x^ . ^^^

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Department Bulletins

Nos. 626-650, library

WITH CONTENTS
AND INDEX.

Prepared in the Division of Publications.

WASHIISrGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

CONTENTS.

Page.
Department Bulletin No. 626. — Pasture Land on Farms in the
United States:

Source of data 1

Arrangement of material 2

Farm pasture land in the United States as a whole 2

Geographic distrilnition of farm pasture 3

Pasture land by geographic divisions and States (table) 14

Pasture land by counties (table) 16

Department Bulletin No. 627.— Cost op Harvesting Wheat by Different
Methods:

Development of wheat-harvesting methods 1

The binder 3

Shocking H

Comparison of costs — old methods v. new 11

Stacking 1^

Headers 15

Combines IS

Department Bulletin No. 628. — Wintering and Fattening Beef Cattle
IN North Carolina:

Introduction 1

Wintering steers preparatory to gi'azing on pasture 4

Winter grazing of steers 14

Summer fattening of steers on grass 19

Summary of three years ' work, winter and summer 27

Winter fattening of steers 38

Department Bulletin No. 629. — Greenhouse Experiments on the
Rust Resistance of Oat Varieties:

Introduction 1

The culture of cereal rusts in the greenhouse *. 2

Experimental methods 2

Sources of material - ^

E\'idences of rust resistance in cereals 5

Experimental data - °

Discussion of results 13

Summary and conclusions 14 '

Literature cited 16

Department Bulletin No. 630. — Studies of the Digestibility op Some
Nut Oils:

Introduction 1

Methods of procedure "

Subjects ^

Almond oil 4

Black-walnut oil 6

Brazil-nut oil °

Butternut oil ^

English-walnut oil 11

Hickory-nut oil 13

Pecan oil j^

Conclusions 1'

3

4 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULS. 626-650.

Pago.
Department Bulletin No. 631. — Five Years' Calf-feeding Work in
Alabama and Missi.ssippi:

I. Winter fattening of calves in Alabama on cotton-seed meal, cotton-
seed hulls, corn-and-cob meal, and alfalfa hay, 1911-12 1

II. Fattening beef calves in Alaliama on cottonseed meal, cottonseed

hulls, corn chop, and corn silage, 1912-13 14

III. Fattening calves in Mississippi on cottonseed meal, corn, cotton-

seed hulls, corn silage, and alfalfa hay, 1914-15 21

IV. Fattening calves in Mississippi on cottonseed meal, corn, corn silage,

and alfalfa, 1915-16 29

V. Fattening late ('short-age) calves for market 39

VI. General discussion of the five years ' experiments 48

Department Bulletin No. 632. — The Utilization op Waste Tomato
Seeds and Skins:

Introduction 1

Commercial products from tomato refuse 1

Accumulation and disposal of tomato waste 3

Extraction of tomato-seed oil 5

Tomato-seed meal 11

Summary 12

Literature cited 14

Department Bulletin No. 633. — Factors of Successful Farming near

MONETT, Mo.

The area in wliich the survey was made 1

The local agriculture 2

Farms classified according to type of farming 4

Sources of receipts 5

Percentage of area in different crops 5

Kinds of fruit and their local importance 6

Relation of type of farming to size of farm 7

Investment 7

Profitableness of the various types 8

The proper status of the strawl)erry industry in southwest Missouri 10

The speculative nature of fruit enterprises 10

Maintenance of soil fertility 12

Organization of some typical farms 14

Organization of dairy farms 17

A well-organized two-man farm 19

Legumes 22

Tenure 24

Department Bulletin No. 634. — A Physical and Chemical Study of the
Kafir Kernel:

Commercial importance of nonsaccharine sorghums 1

Characteristics of kafir kernel -. 2

Comparison of kafir with corn 4

Department Bulletin No. 635. — The Commercial Freezing and Stor-
ing op Fish:

Freezing as a means of conserving the fish supply 1

Preparation of fish for freezing 2

Location of freezers 3

Cleaning fish - 3

Freezing fish 3

Cold storage of fish 5

Food value of frozen fish 7

Handling of frozen fish after storage 8

Summary 9

Department Bulletin No. 636. — Cost of Production of Apples in the
Payette Valley, Idaho:

Summary of results 1

Location and extent of districts studied 3

History and development 3

Conditions 6

CONTENTS. O

Page.
Department Bulletin No. 636.— Cost of Production of Apples in the
Payette Valley, Idaho — Continued.

Farm organization ^

Farm investments !.^

Orchards r^

Yields \-l

Markets and prices tj

Orchard management tl

Handling the crop ^^

Packing-house labor ^'

Culls and cider apples ^

Total labor costs ^

Material and fixed costs. ^^

Summary of all costs considered - ^^

Factors affecting the annual cost of production -i*

Depart.ment Bulletin No. 637. — A Method of Calculating Economical
Balanced Rations:

New method of balancing rations ^

How to use Tal:>les I and II ^

Table of equivalent prices ^

HoAv to use Table III °

Relative value of feeds °

Relative value of protein feeds ^

How to use Table IV -V T-,- "; ' "i •-"

Relative value of carbohydrate feeds when the cneapest available teed is

nitrogeneous j^

How to use Table V {»

How to use Table VI ^'

Department Bulletin No. 638.— Forestry and Community Development:

Too little attention paid to some effects of forest devastation 1

Why our forests have been devastated. 2

Neglected evils of destructive lumbering ^

A roxdng lumber industry ^

Abandoned towns ^

Deserted farms ^

Local shortages of timber °

Speculation |^

Community development interrupted jo

Abandoned railroads ^^

A lower standard of population ^^

Suggestions for a rational timberland policy 21

Need for a different system of handling forest lands 21

Land classification ._ 23

Continuous forest production 2o

Stability of policy 28

Pul^lic control and ownership ^^

Community benefits *'-'

Department Bulletin No. 639.— The Market Milk Business of Detroit,
Mich., in 1915: .

Economic phases of the market milk business i

Market demands and sources of supply 2

Buving milk from farmers ^

Collecting and handling milk in the country °

Transportation of milk to the city |1

Cost of milk delivered to_ the city 1^

Trade demands in Detroit. ..._ — |^

Preparing milk for city distribution |^

City distribution of milk : - 1^

Summary of comparative costs of handling and distributing milk ^i

Conclusions

6 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULS. 626-650.

Page.
Department Bulletin No. 640. — The Mediterranean Fruit Fly:

Distribution throughout the world 2

Establishment and spread in Hawaii 3

How the fruit fly got into Hawaii 4

Losses incurred through the fruit fly 5

What the Mediterranean fruit fly is like 7

Fruits, nuts, and vegetables attacked 11

Host fruits of commercial value 15

Artificial methods of control not satisfactory under Hawaiian conditions. . 24

The campaign against the fruit fly in Hawaii 26

Natural control of the fruit fly 37

Quarantine measures to prevent introduction 41

Summary 42

Department Bulletin No. 641. — Farm Practice in the Production of
Hay in Steuben County, N. Y., and Washington County, Pa.:

Object and scope 1

Facts brought out 1

Description of areas studied 2

Labor charges for different operations 4

Machinery charges 12

Total cost of producing hay : 14

Department Bulletin No. 642. — The Four Essential Factors in the
Production of Milk of Low Bacterial Content:

Factors influencing the sanitary quality of milk 1

Objects of the investigation " 3

Description of barn and methods used in the production of the milk 3

Method of sampling and making the bacterial count 5

The experimental work 5

Contamination of milk by unsterilized utensils 25

Contamination of milk by manure and dirt 32

The three most essential factors in the production of milk of low bacterial

content 38

A practical demonstration on six farms 39

Bacterial counts of fresh milk on the average farm 43

The effect of temperature on the growth of bacteria in milk 45

Summary 58

Conclusions 59

Literature cited 61

Department Bulletin No. 643. — The Melon Fly:

What the melon fly is like 3

Origin and distril^ution 4

Establishment and spread in Hawaii 4

Methods of spread 7

Economic importance 7

Nature of injury caused by the melon fly 8

Food or host plants 16

Interesting facts concerning the adult fly 22

Why the melon fly is a serious pest 24

Control measures 25

Measures taken to keep fruit flies of Hawaii from gaining a foothold in

Continental United States 29

Summary 30

Department Bulletin No. 644. — Lint Percentages and Lint Index of
Cotton and Methods of Determination:

Relation of lint percentages to lint indexes 1

Lint percentages 2

Lint indexes 2

Illustrations of the relation between lint percentage and lint index 3

Lint index determines the number of bolls to the pound of fiber 5

Relation of the lint index to the cost of picking 5

CONTENTS. 7

Page.
Department Bulletin No. 644. — Lint Percentages and Lint Index op
Cotton and Methods of Determination — Continued.

Increasing tKe lint percentage does not alter the cost of production if the lint

index remains constant 8

Improved methods for obtaining lint percentages 8

Advantages of using samples of standard weight. 10

Methods of calculating lint indexes and seed weights 10

Number of seeds in a standard sample an indication of their size 10

Planters can estimate the lint index , H

Summary H

Department Bulletin No. 645. — Some Reasons for Spraying to Control
Insect and Mite Enemies of Citrus Trees in Florida:

Gradual adoption of spraj-ing 1

Pests of importance 2

Injury to trees and fruit 2

The grading of fruit ^

Reduction in size caused by insects 8

Better gi-ades of fruit bring better prices 13

Spra\-ing scheme for controlling citrus pests 15

Cost of spraying 16

Profits and benefits 1^

Conclusion 18

Department Bulletin No. 646.— Lessons on Pork Production for Ele-
mentary Rural Schools:

Introduction 1

Lesson I. Types and breeds 2

Lesson II. Houses ^

Lesson III. Swine judging 9

Lesson IV. Fattening meat hogs 12

Lesson V. Selecting breeding stock 13

Lesson VI. Dressing and curing meat 15

Lesson VII. Sow and pig management 17

Lesson VIII. Forage crops. •■ 18

Lesson IX. Sanitation and diseases 21

Pig-club work 25

Department Bulletin No. 647.— The Argentine Ant in Relation to
Citrus Groves:

Introduction 1

General })elief as to damage to orange trees 2

General account of orange cultiu-e in Louisiana 4

Distribution of the ant m the orange groves of the United States 7

Feeding habits of the ant _. 8

Relations with insects injurious to citrus trees . 1*3

Relations with insect enemies of scales and aphids 48

Nests and protective structures of the ant _ ,- -. 52

Cultural conditions in ant-invaded v. ant-free orange groves in Louisiana. . 56

Demonstration in improvement of ant-invaded groves in Louisiana 57

Experiments in controlling the Argentine ant 60

Summary and conclusions 71

Department Bulletin No. 648.— A Farm-Management Survey in Brooks
County, Ga:

Description of area surveyed 1

Method and scope of investigation 5

Type of farming 7

Tenure and landlord 's profits 13

Labor systems 1^

Size of business 1^

Quality of farm business "J^

Organization

30

Cost of production ^^

8 DEPARTMENT OF AGFJCULTUEE BITLS, 626-650.

Page.
Departmext Bulletin No. 649. — E.xperime.vts on the Digestibility of
Fish: ,

Introduction - ■ j;

Digestion experiments with men -^

Preparation of fish ^

Nature of the diet ^

Boston mackerel ^

Butterfish °

Grayfish ^

Salmon j^

Summary ^^

Department Bulletin No. 650. — Lease Contracts used in Renting
Farms on Shares:

Different systems ^

Length of lease period ^

Methods of sharing crops and stock products 4

Methods of sharing pasture |'^

Contracts for clearing land |'^

Ownership of equipment |2

Methods of sharing expenses 1 '

Unexhausted value of fertilizers -fj"

Repairs and improvements 21

Privileges and perquisites 21

Restrictions.

22

Supervision by the landlord 2^

Good husbandry ;^2

Advances to tenant "^

General systems of share leasing 23

Sample stock-share lease 24

Assumption underhing lease contracts 28

Suggestions toward a rational lease contract 33

Status of the tenant 36

INDEX.

Abandoned— Bulletin No. Page.

farms, result of forest depletion 638 6-8

towns, result of forest depletion 638 4-6

Alabama —

calf-feeding experiments (and in Mississippi), five years' work,

bulletin by W. F. Ward and S. S. Jerdan 631 1-54

farm leases, provisions, notes 650 6, 7, 8

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 17

Alcohol, production from nonsaccharine sorghums, note 634 1

Alfalfa-
hay, use in calf feeding 631 21-39

on Missouri farms 633 22

Almond oil, digestion experiments, food weights and constituents. 630 4-6, 17

Almy, Lloyd H., and Ernest D. Clark, bulletin on "The com-
mercial freezing and storing of fish " 635 1-10

Animals, farm, number of various kinds in United States, Janu-
ary 1, 1917 646 1

See also Calxes; Cattle; Hogs; Livestock; Sows; Steers; Stock.

Ant, Argentine —

control work, experiments 647 60-71

distribution in orange groves of the United States 647 7-8

feeding habits and foods 647 8-15

introduction and spread 647 1-2

nesting and li^dng habits 647 52-55

relation to citrus groves, bulletin by J. H. Horton 647 1-74

relations with insect enemies of scales and aphids, studies 647 48-52

Aphids, protection by Argentine ant 647 42-48

Apple —

orcharding, costs in Payette Valley, Idaho 636 31-33

trees, pruning, et.c. , practices in Payette Valley, Idaho 636 17

Apples —

cull, utilization, prices, etc., Tayette Valley, Idaho 636 29-30

handling the crop in Payette Valley, Idaho 636 25-27

marketing, preparation, etc., operations and costs, Payette

Valley, Idaho 636 27-29

Missouri acreage, and yield, 1914 633 3, 5, 6

picking, Payette Valley, Idaho 636 25-26

production cost in Payette Valley, Idaho, bulletin by S. M.

Thomson and G. H. Miller 636 1-36

spraying in Payette Valley, Idaho 636 22-25

thinning fi-om tree, Payette Valley, Idaho. 636 16-17

j-ields and prices in Payette Valley, Idaho 636 13-14

varieties important in Payette Valley, Idaho 636 5

Argentine ant —

relation to citrus groves, bulletin by J. H. Horton 647 1-74

See also Ant, Argentine.

Arid regions, apple gi-owing in Payette Valley, Idaho, costs,

management, etc 636 2-36

Arizona —

farm leases, pro\isions, note 650 12

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 17

Arkansas — •

farm-leases, pro\T.sions, note 650 7

pasture land on farms, by counties :■■.-• ^-^ ^^f ■'■^' ^^

Avocados, value in Hawaii, immunity from Mediterranean fruit-
fly attacks 640 16-18

Ayers, S. Henry, Lee B. Cook, and Paul W. Clemmer, bulletin
on "The four essential factors in the production of milk of low

bacterial content" 642 1-63

13324—20 2 1

DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE BULS. 626-650.

Back, E. A.— ^ .

and C. E. Pemberton, bulletin on "The Mediterranean fruit

fly"

and C. E. Pemberton, bulletin on "The melon fly"

Bacteria —

count in fresh milk on average farm

growth —

in clean and dirty milk, studies and comparisons

in milk, relation of temperature

Bait, poison, use against melon fly

Baling, hay, cost

Ball, J. S., and E. A. Goldenweiser, bulletin on "Pasture land

on farms in the United States " _

Bananas, Hawaii, varieties immune from Mediterranean fruit fly.

Barnacle scale, occurrence in citrus groves

Beans, injury by melon fly in Hawaii

Beef cattle, wintering and" fattening in North Carolina, bulletin by

W. F. Ward, R. S. Curtis, and F. T. Peden

Beet farms, share renting, practices

Berkshire hog, origin and description

Berry crops, sharing methods under lease contracts, various

States

Bidwell, George L., bulletin on "A physical and chemical study

of the kafir kernel " .....;.

Binders — •

repair costs, by types

wheat, labor cost, prices, acreage, life, repairs, etc

Black scale —

occurrence in citrus groves -

occurrence in citrus groves, relation of Argentine ant

Brazil-nut oil, digestion experiments, food weight, and con-
stituents ._ - •■ -_

Brown scale, occurrence in citrus groves, parasitic enemies, etc. .

Butterfish, food value, digestion experiments _

Butternut oil, digestion experiments, food weight and constituents.

California —

Argentine ant, occurrence in citrus groves

citrus groves, occurrence of scales, relation of Argentine ant,

studies

farm-lease provisions, notes

pasture land on farms, by counties

Calves —

fattening —

experiments in Alabama and Mississippi

with cotton-seed and corn

with cotton-seed, corn, and alfalfa

feeding experiments in Alabama and Mississippi, five years'
work, bulletin by W. F. Ward and S. S. Jordan

rations, experiments

shelter and lots in South

young, fattening for market

Canada, canning factories, use of tomato waste

Cane, sugar, gromng, cost and yield in Brooks County, Ga

Canneries, tomato refuse, utilization

Cantaloupes, injury by melon fly in Hawaii

Carbohydrate feeds, protein deficiency per pound in specified

nutritive ratios .-••-.

Carbohydrates, cost per pound in feeds, determination

Bulletin No. Page.

640
643

1-44
1-32

642

43-45

642
642
643
641

3-58

45-58
27
15

626
640
647
643

1-94

18-19

20

21

628
650
646

1-53

8
3

650

634

627
627

647
647

12

1-6

9
3-6

21
35-30

630 8-9,17

647 20, 36-38

649 8-9, 14

630 9-11, 17

647

647

8, 24-34

650

11, 19

626

/ 15, 19,

I 20, 21

631

1-53

631

1-20

631

21-39

631

1-54

6, 8, 10,

14-15, 16,

63li

17, 23, 24,

25, 31, 32,

33, 44, 50

631

4

631

39-48

632

1-3

648

46, 47, 55

632

1-3, 5-13

643

8-20

637

4

637

14- IS

628

37

G48

10,56

629

5-8

647

20

647

16

646

4

647

16

646

24

646

22-24

IXDEX. 6

Cattle—

\)QQi Bulletin No. Page.

fattening, summarv of experiments, and financial state-
ments \ _ 628 27-37

winterins: and fatteninn: in North, Carolina, bulletin bv

W. F. Ward, R. S. Curtis, and F. T. Peden '. 628 1-23

pasture —

cost, summary and conclusions, tlu'ee years' ^vork 628 17-19

requirements, cost, etc., experiments in North Carolina,

1913-1916

raising in Georgia, Brooks County, and cost of feeding

See also Calves; Cows; Steers.

Cereals, rust resistance, evidences and authorities, cited

Ceroplastes, spp., occurrence in citrus groves

Chaff scale, occurrence in citrus groves

Chester White hog, origin and description

Ckionaspis citri, occurrence in citrus gro\QS

Cholera, hog — -

prevention by isolation and vaccination of sick animal

symptoms, control, etc., school studies

Church, L. M., and Arnold P. Yerkes, bulletin on "Cost of

harvesting wheat by different methods " 627 1-22

Citrus —
fruits —

and subtropical, department publications, list

and subtropical fruits, publications of departmeet, list...

f;rading relation to insect injury and to spra^dng

Hawaiian, injiu-y from Mediterranean fruit fly

publications of department, list

gro\es —

ant-invaded, cultural conditions in Louisiana

relation of Argentine ant, bulletin by J. H. Horton

insects, armored scale, occurrence and damage in Louisiana..

orchards, damage from storms, Louisiana, instances

pests, list, and description of injury to trees and fruit

Sicilian seedlings, resistance to armored scales

trees —

insect and mite enemies in Florida, control by spraying,

reasons, bulletin by W. W. Yothers

spra^dng scheme, costs and results

white fly, occurrence and destruction by Argentine ant,

studies

Clark, Ernest D., and Lloyd H. Almy, bulletin on •"The com-
mercial freezing and storing of fish "

Clearing, land, contracts on leased farms

Clement, Clarence E., and Gustav P. Warber, bulletin on

'•The market milk business of Detroit, Mich., in 1915 " 639 1-28

Clemmer, Paul W., S. Henry Ayers, and Lee B. Cook, bulle-
tin on '"The four essential factors in the production of milk of

low bacterial content "

Coccus hesperidum, occurrence in citrus groves

Coffee, Hawaii, injury from Mediterranean fruit fly

Cold storage- —

effect on Mediterranean fruit fly in Hawaii

fish, packing, reglazing, and storage period

Colorado —

643

32

647

74

645

4-15

640

21-24

640

44

647

56-60

647

1-74

647

16-20

647

5

645

2-4

647

17

645

1-19

645

15-18

647

38-42

635

1-10

650

15

farm leases, provisions, notes

pasture land on farms, by counties

"Combines," wheat harvesting, use of term, advantages, etc

Communitv development, relation of forestry, bulletin by Samuel

T. Dana!

Connecticut, pasture land on farms, by counties

Containers, farm products, expense sharing on tenant farms

Contracts, lease, used in renting farms on shares, bulletin by E. V.

Wilcox 650 1-36

642

1-63

647

20

640

19-21

640

36

635

5-7, 8, 9

f

5,6,

650

8,10,11,

1

12. 20, 28

626

15, 21-22

627

18-21

638

1-35

626

14,23

650

18

4 DEPARTMENT OF AGPJCULTUEE BULS. 626-650.

Cook, Lee B., S. Henry Ayers, and Paul W. Clemmer, bul- Bulletin No. Page.
letin on '"The four essential factors in the production of milk of

low bacterial content " 642 1-63

Corn —

belt, farm leases, provisions .■ 650 3, 4-5

farms, share renting, practices 650 4-5

feeding to calves, experiments 631 1-53

199 oq Qy

oo' Aa An

Missouri crops, and \'ield per acre, 1914 633 2, 3, 5-6

Corn-and-cob meal, use in calf feeding 631 1-29

Cotton —

fairms — f 3 5 7

share leases, general provisions, notes 650< i q ' oq 'qc

share renting, practices 650 7-8

(99 oy 28
on on AC
17,50, si
lint-
indexes, calculation methods 644 10, 12

percentage and lint index, and methods of determina-
tion, bulletin by G. S. Meloy 644 1-12

percentages, improved methods for obtaining 644 8-9

picking, cost, relation of Hint index, comparisons 644 5-8, 12

seed —

number in standard sample, indication of size 644 10-11, 12

weights, calculation methods 644 10, 12

Cottonseed meal, use in calf feeding 631 1-29

Cottony cushion scale, occurrence in citrus groves 647 34

Cowpeas —

growing in Georgia, Brooks County, methods, yields, cost) ^<q/22, 23, 37,

and profits ". / °'*^\ 39, 48, 54

injury by melon fly in Hawaii 643 22

use on Missouri farms as legume, methods 633 22-23

Cows, dairy, care in production of clean milk, experiments 642 39-45

Cropping systems, Georgia, Brooks County, costs and profits 648 36-41

Crops —

field, sharing methods under lease contracts, various States. . . 650 4-9
production, costs per acre and per unit, Georgia, Brooks

County 648 47-55

f 16-17,

yields and cost, Georgia, Brooks County 648{ 20-30,

i 41-55

Crown-rust, oats, occurrence, greenhouse experiments, etc 629 1-15

Cucurbits, injury by melon fly in Hawaii 643 17-20

Curtis, R. S., W. F. Ward, and F. T. Peden, bulletin on "Win-
tering and fattening beef cattle in North Carolina " 628 1-53

Cut-over lands, speculation in, practices 638 12-16

Dairy farms —

organization and income, Monett, Mo 633 17-18

share leasing systems 650 3, 13

Dairjdng, department publications on, list 642 62-63

Dana, Samuel T., bulletin on "Forestry and community de-
velopment" 638 1-35

Delaware—-

[ 5,8,11,

farm leases, provisions, notes 650< 13, 15, 16,

[ 17,19,28

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 23

Detroit —

market milk business in 1915, bulletin by Clarence E. Cle-
ment and Gustav P. Warber 639 1-2S

milk demands and supply sources 639 2-3, 14-16

i:n^dex.

Dialeurodes citri, occurrence and destruction by Argentine ant, BalletinNo. Page.

studies : 647 38-42

Diet, mixed, nature and use in digestion experiments ^^^.th fish. . 649 5
Digestibility —

fish, experiments, bulletin by A. D. Holmes 649 1-15

nut oils, studies, bulletin byA. D. Holmes... 630 1-19

Digestion experiments, nut oils, methods and subjects 630 2-4

Diseases, hog, descriptions and control 646 22-25

District of Columbia, pasture land on farms 626 15, 23

Drainage, citrus groves in Louisiana, practices 647 6

Duroc-Jersey hog, origin and description 646 3

Engines, auxiliary binder, use, cost, fuel, and repaii-s 627 9-11, 18

Equipment, farm, ownership under lease contracts 650 15-17

Farm —

expenses, sharing, methods under lease contracts, various

States 650 17-20

investments, Idaho, Payette Valley 636 10-11

lease on half-and-half system, business analysis 650 32-33

leases, length of period in various localities 650 3-4.

management, use of terms 648 11

organization, Idaho, Payette Valley 636 8-10

products —

coats of production, Georgia, Brooks County 648 41-59

sharing methods under lease contracts, various States 650 4-15

receipts, sources, Monett, Mo 633 5

tenure, Missouri farm survey, relation to profits, incomes, etc. 633 24-26

two-man, organization and advantages, Monett, Mo 633 19-21

Farmers, milk prices from city dealers and from creameries 639 4-7

Farming —

diversified. Brooks County, Ga., management survey, bul-
letin by E. S. Haskell..." 648 1-60

Missouri, near Monett, factors, bulletin by W. J. Spillman 633 1-28

profitableness of various types, Monett, Mo 633 8-10

publications of Department, list 633 27-28

successful. Agricultural Department publications 633 27-28

types, relation to farm sizes and investments, Missouri 633 7-8

Farms —

abandoned, relation to lumbering practices 638 6-8

dairy, Missouri, average products, income, labor cost, etc 633 17-18

expenses, Georgia, Brooks County 648 13

grain —

and live stock, Missoiu-i, organization, etc 633 14-17

and live stock, organization and operation, Monett, Mo.. 633 14-17

lands in pasture and relation to lands not in farms 626 3-9

management, survey of Brooks County, Ga., bulletin by

E. S. Haskell -• 648 1-60

Missouri labor incomes and profitableness 633 8-10

organization, Georgia, Brooks County 648 30-41

pasture land, area in United States, bulletin by E. A. Golden-

weiser and J. S. Ball 626 1-94

rented —

privileges and perquisites of landlord and tenant 650 21-22

restrictions on tenants 650 22

renting on shares, lease contracts 650 1-36

size, relation to receipts, expenses, and net income, Georgia. . 648 18-20

tenure, Georgia, Brooks County, and landlord's profits 648 13-14

two-man, stock equipment, crop schedule, and management. 633 19-21
Fattening beef cattle in North Carolina (and wintering), bulletin

by W. F. Ward, R. S. Curtis, and F. T. Peden 628 1-53

Feed-
calves, experiments with alfalfa, corn, and cotton seed in

Alabama 631 1-53

13-4
40-52

6 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULS. 626-650,

Feed— Cod tinned. _ Bulletin No. Page.
economical balanced rations, method of calculating, bulletin

by J. C. Bundles 637 1-19

tomato by-products, value, comparison with other feeds 632 11-12, 13

Feeding — •

calves, five years' work in Alabama and Mississippi, bulletin

by W. F. Ward and S. S. Jerdan 631 1-53

cattle —

cost, in Georgia, Brooks County 648 56

wintering and fattening in North Carolina, bulletin by

W. F. Ward, R. S. Curtis, and F. T. Peden 628 1-53

hog, cost, Georgia, Brooks County 648 18-20

Feeds^

calf, price and character _. 631 5, 22, 30, 40

protein and carbohydrate, protein excess and deficiency 637 3, 4

Fertilizer, value of tomato waste, note 632 2

Fertilizers —

relation to yields, costs, and profits on farms, Georgia 648 28-30

sharing expenses on tenant farms 650 17, 20

Fiber, cotton, determination 644 5, 12

Fig trees, mealybug infestation, relation to Argentine ant 647 23

Fish-
digestibility, experiments, bulletin by A. D. Holmes 649 1-15

freezing —

commercial methods 635 3-4

natural and artificial, effect on flavor, and comparison. . . 635 2-3

fi'ozen, handling, caution 635 8-9

glazing, purpose and methods 635 4-5, 9

preparation for digestion experiments, nature of diet, etc. . . . 649 4-5

preparation for freezing 635 2-3

storing and freezing, commercial methods, bulletin by

Ernest D. Clark and Lloyd H. Almy 635 1-10

supply, conservation, freezing as means 635 1-2

use and value in food and meat conservation 635 2

varieties, conservation by freezing and storing, list 635 1-2

Flax farms, share renting, practices 650 9

Flies, fruit, quarantine measures in Hawaii 643 29-30

Florida^

citrus trees, spraying for control of insect and mite enemies,

reasons for, bulletin by W. W. Yothers 645 1-19

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 23-24

Fluted scale, occm-rence in citrus groves 647 21, 34

Fly-
citrus white, relation of Argentine ant, studies 647 38-48

fruit, control methods in Hawaii 640 34-36

Mediterranean fruit —

bulletinby E. A. BackandC. E. Pembert9n 640 1-44

clean culture campaign in Hawaii, collection of infested

fruit, and dates _. 640 28-29

description, habits, and increase in Hawaii 640 7-1 1

distribution and history 640 2

economic importance 640 5-11

establishment and spread in Hawaii 640 3-5

C 26-27

host trees in Honolulu and Hilo, and control campaign. . 640< 34-30

losses from 640 5-7

quarantine for prevention of introduction 640 41-42, 43

melon —

bulletinby E. A. Back and C. E. Pemberton 643 1-32

control, natural and artificial measures 643 25-29

introduction, danger in fruits from Hawaii 643 2, 7, 29-30

life history, longevity and repro Auction 643 22-25

Food-
frozen fish, value 635 7-8

publications of Department, list 649 15

use and nutrition, publications of Department 630 18-19

utilization of nonsaccharine sorghums, note 634 1

IXDEX.

Bulletin No. Page.

Fora,2:e crops, kinds and value for hop: pasturage 646 18-21

Forest lands, management, suggestions 638 21-33

Forestry —

publications of Department, list 638 34-35

relation to communitv development, bulletin bv Samuel T.

Dana '. 638 1-35

Forests —

devastation, and results 638 2-21

private ownership, relation to destructive lumbering 638 2-10

Freezers, fish, location, and operation methods 635 3-5, 8-9

Freezing fish —

and storing, commercial methods, bulletin bv Ernest D. Clark

and Lloyd H. Almy ' 635 1-10

commercial methods 635 3-4

Fruit-
flies, Hawaii, quarantine measm-es asainst 643 29-30

fly-
control in Hawaii, climatic checks and parasites 640 37-40

Mediterranean. See also Fly. Mediterranean fruit.

Missouri, speculative nature of industry 633 10-12

Fruits —
citrus — •

and subtropical. Department publications, list 643 32

and subtropical, list of Department publications 640 44

Hawaiian, injury from Mediterranean fruit fly 640 21-24

injury from insects and mites in Florida, reasons for con-
trol by spraying, bulletin by W. W. Yothers 645 1-19

raising grade by spraying 645 6-8

Hawaiian —

protection from fruit fly, methods and coverings 640 37

subject to attack by Mediterranean fruit fly, list 640< 15-94

infected with melon flies, destruction as control measure 643 27-28

Missouri, kind and local importance 633 6

orchard, sharing methods under lease contracts, various States. 650 9-10

protection from melon flies, spraying and covering 643 26-29

resistant to melon fly 643 22

subtropical —

insects injurious, publications of Department, list 647 74

insects, publications list 643 32

Gasoline, use in engines attached to wheat harvesting machinery. 627 10, 18

Georgia —

Brooks County —

description, farming types, and labor 648 1-5, 7-30

farm-management survey, bulletin by E. S. Haskell 648 1-60

historical notes and census returns 1860-1919 648 1-5

farm leases, proAdsions, note .' 650 7

pasture lands on farms, by counties 626 15, 25-28

Ginning, cotton, share-rented farms, di^dsion of expense 650 IS

GoLDENWEisER, E. A., and J. S. Ball, bulletin on "Pasture land

on farms in the United States" _ 626 1-94

Grading, citrus fruits, relation to insect injirry and to spraying 645 4-15

Grain, farms, share renting, practices 650 5

Grains, value per bushel and per hundred pounds 637 8

Grapefruit —

grading in Florida, conditions, and relation to insect injury.. 645 4-13

size, reduction by insect injury, and increase by spraying. . . 645 8-15

Grayfish, food value, digestion experiments 649 9-12, 14

Grazing —

lands, publications of Department, list 626 94

steers in winter, experiments in North Carolina 628 14-19

Guava, occurrence in Hawaii, and host for Mediterranean fruit fly. 640 30

Hampshire hog, origin and description 646 4

8 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULS. 626-6.50.

Harvesting— Bulletin No. Page .

sharing expenses, on tenant farms 650 18

wheat —

cost by different methods, bulletin by Arnold P. Yerkes

and L. M. Church _ 627 1-22

methods, equipment, cost of operation, etc 627 2-21

use of combined harvester, acreage and costs 627 ] 8- 2]

Haskell, E. S., bulletin on "A farm-management survey in

Brooks County, Georgia " 648 1- 60

Hauling, apples, Payette Valley, Idaho 636 26-27

Hawaii —

fruit growing, clean-culture campaign against fruit flies, fail-
ure, and causes 640 31-33

fruits, quarantine of fruit flies, and exceptions 643 29-30

injury to fruit industry by Mediterranean fruit and melon flies . 640 1

Mediterranean fruit fly, introduction and spread 640 3-5

melon fly, establishment, spread and economic importance.. . 643 4-25

pasture lands on farms, by counties 626 15, 28

Hay-
farms, share renting, practices 650 6-7

loading, hauling and storing, methods and cost 641 8-9

machinery, work and costs 641 12-14

Missouri, crop area, and yield per acre, 1914 633 3, 4, 5, 6

production —

cost, total, and relation to yield 641 14-15

farm practices in Steuben County, N. Y., and Washington

County, Fa., bulletin by H. B. McClure 641 1-16

Haymaking —
labor —

cost per hour, per acre and per ton 641 10-12

time and costs for various operations 641 4-12

practices in Steuben County, N. Y., and in Washington

County, Fa. , bulletin by H. B . McClure 641 1-16

Headers, wheat-harvesting, advantages, disadvantages, and costs. 627 15-18
Hickory-nut oil, digestion experiments, food weights and con-
stituents 630 13-15, 17

Hog-
houses, location, kinds, and description 646 6-7

judging, various parts of animal, score-card blanks, etc 646 9-11

Hog-cholera serum, use in cholera control, methods 646 24

Hogs —

breeding, requirements, relation to quality of pigs 646 13-14

cholera —

serum, use methods 646 24

symptoms and treatment 646 22-24

fattening methods and feeds 646 12-13

feeding while following calves 631 12

killing, dressing, and meat curing 646 15-17

number in United States January 1, 1917, and comparison

with other farm animals 646 1

publications of department, list 646 26

raising and cost of feeding, Brooks County, Ga 648< ' r^-j_t^Q

survey, for school exercise, suggested blank form 646 5

types and breeds, origin, description, etc 646 2-5

Holmes, A. D., bulletin on —

"Experiments on the digestibility of fish' ' 649 - 1-15

' ' Studies on the digestibility of some nut oils' ' 630 1-19

Home supplies, production on farms, Georgia, Brooks County 648 32-36

Honeydew, food of Argentine ant 647 14-15

Hops, farms, share renting, practices 650 9

HoRTON, J. H., bulletin on "The Argentine ant in relation to

citrus groves' ' 647 1-47

Icerya purchasi, occurrence in citrus groves 647 21, 34

INDEX.

Idaho —

apple production in Payette Valley, cost, bulletin by S. M.
Thomson and G. H. Miller. /

climate in apple-growing district.

pasture lands on farms, by counties

Payette Valley, history and development

Illinois —

farm leasing, provisions, notes

pasture lands on farms, by counties

Income, farm —

relation to size of farm and color of operators

sources in Georgia, Brooks County

Indiana —

farm leasing provisions, notes

pasture lands on farms, by counties

Insects —
citrus —

and other subtropical fruits, publications, list .- • — -

sprajdng in Florida, and for mite enemies, bulletin by

W. \V. Yothers

food of Argentine ant

injurious to — ■

citrus and subtropical fruits, list of department pub-
lications

subtropical fruits, publications of department.

means of defense against predatory enemies, studies of citrus

types

Iowa —

farm leasing, provisions, notes

pasture land on farms, by counties

Iridomyrmcx humilis. See Ant, Argentine.

Irrigation, apple orchards, Payette Valley, Idaho

Italy, canning factories, use of tomato waste

Jerdan, S. S., and W. F. Ward, bulletin on "Five years' calf-
feeding work in Alabama and Mississippi' '

Kafir-
kernel —

comparison of parts with corn kernels.

description, measurement, and composition

physical and chemical studies, bulletin by George L.

Bidwell -.

sorghums, publications of Department, lists

Kansas —

farm leases, provisions, notes

pasture land on farms, by counties

Kentucky —

farm leases, provisions, notes

pasture land on farms, by counties

Labor —

apple-packing, Idaho

charges against crops

conditions —

and systems, Georgia, Brooks County

Idaho, Payette Valley

costs, apple-growing, Payette Valley, Idaho

cropper system, comparison with wage system, Brooks County,

Ga

haymaking, hours and cost for various operations

sharing expense, on tenant farms

Bulletin No. Page.

636

1-36

636

7-8

626

15, 29

636

3-8

650|"

3,4,13,16,
17, 18, 19

626

14, 29-31

648

18-20

648

11-13

r

4, 6,9,10,

650

14, 15, 17

1

18, 19, 28

626

14, 32-34

643

32

645
647

1-19
12-15

640
647

44
74

647

48-52

650{
626

4,
17
14,

10,14,
, 19, 28
,34-36

636
632

21-22
1-3

631

1-54

634

4-5

634

1-4,5

634

1-6

634

6

650|

3, 4, 5,

12, 18, 28

626

15, 37-39

650

6, 9, 19

626

15, 29-42

636

27

648

43

648|^

L4-17, 24-
27, 43-45

636

6

636

30-31

648|

14-17,
47-50

641

4-12

650

19-20

10

DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE BVLS. 626-650.

33-36

24-27

1-36

4

22-24

16

22

22

15-16

Labor— Continued. _ _ Bulletin No. Page.

systems, diversified farming in Georgia 648 14-17

wage system, comparison with cropper system, Brooks County. | g^g f 14-17,

r ''4-27

work stock, utilization and cost, Georgia, Brooks County 648-^ 32 "44-45

Lacewings, means of defence against predatory insects, studies. . . 647 49

Lady-beetles, means of defense against predatory enemies, studies. 647 49-51

Land, acreage not in farms 626 8-11

Lease —

farm, suggestions 650

stock-share, sample form 650

Leases —

contracts used in renting farms on shares, bulletin bv E. V.

Wilcox '. 650

legal requirements, notes 650

Legumes, grooving on Missouri farms, practices and suggestions — 633

Lepidnsaphes, spp. , occurrence in citrus groves 647

Lice, hog, control with oil emulsion 646

Lime sulphur, use in control of hog mange 646

Lime-sulphur solution, use in spraying citrus pests 645

Lint —

cotton —

estimation by planters, methods 644 3, 11, 12

percentage, and lint index, and methods of determina-
tion, bulletin by G. S. Meloy 644 1-12

f 1-2

relation to lint index, studies 644-^ 2_- ^2

percentages of cotton, use of term 644 2, 11-12

Live stock-
feeding, publications of department, lists G37 19

Georgia, Brooks Countj^ value, income, etc C4S< ^-j x^'(^_^q

products, sharing methods under lease contracts, various

States 650 12-15

rations, economical balanced, method of calculating, bulle-
tin by J. C. Rundles 637 1-19

f l-'-15

sharing methods under lease contracts, various States 650i ^^ 94-oj

See also Animals, farm; Cattle; Cows; Hogs; Sows; Steers;
Stock.

Loading, hay, hauling and storing, methods and cost 641

Long scales, occurrence in citrus groves 647

Louisiana —

Argentine ant in orange groves, distribution, and damage 647 7-15

farm leases, provisions, notes 650 7. 12. 19

orange culture, status of industry, etc 647 4-7

pasture lands on farms, by counties 626 15, 42-43

Lumber industry, movement and practices, economic and social

effects 638

Machinery, hay, work and costs 641

Mackerel —

Boston, occurrence, food value and digestion experiments 649

catch, New England 649

Maine, pasture land on farms, by counties 626

Mange, hog, description, symptoms, and control treatment 646

Manuring, apple orchards, practices in Payette Valley, Idaho 636

Marketing —

apples, Payette Valley, Idaho 636

milk, economic phases 639

Maryland —

f 4, 8. 10,

farm leases, provisions, notes 650< 11. 12.

[14. 16. 19

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 44-45

8-9
16

2-21
12-14

6-7, 14

6

14,44

22

14-15

27-29
1-2

INDEX.

11

Bulletin No.
650 10.
626

Page.

, 1],19

14. 45

641
641
631

1-16

5

1-29

647
647 •

20-34
22-24

640

1-44

643
643

1-32
8-20

642 3-61

Massachusetts —

farm leases, provisions, notes.

pasture land on fnrms, by counties -_ - •

McClure, n. B., bulletin on "Farm ]>ractice in the production
of hav in Steuben County. N. Y., and Washington County, Pa. " .

Meadows, hay, average life in New York and Pennsylavnia

Meals, calf-feed, use in fattening calves, experiments

Mealybug, citrus, occurrence, relation of Argentine ant, etc.,

studies ;

]\Iealybugs. predatory enemies in citn:s groves

Mediterranean fn it flv —

bulletin by E. A. Back and C. E. Pemberton

See nhn'FXy, Mediterranean fruit.

Melon fly. bulletin by E. A. Back and C. E. Pemberton

I\Ielons, "injurv bv melon fly in Hawaii _.

Meloy, G. S., bulletin on "Lint percentage and lint index of

cotton and methods of determination " 644 1-12

Michigan —

Detroit, market milk bxisiness in 1935, bulletin by Clarence
E. Clement and Gustavo P. Warber 639 1-2S

farm leases, provisions, notes 650| ^g^ 28

Meredith and McKinley towns, rise and decline, relation to

lumbering practices .^ 638 a-b

milk collecting, handling, and transportation to city, costs. . 739 8-13

uagture land on farms, by counties 626 14, 45-47

Milk-
bacterial content —

comparison of dirty with clean -

four essential factors in production, bulletin by S. Henry

Ayers. Lee B. Cook, and Paul W. Clemmer

summary and conclusions -_

business, relation of retail to wholesale. Detroit. ._ -

buying from farmers, and prices paid. Detroit, Mich

city distribrtion, Detroit, equipment and costs

collecting and handling in country, Michigan, conditions and

costs

contamination, so-Tces, effect on bacteria content, etc

delivery in Detroit, cost -

dirty, bacterial content, comparison with clean milk

distribution, systems in Detroit

market —

business of Detroit, Mich., in ]915, bulletin by Clarence

E. Clement and Gustav P. Warber

economic phases

pasteurization, law in Detroit, management, etc . .

prices to farmers by dealers and creameries, Detroit, 1915. . .

publications of Department, list

refrigeration in transit. Michigan methods

sanitary quality, factors influencing

trade demands, Detroit _. . ._

transportation to city, methods and costs, Michigan

vessels, bacterial growth in

Miller—

E. A., bulletin on "Lessons on pork production for element-

arv rural schools" .- - - 646 1-16

G. H., and S. M. Thompson, bulletin on "Cost of production

of apples in the Payette Valley, Idaho " ■ 636 1-36

Minnesota —

farm leases, provisions, notes 650 4, 5^ 17

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 14, 47-49

Mississippi —

calf-feeding experiments (and in Alabama^ five years' work,

bulletin by W. F. Ward and S. S. Jerdan 631 1-54

farm leases, provisions, note 650 ^ 7

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 50-51

642

1-63

642

58 61

639

20-23

639

4-7

639

19-27

639

8-11

642

3-37

639

13-14

642

3-61

639

16-1&

639

1-28

639

1-2

639

17-19

659

4-7

642

62-63

639

12

642

1-2

639

14-16

639

11-13

642

25-26

12 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULS, 626-650.

Missouri — Bulletin No. Page.

farm leases, provisions, notes 650 4, 28

farming near Monett, factors in, bulletin by W. J. Spillman. . 633 1-28

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 14, 52-54

Mites, citrus, spraying in Florida, and insect enemies, bulletin by

W. AV. Yothers 645 1-19

Montana —

farm leases, provisions, note 650 5

pasture lands on farms, by coxinties 626 15, 55

Mowing, liay, practices and cost. New York and Pennsylvania. . . 641 5-6

Mulch crops, apple orchard, Idaho 636 19-21

Nebraska —

farm leases, provisions, notes 650< io'28

pasture lands on farms, by counties 626 15, 55- 57

Nevada, pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 58

New Hampshire, pasture land on farms, by counties 626 14, 58

New Jersey —

[4,5,8,

farm leases, provisions, notes 650< 10, 11 ,

I 13,16,17

past'ire land on farms, by counties 626 14, r9

New Mexico, pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 59-60

New York — •

farm leases, provisions, notes 650J t i ' n 9 -in

hay making, practices in Steuben Countv, and in Washington

County, Pa., bulletin by II. B. McOlure 641 1-16

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 14, 60-61

Nicotine dip, use in control of hog mange 626 22

North Carolina —

farm leases, provisions, note 650 7

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 62-64

winterinf;- and fattening beef cattle, bulletin by W. F, Ward,

R. S. Curtis and F. t , Peden 628 1-53

North Dakota-
farm leases, provisions, notes 650< ' ^q' ck

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 64-65

Nut oils, digestibility, studies, bulletin by A. D. Holmes 630 1-19

Nursery stock, division on share-rented farm, practices 650 9-10

Nutrition, publications of Department, list 649 15

"Nutrivo," feed from tomato waste 632 12

Oats —

199 99 30
37' 39' 46*
47 48 53

Missouri crop area, and yield per acre, 1914 633 3, 5, 6

rust resistance of different varieties, greenhouse experiments,

bulletin by John H, Parker ^. 629 1-16

Ohio—

f 4 5 9

farm leases, provisions, notes 650< , r. o^' qU

pasture land on farms, by coimties 626 14, 65-67

Oil-
emulsion, use in control of hog lice 646 22

tomato-seed —

extraction methods, chemical properties, yield, uses, and

value 632 5-11, 12

nature, value and yield 632 2, 3, 7-11

Oils, nut, digestibility, studies, bulletin by A. D. Holmes 630 1-19

Oklahoma —

farm leases, pro\dsions, notes 650 7, 14

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 68-69

IXDEX.

13

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha — Bulletin No.

food value and digestibility, experiments • 649 12

See also Salmon.

Opusflctcheri, parasite of melon fly, introduction into Hawaii 643

Orange —

groves, occurrence of Argentine ant, damage, etc., studies 647

trees, damage by Argentine ant, discussion 647

Oranges —

grading in Florida, conditions and relations to insect injury. . 645

size, reduction by insect injury, and increase by spraying 645

Orchard fruits, division on share-rented farms, practices 650

Orchards —

apple, management in Payette Valley, Idaho yields 636

citrus, relation of Argentine ant, bulletin by J. H. Ilorton . . . 647

Oregon, pasture land on farms, by counties 626

Packing —

apples, Payette Valley, Idaho 636

frozen fish for storage 635

Papayas, Hawaiian, value, description 640

Paraffin oil, emulsion, use in spraying citrus pests 645

Paraleptomastix abnorinis, parasite of mealvbug, description and

value '. 647 23

Parasite, melon fly, establishment in Hawaii 643 26

Parasites, use and value in Hawaii in fruit-fly control 640 38, 39-40

Parker, John H., bulletin on ''Greenhouse experiments on the

rust re.^^istance of oat varieties" 629

Parlatoria pergandci, occurrence in citrus groves 647

Pasture land, area on farms in United States, bulletin by E. A.

Goldenweiser and J. S. Ball 626

Pasture lands —

improved, United States, by counties 626

publications of Department, list 626

unimproved. United States, by counties 626

Pastures —

farm, geographic distribution 626

winter — •

establishing, experiments 628 15-16

steer-feeding experiments in North Carolina 628 17, 19

199 90
4*1 48' ^0
50,52,53
Pecan oil, digestion experiments, food weights and constituents. . 630 15-17
Peden, F. T., R. S. Curtis and W. F. Ward, bulletin on "Win-
tering and fattening beef cattle in North Carolina " 628

Pemberton, C. E., and E. A. Back —

bulletin on '"The Mediterranean fruit fly" 640

bulletin on "The Melon fly" 643

Pennsylvania — •

Cross Forks, rise and decline, relation of lumbering practices. 638 5

^ f 4 S

farm leases, provisions, notes 650< , ^ -i (?' ? q

hay making, pratices in Washington County, and in Steuben

County, N. Y., bulletin by H. B. McClure 641

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 14, 71-72

Pests, citrus, list, and description of injury to trees and fruit 645

control methods, reasons for spraying 645

Pig- club work, school studies 646

Pineapples, Hawaiian, immunity to Mediterranean fruit-fly at-
tacks ■ 640

Poisoned bait, sprays, use against melon fly 643

Poland-China hog, origin and description 646

Pork-
cost of production, Brooks County, Ga 648

production, lessons for elementarv rural schools, bulletin by

E. A . Miller '. 646 1-2C

Poronotus triacanthns, food value and dige-^tibility experiments.. 649 8,9-14

Potato, farms, share renting, practices 650 8

13, 14

26

2-73
2-4

4-13

8-15

9

11-29

1-74

15, 70

27-29

6

15-16

15,16

1-16
16

1-94

5

94
6-7

3-9

1-53

1-44
1-32

1-16

2-4

1-18

25

15

27
3

57-59

14

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULS. 626-650.

Potatoes—

growing iu Georgia, Brooks County, costs and yields

sweet. See Sweet potatoes.

Protein, cost per pound in feeds, determination

Pruning, apple trees, Payette Valley, Idaho

Pseudococcus citri, occurrence in citrus groves

Puccinia spp. See Rusts, cereal.

Purple scale, occurrence in citrus groves

Quarantine — •

fruit fly from Hawaii

Hawaii fruits, use -and value in fruit- fly control

Rabak, Frank, bulletin on "The utilization of waste tomato seeds
and skins "

Rail-nays, milk transportation, electric and steam rates, compari-
son

Raking, hay, methods and cost

Rations —

beef-cattle

calf

economical balanced, method of calculating, bulletin by J. C.

Rundles

pasture and cottonseed meal, steer fattening

Refrigeration —

milk, in transit, ^fichigan methods

publications of Department, list

Rent, charge against crops

Renting, farms on shares, lease contracts, bulletin by E. V. Wil-
cox

Rhode Island, pasture land on farms, by counties

Rice, farms, share renting, practices

Rundles, J. C, bulletin on "A method of calculating economical

balanced rations "

Rust, resistance in cereals, e\T.dences and authorities cited

Rusts —

cereal —

culture in gi'eenhouses

resistance of oat varieties, greenhouse experiments, bul-
letin by John H. Parker

grain, economic importance

resistance of oats experiments and results

Saissetm oleae, occurrence in citrus groves

Salmon, food value, digestion experiments

Sanitation, importance in hog production, and methods

Scale —

brown, occurrence in citrus groves

chaff, occurrence in citrus groves

fluted, occurrence in citrus groves

purple, occmrence in citrus groves

white, occurrence in citrus groves

Scales —

armored, in citrus groves, status, parasites, damage, etc

citrus fruit in Louisiana, varieties, occurrence, relation of
Argentine ant, etc

long, occurrence in citrus groves

soft, occurrence in citrus groves, relation of Argentine ant, etc.
Schools, rural elementarv, lessons in pork production, bulletin by

E.A.Miller '

Scomber scombrus, occurrence, food value and digestion experi-
ments

BuUetin No. Page.

648

48,55

637

9-13

636

15-16

647

20

647

16

643 29-30

640 41-42, 43

632

1-15

639

12

641

7

628

6

r 6

,8,10,

14-15, 16,

63lJ

17,

23,24,

25,

.31, 32,

[ 33

, 44, 50

637

1-19

628

21-22

639

12

635

10

648

43

650

1-36

626

14,72

650

5-6

637

1-19

629

5-8

629

2-5

629
629
629

1-16

1-2
8-16

647
649
646

21

12-13, 14

21-22

647
647
647
647
647

20, 36-38
16
34
16
16

647

16-20

647
637
647

16-38

16

20-30

646

1-26

648

6-7, 14

INDEX.

15

17

5

-15

4-5

23-24

11

14-46

58-59
15-17

48-49

42^3,

48-49

16

6

1

2-6

Seed— ^""•'^^ ^°

sharing expense on tenant farms 650

tomato —

separation from tomato waste, methods in Italy and

United States 632

utilization (and skins), bulletin by Frank Rabak 532

Seeding, hay crops, practices, cost, etc.. New York and Pennsyl-
vania 641

Shares, renting of farms, general systems, various kinds of farms. . 650

Shocking, wheat, acreage and costs 627

Silage, feed for calves 631

Slaughtering —
ho.gs —

at home, cost in Brooks County, Georgia 648

curing pork, etc 646

steers —

f37 42-43

fattened in North Carolina, 1915-1916, data 628^ '

winter-fattened, weights, shrinkage, etc 628

Soda-sulphur solution, for citrus spraying, formula 645

Soil fertility —

maintenance, Monett, Missouri 633 12-14

^lissouri, maintenance, grain yield, profits, etc 633 12-14

Soils, apple, nature and management, Payette Valley, Idaho. . . . 636 7, 17-19
Sorghums —

Agriculture Department publications, lists 634

nonsaccharine —

commercial importance, note 634

source of commercial products, studies 633

South Carolina —

farm leases, provisions, notes 650 ^ ^7

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 73

South Dakota —

farm leases, provisions, notes 650 4, 19

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 74-75

Sows, care, management, feed, etc., before and after fan-owing 646 17-18

See also Hogs.

Soy beans, use on Missouri farms as legume, method 633

Spillman, W. J., bulletin on "Factors of successful farming near

Monett, Missouri" 633

Spray, posioned bait, use against melon fly 643

Spraving —

apple, Payette Valley, Idaho - - - 636

citrus trees in Florida for control of insect and mite enemies,

reasons for, bulletin Ijy W. W. Yothers 645

cucurbit, against melon fly 643

expenses, sharing on tenant farms 650

Mediterranean fruit fly, control in Hawaii 640

scheme for citrus pests, costs and results, Florida 645

sharing expenses, on tenant farms 650

Sprays, formulas for, ]Mediterranean fruit-fly control 640

Squalus acanthias, food value and digestibility, experiments 649

Stacking, wheat, methods and costs per acre and per bushel 627

Starch, production from nonsaccharine sorghums, note 634

Steers —

fattening —

experiments, feeding methods, feeds and cost 628

experiments in South, general conclusions 628

in summer, object and plan of experiments 628

feeding experiments, 1913-1914 to 1915-1916. 626

grazing in winter, experiments in North Carolina 628

kinds in North Carolina, feeding experiments, 1913-14 to

1915-16 628

winter pasturage, kinds used for experiments 628

winter-fattening experiments, kinds, feeds, and prices, etc.. 628

wintering and fattening in North Carolina 628

See also Cattle.

23-24

1-28

27

22-25

1-19

26-27, 31

19

35—36

la-18

19

35

9-12, 14

13-15

1

20-21

53

19-20

8-14

14-19

2-3

16-17

38-53

2-53

16 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULS. 620-050.

Stem-rust, oat, occurrence, greenhouse experiments, etc

Stock-
feed, use of tomato waste, value comparison Avith other feeds. .

work, utilization and cost, Georgia, Brooks County

Storage —

cold, effect on fruit fly

fish, and freezing, commercial methods, bulletin by Ernest D,

Clark and Lloyd H. Almy

Strawberries, Missouri —

acreage and yield, 1914

importance oi" industry, diseases, labor requirements, etc

Sugar cane, growing in Georgia, Brooks County, costs and yield. .

Sweet potatoes, growing in Georgia, Brooks County, yields and

costs

Tam worth hog, origin and description _

Teachers, rural elementary schools, lessons in pork production,

bulletin by E. A. Miller

Tedding, hay. time and cost

Tenancy, land, lease contracts, different systems

Tenant farms, share-leasing methods

Tenants, land, status under different systems

Tennessee —

farm leases, provisions, notes

pasture lands on farms, by counties

Tenure, farm, relation to profits, capital, etc., Missouri

Texas —

farm leases, provisions, notes

pasture land on farms, by counties

Thrashing, wlieat —

from sliock or stack by custom thrashers

use of combined harvester, acreage and costs

Thomson, S. M., and G. H. Miller, bulletin on "Cost of produc-
tion of apples in the Payette Valley, Idaho "

Tillage, relation to costs and profits

Timber — .

standing, speculation in, effect on economic and social con-
ditions _

supply depletion, effect on prices, local population, etc

Timberland, management, policy recommended

Tobacco, farms, share renting, practices

Tomato —

skins, utilization for oil, meal, and fertilizer

waste —

accumulation and disposal at canneries

preparation for utilization

use and value as fertilizer

Tomatoes —

injury by melon fly _.

seeds" and skins, utilization, bulletin by Frank Rabak

Tomato-seed, meal, feed value, etc., notes.

Towns, abandoned, effect of forest devastation

Transportation —

frnit in Payette Valley, Idaho, disadvantages

milk, to city, methods and cost. Michigan

Triick—

crops, sharing methods under lease contracts, various States. .

farms, share renting, practices _

Trucks, VS3 in transporting milk from country to city, cost

Utah, pasture land on farms, by counties

Vegetables, resistance to melon fly _

Vermin, hog lice, control with oil-emulsion

Bulletin ;
029

So.

Page.
2-15

032
048/

11-12, 13
24-27, 32.

44-45

040

36

035

1-10

633
633

648

6481

3

46
22,
30^

, 4, 5, 6
10-11-

, 47, 55
24, 29,
46, 47,
48,55

640

4

040
041
650
650
650

1-26
6-7

2-33

1-3

36

650
626
633

15

4,9

, 75-77
24-26

650
626

15;

5.6,7

, 78-83

627
027

16
18-21

036 .
648

1-36

27-28

638
638
038
050

10-21

3-10

21-33

8-9

632

5

632
632
632

3-5^

, 12-13

5

1-3

643
632
632
038

2,3,

20

1-15

, 11-12

4-6

036
639

6-7
11-13

650
650
039

3,7,

10-12
10-12
12-13

020

15,84

043
040

22
22

INDEX. 17

Vermont — Bulletin No. Page.

farm leases, provisions, note 650 16

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 14, 85

Virginia —

farm leases, provisions, notes 650< jg ' ^^

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 85-88

Walnut —

black, digestibility of oil from, studies 630 6-8

English, digestibility of oil from, experiments 630 11-13

oils, digestion experiments, food weights and constituents 630-| ^k ^^

Warber, Gustav p., and Clarence E. Clement, bulletin on

"The market milk business of Detroit, Michigan in, 1915 " 639 1-28

Ward, W. F.—

and S. S. Jerdan, bulletin on "Five years' calf-feeding work

in Alabama and Mississippi " 631 1-54

R. S. Curtis and F. T. Peden, bulletin on "Wintering and

fattening beef cattle in North Carolina " 628 1-53

Washington —

farm leases, provisions, note 650 17

pasture land on farms, by counties _ 626 15, 88-89

Waste, tomato seed and skins, utilization, bulletin by Frank

Rabak 632 1-15

Watermelons —

122 23 29
30' 37* 46*
' 47 54

injurj^ by melon fly 643 8-20

Wax scale, Florida, occurrence in citrus groves 647 20

West ^'irginia —

farm leases, provisions, note 650 4

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 89-90

Wheat-
acreage cut by binders and labor cost per acre 627 3-6

binders, prices, labor cost, acreage, life, repairs, etc 627 3-11

cutting, costs, comparison of old and new methods 627 11-13

harvesting, cost bv different methods, bulletin by Arnold P.

Yerkes and L. M. Church 627 1-22

headers, advantages, disadvantages and costs 627 15-18

Missouri, crops, and yield per acre, 1913-14 633 2-3, 4, 5, 6

publications of department on 627 22

stacking, methods and costs per acre and per bushel 627 13-15, 18

thrashing, use of combined harvester, acreage and costs 627 18-21

Wheats, types, growing, etc. publications of department, list. . . . 627 22

White scale, occurrence in citrus groves ._ 647 16

Wilcox, E. V., bulletin on "Lease contracts used in renting farms

on shares *^50 1-36

Winter grazing —

experiments in cattle feeding, North Carolina, conclusions. . . 628 18-19

steers, experiments in North Carolina 628 14-19

W-Sconsin —

- f ^'^'^^'

farm leases, provisions, notes 650< 13, 16, 18,

^ I 19

pasture land on farms, by counties 626 14, 91-92

Woodland, pastures, distribution 626 5-(3

Wyoming, pasture land on farms, by counties 626 15, 93

Yerkes, Arnold P., and L. M. Church, bulletin on "Cost of

harvesting wheat by different methods " 627 1-22

Yorkshire hog, origin and description _ 646 o

YoTHERS, W. W., "bulletin on "Some reasons for spraying to con-
trol insect and mite enemies of citrus trees in Plorida " , 645 1-19

13324—20 3

o

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 626

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Contribution from the OflSce of Farm Management
W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief

Washington, D. C.

May 9, 1918

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS IN THE
UNITED STATES

By

E. A. GOLDENWEISER, Statistician, and
J. S. BALL, Assistant in Farm Accounting

CONTENTS

Sonrce of Data 1

Arrangement of Material 2

Pasture Land In the United States as

a Whole 2

Page

Geographic DiBlribution of Farm Pastute 3
Pasture Land, by Geographic Divisions

and States (Table) 14

Pastnre Land, by Coanties (Table j . . 16

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PBINTINa OFFICE

1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ifrti BULLETIN No. 626

•vJii^^^il/ OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

,^i-'<^'^U

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management
W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief

JZK^'^U

Washington, D. C.

May 9, 1918

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS IN THE
UNITED STATES.

By E. A. GoLDENWEiSER, Statistician, aud J. S. Ball, Assistant in Farm Accounting.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Source of data

Arrangement of material

Pasture land in the United States as a whole.
Geographical distribution of farm pasture

Pasture land, by geographical divisions and

States (Table)

Pasture land by counties (Table)

Page.

14
16

SOURCE OF DATA.

The figures on pasture land on farms in the United States presented
in this bulletin were obtained from a tabulation of the agricultural
schedules collected by the Bureau of the Census in 1910. Owing to
the fact that the census period is Ihnited to three years, the Bureau
of the Census was unable to tabulate this item. Wlieii, however, the
necessity of increashig food i)roduction in the United States made it
particularly important to ascertain the amount and location of agri-
cultural land not at present utilized for raising crops the Bureau of
the Census granted permission to the Office of Farm Management to
undertake the tabulation of pasture land. Although the schedules
were collected seven years ago, it was thought that no great changes
in distribution of pasture land had occurred since 1910 and that in
any case these data were of great value as the fu-st enumeration ever
tabulated of the amount and distribution of pasture land on farms m
the United States. (See note on page 11.)

The census inquiry on which this tabulation is based is as follows:

Pasture Land: Acres in this farm used exclusively for pasture in 1909:

Acres.
Woodland pasture, covered with pasture grasses, but contain-
ing more or less scattered timber

Improved land in pasture, but which can be plowed or mowed.
All other pasture land

14576°— IS— BuU. 626 1

2 BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The tables in this bulletin show the returns for each of the three
types of pasture for the United States as a whole, for geographic
divisions, for States, for counties, and for the Territory of Hawaii.
No data on pasture were collected for Alaska or Porto Rico.

ARRANGEMENT OF MATERIAL.

Tables I and II present, respectively, the acreage of farm pasture
land by geographic divisions and States, and by counties. For com-
parative purposes certain other items are included in these tables.
The total land in farms is taken from the census reports. The land
in crops also is taken from the census reports but includes estimates
for the acreage of fruit crops, which are not reported in the census.
These estimates were obtained by dividing the number of trees given
in the census by the average number of trees per acre as estimated
by the Bureau of Plant Industry. The figures for the item "AU
other farm land" are obtained by subtracting those for the crop
and pasture land from those for the total farm land. This item
includes woods not pastured, yards and barnyards, roads, fallow and
waste land. (See note 2, page 12.)

Table I also shows the percentage distri})ution of farm land into its
various classes, and Table II, the percentages for crop land and
pasture land by counties. A column showing the number of acres in
pasture per 100 acres in crops also is included in Tables I and II.

FARM PASTURE LAND IN THE UNITED STATES AS A WHOLE.

Of the total farm land, which comprised about 879,000,000 acres
in 1909, somewhat more than one- third was in crops, about one- third
was in pasture, and somewhat less than one-third comprised all other
kinds of farm land. The fact that there was nine- tenths as much
pasture land as crop land is enormously significant in connection with
the possibilities of expanding crop production. It must be noted,
however, that a large part of the pasture land is unimproved, about
99,000,000 acres being in "woodland pasture" and 108,000,000 acres
"other unimproved pasture"; but even the improved pasture alone
represented over 84,000,000 acres, or nearly one-tenth of the total
land in farms. This improved pasture doubtless consists largely of
land that is pastured in rotation with crop production in interme-
diate years. It may be used for crops three years out of four, two
years out of three, or one year out of two, but most of it undoubt-
edly is arable land; in fact the definition of this type of pasture is
"unproved land in pasture but which can be plowed or mowed."
Of the unused farm land, that is, land not in crops or pasture, which
comprised about 269,000,000 acres, or 30.6 per cent of the total land

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS. 3

in farms, about one- third, 10.4 per cent, was in woodlots, and two-
thii'ds, 20.2 per cent, comprised fallow land, waste land, land in
farmstead, roads, etc.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF FARM PASTURE.

Figure 1 shows the geographic distribution of the total pasture
land on farms, each dot representing 20,000 acres. The map includes
only the portion of the United States east of longitude 99° W., since

FIG. 1

TOTAL PASTURE LAND ON FARMS
19 0 9

^

%i"

^^B

'"Sj\p4''

chmatic conditions, the extent to which the pubhc land has actually
or nominally been transformed into farms, and other factors are so
diverse in the Western States that comparison of the statistics of
pasture land in the East with those for the West is impossible. It
will be seen that the greatest concentration of farm pasture is in
Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, and Iowa. Pasture is also impor-

4 BULLETIN 626, TJ. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

tant in the Lake States, the Ohio Valley, New York, and New Eng-
land. The Southern States have comparatively little pasture.

Figure 2 shows the relative importance of pasture as compared
with total farm land. Only six counties east of the 99th meridian
have 90 per cent of the farm land in pasture and only a small
nimiber of counties have over 50 per cent. In much of the area

FIG. 2

PASTURE LAND

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LAND IN FARMS
19 0 9

cm
cm

[i3

50 TO 59 PER CEMT
60 TO 69 PER CENT
70 TO 79 PERCENT
eO TO 69 PER CENT
90PERCENT ANDOVf

where corn and winter wheat are grown, pasture comprises from
one-fifth to one-half of the total farm land. In many of these areas
pasture occupies a regular place ui a three-year or four-year system
of rotation.

Figure 3 shows that it is in the great agricultural States that im-
proved pasture is mostly concentrated. The most important areas
are in eastern Ohio and northern West Virginia, Kentucky, Iowa,

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

and northern Missouri. Improved pasture is unimportant in the
Cotton States. The dense area shown in southern Texas is probably
due to defective classification. Woodland pasture (shown hi figure 4)
is, on the other hand, markedly concentrated in Texas, and is dis-
tributed fairly evenly throughout the eastern half of the country.
This Texas woodland pasture is, in the mam, brush-land, largely

FIG. 3

IMPROVED

PASTURE LAND
1909

ON FARMS

'<£?='

mesquite. In the Southern States there are vast tracts of forest
land; nevertheless woodland pasture is not as dense as in the North-
ern States, and in part of the South it is practically nonexistent.
This is due partly to the lack of species of grass well adapted to
pasture, and partly to economic conditions which make unprofitable
any utihzation of poor pastures. There is a noticeable belt of wood-
land pasture in Minnesota and western Wisconsin, owing in part, to
the rolling or hilly topography.

6 BULLETIN 626, tJ. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Unimproved pasture other than woodland pasture (fig. 5) is dis-
tributed more densely through the Great Plains region largely be-
cause much improved range land is included in the pasture figures.
In the East unimproved pasture is distributed somewhat more
densely through the Northern than through the Southern States
and is most dense in Vermont and parts of northern New York.

FIG. 4

WOODLAND

PASTURE
19 0 9

ON FARMS

*#

k^~-

The pasture reported as miunproved by the enumerators in the
East is largely land that is too rough for cultivation, and in the
West is largely grazing land where the rainfall is too low for the
production of staple crops.

Figoire 6 shows the distribution of farm land that is in neither
crops nor pasture. As explained above, this type of farm land com-
prises woodland, waste, and fallow land, as well as yards, barnyards,

PASTUEE LAND ON FAEMS.

roads, etc.; in short, all farm Luul that is not utilized directly for
agricultural production. In New England, in the South Atlantic
and East South Central States, as well as in Arkansas and Louisiana,
a large proportion of this land is in forests and marshes. On the
other hand, in parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,
and Kansas, as well as in the Western States, an appreciable pro-

FIG. 5

UNIMPROVED PASTURE LAND ON FARMS

(OTHER THAN WOODLAND PASTURE)
19 0 9

'^<f

bo<5

portion of the cultivated area remains idle every year because of
the practice of summer fallowuig. It therefore can not be con-
sidered as waste land.

The regions of sparsest distribution of land not m crops or pasture
are at the two extremes of agricultural conditions. On the one
hand, there is httle unused farm land in places where there are
few farms, as in northern Maine and the Adirondacks, and on the

8

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

other hand, there is little unused farm land in the most fertile agri-
cultural regions where nearly all the land in farms is utilized, as in
Illinois and Iowa.

Land not in farms.. — -In this connection it is interesting to consider
the amount and distributioji of land not in farms. These figures

FIG. 6

LAND IN FARMS

OTHER THAN LAND IN CROPS AND IN PASTURE

19 0 9

•^c^

^i;^^^|^;;^iy

•0^'

mmmm:

:V^-;

are derived by subtracting the land in farms as reported by the
Bureau of the Census from the total land area of counties as reported
by the same authority. The following table presents the results
by geographic divisions and States, and figure 7 shows the distribution
of land not in farms by comities:

PASTURE LAND ON FAEMS.

9

10 BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

Lands not in farms: 1910.

Division or State.

Acreage.

Per cent of

total land

area.

Division or State.

Acreage.

Percenter

total land

area.

United States

1,024,491,275

53.8

South Atlantic:

218, 734
1,305,100
32,337
6,272,044
5,347,638
8,754,471
6,004,772
10,630,587
29,857,502

3, 526, 713
6,638,023
12,086,248
11,114,147

16,199,925

18,622,279
15,565,607
55,499,653

80,023,037
48,0(52,956
53, 917, 150
52,809,007
67,131,899
71,591,787
49,200,061
07,570,683

31,062,805
49,503,370
71,685,836

Geographic Divisions:

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central . .
West North Central . .

South Atlantic

East South Central...
West South Central . .

19,949,709
20, 808, 944
39,231,812
94,266,439
68,423,185
33, 365, 131
105,887,464
490,306,580
152,252,011

12,835,941

2,530,382

1,175,783

2,269,019

239,572

899,012

8, 468, 193
2,235,103
10,105,648

1,967,892

1,768,977

3, 344, 583

17,846,586

14,303,774

24,073,297
1,644,352
9,394,032
16, 490, 470
23,178,628
10,535,099
8,950,561

50.3
32.5
25.0

28.8
39.7
29.0
38.5
89.2
74.8

67.1
43.8
20.1
44.1
35.1
29.1

27.8
46.5
35.2

7.5

7.7

9.3

48.5

40.4

46.5
4.6
21.4
36.7
47.1
21.4
17.1

17.4

Maryland

20.5

District of Columbia.

Virginia

West Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Georgia

84.2
24.3
34.8
28.1
30.8
28.3

Florida

85.0

New England:

East South Central:

Kentucky

13.7

New Hampshire

Tennessee

24.9

Alabama

36.8

37.5

Rhode Island

West South Central:

Arkansas

48.2

64.1

Oklahoma

35.0

Texas

33.0

Pennsylvania

Mountain:

Montana

85.5

Ohio

Idaho

90.1

Wyoming

86.3

Colorado

79.6

New Me.xico

Arizona

85.6

98.3

Utah

93.5

Nevada

96.1

Iowa

Pacific:

Washington

72.6

Oregon

80.9

72.0

Nebraska

Kansas

The total acreage not iu farms in the United States in 1909 was
1,024,491,275, or 53.8 per cent of the total land area. The greater
part of this unused land was in the western half of the United States.
It wdU be noted that in some counties in Texas there was no land
not in farms reported. In fact, in these counties there was more
land reported in farms than the entire land area of the counties.
The reason for tliis discrepancy is that the farm acreage is assigned
in tabulation to the county where the farmstead is located, and in
these Texas counties there were many farms with farmsteads in one
county and large acreages in adjoining counties.

The map in general indicates the regions where little expansion of
farm acreage is possible. This is the case throughout the corn belt,
in most of the spring-wheat region, and in central New York. The
uncleared areas along the northern border and in Arkansas and
Oklahoma appear clearly on the map, as well as the forested and
marshy regions along the Gulf and South Atlantic coasts. The
wheat-producing areas of eastern Washington, the Willamette Valley
of western Oregon, and the valleys of California, are regions of the
greatest expansion of agriculture in the West. In these locahties
there was comparatively Uttle land not in farms in 1909.

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

11

In the eleven Rocky Mountain and Pacific States over 85 per cent
of the hind area was not in farms in 1909, and a great deal of this
land is destined to remain permanently non-agricultural. Where the
land is too rough for agriculture and the rainfall sufficient for the
growth of trees, the land is included in the national forests, which
are shown as sohd black areas in figure 7. Desert areas and several
Indian reservations, which had not been opened for settlement in
1909, are also shown in black.

Note 1. — The schedules from which the material was tabulated
had been moved to a storage room and some of the schedules were
lost or mislaid. The following table shows the number of the missing
records and the States and counties affected :

Missing records.

Number of
farms.

Missing records.

State and county.

Number

Per cent
of total.

United States

6,361,502

11, 877

0.19

262,901

8, 182

4,003

88, 197

330

46, 170

249

96

291,027

1,925

1,458

217,044

3,935

156, 137

2,622

4,255

274, 382

10,612

277,244

3,861

2,689

55

272, 045

3,469

246,012

773

866

417,770

84

184,018

96

177,127

2,868

4,003

2,803

1,894

1,231
663
329
329
338
247
91

1,303
972
331
824
824
897
404
493
481
481
753
753
55
55
868
868

1,635
772
863
83
83
93
93

2,324
733
784
807

.7

Dallas

15.0

16.6

.4

99.7

.7

Custer'

99.2

94.8

.4

60.5

22.7

.4

20.9

.6

15.4

11.6

.2

Bolivar

4.5

.3

19.5

2.0

100.0

Ohio --

.3

25.0

.6

99.8

99.6

.02

Ector*

98.8

.05

96.8

1.3

26.9

19.6

28.8

1 Pasture figures for missing records in these counties were estimated on the basis of average acreage in
adjoining counties with similar agricultural conditions.

It wiU be seen from the foregoing table that of the total number
of 6,362,000 farms, schedules for about 12,000, or one-fifth of 1 per
cent, were missing. The missing records therefore do not affect per-
ceptibly the figures for the United States or even for any State, the
largest proportion of missing records, 2 per cent, affecting the figures

12 BULLETIN 62tj, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

for Nevada. In counties whose missing records constituted a com-
paratively small percentage of the total number of farms, the pasture
acreage on the farms whose records were missing was estimated on
the basis of averages for farms whose records were on hand. But in
counties whose missing records constituted a very large proportion
of the total number of farms the estimates were made on the basis
of average acreage per farm for adjoining counties having similar
agricultural conditions. There are, therefore, about seven counties
for which the figures are estimates and possibly inaccurate, but for
the remaining counties and for States and the United States the
figures are as reliable as could be obtained by the method of enu-
meration.

Note 2. — By subtracting the figures for woodland pasture from
those for the total woodland on farms, as reported by the census, a
measure of the amount of land in woodlots not pastured could have
been obtained if it were not for the difference in definitions. The
census definition of woodland pasture is given on page 1, and
woodland on farms was defined as follows:

Woodland in this farm. (Give here land covered with natural or planted forest
trees, whose principal value is in firewood, timber, or other forest products, which it
will now or later yield.)

Woodland pasture, therefore, according to the definition, includes
a large territory of open pasture with scattered trees, and naturally
this territory would not be reported as woodland. As a matter of
fact the acreage reported for woodland pasture was, in many coun-
ties, and even in many States, considerably in excess of the total
acreage for woodland. Nevertheless, it was considered worth while
to show in Table I the percentage of farm land not used for crops or
pasture which was in woodland and in all other kinds of land not
otherwise specified, with the understanding that these figures are
only rough approximations.

In the case of a few counties the reported pasture land is greater
than the entire farm land, exclusive of land in crops, and in some
others pasture land alone, as reported, is greater than the total
land in farms. These discrepancies probably are due to the fact
that in some cases, especially in the range States, the farmer would
report as pasture a great deal of range land that he did not report as
part of his farm. It was deemed advisable to let the reports stand
as made, because there was no evidence on which to base any edi-
torial revision. It will be understood, therefore, that these para-
doxical returns are presented exactly as made by the enumerators.
The following table gives the list of counties from which an excessive
acreage in pasture was reported and the amount of the excess. This
excess makes it obvious that the figures given for these counties in
the column headed "All other farm land" were minus quantities.

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

13

In Table II the minus quantities are not given, but a reference is
made to this Ust. The State totals for this column equal the sum of
the figures shown for counties less the minus quantities reported for
the counties here listed.

Counties reporting an excessive acreage in pasture.

State.

County.

Excess.

State.

County.

Excess.

Acres.
91,641
13,774
11.322
6,504
55, 575
75, 456

130, 801

15,994

21,662

1,366

19,301

445, 998

33, 150

31,900

2,603

South Dakota

Todd

Acres.
3,194

14

Crockett

769, 533
54, 803

Hartley

Kinnev

6,225

O'Brien

8,978

Clark

McCulloch

23, 949

32, 466

Roberts

71,335

Banner

Scurry

Victoria

129, 293

279, 258

Elko

62, 989

3,436

North Dakota

Clifton Forge City.. .
Sweetwater

23

Mellette

Wyoming

361,711

14

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

^ CZ )r i-i ni ^ ?>

■rt< CO 'O CO "* "O 0» >.

r-i ai 00 CO -^ 'I* oocoio cOTt<coco^ '^»oi>.

^5

^sal

CO C> CO ■-+^ -^ CO -— I

rH W CO 1-H O -H >0

.-H --t CI 'O -1^ -rj< (N Ol '* NiOCOI^OO

C<)OJCOOQOt- OJCD't* -^Tt^i-HNiO CO 'CO

00--HOIOO00OIO00
- Ci Ci GO i-O CC "H o o

1— iT-iiOC^»0»0 COO^'rJ* GOCO-^-^C^ OOi-HCO
^COOcO lOtOC^ l-^aicOcDM C^COcO

COC^f— Ii-hOtJ^cOCOCO ■^Tt^C^'^iOCO OICOCO .-HrH.-(C^CS W (N

c^ t^ »o CO --H <N r-I to o

rt ,-, rt COOfl

(Ot^CO-^iOCN O^O ODCO^C^'-H ,-i^iO

i-HC^i-H 1-t

»OeO00O500fCOiC^CC

Ort ^OiOlM

0 05 1-

lo •* as 00 00

lOoor^

000>-l'OtO00OC0t-

SSSSS'^

-H MOO

0> — 11^ CM 05

O l^ CM

GOCOO'^^iO'OOOO

.-i>ra^cvioo»

rt 00l~

OOOiOMO

eMoo

lO— l(N(MtO00tO-Ht~

lO (N 00 "O 0> 1^

■^ OOOi

00 (N IM I^ 00

t^ GOCO

O-t<(NC»DG0aiC0!M'rt< t-^CO-yDC^

I^G<5oi'-H-rlHo6»0'+'CO OI'OOfN . i.= i=i-

CO W (N CO <-H r-( Tj< iC -^*< CO CO -^ CO C^ CO COi-i<M co<MCqc<)co

.-I X) ^ i-H t - no (N OS

'I^COCO COCDCOOOCO CO^'

— -~ csj w CO csieo<

(MtOGOt^C<)COt^COOO cscot— cOiOC^
Ca-fiO^COCO<N^<N C^^CSC^(NN

CO CO M *-t O •-< ^ 05 rl< lO »0

Ocd'^ oi-^co>oo coooi

O O l-~ C C*3 iM C^i .-H OJ CO -1- lO ^ --I c

ccr-H»o-rc:i-r-r«:i-t« cC'C^-rc^Jczj':

i-HiOOSCOCO'^C^IC^'M dCOCO'^'CC

lO X r^ 1^ 1-t fO "^ C^ l^ -^ C^

cocoo csro-— 'CDC^ -^coco

lO.— ii-HXCS-— "iC-— iCS cOC^'OOc

i-^c^c^cc'r^aTc^cc'io' csTi-ri-rr-^'

r-lCS-^lOCO"^^'-!

Ol Oi <N

1^ Tt^ ^

0 03 O

.-^Tt^.— I CCOCO'-HCD O'^O

00 t -^ C^l yD -yD
CC O CO .-H CD
(N^ COOO

8l
^1

<N r? Oi -r o (N •* 'O lO cs CO cs CO '* *:

iXCICOO^'Ol' XCi-fOlOi"

>0 CO Tt* OS CO X 00 GO O C^ --I
(M ^ Oi CO 'O "O r-- to CO fH o

CiiDcoco-— IXOI--C0 coto-rcooo oi-oo cooc^ox

Tpc^^cS'c^cS'^^t-^ co^o^'ccTcTarco' trTto'Go' c^co'i^^co'^f' pi ^!^o'

«f . _, _ „ X, — coo CO lO^ O Tt^O t^ to CO

Oi I— I Oi i-H t— O lO Oi CD t^ 00

WCOCOt-tCSr-iOOO

i-Hl-OcOOOi'— I CO-"

(Ot^--ioeD^ co«oa>

l-iMOiWI^'O CO O O
t'-C^COOlOOO coi^co

OS <M (NO r-
CS -1^ X CO-H
00 CD I- Oi to

»0 CO lO "^ c
CD 1— I X CO C

co"Ti*"co"co"t-*"co >-'^ "* Oi"

1-^CN^iOOit^ r^^(N Tt^xO'i'rH >0 0"*

O 00 to 1^ »o t^

TT ,-( CO

00 ^ to C^ t-

00 to 1-t GO to i-H O CO O

tOOlXOI-^O woco

Cll-^I^'OtO.— iiOcOC^ cO-^CSdCOCO CCt-(N

D CO t^ O ^ CO I

■ X CO OOlCOCOI-O Ol t-- OS

■^^ :D COT'-
C'l I - Q -:f C^

r-HrHOsXcO^O COO:>cOOOiCO 00 'OX CO'-J'-llMOl ^r

ICOOiXOlX-^^^C'l C^l^l-iOCOI-- CS'MCI ^'^SS'-^^S

i-H^'NOS'MXOiiOO

COt-i .-( oc^t-

00 i-H Tt*(N '^tH i-H

O fMO
(M^cD^iO

1— i--t*OiOin(MiO'*Os coc^^oo-^co OXCO

t-iOO^-t^cD-f'-OCO-^ C^t--CO"^OtO "^XC^

COOS'— ttooc^r-cot^ ,— ii^,-(i-t^,-( cO'~<'-<
(N -t* CO t-- CD 1^ |^^ if^ CO

OsXOt--CO'-<OcDiO
C^CS-TfOCO'^COiMl^

(M 0> CO r-^ (M

*M CO -t« »0 O
X -^ »0 1-- CO

lO-^-tcOXcD f-<COO

co^r^fNCs^ ocoio

CsrM<NO>^GO lO'^CO

-xcocoh- OS lO 00

i^ iM -r '^ to to CO c^ CO

^ CO I ^ ^ ^ t-^ CO iM

CO CO CD
I- xco
o CO CO CO r^

d o

cd ^

OC^^CDXtOOliOt-H COC-I^'MCOOS

XOiOCOOl'n^cDO

lO CO I - CO (N O

O»0O0sI-0S0SXl^ -rrcOOl-O'^

i--i<^— icor-Hi-HcDOs •otO'T':

cDcOXcOcO^^fNOi^ r-tco-tC

CicooiOflocoooi- r^coiNi

'^Qo"'-rio"^''co"crrori-r i-r .-r

,-( CD^ COC^ -^ <-!

OSO -t*
^Osd
Ol ^ "M

COrH 00

CO CD CO Ol t-

-rf o cs x--<

GO to to 'O CO

^".-h'o'oo'x'

SB

.-(COX'— <»OOSCOOO>
COiO'^C^iOC^l-'NOO
OlO'-«'-<C^COOl"rpI~

OS X '■- i-" X X

f~-r-c^ QO CO r- -t^ CO

,H o X CO L^ ^0 O CS CO t- _

X-^toOscOl- COXX t-XOicOO

CO X X
C^X' -t<
X CD<N

Tt*.— lOsXC^OOiCOX

t^-H0lC0t^*0^i0C0

Orco't'^(N'co'^''oror^ COCO^C^ of
.-)-"i<.-HOOOX^>OtO

CD OS CO i-O CO »0
05 -fl CO I-- -* X
C^fNcOX '^.-H

, _ lOOsC^OO
- X O OS !M -r CO

O coco
CO t- X
O to lO

r^ coos
CO OS >o

(>» coco

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS,

15

(OCCt^CN 05 00 t^ ^ CD r- 00 t^ 00

OiOOOiCO

os»o coub

'<**rcccco — < (N <7J «£> CO CD CO (C>

OI-^C^O »OiO-:dfOQo6<Nni
" — t^ I- t- »0 C- - -

(DCJ— ' CD

CO oi •-J' cs

" 'M CD -^
(M (M CO

CO CO cOC^OCSfHiO

^— ic^-ji r? oc o o6 c^ -1^ c^ CO '

OOcor^OOO— I lOr^coQO

C4006»0— '-'fCOC^ »oo6>oco
CO "^ CS « CO ■<*< CO COtNC^CO

SC^'-'.-i c^rt (>j^,-,^^^^ c^^y-,r~i ^^CMC^

oo'^wojLo^aiO'^

cocoioeo'^'^ c^cococo -^ co

r-cor-Cfl CO CO CO <-H t^ ■^ o '~^ OS cooswsN

06--c4tj1 •rt' c6 C^ ^ ->*> ^ d ^ CO icoowoo

?5(M^»-* — ■ ■■

■^ CO CD 00
^ COC^ CO

^■^CStO'^CDiO'OcO '^•<*<»OtJ< tOiCC^C^ CO'^OIC^CO''

lOOO -^Oi

OtO

CDrH TfCCO CM

t^O •'J'CO

O 00 -^ CD

0>0lO'0CMrtt^-<}<

«lT(<MO

MIN

M>Or-lt-<rt N

(N<N.-ICM

Cl^OOCDOrO-fOl

•^c4c^ CO

C^t--fOC5 »OCOC^OS'-<COOCOOO N^CSOl 0>OTt<CO CO'-HOOOOOC^>OTt<

i-4i-(Coco ^^c^r^t-^uir-^t-^t^ <6o6o6o cocoot^ cbt^cooO'-loot^cJ

b- 00 00 t^ lO 00 (N W »0 lO C^ --H O COC^I-*00 05CD0SC0 O i-H r- Ol CD CS O ^ CO"— liOOO

lo ^ ^ CO CD ci 00 CQ ^ c^ 1-* r-i 1-3 t>- o6 oi 'rf* c^-^jio6c6 '^ «o r^ oi cJ CD 00 "^ cocoo^

•^C0>OiO 00"^I^t--C^«OTt*0 CSCOCOCO OOir-iO iO»-<iOTt^cDiOC^-^ ooooooo

"^•^^<?^ ^f^??^r?'^'^^'~i 5P°o^op oiciTflco c^r'i'^'^'^'^Q^ o6»o-^co

i-« CO Tf CO i-hf-hC^WCO

^ C^,-,T-Hi-H

5 C^ CD O CD CO "*t< 00 C^"<J<iOiO

CM 00 (N WD

oociio CO

o>ocioso>t^co»o

coc^oioiioicco-^^

OOCO-^Tt*

ooooo

lO -^ '^r -"^ -^ CO lO CVI (N (N CO CO Cq C^COCOCO COCOTt^r

1— I— io»o -^co-^Ci-^ocMoco o-^cDO i-<r-r-o:i .-HOicO'~'<Mc

r-CD'^CO OOiOI-OiCO.-HTi'iOTj*

OOCOCtN '^l^iMOi OiOCSi-OCS^COCM

cDcDr^.-(

^■^coo cDooi--i-Hi--ooaioco looioco oc^-^-^ i--»oco>6(NCioai coi--i— ico

Tf (M O I'-
T-. CO CI— I

CM O'^-^I-'^CO O C: O 00

o:t-co»o .-Hoit-^cocics*-**.':!

