TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER. DIRECTOR \ , Rx College Station, Texas \ BULLETIN NO. 617 SEPTEMBER 1942 I INFORMATION BASIC TO FARM ADJUST- MENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS AREA OF TEXAS P. H. CZAROWTTZ C. A. BONNEN Division 0f Farm and Ranch Economics '3 ‘ SfldWVD LlBRARY _ Ag:\cu\\ura\ &Meumni_cal whlfiflfi“? “I” cunege Statnn. "Wm AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President Bl8-942-6M-L1SO Location and extent of Rolling Plains Area. county_ in which study was made. Figure 1. Area in ‘black indicates shaded portion indicates sub-area to which the data are mainlypapplicable. Area delineation adapted from Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 544, “A Description of the Agriculture and Type-of-Parming Areas in Texas.” s H’) 52.9 This bulletin reports results of a detailed study of the organization and operation of 200 representative farms in the Rolling Plains Area of Texas. The purpose of the study was to provide basic information which might be used in appraising alternative adjustments in the differ- ent sizes of farms and systems of farming found in the area. The data obtained include detailed information pertaining to soils, Soil erOSiOII, conservation needs and practices, farm organization, farm income and production, production requirements and production practices for each enterprise. Insofar as possible all these data were related to the maj0P differences in soil types. - An analysis of alternative systems of farming on the heavy dark up- land soils resulted in the following conclusions: 1. Increasing the size of farm to utilize more fully operating capital and management, after adjustments required by the AAA program, com- pares favorably with other alternatives from an income standpoint and more especially so on row crop farms ‘using horse-drawn equipment. This alternative is particularly attractive to farmers. of the area for the rea- son that they make reasonably complete use of their operating capi without the necessity of materially changing th, ‘r system of farming having to learn the techniques involved in new terprises. 2. In cases where additional land cannot be obtained, a system of farming involving more than the usual amount of livestock production is indicated. The choice as between the alternative livestock systems would largely turn on factors other than income since differences in estimated incomes were not so great but that they could easily be olfset by improvements in production practices. The dairy and poultry enter- prises have some advantage over the feeding of beef cattle in that most farmers already have some knowledge of these enterprises and, further- more, they lend themselves to gradual expansion as knowledge of im- proved practices is gained. On the other hand the beef cattle enterprise has the advantage of _vear-to-_year flexibility over dairying. There is a complete turnover in the beef production enterprise each year. This per- mits an annual adjustment to fit available feed supplies and the price outlook for beef. The beef production sy'.‘1t61n seems to be most advan- tageous on farms having a cotton-small grain cropping system. 3. Generally speaking, farm income increased with size of farm. " The advantage of larger size tends to increase during periods of relatively high prices and is greatly reduced during periods of relatively low prices such as prevailed during the period 1931-1933 and again in 1938. For example, the difference in estimated earnings on row crop farm's using one set of one-row horse-drawn machinery between the period of highest prices, 1927-1929, and the period of lowest prices, 1931-1933, was less than $900. The difierences as. between the same periods were $1,800, $2,500, and $4,500 for row crop farms using one set of two-row horse, two-row tractor, and four-row tractor-drawn machinery. 4. It was estimated that contouring or terracing on the heavy dark land would increase earnings on row crop farms using one set of two-row tractor-drawn equipment by approximately $200 per year assuming aver- age prices of the period 1927-1935. As between the two practices, there was no significant difference except that during periods of high prices terracing would have a slight advantage while during periods of low prices contouring would have the advantage. This probably explains farmer preference for the more simple practice of contouring. CONTENTS Page Introduction 5 Physical Resources 11 Present Systems of Farming 21 Farm Earnings in 1935 33 Production and Production Requirements of Crops ______________________________ _- 43 Production and Production Requirements of Livestock ______________________ -- 56 Farm Products Used in the Home 61 Farm Power 63 Overhead Farm Expense 71 Prices of Products Sold and Items Purchased 73 Analysis of Alternative Adjustments‘ 75 Summary 86 Appendix 90 INFORMATION BASIC TO FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS AREA OF TEXASl By P. H. Czarowitzz and C. A. Bonnen3 The object of this study is to determine the combinations of enter- prises and methods of farming best adapted to that portion of the Rolling Plains designated as Type-of-Farming Sub-Area 4c. (See Figure 1.) The basic data for this study were secured by means of a farm manage- ment survey of 200 farms in Jones County. Representative farms were selected on the basis of records of the Agricultural Adjustment Admin- istration with the assistance of the county agent and a group of local farmers. The study was made jointly by the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. The Soil Conservation Service mapped the farms, showing the type of soil, percentage of slope, erosion conditions", and the vegetative cover in 1936. Recordsof the farm business were obtained for the year 1935 from the farmers cooperating in this study. These records contained details on such items as inventories of land, improvements on land, equipment, feed, seed, live-stock, and incidentals. Other items in- cluded were records on farm sales and expenditures, quantities and value of farm-raised products used in the home, and the value of unpaid fam- ily labor as well as the cash cost of board for hired help. Detailed information concerning the production of each crop and class of livestock was also secured on selected groups of farms on which the particular crops or classes of livestock were important enterprises. For crops, this information included the operations normally performed, the size and type of machinery used, and the accomplishment per day on the various operations according to the kind of power and size of machines employed. For livestock, data were secured on the amounts of feeds fed, labor requirements, and on other details pertaining to requirements and production. Conservation needs and practices were studied in connection with 1,200 fields, grouped on the basis of similarity as to soil type, slope, erosion conditions, and vegetative cover. These grouping were based on information contained on the map prepared for each farm by the Soil Conservation Service. lAcknowledgment is due Harvey Oakes, Ralph L. Schwartz. and Tom C. Reitch of the Soil Conservation Service for the preparation of conservation maps for each of the farms studied. Acknowledgment is also made of the assitance of B. H. Thibodeaux of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for assistance in planning the study and to A. C. Magee of this Division for assistance in gath- ering and interpreting the data. C. B. Ray, former employee of the Experi- ment Station, asssisted in the collection of the data. iAssistant in Farm Management, Division of Farm and Ranch Economics. 3Farm Management Specialist, Division of Farm and Ranch Economics. 6 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The first part of this study acquaints the reader with conditions in the area by a brief description of its physical characteristics, historical de- velopment, and present type of agriculture. Following this, the vari- ous types of soils are discussed in terms of their physical characteristics. The importance of climatic conditions as a factor in crop production and in soil and moisture conservation is also discussed. The systems of farming which prevailed in 1935 are presented in detail. The adaptability of the various‘ enterprises is evaluated with reference to the factors which determine their place in the various sys- tems. In addition, the average earnings in 1935 are presented for the farms studied. The influence of certain factors on farm earnings is evaluated. These include soil type, crop yields, siz-e of farm, and cropping systems. The normal production and the requirements for labor, power, and seed of each crop are presented in detail. Likewise, the normal pro- duction and production requirements of the various class-es of livestock are given. ' Other items considered are farm power, overhead expenses, and prices of products sold and items purchased. The last section of this bulletin contains the probable effects, as de- termined by the budget method of analysis, of certain adjustments in the present systems of farming. The Area Studied‘ Jones County is representative of Sub-Area 4c, which is a portion of the Rolling Plains, contained within Type-of-Farming Area 4. (See Figure 1.) This portion of the Rolling Plains has a rolling surface with a general slope from west to east. The surface of the area is dissected by numerous streams. The larger streams", namely, the Brazos, Colorado, and Concho rivers rise in areas to the west. These have cut moderately deep valleys with narrow strips of flat alluvial bottomlands. Many small tributaries of these streams reach into all parts of the area and provide rapid drainage. These smaller streams are for the most part dry except immediately following rains. Areas of rough land occur near the larger streams, while the surface of the divides is for the most part gently rolling. The soils" and underlying material are readily cut and washed by run-off water. Erosion is slight to moderate over the greater part of the area and is severe only in the more rolling parts. The water supply for farms in the area is secured from the streams and from shallow well water found in most parts of the area. The native vegetation of Type-of-Farming Sub-Area 4c differs from place to place depending upon the soils and surface conditions. The heavy upland and bottomland soils support a considerable growth of buffalo and grama grasses. On the sandy upland soils the andropogons, grama, and three awn (Aristida) grasses are abundant. Shin-oaks ‘Ar-ea description adapted from Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bul- letin No 431, “The Soils of Texas,” by W. T. Carter, Div. Soil Survey. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 7 and sand sage (Artemesia) grow on the very loose sandy soils. Small mesquite trees are distributed over the greater part of the area. Elm, hackberry, oak, and other small trees grow inlmany of the valleys. Pecan trees are found along some of the streams in the eastern part of the area. The native vegetation is largely typical of sub-humid cli- matic conditions and no desert plant communities occur. The average annual temperature of the area is 66 degrees F. in the _ southern part and decreases to about 62 degrees in the northern part. The area lies within the sub-humid region. Rainfall is irregular and much of it comes in sudden dashing rain storms during the spring and summer. The average annual rainfall is 27 inches in the eastern part of the area and decreases to about 2O inches in the extreme western part. Approximiately two-thirds" of the average annual rainfall comes during the growing season from April 1 to October 1, so the rainfall may be expected to be adequate for good yields of the crops grown. The rainfall from one year to another is erratic, however, causing con- siderable variation in crop yields. It also may be so unevenly distributed during the growing season as to cause a wide difference in yields from one year to another, even though the total rainfall is normal. Historical Development Data from the United States Census are used to present a picture of the development of crop production and of the changes in the amounts and proportion of cropland in the different crops in that portion of the area within which the data obtained in this study are considered repre- sentative. (See Table 1.) The data cover the period from 1889 to 1939 and pertain to Coleman, Runnels, Taylor, Fisher, Jones, and Haskell Counties, which lie almost entirely within Sub-Area 4c. This portion of the Rolling Plains was utilized principally for cattle grazing in 1889. Wherever a water supply was available, the abundance of grasses and the protection afiorded cattle by the irregularities of the surface relief were features which made possible successful cattle raising. Small grain, cotton, and corn were the principal crops. Dur- ing the decade from 1889 to 1899, the crop acreage was almost tripled. Cotton likewise increased in importance, and occupied 47.6 per cent of the cropland harvested in 1899. This decade was also marked by the appearance of grain sorghum, principally as a forage crop. The most significant change in the crops and the crop area occurred in the decade from 1899 to 1909. The area of cropland harvested in' 1909 amounted to an increase of 278 per cent over the acreage of 1899. The proportion of cropland in the various crops also changed radically. Cotton occupied 67.2 per cent of the cropland in 1909, and was well established as the principal cash crop. Small grain occupied only 1.2 per cent of the crop area. Corn and other feed crops had been largely replaced by grain sorghum. Both cotton and grain sorghum had proved Table 1. Acres of crops and proportion of cropland 1n difierent crops 1n Type-of-Parmlng Area. 4c, 1889-19291 Items 1939 1929 1919 1909 1899 1889' Land area _______________________________________________________________ __(Acres) 3,847,040 3,847,040 3,847,040 3,847,040 3,847,040 3,847,040 Crops harvested- _______________________________________________________ -_(Acres) 1,180,722 1,584,803 1,183,048 881,584 233,346 81,958 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Proportion of cropland in various crops: Cotton- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ 44.2 69.9 45.1 67.2 47.6 24.0 Small grain _________________________________________________________________ __ 8.3 4.6 23.7 1.2 10.5 40.0 Grain sorghums for grain _________________________________________________ _- 22.6 14.3 14.3 17.4 .6 ..___ Corn" -___ -_ _________ __ 2.0 1.3 2.4 4.2 20.4 24.1 Grain sorghums for forage ________________________________________________ __ 17.5‘ 8-8 8.6 7.0 13.3 ____ Hay crops- _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _- 1.6 .5 .6 1.8 6.4 11.2 All other crops ............................................................. __ 3.8 .6 .3 1.2 1.2 .7 ISource: U. S. Census. NIOLLVES JNEIWIHHJXEI TVHfllTll-OIHSV SVXELL ‘L19 "ON NILEYITHH FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 9 to be fairly drought-resistant and produced good yields under prevailing conditions. Crops have retained their relative proportions during the census years since 1909 with the exception of the years 1919 and 1939. In 1919 the cotton acreage decreased to 45.1 per cent of the cropland harvested and small grain increased to 28.7 per cent. That year was one of the excep- tional years in which cotton is partially replaced by small grain. It was a year following two successive seasons of drought, and considerable small grain had been seeded in the fall of 1918 on account of a feed shortage. Conditions during the fall and winter were favorable for small grain production, and most of the grain seeded was left for harvesting. Another factor which may have greatly influenced the small grain acreage in the fall of 1918 was the acute labor shortage resulting from war activities. Although 1919 does not present a picture of the most common cropping system in the area, it represents the result of certain price and climatic conditions which have occurred at intervals in the past and may occur in the future. The small acreage of cotton and the relatively larg-e acreage of grain sorghum in 1939 are logical responses to the program of the Agricul- tural Adjustment Administration. Several factors accounted for the rapid development of crop produc- tion after 1900. It had become evident that both cotton and grain sorghum were highly drought-resistant and could be grown successfully. It had also been demonstrated that these crops were sufficiently drought- resistant to make them superior to other crops that might be grown. Increased accessibility of markets made possible by the westward exten- sion of the railroads in the decade from 1900 to 1910 was an important contributing factor. The census data show that crop production con- tinued to increase during the decade from 1920 to 1930. The high price of cotton in comparison with the price for beef cattle which prevailed in the period 1923-1925 provided an added stimulus to the shift from cattle ranching to crop production. Since 1925, the shift has been further stimulated by the gradual replacement of workstock with all purpose tractors and’ one-row horse-drawn equipment with two-row or larger equipment. Although cattle ranching was the principal source of income early in the development of the area, the number of cattle did not reach its peak until 1900. In that year, the United States Census showed 283,445 head of cattle in the six counties that lie almost entirely within the area. Only 19,041 of these were dairy cows. Since 1900, the total number of cattle has" decreased by approximately 50 per cent, but the number of dairy cattle has increased. The factors which prevented a further decline were the replacement of beef cattle by dairy cattle, and the ex- istence of large bodies of rough land which could only be used for graz- ing. 10 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION The rural population in the six counties increased from 21,526 per- sons in 1890 to 103,225 persons in 1910. In 1920, the rural population was 87,872 persons, which represented a decrease of 14.9 per cent from that of 1910. During this same period, however, improved land in farms increased 6.3 per cent. An important factor contributing to these changes was the extended drought of 1917 and 1918. Undoubtedly, it caused considerable migration from the area and as a consequence the size of the farm unit was increased. Although the rural population increased during the decade 1920-1930 to 100,811 persons, it did not quite attain to that of the decade ending in 1910. Between 1930 and 1940 the rural population decreased 10,974 persons largely in response to reductions in cotton acreage and to a shift from one-row horse-drawn machinery to multi-row tractor-drawn machinery. A Present Agriculture According to the census report on agriculture for 1939, 93.5 per cent of the total land area of the six counties which are almost entirely within the area was in farms. Of the land in farms, 41.0 per cent was in cropland. Cotton was the most important crop, occupying 44.2 per cent of the harvested cropland. ‘The other major crops were grain sor- ghum for grain, grain’ sorghum for forage, and small grain. The 1930 Census of Agriculture classified each farm as to type of farming on the basis of the relation of a particular source of income to thelvalue of all farm products. For example, if the value of dairy prod- ucts sold or consumed by the farm family made up 40 per cent or more of the total value of all products, the farm was classified as a dairy farm. On the basis of this classification, 87.4 per cent of the farms in the six counties were classified as cotton farms, 2.8 per cent as stock ranches on which beef cattle was the main enterprise, 2.6 per cent as general farms, six-tenths of one per cent as cash grain farms, and all other types 6.6 per cent. The percentage of the total farm land occupied by each type shows quite a different ratio, because of the large size of the stock ranches. Cotton farms occupied 68.0 per cent of the land in farms, stock ranches 25.4 per cent, general farms 1.8 per cent, cash grain farms four-tenths of one per cent, and all other types 4.4 per cent. Census data show that the crop acreage in the six counti-es decreased by 4.6 per cent from 1929 to 1934 and by 10.4 per cent from 1934 to 1939. The low prices received for agricultural products, the severe drought of 1934, and the abandonment of less productive cropland largely account for this decrease. Further changes in the cropland area will depend largely upon price relationships, particularly the rela- tion of prices of cotton to the prices‘ of cattle and dairy products. Ex- pansion of the cropland area is doubtful, however, since most of the better lands are being cultivated at the present time. The acreage of good land that could be devoted to crops may be more than offset by the abandonment of less productive land now in cultivation. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN “THE ROLLING PLAINS 11 Census reports for the six counties show that 47.4 per cent of the farm operators in 1939 were owners or part owners, 52 per cent were tenants, and six-tenths of one per cent were managers. The bulk of th-e tenants rent on the so-called third-and-fourth basis. The landlord furnishes the land, residence for the tenant, space for a garden, and facilities for keeping some livestock. The landlord also usually furnishes some native pasture, or the land for a small acreage of sudan pastur-e, although it is not an uncommon practice for the share tenant to pay cash rent for crop- land devoted to sudan pasture. Cash rent is usually paid for ranch land. Third-and-fourth share tenants pay as rent one-fourth of the cotton crop and one-third of other crops. The tenant contributes the labor and management, power and equipment, and seed necessary for crop production. Various cash operating expenses, such as cotton gin- ning, threshing grain sorghum, and harvesting small grain, are divided between landlord and tenant in the same proportion that the crops are shared. The tenant usually owns all the livestock and receives all live- stock products. Share tenants of this type receive little or no super- vision from the landlord, and usually do not depend on the landlord for credit. The organization and operation of the farm are similar to those of farms operated by owners; hence the farms operated by these two groups are not treated separately in this study. Share croppers operated 3.6 per cent of the farmsin the six counties during 1939. Croppers usually furnish all the labor and one-half of certain cash operating expenses, principally cotton ginning, and receive in return one-half of the crops. For the purpose of this study, share croppers, as well as laborers receiving crop payment or crop shares, were assigned wages equal to the net proceeds from their crops plus any cash wages received. PHYSICAL RESOURCES Soils Seventeen soil types were identified on the 200 farms mapped by the Soil Conservation Service. For purposes of this analysis these soil types were classed into 5 groups as follows: heavy dark upland soils, heavy reddish upland soils, sandy upland soils, bottomland soils, and shallow broken land. For purposes of comparison, the soils of Jones County, as mapped by the division of Soil Survey, have been similarly classed. The distribution of these soils over the county is shown in Figure 2.1 The principal heavy dark upland soils are Abile-ne silty clay loam and Roscoe clay, comprising 53.6 per cent and 4.5 per cent of the crop- land mapped. With these in the heavy dark upland soils group are small 1Adapted from “Soi1 Survey (Reconnaissance) of West-Central Texas" by W. T. Carter and party, Division of Soil Survey, ‘Texas Agri. Exp. Station in cooperation with Bureau of Soils, U. S. D. A., U. S. Govt. Printing Office, 1928. The names of soils given are those used in report of the reconnaissance survey published in 1928 and do not conform in every case to more recent soil correla- tions as regards to the series names of the soils. 12 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION acreages of Abilene silty clay loam—shal1ow phase and Brackett clay loam which make up only about 1 per cent of the total cropland. The most important soil in the heavy reddish upland soils group is Miles clay loam, which comprises 14.8 per cent of the cropland area. The other heavy reddish upland soils are Vernon clay loam and a small acreage of Miles gravelly clay loam. Almost the entire acreage of sandy upland Figure 2. Soils of Jones County. (1) Heavy dark upland soils; (2) Heavy red- dish upland soils; (3) Sandy upland soils; (4) Shinnery sand; (5) Bottomland soils; (6) Shallow broken land. soils consists of Miles fine» sandy loam, which occupies 13.2 per cent of the cropland mapped. Included with this soil are small acreages of Miles fine sandy loam——s‘hallow phase and Abilene fine sandy loam which constitute less than 1 per cent of the total cropland area. Miller silty clay loam comprises approximately half of the bottomland soils mapped. The balance of the bottomland soils is comprised of Miller clay loam, Miller fine sandy loam, Spur clay 10am, Spur silty clay loam, and Spur fine sandy loam in almost equal proportions. The shallow broken land FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 13 consisted largely of Vernon clay, and made up 2.5 per cent of the total cropland. The small areas of Vernon clay which were found on the farms mapped usually were associated with larger areas of the heavy reddish upland soils. The heavy dark upland soils are the most important soils of Jones County. (See Table 2.) Soils of this group have deep top-soils of clay, clay loam, or silty clay loam which merge into gray or brown subsoils with very little change. The soils and subsoils readily absorb water. The deep heavy clay subsoils and substrata act as a reservoir with the capacity to hold a large amount of water for growing crops. Crops on these soils are fairly resistant to drought, provided a good supply of moisture is stored in the soil and subsoil before the dry season begins. The soils of this group are the most highly desired soils of the county for crop pro- duction and are utilized more for crop production than are the other soils. The soils of this group are well suited to the production of cotton, grain sorghum, and small grain, producing high yields of these crops during years of favorable moisture conditions. The heavy reddish upland soils comprise the second most important group, making up approximately 23 per cent of the total land area of Jones County. A somewhat smaller proportion of these soils are used for crop production as compared with the heavy dark upland soils‘. The difference may be explained in terms of greater slope which results in decreased productivity growing out of water and soil losses. Since less rainwater is retained on the sloping areas, crops suffer quickly from drought. During years‘ of favorable moisture conditions, however, good crop yields are secured. The sandy upland soils are closely associated with the heavy reddish upland soils and occupy 10.7 per cent of the total land area of Jones County. These soils have a fine sandy loam top-soil underlain with a heavy clay subsoil, enabling them to absorb and retain moisture readily. The-y are highly desired for crop production. Crops grown on thes-e soils are resistant to drought, and yields are less erratic than on any of the other soils. The alluvial soils occupy approximately 9 per cent of the land area in Jones County. These soils are deep, contain considerable organic matter, and range from sandy to clay in texturef As a rule, they are fairly well drained and highly productive. Crops grown on these soils are moderately resistant to drought. As is noted in Tabl-e 2, however, only 67.4 per cent of the alluvial soils on the farms mapped was in crop- land. A The shallow phase of Miles fine sand, locally known as “shinnery sand,” makes up 9.9 per cent of the soils of the county. It consists of a very loose sand varying from one to three feet in depth and underlain with very hard sandy clay. The soil is low in organic matter. Under cultivation, the surface soil drifts considerably and collects in small dunes. This soil occurs in two bodies in the central and western parts ‘liable 2. Amounts and proportion of total land and cropland 1n various soils groups 1n Jones County Soils of Jones 205 farms mapped Oountyl Soils Per cent Per cent Per cent Acres Per cent Acres of Total oi in in o total acres total cropland cropland total Heavy dark upland soils __________________________________________ __ 209,004 35.4 21,888 56.3 88.6 19,399 59.6 Heavy reddish upland soils _______________________________________ __ 136,196 23.1 7,668 19.7 81.1 6,219 19.1 Sandy upland soils- _____________ -__ _______________________________ ____ 63,432 10.7 5,216 13.4 85.8 4,476 13.7 Shinnery sand? _____________________________________________________ _- 58,160 9.9 ____ _-__ __-_ _-__ __-- Shallow broken land ______________________ __. ..................... --__ 68,017 11.5 1,612 4.2 50.8 8'19 2.5 Bottomland soils- ................................................. -- 55,211 9.4 24,4901 6.4 67.4 ' 1,671 5.1 Total _______________________________________________________________ __ 590,080 100.0 38,864 100.0 83.8 32,584 100.0 lAdapted from: “Soil Survey (Reconnoissance) of West Central Texas” by W, T. Carter and party, Division Soil Survey, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. zMiles fine sand, shallow phase. NOLLVLS LNEIWIHEIJXEI TVHILI/IIIOIHBV SVXELL ‘L19 ‘ON NLLEITIIIEI FAR-M ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS l5 of Jones County. Only a small part is under cultivation and none was found on the farms mapped. Several bodies of shallow broken land occur in various parts of the county and are used almost exclusively for grazing. These areas, which occupy 11.5 per cent of the land area of Jones County, consist principally of Vernon clay and Abilene clay 10am, shallow phase. The top—soil of Vernon clay is a dark chocolate—red, verystiff, dense clay and the parent red beds strata are encountered at depths of from 2 to 5 feet. The top- soil of Abilene clay loam, shallow phase, consists‘ of a very dark brown clay loam and is underlain with caliche in the form of hard and almost pure limestone at depths ranging from 2 to 24 inches. Of the cropland mapped on the farms studied, 84.7 per cent has less than a 1 per cent slope, and only six-tenths of one per cent has a slope of greater than 4 per cent. (See Table 3.) This Would indicate that only the comparatively level areas of the county are utilized for crop pro- duction. The bottomland soils and the heavy dark upland soils are the more level, 98.8 per cent and 95.3 per cent, respectively, having a slope of less than 1 per cent. Only 36.1 per cent of the shallow broken land has a slope of less than 1 per cent, as compared to 74.5 per c-ent for the heavy reddish upland soils and 55.9 per cent for the sandy upland soils. The erosion conditions on the farms studied are shown in Table 4. Erosion was found to be severe on less than 1 per cent of all of the crop- land. Of the remainder, 87.6 per cent was classed as having slight sheet erosion and 8.8 per cent as having moderate sheet erosion. On the heavy dark upland soils, 96.7 per cent of the cropland was mapped as having slight sheet erosion. On the bottomland soils 47.7 per cent was shown as having recent alluvial deposition and 50.8 per cent as having slight sheet erosion, making 98.5 per cent not seriously affected by erosion. The most serious erosion conditions, other than on the shallow broken land of which only 44 per cent was not seriously affected by erosion, were found on the heavy reddish and sandy upland soils. Almost 20 per cent of the heavy reddish upland soils were classified as having from mod- erate to very severe sheet erosion, while 17 per cent of the sandy upland soils fell in these groups. It should be noted that despite somewhat greater slopes, sandy soils were no more- seriously affected by erosion than were the heavy reddish soils. This is probably a result of the more rapid absorption of water on the sandy soils as compared to the heavy soils and the consequent smaller amount of run-off water after rains. An additional indication of erosion is the extent to which the land is gullied. Approximately 8 per cent of all cropland mapped was classed as having occasional gullies and less than three-tenths" of one per cent as having frequent gullies. In other words, there were no gullies on over 9O per cent of the cropland mapped. Here again, the shallow broken land and the heavy reddish and sandy upland soils were adversely affected more frequently than were the heavy dark upland and bottom- land soils. Gullies were noted on 39 per cent of the shallow broken Table 3. Slope of cropland on 205 farms in Jones County Slope All soils Heavy dark Heavy reddish Sandy upland Bottomland Shallow broken upland soils upland soils soils soils land Per cent } Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Less than 1 _________________ -_ 27,582.3 84.7 18,5048 95.3 4,629.9 74.5 2,501.3 55.9 1,650.5 98.8 295.8 36.1 1 to 4_--_-., ................. -- 4,792.4 14.7 886.7 4.6 1,548.2 24.9 1,880.5 42.0 20.7 1.2 456.3 55.7 4 and over __________________ __ 209.0 .6 7.7 .1 40.2 .6 93.8 2.1 _____ _- ____ 67.3 8.2 Total __________________ -_ 32,583.? 