TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, Director College Station, Texas BULLETIN NO. s52 JULY 1944 INFORMATION BASIC TO FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS A. C. MAGEE, C. A. BONNEN, and B. H. THIBODEAUX Division 0f Farm and Ranch Economics in Cooperation with Bureau of Agricultural Economics U. S. Department of Agriculture AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS GIBB GILCHRIST, President D-22-844-4500 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] This bulletin deals with production and production require- ments, the manner in which they are affected by changes in the combination of enterprises and production practices, and in turn the probable effect of these changes on farm earnings in the High Plains Cotton Area. Farmers have been quick to take advantage of improvements in machinery and power. Within a period of 15 years they have shifted almost completely from one-row horse-drawn machinery to two- and four-row motorized equipment. Single-row horse-drawn implements were superseded by two-row horse-drawn machinery which in turn was replaced by multi-row tractor equipment. The rapid shift to larger power and equipment has greatly increased the efficiency of labor. Under sual conditions, pre- harvest labor amounting to 10.45 hours waskequired per acre of cotton with single-row horse machinery and 6.65 hours with two- row horse-drawn implements. With two- and four-row tractor- drawn equipment the requirements for pre-harvest labor per acre of cotton were reduced to 5.5 and 4.3 hours, respectively. Compar- able savings of labor resulted for other crops. Recently improved combines along with the development of varieties of grain sorghums suitable for combining have enabled farmers to complete the mechanization of sorghum grain produc- tion. A total of 1.8 hours of labor was required to harvest sorg- hum grains by combining compared to an average of 4.45 hours when sorghums were hand-headed. A stripper type cotton harvester has been developed by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. A limited number of these machines were manufactured for distribution in 1943 and more will be available in 1944. Two men using a two-row ma- chine of this type will harvest as much cotton per day as 14 to 16 men will harvest by snapping. Labor savings associated with the shift to a high level of mechanization has greatly increased the crop acreage that can be operated per man. The general trend has been toward the opera- tion of larger units. Assuming the maximum acreage of cotton that can be readily planted and cultivated, one man can operate, with the help of extra labor for hoeing and harvesting, approxi- mately 100 acres of cropland with one set of single-row horse- drawn machinery or 1810 acres with two-row horse-drawn imple- ments. This acreage can be increased to 250 by the use of two- row tractor equipment and to 450 acres with four-row tractor equipment. During the period of the study, cotton production was the most profitable enterprise in the area. The limitations placed on cotton production by the establishment of marketing quotas made it necessary for a large proportion of operators to modify their system of farming. These adjustments entailed a reduction in cotton acreage and increased production of grain and forage or pasture crops. The best plan within the limitations of the Agricultural Ad- justment program was to grow the maximum acreage of cotton allotted and plant sorghum grain for the remainder of the soil de- pleting allotment. Forage and grazing crops were grown as soil conserving crops. It was more profitable to market feed through livestock than on the cash market with prices which prevailed dur- ing 1942. A combination of hogs and dairy cattle or hogs, dairy cattle and chickens gave greater returns for feed crops than did beef calves. Substituting poultry for a part of the hog enterprise had little influence on income. During wartime, price relationships and the supply of farm labor are basic considerations in adjusting farm organizations to war needs. Farmers can minimize the effects of a reduced labor supply by harvesting cotton and grain sorghums mechanically. With mechanical harvesting of these crops, price relationships largely determine the direction of adjustments. CONTENTS Page Introduction .............................................................. --,- ---------------------------------------------- -- 5 Soils and Topography ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 6 Climate ....................................................................................................................... -- 7 Soil and Moisture Conservation and Fertility Maintenance -------------------------- ~10 Weeds .......................................................................................................................... ~13 Insects ......................................................................................................................... ~14 Plant Diseases .................. ..§ ..................................................................................... “l4 Adaptability of Crop Enterprises ........................................................................ .14 Cotton ................................................................................................................. ..15 Usual Practices in the Production of Cotton ...................................... "16 Labor and Power Used to Grow Cotton .............................................. .16 Grain Sorghums ............................................................................................... .20 Usual Practices and Labor and Power Used for Sorghum Production ............................................................................ .21 Milo ...................................................................................................... .21 Cane ..................................................................................................... .23 Corn ..................................................................................................................... .23 y‘ , Sudan ................................................................................................................... .27 Wheat .................................................................................................................. .27 Distribution of Labor and Power in Crop Production .............................. .30 Timeliness of Operations .............................................................................. ..31 ' Materials and Services Used in Crop Production ...................................... ..32 S v Crop Yields ........................................................................................................ ..32 I Adaptability of Livestock Enterprises ................................................................ ..34 ~ Dairy Cattle ...................................................................................................... .37 -" Hogs .................................................. ............................................................... ._42 ~ Poultry ................................................................................................................ ..45 Other Livestock Enterprises .......................................................................... ._48 Normal Production and Requirements of Livestock ................................ ..48 Factors Affecting the Choice of Farm Power .................................................. _.50 Amounts of Feed Fed to Workstock ............................................................ ..54 Cost of Horse Work ........................................................................................ ..56 Cost of Tractor Work ...................................................................................... ..56 Choosing the Power Unit .............................................................................. ..59 Adjustments in Farming Systems ...................................................................... ..61 Typical Systems of Farming Previous to the Advent of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration .............................................. ..62 The Cotton System .................................................................................. ..66 Cotton, Grain Sorghum, Livestock System ........................................ ..66 Grain Sorghum, Livestock System ...................................................... ..67 The Cash Grain System .......................................................................... ..68 Adjusting Systems of Farming Within Limitations of Agricultural Adjustment Administration Program ............................ ..68 Cash Feed System .................................................................................... ._69 Swine, Dairy System ............................................................................ ....‘71 Swine, Dairy, Poultry System .............................................................. ..73 Beef Cattle System .................................................................................. ..74 Increased Size of Farm ................................................ ....................... ..75 Maximum Mechanization ....................................................................... ..76 Adjustments in Response to Wartime Conditions .................................... ..77 Summary ..................................................................................................................... _.78 INFORMATION BASIC TO FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS . By A. c. Magee,‘ c. A. Bonneni and B. H. Thibodeauxg This bulletin reports some of the results of a farm management - y dy in the High Plains Cotton Area of Texas the location of which is A élfllown in Figure 1. Previously an extensive cattle ranching country, the Irea has shifted almost completely to crop farming during the past 25 to I years. In the shift from ranching to farming many problems of adapt- Con and adjustment have been encountered. The turbulent economic con- Qiitions of the past decade have accentuated some of these problems and others. For example the area was settled pretty largely during the -,;-;1920’s when cotton prices were relatively high as compared with livestock feed prices. This resulted in a high degree of specialization in cotton i’? reduction and in the valuation of land at a much higher level than could sustained with subsequent prices of cotton and other commodities pro- gduced on the land. As a consequence many adjustments in the organiza- ‘l-tion and operation of farms were needed and are being made. This study 3111c organization and operation of the cooperating farms as related to farm jgé-was made for the purpose of facilitating these adjustments. Some of the rifiiresults of this study were published in Bulletin No. 568 “An Economic :f£“Study of Farm Organization and Operation in the High Plains Cotton j-piArea of Texas.” That publication dealt primarily with the differences in Tfi-‘earnings. This bulletin deals with production and production requirements, fiothe manner in which they are affected by changes in the combination of igrjienterprises and production practices, and in turn, the probable effect of giiiihese changes on farm earnings. I The data upon which this study is based were obtained through co- éjéoperation with representative farmers who were well distributed over the f{.;five main counties of the area. An average of 137 farmers kept complete liurecords of their farm business and supplied information pertaining to pro- "Qduction and production practices for a period of five years, 1931-1935. Tjiseventy farm records were summarized for 1936 and a smaller number for During 1936 the Soil Conservation Service prepared soil maps of the Zfarms of all the 1935 cooperators. .. This was followed in 1937 by a survey Iglof soil and moisture conservation practices. A survey was made in 1938 again in 1940 of the adjustments farmers were making in the Ilse of EiPIOtOPIZQd equipment. More recently and largely through the assistance of Superintendent of Substation No. 8 at Lubbock the data were adjusted changes resulting from the introduction of combining as the common "Zifmethod of harvesting grain sorghum. For a more complete description of the procedure followed in making Tthe study and for a short history of the agricultural developments in the ‘Qarea, the reader is referred to Bulletin No. 568. ‘Economist in Farm Management, Division of Farm and Ranch Economics, Texas Agricul- tural Experiment Station. ~ 5' ‘Research Specialist in Farm Management, Division of Farm and Ranch Economics, Texas f: - Agricultural Experiment Station. v.='~._'Fonnerly Senior Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture. " 5 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Figure 1. The location of the High Plains Cotton Area is indicated by the shaded area. The black portion shows the counties in which farm records were obtained. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY The High Plains Cotton Area may be described as a tilted plain which slopes to the south and east at the rate of 6 to 7 feet per mile. The general flatness of the area is broken only by an occasional canyon or draw and by small playa lake basins into which most of the drainage water of the area collects. These basins are usually dry except during and after rainy seasons. The soils of the area vary in texture from fine sands to heavy clays and clay loams. For purposes of this study they have been grouped into three classes: (1) fine sandy loams, (2) loamy fine sand, and (3) loams, clay loams, and clays. The fine sandy loams are the dominant soils of the area. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS '7 The chief difference between the fine sandy loams and the loamy fine sands is found in the depth and texture of the surface soil. The surface soils of the fine sandy loams are reddish brown in color and range from 8 to 20 inches in depth. The subsoil is sandy clay. The surface soil of the loamy fine sand is lighter in both color and texture and ranges in depth from 20 inches to several feet. The subsoil is also sandy clay. Both of these groups absorb water rapidly and the subsoils have the capacity for storing large amounts of moisture. After crops become well established on these soils they can withstand prolonged drought. While both groups are subject to wind erosion the loamy fine sands are more susceptible to blowing and consequently are much more difficult to man- age than are the heavier textured fine sandy loams. The loams, clay loams and clays are locally referred to as “tight land.” These heavy soils do not absorb moisture as rapidly as do the sandy soils. Crops growing on “tight land” are the first to suffer from drought. On the other hand, during years of favorable moisture condi- tions, production on these soils compares favorably with production on the fine sandy loams. The heavy soils tend to be coherent and if not finely pulverized are quite resistant to blowing. CLIMATE The climate of the High Plains Cotton Area is characteristically sub- humid. The average rainfall of between 18 and 2O inches approaches the lower limit for successful dryland farming. A high percentage of the rainfall comes in the form of local showers. These showers are frequently of the torrential type. Hailstorms occur occasionally but are seldom destructive over a large area. ' The average annual rainfall and the annual precipitation during each of the five years of the study at six weather stations in the area are given in Table 1. Extreme irregularity occurs in the annual rainfall. For Table 1. Precipitation at Six U. S. Weather Bureau Stations in the High Plains Cotton Area Average Station County $332221: ::_‘e‘::‘i‘;il_ Annual precipitation (inches) ' 't t‘ l; f cflffcmif“ (igcifg, 1931 1932 1933 1994 1995 Lubbock Lubbock 26 19.00 19.36 24.16 10.31 9.72 17.29 Lamesa Dawson 26 18.161 19.59 33.36 12.28 8.91 27.62 Littlefield Lamb 10 17.83 22.83 19.66 13.57 12.05 14.36 Muleshoe Bailey 16 17.99 21.05 17.33 13.55 15.21 14.90 Tahoka Lynn 7 18.982 15.33 25.29 15.56 i 18.75 Big Spring Howard 38 18.703 22.33 29.22 11.33 14.61 19.51 llnformation for 1921 and 1923 incomplete. These years not included in average. Flnformation for 1934 and 1937 incomplete. These years not included in average. ‘Information for 1936 and 1937 incomplete. These years not included in average. example, 33 inches of rain fell at Lamesa in 1932 as compared with 12 inches in 1933, 9 inches in 1934 and an average annual precipitation for a 26-year period of 18 inches. That the amount of rainfall received during a particular year may vary widely at different points is revealed in Table 1. In 1932 the pre- cipitation at Lamesa was almost twice the amount recorded at Muleshoe but in 1934 the situation was reversed. In 1935 Lamesa again recorded a1- most twice the amount of rainfall as did Muleshoe. 3 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Owing to the fact that a large part of the precipitation is in the form of local showers extreme variations in rainfall may occur between com- munities within the same county and result in abundant crops in one com- munity and low yields in an adjoining community. Rainfall is also some- what lighter and more varied in the western and southern parts of the area. i On the average, more than four-fifths of the total annual precipitation g falls during the growing season from April to October inclusive and ap- i proximately half during June, July and August when row crops are in greatest need of moisture. The rainfall may be so poorly distributed I93! I932 I953 I934 I935 ______,__ _________ ______________? ________ 1______________ ______________}__’ _______ _________._____.__ ___.__’__"___.’_ ___1___ -__,__________’______ IO ~———————-— _______________________ __.__.______ < __? ____;€_;’__ ____{____ __ iii __,_ € _€_____‘ 5 __________ ' __@_¢_____ 3| YEAR AVERAGE _| -—é-———g¢-’¢ ~~~~ _-»_~ __» ¢"~” ¢ . .v_ M... _.-_. HLWLL..." _¢ _é?é€_’? .1 E — -———-—-— ~71 -—--—€ -—--— ‘ea’; »‘~—~ {A z iii ii T: l! . . __ ‘6 o a I I936 I937 |93e 1939 I940 (D ‘i’? ;;;-_-;___}_i W <<<< ’__;t___fi__f ?_>_._i._; u: - I __‘___;__§_} ’____’€ 2;’; ’______ D z ~—-_- w_**,,- ’ _‘.¢»’ " ~_ _’ ______._’_____ __L- ‘mm’, ,’,¢¢_;é;’ ,,_ __ ,_ __,_,,_, ,_,,,_ g‘ ____,,__ ’__»__V______ IO -———--—-—————— _______________ >€_’”}_€___é§_€_’_’___ _______________ __¢;?é _ ’ __’ ____’ _ Q’ _’_’_________ _______’___‘_ 2;’ ‘__‘€_ _¢ __ _?2_;___ ..__._____________ mgvmm‘ m ___¢_’;é€ ?_ é 5 o I I T - I I l I I I I n _ I I - I I n JFMAMJ JASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJ ASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOAND Figure 2. A comparison of monthly and normal precipitation at Lubbock in the High Plains Cotton Area. 1931-1940. , within any one year, as to affect adversely the growth of crops. J(See Figure 2). A short drought during the normal fruiting period of a crop may result in a large reduction in yields. All of the above variations areparticularly significant since the aver- age precipitation is so near the minimum for successful crop production. The effectiveness of the rainfall is somewhat reduced by a high rate of evaporation which averaged 63 inches annually from an open surface tank at Lubbock from 1911-1941. This is more than three times the aver- age annual rainfall and compares with 44 inches at Angleton in the Coastal Prairie and with 58 inches at Temple in the Black Prairie. This high rate of evaporation is chiefly significant from the standpoint of its effect on planting opportunities. ~ Moisture in the top soil is removed rapidly after a rain, thereby reducing the number of planting opportunities and the length of the optimum planting period for all crops. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS The growing season or frost-free period averages 210 days at Lub- bock. The growing season at points of the same latitude in the Black Prairie in the eastern part of the state averages three to four weeks longer owing largely to differences in altitude of 2,000 to 3,000 feet. These high altitudes ranging from 2,500 feet in the southern part of the areato 3,700 feet in the northwestern part also result in relatively cool ~nights throughout the growing season. 1911 ' ' ' ' ' 1912 1913 | 1914 | 191s 191s i 191v 191s | 1919 192o l 1921 1922‘ 1923 1924 192s 192s 1927 192a 1929 1930 f 1931 1932 1 1933 | 1934 I 193s % 193s | 1932 1932 l 1939- 1940. l? 1941» s ‘ Over a period of 31 years the frost-free period has varied from 165 days in 1917 to 246 days in 1919, a range of 81 days. In other than these two years the frost-free period was never less than 180 days nor more than 240 days. In 22 of the 31 years it was more than 200 days in length. (See Figure 3). The average date of the last frost in the spring iiiiu-iii NOV. 4 AVERAGE DATE OF LAST KILLING PRIL 7 1—< i’ -—1 i» — - i1- 7 //1/ AVERAGE DATE OF FIRST 1<11_1_11~1s FROST, I n . 1 I. L l A L ' 1 1 l l 1 l l‘ JAN FEE’ MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC‘ Figure 3. A comparison of the length of the frost-free period during each 0f 31 years with the average at Lubbock. is April 7. It ranged, however, from March 11 to May 7. The date of "the last frost occurred 11 times during March, 19 times during April, and once during May. The date of the first frost in the fall is not so variable as is the date of the last frost in the spring. Every year during the past 31 it has fallen between October 19 and November 22, a range of only 35 days. The effective length of the growing season is frequently shortened in this area by other climatic factors such as lack of moisture, wind damage, hail or the torrentiatl type of rainstorm which sometimes result in late planting or replanting. Long periods of lower than average temperatures or above normal rainfall accompanied by low night temperatures, during the late summer and fall, are conditions that retard plant development and have the effect of shortening the growing season. ' 1O BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXASAGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION AND FERTILITY MAINTENANCE Soil and moisture conservation and fertility maintenance are closely related problems the solutions of which are dependent upon many of the same practices. The close relationship between soil and moisture conserva- tion is indicated by the fact that wind erosion control is more difficult when soils are dry than when soil moisture is plentiful. This is particu- larly true when the ground has little or no vegetative cover. Since wind erosion causes the loss of fertile top soil and also loss of stand of young crops, its control is important both from the long-time standpoint of fertility maintenance and from the standpoint of year to year crop production. Fertility losses usually take place slowly because of the fact that losses incurred in one place may be at least partially replaced by deposits from other places. Some shifting of top soil takes place nearly every year. Prevention and control of soil blowing consists of keeping wind re- sistant materials on the surface. These may be crops, crop residues or clods. l The first objective of moisture conservation is to prevent run-off and to get as much of the rainfall absorbed into the soil as possible. The sec- ond objective is to retard evaporation losses and to hold soil moisture avail- able for plant use. Both the soils and the nature of the, rainfall facilitate moisture con- servation. The sandy soils absorb water readily and while torrential showers are frequent they are usually of short duration. A majority of the rains are of less than one inch. According to weather records from the Agricultural Experiment Substation at Lubbock, there is an average of four rains per year which amount to one inch or more in a 24-hour period. Wind erosion is most likely to occur during the winter and spring months. At this time, high winds are common -and soils do not have the protection afforded by growing crops. Failure to control erosion previous to planting often results in a loose, finely pulverized deposit of surface soil which may later result in damage to young plants. Very little wind damage occurs after crops become well established. Any field operation that pulverizes the surface soil to a powder-like consistency should be avoided as it leaves the soil in condition to blow easily. For this reason, such implements as the disk, spike tooth harrow, and one-way plow are not used extensively in the area. Cultural practices that leave the surface slightly irregular check both run-off and the movement of wind-blown soil particles and are preferred to those that leave the surface very smooth. When moisture conditions are favorable, it is usually possible to con- trol wind erosion before planting by listing or by some other common field operation. In case soils are too dry for listing, chiseling may be resorted to as a temporary check to erosion. In chiseling, a sharp, narrow point is substituted for the usual shear on the lister beam. Listing is the common method of preparing the seed bed and is pre- ferred to flat-breaking, because it provides furrows in which moisture may FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 11 ‘llfcollect to check run-off effectively, especially when the rows are run on ‘ ithe contour 0r cross-wise t0 the prevailing slope. Listing also results in less evaporation than does flat-breaking. Deep listing (5 to 8 inches)‘ i is preferred to shallow listing for both moisture conservation and erosion‘ control. The deeper furrows hold more water and the clay and sandy clay ._materials brought to the surface by deep listing increases resistance to ,;wind erosion. i Clean cultivation of crops prevents moisture losses through weed Yfigrowth. Experience has shown that less rainfall is required for successful Tgfplanting when weed growth has been controlled previous to planting. This iliS especially important during years when moisture is limited at planting étime. Lister beds are commonly cleaned of weeds by knifing, which also {leaves a lumpy surface and exposes little additional surface to evaporation. i Young crops are frequently damaged by wind-blown soil particles. fThis may occur despite the presence of ample soil moisture. Failure to ;§cbntrol wind damage may necessitate a great deal of replanting or may {prevent the establishment of the desired acreage of cotton within the op- fgitimum planting period for cotton. Cultivating, center furrowing, plowing jjgfifurrows cross-wise with the row, or any field operation that breaks and ljijroughs up the surface is effective, temporarily at least, in checking erosion “gdamage to young crops. These practices are most effective when done be- TfiFEfOPG the surface becomes thoroughly dry. . . . . Terracmg and contour farming are effective means of preventing loss "ff moisture through run-off. With the level type terraces that are built the area, it is usually possible to hold all the rainfall. Although water » p sion is not important for the area as a whole, terracingand contouring gfire usually effective controls for any water erosion problem which may Because of the gently sloping surface, farmers consider contouring falmost as effective in controlling run-off as is terracing. This is particu- glarly true on the fine sandy loam and loamy fine sand soils which absorb gwater rapidly. Running rows with the contour also facilitates the control ‘tr wind erosion. The variation in direction of contour rows is sufficient to peck, or partly check, the wind sweep. Although terracing and contouring are both in common use in the _ a; contouring is much more extensively practiced at present than is ter- cing. The following points should be kept in mind when considering the Vlative advantages of terracing or contouring: l. Terracing, as a rule, will permit less water to escape than contouring. This is par- ticularly true during the late summer after planter ridges have been worked down nearly flat. 2. The relative cost of terracing is much greater than contouring. 