■^ t-- O -t? 1— I »-H ,— t I^ CO 00 -J* ~

O'^i-^cq Tj'cO'^-'j'cOLOCM

o »o CO cT ^cm'c^co^co' "-T

-f o cocooor^

coo 00 Ol

CO CO 00 r^
■^coo^

-^^lO ^-hcm'OOi:

- ^ CO M M< CM '

_ ; ^ CO O O I - CO '^ lO GC' I - CM

1-CM •-HtOCMCOOOOi COCDCO"^

r^QOCOcD -^X'lOCOcOCDOcO »OCM0C'00
lO-^l^^ ^COCOCMOO^-^ CO^CM^
lO lO 00 i-t Oi 00 <— < "O TT" lO I— t .— I >t* r- CM 00

O: 00 CO CM O C5

> Tt* OS l^ CO

CCCO '"''"'25'^ 1-HLOOOcO t-^XC Oi 00 CM CO ■^

ClCOCOTt< CMCM OSi— lOr^cD'-H 001*00 OOOCMOJ lOCMOfC'IOOCOCO ..„.-..^
COOL-^ir^ ,—1 ■^iOCM'-hCMt-h »OTj'CM-<f i-hi— <tjJcO ■'TcO'— 'OiLOCMGOO OOcOOO

CC-^CMCO iOiOOSTp"<*<01CDCO»0 OiiCCMCO iC'^r-O Tpaor-^CD'tOO'— 'lO ,— it-cDO

Cit-CMCD r-c^CMwooi-oococo

— "COCO CMOCCf —«—.(•- lO CO CO'^'-O CO CO to QO

0500 t-- CO •^C5«— <Oi»OcOOCMI^ cOCMl*"0 OOi"— 'I-- OfdCOTft'-CMiO CO'^CMCM

o c^ CM r^

■" OO ■^ T-< CO

00-^coco r*t--oooo oiioc

CM >0 lO lO 00 lO C

, --_-_- 00 CM ^ CM cor-oci c?i t- 00 00 c^i o »-o 'O coco

lOI^— lOiOi-^ COCDl-O OcDOcO OOCQiOOCO'— tCMCM OlCO

.-T i-T — r ^".-T^'cm" ^ CO o" t-T^" ^

00— "OGOl COCOOCOI-CO'OOCO CO '0 05C5 COt-'^Ol-T

Tt* CO t-^O

00 -H 00 oi
COCOO »o

lO'co'CM^iO
CO 'O O CM
CO O O Oi

1-1 fo"'^ «o

CO CO O O CO CM CM >

■^CMCOOS QOCMOO 0>QCr---t'r-fO'OCO
CO lO m CT5 en ir^ fTi "-H m -*< rm rr^ rv3 lO -* i~

'TfO— •COOC'O'^COO

cocicMto-ri- 03i--i">-t

CO— "COOO i-HCO— «l'— (COClOi

00 fOO> -^
Oi 1- -f — t
OC^IOOl

H »0 CM I ' Tf CO r-1

00 '-0 CO lO ^ lO
COCMiOf-l CO

cm'^cm*'

OCCM-t*CM OOO^^t- O^COI-OI

Oi O CD CO CD

CMCO'OCO Ot-GOCM OI-->OCOCit^l--CO Ol— !--<■<*
OOCOIOOO ■^■<:J^»-0-^ OiCMCDCOO CM05 COt-Oi

CS)t^ ^ I-H ^

CM

CO— <O00 0>0i— tOOCOC^CiCM lO— tCcO O-^O— ' t---^O5C0t^t--CO'— < ■^CMCOt^

OOl-OOCO I-O^— icO^—'Oi'^ COLOOiO LOCOlOO ooo--t"^^i^i--i-- co»-oco— <

CMCOcOcD CDCMCM^O^OiCOr- lO-^— i— i OcD'^I'- OcDOlCOOcOCOCD 00"**'-^O

<^^~c^tfi' c^c^^cc-^'S'^t-^oo o'"'*"o*"cm' co"air CO crT ^oit-^cac^t-^x.^^ co'i-^io"-^

aD-*c:— t olo CMaoooocor^ — icoiooi — ('f— icm lOr^cocoThcocDco r— rfcoo

CO— (CO— I — too TTTj^OCMLOiO OOcOiOCO I--COOiO CMCMCOCOOlTt<COCM COCOOCO

^ 00 cD^t^ "^co CM"»-rcM lo co'csTco . i-T— TcTco* t^r-Tto^t-^cD f-TcM^ co'»o'»o'r-r

^— < i-H CD — t

eoO^cO COCiOaCr--OOcO-^-rt^O CMuOcOCM -t^C^ICOiO iC— ^iOO:>CM0OcOCi lOCMTfCM

05CD— 'CM OI'TTCM^Ol-cCiO — ir-O'O QO-rr-cO ClOiCOOOO— <CC'iO OCOcDCO

t-OO^ lOOOOcOOi— lOiTt* O— ^I•'0 O'-O-^^CO l*-<f'fJ'ait--OC^»— i CJiOiOOOi

o'co^'yTco" ■^cD"co"Tt-":0 '1^C0"o""cr CO"co"-^CO" o'co'cm"^ cm"— roo"-H"o"cD"— '""-^ ■^CD't'-^CO^

CT>-r^-Oi '"-O — <cOCMOicDCM »0:0 0-h lO— <OcD GCOSccOJcOOCiOi OOO— <

OOCMCOO "^O lOoOi— <00CO CMiOCOCM cOCOOCO OOcOl^cDcD— »l-CO cD"^t--CM

lo CM r— o CM -^ CM^io lo oT— T CO cD"t--"cD lO co'cm'oo' — Ti-T cm" co'cm'^o'

ON— <05 CDOCOCOCMOIOO^OOO f^t^CMCO lO^COt^ CO-t^OCO^-^COOir^ lOO'^O

iCOlC^Ol CO-rtOCO-rCMCM— ICO C»l«0— «CO I-GC»OcO OO— «— «CM— 'OJtO CO— t-^O

cOODOt- CC— "OcD-^— <0'^»0 f-HCDCOiO 0-J"COO cOcOO— "OCDcDI-- CM— iTt^cO

CO CO c^i ■^ Gc"i-''"co'"L'rccrorcM'co"co' oT—T CM^i-^ co^aToTirr lo'co'co'cM'crcD't^Tir cm" t-o'—TcT

c^ — c^icc co'O oiCMco^'CO oo-t<co»-o ^coLOco -^oo-rcot^-fOs— I ^oococB

TfOcCCO OO -^O-^i-OCiC^ — <OI--'0 -n^ -rpoO -^ "lOCMi-OiOCMCMCOI- I'COOiO

qo"'d"x"co" — Tio" orcrcM"co"ccrw:r CM'o'^o'^ocr r-^o'^cc'cM' co'io"oo"co"^'"f-rco"cM'" — T^^r-TcM"

CMCMCO"* ^„CM^CM CMCMCM^ ,_i ^ CM ^ ^ r-H r^ ^ ^ CM

rt cS c3

.ax: ^ s5

i^^ bj;3 oj

w ^ a ^ Pi

16

BULLETIN 626^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Cm ij « O
" 03 S ^ ^5

o a

^0-rJ'.-H.-H<£iaiOii-HCOrHOOi-Hi-HTt'COOSCCOOu^C^CC-<}<COMM050-^COiCC»W5NM'OOOi--l(^

rMOOlO':D.-HTj'wC^I'-H-^t'»OOCC'C<IOOCOCCcCCCOSOt^GCU^Oi'ft'C^COi-Ht^CCM*i-<COt^i-HO

r-1— iiocococooosot^i-f.— 100 lO Q0ooc^f0»oc^aicsicjoc^-^CJ':D io«— iait^>JOTrcDr*r-oOi-t

5«?OCftCSCir^Cir-HOOCfO'-«C^'^i--tC^Tj'CCi-HOOCOOOOi»--*OOcOt^iOI:^COi--<CCCOC^OOTt»
HCOi-HCMi-iT-lCSCSC^i-H.-lCqC^i-l"^r-i-HCO^CO00C0(N(NcC»-t(NC^rH w^COCA ^r-lCOi-H

. iOO>oooocciO(Nior*t^i-it^(Miococot

•C0C0'^C00i(N»O^-r-4CCI>'^i-HOOt^Tjft

C^ CO 1— '00 ^ -^ i-H^O CO GO t^ 0*0 I^^ C^Ol U5C*OOiCO?D t^COiO 00Cl'^C<CC^OS»O

u^'^OcDCOC5I>»'^OJt^r--OCOtOiOC<IOOiOOrHr*»OCOC^COC^CiiCCOI>i--<Cl'^C<»0'^00000

OcO'-Hcct*-cr»^-'-<*or-CiCi'^ i--ccoooc't!C<J »-HOt— ■-roo •-ii-iioOGCcoc^O'^'n'Oco-i^c^co

I— lCCDt-"COCCiOiCi<^'^ 00 *— «0 OOl'^C^COt^'— iCO lOCCOb-COi— ICO •OC^Olt^'— <CCGC'^COt-*t^i— t

f-rar»rr-rt''"co^co^cD'cc^o^'--rt^o''^'cD'o^co"ar»o'c^'^'^^ <>* 00 crTf^Tt^ c^cooO':o^?cc«Dco

to^-H^*oolO^-lca^--.—^l— lOot^O'XJOGOioO'— lOOooooc^c^oscDfcooaicooc^-^c^Mcoc^io

OC:(NC^«:>-^C^'CO»OCCOCC>CO t-OCl'-HO'^ t--CO »OOiOO»OCCcOh-"0 0'^tOtO iOCCC^CCt--i-t

)Tj*cct-<No6»oo6ooi>-ot-*-*'^oo

ooc;ci---(ror^'-rccccr--Ciccczoooooooi-^oooo-t'>0'-H'^-^ccait-*co>c>ociocaso»ow

OC^OOwC:'OCu^-n*CTJi-HC^-OC'»OCOOOCJ<X3t---CO-^COOt-^^<>»OC^CO.-H(riOt^OcDOOOC^CDO

cooiij^csocic^. cO'-HOiC'^oOTt'cocoooolco^-OiC^ooooo^^^o^^CfooG«DcD»o^*occ'(^^ooo»o
toe^r^'^t^t^<xT(:f^nc^c^y-^rS'^Gt^c^o>'f>i'ioa^<:^-^ w'co to^r-^Ci co co ifToToc o ■^ co »o eo *o

-1' i0CS':>:'Ci0:>C0»0C000c0CC0C'»0O»0C0CDt^'-iO'^ .-ti:DCOdC^'^OtOt--t--C*^ CC^lTfCOi— 1-^

c^^,-HTJ♦,-H(NC^^(^:;C^4c^c^^c^fC'^J*c^cscoc^c^c^cocOl^:lCCcccoW'-^c^^c^C"^c^c^coccw

^13 fes ° 3 s^S^^s^^tl'g^s § § fe i?SS^- " ° ^2 g grill's i i

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

17

t-, Tj« O t^ C^J lO OS T

r-i ^' Od l6 ■^* Oi <-H t

CCCCr-li-li-tWiOiOCCCDCOf-l-tJ'C^iONCOC^COWiOC^iO'^t'CC'-iCOeO

1-H40I>od^^cooic^c4^oosai■^c^^^c^ccl005»ociI--iodc^cco50 «$

0'-HiOcDO«-<CO.-lO>Oii-«COOi05C^03'«*'<0«DNCOOOOlOCOM'0*0
CO --io-^ >Ou6cOi-HiOrHCDOic^OOOTj5,-^^-rjJcOTl«CCt^«o6 r-loC

Oi O O ^ CS C" ■■ ■ ■ "■ -

?cco5t^»oo»or^o

cDro»o.-iOit^o«~icc i-Hix.-iioccoJcc'OGC^CJcocsosr-i^oocoaj

l-HFHr-iT-l l-^WCJi-l O .-H .-i i-H 1-H 1-t t-H ,-( .-H r-1 »-H ,-( 0» .-H (M ,-1 r-t

c^toooio-^r^r^Tfiooir— '^•t'cor^rc

CD »0— CC.— il— OiOOfOOSC

-C^C^OeCCiOicC<N»0

:i-^c:dc-iocsi— '-n^cDi^-^-^t:

OC^I^C^iOi-HCOOOCOlCiJ OClOOOcDfOCC^OOlQOi-iClCDOX>

XCM Ot^C^ T-*0

»-(r>-ocDr^GOcor--c^.-H05t^oioccoOr-<:D o»-'-^cooc »ocd;dciio

C^ CD CO CO lO O ■^

CO lOCOOifO'^OiOi'— tOOcOOt^-^cDcD i-nOit^O

C^C^i-Ii-(i-ICOiOC^CSOCC'-hCQC^tJ<CSC4.INt-Hi-icCC^'^CO^WCCi-i

«— iCOOGOOOOOCCCCDcDh-OScO"^'— ICON

CCtO'I^CDOO.— <iOX CiOQCCSiOCDOOdOOt^tOOi-i-^
Tt* ai<N r^ lOcOcO OOOC4 O ^(N t^ »o oco c^ ■ —

Oa>COt^WOCC3r-iC<)i-lOCrHC^OOOOi<NiOT}*CQ"ti'^»OOCD.-MOl-^

CS .-I,-! ^

'NMOO'rJ'CDOi-^O.-tOO

;t^.-Hco:Dco T— ir-cc-rpco

.-__._ _, 3 lO OS •— I »0 CO CO »— I N 1-H -^ CC

CO-^OSOC^-i-HCOCDCOi-tt-CCTPcOiOr-OOcCOOOSCOOCOtNOS-^t^CC
.^ -^ ^^ «, . «-. ^^ ►. ^. .--. ^ ^ — ^ -, ^ ^ CO »-t •-< *-t 00 fO OS 00 OS

-.—CO OsrfCOOO.— (00fOiOi-4CC

tOC?>

Or-
eo c^

'-hO.-htJ* >-Hi-<C0C0OC^.— itJ*

co-^csc^i-Htooocc'^Ort4coTrTrcoTi*'x:j<'^CH»-Hr*cot*ioc^cc^ i-t

Oco-^.-iiOt^'rfCO-rHOCOCiIVNOSTfMi-ciO'^cOOSOOiO.-i-^OS^^

cTo

i-*ro (NcO

-- ClCOCDt^CDCOCO"^ lOt— coco OC^COCD"rf.-HOO tOlOOlOCOOO

(XTfft>-oco'ocsio»ot--ooocscsr*oior-ooi— lOi-iosc^i-i
t^ocivTroococD f— t»-Hco t^'co''r^'''^*^ic^io^Tf'"GC*'Gc'»o'"i

GC CO ;D •-• i-< -

.— «OOOcOiOcOCCC^ccC^iOC4»OTtf

J- (^fOOiidf-iOlOONOCSCOOO.— I'^^-rt'iOOS.— iTt*COi— IfOOO

cc oio^a: coooocc^cccjixooo-^ci"^ iogci-h>— .oiooosf-icc^r-'

'* .-HCCGCC^t^COCO.-i'^CSCOlNt^C^OCfNt^CDi-iC^O^IMOCO^

C0C004CCC^'^'^C0C0

-5£tr'~'52'^^'^'*'^'^'^'^o^<M'^r^oiwcoooCTroo lo
-~ ■ CO 00 OS lOt^co ocD oit- r* 00 ~ ■" ■" ■ ' -^

■^COC^COCOCCCC«NNCOCM'

r:;r?SOioo»0'-<ccTj-coGcai>oi^coocD(Mt-t^o6o40io-<ft^uo

Jlgllgli^lgji

1 o 'J « fl C3 ci O O

__ 03 S3

So o
Oi o o

ST3 a-:

illlilllillfillll

14576°— 13— Bull. 626-

»0 lO O* CO* •-< i-H ^ Oi 00 lO ■rj* co' 1--^
-^COt-'^COCOCOC^OOOS^'-'O
CO OS -^ N i-i C^ lO 00 --H 1-t

Of-HrHr-'nfio»oO'<**c<»or-o

>0 C CS 00 O CO c4 CO* oi O CO lO c^

C4"^»OCO.-iC^C^'-HiCCOt--t-(M

C^C^i-tOSTt*-<i<*COOSiOOO'*}<

^*^??99f^t-^o6.-Hoscoo

T-' --< cc CO .-H

r-oooit--r-tcox*^or--»rot>-

C^OOOOli— '■^.-«0"Tt<iOCOO»0

ooocoosoir-cocooo»cocoi'-

r:? £? P ^ S 2! N'r^Tf^^oTco'^oo
r^r^^ "^ OS oOM»H (M»-i

' CS O OJOO (N

c* cs t^co -^ r-

r- OS 00 CO OS 00

I-. OS TT (N (N CN|
to (M -^ ^ O O

O ^ CO ■^ lO »-(

OOOsoooeoC).-Ha^Tj'oo?-o

iO'>t>c^'^cO>dUiCO'^cOt— OiOS

»-" ^ CO CO •-• "-^ »o'^^(N'co*'*^""co'

COOSOi— iOSOSOCOC4cO»OiO«— I

r:^^r::;52f<^?^2tNoo'ococo(M

COOSiCOt-l^Tf<l-^C>40i(NOOCS

1-* CO -^ N

SSS^"^r?^o.-»-^ooto.-ios

C^CO.-H»OiOC^OSOscOO«-HOOi-H

COt-HOiOOOOSC^^COTp-^COOS

OSt--(NOSCOt— lOOOi-HOOM'^
»0C0(NTjitNCSi0C0'Q<c0c0O<:0

l^(NfOCO"^iO t-COCOTt^OCO

Cs»0'^C0O«-HO0st^0STf-^»0

SOSC^(N00t^lO^C0— <0(N

c5 1-- ^ lO loco

q;' at d

ra

a.§ ga 2 c3 o 03.25 § « 3

18

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

g-g t- e o

gal

^a

u:>O(NC^OC0ascCGC»O^0C«'«*<C^TJ^^»OC0OC<^O^Ct"-00TJ-l0cDCCO1-^llC^^^00C^"*'^C^
lO C^ 00 lO O CO Tt< CD CO '"1* 1-H N CO i-H C« W (N i-H (N CO C<l ■* -^ CO C^ CS CO C« CO C^ CO .-* CO <M

oc^^-o^-■lCoOQO■^J*.-^^-H<:D^-Ht^^-^c^oscocooo^-<l^^':DlOOi^-c^ooalt--I>•Oco(^^oos

OSiOCOr*OiOcor^CDasi-HOiCiOiiOCSOOOiO'*OOt^rP-^iOCOCOOS»COit^l^-(NCOTt*CO

O''^OCX5o^OiC0i-rl^O^'i-HO-^i-HTjii-HCJ01I^»dtDr-^C^Q0cdO

cocoes C0WCSCS|<MC0(N"*N(NC0-^'^C0<OC0'-tNNC0C0C^^OI'^C0WC0C0C^'^"<**C0C0

r^co^r^oo>oOi-Hcoc^-^^iocjoooi'*c^or^^aiiOGCOt^oi

:>cocOTiio.-»Tr':j'coco'Oc:>tNoooocccsOr-i

5 (N ^ f^ r^ t^ O -*

i0Ci0-^C0'-Hi0^0i00C'<O<N<M

^C^OC0C0^.-<t--oC0l-^CiOC0'*aiOC0t^»OC0C^U0C^"^OC00iI-(MC0^(M^0iO

1— ico-^ooooioi^<Mr-»ocoascooaiiooJOi»ot

I~-CO'-'l-COOiOO»OOOOOOCOCOC^'-tGiOCO-^i:--C^C

> OS lO O "O.CO lOCOiOOllO-rf*!— i-rt^C
; »0 .-H t^ C-J 00 0-l*C^--it"-(5iOOC

,-«tO^OOOai'-tOOOOOOOOO^OOl^OOrOt-^(MOOOO'fCsOCOOi-:t^h-cOCOOO(N'-HiO

;.-ioooo-:t*-^(Nai^oooaicoooaicooc^'*ait

»0 CO Oi ^ C-J c

-0500t-^.->aJ"^OO00i— (C^C^c^--J^iOOC:'(NiOi-iOQO»OiOC^QO-^iOeO

OS C^f-1-H^iOC^C^CO i-t

(NCOiOCOC^ C1»0 11^

Oi0C^O00'*0iO^t--O-t'wl--(N*-Ha>OOt^Q0C0tf5»0O'i*<i0wt^«DOC0i-H-^C0'-l'i*i

ascoi— i*0'-Ht-ai'— •oaioooiOr-i-^oo'^ocioDaiooi-^ooiocooco^cooo'OOO^o

C^i-HiO'^COClOCOC^C^OOt-~^OOi-HCiiOOOC^(NO£-^C000500f-«C^OO'^iOOOOr-i<C>«0

i0i-lt~*(NCDi0CDOO.-HCD-<i<CDC0OC0^C^JC0-^

^iOcOTt<':OCOOOTt*iO»OCOOO'^CCit-HOO

^ --H C^i-H

rl^ i-H M

;iOOOiC^-*-<^iOOO>'*OiOOCOC^i-lOO^i-lOstN00500C^05t'OcOOOC^'<J^T-^CSO

OlClO-rJiOtN'^r-iOOC^CO^OliOTfOrJHOSOiO^^iOC^I^OOC^r^CO
COOiOOOOO»--»t— coC^OO»0»000000':00'<4<COO'<t<'^'-t» - —

a: O c

CO '^ <N 00 'lO CO C^ O Tj< O t^ CS CO C^ <-< O '^ 1-1 C^ Oi-nr-COC^ w<Da>c^<cooo »-<ON

OiCD00**f-«'^'<*<CS^^^iO00i-lCOCM'^00Oit

'^Tf*C5O0)-rJ<00i0r*Tt*^t^C0OO»0G0^C,-_- _ ^_,_.___^_._ .

i-iCn>iOOi-tOuocOOOO"*OCOIr^'*r-<NCO>OOiCD-<*<Oc£'t^OiOOiOOc:3iOr^»Ot^(NOS

orTco'c^or'rjro'^crco^i-riooo '*^<^c^^co'oo"co'ij^«:r ^rj^croT'^ri-rcrrco'oo o6"c^co'o""io"r^t>r^''

^ 1-H CO 00 -^ .-H ^ '^ (M CO 1-t 1-" ,-H CN C^ r-l

CS CO "^ CS i-t I-H CO C^ (N (M i-H

^r^ooo^Mt^uDOcoot^-— tQoc^c^w>oaiooi>-'*c^t^co-*t^cocO'-Has'^'-ih-oot

00C5r^O(NOOir:iCSI'^'-<t--O»0O00Ot^'*OOi0'-it^

oot^cococoaiO(>it-GOooocoo'^oi

t--^CO(MC^OOC^OiO(N

Oi— lOSCOOi-Hi-tCOiOt-^'^aiO'^COt^-rt*

OO^-r^r^coiO'— lOiioioocot^'— 'Oi-

^c^oooooioocoi— ic^cs'-'co05»ooiixicoc»r-

OOOOCOOOcOCOt^^DcCOO-^'^Or-Ht^OOOO'^CO'^t^OCi'OCOCOOOC^-fOOiOOl'^OO'^

t'-OCT>0iO'-*t^Q0C0Oi0<Cit^O(M"0c0OOOCiO'^OCSC^-rc0i0i0t-(i0-+O'— ('— <C0

~ — — -- -- ■i.r}HOC5OC^O'-HO»0t--O'rrO-^-— iI^CC00C0OC0C^l--O-^OOOGC

-J^OtiCOOiOOTPoOC^iOi— ir-HCOCiOiCO'-Hrt'COCOC^COOfNi-HaiCO

.-< O Ol o o -

'■S^CirH-^J^OO'ft^COt^OOOr

O CO "* (N Ol r^ »0

^-^OOt-llO'rt^fOLtiO'-i

- o -^ t^ c
_ . . . . - . J c^i cc r- c _ - -

COCS»-<'^C^'-l'-iCqi-IC^i-<i-Hi-HCOMr-HCSi-ti-ii-.i-iCOC^C^C^.-i'-HlNC0r-iC^C0C>lC^COC^i-(

oa:30ocO"^'»t*cot^i---t::ooGOOi-*ioo:icococ^ccr^oascoiocc<NOor----HOt^'— ''Oco'O

^ 9^ 5 ^ br

SSofl,

ago^

<1<;cqpQiXipqS6ooGooooQQaQOPPf^l^^COOWWWS^2»?

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

19

f^ ''^CO-*ci^COC4 <NCOC^Clt-H M -^ '^ CI CC CO CO <N -<*< (N lO CO lO O -^ C^ -^ CO »-* CO en

•^0iC0'-HOaJC0i0050iCC'CD'*t--i-<t--C0i-lO*-HOOi0»0C0O0iC^C0C^OOt--00C000i-HC^

.-^»Oa>lOCOOi05^^t^^OOC^C^COaiOt^OOOl-<*^OI^*050'rT^COl-llOOlOOOlOOiCCl^*OOl-l

iX ^ ^ O OS '-I >-< '(^ Oi Oi Q O f-H l^-T lO »0 CO -1^ -^ OS C/5 t-^ «-< t-H CO CO o

co^ocococO"*c^c^»c^»o»oc^cOr-Hc^co>oc-^cO'-lcoco-J'cOlO<^^c<^'-Hcoc^c^>-tc^|^^coco»oco

lOiO.-HOiOSUOGOC^C^OOiO.-H.-HC^O-t'l-^C^C^C^'^C^O'^OSF-iC'lC-^C^as'^OCJCOi-'CCoO-
0^00^01»OC0l-»0l^-l-C0C5OO'*t-OOOOC0G0C^'^CC't'i0O-^0lOi0C0t--»0G0I^
O'-Ht^C0-^I^00cDC0(NO0000-*0S»0C0C0l— "" "" ~"

O'^OSOStMOi'-'astMiMOS'-'CSC^C^Ol

IT)— ^cO■^05UO-ft^CO'-HOOi^~r-HeOCO'-<^0000»Or-^asOQCSC«rHt^f-llOcDt>^-HC^C^C^

T2SMOiCOCO-?oi-^t^OO»OC»r--oasOTrOO-^0>OOr-cD'^G005COt--^t^Ci.-iOicDCO

0000'^»OOCO'0'^>OiC»OOOCO'Tt*»— I-

S3

iF-«O»00SQ0c0-<J'C00S»0'*OC

3coi^c^t--<Nco-t'r-co
- . I lOOSC^ c^ ^oo o o
|-^C0O00f-t0lC0»0C0O)O

CO<NCSi-^(N-* <NCO t^ T-nOC^i-H^

,-HOOO»:)COCOt-CCiOt-tt-H'rti».Oc^»5'TfGOO-t'0^'-H05GOOOC^i-HO^'COSiOi-H^GO.-H^iO

■< OS CO r-t lO C^

OSCOOOOt-HOOsOC

• coooi-oiocsoi'U^'toczDO^ai

•-aii'O t-c

)00«-HOSGC't*CCGOO

C^O(NOi-<-*OC^IOCOOTfOO'^OiCOiOai-

^0iO00iOC0t~~Oi0'^C005C^0Si0»0C^O"^

^^ ^r-HC^r

^ CO^>-Hi-»)M

• OCOC^'-'O c

r-oic^o-t'-Hioc^-^ooiooc^cs'^OiC^i-tGO'-i'r-TfosciosoiOfO-^ci:

C0t0l-H(Xi'*Wi0I^CCC^Tt*OC0C0O»0'^C001-^C-iCl"^OC^OO<NOOC^

t^^irf co"fo'"^o*co*'c*r c^cs*^■^'^co'T-^(^^uf w'c^rc^rotTco'ori-H^i-rco'Tjrcx'c^^ c^^ <^iScn o

-^ CC r-t C^

:^cci--fOoor-oOrHioosco.-Hioooosfor-t^r^^oc^-^05coc^c^-t*oo-2:'cooo»o

SOOC^Oi-HCOOOC^OOOOi— ti0t--C^OGC"^OO»0OOI-Q0'--"I-i00iO01I-~O»0
;05»OCOC^OOCOiOO--*^CO"<1^>OC^COOSC^OOsOOiCOCCjOOOC^O'-tOlCOCO!M'-t»^>00

) 1— I .— I lO CO CO »-H T-H 1—1 CO I— I T-H 1-H (S CO M CO CS tH M »— I "»f C^ CO (N *^ r-* 00 CO ■*

^^-«0n^0iO00t^.-i'*Of0C0"rt^-rt^C^t--0i-^i0C<lOl^-C0I-^'--'OC3.-iC0gsi^;2;0S'^

Oi^:)CSfO»cai»ocoO'-"0-'-t^05--HCi.-HCSi^'^^-^cor;-coi---Hi^o^3COQ^

lOO GO O -^^ O
t- O CO lO c^ c^

'0SCSC0OOIi0t^0lt^'-^t^^»0Q0C^'-HQO>O^q2r--i0QI;;i00iC^00OC0C
I^-^i0Ol-*'<t'Q0M<Dc0i-irPc0'<J'^t--O0i0i»0»O"^00Oi0C00>'y:!I--OG0r

inc>«.— •1^300'— ii— •cooi^o^cocoiocoososooiOf-Ht^csooor^r-t-^c^oioit^'— 'coccr-cc
o;iC;^;iicooi'^c^co-^oot-c^i-tooooji-'0^t-':H(»iO'-«c^OGOcsoi'-t--;GOc^

C^ C^ (N i-H CO C^ CO r-t --"-"-H CI C^ C^ C^ C^ ^ — « CS C^ '-H c^ cs

■O'-icsOosoir^r'COi^c^c^GCi— 'co»o<Ncoosoc-)

^ "ic o -r Ci CO CO cc 1

2 O

0-^2 0
■o'C

- " - -- "! o o CD CD 3 fejsd o o o e 3 «^-^ 8 g-S £S5 OS

^;h

iOCOCO»CCOCO

t^ iri t^ c^ o^oo

^ r^ c^ c^ o '^
!-< c^ c^ c^ -^ «-<

oo -^th a>t>-
coo c^oo oa

Tf -^ GO W3 OS CO

C^ t>- t>* lO -^ GO
ci ■n< CO c4 CO o

■^ O CO <-< O (N
CO t^ C4 CO .-H O
O '^CO CO(M CO

CD -r «— ' *r t-^ lO

cs cocsoco o

l^ 00 GO to .-I ,-(

r-' c^ CO ^ ^ r--
»o co-fr t^

1-H CO OS lO CO OS

r- wo OiO o

GO O C^l »0 I-- 00

<N'co"oc"<N'ic'r^

CO t^ COCDCO

CO CO '^ CO 00 CO

cTr-Tio'i-rgfc^''

(N C^l>. COcO

O "»?■ »iO »— ' '-' GO
(X CS C' ^ GO' o
(N GO lO CSCD CO

CO" C^C^'iOtOt^

TT .— I -f ■T' *T O

00 ^ OS coo CO
OS t^ lO lOiO t^

»-< TT OS o r- OS

c^o co^»o^-

1-H c^ — ' o i-" c^

i-H CO OS OS r- c^
CO C< '^ c^ »o

20

BULLETIISr 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

g M U ^ O
" ^ S O O

a^5

a rt o

s3

^a

CO'rj<'^fOCCi-HOC^'r^i-HC»:'ait--t"-iO'^CO«3C^O-<*^t--L'3 0rj»00'^001^rJiiOCSJOS'*t>-»0

).— tie-— (COOOtD'^.-*'— iiOQOCiC

lOOOOODGC'-'OQOiCrl'iOCOCOOOMOCN

c^i-H'^c^O"^cscoc^iooC5C^cooiooir-ccc/jTt<GCCsoo».'Dc^cc3GCOc^i-iTrioccr--r--r--

t^^ TTC^

t^,-^t^OiOcOl^^^:^<N'^ocC'-Ho<)oalC^TPTt^oc»^-'-lOOoorHOTJ'^^.-tco»0'!r^-^»c

■^ CO »~< ■^ lO o »■

- lo r-t co*^ ;

^OOOI>■COOOCOcDlOCS'^cOl-HOr-^C^cc;■^lO':D

■^0icCTPOO0iOQ0COcDaicD^-^■^:0t-C0cDOIr^C0C^ci<©cD-^lpClpc6^

C^<N Tp(N eo»-((Ncoc

i-H CSI (N r-i CO 1— ' CS CO C<) 1-H -i*i T-l CO "f W ^ (N

(Nco»OiroiCO'^ot^co:cioioc^'>*^ ooi'^j'C^iooC't^'-HOcC'^coiOtoOGCcic.-Hcr^cioi

O^CNCCt^iOCOiMi-HL'^CNCDOC':
CDcO<NiOiOi-HiOCC'-iCOOCN(Mt

^(XOClOOO'^COi-HCiO'^'^CJCO'OCCO

(NOtCi-iOl'^'XiMt^OOi''

1 t^ rr o I^ O CO 1-H (N

CO c^ »-" —' CO

■^OiMOsascoooocoOior^cDo^ft--

t^COCOOOCC'— '""O^Ol'^'^l— OC/C^HOSGliOC

r^-^i-HTTcoo'OcoasGoast^-T't^cocooocC'-H'^c.. _.- _ _. _ . .-_

cOOOOOiOCOOt--Ot^-^COOCCi'-H.-HCO"^~-C^ClC^COCCC^C^«— iCOOi"^^H,_,CSCOOCOt--

T4*.-^00'Mi^C»!rii^r4*i-'^CrorarC'r!rro'Q<r»frcC^C7i ■^ orTt^- -^O COC^COa>m^00*-i COOCOOOO
O^i— I Ot— t-- CO"— 'O51>»0C)CO'^':OCOC0t-<C^CO»'^'^'— ''-<'-<001?D'0 -rtH "rPOOMC^C^

cDuOCOIOC^Ol-^^-•OC^C^>OOlOOCSOOC^>OCOOlcDT-^■^t1CD^O^^CscCl1-HOOO^^^^-^COGiCO
0:u':)COCiCiOOiC5C<)'-H05^CS-^'-lOOCO«-lcC»0'--<'-^OOt^COOiOiOi-<,— tiOOC^l-^-Cfl

l-Hcoc^05^-•^-I-^^-l-'OOcot^»o^-•^lOl-H^-.-t"tJ100GC'— '0D"*i>.i-'c£>coi— ic^i-t-^xco

-c:;coajL':;Gio»-icDcor^

, CCf 1-H^ ,-)

CC CO >0 lO CO

--IC^ i-H C^

c:»-(f^csi<N»o coocoOo^'-'^'^C'a ^i-Hr-(iocsi-(r>. trc-H-fi-i

T-l (N 1-1

rj<eo'«*'Oii-<i>-coc^^c^ocsoo'^o»ooc>oc(Noor-QOcoosoiwooi-4u:ii-(i-Ha>t-oC'^
OiC<^c^cooGOooco^^lOc^cDooc^■^^-^-•'— lOi-^ooooc^co-^rHc^t-^oio-^ooiocooo

ODCCtDOiaiOi-iOi'^OQO'^tNCOOCOOiGOiOt-^t^COCDcOt-t^i.'SQCI^-iOO <NiOOCOO>

lOioiO'^cO'— ''X-+'»-'M>-r^c/:'-^'— <oio

•cic^r-^'Xi'-^^Oior;-'

C^OCKN'-'CO'^ CO'-<C^iOCSCS'-<COCO^CO --HTr 1— l(3cO -^ 1-iOC. COt^lM

O O' O CO CN

t- X -^ t^ CI r

•- OC CO CO CO '-'^ "O o

OCicOCOcOi-t^-^COCOOiiOOCC'TjiXCOC^IOO-^iCCOcDOcOcOt-tTf*

-. »o o o CO -^ CI •-» oc iO I-- CO c o CO t- «-H c^ ■■ — ■- -

I>'COC^C^CC'-<OOOI-~COC^i-Hi-<COiOl^i— "G'

lC0C^i-HCO5b-CCcD
- . -^ COCOOiOfN O

»-< i-H 1.0 tN CO

3r-(NuoOir-<^*-t^^^'~'Oicor^i^oicocO"rrc^cor-c^

: CD O CO (M C^ Ci

iX(Mwi-^»-< .-H(MCO lO <N05

O f^ I-- CO "O

^-^■^o^--'— ioc«-^aioi^r^r--oC'COcci-Hiot^'-Hcocscor^cscrciococ^icocor--ococoioco
c<)■X'cy"''OM'"^oo^-c^c^l-':'COCOI^■^c^■^^»0'T'aJC^•--<^:Ol"-(Nccc/:»ococ^cocOl^^c^-^
cOttt-hc^coc^coco-^'— ^CiCscc^'0^— ic^ir»"^cocococi>-c^coi^r^cxjoiot^OicocO'— <»o
'--<'co't-r'--r--rarcrc^c^rL':rc^roc"x^co'crorco'ȣf ^^^c^.-^ (N r-Tirf cr"r^ Tr-^crTM"*" c^coo^'^cc

^ %_t t^ O CO T-l C^ rM r-< C^ t^ O CO 1-H -^ O Cl '^ CO »-* -rf 'rji CO CC T«H CO O CO CO CO '^ CO CO
rH (Mt-< T-l .-I.-1 CN rH C^ ff-fl i-< '-' i-H 1-H CO ^ t-< rH

C^h-.?-^c000cD(NCSOC0-^C<;L0C0C^CiiOt^'^C^«0O00OlO0:pCOTrT-Hc0c0i--i00O»Oi00i

co'-r+HCT'i— (Cnco0'^»oc-jcocsa2c0'^»oc^^cot-^f— "c^C'CiOtx^oo-^ooiCS^

'^C^aDcO'-^iOcOi-tCOOO'^l-^GlO'^OCOT-HT-^CO-'^OCOCOCC^GOOCOCOTrOOCOCO'tj'OO

rco"crc<rco^i^'-'^'^r-"o'"co"co"— ' r^^o'i-" t^ o i-i — < gc rr o co ■n' x- -^ ci'co oc. 00""--^*
'(M^^or^^^OiiotNooc^icOr-Hi— i-rtoi--i-'^coc^it^*^oco cOG<:. coc^co

ca o
-^^

an

O K C S
TS » 05 3

■c . ■

0 ce

SP.2

^ O 03 c3'3

"S

£1 o3
03 03

Sd

03 o3

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

n

»-< o cs c^ «-< CO c« -^ r-( ^H TT (M <-" -r

00iCt0C0C0GCC0<NOOC100iOi-IG0

GC -ice:

-ooco<£'Ot^»-<or^<N'-*cs
-cicoiot^icicQCccco

CS^CSf-iC^i-iCOC^

.-4:jCl-^00'-<t^-^COi-«TT' •»J'X:d

c^i>.r,.-riOiococ^oO'^i~-^ooo

0*ccC'-<iccJeDcoi^o»-"ooioo;'-H

iHLOCOC^JOOiTrOCCtNOO-rjT-iOrH

eo»-too^f"C^^oooocic^iOGOiOTf*
ooicoao:DO'-Hcno»0'^':/.!>:coM
cc -ot--<c>i^»cocccOi-HOCs — r^r-

(N CO »-« tC CO C: iM

COOCO-*-— iCCr-05X02C'^CDOCs
COX C0C0XOl>'C/:O'-H(Nt^CSC0X

OC'^OGCCOOClMOO^CCOCOOi

) CO CI i^ lO '-H -rr

coroc:c;^ccoorHt

i-T CO 'C — "co r-^-^cTcT <o o'co c'i-Tt-T

ij^^Hioc^-t-cccoxcor^or^cocc-^

CO M <N '«''-<'-' C^ iOC^COt-h^

lO 00 O GCi-H (N CC
C^ CO Oi OC -^ lO -~
CD Oi COOiO lO

^ . . , . _ :■ r- o oj r- cs c CO

tNCOOiOC-rriOCOC^'-Hai^COQCCOOl
— .- -GCO'^X'Ot-HCOcO

■^ '^ CS 3D (N (N --H Oi lO CO 1-H tC CO CO

OO CC O tOcD'
COC^'MXCOCCCOrrC^COCSC'-HCO^

__ -___ ._._lt^Oi-tC^OiCOCC

O'-HC^r-.cDTrOicoc^'— icot-O'X o

r^oi-riOTT'^c-LOiOi— 41CCOOC005

,-tCO rr'^t>*cOC0Ol Oi-tiOTj^C^

Trooo'^»ot^t^xcoocooocoQC'Or-»-icoocococoi*(3&»-'^^
oococ^cor^r^c^^-3^ocooc^i-Hr-^cr'^i.ocO'--<xc^c^oocc-J<^

cOOi»OC^'-<»OCio0^3'c005CO"^C^tOC50cOCOiOOI^Cit>-OCiC5

M-^ c^o c^

cs CD »-i t^ r» lO Tji (?« t-H rr "-I

osco-^ososoO'^ooooo>cDT-ton^coa>i>'Or*ooc»iOi-icOi-<inc^
i-HC^r-^iCi-Jcoco— HC^t^c^ior^or-^— ^-^r-^cocDioo^-— 't-^i-Ht^iO

iOCDCOCiOiOWC<-S«OC^i-'iO'-Hf-<COr-COr*t^cOC^iO?DCNCO»OcO

C5^-00C0C0C^*HCD'^0^00c0»0M'^C0tNlOl0 1-^C0CDO00<D^*^-
OC^'^OiM'— <a^COCDCOC^COcdO'^OCOpOC'ioCS05C5C--^c4

rH ^ t-H CS TT CN

'i-iC^COO*-Hi-<COi-ii-H.-iCM'-4C^COC^'

CD<N(35CDf-l'»J«OOCO(Mt-iOCJO>'i!fiOCO'-<05M'rriO»-tC^'^00
OI-COcOiOCDiO'-*tMl— C^i-H(Ml'-CirrCi.';(>)^rO'-*C>CCCiiOcO
CDOCOCO'-IOCCCSl^cOOlCOOOOcDGCCSCDr^Ol'-Hr-CO'-'.-HOi'-'

c'ri-H"o'"(N"o*"cD'"»c"i^ ^x^ar''r"i-rc^crcri.':rcocrio'co"o''orrcror-^

■ ■^ «-H Tji o •-< O

CDCSGO OICO t

«OcD0lOOt^»0 ' 00 Cfl 05 CD 1-H O TT 00 CS »0 C^ T-( C^ -^Ji »0 t^ CO ^^

OC'O-TOOt^cDOt-i .r-<05'^ OO't^ f-HOOCOt-^Ot^Ot^COCSOO
OJ-^CO'-<030i*00 -i-HOiOOO lOC^OCOaiCOOi-HCSCOt^TT-CO

.-(r-<cDiMCO0CCO»-O .coco

^(^^loas^-(^^M'^^oc

lOcO Oit^CS »0'CO CO^H Oi-H-riOiO<N

'-<r-r^OOO'-<OlOI^'-i(NcDLO»On"Oit-*»-'5'-<00'<?'OOOC^O^Hio
iococ^05»o-rr'-i'-<i-HL':!t— cc-^1— ii-tcor-r^r^*ot^C5 0'-«»o»-oco

f-<0G<O(N(N'-<iOi-Ht^»O'^Tj-CD »CCN<N'^CNcDi-HCO»OC4CO0C00

cOO'-i t-HC'^ C0cOC0i:Di-0

C0C0C005 0COTr<N'«1« >-•
CO (NGC C^ T-< r-t

CCC^»OcDCCCO*Ot^COCOC^t^OO-
t^O'— 'CO-rt'-cOcOOCiCOtOCO'-Hi
iOC>JCiOOC^i.O'-l<NCOCOCiC5C^

Oi iCI^ O 'O O C^^ C-l Ci O »~ CO

Trioocoxi-^i-ti^T-tcooTT

C^co'oi •— ' CO co"i-H CO lO M''^cO

i-iaiCCLOcO'*T"-'(NO!NCOCV|r-4COOOGCCDiOOOM"^ClCCCCOC^'-*

i-i-ra;'-<i-'t^oCiC^coc:iOcooi^cocooc-r'-'0<Ni-'coc:.0(M
r-COGCOC^COOC-10iiOOCi-^C^CCi:X'»-<0'-H'vCiC^t-cDOcO

0CI^COC^G0'^rHO5»-'lO(N-^C^

coo CO

crLo'T-TirT x^oc'cTt-^cTcTt-rco" cT

"T C^ C^ lO Ci ''T CDC^ OlCO

OC COCOCOO-^ iOCOCOcDCO(NOOOcDiOuOiOOOCiO(Na>00 MC^(M h- ©

ccoiOor^oo-TOcoi-H'^^'O'— iGCOco'OTrcoocor-t^cotoxo 't?

"•tTi— icOOiOOiOCCl-^O'^CO-^OCOCOC^CiOrri— <CC'-tcOcOCO»O0CTjH ^

(NO(NcooaC)Ccrji-H»-iOi-H^.-H
r-cor-<tNrrt-.i-iT-i (Xc^cs>o

^C'-^cDt^T-H— <co(Ni-HQr:»o

3!NI>-r-i-4^ WCO —^ CO

:t^OM't^(NCDOeDOcDOiCOCOCCOOOiT-(»OcOOCOr-(McO-<rQO

)T-HCOM'CiC-ioc»-it^iocoocscoi^'-iaicc'rfcocscMc;ra:.cocoi^

-Oi'-iCOtNOCNCNOOCOt--i-«t^i-OC;cCC^'rXI^CO(NC^'^XN
-CO0CC^rj'»O.-(i-H(Xt coo

-iCt— C^Ot^cOCCOOOlClNC

COOCXliOcOOCOi-Hr-lCCi

^rH I-H CO cOt-»-Hi-H T-<

«<

22

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGEICtJLTUEE.

w :3 ,-1 c« d.
S"^ i^ t <=>

gal

^B

O^OC0T-<OrHC0':0»OG0t^»0i0OtD»0cDO00»0CSO'^C^
eo(:/(^^aic/(^^oilOoi■^■^oiooeo■^'--^^■^"^t■^ocoCl^-'0 ■O'Oc^i^iogoth

!£i O •-* --"XJ o t^
O »0 C^ I^ lO GO «-H

co^coci^r-^icooi^oocooiOMc6^>oi-^o«5icc3C^o '£JS:^J2^£2^J2

CSt-hC^CSC^ rHC^COi-H^COC^COCSC-lCSKNC^ C^iOCSCS •N'MfN i-HCOC^

^Mt^rrOCO'fl-C^'OOt-.OlGCi-itO'r^OCS'-H^COTr

.-H {N -^ lO

lO o (X CO c^ o <o r

OCOCiI^tOCIO«?».

- oc 00 oi (M r^ "^ »o CO --• r- c^ CO ^ ' 99 "^^£25? ;?;^

.-I i-H O i-H 00 I>- CO

co't-T^'c^cTc^Tco -r'co'r-'co ^ coo^-^c^r-'T'O^^rco^coo *«»2"^«^^t;?7;

. t^ -^ O (N O O^

cooo tococsi c

Csj ,— ( r- I— « Ol f— 1 O ■^ iC !>• 1— ' CO Oi Ol tT lO O CO O CO ■^

M-cOiO-^OiOsr-OiOJt^C^cDOii-HirscOt-OiO^cDW^'^'-iO '^;t!^9'^^t2

CC'r'^ i-HCOt-'(Ni^(NC^'^COOCO c^

oC'00-«#cDCOC:> .coO''-Hf-H'fj*coo

^i-H '.JH

CO rt T-Hi-lCSOl

CO '-< -tT C^ lO t--

CO CO CO CO CC CO t." <--< 1.-J -^ <--*

lOCOtNOir-OOiO'^J'iOOlCiOOCOOCOOO •■^COCOiOOcDC^

'*rLOcoc^'tO'^coooi--ocoo -iXicocO'X-ioo

lO.— (■^C^C^OCsr*OI:-"^iO'^

CO -rt^ OC' CO C<I i-H

coc^ococ^(Nc^cocoQC-^oooocDio;^^ciCipoc<:co;t:' "^^r^Sr^r^^S

^r->.Ot-cOiOCOOO'-<CO(Nt-.COC^CC^^^«;:CD(NC;J^ ' ^'"'^^12^^
f-.r-.CO (MCOCStN ^ ^^ ^^ : « COC^CO

M'r-oc^coi^-^asc^oicDco-^r-'t^cDt^aiO'--icciO;5'rHcD

(MCOcOt^O'CC/li'— <*rt--C;CcO'n'aiOO'— 'I'CSC^OiCi^'COGO - -t:^-=^--,

or-coc^or. COM^OO^OoXhS^OttCSOCOCOOiOi-i ..-Ht-cor-ot^c

. CO Oi CO CN CO C^l lO
. --I 1— CD -^ Ci C"

■■ tM !© (M CO' CO

COOCDOi'-*'— 'Ci'5'C^^dcDasiOCO

lOi-iOi CO CO C^ f CC CO d -^ »0 CO i-H CO lO i-< CO CO CS t> !>■ lO

«3Ot^«0S'^C0iCr-.-*O-^»Oaii0C0^C0cDt--^cDjrC0rH •ooi2;^5^S22

5^Si:r'-i»oc^Cii— ify:oo-^or-coc/'coci"^co'-*'-'c/^'Oco-s' .oc^dtt-— 'cnr^^

SSioSt2^?4^^^Sc5cO^^QC-HCO(NCOrHCOI- C^^t- ; ^^'=^^'-^^<^^'^^^^^^

M-*^ oT CO o"^'^»o"io" CO or-TT'oc" oT^*^ CO 'T^cor^'cc'ioo'g^"o"o^ ' 12 ??5 ^ S 171 2 ?n

Mt^coc^oo-fc^ot--'— '»o»oco>0'*fcrji-H-^iocoO"*cO':o ■coiOiMcoiO'-jio

C^ ?1 ^ rH O ^ -^ ■^^ .-I pHr^CSICS -HC^ <M CO --"-< CO 04 ; ^-H lO CD CO

;: c5 ::: rt ::::§::::::'■'.: grg :; i-^ : j ■ o • :

PASTURE LAND ON FAEMS.

23

8* t^ r^ CD :D ci CO -H
o CO :o '— I ■— I 05 r*

ceo*— t»0»OCCiC^01
COCOfOCCCO-^-^CO

OOOOiOiCOOOiO
CO CO CM (N CO « « C^

rHi-lOOOOOr^O'-i
CO^l-*C<J'TCM'-<tO

oioi<-<oocsQoa>co

cTo cTo ■n* -rr OS O
Oi-tOCOOOOlOO

COCO»Oi-iCMOCMCS»

•"TCOOOcO-rrCOiOOO
OiiOrHClCOCOiCCM

CMiOOCO'^O^J'iO

icioiom.-HOcoo
t^cocDiO'— I-— II— i:d
CMOOCSt^OOOCCcD

cccctcoo-rCMOcD

CM CMCO i-HCOr-lr-l

r*oiciooocMOoo

OOCO'^O-^'^COCM'-i
CO-^CO'-hO^O'-'

oo" oT oT^id'oc'co cm' oT

CCOOOOS'-KMOOOO
CMGCGi0<:Ot^OifOO5

od" ^" GO co'io' cTcvT ^^
oooocor>»o-rrio

i-tOOOi'OOi'-HCOt--
tC'-<coCN-rt-»-rr*

lOCMCOOOCOCMCO

r^^'oc" ocToT otT orT Tr~ r-T

C^JCO-s-riCMCO— *CS

5 c3 .t^ ^ oj o o :^

CMCOi-H CM

cioo

<E Oi 52

CMCICMCOttOOcOOCMi-hCMO

iocooooior^r-icocoi^oi^
co»o

' tH OOiCCM

COCOCO'— K— It-ht-hcOCMf- IIO.-I

r^ c^ o lo ■n' CO lo ■^^ t-* 00 1^ o cc o +J

tOCOCMC^CDtOt^CMOOOSOit-^CM'-t cS

GO CO ^ CO w 00 r^ CO <--• t- CM Oi O ■* rl

co'uo"c^^c^cM'c^>o'lo"--^co"c<^-^cM"a^ .-«

CO CM t^ CM <D 1-1 CM CO CO l> O O i-H CO +^

ir5CMC0»O o

TfiOiOOiCM00r^CMCMf^«3t
O-rooo-r'rair^-" -----

. T-H to o -^ »n! :d CO

COCDOiCOiOt^*0»00»0

CD r- lO 05 r^ o 1-1 00 o

CO CM 1-iOiCM i-(

CM>OTriOO5C0CM-*'CT>iC'-HCM

»ocor'-'-<co-^CiC5uocO"*'0
,— (lOiOTrot^t^cocDco-— tco

-^ 00 i-< 05 lO CO CM

i-erfi-ji^oooiowi-Ht^cor^Oioo

CM-rPOOi-<OCMOI>-CMr^CO-n<COcD
coco-— IOOaiiOCOrHCDQOM"Oi-( i-l

o" co" oo" -^lo'co' -t''' cm" cT cp"cD"co^

Oi 1-t ■«T 1—1

.rHrH ,-( lO

Ot-H'T'^cot^CMCir^O'— it-or-co

CO-^COLOOCMt^OOcO^OCMC:^

ooiooQiO'-HrHoooo-^oaioO'— 1-^
-^ cT -r" irT cm" co' i-h" -jd'cm' yzTcT o*" CM"r^

r^COCOCMGOCMCO^-^iO— "t^i-HW

■■sg

li^

s d £ li d.-s^ o c3 c a L- _ -,

s-s

24

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

2-S tH « b

p<

Isl

« 53 o

5i

.-H 00 i-H CD CO Oi i-H 00 -^ ■ C^ CO CO Oi 00 i-H »-H CO

t>-oo^-i»-ir*TH-^iOt^oooii^ocoio
c^oJt^o3cococ^c^»oc4ot-^iooc4

■ CO'^C^iOt^OOCiCOCO'^OiO^'-'OOO'— I

aiaiC^'^C0^C0C0'XiM'C'-l^O»0C<IC^Cl00t^'— lOOOO-rO^OOOC^'OCO-T'CO

.-HCOOiodt3icO^--^lOCO^O^^'^COOOOCO-rt■^»O^OoioClOr-^OC3■^
COC^'-<C^COiO(N«-Hr-iCOrH^COCSICO<N'^'-HCOCNr-i .-ii-<(Mr-iC^CO<N'-H.-HCSCSI

ocst^c^cscoc«OJn''-H-r'r:ooocoiot^cc>o^coocoo(Naieo-^»0'-o-r'X)ai
Si''-:?'-. :-^;r^'--:_'rL^., '--^oocNi.-itC'OOeoOf-H^t^csioc^cncoiooot-^ocMco

• lOr^COt^CiOOiOtDOOCMcOiOCOiOOOCSOlCOOOGC

3iOCC»OI>-f— 'Oi'

CSOiOlOOi-HOOOOOlC^iOOt^i

.-Hccco>— i"^iot-»ooot-t^cDioo:i-fCOCi(Nooco0>c^cooO'-:j»aiOiOOX)r»GOcoo

Oii-iOOOO^»OI:^OOCOCDOSCO»OCO<M OO'X5^C0'-'i0C0'-Hl>-C0r^'^i0'<J't^'-i

00 CD 00 CD 1—1 CD

.-H CJ CO 00 CO r-

to

kOoO'n'CcD'— <iot^aioc^ooor-o

CDiOOO-rCOCSOi— 'COiOMOOiOCO
0500i-^»OCSt— C>4»OC0'^TP<DC0CO

lO'^ooiooiO'— <r^
oOi-HCDcooi'n'-^r^

OOCOCNCOCSOOt^W

■ (M »0 O Ol CO t^

. X/ OO »0 CN CO -^

OOOOOT-it^C4cOcDOl*CCOOOOOOiO
^OO-— ii— •COiOCDCTJ'— ii— it^r— CDOCO
OOtt-— iOiOlO'^Ci»OC^t^-^CDCSC^

>c^00'— ico'-tc^coooo-rr^c^ot-^

i-HOO-HooooQoast^c:'^oooor>-o-^'-H
c^.— ir-oo»oi>'tocoto»o-H--f"«^ocDr^<N

•^lOO CDCDOCOO »O»-OCT)00CO-t'»O'— I

t^<D»-iC0iO'^Ir^cDNC0C0O5Cq-<*''OiOt-

1-H ->» CO<-(

lO CD l-H l-H r-H l-H

C^00>-(OCDCDt^OiO'-HOC^C0C^0SC^03
'*cOCD»-HC^OCD»-H cDi-HOlO-^OJC^iO

cd'^o" cs'c4'o"'-r c^"-rcD"i-rT}rTircri-r

i-nMOCO-rOcoaiOQOt^<M^C^O»«OOCOOC^OO'T'GO(NOO-HCiC:'C::iCCcDt:

^^OiOcDcocNt^-ro:>co-r^<-Ht^to>-':>--to»0'-<22:!'^'^^'-^'Z!r^S";:^!3;^_.
cD'-HCCCSTrr^t^»-HCO-rt^C:<NuOCDC5C^CS»Ot^COOOiOcD-^CO»Ot>-»OCOC5'--<

cTccT.-ri^i-rtC^t^tCcrrco'orrco oTxT lo'oo'co'-^'^r-'ofrc^orco't^'O r^ lO o o o o^

lO (MCO"^00<Ni-H CDC<I 00^ CD *-i y-' ' — ^ .^^«. ^i

^^QO^'-H.-HIMC^

p ^

0iC^r^cDC0iOr--rC0-r--rcD»000'-<OC0C0-rr'00cDOC0aiCiiO0iOC0i0C^'T;C
O--DC0CDOC^CCC^OC«^O0s^»0C^I-C0OCDOC03'C0'-HCM-HC0;2;r-;T'C^I
r-iOOlQlcD'—tOT-tF-HC^iO'— f'3'rt'iOI-^»O»Ot'^"n'L0I>-00C0C<l"^t0C0OCiCDO»

'r'lO'cC OiOiOClCJ^r^tOCOi-HNCT) ■^— ' OlCSGCGOCOCDOiOOOJCDCOiOC^COCO--;
cDC^'-HfOt^cDO'-«»oaiCOCD^cD'-i csC^iCS'-H'T'CCr--^'— lOit— I^CDt'^cD'-""^

^ ^ ^ « ^ ^ rH l-H i-l C^ <N .-H ^ --H CS l-H rH

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

25

^ • .-t c^ ^

I* CO ♦-< cs »o »o *o

-N T-H C^ CO cs »o »i

•Vf-iC^^riCCOiOCSCSC^-^-^^O-VC

C0^OOi0 05XO.-tO'^0l^'-''-<CS

eCOiCT)»OQ(NCScOCO~' — --'-—-

OX-iOOiOiO^Oii— I

ro:/!cMcoco'Xi'-HOic^r*OcO'X)00'*r»OOi'^»0'— 'T- tccoOt-HO

(M-^OT'-DiCCN-^QOO

o^iI>-«51--t!©o^^oocs»ooco■^»ou5cooocooooc^^rHT^cO'-Haoc*:>^»oo>Oi'sD■^^

04 »-4 C^ ,-1,-iC^^ ^ rt ^ ,-( r-i CO— I C4 »-l "-t^ W^H

a:i'«rr-.iOTrioooc*3'^ooc^iOiO»o«-iGO»oo»occciO'— '

■jCOiX"»r»OCSTT'OS 1— iiO-rr^f-<Oi«3

f— i'^'^XJ'— ■C^cOCOcO

i-H 'tf' t— t^ C

■*r lO »c ro Xj -.o 03

o (N »o CO ;d o cs ■

« y~f(.

I »0 'JG O O CS O CS

c^T'-rcs'i-r.-r r-r

CSOCS^05piO-^^^-OOQOC^C^OC^C^'-HC^lO'^C^GOCCC^OC^OI^-OOi^OGOlO-T^*0>010

>X'OOioc-oi--*c^c^oor50CSGCO'-Hi^c^Trcoor-»i^oci'--«c^4r--ij-c^'^«M^

'^lO-n'-— It— ^o-^rrc^jcoot^cocc.-toc

Ococ^»OCC "^CO-^(N:OOC-T':<'|

cs :/:: w I- -^ ,-. I

rtr-lip-lC^lO »-t -'T CO C^l 1-1 M GO CS I-H i-l t-H ^ ,-, ^ r-< ^ ^r •-<

•^OeOI^OONO-^u^OCOC^'-HaiOCOCOOiOS'— ^t^■'^•^01-HiOOO^O"<5<»0^*CO■^C^05COT^■^CO'--tCOOCSO
CO^-O.— (00»Ot— C^OOC^rO COiO^-n* OOttC^iO-^OCOcCiOO r^COOOi— •CO'-htPCCi— lOit— •— fOiOC^i— <r-<T— *

lOOi'-t co»Ci05Cvi:c>«o':o OiC^oo r*ooot>-csi>ccoco i-icsc^ioco"^j'C^(M c^-^ ^sxK t— r— r>- r-

t-H T-( »-t (N .-HC

IM-HICCS <-!

_ _ _ .00 1— CO >o COOO ^ CO O'^ '^ O O COr-'^GO

'OOiClCD-^tC'VOCO'-^COOOi'^O'^^O^XCOCOCSCiCS^CO'TCOL'^COCC'^OClOO'OCOOiCOCO'— icoco^

joiOiOcsOr-40i>>ccc^tooroi-HOO'-^o^^c:i^'-HOcO'--tco05r^^y:>c^^ccocca3c»oc^

■^•^0SC0.-HC0O0005r*M'C^C0C0'— ICDC0»O»-)i— <OS*OCS"^C0iOCOO5|-

Tr'O0iO^'T'C0'^OC0'-*C0O0i'^O"^:0^Xcc>C0CSCiCS^C0TC

ro-^-^OiOiO-— 'Or-cDCO^'"

.-1 .-4 .-« CS to •-< C^ r

.-H CO— "CO

ji— t-sO-^t—TrOiOiXt— XOC

)— (i-HOsr— coTT'

■'OSCOiO'MOC^^OOO

OC005000QOC.

COOOiXJCO'^'— *C^OroiOC
OO»O0500C005C0000005:.

>aco"^-^OiOco'X>-^<;

.. _. ■'h-T-HC^COCOcDiOOSuOC^OOOJGOt^

— (O'O-^OiCOOOCS^OM'OO'^r-t^tOiOCOOO
-0'X5CiC^l.-*t-0iO05C0=©OC0in»0q^»0'Vt^

'trtC«O'5'00C0t^»OOi— 'C^GC!©^ '^(NC^ COiO»O'^»O'^'-i0CI><:OX>CMiO:O'-H— iOOi-h(NocOOi-hC^GOCOIM

l0'^C0OC^OI^CS!©■^C^C^^*^*0i0000"*QCO'^CS|c0M00Q0C^Cs«0iOi0CCOC0<^"^'-l'^=0»O■^

c«oicoo>-^r^ocoooo— <coQi^^■^^occoO'-'!£;cs»ooO'-^^— ir-t-a>coo»-'t:o--rt— -rcscococo

05^»OCXDQOa>QCOCi-HC^Or-aiCOCOO-n"ai'^CSOC'CDOO'^0<:OCSCOC^COCC)0>O^OOCOCCCS-^03C^«— c

c^oio^a^c^c^t^to c^ c^ »o

^. ^, ^ C^ CO X' O CO C<1

CO Ci -^ cocs r*

-^(^,_HlC'0 0:cooiOO■^Oi^^coI^:o■n•l— ■^:ocococ^»--iar:oco'— ■-o-rr— T-ir-ir— 05»or^

iCO^a>^c<:«:— i-v^»0O;0OXCSOi'--i-3"C0'5''OC0:00ia>'T-rC:c0O05CSi--'aiXQ0
CC^^^^C^ i-t ^ ^ CS —I <M i-H TT CS ^ C^ i-H i-i CO 1-HM CS 1-H ^ — I ^ CS ,-H CO ^

26

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTTJRE.

03

g ^ p

^a

h-' ■-<■-«: 00 CO ^^ ^ « r-^ o N « c4 CO o o rt >-H ■* o a5 -H -H >o o cc c^ o ;-; q^^

c^aot^ioooit^oct-.»occc^«ioa>o»oc<no»oot^»ooo'-ooo»oc<)t^^-^-^oo
TOcoN-fl-"oo-^^''HMTOm-^--«ooO'-H«c»>oo5.-<odc^c»'-Hioc4m-wM'o-^

50t^e^0500'^tDOfCCSC^'-HCOO'^'*GiCfMCC05X^HtOC<JCi05'^OiOOCOCOrH**>OC^

OOr-OlOlt:

-i^cc-^<Z;'ror^»oooo^^cc;5'oci^

:r^Oiio^HcDOX'O^HOoai'Mco'-D-

t-iS5o-5cCC0«5<»-^O?50iC>0.--<t~Csl"J"C0C<lCCtO'0-^>O0i02X00iraMMtOCCC0'O
5rMKlOM5Sioi-<^0>COOOTrOt^C<>>Ot^t^050)OOt^C0 050><OOOt^Ot~»t^>0

iO^^Oi»f^c^oos'~tfOcDcocircDcct^o»or^ioo5»oejDO^'*ccccr4C2o2^22

oGo»o-<r»or^ooo5a>co05Cs05'^c£7rqjiOM

^CCOicO"^C<IO»OiOOCC02''^2S'~'

rt rot^-^c

■-XiOOCC(M»-iC^O'^

lO ^ ^H f-t 00 -^ 00 lO Oi ^H o

cSt--t'Di-!c^5St-oo>o3crtr~oO'<j'0'^oo»o5o*coototo^-5'rriooocC!0 0>-HtH

lOt^fOOOCCOiCOCOCSOO'HC^^Hi— ICD005»CG005'0'-OGO

^H-»r»0r^C^^H'»1-t^t^»0»Ot^f0Q0CC0iC0C00SO

c^ioccr>.oocoQCSO>o-

* T-H ^ -^ t^

r*'»rTco^r05air^05':t^r^t^»o*ooeO(>»coQOr-j

.. -JtO QC

t-. 05 r>- O iC CO --H CO -^ C«5 O »0 M F^ 05 ^ CO O CO CC O O '-H ^ Oi i^ io ^^h CC ^ 'H CO

(M00t^»O-^O^H0C'G0C0 0iCOCOCSCO000iCC"^'^CO05^H^H00

' CN W CO »-l

O »0 •— ' iC CO T ^f CO CO c^ •-< -^ c^

■ -M.-I N -1

oc<5c<3cooo->rrtcoc<3cococicococ<5cocor:<Sic3 3;;-;cDC3oC3<ococoo;o5co
-^oo^aiajooa5t---*r'^^^M'co»ocoiO-^oc4cooO(MOco^^GO»or^»o(Mi-Hco

HCO00cOt^00CO»OO5
W C^ CO ^ IM CO (N

8 -i?q rt ^-4 CM 1-1

Cq rt OSrHrH

.-l<Mt^OCOOt--H'<J>lO'<f»r^'-lt>.-l"COeOCOC^«)0'0"0.-IQCCOCO>CCJCO<Mp>.-(Cja»

oo3SooScoioSt^Scooioo-iococe-<,-*'2o;fez:S;7!S3;S£S?;^z3^S

TrO'V^H^HCOCO^HOOOCO»0(^O^H(M-«3*i<r»0*^COiOC005»-*(MGOt^COOI^-^CC»-HCO'^

■*"'«"-'""'o"r- ^"=^"M"c^"-T"!o~'r"ira"cM"io"io'r-">o"co"-H~a5"m'o"^ S SS !i2 S2 S 2

iCOOOt^^CMCO cOt>-Q0^CMt^^-^03t^cOOI^^C00S^C0COt^0000OiCS"*t^r-i-^

ooco-<ro>o><3>OiMcO'Oicoocoioccc^-»oCMO'v:-r-HOcjC5o;coco;j<r-TOco-^2N

as^«j-co-^^iOr^c^»o(Mto-^-^»oooiocoooo»ocoi^xcS*rco^^r^co»o»ocMCSco

^u:)rr^io05cccooicopoocO'rira^'r-»'cocEo;ooi5t^^02:ISS:S5£?3S2?S°^:i

rtCl^rt rt ,-H e^ ?3 CM rt CM CM .-I C^ 1-H ^ ^ CM r-< CS -H ^ CM rt rt C-) ■«■ 1-1 CM rH cq tH

• > a r/, k-i

.« O 3 "

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS,

27

iftC0'-<c0»-)C^3005;:0OiOC0'*N^0.-HXf0r^C^i^»0i— i^rOiriC^OCiOit^t^i— iai:0-^.-«C^-^»-<^HC

CO ^C^ t-H ^ »

t-^c^-^i-^i-ty^-^iO^'-

C^^iO^^(N{NrO^OC*^ lO^-i 1-t i-Ht-i

C^ C^ :0 w CO (M ■<»<
CO C^ "" ,-( l'-^ CO

cot^t^.-lt^-^^oa>»-lOrH05cor^1-^I^I^t^coo>■<ro»oos:cc^lOcc'^oait^^■^cococso■^oco■^oo

t-H(Ncoc>o^-osoocsI1-MX«.-Hr^Oi1-Haocoo^'-HCOoo■^co050co«l0^05^0'^cJic^QOCsI<>oco>Ol>■o^01-H»
Oicco■^TJJooscooroooO'^'"1<*rf■^c^o5lO'1'XlO^*odr4cD^*cocsNl^

»OOCOiOCCCO'^'VCOO«CO«50TrcOrMiMiOCOU5COCO'-H"^CO"^"^COW3C<I^OCO^rC^COC^COCCCOC^.-H'*CC'«»i-H

Oi^-— <csro-^csO'T'rcccor>---ococoo.-HOOi'^oirc
OI^OiOiO>^0'-D^*co■TCS^-:JO^^fCfOOi^cDO^ '"

^ooo5»ot^OlOO!£'

• OCOOTOOi-l.— lQOOiOt^OOO:>C)COO^^

r^ (M .-I c:i (XJ t

roroc^'^«oo-^t~-co»OTfco

CSCO t^(M •

■XC^C5<Nt-O^OS

^:or^CTiOicsC- .

Oir^'-'t— O'-HCOCO'^'

< cs to r^ (N 'O I- "■

— -. — -OOrciOX
. Oi lO i-H >o -H o *rr -rr .-H o

CO«T-(i-H.-( rH r-^

20 re CI lO >0 CS|
I - -r CO o ro o

XI CS Oi O .-t

COOO•-HF-^C^C^OlOO:OCC^^'-H■^l-HO!©^-05COOOCO•^COGC05CC1-H.-H1-llO.— t"^■^CD^O^^•^■^00CO»OC^Ol^

i-H--.c^COt^ccr^co^rHiooo5CCi-<QCn'-^-^r^30coT-)iooocciOofoor^'^c^L':3^^cC'-Ht^co"n"Tr-^
c^c^»»ooocococO'^osr*i-(OOicoooot^coco^rcsoi-TPt>-.-<t>-c*»oooc^cooocOf-Hai »0(MC^QCt^CiTh3)fCot^t^

c^c£^co'*lc*o(^cQ*co*o^co''T4'c»5'^^N"^^co''co'lc'cc^^^c*^ ifT^o i-Ti-rr-Tt^'^jrio'co orToo i-ir-*toco'^ goi»''VX<n coc^tt co^cTt-^

cOiOOOOCSOt^-"--
COOXit— CO lOOiOi

^^*.o^Moocooooc^.-^|^I^ccocsoiO^*u^cooslO^*oc^^*?oal^otllOClOiCsoilOco^^fo

5t^QOCOOSCC»OOCO'— lC*^.-<OQ0rT'O'«rOr*C0f0i0C0'^"'' . — ---'— . — — - _._^ _

" - - — — -jc^c- - ■" "

■*aOi— iCOM'DO-^.-HCOcDt— '

coooococ^coa>Xi-McoT-H»oor>-'C^»oc^cot^"vx'Csii-ioco^c^cocosDoioocs»»ocooi-i»ot^ i-iwco r^csx

i-HWfMN N 00 M -V CM ^ ^ -*■«»• rH C^ 1-1 CC

CNl W,-4,Hi-l CM co»

-*^^»ocoocMcv5c*p^*cOlOoo^*'^GOQ"^ocMr^'^ccc»c^cooicocoooootooo.-HuocMoccocv^-^^

cor*05co<0"^CMCMt-*0-^occ»o-n'5ci^CMOiO'Vco«-H'n'»o»0"^oO'-roooococ<»eoc;r^cot--GOcD03CMt^cz:.--'r^
»oc^^-•■^c^^oxc^oto■^t^.-HOCM^*oo^--lOO^--^r-lOiOioOJlOlO■rro5t^occoocD^*cocO'-H^*GO.-HCOTrlO^

oiOiOii— icoco-— "OtocccocMt^oos'— <-rCMQi^o>r--cOT--H.-«cot^oc

, ^ ^ CM -H ^ '

^^^ ^ CCCM •

^ r-l »-l CM 1-H

—i CO 1-1 <-t CM

^coO'^^o i-nrrr^i-HCOrHr-c

^ CM Cj lO 73

^0-^J-lCr'-CMO^ClCCM1-H^^^^^CMX'Ci^0C^C'aCM^GC■*O0l05^CMC0C0:0c0t^CMCMCJJC0ClCMC0'^C0C0CM^-.-<CMC^

;— .— ^aii:ocoooco»or^cO'^00:i'— <»oo-0'-tc<ic>ooiX'T-iocM*rCMo:

■ ^rr> <yz lO <:0 C^ i^

;Xir^OCM"^COt--"*rOO»-iu^-^CMO|-^CMi--tOr^OC<»CCOTrCMOOaJCO"rPOOO'0 05CO"^OCOCM.-Hl>-0;£OCOCC'iOCO

CMiOX'iCCOCOCM^COGC't^.-HOCQCCO'OCO'T'r-'X^I^'

■'OOOCOCOCMCOC(CGiOr^r^C:iCMCOCiCMiOOO

Or*0-^COCOCM0050COCOXUOOOCMCC05iOCOCOCC'— iOOCO"^O^CMOOcOcO'^t-"COO— Ha3COTPi-HO"^t--CMCO

O'Orocotoococo';

s^

. lOO-^cocS'-HcoocotocMiocMiooOGO'^ajr-ccco— lC^1■n'ooc/:)ClO^-

.oc^'^Oi'SoiO^^»0'--*t^cooi-ro.-'^'vooit^occM-raj.-lOcsococr'Csc:l'-':^^-o»^fo.~lO
'CSOi^i-H-^^CM^aiCMaOCCCOOlt^CMXiCMOCCM'^^Or-*' — -*- — --^ ^

cc Ci ic c/j CO o ix r

i-ir-^^CMi-H CMCMCMr

-^XOiOOlCMI^OQ

-_,, _- -., fO.-HOfOX.— lOiQO

O^iOGOCOOXCCCMXcO'^eOCiCOOcC'^TH

■" crTcT'-rirri^r^rCio'co'ic^urro crcM^CM""©*
■< r- X o CM o o ir^ lO ^ r- CO CM CO t^ TT i>-

CO^ CM CM -H 1-H CO CM CM ■-( CM »-l T-H CM i-H tH i-H i-H

28

BULLETIN 626, U. ft. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

O C3 OJ h tj

P b o

o— '

^a

CO <— I OO CO i-H CO .-H »o lO M .-H

iCC^iOtOOCst^iO'TPiOTficOC
odO'^'^OGOCOCOOCOfOCOCO

Tjir>-oi:^cocococo'^OC<»<Ni-i

r0Tf'C00^C0Ot^00OC3»0'-Ht-~

CS lO f-1 -^ »0 1-H -

< CS CO ^*^ CO "^

Ci-^COC^CDOOiO»C^-COt^C<J
GC'(MQ01"^C^ClCOCOOC[>:.»OrH
tM »0 O rH -^ »0 r-l lO t-^ <N lO »0 F-l

OCOiOOCDNQOC^C^IMt^COi-*
t-- CO O .-H C5 O V: O C^ CD OC »C

ic" lo co" r-T t-T Co'^rt"

"^COCOSOCO-^OOiOOlCO-^COCS
>OC^COX>COt-(CO'^M'CO"^iO'^

CDCOl--GCC^-TrcO00COCO00CO.-t
.-H^rt CSJ-^ ^ CM

oocoict^ooiocor^r^

'*<MrH(r>CD(NCCCC»0

N t^ ai<£> (M 00 oi

t^ coo

C<l C". O
CSOr-i

c^aicoair>.,-H'^'^coicooCMco

t^I^iO"»j<CMM"CD»-iO*OCOCoCi
CSCOC-^COfOCOCOCOQC':DCOC^CM

GCOt-^COt^'VCl'-H.-HO'ft^i— I

.-(Cq^CMCM"^ ^ CM CO

CMtOCOCOCiOOiOC<»OCO«-ICOC<»

coOCTJTf^t^coo-— •■^t'-aioO'^
cMr^cot^i-HOoor^QOcoiocot--

OO^— 'G0CMCMOC:CMC0>CCC'»0

iooc^r-ooco»Oi-«'^t^i-Hcooi

COCnol-^CMCDOii— iCOtOCMCMh-
OiOCMcD»OC:iiOaiCiO,-<^l^-^
t-*tOI'^CMOit^COiCCOCOiOi-lF-i

'«*'0"^oo--io:ii^r^CMoo>ooico

CMCMr-(^COCO.-H.-HrH^CMCMCM

C3 c3c3 03 i73c30-C;j=!"-';5rZ5 o

Ci^ CO o c

CM O Oi '^ CO

•C-CO CM lO ^

1-r t-H CM CO -H

O CM »0 CO I/D
CM l^ to O

oooooo

CO ■n' O *0 Oi
CO CM Tj't- O

CO i-Tco -^co"

iOOO en

COCO o

'^ OiO

OO Oi '^ CD O

co^oTccT cm" —T
«:>CM 'v CO

O Oi r-.CM

CD CM 'O .-H -rr
O CO ■^ O M"

Clio O CM

;5 o

c3 O cd 03 ^

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

29

cDiOTr«o«doiQOM'-MOOc30i-Hi-HeD«5t^o6i-H-^cDod
^-.-<io " — —

lOOOiT-Ht^.-HiOcOOOOi"'

■'CO«t^f-H(D00iOCO»-

CSC^ICC W TP r-l r-l i-H CC i-H "V CO CNJ CO f-H CO »-t N C<

(0?OoocD«00'^o:>t^Oieo--HN'^-^.-<r^'0''*j^OWiOr-(
eocsco'«fC^c^^c^i-H-oiM'^coc^'<r« cs.co c^i c^ r-. ^o CJ

?D <© O-^ Oi ■'

^ci.-tOooai'^OTT<

,_! CC' — I 1-H ro DC' "^ 00 »0 CO »-0 CO lO Oi O lO r-H »0 OC' C^ CO -^ »o
,-iC:cou0000;t^i0C0i:^O<©C^00(Nt--OC0TP(M0i''*-'^

OCC-^I— t^iOC000Ot^C0P0000i0D00<NCSC0TT'00O.-H
COCS'^tOOiCCO'^i— <C^IOCS.-«01CSCOOI"-0-V Oi-H

coGCC90>-ooac»-H»ocoro»o>COCi^fOcr-c:or--oocs

<^CO^Oi»Oi.OC*^'^COOCOC:Ol'-Ol?OiO--HC0005COCO

(OCOfHNOO C^T-l

00'<^'^oo»-0t"-c0'— ''^o^ooc0loc^^ol0o00»■

OiCOcD^HO^iC^-ft^-'-OO'^OiCSt^'-HOiOOi.-HCOiOiOUOC^

01 Oi »o X. I-- c^. i^ Oi i^ CO 00 t^ CD c- .— < — t o c-1 (^ o CO 00 00

C00iC^t'-MO"^C0C*^t-*CT)i-H^rC0'^OClt^i0-^ O"^

■<J'''00'^""cO-«!T'''ofOifT-rcrcr tod^tOC^OO^^G^C^ Co'i-h"
^^CS I-ICO .-41-lrH Wtl r-l i-H ^ .-H

<o ■^ .-• o c^i CO c^ a:' I- o I-- o x TT r - c^ cc »o CO "^ lo CI (N

"^rOiO»-Hrrt.OC^cDC^CO"^-^O^HC^(Mt--.t^O»OOCt^

-co■vc^l<N cct--r^ococ^ooco

co»or'-ir3 05,-HfO.-HC^'^c^o:coococot^or^"^c

CCI^-^OOOCro>OGl"^CO-TT'CDOCO»OiO"^»-OCD»OI

)i— ic^r-.t^ioaiio.-(COOocoOLOOi
■^Oicoc^oco.— it^cooar-Hi-H — — -'

- - . • -^ C>^ O 1-H lO >o
' (M CO^ ^ C^ t^ to

t^C0C0^#iONN^*'00C0O«0.-Ht^C^C0r-OW300NiC00

COOt'-O^OC/^OOcOCOLOOOCO _
OtC^I'C'KMO'— it-^OGCC^lOOGO"'

. -■' 10 "^ C^ CO cc <
•f-HOOOOCOC

coi^-r-iooococ^cocoxcooo^oco'^iocvi.— icooc^
«^0«DO--'t'-Gor--cor^r^cSi-tC^Tj»ojcDt^oot^i-Hi?5-r

t-HCOf-ICOC^i-li-tC^i-H

10 TjiCl CO 1-llOCO

• G c. Tr G <^ G l1-2 o o G ^iS'^'C oPh'OX:^ _-a

^ig.li§lgi|si|8|iJs-B'|||

O-^Oi-HCOi-HlO^Hi-HOOt^OiWOOOO-^O"*

cdcooioooosT^r^o-^cdcocicoi-HoiirJos

*OCSTl*'^OOCQ-OiO'^i-lC^iOiOCSCOMiOCO

coo-**<ooooinoi-(C^r-ir^oococoioosos^

OOh-Cst-^cdcD-^-^C^oioi'OOcioiiOCO
COf-iC^CSCOC^<MCOC^i-li-*dCS»-HCSi-tC^CS

»-<Oc3SOO>OOTt<CO-^COcOcD<OCOb-cOt-COS

T^coioc^cdr^ociO'-HcooocTrot'

iO"»r»ocD'^cO'«!rtococct

" CO t**© -^ *o

a>(Nio.-Hor^t-it^i-(t^»oioco(Nt^cioco

i-lX''Tj<CT)':Ol--t--Ot^».':>tOQC'^C^00iOC^»O

r-» X) tC'c*^r>rcrrt'rrC',-rco^ocrixroo't~-rcrGO^^r-r

t^COCOi-tCNC^-<rT-«cOCOCS»0<OiOC^*^CDCO

l^t^Ob-TfOiOOC^COOC^O'-HCOCicOt^
G0-^C^OC0C^C0I--e0.-H^I^C^X-^i0Ocp
^'^00-«J'C^cOC^O(MOi-iCiC-<0'^OOaiOO

C^COCOiOCOOCO«-iCO^O(NC5^C^iOcO(N

t-cocoO"^t->.C'»oiocooc^csai-T-(Ncioi

C^001COt--COCOOiOC^t— iOI^r-HC^iOT-HC^

cTccT'-rcr'^urrco'^Co'^r-rc^Co'^lf^CD'cN'co'r^cflO*
l» W tH CO ■<<*' CM C< M I-* »-l M ,-« 1-1 N M rH 1-1

oooo^CMi-Hioc^'O't^-^'^r^^^-^co^Oco
co-^i-Hcoas»0'^ci-fO-ft^GOOO oc^r-t^

'^CCCOfOOOCii-tClCOyDiMCO't'd-HCOiOCO

eo'^--^l^^1--^^^^o(^o(^a^'^c^co'^^cx^c^c^cd o*

CO CONC^t^ rpi-iiOcOiO'*(N'^CO'^0Q

t^Xi'^'^OOTfOt^C^OO-^OOOCO'— iiOCMI^
d to O CO to "O O CI CO O O X' ».0 I-- Ci O t-^ CO

c^coO'^xoiOOirHoooxcoxr-ocoio

10 COlOcOCOCOOiiOt-OOX'CO-^COt'-CO"^

ooco^^^*1-t-*^^0"^co1-Hlo^l0 0 05'-^lo

t>iiOCOi-(OOOCO'*XOO»CO»OCNCOrfH~-CO

Tt*cot>-CJ-^t— coi--oo:0:cococo"^0(Nco
00 10 -rf «D »o 1.0 r^c^ iOt^<::So^o^c^<£^c^oi<^

CO CO CN O X »0 lO CO SN O ^ "O C-^ X ^ 'O -H CM
CS fH r-l CO t-H .-H 'T' CO r-l .-I i-l <N C^ r-l F-4

'<j4e0c0C^0ii0 00'^t^00O00aiO00C0C0»O

cociXi— ico'^o^—tocMCM-— icc-roio-^rc^

OOXC^COO-I'OOOO-^tOCO-^'^OCOi-Ht^

? CM 1-H -^ c^ c

-XC^wcOOOl^XiO

OioocMr^xcM-rt^oocMO'Oc__

■^ CM 1-1 rH 40 i-H C^ CM CD '^ CO C^ CM CO CO CS CM

Be

•^c is § 2 o

C O O ^;=2 ;

30

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

.9 28.2

S "S t< o.' b'

P.

ge^

mB

T3 .

a 2

■ ■rr t^ O CT) OS I -

3^^0i^aiC^.^.*ioosr^

SoSSwc^?^<N5??S3oc5c^mS>oKtbdi^?i?5?<0'fO'0'5c^«oiM<d>c55^

;^SrtSc<l CT^ i-hS ^ irt rH U3 tH (N M <N CO r-l i-((N <D 1M in

lt^O(M0001.^t-<OiOOMmCO»000^(N..}^iO

00MCJ2

CO.* i-<.-{.-ICO

^-wcor^ococ>i-^ooo»ot."COC^t^t^>ocoOi— I.— <ooc.i.-HO>ocooco.-HOfOt^co.-H^asc^
?-S'H'i<cioiC^coO'>o<ri'j"oo<oi'c»ro.*o>co«^rtOcDoorti^c^ocooc^-!)<-<ooe<co

i/Cr>r^C.j"'1^Tp"eD't.^CO*t.-^OrTP'crco'»o'co'oO Oli-H.-<OOOOCD00005Q005C.^>OOOOCOOOOOCO
KcqSS'5STOlOMCoS5rH<oe<l')<t^i-(M05t^.-ITfitDi-<tOCqCO.*lN>OCSt^CO«D'OCOTfl

01t^COO>0-*'CO^^Ot^C^-^"00105rtl5'tOO>t>.-J^r-<C».T<'jOt^05MOg5-t>-^Ot2

ifc^:tM-^OT-<iO'5'CMO-rr-iio»o^io^GO»o»ocDa>'i.cocccD»oaJOcot^fOOt>giO^

OOOOJCOCOOOCOOiO'OC.^l^GOt^COOiOOCO^HOi.^COU^CDt^.-H^HasI^CDCOOOCnC.lOS

— r(-rc.i'.^'r'*r't^ro"crcrorio"ccr»4'»o"eD'"^»o'orio c^^^h co.*^H^oco05'JDcooco^eo»os

gi5;QJ^otc5a5 0^'o!oC^O'*tD-t"CO«3COO>OCD05>0'0'005r-COC^OOCO.*OtOlOOO

KrHCOOCO'-Dt^0050SOiCD00010ai05^':OC^^CCH^iOt...05.-lt^Oit^i-llMGOt>-

---. C.^f-r:DcOO>Ot^c . ._ . _-.

