rms AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT sfi”f'iifii“'“° A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR I COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS - LETIN NO. 453 SEPTEMBER, 1932 DIVISION OF FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS IN COOPERATION WITH BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC STUDY OF EAfmL ORGANI- TION IN THE PINEY woons FARMING * AREA 0F TEXAS _7 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS ' A T. O. WALTON, President - STATION STAFFT Administration : A. B. Conner, M. S., Director R. E. Karper, M. S., Vice-Director Clarice Mixson, B. A., Secretary M. P. Holleman, Jr., Chief Clerk J. K. Francklow, Asst. Chief Clerk Chester Higgs, Executive Assistant Howard Berry, B. S., Technical Asst. Chemistry: G. S. Fraps, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. Asbury, M. S., Chemist J. F. Fudge, Ph. D., Chemist E. C. Carlyle, M. S., Asst. Chemist T. L. Ogier, B. S., Asst. Chemist A. J. Sterges, M. S., Asst. Chemist Ray Treichler, M. S., Asst. Chemist W. H. Walker, Asst. Chemist Velma Graham, Asst. Chemist Jeanne F. DeMottier, Asst. Chemist R. L. Schwartz, B. S., Asst. Chemist C. M. Founders, B. S., Asst. Chemist Horticulture: S. H. Yarnell, Sc. D., Chief "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist H. M. Reed, B. S., Horticulturist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist Range Animal Husbandry: J. M. Jones, A. M., Chief B. L. Warwick, Ph. D., Breeding Investiga. S. P. Davis, Wool Grader Entomology: F. L. Thomas, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist III L. P! (B Fl s ::r m '1 F‘ CU m H rs (‘P o B o it‘ o rm i m t‘? u R. K. Fletcher, Ph. D., Entomologist M. Sherwood, M. S., Chief I W. L. Owen, Jr., M. S., Entomologist J. R. Couch, B. S., Asst. Poultry ... J. N. Roney, M. S., Entomologist Agricultural Engineering: 1_ J. C. Gaines, Jr., M. S., Entomologist H. P. Smith, M. S., Chief S. E. Jones, M. S., Entomologist Main Station Farm: F- F- Bibby, B- S» EIItOmOIOEiSt G. T. McNess, Superintendent S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist Apiculture (San Antonio): "E. W. Dunnam, Ph. D., Entomologist H. B. Parks, B. S., Chief "R. W. Moreland, B. S., Asst. Entomologist A. H. Alex, B. S., Queen Breeder C. E. Heard, B. S., Chief Inspector Feed Control Service: C. Siddall, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector F. D. Fuller, M. S., Chief S. E. McGregor, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector James Sullivan, Asst. Chief Agronomy: S. D. Pearce, Secretary E. B. Reynolds, Ph. D., Chief J . H. Rogers, Feed Inspector R. E. Karper, M. S., Agronomist K. L. Kirkland, B. S., Feed Inspector P. C. Mangelsdorf, Sc. D., Agronomist S. D. Reynolds, Jr., Feed Inspector D. T. Killough, M. S., Agronomist P. A. Moore, Feed Inspector H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist E. J. Wilson, B. S., Feed Inspector B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist H. G. Wickes, B. S., Feed Inspector Publications: A. D. Jackson, Chief SUBSTATIONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. Hall, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Lindale, Smith County: . R. Johnson, M. S., Superintendent "B. H. Hendrickson, B. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion “R. W. Baird, B. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. Stansel, M. S., Superintendent H. M. Reed, M. S., Horticulturist No. 4, Beaumont. Jefferson County: R. H. Wyche, B. Superintendent "H. M. Beashell, B. S., Jr., Agronomist No. 5, Temple, Bell County: Henry Dunlavy, M. S., Superintendent C. H. Rmzers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist S. E. Wolf , M. S., Botanist "H. V. Geib, M. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion "H. O. Hill, B. S., Jr. Civil Engineer No. 6, Denton, Denten County: P. B. Dunkle, B. S., Superintendent "I. M. Atkins, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: R. E. Dickson, B. S., Superintendent B. C. Langley, M. S., Agrrnomist No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. Jones, Superintendent Frank Gaines, Irrig. and Forest Nurs. Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Proiects on the Station: J. S. Mogford, M. S., Agronomy F. R. Brison, B. S., Horticulture G. W. Adriance, Ph. D., Horticulture S. W. Bilsing, Ph. D., Entomology V. P. Lee, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance D. Scoates, A. E., Agricultural Engineering A. K. Mackey, M. S., Animal Husbandry ‘Dean School of Veterinary Medicine. J. H. Knox, M. 1i. L. Darnell, M. A., Dairy Husbandry _ _ TAs of September 1, 1932. "In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. Veterinary Science: *M. Francis, D. V. M., Chief i H. Schmidt, D. V. M., Veterinarian , I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinar' »~ "F. P. Mathews, D.V.M., M.S., Ve - 'l W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinaria’ R. A. Goodman, D. V. M., Veterin Plant Pathology and Physiology: J. J. Taubenhaus, Ph. D., Chief " W. N. Ezekiel, Ph. D., Plant Pathol YV. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathol , Farm and Ranch Economics: ,- L. P. Gabbard, M. S., Chief ' W. E. Paulson, Ph. D., Marketing C. A. Bonnen, M. S., Farm Manage **W. R. Nisbet, B. S., Ranch Manage ~ A. C. Magee, M. S., Farm Management , Rural Home Research: i. Jessie Whitacre, Ph. D., Chief Mary Anna Grimes, M. S., Textiles Elizabeth D. Terrill, M. A., Nutrition‘ Soil Survey: **W. T. Carter, B. S., Chief '1' E. H. Templin, B. S., Soil Surveyor Q _ A. H. Bean, B. S., Soil Surveyor " R. M. Marshall, B. S., Soil Surveyor Botany: V. L. Cory, M. S., Acting Chief S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist Swine Husbandry: Fred Hale, M. S., Chief 1, Dairy Husbandry: O. C. Copeland, M. S., Dairy Husban Pofiltry Husbandry: 1 No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. Bayles, B. S., Superintendent No. 10, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. Sherwood, M. S., In_ Charge A L. J. McCall, Farm Superintendent - No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches Count"; H. F. Morris, M. S., Superintendent : “No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: **J. R. Quinby, B. S., Superintendent __ "J. C. Stephens, M. A., Asst. Agronomist * No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: ~ W. H. Dameron, B. S., Superintendent I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian O. L. Carpenter, Shepherd "O. G. Babcock, B. S., Asst. Entomologist No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. Friend, B. S., Superintendent S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: C. H. McDowell, B. S., Superintendent L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. Mortensen, B. S., Superintendent "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist W. R. Horlacher, Ph. D., Genetics S., Animal Husbandry The Piney Woods farming area of Texas comprises twenty-three counties in the northeastern part of the state. The majority of the farms are operated by family labor. Topographic conditions do not permit the general use of large machinery; consequently these farms are small, the land in crops ranging from 35 to 45 acres.“ The prevailing system of farm- ing is centered on cotton production. .. Approximately two-thirds of the crop acreage is usually planted to cotton, with about 80 per cent of the total cash receipts derived from the sale of cotton lint and seed. The physical characteristics of the area are not favorable to the adoption of the low-cost methods of producing cotton which are being effected in competing areas through the use of large-scale machinery. Conse- quently readjustments have been and are likely to continue to be largely in the direction of including other and, in most cases, more intensive enterprises to supplement the income from the cotton. The prinicipal enterprises involved in these farm readjustments are tomatoes, sweet potatoes, watermelons, peas, numerous other crops of lesser importance, and dairying. The purpose of this study is to provide basic information which may serve as a guide to farm operators in making the adjustments in their farm organizations which give promise of returning maximum profits. The various enterprises are evaluated in terms of their production requirements in relation to crop yields and livestock production. The usual require- ments for the production of an acre of cotton yielding 324 pounds of seed cotton, for example, were 76 hours of man labor, 40 hours of horse work, one bushel of seed, and 200 pounds of fertilizer. The relative proportions of various enterprises that may best be combined to utilize farm resources, from the viewpoint of producton requirements and returns, are stressed. The use of this information is then illustrated, step by step, by means of farm budgets. Using data based on groups of farms and price relationships that pre- vailed in the area during the nine-year period 1921-29, the analysis reveals the weakness of the system in which receipts from cotton sales constitute the greater part of the cash income. Different combinations of cotton with tomatoes, sweet potatoes, watermelons and peas, and dtairy- ing gave net farm incomes of $297, $185, $187, and $293, respectively, more than the straight cotton system. Relatively favorable returns from the diversified systems were indicated when 1931 prices were used in the budgets. These modified cotton systems not only returned higher incomes because of better utilization of resources, but lessened the risk of ex- treme variations in farm income due to variations in yields and prices of cotton. The selection of the combination that may be the most profitable should be governed by market considerations and the adaptability of the various enterprises to individual farm resources. CONTENTS Introduction ------------------------- 4-‘ --------- ----. Sources of Information I Description of Area Soils and Topography Rainfall _ Temperature Natural Vegetation Present General Type of Farming in the Area and Variations from that Type Variations in Farm Income Main Considerations in, Planning the Farm Organization for Increased Profits Adaptability of Enterprises _- Cotton Tomatoes _____ __ Watermelons Peas _ Sweet potatoes Corn Hay Crops Dairying A Summary of distribution of labor requirements ____________________________ __2l Normal Yields and Requirements of Crops 29, Normal Production and Requirements of Livestock ______________________________ __29 Building, Machinery, Fence, and Overhead Expense __________________________ ,_31 _ Prices of Products Sold and Items Purchased -- ____ __ 32 Application of Data in Planning the Farm Organization for f Increased Income -- ____ __ _______ n33‘; Cotton System ________________________ -- __ _ 34 Cotton-Tomato System v Cotton-Dairy Systemm .... -_ 43 Cotton-Sweet-Potato System ........ -- 47 i, Cotton-Watermelon-and-Pea System A 47 Summary ................................................... '4 ' _ _49 k i, LLETIN NO. 453 SEPTEMBER, 1932 ECONOMIC STUDY OF FARM ORGANIZATION IN THE PINEY WOODS FARMING AREA OF TEXAS C. A. BONNEN, B. H. THIBODEAUX,* J. F. CRISWELL** Piney Woods farming area of Texas comprises approximately enty-three counties in the northeastern part of the state (Figure 1). 3 ton, the principal crop grown, occupies somewhat more than 60 per cent ' the crop land and with corn, the main feed crop, is the basis for the I. vailing type of farming. On the great majority of farms, cotton is the _t y commercial enterprise of importance; other enterprises are included Tmarily to supply farm and family requirements for feed and food. The mercial production of tomatoes, sweet potatoes, watermelons, numerous f er crops of lesser importance, and dairy products in certain parts of area constitute the principal variations from this usual type of farming. Certain factors have encouraged farmers to depend on cotton for all a large part of their cash income. Considering the area as a whole, itton has a greater comparative advantage than other crops grown. pistom and training in production and the ready marketability of the crop I o account for the prominence accorded the cotton enterprise in the _ ing systems. Such a high degree of specialization, however, has cer- in pronounced disadvantages. One of these is the wide variation in farm turns caused by fluctuations in yields and prices. Another disadvantage i", the system is the poor utilization made of the farm labor. Usually, Enough labor is kept, either in the form of members of the family or crop- ‘g rs and tenants, to meet the peak of labor requirements during the fopping and picking of cotton. This labor is then idle for considerable riods during the year unless temporary outside employment is available. While this should not seem to be ' disadvantageous on farms oper- ated on the share-cropper plan, it should be remembered that, in most cases, this class of labor has to be “advanced” all or a large portion of their living requirements during the crop season. In years of low prices or low yields, proceeds from the croppers’ or tenants’ share of the crop often are insufficient ‘ to cover these “advances.” The i.t‘.’f‘“.li~ ' larger the number of croppers "* ‘ or tenants, therefore, the great- Tigure 1: Shaded area shows location of Piney e1‘ i5 the risk t0 the IandIQTd, i‘§§‘33is1§§lf1'i’i§“?n $§ih°§e§§i§3s;tfi?°§a§ 31$? Whu usually assumes the Ye- v Associate Agricultural Economist, Division of Farm Management and Costs, Bureau of u, Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. i ‘Formerly Field Assistant in farm records and accounts. a BULLETIN N0. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ' = sponsibility of being creditor or is held responsible by a merchant his croppers’ accounts. * The family farms typical of the area are small in size. The acr of land in cotton that can be handled per family is largely limited. the amount that can be chopped and picked. by the labor available. " some family or hired labor available during rush periods, a farm opera will usually handle 35 to 45 acres in crops. Approximately two-th‘ of this crop acreage will be in cotton and the balance in food and f, crops. On the larger farms, the crop land in excess of that opera by family labor is usually worked by croppers or tenants. The rolli to-hilly topography and the small, irregular-shaped fields caused by wooded nature of many sections of the area do not permit the general use l large-scale machinery. 