FARIVI iM/ip^^ AN ECONOMle STUPY €F ;: SHEEP RAISING ON 10 FARM$ IN GENESEE COIINTY NEW >rt)RK F. R- WALKLEY THE COST OF PRODUCING PEAS FOR CANNING FACTORY ON 15 FARMS IN OTSEGO COUNTY NEW YORK LA. WOOD THE RELATION OF TENANCY: TO SOIL AND THE VALUE OF LAND IN NEW YORK STATE Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924003251661 SF 375.w'l8r""'™"'''-"'"^' *" !iJ=°"o'"i<= study of sheep raising on 10 3 1924 003 251 661 All ECOUOMIC RTUDY OP ?HEE? 3.AISIIIG Oil 10 ?AIU.IS IK GELTESEE COUIITY, UEV: YOEZ. Research Problem in Earn I.Ianagement i^y P. E. ]^'alkley, 1917. ACiaJOuLEDGMEirTS The writer wishes to acknowledge his appreciation of the helpful suggestions and criticisms given by Professors G. P. Warren and "^.m C. Livennore and T^r. ?., G. Misner. He also wishes to acknowledge the hearty co- operation of the farmers visited in Genesee County. AS KCOHOMIC STUOT OF SHBEP RA.ISIHG OH 10 FAEIIS IS GEUESEE COITNOT. Iir.;,' YOEK. purpose The piirpoBe of this Investigation is to learn the methods ©nployed in the raising of sheep on ten fame in Geneeee County, where the reethode employed are fsirly typical of the methods need in '.vestern Hew York, ae a whole, and to make a etndy of the recoipta frora then. It is also desired to find the reason "hy Bheep raising ie limited to this region in Nev; York State, and what conditions umlce sheep growing partionlarly advantageous in this section* Fethod of Taking Record The survey method was used in the taking of these records. Field sheets, similar to those enclosed on pages to 9 were used. ^e questions were aslced of the farmers and the answers were later checked. If there were any errors or onissions, the farxaer was again visited, Many of the fpiestions asked required estimations on the part of the farmer, "but, to the "best jud^ent of the 'writer, al3 answe:'*ed questions after careftil consideration, and the results ohtained from them were very satisfaotox^, they being very rilling to cooperate. The records for the most part are uniform, and no attenpt has heen laad® to classify them "because of the sraall numhor of records. -2- la selootizig the farms to b© aurveyed, no flocks of less than twenty w©ro taken, and farms having more than sixty were eliminated. The endeavor was to select flocks In T?hloh spring iMibs were raised and which were composed of sheep of a uniform type, i::oBt of the f3.ooks came tip to the standard in this neighhorhood, Deaoriptlon of Hegion. The locality in which the records of sheep enterprises were taken is situated in the eastern part of Genesee Cotinty, mainly in the township of J.e Roy, which is sltnated twenty-five miles west to southwest of Rochester. "Ivith the exception of one farm, as shown on the map of the region, all the farms are within a radlns of three miles. The farms are all located with- in fotir miles of a shipping station and within five miles of a town ^7ith a population of 4,000. The length of the growing season is 150 days and the average rainfall durinc the growing season is 15 inches. ?hore is nstially one or more dron^t periods every snraaer. These are not often severe enough to destroy crops but do result in serious drying up of pasture, and as a result there Is often a shortage during July and August. The land in this locality is for the most part rolling. P^rts of some of the farms are too hilly for profltahle crop growing and are pastured. «>s*" The soil Is fertile, being mostly of an Ontario sandy loam or allt loam type. The soils In thle locality vary much in a BKjall area, Kvea parts of the same field mf^ have widely different typos of soil. It is of glacial origin an' is of a composite kind. Land values in this region vary from |100 to 1125 per acre, depending upon the condition of the farra, layout and other faotore. Very little land ie changing hands, and land owners are not anxious to sell. The land is too valuahle to -as© much crop land for pasture. As shown in Table I, less than one-third of the pasture used is land which is available for crops. Less than 9 i>er cent of tit© total crop land is used for pasture. Table I. Use of Land on the Ten Farr.s. Acres p©T f&rm 148.7 Acres of permanent pasture per farm S3. 2 Acres of rotated past^ire per farm 9.4 Crop acres per farm 96.6 Acres of other land per farsfi 19.5 The perBiaiwnt pasture on these farms consists mainly of woodland, land too wet to crop, creek beds or land which is too steep to be plowed. On most of the farms there was not sufficient permanent pasture, and some good cropland was used -4- for pg^ttir© for the season. Under "other land" is Inoltided woodlot which is not paetnrod, the farmetead, drives, ©tc» Crop acres per farm do not include the rotated paBttire. The prinoipfCL crops grown on those farms are timothy and clover hay, wheat, beans, oate, corn and potatoes, A little alfalfa is grovm* The average acres of each crop are given in Table II. Table II. Important Crops Grovm. v,heat per fares Hay per farm Beans per farm Oata per farm Corn per farm Potatoes per farm Alfalfa per fawa Number of farras growing each Acres 10 24.6 9 21.9 9 18.5 8 9.£ 9 7.0 10 4.1 6 2.6 The usual crop rotations practiced are : beans - wheat - hay (one or two years) potatoes ) and ) . oats - wheat - hay { one year ) . corn ' "heat and beans are the raost important cash crops. Cabbage were grown on two farms vdth an average of 1.5 acres per mmi)^m farm. Abotit flv© acres of barley were grown on four of the farms. Of the total acreage of potatoes 25 acree vrere grown on one farm, which was situated in an adjoining township where potatoes are grown esctenelveljr, ?he locality ie mainly a crop growing section, and in most oases only enotigh livestock Is >ent to eat up the ronghage. Table III shows the imrober of animals per farm : 2abl© III. Aniraale Pe r Farm . Animal Units of horses per farm 7.1 Aniraal Unite of osttl© per farm 7*0 Animal Unite of sheep per farm 6.1 Especially on the farms where sheep are !.at these farmers are looking for in their flock of sheep is a type v.h::ch ^ill require little attention, and in which there is not too much ofpltal tied T.-p, Spring IsmbB are usually raised. They are usually all born before the sheep are turned out to pasture in the spring and marketed in the fell before winter sets In. A few hot house lambs are raised. One of the farms, fron v.hich a record was taken, was producing hot house faral'S -xhioh were born in January and February and sold the letter part of .'prll. -B- SUBgaer Care of the Sheey During the stimmer months, the sheep receive hut very little attention. After the flock has been turnerl out to pasture In the spring, about all the attention they get is In- cidental to looking over the rest of the farm. The crops and sheep are usually looked over at the same time. The regular work on sheep during the stimraer oonslsts of salting, counting til en: up and changing them fros one pasture to another occasion- ally- Borne make salting a Hunday isornlng Job, and although it takes little time, is time that otherv-ise would not be produc- tive. Usually during the month of August, the lambs and sheep are brought up to the barns, and the lambs are weaned. lien the sheep are to be dipped, this is usually done at the sane tine. The lambs and sheep are often EKirked at this time for identifi- cation purposes, either with ear labels, paint, or by notching the ears. Two of the farmers did not wean their lambs. Aboxit the time the lambs are weaned, the ram is separated from the flock, and then turned in with the ewes in the latter part of October or early Sovember, dei>enaing on when it is desired to have the lambs come. Few farmers take the time or trouble to water the sheep in the summer. One man carried water to his sheep daily. Some kept them in pastures where there was a spring. One man kept his sheep in a pasture without water, but turned theni into a field with a water suprjly once in one or two iveeks. "one did not give thera water at all during the sucmer. The general senti- -0» ment was that the sheep cUd better with water, hut ooiaa do with- out it. Most farmers thought that when they were huey with cropa, it was not important enough to water than to take the time to do it. All the work of the aruioraer on sheep is of ninor impor- tance. See chart of lahor dietrihntlon and lable T for the amount of and proportion of man labor coming in the enrnmer. Table T. Total Siinuoer Labor on 10 Farras. Operation WSLJ June tTDTy August September October Feeding 33 lambing 34 Salting 6.