o ^Jyecartm-e^ ot /T9 *"•->>^^^^iii'i^^^^iii^^ Kamaiiiiiiiiiiiii I First Crop ^ Setood & Intcrploo ttd Oops Fig. 5. — Acres of crops per farm. the real estate value consists of land ($4,970). The average dwelling is worth $1,154, and the average values per farm of the tenants' houses and other buildings equal $300 and $364, respectively. Nearly half of the remaining investment consists of live stock, and more than 60 per cent of this is work stock. For every aere of land in crops, these farms had $7.34 invested in live stock, $4.66 in feeds and supplies, and $2.28 in implements and machinery. The average market price of the land of these farms was found to be $20.50 per acre, while the crop land alone was valued at $30.30 per acre and would rent for $3.09. Thus the renting value amounts to approximately 10 per cent of the market value of the crop land. But it should be borne in mind that this rent is based on the land in its present state of fertility, which has been built up by the extensive growing and pasturing off of such crops as peanuts. If cropped for several successive seasons with cotton, this light, sandy soil would then rent for much less. A large part of the woodland other than waste is valued at but little less than the crop land, since it carries A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 9 merchantable timber that would pay for bringing the land into cultivation. Its value is included in the investment of the farm. While most of it gives but little or no direct return, and since it represents so large a proportion of the area, the inclusion of its value in the capital gives the farm a lower per cent return on the investment and a lower labor income than it otherwise Would show. CROPS. The relative acreages of the principal crops grown on these farms are shown in figure 5. Corn represents the largest acreage, occupying 37.9 per cent of the whole crop area, while peanuts follow, with 31.2 Fig. 0. — Corn and peanuts arc commonly planted in alternate rows. This is a sound practice (see page 54 1. per cent : cotton comes third with 26.3 per cent ; and oats fourth with 18.3 per cent. However, more than four-fifths of the acreage planted in peanuts consists of peanuts planted in corn, and hence is to that extent a duplication of the area reported in corn. Throughout this bulletin peanuts planted in corn are thus treated as a second crop. (See fig. 6.) That cotton occupies a more important place on these farms than its relative acreage would indicate will be shown by a later table. Cowpeas for hay occupy fifth place in point of acreage, though this is nearly all a second crop, being planted after oats, rye, or water- melons. Watermelons come next with 5.3 per cent of tlie crop area, followed in importance by rye with 4.1 per cent. More than one- third of the rye acreage is grown wholly for grazing and as a winter cover crop, while other rye and much of the oats also furnish spring and winter pasture in addition to the grain han^ested. The miscel- laneous crops include sweet potatoes, sugar cane for sirup, sorghum, velvet beans, Irish potatoes, cucumbers, chufas, millet, and a few others. These miscellaneous crops occupy relatively unimportant 10 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. acreages. However, they have an important phxce in the economy of the farm. LIVE STOCK. Brooks County has long been known for its live stock, particularly swine. The relative numbers of animal units ^ of the different classes of live stock found are shown in figure 7. Cattle constitute slightly more than half of the animal units, excluding work stock, while hogs make up more than nine-tenths of the remainder. Most of the farms keep a sufficient number of milk cows and poultry to supply the family needs, and in many cases a small surplus for sale on the local market ; but on none of the farms is dairying or poultry raising otherwise important, owing to the limited local market for such products. A number of farms in the county make a practice of feeding cattle, securing, some of the feeders from the other farms in this and in adjoining counties, and shipping others in from Florida. Three such farms are included in this survey. ANIMAL ITEMS UNITS PER FARM ANIMAL UMITS PER FARM 5 10 15 20 ALL LIVE STOCK CATT LE 2 8.6 1 2.2 1 ^^ H SWINE 1 1. 1 ^^am ■1 WORK STOCK 4.4- ^m poultry' .7 1 OTHERS .2 Pig. 7. — Number of animal units per farm of different classes of live stock. On a very few farms colts are grown, but nearly all the work stock is shipped in from other States. Bees are kept on a number of farms, but on only 4 farms studied were they an important source of income. One farm kept sheep and several supported a few goats. The number of animal units of cattle carried slightly exceeds those of hogs, but the latter in reality occupy much the more im- portant place in the business of these farms, as is brought out in Table III. Table III. — Average value per animal unit of receipts from cattle, hogs, and poultrii {106 farms. Brooks County, Ga.). Receipts include sales, increased inventories, and products consumed in the farm home. Item. Cattle. Hogs. Poultry. $9.68 9.73 $37.60 11. £0 842.25 65.35 19.41 49.40 9.88 107. 60 oThe equivalent of a 200-poun(l hog. It will be seen that hogs gave returns amounting to two and a half times as much per animal unit as did the cattle, or $49.40 as com- 1 An animal unit is a mature cow or horse, or as many other animals as consume an equivalent amount of feed. Two colts or young stock, 5 hogs, 10 pigs, 7 sheep, or 100 poultry constitute this unit. A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. H pared with $19.41. Nearly half of the receipts from cattle consisted of dairy products sold and consumed in the lumie, the balance being mostly cattle sold on the hoof. The low receipts per animal unit from cattle are due to the low grade of most of the native stock kept, and to the presence of the cattle tick in the county when these records were taken. A strong effort is being made to eradicate the tick and to improve the breed of cattle kept. The hogs grown are mostly grade stock of fair to good quality. SOURCES OF INCOME. One means of measuring the importance of the different farm enterprises is by the receipts from each in the form of sales and in- creases in inventories. Figure 8 shows graphically the sources of farm receipts and the relative importance of each, measured by this standard. It is seen that cotton is by far the most important single source of income, furnishing half of all the farm receipts,^ that term ^ Definitions. — The terms defined below will be used frequently throughout this bulletin. Farm receipts include all sales from the farm and increase of inventories of live stock, feeds, supplies. Farm expenses include all current cash expenditures, the value of farm labor per- formed by the family (except the operator), depreciation on buildings and equipment, and decreases in inventories of live stock and feed and supplies. Gross farm income is tlie sum of all farm sales, plus any increases in inventories. The net farm income is the difference between this sum and the sum of all farm expenses. For convenience, the term farm income is used to designate the net farm income. Labor income is the sum that the operator has left for his own labor and management after deducting from the farm income the interest on his investment figured at the current rate on well-secured farm loans. In this study 8 per cent interest is the rat<> used. Frequently prices of land are infiuenced by factore other than the present earning power for farming purposes. In such cases it is bettor, when calculating labor Income, to use the interest on the working capital plus the net rent from the real estate instead of the interest on the investment. In this study these two methods of calculation gave essentially the same result, hence the simpler one was used. Farmer's rarniiifjs represent the sum of the labor income plus what the farm furnishes toward the living of the operator and all others living or boarding in the farm home. Farm-management surveys have shown that the farm returns are largely dependent upon size of the business. For many purposes it is desirable that the factor of size be eliminated in order that farms of different sizes may be grouped together and compared. For this purpose the index of earnings is used herein. This factor is determined as follows : All farms of similar size 'are grouped together and the average farmer's earnings for each group is computed. The farmer's earnings of each farm in a given group is then compared with the average for that group, the group average being expressed as 100. Therefore, the index of earnings is the farmer's earnings expressed as a percentage of the farmer's earnings for all farms of a similar size. For example, if a farm shows an index of earnings of 110, it means that the farm in question returned farmer's earnings 10 per cent larger than did the average farm of a similar size. The per cent return on investment is computed by deducting the value of the farmer's labor from the net farm income and dividing the remainder by the total capital invested. This figure expresses the profits of the business as that term is ordinarily used in the business world, and is nearly independent of the size of the farm. Obviously, this factor would have little value in comparing tenants with owner farms, but in this stiidy all farms have been reduced to the same tenure, namely, that of owners who operate their own farms. The per cent return on investment eliminates the factor of size even more completely than does the index of earnings. These two terms express the profits of the business from different points of view, one ascribing the prifits to capital and the other to the operator's labor and management. Both having been found very useful in this study, and are the ones used throughout as the principal measures of farm efficiency. 12 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. as here used not including products consumed on the farm. Hogs furnish the next largest returns, with 15,7 per cent of the total receipts, followed by oats and rye taken together, watermelons, corn, and cattle, these ranging in order from 6.1 per cent to 4.4 per cent of all receipts. But when the value of the products consumed in the farm home is added to the sales, the order is changed, hogs taking second place- followed by cattle, corn, miscellaneous crops, oats and rye, and watermelons. The miscellaneous crops include in order of importance sweet potatoes, peanuts, Irish potatoes, cabbage, etc. Other and less important sources of receipts or increases of inven- tories of feed and supplies are poultry and eggs, sugar-cane sirup (see fig. 9), cowpea hay, receipts from miscellaneous sources, and live stock other than cattle, hogs, and poultry. The last named con- ITEIMS 5 200 RECCIPTS PER FARM 400 600 800 1000 *I200 COT TON SWINE (.ig »_ 131 50.2 IS 1 ■■K^sVMJ CfrTTUE AND PRODUCTS 116 119 44 ■K^^^ii^ CORN l«8 n 56 ■■i^ MisCtH.