CO to rH ^ ^ ^ »-( r-l C.< T-H C^ .-( ^ r-i CO »0 CO C^

a^cco^HOt^ioc^»f5ooob^iodic^t^?^c^c.^'t'-r:bcoo>ot.^diCi-

5 00O-H1<OC.«

roSSooSinTOSli.Soit-.SSXfrH^OC^lCO'Ot^'J.COCOCOOOCOt^OTOiOCO-HiOt^J;-
Soo'*tO--WCOOOO'OC^<Dlo0105Cnu5COO>COt^COCOC6-Hrtif^C<t-COOt^t»OOiOTrt^

a^rA'^r^ry^T^t^r~^t^-^C^i^C^CCO^t^O> C.JOlTT^'OO^OiOCOi— lOlC^^'O'^'-HC^^COO'-JCO

coc5(NSTOi-5?i.<)<mcsKrtcoSe^i'*'-HC^uo<ocor<cocscocscO'a<r-irj<c^tocqTi<tococo

Sltaagf^-' «|l ill i?^ s &^ |g so| §p is- g dl l|

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

31

OOcOC^OCCOsO»Cn'C^>-Hi-HO'-HOOCOM»OOC^050cDC^OOCCOi^OOTj<cOiOTt<»HCDCOOOSOiOt^QO'^0>CO
cOfiHUwMCsicSl-^C^C^COOiC^C<l^-^C^C^WT-^CO<N1-HC01-l<NCO^MCSM

'^O^0OOlO00C^•H0SC^C^^0COCOC0■^■^CC»0O»O^--^C0C0OC0^^00^*rH^HC«000i^•C0<D»0l005■^00C^■^0iO

.-Hl--00OiCO00'^r^«— iC«O0i':0

CD .-H --SI « C^05 ■TtHCOi00i00c00lOi-Hi-H0iOC^00cD-^OO'-HOC0r-iC^-^Tt<C^C0MCsf0i-Has'rt*OC^Q0C0ai»0>-H00
■^ -ft^ rH lO s?^t-- rH-*'^THNO-^C0MC0C050(>lt^00C0i-H.-HC0CCr-C0C0-<*'<NcDi-Hi>IC^Cl'^C^i-Ht^OC^

)lOtDC^^cO■^•-HtDOO■^cO^»■^Cl•-HOCC^OcO^O^^OCOO«OMO'X^O'**'-^^>-cOCOOC<^-HCOOO«C;2'i^l^

.. _ - _- _ C0 1-1 (NT ■■■

■-^"oT.-r

.-t Q (N O Tt* CD

'c^'^^ C^ CD 00 "-* Tf 10 10 OS »0 >0 y-t

^ 1-Ht

^ i-H <N

' '^ (N "O t^

oocD^-•c^»^oaiO0lOOcDcr^olooO'CT-H2:'^^.c^^'-^^^-t^1--^c^cDO^Clco>OfO■^Olc^■^r^cDC^Oco■^

, O CD 01 lO »0 (N CD C^l CO <—< CO -n* lO r

,_^ ., . .,,_ --lOtNCOC^tOOOOcDOOS

)asoo-^-^oo.-Hiot^ou^cot^cooc^ooc^':oco'^

M cl tH W CS Cfl C^ 1-t f-H W CO C^ 1-1 CO »0 1-J »OC^ ,-l(M CO 1-H rH CO O .-H CO rH (Si CO t-l CO COCSN <NN.-1C4^

cDOlc/^o^OI^co^*ooc^o>oc^ooo^-•co>ou^lOO■^oc^^o^^^— ioocooi~^-^>— 'C^cococD-— (»i^co»-hosc^"^
.«,^v.^,^»_«r^t^,.oooiO-^o:D*-Htocz:icoCi»or^Locoooi^c»oioir^cccDOiC^oic<)Oi— tr^cir^'^>— (COM

)io-«^»-Ht^oooi«-*cooc^'-t'^c^iocoMiooot^-Ti*i-icO'-i<OGiot^o-^t^MCso»ocO'— tao-^co»o

OOrJ^t^CDOOt-ir^C

■^in»-iC«<©*0«ttOcDi— l'^OOCO-^C*^iO-^OOOCO«7tcDOi05^HCiOO"^»-t'S<i-HOTpiOi— iTt^Oi— ICOOOQOOSCOO^

CO 00 -^ CD CO »0 C^ 01 »-H CO CD CD CD CS ■'T CO CI CS 00 CN »-H CO N »-H CO 00 tH W CO W O CO tH CD tH Tt< C^ GO CO CD ''J* CO "

050*-<COi— iC-^r--l^-t'OOM<OOC^iCcDcD'^C^COr--'<:**»-iOOOOOOcDO'— 'COC^-^OOOSCDCDCSCO-— •OiM'OO'-hOcD

oocsooasi-HcDt--iocNC^cDoi'— lCi^^^^-•c^^^o*r1~^c^c>^oooocDcDOOic^rHoaiTr^ooal

CN CO CD CO GO CO '

,-icD'^'— |'-H0i•-^O■^cDcDcDCS00C^cDOs0iC^00C01-^cD000i■^0i^^»OI^COCD■^00■^tO1— ^Tt^^-^t^^•^CO^*CDC^

^Cl^CDC^JeDOOiftcDCD-fCiMCNr^i

<M— icD'O'^OOiOCOC^'

H CN OOCOOOi

C*iC^-^(NiOCDQOCOCOOOi-it-*asiOOCO'— i-^CSCDi^CDiOiOCDOt-^COO-^cD

oi'*cou:j»i^t-HC^"^'*t^'^"^»-<oorrO'^ait>coaii-ta»o<N'rt^c^oiooot--»

I— (C^t^f-Hooco«-Hcoor^ccc»:ic^o»oO"^cDCit^oor-t-^ocD

Oir-CicDOlCOCOC^CDGOrH-fOOCS'-H'XiOOcD'ft^"'""'^-'"^'^

i-.iOiO'1'cDioor-O'— 'Coiooir^-'t'r-'^'^O'^

. . __ , ,-OX)»Ot-C^O:>(NTt<OOCO-^^(M»OcDw(NC^

00T-HiO|--.00«0 00G0O00r-lr-<I^f-HCScDC^^C^i-l»CC0(MOi»0

'- — — t-* oociOit^aioo o "^ CD t-H lOc" — —

3 (N t^ OCO "^ O C

H LQ 1— I O to CD

J.-lO^t^C^O'Ot^h-CQi-''"
"" .QOOt^cDcDfMiOC^"

icioioasi— icooit— loooi"

■^C^C^T-H'-H-fCD'O'OC

CI 10 C^ CO (N i-i 1-1 C^ r-1 1-H 1— I C^ iM 1-c CO C^ r-1 C^ C^

5»OiOcDC^l>.COI>t^(NaiCD»OiOi-<CDO
crs.-i(Nt^Cio:r^<-iOi:^cDcocooa5co

C^r-lC^M CO C^ !M i-H 1-H CS CO 1-1 i-H M

^-^.-HcOiOr^-M^cDcDrHOi— (OOOcDOiOcD'Or^O'^C^COt^OOcDCO'-HOSiOcDOOCSi— 'OOiOiJOOSCO«OC^r>-iO'-<C^O-^

cocD"*c^ooc^ioc^--*i-<'-<050"^Tti.-HOi— 1CO1— loo^-•a3colOcoc^^oo5CDoor^1-HCSc^oco^-oco•-<c^cDu:l■^c^

O^-lOJC^'n"CD■^C^C0ClC0^^C005C^OC^0S0ia0■^C0^OC^CSal^O0001^— <OCOt^Ol»0-^COOcOi-<»00"^cDcDOO

o^^co"cD*~>-^oo"»o"c^-^o^c^"cD'"oc'cD*'<^^^^'"ci'co""^■-1^cc^»-^r4"cs^c^ t-- -r ■^ cd oi cT' lo co oo i^-^co cd"

CDCO'Oi— iOCOCOOC^OiC^OC')L'^OcD>OCOr--r--'-'OOiC^'-'COCDi— «C^iO»OcDt---^b-C^COCSC-'~*'^'-^ ■— — —
COt-COO^COC^CO'~<'-iCOC^^CO(N'*COC^C^'^C^i-< CO(N(NCOC^iO<Ni-l'*i-iCOCOC^»Of-tC

WhJ

= ■§ 1= c .

i « £;S s « =i

E'Sa

i^ Cm (*-~-3 — S 5

32

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

-=^fl<^^'

■^.ra

45a

CSC<lTHi-H5lWWC5C^WNWCOWMCOO)NC5rH<Ni-lC^»COCSrHCSICOCSC^)C>»COWWNC^

O-T1— iCO'^'^iOOOOiOcO'n*00»001l-^''

irDOiOrHCCOO-^tNC^CCiOi

M^ lT^ --r -^ CW - --C' O^ -^ CO CO ■*T' Ci O C*l I^ 00 C^ Cl ■^ C^ C/j -^ CO O O C^l CO CC t^ O i—t O
'■n'-^. C:"-C-^XCZ:CJ-^»OG«DO:i^COCO>— 'C^GCiOOrHCOOCGCt--(ai':DCOC^OcCOI--r-HCO

r^-^^,-^r-rco'^c£rco'"T^c^co'c^rc<rcr»rrco'io'o^'^c^io"orrorr^

ot--o'^iooioiotDOc«oo50i-HOOicoc<iocscoc<:'r>--rPLOoif:ji— icoootot^cotoo

t*(Ml-"--T-0'-tT^iO'-Hl^O-^'— <COCCOC^'^(N^^C5l-COCOX'I-.COOCiiOr-'S^OOiOl->-
|---OClCi050iO»Ot^COa3i:0^0»OOi'-HOCOt^COGC(>JCO<Nt^CO'— 'lOOt-^O-^GCtiOC^CO

- 1 r-t CO C^ l-H 1-t Cv- ~^ ^- — - --

<N»0(M .-icOi-n>»CSJ(M(N(NCNi-l.-HtMCOC^iMCSlT

■< (N --^fM i-HiM CO

C'M'^o-r<Nc<:o50i^>ooiOc^^i:

;cC'r*oo5co»oo»oait^iocoiocco5.-HCoco

CVia:iO^CSlCNOTl^COOiOt£)i-HI-^t--C<ICOCNC^OCOM'OiO'^';OiOcDt-t--. ....._,

C^CO<M<M.-lMWC4

cpcOTTiOCOCOi-l-^COQTJUVCD^Dt^C^^OOOlt^iO'^OQOCNI
C5 W N CO iH ■<*< W CO CS ^ N 1-1 1-4 WCONWCO'ON WN"^

OS O »0 CO

O O t- ^ CS 00 (M X -
OiCOiO^^COT-Hi— i|-»C

i^ Ci *-i -r o O -^ C^ iM r

.OcOC^(Mr-rOOCO-*air^I^<N'OftOt

-COCCOi— ("rrC^QOC/lO-^O-rPOOOGOCICO-r.— il-cCC^C^C^-^OO

r'Cm^i>-cDioot--r-ocoOGOi:0"^ocsc^-^»o»-tcococicot--»-(

CO1— ioioo50CSMt-Ht^!:c>cO'^r-ior^osoot~-cocOTj<eoo*ot-^r-

CO'* -^Ol GOOD

iOOTre004cO*^iOcD"^»OU3iC»OiO«OiQcOCOiOCOT-l?OOOiO-^?OOiO^CDOS«DCO»OcO

i0OC0Tt<OOt^CSi-HO-^C^0i00t-^C<lt:^C0^»0t^0iC^CD0lOlOi-iGr)CSOO05'>:i--O

oi--.-H!£;aDCSOt'-ococ<:'OOcoc<i'-Hioioa3coooi-H':0(^o:it-'0'^«DC^oc5r--.-r?"tr:iai

CX'Oi-HiOOOi-HrH'-rrrHTrGOGCOiC^iaiOsC^^O'-Hl^r^OOOOGCGOTrOl'^OOGCiOi-iaiOI

J 1:0 0:1 CO r- c O o T

■<CO!£iCO'-HCO-^tD"^COCiOaiCSiOOait

5 O OOi CT) Oi '^

cococooiooo-^Troi>-oo6ococ<icsc<i"^o»0'y:>co-^o>^«D'^c^O{Ni-tiC"rT'cs-

c^c^io^DcoGO'a5oc«ciOT-4cococio^roco:j300o^oc^i-^c^r^coa50»ooiCioait^

O'-'OCil-iOOiCOCOCOCOiOOO'-tOI-OCXCt^CO

-COGCOiOl-I^ClOiOCOC^'

GOCOO'-iCOi.Ol^cOOOOO-^OO-^'^'Ti-Hai'^OiOC^t^X't— CO-— ICC'OCO'

oirio"'i^c^Gc''^cri-^arcD^(>rco"i--rco^io'co .-To cs o -^ o cTcTi-rco ccTio'co'cD cc ■•

OOi'^iOOJ'^OCS-^^^iOOOiOCOIMtN

'■--DI^COGO-Tf-rfCSr---^.— t'^OOOOiO''

WCOC^iM 04 ,-1 C^ (M (N (M (M 1-1 C^ ,-H (N CS C^ C^ « 1-1 M C^ 04 CS (N CO M t-I(M <M C^I

2S5S

:g^

! d o M 2 3-^ ^

' »

o^ S'

>~*i-:i fi'S 3 ^

o o-y a

.- o d . ^

; o

Sf-

w •'o cS

-oS S g^ 8 2 ^ S 3^-^ g 5 S S«»'B:« 5-b-g 2-35 2 2^ 5 3 5 So pg

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

33

l»OiO-:j»CiC^cCiOC<l"^"^"^CO

oooocccsoocot^oOi-^iC'^ooecooiOT-fT-^ooao^ococ^t-'OccooocJC^'^Maiocor'iooTriot^'tDi-^roo
o c^ '^ t^ a: r-J ic lO o <N c uo lo -r cr as i-H (N 1^ ai M t-^ M ^ t-^ c^ uo lO

^ — < cc

^ y o o ^ ^ '^ -i c^ o t^-; l^; c^i »^2 ^ c^ I ' o cs -. ^:i ci o o c C-: c;c CM --^ o I- GO cm :r, ci >o -o Oi ^ cc ^ o ct. -^ co c^ co - -

crc3"o" GTaTi— ToTc-o r-c^ai'^Oi^>ooif5coccc»DC^ioc"
— - — „^ — *i w t

)0"^COt^<NC^<N'*'»-H>.iOCOOiO-r'^iOCOCC OM O^jicC'^iOCOO'^CS i-Hi-iCS^CC<N

■lOt^'-ft-OTrMait

^ ^ S c?; J:s X r^ o W- L-^ 7 o ^ cv) o V -^ iO -r CO o ^ o L- CM X ^T ^ cj ^ -^ '^ cj r- ^

<xc/:. ocM^'-HOOGcoc^rtoo'^i^OfOc^ooioooi-HTri--cjooi^'^'-^CiCi'^C5ior--rHcoO'-HC--w

»-t CO .-I (N CM 1-1 i-H CO i-t T-i i-i --H --i T-t i-l r-H i-l 1-1 1-1

i-<coGOo:/>»o>— loooot^-^cooco-n*.— (Cicoci'^-
cc 1^ cc »-* f-i I- Ci o --« <-* 05 »o i;: --H ct TT 1— I -, Ci ?~ tD' C

CS^OX'OiCO'— i-^^ncOCCO-^OC^CCrHCOr-'Dl'-^J-^C

^r-To'^^CM^'o'c^^c^^^'o oToc ccc^oc^qjCMCM^jOiOtrooior-o^^ocMi^c

)t--.-^C0C0e5OCNl->

) ^ lO O CM --^--^lO :c <:

:■ o OS o> o CM o irrco"c/rcc"'^o-r'vr':o''-r-<h

■< CO ?5 CM CM C^ CO C^ 1-4 CM >f C^ CM Sn CM CM CO ^ lO "50 CO «M -7* t-. C^ CM CO ^O CO C^ CM CM i-t i-i CM CM CM r-* CM i-i i-l >

■-riO:Oi-iO»Or^CO'^OiCOO!:OOOOS»CC^i— •OOCiC'CMCOOl'— <O^^cC1-Ha0CM0>lOrJ«O^^0l00OO•^C0^t^l-^0il0OM'

0'^C^C)CC005J-«^COo5r.-t^DOl'CrcO--<Ot-C"10CSOai^CMiOCO'^OiX>-^CMCOCO-T-00^

t^r*i6rOI^'«'COOCO^O»iJCMCOQOCO'-il--CMCMOi-^Or-H05i-tt^OI^OiCCOOOOiiOl^OOi':OOCMiOC^

^cq'^^^o^^lr^^^^r^tp"lr^o^cT^o"5^^^^^^l^c^ - -< -

COCOCMCOi-Hi-<COi-HCMCMCOCOi-irHCOCOCOCMCOCMC^ CO'^^<-<COCM'-<0:)COCOCMC<I.-(i-H.-iCMi-iCMCOCMCMCMi-(

rryciC'U-rox^c:--£ri-cooc:oi'COcorcC4C^i-Hrx-TT-.xcMOcc^coc^i£j-:rr^tr3-^occco^:Ci-^ >

i^rH-^^TrHOCCoJO'^Oai-^a. Or-HCMi-«'*CM-ri-HOCOCOCMCOOCOa30t-*QCcCC5C--CO -^

0S^C>0O^-^GCL-:)»OO0iO-^':^Ci'»X)00CC<:0I>T-ilr*O0S'^"^cOC^t^CM:C'Ou0"^C^-^C0C0i^ g

''0(>OOOl'^C'101I^CO;DiOrO-?'OCMOa500iOCOOCMi-<OinGC'XCCiOCMOt^CMas^CM'-4
CM Ci O w^ I-- t- en -^ CO O CO TT CC O Ci X O *• ' — — ■ ~. ^-. . -. . — . _ ,,

l^COOi-lCOCMOOt-Oi-^I-^CCTPt^t-^COO;^

COCMCMXI^CMCiOW

, -.-. .. ---OCCMM-OCMh-i-OOO

: o Ci x o C4 o v: -r -r -T- rt- o o 0:1 1- cj I- o O' x t- o CM o: c-1 -r o CO CI o CO

X' O i-< CO I- t

- 1-1 CO yp t— Oi c

r<cct-a>ococMa5xeo»oc»— 'Cst:

CCt-'iOCM'^X'^XiiOOSCDCDCM-^iOlOi-lC^'^. ^ — ;=:;-i-^;;>:i^-^--„;r

nO-^t— O0CO00t^CMCOl^0Ct^'***'^mcOt~-O5'— 'COCO1— (Xt^CMtDOOCOCDi— fCOt^i— IC

- 1.0 O X lO to rT< r^ CO ^ 10 tX Cl Ci !:C 1
jTfr-CMrOOifO-^i-ii-iiOXXC"

iS^ o

OO^HCMl-^CO^*CO!£)■^COOir^OO^^■^l-^^0•-^>0 05■^COCMCMC5COC:•^OalCM.— (CMCOi— iCOC50li-<a>CCiOaiCMXXiOt^

CMC5r-r-ioxcor-ccouO'-«oi--0"^C5'— 'COOCM"n'OCicocMCjcoi~Oicot^r--o-n'C:ciOi-MOt-ocox-n<;rt-.oic:'

O1-HOO'^OXl0CMCD^-l^»OT-^X■rrO^CMOt^XXO00Ol•^C0Xl-lC0C0l— iX-^COO^COOXCOOi-iCOCMiOCOO

t-ri.'ri3rcrr~^crf:c^o'-^c^orororrx^-^orx'"r^cr»-rifrcM'r-^cro e^-^ cTx x cm o co co co i-Ti-To cc co'i-o'aD o co"CM^CM^crc:rcrr>r

OcoX*wa50^-COC^l--t^ir;:Oi— lOOlCMCMO-^COiCiOCOCOiO'— 'OCOCOLOClXr-^OiOi-^LOCOOXuOcoCiOOCO^^
COCMCMCMt-tCOCOCMCMCOCMCMCMCMi-iCMCMCOCMCMCM CMCMCMCMi-tCMCMCMCMCMC^CMC^i-lCMCMi-(T-(CMi-*CMT-<i-Hi-H»-lCMCMCM

p«S

o • :::

d :^

n c! o d) o> ji J ^ , V ^3._j>,Hvj

14576°— 18— Bull. 626

34

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Sm t- £ o

^2 a

03

5i

■al.03

_ u<

o a

OC I- »0 -^ CO li'S

H C^l Ci ^ 00 1-H l-^

i-H CS (M (M <N Ca

GO 03 Oi CO 0?:' oC'

00 iQ CO CO O <N
00 lO .-H o»o o

cfc^T'^o'ic'crco'
coococ^coco

Oi »0 m rH I>» 1— I

i-H --^ lO O ^ 00
r-H t^ Ol ic r^ CO

O O C4 lQ C^ :0

oy^ 05 coo T-H

00 t^co t^<to o>

CO -^ <M >— < CO .-H
CM i-H-TOi CO^

^ ^ CM O '^ --0
CO lO COCO'^CM

'■C I-~ O CM -V lO
CO lO CO 00 1-1 Oi

CO Oi-iOi 00 CO
'T O W iO I>- lO

CO Oi Cl lO 05 — <
CO CM O CM CO 00
Ol CTi O CM OC' 1^

CO CO Oi 1— I :d O

C^J .-H CO -t^ CTl ^

CO to lO ^ oc --C
CM O O T-liO t^

CO '—< -r CM T-H cu

CM CO C^ CM CO CM

c3 c3 c3 <y ^ rCj

C000CMO***»O'*C0rHG0C0:OTtHL0CMij0Ci00O-fT-ICri00
M^ C^ t-1 lO LO CM 'i^ O uo O -1^ CO 'Tl^ Tj- T-^ o I-^ — " t- CO CO CO o

ot^ooTp-t<n'-^'^^oco-^cocoioiocoo-t'Oo-^i>-o

a-Ji-lt>-Ot-i-^OTt<l>.OOT-i.-HCMCOiOiOCM'*Ot^Oi-H

0 0-^COOt-^CO'u5oCM-1^GOCOCOCMOiOOaii-Ht^r-^0
COCO'^T^COCMCMCMCMCOCMCMCMCMCOCOCM'TfCM-^CMCOCO

Ot^t^"*C0T}HT-H-^0iajOi0CMCMi-Hrt<»0'-HOOCMC0Tt<
uOCO.-HM'O'^iOiciOC^O^t-^l-^COOt^Crii-H'-H'r^oi

uo^'^-^ooooooi^oooooo<;oo<oo»o«o

CO CO CO C5 1-1 t-- lO -rfi 00 CM Oi ^ O '^ CO O CM -t^ CO i-H CO o
CM»0t--t^CMt0I^t^CM-fOC0i-(CM00»-0--t CMtO'-i.-iTt*

00»iO'*COOCOOiOOOOOOiI>.0000'0 OOOCMl^O

cTco^cT t-rcro^co"co''^t-^^co'co"co"ic^'--rco"';r' i>^c^t^

O^i-HOCM^COCMCMi-lr-lCMCMCOCOi-lCOCM ^CM CM CM ^ i-l

iOCOO.-tOiO»0-^C3COOCMO.— tOGOt^i— liOOOiCO
i-HOt^^l^^OO.— lOrrOliO'TfCMOOOCMOOO'^OCMO
Oi0t--G0-^-rf»-<TfO'-<OOt-OO»0C0t^00OlOOCM

orco'rjr»i^'^c^co''cri-rcrr'-rG<rc7rco"i>^orr^co"c^Tt^r-rco'^

^CM i-Hi-HCMCMCMCMCMi-HrH CMCMCMr-i,-(CMCM

"rhmOCM»Ol^i-Hi— i"^C0OC0»0»COCMCMOr^O'— tCOiO
CM>OOCOCM-^GriClGOf-«iOOOOiCCOt>jOiOCO-^COGO
OOt-OOt-i-HCMOCO'-iOO:OGOTPCMO»-iOiOCOO'n*CM

•^crri-^t-^Go"crcM"co"oo"-t^co"io*TirtCco^o"'-rco'cM'c<roo^ h-To^

rHi-HCirt^ CMCMCMi-HCM i-H .-i CM i-l 00 CM CM GO CM

»COOCMGOt^"<*'^COCOCO'^OCOOCMOOO"^cniCr—
lO X' CO O O -^ O i-O «— < CO lO lO *f t- "^ t - 1- CI Ci CO O C/j CM
CMl'-COt-'-"^OC:'I--OOi— iQOODi— (-— l-^0-T'COCOI>.iOO'^

irrc^"rtrori--rco"<>rif^orcroo'riro'i-r-:^i-rco^r-r"rti co^t^o <ji'

O00'^C0t^00O'<^C0O»0u0iO<DOit^i0u0Tt<OCDO01

-r-1HOiCOOOCri'-0-^CMCM'-fC:.CMCMCll--CMCOcOOCM
C". CO O CM O T- i-O »0 O -n* CO O X) »-0 CO O t-- ^' .-' i-H lO 1-- r-l
CM-^00'Tt";0CMC0Ou0Tt<l^C^1l--(^l"-00Cr. OCOO'-'OiOl

G<rcM"<:o^co"'^co"oo'crorcM"co"oro"«-r'Tt< ':rrirrt^crt--^co"'^cM

CMOO'^00CMOiOlI>-i-l00CJ>0000»-iO00cC>O3OClt^»O

oC'i-rt^i--oii>.oocO'^c^'rt^'^cocMcoiocopooiooor^

I , -^ CO ■-< LO r-i CO i-o :o :o CJ '

X r- ^ CM rH

■-t^C0i0OOC0C0CM-^CM-^^<:O»000r-r- (OtOOOt^iO

crcrii^c£ro"cr.-rco" ccT'-T T-fTfC -^To^co^i-H't'^c^arc^ri.'ryr'-H

Cfi-t^»OCOOOXCMCMI^CM-tiC4COCOCl.-iC^l-+iGOCO^COiO
^^^^^CMCMCMi-HCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMi-Hi-HC-lCMCM

OOiCOi— iCSCOCOOXXiO-^iOOb-iiOOi-OC-l'^CMh-Ol
lO T-( CO r- C) LO O t--. CM C:- X O I-- CO ■-f O 1— ' CO CI -P --H -H o
t^t-^OiOcOiOr-'OTiO-^CMOOCOOlTt'LOO-^LOOias-^-^

^^''^"co'r■^•--^c^c^1-^*^^.-H'c^cM'c^.-^Tf^o'c^1-^I ■^o'lo'i-rco'

lO -^~ t-^ CO CO -f -f --f CO <-0 ^ i-O ^ O »-0 LO CO <:0 O O CO CO (N
COCMCOCOCM'i^COCOCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCMCO'*-^

C3 C3 C3 tt-TS C y O fc

3>

. - - « <^ i^ 5~

o 9

s n st3

c3 ri c? 6 5^43^^;;;.

-<<i<;<K«p;«mMnnoooooouoooo

PASTUKE LAND ON FAKMS.

35

■^COOiOiiOO'^t

^COeO■^eO«OCOCO'^'^0■^COCCOO>0^-CD^~OCOOO■^lOCiCSOOcO^''*Tt^COTt*T-^■^J^lOOOCO

»OI--OC^»00<NO^OCOOOOiWOOOaiMt^OX)CCiO'^C^t-^tOI^^-CSC<>'-iOM*CCfO^OCOO'-it^O'^C^OO CO
<:0 CC C^ O t-^ CO O O O X --H ^ lO M* M O -r <-H C^ C/!) 1-t G: rH lO 't* ^ -t^ O ^^ tC I ~ -t «0 f-H lO n* O:. CCi O O CO O O^ CI

CI»-H^-rj<I^C£)iOOOO:CuOt^'<J*r-HC^OOClrHiO-1'01C?CCO'1^0C^IO'^t^OOO'^XiGCC^ Ol

co"orrr--r'>5"-i^orr-^'--rcrort-^c4'co"t^io"t^i--^o"'^c^r--H'c^irr

C^'^i>IC0i-tC0C^WC*<C^'-lC^IC0C^'-*C0C0C0CCTt^C^C0Nr-lT5<Cac0i-lC0W<NOC0 CVICNJ COCOCO<M<NCS':C(M<N<M ^i-t

OiO<-^00'-CiOC<>-:^OOu?>OOiu:)OOOC^OOCi»MiOC^I'C^-^>OOC'^>0<Ni-<COO:''+OOC^'— COt^-O'-'r-t^

tOGOCOCNOOOXJCl'-Z-OiC

t'-t^Tt'or-ooocsoioc-

- O i-* l-O CO O •-* r-( .— I ly-j 'Xl O L

OO'^-S*G0WT-HOC0i0«0--iOasr-(O'-O':C(

- CO iXi o r- O' o -— I -« c-o t- — M i-H c/:i o c

I CM i-O lO <— I LO

lO"— "i-Hi— 'C^OCOI— t^OiiOiOOCOr-HTfcoOO

CO-t't-.M'C^i-H|--i0iCaJi0C0iO-t''-He0OOOC<)OI^t^';0O"^C0C^0i'^C»t^C^0iON-t"0iOC000O'X)'-H.-Hr^

oi^<>OQCO'OLOcocsiiooico-^oo-^oot^u:iu505uoco»oococ^c^oocoi— iiooiic-— <-ro

i-O CI >-0 O O <N CO O CO CO t

CJ lO —< I"-« lO »o o -^ O I- w- v.^ -. -- ^ .- -j -. . -

OOCOiOC^»-<CiiOi-HiOOOOt-^t^-?*t^t^O(M-*

Oi Cq lO lO cc t ^ c

1^ C: O CO :C »0 C-l C^ (N C/:: iO O 'w I^ tr» CO •-« CO O O O t'- C. -^ . -. - - . - - , w-

■■~---cci>.t-n<c^ooi^Oioo»0'-HiOCN)050o-rooiC^iooiocooco«oto

ootClOooo>ococO'<*^olOcooi'0'^coococ^ooco^-^T^woo■^»01-H1--tOl>■TJ^co^^^-Ht^QOT^ooaacoo>ocooo ••

1-HC^iO^COCO O COtH THt-( CO»-H WCOCOrH COOOCO'^'^'^Tti COiOCO"^ COCO'^CMi-ti-lCO-^r-tCO^ O

iM -r CO X' M oi c-i -r r

CO O '-' QC' C^ C

lO a: .— ( o c: -f -r c^ >:

Oi-Ht-~i0OOCCOr^G0O00C0i-H-^(NOS-rC000Or^h-»0OC0O"^00t-^CJ(NI^Oi0i0iO00

I ^ »0 (N OD CO ^ t^ O •-< 00 »0 Ci

t-^O'— co--iocoi-ioo»oast--M''*oit^O"*i-iot

i Oi .-H GO o O t-^ N c

"iOOiOOOO-^-^C

r'OOClOOCOOi'^

;lOTtHCsoo>0(;DQO(^^olc
^'^>r^c^c*^co^c^'^':£'co'o6'e^co'co'co^^i^C^^^^^TJ^T^^o^1-^

l-^^^^^ococolOcooO'*■^»olOlOcoolOlOtO'^Tt'r}^looo^*OTt^oooot^t>'«7^c6colO•^o6^^

t--C<^OC0C^OOC^)C0'-«OO:C0-*C0ClG0Cif-iCiC000C^C^Ot--00C0»C»0':

'-H .-H •'t' X' Ci C^ --p O CO -T" O CO fO 1— < C^ C^J C: I-- O CO --r Oi 1.0 O i-f O O C^ Ol O C-« ^-t •-. i^-i ■--. -_. .^j — r-. i.-j -rr i- uj _ i^ CN -__ cn i-H

c^-rt^co^cooooow:t»OQOO(>)tooc^iot^t-^iOT-Hcorr-TCOOn^on''-C'COO<x--^o»o»-H'x;u^rtHOi^

5 0C'COOOCOCOO<NT-<»oOOOOil^COCi'

■-i tr: iXj x c GC cj; r-« CO -n^ I - o --^ I- cs '— c^ r
3CJCC'-<o»oi-i'X'>0'^Oi-Hcooi(MCsiO':_

occoco— ^oOl0^lO»o^^c»^-Ol^^l-HGOGOOil-^Oil>oocsX'»oocococ^Jcocs^-c^•-^i:-^-r'-HC^Ol^•^(:o

05'— COCi'^COOOi-OX'-H--rXCOOiOt--00'-HO^O>0»-H"^OC^C^.-HCO'-H'-HC^-^i-HOrtJr>-Clt*OOI---OOt^

• lO O ( ' t-- O O -f ■^

CO *2" »-< I--. "Tf- i-O O Ci CN lO O "^ ■^ Ci O O --< CN I-'. UO O ■■-

O;i0»0C^C0Ot'--OOCS'T'0I-n'i0i000-^G0C»t---t-.C^i-Ht--C:01OlOOO»-HC^iOt-^C0t^'— l-^i-HOO"*

QCc^ior-coocic^t^X'— ^^o■-*•t•--coc^c»^C50icol^csol01--'^--c^oo■-^QC'— •cot^OiO'—'C^c^^Qjooouo o'cTci^

,^^. — -*_,f/3Csj^^y:)if^(3;-^^, f,7,^t3f^^^lr^rt4t^000i0it•-OC0^t--O— ■-^lOC0C^t■-

<^J(^^^,-^CST-H.-^C^.-^(^^WC^T-HC^IC^IC^^CSC^C^^C^T-^.-Hr-^^-^l-HT-1CS'-^N'-^C^C01-HC^^»H

£.S§

I C3 o OJ <S.S:i

iRPfiPP

o c O

O.S M

C u 1^

e3 c3 c3

c tics j£n

^sr:

; H 2^-5 S o o S.a o a S^i^ « cs css.ti o o

>c3c3oOOk>i^^"^'^'t r;vH ^^ i^ i_, 1^ t^ 1^ 1^

t=.S

o S
Mc3.

§1

bo

36

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

i

■8 -a

— 13 ,

!^

Ofl

Ph

a^o

gsl

ft

(ij""

o

«3 2-;

<JO,P.S'

SB
■3^

^OOC0CCiOt^OC^0iT-(Tj*c0CC00T-ti000C0O'<*'05i0-^Ot^C0

oc^■^TJ^o^^^^^C^^^t•-^u^c^c^co"^^cx^c*^c<^o^lf:^^-^^^>--^o^l^lro^ i-T

0)C^CSi-H^

CS—I iMl-H r-4 ^

1-1 CO C^J M (N r-t CO

OC0Oi0C0»0CC^CC><NC0O00w00q5-1*(M00C^CNt--C0C0(M"^O

CO 1— I t- lO 00 '

OfOi-('-<c;co<-i(N"

0<N'^COTji05t--<»C:i'rt*0»OCO^O'-<CSlc

- • O CI 00 Tf O (M 'O
;iOO300iCt^»O'Oi-H

r^cooocDO-^i^QOiot^io^oooooii-HOOOiiccscoccoocotoi;©

,-1 cOCSt-^C<» f-Hi-l i-HC<JC^(MO'^C0C004CS -^CS

Dco(Nr^cooO'fcocococ^c<;i

(•-C0'-O»0^0:it^C0C^»-t':iDC0O»0'rO'-<C0-rOO

1-H :0 t^

r-*i-csoa5'ffb6£^i50'-HO'^^iocoffii"5f^ait-^oo
■^»o":o'co^lf^c^t--^o"co'^^c^o^c^co'M^lo'or^^^'-H^1--^'*^-• t-^ oo c*^ oo lo >o

00i000«O"^O0iai»0'^I>-Oi0O05i0-^iOCit^00-^C0c0t'-C0Tt<

CNl 1-H ».o t- c

COa>00i-Hi— i00CiC0O»-i':O00C0-^aiC0l--'-H04CO0:iC00iO0i(Ml^

00O'-*C^OC0'rClC0h-OO<:0C^O'-<n<C:':C00t--»0C^00C0'-HC^
OOOC^OOOi'^C^fOOOt— OiOlCO'^C^OiC'lOCO'-Hi— lOOCOCN'-C'GC

'J^Csh-OO^OC^i-HCOOOt^CMOOCOCOOOCCC^Ot^OOi-fOOOOC^COOi

loooooicoi-^o. aiC^ooooi^oo-^coi-<i-'-i'-*aii--asO'— lO

C0t--0iI--C000OaCiOTfC0Ir^»O'-i(MC0rt<i-»rHU':i^'rtit^0:iC0'^O

•-<GCC^00'-*(N7t'»OaiC0C0t^rHOOOr^-n-O'M00O-t<CSOC^O
<(NCO(N(N'-H.-t»-Hi-H^^rH(N,-((McO--lC^

a> cc CO t- o c

;cOdcot^ooO'-fr-r^iooicoiO'-H(NOt»ooc^'-i

Owcoi--cicoooC'<Mi^»-<eoQOOoO'-HCS'-<t^c^aso>-Hcooo .

OC'TiiiOt— »-'iOI^'^>OOCO-^C^-n''OOOiOOC''— 'OiOiTPCOOli— fOCO

h^-^Oi'-^CTi'-t'OiOO'^COiO'-HOi-

3 OS CS 00 CO CO l>- i

C» C»1 CO »jO CO r-^ lO C^ CD r— t^ r-- lO -^ CO lO O »0 rt* CO Ol (N CO c^ (N *^ »o
COCO'OCOCOiOCOCOCOCSCO'^CO'^COC^COC^COCOCO-^tN'^tOC^CO

Ci O R i^iil

C3c3^00 O 0"^c3 oJh.S-iI^'^^ '^k "

a-QH0-iCuCL,pHp-iWrrv(7:)r/3co:cHEHp>

' r%£2 9 d O ^--^
C3 c3^^ O O O O— « c3 oJh--h-2 '^ '^ t>t>l>l>b>t>t>l>l>t>

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

37

0sOC^^^C^NcDCC00^-u^I^C0,-^-^t'^-C0'-^C0<X>^*N0i^-^'^*^l0'**^O-^'*f<00C^C^»-^OC^C0OOl0^^

'5S

o ^ !:d iQ CO <o io CO 00 oo oj 00 to c^ cs co lo lo CO -^r CO "^ CO f-i'^ioio-^

T-t Oii-i00i-((N

ooTJ1C30co1-HC^Ol--lo■*co^-HM^t^cOl-HCl'^t^^»^*cD'Tp^oooOf-^cot^^oo^•oooa>ooc^'^ooclcO':ococs

c^cocscoc^coc^ioi^w^c^cooc^c^cooO'^c^Ncor""~"--"-^"""---=^--"

)C0C^C0<NiOC0'^C0C0C040-^C000-*'O

C^COOOCO OCOiCTjOOt-.

OiCttfMOlOcC1-^COCO^^*-^'<:f*fOO^COQO^:sOil-H1rMCS'£>cot^^^lOOCDcOr-lOutl^*OiO

*CiOCC'C<lCO-^cO'«J*CSCO*OCOi-4CO^iO.-l'^»f5-«I'iOCD»0»OCO'<J'-^r

i-^jico-^r cs »-^ CO 1-1 to (r>

i-H Oi Ci -^ C
,-H r-1 lO »0 »

SJS^R^Sr^^n^SS'^?? t^ ^ 3* 00 O 00 00 T-H lO ^ lO »0 t- CD OO lO CO -* «0 t^ -'f :0 00 00 Oi Oi CO t^ OO (N cq -^

^^SSSJ^J^S?=^JS^;^ QO^^cooor-.t-.oio(NCs»ni^co(Ncscooooc^^os oDiooioi«coo»oioo

<OOi --H Ocq O IOCS OcO 004 00 '•J^ CO Oi i-h 05 t^ CO <M CO CT) CO tO t^ lO -^T CO tO cO *0 i-t Ol CO <M 00 CO cO t-h CS i-4 fH -<r

cor-cor^»OQ,.,, . _,

lO-^COCOCOOOCOOOCOCOt^CO

'^^^■^.?^^[;:.^^S^S2^^^^^^^^'^:^^9i^^.t9:^^^^^t^<^^^^o'S

^iOCOCOCO-^COCOOOTf'^'*fCOi— lOOt— <co

-CO^COt^ -^lOOOCO

P<^?SO;3^ocoNC3cocoOlOTHO<^»ooo^oco■^I^05r^colocooo
c0^--OiCDlO^^lraalcOr-^rJ(^GrJ--»rtr^fr.rT,^^.,-,i:^CS^Q^CS^C0

-C>3jc0t~-0iC0iOiC'O

cot^.-iioa>t^csco'«»'>ow:touoco-^oioococoo"<*'C^oicooc

2 12 S 2 ^ S S ?5 S S'S"" ^"2'2"*"?f g 2"^"f tr?f ^"jf '^"^^"S '-'"g"^'' 2"* 2" : S~- ?3

too-^r^io-^iOf-Hcoo

O'-("^'*i-Ht-iC0>-H00CS

■-Ot-Ht^ cor^cscOi-(
"^ »-H c-1 CO aTr-Tco'r^ro'

O CO »OCO i-(

05 0> Oi t— ^

oco ■

CO 05
00*^0

• -^ C^OOO lO

• *o cs ocD r-
•.-it^OOOOi

CO »o CO -^j^ !3

?;^'^Z!^?S^^^^r:?'^*^*^'^'^'^'^ot-*.-HO'-H^^co(No^'fft-^c^t

!) CN 1— I lO .— 1 T-l »-( CO CO I— t I— 1 ,— ( CS 1-H I— I I— I 1-H 1— I CS I— < .— I ,— 1 »-t CO I— t

,») -r^ ,—i ,^ ^ ^^ Q^ .— IIO.— iT-lrMCOCO r

lO »0 Oi CO CD
i-H -H Cft O t-*
CO ^ tH

u. n o -*± i

rt O 1-. 3 i

mmpQMc

9 o

9 03 OT
^ c3

-■^="i§s-5

- ^^' ^'Sl'ill «ltf I : J ^ i'^^ bails' >l.-3"|i P.S5 S| 1=

38

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUBE.

ss

I— I *-<

•-1 .-I C5 Ci --H .-HOI (N T-l 1-1 r-t

colr^05<N'*a>cO'^ClOu^»oc^.-t-*^-^*olcot^"^f^oo-^Oi'^^OiOiT--^oco(^^QO»oo^-^^o

t^C^'^C000M0>OOOOI>.05G0OC0t--.^Hi0O(Ni0G0(:D00Q0C0M^<-tasC^(N0C00CD

.OQOO»jOO»OCO»OOiOO<N^

t^ CO I-- O C^ CO CO CO

JCOCO-^t-OOCOOt^iOcO-^t^COOii-iGOi— ii-iai»OCOiO"^OCO»0

r-cOTrir-iaii>.cO'-H

CO --H CO <;
1-icooOi:

■<(MOlI--^'M(Nt-^»OtMCN»O00i-H00C0»O'NO5

>co.-n--coc^c^»-<csoo-,D"^coc"*- ■

CO »0 (N 05 -n* 1
l^ rH CO Qi CO '

i-~ 1 - i^ cc o c*:' '

•OOiOOCOI— t-Oi"^C

T-t '^i-HCO CO (NC4 CO CO i-l 'Oii-ii-t C^ CO i-i CO C^ CO CS C^ »-t

<i— iior>.cC'>*co-Tt'oOTPooci-^'Xic'5co-*»f3 0coaii-i«— lOiio,— (coocooic^.— I.— iccr^o

-rr -o '^ o t-o to cs 1-H 1

ICN^OOCNli-l-^'fOOlCNGCCOCOCO'-Hr-CSOOO.— ICOI^COC^GOtP

ocor-icscoiooi-icooco-^or^Otoy?ocoos=oOi<Mc^ir^ai»0'^o^i^-co».
oTc^rc^rcf I^c^I>^(^f c^cM'lo"c^r4'lo'lr^co'o'c^^<^^1-^<^ -£> o co

t-itocooa-^iOtoooan-^ooo-^cC'^

iococor^»o-^oa>cCiO«oooco-^co'0

^-»oo^^coo5coGCoal<^^»ocoai"^tO(Nr^»ooo^GCoas0^1-|-^t^l-l0 1— 'X'OiO-^

OCO-— '^OC0C0'-<(NC0I---':0Q'^C0"^i'-01^/JOO0i'— lOCSOOC^GC0CCDa'O'Xt--C^
l^GCr^COl'-'t^CSCOi— iCO£-*COOC^c5^'<rCOOOlNO:DI>.^»OtOO.-iOOiOOCOCOt^OCX>

iCo^crrczrarc4^uo":£ru^crc£roc'^crr^cr«rc£r'^arco'co .-Ti^r-rf^

r'-OOOOtOOiGOt-HOCNCOT-iiOGOi— ICO-— <OS(N'-HOiOiOiO'^I-*OQOCOO>OOt>-Oi-<GOCO

■^COI>-OlOO^^OCOCO^OCO■^t<C5^*lOUD■^'C>01I^0501"^C^OO<^4^-.0>lOcDlOCDC^05■^
COCOiOOTrairr>-ri*cOt--0^l-^.— i0iCSi0l^0iOCX:)CCO»OG0-^t00&00i--G0(NC000CNr--O

^*o«^■<t^oooou^OFHcOI>.u5r-HC/^.-.t^co■^tooGOooI-l^^«cococ01-^■^'^^^I>-'^oc^

c^co'c^T'^c^cs^ ■^c^ ■^'^"^f^c^3o'*o' c^c^(^^co^
■^t^ooot"*'^or'-05coocoooooir^t--aoi-H'X>t-^cooi-H:Dor^»-HC<»tcor*0500ior^

C^i-I(N r-lCMi-H C^COCOCO^i-HC^r-H^ CS^i-(C^C<IOIO»C4CO'M(N<M"^CSC^i-i(N

lOwococ^^oai^^'-^':oc<^ut)OOcour:cOlO't^-<*^ococsoo^^oo^^ooocoas»ocococO':C'Oi
oc^'^»o-^Ticccoco(:ocsico-^<-Hi-ioc^csoi-(i--»OTr'-<'-HOc»OtO.— tr^r^»oc5.— tx>.Tj<
(X)i---t^i>'Oicococ(Oior^c<iooGO-n^co»ococoioco-^r*Oi00ccocoiO'^ioiOQOooTr'»oco

i-rc<rorri-H^i--rarc^<:o""^io"^co'arcD"orTjrr^,-rorQo"o(r<o^c^

oairHOCscDTj'io»ocsiiOC(OtocNiO'^j<<o.-(Cococsicseoeo»ocO'^»oo»-ii>'CO'*^r*co

»H'<*i'^C0C0C^TtiC0'*iOiO»OiO-^C0'^CO-<J*T-t'^C0<a5*O'<J*^'<J*'^iO^'«*<iOI>-'^'^C0»O

b-i^

s.sl^ 3 2.s.a ^&.o s s 2^.^ § s s i g i s l^s lai 2 i § &.-- o

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

39

0it--i-ir-OCD0i0icDI>.00':0OO'-iC0i00iN.-iOC^C0

cot-^ioc«T-iooi"-T5o4«--H.-Hf--iOOcsi-^0'--5>-Hr^i--Io'Oi

sc»i':Dc^io-^i— iiooi-Hi— iiX'-^rOcO'-i'sOf-H'^iO'

<0 O C^ Oi Oi (N O -^ OJ CO lO i- ID 1-- i-t O "^ Oi I-- t- <:0 to CC

^i:-'-*'Cii-HCCrH»oO'^coor-^fOOi-Hoc^aiCocO'*f

iOcOt^OOOOC^--^CO'-<I^<M<N'-

• QOOr-lCCOO«iOt^COrOt^OOOOcOOCCC^(N

0'3*CO CS'^Oi— IC5 0I--C

- . _ , _5 o I-- r

CO .-H -^f^ lo CO 05 -t^ <M o r- 00
occcDcnai-^QOoicocoo

«OCCOiOi-liOOO(NiOOiQ

i-HCOCCOi00O500^-^'

toci»or^O!0"<^cocz)r^

OOiOCOiOO^iaiiOT-iOO
lOiC-rt^iOCOOi-^OTfCO

1-* C^l rH TO

^'^::i

oooi^oc^oO'^r-ioio

CO CN >0 O iO 1-- t-^ 00 CS CO O
'O 1^ rH O u^ O to I^ iX) t^ C-J

-cotDr^cOrHcocor^

rfOOoOOl-^OSiO-^'OiO

COiOi-H-rf^r-Oi— <OO-^C0i0:Dl"-.i-(Tt*i-0Ort*»0C0r-00

lOtOi-H.— ic2'-"'^5500cxjo)cs-^co>— <cocOr-H(:OT-icio

^ C^ CO O O "^ lO CO I^ '-"^ '~<i "^ '^'^ ■ ■ ''^ '^"> '"^ ■'^^ '■^ f— ■"* -^ '-^

-J ^^ 1— x^j ■•■J 1.-^ liJ 1— ' i^j !.N ^> l^- 03 "a^ irj 1— 1 OT C*3 O) OO C3

^ °5 ^ oiCic^i^i-05 c^»oci'-ifi-^»oo*-Ha5i-H

ocsocooir-occoo

'crco"crQo'"cr

r:^;^iNc^c^;::;;=;;^-

05CO»Of— fCiOOT-(r>.0'OCOfM"^-t*.— IOC

i-H CC I-* '^ iO CO lO t- — -^ -- *

OOC5C^<NOOO-7^

■" ■ • ■ ' t 05 T}« t-^ ^ CS

Si^;^'^2'^^S'^2£2'~'^^£^^°°^^=*^'-'^*^-^

CS CS W '^J* t-< cs

■-T* C^ f-H l-H CO t-4 r-H

Oi O O O CI "^ O I- lO
CO CS ^ if3 00 I^ ■ —

OiOOOir^OO (N

D 00 I^ rH l~- O C

:> r-- o oi o o lo CO o <o '

-, _ . , .'• O I-^ t- O w CO »o <lO C--3 ^

oo.-*:o:OTri-^oooGOO'-(»Hi-ic^»

r;;*;?;.^i2l^£3"0:H075H;^r-.oo5r--^ir^coopc^i

coc>jc^oo'-t»— lai

<N'-'CO(Nr--CO-^OC

''^»f:)-^rHCSl:^»0'i"rt^

lOfNCOCM

fe o d 3? ^

^^ -. ^ 2 glS5 alls 3-§ 2'^'^ ^-•- § ^

'O H

COC50»-lt>--^lOC^»0-^t-«»-4rr»-HiOt-IC^OiCOiO

OO'-Hi-HUOCOCOO-TC^i-HO'riOCOOCQOC^tOrH
I^ CO Oi CO I^ »0 lO CO ?Ci r-» CO -r »o t-* 00 ^ O "^ :Ci rr

0i»OCi0005»Hi-lC0t^(NcDC0t^C0O0SC^C00S00
Oi-rt^coiOiOOC^cDoioot^^OTrr^coooco

i-ifNT^i-HC^-ri-^ioiO"

(M CN rt CS r-1 (N 1-t

COCOClCOi-HtOC^C^iOC^t-OiC^-^O^C^COCOM
GOO^-r'^cor-^05-rcor>lio-rcOTrtoto<NM'>rj
iMCO<N-rCOC^r-tC^cC(MCO(Ni-HCSC^HNC^CO'<J''T

COQO-T"CSOOOI— -^'-^
O CO (M DO T-H I-- C^

wv-T- ■T'wvOliOi-HOCi-HCOl'^CO
COt-Or-iiO»OMC^OOcC>C^

'^(M'^OOit--rH<^Od«0 0-fO

^ Oi CO '-D 1-H CO W CN rH r-( CO 'J* O I - CO -rj- CJ CO CSI CO

cj05»ooco'0oot^r-"^cocoio>oo»oi>-i-(i
OciC<ioO"^»OXioocO'£>00'£'cO"^Tri»0"rri.oc

CO^OOii-HCOI-^CiOCi'^T'rHrpO^COCi'^C^OtNI

CO :© 05 <^ :o

■H i-t CM C^^ -T t^ i

" CO Oi I-^ O O
'-OCMrHOCOCOOOiO

to -r cs cs CO "^ 1

u3i-^t_)<^»o<:.o-rcMcscO"^'-Hr--rM
^"^!:::?^'^'-c'^'^''-^oC'irHrHco(M»o

COOOiOcO'CiOCO'0£'-':DaiOi— <i-H
O -D CO CO C^ Cl C^ iO 1"^ -^ rH lO «0 >0 oC i-H ci i-H CO i:^

00 CD O Oi -T^ T LQ Oj CO O O O t-- "fr- O (N O Cij ■" C^I
I— C^OrHCOClOOO-— (OOOOlOl-OrHOOrHO

CO<M CO rH

TT i-H CM CO C*» f-H

!££f5^'~'^^^'~"^'~*^'*T'cot^QOcococMr-or-

i?£^SS3S3^i9'^*-'^"'=^=^Ot^CMOGCO^CMCO

•^ oo;or~ -r oor^»oco*rocMCMOco

■n" uo »OCM 1^ O

^OCOCO-^CMt-^COCOiOCOCM'

0(:Di-icMr-.t--rHioeooor-t^t^i-Ht^io--roco

'-^S5?2"^f-^'^^'^^'---''-^t^coi-i»oasc:'':>CiO

»0oa5C0Or^cCi0-^i0Ot--rHTr:DCMi-HCCO^

CO c^ o -rr ,_( o^cm"»o o^'-TrHr^oGo^ofc^i-^ c^r-^

OOC0OOrT'rH-rOrH-fC0C005C0^'^I-^C0-*f

i-H CO I-- CO' Cl CO »0 02 CT- I

■< CiCM CM -r o
ai'JDCM'-HOJ^Ciof^loiO^ScoOl-^-rr'COC^O:'

— , — ^ _ ^ ,. -i -f 00 c_

HCM rH

'a5-rCOt--.-HCMX)CO»OM'Oi-fGOO

ox;

— C3 ^

13=; Po3c3cJooooot:£;t;s Hi's -3 S ^

40

BULLETTlSr 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTTTRE.

9 £S Q •

■" ^ S o o

O"^ 1

s

S c 1

Ph

cs'^*^

"Sfi-g

»

Ph

t-4 TO t*

Ah

2

o

-<5

^a

t-'C)t--TrC^o»oiy:i--.ot^cocoojcoaC'^c^o»-HO-^GCi^cct^O'-Hi--t-(iocci-^i>-c^co

^-^1-^^-4<I?'OO^cdoGC■^"000■-rO':D1--^ci^-^^^r--I^oic»oioOC^C^

COOC-lCOMC'10 0i-H'*J'OCOM*MOClCO'-HCOO*0»-HOcOO<:00:)C(0<lD'--<i-lOlC^--t''^rH

T-i O i-< rr CO *-i "M '

iOOOCO--r'rfC/j<Z>CCO»OCDOOOCT>OOCOC^-fl-'X>cO

^OCCC^)CCClM'OCSC©i-HC^'<J'0'^'^-^Oit^O»OfO"^cOCOCiO«0'l00501C^I^CC»CTriO

OiOCi t-^i-f.-ii-<O<-<(NC0t

»-H(Mccc/oc^i-.r^o:r

ioa5C^i-Hco:oC')«ot--c^'n'ioocoai-rr--n'!:o:o<X'f-<i-(

-C<)t^I-^C^iOOc0C^i--iC^C^'^C0'»OC0'ri-icrc^»Oi;0»-ic000*O

i-^r-i^-^.-Hl^COCDCOO'-Ht-^CSCiCCCO'Ol-^COCOl-^OTriOaiCOI^OlI^r-HOCCI^iO'-il---
CD'Tr'">frCO:DCDI^-^C»Cv:!OOt--IO>OCDCOCCCO<£)-TrOCOC^t^OC^OiO"rrOCCC^'-HiOCDCO

W i-< lO O t^ iCi c

'CCOCOCCiO^rpoOOCJi-HF-Ht^COCOOCSi-HOOI^fMC^OtSiOOOi-l^HiO
IcDi0OO0CiT-HOiX/(N(N'Oe9':D00-vCiC0'-«c0<0«j'n''^Cii0C0-^00

CO lO-rJi i-iiff-n^cOt'-OOiOCCO'X 0'-HCCOCS»0'-Hr1^cO^^OC*6cO'-HlOO^CDlO■^»0•0»0 0'

r-1 .-( ,-l(N

CCC0CJU0C0O»0C5i0i-HCCt--00OOC0OCCC0C>O'^t^»0O0l0:t---(Nt-^CT)(NC000f0tf:)

•-<ooa^oi-«— (O^o CO t^cfcD t^ Oi'^DOO^'^o-i^-n-oo^co';© i- r--^ >o -^ -^c^i-^o r-^ co

i-Hi-t"-roooicootor-air-HOcofoi--'»— <ai'— '0»-iO'n'0500'-HC/:>coooCior-»ot>-cot

; Oi t^ •-< to CO ^

-Cii— •(M^rHOCDOO-rc0C^CCO'-<<:O>-i-:j'i-i.-«l-<y:)(--00C0O0l''. _ .

c:ccc^c<ico-^io^cot'^csc^ooo';c)oooo«JOcocoooouocO'-Htocc':oa3i

CC'-H»0005^Cj3CO(N»0»0'-HOOOoicO-rCSCDI^o6c^^ '^ C^ O QO c4 O 00 C^l CO 00 I^O GO

eococoI>-coc^1-Huoc^^^^|^^'^cocococc»01-^c^uoc»oI:^cooco^-H(^^ococDcc>■^cO'«J'»o

»o--rt^c^co'^'-<t-Oi05»-Hor-iociOooo*r'-iixioc^oiiO'-Hi-H»o»

> lO T-H O CO GiO O I

l-^ CO O OS CO >0 Ci 1-^ -

t^uo.-iCSOiO(Mi— I-

■ CO »-< CM C^ f CS

rHCCCDC^CMGCOC0i-H'frOC0Tj*t^e0CC05i--l06c0C005C^i-HCMCDi~<'^C^'TiX't-^C0C^O00'

cicDoO'Torco'cM'^'-Hcr'co oo^cM-To6ccco»0'yjCMico6o6 Oit^oo Oit^oi'r t--rodcMc4co'

CMiO-TiOCOM'COCOCO'— iCOCOC^lt— COCOCO'Oi-Hf-rCMCO'^COCOO'— i»O»O'-(-r'COOlC0 00..

Cl --I CO CO lO «

- i-H '^ o o fM o O) <M o i-H »o •-< c/: GT' o a> r- t"- r- -^ CO «-i i>-.

D O CN oo cyD c

Ot-CSOOC^C^-r Ot-'-HOSCOcDO>

u0I-.i-Ht--.OC^»O5OI--OC0CD(>0»0c0'-<C00GC0l----rCJ0i0C0O»OrH01'J0'^cOCM''

O i— < CO t-~ Ci -^ O CD T t- -r- OS C^ lO CO »0 >0 0:1 CT) I- CO »0 LO I

)r--i-Hc^cDT-HoococococO'

OC-rCl'-H'-r--r-— li-lCDcDCiO-t--t-CDi--<COC-lCZj»OC^»OCOOSCD050cDCDC>-^COr^COO»OOi.

; C P .'en

' d fl o .

t/:

PASTUEE LAND ON FARMS. 41

■ft^(Nt->/iO>W^OI^05.-<005'Ot»Or~MO'0<».-<«0<DOOOOM'J-lOO-HNOOOtOCftrt

c^>-Hto^^(»t-Oloc^-lOO>o«c^^<ooo>ot»^-cco>Me^o>'0^~^cooooco^lOt^QOO-HW(Ncoco^~'rlNO>lO(NrH

U5C>C»COOC»u^<NO>C^M(NOC»0>OCS^CO-H,-HC^02>00000>QO<»MOO-a-OtOt-"0000-HOTrO-HOCM>OC^t-.0)«_

OCCC<100-H^-HO^O>OOMM(KCOOO^'He<lU5N«OOC2>OOC2;5'OiOt-tDgOg-HOMCOt^

«OOOOoSKS?3So03(NSSScsW'OoSoiOC<«0-5'OOMOCDO'OOOCiOmMCK100tDM o^«2 r- O O « » 'T o cc

tt' ^-" rC TO to" <»' o^ sc ^-' CO m oT TO (>f .-i M-^-: -4^ 9£ cc t-: 5i c5 o; t£ 2 c^^

C*) C^ W T-t C<l CS rH »0 t-l CS CO CO ■'T i-H i-H C^ Oi t-H -<f ^H lO CO ft >0 r-( Tf ■»)* CS "* CO "^ »-< ^- ^^ «3 T-l C^ CO <M i-i r^ OV CO CO

o>ioM"^c^oo»-Hc^oioooooi-HT-HOi-HOOi"^asoooioa3?-HC^t^^ooGCNco»o>ocooo^oiOTO25r^o^oOGC'j;j^os

lorS-rOoi-HTOt^Wcs&0-5-«MK&r-HCMOt-WTr.-H-T010iCnt--t^t^-'J>CCOtOCO>OTOC/:'C^OtO'-HC^CSC^-»'rtO

O lO OC C^CO C5-^ CS I- QC .-^ TT oJo -r « CO CO CO >0 rt ^"o~Cq OC 00 ufc^cjrt QO
»OTOC^C^-^'O>O'Orti--lC^l'<I"'O"Ortm'O>Ot^TO'O5Drt>O'»'"-<'O'»lOC0-<»'OtOC0OlC0>OC-lrr(NtOi-IOl'-lC0.--l'»«300>f5C0

r^i000Q0O»OCC»00iM-OTO-^t^C^i0O'^C^'*rl^Or^C0t^O-^C0»0»Ot^OO»O^M*:0QC'0i'jOCDO»p»0OQ000L0i-li0

cccoOTOmr-i'-rcci-iSor^ffccSoOi-i'Oooro-jr.-HTOOajcowoor^ooi-H^co^

«o""STOc5'f'^C^2oOC^SSTO.=HSu50ol=<&SoVl^CCt»C<CDU5CSOOC^M -O-^^CC CO CO

oicooc^I^"co«^docr^-r-rococ«'o(^;c^dtCoc^o^^I->f2•^'2i<^SS£ 2 SS S P SS J^i^S 2S 2 2

050ooocriu^c/:'OC»o»OTrc:^QCcs^cOM'0050iOi05-ri-^03'OOOT-H^rrc^i-HTOO'-^»--^or2^'--^oy5i^

r-t c^,-,.-(^C^ ,-t .-1 (>» i-H i-H CO i-H T-H l-H C^ »-< t-H 1-H ?-l l-H l-H tH C^ rH C<l C^ C^ »-H CO l-H W i-H t-H i-H -^ l-H TO l-l i-l i-l i-l C^ 1-H rH

; ;g ;:;:::::::: :=i :s ::::: :a •• • -SS ;;:;;.

: :^n"ca :3 ; : :/ :«' :6 -^ :2 :«': :5 ::.■•§«::: lOt.'

42

BULLETIN 626, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

•9g8.3„-

o cj S o h

I-. C3 £

Pi

a

,«

■73 ft

a
1-1

o

(N CO O C^ "^ O --H «6 '-"i 05 l^ -rP

OS-^COOCiO-^OfNTHOOOO

0"^cdco'0cot--ro05ioiooo

ClCO(McO>OCO(MrHCOC^C^'^

COOOOt^iOO^H-^F-i(NfOfO
-rji-rrI^»OnicOi-HCO<NOOTrO
OOI^'OOO'-i'^'-H.— lOO

O Ci »0 -rr CO CO '^O 'O cO^'^jTio'

' — -5 CO M' CN t^ »0 t^ (M

i-H <M rH

r^ o 'O cs CO c

OiCil>-»OCOO^COOC^OXt

OrHCOO^JOt-HlOi— ll-O0>~.00

COCOCOOl'-^COiOOOOr-liT'CO
Oi tH CO 00 -^ 06 CO CS'O ■^''(N'tN^

(r>»OOiCO*f(NC:'OQOOGCO

t^OOOOOO-TiI-^OCrJOii-HO

CO.-<iOi:DiOOt^T-HOO»Oi-^CO
Of-HOtO'^OiOOQOCiC/jTr
OiCDClO^OCTnO-^OJCCCOtO

i-i(M(Ni-iCO»'OiOC^CO<NC^(N

CO CO CO CO o -r Ol ^ 1 ^ O O CO
COCDO-*OC<»-^I---^OOCOO

CO '^ c^' c5 c^ »o i-^ i-H o^GcTTtT^
cocO'^co'Ot^cC'Truococo'^

>O(NaJ<M*r''r»0iMI:^00OO
C<jiOCO'^(N(N^(NiOTjiLOOO

'-H-^ixcocooco'Noocs.-tr^

CO O 0?t^:0 CO -r 10 0> CD^aT'rfi'*
■-T'Q0iOC^.-H»-(iO»O':O>i0C^«0

'-^'OOCO^-tcOOOlOO^^-C<DO

- CO 1-- CO CO C^ '

■^ oi 00 CO ■n' c^ to CO

Ol -r I--. r-H T-( r-( »0 t- -^ C/j r- f

•O C^l '-0 Ci O Ci 00 rH O ■TT' CO c
i-l(NC^ WCOT-HCOCSMi-Hr

• : !-^ : q a o G-- S* * ^

O'^r-»r-i»0OOC<»C^00C0Oi0»O<000r-l
■^lOOCOOOiCO'— icOOic^OCOO^rl-M'r^

OOrri-HCOt^iOOOOOOr-HOOSiOCS'^bT'CO

i-H^CD«-H to OOCOt^COiOiOCO'OOO-^C^
C^ i-H i-H r-l CO C^ T~* 1-1 T-( 01

lO-^OOOOli— l»Oi— l^-i-HCOl^Ot^OOCOcO

os'-H^air-^^coO'^cOLOi-Hioocooai
"»j"TP»on'C^co'^coi-t'-ic^)cocscocococo

<No»ooooooiocoi-H<M(Nwooioa>a>

.-HI- OOOiOOC

jococoooooooor-i--

l-^COCSCOl-^OCOOsOi-Hi-HOSI^OiOi-Hl:^

c<j"*riO'M»OCO-^coo-^oOOs:OaiCftOCO
t--»OCOCCOiCC»Or~-01i:Ol>-0'— iOiCCO>l>-

lO-yDh-r-cooicococcT-t-rfr-iioiMi^t^co

I-- Cl CO O -l^ G'i ■T' O Ol *0 CO C/:. I— CO -^ OC 1-H
O OiVI'OOCOiOCOCOt^-COQCi'^GC'OCOt^

Oi'-H-rrcor-ior-i-HcocrjociiocsCit^cDco

1-H CN C^ -rf »0 t- 01 TT^ O t— I O CO »0 I-- C^ I- lO
■V C-0 M'C^t— (N»—ICOI>-05<MO:'COCOOOI^

■n" ■^''co cs't^'O (X) ■^io ■^arrjrc^''Qo''orio*

I-H I-H T-H I-H 10 CO CO I-H v~i

CO O t-- 1-H 00 cX' O t— Ci <0 lO CO -^ 1— ( ■n' O*' »0
r- o 'rri rt I- »o 00 O CN 1-H o c>j o !•- c-s c^ CD
T-icoMi-»j<csocoi~-coocot-aiOr--t--to

c^c^T-^oo<yocccococ^cO'-^<:o* o^co'^co'^cT

1-1 C-lrH

OCO«JTfi-HC^COi-<CO»Ot^C^QOC^CCcO'*J'

1 O .-I 00 CO (N r

' 00 00 O OiCO

CD t- X' uo 00 o 1— 1 1-- t— »c CO »o r- 1-H CO 1— I o
Oi CO irTco CO* CO CO »o oTt-- CO co'io cir-^ccr-^

»0 (N«— iC^eoCD C^ CO »oco -^

OTTiOsaji-HTrccocqcccoi— loor-b-coio

iO'OCOcO05CN|OCi00OOaiC0C0T-l--icD
iO.-iOGOCOOC'CNOO<NOOcDrHOiiOOOCOi-t

COTriOOGCOO'^'^i-l^(M<N-^^CD'»rt>»

(NCOOlCOO'^CD'fCDiCiOLOcOCiOCr'CO
CO O -n -X' CO I— ( C-D Ol -— I C^ CO "-H O -^ r-H 00 I^
Ol<M'-<GlOiaiCD»OOiOr-it--iOCOi-li-(05

£^O0iO05^C0ClC*»OrHOcDcD00C00S
C^ rH iM (M CS CO "^ 1-1 ^H rH Tti 1-t CO r-l 1-H rS

;;;;;;;;;;;;;; tn ; '

;;:::;:::;;;!; o ." •
:::::;:::::;::«:§

• • R , • ■ c^ "3

:a.2„' ; : : : : -d^d : og'S

PASTURE LAND ON FAEMS.

43

CO CS CO •— < O "^ CO CO "^ CO ■*!' 1-1 CC '— I I— 1 •»j' -^

i-HCCiOCO»0<^t^COCO'-H<-HC^'©CO-<*'aiC»t^lO-«^'<ri-HOCOQ005'-HaiOCOOTroO»-HC«G^

<:DC^corHC)6cSTra6oioic4c4cot^o6oOrHi^^coo6<6co»iO'-^o6coc^

,-H ^ rH CS '^ i-H T-H 1-i J-t y-t i-H i-H l-H r-t CS T-H t-l l-H i-H l-l

TrC^C<)0>00ait^C0»OC0'-HO'Tl<t^Tr»OC0C0C0C0l~*tD«000t000C040>OC0^'«1<000aG0O0>00Q0i0ClC0CC

t^cst^ooc^o6cD»ooii-H-^^cocoo»cco'-Hoic5co'^tooocoot^o^ ri '^

C^lC^i0»0MMC0C0^CS(NC0(NC0C0C0M"^C0CN|C0WC0C0Ca»0OTrW3O.-HC^C0C0W-^i-HWWi0C0C0^

TrOior^i-HTt« wi-^r-OjOGOco

OiOO»OC^OOO'^t--COCOOi— fi-HtDCCi— i(NC^0iO^r-ir>.i— I

cOCOiOCDOiO TrOl^O0i'-<air-^I^.-HOI-'C0.-HC0Ot-050>C0CCl--00CSCSOOO0i-rt'OGCOOasr0

■^Oco»OTriOt^r^^O'^0<:C'''

o 00 o o ■n' CO "S^cs r--cocooi-^cO'<r05coOiO'-HOiQC*-HooO'-HOO»oo>oiou^coocO'-*OiOor^i-^'^

. lO^OCO 1-- -OCV) ■T OJ :OOi '

<NiOCT>"<Ta500'^«-H(N:OCOr-IGOC^»0'^0501t"-COOOOOS'

^--lC^•-HCOC^05^^^-^*0»OQO»000■^■-HCOOiC^OCCO.-H^-^OC^"^00005COcOCOOl1-Hr^^HGClOCSO<»

MfMOCOOlcDCSI^'^OiOCC^rpM'OOi'^O'OOCJCSiOOiCOOO "^C3»OOCO»-hcO<NC<I-^»000:i»0':0'X;
t* iO f-H O CO CO r- -^r 0:1 CO rH CO CO ^ 00 -r l-H CD CO O 0=0 O O (N ^ O C^ -* to l-H -^ !>. CO t-H CN ■<J'

o c^ -* t

Or,iQT-f^COO»OOiOOCOT-iT-(t^r-<OCiOOlOC<W«-Ht-*CO'OCOOii-HiOC^O>i-HC^
OOtOOlC^C^.-HC^^OiOO'-^<»OlOOGCC^I-C^al»OC^C3l-Ht--C^OOOi-5;pCO;H

oooososoor-c^oooor-coOiOiTr'^iooocooiccOT-Hior-i-H-'T'^cDi-^oc^-^oososc^c^

I>-COt~*OOCOC^It-H

coo OiCO'^eOCO'^COt-HCOO C0»-hC^C^100COO:iC^ C^ i-Hi-HOio'''O^C^OC^OOO'n'C^ COCl

.-t .-H ^ <N

C^,-H -^i-« ^^CO.-l l-H 1-1

osciOTt'0>cocx>c^cor^T-^oaoc*^coOiOiOco^cocDC^ooO'^coiOOia5t^QO'^0"*r''^c^coco'^csc^oi
T-HaicooM'or-cor*'^cO'^ocor*cc)i-HC^»OTrocDio»0'-HO--Ht^»ooiO»of>csoicocsoicoOGOCso

■;o^»ocfto66ioO'^»Oi-Hr^^rHi^c^'^c^i-HCJ<6^0i--csiTj'C^cs-^'^or*M<'^

lO'co'co't^Co'c^TtxTr-T iO^i-n"" Cc'':St^C^C^':Sco'o^C^ i-TccTi-r

»OC»i-H i-HOiCNi-H'^OO

OOOcDCCOiO»OTt'C>C^OOC'1COO-^r*CD'»J'OiO':DCO':OTr'Tr<CCGCOC^COO»-HOOCSC^»-H.-HOi'?"OCO

c^i--t-^c^.-HTj«csoc^ot^oiocsoo'Ct^':o--rcococsc^cD'-('-Hr--csi-t'Ocooooroc2»o-^i--oooo»o

iO»OCOOOt^iOOOOCCOOOt--OC^'

•-HCOOltOC^COi-HiOCOOiOCOOiCOCOOiOC^

0'Ocoi-Htoi^c^GC»o»oi-HCOGC'-H.-Hcr:. O'oc^ic^iosoco 05co'-H--rcNior^co--Hoococoooi-^'r«'^csQO

C^»-«(N r-t

CS ,-( l-H t-H <M l-H '

C-< 1-H.-H

C<^O^0C0'-HC0OC^C0C0CSt--cOC0C000^-Q0C^C^l-HC^^M^O0iC0OC^G0"TJ^a)^O05CC^-HC0l-H0:.CC^

CO M" CO I-- '-H o <;

C0'-H<:0OC^:0C0'-HrHO'-Ht---0lC100.-HC0rHC0»0O»CI^(N>-H^0CO»0C1^00O

• OicscoO'yDi-^05»OQOi-^aia>coc^'-Hr-i:

iOCO-^COO-^-^COiOCO-

^a>0'-HOdaJOac^ococo

X'OOtNt^iOOCr^OiiOr^C^lOCCOO^HiOClO'-HaiCOiOCOCTi'

C^O5iOCO'-H--H00 OCS'-'OOS 'TJC^QCt-^'^-^iO '-HCNM'C^CSl^OO COCOTPOii-Hr-nrj'XJCO'-H'^J'CO

l-lC'^.-HC>o^-csoiooa:>C^GC»ooolOOOf-HlOGCOcooiCSl-H»-l^ofo■-HC^Ioocoooc^^c^lOCfiOscot^ow

C^O':0C^C^OC^GCO'-^Ol■^C0^-CNO0GalC0as»OOOC0OCSrr'C^^0M^'X>^0C0C^I^-H1-H■n'C0^-•CC"^c0CC
(M ':QOI>-*X)r^COCOGOr*I^i-HOOSC^OCO»OcC)T-H •j'OOait^C^COi— lOOlOOCOOOt-^I-^^-'LOCOC^COl-HlOI'-

-C^^,_^T^lC^OC^OC^X^OC^'-H|■-OCO»CfO^-lOO■^'COCCM'OlOI^CC■C^C^OCN'-HTf10^. oor^I'^Oi

C')<Mt--OGOCOOC^CDCOOJ'^'Mt--r-H»
rt,_1^r-.rH .-HC^ (N rH CS CS

<NC4 1-H .-HCN ^

C^-TfOOOTr'C'-iCO.-^'^QO-^flOiOOiOtMOiO-

<^ ^ ^^CO<NrHt-H(N rHi-H

o t^ 3^ -

1^ III j II isp § s|i I II jll

2 o
Eh Mg

BO
coHH

fc S fe

44

BULLETIN- 626, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

.9 28.3

£ M t, o o
" « S oo

£ c1 P

•<1 c3

^B

00 i-O >o r^ r^ O ^ ■^ t^ OJ Gc CO O TP CO -rr
r-(COOCOOi'-i'-iCOaiO(NCO<MOi-iTr

oooiiC'tj^'^t^coojTt^ioooi-Jcor^o
QOcoc^j"^'-Hc^oi'*i^rHOo6o^qiOo:t^

CO r-i-cO COCOCOC^CO'^CO'MCOOlCOC^CO

NOOCSi-HOiOO'a^C^Oli-tOi'-Hi-iOiiO

(Ni^i-H»o»oco^'0'-Ht^c^oi-vgico»6
cocococ^'-^co(^^(^^c^'^^<NCs^csc>^T-(<N

co-«5T<ociocrjr^cDco»-<'£>'-ia>ooiOOO:i

COlClOfMIOt— t^Q?':DtNCOQ0I-*':Di-tCO
iOCOCSrHOOOr^O'<J'OCN'CCS(NGCOO

r^CSC0C0:D'^O0Ci01GC(NC0t-»0t^i0

'tfTTCDOSOCOOiOOliOi-l.-HCOfMNO

OOOOOOOOOOi'^OOQOr^COODiOCC
OI-*OCOOCOCiO<lDOiOiOOOOit^<M

i-(a)aj»Oi-H05X>oO'*ocoo-^'-HGor^
'^rHco-**'co<C"-((Mcor>.(N'-i'»jiTrc^-*j'

Ot>»C^<:C>iOCOi-HfOr-?D'^t^»OiC-^

'^i^i-fco'y^CTJOOcoi^i-H.-Hoooocs

COOSQOOi-«CS<-iCOOOO'M<MCOGOr^-n'

co"r-roo'ororarco*c^'"c^t-''i-ro co'i-rt^'^'^''

"^COCOiO*Ot^(N'^'*OOCOCOOi<£>>000

O»0OCScD<Ni-l0500i-('<»"00t^»0C0M<
O-^CCCCI^OCSI^COCOCOOCOf^COCO

1-H Ol Ol CO »0 >-< CO »

•^CO i-H CO '-H c^

Tf<ooor>-t— i-HC^oot^coi— fcot^»-<occ

C^OOOaOM*CO<aDI>»«— lOlCOCTjiO'OCDO
CC)COTriOC^GOQOr-HTj»'^jit^Cfi'-'OC^QC

cct^r^t^icoi'a_cD»ooc^':Oco-T''^(N

ooo<o<OTfi— ft^cot^-'S'OiCJC^jr-coi— <
oii'.aiGCiOr-«i-iO'*T'--Ht-TfCMaii--"Co
iot"-aiio<-icooi-^co»oiococo^O'0

cr^OiQO'!:'"^'— ''X>"n'asOiccoOi-rLO
ooc^c^oo'^io-'T'iOi-Hcciocon'OTro

00'ri-H05Cl»OM'»OCOi— (M't-^CO'^GC
COCOCOO'^"^*— iCN04CO'^C^»0'-HTrCO
l^-rl--CC'^Ol^OCMCOiOOt^OOi-HCS

05 ^ r- »-< CO

iO'^OOrrO '"^OCSCOt

lOCOiiOOOtOiOt^CO

J ^ Oi t^ -H ^

C^OOCOCOCOTri-<iMiOOC^i-iuOCOCO'<f'

OO'»f*C0l-Hr-4-^O<M'^Nl0

co'^'-^t-^coO'^ocooaiw

CO-'J'tNO'^C^T-lCOOiOCSCO

'■-OCOO'-H-^Oiodoci6t^<:CO

C4 '-I i-« -^ (M

t-t W i-H ,-H CO

OCl'-HOOcOOO^Oib-iOOO

c^c-it^cot^-^j^Q^pr^oooco

C^C0-*C0i-l'<*<O'^T-lC0tO0»

eooi'-HOco<NOO»-H(Mcoio

'xTi-ror c^r-xr'-iro''^co'co"co'

^Q<M'^^-1-HlO'-'co

H'^OSCOOOl^O'M

co'^oooi-Hcocoa5aiot^<:o
ior-(NoooO'-<r^(£>i-tc>co
CT) a> C5 ai CO »-< CO o ^ »o -n*

i-Ti -Tr-T orT-r»o"oo''-rtD"crco^

ioaiOiOOcoi-H':DoO'<t<oooiw:i

CKMOir^t^OQi-HCOOiOCM
i-iOJ'-iCOiOiO^CDOOO'-'O

c<rr-r<:£r b-Tco^co^ocTo'co'o'r-^

00'-' OCOOOOOCOC_ _ ,

SCOi-i <

, . , . -.-HO';

i-iooouoooi^-ooaico''

co'oo'c-r cTco'-^co^ccTo'c

M'C^CO C0.-«C^COO"^'.

O'CiO^OCOOOOOCOiMOC
-rt^OCO'^t^COC-l-^t-HO'-Hr
COOQO»OtOO^t--0»0'*C

c-fcc'co'' ^co't-Ti-T.-ri— 1 1-^ c

COOiC CSOOOOi'^t^'— '^

t- lo o-i 00 »o 00 00 t-i r- »o CO o

00rf00Q05t--O'— tCOOOuOC^
C-ICS'^'^OOOCOOCOOiOC^

CO^OcTccT'-H'-^CO'co'io'fN Tp ■^ lO
CD O 01 C^ 00 t- 05 CO CO t-- O
i-ic5cO T-H .-I C<l »-l C^ C^ CO <M

•'oJ ■-.-> ! ' '

:a :S : : : : :J : :

,' 3 05 05 i '. ', . . QJ J I

t>.Ci-ilH +^'7' .

g'i; o o .. o , • ■ "> ,i! J

« S^ti^si; £ fs t« i^ o S

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

45

CDiCCOcO^OOC^kOiOC»OCO
N i-H i-H C5 T-H »-( C4 rHf-l t-H

5 C^J O CO O

r-rt*oot-'^ccooocsoiai
ootOTPOicor-ociioiO'-'co

I— •■Tt^O'■X'"^00-t♦OOl^OCit-

^

OCOCCiOC-lCO'^'OtMC^CSO

^lOOOCiCOOt^OOCOiOGO
COJ'-COCO-^OCTitMiO'^'— itD

^«0-^(MOM'-ii-'ClCC

f-'cO'— •r-cococowcO'— "coiTO
ooo«o»oa>fO'^c^cocoi— ic^
■^a>»ocooco'rOiioiot-t^

f i-< W^ CM CO .-H i-HCM rH

OCCC-lCOCOCT)IM--t<COtOiOb-

^r^ioooiocoooco-^coccio

Tfu^OOCOOOt^t^OiOiOOOt-

oo''-reo'irr'-rccrcro'co'TjrT-r(C

O '-O (M <M 0:> C-1 O ■^ •— ' t-- Oi CO
i-lCCCO'^COr-HClOOt^OO'^CC

Tt*!;D»oO"^aiccTrir^coooo

Oi d CO CO Oi Tt* ^
Oi O Oi C» lO O "^

C3 0i^ t

CD'MC0OO(Mr^O00'-*'-'^0

■^ lo O) r- CO t- 00 i^ CO oi cj iM

»-ioooc^»oor-c^Oi-'oo»o

t-rorcrco"o"orc^rco co""— Tr-T-r"

-+*Tj<r~-r— "^1— 'O^'-J'ocoaico

CJ .-I ^ tM C^l C^J i-H 1-1 rH (M r-t C»

^ i i ! o ' I i I i I !

; : : >* £f ^ : : : c : ;

^*cO'-Hc^"aicoo--<c^oaici

C^COQOQOOasiO»OOOOOGOO

5S

oo«-(Tt<co-t<r-c^coooi^oioi-i-

CMC0r-l'<}<cO'«J<COCOC<C^CM'-lNC

OiCOt^COCMOOCOCMOOCOCOOOt^O

t^iOCOO'^'-'C^'^t^O^OO'^
t-H CM CM i-( CO CM CM c^ c^

I C-1 CM C-1 O C^I

•^ '^ Oi to O Ol O Ol -^ i£^ » . - - _
<3lcO'— 'OOOOCCI--COCOCOT-Hr-«CO

5g;2

COI^I^OOCMOCOt-'OCMC^I

O: CO OO 05 O '— I O CO CO "-H -^ 00 1— <
CMiOO COr-HOOf^ »O00 CO

'-looooooo'-'c^icooior-cooioo

O C-i Oi 00 t^ OJ "^ CI Oi O Oi Oi ^ »0
1— iC00:pt--O'— 'CO-S^iOOiCMOCCMi— '

f-t -f CMCOCM

1— '-^lOCO-rfO-^iOCOOOasOOOOt-
CTjt-'— (lO'^OOOr-'MCO'^'^OOs
OCOCOO'-<OOCOOiO OOlCOt-

COOOi-Hh-Ol-»fCO-H

.— <h,iO''-iCMOQOcDOOiOi— ii— lO

c-r-coO'-'OCMcDcooiaiO'-H'n*

lOCMt^iSOOCitOCOt

COCiOO'^-^O'^t^'^'MOdOO'— I

r-i'-t^coeO'^r-OiO'^ro-^cr^o

OCMOiOCO'^CMOU^'— 'lOOOOiLO

O CM (D I>- CM -^ O 1— I Oi »— I CO Oi O
i-HCOCO lOCOOOOt-- CMi-H CO

i-*OOQOOOi»OOOOOOC1^00cO>0

CO o 00 r^ t-' »o CO o 'T CO '^ "

Oi^i-^Oil

■ -^CMt-O'XJCO'^CMCO

Ol-^ »f3CDiOOOi OJC

OOeOiOChCOOOO-^-^CiCMiOIJOO
Oi*OOOQCi001iOCOO-^'-HCO»-H

r--coc^ic5ooh-cooOwoa)Tt<i-i

c:>oooo:>'— t-^coococo-^coc
■^oooi'-Hr-— '»or— -^ oco

CO'-' •-•COCJCMCO t-t.-*

CMCOt-OOOt^OCOOOC?!

COCMOOh^iOOeO-^Or^
OO'^^.-lt-CM'^tOtOOl

OCM-#Tj<Cs,-*iO,— (OOCO

C^itO^OOrjSooiiO'-^fO
'^ CMCMCM^ CM CO CO

CiC^JO^HCMOt^CMt--0

CMCMO-^COi-Ioor^M*

CMr-HiOC-JCOCOCM-^-^CO

o Ci r- lO r— i— ' CO CO CO lO

C' — t Oi Oi O CO CM I- LO t-
t^'^^COOCOCOOOCOCM

CD"--t''"^*^Cr'-<Vr'^''c£rco"(M''
COCMCM I-OCOCMOi-^CO

00 CO 00 "O t^

OOOO-^OO'Jti'-HtO --*'— I

'-'ai-rpoocooioi-ooc^

CiOiOO-^i-HClOiOO©^ O
i-h" CO^oT^o'^CM'c^roo'cO*
r-i -^^CMQO OOe^CM

CDCOO'^cOOiuOI^I-O
CO* OO'-^io'co" ^-Tr^""^

cicicoioooouocoor-

8CJCO»OOOCOi-iI--OOi
»oi— lOiT-it-co'^or-

"^'-rio'i~rco"»o'co''ft<'h-rc^

■^r i-HTt^coTi* oococo

COCOiOcOiOCOcOt—OlcO

cicir-oicooococoi— (

OiOCOCDCMi-HCM-^0»0

C'l Oa 00 CO O CO '^ CO CM 00

cocoor^cor--Tj"coCMoo

O C-1 h- -^ "^ i-H

Tf CO CO 00
CO CM

■ ri S o

- o t- C cr Lh

^ C3 Lh .' N

46

BULJ KTIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

<i^ ft^S'

j3 ^

a

•a

ft

a

0

■o

a

to

C3

s

■3

■S,

0 a

t^

"*

T-i 1— I CSI (M rH tH rH t-I .—I rH rH

o6i^»oO'-Ho6i-H'-H-^o6ocidoii-HTj4cciO'-Hooi>^cocot^-^o

o6'-HCiOJOCD-^O^C^*CDi-HioC*ir-^b-^Oi-HCOT-H,-4oOO'-HfO^

^6o^nooocflco"^|^^oO'^ooT-^cOlOO^T-l'fJ^t•-cscocoa^coo5C^oC'^t^"<*^co'-^

r^oooo'^iot---t*ooc^'^'— io»or

CO O CO !M CO lO (>I t- '-* O C^ O -^ lO OI iX ■ " " ■ — ' ^■

- — -ocj " "

t-- LQ »0 Oi "^ O C

>C<0 I- -— I oc

^«^GCC105^-.0^

) O O M Oi O t^

: Oi 00 1:0 CO o CO

rH CO CO i-H 1-H i-H (M (M

O-^COOS'M'^'-iOOJC'lGOiOO

lOOl"^ CI iCOiOCOtOi I- CD Cj05

(M (N CO CO (M O CO "^ IM

OiOi— 100 OOiCOCO

^ -^ CO I-- t-- f- t- t^ CO ^ <^ t- •^'1 O C-3 00 o-i

CO CO O CO CO CO OS -^00 CO"— <©;>io-^*C>00'^t-'^^t--'-HQ)CO00C0c

ioi-HO'^>fbOT-icotci^O"^'-<':

lOcot-'CO'Miooair^

COrf'OOC00006w'3-ic5K'*Oi<:^COGrir^OO*C)COC10tCOCIt-^iOOCOC^

CI 01 CO CI 1— I 1— t C^ tCi CO i-H C^ GO CI *^Oi Ct --T- CO i^ CO CO T-H

>oo:>'-Hic ccocici

t-COi-Hi-llCl rHlOC^lO

OOOCOCOCDCOClOO-^'-Hii^ClOCO-t'CI'— 'GCOi— i"^t^0C00Oi0»O-^'0CliO»0'— 'OlCJcO
iOC-Jt--OC»OOOCr)CC'-Ht-COOOO:'COi-tC^CJcOC2'rJ«t~-OI--OCO»OOD»OI-: COQOr-O
O'-HCOCO'-HCOiO'^OCOOO^'^COi— icOCO'^O'-iCOl-CICOrHt-CiCOOOOOO OOCJOO

CI CO CO CI CI

•*^o'^ioir^oo:)C»ioO'— *'— ''OOiocicor-TPcoo-^-— 't^ciGO^-cDi— t»ooooco5--^co
ooio;-3r^Ut^^i--ioo»o^cio^or--o-0'^'-H^-^coccco-fl'Ot-^^coocr50oioi^

'-HCIOO>OCOiO'^COOOC^OOOOO--HCOCOCOi-l^^<:OCOClCOC7iOOCJ>Tt*i-Hrt'':Db-t^|-'-I<
0000§MCOCOOOOOt-HWOC001^COOiO'-iCOC:iOO-:t^ OOC0CJ»0 ClO-^CO

Oit-cococoi^'-tt~-ot-cO'^o»co-t*'rt'Ci>o-^h-i^'-^-t^--«cocO'— lOcocpoO'+c^C3-t
o»ococo'^lO'-l■^coolco1-H^-u^c^lOooa5cc.-^T-lc^co^-QOT-H(^QOCftOlOto^oo

'^r-'-ClT-HcOClCOOiOiOOOiO'^OO-^OOOi— iCOiOCOr-CCOOiOClOOi'^OcOCIcOCI

Th't-Tcc'r^ocrcro'crrt^'t-rirrio'cr-rtr^^^ii^r-H^r-^'oo'i^ cocicjcor^co oi^coci

CiloO'^COCOCOCOOO CO OOCOCICO l^l-CidCOCOCOCl COOt^CJCO i-HO»OCO
,_,,_( C^l,—i T-H i-HCJ i-Hi— IClr-Hr-H i-HCI.— ICl T-HCI

C0<7i'-H»0>O00h-iOOO'-<OC0ClC0G001'-HC0Ot^i0>0ir:OC00it--'^T-JC^'-HOClC0CJ
C»00Oc0CJ'-<C0O'^*-<»-iG0i0t-h-Cnr-it0"rfC0iOOOiO'-ic0giO'-|O'^C0C0»OOC0
CO-^C/D-^CO-^C^OiCDOGO-^0001-^»Oi-HCO'-<CCGOa;OiOt^COOiOO»OOI>-t---"^COO

co"co''--^"»i^r--rcrcir-^i-H"co"crco"ic"'^o(rc<rco"crrco"crco''-rc^ ctjooci'— 'oocJt^ocicj

--— ■ Cir--COLOrfi-HCl-^CJQOClrHt^COr-Cir--COlO'— 'ClOiClCOGOOO ooo»oo

COCO'^CJi— iT-Ht-li-lC

t-H COi-l CO r

■.5 "^^^J" -^ • c

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

47

»OasC^IC^O-^CJDTf-^OOt--t>-»Ci>lcO':0:OcO(Nt^«CO'^'*CO!£)!N^^Oh-''^C^05C<>CO I r-4

00— 'OO^jcoqoaioiooiocoo'-HC^oiooi-^

f^t^(Mt-ococoOit^'^cs'-"-:;ox»

lO'^u^C00lOt^OO--^C5«r^-^l«0S1-^'<i^O^'O^OCl0lX^lO05l£^^DC0l0'«J*'eJ^C>C0"*'*

r^oc^cocoocc^ocoO"^'~^■-^^■^tO'-^o6c^»-^t^o6■^osc4cooc^-^cic^

C^J »-l rH W CO CO CO CO t!< ^ CO Ca CO C^ CO CO c^ w "■

|Tj*MCONNMCOrHNCOi-iCS (MCONC^CSCO <M

(N — 1 1-- GC »0 C: CO

Tf Oi O O Oi O h-
CD OO 00 OO t- i-H CO

lO CO »0 Oi Oi O C^

i-H -H C^ l6 LO (N CO

■^ CO CO CS CO i-f (N

■^<NC^»OCO»-Hrt^CO'M50(MCD'«*>-<COrO'«t<-^C^C^CO'— tCOOMi-dOiOiOiOC^tO-^^OiOiOCO

— < TO r- Oi c

■< Cl CM O (N I^
roJ'-— r(M'o''Xr-1^io"iO O O :6 CO ooc

_ OOiOOCOOsrhC^UTiOiMOOOOCOr^

|-:t<05'0':t^'^X)iOCD<MtDI^C^t^t-^»000!Ma5t^aiCO

050i:Dl"-COCO!MCOCOCO»001t^OOiOCO'— il--t'-

i-rt^'l-X'CTiO-t^CO-t^OCNOCO-^COCOiMO

C5'-«CO-^'^CO-1^QO^"^»OiOOirO»OOcOt--"^C^t"-COCS»OCOC^CiCOOOClCOCO:iOOOiO

■^ -r CO (N (N r- CO

--H >0 o oi lO '^ (N
rH CO ■^ Tf CD CD

O ceo COCO 00 OS

r- >-o c^ CO CO CO o

t^ O O C^ Oi <N 05

ofh^ CD lOCO CO ^
OC' CD Oi -^ CO CD CD

Ci-t*C^»0OcDC-1C0G0C0--^--H^^O(MiMC0cD0SC0.-<O'-i(MOC0r^'-HCDO-^C0(MC0-^^-

osai--«c^co— 4'— ir-ooi-^cTiioooQcr^'^co'— <cDooo-^X'OicocDc;iocriC'iv^C5GCX'»o

O'*OC0O'^^l0<^^CD^0G0CDTt^^^^^O■2CcDy^CSC0C00i'-HC0t^cD<-HI^l0CDrfC0t^00^•^

jCO'^-^OOOO^'— 'OSOIOOOCOOOOOCO
n--* C^iOdCOCl'— <C0 T-iCOCO'-HC-) ■*

■< O Ci OS CO CO Oi Tp ^H »-i .— «
COCS^I^ (N (>» rH CO 1-t .-H

*fOh-ooo»^oot^csr-(Mcci»oiooocoo^io^Oi»o*ooo»oa:ooio<3^t^oo --t-i-< o »o 'O
i-Hocit^-— '■^O'O'— '■^■^oor-^»ooicD05<^cDCiOooio^a>cocz^----.GC?--or--<i:>cDT-icDfo

»OCfC0r-<M'^'to»O00»0Oj0lCiC0C0>-H»00iO0i*^CDCD>-iC0C^O "^CO 000»OCocDt^»OCO

I -^ CD en to 'Tji t

fcoOfNC^':^— (CNio^^^'^ctNr^oo-rtHLO'^iLO

■^(NOiCOiO CO^-'^CO'SD ^^i-H^OtiC^ CDOqi-I*^ (N^toCOCOCOtN

53 ,— I (ff; lo CD o o 'f o '— ' r-- oi o »o CD lO as »o _ _ _ _

lO CO C^l CD CO 00 r^ 00 "^ lO C: CC r-- CO 'O X >— I »0 f-t lO GO t-- CO C-l CO CO >— ( O CC r^ CD CD C^ lO »-i
OCOOCDI'-C^O'— iCOI^OlfMOSOCOOOt^-— fC00iai0DC0aiX)0i'^C0O00C0D5O'-H

c-ioiiocor^t--aiGOcocDxi(NaiC^"

l-H 1-H C^ (N .-H -

D y^ .-I T-H O CO lO --^ -f — I

lO CD CO (N CM 00

(N-^C^CD iMCOCMTtHcO

CliOOOOcOiOCOCDOO—^OOOCOtM'— 'C^0i-^OC0O*+CD»C0S'^OQ0r-r^aiC0'*1^"rt^O01-^
CDCDC^l-^Ci— i'0 0"^CCriCS05>OCS00010^Gr:icOC^CD— <COTt<OOu^OTj^CDt^OT— fC^cD

CO-— <ait--ai0st-Ot^G0C000C0CCC0OCD»0t^'-H0005C0TfQ0T}<t-'^OCsC0»OC^C

-r"c^'cc^c£^oc^c^^^c^''c^'^c^T-^'c^co TjT'cjH'otroo ooo ooc^ - - -

CD ^ W >0 O l>- 1> lO CD (N •— I CD '-' — ( CD CD Oa i-H .— i Oi ''^ (N »0 lO CD t^ CO t- O t^ -1*

air---H'^os-^oooo<Maor-->oh-iOGOC^r^cDOi^cO'— icDcD>oco^-r-coM'-<c^^coooc

o ci r^ o o o c

3 00 t- -^t* 00 C

(M'-<00'-H»O00C0CD0i»OO'-<-

, . :Dr-«cccoor*t--air-cO'-Hioci-^»0'-HC^)cDcoc5'>~>
5c^co»oooo50i'-HOaiTt*t^'— ir^o-^cocD-^c^c^coc^

cMiO(TOOC*lt^C^— 'COOl'— it^Tt<OCi»--iO00'^I>-O0000b-0C'rJ<»O'^CDI^OC0OtJ0'*'rt"-^
CD 1-Hr— lO t— O"^i0"^0t— i-HCDOCOOiCO CO 1-HCDC^ 1— <(N»005'-HOO!Ncr)C)t^»0
i-< T-H T-H W i-H 1-H CS ,-H (M (N r-H C^ t-HIM t-H C^ rH

»0C^^<3>f0C0CD»O1-HC0C0t0CDO»0O'-^(^JL0 00C0^-TJ^0i0iCi^-O'^rt^r-ll0'^aiOcDcDl0
t--.C000OCT>O0i00^C3iO^r>.-H.-tC-»'^050^»— t-01L0C^--HOC0r— (MC^iOCD.-Hh-.C^— (00

alOGO■-DrJ'^-.— iinh^cDt— ClC^U^ipiOC^ICO'^QOOOOiOS-^'-'COO'^O'-HiOt—O'-ib-COI^

-■^COCiiOXiC^'^rf

C-JCOCOCO'-<OiO"^C^*OCD(M.— l-rt^

T-H CM 1-H tH w CO CO i-<CO»OCM'~l (M CO i-H tJ^ -^ CO "O CO ^ CO 'tj* cO ^

C^ -H' h- Ol >0 t-H CD
CO to -^ CO t— -^ lO
»0 O Oi GC C: CO CO

t— (M OS to CO tM Ol

w C^» CO '^ Ol OS (N

o c^i r- cs lO f 00
"# O O C-J t- 1-- »o

OS CO o O i-h" ci ir?
■-t* Tp 00 >0 lO CO

iM ^ O GO lO O lO

'O c^i OS t^ r- — 1 1-

O O CO t- CO -^ CO

1-H iM CO

»0 ^- O 1-H OS O CO

GO OS^ — H O O W
OS O ■'J* OS i-H lO CO

ci" -1^ »o f^ o CD TjT

t— CD »-l »0 l>- CO O

^ C^ lO O lO — f CO
--t* -r O (M -rt^ CN CD
O OS O CD 1-H Ol CO

O^ CO O QO COOS
C^ I-- TfH (M 00 CO t^

cOt- lO--^ t-- OS lO

OS OS CS O GO "O 00
l^OOSt- ^ OS 00

»0 CO tpco »o cT (»
r- O >o c^i OS 00 Tt<

rH C^ CO IM »-H <N ^

■'-.'^ :S^ 'gfl -.T?