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Marketing 43 8 Misoellaneotis 13 15 14 74 15 13 Total 129.5 22,5 21.5 81.5 22.6 28.5 Some flooke were not tarned out to pastwre until nearly the middle of Kay, and, consequently, there is some labor for feeding in May. These figures are totals for ten farms. The labor per farm for any month may be easily deterrained by divid- ing by ten. -10- ;yint«r C&re of glook . Froia November 1st to December 1st, the sheep are taken from the pastures and pnt into winter qriarters. In many oases the sheep are allowed to go in the barn at night but are allow- ed the run of a field adjoining the barns. ortentlnes, they mn in this field to the first of Janttary, depending on the snowfall, btjt usually receive some rotighage at the barn. The average date on the ten fai^s of putting the sheep in v-inter quarters was IJoTember £3rd. The type of building used for sheltering the breeding flock varied on the different farms. On 6or>:e it was sinply a loan-to biillt of rough unmatched lumber. 'lost of the sheep »ere kept underneath the grain barn. The room used by sheep in the winter was space which wou3.d, in most cases, have been unused, if the sheep had not had it. The barn was built for the storing of grain, hay, etc., and it is made use of by the sheep, because it is not needed for other things. -11- Table VI. Total "inter Labor on 10 Farms. Operation Hoveraber December Jaimary February Mnroh April Feeding 35 161 166 155 156 156 Lemblng 25 78 15S Salting 6.6 6.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.5 Shearing 168 I I&rketlng 15 5 15 5 L'iscellaneous 10 1 1 1 1 1 Total 66.5 163.5 162.5 £01.5 240.5 489.6 Bven in the winter the sheep are given but little atten- tion except at Icrablng time. Table VI shows the labor on sheep in winter. Practically all of the labor reqnired is to feed the sheep their rotighage twice a day and water them. The larbs on riost of the farms came in Karch and April. The amount of labor was considerably greater at this period, ranging froin one hovT jyGT day more up to five hours. All t) rough the winter the sheep were allowed to run out in the yard for at least a part of the day. if the weather was not too storray. In some cases the sheep v/ere fed outdoors. -IS- TaWe VII. Labor on Sheep . Horee Man 18.2 163.7 0.53 4.74 0.59 5.28 Average anniber of hours per fsrm on sheep Average munher of hours per mature-^ sheep Average number of hours per sheep^ of breeding flock Table VII shows the labor on sheep as it was reqtslred on the ten farrss surveyed. ?he man labor on the nature sheep was less than one-ha3.f of a work unit. The 7?ork for raising the lambs is included in thie also. The horse vor> on Bheep is of little importance, consisting only of work required in haul- ing wool and l8uab8 to market. The labor distribution chart on the follOT.in^. pa£;e Phowg the distribution of man labor per farm by months. Only nine fazTns were used in computing this average because one farmer was raising vrinter lambs and had a different labor distribution as a result. More labor was required in April than in ar^ other month, because most of the larabs come in this month. ?ron :^ecember let to April 1st the labor on sheep is relatively high, being from 16 to S5 hours a month on the average. One farmer v?ith a flock 1 Mature sheep includes ewes, rams and last sprin^latnbs to be added to the flock. Sheep of the breeding flock includes ewes and rams. only. 1 ator "nip,trltut,ion c_, eg . - ;.^ fi-^ -^ C-H Ch ,>' UJ ^ J) '_D CD yj TJ '43 f^ !z; sc: CD CJ p-^ n" '•:! ^ '=< '^ [— ' iQ CJ c+ • c> • • c+ • o CD o -13- of thirty Gwee put in an hour a day caring for the fl.oclc dtirlng the winter raonths. During the stimmer months the labor was very lor; on sheep. One raan with a flock of good gradeB and pure- "bredB put in ahoxit nine hotire per month. Host of this time consisted of carrying water to the flock. Daring the month of August, when the larahs are weaned, there was an increase in the anount of labor, but not enough to be of mich significance. The labor distribution on sheep is such as to fit in very well v.lth these general crop farms. ''ost of the labor on sheep ooneB in the winter months, when there is the niniraum anorait of work on a general crop farm. The only serlotis conflict in labor is \f;hen the laabs come late in April and conflict with field v;ork. Feeding . Grain Very little grain is fed to the ev?e& on these farms. On two of the f arras no grain was fed to the ewes. Only tv,o of the farmers graineil tlielr flocks throughout the winter, and this was a very light feed, consisting of aboiJt one pint to one quart per day. Six of the men began graining the sheep about t^o weeks before Isiablng and continued until the sheep 'were ttirned out to pasture. The t^o farmers who grained their sheep throu^. out the winter increased the grain a little before laablng time. 'Zhe grains most used were corn, oats and bran. Cnl.l beans, as they came back frora the prodr.ee dealer^ screen, were fed to the -14- 8he«p, 7hoy were of no value to any other etook and v-onia have "been thrown away, if there had not been a floolt of sheep to con- Bume them, Ko value was placed upon these, and the es:act amount was not determined, but they were an important f©«d, making up about one-fourth ae much more grain as is talmlated in Table VIII, ?ablo VIII. Grain Fed to Sheep . Pounds of grain fed to sheep per farm 1?.29| Amount of grain fed to mature sheep per farm 884 Amount of grain fed to fattened lai';bs (offspring of flock) per farm 345 Amount of grain fed to laature sheep per sheep £5.6 Pounds of salt ueod per farm SEE. 5 Pounds of salt used per mature sheep S.S5 From Table IX we find that oats are the raost important feed for the breeding flock, with corn also important. for fattening the lambs corn is fed almost exclusively, although on the three fams that lambs were grained either oats or bran were fed with it in small quantities. ?eed fed to fattening lambs is in all cases only to lambs produced by the flocks on these fanae. -15- Tabl© IX- aralns Fed Per Farr-; To mature sheep ?o fattenin g larabs Total Corn 308 ♦el 274 •£ 883.0 Oat 8 495. 2# 20.8 51O.0 Bran 80.C^ 50.0 130.0 Eotighage Table X gives the roTighage fed on the farns to Bheep. Table X. P.oiighage Fed to Sheep . Bean pods Hay Straw Pounds per faaran 16,100# 10,700 5.600 Pound 8 to mature Bheep 14,612^ 9.844 6.158 Pounds to fattening laiahB 1.288^ 856 448 Pounds to nature sheep per sheep 429. 3# 285.S 149 .3 :otal 32,400 29,808 2.592 863.9 "•'ean pods ere the raoet important roughage fed to the Siieep. Practically all the hean pods produced are fed to sheep. v.Jien the operators i?ere asked why they fed their hean pods to sheep, they said that sheep liked them a little better than other stock. I'ost of there thought that cattle did about as well on them as did sheep, v.hen fed not more than once a day. The hay fed to sheep -was mainly clover. The farmers -16- seeraed to prefer bean pods to the hay and v.ould remark that taey wonld feed clover hay or alfalfa if they di^l not have the bean pods to feed. Very little alfalfa was prodticed, as "able XI indicates : Table XI. Acres of loiighage Grown Per r'ature Sheep. Acres of beans per mature sheep 0.64 A. Acres of alfalfa per mature sheep 0.08 Acres of hay (tinrathy and clover) per raature sheep 0.63 ?he straw nsed lor sheep was practically all msed for feed. The method generally followed was to feed strsr once a day - Tisnally in the niorning - r.rvt then throv; ont what v. as left for bedding aft fir the sheep had plcTced it over. The refuse from bean pode fed was also used for bedUng, and in one case iwas th.e source of all the beddisig used. Succulents . On only tiffo fsmG. wore STicculentB fed to the sheep. On one farm about 2 tons of cabbage were fed to a floo'- of SO ewee. These were fed out becauee of the very lov: price. On enothor fann 60 bushels of beets wore fed to 35 sheep. IvO grain was fed to sheep on this farm. This farmer makes a practice of gro^Tlng from 50 to 60 bushels of beets every yoj^r for his sheep and believes them to be very good sheep feed. -17- Practioally all the feed jTefl on these farms is home- grown. The total value of all grain purohased was ^23.15, or #2»32 per farm. This feed consisted of 550 pocnda of bran and 27 bnehels of oats. All ronghage tisod was home-grown. PastTire Tahle XII- Acres of Pas tare ?er F.heep . Acres of pasture for sheep per farm 12.1 A. Acres of pasture for sheep per mattire sheep 0.35 Acres of pasture for sheep per sheep tmit 0.25 Acres of pasture per animal unit of sheep 1,78 In order to ohtain from the total nnmher of sheep and larabe pastured , a figure which would represent their equivalent in mature sheep pasttired, the "sheep unit here used" ras ob- tained by taking from the average of the inventories one-half of the number of yearlings inventoried at the end of the year. To the rer?ialnder was added one-half of the lambs produced. The yearlings inventoried at the end of tlie year were deducted in order to prevent duplication, as they are Incli'ded -Rrith the lambs produced. ?he acres of pasture for sheep t?ere estimated frora the description of the land pastured furnished by the operator 86 shovi-n in the sample record. (Pag© ) In addition to this -18. pasture inclicatert here, the sheep received considerable pasturage fron the iise of land after crops. Sooner or later the sheep were tmrned In after most of the crops and allorv-ed to browse otit the fence corners and such weeds and refuse from the crop as they coiild find. Of the pasture inclTided in the table ninoh was wood- land pasture. One man pastured his sheep continually in a lO-acre ■woodlot for the purpose of keeping the brush cleared out* Another of the ten farmers recently finished clearing a piece of Gtit-over woodland by pasturing it with sheep, rhioh kept the brush browsed off. The soil being rather light and the rain- fall for the growing season raediuin, 1.78 acres of pasture per aniraal unit is insr of 30 old e\ es and 9 yearlings. The wool production in 1916 was only 6.2 pounds -20- por aheep. This is an example of the daiURge done "by dogs, when they chaee the sheep severely. The owner estimated the loss frora demoralizetion of Iiis Xlock at .