John Armstrong, Austinburg, Ashtabula county, Ohio, was a dairy tenant farmer for twenty years with nothing to show for his labor but a debt of $500. He then bought the farm of 144 acres on which he lives, without cash payment, assuming a debt of $7,000. At the end of ten years he owned his farm and equipment valued at $20,000. He has two sons who have been important factors in his success. A year ago one of them married and went to a farm of his own, the father paying him $3,000 for his former labor.
John Armstrong, Austinburg, Ashtabula county, Ohio, was a dairy tenant farmer for twenty years with nothing to show for his labor but a debt of $500. He then bought the farm of 144 acres on which he lives, without cash payment, assuming a debt of $7,000. At the end of ten years he owned his farm and equipment valued at $20,000. He has two sons who have been important factors in his success. A year ago one of them married and went to a farm of his own, the father paying him $3,000 for his former labor.
John M. Hunt, Ackley, Iowa, two years a student at Iowa State College. He returned to the home farm of 120 acres, which, without any capital, he rented from his father. At the age of 25 his gross receipts from this farm were a little over $4,000. After paying rent, living, keeping a family of four, a few trips to fairs and corn shows, he had net $1,500 for his yearÂ’s work. Picture shows home with father, mother and sister in the foreground.
John M. Hunt, Ackley, Iowa, two years a student at Iowa State College. He returned to the home farm of 120 acres, which, without any capital, he rented from his father. At the age of 25 his gross receipts from this farm were a little over $4,000. After paying rent, living, keeping a family of four, a few trips to fairs and corn shows, he had net $1,500 for his yearÂ’s work. Picture shows home with father, mother and sister in the foreground.
“The Bureau of Soils at Washington,” said the teacher, “has asked me to recommend several of our students to them for positions as field assistants. If you desire to have me do so, I would be glad to recommend you for one of these positions. The compensation is $1,000 a year and field expenses.”
“I do not believe that I can accept,” said Mr. Manning, “my father is in poor health and needs my help on the farm.”
“Does your father want you to take charge of the farm and manage it so that you can make your training count?”
“No; my father expects to continue to manage the farm. He wishes me to work for him.”
“How much does your father expect to pay you?”
“Thirty dollars a month.”
The teacher found it extremely difficult not to interfere, but he merely said, “Thisis a case of filial duty which you must settle for yourself. I must have nothing further to say.”
The young man returned to the ancestral home and is probably still there. It is, of course, impossible to determine the merits of an individual case, but this incident represents a type of cases where the son makes two important sacrifices from the sense of duty.
First, he sacrifices present, and, perhaps, future opportunity to earn the wages of which he is capable and to which he is justly entitled. And, second, and more important, he sacrifices the opportunity to develop his own powers and make concrete his own abstract self.
There are two things that every young man should do. One is to earn a living. A man that cannot or does not earn a living is of no value to himself or to anyone else. The other is to develop within himself his latent possibilities. He must apply himself to some problem, or problems, and through them develop his own personality. Thereis no place where more intricate and satisfying problems may be found than in the development of a successful farming enterprise. In the instance cited, the father may have been unable to pay his son the wage he might have obtained elsewhere, but he did not need to dwarf his sonÂ’s development by treating him merely as a hired hand. His willingness to do so was probably due to his failure to appreciate that his son had become a man.
Sometimes a father is astute enough to reorganize his business so as to retain a place for himself while giving to his sons that opportunity which every man must have who develops himself normally.
An Ohio farmer once came to the DeanÂ’s office. He had a son in college who was just completing the first year of a two yearsÂ’ course in agriculture.
“I should like to have you find a place for my son in a cheese factory during the coming summer,” said Mr. McKinley.
“I own a farm of 130 acres on which I have a herd of Jersey cattle,” continued thefather. “I have two sons and one daughter. I would like to have my sons about me, but there is no place for them on my farm because I am there and cannot get away. In fact, I do not desire to give up the management of the farm and the development of the herd of cattle.”
“Not every father sees the situation as clearly as you do,” interjected the Dean.