J-^-w C3 0^5^5>t^>

: ' : * * '5

"J2 '^ -^ -t^ ti w "^

48

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

a,

§6*

11

C^ W t-< IN

y-ty-i CO fH

QOicoocS'^coeor^

)C^0lOC0"^CSC0C000^t^»-Hi0l>-Ot^0i»-H0iC^0i00OaOCQ03

i-HCOffOCO'-H'^r-iCO ^•<}*C^C^C^.-ii-HC^(N.-<C^'^COCOCS'-i'*C^i-ti--li-liO(N'-tr-(CS

000'-4^COCOOr^t^05CC'-HOOCCt^COOO>C^'-<iOlOCOOCOOcOCOCCt>-CC'— "OOC^CO
iO f-H lO I— I CO CO O i-H CO C^ CO »0 W5 <0 lO CO lO CD >0 CC C<l CO CO iN lO CO CO lO lO »0 CO

^-«■C^OiC^»OO^OCCCO■^t-^OCO^OcDOM^*OC^"^C^CO"-t^^-OO^CCOOOl'-(CScOlO^

CD-— iC0C0Oi-<«0I^CD00'^00t^C0t^C0C^cO-^C005C0.-Ht^C^i0C0.-HC^C^COI>'C0'^'-H

r-<r--.iOC»'^»0 000«-Ht^OiOCD'— iCOOOl— (■^Ou^

I CC lO GC CD CS -^ -

OOiOi— it^cOCO'-Hr-C-ir^cO-^'^|-^t--C<DiO00cD'»t<-*'cDCDr^GCC0OiO5»CG0 C00501"<f

ot-c^'^^c^»'^t^ .CO'-'CO'— 'coO'-i"^c^r*cc'aj-^cDOico»-ooiO'— i^co-^t— "^t-
i-Toor-^rji'co'cooi'io ■ -^crcocD-^-^crc^c^odcocsioiOT-rr^ioc^r^T-HcorHoro

r-(i-li-li-l ■ 1-1 1-1 ^ T-( C^ IM 1-H

^^ ^ ^C^CO»-« W C^i-KNC^l

C^O00r-^0JOt*»0t»OOt^'*OC0OI^Ci-*»0(N'— fOOiCOC/^cOiOl^cOOiCCaiOO

i^^ Oi t^ CO CO »o c

; .-( CO lO CN o

C^t->-CD'— 'C^d'^OOiCDCiOt^COC^O

i-Ti-T— Tf-TioiOcD 1^ "^ to oT.— I o cs Oi

,-^»OCCOlt^OlO(NiOCO't^'*0'-«0"*0^»

*OC0I^CDOI>-OcD»OC0^00i-H-rJ4i00iO01!N

I— I CO UO ^ OJ 1— I -^

■'0:c0O0iGC'aiC0"^|-*eDtMO'rt<OC0r-i»0^

OOi^CO'-iCSCSCO iC-ICO»OiM C^^C^"-! i-HCO

COCOClGC'CO»Ot^OiGCcDCCCDCOC^(NOC'COr'-I^»OCO(NC

00C^C^C00l01C0C0t--'CCDC^0C'r-H(M-^C^G<;'iOO>O-^<; , ., ,_- , -. --.,

'<4<C0t^cDt^GCCi»O OOC^"*OC0-*J<^CiC'OC0GCI>.C>J'*ai0100t-^CD01C^0l(NGCC0

CDC^'^T-TcCTpiOi-r OOCOCO'-^ofr^'^h^orcOC^OOcOiO'— I'l^C^CO^O T-T Tpb* CO »o"
CO C^ CO "*r iM"*i— •'^(N'*COCO<-''-l LO TjirH CO »-iCNi*<CN

tOTt*0"^»OCOCDO»OOt^CO'^':Dr-»-OOCOCOC^t--CSr-CD005CCGOOOCOcOiOOOOCO
CDClOC/:CDCSCSC^a"-C005t^'^CDOtN»-0C0'— 'C0O>-'»-0iO'Tt*0-O0)0Q00i— (O'^Ol'-t
t^OOOM'O'— 'COOlCiL'OOCSGb'TtH-Tj-O'— ii-'^cDt--X'OiOiOOOl-^Ci<DODOiC^COOlC^'^

oo"c^cot^c""^c^'^ ^^C50ior^•^co■^■^"o»J^■1--l0^^o;^-cD»oc^»-0'— tOic^ooGOco-^

CO-^X-^OOr-cO cDcDcDCDOiX<:D--«c;'^C»'-0'<t't^c^t-»OOiO'-f"t>'-<t^'^t---t-»

ObOiC^OCDO-— "CCi-itMt^COCOOC.or. 0:00— <-^COOa:OCSCOt^iOt^OC^OCCOCCTj<

icMo-^t^QCior^— (<:»'Ococ^ii-'Xaj-^t--occr-HOOGcai»-oc^cC'*i--i<-icD05'^'*
oo■itl»^•^'^■^»ooi1-lOC^<:o^cscsococJCTt<^*coIr^»oloc^o^c^'-lOS"<^cc^>o^

■^O ^^^--^cD'cD C>0 cTrH^cD oT'^cd'cC CD CO C<rcD O CD OiOr OOr~-C^O>CD'^COOOi— ICO-^COO

,-HC^.-iCSCS00-^CO C^CO'-'-^l--I--cD-n'h-OiiOC')CO00

1-H C^ CO

(N'-Hi-lCNtMC^C^t-i^'-'

, . !-( -^J^ CDCOOO

C^J C^M CO i-t.-(Ni-(

,-<L-:;»-ii-<cDCOC^^DClcD'-<' _. .

i-iOOXCOt'-C^'-icOOst^OCDt^CC'— ii— luOOOr-CiX-T

JOJ"— •'^— ''M'^'X-f-^C^OOiO'-OCDtOC^OiiOOlcD'-*

JCOOI^t— ■^CDt-^n't^OOGC-

Jt^^CD'^OI^'^CS'

OOI^O'^COOCSCDCOCOCOCOO(N'-i(MOirHiOOi

»-0 O CD !--'■—" tC— i-^COi— fCrCi'— '■^COGCCO<McO'-^h--^t»00—'CDCOCSCO'*C^»-<CD^

(Xi.-HOli-MCOCSiO'-* COi-^COOC

C-lcDtr^CO'— I— 'CDOiGC'C^iOCOO'-'— ^CDt-^t^cDC^CDOCOl

'''^C^C^CO'-tO)'-H'^'-'fCO

C^CO-^CNI

' o ^

^ 3 t-i tr* 3

=5 :^

PASTURE LAND ON FAEMS.

49

NCOCO»00»Cas^C^MC^O'^»Cu7Tt*C^).-H»itt--t-*»00*COOOC^OOOXOrOr^OOrCil^OOiO»-'CO(N05

h«OiO^»cor-cc-r

• ■^cio— ir-otitO'-H'— tios;

I^-^-<o■^CiOilJ^^-'-'■^^lOOCi•^-^Tr^l.oc^^l— ".-H

Ne0CCC0C0t^C^CCCCMCS'^>0»0^CSC0C0-^-<t»C^C^'^C^00OO0DC0OC0C^C^O--H'^OC0i0C0.^

<C^^C^C*r0C0ncCC^'-<'-*"<5''-H!N'^CN!N(M'-iC0fOi-l

lO'-Hc*^asI>^o■^•^oc^c^^>-OI^L'5l-^l-HC^OM^>-^-^'-H!350iOOlCOlOOi0500'^J^Oi^~»-Hooco^

■«^f'I^t^'*OicDc^o»5^ooc^^gClr>c^'>lJ*ooo^^'-to^oc^oc^'^lot^co^c^c^lCTt<I^O(^^-+'^

lO Oi CO t-- CO CD O I^ (N J''- '

iClCnOS'^fNCCt^OO.-iCTXNGCC

iiocsO'*t^O"^oooaiioc^^CTit-^ai^f>>'-'t^o»ocoocDccc

jccoiooocD-^-— iTjt-TrTt"Tfcor»'*r

Oco"«t*cDOTrc^fOC^^H^^oai^•^c^xc5co■*^*Mcoco^-^ooQOoococooccD^--lco■^c^eo^'0*^aiOt--co

C^O^-lOCOOOiOO■«1'»00>^-COOOt^CCOC5»-^CCCOC^■^C^C*5CCC^COTJ«--*COOO:tOi«C>?OCOCOCC■^COCC>COO

>-*(Nt^C^OOiMOu^'-idOcDC00Ct^Oc0h-t^O<NOt^iOiOMCDCiO(NOt

:i.-'t~*o:iCi»-<cccoco

r-n" lO otT cc 1-H .-4" .-T lo ^ ^J' oo o CO c^ ^ '-^ o t^ .-r Qc ^-^ e<r oT o

■* CD CO O C^

U^O^I^OOC^cOCSClXtC^OtCCOCl-— tCiMCCC^X»TPt-»C5C^O'^'-Hc:OC0I---C^C:iCDO"^C^r-'- .

oO'vt^ooii-Heoeor-oO'-^c»ioococoiOTt<cocicoo>oo':CGOOOixcNi-oxr-0'— <a5*^c^XJCiioa>io

r-T C^r u^ O X rl? CO CO CO C^ ^ lO 00 11^ r^ CO O O GO i-T

coc^r-r-i ,-( (Ncoi~-(Mr- ooi-i i-i i-ic^ -^ o tt* co (N co -h

iO"^t^c::iooooO'-'»o

^t^ClCOrt^COt^aiCOOOOO-rJHOOCOOlOOO-^MOcOOOC^OiO'ffOO^^iO

._ — -3ior-ciccciai'rnc^ioc^cD'-i!NcD«otor^'<:f<i-<cscO'^

:C0CDC001'^CCC0'-HOC0t>-Ot^OCi"^G0l0i— IQit^iM

:it-*c^b*Tt«cocoooiOMiOcDcoi>.i - _ . -_. ._ -. -

-■^aiocc^oooc.-Hlr:l^^o^-oc^o»Olr:•*r:llrDt^QOlOt^ClCCClalTnc^lOc^cDr-^c^»cDO^o^-'^f^l^

jOi-fOC'Tjuocsr^c^i-

^Hco^-cr)coxocoo»o^cDO'^t--050Ccot^>-o■<J*coc^^Oi(N^-cD^^^c^^--cc(^^cocooO!NcDO

C^ "'J' C^ Q ■'T CD C^ CO C^ ■* TT ^ CO iC i-H

^ M C^ C^ --H CO MCS ^ CO

C^iOOOcDOOOiCOCOCiC^cDcOOit^XcDiCGOC^I^OiOiftU50SOiOOW3Tt<OOTj<C^iJ50iCOOOf-4COC^GOOiiOI^t>-

'^COOCOC^'<S^C^)-rriOC^CDi-l'rt«-rfH-rt'CD-<*'OGt^CDCO'*r^lJO'^OS'*CiO''J'OC<»C ^ ^^ „^^^«^

lOOOOOCOCOOOrj^cOt^COOOOOi-O-rtOcDrl'OiiNC^iOQOOiC^OcDiO''

.i0'^05"^oo^oc<»0i0too>»ooi'^i^co-^"^ocao
-^ajt^iot^ocococoococ-"

■^■^MTf^■<*«■<:t^coo5cDaiXt^c:l^^acc^ccocot^ox^o<ccicDOioo^*'^•-*1--^05■<*'^-*co^^t^^l01-Ht^(N

t--iOOOO*0'-Ht~'-r-.»CXcOOi^-OOiOXiCO'-HC^05Xt^^t--t--COt^XOeO"<*<COcocOXcOOcOiOCOCOCOcO

>coc^cooMoOlClCcox^^lOOLO^coocoxoTt<cocDlOcD-^xco^^oo•^0'*ooi^^^oo^x^^^lOcoxclO

. . - ^-COCDiO

4 CO CO CO »0 X </} —4 X t-- CO O CS X C'l I-

IXC^^iOOO^OiOiCOOirfcC-HCOCOcO'OCOXO'f'^-^oai

(McooicO'-^-^'^c^coo— 'cor^o---

— ■■-.CDiO'^COCOr^COtN^'-OuOJNt^O

eoooxcii.ocox-^co--c:i~^c^Oii-^x;

i-tcnr^^H-cocorocor-i-'r^'-Hr'-T-H-^t^C". — .cocooi

C^ CS C^ T-t CS C^ --H C^ C-^ C^ "<^ 1-1 t-H -rf cs —

; -r t^ C- -f i^

sCftl^COt^fMr^iCOXcOXiM

--OCir^OXC^XcOOiLOCO'— 't^LOCOC^^COXOlX

lO i-O t^ CO t^ X X X c . _ . _ .

O^iCOCNC^lTrC-JC^TT^HOCOCMCOXXXtOO-^Or-OS"

oixt^'^cor-^ODiMiccoi-O'^cooixc'i-- -■ ■■- '

0-<*^0»iOi.OOiaitN'*CO!N'-<X't}^— 'cDiO'«t^r^iCr>)iOO^-^l^-^COI--(M'^cOTt<XCs

— . osTpi'^oaixcoO'^L'Dc^coiMicaico-^-Hcoxcoc^-^

t^05C0W0iXu0(N(NO0lc0C^»0Xc0C0C0c0aiC^C0t^

•— •r^r»ccco"^x^-csxxcocot--Oh-xcoOicr^Cit^XiOCNr---rt*t--i— «c<»'^XTj*t-^OXcocoT-iiOT^Oi'--«
■^coc^oc^r-.c^OcO'— *»-"CiCJiiococoxt^coc^c^xasX'-it--ooiococooo(N'— tc^otoc^i-ocor^oitc

tO'^CO'-iCO'^'«J<C^TT"^COOi(NMCSXcO i-<L':)iOC^C^COC^iMCSCOt^(NCO-<}*Tt*COCO'-lC^C<l(NCOCOCO'<*^

50

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

g-S t-, £: o

SSj

CO c^' oi o o M* lo csi CD o c^ t-^ CO GO -r -r GC -n^ t--^ <o (^o '^ CO c^' o >o --^^

<M<NfH(NC^ <M(MCq(N(M IM (M CM i-i ^ Oi .-H (N rH c5 CO rH CM t=i CVi

uooO-^t-^cO'— iCMt--t--t-*CSc0»005Q0OCCC0c00>CMC00it--I>-05eC05-^I--a>rPO'H

co•rooic4c'ic*5coco■^'1-^l01-HOo^^coCM■^'--J^^cocxic>cDc^

CMCMCCCMCMCOCMCOCOCMCOCMfCOfOCM-riiC^tNi-l CO T-HTP"rtiiO(M CMCMCOCMCO

o—'

■^•OCO'-HOO'— t^HOOCMr-iCCOl--C5QCeOfOCO'-iCT)t^-r>OOit--COC'liO-t"OCDCM

■n* '^ -r 'O t' CO •-' QO >— I U3 (M CO t- i-H CO ^n lO CO c-j t- d CO — I CO -r CO -r CM •— 1 1- CO o CM o

COtOOCOCOOC/DCMClcOCOQit-'CMOOcOCJCOt-~»OCOCSaiOCMCOT-icO-rO'— "T-HOil-'
5 CM CO O CO CD »0 —i O 7H Q ^' t - 10' cm' Oi CO 01 »-^ t"-^ CC .-<* ■'iO O r--^ lo' --h CO o' -t*' t '

CO -H 10 O O i-f -

' C:i CO O CO t— CD I-- O t- lO CM CO a> GO CM Oi CM 10 CO 0 CM CD O GO >

10 t-- .— < 10 CO '— I -t' 1— I CM t- 1-- -r »0 CO CM I-^ 'DO CO O CM O >-0 O CO O lO CO OS CO t-- o t-- r - .-H
I— I .— ( O CM OS CO 'O 05 I- -r Ci t-- t" CO --H CO CM i/i O 'O CO I- CM -f CO CO >C 01 O CO -r »0 'O T— t
coco— icOCO-J'OCOtO'-HiOCMtOi-liOfCO"— tOCOl— -f t--rCMCMOiCMCOCM CMl--

cOtOCo'cOOCMtOOl-t-Oi-HCM" CO I^ <0 00 r-HO^O "^CMCO-r" »0

cDOS-f'O'Qi— t'-HC0f0ii0CDCDO'-H0lt^O(MC0C0O--rcDOC0C0O»0ClOOO0i
OCM'n-aJQOcO'OCMi— liOOOC^ll--COi05--rcOt--.a3l'-i-HiO-rCMOi— <OC0'-lC0-rl---'0*H
>OOCOCOl— rr'C«t-CDt-'CMO:iCOiOt— »OCOCOCOCOI--Ot-CD-rt-.TfOi'-HOOt— tOCO'O

: O --H 05 CO 'O i-H O i-H lO I-^ --H CD CO Oi 10 Ci^CO CO |-^ Cm'-T t-H C'l O l-^ OS »0 CO CD ci CO t-O"

CMCO'^-t^CO^ -rt-S'COCMC^'-HCMi-H'

CO 10 CO CM i-H i-H -

>0-^OOC0ast^C0C00iW-rOt"-HC

cOr— iCDcO-rt---fr
CM Oi OS CO »0 -r GO c

5 -r CO I - CO Oi .-

^ascDCMI-OCM-fCO'-it--'OCOOOcOO'^

n'GOO'-HOOiOCifi

"OCDCOOl-OOJ-f.— <»0 CMCO-roO

I -r CO C5 O CO '

coX)-f-roi-r'— I -f 00 -r 1—1

^^^^^ CM CO .-H .-I i-t

l-t--C0CMi0C0O00c0
CO CO CO 10 "

^0•-H»-^'M^-OilOCi-r^— »io-rC>C5t--i— t.— iiOCM'-ri-i-rt-it-cocoasOOcoI^'

CO --D O CO CM -r lO CM CM t^ CM CO C-) t

t-H o f c» I- CO t^ o> CO -r to >o T "O c

' ,-< 1^ t- CM CO I- I ' t- CO --r -

' CD CO t- CM CD I '^

: Oi I-' 01 t^ I-- 1-H .-I .-H O CD f CM to t^ CO l-^ I-- 00

(^O>-HCM00OCiC0t^C0l--'-Hl'.CMC0>OC00it— CO-rCMiOOOOi-HCDI'-

'^^COOO'O.t-^OOTftiO'-l'Oi-IO l^

»0 i-HGOiQ »0»f3»0M'^^r-Hl'.

-r-oCMr'COn'i-ioOcOcoCs-f^CMCM-rcDOOc

O-t^.-(C^lCM00tHC0C0>O00Cl

-OCiI-COCMr-HCOCMCO'^CM--rCOcOOOitOdC^lCM-t".— (iO-TCDCOiOCOCOCM»Ot--COCM
OiCOCOOCMr-iOCMiOCOCOCMl-CDOOcOO-f-— <05t— OCOCOC1CDI--I— liioOcOi— I.-H

10 CM CO OS t-- CO to r^ Oi CO Oi CO <-< 00 00' CO CO OC' -r <o t- I- CO CM 1— < r-. I

■*r»001r- t-*"OcDOOOiOCOCOOsCM.-H-t*'-H.— 1»
1-H CM T-H ...

5 00 i-H t^ CM CD Oi

CO .-H 'CO CO -P Cb t^ CD no O Oi

i2G

. . . .-"COiOOOOOlcDt^'

SCMOi'-HGOOSCOt'.COCOCOl-GOC

•^CMQO'CMcDOO'^Ot^i-Hl^aiCOCMCOiOi-H'
'--<C'lCD-HQOOO'?-lCO-t"[--i'OSO'— 'COoToi *-'''— tF-iOCO-fl

■I— OI^t--Oi-0<-iOiOCMCDOOJt^»OGO'-no

"" i--.-icoos.-H-T''^QOO'rcDocoo5ooo':'Oi

JCOCMCOr-ICOO'OGOt-^

- — < O O O C-I ''

HCMCO'-:'CMCOCMCOCMCMCMCMCM(NCOi-tCM

^cooocMlo■-'Oco--HOOco^•-l:-'00':

) CO OS -r t^ '-f CO

1-t CM »-H CO CO CM

CM CMi-HCM CO

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

51

f0•OC000C0'1^Q0OOC^^:0f0050iO00^OOal•r0lrHe0O0i•O0>:D.-HQ0OscDCil-'t'^.^ «0

SOS '-D "^ Q ^ W ^ O •-* Q 00 ^^ uS cd W O CO f-H i^ C^ C^i l'^ ci M "^' 1^ (-5 u-^ ci r^^ ro 'V^ '^ •

C>0'OQON-3<Ot^CON-»030C<5U30>«ra-H>000>fOOS>OC<5i3sa>Ot»00»J"^U5<r>05iOrHioC».-l»tDOOO

CO IM'-.'MOoV-.'-r'-1<" M CO OJ .0 0 corn" JO ti-'m 00 ci^ .-JcM- (Xr-iufrH" OMrt"^ uf^-MO-f

ccascO(M^HO-r-reO'"^»-H
Or-i --o-roi^ — ■ —
CO O -^ 04 CO CC eO

0 1-.C^_-TOJt~01«050.-HO>01-^0-^0-r«:Ma5rHI-rt.OcOCoEMSco3io5?io3oSr:;S

S"?°'S;2-'g2S=°^:;s;sS2^SS?'-S;s?^ -s S!i'--'st^'a^^iisg§''"'-'^'^'2s'g5g

c^OiqiI>-OScoQf>D-rOl— Oic^tooil-'-Hi-H-roOCTicoo-^
«0 C0OTrcD»aCC^C^'rGCOu00i050iI— rH-^OiOiQOl

CO •-H Cft ^ I> -r <N C*j" Tp" Q ^ cJ
rH(N ,-1 rH ,-H rH ^ C5 W 1-H

OiOOi «^=OCCCCOrpiot^u^rt*OiOO^HOOOOrHt^^S

'~. "t ":". '^. "*.".*. °*. ==. «^. =". -^^ =^ '^ "^^ -^ ° =«. "t "^ '?'*. ^ ^. °° -^ S ?^ s ^ t^

;r<idOTm5C>oMn5-'-oJoKCT>i^!oS;occo^ci5c>o^SS55ioSoS

CO CqM{M(M(MIMC^CO'-ICOCO(MIMC^<NCSTO (^ (^ ci "'•'■-■ ^ ^ ^

cocooo-rc^o^focci^ror4-T^cotC

ILi' rz ' — ^ ^■' '-'•' "-"^ fO i-H lO CS lO C^ »-H ^ GO c^ ev^ r^ lr^ -mI
CCIM-HrtC^(NCMOJIMrt>-l(MC^§So5?Soi<N5

"S 1-' « s

g-olig|2'l|l|l|!^

js °-g

■5 6?

^.s

52

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

O

Rh

•" fa":

" " X o

S Bb

o t- o

^a

tOC^C»OOi-i'^»OOI'NOO^M'-^C4iOCOCOOCT>t'-f-Hl:^CCiOacCit>-»--roOOOC^uDC<I'»t«00

OC*^oo>'*0'*■^co'^'-^t^'-HC^rtl-HC^c«Trooaico»H<DO>^*lOc^oOco1-HcocDOs■I-^

'ft^ CO INCO C^

■'COi-ICC(NCCCOCC(MC0-*"^CO«C*^COC0COCOi-l'-t

"i!ocO»OCCiOWSCOW'^»ONiO-^C<l'^U5C^iO"^"<t'CO-^'^»OCOiOC^'^CO'«»**OWWCO

t^ 00 Tf r^ o CO

ooocoiowoioor— Occoooi"^or

_ .- (N CO CO »0 O "O - " -^ -~

co-^r-'C^cocoioo'O-roCM

(M oi r- lO 1-H "

^s^^

lOCOt— coco-^co-^co

■VC^COCO'-<iOOOOit^r^CS'-iCSOO'^Cfl'^'«J<'^COt^OSiOC^r-i<£)iOiO"<f05»OC^It-0-^

i-HOiCDrHOO'^iCOOOiOeOt--i-HCOCOiOC^'-<'-'C^JiO»--ioOOOOCOQOt^CCiOO.— (COOOOt^
.— ttOOSOOOCSO'0'^OI^»Ot---'^C^-t'OOiO"^^OC)0.— iC?00>-Hi— "iCO"— il^Ot--.

t-ociO"^c^oocc-i'i-'0'^c<j'-H'^(NC^Oi^ooooo-*0'*J'Or'-coo"^cooi— lOiOt--

CO-^O^CCrr~'Mi0005l^Got^CO!C'00»OOC^05iOO -^Ms CO»OOl'2't^ir^'^OGOO>
C0CCi-lOONC^C0t*'-0»Q.'^<3i'^'CCC»OC0MiO<N'O'to»Q?-00i— lOlOCOS^eoi-HOsu^

rJ^^^»4'^o"^^^r^^-^^4'cd^*to^o^I>^^cc"c^c^^^^'^'^^'--^""5 "^qT?-- io"co d orToo ©^ us r-i cTotT

OOf— ICOI--.1— (00O'-*00OO»0':DOt^C^O»0t— C^COOOCiCit— »OcOOO^C^
_,fv^.,-,,.r^lrDOOlC^■^C^■^C^COQOiOt^OlOOO-t'^OcDC^■^C^^^^OSlOCO

CD -r Oi CC i-- «— >
O »0 CD CO C^ O

aro'"-r*'ci"c*rc^ CO Oi "os o "<n tt "w o

t^cOCOO'^CDO'^'— it^CO OOO.— iccOl Oi-^O

jC<iC0'-iOs«O»C00'— iCOOOOOiOcDt^OT-fiOiOi— 'f-1

OC0OC000^»0i-ii0C0t-^CD<-ic^

oooooioococot^ooosr-'-^i^'Oi— tc^oi

~SCOcDOO»CCOCOiOl^<NC^t;^OOiOCpO ._
"NiOOOt-HTTi-HOOoOtNCiOit^O

.-Hr-H05cocDoo»ccocOlO^■--c^c^^^oo»ocOlOCi»ococ^Ol(^^c^^ooc^ClOOit^c30corro

*t"OlcOODCOCO»Cit^OiO-^u^CO'— fCOW-^

" -~ cO«CR WCMOOC^OOOit-OOc- ' —

CDCOOOOOCC-— iO.-HOOCOOit

00C000OiC'*?'h-c0C^00cD(N00C^^

iC(MCOI>-fOCOCD^HiOt^(^^(NOC<IO<:'-fC

C0Ot^-rf0i00»OcD'rr>Ot-^(NO-^0lC0C0<N-t-O'r't^.-iO— tl^OiO^COCOOiCQiOi-H

tD0001'r»*t^'*»-HOO^HC^cDt^t--COiC<N'^iOCOCOi-l05CO"ti-^ir3t^cO»«'^iOC^t>-f--
^C^OOCOiOOiWOTt'OOOOi^<NOiOOOi(NOOO>»2«:'^OOrr;Oi'«T'^C3COcOC3CO

•^"arc<r.-^-rrco"otr<--*'co"cc'.-r^cDijrrkrrG<ri--'oro6'cr-^"L^ r^a^'T^-vci'zoco

C0C0Oi0C00if^C000r--C0>0C001CDC0CC«-'C0C^OCiC0OC0GCC0t----^Q0>iti'^r--00*-<

<^^-^C0O^0O^l000cD•^0iC0OcDt^'rcDC0cDCs'^(^^(^:lCS®0i^t-ll-lO0i^'C^C0
t"-S-^»OcO^C^COC^«CCCOOO'^^0'-H^CsiI--i-HC^.-HClOOOO>Q^MCOO'-HC^»0
O^S»O--Hr^OO«W0iCvli-HC^C0C0»OC0^.-Ht^C^0iOt^I^^<0O00iO^C0CT^

c^S2c^-^cOf-HoioiocooooQOOC<i.— c«oic<:'-rooo:'cO'^ln'c<)ocO'^rcDoo-^t--

■Bd

I 5? t* C3 C3 .2 (S

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS,

53

C^CO'^C^'^'^CO-^CSCOC^'-HCO<NCOCCCOC^C^C^-*CC'OC

C<»i-H i-H CO W CO CO CO

r-:oO'©o6»-Hco'-v*ocoocDcocscdi-^.-HOOOsr^aC'<i^'*rcoc4o^oio

C^CO^CCr-CXi^COO»OCOCOOI-^OCOTPOcDC>OOOCOO«OOaiC^OOGO'<rCT5«OCNCN'XJ-^'^^W^
OCJS'^»C«»OOiOOOrHCO«T-H^'^'^J^COeO'rr»OC^Tr»OCROSOOOO-H^ O^-^ CO l^ t-- I^ C^ lO O^GO

iO"-'*'-r^C^<:o'oo'o*'c^o'i:£r'^^Oror.-H'crco"cD"f--rc^*'c^r--r 'TOJOO'^CO^'^C'GCiOQiCOO'-'OcoaswrC^QO

QOcor-'Vusr^osoioiO''

^r^ w-^ Wioc

_ ^ O 00 O O Oi CO Tf O 00 1-1 CO .-) '^f 00 o

~ .. — ..-. — .«,». ,-^ .— _,.. .^ ,-^ — ^ ^

. (N O CS ^ C^ QO 00 C

f-HOOOiOOCO^J-^CO^-f^QO'^O'^OieoOOlC^OCDeOGoOt^ Oiyf-H

co-^eo«=>co'tocOcooooor^OGOOi-vc:::iO'<t*Ci'^c<ii-<CTsi^O'-t»oo":)05CO.-tcO'--'i-^t--<^coCcoo05

05 o -^TOi t— -^00 1— 1 ?o CO -r r-

CO'tocOcO»-H"^»0 COCOOO *-^C0 lOtNC^iO'^'^'TCSl--. CO'^COt-^ COuOTpto

'i-t-^fN .-H CO '«?' CO »o i^

"i-Ht^Ot^cOr~-'^"^<:D'^.-H(^'OCOCOOtC>OC^C^OOiOOi»ftCO*-HCOaiOO
— - -- — — _ ._ — .-.»—.—. 1^ Q ^ J^ ,„_,•«—._- »^ .^ 1^-1 ,—. /-kl ^y-,

O "M GO C^ rH

.-«»-H,-«'<j'>Tia5i-HOso-. - -^ - -..

Tj-OiOCOCO-^t-COI'^»-iCi'^COi-<OiO'^'— <iC»O"n'C0i-*C^C0
C^ t- CO 00 CD OS "T ~ *' - — - — — .-.—.-.,.- — ^ _, .-.

':D(NCOCO«D'n'C^coO>OC

crTc^'r^cTi^o'-r'-xi ■^ C' Ci CO t

vrt-^t— (NO<NC<jC^CCOOrHOOO.-iO>-^

*oa>>ooo<oooio

, -CCOOi-HOOOt-HCft-^

COOOOS'-Hr-icKOOOOOcOC^i-HOTjiTft^Cif-t

csrc^^Go"^.-rr-rx'"o"co"oo'^

■TtOr'-Oi^t-ascOfNCOCO'^OCOX. r^co

Trf-Hi--iocoooo(NiOTrc^ (:ococ^'-'i--focDot'-cc>c^i-- »-*'—' c^coooc^ cO'-*-

cs o (N oir^ »o

• ^1-1 t-t Oi c^ r^ i-H lo

«ooooii>*'^'-'^r*»— <c^c^t^'^CiCSloa>co■^oco^^co»o■^oc^cocolO^^■^o^*I>-coo»ClOC^cD05<DC^GOoi^^

C0-^.-'C0C^00f-«C0'-<Of0"^0CC^aiOOl--.'n'-r'n'OOO'rr'C^»-i0lO'— 'COCDCSC«^r-(CO.-HtO'-0

lO^"— 'C^!£)000100i00500G0OO'-i01»-<C000t-^O'— t'-'OOt^T-H-^.-HOcOO'OOSGOCOOCS'-'I'^Ol'^OO'-HC^iO^^

cs*'c^o^M•'^o^o^!C^'''^'^c^'"uo''-^<-H'l^f (^f oTcrTr-'^co'^cc^iCco^ i;o"o"cn t- -^ Oi qo"i-h go" to o^'-o c^ oo^ _:

COO?^'--OOOco05t^asGO'-HOOOCO'^^030500'^i-»OiC^iOOT-t005CN'^ I-^CZJOOli-Ht^C^C^t^CO c^coi^ot^c^ ^

^^^^^^^ ^ ^ "§

.^

.-iiOOcOCS-^C^Oit^C^OOiOlC^CDi— ii— i00O00t0f^'-<t0C000i-(CaM"v000C^O-^t^OC0Q0'^OC^t^Oc0»0QC0OC^ w
00'-<a>COC^OtOOOC^OOSOOli-<OCI'-OlCSO»0"^C3000lOOOCCOCSCll^050I--»-H'n-l-COOOC^0500l--i— iooi^»o td
COCOOit— lOi— (CiCOiOr^"— t'-H'^'CscOC^'^COl'-'— (Mil— lCO^^"^'— 'OsOO'^OSOO-^OOOOitOiOcO'— 'ClQC'Cl "^

orco'crG«^Po''-^G<rcryD^Q«^arorarc^'-H"orc^rorc^TirTi^cr^ o aTco't- co^ar'yS"'^ lo to os cc"crrc^

I^Oi-— '•^C0C0c0C0C0rt<OC00iOC^»C0»-<c005C^»0:DOQ0CiC0"TrOt^"^00OC0»0OCSC0TP0i^i-HC^O»0O00C^T-iC0
uOO'n'.— tCOOiCOCOC■^-■^"-•-|*OOI•-CS*'"t^C^"^COtOOOCnoOcOGO»OOOiOOGOOOOCSOCl■^*Oc^l:OCClOOCSC^■^^
CCiC0'^C0i0OC»t^05t^»0"^OC^C^C0C0OC^C0O"^CiO«-HC^-^Q0»0I^C00i00l'-f-«C0n'"*P0Sl0t'^C00lOC0

i-'Oiooooco^oc^tocDcci-H.— ics»oc»«-<co:c»ooior^r-HT--icocor*>or--c<i'TT'iO'— ioi^»oOroio'^QCOcDOr--ocoo

■VC^ICOCOC^Tr-vC^CSC^COi-iCOCOCO-^COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCq'n'i-iWC^C^CO'HN'^COC^.-^COut.C^COC^'-tCS

^UMl^ H4 ii Jii Jill j^ ;lls°"ins j-^i§|g^o:

54

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

H go fl .

£;" ■- £ o

gal

p.
2

sfi

C3^

0>i-HOSOOOOOi-HCCCOt^iOC001COOSOOOCJONGiOi:OC^005'<J'0-^»COO>0

OiOO.-H<:OCCit'*0000,-(OSfOO':OOOCOcD':0005l>f-i":)'-HO>-tOOOO<N

CO "^ -^ ■<r CO I-* T-t -^ T-4 th 1— I C^ ■■

CO 1-1 rH iO <-l N CO C^ tH CO-VW

COCOCOOSCi|C<l^'^t^O>r*COOSiOOCiOiO'*CDO>OF-i?D'^C^OaC<IC^I>-OiO

coocioosoiodcDoooococoiOoc^ococscccftOoooir^

C^'^"^C0'^C^W»0'<fC^«5i0WO-

t^CS"WdC0'-'C^"^C0C^C4CO''

- ,-< a> -* ^ CO r

»0»0Cli00>O0iC0cDI

1^1- i-hO lO O C

scoosx-t-H^cri-tOiO

SOOOGCC^OOOScDt^OiOC^i-ir^OoOOt

CS "^ CO CO -^ GO (N OS (O 0> ^' CO CD C< -^ CO C^ CO OS O CO "^ W ^- CO M CO O 1-t u^

GCr-(Nt^COCOt-^00<:DCO'^-^i— lO'^'-HC^'-'Ot^iOCOC^'n'Oi-HOCSCSiOC^I
C^«— il^Ot-OOOC^'^X'— <i— fiOr-COC/JCOC^I'n'OCOCOOlCCC/ji— lOCS'n'OC'tO
OSOCCI-^eOOOcDCOt"^'^"^ OiC^DC0Or'CC'»0'00JC0C0t--OCC'r-ti0i0"^

Tjrio'':o^?cr'^"Qo"r-rTr'c£rT-rcr ■^"ai'oic^.-rco'os T-Hc^cooeot^coco »-rio"o> co"

C0<:DOC0'^00r^0lO00Or-»000-«t'»OC0.-iC0i00Si0CSO0>0Sc00sG0i0t^
CDcOOJOWOoO'O.—.cDC^T— ■■"T'OOOClC^I'^cD'— iCOcO'— *(NOS'— 'COOOOCOOi

i-Hi— <COOOO»C'-<COOCOO i-iOSC^CCOSOiNGCCO

1 CSJ OS OS C^ OS CO

i-HCflCOWC^ WWNCO CO w •-< "3 c^ <^ ■^ CO *-t lO«-H-

t-iGOOst^ost^coosc^c^i— llO^■-0300cz;c^r^rrco'*t•c^^osos■^■»*"^-oscoc^Ol

I^TTi— if-iTTr-t.-iCOOOSr-'C^'^fOI-COt— Ti'0'^OS*OiXJO"^I--»OCSOSt^<C'
OCOi— iiOiOeOC^l-r'-.-tiC«-iC0l:^0s«-tcDcOG0?Ot^C^C*^0SrHl>-rriO»-H»O<X5

i-H OS Id CO i>

I^ ^-1 CS »0 CO OS r-l

t^,_^,-Ht^cD(X)C^C000C0iOOC0t^C0'^C^0SC0O0COC0O50S'«rC0OC0C^CC
-^^C^^OcOOCOOCOOO(r)000-^I'COCOCOOC3;TCO;*r^cOf-iOO^
'<r00OS00C^-<rC0c0c0C0'-'C0M'C0TrI^0S.-l^C0ClC0CCC0G0G0C0»0C0»OO

tOOsOsC^IC^GOODQC^'Xi^ OIC^OSCOCSCT'-^.-hI^^OCSOCOCIQOOSOCS

' O CO N i-i .-I »0 CO CO CO CO c^i cc O t-t <-• <-"

^ ^ rt <M ^ ^

TTi-H-rcOcO'— 'OSt^QO

,_,,_^.^ ^.-.. ^,,. — ,- ^ ^.ocoicooi-ioosi-H"^cocO'^oor^t>-oost-i

050SOsOOC^I^aiOOiOOiOl"^CCOSOOOOOSOSCOcO»— itOCOGOO»OOOS

'=L-'>^y — -^-^-'i^-^-^'---{>josi^cO'*oio.-HOooTj''^»0'^ooco^i-t

lOf— tf-HO-^t^CO-^C^OCO

) O 0<NI^ OlOO lO

• C^ O t^ CO CO CO o

o'co'c^ co^<-'Oi--<NC^»0(N^<-t os'O M"(Nioa;osc^»OGCcoc^coor. ,-^co^

uo (N CO <-' ""-O '^ O »0 »0 »0 '^ CO "^ l-^ "' — ~^ « ^ ,-.■. ^-, ^^ ,^ .^ -— , ■_ ^

-rCO'<TtO'^C^COCOCO»OOl-^OS

^^ '^ C^ —Ir-H l-«^ -H .-H(N

a;^ ^ o o

■^^i

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

55

iO --; <^ l^ C^ lO C^ '^ -^ I^ 1-H o t^ -^ C^ w c^ ^ o cc i^ ^ ■-?• ^-^ O -^ CC -

1-H c^ *-< o -^ oc CN 1-1 CO •-< rt w N r* .-< ro t^ ^ o 'T a> cc '^ cc c^ i-i i-i cc

coc^corrooor-ioecoroorroc^-^ccoooit^i-HF-ir^cccDOO

■^lOcor^-^cD'^iO''

■'»O»0t"»CQi:DcOc0c0iOC0'^iOt--t-"NC^cD

QOO»-<'^'^':0»-H'<rCOCCC^OW»0010»0«DOO«C»CM»-lO»OiOTrOS

»ooo6c^or^o6r-^MrHC£Joo>c>'<t'05co<NT-i'*rOTrcoioo50JoJio

CO C*^ CS <-H i-H rH C^ r-t CO C^ C^ t-H rH i-H Wt-ii-ICO rH t-< t-H

00 00 00 oococ

• lo :D as c^ r- CO «-< >.o to t^ c

>CO'n'«— It— iCSOrHClrr-rr

cocsrooo-^T-Hocasoot^f-iotDoooocsi

OI--(MI^05t^r-»«0»0tDi0I-^»0'-H0>»0^0lCi'— tOOiOOlO'^'n'OO

(>) ro :ON »o t

- Oi CO 0> 00 M CD CO »

lXOT-i»CC0CDC^C000C0Q0 0Ci0CO0S»O05»— I

iccr^c^-rr^.-Hcor-'^

r-< -^C^M

»-H'<rco-^csc^oi050oooaot-iTrt005'«*'t-Hcoowo>cot— looorrosoo

iOOCsiCOOOI-*cDa>»OOC4t^COiO!OOiOt^O-vr-M'OiOiOOC^O-^

i-HC^,-<OSOO*COI^»-<OOXOOSi— tcO'-'»OCOCOOOOCOn'00500CO

CO O O CO Cl 'O GC (N :

rHi-^ooco-rOrocsC--- . ,

•-H »Cl CO CO r-i CS f-l

;^HrO'-«'— t»occ»-oot— ■^Oicoocooci-Hr-oc^

-CO-^CO C0(Mi-<»0O(NCli-<i-*O'^00(N

C^l i-t CS N — < —I rH f-

^- ^^>-« »ooi^^t^oooioooooeoi-H<3*Qoc^i>- --^o t~. -^ ^ q> oo oo ci

r*0}^t^«3QOOt^*^«0©OOOQ0^0005^r^05©^OOOOi— lOOOQ -<?-»-» •— t
T-t OO >-< QTJ -^O CO CO -^^H OiCi<to*-Hr^OO>-'COlO?^iO*J^'^ -<?-Oi «i co o

1-H -^(^J 'SOQO'toCO'— <^F-<?--^(t>^cOCT;Q^00COQ0Oi«500

C5 CDGO <^J GO

C^WS^COOOi-H-^OQ

C0'-«C0C0Oc0iX5C5-^<>»i0t~^*0c0--rC0c0i:DcDC0'-Hl-^O-^'-<c0Or'-
OOC0l-C^C0>.0OC0C0n"OC0O00ai00OO'-<Ol--<Nt0»0I-O01

Oiro-^cO'T*cooot^<NcooJcoco<N»ocO"^'-H'-<»oco»c»-Hi-Hr-oc^o
Oio6t^r^t--^cot--^--*OcOTraiOO cocSfOcDO»-H-r afpoio^

H 1-1 00 OC .-H Oi

" cc 00 CO r-

.— "Oioc^^Hc^c^xoiccoX't-io-rcio-— icocior-r--^oiooot^

CO C-J X !^ '-0 C^l CI I-^ 1^ 05 O i.-: O 00 CO X 05 lO O OC CO o c

CNr0OC0 1-C0C^XXi^CSl^O<Ni0»0r-CCOt.

1-- C^ Oi '-H X O CO CO

: OS -r o lo as •

ca o o 'O r^ i^ X CO Oi 05 <N I— CO t

lOX'^XiOXCOOS'^X — o^oc^cocox

OCOiOcD'-«''~*-COCOCOTT'CqcO

CO <N '^ CO c^

^ 1 .7 ^ [^ r ^ X CO — i<N -* i^ -^ CO o t-- iM lo rr o CO

'-COCi«— iXCO«-*-— lOS'-Hi-HCO"^
NCOCSCOCuMXOiiOI-t^i-iO

- —J X -r CI O CN CO CM CO Cl<N X Oi lO

; ;:;' :;i ;:;i 5' !^' =1!^ P 2? S ;d "f

coxxocr T^oi'Oroto cc Mcri^o 01 •—'Xc-ir^oo*oti:b»ocor^^

-^r-iCSOOOiCO CSiMiO'-H.-H-^ -rI^r-«i.'::cO(Na> '^lOtOfN

-§1 :

1- ? c
a> t- ^

^C3 fJ-iUr J?-^ ^J(-'1>^^S"

■•Si3^2;;S ^ o c3 d g:g

OOCOCSf»OOit>-OOt*

IG ':i ^ S5 '^* '^ *^* *=^ ^' ^"^

CNIiOC^X^OCOfN-xTCO

00 CO CO X r^ c

; w rM ^* CO CO c

■<cox»oc^r^co»o

c^cs

OS'^OiCOCt^cO-n'OiO

-r 7:; CO x' CO -^ -H ^r 1-I x

coo Oi »f> Oi O X CO ''J*
prH ■H'OCSXXlOO

'•^x »-H'^;o(NiOi>-ai
~ ■^o^cs^cTco'x'^or

^-^£^22?££?«5cococo
XsOco^cor^T'v^-ii— (

cToTcTT-rr-ri-rr^i.'^^cr

coi-;^(Nco-Ttocoo^

^ ^ -c^ ^ 01 o> g^ CO -^

■ o o X »c r^ x^

J 10 i>J 03 Ol CO -O

"V i-H (^^ -o CO -^
CO CO CO Tf '-TaTcs^ar

.^rt*coo2-cooo(N-^ P<

COOiCOCOfOO»-tf^t^ fl

Ji!^ '2 r:; ^x'^cTcTco'i^ar 1©

cs»cco-^co--oc^csn'f hn

g-Nxxcoc^Sxco^i

OiXOt^:oOit^(M<NCO

^ ■^ ic O) o"co"xrcr^.— TcT
^ 12 ^ *-^ ^ ^ ^ '^ f^ —

^n^Q'^'^^^c^X'^

S^E-OiOCOwl'.iOX'
-O'^CNICOCO-^OlCO

3 "T^r^oo'o^cr--c"'o*''^

; TMc I- X «-o CNJ to ci

D C) ^ « CO i-H

^1 c% *^ *r cs " T c^ Cf- -.^ 3

J2 o o o c S • C-^

■a a is~ o o o t. 3 3

56

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

o cj oj ij J^

°'2 I

03

o J3 o

3E

(NCOO) rH »jO CO 1— I <N i-H O C^ ,-H ^H ^P

■nitooooicqoo<:ot^oon'o<riiOt-iw.-Hccfo^ot^i-io»-HooO'-t-<»'i-ioi«c>**t*oo
oioo>>-H^^c^oco■^^-^^^*0'■cco^^c^ocooc4co■^ox'cd^-^o6w"^o

^ CM CS lO O lO r

CMCMCM'0»-H?0'*COC^)'f?OCOOOCOC^»-<CC:C'^-^OSCC

C50GOi>l:OI>-.-HO'*I^OO»»OiOCMOOOC005'^t--r^CMQOCO'^OiOCO'-HiOOOCC»0»0'^0

r*I^OCMCMCSr^t^l^CO^'-H^(NOt>':OCSI^»OCOiOt^r

oiCi05C^ooo'-ot--ocMooccOwOiCMio»oo(N»ocy:r--:/:oo'<p.-«ooo':ooi^fasF-'

lO^Or-<C<>GO^-0■^■^CMC<JOJ10'-H■^^'-Ot•-OlCMlOCOCOCM.— iiOC^r-tt^.-ICO'— lODO
0(NCOOiO»-HCOCSi— I.— (t^GOOir^iOi— (OOOOi— (TPOOi— ii-H00I>-CMCO»OC^iOOlCO

l-HCOaStN-Hi-H^rH-

CM T-H »-.

1-H CMi-H

■ ccr^oo c-fc

C0i0t^i-iCM'^OC0O05a0C0:C'0SCM0lC0--<CC'-H
OiOOOOOCOCCCOCiOT-ii— iTfODCOi-HOCMCi

CM05C03500O»OOi-li-tOO00t-~^H

COOiCOiO'-HOOiOt^CMcOCMr-i'^C^CDt^COt—

■(CM'^OOt^t^fO'— 't^cOCO""

i-H ^H COr-l

OCNI'*'OCO'^'<J'i-iOeD':D^HO

-^00>CMC«OTt1r-^^-OS^*0^0'-(

■ 3<C>J005I^'-Oi-<CC05C — "-'

•O5»OCM'^C0Oi00':^CQr

■*C^005I^'-Oi— <CC0505Cpr^ COOOCMOCOOiC^i-H-"

ooo-^coiooir^-

o 00 -^ CM o <-! 00 'v r* 00 o lo o 'r^ot^- lo oo ^ o cm

^ 1-1 '^f-l ■ tH

— < ^ WCM

CSi-iO'-^COC/:5>-HOlTj<OlWiOC0100005lOOCM»005 0 0 0000CM<r'CMiOCC':DOi':DC^OO
OOi— I'^M'OutiOi— tOi^OOCMr^O'-HCMQi-*t'OOCMt:--CMO'^OOCMair--I>-C^l---cCt--CDCM

co^*05Ci-^:cr^cO'^oc»-<f-i-n<CM'-fC5iO'-J^coC50'T''n'iopOQOcco^i>-ooo5or--coosoi
o ^^^-^l^oo'^^Of^^ r^c^ioc^S' ^'^'^co^'-^O^t^co^'Q^-^r^c^<:cc^>:oi-^ini-^iC

COCOO'^t^O'^CMCOt^'OCMCMiO n'"*CM00-^'^6jCvi:Cl^ '-1"«J'CCCOt-|iOCCC^CM

0»OCM»OOCri'-CfO'-H»Ct^C^i-Hl>-COOOt-HCMOCM01t^C^CCCO-^a:OtOOOOOTt'OOCMcCiCO
CiL'^Cn^MI^OOOCMCM^OOCnCq;OiOCMC500COCMWOl^O^O^P-OiCT^>-H-^CO
'^CsCMCMCMQ0»0CMOt^<:Cit^Tri0X'CZ)Tt'Ol00lCQl^X'^t^On'OC0Oi00ii-<00cDi0

cot^£^'^'-*0'Hco-t*CMOr^"^or

t--CO00OJNt~-.t^t

> r^ 05 00 00 CO 00 i-H

CM 1-1 CM

OiCO»OCMOr^OtO»0»fj*t<<:000-*rCMt005CO'M-rO

'OQCoscorrcc''— ic^-^cocO'-'OaiOifOioccOi

1— iCMi-iCMCMCOi— t i-i I— iCMCMi— I .-(tt i-i

OCMOO'n"OOt^I>-OOT-Hr-('OOsOI"-»OCOOCM"^CCCMas-T'COCOOCOt~^--(i— «CCG0»OOlf— (CM
CMC0:O'OCZ>C0TrCiQ0-^T^»or^0C'-iOSw05CM»O0llOf--CM(>0Oa0cO^J''— 'I>-Xr-CO»-iO
»000CM'^CCQ0CMC0O^O'-<C0:0O"O00C0000iTf--fCM0'-05»0c0'^':DO»OCM'vaiCCC0

ooiCQco—'CMCMio ^trfcc^,-^-rp<:^c^<^'-^t^-^i£^i-C<^c^-^i^c<^Q^<^e^(:/^-^
--ccc-rcM2!'»'»o:^loO't'0^^>ooc^^-I■-•ocoClcoco--OCTJOCCMCM^co■^co^^■^'X;'^

fCCO'^'rCrcCOCMCOtO.-.r--<lr-iCMCO'-l't'COCOu^'T''0^sCCMCM'^COCOCOCO«COi-*i-<CO

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

57

■<3"rcrr>t^.-«C5'X>c^iQ'-''vciocciO'^cocococs

T-< c^ io ^-^ c^ ,-H cc t^ CO CO »o t^ C5 '«r i:D CO :c o: X .-H c^ ci »-^ r^ CC I -^

rcrot^i— «aieo(?jift.-H'rT"criprtift'Tt«p<^rriprteQ'Tt«r^cccOccc^t^^r^oC^C^c^'^rc^

-< C5 O C^ lO '

'co-«rr*t^^ooocooJC)Oit^ajiooo<£>»o
*CMCsr^io-vcc^co-^«oco<Ncc-<r

■ COCiOSO-— *C:cCiO0^05»Oi— <COOu5i005i-HOCT)'^t^'-HOi"^.-Ht

(NC»*C^CS5JCCC^MC^CSC*5CSCOf-ii— ics^

lOiCC^OigOoiiCO^cDNcit-^GOGOtp^^CiCOOOTr

CO t~- CO ^(M

5cDC^c^ir-(?-Ho^'— <cDi:Dcor^cocsto<or-r^^rioc^t^cor^CMt-^i— <io cot--i— ii^io^ot^ocst

OCl'TOMCC'U^:00002'^'-HOCcDr^COMOOC>1Qf^r^OO'-HiOC^1'-Hkr5(»<-H^HOcOC^l.-t'^COQ^

> O Oi ^ c^* 0:1

^r^CCOWCCiOOO^OCXlOOi-HOOcOCOCli— •lO.-HCOiOiOiCI'-'^COCOO

CC-^C^^OOC»0000iO»-HOC^C^OiO^C0O0iiCOiOi0'-HOOi0OI^<»u^C5OG0c0CsascCC0C^t^iO^

c- ^ If; -^ X' -n* I

• fC oi i-H a: I-" c^ :

^1 o -w 10 ir? ^ ^ oc' iTf o (>::■ o

i-H C^l?^-f'—«:0»Ol-'l'-C'li--3C^.-<^-CM'MCCCCC^t^JcOCCC

Ro5;

OiCMc-ir-tciococO'^t^of^'— 'OCT'

t^5£OOt^!:0^C^GCi-'0 0iO'-l--':OC;Xi--t'TPCCOOi0i--C00C»OWc0CC>--*cct^00^C<IOOC0cCO'-H^r0i^

ococsir;-gii-cvii--coi'Tri^^cOGCcocC'^oi-"T'i--^r^Trooc*^<£>cDcoCNioc-^r-t--:o»=Hooa^i^

cDcCr^i-^0^O:0t--t^'«J'»-*CMi0<0C0.-<C^05OX>i0'^0i'n'C00iiOOi--'OC:00*Ct^C^i-HOC^C^t^Ci^rccOt--S

Tf ;o i^ T^ c^ "M c^ to ^ Q to o X' c^ I- r— 10 o^ C- >o r-' cc C'^■>^"c'^t^'^lo"lo"■^*'cc"a^rJ~lo'oo"^^oo^•v'^c^x"c^'"o"o"M^

'- 11^ t'- ■^i. t_. -TJ" ■- t 1^ 10 ITS '

C-<COCMCC»-<C^O.— (lOC

303-— 'idor,^r^OD*«T'coor;ccoc

T-HClr-HOQC.— iCCCOOO-— '05

CD lO <— t

0«— 'OC •^CSO'^r-OOt^iOCDOOt--C^C^»OiOC^iO

^c^ o^r^c

SS£; — S;;^2J29£;7^?2i;^^^^tr:5:£f^*^«:2Cioocc2'OOcoCT.xeooiooi

•r-Ocni-HClOicDiOi-iOS

t->ocsc:oc^cot-i-HcCi-t.-«t-Hi>.i-f

,-1 C^ ^^^ f-( t^ ^ lO .-< .-I

;^ ;=;os;:;

I r-- o »o .-H a> o "■
o^coxo-^r^t^oo-'rcocsccxcs''

iOicOO!OOCT>CMO"<J'Tr':OrHt-^00»0

^ .-■ X c-.i— ' r^»oo»o.-'Occ'Q0C5

CCOT-irC(N»OC^'-H^iO

D »0 00 O lO o io"co X t^ cs •■

Ci X C: iC ■«

:00»OC«D«a-. CO(MOC'<NOiiOC:0'-^OOT

COCCCSCCC^CC^iOCi'M'— 'XiO'OCD'— 'CCC^»OCC>— "'

iCCN^O^qi^CDCCOI>-f0C0G0C05P»^i0^

O <N O C^ CI

aiC^cDXo^-cocoxcoo.-HLC'-HMOxc^o^x:c■<^cc■c^T^MC■xc*^c^*OM•to^-'^*t^.— (Ot^c^io

lO CO O '-HCOXClO^'^XOt^C^cDC^aJOOi-HXOCO.-HOST-HOOM'VOMCOO^X^coC'liO'HiCI^

I-H CO C^ i-^ CS I-H X '-' t-H CN

t^xr^x^o»o>c05Xt^cso5(Mt^^c^oi-^o6'^Jcccoioioc:oco cj

<X5■*r(£'cct^xcox^^'-Heo"^cc^^oo^<:occ'^Ci^-05coXl-HC^OlTJ'lOlnc^llOccXlC^-Hln^-cooot

C0CM04C0OOC:r^ClX>Trt^X'^C0'-»X.-it--.L0Oi0t^C0CNCCXOt^i0r "- ^^-i:^'-^'-

OiiOXt-XCOTr05'-txOT-iC^05l--XO'-Hi-<cOOOiioi>.C^t--Xi-<C^lC^i''

-- . -.- CSfOOiCOiO

jcO'OCso'. eoXTTTrt^ioOiOOJ
"OCT)'— ia3r^<:OTp-vcor--vcox

«t^;-<x^c^ccio^icio^Mcoxocccscoioor*^a5ooCT. ■r^ooi'^xSxf^i^y^'^c^^x^^

tDiO^'-'0»000»0-HCOi-<C3fOCT'MO'

COXOCOlO'-'OOt--CD':D''

• iOCNiOClC^i-H(-^C<'OCD«— 'I— <iO'lOXOC:>— '-TPt^i-Hl^COCOOC^jC^lO

CS^^^iOt^x6lOOlC^4iOCOXC-1xcdooiI^O^C^iOCDO^ioC:iOO^'^-^XtO«OlOo"xX

M'OClOCJCCiOCSt—''

r^ CS cr ,-(

10 CO '-' ^
CO 65 CO -v

CT. "^ C-1 C: CD C
C; CD .-H O •-* L

) lO c

•OCOi-HCO'-HCOX»fDCOCDCTiiOC^C^cOC_.., ^.^
>COCO^9'C^^9"CO'^COi-H'VCSC0'-tCCCT*CSC0CSt.

58

BULLETIN 626, U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

.S po PI

I"*
la's

^a

i-H.-H(NOCCCCM'CCCC'-H--r(Mi-l"^i-<

t^cooiocDOi05a5iOi-ir--i-Hf-Hioo

lODCO O CO i-H CO O ■^ '^ CO CO

)CSi-H TJ*C^.— (OCT)'— tiOCDi— I

' ^ CO OtO 1-^ CO c

C0O»0.-H-^aii-i<NC0I^i-H'-HOOCD
Cii— •C^GCCO'— lOOC/J'MO'rriOi-'OiCO

C^<MOi-H0ir^»0(MO

c; »o o I— < cs c^

osTfoocOi-'Ococooooor'-ooic^o
«>c*Dooco'M»ocricyDi— looc^'^*^'— 'Oi

cTi-Tcn'-^co" csco" c^i-ii-T r-T

(MOCOC^OOCOiXOOii-iOCOCOC^V;
':OC^4OC^OOOt^l^»OC*lCC>'^C000

co''-H oTo 00 'j^ ci (n'o'o "-T

^ i,^ ^co

(:Oc^C^'-tcOOC^COt--rpOO<N.— lOpC^

ai CO i^ ■^ »o eft "

00 io"'-h' o'er C0"O pi

CO <M -^ CM O
1 -^ O l-^ CO Oi

- o r— lO O CD

»0 I •- i-H ■^ lO

H tT M I> t-< QO 05

:i(N'^C0^OO'^i^0)06'^O**'

O t-O CO Oi oo ■^ »o o oi »o d i^ »o >■
o co^ oT 1 o" CC c^ c^ c^ »o cc ci i-T

COOM'OCOCOCCOJOliCM-Oi— liOC

.-<csc>oc^cot-'"-C'-rc^ooii— ( ci<

.a

-5 >>2 ^

t^o S'5 (=1'^ 8 !=^ ^rt?^'S-t^

0iC00SI>-Cl'-<'^0l'^O

,-HO'-Jio»oc4c^f-Hcooi

1-HClCl^CCO'— <*OiOC<l

J CO CO CO CO -^ CO CO '

•^•^OSfMOOCStMCOCOOl

oi'T^iOi-JoJoiosiococo

,_,^.-«(MrH,-i.-<CS(Ni-<

W,— I ClOiOiOiOi-HCOCO
CSCO'^iOi— l-^COOt^O

oT fo" f-yTco^ -^cj" r-T 00 cT lO

I-- CO CD i-i '^ -X? I-- 1-1 I^ O

oiicoiOiOOiooioor^

iO<Ni-«Oi-HO^iCO»{NO

C0t^Ol^OiM-**^05i-(C0

c<jt-^co'^'^(:ccooii— 'O
(Ni-<C0'^»O''J'C0C^i-H»O

(Mr-Oi^^cor^csi^c^^*'

-"HcoOiCNCNTrTfOcOr-t

- -^ c^ r- »o LO CO

or— ,— (»ococsiocoooio

Ol-— iCQiOcOOOI-COCO
COClCDC0»OCDCO00COr"-

CO » o" »o" oT CD oT o" cT lo" co"

.-HOiOiOOcO'^CSCTiOOcD
oi-co-^i— iCOOl^C^O
rriOOOOOiC/DOC^t-O

■^ co~co"c^»o oTi-H utt 1-* i-H
00l^OOO'<J'00CSO(M

'^C^O^iCO'^OO— t(N<Oco
CD-TCOOiOiCOiOcD'^CO
OO IM '■t' O t^ 1-4 iM -^ (N c/:i

aio^cro-<fici(NO(N

CO "^ »0 'O T— < I— C<3 CO -^ lO

I- <N I - O O t-- CC C^ O >0

CDCDCOl-C^'^O-^C^OO

coococoocDcouocacc

CS<NCO<N»OCO'^CO.-iC^

«-:.ti

a

-- ■ • S g a a o =^

;= fc o o c3::5 »r, ^ P,^

PASTURE LAND OlST FARMS.

50

f»OcO'-^1-lC^t^OlOl-HCC'roao?Oco^01-lcoo^o

r-i'td'^O'-It^CCi^''

'mO'-Hcocoo5>o»o»ocO'^'— f

CO CO Tji »o c

I CO lO »0 CO »o "

COC^C^i-H01»-iG00050SiOtDCOCOlNOl"^OiiOCOO

oor^ooo^osoiccscicoo^rcococow^DOioo

r-t-':?05fO'r^j'i'*0 cO'^Q0i-HCO'-H00<N'n'OiiX)O>
-^ CI r-< w (N i^ lo <£> CO CO 00 r* CO i-H lO -Tp o o

icrjCso^oNi-Hr^oscor-iOco

lO^D C^OOlOlOit

(N r-if-H C^ CO 1-i "^ CCiOi-H'^rOi CICOOO CX)

cCOi-^<CCOOC*^'^005.— I TPOit^COOOOOOOOiOO
iOC^O»-«QQ'^OOC^'^C^I-CDOiO'^CD»OCDCOC^I--
•-* I— » C Ol CN lO O TT 00 »C O CD »C CC ^ OO lO i-H CO O

J -TP i-H CS <N W »-H CO (N -V »0 1-t CD t-H lO t-H 1-H 00

t-<»-4,-HCDcoC^JM'^COOO<:Di-<CD'-»''^0'OcDCO'^"^
COOOe^'^TfKMCOCO OOl'MOiCOCSQuO'lDi-^CO^
COOlcDOiCMOl'^"^ Oi-^l— r^OGOCNi— iXiCOOCS

c^coco^i-Tto" oo" oTiC'^co'aico cs^oT ^3 '^cTcs

oco--**-! c^CNidcDOtoos--r»-icocor-c^iOiQOoC'io

CSi005C0tDC^«.^.~lt-0iC^Ot-l

) M' oi r- I^ (^ r

1 Oi O O CO o

-co«OTrcoTrocjiooo

,-1 00 T-H CO '^ ^

CT) »0 '^ C/j

■^,-iCOi-HiOOcD.-l CO«-ICO"^<MCOCOOOOCCOOO>C^

1— lOoocoooi-tooor^-^t'-aicooO'-HC'- ~

'D<NO<-iTrcOCDi-iOl:

•C0O0>CD»0OCD01C0

'fT'a>CO»0<NrNO*rr-(r^<NOiMOiOcD':OC^<N^tO
CS»-tlMCO»-<t^r-iI>. C0t-^CDOi:Di-Hi-H0005l--T-HC0

t~-.cocDcocococor-»oioO'«9'cDa3GO'*rcocDf— iior-*
loc^'— icooiooDccoioot-^r-ic-tM'oajcoi-HOco

Cit^OOOii— iiOI-COiOO»COOCOOcDCO<OOiCO^rai

cs" c^ 1--^ M^ ci" ocT c^'oTt-T -^co^i^ ccTcc co" CO cc »o c^Tco

r-iO'XCO^J'iOCSfO -rC'JOOCDiO'VCOCOCOCJCO

;::: :t3 :;::: I :;;;;:;: ;

. • fl • ■ a • t. • CI • ■ ^ . .

. 'O • >.i:t 'o 'O '-^-M . ■ . -^ ' ' .

l^slliiilliiiyiiliii^

ioc^cOco.-icDOicO'«rior>-r*coOiOsOi^»'

cDoic'ico'i^ooc^occoi-HC^i.-lcoo^i-Hcd

cO':C»OCM-^QOC^t--(NC(OC^GCiOOi-HCSCO

COt-*C0CDCO(N'^l"-.-HCOcOh-i-H'<*'00OS^

OiOi-H 0'-HCO':0(x''-HC>5cDa5CDI^o6oo6
»OCOI^CO'(jiC0t^t-t^CO lOOCOiOOt^

00cOC'*t^O5»O<NcO'*'OS^*'iOcDcDCOI>-tO

oioc^coc^i-Icocoio-^oiocdoiooi-Ico

00 CD -^ 1^ lO "^ '

1 CO cocoes r^

005Tr«*'iOCSI"-<— iM^OOifNcOOOaiOi'- ,„

»OOOiOr>-OlOOcOOi-lI^C^C^i-HOiiOi-lOO ^

coocooi-n'TOCt-^ ■^Ci Oi irTr-Tfo co'c^ fl

^^ocoi--c*««a>cooicoiO'^oiocoi--oco .S

cocoes i-l CS 1-1 C^ -!-»

M* a:> »o CO »o t

r-.QOiO'^iCC^COCOCO

C^i-Hf-oo-^COiOaOOSCDOiOOOCs-^l^CO
OlCS«-(OCS.— iO»-HCOCOI'-COOi'«3'CO<NO

■^CDOO OrX)tO»0(N t-h,-icOCOo5c^
COlOrH ,-, CJ CS CO CNi-i

'-»r-HcO<NCOCO'<*'I^OlOO<N»-tWQOWOO
I>>Xit--Oi-iOO'Mr^C0(NCDCS00O'^?!l

CO ■«*" CO r- i-H CO

lO"— ICO CO(Mtt" 1— (CD *0000

»O00i-icOOC0CCCD00aiI^(Nr-HCO^'trC^
■^1— tCO»Oi— «i005 0'-»0c0i— il-^CXDCOi-HCDO

.-in'O'-tc^i— <cD>-«c^ioioOi— locior^
CD CO c^ lOi-Too o'-^TjTo' CN^Tr^t-Tto cc'do"

oooaj"rroococooi'^t-*Wooi--oiooico

— — ■OOCOCOrraiGOcDcDI-.— t

-coi— 'Oir^ooocDt--.-HOO

M'l— il'-M'COpiOOCO cOrrctGiQcDcDI-)— t

OI---ICO— t5ji -- —

■'aic^cccocjc^c^t— ii— ICO

---i.^ -^OJ^C' ~"

COOir-H r-t I-l COi-H

lOCCCOiCCOr-tCOOJ.— «CO iOC/)05C0»OI^

— -- ^^^^

coc^eooc-iGCOOiT-iOCiOO'^f-iai'^ai "-*

CSCiC^OJi— "CO'-^C^-TfCO-^Cif-iCTJOiOCO OJ

csoii— ii'-TticoOcoTpt^O'-ir^c^to-rrcD to

c^ ocTt-rcc ■^cTi— Tec 00 '^co'co'oro"c/"'i^co"cr ?:

I— itOCOCDC^TT'-^t-H CO t^i— <O0»— I il

*rcocOr-Hiocz>criO>ocsioio-^r-o»ooi

l^O"^i— iCOiOTPiOi-HOC^'r-HCOCOl-C^lOJ
t^ CO OO »-H lO t^ >*< CD I^ ■^ CD »C £— Oi (/:> C/I' cs

CN as >0 (M '^ (M C

t- r^co CO

»-l O CO »0 COi-tiOrH

O to Oi lO O TTi CO C^ -n' -f I'

.:-^;.;^5

■BA :iJ

l^i a l^lll I o o| £.2 §1

r.2§

60

BULLETIN 626, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

•S£8.i

^aP-S'

I g o

T3 C

Ie

i-^ ci 'X '-o oi r^ oi <N o

CO C^ »0 ' f-H »o O ^ CD

. ■rf CO O O C^ •— I ^
5 lO »0 CO i-H C^ "^ Ci
) l^ O lO 1— '^ --l -rj.

o oT rC c^T^'' o CO oT I
CM o'

CDi-Hrr'V<-H'^'rCO<N

CDCSt^r-f-<'^^QOCC
OOOO^I-^CMOiO

cot^cor^t^t^cccoco

CO o i^ >— < o ■*?-
,— I -"rr r'- o CO

^-^Sc

■^r^octoioC5i-'Os:D

CO-fC^iOi-HCOi-iCOOO
OOWCOOCOiO^O

CO »0 .-" C' .-H CM CM

.■■■^Oir-HOiOcOCMOO
CMC^eO<-HQt>-iOcDCO

OOOiOCMOi-Hi-iOI^

i-tOCMOGCOiOiCM^

rH|"^CDCMl^C001CO^

CMOt^OO-vO"

oicOi-HOJOsccco^r^

COOOiCOCOW^COCMcO

COfHi-tCMO'^iCCOC

cccMt-coi-'^r^i-ia:

C^r-CMCDCOiOt^OC^

g-Tcor^oiooi-^c^:
*:fCOOCMOiOi-HCD
t-hOCMiOcO COCCCM

§ 5j£ ■ ' '8 : -2

*^^5 2 ^ « 2 o g

03 03 03 .2 O .« O C ^

C^rOCMCCC^C^CCCMCO(3lCOCiOr^OCM»COOC<l

i^CMcitg.oscoocO'-H^oicdcot-^o-rQ^
cooO'r5coc^co-Tco»Oi-iioix»caocooco

CMCMt-<CCr0C0'«T*Or-r-0DOC0Oi-i00^0S

'^. ^9^'^'!::^'^T';'^CMrr''^*'-HC<ioioioCMCO

i-H CO CO -^ CM -^ CM -

" TP CO CM CO -^ CO f-t

CCC0-^OiOcOCM»O"rr<OTru0c0'Ot^C0f0C0

.-icCiOi-^iOcDOCOCMt^I^COCiOOi-HOCM'^

»OCOCOCOiOCO'<*'COCO'VCOCMCO»OCMeOCO»0

!■- O I--- CM >0 O tC t/:' -n- -r 1— I .— ( CO OC l^ O CO >— I

l^iOO>I^CO^"^ a501C0C0»-HOC0CM»CC

r-rtcoocooooi^cococoi-oi

CCcOOCOOJi— lOOOl'— 'OtO'-rcO'

CO CiCMi--ioocciOiO.-H-rOJiacOii-i-^ri^

CMOli-iCM».0.-i^^CMCMiOOi-HOii-nO'*rO
C000OicDOC0 05CM00i-iCMC0O'«r»-HCMOG0

O CiOO OfToO '^CO'^ CD COi-TcOOO 'OrH'^CM'Tp'
•-I CO CM t^ '-I CO CO't'* r-HCOCOCM-^CMOOCfl^H

lOCMOCOOOSOaiOSCMtOOCOO'^''*'*-!

CO-rCMCDCCCO-^OCMI

3t-* OGO ^CMCM

■CT)t-*CMCOtC'-iCM'-<l>-t^'^CDi-i.-t

ti^-^'^iOGC'OiCOtCCO-r'Oi^OCM^a^Ol'-^OO'
•-*XCOOCMCii-H»OOiCM-rr'-cOCD05iOrO'— I

0i-^Cs00*-HC0OK50i-^C0t^i-Hi~('^00t-c^

tOCOi-HiOi-HOiCMcpcOOsOitOOOCCiOcOOqO

OcoOO'^cocM«05or-"-<or-GOr-tt>-o

iC trf CO >-*"cMC0iO O^ T-< lO CM CiTi— I t-^oT-'H'co^
CMl^Ci-rT^COCOCM»OcOt^a;iOi— icOr-ir-(

OJOOCOCOCOCOr^OCO-VOiCMtCCMcOCOOiC^

Trt-iC'^O'^oOQOcooioici'— ii^oc»co*-4.-H
(■'•■^f-H'^-Trr^coooCMcocMcoccos-^oOio

C^0?0iiO05t^»-'fGC CM'CM'-t X C^ iC O iC' CO oT

iOCM»ccMC(Cr-^>ooiaifO<— iM-co-rt^cO'-r

CM r-H CO CM CM 1-1 ,-H CO i-H ,-( »-4 »-(

cor-»oioOiGCOci

■ r-t^oor-coooaiO'-

I-^I-~COCMi-<-^CMiOi— iI^OiCOCOO'-

Ol CO t^ >0 O <

j,-Hr-^oo^^coCTi^cci-i

OiTiCr-CC-^rHOcOCCCMCO^OCit^OCOI^

-c^i*rOCMCMOiGC-ri^«Ot~-Qr:t^c- --

^CM ^CMCMCM

^r-.^^(^^^CM --H '-I

Ci»c>oOoocMrr'r>.':r-^CMcooot^»ot>-

CMi-Hl^-COt^QI^GCCMT-HOCOOOOOCO'TGO
cCcO'^Oi^OI^OCO'^t^'-'CMroOTrOO^

oiiOi— <05i--cocooO'n'C:>oC'^»-(aiosiooi
Gr:c*:..-'co^^cMcoior^CT:cocot^»ocMOoo

CMtO'TcO'^OCMiO'^COCMI^'^'OCO-ffCMCM

• ■ 'be . crti: o

t>.fl g 03 rt ^ S C

j::QJotj>.o3ata'
^ — ii o3 03 -a x:^

r3 o <

„3I

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

61

OJOOcOcOOit^O-^Ot— r-'^Ol'-HCO'-H'-r'-'O'OiCOS'^ OiOcD-^COOO 0»0i~<-^ OC^^^QCOt^t-

oscJcoOi oooe^^»-"»oc^»-'»^ccccc^ccO"^ t^

C^r-4 T-H

»o t^ CO t^ cc c^ *o "■

-I^-epCCOOOCOOOt^W

Oi^-»COiCOCOC^»CCOiCCO^*>Ct^^Ot>-00'tJ«t^OO<»ONOOC»OI^OC^MCO^COTt"-^r'-HCDcDt^«CO'^

■-r^•-':dcocs';OOT^«■«^^>^cd<^'N^^Qc'■^lO»OGc'oc^co■^OOlt■^cc1^

CO CO ''T -^ TT'CO'^'-'CS 1-H .-( -rf C^ ^ CO '-' TT CO "^ CO f-H T C^ 1-H CO »-< »-« N ^ CO W C^ C^ CO CO ^ CO CO ^

lcO>00<M^^Ot-COCOCOCT>iOcOO'^OOOi-HCOO'rrh-00»-<'
r^QCiOcOr^o6o5C^OOt^OC^COwp»^t^Cftt*^l^QO^'^t;;CDCO;

co»-<co-n'GO(N-^-^cDio;ocoi-co^o»ocooeoeoc^ooTrOcococo»0'

•cowco-^c»*-tcocoeO'V»o

c^cO'^c^'-Ht^ioci<ocicroocs>ococoTr^--c^c^"^iOi-H>crot^or^'^c^coco»-HCCi^»-iQCco«Dcocoo

-- i'.:DOtoc^ii~co"^occ oiocoi-ocjcacofot-*^ 0'^<;p»oaiGCi--cst^dcoa;ot"-oooi^'— •('•Ot— 'C^i
X .._,, .-^ .^— .^ — "> — -' — -*-^'^icoc^owcoo<Nr^woO'-Hcoaia)iOi-ii-<io»oGcoo

?OOCSlT-icOC^»0'^<-<cCOiTrcocD-^GCi-io6oC^C

CO M :D !>■ CS GO '<r ;0 "^ 1-1

005iCiOQC<:00'rfC^i--»C^
CO T- OS Oi O CO O -r CO CO

-ri-ii-<oOOTiO':CiO-**OOii-Hii.OC^<NO'-H
CS>1 iOcOOCO*^»-OOOOOt^C^'-<rOt— -^GC lO

»0 -^ t"- 1-1

'•C0C^-^Cfl0»e0-^OC0(N0Si0iC0i'-H^HTrTHQC0C0C0h*00QiOcD'^OO<©O'rt^C00S00
- -lOOC-^tO 003000COiOCOC^^<-HiCCD i005i-Ht^0>»-IO'-<C^C0C^C^Ot^C0C^— <OrH

-_ .-^ .. ,^^t^Qi,-,c^^~*y-*ai LO ox'coiocor-co»ooiOr-i"-0'^coc^c^'— «.-H

to .-H (£) --r O •■

CN r- -r O C5

•CDtNCOt^OOTiO CO C^O-5''^cO»OCOCOCO:D^HC^dt^iOQC'rcC»0
CC'OI'-'CO'-HioCO^ CO COM C^ CO COi-<i-iCOi-iC^'-H'-icO

■ t-HCOOiCOOOiC^i-HCO'^iOCDOSi-HOSeOi-lOit^rt'COCOOOOOS'^'Oirt.-icOOW.-H
■<C^i0I^CS-rr'i-it>-r^Tj-CSc0O«-lCDi0C005'rj'C0i-Hi-icDi-ir^e0C^O00C0CriC001

St^OOO O ^ CD -

-COiOO ^C OOOCOrfCOC

rt-COOOOOcDfOOiOiOO

lO CO CO t--^ <-H

■Tcr cocDa>CiOi>o

C0-t-'0t^t-^0i'-HOTr05 0C'»0OOc0-rC0G0C0
»0 ■^ rH I-H (^ »-l CO i-i I— I lO CO ■^ I-H 1-H CO f-t

»-*»HqsiOCOCOi-HOOcO-^OiOiOOCO^HCOOr--T'OOlCOWC<IOO-^r^iOt-»I^OWOiCDOC^cO'--".--iCpcOCO

- --*=-— "- '^ :GC'OiO»MiO-'ri-iGOOI-0'XCDCOOOOiC^COCT>05?5cOI--

- ' ~- 1 »-l t^ iO .-H CO t^ I-H CD

-iCcDCOOSOOO^OOrrcOcOO'O;

COWCOO OO'X5'-<0Ct^CSC^C0CriC^(MCSU30ir-CSI>-CN|CC0ii-»t^CJM*-T'C^iOi0C*J»

oicocor* O^oc^ococ^ Ol^o-^c*^o^-co>oco r-i mcoco^-i-hi— itc^oco*— 'Ocococ^i^o

00 --• t^ OOO CO CO

CJC'^COCOCOi-HOOM-'— I ■^

•(N<-iCl ''J-iOCOCO'-Ht^COC^

s?s

■^Ot-*CDCOCOiO'-HCOCOCsOC)«-(CDM'-Tt"«— »c0'Or0»OO>O-*T0i:D00'*rCi0iO00c

»-Hi-t'n'cocotococ^oCito<N'^LO-^cDcO'-<iociC^»— ir ._.--_.

OCOOCO Ost-^Ot— CiC^co-^OcocO-rOscoiOt-^Trt

-(Nt^ocoocai'^tNooiaiGOCJ

KSg;

cC'-'co—f cir-i-<c

OtOCCOiCOcOCOOl-^

oca^-c^ 1— i--«r^io«o ioa;.-Hcocococ^c^-^

•-H 1-1 CO c^^^

(N^ .-<

O cCXcOOiTCOOiCicoiO-HCOOS— '^OCCt--r
C^ C^Ow.-icoC^CiC^-'r00C0^05-rt^'*t'(NC0

" 00 CO Ci CO ^-^ t^OCOb*t^OcOC^OOOOSCOCO'<?'WW:)COt^OI>'OOSCOlM-

IOi-<i-HOt-OiOT-^C^

■OiOOi»0-rC^*~COiOC^ ■»rOTri0 0C'(N'*rOc0C0t^C^C001C0-^'-HOCS Cico—ii— lOCiOiOCOCOCiCO^H

)oo^^c^^■n•aiC«^-^oococolSococ»c»c»oooot^colCOOc^O'-*n*cor^cooiOlcoo■^ocooD^-^^lO

»00(NCO'-HCOC<NCO'

-cococ^oit— r-c^Oi-Hcocoo^-— 1»

— li-HfOCO COOiCCtOCOCO (M-r(NC^'^iCcO(NCOi-HCO i-ii

i.O CO t- ■^ TT Oi >— I CO I- t

^ i-HCO ^,-H^CN| —I

CS C^ CM W i-^ »-i ^ W '-'

5 .-H I-H .-H CO

iior-.oiocoi-Hi-oi-Hc^oO'-'cootM

c^;" tN ■! J WJ *i^ '_J i^ '
COOO-^iOCOCO-

ft^0i'-tC0C0c0*rcO.-iO>OO'--i0COi»OC^00^
CMOCCDO-rCOCOCOCT)-^I-^cOOCO»OCD-rCiOiC
^H'^0500"^0»OTrCMOi--OiCOTrcOCT)wOOCi»j. _ -_^ -- -_ ,._._..

*5'-'c3o'rLOicc^'— 'cicoi— '0,-4cr wTi-Tcc co cd"o co i--^»o co ■
jOiCJOi-Hco iococnoi-c-^Oi'-'r-.tocni-oi>Crr'»o-ri--<

^ T- lO ^ CO C CO f-H CO I-H 1-H OO I-H -v C^ CS -^ N '5" CO t-H CO c

CO 1^ -r CO CO CO C^

CO CD -^ CO CO C4 '

62

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGKICULTURE.

■SI I

sis

^ ill o

§S

CS 1-1

■^-^OOC^I'-i-l ^**OCSC0C0>0 1— lrf(N-^-^ t^CCr

i-tCOCCir-*'£)NCOC^C^

t-H i-H CO CO »-l Csl i-H rH rH 1— ( r-l .-( i-H i-H i-H t-I r-4

C5CDO00-rWT-Hi:D0s0SOi-HO0iCicCasC^Ot^»0*T"cD0i(M'-HC0C0'-'00i-Hl^C0'-t^

oa5'^t^i--cNr-.ooo»ni'X)C^-:r'rHcDCso<:DCJir--<oocoieoi--n'OC*jioorrcsccioo

C^ICML0iO'n'C«'^O'^OCC-^C0"^COf0C*^C^I^'^00C^C00lOCC':005>OOC0rHG0i— <t^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C^ CS C^ 1-H i-H i-H

l-H CO 1-H ,-,T-Hr

-r»0-TC0050'^CC'-i'X;0(N»CC<»0'^OiOCOC^l-->OCO'^iMC^

.^OC^COCOOOOtpOI

• ocooicoooc^»ooi

•CO-r.-HOlOiOiOOd

i-HOi^ior-'-rt-^coc^r-ioiC'icOfCcDcO'r-r'— t'ti'-cO'— lODooococ^CicocooiOi

t - CO CI --H(N GO Oi CO I' -^

-OSI^OiOO'-OOI^C^J'CasOCO-— <05i-hOOC0O'M'-h(MC0

- oJ '^ -r co"

C;c/j<NI^-r»CC^t-»-HiCii-HtO'r tPCOOOi-h CCC^n'C^iOi-H

CM --1 rHCM ^ <-H 1-1

>CCMOt--iOCO-rCMOC5C/:ii— (COI'-OOOiCMiOOiCOCT)'— 'r- <Ol-^CMG>GC)(:OiOt>-0'— '"— '>o

iM-rt-^Oi^cOOI^OOCMI-CO-
•OOiOCMi-tcD-fi-OOOOCaOOJOi

. ,. .-GOOOI-iX'OOl— i-rCM'^OOCM»OCMI--»OCO'-0
^CMI•-0> I-^OOCOCOI"*^ ■n<OCOOOiCO<M'-l

(•-CDOOCoas C^ OitO»O00 CDCO'^1— I (NCO

ODCO-rrCNi-lrt'(M-

CM^cooococo'O^OicrcMccc^wioo-rr^McococoOico-t-CMOh-i-HcoasQCcD^

■ ■-;OClCMCMCOiO(N«OCOCMCO'-iCOI'-daiCOCOOi<OQC-~' '"

t- Oi OC' CO (M CS O CO rr <0 Oi '-0 O 'X' --H I

COCOCMOsCMCOOCMi-HQO-raJOCM-— II

iM Oil-- <M CO ':0^ '
CO fh lOCM CT»

■< O t-^ CO 'O' i-H IM iM T i-i -

CM '^ OS i-H CM CM

CMCM rr --H "-ICO

ICOCOCOCOCM CT'COOSO'-CfOO

CO^ CMCMWCMCM

h-t--COC1i-H»OI-^CMC-l-r^COiOMOOiOOCOCM^h-»-Hl-^Oi-HOCcOO«-lCOCOCO'^COO>
COi— <yD'rCOI'-I^»OiOt-HCMGCO--OX!'— iOOCOOtOCMl--:rOCMt-0-^COOOI-COCMCO-f
lOI-'OI^f-HOCi-f'-i'— iOC0t^CiC0Q0T-«O'O-J'»0<:0t--0:--fCM--rrfi0»005CDl---n'C^

• O CO -r CC '0":0 O O CI CT^ 'C 'O CO >0 t— t^ O -t" CO I-- O l"^ •-< •O i-H 0:1

cO'^coai»cioi---r'CMi--ioi-^-

<'T000CC0CMi-iO(0>C0aiCM 05

O CO or- CO ':

10 I- CJ -H -

C^ -r CO O >0 O --H CO O CM CJ CO <— • CO 1-H O I^ CI '-O CO lO CT' CO' CT' CO CO r-t Ol Oi >

t - en "O O r

|--TCOO^CMOI-I-OOCG<:. C)I''-«OC'|--COCOCMCOOOOi-lCOGC»CiCO»Or-CO*'''^'^'^!2

^ 01 OS OS «:i .-H -ri

--C^-rCOOT-HCOO'^OCO'OCOOCi'rrCMiOCOCMCMiOcdcOOOOi-'OS

c-i OS 05 OS CO ci CM r^ cr. os cm r- or or

iC'O-fCCcO-fCCOC'COi— iCMO-— 'COt
CM— li-tCMCMCMCMCMC^-fClCMCM

■ CO -rr-or-occocooooo

PASTURE LAND ON FAEMS.