100.0 19,399.2 100.0 — 6,218.3 100.0 4,475.6 100.0 1,671.2 100.0 819.4 100.0 Table 4. Erosion conditions on 205 farms in Jones County‘ Erosion All farms Heavy dark Heavy reddish Sandy upland Bottomland Shallow broken upland soils upland soils soils soils land Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Cropland with: 1. Slight sheet erosion_____ 28,5592 87.6 18,770.?» 96.7 4,987.8 80.2 3,593.1 811.3 848.7 50.8 359.3 43.8 2. Moderate sheet erosion" 2,867.4 8.8 597.0 3.1 1,190.6 19.2 787.8 16.6 19.1 1.1 323.4 39.5 3. Severe sheet erosion“--- 81.8 .3 22.9 1 11.6 .2 14.9 .3 ----- -..-_ 32.4 4.0 4. Very severe sheet erosion 128.6 .4 .8 ___- 8.5 .1 10.8 .2 0.1 .4 102.9 12.5 5. Recent alluvial and colluvial deposition____ 946.7 2.9 8.2 .1 19.8 .3 1%.? 2.7 797.3 47.7 1.4 .2 Total ___________________ __ 32,5837 100.0 19,3992 100.0 fl- 6,218.3 100.0 4,475.6 100.0 1,671.2 100.0 819.4 100.0 lErosion terms as defined by the Soil Conservation Service. 1. Slight sheet erosion-Jess than 25 per cent of “A” horizon removed. 2. Moderate sheet erosion—25 to 75 per cent of “A” horizon removed. 3. Severe sheet erosion-over 75 per cent or all of “A” horizon removed and erosion of Upper ‘ 4. Very severe sheet erosion—erosion of lower “B” horizon and the “C" horizon. zlncludes wind deposition. ‘B" horizon. 9i NOLLVCLS \LNC>IWIHH&XE[ TVHILT/IIIOIHBV SVXELL ‘LIQ "ON NLLEITIIIH FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS l7 land, on 13.2 per cent of all heavy reddish soils, and on 18.2 per cent of all sandy upland soils. In contrast, gullies appeared on only slightly more than 3 per cent of both heavy dark upland and bottomland soils. There is a definite positive relationship between the percentage of slope and the frequency of gullies. Gullies were reported on only 4.5 per cent of the cropland having slopes of less than 1 per cent, whereas gullies were noted on 27.6 per cent and on 63 per cent of the lands having slopes of 1 to 4 per cent and 4 per cent and over, respectively. Apparently the conditions which result in sheet erosion are also con- ducive to the formation of gullies. Gullies were noted on only 5.5 per cent of the land class-ed as having slight sheet erosion and on 4O per cent of the land classed as having moderate sheet erosion. The acreage of cropland classed as having severe sheet erosion was insufficient for further comparisons on this basis. Climatic Conditions The amount and distribution of rainfall are‘ two of the most im- portant factors affecting crop production. The annual rainfall averages slightly more» than 24 inches, a sufficient amount, when well distributed, for good yields of the crops usually grown. (See Table 5.)‘ Timeliness of rainfall also has an important influence on crop yields. Approx- imately two-thirds of the normal rainfall comes during the six-month period April 1—September 30. Table 5. Average monthly and annual rainfall in Jones County P5‘ Inches of rainfall ‘U . is ~ El Station ~ m, ° 0a,; g § “s1 An- r . ,4 inual Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May'- June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. _______________l__________i_______.__;_,______.__._ Abilene _________ __ 50 @4193 0.89 1.07 1.23 21.66 4.13 2.60 1.87 2.16 2.7a 2.60 1.36 1.33 Stamford ______ _- 15 £23.70 0.59 1.47 108 2.29 3.820‘ 2.00 1.74 2.43 2.79 2L3t 1.45 1.70 Jones County lies Within the sub-humid region and rainfall is typical of sub-humid conditions. Rainfall varies considerably from one year to another, and within the year, causing Wide fluctuations in yields. At Abilene, the annual rainfall was varied in recent years from 46.43 inches in 1932 to 13.41 inches in 1934. (See Figure 3.) Another such ex- treme variation was the annual rainfall in 1914 of 41.50 inch-es as com- pared to 10.85 inches in 1917. It will be noted that wide variations are common rather than exceptional but are not always as extreme as the two instances mentioned. The year to year variations in the rainfall during the six-month period April 1—-September 30 are relatively greater than the variations in the annual rainfall. Although two-thirds of the rainfall comes during lRainfall data adapted from “Climatological Data,” U. S. Department of Agri- culture. Weather Bureau. * p 18 BULLETIN NO. 6'17, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the growing season, this proportion has‘ varied from as little as 25 per cent t0 as much as 84 per cent. The variations in the amount of rainfall during the growing season usually correspond to the variations in the annual rainfall, but this does not always hold true. In 1930, the rain- fall was 26.86 inches as compared to 28.26 inches in 1931. In these same years, the rainfall during the growing season was 15.26 inches and 7.12 inches. Other such instances occurred 7 times during the 50-year period. 40- I ~40 | . __ -. '5 “ o 5 8 § § s s: Figure 3. Annual rainfall and rainfall during the six-month period April-Sep- tember 30 at Abilene, 1886-1935. Height of bar indicates annual rain- fall; shaded portion indicates rainfall during period April 1—Apri1 30. The growing season in Jones County averages 230 days. The extremes have ranged from 202 days in 1907 to 274 days in 1910. Only in occa- sional years is planting delayed by late frosts, or crops damaged by ex- ceptionally early freezes. Hail frequently damages young crops during the spring months, but the damage is usually local in nature, affecting but few farms". Because of the local nature of hail storms they may have no Widespread effect upon farm incomes, but may cause partial or complete crop failures on a few farms. Damage to young crops from Wind results through the rapid movement of soil 1iarticles and usually occurs only during the spring and early summer when plants are young and tender. Such da-mage is usually very limited in extent and occurs on a relatively small number of farms on or near the sandy upland soils. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 19 Soil and Moisture Conservation Farmers in Type-of-Farming Area 4c have recognized that water is the chief limiting factor in crop production. Some interest has been taken in means of obtaining b-etter distribution and more complete utili- zation of available moisture. Conservation practices such as terracing .and contouring partially achieve this aim in retarding the run-off of rain water, allowing a greater portion to sink into the soil. These methods serve a two-fold purpose, since any method which reduces the run-off also decreases the loss of soil through erosion. Erosion is a problem on some of the smoother surfaces and becomes increasingly im- portant on the steeper slopes. On the other hand, terracing and con- touring are more effective in moisture conservation on the more level areas. The greater susceptibility of some soils to erosion and loss of ‘moisture through run-off makes soil and moisture conservation important factors in planning the organization and operation of individual farms. Estimates of the effect of certain conservation practices were secured from the cooperating farmers using these practices. It Was estimated that the loss of rainfall was reduc-ed 68 per cent and erosion decreased -69 per cent by terracing. Farmers practicing contouring estimated that it reduced the normal run-ofi by 41 per cent and decreased erosion 33 per cent. (See Table 6.) In this" area, contouring is generally practiced Table 6. Estimated results of conservation practices Average Heavy Heavy Sandy Bottom- Items of all dark reddish upland land farms upland upland soils soils Terraced cropland: Number of farms in sample ________________ __ 20 13 2 5 __ Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Decrease in erosion- ________________________ _. 69.2 67.5 78.3 67.5 --_- Decrease in run-off water __________________ __ 68.1 65.8 75.0 71.2 __-_ Contoured cropland: Number of farms in sample ________________ -. 86 66 11 7 2 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Decrease in erosion ......................... -. 33.4 36.6 29.4 33.1 28.3 Decrease in run-off water __________________ -- 41.0 43.8 32. 39.0 31.7 Increase in time to produce crops __________ _- 9.0 8.8 10.2 11.4 3.3 on land which has very little slope and tends to have less run-off than land which may require terracing. Contouring and terracing were esti- mated to increase the time required for operations involving power and machinery by 9 per cent. The time required for harvesting would be increased only to the extent that yields are increased. Of the 30,445 acres of cropland on the farms studied, 10.9 per cent was reported as terraced and 43 per cent as contoured. (See Table 7.) 20 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION \ The operators of these same farms estimated that 40.6 per cent of the cropland should be terraced and 35.1 per cent should be contoured. It will be noted that although these recommendations call for a great in- crease in the amount of terracing, they call for less contouring than is now practiced. Fourteen and six-tenths per cent of the total cropland, however, was recommended for terracing that is contoured at the present time. The influence of the slope and present erosion conditions is evi- dent in that terraces‘ were recommended for 57.1 per cent of the crop- land on the heavyreddish upland farms and only 26.7 per cent on the bottomland farms. More contouring was recommended for farms on the heavy dark upland soils than for any other. This may have been partly due to the» fact that the comparatively level topography of these soils results in a better response to contouring than on soils with greater slope. Table 7. Summary of conservation practices l Average Heavy Heavy Sandy Bottom- Items of all dark reddish upland land farms upland upland soils soils Number of farms in sample _________ _; _______ _- 194 120 34 29 11 Total acres in sample ......................... -- 37,284 23,114 7,736 4,539 1,895 Total crop acres- 30,445 19,517 5,643 3,727 1,558 Total acres pasture ___________________________ __ 5,867 3,067 1,835 675 290 Total acres other _____________________________ __ 9'72 530 2'58 137 47 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Proportion in various conservation practices: Oropland terraced—1936 .................. __ 10.9 12.1 10.3 10.5 --_- Needed __ 40.6 36.0 57.1 45.5 26 7 Pasture needing terracing ________________ _- 3.6 3.1 4.4 5.2 _-_- Oropland contoured~1938_ _______________ __ 43.0 54.6 29.5 17.3 8 7 Needed __ 35.1 45.91’ 14.1 22.6 7.2 Now contoured but needs terracing _____ __ 14.6 14.3 22.2 9.1 3.5 Pasture needing contouring ______________ -_ 2.2 4.1 ____ __-- ---_ Oropland strip-cropped—-1936 _____________ -- .9 1.5 ___- ___- ____ Needed ____________________________ _- 1.6 1.9 2.0 -___ ____ Manure—1936- .1 .1 .1 .2 ____ Needed ____________________________ __ 2.3 2.7 .5 3.9 -__ Green manure—-1936 ________________________ -_ 9.8 9.1 11.8 7.6 15.7 Needed ____________________________ __ 9.0 7.7 11.4 11.8 9.3 Summer cover—1930 _______________________ __ 4.6 3.8 6.7 4.0 7.3 Needed 1.0 .7 1.4 1.7 1.3 Winter cover-Needed _____________________ __ .5 .2 1.2 1.3 ---- Cultivated fallow—1936_ __________________ __ .8 .9 1.0 -_-_ ____ Needed 2.2 3.3 .6 ____ ____ Idle—1936-_ ____ .5 .5 .5 .8 ---_ Needed ____________________________ __ .4 .2 .4 1.8 ____ The cooperating farmers‘ were making some effort to maintain and improve soil fertility. There were no significant differences, however, in soil improvement practices between farms located on different soils groups. Crops for green manure were grown on 9.8 per cent of the» crop acreage on these farms in 1936. Summer cover crops were grown on 4.6 per cent of the crop acreage. Other soil improvement practices were of minor importance and occurred on less than 1 per cent of the cropland. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS Z1 In many instances" the recommendations for soil improvement prac- tices were for smaller acreages than in 1936. Green manure crops were recommended for 9 per cent of the cropland. The use of barnyard ma- nure and cultivated fallow were recommended for 2.3 per cent and 2.2 per cent of the cropland, respectively. Other practices were consid- ered to be of lesser importance and were recommended for 1 per cent or less of the cropland as a regular practice. In the light of these recom- rmendations, it seems logical to conclude that these farmers did not con- sider the maintenance of soil fertility a major problem. PRESENT SYSTEMS OF FAB-MING In approaching the question of agricultural adjustments on farms in the area, it is well to first consider the existing sizes and systems of farming as indicated by data obtained from records in the files of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. These records were first sorted -as to the area in which the farm was located, using a soils map of the county as the basis for making this classification. In arriving at the systems of farming, records on the farms in each area were sorted into three groups: (1) farms growing cotton, but not wheat; (2) farms grow- ing both cotton and wheat; and (3) farms growing neither cotton nor wheat. These groups were then subdivided according to the total acre- age in the farm. These divisions resulted in the sizes and systems of farming presented in the following tables. A summary of the information for the more common sizes and types of farms on the heavy dark and heavy reddish upland soils is presented in Table 8. The average size of farm in the area is 192 acres with 90 per cent, or 153 acres, in cropland. The three principal crops; namely, cotton, wheat, and grain sorghum, occupy almost two-thirds of the cropland area. The other crops of importance are sudan grass and forage sorghum, which occupy 16 per cent of the cropland. Almost two-thirds of the farms in the area were classed as cotton farms on ‘the basis of the 1938 cropland organization, while the rest grew both cotton and Wheat. From the crop organizations shown in the second and third columns of the table, it will be noted that cotton was the most important crop under both systems of farming. An important dif- ference in the two systems is the much larger proportion of the crop- land in grain sorghum on the cotton farms. In addition, the cotton ‘farms had a larger proportion of the cropland in cotton. The various size groups shown in the table represent 88 per cent of the farms in the area. Farms in the smaller size groups were predom- inantly cotton farms, while the proportion of farms growing both cotton and wheat increased as the size of farm increased. The differences be- tween the two syst-ems of farming were practically the same regardless of the size of farm. In addition, there were no outstanding differences in the cropland organization on cotton farms between the various size groups. On farms growing both cotton and wheat, there Was a slight BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION n. o.H w 0 i m. .... w. azH n. m. H. w. Fl---iii-l»----£.--3EHH3H 355mm 0.0 we 3 04 0a b4 o.» N6 a6 m6 Ham oé 0.... a4. 0H. ......... 7000.3 H250 .Ho 300005 H830 06H. 0.0m 00m W3 “.3 Ham 0.0m 0.3. 0.0m 0.3. 9am H43. v.3. HAH. 0.3. ............................ 11000000000 w. m.» o. w. u» m. m. || a. b. mfi H. w. 0. n. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |. #000059? "UHHQHQOMQ Ho coBHoHHoHm 13230.5 wEEEQ mow 7E 0.8 mam 0.8 Héu 0.3 06a 0.8 mdu 0.5 0.0m 3mm 01mm mHm Hdm ||||||||||||||| --u=$20~e.=o= 230m. HRH m.H wtH w.H 9H 9N Q.H YH ©.H 3m m.“ 5H H..H w.“ mH ||||||||||||||||||||||| |1|mHHOmHHH~HH3wH2 H4. 0H. mo. ma m5 m.” o a m.» H. m m.» Hé w.» 9m wa H; ...... {H0055 Ho mHHEHEHw $2 @080 Him NH. Hfim adH O.m Him m4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4.. Z. o... h.» 0.0 |||||||||||||||||||||| ||3OHHnw mwEEHHw 0.0 m.» TH. Haw u.» HdH m... 06H m6 .H..HH QNH wHH 2w 00H wd ................. 3.25 E0233 305w m. H. 0. w. m. N. H. m. H. m. 0. 0H H. H. H. ........................... {BE 02.0w 0H m. H.H o. H. H.H w. n. w. o. m. H.H b. o. w. ................. 10.2595 HHHFHw HHwEm 0.0 ma m4 a6 *6 0.0 w; “a a...“ o6 w.» 0.0 0.0 we o0 ........................ 13330 cfiosw I303 MHHHHQHQQHIBZ 0.3 0.3. 0.3. QB 0.5. v.5 H0» H60 Hmfi. H00 H13 W5 04.... H00 0.2. ............... imfiuflowo :3 150m. ll Q. @- Q- @¢ N. fi- B. w~ fi-H C.H @. Q. m. @. ||||||||||||||||||||||| |||WHHOQHHGZQUwE§H 00H maH 06H H3 wdH NAN o.HH 9mm 03H 0.3 Wmw 0.3 mHH 0.3 00H ...................... 1500300 E30 3- Amv‘ o. ¢¢§ @¢ $1? o. To% w- $0 @- @-%. m. 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 lllgkoo 0H. H0 ma Ha 0H 0:0 H..H wd Na 0a w w m H m.“ ma 9m ..................... ZEHHEH HE“ $00 N? 3H Ia . I m3 i W3 1 in“ -- .1 1 WE -- w: ................................ :23.» @.@W v.8 w-a Q-WM GIHM fl.a fi-g Q-g Mimi b-g Tam ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| nlHuOwwoo l||l . I303 mHHHfiHowH. cow £3» E3 2H3 ~03 2H3 2.50 H03 2H3 H03 H03 H03 H03 H03 2H3 H03 "E 03:00.3 Ho 0030003 m 3m 3m 3m 3m pom 3m 3m 3m 3m 3m 3m 3m Sm 3m 3m EH. m5 mam ova cww 8m 00H 3H HmH mNH om 0w wwH ,....H mmH H0333 ......................... 1HoHHEHHoH0 3H 3H % E. i. 8 m» NH. 3 Hm mH a 2. mm 0m HmPHo<0---,0w3wE§H HEH. 053mm 02002 30 SH. a» Ham H3 mow 3 .03 .05 .05 .03 .9. mam EH 3H H335 .............. I055 E 0E: 230m. .3 wa t...» v0 HQ T“ u...“ m 0. H. w w Ha H v o m Hwm H25 cooH S03 so 3H0 HES H33. Ho HHoHfioooHm wm 0N _ HH. Q. 8 o» S. om 3 3m ow 3 m3 m3 03 ................. #0503 Ho mwQQHDHH 200m. 03E» H005» J35» 03E.» £35» 03E» H50 000 Uflm no» H50 no» was no» can do“ 00H no» no» no» no“. $0.0 no» .000 n00 .000 no» -000 $00 .000 Haws.» .000 .000 0.00 .000 .000 $0.0 H50 mo» @505 053m =8 .000 :< H25 .000 UHHG 3.50 3.8.0 .330 .330 @030 3.80 .330 nomad 2% 301g 3.03 3.02 fiHéwH 21a $.20 8H EH3 Ho 2H5. H50 35 hbsod Had “H.000 hPQOHH no mama no @250 H50 nouHw #03500 e005 25 m0 noHwsuHflamnO 03H .28» H.520: £3.00?» .0 oHfid-H ‘y’ “ ' “ FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS v2 I fifi I T42 I I _ I TNH I Tfi find ........... -125 @8732 555$ méfl Qmfi ~63 mdwH ~62 msfi NQNH Emmfi Ymi 5S; ma: 5E5 ........... 19$ amfiémfi EofioO Z j _ _ _ ImEotn .85 HA5 fiam 9E Q23 W5 9mm n45 5mm mdm Tmm m.wm __ ................................ IAGQQGwU o.w Tu ad w; b6 u. v. w. ad a. o4. ................................... IJQQQ? mém mé 9w... m4“. 1a.. v.3. 93. v.3. Q3 99. m?“ ................................. -5880 Imanwcfiosa no.6 wwrfinm I I I w. I fi I I w. fi. I. ......................... Idsowqazwumwg a. .2 m; 0.: “J. ad oJ. n4. N.“ a.“ fm IIIII. #2553 uwiizm UQ-Hrioh; 24 BULLETIN NO. 6'17, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION tendency for the proportion of the cropland in cotton to decrease as the size of farm increased. Contour cultivation is practiced on between 4O and 50 per cent of the cropland in the area. The average size of farm on the sandy upland soils was 175 acres, which is somewhat smaller than the average size on the heavy upland soils. The acreag-e of cropland was also smaller and amounted to 78 per cent of the total land in the farms. (See Table 9.) An outstanding difference between the farms in this area and the farms on the heavy upland soils lies in the extent to which certain soil and moisture con- servation practices were followed. On the sandy upland soils, contour cultivation and summer fallow were practiced on only about half as much of the cropland as in the cas'e of the heavy upland soils. The great majority of farms in this area were classed as cotton farms, with only 12 per cent of the farms growing both cotton and wheat. ‘The cropland organization on farms following the different systems of farming were about the same as for these same systems on the heavy upland soils. In the smaller size groups, almost every farm was classed as a cotton farm, while farms growing both cotton and wheat predom- inated only in the largest size group. This may be explained in part by the variation in soils on the individual farms. Although the farm may be predominantly sandy upland soils, on larger farms land suitable for the production of wheat may be sufficient to justify a considerable wheat acreage. On the other hand, the acreage of wheat may be the result of an effort to operate a larger acreage with the existing power and equipment unit and to avoid hiring additional labor or purchasing larger equipment. On the bottomland soils (Table 10), farms averaged 196 acres‘ in size with 139 acres, or 7O per cent, in cropland. Almost two-thirds of the farms, representing about 53 per cent of the total land area, were classed as cotton farms and the balance grew both cotton and wheat. The cropland organization on cotton farms was practically the same as that on such farms in the two previously discussed areas. In contrast with the above areas, however, the average acreage of wheat exceeded the average acreage of cotton on farms growing both cotton and wheat. Contour cultivation was practiced on only about one-sixth of the crop- land. As in the other areas, the smaller farms were predominantly cotton farms and the proportion of farms growing both cotton and wheat was greater on the larger farms. On the shallow broken land (Table 11), farms averaged 271 acres in size with only 126 acres, or 47 per cent, in cropland. Almost two-thirds of the farms in this area grew both cotton and wheat and the balance were classed as cotton farms. On the cotton farms, the proportion of cropland in cotton was somewhat smaller and oats were an important crop as compared with similar farms in the areas previously discussed. On the farms growing both cotton and wheat, wheat occupied nearly half of the cropland, while cotton and oats occupied only 13 per cent and 7 per cent, respectively. Soil building practices, as defined by the Table 9. Organization of the most common sizes and types of fanns on sandy upland soils, 1938 Size and type of farm - 480 60-89 90-119 120-179I180-239 240-299 3160-479 acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres and Oot- 0V6!‘ All Oot- ton Items farms» ton and Cot- Oot- O-ot- Cot- . I wheat Cot- Oot- Cot- Cot- Oot- ton Oot- ton Oot- ton ton ton ton ton ton ton and ton and ton and and I wheat wheat when» wheat Total number 0f farms _________________________ u, 391 i 345 46 45 50 151 43 18 6 14 6 12 4 4» Proportion of total land area _______ "(Per cent) 100.01 82.2 17.8 5,0 7,9 33,3 12,9 6.9 2.4 6.6 2.9 7.4 2.3 5.2 Total la-nd in farm ______________________ __(Acres) 1T5 163 263 76 108 153 204 262 267 3124 330 422 392 889 Native pasture and farmstead __________ __(Acres) 38 34 64 9 17 26 40 77 56 85 57 162 60 376 (Jropland _____________________ _,_ ___________ __(Ac1'es) 137 129 199 67 91 127 164 185 211 239 273 260 332 513 P81‘ P61‘ P61‘ Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Proportio-n 0t cropland in: cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent Soil depleting cr0p~s—— Cotton _______________________________________ -_ 38.5 39.8 32.5 40,3 40.9 39.2 40.0 59.7 36.2 40.2 28.5 40.1 35.7 27.4 Wh-eat ______________________ -_. ________________ __ 4.1 __ 94.1 __ __ __ __ __ 20.4 __ 25.5 __ 23.5 33.1 Oats and barley _____________________________ __ 1.0 .9 1.6 ,3 __ .5 .7 1.0 .8 2.8 1.5 2.9 1.1 3.7 Corn- ........................................ __ 1.7 1.7 1.2 1,3 1.5 1.8 2.1 1.6 .9 1.7 1.5 1.3 .2] 1.1 Grain Sorghum- ______________________________ __ 23.8 216.21 12.3 25.7 26.2 26.6 27.5 26.6 8.3 23.5 11.0 23-9 14.0 12-0 Miscellaneous- _______________________________ -_ .7 .6 .7 .7 1.1 .6 .4 .3 .4 1.1 .2 .1 -- 2.1. Total soil depleting _______________________ __ 69.8 69.2 72.4 88.3 69,8 68.7 70.7 69.2 67.0 69.3 68.3 68.3 74.5 79.4 Non-depleting croips~— ' Sudan pasture ------------------------------- __ 7.0 6.7 8.5 7.4 6.7 7.2 6.2 4.9 12.6 7.3 9.2 5 9 3.6 7.8 Small grain pasture _________________________ __ .5 .3 1.6 ,3 ,1 .3 .8 __ 5.6 .3 3.7 __ __ __ Sudan hay ___________________________________ __ .2 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .2 .1 .2 __ .2 .6 __ __ Sweet Silrghum hay _________________________ _- 10.8 11.5 7.4 12.9 10.9 12.3 10.8 11.8 6.8 1 .3 6.8 9.8 6.7 3.8 Summer fallow- _____________________________ __ 3.5 3.4 3.8 2.1 2.7 8.0 3.1 2.7 .6 3.8 5.3 7.7 9.9 1.8 Crops left standing or turned ______________ -_ 41.6 4.9 8.2 4.8 5.9 4.1 5.8 7.7 0.5 8.9 5.8 4.2 3.8 __ Misciellaneous- _______________________________ __ 8.6 3.8 3.0 8.5 3.8 4.2 3.1 4.1 .7 8.1 .7 3.5 2.0 7.2 Total non-depleting- ______________________ -- 30.2 311s 27.6 31.2 30.2 81.3 29.3 310.9 33.0 30.7 31.7 31.7 25.5 20.6 Soil building practices- Proportion of cropland: Terraced- ______________________________________ _- 1.5 2.7 .6 __ 2.5 2.1 1.3 -_ __ 2.6 _- 1.2 _ __ Cuntuured- ____________________________________ -_ 231.1 21.9 29.2 17.7 19.5 23.9 25.7 13.9 50.9 27.0 27.4 15.7 1.3 44.7 Green manure 0T GOV-El‘ CIODS _________________ _- 6.5 7.1 3.7 7.9 9.3 6.5 5.8 10.8 5.1 8.6 41.4 4.2‘ 3.5 1.2 Summer legumes _______________________________ __ .8 .8 .6 .8 1.8 .4 1.9 .1 8.0 1.1 .2 __ _ Prptected summer fallow _____________________ -- .8 .8 .4 .4 .9 .6 .7 .6 -. 2.3 -_ 1.8 __ _- Miscellaneous- _________________________________ __ _1 _1 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Lg __ __ SNIVTJ QNITTOH EIHJ} NI StLNifwiIig fCIV WHVcI Table 9. Organization of the most common sizes and types of farms on sandy upland soils, 1938-—Oontinued Sxize and type of farm 480 60-89 90-119 120-179 180~239 240-299 300-359 360-479 acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acre-s and Oot- over All Oot- ton — Items farms ton and Cot- Oot- Oot- Cot- wheat Cot- Oot- Cot- Cdt- Oot- ton Oot- ton Oo-t- ton ton ton ton ton ton ton and ton and ton and and wheat wheat wheat wheat £>7>0tt0n base _____________________________________ __ 66.9 67.4 64.3 64.3 65.6 68.2 66.7 67.0 68.5 69.0 53.8 67.2 67.2 65.0 General baSe _____________________________________ _- 31.1 30.5 34.4 33.9 32.5 28.6 30.3 33.0 310.9 33.6 42.1 30.9 28.3 34.6 Special crop allotments: COttOII _________________________________________ _- 39.9 40.7 36.1 40.5 41.5 40.5 40.2 40.7 88.4 41.1 32.0 41.5 36.7 34.6 Wheat ------------------------------------------ __ 1.3 .2 7.0 __ __ .1 __ __ 6.8 1.9 8.6 __ 7.5 9x6 General- _______________________________________ __ 33.7 33.8 32.8 34.3 33.9 34.1 34.2 34.1 31.5 m9 35.1 33.7 31.1 32.1 Crop yields: COttOD, 1934—1939 ave ___________________ _-(lbs.) 120 128 113 120.1 133.1 129.4 128.7 1% 9 105.5 123.5 115.7 124- 1 114.9 106.3 Wheat, 1930-1939 ave ____________________ __(bu.) 12 -- 12 -_ __ __ __ -- 10.1 __ 14.1 _- \ 11.7 9.1 NOLLVLS QNEIWIHSIJXH TVHHJ/Ifl-OIHOV SVXELL ‘L19 'ON MLLEITIHH Table 10. Organization of the most common sizes and types o1’ farms on bottomlands, 1938 Size and type of farm 60-89 90—119 120-179 180—239 240-299 acres 5 acres acres acres acres Items I All C Cotton \ 1 " arms ‘otton and Cotton wheat Cotton Cotton Cotton and Cotton i i wheat Total number of farms ___- __________________________ -_ 68 43 25 8 6 i 17 7 5 Proportion of total land area ____________________________________________ "(Per cent) 100 53 47 4.4 4.7 18.9 10.3 9.9 Total land in farm ___________________________________________________________ __(Acres) 195.7 164.2 250.1 73 ; 103 14s 213 264 Native pasture and farmstead _- _______ _-(Acres) 56.9 40.1 86.0 7 \ 6 31 43 10s Cropland _- ....... --(Acres) 138.8 124.1 164.1 66 9'7 117 170 156 Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Proportion oi cropland in: cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent Soil depleting crops- Cotton _____________________________________________________________________________ __ 32.9 38.2 25.9 38.2 40.2 38.0 30.3 38.6 Wheat__ ----------------------------------------- -- 15.9 __ 36.6 __ -_ -- 20.9 -_ Oats and barley ---------------------------- _- 2.9 1.9 4.0 4.0 -- .2 .8 -- Corn _______________________________________________________________________________ -- 1.0 1.3 .7 1.8 2.5 1.1 .9 1.2 Grain sorghum ____________________________________________________________________ -- 18.6 24.2 11.4 29.6 24.0 25.5 19.6 22.9 Miscellaneous ______________________________________________________________________ __ .8 .4 1.4 .5 .2 .4 2.9 .4 Total soil depleting _____________________________________________________________ __ 72.1 66.0 80.0 74.1 66.9 65.2 75.4 63.1 Non-depleting crops— Sudan pasture _____________________________________________________________________ -- 7.5 9.6 4.8 5.9 5.2 13.1 6.8‘ 7.8 Small grain pasture _______________________________________________________________ __ .3 -_ .6 __ __ -- .5 __ Sudan hay _________________________________________________________________________ __ __ __ __ _- __ -_ __ __ Sweet sorghum hay _______________________________________________________________ -- 9.1 11.1 6.4 11.3 11.9 12.1 9.8 14.6 Summer fallow ____________________________________________________________________ -- 3.7 4.2 21.9 .8 13.1 2.3‘ 2.7 1.2 Crops left standing or turned ____________________________________________________ __ 3.6 4.4 2.6 3.5 1.1 3.4 2.5 7.5 Miscellaneous _______________________________________________________________________ -- 3.7 4.7 2.7‘ 4.4 1.8 3.9 2.3 5.8 Total non-depleting____ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ -_ 27.9 _34.0 20.0 251.9 33.1 34.8 24.6 36.9 Soil building practices- Proportion of cropland: Terraced _____________________________________________________________________________ -- .4 __ 1.0 __ __ __ 3.6 __ Contoured __________ -- __ -___ _________________________ __ 16.0 17.4 14.3 4 5 6.1 18.7 13.6 18.9 Green manure or cover crops _______________________________________________________ -- 4.5 6.2 2.3 5 3 61.1 7.2 .7 __ Summer legumes; ___________________________________________________________________ ,_ 1.6 1.9 1.3 __ __ .3 4.5 11.8 Protected summer fallow“- _-__ _____________________ __ 1.1. 1.9 .1 __ 2.2 1.6 .4 2.4 Miscellaneous- ____ _______________________ _- .1‘ .1 __ 1.] _- _- _- SfllVTi BNYITOH EH11} NI SLNEIWLSIIFGV WHVJ Table 10. Organization of the most common sizes and types of farms on bottomlands, 1938—Oontinued Slize and type of farm 60-89 90-119‘ 120~179 180-239 240F299 acres acres acres acres acre-s Items A11 Cotton farms‘ Cotton and Cotton wheat Cotton Cotton Cotton and Cotton wheat Cotton base --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -_ 66.7 74.9 57.2 75.4 70.3 6.7 53.3 70.5 General base ___________________________________________________________________________ -- 31.6 25.9 38.3 22.1 27.1 27.5 34.9 25.9 Special crop allotments: Cotton _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . _ . _ - . . _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . .__ 37.6 41.2 33.4 40.4 41.0 41.6 35.7 39.8 Wheat- _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ -_ --___ 5.3 __ 11.4 __ __ __ 7.5 __ General" _________________________________ __ 32.5 33.1 31.8 34.1 34.1 31.7 32.8 34.8 Crop yields: Cotton, 19344939‘ ave _________________________________________________________ -_(lbS.) 119.0 123.6 111.3 127.9 150.0 131.0 113.6 110.9 Wheat, 1930-1939 ave __________________________________________________________ __(bu.) 12.2 __ 12.2 __ -_ __ 10.1 __ S?! NOLLVLS LNKIWIHEIJXEI TVHILT/IGOIHBV SVXEIL ‘L19 ‘ON NLLEITIQH Table 11. Organization of the most common sizes and types of farms on shallow broken lands, 1938 Size and type of farm 240-299 300-359 316411-479 480 acres 120-179 acres acres acres acres and over Items All Cotton . farms Cotton and Cotton Cotton Cotton Cotton Cotton wheat Cotton and and and and Cotton and wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat '11 Total number 01 farms ____ _____ __ 98 34 64. 11 22 9 10 5 5 7 i; Proportion of total land area ____________________________ "(Per cent) 100 35-6 64-4 6.1 11.6 8.9 12.2 7-5 17.1 16.8 a Total land in farm ________________________ __. _________________ __(Acres) 271.3 278.2 267.7 148 155 264 324 408 910 638 2* Native pasture and farmstead -- _(Acres) 145.0 170.6 131.4 61 55 124 171 218 662 379 E Cropland _ _ (Acres) 126. 3 107 .6 136.3 8f! 100 140 153 185 248 259 g Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per P1‘0*D0*1'1I1'011 0f Cmplalld i111 cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent g Soil depleting crops- Z Cotton-_ ................ _. 19,1 3.1.5 111.1 a4 o 10.1 11.1 1s.1 18.9 2&5 6.5 g Wheat ________ __ ___- _______ __ 34,5 __ 49.0 __ 49.9 52.5 40.2 29.2 -- 61.9 H Oats and barley _________________________________________________ -_ 9.0 10.1 9.6 5 5 6 5 4.2 12.4 8.3 fl-B 6.4 z Corn _______________________________________________ __-. ____________ _- ,6 1.1 .4 5 .2 .4 .4 1.6 .2 g Grain sorghum ___________________________________________________ -_ 14,7 25.0 10.3 30 2 10.7 8.1 10 2 14.2 20.7 8.2 y; Miscellaneous __________________ __ __- ,2 ,3 .2 .5 _- .1 .2 .1 .1 L11 Total soil depleting" _______ -_'___ 78.1 70.0 81.6 70 5 83 9 76.3 81.7 71 2 72.2 85.3 w Non-depleting crops ___________________________________________ _- _-- Q Sudan Pasture" ----- -- 5.1 5.6 4.9 6.2 3.6 6.5 6 5 10] 2.9 1.8 b‘ Small grain pasture _____________________________________________ __ .2 .3 .1 1.0 .4 .2 -_ -- __ -- 5 Sudan hay _______________________________________________________ __ .1 __ .2 __ .9 __ ..