3. Terraces require considerable up-keep to maintain their effectiveness. Contouring re- quires very little up-keep. 4. Special equipment is required to build and maintain terraces that ordinarily must be purchased or hired. 5. Contoured fields are usually more conveniently farmed with =three- and four-row equipment than terraced fields. Terraces sometimes interfere with the use of large machinery. Broad, wide-based terraces are needed when three- and four-row equip- ment is» used. 6. Contour rows can easily be adjusted or changed with very little labor or expense. wen» mg" There is a tendency for organic matter to be depleted more rapidly than it is added to the soil. This is particularly true for land that is cropped to cotton a large portion of the time‘; as the crop residue is not 12 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION sufficient to maintain the organic content of the soils at a high level. The stalks that remain after grain sorghums are headed return a much larger amount of vegetative material to the land. As the nathralsupply 0f or- ganic matter in the soil is depleted, the surface crusts more readily, is less absorptive of water, and is generally less conserving of moisture. Depletion of humus is accompanied by increased difficulty in establishing crops, due to soil movement. The quickest method of adding humus is to plow under a heavy growth of green vegetation. This material decomposes readily, makes the soil mellow and easily pulverized, reduces crusting, and increases the moisture-holding capacity of the soil. Under conditions of low soil moist- ure, however, the presence of large amounts of recently decomposed or- ganic matter leaves the soil light and powdery, a condition conducive to wind erosion. It is most satisfactory to work organic matter into the soil slowly leaving stalks and coarse materials to protect the surface and to check the movement of soil particles. This can be accomplished by fre- quent use of crops such as grain sorghums that furnish a relatively large amount of slow-decaying crop residue. Fallowing is not commonly practiced in the area because of the wind erosion hazard which results when sandy soils are left without vegetative cover. Instead, farmers endeavor to maintain some vegetative cover dur- ing the winter. Grain sorghums are sometimes planted extremely late for the sole purpose of furnishing soil protection. The experience of farmers indicates that stalk fields should not be heavily pastured. The grazing and tramping of livestock reduces the protection furnished by crop residue and loosens the top soil so that it blows readily. A wild, shallow-rooted grass, Eragrastis Mexicana, commonly called stink grass, has been spreading over the High Plains Cotton Area during recent years and has some possibilities for erosion control. Early crops of the grass are usually destroyed by cultivation, but a stand often comes up and matures after crops are “laid by” and furnishes effective erosion control previous to listing. Generally speaking, the soils of the area are fertile and will produce abundant yields of the crops grown when favorable climatic conditions prevail. At present, moisture rather than soil fertility is the factor that limits crop production and maintenance of soil fertility is not now recog- nized as a serious problem by those farming in the area. Various factors tend to reduce the losses or depletion of soil nutrients to a comparatively low point. Low average rainfall, a surface soil that absorbs moisture readily, and a level topography tend to reduce water erosion and soil fertility losses to a minimum. Because of the character of the rainfall, there is little loss of fertility by leaching. The crops grown make a light vegetative growth and require comparatively small amounts of soil nutrients to produce a crop. Good yields of lint are obtained on a relatively small cotton plant and most of the grain sorghums are of the dwarf type. During years of crop failure or of low yields, very little fertility is removed by crop production. Subsequent plant behavior indi- cates that the forces which make plant food available continue to function during years too dry for crop production. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 13 The natural soil fertility has not been depleted to the extent that . mmercial fertilizers can profitably be used. On the average, moisture insufficient for plants to use effectively the additional nutrients that available when. commercial fertilizer is added. The application of fer- aritilizer usually causes a more rapid and succulent plant growth. Since plant growth requires moisture, an increase in the rate of growth causes ~31?» more rapid withdrawal of moisture from the soil and early depletion alluring periods of limited supply. This condition is more apt to result in iiserious damage to the growing crop than if the available moisture is with- more slowly and over a longer period of time. Farmers in the area have very little barnyard manure to use as fer- Eftilizer. Livestock are usually kept in pastures or corrals, making the col- IilQCtiOH of manure impracticable. A large part of the manure that accumu- lates in small corrals is dissipated by the wind before it can be used. Available manure has generally been used on small irrigated gardens, and ‘if gives good results when accompanied with plenty of water. Plants are '1 injured by burning when large amounts of manure are applied unless an ~ ample supply of soil moisture is available. h It is difficult to maintain a definite crop rotation in the area because - ycrop plantings are so often a matter of opportunity. The principal crops, cotton and sorghums, are frequently alternated and this is the extent of crop rotation now practiced. However, rotation experiments carried on by 1;’ the Experiment Station at Lubbock indicate that lint yields obtained when l »- cotton followed cotton have been consistently higher than lint yields in ro- tations in which cotton followed sorghum. So long as it is more profitable to produce cotton than sorghums, it seems desirable to plant cotton after cotton as often as possible and still safeguard soil resources. The length of time that cotton can be grown continuously without detrimental results is not known for the area in general. Cotton has been pgrown continuously in some instances for 2O years with no apparent ill l effects to the land. In other cases continuous growing of cotton for a’ comparatively short period resulted in lower yields and increased wind erosion. The ability of the operator to control wind erosion and maintain yields is most important in determining the cropping sequence, as well as ' the cropping system that can and should be followed. WEED S Weeds are comparatively easy to control in the High Plains Cotton Area, owing largely to the low average annual rainfall and other climatic .' conditions that retard the germination of weed seed and limit the vegeta- J tive growth. The predominance of soils that permits early cultivation fol- f lowing rain is also a factor in weed control. A large proportion of the weed pests of the area are annuals that ‘are easy to destroy by timely cultivation. The sandy surface soil permits Y cultivation soon after a rain and makes it possible to destroy weeds in the early stages of growth when they are easiest to kill. The practice of planting in furrows and gradually filling the furrow by throwing soil toward the plants when cultivating, kills weeds in the row and eliminates much hand labor. 14 BULLETIN NO. 65?, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Of the perennial weeds found in the area, the blue-weed is the most“. common and the most difficult to eradicate. Frequent deep plowings are} an effective method of eradicating the pest.‘ Farmers report good results with this method. Johnson grass, which is difficult to control in areas of; greater rainfall and longer growing seasons, is easily controlled in thisf area owing to the frequent occurrence of temperatures well below freezing. : ‘ INSECTS Insects have had little effect on crop yields. to have placed the area beyond the reach of the cotton boll weevil. northern part of the area but has caused little damage since. much damage. Climatic conditions seem‘; » The ' cotton boll worm greatly damaged the cotton crop in 1928 in all but the ; ‘ Cotton leaf . .- worms appear occasionally but usually arrive too late in the season to do Cotton flea hoppers are sometimes responsible for scat- j , tered damage but considering the area as a whole the damage is slight. ' Spraying or dusting cotton to control insects is seldom done. Various parts of the area have been under quarantine at times be- ‘i cause of reported infestations of pink boll worm. However, no damage to ~. cotton production from pink boll worm has ever been reported. Cotton ' and cotton products were permitted to move freely from quarantined lo- calities when treated according to regulations. Insects do very little damage to the grain sorghums. Occasionally ' the corn ear worm does some damage to compact-headed varities. Weevils sometimes damage stored sorghum grains during summer months, but are easily controlled by fumigation with an ethylene dichloride-carbon tetra- chloride mixture. ' PLANT DISEASES Plant diseases are of minor importance in the area. Such diseases as are present are easily controlled, or have not been common enough to af- fect crop production greatly. No disease damage to cotton production has been reported as yet. Diseases affecting the grain sorghums includeikernel smut which is seed-borne and easily controlled by treating the planting seed, and milo blight which in the past has caused serious reduction in milo production but which has been brought under control through the development of blight resistant varieties. A more serious problem is a fungus disease known as charcoal rot. This disease was found to be rather generally distributed over the western part of the state in 1938. It attacks practically all varieties of sorghums and causes premature ripening and lodging of the plant. It appears to do more damage during dry years than during wet years. There is no known treatment that will reduce the damage and control seems dependent upon the finding of resistant varieties. _ ADAPTABILITY OF CROP ENTERPRISES The physical characteristics of the area and the manner in which these characteristics affect production and production practices have been ‘Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 292 "The Blue-weed and Its Eradica tion.” ’ ' j FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 15 ‘fussed briefly in the foregoing sections. We now turn to a considera- of the individual enterprises adapted to the area. Information with ect to each enterprise is needed in evaluating the general considera- m as well as the specific factors which tend to limit or further its ex- sion. In addition to such factors as market demands and relative prof- ‘leness, it is necessary to know the manner in which the different enter- ~=- compete with each other or supplement and complement each other the use of available resources, particularly labor, if sound conclusions fitive to farm adjustments are to be drawn. In the following discussion '_'= leading farm enterprises are considered in relation to the physical cteristics of the area and to the factors which determine the extent w their inclusion in farming systems. Cotton grown in association with grain sorghums, forms the basis for most common systems of farming found in the area. These are the cipal crop alternatives available to farmers, and major differences in items of farming center around the relative proportion of cropland de- ted to cotton and to grain sorghums and the method of disposal of feed {vs- " Cotton x Cotton has been the most important crop grown in the High Plains . tton Area. According to census data for the eight counties entirely _' hin the area, cotton occupied 53 per cent of the cropland harvested in 29. During 1931 and 1932, the two years for which records were ob- 9' edprevious to the advent of the Agricultural Adjustment Administra- n program, cotton was grown on approximately 44 per cent of the total jpland and cotton lint and seed sales amounted to two-thirds of the gross ;y= i sales for cooperating farms. When cotton allotments are operative der the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program, participating l mers plant approximately one-third of their cropland to cotton and a at majority of farmers endeavor to grow their full cotton acreage al- j ment. An average of 94 per cent of the cooperating farmers grew cot- n during the period of study. ‘ Most of the cotton produced in the area is grown on sandy loam and by loam soils. Young cotton is quite susceptible to damage from soil lowing, farmers plant very little cotton on the loamy fine sands. The effects ofqa comparatively short growing season are minimized planting early-maturing varieties of cotton and by using methods that celerate plant development. As a rule, cotton is not chopped or thinned, 7 l cea thick stand retards vegetative growth and hastens maturity. For ~ reason, larger quantities of cottonseed are used for late plantings ~i n for those made early in the season. The chances for a short growing kiason are increased with late planting which makes it advisable to quick-maturing varieties in preference to others. Consequently dif- ent varieties are sometimes used depending on whether planting is ly or late. ' Cotton varieties that make rapid growth under the low temperatures fvement and a large part of the replanting of cotton results from dam- i’ - of this nature. Because of greater difficulties in controlling soil-l" 'ch often occur in the spring are best adapted to the area. Varieties 16 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION that make small vegetative growth and have small leaves and thin burs are most likely to possess the essential qualities of earliness and the ability to make satisfactory yields from limited moisture. A high percentage of lint is desirable as this reduces harvesting and ginning costs. Storm resist- ance is also a desirable characteristic of cotton varieties for the High Plains. ' Tests are conducted each year at the Agricultural Experiment Sub- station at Lubbock to determine the suitability of different varieties to the area. The results are available to all farmers and should be helpful in keeping them informed of improvements made in varieties from time to time. Usual Practices in the Production 0f Cotton Farmers of the area commonly list cotton land once previous to plant- ing. On an average, about two-thirds of the land planted to cotton is knifed before planting. Replanting varies greatly from year to year, but on the average amounts to approximately one-fourth of the cotton acre- age. Following planting, cotton is usually knifed once and cultivated twice with sweeps. Cotton is not chopped or thinned but it is all hoed once, while the Weedy places are given a second hoeing. The number of cultivations and the amount of hoeing vary from year to year, depending largely on moisture conditions. Moisture stimulates weed growth and greater-than-average rainfall usually results in more cultivating and hoe- ing. An early crop usually requires more cultivation than a late crop. Cotton picking is difficult after frost because the bolls are removed with very little pressure. As a result, snapping has largely replaced pick- ingas the usual method of harvesting cotton. Snapping enables a worker to harvest approximately 50 per cent more lint than could be picked in the same length of time. Cotton is most apt to be picked when the bur is too green or damp to snap easily. This condition may occur either before frost, while the bur is still green, or following rain. Laborers prefer to snap rather than pick cotton, and it is usually difficult to get cotton picked when conditions are favorable for snapping. Labor and Power Used to Grow Cotton Labor and power required for cotton production with different sizes of equipment and types of power are shown in Figure_4. The labor saving possibilities of multi-row equipment may be seen by comparing the labor requirements for crop production with both horsepower and tractorpower. Under usual conditions, 10.45 hours of man labor and 20.90 hours of horse work were required per acre of cotton previous to harvest with one-row horse-drawn equipment. Power requirement per acre of cotton was not greatly reduced when two-row replaced one-row horse-drawn equipment, but man labor was reduced to 6.65 hours per acre. Hoeing accounts for 2.85 hours of labor per acre regardless of size and type of machinery. The efficiency of labor for machine operations was nearly doubled when two-row machinery with horsepower was used instead of single-row horse- drawn equipment. With two-row tractor equipment 5.50 hours of man labor and 2.65 hours of tractor work were required per acre of cotton previous to har- i’ - .=u';§;la'.4..~t.¢.~: 1~ ~ . . .;.-.~.». . - .. . . 5 . J ___ »_ . a .‘ 7;’) I 1 ~_ ‘ 0 n \ . ‘_. P‘, ...V<_1'.,_"*..V'. '1; »\ly_r,1l ->_ ' i ‘ """""€' '.°""’""" ‘ ' " 1255100 oesmrrtbnrusunuilvwvNmzoi . ~ Tm our-now ‘Inna-now wwo-now ‘soon-now OPERATIONS OVER nouns PER ACRE JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC E MAN HORSE MAN HORSE MAN TRACTOR MAN TRACTOR l w seen 550 9551211551105; g 1.151 1.0 1.20 4.50 .50 5.50 .50 .50 .50 .50 n, "m" .55 .10 1.40 .55 1.40 .25 25 15 15 F 2 PLANT , 1.25 1.55 550 .55 5.10 .55 .55 .50 50 1:15am a cumwmou: i '5 KNIFE 1.4 1.55 5.50 .50 5.20 .55 .55 .50 .50 iii E CULTIVATE 2.0 2.40 4.50 1.20 450 .50 .50 .40 .40 ltnij: z *5 1105 1.15 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 c3112: V) D—( 101m. nouns PREVIOUS 10 nnnvssr 10.45 20.90 5 55 15.10 5.50 2.55 4.50 1.45 Z rmnvesr __ Ii >3 SNAP 2.0 15.50 15.50 15.50 15.50 ':_‘_ a W516" IN FIELD .15 .25 .25 .25 .25 i1 [J m HAUL TO 5m 1.0 1.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 J czx E3‘ 7-11 TOTAL ruavesnus 15.05 2.50 1505 250 14.15 10 14.15 10 H: TOTAL ALL 0125511110119 25.50 25.50 2110 20.10 20.25 555 19.05 245 g 0-1 Z usuu. DISTRIBUTION= u; ONE-Row HORSPDRAWN MAN-HOURS 25.50 2.25 .50 .50 .10 1.92 1.55 4.15 52 5.15 5.02 501 O zouwmsrn ’ ' o HORSE-HOURS 25.50 , 59 2.40 240 1.40 5.45 542 4.45 54 .52 104 55 3 ’ O TWO-ROW uoass-onnwu MAN-HOURS 21.10 2.25 .50 .50 .55 91 .55 5.52 .45 51s 502 5.01 Z 5001;114:141 morass-nouns 20.10 .59 150 150 1.40 5.24 5.05 445 .52 .52 1.04 55 g; H Twomow TRACTORwRAWN MAN-HOURS 20.25 2.20 .25 .25 .25 55 .45 5 22 45 5.55 5.95 2.94 > l EQU|PMENT TRAQTQR-HQURS 3,55 .l 5 .25 .25 .25 .63 .45 72 .10 .25 .40 .20 O l 51 FOUR-ROW TRACTOR-DRAWN MAN- nouns 19.05 2.20 .15 .15 .15 .54 .25 2.55 .40 5.55 595 2.94 ,3 EQUIPMENT TRACTOR-HOURS 2.45 .15 .15 .15 .15 .54 .25 .55 .05 .25 .40 .20 a 21> m ' z Figure 4. Labor and power requirements for cotton production per acre by operations, with usual distribution by months and periods dur- ing which operations are usually performed. Tractor hours for hauling include one hour hauling with automobile and trailer. 18 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION vest. This represents a saving of 1.15 hours in man labor when compared with two-row horse-drawn machinery and a saving of 30 per cent in the labor used in connection with machine operations. An additional saving of 1.2 hours in the pre-harvest labor results from the use of four-row equip- ment. As a rule, farmers harvest very little cotton with family labor but de- pend on hiring transient labor, largely Mexican and Negro, on a contract basis. Labor requirements for harvesting vary with the yield. The labor kind of power. These data are based on an average yield of 182 pounds lint per acre. An average of approximately 1,900 pounds of snapped cot- ton was required to gin a 500-pound bale. An adult worker can snap an average of about 500 pounds of seed cotton per 10-hour day. In general, farmers using horsepower hauled seed cotton to the gin with a wagon and team, while those with tractorpower used an automobile and trailer for this purpose. Those using wagon and team required 15.05 hours of man labor and 2.60 hours of horse work per acre for cotton har- vesting, while the ones who hauled to the gin with a car and trailer used a total of 14.75 hours of man labor and one hour of car time. Harvesting operations account for approximately 60 per cent of the total labor used in producing cotton when single-row equipment is used, as compared to approximately 70 per cent for two-row machinery, and 77 per cent for four-row equipment. As a consequence an extremely high labor peak occurs during the cotton harvesting season. This peak is rela- tively greater, the larger the power and equipment unit. An ample supply of transient labor has been an important factor in increasing the scale of southern part of the state in early summer and to move north and West as harvest progresses, reaching the High Plains early in October. If the supply of transient labor should be greatly reduced, drastic ad- justments either in methods of harvesting cotton or in systems of farming snapping with sledding, stripping, or some other mechanical method of harvesting or of reducing cotton acreages according to the labor available for harvesting. At the present time sledding is the only common method of mechani- cal harvesting. Sleds are simply constructed, cost very little, and can be l; FHKUFQ FARM ADJUSTMENTS 1N THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 19 m. built by local blacksmiths or by the farmers themselves. With a one-row ' led one man with a team can harvest 4 to 6 acres or approximately jtwo bales per day. It takes six to eight men to snap an equal quantity in 1 day. In the past the saving of labor by sledding has not been sufficient to '_ ‘rffset the greater cost of ginning and the lower prices received for sledded ,~ tton. Consequently it has been used only in labor emergencies or in isalvaging bollies or late-opened bolls. It does, however, represent a {method by means of which the cotton of the area can be harvested should e labor supply fail. ' A More promising perhaps, although still in the experimental stage, is a ‘stripper type harvester with a bur extractor unit attached which has been veloped by the Agricultural Engineering Division of the Experiment l tion. In recent tests it has gathered from 95 to 98 per cent of the seed jzcotton in the field with a loss of only a half grade in quality as compared snapped cotton. A two-row machineof this type will reduce labor re- thuirements for harvesting cotton by snapping by three-fourths and will fi rmit the operator and his family to harvest the crop with very little or ino outside help. ' The relative importance of the different methods of harvesting cotton - shown in Table 2. The proportion of the crop snapped ranged from Table 2. Percentage of cotton that was sledded, snapped and picked, 1931 to 1935, in- elusive. Percentage of bales Year Number of Sledded Snapped Picked bales Per cent Per cent Per cent 1931 6,878 1.7 95.2 3.1 1932 6,310 4.0 95.4 .6 1933 3,960 .1 92.5 7.4 1934 750 .4 96.7 2.9 1935 3,408 .6 87.9 11.5 Average 4,246 1.9 93.6 4.5 ‘88 per cent in 1935 to 97 per cent in 1934. The average for the period was approximately 94 ,per cent. Less than 2 per cent of the crop was rvested by sledding and 4.5 per cent was picked during the five-year ,riod. The highest percentage picked was in 1935 when weather condi- ons were especially favorable to picking. Sledding was practiced only as means of gathering late bolls. - ble 3. Seed cotton required per bale, proportion of cotton harvesting hired, and wage rates for cotton harveting labor. Seed cotton required per 500- Proportion of har- lb. bale vesting hired Harvesting rates Y°“' Sledded Snapped Picked Snapped Picked Snapped Picked . (Pounds) (Pounds) (Pounds) % % (Dollars) (Dollars) 1931 2,037 1,937 1,469 86 83 .30 .45 1932 2,135 1,912 1,437 92 100 .30 .45 1933 2,7181 1,806 1,418 95 99 .45 .65 1934 2,343 1,992 1,443 ’ 85 ——2 .80 ——3 p 1935 2,430 1,879 1,407 9s 95 .50 .70 ‘ Average 2,333 1,905 1,435 91 94 ‘Only one farm reported sledding cotton. ‘No cotton picked by hired labor. 2O BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The quantity of seed cotton and trash handled per 500-pound bale of lint cotton ginned is shown in Table 3. Approximately 2,350 pounds of sledded cotton, 1,900 pounds of snapped cotton and 1,450 pounds of picked cotton were ginned per bale of lint cotton obtained. It should be remem- bered, however, that sledded cotton here largely represents the remnant of the crop after the fields have been picked over once or twice and no doubt contains more trash than would sledded cotton if the bulk of the crop were so harvested. Grain Sorghums Grain sorghums, the basic grain and forage crop of the area, have been grown as a minor cash crop and to supply feed for livestock. Grain sorghums occupied nearly 36 per cent of the cropland harvested in 1929, according to census data for the eight counties entirely within the area. Cooperating farmers devoted a similar proportion of cropland to sorghums during 1931 and 1932, the two years for which records were obtained pre- vious to the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program. Since the advent of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program and the accompanying reduction in cotton acreage, there has been a tendency to increase the acreage devoted to sorghums. Census data for 1939 indicated that grain sorghums occupied about 56 per cent of the cropland harvested that year. Ninety-eight per cent of the cooperating farmers grew grain sorghums of some type during the period of study. The optimum planting period for sorghums is longer than that for cotton so that feed crops can be planted after the optimum period for cot- ton planting is past. For this reason, sorghums may be substituted for cotton when the desired cotton acreage has not been established during the cotton planting season. Sorghums can be planted late enough to avoid the worst wind hazards. Since sorghums are not so easily damaged by soil movement they tend to replace cotton on the lighter, sandier soils. The stalks and after- math provide effective wind erosion control. Consequently sorghums may be planted almost exclusively on land which is highly susceptible to soil blowing. Of the grain sorghums commonly found in the area, milo is grown pri- marily for grain, kafir and Hegari are used to provide both grain and forage while Sumac cane is grown for forage only. The Dwarf Yellow milo common to the South Plains is the most important crop planted for grain, grows three to four feet tall, has slender pithy stalks, tillers freely, grows the head on a recurved stem, and is relatively early maturing.