63

lO -P IOCS i-H fO 05

^ Wl-H r-1l-l

Hr-lfH C^rt ^ ^ ^

CsiT-(,-HTrcSCOCSW»-HNC0C0i-HCOCSCSCQCOf-H'-<tMCS'^CS,-Hi-HCOCSCO'-HC^CS'n'i-HCOt-^

i-HOC'T'ooio-^.-H^csf--(i--ir^coi--»ooiOt-ooO'^coc^ic'DOiocco<-HGCooi-H^c':»asO'^cs'r-rO"^

i-H W 04CS-H rH^ ^^CS^ ^ ^^^^^ ,-<rH^ ^CSi-H N ^(N W rH (N CS -H i=i CO r-I .-^ ^ ^

,cic>jr^C5'-i^coi-^coT-<oocS':DOOOO!ro>o^oocoio^i--i

•t.t'Xt^CO'>DaiC^)00(NI-:c^*O^^OOOOcDfNOOOTiOCD01<

1-h" rri-i' cCTji' cD-<ri^ .-h rn CO -^co^ CO'^C^CsTco"-

I050CO cs T-it^ <r"o-t'i-n^o^(MrtT=ia^oio.-i

c^»Ot-)ai^<ocD-H'Oi-^o-^ocooi^cso:iQOcococjro^'-'Cscooooot^i^aoiCsoovt-i-TM(>^

OSO-^r--GCOt--COO«OOOXCCn*COt^COCDX't---CSTrco:0'*rcSCCOCiCOt:D0500rH!£>aiMOi-roO<

C00«0 00 QC CC

f-H O O C-l'

CO t^ CO CD X- I

t^ O O O ci »0 (N O «

^^^^^ CS'-HCSMW

CN -r O CO I

5CCOW-f--fOC^CSa5COO
IT :Z! • "^ <N -^ •'^ --CI- CO
OCiiO-XjC^CDOOcOi-hO

-f F-H rHCSCi

O 00 05 (N -P^l^o"

CCOai'0»-iOi'M^OCS|-Hr-0'--0»OCO'rrH-rO:DCO

o o CO I- -r X' -p .-< cs Qi •

t--pcoCT)'^opi':Ht-.c^'y: a>oi(M

COOO-riOCSGCr^-i^^Ot-LO-r-rcOCS^OiOQOUO-r^_l-r-.J^j^^

cso cococsicNfM cs "-Hioi-JcscocoS^^c^^

1-1 cc -r lor-

es »0 CS lO CO

W O CS »0 O -r l^ -

<D -r CO -r Oi GC o I
CS Oi CD t- r- O O c

wfococscC(:Dc5*-^cJco
CO'-'»OCDOi<Mt--rcOiO

0-P'-<--i-fCSOonfO«0 0-

ODMCN^GpOOwcDt--w-rOMi-iQO^CDI---r-CCr-i<>iaic^(:D'ri--CSC-»Ol

r-ooo-— icci-'OOcDooi-'-Hi-cocDOi— i"n'-ri-cics'X-0'Oiot---rO'^

S£?^!!!^*-£'::;'^S!2*-5r?^'^^^'^OC^»oco-r iocd i-^'-r -r^-*'cr'''^cD'^cD''o*'crc'r-D"^''i:-^'-^^c-^i'^
S2'";::^!23£J2;^S^^^i2^"^'-'--''-^'^''^''^^^f'^^^'"=^'^'^^oS^-:Doro^wSA;^
1-H cO'-*cococs'-H.-ii-i co'-^-Tf-^.-<(^^r-^l-tcs(^^(Nco'-lCNcsc'^ cscscs csrHcscor-tii^rH

-'OO^qicooioicocC'O
oj ^ lib ^ CD o »o Ci »o i-i CD -3 :>c r^ CJ o ^ S

^ v: (^ 1-^ --H — • — ( -r (M I- r-

- c^i c/: I - c; c-i C-) I « o cs o

■'COCNC'lTp.-iC^CSCO.-Hi-H

I c3 95-:

C3 C3 C3 o Gi •^. ^

—• C

■14

i-SeSSa

. - - ca
«c3c.t;co^ooa2SS

T3

Soon 2SSSfeh.?7: SS o o i 3 §o §-5 b g ?3

^o o <^ s^-^^SiSiii:^;^^ « " ° n c oj s 3 5 o.tic cs.ii o 6 o 3 ^ 822 ~ kti

64

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

O oo O

OC^OOOC^»00005iOcCiiO

r-l.-HOt-HOi-lOO<:Dt^COCOO
C^CONNC^ICOi-ICO^H-^CSi-l

■< CTi C^ .-H lO t^ t - C/Ii

T-tGCi-iO»OOl--0(N»OTj40
lO t^ ,-H .-H '^C^C^r/l'o^-^CJi

CO— I ^ rH (N 1-H

■*rocC(NC^i^u:)CSCjTt>^Hr--

CCCC-^l^tOOOOi-HTriOiCOC^

co'co'i-Tco'cs'e^crr^'^.-r ■<r'co*

CO »-l r-t

coost^OiTrcciOc^osGCcoto
CO c^ o o oTocTio'tc'^cri-rio"

CCC^COOrf'Ot"-cD'*rOC^O
-- f *. O C-C' -^ Oi CO O -^O lO CO c^

O OC' »0 CN lO

D to oi oi ai CO

ct) <— < 1"^ uti cr;' !X? f ■^ o Oi y. — (
^— icocoto<Nrocsxoo»oco

r^'Ocoo^ci-^coTTooooTf

COOil^OCOCOC^'— iC^CSC^OS

^'*"^"'--~:>co(Nt-iosocD

C^ CO TT 1-1 (>» 1-1

lOlClOOO—tGOCOCN|*-H050CD

^ S g <i^ S2 ^ =1 ^ ^:5 o

OOGCr^cDGC'CDOCSOiiC-HCOOiOC^
C0'-iC^00i-HfOi-l»O<-lCSC^»-lI:^i-ltO«-*

r-« f-l<NF

CS rH r-( CS COi-t

t-HCOOOOOO'^T'OOOi-IOOCO-^C^lCCO

•-HOoioccoc^»0'^'^coo6iooiw5c6Ti5

COtDiOC^CON(0-^t^CO*0^'C^w5'^0

lO^W-— it-^OCOOOiOOiC^QCrOCOOOCl

t-^i-iCO'^^OOiC

' C^ O 1— ' f CO

lO Oi C^ lO t- Oi

i-HC^JOiTi'Ti'McDWir^iOXKiOCsaOGr cjs
oOf-Hccco-^iCO'Oi-^OSTrc^O'-HTrt'-

(DfOCDOC'QOOSCOUOCDiOOOCO^t-^CSr-
OiCD00t-H<:OiOOi-^X5CSCS|iOiOI--COco
co^cocDt^cOTPT-iTrco<DOicc<a:>i-^Tp

c^ Oi i^ -^ CD ■^ <— I oTr^eo'co "o'c^'"c^'^co"o'

COCO-^OO-* C0CS»HC0<£> iOr-i(NC^

<N O O t^ I-

■-r CO TT- i-H Oi

1-H CO OitNCD

(N^'-rorcT

O N t^ oo iO ■ 00 GO CO Oi

T-H Ol • OiO) c^

00 o o o> ■ O) .-H »

GOOiOr-CO'— tOt-*COC^COCS>OOOiO

coco'^ococoi-Hi-H^t^t--i— iGocsi— en
ci^r^i-T CO uo" TjH'"co'^rC cr.-ro(r co'"^co'j^

CO CO CO TT i-H .— ( 1— I Tf CO CO M t-H CO I— I

COCCjOiCOiCOOlGO-fCOOCSC^iOCOOO

NQOi-H O

iXOC^OscOOiOL

0SOCCCii-H(NC0<NC0OC0O0iOt--Csi

c^ -^"cD -n- co"cruo"csrt^"arco"TTH^oo"oruo"or

COOOOOOl^CSTT'iMI-.OOii-iOOCSOiCO

C^ CN CO CO TT r-l ■

CC' CO C^ TfH Tf c

lO-n'iOOOC^COcOGCOi— (C^JiOuOO —
OiOC^COt-OiCOCOiO-^oOCOMOlcOi— I

co"'co 00 Oi i^o c^oo"o(f crCTrco'"Tr"'-ror*'co''
OiOCTicoOtO'-H-HiOC^'^-^tMOCCJi-H

coco—io CO M ^' lo CO •-< r-i i-H c>» o*

- - - >—< C^ CO 1— I CO
5 00 CD C^ O t^ CO to

»-HcDiooC'ioco*r»oco'^Tfr^coaicsTp

COOcO"^OiC^»OM*OOOiOWTi"cOOCO

2 ^^ 5 ^d § J.^ -.2 >^^

' 2 »-

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

65

cDrOOOCCOOOCSO^»HOCCtDCSC^Ot^l>^T-<C^'«l'CDt^050t--*C^CO<NlMX)

t-^ X lO o i^ ro I-- 00 oi X Oi oi M CO 'JO (N r^ »o (N o »o or:i c/: oj t-- CO CO »o (M 05 o rH

CDi-f'^COCOOOi-HOC^OCCO C^I-CSC»OO>-f5-^OCCC^C0ClM'00t-i— iiOtOCO

: ^ f aiOr-

■^ocOTflO>o•^lOt^Oico^-"^"^1-lalcoc^^o

^ OC t-H i-H f-H CS C^ i-H CS lO ^,-.»-<f-(rH t-H i-t i-H t-< ^ C^ ,_. rH .-H (N .-(

•^MCC--«t-~>(^i— tCCf-^Xl »(^^Ht^F-i»O>0»0 --(.--( if^OrOiOC^C^iOtOXiT-HiOC^-— to

COOtNtNwOXC^OOOi-OC^Ot^OO'^iOOO''

' CO (M oo a> o [-^ lo

O ■^ CO CD "^ Oi

tT'^O"^'— <I--CSiOMOCO'^Ot— COCO"^'^''J''-HQOO>COCOr^C^*OC^CDOS«-HiOCO

»ccoto»o>o»ooit^iO'-HOOt~ir-0"^*iHi-Hr-(coc^oooTf<iooc:

)CSiOcoC^rO'T'Ot--CNl

I- T" O Ci »Ci l^ (M f

■* o> .— I C^ lO »o »o

cD-TOiCOI'-CO'— i;O00i-HCOI— OlCiC^O'S'tDC^C^OSCNiOCO'-HOi-

^coO^CO'^O"^':

<VD r-t 1-4 Oi W 'I

CC CC t^ OS'^r-iCD'VC

C3 CO O i-i -^ 05 1-1

^ CO f-H CO CO

coococ^csaic^oo»ncoai-T'^c^i-tc^coQOi:ot^coocDMc<o>occcct^t^cct^

iOcOC^l-^05CT>'^>0<NW.-H(NV:0<NC<j.

- Cl 'X> 'Q O '^ t^ l-^ c
■^ r-l XH-- f l-- iO (M .-t C

OX'-Hf-tOiiOOi-HGO'^COC-ICN'— lO^COOCOX'-n'OOiOcO'— it^C^-rCSiOOl»00
-^ W-^C^Oi-H 'T CS C^ ro CO W CO fO C^ C< »0 CO CO t-l Oi -^ (N C^ C^l -^ CO »-t

iccot^ooi-icic^'-ioO'^cO'— tooiO'-<oocioc^osi^coo3co'^'^:i»o»oo-^"#M*oo

rf'—tcDCOO-^CNJOCiOOlCOi— i(MOO'— tOOoOC^

OOOr^osr^tNOoo

OiOOiGOMi-H.-iCDCOOC'i-HaJCOi— iCOt^t^COt— COCOMOO'M'^COCOCOGOO'-HCO

:"^coo^»-i'-H'^cO'-HCci6oic»l'i

-COCOr^TTOSCC'diO'— iCOTPCO*^t^M00:O

i-i'rfO»0C0C^i0i0Tri-HC^i-<O0i000iC^C0C^t^<Ni-li-Hi0OO'-lT

oc '^r t-^ Oi I-- 05 CO Oi I - r- ■•

Oiioooot^cocci'^oiiO'r^-^cot-Grjt-tri'^oo

'Tt'G0^-O^-•|■^C0O^-•l-HC^t^-;t'a0C^^':D■^■^C/^»--^TJ^OCi^0Tr'Tp^6a5cDcD0i

8coo<c^asLOio»ooooroa>'3"oo(NOcoooGC'«rcoi^coait-^0'ocof©oioi^^
r'-7*iO(NCCTrOOSC^C^QO"^«DOOi»OCOO.— ICOC^'-HOlt^C^iMCDt^i— lOicoCO
CDtM'-t.-iTr.-HiOC^) ■^'-li-H-*JiCOi-IC0C0'^C0C0»OC^C0C^i-ICOiOC0C0»O-*^C^

0'f'Mco».'0(Nro-«^r-OiOOX-*^coo>oco^cor--Oi'X;r-^-^Trr--o:-*^^'ro

O ^ Oi lO -^ t~ CO X »0 lO 1^ to O C-l Oi O --H w to on' I- I- O ^ r-i .-Hl^ O (N 1^ OC i-O x
Oi^X'-HCOXasiOCCC^r-'rrO'-it^OOQO-^C^CSaJrrOJM'iOOSTrCNt^OitNCOC)

-C^O-^h-COOC'CO'-H'TGCOtN'^tOaCiCCilO'-H'^
- . ., -00O«0c0iO0i>0^C)0.-t-rrc00>i0iMt0^CCiXf

oO'^rococO'«5<oOTrc^ccc^cotoiOc^cD»o?D"^Tri>-'^"^Tt'tO'^ooioiot--OiOi^

i ^ -i ?. S ti' S -I

-•S;Sn

P S ^ B 73 • a,' C S _• jS _J ,„•
'3 03

■» 3 o d ^'^ " "■' "^

s as5;^j si; § ,§ > a i a s s-g » gig's

14576°— 18— Bull. 626 5

ojto^'rtJoGrciaoi-H
c^'«j<ioococo<Nai'^

i-Hi>-r>-c^t>.Gc»ocoo>

o^ t-^ '-^ oi ^ c6 '3 <zi -^

COCSCM-^tOiN^^Cvi

OGO-^iOOOWOOOl^

ciocSococsto^oi

C0O»O'^(NC0C0'V»O

too--Hn'ocvic/"ir>.,— (
I;- t ' I- -t; Oi -p lo CN) Q

't* r^ -^ 05 fh co^o'crTcvT
csc^tooocoioto^

g ^ g JO t^ ^ c^ »o <>J
GC^Ci eo 05 o X« '-^ 3 1(5

9£r^^^oooot^r^
PS252P"^"-^'-oo5

t^OOit--OC^iO^-t<

c5roiN£i5ic5c^SS c-

QC CO CO to 05 c^ o o cvr ^

2 15 ^ zi: 5£ ^' <^ ^ <>?

00 O Ol !>j :c cs on C^ctT

S-^- ■-( o -* iro CO ;/:■ oD
•-H'^QOCOt^rHOJlO

o ^ CO o o ^ —I oj -3

^ 01 ip r^ CO C5 G<D 1^ CO c

i-^crcc'oro"'r-rac''co'crr o

'N-fiocn'^oco— i<3i~ »H

CO (N <N CO CNI C5 CO CO c^ o

3

ac35g2§!

=3 «3j:xi Sffl i

66

BULLETIN 626, LT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

£ m t, ^ '
o 03 g S i

gss

0'^'**'t^"^0'--i'^oc<j'^r^co»o»oH*'^oc^'^toi

t- c^ as »o lo lo c

(Ni-< 1-H

^ 00 uo n^ o 1-1 Oi c^j -n^ »o r^ 1— I or o c<D !--■ '-^ lo "O cri oo t--. '-C O) io o '-TJ o X) t^ o 1— ( -^ CI t^

»0 I-- C) CO -H -O CO 01 O CO Oi CiO C^ l^ O --H --I Oi 1-1 .jC' GC' C: C/Ii -r -^' t^ O —I I-- »0 --r >-- '^ Oi'^

ioi--CicoCi:o^t^osu^c^c^ocicocoooocvrcoC'iQC'M'Cioccot^co"-ocoocoTro

5COCqiOiNOOt^CO'<**COCO(NClu:i^C^TtH-^«^COOCO^'^CCCO»Ot-^'^'

i-O CN O Ol O CO '-D CT T

covoc^fy: c^J^*^oc«o^■^coooi•-^oooioocoOi
c\r Tti t^ (M o --1 1-1 1^ o t^ c^ -f — ( '"

COi— 'COOJCOCOCOCOC^I.-iOiOO

rco''^*'ro"'^^*i^r'^oo^cro*crt-*"co"i>-"ai'"^'^'o o'--o o'co'Go"co'^^

(N w CO OiCO

, . - . -^ or i-H CO c

f'-lOCO'-HCO'^COfOCOOOOCNICO-n^OOCCC

^i-HCoo-^»ow:j^-rc^--HQCcoQO»o^c^v2coo^

r-n-tr-HrH CM rH CM i-t rH

■X' i-H Oi

oTo"

^^(M—I^i-H ,-(

^^-t'co05CMl-^osOl^Ico'^'^■^CM^~c<}cDCMt>•cD^•oooocoOir^oco■*c^Icor^Tf^oo

'OOOCO't^'^OC

'T^OwCMI-^COCO'^'-HOOOr^OCOOO

-CMuOrHOOOOi-iCM»OQO(NCOOOQCt-^C>0-^anr)'wlOO

lOcoccOiO'OTt^^'-"n^oolooo'^c^or•-^oc<^^cto^-.^-.o•n'r■-■co'-^OiCO-JO'-Hl^^loCl

TMCMi-(»-Hi-)CMi-iCMC^C0C0C0i-H.-tT-HO1CMi-<C0CMC^wCSC0^CMCsr>-<.-HCMCMn<CMi-H'-l

05C00i0lCM00cC^i-iC000i-HO<

r-r=o:)OOoocM005M-rc-)»^:ro— fcof^CiC^iOiOO

o o i.o C) -f CM »o o --^ (>i t-^ --H o «o CO Ci CO oo (^ r* o CM ■-:: CO -t' CO <-H Lo w o o oi (^» r-- w

»D--r00COOi>O»Ot--i-HCO'— lCOCMlO»O00i— iiOOOi'^'OCOOi'-^OCMOiOi-HOOCMOC'^

Grr>rrko'if:r-i^cri"^oro'io"i-rcvrcM'"^Go^i^'^'^crr"T^cM^'-rv*^

I>COfO»0»0"^i-<CM'-iCOCMcXJi-l«::'''0»OCM05COCOCMCMCOCOO'-('-'^-C'COf005»Oa3i-(CO

i-H -TH i_0 lO CO 1-1 O t>0 CO '^ o -^ ^ c

30n"00.-<I-^iCOilOCMa>CM>Oi--icOC

OOOOOCOI-^^Oi— it'-CS-^aiOiCCCliOO'^COOlOCMiO'rflCt^COOOOC

'^CCOOCTjr^OCOCMt^COOOCMOC
OOcr>CCI^CT>'tOOt^l>'OCOOOC

I'Tfr^OGOiocci-HCOt^co^OiCM-n^Oioioi^

:CM0it^l0<0I>-t-^C0'^'^05'OG0C0OCMc0O

lOOCMOCMcoGCi.-tr^iooooO'-H'— icol— iCMO'Ci-^oiooosi-Hi-OOOor-c/:. cT'-^Oi

.-iCMOCM»O'-i»0OC<|lCCM-^O'-''-'I--T-Hai^l0O^'^»000CMi0OOI^CMaiC0CMC0
kO■OOlO^-Ol000005COCOC7lOiCOOOCOOsOwt^COlO^^OilOlOC^I^OOOC<GOOOO

ll^'n^'lo'^^^-^o^^^-^|>^CM^oo'co'^r:^co'c^ll:^f-H'»f^'0^o^a^

osiO'^CMu:>'^cj"<t'0'^"^'n'GO'0»oo:i-n't^t^nt0500iOi-^r'-i.otoCMoioi>--t'ioco

X)Oi-*0"^OI'-CMOOCMCMOil'^0'-HOCMiOOO^»0 05lOC500aOCOC
--jr-<O0i0li-»C0'>0Q000^O-rO»O-«»<O0100t*r — -,-, — -

0^O'-H'^OCMC0i0r-C»l0iOrp'-H0i^C0C0CS00'-Ht^dCs>0"^i

• ^ 1— ( ■n' -t --H I

1^ "n* o -T* o -f r

? 00 o I--- en n" o lO

J — H OS — I t"- t* lO '^ CM >C 05 CO (M CI M c:'

ClCMCMCMCMCOCOCMCMCOCMCM'-tCOCMCOCMCMCMCMCOi-HCOCMCMCMCOOIC^lCMOlCMCOi-'CM

1— liJ- O'-'^OO— 'f-i

o °

5 a 5 E2 ^ >< a; E

a >^^-S SCO

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

67

^ r^ c^ _H oi c^ r^ lO CO » CO -^ o »o c<i lO o o* 30 o tt oj -T .-H v:* ■^" ^•D c-i ^ r^

rr^ ^ r:? s^ r:? ?? i!^ ?5 9^ :?! '-^ r:i Q 5^* DO ;^ o o o "^ t* ^ ~^ic6 oi o --h --h oi cs r

■^cccocscococsco'^Csii-«-rcqiocow:'ioc^cs'^cscscoc^c^csc

JC^ C^ CN«C1 c^

^ CO CO C^ <N ^ C^

ocC''Hco"»•»oolosoo»^ocqcocoI^coo>ioocsocooi^*tO'--^oo"^ot^osQOcooi^^ocooO'HOcC'-<^^
■^u^^oocD'VlOlOC^':o^~cooeq'^coc^^';c^-cococ^cooo^OTf*oc^^'^o^C'^M^u^&c^J^rtM

'lOyDC^ItOCO'O'Ot^iO

•OCOCC'^pHf-i.-iOOOO '

o^i^ coc^ot^'-^I-ccoool0^cst^o--HO^'^cc^o«^>.^-i^ocooo.-H^yo^o^-^^-"

'^.— (h-.0"^r~-w5"^osi-icO'-H'-*

•-J^C^OCOwWC02pCOO^COlOI^'-HOCOr^'--<n'OOOt--'Tt'C005.-Ht>-CCOSi--<^T'Ortic;irt

>jt^^Trt^OiCOO)C^J^iOOOCO^iOCOOO'OOiNOOiOO'^00'0(NO»OCg05'*J'COOOCOO'^^S5ir-

OOOt^O"^— 'COC'T'tNt-^^OlOC'

_ ^ ^c<l

M r-( r-H-^,—(_,i— (.-*.-(.-<»-( Ol.-HCO.-H ,-^,-iC^^.-H.-^

^X'I-^0'^'n'.-HcO'-^^^^-<»coooiOCflOiOi<;M-'^coo^^--^o^co■^CT>co^o^c^|o^05^^I^

O) 'O -r X £J — 1 1 o -^ >o CO t* o -T 00 Oi c<:i

^5cocj'-iCsco^rO'-<cO'-H-^c\iiNco<N^

?0'NfOCOfO<NCOCO'N<>5(N»0— (C^O^C^W

O^CqCQC^COCOCO<-H

f CO fO t^
V o> C_ >—< 1,-j _■ ^,i
CO Oi CO CI O -^ Oi

^:::^ij:'OppOQO^£■^po05co^cnlOO*t'cooaiO'*oooc^^o^^^^c^'-o^*ooc3a5'^^
Tt'OiO)^coi-^ioo»oi^rHCNiTr.oocoTt'CNjco^^i-HOiWoaQOooocqi^o«oor^P-t^iO'0

(N(NC^<N^»OCCt^<M-OCOOOC^iNi-(-<f

c* o c^ —« co'co '-^ ^crarcro^co^c^crc;c^crcri-H'c^o''Tjre^{>^(:o^aro't~-r'

Corp-<<fHr-^:oC^-^CJGCC^'-HCC(NO't':CC-j.--<Cvi:oocoC)<NCOCSt^'-H

,-1 ^ ^ ^ ^

O OS — < c: X IN » "

2CCi>— tOCiOOit-^

cO'Vco'^i-^cO'-tcooct-t^co^rooocox:

Ot-^COt^OlCO'O'^OCiOSt^iOO'-HcO'^OlC^iM.— (i-HCO

<-.-,-- ,--E ^ 2 --^ !i! "^ '^ t:: ^ "^ ^ ^ '^ ^ "^ '^ o »o 'c o im 'o --' x
cs'—io-H'rpcootjoi'-'^coiocoo-vcoeoioxt^t^aioiNOio

1-H c> o CO X w X »o c^ cr: i--( CO 'O c^ ^12 L-r -r c; •— « oi >o CO o*^ t^ c^ ci i.o w GT M -- r-H V-' 1-H o i-^ .— rF-ra-''L'C»rr-J^r\rr
r-.<«xooxo5^xc^qo^'-Hio-rc5--'-^S5ooix-oobt^^:cQioi-^t-^

o t-- c^ lo c/: o> 1^ o "^ o lo i^ o c

000il-"^iC05C0O>XO'^»O-n'-

Tirx''i.o"io'to"'^crV^co't~^tC— Tx'^'r
fh I* X w X CO f to 'Or- — r f^ - i~

•-rc;iipr--ai»o(Noc^asc^iOi-(Csco»oio<N»oCT)0'^cvit^coi

2^ "H] £i --^ ?S ^ ^ £? *{; "T? Q ^ '^ '^ L"* "^ "^ ^ ^ '-"^ ^ ^ '^ "^ iJO O w ..^ w w

fN-rcoxcO'^c-fC^iox'OO^-HtNoccco-^xioo^cot^JSxcsio^

C0»0iO<N»0CT)O'^CVIt^C0t^r-»i0 00(N
t^TTOlXO'-OCOCOX'n'XOOiOOO

(Noccco-^xioo^cot^coxcso^
^ i^ X -"" X M ^ I? " JC !^ rt — jZ £; ^ Z^' -^ Ji; J^ ^ £2 ^'^ K5 CM ^ ^ ^^'o'^:r^t-^^o'^-^u-^c^^o^o*co'a^o(^cc^o""c^l^f
^c^c^Xcscs<NC^cqc^c^csc^6^iNfic^Z!;jNC)coc^SSSS?SSSc5coc3^

c3o'3o~bbdo

s

o o c ^

inc;

►^►j^j^jSSs:5gss:sssas2;of^S£SPH£eHS«MW!»SMMe^EHtj>>^^^^^^

68

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

a

£S

rt

2

3-H

2

ft

2

<!

aa

C3

1li

bC^

O >g o

o a

«'^fOCiOic^r^O'X>co<C'c*:ioaooitoc^oc^i^'-H'^'^io^o:oc<)cqioi-^i-ic*^Tt<

CCM'OI-*iCOC0OO^C0CDOCS|G0';0t>-C0COiO00i000iOC^lOi-H'OC0»OC0>O000SI>-

,-HCsn''^coco«-Hcccoc<iT-Hcv»io^Mcoc^c^coT-H'^coc^c^c^cvi''j'i:v:)C^f-HC^co-^^

^-^o6^^^-H^-Il--ic^cDC^^oc4air-^c4cooocococDt-HkOoicsc^c»^-H>o^^

o»o-t''^c^ccrMr^r^c^-tico«Dcooic»u7r^cooofoi--'-H»or--cO'-t-^oC'a>-roooot-*

CSOcD^-rrO0C»O«:5aia)»OC0G0-

XiOi'-iai'COOOl-^-^GOCCCqOiTpiOCOOS

t^t-»»OCO'-tOCrOI>'OOi»Ol^iO-^Ot-

jcc r-<ioait--oooc oosioiot^i-^-^iot^

c^fCcoccotor^-!j'iocooooot-*'^ioioior^i-ic*aooiO'«*<ioO'— •coO'-^ooioiot*

i-«(Nrr'T'(Ml^Oit-^COiO''

Dt-r^GOi-iCCOCOCni-»'-HCCi-fiOCNt-^Tr'OCiOl^l^|-^TH<

OQOCiOOOOCCt005t-~COlC000005Cqi-lOOS'-(OSiOQOCCOO-

K O 00 CO O CO CO t

coc^oot-^ oocsi

jOixr^o--iocco5Csii.':;ooxcMt^occ:o'^c;coct--o

OSCS-— (CO-rt-.— (CO -— •lOOJ'-HtOOiOOOSOS r-it-^t— ■^05

OCSCC'-H^^HiOI^OC^COC^'-HCOOOTt<>*<COCO<NCO-^<OI^OiCi-lCOO'rrCCOO.--iiCW
COC^lOcOl'.Ot-">OC^OOi— <C^COC000G0»O>OC^It-<C5'— I-— tC^rHOiC^li-HiOCC'^COt^t^CO

TrcO'~-i«ocot--t'^ooO'— (Oico'OOi'^'-HTr'iococ^C'it^OJCoc^oococ^-'rc^coioQOooc^

r-< iC <-< !>■ CO CO fO -^ r-i CS (N GC C^ »0 1-1 to 1-H i-Ht- I-H

»-H "^ rH CO »0 F-l

coococ^oo^c^ooc

'>D o I- CO to o >:■ o CO io Oi 'vt' CD M o cT' -r •— < CO -

CO"^'j0C^OI--Ci0»O'— «CO'X'7''-HOOI-l-OQCCOi-tOOOiCT>OC*^C^COCOOCMOiCCCO

aicocai-^X't^u:ioc^ot^^Hi>)coc^cocoi^c^c^cocoTj*cO'^M'L':;o^Gcoo'Xot-~oo

CO >o -^ •— I CO r^

' CO Oi CO CO CO »C :

) CO 1-H r^ CO cs cq CO »-< CD to

»-i CC CO OJ CC -T' lO X' CO X> -r OJ ^ iM t^ t' r-H CO -r CO JM CO CD CO UO C^ C^J (-- t-^ QC' CM I

? O to CO O 00 CO

Oai05C0OC00i0>t^iOCClC0CDC^as0i(Nr

^oo^o>cooi^cClOt-Olo

Oi -r CO Tf L-O 05 Oi »f5 -r l^ C
I— I CO Xt "^ to Ol O O t-^ 'Oi c

r- i.o to oi "O o cs Lo CM r- r- »-« c

.-H CO ^'-t

>CM-r-t'OiGCcocM-f'

<-i ^ CO

COOOCDCDCO'-'COC

CS C^ CM ^ ^ ^ ^ »_, ^

^OOOSrrCOCOOJQCQO'O'tOOC

) -r C33 CO I-H CO as Oi

JOiOCMCOOOO-XC

iC C7i lO O 1-^ CM CO CM r- cr — ' CO CO CO 00 .— t

1 CO -rl - I - O en r - ;

cOOcOO(NOCMcoOOi>OOiCDt^cOCMOlcDTt-i-H-rCMCOOrJ'tC-^tOl--^r;r

coofNcor^wiOTrr^OiCM-

J -ti O O O O '

)iococorHt--.oor^oiocococo-^i-f'^t--coOitD'— (ooocr

CM T-H CM — I CO C^ 1-f

SrtHOlOO'-'LO— lOCOC

CO -r -^ -r :

CM i-H CM CO t-H CM CO I-H i-H »

JOsicco-^OiOr-ic:'— icooocot^Oiooo--H'-f*r-(

t^-rPCOCMCMOlCMt^LOOiCOI-OiOiOO'-OOliOO-rPCMiOiOl— iO-rTfC0'-*0sai»0»O»-'C0
i-tcO-— <iO00I^I---Olt— -rCMi— (CMCM'-<OCOOI--COOOOCO'-»»CiOt^rrTfi-HOir-00'— tO

'^cm'^co'^io^^'^ w" c^TcrTcsr -r" -H'-^co^co'cM*'c<rQrr^*"cM'' O'^C^(^cS^r:C^t^C0^C^C0C^t-^C^'^t-^tn'

' ■■■* ^COCMCM-^COtOCi-HCOCMtOOXCsCM— '■^-r-H— •-rCMCOCOi-O'fCO'^Cl

lC0GCiOCM'-Hi-HCMC0'-iC:C0C0«O'-(»OCOCOC0tOCDC0C0iC»-fCM-fC0CM»O

CM CTi as -r >o '

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

69

;DXi'*t— tosX)f^j'^rM'CO'<riCC^Or--i-^ioXr*0^"0

OOC0'^C^»Ci0C0'<t<OC0aiG00iC0CCCCi0C00>-^<£)40t-^CXDOO^«OC^i-lT-H00t^OOC00sO(N

cD't"050MOO''rt>-.-HccoicaiO)'-Hi>-Gcoor^.-HcO'VOOi'^(roocoooii-Hi--(Ot>-i--fcOf-Hr^rt
^JCc5u5oc4^d»OlOQ6o>»o■^l-H.-^lOc6^^^lOajcc■^coo6^oi^^^aftco»-^

(N^-c»o^c■^Oi■^'^»oc^^lOOieococc^*oOiOcou^^^c>:lC<lcoOMooMcot^OiOO'»5''VOC(No^eo
.-« oi -n" CO io »o c^ » ■< ^ -^ ^- -,_._.- . . . — . __ __

) "X o ■— O O I

I>0i0iCCf-iI-»00aifC'VC0O01M'00O-

J.-HOC^^7'C^CiD'-l00C0C0CCr^OCDt--00C0OC*^"^--HQ0cDO0iOO'^t---I---C0C*0I^*0C0'--tr-ii-H''

ajoc^r*05i^w3ior--coxcooc»oi-tC)Oooo30coa>'^co*oooosoO''<j'QOoo»ot^'j'-^cot^coc^cooo*.-5

lO-^coc^aot^»o:OccOlO.-*>-^lO>0'^'-H^-T}100>1-H(3lC^^:'aD-^oooC't•^lO:oOI-^■^rl{Nut^.-Hc^

COCQ r-i iF-iO»-ii-(TPC*DCCCC WOO^«0'-0T-(i-ir-i C1>0

TTOSt^Mi-HC^'-HCOX

wocooooTfCiWcoioosi-fr-t

iiOiOuO'Ot^O^D^iCCOOSX.— t'-H»Ot^OCSOO-^OiM''Vi— tOsOI^t^-'^tCOCCiOt^'O

»— t-cc'-'CSMcc— iC^^i-oio^DCSior^r^Ot

XO'^fOOfO'CCl-HOX^OCOX

i-tOOl^iM— •COO'-<i-ii-H:0<NcCCOOl^COCSOt^'»r<NCSi--<i-iOvJI>-r-«0

Cq <N 1-H W CS Ci

iC>— tOi'-HC»tO"«?^CSC^05XXCqXl^»CXXt^QOOOiOF-i(:C)00'^r^iOOX'^TT'iOt--XC^M<C5COTr

T-H »0 CO r-( (N CO C^ <-! CO CS "-H

(M OSCOr-ICO

r^ OS OS ^- c» CO r

■'(N'^'^iooo«5cociy:?oowcs

■^XCSt^X'XCOCOOOiOt-t'OCOXOiOCOO

CCaOX'OOI>-CS<-H'^OCviOCOr-HaOOO>OTT"OOXC^CSC'JCOCDOCT)XClCO<-HtDCOOt^C<lCOXt^

oOM'r*t^c^xxoxr^'^xr--odx<MOi^coco^O'^^»o<:

■- 1— ' ^ Oi »0 O O CC' '

r-cs »-iooc^O'-HU^»ccC"^r^»0"^i^io»or--:oo!:Di:Di>-'^iOi-H'-HCSXi-H'^Oii-HOt^TT'XCSw

0:oco»0*^'-<t^r^''

.fOTfr-(-t<OiOCJOor^co"CX'— i.-Hro-<fO<-oO"^oc^iaic

i^i--c^xco(NO;csiO'rCNC^'MOcooicoi'a>oo»o--'Xoai»ocN'

< Ci X CN 0> -f X X c

JfO^O-VOTfaiCOOC^OiOi-HOO'-HiM^DOi'^OiCO'— (C^05a50s-^OOi»OCN

O »0 >— < 05 O O "O OJ X CO X X Oi »o '

CN CM .-H ^^

j ^ jr X -O -r -^ :r; lO 'JD O t-- »-« O -. -- _ - _ .

iOiX»-a:l-^-rOXOiO(M«::OOiOiXOCO(NCS<;OiTrO

•-H ^ ,-H ^ (N

T-iCMCS— 1^ CSCNCM

C^CMTrxr>.»-<coxcot--cricr):ooi'-HaiCoxiooior^oC'ics"0?c--t'C^.-<oai'--*coco»0'-H:Dc:ji— (CO

X C Oi 'T o c

. _. , 1 Ci C^ I-- !:0 -^ ?0 .-H w »- O I- ^ ^ O CS Ci '^ X lO (M I- Oi <-< CM CO
;XOi-HXI--XcOOr-(0"^»-iCO',C>X»0»-HXCMCOXtDn'COXOiCl

:C X •-* »-0 C5 M* X t

coro-^xoi-fi-'jc _. .-. -..._.__ . -._--.

lO'O .-iiO-^>-<Csl^CMO»-.(N'-iCO-^CMCSCOCOl--CMCO'^CMCM'^ iOCOiM^COC^'^CMCSi-li:C'i»CO

r-- -r -^ CM r^ O O ^- Oi C^UO -r iC -H t-- ■

: CM »^ CM X CM CO -

•OOlCMOC'-'XOi-fOCMC

I'CO-^COC^l-r-M'-rX-X''— i-TQlX'-t'CM'^Dt^Cl'-HiO'— •

55.

^-3 c . c2 1

. o rf ?* ^ -'

i o c3 ^ -^ 2 p. i

; : : : cj= « : : : :

55s;

■ ■ ■ -.^

O O^^^ I

iir::3;J:^^->j;

70

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPABTMENT OF AGKICULTUBE.

a go a .

— bo— M
o ri g 3 o

gs5

5a

lO »0 I-^ O <M C

C<iI>>'<t'CO'VOCN*OQOOOGOCOCSCOOOOi--t'tjiGOiOOi:D»OOOOOOC^'»*^^'^-^'^
TP^-^O-^ »O^S'^'^<©(>)>-iCO'-«COiO-^'<*''^ coco -^ coco MCOCC^OiO 00 0>'

OOOr^i0r^0:>O0i'-0O'^'0wa>^---(C0i0t--t^OC^(r00l^t-Mi00s«Di0C0Q0O

o r^ r--^ c^ .-^ 1-^ M cc »-H i~^ c/ oo i--^ CO c^ i^ to aj ■'i^ c/ oi (^ lo 1^ .-H ijO c4 lO i^

^ CO (M M' '-/:■ O tD t^ (N

>':/;c>(N-TiMiocs^'XO--*'Ooai'OGCiO(

> (N C<1 'JO CO X" 00 '

-^r^OOO"^C':)-rrI-l-diaiTt'CSO:pi--C0O0i^CDi0G0OO-^"T^"0

-0CD'"X)r-HC00000Ot~-00G0i0 400lOcDO»OM'

r-i^oiS'?S«coooacMcDTi^cooor4fooc«cqoooseoNt^co^otoi>M

I— iCSi— i»-hcO»-hC^'— '"-Hi-H CS 1— 1-^ i-H

99^'^<^»Tri^92'i?<^^2P^^'^'^'^52Xt^3?^Sv5;^^SF5Sr^^t2S23^

o 'jis Qo r- -T* 'O iz:' o c^

CO i-H 00 o — ' I--. <N

i-i(Ni?iCOfOO;3r'^'-'^'^'^

lO Oi (N 00 IN lO -

i-H CN 00 lO r-( .-I T-H CO I:- "^

*- v-,^-^ ^ w -- v.. -^-^ .,_._-- -. _ - ioo OQCS <^i'to rj-o^g -~-p

ooco^coco'^^o'0'toot^iocsy:;co(Moo»o'ot^o '<^'--^ lo ci -^ t^ -^oo o^ oo c; i--

t-<r^'^rA^t^'*^'^CTr(»''o^arG<r-^'^'^Co'''-H'-1^Cc'^ rj-, ITS .--,

t-HCOI-^i-XNiO'O'OO »^ cO'-(C0CSC-1'*:O Oi '^

i-t e->. QO Cj ^ eo 4^ X

'osc^»ocr^:oooci'n'^c^ccoo5M'C^ooor^r-^ococD«Or^C2Ci^'OC^?^^G«oo

iO'-*^'^Cia>'-t'-H0lC<»CC-^C0OC0CO'^iO'^G0C000^C0'^C0t-it--'-it^COO»O'r

c^ioui'c^^^c^cra^i.ocrc^' t-*^c^r'^co^^co*<N'o"i^c^co"'-i'co^cc i^ r^ t-- c^ to CO 'Ti

^ iO .-H rji f

toco IN iO i-H »

r-H 1, ,-H ,— ( CO 00 "-H

C^t^i0C000OOOI--C0Ci»0aiCDC2t--C0rrOOO00>0MOCJ-^O-^O
iOCOX05iOCOI-OCaiOr-;C'1^00'0;:HMr-^r^OC^CO;-HOO
lOCO'^'XCl'-HCOOiO'-HCOi-H'^OOOlCCO^D'— tTPOit^COCO'^t^OO^tOC^lCS'T'CiCO

CD If- 1^ (>i o t-- lo --H '-H to -^ r- 'rr cft o:, c^i CO 'X' w csi o CO -r o» ^ T-; -r o GC' ;-^ r^ JO c^
coocscocO'-<'Ot^-roocr— ' oOr-icDocsooci'Ococooascor-rH^oii^c^c^
^i::;i^"'*^,-ico (N«-hcmi-i i-kncs c^ --hco ^ cocstNco cot-h

Tfc0i-HC0O0005O"^'M<:0(M-^00C0»O'«t<0iO
C^t--r-(CT)'^'— iiOtOCOI-O-^Jt^OOC^CDOOTT'GC'O
C^,_,(^C^i0C0»00C-^<:Di-<C0C^»O05Q0Q0CiO

c^^^iocP'O'^c^cTj a> 05 "O " *" --.-.-

c-iO'^-^-T^iooocbr-'^t-ooco

.-hCO'^OOm'i— !•— (lOl^OiOOiOI-
O'OCOOOcOfNaiOi'^^fr^CSt^I^'— •OT'

V'^';crr^*r'>o""i-^c^c^io'(>rirrcs*'>r»-ri^ o oo c? £-■ o o

O"— ir*005 cO'O-^OC^OO'rr'i— (O*- ttOQOOOC^Oi

lOM^Oii— iiM(Noc^y:)r-'0"n'Oi>-Hiooto

OlO O (M I- OOI- Ol ■ ' '-■—•■ — .-^

1 r^ lO »o r-- w r-- o CO cc cjt) CI -t" "^ o O

( ^ ,-H <M r-i :d r

i CO O tO Ol O

co'T^ocooicstooooioocoait-cooij-Ci'OOi'O-fj^

C^iOi— I'O'^M-tO C^»r

■< i-H -^ <N CO O

O CO CO »0 Cv| '

S°3

fOWOOC

^ a

2 P £ §3

rrt t- ^

„ O cS

'/oPi'-^Ot^Ki-

• 'o • sj o o c ■ S c-e S^ oj3 "^-a

-■S §.a.s^ ^ 03-3 S3 a a,=«^^f= §

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS,

71

c^i»f5M^^^«^^^oiT--^lOC^o5coo^-^c*^'-H'^cdcJ»ct^■-^*oJ^^cocoocicDco

^C^NC^N rHC^i-l(NCSCMi-4rH^05CS'-H CO C^C^COCOCqr-t,-tiOCMWWf-HCOi-"CM rH.-HM'CQi-HrHrH

OOOOi-^cDcDC>0>»Hr-<.MC30'^OC^^»'-^000»0"^OOOCO*OOiiO»OU5C»OiOOSOC^iO->rr'-HC^C^GOO.-HiOcD«-iC^t^

iO■^t^co^o6cood"^^^-^cDt^^r-^foco»ooi■-rccocc^'•-HlOC^l:coci•-^o^^

__ -^:,^,.-5, — — — - -

5 cc CO :d -n- ro ^ '

- cc cc »o cc i^ y? '

-cci>»o<NcoccrO'n'-^cor^'rt--r^rOTCS-^-rcscoo->o

-^Oc:cooroMr^ci — c^o — c<>'M^'-«co.-HOcC'^(M»or^C(C

^u^XGOCNt^oool»coOl

lO-rOir^ooccsoor

>O-t-i0-r'O0iOOOi000Or^'rOi0Or-'-H

CNiOCOC^I^'TCOGOiCt^-'r-TCOCOcCOiOCOCNiMr-*!^'

C^ C^ O 00 CO Oi '

^coOl^^--^-r■-rcoc

^r^ooi-^oO'^csocoor^ocscs

<:oajcooca)i-tooioocooi

00 GO M- CO Ci 1-^
r-1 -^ O CSI X) --I

Cil-^COOKOCOC-r:

r£:rj::. -^CO>OtM!:C^'X^':D-rt^CCNr^O<N(Mr^OGClDa-. Oi

lOOOC^OCOCNCNl^OC--!.— '.— t':riOI-^a0r^M'a0»0C0C0C0»O»OOi^O^

: OO^-^ '

• r^CliOO-^PO^'^^tC'i-HCOOOCOOiO^iOaaCOCiC

__ __ _ _ -lOiooiot^r^O'OXicotN'-iio^iocir^

l>•C0w00C0O'-H^^C^.-HU'^.-HCi0llCC0O'-H0it-HC0OcC.-<OT^^^0lO00ai■^T^C^OOtCX:C■-HCSO-rC0pi•--^^
0>^00e0»O0iO0lcO00Or-tOOt^C000i0t^0iCC»O'-r0i0ltD'^c0--Hr-.i0C^t^O"^C0'— »OOC^OC^C4f-HC^Xl--»0

coocooco^-•'-HO:co^-.c^ccco^^^'--aico>o•-^cooo■^"^■-1^'-|'-Hoo^■oc^lOaiaiOOlOC^•-H.-H,-H,-HCs

'OC^'-<OiC^o:iO'-Hcoi---»0':orot-^o:iC:!'^'"jOi-

Cit^-7'I>-'-^-T-Cil--aiOOOcO'-OC^co-rcooO»Oao.-(t-oo-

cooo■vcoc^o^-•lOcoooo;»oo:^oo^--r-^•ool■^I'lC.-Hu^oOl-HOO'^o:l»ooo^-■n'■n■<^^ooI^ocot^'^•OT^
c^ (tT cT ^ c^ orT ^-^ --h" cc" c^ orT '^ co" >j^* c^r c' ccT c^'' is" oT rr" o" ^

1M»0 W-^-H-

T-H'SCO i-i 1M-^C0C^^<N^<N

J CO CO lO .-H i-H

T--o*-cit^ajr^(NT-i-HGC-ticoCT'-r*ocoo— (t^cscor^'MOOn

"• 1 Ur .-H O CI X' CO ■-' C5 CO CO CM .-H O TT CO ic I- "* ■*

, :; O O CJi 00 -:■ C^

t-H'^»OCO'5'— I 0«--iiOi-i

■'OOoOTr'CiC^i-H.-H'n'OCCJ":)»0'^:cr-X!*^cocooo'S'-Hiccocoh-ooot>-t^tct--i.

fOiO rH-Ht^WiarTH

1 ^ -r a: w I

ocJOO■«o^oooocot^oo:pC^ClOc^co»ooC'OoO'-Hr^aiClOl"^rcoo5Goooicc^*"^-"lO^-coc^cO'-HlO^*"^c

OOOCO— iCNO:C^:^C:OCr-OiOCNO-

'CO(M-<riO'^XaiCOCnoOcC'r-f»OOCOO-riOCT)OiCiOM-00

oo>ocoo6ooo^-o^-Hcoc^oco^*ast^loc^■^loc^I^l-H"^coc^»o^-HOl-Hoo^o■-HoocoooGlLo^oocooo■^ooo^^o

:oo-p^r-(cooiCt-Hur(Not>-r^'r'^t^Oiicc

cot^oo»C(McocooO'^ow:'^'-"^r^ccio

t-H T-H CO rH T-l W

CMt^t^^HOJCOCftOO^HCCCSCD-T^COCOCOCDCDt^iOcOCiOcDO
(N CD O rH CO CS 03 l> O lO CS TT t^ »0 •-< .-H -ji lO O (N (N CO CS i-i

5QCOO00C^Or^t0't'.--r-^C0r^Cf:iQCWO»000wCS)O---ir^CDCDG0'rt'O0C'QCi0'i0h-OC000>0t^r-ir*

CotD';:::OCN'^oOt

■^cooor^or^coM'CNoct^ooC'-HOOQOc

^rHOOOOOlCSr-icOGOCOC

.CSOCO'-HC^OCNCOOOtMiOCNOOOr^t^OOOOOOOCSOSO^'t^fMfNCiOOiC

J O O t^ ^ I'- I

SCit^OC^COCOO'M

-J-+•cot^•^^*c<^ooc^!X:c-r^^oo:coococo»Ofroccocon'Coc^ooc^^»JO<^cccocooowooolOO■'^oooO'y^

:)COCOCC — r-iI^-Ti'C^r-^OO COCOC^'-«Oi-^C*lCSOCCOCOCNOC'-<COiO'— 'OOOt-^-rOCOSC^^rOO-^'^^OuOSTCO

rH ^ rH .— CO

CS WrH.-l.-l

ooc«cococDOcocoooi^'e'oocoMh*u:.vrc>oi^Hoou^c^^»Ot-i — ooocit^C500oc^icor^toc^oooosr^.-iO»^

•-i-00.-tiO»— iOO^<00-«TOCSCS-^C5T-<0»-<-rC

liCOCDCicOCSiOOOOiOO^I-O-T'O

cccoc^t^os-n•ocoai^ot^coccoo^•occO'*c^colOo:D'^c^coooo>oo^^^-H^t^lOO■<r{^^.-•(^^^^o^>.»oo

'-'Xicojioxcccocscooo— *':c:ccoc<i^c:occco^c^itcr^o':a. i-oc

ir: (M CD •': r^ c-\

J t— r- CM ci

■ IM (N w <N lO C^ Cs*

: -H X 1-* -r ^ 'tr X' 05 I

-0(NClCO'^OCOCO.-'OlXaiO:>CO-r^'

)'-(COCO^C^i-Hr-i»Or-t.-«»-iC-lCO^CO^(MCS

1 C _&£ C^

72

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGEICULTUEE.

£1^ u. £ o
o c3 a E h

! S °^

■^.cS

•3 Ph
^ S

C0c©c00Jt»*0'-'5W«©C)CiftMM'-<CCU?r*O0i

^Hi-Hi— ICO t-4COCOCOCO NCO-^'^C<IC

OlMCCW003C^i-HOr*fOGOt^OCCi'<rC^IOC

r^iO W'*»OCOC^COCO:DCO(MCOCN-^CO^

r--i— I ccosC5ior^c0"^coc^O3GC00cO"^«ot^

iOOiOOO'^C».-i(NOCiO»Or-COCO'-H'fj''rCS

rH -r O-^^C

■I CO -rr o -^ o CO t.

■'O-^O-fiCCOCDCO'^COCOCO

0"^OC^C^1»00'— 't^iOGOCJOOOi-iOiOiXitO

c^^lOl00500^»oo•^^ocoocs^^*.-c-rr'000

cot^i-Hait-*o«o»o»-<ocococotooor^M<Trcc

l-^ Oi O !>■ CO CO 1

m;— it*ait^Oi-Hir:)0-^'<r

«-<tococo.-4^»n)^:r;oc2ca>t^yj"<r'-*r^'MCs

i-H(N (NO^'-nOCOt^iO cOOiC^JiOroiOCS

-r »*. OO I-- T X CO O I-^ GO CS f- — .-

OcCO'-HiOCOCOt^'^OOCNi

-rt*. OOI--'TXCOOI-^GOCr5CO»-HOS00005iOi-l

. T io "-I i>. CO -rr O >■ ■

r-u:>co»ooor^tocsiooa>i^'-rioco(N'-Hco-

(MO'-<^I>-0'X>»C{M-rI>.t

} O Oi Oi O ":> CO

coccGCi— ir-occ^:/:'CO(X'r-<or-'— tcoi— '-H--Ht--
c<:.-«GCX;.— i-^c^o-— «c^t--G5cocvi'rjioa5CO'-<
».':i'-''T"^c>icoo;(M(NM''n-t^cocooi»-o-roo

rn" cT cTco" •"-Tec' ^ i f^ ccT c^T lo" oo" -o" 'fiTco '-rTc-j" ctT <:>r
1— t lo CO r-- r-- •— t ir^ r>. oj i^ I- o ^r tQ o r- w5 o CO

-Q i-S : : —

5 b^

• :=: (^ v: m 0^ . • EP P' S a. fi -p;
(-•^^te-c; >>B^ i^ o a « c3 03 33 <p >^ :

l^ ^ «0 lO tN.
C5 CC" CO co' CO

t» ■<y r* o —*

CN CO COOICO

lO —< 0:1 lO Oi
O -r O O -C

T-H T-HCDOic

00 Ci CO CO lO
-r C^ w -p »o

iO r-H ^ O C^

■f CO ■^ OS CO
»0 .-( Gi GO CS
C^ C^l CO O 05

r-Tc^co^^'^w

>0 OS 00 O CNJ
O t-- ^ iO CNJ

00 CD t^ 1-H C-1

ccTr^t^i-T

o CN cs 000
coocsicsio

OOOOOt^O

1^ f coco o
r^ t^ coo th

.-HCOOCOOO
iC ai<N CO!N

cT Q<rr^co".-r

fl si''

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

73

•*<N-<O»!C'C«)(Na>CMN4O«^C0'*^00e<3>Ot^OO'a5rHlO00Ot^C0.-llO«)rtO0SOt^O'J'0>«5m

CO ^ ^ cot-^ ^

rH CCN CO X' CO

t^«— I CO f-'fO^i-.CO >-« oT.

sj;i^^|SX^^52giisSii^i§iiiiiigsiiiigsiiii

^ S '^ S ?3 SJ 2 '^ S '^ ^ £2 22 i2 "^ '^ '•"^ '^ <^"^ '^^ f^ <N =c oTevr-^'^f ^-roT-*'— ■~us"io~cr c-fo"

<N CO C*^ •-< 1— t W CO c^ »o c

sC CN 05 CO CO 05 ^ I — f^ ««-««■> - — ^ i~ - . ►^ — * ^ — _

s.c.=.c,c,a..^,:.ggjo^S|^|§K|||g§g^|5gS|g||ggSK||S|g|

M* O '—I r- 1 t^ ■^ >— ( CO C^ 00

^ <Z> Oi -rf ZO ZO Oi

jgocc

; cs ro X x 'f tc 1-'^ ci c

) ^ <>5 T-H r-, CS -^ rH C

fO'^COCSi— iC^«0 OO'O'^

i:: 2 K s i2 r^~s"£ «^''<='"a"o"^.''_"'fy~cir'c --r:j;"~~(N"co'"--r

COn^^iM^ScOr^-^MCOCOfJ-^

mtpcocogrHb-ioc;co>o2:*«3««Dcocioo05CsiioccMCO'-<CJt^o«5C>)i^

■■-■'■-•■-"■-"gfS'g2"gg'gf5"2'K"g~2Vs"^"2'f;f5^"g~55^ir^^^^

COCOCMfMCO^COMCOCqTPcSe^cOCOlOC^ScN^^cJ^M

N 'O ■aD -^ f;D cn "-' — "^ ^ - ^

"^ i"^ 3! ^ ^ ^ :ii ;^ ;~ ^*- '-'^ r^ "-' r^ f'-' "■^ ^^ ^ *^ "^ "^^ "^ '-'j ^' f^ *c CO o o> i-H .—. c i:c"r--'r->.''7i'i^

. o t- '^ X; ^' c -^

. CO CJ It Q ^ „ Vj

ol c; r-

t; S — o o -; o

74

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPAKTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE,

.2 ge o .

^ b o '^ to
w 3,-! „ (i
g-S t- S o

o o

c

S

QJ

in

>

i

^S

■*!^

^ S

^s

i^o^D-^or^CiWOii— ft-io;Di-Ht>.oO'-H<N'— 'looOlO<DlO*oo■^■^OG^^■^OcClt>■

coa2'-'t--.ccod-^X'C^«Doc»oc^'— '^^c*^';Docooc^>.'^^

— - OOO'^OrHOCJ'rpi--

I-^ CO C^l OC ^ lO I- Ci t^ --I

ocr'^ooojccoooi<o-<^'^(roc^ooO'*ot^i~Hco:Doai»---i^t^F-ioOi-iooo(Noow-*

coco-^oscDioq^^oioc^oC'C^ootrfr

■^'f'^'— (C^— iC>000?O«D

_ _ .T^^cct^o^^:)0«:'-HO■--.F-^ol(^:)OcocO';D^-co^^'--|■^0'-HCccoc:■lo•**'c:o

i-H,-4'"*<-<*<C:ol>.i-HCOcC"^;CCOO-t<Cic:::OCiCSCCO

t^ r-H >o X M :

ro(NO>oocio(Ntoo<;D coyD'*ciix^i^ioor:i-cc'-c:cr

1-1 CC CSCS^C>i--t i-i CO CC-H (N T-HCOi-l r-t CS CS C^ C^ C^ CO i-i CO

t^CCOlOcC'-OiOOOit^C

- t' I^ C^l — ' M f^' C^: ■"f CO Cl CC G^' lO

• I:: * - Zt ^ t- --- i^ H;- X) ';D <o c OC'

• C" CJ O -r •— ■^ X oi i-H o lO C'^ ;o

-<^ t^ i^ Ci cC' CO CO i^ CO oc — * or. <N Tf Ci cc c^ I' QC o ;:r c: -f t - --r c-i — -r ^1 'O "O »c — c^ co^
r^ici'-o-^wt^O'— 'cooiTfio-^ooooLoc^icocoicco*. CO 3^: <^ -^r-ioco:oo-— 'X

.— tCOO'-<CO'^05M'i-(C^COuOlOC^'«1<»OCV|C^l«5COr-iC^'«4'CO'<l'COM^C^IwC<lC*^i--iU:tMCS

g.Sil

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

75

C* w 00 cs» 3C 6i ; '

)-t'*^c;rcCMWi^«c^c^'«<f

■< OC »0 C3 Ci C^ C5 00
u--. ^- -.-I s.^ — w — :^ c? !;^ •-^ X ■X CO >C C-i CO ^

loooocooiocoo^doc^oici'*

(£>;CC^(^CS<Cii05

;ot^^«-i'-<Tr;C'0

' -'T c^ re cc -^ .-i c^i -^ ci C^i O CO

— — (;c »o c* tr cv CM ITS r: r: -^

CM 1— iCS CM cc

X CM '— i;c I

»-H^lOOCli-<iOCM»-iiCOQOCO

CO i"^ cf CO c^i '^ cc c-i r-^ cm" CM -r t^

u:;»-.lOCMiOGCCMCM«-iC0 CMCM

'^Ot^'XJCiOdCO'-iCMCMCO

* CO CO CO' CM O Ci -^ ''O O I '

I'- CM cc Tt< i-« ^ I^ »

1-^ L-: >o '- CO r- c^l c: O CM :*> 1-H QC ^

- CO r-- C-:» O

3 t- CM — C)

H CO O) CM O w

iO f X '-H X '*' X CM i . . -

XCMOt^CMsDl-^'-'t'^ C.COOICOL .. _

XCO«5-^»Ot^Oi'-'tO CMrrcoOCiOCOX'^CSCOCMCMOlt^

c*C™*'c^-4'crco'o(rccr 't^^ --H^' c'r'^':cr cTo^ cTc^T t^ '-^o'c^rc^

00;DCMCOCiCO'^COXwiC'*CO<;DCl--Hi-,iC'X;OOiO»Ortfv3-»OCCCOTpcOCMCO

o CO CO CO »»^: ^ X CM 'f X »o o c

— — -- ■ J-^ O lOO ■^ Ci »o

X^10t>-t^«0C5'— <C0O'^^-t-^^00CMCMC5
l0;0'-t'-<OC0XXiO^'-*XC0CMfC'-'C0'-H

r-.c;-«^.-.coooc*it^<»X'*0'^oxt^CMt^

Tj<,-,-^-;c*!cM;oiC'^';D—*CM^

SS'

0*0 00'— 'CD*OOCM'-'COOOCOCOX<:O^C<1
r-XCDOOOlO'^OJOiCM'-H'-HCM^t— OiCi'-t
r-tO-^OiOOOCM'-'I-^lOOCOCM-OGCCO^

cM'^cM^c^fcTt--'' co'i^t>r:?"'' ■^"■i-rx''cM''»o'-H*'crr-r,-r

1-. CO <—< CM CM CM

_ __ C^CMOCiO-tX'OO'^
Ci -^ O C5 X l^ O I - — I X ^ k-O C- I'- C-1 CM
_ . ^ ^ .- ., c: -(t" CO CO lO t^ CM

r^CM o -^

1-H 00 Ci -^ - -- -

t^XCll^'^*«4''*OXiO

coeo 4"*cotm^^ ^ocoo xcoco

i-< CO CO c-i o o n o cc 'o o ^ ci ■-' ci X --O >o
icc^i--;occxo'0'^0'^xc:cMcot~"*io

O'CX'^COCOl-^t-^W'— '^OOCMOX^-HCOCO

lo'o'irTco'fo'c^*''^'*' t~ •— ' c; CO i^ t^ CO c: c: I--

t^iO^Dl-'-OOCOCOX XOCliOCOt-^Ci" *
^ ^ ^ ^ CO ^^

. en X X

o en *io o r^ CO o c: ».o . - --v

'^CO'^t^^'O'-fCMCOCMXi:--

^ X — CM "^-H X

t- X 4' c
.-HOC?:"

jOX.-->iOO:r^COC^10rI-XiJ^

COCM*'CMCMCMCMCMi-i

Ci'C'OC.'<+*i-'»CCMC<»cOO"^t^

r-^ i!5 uj ^ ,-. »-. o I *'

C^ X CM »-^ CI O »0 1

5 .-» »-. O »0 »-0 X CM *

»-"-»CMiOi-«QOt^»Or-<C^OOO

O rf I-- t^ »-< "T CI CO »0 CD X -t* '-<
l^OX'*C'JX»— COC^-H -»tfX

C-1 O »C C, C^ lO CM ,-H O C: O -^ CM

cocoi'-'^-f »-.c^.-'C--c:ciCM»o

l^I>-CMOX050»OOCsCMi-HCO

O^b^cT lO" C^T^i-^^i-^^ CO
iCOsw CM 1-H-^COi-H CO

-— 'CMClt-r^t-CMOOOC^'-'O
'tCMCOCMCJsr^t'-Clt^XCO'—'-H

; O CO --< O OS c; CM »

-— .-H lO .-I .-H

c^i X ''^ o ^<v cc

i---**r-t--cOf-HM-cCC^t^x--i"Oi

•-rOOCt-t^CMr-iCOCM'-Hl^CO

.-^OXCUOI>-^CMXC;CO»CCM

— — .r^ o TTuoxx i-tcTj

X CM rt CM r-^ 1-1 .-I

CMOOSiiOCOCO-— •CO*-^C:X--CX — C*0 — C:.-':COi— '^
XCiCMCl'^X'— <0^ X 0^t--^w;;2;^^£^'^^"t''~*^'^

O O O >-H CO CM

SSc^So^co^ ^ :
^co-— icocico'^rn'O

' lOI^O OCM X

"t'lOCOCOOCM.-HO.— lOCi

, - ri-rco''Vr^^*'o'"if:rh-"

-lOCMr-tCMr^OCOl^X o

oocot-oco c^ix-— CO Tfcoc^:

5 5 o 25 2 c: - ,

:-5 >%iJ

3 '^-i g

2 :"^- 'wg^g :-:.tc :

ti a

^ ^ o c3 .;= ^

0*"<J'0<DOO?OQOCMt»CM-«J<CO

S'r^x'cicooodoooicooio
XCOCO^Ot^iOXCCiCCMiQ

lOOCMCMt^COOSObcDi— iCOlO

CO -)• oo cc x ci id lo oj CO t^ CO

,-,CO ,-i_^CM.— »-. ,-1

OiOi-Ht^OCOi-HOit^CMI^CO

'rroi.-30'^r>^t>oicMaJo-^

CMCOCMCMCOCMCMCMCO«CMCM

cocoic-fxot^o-rosr^co
i.o I ~ CM ».o 1-t r— t CO -r i.:j r^ CM

'-OiOCOt-^OiOC^X-^f-HCOCO

Biio^CM to"r>-'"c'"oo"o'»rrco^crrx*'
r-coosoor^t^xi—OiOJ

XOiiOOCOCM-'fOOCM-rfCM

X ci c^4 <-• o ».o CI c; cj CM c; »o

CMI--OOr-'t^CCOOClI-0

i^h-oiOr-icoor^O'^ocM

CO-fi-H-rf'r^I-^OCOCMCM'rrcD

.-iiO»-H^cOXOOCMXOO

■ CO cr»-ro'"(©"u:r>o'^'-''"no'-^*'co'

OrH ^ .-( C^CM ■

CMiOCDOX'-HXOXX-fiO r-

*-'-^oc73r^»o.-iCMt--cic^»x 2

o-^uocMCit^r^ioot-^.-*^ "*

-fCi-^CiXO't'COCi co"-^ Co" to

t-*,_it---rt*cMOC^r'--rt*Tt^a:ci
CO-— <co»OLOt— t^— <CM"^:ot--
o> c*: r^ o t^ CO X CM X i-o "^ CM

.-T cTx^-H^CM*" tCr^".-r CM^^o" ^
CMO'-i'-iTrcOCM'T-^CMf-HCM

OCs-^COClt^XOi«— t-^-fiO

■^xo-T^cicor-CMuoi-<»-<':o
ocM"-ocicoiO'-*a>ooci"^

'^.-«-7*CMi>-u-;cO'^i~«rococo

CM i-ToT-^ cTx l^cTac'co'co'x'" ej

ocsc^coc^xco»oicoco-r»':'

r-H CM CM 1-1 C^I .-I i-ii-l CO .-< 1-H M *;r

76

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

.5 S?5 •=>

s ^

" c1
O— •

-a

l-OlO.-Hco■^.--!^-^0"TV^^»o:3co'-HM^•'--'C^'l^c/:M•-H

,_, ^ ,_, ,— ) CO C^ f-H i-H C^ 1— I t-H W CS CS C^ C^ 1-1 CS 1-4 1-1 r-t

C^ i-i(NC<»CM

<M<N(NCN»0»-ICO(MCOM»0'<f<-(CO'<J^CCC

J.-1COCO<NC

lO ■:o ac 1-1 fo o ro c^

iO O OO r-H (M OS CN »-"5
CSCDOsOiOO^-^CO

:ico>OG«C'Otci'-»-ot^oc<ic/:co^cscs-^cocco5-^roaiy=>cvico

cr-ooocoow^r^ocoioodi-i'— iooiOicoccoiooccc)0?Dio-^i-<iciocor^t^Tt<e<7>oai

i0'^r;O<NiOt-^C<lt^.-HC^OcC^<-<iOC0XCV|.-<00C^lO'^CN|»OC0t^C0CCt^tp.-<C0

cocoM^oo t-.r-.,-H.-iCMO»o»ocoO'5'OiCsooo:C!»oioajooio»oostoosooococooo

»o^r^cO'-'Oi i-io^-

CCOl i-lO CO 'O

c^j Tj< -t" (M 00 00 cr -----

50i005CCi-(CS.-IOO*005»OiOOiO

05»ooocoo^c:iogsr^(Nc;

.-• w 1-^ CN --4 CO

■rj4 :c r- GC' c

cG'^infC--HO«^xiocs'tji

— I -O « ^ X I

00 c<: CO ^ oi

^■^■^OtO-t^OOiCCiC^

*COCOOOt^Oi-iCO<N"*CD(NCOVDOrH(N

«:t*i^c:iuo-tt*aicoi^oc-iocs'*ccc^«3C^c^ii"-'-'0»ooo^toc3--«toxo;3:'Ococo^
t^Olo^o^-'-tccocDC^^-o^-.^>.o:oooooco■^■^-^■^OlOic:^•-ccooooalOl-J''^^Ol^^

(N (N 1-1 CS 1-H r-l CO

; Oi cot
.-I est

*Or-. ,-.,-1 ,

cot^cr:'i-t*0'rt<r-.--t't^i^'^i-i--rOL':iaiot^i— 't^'^cO'— ics»-<>ocsuo^^r--coococS50»o

' o 1-1 lO lO c/: r-~ a; Oi

T}<iO»-fOlCSt>-I>-o6iOcOasOOOlXO-fOOiOo6i00300C5'rf't-

'■4'"cs'"oc'"i-rcr»o'"tCcr-

i CO CO •-* Oi iO CS CS !>. i-t (N CC O '

■1 o lO ic --c- C5 '-' r^ X' ;o CO t>- oi i-^ »o 03

-I <M CD 1-" t^ CO CO CO »-• « ^ CO CO CS lO

O0iC0C0 0CXcOCSOOOt-0iOi-iw.-iOwc0i-'0:''*t-:C0CD(ri^wi0O00c0-t; C^iO (N

a:)00cr:5coococsc50Trxcsi— tcsTt<icoicoX'Oi':c»ooi-^*^ioXM'iot--i— iOX03X»— tQ

a:»Oi— iccoixoo-^csooiOs

iO CO ^ lO I>- i-< O CO CO o — ■

:0 OiOs CO
^ iO "-I 00

ioo^r^(M^c:cs(M-"air^'-iC:to^cor^<Mi^r^:o-r'
t:oco»ccS'-<'^'rpcoait~-i>-cst^oio»-<iOiOcsr^cso"M'

icseooco-— ^lOl^c^cDr^^-coX'>ocs1— <i— tcDiooioxciCSiOi— <cor--cscooiCiO"-t«-i*g?
jcooi^iH-rt«dcoX-<':?'Uiwt^xocscDCsocoo^cs'rT-coi-<.-<xooi^oioco-xi'^

5Xt-w^<©'-*^-^03010t-*OOl-^COt^O-*ClOlOl-^-^'— i-<^OOi»OOOI>--^XOl'--<iOCO'^

- ., . _- . c:: "O -Tf^ <N — lo X lo o o

lCS.-«^tM!MCO^ClCOCO^CO

XOCM^'tDCDr^Oi'CiMO'-'CO-^'^'
.-« W rH CO C<1 f^ C

> -t* lO X C^ X' X X '
5 CO CS CS 1-1 1-1 '

^^c3c3Srtc3c3c3

ss.

S S-^ ^ S^ S 5 P b M
S S o s q-S ataB a-3

» c3 5 g — ;=; rt didi.a >)b'S tl^S j^cGaaccjcsaao) o-s ° '-^ >i ^'S'okT "

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

77

>t--25<NQOOOOi-l"«*<iOCOCO*OX;C^l

^^^■C^.-^■Tf«OiC>OOi01-HMOlOOO^OtO■^00>Ot^05COCOOl--tOSOScOOOCCOl005^00SXl1-^010500^-.C

■I CO cc ^ »-t i-f ro ^ .-H ^ T-H

HCO .-Hr^r

HCO<-<CN ,-t (M T-iC^CO-<r

■^ O CC 00 O 00 CO 00 r^ "^ Oi ■^* O 00 i-H »0 ^ O CO CD CO •^* t^* C^ CD oi .-H >^

TrcN^coco(N(MCSco(NcO'^c^c^cocor-noc5.-(C5c^^-' ^-«-^ •;*, ^.^-i-t^-r!:.^^i^:f^>-''^^. ^'-r'se ^j .

ICOC^CO'^r-HiMC^iCCOC^COCOiO'^CMC^i-HCO-^'— i-^COCOCO

C0-**C501»COOi-0O0iC*^0iCD»O0l05»0>0».0O00Trt~-M00b»i-<iOC^0i

oocDccr'•^-^c»4U5■^^*^J.ooo^^^ocoocsuot"-^»:OQO•^.-H.-HcoO"^coT^Tr'■^■^t'^coo■^o

<OOOSiOOlO--fcO-^00-^OiOOOOOi»-i-H

-- ,,- - -- -- , — . . ^....,- ^.^TfTp'^-^^coo-^Oi— (^sci-^aCi-HC

^coTf^x•'J^t>-^oo^^'-^ocOT«coocooo^*c^)oc^^T-H^oo^-HOs050^-r-H^-coc^l'<rlOOslOcD1-HCico■^ocs^

oou'^oc'J:?o^:;o^c^t^e>Gcr^co-ocso;oco'r:l00^ot^<NcoxccotC'X■-^coaiOOwcoX'COco:D^^»ooool^

jOCNiOC^COif^C^OS-^CiOC'— ^00as00'S*lOC0'-HGCC^»C0■^^*C^.-H00.--^.-HC0C0C<I^-^l--^^OO00OOc0c01-^

OtD.-«r^C0X»-tOO.-iCSr-»O»-0 0S"^Ot^'-HC^C^-^Ot-HC^I--.i:D0iC^I~*C0C^i-(i-HC0

oco-^r-*cicscoor*r-t—

t-<cs■^«*•-HO>too^*^-rJ«colOxoilOcD»oocoQOcooiOcoco05lOl-Hoo^*r^ooot^t^6l»ooiO^-■^Tr^o^*^ccs

COC^ Oi'-HW-^C^.-t OiO"*COOC»-i -^^

i-H CO '-1 <-! lO O i-H Tp <0 00 t-i CO >— ' •-« CO -^ i-t i-H CO N CO CO OS CO

c^o^OrJ*oOlCOlO■^cococ^'-HX'0■^:Dc^CiX■GC-roO'-<^-•"<^cO'--^^^"^lOlOc^occolOt^o»o•*^--c<3'-H^. c^
C3C^QC-<t''rj<ooTj<oc^co-i't^OiC^-^cO'-ioicri»oa::rcou^c^^coOiOcoi^LT^r-HOcooccoO'0

CO■-HO^-H■TJ^ClCO«^^0"^iO^-tlO^^--OC^^1-H»O^OCOOC<^C^OGCC^CO■-Ht^COO^>■t^OOt^0 05COI>•OCV^:D':O^Oi

I—" --H oi :D X' r- 1— • oi CO c^ CI o '— '

;=:s^^

C^Oii-HCOCCfOCOX'O'— 'COC^C^Oir^iOfH^X'C^C^iO lOiOC^OOCOC^iO

CO ■n^ 1-H rr CM I— I

,_. ^^co^

rHgC.-^0i'-HCMCM.-«C0■^OCMO0iOOC^r^CMt~--alOC^■^t<0SOOCD01C0c0•--^^-CMOC^■^•--^^1-H.-'|^lr^l0■^

>oS5gccc^^1-sxc^^r-H!0'^Ci^o■^r.-H:cl^^'-'.D.-H-^O^^coos■^'-H■-t'»oocoool^■^CiOC^^^c^^O'-HM

1— t•^otDCMoccoo■^T-^■-^'-Hc;05■-r1-^^-ai^^oC"^lOOi^coocoot^c^^o■^ooc^OiC^ccol^-HalOOw'X'*--«o^

C4 00 ^ ^ ^""ip"io"co^co~ar^ t^r. -^ t:^r-^-r^c^c^c^co<>i<>i''^':o<oc^^c^c^^fS(Sco-'V irT— raTco'oo'Gc"^'"

"' i-ti-i(McO COC^CMi-trriO C^^COCsii-iCMCM

■^C^iN 1-t^ C1tJ1_,iM(Nt-i

£^^^T!i^^^coo^o^lOOiOoooofOMC^coo:lCMl(:^^c^^coc^o^cocoxcoLr^cOl^^^co^-oloolCOs^or^»oo
c^uoxcsoxrrco"^'-"'— 'coico5i>-xx-^a:ocst^TrTt'X'rt'--^or>-Or-*c;'-H[^r-H-rfO'— •c^osxiO'— ixoicC"^
iox.— CMxr^oooco■^t^o^-H,-H■^s^o^-co^-oclc:ol05cooooixr--cso^-•o^--OTJ'XL'7■-t'^ox■— tcscoio

• o><=oo!Noxiooir^':Dt^t^'Mr-^t^o^coaicotoooo

CO-iOl Ti^CM

CO-^t-^i-HiO'^COCM

CO CO i-H rr CO o »o

^-;o^oco05>^oocDO^^^oa:o■^CM'-D■^■^^o•-Hasl-H^^^-.(£>oco^»xoc<^^-Tt^xeO'-H»o^^aocoO!^

coo-jDoscocoxr-r^ioiooi'-'t^'-HU'rasr-dix

cMOXt^-vt^i-ocsi— t^»c(Mi^coiooioaitM<N-riOf-^o

l-Hcococ^ClC^c^^c^IlOC^^^-cft1-Hu^co•t'Cso^^t^»oco•J^co^»^-.osoolO■^osx.-Ht^oC'OOiot-*l^

cDioc^iociOiC^c^coon-cs-^.-'Cir^n'asascoocascMi— »oioco»0'-Hi— ih-.O'— <osc<icoxco"^'^'— <

O5-ri-HM-rj*t^;Ou^'-H5lX:CC0t-^G:C^lT-(L-^L':CMt-<C^LCC0iO.-->O--Hi-t00Xt--iOt^'-<C0CM

t^ t>. CO CO »0 CS fM

O Ol — ■ -H -^ -^ ir^ O "^3 «

< c^i c X o o iO lo Ci L': c

30t^^CO^OC;OOCOi'rPOXC^tDOO»0»0'^yD03iOX<N

'Xi-'-l't— OiCCOuOCOOC^t^lNCiOXOi-'t-^

-t^cjcor-Oii^oi^owt^cocoo-

':OX'Or-CO«DOn:DcCOX--tX'rfXX'COOXC^--i'-X^

1 -— ' CO Ci ■rf X ^H r

:r-OiOJCN)coiococ^-i'cD-^CMaiX >

'^[— X OCMC<):OCSlLOC<lcC'-HO--'Xt-*Oi-HC^)OOi:rcOiOX

CN CM CO —I CM CM .-4 CO —I CS CO i-H CM CO .-H CO CM rH

C^ T-) CM CM CO 1-1

1 CO CM .-H CM CO CM

C8 05 O.a O C^ O C3

O C ^- •:^ • 2 S, ■ ^- •

'i-'vjc3c3c3c3c^OOOO^>J^^ft-:',fi003^"'^SfiGJ'3i;t-y>-'rlr«;j«raww.*-i.-^'-4

: : ; J c J : =j ; : ^ • 5f : >■ : S

■S— .t; &=; 2-5 = 2 2 r fc^ E^^-^— '
> a a OS B ^9'5'3 5 rt d cs ©^n3"

78

BULLETIN 620, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

•ass.s

23-£

a

<tKU

S rt P

^a

'iC' c> ^r> t^ cc c^ cr:' iT) i-i cc ■r^ Oi o^ c^ <^ <^ Ci ^ CA -^ T-z --c a--. iT^-- (>'i Gi '-C' ro 'r: O) '^

_ , — , .^ .^. ^*^ _!. /-J- .^ ^1 r^, rvi -^ t^ .^ i-^ , — , ./-( — ,-*v . — rvi c(-s r*" r-i -^ CO Oi Ci C3 t-» r^ ^ C^ 'O

CI O »0 '-T' GC Tf V!' to C-1 1^' C^J '— t^ :D CC O lO CC. Oi C: (N CD

(Nr-ti005CC'^T-«0^'--'

.-I QC. 'X <N i-i CO lO CC' i-H

lOoo^^ooo■I-HlOQOoocca3C<^1-Hcct^M*c^ot'-ascicoo»o^*t^ccQCOQO'X^N^-.ooo

CSCOC^O10000--1^-^C>0»OC0tt<'^CO»OO1 'O'-H-rftTj^OiaiCOCOt^COt^'^D COO'-tt-CO

b-.-iC^OI>>OC)Ct^'*t<00t^I>C^cDCC":0O0?C0C^C0r
[^ 'cOr^Qdcdo^oif-H-^C^C^CCfN^iuScOCCTpCOCO

CC 1-1 rH lO 1-1

!OiCiCOi— tCCt^iOC^iOcolr^cO'^

-rp ooNC^<Nr^c4coo6c4oco

t^0iai00OO00!n00OCii:0'^»O':0I>00ast>.'*^C0»0Oc0'<1*i-H-Tf<3iM0S
■^COO<MCO OCOCOt^^ .-.1-lOOiOCO '-*OiCC »OCCCOCqC^COCOTt*OOOi-iCOCO
tOl^'rt^c0I>-<©i0OC0C0OG0C^I^.-HC^"0-*CC,-.CCCn»C^»-HCSc0CC(Ni-'OC0

t-- c^ oo ,2^c^ Tt<ot^-r*ioocrc:^cd>':'— •'•-c cSit^ccioc-iT— »oc^ '^Tt^i-icD

GC :o CO Ci O''' »0

.-( ^Ol .-»

C^ i.OiXiGOiOO'- 'OOOO'-i-^t-C^COGC

ro -Hi-i-Ha3GO(MTj^C:»Ot*t^h-(NOOO

:o oc^co Oi»ococoa>cocqcoooi--5Daooo

,— ,,_,i-(rfi(M»OL':iiOC^OCJiOi— iGSOJCOCiCO

t>. rf .-H Tt* ^ C- -^

T-l .-H d

Oi Ci O t— C-1 CO

Ol '^J CO to r-H (M

— lOJ'—cO'^'N T— ■r>-cO(MfOcOTt<ajb-'rroccooc^ »oc. -. ...

; CO 00 c^ LO CO ic »o c^i to

r^ c: .-I -^ -^ 'O 'O
^^ ^00 coco '^

(M ,-1 ,-( ^ ,-t CO CO

o: lo r- .— ■ -t* to o Oi -f w -* -+ -+ to to

'OCNcOOt^ t^OiOOC 0--HC^ CO i-<

^o^*c^oscoco^»coGOOcocoal^»
lOior-d'XJ-'^^cococaiO^t^t--

to l^ t- ^ l^ "

(NOcOOlGCOOCOt-^aiGOOCOiOO

t^C:C:X'C^CO-rt"rt<'^r^Ci-*ai(N »0^i-0 0
t^CO^COOlC^ lOOcOOlC^W iO(N'-0 C^C^Oi

^oo i-ioioO'^cc:^aic^cn»oco-^Q0

j-^ooococo-rr^r-icooO'— ito

r-io-^tcio-n^oiot^co lOOiooooor— ocs looococccooicoocc^cocot^oascoc

lO I O 'lOCOOOS Cr. t-*COOiCiCOCOC^COiI--t^CO':D C^C^COCDCCC^CO-^ oocsioca;^'
lO Oi Oi 00 t^ i-H O GO CO "<*^ CO 00 <- ' "" ' ^ -- "

) o t^ o c; o -

HOOtOCO^'X>COCSi-<iO--HCM.cO lO'Oi

O:i-^'rr00.— <OOyDiOCOiOt~-^OC^CO'-«'^ t-^C^OiOCiOi— iCOiOOs»OC^C^uO

aiC^'^»OGCco'Mco^Ht^ioc<ii-<oc:o ■^"^•-'•— <coTt'C^i-'-^oit^c^.— t

-'M.-HCOC^'— "^^C^C-^-^"^ CO •-•'

CO O »0 1— t T-H

icoh-QC I— <c;«oco-^ iO'-'^Hto-—-^t^cooicO'00 locooicr*-— — t-rc-1'^

OC^OOOl^'5^00O00C-l C0GCO3C0'-''-'C~^'^ r-^^t^OC^

J O 1-1 '^ Ol Q' T-l C

tot^oiO'-.oitcoc^r^ccr. ^

— . O O -— "^ r-H C OC O' lO CN.

rt^ 00 00 "* CO (

lOiMClC^JOGO-^'OCOi^-t^CC^

CS (M CO LO Ci <M M

rH T-H (M — I rl i-H

—"^ T-H (M r-. O' t

; riiCCCN^(MI^OCC:c;-

• tOi— IGO.— i-^COCOCOCQ

JS

QiT^O'i'Oit^OjO^^Oit

<»or^c^occi05co»oc^-^c

.2§

sis

•S'^^Eo

PASTUKE LAND ON FARMS.

79

t-ci "C- — r;frj^(N ^i-tOCioc- c^T-^OiooOrrccasrcoccco(NC*«-Hir5ece.

"^ ^' ^ ti 2: ^ ;t £s ^ £2 r^ ^^'^ ^ ^ £2 S SS ^ ^ ?:: *^ — "^ if <^ ^' '■'^ ^' (^^ !=^ ^ ^

15 OS iC o
- . : cc 10

OCiOcCCO-^iOOSOC^iCOSC^OSTjiOst-

crcco^t>^ooi-^'t^ocosrc:D-rt*oco6
c^»c»ocsoot^^t>-iOi-*-t<t>--riOQOOs

CO COOth CS-

IOCS.— «CCC^:Dt~-COCCOSi-H000COir

' O ■*' t-^ CC ci ^ ^ i;^ O -i c

Ci O CC iCGC b-.b-

Ol-*t«00e<IC0'-<<Dt*Q0<OO0OSQO'*t*T-H
■«^' tC C4 ' GO fC fC Tf^ -^ ^ TjJ O O CO o *

?cto»co-^c^i»oosi^cOi-*oir*iO'*oo»cr*i-'COos^c:oooioioict^ioot^

^'frosoo^oooico^t^co^t^io CcccDOcct^oocDcc<occ■^ccosolrc^oc^)r^occ^i4SyoL^c^o?oc

c^ 10-* rl

■CCOWOOCCOCCCC i-<TfiCOOl»0»0CCCC-^ClC0r-Xi

"i— ■0'^cocaC'CDoso;o-^-n*'^i-fcoco'^»OiCTpc^oiOQicq?DO''

c-i — 1~* Oi "^"o"«oN":D"«"os"«-<'io'fc'cD'cc'os'>o'cd"oc't^"^'co"Tr"oc"oc'

^-r ^ ^ c^

-H CM -^ 1-1

0 00 00

OOOIOSCCCO'OOIGCWCOOCOCO^H

cc£*CM«DQOoico5CMcDmcMc^coi-«.-iicaifOTr<coco-*

ococo ■

C0CC50 ^ CO -^ cc ■<}* 0 cc Oi -f* r^

Tj«^CO ^ ^ 0 0 05C^ -T- OC <N

5'-°

CMt^iCCMC' (Mp-y:cC»OOi»O»OC0»O r-iiOCOOS>0

16,421
52,620
12,224
42,601
51,173
3,816
9,288
121,022
25,303
36, 142
89,116

418,178
45,072
268,222
27,551
84,920
148,208

6,947

31,664

25,700

165

1,676
73,759
27,652

1,272
6 1,577

1,049
19,233
10,082
16,748
12,172
20,807
26,900

1,547

2,504
36,364
40, 298
16,047

9,112

9,828

1,379

2,955

4,068

550

OC »O0C
"OOst*

OC »0 OC Tf t^ kC O

t^ CO CO cc oc c ?c

t~*05>00'-HOI>COOiCM

XCM"^aiOiQCCiCMTjHa;'O^00

cc »Cr^ ^: c:: o

ocoo— iCMt^.— iCM O1— ic:oso>ioccc-tt*cocMCMi— «coc<

" * "■""?cocMr^oi*^ooocc:;co»orccit^cct^cc;ct^t^03c

c^cmoxco^cmSScocmcm?^

'^OCOcOOS'rfXiOCrOC^l

GO OOl»OCCfCCMO:C^CCClCC-^>OiCt^OCC

OtOC'C^-rrtOf— iiOTfi

w V. ■^^■ M_- ^ O lO CM CT; CO O
•OCOiOOS.— lOCOCO c^x 10

i-HOOfC-Tfl-HC^ia-OlZi— 'O

CMt>-CO -^f S CO CO OS 'rf X »o ;

cc c-f CO CM 1-H jc'cm'co c'cM^cToTo^CM^io'— ^cM"c^o"cc"cD*^o^^-."lo"oc'^*''cc'o"co'^u:^x"oc*

»-.C-J»p^CCC:corc^ -^i- iCM io-^co^^-hcococc^Ct^.-ico i-h 10

C^ CMi— I r-< cc-— iCMCC-— I ,— It-)

rjX oc CO 03

E.S.E Sn §-g ®?

===^ a H c o

^ 0*0

?® 255*§§ §^o3£:t^ SEi'"?^^ u: rt :

f^^^S^J

80

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

Acres in
pasture
per 100
acres in

i

Ah

O '^ ^ c* oi »0 t-^ W •-- ^' cC C: u^ --H oi C^ »0 ^ '-' CO iX* c;C (?- CC o: 1:0 TT V t^
C^lKT*i-<1«C^U7iCCt^01(N'--«-ri<iCt^Ot^'-HC^»0^OC0CCr^OcDTt'fC^
,-(.— ITJ* .-t .— ic*3C^O»-" "-H CO1— icO'-'.-hOS OSCSfH 1-h Ci

CC CO W Ci O

C^ r' l~- cr- 10 CD CO

Ci t^ -^^ O 00 T-K

Ol^^f^^jCOncOC^'-'CCOCO.-HCCr^ ■■^cOCOGOC^McDOliOGCiOOiOCC'tcO'Ct^

cy'*^OL6c;ccr^»-'::c»o-<3^'ociccdi--i ■Ni-H-^cc^c^'rrcD»coco'cct>^»C'C'"GCccao

cdt-^

■i(M^*OCCCC'^'-('-H(M

C^C^. C^N M CO C^^fC

rt ^ COCO

CCCCCDC^eC'-'"^t-OXOCt^iO"3-^

ccio<NOC*ccr^'

coccr-'t^c^c^cc cxt^to:'^'*'M'MCicr:oooc<i

Ciccict^io ect^ccccocoicoOr-*i-H-n'"^t*oct^c<ioO:c»

■^h-occic^ccccoC'CrrCvioiocc: »o ITiocoo-— 'lOCioc-r-t^c^OiCiccccc^- oicc-— 't--w

iO'-HrrCCI— COt^CMtNOiTl^OCC

^ .-^(N ""f-t

' OC' (N CC CC t

10 »OC5 >0-* CO

2t^r-. ■-(OON

CCc0C:C^'-'CS»0'-'C0r-'-^"^00C^C^IC^Oi'~»0ifCC0C^iC»C-»T'O5CCt^iO00Oi-iOc0"^rH
OCM^OiOOCCOO— (NOCO-^OCcOCO(XOCcOt^COCCiC.-'Xt^W-H'<-iCOt^O ■<T'C^t*

CO lOOCO t-4C<IC<ir— CC -H«I>»OCSt*CCCrHCOCCt^t^
OO^t^Oi-'-^CSOi'^-rOi'— iC0C0"^C0OOt*C0C5W

a;,— ,_,i— (CO o-^c^Cico-^occo-— ■ot-^ococob-t-

t^co ccxoirico'T-t'c^cc^or-c^oit^o:— 'or^

i-H Oi t^ 1— 'CO

C^ CO. CO ^i-fiOO-^CO

tC^ i-H 1-1

r-i r— cr 1— ( c

:— tTt-'X''— 't^coc-t-^Oi— "C^coc

'C^CDOJ-^OIOCOGCCJ-— --H

" CO' 0 i-< »0 CO CO

COCiCOCOOi-HOt^cor^-OcD iC^i'COQC t^CMC^GCcO

lOi— 'IVCO 10-^ iC^-X '

CO— tNCroi^CCO

Tf-M-^T-i '^l— ICOW

t^0C"^r*-^OrHGC00Tt<O"^t^
Tj'C^Ci<NGOOiO'-<CO*-<.— (TJ-CO

Oi— (McOCO^HNCOCOCOOi-iOi

coco CO CC CO
t* 1— 'CD W t--.

>0 X t^ t>- — CD Ci

lO 10 CO Tj^Tt*

CO CD ■^ lOCO
CO OOiCO t^

•^ --I t-H

>OQC CO CN CO CD ^

-^ CS CO O CO CD ^

O OC^ C^ 00 CO

-^ CO — . o — o
I— <QC r^ ''^ CO

« 1-H

o QC t^ cr. o t^ c<:

i-ocxr^X'CicO'^rx— '*ocD»ot^t^.-'Cii

<N CD CD -^ O

O'^coGCcocsr;^- — -rcDoc— (NXcooo-rrc^CNcoi-HaiCicor^coiMCscoi-H'rj'tocjoc^ai

C^COOOOC^COQCCC iCCD iCC^C0C0OiOC^asC^t0C0l>'»OC00i0ih»OCSC:"*C0*0i0C<ICl

c^a^'^c^'^'^o''-^ io"c^ r-coowioic-fiMCicS'-Hi-HuO'— '>oc;coiot^
t^c^icco»-HiCTt*o:-?'-t't^cs "Tj-ci^^'^'-HC^t-c^r-cooocicc:

C^C^^ ,-( »-i

c^cicS'-Hi-Huo— '>oc;coir:)t^or:co --Hcooot
^ -, ^ ' - c: 00 -r (M r- c

f-i(N ^CO 00 C

^ l-H LOlr-HC^CO^fMT-lr-ll-.C^

c r- CO CO CO >— I Lo o X' ^- ^H CO o c
c 'X — c; ic !N CO ^ CO • " "^ '

C". c^ococir-"^-^c;c;

- -f^ l-f 10 r-H »-H O '

CO-^Olt^OlCOOCOCO-^COOi-H

<t^,_,.— (co-^cicoi-"co--HOOXcocooco;iOTrXN

■■^t-^O'-HiOCCOCh-C-T'

COOCi-QCMtJ-OCDiOOOOi-hOO GCcOi-HCOib-MO

WI-^t^t^Oit^i-HOOcOCOCOOC lOCOCD

^-t CO 1-H ^

1-H 1-H CO f-^i-H

cscoOi-H CD CO i-H coco

OC. CO C: t^ CO' Ci r^ C: O O] 01 GC

CO o c^ (N oc I- c t- "O -r »o cc u<, ^

r^ (^1 ^- »«-. «- rv^ _, ^ ^i ^ U5 C'T' O CO

u-jw-'-^^i— iC;t--"rt*i-HC0aia:(MOlC^00QC'»0-^CCCCD0Ct'-O<M-r(

■rriOOOOC'^ uOCrcOfMt-r- C^OOcOOOC^COCOlt^t-tCCcO-— 't- r (

^ "* ~~ '-*" ""' -o. c^ CO 00 .— I CM ro h- Tf HI !^ (M (5s r^ oi 1^ CO lo .--1 i.-t; cr '

N i^j c-r I jj CN or t^ o; i>- •— t i/, CO •— '
»--,■..-......--—-. -. . . -. .01^"* 01 0(M a>l> Oi t--cD 10 Oi -. .,- .,

OC CM 10 "O CO CS r^ ^- »C 'O CO '—' Tj* O ^ r-^ CO iC r^ CD lO "* CC CO rt- O iC CO t^ UO -rti 00 O ^ O 01

COCOCOi-Oi-HCfCOCO'^'^OicO '*'friO'^(^^^'^'^'~'CSTli'"t'00rI*C0i-H»OOli-H»MrJl

;t: o ^ c ,

S o
■p E o

o >■.=

v: O oj

^ — M CC _ 'U cS .

® . ^ O t-

JSS§

PASTUEE LAND ON FARMS.

81

c^

t>» lO .— « 00 O CO ■^r

(OOOOOW.-HNO •cDC^«i00s.-(i00ic0Oi0t^M'^HC0«000t^5DC<l»-H>0CCt^O0irHO00Oi-HOai00C<IOG0i0Ot^i:0

ccifiiccoocoas^'tioo ■'^c^coxc^OlO"«J'McooooDOiOic»^^ooc^ooOl-^«^05cvDa>^-.Olu^cooo^-lOcqc^csoo.-HC^lI-Hco

Cfl(0 0'^0'^COU5'<^fOCOb-COOOOO^H.-HC^i-HOiO^HOOOO«5 0CO<©"^iOCOC^N(»0»OOscOMCVDt^COt*OOCOCOOOOOO

T?id*5'^^^^^ ''^'^ '^ ' c; CO r^ «d CO 00 "rf "5 ".-J^ioc^ 'r^oOi-HcDco * c^ c4 1-H c; >o -H ''T CO CO oD o* 00 00 -^ CO J

i-HlO ^

c^ wc^ .-hu:!