|100 ae a reetilt of the dogs work in 1915. Fortunately, however, this more severe type of dog work does not occur very often. On the ten farms, in the ten-yeer period, only four times did the doge do anywhere near as much damage as this. In other cases the dogs killed one or two sheep or a fevi lamhs, without chasing the sheep much and, con- sequently, the flock was hurt "but little. The faraers con- sider the dof prohlem a serious one — more so than it probably deserves. ?ho loss per year from dogs is *3.84 trhich is less than the loss of sheep from other sources during the year. Table XIV gives in itemised form the losses from dogs. -21- Table XIV. Ten~year Losses on yarms from Dogs . Farm no. lumber times dogs been in flOOi^ Sheep no. killed total value Lambs :jo. "rilled «otel value Total in- demnity Loss from Lose by Bheep end demo rail lanbc zation killed of flock 1 2 3 2 1 5 §20 v9 eii 2 injtired _ — ___ |30 4 1 — 1 6 5 1 5 5 17 ^28 16 112 178 62 125 6 7 8 9 1 2 1 Dog driven out before any damage done (3 sheep injured) 7 60 42 18 100 ___ — — — 2 8 6 2 > — 10 1 2 24 24 35 Total 14 26 $212 24 ,146 ;^264 $94 ^;£90 On most farms there appears to be very little trottLle with disease. ^ne or t-S70 of the farniB enrveyed had a loss of one or two sheep from disease. One fRxmer sit-nated In this local- ity went out of the sheep business the past s;:riner because of severe loss of lambs due to stomach worms. His sheep had been pastured on the same land continuously for many years. On the t&Tm& surveyed cone of the farmers had kept sheep in th© same pasture for a considerable number of years but have experienced no trouble. Marketing. Most of the lambs on these farms u^ere sold in the fall, before the sheep were taken from the field, The^ were sold alive to a hutoher who does an extensive btisiness in the eiir- ronnding region to furnish trade in Kochester. Fome sell to local shippers who ship to Buffalo, I'armera who feed lambs during the winter in addition to their 07.ti tiBxially ship their lambs directly to the }^ffalo market. All bitt three of the farmers sold their lambs in the fall this past season. Tro of these sold in February after feeding for two months on a grain ration. c;'he other was raising hot-house lanibB ??hlch he sold the latter part of April to a butcher who put ther^; on the Rochester market. The price received for hot-hoi^se lambs t.re A6,50 per head in April, 1916, The usual price had been frora ^4 to 15. The sheep production as sh07;n in Table XV indicates that the production per sheep here is considerable better than for the TJhole of IfevT York State. -as- Table XV, Product ion. Total nttrnber of lambs per farm Lambs per owe Total niujjber of fleeces per farm Pounds of wool per farm Average wool production per sheep sheared Sheep manure applied to land per farm Fheep manure applied to land per mature sheep 88, .3 0, .95 35, :7b. .6 7, .7# 18, .1 tons 0, .51 tons Lambs which were killed by dogs were included in the total number of lambs; but those which died while young were not included. Costs. In Table Jll is given all the costs for the sheep on the farms surveyed. The average figures are given in each case. -24- :el>le XVI. Sheep Coste. Item Per farm #32.74 mature sheep C;0.95 Per unit of breeding flock Ilan la'bor $1.06 Horse labor 2.73 0.08 0.09 Pasture 53.65 1.55 1.73 Grain 18.66 0.54 0.60 Koughage 131.00 3.80 4.23 Succulents-^ 2.13 0.062 0.07 Sheep shearing 2.96 0,086 0.10 Use of buildings 15.25 0.44 0.49 Salt 0.97 0.028 0.03 Insurance 1.80 0.052 0.06 Use of special eqtJipment 0.91 0.026 0.03 Decrease inventory purchases and 27.65 0.80 0.89 Cost of twine 0.53 0.015 0.02 lllBcellaneone 0,66 0.019 0.02 Total : 2 91. 63 t8,45 ^9.40 The sheep shearing was hired done on eight fams. The valne of the special ©(luipraent was v'^»10 V^-^ farm. nearly half of the total cost on these farms was for rotig-hage. There were very few cash expenses in connection v^ith "'•Fed on tv/o farms, only — cahhage and beets. -25- the Bheep. An arbitrary rignre vaB need in charging laljor. Tvrenty cents -per hour was charged for man labor end 15 cents per honr for horse labor. *he owner put In the equivalent of a nan'B tine assisting in the shearing, as tieing wool, tiirning the crank on the clipping raaeh^nc, etc. In ch£-rgin£- the use of bitildings, the farpiers estinated the vali-e of the btjildine and the share used by sheep, end a 10 per cent charge was vaeAe upon the valr.e of the share tised by sheep. Salt -^as obtained at low cost {30 o«nts per hundredweight) directly frora a salt plant. Special equipment Included racks, troughe, feed pails, clipping machines, \70ol boxes, etc. Ten per cent of the value of these was charged to the sheep. Although twine xised for tieing tip wool le one of the rainor expenses, it may be of interest to note the amount of t/ool that one pound of wool t\"ine will tie up. The average of the figures on the ten farme were taken in table XVII. Table XYTI. Wool Twine . povnds of twine used per farm A^rr' Average cost per pound of r.ool twine 11. 5j^ Pounds of wool tied per pound of twine 61. 4j lumber of fleeces per pound of twine 7.8 -HG- Rotiirne and Profits, Tables XYIIT and XIX show the rettzrnB and the profits from the sheep. Table XVIII. Kettims from f^heep . Receipts from increase inventory and sale of umtton^ Receipts frora sale of wool Valne of sheep manure applied to the land Per mature Per farm sheep A240,9e 91.04 27.23 ^6.98 £.64 0.79 Per unit of breeding flock ^7.77 2.94 0.88 Total *-359.25 tl0.41 Receipts Y>eT sheep sheared from sale of .ool Receipts per lamb for lambs sold iJumber of lambs sold per farm $11. 59 $2,56 ?;;>8»18 Sheep manure was credited on all the farms at $1,50 per ton at the bams. ^Includes indeianity for sheep 1-illed by dogs. -27- Table XIX. Proflte from Sheep . Receipts per farm ^<2>B9*Z5 Costs per farm £91.65^ Interest on average of tro Inventories 18.70 Profits per farm 48.92 Profit per man hour 0.30 Profit -per raature sheep 1.42 Profit per unit of breeding flock 1«58 Profit per animal unit of matnre sheep 9,94 The profits obtained per farm are very gooct, considering the siae of the enterprise, etc. V,Tien looked at from the point of view of profits per man hoxir the receipts appear to he ex- ceptional. Prohabljr more money is made froTn sheep in propor- tion to the labor than of any other enterpriae on these fanns. Since these profits give a very favorable aspect to the b^si- riess, the question is, are these prices and this yearns pro- dtictlon typical of other years. As to production, it Is typical. These farmers have received aboxit the same number of larbs per ewe and about the sarne wool pro'luotion in past years. Ttto of the men stated that their wool proclijction was a little lower than ifSual this year. Prices are not tjrpical of former years, as sho^n in Table XX. -20- Tablo XX. Comparative Prices. Average price received for lamba per hundredweight In 1916 §10.34 Average price received for wool per ponnd in 1916 33,06^ 10-year average price for lambs per hundredweight |7«82 10-year average price for wool per pound 24»lj^ 'Tool prices are 37,2 per cent higher than the ten-year average and larab prices are 32,2 per cent higher. The ten- year average prices were obtained from the Farm i^cconnte of some of the farmers visited and were actnal prices received in the nine preceding years, averaged with the year, 191o, It vroiild not be just, hOTisrever, to aeclnct 37 per cent of the wool receipts and 32 ner cent of lamb receipts from the total receipts, an5 from the remainder subtract the costs and interest per "arm, to obtain the profits per farr/i because some of the farm ejcpenses are hi^er than the average for ten yeers. Table XXI shows the relative cost for sheep of the more Iraportent items for the 10-year period as corapared with 1916. -29- Table XXI. Relative Costs. Per cent of total oosts on sheep 4&Jo Per cent ahove 10-year average in 1916 Roughage ^h "-rain 6 Zh Pasture 18 Man labor 11 20 Decrease