“ The seed are yellow buff-colored and usually bring a higher price on the market than white grain. Milo has been grown extensively for grain be- cause of its earliness, its high grain yields, and the greater demand for it on the market. It isnot used extensively for forage because forage yields are low and because the stalks are pithy and unpalatable. In order to fill the need for a fast maturing grain sorghum, the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station has recently developed a quick-maturing milo, named Early Yellow, which matures approximately 20 days earlier “Texas Agri. Exp. Station, Bulletin 459, “Grain Sorghum Varieties in Texas.” FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 21 than the commonly grown Dwarf Yellow milo. According to tests made by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Substation at Lubbock, the grain yields obtained with the new, early strain have been almost as high as those of the Dwarf Yellow strain. Grain yields of Texas Blackhul kafir were about equal to milo yields. The white seed are borne on an erect head and are fairly early-maturing. Kafir stalks are somewhat sweet, and fair yields of palatable forage were \‘ obtained on the farms studied. Hegari has a rather coarse stem, tillers profusely and has numerous “y large leaves. The head is erect and the seed are white. Hegari grain \ 7' yields averaged lower than either milo or kafir, but the forage yields were higher than either of these two. This variety is erratic in its behavior from year to year, and is less resistant to drought than milo or kafir. Under favorable conditions, high yields of both Hegari grain and forage - are obtained, but very low yields may result during years of lower than <”average rainfall. Hegari may mature early or late depending on condi- tions. The crop_may either be headed or bundled, according to the needs at harvest time. Hegari bundles are a popular feed for work stock and cows because grain is combined with a high quality roughage in about the correct proportion. Sumac cane, commonly called Red Top, has been a consistently high yielding forage.“ Sumac is strictly a forage variety, is of medium height and has a relatively short growing period. The quality of roughage is ex- cellent. . A recently developed hybrid sorghum in which is combined the yellow ‘of sorghums for the production of grain. It was especially designed for .. harvesting with combines and fills a long felt need in the area. V. Because of the different practices involved, grain sorghums grown for g _ grain and those grown for forage are treated as two separate crops in the i»; discussion which follows concerning labor and power requirements for sorghum production. In the past milo has been the most common of the _‘ grain sorghums harvested for grain and cane the most representative of . -; those harvested for forage. Usual Practices and Labor and Power Used for Sorghum Production , Milo. Milo was grown on 96 per cent of the cooperating farms. Pro- duction of milo is characterized by a large proportion of machine work previous to harvest and a large amount of hand work during harvest. g Land is ordinarily prepared for milo by listing. It is frequently planted jiearly enough to avoid the necessity of knifing the lister beds before plant- _ ‘It ing. Usually less than one-half of the acreage in milo was knifed pre- vious to planting. It was necessary to replant approximately one-fourth of the milo crop. Early-planted milo usually received three cultivation gg? - operations. The crop was either knifed twice and cultivated once, or ‘knifed once and cultivated twice. Late-planted milo was usually knifed _once and cultivated once. Approximately one-third of the crop was nor- , imally gone over with a hoe. Labor and power requirements for different ‘Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 496, “Forage Sorghums in Texas.” i grain of milo and the erect head of kafir is rapidly displacing other types’ HORSE ~ DRAWN TRACTOR - DRAWN E°~“""E"T E°“"’“E"T PERIOD OPERATION USUALLY PERFORMED p; “MES ONE-ROW TWO-ROW TWO-ROW FOUR-ROW OPERATIONS OVER HOURS PER ACRE "* ‘» JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV. DEC NAN HORSE MAN 1101152 MAN #1140105 HORSE MAN 111401011 1101152 SEED BED PREPARATION: LIST 1.0 LIE 4.60 .60 .360 50 .50 .30 .30 1 KNIFE .5 .50 l-OO .25 l.00 .20 .20 .| 0 .| 0 1+ PLANT l.25 L45 5.80 .75 4.50 .55 .55 .30 .30 n i: GULTIVATIONI KNIFE L3 L45 2.90 .70 2.80 .50 .50 .25 .25 I_—IIiI_‘__—_‘J CULTIVATE I.3 l_55 3.l0 .75 3.00 .50 .50 .25 .25 1 HOE .35 .75 .75 .75 .75 C255 TOTAL HOURS PREVIOUS T0 HARVEST 6.85 l7.40 3.80 I490 3.00 2.25 2.00 l.25 HARVEST- HEAD LO 4.45 8.90 4.45 8.90 4.45 8.90 4.45 8.90 @ ' TOTAL HARVESTING 4.45 8.90 4.45 8.90 4.45 8-90 4.45 8.90 TOTAL ALL OPERATIONS H.3O 26.30 8.25 23.80 7.45 2.25 8.90 6.45 l.25 8.90 USUAL DISTRIBUTIONI NOLLV-LS LNEIWIHEIJXEI "IVHIIJIIIIOIHDV SVXEIJ. ‘Z99 ‘ON NLLEYYIHEI ONE-ROVLHORSE- MAN 11.30 .51 .5a .31 .11 2.32 1.91 .39 1.1a 1.1a .59 DRAWN souumsm’ HORSE 25.30 2.2a 2.32 .14 2.5a 5.3a 2.32 .15 3.55 3.55 1.1a TWO-ROW HORSE- MAN 5.25 .30 .30 .19 .35 1.15 1.31 .19 1.1a 1.1a .59 DRAWN EQUIPMENT HORSE ' 23.50 ' 1.50 1.50 .15 2.04 5.50 2.24 .15 3.55 3.55 1.1a MAN 1.45 .25 .25 .15 .21 .53 1.12 .13 1.1a 1.1a .09 TWO-ROW TRACTOR- mmron 2.25 .25 .25 .15 .21 .a3 .31 .13 DRAWN EQUIPMENT HORSE 5.90 3.55 3.55 1.1a MAN 5.45 15 .15 .01 .15 .43 .91 .05 1.1a 1.1a .aa FouR-Row 11111010111- TRACTOR 125 .15 .15 .01 .15 .43 .22 .05 DRAWN EQUIPMENT 110555 5.90 3.55 3.55 1.1a Figure 5. Labor and power requirements for milo production per acre when hand-headed, with the usual distribution by months, and periods of time during which operations are usually performed. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 23 sized equipment and types of power are shown for milo production in Figure 5. e Requirements per acre previous to harvest range from 6.85 hours of man labor and 17.40 hours of horse work with single-row, horse-drawn » equipment, to 2 hours of man labor and 1.25 hours of tractor work with four-row tractor equipment. For two-row horse-drawn equipment, 3.80 hours of man labor and 14.90 hours of horse work were used, but only 3 hours of man labor and 2.25 hours of tractor work were needed with two-row tractor outfits. Hand-heading of milo and of other sorghums grown for grain was the common practice during the period of study. This operation required an average of 4.45 hours of man labor per acre and 8.9 hours of horse work or more than half of the total man labor requirements for the production of grain sorghums when two-row or larger machinery is used. A varia- tion sometimes practiced when labor for hand-heading was difficult to ob- fir i . i i tain included binding, shocking and threshing. The binding and shocking‘ were usually done at slack times during cotton harvesting. Once in the shock the threshing could be done at a convenient time. With the development of yellow-grained, erect-headed grain sorghums, it has been possible to reduce greatly the labor requirements for harvest- . ing through the use of small combines. This practice which has been , ‘adopted by a large majority of farmers during the past two years has re- >4 ' duced labor requirements for harvesting grain sorghums to approximately 40 per cent of the amount required in hand-harvesting. Labor and power 1 requirements for grain sorghum production when harvesting- was done by combining are shown in Figure 6. . Cane. Practices similar to those used in milo production are employed L previous to harvest in the production of cane which was grown on 67 per cent of the farms. This crop usually receives only two cultivations, while hoeing is a minor operation confined to the more weedy portions of the ;§' field. The labor and power requirements for cane production are shown in Figure 7. The labor needed previous to harvest is relatively small, vary- . . ing from less than 6 hours of man work and 16 hours horse work with i one-row horse equipment, to approximately 1.5 hours of man labor and 1.2 hours of tractor work with four-row outfits. Cane harvesting includes Wnbinding, shocking and stacking the bundles. Some farms with tractors are 5 equipped with power take-off binders that cut two rows at a time and speed up binding. Two men with this type binder will bundle 20 acres in a 10-hour day, while one man with a horse-drawn binder will cut an aver- Iii-age of 6 acres. Some farmers do not own a binder but find it more eco- nomical to hire their binding done on a contract basis. ma» mmghw r - 1 - * Corn ,1 Although corn was planted on 61 per cent of the farms studied, the acreage per farm was small. Corn was grown principally for household I use and to finish meat hogs. Young corn is able to survive considerable damage from wind-blown soil and on the very light sandy soils, particu- larly in the western part of the area, corn rather than cotton is the cash , crop. m1; iwwy. M a...“ 41$ - HORSE-DRAWN TRACTOR-DRAWN EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PEFUOD OPERATIONS USUALLY PERFORMED N, 1111455 oue- ROW TWO-ROW 1wo- ROW FOUR_-ROW ' '5 OPERATIONS » °V5R HOURS PER ACRE _ _ JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG seer 001 NOV oec ~ . MAN HORSE TRQCTOR MAN NURSE YRACTOR MAN TRACYOR Ml" TRECTOR v w seen BED PREPARATION: g _1.151 1.0 1.15 4,60 .60 3.60 .50 .50 .30 .30 r1 KNIFE .5 .50 1.00 25 1 o0 .20 .20 10 .10 —~+ F3 PLANT 125 1.45 5 so .15 4 50 .55 .55 .30 .30 . L 1 E CULTlvATlONi z 1<1~111=e 13 1.45 2 90 .10 2 e0 .50 .50 .25 25 -IIIII1II-—_“I1 Q CULTIVATE 13 1.55 3.10 .15 3.00 .50 .50 .25 .25 P) m c, ' U‘ HOE .35 .15 .15 .15 .15 gum-null: 5° H TOTAL nouns PREVIOUS 10 mmvesr 6 s5 1140 3 a0 1490 3.00 2 25 2 00 125 m » >4 HARVESTI comsme 1.0 1.20 ‘ .60 120 60 120 .60 120 60 znuamm-a-z: a 11401. 0124111 10 .60 . 60 .60 .60 6o 60 .60 .60 jazz-uni: 11> ' Q 10141. HARVESTING 1 so 120 160 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.60 1.20 a Q 10141. ALL OPERATIONS 0.65 11.40 12o 5.60 14.00 1.20 4.00 3.45 3.00 2.45 C; F‘ USUAL 01511110011011 g [MAN 6.65 .51 .50 .31 11 2.32 191 .30 45 so .45 F3 ggilgzgrqioRss-DRAWN HORSE 1 11.40 1 2 2s 2 32 14 2 50 6 36 2 32 10 r‘ ' P1 11240100 1 2o | 3O 60 3O f; ' 1 MAN 5.60 '30 .30 1s 36' 115 131 19 .45 90 45 E3 TWO-ROW HORSE-DRAWN "' HORSE 1-90 1 s0 100 16 204 5=01224 16 3 e0u11>11ne111 " 1 J t4 111401012 1.20 30 .60 30 g . 25 .5 21 .63 1. 2 .13 45 90 .45 TWO-ROW 112401011- "A" 4'80 Z5 ' ' g DRAWN E°U'PMENT 10401013 3.45 .25 .25 .15 .21 .03 .31 .13 .30 .60 .30 5 ; r-c FOUR_ROW TRAGTMF [mm 3.60 .15 .15 .01 .15 .43 .91 .06 .45 .90 45 g “MW” NUWMENT 111140106 2.45 15 15 .01 .15 .43 22 .05 .30 60 3o Figure 6. Labor requirements for grain sorghum production per acre by operations when harvested by combine, with th_e usual distribuo- tion by months, and periods of time during which operations are usually performed. Tractor hours for hauling include 0.6 p hour for hauling with automobile and trailer. . ' ' " / V’ , A ‘A> I l‘ V’, h. ,. ». . . / 1 TDAPTflH-HQLWN tlUll ll] lllUlltllB, Clllll pUllUuI UL l-IIIIU Ilulllls Wlllyu uycsaunvsnu us» unusual; llvll-vllllvul Ale-humus llvnclw Av; IIIIIIIIII. hour for hauling with automobile and trailer. A _ _ , . i» 1 OPERATION USUALLY PERFORMED‘ .. .19. . 1 » 1 w 41w 5 1*~----~- » ."’,%‘-» " ' i N "‘ “'1 " - 1 ER‘ o W" HOURS wen Acne m . . , JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE .1u1.v Auc seer 001 Nov 06c > IAN MORSE IAN MORSE NAN TRACTOQ MORSE MAN TRACTOR MORSE w ’s_61-:0 6:0 1>6E1>ARAT1oN: 3 us? 1.0 1.15 4.60 .60 3.60 .50 .50 ’ .30 .30 . > KN1FE .75 .65 1.70 .45 1.60 .30 .30 .20 .20 IZIAIJ E PLANT 1.10 1.30 5.20 .10 4.20 .50 .50 .25 .25 1 g CULTIVATION : g \ KNIFE 1.0 1.25 2.50 .60 2.40 .40 .40 .25 .25 i123 H CULTWHE 1.0 1.20 2.40 .60 2.40 .40 .40 .20 .20 Zii: HOE .10 .25 .25 .25 .25 :1: V1 >-4 TOTAL HOURS PREVIOUS 1'0 HARVEST. 6.00 16.40 3.20 14.40 2.35 2.10 1.45 1.20 Z H HARVEST: 61N0 1.0 1.45 4.35 1.45 4.35 1.00 .50 1.00 .50 IIIZiII m r6 snocx 1.0 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 :11: n: HAUL 6 STACK 1.0 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 —: a; TOTAL HARVESTING 6.65 6.00 6.65 6.00 6.40 .50 3.65 6.40 .50 3.65 he r1 TOTAL ALL OPERATIONS 12.65 24.401005 22.40 6.75 2.60 3.65 7.65 1.70 3.65 p> ’ 1-4 USUAL 016Tn16uT10N: z . m ONE-ROW 1-10666- MAN 12.65 1.25 2.57 .56 .42 1.06 1.27 1.23 .65 1.60 1.60 - 2.40 8 pflgym 5911112145141’ 1401255 24,40 l.25 2.28 2.32 .84 3.46 3.84 2.454 1.20 2.15 2.19 2.40 g O Two-Row "QRQE- M,“ 10335 1.25 .30 .30 .22 .58 .65 .151: .55 1.80 1.60 2.40 z DRAWN EQUIPMENT 1106s: 22.40 1.25 1.60 1.60 .66 3.02 3.30 2.40 1.20 2.1a 2.19 2,40 g; MAN 6.75 1.25 .25 .25 .15 40 _.45 .40 .45 1.37 1.36 . 2.40 t; Two-Row TRACTOR- TRACTOR 2.60 .25 .25 .15 .40 .45 .40 .20 .25 .25 o DRAWN 60019146141’ '11 "°"$E * 3.65 1.25 2.40 g MAN 7.65 1.25 .15 .15 .10 .22 .25 .23 3.5 1.37 1.36 2.40 >4 FOUR-ROW TRACTOR- 4 11> TRAQTQR ‘ 1.70 .15 .15 .I0 .22 .25 .23 .l0 .25 25 U1 DRAWN EQUIPMENT HORSE 3.65 1.25 2A0 93 . Figure 7. Labor and power requirements for cane production per acre- by operations, with usual distribution by months, and periods of . time during which operations are usually performed. luv-nu» vlvv \ HORSE- DRAWN TRACTOR-DRAWN E°“"’“E"T E°“"“E"T PERIOD OPERATION USUALLY PERFORMED .0 _ TIMES ONE-ROW TWO'ROW TWO-ROW FOUR-ROW m OPERATIONS OVER HOURS PER ACRE JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 14AM nonsr; mm HORSE 14AM 111401012 HORSE nun TRAGTO MORSE SEED BED PREPARATION: 1.151 1.0 1.15 4.50 .50 5.50 .50 .50 .50 .50 1mm: .50 .50 1.20 .50 1.20 .20 .20 .15 .15 121K221 PLANT 1 1.10 1.50 5.20 .70 4.20 .45 .45 .25 .25 1 CULTIVATION= p . KNIFE 1.10 1.25 2.50 .50 2.40 .40 .40 .25 .25 . IIIIII GULTIVATE 1.25 1.50 5.00 .75 5.00 .50 .50 .25 .25 Ciii HOE .50 .55 .55 .55 .55 ' 1 101111. HOURS PREVIOUS 10 HARVEST 5.45 15.50 5.50 14.40 2.10 2.05 1.55 1.20 I HARVE$T= SNAP 1.0 5.10 5.20 5.10 5.20 5.10 5.20 5.10 5.20 10141. rmavssnus . 5.10 5.20 5.10 5.20 5.10 5.20 5 10 5.20 W 101/11. 41.1. 0112511110115 9.55 22.10 5.10 20.50 5.50 2.05 5.20 4.95 1.20 5.20 USUAL DISTRIBUTION! MAN 9.55 .57 .58 I.O3 .98 L39 L59 .30 I.55 1.55 NOLLVLS LNEIIAIIHHJXEI TVHILIHIIOIHDV SVXELL ‘Z99 'OI\I NIILEITTIIEI ONE"ROW HORSE- DRAWN EQUIPMENT HORSE 22.70 2.28 2.32 2.92 3.l0 3.38 L88 .60 31° 31° TWO-ROW HORSE- MAN ‘ 6 7O .30 .30 .53 .5| ~69 I-IZ .|5 I.55 I 55 DRAWN EQUIPMENT HQR5E 20,60 I 8O I .80 2 .58 2.66 3.08 L88 .60 3.I0 3 .I0 MAN 5.80 ~25 .25 .35 .33 ~46 .96 .IO 1.55 I .55 TWO-ROW TRACTOR- ’ TRACTOR 2.05 .25 .25 -35 .33 .46 .3I .I0 DRAWN EQUIPMENT HORSE 6.20 I 3.l0 3.IO MAN 4.95 -I5 .|5 .23 I9 .26 .82 .05 L55 I.55 FOUR-ROW TRACTOR- TRAGTOR |2O .|5 .|5 .23 l9 .26 .|7 .05 DRAWN EQUIPMENT HORSE 6.20 3.l0 3.l0 Figure 8. Labor and power requirements for corn production per acre by operations, with usual distributions by months and periods of time during which operations are usually perform . . was a:25Q%3§§$%% 0 __A-1_1--L.l-\INANfl Figure 8. L_abor and power requirements for corn production per acre by operations, with usual distributions by months and periods of time during which operations are usually performed. . FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 2'_7 - The cultural practices for corn are similar to those for grain sor- _ ghums. Corn has a relatively long optimum planting period and is often . E planted sufficiently early that it is not necessary to knife the beds previous " to planting. After planting, corn is usually knifed once and cultivated‘ once. Early corn sometimes gets two cultivations. The crop is not thinned and may or may not be hoed, depending on the number of big weeds " present. The labor and power required to grow corn up to harvest are quite similar to "the requirements for milo and cane. (See Figure 8). Corn is snapped by hand but this operation requires only 3.10 hours of man labor as compared to 4.45 hours per acre for handy-headed milo. Corn » will stand a long time after maturity without damage, so that harvest can be postponed until it does not interfere with the harvesting operations of ~ th . o er crops Sudan Sudan was grown for summer pasture and a few acres of this crop were found on 88- per cent of the farms. Farmers have found that con- siderably more forage can be produced on a given acreage by planting Sudan than by leaving the native turf. Sudan is occasionally cut for forage and may be harvested for seed. As a cash crop, Sudan seed is most common in the northern and western parts of the area. Sudan stubble and aftermath is an effective cover for wind erosion control, but land in Sudan that has been grazed heavily until frost, is subject to severe blowing. “ Sudan production entails the same general operations as those used to grow other row crops. When grown for pasture, Sudan is most often may not be hoed. Labor and power requirements for growing Sudan pas- “ture are given in Fig .re 9. In case Sudan is grown for seed, the harvest- ling operations consist of binding and shocking, which have similar labor iand power requirements as binding and shocking cane (See Figure 7). Sudan is usually threshed out of the shock. l Wheat v Wheat is the most commonly grown small grain and is used principally . or winter and spring pasture, although the livestock may be taken off enough in the spring to permit a crop of grain to mature and be jvarvested. During the period of the study, small grain occupied an aver- {e of less than 5 per cent_of the cropland of cooperating farmers. t g, wheat frequently partially replaces cotton as a cash crop on these Soil f“, ' es. The extent that cotton is replaced by wheat, or vice versa, is usu- i y‘ determined by the availability of moisture at seeding time and by the f mparative prices of the two crops. q 7 Small grains planted on light sandy soils frequently fail to make suf- , Wicient fall growth to check erosion and to prevent being blown out during “W winter and spring. When moisture is plentiful and seeding fairly e - ly, fall growth may be sufficient to avoid this difficulty. Small grains _ould not be seeded when soil moisture is deficient at planting time. f, Small grain production requires different equipment than is used for '_w crops and competes with row crops for labor. Grain drilling should be _ .. ' . . _' ‘given one knifing and one cultivation after planting. The crop may or. _, Z Because the heavy soils of the area offer greater resistance to blow-V uéagaleggéa AWN TRACTOR-DRAWN 4 n1 eounnmem PERIOD OPERATIONS USUALLY PERFORMED g3 ONE-ROW 1w0-n0w ONE-ROW TWO-ROW " OPERATIONS ""55 0V5" nouns PER ACRE JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG sen=1 001 NOV 0E0 w M AN HORSE M A N HORSE MA N TRACTOR M A N TRACTOR g seen: eeu PREPARATION‘ E; r2 LIST n0 nn5 4.50 .50 5.50 .50 .50 .50 .50 i1 z ’ 2 nmnee .5 .50 n20 .50 n20 20 2o n5 .n5 _O PLANT * ' n15 n.50 5.20 .15 4.50 55 .55 .55 55 g (O CULTIVATION: “ 51 KNIFE 1.20. n40 2.50 15 5.00 .50 .50 .50 .50 c:_-__-::: g CULTIVATE ~ 10 55 n10 .45 n50 55 .55 .n5 n5 T: U‘ b> HOE . .40 90 90 9o .90 21:: g P4 o 101m. nouns PER ACRE v 5.20 n5.50 515 n4.n0 5.00 2.n0 2.n5 n,25 g, é USUAL. DISTRIBUTION p5 I> rn ONE-ROW nnonse-onnnvnn nun 5520 .51 .55 .50 2.24 .91 n.24 E3 EQUIPMENT nnonse n550 2.25 2.52 n20 1.05 n.94' .55 g PU TWO-ROW nnonse-onuwn mm i 515 50 50 .50 n.25 52 n.05 a: e0unn>ueu1 nonse n n4.n0 n 50 n50 n20 5.50 2.05 .12 z n n-J TWWROW TRAPTOR‘ NAN : 5.00 .25 25 .20 .55 .51 n.05 g onuwu EQUIPMENT 1550105 2.n0 25 25 20 55 .51 .n5 fi 6' n-"oua-now 1550105 MAN 2.n5 .n5 n5 .n5 .55 .n9 .95 Z 05mm eounwuenn 1550105 n.25 .n5 .n5 .n5 .55 .n9 .05 Figure 9. Labor and power required for Sudan production per acre by operatmns, with usual distribution by month: and periods of time duIinS _ which opelfafionl arq Ilnunlly jwrformed ‘ . . -. l 1 l I 1 | | 1 | l | | 1 1 | L l 1 Figure 9. Labor and power required for Sudan production per acre by operatiops, with usual distribution by months and periods of time during which operations are usually performed; ' noun-ovum: macros-mama» ' souumsur souumsnr PERIOD OPERATION USUALLY PERFORMED OPERATIONS ‘rmes Hrwfls PER AGRE °VER 11111.11 1101152 TRAcTo mm 11010101: JAN FEB mm APRIL MAY JUNE JULY we SEPT 001' NOV ozc DRILL 1.0 .55 2.20 .45 .45 ~ 1 TOTAL. HOURS PREVIOUS T0 HARVEST b5 2.20 .45 .45 HARVEST: COMBINE 1.0 1.00 .50 1.00 50 HAUL IN GRAIN L0 .50 |.00 50 .50 TOTAL HARVESTING l.5O l.O0 .50 I50 l.0O TOTAL ALL OPERATIONS 105 32g _5Q |_95 |_45 USUAL DISTRIBUTION! SVXELL d0 VEIHV NOLLOO SNIVTcI HDIH EIHJ. NI SLNEIWLSIIPGV IAIHVH mm 2.05 1.00 .50 .30 .25 1101352 012111-111 EQLHPMENT < uonss 3.20 .55 .34 1.20 1.00 L macros .50 .33 1v TRACTOR DRAW 1111111 1.55 1.00 .50 .25 .20 EQUIPMENT ' TRACTOR 1.45 e1 .33 .25 .20 \ 621' Figure 10. Labor and power requirements for wheat production per acre by operations, with usual distribution by months and periods of time during which operations are usually performed. Tractor hours for hauling include 0.50 hour hauling with automobile and trailer. ...,;..X. .» ~ »-.- -_' ~_..<_ ~= .__u2r.-:._u. Z . ("in __, 30 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. done during the busy harvest season for row crops and grain is normally harvested during the time of planting or the important first cultivation. About 75 per cent of the wheat is sown after _cotton or grain sor- ghums without further seed bed preparation. In most other cases wheat land is flat-broken previous to seeding. In some instances the land is also harrowed. Harvesting is usually done by combine on a contract basis, as very few farmers own combines. Labor and power requirements for growing and harvesting wheat are shown in Figure 10. These are based on the most common practice of drilling wheat without previous seed bed preparation. When it is advisable to flat-break wheat land previous to seeding, the labor and power require- ments would be increased according to the type of power and equipment used. Approximately 5 acres per 10-hour day can be flat-broken with a two-disc horse-drawn plow. With this type of power and equipment 2 hours of man labor and 8 hours of horse work are required to flat- break an acre. Seven acres per day day can be flat-broken with a three- disc tractor-drawn plow and approximately 1.45 hours an acre of man and tractor work will be required. Labor requirements for harrowing will range from 0.45 hour per acre with horsepower to 0.25 hour per acre with tractorpower. When small grains are utilized entirely for pasture, drilling is'the only field operation commonly performed in connection with the crop. Distribution of Labor and Power in Crop Production The usual monthly distribution of the labor required to produce the six principal crops grown in the area when two-row tractor equipment is used is shown in Figure 11. The two-row tractor is by far the most common power unit in use. _ Crop work during the two or three months previous to planting does not utilize all of the operator’s time. He usually takes advantage of this slack period to make repairs and to put his equipment in good shape for the rush work that follows. The planting season is a very busy time since the period of favorable planting conditions is often short. Of the two major crops, cotton has a rather narrow range in planting dates while grain sorghums may be planted over a considerably longer period. Variations in moisture conditions contribute to the wide range in the time during which crop operations are performed. For example, row crops are usually planted in May and June, but moisture conditions largely determine the actual planting dates. Cultivation is most effective follow- ing rain, hence rains largely determine the dates when these operations are performed. Both cotton and feed are summer crops and their production results in two peak labor periods. The first labor peak occurs in July when a major portion of the hoeing is done. Hoeing is usually necessary during the time that farmers are busy cultivating and is added work during an already busy period. The second and greatest peak demand for labor is during the harvest season. Cotton, forage sorghums, and all except early-planted grain sor- ghums are ready to harvest during October and November. Corn normally matures during these months; corn is not damaged by late harvesting, and is usually gathered after the harvest of other crops is completed. Early ill th‘ F18 he -st es 11S ‘or ne he ile he aw aly >I1S jor me cdy est or- .lly 1nd rly AfiJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 31 COTTON MILO (HAND-HEADED GRAIN SORGHUM COMBINED v ~»*;$'I~.~,,~14_'2¢.~; “.1”; * mm nouriéwie-n chess. Figure 11. A comparison of the distribution by months of labor re- quirements per acre for six principal crops. JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC is usually harvested in September before cotton is open. By making l? ‘ milo plantings when moisture conditions permit, farmers can effect _ adjustment in the distribution of harvesting labor. It is also pos- A to make some adjustment in the competition of cotton and grain sor- Vlfor harvesting labor by using kafir or Hegari for late plantings. ‘and Hegari both stand up well after ripening, and heading can be -- for some time without serious loss. The use of “combine sor- " for grain will help reduce labor demands during the harvest -=u in .3- -.— $ -_-_.- e heaviest demand for power occurs during May, June, and July tzrops are planted and cultivated. When the cotton acreage has been =- fairly early in the season, farmers sometimes spread the task vation over a longer period by working out the cotton crop before --_ late feed crops. Timeliness of Operations eliness in performing tillage operations may check or control effect labor _savings, effect the cropping system, and increase -._.A ~_ < . r _ _ V i 32 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 1 yields. Timeliness in the performance of field operations is very im- portant but often difficult of attainment. What may be timely under one set of conditions may be the opposite under another. Timeliness of listing is important to the extent that it checks or con- trols wind erosion. Listing is most effective when the soil contains suf- ficient moisture to cohere slightly rather than completely pulverize. The nearer conditions are to the optimum at the time of listing the more ef- fective the operation. Early listed land may dry out and become a blow hazard before planting time. Results obtained at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station favor late seed bed preparation. However, it is bet- ter to take advantage of optimum soil moisture conditions than to wait until a particular date and do a poor job of listing. Weeds are more easily destroyed Whensmall and timely cultivation controls weed growth with a saving of both machine and hoe work. This is especially important to a farmer whose labor and equipment are fully occupied. Any method that will reduce the amount of hired labor or re- lease labor for other productive purposes without lowering the quality of work will increase farm earnings. Since the period favorable for cotton planting is often short, timely planting may determine Whether or not the desired cotton acreage is es- tablished. Poor stands or extra replantings are often avoided by well-timed plantings, and loss of young crops is often prevented by timely field work. Materials and Services Used in Crop Production The usual quantities of seed and twine used and the usual cost of special services hired for crop production are shown in Table 4. Farmers Table 4. Material requirements of cropsl ‘ Contract Contract Ginning Bagging & binding combining Threshing Seed per Twine per cost per ties cost cost per cost per cost per acre acre cwt. per bale acre acre cwt. Crop (Pounds) (Pounds) (Dollars) (Dollars) (Dollars) (Dollars) (Dollars) Cotton 26.0 Milo 1 7 -— Cane 5.7 2.2 Corn 4.4 — 8 O 0 0 Z 1.5 ~- 1.00 —~ -— 1. IS Sudan . 1.6 2g Wheat 3 . — Illllifi $lllll lContract rates are for the period 1931-1935 inclusive. in the area commonly purchase and plant a sufficient amount of pure cot- tonseed each year to supply the bulk of the seed for the following crop. This practice provides good planting seed at relatively low costs. Grain sorghum seed are a relatively small item of expense and many farmers pre- fer to buy them when prices are reasonable rather than care for home- selected seed. The prices paid for ginning, bagging and ties, binding, com- bining, and threshing were obtained from the cooperating farms and are representative of the costs during the period of the study. Crop Yields The average per acre yields obtained by cooperating farmers are shown in Table 5. Cotton yields are given for 9 years. Yields for milo heads, Hegari bundles, and cane bundles are shown for 7 years, and all ‘spunod 331 1o ppyfi qugf e qqgm uogqounfuoo u; paon exam peas 1o spunod 99g go afieram ue pun ‘sxeazi 9 .10; alqelgem 1 sppgfi paasuoqqotg ‘PGEPHQS $111.12} Sq’; IIO PGIIFBQQO SBM 111K J0 SPHIIOd J10 plapi 93219111»: 12911-6 V 'pog.1ad max-g e .10; 9.12 spppi doxo 1f Table 5. Yield. per acre of specified crops on farms studied, 1931 to 1936, inclusive, and six-year average for crops other than cotton. Additional data on cotton were obtained for 1928, 1929, and 1930. ’ Average 6-year 19281 19291 19301 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 yield aver- (107 (124 (168 (141 (138 (127 (139 (138 (70 for age Crops farms) farms) farms) farms) farms) farms) farms) farms) farms) pericid yields avai - 1931- able 1936 Cotton ~ lint (Pounds) 90 160 116 245 226 233 s9 177 174 1622 182 Cottonseed (Pounds) —- —— -- 368 363 353 57 267 245 265 265 Milo heads (Pounds) _- .