture
W

. P. LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marketing and Finance
COATES, A. E., Professor of Agricultural Engineering
. SMITH, M. S., Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering
. H. WILLIAMs, Ph. D., Professor of Animal Husbandry
. K. MAcKEv, M. S., Associate Professor of Animal Husbandry
. S. MOGFORD, M. S., Associate Professor of Agronomy
. S. JAMisON, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture

*Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine.

**In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture.
***In cooperation with the School of Agriculture.

The Black Waxy Prairie Belt 0f Texas is characterized by a
one-crop system—c0tt0n. Upwards 0f 90 per cent 0f the
gross income is derived from this enterprise. The area has
not escaped the usual disadvantages that accompany single-
crop farming. The more important natural hazards are the
gradual decline in soil productivity, the frequent ravages of
insects, the increase of weed pests, and the spread of diseases,
particularly that of cotton root rot. In addition, such a sys-
tem fails to fully utilize the farmer’s available labor through-
out the year, and gives a comparatively low return on his
entire investment. A 100-acre farm in this area devoted
entirely to cotton will employ only about three-fifths of the
operator’s time. As a natural consequence yields have de-
clined, costs have increased, and farming has tended to become
more speculative and precarious.

In this Bulletin facts are focused on the task of finding a
better balanced system or systems of farming for the area.
To this end several different systems for farms of various
sizes have been outlined and presented, not as ideal set-ups,
but as possibilities, shown by a thorough study of prevailing
systems on a group of selected farms over a period of years.
They are based upon normal production and production re-
quirements for both crop and livestock enterprises; normal
building, machinery, fence, and automobile expenses; and ex-
pected prices of products sold and of items bought. The acres
of crops, numbers of livestock, expected receipts, expenses,
and net returns have been shown for each system.

The different systems, with cotton acreages varying from
all of the cultivated land to one-eighth of it, and with feed
crops and livestock substituted for cotton, show significant
variations in net returns. For example, in the case of the
systems outlined for 100-acre farms the one with one-fourth
of the cultivated land in cotton shows a net return of $470
greater than the system with all of the cultivated land in cot-
ton. In the case of 150-acre farms, with 140 acres in cultiva-
tion, a difference of $765 is shown in favor of the system with
three-eighths of the cultivated land in cotton over the one with
three-fourths in cotton. In all cases the net returns increase
until the cotton acreages are decreased to about one-fourth
of the cultivated land. There are no significant differences,
however, between the range from one-half to one-fourth of the
cultivated land in cotton.

CONTENTS

A PAGE

Nature of ‘Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . 5

Present Systems of Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 7

Farm Returns Obtained from Present Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 10
Normal Crop Yields, Livestock Production, Crop and Livestock Re-

quirements, and Expected Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .. 11

Systems for 50-Acre Farms . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . 17

Details of D-System, 50~Acre Farms . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . , . . . . . , A 22

Systems for 100-Acre Farms . V . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T. 26

Systems for 150-Acre Farms , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Systems for ZOO-Acre Farms _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Size of Farms and Net Returns . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 35

Planning for a Period of Years . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Planning for the Coming Year . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 38

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . A . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Appendix . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42

- BULLETIN NO. 395

MAY, 1929

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE
BELT OF TEXAS

L. P. GABBARD, J. B. HUTSON,* AND T. L. GASTON, JR.

The Black Waxy Prairie Belt of Texas is one of the most important
agricultural areas of the State. Cotton is the chief crop.grown, yielding
upwards of 9O per cent of the gross farm income. This area, like the
majority of single-crop areas, is subject to serious hazards. The gradual
decline in soil fertility, the ravages of insect pests, the spread of cotton
root rot, and the presence of weed pests are natural factors which make
cotton production increasingly precarious. Such conditions tend to
make farming highly speculative, particularly so during years of low
cotton prices.

Fortunately the natural hazards of farming in this area are in a high
degree subject to control. A well-balanced system o1": farming, coupled
With good farm practices, will do much to eliminate risks or materially
reduce their effects. The results obtained on the Substation at Temple,
reported in Station Bulletin No. 365, show that the root rot of cotton
can be practically eliminated by rotation of crops. These results also
show that the yields of cotton were doubled, and the yields of corn,
wheat and oats were very materially increased by rotation. These find‘-
ings are confined quite generally by the experience of farmers.

The advantages of well-balanced systems of farming for this area
have become quite generally recognized. But what are well-balanced

 systems? What crops, in addition to cotton, should be grown? What


s.
ggsurvey of prevailing economic conditions.
 farms.
l were and their relative importance.

 kinds of livestock should be kept and how many of each kind? What

combination of enterprises is likely to prove most profitable over a period
of years? These questions suggest the nature and extent of the problem
involved. It is essentially one of farm management, or more specifically,
a problem of farm organization, that of arriving at the most profitable
combination of enterprises. Farmers are attacking this problem in dif-
ferent ways and varying degrees of success are being obtained.

NATURE OF STUDY

With a view of helping farmers in this area with their problems the
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in 1922 made a comprehensive
The survey covered 500
An effort was made to determine what the economic problems
The results of the study are shown

.. in Texas Station Bulletin No. 327.

In 1925 the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Bureau

*Senior Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

6 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

of Agricultural Economics,United States Department of Agriculture,
began a detailed study of the farm-organization and management prob-
lems of the area. This study extended over a period of three years.
A selected group of farmers in Rockwall and Collin Counties kept com-
plete records of all farming operations in 1925 and 1926. These records
were kept on 23 farms in1925 and 26 farms in 1926. They show in-
ventories, expenses and receipts, crop yields, livestock production, farm
products furnished the household, hours of man labor, horse work, and

Figure 1.-—Shaded area shows location of the Black Waxy Prairie Belt of Texas, A narrow
strip somewhat over 300 miles long, and ranging; from 75 to 25 miles wide.
i Black portion shows locality in which detailed study was conducted.

amounts of materials and miscellaneous costs used in growing the differ-
ent crops; and hours of man labor and horse work, and amounts of feed
and miscellaneous costs used for the different kinds of livestock.

In 1927 records showing inventories, expenses, receipts, crop yields,
livestock production, and products furnished the household were con-
tinued on some of these farms, and in addition, similar records kept on a
few other farms on which unusually good returns were being obtained.

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 7

Records were kept on 28 farms in 192'7. During the three-year period
these farms were visited at regular intervals by a field man who carefully
supervised the keeping of the records to insure accuracy and complete-
ness.

Other farms in the area on which one or more classes of livestock were
important sources of income were visited and records secured showing
hours of man labor and horse work, amounts of feed and miscellaneous
costs used, and the production obtained. For 1926, 15 records of this
kind were obtained for dairy cows, 10 for sheep, and 9 for hogs.

Experimental data on the yield of cotton and other crops obtained by
the Temple Substation in different rotations have been carefully re-
viewed. Experimental data applicable to the area showing the results
obtained when different rations were fed live stock have been carefully

examined and compared with the data showing the results obtained on

the farms included in the study. Data showing the crop yields that
have been obtained in the area in recent years have also been carefully
reviewed.

Prices received by farmers for products sold and prices paid by them
for feed and other expense items during the past few years were obtained
from feed stores, mills, elevators, and creameries. Quoted prices of
farm products and expense items were reviewed in the market reports
issued by the United States Department of Agriculture in the daily
papers and other publications of the area. Special price studies car-

rying conclusions as to price trends, cycles, and factors influencing

prices have also been reviewed.

These data have been analyzed and the results obtained from different
enterprises, systems of farming, and practices indicated. They are used
in determining the yields, production requirements, and prices that may
reasonably be expected for the different products under usual conditions
in the area. Su-ch information forms the basis for conclusions as to
returns that may be reasonably expected over a period of years for
different systems of farming that are being and that may be advan-
tageously followed in the area.

PRESENT SYSTEMS OF FARMING

On the farms included in the 1922 survey about 93 per cent of the
total land area was cultivated, and the remainder was pasture,‘ waste,
farmstead, and idle. About 6'7 per cent of the cultivated land was in
cotton, and 31 per cent in feed crops. The livestock consisted largely
of work stock. Enough other livestock were kept to consume about one-
half as much feed as the horses and mules. Of these farms 36 per cent
were between 26 and '75 acres in size, 36 per cent were between '76 and
125 acres, 16 per cent were between 126 and 1'75 acres, '7 per cent were
between 1'76 and 225 acres, and 5 per cent were 225 acres and above. In
later discussions those farms between 26 and '75 acres are referred to as
the 50-acre group and those between '76 and 125 acres are referred to
as the 100-acre group, etc.

8 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

It would be difficult to find an agricultural area in the State with a
more homogenous type of farming than that of the Black Waxy Prairie
Belt. This fact is Well illustrated in Figure 2, which indicates the dis-
tribution of crops and livestock for each of the 2'7 counties included in
the area.

On slight examination one will readily observe that the farm organiza-
tion in Bexar, Denton, and Tarrant Counties differs noticeably from
that of the other counties in the group. No doubt this variation is in-
fluenced quite largely by differences in soil types and by the presence of
large population centers. The Blackland proper occupies a relatively
small portion of each of these counties. The striking similarity of the
type of farming common to the Black Waxy Prairie soils is illu-trated
by that of Ellis, Rockwall, and Delta Counties. 3

PER CENT CROP LAND IN NOANiMALSPERlOOCROPACRES

COUNTIES l COTTON v ICORNS-SORG. SMALLGRAIN HAY 4 COWS HOGS POULTRY

CALDWELL
WILLIAMSON
ELLIS
ROCKWALL
DELTA ‘
NAVARRO
FALLS
LIMESTONE
HILL
KAUFMAN
McL ENNAN
HUNT
MILAM
LAMAR
TRAVIS
BASTROP
BELL
COLL IN
GUADALU PE
FANNIN
DALLAS
RED RIVER
JOHNSON
GRAYSON
TARRAN T i
DEN TON
BEXAR

|
I
I
L I
o 25 5'0 75 o 25 0 25 'o|o o no 025 o 50o

Figure 2.—Distribution of crop area and important kinds of livestock showing similarity in
type of farming in Black Waxy Prairie Counties. (U. S. Census, 1925.)

While the acres of crops and the numbers of livestock are strikingly
uniform for the entire area, theydiifer greatly from farm to farm. The
per cent of land in cotton and feed crops and the numbers of the different
kinds of livestock on 172 farms in the 100-acre group are shown in
Figure 3. The range in the per cent of land in cotton is from 99 to 0.
The per cent of land in feed crops is fairly uniform with the exception

PRAIRIE BELT

   

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY
NUMBER OF
U    PRQDUCT|VE
PERCENTAGE OF LAND IN = WESTO“
FEED PASTURE WASTE PER FARM
 CROPS a: FARMsfl-Bxofl COWS SOWS POULTRY
o 2104050 30:90 o 2p 4030 o 2_o4_o6_0a_o/Qo' ogqxe; ogo §§§
0 zbioéosioiboo o 6'0 o 0 60:50:60 0:246 o2‘ 03%
1922,

Figure 3.-—Variation in organization in a group of 100-acre farms in Rockwall County,
(

ach line gives the organization of one farm.)

1O BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

of a small group of farms showing a very high per cent of land in cotton
and of a small group showing a low per cent of land in cotton. Pasture
and Waste land increase almost directly proportional to the ‘decrease in
cotton. There is a slight tendency for productive livestock to increase
as pasture land increases, but at best livestock plays a minor role in the
agriculture of the area.

Table 1.—Cr0ps and livestock on 172 farms of the 100-acre group, Rockwall County, 192?

Per cent of land in cotton . . . . . . . . 80—lO0 70—~80 60-—70 50——6O 50——O
Per cent land _in feed crops . . . . . . . O——10 10—-2O 20—30 30—40 O——80
Per cent land in pasture, waste and

~15‘ farmstead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10 10—20 10—20 10—80
Number of cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1—2 1—2 1——4 1—2
Number of sows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None None 1 1—2 0—-1
Number of hens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 50 50—100 50—100 50—100
Per cent all farms in each group. . . 4 20 40 18 18

Table 1 presents a somewhat more detailed analysis of the organiza-
tion of this group of farms. This reveals three fairly uniform and
comparable groups and, in addition, two highly variable groups. The
highly variable groups are made up of farms either very high in the per
cent of land in cotton or those which are low in the per cent of land in
cotton. The most common, or the group comprising 40 per cent of the
farms, is that in which 6O to '7 0 per cent of the land is in cotton, 20 to 30
per cent in feed crops, and 10 to 20 per cent in pasture and waste land.
The productive livestock per farm for this most common group consists
of 1 to 2 cows, one brood sow, and 50 to 100 hens. The group imme-
diately below, 50 to 60 per cent cotton, shows an increase in feed crops
and a slight increase in the number of cows, while the group immediately
above the most common, or the one having 70 to 80 per cent cotton,
shows a decrease both in the amount of feed grown and the number of
livestock kept.

The variations in the crops and livestock on the different farms in the
100-acre group are fairly characteristic of the variations in the other-size
groups.

FARM RETURNS OBTAINED FROM PRESENT SYSTEMS

Crop acreages, business investment, expenses, receipts, and net returns
for 11 farms on which records were kept during the entire three-year
period are shown in Table 2. The yearly averages are shown for each
item. These farms are listed in the order of net returns, beginning
with the highest. As might be expected, there is a wide variation in
this figure. The net return from these farms ranged from $4,944.00 to
$643.00. While the return has a strong tendency to follow size of farms,
there are very noticeable exceptions. For example, one 83-acre farm
made an average income of $1,780.00 while a ‘YSJ-acre farm averaged only
$643.00. This 83-acre farm showed a higher average income than three
farms whose acreage averaged 95, 127, and 129, respectively. Evi-
dently the difference in net returns was not due altogether to a difference

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 11

in size. N0 doubt variations in net returns are due very largely to such
factors as the differences in farmers, farms, farming systems, and farm-
ing practices. Farmers and farms are not very readily changed. The
soil and physical environment of a farm for any given year are fairly
definitely fixed, but farming systems and practices lend themselves much
more readily t0 human control.

' Almost any agricultural community has at least a few farmers who
are recognized as successful. Their success is not a matter of luck or
chance. Some farmers are more successful in Working out profitable
systems of farming than others. They are keen observers, taking ad-
vantage not only of their own experience but that of their neighbors.
Furthermore, use is made of information which will help them to decide
on crops and livestock likely to be most profitable for any given year or
period of years.

Table 2.—Yearly average net returns per farm, 11 farms, 1925, 1926, and 1927.

Products
Farm Acres in _Business Farm Farm used in Net
number farm investment receipts expenses home returns
p. 1
19 . . . . . . . . 331.22 63436.84 9719. 50 5665.86 891.29 4944.93

23* . . . . . . . 182.00 35446.08 10767.82 7336.74 768.32 4199.40

8 . . . . . . .. 161.03 39536.97 4678.14 3366.32 801.99 2113.81

22 . . . . . . . . 151.08 31452.13 . 4002.42 2660.05 552.98 1895.35

13 . . . . . . .. 83.19 19958.62 2683.12 1676.84 773.68 1779.96

14 . . . . . . .. 127 44 2423942 3419.32 2305 20 531 41 1645 53

3 . . . . . . .. 129 84 24350 80 2441.83 1405 57 535 19 1571 45

21 . . . . . . .. 95 38 5 71 62 1824.62 1274 26 709 99 1260 35

1 . . . . . . .. 66.11 1 57.03 1747.79 1249.85 677.49 1175.43

6 . . . . . . . . 59.69 13617.60 2841.09 2149.76 483.65 1174.98

16 . . . . . . .. 79.41 9718.24 2163.60 1880.67 359.98 642.91

*Average for 1925 and 1926.

The more profitable farms in the area have certain important charac-
teristics in common. Cotton is a major enterprise and the important
source ‘of income. At the same time varying numbers of livestock, such
as cows, hogs, poultry, and sometimes a few sheep are kept. The crop-
ping system recognizes the importance of controlling cotton root rot to
the extent of having cotton follow other crops in so far as possible.
These farms produce much of the food needed by the farm family and
practically all of the feed used by the farm livestock. Good farm prac-
tices are followed in the growing of crops and in the handling of live-
stock. Considerable attention is given to pedigreed or high-grade cotton
seed and to the quality of livestock kept.

NORMAL CROP YIELDS, LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION, CROP AND
LIVESTOCK REQUIREMENTS, AND EXPECTED PRICES

To repeat, profitable systems of farming are not accidental. Gen-
erally they are the results of comparisons between enterprises or sys-
tems, or both, thoughtfully made. It is to assist farmers in making
these comparisons that several different systems for farms of various

12 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

sizes are outlined and presented in this Bulletin. The acres of crops,
numbers of livestock, expected receipts, expenses, and net returns are
shown for each of these systems.

In arriving at the anticipated expenses, receipts, and net returns a
detailed farm budget Was prepared for each system. Each of these
budgets shows the hours of man labor and horse work and other costs,
and production for each crop. It also shows the amounts of home-grown
and purchased feeds, and other costs, and production for each class of
livestock. General farm or overhead expenses are also included for each
system. In order that these budget statements may indicate as nearly
as possible the returns that will be obtained from systems similar to
those outlined, it was necessary to reach conclusions as to the following:

1. Normal crop yields and requirements

2. Normal livestock production and requirements

3. Normal building, machinery, fence, and automobile expenses
4. Expected prices of products sold and of items bought

CYOP Yields and Requirements! Normal yields and requirements for
cotton are shown in Table 3. By “normal” requirements is meant the
man labor, horse work, and other costs that are used in producing an
acre of cotton under usual conditions in the area. Conclusions as to
these normal requirements are based upon the amounts of manylabor
and horse work, and materials used and the cash costs paid out in grow-
ing cotton in 1925 and 1926 on the farms in this study.