- -- _- -_ Z Sweet sorghum hay ______________________________________________ __ 8.6 13.9 6.4 13.9 7.2 4.6 4.5 7.3 12.6 6.1 Q Summer fallow--- ________________ __ 3,1 4.2 2.7 4.1 1.4 6.4 1.4 2.9 5.2 3.3 I15 Crops left standing or turned ___________________________________ _- 2.5 2.7 2.2 3.4 1.4 1.8 4.9 2.4 4.4 2.3 P‘ Miscellaneous ______________________________________________________ __ 2.3 3.3 1.9 .9 1.2 4.2 1.0 4.3 2.7 .2 F: Total non-depleting _____________________________________________ __ 21.9 30.0 18.4 Q5 16.1 23.7 18.3 28.8 27.8 13.7 g Soil building practice~s—- Proportion of cropland: Terraced ____________________________________________________________ __ .4 .9 .1 8.7 - __ .7 __ _- __ Contoured- .... _- ____ _____________ __ 15.0 18.8 13.4 30.1 14.6 7 8 20.5 13 8 10.3 5 0 Green manure or cover crops ______________________________________ __ 4.6 6.9 3.7 4.2 1 1 7.7 8 4 10.4 2 9 Summer legumes ___________________________________________________ __ .2 .3 .2 .6 -- -. .9 - __ -_ Protected summer fallow __________________________________________ __ .9 1.6 .7 1.8 -_ __ __ 1 7 3.3 2 0 Miscellaneous _______________________________________________________ __ .1 .3 __ _- _- _- - -- __ E3 Table 11. Organization of the most common sizes and types of farms on shallow broken lands, 1938-—Cont1nued Size and type of farm ‘240-299 300350 360479 480 acres 120L179 acres acres acres acres and over Items All Cotton‘ farms Cotton and Cotton Cotton Cotton Cotton Cotton wheat Cotton and and and and Cotton and l wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat Cotton base __________________________________________________________ __ 53.0 66.1 47.4‘ 64.3 52.3 53.7 43.4 68.7 67.5 31.5 General oase- ________________________________________________________ __ 50.0 33.4 57.0 37.6 51.4 49.4 60.0 59.8 26.1 66.4 Special crop allotments: Cotton _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ __ 34.6 4.0.7 32.0 42.1 35.4 33.3 35.0 42.4 38.8 17.8 Wheat ______________________________________________________________ __ 8.5 .6 11.9 __ 8.0 14.2 7.0 15.6 __ 19.7 General ____________________________________________________________ __ 34.1 33.6 34.2 32.7 34.3 29.4 35.8 23.1 35.8 41.4 Crop yields: Cotton, 1934-1939 ave _______________________________________ __(ll1s.) 77.2 81.9 74.2 84.3 71.6 72.6 77.0 80.5 71.2 73.5 Wheat, 1930-1939 ave ________________________________________ __(bu.) 12.0 __ 12.1 -.. 11.3| 11.3 12.9 13.8 __ 12.0 08 NOLLVLS LNIEIWIHEIdXH lVHflJ/IHOIHOV SVXEIL 'LT.9 "ON NLLETTIIIEI FARM" ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 31 Agricultural Adjustment Administration, consisted principally of con- tour cultivation, with green manure or cover crops of secondary impor- tance. The systems of farming on the “shinnery sand” were greatly different from those on any other soil group. (Table 12.) The farms were small in size, averaging 169 acres, of which only 5O per cent was in cropland. Two cropping systems prevailed—cotton and row feed in one case and peanuts and row feed in the other. Three-fourths of the farms were classed as cotton farms, and slightly less than one-third of the crop- land on these farms was in cotton. There were practically no small grains grown, but peanuts were an important crop. On farms growing no cotton or Wheat, grain sorghum and peanuts were the only crops of importance. In 1938 approximately 10 per cent of the cropland on cotton farms and 14 p-er cent of the cropland on farms having neither cotton nor wheat remained idle. Practically no contour cultivation was practiced on farms in this area and the only soil building practice carried out to any extent consisted of green manure and cover crops. Of the farms growing neither cotton nor wheat, 85 per cent were less than 180 acres in size. Only 67 per cent of the cotton farms were less than 180 acres. There were no outstanding differences in the cropland organization of either system as between size groups. The foregoing discussion has dealt with the different systems of farming found on‘ the various soils groups in Jones County in 1938 based on the cropland organization as indicated by the records of the Agri- cultural Adjustment Administration. In most cases only two types of cropping systems are represented: (1) cotton and grain sorghum, and (2) cotton, small grain, and grain sorghum. Cotton was usually the most important crop and the cropping system on most farms was built around it. Except on the shallow broken land and “shinnery sand,” cotton usually occupied approximately 25 to 40 per cent of the crop- land. It is the principal source of income and the greater part of the, receipts were derived from cotton. Grain sorghums are the principal feed crops and are grown for grain and forage. Grain sorghum for grain is the only feed crop which is grown for sale as well as for farm needs. It meets the farm require- ments for feed and the sale of the surplus provides a source of cash income. Milo is the principal grain sorghum for grain, chiefly because it produces higher grain yields over a period of years than other grain sorghums which can be grown for this purpose. On the basis of ten- year records of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Substation at Spur, Dwarf Yellow milo produced an av-erage of 29.4 bushels of grain per acre, while hegari, Spur feterita, and Texas Blackhul kafir produced 26.8, 23.6, and 20.3 bushels. In addition, milo matures earlier than some of the other varieties. As a result, milo harvesting does not compete with cotton harvesting for the labor supply as much as do the other varieties of grain sorghum. Although the common method of harvesting milo for grain is to remove the head and leave the stalk ‘Ia-hie 12. Organization of the most common sizes and types of farms on shinnery soils, 1938 Svize and type of farm 480 180-239 360-479 acres 30~59 acres 60-89 acres 1220-179 acres acres acres and over No N0 No No All cotton cotton cotton cotton Items farms Cotton N0 Cotton No Cotton No Cotton N0 Cotton Cotton Cotton i‘ wheat wheat Wheat wheat Total number of farms __ ____- 108 i 81 1 2'7 8 9 17 8 28 6 11 4 5 Proportion of total land area __________ _-(Per cent) 100 i 14 i 86 2.0 1.9 7.2 3.6 22.6 4.4 12.0 9.5 20.2 Total land in farm _________________________ __(Acres) 169.2 192-7 98-5 47‘ 39' 78 82 148 133 20-1 434 749 Native pasture and farmstead ............. __(ACIBS) 84-5 98-3‘ 42-8 11 11 20 41 65 51 72 2612 579 Cropland ____________________________________ __(Acnes) 84.7 94.4} 55-7 36 2:3 53 41 33 32 129 173 170 | P61’ P9P i P81‘ Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per PYODOTUOII 0f 010111111111 i111 611111 @9111 i @6111 cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent Soil depleting crops- Cotton __________________________________________ __ 27-0 32-3 -- 34.0 -- 32.3 -_ 27.3 __ 34.1 30 40.5 Peanuts _________________________________________ -_ 9.4 8-2 15-8 6.9 22.5 5.3 20.2 3.5 15.7 3.3 15.4 3.6 Corn ___________________________________________ -_ 3.4 3.6 2.4 4.0 4.9 4.2. 4.3 4.3 .7 4.7 1.2 1.5 Grain sorghum _________________________________ __ 20.20 19.7 22.9 25.5 16.2 23.3 19.6 19.3 19.2 19.1 14.9 14.6 Miscellaneous ___________________________________ __ 2.8. 2.7 3.3 .9 4.3 .6 2.4 1.3 4.1 2.2 2.0 13.0 Total soil depleting __________________________ _. 62.8! 661.5 44.4 71.3 47.9 66.2 46.7 61.2 39.7 63.9 63.5 73.2 Non depleting crops- . Sudan pasture ___________________________________ __ 3.0. 2.6. 4.8 21.3 __ 2.9 .7 3.0 3.2 2.1 4.3 1.7 Sweet sorghum hay; __________________________ __ 7.5! 8.3‘ 3.5 9.6 4.4 10.3 __ 7.2 1,3 6.3 11.4 7.3 Summer fallow ________________________________ __ 1.21 .8 3.0 3.2 __ ,7 .5 .5 .6, 1.31 .4 ,6 Crops left standing or turned _________________ __ 7.4 7.4‘ 7.1 5.1 .2 7.9 12.7 12.1 3.9;‘ 4,7 6.3 2.3 Miscellaneousl- __________________________________ __ 18.11 14.4‘ 37.2 3.5 47.5 11.4 39.4 16,0 46.3 16.7 13.6 15.4 Total non-depleting __________________________ __ 37-21 33.51 55.6 23.7 52.1 33.3 53.3 33.3 60.3 31,1 30.7 26.3 Soil building practices- X Proportion of cropland: l | Contoured- ________________________________________ _- 1.9‘ 2.3. -_ -_ ___ 1.6: _- .5 __ __ __ __ Green manure or cover crops ____________________ _- 12.7 12.9‘- -7 6.5 2.0 12.9 14.2 18.0 10.9 10.6 17,9 7,3 Summer legumes __________________________________ __ .6‘ .71 .l __ _- .2] .4 2.0 __ __ __ __ Special crop allotments: 1 ‘ I Cotton ___________________________________________ -- 35-21 38-0 22.3 41.2 32.6 40.4‘ 84.2 35.6 13.7 37.3 39.3 33.7 Wheat _____________________________________________ __ .1 .1 _- -- _- -_ ._ .- __ .6 __ __ General ____________________________________________ __ 41.2‘ 37.71 57.2 37.8 51.7 35.1 42.5 40.0 63.6 33,3 35.3 36,6 lConsistcd principally of idle land. Z8 NOLLVLS JAIEIWIHEIIJXH TVHOJKIQ-OIHSV SVXEIJ; ‘L19 'ON NLDEITTTHEI FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN ‘THE ROLLING PLAINS 33 standing, during periods of feed shortages, the stalks may be bound for forage. There was a surplus of grain sorghum for grain in almost every sys- tem in 1938. It must be remembered, however, that marketing quotas of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration were in efiect in that year. Undoubtedly, a large percentage of the land which was diverted from cotton was planted to grain sorghum. Many of the farms studied would not have grown suffici-ent feed for their own needs without this additional acreage. _ Grain sorghum is" practically the only crop which is harvested for forage. Cane and hegari are the principal grain sorghums grown for forage. Grain sorghum for forage is grown exclusively for farm needs, with a small surplus occurring in some instances. This surplus is usually too small, however, to constitute an important source of income. In those systems in which small grain was grown, the proportion of cropland in cotton and grain sorghum usually was smaller than in the other systems. Although small grains, where grown, were an important source of cash income, in most instances cotton remained the most im- portant source of income. The importance of small grain in the crop- ping system is dependent on the scarcity of feed, the opportunity for fall planting, and the comparative price relationships of cotton and small grain and of grain sorghum and small grain. As a rule, small grain is‘ ‘found on the thin, heavy textured soils which ar-e re-latively better suited for small grains than for cotton. Although sudan is grown on a relatively small percentage of the crop- ‘land, it occupies an important place as a source of feed for livestock during the summer months. The available native pasture is limited on the majority of farms and is supplemented with sudan pasture. Sudan may be bound for forage during periods of feed shortage or harvested for seed when the price of sudan seed is relatively high. These latter uses are not common but are the result of unusual conditions. Information as to the numbers and types of livestock on farms in the different areas were not available from AAA sources, but on the ma- jority of farms included in the detailed study livestock constituted a minor source of income. A discussion of the place of livestock on the farms of the area will be found in the section dealing with the produc- tion and production requirements of livestock. FARM EARNINGS IN 1935 Additional information pertaining to the nature of farming in Type- of-Farming Area 4c may be obtained from a study of farm earnings. The earnings presented are for the year 1935 when crop yields were approximately 25 per cent higher than the estimated normal yields on the farms studied. Prices on items purchased were approximately the same as for the period 1927-1935, while prices on livestock and livestock products were somewhat below the average of that period. Cotton and 34 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION small grain prices were about normal, but feed prices in 1935 were well above the 1927-1935 level. The acreage planted to cotton in 1935 was approximately two-thirds of the acreage normally planted to cotton previ- ous to the establishment of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. Influence of Certain Factors on Farm Earnings Wide variations in income occur among farms in the area studied. These variations are the result of differences in natural resources as Well as of differences in efficiency of management. The extent to which the operator is able to increase his farm income depends upon the extent to which he is able to control the important factors affecting income. In a study of the effect of the more important factors on income, the farms were grouped first according to the predominant soils group on each farm. Then the farms on which the heavy dark upland soils comprise at least two-thirds of the cropland were grouped according to the crop yield index, the size of the farm, and percentage of cropland in cotton. This restriction of the analysis to farms within one soils group results in minimizing the effect of differences in natural resources. Soils A summary of the year's business on the farms studied, grouped ac- cording to the predominant soils group on each farm is presented in Table 13. This permits a comparison of groups of farms on different soils and these in turn with the average for all farms. Rate earned on investment and labor and management wage are the two measures commonly used to show the relative profitableness of farms. Subtracting the operator’s labor valued at current wag-e rates from the return to capital and operator’s labor and management leaves the returns to capital and management. Dividing this‘ return by the average farm inventory gives the average rate earned on investment (no allowance for management). The labor and management wage is obtained by subtracting interest on the average investment at 6 per cent from the return to capital and operator’s labor and management. The farms as a whole returned 13 per cent on the average investment or $880 as the labor and management wage. Heavy dark upland farms had the highest rate earned on investment and also the highest labor and management wage. Bottomland farms proved to be the- least profit- able in 1935. ' Total farm sales consist of all sales of farm products plus benefit payments for participation in the 1935 cotton program of the Agricul- tural Adjustment Administration. Although the amount of sales varied widely on the different soils groups, there were no very significant dif- ferences in the percentages of sales derived from the various sources. On the average, 76 per cent of the total sales were derived from the sales of cotton lint and seed and from cotton benefit payments. Other crops FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 35- made up only 8 per cent of the total sales. Sales of livestock and live-- stock products made up 13 per cent of sales, while miscellaneous sales accounted for 2 per cent. Table 13. Farm business summary by soils groups, 1935 Average Heavy Heavy Sandy Bottom- ltems of all dark reddish upland land farms upland upland ' soils soils Number of farms - 197 122 34 31 10 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars FARM INVESTMENT-Total ..................... _- 8,743 9,236 8,712 7,049 8,104 Land 6,351 6,703 6,288 5,316 5,480 Improvements (less residence)- ............... -.. 633 706 548 390 792 Machinery and equipment _____________________ _- 822 899 825 447 1.034 Livestock- 646 619 754 651 604 Feed, seed, and supplies ...................... __ 291 309 297 245 194 Investment per acre- 45.77 48.87 38.55 43.51 45.27 FARM SlALES-—T’otal_ ............................ _- 2,620 2,840 2,468 1,948 2,532 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Proportion of sales from: Cotton-AAA benefit payments ............... -_ 9.1 8.5 9.6 11.6 9.0 Lint and seed ________________________ __ 67.1 66.5 66.1 69.8 71.1 Other crops“ 8.3 9.3 5.9 6.3 6.6 Poultry and eggs 3.8 3.8 3.0 5.9 1.8 Dairy products- 3.3 3.1 5.7 2.2 1.6 Cattle 4.5 5.2 3.0 2.0 5.9 Hogs .7 .6 1.3 .5 .9 Other livestock ___ 1.1 .6 3.8 .1 1.3 Miscellaneous 2.1 2.4 1.6 1.6 1.8 FARM EXPENSE-Total ________________ -_(Do1lars) 1,0941 1,148 1,110 789 1,330 Percentage of farm expense for: Improvements (less residence) _________________ __ 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 Machinery and equipment _____________________ __ 12.8 12.2 16.0 12.2 10.2 Feed purchased--- 6.2 5.2 8.0 10.2 5.0 Other livestock expense ________________________ __ 7.8 8.8 8.6 2.4 5.5 Miscellaneous crop expense ____________________ __ 35.6 37.3 31.0 32.2 36.0 Hired labor 29.9 28.9 28.6 33.4 37.8 Taxes- 5.5 5.3 5.8 7.3 3.8 Miscellaneous farm expense ................... -- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 .7 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Total farm sales__ 2,620 ‘ 2,840 2,468 1,948 2,532 Value of products used in home __________________ __ 215 215 2118 204 232 GROSS FARM INCOME ___________________________ _- 2,835 3,055 2,686 2,152 2,764 Gross farm income per acre ....................... -- 14.84 16.16 11.88 13.28 15.44 Total farm expense ________________________________ -_ 1,094 1,148 1,110 789 1,330 Unpaid family labor 132 132 156 86 190 Decrease in inventories- ........................... -_ 204 212 166 207 232 TOTAL. DEDUGTIONS ____________________________ __" 1,430 1,492 1,432 1,082 1,752 Total deductions per acre ......................... -- 7.49 7.89 6.34 6.68 9.79 Return to capital and operator's labor and management--- 1,405 1,563 1,254 1,070 1,012 Value of operator’s labor ......................... -_ 229 225 237 228 257 Return to capital investment ...................... __ 1,176 1,338 1,017 842 755 Rate Earned on Inventory _____________ “(Per cent) 13.45 14.49 11.67 11.94 9.32 Interest on inventory at 6 per cent ............... __ 525 554 523 423 486 Labor and Management Wage-.. __________________ -- 880 1,009 731 647 526 Farm sales-Total" ____ 2,620 2,840 2,468 1,948 2,532 Farm expense-Total ______________________________ -- 1,094 1,148 1,110 789 1,331) Cash sales over cash expense ______________________ _- 1,526 1,692 1,358 1,159 1,202 Total farm expense consists of all farm expense except expense on the residence. The two main items of expense are hired labor and miscel- 36 BULLETIN NO. 6'17, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION laneous crop expense, Which consists of planting seed, cotton ginning, binding, threshing, and rented or hired machinery for making a crop. Bottomland farms, which had the lowest farm earnings in 1935, had the highest farm expense and the highest percentage of expense for hired labor. Sandy upland farms, which had the lowest farm sales, also had the lowest farm expense. It is also interesting to note that there were only slight differences as among soil groups in the relative importance of the various expense items. Additional information pertaining to the general nature of the farms studied is presented in Table 14 in which an analysis of the farm or- ganization and operation in 1935 is" shown. The average size of the farms was 191 acres with 156 acres, or 82 per cent, in cropland. Heavy A reddish upland farms had the largest crop acreage with 166 acres per farm as compared to the lowest average of 132 acres for the sandy up- land farms. Eighty-five per cent of the total land area was in cropland on the heavy dark upland farms as compared to only 74 per cent on the heavy reddish upland farms. The second section of Table 14 shows the proportion of the cultivated land in the various crops in 1935. An average of 35 acres per farm, or 22 per cent of the cropland, was contracted to the Agricultural Ad- justment Administration. This percentage was essentially the same on all soils groups. Cotton and milo accounted for 46 per cent and 25 per cent of the cropland. YVheat and oats accounted for 12 per cent of the crop acreage. There was very little difference between the differ- ent soils groups" as to the proportion in the various crops with the ex- ception of the sandy upland soils. The small percentage in small grain on the sandy upland soils was offset by a larger percentage in milo. The yield per acre of the various crops is shown in the third section of the table. The yield of lint cotton averaged 195 pounds per acre on the farms" studied. Heavy dark upland farms had an average yield of 209 pounds per acre as compared to 160 pounds for the heavy reddish upland farms. The per acre yields of milo heads ranged from an av- erage of 1,620 pounds on the heavy dark upland farms to an average of 1,059 pounds on the sandy upland farms. Yields of other crops varied with the soil type, but the highest yields usually were found on the heavy dark upland farms". The crop yield index expresses crop yields on the farm or groups of farms as a percentage of the average crop yields for all farms. From the standpoint of yields, the farms ranked in the following order: heavy dark upland, bottomland, heavy reddish up- land, and sandy upland farms with a crop yield index of 107, 105, 85, and 84 per cent. Some outstanding differences in the organization and operation of the farms studied are brought out in the last section of Table 14. It will be noted that 39 per cent of all farms were operated with tractor power. Tractors wer-e used for power on 46 per cent of the heavy dark upland farms, while only 1O per cent of the sandy upland farms had tractors. The labor cost per cultivated acre represents the cost of all E r a r 5 I. E l5 z c FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 37 hired labor plus the value of unpaid family labor and the value of the operator’s labor. Labor costs per cultivated acre were practically the same for all soil groups with the exception of the bottomland. Farms on this type of land had a labor cost of $6.42 per cultivated acre as" com- Table 14. Analysis of organization and operation of farms by soils groups, 1935 Average Heavy Heavy Sandy Bottom- Items of all dark reddish upland land farms upland upland soils soils Number of farms __________________________________ __ 197 122 34 31 10 Total area per farm _______________________ __(Acres) 191 189 226 162 179 Cultivated area per farm __________________ __(Acres) 156 160 160 132 148 Per cent of total area ______________ “(Per cent) 81.7 84.7 73.5 81.5 82.7 Cotton land rented to AAA _______________ __(Acres) 35v 37 39 32 40 P Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent roportion cultivated land in: Cotton——Planted _______________________________ __ 45.8 44.7 48.6 47.2 44.8 Contracted t0 AAA __________________ __ 22.3 22.4 20.6 24.4 24.5 Milo _____________________________________________ __ 24.7 214.2 24.0 29.7 20.6 Hegari- ____ __ ___- 2.3 1.8 1.1 4.7 6.3 Cane_ 4.9 5.3 5.0 3.7 2.2 Wheat __________________________________________ __ 5.7 7.1 3.5 .8 10.3 OatS ____________________________________________ -_ 61.2 6.5 7.9 3.1 3.9 Sudan ___________________________________________ n] 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.1 5.3 Fallow and idle--- .... __ i 2.1 1.7 3.1 2.7 l 2.3 Unaccounted for_ ______________________________ __| 1.6 1.6 1.4 2.6 i ___ All other crops _________________________________ "l 2.8 3.0 2.0 2.4 4.3 Yield per acre: _ Cotton lint___ _____ __ (1b.) 195 209 160 176 208 Milo heads- _______________________________ __(lb.) 1,440 1,620 1,160 1,059 1,439 Hegari bundlesl __________________________ -_,_(lb.) 4,541 4,569 3,199 2,820 8,710" Cane bundlesl _____________________________ __(lb.) 5,039 5,378 4 5961 3,996 2,712 Wheat ..................................... -4611.) 6.9 7.1 '56 7.6 7.5- Oats? ______________________________________ __(bu.) 27.8 27.0 29.3 35.4 20.0 Sudan pasture- _________________________ __(Da.ys) 123 126 118 133 98 Crop yield index ____________________ “(Per cent) 100 107 85 84 105 Cows per farm __________________________ __(Number) 3.8 3 5 5.4 3 2 3.7 Hens per farm (Number) 93.8 98 8 81.4 94 7 73.8 Horses per farm _________________________ _-(Number) 4.0 3 8 4.2 4.8 3.8 Cultivated acres per horse: All arms _______________________________ __(Acres) 39.0 42.1 39.5 27.51 38.9 . Farms without tractors _______________ __(Acres) 26.0 26.0 26.8 25.0 27.0 Farms with tractors ____________________ __(Per cent) 89.1 45.9 41.2 9.7 40.0 Farms with trucks or trailer __________ __(Per cent) 60.4 61.5 79.4 41.9 40.0 Labor cost per cultivated acre .......... -_(Do1lars) 4.41 4.30 4.2’? 4.37 6.42 Power and equipment cost per cultivated acre, all farms _________________________ --(Dol1ars) 3.64 3.58 3.68 3.69 4.09 lSmall acreage represented on bottomland farms. 2Overflow resulted in complete crop failure on 80 per cent of bottomland acreage. pared to $4.30 for farms on the other types of land. Similarly power and equipment costs per cultivated acre were highest on bottomland farms while there was little difference in average costs as between other soil groups". Crop Yields The importance of crop yields as a factor affecting farm income may be noted in Table 15 in which the farms studied are divided into three 38 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION groups based on differences in the crop yield index. The labor and man- agement wage for the various groups was $684, $1,131, and $1,397. The farms with 10w crop yields tended to have lower incomes than did the farms with high yields. Likewise, the percentage earned on invest- ment tended to increase with increases in crop yields. 'I.‘a.b1e 15. Farm business summary, by crop yield index l Crop yield index: Items . All -— — farms 5-9-94 95-119 120-184 Number 0i tanns ____________________________________________ __ 100 l 32 38 30 l l l Acres Acres l Acres Acres Total area per farm _______ __, _______________________________ __ 190 191 207 167 Cultivated area per farm---" 162 160 173 150 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Proportion of cultivated land in: 5 Cotton" ___ __ _ 45.1 45.7 43.9 46.0 Grain sorghum ______ _- ____ 31.0 26.1 32.0 35.2 Small grain____ -_ 13.9 19.7 13.6 8.1 Sludan- ___________________________________________________ __ 4.1 3.1 l 9.9 5.4. All other ________________ _- _- _K 5.9 5.4 l 6.6 5.3 Crop yield index .................................. __(Per cent) 10s s2 l 113 142 Yield lint cotto-n per acre _____________________________ __(1bs.) 213 171 l 204 274 Proportion of sales from: l Cotton-AAA benefit payments- ....................... _. 8.7 10.3 l 8.5 7.7 Lint and seed __________________________________ __ 69.0 71.9 l 64.8 72.0 Other crops _______________________________________________ __ 10.0 8.0 11.3 9.9 Livestock and livestock products _______________________ _- 10.7 8.4 13.6 8.9 Miscellaneo~us____ _________ __l 1.6 l 1.4 l 1.8 1.5 l 1 ‘ Dollars l Dollars l Dollars Dollars Total farm investment ...................................... -- 9,217 8.72s l10,249 l 9.432 l Investment per acre_-___ __ 49.51 l 45.70 l 49.51 . 50.49 l -__ l______ Farm sales—-Total_-_-_ -__ 2,855 2,267 l 3,049 l 3,237 Farm expense-Total" _____ __ 1,138 888 l 1,201 1,324 Gash sales over cash expense ............................... -_ 1.717 1,579 l 1.84s i 1.915 enoss FARM 1170011411 ..... -- 9,055 l 2,456 3.230 l 3.464 Gross farm income per acre ___________________ -_» ............ -- 16.08 12.86 15.63 20.74 TOTAL nnnnortron-s ...................................... -- 1, a4 1.24s l 1,490 l 1,501 Total deductions per acre __________________________________ -- 7.55 6.53 7.20 l 9.35 Return to capital and operator’s labor and management“ 1,621 1,208 1,746 l 1,903 Value of opcrator’s labor ................................... _- 228 195 247 l 240 Return to capital ____________________________________________ __ 1,393 1,013 1,499 l 1,663 RATE EARNED ON INVESTMENT _____________ "(Per cent) 15.11 11.61 14.63 l l9 72 l l Interest on inventory at 6 per cent _________________________ __ 553 l 524 . 615 l 506 Labor and management wage ______________________________ --l 1,068 684 1,131 l 1,397 Number of cows per farm- 3.3 2.8 3.7 l 3.3 Number of hens per farm ___________________________________ _- 101.6 69.3 119.7 l 113.0 Labor cost per cultivated acre .............................. -_ 4.25 l 3.70 4.26 5.21 Power and equipment cost per cultivated acre-all farms--- 3.40 3.03 ‘ 3.45 l 3.79 Farms using tractors ____________________________ __(Per cent) 51.0 46.9 l 55.3 l 50.0 The average "size of the farm in the various groups did not vary widely and the percentage of ‘cropland in cotton was approximately the same in all groups. The only significant difierence in the proportion of crop- i FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 39 d in the various crops was in the percentages in small grain and ,in sorghum. A large proportion of cropland in small grain was ac- _mpanied by a small proportion of cropland in grain sorghums and y a 10w yield index. ‘ Size of Farm ,4 A summary of the year's business on the farms‘ studied, grouped on Table 16. Farm business summary, by size o1’ farm Average Farms ranging in size from: Items of all farms 0-120 121-180 181-260 Over 260 acres acres acres acres umber of farms- 100 17 44 18 21 otal acres per farm 190 95 161 210 311 Cultivated acres per farm 162 82 136 185 261 < Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent oportion of cropland in: tffln 45.1 50.0 44.0 44.7 45.3 Grain sorghum 31.0 317.1 33.5 32.5 25.8 Small grain- 13.9 3.4 10.5 13.2 20.9 3116"" 4.1 6.1 4.8 3.6 3.0 p All other 5.9 ' 3.4 7.2 6.0 5.0 } crop yield index (Per cent) 10s 111 114 101 10s " Yield lint cotton per acre __________________ __(Lbs.) 213 239 226 201 200 laProportion of sales from: .1“- 00tton—AAA benefit payments _______________ __ 8.7 8.1 8.1 9.3 9.1 Lint and seed 69.0 75.0 69.0 69.1 67.3 Other crops" 10.6 7.1 8.9 9.9 12.2 Livestock and livestock products _____________ .._ 10.7 6.2 11.9 10.6 10.5 Miscellaneous- 1.6 3.6 2.1 1.1 .9 Dollars I Dollars Dollars Dollars I Dollars Total farm investment 9,217 4,282 7,509 10,067 I 16,062 Investment per acre- 48.51 45.07 46.64 47.94 51.65 Farm sales—Total 2,855 1,613 2,499 3,120 4,380 . Farm expense-Total- 1,138 651 998 1,147 1,816 Cash salw over cash expense ..................... _- 1,717 962 1,501 1,973 2,564 . GROSS FARM INCOME __________________________ __. 3,055 1,729 2,702 3,354 4,611 Gross farm income per acre _______________________ _- 16.08 18.20 16.78 15.97 14.83 “ TOTAL DEDUOTIONS ............................ _- 1,434 75a 1,190 1,603 2,348 P Total deductions per acre ......................... -- 7.55 7.99 7.39 7.63 7.55 1 Return to capital and operator’s labor and management- _ , 1,621 970! 1,512 1 ,751 2,263 Value of operator’s labor _________________________ _- 228 204 241 233 2'17 Return to capital 1,393 766 1,271 1,518 2,046 RATE EARNED ON INVESTMENT_-_--(Per cent) 15.11 17.89 16.93 15.08 12.74 Interest on inventory at 6 per cent _______________ __ 553 257 451 604 964 Labor and management wage _____________________ _- 1,068 713 1,061 1,147 1,299 i‘ Number of cows per farm _________________________ _- 3.3 1.4 3.5 4.1‘ 3.8 ‘ Number of hens per farm 101.6 66.8 115.7 105.5 96.9 Labor cost per cultivated acre ................ _’_-_- 4.35 5.57 4.42 4.50 3.87 Power and equipment co-st per cultivated acre—all farms- ' 3.40 3.86 3.88 3.10 2.99 Farms using tractors .................. _-(Per cent) 51.0 47.1 50.0 55.6 52.4. k in Table 16. In 1935, the farm income increased as the size of the farm E increased. The labor and management wage for the various size groups l» was $713, $1,061, $1,147, and $1,299. ’ he basis of difierences in the total land area in the farm, is presented ' 40 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Several factors‘ should be taken into consideration in judging the in- fiuence of size of farm on the variations in income. Although the smallest size group had the lowest labor and management wage, it had the highest percentage of cultivated land in cotton and the highest yield per acre. These two factors partially offset the influence of size, as is illustrated by th-e average income per acre of farms in the various size groups: The gross farm income per acre for farms in the different size groups was $18.20, $16.78, $15.97, $14.83. A tendency to follow more intensive systems of farming on the small farms is indicated by the greater dependence on row crops particularly cotton and grain sorghums. This is a natural result of relatively limited land resources in relation to available labor and to the greater pres- sure on the operators of small farms in securing adequate incomes. On the larger farms the operator has the choice of using larger power and equipment units or of devoting a portion of the farm acreage to crops requiring less labor or both. Hence the increasing proportion of small grain in the cropping systems with increased size of farm. Although growing small ‘grain necessitates buying some highly specialized equip- ment, it competes but very little with row-crops for the labor of the opera- tor. This usually permits him to handle a larger acreage than could be grown in row-crops without buying a larger power and equipment unit or an additional unit of power and equipment and hiring the labor re- quired for its operation. This means not only a more efficient use of the operator’s labor and power, but also provides a means of diversification which eliminates a portion of the risk involv-ed in depending on a one- crop system of farming. The efiiciency with which the available farm power was used is indicated by the power and equipment cost per cul- tivated acre. This cost tended to be highest on the smallest farms and to decrease with increases in the size of farms. Several important conclusions may be drawn from this analysis of the effect of size of farm on farm income. The most important is that a larger farm makes possible a greater net income for the individual farmer. Another conclusion is that many farmers in the area are not making the most efficient use of their available power and equipment. In cases where the farm acreage cannot be increased, it may be possible to change to a power and equipment unit the size of which is better suited to the particular size and type of farm. When the amount of land which a farmer has at his disposal is less than that which he could operate with his available labor and power, he may increase his income by more intensive methods of farming. Since the most common method of intensification in the Rolling Plains Farming Ar-ea concerns the kind of crop grown, the effect of the cropping system on variations in income, discussed in the following section, is an important factor to be consid- ered. Cropping System Since cotton is the most important crop in the area, the effect of the cropping system on farm income may be measured by the proportion of cropland in cotton. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 41 A summary of the year's business on the farms studied, grouped according to the percentage of cropland in cotton, is presented in Table 17. the percentage of cropland in cotton increased. In 1935, the farm income tended to increase as The labor and manage- ment wage on farms having 15 to 39 per cent, 40 to 49 per cent, and 50 to 74 per cent of the cropland in cotton was $841. $1,118, and $1,159. Table 17. Farm business summary, by percentage of cropland in cotton Proportion in cotton Items All ————~—-——--——— farms 15-39 40‘—49 50-74 Per cent Per cent Per cent Number of farms ____ ‘i100 23 45 32 Acres Acres Acres Acres Total area per farm- 190 209 190 176 Cultivated area per farm- 162 183 161 148 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Proportion of cultivated land in: COEtOD __________________ __ 45.1 34.3 451.0‘ 541-7 Grain sorghum_ __________________________________________ _- 31.0 27.1 34.2 29.5 Small grain ______ _- 13.9 25.7 9.8 10.0 Sudan _______ _- ___ 4.1‘. 5.1 4.7 2.2 All other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 5.9 7.8 6.3 3.6 Crop yield index .................. _; ______________ __(Per cent) 10s 10s 112 110 Yield lint cotton per acre _____________________________ __(lbs.) 213 201 217 216 Proportion of sales from: Cotton-AAA benefit paymentsc ________________________ -_ 8.7 7.8 9.1 8.7 Lint and seed __________________________________ __ 69.0 59.2 68.9 76.0 Other cro-ps ______________________________________________ __ 10.0 12.7 9.9 8.2 Livestock and livestock products _______________________ __ 10.7 18.3 10.2 6.1 Miscellaneous _____________________________________________ __ 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.0 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Total farm investment ______________________________________ __ 9,217 11,151 8,695 8,561 Investment per acre _________________________________________ __ 48.51 53.35 45.76 48.64 Farm sales-Total- ___- 2,855 2,744 2,864 2,924 Farm expense—T'otal _______ __ ' 1,138 1,248 1,0817 1,129 Oash sales over cash expense _______________________________ -_ 1,717 1,496 1,777 1,795 GROSS FARM INCOME ____________________________________ __ 055 2,922 3,085 3,109 Gross farm income per acre ________________________________ __ 16.08 13.98 16.24 17.66 TOTAL DEDUCTION-S”--- 1,434 1,412 1,445 1,436 Total deductions per acre- 7.55 6.76 7.61 8.16 Return to capital and operator’s labor and management" 1,621 1,510 1,640 1,673 Value of operator’s labor--- 228 229 240 212 Return to capital-" _________ -_ 1,393 1,281 1,400 1,461 RATE EARNED ON INVESTMENT ____________ “(Per cent) 15.11 11.49 16.10 17.07 Interest on inventory at 6 per cent ________________________ _- 553 669 522 514 Labor and management wage 1,068 841 1,118 1,159 Number of cows per farm 3.3 3.5 3.6 2.7 Number of hens per fm-m ___.._ 101.6 100.9 114.6 83.8 Labor cost per cultivated acre ______________________________ __ 4.35 3.61 4.49 4.79 Power and equipment cost per cultivated acre-all farms--- 3.40 3.22 3.49 3.43 Farms using tractors (Per cent) 51.0 47.8 42.2 65.6 Certain factors should be taken into consideration in judging the in- fluenc-e of the cropping system on farm incomes. The most important 42 BULLETIN NO‘. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION of these was the average size of farm in each of the groups. As the percentage of cropland in cotton increased, the size of farm decreased. This factor would tend to makelthe incomes smaller in the group that had the smallest farm. In this case, however, the influence of size was offset by a greater proportion of the cropland in cotton. The labor cost per acre also increased with increases in the propor- tion of cropland in cotton. This is to be expected, since cotton requires more labor per acre than does any other crop. Increasing the percentage of cropland in cotton in order to increase the farm income is a means of intensification which necessitates a greater application of certain fac- tors of production. This is also illustrated in part by the power and equipment cost per acre. This cost was lowest on the farms with the least amount of cotton and the greatest amount of small grain. In the last two groups, in which the percentage of small grain was approxi- mately the same, there' was no significant difference in the power and equipment costs. It is important to note, however, that the largest per- centage of tractors was found on the farms with the largest percentage of cropland in cotton. This may be due to the ability to cover a greater acreage in a critical period by the use of tractor power. This is of greater importance for cotton than for any other crop because of the relatively short planting season for cotton. It should be noted that benefit payments for participation in the 1935 cotton program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration consti- tut-ed approximately the same proportion of sales in each group. Ap- parently all groups had about the same degree of participation in the program. This would seem to indicate that the variation in incomes in this instance was not the result of participation in the program of the Agricultural Aldjustment Administration. The foregoing discussion has presented the incomes secured in 1935 on the farms studied. In addition, the influence of certain factors on farm earnings has‘ been discussed. The manner in which these factors operated under the conditions that prevailed has been pointed out. The multiple correlation method was used to determine the relative influence on farm earnings of size of farm, crop yield index, and percentage of cropland in cotton. Only the farms on which heavy dark upland soils constituted more than two-thirds of the cropland were used in this analy- sis. The three factors mentioned, according to the analysis‘, accounted for 40 per cent of variation in farm earnings in 1935. The separate de- termination was as follows: Crop yields g 21 per cent Acres of cropland 15 per cent Percentage of cropland in cotton ............ __ 4 per cent It must be pointed out that the relative influence on farm earnings of the three factors was determined only for the year 1935. The relative influence of these factors may change from year to year as‘ changes in yields, prices, and price relationships occur. ' FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN ‘THE ROLLING PLAINS 43 NORMAL PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF CROPS A consideration of the normal production and reqiurements of pro- duction is important to an understanding of the farm problems of Jones County and the surrounding area. Data include normal yields of the various crops, requirements" for seed and materials, hours of man labor, hours of horse and tractor work, kind of equipment used, various opera- tions performed and the seasonal distribution of labor requirements. Production The yields normally obtained from the various crops on the different soils are an important factor affecting the farm organization and opera- tion. The normal yield was considered as the average yield which may be expected over a period of years under average farming conditions such as have prevailed in the past. The determination of the normal yields shown in Table 18 was based on each farmer’s estimate of normal yields of crops usually grown on each soil type on his farm. Table 18. Normal yields by soil groups Average Heavy Heavy Sandy Bottom- Items of all dark reddish upland land soils upland upland soils soils Acres represented__ 29,194 17,859 6,085 3,783 1,467 Yields: Lint cotton f Pounds) 155 157 142 153 189 Milo heads .......................... -_(Pounds) 1,402 1,477 1,136 1,393 1,569 Grain sorghum forage .............. _-(Pounds) 3,946 4,169 3,575 3,346 2,7971 Wheat_ (Bushels) 10.2 12.0 9.8 10.31 11.8 Oats (Bushels) 30.3 34.9 22.2 38.91 22.51 Cornl (Bushels) 18.7 ___- 20.0 17.6 ____ Sudan pasture ................. "(Pasture days) 122 12s l 11s 13s 9s lSmall sample represented . The normal yiel,ds of the various crops as affected by conservation practices are important in evaluating the results" to be obtained from these practices. The normal yields presented in Table 19 show the effect of conservation practices on yields. The normal Yields are Shown f0!‘ the heavy dark upland soils as well as for all soils. In the determina- tion of these yields, fields were grouped according to the conservation practice followed. Cooperating farmers had previously estimated that terracing increased crop yields by 21 per cent and contouring by 16 per cent. The estimated yields which were secured for the individual fields resulted in somewhat the‘ same proportionate increases, except in the case of cotton. The estimated yield of cotton was only about 8 per cent higher on terraced land and 3 per cent higher on contoured land than on land on which no conservation practice was followed. 1 It will be noted that estimated normal yields on the dark upland soils respond to terracing and contouring somewhat similarly to the 44 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION estimated normal yields on all soils. This may be partly accounted for in the fact that heavy dark upland soils make up slightly more than half of the acreage on which these yields were secured. The relation- '.I.‘a.b1e 19. Normal yields ‘by conservation practices All soils Heavy dark upland soils Items No No prac- Ter- Con- prac- Ter- Con- tices raced toured tices raced toured Acres represented 13,947 3.663 11,584 6,249 2,440‘ 9,161 I Yields: Lint cotton ................ --(Pounds) 151 163 156 149 164 159 Milo heads ___________ _- -__(P0unds) 1,309 1,601 1,451 1.363 1,623 1,513 Grain sorghum forage“ -__(Pounds) 3.684 4,506 4,084 3,893 4,636 4,321 Wheat_ _____________________ _-(Bushels) 9.7 15.6 11.2 9.6 15.9 11.1 Oats _________________________ --(Bushels) 28.6 35.7 30.8 32.9 40.4 35.2 Corn_ _______________________ -_(Bushe]s) 18.7 _--_ ---_ ___- _-_- ____ ships between the yields indicated in this table may be much different on other soil types which may respond quite differently to the use of conservation practices. This fact should be kept in mind in planning for the use of conservation practices on other soils. Normal Requirements of Seed and Materials The normal requirements of seed and materials of the various crops commonly grown are presented in Table 20. The normal rate of seed- Table 20. Normal requirements of seed. and materials Forage Items Cotton Milo s0r- Wheat Oats ghum l Number of farms in sample- ..................... _- 67 60 52 13 22 Acres per farm in 1935—All farms- _______________ __ 71.5 38.3 11.6 ‘ 8.9 9.2 Normal seed per acre-—once over ........... __(lbs.) 14.4 1.9 6.5 34.2 33,3 Normal proportion replanted __________ __(Per cent) 29.3 6.6 2.5 ____ ____ Proportion seed purchased in 1935. ____ "(Per cent) 17.4 2.2 4.6 13.0 31.6 Normal twine used per acre ............. --(Pounds) _-__ ____ 3.2 ____1 2.9 1All wheat was combined. ing for cotton is slightly less than one-half bushel per acre. Twenty- nine per cent of the cotton acreage is normally replanted. It will be noted that 17.4 per cent of the seed required for all cotton planting was purchased 1n 1935. The majority of this was‘ pedigreed seed and first year seed from pedigreed cotton. The farmers paid an average FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 45 price of $1.61 per bushel for planting seed when the market price of other cotton seed was approximately fifty cents a bushel. Very little seed is required per acre to plant milo and farmers usually save enough grain for planting seed. The grain usually is removed‘ from forage to furnish the required amount of planting seed for forage sor- ghums. Farmers usually purchase planting seed for the grain sorghums only when the grain has not been matured or when they wish to change to a different variety. The normal rate of seeding for wheat and oats is approximately one- half bushel of wheat per acre as compared to one bushel of oats per acre. Only 13 per cent of the planting se-ed for wheat was purchased in 1935 as compared to 32 per cent of the planting seed for oats. Labor and Power Requirements The farms for which crop practice data were obtained were grouped according to the size and type of power and equipment employed in order to eliminate difierences in labor requir-ements caused by different sizes of power an;d equipment units. These farms were first grouped according to the type of power used. This division separated the farms using horse power from the farms using tractor power. The farms using horse-drawn equipment were divided into two groups-—those using one- row equipment and those using two-row equipment. The farms using tractor power also were separated into two groups—-those using two-row equipment and those using three and four-row equipment. Cotton The amounts of labor and power used in the production of cotton, ac- cording to the type of power amp size of equipment employed, are pre- sented in Table 21.‘ The operations previous to harvesting are most afiected by changes in the size or type of equipment. It usually requires 14.9 hours of man labor per acre, previous to harvesting, on farms using one-row horse-drawn equipment, as compared with 10.5 hours on farms using two-row horse-drawn equipment. Although the use of two-row horse-drawn equipment causes a slight increase in the amount of horse labor, it results in a saving of 30 per cent in the hours of man labor required. A total of 8.8 hours of man labor, previous to harvesting, is required on farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment, as" com- pared to 7.2 hours on farms using three-row and four-row tractor-drawn equipment. Hauling and ginning is the only harvesting operation affected by a change in equipment. Farmers with hors-e-drawn equipment use a wagon and‘ team to haul seed cotton to the gin, while farmers using tractor- drawn equipment rely on a car and trailer. The time requirements for lFor individual operations for each size of power and equipment unit, see Tables 11a to 11d in Appendix. 46 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION harvesting operations are based on the normal yield of 155 pounds of lint cotton per acre. A Table 21. Labor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growing and harvesting cotton Horse-drawn equipment Tractor-drawn equipment I One-row Two-row Two-row Three- and four-row Operation Hours per acre Man Horse Man Horse Man Trac- Man Trac- tor tor Seed bed preparation ......... -- aos so: 1.8a 8.24. 1.34 1.34 .51 .51 Planting _______________________ __ 1.92 3.84 .90 4.53 .70 .70 3) .39 Machine cultivation"; ........ _- 4.48 8.98 2.30 9.08 1.32 1.32 .88 88 Chop .......................... -- 2.48 ___- 2.48 ---_ 2.4.8 ---_ 2.48 _-__ Hoe 2.90 ---- 2.90 _--- 2.90 -__- 2.90 ____ Poison .08 08 .08 08 .06 O3 .06 Total previous to harvest .... -- 14.94 20 97 10.51 21 96 8.80 3.39 7.22 1.81 Snap ___________________________ __ 12.27 _-_- 12.27 ---- 12.27 ____ 12.27 _-_- Pick- __________________________ __ 2.70 ---_ 2.70 _-_- 2.70 ___- 2.70 __-_ Haul and gin- ................ -- 1.34 2.68 1.34 2.68 1.20 1.201 1.2) 1.2? Total harvest ................. -- 16.31 2.68 16.31 2.68 16.17 1.20 16.17 1.20 Total hours per acre- ........ -- 31.25 23.65 26.82 24.61 24.97 4.59 23.39 3.01 lOar and trailer. From one-half to two-thirds‘ of the total labor required in the pro- duction of cotton is used in harvesting. Cotton harvesting is done prin- cipally with hired labor. In this respect, it differs from the other opera- tions, which usually are performed with family labor except for part of the chopping and hoeing. The extent to which harvesting, chopping, and hoeing are hired depends on the acreage in cotton and the amount of family labor available. Farmers with a small acreage of cotton may harvest the entire crop with family labor, While farmers with larger acreages may hire all the harvesting labor. Snapping is‘ the most common method of harvesting cotton. Nor- mally, only 12 per cent of the cotton is picked, while 88 per cent is harvested by snapping. Snapping is a faster method of harvesting cot- ton than picking. In addition, cotton harvesters prefer to snap rather than pick cotton. As a general rule, only the early maturing cotton is picked and all late cotton is snapped, though some early cotton is snapped. Frequently, a part of a bale may be picked and the balance snapped, since it is possible to pick soon-er than snap after a period of wet weather. Milo The amounts of labor and power used in the production of milo are presented in Table 22.1 There is less hoeing and cultivating on milo lFor individual operations for each size of power and equipment unit, see Tables 12a to 12d in Appendix. Table 22. Labor and power required. per acre for the usual operations in growing and harvesting milo Horsedrawn equipment Hector-drawn equipment Onerow Two-row Two-row Three- and tour-row Operation Hours per acre Man Horne Man I Horse Man I Horse Tractor Man I! Horse Tractor Seed bed preparation ______________________________________ __ 1,119 5,59 1,54 7413 143 ____ 1,08 4g ____ Ag Planting ---------------------------------------------------- -- 1.» 3.41s .11 3.51 .55 -__- .55 .32 _--_ .32 Machine cultivation ........................................ -- 3.14 e31 1.62 6.3a .93 -_-_ .941 .01 __-- .61 1106i!!! _ -_- 2.04 --.._ 2.64 __..- 2.64 __ ._ ____ 2.64 _-.._ ____ Total vrevivvs t0 harvest-m .......................... _- 10.01 15.13 0.51 10.95 5.20 _-__ 2.56 [ 4 0s I --__ , 1.41 Head and haul In __________________________________________ __ 4,00 g4]; 4,50 9,00 4,50 9,00 ____ 4_50 I 9,00 ____ Total 11°11“ W‘ 8cm ______________________________________ -- 14.51 24.98 11.01 '25s» 9.70 9.00 2.5a I s 55 ' 9 oo 1.41 SNIVTJ DNITTOH EH11’; NI SJNHW-LSQPGV WHVJ 48 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION than on cotton. Milo is not chopped and the relatively small amount of hand labor makes the differences in labor requirements for the various types of equipment much more pronounced than for cotton. Farms using one-row horse-drawn equipment require 10 hours of man labor per “ acre, previous to harvesting, as compared to 6.5 hours for farms using two-row horse-drawn equipment. This change in equipment effects a saving of 35 per cent in the man labor per acre previous‘ to harvesting. On farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment, the man labor used, previous to harvesting, was 5.2 hours per acre as compared to 4 hours for farms using three- and four-row equipment. The time requirements for harvesting operations are based on the average yield of 1,402 pounds of milo heads per acre. Harvesting re- quirements are the same for farms with all types of equipment. A wagon and team are us-ed in harvesting milo on the majority of farms in each group. Some tractor operated farms have retained workstock for feed harvesting and miscellaneous farm work which cannot be performed ad- vantageously with a tractor, while others have depended on borrowed teams in performing this Work. Grain Sorghum for Forage The amounts" of labor and power used for grain sorghums for forage, previous to harvesting, are less than the amounts used for milo. (See Table 23.)2 This is primarily due to the lesser amount of hoeing done. Consequently the difference in the amounts of labor and power used, previous to harvesting, are even more pronounced than in the case of milo. Seven and nine-tenths hours of man labor were used on farms using one-row horse-drawn equipment as compared to 4.6 hours on farms using two-row horse-drawn equipment. Farms having two-row tractor- drawn equipment used 3.7 hours of man labor per acre, previous to har- vesting, while farms having three-and four-row equipment used only 2.3 hours per acre. The amounts of labor used in harvesting grain sorghums for forage are based, on an average yield of 3,946 pounds of dry forage per acre. An average of 7.9 hours of labor wer-e used for harvesting grain sorghum for forage as compared with only 4.5 hours used in harvesting milo. The majority of farms in each group follow the same method of har- vesting. This consists of binding, shocking, hauling in, and stacking. Binding is done with a one-row binder drawn by three head of work- stock. The bundles are shocked entirely by hand, while two men with a wagon and team are used to haul and stack. zFor individual operations for each size of power and equipment unit, see Tables 13a to 13d in Appendix. Table 23. Labor and power required per acre for the usual o grain sorghum for forage perations in growing and harvesting I - Horsedrawrl equipment Tractor-drawn equipment l l l I l Two-row l Two-row I Three- and four-row Operation l 1 Hours per acre Man Man Horse Man Horse Tractor Man Horse Tractor Seed bed preparation ____________________________________ _-_- 2.90 1.71 7.85 1.25 _--- 1.25 .64 -___ .64 Planting ____________________________________________________ __ 1.47 .67 3.35 .52 ___- .52 .31 ____ .31 Machine cultivation ________________________________________ __ 2.74 1.40 5.57 1.16 _-__ 1.16 .58 ____ .58 Hoe _________________________________________________________ __ .82 .82 _.__ .82 ____ ___- .82 ____ ____ Total previous to harvest _______________________________ _- 7.93 4.60 16.77 3.75 ____ 2.93 2.35 ____ 1.53 Bind ________________________________________________________ _- 1.42 1.42 4.27 1.42 4- 27 ---- 1.42 4.27 ____ Shock _______________________________________________________ -_ 2.22 2.22 ____ 2.22 ____ -_-_ 2.22 ____ ____ Haul and stack ____________________________________________ _- 4.27 4.27 4.27 4.27 4 27 ____ 4.27 4.27 ____ Total harvest ______________________________________________ __ 7.91 7.91 8.54 7.91 8.54 -___ 7.91 8.54 ____ Total hours per acre ______________________________________ __ 15.84 12.51 25.31 11.66 8.54 2.93 10.26 8.54 1.53 67 SNIVTcI "ONYITOH EH14 NI SLblflfWlLSflftlV WHVJ 50 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Small Grain A total of 2.5 hours of man labor are used per acre for small grain production, previous to harvesting, on farms using horse-drawn equip- ment and 1.5 hours on farms using tractor-drawn equipment. (See Table 24.)1 All horse-powered farms used equipment of the same size Table 24. Labor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growinig and. harvesting small grain Horse-drawn equipment I Tractor-drawn equipment l Operation Hours per acre Man Horse Tractor Man Horse Tractor Land preparation _______________________ -_ 1.78 7.12 __,_ i 1.05 ____ 1.05 Dl'111l11g__ -_ .74 2.95 _.-_ .48 ____ .48 Total previous to harvest ............... __ 2.52 10.0w 1.53 ____ 1.53 Bind__ _____ .66 2.63 ____ . ____ ____ ____ Shock 1.32 ____ ____ i ____ ____ ____ Tresh- .................... _--. ............. -- 3.24 5.01 .31 l Gombine_ ____ ____ ____ ‘ .76 ____ .38 Haul to bin or market __________________ __ .45 .90 ____ .35 ____ .351 Total harvest; ........................... __ 5.67 8.54 .31 y 1.11 ____ ml, Total hours per acre ..................... __ 8.19 18.61 i .31 1 2.64 ____ 2.2; lTruck or car and trailer. for small grain. Likewise, all farms with tractors used equipment of the same size. The amounts of labor used in producing small grain previ- ous to harvesting are less than for any other crop grown in this area. The difference is largely accounted for in cultivating and hoeing and in the great-er amount of labor spent in seed bed preparation for row crops. It is possible to plant small grain with no land pr-eparation. This is especially true if small grain follows cotton. The usual practice, how- ever, is to flat break or one-way the land in preparation for small grain. The time requiments for harvesting small grains are based on the av- erage yields of 10.2 bushels of wheat and 30.3 bushels of oats per acre. Difierences in methods of harvesting account for much of the difference in th-e amounts of labor used. An average 5.7 hours of man labor per acre was used in harvesting small grain on farms using horse-drawn equipment and 1.1 hours on farms with tractors. Oats were the prin- cipal small grain on farms. using horse power, while wheat was the prin- cipal small grain on farms" using tractors. The usual method of harvest- ing on farms with horse-drawn equipment is to bind and thresh, iwhile tractor farms generally use a combine. Some combining on a custom basis, however, is done on farms using horse power. In such cases, the lFor individual operations for different powen units see Tables 14a and 14b "in Appendix. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 51 usual amounts of labor and power used for harvesting were the same as on tractor operated farms. Sudan Pasture Two-row horse-drawn and two-row tractor-drawn equipment are the most common types of equipment in the Rolling Plains Farming Area. With these types of equipment 3.4 hours and 2.7 hours of man labor per acre, respectively, were used in producing sudan pasture. (See Table 25.)‘ This is less labor than was used in the production of other row- Table 25. Labor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growing sudan pasture l Two-row horse l Two-row tractor Operation Hours per acre Man Horse 4 Man Tractor Seed-bed preparation" 1.56 7.16 1.17 1.17 Planting _____________________ -_ ____ ' .66 3.28 .51 .51 Machine cultivation“- 1,20 4,33 1,00 1,00 Total hours per acre- ____ -- 3.42 15.27 2.68 2.68 crops. Although sudan receives almost as much cultivation as grain sorghum for forage, it is not hoed and less time is spent in seed-bed preparation. Seasonal Distribution of Labor Requirements In planning the individual farm program the various enterprises should be studied with respect to the distribution of labor power and machinery requirements to determine the workability of different com- binations. A combination of several crop enterprises having heavy labor and power requirements at the same time may result in inefficient use of available labor and capital. On the other hand a. combination may be efiected which would result in a more even distribution of labor and power requirements throughout the crop season and, consequently, in a lower investment in power and machinery as well as th-e employment of a minimum amount of seasonal labor. The monthly distribution of labor per acre used in the production and harvesting of the principal crops for farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment is shown in Figure 4. The keenest competition for labor occurs during the months of May and June. With all crops competing 1For individual operations for different power units see Tables 15a and 15b in Appendix. 52 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL» EXPERIMENT STATION for labor, power, and machinery at this time, the acreage which can be devoted to row-crops is limited to the acreage which can be planted and cultivated during these critical periods. If extra labor is hired for plant- ing and cultivating, extra power and machinery must also be provided. Hoeing and cotton chopping also make heavy demands for labor during this period, but extra labor may be employed for these operations with- out increasing the investment in power and machinery. Harvesting of small grain also occurs during this period. It has been customary to harvest small grain with contract labor, and for this reason the acreage of row crops which the operator can handle is not greatly affected. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. JUL. AUB- SEPT! OCT. NOV DEC. g Z 2 suau. mum 3 a " " ¢ 2 5'- g -O GRAJN SORGHUM FOR FORAGE. I) I l! O 3 C O I7 I U‘ 4- MILO .4. a =' "° I 3 3 :1: 3‘ ‘Z 11 m |. -| o- 0 3. COTTON .3 5- >6 4- -4- 3 5 a a -a c <> a I 2 PZ I - I 0- Lo Figure 4. Seasonal distribution of labor requirements per acre for the produc- tion and harvesting of crops on farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment. The peak labor period for milo is during the harvest season in August when there is no demand for labor for other row-crops. Family labor FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN ‘THE ROLLING PLAINS 53 usually is used for the most part in harvesting milo. Forage sorghums ‘compete directly with cotton for harvest labor. Cotton is harveste.-d an‘ largely with hired labor, however, thus permitting the family to harvest ant led .gc the small acreage of foragesorghum normally grown. The seasonal distribution of the labor requirements per acre for the various operations in the production and harvesting of cotton is" presented in Figure 5. The bar indicates the periods of time during which the 1.1.41.1 HouRs PER ACRE OPERATION I-R 11 2-1211 2-9144: "r 411.1112; MAR 41>: mm .1un..1u1. AU aeP. 00-1: NOV. 02¢ SEED BID PREPARATION CUT STALKS .4-| J7 J3 . FLATBREAKORONE-WAY .45 .49 .94 .09 HARROW -- .06 .01 .01 1.19101: 920 1.15 .99 .10 .99 CULTIVATI: 9150s .42 .22 .19 -- - PLANT 1.92 .90 .10 .99 j 144cm»: CULTIVATION 11111122011101: 1mm: .20 .11 .10 -- _ cuunvn: 4.22 2.19 1.22 .99 I c1109 2.4a 2.49 2.4a 24o I n02 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 j P019014 .08 06 .06 .06 — Hanvesw: P|c1< 2.10 2.10 $.10 2.70 i SNAP 12.25 12.20 12.29 122a — HAULTO e114 1.99 1.3a 1.20 1.20 _ TOTAL HOURS PER ACRE ONE-ROW HORSE 31.29 -- -- -- .96 .76 .53 .08 2.13 6.2a 150 -- 554 5.54 4.19 1.75 rwo-Row Home: -- 20.99 __ -- .55 42 .29 .04 104 6.5a 1.09 -- 5.54 s54 4.19 1.e1 Two-Rowwucrok _- -- 24.95 -_ .41 .91 .19 .05 .19 5.90 as -- 5.50 5504.15 1.41 roun-Rowrnacwn -- -- -- 2am .19 .10 .04 --] .99 5.50 s2 -- 550550445 1.1a Man labor and power requirements for the production of cotton by operation and by size and type of equipment, the usual distribu- tion by months, and the periods of time during which the operations are usually performed. Figure 5. various operations are usually performed. The columns at the left of the chart show the hours of man-labor normally used per acre for the various operations with different kinds of power and equipment. The lines at the bottom of the chart indicate the total hours of man labor and the monthly distribution of this labor for the different sizes of power and equipment units. It will be noted that in some instances more than one operation is shown on a line. These are operations which are in- terchangeable depending upon the type of soil or the type of power and equipment used. Flat breaking is more common than onewaying, but onewaying partially replaces fiat breaking on farms using tractor power. Listing commonly replaces bedding} and knifing before planting replaces 1In the Rolling Plains, preparing the seed bed with a 14- to 16-inch lister point is commonly referred to as “listing,” while a 20- to 22-inch sweep is used’ in “bedding.” 54 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION cultivating beds on the sandy upland soils. Knifing after planting like- wise replaces" harrowing. The monthly distribution of labor requirements per acre for the pro- duction and harvesting of milo with >difierent sizes of power and equip- ment units are shown in Figure 6. Most of the operations involved in MAN HOURS PER ACRE l opens-rues n-nu a-an Z-RT 4-RT 4m. FEB APR. MAY JUN. out. AUG seP. 00v. uov. nee. l seen sen Pneluaxrlou: euT sums .40 .16 n3 .0 FLATBREAKOR ONE-WAY .25 an 2a .00 HARROW -- 04 0| .01 LIST ORBED L58 .63 53 - center: FURROW J3 o"! -- -- - cumvxre alsns .00 l6 0a __ - PLANT L54- rn .55 .32 i MAU-UNECULTIVATION: imaaowonxmrs as .15 0s -- i gupTlvATl 2m m? s4 .e| 1 HOE. 25¢ 2.54 264 2.64 I HARVEUT: new AND HAuLm 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 - Tom. nouns PER ACRE oue-aowuoase n45: -- -- -- .04- .so 451.29 2.82 2.14 .5: aso .90 .-..