«NEOUS CROPS €9 96 2 6 ^^"^^ OATS AND R'E 163 - 6 1 ^■B WATERMELONS 155 6 58 ■1^ FEEDAND SUPPLIES 81 - 30 ■■ POULTRY AND EGGS 30 46 II ^ SUGAR CANE AND SYRUP AO Z4 15 iO COWPEA HAY *b - n ■ MISCELLANEOUS RtCPTS 46 - 11 ■ OTHER LIVE STOCK 16 ^ 1 B TAHn RtCtlPT&O COMSuMtD IM THt rA,NR MOnC, Fig. 8. — Sources of farm receipts iind products consumed in the liome. sists of sales of honey and a very few colts, sheep, and goats. The miscellaneous receipts come from labor performed off of the farai, sales of wood, lumber and turpentine rights, tolls from gristmills, and rents from farm buildings, balers, and thrashing machines. The value of swine products consumed in the farm home was found to equal nearly one-third as much as receipts from sales of such products. In the case of cattle, these two items were of almost identical value (see Table III), while the value of poultry products and of miscellaneous crops used on the farm greatly exceed the sales therefrom. The inethod of measuring the size of any enterprise by direct re- ceipts therefrom does not give the proper weight to the feed and pas- ture crops, the major part of which are consumed by the live stock on the farm. The total value of the crops grown is, for many pur- poses, a better measure, and when this measure is used the corn crop A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 13 ranks next to cotton, equaling half the value of that crop. The pea- nut crop then ranks fourth, and the oats, rye, hay, and sweet potato orops assume more importance than the receipts would indicate. A considerable part of the last-named crop is grown for hog j^asture. Fig. 9. — Grinding sugar cane and evainiraunj; the sirup. Nearly every farm in ihis sec- tion grows a patch of sugar cane, and on many of the farms the sirup is a source of cash receipts. CURRENT EXPENSES. •The current expenses include 82 per cent of the total farm expenses for the year if w^e do not consider the value of the operator's own service ($405) as a farm expense. The remaining 18 per cent con- sists of depreciation of buildings, machinery, and work stock, and de- creases in the inventories of live stock and feeds and supplies. The amounts and the relative importance of the principal items of current expenses are shown in figure 10. Labor constitutes more than half of these expenses, and half of this labor expense consists of cropper labor ($400). The latter represents the difference between the value of the cropper's share of the crops he produces and his ex- pense for seed, fertilizer, and ginning, bagging, and ties. Wage labor equals 38 per cent of the labor expense, and the unpaid family labor makes up the remaining 12.5 per cent. Commercial fertilizers constitute slightly less than one-fifth of the current expenses, and feeds purchased less than one-twentieth. The three remaining im- portant items of expense are, in order, repairs to buildings, fences, iind machinery; ginning, bagging and ties; and taxes. TENURE AND LANDLORD'S PROFITS. Of the 100 farms included in this study, only 7 were operated by tenants. Of these^ 5 paid a cash rent and 2 gave a stated amount of 14 BULLETTlsr 648, U. s. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICtTLTUEE. lint cotton. However, 13 of the farm owners rented land in addition to the land owned, and 19 rented out parts of their farms, leaving 67 straight owner-operators. For these areas rented out a stated cotton rent or " standing " rent was the usual form of payment. No in- stances were found of entire farms rented for a share of the crop, though it is a common practice for single fields to be rented for a share of the crop grown, that crop usually being watermelons. On 33 farms that were rented in whole or in part, and for which the rent paid was cash or" standing "rent, it was possible to calculate ITEMS ZW C UJ 2 < ir iij li- o: 0- E D X UJ O IJ 0- Ljii. py a. o oj CURRENT EXPENSES PER FARM *3 00 6 00 9 00 *I2 00 TOTAL CURRENT EXPE.NSE5 tl4l6 607 264 1 00. o 57.0 1 6.6 LABOR (EXCEPT OPERATOR) COMMERICAL FERTILIZER «400 tjot »lO[ Mi5^5^^g^^S5^=?fe^i5^^:4ii=i?i^sv«:d FEED PURCHASED 69 4.9 ■ REPAIRS 60 4.2 ■ GINNING, BAOeiNG CtTIES 54- 3.8 ■ TAXE.S . 48 3.4 ■ MISCELLANEOUS 1 14- 8.1 ■ I CROPPER LABOR Fig. 10.- ^ WAGE LABOR (i^ FAMILY LABOR -Items of current expenses. the landlord's net return. After deducting taxes, depreciation on buildings and all other expenses, the landlord's net profit was found to be 8.25 per cent of the market price of the land. Since so few tenant farms were found and it was desired to have all the farms on a common basis for comparison, all the farms rented in whole or in part were reduced to an owner-operator basis. This was done by adding the landlord's investment, receipts, and expenses to those of the operator, thus treating the operator as an owner. The parts of the farms that were rented out were eliminated from the farm business by deducting the investment, receipts, and expenses involved. LABOR SYSTEMS. WAGE SYSTEM. Two distinct systems of hiring labor are found here, as through- out the cotton belt. One is the wage system and the other is the share cropper, or cropper, system. Usually the laborers hired by the month are contracted for in January for a period extending to the beginning of cotton picking. The usual monthly wage varies from $10 to $15 per month, with or without rations; besides which A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 15 usually a house and often a garden plot are furnished. Much labor is also hired by the day during certain seasons, and it is very com- mon to hire by the "piece," the units being 100 pounds of cotton picked, an acre of crop "chopped" or hoed, a bushel of peanuts harvested or shelled, etc. Much of the day and "piece" work is done by women and children. CROPPER SYSTEM. Under the cropper sj^^stem the laborer usually receives, in lieu of a cash wage, one-half share of crops he grows, and he is charged with half the cost of the fertilizer, ginning, bagging and ties, and sometimes half of the cost of seed used. The operator furnishes everything else, including work stock and all tools and equipment. In some cases the operator keeps all the cotton seed and in return does not charge the cropper for any of the fertilizer. Several other minor variations in the contract occur. In Brooks County the crop- per is usually required to plant peanuts between the rows of the greater part of his corn. The peanut crop is almost always pas- tured off by hogs, only sufficient seed being gathered to replace that used for planting. In some instances the operator buys the cropper's share of the peanut pasture, but more commonly the cropper must have his own hogs to gather his crop if he is to profit by it. By many persons the cropper is mistaken for a share tenant. But in this section, at leasts he is regarded as a wage hand who re- ceives his wages in the form of a share of the crop. He furnishes nothing but labor and is under practically as close supervision in the management of his crop as is the laborer employed for a fixed wage. Most of the hired labor on these farms, both wage hands and croppers, are colored. Both labor systems are found on exactly half of the farms, including practically all the larger ones. The operator usually prefers the wage system and the laborer the crop- per system. The reasons for these preferences will appear later in this discussion. The cropper is ordinarily considered to be a somewhat higher grade of laborer than is the wage hand. Table IV shows the average cropper's receipts, expenses, and net income per cropper, cotton being figured at the average 5-year price, as it is throughout this publication. 27202°— 18— Bull. 648 ^3 16 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Table IV. — Cropper's receipts, e.rpenses, and net income, per cropper on 53 farms (124 croppers, Brooks County, Ga.). Cropper's receipts : Cotton $297.29 Corn and fodder 68.74 Peanuts 19.77 Other 2.90 Total $388.70 Cropper's expenses : Hired labor 13.56 Family labor 60.10 Interest on cash 7.20 Fertilizer : 36.90 Ginning, bagging, and ties 11.64 Seed, etc 1 .86 Total - 130.26 Cropper's net income^ 258.44 Estimated value of cropper's labor 138. 60 The average cropper's receipts amounted to $388.70, and the av- erage expenses to $130.26, leaving a net income to the cropper for his labor upon his crops of $258.44, which compares with $138.60 as the amount that he would have received for the same labor had he been working for wages. In addition to this the cropper worked an aA'erage of 13.3 days for wages, most of it for the operator. Included in the list of expenses is an item of $60.10, the estimated value of the labor of the cropper's family. This item added to the cropper's net income gives $318.54 as the amount that the cropper and his family would have received for their year's Avork on their crops had cotton sold for a normal price. The difference between $258.44 and $138.60 represents the cropper's recompense for assuming a share of the risk of crop failure and a low market. All of the estimates upon which these calculations are based were secured from the operator and not from the cropper. COMPARATIVE YIELDS AND COSTS BY WAGE AND BY CROPPER SYSTEM. Table V shows the comparative yields and unit costs of crops grown by the systems just described. It will be seen that for each crop the average yields secured by the wage system are appreciably higher than those by the cropper system, the difference amounting to 16 per cent for cotton and solid corn and 8 per cent for corn planted with peanuts. These higher yields were undoubtedly due to heavier applications of fertilizer, closer supervision by the op- erator, and some differences in soil, since the best fields are often re- served for the wage crops. 1 Does not include returns from labor other than on his own crop. A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 17 Table V. — Comparative yichls aud unit cost of crops by wage and cropper *•//*- tcDts {Brooks County, (Ja.). ' Cotton. Com (solid). Com (with peanuts). Peanuts Peanuts (with (solid). 1 com). Item. Wage sys- tem. Crop- per sys- tem. Wage sys- tem. Crop- per sys- tem. Wage sys- tem. Crop- per sys- tem. Wage sys- tem. Crop- per sys- tem. Wage sys- tem. Crop- per sys- tem. 93 53 47 14 77 43 49 4 76 42 Average yield of principal products o316 o272 6 15 6 13 6 13 6 12 Pastured. Pastured. 1 1 1 . Cost per unit of principal products: To cropper $0 093 $0.0'-0 .097 "$6."83" 80.48 1.20 "$6."67' $0..38 .93 $2.56 7.53 81.74 .366 Average or total for sys- .093 .089 .83 .84 .67 .66 11.09 10.09 5.70 5.40 a Pounds of lint. b Bushels. Under the wage system the average cost per pound of lint cotton is 9.3 cents, while under the cropper system the average cost to all parties concerned is 8.9 cents. But the share of the crop that goes to the operator costs the latter 9.7 cents a pound. From the stand- point of the laborer, the cropper system gives better financial re- sults. This is as it should be, for the cropper assumes a part of the risk incident to production, which the wage hand does not. In case of partial or total crop failure the cropper loses the use of all or part of his time, while the wage hand receives the same, or nearly the same, income as in normal years. In the case of corn, the total average cost is approximately the same by both systems, being 83 to 84 cents a bushel. But under the cropper system there is a wide divergence between the cost to cropper ancl operator of the share of the crop each receives. The cropper's share of the corn costs him only 48 cents a bushel (38 cents when interplanted with peanuts), while the operator's share of cropper corn costs the operator $1.20 (93 cents wnth peanuts in the corn). This divergence is so great that it is not surprising that many oper- ators who willingly accept share rent from croppers for cotton insist on cash rent for land devoted to corn, with the result that on cotton plantations generally a much larger proportion of corn than of cotton is grown under the wage system. The major part of the operator's share of the cost of the cropper's crops consists of w^ork stock, labor, and the use of the land. The details of these oats are shown in Table XX (see p. 52).. It should be borne in mind throughout this publication that the term " costs " covers every charge, including cost of supervision and wages for the farmer, the cropper, and their families. 