— 951 1,792 1,532 1,245 204 1,087 996 1,1153 1,143 Milo bundles (Pounds) -— —— — 2,813 3,407 1,694 531 1,500 2,906 2,142 2,142 Kafir heads (Pounds) — -- — 1,652 1,263 1,721 43 1,522 787 1,155 1,155 Kafir bundles (Pounds) - -— —— 3,833 3,037 2.366 1,273 2,750 2,326 2,598 2,593 Hegari heads (Pounds) — -— -— 1,481 1,064 957 250 1,743 1,050 1,091 1,091 Hegari bundles (Pounds) -— — 2,032 3,717 3,750 2,821 736 2,954 2,768 2,6833 2,791 Cane bundles (Pounds) -— —— 2,568 3,734 4,380 2,650 507 ' 3,712 4,048 3,0853 3,172 Corn (Bushels) -- — — 17 16 14 ,3 15 9 12 12 Wheat (Bushels) — »— '-— 14 11 1 6.5 5 10 7,8 7_3 Grain pasture (Pasturedays) — —— —— 102 73 47 23 25 44 53 53_2 Sudan pasture (Pasture days) —— ——— —- 102 125 69 22 73 86 30 79,5 Sudan seed (Pounds) — —— — 561 448 386 150 418 301 377 377 1Data obtained by means of preliminary survey. 1Nine-year average. “Seven-year average. 93 SVXELL JO VEIHV NOLLOO SNIVTd HOIH EIHL NI SLNEIWLSHICIV NHVJ ' 34 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION An average per acre yield of 1,155 pounds of heads was obtained for kafir, followed by 1,115 pounds for milo and 1,091 pounds for Hegari. Cane was the highest yielding forage crop with an average of 3,085 pounds per acre. Average per acre forage yields of 2,683 pounds, 2,598 pounds, and 2,142 pounds were obtained from Hegari, kafir, and milo, respectively. A 6-year average of 12 bushels per acre of corn was obtained, while wheat yielded an average of only 7.8 bushels per acre. Small grain fur- nished the only succulent winter and early spring pasture, and one acre yielded an average of 53 days grazing for a mature horse or cow or their equivalents. On the same basis, Sudan furnished an average of 80 days of summer pasture per acre. The crop yield data for the farms studied indicate wide variations both in the average yields obtained from year to year on all farms and the yields obtained during the same year on different farms. Cotton other years of the study, yet yields of lint cotton obtained on the farms studied varied from 444 pounds to 57 pounds per acre. Climatic varia- tions account for a large part of these yield differences. In Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 568 crop yields are shown to be one of the most important factors affecting farm earn- ings. Of the farms studied, those with high incomes obtained yields no- ticeably higher than average for all farms, while the yields obtained on low-income farms were consistently lower than average. .. ADAPTABILITY ‘OF LIVESTOCK ENTERPRISES Livestock production has occupied a minor place in the organization of the great majority of farms in the area. Numerous factors have con- tributed to this situation. Some of the most important of these have been: the relative advantage of cotton over feed crops, previous experience and training of the farmers of the area, and the extreme year-to-year va- riations in the amount of feed available. Farmers tend to specialize in the enterprise or combination of enter- prises that promise the greatest profit. When there is freedom of choice, the selection of enterprises is largely influenced by relative costs and re- turns. Based on the prices that have prevailed and the yields that have been obtained, cotton has offered greater opportunities for profit than grain sorghums. This has been true regardless of whether the feed was receipts were as follows: grain sorghums and other crops, 9 per cent; cattle and dairy products, 9 per cent; poultry and eggs, 5 per cent; and hogs, 3 per cent.’ A large majority of the farmers in the area migrated from the older I -- - " '1 IE ' tsm‘ Bllt'nNo.568,“An qgggngrightlgtlgdydgéallgafi 552:;igglolriuatrildaOpeigélolxhn theaHligdh Plllafns Cotton Area of exas.” ' A FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 35 cotton sections of Texas and Oklahoma. In general, these people have obtained farm experience in regions of specialized production of crops, 5iirincipally cotton,‘ and have had relatively little experience with livestock. Personal aptitude and preference influence farm organization in that farmers tend to follow the system of farming with which they are familiar. Since the farmers in the area have had more experience growing crops than livestock, it naturally follows that they would stress crop production. , The area depends to a large extent upon cultivated crops for its feed éflaupply. When the area was utilized for cattle ranching, native grass lfmade up the principal feed supply. During the period of breaking out l-sod, it was necessary for farmers to decide on the proportion of land to fremain in grass and the proportion to be put in cultivation. Once plowed ‘up, it is a very slow and difficult task to reestablish native grass. At first, it was common to leave a considerable part of the farm unbroken. lLater, most of this land was put into cultivation, leaving only a small area of grassland near the farmstead or on the steeper slopes of lake beds. This change has taken place because it was found that cultivated crops fivere more profitable. More grazing can be obtained per acre from Sudan fthan from native grasses. ‘ ._i_ An ample and reliable supply of feed is required for livestock pro- fduction. As a rule, livestock enterprises are most profitable when the ‘ifeed supply can be consistently maintained from year to year. A study of vfihe crop yields (See Table 5) indicates that extreme variations are com- mon and that years of abundant feed crops are often followed by periods g of low yields. For example, the years 1931 and 1932 were years of large 7-ifeed crops, while again in 1933 feed yields were fair on most farms. In ‘ijii934, a year of extreme drought, feed yields were only 20 per cent of the ‘previous 3-year average and an extreme shortage of feed resulted. {Similar feed shortages occurred as a result of the droughts of 1917, 1918, 929, and 1930. It is not uncommon in years when crops are generally timely rainfall or by hail damage. It has’ been pointed out that because of climatic factors frequent ad- Justments in the cropping system are necessary to fit the opportunities for Qplanting. Feed crops often replace cotton in the cropping system when a ibtand cannot be established on desired cotton acreage during the cotton i“ anting period. When favorable growing conditions accompany the large . peed acreage thus obtained a large surplus of feed results for which the ikrower must find an outlet. The common practice is to sell‘ on the cash grain market. Since the feed surplus is usually accompanied by a low lprice low returns, are commonly realized. Such a feed surplus may serve the basis for a livestock feeding enterprise or for the expansion of the gular livestock enterprises. Expansion of the breeding herds on the sis of an occasional feed surplus is likely to result in a feed shortage uring years of normal or below normal feed production. An irregular feed supply usually results in many problems for livestock oducers, and may cause frequent and rapid adjustments in the enterprise. en a feed shortage occurs, farmers usually have two alternatives. They y buy feed or they may sell a part of the livestock. Either practice 0d to find some communities in which yields have been lowered by lack . 36 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION may result in a heavy loss to the operator. Short feed crops are usually accompanied by high feed prices while the sending of abnormally large numbers of livestock to market, may so adversely affect prices as to be disastrous to the producer. Not only are farmers often forced to liquidate A surplus livestock but also a part of the breeding herd normally main- tained. Such conditions make it difficult to carry on constructive breed- ing work. Results obtained on the farms studied indicate the importance of hav- ing a. reserve supply of feed during a severe drought such as occurred in 1934. Farmers with a supply of feed at the start of the 1934 crop year sufficient to feed their livestock one year or longer made more money than those with only six months’ supply or less. The advantage in earn- ings on farms with larger feed reserves resulted from: (1) smaller pur- chases of high-priced feed; (2) the maintenance of livestock production at normal levels; (3) in some cases the sale of feed at relatively high prices. A feed reserve serves the same purpose as a cash reserve. A farmer with a reserve of feed can avoid expensive purchases of feed that require cash or credit, or surplus feed becomes a source of cash when sold. Farmers who maintain large feed reserves have the alternative of selling feed for high prices rather than feeding it. They may choose the method which offers the greater opportunity for profit. When feed is so high that the feeding operations are carried on at'a loss, it may be more profitable to liquidate livestock and sell feed rather than feed it. In this case, any loss suffered by disposing of the livestock will be offset by the high in- come from the feed sold. In a case of this kind the farmer with no feed reserve will lose money whether he liquidates his livestock at a loss or whether he goes ahead and finishes them at a loss. Feed reserves are usually established when supplies are large and feed prices are low. It is possible for farmers in the region to store feed for use during periods of crop failure or low yields. The sub-humid atmosphere facili- tates curing and preserving feed, and when properly handled, the feeds grown can be kept for a long period at a low cost and with small deterio- ration. Grain may be stored either as heads or threshed grain. Threshed grain is more compact and has the advantage of requiring less storage space, but is more likely to be damaged if not kept dry and is more sub- ject to weevil damage. Threshed grain should be treated at intervals to control weevils. Heads stack easily and can be kept dry with relatively inexpensive equipment. When granaries or barns are not available, farmers frequently stack headed feed in a well drained place, cover with bundle feed and keep it a year with little loss. This type of feed can be stored much longer under a waterproof roof. A wire netting or picket en- closure with a waterproof roof is relatively inexpensive to build and makes a satisfactory storage for headed feed. Heads in this type storage have remained in good shape for three years. It is important that all feeds be well cured before storing. Since very few farmers have barns in which to store forage, bundle feed is commonly stacked out of doors. The length of time that bundles can be stored in this way depends on the length of time that the stack sheds water. Careful stacking is very important, particularly if bundles are to remain stacked for a long period. Instances are known of bundles q g- _. . H. _, I livestock enterprise. were of the dairy type. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 37 being stacked longer than five years without serious damage to the feed- ing value of the feed. When kept for long periods, a small amount of forage on the outside of the stack is exposed to weather and is wasted. A - Retopping the stack when needed will often prevent extensive Waste. Forage that has been stacked for a long period is brittle and should be carefully handled to prevent waste in feeding. In general, farmers of the area do not consider the loss of forage which results from stacking bundles out of doors sufficient to warrant the building of barns for storage. In recent years the trench silo has come into use as a method of storing feed. Farmers report the trench silo a satisfactory storage for feed that is to be used up during the fall, winter, and spring following har- vest, provided sufficient silage is fed to avoid the molding of exposed feed. It has also been demonstrated that feed surpluses may be satisfac- torily stored in trench silos for longer periods of time. In addition to ‘workstock, the livestock usually found on the farms studied were dairy cattle, hogs, and poultry. Although some beef cattle and sheep have been full-fed on farms, so far beef cattle feeding has been a very minor enterprise among farmers. Chickens are the principal type Vi‘; _ of poultry although turkeys are raised on a few farms each year. The few small flocks of sheep that may be found are usually on farms having a relatively large acreage of native grass pasture. Dairy Cattle Dairy cattle were the mostimportant livestock produced on the farms studied. Sales of dairy products and cattle made up 9 per cent of the gross sales. This was greater than the income obtained from any other A large percentage of the cattle on these farms Dairy cattle are maintained on practically all farms to supply milk and butter for the farm family. Although the number of milk cows on differ- ent farms varies considerably, herds of 4 to 6 cows are most common. A limited number of farmers have access to a market for whole milk but p; _ most of the product over and above that used by the farm family is sold T, as sour cream. Calves not needed for herd replacement supply meat for the farm family or are sold as calves or yearlings mainly for beef. Although small, the dairy enterprise was a source of regular income which was obtained without materially reducing production from other phases of the farm business. =; vide for the current farm and household expenses and in this way help Weekly sales of dairy products helped pro- reduce the need for credit. A Although very few farms have registered cattle, the majority of the dairy cows are high grade. Jerseys are the predominant breed. They are efficient producers of butterfat, and have proved well adapted to the area. “During periods of very low butterfat prices, there has been some tendency to shift toward dual purpose cattle in order to obtain a good calf for beef production as well as a fair amount of butterfat. _ Management of the dairy herd and of the dairy products sold is not complicated. No artificial cooling or proceesing is required for sour cream. Cream is usually marketed once or twice a week" at the same S8 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION time that household purchases are made. Expensive housing is not re- quired because of the mild climate. Sheds that open on the south furnish the needed shelter and are in common use in the area. On farms that sell some dairy products, the buildings, equipment, acreage in native pas- ture, and general overhead are not-greatly different than on similar-sized farms that keep cows only to supply products for the home. A material expansion in the number of cows maintained, however, would necessitate more buildings and equipment on most farms. Stock water is not a limit- ing factor in the production of dairy products. An adequate and economi- cal supply is obtained by means of wells and windmills. Because of the small size of most herds it is not practical for all farmers to own a bull. Bulls are usually owned by farmers having herds of above average size. In most cases the services of these bulls are avail- able to nearby herds for a small fee. The charge commonly varies from $1 to $5 per service, depending on the quality of the bull. It is a common practice for a small group of farmers having small dairy herds to buy a sire to be used cooperatively. Both methods make it possible for individuals to have access to better bulls than would individual ownership. Although there is a tendency to keep more milk cows on large farms than on small farms, the number kept is not in proportion to the greater acreage. In general, dairying is carried on incidental to the regular farm program. Normally, dairying interferes very little with crop production, because ~most of the labor connected with the small dairy enterprise is handled as morning and evening chores. The amount of family labor available on the farm is a factor closely associated with the number of cows milked. Milking, feeding, and other work necessary to care for the dairy herd and dairy products is usually done by members of the family. Little or no outside labor was hired for this work on the farms studied. The dairy enterprise provides profitable use for relatively large amounts of family labor, particularly in the winter when regular farm work is slack. Although labor requirements for dairy cattle usually remain about the same throughout the year, (See Figure 12) the number of cows milked, and labor requirements for the enterprise can be adjusted to some extent during peak labor periods. ' The chief competition for labor between dairying and other enterprises occurs during the peak of labor requirements for crop production. Ad- justing the time of freshening so that a large proportion of the dairy herd is drying during the peak labor requirements of harvesting will reduce the extent to which dairying competes with crop production for labor. Farmers ordinarily milk fewer cows during the harvesting season than during any other part of the year. Cows that freshen during December and January can be given plenty of attention during-the early part of the lactation period, their production is stimulated by spring pasture, and they can be easily turned dry when the harvest rush is at its height. Because of the large production of feed crops, dairying is not limited by the comparatively small acreage of native grass pasture. Dairy cattle use large amounts of home-grown feeds, particularly forage. Erratic cli- matic conditions results in varying amounts of poorly headed, immature or Weather damaged feed for which there is very little market. Further- more, it is not uncommon for sand to be blown into bundle feed before it FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 39 - WORK-STOCK \ _ DAIRY CATTLE Orobdh HOURS POULTRY ON-hfii JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNEJULY AUG SEPTOCT NOV DEC Figure 12. A comparison of the distribution by months of labor requirements for one work animals, one dairy cow, one brood sow and 100 hens. is stacked. Cattle utilize these unmarketable feeds and dirty forage with less harmful effects than most other classes of livestock. Cattle also utilize the feed value of stalk fields to advantage as well as crops that do not justify harvesting. For the many farms that have disposed of work- stock, dairy cows are ameans of utilizing such native pasture as is avail- able. ‘Cows are commonly used to .“clean up” after workstock in the feed lot, and in this way considerable grain and forage may be salvaged that would otherwise be wasted. Although milk production may be reduced, the dairy herd can be maintained on forage alone when grain is scarce and high priced. Grain sorghums and cottonseed made up the bulk of the concentrates fed to dairy cattle. Some cottonseed meal was used at times to assist in ‘balancing the ration. Grain sorghum bundles, particularly cane and Hegari, constitute the principal forage. Sudan provides summer grazing, and will last until frost with favorable moisture conditions. Sudan pasture 40 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION comprised more than 40 per cent of the total pasture days for dairy cattle. Wheat, native grass, and stalk fields are other important sources of graz- ing. Wheat usually supplies at least part-time grazing during the winter and spring, and native grass is normally at its best after the time of good wheat pasture and before Sudan is ready to graze. Stalk fields may fur- nish some fall and winter pasture. Dairy cattle are commonly fed out of doors. Bundled feed is usually fed on the ground. Grain sorghum heads, the principal source of grain, are also frequently fed on the ground or in poorly constructed troughs. Both methods result in considerable waste. Feeding on the ground is es- pecially wasteful in wet weather when a large part of the feed is trampled under foot, gets dirty and is not eaten. When feed supplies are plentiful the common practice is to put out enough feed so that the livestock will have all they need after allowing for considerable waste. Periods of high feed prices furnish an incentive to adjust feeding practices in an effort to reduce waste and to obtain as near the full benefit of the feed fed as pos- sible. _Some farmers have found that by using well-made troughs and bundle racks feed requirements for their dairy cattle can be materially re- duced. Because cattle utilize ground grain sorghum heads more thoroughly than when fed unground, grinding permits more efficient use of that part of the dairy ration. The lower part of the grain sorghum stalk is usually coarse and unpalatable and is not eaten when cattle are well fed. This loss usually occurs regardless of the method of feeding. Here again chop- ping or grinding will result in more complete utilization of the feed. It should be kept in mind that ground feed cannot be fed on the ground or in poorly constructed troughs without greater waste than when fed in the head or the bundle. The benefits of grinding may be offset by increased waste in feeding if good feeding equipment is not used. Farmers have also found that ground feed fed in exposed troughs may be wasted by the wind. Feed that is ground before it is thoroughly dry is very likely to heat and spoil if sacked or stacked in bulk. Feed that is not thoroughly cured will keep much better in the head or in the bundle. Most farmers depend upon custom hire for feed grinding since they do not have enough livestock to justify the ownership of a feed grinder. It is sometimes possible to have feed ground on the farm with portable equip- ment. When this service is not available, the feed must be hauled to and from the grinder. The usual charge for custom grinding varies from $2 to $3 per ton. Feed prices, the amount of waste that can be prevented and the amount of time and expense connected with taking the feed to and’ from the grinder largely determine Whether or not it is profitable to grind feed. When feed prices are very low, the ordinary amount of waste will not jus- tify grinding. In 1932 for instance, when milo heads were only worth $3.00 per ton on the market, the cost of grinding would have been almost as much as the value of the unground feed and was not justified as a gen- eral practice. During the feed shortage caused by the 1934 drought, milo heads cost $30 or more per ton and bundle feed sold for $18 to $20 per FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAIINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 41 ton. With such feed prices, farmers considered it very prifitable 1:0 grind both heads and bundles. In general the savings through better utilization of feed must more than offset the expense of grinding and of haulingto and from the grinder to make grinding profitable. The average amounts of feed fed to dairy cattle and the variations in production on farms grouped according to the quantity of concentrates fed are shown in Table 6. The amount of cottonseed fed ranged from 41 to 57 per cent of the total concentrates fed to the different groups. Cottonseed was relatively less important as the amount of concentrates fed per cow increased. Milo was the most important grain fed. Even though there was some tend- ency for those who fed most liberally of concentrates to feed heaviest of forage also, the group to group variation in amount of roughage was not nearly so great as was the variation in amounts of concentrates. Sudan made up more than 40 per cent of the pasture grazed by dairy cattle. The remainder of the grazing was furnished by wheat, native Table 6. Variations in feed fed and production per cow, 1931-1935, inclusive. Pounds concentrates fed per cow Less than Over 450 451-900 901-1350 1350 Average number of farms . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.0 39.0 25.0 28.0 Cows milked per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.7 5.4 - 5.8 5.6 Butterfat per cow milked . . . . . . . . . . . .. 140.4 177.7 193.0 198.5 Calves per cow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .9 .9 .9 Concentrates per cow: Milo (threshed) . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 27.7 127.4 318.9 630.0 Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 5.6 15.0 31.3 70.8 Other grains (threshed) (Pounds) 15.3 54.0 82.0 194.8 Cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 124.6 310.1 468.5 722.1 Other proteins . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 44.0 106.2 111.8 149.6 Total concentrates . . . . (Pounds) 217.2 612.7 1,012.5 1,767.3 Roughage per cow: Cane bundles . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 1,341.9 1,709.7 1,366.6 1,614.2 Hegari bundles . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 1,360.9 1,149.7 1,485.6 1,293.9 Kafir bundles . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 415.5 375.1 379.1 483.1 Other bundles . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 357.0 356.3 334.8 410.9 Other roughage . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 520.2 599.5 560.1 717.1 Total roughage . . . . . . . (Pounds) 3,995.5 4,190.3 4,126.2 4,5191 Pasture days per cow: ative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4 22.4 26.1 24.2 Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.2 64.6 76.0 72.4 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 27.7 34.3 33.6 Other pasture 34.5 36.9 34.2 27.3 Total days pasture . . . . . . . . . . .. 153.5 151.6 170.6 157.5 grass, and stalk fields in about equal proportions. The amount and kind of grazing varies considerably from year to year. Apparently, differences in the amount of available pasture was not the cause of differences in levels of feeding since the heavy grain rations were accompanied by ap- proximately the same number of grazing days as were the light grain rations. ' 1 _ Cows fed less than 450 pounds of concentrates lacked 37 pounds of producing as much butterfat as those which were fed between 450 and 900 pounds of concentrate. Animals in both groups were on pasture about the same number of days, but those in the second group received approxi- mately 400 pounds more concentrates and 200 pounds more roughage. As- suming average prices (1929-1936) for butterfat and feed (See Tables 24 42 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION and 25) it appears that farmers who fed between 450 and 900 pounds 0f concentrates were practicing a more profitable level of feeding than were the groups feeding more or less concentrates. The two groups fed in ex- cess of 900 pounds of concentrates per cow did not produce enough more butterfat to pay for the additional grain. This fact is no doubt largely the result of greater waste of feed on farms where the heaviest feeding was practiced. For best results feeding ‘practices should vary according to the quality of available roughage. Cows need 2 pounds of dry forage or its equiva- lent in pasture or silage per hundred pounds of live weight. Good pas- ture provides the best roughage for dairy cows and is usually cheaper than harvested crops. Herds fed high protein roughages such as alfalfa hay or on good green pasture should be fed 3 to 31/2 pounds of home-grown grain per gallon of milk produced. Cows fed low protein forages including sor- ghum bundles, Sudan hay or silage or on poor pasture should receive a grain feed containing 18 to 20 per cent protein at the rate of 31/2 to 3% pounds per gallon of milk. A grain mixture of 21/2 parts (by weight) of sorghum grains and 1 part of cottonseed meal will contain approximately 20 per cent protein. , According toithis standard a cow producing 175 pounds of butterfat will require, in addition to the pasture normally available in the area, ap- proximately the following amounts of concentrates and forage per year. Grain sorghum grain 1,500 pounds Cottonseed meal 225 pounds Cane bundles or grain sorghum bundles without grain 3,600 pounds Good management practices result in more efficient use of all feeds consumed by the dairy herd. Dairy specialists suggest the following prac- tices for good dairy herd management: 1. ‘Cull on the basis of production and increase the feed 0f the good cows. This will increase production and save feed and labor as large amounts of feed are commonly used in feeding unprofitable producers at the expense of the good cows in the herd. 2. Maintain good health in the herd. 3. Provide plenty of clean water at all times. Dairy cows should have cool water dur- ing the hot weather and warm water during cold weather. 