Inventory purchase 8 and 9 Hay in the past ten years v?as a little higher on the average than In 1916. Ilo figures were obtainable for bean pods» bttt it is reasonably certain that prices have not changed much. Cost accounts kept on iiew York State farras by the Department of Farm Management of the Hew Yor>: State College of AgricnltTire show little variation in different years for the rrice of bean pods. The increase of 35 per cent in grain prices in 1916 above the 10-year average was figured on a basis of corn and oat prices for New York Btate, obtained from the Monthly Crop Report. Oats were 26.5 per cent above the 10-year average and corn 46.2 per cent. Grain, however, is a minor expense and would have little influence. Pasture, which is an important expense, has undoubtedly increased in cost because of the increased land values for the last decade. ?he cost of fencing has increased, and the supply of pasture land has diminished in this region. All these factors make ijasture more expensive. Labor has in- -.'de- creased con8ideral)ly in cost. The decrease In inventory end purchase cost has increased over the 10-year average because of the Increased value of the sheep. For the sane reason interest is higjier. Althottgh the expenses on sheep have increased soraewhat, they have not increased as irnich as have the prices for l^unhs and t;oo1, and , consequently , the profits on the sheep for 1916 are considerable above the average profits that were received for the past j-ears. Sheep Mstribtttion * In connection with the study of the 10 sheep enterprises in Genesee Cotmty, it might be well to note the general trend of the sheep industry in :3ew York State and in the United fitates. According to the United States Census report in 1910, He-af York State ranJced twentieth in number of sheep. In 1880 Uev: York State rsnlced sixth in ntwaber of sheep. The ' estern ::ountainou8 States have been rapidly increasing in number of sheep. The trend of the sheep industry has been westward and is still going on. The states of Montana, Wyoming, New :iexico, Utah, Idaho and other motmtainous western states have rapidly increased in mimbers of sheep. On the other hand, the ■•^astern and Southern states have rapidly aecreased. In Her. Yorlc f'tate, the counties with the largest nupiber of sheep as shown on the map are Orleans, Ontario, Yates, Livingston, Schuyler and Genesee. In 1860 the counties ^ith -51- the most sheep In I;©w York were Livingston, Ontario, Monroe, Steiiben. Washington, Genesee, Orleans and V.'yoming. Practically the same counties lead in the sheep industry novi as did fifty years ago. The sheep industry has decreased rapidly in all of the counties in the State, but in the counties of "estern Jlev; York mentioned above have decreased less rapidly than in other parts of the State. There has been little decrease in the number in the last ten years in these counties. The fact that the sheep Industry Is moving out of most localities in Nev, York State is highly significant. Range conditions in the V.estern Mountainous States, the abaindant supply of pasture land, the ease with which sheep and their pro- ducts may be shipped long distances to market, all tend to move the sheep indxxstry westward. Sheep still are kept in small flocks on a considerable number of farms in V.estern Ifev? Yor>:, not becaxise of the proTits from sheep, but because of other factors, mainly. The labor distribntion on sheep is such that it fits in well with the labor distribution on the crops grovjn in this section. Sheep furnish a means of utilizing roughage and returning it to the land in the form of manure, which is important in this region. The flocks of sheep on the farms of this locality may be considered a "benefactor" in that they keep down weeds, kill brush by trimming off the leaves and keep the fence corners cleaned out. In many localities the dairy cow has forced out the sheep, and in time when the demand for milk becomes great enough in nearby cities, dairying v;ill un- doubtedly supplant sheep growing in this locality. The maps — lyl/i — in the 'back ehow the distriTnition of sheep in y,ev: Yor> -tate and in the United States now, and the general ciovetaent of the sheep industry in the United States since 1860. Siuanaary The aheep enterprises on the fauns surveyed were typical of the Else of flocks, kind of sheep kept, and general methods •used in Western Ne^r YorV, Shropshire grade shoflp v.ere the most popular breed and on eight of the f arras a pnre-hred Shropshire rara was kept. '2he average profit per farm from sheep was |;48.92. The profit per nian hour of labor was 0O.;^O. In 1916 the price for lanbs was 3E per cent and for wool 57 per cent above the ten-year average. SoEie expenses were somewhat higher in 1916 than for the ten-year average, but were not as high, relatively, as ^ool and lambs. Little grain is fed to sheep, only 5 -per cent of the total cost being for grain. Roughage fed to sheep -^^as 45 per cent of the total cost. Sheep fit into the labor distribution of this locality very well, where wheat, beans, hay, oats, com and potatoes are the principal crops, The sheep consume considerable vraste feed, which other stock v>ould not eat. The average lamb production per ewe was .95 and the wool production per shsep sheared was 7.7 pounds, The average price received for larabs in 1916 was ^10.34 per hundredv.slght , and the average price received for wool In 1916 was 33,06 cents per pound. There still seems to he a place for a small flocl< of sheep on many Vfei^tern ;:evv Yorlc fanae, hut increasing demands for dairy pronucts raay in time force out the sheep business, if it is not already doing so. ^ 9 o (.^ o '-.^ u V J r- •^ C} (_;' • ^ iL o c O C; +J -I—' C3 '.- O U. ( '„_,' o c_" ^ - •~ CD C) C, CX' v-' O ^ o I. CO o O a I--! p. CD CD W CD )m 4J t: CD :}E COST OF PKODUCIIIG PEAP FOP; CAiramG PACTOI Research Problem in ?arm Management by leland A. vJood, 1915. THE C'O^T OF PU0J3UC1.-G PJSAS iTOH CAlu.lUG iTACTOaY Oii i^FTKEM FAHlLli Iti OTiJiuGO COUNTY, H.'J./ YORK., PUHPOiili OF Tlffi V/ORlv AlfU LHTHod uSBD The purpose of this inveatigation was to deter- mine what it costs the average farmer on a dairy farm to produce peaa for canning factory. It is a study of the different costs in producing peas and not an arguiaent to prove it is a profitable or unprofitable crop to grow, IlffORTAliCE OJ? TliK iiUBJlSCT Otsego County is almost entirely a dairying section, and it is important to know the cost of produc- ing cash crops in order to detenaane whether under aver- age conditions a fanner can uie his land to a better ad- vantage in raising some cash crop as peas or devote it to crops which can oe fed to dairy cows. PLACE AI.D TIM]^] OF t/ORK The section surveyed was a small portion of the townships of iixeter and x^lainfield in the northwestern part of Otsego County, which is located a little south 'd and east of the central part of Uew York iJtate. figure 1 showB the location of the County and the townships where the record was taken. The figures were secured for the year 1914, The farms were not selected in any \»ay, and, as average conditions were desired, fifteen farms were taken wiiich would represent typical rather than exceptional condi- tions. AQRICLLTURK. Type . Dairying is practically the only enter- prise in this section. There are many large high produc- ing herds and several purebred ]ierds in the section sur- 3 veyed. The average nuiflber of cows on the fifteen farms surveyed was twenty-four. Milk and its produotB are shipped to New York City, a distance of about two hun- dred miles, Topograuhy . The topography is rolling. Moat of the records were taken in the v/harton Valley, which consists of farms about half level or 'flfit" laud, as it is called, aiid half hilly or sloping land. 'ihe farms are broken up and moat of the fields are aiaall and stony. Drainage. Practically none of the land is tile drained, and only a small part drained with open ditches. The section is drained by the ./harton Creek, which flows into the Susquehanna Hiver. 3oil , B . The soil is a nedium iiaavy clay, with a lieavy clay subsoil. It is hard soil to work and it is al\7ayB late in the spring before it can be cultivated because it retains a high percentage of water. Climate . The climate is particularly favorable for oats and hay- Corn does not mature as a rule, but large amounts of silage corn are grown. props Grown . The principal crops grown are hay, oats and silage corn. Occasionally a farmer raises two or three acres of potatoes, a little barley or buck- 4 wheat. Of the three raai.i crops, practically all ib uia- poaed of by feeding to dairy cowa. It in the exception ruther than the rule that a fanner aella any produce, and this only hay or potatoes. Some farmera keep szaall flocks of sheep. x<'ew keep any hogs other than for their own use. Very few colts are raised in this section. The average and variation in size, crop acres, per cent of crops grown, and yields are given in Table 1. The average size of farma was 175 acres ; the largest 290, and the amalleat 58 acres. The average value per acre of all far;a land was iJ35.00 and varied from ^525.00 to ^40.00. There waa 08% of the land in pasture, woods, and fannstead. The crop acres averaged 56, or 'iii% in crops. Of the crop acres, 68.75;i.' was in hay, 10. 