Table 3.-—Normal yields and requirements for cotton, acre basis.

Amount per acre

A B C D E F
Systems Systems Systems Systems Systems Systems
All 75% 50% 37%% 25% 12%%
cultivated cultivated cultivated cultivated cultivated cultivated
land in land in land in land in land in land in
cotton cotton cotton cotton cotton cotton
Yields:
Lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 185 200 208 215 220
Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 310 335 348 360 369
Seed cotton . . . . . . .. 478 520 ‘, 562 585 605 618
Production require-
ments:
Man labor, hoursT. . 30 30 30 30 30 30
Horse work, hours. . 33 33 33 33 33 33
Seed, bushels . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1
Other cash costsI. . . .. 8.28 9.01 9.74 10.13 10.46 11.25

TIncludes all labor except picking. A common rate of picking, considering the entire season,
is 2O pounds per hour. _

IIncludes a contract charge for picking at $1.25 per 100 pounds of seed cotton; ginning $0.35
per 100 pounds of seed cotton; wrapping $1.50 per bale; and yardage $0.35 per bale.

The cropping system followed has an important influence on the
cotton yield obtained. Consequently six different yield figures are
shown. The yield shown for “A” systems assumes continuous cropping
of cotton; that shown for “B” systems, '75 per cent of the cultivated

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 13

land in cotton; that shown for “C” systems, 50 per cent in cotton; that
shown for “D’f systems, 37.5 per cent in cotton; that shown for “E”
systems, 25 per cent in cotton; and that shown for “F” systems, 12.5
per cent in cotton. Conclusions as to these yields are based on experi-
mental results obtained on the Temple Substation as reported in Texas
Station Bulletin No. 365 and results obtained on farms in this study.
The letters A, B, O, etc., are used in presenting the systems outlined to
indicate the cotton yield used. Normal yields and requirements for
corn, oats, cane, and sudan pasture are shown in Table 4. Leguminous
crops have been omitted from the systems outlined as a measure" of root
rot control. It is recognized, however, that there are farms in the area
having little or no root rot. Operators on these farms might well con-
sider the growing of alfalfa and sweet clover, both for hay and pasturage.
The conclusions as to the requirements are based on results obtained on
farms in this study. Those as to yields are based upon yields obtained
on these farms and other farm data showing average yields obtained in
the area during the past few years and on experimental data showing
yields obtained when different practices were followed.

‘Table 4.—-Normal yields and requirements for corn, oats, cane, and sudan, acre basis.

l Corn \ Oats I Cane l Sudan
Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 bu. 35 bu. 3 tons Pasture
Production requirements:
Man labor, hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 15 40* 1O

Horse work, hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 22 50* 20

Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 lbs. 3 bu. 3 bu. 2O lbs.

Cash costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Twine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Threshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.751 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*For harvesting when hauled to the barn without baling.

TThree and one-half pounds twine at 15 cents.

IThirty-five bushels at 5 cents.

Livestock Production and Requirements: Normal production and re-

quirements for dairy cattle, hogs, sheep, and poultry are shown in Table

5. Normal requirements for work stock are also shown. In reaching

conclusions as to these normal figures, the results obtained on the farms
in this study were considered together with the results obtained when
different rations were fed under experimental conditions.

The requirements shown are based on the following: dairy cows, 8
pounds of the concentrate mixture (corn, oats, bran, and cottonseed
meal in the proportions of 5, 5, 5, and 7.5, respectively), and 15 pounds
of hay per day for 120 days; 6 pounds of concentrate mixture and 8
pounds of hay for 80 days; 3.3 pounds of concentrate mixture for 100
days; and 134 pounds of concentrate and 260 pounds of hay for the
remaining period; one sow and 10 pigs, 6 bushels of corn, 20 pounds of
cottonseed meal, and 150 pounds of milk for each 100 pounds of pork;
chickens, 4L0 pounds of corn, 20 pounds of oats, 7 pounds of oyster shells,
and 80 pounds of skim milk for each mature bird; and 5 pounds of corn,

14

BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

2 pounds of oats, '7 pounds of skim milk, and 4 pounds of baby chick
feed for growing each young bird to two pounds.

Table 5.—Normal production and requirements for dairy cows, sheep, hogs, chickens, and

work stock.
One dairy One mature One sow One mature One work
cowl sheep? and 10 pigs chicken horsel
Production . . . . . . . . . . . 250 lbs. B. F. 80 lbs. lamb, 2,000 lbs. 8 1-3 doz. 1,000 hours
i . 7 lbs. wool pork (live eggs,-’»3lbs.
weight) 3 lbs. friers, 1 lb.
hen
Production require-
ments: '
Corn, bushels . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 .8 35

Oats, bushels. . . . . . . 14 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 30

Bran, pounds . . . . . . . 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cottonseed meal, lbs. . 620 . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

Cane hay, lbs . . . . . . .. 2,700 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000

Baby chick feed, lbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 0 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oyster shells, lbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Skim milk, lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000 90.04 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Man labor, hours. . .. 1605 100 v 3.0 60
Miscellaneous costs. . . . $3. 00 $0.20 $2. 50 $0. 02 $2.00

Pasture, acres“. .. . . . 1.507 .2 1.25 . 1 .75

1For dairy cows and work stock 10 pounds of oats are approximately equal to 7.1 pounds of
shelled corn and 1.2 pounds of cottonseed meal. Substitutions are made on this basis in
balancin the feeds in the systems shown. _ _ _

In a dition to the feed shown for 1 dairy cow, feed 1S required for the young dairy cattle.
Approximately 400 pounds of whole milk are required to grow a veal calf to 125 pounds. Approx-
imately l00 pounds of whole milk, 1,200 pounds of skim milk, 300 pounds of bran, 1,200 pounds
of cane hay, and good pasturage are required to grow a calf to two years of age. Under usual
conditions, .6 of the above requirements for producing a veal and .2 of those for growing a
calf to two years of age will be used for each cow each year. A veal calf would weigh 125 pounds
and the production per cow would be 6 x 125 pounds. One-half of replaced cows would be
sold at 700 pounds or 7O pounds per cow. _

zTwo out of 10 lambs are to be kept for replacement. This leaves 64 pounds of lamb per
mature shee for sale. It is assumed that one-half the culled ewes would be sold at a weight
of 100 poun s, or 10 pounds for each mature sheep.

“Only 2 pounds per hen sold. The remainder 1S used to replace culled hens. _

4For chickens 5 pounds of meat scrap and 8 pounds of shorts may be substituted for 100
pounds of skim milk.

‘Includes man labor for veal calves and enough young cattle to keep up herd.

‘Cultivated pasture. Three acres of permanent pasture are considered equal to one acre
of cultivated pasture.

7Includcs pasturage for enough young cattle to keep up herd.

Building, Machinery, Fence, and Automobile Expenses: The data 0b-
tained in this study and data for areas with similar conditions elsewhere
have been used in working out normal farm building expenses. These
are shown in Section A, 'l‘a'ole 6. The expenses include depreciation,
repairs, and insurance. The systems are classified into A, ‘B, C, D, E,
and F systems as indicated under the discussion of cotton yields and
requirements. A

The number of livestock kept is the most important factor in deter-
mining the amount of building expense. The following yearly esti-
mated rates were used:

Work horses . . . . . . . . . . . $3.00 to $5.00 per head,
Cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.50 to $4.00 per head,
Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 cents to 20 cents per head, a

Chickens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 cents to 18 cents per mature bird.

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

15

The lower rates were used for the systems with the larger number of
livestock and the higher rates for the systems in which the smaller

number were kept.

Normal farm machinery expenses are shown in Section B, Table 6.

Table 6.—Normal farm building, machinery, fence, and auto expenses, for the different system
of farms with different acreages.

Section A—Farm buildings.

_ A B C D E F
Size of farm Systems Systems Systems Systems Systems Systems
50-acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 18 $ 25 $ 35 $ 50 $ 52 $ 55

1O0-acre1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 30 65 85 88 90

100-acre? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 40 60 70 75 85

150-acre’, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9O 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 90 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150-acre4, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 65 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 70 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200-acre5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200-acrefi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2OO-acre1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section B—-Farm machinery.
50-acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 50 60 68 72 74

100-acre1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8O 90 < 100 108 114 118

100-acre? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 95 95 98 112 114

150-acre“, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 145 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125 145 150 . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . ..

15O-acre4, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 120 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

No.2._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110 118 125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

200-acre5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 170 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200-acre° . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 168 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200-acre7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section C—Fences
50-acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10 15 18 20 22

IOO-acrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 15 22 25 28 30

100-acre? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 25 3O 32 34 36

150-acre“, N0. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 30 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3O 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150-acre4, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 35 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 38 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200-acre5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200-acrefi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200-acreY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section D—Automobile.
50-acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 55 75 8O 85 9O

100-acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 85 100 110 120 125

IOO-acrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 100 110 115 120 125

150-acre“, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 140 145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110 140 145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

150-acre4, N0. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 130 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 135 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200-acre5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 165 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200-acre° . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200-acre7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 90 acres in cultivation.
2 7O acres _in cultivation.
3140 acres in cultivation.

4100 acres in cultivation.
5180 acres in cultivation.
6150 acres in cultivation.

7100 acres in cultivation.

16 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION l

These normal expenses were worked out in a manner similar to that
described for farm buildings. The rates used are as follows:

Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 to 90 cents per acre,

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 to 8O cents per acre,

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 to 90 cents per acre,

(lane Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.25 to $1.75 per acre,

Sudan Pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 to 60 cents per acre,

Work Stock (Harness) . . . . . . $2.00 to $3.00 per head,
Dairy Cows (Equipment for
Handling) . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.50 to $2.00 per head,

Poultry (For feeding, etc.) . . 4 to 6 cents per mature bird,
Hogs (For feeding, etc.) . . . . .5 to 10 cents per 100 pounds pork.

The lower rates were used for the systems with the larger acreages of
crops or the larger number of livestock and higher rates for the systems
with the smaller acreages of crops grown or the smaller number of live-
stock kept.

Normal fence and automobile expenses are shown in Sections C and
D. Fence expenses include depreciation and repairs; automobile ex-
penses include depreciation, repairs, gas, oil, and license fees. The au-
tomobile expenses include only those incurred when the automobile is
used for the farm business.

Prices! The prices used in calculating the expected returns for the
systems outlined are shown in Table *7. Conclusions as to these prices
are based upon the prices that have prevailed in the area during the
past few years, price trends, and a study of conditions likely to in-
fluence prices during the years just ahead. Detail price data used in
this connection are shown in Tables 32, 33, and 34 of the appendix.

Table 7.——Expected prices of products sold and items bought.

Products sold Items bought
Cotton lint. . . . .16. 0 cents per lb. Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $42.00 per ton
Cotton seed. . . .. 1.5 cents per lb. 1,800 pounds of cottonseed meal for 1 ton of cotton seed
Butter fat . . . . . .36. 0 cents per lb. Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $35.00 per ton

Culled cows. . . . . 4. 0 cents per lb. Shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $40. 00 per ton

Hogs. . . .. . . . . . . 9.0 cents per lb. Baby chick feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3% cents per lb.

Veal calves. . . . . 8.0 cents per lb. Meat scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% cents per lb.

Wool. . . . .. . . . . .32.0 cents per lb. Oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$ 1.50 per 100 lbs.

Lambs . . . . . . . . .10.0 cents per lb. Cotton seed (certified) . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.00 per bu.

Culled ewes. . .. . 3.5 cents per lb. Cane seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 . 50 per bu.

Eggs . . . . . . . . . . .27.0 cents per doz. Sudan seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% cents perllb.

Friers . . . . . . . . . .25. 0 cents per lb. Threshing (oats) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 cents per bu.

Culled hens... . .17.0 cents per lb. Twine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 cents per lb.

Corn . . . . . . . . . $1.00 per bu. Picking cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.25 per 100 lbs.

Oats . . . . . . . . . . .60. 0 cents per bu. Ginning cotton (includes wrapping

Cane Hay. . . . $10.00 per ton and yardage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6. 75 per bale

Chopping cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 . 5O per acre

Hired labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .351 . 50 per day

The crop yields, livestock production, crop and livestock requirements,
overhead expenses, and prices shown are not likely to prevail during any

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 17

one year. They are intended to represent average expectations, consid-
ering a period of years. When they are combined in working out ex-
pected net returns for the different systems, the results are believed to
represent reasonable expectations under usual conditions in the section
for systems similar to those indicated.

Systems worked out on the basis of thenormal production and price
relations shown above are presented for 50-, 100-, 150-, and ZOO-acre
farms, with varying amounts of cotton, other crops, and livestock for
each group.

SYSTEMS FOR 50-ACRE FARMS

There are many different ways to organize 50-acre farms. The out-
lines of six different systems for 50-acre farms are shown in Table 8.
These systems have been outlined for the purpose of showing the returns

Table 8.—Outline of systems for 50-acre farms

System System System System System System
A B C D E F
Value of land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7000. 00 $7000. 00 $7000. 00 $7000. 00 $7000.00 $7000.00

Value of farm buildings . . . . . . . . . . . 180.00 250.00 350.00 450.00 470.00 500.00

Value of farm machinery . . . . . . . . . . 110.00 260.00 270.00 280.00 290.00 300.00

Value of livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.00 360.00 555.00 665.00 755.00 820.00

Number of work stock . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 2 2 2
Acres in crops:
Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 33 22 16 11 6

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5 8.5 10 12 14

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 5 5 7 7. 5 8

Canehay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.5 2 5 3 3.5 4

Sudan pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 5 6 8 10 12

Permanent pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4 4 4

Farmstead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 2 2
Hours of man labor on crops*. .. . . . 1320.00 1230.00 1107. 50 1035.00 982.50 930.00
Hours of horse work on crops . . . . . . 1452.00 1415.00 1353.00 1312.00 1287.00 1262.00
Number of productive livestock:
Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 3 4 5 9
IS-Ilpgs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 lb. 600 lb. 1400 lb. 1 sow
ee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PoulEry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 50 100 150 150 150
Hours of man labor on livestock. . . . 180.00 430. 00 930.00 1240. 00 1440.00 1630. 00
Farm receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1359.29 $1172.26 $1191.66 $1212.12 $1208.89 $1145. 81
Value of products in home . . . . . . . . . 93. 80 209.14 249.64 249. 64 249. 64 249. 64
Farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738. 15 561.07 548.48 554. 32 534.02 557. 09
Net returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714. 94 820.33 892.82 907.44 924. 51 838. 36

*Man labor for picking cotton not included. This item is accounted for under farm
expenses. a

that may reasonably be expected under usual conditions in the section
when different acreages of cotton are grown. Feed crop and livestock
enterprises are substituted for that of cotton as the acreage of this crop
is decreased. The feed crops and livestock included in the different
systems are combined in such a way that the feed crops provide a fairly
well-balanced ration for the livestock. Gn the systems in which butter
fat is sold, enough poultry or hogs, or both, are included to utilize the

18 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

HOURIS
I50
I20
SYSTEM-A

9O
6O

3O

I20
SYSTEM-B

9O
60

3O

I20
SYSTEM-C

9O

6O

3O

I20
9O

SYSTEM-D

6O
3O
O
I20
9O
6O

SYSTE M-E

- 3O
o.
I20
9O
6O

SYSTEM-F

30
O

JAN. FEB. MAIR’. MAY. JUN JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC.

Figure 4.—Distributi0n 0f man labor for systems outlined for SO-acrc farms.

 

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 19

skim milk advantageously. Enough pasture is included for each system
to provide ample grazing during the growing season. A brief descrip-
tion of these systems follows:

A-SYStem-(W-acre Farmsk This system provides for growing 441
acres of cotton (all cultivated land), keeping 2 head of work stock, and
20 chickens. The feed for the Work stock and chickens is bought. The
poultry products are used in the household and cotton is the only source
of income.

B-SyStem—-—(50-a¢re Farmsfi This syfstem provides for growing 33
acres of cotton (three-fourths of cultivated land), keeping 2 head of
Work stock, one cow, and 50 chickens. The feed is grown. The dairy
products and some of the poultry products are used in the household.
The surplus poultry products are sold.‘ There are no other sales except
cotton.

C-SYStem——(50-a¢re Farms)! This system provides for 22 acres of
cotton (one-half of cultivated land); 2 head of work stock, 3 cows, 3
hogs, and 100 chickens are included. The feed for the livestock is
grown on the farm. The milk from one cow, all of the pork, and some
of the poultry products are used by the, farjm family. In addition to
cotton, the dairy products from 2 cows and the surplus poultry products
are sold, amounting to about 25 per cent of the farm sales.

D-SYStem—-(50-a¢re Farmsfi This system provides for 16 acres of
cotton (approximately three-eighths of cultivated land). In addition to
2 head of work stock, 4 dairy cows, 3 hogs, and 150 chickens are in-
cluded. The feed for the livestock is grown on the farm. The milk
from one cow, all of the pork, and some of the poultryproducts are used
in the homefiThe remainder of the dairy and poultry products are
sold. Dairy and poultry products make up about 45 per cent of the
sales from-this system.

E-$YSt-em—(50-a¢re Fafmsfi This system provides for 11 acres of
cotton (one-fourthof the cultivated land). Five cows, '7 hogs, and 150
chickens areékept. The feed is grown on the farm.‘ In, addition to
cotton, dairy and poultry products and hogs are sold. Over (60 per cent
of the sales consist of livestock products.