18 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SIZE OF BUSINESS. Farm-management surveys, this one. included, have uniformly shown that the size of the farm business is probably the most impor- tant factor in determining the returns the farmer secures for his j^ear's work. It is obviously impossible to secure a large return from a business of small volume, even if the margin of profit be a wide one. On the other hand, the larger the business the greater the possibility of both profits and losses. The influence of the size of the farm business on the returns is shown in Table VI. The sources and amounts of the farm receipts and expenses, and the net returns, presented from several different points of view, are shown for the groups of farms of different sizes and for the white and colored farmers separately. Table VI. — Relation of size of farm and race of operator to farm receipts, expenses, and net income {Brooks County, Ga.). Farms with total crop area of— All farms. All wlute opera- tors. All col- ored opera- tors. Item. Less than 50 acres. 50 to 74 acres. 75 to 149 acres. 150 to 249 acres. 250 acres and over. 18 24 27 21 16 106 86 20 33 63 111 192 389 145 166 54 $2, 091 $4,049 $7, 180 $11,110 $24, 500 $8,992 $13,329 ■ $3,275 Receipts: $413 101 35 11 $R45 185 39 23 $1, 420 460 92 70 $2, 560 931 99 14 $5, 527 1,482 1.55 118 $1,964 584 81 46 $2,213 702 87 49 $896 Live stock (exclusive of work stock)... 80 53 31 Total receipts 5f.O 1,092 2,0!2 3,604 7,282 2,675 3,051 1,060 Expenses: $232 44 21 37 8541 88 40 63 $996 124 83 71 $1,846 172 138 114 $4, 195 325 92 198 $1,416 142 75 90 $1, 639 158 84 101 $453 73 36 Decrease live stock (including work 42 334 732 1,274 2,270 4,810 1,723 1,982 604 $226 167 $360 324 $768 575 $1,334 888 $2,471 1,959 $952 720 $1,069 826 $456 262 59 267 12 33 39 377 14 53 193 479 14 98 446 544 16 133 512 612 18 306 232 453 15 116 2)3 507 15 132 194 228 14 <0 371 $61 480 $118 784 $98 1,139 $119 1,448 $102 816 $101 897 $88 476 $159 Familv earnings 432 598 882 1,258 1.550 917 985 635 Estimated value of operator's labor $153 $270 $372 $442 $900 $405 $446 $231 4.4 4.6 6.4 8.9 6.7 6.2 6.2 6.2 a Unweighted averages. A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 19 It is seen that the average receipts, expenses, and net farm income (or farm income)^ for the different groups vary in almost direct pro- portion to the size of the farm. The same is true of both the hibor income and the farmer's earnings. Thus the fann income varies f i-om $226 for the smallest-farm size group to $2,471 for the largest-farm group, giAang an average of $1,069 for all of the white farmers, $456 for the colored, and $952 for all the farms taken together. This figure represents the fund available for the living of the farmer and his family, provided he owns his farm unmortgaged, in addition to the unpaid family labor and the products furnished directly by the farm. This is of special interest to the unmortgaged farm owner. When the earnings of the farm capital, or interest upon the value of the farm tind equipment, is subtracted from the farm income, the difference is called labor income. This item varies among the differ- ent groups of farms from $58 for the smallest farm to $512 for the largest one, with an average of $232 for all farms. The labor income is the measure of farm efficiency used in most farm-management sur- veys. It is of special concern to the tenant and the farmer who car- ries a mortgage. It must be remembered, however, that it does not take into account the living that the farmer and his family get di- rectly from the farm. When the items last named, consisting of food, fuel,- and house rent,^ are added to the labor income, the sum is what in this publica- tion is called the farmer's earnings. This sum varies on these groups of farms from $370 for the smallest farm size group to $1,448 for the largest farm group, with averages of $897, $476, and $816 for the white, colored, and all farms, respectively. The farmer's earnings are the measure of farm returns that has been used more than any other throughout this study. The farmer's earnings do not include the value of the unpaid family labor. The latter averaged $101, and when added to the former equals what is shown in the table as family earnings. This figure represents the value of all that the farmer and his family secure from the farm in addition to the interest on the farm investment. It is the amount that the tenant would have for a living for himself and family. The sum of this figure and the interest on the investment represents the total net returns that the unmortgaged farm owner and his family secure from his farm, the average amount of which varies from $599 on the smallest farm group to $3,509 on the largest farm group, and $1,811, $897, and $1,637 for all white, all colored, and all farms, respectively. 1 Soe definition in footnotp, p. 13. 2 Farm value of wood (uncut) used in tlie farm liome. This does not include wood used by croppers and wa;j;e liands. However, tlie latter is included in labor costs in calculating costs of production. ^ Ten per cent of the present value of the dwellinR (not the cost when new) is taken to cover the interest, taxes, and Insurance. 20 BtJLLETIISr 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. A further study of Table VI shows that on the hirger farms the op- erators live in much better houses and secure much greater values of food products from the farm than do those on the smaller farms. Between the extreme size groups the values of family food furnished by the farm varies from $267 to $612, and the average rental value of the houses from $33 to $306. On the farms of the smallest farm group the value of family living obtained from the farm actually exceeded the net income from all other sources by 39 per cent, but on those of the largest farm group the family living furnished equaled only 38 per cent of all of the other net receipts. In other words, on the small farms the family living obtained is an all-important factor, while on the larger farms it is relatively a secondar}^ consideration. Another method of measuring the profits of the farm is to sub- tract the value of the farmer's labor from the farm income and call the remainder returns on the capital. Figured in this way, and not considering the item of family living obtained, these farms returned an average of 6.2 per cent on the investment. On the two groups of smaller farms the per cent returns were lowest, while on the fourth group, or good-sized family farms, they were highest. QUALITY OF FARM BUSINESS. CROP YIELDS. On farms of a given size the yields secured constitute perhaps the most important factor in determining the farm profits. In Table VII the farms are grouped according to the average yield of crops. The group of farms that have the lowest yields have an average crop index ^ of 69, which means that the crop yields equaled but 69 per cent of the average yields secured by all of the farms. This group of farms returned average farmer's earnings ^ of $586, while for the other groups the crop indexes were 92, 104, and 126, and the farmer's earnings $708, $840, and $1,061, respectively. But the farmer's earnings are largely determined by the size of the farm. To eliminate the element of size and see the effect of crop yields independently, the index of earnings ^ and the per cent return on investment are shown. The group of farms with the lowest yields gave an index of earnings of 80, or in other words, farmer's earnings 1 The crop index represents the relative yields of all crops on any farm or group of farms as compared with the average yield of all crops on all the farms in the survey, the latter being expressed as 100. For method of calculating, see Department of Agri- culture Bulletin 341, p. 75. The index here used is weighted, the acreage of each crop being weighted in proportion to tlie average amount of man labor expended on an acre of that crop. This weighting is necessary because of the wide difference in the relative intensity of the crops grown and of the different proportions in which these crops are combined on the different farms. - See definitions in footnote, p. 13. A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 21 which equal but 80 per cent of the average farmer's earnings secured froin farms of similar size. On the other groups of farms with in- creasing average crop yields, the index of earnings increased regu- larly to 116, while the corresponding returns on investment increased similarly from 2.9 per cent to 8.2 per cent. Table VII. — Relation of crop index to farm returns {Brooks County, Ga.). Crop index.a Number of farms. Average crop index. Farmer's earnings. Index of earnings. Per cent retmn on invest- ment. 13 43 21 29 69 . 92 104 126 8586 708 840 1,061 80 87 108 116 2.9 O.SO to O.'Jft : 5.6 1.00 to 1.0'J 6.7 8.2 106 100 816 100 6.2 a See definition of crop index on p. 22. The close dependence of profits upon crop yields can be shown more concretely by considering for each crop separately the relation between costs and yields. This relation is shown by Table VIII.^ In the case of every crop, as the yields increased the cost per unit of crop decreased regularly, while the profits per acre correspondingly increased. Thus, the cotton yields of less than 200 pounds per acre of net lint cost 11. G cents per pound to produce, but this cost de- creased to 7.5 cents per pound when the yields exceeded 400 pounds per acre. The low yields mentioned show a loss of $1.G3 per acre, while the high yields returned an acre profit of $18.19. The farms that secured the higher yields of cotton were the ones which also returned the largest net profits for the y a cost per unit higher than the returns. On some individual farms in Brooks County this point of " diminishing returns " has no doubt been reached or exceeded ; but these tabulations show that in no case have any of the groups of farms studied brought the crop yields to that point. Evidently one of the surest means of increasing the profitableness of these farms is the increasing of the crop yields. i - UTILIZATION OF WORK-STOCK LABOR. The largest item of cost, next to that of man labor, is the cost of work stock. In this study it was found to amount to $509 per farm, which is approximately equal to half of the cost of all man labor, or 19.2 per cent of the cost of producing all farm crops. Figured on the basis of the cost per day of productive labor, the work stock cost $1.07, as compared with $1.20 for man labor. Manifestly, the utilization of work stock so as to keep down this large element of cost is one of the chief factors in determining profits on these farms. Table IX. — Relation of number of produetive days mule labor per mule to farm, returns, acres per m/tde, a/tid cost of mule labor per day (Brooks County, Ga.). Productive days mule labor per mule. Number of farms. Average number of mule days per mule. Cost of mule labor per day. 12 20 33 21 U G2 .88 112 137 172 $1.70 76 to 100 1.23 101 to 125 1.00 126 to 150 .84 .72 106 1 113 1.07 A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 25 Increasing the amount of productive labor per mule reduces the cost per day of such labor, resulting in a lower cost of production and larger farm profits. This is shown by Table IX, in which the farms are grouped on the basis of the number of days of labor per mule. On the group of farms reporting the least productice labor per mule, or an average of 62 days per year, the cost per day of mule labor amounted to $1.70, which daily cost decreased regu- larly to 72 cents on the group reporting the most labor, or 172 days per mule. The striking relation be- tween increasing days' work per mule and decreasing cost per day of mule labor is shown by the curve in figure 12. It may well be asked by what means some of the farms provided so much more employment for the work stock than did others. The data in Table X indicate that the area culti- vated per mule is the most important factor. Takle X. — delation of number of acres of crop land per mule to utilization of mule labor and to farm returns (Brooks County, Qa.). Fig. 12.