“This is my plan. After my son has spent a summer in a cheese factory, I want him to come back to your school for another year. I want him to learn, especially, all you teach about dairying. I will then build a cheese factory on my own farm and my son will make into cheese the milk of my own herd, and also from the herds of our neighbors. By the time he has completed his work with you, my younger son will have finished the high school. He has some liking for trading, and he will sell the cheese at wholesale and deliver it to the surrounding towns where markets are unexcelled. As for the daughter,” continued this practicalman, “she will get married and that will take care of her.”
What became of the daughter is not known to the writer, but the rest of the program was carried out successfully and continued for many years.
A German came to this country and settled in New Jersey, where he established a large orchard. In course of time his two sons grew into manhood. While, of course, requiring plenty of laborers, the orchardist did not need the sons in the management of his farm. He, therefore, established one of these sons in the commission business in Philadelphia, thus, at least, keeping the profits on the sale of the products of his orchard in the family. He also needed cold storage for his fruit. The other son started a cold storage plant, which plays an important part in the profitable management of the orchard. Thus both sons have independent employment requiring managerial ability and the orchard is much more profitable than it otherwise would be.
Our land laws, our traditions and ourpractices are based upon the idea that a farm is to provide activity and support for but one family. In order, therefore, that the son may marry and begin to develop his life in his own way, it is essential to reorganize in some manner the method of managing the farm or to enlarge or, perhaps, specialize its activities. This may be accomplished on a simple partnership basis, or it may be in some such line as outlined in the illustrations which have been given. In other occupations such co-operative effort is the rule rather than the exception. That it is more difficult to effect satisfactory arrangements in farming must be conceded, else they would be more common. Doubtless it will often tax the ingenuity of father and son to devise the plans best suited to meet their particular problem.
There still remains to consider another form of business relation as applied to farming which has become almost universal in trade and transportation. The following incident may illustrate and emphasize the problem better than abstract discussion:One day a man walked into an office and stated that a friend had a half million dollars to invest in farming, provided that he could be convinced that the money would be invested profitably.
“Does your friend desire to buy land in any particular locality?”
“Yes,” replied the promoter, “he wishes to buy land near ——. He has some sentiment about it. He was born in that neighborhood.”
“Well, that is a rather bad beginning. Farming on sentiment is dangerous, especially when the sentiment is in no way related to the business.”
The facts were that the region indicated was recognized to be one of the most unpromising sections of the state.
“If you undertake to invest a half million dollars in one neighborhood,” continued the adviser, “you will pretty certainly fail to earn interest on your investment.”
“Why?” inquired the promoter.
“Before you could possibly buy any considerable part of the land the owners of thefarms you desire to buy would have doubled or perhaps trebled the price asked for their holdings. It is one thing to earn interest on an investment of $30 an acre and quite another to earn an equal per cent on $60 or $90 an acre.
“In the second place, farmers are content to accept less per cent on their capital than they would if it was loaned at interest, because the farm furnishes a home as well as a business. When you buy up all these farms and convert them into a single enterprise you will destroy their home value. You cannot hope to compete with the man, who, because his farm furnishes him a home, is content with an otherwise small return on his investment.”
There were other reasons, of course, why such an enterprise would fail, which the speaker did not stop to explain.
“You are mistaken,” challenged the promoter. “I intend to meet both your objections. My plan is to form a corporation and issue both preferred and common stock. The preferred stock shall bear 5%and that will belong to my friend who furnishes the money. I will retain the common stock. Five per cent is all the owner of the money is entitled to, while if the business returns more than that amount, it will be due to my management. I, and those associated with me, are entitled to all that is made above five per cent. By retaining the common stock the surplus income will come to us. Neither will I destroy the home value, because I shall associate the former owners with me in the conduct of the estate and may give them some of the common stock, so that they will be interested with me in making a profitable return. If they wish to keep their money invested in the farm, they will be given preferred stock in place of cash for their farms.”
It is needless to say that the promoter never convinced his friend that he could successfully invest for him a half million dollars along the lines indicated. Nevertheless the corporate plan is not without merit. For example, if a father should incorporate his farm, he could provide forthe inheritance of the preferred stock, among the heirs, as he desires. He could give to the son who operates the farm all the common stock, together with what preferred stock he is entitled or the father may desire him to have. The common stock would provide the means by which the income from the farm, which was due to the sons skill and management, might go to him. As time went on the son could acquire additional preferred stock from the father or other heirs, or he could invest his earnings elsewhere, as might seem most expedient. On the death of the parents, the preferred stock would be distributed as inheritance or the will provided without in any way interfering with the continuity of the farm enterprise. If at any time the son desired to discontinue the management of the farm, all he would need to do would be to dispose of his interest in the common stock at whatever he might be able to secure from the man who succeeded to its management. He could sell or retain his preferred stock.