F-systellh-(W-acre Farms): This system provides for only 6 acres
of cotton (approximately one-eighth of land in cultivation). Feed crops
are grown, and dairy and poultry products-and hogs are the important
sources of income. I

In planning a system of farming it is important for one to consider
the seasonal man-labor and horse-work requirements. With some sys-
tems, particularly those with only one or two enterprises, most of the
work must be done during a comparatively short period of time. Dur-
ing the remainder of the year there is little productive employment.
With other systems, particularly those in which several crops and live-

20 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

HOURS
I50

 
 

120

   
 

SYSTEM-A
so-—i—

6O

30*

lZO
SYSTEM - B
9o ~~~~~e~~

6O

3O

 

120
9 SYSTEM-C
Q 
I

6O

   

3O

12o 
SYSTEM-D
9o -e—~-—e~e A ~  » ~ I

so  ~ 

‘I20

1Z0

SYSTEM - F
9o 7~—~—7——~

6O

3O

 

l ‘ l l l I ‘ I l l l I l l 4 l > i l l ‘I l l 1 i i l i i ‘ ‘ ~ I l
MAN! FEB.iI\/1AR_’APR¢ i\/1/-<r’_iJU|'d.iJUl_.3AUG. sERttmrl NO\/_ i 05c,
Figure 5.—Distribution of horse work for systems outlined for SO-acre farms. The substitution

of feed crops and livestock for cotton gives a more even distribution of horse work and
also tends to decrease the amount required to be done during the year.

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 21

stock with different seasonal requirements are included, the man labor
a11d horse Work requirements are much more evenly distributed through-
out the year.

The seasonal distribution of the man-labor and horse-work require-
ments for the systems outlined for 50-acre farms is shown in Figures
4 and 5. The average of cotton varies from 100 per cent of the culti-
vated land in System-A to 12.5 per cent in System-F. Feed crops and
livestock have been substituted for cotton. The leveling effect of this
substitution on the distribution of both man labor and horse work
throughout the year is very apparent. This is particularly true of the
distribution of man labor as shown in Figure 4. This fact is strik-
ingly contrasted by a comparison of the distribution of man labor for
System-A with that of System-D. In the case of the former the
operator is given the opportunity of working about 1,200 hours during
the year, or about four-tenths of his available time, while in the case
of the latter, where other crops and livestock are substituted for '28
acres of cotton, the operator is able to utilize 2,100 hours or about seven-
tenths of his available time. In other words, the operator is able to
work 900 hours more in System-D than in System-A. The difference in
net returns is $190.00 in favor of System-D or about 21 cents per hour
for this extra time.

The crop yields, livestock production, crop and livestock requirements,
overhead expenses, and prices previously presented have been used in
calculating the expected returns for each of these systems. These ex-
pected returns are shown at the bottom of Table 8. Under usual condi-
tions in the section, the chances appear about even for a net return of
approximately $720.00 from systems for 50-acre farms similar to A-
System, $830.00 from systems similar to B-System, $880.00 from sys-

l _ terns similar to C-System, $896.00 from systems similar to E-System,

and $855.00 from systems similar to F-System. The value of the live-
stock and garden products furnished the household is included as re-
ceipts in these calculations. Expenses are also included for chopping
and picking cotton in each system. No other labor charges are de-
ducted. The figures shown indicate the amounts left for returns on the
investment and for the labor and management of the operator.

The results indicate that, underusual conditions in the section in the
substitution of feed crops and livestock for cotton on 50-acre farms, the

net returns are not greatly affected when the cotton acreage is increased .

until approximately 50 per cent of the cultivated land is in cotton or
decreased until only 25 per cent of the land is in cotton, provided that
the land is used effectively in_ growing feed crops and in producing live-
stock and livestock products. When more than 50 per cent, or when
less than 25 per cent of the land is in cotton, the net returns are less
than when the acreage is within these limits. The conclusion is that
most farmers on 50-acre farms will get the best results under usual con-
ditions when 25 to 50 per cent of the cultivated land is in cotton, and
the remainder of it used effectively in growing feed crops and in pro-

22 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

ducing livestock and livestock products. The most profitable acreage,
within these limits, depends upon the nature of the soil and the apti-
tudes, inclination, and skill of the farmer.

DETAILS OF D-SYSTEM—50-ACRE FARMS
(Approximately Three-eighths of Cultivated Land in Cotton)

A detailed budget for D-System is shown in Table 9. As explained
above, the data in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and '7 have been used in the prepara-
tion of this budget. For example, the requirements and production for
16 acres of cotton shown in Sections A and B are obtained by multiply-
ing the different items for cotton in D-System, Table 3, by 16. The
requirements and production for 10 acres of corn are obtained by multi-
plying the different items for corn, Table 4, by 10. The requirements
and production for 4 dairy cows are obtained by multiplying the differ-
ent items for dairy cows, Table 5, by 4. The cost of expense items and
value of production are obtained by multiplying the quantities obtained
as indicated above by the prices shown in Table 7. The expenses for
farm buildings, farm_ machinery, fence, and automobile shown in D-
System for 50-acre farms in Table 6 are brought forward.

Table SJ-Detailed budget for D-system, 50-acre farm
Section A—Acreage and cash expenses for crops

 

Seeds and plants Other Expenses
Man Horse
Crop Acres Hours Hours
Amount Cost Kind and amount Cost
Cotton:
Lint, _ _ , , _ , _ , , _ , , 16 480 528 1.6 bu. (certified) S 4.80 Picking, ginning, wrapping

and yardage . . . . . . . . . .. 8 162.08

Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Chopping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.00

Seed cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 250 320 70 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 105 154 21 bushels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Twine, 21% pounds . . . . . . 3 68

Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 120 150 9 bushels . . . . . . . . . 13.50 Tresbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.25

Rotation pasture. .1 8 80 160 160 pounds . . . . . . . 12 .00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Permanent pasture 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Farms Eead . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals . . . . . . 50 1035 1312 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S 30.30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 202.01
Section B——Production and disposal crops
Farm use Sales
Crop Production
Feed Seed Amount Value
Cotton: -
Lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,328 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,328 $ 532.48

Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5,568 pounds . . . . .. 3,556 461 1,551 23.27

Seed cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9,360 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 bushels . . . . . . 250 1%bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 245 bushels . . . . .. 221 21 bu. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,000 pounds . . . . .. 17,160 lbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S 555 75

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

Section C—Feeds and other expenses for livestock

23

Home-grownfeeds Purchased feeds Other expenses
Livestock No. Man _ _
Hours Kind Quantity Kind Quantity Cost Kind Cost
Work stock . . . . . . 7O bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Misc $ 4.00
Dairy cows . . . . . .

 

 

 

Young D. cattle. .... . . . . . . .. Cane hay. . .. .

 . . . . . . . .. Skim milk. .. 960 lbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 30 Corn . . . . . . . . 36 bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Misc .75

.... . . . . . . .. Cs. meal... 120 lbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

. . . . . . ..Skimmilk... 900lbs 

Poultry . . . . . . . . . 150 450 Corn . . . . . . . . 120 bu Chick feed... 600 lbs 21.00 Misc 3.00

. . . . . . . . . . . Oats . . . . . . . . 105 bu. Oyster shell.. 1,050 lbs 15.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .. Skim milk 10,824 lbs. Meat scraps 134 lbs 6.03 . . . ..  . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Shorts....... 214lbs 

Totals . . . . ..  1240 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 86.31 . . . . . . .. 3 19.75
Section D— Production and disposal 0f livestock and livestock products
Used in home Sales
Fed to
Livestock Production livestock
Amount Value Amount Value
Work stock . . . . . . . . . . 2, 000 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . 1,000 lbs. butter fat. . . 52 lbs. 237 3 85.00 711 lbs. butter fat $255.96

280 lbs. cull cow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 11.

Young dairy cattle. . . 300 lbs. veal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 pounds . . . . . . 24.00

Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 40.50 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.50

Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,250 doz. eggs . . . . . . . 45 dcz.* . 182 doz 49.14 1023 dozen . . . . . . . 276.21

450 lbs. fliers . . . . . . . 150 lbs.* 100 lbs 25 .00 200 pounds . . . . . . 50.00

150 lbs. hens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 pounds . . . . . . 25.50

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 199.64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 656.37
‘Eggs used for hatching and friers for replacement.
Section E— Summary of receipts and expenses
Total Total
Receipts Value Expenses Value
Crops (Sec. B.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 555.75 Crops (Sec. A.):

_ _ Seed .............................. .. s 30.30‘
Livestock and livestock products (Sec. D.). . . 656.37 Other crop expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.01
Livestock products used in home (Sec. D.). . 199. 64 Livestock (Sec. C.):

Feed purchased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.31
Garden (estimated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.00 Other livestock expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9. 75
Other expenses (estimated):
Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.00

Fence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.00

Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.00

Auto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.00

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1,461.76 $ 554.37

Net returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907.39

24 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

HOURS

POULTRY, n50 HENS

Hoes, e00 POUNDS PORK

RY cows, 4

WORK STOCK Z
PASTURE 8 ACRES CULTIVATED

Z4-
CANE HAY, 3 ACRES

,0
IZ

OATS, 7 ACRES

Z4-
l2

48

COTTONJ6ACRE$
36
Z4

-l2

.108
96
.84
72

TOTAL FOR FARM

<60
48
36

  
   
 

Z4
IZ

0
JAN FEB. MAR. APR MAY. JUN JUL AUG. SEF’ OCT. NOV. DEC.

Figure 6.—Distribution 0f man labor by enterprises for D-system (SO-acre farms).

 

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

 
  
   
 
  
   
  

 

CANE HAY
I8
3 ACRES
9
O
OATS
[8I 7'ACRES
9 __fl__,_
0 Iii.‘
36
CORN
z7~
IO ACRES
9 ‘III-II
0
36
COTTON
27-
mTACRE5

i 8

8|
72

63-

54’
45’
36
27'
18'

 

    
 

T T T T T | T \ T 1
WAY. ‘TJUN. JuLJAucs. sER| ocT. NOV. ‘TQECI

 

JANJFEaTMARflA@R

Figure 74~Distribution of horse work by crops for D-system (50-acre farms},

25

26 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

The seasonal distribution oi’ man labor and horse work for the differ-
ent crop and livestock enterprises of D-System are shown in Figures 6
and '7. The seasonal distribution of man labor and horse work for the
different enterprises is based on the distribution as shown by farm
records in this study.

Attention has already been called to the advantage of a type of
organization as illustrated in System-D over that of all cotton in System-
A. An explanation of this advantage is readily observed in Figure 6,
where a distribution of the man labor for the several crops and live-
stock enterprises included in the system are shown. The livestock enter-
prises have a very decided influence on this result. Other crops, to be
sure, aid materially in giving a more even distribution of man labor.
For example, the harvesting of corn and cane hay is done at a time
when very little or no work is being done on cotton. Likewise, the
planting of corn and the seeding of oats, sudan, and cane occur at a
time when a relatively small amount of work is being done on cotton.

P SYSTEMS FOR 100-ACRE FARMS

As suggested by Figure 1, 100-acre farms vary widely in this organiza-
tion. In a similar manner to that described for 50-acre farms, diiferent
systems have been outlined for 100-acre farms. Six different systems
with 90 per cent of the land in cultivation are shown in Table 10. These
systems are briefly described as follows:

A-System-(lml-acre F armS)= This is an all-cotton system. It pro-
vides for growing 90 acres of cotton (all cultivated land), keeping 4 head
of Work stock, and 30 hens. The feed for both work stock and poultry
is bought. All the poultry and poultry products, with the exception of
a few cull hens and a few dozen eggs, were consumed in the home.

B-SYStem-(IOQ-iwre Farms)! This system provides for growing 68
acres of cotton (three-fourths of cultivated land), keeping 4 head of
work stock, one cow, 4 head of hogs, and 80 hens. Feed for the livestock

is grown on the farm. All of the dairy and a part of the poultry

products are consumed in the home, and 450 pounds of pork are used
in the home and 350 pounds are sold. ‘Cotton is the major source of

income.
C-SYStém——(100-fl¢1'e Farmsfi This system provides for growing 45

acres of cotton (one-half of cultivated land), keeping 4 head of work
stock, 6 cows, one sow, and 180 hens. Practically all of the feed of live-

stock is grown on the farm. The milk of one cow, a part of the poultry _

and poultry products, and 450 pounds of pork are used in the home.
About 60 per cent of the total sales are from cotton and the remainder
from livestock and livestock products.

D-SyStem—(100-a¢re Farms)! a This system provides for growing 33
acres of cotton (three-eighths of cultivated land), keeping 4 head of work
stock, 8 cows, one sow, and 2'7 5 hens. Practically all the feed is grown

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 27

on the farm. The milk of one cow, 450 pounds of pork, and some of
the poultry and poultry products are used in the home and the remainder
of. all these are sold. Livestock and livestock products constitute almost
60 per cent of the total gross sales from this system.

E-$yStem—(100-a¢re Farms): This system provides for growing 23
acres of cotton (approximately one-fourth of cultivated land), keeping 4
head of Work stock, 9 cows, 2 sows, and 290 hens. Most of the feed for
the livestock is produced. on the farm. The milk from one cow, 450
pounds of’ pork, eggs, and poultry for the table are used in the home,
and the remainder of the livestock and livestock products are sold.

F-SYSteIIP-(IOO-iwre F armsfi This system provides for growing 15
acres of cotton (one-sixth of cultivated land), keeping 4 head of work
stock, 10 cows, 3 sows, and 290 hens. All of the feed for livestock, with
the exception of some bran, co-ttonseedmeal, and baby chick feed, was
grown on theifarm. The milk from one coW, 450pounds of pork, and
some of the eggs and poultry, ‘were used in the home and the remainder
of livestock and livestock products were used for replacement and sale.
Cotton is a minor source of income.

Table 10.——Outline of systems for 100-acrc farms.
(90 acres in cultivation.) _

Systein System System System System System
A B C D Ii F

Value of land . . . . . . . . . . . . $14000.00 $14000.00 $14000.00 314000.00 351400000 $14000.00
Value of farm buildings. . . . . 250.00 300.00 650.00 850.00 880.00 900.00
Value of farm machinery. . . . 220.00 370.00 370.00 370.00 350.00 355.00
Value of livestock . . . . . . . . . . . 525.00 655.00 1095.00‘, 1310.00 1420.00 1520.00
Number of work stock. . -. . _ 4' 4 4 ' 4- ; ., 4 4
Acres in crops:
Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.00 68.00 45.00 33.00 23.00 15.00 *

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.50 17.50 21.50 27.00 32.00

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.00 10.50 13.50 14.00 14.00

Cane hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.50 , 5.00 6.00 7.00 7.00

Sudan pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 12.00 16.00 19.00 22.00

Permanent pasture . . . . . . . 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00

Farmstead; . . . . . . . . .  2,00 2.00 2.00 2.00 i 2.00 2.00

Hours ofmanlaboron crops*l. 2700.00 2527.50 2265.00 2130.00 t, 2045.00 1960.00
Hours ofhorse workon crops. 2970.00 2897.00 2766.00 2394.00 2662.00 2617.00

Number of productive live-
ock:

Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ’ 6 8 9 10
Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 lb. . 1 sow 1 sow 2 sows 3 sows
Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poultry. . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 80 180 275 290 290
Hours of man labor on liye- '
stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 330.00 - 680.00 1840.00 r 2445.00 2750.00 3010.00
Farm receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2794.96 2449.90 2612.48 2660.64 2639.28 2632.50
alue of products in home 139.14 274. 64 274.64 274. 64 274.64 274.64
Farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 1434. 94 1047.20 1045.24 987. 73 947.83 963.20
Net returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1499.16 1677.34 1841.88 1947. 55 1966.09 1943. 94

*Man labor for picking cotton not included. This item is accounted for under farm
expenses.

28 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

HOURS
300
Z40
I 8O

SYSTEM- A

IZO
6O

Z40
I80
IZO
6O

240
I80
IZO

6O

Z40
I80
IZO

6O

SYSTEM —D

Z40
I80
IZO

6O

SYSTEM — E

Z40

SYSTEM- F
I80
IZO

60-

AN. FE A MAY. JUN JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC.

Figure 8.—Distributi0n of man labor for systems outlined for IOO-acrc farms.
(90 acres cultivated.)

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 29

HOUQS
300

24o —~l————~
SYSTEM-A

18o »—~—1*»~

:20

6O

Z40 "*-
480'
IZO

SYSTEM-D
18o —§~~—~

I SYSTEM-F
18o» ~ 1 *~—-<~~

0s . ’ I I
JANQFEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL AUG SEFZ ocT NOV. DEC.

F|gure 9.—-Distribution of horse work for systems outlined for IOO-acre farms.
(QO-acres cultivated.)

30 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

The seasonal distribution of the man-labor and horse-work require-
ments for the systems outlined for 100-acre farms with 90 acres in cul-
tivation is shown in Figures 8 and 9. Here, as in the case of 50-acre
farms, the distribution of both man labor and horse work is more uni-
formly distributed throughout the year as feed crops and livestock are
substituted for cotton. A comparison of System-A, an all-cotton or-
ganization, with System-D, where a combination of enterprises has been
included in the organization, shows that the organization of System-A
offers an opportunity of utilizing about three-fifths of the operator’s
time, while in the case of System-D practically all of his available time
is utilized. The organizations of System-D for both 50- and 100-acre
farms are quite similar, but the system for the 100-acre farms oifers a
much better opportunity for a complete utilization of the ioperator’s time
because of the increase in size. A small farm, regardless of how well
organized, does not offer the opportunity of year-round employment as
does the large farm of a similar organization. -

Table 11.—Outline of systems for 100-acre farms.
(70 acres in cultivation.)