- -Relation of days of productive labor per mule to the cost per day. Number of acres crop land per mule. Number of farms. Average acres crop land per mule. Acres of crop land per farm. Acres of cotton per mule. Days mule, labor per mule. Cost of cotton per pound. Index cf earnings. Loss than 20 11 IS 21 24 32 16 22 27 32 42 48 SI 113 144 233 0.1 7.8 7.9 9.0 9.4 67 89 108 121 139 80.095 .092 .092 .083 .OGO 80 2Jlo21.9 71 23 to 29.9 30 to 31 9... 103 123 35 and over 101 All farms 106 31 145 8.6 113 .030 100 26 BULLETIN 648^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Acres of crop land per mule. — In Table X the farms are grouped according to the amount of crop land worked per mule. The farms that have the fewest acres per mule, or an average of 16, secured only 67 days productive work from each animal, but as the number of acres increased, the number of days per mule increased regularly to an average of 139 on the group that operated the largest area per animal. This increased employment of the work stock resulted in a corresponding decrease in the cost per day of productive labor from $1.50 to $0.90. Such an economy in so important an item of cost must necessarily result in lower costs of production and greater profits. The cost of producing cotton decreased from 9^ cents per pound on the first-mentioned group of farms fo 8.3 cents on the farms that operated 30 or 35 acres per mule, but it increased to 9 cents on the fanns that had more than 35 acres per animal. This result was corroborated by the index of earnings, which increases markedly up to the point of 30 to 35 acres per mule. Beyond this the profits are less. An apparent irregularity appears in that the index earnings were greater for the first than for the second group of farms shown in Table X. The explanation is that two or three farms with good crop yields and a low investment secured a high percentage of re- turns in spite of inadequate utilization of work stock. The nmnber of farms in the group was insufficient fully to neutralize the influence of these few abnormal farms. It will be noted that the farms which cultivated the fewest acres per mule average smaller in size than those which operated a larger area per animal. Undoubtedly the larger farms possess advantages which facilitate their organization upon a basis providing for tho more efficient employment of work stock labor. It may further be stated that the cultivation of an increased number of acres per work animal was not at the expense of crop yields. In fact, the lowest yields were found in the group that worked the smallest area per animal. It is not probable that all the differences in costs and profits shown can be attributed to the differences in relative employment of work stock, for the men who keep their work stock efficiently employed are likely to be also more efficient in other respects. But the method of gi'ouping used eliminates the effect of other factors as far as pos- sible, and it is believed that the influence of area per mule has not been greatly overemphasized. Farmers are often advised to reduce the number of acres per mule in order to cultivate the remaining acres more intensively, but the preceding table would seem to show that it is much more important to cultivate a sufficient number of acres per work animal to keep that A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 27 labor efficiently employed. From 30 to 35 acres per mule would seem to be the proper acreage under the conditions here found. The soil on these fanns is a light sand and is easily cultivated. On a heavier type of soil, no doubt, fewer acres per mule would be found to be more desirable. RELATION OF AMOUNT OF TILLAGE TO COSTS AND PROFITS. Much has been said regarding the benefits arising from deep plow- ing, " thorough and frequent preparation of the seedbed, and fre- quency of cultivation, much of the advice on these points making little or no distinction between types of soil. In gathering data for the purpose of calculating costs of production in this study, the amount of man and mule labor involved in each operation of each crop was ascertained for each farm. It is thus possible to study the profitableness of different amounts of tillage. Using the amount of mule labor expended per acre as probably the best available measure of the degree of tillage, the effect of that factor upon the profit's and costs of cotton have been tabulated and the results shown in Table XI. The cotton crop was used because it was the most important crop grown here and because for it the largest number of records are available. The figures upon which this table is based include all of the mule labor spent on the cotton up fo and including the planting of the crop. Table XI. — Relation of amount of niidc labor expended in preparatory tillage of eotton to costs and, profits (Brooks Cmnitij, Ga.). Days mule labor per acre, preparatory tillage. Number of records. Average mule days prepara- tory tillage. Yield of net Hat. Profit per acre. Cost of net lint per pound. Less tlian 1.5 15 44 51 33 l.li 1.77 2.22 2.89 Pounds. 292 293 298 311 $8.47 8.37 6.53 6.22 $0,085 1.5 to 1.9... .087 2.0 to 2.4 .093 2.5 and over .096 AH records, 143 2.12 299 ' 7.04 .091 It will be seen that the increasing amounts of mule labor were ac- companied by slowly increasing yields, but that these yields were not sufficient to offset the increased cost. Thus the cost per pound of net lint cotton increased regularly from 8.5 cents for the group that expended less than 1.5 days of mule labor per acre, to 9.6 cents for those on which more than 2.5 days were expended. These increased costs cut the profits per acre from $8.47 to $6.22. The results shown in this table would indicate that the extra labor cost involved in the deeper and more prolonged preparatory tillage 28 BULLETIN 648, U. S, DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE. of cotton is not profitable on the light, sandy soils of this area. A similar tabulation based on the total amount of mule labor expended on cotton up to the time of harA^esting the crop gave similar results, though slightly less pronounced. The results in this case were less pronounced because there is less difference in the practices of culti- vating the crop after planting than there is up to that time. Similar tabulations based on man labor gave less consistent results, since man labor is not so good a measure of the amount of tillage, owing to the differences in the number of mules used per team. No doubt different results would have been found on a heavier type of soil. RELATION OF AMOUNT OF FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS TO YIELDS. COSTS, AND PROFITS. To calculate the cost of production it was necessary to ascertain the cost per acre of the fertilizers applied to each crop. The data thus gotten permit an interesting study of the relative economy of the application of varying amounts of fertilizers on the principal crops. Using the cost per acre as a measure of the rate of applica- tion, since it is the only common measure for all of the fertilizer materials used, the effects on yields, costs, and profits have been tabulated for the principal crops, as shown in Table XII. The cost covers all classes of fertilizing materials applied, including stable manure, cottonseed meal, and commercial fertilizers, the last named representing the greater part of the costs. On none of the crops tabulated, except sweet potatoes, and possibly watermelons, was stable manure an important source of fertilizers. Approximately half the farms purchased the raw materials and did the mixing at home, while the others used ready-mixed fertilizers. No account has been taken of the residual effects of fertilizers applied to preceding crops, but these are reduced to a minimum in a region with such a light, sandy soil, heavy rainfall, and long growing season ; and in any case they tend to neutralize each other when a group of farms are con- sidered, as has been done in these tabulations. Table XII. — Relation of cost of fertilizer applications to yields, costs, and profits (Brooks County, Ga.). Crop. Cotton. Cost of fertilizers per acre. $2 and less... $no$4 Si to $6 $6 to $8 $S to?10 110 axid over.. Average. Average Number 1 cost of of records, fertilizer j per acre. $1.42 3.00 4.85 6.78 8.76 11.32 4.32 Yield per acre. Povnds. a 263 283 293 314 383 427 ;ropunit. ^'^^^^^ $0. 087 .088 .096 .101 .094 .086 .091 $7. 4.5 8.00 4.83 4.18 9.15 11.00 7.04 a Net lint. A FABM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 29 Tarle Xn. — Relation of cost of fertilizer applications to pichJs, costs, and profits {Brooks Coxinty, (la.) — Continued. Crop. Cost of fertilizers per acre. Number of records. Average cost of fertilizer per acre. Yield per acre. Cost per crop unit. Profit or loss per acre. Corn, solid (81. 50 and less 28 22 11 $0.70 1.S9 4.19 Bushels. 13.4 14.1 16.7 $0.85 .86 1.03 0— $0. 79 |S1. 50 to S2.50 a- 1.02 a— 3.40 61 1.76 14.3 .89 a— 1.31 fO 16 39 46 19 .97 1.91 3.21 11.2 11.5 12.6 15.1 .57 .63 .74 .94 1.72 1 Under $1.50 1.44 Corn, with peanuts |S150to$2.50 .64 [$2.50 and over Average 120 1.56 12.4 .70 .82 fO 55 15 14.9 1.92 19.2 .55 .61 .76 Average 70 .41 1.5.8 .56 .56 fS7 and less 16 15 14 5.86 7.82 9.80 Carload. .48 .50 .52 47.60 50.48 52.50 4.06 Watermelons Sweet potatoes i$7 toS9 2.96 ($9 and over.... 5. SO 45 7.75 .50 52.54 4.23 f$3 and less 7 8 5 6 1.93 3.21 5.12 9.55 Bushels. 85 96 113 148 .28 ..30 .29 .30 26.34 S3 toS4 26.78 k4to.S7 S7 and over. . . 55.83 26 4. 70 lOS .29 33.98 a Loss. It was found that with every crop for which there were a suffi- cient number of records to make* tabulations, increasing amounts of fertilizer resulted in regular and appreciable increases in yields. But with every crop except sweet potatoes the increased yields were obtained at a higher cost per unit of crop, with exceptions to be noted, and at lower profits per acre. Thus the cost of corn varied from 85 cents per bushel, with the least amount of fertilizer, to $1.03, with the largest applications; the corn planted with peanuts cost 57 cents per bushel without fertilizer, w^hich cost increased to 9-1: cents when the most fertilizer was applied. The profits per acre decreased in even greater proportion than the cost per bushel increased. Cottoli to which the value of the fertilizers applied amounted to less than $2 per acre cost 8.7 cents per pound of net lint to produce. But with increasing amounts of fertilizer up to $8 per acre, the cost increased to 10.1 cents per pound. Apparently, increasing the fer- tilizer applications beyond $8 per acre reduced the cost below the high points of the preceding groups. But the small number of records for these highest applications renders the results unreliable for the last two groups. 