- -- 54- TWO-ROW HORSE -- ll-Ol -- -- 4.7 .43 .23 501.44 2A3 53350 .90 -- -- 38 TWO-ROWTRACTOR __ __ 9.70 ..._ as . J3 AG .85 2.30 .53 3.6a .90-- -- .29 Foun-Rowrrucron -- -- -- ass 1a .15] .04 .20 .55 22a s: s50 .eo-- -- .12 Figure 6. Man labor and power requirements for the production of milo ‘by operations and ‘by size and type of equipment, the usual distribution by month, and the periods of time during‘ which the operations are usually performed. seed-bed preparation are performed within the same periods as those for cotton. These operations usually are performed for the entire farm at one time regardless of the crop to follow. The important feature to note is that the bulk of milo planting is done in April whereas cotton is normally planted during May. Milo harvesting also comes approx- imately a month ahead of cotton harvesting. There is" a period of com- petition during May and June when milo is being cultivated and cotton is being planted and cultivated. There is considerable tolerance, how- ever, with respect to the time of cultivating milo, and the competition is moreapparent than real. This lack of competition with cotton for labor partially accounts for the importance of milo in the cropping systems of the area. The monthly distribution of the labor requirements per acre for the production and harvesting of grain sorghum for forage is shown in Figure 7. The forage sorghums are planted later than other row crops necessitating additional cultivation before planting in order to check the weed growth. This explains the longer period of time for perform- ing this operation in the production of forage sorghums as compared with cotton and milo. Hoeing and cultivating after planting are done at FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 55 essentially the same time as for cotton. Harvesting dates als'o conflict somewhat with those for cotton. Biniding and shocking usually are per- formed during the early part of the cotton harvesting. Hauling and stacking are done approximately a month later during the latter part of the period of cotton harvesting. MAN 1400a: PER ma: OPERATION l-R H Z-RH Z-RT IPRTJAN. FEB MAR APR MAY JUN. JUL. AUG SER 0C1’. NOV. DEC seen eeo PREPARATION: e01" smtxs .3: 1a .10 .os ruveaamcoaouz-wn .20 a0 -24 .os HARROW -- .06 -- -Ol 1.151 on s20 1.7a s4 .72 .40 cewren rurmow .11 o7 .os -- i CULTIVAT: seas .35 .20 .15 .10 i PLANT 1.47 .57 .52 .31 j ’ MAeHm: CULTIVATION HARROW 01110111’; .15 .10 .os -- j CULTIVATI. 2.59 1.30 1.10 .59 i HOE. .84 .s4- .54 .94 j HAnvu-r: emo 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 i snocx 222 222 2.22 2.22 l HAUL AND STACK 427 4127 4.27 4.27 i TOTAL nouns PER ACR: . ONE-ROW HORSE 1s.as -- -- __ .92 .os as .17 124 2.05 .70 _- 2.91 133421.25 TWO-ROW HORSE -- 12.52 -- -- .52 . .0 .09 541.05 44 -- 2.91 .73 2.42124 TWO-I-OWTRACTOR _.. -- 11.70 -- as as] .1s .07 4915s 412-- 2.s1 732421.12 R-nowTRAcTqn ___ __ I ___ m; .21 .1e . . .271.1e .-- 291 .75 aneLggj. Figure 7. Man labor and power requirements for the production of grain sor- ghums for forage by operations and. by size and type of equipment, the usual distribution by months, and the periods of time during which the operations are usually performed. The monthly distribution of the labor requirements per acre for the usual operations for the production and harvesting of small grain is indicated in Figure 8. All data are based on the figures for wheat and oats. It will be noted that both are seeded during the same period. Wheat and oats are planted when the moisture is available and not on any set schedule. Both are harvested at approximately the same period. Dates on binding and threshing are for oats, while combining dates are for wheat. Threshing extends over a longer period than combining or binding. It is not so urgent an operation as the other two and usually is done with contract labor and equipment. Some farmers may be able to thresh the grain as soon as it is cut, while others may have to wait several weeks. Although combining usually is done with contract labor and equipment, it cannot be postponed as long as threshing. Grain is more susceptible to damage while standing in the field after it has ripened than after it has been bound and shocked. 56 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION MANHOURS Pen Acne name-mural OPERATION Wwumm, 4m. FEB. ma. APR. mm JUN. .1111. Aue. _ss1>. oc-r. uov. osc. 1.1m» Persona-non.- nrrsnzmonouswm 1.67 1.02 j HARROW .11 .03 i Dmu. 14 .45 i HARVEST en's- BIND .66 -- I snocu 1.3a ..- I THRESH a24- -- i mun. .45 -- - HARVEST WHEAT: comama -- .76 - HAUL -- -35 - TOTAL. nouns ran ma: mRse-omwu some 9.19 -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.9a .74- 1.34 .42 .51 .15 -- TRAcmR-nnmuequua -- 25+ .-- -- -- -- -.- 1.11 __ .52 .23 as .10 Figure 8. Man labor and. power requirements for the production of small grains by operations and by size and type of equipment, the usual distribu- tion by months and the periods of time during which the operations are usually performed. PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF LIVESTOCK The production of livestock and livestock products is of minor im- portance on the majority of farms in the area. Land suitable for culti- vation has", for the most part, been devoted to the production of cash crops while the acreage devoted to native pasture on the average farm in the area is small. Consequently, livestock other than workstock usually are kept primarily to supply family needs, with some sales of surplus products. The records obtained on the production requirements of livestock cover the period from October 1935 through September 1936. These requirements include amounts" of the various feeds, hours of chore labor, and veterinary and other costs. Dairy Cattle One hundred and eighty-five farms, or 94 per cent of the 197 farms studied, reported dairy cows. An average of almost 4 cows per farm was maintained. (See Table 26.) The average production per cow was 154 pounds‘ of butterfat. Slightly more than half of the total butterfat produced was sold. Cream, which was usually sold on a butterfat basis, made up almost three-fourths of the sales of dairy products, butter accounted for 25 per cent, while whole milk constituted only 1 per cent of the total sales. Butter usually was sold to the local retail stores which marketed the butter locally. The local retail stores also handled a large percentage of the cream as receiving stations for the creameries. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 57 In some of the larger towns, the creameries maintain their own receiv- ing stations and very little cream is handled by the local retail stores. Table 26. Production of dairy products Average 18 Items 185» selected farms farms Number of cows per farm _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 3.9 5.4 Butterfat production per c0w_ -___ _(P0unds) 154 160 Proportion of butterfat so-1d__ _--- -__(Per cent) 51.9 60.6 V Per cent Per cent Proportion of dairy products sold as: —i—— -»_-— Cream-____ -___ ____________ __ 73.2 64.5 Butter- ____________________________________________________________________ __ 25,1 32,1 Whole milk ________________________________________________________________ __l 1.1 3.4 The 18 selected farms for which production requirements data Were secured averaged 5.4 cows per farm in 1935. cow was slightly higher than on the 185 farms, averaging 160 pounds per cow. Butterfat production per Sixty per cent of the total butterfat production was sold and a larger proportion of the sales of dairy products consisted of butter Table 27. Production requirements of dairy cattle per milk. cow and calf Total Oct.— Jan.— Apr.— I July- Items for Dec. Mar. June Sept. year 1935 1936 1936 1936 Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Feed: Milo grain ______________________________________ __ 364-. 115 104~ 848 57 Cottonseed _____________________________________ _- E9’ 85 56 29 5U Oottonseed meal_ __ 267' 93 81 49 44- Other concentrates _____________________________ __ 73 18 15 13 27 Total concentrates _________________________ __ 9'23 311 255 179 178 Cane bundles ___________________________________ -- 3,4141 1,258 1,108 503 545 Qther grain sorghum bundles _________________ __ S41 312 167 12B 234 Dehorned bundles- __-_ 242 92 90 60 _-_- Other roughage_- 344 76 96 60 112' Total roughage ____________________________ __ 4,841 1,738 1,461 751 891 Days Days Days Days Days Native pasture ___- 77 15 19' 31 12 Sudan pasture- 90 13 _-__ 27 50 Small grain pasture»- __________________________ _- 57 7‘ 42 6 2 Field pasture 25 l3 5 ---- 7 Total pasture_ 249 4s es e4 ] 71 Man labor ................................. --(Hours) 151 40 41 a4 I 36 58 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION and whole milk than on the average farm. Slightly less than two-thirds of the dairy products sold on the 18 selected farms was sold as cream, approximately one-third was sold as butter, and about 3 per cent was sold as whole milk. All cows reported on the 18 farms were Jerseys, but only 18 per cent were pure bred. Eighty-six per cent of the bulls kept were pure bred, indicating that farmers are endeavoring to improve the dairy cattle by the use of pure bred dairy sires. A few farms, however, frequently use a beef type sire to increase the value of the calves for beef purposes. This practice, however, usually is found only on farms on which pro- duction is largely for home consumption. An average for the year of 923 pounds of concentrates, consisting chiefly of milo, cottonseed, and cottonseed meal, was fed per milk cow and calf on the 18 selected farms. (See Table 27.) An average of 4,841 pounds of forage was also fed per cow. In addition, the cows were on pasture 249 days during the year. This is approximately 65 days more than on the average farm, and the difference was largely the result of greater use of small grain pastures and field pastures. The man labor requirements with dairy cattle were 151 hours of man labor per cow and calf. Since the man labor requirements for dairy cattle are fairly uniform throughout the year, they compete for labor to a certain extent with all other enterprises. Poultry An average of 100 hens per farm was maintained on 185 of the 197 farms" studied. (See Table 28.) Eggs are the principal prOldllCt of the poultry interprise and the average production was 85 eggs per hen. Meat Table 28. Production of poultry products, 1935 Average 18 Items 185 selected farms farms Average number of hens per farm ___________________________________________ _- 100 109 Number of eggs produced per hen ___________________________________________ _- $5 110 Proportion of eggs sold _______ "(Per cent) 71 74 l Baby chicks: 1 Number hatched_- -_ 109 110 Number purchased__ -_ _____ --- 94 113 Proportion chicks lost _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ "(Per cent) 31 34 Proportion hens losf (Per cent) 17 , 20 Number of hens used in home 5 2 Number of fryers used in home ___-- 54 55 Proportion of hens sold -_ _--.---- 23 24 Proportion of chicks to be sold“- - 20 19 is produced chiefly for home consumption. It will be noted that 71 per cent of the eggs produced were sold, while most of the meat produced as fryers was used in the home. Local retail stores and hatcheries fur- nished the principal markets for eggs. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 59 The poultry enterprise on the 18 farms for which production require- ments data were secured was not greatly [different in size than on the average farm. The average production on these 18 farms, however, was 110 eggs per hen and a larger proportion of the total production was sold. The meat produced on these farms was‘ disposed of in much the same way as on the average farm. The principal object of the poultry enterprise——namely, egg production—-is‘ reflected in the popularity of the Leghorn breeds of chickens, which constituted almost two-thirds of the chickens on ‘the farms studied. The heavy breeds accounted for al- most one-fourth of the poultry, with mixed breeds accounting for the remainder. The production requirements of poultry per 100 hens are presented in Table 29. Home grown grains provided the major part of the feeds Table 29. Production requirements of Poultry per 100 hens_ Kind of Feed _ Amount _ Pounds Grain: ___i__- Milo _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ 3,327 Corn ____ __ 6g Wheat- _ 77 Oats 123 Total grain" ___‘_ 4,100 Mash and mill feeds: Bran _____ 555 Shorts--- _-___ _ 495 Laying mash ____ __ __ 375 Chick starter _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 137 Growing mash_____ 100 Other concentrates 34 Total mash and mill feeds 1,806 Total concentrate-q ____ 5,906 Skim milk ____ __ i 5,574 Minera1s_ _ _‘ 47 Man labor--- _(H0urs) 279 fed to poultry. These w-ere supplemented with commercial and home- mixed mash and mill feeds. The feeds required for all poultry per 100 hens were 4,100 pounds of grain, 1,806 pounds of mash and mill feeds, 5,574 pounds of skim milk, and 47 pounds of minerals, chiefly oyster shell, salt, and bone meal. The feeding of bran, shorts, and laying mash was fairly constant throughout the year. Other feeds fed fluctuated with the number and size of the young chicks. It was a common practice to start baby chicks on commercial chick starter. Growing mash was then used until the chicks reached fryer size, or larger. The greatest quantities of grain were fed during the p-eriods from April through September. It was during these periods that grain requirements of the young chicks Were 60 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL» EXPERIMENT STATION V greatest. The least amount of feed was used in the period from October through December after all fryers had been disposed of and before any chicks had been hatched. The hours of man labor per 100 hens were fairly constant throughout the year except for the period from April through June. Considerable extra time was necessary during this period in the care and feeding of baby chicks. Swine Twenty-five per cent or 49 of the 197 cooperating farmers kept brood sows in 1935. There was an average of 1.4 sows on thes-e farms as of January 1935. (See Table 30.) Approximately 12 pigs were farrowed Table 30. Production of pork ll Average 13 Items 49 selected farms farms Number Number Sows per farm, January 1935 ________________________________________________ -_ 1.4 1.5 Boars per farm, January 1935 ________________________________________________ __ .1 .1 Other hogs per farm, January 1°35 _-- ___________ _- 5 l .1 Pigs iarrowed _________________________________________________________________ _- 11.7 l 11.7 Pigs weaned ____________________________________________________________________ _- 10.4 1 9.5 Total pork produced- ______________________________________________ __(Pounds) 1,461 1,680 per farm during the year. The amount of pork produced is relatively low for the number of pigs farrowed, largely owing to the fact that a large percentage of the pigs were sold as soon as possible after wean- ing. Most of the pigs were sold to local farmers for the production of ' meat for home consumption. Table 31. Production requirements of pork Items Average l Number of farms ______________________________________________________________________ _- 14 Pounds Amount of feed per 1000‘ pounds pork produced: Grain and other concentrates- Milo grain ______________________________________________________________________ _- 4,695 Corn ____________________________________________________________________________ __ 205 Threshed barley _______________ _- 99 Protein supplements ___________________________________________________________ __ 368 Total concentrates--- __ ________________ __'_-__ 5,3167 Skim milk ___________________________________________________________________________ _-‘ 6,868 Pasture: Sudan ____________________________________________________________ __(Days) 13 Small grain . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __(Days~) 8 Total pasture days_ ________________________________________ __(Days) 21 Man labor _____________________________________________________________________ --(Hours)% 115 FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 61 The swine enterprise on the farms for which production requirement data were secured did not differ greatly from that on the 49 farms maintaining brood sows. Production of pork on these farms was higher than average, owing t0 the fact that a larger proportion of the pigs' were sold as market hogs rather than as weaning pigs. Fifty-five per cent of the sows on the farms studied were Chester Whites. Mixed breeds constituted 18 per cent, while the remainder were evenly divided between the Hampshire and Poland China breeds. The amounts of feed required to produce 1000 pounds of pork, live weight, were 4,999 pounds of grain, 368 pounds of protein supplements, 6,868 pounds of skim milk, and 21 days of pasture. (See Table 31.) Practically all of the feeds used were produced on the farm, except pro- tein supplements. Man labor used on hogs amounted to 115 hours for each 1000 pounds of pork produced. Beef Cattle Only 12 of the farms studied reported beef cattle in 1935. With a continued reduction of the cotton and wheat acreages, however, increasing interest has been shown in the feeding of calves for the beef market. This enterprise may follow one of two general plans: (1) Buy dairy type calves or any other calves that may be available and graze on sudan pasture for a period of approximately 100 days; and (2) Buy good grade beef type yearling calves and feed out for a period of 180 days. The first practice is usually found only on smaller farms which do not have a large supply of grain but do have a small acreage which may be de- voted to sudan pasture. Farms following this practice usually handle only a small number of calves. The calves usually weighabout 400 pounds when put on pasture and are sold at approximately 550 pounds. The second practice is usually found on the larger farms which have a surplus of grain and roughage. These farms buy good grade be-ef type yearling calves weighing about 500 pounds which are sold at 850 pounds. The feeds required to produce a 350 pound gain per animal are shown in Table 32. FARM PRODUCTS USED IN THE HOME The quantities and value of the farm products used in the home on the farms studied are shown in Table 33. The total value of the prod- ucts in the home averaged $216 per farm. This represents an important part of the food consumed by the farm family. The farm products used in the home consisted to a large extent of livestock products. About 43 percent of the total value of these products consisted of whole milk and butter. Meat for the farm family was furnished chiefly by pork and poultry, with an average of 544 pounds of pork and 56 heads of poultry. 62 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 32. Production requirements of feeder calves Items Amount Feed: Days Pasture- —-——————— Field- _ _______ 20 Small grain_ _ _-_ _ --- 30 Sudan__ -__ 20 Total pasture days- ___________ -- b 70 Pounds Milo grain __ _______ __ 1,500 Cottonseed meal_--_ ....... -- 350 Total concentrates-_ ..... __ 1.8m Grain sorghum forage __ -_.§ 1,513 Medicine and vflcPiflP (Dollars); .20 Man labor- i _ (Hours); 10 Poultry also furnished an average of 172 dozen eggs a year for home use. Only 15 per cent of the farms killed a calf for beef for use by the farm family. Climatic conditions and lack of an adequate water supply limit the use of farm gardens and orchards which furnished only a small part oi Table 33. Quantity and value of farm products used in the home Soils Groups All Items farms Heavy Heavy dark reddish Sandy Bottom- upland upland upland land Number of farms __________________________________ _- 197 122 34 31 10 Quantity of products used: Milk- _ (Gallons) 507 511 603 388 545 Butter ................................ __(Pounds) 79 67 76 124 89 Eggs _ _ (Dozen) 172 183 165 140 161 Poultry_ _____________________________ __(Number) 56 54 63 59 48 Pork- ................. -- __(Pounds live wt.) 5414 557 561 549 315 Beef ......................... --(Pounds live wt.) 61 69 54 34 60 Corn (Bushels) 2 1 1 3 - 2 10 Dollars Dollars 1 Dollars Dollars Dollars Value of products used, 1935: Milk ___ 71.01 71.46 84.52 53.19 76.30 Butter" 21.54 18.85 19.75 33.56 23.08 Esgsu» 27.55 29.27 25.81 22.45 28.18 Poultry“ __ __-__ 23.80 22.83 25.60 26.88 19.85 POPIL- 48.10 49.70 48.87 47.64 27.41 Beef---“ 2.76 3.15 2.44 v 1.54 2.73 Gorn- 1.2a .80 1.70 1.13 5.15 Garden and orchard- __________________________ __ 19.79 ‘ 18.96 15.79 17.74 49.50 i i Total value i 215.78 i 215.02 i 224.55 i Farms with gardens- ___________________ __(Per cent)‘ 65 ~ es ~ 64 55 i 60 FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 63 the farm products used in the home. The gardens furnished a limited number of seasonable vegetables for current home needs, with some surplus for canning. Gardens were reported on 65 per cent of the farms studied, but only an occasional farm reported an orchard and these were largely on the sandy soils. FARM POWER The physical characteristics of Type-of-Farming Area 4c are favorable to the adoption of low cost methods of crop production which are at- tained through the use of large-scale machinery. Consequently, adjust- ments have been made and likely will continue in the direction of in- creasing the size of the farm unit as far as the competition for land will permit. In some cases the amount of land available to the farmer is fixed, at least for the time being. In such cases, the important problem is the selection of the type and size of power unit which is best suited to the particular farm. Many farmers, however, do have the opportunity to increase the size of the farm unit. In such cases, it is useful to know how much cropland can be handled with each type and size of power unit available. A description of the workstock enterprise is presented in the discussion which follows. The requirements of feed and materials are enumerated as well as the cost of horse work. The costs of tractor work also are presented. The optimum acreages of crops are given for the different kinds and types of power and equipment. In addition, the factors which may afiect the choice of power on the individual farm are evaluated. Workstock One-row horse-drawn equipment was the largest available to farmers during the early agricultural development of the area. Consequently, the amount of cropland which could be handled by one man was small. Two-row horse-drawn equipment was introduced into the area during the decade from 1920't0 1930. As a result the amount of cropland that could be handled by one man was greatly increased. Increases in the average size of farms followed. These were accomplished by the consoli- dation of existing farm units and by breaking out new land. At the present time one-row horse-drawn equipment is used on a comparatively small percentage of the farms in the area. The data relating to workstock are representative of the practices and requirements in the area for farms which rely on horses for power. The farms on which workstock practices were studied had an average of 142 acres of cropland per farm. (See Table 34.) In January 1936, these farms had an average per farm of 5.6 horses over two years of age. The difference between the total number of horses and the number used for field work was accounted for largely by animals too old to work and by young stock which had not been broken. The outstanding characteristic of the workstock on these farms was the high average age. Less. than 4 per cent of the workstock were under two years of age and only 11 per 64 BULLETIN NO". 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 34. Workstock enterprise on 34 selected horse power farms Items Average Acres in cropland_____ ____ _____________________________ -- 142-0 Number of workstock over 2 years, January 1936 ___________________________________ -- 5-6 Average Weight __________________________________________________________ __(POIJI1dS) 1,1’? Number of workstock under 2 ye-ars, January 193-6 __________________________________ _- .2 Number used for field work ___________________________________________________________ _- 5.2 Crop acres per head of stock used for field work ____________________________________ _- 27.3 Per cent Proportion of all wo-rkstock of various ages: Under 4- years__ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . __ 11.2 4-7 years__ __________________________________________ __ 12.7 8-11 years; _________________________________________________________________________ __ 25.9 12-15 years- _ ________________________________ __ 38.5 16 years and over ______________________ _- 6.6 Unknown____ ____ ____ _________ -_‘ 5.1 cent were under four. In contrast, 45 per cent of the workstock were over eleven years of age. It is evident from the comparatively small number of young stock that these farms are not raising enough colts to maintain their Workstock. This means that farmers in the area must depend on purchased stock from other areas for replacements, or that workstock will be replaced to a greater extent by tractors. Workstock were used on an average of 122 days per head during the year. (See Table 35.) Almost all of the feeds used for Workstock were Table 35. Production and. requirements of workstock per work animal I- Items Total \ Oct-Dec. Jan.-Mar.§Apr.-June July—Sept. ' 1935 1936 1936 1936 Days worked ............................ -_ 1211.7 13.2 23.4 i 49.6 25.5 Pounds Pounds Pounds ‘ Pounds Pounds Feed: Milo grain_ _________________________ __ 2,712‘ 455 862 965 430 Threshed oats ______________________ __ 479 90 109 166 114 Other concentrates- ________________ __ 2'23 54 63 53 53 Total concentrates- ............ _- 3,414 599 1,034 ‘ 1,184 597 Hegari bundles ______________________ -- 749 203 220 233 93 Feterita bundles ____________________ __ 495 125 132 151 87 Cane bundles- ______________________ __ 3,489 7'68 1,082 1,015 6t? Sudan bundles ______________________ __ 108 27 27 27 27 Other roughage _____________________ _- 84 5 11 18 50 Total roughage ________________ _- 4,9125 1,1% 1,472 1,444 881 - Days Days A Days Days Days Native pasture ______________________ -_ 3s 7 9 13 9 Sudan pasture ...................... -- 73 8 1 18 46 Small grain pasture- _______________ __ 11 4 5 1 1 Field pasture_ ______________________ __ 25 15 7 ____ 3 Total pasture ___________________ __ 147 34 22 32 59 Man labor ______________________ --(Hours) 54 e 15 1s 12 Veterinary cost per farm ______ "(Dollars 1.22 ‘ _-__ ____ ‘ __-_ ____ Other costs per farm _________ __(Dollars) 2.06 _____ ____ \ ____ ____ v FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 65 produced on the farm. The total amount of feed required per horse was 3,414 pounds of grain and other concentrates, 4,925 pounds of roughage, and 147 days of pasture. In addition, 54 hours of man labor were used per head in the care and feeding of workstock. The periods of heaviest feeding were during the first half of the year when power requirements are greatest. The cost of keeping workstock is of prime importance in comparing the costs of farm power. The cost of maintaining a horse for the year on the farms studied was $82.18, consisting of $46.97 for feed and $35.21 for overhead and other costs. (See Table 36.) It will be noted Table 36. Cost of horse work Items Average Number 0f farms _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ - 34 Crop acres per farm ___________________________________________________________ __(Acres) 142 Horses per farm ______________________________________________________________ __(Nurnber) 5-2 Average investment per horse _______________________________________________ _-(D0l1aI“S) 92-34 Crop acres per horse _____________ __ ____ _________ _-(Acres) 27.3 Days worked per horse ________________________________________________________ __(D&yS) 122 Dollars Feed costs per horse Grain_ ______________________________________________________________________________ -_ 29-82 Forage- ____________________________________________________________________________ _- 12.25 Pasture _____________________________________________________________________________ -_ 4.90 Total feed costs _______________________________________________________________________ __ 46.9‘! Feed cost per day’s work ________________________________ ___ ____________________________ __ .38 Other costs per horse: Laborl ______________________________________________________________________________ __ 6.25 Interest _____________________________________________________________________________ _- 5.54 Depreciation ______________________________ -; ________________________________________ __ 15.56 Shelter, water, etc ________________________________________________________________ __ 6.75 laxes _______________________________________________________________________________ __ .52 Veterinary and other costs ________________________________________________________ __ .59 Total other costs ______ __ __ ____- 35.21 Total cost per horse"--- __ ‘____ _______________________ __' 82.18 Total cost per farm ____________________________________________________________________ __ 427.34 iTotal cost per crop acre ____ ____ ______________________________ __ 3.01 00st per day’s work per horse _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ . __ .67 150 hours man labor per horse. that feed costs, which are related to the munber of days horses are worked, made up almost 60 per cent of the cost of maintaining work- stock. These costs were based on the average prices and values which prevailed in 1935. Tractor Power The all-purpose tractor, as a source of farm power, was introduced into the area shortly after 1925. The substitution of tractor power for 66 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION horse power has taken place at a greatly accelerated rate since 1933. Improvements in the all-purpose tractor, higher prices of feed and work- stock, and low prices of cotton greatly stimulated the use of the tractor. Although these adjustments are taking place rapidly, only about 40 per cent of the farms studied in 1935 used tractors. In contrast with the expense of maintaining workstock, the greater part of the costs of operating tractors was for overhead expenses. (See Table 37.) Since these costs remain practically the same regardless of Table 37. Cost of tractor worln Type of equipment used Items Two~r0w Four-row Number of farms _________________________________________ __ 54 5 Crop acres per farm ______________________________ __(Acres) 174 148 Average value per tractor ______________________ __(Do1lars) 678.93 756.09 Days used per year__ (Days) 62 40 Operating costs: Amount Cost Amount Cost Fuel_ Gals. Dollars G als. Dollars Gasoline"--- 405 42.85 562 49.62 Kerosene 594 36.04 469 26-. 