1' The relatively heavy rainfall, because of its stimulating effect on =Wfl growth and the resultant necessity for increased hoe work, is also a fac_ causing a small acreage per man. ' On the many farms in the area that are characterized by a limited c b acreage per family and the reliance on cotton for a. large portion L all of the cash farm income, it is inevitable that some readjustment " have to be effected if relative farm incomes comparable to those of t past are to be maintained. With economics being effected in cotton-prod l, tion methods in areas where large-scale machinery is adapted, farmers ', the hill sections of Northeast Texas are facing increasingly severe co Q petition in cotton production. In view of changing economic conditio‘ involving a strong possibility of an unfavorable relationship of cot -, prices compared to prices of commodities and services that farmers but farm operators in the area are facing the probability of having to acce, lowered standards of living unless they are able to adjust their business to offset these changed conditions. A The operator endeavoring to increase his farm earnings may follo, one of two courses, or he may be able to effect a combination of -..§ two. He may make his operations more extensive by enlarging his cro<-. acreage through the use of larger machinery, where practicable, and th increase the earning power of the labor available. Or, conditions may’: favor the other course of readjusting the farm organization to include additional and more intensive enterprises on approximately the sam acreage formerly operated. The course eventually followed will be deter-i mined largely by the operator’s environment and resources. As brought out previously, a large proportion of the farmers in this » area are limited in the general use of large farm machinery because of topographical conditions. Present possibilities do not indicate any" Q appreciable shift in the direction of more extensive operations in the= form of increasing the crop acreage, particularly cotton, per man or 5i ‘ per family. On farms larger than the typical family farm, a larger crop acreage usually means the addition of more families of croppers or tenants, or duplication, in part at least, of the family farm by the addition of more family units. A considerable improvement could be FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 7 effected, however, in the adoption of at least one-row machinery in lieu of the more common half-row implements now in use. This would result in the releasing of a considerable amount of labor and making it available for the production of other enterprises which offer promise of profitable- ness if included in the organization. The alternative is left, then, of endeavoring to increase farm earn- ings by readjusting or changing the pattern of the present farm or- ganization by the inclusion of other and possibly more intensive enter- prises to supplement the income derived from cotton. This readjustment would have to be made on the basis of a better utilization of the re- sources available, and in most cases, without displacing cotton as the main enterprise. This study was undertaken with the object of providing the basic information that will enable farm operators to evaluate the leading farm enterprises of the area in terms of their adaptability to various farming systems and to measure the effect of these various enterprises on farm earnings when included in the farm organization in varying proportions. Sources of Information The basic data for this study were obtained by means of detailed farm accounts kept on a number of farms in Smith, Gregg, and Harrison Counties. Enterprise data to supplement these detailed accounts were obtained by means of the survey method. Other data were obtained from the soil survey reports available for the area, from reports of the United States Weather Bureau, from Census publications, from published reports of the bureau of Agricultural Economics regarding market movements and prices, and from reports or unpublished information available at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Price data of a local nature were obtained from dealers and newspapers in the area. County agricultural agents, vocational agricultural teachers, and others in the area assisted materially in supplying information pertaining to various phases of the work. Detailed farm accounts were completed on 18 farms in 1928 and on 9 farms in 1929. Records were kept on the investment in the business, cash receipts and expenses, yields, production and production require- ments of crops and livestock, and products furnished the household by the farm. The keeping of these accounts was closely supervised by a field agent who visited the farms at approximately two-week intervals. During the spring of 1930, enterprise survey records were obtained to supplement the data from the detailed farm accounts. Records were obtained on the dairy, tomato, sweet potato, pea, and watermelon enter- prises. Information was obtained on the man labor, horse work, material requirements, and cash costs used in production; further data were obtained on livestock production and crop yields, and organizational data were obtained to indicate the usual relative importance of the various enter- 8 BULLETIN NO. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION prises when included in the farm organization. In addition to the enter- 1 prise surveys, questionnaires pertaining to crop yields and livestock pro- i duction were mailed to county agents, vocational agriculture teachers, and farmers in the area. DESCRIPTION OF AREA Soils and Topography The topography of the area studied is usually described as rolling f. to hilly. Drainage is entirely by means of numerous small rivers and - streams. The soils may be divided roughly, on the basis of topography, _ into upland soils and bottomland or alluvial soils. The upland soils ._ are largely sands and sandy loams. With the exception of the Nacog- doches series, all have gray to light-brown surface soils and resemble F, each other to a marked degree. The distinguishing differences are largely in the color and texture of the subsoils and in the related conditions of drainage. The upland soils may be divided further on the basis of drainage. Some have porous, sandy clay subsoils, and are well drained. They are considered “early soils.” Others have heavy clay subsoils and, except on the slopes, are poorly drained. They are known as the “late soils”; that is, planting is delayed in the spring, owing to slow drainage and the slow warming-up of the soil. In general, the soils in, the western half of the area include a much larger proportion, of the well-drained soils than do those in the eastern half. Variations in croping systems JAIIIARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL lated to variations in soil types. A greater variety of crops is grown on the soils having por- ous subsoil than on the less well-drained soils. The commer- cial production of fruits and vegetables is largely concentrat- ed on the former class of soils. G 5 PRZQUINCY The alluvial soils usually oc- ° slmmm “m,” cur in narow strips along the streams and, in addition to be- in small in extent, are, for the most part, poorly drained. How- ever, such of these soils as are _ sun _ _ suw sno _ am , , w " 3° °'“ ,,,Z',,';’,”°°,'“,Af,',;§$ °‘“ '“ " ” °"" well-drained are very productive Figure 2: The number of times specified mounts of rain have fallen at Longview, Gregg aCounty, as compared to the upland during each month for the thirty-year period, t 1900-1929. V1195- Rainfall The average annual rainfall varies from slightly less than 40 inches in within the area are closely re-' FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 9 the western part of the area to somewhat more than 45 inches in the eastern part. March, April, and May are the months of heaviest rain- fall, while August, September, and October represent the drier season of the year. The chances of receiving a heavy or light rainfall during any one month are shown in Figure 2. This figure is based on data, taken from the records of the weather station at Longview, in Gregg County. It will be noted that March and May show more than one inch of rainfall every year, while April and November have received less than one inch of rain but once in 30 years. The chances fare almost five to one that more than 3 inches of rain will fall during April, the month normally receiving the greatest rainfall, while during September, the month having the lowest average rainfall, the chances are better than three to one that less than 3 inches of rain will fall. Temperature The area has a growing season of approximately 8 months. Variations in the length of the growing season at Longview are indicated in Figure 3. The average growing season at Longview for a thirty-year period (1900 to 1929) was 254 days. The shortest growing season of 225 days occurred in 1920, while the longest growing season recorded was one of 282 days, in 1905. The average date of the last killing frost in the spring was March 10, while the average date of the first killing frost in the fall was Nov- ember 19. 3 that frost occurred only twice after April 1 and that the latest frost recorded in 30 years pre- vious to November 1 and the -rm*..r.::2z1:::rs:'a;aiszaxsnszsaxsszma: . October 20- It may logically "‘ TAKEN FROM MARSHALL DATA, N0 REPORT GWEN FDR LONGWLW . _ be assumed from these figures Figure 3: The frost-free period, the yearly dates that there is but little danger of the last killing frost in spring and the first of frost after April 1 and pre- killing frost in autumn, and the average frost vious to the first of November dates for the thirty-year period, 1900-1929, at . at Longview. Longview, Gregg County. Natural Vegetation The entire area lies within the East Texas Timber Belt. The greater portion of the timber growth on the uplands consists of short-leaf pine, sweet gum, and various kinds of oaks. The various types are unevenly distributed. As one goes from the eastern and southern portions of the It will be noted from Figure_ earliest frost recorded was only; 10 BULLETIN NO. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION area to the North and West, the pine decreases and oaks and other types] increase until in the western parts of Morris, Wood, Smith, and Anderson 1 Counties the pine practically ceases and the oaks predominate. Hardwoods f prevail in lowlands along the streams; the principal types being pin oak, ’ water oak, elm, ash, ironwood, and gum. Approximately 60 per cent of the land of the area is in farms and but 50 per cent of the farm area is cropped. A large portion of the land not in farms is supporting some kind of tree growth and some fairly large bodies of merchantable timber are found in certain parts of the area. l} There are also small amounts of woodland on the majority of farms. The chief commercial outlet for farm timber is in the form of cross ties, i‘. poles, and firewood. The principal forest grass is broom sedge. On the older cleared lands, Bermuda is rapidly becoming the most important grass. In the moist bottoms Bermuda, carpet grass, and Lespedeza are the types most usual- ly found. Other grasses and pastured legumes of minor importance are Dallis grass, bur clover, and vetch. Pastures occupy at least a third of the farm land of the area. The greater part of this pasture land is upland and varies greatly in vege- tation and in carrying capacity. The better upland pastures contain Bermuda grass with some Lespedeza and white clover. They are at their best during May and June, and usually for a short time during the late fall months. During the remainder of the year they have a very low carrying capacity per acre. The woodland pastures contain mostly sedge grass and typical woodland undergrowth, although some Bermuda and carpet grass are found in the more open portions. As a rule, woodland pastures have a low carrying capacity and provide nutritious‘ grazing for only a short period of time during the year. Bottomlands which are not so poorly drained as to be marshy and which aremostly clear of trees and underbrush make excellent pastures. They provide good grazing throughout the growing season or for about eight months and, on the average, will carry two to three times the number of livestock per acre as will the ordinary upland pastures. Bur clover and white clover grow luxuriantly on the better-drained bottomlands. The relation between pasture resources and livestock production is considered in the discussion of dairying in the area. Present General Type of Farming in the Area and Variations from that Type According to the report of the 1930 Census of Agriculture, slightly more than 60 per cent of the crop acreage was in cotton and approximately 20 per cent in corn. The remainder of the cropping system was made up of a wide range of crops (largely feed crops and vegetables), none of which occupied more than a small percentage of the total crop area. As in other areas in which cotton occupies the major portion of the crop land, livestock are of minor commercial importance. In addition FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 11 to the necessary workstock, the majority of farmers keep very few more cattle, hogs, and poultry than are required to provide dairy pro- ducts, meat, and eggs for home use. The livestock combination on most farms is usually one or two cows, a “meat hog”, and 5O to 75 chickens. The average crop and livestock organization in each county of the area, as indicated by the 1930 Census, is shown graphically in Figure 4. The high degree of uniformity in the proportions of the different crops and kinds of livestock from county to