4. Provide shade during summertime and shelter when the weather is cold. 5. Milk cows at regular intervals and as rapidly as possible once the milking operation starts. Hogs Hogs are kept primarily to produce meat and lard for the farm family. Although 9O per cent of the farms studied produced pork, hog sales amounted to only 3 per cent of gross farm receipts. Approximately 60 per cent ‘of the farms with hogs kept brood sows, while the remaining 40 per cent kept no sows but purchased weanling pigs to fatten. Some farmers with brood sows sold weanling pigs, while others made a regular practice of fattening their pigs for’ market. One or two sows was the usual-sized breeding herd. Most hog raisers did not keep enough sows to justify owning a boar but depended on using the boar of some neighbor. Breeding fees were usually $1.00 to $2.50 per service or one weanling pig for each litter farrowed. On the farms studied an average of 5.7 pigs per litter were weaned. Ordinarily sows were bred to farrow both a spring and a fall litter. There were not many registered or purebred hogs in the area, but, in general, good grade and thrifty animals were predominant. i’ , v-f t5 wxi-r FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 43 Although there was some tendency to have more hogs on large farms than on small farms, the enterprise was not proportionately larger. As a general rule, hogs are not maintained in sufficient numbers to affect the cropping system of the farm. Farmers in this area have relatively low investments in shelter for hogs. Simple arrangements for protection from sun and from inclement weather is all that is needed. Although round worms are present and oc- casionally cholera has been reported, hog diseases and parasites have not seriously handicapped hog producers. As a result, farmers have not found it necessary to take many sanitary precautions. Expansion of the hog. enterprise would warrant more attention to vaccination against cholera and other diseases and systems of sanitation for the control of parasites and diseases. . The labor required per,1,000 pounds of pork produced (See Figure 12) is relatively large on the farms studied. This is partly due to the small size of the enterprise in most case's. Little effort has been made to pro- vide labor saving equipment such as self-feeders or running water in hog lots when only a few hogs are kept. The usual methods of hand-feeding and watering are time-consuming. It would be possible to effect consid- erable savings in labor requirements for pork production by effecting a few changes in management. Farmers with only a "few hogs most commonly feed grain sorghums in the form of heads, while those with a larger hog enterprise are more like- ly to feed threshed grain. Threshed grain fed in self-feeders results in very little waste and is generally considered the most efficient method of feeding grain sorghums to hogs. Sorghum heads are normally hand-fed, usually on the ground. Heavy feeding of heads frequently results in con- siderable waste, particularly when fed on dusty or muddy ground. The use of concrete or Wooden feeding floors reduces waste when heads are fed but is not as efficient a feeding practice as threshed grain fed through a self-feeder. It is not a common practice to grind feed for hogs. Farmers who raise hogs only for meat or raise only one or two litters of pigs per year usually do not buy tankage, cottonseed meal, or commercial protein supplements to balance the hog ration, but depend on skim milk. When the milk supply is not adequate, it is profitable to use tankage, cottonseed 3 V meal, or some other protein rich feed in the ration. courages the use of hog pastures. The difficulties encountered in maintaining hog-proof fences dis- Soil accumulations tend to cover this type of fence. A large amount of work is required to keep such accumu- lations worked down and the fence depreciates rapidly if the accumulations are allowed to remain. Feed requirements for pork production on farms keeping brood sows l? and on farms without brood sows are shown in Table 7. Farms without ., brood sows produced an average of 835 pounds of pork. This amount was ‘only 100 pounds greater than theiaverage poundage used in the home. i? Farms with brood sows weaned an average of 18 pigs and produced 2,956 W. pounds of pork. These farms fed 511 pounds of concentrates to produce if 100 pounds of _pork, while farms without brood sows produced an equal ‘it weight of pork by feeding 628 pounds of concentrates. feeding largely accounts for the larger amounts of concentrates fed per Greater waste in 44 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 7. Feed requirements for the production of pork, 1931- 1935, inclusive. Farms having Items Feeder pigs Brood sows Number of farm records . . . . . . .. 246 383 Pork produced per farm . . . . . . .. 835,5 2956.1 Litters per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i 3,1 Pigs weaned per litter . . . . . . . . .. — 5.7 Concentrates per 100 lbs. pork (lilvle weight) : 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350.6 249.7 Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.9 62.7 Hegari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.7 12.4 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.9 150.1 Protein feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 7.2 Other concentrates . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 29.1 Total concentrates . . . . .. 628.3 511.2 Skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 641.7 384.3 Pasture days: Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .01 .69 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02 .54 Total pasture . . . . . . . . . .. .03 1.23 100 pounds of gain with feeder pigs than was fed for production by farm- ers with brood sows. Many of the farms‘ which kept no brood sows did not buy feeder pigs until the new feed crop was mature. These hogs went on feed so late that wasteful feeding practices were followed in an effort to get the animals fat by killing time. Grain sorghums made up approximatey two-thirds of the total con- centrates fed to hogs. Corn was the second most important grain fed and was used primarily to finish meat hogs. Very little protein-rich feeds, such as tankage or cottonseed meal were given hogs. On farms without brood sows, approximately 75 gallons of skim milk were fed for each 100 pounds of pork produced. Hogs on the farms that kept brood sows were given about 45 gallons of skim milk per 100 pounds of pork produced. Sudan constituted better than half of the pasture used by hogs. In gen- eral, only farms having brood sows used pasture for pork production and these to only a small extent. The relatively large amounts of grain fed by cooperating farmers per 100 pounds of gain indicate an opportunity to lower costs by more efficient management of the enterprise. Under favorable conditions and skilled management, 100 pounds of pork (live weight) can be produced on feeder pigs with about 350 pounds of sorghum grain plus protein and mineral supplement. When the feed required to maintain brood sows are figured in, 100 pounds of live pork can be produced with approximately 425 pounds of grain in addition to protein and mineral supplements. In order to obtain such a high level of feeding efficiency, several phases of swine management need careful consideration. 1. It is necessary that feeder pigs be of the type and breeding capable of making efficient use of feed. 2. Careful attention should be given to sanitation and to disease con- trol. Best results are obtained when young pigs are not permitted to become infested with internal or external parasitesand are kept free of disease. A large number of the common swine parasites and diseases are carried over from year to year in houses and old yards in which hogs are 1’. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 45 kept continuously. These parasites and diseases can be controlled by sanitation. To do this farrowing pens should be located on “clean ground” where no hogs have run for at least one year. Before being moved to clean ground, farrowing quarters should be cleaned and disinfected to destroy worm eggs and disease germs. Washing the sides and udder of the sow with soap and water before she is put in a clean farrowing pen will remove worm eggs from the sow. Pigs should be confined to clean pasture until they are at least four months old. Feeder pigs should be treated for worms before they are placed on feed. When pigs are seen ' scratching or rubbing against posts or fences they should be treated for lice or mange. 3. Feeding methods and the feeds used are important. Grains are de- ~ ficient in protein and minerals and a protein supplement and mineral mix- ture should be fed for best results. Practically all farm grains and mill feeds are deficient in Vitamin A. This deficiency is amply supplied by green pasture. Experiment Station tests and the experience of farmers have shown that good results may be obtained with sorghum grains when properly fed. ' It has been shown” that pigs‘ make as fast and as economical gains when fed whole milo or whole kafir in self-feeders, as they Will when fed ground milo or kafir. Self-fed pigs make better use of threshed sorghum grains than do hand-fed pigs. When fattening pigs are fed Whole sor- ghums by hand twice daily, the pigs eat faster, eat more greedily, and consequently swallow larger amounts of grain before masticating it than they do when self-fed. 4. Green pasture is necessary for pigs from birth until they weigh about 100 pounds, if they are to grow and fatten most efficiently.” If pasture is not available, some choice alfalfa meal should be included in the protein supplement, or green alfalfa hay may be self-fed in racks. 5. The general management and care given hogs affect the rate and efficiency of gain. The feed in the self-feeder must be kept clean and fresh for best results. Pigs are inclined t0 eat too much protein supple- ment when the grain "is dirty and unpalatable. ' Fresh grain should be put in the self-feeder every three or four days. In order to get the most ef- ficient gains it is important to keep hogs as comfortable as possible. Plenty of shade and quarters free from dust are necessary for summer feeding. In winter the sleeping quarters should be dry and free from cold draughts. Poultry Chickens, the principal type of poultry, are produced on practically every farm. The farms studied averaged approximately 100 hens. Poul- try and egg sales amounted to 5 per cent of the cash receipts for these farms. Poultry was kept largely for egg production with meat produc- tion being incidental or secondary. Broilers and fryers were not com- monly raised for market, but surpluses not needed for home use were sold. Cull hens made up the bulk of the poultry marketed. “Progress Report No. 634, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Preparation of Farm Grains for Fattening Hogs. “Progress Report N0. 631, Texas Agricultural‘ Experiment Station, Market Farm Grains as Pork at Better Prices. 46 BULLETIN NO. 652,‘ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The farm flocks of the area are usually purebred rather than mixed or crossbred. Farmers stressing egg production usually keep Leghorn hens, while those who wish to have heavier birds for table use and the market keep medium Weight breeds such as Rhode Island Red or Barred Plymouth Rock. The number of chicks hatched or purchased usually depended on the number of pullets needed for flock replacement. It is usually necessary to start with approximately 125 chicks each year to provide the pullets need- ed to maintain a flock of 100 hens. On the farms studied, about 25 per cent of the baby chicks died before reaching the age 0f three months. Ap- proximately 60 per cent of the chicks raised were obtained from the hatcheries. Farmers either had their own eggs custom hatched or bought baby chicks. This practice permits the brooding of all baby chicks at one time which is considered good poultry management. During the period of study costs of custom hatching varied from one and one-half cents to three cents per egg, and baby chick prices varied from five cents per chick on up depending on the breed and quality. All flocks that supply hatching eggs to the hatcheries are required to r have their flocks blood tested for white diarrhea and" coccidiosis and to dispose of all birds that react positively to the test. Although climatic conditions are conducive to the production of high quality eggs, the marketing system has offered little in the way of premi- ums for infertile and high quality eggs. As a result producers have made little effort to improve the quality of eggs marketed. The poultry enterprise fits in nicely with the usual farm organiza- tion, because the enterprise can be handled so that it interferes very little with other phases of the business. During the time of year that the ' operator is busiest with crop production, chickens require a relatively small amount of attention. The labor peak with chickens on the farms studied was during March, April, May, and June when chicks were small and needed extra attention. (See Figure 12.) Small chicks require con- siderable extra attention until they are approximately two months old. By having March hatched chicks, farmers can have the peak labor period for poultry largely out of the way before crop planting gets under way. Pre- vious to crop planting, the operator usually has spare time that can be used to an advantage with poultry. Aside from the peak labor require- ments during the brooding period, the farm poultry flock is cared for largely by the farmer’s wife and children. - On many farms a small or average size flock of chickens can be largely maintained on grains wasted by other kinds of livestock or shat- tered in the handling of heads or bundle grain sorghums. Some grain will be shattered no matter how carefully the heads or bundles are handled. Chickens are particularly useful in picking up loose grain in stack lots because they cannot tear down or seriously damage stacked feed. Because they require a concentrated ration chickens provide an im- portant outlet for the sorghum grains grown in the area. Milo, kafir, and - Hegari grain made up approximately two-thirds of the average poultry ration on the farms studied. Farm flocks were commonly fed some mash or ground feed in addi- tion to the home-grown grains. The mash is generally a commercially FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 47 fmixed product, however, some farmers mix their own, using home-grown “grains supplemented with protein supplements and mill feeds. It was a , common practice to buy commercially mixed starter mash for baby chicks. l, This was usually fed in connection with home-grown grains. After chicks iwere well started, a majority of growers fed a growing mash along with hole grain. Others discontinued the use of mash feeds and used home- grown grains entirely as soon as the chicks were well started. Skim milk l‘ was included in the poultry ration when available. Mash feeds were usually fed dry in self-feeders while grain was fed on the ground or in ‘litter. i ' Data in Table 8 are the average quantities of feed fed per 100 hens d the average production per hen on farms grouped according to the n ount of concentrates fed. Forty-six farms fed an average of only 610 ‘able 8. Variations in feed fed per 100 hens and production per hen, 1931-1935, inclusive. Pounds of concentrates per 100 hens l‘ Less than Over Items 1,200 1,201-2,400 2,401-3,600 3,600 farms reporting poultry . . . . . . . . . 46 34 19 35 _n,- ens per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Number) 81 104 106 132 "i" otal eggs per hen . . . . . . . . . (Number) 76 84 92 128 \ fioncentrates fed per 100 hens : ‘ ' Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 333 1,021 1,473 2,651 Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 27 88 89 205 Hegari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 25 44 156 242 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 55 122 , 198 332 Other grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 61 126 329 462 Total grain . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 501 ' 1,401 2.245 3.892 Mixed poultry feed . . . . . . (Pounds) 36 166 308 985 Mixed chick feed . . . . . . ..(Pounds) 49 95 133 230 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 2 1 7 12 Tankage and meat‘ scrap (Pounds) 4 3 16 44 a Other concentrates . . . . . . (Pounds) 18 52 67 254 _‘ Total concentrates .. . (Pounds) s10 1.71s 2,776 5,417 if? im milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 3,898 4,016 4.144 3,956 Ainerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 2 3 8 33 4 ; .1‘: t Zunds of concentrates per 100 hens per year. The fact that an average pf ~76 eggs per hen was obtained with such a low level of feeding suggests (‘M these flocks depended on waste grain to a large extent. Liberal feed- _--_ was more common with large flocks than with small flocks and indi- that the latter depended more on waste grain than did the large _- ks. i '_ As the'amount of concentrates fed per hen increased, egg production hen increased. Thirty-five farmers fed an average of over 5,400 if nds of grain per 100 hens per year. It seems reasonable to expect that '1 te grain made up a very small part of the feed consumed by flocks "th such a high level of feeding. Q The mixed poultry feeds listed in Table 8 were made up almost en- ly of commercial laying mash which varied from 6 to 19 per cent of the tal concentrates for the groupings shown. The use of laying mash tend- 3 to increase with liberal feeding practices. Minerals, such as oyster 1, bone meal and salt, were relatively unimportant except for the group Qfarms practicing the most liberal feeding. 3 ‘According to poultry specialists, the ration of laying hensshould con- y‘ v about 15 per cent protein. Such a ration may be obtained by feed- nit.‘ =4...“ t‘ *_'f%-“;$‘=~__"“'~;' 48 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ing equal parts of home-grown grains and a mash containing 18 per cent protein. Those who have grains to market through poultry may well use a 3O to 34 per cent protein supplement. One pound of 30 per cent pro- tein supplement fed with 2% pounds of grain or one pound of 34 per cent protein supplement and V; pound of wheat gray shorts and wheat bran fed with 3 pounds of grain provides a satisfactory ration for laying hens. - The amount of concentrated protein feeds needed for poultry may be reduced somewhat by use of succulent green feed. Pasture from oats, wheat, or barley in winter and spring and Bermuda and Sudan grass in summer supplies proteins and vitamins needed by poultry. Skim milk can replace up to 75 per cent of the proteins needed to balance home-grown grains if it is regularly available and enough can be supplied to furnish all of the liquids the birds require. Other Livestock Enterprises ° Cattle and lamb feeding has been used to some extent as a means of utilizing feed surpluses. This type of enterprise is flexible and can be rapidly expanded during periods of large feed supplies or can be aban- doned when conditions are unfavorable. Up to the present time, most of the feeding in the area has been done by commercial feeders rather than farmers. These feeders operate on a large scale, maintain well-equipped feeding plants, and employ experienced men. They buy feed from the farmers and use large quantities of both forage and grain. The operation ofsuch feeders ‘has tended to strengthen feed prices in the area. There are several factors that have tended to retard the expansion of cattle and lamb feeding among farmers. Farmers of the area lack experi- ence as feeders and also lack equipment for feeding cattle or sheep. Ad- ditional capital would be required to purchase feeders and get the necessary equipment. A feeding enterprise is most desirable from the standpoint of feed supplies, and often from the standpoint of price relationships, immediately following the production of a big feed crop. Feeding must be done dur- ing the winter and spring or it competes with crop production for labor. As a rule, when the feed crop is large, the cotton crop is also large. Harvesting these crops may fully occupy the available labor until early spring and leave no time to devote to a livestock feeding project. As a rule, farmers cannot feed many animals at a time and have difficulty in buying a small number of feeders. Ranchmen prefer to sell to one buyer rather than to a large number of buyers and consequently hesitate to permit any one to buy a few head. The farmer who buys a carload of feeders can get them on the market, but the feeder who only wants a few head often has difficulty locating what he wants. Normal Production and Requirements of Livestock The normal production and requirements of livestock are shown in Table 9. These data are based on the results obtained on the farms studied during the 5-year period 1931-1935. Generally speaking, the workstock kept on the farms were good draft animals capable of pulling large machinery. Horses and mules were kept Table 9. Normal production and usual requirements of livestock. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 49 One work One milk ' 100 chicken One beef animal cow One sow hens calfl l- 820 doz. eggs j 'bution to farm operation 250 lbs. beef 80 lbs. fryers _ ' income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630 hrs. 175 lbs. b. fat 2,400 lbs. pork 150 lbs. hens 300 lbs. beef " ction or maintenance p irements: - Han labor . . . . . . . . . . . (Hours) 35 100 110. 150 10 fioncentrates 7’ Grain sorghums . . . . . . (Lbs.) 2,200 400 8,640 1,900 1,800 ' Other grain . . . . . . . . . (Lbs.) 3,600 250 f, _Cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . (Lbs.) 400 ’ Protein feeds . . . . . . . . (Lbs.) 150 240 25 300 Mixed feeds . . . . . . . . . (Lbs.) 600 Skim milk . . . . . . . . . . . (Lbs.) 10,400 4,000 "Cane bundles . . . . . . . ._(Lbs.) 900 2,400 — —— 1,350 ‘ Other sorghum bundles (Lbs.) 5,200 3,200 —- — cres in pasture 1* Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .8 1.25 — —— Native grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 2.0 3.75 —— -— f mall grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1.40 —- — 1.00 2.50 1.50 10.002 1.00 f" iscellaneous cash costs . . . . . y, udes cost of baby chicks. l‘? crease. _ ration. Cottonseed is fairly high ’ uirement data for beef calf based on estimates supplied by livestock specialists. 5in the ratio of about 5 horses to 4 mules. Workstock were used an average {of 630 hours per head per year on the cooperating farms. The hours " orked per head of workstock varied a great deal from farm to farm and ere reflected in the amount of feed required. Workstock used a small _V umber of days per year are on pasture a higher percentage of the time and fconsequently need less feed than do Work animals used a large number of g ays. The amounts of feed fed to stock could be reduced on many farms by less wasteful feeding practices. The average cow on the farms studied produced 1'75 pounds of butter- ‘Iat during a milking period of approximately ten months. Wide variations iwere noted in the annual butterfat production of cows on different farms. oduction per cow is an important factor affecting profits. _ cing cow requires very little, if any, more feed for maintenance than does == low producing cow and consequently uses a much larger part of the feed q ‘ eived for the production of milk and butterfat. As the production per q w increases there is a strong tendency for the net income per cow to A high pro- Dairy cows often receive enough feed, but frequently it is not the right ,' d to fill the requirements of high producing animals. When made up tirely of grain sorghum grain and forage, the dairy ration is low in pro- pin and should be balanced by the addition of a high protein feed such as ttonseed meal for best results. Because of the lack of a legume hay de- ndence must be placed on high protein concentrates to balance the dairy in protein and "y farm's. Generally the price relationships which exist between cot- _nseed and cottonseed meal, make it more profitable to sell the seed and chase meal. However, when cottonseed prices are very low, it is usually 7 ore profitable to "feed cottonseed. is fed on 50 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The production requirements for hogs as shown in Table 9 are for an enterprise unit of one sow producing two litters during the year. More rapid gains and a reduction in the feed requirements for pork production could be obtained by more liberal feeding of protein rich feeds such as skim milk, tankage, or cottonseed meal. Many farmers have sufficient skim milk to balance the ration for a few meat hogs, but an expansion of the swine enterprise should be accompanied by heavier feeding of high protein feeds. The normal production and requirements for chickens are shown in Table 9. These farms kept an average of approximately 100 hens and ob- tained an annual egg production of nearly 100 eggs per hen. Since poultry depends on waste grain for part of their feed, any large increase in size of flock would be expected to result in more liberal feeding practices. Liberal use of farm-grown grains does not necessarily mean that a balanced ration is fed because these feeds alone do not contain sufficient protein to make a well-balanced poultry feed. The poultry ration on many farms would be better balanced by including a large proportion of feeds high in protein such as meat scrap or cottonseed meal. Good results have been obtained when plenty of skim milk was available to supplement the common farm feeds. FACTORS AFFECTING THE CHOICE OF FARM POWER A wide range in size of machinery and type of power is available to farm operators in the High Plains Cotton Area. This has resulted from relatively recent developments in the power and machinery field. The available power and machinery range from one-row horse-drawn to four- row tractor-drawn units. The land resources of the area are such as to encourage or facilitate the adoption of multi-row machinery and large power units. A review of what has taken place in the power and equipment used on the farms studied will serve to indicate the manner in which farmers have reacted to the available alternatives and to new developments in power and equipment. The early development of farming in the area was based largely on the use of one-row horse-drawn equipment brought by settlers from the older agricultural sections to the east. A study of the cost of producing cotton on 54 farms, selected at random in the area, revealed that as late as 1923 one-row equipment, only, was being used on these farms. Tractors available previous to 1925 were designed primarily for belt work and for flat-breaking, discing, and harrowing, operations not: gen- erally practiced in the area. Therefore, tractors were useful on individual farms only during that short period of time when sod was being broken. This work was usually done on a custom basis by means of large road-type tractors. By 1925 a tractor especially designed to plant and cultivate row crops was developed. The new tractors proved to be particularly well adapted to the needs of cotton producers, and a number of them were em- ployed in the High Plains ‘Cotton Area in 1926. Almost simultaneously with the introduction of the all-purpose type tractor came the use of two- row horse-drawn lister-planters and cultivators and of the cotton sled or stripper in harvesting cotton. Thus, 1926 marks the approximate date of 3 5' § 3‘ 3 .3’ "2 E’ farms using each size of equipment 1n 1936. g 2: g a I3. a I5 Q a é I . >4 oo "'" - Crop I3 d" g‘ (p a er- H g g a, "' ‘<1 --- o a land o a, . I», .0 b‘ H, a, g Yea? perfarm F ,9 g It: 9, a IQ; I>g a | I during §_ "d (‘D Item 1991 I 1992 I 1999 1994 1935 I 199s 1991 199s o»? f‘: g HI §§ 5 a, E I I H, s” g Q7 I-e- H e Total number of farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 141 I 138 I 127 139 138 126 126 (Acres) g; g E g :31- g é ~5- E 1+ i3 Farms using one-row horse-drawn equipment. .. .. 