72;^ in ailige corn, 11.15>e in oats, 4.28J^^ in oats and peas for hay, 2.24^ in potatoes, and 2,GQfe in peas for canning factory. The average yield of hr.y v/as 2,1 tons and varied from 1 to 3 tona per acre. The average yield of silage corn was 10 tons, the higl^ieat being fifteen and the low- est four tona ^er acre. The average yield of oats was 36. 8 bushels, the highest being 48 and the lowest 18 bu- shels. The average yield of potatoes waa 122 buahela, varying from 82 to 181 hushela per acre. The average yield of peaB waa 15ii8 pounds, varying from 500 to 2214 pounds per acre. TABLE I. J3iz Oa^o Oats Yield Oa ts & Peafj Oats ^■. Peas ( Yield Average G.25 ^G.S 2.5 Ped Green Highest 10. 48. 7. Lowest 3.5 i8 % Total 11.15^ 4.28^ Potato 1 Potatoes 3S Yield Peas Peas Yield Average 1.^5 122 1.5 152a lbs. Highest 3. 181 3. 2214 " Lowest 1.5 82 1. 500 " % Total 2.24/ i 2.G8 /» 6 Labor . The land on all the fifteen farme studied was either worked by ovinerB or tenants. The farmo ranged from one to three-:aa.n f irua. In thio survey no attempt was made to find the coot of labor becauae of the fact that so little laDor ia hired on the fiiajority of thtj farms, laout of the 4ork being done by the farjocsrs and their fanilies. Therefore, in fig- uring the v!>.lue of labor 18 ceritg per hour W'xa used. Thia mefuia that the cost of labor ia equivalent to ^1.80 pyr xoan working ten hours par (i'..y. In the name way 15 cents was cliarged for each hour a horne worked. This is the equivalent of a team v^orking ten hours :x aay for ^.:3.00. In a lite nanuer the uua of impleiiontH or laa- o}ilnery in charged at the rate oT b cents pt;r hour. The method of finding the nuiaber of }iour3 a rcachin'i or im- plement is used is to divide tlie numbi^r of hours of ho--i3e labor by the number of horses vyorking on the im- i^ieiaent, for a certain operation. This means that the cost uf a man, team, and machine or implement that is used is ^5.30 for a ten-hour day. The actual number of hours for each operation is given so that a fanaer knowing thu value of labor un- der specific couuitions can figure the cost. die man working one hour is called one nan hour and is indicated 7 by M. H. One horae working one hour in culled ona horse hour and is indicated by H. H. The uae of an iraplement for one hour is called one implement hour and is indicat- ed by 1. H. Ogiieral. The growing of peua for oanaing fac- tory ia of recent development in this County, and in thia pajticular section 1914 was th-j first year they had been grown. In the early spring of 1914 a repreoentfitive of the Utica Canning Co., Utica, 11. Y. solicited and buo- ceedod in securing promiaea of sufficient acreage of peas to enable the Company to set up a port.".ble ahollery near ./est Sxeter. It was with considerable intereat tJitt the farmers awaited the outcome of the 1914 crop to (iijlermine v/hether it would be a paying proposition in connection with dairying. One important factor should be noted. The Canning Company furnishes the seed pens to tlie farm- er for three dollars a bushel, vhile if they were pur- chased on the market nine dollars would have to be paid. Me;^hod of Grqvvinf!:. On the fifteen farms from which records were taken, the peo.3 were sown in every case on old ground, following corn. As a rule, the i?uid was seeded with the peas. Two kinds of poas are '.,c/:;n, aiwly and late. Some farms sovf one, aoji'; aijothsr, ana s..He both. The early ones are harvested about the first of 8 July, and the late ones tvro to three weeka later. ThUH the harveating period comee right in the haying; aenson, a very inconvenient time unlea;- the time to out tJiem cornea on a cloudy or rainy day, when nothing could be done in tho hay field. The peas have to be cut on a certain day v.'hen they are at the proper atage of matur- ity or they are either too soft or too hnrd. If a farra- fr io delayed in the hayin^^ "e'^Bon, it 'nay be r seriouB disadvantage. C0i3T Ox*' PHODUCIKG. The average cost of producing an acre of peas on tho fifteen furma •studied was ;(?30,4B, The hicrheot coat on a single farm woo ^44.iil, nnd the lowest was :^21,82, The factors -which enter into the c03t of pro- ducing will be grouped under the folio yin.'x heecUn;:s : Preparation for sowing and Bovano;, market in??, rvid nia- cellaneouB cogta. Table II pives thevie factors , fith their varifi.tion and per cer't of total cost, T Ai3.Lij II. , Averap ;e HiKheat Lowest Total Coat Preparation for Bo?inp /c :io-/ing t:r21,bl C'i^9>7(; .'.pl7.6a ,70.77 Marketing 6.90 12.15 2.GG 22. GO Miscellaneous 2.01 2.30 1.44 G.G3 ^30.48 ^44.21 ^21.72 100.00 9 PreparJln/r. for aowing and 3owinp: . The average cost of preparing for sowing and sowing ivae |?30,48, vary- ing ffom ^21.72 to #44.21. This was IQ.1'1% of th(3 total cost. ]£ar]£eting . Marketing was 22.6^ of the total cost and varied, from 02, 6G to #12,15, depending very largely nn how far the crop had to be hauled. The aver- age cost vmt3 #0.90. Misce l lanequa Cpi^ts . Miscellaneous costs in- clude the interest on the land and taxes. The average cost WHS 0'i.Ol or 6,63^ of the total cost. This varied frora $1.44 to $2.30, depending very largely on the price of the l-'^nd. Plowi ng and Prepay .in ^ . The ground, as a rule, was plowed the fall before. The ordinary two-horse plow is used almost universally in this section. The ground is plowed to a depth of about eight inches. In the spring it is harrowed with a spring tooth harrow or disced and harrowed until the soil is thoroughly pulverir.ed, ijo win/g . The peag are sown in an ordinary grain drill with a grass seeder and fertilizing device attached. 10 COST OF PHlfiPARIKO FOR liirlJlin Ai!:? tlUiilllG. liie various operationn used in deoermining the cooo of preparation for aovring and sowing are ohown in Table III. TAjJxji'j 1X2. Ooeration AVer J .iuii HiR} leat Lowes ^ To- yt ^al Copti Plowing G.41 M.H. #1.16 8 k.H. #1.44 4 k.K. i'0,72 3.8> II la.Q'd H.H. i.92 IC H.H. Ji.40 8 H,} . 1.20 G.26 M G.41 I.H. .33 8 I.H. .40 4 I.H. .20 1.10 Harrowing 5.89 M.H. 1.07 12 :.'.H. 2.9G «?( .GGM.H. .48 3.50 •* 12.82 H.H, 1.92 24 H.H. 3,60 5, ,2 H.H. .78 6.30 )« 5.89 I.H. .27 12 I.H. .GO ^, .66 I.H. .13 .90 Sowing 1.5 M.H. .y? 2 i:.H. .36 .75 M.H. .14 .90 n 3 H.H. .46 4 H.H. .CO 1, .5 H.J.. .23 1.50 of the total cost. The use of drill averaged 1,5 hours, varyiiig from .75 to 2, The average cost was %^0.08. This varied from ^0.04 to ;i?0.10. Tha per cent of total cost was 0.3>ip. Drilling cost 81 cents, or 2.7?$ of total cost. This was the equivalent of a man and team working 1.5 hours. bejed. The coot of seed was yy.uO per acre, whicn WH3 2i».o2 per cent of total coat. gertxlizer : The average coat of fertilizer was 4)2.84, or j.32/o of the total cost. It varied from #0.00 to ^7.05. Manure . The average coat of manure was :b'2.25 per acre and varied from ^0.85 to vG.OO. This was 7,37> of the total coat. Marketing includes getting the crop from the field to the ahellery. formally, the peas are cut with a mowing machine, tne vines being thrown bacK from the laaohino by uitrn viilh furky. In two caaoa the peaa were ludgod ao ufiiUy viui,^ tjiey hud to be cut by liumi, f.nd in nearly evory case tney could be cut but m one direction. The peas are then loaded on hay vr.guxia and taJcen to the siisllory, a distance var:> ing tvo:.i .2b to ii.5 milep. The average distance '•/ajj l.'i3 niltis. The peas fctre titcu rua tiirough tiife &;ieiltfr aji.» the puas are sjhelled cut. They run over a screen ^nc t>ie hard Qi.es are die- carded, 'Ihe vi/tcH Hi^e thrown out In the rear jf the mn- ciiiri© and are loaded and carted baci' hcae. The r> elled peas are boxed, ] cabled into ?- n automobile truck M-nd taken a dictancG of f^bout nine /aileH to the rn-ui^z ucurcr.t can- ning r.-tL'turv. CObT OF LAra.,;TlilO BcG;iu:-e of z^'iQ dirfic-lty of I'm fart;;.rs in teliinr, hew i-a;.cV' time wii^ spent in cutrirj'" a]c:;e-, cutting and haL*iing, the. oper-'itioaB in 'r.a.rketin'': are £r:-;uped to- gether, Tiie average cost of x'iJ'rketing, hi^^lieat and low- eats coatb, and j>ar cent of total cost Xj ^e lUf^heat Lowes^t Cutting 19.487 M.K. 3.51 30 I'.m. ^b.^0 5.33 M.K. 4>0.9G 11.5 Hauling 19.333 H.H. 2.90 40 H.H. 6.00 10.40 U.K. 1.50 9.5 9.8 I.H, ,^49 15 I.K. .,„ ,75 2,1 l,h, .14 1.6 6.y0 li:;.15 2.60 22.0 Tb'-. O'^-jt oC '■ arK'3tiriii s'vyraged 0,90 and varied froir 2. GO to 1:^,15. <3epe.nd.tng on t)'e ''latancc I'x'om tho r7]i'3llery. The ;>t-r cent of total cout vae 2.'.G,'£. It rf3'!'