county throughout the area indi- cates a strong tendency on the part of farmers in the area to follow the same general type of farming. ___{--_@—P" GREGG VAN ZANOT TITUS RAIN5 MORRIS HARRISON HOPKl NS HOUSTON HENDERSON RUSK UPSHUR CAMP RNOERSON PANOLA BOVHE SMITH SHELBY MARlON FRANKlJN WOOD CASS CHEROKEE 0 4O O 4O O 4O O 4O O 5 0 lO O 5O lOO Figure 4: The percentage of the total crop land in various crops and the numbers of different classes of livestock per 100 acres in crops. (Data from 1930 Census report for Texas.) In particular localities and on specific farms, however, considerable variation from the general type of farming is to be found. Some of the more common of these variations are given in Table 1, in which four different systems characterized by certain special enterprises are shown in comparison with the more usual or cotton type of farming. These variations represent the efforts of a certain proportion of the farmers of the area to adjust their farm organizations to meet the changing economic conditions discussed in the introduction of this Bulletin. The localization of the production of these special enterprises is due largely to limited market outlets and to the advantage of certain soil types over others in production. Local markets are small and are soon oversupplied, while keen competition is encountered in the central markets with products from other areas. Because of these conditions, the com- mercial ‘production of these special enterprises tends to be concentrated 12 BULLETIN NO. 45a, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in parts of the area where conditions are especially favorable. will, for the most part, explain the concentration of commercial truck- y production in the western half of the area where, as was pointed w in the discussion of soils, the well-drained and earlier soils predomina It will also explain‘, in part at least, the concentration of the producti’ of certain truck crops in different sections of that portion of the area—f-I_ example, tomato production in Smith and Cherokee Counties, pea and wate g melon production in Henderson and adjoining counties, and the centering m sweet-potato production in Camp County. An additional factor influencin the localization of sweet-potato production is the restrictions placed marketings from weevil-infested areas. " Table 1. Typical Systems of Farming in the Piney Woods Farming Area | More Common Variation from Usual Type Usual Cotton Type, Cotton with Cotton Gotten Items Cotton with Water- with with Tomatoes melons Sweet Dairying and Peas Potatoes | Per Cent I Per Cent \ Per Cent l Per Cent l Per Cent Proportion Farm Area In: I I Crop land ............................. .. ! Tillable idle .land ......... _. { Tillable pasture .......... .. Woods pastured .......... .- Woods not pastured .......... ., Proportion Crop Land In: Cotton Corn -_-._-__.._.-_---.-_-._- Other feed crops.... Tomatoes _______________ _. Watermelons Sweet potatoes Peas _________________________________________ ,_ t ,,,, _, Other truck crops .......... _. 1.0 3. No. Livestock per 100 Crop Acres: l; MH m @9? m?9*5 coo ooo O » m mw m 999 ??W5? coo ooooo A [Ob-J N»! HQ mm 9°???‘ fqflwfl?‘ 0 coco oco©© . we F‘ 9W.“ rqrqP-“rl?” 0 coo ooooo Hmm wmm NH F?F 9?§9? coo oocoo b‘ , 0 F4 5w!‘ QC 5??-PF? r-nbml OOQAOJ ?rw‘Pre 488C711 OOQOO 7. Poultry . . _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . .. 70. __ Work stock ___________________________ _. 5 The production of dairy products is rather widely distributed over the area. There is, however, apparently greater production of dairy products in the eastern and northern sections as compared to the western part of the area. Soil types and other natural factors which are some- what more favorable to pasture production and less favorable to crop diversi- fication in the eastern and northern parts of the area may be the ex- planation of the difference. Variations in Farm Income Additional information pertaining to the general nature of farming in the area may be obtained from a study of ‘Tables 2 and 3 in which a summary of the organization, production, and earnings on nine farms during 1929 is shown. Wide variations will be noted in farm income as well as in the proportionate income from crops as compared to that FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY woons AREA 1s from livestock. Such variations in incomes may be due to differences from farm to farm in natural resources or they _may be the result of differences in efficiency of management, or both. Only the latter. causes are within the control of the operator and it is on these that attention should be centered in an effort to increase farm incomes. Table 2. Financial and Physical Organization of Nine Farms in Smith, Gregg, and Harrison Counties, 1929. 1 3 5 6 - 9 12 13 14 18 CAPITAL INVESTMENT: Land 4,100| 7,929 2,450 5,375 5,410 3,500 15,660 3,200 7,275 Buildings and Water System* 463 1,025 2S1 1,376 1,970 830 2,450 1,485 2,080 Machinery and Equipment .......... .7 733‘ 348 389 752 1,563 645 1,160 592 820 Work Stock ................................ .. 250 100 200 355 850 315 815 500 620 Other Livestock . . . . . . . _ . . .. 655 1,046 524 472 1,876 1,327 572 285 2,205 Feeds and Supplies . . . . . . _ . .. 108 1,400 1,370 243 745 427 168 1,463 740 Total Investment ..................... _. 6,309 11,848 5,214 8,573 12,414 7,044 20,825 7,525 13,740 ORGANIZATION OF FARMS: Total Acres ............................... .. 164 176 7O 215 270 100 522 80 145 Pasture, Woodland, etc. 68 85 31 65 84 43 155 29 32 Total Crop Land .............. .. 96 91 39 150 186 57 367 51 113 Idle Land ................................................................. A4 35 ________ _, 222 __________________ __ Land Rented Out (3rd and 4th) 75 35 ________ ., 80 .................. t. 100 ........ .. 73 Crops Grown: Cotton ......................................... ~— 4. 38 15 23 150 20 32 35 20 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . , _ _ . . l. 171 20 5 3O 7 9 6 7 Tomatoes ________________________________________ .1 2 ______________________________________ ._ 2 Watermelons _ . ________________________ _, 2 1 ____________________________ .. Peas ............... ._ _... ............................ ._ 5 14 ________ .. 10 ........ .. Cowpeas 5 ____________________________________ I 6 .................. W 7 Oats __________ .. 6 ______________________________________ .. 5 ____________________________ ._ Sorghum ____ __ 1 ___________________________________ ,, 5 4 ________ __ 2 Truck ____________________________________________________ r 1 2 _____ ______________________________ _, 2 Total Man Hrs. on Crops.__- 635 1,700 2,655 4,497 6,845 2,241 1,644 2,520 4,085 Total Horse Hrs. on Crops" 733 1,510 1,707 1,575 4,609 1,815 1,604 2,351 2,619 Number of Livestock Kept: Workstock ____________________________________ __ 2 2 2 3 6 3 7 4 4 Milk Cows .... .. . 9 7 4 2 10 9 5 2 7 Other Cattle _. 5 4 2 3 3 3 2 2 4 Hogs ................ .. 1 ________ I 8 4 5 1 8 2 8 Chickens ______________________________________ _, 55 220 65 75 50 75 55 60 35 Total Man Hrs. on Livestock 869 1,191 690 570 1,131 806 773 1,073 1,218 Total Horse Hrs. on Livestock 30 76 10 8 72 108 12 6 80 *Does not include dwelling. THE MAIN CONSIDERATIONS IN PLANNING THE FARM ORGANIZATION FOR INCREASED PROFITS The Adaptability of Enterprises The discussion of the general characteristics of the area and of the forces that may cause readjustments in farming, as taken up in the foregoing sections, may serve to indicate the elements in the problem of effecting profitable farm readjustments in the area. The direction and kind of changes now being made or in prospect have been pointed out. The manner in which differences in the physical attributes of the area have caused a certain localization in the production of various commercial enterprises has been discussed. It is recognized, however, that certain forces other than physical may affect the profitableness of various farm enterprises in particular localities. Further information pertaining to individual enterprises is needed, therefore, before dealing with the various farming systems into which these enterprises may be 14 BULLETIN N0. 45s, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION combined. Information is needed in evaluating the general considerations and specific factors that would tend to limit or further the expansion of individual enterprises adapted to the area. Market demands, relative profitableness, and farm requirements for food and feed may be mention- ed as some of these factors. In view of the labor available, it is also necessary to know the manner in which different enterprises combine with each other, with respect to the distribution of labor requirements, in determining the workability of different combinations. A combination of several enterprises having heavy labor requirements at the same time may not be feasible because of the scarcity of labor. On the other hand, a combination may be effected which would utilize the labor force profit- ably throughout the work season and eliminate, in part at least, the heavy peak loads of labor requirements which would necessitate the hiring-of additional labor. In the following discussion the leading farm enterprises are considered individually to indicate the proper perspective that will enable one to determine the most efficient combination of enter- prises adapted to the area. Table 3. Crop Production and Farm Income on Nine Farms in Smith, Gregg, and Harrison Counties, 1929. 1 3 5 6 9 12 13 14 18 Physical Production?‘ Cotton (lbs. lint) .......................... 44 388 5,062 4,220 3,572 15,645 3,170 8,930 7,950 4,291 Corn. (bushels) .... 4. 60 150 250 67 200 150 125 200 200 Tomatoes (lbs.) 4 Watermelons (tons Peas (bushels) ........ .4 _ Cowpeas (tons) -4 Oats (tons) ........... 4. Sorghum (tons) ______________________________ 4. Income per Farm: Cash Receipts: Crop Sales: Cotton ..; .................................... .4 $ 99 $ 804 $1,167 $ 582 $2,576 $ 526 $1,563 $2,112 $ 693 Cotton seed .4 .4 13 65 69 140 236 135 158 267 81 Vegeables ....... ,4 44 _ 32 148 611 1,149 _______ .4 100 .................. 4. 1,072 Other Crops .............. 4- 4 4 4 .................................. .. Total Crop Sales .............. .4 148 1,017 1,847 1,871 2,812 761 1,721 2,379 1,846 Livestock & Livestock Produc ~ Horses and Mules _________________________ 44 25 4 4 . _ . . 4 _ 4 4 ________ 44 90 25 Cattle _4_4 ........... .4 ._.4 180 245 33 98 19 224 130 8 320 Hogs 4..- __ 2 ,,,,,,, 44 136 52 ............... 44 20 85 174 Poultry ............... 4. 4 165 13 52 _. ,,,,, .. 8 ........ ._ Dairy Products 203 114 ________________ 44 873 605 261 171 177 Eggs .................................... 44 4, 22 606 24 53 44 76 70 29 Total Livestock Sales 407 1,130 231 255 892 873 487 432 725 Miscellaneous Receipts ..... -4 4. 101 18 144 213 20 238 ........ .4 300 Total Cash Receipts _________ 44 656 2,165 2,222 2,339 3,724 1,634 2,446 2,811 2,871 Cash Expenses: Crops .............................................. 44 45 196 191 269 429 47 305 264 330 Livestock _ 10 25 98 7 69 165 527 43 35 Feeds ................. 4. 4 4 118 544 7 201 633 290 175 282 461 Labor (Hired) 4 .... .... 44 60 139 11 24 1,734 ____ 4. 225 352 327 Equipment . _ _ . 4 . . . _ 4 _ _ _ __ 3O 97 90 703 _______ 4_ 23 661 1,009 1,495 Real Estate __4. 34 130 48 4 . _ 4 4 _ 4 4 4 . 44 130 41 114 Car Expense ............................... .4 68 47 83 85 127 51 171 142 177 Tax (R. E. and Pers. Property) 42 46 46 61 60 27 119 226 69 Total Cash Expenses ........ 44 373 1,128 656 1,398 3,052 603 2,313 2,359 3,008 Net Cash Income ______________ __ ._ 283 1,037 1,566 941 672 1,031 133 452 —-137 Change in Inventory 44_-4._-_--._44._._-4_ ——338 30 -—621 ——226 —1,317 -—359 200 —269 317 Farm Income 4_____-._.___________..__________ —— 55 1,067 945 715 —- 645 672 333 183 180 Products Used in Home ____4_...4_. 428 800 609 857 994 790 1,299 666 935 Family Farm Income _______.________-. 373 1,867 1,554 1,572 349 1,462 1,632 849“ 1,115 ‘Does not include products or income from rented land. FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA l5 Certain enterprises such as poultry, swine, and some of the minor a feed crops are not considered in any great detail because of the relatively small place they occupy in the farm organizations of the area. Suificient information pertaining to labor distribution is presented, however, to in- dicate how these enterprises may be coordinated with other enterprises when included in the organization. Although not treated as a farm enterprise in this publication, farm woodlands are a valuable asset to the farmers of the area. They not only are the main source of fuel and posts for farm use, but are drawn upon frequently to supplement the cash income through the sale of cross- ties and posts, especially during winters following low incomes from the cotton crop. Cotton In terms of the proportion of the total crop area devoted to its pro- duction and of the gross farm income derived from its sale, cotton is the most important crop grown in the 23 counties comprising the Piney Woods farming area of Texas. As previously stated, 60 per cent of the total crop land in the area is in cotton. The proportion of the crop land in cotton for each county is shown in Figure 4. The pro- portion of crop land in cotton for the different counties is uniformly high, ranging from 47 to 67 per cent. ,g;,°§§;, PER\OD OPERAUONS usumv PERFORMED OPERATIONS MAN lnunst Jvlu FEB MAR IlQR. uuxv Juutluu Auq SEPT 0U Nov us; _ SEED~BED PREPARAUON: cuT sums w, s ------- armour y, - - - - - aw s o --~------ DISTRIESUTEFERTILIZU! z z ------ --_—- REBED z 4 ---------— HARROWOFF BEDS a 2 -—------- --- PLANT\N6: OPEN BEDS W, l7, -——--------- mur z z ------~----— CULTWATION: m: orr s s ------------ — a ESEBVATE g7" ,5 n“ ‘u-m“ n *—- INCLUDES swcnvmo uv not g jg: :_'_"_'_’_"_:::::lmo mownuo MIDDLES man zs ----------------- "M T“ 5'" "/1 3 7.7.777. .7.777.77.7.'77.77.‘!".".'.".'.'.