30 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE. Only 15 out of 70 farmers applied any fertilizer to the oat crop, a fact signifying that a large majority of them had not found it to be a profitable practice to make such applications. The 15 which did use fertilizers, to the extent of $1.92 per acre, increased their yield, but in so doing the cost per bushel was increased from 55 cents to 61 cents, and a small profit per acre was turned into a slight loss. Watermelons are fertilized rather heavily by nearly all growers, about 15 per cent of the value of the applications consisting of stable manure. The heavier applications resulted in somewhat increased yields, but at the expense of higher costs per unit of crop. Thus increasing amounts of fertilizers resulted in increasing the cost per carload from $47.60 to $50.48 and $52.50, respectively. This increas- ing cost per carload resulted in a correspondingly reduced profit per acre in the case of the second group, but the last group offers an apparent exception in that it shows the largest profit in spite of the high cost per carload. The higher prices obtained for the melons receiving the most fertilizer were^ no doubt, due to the resulting better quality of melons and to the fact that they matured earlier and reached a more profitable market than did the melons produced on the other farms. Better salesmanship may possibly have been a factor in securing the high prices. The records for sweet-potato costs are few in number and repre- sent only small-scale production. The fertilizers applied consisted largely of stable manure a-nd cottonseed meal. The results are there- fore not comparable to those obtained from records of other crops. The heavier applications were accompanied by much the higher yields, and the margin of profit was so wide in every case that the higher yields gave much greater profits, though the cost per bushel was nearly the same for all groups. The conclusion to be drawn from this table would seem to-be that on this type of soil, with the type of "farming and the fertilizer practice found on these farms, it does not pay to use the larger amounts of commercial fertilizers on the common field crops. Water- melons may offer a possible exception*, and sweet potatoes are dis- tinctly exceptional. It should be remembered that on these farms the organic matter in the soil is largely maintained by the extensive growing and pasturing off of legumes, particularly peanuts. On a heavier type of soil different results would probably have been found. ORGANIZATION. DIVERSITY. Much has been said and written regarding the advantages of a diversified type of farming. The greater safety from losses due to crop failure or demoralized markets, the better distribution of labor throughout the year, and still other benefits arising from diversifi- A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 31 cation have been repeatedly urged and are familiar to nearly every- one. Especially was the matter of diversity brought to the atten- tion of the farmers of the South by the decline in the price of cotton following the outbreak of the European war. More particularly^ has the recent advent of the boll weevil into the southeastern part of the cotton belt increased the hazard of dependence upon cot- ton and made the matter an urgent one with fanners of that section. It is of peculiar interest, therefore, to study the farms of a locality where a distinctly diversified agriculture, with cotton as the most important source of income, has been practiced for a long term of years. Such an area is found in Brooks County, which has for years been noted for the extent of diversification practiced. This is particularly true of the southern half of the county, which is the area covered by this survey. It has been pointed out that the soil here is a light-gray sand, representative of the Norfolk sandy loam and closely related types of that series. On this light soil a certain degree of diversification, including the growing of legumes, is a necessity if soil fertility is to be maintained at a point where profit- able yields may be secured. Necessity, thus, to a large extent, accounts for the development of the hog industry in this community. Further north in the county the soils become somewhat heavier, grad- ing into the t3^pes represented by the Rustan and Tifton series. These latter are better adapted to cotton than are the lighter soils of the southern part of the county. As a result, cotton is grown there more largely to the exclusion of other crops. To study the effect of different degrees of diversification upon profits, the farms studied have been grouped according to the degree of diversity practiced, the measure used being the diversity index.^ The results are shown in Table XIII. The most highly diversified farms averaged the largest in size. Eliminating the effect of size by the use of the index of earnings, it is seen that the least diversifica- tion returned 15 per cent less than the average for farms of a similar size, while the most diversification returned 16 per cent more than the average. It thus appears that under conditions found on these farms, with market prices normal, greater diversity means greater profits. It should not be overlooked that the least diversified farms are largely cotton farms, which carry the risk of both low yields and low markets, a risk that in 1914 proved all but disastrous to these farmers. 1 On a farm with enterprises all of equal size, the number of enterprises will be the diversity index. For example, a farm with 4 enterprises, all of equal importance, would bave a diversity index of 4. However, it is seldom that any two enterprises are of ex- actly the same size or importance. The method of calculating the diversity index, how- ever, reduces all the enterprises to a comparable basis. For the method of calculating the index see Department of Agriculture Bulletin 341, p. 81. 82 BULLETIX 648, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Table XIII. -Relation of dirersity to cost of tcork-stock labor and to farm irrofits {Brooks County, Ga.). Diversity Index. Number q/ farms. Average diversity index. Acres of crop land per farm. Cost of mule labor per day. Crop index. Index of earnings. 27 54 25 1.5 3.0 4.7 89 147 194 SI. 20 1.04 .98 0.98 1.02 1.00 85 2 to 3 9 100 116 All farms 106 3.0 145 1.07 1.00 106 It is easily possible for diversification to be carried to an un- profitable extreme.^ Beyond a not well-defined limit, further diversification may be at the expense of skill and attention to the details of the major sources of income. But it does not appear that any of these groups of farmers have gone beyond that limit. Prominent among the advantages to be gained from diversification, increased crop yields, resulting from more frequent rotation, and better employment of labor throughout the year, are usually stressed. However, on these farms there appears to be but little relation be- tween diversity and crop yields, the more diversified farms showing only a slightly higher crop index; but the diversified farms do show a distinctly better utilization of the work-stock labor, and it has been shown elsewhere that this factor is an important one. With the increase in diversity, the average number of days of pro- ductive work-stock labor per mule increased from 98 to 115 and 127, with resulting decreasing costs per day from $1.20 to $1.04 and $0.98. It thus appears that the more highly diversified farms have a slight advantage in yields of crops, and a considerable advantage in providing profitable employment for the work stock, and in re- turning larger profits per farm. PRODUCTION OF HOME SUPPLIES. Closely associated with the subject of diversification is the pro- duction on the farm of supplies consumed in the home. For many years the farmers of Brooks County have practiced, and prided themselves upon, the policy of producing at home a large part of the family living. In but few places will a class of farmers be found that produce for home use a larger amount of food products per family or per person than do" the white farmers in this area. 1 Department of Agriculture Bulletin 341, p. 82. A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 33 Table XIV. — licUithm of size of farm and labor of operator to value of food consumed in the home (Brooks Count ij, (la.). Farms with total crop area of— All farms. All white opera- tors. All colored opera- tors. Less than 50 acres. 50 to 74 acres. 75 to 149 acres. 150 to 249 acres. 250 acres and over. 18 24 27 21 16 106 86 20 Number of adults per farm 3.7 5.0 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.3 5.5 5.1 Value of family food: J45. 90 266.90 $69. 60 375. 71 $67. 91 479. 10 $81. 09 543. 60 $104. 25 611. 69 $72. 70 453. 29 $77. 65 506. 59 856. 30 Produced on farm 228. 30 312. 80 445.31 547. 01 624. 69 715. 94 525.99 584. 24 284. 60 84.54 89.06 91.17 107. 70 125. 60 99.25 106. 22 55.80 Per cent of family food contributed 85. 84. 88. 87. 85. 86. 87. 80.' Per cent of food grown on farm con- sisting of— 38.4 7.6 19.3 1.1 31.6 9.1 23.9 .6 29.0 9.9 26.2 .2 26.9 11.8 25.7 .2 24.5 11.0 32.0 .2 29.0 10.2 26.2 .4 27.8 10.7 27.4 ^ .4 39.9 6.2 14.6 Other live-stock products .1 Total live-stock products 66.4 2.9 15.3 15.4 65.2 4.4 18.2 12.2 65.3 5.4 17.0 12.3 64.6 7.8 17.8 9.8 67.7 4.2 18.5 9.6 65.8 5.2 17.6 11.4 66.3 5.5 17.7 10.5 60.8 2.7 Vegetables 16.7 19.8 Per cent food contributed by farm is 72 78 61 48 42 54 57 48 a Com meal and hominy, sirup, sugar cane, peanuts. The total value per farm of that part of the family living fur- nished by the farm and the relation that this factor bears to the farm returns from other sources have been shown for farms of different size in Table VI. Further details of the values ^ of family food, both purchased and grown at home, are given in Table XIV. Approxi- mately 85 per cent of the family food consumed is furnished. by the farm, and this proportion is substantially the same for all sizes of farms, though somewhat lower for the colored farmers. The figures show that there is a close relation between the size of the farm and the amount of food consumed, both per fajnily and per person.^ Thus, the average value of food consumed on the group of farms under 50 acres is $31:2.80 per family, or $84.54 per person, as com- pared with $715.94 and $125.60 on the farms of 250 acres and over. It will be seen further that the food supplied by the larger farms furnishes a more varied and better quality of diet than that on the smaller ones. In other words, the larger farms support a much higher standard of living as well as furnish larger net returns in other forms. ^ The food values given are based upon the averaj^e prices on the farms and in the local markets, and are conseryative. - A person, as the term is used In tliis bulletin, means the equivalent of an adult fed in the farm home throughout the year. The number of adults per farm includes hired help and others boarded in the operator's home. S4 BULLETIN 648, U. &. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTtTEE. Two- thirds of the value of the food grown consists of animal products. On the small farms nearly two-thirds of the animal products come from swine, but as the farms increase in size dairy and poultry products find a more important place. Likewise, vegetables, fruits, and nuts are of more importance on the larger farms. Other products, consisting principally of corn meal and sirup, occupy a relatively more important place in the diet on the smaller farms. By reference to figure 13 it is seen that swine products and dairy products each constitute more than one-fourth of the total value of family food furnished by the farm, while vegetables make up one- sixth of the total, miscellaneous products slightly more than one- tenth, poultry and eggs nearly a like amount, and fruit and nuts one- twentieth. The quantities and the values per farm and per person are shown in detail in Table XV for each item of food, both purchased and fur- nished by the farm. Table XV. — Family food purchased and produced on the farm; amounts and values per- family and per person {106 farms, Brooks County, Ga.). Unit. Per family. Per person." Kinds of food. Quantity. Value. Quantity. Value. Purchased: Flour Pounds do 810 191 $30.34 13.37 7.33 4.37 2.60 14:69 153 36 $5.73 2.52 Coffee, tea, cocoa, chocolate, postum . ..do 1.38 do 55 10 .83 do .49 2.77 72.70 13.72 Pounds do 770 185 471 69 111 145 35 89 13 21 Produced on farm: Pork 108. 40 23.00 118. 50 24.50 21.90 1.56 27.40 15.50 8.02 .86 7.38 26.10 8.86 11.30 6.80 6.32 4.51 4.12 3.83 2.60 1.80 .88 .87 .83 1.02 4.70 3.75 2.73 2.12 1.77 1.33 20.47 Lard 4.34 Gallons Number Dozens 22.36 Poultry 4.62 Eggs 4.13 .29 Bushels Gallons Stalks 27.4 38.6 524 .86 40.9 52.2 8.9 15.2 6.2 7.3 99 .16 7.7 9.85 1.68 2.87 5.17 2.92 1.51 Bushels Pounds Bushels do .16 1.39 4.92 1.67 do 2.13 1.28 Number Bushels Heads Bushels do 128 4.4 83 3.8 2.6 1.6 2.0 .9 .8 24.15 .83 15.67 .72 .49 .30 .38 .17 .15 1.19 Tomatoes .86 .78 .72 Okra .49 do .34 do .17 do .16 Beets do .16 .19 Bushels do 3.9 1.9 2.3 2.1 .74 .36 .43 .40 .89 .71 Figs do .52 do .40 .33 .25 1 453.29 85.52 1 Note. — Values of food produced represent sale values on the farm. o Adult equivalent. 6 Milk, cream, and butter expressed as their equivalents in gallons of whole mOk. c Honey, $1.52; goats and kids, $0.04. i.o.o* ' •«•< •...•> •.„ swtwatswtKwas^stRisasagsai^gsi^swa^ I TOTAL 115.46 100.00 Fig. 16. — Annual cost of work stock per animal. The depreciation on work stock accounted for 13.7 per cent of the annual cost, or 10.6 per cent of the average value per head. This means that the average remaining working life was 9.5 years. With the average work animal on these farms, 31 acres of crop land were cultivated and 113 days of productive labor were per- formed, the latter at a cost of $1.07 ^ per day of such labor. EQUIPMENT COST. The present value of the implements and machinery on these farms amounted to $330 per farm, or $2.28 per acre of crop land. The annual charge against this equipment is the sum of the depreciation, repairs, interest, taxes, and insurance, minus the receipts from imple- ments hired out. This charge, the items of which are shown in figure 17, amounted to $103.47 ^ per farm, or $0.71 per acre of crop land. This sum equals 31.4 per cent of the present value of the equipment and 4 per cent of the total cost of crop production. As explained elsewhere, the equipment charge was distributed among the productive enterprises on the farm in proportion to the amounts of mule labor expended on each. The charge amounted to 21 cents for each day of productive mule labor. ITEMS feP O > J COST OR VALUE PER FARM ♦ 50 too ISO 200 zso 300 PRESENT VALUE OF IMPLEMENTS & MACHINERY $ 33000 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 104.54 31. 7 B^mi ^^^^H ^^H DEPRE.CIATION 55.44 16.9 INTEREST, TAAES, INS. 32,54 9.8 ■■ REPAIRS 16.14 4.6 ■ MACM1NE.RY HIRE.0 1.42 .4 1 Fig. 17. — Present value and annual cost per farm of Implements and machinery. The item of depreciation includes more than half of the annual equipment cost, or 16.9 per cent of the present vahie of the imple- 1 This cost is the average per day per farm, whereas the costs Riven in figure IG are averages per animal. * = The total annual cost, .$104.54, shown in figure 17, represents the gross cost. Sub- tracting the receipts from machinery hired out, $1.07, leaves $103.47 as the net cost per farm. 46 BULLETIN 648, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. ments and machinery. This means that in its present condition the equipment will have an average iife of approximately six years. In- terest, taxes, and insurance amount to about 10 per cent of the value of the equipment, and repairs slightly less than half of that amount.- PRODUCTIVn WORK UNITS.i For the purpose of distributing the labor costs among the different crops and other enterprises by the method here used, it was necessary to ascertain the amount of man and work-stock labor expended on each. This was determined for and applied to each enterprise on each farm separately. The average number of days of productive labor required per acre of each of the principal crops is given in Table XVIII. Since there is a close relation between crop yields and amount of labor required, the average yields are also shown. Table XVIII. — Productive days of man and nmJe labor expended per acre and average yields of the principal crops {Brooks County, Ga.). Crop. Average days pro- ductive labor per Number acre. of records. Man Mule labor. labor. 143 13.91 5.03 6 16.39 5.20 61 3.32 3.12 120 2.50 2.00 15 23.10 2.92 5 19.43 1.10 53 3.33 2.67 118 1.90 1.21 80 1.34 1.88 15 1.50 1.70 12 1.18 1.89 23 .55 1.12 65 1.92 2.05 4 6.72 6.80 46 5.36 5.00 25 10.33 4.99 19 5.82 2.85 4 5.88 3.82 24 26.24 14.40 Average yield per acre. Cotton, Upland a Cotton, Sea Island a Corn (solid) Corn (planted with peanuts) a. Peanuts harvested (solid) Peanuts harvested (in corn) Peanuts "hogged-off " (solid) a ... Peanuts "hogged-ofl" (in corn) « . Oats Oat hay .- Rye Rye or oats, pastured Cowpea hay Sorghum silage Watermelons Sweet potatoes (harvested) Sweet potatoes (hogged-off) Irish potatoes Sugar cane 299 pounds lint. 214 pounds hnt. 14.3 bushels. 71 pounds fodder. 12.4 bushels. 84 pounds fodder. 37 bushels. 29 bushels. (b) 16.2 bushels. 831 pounds. 7.9 bushels. 1,092 pounds. 14 tons. 0.5 carload. 108 bushels. 69 bushels. 307 gallons sirup. a Includes both wage and cropper crops, b o.71 bushel of seed picked, c 0.33 bushel of seed picked. The relationships of the various elements of cost, yields, and other factors to the different phases of farm organization and effi- ciency have already been considered elsewhere. In the following pages, therefore, are presented only details of costs that have not been previously discussed. ^ A work unit is an average day's work, A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN" BROOKS CO., GA. 47 Mo 'N O -f O >— ' CD O CS fCl ^ r-l (^1 ^ t^ kOOlC^OOOi-^Cl'-'-*' CO o -^ c4 ' o t^ o 71^ o:iCsciO'-'L-::t^'^* •-•t^aicooQOcco CS f (N »0 r-H Oi-tr-H-t** cot- O Oi ) CO ■ ■ ,s ^^ ^ t-C O CO t-^ »0 CO CO tM O t- O O CO T l-^ CO CO t— ».0 1-H 3-5 'U *r Q Oi,^ CO i? ^ ^ ^^ S ^ M r^ 02 t^ 02 ft— .9: .g 48 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. O cq O g c3 C^ Tt* « CD O -^ -^ O (N t>- CCKM CO O 00 CD lO lO ^H CO 00 00 030 cso -*o OOOit^ CDiOOOt* CdCOMIMOCOO CD t^ ^ -^ 00 Oi »0 •rt* lO t^ u:: C^ C-l 00 Cq CD 1-H O •-< O cpO ^ -^OOt^OiCDC^-^00 CD CO O ■* CD C>1 00 CO O OC^ Ol Ol ^ CO O IM CO (N CO O *-l *0 CO Oi CO CS OO 3t- C^ "-H OcDC0CDO(M00C^ kOCO-^ i-H OOO C»i C3 ^pS a « d o ■^05 (MCO O CO cS-O O t- C3 CS ^ e: >e s PQooa S e « P. w 0) to P- OT s 2 A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 49 All calculations of cost of crop production have been based upon an acre as the unit. In Table XIX the itemized acre costs, yields, values and profits, and the cost per unit of each product are shown in detail for all the important crops grown by the wage system; and the same data for the crops grown by the cropper system are given in Table XX, the costs to the cropper and to the farm operator being shown here separately. The cropper's share of the costs consists mainly of labor, that of himself and his family, and a small amount hired, followed in order by his share of the costs of fertilizer, gin- cipally as a crop to be " hogged off ". Only sufficient seed was harvested for planting purposes and a few cash sales. Nearly all of this was " picked " by the slow hand method here shown. ning, bagging and ties, interest on cash, and planting seed. The operator's costs Consist principally of mule labor, his own labor of supervision, land rent, and fertilizers, while of lesser and decreasihg importance are the equipment cost, ginning, bagging and ties, seed, and interest on cash. The cost of the operator's supervision amounts to a little less than half as much as that of the manual labor, all of the latter being furnished by the cropper.^ 1 The terms of the cropper's contract, the relative yields and costs to each party, and the relative yields and costs by the two systems are discussed in the first part of this bulletin. 50 BULLETIN 648^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Oco ooor . Ol^ 03CO CO e o CC O— IC^ •CMO ceo CO •-H * tH CO o' CO o ^ to 2 e© "■a 73 C £ U ft 8 o ^1 a ^ f-< ^ -* . ior~(N X -V -r ■o ■ ocoo o cs (N ft ft 2 o ^ ■* e© • w tH O TJ-OM ■t' • CO ■ CO c3 o ■o -H [- Tj< . r- . o .a "5 c-i -HC^ t^" ■' ,,■ ■o m fe «© ^ ^ Tl ft or) g O fe 00 ' Icon '• to '■ o *i^ CO ; • OrH . lO . lO g ^ ft in' •' IN § a Ph o ;h c-iiniriC- J "oo to • o M* C) C/j CO t" coo O O^ t^ 00^ ■■ .rt 00 oj I 00 -H . I- Oi "'TO § C3 lO ■ lO V -H E lO O ft S "^ o-s s« ■3 " IN J3^ is "3 1 o i o CO o ^ M CO I . CO^ to CO 00 •^ to CS 00 is OOO 00 . |OOt- CO CO t- o ^ f- " ,2 -o a ft ri (N ^' IN E lO O ■rs '^ o o ft «© • ©•a «» o " J2 O 2 o o P^ ^ t^ QO as^o-^ocs 05 <35 < 00 TJ-O ^•OO o 03 ^ Oi lO >oO'-t ^ CO 'c^ ■ ■ ■ ' 00 o 00 »0 IN E to ^ ■a .•3" "o a o 1-1 ^ □ •o «^ r) IN ■a a o J " _. oc 5 ^ .-00 ft o> 1^ 00 CO t^ OC o lM02■oo>ocooo^ - lO lO o -^ . CO OS . 00 t^ ft +J CO CO -^ ' ' ' 1-H ira , i^ .g"d ■S^to d ^ 4^ •S ft ^ 9S O: w ^^ % o o O OS 10 Xi £ ^ lO • • ^H lOCOCI 5 CO CO Ol^ coo £ loqr r:! o> • ■CO-HI^CI 5 00 00 Ot. Oi . CO C/ 9& .it30<~ 1 fl' n S" oi • C-j cs ■W -H O COCO d ^ _ »"I3 o ft % • -1 .1-1 o •M 2 ^ «e W s* o o o t-l ^-t • o • ■^ -t^ • C3 tS ■ (H Ut • ft a • o : ^ ■o -a ■ c a a ; -S C3 c3 ; ^ « ' M ft £ ft • -^ ft ft : O) o p , ft o > . & >> >> • h X3 t- X3 ; "S a !< ^ : >> ^ ; ■ : ; '.' 3 > c c i, > ; n a < ftgg^ o o ^n2 if i 1 A FARM MANAGEMENT SUEVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 51 COTTON. Slightly more than half of the cost of producing cotton consists of man labor, followed in order by mule labor, fertilizer, and land rent. The cost of growing cotton was divided between the lint and seed in proportion to the relative values of each. Substituting the aver- age 5-year price of lint for the price received in 1914, for reasons previously explained, the value of the short staple lint was found to be 85 per cent of the total value of the lint and seed taken together. Therefore, 85 per cent of the cost of growing the crop was charged to the lint and 15 per cent to the cotton seed. The average cost of Fig. 19. — Field of Spanish iKnnnts riMily for i in ;i -lii im. T\\'- r.M mt liiuli prices offered for peanuts by the oil iiiills have greatly stimulated the production of that crop for the market. net lint^ grown by the wage system is 9.3 cents per pound, which reduced to gross lint^ equals 8.9 cents per pound. The cropper cotton costs 8.9 cents per pound of net lint to produce, which is equivalent to 8.5 cents per pound of gross lint. Since the cotton yield for the season of 1914 was somewhat higher than normal, these costs may be slightly lower than the average for a series of years. In certain years a considerable acreage of Sea Island cotton is planted in Brooks County, but in 1914 the amount grown was com- paratively unimportant. The number of records obtained are not sufficient to give a reliable average for this class of cotton, but the results are shown in the table for comparative purposes. 