9 I 7 I 7 5 5 7 4 98 m I“ m g?) m s d. $5 a Farms using one-row and tvsLo-row horse-drawn 35 I 33 I 24 16 12 5 5 145 F; g g a, (GI; g" g (I) E equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. m w Farms using ‘one set of two-row horse-drawn 40 I 36 I 45 60 42 32 16 182 5 g a‘ g’ H? Q; IL a eqmpmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . _ '-" H Farms using téwo-row plus one-row horse-drawn 17 I 27 I 21 I 16 I n 5 2 245 cg, g g g g‘ g g g g equipmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - _ p. Farms using two sets of two-row horse-drawn 4 II 5 II 4 I 8 I 4 I 2 I 380 0Q j a 0 a. i g E equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I — m ' (‘D Q Farms using two-row tractor-drawnequipment 20 I 19 I 12 18 46 52 74 233 C» s, w g 8 a‘ g m F.m‘5‘;“§.{"§;°€‘JJ'3_.-;.9Ineee1'11;use; 1.919;" 6 II II I I I II 3 I I 310 s at j g e a >5 s g rawn equipmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q; s‘ tn g, Farms using two-row tractor and one set of two- I I I I g a g g Li! '4 a" I: as E F row norsedrawn equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 I 3 I 5 I 5 7 7 4 408 w (‘b d. I; PP ¢ Q, g o m I1‘ arms usmg Izlwo-rogv tractor 11nd tvgo sets of 1 I 1 I 1 2 1 600 g; g c a $91 '3 '4 g a o _\ wo-row orse- rawn equipmen . . . . . . . . . . . .. _— —— w Farnzs using}; two-row tractor-drawn equipment I 1 I 1 I 1 2 418 c: a g i o I: a‘ 0Q é- a more t an one tractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. — —— — g-f- H- Farms using three- Ifour-row tractorfdrawn II II I 3 5 7 12 408 é g1 g "g g‘ a K 5 ,6 g equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — —- 9 "" <"' Z Farms using three- four-row tractor and one-row I I 1 2 2 2 387 g (Pr; I5 g g1 p. H Ii“ i. I} perefiiggafifififiefiéfivaa:19;usaigses 19"." II; I I; ‘I I; 82 II 82 II 83 3 84 I <2 g. § g a a E 5.5. g g u ie wor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . CD rf- »-- 1"; Farngs using’ three- four-row tractor and two-row I I 1 g IE, m ‘I: o g‘ 5 I1‘ g I; . eeme3€i§§€§“£;i§.‘;“€;?§2*.1i; 19999;.‘ a. """ " _ I _ I — * i’ ‘P fl ‘a 5 9 m s» ,_ e larger equipment .. ...................... .. 52.5 I 47.1 I 59.5 ‘67l6 76.1 81.0 86.5, '3 8 o a I; o g- o 5' Q 3 Percentage of farms having tractors . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.5 I 21.7 20-5 24-5 46-4 59-5 78 6 fi Q "h v-— O L‘! fi E H '9" Average number of workstock per farm . . . . . . . . ., 6.2 II 6.2 II 6.4 I 5.9 I 4.6 I 3.5 2.7 H E ,__,_ '< i <9 m g g- g g g g S g 3. a ‘I’ m m I d’ b" "5 E H gt‘ g r-I. ° Q’ ° 1+ Z,’ o s: 0Q U, ‘V ' 7 1 Q T" I H‘ 1"‘ g '3‘ H ~ 32 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIlVlENT STATION drawn equipment, while 16 farms supplemented two-row tractor equipment with some horse-drawn machinery. All the tractors were of the all-purpose type. The changes in size of equipment and power units that have taken place between March 1, 1931 and March 1, 1937 are shown in Table 10. Between- 1931 and 1934, there was a substantial increase each year in the use of two-row horse-drawn equipment. The number of farms depending largely upon one-row equipment declined from 31 to 15 per cent during the period, while those depending upon two-row horse-drawn equipment rose from 43 to 60 per cent of all farms. Farms using only two-row or larger machinery, regardless of type of power used, also increased from 52 to almost 68 per cent. After 1934 the shift from horsepower to tractorpower took place rapid- ly. The proportion of farms using tractorpower increased from 24 to 46 per cent between 1934 and 1935. The shift continued through 1936 and 1937. By 1937, 78 per cent of all cooperating farmers had tractors and 68 per cent used tractors for all field operations involving machinery, with the exception of feed harvest. _ Since 1934, the shift to larger field machinery kept pace with the shift from horsepower to tractorpower. The trend toward larger power units, even in the case of tractors, is indicated by the fact that in 1937 the number of four-row tractor outfits had increased to 14 as compared to only four in 1934. By 1936, 86 per cent of all cooperating farms were using only two-row or larger equipment as compared to 67 per cent in 1934 and 52 per cent in 1931. The major changes in the sizes of field machinery since 1934 have been a continuation of the decline in the number of farmslusing four-row equipment. A comparison of the per acre cost for power and equipment on farms using horsepower with farms using tractorpower is shown in Table 11. Relatively low feed prices during 1931, Table 11. Power and equipment costs on farms, 1931-1935. l 1931 1932 | 193s | 1934 | 193s Farms with tractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (Per cent) 25.5 21.7 20.5 24.5 46.4 Power and equipment cost per acre of cropland: All farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Dollars) 2.39 .1.72 1.96 2.59 2.88 Farms with tractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (Dollars) 2.48 1.95 2.13 2.06 2.75 Farms without tractors . . . . . . . ._ . . . . (Dollars) 2.35 1.61 1.90 2.84 3.03 1932, and 1933 were favorable to horsepower and influenced the tendency of farmers to standardize on two-row horse-drawn equipment. This tend- ency was also affected by the lack of purchasing power of farmers during the depression years. In 1935, the credit situation eased so that a large proportion of farmers were able to purchase tractors. Feed prices also be- came relatively high because of crop failure and low yields obtained in 1934. Prices of workstock increased rapidly. The result was a substantial increase in the cost of power and equipment on farms using workstock while the cost of tractorpower changed but little. During the years of the study there has been a rapid increase in the proportions of farms using but one set of equipment. In 1931, about half did so, but in 1937, 84 per cent used but one set of equipment. Seventy per cent of these were two-row tractor-drawn; 11 per cent were four-row tractor-drawn; 15 per cent were two-row horse-drawn; and only 4 per L Table 12. Quantity and value of feed fed per head of workstock on farms studied, 1931-1935. ' ‘ Five-year 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 average Number of farms with horses... 132 123 119 34 17 g6 Number of horses per farm; . . . 7 7 7 6 7 7 Feed fed Del‘ head 0f W0rk$t06k= Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Grain and other concentrates: Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,830 13.15 2,638 7.55 2,258 8.44 1,484 15.80 1,206 18.33 1,883 12.65 Kaflr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 .18 180 .46 276 1.02 105 .82 12 .19 121 .53 Hegarl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 .37 50 .16 92 .36 143 1.32 15 .31 69 .50 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .21 35 .10 70 .28 17 .31 70 1.33 43 .45 Other concentrates . . . . . . . .. 38 .32 18 .05 —— — 61 1.16 191 3.30 62 .97 Total grain and concentrates. . . . 1,969 14.23 2,921 8.32 2,696 10.10 1,810 19.41 1,494 23.46 2,178 15.10 Bundle feed with grain: 1 Hegari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,245 9.96 3,061 4.66 3,409 6.35 4,133 13.70 3,053 14.71 3,380 9.88 Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 1.62 1,442 2.26 1,608 2.69 1,605 4.64 679 3.59 1,183 2.96 Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 .89 790 1.08 1,426 2.57 935 2.97 265 .58 770 1.62 Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81 .16 55 .11 40 .10 7 .03 83 .14 53 .11 Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748 2.67 809 1.29 882 1.54 835 3.49 530 5.28 761 2.85 Total bundle feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,090 15.30 6,157 9-40 7,365 13.25 7,515 24-33 4,610 24-30 6,147 17-42 Headed bundles and straw . . . . .. 223 .69 259 .25 127 .22 750 4.01 752 5.70 422 2.17 Pasture days: Days Dollars Days Dollars Days Dollars Days Dollars Days Dollars Days Dollars Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1.13 22 .33 16 .25 4 .10 17 .43 19 .45 Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65 2.17 94 1_.41 52 .78 20 .43 97 1.74 65 1.31 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .96 30 .60 8 .15 17 .50 5 .16 18 .47 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .95 33 .50 22 .35 56 1.74 39 .66 36 .84 Total pasture days . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 157 5.22 179 2.84 98 1.53 97 2.77 158 2.99 138 3.07 35.44 20.81 25.10 51.02 56.45 37.76 Total value all feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'p911a.19do 111112; 1o 921s 91p 01 peqdepe s1 119111111 19m0d 10 qgun 12 19919s on, s191111e; qsom 10; 9Iq1ss0d 11 apmu seq 4u9u1d1nb9 p9Ao1du11 qq ‘eqqelnazua 91's 412114 sqgun 1911x011 g0 921s 91p 111 9.81191 epgm 91H, 1m .19qfl,9.8o1 10141109 119114 19pun puq 91p, go 110111219110 112111-9110 111111911 o0, 411m JGAAOd 10 921s e Bugsooqa 9112 K112191198 s191111n3: cyeqq s11199s 41 ‘snql ‘umzup-asmq mo1-9110 919m 11199 89 SVXSLL cIO VEQIV NOLLOO SNIVTJ HSIH HHJ. NI SLNEIIMLSIIFCIV WHV¢I 54 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Farmers in the area continue to be confronted with the problem of making adjustments in farm power. Consideration should be given to a number of points before changes in power and equipment are made. It is desirable to know the input of materials as well as the cost involved per day’s work for the alternative units of power. It is important to select power units that are ample in size for the acreage involved yet care should be taken to avoid the unnecessary expense of maintaining a unit of power which is much larger than required. Since the land available to the majori- ty of farmers at any given time is more or less fixed, the problem is largely one of selecting the power and equipment unit best suited to a particular crop acreage. The cost involved should be considered before making changes inpower and equipment. The ability of the individual to finance these changes is a problem that should also be considered. The following discussion enumerates the cost of each type of power for the farms studied and evaluates the factors which may affect the choice of power. Amounts of Feed Fed to Workstock The average amounts of the various kinds of feed fed per head of work- stock are shown in Table 12. During the 5-year period, an average of 2,178 pounds of grain, 6,147 pounds of bundle feed containing grain, and 422 pounds of headed bundles of forage were fed per head of workstock. The above amounts were in addition to 138 days on pasture. The less-than- Table 13. Quantities of feed fed per work animal grouped according to number of days worked per horse per year, average 1931-1935. Days worked per horse per year Feed fed per head 71 days Less than of workstock and over 56-70 days 56 days Concentrates fed: Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Threshed) 2,450.3 2,137.9 1,832.0 Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Threshed) 265.9 90.1 92.2 Hegari . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Threshed) 34.5 89.3 74.6 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Threshed) 41.2 25.9 54.5 Other concentrates . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.6 30.3 38.8 Total concentrates . . . . . . . . . . . * 2,811.5 2,373.5 2,092.1 Roughage fed: - Cane bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 854.4 977.1 739.2 Hegari bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,442.7 3,215.9 3,211.9 Kafir bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,253.9 1,263.0 1,113.7 Sudan bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.7 82.0 45.5 Other bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,033.6 832.3 541.5 Other roughages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258.3 266.4 273.7 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,886.6 6,636.7 5,925.5 Pasture days: Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.5 29.1 26.8 Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.2 70.3 58.1 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.9 21.4 21.0 Other pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.5 32.3 32.7 Total pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136.1 153.1 138.6 Days worked per horse per year. , 84 63 47 Feed cost per day of horse work. . .34 .51 .65 average amounts of both grain and bundles fed in 1931 was partly the result of the scarcity of feed in the area during the first half of the year and the accompanying high feed prices. An additional factor was the almost ideal weather conditions which permitted crop land preparation, planting, and cultivation with a minimum amount of field work. Large amounts of bundle feed were fed workstock in 1933. A large feed supply carried over Table 14. Cost of maintaining workstock and total cost per day of horse work, 1931-1935. 5-year Items 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 average Number of farms included. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 128 - 1.19 34 17 86 Number of horses per farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 7 6 7 7 Average investment per horse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.20 61.85 67.00 76.80 93.35 72.84 Average number days worked per horse per year. . 61 69 64 52 69 63 Feed costs per animal : ~ Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Grain—Home grown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.30 8.19 9.88 15.17 15.98 12.30 Purchased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.93 .13 .22 4.24 7.48 2.80 Bundle feed—Home grown. . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.93 9.24 12.72 21.37 22.29 16.11 Purchased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 .16 .54 3.46 2.01 1.31 Straw—Home grown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J52 £5 ~22 2-09 1-45 -92 Purchased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -07 -— —— 1-92 4-25 1-25 Pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.22 2.84 1.52 2.77 2.99 3.07 Total feed costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.44 20.81 25.10 51.02 56.45 37.76 ' _ Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent purchased feed was of total feed cost. . . . 6.7 1.4 3.0 18.9 24.3 14.2 Other costs per work animal: Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Laborl .................... . . . . . . . . . ..... 3.60 3.30 4.29 .44 3.96 3.92 Veterinary expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .05 .10 .26 .08 .11 Interest .. . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.9 3.71 4.02 1 4.61 5.72 4.37 Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-90 7.73 3-33 9-60 11-92 9-11 Shelter, water, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-31 7.61 10-85 9-27 13-21 10-05 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 .47 .41 -41 -45 -47 Total other costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.28 22.87 28.05 28.59 35.34 28.03 Total cost per work animal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 60._72 43.68 53.15 79.61 91.79 65.79 Total cost per day's work per work animal. . . . . | .99 .63 .83 1.53 1.33 1.04 lThirty hours of man labor in 1931, in 1935. . 33 hours in 1932, 39 hours in 1933, 37 hours in 1934, and 33 hours vi :::-' m O i": <3 m m l-lo i3 3° o Q.- c: o U2 d- U! '13 m rs é 3 W‘ s» 5 pqln B‘ 9. H. r: o B‘ '<.' co m H: d- o '4 m N v-s s» >—l (f) . o h: co I ‘afieqxoqs paa; 31111121. aq; aqgdsap 1361 u; saseqamd paa; qnoqcgm sdoxa 11am u; 11nd on, a1q'e aza- eare 911:1 u; saauue; Xuem ‘amqsed qeaqm 1110.1; paugeqqo Bugzexfi 1o quno a31e1 aqa, 0'1 Sugmg 3361 pue 1351 qqoq a1 >1aoqs>11om .10; 911118811 _ qunome a31e1 ‘e paqsguxn; qeaqm 1a1u1m ‘safiealae [euuou aAoqe pun suop -uoa agemqa a1qe10zve; go asmzaag Alpnqs aqq fiupmp >1aoqs>110m 0:1 pafimv sfiep amqsed 12404 aqq go 11211 qsouqe (In apem amqsed ssmfi uepng suompuoa qans xapun Xflexaqq ssa1 pa; 2am a [emqeu 41 'saa1.1d paa; 113111 XJaA u; pue ‘u . u; sxature; ogeqn, pamouo; A1 1o lqreqnagqred ‘paa; ;o afieqxoqs 'e u; pao,1nsa.z 17351 1o 4x13110111 aqJ, amqsed 19111111118 K11 IP99} 19199111 P91111111“ Z861 W‘ ' s m: 5* 5 w (‘D a w: '5" l‘! B’ (b i? w‘ 3. m m: E. u m m s c. 99 SVXELL JO VHHV NOLLOO SNIVTdI HDIH EIHJ. NI SLNHWLSHFCIV IAIHVJ 56 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION' flect variations in feed prices. For instance, Workstock, on the average, received less concentrates, less forage, and less days of pasture in 1935 than during any of the other years shown, yet 1935 feed costs were the highest of the 5-year period. The influence of the amount of work done per work animal on the amounts of‘ feed fed and on feed costs per day’s work is shown in Table 13. Workstock costs were high on some farms because more animals were kept than were needed to do the work on the farms. Animals working a large number of days received more feed but the feed cost per day of work was lower than for animals working a small number of days. At prevailing prices, Workstock used an average of 84 days were fed at a cost (including pasture) of 34 cents per day of work, whereas workstock used an average of 63 days and 47 days were fed at a cost per day of 51 cents and 65 cents, respectively. Cost of Horse Work The cost of feeding and maintaining workstock on the farms during the period 1931-1935 is shown in Table 14. The average cost of maintaining a work animal a year on the farms studied, varied from $43.68 in 1932 to $91.79 in 1935. These variations are largely the result of year to year varia- tions in feed prices. There were also differences in the amount of feed fed to Workstock one year with another. The periods of light feeding tends to coin- cide with periods of high feed prices and partially offset the effect that price changes have on the cost of maintaining Workstock. In general, most of the feed fed to Workstock was home raised. The amount of feed purchased for Workstock varied inversely with the supply of home raised feed on the farms of the area. Purchased feed made up less than 1.5 per cent of the total feed costs in 1932, when feed was plentiful, as compared to nearly 25 per cent in 1935, following the 1934 drought. Other costs of maintaining workstock, including labor, veterinary ex- pense, interest on investment, depreciation, shelter, water, and taxes are more stable from year to year than feed costs. These other costs made up an average of better than 40 per cent of the total cost of maintaining work- stock during the 5-year period. Six head of Workstock are normally kept to operate a‘ farm with a single set of two-row equipment. Using the average cost shown in Table 14, the total cost of maintaining this number of work animals in 1932 when costs were unusually low because of low feed prices, would average ap- proximately $262 and would be $551 in 1935 when feed prices were abnormal- ly high. Cost of Tractor Work The costs of operating two-row and four-row tractors are given in Tables 15 and 16. The figures for two-row tractors are for the 5-year period 1931-1935. Very few four-row tractors were used in the area previ- ous to 1934, hence cost figures are available only for 1934 and 1935. Gasoline, kerosene, and distillate were the fuels used. The average amount of these fuels used in each year of the study are also included. Gasoline made up the greater part of the fuel usedby both two-row and four-row tractors. There was a tendency for farmers to increase the use Table 15. Cost of two-row tractor work per farm and per day's work, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, and five-year average. 193ml 1932 1933 1934 1935 Five-year average Acres in all crops . . . . . . . .. Acres in cotton 309.2 140.3 339.1 164.7 283.3 82.9 217.1 82.4 246.1 79.5 279.0 110.0 No. farms with tractors . . . . . . . . No. of tractors Average value per tractor . . . . . . Days worked per tractor per year. 36 37 562 45 3O 32 442 52 28 28 440 41 Fuel : Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . (Gallons) Kerosene . . . . . . . . . . (Gallons) Distillate . . . . . . . . . (Gallons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Gallons) Grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) Amt. Value 821 $ 82.47 182 - 12.78 17 .96 46 25.44 26 2.75 Amt. Value 596 $ 54.67 334 23.44 107 5.38 49 19.59 22 2.43 Amt. Value 478 $ 46.58 157 9.65 142 5.96 28 13.33 13 1.62 Amt. Value 748 $ 64.62 114 7.51 104 5.58 40 19.60 48 5.16 Amt. Value 997 $ 84.58 130 9.74 192 10.76 49 24.52 26 2.96 Amt. Value 728 $ 66.59 183 12.62 112 5.73 42 20.50 27 2.98 *Tota1 fuel, oil and xx 124.40 xx 105.51 xx 77.14 xx 102.47 xx 132.56 xx 108.42 Other costs : Labor Interest Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shelter, water, etc. . . . . . . . . . 8.50 8.87 30.46 26.52 92.59 8.00 2.33 9.20 29.92 22.62 73.32 8.00 1.49 7.50 28.91 26.40 38.89 8.00 2.42 5.21 21.19 39.72 103.92 8.00 2.92 7.86 26.55 29.79 79.31 8.00 2.73 Total other costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168.77 144.55 112.12 180.92 154.24 Total cost per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . 274.28 221.69 214.59 313.52 262.66 Total cost per day’s work . . . . . . . 5.27 4.43 5.23 4.82 5.15 qxgaqq pgp sxauue; qsom qeqq 10a; aql saugqaeux mau KIaApQIaJ exam a: 421p, PGJIQQIIIi-JIIIGJ aq plnoqs 0,1 mom-arm; .10; sxgedag ‘Q2261 we vest w; 28am P939191“? S1040 M ‘IBULIOII QIIOQE Gq prflOqS HMOQS SQSOO JIRdG-I 31H 0s e812 0a, s12 [nap qeaxfi a papreA sxoqaexq mox-oml -p0g.1ad xeafi-g Supmp $101021; max-om; .10; reaX 19d ggggg pafiexaxe sxgedax 104021,], -pua.z4 premumop e pamoqs sxoqoexa, moz-omq Aq ‘ ‘aavluasyp sq; algqm $104021; mox-mo; .10; aptm KJGA pasn sem ‘auasoxax L9 SVXHJ. .10 VEIHV NOLLOO SNIVTcI HDIH EIHJ. NI SLNEINLSHFCIV WHVJ . 58 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 16. Cost of four-row tractor work per farm and per day's work, 1934-1935. 1934 1935 Two-year ' average Acres in c1'ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 308 363 336 Acres in cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119 139 129 No. farms with tractors . . . . . . . .. 4 7 6 No. of tractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 7 6 Average value per tractor . . . . . . . . $932.31 $939.36 $935.84 Days worked per tractor . . . . . . . .. 42.1 77.7 59.9 Fuel Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . (Gallons) 1,524 $118.90 1,836 $156.11 1,680 $137.50 Kerosene . . . . . . . . . . .. (Gallons) —— —— 49 3.16 24 1.58 Distillate . . . . . . . . . . . . (Gallons) 149 7.21 557 32.27 353 19.74 ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Gallons) 55 23.62 93 41.22 74 32.42 Grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pounds) 27 3.71 39 4.44 33 4.08 Total fuel, oil, and grease . . . . . . . . xx 153.44 xx 237.20 xx 195.32 Other costs: Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7.60 $ 9.66 $ 8.63 Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.01 32.66 28.83 Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55 94 56.36 56.15 Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.25 186.62 193.94 Shelter, water, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . 8.00 8.00 8.00 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.08 3.96 3.52 Total other costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300.88 297.26 299.07 Total cost per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 454.32 534.46 494.39 Total cost per day’s work . . . . . . . . ‘ 10.79 8.25 6.88 own repair work rather than hirin g this work done by mechanics at a relatively high wage, no doubt was responsibleto a great extent for keep- ing repair costs 10w. The principal part of tractor repair costs was for new parts that were replaced. Repairs were also kept low by the fact that the farm operator or some member of the farm family usually ran the tractor rather than depending on inexperienced or careless hired labor for tractor operation. The cost per day of two-row tractor work averaged $5.15 for the 5- year period and varied from $6.43 in 1931 to $4.43 in 1933. Differences in prices paid for fuel and va worked per tractor were important causes o cost of two-row tractor work. Since more power is required for four-row e (See Table 15.) riation in the number of days f year-to-year differences in the quipment than for two-row equipment, four-row tractors were more expensive to operate than two-row tractors. The average cost per day of four- 1934 and $6.88 in 1935. The difference in c A largely due to the difference in the number These data also indicate that the numbe an important consideration of tractor co factor, the farms were grouped accordin tractor per year regardless of size. The average cost per day of tractor tractor less than 40 days as compar more days of tractor Work and $5.96 59 days work per tractor per year. Expenses for fuel, oil, and grease vary directly with the days of tractor row tractor work was $10.79 in ost between the two years was of days worked per tractor. r of days worked per tractor was sts. In order to better study this g to the number of days worked per These data are summarized in Table 17. work was $8.01 for farms that used a ed to $4.51 for farms that had 60 or for those that ranged between 40 and FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 59 Table 17. Cost of tractor work on farms grouped according to number of days worked per ' tractor per year, average 1931-1935. - Days worked per tractor per year Less than 40 I 40-59 60 and over Acres in crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 225.8 261.8 345.3 ' Acres in cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3 101.9 ~ 129.0 Number of farms with tractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 58 52 71 ber of tractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 52 77 erage value per tractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 478 569 575 - s worked per tractor per year . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 49 76 Dollars Dollars Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.19 93.38 121.46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 70 20.41 27 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 95 2.42 3.81 fuel, oil, and grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 84 116.21 152.84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.99 6.42 8 55 Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.39 18.67 33 10 Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.68 34.14 34.50 Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.88 105.41 102.32 Shelter charge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.00 " 8.00 _ ‘ 8.