- ... usuu wuainouns 1011 - 4 o |o us: an s: 10.5 4 5 , nmmmon nouns 417, z 1o azs 1 z 2 | Figure o: lY1aJl'LaUUl' and nurse-work requlrcmeuts lur UuoLUn pruuuutluzi pct no“; uy operations, usual distribution by months, and periods of time during which operations are usually performed. There is a wide variation in the size of cotton farms in the area. The larger farms, as previously indicated, are usually worked by" croppers or tenants for a share of the crop, with the operator acting as super- 16 BULLETIN NO. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION visor, or manager. The so-called family farm, however, with all or a large part of the labor furnished by members of the family, is the most‘ 3 common type. The labor requirements of cotton are particularly heavy during the chopping and picking seasons, and serve as the limiting factor deter- mining the acreage that can be handled by a specified labor force.‘ The present obstacles in the way of successful substitution of machine for hand methods in removing these labor peaks have already been pointed out. The usual operations in producing cotton, with the monthly distri- bution of the man labor and horse work required, are shown in Figure 5. This labor distribution is summarized in Figure 15 in order to show the manner in which cotton and various other enterprises may compete for labor when included in the farm organization. Tomatoes The first commercial shipment of tomatoes from East Texas was made in 1897, when six cars were shipped from the area. Production has increased until the present time, the average yearly number of carload shipments now being well above twenty-five hundred. The principal tomato-producing counties in the area are Cherokee and Smith Counties, with lighter shipments from Anderson, Henderson, and other neighboring counties. Jasksonville, in Cherokee County, is considered the center of the district. The Piney Woods farming area of Texas is in the second-early group _producing commercial tomatoes, the peak of tomato movements from the area usually taking place during the month of June (Figure 6). At that time, heavy competition is met from the Crystal Springs-Hazelhurst section of Mississippi. East Texas tomatoes also meet competition from an over- I _ K , , _ I _ l _ g lapping of early and intermedi- T} J ' I T ' [_' Tnni‘ ' ' ate shipments into the second- - early season. At the beginning Ll . I | I of the Eeast Texas shipping sea- son there is still a considerable amount of tomatoes being ship- ped from the Lower Rio Grande Valley and other parts of South Texas, and from Florida. At the I close of the season, competition I ‘ruoausu I I¢L=II ‘l’ X fimu vaoons ammo nu , j i is met from the intermediate ‘JAN. VII. MAI. APE MAY ‘MIC NLV M)‘. SEPT- OCT. HOV. DIC- Figure 6: Monthly carlot shipments of tomatoes from the Piney Woods farming area and from Tfixas and cgmpetingfsiictes, averaige 1924-1929. ( ata rom ureau o gricu tura Economics - - U. S. Department of Agriculture. ' Shlpplng season- During the five-year period, 1925-29, 25 to 35 per cent of the total carload shipments of tomatoes during June have originated in the Piney Woods farming area of Texas. In formulating production plans, the producer in this area should consider the proposed plantings and prospects sections "of Arkansas and Ten- nessee that are beginning their 1. .. ALA...“ zmnhaawnaziflu -‘ Pgggggi PERIOD OPERATION USUALLY PEFORMED optmmous MAII IIIDRSE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT our NOV one BUILD IIOTBED I0 5 -—I PLANT HOTBED 5 ——Ii BUILD IZDLD FRAME I0 5 ~ - — ~IIII PLANT tow ram: I5 —--—~— 5EED'BED PREPARATION: FLAT BREAK 5 I0 — — — — —IIIII sco 4 a -~- --- OPEN BEDS Z Z — — — — — DISTRIBUTE FERTILIZER 7.71 Z7, — — ~ — ~ Rtw) A 4 ~-----—- SET PLANTS Z5 I27; ——~ —————II1 CULTIVATION: I SWEEP UP l6 I6 —————--—-—--I—I-I not m no ---~----—— mw MIDDLES_ o o ------------I DISTRIBUTE fERTILllER 3 3 ———-— ——I1I SET sum ¢ PRUNE so I0 -- --------— PRUNE so -----------— msct LABOR z —-—-—————-—-— PICK 75 ----------------- ‘ ""1 T° MARKET 1° 4° iiiirriirifrfifffff". .. ... ... .,. ... .n USUAL IIINI IIDURS 276$ I0 ITS 7.6 44 69 DI T DISTRIBUTION DRSE IIDIIRS I16 5 9.5 I05 Z6 3| 32 4 ' FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 17 in the heavy-producing competing areas, since the price received for his tomatoes will be greatly influenced by the total quantity and quality of tomatoes available for market at that time. In the past, the tendency has been for producers to act more on the basis of prices paid during the past season than on the basis of prices likely to be paid during the coming season. This, in a large measure, with climatic conditions of course, serves to explain the rather wide fluctuations in production and the resulting fluctuations in price. Figure ‘l: Man-lauor and horse-work requirements for tomato production per acre by operations, usual distribution by months, and periods of time during which operations are usually performed. The farms growing commercial tomatoes on which data were obtained had an average of three acres in the crop, with the bulk, or modal group, having two acres. The 1930 Census shows that 27.5 per cent of the farms in the most important tomato-producing counties reported the production of tomatoes for sale; the acreage reported averaged 1.87 acres per farm. The size of the tomato enterprise in terms of acres per farm is limited principally by the large amount of man labor and horse work required per acre during limited periods of time I (Figure '7). As family labor is used to a large extent on most of the farms in the area, the supply of this kind of labor will determine to a large extent the acreage that will be planted to the tomato enterprise. In planning his farming program, the farm-operator should give particular attention to the seasonal labor requirements of tomatoes with regard to possible competition for labor with other crops included in the program (Figure 15). 18 BULLETIN NO. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The heavy peak of labor on tomatoes occurs usually in May and June. 1 In the usual system shown in Table 1, in which tomatoes are grown in. 1 addition to cotton and feed crops, there is considerable competition for I labor, especially during these months. Watermelons Watermelons are grown for home consumption on most farms and are , shipped commercially from a rather wide section in the area. More j than half of the 23 counties in the area usually ship watermelons. The most important centers, in terms of the number of carloads shipped, are in Wood, Henderson, Hopkins, and Morris Counties, with lesser ship- a ments from the neighboring counties. Watermelons in this area are usually harvested during the latter part of July and the first part of August. Severe competition is met at that time, not only from other states but also from the Weatherford dis- trict, west of Fort Worth, which ships at the same time. Texas is one of the leading watermelon-producing states of the country, with the Piney Woods farming area furnishing a not inconsequent proportion of the state production. The average number of carload shipments from the State and from the area, for a five-year period, is shown in Figure 8, with the shipments from the other leading areas that are shipping at the same time. As a large proportion of the watermelon crop is consumed locally and moved by trucks, the commercial production is considerably larger for the different States than indicated in Figure 8, which considers only the commercial movement going by rail. The price received by farmers °°°¢_ - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ngflw 1 1 _ aw ‘ f ‘ ' ' '—' 1Z1? Y 1 of the area producing water- ‘ ’ ' 1 ' ' "F """="'°""* I melons for commercial shipment ;1 1 1 1 1 1 r-Tfijflj-FW , fl, t d I 1 b th "i 1 1 1 1 llIIIL-J =.~--.- T1 ‘s; F‘ 6° e a???’ Y_ e °°“' "u, . ditions prevailing in other "1 1 1 1 1 1fl1..1m-mm-mm . . . . m sections with which their pro- g“! l i I i I ill-i WW“! l duction competes. Supply and __L 1 1 1 1 1 1 .......1 1 1 demand conditions determining ~ prices paid for Watermelons are rather delicately balanced, with a resulting wide fluctua- tion in prices when production is not adjusted to demand. The Figure 8: Monthly carlot shipments of water- infgrmation cgntained in Figure melons from the Piney Woods farming area and . _ . from Texas and competing states. (Data from 8 llldlCa-tes the mOSt ImPQTtaUt mgriitzrezafugérigliiicliilg-ural Economics, U. S. Depart- producing states in which pro_ duction is likely to affect prices received by the East Texas producer. Making use of agricultural outlook information will enable the individual grower to plan his production program according to anticipated prices, depending on conditions affecting the supply of and demand for the commodity. _ Watermelons and peas produced for market are grown in the same .. .3.“.r;;._,,....- 1 U~,<\,.,1.. A ~ FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 19 general section and are commonly found on the same farms. Where both crops are grown, the two will generally be found in the propor- tion of 4 acres in watermelons and 10 acres in peas (Table 1). The inclusion of watermelons and peas in the crop-land organization of farms formerly growing only cotton as a cash crop seems to be mainly at the expense of the cotton acreage. The usual operations in producing watermelons, with the monthly distribution of man labor and horse work, are shown in Figure 9. The manner in which the watermelon enterprise competes for labor with other commercial crop enterprises may be noted from Figure 15. pgffifig, PERIOD OPERATION USUALLY PEFORMED OPERATIONS MAN ORSE JIANI JUNE JULY SEPT QCT NOV DEC SEEDBED PREPARATIONI s50 2 4 ~-----~- DISTRIBUTE FERTILIZER 3 6 ——————-—————I— REBED 2 4 ———----—-—-— NARROW orr 550s z z -----------— PLANT a ----_----_-- CULTIVATION: HOE b -—-——-———-————n—n SIDE nmow 2 4 -————~—-—-- SWEEP UP 6 6 —-——-———-——III PLOW MIDDLES 6 b ——-———~—-——-———-I— "RVEST ‘ WK“ Z4 4° ‘Fri-iii- TTT“T‘"TTT“.T'.'-.'.. ... ... .. USUAL MAN HOURS 5O 55 20.5 6 l6 6 [ISTRIBUTION EIIOIJRS 02. 9 IT 0 32 I6 Figure 9: Man-labor and horse-work requirements for watermelon production per acre by operations, usual distribution by months, and periods of time during which operations are usually performed. Peas Edible dried peas are of considerable commercial importance in some sections of the area. Black-eyed peas are the chief variety grown, with the Lady and Cream varieties occupying a less extensive area. The heaviest shipments are from Henderson County. Peas are usually custom-threshed and sold to cash buyers at central shipping points. Shipping begins usually during the latter part of July. The relative non-perishability of the product permits local dealers, especially, to ship at their discretion according to market conditions and demand. The bulk of the crop, however, is usually moved out by late fall or early winter. Peas and watermelons are grown commercially in the same general section, as previously stated, and are commonly found on the same farms. The general considerations affecting the inclusion of peas as a commer- cial enterprise in the farm organization have been taken up in the ? discussion of the watermelon enterprise.~ The usual operations in pro- 7 ducing peas, with the monthly distribution of man labor and horse work, i are shown in Figure 10. The manner in which peas compete for labor with other enterprises may be noted from Figure 15. - 20 BULLETIN NO. 453. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ,£'},°‘;§§E PfiRlOD OPERAUONS USUALLY PEFORMED opcnunous MAN mast JAN FEB m m MAY JUNE JULY we scm on Nov DEC SEEWBED PREPARATION". - DED z 4 ----~--- NARROW Off BEDS I 2 --—-—— ~——— PLANT 2 2. --——~—————-— CULTIVAUON: Slbf." nmow z 4 -—-----—-——-— swcav UP z 4 -----—--------- PLOW M|DDLE5 z ~ z -—- ——-——-—-——— MISCELLANEOUS '2. Z -~——————-III—- mcx so --—-------—--~-—---—- "M" T° MARK“ 3 ° ".171: TTT TTT 71-7"..- '. .. ... ... ... ... . USUAL {MAN HOURS 66 5 6 Z l5 36 DISIRlBUTION HORSE HOURS Z6 6 IO 2 2 4 Figure 10: Man-labor and horse-work requirements for pea production per acre by opera- tions, usual distribution by months, and periods of time during which operations are usually performed. Sweet Potatoes Sweet potatoes are an important commercial enterprise on many farms in the area. A little more than three-fourths of the total carload shipments in Texas originate in the Piney Woods farming area. The heaviest shipments are from Pittsburg, in Camp County, with lesser but never- theless important shipments from Hopkins, Morris, Bowie, and adjoining counties. The sweet-potato crop is usual- iémlml“: |"']""°‘i“L“-J,| ly harvested sometime during the first three weeks in October. The period of marketing the crop, however, may be extended through the following spring. 0 |°‘““1""l | l | [Ill] The practice formerly was to ‘Q11- I _| l""“"."'° l l_ I i sell practically all of the crop ‘ Qa to local dealers and shippers o ' nomncsaoum: ‘l “l-l-I-l ".“"""l"'l i é ‘e CAR as green potatoes but many pro- s. g i ducers now have their own dry- o __ ___ ing kilns. This permits them MI- Ill- MAI. "l. HAY Jllll JULY AVG- SIPY. OCT. NOV. OIL , Figure u: Monthly carlot shipments of sweet to cure their crop and defer potatoes from the Piney Woods farming area selling until a later period when and from Texas and competing states. (Data - - from Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. betfizer pnces are hkely to pre- va1 . Department of Agriculture. Figure 11 shows the average monthly carlot shipments of sweet potatoes, over a five-year period, for Texas and the more important states that ship at the same time. While the shipments are distributed throughout the year, the heavy movement from Texas usually begins toward the latter part of September and lasts until the early part of the following spring. Because of the; relative non-perishability of cured sweet potatoes, the time of shipping is more susceptible of control than highly perishable VIRGINIA FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 21 products such as tomatoes and watermelons. Figure 11 would seem to indicate that Texas potatoes meet severe competition at the time of heavy selling. However, a large portion of the Texas crop is marketed in the state and, although affected by price-determining influences exerted by other areas, does not come, to any appreciable extent, in direct competition for markets with the pro- duction of other states. p23???