System System System System System System
A B g c D E F

Value of land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11000.00 311000.00 $11000.00 $11000.00 $11000.
50 0 40 700 0 750

00 $11000. 00

Value of farm buildings. . . . . 2 .0 0. 00 600.00 .0 .00 850.00

Value of farm machinery. . . . 215.00 370.00 320.00 320.00 320.00 320.00

Value of live stock. . .. . . . . .. 525.00 835.00 1135.00 1230.00 1430.00 1480.00

Number of work stock . . . . . . 4 4 - 4 4 4 4
Acres in crops: "

Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.00 52.00 35.00 27.00 18.00 9.00

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.00 12.00 16.00 19.00 25.00

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.00 9.50 10.00 12.00 13.00

Cane hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 .00

Sudanpasture............ . . . . . . . .. 3.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 17.00

Permanent pasture . . . . . . . 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00

Farmstead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Hoursofmanlaboroncrops*. 2100.00 1960.00 1762.50 1680.00 1585.00 1500.00
Iloursofhorseworkoncrops. 2310.00 2260.00 2153.00 2113.00 2066.00 2023.00

Numberkof productive live-

stoc :
Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ‘ 1 4 - 7 7
Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 lb. 1 sow 1 sow 2 sows
Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 30 0
Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 130 140 210 240
llours of man labor on live-
stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330.00 640.00 1440.00 1710.00 2240.00 2430.00
Farm receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51B 2184.24 $ 2018.27 $ 2082.37 $ 2057.17 $ 2123.97 $ 2096.74
Value 0f products in home 139.14 224. 14 260. 14 274. 64 274.64 274.64
Farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 1225.45 905. 65 852.06 821.75 817.22 819 .99
Net returns... . .. . . . . . . . . 1097.93 1336.-76 1490.45 1510.06 1581.39 1541.39

*Man labor for picking cotton not included. This item is accounted for under farm
expenses.

Under usual conditions in the area, chances appear about even for a
net return of approximately $1,500.00 for systems for 100-acre farms

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 31

similar to A-System, $1,675.00 for systems similar to B-System,
$1,840.00 for systems similar to O-System, $1,950.00 for systems simi-
lar to D-System, $1,965.00 for systems similar to E-System, and
$1,945.00 for systems similar to F-System. As in the case of 50-acre
farms, these comparisons indicate that in the substitution of feed crops
and livestock for cotton on 100-acre farms with 90 per cent of the land
in cultivation, the net returns are increased until a point is reached
Where approximately 35 to 40 per cent of the cultivated land is in
cotton. The net returns are approximately the same when three-
eighths, one-fourth or one-eighth of the cultivated land is in cotton,
provided the remainder of the land is utilized effectively in growing
feed crops and livestock, and in producing livestock products.

In a manner similar to that prescribed above, systems have been out-
lined for six ]O0-acre farms With approximately '70 acres of land in cul-
tivation. The details for these are shown in Table 11. The different
systems are similar to thosedescribed for 100-acre farms With 90 acres
of land in cultivation except that slightly less cotton and slightly more
livestock are included in each case. Sheep -have been introduced to
give a better utilization of permanent pastures. The man-labor and
horse-work requirements are slightly less for the systems With smaller
cultivated acreages. Less cultivated pasture is also required on the
farms with the smaller cultivated acreages.

SYSTEMS FOR 150-ACRE FARMS

Systems with different acreages in cotton, ranging from three-fourths
to three-eighths of the cultivated land, were worked out for 150-acre
farms with 140 acres in cultivation. The systems for 150-acre farms
With less than three—eighths and more than three-fourths of the culti-
vated land in cotton are not shown. However, two systems have been
outlined With approximately three-fourths, two with approximately one-
half, and two with approximately three-eighths of the cultivated land in
cotton. The details for these systems are shown in Table 12. The
largest returns are indicated when approximately 35 {Z0140 per cent of
the cultivated land is in cotton. However, only slightly smaller returns
were indicated when other acreages were included between one-half and
three-eighths of the total cultivated land. A brief description of each
system follows:

B-System, NO- 1—(150-a¢re Farmsfi This system provides for grow-
i11g 105 acres of cotton, keeping 6 head of work stock, 3 cows, 1 sow and
30 hens. Feed for livestock is grown on the farm. The milk from one
cow, 450 pounds of pork, and most of the poultry and poultry products
are used in the home. Cotton is the major source of income.

B-System, NO- 2-(150-866 Farms)! This system differsfrom B-No. 1
chiefly in the kind of livestock kept, 2 hogs, 30 sheep and 10 hens being
substituted for 2 cows and 1 sow.

32 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Table 12--Outline of systems for 150-acre farms (140 acres in cultivation)
System System System System System System
B, N0. 1 B, No. 2 C, No. 1 C, No. 2 D, No. 1 D, No. 2
Value of land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21000.00 $21000.00 $21000.00 321000.00 $21000.00 $21000.00
Value of farm buildings. . . . . 350.00 350.00 900.00 900.00 950.00 950.00
‘Value of farm machinery. . . . 430.00 430.00 390.00 390.00 390.00 390.00
Value of livestock . . . . . . . . . . 1015.00 1110.00 1450.00 1660.00 2100.00 1960.00
Number of work stock . . . . . . 6 6 6 6 6 6
Acres in crops:
otton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 105.00 105.00 70.00 70.00 52.00 52.00

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.00 11.00 33.00 25.00 28.00 34.00

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.50 8.00 11.00 17.00 20.00 19.00

Canehay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.50 4.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 9.00

Sudan pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.00 12.00 19.00 20.00 31.00 26.00
Permanent pasture. . . . . .. 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Farmstead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Hours of man labor on crops*. 3897 50 3825.00 3560. 00 3500. 00 3230. 00 3315 00
.Hours of horse work on crops. 4495.00 4433 . 00 4338.00 4284. 00 4122.00 4192 00
Number of productive live-
stock:
Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 9 11 12
Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 sow 400 lbs. 4 sows 1 sow 1 sow 2 sows
Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 ' 40' 110 310 390 390
‘Hours of man labor on live-
stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030.00 810.00 2210.00 2830.00 3540.00 3650.00
Farm receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 3822.61 $ 3834.44 21$ 3937.25 2'5 4159.01 $ 4471.26 5B 4549.87
Value of products in home. . . 289.64 290.14 299.64 299. 64 .64 299. 64
Farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1535.22 1510.34 1438.53 1530.93 1427.80 1419.69
Net returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2577.03 2614.24 2798.33 2927.72 3343.10 3429.82
*Man labor for picking cotton not included. This item is accounted for under farm

Yexpen ses.

C-System, No. 1—(150-acre Farms):
'70 acres cotton (one-half cultivated land), keeping 6 work stock, '7 cows,
Almost all of the feed for livestock is grown on
the farm. The milk from one cow, 450 pounds of pork and some of the

4 sows and 110 hens.

poultry products are used in the home.

This system provides for growing

ucts constitute an important source of income.

C-System, No. 2—(150-acre Farms):
ence between C-System, No. 1 and No. 2, is that No. 2 provides for 2

more cows, 3 less sows, and 200 more hens.

Livestock and livestock prod-

About the only significant diifer-

This change in the live-

stock gives a substantial increase in returns for No. 2 over No. 1.

D-System, N0. 1--(150-acre Farms):
ing 52 acres of cotton (three-eighths cultivated land), keeping 6 head
of work stock, 11 cows, 1 sow, 30 sheep and 390 hens.
stock is grown on the farm. The milk from 1 cow, 450 pounds of pork,

some of the poultry and poultry products are used in the home.

This system provides for grow-

Feed for live-

Live-

stock and livestock products constitute the major source of income.

D-System, No. 2—(150-acre Farms):
ber of acres in cotton, slightly more feed crops, and cows and hogs are

This system has the‘ same num-

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

3

3'

substituted for sheep. Livestock and livestock products form the major
source of income in both systems.

The seasonal distribution of man-labor and horse-Work requirements
for the systems outlined for 150-acre farms, with 140 acres in cultiva-
tion, are quite similar to those shown for 100-acre farms With 90 acres
in cultivation.

Table 13——Outlinc of systems for 150-acre farms (100 acres in cultivation)

System System System System System System
B, No. 1 B, No. 2 C, No. 1 C, No. 2 D, No. 1 D, No. 2
Value of land . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $16500.00 $16500.00 $16500.00 $16500.00 $16500.00 $6500.00
Value of farm buildings. . . . . 450.00 500.00 650.00 700.00 550.00 780.00
Value of farm machinery. . . . 370 00 380.00 400.00 400.00 390.00 410.00
Value of livestock . . . . . . . . . . 875 00 960.00 1435.00 1535.00 1570.00 1835.00
Number of Work stock . . . . . . 4 4 4 4 4 4
Acres in crops:
Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.00 75.00 50.00 50.00 38.00 38.00

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.00 12.00 23.00 19.00 29.00 20.00~

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.00 10.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 14.00‘

Cane hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00

Sudan pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 9.00 13.00 17.00 21.00

Permanent pasture . . . . . . . 47 00 47.00 47.00 47.00 47.00 47.00

Farmstead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Hours of man labor on crops*. 2865. 00 2820. 00 2585.00 2525. 00 2425 00 2340 00-
Hours of horse work on crops. 3277. 00 3229. 00 3130. 00 3082. 00 3042 00 2972 00'
Number of productive live-

stoc :

Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 7 6

Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 sow . . . . . . . . . 2 sows 1 sow 4 sows 1 sow

Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 60

Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 190 180 220 60 220
Hours of man labor on live-

stoc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1220. 00 1120. 00 2250. 00 2100. 00 2080.00 2520. 00
Hours of horse labor on live-

stoc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farm receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3051.99 $ 3280.84 $ 3282.82 $ 3350.15 $ 3127.93 $ 3330.00
Value of products in home... 299.64 259.14 299.64 299.64 299. 64 299. 64
Farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1222.38 1304.90 1155.10 1158.81 993.29 1107.59
Net returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2129.25 2335.08 2427.36 2490. 98 2434.28 2522.05-

' cultivation.

*Man labor for picking cotton not included. This item is accounted for under farm

expenses.

Under usual conditions, the chances appear about even for a net re-
turn of approximately $2,5’7 5.00 for systems similar to B-System, No. 1 ;
$2,615.00 for B-System, No. 2; $2,800.00 for C-System, No. 1; $2,925.00
for C-System, No. 2; $3,340.00 for D-System, No. 1; and $3,430.00 for
D-System, No. 2. Here, as in previously discussed systems, the best
returns are indicated Where about three-eighths of the cultivated land
is in cotton and the remainder effectively used for the production of
crops and livestock.

Systems have been outlined for six 150-acre farms With 100 acres in
The detailed summary of these systems is shown in Table
13. They differ from 150-acre farms With 140 acres in cultivation prin-
cipally in the fact that they provide for more permanant pasture and
slightly more livestock.

34 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

SYSTEMS FOR 200-ACRE FARMS

The amount of tillable land in the area Varies considerably. Those
farms in the open prairies have a high percentage of the land in culti-
vation, while those along streams show much less cultivated land and
more pasture and waste land, principally due to the broken character of
the surface and to overflows. This situation is recognized in the six
systems outlined for 200-acre farms as well as in the systems outlined
for the 100-and 150-acre farms. The outline provides for two systems
with 180 acres in cultivation, two with 150 acres in cultivation, and two
with 100 acres in cultivation. The details for these systems are shown

in Table 14. A brief outline of them follows:
Table 14——Outline of systems for 200-acre farms
System C System D System C System D System C System D
180 acres 180 acres 150 acres 150 acres 100 acres 100 acres
in Cult. in Cult. in Cult. in_Cult. in Cult. in Cult.
Value of land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328000.00 328000.00 $22000.00 952200000 $16000.00 $16000.00
Value of farm buildings. . . . . 980.00 1200.00 1050.00 1120.00 650.00 1000.00
Value of farm machinery. . . . 455.00 460.00 400.00 420.00 390.00 400.00
Value of livestock . . . . . . . . . . 1975.00 2505.00 2035.00 2300.00 1705.00 2050.00
Number of work stock . . . . . . 6 6 6 6 4 4
Acres in crops:
Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.00 67.00 75.00 56.00 50.00 38.00

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.00 42.00 29.00 39.00 ' 29.00 28.00

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.00 23.00 18.00 21.00 11.00 17.00

Cane hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.00 11.00 9.00 10.00 7.00 9.00

Sudan pasture . . . . . . . . . . . 24.00 37.00 19.00 24.00 3.00 8.00

Permanent pasture . . . . . . . 16.00 16.00 46.00 46.00 96.00 96.00

Farmstead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Hours of man labor on cr0ps*. 4535. 0O 4215. 00 3795 00 3610. O0 2700.00 2535. O0
Hours of horse work on crops. 5534.00 5351 .00 4629 00 4538.00 3230. 00 3134.00
Number of productive live-

stock:

Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 15 11 13 11

Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 sows 3 sows 2 sows 3 sows 4 sows 2 sows

Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3 60 60

Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 470 270 390 60 300
Hours of man labor on live-

stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3690.00 4620.00 3280.00 4060.00 2400.00 3400.00
Farm receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 5609.28 $ 5718.57 $ 4819.09 .15 4887.98 $ 3678.06 $ 3936.35
Value of products in home. . . 309. 64 309 . 64 .64 309. 64 304. 64 309. 64
Farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1882.48 1799.69 1657.11 1569.11 1156.33 1219.27
Net returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4036.44 4228.52 3471.62 3628. 51 2826.37 3026. 72

*Man labor for picking cotton not included.

expenses.

C-Systemr-(ZOO-acre Farms):

This item is accounted for under farm

This system has the same amount of

land in cultivation as B-System, but 90 acres of cotton instead of 135.
Six head of work stock, 12 cows, 3 sows and 370 hens are kept. Feed
for livestock is grown on the farm and the table supplied with dairy,
poultry and meat products. Livestock and livestock products are a close
second to cotton as a source of income.

D-SYStem—(200-fl¢rB Farmsfi This system provides for growing 67
acres of cotton (three-eighths of cultivated land), keeping 6 head of

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 35

work stock, 15 cows, 3 sows, 470 hens, and 30 sheep. Feed for livestock
is grown on the farm, and provision is made for supplying the home with
livestock products. Livestock is the major source of income, While cot-
ton becomes a minor, but important, one.

C-SYStem—(200-a¢re F flrmsfi This system provides for growing '75
acres oi’ cotton out of 150 acres in cultivation. Six head of work stock,
11 cows, 2 sows, 30 sheep, and 270 hens are kept. Feed for livestock is
grown on the farm. Cotton and livestock are about equally important
as sources of income.

D-SYStem-(Zflll-acre Farms): In this system 150 acres are in culti-
vation, but it differs from the system immediately preceding in that 56
acres, 0r about three-eighths of the cultivated land, are planted to cotton.
Six head of work stock, 13 cows, 3 sows, 30 sheep, and 390 hens are
kept. Feed for livestock is grown on the farm, and the table is supplied
with dairy, poultry and Ineat products. Livestock and livestock prod-
ucts constitute a major and cotton a minor source of income.

C-SYStem—(200-a¢re Farmsfi Only 100 acres or one-half of the land
is cultivated. This system provides tor growing 50 acres of cotton (one-
half the cultivated land), keeping 4 head of work stock, 8 cows, 4 sows,
.60 sheep, and 60 hens. Livestock and cotton are the important sources
of income.

D-Systellh-(ZOU-acre Fflrmsfi This system, like the one mentioned
immediately above, has 100 acres or one-half of the land in cultivation.

In this system only 38 acres, or three-eighths of the cultivated land, is‘

in cotton. Four head of work stock, 11 cows, 2 sows, 60 sheep, and 300
hens are kept. Like all of the systems outlined for 200-acre farms, feed
for livestock is grownon the farm, and dairy, poultry and meat products
areturnished the table. Livestock and livestock products form the
major source of income for this system.

On examination of the net returns for the systems outlined for the
200-acre farms, it is readily observed that the net income is strongly in-
fluenced by the number of acres in cultivation. 1n each case the lesser
acreage of cotton gave the larger return. The best return for 180
acres in cultivation was $4,230.00, for 150 acres in cultivation was
$3,629.00; and for 100 acres in cultivation was $3,027.00.

SIZE OF FARM AND NET RETURNS

While this study is devoted principally to a consideration of systems
of farming for the different-sized farms most common in the Black
Waxy Prairie Belt, it is not amiss to call attention to the significance
of size in relation to income. Volume of business, in farming as in
other productive undertakings, is a prime requisite to success. The
organization and operation of a farm may be the very best, yet it may
be so small as to preclude the possibility of anything other than a

36 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

meager income. This suggests the advisability of comparing returns
that may reasonably be expected from farms of different sizes.