^ CO CS C^

TT ^-H CO W

iOC*^OOI^>OOlGOt-» CiTl"iOCDt'-^-OOt— r— CjWO Tji,-H.— I (OC^C^r*.-! OiC^Q0O:>C

cOOWti ^CS-

I^ TT C^ ^ O CO

-,-,..- — , ,., — .- -., — — ...--., .. „, ^. ,,_,r^^HO0CN)t^C^.— cc^^cOCDC^t—

Oi -rCM a-n-OOOOrc-^ (
^ -r t- w »D X) -H !:>- 1-H s

00 .— I c*^ 'X rH CD i-^ ai CO -n* -

OiOOtOroOcO--C^
-J TT (N CN» t-- CO r^

^al^^--r(^^-^0(M<^^cO(^^'■

y: 'OC CD en r-. iM i-O O f-H O iM r^ Cj C: (M .-< ■:

»0 t-^ »0 00 o

Oi-HCccno'^oofN— iaiotcciai.-.TOCciO(MoococDt^(M

cD~.;rCC^Ow. l--'-HOiO'J^t--C^l:D-HtMiOC-QCiOr--OJ»OOai>0

•— "1— iCOCOcDOO^H— -lO.— (-^lOt^C^IXcOOO*-*

— 4e<ifOC9cOC^irofO^-r^cviTOi^-^ aiOcrfMocoaiTrOi'^ff-^'n'— *cor-

.-<»-HCOOS»OOQt-».-liO,-t.-l0500N'n' .— t !DCD.-H.— lOOODCOCDcC':-^

ir-t CCi-H i-H U3 ,-H

(M r^,^y-i

• C^ ?^ -n* .-* C^ -^ C*1 00 CD

f-H ^ (N

l-H t^ CO

- . - <N O ^ O »00 CO(M O CD M .-I wtM t- r-4

pc^ r- ocD o toco^^cD-riOr-^o 'O cr. »oc " "

■< CT: 00 t--

_ j> c^ r- o

Ol h* r-H t^ 05

h- rr o rr* CO
— <C1 ^ C*«(M

oo»ooc^cofOi-Ht-0(Mcodooio.-»rooi
co"-^"'

> -^ -H O Oi CO

'ooCTi-frfMr^^i-Hio

— (M (N -H ^

JO-— '1— i»-'0(N^t-':coot^c^»oaiQcco-»rc^oot^ai ^

t.>ltNlAJCN«JC^<iJlC3'LJtrj"'T'Cn''T''^T'r^<— I^J<CO0C»OI

"^.-Ht^aj-^cccaoocico^oooi -rt-cocoi

CO fH CO i-H -^ F-l M CO r

• w 05 00 o r^ cT

CO o r- ^ lo ^ t

"iMClQ"^t^^O'-OiC^O-

I Oi .-« CO 00 1— I

JcOcOOcO'^fNl-'CCco^iO^OO

1-* ^ Tj- ^ (N CI Oi CS Oi 1^ 00 <N C^ C^ O: "

OOiCiOiOOOOOfNiMCO.-H-^OM'.— tOirocOC^COiO-rcOC^i-HCOCOcD

CO t>- o o c; »

00 (N —. Oi -TO

Ot-»'^ai^HCiC^oc^>c.-*05— •oiooct-o-rO'-f'rfTj*,— (oococo

fOO-^— «OC'^C;oOcOl-^'-^i-HiOcoCiCO«.OC4COn'cOOOt'-C^TfOcD

lOtCt^WO^^CT^'^CDCOOOr^iOCCC^COiO-^CO^T'ri.O'-'JiJUTr'uj.-^v'ji^

oi»ococ^co>ot--»oo>f;.— (CioioocD'Oco-r^rCTiioooc^ocoi'^cc-r

i-l C^ *-t CO CO CO CO CO »0 C^ .-( lO CO IM CO .-H .-t ,-1 CC N -^ ^ (M 1— I --r r-[ CO 1-H

TfTTi— (ODCOCOClOODr-^CTiCOOi-Tr.— tO'-Hi-(r^»-0»000-H"^aiOOOOi— «tA

oot-c^T^ocD'Xoo.-HCOc:ci>/:ociaioooiCsoooo^oa^r--Xii-;f^'S

cot^cM^HfTtononfMcomcoc^iO'OtoooiotOiOi— <cooc^Oic^r^C^ooC-H

^i- —J w. ^.^^ -J- ••^ ^^ v'j I'- ".ij tr-- vjj uj lo to O ^^ ^*" Ci T CD lO »o QC' -f ^o irt .— Tr-^— j"

^ "O OO C? 00 Ol '^ CC -r C^ LO t^ O 00 '-O ^ CO CO (N — '^ -, — -,-- -^ ^ • - --^

^.-OOO'-O^COcOtN'^t^CO

(MC^CNiOcO^COf

i-H <M.

Ol Oi t-- CO O .
»0 t^ 00 CO ■^ <
^ CO 00 CO cot

.,_-i^H»001»0t^CDC5iC^I
■" '^ "^ O O >— I CO CO O CO o- i^ 1^ (,M ,
"♦OOCO-^COOCOiOCOC^Cl

O'^'OiCO.— fC0»0C0C^>0 00cDO00CDi0C<JCOC0'n-00»0
COONCNIi-hCSi-H OICO CO ■^t^O0.-Ht--CO^(N

-HwCq N rt C^

- OOOcOOCiOO'^'^COOOOOC^i-HOOF. 0

^0lC:'^>0a:O■rt'OC01-(l0C<^l>.l-~^0 — *

■^TrcDOi-tcooiTjicDoT o co'co'"o"co"'^*"cNro^co'"co''>r't^*"r--''--r'-»r'':^*' b

OOt-* coco C0<0 OOi— I lOCOCOOC^ '^NOKN.-hS;^ o

CO CS ^ CO P*

_ . C3 GJ C3

SaafcSqS 9 S a S ^ > a,"
14576^— 18— Bull, 626-

0 0 o t;

0000

0 s*

o rt 03 » o 3

82

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

a tuo a

H g O

9 !3 °

o— '

o3S

:0 0'ai
to tc 00

5 -^ 1-H ^ o^ o --H

-co-f'-^o-HCDO-rc^O'

1-^ if^ rTi r-^ _* r-j ^^ '^ ■>* ^H ^O C: O F-i CO CO ^ i"- r^ »^ ■AJ c^j oj '.'* '-c ^— ' •-J '^ >.-;

O LO CIO IM C
^ CD »0 >0 :
00 CC CO lO C

H,-Hl^i-4-^C^C^CS»OOiC^<:oC^'-tWOi

C^ r-H Tl^ r-H

O 1-1 OlOO

GO CO oi 1-5

cr O C^ cno CiO
-r ^ 'T 3^ CO O *>!

^ CO .-<

?»OOiaiCOOC^i— <0"^i— t'OcDCOC^ICO.— I OiiO

3 * cs 1-4 r/5 -r 1-1 i-i c4 r^ CO (^ oi t— I oi »o 1-H i^" o

rt -^ h- CO CO C^ CM iM .-t CO '^

i:DI"-OOiO-t*-fOCico^O<X)»0
- — GCi-HOlC^OCSIOSCOOC''

J 00 r- r- oi o CO (M CM TT (N o »oo-^oo

O00(N»0t^QCTit0(N»0 00»0rr'r^«G0CS

^ ^ lO i-^CM

C^ O CO lO CO t^ Oi ^00 f-iCDC<lt-00COC^»OC

?b,^»0 00 Q 05000000

^ o CD cc i-c^ o

COCDI-'»OCCi-Hi-HCD05cDCft>0

^l.0i»OCO .OiOI^OOt— C^pCOjfiOtOQGC'^tOOlOi

oa^-^':D05'^iococoO'^oo .t^cD(Ncoa:t^t-<GO^

-"co'co* T— ri^""i— T-^"^ ■ ■rp'"cc'.-H CO 00 1— " t^ »0

0'T'00'JC<Nr--0>00-t'':DT-it^i-Ht;-.t^

0 CO 1— I ■^ Oi CO

t-- :D lO 05 lO

poppoc5M200co22S?":i!e=;SS;2=S^S;2SS??,"t23SS2?5?§=l

IO-^>OCOt^OiOSOGOCOGCt^CO

ai-^focco--ioooj^i— t'^yUr^tc^O'-H

SmoSc>5cq"SoKF:-,'-i<«"-H.oc6c«5wt~^^ot--t-«5-it-cO'3<^

Cfll^C^I 05 CO c

CO O >0 00 Oi

QO»-HrH 0'S<10'»^05CO 0>»0

to»OGC»ooiai'#coocoo

lO ro O O c^ cs

(^^csoofC"^ol^cDOOi^lOcoc^^^os^-^^iOC30•
t~-ocP-c^ooot~ioo>rttD'Oiot^cnc^o-ro>J3^Jijw.

5c^^^os^-^oOiO(^iO-»'^^^-»eo^H

> O O w 00 eO CO ^ 00 t^ O lO t^ Oi

cT GO^oToo'cc'co'r-^co^co ,-h M ^h t^ oo -p oo

CSJ t^ ,H •'J' (M F-t CO CO fO ^H

ijioSooioooio co<N-<(Mcoo-. c/D(M^otsc^coO'j;<^g';3-C5-;;t--005CO
co'>o'"crrco''M t^"-r~ •-H~c^"--"o"c<r-H"-T"c^rco~o"~f (^f ofo"";" t-rt^'o'c^o g? "3 S; o -T

y^ T^-Sf'O'O^H COi-H -^-^ CO ,-Ht^cOt^-t'C^C0C^CSCO'-HOlC<IO3C^G0

^lOt^^^^oo^H■^»c

t^ict^coco^^aococO'-H'^csiocfi-^oo

* " cOC^lC<lcOt^Csr~^HCit^C^CDI^

iCL'^i^irSiuScri^ooGCfooo^tNMcct^i-'-'cOfMfMcot^air^^Cit^c^cDi^

Pa5kcooot~:o^M'0!Nic^t^t^ooocot^co'raco'Ot~.OJOO«« co co co__co -<^

■ra'^'r-'cf c^"o"cD"co~'o"co~oc~co"oo"co"^-"'-^"'■rr~l•-"r--"3f ;a<"rt"i2 i^-fco m'cg'cj 5 fe J3 !2 S;

c-],-.u:ji-iHiH^Soi.-icDOt--><ococo>oioooi2'2c>«'^2'2S3';:J2SS!S2!

C-Ju? TP CO K -H w -H lO CT rH (M "fJ" lO IM >0 M lO TI< rt ^ —I CO CO CO lO XT CO <N ■*

""csiS

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

83

Ci X — I (N cc r* xi ■'- __ -. . • — ;^ ...

:2S?S

lO CO 01 «0 -H

CCt^COr*CDCOOOSOO 'CO,-(IOQON^i-hOO.— iC:cC"^OCCCOiC:OiO'— •t^i-H-^tO'-Hr-t^OOC^'^r^Tt^
25C^<^'-hOO *-^c5i-4 •CCt>^<©?DC3'^tD'<s5 'cc 't^TjioSVoioi 'c^'^cDOOtOiO 'oiiOr-icCiO '
C^ ^ffOCO • CO '^Nf-iCO COi-lNfO CO -^ --I CO CO '«** C^ coco T-4

COOGC.— lOX^Di— '•^OC^t>-00-^CD«DOO«^asOO'n'C^ C^COCS^CCi

•O t;; O O CO T^ -H CflCOO

icoic^Oi^tOCiOxt*rO'— iOi»O0ii-^to:oc^!©o 'o^o .-h x lo lO -

^xcoc^io^o^ot^ocs

•-H^QOjOcOCOXOi'^COCscOOX'^WXCOOOCOOOOK

--- -SQOSiO'-HOiC^CDOiOC^IXOX

;cO»CfOt^t^o5i-tCO(N^'«*'iOC^iOlMiOiOX^CC««O^XX'^OCc3ii^^

t-cNCpt^C^.-HC0«-iQOi03.-*X>O»0b»OS0iTr

X:0^t^i-OC»JcOXi-« CO COtN-^OX ■^XXCDX-H»/5X05t^COcD<— I

utiCD Ci "^ <N cow -ifj" O; ^ ^ »-« lO 'TT CS X' C^ CD -r CO COiQ

r^b-coOi-Hiooioco ■— i^oixxci'Tj-

m CO —< O CO »0 -TT Oi CO 00 ■ O — « -H X »o C^ D^
XcO'^iOt^-^^-'Ti-'CD •CD(NI>0<N«.0(M

coo— t^OiCD 'T w

TPt-*c:OCOCO X-^
CSJCO — t^ 1-t

. t^ rr CD 00 ?1 CS T

> — XC^— ('^r^X>OCO-^C^OiO»OCOO'

- l^ CO rf lO CO CO CO

as(Nco---rcDOt^'-iX»-< — c
X — CO t-^ (M (M CD t- -H CO — C

^CM f-H i-H

O>0■^0^*0»^0'-Hl0 •cOt^t^t^>CCOXO-^0>CCOCDOX

C^C^iO — I>-1— iCQOlCO

r^ CO X to --H X c . ,

• »ccocoo>ot^oi xcot~^or*co

1-1 1^ . w

'''^S2J?'2'^r'2;SS^^i^P^'*^^2'^^?^P<^QOCqcOO-^X^<M — OSX)(Nt^(NCOCOCS

22t:S,^'^^£t;?^S^2i5t^'-ce^S;:^^2S5t:^S'^"^£^^=^c(N5xc^ascoM

OWOcD — '0-r^OlCcolC'^:ooc^OcD'^c<l^:^^-TT•uo^co■o^^- — t^cDiciocDcoxcoXicco?i
oT— T— r>i.ocDXro:r:c^ir:i2 oTr^'io (n t>'^^co'"x'"^:Pc^cD'x"cc^o^c^'^-''r-^ct^co o(^^o'o^Tr"c^x'"^^^

Tjil^ 1-0 CcCp L- -.;j-^TPC5CDX— (MCS(N ^OCO'OC-lt^ — iOC^^&5 — K^C^ — ^CO^COCDOi

coroc^r-— •c^(N CO t-oc^ co-v — cd i-.wO — -^^ ^c^cscom-^— co

: (N Optr* S;*

?S5;^^S^SF;;:n=^^2S5S?5°:Z^:::!299:=S^t^i^90coacxMa?--?

•^Ci01t^O<NOI^TT'CDCOgj001XOiO'n'X'C0005c5i— tTf-rrTj-iOX

- ,— ( iC uO O

TjToo" co'ic' Tr"(N" :

C^ ^ -^ CO

Ol o O "^ I-H Ol -^
" X*" C^^C^" t-o" ^^ C^~ ctT o" CD*"

' -!p »-. CO i>- CD o (M cq X

■^c^xcoos-^xc^oio

wt^iocoo-^cococoociaitoc^ob — cocscocD
p CO .-> io'"co"'»o x~'co''uo oTt^x'^x'"

— xcDCsc^cs— ' — r^ — coxr

■J^ — t^XtN-^iOOXcDXit^Cq— lOOl-

t"-oiaicicsic,-.r-.c^t^t^coaicooi-«(MiMoocodicoc

- ■--r r^ t^ CO oi

fCiCC^iCOcDXI^X— 'O— .>COCOOiOOOcDl~*i-<iNf>)COuO'^XiOXcD — — — COOJ-^OlX— -C

05r^cDCOCXr:'^CD(NXcOp-TOCSWiOO»CCOCO-rXClc4^;OiO»ON — SoSSi^«^oo^

CD -V CO ■^t^CSlTT'^ CO CO rr CS C: »0 w .-H C^ XCDCO '<*' -^ rH — ^rroOCO-^CO'^CD^M^C^I^'^''

ccSmcq

? c3 03 CJ '

Sfl-S

§ S 2-n >»c.a>rf g o.c3rt.c3.c3 ox: ^,S; :=:.:=; 3: ,S.SGo g § 9->

84

BULLETIN 626, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGBICULTUKE.

O «Q CI .

^"^ t- £ 2

O d Q h ^

<)ftftrt ^

1=1 PJ«

<3 S

^B

I- 05 1-- cr. o r- QO oi >o o M t- ^ c^ 05 ^ OS

CT>03 -frOGOCO-X!l-^-+OOOC^OOiOI^t^^ODO
NO ^ -rr W ;0 C^i-H ^ Cq ^ GC <M ^ ^ (M N

-o>nc*^cot— iocct^'^cooiOfOi-it^t>-h-oo
*oib-^*-H<^5>or^c4oaJ'^OiOair^o»o^co

CS CS CO ^ C4 C^ --I T-HCS^T-I COCSCM CSCC CS C^ CO i-H i-i<M (N

CCO:OOQOCOt^t^'MOOOiait^OCO'--ii

OrO-r-rtHC^GOr^OfC-^Tj'OOSt-COO'— lOiO'-^OOCSOC^X)

tM-roOicoidOGOfNi-ii-iocieo^c^T-HC^c^iooicio^-cooi^

O O <N 00 (N -*- t- t

CO^OCO»0»O^C^h-iO'-100M

■ -roi^»oooc^t^OGOoooo'^aiaaco:cioo

J-^COO-^fM^COOO^-C^r-lCVI

ooocsco^oioooi'OfO'^asor^to^ocococot^Oi-iiocooMO

•OC^It^OOOOi-l^COOiOi-'TranCOOiOt^'rt-COOiC^OOCOOOtOI--
CCi^-f^:00:0(NCSCO-wt~C". OOiiOOCOCOOOO^t^I--N'-*tO

.— iTt*01iOCCiCO"^f »0C^C9OC^:CC0C0Q0OOC^'OO00l'--*r-
(N »0 CC 1— I CS <-i CO «0 -^ r-» o: CM C^ (N r-i -^ .-i CO

•^ CO Co C5 h- e^ Oi '^t^o Oi^^oor-(ifi -^^ i- Oi -^»o CO f-. oi ^ "^

lO o ^ ^^'— I »o "to o CO ^ "^00 »-H^T-icooi>-.<tooo©^'+'CS':o

1 CO i^ 1^ »o r^ Oi CO

1 GC OC CM CO -<t* Oi CO

oo—iGC'-oo-roocci'MO— 'cc-x'oox

iO -H (M CO O "O '-0 "

> 00 Oi Oi <N t- C; O

u0':0-^-^OaiC0i— iCMTfOOCO'+'OOuOCOO

oT co' co"oo">/:ri-H"'^r^'-

.-t i-H cOiO --1

QOOiot^o^coiMLO'j^i^O'+'fMOOc^coaioo^cr:. O'-oroor-
cocSo'-t^wr-foaiO'^i-tt^co-^coococsaitMCMO'-HcoiO'orc

'-C Oi CI 00 C^ f-i CO lO -^ ■— I t- CI lO O O O <— I I--. OS r- lO O O C^ Oi CC' 'X'

CO(NCMOt^O^O (N.-H^ooO'-HOOOi-tOOCO-rcor^r-OO

"^ Xt 1-H CO 'M CO C

♦ lOtO 00 t- <N-t-OiC(M:C-1-i-<

go cjs cc* ci 'Tf o o o c^ c oc^ r •- —' -^ ^ o ■-C' c^ t^ cC' I- I-- ■* CO cs ^
QOi-iOOr^OOtNCMCCOCwCOOcOOCO^C^-TiOi-OCM^^Tt^-r-
CS CI 00 OJ -^ O O n' O •-' CC i-O '" Ol 1— ' 'C -^ Ci O ■— ' d -— < CO '— < lO I-H t^

•— iCiOOcOt^'-HO'^ClC^'Mr-C^O'— <O-^C0b--fQ0C0'— <r-QOO0C5

^ ooo cocs^

.-H?0»-Q OCOCM^tNCOCM

oioocor-oococ^t^-^cot>-occicsCMr-.— ic^iSc^csi^cocot-Ci

._ . __ . *, __ ._ o --O Oi t-CO lO CO (^ ^ 00 I--.-' O

^tOCSt— t-COOCOOt--OCM^CO

00 QO O »0 lO O

- 00 C^ ,C I^ CM ■«

ci^i-iocMi--cr-ooiot^ococ

iOCO-t^'^t^OCiCMOCOO-+''.^»OiC'CiaiOO'— iC^i— iOOC^-f-t*Oi— '00
■^-roSOC^CliOOOOOCMtOCSlN-^'-O-^-— C^OGCOOCO>COCO'-t"

.-H ^ C^i-< C^

3 S 93 « d 05 »

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

85

w lO ^ rr Q »o r* <-i « 00 h* O c^ (N oo

STfoasOJO-^or^oc^ooorr"

CO.-ft^^rT'CSt^'-HOrOOiOMCS

C^OOO»OiO '^lOOOOiO^CN

co'cc '-^" c*r c^r ofc'O^ t^ od" -^ re" .-T -^"^ cs

jfcr^iocsoi cmcsgoo:ci»cc

i-HOcc:/)foo»o»o^cO"^iOCMcn oi

O-— '■VX^Oi'-HOOCsCtJrj-M'I'-iM IcO

CO -^ r^ »o c^ -^ --C oi :c as ic --^ cs i lo

OiCOsOOlOOCOfC^X-^iCC^fC i 30

ro :c CO — X' cc

■'Oror-r^'-HtooiGO;ct-a>oi"0
cc" <-r^po"t^cror o"o" o"'o''rCco" cs"

lO <N CO CO CS C^ CS '^ OQ CNJ .-H (N

'^ u*. Oj ^ CC lO .-I lO LO »C CO Oi Cfl c^ I ^
C — <:o^<MCO.-(OXXOl^Oa-. 1^

co^i- ^'^ro'-^oTco'io'i-ror-.cf-"^" 1 i*'

t-^ cj; X CO — » ^ ^ -f 05 (M r>- X X'

■^ o: r- I- lO CO cs -t^ :c c; X o: CO ■—
0X0*^050:000^X0)1-^ CO

c^i-Ti-o io*"ar.-r-^co'»o"i-ro'^»o"co"r^

-T*'OXO:C^CStNiriOOC^XXC^

^O^ci:wi:^iCX't'0:C:00:M t-
c^^c^n"^-Ol^-^'-•-"COO'r'7•o-H (*

— X0i»Ot-*t^t^ir4^C0»-0O'TO

OOcor--co^Hdco»or-c^OiOiX
n- — I-- oi -^ o Tf —t o t^ -t> -^ X CO

-^ CS CO CS i-H CO M -^ CO Tf CO CO o

< ra u o ti fti o hj V

S—

i-gfi^

P rt ij '^ TS -a
o~ ;£ c a

- OS c^ -^ o X -r t

1 o c^ >o :

. XCONC^^COTTOi^b-OOs^XC^I-*

P ^ ?::r ^ — ^ '-^ '~ c^ ^-j •-< c*^ co *o co o

ft^rt<0'*OX(N'-««f5 0C^'^0>t
5 OJ CO (N -^ lO (N ^' 1-^ ^ X* -O T-H O C

(N C^l CS C^ CS iM rH f-H ^ CO r-it-iCOC^CO

CiOiOCOXCOi-HCOO>XOr^XCOt-tt^r-COC^-Tfi-ti— tXi-<

OOX"-l^COXO'--ic^T-*iO-r:0'-HiOOcicOc4t^l"^rO»Or-
CC<N?0^.-Hr-i^-^,-H(M^<N»-«»-H^CS^<MC^.-«^ri^^C^

^, ^oiO'— «.— iT}<xiow:)TfX'^ooxr^c*ic^r--X'— '.— II—

CO Xi— iiO-^XC^C^OiCDiOiOiO-TO'— 'CSOi>— «cOO-r'^ CO
»OCOt— COt-';OCSOiO»OC^UDOiXt-»<Mr--Xi— i»0--C-— "Ot*

»^ lO X o t- orr^x*"orc^-^-ir,-H"'3rGC^r-^-.c"i^c^co"'-r»irrto'

oo iOCOrO(NCOX(NXOt-OOJOOC^)iOXC<ICMiCI-

^ CN CO o «o O O I- o o. c^ «

i-O CO O 'O CO IM Oi OS "O o o

- ---Ci 0(N-r CO

O I^ i-O *0 00

roTc^cTcvrorc^M'iCt-ro'io'io'co* u^c^Tcs" cT

, .r-^^0i»-'»oor-oo;c^ci^"0 0^
oot-ooxo'-TroaicO'— "Ocoosc^'-Hoo

0 1-»^OXOlOiOiOO'^OSt^XC<10iO

-O CO O C^»iO

coo «i~<0 0 0^0^'*»00s O'O. CNt^COC^C^O^'-'

CO i-< CS iC •-» 1— « ,-H uo .-ICO

C^<N —I

rpiOiOOXi— •i-iOt^r^-tCMi— <»OXXt— >— <r^XOiC0Oi«-H

r-<.-(t--.oo'^ocooicstocoX'-i't*'3'coxeoi--— ii-Hi-x

Ol^0:0(-^^M'Tji(Mt-X»0OCN»0OC^r^OO"^t-'^t-

co"'-*' "^ i-^Tco'^co^co^qf o'"co"o"--rrcTi-rQrr-i-"c^r^c^»rrTjrc:f .uT'af^

COC^CS^^ ^'

t-t^(N»cico":)0^cot-oo»Oi— i-"C^co^-oo-fi-'CS

WOi^^OtOCNX-OXl-^OiO^CmO-f-fOrpt-^TfiOO^ •

iCCOXl--^C0 01XOC^COC^|-*OC^iOXOiOi-i-rj^C<»CSi-' '^

lOO— 'OC^COO'-^Cl-rTt-OOi-^^OiOiOiiOCO
i-<-TqCOCOI--i-<OS<NOCO'^»Oi-htPtI'tJ'X CO

CNCO C

C^C0i0'-*O(N(N'*C0C0i-0aiOX'

f-.-roo-fi--cc*'3t^i--'-'Xiooi .-

■Tpt-ioX'-HcO'— <oicoxiooco>oxait^ox»cot-»

,,.. -_ _. .Hooaioxioocox

f^-t'00-fl--CC»f3t^l--'-'XiOOOXCOCOOOCSTit— 00

Ot-.fOr^X— <I>.(NO0iI:^C^!NOOi0t-»0^i

00 i-tc^Tpc^oi— <o;cs■^•rcsTflOOOl-*■^co■

x•-'OOCscO'-•c^Ci'-'Ocooo:»oolOs-rc:1— "C^Otor^
coOiOO'ri'-'^-f-n"-'r-oc^t-^'— •fOoiOi-T'C^ro-rc^co

»CrrOOOCOCOl-^i-'t--OOiOCOXt-C^»'OiOC^t^>— 'lOOi
_? Xi «0 1 - Oi CO CM CO O; X Cr. X r - O X X' O X' O X ^

^^c^i^cof-t-t^i-ti-ic^^cscsroc^ c^.-i^ c^

XX O Xi «

L i3 ^^ J

5 fl

cCrt-g-^o

C3 c3

oii^saaft3c3a)i2oC33cjgSj343J3i223

86

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

fl

£S

0

o

1

R, 03 O

p a £

« b o

<1^

■a p.
c £

M

^S

^Q0<D'<**OCCCQ*0CCOOr^C0t-*OI^«C0CD-^O(N'^C00>Ot^C0C*^C0T-it^C0

0"^^OCSCiOOOt^"*»OCSCO':t^<NO'*C40C*^'--<01000COC^CO'^'OOCOiOOli-i'ri-05'<**
Cs^^^C^c^ C^ <>) C^ CM CO .-I f-i CO -^ CO — I 1-H ,-H .-4 CO —i r-(Wi-( W^C^^CO .-I

i0Q00iO05OO0000(MC5OC0^CM»0Cr-OCrjCC^r

a: -1" O: GC O 00 t?^ CO ^^* 1-^ [--^ 1"^ CO oi ^ -^ CO --H CS iC X* c
1— ii-(i— icOC^<M(NCN»^CSCO«-i(M'-'IM(MC<»C^CSCS«-H

-co»ot^coco.-<csciooO'^<;oo-«tc^
CM^r-HCMc^c^csco^i-HC^roT-iM

CO CO — C: ^ CS ^ C^ -r CS O CO (N ^ O O ^ CS »0 (M lO I-^ a; t- O <— I i-O i-H
-7'^:r;OGi-0'rl-COl-CNi.O<N05-rOOCOOCCSC^-1^'-«iOCC<X'CO»O^CO

l^OCMCO<:^a:CS^^GOOi-H- ^' — -. — ^

H t- t^ CO Ol O C<» I

? O CO --H -^ X) CS '

CO O -^ CO Oi O '-^ '-C lO C- <0

uTJiOt^OOCOOOl'-'CSuOC^OCiOiCOCCOi't'OliOCMCCCO^I^tOiOiO'-iCOOOTt'O-^C^'^J^
OlOir- CiOCS'^OiOiCOCT)I-^OGOi-iCSiOCS**'<i;iOr-<Oi'^OiTj'QOCOrHt^CO'*'t^CStO'*

ocico»ooor-i— tr-aiW"^"^iocccoi-Haio»-<oioi->-icX)-^icc^F-iocot^-t'cio*iooi

CCXr^OiOCi^COI--OlOCOGO'^C^t— d'^O^t-^-fiOOOI-^OXlOOCC't-COCSCOOC^OCO
.-HCS-n't-*"^OOQ0M'<:O::^t--wC0OGCX)G0C0i0'wOr^rt-t^Ol-^G000t^:0-^'t'-^C0rt<

co" --r CO cJ"o c^c^o'tt'co^cnTco^co^co' GC^c^i-T'iarcvrfN' cr.-rr-r i-o'ijo'co"^ co"

^OOOl-^CMI^OOiOOOt-O^,

cooi^ojiooioioic^occoi-roooi-^

O'XiOrp^»Ot-HiOC0»0CMO-^i00Ji— iC^O'-H'-fOC^Ot^C^OiCi'— I.— iiOiOC^GOCOOi
C0^OI>-'^O'-'O0lTrO"^wOC0'**t^O^a''rfQ0J0Ow^0iOf0O»0OC0OCC'

t"-OiCor^c^r^cot^'*GCCS'— c>^CMc;cxcoa5»ocsicococ^o*;:c

^ 1— t ^ (N'*i— ' '-' 1— I CO '^ C^ r-H 1-H f-< ,-. .-H t-H

' C^ X •-< CO "^

t';c<:coc^'— t'-Hair-coo-^cococo-fcot— OQO-»T't00o--«coi^roOfXCSOi'-«cOt-Hco

Ol <-' ^ X CO CO C _

, COXl^X-rl--rfX»CCN^'XC^OiO(NiOXCO-TiOX'-,

;cMor-'OGccooOi-HCsioO'— 'Oir-'*'a:'^cocoxo-n''*rr^'j'

o"'-^;^<--rcr-i^"^orQd^Tjrorco"ii7rv""T^'-H"»o"od"o c^ x c- --r rt^ »o o c^oi t^ t^io oT ioi-t

.-I (M ^ I>. WCOCO X C^ f-H r-l rt lO --H i-H Tj<

OCOX01(N»00»-H'^C^-^'^C^t^t*XOXi^DOCMC^OXC^'— «i--<OC^OTfMcOOiO
X0>Tf-HX'^Q0.—tCl».0 0i»-iC0'-<l-*O»0C0OOOX-7'''*-^--nnf'~' --•--'■*' »^'^^^'-''

00 X i-H t-* o L':i c

OS'-'^CMO'^'^-^XCOOi'^CO'-HO'-HCih-'COt^CMQOO'^'-iO-^C^iO.-HO'-ftNOlOJOi
■-iro"'r"cO^Cr40'r^crco'x'"r^-^'-H*"tc'crt- ZCO:/ -^iD tO'-jCiCOXOOO'-'-^COO^X-— < (M''io'

Ji-tCO CO-^COXCOXOrf*'— itMOiCOCOCO

-o -w :o ^ en CO X

CO 1-H 040 t-H CS

CO CS I^ CO lO CM »o

uOCOCit— tOOO'-'W^OXiXCMOi^Ot^t-OCO^^^O-^'— i*^OCM'^C0OX)0i»0;^l^:0i-H

':ccMOcocMOco»ooco»oX'— ^co^-■^I•^lOTJ^oc»c^u^CMoO"^^^■— 'Tt<ocMoo'-c^-.oo

l-| ai N r^ o -^ »o

Ci»0(NI^-t''— 'O-t-'OXOClOOXXl^'^X'— <'

CO'-HiO cO'OOliOC^XXCSCOCStOCSCOOiOtM'^i-i'^rtCMCMfMr-iiOO'^CO'*^':©^

■-J'CiC0i0aii0C^00'^CMt^C;C0"^C0i-0I-C0'-2c0t~-C0OCiCM'i*OO-*Tt*O'^»C»0CMl-*

CMc:i-'-HOiaiXCM»ccMCMCMcotoT-'CMaii-cocMcsai02coocM-fQOiOcot^cooocMO>

_^ _-./», /-^ ./-v .-^ ,—, . 1?^ .^ I »4i »-._ ^ rrf", »r», r-^ -*! T-j r--_ ^r^ ro rri *+i rri ^^ rsi oTi ir>*i r-* riTi PTi ("ri PSI prt r^

'lOoitOoiO'— •ioir:n-Hrj't--.-HXtc

!Ccoas-*rcO'Ti"CMooco^-cocoxcMcoco

CSO'^Xrt'OCSI^'— ^O'iCCOCOXI-^XX'
OCO^*— '■^T'C-.'XCO'O'-H-t'-t*.— i'--fiOXCMO:i'

1-H .-H CM .— I i-H CO CM rH '^ CM i-t T-« T-H IM i-H rf (

■* ^ ^ a: »0 lO » - _ ,
i.-. CM^ r-i —.,-..-.

; lO OO CO CM c:

CMCOCM!Mi-l

;55

C3 C3-2

C^^ Oi
S C3 0)

= >;§

o ^'qj S-3 S S S txo) s s c c g o

■a -S s S -^ -^ 'W

O O 3 =3£ «;2

PASTURE LAND ON PaSMS.

87

^ cc oi i-H c5 X r^ cs :x ic o o ^* cc t^ 00 c^ c^' o^ c^* *■ :^* <>i i-H -r X ct ^^

O <OiOi-H lO »0 OO Oi ^ lO ^ 00 .-H W ^-^ CC n Oit^CO '<?«CO O i-iO5C^<MCC00 ^OC^ lO^X 'tj*
W ^H ,— ifH »— iC^C^ CS»— ICS I— ( C^i— It— li— t»-Ht— 1

r-'rricxcmNCM'^O^ccX'Cs^icxcc^o

lO C^ (M »0 C^ t

-^ rH .-» CJ C4 C^ C^I r-t CN i-i lO -ff* *0 C^ N C* -<r C* C^ -^ i-t CH tJ^ CC

3 f CS ^Ol »0

•^CCC4CC"C^c6i-H

OOCOIO

c^-«*'fc050ocooccccccNccc*'*.-<.--:C'Ci<-<fOi-MaiOioa^MOcocooii-it-o:rcr*^c^r--cio

S'i-Hi>^c^occocr>^»oc;a:cst-^x'ccr^r-^c^cc^oJu':o5oiGCt^ai'^a^>-^co-^cDo^

CC 1* lO o

-'J' W CO
1-HCC lO

_., — . , _l^-lO»0!r:^■T^c.-<T^^-.^*■^oocolOC^«DTJ'cc■^occoco

r*oc*JoocfloCf-toc:ccccDC^t>-or-.-iQCoiO'<r.-<CTi-^r*r^coiOccccoo^-oicci-tOfCOicftc;oo

051CCCC4 CCiO'J'

CT; — . C ■'T "^ f^ "^ t

r*c^r-oo»crc»coc

Oi lO CO c: X --^ ^ "^ - — -

cco^c^o■^ococo-^'lOt^^t^r^cc^'--t^■<^tcr^xcc■^»o»ot^cc^<^^cotNo^cr^^:^(^^t^t^

o

CO -<^.-(.-H.-^«<Ntoc:C;«cs.-. c^-,c n"-. -,Ci^cC'»--H-j;x-rc<irOrt.-.-t'« o«rt-a>

25,290

1,155

18,027

3,573

4,512

1,201

6,085

29,913

9,754

6,728

26,584

43,374

20, 195

21,785

4,335

3,471

16, 150

5,836

7,567

3,614

11,902

13,762

18,965

35,285

15,594

12,771

29,781

5,982

17,826

15,624

3,750

13,360

28, 284

7,118

4, 436

22,714

3,020

6,553

11,786

4,282

ZD lO

59, 120

684

9,428

2,366

716

906

6,506

6,515

30,661

25,275

20, 764

13,809

4,806

3,319

2, 000

300

33, 473

57, 458

67,718

2,396

19, 483

41,418

72, 952

52,384

66, 583

39, 799

51,921

853

13,867

14,071

1,002

2,164

69, 594

25, 480

844

72, 131

9,612

17,408

83,356

2,071

X

"^^fJS

'^S

JttO OJO

:o>ioiocD locct^x.— lOt-t

^-OlCi■^cO'rcoo^^cr;x•^J'C^CT'OiC*^^*^-co^— icccicct^cot^.— ir^c^csX"

C^iCO'^ C"Ci'^':D »0'^.-'CC--HiOOi«-'CCI

r- X ro Cl f^ CO c: CI

f^!OOC^JOii^^fCco^Ct-*csG»:^.-H'^iOccOi-icjiaicor^'<^c^6c^Duoc:occcHXc^ixc;0'T

C^!C ^CCX .-i'U::cCXO(M-^C^)CCC^ar:(NC^^^X^

CC' fC CS iC O c

i^CCCSiClMC-C^'^O

TriO'^'-<»o^csc^"^^»cccc*cc-^-^-^ccccwccK'n''^i:cx-^xccc^ccto-^cc xcsc^iO"-!

Ht^CK^C .-<CCC— <^C^X lOC. N-^J'OC^

,.,_ , -:^"^<—'OOi;cc^rcXc-:CiOcC"^'~~» ••-'*'

rc^fx-^^o:;

as .-• CI CO r^ .— I ■■

: ooxr^CiX»o-^<

rcwot^co w^'^r*^

irj*io.-iCT>t^ir:iXcstio

cc^o*oa;c;j »oo»-hc^ .— •ccs<^:a;csO'-'cO"^ i-HCOfCiocc»-«Xfct^<-tio c<ro''o'''-r^

P.B

S^

« a o '

e! 3 S
J2J3 O

'23

t: a 73 .ti = C C u T! S c3 .- o o

o Pi Ph CL, &H CL, Pi fc Pi Pi K p^ K s ;

^■s

'•Se

w o

P2 c- o

1^

Iris

88

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGBICULTUEE.

-56

i

^■«

Hi

03

gsl

p.

£

o

o jBo a

tH C« t- ^

O C3 O t"

^a

tocc o c^ 1^ oi

Ol M T-H t--. !>. Oi

c/ ai '^d o o cc

•^ »-hC<1 OO t--

t— 05 '— t Oi »0 1-H
(N l>- CO i-f CC (N

^S c'2 ■=''3 o g ^

■<r<NGC-«}!c^':dcd':DOr4t>^^'^(0.-Ho5od
lO ^<>i CO ^ ^ ao ao &> t>- i~t <:0 t-"^ (>t-^ tr^

C^»Oi-tCOCOC^-*C^iOC^'*C^iOi-iCN'<J'CO
05.— I.— t"rI<CS"^COi— I'Tfr-lOSCO'— '-^lOiOOO

tC^r^iot^cDr^^-»i*iO(N.coaico-ioio

CCC^CO'-hCSi— iC^CO'-tfC'— (COC^CCN c^

■<fOi'*cO"*cOiCCOC^»OiOa3dcDaOC**i-i

ioc:tooo»o.-.co»ccs»iot^cc loaocci-Hr*

rrtocDOi-tr^(N(Nr-ir

^ 02 00 O O lOC^

i-H CS T-H -

fCfO.-iCOGC^CC>t^t-*r>-OC10C»->ccOOQO
GCtOf'TCOCC-^GCaJfMOl'COiC^i-'iOC^t-

Ci2CC<l^CS M'CO^'^ CD ■* CO i-t

>cor>--*t^CT.GC»-iot-t^iMaiOuooo

; lOcOCO »OCOCO»0»-H.-H0i0»0i— "COOCO
■<CS'*O5GO-^t^COOi0Ot>-"^O3GCi— <CCGO

. . -- . . , .-< -* CS .-* Ol Oi ^

•GC'COC^oCi iC01-rt<Cli-4':0 "^■COOcO

01 »-< CO r-l

.-i^fOOCOCScDCOCOOS.-Haii-'CCOO^^

c^CiOw:i?oo5ocoOit^cooTr«io»-i'^05
c:oc^cooi-ioC'Obiot^'<j-t-.toor-Hr-Hio

h* -rf O CO OC' . . - _ . , .

occ^i>-ocooico«-tOi— «coo>ocoaiooos

oOi-toi-rffoc^jcO'^r^G

_ , . _- CO «-t O 1— « CO 0> O CO Ol G

o-«}^'-Hiot^co»r5oococDcoa>t>-'

i-rcrco'^co""»-ro*'co''t^ lo^oTco'cT •-rco*"oo'"iN''cr

r-Tfosr-f^r-iTrOii— •■-J',— ic^05i-H co

■^010CCOC^05iC»OGCOGC(OC7"-ai»0'^

03 Oi O 'f C^ C^ CO

CiC »OCj

. CO^'^l^fh-OC'-HOO

.-Hco^t^i-Hcoc; CO 1-1

<^-*1CCOQ33oaPlfeP^OOh22^?taj

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

89

lOQO lO'-^OOi-^CCCCDCOiOC^fOoicC'^fOi-HCCOCOi

i-HCNi-H.-hCC'— i»-««-''-ti— COfHi— iCCi-l.-«

-.-, — ,., ^ , , , -.,.-«. w. . - ^ -^^ ^ Oi -r^

:; M t^ ^ t-- c^ cc ' looc oto ^c^co "

t^ ^t c^ -<*< '06 c5

OJ-r- ^X) C c

CN» cc cc t^ ^ c^ ^(N ^M ^r^oico ro c^ .-H ^

Oi-^Cit^-^^OCOC , , ,. __

OCS iOt^C^(NcD00(Nl^aiC

•-H ^ CC <-l IM r-l 1-1 (N

fcO c rr — 1 cr, '^ r- '

■ oc CM fC c ^ "

C<iO^C^OOCcCC^O<NQOwOCOCiC-roaiI^cO ^
CCOOit-*.— iCNC0OCi>-i^-rCC^C0i0Tccai--*<cDW

c*CN,c--t-o^(MCir-^<:r:cc»*ooccqf-t^C3C

•«»< CD cc ^ O"

i-.-j-tocD — "C^.-joccMiocqccTfccc^

: 5 C3 r^

S S /<! .2 0

■§ ?^ n'^ n- ,5 .^ .-^ ,5 ,e^ £ 5? t^ t» t; ^

X a> r- " "'■^ -^

— — 5.i .-^ C3 r^ -^ *-; Pi )_1 "^ *:> b» b> ^ I.

,< O P^ Ph 02 ai cc w «i oQ ^ r^ "^ '^ '^

OU5'^C>0«-iC^i-H'-5<t*oOOOC^»-tGOi-HOOO>CCiOC^C^iO

'^*oeocDt^o«t^<Nai'4^r^W'*a'ccoioo^'5iNclcr--

C4 i-« 1-t CO C^ C^ .— I 1-H i-H CO »-< »-< CO

»CC^ COCSiMC^^iOC^-^COCOCSCO'-H-^Tj'C^CN-S.-H

ioiooco«o-f-t*oofoCi»oio<-H:^occcO'^ oot-*';©^
— ^ CO r^ Ci CO lO •— " o r* M* r^ c^ GO cc -^ CO t^ ■*!' ■Tji Tjl to CO

t^ ■—<■-**-*• "-r'eococ^Cit*rf--t<-rf_i-,iO»oc^'^:o»r:oi

1— I C^ t> CC -^ -^ C^ .-H C^ I- -^ CC' O Pi "^ CO CS '-^ oc lO -— I '^

cocoo5C^ooa>cso50;ooii--t'.5<a>CTCiO"^oit-oi

iCiO:CC0C^t-I--iC»OtOI---H-^5-4-3^^Oji-^^''^*-i

c^-^p^oiocC'.-'O'Xcofor^X'CccO'^xot^^cs
^ ^ cs t^ cs t-^ M* »-i 1.0 »o r-- Oi t^ -r r^ LO CO — 'O i-H 00 Tt<
oot^'^occocS'-«c^»oi'-f-i-caiOiCsco»ooj-wf-<oo

SC^CSOt^OiC^iO^CSiOiOOCOt

'Tp 10 CO o 00 CO r^ QC. <

OOOOi-HCOCOCOCSC

: •-* CO 00 00 o ** -

•^ CO Ci -^ CO t- I

JiOOOl^-'i-i'^OliOOcOGOOO

1-HCOC^ CS w ^ ^ ,

'^CO»0"*eO — OlOi-fCOQO'^CCC^CO'C^-J'COM'iOO

lOOcooo.-HiXi'j'oC'-^or^'-HOjco'-^^oco^ — f-"00

SOOOt-*CO'^'*t^»OOC

' CS M t- .-( (C CO to ■-*<

I '^i 00 O CO

r i>i" tC oT r^' to" CN o"

C^ iM 00 C<I -^ Oi C^

Oi^fOiO— OCiOOCO— ■C^COOCOiO!N--CX>OC^-^

»o:coi»oc>iiOwr*oo»oiOwCsc^t^Q'-Ha>-fcoa>
CM:ct^:oo»oaioor^»-iQocsoico'o-^ocoooioa>

lO lO lO CO C^-~S'cOC^ic^^C^'~^iOTO-^t^0^iOintf^tCc^

oco oc--tco-r'-Hi-ic^cz:i*ooo^HTr-oc^cot-*'^co

■^•rc0C^>-<01i0i0C0'M0>C0C^Or-01G0 0C' — dOOJ

cocooi-t'Osai-fooo'fcoc^-^ —•loo-^oooo*

OC^IOCSiOaiOCCOC^COOOOGCiOt-^*fCTtCOC^"^OiOO

CO* oT to' ^ r-T I- ^^ r-' ^' t^ co' — " o^ t^ to* m-' cs'cT 'o ci w '*"

"^— ■«-ttO'-HCOC0'— tCOCSCOC^tOtOi-HCO'^COOOCO'V

OOOi-HCOC^t^COC^C^OiO^Oii-'C^lOStOO'-OC^COC^
1— <.— i'_:oo'-.:;f— tcoojco-^ — I— "GCr^Ci— co-^ocoioo
CDCS0O-— iM'tooooirH'^.-H"'*!— tc^GOoot-r^Tt<i-ioo
o oTgo lo CM oi^Oi*co'r^'o*co oo''o'"r-'"^c odi-^-TjTo cs^co'i-T

O'OQO^-i^tO'^-fOOOl'— •OiOCOf'^f'^'t^c/'iCSiOM'ai
O) !-■ CM T-H 1-1 i-i 1-1 ^ CM CO CO CM C^ C^ 1-1 C^ CM ^

m«

90

BULLETIN 626, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

.9 oj o a .

P b! o

= a
<is

c 2

CS| 1-1 1-1 1— ( i-H i-H (N iM ^ i-( <N 1-1 C^ 1-1 ^ i-( C^ iM .-( (N rH iM N i-i ^ »-i i-H

or^t^oot^ot^»Oi-itc

1^ c4 c4 — ' 1-H oi ^ c^ uo -^ oi

OCCCOCO(N^tOn*C^(>I-^CSI«COCC<N(NCOiO'*CS — C^^'^C^i-iCOCO'^

l:^czic^l-H■^j5os^■«#c4o6coOc*^0'fl^eocc■^^eo^-^^c»l-^<:D1-^co

^ tMCOCq.-(^f-(CS»i-i(MN'»*«i-(C^,-H(NC<N^F-H(Ni-t«^(N^NFH«<NW.-<

C*:)OiiOi-<COOi'^!:C>(Nt--t^--^OlCC(NC^IiOv^:CI^OOC*OCCii-i(NC^(NCC'*'C^iC-^

cc t-* o cc CO lO ■«»* ;

:OiCCiiOwC^(NCOt^iCC^O:^l

Oi-Ht^r^Oi— iCi-^ccicr'-oo5'^ooO'-^:c*^iC'^oocc»o:sor^-ocoooc<)c
Go^coiooiosGo-^cocsiooo ai(N(NcoGcr''Cor^OiOi-<^ciot^i-<t>.t^io(;

c<»<Ma>NiOco^»ooO'*eoGOOcooo-^Tt*:£)»-i'*ooooot^^Oi-Tf4osoeoooo>

I^0ii-<i-iC^I00OC^':0'-ii-iC0i-H'*i-i00C0i-it~*NW,-(C0i-<C<li-tO»C(:^C0'^Oc»
"'I^GCNiOt^'^CStNCCOi^CiOC^-^OiOO^i-ir^OOOOi-iOOOiCCOOOiOMi-ii-fCC

eg rt ^ ^^

0i05l^0iTt*00i-iOOOC^i-HC0iO«t^O^C0Q0G0Oi:0c000CQCC00OC<l"*^-l00

1— tOQ0«3OC0OiCl-^C0i— lOJ*:- - -.

OiOCCCOCOi-Ht^OOOir^OC^-t^CCTjiiOiOCst^Oil

- o cooo o> t^ o>

T-H ^ iM i-( ^ (N F-H CO CO W i-« lO --H 1-1 1-1 ^

■^OcO<:r;i-iCO^(N(N'+»0'^t^CCOSI^OOOOOCiC^tCt--0-^i-ii-tt^n'»O^C
oi^coooooTt"C^c^(Ni-<--;:;cooiOOiOii-'co--C'GCcocooaoi^wOscot-oc
r-H 05 C5 -^ t^ 00 CS t-^ '* iO O O C^ CO Oi -^ ■* CS to 'O lO c^ <" ■

iOi'fCCCS'^-^CC^O'^CO

co^ccc^co«:>Oii-'OCOi^coc^cooiOi— '-^c^oospiCNir^c^oi^coccoocci-ii-i-^

t-^ iO :c CO 1-1

;^CO»-iC^J.-'W-^COCSCOOCC'MtO^»CiO-^

iCt^'*t^O'*C0r^C^Tf.-(0000CC't<C^CS05M0C'^i-i»

■'i-'»OfOOiCifOC

''>C»O00TfOiiO — ■^Q0i-<OOCSi— lOOi— <M'C;»OOiOiO-*'iCCO-n'CO--^:C

lO'^cccocCTfi-'r-r'

'•OSt^COOSIMCO^'^CO'OO'Mr- 'tMr-H-^-^CNOtJOiM

MOOi— <i— tr^i— iiot-^Oto-^fO'fai'^'-

oit-^otC'*'— lOoc^'fC^cciMt-^oi'Ocoi-itMCSu:!;

MXCO^i-'fNOli-i^-CS'fOiO

.CSt^t^t^i-|!:^-frOii-t

oc i-^ t^ Oi c/^ r-- lo 'O CO '^ cs Oi cc lo N M c^ CO CO r* ■* cq ^- o -^ --H u^' c^ c/: o GC. Oi -t-

(Mi-iCS'^(MCNC0t*"^O^'-iCfi«OC0(N<Nr-^:C0C^0ii-ii-iOO:^r--^O-^'^aC
iOtOtOiOiOOCOi-<»0 — OiiOiOCOt^COOCi— lOCCi— 'wC00C-^»-"O0it^0iO»0i— I

Co'i-^'oTo CM 'sD~0 CO i-n'trr-r'w lo'cO t^o'l^O^oToi CO o — 'o'lO -^"'^'cs r^(^

r-4r-iC0:0'^e0CST-<'*'*<NC0C^C0i-«C0^'^(NC0'<**OC0(Ni-tC0C0^<-f'^Cq*0CS

1— < ■"*< a:> r-- o cA lO r^ d M Oi «o cc '

<N:r.. CStCS^OCNCOCN-ftOI^OCliOI'i;

'Oi~iClt-^'*Oc<;<NO»0'^(NC/:C0C0r^'*OC0

■'C0CXiO(XCS-^i--iC0C^»O*t"0lC0^i— I

-lOt'-c^i— (Oi'-cocco^cotOw)iocjoc*r-i-iOOi»o-^i--cocor*o--f»

oxcooi^io-^cot^i-'t-i-^aicvicoco'Oioaioioi^csr-^cot-^cooaiO't'iccc

Ol C^) I— JC' »0 00 »0 Oi CiO -I- O lO to 1-H I- CO 05 X' CO GC -f (/:■ Ol a> Oi »o Oi -t O Oi OJ o »o

(MCM.-<i-iCS(MCMi— I

l-lr-.CS,-ll-<l-lCNl-(

PASTURE LAND ON FARMS.

91

'Ot-coor--T•vDTOc<5^5-H03MOl(^^Ol«(Nl0005M(^l-^mMtDm(^lo>o>o>oooo>o■

5"s?Vft'g"2'2S''§oVg"g'g'gV|sr2sVs'=rs^^^

^' O »■•- O CS "O ■-'r CO c4 -^ "»r

•^ 0-^2

f^ O i-^ zr Oi -r^cTo'fO^cs'^ar-
— J rsj i-M i-^ j^-1 1^ ^X -— .— -J! rir

N;-.d^«o-'S^55SSSS5SS2g8;2:j5£5g=^Sg

''^ r; ?? t^ '"^ ^ CT) *-H r^cvrr-r*o''tp^?o*'o'a:"'^

^«ciw .^iJ5^U,ic3S'-;:;^STOS"SS?-

S £3 53 iS =^'~S?'d"-^'"-<'''"''"or^'"=='"'-t'o'~o'~-H"(-)--
o^j-jC^'^30oo(Nxoioe<icj>coooJw>S

l-i«(MO

o i~coaOrt(«o>0(No»Tj.ro(

OS X »o r^ CO

■^ (N O O — I

t^ I>- O c-5 M-

orprx"rt"—"

;St^ooipiraM^t--t^fOo>i-i

C^C^XM'^-rOitoc^Ci'r

o K g'"—'~,^"<y~'^"/:"x"p"rH"r-'~t~r;o"^~t^-_'--^~

^ ^ Oi cs c^ ^

-r t^ c^ OS lo o X cTcTcrror.

--r^foosr
-r X i-c OS '

O 1^ iO OS c

XX cs OS-rocs n2;:;^'"^53"«Sg«o?^Sigi2-^g

S2i^ J3ii^*222"S^5SSSg§:::Si:;£5g

« Cl — — Ol

o I - — cs o o 55 S ' "^

CO 'T .-1 CO "^ CS t-H

i-^ocs '

: c^cs

- CO -T C
CO 1-1 F

C3

o t.

'3 * ^

-■ K^aiC

tH c3 as <p

O'd o 3 R 3

o a

g03|gi§^«|2i§3§0

a^SS^l5lllll|||||^|j3S^I^^^5^5«

.__ :SgS

« s ■ •

c3 3-3 o

92

BULLETIN 626, U. B. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

O

a 22

0-HOO(N '

1 c4 o o c<i -H 03 cc

,-H O) r-4 Ca ^^ C^ ^^ --t '-*

D O 00 C^ --r t^ cc I -
- CC c/D -I' >0 O »0

o ci c4 o -^ "^ r* c^ « ij* o '^^ I--

1-1 yo « r-- cc CO -f lO o »o w o cr- CM ^ "^ -T- i^ '.;; c^

COM'-HiOCO'O'-HiOfi-tCCOi-lTrcOr-HiOT-HiO'O

w . I- C'-^ ■:^-' ''^ "^ ■— '^^' "^ p n! ^ ^ ij; -

^?5i— (to■^OI"-•-''0-t'Occooai'^-TO^-^[-■^Oalco-

c^irtC^ascor--rO-

• O l^ I~ >— < X -r O O lO o '^ t

I "^ O Ol O "^

-r C^ r-H ^ ^ rt r-( CS CC C0(NCSC^^5 e,^ ^ coco-^^M "O ]0

lO I - r- S c: c4 y o 'w to .-H O -r .-H I-: cs :o <N cs I- GC' ^ I- c^

m5?C^C^OCO.-'1^^ OCSCCOOOO lO (N M' ^ !>• t^ (N CO

C40l-T'eOrtt-<-'CC-r0^t^t^OOO»0 0<NCO.-iiOCSIOt^

r-ccOi-HcccMi-Hi--c^->rri-»0'-*cs»o«of^'''crOGCc/:cc

C^'OCSt'-^O^COC^CO

csGCCsaiOi cC'^'^'ti{5'^£^

CCi CC C^l rr CO "^

1-1 (NC^CC W

i^7-»-HM«-n-oiasoiotOioc'iciC^--HcO'-'«)05CncNt-^o Q

00 O '^ fO GO -^ •

§|SSK2«mK^NS«|6S2^35o^^t^c3

Wrt I-H-HIM

<C^O ^ICC^QOI^ OOMMt^'O-

K d~2 §¥^■"2 ii'8 :? s i¥s fe 2 1 ;? 1 1 5 1 1 g

J, ^ ^ i< 55 •# '-' "^ "O cccO'-if-j' c: rt oq CO -» CO CN <M

— t..i-^ = „ . 3 ^'S'S'SS §^"3 S S S c3 C3.S O

PASTURE LAXD ON FARMS.

93

o r-^ oi '-C '^' O cc cc CN ^" ic c>j -— X

^o^co-^rt-rox>:ooc<^05

-s^ <M '^ ^ 'O C3 iO t^ L': '^ iC '-' (N OS

CC ^ CO i^' O CO r-I CO -^ lO M-* iri CO ;D
C^ t-li-(i-H i-H,-! c^i

O X »0 Oi Q C^ -r ^? CS a: O

icccwOi-— 'irooit--iCi-H'>

icr^t^cit^c*?d>OQCcoor^coc5 ] *o

t->.0 — OcOCO'-'^cCl—cO'-rOI-- O
'-'-Hicaj'-'Or^-rwCOcot-i-^'— ' —'

CO r^ CO C^ 1-H .-«!£) .-H i-H c^ rr c^J <-i ^

-roccc4i-<ccot-o— "Citcc^co
^^o^oX/lCc505»ocococ^coo

- Ci cs c^ ro -r r- -

1 uo C^ C^ C

^ CI

LO CI — y: -* t-

•-^0CQCc0'^CiOc0C0O-^i-(00(N

•^ ^ o CD (N — 1 1-1 ao WtMCO-^CO

COXCO-rrCSOCNcCr-''

C^ O X »o CO fo t^ c; [^ c

CO — < X ^ c^ X) -r o -^ O ;

CJ o X »o « CO t- c; [- CO o t- CO o

.-H X ^ --D CO oi '-:r oi Ji ^ t^ O (N
-^x-^TTi-HT-HCir-i.— ico-rcoc^

3XC^ic^OTrr--c^^r--c

t^»oocoi>-"^cocO'-4Tr-,o coc^

C^ O i-" O -I* Cl -r Cl kO -r CO O X ».0
i'- ';: = *r "^ ^ S 22 '^ ^ ~ o:* <^* '-^

1^ O Oi CO X lO O O O CO to l^ uo to

c^^^r^^ x^o'cs'orcrco'^csr-H^'^''
3£ lo p *-o -r cs c^i X — io c^ c^ r^ o

OC^l-iOCSCOCOtCWC^-^r^iOCO

j' "r- r* ® '^ ! C C3

PUBLICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RELATING TO GRAZING AND PASTURE LANDS.

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Range Improvement for Deferred and Rotation Grazing. (Department Bulletin 34.^
Carrj'ing Capacity of Grazing Ranges in Southern Arizona. (Department Bulletin

367.)
Status and Value of Farm Woodlots in Eastern United States. (Department Bulletin

481.)
Pasture Land on Farms in the United States. (Department Bulletin 626.)
Eradication of Ferns from Pasture Lands in Eastern United States. (Farmers' Bul-
letin 687.)
The Farmer's Income. (Farmers' Biilletin 746.)
A System of Pasturing Alfalfa in Salt River Valley, iVrizona. (Secretary's Circular

54.)
Improvement of Pastures in Eastern New York and New England States. (Bureau of

Plant Industrjr Circular 49.)
Improvement and Management of Native Pastures in the West. (Separate 678 from

Year Book 1915.)
Graphic Summary of American Agriculture. (Separate 681 from Year Book 1915.)
Agriculture on Government Reclamation Projects. (Separate 690 from Year Book

1916.)

PUBLICATIONS FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT
PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON. D. C.

Reseeding of Depleted Grazing Lands to Cultivated Forage Plants. (Department
Bulletin No. 4.) Price, 10 cents.

Study of Tenant Systems of Farming in Yazoo-Mississippi Delta. (Department lUil-
letin No. 337.) Price, 5 cents.

Grazing Industry of Blue-grass Region. (Department Bulletin No. 397.) Price, f
cents.

Replanning a Farm for Profit. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 370.) Price, 5 cents.

Utilization of Logged-off Land for Pasture in Western Oregon and Western Washing-
ton. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 462.) Price, 5 cents.

Agricultural Outlook. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 560.) Price, 5 cents.

Agricultural Outlook. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 598.) Price, 5 cents.

Pasture and Grain Crops for Hogs in Pacific Northwest. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 599.)
Price, 5 cents.

Pasture, Meadow, and Forage Crops in Nebraska. (Bureau of Plant Industry Bul-
letin No. 59.) Price, 10 cents.

Range Investigation in Arizona. (Biueau of Plant Industry Bulletin No. 67.) Price,
15 cents.

Protected Stock Range in Arizona. (Bureau of Plant Industry Bulletin No. 177.)
Price, 15 cents.

Irrigated Pastures for Northern Reclamation Projects. (Bureau of Plant Industry
Miscellaneous.) Price, 5 cents.

94

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D, C.

AT

10 CENTS PER (OPY

/

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

i BULLETIN No. 627 mmt

£\J^''^>J-U

Conlrlbution from Office of Farm Management
\V. J. SPIKLMAN, Chief

Washington, D. C.

February 13, 1918

COST OF HAR\^STING WHEAT BY DIFFERENT

METHODS.

l>y Ak.noi.d I*. Ykkkes, Atsttistanl A(iriviiH mist, and L. M. Chubch, AnsiNtnnt in

I'ann AccDuntino.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Development of vheat-harvesiing mclhods.

The binder

ShoeUing

Comparison of costs— old methods vs. nev...

Stack ing 13

Headers 15

Combines is

DEVELOPMENT OF WHEAT-HARVESTING METHODS.

Within the iiiemoiy of men now living, the entire wheat crop of
this country was cut with cradles, bound by hand, and thrashed with
flails, crude thrashing machines, or tramped out by animals drawing
spiked rollers. The cost of harvesting and thrashing wheat by such
means was naturally high, usually consuming one-fifth of the value
of the crop.^ But the time required to do the w-ork when such
methods Avere used w^as even more important than the expense in
volved, as it increased the danger of loss from storms to a great e? -
tent, and demanded a large number of hands to harvest even a limit d
acreage within the season aAailable. It was necessary to start cutting
at tiie earliest possible moment, selecting those parts of the *ield
where the grain ripened first, in order to insure completing the
harAest before heavy losses occurred from shattering the over-ripe
grain. Two acres was considered a fair day's work for a man
in cradling wdieat, and another hand would be kept busy bind-
ing and shocking the wheat cut by one cradler. It is obvious that
the acreage of wheat that could be raised per farm under such con-
ditions was very limited because of the large amount of hand-labor
involved.

'Tenth Census of the U. S. (18S0), Vol. Ill, p. 529.
15472" — IS -Bull. (i27— — 1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

,fM; BULLETIN No. 627 |

?%I^^Pii^' Contribution from Office of Farm Management ►;

"^l^.^f^ W. J.SPIIXMAN.Chief

Washington, D. C.

February 13, 1918

COST OF HARVESTIN(, WHEAT BY DIFFERENT

METHODS.

lly AKNor.u P. Yekkk.s. ,l.s.s(s/rt/// A(iii<iiltinist, and L. M. Chukch, Assintant in

Fann Account'mg.

CONTENTS.

rage.

Development of wheat-harve.sling mclhods.

The binder

Bhocldng

Comparison of costs— old methods vs. nev...

Page.

Stacking 13

Headers 15

Combines 18

DEVELOPMENT OF WHEAT-HARVESTING METHODS.

Within the uiemoiy of men now living, the entire wheat crop of
this country was cut with cradles, bound by hand, and thrashed with
flails, crude thrashing machines, or tramped out by animals drawing
spiked rollers. The cost of harvesting and thrashing wdieat by such
means was naturally high, usually consuming one-fifth of the value
of the crop.^ But the time required to do the work when such
methods were used was even more important than the expense in
volved, as it increased the danger of loss from storms to a great e? ■
tent, and demanded a large number of hands to harvest even a limit d
acreage within the season a\ ailable. It was necessary to start cuttixig
at the earliest possible moment, selecting those parts of the "leld
where the grain ripened first, in order to insure completing the
harN'est before hea\y losses occurred from shattering the over-ripe
grain. Two acres was considered a fair day's work for a man
in cradling wheat, and another hand would be kept busy bind-
ing and .shocking the wheat cut by one cradler. It is obvious that
the acreage of wheat that could be raised per farm under such con-
ditions was very limited because of the hirge amount of hand-labor
involved.

» Tenth Cen-siis of the U. S. (1880). Vol. Ill, p. 529.
15472°- 18 Bull. 627 1

2 BULLETIN 627, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE.

xVt the time these crude methods were used, wages for both maii-
and horse-hibor were much k)wer than at present. To-day, wuth the
unprecedented high wages for hired help for farm work, and its cor-
responding scarcity, together with the increased cost of maintaining
horses, the necessity for using the most improved methods and ma-
cliinery in order to reduce the amount of man-hibor to a minimum
is obvious.

During the last century there has been remarkable progress in the
development of harvesting eciuipment. The mower, the reaper, the
header, the binder, and the combined harvester have followed each
other in rapid succession, substituting at first horse-labor for man-
labor, and later introducing mechanical power in the form of steam
and internal-combustion engines for horse-labor.

h The cost of harvesting wheat at the present time varies widely in
different sections of the country largely because of the different
methods employed in these operations. In most cases the particular
manner in which the crop is handled is influenced by climatic con-
ditions and the requirements of the cropping system followed, as
well as by the character of the wheat itself. The various methods
followed throughout the country, therefore, generally are those which
have been found to be well adapted to the particular conditions exist-
ing wdiere they are used, although local custom has in some places
operated to continue systems that are more expensive than others
which would be entirely practicable.

The purpose of this bulletin is to point out, so far as possible, the
comparative cost of the different methods employed in harvesting
wheat and to outline the points which must be considered in calcu-
lating this cost in such a way that farmers readily may insert the
figures which apply to their particular conditions, and thus be able
to compare their present . costs with those of others. By so doing,
those who are not now doing the w^ork in the most economical man-
ner may be led to consider the adoption of some other practicable
system which will result in a saving of time and money.

A careful study of the cost of harvesting wheat has shown that
the greater items of expense are for man- and horse-labor and depre-
ciation of machine, and in endeavoring to cut down harvesting
expenses the farmer should give careful attention to the most
important items. The large machines show the smallest cost per acre,
and, other things being eciual, the farmer therefore should use the
largest machine practicable under his conditions in order to reduce
the man- and horse-labor required. If he can make his machines
last longer by a little inexpensive care, such as better housing, more
careful overhauling during the winter months, etc., it may result
in material savings in total harvesting expense. In the following
pages are shown some figures which, though they may not be directly

COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT. 3

applicable to many particular cases, should be of considerable value
to farmers who are interested in cutting down their harvesting
expenses, by showing them Avhere the greatest expenses commonly are
incurred.

THE BINDER.

By far the largest percentage of the wheat crop of the country
is to-day harvested with the binder, the use of this machine being
almost universal. Although headers are used in large numbers and
over a wide area through the Middle West and West, binders also
are used throughout the same area, it being quite common to find
both machines on one farm. In some seasons only the binder will be
used, in others only the header, ^v•hile often both will be used, de-
pending upon conditions which will be referred to later. The only
wheat-growing sections where the binder is not used on the greater
part of the crop are in the States of Washington, Oregon, and Cali-
fornia, and [)arts of Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana, where
much of the wheat is cut and thrashed with combined harvesters
(see pp. 18 to 22), although even where these outfits are commonly
used binders also are employed to some extent. (See PI. I, fig. 1.)

The cost of harvesting maj^ be somewhat greater where the binder
is used than where the work is done with headers or combined har-
vesters. The binder, however, has a distinct advantage over these
machines in that the work of harvesting may be begun from one to
two Aveeks earlier with the binder than with either the header or
combine, since wheat can be cut with a binder while in the early
dough stage and placed in shocks to complete ripening; at the same
time it is comparatively safe from destruction by storms. This fea-
ture is a very valuable one in many cases, not onlj'- for the reason just
given but also because it permits the work of harvesting to be ex-
tended over a much longer period than with the other machines men-
tioned, thus requiring fewer horses nnd men to harvest a given
acreage.

DUTY.

The cost of har\e.sting wheat witli a binder varies considerably,
being influenced b}^ the several factors mentioned below. Data have
been collected showing the daily duty of six-, seven-, and eight-foot
binders, and the results of the tabulation of these data are shown in
Table I. Bj^ this it will be seen that the six-foot binder is most com-
monly drawn b}^ three horses, while on the seven-foot cut four horses
are generally used. On the eight-foot binder, the use of four horses
is practically universal. On the six-foot binder, the extra horse
appears to make but a little over an acre's difference in the quantity
of work done per day. The six-foot binder apparently does not over-
load three horses except where the yield is exceptionally heavy, or

BULLETIN 627, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

where hilly or soft ground is encountered, and three horses, therefore,
under most conditions, do a fair day's work for a machine of this
size. The extra horse on a seven- foot binder adds slightly over 2^
acres per day to the work accomplished, which would seem to indicate
that three horses are somewhat overloaded \^ith such a machine.

Table I. — Arcnu/e acres cut In/ 6-, 7-. and 8-foot bindcr-s in a lO-hour daif. (235

reports. )

Width of cut and uuinlier of horses.

6-foot, 3 horses
6-foo( , 4 horses
7-fool, 3 horses
7-foot, 4 horses,
8-foot, 4 horses

Acres cut.

Per binder. 1 Per horse.

10.90
12.10
12. .50
1-5. 10
17.00

3.63
3.03
4.17
3.78
4.25

Per foot of
cutter bar.

1.82
2.02
1.79
2.16
2.13

The larger binders are more efficient in the use of both horse- and
man-labor than the smaller sizes. For example, on the six-foot
binder each horse cuts approximately 3.6 acres per day, whereas on
the eight-foot binder each horse cuts practically 4.25 acres per day,
or accomplishes 17 per cent more work. This is prol)ably accounted
for by the fact that the weight of the eight-foot binder is only
slightly more than that of the six-foot. Each horse on the six-foot
binder drawn l)y three horses has to move more Aveight than on the
eight-foot binder drawn by four horses, while the amount of work
on the cutter-bar and other mechanism is in almost exactly the same
proportion. It is not surprising, therefore, that more ground will
be covered per horse bj' the larger binders, since the draft per horse
will be less.

In considering the amount of work done per horse on the different
sizes of binders, the last column of Table I, showing the amount of
grain per foot of cut, must be studied. Most binders when in use
do not cut the full width of the cutter-bar a great part of the time,
as it is difficult to drive so as t') take a full swath at :)11 times without
occasionally missing some grain, and most drivers, thei'efore, will
err on the safe side by allowing a few^ inches of the cutter-bar to travel
over stubble. This margin will be practically the same for a six-
foot cutter bar as for the eight-foot, but the percentage of the sickle
which is idle will of course be greater for the six-foot than for the
eight-foot size.

From these facts, it is api)arent that the cost of cutting wheat
with a binder will vary with the size of the outfit used, the cost being
lowest with the eight-foot cut. In the past many farmers have been
prejudiced against the large binders because of the heavy side draft
on the horses, but this objection no longer holds, as with most modern

COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT. 5

binders it has been overcome entirely. In most cases where there
is a considerable acreage to be cut and the necessary horses are avail-
able the purchase of the large binder will .prove to be the most profit-
able because of the greater efficiency in the use of both man- and
horse-labor.

Other factors which influence the amount of work done per day,
and therefore the cost, are yield per acre, especially of the straw,
the character of the soil, whether soft or firm, rough or smooth, and
the topography of the farm, whether level or hilly. The working
ability of the horses used also has considerable bearing on the acre-
age covered. The condition of the working parts of the machine,
particularly the sickle, will likewise affect the amount of work done
per day.

The figures here given are intended to approximate the average
conditions so far as possible. In order to make them comparable, an
arbitrary value for both man- and horse-labor has been used in all
cases in calculating the cost of doing the work by the various methods,
although these values will vary in different parts of the country.
For the same reason the data collected have been adjusted to a uni-
form day of 10 hours ; that is, if a man reported 18 acres as an average
day's work with an eight-foot binder, working 12 hours per day,
in tabulating the data his figure would be changed to 15 acres per
day of 10 hours, since his rate of cutting was 1| acres per hour. In
applying the figures to any particular farm, therefore, the prevailing
cost of man- and horse-labor, as well as length of day, should be sub-
stituted.

Assuming man-labor to be worth $2 per day, including board
(which is probably not far from the actual cost on a large percentage
of farms during harvest, although temporary help may cost consid-
erably more), and horse-labor 12 cents per hour, or $1.20 per day
(a figure which it is believed will represent a fair average for the
country as a whole, being slightlj^ above the cost for parts of the
Middle West and West, but lower than most of the Eastern States),
the approximate cost of cutting wheat with the different sized binders
is shown in Table II. No figures have been given for the five-foot
binder, as this size is no longer in common use.

As would naturally be expected, the eight-foot binder drawn by
four horses is more economical than the six- or seven-foot binder
drawn by either three or four horses, as the cost for both man- and
horse-labor is lower. The highest cost per acre for man-labor is
of course found where the six-foot binder and three horses are used.
In this case the cost of the man-labor per acre in cutting wheat is
18 cents, or 50 per cent more than where the eight-foot binder i3
used. The difference in the horse-labor per acre between the six-foot

BULLETIN 627, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

machine drawn by three horses and the eight-foot outfit with four
horses is 5 cents per acre, or about 18 per cent. Wliere the seven-
foot binder with three horses is used the cost per acre for horse-labor
is only 1 cent greater than where the eight-foot binder and four
horses are used. In other words, horse-labor is utilized almost as
economically on a seven-foot binder drawn by three horses as on an
eight-foot outfit drawn by four horses, but the cost of man-labor is
greater on the smaller machine. The charge per acre with the seven-
foot binder is exactly the same with either three or four horses when
the values of man- and horse-labor bear the relation which they do
in this table, as the cost for horse-labor is less where only three
horses are used, while that for man -labor is correspondingly lower
where four horses are used. This point is well worth considering
where hired help is scarce and extra horses are available.

Table II. — Labor cost of cutting one acre of icheat icith binders of diffei-ent
sizes and with vnri/ing numbers of horses, man-labor at $2 per day, and horse-
labor at $1.20 per day of 10 hours {based on figures in Table I).

Width of cut aud number of horses.

Cost per acre.

Total labor. Man-labor. Horse-labor.

6-foot, 3 horses.
6-foot, 4 horses.
7-foot, 3 horses.
7-foot, 4 horses.
8-foot, 4 horses.

SO. 51
.57
.45
.45
.40

$0.18
.17
.16
.13
.12

$0.33
.40
.29
.32
.28

In actual practice it often is possible to hire horses from neighbors
as low as 75 cents each per day and board, many farmers being will-
ing to hire their horses out at a very low figure in addition to their
board, when they have no work for them. The cost of horse-labor per
hour therefore is frequently less with a hired horse under these condi-
tions than where the horse is owned and maintained during the
entire year.

INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION.

In this bulletin the interest charges on the various machines have
been computed in all cases at 6 per cent on one-half the cost of such
equipment, which figure represents the average investment. Many
men fail to consider interest charges at all, whereas others allow in-
terest on the first cost of their equipment for each year of its life.
This is incorrect, as the value of the equipment decreases each year of
its life, and if charges are made against it for depreciation it is
obvious that interest should not be charged against these amounts
during subsequent seasons. Assuming that the equipment is worth-
less at the end of its life (that is, ignoring its junk value) , the aver-
age amount invested will be 50 per cent of its first cost, and the

COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT. , 7

\

method here used of charging interest at 6 per cent on one-half of the
first cost for each year distributes the interest charges equally over its
entire life, since it would be unfair to charge the first season's use
with interest on the full value and the last season's use with interest
only on the remaining value.

It is difficult to arrive at any satisfactory figures for depreciation
charges on binders, as the life of these machines varies within wide
limits ; the acreage tliej^ cover per year also varies, and the care they
receive, both in and out of use, has considerable effect on their years
of service. The small binders are found most commonly in the
Eastern States, where the acreage covered annually (including all
crops on which they are used) is comparatively small.

In Table III are shown some figures on the cost for interest and
depreciation on binders, based on approximate figures for the cost,
life, and acres covered annually. All three of these items vary
in different sections. The acres cut annually by a binder do not seem
to have a very direct influence upon its life except where the acreage
is extremely large. There is a certain deterioration due to age which
appears to limit the length of life in years whether the binder does a
fair amount of work each season or not.

Table III. — Aj)proximate cost, life in years and acres, and annual interest and
depreciation charges on hinders.

Type of binder.

6-foot.
7-foot.
8-Ioot.

Approxi-
mate
cost.'

S125
135
145

Acres
covered
annually

(all
grain).!

50
100
150

Life in-

Years.i

Acres.i

750
1,100
1,500

Average annual cost per acre.

Interest at
6 per cent
on average
Investment.

.07§

.04

.03

Depre-
ciation.

$0. 16|
.12
.094

Total.

0.24
.16
.12.J

> Approximate figures based on tabulation of 235 reports. There is a variation in the cost of binders
in diflerent States, depending largely upon the freight rates. The acres cut annually, and life in years,
also vary widely in diflerent sections and with diflerent care.

REPAIRS.

The amount of repairs required by a binder depends to a great
extent upon the care it receives. If kept well oiled and otherwise
in proper condition, the repairs, except for the replacement of the
canvas, should be practically negligible. Occasional breaks will
occur, but most of the parts liable to breakage can be replaced at
slight expense. Many farmers have reported the use of a binder for
several years without a cent being spent for repairs, whereas in other
cases repairs have ranged from $10 to $15 annuall3\ As a rule the
most expensive item of repairs, as stated above, is the canvas. The
number of acres which can be cut with one canvas varies considerably,

8 BULLETIN 627, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

being influenced by the number of acres cut annually, and the care
given it when idle. Where a binder covers a large acreage each year
the acres cut with one canvas may be twice as great as Avith a lunder
used on only a small number of acres each year, as it deteriorates
whether used or not. If properly protected when idle, a binder can-
vas should cut fi'om 400 to 800 acres and perhaps in some cases 1,000
acres.

In western Ncav York (see United States Department of Agricul-
ture Bulletin 338) it Avas found that it cost nearly CO cents per day of
use to keep a grain binder in repair, or 0.058 cent per acre cut, and
that before a binder is worn out 25 per cent of its first cost, on an
average, must be spent to keep it in running order.

The j)ercentage of the first cost represented by repairs is usually
less for small binders than for the larger sizes, because of the much
smaller amount of Avork ordinarily done by them during their years
of service, while their first cost is only slightl.y less than for the
larger sizes. It is believed that 20 per cent of the first cost for six-
foot binders, 25 per cent for seven-foot, and 30 per cent for eight-
foot machines Avill approximate the aA^erage repairs required for
these outfits. Repair charges for six-, seven-, and eight-foot binders
figured on this basis are shoAvn in Table IV.

In the eighth column of Table V the approximate cost of binder
tAvine per acre Avill be found. This varies, of course, with the yield
of straAv. The tAvine required in the West is usually about 2i
pounds per acre, Avhile in the East the aA'erage is nearer 3 pounds.
The cost per pound is generally slightly higher in the West than in
the East, but it has been figured in all cases on the basis of 3 pounds
per acre, and as costing 11 cents per pound, which is a little higher
than the aA'erage price in the East during the season of 1910 but
slightly less than the retail price to the western farmer during the
same season.

From the figures given in Tables I to IV, inclusive (to Avhich the
twine cost must be added, as Avell as cost for shelter, if any), it is an
easy matter to calculate the comparative cost of cutting an acre of
wheat with a six-, scAen-, or eight-foot binder. The figures from the
tables mentioned (excepting the shelter cost) have accordingly been
summarized in Table V and show that the cost of cutting an acre of
wheat ranges from 88.4 cents Avhere an eight-foot binder is used to
$1,173 for a six-foot binder, each machine being drawn by four
horses. In other Avords, the expense of cutting an acre of Avheat
with the smaller outfit is nearly 33 per cent greater than Avhere the
larger binder is used. The figure in Avhich the farmer is most inter-
ested, hoAvever, is the cost per bushel, Avhich is readily found by
dividing the cost per acre by the average yield. In the last column
in Table V are given the costs per bushel for the different sized out-
fits, based on a yield of 16 bushels per acre, Avhich is about the average
yield for the country as a whole. This shows approximately 7

COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT.

9

cents per bushel for the six-foot, 0 cents for the seven-foot, and 5^
cents tor the eight-foot binder. Where the yield is above the aver-
age the cost per bushel will, of course, be reduced.

Taijije IV. — Repair costs on bindcrsJ'

Type of binder.

64bot-.

7-foot..
Moot..

Total re-
pairs (lur-
ing life.

$25. 00
33.75
43.50

Per cent of
first cost
spent for
repairs

during life.

Cost of re-
pairs per
acre cut.

80.033
.03
.029

1 Calculations based on prices given in Table III.

The cost for shelter has been omitted in all cases because this item
varies so greatly and in many cases is insignificant, since a great
many binders, particularly in the West, have no shelter whatever
except for the canvases and sickles, which usually are taken off and
stored in a dry place during the winter. In the East binders are shel-
tered almost universally when not in use, ordinarily in barns or other
buildings which are used primarily for other purposes, and a legiti-
mate charge against a binder for shelter under these conditions is prac-
tically negligible. On the other hand, w'here a binder is sheltered
in a substantial implement shed the annual cost for interest, depre-
ciation, taxes, and repairs may amount to from $3 to $5, or even
more, as it occupies considerable floor space and does not permit of
other implements being stored on top of it.

Table V. — Cost nf vulting 1 acre of ulieat with hinder, calculated from data
shown in Tables I to IV, inelusive.

Width of cut and number of
horses.

6-foot, 3 horses
ti-foot, 4 horses
7-foot, 3 horses
7-foot, 4 horses
8-foot, 4 horses

Cost of cutting 1 acre of wheat.

Total.

$1. 113

1.173
.97
.97

.884

Man
labor.

Horse
labor.

80.33
.40
.29
.32

.28

Inter-
est.

80. 07i
.07i
.04'
.04
.03

Depre-
ciation.

80. 10.1
.lOi
.12
.12
.09i

Repairs.

$0. 033
.033
.03
.03
.029

Twine. 1

Cost per
bushel
for 16-
bushel
yield.

D. 0G95
. 0733
. 0G0(>
. Ol'OB
.0552

1 Based on 3 pounds per acre, and costing 11 cents per pound (see text).
AUXILIARY BINDER ENGINES.

A factor in reducing the cost of harvesting with a binder under
certain conditions is a small gasoline engine attached to the binder
and furnishing power to operate the mechanism, which is ordinarily
driven by power from the horses through the medium of the bull
wheel. The use of these binder engines, as they are called, has in-
creased considerably during the last two or three seasons, particu-
15472°— 18— Bii]]. 627 2

10 BULLP:TIN 627, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

larly in certain sections where wet ground liars made the operation
of the binder difficult.

The use of these engines not only lessens the draft for the horses
(usually to a sufficient extent to permit of the binder being pulled
by one or two horses fevv'er than the number commonly used), but
also permits cutting hea^y grain at slower speeds for the outfit as
a whole than would be possible without such an auxiliaiy source of
power (since the sickle runs at a constant speed at all times), and
allows the grain to be harvested with a binder on ground where the
bull wheel would slip if it were required to transmit power to the
cutting and binding mechanism.

These engines cost about $150, but their use is by no means confined
to the binder alone, as most owners who have them use them for
numerous other odd jobs about the farm where belt power can be
utilized. Under these conditions their estimated average life is
about 9 1 years. In some instances the engines are used practically
every day of the year for pumping Avater, except while on the binder.
Under such conditions the overhead charges of depreciation, interest,
and repairs, which would be chargeable against harvesting, amount
to a very small figure, while the operating expenses will be only
about three-fourths of the daily labor cost of one horse, and the
engine will in nearly every case decrease the number of horses re-
quired by at least one.

The owners of these outfits report that from 2 to 5 gallons of gaso-
line are required to operate the engine per day, the average being
a fraction less than -t gallons, while about 1 pint of lubricating oil
per day appears to be a fair average. With gasoline at 20 cents per
gallon, and lubricating oil at 40 cents, this would make the daily
operating expense amount to about 85 cents. The OAerhead charges
will vary according to the amount of other work done by the engine
annually.

The engine not only decreases the niunber of horses recjuired,
but in most cases will effect a considerable increase in the acres cut
per day. Reports from farmers wlio have used these outfits indicate
that an increase of from 1 to 5 acres per day may be expected in the
area covered with the binder under the conditions existing where
they were being used, Avhicli were for the most part unfavorable con-
ditions such as those previously mentioned.

The repairs on the outfits concerning v>hich the reports were re-
ceived had averaged slightly less than $3 annually, although the
■average age was only H! years. The repairs during the latter years
-of the engines' lives would in all probability be somewhat higher than
this figure.

The possibility of effecting a sa\ing in the cost of harvesting Avheat
under many unfavorable conditions by means of the binder engine

COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT.

II

seems gi'eat enough to "warrant careful consideration of these outfits

on the part of many wheat g-rowers ^Yho would have use for such an

euoinc iu other wavs.

SHOCKING.

The practice of shocking wheat after being cut with a binder is
ahiiost universal. It is occasionally possible to thrash wheat inune-
(iiatcly after being cut with a binder, the bundles being loaded di-
rectly on to the wagons from the piles left by the binder, but this
is not common, partly because the wlieat maj' not be fit to thrash and
partly because a thrashing outfit is not available when needed.

Hauling bundles to the stack without shocking is also practiced
to some extent, and where this can be done a saving of about 1 cent
per bushel is effected ; but in the majority of cases the wheat is placed
in some kind of shocks before being stacked or thrashed.

The cost of shocking wheat varies with the 3'ield, condition of the
bundles, size of machine used in cutting, and the amount of carrying
done by the binder. The character of the shocks also will have some
eifect, althougli it takes practically as long to build a poor shock as
a good one.

The average acre.^ .shucked per day i»y one niuu, tabulated accord-
ing to yield per acre, are show'n in Table YI. It will -be seen that
the acres shocked per day in the two groups having yields of o\er
20 bushels are disproportionatelj^ less than in the two groups with
yields of 20 bushels oi- under. This seeming iiTegularity is accounted
for by the fact that a large percentage of the reports on low yields
come from sections having a large acreage and light straw. The
average cost of about 1 cent per bushel as shown in Table VI is,^
therefore, approximatel}^ correct. On account of the relatively small
cost of shocking compared with the protection it affords, many men
shock their wheat even if it is to remain in the field but a very short
time.

Table VI. — Acres shoclxd per day per man and cost per acre and per Jjiishel «n
relation to yield per acre. (Based on labor at $2 per day, 26-'f reports.)

Yield per acre.

Average

yieli
per acre.

Acres
sh.oclicl
per day
per man.

Ccst per
acre.

Cost per
bushel.

Fnder 20 bushels

15

20

26.2

37.4

12i
12"

7J

SO. 16
.16i
.23'
.26 J

$0.01
.008

20 bushels '

21 to .30 bushels

31 bushels and over

.009
.007

> A number of men reported their yield as 20 bushels per acre, and it Tras deemed advisable to Icava
these estimates in one group.

COMPARISON OF COSTS— OLD METHODS VS. NEW.

It is very interesting to compare the costs of cutting wheat as it
is usually done to-day with the methods in use 7o 3'ears ago. It is
very generally believed that modern methods always result in greatly

12 BULLETIN 627, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

reducing the cost of an operation, but from the cost figures given
below it Avill be seen that the principal effect of improved harvesting
machinery has been to increase to a very large extent the amount of
work which one man can accomplish in a day with the assistance of
horse-labor and machines over what was formerly done by man-labor
alone.

For example, the average cost of cutting with a binder, as shown
in Table Y, is $1,022 per acre, and the average cost of shocking, as
shown in Table VI, is 20.5 cents, or a total of $1.23 for the two opera-
tions. In the Transactions of the New York State Agricultural
Society, volume 10 (1850)* page 550, the cost of cradling and binding
(and the shocking was probably done at the same time) is given as
70 cents per acre on a 20-bushel yield. In the Report of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture for 1853, page 143, the cost of cradling, bind-
ing, and shocking an acre of wheat, where the yield was also about
20 bushels, is given as 75 cents per acre.

In other words, the cost of cutting, binding, and shocking wheat to-
day, with an average yield of 16 bushels per acre, would be slightly
less than 8 cents per bushel, whereas in the cases just mentioned it was
a little under 4 cents per bushel. The average farm price per bushel
for wheat during the 10 years 1906-1915 was about 87 cents (see
United States Department of Agriculture Yearbook for 1915), so it
will be seen that the cost of harvesting in recent years has represented
about one-eleventh of the selling price of the crop, whereas when hand
methods were used the cost of harvesting represented less than one-
thirtieth of the selling price. The cost of harvesting to-day, there-
fore, represents a greater percentage of the selling price of the crop
than it did when the old hand methods were used. However, to-day
two men (one shocking), with three or four horses, will cut, bind,
and shock about eight times as much wheat as two men cutting with
a cradle and binding by hand. It should be borne in mind, of course,
that the price for labor at the time cradles Avere used was considerably
less than at present. To make a direct comparison of the cost of
the two methods the same price for labor should be used in both
cases. If man labor was worth $2 per day (the figure which has been
used in the computations herein), the cost per acre by the hand
methods would be approximately $1.60 as against $1.23 with the
binder, where the yield was 16 bushels per acre.

It is also interesting to compare the amount of work done per
day per horse with that accomplislied by one man using the old hand
methods. By Table I it will be seen that the acres cut per horse
in one day varied from about 3 to 4J acres. To cradle, bind, and
shock 1 acre per day where the yield was about 20 bushels was a
fair or average day's work for one man; a good, experienced hand

Bui. 627, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate

Fig. 1.— Binder in Operation.

(C>.

■f ........

Fig. 2.— Horse-Drawn Header in Operation.

Bui. 627, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate II.

>**.

Fig. 1.— Horse-Drawn Combine in Operation.

Fig. 2.— The Small Combine; a Type that has Attained Great Popularity in

Recent Years.

COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT. 13

could, however, do considerably more. It would seem, therefore, that

the work done by a horse in one day is not much more than three

times the amount performed by a man, although the working power

of a horse usually is considered to be ten times greater than that

of a man (Kent). This is accounted for probably by the fact that

the horse's strength is less directly applied to the work than is that

of the man, there being greater losses through friction and a much

greater amount of weight to be moved. From the figures shown in

Tables I to VII, inclusive, it will be seen that the cost of cutting,

shocking, and stacking wheat ranges from about 11 to 15 cents per

bushel.

STACKING.

The acreage covered per day by a given crew in stacking wheat
depends upon the yield, distance hauled, size of loads, and method
used. For example, two men and four horses, with either one or two
of the bundle wagons which are commonly found in the wheat-grow-
ing sections of the Northwest, where both men pitch and no one is
required on the load, will be able to stack more wheat, other things
being equal, than will two men following the usual practice in the
East of one pitching while the other man loads. The wagons used
in the two cases are usuallj^ very different, the western "bundle
wagon " being especially built for use in the manner above mentioned,
whereas with the type of wagon usually found in the East it would
be impossible to haul a very large load in this way, because of the
difficulty of putting many bundles on such a wagon in such a way
that they would carry well. Although the loads hauled on the west-
ern bundle wagons do not contain quite so many bundles as do those
in the East when loaded b}^ hand, they are put on in less time and
with one-half the man-labor, which more than offsets this objection.
If two bundle wagons are available each man can pitch on a load and
take it to the stack, where one will pitch off while the other stacks.
This combination is probably the most efficient crew which can be
used in stacking wheat, provided the haul is not too long. It is espe-
ciall}' recommended for consideration by eastern wheat growers^ as
in many cases it would be an easy matter to place a temporary rack
on their wagons, thus making them well suited for use in the manner
described. The adoption of this method would materially reduce the
cost of stacking.

Six acres per day for two men and one team appears to be a fair
day's work in stacking wheat under most eastern conditions, whereas
in the western sections where the more efficient methods are em-
ployed 8 acres per day for two men and two horses and 10 acres per
da.j for two men and four horses would appear to be a fair average.
Based on these figures the cost of stacking per acre for man- and
horse-labor would be as shown in Table VII. No allowance has

14

BULLETIN 627, U. S. DEPAETMENT OP AGEICULTURE.

been made for the use of the wagon in any case, as this is a factor
which is exceedingly hard to determine with accuracy, since the
wagons are used for so many other purposes. If properly cared for
they will last manj;' years and the cost would, therefore, be prac-
tically negligible.