88 Distillate 59 4.15 ---_ --__- Oi1_ _ _ 36 18.58 32 18.05 Grease__ ’ _---_(lbs.) 32 3.63 20 2.28 Total fuel, oil, and grease l 105.25 96.83 Fuel, oil, and grease per day’s work ___________________ __'\, 1.70 \ I 2.42 Overhead costs: Labor_ 8.00 6.00 Repairs" _--__ 25.47 23.00 Interest- ~--_- 40.13 45.37 Depreciation__ 1125.68 95.57 Shelter, water, etc. 8.00 8.00 Taxes __-_ __ 3.77 3.89 Total overhead costs ‘ 198.05 181.83 Total costs per farm“ 303.30 278.66 Total costs per crop acre 1.74 1.88 Total costs per day’s work 4,89 (197 the number of days worked, the cost per day of tractor work decreases much more rapidly with an increase in the number of days worked than does the cost of keeping workstock, Fuel, oil, and grease made up only about one-third of the total cost of operating tractors. Although the total cost per farm was less for tractor power than for horse power, the most significant difierence was in the cost per crop acre. The power cost per crop acre was $1.74 on farms using two-row tractor-drawn equip- ment and $1.88 on farms using four-row tractor-drawn equipment as compared to a cost of $3.01 per crop acre on farms using horses for power. A significant fact brought out in the cost of power is that horse power was used almost to capacity, while in the case of tractor power land I 67 FARM ADJUSTMENTS I.N THE ROLLING PLAINS resources were far short of the amount necessary to utilize the available power units to capacity. This was particularly true on the farms using four-row tractor equipment. These farms were smaller in size on an average than farms using two-row tractors. This fact should be taken into consideration in comparing the overhead costs of tractor power. Adjustments were made for this discrepancy in setting up basic require- ments to be used in evaluating alternative adjustments in the organiza- tion and operation of farms in the area. Operating costs and rates of performance were not affected by a lack of capacity use, since these tend to remain the same per day and per acre regardless of the number of days worked. Optimum Crop Acreages for Diiferent Sizes of Power and Equipment Units In the selection of the power and equipment unit for a farm, it is es- sential to know how much cropland can be operated with the kinds and types of power and equipment now available to farmers in the area. These acreages will vary depending on the system of farming. Under a row- crop system of farming, the acreage of cotton which can be handled with the different sizes of power and equipment units is an essential considera- tion, since cotton is the most important crop. The optimum acreages of row crops are based on the usual rates of performance with the different sizes of power and equipment units on the farms studied and upon an estimated optimum length of planting period for cotton of 7 days and an estimated optimum length of cultivation period for all row crops of 10 days. It should be noted that the restrictions of the AAA program are not taken into consideration in setting up these optimum acreages. The optimum acreage of row crops for a farm using one set of one- row horse-drawn equipment is 80 acres. (See Table 38.) The opti- Table 38. Optimum crop acreages for a row-crop system of farming Power and equipment unit Items One-row Two-row Two-row Four-row horse horse tractor ’ tractor l Total acres of cropland ________________________________ __ 80 160 200 350 Acres of cropland in: Cotton_ ______________________________________________ __ 5o 100- 130: 23o Milo- ------------------------------------------------- __ 19 4o 57 132 Forage sorghum _____________________________________ __ a 11 I 7 11,» Sudan pasture__ __ _ 5 9 l 6 b mum acreages for two-row horse-drawn, two-row tractor-drawn, and four- row tractor-drawn equipment are 160, 200, and 380 acres. The acreages of cotton shown are those that can be planted with the different power and equipment units during the optimum planting period for cotton. The balance of the cropland is shown in feed crops. In computing the acreages of the various feeds, it was assumed that the numbers of live- 68 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION stock would be the same as those usually maintained 0n farms of these sizes. The acreages devoted to sudan pasture and forage sorghum are the acreages necessary t0 furnish pasture and forage for these livestock. The balance of the feed acreage is shown in milo, which is the second most important row crop in the area. In every case the acreage of milo is above that actually required for farm needs. Under the limitations of the AAA as set out in the 1940 program, the total crop acreages would be increased by approximately 25 per cent for two-row horse outfits and by 35 per cent for two-row tractor out- fits. Computations were not made for other sizes, but the acreage that could be handled would be proportionately gieater. Optimum acreages were also computed for cotton-small grain systems of farming. The harvesting of small grain competes with the cultivation of row crops for the available labor and power. On most of the farms studied, however, small grain was harvested with contract labor and equipment. Under these conditions, small grain may be added to the cropping system without reducing the acreage of 10w crops that can be handled during the period of machine cultivation. Small grain also competes with cotton for the available labor and power during the period of cotton harvesting. As a result, the acreage of small grain which can be grown, in addition to the optimum acreages of row crops, is determined by the amount of time available during this period for drilling the small grain. The optimum crop acreages for farms using the different power and equipment units and with a cotton-small grain system of farming are shown in Table 39. Wheat is the small grain shown because it is to be Table 39. Optimum crop acreages for a cotton-small grain system of farm- ing with custom harvesting of small grain Power and equipment unit Items One-row Two-row 1 Two-row Four-row horse horse l tractor‘ tractor l l Total acres of cropland _________________________________ _- 120 200 l 260 440 Acres of cropland in: y Cotton- ________________________________________ -_§ 50 100 130 230 Wheat . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . --1 4c 40 so 60 Milo- . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ --a 19 40 51 l 132 Forage sorghum-_-- ________________ --\ 6 11 7 l l0 Sudan 3n Wture ____________________________________ _-‘ 5 9 6 i 8 l custom combined and used as a cash crop. On the basis of normal yields and the price relationships which have prevail-ed in the past, oats" have an apparent advantage over wheat. Many farmers prefer wheat, however, and have expressed the opinion that wheat is easier to combine than oats and does not shatter as badly. In addition, oats do not give as good grazing during the winter months and are more easily winter killed than wheat. Wheat also may be combined somewhat earlier and is easier to handle. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN ‘THE ROLLING PLAINS 69 Under a cotton-small grain system the limitations of the 1940 AAA program would permit increases in total crop acreages of approximately 12 $5 per cent and v19 per cent for two-row horse and two-row tractor outfit. It will be noted that the optimum small grain acreage under this sys-A tem of farming is the same on all farms operated with horse power and also for all farms operated with tractor power. All horse powered farms use the same size and type of equipment for preparing the land and drill- ing small grain. Likewise, all farms with tractor power use identical equipment. h Optimum acreages for a cotton-small grain system of farming with the power and equipment to be furnished by the operator were also com- puted for farms using tractor power. Under a. row-crop system of farm- ing, the available power and machinery is used to capacity during the month of June on row-crop cultivation. With the optimum acreages of row crops as a base, some time must be released from row crops in order to harvest small grain. Since more machine work is used per acre on cotton during the month of June than on any other crop, the greatest amount of time may be released by reducing the cotton acreage. Assum- ing the use of a small all-crop harvester, farms using two-row tractor- drawn equipment may substitute 2.5 acres of slmall grain for every acre diverted from cotton, while farms using four-row equipment may sub- stitute 1.5 acres. The optimum acreages for farmsfollowing this system of farming are shown in Table 40. Table 40. Optimum crop acreages for a cotton-small grain system of farrning‘ with power and equipment for harvesting small grain furnished ‘by the operator Power and equipment unit l Items I-—--__-i_ ‘Two-row Four-row l tractor tractor Total acres of cropland- ______________________________________________________ __! 260 415 Acres of cropland in: l Cotton __________________________________ __’ _________________________________ __l 90 165 Wheat ________________________________________________ -4 ___________________ --\ 10o 10o Milo __________________________________________________________________ __ __ 57 132 Forage sorghum ___________________________________________________________ u} 7 10 Sudan pasture -- __; 5 a The acreage of small grain shown in the preceding table is that which is considered sufficient to justify the purchase of the equipment necessary for growing and harvesting small grain. No optimum acreages are shown for farms using horse power and following this system of farm- ing, primarily because these farms do not have the power necessary for operating a combine. 70 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL‘ EXPERIMENT‘ STATION Factors Affecting Choice of Power The advantages and disadvantages of each type of power are important considerations in the selection of the type of power to be used. Briefly, these factors are the comparative costs and incomes resulting from the use of each type of power, the cost of replacement, adaptability to various size units, timeliness with which operations may be performed, and the acreages which may be operated. The advantages and disadvantages of each type of power under these various conditions determine the type of power which should be selected for a particular farm. The greatest advantage of horse power over tractor power is the com- partively low cash outlay in using horse power. The largest proportion of the cost of keeping horses consists of feed which is usually grown on the farm. In periods of low feed prices, this would result in a com- ' paratively low cost of horse power. During periods of high feed prices, however, workstock are at a disadvantage. Horses require feed and care when not working, while the tractor requires no attention when not in use. Another advantage of horse power is that replacement can be brought about gradually. Few losses from old age, disease, and accident occur in any one year. Horses so lost may be replaced by raising colts or by purchasing horses as required. In this way, the depreciation on horse power is taken care of gradually. In the case of the tractor, the initial cost and the outlay for depreciation are met in one year. Tractors may be purchased on terms which extend the payments over two or three years. Although this makes the purchase of the tractor less difficult, it makes the price paid somewhat higher than the cash price. In the past, horse power has had a decided advantage in its flexibility. Horse power is well adapted to different sizes of power and equipment units, ranging from one-horse units to multi-row equipment. Tractors have been introduced in the past few years, however, that are well adapted to smaller units such as one-row equipment. In a recent study in an ad- jacent area it was found that one-row tractor equipment had 25 per cent more capacity than one-row horse-drawn equipment. At the present time, tractors are available in a wide range of sizes and types. It is not unlikely that further improvements may be made which will increase the adaptability of the tractor to an even wider range of conditions. A decided advantage of the tractor is the saving of time and man labor which it affords. The greater speed of the tractor enables one man to cover a larger acreage in a given time that can be done with horse power. reducing the hours of man labor used per acre in machine operations. When used to capacity, the ability to cover a larger acreage with the tractor also makes possible a greater production per man. In addition, the ability to operate a tractor many hours a day without rest makes it possible to accomplish more work at the most advantageous time. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN ‘THE ROLLING PLAINS 71 OVERHEAD FARM EXPENSE The investment in land, improvements, machinery and equipment, and the depreciation and expense connected with these items are other factors which should be taken into consideration in planning the organization and operation of a farm. The amount of the investment, rates of depre- ciation, and amount of expense were computed from the data secured from the farms included in this study and are adaptable to other farms in the area. The construction cost or the cost new is shown for all items, as well as the depreciated value. Construction cost and cost new are used in computing annual depreciation and repairs, while the depreciated value is used for computing the value of the investment and interest charges. Land and Improvements The farmers estimated that the average market value of all land (with- out improvements) on the farms studied was $33.30 per acre. The amount of the investment in improvements was computed for farms using one set of the different sizes of power and equipment units. These im- provements include barns, poultry houses, garages and tractor sheds, fences, and water systems. The construction cost of these improvements (without residence) on the different types of farms were as follows: Farms using one-row horse-drawn equipment __________________ _-$435 Farms using two-row horse-drawn equipment .................. __ 880 Farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment __________________ __ 640 Farms using four-row tractor-drawn equipment .................. _- 975 The annual rate of depreciation amounted to 4.5 per cent of the con- struction cost of these improvements, while the annual repairs amount to 2.5 per cent. The average depreciated value of the improvements in 1935 on the farms studied were as follows: Farms using one-row horse-drawn equipment __________________ "$166 Farms using two-row horse-drawn equipment __________________ __ 464 Farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment __________________ __ 360 Farms using four-row tractor-drawn equipment __________________ __ 493 The use of terraces for soil and moisture conservation results in an additional investment in improvements. On the basis of records kept at San Angelo by the Soil Conservation Service, the cost of construction amounts to $54.30 per mile of terrace. With an average of 31.3 acres per mile of terrace, the investment in terraces on the average farm amounts to $1.74 per acre of cropland. The annual cost of maintaining the terraces amounts to $9.89 per mile of terrace or $0.32 per acre. The feeding of cattle for the beef market would necessitate an added investment in improvements on the average farm in the area. The con- 72 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION struction cost of these improvements would amount to $275 on farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment and $250 on farms using two- row horse-drawn equipment, while the average value over the life of the improvements would be $140 and $125. Depreciation and annual repairs would be at the same rate as for other improvements. Machinery and Equipment The machinery and equipment includes tractor and tractor equipment, automobile, wagon, trailer, and the other field machinery. The cost new of the tractors and tractor equipment were as follows: Two-row tractor and equipment ________________________________________ “$1,375 Four-row tractor and equipment ________________________________________ __ 1,700 Depreciation on the tractor and tractor equipment was estimated to be 11 per cent of the cost new, and annual repairs 3 per cent. The average depreciated values of the tractors and tractor equipment in 1935 were as follows: Two-row tractor and equipment ______________________________________ "0 880 Four-row tractor and equipment ______________________________________ -- 1,247 The average cost new of the» automobile was $735 on the farms studied. Depreciation was computed at the rate of 14 per cent of the new cost. The operating expenses for the automobile, including repairs, amounted to $15.02 per 1,000 miles of operation. Fifty per cent of the automobile expense was estimated to be chargeable to the farm, while the balance was for the personal use of the operator and his family. The amount of driving for farm use on the farms using the Various sizes of power and equipment units was as follows: Farms using one-row horse-drawn equipment ....... __2,500 miles Farms using two-row horse-drawn equipment ______ _-3,500 miles Farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment ______ __4,000 miles Farms using four-row tractor-drawn equipment ...... --5,000 miles The average depreciated values in 1935 of the automobiles on the farms studied were as follows: Farms using one-row horse-drawn equipment __________________ “$125 Farms using two-row horse-drawn equipment __________________ __ 140 Farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment __________________ __ 160 Farms using four-row tractor-drawn equipment __________________ _- 200 The cost new of other machinery and equipment on farms using one set of the various sizes of power and equipment units were as follows: Farms using one-row horse-drawn equipment .................. "$480 Farms using two-row horse-drawn equipment ................. -- 975 Farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment _________________ -._ 480 Farms using four-row tractor-drawn equipment ................. -- 525 FARM ADJUSTMENTS‘ IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 73 p The estimated annual rate of depreciation of other machinery and equipment amounted to 8.5 per cent of the cost new, while annual re- I pairs was 4 per cent. a The average depreciated values in 1935 of other machinery and equip- i‘ inent were as follows: Farms using one-row horse-drawn equipment _________________ “$245 Farms using two-row horse-drawn equipment __________________ -_ 461 Farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment __________________ -_ 263 Farms using four-row tractor-drawn equipment .................. -- 268 The machinery and equipment previously mentioned include only row- A crop machinery. A grain drill of the type employed with tractor-drawn 5T. equipment had a cost new of $160, while the average depreciated value in 1935 was $80. A grain drill of the type employed by farms using horse power had a cost new of $105 and the average depreciated value " in 1935 was $45. Depreciation and normal repairs were at the same f rates as for other machinery and equipment. A small combine of the type being extensively sold i.n the area had a cost new of $650, Whil-e the average value» over the life of the com- p bine would be $325. Annual depreciation was computed at the rate of 10 per cent of the cost new, and annual repairs at 4 per cent. A _Farmers using tractor power and feeding out cattle for market would find it practical to own their feed grinding equipment, while it would be necessary to hire the feed grinding on farms using horses for power. A feed grinder of the type commonly used for this work would have a cost new of $300 and average value over the life of the mill would be $150. Annual depreciation amounts to 10 per cent of the cost new, while an- nual repairs amount to 4 per cent. Feed could be ground at the rate of approximately 1500 pounds an hour, with twice as much man labor as tractor work necessary in operating the grinder. PRICES OF PRODUCTS SOLD AND ITEMS PURCHASED In planning the farm organization, a careful study should be made of the forces which afiect the prices of farm products and the expense of farm operation. By using prices that are likely to prevail at the time expenses and receipts‘ will occur, the farm operator takes a forward look- ing attitude in planning the farm business. Too often last year's prices serve as the guide for planning production. The farm operator who un- derstands how the various" forces operate to influence prices may be able to anticipate the price relationships which are likely to prevail during the crop year and is in a better position to plan year to year adjustments in his farm organization and operation. Such information’ is published regularly by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture. 1 "The Agricultural Outlook.” also “Situation Reports” for principal agricul- tural commodities and expense items. 74 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION For the purpose of this study, however, prices are used merely to indicate the probable efiect of variations in prices and price relation- ships on the income derived from the various alternative farm organiza- tions. Since it is impossible to predict the future changes in prices and price relationships, widely differing sets of prices which have occurred in the past are used in determining the effect of difierent price condi- tions on the income obtained from alternative farm organizations. The prices used in this study cover the years 1927-1935 and 1938. (See Table Table 41. Prices of product sold and items purchased ‘ Prices during the period Items Unit _ 11927-1935 1927-1929 1931-193371934-1935; 1938 1 Dollars ~ Dollars 7 Dollars 1 Dollars ~ Dollars Products sold: i Lint cotton ......................... -_ lb. .1156 .1673] .0667 .1136 .0269 Cotton send Ton 24.30 31.50 l 11.70 31.00 19.60 Milo grain- ......................... -_ 100 lbs. .90 1.10 .45 1.18 .85 Grain sorghum forage _____________ -- Ton 6.50 8.00 3.25 8.50 6.00 Wheat Bu. .85 1.18 .47 \ .87 .65 Oats Bu. .40 .52 .23 .42 .28 Dairy calves» ........................ __ 100 lbs. 5.00 7.00 3.30 3.65 5.00 Beef steers __________ _._ 100 lbs. 8.75 11.60 5.40 8.10 8.70 Butterfat- __________________________ -_ lb. .26 .38 .15 .22 .25 Hogs- 100 lbs. 6.65 8.88 4.33 6.10 8.00 Eggs- _ Doz. .20 .26 .13 .18 .19 Fryers _-_ lb. .22 .30 .16 .17 .15 Hens_ lb. .14 .19 .10 .11 .09 Items purchased: Beef calves ......................... -- 100 lbs. 6.90 9.80 4.60 5.10 7.50 Baby chicks 100 9.70 13.00 6.80 7.50 7.00 Weaning pigs ....................... _- One 3.50 4.50 2.00 2.80 2.50 Bran 100 lbs. 1.35 1.75 .90 1.35 1.25 Shorts 100 lbs-. 1.65 2.10 1.10 1.65 1.55 Laying mash- ______________________ __ 100 lbs. 2.15 2.840 1.50 2.15 2.00 Chick starter ....................... -- 100 lbs. 2.80 3.00 1.90 2.80 2.70 Growing mash ...................... __ 100 lbs. 2.40 3.10 1.60 2.40 2.50 Cottonseed meal- .................. _- 100 lbs. 1.50 2.00 1.00 1.50 1.35 Sudan seed lb. .05 .065 .035 .065 .03 Cottonseed for planting ........... -- Bu. 1.60 2.10 1.10 2.00 1.25 Cotton snapping, contract ________ -_ 100 lbs. .45 .60 .30 .45 .50 Ginning_ ........................... -- 100 lbs. .30 .40 .25 .30 .30 Bagging and ties ................... -- Bale 1-25 1.50 1.00 1.25 1.25 Binder twine ................. -_ _-_ lb. .003 .12 .06 .12 .09 Combining, contract ............... _- Acre 1.50 2.00 1.25 1.50 1.50 Labor- Day 1.25 1.60 .80 1.25 1.25 Feed grinding 100 lbs. .12 .15 .10 .12 .12 Feed hauling- ...................... -- Ton 1.00 1.25 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 l 41.) These prices are based on data secured from local produce dealers, newspapers, and published district price data for Texas products? It will be noted that both the actual prices and the price relationships in the vari- ous periods represent widely differing conditions. The period 1927-1929 represents a period of high prices both for products sold and items pur- chased. In comparison, however, with the period 1927-1935, the prices of cotton and other products were relatively higher than the prices of items purchased. The price of small grain, i_n addition, was relatively high in comparison to the price of grain sorghum. iBuechel, F. A., “Prices Received by Texas Farmers by Months for Twenty- two Products." Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas, Austin. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 75 Ifn the period 1931-1933, all prices were low in comparison to the prices for the period 1927-1935, but the prices for products sold were relatively lower than the prices for items purchased. The prices received for crops were relatively lower than the prices for livestock and livestock prod- ucts. The price of small grain had approximately the same relationship of the price of grain sorghum that existed in the period 1927-1929. In the period 1934-1935, prices approximated the average prices which prevailed from 1927 to 1935. The prices of grain sorghum, however, were higher during this period and were relatively high in comparison to the price of small grain. In this respect, the prices during the period 1934-1935 differed from the prices during the other periods. Prices of products sold, particularly cotton and small grain were lower in 1938 than during the period 1927-1935. At the same time, th-e price of small grain was relatively low in comparison to the price of grain sorghum. There were no differences in the prices of several important expense items, namely, cotton ginning and hired labor. Other items of expense were only slightly lower in 1938 than during the period 1927- 1935. - ANALY-SIS OF ALTER-NATIVE ADJUSTMENTS The adaptability of the various enterprises has been discussed in the previous sections, and basic information pertaining to normal yields, production, and production requirements has been presented. In the following discussion this information is used in a budget analysis of some of the alternative adjustments available to or being made by farmers of the area. Because of the amount of detail involved, all budgets are shown in summary form. For the benefit of persons interested in the de- tails of the budgeting procedure, a complete budget is included in the Appendix. ~ Optimum acreages as set up in a previous section of this bulletin, rather than the more common sizes of farms, are used as a point of departure because there was a better adjustment between land resources and power and equipment on the farms using horse power than there was on the tractor operated farms. This is believed to be due to the fairly recent introduction of tractor power into the area and to the lag in the adjust- ment in size of farms that usually accompanies rapid changes in the size of power and equipment units. The optimum acreages as given for the dif- ferent sizes of power and equipment units more nearly represent the capacities of these units than do the more common sizes of farms on which these units were being used at the time this study was made. For the sake of simplicity, the main part of the discussion dealing with adjustments is centered around a farm unit which can be operated by the average farm family using one set of two-row tractor-drawn equipment. This size of power and equipment unit was the most common and was increasing rapidly at the time the study was made. The relation of size 76 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION of farm to the various alternatives open to farmers of the area is treated in a subsequent section. Furthermore, normal production and production requirements for farms on the heavy dark upland soils are used in this analysis. The con- clusions apply particularly to farms on these soils. Modification of the conclusions to fit farms on other soil groups should be based on the dif- ferences as brought out in the foregoing analysis of the relation of soil resources to differences in organization and operation, and in turn to differences in farm incomes. Farmers in the area generally follow one of two main cropping sys- tems; one consisting entirely of row-crops, and the other a. combination of small grain and row crops. Because of the restrictions of the AAA program, the cropping system which has been followed in the past tends to set up limits Within which adjustments in systems of farming may take place. A committee of farmers in Jones County was consulted in regard to the problems involved in the adjustment of agriculture within the re- strictions of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program. This committee also reviewed the basic information and assumptions used as a basis for this analysis. It was the opinion of this committee that in addition to increasing the size of the farm unit the two principal al- ternati.ves open to the majority of farmers in the area were the feeding of beef cattle and the summer fallowing of the non-depleting acreage not needed for the production of forage sorghum and sudan pasture for live- stock. It was also the opinion of the committee that other livestock en- terprises, such as dairy cattle, poultry, and swine, should not be expanded from present numbers as a general practice. In view of changing de- mands, however, operators of some farms may find that such enterprises may be fitted into their systems of farming more easily and successfully than cattle feeding. For these reasons and because of the possibilities of growing into these enterprises rather than going into them, dairy cat- tle and poultry are included in the analysis as two of the principal alter- natives open to farmers of the area. In order to appraise the alternatives open to farmers under the present Agricultural Adjustment Administration program certain assumptions were necessary. First, it was assumed that operators of the farm in question would plant all of, but not exceed, the farm allotments, Second- ly, it was assumed that the soil building allowances on these farms would be earned by contouring, since this was the common practice on the heavy dark upland soils. In the following budgets all cropland was as- sumed to be contoured and the input and output data for contoured land were used in estimating the probable effect on earnings of inclusion of the various alternatives in a system of farming. In the case of cattle feeding, it was assumed that the size of the enter- prise would be determined by the amount of feed which would be avail- able for thispurposeon the individual farm. Labor would not be a limit- ing factor. The acreage of cropland which must be devoted to neutral FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 77 or non-depleting crops would be utilized to provide forage and pasture. The more efficient feeders might find it profitable to expand feeding operations beyond this limit through the purchase of surplus grain from other farmers. In the case of summer fallowi.ng the non-depleting acre- age, it was assumed that the surplus of milo grain would be disposed of on the cash market. In the past, about two-thirds of the cropland normally was planted to cotton. The program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, however, permits a cotton allotment for each farm which is a fixed per- centage of the cropland in the farm. This percentage is uniform for the farms of a county, but varies somewhat from one county to another and from year to year in the same county. In Jones County, this allotment in 1940 amounted to 38.5 per cent of the cropland, excluding the acreage normally devoted to the commercial production of wheat. Each county is also given a general allotment which consists largely of feed crops which are classified as soil depleting. In Jones County, this allotment in 1940 amounted to 30.81 per cent of the cropland. Farms on which wheat was usually grown in the past are also given a special allotment for wheat. In 1940, this allotment for the county amounted to about 53 per cent of the normal wheat acreage, but on individual farms which were considered to be particularly suited to the production of wheat this allotment could be increased to approximately 66 per cent. In no instance, however, could the total soil depleting allotments exceed 8O per cent of the cropland in the farm. The balance of the cropland must be devoted to crops classified as non-depleting or soil building. Cultivated fallow, sweet sorghum for hay or forage, sudan pasture, and small grain pasture are among the crops or practices listed as neutral or non-depleting. In all of the budgets, it is assumed that, in addition to the labor of the operator, family labor equivalent to two-thirds of the operator’s labor is also available. Any labor required above this is assumed to be hired labor. Since cotton is harvested principally by contract labor, it is assumed that all labor to harvest cotton would be hired. It is esti- mated that there will be a reduction of sixteen and two-thirds per cent in the time available for field work per month due to weather conditions, holidays, and sickness, Alternatives on Row-crop Farms The budget summaries in Table 42 show the estimated effect on in- come assuming the adoption of the five principal alternatives open to farmers of this area who have followed a row-crop system of farming in the past. A budget summary based on the optimum acreage of crop- land which can be handled by a farm family using one set of two-row tractor-drawn equipment and assuming no AAA program is also included for comparison. T8 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRIGULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION Table 42. Budget summaries of alternative systems of farming for farms using two-row tractor equipment and having a row-crop history No Alternatives under AAA AAA Items pro- In- gram Summer creased Beef Dairy Poultry fallow acreage cattle cattle Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Total land in farm ______________________ __ 250 250 340 250 250 250 Native pasture ____________________________ __ 45 45 65 45 45 45 Farmstead- 5 5 5 5 5 5 0102mm - 200 200 270 200 200 200 Amount of cropland in: Cotton _ 130 77 104 77 77 77 MUG ----------------------------------- -- 5'7 62 83 62 62 62 Forage sorghum ______________________ __ 7 7 7 20 £0 7 Sudan pasture ___________ -_" ___________ __ 6 6 6 1e 16 6 Summer fallow _______________________ __ ____ 48 7 ____ ____ 48 Small grain pasture __________________ __ ____ ____ ____ 25 25 ____ No. No. No. No. N0. No Livestock: Workstock ____________________________ __ 2 2 2 2 2 2 Dairy cows 4 4 4 4 15 4 Poultry- ______________________________ -_ 100 100 10o 100 10o e50 Swine- 2 2 2 2 2 2 Beef calves ____________________________ __ ____ ____ ____ 35 ____ ____ Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Total farm investment ___________________ __ 10,940 10,940 14,132 12,267 11,730 11,670 Land .................................. __ 8,863 8,868 12,060 8,868 8,868 8,868 Improvements (less residence) _______ __ 360 360 360 $0 480 765 Machinery and equipment ............ -_ 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,533 1,533 1,303 Livestock -_-_ 409 409 409 1,366 849 7% Total farm sales _________________________ -_ 2,603 1,877 2,473 3,914 2,402 2,870 OIODS __________________________________ -.. 2,319 1,593 2,189 1,116 1,535 1,401 Livestock and livestock products ____ -_ 284 284 284 2,798 867 1,74% Total farm expense- _____________________ __ 1,157 , 822 1,002 2,374 932 1,095 Crop expense _________________________ __ 309 185 247 199 200 184 Livestock expense- ______________ __.