The outlines of the most profitable systems in the different-sized
groups previously discussed are assembled in Table 15. The returns
shown represent the amount that is to cover the labor and management
of operator; interest on the investment in land, buildings, livestock,
machinery, and taxes. 1

Table 15—Summary of most profitable systems outlined for different-sized farms

 

System D System D
System E System E No. 2 No. 2 ystem
System E 100-acre 100-acre 150-acre 150-acre 200-acre
50-acre (70 acres (90 acres (100 acres (140 acres (180 acres
cultivated) cultivated) cultivated) cultivated) cultivated)
Total acres . . . . . . . . . . 50.00 100.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 200.00
Acres cultivated. . . . . . 48.00 70.00 90.00 100.00 140.00 l80.00~
Value of land . . . . . . .. $ 7,000.00 $11,000.00 $14,000.00 $16,500.00 $21,000.00 $28,000.00
Value of farm build-
ingsl . . . . . . . . . . . . 470.00 750. 00 880.00 780. 00 950.00 1 ,200.00
Value of farm machin-
ery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290.00 320.00 350.00 410.00 390.00 460.00
Value of livestock. . .. 755.00 1,210.00 1,415.00 1,255.00 1,950.00 2,505.00
‘I
Number of work stock. 2 4 4 _ 4 6 6
Acres in crops:
Cotton . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.00 18.00 23.00 38.00 52.00 67.00
Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.00 19.00 27.00 20.00 34.00 42.00’
Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.50 _12.00 14.00 14.00 19.00 23.00
Canehay.......... 3.50 6.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 11.00
Sudan pasture. . . .. 10.00 15 00 19 00 21 00 26 00 37.00
Acres permanent L
pasture . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.00 28.00 8.00 47.00 7.00 16.00
Acresinfarmstead.... 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
IIours of man labor on
crops . . . . . . . . . .. 982.50 1,585.00 2,045.00 2,340.00 3,315.00 4,215.00
IIours of horse labor
on crops . . . . . . .. 1,287.00 2,066.00 2,662.00 2,972.00 4,192.00 5,351.00
Number of productive
livestock:
Dairy cows . . . . . . . . 5 7 9 7 12 15
Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,400 lbs. 1 sow 2 sows 1 sow 2 sows 3 sows
Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . 80 . . . . . . . . . . 30
Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . 150 210 290 220 390 470
Hours man labor on
livestock . . . . . . .. 1,440.00 2,240.00 2,750.00 2,520.00 3,650.00 41520-00
Farm receipts._ . . . . . .. $ 1,208.89 $ 2,125.32 $ 2,639.28 $ 3,330.00 ii; 4,549.87 $ 5,118.57
Products used in home 249.64 274. 64 274. 4 294.64 299. 64 309.64
Farm expenses . . . . . .. 534.02 817.22 947.83 1,107 .59 1,419.69 1,799.69
Expected net return,
including products
used in home...... 924.51 1,582.74 1,966.09 2,522.05 3,429.82 4,228.52‘
Labor cost, if hired, ex-
cluding operator? . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.20 363. 92 375. 36 745.84 1 ,.0‘74.95-
Earnings of operator
and returns on in-
vestment . . . . . . . . .. 924.51 1,389.54 1,602.17 2,146.69 2,683.98 31,153.56-

lEiicluding the value of the residence.

2Hired labor is charged at 16 cents per hour. The number of hours is obtained by adding
10 per cent (as overhea d) to the hours shown for crops and livestock and deducting 3,000 hours
as operat0r’s labor.

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 37

The chances appear about even for a return for these items of approxi-
tmately $925.00 for 50-acre farms similar t0 System E, $1,600.00 for
100-acre farms (90 acres in cultivation) similar t0 System E, $1,390.00
for 100-acre farms (70 acres in cultivation) similar to System E,
$2,680.00 for 150-acre farms (140 acres in cultivation) similar to Sys-
tem D, No. 2, $2,145.00 for 150-acre farms (100 acres in cultivation)
similar to System D, No. 2, and $3,155.00 for 200-acre farms (180 acres
in cultivation) similar to System D. If the value of the products fur-
nished the home were deducted in each case, the remainder would repre-
sent the cash return left for the upkeep of the home, living expenses,
taxes, savings, and investments. As stated previously, fair to good
Jnanagement is assumed in calculating the expected returns for each
system. A more capable manager is required for the larger farms. With
unusually good management, returns larger than those shown will be
obtained from any of the systems. However, a good manager will
usually make larger profits operating a large unit than by operating a
small one and, in the case of the system on the smaller farms, if the
farmer has a capacity to supply exceptional management it will usually

‘pay him to consider a larger acreage.

There is a best size of farm for every farmer at a given time, de-
pending largely on the kind of farming and upon his ability and in-
clinations. The amount of property that one has and the credit that
~one can command are important factors in determining the size of
farm that will be operated at any particular time. However, one
should try to determine the size of farm that can be handled most
effectively as well as the kind of farming that gives best results. The
material presented in this Bulletin should be helpful in reaching con-
‘clusions in this connection.

PLANNING FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS

In trying to decide whether or not the system of farming that is
“being followed is as profitable as some other system that might be fol-
lowed, one should look about in his own community or in some other
communities that have similar conditions, and consider the results that
~other farmers are getting with other systems. A system that is giving
good results on one farm may not give good results on another farm,
even in the same community, since no two farms are exactly alike, but

‘ this general appraisal of other systems is a good starting place. From

it one should get a general idea of crops and livestock adapted to his
»conditions and how they may be combined into profitable systems of
farming.

In reaching a decision as to which of a number of systems that are
‘being considered will likely give best results, definite statements for the
different systems should be worked out. These statements are often

_ ~called farm budgets, and they should show as accurately as can be deter-
~p mined the expenses, receipts and net returns that may reasonably be
 expected from the different systems considered.

38 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

If these budgets are to be helpful in reaching sound conclusions, they
must be based on normal crop requirements and yields, normal livestock
requirements, an.d normal production for the area under consideration.
Also prices which are most likely to prevail for the products to be sold
and for the’ items to be bought should be used. Therefore, before budget
statements are prepared, the crops and livestock that are to be considered
should be listed and normal requirements, yields and products recorded
for each on the acre or per head basis as indicated by Tables 3, 4, 5
and 6. Then the products to be sold and the items to be bought should
be listed a11d the prices expected under usual conditions in the section
recorded for each as indicated by Table 7. Farm building, farm ma-
chinery, fence and automobile expenses for the different systems should
then be estimated as indicated by Table 6. The yields, production
requirements, overhead expenses and prices listed should be those that
are most likely to prevail for the particular farm and systems being
considered.

The next step in making a farm budget is to decide on the crops and
livestock that are to be included. The crops are listed and acreage and
requirements and cost of other purchased items recorded as shown by
Section A in Table 9. The crops are then listed again in the same

, order as in the preceding farm and the production, amounts to be fed

livestock and the value of the products sold indicated as shown in
Section B.

Next, list the different classes of livestock and enter the number and
requirements of each and cost of items to be bought opposite as shown
in Section C. On another form, record the livestock and livestock prod-
ucts, the quantities to be fed, used in the home, and sold, and the value
of the quantities to be sold and used in the home as shown in Section D.

Finally, totals of quantities and values are brought forward from
Sections A, B, C and D, and the overhead items estimated as shown in
Section E. When these different entries have been totaled as indicated
in Section E of Table 9, the net return for the system considered is
obtained and the budget is complete.

Budgets should be worked out in this way for the different systems
being considered. These budget statements should then be compared,
and the farmer, with his own qualifications and aptitudes in mind,
should be able to select the system to be followed. It is not usually neces-
sary to make comparisons of this kind involiring other systems each year.
Abrupt changes in a system of farming are expensive and often involve
the necessity of learning new things or buying new equipment. When
a system is decided upon, it should be followed until general economic
conditions have materially changed or marked changes have taken place

on the farm.
PLANNING FOR THE COMING YEAR

While the same general system of farming should usually be followed
for a period of years, it may not be possible or advisable to grow the
same acreage of crops or keep the same numbers of the different types

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 39

of livestock each year. Conditions on the farm change from year to
year. Conditions outside the farm, particularly those affecting prices,
change from time to time, and Whenever changes of either kind occur
modifications are advised in the system of farming.

Table 16.——Expected returns for different systems for lOO-acre farms with varying prices of

cotton.
Returns per system with varying prices
System
16 cent 20 cent I 12 cent
A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. “B 1.4991635 2,111.16$ 887.16

B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,677.34 2,180.54 1,174.14

C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,841.88 2,201.88 1,481.88

D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,947.55 2,222.11 1,672.99

E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,966.09 2,163.89 1,768.29

F . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,943.94‘ 2,075.94 1 £11.94

The expected returns on farms of different systems for 100-acre farms
(90 acres cultivated) with cotton at diiterent prices are shown in Table
16. In this table the figures opposite the 16-cent price figure for cotton
are brought forward from Table 10. The expected returns for these
same systems have been calculated With cotton at 20 cents a pound and
with cotton at 12 cents a pound, the prices for the other products re-
maining the same as in the preceding calculations. It Will be observed
that with cotton at 16 cents a pound, E-System, With approximately one-
fourth of the cultivated land in cotton, is the most profitable. With
cotton at 20 cents a pound, D-System, With approximately three~eighths
of the cultivated land in cotton, is the most profitable. With cotton at
12 cents a pound, F-System, With approximately one-eighth of the cul-
tivated area in cotton, is the most profitable.

If one were following a system that provided for keeping approxi-
mately one-fourth of the cultivated area in cotton and conditions affect-
ing cotton prices indicated that, instead of a 16-cent price for cotton,
a price considerably higher Would be obtained, it would be advisable to
increase the acreage of cotton somewhat and reduce the acreage of
other crops. On the other hand, if conditions affecting cotton prices

' indicated a price considerably lower than 1:6 cents a pound, it would

be advisable to decrease the acreage of cotton somewhat and increase
the acreage of other crops. It probably would not be advisable in either
case to increase or decrease the acreage of cotton as much as the returns

' shown in Table 16 indicate, since even minor adjustments of this kind

aifect the entire farming system. Whenever conditions indicate that
prices of some products are likely to be high or low during a particular
year as compared to other products, minor modifications of farm plans
should be considered. Comparisons involving minor changes of this
kind are advisable at the beginning of each year. It is in connection
with such changes that information relative to both production trends
and market prospects should prove valuable.

4O BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION"

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The systems of farming in the Black Waxy Prairie Belt of Texas are»

strikingly uniform and characterized by a single crop-—cotton. This-

enterprise is the source of more than 90 per cent of the gross farm in-
come of the area. Despite the high degree of uniformity in organiza-
tion, significant variations are found scattered throughout the region.
The net income from farms on Which detailed records and accounts
were kept showed a marked tendency to increase with an increase in the-
size of farm, but there were noticeable exceptions. One 83-acre farm
made an average annual net income for the three-year period of‘

$1,780.00, while one of 79 acres averaged only $643.00 for the same-
period. This 83-acre farm showed a higher average income than threef-

farms Whose acreages averaged 95, 13’? and 129, respectively. Evidently"
the difference in net returns was not due altogether to a variation in size.-
The farmer and the organization and operation of the farm are im-
portant factors in this connection.

The conclusions reached in this study are based upon the results ob--
tained on 500 farms in 1922, a detailed study of a few carefully selected‘
farms in 1925, 1926 and 1927, experimental data applicable to condi-

tions in the area, and a careful study of the prevailing prices in the sec--

tion in recent years. From the data thus secured, normal crop yields,

livestock production, crop and livestock requirements, and probable-

prices, were determined.

Based on these normal yields, requirements and prices, several sys-
tems of farming have been outlined for 50-, 100-, 150- and 200-acre~
farms. These systems vary in organization from those in which all
cultivated land is in cotton to those in which only one-eighth of the
cultivated land is devoted to cotton. Feed crops for farm livestock
have been substituted for reductions in cotton acreage.

Invariably the net returns from these systems Were found to be lowest
for those in which all of the cultivated land was in cotton, and to increase»-
up to a point at which about one-fourth of the cultivated land was de-
voted to cotton, provided the reduction in cotton acreage was used ef-
fectively in growing feed crops for livestock. Systems With one-fourth

to one-half of the cultivated land in cotton showed larger net incomes-

than did larger or smaller cotton acreages. The variations in returns-
for systems Within this range are not very great, and when compared‘

with the differences in farms and in farmers are not considered suffi-

ciently significant to justify general conclusions.

In other words, a farmer with special aptitude for handling livestock
and operating a farm well adapted to growing feed crops as compared
with other farms in the region will probably get the largest net returns
by growing only a small acreage of cotton, and in exceptional cases might
find it profitable to displace cotton entirely. On the other hand, a
farmer unusually successful in growing cotton, on a farm well adapted“

to cotton, will probably find it profitable to keep as much as one-half of.‘

the cultivated land in cotton, and in exceptional cases even more-

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT 41

When a profitable system of farming has been worked out, the same

Tbasic plan should usually be followed for a period of years. It is seldom

wise to make abrupt changes, and certainly not until they are justified
by careful study. It may not be possible or advisable, however, to grow
the same acreage of each crop or keep the same numbers of the different

types of livestock each year. Conditions on the farm change from time
‘to time. Crop failures occur and livestock diseases are to be reckoned

with. Conditions outside the farm also change. Often for a given

“year facts will be available that will indicate particularly favorable

prices for some products or unfavorable prices for others. In such cases
increases in some lines of production and decreases in others may be ad-
visable. In making such changes, however, one should consider the
probable prices at the time the products are to be ready for the market

lrather than the prices prevailing at planting or breeding time.

42 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION"

.03003.3.00 300.3 0 3E0

.3..03..o.3.0.~ .300 000033100303 300000.53

UQ=¢3 0.03 @930 0.3535 00330003 .3333.

 

 

 

 

 

cw. . . . . . . .. 30.3 . . . . . . .. @m.m3 . . . . . . .. mm.» . . . . . . .. »c.3 . . . . . . .. »c.3 .. 3c. . . . . . . 13c. . . . . . . .. 333m 3.3m 33.3w .><

3m.3 0.2.0 3.3 00.0000. 00.0 c.3.33m 33m 3.3333. 3m.» 3.3.333 00H 00000 333 ccmwm 3.33. 3.3333 2.00. 3.3mm »3
3.3 c.m3 0:0 3.c»»3 3.3.3 0.000 0: c3.c3 5m 3»_3mm 3.3.3 3.3 33.. 3.3 33.3.03 3».»c3m c3.mcm cc.c» 3
3m.3 c.3»3 .3.3 00.000. 3.3 c.m»c3 m3.m 3.33 3.3 cc 3»c3 mc. cc.333 mc.3 00.00.. 00.; 03.0.00... 3.33 3.333 c3
3.». c.c3 0:. 3.33 w».c3 3.33 3m 00....” 3 3 3».3w »3 3 3.3 3. cc m3 3c.»m 3m.33 3.333 3.33 0
3.3 0.00 00.03 3.3» 3m.3 3.cmm 3m.3 cc.33 »3.3 cc.»3m 33 3.3 33.3 333. 3.3.33 c3.3m3 c3.mmm cc.m3. cm

133.3 0.003 m».m3 00.0.0. 33.3 c.mcm3 33.3.. 3.33 003.. 0.0.0.... 33.3 3.33 a. 3.333 03.3 03.0000 ccmwm cc.»m3 0
3.3 3.3 »3.3 3.33 3.3 3.3.... m».3 3m... c3.3. 00.»... 3.3 00.3 cc.3 3.3 0...? 3.3033 3.3m 3.3 3
00.3 0...: .333 00.000 3.3 c.mm3 mcm c3.3m3 3.0.0 cc.3cm c3. 3.3.... 3.3 3.3 3.3m cc.3mc3 c».mcm 3m.» 3
3». 0.00 .333 3.3.33 3.3 c333 3m 3.33 00.0 cc 3.3 cc.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 mm.wm 3.m3 c».»3m 3.3 3
 .. .3 .mm.m3 3.33 3m.3 3.33m »c.m c3_3c3 33.3. 33mm 0.... 3.33 3c.3 3.33 333m 3.33 c».cm3 3.33 33
m3.3 0.: 3m.m3 3..»3. m»_» 0000 »3~3 c3.»3 wmm 033.0 mm.3 3.3 cc.3 3.3 $30 c3333 cc.c3 3.3 m
3.3 c333 3.3 c3.3»33 00 3 0.02. »m.3 3.333 m3.m 3.3m 3.3 cc.mc3 3.3 3.3 00.5 333mm 3.3m 3.33 mm
m3..3 3.3 .. »3.33 3 »m» 00.0 3.33. 33m cc.3»3 33.3 c3.c3m c». 3.m3 3.3 3.3 :00 c3.mm»3 c3.mcm 3.3 33
.00 3.»c3 mm.c3 c3333 3.» 0.2.... c».3 3.3m 33flm c3.»m3 33.3 00.0.0 3.3 cc.m3 0:0 00.002 3.33m cc.m3 m3
mm.3 c.m33  .  Q33 c333c3 33 c.3333 3.3 00.000  3.3m 3c.3 00.0.: 3.3 cc.cm3 m».3.m 3.33 cm.m3m cc.3.m3 mm
3.3 3.33 33.00 cc cm33 3 0 3.33. m3. 3 3.3m 30.3 3.0.» 00m 3.333 33.3 3.33 cc.3 3.3.3 3.3m cc.c3m3 3.33 3.33 3m
33.3 3.c3 3» 3.  mc» cc.m3» 000 0.000 3.3 3.33 mcm c3.»»m 3m.3 cc.»33 c3. 3.3 3mm c3.3»3m 3.3m 3.30 3.
»c.3 0.00m   . . . .  0.00 c3 c»cm 00 3 0.00.2 00.3 3.3m 30.3 3.3» 33.. 3.3m 3.3 3.3mm 3.3mm 3.33 c3..33m 3.3mm c3
3.3.3 c.c» . . .33 3m.mm3 33 c.m3m 3.3 3.3 cw.m 3.33 3m.3 3.33. m». 3.3 3w.3m 00.000 3.3cm 3.3 3
3.3 c.m3.m 3.3 3.3333 3 3. c.3» 33.3 cc.c»3 fim 3.33 3c. 3.3» 3. cc.c3 mc.cm 3.333 3.33m 3.33 m3
33. c.33 .33 3.3m 3.3 000.. 33.3 cc.cm3 333...». 3.3mm 3.3. 3.33 3.». 3.0. »3.c3 cc.»mm3 cm3mm 3.3.3 33

.. 30.3 c.33 . . . . . .  m3..3 0030a. »..H3 0.0:. »3.3 3.33 00.3 3.33 3.3 3.33. .0. 3.3 33.33 3.33 c».33m ccw» »

.. 3m.3 0.00 . 3» 3 cc cwm 00 3. c 3m »3. 3 cc m» 3 m cc 3»3 3c 3 cc 33. mm cc 00 00 »3 00.30 cm.»cm 3.3 33

0.60 3.30.3. 0.5.0 3000.3. 0.5.0 3.20.3. 000.0 330.3. 0000 3030.3. 0.60 380.3. 0000 350.3. 0000 320.3. 0000 320.3. 0.60 3000.3.
00.3 0003 30.3 00.3 00.3 00.3 .3003 00.3 00.3 00.3
3033 .33 .3030 E .0 Z
0000003300033 Em. 0 .3. 33032.3 33300.3 3E0 0.5020300 33302.3 3.033.030.3003 3000.30.33. 0.60 00.3 0030.0. 50.0.3
0030.30.30 3.0.3 3.00m 0320 30303008 05303.3 0.3030 3.303%
I‘ 3.00m .0033 03:03.3
0.0.30.3 050m

....mm3 30330500 0:300 30:0 330303003 £03300 .303 .0:o330..0n30 .93 .0000 30.3 0300500353003 30n03-c03\/3ll.»3 03030.3.