Farming is the one remaining great industry that has not been organized so that a single enterprise may have a continuous existence. A corporation never dies, but at least three generations of men occupy the farms of the United States each century.
CHAPTER IVOPPORTUNITIES IN AGRICULTURE
Some years ago, a prominent magazine contained an article entitled “The American Farmer’s Balance Sheet,” in which a descendant of the second and sixth Presidents of the United States was shown to have made in one year a profit of over $19,000 from a 6,000-acre wheat farm in North Dakota, and over $50,000 from a 6,000-acre corn farm in Iowa. A few months later there appeared in the same magazine another article, the purport of which was that great wealth, whether it be obtained from farming, the mining of coal, the manufacture of steel or the selling of merchandise, is the exception, while the man, in whatever calling, who rears and educates a family and at the same time lays by a small competence is the normal American product. The moral is that a $500-a-year-income farm is a more importantfactor to the national welfare than a $50,000-a-year-income farm.
In the latter article the writer tells of two brothers who had been reared on a Michigan farm. Reuben was tired of the country. He went to the city and apprenticed himself to a harnessmaker. Against the advice of young friends, Lucien bought sixty acres of land and ran in debt for it.
In a year Reuben was earning a dollar a day. He wore a white shirt and pointed shoes, not because they were more comfortable, but because other people did. He had no debts. Lucien had fair crops, but they yielded no more than enough to pay interest on the mortgage. He wore a ragged shirt, patched breeches and cowhide boots. People said that Reuben was making a gentleman of himself and learning a trade in the bargain.
In two years, Reuben had completed his apprenticeship. He was now earning $10 a week. He lived in a house that had a fancy veranda and green blinds. His clothing improved. Lucien was still ragged, buthe paid his interest and $300 each year upon the principal. People said that Reuben, the harnessmaker, was bound to come to the front.
In ten years more, Reuben was still foreman of the shop at $50 a month. He lived in the same house, and smoked Havana cigars. Lucien built a new house and a barn. He smoked a pipe. The neighbors saw that every year he made some improvement on the farm. He wore a white shirt when he went to town, and he had a pair of button shoes. People said that Lucien was becoming a prominent man. His word was good at the bank.
Reuben began to complain that harnessmaking was too confining. His health was breaking down. The proprietor was selfish. He would not die and leave the business to him. Harnessmaking was not what it used to be. Lucien bought more land. He went fishing when he wanted to. Reuben came out now and then to spend Sunday. The birds seemed to sing more sweetly than everbefore and the grass was greener. Lucien endorsed ReubenÂ’s note.
Lucien has pigs, and cows, and sheep, and chickens, and turkeys, and horses. He raises potatoes and beans, and corn, and wheat, and garden stuff, and fruit. He buys his groceries and clothing and tobacco. Reuben buys everything. At the close of the year Lucien puts from $100 to $300 in the bank or takes a trip to Washington. Reuben does well if he come out even. Lucien does not fret; Reuben grumbles.
The picture is true to life. It has been enacted and re-enacted in every one of the older communities of the United States.
It has always seemed to the writer, however, that the author of this suggestive story left out two important personages. They were Sarah, the wife of Reuben, and Mary, the wife of Lucien. Sarah liked to make tatting and to go to pink teas. Mary preferred to raise flowers and fluffy little chickens. Nothing is to be said for or against the taste of either. Each has a right to her preference, but their point of viewcannot be left out of the problem when a young man is considering his future occupation.
It has been said, and probably with considerable truth, that most congressmen would not hang around Washington if it were not for their wives.
No one must mistake this story as an attempt to compare harness making with farming, much less to compare living in the city with life in the open country.
What it does is to compare the struggle and the development of the man who goes into business for himself with the man who accepts employment at wages.
Because of less responsibility and less sacrifices at the beginning, the tendency is for young men to work for wages rather than to engage in business for themselves. This is becoming more and more true as industrial methods make it more and more difficult for the young man to command the requisite capital.