-iJ.i"9«i tii'.! equivalent of one wax ./urking with a team and oitli'-U' 'lO/ing ir.'icriino or wa^'iOn 9.B hours. T'iis varied fro:- 5.-3;!' hours to 30 houro. T:'>:e miBC©llan'i""'U9 ccats iri:lude iritorest on I'lnd .'!,rid t'?.^ep. ijiterest \(?m3 fi'-urea at ^.V-e rate of 5/v 'i.nd ta::e3 ?t the rate --'f 47.50 ^er ^Jl.OOQ. The average amount of interest w«b iyl/^S per acre, v-ryin/j; fron ^;'1.25 to O'^^.OO. This wiD !3.7B;:.^ of the total cout. The aver- o.ge amount of taxes was v>0.26, varying frora 4*0. 11; to *^0.30, This cost wag .95/i of th.^ total cout. Table V showfj the p,bov3 m tabula-r form. Avera ge Interest (?1.75 Taxes .26 :KBLii. V. Highest $2.00 .30 Lowest ^1.25 .19 ?*> Total Cost 5.78 .85 15 wrxumuj FROM TJiis pea chop The yield of. peaa wtuj from 500 to i*.214 poundo per acre, p.verafilng 1523, Tho prica roceived wao sili.lb per cwt. The returns per aoro varied froia Jvi0,75 to #47,60, The average was $»3a.74. Deducting ■<" the vines into ccriaidorrition. The av3r£ire valu;^ of the vines for f udder was $7.50, varying from ?;0.00 to ^;;30,00 ,^>rr anre. ArMiag thiB giveB a orofit of 'J9.76. Thi- aeeraa to ir.o'j cate thfit the profit i;3 I'^-rgaly dependor;t on the valiie of the vines for fodder. These results aeeia to indicate tnut the average farmer, if ne can use x.he viai3a lor I'odaer to a good ad- vaiitage, is justified in raisini^ peas for can/ii.ni5 factory. However, 1 an led to uoi-eve iliat unlosu u nan io near a ghellery una has enougnt hoip so lie wxxi not be nj.ndered xa haying season, ho is iiardly jiuutitied in raioini^' peas for canning factory. THE RELATION OF TEIIAIIGY TO ?OIL ilD THE VALUE OF LAUD IN HEV; YORK STATE. Research Problem in Earm Management T^y F. A. Roper, 1915. THE xRiiLiTIOW OP TEIAUCY TO SOIL AUD TEE VALUE OF LAMD IK NE*^ YORE STATE. 4 u'here are the tenants In Hew York State and bow are they distributed ? ..re they scattered about by chance or have they settled in pp.rtloular regions ? In Colonial times there were few tenants. Every one that vvariod work done by some one else usually exchanged labor. ^pfcreased population and an advance in the price of land h vo caused conditions to change. Men v7ho had no means were obliged to work on shares or pay rent to the owner of the land in order to live on a farm. This condition increased and in 1880, when statistics of f urn ownership were published^ in the Census, about 74.5 per cent of the farms in the United States were operated by owners. Since thf.t time the proportion has fallen consider- ably, to 71.6 per cent in 1890, 64.7 per cent in 1900 and 62,1 per cent in 1910. The growth of the tenant class is caused by the rise in land values in the past three or four decades. .ben land increases in value, there are less who can afford to buy, hence those people rent instead of buji^^^^'-f' The greater the per cent of increase, so much longer tl 'O i." necessary before tenants are able to buy. The per cent of tenancy in Uew York is much lower than that lor the United States. In 1910 tho per cent of ownership was 77.3 rer cent, which showed an increase over 1900 when per cent of o?mer- ship was 74,4 per cent. This may indie- te that llev? York State is tending to increase ownership and decrease tenancy -2- although it is much lower than the United States as a whole. In some parts of New York State the per cent of tenancy ia as low as 9,4 per cent. This is in Rockland County, In Hew York County the per cent is as high as 74,1 per oent. These are both abnormal. The first one is due to land being held by wealthy men and not much Is rented, while the second is due to the high value for trucking purposes and nearness to lew York City, Table I. Showing Relation of Per Cent of Tenancy to Value per Acre of Land. Value per acre IJumber of Average per Average value Croup counties cent tenancy of land 1 a.0 - 30 9 14.8^ ^25.7 2 30 - 40 19 19.1 35. 3 40 - 50 7 21.4 46. r. 4 50 - 60 6 24.1 55.5 5 60 - 70 5 24.6 66.1 6 70 -140 7 25.2 94.4 7 Over 140 8 34.5 ies 835.7 61 "S'ount In Table I , the relation of per cent of tenancy to vs^lue of land per acre is shown. Certain counties are grouped into different classes according to the valr.e per acre. In the first group the average percentage of tenancy was 14.8 per cent and the average value ol land was $25.7 per acre. The value of land per acre inclades the buildings on the farm. There may be some question as v/hether this is justifiable or not, but taken as a whole the buildings are an indication of the value of the farm, '/the tenant usually looks to the land rather than the buildings. In the second group the average -3- per cent of tenancy was 19.1 per cent and the average value of the land occnpied hy this group was $35. In the third group the average percentage of tenancy was 21.4 per cent and the land value was ^46,2 per acre. In the fourth group the average percentage of tenancy was 24.1 and the land value was $55,5. In the fifth group the average per- centage of tenancy was 24.6 per cent and the land value .vas $66.1 per acre. The average percentage of tenancy Increases with the value of the land and in the sixth group the average percentage of tenancy was 25.2 per cent and the land was valued at $94.4. The last or seventh group represents abnormal con- ditions. It Includes counties in the vicinity of TTew York City. The average percentage of tenancy is 34. f per cent and the average value of the land is ^835.7, This group was not put in to show a marked increase in tenancy but to make the report complete by including all the counties in the state. Chart I shows the increase in percentage of tenancy on lands of higher value in the form of a curve. There are some cases where value of land is high and percentage of tenancy is low as in Rockland County. Here the average value of the farm land for the County Is fl95, and the averape per cent of tenancy is only 9.4 per cent. This is due to the fact that most of the land is hold by wealthy men and not much of it is rented. It is on the Hudson River and only a few miles from New York City. But as a rule high priced land indicates a high per cent of tenancy, this may be caused by tenants moving to these regions or by rich men owning the lane and returning to town and leaving the farm -^ / / -^ ^St^ {^zlA^ ^j!,:t^.c{ ^ ^ ^ "^ Group lUTTiber of Comities 1 10 2 15 3 8 4 20 5 8 -4- for tenants. Table II. Showing Relation of Per Cent of Tenancy to Soils of Different Degree of Fertility. Per cent of Series of soil tenancy Mountainous 14.13^ Yolusia, DeXalb, Lackawanna 19.95 Dutchess, Gloucester, Fudson 21,43 Dunkirk, Mohawk, Vergennes, „/, on Ontario ^^'^^ Truck Counties (Ilorfolk and Gloucester 34.5 The second table shows the relation of the per cent of tenancy to soils of different degree of fertility. The state is divided up into five regions of different soil series as indicated on :."ap I. These groups are 1, Mountainous* 2, Poor soil, 3, rair soil, 4, Good soil and 5, Hew York City soil. In order to understand how these soils are forned and a little bit about their composition, a very brief description is given. In the mountainous group of counties little can be said of the soil. There is probably sone very productive soils in each of these counties, but they represent a small pro- 5- _r, _ portion oi the total farm land. Most of the counties con- tain parts of the Catslcill and Adirondack Mountains. As low as 30 per cent of the total area is in farm lands in some of the counties and someti les only a small proportion of this is improved land. Essex, Franklin, Clinton and Greene Counties are some of the counties that are representative of this group. These counties liave very few tenants in proportion to number of farms. The second group contains such soils as Volusia, Laoira- wanna and DeKalb series. Volusia series was formed by glaciers grinding up Chemung and Portage shales. Lackawanna series was formed by glaciers grinding Oneonta shale. Del^alb series represents the only residual soil in the State and comes from the same rocks as the Volusia series. All these soils are light brown to yellow gray in color, low in lime and usually acid. The humus content is low and drainage is usually de- fective. Chemung, TI05 and all the southern tier of counties represent this group (^ soils. The third grou: of soils contains such series as Dutchess, Gloucester and Hudson, Dutchess soil is the result of glacial till fro 1. the metamorphosed rooks of Hudson Valley. Hudson series are glacial lake and stream terrace and occur along the Hudson River. All three of these soils are low in lime and deficient in organic matter. The first two are poorly drained soils but the last one is well drained. Columbia, Dutchess and Orange Counties are fair representatives of this group. The fourth group contains such series as Ontario, Mohawk, -6- Dunklrk and Vergennes. Ontario series comes from a glacial till derived from sandstones and limestones of Central New York, The color