3333733030330

43

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

.88: 82w wBoAA ww wwmisommw

..A uQnAfiAOU ._.

.25 2A3 2 25w wmwflaw Q5.“ AQQ $53 wA.w BAA-Eu?

 

 

 

em. ..  ..ew.wA . A9w  . tmwA  w9w .. .. we.   Awem .....;.w9wwm wwww .5.
 .. . .  .  3% ewwww www 9wAem wwA e9www wem e9mew Aw.A wmwwm AmA e9mwm weww wmwmweA A9wwm 9mwm mm
  . 9AAww Awwm 9EwA www 9wew wwA e9eeA 5w e9ewm ww. 8.5 we. e9ww wwew eewwwmA Awém 9ew Am
. . . .  Aw.mm 9wmwA e9w 9mAw AKA e9wAA wA.w wmAem wmA 52$ weA 8% mwww e9wwwm 5w: 9ww w
Q38 eemm e.wAmA efiw ewww wwA 8.3 mwm e9ewA ww. e9ww w». e9ew weww e9weeA 5A2 9ww em
..  wwAm e.mwem www 9www A9A eewwA mw.m wmeAm mA.A e9ee ew. e9ww weww wmAmAw eA.weA w.we AA
 . . wm.mA ewewA w9mA ewwwA weA ee.AAA w9w Eawww mmA e9ewA we. e9eeA m9mw wmwwww wesmm 9weA wA
 wewA 9emw mew 9www wwA 21x AA.w wmwmm ww. 5.? we. eeAw wwAw 35A mewwm 9ww wA
93mm 8.2 9ewwA Kw 9www wmA e9AmA www 21s w». e93. me.A e9ee eAew e9wwem 5.2: 9S m
eAwAw ew.wA 9ewwA e9w ewe» AAA eewwA wAm e9ewm w9 eeew ww. eeee wmew e9emmw wwwww wweA hm
. . . . .  e9wA 9wwm eew 9AmA wA.m 3.3 5... e9? AA. e9mA me.A e9wA weew e9emw RwAA P: wm
. . AKA. 9eAw ewA 3S www 85A wwA e9wm s. eeew weem e9meAA wwwe eAw wm
5n 9ewA s1 e9ew wAw wmww mwA e9wm me. eewm w9wm wmAR. wmwAm 9R mA
www 9eAw mwA eeAwA ew.m eewem we. e9weA e“. eeee ewwm 35% wwAwm 9wAA e
wAw ewww wm.A e9eAA mem eewwm ee. e9mw me. eeew mAwm ewwwwm m9wAm “Em wA
wm.» 9wewA S. e9wAm wA.w eewew fi. e9wwA we.A eeemm 5% ewwwew mvxa 9mmm Am
www e.AAm s; eeww ew.m e9weA wAA e9mw wmA eeww wAsm e953 AAewA 9ww A
  www 9www eAA e92. AA ee.AAA Aw. ee.em s. eeww $2 ee.eewA AME: e.ww eA
www 98m w9A 8.5 w9w e9emA AwA e9ww ew. e9mw wwwm ewewe .w.\..mew* 9ww AA
m9 w9w mw.w ewww w9A eewmm wwm eemww mw. eeAe w9 eeww wriwm e9eAew AmAww 9wwA w
wA. 5w Awe 9wAw we. eemw e9w e9weA eAA eeww ma. eemw RS e9mwwA mwwmw eww A
em. ee.e we.» 9eAw mm.m e9eeA eeA ee.ee wmA eeww eA.A e99... mwwm e9ewAA Awewm www wA
  e9w 9www wA.A e9wAA ee.A e9.meA .w9A eeweA weA eeweA wmwm eeAwwm mewwm e.AeA w
. . . . . . mmw ewew wmA eemw www e9eeA weA e9mw mA.A eeww wAwm eewwAA wemwm 9ew eA
www Qwfi emA eeAem SA 52m wAA e9w5 wmA ee.eem w9wm eeweww mewew 9wwA w
eA. ee.em emw 9www ee. wmwe m; e9eew ew. EMS em.A eewmA wwmm wmwwwm ewwwm 9weA wm
e9 09w e9w 9mww mm.A wmww A: e9wAA w». e9ww wAA e92. wwAm wmmwwA wmwwm eww w
Am ew eA mg eAem weA 9we wAw EewA  .  Am. eeww wweA 33¢ eAAem 9ew wA
Sow 130M. 96w AEPA. v8“ AEPA. meow ABPA. S“ A809 v.5.» ASPA. E3 AEQB .22“ A33. 96¢ ASPA. 96w ABPA.
ram BAH Em Awm 5m Em 5m Em 3m Sm
i5 6a no.8 E d2
wsooawAAeuwmw/A 5w 9A. wafifim wflvon Aim wnswfieesO MAAAAASTA nosflwemzn Awmoqfi. ea...“ AQQ 88w. 53h
waggfio Ase wsm asw A2238 “wage p.55 AAQQ
wwwm AonfimEcAA
AOQQH EAEAA

.wmeA fiwAAAAsoU AAAAAoU was AAmBvAooMA £0300 AoA dcoAAmAuQo 5A dAom pom mAcoioAAsvoA .AOQ.m~|AAm2I|.wH QAAAFA.

.0088.66§26.:2 2622 20666 E 6.5022 60868.5 2600228206 882 5222828220222 2.68 2666 E 66:22 602665 326E886 82~ .=0E...2n.26.=2 2622 20666 E Z2622 60868: 2660232025 82.
88. ......28.8 ........28.82 ........88.8 ........88.82 1.13.288  I88. ........22.88 . . . . 3288.888 88.88 52..
88 8.82 88.8 888 88.82 8.8888 88.8 88.888 28.88 88 8288 88.8 8.888 82.2 88.888 82.88 882288282882 8.888 22
88 2 8.882 88.8 888 22.82 8.8828 88.8 88.888 88.28 88.8888 88.2 8.888 88.2 8.882 88.88 88.2288 88.882 88.882 ~82
. ..  88.8 828 88.82 8.8888 82.8 88.8822 2.8.8 88.8222 28.8 8.888 28. 88.822 88.88 88.8888 88.888 8.282 8
.. . . . .  88.2 88 88.28 8.288 28.8 8.88 88.82 88.2.82 88.8 8.88 88. 88.82 82.88 88.888 88.282 88.82 8
88.2 8.88 88.8 882 88.82 8.288 88.8 88.822 88.82 88.882. 88.8 8.282 82.2 88.88 82.28 8 8882 82.888 8.88 88
88. 8.8 88.8 282 28.82 8.888 88.8 88.882 88.82 88.888 22.8 8.88 88.2 88.88 88.88 88.8282 88 888 8.88 2
88. 8.8 88.8 888 88.82 8.2288 88.8 8.888 88.8 8.8822 28.8 8.888 88.2 88.882 88.88 88 2888 88 888 8.882 88
88. 8.82 88.8 888 82.82 8.2882 88.8 88.288 82.8 88.888 88.2 8.82. 8.2 88.88 88.88 88 8828 82 888 88.88 8
88. 8.8 88.8 282 22.82 8.888 82.8 88.828 88.82 88.828 88.2 8.882 8.2 88.88 2.88 88 8828 82 888 88.88 82
88. 8.88 88.8 888 88.82 8.2.282 88.8 88.828 88.8 88.828 82.8 8.888 88. 88.28 88.88 8 8828 88 888 88.88 8
82. 8.8 82.8 828 82.82 8.882. 82.8 Q8 882 88.8 88.888 82.8 8.822 88.2 88.88 88.88 88 8882 88 888 88.88 82
88. 8.28 88.8 888 82.2.2 8.8882 88.8 88.888 88.8 82.882 88.8 8.882 88. 8.88 88.88 82. 8888 88 888 88.82 8
88. 8.88 88.2 882 28.82 8.8822 28.8 88.888 88.82 8.888 82.8 8.882 88.2 88.88 28.28 88 8828 82 228 88.88 82
88.2 8.22 88.8 888 88.22 8.888 28.8 88.282 88.82 88.888 28.2 8.88 88.2 88.88 28.88 88 8282 88 882 88.88 28
88. 8.88 88.8 88 88.82 8.888 82.8 88.822 88.8 88.888 82.8 8.88 88.2 88.88 88.88 88 2822 88 882 88.88 8
88. 8.82 88.2 82. 82.82 8.888 82.8 88.888 88.82 88.828 88.2 8.88 82. 88.28 88.88 88 8882 88 888 88.88 82
88. 8.88 88.8 828 . 2.2.22 8.888 82.8 88.888 88.8 88.822 28.8 8.882 88.2 88.88 88.88 88 8288 88 888 88.28 88
82.2 8.88   .. 88.82 8.288 82.8 88.228 82.22 88.888 88.2 8.88 28.2 88.28 88.88 88 2882 82 882 88.28 ~82
88. 8.88 82.8 828 28.22 8.8888 82.8 88.828 28.82 88.8888 88.2 8.888 88.2 88.888 88.88 8 8888 88 828 8.888 82
  88.8 882 88.82 8.288 88.8 88.882 88.82 88.888 82.8 8.88 88. 88.88 28.28 88 8882 88 288 8.88 22
  88.8 282 82.22 8.888 82.8 8.882 88.2 82.888 88.8 8.28 82. 88.88 88.28 82.8882 88288 88.88 .8
88. 8.8 88.8 888 82.8 8.8882 88.8 88.888 88.8 88.8882 88.2 8.82.2 88. 8.882 82.88 88.8288 88 828 88.882 82
.. ..  88.8 888 82.82 8.888 88.8 88.888 28.8 88.888 8.8 8.88 28. 88.88 82.88 88.8882 82.288 88.82. 2
668 2.30.2. 6.66 2.30.2. 6.66 230.2. 6.68 230.2. 6.68 2880.2. 6.68 2880.2. 6.66 2820.2. 6.68 280.2.
66.2 6m 66.2 26m 66m .62 6.2 .62 8E2 .222
. 0.68 .206 E .02
600602266682 E8 0.2. 80288282220 822282.322 .2232 2622 266w 266022622. 82.8w 2826226228 20.2.62 6.5082 .2622 666< 83m
6 . 62
.065 .522 2. .8 2 .2

~44 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

.8882 80222222028 22222028 2E2... 2282620282 2202200 20.2 622028826220 28.2. .0608 .2622 882202222622222002 .2022w2-6620w2|.82 038,2.

45

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

.0058@.5§50.:5 5.08 5.00m 555 8.55505- 508038 580058550508 855
.550558.5§50.=5 5000. 8008 :5 P5055 80808.55 585505858500 8 ». 585

.0083 8580.58 E0055 885 80555001.
.2555 055555 3 0005. 088E850 0.68 .508 88:00.8 85 .8 8050555005..

 

 ....88.m5  188m ........m».8  8m.m . . . .  88. 1.22.8888 ........88.88m 88.88 .><
8.m8m »8.5m 8.8»mm 88m 8.mmm m8.55 88.8»m5 »8.m 88.888 88. 8.885 58.58 88.8888 88.»mm 88.885 85
8.88 58.85 8.88m 8m.5. 8.8» 88.85 88.888. 8».5 88.58 m8.5 8.85 88.88 88.888 »».8»5 88.»5 8m
8.885. 88.5 8.m»8 88.m 8.m85 88.m5 8».888 88.5 88.m8 88. 8.58 88.»8 8».m88m m8.88m 88.88 85
8.889 m8.85 8.88» 88.8 8.85m 88.m5 88.88» 58.5 88.m55 88. 8.88 88.»8 88.88mm.5 88.»8m 88.88 5m
8.88m 88.55 8.8855 88m 8.88m 58.»5 88.8885 8mm 8.85m m8.5 8.88 »8.88 88.8888 »8.885 88.»8 m
8.885 88.85 8.»88 m8.8 8.85m 88.8 88.888 88m 8».885 88.5 8.»8 88.88 8».»5mm »8.885 88.88 8
8.8m8 »8.5 8.8888 88m 8.888 8m.8 88.885m 58.5 88.888 5m.5 8.m8m 88.88 88.888» 58.88m 88.m8m mm
8.88m m8.55 8.58 m5.8 8.855 88.» 88.88m m8.m 8888 88. 8.m8 88.88 88.mmm5 8».m88* 88.88 ~55
8.88 88.85 8.888 8».m 8.855 85.85 88.858 85.5 88.88 »8. 8.88 8».58 88.8885 88.88 88.58 8m
8.88m »8.m5 8.888 »8.m 8.5m5 m8.85 88.588 58.5 88.8» m5.5 8.88 88.58 88.8885 88.m8m 88.88 85
8.m8m 88.55 8.8m8 m8.5 8.885 88.85 88.888 »8.m 88.m55 8». 8.m8 8m58 88.8885 m88m8 8.88 f
8.8»8 8m.m5 8.8885 88m 8.8mm 88.8 88.8»» »5.m 88.885 m8. 8.88 85.88 88.5m8m m8.85m 88.»8 85
8.885 85.55 8.588 8».8 8.585 88.8 88.8mm 88.5 88.88 m8. 8.8m 88.88 88.858 8m.85m 88.»m m5
8.885 88.8 8.85» 88m 8.885 m8.8 88.8m8 88.5 88.885 8». 8.88 888m 88.»885 5.585 88.88 8m
8.88 58 85 8.8885 88.5 8.885 88.» 8».m»» 88.5 8.88m 8m.5 8.8m5 888m 8».»888 88.88m 88.885 8m
8.888 58.85 8.8»85 58.8 8.888 mm.8 88.888 m8.5 88.85 88. 8.88 888m 88.8858 88.888 88.885 »m
8.588 88.85 8.85m8 88.5 8.m88 8m.8 88.888m 88.5 8».8m8 88.5 8.8mm 888m 8m.8588 8».88m 88.mmm 8m
8.m85 88.85 8.m88 m8.8 8..»85 88.8 8.88m 88.m 88.555 85.5 8.88 888m 88.8585 58.88m 88.88 85
8.58m 88.85 8.888 88.m 8.m»5 8».8 88.588 »8.5 88.»m5 85.5 8.»» 588m 888885 8m88m 88.88 8
8.888 8».85 8.8mm5 88.m 8.m88 88.8 88.8»85 »8.5 88.85m 8». 8.88 88.»m 8.858 88.58m 88.855 8
8.8» 88.55 8.858 88m 8.885 88.» 88.»8m 88m 88.58 8m.5 8.88 »5.»m 88.8»8 55.885 88.88 5
8.888 8.8 8.858 8m.m 8.88m 8».8 8.8»8 8».m 88.8»m 88.5 8.885 888m 88.8m8m m888m 88.585 8
8.858 m».8 8.8585 88m 8.m88 88.8 88.»»» mm.m 88.»88 8m.5 8.88m 8».8m 88.8888 m8.888 88.885 8
8.85 58.8 8.»88 88.m 8.8»m »».8 8m.888 m8.m 8m.585 88. 8.88 888m 88.m88m 85.885 88.88 5
8.88 m8.55 8.m88 88.8 8.885 »».8 88.58m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5». 8.88 588m 88.m5m5 85.»8m 88.88 585
8.885 88.85 8.»88 85.8 8.885 85.8 88.»88 88. 88.88 »8. 8.88 888m 88.»885 m8.»»5 8.88 85.
8.8»8 88.8 8.88m5 88m 8.888 88.8 88.»88 »8.5 8m.8»m 88. 8.88 888m 8m.m888 5m.588 88.885 8
0008 580.5. 0.508 5.20.5. 0508 580.5. 20¢ 5.20.5. 208 530.5. 950d 5.30.5. 088. 5.20.5. 208 530.5.
EH5 $85 .55 50.5 50m .595 00m .595 8055 .85
0.500 55050 n5 .02
85500085500852 058 0.5. 8055838500 80580855 .5505 5.025 800w 5880858550 055888 585055808 80805 P5085 .5055 5.50508. 65m
l . 5088 E088

80.5885 8.555085

8m85 6055555500 E5500 50cm 5503850085 4505800 00.5 65505530850 855 .0008 $0 85550500505005 .505505-0m5085].oN 05550.5.