The man who works for wages usually has the larger income and appears the mostprosperous during the earlier years as compared with his brother who enters business. The business man, however, who, while young, economizes and invests his savings in his business gradually outstrips his wage-earning brother. During later life he is able to enjoy the fruits of his earlier economy and investments, while failing powers and keen competition of younger and better trained men restrict the opportunities of the wage earner, who has generally spent his wages in better living, or at least in more outward show.
This is well shown by the fact that it is customary to make provision by means of pensions for wage earners of all sorts, while no such arrangement is made for men who engage in business, be that farming, trade or transportation.
For many reasons, however, young men will continue to seek employment at wages, even if only for a few years, or until some capital has been acquired which may be invested in business.
The question arises, therefore, what opportunitiesthere may be for the young man who desires to engage, eventually, in the business of farming to work for wages along lines that will not be too far removed from the business in which he is subsequently to engage. It will be assumed that the young man has prepared himself in that same painstaking way that he would if he were preparing to become an engineer, a lawyer or a physician.
There is a constant demand for men with proper training as managers of farms. As stated elsewhere, the wages are seldom less than $40 nor more than $75 a month to beginners, although for men of experience $5,000 a year has been paid in exceptional cases for the management of large enterprises. These positions often constitute ideal opportunities for capable young men. They require, however, not only an intimate knowledge of farming, but the ability, also, to manage men.
The ability to manage men requires the combination of decision and tact, not possessed by all, and not easily acquired byeducation or practice. Not only must the farm manager be able to manage workmen, but oftentimes he must manage his employer, who may have little knowledge of farming but still insists upon having his own ideas executed, as he, of course, has a perfect right to do.
Another danger is the fact that where the farm is owned by a man engaged in other business, many circumstances may arise to cause the owner to change his plans or sell his property. There is often, therefore, a lack of permanency in these positions.
The United States Department of Agriculture employs upward of 5,000 people. There is a constant demand for young men to recruit this service, including experts in soils, plant production, animal husbandry, dairying, chemistry and forestry. Beginners receive from $800 to $1,000 a year. When they are sent out of Washington into field service, as many of them are, they receive their expenses, including subsistence in addition. Young men may rise rather rapidly by promotion to $1,600 a year, thenmore slowly to $2,000, while an occasional man is promoted to the more responsible position paying $3,000 to $4,000 a year.
The positions are all filled through the competitive civil service examinations. Examinations are held at more or less irregular intervals, usually several times a year, in various sections of the country. A letter addressed to the United States Civil Service Commission will secure the necessary information concerning openings and the general requirements for the examinations.
Employment in the United States Department of Agriculture often affords opportunity for varied experience and wide observation of farming methods throughout the country. Such employment is generally to be considered desirable if not continued for too long a period. As a matter of fact, men are constantly leaving the service to engage in practical or other work, a fact which makes the demand for young men greater than would otherwise be the case.
The various agricultural colleges and experiment stations are constantly seekingmen. It would seem that the demand would eventually be satisfied. As a matter of fact, however, it grows greater year by year, both because these institutions continue to grow and because young men are attracted more and more to practical work. It is stated that in one institution there were 46 graduates in the course in animal husbandry and that 44 went into practical work and only two sought employment in college or station. The salaries are about the same as in government positions.
Agricultural newspaper work offers an attractive field for young men who are properly trained and have a taste for this kind of work.
There is also beginning to be quite a demand for teachers of agriculture in the high schools. As a rule a man is wanted who can teach, in addition, the sciences usually taught in secondary school. The customary salary is from $70 to $100 a month on an eight to ten monthsÂ’ basis. An experience of one or two years as a teacher in a high school, or even the lower grades of the publicschool, should be invaluable to the young man who expects subsequently to engage in farming. This is particularly true if he has not had the opportunity of a college training.
It is, perhaps, unnecessary to state that the salaries mentioned in this chapter are obtained only by young men who possess certain qualifications. To secure them, they must be men of ability, integrity, virtue and industry. No man who is not willing to make the preparation necessary to master his subject can expect to succeed. He must, also, be a man of absolute honesty, and he must lead a clean life. It was Bismarck who said, of German university students, “One-third die out; one-third rot out; the other third rule Germany.” Every man who will may choose whether he will belong to Bismarck’s second or third class.