-____ 61 61 61 1,546 117 309 Hired labor- __________________________ __ 459 265 327 266 283 265 Improvement expense_ _______________ _- 16 16 16 % 22 36 Machinery and equipment expense_-__ 230 213 245 248 222 213 Taxes _ __ __ 62 82 106 92 88 88 Total farm sales_ ________________________ __ 2,603 1,877 2,473 3,914 2,402 2,870 AAA payments_ __________________________ __ ____ 407 550 407 407 407 Livestock products used in home _______ -_ 166 166 166 166 166 16-6 Garden ____________________________________ __ 20 20 20 20 20 21) GROSS FARM INGOME- ____________ -- 2,789 2,470 3,209 4,507 2,995 3,463 Total farm expense- _____________________ __ 1,157 822 1,002 2,374 932 1,095 Unpaid family labor ___________________ __ 126 118 133 147 222 196 Depreciation- _____________________________ __ 306 306 30-6 355 323 342 TOTAL DEDUOTIONS ______________ __ 1,589 1,246 1,441 2,876 1,477 1,633 Return to capital and operator's labor ‘ and management _______________________ _- 1,200 1,224 1,768 1,631 1,518 1,8370 Interest on investment at 6 per cent ____ -- 656 656 848 736 7'04 700 Labor and management wage ........... -- 544 568 920 895 814 1,130 The alternative which requires the least change in the present system of farming and also the least effort on the part of the operator is the summer fallowing of the restricted acreage not needed for the produc- tion of forage and pasture for the present numbers of livestock. By a comparison with the organization shown in column 1 of this table, some FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 79 measure may be obtained of the extent to which the operator following the fallow system fails to make the optimum use of his resources. A more complete utilization of his resources may-be obtained through re- course to any one of the other four alternatives. Here the choice lies between increasing the acreage in the farm to the optimum amount that can be handled under the fallow system or the intensification of his system of farming on the present acreage through the inclusion of one or more livestock enterprises. Assuming that land is available, increasing the’ size of farm is particularly attractive to farmers of this‘ area for the reason that they may make reasonably complete use of their operating capital without the necessity of materially changing their system of farming or having to learn the techniques involved in new enterprises. This may explain the tendency during recent years of farmers in this area to resort to this‘ alternative almost to the exclusion of all others. To the man who is unable to increase his acreage, however, the choice of alternatives lies between summer fallow on one hand and some type of livestock system on the other. The dairy and poultry enterprises have an advantage over the feeding of beef cattle in that most farmers already have some knowledge of the problems involved in the manage- ment of these livestock enterprises. Also, the dairy and poultry enter- prise may be increased gradually as knowledge of improved practices is gained. The beef feeding enterprise has the advantage of a type of flexibility, however, not found in the dairy enterprise. There is a com- plete turnover in the beef feeding enterprise each year. This permits an annual adjustment to fit available feed supplies and the price out- look for beef. It should be recognized that the poultry enterprise utilizes practically no roughage, but requires" large amounts of grain and labor. This permits the expansion of the- poultry enterprise on the farm follow- ing the summer fallow system without changing the cropping system. It may also be included in other systems of farming to the extent that labor and surplus grain are available. There would also be differences" in the problem of financing the alter- native adjustments. The significance of these differences would vary depending upon the situation of the individual operator. If land is avail- able it may be leased and the adjustment to increased acreage may be made without additional investment of capital on the part of the opera- tor. The problem of financing the purchase of feeder cattle may be more difficult than would be the financing of a gradual expansion of the dairy or poultry enterprise. Another conditioning factor is the tenure of the operator. Generally speaking, owner-operators have more freedom of choice than do the tenants" who are dependent on the coop- eration of their landlords in making adjustments to a more complex syst-em of farming. Furthermore, landowners generally have less diffi- culty in financing adjustments than do tenants. The estimated income from a fallow system on the present acreage is substantially less than from any of the other four alternatives. It 80 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION is estimated that under the conditions of prices and costs that existed in 1938 this system would produce a labor and management wage of $568 as compared with a labor and management wage from the other systems ranging from $814 in the case of dairy cattle to $1,130 in the case of the poultry alternative. The differences in the estimated earnings as between the latter alternatives are not so great but that the choice of an alternative may well be determined by on-e of the factors or con- ditions mentioned above. Such differences as exist may easily be over- come through improvements in production practices as for example the feeding of better balanced rations to dairy cattle to improve the pro- duction per cow. Alternatives on Cotton-Small- Grain Farms The estimated effect on incomes of the five principal alternatives open to farmers in the area who have followed a cotton-small grain system of farming in the past are presented in Table 43. As was pointed out in the section dealing with optimum acreages, custom harvesting of small grain permits the addition of a certain amount of small grain to the cropping system without a reduction of the acreage in row crops. The resultant larger size of the farm unit is reflected in the higher expected farm earnings for the various alternatives than for the same alterna- tives under a row-crop system. Also, the relative advantage or disad- v-antage of the different alternatives with respect to each other are somewhat changed. The estimated labor and management wage ranges from $802 in the case of the fallow system to $1,395 in the case of the poultry alternative. This level of earnings is approximately $275 above the level of earnings for the same alternatives on row-crop farms. The beef cattle alternative is relatively much more advantageous on cotton-small grain farms than on row-crop farms as operated under the restrictions of the AAA program. The relatively larger feed production permitted on cotton-small grain farms‘ enables the operator to maintain a somewhat larger beef cattle enterprise without a significant increase in the total overhead costs. The lower overhead costs per animal results in a substantial increase in the net returns from the enterprise. In the case of the dairy cattle and poultry alternatives, the limiting factor was labor rather than feed. These two alternatives have prac- tically the sam-e relative advantage with either cropping system. The advantage of increasing the acreage is not so great on cotton- small grain farms as on row-crop farms. This is owing to the fact that the increase in acreage is relatively less on cotton-small grain farms than on row-crop farms‘. This in turn is due to the peculiar manner in which the restriction of the AAA program affects acreages of the dif- ferent crops in the two cropping systems. An analysis was made of these same alternatives for cotton-small grain farms assuming ownership on the part of the operator of grain har- vesting equipment. In addition to increasing the total overhead costs 6,1,,‘ FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 81 Table 43. Budget summaries of alternative systems of farming for farms using two-row tractor equipment and having a, cotton-small grain history No Alternatives under AAA AAA Items DIO- 1n- gram Summer creased Beef Dairy Poultry fallow acreage cattle cattle Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Total land in farm _______________________ __ 3125 325 385 325 325 325 Native pasture. ....................... _- 60 60 70 60 60 60 Farmstead- 5 5 5 5 5 5 Groplflfld 260 260 310 260 260 260 Amount of cropland in: Cotton 130 77 92 77 77 77 Wheat 60 39 47 39 39 39 Milo- 57 80 95 80 80 80 Forage sorghum ______________________ __ 7 7 7 25 23 7 Sudan pasture ________________________ __ 6 6 6 20 16 6 Summer fallow ________________________ -_ ..___ 51 63 .._-_ ____ 51 Small grain pasture __________________ __ --__ -___ _-_- 19 25 _-__ N0 No. No. No N0. No. Livestock: Workstock ____________________________ __ 2 2 2 2 2 2 Dairy cows 4 4 4 4 15 4 Poultry; 100 100 100 100 100 650 Swine 2 2 2 2 2 2 Beef calves ____________________________ __ ____ ____ -..__ 50 -___ -_-_ Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Total farm investment __________________ -- 13,680 13,680 15,808 15,345 14,390 14,410 Land __________________________________ __ 11,528 11,528 13,656 11,528 11,528 11,5% Improvements (less residence) ....... -_ 360 360 360 500 480 765 Machinery and equipment ____________ -_ 1,383 1,383 1,383 1,533 1,533 1,383 Livestock- ............................ __ 409 409 409 1,784 849 734 Total farm sales ......................... -- 3,014 2,317 2,735 5,283 2,833 3,311 Crops- 2,730 2,033 2,451 1,376 1,967 1,842 Livestock and livestock products_-___ 284 284 284 3,907 866 1,46? Total farm expense ..................... -- 1,289 931 1,079 3,125 1,040 1,206 Crop expense- ________________________ __ 399 243 2'90 251 250 2A3 Livestock expense- ___________________ __ 61» 61 61 2,183 117 309 Hired labor ........................... __ 461 272 334 275 302 272 Improvement expense _________________ -- 16 16 16 23 22 36a Machinery and equipment expense--- 249 236 259 278 241 236 Taxes _ _ 103 103 119 115- 108 108 Total farm sales ......................... _- 3,014 2,317 2,735 5,283 2,833 2,311 AAA payments- .......................... -- _-_- 492 588 493 492 492 Livestock products used in home ....... -_ 166 166 166 166 166 166 Garden- 20 20 20 2D 20 20 GROSS‘ FARM INCOME ................. -- 3,200 2,995 3,509 5,962 3,511 3,989 Total farm expense ...................... -- 1,289 931 1,079 3,125 1,040 1,205 Unpaid family labor ..................... -- 130 129 140 176 205 176 Depreciation 319 312 312 355 % 349 TOTAL DEDUOTIONS ___________________ _- 1,738 1,372 11,531 3,656 1,568 1,730 Return to capital and operator’s labor and management ....................... -- 1,462 1,623 1,978 2,306 1,943 2,259 Interest on investment at 6 per cent .... _- 821 821 948 921 863 864 Labor and management wage ........... __ 641 802 1,030 1,385 1,080 1,395 and reducing the cash costs of operation, the only significant effect of the ownership of harvesting machinery is in its effect on the relative proportion of the various crops making up the cropping system. The 82 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION cropland organization and the labor and management wage are shown for the various alternatives in Table 44. These may be compared with Table 44. cropland organization and estimated earning‘ for alternative systems on cotton-small grain farms, assuming ownership of grain harvesting machinery N0 Alternatives under AAA AAA I Items pro- n- y gram Summer creased! Beef Dairy ‘Poultry fallow acreagel cattle l cattle l Oropland 260 260 310 i 260 260 260 Amount of cropland 1n: l Cotton _ .. 90 62 74 62 62 62 Wheat 10o c6 7s e0 i 6e ; 6e Milo_ 57 80' 95 80 l 80 l 80 Forage sorghum ...................... __ 7 7 7 25 20 l 7 Sudan pasture ________________________ -- 6 6 6 20 l l6 : 6 Summer fallow ........................ -- ---- 39 50 ---- ---- ~ 39 Small grain pasture ------------------ -- ---- ---- ---- 7 16 ---- Labor and management wage ----------- -_ 551 768 ‘ 1.004 1 1,356‘ i 1,053 j 1,360 the same items in Table 43. It will be noted that in each case the acreage in cotton and fallow, or small grain pasture, is reduced, while the acreage in wheat is increased by an amount equivalent to the sum of these reductions. The difference in earnings, although favoring the practice of custom harvesting in all cases, is too small to be significant. Therefore the choice between the two systems of harvesting will be de- termined very largely by the value placed by the operator on the greater control over harvesting operations obtained through the ownership of grain harvesting equipment. Effect of Size of Farm and Variation in Prices on Farm Income and on the Relative Advantage of‘ Alternative Systems of Farming The foregoing analysis was limited to a size of farm that could be handled by an average farm family using one set of two-row tractor- drawn equipment and to prices and cos'ts as they prevailed during 1938. It remains to consider the effect of differences in price relationships on the estimated earnings for different sizes of farms and systems of farm- ing. A summary of the earnings as measured by the operator’s labor and management wage on 35 different sizes and systems of farming under five sets of price relationships is presented in Table 45. The conclu- sions drawn from the effect of size of farm on farm earnings in the area in 1935 are borne out in this analysis. Generally speaking, farm income increased with size of farm. The advantage of larger size tends to be greater during periods of relatively high prices and is greatly reduced during periods of relatively low farm prices, such as‘ occured during the period *1931-1933 and again during 1938. For example, the esti- mated labor and management wage for an optimum acreage for one-row FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 83 ‘liable 45. Estimated earnings from various sizes of farms and systems o! farming‘ as afieoeed by variations in price Expected earningsl under price conditions of: Type of farm I 1927-1935 1927-19290931-1933 19344935 1938 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars One-row horsedrawn equipment: Row-crop system of farming-No AAA program 453 889 -9 455 100 Cotton-small grain system-No AAA program--- 634 1,217 28 663 208 Two-row horse-drawn equipment: Row-crop system 0t farming-No AAA program 1,041 1,922 85 1,069 323 Alternatives under AAA program: Summer fallow- ______________________________ __ 901 1,537 176 943 433 Increased acreage- ___________________________ __ 1,207 1,976 308 1,298 628 Beet cattle- 1,019 1,680 195 1,053 511 Dairy cattle- 1,040 1,784 236 1,010 573 Poultry- _ 1,254 2,034 475 1,182 728 Cotton-small grain system of tarming—No AAA program- _ 1,237 2,247 119 1 ,2'74 427 Alternatives under AAA program: Summer fallow 1,143 1,886 256 1,233 612 Increased acreage ____________________________ __ 1,335 2,159 339 1,454 737 Beet cattle 1,420 2,218 fi 1,496 822 Dairy cattle__ 1,299 2,149 398 1,316 767 Poultry _ _ 1 A97 2,383 555 1 ,471 906 Two-row tractor-drawn equipment: Row-crop system oi iarming-No AAA program 1,497 2,668 157 1,625 544 Alternatives under AAA program: Summer fallow“ 1,153 1,952 194 1,272 568 Increased acreage- ___________________________ __ 1,657 2,693 392 | 1,856 920 Beet cattle- 1,551 2,455 382 1,646 895 Dairy cattle-_ 1,399 2,393 r301 1,386 814 Poultry- _ 1,823 2,891 638 1 ,730 1 ,130 Cotton-small grain system-No AAA program__ 1,721 3,070 158 1,862 64.1 Alternatives under AAA program: Summer fallow" 1,480 2,432 290 1,665 802 Increased acreage- ___________________________ -_ 1,838 2,951 432 2,079 1,030 Beet cattle_ 2,167 3,287 648 2,326 1,385" Dairy cattle__ 1,758 2,907 4122 1,809 1,080 Poultry__ 2,181 3,408 753 2,153 1,395 Alternative small grain system-—No AAA program“--- 1,435 2,661 6 1,566 551 Alternatives under AAA program: _ ‘ Summer fallow" 1,398 2,354 207 1,582 768 Increased acreage- .......................... -_ 1,752 2,864 350 1,991" 1,004 Beef cattle- 2,091 3,217 568 2,249 1,356 Dairy cattle- _ 1,685 2,844» 408 1,736 1,053 Poultry- 2,099 3,330 736 2,070 1,360 Four-row tractor-drawn equipment: Row-crop system——No AAA program ............ _- 3,035 5,098 568 3,410 1,361 Cotton-small grain system—No AAA program--- 3,275 5,533 566 3,664 1,464 Alternative small grain system—No AAA program ....... _-_ 2,703 4,674 301 3,071 1,250 10perator’s labor and management wage. horse-drawn equipment anéd following a row-crop system of farming was $100 under 1938 price conditions. Similarly, the estimated earnings for optimum two-row horse, two-row tractor, and four-row tractor-drawn units were $323, $544, and $1,361. Under the price relationships which prevailed during 1927-1929, the estimated earnings for these same units were $889, $1,922, $2,628, and $5,098. It will be noted from these com- parisons that the estimated earnings from an optimum unit for four— row tractor equipment were approximately 50 per cent greater assuming 84 BULLETIN NO‘. 617 , TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 1938 prices than were the earnings from an optimum unit for one-row horse-drawn equipment assuming the high prices of 1927-1929. In addition to resulting in a wide range of earnings as" between price periods, the principal effect of a wide range of price conditions is to change the relative advantage of the different systems of farming. For example, during the period 1934-1935 prices of feed crops and cotton were relatively high in comparison to the prices of livestock products. The relative advantage of the livestock alternatives was not so great as it was during 1938 when the prices of livestock products were relatively high as compared with the prices of other farm products. The relative advantage of participation in the AAA program is also affected by the level of prices. The relative advantage of participation is much greater during periods of low prices such as‘ those of 1931-1933 and 1938 than it. is ‘during periods of high prices such as those that pre- vailed during 1927-1929. With the possible exception of summer fallow, however, the earnings of all alternatives compare favorably with the earnings of the optimum unit, assuming no AAA program. Apparently the disadvantage of smaller production under the AAA program was at least offset by the benefit payments as computed under the regulations of the 1940 program. These payments for an optimum two-row tractor unit were estimated to range from $400 to $500 under the various alternatives. The differences in the relative advantage of the various alternatives as affected by the wide range of price situations were not so great in any instance but that they could easily be overcome by improved pro- duction practices. This analysis suggests that, other than increasing the size of the farm, the best opportunities for increasing farm income may be found in the improvement of production practices. Assuming a system of farming reasonably well adapted to the resources of the area, a systematic program for the improvement of production methods would add considerably more to the operator's income over a period of years than could be obtained through modification of the organization of the farm. For example, the average annual production of dairy cows on the farms studied was 160 pounds of butterfat per cow. An interested operator could easily raise the level of production to at least 250 pounds of butterfat per cow through somewhat closer attention to feeding and breeding probl-ems. Such an improvement in dairy practices for a fifteen cow dairy herd would result in increases in income over and above ad- ditional feed costs of $205 assuming average prices for feed and dairy products which prevailed during the period 1927-1935. The increases under the other price assumptions would range from $114 for the period of 1934-1935 when feed prices. were relatively high to $328 for the period 1927-1929, a period of generally high prices. The low level of egg production in the poultry flocks in the area suggests that a similar opportunity is offered in connection with that enterprise. Livestock en- terprises by no means offer the only opportunity for improvement of production practices. Keeping up with the latest improvements in the FARM ADJUSTMENTS LN THE ROLLING PLAINS 85 selection and care of seed, the latest developments in methods of con- trolling insects and plant diseases, and the application of the best known practices for the conservation of moisture and for the maintenance and improvement of soils and soil fertility represent ways of making signifi- cant additions to the operators income. Conservation Practices Two of the more common practices aimed at the conservation of soil and moisture by farmers of the area are terracing and contour cultiva- tion. On the farms studied, approximately 11 per cent of the cropland was terraced and an additional 43 per cent was farmed on the contour. On the dark heavy upland soils, the normal cotton yields 0n terraced land were estimated to be 15 pounds, or 10 per cent, more than yields on untreated land, while the difference in cotton yields owing to con- tour cultivation was estimated to be approximately 7 per cent. (See Table 18.) Yield differences owing to these practices as estimated for other crops ranged from 10 to 50 per cent, depending on the crop and the conservation practice. Labor and machinery requirements on opera- tions for which field machinery is" required were estimated to be ap- proximately 9 per cent greater for terraced and contoured fi-elds as com- pared with fields in which straight row practices were followed. The following analysis is an attempt to measure the effect of these differences on farm income. _ The estimated labor and management wage as affected by conserva- tion practices under five sets of price relationships is shown in Table 46. The price relationships most advantageous to terracing were the rela- Table 46. Effect of conservation practices on farm incomel on farms with row-crop system of farming and two-row tractor-drawn equipment Conservation measures Price periods N0 practices Terraced Contoured Dollars Dollars Dollars 1927-1935 1 ,318 1 ,517 1 ,49'7 1927-1929 2,416 2, 728 2,668 1931-1933 71 123 157 1934-1985 1 A23 1 ,660 1 £25 1938 425 532 544 10perator’s labor and management wage. tively high prices of the period 1927-1929. In a period of very low prices such as 1931-1933, the expected returns are higher on contoured land than on terraced land. Under the price relationships of 1934-1935, which somewhat approach average conditions, the advantage of terrac- ing over contouring is slight. In a period in which cotton prices are low in comparison to prices of other products such as in 1938, the ex- pected returns again favor contouring over terracing. fii BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Terracing also has certain disadvantages which are not associated with contouring. A larger investment is necessary because of the cost of constructing terraces and, in addition, extra labor and expense are incurred in maintaining the terraces. In years of heavy rainfall, crops on terraced land are more subject to damage from excessive moisture. Undoubtedly, the above mentioned considerations have influenced the farmers in the area in th-eir adoption of conservation practices. This is substantiated in part by the fact that in 1936 fifty-five per cent of the cropland on the heavy dark upland soils was contoured, while only 12 per cent was terraced. The use’ of conservation practices apparently is profitable for farms on the heavy dark upland soils, but the results obtained on idividual farms andon farms on other soil types may vary widely from the re- sults shown. Careful consideration should be given to differences in the resources of a farm before adopting one practice or the other. By a careful study of the results obtained on other farms with resources similar to theirs, farm operators should be able to better plan the prac- tice or practices" suited to their farms. SUMMARY The Rolling Plains Area of Texas, located in the northwestern part of the State, consists of all of 19 counties and parts of 24 others. That portion of the area known as sub-area 4c comprises more than one-third of the whole. Previous to 1900, the ar-ea was utilized principally for cattle ranching. The shift from ranching to farming which began slowly between 1880 and 1890 was most rapid between 1900 and 1910 and con- tinued steadily until 1929 when a peak of 1,584,000 acres of crops were harvested in six counties (Coleman, Runnels, Taylor, Fisher, Haskell, and Jones) lying entirely within sub-area 4c. Since 1929, there has been a decrease of 15 per cent in the amount of cropland. According to the U. S. Census of Agriculture, 93.5 per cent of the total land in these six counties was in farms in 1939, and 41 per cent of the farm land was in crops‘. Since 1900 cotton has consistently been the leading cash crop, while small grains and grain sorghums have been supplementary although irregular sources of income. The grain sorghums superseded corn as the principal feed crop shortly after their introduction between 1900 and 1910. A The rural population of the above six counties reached its peak of 103,225 about 1910, receded to 88,000 in 1920 as a result of extreme drought, and returned to 100,000 in 1930. However, by 1940 it had again receded to 89,000, largely in response to rekductions in cotton acreage and to a shift from one-row horse-drawn to multi-row tractor- drawn machinery. In order to make a careful appraisal of the alternative systems of farming available to farmers in the area, certain data were obtained on 200 representative farms in Jones County. This county, in turn, is rep- FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 87 resentative of a large portion of the Rolling Plains, but more particularly of sub-area 4c. The data obtained include detailed information pertain- ing to soils, soil erosion, conservation needs and practices, farm organi- zation, farm income, production, production requirements, and produc- tion practices. Seventeen soil types were identified on the 200 farms mapped. For purposes of relating soils to other factors these soil types were classed into five groups as follows: heavy dark upland soils, heavy reddish upland soils, sandy upland soils, bottomland soils, and shallow broken land. The heavy dark upland soils are predominant making up almost 60 per c-ent of the soils on the farms studied and about 35 per cent of the soils of the county. Eighty-five per cent of all soils on the farms studied had slopes of less than 1 per cent. In this respect the five groups ranged as follows: bottom lands, 99 per cent; heavy dark upland soils, 95 per cent; heavy reddish upland soils, 75 per cent; sandy upland soils 56 per cent; and shallow broken land, 36 per cent. Closely related to slope are erosion conditions. Less than 10 per cent of all soils‘ were classed as moderately to severely eroded, while 1.5 per cent of bottomland soils, 3.2 per cent of heavy dark upland soils, 16.8 per cent of sandy upland soils, 19.4 per cent of heavy reddish upland soils, and 43.5 per cent of shallow broken land were so classed. Gullies were reported on only 4.5 per cent of the cropland having less than 1 per cent slope, whereas gullies were noted on 27.6 per cent and on 63 per cent of the lands having slopes of 1-—4 per cent and 4 per cent and over. ' The climate is typically subhumid. The rainfall which averages 24 inches per year varies greatly in amount from year to year and in its distribution within the year. - Of the total cropland on the farms studied, 11 per cent was terraced and 43 per cent was contoured. It was estimated that these practices reduce erosion 69 and 33 per cent and run-off water 68 and 41 per cent. The increases in yields resulting from moisture conservation ranged from 8 per cent on cotton to about 25 per cent on feed crops in the case of terracing, while contouring affected yields by approximately one-half 0f these amounts. Ten per cent more labor and power is‘ required to produce crops on contoured and terraced land as compared with straight row cultivation. A hundred sixty acre farm was the most common size on all soil types in Jones County in 1938. v Generally speaking, row-crop farms were more common than cotton and wheat farms. On the heavy upland soils 58 per cent were cotton farms and 42 per cent cotton-wheat farms; on sandy upland soils 82 per cent were cotton farms and 18 per cent cotton-wheat farms; on bottom lands 53 per cent were cotton farms and 47 per cent cotton-wheat farms; on shallow broken lands 36 per cent were cotton farms and 64 per cent cotton-wheat farms. On the shinnery sands 86 per cent of the farms grew % BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION peanuts and feed crops, while 14 per cent grew cotton and none grew wheat. The average labor and management wage of farm operators on heavy dark upland soils in 1935 was $1,009 as compar-ed with $730, $647, and $526 for operators on heavy reddish upland, sandy upland, and bottom- land soils. Three factors accounted for 40 per cent of the variation in earnings of 100 farm operators on heavy dark upland soils in 1935. These fac- tors and the percentage of the difference in earnings accounted for by each Were as follows: differences in crop yields, 21 per cent; differences in size of farm, 15 per cent; and differences in cropping systems, 4 per cent. Normal rates of production, normal requirements of seed and ma- terials and normal requirements of labor and power assuming the vari- ous types of power and sizes of machines commonly used are given for each important crop. The usual period of performance of each crop operation and the distribution by months of total labor requirements of each crop are also given. The keenest competition for labor occurs during June in the cultivation of row crops and the harvesting of small grains and during September, October, and November in the harvesting of cotton and forage sorghums and in the seeding of small grain. Milo is usually harvested in August just ahead of cotton harvesting but competes to a certain extent with land preparation for small grains. The average rates of production and the usual requirements for pro- duction are given for each class of produce livestock. Livestock and livestock products grown and consumed by 197 farm families averaged 507 gallons of milk, 79 pounds of butter, 172 dozens of eggs, 56 head of poultry, 544 pounds of pork, and 61 pounds of beef. The average cost of maintaining a work animal on 34 farms was 67 cents per day worked or $3.00 per acre in crops. The cost of main- taining a two-row tractor on 54 farms was" $4.89 per day of use or $1.74 per acre of cropland. Optimum crop acreages for an average farm family using one set of one-row horse-drawn machinery and assuming a full cotton acreage were estimated to be 80 acres on row-crop farms and 120 acres on cotton-wheat farms. For two-row horse, two-row tractor, and four-row tractor-drawn equipment the estimated optimum crop acreag-es were 160, 200, and 380 acres for row-crop farms and 200, 260, and 440 acres for cotton-wheat farms. Five different sets of prices representing a wide range of prices and price relationships are given. These sets of prices were used to show the probable effect of varying price situations on expected earnings from the various alternative systems of farming open to farmers 0f the area. An analysis of alternative systems of farming on the heavy dark up- land soils resulted in the following conclusions: FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 89 Increasing the size of farm to utilize more fully operating capital and management, after adjustments required by the AAA program, com- pares favorably with other alternatives from an income standpoint and more especially so on row-crop farms using horse-drawn equipment. This alternative is particularly attractive to farmers of the area for the rea- son that they make reasonably complete use of their operating capital without the necessity of materially changing their system of farming or having to learn the techniques involved in new enterprises. In cases where additional land cannot be obtained, a system of farm- ing involving more than the usual amount of livestock production is in- dicated. The choice as between the alternative livestock systems would largely turn on factors other than incomes since difierences in estimated incomes were not so great but that they could easily be offset by im- provements in production practices. The dairy and poultry enterprises have same advantage over the feeding of beef cattle in that most farmers already have some knowledge of these enterprises and, furthermore, they lend themselves to gradual expansion as knowledge of improved practices is gained. On the other hand the beef feeding enterprise has the advantage of year-to-year flexibility over dairying. There is a com- plet-e turn-over in the beef feeding enterprise each year. This permits an annual adjustment to fit available feed supplies and the price out- look for beef. The beef feeding system seems to b-e most advantageous on farms having a cotton-small grain cropping system. Custom harvesting of small grains has a slight income advantage over the ownership of grain harvesting equipment. This difference may be offset, however, by the advantage of greater control over harvesting op- erations obtained through ownership of the equipment. G-enerally speaking, farm income increases with size of farm. The ad- vantage of larger size tends to increase during period's of relatively high prices and is greatly reduced during periods of relatively 10w prices such as prevailed during the period 1931-1933 and again in 1938. For example, the difference in estimated earnings on row-crop farms using one set of one-row horse-drawn machinery between the period of highest prices, 1927-1929, and the period of lowest prices, 1931-1933, was less than $900. The differences as between the same periods" were $1,800, $2,500, and $4,500 for row-crop farms using one set of two-row horse, two-row tractor, and four-row tractor-drawn machinery. It was estimated that contouring or terracing on the heavy dark lands would increase earnings on row-crop farms using one set of two-row tractor-drawn equipment by approximately $200 per year assuming average prices of the period 1927-1935. As between the two practices, there was no significant difference except that during periods of high prices terracing would have a slight advantage, while during periods of low prices contouring would have the advantage. This probably explains farmer preference for the more simple practice of contouring. 