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2.97 3.11 l other costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 137.45 175.61 189.58 I cost per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 216.29 291.82 342.42 l~ cost per day's work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 8.01 \ 5.96 4.51 k. Repair costs usually vary with the amount of tractor Work done and ~ - the age of the tractor. New tractors require fewer repairs than old = Extensive use of a tractor is usually accompanied by relatively high reciation. Interest, shelter, and taxes do not vary greatly from year year and are not greatly affected by the amount the tractor is used. ‘Since the major out-of-pocket costs of tractor operation are for fuel, oil, ' grease, farmers frequently consider. that these costs make up the bulk e cost of tractor work. Data in Tables 15 and 16 indicate that this is '~ true. Fuel, oil, and grease made up only approximately 40 per cent of total cost of tractor work while labor, repairs, interest, depreciation, _p r, and taxes accounted for 60 per cent of the total costs. It may be I in Table 17 that the proportion of the total cost of tractor work made up ‘puel, oil, and grease also increased with an increase in the days of tractor Choosing the Power Unit -_The acreages of cropland that can be operated with a single set of each fie common types of power and equipment used in the.area are shown in 2e 18. These figures should be useful to farmers in planning their power jequipment needs. Because cotton is the most important crop, the acre- ‘of cotton that can be readily handled with each type of equipment was rincipal consideration. A ese figures are based on usual rates of performance with different of power and equipment units on the farms studied and upon an esti- optimum length of cultivation period for once-over of all crops of ys. The figures in Table 18 do not differ greatly from the actual 11s handled in 1936 by farmers using comparable sets of equipment. i” column in Table 10.) » ' “ "s"; ~‘¢§I_?‘-G21'~J*§.'SZ}~;~,: . ,1’ 60 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATI“ _Table 18. Cropland operated per unit of the types of power and sizes of equipment common in the area. Acres of cropland per farm One-row horse-drawn . . . . . . . . . . .. 100 Two-row horse-drawn . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Two-row tractor-drawn . . . . . . . . .. 250 Four-row tractor-drawn . . . . . . . . . . 450 One man can operate, with the help of extra labor for hoeing nd har- vesting, approximately 100 acres of cropland with one set of s". gle-row horse-drawn equipment or 180 acres with two-row horse-drawn machinery. The acreage can be increased to 250 by the use of two-row tractor equip- ment and to 450 when four-row tractor equipment is used. The acreage that can be operated with a given power uni-. ll vary somewhat from farm to farm, depending on soil types, and cropping sys- tem. Planting is the critical operation in crop production and since effective erosion control reduces the necessity for replanting, the ability of a farmer to control erosion affects the crop acreage that can be operated. Because of a longer planting period and lower labor and power re- quirements per acre, a farmer can plant and cultivate a larger acreage of feed than cotton acreage, assuming the same power unit is used. Favorable climatic conditions tend to increase the acreage that can be handled. Since tractors do not require rest, it is possible for farmers to increase the acreage operated per tractor by providing extra labor and working at night when necessary. Such a practice will not reduce the total hours of service rendered by the tractor and equipment but will necessitate more frequent replacement bcause of more intensive use. Tractorpower has the advantage of affecting a saving of time and man labor. Since a tractor operates at greater speed than horse-drawn machinery, it is possible to operate more cropland with the same labor force with tractorpower than with horsepower. The fact that a tractor can be run long periods without rest results in increased timeliness in the per- formance of field operations. A two-row and afour-row tractor outfit usually replac is 6 to 8 and 12 to 15 head of workstock, respectively. The shift to t: orpower has resulted in an increase of between 20 and 25 per cent in the amount of power available per 100 crop acres. This has given the operator better control of planting and cultivating operations and at the same time permit- ted a saving of labor for field work other than hoeing and harvesting. Dur- ing rush periods the tractor can be run day and night if need be. A power reserve of this nature is especially important in an area where the optimum planting time is frequently short and where timely cultivation may result in subsequent labor savings. Size of farm is an important consideration in the choice of farm power. The advantage due to the saving in time and labor that is obtained by shift- ing from horse totractorpower, is lost unless the saving of labor can be profitably utilized to increase production. Assuming sufficient power for the needs of his business, a farmer would not be justified in greatly in- creasing the size of power unit, unless he can increase the extent of his FA‘ I ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 61 Qoperations to utilize the additional power. If management is to be most efflcien, the available power and labor must be employed. l.3e<';use of ownership and personal factors, some farms will no doubt remain mall and adapted only to horsepower. A small farm offers older Mme]: .2 gradual retreat from the land. Older farmers frequently prefer use workstock. Additional use of tractors on small farms may take ace with recent developments in the machinery field, which include gen- eral pu. fse tractors adapted to one-row equipment. Inability to increase e S128.‘ f farm would also greatly hinder an increase in the use of four-row ftmctor cjluipment. ' l; Approximately 50 per cent of the cost of tractorpower is cash ex- I ‘gpense, * e. cash items make up only 5 per cent of the cost of maintain- ~ ing wo: {Jck- The relatively lower cash cost is an important advantage in fiver of horsepower over tractorpower. Feed is a large item in the cost of 5 additional outlet for the feed crops grown. Due t0 lower cash costs, the i farmer with horsepower requires a smaller reserve of cash or a smaller Amount 0f credit than one using tractorpower. Utilization of home-grown feeds may reduce some of the risks of farming. Tractors have an advantage in that no fuel or attention is required when 51%;"; they are idle, while workstock require some feed and care whether they work or not. This factor is most important during periods of high feed prices. i Terraced cropland does not lend itself to the use of four-row tractor I equipment as well as to smaller machinery. Farmers find it somewhat dif- ficult to work the terraces with the larger-sized power units. The point rows that usually occur on land that is either terraced or contoured are f; also more difficult to handle with four-row machinery than with smaller ‘Yisiequipment. Should it become the common practice to terrace the cropland of the area, terracing will doubtless offer resistance to the increased use of ;; four-row equipment. -i'4.-1“‘ I" ADJUSTMENTS IN FARMING SYSTEMS r Far.- s find it advisable to consider periodic adjustments in farm frorganizaticn in response to changes in price relationships, variations in a Ymarket demand, introduction of improved equipment or numerous other g~echanges which affect the farm business. During recent years farmers have {found it necessary to make numerous and rapid adjustments as a result of government crop-control programs. The principal problems in this connec- tgtion have been centered about the use of land diverted from cotton produc- 'on or the disposal of feed crops grown on land diverted from cotton. It is the purpose of this section to indicate something of the extent and nature of the problem of making these adjustments as well as to discuss the rincipal alternatives in farm enterprises which are available. As a starting iipoint typical systems of farm organization previous to the activities of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration are shown. This is followed by a discussion of changes necessitated as a result of these activities and a con- Isideration of the alternative adjustments available to farmers of the area. 93555 5 g '8 ‘w '1 (D m 1-4 E l-f; - Q7 Q m Q} Q i3 o F; *3 “I “mg m E >8 g 53925 3 7 P’ 8 =* B. “v E 3 5*- 9> 5 5' e <+ 5 n. E1 g a: H _ _ gm: 5n m a, — Z Table 19. Organlzatlon of farm land and of cropland, average of farms studied, for the period 1931-1935. 5 S» g P“ g b} g3 € Q7 "1 Q, 0Q m ' Items 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 5-year av. a f; ._..Q»§ F59’ a Q-n (D N, Number of farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 141 138 12 "5 '-' CD S! =7 '- Total acres in farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 290 288 27; g m m a *5 g g a Cropland per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 237 241 218 2351 222 231 o '5 ST m '3 s "h P5 Per cent of total acreage . . . . . . . . . .. s1.7 33.7 30.4 s95 s23 s39 w 1T 5 c" o s» q >4 Native pasture, farmstead and roads. . 53 47 53 28. 46' 45' g 5 P‘ (T if, "" g a 4-1- ‘ ,1 P61‘ P91‘ Per P r Per Per a "11 E? E g 5 > Acres cent Acres cent Acres cent Acres cent Acres cent Acres cent 5 y 8 i.’ 8“ F g Q1 O ' >-4 m Cropland in: m C! ‘<1 P'- n a 00915112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104 43.3 107 444 11s 53. H ° 5 "5 c: ilo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52 22.1 45 1ss 32 14.5 3g fig S’ g 5 g 313 g F3 P‘ Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1s 6.9 1s 75 9 4.3 12 5:2 14 s4 14 3'1 1+ ‘° 1g 5* < 3 Hegan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 s.1 19 77 15 7.5 19 s2 29 131 20 s" < m‘ ° ‘"1 w 5' w ane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s 3.3 s 32 12 3.3 9 3's 9 41 9 3'9 3 § uq "° "1 h’ = :> Sudan .......................... .. 1s 7.7 19 es 1s 3.5 19 3's 24 123 19 s'2 ~~ '1 o 5 a a‘ ”’ r1 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s 2.5 11 44 5 2.3 5 2'0 6 2s 7 3'0 g m <1 P3. <1> ='* Small grains? ................... .. 13 5.4 14 57 s 4.5 11 9'0 1o 51 11 4'7 w “c? 3 § B 5 c B’ All other crops ............... 3 1.2 s 2 7 3 1.6 5 2Z4 4 1 s 4 1Z7 H,“ s c. "’ 5- ; Q 9 w E 3 3. Q’ w s: ‘Includes 56 acres of idle cropland. a 8 g 5 @- E, > a 215019886 DPQViOIIS t0 Government plow-up for 1933, harvested acreages for other years '1. '~"‘ Q? b‘ 9- g 3May include some double cropping. . g '<: (s V1 Q 5 < {=1 a‘ o g ado 8’ g Z a, a m: 5 1+ P’ *3 B ‘P a is, E‘ ° 3 U b" ° r+ >—- H’ 11> a m fl p-I- Q3 FF s» p; <'* <1 B 5' i o h-l g "3 m 9’ 3 Q c1- Q, Ceno- ‘b a s‘ ... a Q’ g 5E. fi. g o v1 I .. H, FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA TEXAS 63 The average numbers of livestock kept per farm are shown in Table 20. The number of workstock on farms studied decreased after 1933 and reflects the shift from horse- to tractorpower that has been previously discussed. y. Previous to 1934, the average farm had 5 to 6 cows, a little more than Table 20-. Average numbers of livestock on the farms studied during the period 1931-1935. 5-year Items 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 av. Number of farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 141 138 127 139 138 137 Workstock per farm . . . . . . . .Number 6.2 6.2 6.4 5.9 4.6 5.9 Cows per farm . . . . . . . . . . ..Number 5.2 5.8 6.1 4.9 4.0 5.2 Litters of pigs per farm.. .Number 1.5 2.9 2.4 .7 1.1 1.7 Hens per farm . . . . . . . . . . . . .Number 116 105 104 99 84 102 00 hens, and raised approximately two litters of pigs per year. The feed rtage that resulted from the drought of 1934 caused some reduction in ‘umbers of cattle, hogs, and poultry. Although it was common to find a large percentage of land in crops, me farms varied considerably from the average crop and livestock organi- ‘ tion. While cotton was of major importance on most farms, variations in d resources resulted in differences in cropland organization. Grain sor- ums were most extensively grown in localities where the predominating ils are at least favorable to cotton production. Whether surplus feed was ld as cash grain or marketed through livestock was largely determined by onal preference and the experience, of the farmer, and by existing price lationships. Farms which were typical of the four systems of farming most com- nly found in the area previous to Agricultural Administration programs - selected. A budget analysis was made for each of these systems. In ._ ~- construction of these budgets the crop and livestock organization of the _ u the amount of feed used, the amount of feed purchased, the hours of “ ducts used in the home are taken from the records of the individual farms ected as typical of each farming system. Average figures obtained for the farms studied were used for the following items: crop yields, hours man labor and power used on crops, tractor operating costs, amounts of d planted, depreciation rates and repairs for improvements and equip- Table 21. Average repair and depreciation rates for specific items, ex- pressed as a percentage of original costs. . Items , Repairs Depreciation . Farm buildings (residence excluded) . . . . . . . 2.0 5.0- " f‘ Fences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 5.0 ‘ ‘ Machinery (tractor and automobile excluded) 4.0 7.0 Tractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 8.0 Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 17.0 Workstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 ‘t, taxes, prices of products sold and materials and services purchased, V» value per unit of farm products used by the farm family. Average ' es rather than actual figures were used for these items to eliminate n on livestock, the livestock production obtained, and the amounts of‘ BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the effects of factors suchas climatic conditions, price differences and soil variation. The farms selected to represent the typical systems of farming all used two-row tractor-drawn equipment. Rates used to calculate repairs and depreciation were based on the, experience of cooperating farmers and are shown in Table 21. Price data were obtained from cooperating farmers, feed and grain dealers, and newspapers in the area. The prices used in the budgets were averages for the 8-year period 1929-1936, as shown in Tables 22 and 23. Table 22. Prices of products sold. . 8-year l V average Commodity Unit 1929 1932 1935 1929-36 1942 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Cotton lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cwt. 16.20 5.30 10.13 9.75 17.00 Cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ton 29.70 7.20 30.00 22.00 40.00 Milo (threshed) . . . . . . . . . . .. cwt. 1.12 .27 1.28 .89 1.12 Kafir or Hegari (threshed) .. cwt. 1.03 .29 1.18 .82 1.08 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. bu. n59 * .19 .90 .55 .80 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. bu. 1.01 .27 .95 .72 1.06 Kafir or Hegari (bundles) .. ton 8.50 2.00 10.70 6.70 9.00 Cane bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ton 7.50 2.40 10.00 6.55 8.00 Cattle . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cwt. 5.25 1.75 3.95 3.25 9.00 Butterfat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lb. .41 .18 .30 .27 .38 Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cwt. 8.85 3.50 8.90 6.55 12.50 Pigs (weaning) . . . . . . . . . . . . each 5.00 2.00 4.50 . 3 50 6.00 ggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. doz .23 .11 .18 16 28 Hens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lbs. .16 .08 .10 .11 .18 Fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lbs. .15 .10 .12 .12 .23 Sudan seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. cwt. 4.00 70 7.60 3.50 3.00 Table 23. Prices of items purchased. l 8-year . average Commodity Unit 1929 1932 1935 1929-36 1942 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Wages——wi'thout board . . . . day 1-25 ~35 l 1.25 1.10 l 3-00 Contract work: l . l Thresh grain sorghums . cwt. -12 -04' l .08 .08 l .10 Thresh Sudan . . . . . . . . .. cwt. -25 -12 l -20 -20 l ~20 Snap cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . cwt. -75 ~30 l -50 -50 l 1-10 Bind sorghums . . . . . . . . . acre 1-25 1-00 l 1-00 1-00 l 1-50 Ginning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (acre 2.91 r 2.12 l 2.12 l 2.50 l 2.97 (cwt. .35 .25 l .25 I .30 l .315 Bagging and ties . . . . . . . .. bale 1.25 l 1-00 l 1-25 1-10 l 2-10 Binder twine . . . . . . . . . . . 8# ball 1.00 l .65 l .70 .80 l 1.00 Baby chicks . . . . . . . . . . . . . each .10 l .06 l .09 .08 l .10 Seed: / l l Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bu. 2-00 L00 l 1-25 1-35 l 2-00 Milo, Hegari, and kafir cwt 4.00 l 2.00 l 3.50 3.00 4.00 ane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cwt. 4 00 1-25 l 4-50 2-90 3-50 Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cWt 5 00 .90 9.50 4.35 3 50 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bu.‘ 2 50 1 60 2.80 2.00 3 00 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. bu. 1 20 I 45 1.05 .87 1 15 Feed: l Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . cwt. 1.60 l 95 1-35 1-55 2 20 Tankage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cwt. 3.50 l 2 00 2-50 2-55 4 00 Chick mash . . . . . . . . . . . . cwt. 3.25 l 2 10 3-00 2-75 3 50 Laying mash . . . . . . . . . .. cwt. 3.00 \ 1 75 2.60 2.40 3 00 Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cwt. 1.60 75 1.50 1.30 1 90 Shorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cwt. 1.80 I 1 00 1.65 1.50 2 10 Oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . cwt. 1.25 l 1 00 .90 1.00 1 00 Tractor fuel: l Gasoline (less tax) . . . . . gal. -12 l 09 ~03 -095 09 Kerosene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gal. .08 07 .07 .07 07 Distillate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gal. .05 I .05 .06 .05 .06 Lube oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gal. .60 I .40 .50 .52 .52 Grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lbs. .10 l» .11 .11 .11 .11 FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 65 A The most common system of farming previous to the Agricultural Ad- - "an Administration programs included a substantial cotton acreage. In ’e cases cotton was produced on a large part of the cropland and was ‘A only major source of income. No more feed was grown than needed by “livestock maintained to supply the home needs. Such a system is here- ;~ ken of as the “cotton system.” Budget summaries for typical systems of farming in the High Plains Area previous to g government crop control with average prices for 1929-1936. Cotton, grain Grain sorghum, Cash Cotton sorghum, live- livestock grain system stock system system system g‘ Acres Acres Acres Acres jy- in farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28o 28o 304 280 4 pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 33 58 7 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 6 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 242 240 269 of cropland 1n i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 100 45 -— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 36 ~90 109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 16 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 37.5 20 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ — 12 13 pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 29 4g 10 N0. No. ' No. No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 18 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1 1 -—- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —— -—- 1 1 hogs only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 — -—- a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 500 215 125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 2 - _ Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars '_ u investment . . . . . . . . . . . 10,983 11,866 12,835 11,150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,400 8,400 9,120 8,400 ements (less residence) . . 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 F» and equipment . . . . .. 1,125 1,350 1,350 1,250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 865 1,023 362 seed and supplies . . . . . . . .. 107 251 342 138 _v es-botal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,458 3,702 2,210 1,701 "of sales from crops . . . . .. 4,297 2,315 1,278 1,428 , 10f sales from livestock estock products . . . . . . . . .. 161 » 1,387 932 273 » nses—total . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,803 1,522 828 691 _j0f expense for: € - , ents (less residence) . . 34 34 34 34 yi and equipment . . . . .. 301 276 254 256 ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 309 202 139 ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 464 81 95 » r. A - harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 346 156 —- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 -—— — 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 93 101 93 ~ sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4,458 3,702 2,210 1,701 products used in home ~ ,_ garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 226 258 221 n income . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4,713 3,928 2,468 1,922 _ u expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,803 1,522 828 ' 691 family labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 343 114 -— _ in inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 167 277 290 _uctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,058 2,032 1,219 981 1*}- capital and operator's ‘ind management . . . . . . . . . 2,655 1,896 1,249 941 Yon investment at 6 per cent 659 712 770 669 d management wage . . . . . 1,996 . 1,184 479 272 ' 66 BULLETIN-NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The Cotton System A summary budget of a typical farm using the cotton system is given in column one of Table 24. Cotton is the principal money crop of the area. It is not perishable, is easily marketed, and has a high per-unit value. These factors are important, considering the great distance from central markets. g Most of the people who settled the area Were familiar with cotton production. It is natural, therefore, that a crop as well adapted as is cot- ton would be extensively grown. Cotton lends itself to the extensive type of farming practiced. The farm family, with the aid of seasonal labor for hoeing and harvesting, can produce a large acreage of cotton. The cotton system requires a minimum investment in improvements, equipment, and livestock. Farmers using this system were more mobile than those with extensive livestock enterprises. For this reason the system is popular with tenant farmers. Ease of collecting rents, ease of marketing, and greater income possibilities, causes landlords generally to favor this system. On the other hand, this system has the disadvantage of depending on a single crop for a major part of the farm income. Wide variations in income are likely to occur because of variations in yields and prices of cot- ton. Farmers practicing this system of farming are likely to find the control of soil erosion more difficult than for systems which include larger acreages of crops like the sorghums which have root systems that bind the soil and which provide a heavy crop aftermath. Since the optimum planting period for cotton is relatively short, a large cotton acreage is more likely to be accompanied by critical labor peaks than is the case ‘when the cropping system includes crops which per- mit a long planting period. The cotton system returned more income to the operator during the period of study, than did any of the other three typical systems. The return to capital and operator’s labor and manage- ment for the cotton system was $2,655. To denote a successful system of farming, this figure must be large enough to cover the interest on the in- vested capital and return a satisfactory wage for the operator’s labor and management. Otherwise the operator might profit more by selling his property and investing the proceeds to draw interest while he himself works for wages. Subtracting interest at a fair rate (6%) from the above figure leaves the operator a labor and management wage of $1,996. This amount represents a very good return considering the conditions pre- vailing during the period of the study. Cotton, Grain Sorghum, Livestock System The cotton, grain sorghum, livestock system was more diversified than the cotton system (See column two, Table 24). Livestock, as well as crops, was a major source of income with this system of farming. The poultry enterprise on this farm was Well managed and much larger than that maintained on most farms in the area. Dairy cattle were also an im- portant source of income. The income for this system of farming is less affected by fluctuation of the yield of a single crop or the price of a single commodity than is the case with the cotton system. The livestock enter- FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 67 K; prises usually associated with this system provide a‘ steady income through- “ out the year. This in turn reduces the need for credit. '. Including livestock in the farm organization provides for better dis- tribution of labor and for fuller utilization of the time of the farm family. " A great deal of the labor in connection with livestock is chore work, a large part of which can be done by children before and ‘after school. Less ; hired labor is used with this system than with the cotton system. This is f‘ largely owing to a difference in labor used to harvest cotton and to better g)‘ distribution of total labor requirements. ‘ .,. -.-,V.,»_QpQ-.:~WI.F'N¢HS“BY‘.YIP‘I* . g This system of farming calls for more different skills on the part of the operator than does a system that includes only crop production. It is also important that the operator be permanently located to manage the livestock enterprises to the best advantage. The grain sorghum crops which are included in this system provide 1 considerable stalks, stubble, and crop residue with which to facilitate wind -=* erosion control. This is advantageous on those farms that have a serious ind erosion problem. ' __ Although the cotton, grain sorghum, livestocksystem does provide a Esubstantial acreage of cotton, it does not make full use of the income ad- ‘fifvantage of cotton over other crops and livestock production in the area. QThe livestock enterprises and feed production take time and labor, a part 90f which might have been more profitably used in the production of cotton. _ This system requires additional investment in the farm business for Qlivestock and equipment. Larger feed reserves must also be maintained in rder to avoid losses resulting from feed crop failures or from wide varia- agement from this system were less than two-thirds of the returns from gkhe cotton system. Tilrain Sorghum, Livestock System t?‘ The grain sorghum, livestock system differs from the cotton, grain _rghum, livestock system in that in the former, feed crops largely sup- g ant cotton and a larger number of livestock are maintained. Surplus jlfaih sorghums are sold for cash. The financial summary of a budget "in a grain sorghum, livestock farm is shown in column three of Table 24. g This system is best adapted to the light sandy soils of the area which - not well suited to cotton production. These soils are the loamy fine * ds and the lighter phases of the fine sandy loams on which wind L, sion is a constant hazard. It is difficult to establish a stand of cotton >1 these soils. On the other hand, the large acreages of grain sorghums g wn under this system greatly facilitate erosion control. _ The grain sorghum, livestock system provides for a reasonably good tribution of both income and labor. From the standpoint of total in- "me, however, it compares unfavorably with the two systems previously cussed. This is shown by a labor and management Wage of $479 for S's system as compared to $1,996 and $1,184 respectively, for the cotton item and for the cotton, grain sorghumflivestock system. 