The question for the young man of 20 is not merely as to the morrow, but what is likely to be the trend of events during the next 35 to 50 years.
“In 1800 the United States nowherecrossed the Mississippi and nowhere touched the Gulf of Mexico.” In 1850 the country west of the Mississippi River was agriculturally largely an undiscovered region. Since 1870 we have much more than doubled our population and our agriculture. Since that time we have subdued more of the open country to the uses of man than we had been able to do in 250 years of our previous history.
During the past 300 years we have prided ourselves upon being an agricultural people. We have been an agricultural people, but our problems have not been chiefly those of the agriculturist, but those of the engineer.
Our problem, in the past, has not been to make two blades of grass to grow where but one grew before. Our problem has been to harvest and transport two bushels of wheat or two bales of cotton with the labor previously required to harvest one. Our crops have been so abundant that the agricultural problems connected with the growing of them has been secondary to the engineeringproblems of their harvesting and transportation. The self-binder and the steam locomotive have been our achievements.
If the writer mistakes not, the future problem will not be so much the harvesting and transporting, as the growth of the crops. In the future, young men will be needed who have studied the science of living things in order that they may make, literally, two blades of grass to grow where but one grew. To men who will be able to do so, will come success and honor.
CHAPTER VWHERE TO LOCATE
Unless the young farmer expects to return to the ancestral home, the first question he must settle is where he is going to locate. Indeed, one of the most common questions asked is, What do you think of this state or that state or this region or that as a place to farm? There are few questions harder to answer. This is due, among other reasons, to the fact that every place has its advantages and disadvantages. The sum of the advantages may be greater in one place than in another, but if these advantages are known they must generally be paid for.
New adaptations, however, may change materially the value of the land in a given locality as, for example, the discovery that a region is especially adapted to raising alfalfa, onions, cabbages, apples or peaches. Changing conditions, as the growth of population or better transportation facilities, maymaterially affect the attractiveness of a region from the standpoint of the farmer.
The competition of other regions which grow similar crops is a potent factor in determining the desirability of a region. For example, the farmers east of the Allegheny mountains during the nineteenth century competed with the farmers of the central West who had free, fertile, easily tilled land on which to grow maize, wheat and oats. Cattle and sheep were pastured on the open range. The twentieth century has found the land of this region settled and capitalized in some instances beyond that of the eastern states; thus one factor at least of competition has been eliminated.
While farm values readjust themselves in time, it often happens, especially in the older settled regions, that farm values are slow in reflecting these changes in economic conditions. Changed conditions often call for a change in farm methods which the habits and traditions of even one generation prevent. To the man who is able to apply the proper methods the region may be adesirable one, although under existing conditions the results may be unsatisfactory. The young man, however, is cautioned at this point not to be overconfident of his own ability. Under such circumstances it is well to study the problem with great care, because the methods which seem unwise to the casual observer may, after all, be found to be based upon sound economic principles.
A man of 25 who is looking for a location should not only study the present conditions of the locality, but try to predict what is likely to be the future of the region during the next third of a century, since this is the period in which he may reasonably expect to be personally interested, although later in life he will find himself quite as much interested in the more distant future on account of his children.
Nothing is more self-evident than that one should choose a region, especially as regards soil and climate, which is adapted to the crop or crops to be raised, yet there are probably more failures due to a lack of crop adaptation than to any other cause that is notpersonal to the man himself. Not only do apples, for their best success, require certain soil types, but different varieties of apples require for their best development, distinctly different types of soil as, for example, Rhode Island Greening, Baldwin, York Imperial and GrimeÂ’s Golden. Each reaches its best development on different types of soil and some require different climatic conditions. In like manner apples and peaches require distinctly different types of soil for the best success of each and for this reason peaches are not desirable as fillers in apple orchards.