90 BULLETIN NO. 617, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION APPENDIX A complete budget with all de-tails shown is" included for the Benefit of those persons desiring information as to budgeting procedure. Detailed information on labor and power requirements for crop pro- duction including for each operation and for different sizes and types of power units, the size and type of tool, the unit crew, the acres covered per ten-hour day, the times over, and the hours per acre is presented. Table 4'7. Detailed budget for farm using one-row horse-drawn equipment with row-crop system oi’ farming Section A. Labor requirements and cash expenses for crops Seed Other expenses Crop Acres Man Horse s hours hours Amount Cost Amount Cost '11 s b> Cotton ____________________________________________________________ _- 50 1,573 1,184 24 bushels $ ___- Glnning, bagging, E . and ties _______ __ $110.27 _ s bushels 8.00 . . _ . _ . . . . . . . _ . _- i; Milo_ ______________________________________________________________ __ 19 280 484 as lbs. ..--------- ____ _- s, Grain sorghum forage ____________________________________________ _- 6» 98 147“ 40 lbs. ___- Binder twine, C! 20 lbs __________ -_ 1.86 m Sudan pasture- ................................................... __ 5 a2 70 4o lbs. 2.00 . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . __ Q Farmstead_ _______________________________________________________ ,_ 5 ___ ___ ______ __ ___- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- {q Native pasture ____________________________________________________ ,_ 15 ___ _.]_ ______ __ ___- . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . -- g Total ____________________________________________ _________ -_ 100 1,933 1,51% $10.00 v $112.13 g _ F3 Section B. Production and disposal of crops pg F! Q Farm use Sales bl Crop Production E: Z Feed Seed Amount Value Q E Cotton. i‘: Lint _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . -- 7,850 lbs. . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . -- 7,850 lbs. $ 907.46 £2 Seed .................................... -. . ................................. __ 12,733 lbs. 43s lbs. 70s lbs. 11,527 lbs. 140.05 "1 Snapped cotton ____________________________________________________________ __ 30,090 lbs. . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ Milo» grain- ____________________________________________________________________ ,_ 21,062 lbs. 14,763 lbs. 38 lbs. 6,251 lbs. 516.26 Grain sorghum bundles- ____________ __ 25,014 lbs. 25,014 lbs. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . __ Total _______________________________________________________________________ __ $1 ,103.77 ‘S Table 47- Detafled budget for farm using Que-row horse-drawn equipment with row-crop system of farming'—Oontinued Section C. Feed and other expenses for livestock NOLLVLS LNHWIHHJXH TVHHILTIIOIHBV SVXELL ‘L119 'ON MLLTTIIIIH Home grown feeds Purchased feeds Other Livestock No. Man hours Kind Quantity Kind l Quantity \ Cost Kind Cost Workstock ................. __ 3 150 Milo- grain 10,242 lbs. ________ _- ____ $ ____ Miscellaneous $ 2.00 Sorghum bundles 15,110 lbs. ________ -_ _-__ -__- ........ _- ---_ COWS ........... __~ __________ -_ 2 302‘ Cottonseed 438 lbs. Cottonseed meal 525 lbs. 7.88 Miscellaneous 2.00 Milo grain 728 lbs. Sorghum bundles 9,904 lbs. P0ultry_ ................... _- 5O 140 Milo grain 2,050 lbs. Bran 330 lbs. 4.45 50 baby chicks 4.85 Skim milk 1,545 lbs. Shorts 250 lbs. 4.12 ........ -- ___- Laying mash 190 lbs. 4.08 ........ -- --_- Chick starter 70 lbs. 1.96 ........ __ _-__ Growing mash 50 lbs. 1.20 ........ __ --__ Swine _______________________ __ 2 46 Milo grain 1,743 lbs. ________ -_ _-__ _-_- ......... __ ____ Skim milk 1,521 lbs. ________ -_ --__ ___- 2 weaning pigs 7.00 Total __________________ l e37 $23.69 ‘ $15.85 Section D. Production and disposal of livestock and livestock products Used in home Sales Livestoek Production Fed to livestock Amount Value Amount Value Cows _____________________________________________________________ __ 320 lbs. buttertat .... ..- 270 lbs. $ 70 20 50 lbs. $ 13 00 600 lbs. veal .... -- 300 lbs. 15 O0 300 lbs. 15 00 3,066 lbs. skim milk 5,066 lbs. . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Poultry _________________________________________________________ __ 458 doz. eggs 6 d0z.1 172 doz. 34.40 230 doz. 56 00 94 lbs. fryers ____ __ 94 lbs. 20.68 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . __ 60 lbs hens .... __ 25 lbs. 3.50 35 lbs 4 90 Swine _____________________________________________________________ __ 400 lbs pork ____ -- 400 lbs. 26.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Total _________________________________________________________ __ $170.38 $ 88.90 lEggs used in hatching tor replacement. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS 93 Table 47. Detailed budget for farm using one-rovv horse-drawn equipment with row-crop system of farming'—0ontinued Section E. Summary of receipts and expenses Items Total Value Farm investment—Total_ $4,496.00 Investment in: ‘ Land- ___ 3,547.00 Improvements (less residence) 166.00 Machinery and equipment ____ _- 370.00 Livestock- ____ ____ __ _ 412.00 Farm sales-Total ____________________________ __ 1,192.67 Amount of sales from: Crops (Section B.) 1,103.77 Livestock and livestock products (Section D.) 88.90 Farm expense-Total“ -__ 408.77 Amount of expense for: Crops (Section A.)— Seed“- 10.00 Other expenses__ 112.13 Livestock (Section O.)- Feed purchased" 23.69 Other expenses- 15.85 Hired labor- Snapping cotton (30,090 lbs. at $0.45 cwt.) 135.40 Other (82 hours)_--_ 10.25 Other expenses: Improvement expense _____________________ _- 10.88 Machinery and equipment expense ____ __ 56.75 Taxes _______________ -_ 33.82 Total farm sales _______________ __ 1,192.07 Livestock products used in home ---__ 170.38 Garden- 20.00 GROSS FARM INCOME__ _- ____ __ _ 1,383.05 Total farm expense _____________________________________________________________________ __ 408 Unpaid farmily labor (712 hours) _____ .. Depreciation: Improvements ______________________________ __ Machinery and equipment- Workstock _____________ __ TOTAL DEDUGTIONS .............. __ Return to capital and operator's labor and management ........................... __ Interest on investment at 6 per cent Labor and management wage gees e. %8§% 82% 723.46 453 . 7F» '.l‘a.b1e 48a. Labor using one-row horse-drawn equipment and. power required per acre for the usual operations in growing and harvesting cotton on farms Unit crew Acres Hours per acre Operations Size or type per ten- Times —-—————————— of tool hour day over Man Horse Man Horse Seed bed preparation: Out sta1ks__ _,--___ 1' R 1 2 8.5 .34 .41 .82 Flat break ...... __ __ -__- _______________________ -- 2 disc 1 4 4 .19 .48 1.92 Breaking plow List- ______________________________________________________________________ __ 1~14" point 1 4 8 .37 .48 1.92 Bed ________________________________________________________________________ -_ 1-20” sweep 1 2 8 1.05 1.29 2.59 Knife beds- ________________________________________________________________ __ 1 R slide 1 2 8.5. .07 .09 .17 Cultivate beds ____________________________________________________________ __ 4 sweeps 1 2 9 .80 .33 .65 Planting- _____________________________________________________________________ -- 1-20’ sweep 1 2 7 1.29 1.92 3.84 Machine cultivation: HflrrOW ____________________________________________________________________ __ 2 section 1 2 21 .12 .06 .11 Knife _____________________________________________________________________ __ 1 R slide 1 2 8.5 .16 .20 .39 Cultivate __________________________________________________________________ __ 4 sweeps 1 2 8 3.38 4.22 8.48 Ch0p____ _________________________________________________________________________________ _- 1 _- 3 .74 2.48 ____ Hoe_ ____________________________________________________________________________________ __ 1 __ 4 1.11 2.90 ____ Poison- _______________________________________________________________________ __ 6 R spray 2 2 17 .13 .08 08 Total hours per acre previous to harvest _____________________________________________ __ __ _- ---- ---- 14.94 20.9’? Harvest: Pick ________________________________________________________________________________ __ 1 -_ _--- .28 2.70 ____ Snap- _____________________________________________ __" ................................ -- 1 -_ ____ 1.82 12.27 _--_ Haul and gin _____________________________________________________________ _- Wagon 1 2 --_- 1.00 1.34 2.68 Total harvest ___________________________________________________________________________ __ -_ -_ _--- --__ 16.81 2.68 Total all operations ____________________________________________________________________ __ -- __ -_-_ ____ 31.25 23.65 76 NOLLVLS LNEIFUHHJXEI TVHflJ/IIIOIHSV SVXIEIL ‘L19 ‘ON NIJLTFIHH Table 48b. Labor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growing and harvesting cotton on farms using two-row hora e-drawn equipment Unit crew Acres Hours per acre » Operations Size or type ———i- per ten- Times —-—-—-—-—————— 0t tool hour day over Man Horse Man Horse Seed bed preparation: a Out stalks__ ____ __ ____ ___________________________ __ 2 R 1 4 2L5 .34 .17 .66 1:1 Flat break ______________________________________________________ __- ________ __ 2 disc 1 4 4 .19 .48 1.92 71> Harrow--- __ __ _____ -_ 2 section 1 4 19.5 .11 .06 .22 é List; ______________________________________________________________________ __ 212,46" point 1 5 16.5 .37 .23 1.13 Bed ________________________________________________________________________ __ 2-20" sweeps 1 5 15 1.05 .09 3.44. @ Knife beds" _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ 2 R slide 1 4 17 .07 .04 .16 L, Cultivate beds ____________________________________________________________ __ 8 sweeps 1 4 17 .30 .18 .71 Q Plant ___________________________________________________________________________ __ 2-20" sweeps 1 5 14.5 1.29 .90 4.53 g Machine cultivation: g Harrow- __________________________________________________________________ __ 2 section 1 2 21 .12 .06 .11 gs Knife-» __ ____ __ _ 2 R slide 1 4 15 .16 .11 .42 z Cultivate ___- -- _______ __ e sweeps 1 4 1e 3.3a 2.13 s 55 g2 0hop-- ____ __ _- _____________________________ __ 1 __ 3 .74 2.48 ___- * Hoe" _____________ __ 1 __ 4 1.11 2.90 ___- E Poison“ ___- ___________ .. e R spray 2 2 17 .13 .08 .08 ,5 Total ho-urs per acre previous to harvest--- ___ _- __ ___- ___- 10.51 21.98 E 4 i Harvest: '5 Pick _______________________________ -_ ’ ___- ________ -_ 1 __ ___- .28 2.70 ___- 1-‘ Snap“ ____ ___- - _________ .. __ __ ___- 1.82 12.27 ___- Haul and gin- __ _______________________ __ Wagon 1 2 ___- 1.00 1.34 2.68 % Total harvesf _--_ ____ ___ ' __ __ ___- i ___- 16.31 2.68 Total all operations _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .__ __ ___- l ____ 26.32 24.61 E m Q6 Table 48c. Labor and power required using two-row tract or-drawn equipment per acre for the usual operations in growing and harvesting cotton on farms Unit crew Acres Hours per acre Operations Size or type per ten- Times of tool Trac- hour day over Trac- Man tor Man tor Seed bed preparation: Out stalks--- 2 R 1 1 26 .34 .13 .13 Flat break_ ____ ___ 3 disc 1 1 7.5 .19 .25 .25 One-way 6 foot 1 1 18 ' .18 .09 .09 Harrow" 4 section 1 1 75 .11 .01 .01 List--- ---- -- 2 R 1 1 21 .37 .18 .18 Bed . . . . _ _ . _ . _ -.. - 2-20” sweeps 1 1 20 1.05 .52 .52 Knife beds _________ __ __ _______ __ 2 R slide 1 1 20 .07 .03 .03 Cultivate beds.. ' - 2 R 1 1 24 .30 .13 .13 Plant _______ __ -- 2~20” sweeps 1 1 18.5 1.29 .70 .70 Machine cultivation: . Harrow- _ 4 section 1 1 63 .12 .02 .02 Knife ____ __ - -_ _ 2 R slide 1 1 20 .16 .08 .08 Cultivate . _ . . . . _ . . . . __ 31 R 1 1 28 3.318 1.22 1.22 Chop--. _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ . _ . . . . . . _ . . - . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1 __ 3 .74 2.48 ___- H0e_____ ___- ___ 1 -_ 4 1.11 2.90 ___- POiBOIL- ---_ -_ ’ -_ _________ -_ 6 row spray 2 1 20.5 .13 .06 .03 Total hours per acre previous to harvest___-- _- ___ __ __ ___- -___ 8.80 3.39 Harvest: Pick _________________________________________________________________________________ __ 1 -- ___- .28 2.70 ___- ________ __ 1 __ ___- 1.82 12.27 ___- Haul and gin _____________________________________________________________ __ Oar and trailer 1 1 ___- 1.00 1.20 1.20 I Total harvest ___________________________________________________________________________ _- 1 __ -. ___- I ___- 16.17 1.20 Total all operations ____________________________________________________________________ _- _ - ___- l ____ 24.97 4.59 NOLLVJ/S JAIEIWIHEIJXH TVHIILTDTOIHBV SVXEIJ} ‘L119 ‘ON NLLEFPIHEI Table 48d. Labor using‘ three- and four-row tractor-drawn equipment and power required per more for the usual operations 1n growing’ and harvesting cotton on. farms Unit erew Acres Hours‘ per acre Operations Size or type —--—-——- per ten- Times ———- of tool Trac- l011I‘ day over Trac- Man tor Man tor Seed bed preparation: Gut stalks- _______________________________________________________________ -_ 4 R 1 1 55 .34 .06 .06 One-way .... __ ____ _____________ _- 6 toot 1 1 18 .18 .09 .09 Harrow . . . . . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ -- 4 section 1 1 7'5 .11 .01 .01 Bed _____________________________________________________________ _-.. ________ _- 3-20" sweeps 1 1 80 1.05 .35 .35 Plant--_ ______________________________________ _- 4-20” sweeps 1 1 33 1.29 .39 .39 Machine cultivation: Cultivate -_ -___ _-___ 4 R. 1 1 38 3.38 .88 .% Chop---“ _--- _____________________________________ __ 1 -_ 3 .74 2.48 -___ Hoe- _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ __ ____ ________ __ 1 __ 4 1.11 2.90 ____ POiSOIL- -__- ____ __ _ 6 R spray 2 1 20.5 .13 .06 .03 Total hours per acre previous to harvest --------------------------------------------- _- -_ -- ---- ---- 7.22 1.81 Harvest: Pick ________ __ -_ _________________________ -- __ _- _-__ .28 2.70 __-_ Snap- ............................................................................... __ __ __ __-_ 1.82 12.27 ___- Haul and gin _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . __ Oar and trailer 1 1 _-__ 1.00 1.20 1.20 Total harvest __ ___.._ ________ _.. _.. -_ -_-- ___.. 16.17 1.20 Total all operations __ -- -_-- _.._- 23.39 3.01 SNIIVTJ EJMPITOH HHJ; LU SENIIWILSHPGV NHVI Table 49a. using one-row hors e-drawn equipment Labor and power required per acre for the usual operation in growing and harvesting milo on farms Unit crew Acres Hours per acre Qperations Size or type per ten- Times —-—-——-—————— of tool hour day over Man Horse Man Horse Seed be-d preparation: Gut stalks ___________ -_ 1 -_ 1 R 1 2 8-5 .33 .40 .80 Flat bre~ak__-_____ __ _ 2 disc 1 4 4- .11 .28 1.11 List _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _,__ 1-14" point 1 4 8 .26 .34 1.35 Bed __ __ 1-20?’ sweep 1 2 8 1.01 1.24 2.49 Center furr-ow_______ Diamond point 1 2 9 .11 .13 .25 Knife beds _______________________ __ ___ ____- 1 R Slide 1 2 8.5 .08 .10 .20 Cultivate beds _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ 4 sweeps 1 2' 9' .18 .20 .39 Plant-" _____________________ __ 1—20" sweep 1 2 7 1.0!? 1.54 3.08 Machine cultivation: Harrow___-- __- 2 section 1 2 21 .13 .016 .12 Knife _____________________________________________________________________ -_ 1 B. slide 1 2 8.5 .14 .17 .34 Cultivate _____________________________ -_ 4 sweeps 1 2 8 2.33 2.91 5.85 Hoe--- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- 1 -- 3 .75 2.64 ---_ Total hours per acre previous to harvest _____________________________________________ __ __ _- --__ --_- 10.01 15.98 Harvest: Head and haul in- _______________________________________________________ __ Wagon 1 2 __-- 1.00 4.50 9.00 Total all operations ________________ __. __________________________________________________ __ -- _- --_- ___- 14.51 24.98 86 NOLLVJLS {LNIIWIHQIJXEI TVHILT/LOOIHSV SVXHL ‘L19 ‘ON NICLHTTHH Table 49b. Labor and power required per acre for the usual o using‘ two-row hors e-drawn equipment perations in growing and. harvesting milo on farms Unit crew Acres Hours per acre Operations Size or type -——-———— per ten- Times ——--————-————- l of tool hour day over Man Horse Man Horse Seed bed preparation: Out stalks-_- -_ . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ __ 2 R 1 4 21 .33 .16 .64 Flat break- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ 2 disc 1 4 4 .11 .28 1.11 Harrow _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- 2 section 1 4 19.5 .07 .04 .14 List _____________ _- _ _- __ - 2R,—16" points 1 5 16.5 .26 .16 .80 Bed ________________________________________________________________________ -- 2-20’ sweeps 1 5 15 1.01 .67 3.31 Center furrow“--- _- 2 R lister 1 6 15 .11 .07 .44 Knife beds _____ __ __ _- _--_ 2 R slide 1 4 17 .08 .05 .19 Cultivate beds ........ -_ 8 sweeps 1 4 17 .18 .11 .43 Plant _- 2—20/’ sweeps 1 5 15 1.07 .71 3.51 Machine cultivation: Harrow- _ -..___ 2 Section 1 2 21 .13 .06 .12 KDiflL-n ____ __ - 2' R slide 1 4 15 .14 .09 .37 Cultivate -_ 8 sweeps 1 4 16 2.33 1.47 5.89 Hoe--- 1 -_ 3 .75 2.64 --__ Total hours per acre previous to harvest _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _- -- -__- -___ 6.51 16.95 Harvest: Head and haul ln_____ Wagon 1 2 ---_ 1.00 4.50 9.00 Total all operations __ -- -__- _-__ 11.01 25.95 SNIVTJ BNYYIOH EIHJ; NT SJNHWJZSIIDCIV NHVJ Table 49c. using two-row tract or-drawn equipment I-abor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growing and harvesting milo on farms Acres Unit crew Hours per acre Operations Size or type — per ten- Times of tool Trac- hour day over Trac- Man Horse tor Man Horse tor Seed bed preparation: Cut stalks 2 R 1 _- 1 26 .33‘ .13 --_- .13 Flat break- 3 disc 1 _- 1 7.5 .11 .15 --_- .15 One-way__ _-_-_ 6 foot 1 __ 1 18 .14 .08 --_- .08 Harrow_ __ 4 section 1 .._ 1 75 .07 .01 ____ .01 List_ --_- 2! R 1 -_ 1 21 .26 .13 --_- .13 Bed _ 2-20" sweeps 1 _- 1 20 1.01 .50 --_- .50 Cultivate beds- 2 R 1 .._ 1 24 .18 .08 __-_ .08 Planp _ 2-20” sweeps 1 -- 1 19.5 1.0!? .55 ____ .55 Machine cultivation: Harrow_ _______ __ 4 section 1 __ 1 63 .13 .02 --_- .02 Knife ___________________________________________________ -- 2 R slide 1 _- 1 20 .14 .07 --_- .07 Cultivate“--- --_- 3 R 1 __ 1 27 2.33 .84 ____ .84 Hoe ________ __ -._ ________ -_ 1 -_ __ 3 .75 2.64 ____ --_- Total hours previous to harvest _- -_ _- _ -- ____ 5.20 --_- 2.561 Harvest: Head and haul in. ____________________________________ .._ Wagon 1 2 _- ____ 1-00 4.50 9.00 --._ Total all operations- ___ __ -- __ -._-_ __-_ 9.70 9.00 2.56 NOLLVJ/S LNIIWIHTEIJXEI TVHDLTIIOIHBV SVXEICL ‘LE9 ‘OM NLLCTITIIH OOI Table 49d. Labor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growing and harvesting milo on farms using three- and four-row tractor-drawn equipment Unit crew Acres Hours per acre Operations Size or type ' — per ten- Times o! tool Trac- hour day over Trac- Man Horse tor Man Horse tor Seed bed preparation: . Gut stalks- 4 R 1 -_ 1 55 .33 .06 --- .06 One-way__ 6 foot 1 __ 1 18 .14 .08 ---- .08 Harrow _______ __ 4 section 1 __ 1 75 .07 .01 ---_ .01 Bed--- __ 3-20” sweeps 1 -_ 1 30 1.01 .33 --__ .33 Plant--- __ 4-20” sweeps 1 -_ 1 33 1.07 .32 ___- .32 Machine cultivation: Cultivate 4 R 1 -- 1 38 2.33 .61 ___- .61 HOG- 1 __ _- 3' .75 2.64 --__ ---_ Total hours previous to harvest -- -_ -- -_-- _-__ 4.05 __-_ 1.41 Harvest: _- Head and haul i" Wagon 1 2 __ ---_ 1.00 4.50 9.00 ---- Total all operations -- - -- --_- --_- 8.55 9.00 1.41 IOI SMIVTJ BNITIOH IEEHJ; NI SILLNINLLSHPQV WHVJ Table 50a. Labor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growing and harvesting cane on farms using one-row hors e-drawn equipment Unit crew Acres Hours per acre Operations Size or type per ten- Times oi tool hour day over Man Horse Man Horse Seed bed preparation: Cut stalks" ......................... __..-_-_- 1 R- 1 2 8.5 .27 .33 .65 Fiat break- _- 2 disc 1 4 4 .12 .30 1.22 List _______________________ _- -_ 1-14” point 1 4 8 .21 .27 1.09 Bed"- , __ 1—20” sweep 1 2 8 1.22 1.50 3.01 Center furrow"- Diamond point 1 2 9 .10 .11 .23 Cultivate beds__ 4. sweeps 1 2 9 .36 .39 .78 Plant--- -_ 1-20" sweep 1 2 7 1.02 1.47 2.94 Machine cultivation: Harrow_ ___________________________________ __ 2 section 1 2 21 .07 .03 .07 Knife- __ ____ _- 1 R slide 1 2 8.5 .10 .12 .24 Cultivate 4 sweeps 1 2 8 2.07 2.59 5.20 Hoe- ............................... -_ __-_ ________ -- 1 __ 4 .31 .82 ___- Total hours per aere previous to harvest ............................................. -- -- -- -_-_ i -_-- 7.93 15.4?! i Harvest: Bind -- 1 R 1 3 7 1.00 1.4-2 4.27 Shock- _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . . _ . _ _ __ 1 __ 4.5 1.00 2.22 -___ Haul and shank Wagon 2 2 __-- 1.00 4.27 4.2’! Total harvest . _ _ - - . - - _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . -_ __ -_ _ __ ---- 7.91 8.54 Total all operation"- ---- ----------------- -- __ i -- - -- -__- 15.84 28.9’? ZOE SEOIJIVLS iLNCvIWIHSIJX-H ‘TVHDLTQOIHBV SVXEICL ‘L19 'OI~I NIVLETIIIEI Table 60b. Labor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growing and harvesting cane on. farms using two-row hore e-drawn equipment Unit crew Acres Hours per acre Operations Size or type per ten- Times ——~-———————— of tool hour day over Man Horse Man Horse Seed bed preparation: Out stalks- _______________________________________________________________ __ 2 R 1 4 21 .27 .13 .52 Flat break ________________________________________________________________ __ 2 disc 1 4 4 .12 .30 1.22 Harrow- __________________________________________________________________ __ 2 section 1 4 19.5 .11 .06 .22 List _______________________________________________________________________ ,- 2R,—16(’ points 1 5 16.5 .21 .13 .64 Bed _______________________________________________________________________ __ 2-20" sweeps 1 5 15 1.22 .81 4.00 Center furrow- ___________________________________________________________ __ 2 R. lister 1 6 15 .10 .07 .40 Cultivate beds ____________________________________________________________ __ 8 sweeps 1 4 17 .36 .21 .85 Plant __________________________________________________________________________ __ 2-21)" sweeps 1 5 15 1.02 .67 3.35 Machine cultivation: Harrow- __________________________________________________________________ __ 2 section 1 2 21 .07 .03 .07 Knife ______________________________________________________________________ -_ 2 R slide 1 4 15 .10 .07 .26 Cultivate __________________________________________________________________ __ 8 sweeps 1 4 16 2.07’ 1.30 5 24 Hoe- _--_ ___________________________-_________ __.____.__ 1 __ 4 .31 .82 ___- Total hours per acre previous to harvest ______________________________ ---__-_ -------- -- -- -- ---- ---~ 4-60 16-77 Harvest: 1 R 1 3 7 1.00 1.42 4.27 Bind _________________________________________________________________________________ __ 1 __ 4.5 1.00 2.22 ____ Shoclg _____________________________________________________________________ __ Wagon 2 2 __ 1.00 4.27 4.27 Haul and stack ___________________________________________________________ _- Total harvest- _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ . _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ -_ ---- ---- 7-91 8-54 Total all operations ____________________________________________________________________ __ __ __ -_-- ---- 12-51 25-31 SOI SNIVTJ EJNITTOH HHL NI SJiNHWlSflfGV WHVJ Table 50c. Labor and power required per acre for the usual o perations in growing and harvesting cane on farms us two-row tractor-drawn equipment Unit crew Acres Hours per acre Operations Size 0r type ~————-' per ten- Times of tool Trac- 10111‘ day over Trac- Man Horse tor Man Horse tor Seed he'd preparation: Gut stalks___- _ 2 R 1 _- 1 26 .27 .10 _--- .10 Flat break 3 disc 1 -.. 1 7.5 .12 .16 ____ .16 One-way" _____ 6 foot 1 -- 1 18 .14 .08 ---- .08 List“ ___,_ 2 R 1 _- 1 21 .21 .10 -_-_ .10 Bed--- . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 2-20” sweeps 1 -- 1 20 1.22 .61 ---_ .61 Center furrow- ________________________________________ __ 2 R 1 -_ 1 19.5 .10 .05 -___ .05 Cultivate beds _________________________________________ _- 2 R 1 -_ 1 24 .36 .15 ---_ .15 Plant“- ____ _ _____________ __ 2-20” sweeps 1 -- 1 19.5 1.02 .52 ____ .52 Machine cultivation: Harrow- _______________________________________________ __ 4 section 1 __ 1 63 .07 .01 __-_ .01 Knife_ __ _-_. _____ 2 R slide 1 _ 1 20 .10 .05 _-__ .05 Cultivate _______________________________________________ __ 2 R 1 __ 1 19 2.07 1.10 ____ 1.10 Hoe ______ __ __ ____ ___ ________ __ 1 __ __ 4 .31 .82 ____ _-__ Total hours previous to- harvest ----------------------------------- -- -- _- __ ---- ____ 3.75 __-- 2-93 Harvest: Bind ____________________________________________________ -- 1 R. 1 3 _- 7 1.00 .42 4.27 --__ Shock ____________________ ___ ______________________________________ -_ 1 __ __ 4.5 1.00 .221 -___ --__ Haul and stack ________________________________________ __ Wagon 2 2 __ __-- 1.010‘ .27 4-27 __-- Total harvest _______________________________________________________ __ __ __ __ -__- ____ 91 8.54 __-- Total all operations _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . ._ __ _ -_ __-- -___ 66 8.54 2.93 T701 NOLLVLS LNEIWIHEIJXEI TVHILIXIIIOIHBV SVXHJ} ‘Z19 ‘ON NLLEFPIIIEI Table 50d. Labor and power required per acre for the u sual operations in growing and harvesting cane on farm! using three- and four-row tractor-drawn equipment l ‘ Unit crew Acres Hours per acre Operations Size or type -————————-——-— per ten- Times ————————————————-— of tool Trac- hour day over Trac- Man Horse tor Man Horse tor 0 i Seed bed preparation: Cut stalks _____________________________________________ __ 4 R 1 __ 1 55 .27 .05 __-_ .05 q One-Way_ ______________________________________________ __ 6 foot 1 _- 1 1s .14 .08 _-_- .081 u, Harr0w_ _______________________________________________ __ 4 section 1 __ 1 75 .11 .01 __-- .01 E BEG _____________________________________________________ __ 3-20" sweeps 1 _- 1 M 1.22 .40 _-__ .40 Cuitivate beds _________________________________________ __ 4. R 1 __ 1 35 .36 .10 ____ .10 Piallh _____________________________________________________ __ 4-20” sweeps 1 __ 1 33 1.02 .31 ---- .31 E Machine cultivation: a Cultivate _______________________________________________ __ 4 R 1 1 __ 1 36 2.07 .58 _-__ .58 m Hoe ________________________________________________________ __ _ ________ __ 1 __ __ 4 .31 \ .82 a * -~ a Total hours previous to harvest ----------------------------------- -- i -- -- ~- --- ---- ‘ 2-35 ---- 1-53 E Harvest: a? Bind ____________________________________________________ __ 1 R 1 3 __ 7 1.00 1.42 4.27 __-_ E Shock__ ___________________________________________________________ -- 1 _- -- 4 5 1-00 2-22 ---_ ---- Haul and stack ________________________________________ __ WBJEOI! 2 2 -- ---- 1-00‘ 4-27 4-27 ---- E Total harvest_ ______________________________________________________ -- -- -- -- ---- ---- 7-91 3-54 ---- s: Total all operations ________________________________________________ -- -- -- -- ---- ---- 10-26 9-54 \ 1-53 a E Q ‘T! E Z m 90I Table 51a. Labor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growing and harvesting small grain on farms using horse-drawn equipment Unit crew Acres Hours per acre Operations Size or type —--———-——-—-- per ten- Time-s of tool Tirac- hour day over Trac- Man I Horse tor Man Horse tor Land preparation: Flat break ---- -- 2 disc 1 4 _- 4 .66 1.67 6.60 _--_ _Hfl1'I'0W-- --- 2 section 1 4 __ 19.5 .21 .11 .43 ___- Drm e foot 1 4 -- 13.5 1.00 .14 2.95 --_- Total hours previous to harvest ___________________________________ -_ -- __ __ ____ __-_ 2.52 10.07 --_- Harvest: I Bind ____________________________________________________ __ 6 foot 1 4 __ 15 1.00 .66 2.63 _--- shock_ ___________________________________________________________ __ 1 _ _- 7.5 1.00 1.32 ..-__ --__ Thresh _________________________________________________ _- Thresher 11 16 1 _-_- 1.00 3.24 5-01 .31 Haul ___________________________________________________ __ Wagon 1 2 __ _.._- 1.00 .45 .90‘ ---- Total harvest . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ ____ -_ ________ __ -- r -- -_ ---- ---- 5-67 8-54 ~31 Total all operations ________________________________________________ -- -- ! -- -- ---- ---- 8-19 18-61 -31 ml NOI-LVLS CLNEIWIHQIcIXH TVHILI/IIIOIHSV SVXELL ‘L119 'ON NILEFFIHH ~~ 1 ,..-§,--,—~~=~w,,-1-v Table 51b. Labor and power required per acre for; the usual operavtiozize 1n growing‘ and hex-venting email grain on ? ‘-"1"""@ farms using‘ tractor-drawn equipment L - ‘ i ' Unit crew 1 Avrr-s 1 Hours pvr zwrv UpIJTilUUIIS Size 0r type —-——-~~—~——‘ pei ton- Times ——————————— ~- of tool 5 Trac- ghoul‘ day over 1 l 'l‘rac i Man tor E Man tor _ _ ___ __ __ _- -___._vfl_ A___v, __ ‘__ ____ 1__ Land prcpratioli: \ " Flat break _________________________________________________________________ __ I; disc 1 I 1 i 7 5 .06 1 >8 8s One-way .................................................................. *" 61 foot 1 | 1 1s .21; 1 14 14 Harrow- _____________________________________________ _; ___________________ -- 4 section 1 1 1 ; 75 .21 1 1 11¢; Drill ........................................................................... __ s foot 1 1 1 = 21 1.110 \ 1s i 4s Total hours per acre previous to harvcat _________________________________ ____ ________ __ ' -_ -_ 1 ____ _-__ Li»? 1.51; ' — -— — ————~~ -j ~ A ~ ~ ‘—-—-——;— —— A ~~~~~-—~--~\YA—~ —v*1 ~-— ~ Harvest: r 1 ‘g , Combine- _________________________________________________________________ __ (Contract) ‘l - 1 ‘ 26.5 1.00 .76 \ .38 Haul ________________________________________________________________________ -_ 'l‘1uil.-r 1 = 1 ; __-_ 1.00 1 .35 , :73 ‘ . __.____ ,4i__ __i ___.V_€_ __.__%.._ _____ii _______._____‘_____._______ \_____,______,__ Total harvest ____________________________________________________________________________ -- ; _- -- Q -__- 1.11 i .73 Total all operations _____________________________________________________________________ -_ 1 __ __ __-- ____ 2.64 1 2.20 1 LOI SNIIVTcI SNITTOH EIHL NI S-LNEIW1JQSIIFGV WHVdi Table 52a. Labor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growing sudan for ‘pasture 0n farms ‘ using‘ two-row horse-drawn equipment 901 I Unit crew i Aeres ' Hours oer aere Operations Size or type ~ -------- ——“ per ten- Times —————————— —— < 1’ tool ‘ hour day over ‘ Man IIorse Man 1101's? 7____ in" __.*__i_\__7__*_ l 7 _ 0 i I ‘ .. _,Soe(l bed preparation: h 1 a .F'at break ________________________________________________________________ __ 2‘ (I've 1 4 4 f8 21.?” ' 1m _______________________________________________________________________ -- 2 1 i 1o ‘ 1.510- 85 1 ; _ t-‘iifltivate beds _____________________________________________________________ _- 2 R 1 4 j 1t .011 (ln 1 .21 ‘ " '-"'Pla11tL'_ __________________________________________________________________________ .. i’ if?’ sweeps 1 5 1.1 1.00 .00 3.28 yCilltivate _____________________________________________________________________ __ 2 l1 ‘ 1 4 16 1.91 1.20 4 8;; p .-_~__*W,____________.. .___ _____ ____.________~ ______ __.~__ _.__.____i______ __7_ 7 _i_______ ' Total all operations _____________________________________________________________________ __ i __ __ _ _- i ___- ‘l 4° 13 ‘>7 3 Table 52b. Labor and power required per acre for the usual operations in growing sudan for pasture on farms using two-row tractor-drawn equipment fuit erew i Aeres ‘ Hours per acre Operations Size or type ——————— ~— per ten- 1 'l‘imes —————————— —~— of tool i 'l‘rae- ‘hour day over 'l“rac- M a n i‘ t or M :1 n i t o r _-_, _ ____.ei t __ Seed bed preparation: ‘ 1 Fiat break ______________________________________________________________ -1 3 disc 1 ; 1 7.5 25 .23 » 33 (line-way ___________________________________________________________________ _- 6 foot 1 1 1n‘ .19 1H .10 1am ________________________________________________________________________ -_ 2-20" sweeps i 1 i 1 21 1.44 .1 i .71 Cultivate beds ____________________________________________________________ __ 2 h‘, 1 i 1 24 .016 (H .1 Plant _____________________________________________________________________________ _- 240" sweeps 1 f, 1 10.5 1.00 .51 q n1 Cultivate _____________________________________________________________________ __ 2 R 1 i 1 1i) 1.828 1.001 1.011 Total all operations _____________________________________________________________________ -_ __ i - ____ -__ 2.68 i 2.68 NOLLV-LS LKEINIHEIdXH "IVHDJ/IIIOIZIDV SVXELL ‘L19 'ON NILEFITQH