“ PERIOD opmzmous usumv PEFORMED OPERATIONS MANTIOITSEJAN r55 MAR m mm JIJIIE Jpq we gay; 9g rlql nit PREPARNPLAIIT PUTITOE BEI) I0 2 —- SEEII-BED PREPIIRATIONI cur sums W, 5 ———-—- FLAT BREAK 5 I0 —————I— mac z a ---—---- BED 2 4 ——— ———-——— DISTRIBUTE FERTILIZER Z 2. — - — — ~— ——— — REBEO Z» 4 -—-—-———— IIARROW Off BEDS I Z ——————————————I SET PLANTS 20 4 —-——-———-————-— CULTIVATION: SWEEP UP 9 9 ————————~— PLOW MIDDLES 2 Z —— —————- no: I5 -- -—- HARVESTING. one a o -- -------------—----—- mcx t cam so ----~-------- --------—- ""1"" "WK" '5 3° TTTTT. .'.TTT.JTTTTTTTTTTIT'.T . USUAL ITAII IIOURS H97; 65 I2 6 7.5.5 I6.5 5 46 . DISTRIBUTION 025E IIOIIRS O6 I3 I0 I0 |0.5 6.5 36 Figure 12: Man-labor and horse-work requirements for sweet potato producton per acre by operations, usual distribution by months, and periods of time during which opera- tions are usually performed. While there is a wide range in the acreage of commercial sweet potatoes grown per farm, the bulk of the farms from which data were obtained had approximately five acres in the crop. As with the other cash-crop enterprises grown in the area to supplement the income from cotton, the acreage in sweet potatoes has to be adjusted to the usual cropping program of cotton and feed crops from the standpoint of the amount of competition for the labor available. The usual operations and the monthly distribution of man labor and horse work required to produce one acre of sweet potatoes are shown in Figure 12. Sweet potatoes rank next to tomatoes in man-labor and horse-work requirements per acre and compete for labor with both cotton and corn during culti- vation and, to a certain extent, during harvest (Figure 15). A consider- able amount of cotton is still being picked in October, when the peak of labor on sweet potatoes occurs. The harvesting of corn usually occurs during October also. Unless it is planned to hire outside labor during that period and also during the periods that the crops compete for labor during cultivation, the operator should consider his available 22 BULLETIN NO. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION farm labor supply in proportioning his crop land to the diiferent crops; that he may plan to include in his farming program. Corn Corn is second only to cotton in the proportion of the total crop land; occupied. According to the 1930 Census, a little over 20 per cent of the I, total crop land of the area was in corn. Of this acreage, approximately 98 _ per cent was harvested for grain. The variation in the proportion of crop land in corn for the different counties ranged from 17 to 26 # per cent. The greatest number of counties, however, had 20 to 25 per cent of their land in corn (Figure 4). Corn is the chief feed crop grown in the area. Associated with cotton, L5 it forms the basis for the prevailing systems of farming. In the usual organizations indicated in Table 1, the proportion of land in corn is much -_ » less than that in cotton. Because of the greater comparative advantage in producing cotton, corn is usually grown for farm use only. The information available from the route data, county agents, and farmers 5__ in the area indicates a normal yield of 18 bushels per acre. From »- the information presented in other parts of this Bulletin, it his apparent j that, with such a yield and at prevailing prices, corn cannot compete * with cotton as a cash crop. Its ‘inclusion in the farm organization, in most cases, is to provide a better-balanced system and to eliminate to some degree the risk of relying solely on the cash income from other crops, mainly cotton, for the purchasing of feed. ,'gg“§3,,£ PERIOD OPERATION usumv PERFORMED OPERATIONS MANITTORSE JIAN. FEO MAR APR MIVW JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC SEEOTJEO PREPARATIONI . CUT $TN.KS I Z --~ -— BED a a ----- DISTRIBUTE rzxnuznre V, l7, ~---- REBEO Z 4- -——— "mow orr 0:05 I z ———-———-- PLANT 2'1, z'/, --------- CULTIVATION. BAR OFT 3 3 ---—— —II mm 3 Tn“ — INCLUDES swzcvme UP figlénvmfi i; 9 :::C::::__:::;{AND PLOWING MIDDLES MISC. LABOR 3 3 "'---- "AWN 4 5 ".177. ..."..-.... .7771 USUAL Mm nouns 36 12.5 5 |o 4.5 4 USTRIOTJTION ORSE ITOURS 4| l9 5.5 55 3 6 Figure 13; Man-labor and horse-work requirements for corn production per acre by operations, usual distribution by months, and periods of time during which operations are usually performed. ' The association of corn with cotton in the farm organization helps to provide a more balanced system in that the corn crop serves to make better utilization of the investment required to produce cotton. The corn_ crop utilizes the same equipment and workstock used in the FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA A 23 production of cotton and at a time when these often would be idle. While Figure 15 indicates that there may be considerable competition for labor between corn and cotton, the practices on individual farms are usually arranged so that the labor on corn is applied at a time when the cotton crop does not needi attention. The preparation of the ‘land and the planting of corn are done usually during March (Figure 13). During April and the first part of May, the cotton land is prepared and planted. During the cultivation of the two crops, although within narrower time limits, this same alternation is effected and, normally, with little or no detriment to either crop. Abnormal weather conditions, however, may interfere with this normal distribution of work on the two enterprises. Continued rainfall, for example, may delay the field work. On the resumption of work, cotton will receive the first attention. This, of course, often results in corn yields being lower than they would have been otherwise. Normally, the harvesting of corn competes for labor with cotton-picking. The period during which corn harvesting may be done, however, is rather elastic and is usually delayed until after cotton harvesting is completed or during a lapse between pickings. On many of the farms in the area, a considerable proportion of the feed fed is purchased. This may or may not be a good business policy, depending on the relationship between cotton and feed prices. When cotton prices are high relative to feed prices, stressing cotton production and depending on the income to purchase feed may be justified. However, this kind of a price relationship may be reversed the following year. Unless the operator has changed his program to meet this changed price relationship, he may be faced with the necessity of purchasing high-priced feed with the income from low-priced cotton. Another group of farms in the area usually follows the practice of producing all or a large part of the feed needed on the farm. This is especially true of the farms where the family is the source of labor used. On these farms, not only is the policy considered safer with respect to cotton and feed-price relationships, but the farm system is also better balanced with respect to a better utilization of the label workstock, and equipment available. Hay Crops The considerations affecting the advisability of producing rather than purchasing farm hay are much the same as those discussed in connection with the corn enterprise. In this case there is the added factor of soil fertility in providing a balanced system of farming in so far as this may be affected by the production of legumes, the rotation of crops, and the feeding of livestock. Legumes interplanted in corn or grown alone, oats, sorghums, and wild-grass hays are the principal roughages grown in the area. The relative importance of hay and forage crops as compared to crops such as cotton and corn, may be judged from the information presented in Figure 4. The usual operations and the monthly distribution of the labor 24 BULLETIN NO. 45s, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION requirements involved in the production of these crops are shown in Figure 14. It is a rather common practice in the area to interplant cowpeas. in corn. Because of the relatively large amount of hand labor involved in harvesting interplanted cowpeas for hay, however, the bulk of the cowpeas used for hay are grown alone. .3315; PERIOD commons USUALLY PEFORMED °°E"l'°"5 "llllmi IA" FIB. ll‘? II’? IIIIIIIII- III“. II“? S??? 9°‘. II“. l??? cowms ' BED 25!, PLANT 5 Z Z I 5 CULTIVATE CUT RAIII’. IIAUL USUAI. lllnnouaslslg ‘I. llflfzw DSIIIIIIIIOII oust nouns I24 z s OATS FLATBREAII 4 a —--- BROADCAST ‘z --- —— DISK In 3 CUT z 4 -- RAKE I 2 --—---—-------~— IIAUL s s - usunr {llln nouns I2. i I 4 2' I‘ l’ lnsmlllmon nous: nouns 2s‘ 4 1 4 a S0 RGIIUM FLATBREAK BROADCAST DISK CUT RAKE IIAUL USUAL lnnnnoullsllv, 2.5’ IIISIIIIBIITIOIIIIIOIISE nouns zu o 4 BERMUDA CUT RAKE IIAUL USUAL MAN IIOURS . IISIRIBIITIDII IBE IIOUIIS l2 6 6 Figure 14: Man-labor and horse-work requirements per acre by operations, for the pro- duction of the four principal hay crops, the usual distribution by months, and the periods of time during which operations are usually performed. Spring-planted oats are the most common in the area. Neither oats nor sorghums were grown for grain on any of the farms included in this study. Bottomland meadows are the principal source of grass hays. Bermuda O-»uuru\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i o: I I I I I U\—NN§'A auras» I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I I -5 . Ovwb - I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q Q3u-TQ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I u: ll I is the principal grass in meadow hay, with lesser proportions of carpet and Johnson grasses and Lespedeza in the mixture. qq-Vq-Frzjqwwqc-"wnn-rvgimju-guu 1v"- rt~'v1-'\*Ye‘_1m';"$w FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 25 As shown in Figures 15 and 17, there is no serious competition for labor between most hays and other crop enterprises. The periods of keen- est competition are during oats harvest and the cultivation or harvest periods of other crops, and between the harvesting of other hays and of peas. Some competition for labor between hays and other crops also occurs during the planting and cultivation of cowpeas, but the amount of labor thus used oncowpeas is relatively light. Dairying Due largely to the lack of good pastures and to the small amounts of feed crops produced, dairying occupies a small place in the agriculture of the area. Milk cows are kept primarily to provide dairy pro- ducts for the farm family. The production of dairy products for sale is, for the most part, inci- dental to the regular farming program. According to the 1930 Census reports on agriculture, an average of slightly more than two cows were milked per farm on the farms reporting (64 per cent of all farms) cows milked. Of the same group of farms, not more than one in threere- ported the sale of dairy pro- ducts. In 1929 the total value of dairy products reported sold 40 HOURS S888 SSSoSQoSSBSoEBSQ o from the farms of the area was JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT 0U NOV DEC Figure 15: Monthly distribution of man-labor re- quirements per acre for six principal crops. Value of the cotton crop- In the past, local retail markets for milk and farm butter and the shipping of sour cream have been the chief outlets for surplus dairy products in the area. A recent development has been the location in the area of three milk-processing plants. These plants provide an opportunity to a large number of farmers to market their dairy products or whole milk on a butterfat-content basis. The milk is collected at the farm and hauled by trucks over organized routes to the plants where sweet- cream butter, sweet cream, milk powder, and cottage cheese are manu- factured. The producer is naid on the butterfat-content basis, the cost of transporting the milk to the plant being deducted at time of settlement. Since the data were gathered for this study, increases in population, due to oil developments in the central part of the area, have resulted in a greatly increased local demand for dairy products, par- ticularly whole milk. A study of dairy enterprise records from 45 farms producing milk for sale to milk plants, shows that farms having more than the average only 5.4 per cent of the total 2a BULLETIN NO.‘453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION number of milk cows usually have smaller acreages of cotton and some- what larger acreages of pasture and feed crops. The bulk of these farms had a modal or most common size of 150 acres, with livestock proportions as indicated in Table 4. As the size of farms increased," there was also a decided increase in the number of milk cows kept per farm. This is primarily due to an increase in the acreage of land pastured, as there is a strong relationship between the total acres in past- ure and the number of milk cows kept. The amount of labor available for dairying is another factor closely associated with the number of acres in pasture and the number of cattle kept. On the small family farms, an increase in pasture area is reflected in a decrease in crop land, resulting in an increase in the amount of labor available for dairying. As the size of farm increases, usually an increasingly larger proportion of the cop land is operated by tenants and coppers. This also results in an increase in the amount of family labor potentially available for dairying, associated with an increase, usually, in the number of acres in pasture. Table 4. Normal Yields and Usual Production Requirements of Commercial Crops. Cotton Tomatoes Water- Peas Sweet . melons Potatoes Yields ..__-.._..._._......-_ 135 lbs. lint 7,500 lbs. 12,000 lbs. 10 bu. 115 bu. ..................... --_. 173 lbs. seed .......................... .. 324 lbs. seed cotton Production Requirements : Man Labor (hrs.).. 