If at the proper season of the year one goes from Pittsburg to Chicago via Columbus and Indianapolis, he will see great fields of winter wheat and a considerable number of permanent pastures. From Chicago to Omaha he will see only occasionally a field of wheat and scarcely any permanent pasture. Oats have taken the place of wheat. In parts of Eastern Kansas and Oklahoma the predominant crop is winter wheat. Throughout the whole region from Pittsburgto Topeka, Kansas, the characteristic crop is maize or Indian corn. Between St. Paul and Fargo, the main crops are spring wheat and oats. One may travel from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Calgary, Alberta, a distance of over one thousand miles without seeing a field of maize. In some portions the main crop is wheat, in others it is oats.
These are illustrations of the crop adaptation over large areas, which has come about unconsciously, as has most crop adaptation. In other parts of the United States are to be found even more striking examples of crop adaptation, although the areas are much smaller, as in the case of tobacco, potatoes, celery, onions, apples, peaches and other fruits. Regions containing residual soils are more variable in crop adaptation than drift soils and require more careful watchfulness on the part of those who may wish to buy land.
As previously stated, advantages, if known, must usually be paid for. It comes about, therefore, that if a region or a farm is adapted to the raising of a certain cropwhich is more profitable than the average, such as maize, tobacco, alfalfa, celery, apples or peaches, this land will, other things being equal, command a higher price than land which does not possess this characteristic.
There is an underlying economic principle which the man who goes out to choose a farm should clearly understand. The principle has been stated by Fairchild as follows: “The normal value of products capable of indefinite multiplication tends always toward the value of least costly. On the other hand, if any production cannot be largely extended, so that the supply barely meets the requirements of the purchasers, the tendency of normal values is toward the cost of the most costly part of the product required to meet wants.”
This principle explains why land especially adapted to raising maize is higher priced than land primarily adapted to raising wheat. Maize which enters into commerce is raised almost exclusively in ten states of the United States. Wheat is harvestedpractically every month of every year in different parts of the world. The young farmer should consider, therefore, whether he is undertaking to raise crops in which there is unlimited competition, or whether soil or other conditions cause the output to be relatively limited.
CHAPTER VISIZE OF FARM
The size of the farm is another of those questions on which there is endless debate and to which no general answer can be given. There are, however, certain rather definite principles which may help in settling an individual problem.
The size of the farm is related to the income per acre. If oneÂ’s ideal or purpose is a gross income of $1,000 or $3,000 or $5,000 a year, he must consider how large a farm will be necessary to bring this return.
Assume, for the sake of discussion, it is desired to obtain a gross income of $4,000. In the eastern United States 200 acres of tillable land devoted to general farming may bring this amount. If the land is especially adapted to potatoes, and this crop takes a prominent place in the rotation, 100 acres might be sufficient to return the income named. Likewise a 100-acre retail milk dairy farm may produce a similar result.Forty acres devoted to truck farming or market gardening may be sufficient.
There is another way that the size of the farm needed may be estimated. There is a general relation between the gross income and the amount invested. In 1900 the gross income of the farms of the United States was 18 per cent of the total investment, which includes land, buildings, tools, and live stock. The average gross income varied for the different types of farming common to the northern United States from 16 to 19 per cent. This represents, of course, a great deal of very poor farming. The income of prosperous farmers must be somewhat better than this. If we assume that by careful methods the gross income is 25% of the total investment, then an investment of $16,000 will be required to bring a gross income of $4,000. While it is true that the gross income has no necessary relation to net income or profit, yet it is well to remember that a gross income is a necessary antecedent of a net income. The net profit from the production of a bushel of wheat, a dozen ofeggs, or a pound of butter is of comparatively small consequence unless a sufficient quantity is produced.
A recent investigation by the Cornell station appears to show that with the type of farming now existing in Tompkins and Livingston counties, New York, where the investigation chanced to be made, the larger farms yielded the most profitable returns and that while present conditions exist, the size of farms is likely to increase rather than decrease. The fundamental reason seems to be the substitution of horse-drawn machinery for hand labor.
The following table shows the labor income on 586 farms operated by the owners, classified according to size:
While the larger the farm, the more prosperouswas the operating owner or tenant, the size of the farm did not seem to affect the profit of the landlord.