46 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURALEXPERIMENT STATION

 

m“ 1 I um - - .\° ad o -  n
g  '—\{ u - -® - - .‘_q .N n -  }
Q ........,... .._..
gmg "':'::‘-“'"‘":"""'
3 E ...N... .H.H. .
'2 Ea - I - - q - I - -
wuwcqcoococo~oogcgcooowfl$vhhu d‘
"2 @Q9@@Q§@Q.9.?@55W99 9
a! p33 wcolomwmwnchnnmucawawmw <0
c
Q 8 ccncccccccccwcccccc -
N E E cmNwmcccm~m~cNcmm~~ -
@ Q Q wnwcchmcucnwmmuc Hc ~
5 I
B fifigmmcncwmccmccwmmm m
Q o
5; 9§.§@@99@9@@Q9@”@@9 9
Q u) mo NNWmNCVD$€DPHONtO€O<OlN€O<ONW Q"
g QUE G6 v-m-n v-i
- (‘D
U EE mccccccccnccmmcmcmc -
Q Ev E ~cvmv~w~mw~»cvcmuwc -
S Hg 3 mv $©N$®Mh®NN@@§ mm I
q-a Q P‘ .
Q .
 ~
c m ccwwmmwc Nw m B n
‘U pa; <<$~S¢<~~m~~m>o <=>~51\%=q oo_
5 2 fig wmmmmmnmcmmcvvmmwmw m
._. 6 ‘s :
Q g § ccccccccccccncccgnm ~
3 Q E E ~wmcmcn~wmmwmwnmmhm -
x m 5 O mmmv»:mmmcmvmcm¢ ~c I
8 5 O F .
o
m Q c nnncmm cw wmwwvcm c
~ kw c8wm>mmcsw~8ww~cq§m m
E M fig ~m¢wmm~ @aNN#Mh#b~M m
O F
0 E
H E ccnccnccccccccccncc 1
0 G G cwcmcmcmwmvwccc mwc -
M E 3 mmwwcuww mmwwmm ya ~
M .
w; F‘ j
C: .
2 ac c~mm8ccNScncwwmm c
Q ~° QQ.@Q”@.99@.@5@@@§9 §
s fig flg mNNNNNNNHNN®~NNNNmm N
mm
o. .02
cc c c cmc -
Z Ea E Snn8o888888SmS88@~n I
mu cmw cmm~~mwcm~cn -
Q fig E mmEmnw§m~mm+~mmm ~v I
6 I
p
0 mm cw m- c N
Q kw 8E§g$§g28cc@cc§m sq Q _
5 fig H ~~ N m~~~ ww-ww ~ E
_ .
w - °
: %8 cccc Scgc c ccc<88 g
H Gg _ Snncns c c c ccc:__ 3 2
w nmcwcm mm - ~
§ mg “ cwwv cmww mw Q
g a wozon-av-qv-am v-u-u v-G co < - u,
. . H
. . Q
Q . . B
k _ .
. N mvwccwmmuc c
uh ................... . O
9 2 “g 3“
u m
‘do "7 -
n ccc cc ccwcccm ww - Nb
O 5 _ nccgmbgnccmcmmsgcmg - ~
a g <3 MNMIQMNOIv-n-uv-av-lfhlfivwv-ufil 0O I n?
¢-< . 0Q
I P .
q . 2'0
m 0B
c c wmccmmcmmc cc w a
2 HQ $n§w$m¢¢nmcc~cm cw c hé
h 0“ ..............‘.... . Q
wmwmmwcm N
| B mg 2S223€322§§§¢~m~m=¢mm<~ o: 5g
. M 0
1-1 u—1
- cc cm cccn - -
N 2 Te 38883333=">.$-==.1w3-==»¢~=ew3 : §s
s ""' .' c cwcmwh » “
.2 o ‘S £°$§€°¢°>$3ES1°3 ccg%l\mtfiwv—lfl4 - :3
d; {J1 [-4 Nolcomwvmcqwmozv-wqmowu: -~=o : on
. m.
1~ <=¢=
OOONOBOOMQOQBOQ m
Q3“ 3E3g+vccccmcQcQc@§fl Q ggé
°' """"'&mnmw mcw m °""
9v  -—-
° *— 2<'§*§
cc c cc m w ad
mm 338QQW==3¢233Q~Q3$3=Q33 =1 2&1“;
23 Oh¢Ov~OMwm~mhmh© mm m Qgam
i “'00
- +3
" 3'3 g?»
5- 1 @ ¢ - asai
5; 1 a22:a~2a~":@°~2:~“~ 5 »+~F
F14 I

47

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

.25 38A .3 28A. 888888 8.88 m5 2883a 88.8 883058.
.568 8A 8A5 Axzmszwn 82A 8 825883 8A5 83¢ 8.8 8858A.-

888 ........88.8 ........8.A.A. ........AA.8  ....8A.8 .. I288.  ........88.88 ........A.8.88 888A .><
88.8 8.8AA 88.88 8.888 88.8 8.8AA A8.A 888A 88A 88.88 8A.A 88.3 8A. 88A 8A.8A. 88.888 88.88 888A 8A
A8.8A 8.88 A8.8A 888A 88.8 88A. 88A. 88.88 88.8 888A 88. 88.8 8A. 88.A 888A. 88.888 88.3. 88.8 8
888 8A8 888 888 88.8 888 88.8 88.88 88.8 88.88 88A 88.88 88. 88.8 88.88 88.8AA. 8A.8A. 888A A
88.8A 8.8A 88.8 8.8 AA.A 8.8 88.8 88.88... 8AA. 888 8A.. 88. 88. 88A... 88.88 8.88 88.88 88.A 8A
88.8 8.88. 88.8 8.88 88.8 8.88 88A 8.8A 8A.8 88.88 88A 888 8A. 88A 8A.88 88.888 888A. 888 8A
888 8.88A 888A 8.888 8A8 8.88 A88 888A. 88.8 88.88 A8. 888 AA. 88.8 88.88 88.888 88.88 88.8A 88
A88 8.88 88.8 8A8 888 8A8 888 88.88 88.8 888A A8. 88.8 8A.. 88.8 88.88 8888A 8888 88.8 A8
88.8 8.88A 888A 8.88A 8A. 8.88 88.8 88.88 8A8 88.88  .  .. 8A. 88.8 88.88 88.888 888A. 888A 8
88A. 8.88 888A 8A88 88A 8.88 88A 88.88 A88 88.88 88.A 888A AA. 88.8 88.88 88.8AA. 88.88 88.3 8A
88.8 8.88 88.8 8.88 88A. 88A. 88.8 88.88 88.8 88.88 8A.A 88.8A 8A. 88.A A888 88.888 A881. 88.8 AA
888 888A 88.8 8.88A 88A. 8.8AA 88.8 88.88A 88.8 88.88 88. 88.3 A8. 88.8 $.88 88.88 88.88 88.88 88
88.8 8.88A 88.8 888A 88.8 8.88. 88A. 88.8AA 8A8 88.88 88. 888A 8A. 88.8 88.88 88.888 8888 88.88 88
88.8 888A 88.8 888A 88.8 8.88 88.8 88.88 88.A 88.88 88. 88.8A 8A. 88.8 88.88 8888A 888A. 88.88 8
8A8 8A8 8+8 8.88 A8.8 88A 88.8 88.8A A8.A 888A 88. 88.8 AA. 88A 8A8 8888A 88.88 888 8
88.8 8.A8 88.8 8.88A 88.8 8.88 88A 8888 88.8 8888 . . . . . . ..  . .8A. 8A.8 88.88 88.888 8A88 888A 88
88.8 888A 88.8 8.A8A 8A.8 8.88 88A 88.88 88.8 88.88 88.A 88.88 8A. 88.8 88A8 88.8AA. A888 88.8A 8A
88.8 8.88 88.8 88A. 8A.8 8.88 88A 8AA 88.8 88.88 88A 88.8 8A. 88.A 8A..A8 8888A 88.88 88.8 A.
A88 8.8AA 88A 888 88.8 8.88 88.A 88.88 A88 8888A 88. 88AA 8A. 88.8 8A8 88.888 A888 888A AA
88.8 8.8A 88.8 8.88 88.8 8.8 88A 88A. 88.A 88.8 8A.. 88.A AA. 88. 3A8 88.88 888A. 88.8 88
88A. 8.88 88.8 8AA. 88.8 88A. 88A 88.8A 8A8 88A 88. 88.8 8A. 88A 88.88 88A8A 88.88 888 8
88.8 8.88 8A8 8.88 88.8 8.88 88.8 88.88 88.A 88.88 A8. 88.8A 88. 88A. 888A 88.888 888A. 888A 8A
v.68 A309 23 EAPA. 0.5.8 AfiPA. ma...“ AEPH 38w A3 PA. 23 A838. 96w AEPA. 2.3 AS PA.
Em 5m 5m 5A Sm 6A 8m 5A .
wAAfimokrAdm 8583A 8:8 85858830 mnsafim noAAFEQZAA 8x258 A58 Q95 E d2
82.25; 82A 83w 8.82m A2358 .582 EAEAA 0.5.8 Zn 823A 83h
ll 88w A8288
AODQH EzoAA

.8N8A fioAfiAsoU nAAAoU was AAMBvAQOMA .58 80A dcotufiono 8n 6.6m AQQ wAAAoEoAAAAvoA AoAAwAAAmEIdN QAAAGH.

 

48 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 
 

 

88A  .88.8 ........A8.» ....88.8 .. .. »8.8 1.11.888  8A. ........88.88 ........88.»A 88.8A $4
 .  .8».8A 8 8».8 8.8 88.8A 8.8 8A.» 88.8  ..  8A. 88. 88.8A. 88.»8 »8.8A 88. 8A
.  . . . .888 88 »8.8A 8.8» 88.8A 8.8» 88.8 88.88 88.8 8.88 AA. 88.A 88.3 88.888 88.8A 8.» 8A
8A.. 8 88.8A 88A 88.8 8.88 8A8 888A 8A.8A 8888A 88.8 88A 88. 88.8 88.8A. 8.»88 38A 88.8A 88
88.8 88 »».8 8AA 88.8 8.88A 88.8 8.8» 88.AA 8888A 88A 8.88 8A. 88A 88.8A. 88.A88 88.8A 88A 8
 .  .888 8A »8.AA 8.88 88AA 8.88 88.8A 88A8 88.8 8.8 8A. 88. 8».88 88.8AA 8».8A 88.8 8
88.8 “A 88.8 a. A».8A 8.88 88.8 8AA A».AA 8888 88. 8.8 88. 88.8 8».»8 88.888 88.8 88.» 8
.  . . . . .. .8».A. 88 88.8A 8.8AA 8A.8 8.88 88.8 8848A 88A 8.88 8A. 88.8 3.88 8.888 88.88 88.8A 8A
. . . . . . . . . .  88.8 88A 8».3 8.888 8A.» 888A 88.8 8888A 88A. 8.8A 8A. 8».8 »8.88 88.888 88.8A 88A8 8
A8. A. 88.» 8.8 88.8A 888A 88.8 8A8 8.8.» 8.88 8A.8 8.88 8A. 88.A 8A8 88.888 »8.88 88.8A A
 .. . . . . .. .888 88 88.8 8.»8 88.8 8.88 88.8 88.8A. 88.A 88A 88. 88.8 88.88 88.38 88.»A 88.» 8
. . . .. 88.8 A8 88A. 8.88 88.» 8.»A.A 88.AA 88.888 88.8 8.8» 88. 88.8 88.88 88.»88 88.8 88.88 »A
88A. 88 88.8 8A8 88.8 8.88 88.» 8888A 88.8 8.8» 8A. 88.8 »8.88 88.188 88.A8 88.8A 8A
.8 8A. 88.8A 8.88 88A. 8.88 88A. 88.88 88.8 88A 8A. 88.A 88.88 88.38 88.8A. 88.8 »
.8 88 88.8 8.8AA 88.8 8.8» A88 88.83 88.A 8.»8 8A. 88.8 8».88 8888A. 8».88 88.»A 8A
.» 88 »».A. 8.88 88A 8.88 88.» 88.83 88.8 8.88 8A. 88.A 8».88 88.888 »8.88 88.8A 88
.8 88A 88A. 8.83 88.» 888A 3.8 8888A 8».A 8.88 8A. 88.8 88.88 88A88 88.8A 8.88 8A
.8 88 8».8 888A 88.8 888A 88.» 88.»»A 88A 8.88 AA. 88.8 A888 88.888 88.8 88.88 88
.8 88 88.8 8.88 88A. 88A. 88.» 88.88 8A8 8A8 8A. 88A 88.88 88.888 88.»8 8AA AA
.8 8»A 88A. 8.83 88.8 8AA. 88A. 88.8A 88.8 8.8A »A. 88.8 88.88 8888A. 88.88 88.88 A8
0.5.8 8889A. 8.68 A8898 988 ASPA. v.88 A8898 98.» 82cm. 8.8.8 839A. 32... Afiom. 8.8a A8888
8m 5A Sm 88m pom 5m Sm 8m A580 dZ
v.68 Em .805 fi 8.5m
mASSAEAmEflE masmwiwm 2882:8888 858885 83m 8B 88w 28.58 883m 38838 .682 EABAA 883.8 8888.
828

.883 8.58m

 JQWQAAUOQ  85... ZNBXQOMM JAMOO n0.“ dqoiwuono WQ4QMOQ QQQ mMAAQEUMAAAUQM uOQAw_|Um.AOm|.MN QTMNF

49

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

.25 2A5 .3 anew
.85.» w. A baa AVEEPAQQ

 

@883. 96m AQQ mmfimsn 8d @2285»
25 m wfiufiafi wad n32“ ».w Avficém»

 

Mav.@ -.... .  ........©%.$ ... .  --...-.%N.N ..... . %%. ....-...®@.Nm ........Q@.%M  ...........QW.NHQ>.<<
88A w: 8AA 8A 8d 98A 88A 8.8A 8.8 8. 3 9.55 8A .8 88A
8.8 8 N2 A. 8.8 Q88... m».@ 8:»A 8A.. 88A. Q98 8.8 8A
$2 8A 2.2 w» saw 8.8 .5»: 8.8 8A Q93 .32.” 8.3. 8.»
8.8 8 38A 8 88 8.8 Aw.» 8.8 8a ~58 2.2: »~.»m 8A.
58A 8A NAQA S 8d 8.8 mm.» 8.8 8A 8.8 858m 8AA. 3w
8.»A 8w 8AA 8A AmA o.»A 8.8 8.8 m: 8.8 8.88 »».8 808A
86A EA 8AA 8A 5A i» 88A 8.88 Ea 8.8 8.»8 3.8 86A
8A. a »».m mm AmA. 8.8 52 8.wAA 8A A848 8.8m 8.?» 3w
88A *8 »».m 8 $6 98A 88A 8A8 8A" 8.8 82$ 2.1% 8.8
8.» »A.A 8.8 w: 8A. 8.8 8AA 82$ 8d 8.8 8.88 8.8 88A
S6 NAA m; 8A 8A 8.8 5.: 8.8m 8d 8.8 8&8 8.8 88A
81w 8A 8.» 8A 8A8 98A 3w 8d»A 3.». 8.8 8A8 88A. Q93
»A..» 8 m».AA 8 81m 84w .58 214g 8A 8.8 8.5 8.8 8.»
3AA w» 3A. Am 3.8 i” 8.8 8.8 8A 8.8 .52» 8.8m 8.»
8A. Q 58A 8A x1 9mm $8 A8.»wA 8. m 8.8 8.8m 3.8 8.3
wA.» 8A 8d 8m 8A. 98A 8.8 8.8A 8.8 8.8 8.8» 8.8 8.8m
36A vs 3.8 NA $8 3.. 8.8 8AA m». 2%. 8A8 3.3 8d
88 . A8 8.8 w» 8.8 8.8 R6 8.8 8A. 88f 8.8m 8.8 8AA
8.8 8 8.8 8 85m 9mm Am.» 8.8 8A 8.8m. 8.8m an? 3w
8.8 8A mAé 8 8A 8.8 N; 8.8 8A.. 5&8 8.3m 8.8 8AA
8.8 Aw AAé Aw m: 08A o».» 898A 8d 8.8 03am 88.3. 88A
$3 EPA. 96w Afiom. .95.“ 1.8m. on...“ AfiPA. 98w A35. v.6.» ASFA. 33 130E
5m Sm Sm 8m ham Sm ham A58
95w 5n no.6 E d2 8.8m
miAmmfiAfiw wfifififisO mmsafim dfim was 8am Awmomflw fifim Amfinmnnv .883 25cm 22% 88¢.
A6»
.253 mhsofl . w

8N2 doSnsoU i500 flew AAAKZAQQMA .500 .5“ dnofimpono 8n 63m :5 wvaochrnsduu Aonfivomuomlhwm 03mm.

BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

50

.0¢_._§0.0..w.68 8.5a 0.00 .0300
.850 0 00E. 0000000000 000?

  

 

 

 
  

  

 

 

 

00.0 ........00.0 ........00.0 2.13.000 ........00.00 2.32.0000 00.00 .. . ...@0@.$><
 . .  00.00 0.000 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.0 .. . . . . . 
 .  00.00 0.00 00.0 .. 00.0 0.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 . . . . 
   00.00 0.00 00.00 .. 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.0  
. . .  00.00 0.000 00.0 .. 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.00  
00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 .. 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 . .. . . . . . . . . ..