is mediinn "brown or blackish and the hrumis content is above the average for the State. The Mohawk series have passed through complicated geological processes. The soils may he either a till, a glacial lake deposit or a reworked material of mixed origin. The humus content and drainage vary from good to poor. The Dunkirk series is the result of the v/ash from the Volusia soil to the south and the Ontario on the North. Lime content is low, drainage is fair and humus content is medium. Vergennes soil is similar to Dunkirk; it is a darker soil, responds readily to lime, and when well drained it is one of the best soils of the state. Livingston, Jefferson and Genesee Counties are typical counties of this group. In the last group of counties the soil series are Glou- cester and Norfolk. Norfolk series contain soils of marine formation. Most of it is composed of sand and gravel bed. Drainage is good but the lime and hruaus content is usually low. This group would really belong to the poor or medium soils of the state, but due to their nearness to New York City, they have an enormous value for truck crops and are farmed on a very intensive scale. Fertilizer is used in enormous quantities each yenr to keep up the productivity, Suffolk and Jestohester are typical representatives of this group. The second table shows that if soils are graded according to their productivity and the percentage of tenancy, the counties having the richest soils have the highest percentage of tenancy. In the mountainous group the average per cent of -7- tenancy is 14,14 per cent. In the second group there is a little higher percentage of tenancy. Although this group contains the most unproductive soils of the State, the per cent of tenancy is 19,95 per cent. In the third group the soil is a little better and the rate of tenancy is higher, 21,43 per ocnt. In the fourth group the very best soils of the State are found. The rate of tenancy is 24,29 per cent. In the last group we have the highest priced land and probably the most productive; this is not due to the natural fertility of the land, but to the fact that the land is so valuable for trucking purposes. The rate of tenancy In this group is 34.5 per cent. Chart II shows a curve drawn to represent this in- crease graphically. Table III. Showing the Relation of Per Cent of Tenancy to Number of Farms for Rent or Sale in Different Counties of New York State, Average number Farms Number ■ of farms for rent Average Group for sale count 8 ies or sale tenancy 1 36. 57;^ 2 0-10 10 4.2 22. S 10 - 20 23 15.6 21.2 4 20 - 30 7 (Cn^ • O 17.6 5 30 up 11 51.6 ies 18.6 61 ^ount In Table III the relation of the percentage of tenancy to number of farms advertised for rent or sale in different counties of the State is shown. This does not show all the farms for sale in the State, but it does show the same rela- >^ \j ^ \3 "^ -^ ^ I f '? f' -8- tive numbers ol" farms for sale in different co-unties. (The Data for this were taken from Bulletin 55 puhllshed by the Rew York State Department of Agriculture entitled "Farms for Sale or Rent in Sfow York". The service is free to every one so should be typical of the State. There were 8 counties that had no f arras for sale or rent. Some of these counties were Niagara, Putnam and Hiohmond. In this group of counties the average per cent 'of tenancy is 36.57 per cent. In the second group of 10 counties there '.vas an average of 4.2 farms for sale or rent and the average per cent of tenancy was S2 per cent. Such counties as Schenectady, >7ayne and Yates are representative of this group. In the third group of 23 counties the aver- age number of farns for sale v;aG 15.6 and the average per- centage of tenancy /as 21,? per cent. Such cotmties as .Vashington, 3L:ffolk, Orleans and Onondaga were in this group. The fourth group of seven couT'ties has an average of 23,3 far^s for sale and the' percentage of tenancy is lowest for the entire state, being only 17,6 per cent. There were such counties as Saratoga, Steuben and Tioga. The fdfth group of 11 counties has an average of 51.6 farms for st;le and the percentage of tenancy is 18.6 per cent. This is a little higher than the preceding group but lower than all the others. Such counties as Ulster, Otsego, Schoharie and Madison are represented by this group. In other words, the larger the number of farms for sale, the less the per cent of tenancy. This same relation is expressed graphically by the curve in Chart III. -9- Map II shows the manner In which tenants are diatrlh-uted by counties. Each red dot represents 100 tenants. The three foregoing relations show that tenants are on the most productive land. There were 44,872 tenant farmers in New York in 1909. /tbout 50 per cent or 20,110 of these were in the 20 counties containing the best soils. Or, in other words, one-half of the tenants are in one-third of the counties of the State. There are very few cases, as in Oneida and Dutchess Coimties. where the soil of the county is good and the per cent of tenancy is small. Although there are some cases, these are generally due to other influences, as mountains, rivers and nearness to market. Sometimes the wealthy classes hold many such places as summer resorts. The tenant farmer wants to farm land that produces most so naturally drifts away from the poorer section into better ones. He keeps less cattle than the owner that works his own farm. This relation is shown in the following Table IV from ^^^issouri Bulletin 121. Table IV. Live Stock per Farm on Farms of Owners and Tenants. Owners Jork horses 5.3 Cows 4,5 Sheep 4, Sows 3.8 Hens 117,1 Colts 1.4 Total animal units 20,5 Crop acres 68.2 Crop acres per animal unit 3,33 5.49 Tenants 4, ,6 3. .1 1. ,6 2. ,8 104, ,2 1. 15, 82. is '^^ % % • *' * % * « « 4 « « « • * • ^ -10- This table shows that tenants do not have enough animal units per acre to even keep food land in as good condition as the owner. Another reason why tenants do not improve a region is due to the comparatively short length of time they stay on a place. They do not stay long enough on a farm to aid in building it up. They roam about from place to place and turn everything possible into cash. The following Table V from I-Tissouri Bulletin 121 shows the distribution of tenant farms by period of continuous residence on the same farm. Table V. Distribution of Tenant Farms by Period of Continuous Residence on Same Farm. Number of years Per cent of on same farm total farms 2 years or more 43,5'^ 3-5 years 34. 6-10 years 11.2 11 - 15 years 4.8 Over 15 years 6.5 "77.5 per cent of the tenants remain on the same farm lesc than 5 years, while nearly one -half the tenants stay on the same far^: less than 2 years. Nothing could better illustrate the fact, that perhaps the greatest handic-j-p of the tenant la the fact that he does not remain on the same farm long enough. Although tenants do not remain long on the same place, they usually do more labor, or, at least, do more pro- ductive labor than the farm o;mer". The following Table VI from ^^Sissouri Bulletin 121 shows that the tenants have more productive man work units than the -1.1- larm owner. Table VI. Percentage Distribution of Farms by Pro- ductive Man iVork Units. Percentage of farms in eaoh olasB Owners (249) Tenants (170) 100 or less 30.6;! 19.2)^ 101 - 125 ie.3 14.1 126 - 150 ■ 12.4 20.1 151 - 175 11.2 12.9 176 - 200 11.2 10.5 201 - 225 7.4 11.5 Over 225 10.9 11,7 "The tenant grows more frain crops and sells a larger proportion of those grown than does the owner. The tenant keeps one animal unit for every 5.5 acres of ground while the owner has one for every 3.5 acres". The foregoing may be called disadvantages of the tenant from the standpoint of permanent agriculture. ''any people have looked upon tenantry as a necessary community evil and ascribed conditions to our too democratic conditions of ovmer ship. It is impossible to say 7/hether this is true or not because there are many advantages as well as disadvantages. Among the advantages the following are important : 1, Tenant farms more land with same equipment, 2, Tenant gets a higher labor income. 