The amount of land one individual may own is unlimited; the size of the farm unit is limited. After a farm unit has reached a certain size, depending upon the type of farming, the general arrangement of the farm and the skill in management, any further increase will increase the cost of operation, and as the increase continues eventually cause a decrease in profits. Assuming this to be true, it follows as a mathematical necessity that as the farm increases in size the total profits will increase as the farm increases up to a given point and then the profits will decrease. The following table illustrates this law:
In both case A and case B it is assumed that the greatest net profit per acre is to be obtained with 160 acres, and that the net profit per acre when the farm is of that size is $5. In case A it is assumed that the net profit would decrease $1 for each 80 acres added, while in case B the decrease is assumed to be only one-half as rapid. In the first instance the net profit per farm increases until 280 acres are reached, when the net profit per farm decreases, until at 560 acres no profit would be obtained. In case B the net profit per farm increases until 480 acres are reached. Everyone is cautioned not to accept these figures as representing what would actually happen. All that can be said is that as the farm unit increases in size there will come a point at which the net profit per acre will decrease because of the physical difficulty of managing a large area, and, therefore, there is a limit to the size of a single farm. Fifteen thousand acres may lay in one tract and be owned by one individual, firm or corporation, but its economic management requires for purely physicalreasons, not to mention others, that it be managed in several units more or less distinct from one another. Just what the size of this unit will be no one knows and it will vary with the type of farming, the type of farmer and many other circumstances. For example, a very common unit for a tenant cotton farm is between 20 and 50 acres, both the product and the farmer being a limiting factor.
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from a study of this table is that it is wise for some men to operate a farm of 320 acres, others of 160 acres and still others of 80 acres, because each size of farm presents a task suited to different abilities. It would be as futile for one fitted to operate only an 80-acre farm to attempt to manage 320 acres as it would be unwise for the man capable of conducting 320 acres to confine his attention to 80 acres. Unfortunately while this principle is not difficult to perceive and is easily stated, it is practically impossible to make any application of it to an individual case. Only time and the inexorablelaws of competition will adjust men to their several tasks.
It will be of interest to note what influence in actual practice the type of farming has upon the size of the farm. The census reports the average size of all farms in the United States as 147 acres, with the different types as follows: Vegetables, 65 acres; fruits, 75 acres; dairy products, 120 acres; hay and grain, 159 acres; and live stock, 227 acres. Speaking in a very general way, only about one-half the land on these farms is in cultivated crops, while only 40% of the income may be from the products which cause the farm to be thus classified. The young farmer will do well to have these figures in mind when he starts out in life, for while they are not to be followed literally, they give him a measuring stick with which to compare his operations.
CHAPTER VIISELECTION OF FARM
Having some of these preliminary questions settled, or at least well in mind, the young farmer is ready to inspect individual farms with a view to purchasing or renting. He should examine each farm from four general aspects, namely: (1) The character and topography of the soil, (2) the climatic conditions, including healthfulness and water supply, (3) the location, and (4) the improvements.
It may be well at the outset to emphasize the advantage which even a small difference in fertility may bring. Suppose one farm is capable of raising fifteen bushels of wheat per acre and another twenty bushels. If wheat is 80 cents a bushel, then the gross income is $12 and $16 respectively. If it is assumed that it costs in either case for seed, labor and interest on investment $8 an acre to raise and harvest the crop, then it will be seen that an increase of five bushels an acredoubles the profit. The comparison is perhaps not quite fair, since it costs slightly more to harvest the larger crop, but it serves to illustrate the point.
Neither the crop adaptation nor the crop-producing power of the soil can be determined by taking a sample and submitting it to a chemist for analysis. These factors can best be determined by the character of the vegetation, both domestic and wild, and by a knowledge obtained through observation or reading as to what this particular soil type usually does. Every type of soil has certain characteristics which under like conditions it may be expected to reproduce, much in the same manner as each species of animal reproduces its characteristics.
The first essential is to be able to recognize the different soil types. This can only be done by close observation and study. The second essential is to determine what the crop-producing characteristics of these types of soil are. This knowledge may be obtained by personal observation; but as most personsÂ’ opportunities are limited inthis direction, it should be supplemented wherever possible by a study of the soil surveys of the United States Department of Agriculture wherever these are available. When this is not possible samples of soil may be submitted to the Bureau of Soils of the United States Department of Agriculture or to the soil division of the state experiment station, together with a suitable description and such knowledge of the history of the land as is obtainable. In this way you may obtain information as to the natural adaptation of the particular type of soil.