From the figures in this table it will be seen that the cost of stack-
ing wheat varies from 80 cents to $1.06^ per acre, or from 5 to 64
cents per bushel on a 16-bushel yield. The cost of stacking is little
if any greater than the cost of hauling from shock to the separator
when thrashing. Having the grain in stacks expedites thrashing
somewhat and at the same time reduces the number of men and
horses required.

Where stacking is properh^ done the gi'uin is better protected in
stacks than in shocks.- In wet seasons or when thrashing can not be
done soon after cutting, the importance of this protection is increased.
A sweating process also takes place in the stack, which improves to
some extent the color, condition, and test weight of the grain and its
milling and baking qualities. The improvement may be sufficient
to obtain a better market grade, with resulting higher price when
sold. A similar sweating process apparently may take place in
shock-thrashed wheat after being placed in the bin, but to take ad-
vantage of this the farmer must have storage room for his thrashed
grain and must also get it thrashed from the shoclc while it is in as
good condition as when placed in the stack.

Table VII. — Labor cost per acre and per husliel of stacking irheat icith man-
labor at $2 and horse-lahor at $1.20 per dap of 10 hours.

Operation.

1 man pitching and 1 man loading (1 wagon)'. . .
2men pitching (1 v\-agon)2

2 men pitching (2 wagons)^

Number
of

horses.

Acres

covered

per

day.

Labor cost per acre.

Man.

SO. 66J
.50
.40

Horse.

Total.

.80

Cost per
busliel

(16-
bushel
yield).

$0,064
.05"
.054

1 HayraciiS ai'c commonly used in tlie East.

2 Western type of bundle wagon.

Other advantages of stacking are that it makes it possible in wet
weather to thrash the wheat more completely from the straw, thus
saving more of the grain, and to remove more of the chaif, thus
securing cleaner grain. Thrashing can begin sooner after rains if
wheat is stacked, especially if the stacks are protected hy a cover of
any kind. In thrashing from the shock after a period of rainy
weather the grain secured is nearly alwaj's somewhat damp and
tough, as the tendencj^ is to begin thrashing too soon after rains.
Stacking also permits early fall plowing, which is particularly de-

1 Acknowledgment is due Messrs. Clyde E. Leighty and Carleton R. Ball, agronomists
in charge of Eastern and Western Wlieat Investigations, respectively, for information
concerning the effect of stacking on the quality of wheat.

COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT. 15

sirable in certain bcctions (see Farmers Bulletin 678, "Growing
Hard Spring Wheat.").

The two more important advantages of stacking, therefore, are the
protection from the weather and, generally, the improved quality of
the grain. These results are likely to follow good stacking. Where the
stacking has been poorly done there is often a different story, the
grain being in worse condition when thrashed from the stack than
it would have been if thrashed after a reasonable time in the shock.

HEADERS.

Thousands of acres of wheat are harvested annually by means
of tlu> header, but this machine is, for the most part, an auxiliary of
the V)inder for reasons mentioned below. Although usually there
is a slight saving in harvesting with the header compared with the
binder, in most sections there are some seasons when it is imprac-
ticable to run the header, so that it is very common to have binders
on farms where headers are used. (See PI. I., fig. 2.)

The principal advantages of the header, in addition to its economy
under certain conditions, are that it eliminates considerable hand
labor, covers more ground per day, saves the cost of twine, expedites
thrasliing because of the smaller amount of straw handled, and will
harvest short grain that could not be cut and bound with a binder.
In certain sections headers are kept largely for the last-mentioned
purpose, since in areas where there is little rainfall there will often be
a fair yield of wheat on straw that is altogether too short to handle
with a binder. In such cases the header will remove the heads and
place them in the header wagons with practically no loss. In some
localities it is frequently desirable to plow the stubble immediately
after harvest, and when a field has been headed there are no shocks to
interfere with or delay this work.

The disadvantages of the header are several. The wheat must be
allowed to ripen upon the stalk sufficiently to keep well in the stack,
yet, when harvesting is not begun until the grain is in this condition,
before it can be completed much of the w^heat will be so ripe that con-
siderable loss may result from shattering, especially with certain
varieties. It seldom happens that all parts of a large field will ripen
evenly ; certain low spots where there is a surplus of moisture will
remain green for several days after the grain around them is fit to
cut with a header. The green heads from such spots, if harvesting is
done with a header as soon as the remainder of the field is ready
to cut, may cause considerable loss in the stack by reason of heating
and molding.

The header requires more men and horses to operate it efficiently
than are needed for two binders, five to eight men and ten to sixteen
horses being employed in the crews. The same number of men and
horses using binders could cut and shock a larger acreage per day

16 BULLETIN 627, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

than a single header could cover, but the grain would yet have to be
hauled for stacking or thrashing.

The straw remains on the field, which is undesirable in many sec-
tions where there is not sufficient moisture in the soil to cause it to
decompose if turned under. This feature is also an objection on
farms where it is desired to use the straw for bedding, since it re-
quires considerable time and labor to cut and haul the straw after it
has been headed.

In those sections where thrashing from the shock is the common
practice, and where most of the thrashing is done by large custom
outfits whose owners furnish the entire crew, the grain that has been
headed, and of course stacked, ordinarily is left until all shock
thrashing on the route has been completed, since thrashing from the
stack does not require so many men, and no bundle teams. The owner
of the rig naturally wishes to complete all the work where his entire
crew will be needed before laying some of them off and beginning
work that will require fewer men and horses. On the other hand, in
those sections where heading is the most common practice, the stacks
probably will be given preference, since the crops of the largest grow-
ers usually will be headed, and the custom thrashers naturally prefer
to make sure of the largest jobs.

The sizes of headers most commonly used are 12 and 14 feet. A
six-horse team is found most commonly on the twelve-foot machine,
although eight horses are sometimes employed where the grain is
particularly heavy or where the land is in such condition as to make
a very heavy draft. On the fourteen-foot machine eight horses are
used most frequently.

A fair day's work of ten hours with a twelve-foot header is about
24 acres, and with a fourteen-foot machine about 28 acres. The
acreage covered in ten hours by a given size of header will not, of
course, vary greatly with the different sized crews, provided the crew
is sufficient to keep the header at work.

The additional men and horses required vary considerably in
different sections and under different conditions — that is, according
to the yield of grain, the distance the loads must be hauled to the
stacks, and the character of the ground over which hauling is done.
For instance, in the wheat-growing sections of Washington and
Oregon the ground is hilly and the yield of wheat heavy. Here a
common crew is four header wagons, each with one driver and two
horses, one man loading, one man stacking, and another to help pitch
off at the stack, making a total of eight men and sixteen horses,
whereas in the Middle AVest, where the ground is level and the yield
comparatively light, many headers are operated with six horses and
only two header wagons, each with a driver and two horses, one
loader and one man at the stack, making a total of five men and ten
horses.

COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT.

17

It is obvious that the cost of harvesting an acre of wheat with
headers of. the same size will vary with the number of men and
horses in the crew, whereas the cost per bushel will depend largely
upon the yield. The overhead charges per acre — that is, interest,
depreciation, and repairs — will depend, of course, upon the number
of acres harvested annually and the life of the machine. The first
cost of headers is considerably higher in the Pacific Coast States than
in the Middle AVest, owing to the difference in freight rates. The
cost for wagons depends upon the extent to which they are used for
other work. The header box itself generally is built especially for
use in heading wheat, and the interest, depreciation, and repairs on
these boxes should in such cases be charged against the wheat. They
are inexpensixe, however, since they usually are made on the farm
from cheap lumber; $8 per box probably would be a fair average cost.
The rei^airs to the boxes are practically negligible, being made from
odds and ends of lumber which are available. Few header boxes are
painted, and yet fewer are sheltered ; but since in the regions where
they are used there is comparati^'ely little rain their life is longer
than might be expected, 10 years probably being a fair average
figure. The running gears generally are used for other purposes
during the remainder of the year. It is, therefore, impossible to
arrive at any reliable figures as to what percentage of the overhead
charges on a header wagon are properly chargeable against the
wheat.

Based on the figures already mentioned for the crews and over-
head charges. Table VIII has been prepared to show the approximate
cost of harvesting an acre of wheat with twelve- and fourteen-foot
headers, with two common sizes of crews for each.

Table VIII. — Cost of harvesting an acre of wheat with headers of various sizes
and different sizes of crews, with man-lahor at $2 and horse-labor at $1.20
per day of 10 hours.

Daily cost of operating the outfit.

Cost
per
acre.

Cost per bushel.

Size of header and crew.

Total.

Man-
labor.

Horse-
lahor.

Interest,
deprecia-
tion, and
repairs on
headers.

Based on

16-T)Ushel

yield.

Based on

30-bushel

yield.

12-foot, with 5 men and 10 horses '

S25.40
32.20
29.75
38.55

810. 00
12.00

12. 000
16.00

$12. 00
16. SO
14.40
19.20

2?3.40
2 3.40
6 3.35
5 3.35

SI. 06
1.34
1.06
1.38

80.07

'.qY

12-foot, with 6 men and 14 horses ^

14-foot, with 6 men and 1 2 horses «

SO. 045

14-foot, with 8 men and 16 horses «

.046

1 Crew made up as follows: 1 driver and 6 horses with header; two header wagons with 2 drivers and 4
horses; 1 man loadinj; wagon and 1 man on stack.

2 Based on annual duty of 300 acres and 24 acres per day.

3 Crew made up as follows: 1 driver and 8 horses with header; 3 wagons with 3 drivers and 6 horses; 1
loader and 1 man on stack.

* Crew made up as follows: 1 driver and 6 horses on header; 3 wagons with 3 drivers and 6 horses; 1 loader
and 1 man on stack.

'' Based on annual duty of 450 acres and 28 acres per day.

« Crew mads up'as follows: 1 driver and Shorses on header; 4 wagons with 4 drivers and 8 horses; 1 loader
and 2 men at stack.

18 BULLETIN 627, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

From Table VIII it will be seen that the cost of heading and stack-
ino- an acre of Avheat varies from $1.06 to $1.38, accordino; to the size
of the crew. The cost per bushel will, of course, depend upon the
yield. In the last two columns are shown the approximate cost per
iiushel based on yields of 16 and 30 bushels per acre. The cost
per day with the small crews has been divided by 16, and the cost
per day with the large crews has been divided by 30, in order to ap-
proximate actual conditions, since the larger crews are used more
often where the yields are heaviest. From these columns it will be
seen that the cost per bushel ranges from 4^ to 7 cents. The cost of
cutting an acre of wheat with a header and stacking the heads is very
little greater than the cost of cutting when the work is done with a
binder. It will be seen, therefore, that there is generally a saving
in harv'esting with a header when the cost of shocking and stacking,
or havding to the separator, is considered.

COMBINES.

By far the cheapest method of harvesting and thrashing wheat
practiced in this country at present is by means of the combined
harvester, a macliine that cuts the heads from the wheat and thrashes
them at the same operation. Unfortunately the use of this outfit
has been limited to certain sections where the grain ripens on tlie
stalk. (Phil, fig. 1.)

" Combines," as they are commonly called in the sections where
they are used, vary considerably in size and weight, according to
the type and make. The early forms of combines were just what the
name implies, i. e., a combination of two machines, a header and a
separator, so arranged that the header delivered the cut heads di-
rectly to the thrashing cylinder. The first outfits were drawn by
horses, and both the header and separator mechanisms were operated
by " bull " or drive wheels. A little later steam was utilized to oper-
ate some combines, and still later gasoline engines, either in the
form of tractors or mounted on the combines themselves as single
units, were used. At present most combines are still drawn by
horses, although auxiliary gasoline engines frequently are used to
operate the mechanism, the horses merely moving the outfit.

The combine, like most other harvesting machinery, has undergone
considerable improvement during the last few years, and instead of
being merely a combination of two machines primarily designed for
two different kinds of work, the combines of to-day are designed and
built for the complete operation of cutting and thrashing the grain.
The width of svvath cut by combines varies from about 7 to 25 feet.
The first combines were used principally on very large areas of
wheat, and Avere of necessity of large size, in order to complete the
work during the weather suitable for harvest. They required about

COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT.

19

thirty or more horses to pull them, which added considerably to the
expense, as many extra horses had to be maintained throughout the
entire year so as to be available at harvest time. Of late years the
smaller outfits have been increasing in number very rapidly. These
small rigs are entirely practicable on small areas, since their price
is lower than for the larger types, and their Aveight is so much less
that fewer horses are required to operate them. (See PI. II, fig. 2.)
The amount of work done per day with the different sized outfits
is shown in Table IX.

Table IX.

'Acres cut and bushels thrashed by different sized combines in a
10-hour day. (65 reports.)

Width of combines, and horses used.

7 feet,
9 feet,
12 feet
14 feet
16 feet
18 feet
20 feet
24 feet

8 horses . . .
10 horses . .
, 22 horses .
, 24 horses .
,28 horses.
, 30 horses .
, 30 horses.
, 36 horses .

Acres per 10-hour day.

Per com-
bine.

12.4
13.6
19.9
20.6
27.0
31.0
34.0
42.0

Per
horse.

1.55
1.36
.90
.86
96
1.03
1.13
1.17

Per foot
of cut.

1.77
1.51
1.66
1.47
1.69
1.72
1.70
1.75

Bushels

thrashed

per day

(30-busheI

yield).

372

40S
597
61S
810
930
1,0 0
1,260

TTsual
number

of men
in crew.

2
2

4 or 5

5
5
5

5 or 6
5 or 6

Note.— The number of horses used on the different sizes of combines varies considerably according to
the yield of wheat, the condition of the soil, the topoiiraphy of the field, and the particular type or make
of machine. The figures shown in the first column are about the most common teams for the sizes given;
the number used in indi\idusl cases on the larger outfits are frequently from 1 to 4 above or below the
figures given.

From this it will be seen that there is considerable irregularity in
the number of acres cut per day by the different sized outfits, which
is due probably to the small number averaged in most of the groups.
The yield per acre usually makes but little difference in the acres
covered per day except as mentioned below, since the machines must
be kept moving at a certain speed in order to do good work. There-
fore, in heavy grain, on hilly land, soft ground, etc., it is often
necessary to use extra horses in order to keep the outfit moving at
the required speed. If the additional horses are not available heavy
pulling will cut down the amount of work done per day because of
the more frequent resting of the horses that will be necessary.

In the fifth column of Table IX is shown the number of bushels
thrashed per day by the outfits of different sizes based on a yield of
30 bushels, which is close to the average yield in the sections where
combines are used. The seven- and nine-foot machines usually are
operated by two men, one driving and regulating the height of the
cutter-bar according to the height of the grain, the other bagging
the thrashed wheat and sewing the sacks. The number of bushels
thrashed per day per man with the outfits requiring only two men
to operate them is considerably higher than with the larger machines
which require four or five men, with the exception of the very

20

BULLETIN 627, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

largest outfits, which show about the same efficiency as the small
ones. It is also interesting to note that the number of bushels
thrashed per clay per man with these small combines is usually equal
to and sometimes greater than the amount of grain thrashed per day
with the small thrashing outfits used in the East. When to this is
added the fact that two men have covered almost as great an acreage
in a day with a combine, cutting, thrashing, and sacking the grain, as
two men could cover with a binder, cutting, binding and shocking,
the saving which is accomplished through the use of combines is
readily apparent.

In order to ascertain the cost per bushel for thrashing with a
combine it is, of course, necessary to consider depreciation, interest on
investment, repairs, and operating expenses of these outfits. (See
Tables X, XI, and XII.)

Table X. — Overhead expenses per year, per dan, per acre, and per bushel; aver-
age cost and estimated life of, and acres cut annually by, different sized com-
bines (65 reports).

Average annual overhead expenses on combines

Aver-
age
acres

Width

Total per—

Aver-

Esti-
mated.

of

Total.i

Depre-
ciation.

Interest
on invest-
ment at

Repairs.2

cost.

life ia
years.

swath.

Bushel

nuallv.
to date.

6 per cent.

Day.a

Acre.3

(30-bushel
yield) .3

Feet.
7

S172. 49

8106. 49

S33. 00

$:».00

S9.10

SO. 734

$0.0244

$1,100

10.33

235

9

184.04

112.04

36.00

36. 00

9.30

.684

. 022S

1,200

10.71

269

12

233.36

115.41

50. 55

<i7. 40

8.95

.450

.0150

1, 685

14.60

519

14

233. 31

114.59

50.88

C7.S4

9.73

.472

.01.57

1,696

14.80

494

10

209. 05

87.95

51.90

69.20

6.58

.244

.0081

1,730

19.67

858

18

2(i9. 37

127. 06

60.99

81.. 32

8.35

.269

.0090

2,033

16.00

1,000

20

310.05

146. 25

70.20

93. 60

7.93

.233

.0078

2, 3 0

16.00

1,330

24

425. 00

250. 00

75.00

100. 00

8.92

.213

.0071

2,500

10.00

2,000

lExclusiveof overhead charges for shelter, taxes, and insurance.

2 Figured at 3 per cent of first cost for seven- and nine-foot sizes, and 4 per cent of first cost of all larger
sizes. (See text.)
8 Based on figures shown in or derived from Table IX.

Table XI. — Labor costs per day, per acre, and per bushel for different sized
combines and crews, man-labor bcimi considered as worth $2 and horse-labor
$1.20 per day of 10 hours {65 reports).

Width of cut and crews most commonly
used with each outfit.

Labor cost per day.

Total.

Man-
labor.

Horse-
labor.

Labor cost per acre.'

Total.

Man-
labor.

Horse-
labor.

Total
man- and
horse -
labor
cost per
bushel.

7 feet;
9 feet;
12 feet
14 feet
16 feet
18 feet
20 feet
24 feet

2 men, Shor.ses...
2 men, lOliorscs. .
; 4 men, 22 horses.
5 men, 24 horses.
; 5 men, 28 horses.
; 5 men, 30 horses.
; 5 men, 30 horses.
; 6 men, 36 horses.

.S13. 60
16.00
34.40
38.80
43.60
46. 00
46.00
.55. 20

$4.00
4.00
8.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
12.00

$9.60
12. 00
26. 40
28. 80
33.60
36.00
36. 00
43.20

$1.10
1. IS
1.73
1.88
1.61
1.48
1.35
1.32

5.32
.30
.40
.48
.37
.32
.29
.29

SO. 78
.88
1.33
1.40
1.24
1.16
1.06
1.03

$0.0365
.0392
.0576
.0628
.05.38
.0495
.0451
.0438

» Based on acres and bushels per day as shown in Table IX.

COST OF HARVESTING WHEAT.

21

Table XII. — Arcraf/e labor and orcrhciid c.ritiiisrs piT day, per acre, and per

hutshel.^

Average labor and overhead cxi)enses.

Width of combine.

Per daj'.

Labor.

Over-
head.

Labor aud
overhead.

Per acre.

Per bushel.

Feet.

7..

$13. 60
16.00
34.40
38. 80
43.60
46.00
46.00
55. 20

$9.10
9.30
8.95
9.73
6.58
8.35
7.93
'*.92

$22. 70

SI . Ki

$0,061

9

25.30 i 1.S6
43. 35 2. 18

.062

12

.073

14

48.53
50. 18
54.35
53.93
64.12

2.36
1.86
1.75
1.59
1.53

.079

16 .

.062

IS

.058

20 .

.0.53

24

.051

' Based on data in Tables IX, X, and XI.

Table X shows the annual overhead expenses based on the average
first cost as shown in the ninth column, and annual repairs based on
3 per cent of the first cost for the seven- and nine-foot sizes and 4
per cent for the larger sizes. In this connection it may be pertinent
to state that the seven- and nine-foot outfits are, for the most part,
individually owned and are used only on the farm of the owner,
while the larger rigs are in many cases used more or less for custom
work and therefore cover a considerably greater acreage each year.
The repairs on the small machines are consequently somewhat less
annually, but for the acreage covered and bushels thrashed are
slightly higher.

From the last column in Table XII it will be seen that the total
cost of cutting and thrashing a bushel of grain with a combine varies
from about T).! cents for the large outfits to a fraction under 8 cents
for the fourteen-foot size. The expense for labor for the small out-
fits is lower in proportion to the amount of work done per da}^ than
for the larger ones, but the oAerhead charges are slightly greater
for the reason that the small outfits are not used as many days an-
nually because of the fact, as previously mentioned, that they are
largely owned by individual farmers and do very little custom work.
Six cents per bushel is probably a fair general average cost for cut-
ting and thrashing wheat with a combine where the yield is in the
neighborhood of 30 bushels. At this rate the cost of harvesting and
thrashing wheat is between one-third and one-fourth of the cost in
sections where the wheat is cut and thrashed at two separate opera-
tions with a consequent increase in man- and horse-labor.

22 BULLETIN 627, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RELAT-
ING TO WHEAT.

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION.

Spring Wheat In the Great Plauis Area. (Department Bulletin 214.)
Improvement of Ghirlva Spring Wlieat in Yield and Quality. (Department

Bulletin 450.)
Culture of Winter Wheat in the Eastern United States. (Farmers' Bulletin

596.)
Winter Wheat Varieties for the Eastern United States. (Farmers' Bulletin

616.)
Growing Hard Spring Wlieat. (Farmers' Bulletin 678.)
Varieties of Hard Spring Wlieat. (Farmers' Bulletin 680.)
Shallu, or Egj-ptian Wheat. (Farmers' Bulletin S27.)
Wheat Growing in the Southeastern States. (Farmei-s' Bulletin 885.)
Hard Wheats Winning Their Way. (Yearbook Separate 649.)

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS. GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Experiments with Marquis Wheat. (Department Bulletin 400.) Price 10 cents.

Durum Wheat. (Farmers' Bulletin 534.) Price 5 cents.

Marquis Wheat. (Farmers' Bulletin 732.) Price 5 cents.

Handling WHieat from Field to Mill. (Bureau of Plant Industry Circular 68.)

Price 5 cents.
Improving Quality of Wheat. (Bureau of Plant Industry Bulletin 78.) Price

10 cents.
Syllabus of Lecture on Wheat Culture, 1910. (Farmer.s' Institute Lecture 11.)

Price 5 cents.
Improvements in Wlieat Culture. (Agriculture Yearbook 1896, pp. 489-498.)

Cloth. Price 50 cents.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCITRED FEOM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVEENMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

5 CENTS PER COPY
V

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 628

Contribution from the Bureau of Animal Industry
A. D. MELVIN, Chief

Washington, D. C.

January 28, 1918

WINTERING AND FATTENING BEEF
CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA

By

W. F. WARD

Animal Husbandry Division, Bureau of Animal Industry

AND

R. S. CURTIS and F. T. PEDEN

Of the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1

Wintering Steers Preparatory to Grazing

on Pasture 4

Winter Grazing of Steers 14

Page
Summer Fattening of Steers on Grass . 19
Summary of Three Years' Work, Winter 27

and Summer 27

Winter Fattening of Steers 38

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFHCE

1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

\T«t BULLETIN No. 628

^^i/w^ififf^ Contribution from Bureau of Animal Industry

^'Vv'vwl, A. D. MELVIN, Chief

Washington, D. C.

January 28, 1918

WINTERING AND FATTENING BEEF CATTLE IN
NORTH CAROLINA.

By W. F. Ward, Aninutl Hiifibaiulry Dirision, Buraiu of Animal Industry, and
R. S. CuRTivS and F. T. Peden, of the North Carolina Agricultural Experi-
ment Station.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Introduction 1

Wintering steers preparatory to graz-
ing on pasture 4

Winter grazing of steers 14

Page.
Summer fattening of steers on grass- 19

Summary of tliree years" work.

winter and summer 27

Winter fattening of steers 38

INTRODUCTION.

In the fall of 1913 the Bureau of Animal Industry, United States
Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the North Carolina
Agricultural Expei-iment Station, began a series of extensive beef-
cattle experiments on the farm of T. L. Gwyn, in Haywood County,
N. C. The work was located in the western part of the State because
of the wide range of adaptation, applying not only to North Caro-
lina, but also to a number of surrounding States. The western part
of North Carolina is extremely mountainous and rough, presenting
a problem of peculiar importance to the farmer or cattle grower.
The extremely rough character of the region makes good grazing
ample when the land is properly cleared and seeded. The area
available for the growing of crops for winter maintenance is re-
stricted, hoAvever, because of the mountainous condition, and this
makes the first three divisions of the experiments reported herein of
unusual importance to the stock grower.

The subject discussed, comprising three years' experimelital work,
consists of: (a) "U^intering steers in barns and on pasture preparatory
to grazing on pasture either alone or in combination with cotton-
seed cake; (h) wintering steers on pasture preparatory to summer

15333"— 18— Bull. 628 1 1

2 BULLETIISr 628, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

grazing; (c) the summer fattening of steers on grass and cotton-
seed cake; and (d) the winter fattening of beef cattle.

The significance of these problems to the stock grower mider the
conditions mentioned will be brought out clearly in the discussions
which follow. It is strikingly illustrated in the division dealing with
the wintering of steers on grass. When there is not enough feed
available for wintering as many cattle as can be grazed during the
summer, the farmer is losing money, for all his grass can not be
utilized during the grazing season. The experiments have proved
beyond a doubt that steers can be wintered most satisfactorily on
specially prepared winter pastures, and at a cost from 30 to 50 per
cent less than upon the common farm roughages. This indicates the
importance of improved methods of handling cattle and the possi-
bilities of the mountains for cattle raising.

The importance more particularly of the pasture work in the
mountainous part of North Carolina and of surrounding States can
not be overemphasized, considering the possibilities of winter and
summer pasture development. The large areas of cut-over timber
lands, such as those used for the winter pastures in this experimental
work, would accommodate large herds of beef cattle if properly seeded.
Winter pastures and corn silage for winter maintenance will solve
many of the difficulties of the cattle grower. The mountainous con-
dition of the region makes the production of stockers and feeders
especially practicable because of the larger amounts of pasture that
can be utilized and the minimum of winter feeds necessary for the
maintenance and growth of such cattle. This may be appreciated by
those not acquainted with local conditions by stating that in many
of the moimtain counties but 5 to 10 per cent of the land can be
cultivated, and much of this is hillsides or steep land that should be
in grass. The fattening of cattle is less practicable because of the
greater amounts of feeds necessary. Where feeds have to be shipped
in by rail, as is usually the case with the concentrates, the distance
from the railroad stations makes this practice prohibitive for many
farmers.

These statements in the main illustrate the conditions under which
the work was carried on and why certain parts of it were so outlined
and emphasized. Although much of this work will be of value to
stock growers in the Piedmont or lower mountain sections, its value
is more pertinent to the mountain areas of the section shown in the
outline map. (See fig. 1.)

KIND OF STEERS USED.

The steers used in this work were all native cattle raised in western
North Carolina. They were a good uniform lot of grade Shorthorn,
Aberdeen Angus, and Hereford breeding with a little Devon blood

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 3

showing. The cattle were mostl}^ 2-year-old steers, averaging about
800 pounds in weight in the fall. Most of them had been dehorned
previous to their purchase and the remainder were dehorned before
being placed in the feed lot. The cattle are charged in all tables and
statements at the actual cost per hundredweight.

^

V-

Z^'x^^^^^'^T^"''^

X./-^ l____Jj

\^ IOWA j)ov,t>»<7C)k_> \ '

\ ^^ j\

\___; 1

,»d\

\

7 1 LL.

I

MO. \ {.^-..A^

V~^^______—

r ^/ T E N N

0 K L A £l_— V— ""^

— C^ ^^\J

ARK. /

\

X^^s cARy

1 MISS.

ALA. \

, G A . \^

\ - L/v^rcr/^£:z

X n

\ 1 A. r

li^^^-^

^.^fr.SV'^'^^y

ij^^^^ ^^SW C'/Hl^A'^

^"""^X^ \

i ■

)FLA.\ .

Fig. 1. — Map showing location of experimental work (heavy black dot) and area (.shaded)
suitable for similar cattle-feeding operations ; also principal cattle markets.

CHARACTER AND PRICES OF FEED USED.

Local conditions will determine to a large extent the prices of feeds.
In the financial statements for each year the feeds are figured at
actual cost, but in all the comparative tables the feeds are figured at
an average price for the three years, which is as follows :

Pasture $1. 00 per steer per 28 clays.

Cottonseed cake 30.00 per ton.

Corn silage 3. 00 per ton.

Hay (alone) 15.00 per ton.

Hay, stover, and straw mixed 10. 00 per ton.

Hay and stover mixed 10.00 per ton.

Ear corn 0. 83 per bushel.

The feeds used were all of very good quality. The cottonseed cake
was cracked on -the farm. The only difference between cottonseed
cake and cottonseed meal is that the cake is unground. The cake is

4 BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGKICULTUEE.

much better than meal to feed in the open for several reasons: A
sudden rain Avill not injure cake to such an extent that the steers
Avill not eat it ; Avind will not blow it away : and it is hard enough so
that the steers must chew it, thus preventing greedy ones from eating
more than their share, which they could do if meal were fed. The
winter pasture consisted of orchard grass, blue grass, herd's grass,
and clover, which had grown up during the summer without being
ffrazed.

Fig. 2. — Charactei' of grazing lands ana pasture.
I. WINTERING STEERS PREPARATORY TO GRAZING ON PASTURE.

OBJECT OF THE WORK.

Most of the cattle in the mountainous section of North Carolina
are roughed through the winter, that is, carried on very light ra-
tions, and then finished on pasture for feeders the following sum-
mer. The experimental work was undertaken in order to determine,
first, just how much it costs to carry stock cattle through the winter;
second, if it is advisable to allow steers to lose in weight during the
winter months ; third, to determine not only the best and most eco-
nomical method of wintering cattle, but also the effect the different
methods of wintering cattle have on the way they gain in weight on
pasture the following summer.

PLAN OF WORK.

This particular work was planned to cover a period of three years
in order to get an average of season, feed, cattle, and condition tend-
ing to produce variation. The steers were divided into four lots,
using a carload in each lot, and those in each corresponding lot were

BEEF CATTLE IX NORTH CAROLINA. 5

fed the same ration each year. The phm was not to make the cattle
in the various h)ts gain in weight, but rather to winter them econom-
icall3% using light rations even though they lost some weight during
the winter, the fattening to be done on grass the following summer.
With the amounts of feed used the steers were wintered as well if
not better than the average stock cattle are wintered in the mountains.
An outline of the wort is given in Table 1 in order to present a
clear idea of the nature of the tests conducted.

Table 1. — General phiu of tlie three ijear.^' erperiment^.

Lot
No.

Average :
number of

steers per Winter feeding.i
lot for the

3 years.

Summer feeding.2

1

2
3

24

24
33
19

Ear com, com stover, hay, and straw s

Com silage, com stover, hav, and straw s

.do.3 "

One-half on grass, one-half on grass and
cottonseed cake.
Do.
Grass.

4

Do.

1 From time cattle were taken oil pasture in December until turned on pasture about Apr. 15.

2 From time cattle went on grass in spring to about Sept. 1.
8 Cora stover and hay were used the first winter.

The cattle in Lot 1 were fed during the winter each year on ear
corn and a light ration of corn stover, hay, and straw. These cattle
were divided in the spring into Division A, finished on grass alone,
and Division B, fed on grass with a small ration of cottonseed cake
in addition.

The cattle in Lot 2 were fed during the winter each year on corn
silage, corn stover, hay, and straw. In the spring the cattle were
divided and fed the same as Lot 1.

The steers in Lot 3 were wintered the same as those in Lot 2. The
following summer they were all finished on grass.

The steers in Lot 4 were Avintered on pasture, getting no feed or
shelter except during snows, when they were brought to the barn and
fed a small ration of dry roughage or dry roughage and ear corn
combined. The pasture on which these cattle were grazed and
finished is described on page 15.

METHOD OF FEEDING AND HANDLING THE STEERS.

The steers in Lots 1, 2, and 3 were fed about S a. m. and 4 p. m.
The steers of Lots 2 and 3 were fed silage alone in the morning and
corn stover, hay, and straw in the afternoon. The steers in Lot 1
were given one-half of the corn stover, hay, and straw in the morning
and the other half in the afternoon. The ear corn was chopped and
given at one feed in the morning.

The com stover and hay were mixed together in equal quantities
and run through a feed cutter before being fed. Where stover, hay,
and straw were used, these feeds were mixed, one-third each, and

6

BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

run through the feed cutter. The steers in Lot 4, on winter pasture,
were fed only during snows, when they were brought to the barn
and given a small ration of ear corn, corn stover, and hay. As soon
as the snow melted they were taken back to pasture. These steers
had no shelter at all, other than the natural shelter furnished b}^
trees, thickets, coves, etc. The cattle in the barns were turned out
into lots around the barn in the afternoon, and left about three hours
if the weather was clear ; if the weather was bad, they were left out
only long enough to get water. The steers were weighed every four
weeks, early in the morning, before being fed and watered.

AMOUNT OF FEED CONSUMED.

In considering the amount of feed consumed, it should be noted
that these cattle were getting only maintenance rations sufficient to
keep them in good, strong, thrifty condition. Table 2 shows the
total amount of feed consumed and the average daily ration per steer
durins: each of three winters.

Table 2. — Arerdi/c (UiUii rations (Ihre.e irintcrs).

1913-14.

Lot
No.

Number
of steers.

Number
of days.

128
128
123
112

Ration.

Ear corn i

Corn'stover and hay '

Corn silage i

Corn stover and hay '

Corn silage

Corn stover and hay.
Winter pasture 2

Total feed

Daily feed

per steer.

per steer.

Pounds.*

Pnuvds.

276

2.15

1,250

9.76

2,041

15. 95

66.5

5.19

2,006

16.31

605

4.92

1914-15.

1

24
24
31
26

131
131
131
131

391

1,434
789

1,807
791

1,717

2.99

10. 95

2

6.03

13. SO

3

6.04

13.11

4

1915-16.

24

119

24

119

33

119

16

119

Ear com

Corn stover, hay, and straw.

Corn silage

Corn stover, hay, and straw.

Corn silage

Corn stover, hay, and straw.
Winter pasture'^

374

3.14

1,358

11.41

2,142

18.00

714

6.00

2,142

18.00

714

6.00

1 Fed 2.43 pounds cottonseed cake daily to each steer of Lots 1 and 2 during the last 16 days of experiment.

2 Each steer of Lot 4 was fed an average of 5.S() pounds of hay for each of 15 days of the winter when the
grass was covered with snow. This was charged in cost of wintering.

3 An average of 1.65 pounds of cottonseed meal was fed to each steer daily for the last 16 days.

4 Silage was not fed to the steers of Lots 2 and 3 for the last 16 days of the experiment. Stover was fed
as the sole roughage with a grain ration of 2.44 pounds of corn and 1.91 pounds of cottonseed meal per head

5 Ttie steers had to be fed on 24 stormv davs, when the grass was covered with snow. During this time
each steer consumed a total of 183 poimds of stover and 58.5 pounds of ear corn, which is charged against
the cist of wmtering. ^, ^ , ^ „ ^ c

6 The steers had to be fed 14 davs on account of bad weather. They consumed about 2 pounds of ear
corn and 8 pounds of roughage per" head per day durmg that time, which was charged in cost of wmtermg.

BEEF CATTLE IN NOETH CAROLINA. 7

The first section of Table 2 presents the results for 1913-14. when
all the cattle were given a very light ration. In the winter of
1913-14 the "dry-fed" cattle (Lot 1) were given a total of 276
pounds of ear corn and 1,250 pounds of corn stover and hay per
steer, or a daily ration of 2.15 pounds of ear corn and 9.76 pounds of
corn stover and hay. The "sihige-fed" cattle in Lot 2 received a
total of 2,041 pounds corn silage and 665 pounds corn stover and
hay per steer, or a daily feed of 15.95 pounds silage and 5.19 pounds
of corn stover and hay.

The cattle in Lot 3, fed like those in Lot 2, were given a total
of 2,006 pounds of corn silage and 605 pounds corn stover and hay

I'--

Fig. 3. — Character of winter pasture and cattle (Lot 4, 1913-14).

per steer, or a daily feed of 16.31 pounds of corn silage and 4.92
pounds of corn stover and hay. During 15 days of the winter when
the grass was entirely covered with snow it was necessary to feed
the steers of Lot 4 some dry feed. They were given 88 pounds of
hay per steer during this time. This was the only feed these cattle
received other than the pasture during the entire winter.

The second section of Table 2 shows the average daily ration and
the total feed consumed per steer during the winter of 1914—15,
the second year of the experiments. The cattle in Lot 1 consumed
391 pounds of ear corn and 1.434 pounds of corn stover, hay, and
straw per steer, or a daily ration of 2.99 pounds of ear corn, and
10.95 pounds of corn stover, hay, and straw.

8

BULLETIN 628, V. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE.

The cattle in Lot 2 were given a total of 1,807 pounds of corn
silage and 789 pounds of corn stover, hay, and straw per steer, or a
daily ration of QM pounds of corn stover, hay, and straw, and 13.8
pounds of corn §ilage per steer.

The cattle in Lot 3 were given practically the same amounts of
feed as those in Lot 2. The daily ration consisted of 6.04 pounds of
corn stover, hay, and straw, and 13.11 pounds of corn silage per
steer. The winter-grazed cattle in Lot 4 were fed a total of 183
pounds of corn stover, hay, and straw, and 58.5 pounds of ear corn
per steer. The weather during this winter was very severe at times
and the steers in this lot were fed 24 days on account of snows.

Pig. 4. — steers after wiuleriiig ou pasture iLot. 4, l'.il4-15).

The third section of Table 2 shows the average daily ration and
total amount of feed consumed for the winter of 1915-16. During
this year the steers in Lot 1 got an average daily ration of 3.14
pounds of ear corn and 11.41 pounds of corn stover, hay, and straw.
The steers in Lots 2 and 3 got the same amounts of feed or a daily
ration of 18 pounds of corn silage and 6 pounds of corn stover, hay,
and straw per steer. The winter-grazed cattle (Lot 4) were fed 29
pounds of ear corn and 128 pounds of corn stover, hay, and straw
per steer during the bad weather, which extended over a period of
14 days during the winter.

TOTAL AND DAILY GAINS DURING WINTER.

Table 3 shows the average total gains and the daily gains made
per steer during each of the three winters, 1913-14, 1914-15, and
1915-16.

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA.

Table 3. — Total and daily i/ains durin;/ three nnnters.

1913-14.

Lot
No.

Num-
ber
of

steers.

Num-
ber
of

days.

Ration.

Average
initial
weight

per steer.

Average

final

weight

per steer.

Total

gain(+)

or

loss ( — )

per steer.

Daily
gain (+)

or
loss (■— )
per steer.

128
128
12.3
112

Ear com, com stover, and hay. .
Corn silage, com stover, and liay

do

Winter grazed

Pounds.
769
770

Pounds.
741
688
592
532

Pounds.
-28

-82
-84
+ 17

Pounds.
-0.22
- .64

1914-15.

1
2
3

24
24
31
26

131
131
131
131

Ear com , com stover, hay, and straw. . .
Corn silage, corn stover, hay , and straw,
.do. . ..

757
738
677
705

725
710
646
722

-32
-28
-32
-t-17

-0.24

- .21

''4

4

Winter grazed

+ 13

1915-16.

1
2
3

24
24
33
16

119
119
119
119

Ear corn, comstover,hay, and straw. .
Com silage, com stover, hav, and straw.
do

814
S06
770
762

779
764
730

788

-35

-42
-40
+26

-0.29

- .35

— .34

4

Winter grazed

+ .22

The table shows that m 1913-14 the cattle in Lot 1, fed on ear
corn, corn stover, and hay, lost during the winter a. total of 28
pounds per steer, equal to a daily loss of 0.22 pound per steer.
These steers made the smallest loss of any of the cattle in the barns.
The cattle in Let 2, fed corn silage, corn stover, and hay, lost 82
pounds per head, or a daily loss per steer of 0.64 pound during the
winter.

The cattle in Lot 3, which Avere " short-aged " and liirhter in
weight, were wintered on the same kinds of feed as those in Lot 2.
They lost practically the same per steer, showing a total loss of 84
pounds for the winter and a daily loss of 0.68 jiound.

The winter-grazed cattle (Lot 4) did not lose weight, but gained
17 pounds per steer, equal to a daily gain of 0.15 pound. In com-
paring these cattle with those in the other lots there seemed to be a
greater difference in their condition than the gains and losses indi-
cated. The steers in Lot 4 Avere in splendid condition wheu spring
came, whereas those in Lots 2 and 3 were very thin, though still
strong and thrifty. However, they were thinner than many buyers
of stock cattle would prefer if purchasing for shipment, as the losses
in transit probably would have been gi-eater.

During 191^15 the cattle in Lot 1. Avhich were fed the same as
those in Lot 1 the previous year, made a total loss for 131 days during

15333°— 18— Bull. 628—2

10 BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGKICULTUKE.

the winter of 32 pounds per steer or a daily loss of 0.24 pound. These
cattle in Lot 1 lost more than any of the cattle in the barn during
this winter's work. The silage cattle in Lot 2 lost 28 pounds per
steers, equal to a daily loss of 0.21 pound.

The silage cattle in Lot 3 lost practically the same per steer for tne
winter as those in Lot 1. The cattle in Lot 3 made a total loss per
steer of 32 pounds for the winter. There was very little difference
in the losses on these three lots of cattle in the barns. The steers
in Lot 4 gained 17 pounds per head instead of losing weight as did
those wintered in the barns.

During 1915-16 the cattle in Lot 1 were fed the same as those of
Lot 1 for the two previous winters. These steers lost a total of 35
pounds per animal for the winter, representing a daily loss of 0.29
pound.

The silage cattle in Lot 2 lost 42 pounds per steer, while those in
Lot 3 on the same kind of feed, lost 40 pounds per steer. . The dry-
fed cattle in Lot 1 this year made the smallest loss of any of the
cattle in the bams. The silage cattle in Lot 2 made the largest loss.
The winter-grazed cattle in Lot 4 made a gain during the winter of
26 pounds per head. These cattle were in good condition in* the
spring, after going through the winter on pasture.

Although the cattle in Lots 1, 2, and 3 lost some weight each year,
they came through the winter in good, strong, thrifty condition, or
in such condition that when put on pasture they would improve from
the start and make good gains in weight during the grazing season.

COST OF WINTERING.

Stockmen are interested in the cost of wintering the cattle and
their cost per hundredweight in the spring resulting from the winter
feeding. This is ascertained by taking the initial cost in the fall,
adding the cost of wintering, and dividing this sum by the weight
in the spring. This cost in spring per hundred pounds is important
to stockmen who Avant to graze cattle during the summer and do not
know whether it would be cheaper to buy cattle in the fall and
winter them or whether it would be cheaper to buy them in the
spring.

Table 4 shows the number of steers, rations, number of days w^in-
tered, fall prices per hundredweight, cost to feed each steer through
the winter, and spring cost per hundredweight for each of the three
years.

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA.

11

Table 4. — Cost of tcintcr'uuj ; fall and spring prices.

1913-14.

Lot

No.

Number

Number

of

of days

steers.

wintered.

25

128

25

128

35

123

17

112

Ration.

Fall
cost
per
cwt.

Cost to
feed each

steer
through
winter.

Spring
cost
per
cwt.

Ear com , corn stover, and hay

Corn silage , corn stover, and hay

do

Pasture

1914-15.

Ear corn, com stover, hay, and straw. . .
Corn silage, com stover, hay , and straw

do

Pasture

1915-16.

E ar com , corn stover , hay, and straw . .
Corn silage, corn stover, hay, and straw

do

Pasture

$5.50
5.50
5.00
4.50

$10. 10
6.97
6.06
4.66

$7.07
7.17
6.73
5.23

24

131

24

131

31

131

26

131

$6.00

$12. 20

6.00

7.58

6.00

7.45

6.00

6.29

$7.96
7.30
7.43
6.70

24

119

24

119

33

119

16

119

$6.00

$11.08

6.00

6.78

6.00

6.78

6.00

5.23

$7. 69
7.22
7.25
6.60

Feeds were charged for the three years at the folloAving average
prices :

Ear corn $0. S3 per bushel.

Cottonseed cake 30. 00 per ton.

Corn silage 3. 00 per ton.

Hay 1.5. 00 per ton.

Corn stover and hay 10. 00 per ton.

Corn stover, hay, and straw 10. 00 per ton.

Pasture 1. 00 per head per 28-day period.

In 1913-14 the cattle in Lot 1 cost $5.50 per hundredweight in the
faU. It cost $10.10 per steer to w^inter on ear corn, corn stover, and
hay, making the cattle cost $7.07 per hundredweight in the spring.

The silage cattle in Lot 2 cost $5.50 per hundredweight in the fall
and it cost $6.97 per steer to winter them, or $3.13 per steer less than
Lot 1, but the cattle in Lot 2 lost heavily during the winter. The
cost per hundredweight for Lot 2 in the spring' was $7.17, or 10 cents
per hundredweight more than those in Lot 1. The cattle in Lot 3,
wintered on the same kind of feeds as those in Lot 2, cost $6.06 per
steer to winter, the cost in the spring being $6.73 per hundredweight.
The initial cost of these cattle was 50 cents per hundredweight less
than those in Lots 1 and 2, as they were lighter cattle. There was
very little difference in the spring prices per hundredweight in the
cattle in Lots 2 and 3.

The winter-grazed cattle (Lot 4) made a gain during the winter,
while all the cattle in the barns lost weight. It cost $4.66 to winter

12

BULLETIN 628, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

these steers, while it cost $10.10 per steer to winter those in Lot 1, or
more than twice as much. Comparison of the spring prices shows
that the steers in Lot 4 cost $0.73 per hundredweight more in the
spring than they did in the fall, while those in Lot 1 cost $1.57 more,
in Lot 2 $1.67 more, and in Lot 3 $1.73 more. It cost more than
twice as much in every case to winter the cattle in the barns as it did
to winter those on pasture when the cost of feed and the gain or loss
in weight of the cattle are considered.

In 1914-15 it cost $12.20 to winter each steer of Lot 1. The fall
cost per hundredweight was $6 and spring cost $7.96. The silage
cattle in Lot 2 cost $7.58 per head to winter; the fall cost per hundred
pounds was $6 and the spring cost $7.30. The silage-fed cattle in
Lot 3 gave practically the same results. The cost of wintering them
was $7.45 per hundredweight. It cost $6.29 per steer to winter the
cattle in Lot 4. The spring price per hundredweight was $6.70, or an
advance of $0.70 per hundredweight over the intial cost in the fall.
The advance in the spring price per hundredweight on Lot 1 was
$1.96 ; on Lot 2, $1.30, and on Lot 3, $1.43. The winter-grazed cattle
gained in weight while those in the barns lost weight.

During the winter of 1915-16 the dry-fed cattle (Lot 1) cost $11.08
per steer to winter. The spring price of this lot was $7.69, an
advance of $1.69 over the fall cost. The cost of wintering the silage
cattle in Lots 2 and 3 was $6.78 per steer, and the increased cost in
spring was $1.22 and $1.25, respectively, per hundredweight. The
winter-grazed cattle (Lot 4), as in previous years, cost less to winter
than the cattle in the barns, and at the end of the winter they were
heavier than they were the previous fall. It cost $5.23 per steer to
winter them, or an advance of only $0.60 per hundredweight over
the initial cost.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

Table 5 is a general summary of the three years' work.
Table 5. — *s' »//(/« or;/ of the three winters' work.

Lot

No.

Ration.

Year.

Gain (+)
orlcss ( — )
for winter
per steer.

Initial

cost per

cwt.

Cost to

winter

per

steer.

Cost in

spring

per

cwt.

Advance in

spring cost

over initial

cost per

cwt.

1

Ear corn, corn stover, hay, and
straw.

1913-14
1914-15
191.5-16

Pounds.
-28
-32
-35.

$5. .50
6.00
6.00

SIO.IO
12.20
11.08

$7.07
7.96
7.69

SI. 57
1.96
1.69

-32

5.83

11.13

7.57

1.74

Corn silage, corn stover, hay, and
straw.

Average ...„„..,.„.....

1913-14
1914-15
1915-16

2

-82
-28
-42

5.50
6.00
6.00

6.97

7. .58
6.78

7.17
7.30
7.22

1.67
1.30
1.22

-51 1 5.83

7.11 j 7.23 1 1.40

. . ..._..^,

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 13

Table 5. — »S'/</>////«r// of the tJiree icinter.s' icurk — Contiuued.

Lot
No.

Ration.

Year.

Gain (+)
or loss (— )
for winter
per steer.

Initial

cost per

cwt.

Cost to
winter

per
steer.

Cost in

spring

per

cwt.

Advance in

spring cost

over initial

cost per

cwt.

3

Corn silage, corn stover, hay, and
straw.

A verage

1913-14
1914-15
1915-16

Pounds.

-84
-32
-40

5.00
6.00
6.00

6.06

7.45
6.78

6.73
7.43
7.25

1.73
1.43
1.25

-52 5. 67

6.76

7.14

1 47

Winter pasture

1913-14
1914-15
1915-16

4

+ 17 4.50
+17 6. 00
+26 6. 00

4.66
6.29
5.23

5.23
6.70
6.60

.73

Average

.70
.60

+20 1 ■'^ ^ 1 -T SQ

6.18

6S

Some important facts brought out by the work and conclusions
drawn from it are as follows:

1. The steers in Lots 1, 2, and 3 lost weight each winter, the aver-
age loss for the three 3'ears being 3-2, 51, and 52 pounds, respectively ;
while the steers in Lot 4, which were winter-grazed, gained in w^eight
everj^ year, making an average gain of 20 pounds per head for each
of the three wintei-s.

2. The average cost of wintering the steers on dry feeds was $11.13
per head, while the silage-fed steers (Lots 2 and 3) cost $7.11 and
$6.76, respectively, and the steers in Lot 4 had a charge of but $5.39
per head against them.

3. There was a saving of over $4 per head by using a combination
of silage and dry feeds instead of using the common Xorth Carolina
ration of dry roughage with a little ear corn. This emphasizes the
importance of silage as a winter feed for stocker cattle.

4. A saving of almost $6 per head was made by using meadows for
winter grazing over the method of feeding used for Lot 1.

5. It cost less than one-half as much to winter the steers of Lot 4
as it did those of Lot 1, and the steers of Lot 4 gained in weight while
those of Lot 1 last Aveight.

6. The average increased cost per 100 pounds of the steers in the
spring over the fall cost, due to the different methods of wintering,
was $1.74 for Lot 1, $1.40 for Lot 2, $1.47 for Lot 3. and $0.68 for Lot
4. In other words, the farmer who carries steers through the winter
under conditions similar to those in western North Carolina can fig-
ure that steers wintered on dry feed cost about If cents a pound more
by their spring weight than they did in the fall. Similarly, steers
wintered on a light silage ration cost about 1^ cents more, whereas
those wintered on prepared winter pastures cost less than f cent more
per pound.

14 BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

The actual increased " worth '' or value in the spring of one lot
of steers over another depends on how they put on gains the follow-
ing summer. This will' be discussed in Part III of this bulletin.

The value of silage as a winter feed for stocker cattle in moun-
tainous sections is shown by these experiments. A very limited
portion of the land can be used for raising crops^ and as silage crops
make a large tonnage of good feed per acre they will be especially
valuable under such conditions.

The results show most conclusively the great importance of pre-
pared meadows or winter pastures for wintering beef cattle. A
smaller acreage of pasture was required for wintering a steer than
for summer grazing the same steer.' In all these experiments, during
no winter w^as more than 2 acres required to winter a steer, and the
average amount for the three years was about 1.8 acres. During the
summer from 2 to 3 acres were required per steer.

The enormous areas of cut-over mountain lands and lands on
which there is timber of practically no value, but which are adapted
for cattle grazing can be made a source of a large income and profit
without undue or unjustifiable expenditure of money if put into
good, permanent pasture. These lands not only furnish excellent
winter grazing, but make pastures that are equaled by few in any
other part of the United States for fattening cattle during the sum-
mer months. This will be presented in Part III of this bulletin,
which deals with summer fattening of cattle. The farmer who
owns mountain land that has been cut over or is partly covered with
timber of little value is overlooking a good opportunity to make
money by not converting such lands into good permanent pastures.

II. WINTER GRAZING OF STEERS.

The chief problem in most of the grazing counties in the moun-
tainous areas is the furnishing of sufficient feed to winter stock cattle
in a satisfactory manner. Most stock raisers can graze more cattle
in summer than they can winter in good condition. One object of this
work, therefore, was to determine some method of wintering cattle
that would make possible the maintenance of a gi-eater number dur-
ing the winter months.

The winter-grazing work proved so profitable and satisfactory
from every viewpoint that it is given special consideration. The pos-
sibilities of using mountain land for winter pasture, the methods of
establishing the pastures, and the results obtained from them are
discussed below. The report of the results includes the total and
daily gains of all the winter-grazed cattle during the three years, the
cost of wintering, fall and spring values, and a summary of the
whole work. By grouping these facts a more significant idea can be

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 15

obtained by the reader regardiiiir the possibilities of this winter-
grazing method under his own farm conditions.

ESTABLISHING WINTER PASTURES.

The principal method used in getting the wooded mountain land
seeded to grass was as follows :

The coves and fiats, which were comparatively free from rocks,
were cleared first. A contract was made with the mountaineers,
giving them the free use of the land for two years if they would
deaden all the large trees, clear out the small brush, and put the
land in cultivation, planting corn each year. The land was unfitted
for any purpose other than pasture development, some of the moun-
tainous parts being so steep that horses or other work animals could
not be led straight up the sides but had to be taken up by a circuitous
route. The rows were run around the side of the mountain, follow-
ing the contour of the land. The land was not plowed deep, as the
enormous amount of humus in the soil prevented washing and leach-
ing. From this land from 40 to 60 bushels of corn per acre were
produced. The second year, at the last cultivation of the corn, a
mixture of 15 pounds of orchard grass, 4 pounds of blue grass, and 7
pounds of timothy and clover per acre, furnished by the owner of the
land, were seeded broadcast through the corn. The grass seed soon
produced a sod sufficiently firm to prevent any heavy erosion. The
orchard grass, which proved to be the best for winter purposes, grew
knee high or higher on this land by the fall of the year.

Although this method of cultivating the land in corn before seed-
ing has proved very satisfactory, it is not necessary, as grass seed
sown on burnt-over land makes good pasture if the land be dragged
and harrowed after seeding. After the pastures were seeded the
gi-ass was permitted to grow through the following summer before
being used for winter pasture. During this time the grasses grew up
and fell over, thus protecting the roots during the winter. Young
blades or shoots continued to come out during the early winter and
early spring months, furnishing considerable green feed along with
the cured forage.

Each year, after seeding, any undergrowth or sprouts that had
come up were cut down, but the cost of this was comparatively small.
However, it is not advisable to use new land for winter pasture for
more than two years in succession before using it for summer pasture.
Summer grazing will assist in keeping down sprouts and brush, giv-
ing the grasses a better opportunity to form a heavy sod, which is
very important under mountainous conditions.

Each succeeding year some new woodland was put in cultivation on
this farm in order to have new land for winter pasture and to accom-
modate the increased number of cattle which it was planned to piit on

16 BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTTTEE.

winter-grazing experiments. By this method the actual cash ex-
penditures for converting the raw woodland into good permanent
pasture was the cost of the small amount of seed used, plus the small
cost of " sprouting " each year for two or three years. This plan can
be used to advantage in nearly all parts of the mountain counties.

The pasture was charged at the rate of $1 per steer for each 28
days.

OBJECT OF THE WOKK.

The object of the winter-grazing work was:

(1) To determine the practicability of carrying stock cattle
through the winter on grass alone.

(•2) To determine a method of wintering that would equalize the
number of cattle that could be maintained profitably through both
summer and winter.

PLAN OF THE WORK.

This work covered a period of three years. The steers in each
lot were kept throughout one year, or until the end of the summer
grazing season, when they were sold as feeders. The cattle were
bought in the fall and put on winter pasture in late fall, usually
some time in December, when the sunmier grass gave out, which was
about the same time the other cattle in the experiment were taken
to the barns to be wintered.

No shelter was provided during the winter, as the coves in the
mountains furnished ample protection. The cattle were given no
feed except during stormy weather, when they were driven to the
barn and fed a light feed of hay or ear corn, corn stover, hay, and
straw. As soon as the snow melted they were taken back to pasture.
In the three years' work it was found that usually there is a period
of 10 days to 3 weeks that the cattle will have to be fed. In the
spring the cattle in this winter-grazing work were put on summer
pasture as soon as it would carry them, usually at the same time the
barn- wintered cattle were taken to summer pasture.

KIND OF STEERS USED.

The cattle used in this work were all grade native steers of Short-
horn, Hereford, and Angus breeding with a slight amount of Devon
blood in most of them. During the first year's work, 1913-14, the
steers used were not as large or as uniform as those used the two fol-
lowing years. The steers of the first year were mostly " short 2-year-
olds " ; those of the last two years were mostly 2-year-olds. All were
the same in quality and condition as the cattle used in the barn win-
tering, with the exception of those of the first year, which were some-
what lighter in weight than the barn-wintered cattle.

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA.

17

AMOUNT OF PASTURE ALLOWED PER STEER.

The average amount of pasture allowed per steer for winter graz-
ing was 2 acres, but in the suninier about 3 acres were required to
graze a steer to good advantage. Xo set rule can be given as to the
number of acres required to graze a steer either in winter or summer,
as the condtioins. such as the slope or exposure of the land, the kind
of soil, and its fertility, are so xariable in the ditl'erent sections.
The point which the writers Avish to emphasize is that less acreage is
required to winter graze a stocker for maintenance than to summer
graze the same steer to be furnished as a feeder or for butcher pur-
poses. It should be remembered, however, that the object of the win-
ter grazing is simply to maintain or rough a steer through, whereas
the summer grazing is for finishing the animal, which requires from
300 to -too pounds gain to put it in marketable condition.

GAINS DURING WINTER.

Table 6 shows the total and daily gains of the steers on winter
pasture.

Table 6. — Total and daily gains of steers on winter pasture.

Year.

Num-
ber of
steers.

Days

win-
tered

Ration.

Average
initial
weight

per head.

Average

final

weight

per head.

Total

gain

per head.

Average
daily gain
per head.

1913-14

17
26
16

112
131
119

Pounds.
515
705
762

Pounds.
532

722
788

Pounds.

17
17
26

Pounds.
0.15

1914 1')

do

.13

.do .'

.22

During the first winter, 1913-14, as shown in Table 6, the 17 steers
made an average total gain of 17 pounds, or a daily gain of 0.15
pound. The second year, 1914-15, the steers made a total gain of 17
pounds per head during the winter, or an average daily gain of 0.13
pound. This shows that there was very little difference in the gains
the first two winters. The last winter, 1915-16, the steers did unusu-
ally well, making a total gain per head of 26 pounds and an average
daily gain of 0.22 pound. When grass came in the spring all these
cattle were in good fleshy condition, but the cattle that were win-
tered in the barn were much thinner in flesh than they were in the
fall.

COST OF WINTERING.

The cost of wintering these cattle is one of the most interesting
and important factors to consider. This will vary in different
localities because of the difference in pastures and cost of feeds used
during snowy or stormy weather. The cost of steers per hundred

15333°— 18— Bull. 628 3

18

BULLETIN- 628, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

pounds in the spring, after they have been charged with the pur-
chase price in the fall plus the cost of pasture to carry them through
the winter, should be of great interest to farmers and stock raisers.
This is the deciding factor as to whether it will be cheaper to pur-
chase cattle in the fall or in the spring for gi-azing the following
summer.

Table 7. — Cost of wintering ; fall and spring prices.

Year.

Number
of steers.

Pounds
gain per
steer for
wiater.

Initial

cost
per cwt.

Cost to
winter
pasture.

Cost in
spring
per cwt.

Advance

in spring

over initial

cost per

cwt.

1913-14

17
26
16

17
17
26

$4. .50
6.00
6.00

$4.66
6.29
5.23

$5.23
6.70
6.60

1 $0. 73

1914 1.5 . .

1 .70

1915-16

1 .60

1 Average, $0.68.

Table 7 shows that there was no great difference in the cost of win-
tering these cattle during the three years' work. The cattle used the
first year were smaller and it did not cost as much per head to winter
them, yet the advance in cost per 100 pounds in the spring over the
cost in the fall was more than in the following two years' w^ork. The
average advance in cost in the spring over that in the fall was 68
cents per hundred pounds, whereas in all the winter cattle work in
the barns, as shown in Part I of this_ bulletin, there was an advance
in cost of from $1.40 to $1.70, or an average of $1.55 per hundred
pounds. This shows clearly the economy of providing winter pasture.

SUMMARY OF THREE YEARS' WINTER PASTURE WORK.

The steers during the winter of 1913-14 made a total gain of 17
pounds per head at an average cost of $4.66. The next winter the
average gain was the same, but the cost per steer was $6.29. During
1915-16 the steers made the largest gains of any in the three years'
work, namely, 26 pounds per head, at a cost of $6.60. In this third
winter the advance in cost per 100 pounds in the spring over the cost
in the fall was $0.60. The average for the three years was $0.68.

CONCLUSIONS FROM WINTER-GRAZING WORK.

Much of the rough mountainous land in western North Carolina
should be utilized for winter-grazing purposes. It is practically
unfit for any other purpose after the merchantable timber is cut..
Winter grazing and the use of the silo will enable stockmen of the
mountains to handle more cattle to better advantages through both
summer and winter than by the old method of wintering on dry-
harvested feeds.

BEEF CATTLE IN XOKTH CAROLINA. 19

In the experimental work the steers gained an average of 17
pounds per head the first winter, 17 pounds the second, and 26
pounds the third, the average gain being 19 pounds per head for the
three years. On the other hand, the dry-fed cattle, wintered in the
barns, lost an average of 32,5 pounds per head and the silage-
wintered cattle lost an average of 46 pounds during the three years.

These steers required an average of about 2 acres per head for
grazing in winter, but in summer stock cattle of similar kind require
ii bout 3 acres per head to make proper gains.

The cost per steer to carry the cattle through the first winter was
$1.66, the second winter $6.29, and the third winter $5.23, making
for the three years an average of $5.39 per head, or approximately
half Avhat it cost to dry-feed cattle in the barns. Besides, the last-
named steers lost weight.

This work shows that dry-wintered cattle must sell for an average
of $1.55 more per hundredweight in the spring than in the previous
fall to compensate for the loss in weight and the cost to carry them
through the winter. Instead of buying dry-wintered cattle in the
spring, it would be much better for stoclmien to purchase the steers
in the fall if they can furnish winter pasture to carry them through
to summer grass. This would mean not only cheaper but also better
finished cattle the following fall.

As this work was done under average conditions and covered a
period of three years, giving similar results each year, any farmer or
stock raiser can expect to get the same results if proper pasture plans
are made. This work is entirely practical for any stockman having
rough land for pasture purposes.

These cattle were fed only during snows or stormy weather. The
first winter they were fed thus 15 days, the second year 28 days,
and the third year 14 days, making for the three years an average of
a little less than three weeks.

Winter grazing having been found to be the best and most eco-
nomical method of wintering stock cattle. On the farm where this
work was done sufficient winter pasture eventually will be arranged
to handle all the stock cattle in this way during the winter.

III. SUMMER FATTENING OF STEERS.

OBJECT OF WORK.

Most of the cattle in this section of North Carolina are finished on
grass and sold as feeders when 2 years old. It was thought that the
extra finish acquired by feeding cottonseed cake with the grass would
make the cattle more readily marketable on butcher markets, making
greater discrimination in the quality and finish of cattle than ordi-
narily is made by buyers. By making a comparison of the two

20

BULLETIN 628, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

methods of finishing, the gains of the cattle and the finish acquired
could be studied also in relation to the different methods by which
the cattle had been wintered.

The object of the summer fattening work was to determine which
was the more profitable plan, viz, to finish steers on grass alone or to
finish them on grass and cottonseed cake. The steers used had been
wintered on various rations, consisting of (1) ear corn, corn stover,
and hay; (2) corn stover and corn silage; and (3) winter grass.

PLAN OF WORK.

Table 8 gives a clear idea of how the work was planned.

Table 8. — General plan of summer fattening of steers.

Lot
No.

Average

number of

steers for

the three

years.

Method of wintering Dec. 16 to Apr. 15.

Summer feeding, approximately from
Apr. 15 to Sept. 1.

1

24

24
33
19

Ear com, stover, hay, and straw

Lot divided, 12 steers on grass, and 12 on

2

do

grass and cake.
Do.

3

4

Com silage, stover, hay, and straw

Winter grazed (fed only during snows) . .

Grass.
Do.

The Avork covered a period of three years. After the steers had
been wintered on tlie different rations as shown, they were carried
through the summer on grass, or on grass with cottonseed cake.
The first year all the steers in Lots 1 and 2 were fed cake with
pasture. The second and third years these lots were subdivided in
the spring, half in each lot being allowed grass alone, and the others
a small feed of cottonseed cake in the pasture. The steers in Lots
8 and 4 were grazed without feed each summer. The steers in each
lot were numbered the same during the summer as in the previous
winter's work, so that the records of each lot could be followed from
one fall until the next.

KIND OF STEERS USED.

The steers were the same ones used in the wintering experiments.
They were mostly 2-year-old grade Shorthorns, Herefords, and An-
gus, with a small amount of Devon blood. The different lots were
as nearly uniform in weight and quality as possible.

CHARACTER AND PRICE OF PASTURE AND COTTONSEED CAKE.

Most of the pastures used had been established for some time; they
consisted of a mixture of blue grass, clover, orchard grass, timothy,

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA.

21

and herd's grass, which is a characteristic mixture for this part of
the State. The land was rolling and hilly, some of it being very
rough and steep, having some of the old dead trees standing. The
pastures were charged at the rate of $1 per steer for 28 days.

The cottonseed cake fed was high grade and was used because it
is not injured in quality by the rain, the wind will not blow it about,
and as the steers must chew the cake they are more likely to get an
equal share of it than with cottonseed meal. The difference between
the cake and meal is that the cake is unground. The cake was
cracked on the farm l)y running it through a corn-and-cob mill.
In the financial statements it is charged at actual cost for each year,
but in all the comparative tables it is charged at an average cost of
$30 per ton for the three years' work.

METHOD OF FEEDING AND HANDLING STEERS.

The steers were turned on pastures in the spring as soon as the
grass would carry them without injury to its subsequent growth.
They were given salt once a Aveek, and every four weeks they were
driven to the scales and weighed early in the morning. As soon as
weighed they were driven back to pasture, never being out more
than an hour at a time.

Troughs were provided in the pasture for feeding the cottonseed
cake, which was given late in the afternoon. Each steer was num-
bered by means, of an ear tag so that individual records could be
kept and the steers of each lot identified.

AMOUNT OF PASTURE AND COTTONSEED CAKE CONSUMED.

The steers were given an average of about 3 acres of pasture per
steer during the summer. Table 1) shows the amount of cottonseed
cake consumed in each year's work, giving the lot numbers, number
of steers, number of days on feed, ration, total amount of cake eaten
per steer, and daily feed per steer.

Table 9. — Average total and daily rations, three summers.

1914.

Lot Number
No. ofsteers.

Number
of days
on feed.

126
126
165
177

Ration.

Pasture and cottonseed cake.

do

Pasture only

do

Cottonseed cake.

Total con-
sumed by
each steer.

. Pound-i.
437
440

Average

daily ration

per steer.

Pounds.
3.47
3.49

22

BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table 9. — Average total and daily rations, three summers — Continued.

1915.

Number
of steers.

Number
of days
on feed.

Ration.

Cottonseed cake.

Lot
No.

Total con-
sumed by
each steer.

Average

daily ration

per steer.

1-n

12
12
12
12
31
26

140
127
140
127
140
140

Pasture only

Pounds.

Pounds.

T-h

530

4.17

?r-»

Pasture only

?-b

530

4.17

3

Pasture only

4

do

1916.

1-a

11

140

1-b

12

140

2-a

12

140

2-b

12

140

3

33

140

4

16

140

Pasture only

Pasture and cottonseed cake.

Pasture only

Pasture and cottonseed cake.

Pasture only

do

525

525

3.75

3.75

The first section of Table 9, giving the results of the 1914 work,
shows that Lot 1 consisted of 25 steers, which were fed 126 days,
getting a daily ration of 3.47 pounds of cottonseed cake per steer in
addition to the grass. Not 2 contained 25 steers, which were fed
almost the same quantity of feed, or a daily ration per steer of 3.49
pounds cottonseed cake for 126 days. Lot 3 contained 35 steers,
which were on pasture for 165 days without any cottonseed cake.
Lot 4 contained the 17 winter-grazed steers, which were on summer
pasture for 177 days without any cottonseed cake.

The second section, giving the results of the 1915 work, shows that
the cattle in division " a " of Lots 1 and 2 were on pasture alone for
140 days. The cattle of division "b" of these lots were fed for 127
days with a daily ration of 4.17 pounds of cottonseed cake per steer
in addition to the grass. Lots 3 and 4 (Lot 4 being the winter-
grazed cattle) were on pasture 140 days without any cottonseed cake.

The third section, giving the results of the 1916 work, shows that
all the steers were on pasture 140 days. The steers in division " b "
of Lots 1 and 2 were given a daily ration per steer of 3.75 pounds
cottonseed cake, or a total of 525 pounds for the season. The re-
mainder of the cattle were given grass only.

TOTAL AND DAILY GAINS.

Table 10 shows the average initial and final weights per head for
the steers of each lot, and the total and average daily gains per steer
for the three summers.

BEEP CATTLE IN XOKTH CAROLINA.

23

Table 10. — TutuI and (hiilij (jains, three suiniiicrs.
1914.

Lot
No.

Number

of
steers.

Days on
feed.

Average
initial
weight

per steer.

Average

final

weight

per steer.

Total
average

gain
per steer.

Average
daily
gain

per steer.

2.5 126

25 1 126

35 I 165

17 177

Pasture and cottonseed cake.

do

Pasture onlv

do

Pounds.
741
688
592
532

Pounds.

1,087

1,054

972

860

Pounds.
346
366
380
328

Pounds.
2.75
2.90
2.30
1.85

1915.

1-a

12

140

1-b

12

127

2-a

12

140

2-b

12

127

3

31

140

4

26

140

Pasture only

Pasture and cottonseed cake.

Pasture only

Pasture and cottonseed cake.

Pasture only

....do

708

1,137

1
429

742

1,086

344

705

1,073

368

715

1,116

401

646

1,013

367

722

1,067

345

3.06
2.71
2r.63
3.15

2.62
2.46

1 a

11
12
12
12
33
16

772
789
759
768
730
788

1,099
1,136
1,105
1,138
1,064
1,104

327
347
346
370
334
316

2.34

lb

2.48

9_«,

2.47

9..b

2.64

3

2.39

4

do

2.26

Section 1 of Table 10, giving the results of the 1914 work, shows
the initial weight of the cattle in Lot 1 to be 711 pounds, and the
final weight after 126 days to be 1,087 pounds, making a total gain
per steer of 346 pounds, or a daily gain of 2.75 pounds. The steers
in Lot 2 made a total gain of 366 pounds, or an average daily gain
of 2.90 pounds. The grass-finished cattle in Lot 3 made an average
gain of 380 pounds, or an average daily gain of 2.30 pounds. The
Avinter-grazed cattle (Lot 4), which were much lighter cattle, made a
total gain of 328 pounds per steer, or an average daily gain of 1.85
pounds for a period of 177 days. It must be remembered that the
cattle in Lots 1, 2, and 3 lost heavily during the previous winter
and the unusual gains on these steers w^ere due partly to getting back
the flesh lost during the previous winter, and that those in Lot 4
gained in weight during the winter. As will be shown later, the total
gain on the cattle in Lot 4 from fall to fall is larger than the gain on
any of the other lots of steers. This is an interesting fact in connec-
tion with Avinter grazing and the possibility of adapting it to all
mountainous counties of Xorth Carolina and of adjoining States.

The second section, giving the results of the 1915 work, shows that
Lot 1, division " a," contained 12 steers, which made a total gain of
429 pounds, or an average daily gain of 3.06 pounds. These cattle
made an unusually large gain this year. The only way to account for

24

BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

it was that the pasture probably was better than that provided for
the others. Division "b" of Lot 1, the cake-finished cattle, in 127
days made a total gain of 344 pounds, or an average daily gain of
2.71 pounds. Lot 2, division " a," containing the grass steers, made a

total gain of 368
pounds per steer, or
an average daily
gain of 2.63 pounds.
Lot 2, division " b,"
containing the grass
and cake fed steers,
made a total gain
per steer of 401
pounds, or an aver-
age daily gain of
3.15 pounds. Lot 3,

Fig. ."). — Cattle at beginning of summer fattening on pasture containing the
ana cottonseed cake, 1914. graSS-fcd SteerS,

made a total gain of 367 pounds per steer, or an average daily gain of
2.62 pounds. Lot 4, containing the winter-grazed steers, made, on
grass alone during the summer, a total gain of 345 pounds per steer,
or an average dail}^ gain of 2.46 pounds. These steers, as in previous

Fig. 6. — The same steers (shown in tig. 5) when finished in August, 1914.

years, made larger gains from fall to fall than any of the other cattle.
However, all the steers in the four lots made good gains during the
summer.

The third section gives the total and daily gains on the 1916 work.
This was an' unusually good year from the standpoint of the gains

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA.

25

made. The steers in Lot 1, division " a," made a total gain of 327
pounds per steer, or an average daily gain of 2.34 pounds during
the 140 days they were on experiment. Lot 1, division " b," con-
taining the grass and cake finished steers, made a total gain of 347
pounds, or an average daily gain of 2.48 pounds per steer in the
same length of time. Lot 2, division " a," containing the grass- fed
steers, made a total gain of 340 pounds, or an average daily gain
of 2.47 pounds per steer. Lot 2, division " b," containing the grass
and cake finished steers^ made a total gain of 370 pounds, or an
average daily gain of 2.G4 pounds per steer. Lot 3, containing the
grass cattle, made a total gain of 334 pounds, or an average daily
gain of 2.39 pounds per steer. Lot 4, containing the winter-grazed
cattle, made a total gain of 310 pounds, or 2.26 pounds daily per
steer for the sumuier. As in the two previous years' trials, steers in

Lot 4 made the largest gain from fall to fall. The cake-fed steers
made larger gains, however, than any of the steers that received
pasture alone.

QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED REQUIRED TO MAKE 100 POUNDS GAIN.

The cost of 100 pounds of gain will vary in different sections
owing to the difference in the cost of feed. When the farmer knows
how many pounds of feed are required to make 100 pounds gain he
can figure easily the cost under his own conditions. The principal
thing stock raisers and farmers want to know is how many pounds
of gain they can expect to put on a 2-year-old steer with grass alone
or with grass supplemented with cottonseed cake and the cost to
make 100 pounds of gain in each case.

Table 11 shows the quantity and cost of feed recjuired to make
100 pounds of gain.

15333°— 18— Bull. 628 4

26

BULLETIN" 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table 11. — Quantity and cost ' of feed required for 100 pounds gain.

1914.

T>ot,

Number

Days on

No.

of steers.

feed.

1

25

126

2

25

126

S

35

165

4

17

177

Ration.

Pasture and cottonseed cake.

do :

Pasture only

do :

Pounds of

feed to

make 100

pounds of

gain.

126
120

Cost of feed
for 100

pounds of
gain.

$3.20
3.03
1.55
1.93

1-a

12

140

1-b

12

127

2-a

12

140

2-b

12

127

3

31

140

4

26

140

Pasture only

Pasture and cottonseed cake.

Pasture only

Pasture and cottonseed cake.

Pasture only

....do

154
'i32'

$1.16
3.63
1 36
3.11
1.36
1.45

1-q

11
12
12
12
33
16

$1.53

1 b

Pasture and cottonseed cake .

147

3.65

?-q

1.45

?-b

Pasture and cottonseed cake

142

3.48

s

1.50

4

do

1.58

1 Price of feed and pasture: Cottonseed cake, $30 per ton: pasture, $1 per head per 2S-day period.

The first section of Table 11, giving the resuhs of the 1914 work,
shows it required 126 pounds of cottonseed cake in addition to the
grass the steers in Lot 1 received to make 100 pounds gain, which
cost $3.20 per hundredweight. The cattle in Lot 2 required 120
pounds cottonseed cake fed with grass to make 100 pounds gain at a
cost of $3.03 per hundred pounds gain. The gains on the cattle in
Lot 3, fed for a period of 165 days, cost $1.55 per 100 pounds, or just
about one-half as much as where cottonseed cake was fed. The
winter-grazed cattle (Lot 4), which were grazed during the summer
for 177 days, made 100 pounds gain at a cost of $1.93. The gains
were made much cheaper where no cottonseed cake was fed, there
being very little difference in the cost of the gains in Lots 1 and 2,
where cake was fed to both lots.

The second section gives the quantity and cost of feed required
to make 100 pounds gain in the 1915 test. It cost $1.16 to put 100
pounds gain on the grass-finished cattle of Lot 1, division "a," these
cattle making the cheapest gain of any of the grass- fed cattle. The
cattle in Lot 1, division " b," made 100 pounds gain at a cost of
$3.63, which were the most expensive gains made. The grass-finished
cattle in Lot 2, division " a," made 100 pounds gain at a cost of

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 27

$1.36. The grass and cake finished cattle in Lot 2, division "b,"
made 100 pounds gain at a cost of $3.11. The grass-finislied steers in
Lot 3 made 100 pounds gain for the same cost as those in Lot 2, divi-
sion " a," which was $1.36 per hundred pounds. The winter and
summer grazed steers made 100 poiuids gain at a cost of $1.45. This
was a very cheap gain when it is considered that these steers were
17 pounds heavier in the spring than in the previous fall, whereas
all the cattle in the other lots were from 28 to 32 pounds lighter in
the spring than in the fall previous.

The third section gives the ({uantity and cost of feed required to
make 100 pounds gain in the 1916 trial. The grass -finished cattle in
Lot 1, division " a." made 100 pounds gain at a cost of $1.53. The
grass and cake finished steers in Lot 1, division " b," made 100 pounds
gain at a cost of $3.65, 147 pounds of cottonseed cake being fed with
the grass to make this gain. The grass-finished steers in Lot 2,
division " a," made 100 pounds gain at a cost of $1.45, which was the
cheapest gain made by any of the cattle during this summer's work.
The grass and cake finished steers in Lot 2, division '' b," required
somewhat less cake to make 100 pounds gain than those in Lot 1, di-
vision "b," only 142 pounds of cake being fed to make 100 pounds
gain at a cost of $3.48. The grass-finishecL steers in Lot 3 made 100
pounds gain at a cost of. $1.50. The winter and summer grazed
steers (Lot 4) made 100 pounds gain during the summer at a cost
of $1.58. This was a very cheap gain when it is Considered that these
cattle were 26 pounds heavier in the spring than in the fall previous,
and that steers in the other lots had lost 30 to 40 pounds per head
during the winter and would consequently make more rapid gains
during the sunmier season.

SUMMARY OF THE THREE YEARS' WORK, INCLUDING WINTER

AND SUMMER.

In order to make the combined winter and summer work for the
three years clear, a general summary (Table 12) has been prepared,
giving the rations, gain or loss for the winter per steer, gain for the
summer per steer, total gain for the year, total cost per pound gain,
total cost per steer both winter and sunmaer ; and total profit per steer,
including manure. In Lot 4, where the cattle Avere on pasture all
winter, the manure was not included in figuring the profit per steer.
The feeds in Table 12 were figured at the average cost for the three
years.

28 BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPABTMENT OF AGRICULTUBE.

Table 12. — Sumtnunj of three yearn' icork, winter and summer.

I.ot
No.

Ration.

Year.

Gain(+)
or loss
(-) for
winter

per steer.

Gain for
summer
per steer.

Total

gain over

fall

weieht
per steer.

Cost per

pound of

vearly

gain.

Total
cost per
steer.

Total
profit per

steer,
including
manure.

1-a

AVinter: Ear corn, stover, and
hay. Summer: Grass.

1913-14
1914-l.i
1915-10

Pounds.

(')
-32
-35

Pounds.

Powndz.

429
327

397
292

$0. 043
.055

$17. 20
16. OS

$20. 62
16.84

-33

378

344

.048

16.64

18.73

Winter: Ear corn, stover, and
hay. Summer: Grass and
caice.

Average.. ..

1913-14
1914-10
1915-16

1-b

-2S
-32
-35

346
,344
347

318
312
312

.066
.079
.096

21.16
24.70
30.13

22.75
14.36
12.45

-32

345

314

.074

25.33

19.85

Winter: Silage, stover, and hay.
Summer: Grass.

Average

1913-14
1914-15
1915-16

2-a

-28
-42

368
346

340
302

.037
.039

12.58
11.78

20.30
21. 83

-35

357

321

.038

12.18

21.06

Winter: Silage,stover and hay.
Summer: Grass and cake.

191.3-14
1914-15
191.5-16

2-b

-82
-28
-42

366
401
370

284
373

328

.064
.054

.078

18.07
20.07
25.83

23.23
24.10
16.31

-51 1 379

328

.065

21.32

21. .54

Winter: Silage, stover, and hay.
Summer: Grass.

1913 14
1914-15
1915-16

3

-84
-32
-40

380
367
334

296
335
294

.040
.037
.040

11.94
12. 45
11. 78

24.31
19.87
21.12

-52

360

308

.039

.032
.031
.030

12.06

10.98
11.29
10. 23

21.77

Winter: Pasture. Summer:

1913-14
1914-15
1915-16

•4

17
17
26

328
345
316

345
362
342

2 21.75
2 21. 18

2 24. 16

20

330

350

.031

10.80

2 22. S6

1 All the steers in Lots 1 and 2 during 1914 were fed cottonseed cake and pasture.

2 No manure included.

Table 12 shows that the steers in Lot 1, division " a," were wintered
each year on ear corn, corn stover, and hay. During the summer they
were on grass alone. These steers lost an average of 33 pounds per
steer each winter for the three years. During the summer they made
an average total gain of 378 pounds, or a total gain over the initial
fall weight of 344 pounds, at an average total cost of $16.64 per steer.
They made an average profit per steer of $18.73, the total average
cost per Dound of gain being $0,048.

The Steers in Lot 1, division "b," wintered the same as those in
Lot 1, division " a," but fed cottonseed cake on grass during the
summer, lost 32 pounds per steer during the winter. The average
total gain during the summer was 345 pounds, or a total gain per
steer over the initial fall weight of 314 pounds. The total cost per
steer was $25.33, showing an average profit per steer of $19.85, the
total average cost per pOund of gain being $0,074.

The steers in Lot 2, division " a,'' wintered on corn silage, corn
stover, hay, and straw, and getting grass alone during the summers,
lost on an average 35 pounds per steer during the winter. The a^er-

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 29

age gain for the sninnier was 357 i)ounds per steer, the average total
gain over initial weight of 321 pounds, the average total cost per
steer $12,18, showing an average profit of $21.06 per steer, the total
average cost per pound gain being $0,038.

The steers in Lot 2, division '' b," were wintered the same as those
in Lot 2, division " a," and were given cake in addition to grass dur-
ing the summers. These steers lost an average during the winter of
51 pounds per head. They made an average gain for the summer of
379 pounds, or a total gain over initial weight of 328 pounds. The
average total cost was $21.32 per steer, showing an average profit of
$21.51 per steer, the total cost per pound of gain being $0,005.

The steers in Lot 3 were w^intered the same as those in Lot 2, on
com silage, corn stover, hay, and straw, and summered on grass
without cake. These cattle lost an average of 52 pounds per head
during the winter, and made an average total gain during summers
of 360 pounds, or a total gain over initial fall weight of 308 pounds
at an average total cost of $12,06, showing an average profit of
$21.77. The total cost per pound of gain was $0,039.

The cattle in Lot 4 were grazed both winter and summer. It is
very interesting to study the results of this work, as these cattle
gained an average of 20 pounds per steer during each winter for the
three years. The total gain for the summer averaged 330 pounds per
steer, or a total gain over the initial fall weight of 350 pounds at
an average total cost of $10.80, showing an average profit of $22.36
per steer, exclusive of the value of the manure. The total cost per
pound gain was $0,031.

CONCLUSIONS.

During the first two summers' work the feeding of cottonseed cake
to steers on grass was profitable. During the last year's work, owing
to the high price of the cake, it did not pay. Considering this fact
and the high price that feeders have been celling for, the feeding of
cottonseed cake on grass will not prove sufficiently profitable to rec-
ommend it as a general practice. It should be imderstood, however,
that this applies to conditions similar to those where this work was
conducted, that is, where the steers can get an abundance of excel-
lent blue grass.

Winter grazing not only proved to be the most satisfactory method
of wintering stock cattle, producing a substantial gain each year,
but it was the cheapest method tried in any of the wintering work.
In addition to this, these winter-grazed cattle made the largest total
gain for the year and at less cost per head than any of the steers
wintered in the barns.

These winter-grazed cattle also made a larger average profit than
any of the other lots of cattle. Not including the manure, the total

30 BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

profit was $22.36 per head. Allowing a credit of $-1: per steer for
the manure during the winter, the profit was $26.36 per head. This
proved to be one of the most favorable and satisfactory methods of
handling cattle during both winter and summer.

The winter-grazed cattle cost the least per head, both winter and
summer, this being $10.80, or $1.26 less per head than the steers in
Lot 3, which made the next most economical showing and whose total
profit was $21.77 per head.

The results of three years' work show that steers which have been
fed silage heavily during the winter, make practically as good gains
the following summer on pasture as steers wintered solely on dry
feeds. The total average gain of the silage-wintered steers from fall
to fall was 319 pounds, Avhile the dry-fed steers made a total average
gain of 329 pounds per head. Considering that the dry-fed cattle
were somewhat the better in quality, there is not enough difference
in the gains to shoAv that silage-wintered cattle do not thrive well the
following summer.

The results show conclusively the value of winter pasture when
combined with summer pasture. The total average gain from fall to
fall on these cattle was 350 pounds, which was made at a cost of
$0,031 per pound. The winter-grazed cattle did well on summer
grass and on the average were better cattle when finished in the fall
than those wintered in the barns.

The next most economical showing was made by the cattle wintered
on silage, stover, and hay, followed by grass in summer. The aver-
age cost per pound gain was $0,039 for the total gain made from
fall to fall. This shows the value of silage in Avintering stocker
cattle.

The dry-wintered cattle which were finished on gi^ass alone the
next summer made an average gain of 34-1 pounds per steer at an
average cost of $0'.048 per pound, which was practically 1 cent per
pound more for the total gains made than the silage-wintered cattle.
The cattle wintered on silage, corn stover, and hay and finished
on grass and cake made an average total gain from fall to fall of
328 pounds at a cost of $0,065 per pound, whereas the cattle wintered
on the same ration but finished on grass alone made their gains at a
cost of $0,038 per pound. This shoAvs that the silage and grass com-
bination during winter and summer, respectively, is the more satis-
factory, considering the cost of the gains.

The steers wintered on a dry ration of ear corn, corn stover, and hay
and finished during the summer on grass and cottonseed cake made
a total gain of 314 pounds from fall to fall at an average cost of
$0,074 per pound. This was the most expensive gain produced. It
is interesting to note in this connection that this is the common

BEEF CATTLE IX NORTH CAROLINA. 31

method of wintering stock cattle in the mountains of North Carolina
and of surrounding States.

Considering the combination where the cattle were dry-wintered
on ear corn, corn stover, and hay and finished on grass alone, the
average cost per pound for the total gain made from fall to fall was
$0,048. The difference between the ration fed in this case and that
presented in the foregoing paragraph was the elimination of the
cottonseed cake during the summer, which reduced the cost per pound
of gain from $0,074 to $0,048. These figures show that the combina-
tion of dry wintering with grass during the summer produced the
least economical gains from fall to fall. The important conclusion
to be drawn from these figures is that, where winter pasture can not
be prrA'ided, cattle wintered on corn silage with dry roughage and
finished on grass make the cheapest gains.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

In connection with the following yearly financial statements it
should be remembered that the figures apply to the local conditions
where the work was conducted. There are a great many factor's
which will make financial statements vary, such as the initial cost and
selling price of the steers, cost of the various feeds, and cost of
pasture. The statements presented below show that all the cattle
made a profit, the great value of winter pasture being especially
prominent in this connection.

Table 13. — FinanHal statement, 19 J 3-14.

Lot 1. Wintered 128 days ou ear corn, corn stover, and hay. Finished
on pasture and cottonseed calie 126 days :

To 25 steers, 19,235 pounds, at $5.50 per cwt .$1, 057. 92

To wintering 25 steers, at $8.80 per cwt 220. 00

To pasture 12G days, at $1 per 28 days 112. .50

To 10,932 pounds cottonseed cake, at $30 163. 98

Total expenditures 1. 554. 40

By sale of 25 steers,' 27.170 pounds, at $7.75 2. 105. 67

By value of 25 tons manure, at $2 per ton 50. 00

Total receipts 2. 155. 67

Total profit, iucludins manure 601. 27

Total profit, not including manure '. 551. 27

Average profit per steer, including manure 24. 05

Average profit per steer, not including manure 22. 05

1 This lot was sold in Asheville, N. C, at home weights. ~ No slaughter or shrinkage
data secured.

32 BULLETIN 628, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Lot 2. Wintex-ed 128 days on corn silage, corn stover, and hay. Fat-
tened on pasture and cottonseed cake 126 days :

To 25 steers, 19,250 pounds, at .$5.50 per cwt $1, 058. 75

To wintering 25 steers, at $6.96 per cwt 174. 00

To pasture of 25 steers. 126 days, at $1 per 28 days * 112. 50

To 11,004 pounds cottonseed cake, at $30 per ton 165. 06

Total expenditures , 1. 510. 31

By sale of 25 steers.' 26,340 pounds, at $7.75 2, 041. 35

By value of 25 tons manure, at $2 per ton 50. 00

Total receipts 2. 091. 35

Total profit, including manure 581. 04

Total profit, not including manure ■ 531. 04

Average profit per head, including manure 23.24

Average profit per head, not including manure 21. 24

Lot 3. Wintered 123 days on corn silage, corn stover, and hay. Fin-
ished on pasture alone, 165 days :

To 35 steers, 23,665 pounds at $5 per cwt 1, 183. 25

To wintering 35 steers at $6.05 per cwt 211. 75

To pasture, 165 days at $1 per 28 days 206. 25

Total expenditures 1. 601. 25

By sale of 35 .steers.' 34,030 pounds at $7___ 2, 382. 10

By value of 35 tons manure at $2 per ton 70. 00

Total receipts 2. 452. 10

Total profit including manure 850.85

Total profit not including manure 780. 85

Average profit per head including manure 24.31

Average profit per head not including manure 22. 31

Lot 4. Wintered on range 112 days. Finished on jiasture only, 177
days :

To 17 steers. 8,765 pounds at $4.50 per cwt 394. 42

To wintering 17 steers at $4.66 per head 79. 22

To summer pasture, 177 days at $1 per 28 days 107. 44

Total expenditures 5S1. 08

By sale of 17 steers,' 14.630 pounds at $6.50 950. 95

Total receipts 9.50. 95

Total profit. 17 steers 369. 87

Average profit per head 21. 75

Prices charged for feeds in 191,3-14:

Ear corn per bushel . 50

Cottonseed cake perton__ .30.00

Corn silage do 3.00

Corn stover and hay do 10. 00

Hay (alone) do 1.5. 00

1 This lot was sold in Asheville at home weights. No shrinUage or slaughter data
secured.

- This lot sold as feeders.

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 3S
Table 14. — Financial statement, l!)L'i-15.