3, Tenant puts in more productive horse and man work units. The present system of tenantry is xmdesirable because It depletes the soil and causes tenants to become careless -lE- and shiftless because oi their roaming about from place to place. There are two things which landowners might do to change these conditions : first, rent their farms for a period of not less than 5 years; and second, compel the tenant to keep and feed a certain amount of live stock on the farm. Whether this would reapportion the tenants in Hew York State is hard to say, but it would have a tendency to improve the farm land in general. Size of Farms in Counties and Percentage of Tenancy. In Table VII the relation of size of farms to percentage of tenancy is shown. The counties are classified into groups according to the average size of the farms. i7e find that if the counties are classified in this way and then the percentage of tenancy found for these groups, that the greater percentage of tenancy is in the counties containing the smaller farms. Table VII. Relation of Size of Farms in the Counties of Hew York to the Percentage of Tenants. ITumber of Average Per cent Size counties size tenants Under 60 acres 6 31.7 40.2^ 60 - 70 3 67.6 23.5 70 - 80 5 74.6 19.1 80 - 90 6 86.3 24.5 90 - 100 9 96.1 El. 100 - 110 8 105.3 20.1 110 - lEO 11 114.6 20.2 120 - 130 9 1E5.4 21.1 130 and over 4 61 counties 146.6 12.6 -13- Ghart IV shows this relationship in the form of a curve. The groups under 60 aores include the counties about New York. Hence the curve takes a very decided drop, but the same rela- tion finally shows up with the other co^mtie3. :iw ._ii^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . 1^ -14- Counties Used in Different Groups to Show Relation Between Size of Farms and Per Cent of Tenancy, Under 60 Acres Kings 13.1 Ilassau 54.8 ITew York 25.1 Queens 20.3 Richmond 32.6 Rockland 46.0 60 - 70 Acres Erie 69.9 Monroe 64.5 Wayne 68.3 70 - 80 Acres Niagara 70.4 Onondaga 75.8 Oswego 77.9 Suffolk 71.5 Westchester 77.6 80 - 90 Acres Cayuga 85.9 Chautauqua 81.7 Genesee 89. Ontario 87.9 Orleans 83.8 Yates 89.3 90 - 100 Acres Albany 92.1 Madison 94.4 Oneida 99.6 Orange 97,6 Rensselaer 100. Schuyler 99. Seneca 91.7 Tompkins 91.4 Ulster 98.9 100 - 110 Acres Broome Chemung Fulton Montgomery Saratoga Schenectady Tioga tfSfyoming 102.4 103.4 106.5 106.9 108.6 103.5 104.9 105.8 -15- 110 120 Aores Allegany 118.6 Cattaraugus 111.3 Cortland 114.8 Franklin 116.9 Greene 116.5 Livingston 118.1 Otsego 130.8 Putnam 112.7 Schoharie 112.9 Steuben 111.1 Sullivan 117.2 120 - 130 ^ores Chenango 126.6 Clinton 124.8 Columbia 126.4 Dutchess 128.9 Jefferson 126.8 St. Lawrence 129.1 Washington 125.3 Hamilton 120.2 Herkimer 120.3 130 and o ver Delaware 152.3 Essex 157.9 Lewis 142.1 iVarren 134.2 -16- The Relation of Tenancy t£ the Frodu otlon of Milk per Cow . In Table VIII the relation of the amount of milk per cow to the percentage of tenancy in a county is shown. Chart V shows the relationship in the form of a curve. The poorer the cows the less the percentage of tenancy and the better the cows the greater the percentage of tenancy. Of course, this do.es not take into consideration production on the butter fat basis, which would be a better way. It should be fairly typical, however, because with S or 3 exceptions single breeds are not localized in a certain section but distributed through- out the state. Table YIII. Showing Relation of Percentage of Tenancy to Amount of Production. Group Range of tenancy Average per cent Average production Number in each group I efo to 15.9^ 12.97^ 483.5 gal. 14 II 165^ to 19, 9 fo 18.13>^ 509.4 13 III ZOfo to 24.9^ 22.435S 534.1 20 IV Zbfo to 74. 1^; 35.72>b 575.5 14 _Ja. . . _^.- l-i "llt:; -'T i : r '-f , ■ - 1 -i -,- ""ill -, 1' , i "T ; ' '-, r r - "^'::-;:': i i ■ ; 1 " 5 \^ -17- Gounties Used in Different Groups to Show Relation Between Production per Cow and Percentage of Tenancy in the Counties of New York, County Per cent Production tenancy 15.1?S Chautauqua 471. gal. Delaware 15.8 526.6 Essex 11.4 467.6 Franklin 15.6 439,7 Fulton 15.3 460.5 Hamilton 11.3 441.6 Lewis 15.5 507.9 Oswego 13.7 492.6 Rockland 9.4 502.5 Suffolk • 14.4 465.7 Sullivan 8.0 402.9 Tioga 15.9 585.8 Ulster 14.5 463,9 Warren 9.8 443.8 Total 181.7 6770.1 Average 12.97^ 485.5 gal. Group II. -18- County Per oent tenancy 16.4^ Production Broome 541.8 gal. Cattaraugus 18.3 493.7 Chenango 19.8 589.8 Clinton 16.0 409.4 Columbia 18. E 481.7 Dutchess 18.9 603.6 Greene 16.2 491.6 Oneida 19.2 540.6 Rensselaer 17.6 505.1 Saratoga 18.4 444.3 Schuyler 19.7 542.3 Washington 18.4 479.5 Wyoming 18.7 499.7 Total 235.8 6623.1 Average Id.lZfo 509.4 gal Group III. -19- County Per cent tenancy 82.4^ Production Allegany 496.2 gal. Cortland 20.9 574.4 Madison 21.6 606.7 Onondaga 21,3 579.5 Orange 21.5 673.3 Otsego 21.1 529.6 Schenectady 21.1 499.3 Schoharie 22.9 526.3 Steuben 21.5 437.3 Tompkins 21,4 536.7 Wayne 21,0 481.1 Westchester 20.4 604.9 Yates 22.4 480.6 Chemung 24.2 502.5 Genesee 24.6 501.1 Ontario 24,9 482.6 Erie 23,8 551.6 St, Lawrence 24,7 473.8 Albany 23.3 541. Putnam 23.7 603.2 Total 448.7 10681.7 Average 22,43^ 534.1 gal Group IV. -£0- County Per cent tenancy £5.8 Production Cayuga 516.1 gal. Monroe £5.6 506.0 magara 25.8 466.6 Jefferson 34.5 507.0 Kings 38. £ 507.9 Livingston 31.1 514.1 Montgomery 3E.8 575.9 Orleans 34.4 450.6 Richmond 36.2 788.0 Seneca 30.0 485.0 ISTew York 'X4.1 683.3 Queens 53.5 958.9 Herkimer 28.3 537.7 Nassau 29.8 500.1 560.1 Total 8057.2 Average 35.72^ 575.5 gal. -21- The Relation of Per Gent of Improved Land to Per cent of Tenancy in a County . Table II shows the relation of per cent of improved land to the per cent of tenancy in the counties of ITew York arranged by groups. Chart YI shows this in the form of a curve, the greater the percentage of improved land in a county, the greater the percentage of tenancy. Table IX, The Relation of Per Cent of Improved Land to Per Cent of Tenancy in, a County, number of cotmties Below 50fo 8 50 - 60fo 6 60 - 65^ 6 65-70 9 70-75 8 75 - 80 10 80-85 9 85 and over 5 Average per cent improved land per farm .Per cent tenancy 43.3?5 12.5^ 53.7 17.3 62.6 17.8 67.5 22.2 7E.6 28.2 77.5 22.9 82.4 27.5 88.6 30.9 61 counties x,r_-L i V ; _ j '-W- :-t '4- 1- ^ ^ 4 ^ -22- The Relation o f Cash Tenants to Total Tenants Table X shows that the greater the per cent of total ten- ancy the greater the per cent of cash tenants except in the last group which contains the counties about New York. Here, as in other oases, conditions are abnormal. This relation is shown in the form of a curve by Chart VII. Table X. Relation of Cash Tenants to Total Tenants, Per cent total tenants cash tenants Average per cent total tenants cash tenants number of counties 5 Per cent tenancy Below 20f« 14.6fo 26.2^ 20 - 30 24.1 6 24.7 30 - 40 34.3 8 24.2 40 - 50 43.1 11 20.2 50 - 60 54.6 9 16.6 60 - 70 64.7 4 17.0 70 - 80 74.5 5 18.9 80 - 90 84.8 6 16. ]> 90 and over 97.4 7 37.6 This paper shows some of the relations of tenancy to various conditions in New York. Tenants are on the most pro- ductive and most valuable land in greater numbers than they are on the poorer land. The best cows are in counties with most -23- tenanta, hence the best cows are on the best land. The most tenants are also found on farms with the greatest percentage of improved land, which shows that they will not farm rough and uncleared land. This fact is shown further in that the most tenants are in the counties having the smaller farms which may indicate that the tenant rather have less and have it good than to have a large area and only fair to poor. The greater the per cent of tenancy in a county the greater the per cent of cash tenants. All these relationships may indicate that the tenant is a good business man and is working on good business principles, i.e., farming in a section where he can obtain the most for time and money expended. -XV- Farm land Number farms Per cent value per for rent number tenants 20.8,J acre or sale tenants state Albany 23.3' #49.61 37 733 Allegany 22.4 57.32 17 1106 Broome 1G.4 31.00 24 660 Cattaraugtis 18.3 54.94 21 1103 Cayuga= 25.8 50.40 14 1235 Chautauqua 15.1 58.38 41 1135 Chermmg: 24.2 33.56 13 530 Chenango 19.8 27.63 63 841 Clinton 16.0 31.30 4 576 Coliimbia 18. S 46,60 75 538 Cortland 20.9 31.73 18 546 Delaware 13.8 26.65 41 694 Dutchess 18,9 58.50 26 681 3rie 23.8 94.90 13 1943 Lsnex 11.4 24.70 5 260 Franklin 15.6 32.40 17 572 Fulton 13.3 25.20 18 257 Genesee 24.6 70.69 12 801 Greene 16.2 37.90 10 430 Hamilton 1] .3 24.00 53 Herkimer 28.3 39.30 16 875 Jefferson 34.5 43.10 17 1994 Zinps ijo . 2 310.00 -- 42 Lev; is 15.5 25.3 17 518 Livingston 31.1 60.00 1 1027 ::adison 21.6 ■ 3^.35 51 872 Monroe 25.6 133.92 13 1527 Llontgomery 32,8 50.50 5 719 Ilassau 29.8 741.00 — 303 Eew York 74.1 2234. 4*«a4i 63 ITiagara 25.8 111.00 -- 1120 Oneida 19.2 42.80 48 1527 Onondaga 21.3 67.60 19 1227 Ontario 24.9 68.90 11 1100 Orange 21.5 75.30 33 847 Orleans 34.4 95.90 16 957 Osv/ego 12.7 35.90 23 864 Otsego 21.1 ■ 52 .30 49 1128 Putnam 23.7 69.10 -- 231 Cue ens 53.5 1952.00 -- 385 Rensselaer 17.6 38.60 45 642 Richmond 56.2 654.00 -- 59 RocLland 9.4 195.00 1 106 St. Lawrence 24.7 36.30 17 2035 Saratoga Schenectady 18.4 21.1 ■ 52.00 55.40 22 2 6P3 219 Schoharie 22.9 29.10 88 753 Schuyler 19.7 38.8 15 378 Seneca 30.6 61.90 6 638 Steuben 21.5 36.10 24 1582 -ar- Farm land dumber farms Per oent value per for rent number tenants 14.4^ acre or sale tenants Suffolk 0172. 50 17 358 Sullivan 8.0 36.00 8 308 Tioga 15.9 27.80 23 452 Tompkins 21,4 42.80 15 640 Ulster 14.5 49.60 35 727 fVarren 9.8 21.50 12 182 .yashington 18.4 31.10 19 656 .Vayne 21. 79.50 4 1099 7/estcheBter 20.4 428.10 11 383 >yyoinlng 18.7 48.80 11 661 Yates 22.4 63.00 4 513