1 By gross linf is meant the weiglit in the bale, including bagging and ties. By net lint is meant the gross lint minus the bagging and ties. Except where otherwise stated, the term " lint " is used throughout to denote net lint. The average weight of bales was 510 pounds, of which 23 pounds consisted of bagging and ties. 52 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTTJEE. CORN AND PEANUTS. Since corn and peanuts are commonly grown on the same land, the costs of these two crops will be considered together. Slightly more than two-thirds of the acreage of corn on these farms is planted in alternate rows with peanuts. Corn grown by itself, or ''solid," is planted in rows usually 4.5 feet' apart, but when the two crops are planted together the distance between the roAvs of corn is increased to 6 feet or more. There is some difference of opinion among the growers as to whether this widening of the rows results in the lower- ing of the yield of corn. The tabulated results, however, show that it does lower the yield to the extent of 15 per cent. But growing the Pig. 20. — With the increaspd production of peanuts for the market many power " pickers " have been introduced. The straw is baled and used for feed. two crops together results in distinct economies of labor and use of land, which much more than offsets the somewhat lower corn yield. Com grown alone costs 83 cents per bushel to produce by the wag© system, and 84 cents by the cropper system, whereas corn grown with peanuts cost 67 and 66 cents per bushel, respectively. An acre of peanuts in corn, it was found, costs approximately one-half as much as an acre of peanuts planted alone. These cost's indicate that the local practice of growing the two crops together is an excellent one. The costs of growing the two crops when planted together can not be divided on the basis of the respective values of each, since peanuts are nearly all pastured off, and as pasture they do not have a defi- nitely measurable commercial value. Therefore, all costs that clearly could be charged to either of the crops separately were so entered. But the few mutual costs, such as the breaking of the land, and land A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 53 rent, which could not be directly separated, were divided between the two crops in the proportion of 63 per cent to the corn and 37 per cent to the peanuts. This division is based on the assumption that an acre of the combination crop is equal to 50 per cent of a full acre of peanuts and 85 per cent of an acre of corn. The ratio be- tween these percentages is approximately 37 to 63. It is universally held by farmers in Brooks County that 2 acres of peanuts planted in alternate rows with corn are in every respect' equal to 1 acre planted " solid '' ; and it was found that the corn yield when the two crops are planted together equals 85 per cent of the yield secured from corn planted alone. Peanuts are grown on these farms primarily to furnish pasture for hogs, onl_v sufficient seed being harvested to replace the seed planted and to furnish a small surplus for consumption in the home and for sale. The harvesting is therefore done on a small scale and hence is nearly all hand labor, resulting in a rather high cost of production for the peanuts picked. (See fig. 18.) Had harvesting been done on a scale sufficient to warrant the use of harvesting machiner}^, the cost per bushel would have been considerably lower than shown in tlie tables. When peanuts were gathered from areas used mainly for pasture, the value of the seed saved was deducted from the total cost and the remainder entered against the hogs as a pasture charge. Since this survey was made the increased market price for peanuts has greatly stimulated the production of this crop as a source of cash receipts. (See figs. 19 and 20.) Only a part of the corn fodder produced on these farms is har- A'ested, and that part represents such a small percentage of the value of the whole crop that it is here treated as a by-product, the value of the fodder gathered being deducted from the total cost of growing the crop, and the balance charged to the grain. OATS. Oats are grown on almost every farm as a source of feed for work stock, and on nearly half of them oats served as a source of revenue. r)n many they were grown for a winter cover crop and to furnish winter and spring pasture for hogs and cattle. Much of that fed to work stock is fed in the sheaf. RYE. Rye is grown on a considerable proportion of these farms, but mainly as a cover and pasture crop. On several farms the grain is harvested and sold locally for seed purposes. The yield is low but the price is high, nearly $2 per bushel, resulting in a wide 54 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMEISTT OF AGBICULTTTEE. margin of profit per bushel. As a grain crop, rye is very uncertain on this light, sandy soil, but it fills an important place as a cover and pasture crop. COWPEA HAY. Cowpeas are frequently difficult to cure for hay in this region, owing to rains during the period in which this crop matures. For tliis reason, the crop is not so commonly planted here as it is but a short distance farther north in the State. One-half of the area of oats and rye for grain is followed by a crop of cowpeas. One- third of the farms reported receipts from the sale of cowpea hay. The yield reported was low, averaging a little more than one-half ton to the acre. For purposes of determining costs, the crops baled were kept separated from those unbaled, the respective costs per ton of hay in the barn being $16.72 and $18.58. The difference in cost in favor of the crop bales was undoubtedly due largely to the difference in yields. Higher yields would unquestionably have given correspondingly lower costs per ton. WATERMELONS. Brooks County is in the center of an important area for the pro- duction of watermelons for shipping to northern markets, and on nearly half of the farms studied this crop is an important source of income. The fertilizer charge is the largest single item of cost, closely followed by that for man labor. It is usual for a professional car loader to pack the melons in the cars at a fixed rate per car. This cost is entered as " special carloader," instead of being included under costs of man labor. The material used for bedding the cars is mainly pine needles or oats or rye straw, the local value of which is nominal, and the cost of hauling which is included under the labor charges. The paper, nails, and slats charged are for lining and closing the cars. After the crop is harvested, cattle and hogs are usually allowed to graze off the cull melons and the growth of crab grass. The esti- mated value of such pasturage has been deducted from the gross cost as a pasture credit. Often a crop of cowpea hay follows the melons, in which case the former shares its proportionate part of the land- rent charge. The net cost of this crop amounts to $25.09 per acre, or $50.18 per carload. Nearly all the melons are bought on the loaded car at the shipping point, and the costs shown are figured at that point. The average yield of half a carload per acre was normal, but the market price declined in the middle of the harvesting season to so low a point that a part of the crop was not gathered. The costs given in the table represent crops harvested and do not include the A FAEM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 55 cost of mercliantable melons left in the field. When the cost is com- puted for the entire acreage of melons grown on the 4G farms, the cost per acre amounts to $^2.17, or $58.32 per carload of melons harvested and sold. SUGAR CANE. Sugar cane is grown on every farm to produce sirup for home use, and on two-thirds of the farms it serves as a source of farm sales. The sirup is usually sold in barrels to the local merchants, who ship much of it out of the county. The average price received in the barrel during 1914 was 26 cents per gallon. The costs shown herein represent the cost of the gi-owing of the crop, grinding, evaporating, and putting in barrels on the farm. This crop is a very intensive one, requiring a large amount of labor per acre. Man labor is by far the largest item of cost, followed by mule labor, seed cane, and fertilizer. A considerable part of the latter consists of stable manure. The wood fuel used in evaporating the sirup is cut on the farms, and the labor of cutting and hauling the wood is included in the labor charges. The value of the seed cane saved and the small amount of canes sold or consumed on the farm has been deducted from the total cost, and the balance charged to the sirup, making the average cost 24 cents per gallon. The costs represent small scale production, but the profit per acre is fairly large. This crop can be grown at a comparatively low cost per unit of product, the chief problem being one of marketing the product. SWEET POTATOES. Sweet potatoes are grown in Brooks County only on a small scale, mainly for home consumption and for hog pasture. Nearly half of the cost of growing the crop is chargeable to man labor, the next largest items being mule labor, fertilizer, and land rent. The acre cost of the crop for hog pasture is $19.53 as compared with $29.89 for the crop harvested and put in the "banks," the difference being the cost of gathering. The average yield was 109 bushels and the cost per bushel 24 cents. These costs represent small scale produc- tion and not growing on a commercial basis. The margin of profit is wide and it would seem that the crop offers opportunities for com- mercial production, provided a market can be found for the product. IRISH POTATOES. Only four farms were found growing Irish potatoes primarily for marketing. The ^dold secured was 69 bushels per acre. The costs amounted to $37.37 per acre and 55 cents per bushel in sacks on the farm. At the price received, about $1.19 per bushel, the margin of profit is the widest found of any of the crops grown on these farms. 56 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE. COST OF FEEDING CATTLE. An increasing number of farmers in Brooks Comity are making a practice of fattening cattle for the market. Many of the feeders are shipped in from Florida. Others are purchased from farmers within the county or raised on the farms on which they are fed. Three such cattle feeders were included in the survey, and the itemized costs of feding are shown in Table XXI, Table XXI. — Cost of feeding cattle on 3 farms (Brooks County, Ga.). Number of cattle fed, 378: number of poimds gained, C2.070. Man labor (208.5 days) Mule labor (323 days) Equipment cost Cottonseed meal (140 tons) Cotton hulls (122.2 tons Hay (3 tons) Silage (corn and sorghum) (132 tons) . Pasture b Bedding c (125 loads) Dipping, dehorning. . , Interest Taxes Gross cost Manure credit (1,120 loads) . Net cost of gains Cost of cattle at beguming of feeding period. Cost of cattle at end of feeding period Price received f . o. b. Quitman Loss Cost per 100 pounds of gain (weight at Quitman) . Cost. $345. 