76 276 58 66 137 Horse Work (hrs.) 40 135 82 26 72 Seed ................... ._ 1 bu. M; lb. 1 lb. 12 lbs. 5 bu. Fertilizer (lbs.) 200, 4-8-4 700,2 4-12-4 100, 4-12-4 ........... __ 350,4 4-12-4 Frames Material ._ ................ .. 3.253 Crates (number) .. ................ .. 115 Other cash costs ($) 1.541 .............................. _. 1.255 llncludes ginning, bagging, and ties. "100 lbs. in cold frame, 400 lbs. in field before planting, and 200 lbs. side dressing. “Fragréesuslgaterial for hot-bed and cold-frame prorated on acre basis and estimated period ‘100 lbs. in bed and 250 lbs. in field before planting. ‘Threshing. Dairying requires attention during the entire year and therefore com- petes for labor to a certain extent with all the other enterprises on the farm (Figure 19). The seasonal labor requirements for dairying are fairly uniform. The labor for feeding and sheltering stock during the winter would seem heavier, but this is usually counterbalanced during the summer by the labor required in driving the cows to and from the pasture and in cooling the milk. The chief competition for labor be- tween dairying and other enterprises occurs during the peaks of labor requirements of these other enterprises. Where little or no outside labor is hired, particular attention should be given to the adjustment of the labor available to the labor requirements ‘of the enterprises com- peting for labor. On most farms, the buildings, land in pasture, and general overhead do not differ materially from what is usually found on similar-sized farms where cows are kept primarily to supply milk and meat to the FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 27 home. Under these conditions the total cost of operating the whole farm is increased but little beyond the additional cash costs incurred in the operation of the dairy enterprise. On some farms, however, dairying has been, or will be, expanded to a point where new buildings and equip- ment must be added and the cotton acreage materially reduced in order to provide additional feed crops and pasture to meet the needs of the larger enterprise. Thus the entire farm organization is changed to make a place for the dairy enterprise. The heaviest item of cash expense for producing milk was for feed. Of the total feed fed, 97 per cent of the concentrates and 56 per cent of the roughage were purchased. While most of the concentrates have to be purchased, this does not apply so rigidly to the roughage. With feed prices relatively high compared to the price of butterfat, the wisdom of purchasing most of the feed, especially roughage, is rather question- able. Suitable pastures are one means of providing economical feed and reducing expenses. The farms having the most acres in pasture per head of cattle also purchased the least feed per head. Farms naving bottomland pastures of relatively high carrying capacity have a decided advantage in the economical production of dairy products. However, relatively few farms have such pastures and attention should be given to the improvement of the more common upland or rolling pastures. A common practice is to utilize as pasture the rough land which is unfit for crop production or land turned out of cultivation because of de- pletion of soil fertility. Moreover, very few of these pastures are terraced. While normally of low carrying capacity, such pastures furnish scant grazing during the summer months. Another important factor affecting profits is the production per cow. While the modal production per cow was 175 pounds of butterfat the average yearly production of milk cows kept on all farms surveyed was 156 pounds during a milking period of approximately nine months. This average production figure includes a range of low and of relatively high producers. The lowest average production per cow per farm was 67 pounds and the highest 300 pounds. The significant point to note here is that as the production per cow increases, there is a strong ten- dency for the net income. per_ cow, and especially the cash receipts over cash expenses, to increase. This range in production, and therefore in returns from the enterprise, is primarily due to the differences in quality of animals kept and differences in feeding on different farms. On many of the farms visited the farm-operators had had considerable experience in prodlucing dairy products for local sale or for shipping on a small scale. Selling to milk plants, then, meant only a change in the method of disposal of the products. There is a tendency for profits in dairying to be associated with the experience of the operator, measured ‘ by the length of time that dairy products have been produced for sale off the farm. This indicates the necessity of intellignet planning, based on the experience of the more successful operators in the area and, to a certain extent, the advisability of “growing rather than going 28 BULLETIN NO. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION into the business”. The mistake has been made in many cases of pur- chasing high-priced dairy stock and going into business withoutsufficient consideration of the factors that may affect the profitableness of the enterprise on individual farms. Summary of Distribution of Labor Requirements Frequent reference has been made to Figures 15 and 17 in illustrating graphically the usual monthly distribution of the labor requirements dis- cussed in connection with the individual crop enterprises. The distribution of the horse-work requirements of these enterprises is shown in Figures 16 and 18. Information pertaining to the monthly labor requirements of diiferent class- es of livestock is shown in Fig- ure 19. Illustrated thus, the m various enterprises may easily g be studied with regard to their 2f: relative demands for labor at o different times of the year. Z8 The heaviest demands for la- ‘g bor by crops occur during May w and June. The cotton crop, oc- Z0 cupying a large proportion of o JAN FEB m ADR MAY JUNE JULY AUG arm ocw nov one the ¢I‘OP_ area, is Prailtically Figure 16: Monthly distribution of horse-work re- made durmg those two month? quirements per acre for six principal crops. Where the operatolas labor 1s fully occupied during this peak season, the inclusion or expansion in the organization of other enterprises which have heavy labor requirements during that period usually may be profitably effected only under one of two conditions, or a combination of both. One condition is that addition- al labor, either in the form of family help or economically hired labor, be available. The other condition is that the cotton acreage be reduced in part. The factors that may influence the adoption of the second condition have been discussed in preceding parts of this chapter. The small number of livestock usually kept on farms in the area do not require a very large proportion of the total labor used on the farm. When live- stock such as dairy cattle and poultry are kept for commer- cial production, however, the de- mands for labor are exacting. These livestock enterprises com- OATS SORGHUM BERMUDA _HQUR$ ooo6o5c>68 COWPEAS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NW DEC Pete with all other enterprises Figure 17: Monthly distribution of man-labor re- for the labor available. augments per acre for four principal hay FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 29 Normal Yields and Requirements of Crops The normal yields and production requirements‘ of the leading crops in the Piney Woods farming area of Texas are shown in Tables 4 and 5. The data shown in Table 4 pertain to the most important com- mercial crops grown. In Table 5 similar data are shown for the lead- ing feed crops. The term “normal yield” refers to the average yield which may be expected over a period of years under the average farm- ing conditions. These normal yields and production requirements, there- fore, are susceptible of improvement. Table 5. Normal Yields and Usual Production Requirements of Feed Crops. Corn Cowpea l Oats Sorghum i Meadow Hay Hay Hayl Yields -._-..-..._.-_______. 18 bu. 1 ton 1 ton 1% tons 1 ton Production Requirements: Man Labor (hrs.).. 36 151/; 12 14 6 Horse Work (hrs.) 41 24 23 28 12 S _ ..................... ._ 7 s. 17 lbs. 2 bu. 2 bu. ........ -___ Fertilizer (lbs.) 100, 4-8-4 ‘Lespedeza, Bermuda, carpet, Johnson, and wild grasses. The determination of normal yields is based on the results secured zo on the farms included in this .0 “T” study in 192s and 1929, supple- o mented by information secured lo 5956mm from county agents, vocational m o agriculture teachers, agricultur- c: ggmwg; al experiment substations, and g ‘° __”_“‘”*'““__”““__'“_~_‘ leading farmers in the area. I 0 JL Production requirements were m cownAs determined from the practices 0 followed on farms on which de- Figure 18: Monthly distribution of horse-work re- and 1929 and from enterprise quirements per acre for four principal hay , _ _ , crops, studies of different commodities. Normal Production and Requirements of Livestock The normal production and requirements of livestock are shown in Table 6. This information was obtained from the same sources as given above for crops. The livestock enterprises on a majority of the farms are relatively unimportant. The livestock other than work stock are kept primarily to supply family needs, with some sales of surplus products. The work stock kept on the farms included in this study in 1928 and 1929 worked on an average of 720 hours per head per year. It was estimated that the horses regularly used, however, worked on an average of 850 hours per head per year. During a large proportion of the time when idle and at night during 30 BULLETINANO. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION periods of field work, the work stock are usually kept on pasture. The work stock are generally small in size, ranging in weight from 800 to 900 pounds. These two factors account largely for the relatively small amount of feed fed compared to-the practices in some other sections. Table 6. Normal Production and Usual Requirements of Livestock. One Work One Milk One Sow 50 Chickens Animal Cow Contribution to Farm _ Operation and Income ...... -. 850 hrs. 175 lbs. B.-fat 10 pigs 400 doz. eggs .................................................... .. 140 lbs. veal (1500 lbs. pork) 200 lbs. fryers ................. n- 50 lbs. hens Production or Maintenance Requirements : Man Labor (hrs.) ............ .. 60 135 48 86 Horse Work (hrs.) ......... .. 3 10 3.5 6.5 Feed: Concentrates : Corn, shelled (lbs.) ...... _. 2,300 ......... .-__. 2,500 Maize heads (lbs.) ...... .. 500 --...-.--_._... __._--_-- Cottonseed (lbs.) ....................... ___ 225 Cottonseed meal (lbs.). ............. _. 500 Mixed feed (lbs.) .......... .. 60 350 Wheat shorts (lbs.) ...................................... -- Skim milk (lbs) .......... .. .............. .- Roughage: Legume hay (lbs.) 1,000 700 Grass hay (lbs.) .......... -. 2,000 650 Cottonseed hulls (lbs.).. .............. .. 650 Miscellaneous Cash Cost .... .. $1.50 $3.00 $1.50 Acres of Pasture --__..._._.-...__... 3.5 3.5 2.0 H__w____ On none of the farms studied WORKSTOCK were hogs kept as an important commercial enterprise. A com- mon practice on many farms is to purchase one or two young pigs in the summer to be fat- tened for home consumption. Kitchen waste, in many instanc- es, constitutes an important part of the feed fed when only one or two hogs are kept. Hogs were raised on a sufficiently large number of the farms stud- ied, however, to furnish a basis for arriving at their usual pro- duction and production require- ments. This information is shown in Table 4 for an enter- prise unit of one sow producing ' two litters during the year. I Poultry are kept primarily v J I for home consumption of meat ° 1m FEB m APR mv JUNE JJLY we sm oci uovocc and eggs» with a small surplus Figure 19: Monthly distribution of man-labor re- sold locally. The flocks kept géiifieyrgegittgclger animal unit of principal classes on a majority of the farms i. FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 31 are small. Relatively few farms keep poultry as a major enter- prise. The bulk of the farms included in this study kept flocks ranging from 50 to 75 hens. The production and requirements of chick- ens shown in Table 4 are based on the ‘most usual returns and outlay on these farms. Building, Machinery, Fence, and Overhead Expenses The general farm and overhead expenses presented here are derived from data secured on the farms included in this study. As these farms are quite typical of conditions in the area in respect to size and general organization, the average rates set up here should have a wide adapt- ability on other similar farms in the area. Very small or very large farms, however, may have widely different rates. The overhead ex- penses per acre will usually be less on a large than on a small farm. The overhead expenses per head of livestock will also be less for farms keeping a relatively large number of animals. . The building expense includes repairs, depreciation, and insurance. i The building expense is closely dependent on the number and kinds of livestock kept on the farm. The total building expense chargeable to livestock was prorated to the different classes of stock according to the number in each class and to the space used for storing the feed utilized. The average yearly shelter rates were as follows: Work stock $6.00 per head. Cows $2.00 per head. Swine $0.60 per head of mature stock. Chickens $6.00 per 100 head. The machinery expense includes repairs, depreciation, and a proportion of the building expense determined from the relative space occupied by machinery and equipment. The total machinery expense was prorated to the different crops, on the farms where grown, according to the amount of horse work used on each crop. The average yearly rates determined were as follows: Cotton $0.98 per acre. Corn $0.74 per acre. Corn with interplanted legume .......................... --$1.07 per acre. Peas ' $0.42 per acre. Oats $0.34 per acre. Sorghum $0.60 per acre. Meadow hay $0.50 per acre. Cow pea hay $0.35 per acre. Tomatoes $2.45 per acre. Sweet potatoes $1.32 per acre. Watermelons $0.76 per acre. Miscellaneous truck crops $1.87 per acre. The expense for fences varies not only with the size of farm but also with the amount of cross-fencing that may be necessitated by the livestock kept. For the type of farms included in this study, the 32 BULLETIN NO. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION expense for fences averaged 25 cents a year per acre of crop land. This expense includes repairs and depreciation. Repairs, including labor and materials, constituted about 40 per cent of the total fence expense. , On most farms, there is usually some overhead labor which can- not be directly charged to any enterprise and which does not lend itself to proration. Among such expenses are items like ditching, terracing, and other real estate improvements. On the farms studied these expen- ses constituted an average of 13 per cent of the total labor used on the various enterprises. While such labor constitutes an important item on many farms, it need not necessarily be considered when dealing with the choice of enterprises. The total amount used would not vary appreci- ably with changes in the relative importance of different enterprises. Moreover, this work is usually done during periods when there is no urgent seasonal work on the various enterprises. In the budget analysis illustrated later, therefore, this general overhead expense will not be con- sidered in judging the relative profitableness of the farm organizations considered. Prices of Products Sold and Items Purchased The variations in the supply of and demand for most agricultural commodities and services cause fluctuations in actual and relative prices secured and paid_by farmers. In planning the farm organization in terms of future conditions and anticipated prices, a careful appraisal must be made of these conditions of supply and demand as they affect the various items that may enter in the production program. The opera- tor, in the light of these facts, and with information as to the manner in which these forces have affected prices in the past, is able to judge for himself the direction in which prices and price relationships are moving. By using carefully estimated prices that are most likely to prevail at the time that expenses and receipts will occur, the farm-opera- tor takes a forward-looking attitude in farm planting rather than letting the last year’s prices serve as the criterion of returns that may be expected ‘the following season. The prices shown in Table 7 are based on data as to prices that pre- vailed in the area during the nine-year period of 1921-29. These data were obtained from farmers, local produce dealers, and newspapers in the area, and from published price data for Texas products*. These prices should not be taken as forecasted prices for any particular period but rather as an indication of the long-time price relationships of the items purchased and sold by farmers. Individual operators and extension agencies will use prices, of course, in accordance with the situation that may prevail at any particular time. Current information pertaining to the agricultural situation and outlook may be obtained from State ex- tension agencies and from the United States Department of Agriculture." *Current issues of “Crops and Markets,” issued monthly by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. "See, for example, U. S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 137, "The Agricultural Outlook for the Southern States, 1931-32.” This publication may be obtained from the Office of Information, U. S. Departemnt of Agriculture, Washington. FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA 33 Table 7. Prices of Products Sold and Items Purchased. SALES i PURCHASES Items Price i Items Price Cotton, lint (per lb.) ____ .. _ ..$ .15 Cottonseed meal (per cwt.) .............. ..$ 1.75 cotton seed (per ton) .. 28.00 Cottonseed hulls (per ton) ........ --._ 10.00 Tomatoes (per 1b.) .............. ._ .03 Bran (per cwt.) 1.75 Sweet Potatoes, cured (per b ).. -_ 1.25 Shorts (per cwt.) .- 2.00 Sweet potatoes, green (per bu.) ______ _- ~65 C0111! (Der 110-) ------------------------ -- 1-00 Peas (per bu.) .......... ._ _ .................. .. 1.75 Maize heads (per ton) --__ 30-00 Watermelong (per cwt _,____ .45 Oats (per bu.) ________________ ._ ..--.. .60 Hens (per lb.) ..... .. .16 Tomato seed (per lb-) ---- -- 5-00 Friers (per lb.) .................... -- .25 Pea seed (per 1111-) -------------------------- -- 6-00 Eggs (per (101,) ____ __ .25 Watermelon seed (per lb.) .-_---. 2.00 Hogs (per lb.) ...................................... .. .08, Sorghum seed (per lb-) -------------------- -- -04 Butter-fat, sour-cream basis (1b.) .35 Mixed Feed: Butterfat, whole-milk basis (1b.) .... ._ .45 Horse (per owh) ------------------ -. - 2-00 Cattle, for beef (per 1b.). ................. .. .045 Cow (per owt) -------- ~- 2-75 Veal galves (per 1b,) __________________________ __ .07 Chicken (per cwt.) 3.50 Hog (per cwt.) .... .. 2.00 Fertilizer (per cwt.) 2.00 Alfalfa hay (per ton) _ 30.00 Prairie hay (per ton) .... __ 20.00 Sorghum hay (per ton) ................. -- 20.00 Pick cotton, contract (per cwt.) .75 Labor (per day) -.._....-....___....._.._..--...._ 1.25 Application of Data in Plannng the Farm Organization for Increased Income The farm-operator is interested in securing the greatest continuous net profits from his business. In order to do this, he may have to readjust his farm organization from time to time to take advantage of changing economic conditions. The farm-operator has at his disposal the produc- tion factors of land, labor, and capital. The organization of these pro- duction factors is fashioned with the object of producing one or more of a number of commodities adapted to the area. The selection, propor- tionate combination, and operation of the enterprises which make up the farm organization will largely determine the returns derived from the business. However, a certain combination may not necessarily be the most profitable on another farm in the same area, nor on. the same farm over a long period of time. The farm-operator, then, should plan the organization of his resources not only to take advantage of the natural conditions on his particular farm at a given time, but, as far as economi- cally justified, he should also make timely adjustments which will enable him to take advantage of the changing relationships in the prices of products that farmers buy and sell. It follows, then, that no blanket recommendation or rule-of-thumb for- mula can indicate the most profitable combination of enterprises for indi- vidual farms at a given time or for a period of time. The acreages of different crops to grow and the kinds and numbers of livestock to keep must ultimately be decided. for his particular farm by the farm-operator himself. In formulating his decision, however, the operator should carefully consider the factors that may affect his choice and combination of enterprises. The losses often incurred through fol- 34 BULLETIN NO. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION lowing a trial-and-error policy may largely be avoided by intelligent planning. Drawing on his experience and making use of basic informa- tion available will enable the operator to plan the organization which gives promise of the greatest net returns over a period of time. In the preceding section, the adaptability of the leading enterprises has been discussed with reference to the chief factors affecting the extent of their inclusion in the farm organization. Basic information pertaining to normal yields, production, and production requirements has been presented. The next step is to illustrate the use of this information in planning changes for improvement in the organization. of farms. A method of planning procedure is‘ outlined in the following pages and the manner in which many of the considerations previously discussed enter into the choice of a combination of enterprises is illus- trated. This procedure consists of the preparation of budgets or plans based on estimates which are made for the purpose of testing in advance the comparative profitableness of various alternative combinations of crops or of crops and livestock. In illustrating the method of budgeting procedure, the more common type of farming followed is the point of departure or base from which changes are made. It is also the standard with which the probable ' returns from suggested reorgan-izations are compared. Accordingly, in the first budget the details of the crop and livestock organization, production, production requirements, and expected returns under normal conditions are shown for the cotton-and-corn type of farming practiced by the majority of farmers in the Piney Woods farming area. Other budgets show similar information for farm organizations representing some of the more common variations from this usual type of farming. In all of these budgets it was assumed that in addition to the available time of the operator, family labor equivalent to the full time of one man was also available. Any labor" required above the available time of two men was assumed to be extra hired labor. Allowing for rainfall and holidays, it has been estimated that there would be available for field work, under average weather conditions, 20 days in March, 19 in April, 20 in May, 18 in June, 20 in July, 21 in August, 21 in September, and 22 in October. There is practically no field work done in the area from No- vember through February. There is, however, an average of 20 days per month available for field work during that period. The Cotton System A complete budget of the more usual or strictly cotton type of family farm, based on the normal figures given in Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7, is shown in Table 8. The greater comparative advantage of cotton relative to many other crops grown is the most important factor accounting for the wide practice of the system. The system also has the advantage of simplicity in both production and marketing. Knowledge of cotton pro- duction was a heritage of the people who settled the area, while the marketability of cotton has long given it a marked advantage over the 35 FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA $.58 33a n03 fiu 33 M ................ .. 300.85 0006.6». mucaon 25.” $25.5 21.3 ......................... .. .8: .8056 30:25. Ql m_wsm:n Eu 205.5 Sm F80 @2250 awed ............... -- c0030 000m and» ...................... .- mwnuaa EBA." @350.» 8w 2500a 3w 3:50.» 3.3. ..................................... -- 03w 250$ ....................... -- mwasa 2;..." 2.55m 3mm .............................. 1-.-: 05A “c9500 03.0»? “E0054 000m wooh . =2€=w8m mOMO 02.0w. 00D 8.5m .380 m0 1200,35 find mompowwonh “M compoww ~35» _ 3.: w 25 ma; 2...; .................................. .. 2B8. 23 .............................. -- wafimfihw... 09mm ...... -- “E0300? was 0.35m?“ mm wH 09m ............... .. B00002 séfiawm En .......................... -. .30 500.30 3A .................... .- 3:25 20.7000 N... mu 2.4 ................................ .- $02800 .53 _i- .2: 03A .14 flames.» : @0560 ow N5. m? 3.3 ........................................ .. E80 ~12. i...§» we.» éfiwufi $5050 m_wsm5 3 ........................ ,. 8&3» i- .2: 20a J12. fifimiwm 00.3 a ................................ .. 205:: w ~34 Nina _ 09mm c0030 30D _ “E5054 .300 £5054 950mm 950m $.34 MONO wwmcoax 3.8mm :05 H 00:00 35am ES 020w .0030 now wwmcmaxfi s30 was 03984 "4 cofioom Smamww ZOBHOO MOM BHGQDQ QHQHQHQQ d HAMQP .000E00a::0u 00: M0330: 0: 0000 muufia 00.02» 00.500 .............................. .- 230:. N ccd .2: cm 000: .2: S 0 8.00 .2: cc: 8.5 .2: cc: .............................. .- 000:0: .2: 8N . I H cccm .000 ccw 00.5 .000 um: i000 w: , 0mm0 .000 02. ............... ........... .- @0300»: % cccw .2: c2. ccdw .2:: cE. ............................ :1 0:00.: .2: 03.: ................................... -. 0&0: T 002 .2: £0 :00.» .2: cwu W 00.0% .2: cw 033 .2: 05 C500 0005c 00:00:00: .2: 3m ..................................... -- 0300 m 0.000: ccfi: .......................... .. 0:030:00? R 00:00» 0000004 00:00» 0000004 fl . M03003: o: 00h 00500000.: 0:00.302: W“: 000mm 0000:: 0: 000D L .3203: 0:00.503: 00.0 0:03.003: :0 30000:: 00.0 00300000.: I: 0o$o0m m“: .0:0 9:003 w 0: c 00:3 m00:.00> 00 0:00 003.00 03:2. .000.» M00000 0000000: 0003:: M303: 03h...» w 3.2» 2.08 0.0m £0 ...... .. 0:800. L . U . C -4 .2: 3N; 0E5 0:05 m 23 0000000080: 3.2 .2: 8m 030 0000:): .5 $3.. 58o f. 5 3 ...... .- 00:60 A ............................................. .. 09c: .2: c3 302:0 000:3 .2: ccw 0E8 83m ......... .. % 3.: 000000::00w:§: 23 .2: S 000: 005:: .0: cw 0000 m.» 2. .3: . Mwfimvm E .............................................. -- 00.0 .2: 2a.: 0:2: T 000000300 2.: ............................................. -- .38: .2: ccv 000: 005:: .2: ccm: ma: 000.00 .................................... .. fi 03. 00000050025 3.5 .2: ccc.: 000E .00 .2: 2.0.: >0: 000.50.: .................................... -. 0. .2: 30 000000300 0.8 2a .0 ....... .. mwwwao N . n ........................ .. s.“ .5 a2 msszsas M“: 2.3. > nawhmwm I . : cccd a M 8.» 0 0000020005: 2.6:» .2: ccc.: 0000: 0000:: .0: 0w 0.000 0.0 cu: u 0:003:00? L H 0000 00$: 0000 >0$000G . 00$: 0330000 05v: . B 0000:: 0000:: .0»: M03003: - 030m: 0.0:: 0000005: 00:00 0000': 0020:0002: 0000,: 03000 080:: .0:00:m0>:_: 00: 00000020: 00:00 00.0 0000»: :0 00:000w , AfiQSGMaGOUVILSHFWNW ZQFHOU mo: Bwwnbm QHQHAWHQQ d HQHN556.“ wmwncs 03.9» mcmaofluww 0.8mm: mans»? “E2 3x33 . 28b? 2.4.3» ................................................. .. 23cm. 3.5 mwucwh 23a G3 i.“ m 53 $31,": M $3 é ........................... -- 3.4 afiakoov GS. pa ................................. s Q2 58v , 3% 2w .................................. -- M3 .539 lhnwcmnodz SEN ...................... .486 3 .................. ,- 2E5 >332“ w; :5.” a» .................. -- 8:5 m8. m} c Maw a» .................................... 2 n88 8 21.» 3 .................................. -- n38: 8 Imufiwmam "wwmnwaxfi .350 8.3 A225 £3 aéwq 8am 3.: mwmconxfl mnowcuzwummfi . 