1 L: 3tions in feed yields. On the other hand, the returns to labor and man- . 68 BULLETIN‘ NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The Cash Grain System Farmers who use the cash grain system also specialize in growing grain sorghums but prefer to market the crop as cash grain rather than feed it to livestock. A budget for the cash grain system is given in column four of Table 24. This system is best suited to localities that are not well adapted to cotton production or where wind erosion control is particularly difficult. The profitableness of this system as compared to feeding a large part of the feed to livestock will depend largely upon the price relations that exist between cash grain and the various livestock products that are commonly marketed. The cash grain system of farming is subject to large variations in in- come because of Wide fluctuations in grain sorghum prices and variations in yields. Low prices for feeds are not uncommon in the area and are usually accompanied by low cash incomes for cash grain farmers. This system is less dependent on outside labor than any of the systems pre- viously discussed. The average farm family can plant, cultivate, and har- vest the entire crop with little or no outside labor. The farm family labor, however, is poorly utilized except during peak periods of crop work. A laborand management Wage of $272 from the cash grain system was lower than was obtained for any of the three systems that have pre- viously been discussed. This would indicate that with production concli- tions as outlined and the average prices obtained during the period 1929- 1936, farmers following the cash grain system of farming had a distinct disadvantage as compared with those who grew a sizeable acreage of cotton. It further indicates that it was not profitable to use the cash grain system on land which is well adapted to cotton production. Adjusting Systems of Farming Within Limitations of Agricultural Adjustment Administration Program During the years 1938 to 1942 inclusive, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program has followed the same general plan whereby the cotton allotment for each farm was set at a fixed percentage of the acre- age in cultivation. This percentage was [uniform for the farms of each county but varied somewhat from county to county. On an average, farmers in the area_participating in the Agricultural Adjustment program have planted an acreage of cotton equivalent to approximately 35 per cent of their cultivated acreage. During this period grain production has also been affected to the extent that farmers devoted a proportion of their cropland exclusively to uses designated as soil conserving. In 1942 the minimum conserving acreage was 20 per cent of the total cropland. This meant that not to exceed 80 per cent of the cropland on a farm was de- voted to the production of all crops classed at soil depleting. Such crops included cotton and grain sorghums grown for grain. As a result of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program, systems of farming which were common previous to 1938 required drastic adjustments. Farmers who had been using the “cotton system” type of farm organization abandoned this system entirely if they cooperated in the Agricultural Adjustment program. Under this program such farmers ‘ grew only‘ their allotted acreage of cotton, which would range from ap- t proximately 30 to 37 per cent of the total cropland for the main cotton owing counties of the area. The remainder of the acreage allotted to I depleting crops could be devoted to grain sorghums or other feed f? ps. These feed crops could either be sold for cash or fed to livestock. Farmers who in the past followed the practice of planting 40 to 50 r cent of their cropland in cotton, as was common with the type of farm ganization described as the “cotton, grain sorghum, livestock system,” dified their farming operations by reducing cotton acreage when they icipated in the Agricultural Adjustment program. Farmers in this up had little opportunity to expand the acreage of crops grown for 'n. On farms where only a small reduction in cotton acreage was re- _'red, the acreage of grain also had to be reduced. Farmers growing only a small acreage of cotton as was the case of 4 se using systems similar to the ones described as the “grain sorghum, estock system” and the “cash grain system” have not found it necessary adjust cotton acreage. In fact some of these operators can and ‘are f"ng more cotton than they grew previous to 1933. Ln many cases l i: operators have found it necessary to adjust feed crop production in h, ~ r to comply with the program provision that 20 per cent of the crop- d be devoted to designated soil-conserving crops or land uses. In gen- , the greater the proportion of cropland which _had been devoted to n the more drastic the adjustments necessitated by the Agricultural stment Administration program. , ..-..w-,k. l,,._-r.‘.,.<,,,wqw_ln~w; nqv .v , . w,‘ », , _ Judging from past experience as large an acreage of cotton as allot- ” under the Agricultural Adjustment Act should be grown and sorghum grain planted on the remainder of the soil depleting acreage. Because its importance as a cash crop, cotton should be grown on land best _--- to cotton production. The acreage restricted to soil conserving lips may be planted to annual pasture crops such as Sudan or may be ed forforage production. budget analysis was made for each of six alternative systems of Li»: g within the limits of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration am. A summary of these budgets are shown in Table 25. Prices prevailed during 1942 were used in calculating these budgets. In p, ring the budgets a farm was selected which would provide efficient {of a single set of two-row tractor-drawn equipment under the “cotton m” as previously described. In all cases it is assumed that the grain "hums grown for grain will be harvested with a combine. . Average labor requirements and yields were used for the crops grown normal feed requirements and production were assumed for livestock. :3“ in the area have been able to earn nearly all of their soil build- ifjallowance by practicing contour listing and contour farming of inter- l’: crops. In all budgets it was assumed that these practices would be y_ e “cash feed system” illustrated in column one of Table 25 is for a‘ re farm with 250 acres of cropland. Thirty-five per cent of the FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 69 m BULLETIN NO.652 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘STATTON Table 25. Budget summaries of alternative systems 0f farming using 1942 prices. Alternatives under A.A.A. Swine, In- Maxim Cash .Swine & dairy, & Beef creased mecha feed dairy poultry cattle size zation“ Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres; Total land in farm . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 280 280 280 280 340 600 Native pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 25 25 25 35 55' Farmstead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 5 5 5 5; Cropland .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 250 250 250 250 300 540 Amount of cropland in: Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 105 189“ Grain sorghum grain . . . . . . . . .. 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 135 243? Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45 ZJ 20 so 55 103, Sudan pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 15 15 8 23 3t: Small grain pasture . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 15 15 6 2 2* Livestock : Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 10 10 4 2 Beef calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ — 9- 50 Sows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. — 7 5 a - ~ Hogs for meat only . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 e —~ 4 4 Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 500 100 100 % Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollzzrs Dollars Dollars; Total farm investment . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,716 13,863 14,355 15,105 14,816 24,7111 Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 11,900 21,0005 Improvements (less residence) 1,120 1,215 1,455 1,300 1,120 1,240" Machinery adn equipment . . . . .. 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,650 1,550 2,225? Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 190 779 1,085 1,790 190 190i Feed, seed, and supplies . . . . . . .. 56 519 465 565 56 56: Farm sa1es~-total . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4,753 6,039 6,551 7,885 5,695 10,3531 Amount of sales from: I Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4,521 3,095 3,107 3,088 5,463 10,121 Livestock and livestock products 232 2,944 3,444 4,797 232 2‘ Farm expenses—t‘otal . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,499 1,827 2,253 4,452 1,856 2,123fl Amount of expenses for: Improvements (less residence) 38 41 51 42 38 42 Machinery and equipment . . . . .. 344 327 328 338 388 801 Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 319 321 321 319 382 690‘ Livestock . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 249 654 2,935 75 75; Hired labor: Cotton harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . 612 667 667 667 800 ~— Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 123 123 33 60 315 ' Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93 99 109 118 113 200 Total farm sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4,753 6,039 6,551 7,885 5,695 9,999 payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 316 316 316 369 682 Value of farm products used in home, garden included . . . . . . . .. 429 429 429 429 @1229 429‘ Gross farm income . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5,498 6,784 7,296 8,630 6,493 11,110 Total farm expense . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,499 1,827 2,253 4,452 1,856 2,123 Unpaid family labor . . . . . . . . . . .. 210 210 210 210 210 210v Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 285 297 288 321 395 Total deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,988 2,322 2,760 4,950 2,387 2,728, Return to capital and operator's labor and management . . . . . . . .. 3,510 4,462 4,536 3,680 4,106 8,382‘ Interest on investment at 6% 763 832 861 906 889 1,4835 Labor and management wage 2,747 3,630 3,675 2,774 3,217 6,8993; cropland or 87.5 acres is devoted to cotton, 112.5 acres to grain sorghums and the remaining 20 per cent of the cropland to cane and annual pasture Livestock were kept primarily to provide for home needs and crops. consisted of 2 cows, 4 meat hogs and 100 hens. Cash sale of cotton, grain sorghum grain and cane bundles constitute the only important source of income for this system of farming. Such a system is typical of a farm organization where the operator chose t0 dis- l l FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 71 pose of feed surpluses on the cash market rather than through livestock. _ {farmers who were using the cotton system previous to the activities of the ’ - ,_ gricultural Adjustment Administration. mo“ » Farmers who plan to use this system of farming will frequently find very desirable to.have more storage space for grain than has been A L. ailable on many farms. Otherwise, the operator may be forced to sell n an unfavorable market or run the risk of considerable loss from waste ‘or weather damage if threshed grains are left exposed for any length of M I e. With prices which prevailed during 1942, this system of farming was timated to provide a labor and management wage of $2,747 in addition g j returning 6 per cent on the investment. This return was the lowest of f» six alternative systems shown in Table 25. .C 1'95 A large increase in the amount of feed crops sold on the cash market ‘uld normally be expected to have a depressing effect on prices. It is w reasonable to expect that because of the Agricultural Adjustment Ad- i’: 'stration program the demand for feed would be less in areas which r1300 gpviously did not produce sufficient feed for their needs. Such areas will Q53? fig-l to purchase less feed because of the increased feed acreage resulting 19° this program. The prospects for an increase in supply coupled with ¢decrease in demand suggest the advisability of considering various ck enterprises as an outlet for the surplus feed from a system of A ing similar to that just described as the “cash feed system.” '_j The requirement which prevailed through 1942, that at least 20 per t of the cropland be devoted to crops such_as Sudan or cane, provide a amount of forage, either in the form of grazing or as bundle feed {silage Those who plan to utilize feed crops with livestock have the Jblem of using this forage in addition to the grain which is produced. fDairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep all use forage as well as grain and l_'de the only outlet, other than the cash market, for the large amount ‘floughage normally produced. Swine and poultry consume large amounts lgrain but utilize very little pasture or forage. ‘g It has been shown that dairying was the most important livestock en- "b" in the area and that dairy cows were maintained on nearly all Q9“ Since the farms studied averaged only 5 cows per farm, it ld seem that this enterprise might be expanded as an outlet for surplus "u bundle feed and Sudan pasture. Previous to 1942 the program of Agricultural Adjustment Administration, in effect, discouraged any ap- .l able expansion in the number of dairy cows maintained on farms. th the removal of the restrictions relating to the use of soil conserving Q for market, it became possible for those who desired to expand the enterprise to utilize all the surplus pasture and roughage produced out affecting their eligibility to receive Agricultural Adjustment Ad- 'tration payments. 2|. , Dairy System The number of dairy cattle needed to utilize the pasture and forage ded by soil conserving crops would not consume all of the grain nor- 200 9,999 682 429 1,110 1,123 s95 A 2.72s 8.382 L483 his system of farming represents the minimum possible adjustment for _ 72 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION mally produced. Hogs or poultry or a combination 0f the two would pro- vide a means for feeding grain not required by the dairy enterprise. In column two of Table 25 a summary budget is shown for a farm where dairy cattle and hogs utilize the major part of the feeds produced. This type of farm organization is called the “swine, dairy system.” The cotton acreage and the cropland in grain sorghum grain, 87.5 acres and 112.5 acres respectively, are the same for this system and the “cash feed system.” The only difference in crop organization of these two system is in the use of non-depleting cropland. In the case of the “swine, dairy system,” small grain for winter and early spring pasture is increased to 15 acres as is the acreage of Sudan for summer pasture while cane is reduced to 20 acres. The pasture and forage produced is sufficient for a herd of 10 dairy cows. Grain feed over and above that needed for the dairy cows is suffi- cient to maintain 7 brood sows and to fatten the pigs raised to a market weight of 200 pounds. A flock of 100 hens completes the livestock organi- zation. In generahfarmers have had experience with dairy cows and for the average farm an increase in the dairy enterprise sufficient to utilize sur- plus roughages would not be a major change in farm organization. Farm- ers who have children available to help milk are more likely to increase their dairy herds. Some farmers will need very little additional equipment and housing to accommodate this size dairy herd while others will find it necessary to increase their investment in these items. I Most farmers in the area fatten some hogs for home use or for mar- ket and could effect some expansion of th hog enterprise with a very small outlay for equipment and breeding stock. However, a large increase, either in the number of sows or fattening hogs, would necessitate addi- tional and better facilities for hog raising as well as additional investment in breeding or market animals. Most farms would require additional housing and fencing. Labor-saving equipment such as self-feeders and pens equipped with running water would be an important means of reduc- ing the labor requirements for pork production on the majority of farms. Hand-feeding and watering are time-consuming but have been practiced because of the small size of the enterprise. Expansion of hog production would increase the importance of making changes in management that save labor. It would also be necessary to give more attention to sanitary pre- cautions and disease control. A sizable increase in the number of hogs maintained would warrant some changes in feeding practices on a large number of farms. In many cases the supply of skim milk may be sufficient to balance the ration of a few hogs fairly well but would not be adequate to balance the ration for a large number of animals. As the enterprise is expanded, it becomes more important that protein supplements such as tankage or cottonseed meal be used in order to secure the best results with home-grown grains. Farmers who are considering expanding their hog enterprise should provide a supply of grain ample for the needs of the herd. Assuming average efficiency in the utilization of feed, approximately 1,000 pounds of sorghum grain are needed for each hog fattened to a weight of 200 pounds. With average yields, 1.2 acres of grain sorghum will furnish this amount of grain. l. .1‘ Ad...‘ _..._.._.4....1.__.l......¢.._. _VuI‘@(:KfV*W"WI"“¢P-Y“ wwi-wvfi, a ,(W. heavy losses. FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 73 A system of farming which involves enough livestock to utilize home- grown feeds will need more grain storage space than is available on the majority of these farms. Large reserves of feed carried over from years of abundant production are needed to stabilize livestock production. ~ With 1942 prices, the “swine, dairy system” is estimated to return £3,630 to the operator’s labor and management after all deductions have been made and the farm investment has been credited with 6 per cent interest. This figure is materially larger than the estimated return from the “cash feed system.” A farming system which includes livestock has the added advantage of providing a steady‘ income throughout the year and for more complete utilization of the farm family labor. Swine, Dairy, Poultry System A variation from the “swine, dairy system” would be an organization that includes a sizable poultry enterprise as a means of utilizing grain not required by dairy cattle. Under average conditions, a flock of 100 hens will use about 2,400 pounds of home-grown feed per year. With a flock of this size, waste grain and skim milk makes up an important part of the feed used. As the poultry enterprise is expanded, both of these items would be relatively less important and heavier grain feeding and more liberal use of protein-rich feeds would become necessary. The crop and livestock organization of the “swine, poultry, dairy sys- tem,” as shown in column 3 of Table 25 is identical with that of the “swine, dairy system” except that the poultry enterprise is increased to 500 hens while the number of sows kept is reduced to 5. It was estimated that a labor and management wage of $3,675 would be made with this system of farming. The income difference between the “swine, dairy, poultry system” and the “swine, dairy system” is not sig- nificant and indicates that substituting poultry for hog production had little effect on income with prices which prevailed during 1942. Although the common-sized poultry enterprise does not usually inter- fere to any great extent with other farm work, chickens do require more labor than is common for other kinds of livestock. Based on the experi- ences of the farms studied, approximately 750 hours of labor are required to care for a flock of 500 hens which would be expected to consume 25,000 pounds of grain. At the same time only 230 hours of labor are needed to care for the hogs necessary to utilize a similar amount of grain. Farmers who contemplate keeping more hens or raising more chicks take into con- sideration the amount of help that will be available to care for the en- larged enterprise. ~ Those who attempt to brood chicks under crowded conditions or with- out adequate housing and equipment are taking the risk of suffering Crowding of either young chicks or mature hens is hazard- ous. Heavy death losses and low production are likely to result when the .7 laying flock is increased without providing adequate housing. A substan- tial increase in the number of hens kept would require additional housing and equipment in most cases. Housing for poultry is relatively more ex- pensive than is required by other types of livestock. The larger the flock ‘l the greater the problem of disease and parasite control. 74 BULLETIN NO. 652, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Some farmers have fed beef cattle or lambs as a means of utilizing grain and roughage. These feeding operations have the advantage of be- ing readily adjustable to the feed supply. Those who fatten livestock need not depend on raising their own animals but may buy feeders when the feed supply and price relationships seem favorable. The flexibility of such an undertaking is an important consideration in planning a use for feed surpluses, the amount of which may vary greatly from year to year. A measure of the profitableness of a system of farming that includes a beef cattle feeding enterprise is shown in column four of Table 25. Beef Cattle System In the type of organization illustrated, 50 beef calves provide an out- let for the majority of feed crops. This enterprise also utilizes available labor during the slack winter period. The crop pattern for this system of farming is similar to that described for two previous systems except that more cropland is devoted to cane and less to Sudan and small grain pas- ture. Four dairy cows, 4 meat hogs, and 100 hens would be maintained in addition to the calves on feed. a Assuming price relationships that existed during 1942, this system of farming was estimated to give a labor and management wage of $2,774 in addition to returning 6 per cent on the investment. This return was greater than that estimated for the “cash feed” system but was less than indicated for any of the other alternatives shown in Table 25. Considerable capital is required to finance even a relatively small cattle feeding project. In addition to the investment in feeder animals, there are very few farms on which a dozen or more calves could be fed without necessitating additional sheds, corrals and feeding equipment. Cattle feeders have the choice of usinga ration high in concentrates or one with a high proportion of forage. In general, the ration may vary from 25 per cent concentrates and 75 per cent roughage (by weight) to 75 per cent concentrates and 25 per cent roughage. Farmers who wish to confine» the work of cattle feeding to the winter and spring when they are not busy with crops, must use a relatively short feeding period. Under these conditions it would be necessary to feed heavily of concentrates in order to obtain a high degree of finish. The greater the proportion of roughage used in the ration, the longer the feeding period necessary to fatten the animals. Farmers with a large supply of forage relative to their supply of grain might find a longer feeding period advisable in order to utilize these roughages. It is necessary to add a protein supplement such as cottonseed meal to the farm feeds normally grown to provide a balanced ration. Threshed sorghum grains should be grounds before feeding.” The use of hogs to follow fattening cattle and salvage waste reduces somewhat the advantage of grinding as compared to feeding whole threshed grain. Full feeding of lambs ordinarily does not fit in as well with the com- mon systems of farming as does cattle feeding. Lambs are usually ready to go into the feed lot during October when farmers are busy with cotton and feed harvest and have little time to devote to other enterprises. “Texas Agicultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 547, “Fattening Beef Calves on Milo Grain Prepared in Different Ways." :1 FARM ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS 75 A The market demand is for lambs that carry a high degree of finish at weight of about 90 pounds and not exceeding a weight of 100 pounds. i; 0d quality feeder lambs weigh about 60 pounds and in order to meet *‘- demands of the market must be fattened within a 90- to 100-day ;'-~ riod. Thin lambs that weigh 60 pounds in September or early October I ould be put on feed at once in order to attain the desired finish without ing over the required weight. If dry-lot feeding is postponed until the _mpletion of harvest the animals are too heavy to meet the demands of e lamb market when the desired finish has been obtained. Farmers who to feed lambs may overcome this difficulty by selecting light weight 31 viduals and running them in stalk fields until after the rush of har- ting. Lambs handled in this way should be put in the feed lot by the _ t of December. In selecting light weight lambs. care should be taken _t thrifty animals are obtained. _ g To obtain a high degree of finish and at the same time keep the ttened lamb within the desired weight, it is necessary that the ration lude a large proportiotn of grain. In general such a ration should sist of approximately 50 per cent concentrates and 50 per cent rough- The concentrate part of the ration should contain enough protein ‘pplement to balance the home-grown feeds. eased Size of Farm The foregoing discussion dealing with alternative adjustments is cen- w d around a farm unit which provided efficient use of a single set of o-row tractor-drawn equipment under the‘ “cotton system” as carried on for to government crop control activities. More cropland can be oper- ‘kw with a single set of equipment than previously because of the lower fh- requirements and better distribution of planting and cultivating op- tions when other crops are substituted for cotton. Under the Agricul- l Adjustment Administration program it is estimated that 300 acres cropland would be the optimum acreage for a single set of two-row tor equipment. - Increasing the amount of cropland under the cash feed system to ap- fximate the optimum acreage is one alternative that can be followed per the program. This type of organization is illustrated in column 5 'Table 25. Assuming that land is available, increasing the size of farm 7- permit farmers to make’ reasonably complete use of their operating _- ta] without greatly changing their system of farming or having to i the techniques involved in new enterprises. This system has the it of increased efficiency which is reflected in ‘earnings. A farmer may increase the size of his farm either by land purchase or “renting additional crop acreage. In either case he competes with other Ii“ rs for the land already developed or to be developed. While some undeveloped land still exists in many localities in the area, rtunities for enlarging farms from this source are rapidly becoming ~ limited. Many operators have found it advisable to dispose of small ‘: and to move to an outlying locality of undeveloped land where the 3 -~ size of farm could be obtained. These opportunities are also lim- i" .Some large blocks of good land remain in native pasture but much ' land that remains unimproved is located where conditions of either , .._.,__ m, 44g’; ,0”... ,,a<.,........,,;w-~. w-waarucngnoqwwrwnw¢ww~wn>~rP