 0.00 00.00 0.000 00. 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.00 . . . . . . 

. . ..  ..00.00 0.000 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.00 . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . .   00.00 0.000 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.00 

. . . . . . ...  00.00 0.00 00.0 .. 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00. 00.0 

. . . . . . . . . . . .  00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

 . . ..00.0 0.00 00.0 . 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.0 .. . . . . 
 00.0 0.000 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.000 . 
0.00.  0.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 . 
. . . . . . . 00.0 0.00 00. 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.0 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

. . . . .   . .. 00.00 0.000 00. 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.00 

. . . . . . .. 1.3.00.0 0.000 00. . 00.0 0.000 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.00 

. . .. 12200.00 0.000 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.00 . . . . . ..

 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 . . . . . . ..
. 0 0 00.0 0.000 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.00 . .
. . 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 .. . . . . . 
. . . .   .000 0.000 00.0 00.0 0.000 00.0 00.000 00.00 00.00 .
.  00.0 0.000 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.000 00.00 00.00.. .
0.8.0 0000.0. 960 0009.0. v.80 0.30.0. v.8.» 030.0. 0.8.0 0000.0. 98w 030.0. 0.6a 0390.
.80 .50 8.0 Sm Em 5.0 5m 05000
. 0.60 .500 005 a0 dZ 800.0
0000000000802 0000000000000 0.55am .300 0.20 0.8m 000000000. V0030 $000058 .5002 P5000 0.02% $.03
0.8
0200.0 E0600 m

.0000 6205000 0000000 020w 5x30003000

.0002. .60 500000020200 000 .320 $00 3000500000060 0200000030100 00.090.

51

SYSTEMSOF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

..$cfi5_c> 83a m. 3H
AQSQEE» 83c oi
..~c3q3c> =4...

 

 

 
 

     
   
 

 

  

 ........>@.% .....-.@@.fi ..-.....N§.N ..-.....N@.B% ........©Ah¢.@¢  . . ......QEGHQ><
3am no moo 3.5m whom oné 
omafi mom o». mwomm oodm ooa. 
2.2 oam  ooomm omxmw ooh 
Mafi i: 3w ooooom :2 3a. ..  . 5%
owam ........o~..o ono: ooom ood 
3.3 oom  omofi 2.3 ow.»  .. 2.5
3am c3 $6 3.5 s3 22m  I 2.3
3.3 3. 2; c3: a3 2Q .. ..  .......2
3m Q3 mo. 3.2m Maw... ooo ..  . I.»
oosm o5  omzoo omfiwm ooh ..  . . 1d
2.: Qfi 3N 3% 2% c; ..  . ........om
mic 2w c: oodom $2 31% to
52 o4: cm; 3mm. 3% 3.5 3.5
on.» 9+3 3.x 8.3m 3% 8.3 §§
3: .1.  cfis ooon 23 ...:
3N 0.5 SA. $3M 8.5 23m 5%
R.» i: mo. n25 5.? 2;: .12
c; oom 23 8% cf; 2S .23
m; i: 23 cw? 3% 8.2 ...o
2S o4» 23 8.3 NZ: 84.  ..  2.3
ommww   oodm omow on.»   ... 16w
c .8.» 13cm. 96c 3cm. chow 13cm. mic.» mScH 96c _3cm. cccc 13cm. c5..." 13cm.
Sm “cm Hcm 5m ccm Sm 3m Ada
95c .6.“ och. E dZ 5.8m
wfiwwccrfim wficcfirnO wfifiwfim dccm ucn cccw Emcamm. uzmow 3:558 3A5 PBcM ~32? 8~c<
.505 Escm wccm

6mm“ dcficscU 5:00 wan mmwBxcofl 63o com inoflwucmo .3 6.6a 8c muaofiohnvou confléczvlmom 03am.

 
 

52 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

esmemwersun E Ewen .5395 eacozweww mm.
enflmwifin E wEoE Eoeowae mmmoezwem e...
eamemwfiwms E Pica Eofizfie macomfieem 9.

$38.22 E P50: koeeape Eaosmwva i»
énmemfirfia E Econ Eoeeab Edoflzeea m N
doefifiwnwpa B: ~63 wan mifiwv>udfl E Eco: koeomka enaomfiwes w?

 

  
 

 

 .....owsmo><

 

llilllllwfiuw ........S.e 13.2.3.4.  fine ......._e~..em ........e~.~¢ e93
N» e93 eem   eee 9e e95 93m meem eee
mew e9m 93. he.» SA 9n eee 9§ 3.3 eewm e92. e9w
S. 5% ZN“ N2  . . . . . .. 2X 93 end.“ eeem 3.5 o:
m: 3: 9% 3N   23.. e2 ewem 0.5 eeem e9»
g w; 9w? 3.3 EA efi 3N 95 8g 9N5 eeem SAN
ewe s.» 3E .. Z2 2S eee s8 99B 32. 8.8
S... Q; 9i;  ma.“ Q2: 38 93S 21a e9?
v5 $4. 9% 9mm s.“ 9mm 3.3 92h 3% 8.3
8E ted 9E 9mm m: 92 3% 3mm E8 e9e
$ 5.3 i:  Be 9mm 6.1% eemm eeew E.“
Ma ale 9mm a e9.“ 93 2x§ g2 e93. e9m
em m2 9% 5 8; 93 3% .12 2Q. ewe
ea w; =2 .3. 3N 93. 3% i5 3% e93
g Re .2: E 3m 93 2.2 eeem o2: 3.3
mm 3w 9%. .5 e9m Q2 2.2 .22 e95 eeb
NE w: 9M3 . mi 9%. £2 95m e93 3.:
3 >93 9mm .3... 93 £5 9mm 8.2.. e9.»
e5 ew...e .25 N: 9% S23 3mm 3% 8.3
..   2w 9.ee N2 92. e93 ewew e9$ of:
eee ewe Ne.“ m.» 8.2 ewe e95 o;
a: 3 e e M? 3m .12 m; 9%.... 8.5 8.2.
o2 mm.» 93 eee 9e 3m Z2 e95 2.2.
whé Geek whoa 13cm. e5“ 12cm. v.6“ Ream. 33 . 130m. E3 ieom. 96w 12.9w
3m 3m Hem 5m Em 3m Sm Afimv .5: E
m5.» hi @394.
Eownazwommz wEe8>§mm wEenfim amzm e3. wwww 28%;. fifiw Awmvmmnne .502 mEomm emfiw

konfim mhsowm

r

6N2 domennoU czmoU was zivxoom demo hoe icowtfiomo 3 duow :5 wenoiohesvuh honmfimwkommlunm 03am.

8%

53

SYSTEMS’ OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

.0E0$>.0§0  P0505 MOPS. 0300:0000 v0
.0a$m@>.0§0 0.0m @0505 M0075 ~QDOMOIUUOW m0

9003000100» 

9:05.200 E 2:20 .8030» 020000.005 00“
.nosa._§0w.=0 0.20 00am 0.8 00000805000 E 0.00500 00.000000 00800000000 0m.000

 

 

 

 

 

 . .....  ........@m..@ ........N@..m.w ........%©.N .......  .  . .. ..   .........-.®M_Nh®><
00.0 0.0.0 000m 00.00m0 00. 00.00 0.0.0 00.0m 00.00 00.0000 000m 00.00.
00.00 0.0m mm.0 00.m0 00m . 00.0 00.m 00.m0 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.0
000m 0.0.0   00.0 00.00 00.m0 0.0.00 00.0.00 00.0w 00.0
$.00 0.00  00.00 00.00 00.0.00 00.00 00.0

00.0 0.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.000 00.0w 00.0

00.00  .. 00.00 ... 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.0
00.00 0.00 00.00 00.00 00.0m 00.000 00.00 00.00
00.0 0000 00.0 00.00 000m 00.000 00.00 000m

00.0 0.0m m0.0 00.m0 000m 00.00 00.00 00.0

00.00 0.0.00 00.0 00.000 $.00 00.0000 0m.00. 00.m0
00.00 0.00 00.0 00.0.0 0m.0m 00.0m0 00.00. 00.0

0&0 0.0m 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.0

 .. 0.0000 00.0 00.0.0 00.8 00.000 00.00 000m
00.00 0.00  .. 00.m0 00.00 0000.0 00.00 00.0

00.0 0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0m0 0m.00 00.00
0.0.0 0.0m0 00m 00.00 00.00 00.0m0 00.m0. 000.00

00.0 0.00 00.0 00.00 0m.00 00.00 m0.00 00.0

00.0 0.0.0 00m 00.00 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.00

0m.0 0.0m 00.m 00.0 00.0.0 00.m0 00.00 00.0
00.00  ..  .. 00.00 00.000 0m.00. 00.0

$0 0.0m . . . .  . . . . . . .. m0.m 0.000  00.00 m0..00 00.00 00.00 00.0.

0.00.0 02 P0. 33 00090 96w 0390. 0.000 0000.0. 0.60 030,0. v.80 0890. 32“ 0800.
.600 8m 00.0 0on0 Sm 0am 5m Aflmv
v.50 $0 098 E d2 E200
000008000000 000000000205 00:05am .0095 020 06mm 00.80030. 000000 0000.058 .8000 E0600 22> 8.800
o»
.8000 E0500 0 m
0N2 £20550 5000.0 ©0000 0003x0000 .300 00.0 dnoiw0wno 0n 6.00m .020 306500000060 0onm0|ow0o00nl0m 200010.

54 ‘BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

A35 nomnaofi
$552 an.“ nfiuam .253 $351.33»?
$2 éwaso =§§8m u; .9215 .§oo|::=w.

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

o3  3Q 33. cs3  . . . . .  o3.  .. . . . . . . . . . .  m3 o.3 3
w: 3 S  .. wfi m3. w? 8*   3S m5  Sm w: 93 3
o3    mam  .. mam   m3 3w  .. 3mm . 2.3 3.3 3
33  . om S. . R. .  o3; mow  . . . . . .. 3w   m2. Sm o.3 3
33 .   +3   $3 3%  mum wcw mun S3   3m m6 S
33 o3  $8 £3 3w Nwm 3m  o5 Nma § Q3 3
o3 3w 33 mwm  mm”  33  . www 5m 3.3 a
m3 >3 33 S3  .. 2a . $3 ..   $3 g ~23 w
a: 3m 3X“ Q33 . .. . 3w . 3w .. 8N   2a 2 h
mow 3m mmwm omi. .. . . . . . . . . ..  $3 . . . . . . , . . .. .. Sm ma; w
D3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2N 2E. 33 . . . Mam 2m . .. mm» o3 31E w
a3 3  .. m3? wwwm    m3 awn  mmm Q3 w
c3  .. . . . . . . . . . .  mam 23m o3. . Sm $3 .. . . . .  ..  wmm 3d m
3N . .. 2  $3 o5 31... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . as as 33 . .. 3m m.» m
c3 . .. . ww m3   cs3 2am  Em m5 .5 .83 ..  3. 3w 3
.533 Jada 52m 23a 3n >2 @225 13E mpao fiosnm E8 F80

5&2 L33» 3.5m mfiswwq MYKEGZ ~63 Q53 @853 A253 afim 36mm wnsohw n3 E8 MEDOQU Boo .60 8.5m .8.» 8.5

nofioO A82 85C nofioO vnsoto a3 Hafiz: mBoO “o dZ
ljlvll Ii o a
Pray Qpwpmam cw“ Qwwnmsch .6 mwnzom . v8 mmfiwnnmomou we mwascm u nA

“M38 Pawn Sn manonmfimsduk .352 can 6.53am 60o.“ dofioswoha ~d5flfl<I|umN Bash.

55

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

i6 c8 was Eamon $.63 v83 3 wwmfic v.63 mwi z.“ “n.2,?
sag aasmnoO cofiafl was .8160 .3=~Q .E=oO|>o?=,w.._

. . . . . . .. . .   S6 .  . . . wwxm. mwa  .. .. “mam  . .><

3N Z6 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. o: 3Q Q S m. a} m a fi Q34 w

. . . ‘ . . .. 8.8  34$  $4. 2E 3 3 m 2E 3 i w qfia 5

- - . ' - »  -.-.-.-.....-¢-. -..-.....     x    $  @

. . . . . . . . ..  . .. $23 3% 5w a; @ I M a; 3 8 N 23d n

.. . . . . . . . ..  .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..     N    m“  Q

.8 9» 3 .5“. c883
“Zfimwn Qzxz £2.68 3 3B m3 Ema? 8.». $6 8 2 m. 3w 3 mm a ow?“ m
  wwdfi  ma? 3.3 =2 3 S. w 3m m: 8 m mafia m
 -¢.u--. ¢.~ - - - ¢ - n . - - - - u. ...---|-           .%
Adm: 4B3 <55 Sag CB5 Aimv Bow En @312 F55 wawkobmw Bow 3m wwafi upon wikoba»
3x0 mphonw vmwxnfiw “E8 i2: F60 wmiwp mwi .0 Z mwi .0 Z 23m .0 Z cwmcfi wwfl dZ mmi dZ mkom dZ
83m wowmaoppoO wmi dz Hack Epok mwE 120E wwuswoi
“E5 5.8.“
55m =wm £53 Mo d2
M23 Mo mwsson Q3 En v8 comm 1391
nomflswchm

2mg we mQGQEPSSUQQ vow“ wam cofiosuo~m|.om QEFH

56 BULLETIN NO. 395, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 31.———Annual production, feed, pasture, and labor requirements for sheep.*
(Per head basis.)

Number Lambs Pounds Pounds of feed fed Pasture days Hours of
No. of of ewes raised of wool man labor
farm per farm per ewe per ewe Oats and Small After- per ewe
corn Hay Native grain math
1 6 2.00 5.67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 245 120 . . . . . . . . .. 12.16

2 22 .91 7.00 7 7 265 80 . . . . . . . . .. 2.59

3 19 1.53 7.26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 215 150 . . . . . . . . .. 4. l0

4 43 1.14 7.13 7 . . . . . . . . . . 215 89 61 5.05

5 80 1.39 6.33 18 75 255 . . . . . . . . . . 75 1.30

6 22 1.04 8. 36 73 182 125 120 120 4.13

7 24 1.58 7.08 33 83 245 59 61 5 .33

8 15 1.13 9.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 275 90 . . . . . . . . .. 6.06
9 26 1.08 5 .76 . . . . . . . . . . 77 229 75 61 2.26
10 28 1.21 9.90 . . . . . . . . .. 36 229 75 61 4.57
Av. . . . . . . . . .. 1.27 7.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.60

"Survey—-Collin, Dallas, Denton and Rockwall Counties, 1927.

Table 32.—Farm prices of cotton for Texas as of December 1.

(U. S. D. A. Yearbook.)

 

Price Price Price
Year per pound Year per pound Year per pound
1901 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 0.080 1910 . . . . . . . . . .. 3 3 0.350

1902 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .082 1911 . . . . . . . . . .. . 132

1903 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .119 1912 . . . . . . . . . .. .161

1904 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .087 1913 . . . . . . . . . .. .235

1905 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 109 1914 . . . . . . . . . .. .304

1906 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .100 1915 . . . . . . . . . .. .222

1907 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .115 1916 . . . . . . . . . .. .185

1908 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .085 1917 . . . . . . . . . .. .108

1909 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .136 1918 . . . . . . . . . .. . 193

Average price entire period of twenty-seven years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 cents

Average price pre-war period of thirteen years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. 8 cents

Average price post-war period of eight years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.1 cents

Table 33.——Average annual prices received for farm products.

(Information secured from creameries, newspapers, mills, feed stores, ginners, and other
reliable sources.)

Butter Cotton
Year fat‘ Hogs Fryers Eggs Hens seed Lambs Woolf
per lb per cwt. per lb. per don. per lb. per ton per cwt. per lb.

1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ .4194$ 8.386 0.283 0.308 0.18 3 25.003 7.795 0.164

1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3689 9.03 .23 .26 .16 35.00 9.93 .298

1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4212 7.75 .26 .25 .15 43.00 12.26 .389

1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4336 8.36 .27 .28 .15 37.00 13.72 .369

1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4184 12.15 .31 .32 .17 35.00 12.39 .385

1926 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4258 13.21 .28 .28 .19 23.00 12.00 .325

1927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4343 10.40 .24 .23 .17 36.00 12.56 .307

Average . . . . . .. S 0.4174 8 9.90 S 0.27 3 0.27 8 0.17 $ J 33.43 $~ 11.43 $ 0.320

*Price delivered to creamer-y. Farm price approxirnately 3 cents less.
TU. S. D. A. Yearbook, weighted average price received by producers.

SYSTEMS OF FARMING FOR THE BLACK WAXY PRAIRIE BELT

Table 34.——Average annual prices paid for feeds.

57

(Information secured from newspapers, mills, feed stores, ginners, and other reliable sources.)

Cottonseed Milo Johnson Prairie
Year Corn Oats Bran meal maize grass hay hay
per bu. per bu. per ton per ton per cwt. per ton per ton
1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 0.785 0.563 29.003 41.003 1.793 17.00 20.00

1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .69 .56 34.00 51.00 1.93 17.00 19.00

1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.12 .64 38.00 50.00 2.35 19.00 23.00

1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.15 .72 36.00 46.00 1.90 19.00 21.00

1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.34 .75 38.00 44.00 2.53 17.00 19.00

1926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.05 .59 34.00 35.00 1.80 . . . . . . . . .. 22.00

1927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .74 .49 34.00 39.00 1.91 10.00 16.00

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 0.98 8 0.62 3 34.713 43.713 2.03 S 16.50 20.00