31 292. 91 55.46 3, 155. 00 625.00 30.00 o 506. 47 220.00 30.00 27.00 327.31 27.00 5, 641. 46 1,120.00 4,524.46 7, 612. 00 12, 136. 46 12,091.00 45.46 7.29 a Charged at cost of production. b 123 head for 2 months and 200 head for 31 months. e Oats, rye, and pine straw. Cost of haulmg included under labor charges. The 378 cattle fed gained 62,070 pounds, or 164 pounds per head, at a gross cost of $9.09 per hundredweight. Deducting the value of the manure, estimated at $1 per wagonload in the feed lot, gives a net cost of $7.29 per hundredweight. On one farm the cattle gained 200 pounds per head, at a cost of 6.1 cents per pound, and returned a profit of $4.74 each ; on another the gains were 150 pounds per head, at a cost of 8.9 cents per pound, resulting in a loss of $5.46 per head; while on tlie third farm the cattle gained 112 pounds each, at a cost per pound of 9.6 cents, and netted a loss per animal of $5.66. The cattle were sold when the foot-and-mouth quarantine was in effect and the market depressed;. hence normally a better showing in the matter of profits could be expected. The cost of cottonseed meal and hulls constitutes nearly 84 per cent of the total feed cost. The silage fed is charged at the cost of production, since it has not here a' recognized definite value. But all other feeds are charged at the prices on the farm or at the point of purchase. The labor charge includes the labor of buying the cattle, hauling feed from shipping point, feed and care of the cattle. A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 57 and marketing. The total costs are figured at f. o. b. the shipping point, Quitman. COST OF SWINE PRODUCTION. On 55 of the 106 farms surveyed hogs were raised in sufficient numbers to justify the calcuhitions of cost of production. The itemized costs on these farms are shown graphically in figure 21, and in detail in Table XXII. ITEM5 103 COST PELR 100 POUNDS LIVE WEIGHT »l.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 TOTAL COST FCED coar MAN LA BOR INTEREST 8tTAXE5 MULE LABOR., EQUIPM'T VETE.RINARY, SERUM, ETC 100.0 85,0 9.1 3.4 1 .0 .9 mM^mmmmmmmmmMmm^^^^^i m 1 1 Peanuts Pastured I Other Picture S Com ^ Watermelons feci ZZ2 Manure Credits Fig. 21. — Cost of swiue productiou. It will be seen b}' the table that of the gross cost of producing hogs, one-half is accounted for by the cost of peanuts pastured, two- thirds by all crops pastured, and 85 per cent by all classes of feeds. The peanuts, oats, rj^e, and sweet potatoes fed were all pasture crops and have no definite commercial vahie, hence are charged at the cost of production. All other pasture is entered at the estimated renting value. Corn is charged at the farm price. Table XXII. — Cost of sirinc production on 55 farms (Brooks Countji, Ga.). Numl)er of hog units a per farm, 77; pounds of live weight gains per farm, 11.033. Cost per farm. Cost per 100 poimds live weight. Per cent of pross cost. Peanuts, pastured (32 acres) b Oats and rye, pastured Sweet potatoes, pastured (2.24 acres) b Woods pasture Other pastiu'e $309. 34 2t). 03 19.80 9.78 10.70 82.80 .23 .18 .09 .10 51.2 4.3 3.3 1.6 1.8 Total pasture cost. Com ( 173 bushels) Watermelons, fed 375. 05 129. 40 8.43 3.40 1.17 62.2 21.4 1.4 Total feed cost Man labor (41 days) Mule labor (5.1 days) Equipment Veterinary, serum, flips, mediaine . Interest Taxes Gross cost Manure credit. Net cost Net cost on 45 farms with no losses from cholera. 513.48 58. 00 5.02 1.13 5.50 19. 02 .82 4. 05 ..53 .05 .01 .05 .18 .01 85. 9.7 3.3 .1 004. 17 40.85 5.48 .37 100.0 6.8 5.11 4.73 a See footnote, p. 00, for definitions. b Charged at cost of production. 58 BULLETIN 648. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRlCULTtrRE. Next to feeds, the largest item of cost is that of man labor, equal- ing nearly 10 per cent of the gi'oss costs, followed by the interest charge, and others of minor importance. The average number of hog units ^ on each farm was 77 and the cost per pound of live- weight gain 2 was 5.1 cents. Ten of these 55 farms suffered losses from hog cholera, which, of course, increased the cost per pound of the remaining hogs. On the 45 farms free from such losses the average cost per pound was 4.7 cents. The manure credit that has been deducted from the gross cost represents the estimated value of the residual fertilizing effect of the peanuts pastured off by the hogs. It is the consensus of opinion held by these farmers, based on experience, that the peanut crop grown and harvested from the soil is as severe a drain on soil fer- tility as is the growing of a crop of corn. Manifestly, then, any fertilizing value of peanuts " hogged off " is the value due to the method of harvesting, and as such should be a credit to the hogs and not to the peanuts. The average of a large number of estimates^ places this fertilizer value due to the method of harvesting at $1.50 per acre of " solid " peanuts " hogged off,'' and at 75 cents per acre of peanuts and corn. Upon this basis the credits to the hogs have been calculated and entered as a manure credit. Of special significance is the large proportion of the cost repre- sented by pasture crops, especially peanuts. Undoubtedly herein lies the secret of profitable swine production in Brooks County. Cost of slaughtering and curing swine. — It has long been the prac- tice of the farmers of Brooks County to slaughter their hogs at home. Recently, hbwever, a packing plant has been erected in an adjoining county, affording a ready market for live stock. Since the farmers now have the choice of selling their hogs on foot or of doing the slaughtering at home and marketing the resulting prod- ucts, it is of interest to know the cost of killing and curing at home. These costs are shown in Table XXIII, On the farms that killed an average of 2,764 pounds of live hogs the cost amounted to 87 cents per hundred pounds of live weight, but on the farms that slaughtered 16,395 pounds each the cost was reduced by nearly one-half, or to 1 A hog unit is a mature hog maintained on the farm during the year, or the equiva- lent of a 200-pound hog grown during the year. Immature hogs slaughtei-ed or on hand at the end of the year were reduced to hog units by dividing the total live weight by 200 pounds. 2 The live-weight gain includes the weight of all hogs sold and slaughtered, and any differences in the weights of all hogs on the farms at the beginning add ending of the farm year. 2 In getting these estimates the farmers were aslicd, first, how much more rent they would be willing to pay for the use of BroolvS County land on which either peanuts or peanuts and corn had been grown the previous year than they would for similar land that had produced a crop of corn ; second, how much less fertilizer, measured by value, they would apply to a crop of cotton planted on land that had produced peanuts or peanuts and corn than on land following corn. The replies gave a wide range of estimates, the average of which is given above. A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 59 46 cents per hundred pounds. The average cost was 54 cents. This does not include the marketing of the meat, but it does include the hauling of the ice, salt, etc., to the farm. It represents the cost of the meat cured ready to sell. Tablk XXIII. — Cost of killing and curing sivine {Brooks County, Ga.). Average of all farms. Farms having each specified number of pounds of swine (live weight) killed per farm. Less than 5,000 pounds. 5,000 to 7,000 pounds. 7,000 to 10,000 pounds. 10,000 pounds and over. Number of farms Average per farm: Live weight killed (pounds). Number of hogs killed Average weight per hosr killed (poimds). Man labor (days) . Mule labor (days). 179 18.01 1.57 14 2,764 21 132 10. 1 .40 10 5,446 33.7 161 13.5 .82 14 16,395 S3 193 20.3 1.4 27.1 3.5 Cost of man labor. . Cost of mule labor. Equipment cost. .. Building charge a. . Salt Borax loe $23.51 1.39 .10 7.73 9.28 .43 3.10 $13. 58 .43 .03 3.96 4.22 .50 1.22 $15. 20 .73 .09 5.60 6.32 .57 1.08 $26. 70 1.07 .14 7.71 9.60 .27 3.11 $36. 65 3.08 .14 13.04 16.15 .40 6.40 Total cost Cost per 100 pounds of live weight killed. 45.54 0.54 23.95 0.S7 29.58 0.54 4S. 60 0.59 75.86 0.46 a Cold storage and smokehouses. Approximately half the total costs consist of man labor. It is the usual practice to pay with scraps of the cheaper cuts of meats, the extra labor needed for killing. It should be borne in mind that a considerable part of the labor charge is the cost of supervision by the farmer, and that the slaughtering is done in January, at times when there is not much pressure of other work. PUBLICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RELATING TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS BULLETIN. AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT. A System of Farm Cost Accounting. (Farmers' Bulletin 572.) A Corn Belt Farming System which Saves Harvest Labor by Hogging Down Crops. (Farmers' Bulletin 614.) What a Farm Contributes Directly to the Farmer's Living. (Farmers' Bulletin 635.) A Method of Analyzing Farm Business. (Farmers' Bulletin 661.) Trenching INIachinery used for the Construction of Trenches for the Tile Drains. (Farmers' Bulletin 698.) Suggestions for Parcel Post Marketing. (Farmers' Bulletin 703.) An Economic Study of Farm Tractor in Corn Belt. (Farmers' Bulletin 719.) Waste Land and Wasted Lands on Farms. (Farmers' Bulletin 745.) The Farmer's Income. (Farmers' Bulletin 746.) The Use of a Dairy for Farm Account. (Farmers' Bulletin 782.) How the I^ederal Farm Loan Act Benefits the Farmer. (Farmers' Bulletin 792.) Minor Articles of Farm Equipment. (Farmers' Bulletin 816.) Example of Successful Farm Management in Southern New Yoi-k. (Depart- ment Bulletin 32.) Cooperative Organization Business Methods. (Department Bulletin 178.) Outlets and Methods of Sale for Shippers of Fruits and Vegetables. (Depart- ment Bulletin 266.) Methods of Wholesale Distribution of Fruits and Vegetables on Large Markets. (Department Bulletin 267.) Relation between Primary Market Prices and Qualities of Cotton. (Depart- ment Bulletin 457.) Farm Practice in Cultivation of Cotton. (Department Bulletin 511.) Seasonable Distribution of Farm Labor in Chester County, Pa. (Department Bulletin 528.) Validity of Survey Method of Research in Farm Management. (Department Bulletin 529.) What is Farm Management. (Bureau of Plant Industry Bulletin 259.) FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Renovating Worn-out Soils. (Farmers' Bulletin 245.) Price 5 cents. A Successful Alabama 'Diversification Farm. (Farmers' Bulletin 310.) Price 5 cents. Replanning a Farm for Profit. (Farmers' Bulletin 370.) Price 5 cents. Farm Bookkeeping. (Farmers' Bulletin 511.) Price 5 cents. How to I^se Farm Credit. (Farmers' Bulletin 593.) Price 5 cents. Outfit for Boring Taprooted Stumps for Blasting. (Farmers' Bulletin 600.) Price 5 cents. Demurrage Information for Farmers. (Department Bulletin 191.) Price 5 cents. Costs and Sources of Farm-mortgage Loans in United States. (Department Bulletin 384.) Price 10 cente. Agricultural Conditions in Southern New York, (Bureau of Plant Industry Circular 64.) Price 5 cents, GO ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PXJBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 10 CENTS PER COPY LIBRARY OF CONGRESS D002t,711S3fi