5am cwwanuunm vowh 2.63 .......................................... .- AG 2:89 l0 Ezawv xvofiwzu mtzxzm =§$>E 95 vsfimvzq 2.2a womconwfl .350 3.: n woww Q4 nomaowwv mQO-AU 2.4.3» AH comaoomv mnouO 03w? mwmcomxfl 051»? mafimooofi _S£. ~30? iwmcwnxmn via maqmwowm we hnufifismnlfl cofiowm €3£E¢ovl.Smamww ZOHBOO GOM HMUQDQ QHJH _ 2E9=< comm womb _ =oso=wai memo mwwwm wmD 5.3% i dQoaO mo flmmommwfi was nofioflvofmlkm 2050mm @953 8.2 w ma; n13“ 3 wGpom. . ...................................................... 1 m ;i§¥\7§l.l... wwoumiuwh ..................... .- .... . . ‘ l 3 “Efiwoozv E5 352$ I . , 8 2 m eséwé dwafiam ‘ 1 8m 3:25 H fi. 3 W .............................. : mmflwiwx . .............................. ; . ................................... ,. w 3 8.3 i: 8m; .13“ Qwfizpgwm ..................... .. Manson .5 m3 3w fi ., :80 3a ...................... 1 Emufiwi hwaflw ...... 1 . “mum Amvwww Wwmrwmmwwmmq gwaphwh .5 ................................ g Ea fi E E N wanes. . . 5 . =E£w Miami 3 ............................................ .- . 8.3 w .8: 2.3. Jim-v QSEfiwh on.» w ................................ .. mEfizfi m 3% 23A 3 ................................... .. aofibo 300 fi5oE< 300 @5654 wudofl manofi $.34 mOmO omnomm flag wmmcwnxmm nosuO muflgh and dQOMU no“ mmmconxfi nmmO was wanwfiopwfivwfi uonwdlumw sow-com éwamwm OHJwEOH-ZOHHOO MOB.» PHOQDN QEJS p: 5054 E xoouwofiwh Ow 69H GOSOUUOMW xuoumoid L mflnm miomm cm womD A "DUn dauswopm MOOamMYvMJ-U 3C3 xuopmofiQ m0 Hcmonwmfl USN GOMQQZUOMAHIIHH 5.30am T . , m 3223 23 m3 ........ .. :88. C 3.3» I R .2: 3N; 2:5 82m . m =26 2w 5 3 ...... .. .2225: 3.: m=o~=.::82S 222 .2: 23 38 @822 .2: £3. S .58 82m ........................ .. 3 3E m ll. ....... i; ......................... .. 22: .2: 23 @9183 9.3:? .2: 23 F80 m.” ma. : ....... .. 2E5 E QmQ msowzwzouwmg Oct" dnfi on wwwm c332 .59 ow 0253M T . .2: 2.2: .8: 2.2m ....................... .. w ............................................. .. 3N3 .2: 2; :68 @222 .2: 222» >2: @8525 ....................... .. . t 4 2G m=o~=w:8m:2 2...»: .2: 223 :88 a0 .2: 3:. 303E526 2¢N 3N N ........ .. 2.2.0 O. $330 N . in: 25.: >2: wmuuw .................................. .. m . .2: 2.2N >2: wssmfi mw-u. Qcém w mzoocfifiwommg ovaN w .9“: QNH moawfizoocoO .50. 00H GMOU Q6 ONH N .1. MuOumMaOg . u 2.0 E5: :26 325.50 2:2 22.2.30 E5: U 225mm musomm dz xooumoifl B wmaomm sag nwmcoaxfl .350 mwmoh wwwwsfism mwuoh cBoEU-ofiomm ioopwofifl now wwwcwaxfl .350 was mwwPWLO cofioom éag=s=covlfimewww OH . no:aq zmfiwh wixr-D 2x25 w .HEOOZH 2M4“: zameasm wwdwn wfioufi 8.3m 23.3 . $.50: 3.8 .803 3:53 waafi. u. w3a> wYrwww hoard: zflfiww wmsncfl .355» wfiwodwww ouomo: 955:0: ewz iwuam» wcfioa 22.8; ................................................ .. @325. cmé: @323: x23 :5. E m is: mméwv Sam Fa. u.» .............................. .. m awmxréuv 3A.. a» .................................. .. .2 .58 SYN S ............................... .. N awofiwioev :3. w 3 ............................. -. 3 59:2: lzwociowfi 3am ...................... gooa i ...................... £5. Kazan w: i...“ i» ...................... ., ti. we: 3H 3 39w 3 ..................................... = $8 8 25.3 3 ................................... .. mwws: 8 Iwmnzfism nmomcwnxm: p930 2a.“. $.50: 3.3 .883 v33: our: mwiwnxmm msowflwioummg mwdw wwwwfiisn :69: “A0 cofluwmv xooamoifl @923. ........................................ .. AG cofluwmv maugxvum xooamwfiQ wan xooumwfid omér: wwmflwmxfl uo::O e92 w Haw “A4 aofiuwwv 3on0 35$; .............................. .. Am cafluwwv 395 win? momcwnxfl via»? mfidwomm :30? :30? éumconxfi was manmouwm mo hansaflm “n: cotbww Amaflnioovlfimamww OBAQAOHAAOHHOO mom emombm mmfifiamm 4.. mqmflw . . .1355»... é. 42 l BULLETIN NO. 453,-TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 9, in which the budget method is used to show how the straight cotton system may be adjusted to include the tomato enterprise. . In this system two acres of tomatoes are substituted for eight acres of cotton. Other changes of a minor nature are slight increases in the acreage of feed crops and pasture. The livestock organization is the same. When normal conditions of yield and prices prevail, an increase in family farm income of approximately $300 is indicated as a result of the change. This difference in returns from the two systems is accounted for largely in the increased cash sale of crops and partly in reduced expenses. In addition to a greater income the principal advantage of this system over the cotton system is that approximately half the income is received during late spring and early summer and the balance in the fall. This should result in a decrease, both in the amount of credit needed and in the length of time it is used, since the returns from the tomato crop may be used to defray some of the expense of producing cotton or to liquidate loans made for the production of cotton. The question is raised as to the effect of different yield and price relationships on the comparative advantages of these two systems. In this connection it should be noted that a 50 per cent higher yield would be required (an acre yield of 200 pounds of lint cotton) where the cotton system is followed to return an income as large as that shown for the cotton-tomato system. While it seems that the chances of getting an average price of 3 cents per pound for tomatoes are at least as good as the chances of obtaining 15 cents per pound for cotton, yet, assuming average yields, tomatoes could be sold at 1.5 cents per pound and the tomato system would still make greater returns than the cotton system. The amount of labor required to operate the two systems is approxi- mately the same although it is distributed somewhat differently throughout the year. It will be noted from Figure 20 that the cotton-tomato system requires more labor during the spring months and less labor during the summer and fall. This is due to the fact that all labor on tomatoes comes in the spring and early summer, with a peak of work during May A and June. The spring peak of work on cotton also comes in those two months. This results in somewhat keener competition for labor, at that time, in the cotton-tomato system as compared to the cotton system. Assuming the same amount of family labor available, slightly more hired labor would be needed to operate the cotton-tomato system. The cotton-tomato system is most advantageous to the family farm located on well-drained “early” land. The tomato marketing season in East Texas is usually terminated about the first of July through com- petition from areas further North and nearer to market. Thevlength of the marketing season, then, is determined by the ability of growers to get their tomatoes to mature early. The possibilities of so doing are best on well-drained soils which warm up early in the spring and permit. early planting and rapid growth. The importance which growers attach. FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA i 43 to having an early soil on which to grow tomatoes is indicated by the fact that as much as $25 per acre has been paid as annual rent for small tracts of good tomato land as compared to an average return on rented land in the same area of approximately $2.00 per acre. The im- portance of early land is further indicated in the tendency to concentrate production in the counties of the area in which such land is prevalent. Much of the work connected with tomato production, especially the pruning and harvesting, can be done by school children. Most of such work comes during May and June after schools have been dismissed for the year, whereas the bulk of the cotton crop is harvested in September and October, after most schools are in session. The cotton-tomato system, therefore, is somewhat more advantageous for farms on which much of the family labor supply is comprised of children of school ages. Farmers handicapped in the utilization ofrfamily labor because of limited land area can reduce this handicap by including in their cropping system crops which make rather intensive use of land such as tomatoes or other such crops which are adapted to their locality. ‘-" ¢Z_.».' ¢?‘~'\ v.»- . The Cotton-Dairy System Another common variation from the usual cotton type of farming is the cotton-dairy system, the details of which are outlined in budget form in Table 10. This system requires a greater total acreage of land, due to the pasture requirements of the dairy enterprise. The crop acreage is ap- proximately the same but a somewhat smaller proportion of it is devoted to cotton. The land thus released is used for hay crops, which are grown to meet the needs of the dairy enterprise for roughages. The estimated returns from this system are approximately $325 more than the returns from the cotton system and slightly greater than the returns from the cotton-tomato system. Larger capital requirements are also indicated, as well as a broader knowledge of livestock practices. It is a system which should be developed gradually as experience with livestock is gained and as profits justify. 7' '- The advantages of this system over the other two systems lie mainly T’ in the distribution of labor requirements and income. The dairy enter- V. prise requires labor rather uniformly throughout the year, thus provid- " in some productive work for members of the family during the seasons i" of the year when there is practically no work on crops. Although the cotton-dairy system requires nearly 600 hours more labor than does the i’ " cotton system or the cotton-tomato system, the peaks of labor are smaller 1 (Figure 20), and the amount of cash outlay for hired labor materially less. ‘ The income from the dairy system is as well distributed as the labor. y_ -Only one-third of the receipts are from cotton, and more than half of Q the cash income is received in the form of weekly or bi-weekly milk ; - or cream checks. g Another advantage would be the gradual improvement in crop yields " or lessened expenditures for fertilizers, due to the application of larger _ . amounts of manure and made available through the dairy enterprise. ‘ In either event the net result would be a larger net farm income. 44 BULLETIN NO. 453, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Qqflc.» 13cm. mica m. mica m --..---.---:-.--- 335cm awnnimm 38 w? .3: 38 Q3. .................................. .. Esnwuom 33 w ma: E6» w ................................. .- @356". 221:5 Q2 mmimsp SN mains... EN ....................................... .- :30 2.55m owiw ...................... -- com-woo comm ow.» ...................... .. wwEBQ 3w Tswana... 5w mwcsca wwflm mucsoc wwiw ................................ H i wwum 2.2% mwcsoa 2:8 -. @225 2:3 ............................ -i ifiwwmoo 05~fi> MGQOQHQ $00M 600mm flosofiflnwhnm nmomnv mwfimw mum Eafim dacuO mo fiamcnwmfi wan zcmuunvcamlkm ncmpowm 23S» 2.3 w www; 83 2Z2 38. w...» ............................... .. wwwfifikuw I .................... -- Shaw i: @5226? E5 whfimam w» 3 3w ................ ., B0282 Quantum ............................. -. 23 =2§u 3.3 .............................. .. mwnwsn w cw S. 8w .................................. .. 5.23am 3w .............................. .. mwcsac N2 i; ww 8w ................................... .. mawcaoo 3mm .2: 3H; .33“ Qwfimntvm Macao.» ow NS. m5 3.3 .......................................... -- =30 3:25 Z wwdw w as: wwwJ éwé Qwfimiwm 3E. w ................................. -. 22:5: w www 3w; 8.3 ...................................... .- .835 amOO acnofi< umcO “$5.554 _ 35cm 35cm mwuo< mOHO 3.3m cam mwmnoaxfl .850 _ mpcarm win woww _ dQcuO now mowflmmxmn flwaO wfiw ¢m$.n.<|.< ncmaowm émewww wmznwzoaaoo MOh BHUQDN cmqflwaua .3 mania 45 FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PINEY WOODS AREA dioioouioa now wompa gfiw» and?» ............................... .- $3.5. . . |::.l.|......||....|l . o u a“. Mwwfi... “w. i. é § mm.“ w“ o“ O35 canon 8N 3.3. do: mm: Know w: ammo fiow a3. 235cm 2.2 3:50: o? 33 i: o2. .................. s. anon .2: 03.: muom 3.5. & mwnsaa cmfi 1.6a: awn 16> i: aqua: . 85mm» $23 “E8 ~25 i: $3 3.2:» .2: 8m GEE Sim: fifiuwgbsn a: 3R: 9E6 P50: 2:: ......................... -- xooawxno? o3c> k £5054 m3n> unfioi¢ xoofiwwkrmq o» v9: comauswonm Mooauwkéfl mfiwm oEomm E comb daosuoum xuoumofiq was xuoumgmq no Emonmwfl us: cofioswcnmllfi cow-cum d: m3: :30? $3.3 mafia» 6.: 3N4 ~55 83w F80 f. 5 S ...... .-.. 95:5: i: msoflfizwamm: 3.3 Q: o? HE @052 45 $3. v55 82w m.» w... 3H 5E $4 gQwcQEoQwME 2...: i: 2E mtefi 2.2:? .2: 8w ch00 H mBom .............................................. -. g4 .2: 3 v.5 was: A5 8 358w =3 H ma: mmapw mica Q3. Eflnwnom ............................................. -. mwdm .2: 2E5 mwvsapnmunoO mcow m ma: mEswoA codm msoocwawommi =95 .2: coed 18E 5O i: emwd wwomaoaaoO awn: c: mBoO “v1.3.6 .............................................. .- 3d .2: Q2 mfiwazsgoo wflmw w > .3: mmmnw fl w: o5 m1: 23 w msoofivfiwomi: 86H» d: 25.: mafia 3G5 A5 mm F80 3H a i. xuaumvvs? 3.6 v5: ~80 3.22.0 En: $52.0 “EU: 950M 950mm .02 xoaumofifl momcomxfl .550 mwwoh womasunsm mwooh GBORMYQEOHM wmnomm cs2 , gwfiisaaovlimamwm NMHE $63 - .823 38am Eunnb .343 a Qnufiflnw QSOOZ~ EM4h 332E 0:32; 8.8m 2.52 $.53 33v ~32 3S3 a. v22, 5.26» ~32 mafia“ umuan: v3.3 wcfiusuww UHOMQJ @9252 $2 3.8m» £30m. 242$ .............................. -. 23cm. 8.3 . ooswh . 3.3 3. u: w. m3 .836 3.. 3 ................. -i: w 823.83 8. 3-- ............... i- m. awwweaov v.3. »ul--i...ia..-..l.......- W3 =39 ma. 3.-..-----.-§-----....--.- 3 5332 lnzuofiauwfi 3.3. 3d “a fic: mufiaoa Q2 .5.» macs mo: m} d 8d an ............................ -- n83 2W 3d» p: ................................. -. uwmmQm-wmam “momconwfl .655 .5? $.26: 3a H213 8am .25 .69 3m 3 v58 cm wmusno wnznufl . momma xw @5025 3B 95$ v .. 5% w...“ 8.2» 1...! ..................... -... AD c0339 l0 c0338 xooamwiq Boswoum xoouwofiq E5 xuoamold xmwQmaw mmmnwanfl uwAaO . 3 l4 nofioomwvv mmafio 3&3.» .. ........................ -- a aoflowmv 3on0 033w mwuzoaxfl 03s.? $933M 13cm. =88. iomnumxfi and 3.50003 mo zuafifinm|am cofioow éwafiéfivvlzmawwm wfifiwzoaaoo 30h HHUQDQ QHQ~