Lot 1-a. Wintered on ear corn, stover, and hay ; finished on pasture :

To 12 steers, 8,750 pounds, at $6 per cwt $525. 00

To wintering 12 steers, 131 days, at $12.75 each '. 153. 00

To pasture charges, 140 days, at $1 per 28 days 60. 00

Total expenditures 738. 00

By sale of 12 steers, 13,640 pounds, at $7 954. 80

By value of 12 tons manure, at $2 per ton 24. 00

Total receipts 978. 80

Total profit, including manure 240. 80

Total profit, not including manure 216. 80

Average profit per head, including manure 20. 06

Average profit per head, not including manure 18. 06

Lot 1-b. Wintered on ear corn, corn stover, and hay. Summer fat-
tened on grass and cottonseed calie :

To 12 steers, 9,420 pounds, at $6 per cwt 565. 20

To wintering 12 steers, 131 days, at $12.75 each 153. 00

To pasture charges, 127 days, at $1 per 28 days 54. 48

To 6,360 pounds cottonseed cake, at $25 per ton 79. 50

Total expenditures 8-52. 18

By sale of 12 steers, 13,030 pounds, at $7.75 1, 009. 82

By value of 12 tons of manure, at $2 per ton_ 24. 00

Total receipts 1, 033. 82

Total profit, including manure 181. 64

Total profit, not including manure 157. 64

Average profit per head, including manure 15. 13

Average profit per head, not including manure 13. 13

Lot 2-a. Wintered on corn silage, stover, and hay. Fattened on pas-
ture alone :

To 12 steers, 8,8-50 pounds, at $6 per cwt $531. 00

To wintering 12 steers, 131 days, at $7.58 each___ 90. 96

To pasture, 140 days, at $1 per 28 days 60. 00

Total expenditures 681. 96

By sale of 12 Steers, 12,880 pounds, at $7 901. 60

By value of 12 tons of manure, at $2 per ton 24. 00

Total receipts 925. 60

Total profit, including manure : 243. 64

Total profit, not including manure 219. 64

Average profit per head, including manure 20. 30

Average profit per head, not including manure 18.30

34 BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Lot 2-b. Wintered on silage, stover, and hay. Finished on pasture
and cottonseed cake:

To 12 steers, 8,860 pounds, at $6 per cwt $531. 60

To wintering 12 steers, 131 days, at $7.58 each -_ 90. 96

To pasture for 12 steers, 127 days, at $1 per 28 days 54. 48

To 6,360 pounds cottonseed cake, at $25 per ton 79. 50

Total expenditures 756. 54

By sale of 12 steers, 13,390 pounds, at $7.75 1, 037. 72

By value of 12 tons manure, at $2 per ton ^ 24. 00

Total receipts ^ — 1. 061. 72

Total profit, including manure 305. 18

Total profit, not including manure 281.18

Average profit per head, including manure 25.43

Average profit per head, not including manure 23. 43

Lot 3. Wintered on silage, stover, and hay. Finished on pasture
alone :

To 31 steers, 21,000 pounds at $6 per cwt 1, 260. 00

To wintering, 131 days at $7.45 each 230.95

To pasture, 140 days at $1 per 28 days 155. 00

Total expenditures 1, 645.95

By sale of 31 steers, 31,430 pounds at $7 per cwt 2, 200. 10

By value of 31 tons manure, at $2 per ton 62. 00

Total receipts ., 2, 262. 10

Total profit, including manure 616. 15

Total profit, not including manure 554.15

Average profit per head, including manure — 19. 87

Average profit per head, not including manure 17.87

Lot 4. Winter grazed. Finished on pasture alone :

To 26 steers, 18,330 pounds at $6 per cwt 1, 099. 80

To wintering 26 steers 131 days at $6.41 each 166. 66

To pasture, 140 days, at $1 per head for 28 days 130. 00

Total expenditures '- 1. 396. 46

By sale of 26 steers, 27,760 pounds at $7 per cwt 1, 943. 20

Total receipts 1. 943. 20

Total profit on 26 steers .546.74

Average profit per steer 21.03

Prices of feeds charged in 1914-15:

Ear corn per bushel 1.00

Cottonseed cake per ton__ 2.5.00

Corn stover, hay, and straw do 10. 00

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 36

Table 15. — Financial statement, 1915-16.

Lot 1-a. Wintei'^d on ear corn, stover, hay, and straw. Finished on
pasture :

To 11 steers,' 8,940 pounds ut $6 per cwt $536. 40

To wintering 11 steers, 119 days at $12.13 each! 133. 43

To pasture, 140 days at $1 per 28 days 55. 00

Total expenditures 724. 83

By sale of 11 steers, 12,090 pounds at $7.25_^ 876. 52

By value of 11 tons manure at $2 22. 00

Total receipts *_ 898. 52

Total profit including manure 173.69

Total profit not including manure 151. 69

Average profit per head including manure 15. 79

Average profit per head not including manure , 13. 79

Lot 1-h. Wintered on ear corn, stover, hay, and straw. Finished on
pasture and cottonseed cake :

To 12 steers, 9,730 pounds at $6 per cwt 583. 80

To winterijig 12 steers. 119 days at $12.13 each 145. .56

To pasture, 140 days at $1 per 28 days 60. 00

To cottonseed cake, 6,540 pounds at $35 per ton 114.45

Freight, Clyde to Baltimore 46.68

Feed in transit to Spencer, N. C 1. 75

Feed and insurance in yards at Baltimore 12. 05

Commission charges -- 10. 00

Total expenditures 1 974. 29

By sale of 12 steers, 13,100 pounds at $8.25 1, 070. 75

By value of 12 tons manure at $2 1 24. 00

Total receipts 1. 094. 75

Total profit including manure 120. 46

Total profit not including manure 96. 46

Average profit per steer including manure 10.03

Average profit per steer not including manure 8. 03

Lot 2-a. Wintered on corn silage, corn stover, hay and straw. Fin-
ished on grass :

To 12 steers, 9,700 pounds at $6 per cwt 582. 00

To wintering 12 steers, 119 days at $6.78 each 81. 36

To pasture, 140 days at $1 per 28 days 60. 00

Total expenditures 1 723. 36

By sale of 12 steers, 13,260 pounds at $7.25 per cwt 961. 31

By value of 12 tons manure at $2 per ton 24.00

Total receipts 98.5. 31

iThis lot was started with 12 steers, but one of them died, so only 11 were used.

36 BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPAETMENT OP AGRICULTURE.

Lot 2-a — Continued.

Total profit including manure $261.95

Total profit not including manure— 237. 95

Average profit per head including manure 21.83

Average profit per head not including manure 19. 83

Lot 2-b. Wintered on corn silage, corn stover, hay, and straw.
Finished on gi'as.s and cottonseed cake:

To 12 steers, 9,640 pounds at $6 per cwt 578.40

To wintering 12 steers, 119 days at $6.78 each 81. 36

To pasture, 140 days at $1 per 28 days 60. 00

To cottonseed cake, 6,540 pounds at $35 per ton 114. 45

Freight. Clyde to Baltimore 46.68

Feed in transit to Spencer, N. C 1. 75

Feed and insurance in yards, Baltimore 12. 05

Commission charges 10. 00

Total expenditures 904. 69

By sale of 12 steers, 12,850 pounds at $8.25 1, 060. 12

By value of 12 tons of manure at $2 24. 00

Total receipts .J 1, 084. 12

Total profit including manure 179.43

Total profit not including manui-e 155. 43

Average profit per head including manure 14.95

Average profit per head not including manure 12. 95

Lot 3. Wintered on corn silage, stover, hay, and straw. Finished on
pasture :

To 33 steers, 25,415 pounds at $6 per cwt 1, 524. 90

To wintering 33 steers, 119 days at $6.78 each ■ 223. 74

To pasture, 140 days at $1 per 28 days 165. 00

Total expenditures 1, 913. 64

By sale 33 steers, 35,100 pounds at $7.25 2, 544. 75

By value of 33 tons of manure at $2 per ton 66. 00

Total receipts 2, 610. 75

Total profit, including manure 697. 11

Total profit, not including manure 631. 11

Average profit per steer, including manure ^ 21.12

Average profit per steer, not including manure 19. 12

Lot 4. Winter grazed and summer grazed :

To 16 steers, 12,195 pounds at $6 per cwt 730. SO

To winter pasture, 119 days at $1 per 28 days 68. 00

To feed during snows at $1.05 per head 16.80

To summer pasture, 140 days at $1 per 28 days 1 80. 00

Total expenditures 895. 60

By sale of 16 steers, 17,670 pounds at $7.25 per cwt 1, 281. 07

Total receipts 1. 281.07

BEEF CATTLK IN NORTH CAROLINA.

37

Lot 4 — Continued.

Total profit on 16 steers $385.47

Average profit per steer 24.09

Prices of feeds charged in 1915-10 :

Ear corn . per bushel 1. 00

Cottonseed cake per ton__ 35.00

Corn silage do 3.00

Hay, .stover, and straw do 10.00

SLAUGHTER DATA.

At the close of the first yeai-'s work the cake-fed steers in Lots 1
and 2 were sold to local butchers in Asheville. They were killed at
different times, so the slaughter data were not obtainable. The same
applies to these lots in the second year's work, 1914—16. They were
sold to a prominent North Carolina resort owner, who continued to
feed them during the winter to supply the hotels, a few being killed
at a time.

The cake-fed steers in Lots 1 and 2 in 191() were shipped direct
to market and the shipping and slaughter data are given in Table 10.

Tablk 16. — Shipping and slaughter data, 1915-16.

Item.

Number of steers

Final weight on farm Sept. 5 pounds

Weight at railroad station Sept. 5 do. .

Shrinkage in driving to railroad do. .

Do percent

Selling weight pounds

Total net shrinkage in transit do. .

Do J percent

Dressing percentage on farm weight do..

Dressing percentage on market weight do. .

Lot 1-b.

12
1,149
1,108

41

3.57
1,092

57
4.96

52.24

54.99

Lot 2-b.

12

1,158
1,099
59
5.1
1,071
87
7.51
52.59
56.97

These cattle were driven 15 miles to the railroad station, where
they were watered and then loaded on cars. They were shipped
September 5. They arrived in Baltimore September 8 and were sold
on the market September 11. All the cattle summered on grass were
sold as feeders, so that only a very small number of slaughter data
w'ere obtained from the summer work.

Table 16 shows that the steers in Lot 1-b, wintered on dry feed,
lost 57 pounds in transit, and the steers in Lot 2-b, wintered oh corn
silage, lost 87 pounds in transit. This difference is accounted for
by the fact that the winter dry-fed cattle took a greater fill of water
than those in Lot 2. The steers in Lot 1 had been accustomed to
drinking out of water troughs at the farm, and wdien they reached
Baltimore they took more water than Lot 2, which had drunk out of
the branch both winter and summer. Although the silage-fed cat-
tle lost more in transit, it will be noticed that their dressing per-
centage was higher on both market and home weights than that of
the steers in Lot 1.

38 BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

IV. WINTER FATTENING OF STEERS.

In the mountain districts of western North Carolina and adjacent
sections of other States it has been the custom for farm-ers and stock-
men to sell their steers in the fall of the year as feeders. When it is
taken into consideration that some of these farmers raise considerable
feed, such as corn, hay, and straw, which is often not used most ad-
vantageously, and that the cattle handled under the usual methods
furnish little manure for 'the cultivated fields, the feasibility of
profitably finishing out a large number of these steers for the block
is a question that at once presents itself. Many farmers of this sec-
tion have desired information concerning the values of home-grown
feeds, especially silage and other roughages, as well as the use of
cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls for fattening steers.

The following-described experiments were carried out to furnish
dependable information of this sort and to illustrate methods of
feeding and handling steers on feed in the dry lot, besides affording
a comparison between selling steers as finished beeves and as feeders.

EXPERIMENTS OF 1913-14.

These experiments were conducted for the purpose of determining
whether steers in this region could be fattened profitably during
winter months for the market, and of comparing this method of dis-
posing of the steers with the usual practice of selling them as feeders
in the fall. It was desired also to obtain information as to what
feeds usually would prove most efficient and profitable in finishing
mature steers under farm conditions in these mountain regions.

These objects involve a consideration of the methods best adapted
for handling the steers, the use of native feeds ordinarily available,
as well as the use of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, which must
be shipped in, and a study of the problems connected with marketing
the finished cattle.

PLAN OF THE WOEK.

The work was carried out under average farm conditions for the
section, and the care and attention given it were such as any good
farmer should employ in doing similar work for himself. The cattle
were divided into two lots of 12 steers each and were given the same
care and management. The steers in Lot 1 were fed a ration of
cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, and a mixture of corn stover and
hay, while those of Lot 2 were fed cottonseed meal, ear corn, and
cottonseed hulls, with corn stover and hay. The steers were fed
from November 17, 1913, to March 9, 1914, a total of 113 days.

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 39

KIND OF STEEKS USED.

All the steers were representative native cattle of western North
Carolina, averaging- 2 years old. and had been secured from Hay-
wood, Madison, and Buncombe Counties. None of them was a purs
bred. Most of them were Shorthorn, Hereford,' and Angus grades ;
some were grade Devons; and a few showed traces of dairy breed-
ing. They were uniform in size and were divided into two lots as
equally as possible according to weight, quality, and condition.

CHARACTER AND PRICES OF FEEDS USED.

All the feeds used were valued at standard market prices. The
cottonseed meal was of good (juality, analyzing about 38.6 per cent
crude protein, and cost $30 per ton delivered at the farm. The cot-
tonseed hulls were bought and delivered in car lots for $7.50 per ton
and were a good grade of loose hulls.

The ear corn used was not of good quality, as it had been frosted
before maturing and was soft. Its market value was very low, but
it was charged against the steers at 50 cents per bushel of 70 pounds.

The corn stover w^as of average grade and had been frosted before
it was cut. It was valued at $5 per ton.

The hay used was good bright hay made from a mixture of
timothy, herd's grass, clover, and orchard grass, and was valued at
$15 per ton. The hay and corn stover were mixed in equal quan-
tities and run through a feed cutter before being fed. This mixture
was charged against the cattle at $10 per ton.

METHOD OF FEEDING AND HANDLING.

During the fattening period the steers were kept in barns, and for
about 30 minutes twice each day were allowed to run in open lots,
where they had access to water. They were fed at 8 o'clock in the morn-
ing and at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. The cottonseed meal and cotton-
seed hulls were mixed thoroughly in the troughs before the steers
were turned to the feed. The ear corn was mixed with the hulls
and meal. The mixture of com stover and hay was fed after the
meal and hulls had been eaten and after the steers had taken their
fdl of water. Comparatively small quantities of cottonseed meal
and corn were fed to the steers at the start of the test, so as not to get
any of them " off feed."

The cattle were weighed every 28 days, early in the morning before
feed or water was given. The initial and final weights were aver-
aged from the weights obtained for three consecutive days.

40 BULLETIN 628, U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

AMOUNTS OF FEED CONSUMED AND A\'EIIAGE DAILY RATIONS.

Table 17 shows the total amount of feed eaten by each steer and
the average daily ration per head by periods and for the total period.

Table 17. — Feeds consumed and areraye daily rations, Nov. 17, 1913, to Mar. 9,

191J,, 113 days.

Num-
ber of
steers.

Days
fed.

Ration.

Total
feed
con-
sumed
per
steer.

Average daily rating by periods.

Average
daily

Lot
No.

First
period,
29 days.

Second
period,

28 days.

Third
period,
28 days.

Foiu-th
period,
28 days.

ration

for
entire
period.

1

12
12

113
113

Cottonseed meal

Pounds.

744
1,881
458
535
710
1,828
338

Pounds.
4.02
16.04
5.00
3.25
4.32
16.04
4.77

Pounds.
6.96

17.00
3.33
4.91
6.87

lb. 61
2.62

Pounds.
7.50

16.57
3.33
5.00
7.00

15.61
2.06

Pounds.
7.95

17.00
4.52
5.84
7.00

16.46
2.47

Pounds.
6.85

Cottonseed hulls

16.65

2

Corn .stover and hay

Cottonseed meal

4.05
4.73
6.28

16.17

Corn stover and hay

2.99

During the first period of 29 days each steer in Lot 1 ate an aver-
age of 4.02 pounds of cottonseed meal, 16.04 pounds of hulls, and 5
pounds of corn stover and hay. The allowance of cottonseed meal
was gradually increased until the last period, when they consumed
7.95 pounds of cottonseed meal per head daily. The roughage was
supplied in such c|uantities as the cattle would eat, and it can be seen
from the table that there was little variation from month to month.
The average daily ration per head for the entire period of 113 days
was 6.85 pounds cottonseed meal, 16.65 pounds of hulls, and 4.05
pounds of stover and hay.

Each steer in Lot 2 during the first 29 days ate an average daily
ration of 3.25 pounds of cottonseed meal, 4.32 pounds of ear corn,
16.04 pounds of cottonseed hulls, and 4.77 pounds of hay and stover.
The cottonseed meal and corn were gradually increased and the
roughages slightly decreased, until during the last period each steer
ate an average daily ration of 5.84 pounds of cottonseed meal, 7
pounds of ear corn, 16.46 pounds of hulls, and 2.47 pounds of hay
and corn stover. The average daily ration per head for the 113 days
the steers w^ere on feed was 4.73 pounds of cottonseed meal, 6.28
pounds of ear corn, 16.17 pounds of cottonseed hulls, and 2.99 pounds
of hay and stover.

It will be noted that heavy rations of roughages were fed, but that
when the concentrate alloAvances were increased the steers would not
eat as much of the hay and stover. Each lot consumed practically
the same amount of cottonseed hulls, but Lot 2 used less of the hay
and stover. It would appear that Lot 2 had a much heavier allow-
ance of concentrates, but it will be recalled that the corn was light
and soft and was fed in the 'ear.

BEEP CATTLE IIST NORTH CAROLINA.

TOTAL AND DAILY GAINS.

41

Table 18 shows the avei^age initial and final weights per head for
the steers in each lot, and the total and daily gains made by each
steer.

Table 18.— Total and flaiUj f/ainfi. Nor. 17, 1913, to Mar. 9, 191.',, 113 da>ys.

Lot

No.

Num-
ber of

steers.

Ration.

Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, corn stover,
and hay

Cottonseed meal, ear corn, cottonseed hulls, corn
stover, and hay

Average

Average

Average

initial

final

total

weight

weight

gams

per

per

per

steer.

steer.

steer.

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

819

973

154

823

983

160

Average

daily

gains

per

steer.

Pounds.
1.36

The steers in Lot 1 made an average total gain of 154 pounds per
head during the 113 days of the fattening period, while those of
Lot 2 averaged IGO pounds. The average daily gains per head were
1.36 pounds for Lot 1 and 1.42 pounds for Lot 2. Considering that
the steers were in good condition when the feeding began, and noting
tJie rations fed, it can be seen that these gains, though not large, were
\ ery satisfactory. The lot of steers fed cottonseed meal and ear corn
made slightly larger gains.

QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED KEQriRED FOR 100 POUNDS GAINED.

The quantity and cost of feeds required to produce 100 pounds of
gain for each lot is shown in Table 19.

Table 19. — Quantity and cost ^ of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain.

Lot

Number

No.

of steers.

1

12

2

12

Ration.

Pounds of
feed re-
quired to
make 100
pounds of
gain.

Cost of feed

for 100

pounds of

gain.

Cottonseed meal

Cottonseed hulls

Corn stover and hay .

Cottonseed meal

Ear com

Cottonseed hulls

Com stover and hay .

483
1,222

297

334 !

443
1.247

211

1 Prices of feeds used:

Cottonseed meal $30. 00 per ton.

Cottonseed hulls 7. 50 per ton.

Ear com 50 per bushel.

Com stover and hay mixed 10. 00 per ton.

It required 483 pounds of cottonseed meal, 1,222 pounds of cotton-
seed hulls, and 297 pounds of hay and corn stover, valued at $13.32,
to produce 100 pounds of gain for the steers in Lot 1, and for those
in Lot 2, 334 pounds of cottonseed meal, 443 pounds of ear corn, 1,247

42

BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

pounds of cottonseed hulls, and 211 pounds of hay and stover, valued
at $13.92. Thus it is seen that considerably more concentrates were
required to produce 100 pounds of gain in Lot 2, while the amount of
roughage, including the cobs in the ear corn fed to Lot 2, was nearly
the same for both lots. Apparently this would indicate clearly that
corn was not efficient in producing gains; but it should be remem-
bered that the corn was of poor quality.

Although the steers in Lot 2 gained more, the gains cost 60 cents
per hundredweight more than in Lot 1.

The amount and cost of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain
are factors of great interest to the feeder. As the prices of feeds
fluctuate from year to year, the farmer, knowing the quantity' and
cost of feed needed to produce 100 pounds of gain, can calculate
safely what gains he may expect from certain rations, and determine
the approximate cost of putting the gains on his cattle under the
different conditions.

Table 20 shows the average final farm and market weights per
head, the shrinkage in transit to market, the carcass weights, and
dressing percentages of the steers.

Table 20. — Slaughter data, tointer fattening of 1913-lJf.

Lot
No.

Ration.

Cottonseed meal, cotton-
seed hulls, com stover,
andhav

Cottonseed meal, ear corn,
cottonseed hulls, corn
stover, and hay —

Average

farm

weight

per steer.

Mar. 10.

Average
market
weight
per steer,
Mar. 16.

Pounds.
973

983

Pounds.
892

Average
shrinkage

per steer
in transit.

Pounds.
81

85

Average
weight of
carcass.

Pounds.
485

Percent-
age of
shrink-

Per cent.
8.35

8.66

Percent-
age
dressed
by farm
weights.

Per cent.
49.9

52.2

Percent-
age

dressed
by

market

weights.

Per cent.
54.4

57.2

In transit the steers in Lot 1 sustained a shrinkage of 81 pounds
per head, while those of Lot 2 lost 85 pounds per head, so there was
little difference in the shrinkage of the two lots. This excessive
shrinkage is accounted for by the fact that the cattle left the farm at
Springdale on March 10, lOll, were driven 10 miles over bad roads to
a loading point, loaded the following morning, and shipped to Balti-
more, where they arrived after a three days' trip. In addition to
these disadvantages when the steers arrived at the market the weather
was very cold and disagreeable, which prevented their taking a
normal fill of water.

It will be noted that the carcasses of the steers of Lot 2 weighed
heavier than those of Lot 1, and also dressed out better. Those in
Lot 1 dressed out 54.4 per cent and those of Lot 2, 57.2 per cent by
market weights. This difference in the killing conditions of the
steers was detected very easily in the carcasses, as those of Lot 2

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROL! XA. 43

carried a greater quantity of fat, which was well distributed. The
butchers estimated the steers of Lot 2 should have sold for 10 cents
per hundredweight more than those of Lot 1, although it is shown
in the financial statement that all the cattle brought the same price
per hundredweight.

The superioj- finish which the steers of Lot 2 had taken on must be
considered as a point in favor of the ration which they were fed.
Even though it cost 60 cents more to put on 100 pounds of gain on
the cattle of Lot 2, a difference of only 10 cents per hundredweight
in the selling price of the steers would offset to a large extent this
difference. The degree of finish, then, must be considered in plan-
ning rations for cattle, because the highly finished steers bring better'
prices.

Table 21 gives the financial statement of the two lots of steers.
This is given merely to throw light on the financial outcome of a
typical feeding operation during the season of 1913-1-1. The finan-
cial statement for a similar group of steers fed the same rations might
be entirely different for any other year, as there are so many factors
which affect it. Among these may be mentioned the initial cost of
the steers, cost of various feeds, cost of gains, distance from market,
and the market prices. All these factors vary a great deal in dif-
ferent years oV even during the same year.

The manure which fattening steers produce is an important item
in the business of feeding and by all means should be credited to the
steers. Li this work the manure was weighed and valued at $2 per
ton, which is a very conservative valuation. The value of the fertiliz-
ing constituents in a ton of this manure undoubtedly would cost
much more than $2 if they were purchased in the form of commercial
fertilizers.

Table 21. — Financial statement, irinter fatteniny, Xovetnhcr 17, 1913. to March

9. 191.',, 113 days.

Lot 1. Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, corn stover, and hay:

To 12 steers, 9,830 pounds at $5.50 per cwt $540. 65

To 8,930 pounds cottonseed meal at $30 per ton ^- 133. 95

To 22,575 pounds cottonseed hulls at $7.50 per ton 84. 66

To 5,498 pounds corn .stover and ha.v at $10 per ton 27. 49

Total cost of feed- 246.10

Cost of marketing 46.50

Total expenditures 833. 25

By sale of 12 steers, 10.700 pounds at $7.60 per cwt 813.20

By value of 48 tons manure at $2 per ton 96. 00

Total receipts ; 909. 20

44 BULLETIN 628, XJ. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Lot 1 — Contiuued.

Total profit including manure $75.95

Total loss not including manure 20.05

Average profit per steer including manure 6. 33

Average loss per steer not including manure 1. 67

Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, ear corn, cottonseed hulls, corn stover, and
hay:
To 12 steers, 9,880 pounds at $5.50 per cwt 543. 40 .

To 6,422 pounds cottonseed meal at $30 per ton 96. 33

To 8,516 pounds ear corn at 50 cents per bushel 60. 82

To 21,938 pounds cottonseed hulls at $7.50 per ton 82. 27

To 4,060 pounds corn stover and hay at $10 per ton 20. 30

Total cost of feed 259. 72

To cost of marketing -. 46.50

Total expenditures 849. 62

By sale of 12 steers, 10,775 pounds at $7.60 per cwt . 818. 90

By value of 48 tons manure at $2 per ton 96. 00

Total receipts 914. 90

Total profit including manure 65. 28

Total loss not including manure 30. 72

Average pi'ofit per steer including manure : 5. 44

Average loss per steer not including manure 2. 56

Note. — Steers of Lot 1 valued at mai-ket at $7.55 per cwt. ; steers of Lot 2
valued at market at $7.65 per cwt. ; all were sold in one lot at $7.60 per cwt.

Comparing the financial statements of the two lots, it is seen that
when the value of the manure is credited to the feeding, Lot 1 re-
turned a profit of $75.95, or an average profit per steer of $6.33;
while Lot 2 returned a profit of $65.28, or an average profit of $5.44
per steer. If no credit is allowed for manure produced, both lots
were sold at a loss. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the steers
of Lot 1 made smaller gains, the gains were produced more eco-
nomically.

EXPERIMENTS OF 1914-15.

The experiments conducted during the winter of 1914-15 were
carried out. with the same objects in view as the previous winter's
fattening tests.

PLAN OF WOEK.

The same general plans followed in the previous winter were ad-
hered to. Four lots of steers were fed as follows :

Lot 1, 10 steers, fed cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, and ear corn.
Lot 2, 100 steers, fed cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls.
Lot 3, 21 steers, fed cottonseed meal and corn silage.
Lot 4, 26 steers, fed cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls.

The steers in the first three lots were fed for 96 days, and those
in Lot 4 for 111 days.

BEEF CATTLE 11$ NORTH CAROLINA.

45

KIND OF STEERS USED.

The steers used in the experiments of 1914—15 were native grades, 2
and 3 years of age. The 41 head making up the first three lots were
better steers than those used the previous year, but those of Lot 4
Avere "short" 2-year-okls of about the same quality as the 24 head
which were fed in 1913-14.

CHARACTEK AND PRICES OF FEEDS USED.

The cottonseed meal and hulls used were of the same grade as in
1913-14 and analyzed about 38.6 per cent crude protein. The corn
was good, sound, white corn, and the silage was of good average
quality, made from corn that would have yielded about 40 bushels
per acre.

The cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls were bought and deliv-
ered for $25 and $5.50 per ton, respectively. . The corn was charged
against the steers at $1 per bushel, and the corn silage was valued
at $3 per acre.

METHOD OF FEEDING AND HANDLING THE CATTLE.

The same system was followed as in 1913-14, all the feeds being
mixed before feeding and the steers brought graduall}^ to a full feed.

The initial and final weights were obtained from weighings made
on three consecutive days, and weights were taken every 28 days
during the progress of the experiment.

QUANTITY OF FEED CONSLTMED AND AVERAGE DAILY RATIONS.

The average total quantities of feeds consumed by each steer in
the various lots, and the average daily rations per head by 28-day
]:)eriods, also for the total feeding period, are summarized in Table 22.

Table 22.— Total and arrragc daUii rations. Oct. 21, WW,, to Jan. 2',, J015, DG days.

Number
of steers.

Days
fed.

Ration.

Total
feed con-
sumed
per steer.

Average daily ration by period.s.

Aver-

asre

Lot

No.

First
period,
28 days.

Second
period ,
28 days.

Third
period,
28 days.

Fourth
period,
12 days.

daily
ration

for
entire
period.

1 10

96

96
96

111

Pounds.

527
2,308

500

711
2,308

711
3,875

Pounds.

3. 38
21.84

3.38

5.17
21.84

5.17
38.45

Pounds.

6.00
25.00

6.00

8.00
25.00

8.00
45.00

Pounds.

6.44
2,5.00

6.00

8.64
25.00

8.64
45.00

Pounds.

6.82
25.00

6.00

8.68
25. 00

8.68
10.91
14.09

7.00
2 20.00

Pounds
5.49'

Cottonseed hulls

24.04

Ear com

5.21

2 10

7.41

Cottonseed hulls . .

24.04

3 21

7.41

Corn silape

40.36

4 26

Cottonseed meal

694
2,212

4.61
18.66

6.43
21.07

7.00
20.00

6.25

19.92

1 Cottonseed hulls were fed only the last 12 days of the feeding period.

2 JjQt 4 was fed 111 days, or 27 days during the fourth period,

46

BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Each steer in Lot 1 ate 3.38 pounds each of cottonseed meal and
ear corn and 21.84 pounds of cottonseed hulls daily during the first
28'days. These amounts were increased until in the last period of 12
days each steer consumed daily an average of 6.82 pounds of cotton-
seed meal, 6 pounds of ear corn, and 25 pounds of cottonseed hulls.
The average daily ration per head for the entire 96 days was 5.49
pounds of cottonseed meal, 5.21 pounds of ear corn, and 2-1.04: pounds
of cottonseed hulls.

The average daily ration per head of the steers in Lot 2 was 5.17
pounds of cottonseed meal and 21.84 pounds of cottonseed hulls for
the first 28-day period. During the last 12 days each steer ate on the
average 8,68 pounds of cottonseed meal and 25 pounds of cottonseed

.^/■>?rF

/^T^^

'-^X i ^:

^m^^: 'mm^

'K>^^.-^.-^-*

> ''•■• :*>' t« :--^is..::^'^-

''%^M^^Sli

Fig. 8. — Steers finished on cottonseed meal and corn silage (Lot 3, winter of 1914-15).

hulls per day. The average daily ration per head for the 96-day fat-
tening period was 7.41 pounds of cottonseed meal and 24.04 pounds
of cottonseed hulls.

The 21 steers in Lot 3 consumed an average daily ration per head
of 5.17 pounds of cottonseed meal and 38.45 pounds of corn silage
during the first 28 days. The quantities were increased to 8.64 pounds
of cottonseed meal and '45 pounds of silage during the third period.
The supply of silage ran short, so the average daily allowance was
decreased to 10.91 pounds per head during the last 12 days, and 14.09
pounds of cottonseed hulls per head were substituted, while the cot-
tonseed meal averaged 8.68 pounds per head. The average daily
ration per head for the 96 days was 7.41 pounds of cottonseed meal
and 40.36 pounds of corn silage.

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA.

47

Each of the 26 steers of Lot -t was fed an average of 4.61 pounds
of cottonseed meal and 18.66 pounds of cottonseed hulls per day
durino- the first 28-day period. These amounts were increased to 7
pounds of cottonseed meal and 20 pounds of cottonseed hulls for the
fourth period of 27 days. The average daily ration per head for the
entire period of 111 days was 6.25 pounds of cottonseed meal and
19.92 pounds of cottonseed hulls.

Table 23 gives the average initial and final weights per head, the
total gains, and the average daily gain per steer.

Table -23.— Total aiid daily gains, 191Jf-15.

Lot

No.

Number
of steers.

Days
fed.

Ration.

Average

initial

weight per

steer.

Average

final

weight per

steer.

Average
total

gain per
steer.

Average
daily

gain per
steer.

1

10

10

21
26

96

96

96
111

Cottonseed meal, ear corn, and
cottonseed hulls

Pounds.
941

967
911

736

Pounds.
1,096

1,103
1,110

893

Pounds.
155

136
199

157

Pounds.
1.61

2

Cottonseed meal and cottonseed
hulls

1.42

3
4

Cottonseed meal and corn silage . . .

Cottonseed meal and cottonseed

hulls

2.07
1.43

It will be seen that the average total gain per head for the steers
in Lots 1 and 2 was 155 pounds and 136 pounds, respectively, which
Avas ecjuivalent to 1.61 pounds and 1.42 pounds per head daily. Com-
paring the results with those of the 1913-14 tests, it is seen that the
addition of corn to the ration produced larger gains in both tests.

The steers in Lot 3 made an average daily gain per head of 2.07
pounds, or a total gain of 199 pounds for the 96 days, which is the
best showing of any of the cattle. This shows rather forcibly the
great value of corn silage in a fattening ration for steers, and, as will
be seen later, these gains were the most economical.

The smaller steers of Lot 4, which w^ere fed the same ration as
those in Lot 2. made practically the same average daily gains, but
over a longer period, gaining 157 pounds per head in the 111 days.

QUANTITIES AND COST OF FEEDS TO PRODUCE 100 POUNDS GAIN.

Table 24 shows the amount of feed that was required to produce
100 pounds of gain on the steers of the four lots, and the cost of this
teed in each case.

48

BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table 24. — Quantity and cost^ of feeds required to produce 100 pounds of gain,

1914-15.

Lot

Number

Days

No.

of steers.

fed.

1

10

96

2

10

96

3

21

96

4

26

111

Ration.

Quantity
of feed

required
for 100

pounds
gain.

Cost of

feed for 100

pounds

gain.

Cottonseed meaL
Ear com

Cottonseed hulls.
Cottonseed meal.
Cottonseed hulls.
Cottonseed meal .

Corn silage

Cottonseed meal .
■Cottonseed huUs.

340

322

1,489

523

1,687
357

2, 055
442

1,409

12.96
11.21

1 Prices of feed used:

Cottonseed meal S25.00 per ton.

Cottonseed hulls 5.50 per ton.

Corn silage 3.00 per ton.

Ear com r.OO per bushel.

This table reveals some interesting figures on the efficiency of the
feeds used. Comparing Lots 1 and 2 it can be seen that the 322
pounds of corn fed to Lot 1 produced as much gain as 183 pounds
of cottonseed meal and 198 pounds of cottonseed hulls. As the cost
of these gains are shown in the last column to be $12.96 and $11.21
for Lots 1 and 2, respectiAely, it is evident that it would have been
more economical to omit the corn.

The cattle in Lot 3 required only 357 pounds of cottonseed meal
and 2,055 pounds of corn silage, costing $7.60 to produce 100 pounds
of gain. The efficiency of this ration and its low cost are the most
striking facts illustrated in the table.

The smaller steers of Lot 4 made larger gains on the cottonseed
meal and cottonseed hull rations than did the steers in Lot 2. This
accounts for the smaller quantities of feed, and consequently smaller
cost to produce 100 pounds of gain.

It will be noticed that the gains on all the cattle were produced
nnich cheaper than in 1913-14. This Avas due chiefly to the lower cost
of the cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls for 1914-15, and the
fact that expensive hay was not used in the rations.

SHIPPING AND SLAUGHTER DATA.

Table 25 shows the average final farm weight per head, the market
weight, the shrinkage in transit, the average weights of carcasses,
and the dressing percentages.

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 49

Table 25. — Sliippi)!!/ and xlftiiffJiter data. 1913-lJf.^

Lot

Number

Days

No.

of steers.

fed.

1

10

96

2

10

96

3

21

96

Ration.

Cottonseed meal, ear
corn, and cottonseed
hulls

Cottonseed meal and
cottonseed hulls

Cottonseed meal and
corn silage

Aver-
age
fiiwl
farm

weight

per

steer,

Jan. 25.

Pounds
1,096

1,103

1,110

Aver^

age

market

weight

per
steer at
Rich-
mond,
Jan. 30.

Pounds
1,042

1, 055

1,057

Aver-
age

shrink-
age
per

-steer
in

transit.

Pounds
54

53

Per

centage
of

shrink-
age.

Per ct.
4.92

4.35
4.77

Aver-
age
weight

of
carcass
at New
York,
Feb. 1.

Pounds

586

597
603

Per-
centage
dressed

by

farm

weight.

Per ct.
53.43

54.17
54.32

Per-
centage
dressed

by
market
weight.

Per ct.
56.23

56.61
57.05

1 The steers in Lots 1,2, and 3 wore shipped to Richmond, Va. , and after they had taken a fill were then
sold to New York buyers; no live weights were secured at the New York market. Lot 4 was sold to local
butchers, but the slaughter data are not available, as the steers were not marketed at the same time.

The steers were driven 15 miles to Clyde, N. C, and held till the
following morning, January 26, Avhen they were watered and fed
and then loaded on the cars. They arrived in Richmond, Va., en
the night of January 28. The shrinkage was 54, 48, and 53 pounds
per head for Lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively, which shows very little
difference for the various lots. The steers were sold to bu^-ers in
Kiehmond on January 30 and shipped to Xew York, where they
were slaughtered on February 1. The slaughter data are calculated
on the market weights taken in Richmond, as no weights were se-
cured before killing at New York. The cattle of Lot 1 dressed 56.23
per cent; Lot 2, 56.61 per cent; and Lot 3, 57.05 per cent. This in-
dicates that the ration of cottonseed meal and corn silage will pro-
duce as desirable carcasses as the ones fed to the other steers. No
differences were assigned by the packers to the carcasses from the
different lots. The cattle in Lot 4 were sold locally, and the slaughter
data are not available.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

The financial statement of the feeding and marketing of the four
lots of steers is given in Table 26.

Table 26. — Financial statement, 19]If-15.

Lot 1, 10 steers, fattened on cottonseed meal, ear corn, and cottonseed
hulls :

To 10 steers, 9,410 pounds at $6.75 per cwt $635. 17

To 5,270 pounds cottonseed meal at $25 per ton 65. 87

To 23,085 pounds cottonseed hulls at $5.50 per ton 68.48

To .5.000 pounds ear corn at $1 per bushel 71. 43

Freight, Clyde, N. C, to Richmond 25. 60

Feed at Spencer, N. C 2. 00

60 BULLETIN 628^ U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Lot 1 — Contiuued.

Feed at Riclimoud, Va $4.15

Commission t'liarji'es __ — : . 10- 00

Total expenditures 877. 70

' By sale of 10 steers, 10,960 pounds at $7.75 849. 40

By value of 40 tons of manure at $2 per ton 80. 00

Total receipts 929.40

Total profit including manure 51. 70

Total loss not including manure 28. 30

Average profit per steer including manure 5. 17

Average loss per steer not including manure 2. S3

Lot 2, 10 steers, fattened on cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls :

To 10 steers, 9,673 pounds at $0.75 per cwt 652. 93

To 7,115 pounds cottonseed meal at $25 per ton 81. 82

To 23,085 pounds cottonseed hulls at $5.50 per ton 63. 48

Freight to Richmond from Clyde. N. C 25.60

Feed at Spencer, N. C 2.00

Feed at Richmond, Va 4. 15

Connuission cliarges ■ 10. 00

Total expenditures 839.98

By sale of 10 steers, 11.030 pounds at $7.75 854. 82

By value of 40 tons of manure at $2 per ton 80.00

Total receipts 934. 82

Total profit including manure 94. 84

Total pi-ofit not including manure 14. 84

Average profit per head including manure 9.48

Average profit per head not including manure 1. 48

Lot. 3, 21 steers, fattened on cottonseed meal and corn silage:

To 21 steers, 19,131 pounds at $6.75 per cwt l, 291. 34

To 14,942 pounds cottonseed meal at $25 per ton 186. 77

To 3,255 pounds cottonseed hulls at $5.50 per ton 8. 95

To 81,375 pounds corn silage at $3 per ton 122. 06

Freight, Clyde, N. C, to Richmond : 5L 81

Feed at Spencer, N. C 4.00

Feed at Richmond, Va 8. 75

Commission charges 21. 00

Total expenditures 1, 694. 68

By sale of 21 steers, 23,310 pounds at $7.75 per Cwt 1, 806. 53

By value of 84 tons of manure at $2 per ton 168. 00

Total receipts 1, 974. .53

Total profit including manure 279. 85

Total profit not including manure 111- 85

Average profit per head including manure 13. 33

Average profit per head not including manure 5.33

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 51

Lot 4, 26 steers, fattened on cottonseed meal aud cottonseed hulls :

To 26 steers, 19,130 pounds at $6 per cwt $1, 147. 80

To 18,054 pounds cottonseed meal at $25 per ton 225. 67

To 57,525 pounds cottonseed hulls at $5.50 per ton 158. 19

Total expenditures 1, 531.66

By sale of 26 steers, 23,230 pounds at $7 per cwt 1,626.10

By value of 104 tons of manure at $2 per ton 208. 00

Total receipts 1, 843. 10

Total profit including manure 302.44

Total profit not Includin^JC manure 94.44

Average profit per steer including manure 11. 63

Average profit per steer not including manure 3. 63

When the cattle are credited with $2 per ton for the manure pro-
duced, the steers in Lot 1 returned a profit of $5.17 per head ; those in
Lot 2. 9.48 per head: Lot 3, $13.33 per head: and Lot 4, $11.63 per
head. It will be seen that the steers in the first three lots cost the
same per hundredweight and were sold for the same price per hun-
dredweight. This alhiws direct comparison of the profits shown to
the gains made and the cost of same.

The silage-fed steers of Lot 3 made the largest and cheapest gains
and returned the largest profit. Those in Lot 1 made the next
largest gains, but these gains cost more than on the cattle in Lot 2,
so the profit on them was the smallest of the three.

Although the steers of Lot 4 made gains at the same rate as those
of Lot 2 and were fed the same ration, their gains were made more
cheaply, as shown in Table 24. They also returned a larger profit,
even though they sold for 75 cents less per hundredweight.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS OF THE WINTER FATTENING TESTS.

WOEK OF 1013-14.

1. The cattle used in this test were all native grade cattle, aver-
aging 2 years of age.

2. The 24 steers were divided into two lots of 12 each and fed as
follows :

Lot 1. Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, corn stover, and hay.

Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, ear corn, cottonseed hulls, corn stover, and hay.

3. At the beginning of the test the steers in Lot 1 had an average
weight of 819 pounds, and after 113 days on feed weighed on the
average 973 pounds, showing a gain of 154 pounds per head, or an
average daily gain per steer of 1.36 pounds.

The average initial weight of the steers in* Lot 2 was 823 pounds
and the final weight 983 pounds, which shows a gain of 160 pounds
per head, equal to 1.42 pounds per head daily.

52 BULLETIN 628, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

4, The cost of producing 100 pounds gain in Lot 1 was $13.32 ; and
in Lot 2, $13.92.

5, The cattle as feeders cost $5.50 per hundredweight in the fall.
A margin of $2.10 per hundredweight was realized when they were
sold on the Baltimore market the following spring at $7.60 per
hundredweight for both lots.

6, The average profit per steer, including the value of the manure
produced, w-as $6.33 and $5.44 for Lots 1 and 2, respectively. When
the manure was not included there was a loss of $1.67 per head in Lot
1 and $2.56 per head in Lot 2.

WOl'vK OF 1914-15.

1. The cattle used in Lots 1, 2, and 3 were good grade native 2
and 3 year old steers. Those composing Lot 4 were native grades
averaging a little short of 2 years old and w^ere classed as plain
steers.

2. The steers were divided into four lots and fed as follows :

Lot 1, 10 steers, fed cottonseed meal, ear corn, and cottonseed hulls.

Lot 2, 10 steers, fed cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls.

Lot 3, 21 steers, fed cottonseed meal and corn silage.

Lot 4, 26 steers, fed cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls.

3. At the beginning of the experiment the average weights per
head were: Lot 1, 941 pounds; Lot 2, 967 pounds; Lot 3, 911 pounds;
and Lot 4,736 pounds. After feeding 96 days the final weights for
the steers average 1,096 pounds, 1,103 pounds and 1,110 pounds, respec-
tively, for Lots 1, 2, and 3. These steers in Lot 4 were fed 111 days and
weighed 893 pounds per head at the conclusion of the experiment.
Thus the total gains per head were 155 pounds for Lot 1, 135 pounds
for Lot 2, 199 pounds for Lot 3, and 157 pounds for Lot 4, making an
average daily gain per head of 1.61 pounds, 1.42 pounds, 2.07 pounds,
and 1.43 pounds for Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

4. It cost $12.96 to produce 100 pounds of gain in Lot 1 ; in Lot 2,
$11.21 ; in Lot 3, $7.60 ; and in Lot 4, $9.40.

5. The cattle in Lots 1, 2, and 3 cost $6.75 per hundredweight in
the fall as feeders, and all sold for $7.75 per hundredweight at Eich-
mond the following spring. The steers in Lot 4 cost $6 per hundred-
weight in the fall and sold for $7 per hundredweight on the local
market.

6. After crediting the steers with the manure produced, the aver-
age profit per head was as follows: Lot 1, $5.17; Lot 2, $9.48; Lot 3,
$13.33 ; and Lot 4, $11.63. When the manure is excluded there was
a loss on Lot 1 of $2.88 per head, a profit on Lot 2 of $1.48 per head,
a profit on Lot 3 of $5.33 per head ; and a profit on Lot 4 of $3.63 per
head.

BEEF CATTLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. 53

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TWO YEARS' FATTENING EXPERIMENTS.

It must be understood that these conchisions shoiikl be interpreted
by the reader to apply to feeding operations atfected by conditions
such as surrounded the tests just reported.

1. The use of hay valued at $15 or more per ton for fattening steers
increases the cost of gains very materially, as is shown by the first
year's work. Cheaper roughages should be used if possible.

2. Cottonseed meal, even in moderate amounts, is very efficient in
fattening steers, and the feeder usually can afford to buy it for this
purpose if the other conditions are favorable.

3. The addition of ear corn to the ration increases the gains and
the finish of steers, but unless it can be raised or purchased for con-
siderably less per ton than cottonseed meal, its use in quantities is
not advisable. If a farmer grows his own corn and is feeding steers,
its use in the steers' ration as at least a part of the concentrate allow-
ance is desirable if market price will permit.

Jr. Cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls produce very satisfactory
and economical gains when purchased at reasonable prices, such as
was the case in these tests.

5. The remarkable efficiency and economy of corn silage in the
ration of fattening steers is the most striking conclusion shown by
the tests. Much more feeding could be done profitably in the region
under discussion if more farmers would put their corn crops in silos
and feed it in this form with cottonseed meal.

6. The heavy shrinkage in transit by the finished steers shows that
the farmers in these sections must market their fat cattle under this
disadvantage.

7. A study of the financial statements and costs of gains reveals
many of the factors which affect the outcome of feeding operations.
In calculating the profit or loss from feeding steers, the farmer
should not overlook the value of the manure produced.

8. Farmers who can raise some surplus feed, especially roughages,
should feel safe in feeding steers in the winter, provided they can
buy feeders and cottonseed meal right and are not too far from a
shipping point. If they can raise corn, it can be utilized with best
results by feeding it as silage with or without other available rough-
ages, cottonseed meal furnishing the chief concentrate to be fed with
it. By so doing and using the manure on the land the productive
capacity of the soil will be greatly increased.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

or THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

10 CENTS PER COPY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

\ BULLETIN No. 629 iA

Contribution from the Bureau of Plant Industry
WM. A. TAYLOR, Chief

jn/f-'lJLrt.

Washington, D. C.

PROFESSIONAL PAPER

February 11, 1918

GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENTS ON THE RUST
RESISTANCE OF OAT VARIETIES.^

By John H. Pakker, formcrhj Scientific Assistant, Office of Cereal Investigations.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Introduction 1

The culture of cereal rusts in the green-
house 2

Experimental methods 2

Sources of material 5

Evidences of rust resistance in cereals.

Experimental data

Discussion of results

Summary and conclusions

Literature cited

Lif?

NEW
80TA

INTRODUCTION.

The rusts have long been recognized as one of the most serious
limiting factors in the production of wheat and oats, both in the
United States and in other countries. Considerable work has been
done on the problem of controlling rust in wheat through resistant
varieties and some results have been published, but very little specific
information has been made available on the rust resistance of oat
varieties in the United States.

The importance of the oat crop among the small grains in the
United States is second only to that of wheat, and the problem of
rust control is perhaps even more acute, for oats are more widely
grown in localities favorable to rusts. For this reason a proper
choice of varieties, based on accurate experimental tests, is a neces-
sary factor in successful oat culture. The present paper presents the
results obtained in greenhouse culture work Avith the crown rust of
oats, Pucclnia loUl averiae McAlpine (PI. I, fig. 2, and PI. II), and

1 The work here described was a part of the graduate studies of the writer during the
college year 1915-16 at Cornell University and was a continuation of investigations
conducted for several years while in the United States Department of Agriculture. The
departments of plant lireeding and plant pathology in the university provided every
facility for the work, which was carried out under the supervision of Dr. H. H. Love,
to whom thanks are due for many helpful suggestions.
16710°— 18— Bull. 629

2 BULLETIN 629, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

the stem rust of oats, Puccinia graminis avenae Erikss. and Henn.
(PL I, fig. 1, and PL III). These rusts are both rather common in
the United States. The stem rust probably causes the greater loss
in the Northern States and the crown rust in the Southern States.

THE CULTURE OF CEREAL RUSTS IN THE GREENHOUSE.

Obligate parasitism is a well-known characteristic of the rust
fungi, and all attempts to grow them in artificial media have failed.
They are easily cultured on the living host, however, and, as pointed
out by Carleton (2),^ it is possible to make many interesting studies
by this method. Carleton described the method of inoculation used
by him and gave suggestions concerning work with rusts.

Evans (4) has tested the rust resistance of oat varieties in the
greenhouse and concludes that the Indian varieties are far more sus-
ceptible to the crown rust than to the stem rust.

Melhus (8) has described and illustrated the apparatus used and
has given his methods in culturing parasitic fungi on the living host,
including notes on culture Avork with the croAvn rust of oats.

Fromme (5) has published a comprehensive paper dealing with
the culture of cereal rusts in the greenhouse, in which he briefly
reviews the work of previous writers and describes in some detail
his own methods, particularly the results obtained Avith the crown
rust of oats.

Stakman (12) brietly describes culture methods used in his green-
house studies of biologic forms of the cereal rusts and calls attention
to the effects of temperature, humidity, and light on the incubation
period. In a second paper (13) he has briefly described similar
methods used in the additional study of cereal rusts on plants grown
in the greenhouse.

Melchers (7) has suggested the use of galvanized-iron tubs with
window-glass covers as moist chambers. He also advocates wetting
the leaves to be inoculated by the " finger-rubbing " method instead
of Avith an atomizer and keeping the pots bearing the rusted leaves
in shalloAv pans of Avater, to avoid the necessity of overhead Avatering.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS.

In the greenhouse experiments of the Avriter, methods similar to
those above cited Avere employed. For the infection studies on seed-
ling oat plants 4-inch pots Avere used, and 5-inch pots for the plants
inoculated at heading time. Greenhouse potting soil of approx-
imately the same make-up Avas used throughout the Avork. For the
studies of plants at heading time four seeds of a variety Avere sown
in each pot. When the plants Avere 6 to 8 inches high they were
thinned to two in a pot, the number usually reserA-ed for subsequent
inoculation.

^The serial numbers in parentheses refer to " Literature cited," p.

16.

Bui. 629, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate I.

Fig. 1.— Stem Rust of Oats: Uredinia on Leaves, Telia on Stem.

Fig. 2.— Crown Rust of Oats: Uredinia on Leaves, Telia on Stem.

Plate 11

Fig. 1 .—Seedling Oat Plants Inoculated with Crown Rust.

Fig. 2.— Seedling Oat Plants Inoculated with Stem Rust.

Bui. 5:9, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate III.

RUST RESISTANCE OF OAT VARIETIES.

About 15 seeds per pot were sown for the seedling work, and the
plants were thinned later, so that on an average about 8 plants
per pot were inoculated. Plantings were made every few days
from November, 1915, to April, lOlO. Thus, there was always a
series of plants coming on ; as soon as one series had been inoculated
another was about ready.

The cultures were kept in a cool greenhouse (night temperature,
50° to 55° F. ; day temperature, GO" to 65° F.) and watered not less
often than every alternate day. The inoculations on the seedling

Fig. 1. — Glass-topped galvanized-iron moist chamber used for seedling plants.

plants were always made when the first (seedling) leaf was still
vigorous and of a normal green color; that is, when the plants were
only 3 to 5 inches high. This first leaf was always the only one
inoculated. All others, with the " shoot," were kept trimmed off.

Spore material of both the oat rusts was obtained from the Min-
nesota Agricultural Experiment Station and increased for use as
needed on stock cultures of the White Tartarian oat, the variety
used as a check.

About ten varieties usuall}' constituted the series treated on any
one day, one set being inoculated with stem rust and the other with
crown rust. No plants were left uninoculated, but one pot of White
Tartarian serving as a check on the other varieties was always sown
and inoculated with each series.

The inoculations were made by removing urediniospores with a
flattened needle from a leaf bearing a heavy infection and placing

BULLETIN 629, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

them on the previously moistened leaf to be inoculated. When all
leaves in a pot were inoculated they were sprayed at once with an
atomizer and placed in the moist chamber shown in figure 1, where
they were allowed to remain 48 hours. These moist chambers, which
vrill hold about forty 4-inch pots, cost less than $10 for four. No
trouble was experienced from the leaves burning or turning yellow,
and almost 100 per cent of the inoculations w^ere successful.

Inoculations of older plants were made in the order of heading
of the varieties, beginning on April 10 and continuing to May 9,
1916. There were 12 to 18 plants in each series. The stem-rust

spores were always placed
on the sheath inclosing the
emerging panicle, while
the inoculations with
crown rust were made on
the uppermost leaf blade.
As w^ith the seedlings, the
inoculated plants were
sprayed with an atomizer
to insure the presence of a
film of water and then
kept in the moist chamber
for two days. A special
large glass-topped galvan-
izecl-iron moist chamber
was made, holding eight-
een 5-inch pots and allow-
ing the tallest plants to re-
main upright (fig. 2).

The incubation period
for the two rusts was ap-
proximately the same.
Generally, though not al-
ways, the viredinia of the
stem rust appeared first. Cool temperatures seemed to lengthen the
incubation period, for during November the house was cooler than
during the succeeding months and the uredinia during this time were
noticeably slow^er in appearing. Other factors, such as light, also
may have affected the results.

Notes on the appearance of flecks usually were made in 7 to 9 days,
and those on the formation of uredinia after a period of not longer
than 12 days. Further notes usually were taken on the quantity and
character of infection. No counts of uredinia were made ; nor should
too much emphasis be placed on Avhether or not all the leaves inocu-
lated were equally infected, for it is obviously impossible to be cer-

Fig.

2. — Glass-topped galvanized-iron moist cham-
ber used for mature plants.

EUST RESISTANCE OP OAT VARIETIES. 0

tain that the same number of spores was applied in each case. The
time of appearance, size of uredinia, and character of infection are
deemed of greater importance.

The seedling plants were discarded as soon as final notes were ob-
tained. Those in the series inoculated at the time of heading were
allowed to mature in order to obtain herbarium specimens and seed
for further Avork.

SOURCES OF MATERIAL.

The seed of all the varieties tested except Early Ripe^ was ob-
tained from the 1915 crop grown in rod row^s in the rust nursery at
Ames, Iowa. Most of these varieties were secured from Mr. C. W.
Warburton, of the Office of Cereal Investigations, Bureau of Plant
Industry; others were obtained from the Minnesota Agricultural
Experiment Station. The forms listed under the Latin (specific)
names (greenhouse Nos. 265 to 303) were obtained from Director
Bubak, of the botanic garden at Tabor, Bohemia, through Prof. G.
M. Eeed, of the University of Missouri.

None of these varieties may properly be called a pure line, although
some of these rows are traceable (several seasons back) to single
plants. Others represent bulk material from rod row-s, field plats,
or commercial seed stocks. Some of the foreign material is in great
need of more careful classification. Mixtures in the previous han-
dling of both the domestic and foreign material sometimes have
occurred, but it may be said safely that a majority of the varieties
were true to name and for the most part pure, so that where eight
or more seedlings were studied most of them really represented the
true type of the variety under the name of wdiich they were grown.
In the trials on older plants, however, where only two individuals
were studied, slight mixtures of the seed sample were more serious.^

EVIDENCES OF RUST RESJSTANCE IN CEREALS.

Before proceeding to a detailed description and consideration of
the observations made and conclusions drawn it will be well to refer
to the observations of earli^ wurkers on rust resistance in cereals.

Cobb (3) described certain wheat varieties which w-ere resistant
and mentioned the occurrence of dead areas of host tissue. Marryat
(6) also observed these dead areas in immune varieties, and Biffen
(1) mentions unopened pustules which shed no spores. Stakman
(12) observed similar indications of real resistance on (cr) seedling
leaves of certain wheat varieties and on (h) leaves of a wheat sus-
ceptible to the stem rust of wheat but inoculated with the stem rust
of oats. He states that the more resistant a form proved, the more
pronounced w^as the tendency of the rust to kill small areas of the

1 Seed of this variety was obtained from Dr. H. H. Love. It is very similar to Burt
and perhaps identical with that variety. Evidence tends to show that the origin of the
two varieties was the same.- ,

- .\11 such instances are indicated in Table I.

6 BULLETIN 029, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUKE.

leaf and that the pustules developed in these areas were always very
small. A further indication of immunity is said to be the fact that
in the immune forms the incubation period is longer than in sus-
ceptible ones.

In a second paper (13) Stakman reports additional studies of the
relation between Puccinia graminis and plants highly resistant to its
attack. The occurrence of the same characteristic flecks or areas of
killed tissue is again reported, but a new term, " hypersensitiveness,"'
is used to describe the phenomenon.

Although no histologic studies have yet been made of the oat
material, the external macroscopic evidence is in such close agree-
ment with the observed conditions in wheat that there can be little
doubt that a struggle between host and parasite of a very similar
nature takes place within the tissues of the resistant oat varieties.

Concerning the indications or signs of resistance which were ob-
served in the present study, it may be well to repeat that they are
very similar to those in wheat. They are —

1. The prolonged incubation period.

2. The formation of flecks (yellow areas of dead host tissue).

3. The formation of larger blotches of dead tissue and, in extreme cases,

the premature deiith of the whole seedling leaf.

4. Small uredinia, sometimes not completely or promptly rupturing the

epidermis, and in Puccinia graminis avenue the formation of purple
blotches adjacent to the uredinia.

5. The small number of uredinia (relatively unimportant).

0. The production of normal telia of the crown rust on seedling leaves of
varieties which these other criteria indicate are resistant.

So far as known to the writer, the occurrence of telia on young
seedling leaves of cereals grown in the greenhouse has not been re-
corded in literature. Melhus (8) states that in his cultures, which
appear to have been on older plants, " teleutospores developed in two
to three weeks."

It is certain that in the hundreds of seedlings described as very
susceptible in the present experiments telia were not produced on a
single one following a normal and abundant production of uredinia.
The fungus on these leaves seems to have finished its life cycle under
these conditions by producing the uredinia. After having remained
a normal green color for some time after the formation of uredinia,
the leaf finally dries up. That part of the life cycle so common
to the rust fungus when on ripening grain plants in the field is
not completed. On the other hand, quite early in the work it was
observed that in a comparatively short time telia were present on the
leaves of seedlings which gave other evidences of being resistant and
on which no normal uredinia had been i^roduced. The spores from
these sori appear in every way normal, so far as determined by micro-
scopic observation.

RUST RESISTANCE OF OAT VARIETIES. 7

On the upper leaf blades of the plants inoculated at the time of
heading, where one would normally expect the ultimate production
of telia, the resistant plants seemed to produce them at a remarkably
early stage. These early telia were produced, in all cases observed,
only, on leaves infected with the crown rust. It is the belief of the
writer that such a hastening in the completion of the life cycle of
the fungus is entirely comparable to the well-known instances in
the seed plants of the influence of unfavorable conditions, such as
drought, poor soil, and injury, in hastening the period of blooming
and the maturing of seed.

The teliospores are to be considered necessarily as the final stage
in the year's life cycle of the rust. These spores do not serve to
spread the infection during the current season, but provide a means
for the reproduction of the disease another season or when conditions
are again favoral)le.

It may be argued that the ability which the fungus in these par-
ticular varieties possesses to produce this final spore form is the best
possible indication of extreme susceptibility. Nevertheless, it is
certainly true that if a variety is able to prevent the formation of
the summer-spore stage of the rust, the spread of the disease will be
checked in localities where only such varieties are gi-own.

This unusual occTirrence of telia on seedling leaves is thought to be
an additional evidence of resistance. It has been used sometimes in
making the distinction between resistant and susceptible individual
plants. Whether this interpretation is accepted or not, the presence
of telia on seedling plants of some and their absence on other strains
grown under identical conditions is very good evidence of real dif-
ferences in the protoplasmic reaction of the two hosts, for the prog-
ress of the rust fungus following infection is quite different in the
two instances. The same stimuli, whether they are chemical, enzymic,
or osmotic, which cause the formation of flecks in some varieties
and not in others may exercise a rather direct influence on the ability
of the parasite to produce a particular spore form at any given time.

Norton (10) reports the abundant occurrence of aecia of the
asparagus rust on plants which were resistant to the uredinial stage
of the rust.

Smith (11), in studies of the water relations of asparagus rust, has
found that " a very direct relation exists between atmospheric mois-
ture and the prevalence of the several spore forms of the rust," and
that " the teleuto stage may occur in asparagus beds little affected by
the rust, and apparently not preceded by any trace of the other
spore stages." He concludes that " the teleuto stage is then to be
regarded as a provision for surviving any condition unfavorable to
the fungus, whether of food supply, moisture, temperature, or resist-
ance by the host, without regard to season."

8 BULLETIN 629, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Morgenthaler (9) conducted experiments to determine the effect
of various influencing factors on the production of teliospores and
found that " the time of appearance of the teleutospore stage is not
dependent alone on the season of the year, but may be hastened or
retarded by many other influences." He also states —

It is also true that the chemical constitution of the host may provide condi-
tions either favorable or unfavorable for the nourishment of a particular para-
site. There are cases known in which the same rust will produce uredospores
copiously on one host and only sparingly on another. There may be in certain
host plants substances toxic to the fungus, as tannin, which further influence
the nourishment of the parasite, and with it its spore production.

This ability of various conditions to influence teleutospore production may
also be regarded as a method of protection which the rusts have against
influences which are unfavorable for the normal development of the fungus.

EXPERIMENTAL DATA.

Table I presents the results of all the varietal tests, including inocu-
lations of both rusts made on seedling plants and on the plants at
time of heading. The inoculations made were as follows :

Stem rust :

Seedlings 1.256

Headed plants 260

Crown rust :

Seedlings 1. 480

Headed plants 260

Total 3,256

The varieties are arranged alphabetically by name in Table I,
except that those bearing the Latin names under which they were
received are placed in a separate list, as are also the varieties of red
oats which are derivatives of Avena sterilis.

The greenhouse number (column 2), the classification list number
(column 3), the Cereal Investigations number (column 4), the Seed
and Plant Introduction number (column 5), and the Minnesota Ag-
ricultural Experiment Station number (column 6) are included in
Table I in order that identification may be more certain. It is thus
quite possible to compare the record of any variety in this list with
statements made in literature regarding it or with field records.

In columns 7 to 10 of Table I the letter S indicates the undoubted
and complete susceptibility of that variety under the conditions of
the experiment. A question mark (?), S?, or E? indicates some
doubt and the need of further tests, while R + S indicates that both
resistant and susceptible plants were observed. The letter E has been
used only where normal infection did not occur. In these instances
the evidence seemed convincing that plants of the variety when tested
in the manner here described prevented the formation of normal
uredinia and may therefore be regarded as resistant. In a great

RUST RESISTANCE OF OAT VARIETIES.

majority of cases all leaves or culins inoculated showed infection
(normal uredinia) except in certain varieties where there were very
evident signs of resistance and to which attention is directed in the
footnotes to Table- 1.

-Sininnarn of notes on the rust resistance of oat varieties tested in the
(inrnhoufte at Cornell Unirersity, Ithaca, N. Y., 1915-16.

[R.= resistant; S.= susceptible.]

Table I.

Identification numbers.

Crown rust.

stem rast.

Variety.

a
o

•S

O

a)
O

CO

<

c
a

a

P-.

a

03-'

Remarks.

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

8

9

10

Common (sativa) varieties:

7
<»4

272

S.
S.
S.

s.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

/'OR.

\(+s.)

s.
s.
s.
s.

s.
s.

s.
s.
s.
s.

S.
S.

s.
s.

s.
s.
s.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

12 S.?

s.

1 s.?

s.

s.

s.
s.

2R.?

s.

s.

s.

■ ■■-■■

s.
s.

3S.?

s.
s.
s.
s.

5R.-I-S.
7R.?

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

8R. + S.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

fl3R.

Alberta

1797

9
11

23
39
51
42

102
37

lOS
29
91
8
89
33
96

275
280

305
348

Archangel X Early Goth-

1 206

354

Black Anthony

Black Beautv

1804

342

1814

Black Tartarian

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

<R.?

6S.?

s.
s.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

§•

s.
s.
s.
s.

}>'R.+

1791

273

1729

336

ITftS

Culberson selection

fi.^l

69 672

Early Champion

Early Gothland

4
2

1

Mixed seed.

1

26

English Wonder

1041 1807
83

730

Garton No. 396

46 1

405

103 1805
97 1 1799
4l'

106| 1808
98l 1800

Green Mountain

350

Do,

36
1

341

6

340

1

34

88
43

79

1

1728

t

1

391

Ruakura Rustproof »

1 701

\ Do.

'"i 1

• l -rt^.

1 Normal infection on one plant; on the other, only a tew uredinia surrounded by purple blotches.

2 Onlv a few abnormally small uredinia in 14 days after inoculation.

•1 No iiredinia in 10 days after inoculation, and finally only one on each culm, accompamed by purple
color of liost tissue.

< Only a few tiny uredinia on each leaf.

6 Normal uredinia on one culm; only a few on the other.

6 Infection only fairly vigorous. . .

' Unusually small uredinia first appeared 14 days after moculation.

8 Normal infection on one culm; no uredinia on the other. ,,,,,,. ^. / „ tu„,

9 The results with this variety probablv were more interestmg and valuable than those Irom any otner
included in the test, for there were signs of resistance to both rusts at both stages of growth. This variety
is of undoubted value as a source of the character of rust resistance, the more so because of its resemblance
to vellow and white oat varieties of the ^ifMO sa^i-a group. ,. . , . ^ c ^r„„„ i„t„,

'0 Six leaves severely rusted; on four only extremely small uredinia. In two pots of seedungs later
inoculated no normal infection resulted. ,,,,,,. , ^ ■ .■ t .-„* * ,-„,-i<.fioc

11 Flecks only; no uredinia. Within two weeks the small dark teha, characteristic of resistant ^ arieties,
were formeci

12 Uredinia moderately abundant, somewhat small and surrounded by yellow flecks

13 On one plant uredinia were abundant and of normal size. Ou the other plant l^oy were small and
tardy in breaking through the epidermis.

10

BULLETIN 629^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table I. — Summary of notes on the rust resistance of oat varieties tested in the
greenhouse at Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., 1915-16 — Continued.

[R.= resistant; S.= susceptible.]

Identification numbers.

Crowi

rust.

stem rust.

Variety.

o
C

£

o
IS

5

6

02

bti
CO

i

c3:3

.g
1

CO

i
£1

c S

Remarks.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Common (sativa) varieties —
Continued.
Scottish Chief

92
107
71
72
12
13
3

1793
1811

S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

S.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

1' S.?

18 S.?

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

21 R.?

s.

s.

s.

s.

s.

s. .

s.

s.

S.
S.
S.
S.
S
S.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

15 S.?

"s."
"s."

s.
s.

S.
S.
S.

s.

S.
S.

s.

S.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

i<S.?

s.
s.
s.
s.

R.

16 S.?

s.
s.
s.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

23R? + S.

s.

Shadeland Challenge

Shadeland Climax

Shirefl

6S0
681

285
286
261

Sixty-Day (Minn.)

99
87
6
44
18
5

101
17
64

117

120
265
266
267
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291

1802
1726

Stube

271
403
301

White Tartarian (check) .

1803

299

s.

605
609

Do

25259
25356

s.

s.
s.
s.
s.

19 S.?

20 S.?

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

S.
S.
S.

s.
s.
s.
s.

S.

s.
s.

22 R.?

s.

Avena sativa (botanical
races):

i

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do . ..

Do

Do

Do

Do

1

I

Do

1

Do

293

, '

H Normal uredinia in the usual time on one plant; on the other culm subepidermal uredinia, at first
small and surrounded by spots of purple color, but later rupturing the epidermis and attainmg normal

li'Uredima usually numerous, but small. Epidermis not always ruptured early; on some plants only
flecks with tiny uredinia were formed.

16 Few urediiaia, normal in size but accompanied by blotches of purple color, probably an antnocyanui,
similar in appearance to those commonly present on sorghum and maize plants. These blotches were
often observed adjacent to stem-rust uredinia and may indicate an unusual disturbance in the physiologic
activities of the host cells, whether or not they are directly related to the question of resistance.

17 Light infection; uredinia few and of small size.

18 Light infection; uredinia tardy in appearing and never reaching normal size.

19 Normal infection on five leaves; light infection on two leaves.

20 Normal infection on six leaves, medium on two, and only a light infection on two.

21 Only a very few tiny uredinia, formed 14 davs after inoculation. , . , .

22 No uredinia on leaves of first seedlings inoculated; the leaves appeared dry and dead within a few
days after inoculation. In the second series inoculated, only one leaf was severely infected. Eight showed
medium infection, and on one no uredinia appeared.

23 Normal infection on one plant; no indication of infection on the other.

BUST RESISTANCE OF OAT VARIETIES.

11

T\Bi,E I. — i^umman/ of notes on titc rust resistance of oat varieties tested in the
greenhouse at Cornell University, Ithaca, 2V. Y., /.9i5-i6— Continued.

[R.= resistant; S.= susceptible.]

Identification numbers.

Crown rust.

Stem rust.

Variety.

3
O

I

O

a
0

C3 .

«^

C3
0

1.1

0)

0

CO

i

5i

0 S
.2

So
B

Plants at head-
ing time.

Uemark-s.

1

2

3

i

5

c

7

8

9

10

Avena sativa (botanical
races) — Continued.

294
297
298
299
301
302
303

119
112
295
109
111
114
118
126
268
269
270
271
979

....

2<R.?

S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.

27 S.?
S.

29 S.?

2iR.?

s.
s.

s.
s.
s.

26 R.?

2SR.7+S.

S.

30 R.?

S.
S.
S.
S.
S.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

33 R.?

s.

35 S.?
S.

s.

R.

38 R.

S.
S.

s.
s.
s.
s.

s.

s.
s.
s.

"s."
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

s.

s.

s.
: S.
, s.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

31 R.?

s.
s.
s.

32 R.?
S.

s.

34 R.?

S.
S.
S.
S.
S.

i

1

A. s. praesravis

Mixed seed.

1

Do

Do

Miscellaneous species of
Avena:

?.t354

Do

Do.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

s.
s.
s.

36 R.?

37 S.?

25351!

Do

16894

Do.

A. orientalis pugnax

273
121

116

296

47

74

48

25357
21751

Do.

Avena sterilis and variet ies:

543

Do

Algerian Red

Appier

Burt

695

24 In the first series inoculated, small uredinia on two out of nine leaves, flecks only on seven. All leaves
soon dry and dead. In the second series inoculated, heavy infection occurred on five and light infection

2» Flecks only 10 days after inoculation; later a few tiny uredinia, accompanied and surrounded by
manv flecks. , , , 1 , , ., , ,

26 No uredinia 10 days after inoculation; later a few tmy ones on each leaf, surrounded by flecked areas
of host tissue. ^ , ,. .

27 In the first series fairly heavy infections were obtained on all leaves moculated, but uredima were
small. In the second series normal infection on two leaves, medium on eight, and light on two.

28 Heavy infection on only one leaf; onlv a few tiny uredinia on the other two.

29 In the first series of inoculations fairly vigorous infections were olitaincd on some of the leaves. On
other leaves only a few small uredinia appeared, the leaf soon drying and turning brown. In a second
series, normal infection oci-urred on all leaves inoculated.

30 Flecks only 10 days after inoculation. A few small uredinia appeared later, accompanied by distinct

31 On one plant, uredima nearly normal in size, liut accompanied by purple blotches: no uredinia were
produced on the other plant.

32 Uredinia few and small; infection not heavy.

33 No evidence of infection in 10 days after inoculation; the few uredinia finally produced were small.
31 Uredinia normal on one plant; on the other small and svurounded by purple l>lotches.

3i Flecks only on one of the two leaves inoculated. The leaf soon dried up. A large number of normal
uredinia appeared on the tip of the other leaf. On most of the leaf surface, however, there were very few
uredinia but many flecks. , „ , -j, ^

36 Of the first series of 11 leaves inoculated 5 were heavily infected, while on 6 only flecks were evident.
In the second series inoculated uredinia were produced on all leaves but were accompanied by many yel-
lowish flecks, and larger lilotches of dead host, tissue surrounded each uredinium.

37 In the first series of leaves inoculated 6 out of 10 leaves were rather heavily rusted, 1 showed light mfec-
tion, and on 3 only flecks appeared. In the second series nearly normal infections were secured on all
the 8 leaves inoculated. In the third series medium to good infection resulted on all 11 leaves inocu-
lated. Manv of the uredinia were of normal size, but surrounded by Ught yellowish green flecks.

38 No uredima. Rather indistinct light-green flecks were observed, indicative of the presence of rust
hyphse.

12

BULLETIN 629, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Table I. — Summary of notes on the rust resistance of oat varieties tested in the
greenhouse at Cornell University, Ithaca, 2V. Y., 1915-16 — Continued.

[R.=

= resistant

S.=

susceptible.)

Identification numbers.

Crown rust.

Stem rust.

Variety.

3
O

1

a

o

o

1
*-■ S

o

m

CO

<

1

■h

Za

C3.3

§•9

Remarks.

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

8

9

10

A vena sterilis and varie-
ties— Continued.
Burt

76
SI

69G

39 R.?

« R.

■sR.f + S)
*•■ R.?

47 S.?
49 S ?

sV
s.
s.

52 R.

s.

64 S ?
66 R.?

68 S.?
S.
S.

60 R.?

<0R.

«R.?

«R.

<6R.
«R.
f'O R.?

S.

s.
s.

63 R

s!

" R.

S.
S.
S.

61 R.

S.
S.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

s.

s.

s.
s.
s.
s.
s.

" S.? B

s.

S.

S.
"R.+S.

s.
s.

5» R.?

S.

S.

Do

710

Early Ripe

Cook

77
73

697
694

Fulghum

Golden Rustproof

61

609

Do

93
54
57

58

24
52
62

78
59
53

67

1796

Italian Rustproof

388

397

409-4

Do

Italian Rustproof selec-

tion.
Red Rustproof

309

Red Rustproof selection

261-7

518-15

700

487

3.'i6-19

Do

Do

Siberian Red

1

Turkish Rustproof se-
lection.
Do

627

39 Three series of inoculations were made. In each some leaves were rather heavily rusted, others lightly,
and on some no uredinia (only flecks) were formed. Telia were freely produced on leaves where no normal
uredinia had previously ruptured the epidermis.

*o Normal uredinia on one leaf; flecks only on the other.

<' In the three series of inoculations made no leaf was heavily rusted. Only a few had even a slight infec-
tion, while most of them very quickly showed large reddish brown blotches of dead tissue and smaller
yellowish green flecks and no uredinia (see PI. Til).

■f^ Normal infection at the base of each leaf, the upper portion heavily flecked and soon turning lirown
in color, with no normal uredinia.

^ In the seven series inoculated, there were both susceptiTile and resistant plants, the former with many
normal uredinia, the latter with few and small uredinia or flecks only. On many leaves, large blotches of
host tissue were killed soon after inoculation. On some of these, teha were later developed.

<< Of Ave leaves inoculated, on only one were normal uredinia produced and these only at the base. On
one leaf a few tiny uredinia were formed, and on three flecks only apjwai cd.

^'■> In the first series of 6 leaves inoculated, a few light-green flci-ks furiushed the only evidences of infec-
tion. In two later series of 6 and 10 leaves inoculated, normal iufections o,-curred on S of the 16, while the
other 8 had only small uredinia or flecks.

■IB No uredinia appeared in three weeks after inoculation; then only tiny ones on one leaf. Distinct
flecks were evident.

■" Of 9 leaves in the first series inoculated, 1 was heavily rusted, 6 medium, and on 2 only flecks appeared.
Of 14 leaves in a second series, fairly normal infection occurred on all, though some uredinia were rather
small. No sharp indications of resistance.

« Two leaves inoculated; on neither were any normal uredinia produced. Uredinia small and accom-
panied l>y flecks.

■"9 In the first series of 8 leaves, normal infection occurred on 5, light on 2, flecks only on 1. In the
second series of 9 leaves, 4 were heavily rusted and 5 lightly.

'■>^ No uredinia in 11 days after inoculation, then only 1 or 2 small ones on each leaf. There were also
blotches of dead host tissue.

'■>^ No uredmia normal in size or vigor: after 21 days they were still small.

62 Of 6 inoculated leaves in the first series, normal infection was produced on 3' and very small uredinia
and flecks on 3. No normal inlection occurred on 9 leaves inoculated in the second series. There were
only a few tiny uredinia with many flecks.

w No signs of infection e.xcept dead leaf tips.

6< In the first series of 9 leaves inoculated, normal infection was secured on 6, while only flecks ap-
peared on 3 in the time characteristic for uredinia. Telia were formed later. In the second series, the
2 leaves inoculated were rusted heavily.

66 Normal (very heavy) infection on one culm; only a very few small uredinia on the other.

66 No evidences of infection on the leaves of the first series inoculated. Only a few tiny uredinia were
formed on the 9 leaves in the second series inoculated.

6' Only a few very small uredinia; many flecks.

68 Of 10 leaves in the first series inoculated, 6 were heavily rusted and a light infection on 4. Of U leaves
In the second series, 6 were heavily rusted, on 4 only a few very small uredinia developed, and on 1 only
flecks appeared in the time usual for uredinia formation. An alnmdanee of teha later occurred.

69 No uredinia of normal size and vigor; only a few tiny ones on each leaf.

60 Of the first series of five leaves inoculated, one was very heavily rusted, three had only a light infec-
tion, and on one only flecks were produced. All leaves of the second series inoculated were rather
heavily rusted, but numerous flecks were observed, also indicating some degree of resistance.

61 Infection not heavy; uredinia on each leaf few and small.

RUST RESISTANCE OF OAT VARIETIES. 13

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.

The notes in Table 1 on the varieties which showed resistance to
one or both rusts indicate that rust resistance is very specific and
that a particular variety may be entirely susceptible to one rust and
somewhat resistant to the attacks of another.^

Of the 1-22 strains tested, 80 unquestionably were susceptible to
both rusts in both stages of growth. This does not imply that these
varieties are not of great commercial value in other respects and is
not sufficient reason for discarding them from cultivation, for at
present there are no suitable varieties to substitute for the best of
them. It probably does remove them, however, from the list which
is to afford promise of rust-resistant varieties. Heavy infections
were obtained on practically all of these, and at least some normal
uredinia were formed on all. While such greenhouse tests do not
represent field conditions accurately, the optimum conditions for
infection provided should make the evidences of resistance which
appeared in some varieties all the more valuable. Some of these
varieties may show some resistance under field conditions and some
of them have properly been recommended as rust-escaping because
of their early-ripening habit, as, for instance, the Sixty-Day and
Kherson varieties.

In 80 out of the 122 cases the results at two distinct periods in the
life of the host plant have led to identical conclusions as to the sus-
ceptibility of the variety. In some of the resistant varieties, also,
both seecllings and mature plants gave the same evidences of re-
sistance, though the results are not always in agreement. These
susceptible varieties need not be discussed in further detail, but the
list includes the following commonly grown sorts: American Ban-
ner, Big Four, Ligowo, Lincoln, Siberian, Sixty-Day, Swedish
Select, and WTiite Eussian. In this list are included also most of
the botanical species represented and nearly all of the recently intro-
duced foreign varieties.

In the Arena sterilis group also, where most of the resistance to
crown rust is found, several strains are very susceptible to the crow^n
rust, as, for instance, Greenhouse No. 296, Red Algerian, and one
strain each of Golden Rustproof, Italian Rustproof, Red Rustproof,
and Turkish Rustproof.

Not all varieties of the Arena sterilis group sho-v\' perceptible re-
sistance to either rust, and great care should be exercised in recom-
mending to farmers these or other varieties as rust resistant. Still
greater care is necessary in choosing a strain to use as a parent

iTho studips of these varieties indicate the necessity for selecting and working from
individual plants, for certainly within the same variety, and even within a line supposed
to be pure for other characters, differences of a major degree in rust resistance exist,

14 BULLETIN 629, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

variety with the purpose of obtaining a resistant variety through
hybridization.

None of the seedlings of the 23 varieties belonging to the Ave^ia
sterilis group showed any resistance to the stem rust, and in only
three of the varieties did the plants inoculated at heading time give
any evidence of resistance to this rust. It is entirely safe to conclude
that all of these varieties are quite susceptible to stem rust, and the
Avena sterilis group probably will offer little in the way of resistance
to stem rust that is of value to the plant breeder.

Of these 23 varieties 16 show some degree of resistance to crown
rust, Certain strains were strikingly resistant in both the seedling
stage and at heading time, and from the clear-cut evidences of re-
sistance there can be no doubt of the presence of resistance to crown
rust in varieties of this group.

These varieties which are actually resistant to crown rust, if found
to be high in yield, should replace some of the " rus'toroof " types
now being grown in the Southern States. They may be of use also
in the breeding of rust-resistant varieties for culture in other sections
of the country.

Table I shows that there are many more cases of resistance to the
crown rust than to the stem rust. This is especially true of the work
on seedlings, where none of the varieties tested except White Tar-
tarian and Ruakura Rustproof showed any resistance to stem rust.

In the studies of both rusts, more apparent cases of resistance are
recorded from the inoculations made on the plants at the time of
heading. This may be due to the fact that plants are more susceptible
as seedlings tha'U Avhen more mature. It is more likely, however, that
some of the failures to get normal or heavy infection Avere due to the
fact that it was more difficult to wet thoroughly, and hence inoculate
heavily, the upper leaf blades and sheaths than the young seedling
leaves.

The use of the word " immune " is avoided, for in the forms studied
none w^ere observed in which very distinct evidences of infection did
not appear. The words "resistant" and "resistance" are used only
in a relative sense and refer to that condition in w4iich normal
urediniospore production by the fungus was either prevented or
seriously interfered with. As Stakman (13) has pointed out, the
quality which is called resistance may actually be, in the extreme
sense, susceptibility or hypersensitiveness. It amounts to " commer-
cial resistance," using that expression to describe a variety which will
suffer less severe damage in the field than some others.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

(1) Two distinct rusts of oats are common in the United States:
{a) Stem rust, Puccinia graminis avenae Erikss. and Henn., and {h)

RUST RESISTANCE OF OAT VARIETIES. 15

crown or leaf rust, Puccinia loUl ai-enae Mc Alpine. The stem rust is
more common in the North, while the crown rust, though practically
always present, seems to be most abundant and serious in the South.

(2) Greenhouse studies are of value in determining varietal re-
sistance under optimum conditions for infection. These studies, how-
ever, should alwaj^s be supplemented by rust nursery and field trials.

(3) Plants of more than 120 strains of oats were inoculated at two
different periods of growth (the seedling stage and the heading stage)
and their reaction to both rusts determined.

(4) The inoculations made on these varieties were as follows : Stem
rust. — Seedlings, 1,256 ; headed plants, 260. Crown rust. — Seedlings,
1,480; headed plants, 260. Total, 3,256.

(5) Of more than 120 strains tested, 80 were found to be entirely
susceptible to both rusts at both stages of growth. Unquestionable
resistance to stem rust was present in only two varieties. White Tar-
tarian and Ruakura Rustproof. Several varieties of the red-oat
group {Aveiui sterilis), including certain strains of Burt, Cook,
Appier, Italian Rustproof, Red Rustproof, and Turkish Rustproof,
are very resistant to the crown rust. Ruakura Rustproof and certain
recently introduced species of Avena also gave indications of resist-
ance to crown rust.

(6) Rust resistance is shown to be specific, for many of the varie-
ties which are resistant to crown rust are thoroughly susceptible to
the stem rust under identical conditions. The evidences of resistance
described for wheat are shown to apply also to resistant oat varie-
ties. In addition, the earh^ production of telia on seedling leaves
has been observed and is believed to be an indication of resistance.

(7) Further search must be made for varieties resistant to stem
rust.

(8) Varieties of the .1 vena sfer'flh group which are really resistant
to the crown rust, if found to be high in j^ield, should replace other
" rustproof " varieties now being grown in the Southern States.
Xone of the varieties of this group which have been tested w^ill with-
stand the attacks of stem rust.

(9) A basis is now offered for making selections and crosses to
produce improved oat varieties resistant to crown rust and suitable
for culture in the several oat-erowing: areas of the United States.

LITERATURE CITED.

(1) BiFFEN, R. H.

1907. Studies in tlie inheritance of disease resistance. In .Tour. Agr.

Sci., V. 2, p. 109-128.

(2) Carleton, M. a.

1903. Culture nietliod'S witli Uredine:v. Iti Jour. Appl. Jlicros. and

Lai). Metliods, v. 6, no. 1, p. 2109-2114.

(3) Cobb, N. A.

1890-94. Contributions to an economic knowledge of the Australian
rusts (Uredineae). In Agr. Gaz. N. S. Wales, v. 1, p. 185-
214, illus., 1890 ; v. 3, p. 44-68, 181-212, illus., 1892 ; v. 4, p.
431-470, 503-515, illus., 1893 ; v. 5, p. 239-253, illus., 1894.

(4) Evans, I. B. P.

1908. Report of the acting botanist and plant pathologist. In Rpt.

Transvaal Dept. Agr., 1906/07, p. 155-172.

(5) From ME, F. D.

1913. The culture of cereal rusts iu the greenhouse. In Bui. Torrey
Bot. Club. V. 40, no. 9, p. 501-521. Literature, p. 519-521.

(6) Marry AT, Dorothea C. E.

1907. Notes on the infection and histology of two wheats innnune to
the attacks of Puccinia glumaruni, yellow rust. In Jour.
Agr. Sci., V. 2. pt. 2, p. 129-138. pi. 2.

(7) Melchers, L. E.

1915. A way of obtaining an abundance of large uredinla from arti-
ficial culture. In Phytopathology, v. 5, no. 4. p. 236-237.

(8) Melhus, I. E.

1912. Culturing of parasitic fungi on the living host. In Phyto-

pathology, V. 2, no. 5. p. 197-203, 2 fig., pi. 20.

(9) Morgenthaler, Otto.

1910. Uber die Bedingungen der Teleutosporenbildung bei den Ure-
dineen. In Centbl. Bakt. (etc.), Abt. 2, Bd. 27, No. 1/3, p.
73-92, 18 fig. Literatur, p. 91-92.

(10) Norton, J. B.

1913. Methods use<l in breeding asparagus for rust resistance. U. S.

Dept. Agr., Bur. Plant Indus. Bui. 263. 60 p., 4 fig., 18 pi.

(11) Smith, R. E.

1904. The water-relation of Puccinia asparagi. . . In Bot. Gaz., v. 38,

no. 1. p. 19-43, 21 fig.

Stakman, E. C.

(12) 1914. A study in cereal i-usts ; physiological races. IMinu. Agr. Exp.

Sta. Bui. 138, 56 p., 9 pi. Bibliography, p. 50-54.

(13) 1915. Relation between Puccinia graminis and plants highly re-

sistant to its attack. In Jour. Agr. Research, v. 4, no. 3,
p. 193-200, pi. 28. Literature cited, p. 198-199.

16

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

5 CENTS PER COPY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 630

Contribution from the States Relations Service
A. C. TRUE. Director

Washington, D. C.

PROFESSIONAL PAPER

April 16, 1918

STUDIES ON THE DIGESTIBILITY OF SOME NUT

OILS.^

By A. D. Holmes, Specialist in Charge of Digestion Experiments, Office of

Home Economics.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Introduction 1

Methods of procedure 2

Subjects 3

Almond oil 4

Black-walnut oil 6

Brazil-nut oil 8

Page.

Butternut oil 9

English-walnut oil 11

Hickory-nut oil 13

Pecan oil 15

Conclusions 17

INTRODUCTION.

This paper records the results of a study of the digestibility of
almond, black-walnut, Brazil-nut, butternut, English-walnut, hick-
ory-nut, and pecan oils.

Previous papers- of this series have reported the digestibility of
lard, beef fat, mutton fat (kidney fats), butter; cream, chicken,
goose, fish, brisket, and egg-yolk fats; and cocoa butter, olive, cotton-
seed, peanut, coconut, and sesame oils. The results of the study of
the digestibility of these fats indicate that they are well utilized by
the human body and may be used in amounts exceeding those of the
ordinary diet, without causing any laxative effects. In the experi-
ments all of the fats were separated from the materials in which they
naturally occur. Most of them are thus used in the ordinary diet,
though with a few (egg fat and fish fat, for example) this is not the
case. The present paper has to do with the digestibility of the oils
obtained from some of the common nuts considered in comparison
with the digestibility of the large number of animal and vegetable
fats which are being considered in this series. "While these oils can

1 Prepared under the direction of C. F. Langworthy, Chief, Office of Home Economics.
^U. S. Dept. Agr. Buls. 310 (1915), 505 (1917), 507 (1917).

Note.— This bulletin is primarily of interest to students and investigators of food
problems.

18030° — 18 — BuU. 630 1

2 BULLETIN 630, V. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

not be purchased in any considerable quantities and are little used
in this country as such, very considerable quantities are consumed
annually as a constitutent of the nuts in which they occur.

Inasmuch as sufficient quantities of these nut oils could not be
procured in the open market, a supply of good grade nuts of the
varieties to be studied was procured and the oils were expressed under
laboratory conditions with a hydraulic press having a capacity of
35 tons pressure on a 6-inch plunger. All of the oils were "cold
I)ressed " and were of excellent quality, being in such good condition
that no refining was necessary. They were allowed to stand some hours
in order that any suspended matter might settle and then they were fil-
tered through one thiclmess of ordinary filter paper. In all instances
the oils were of good color, without odor, and possessed a bland
flavor ; in one or two instances more or less of the characteristic flavor
of the nuts from which the oils were derived could be detected. Since
they were used within a short time after they were expressed, little
information was obtained in regard to the keeping quality of the oils.

The press cake remaining after the oils had been expressed from
the nuts was quite palatable though not as " rich " as the nuts, and
rather dry if eaten alone. The characteristic flavor of the nuts was
retained by it and was in many cases intensified. Since the press
cake was derived from a good grade of cleaned nuts it had consider-
able interest as a possible food material, especially in view of its
high protein content. That obtained from several varieties of nuts
was accordingly studied in this office from a dietetic standpoint, and
various recipes for its use were developed. The value and possible
uses of such press cake will be discussed in a later publication.

In the studies of the digestibility of the 16 animal or vegetable
fats, reported in previous bulletins, an average of eight tests was
made with each fat; in only one case were there less than five
experiments. Because of the limited available supply of the oils
considered in this paper only three or four tests could be made with
the oils studied.

METHODS OF PROCEDURE.

The digestion experiments with the nut oils were conducted by the
same methods as those with the animal and vegetable fats already
reported, the object being to maintain identical experimental condi:^
tions for each fat studied and thus to make the values obtained for
the digestibility of the different fats directly comparable with one
another.

As in the earlier experiments, a blancmange, or cornstarch pud-
ding, served as the medium for introducing the fat under considera-
tion. The, blancmange was prepared by the jnethod outlined in a

DIGESTIBILITY OF SOME NUT OILS. 3

previous paper ^ and in amounts sufficient to supply all the subjects
for the entire experimental period. In order to mask the presence
of the large quantity of fat and to secure a blancmange which would
be of uniform color and flavor for all experiments, thus avoiding
as far as possible any psychic effects, a caramel solution was added
to the blancmange during its preparation.^

The accessory foods which the diet contained in addition to the
blancmange and which were selected because they supplied a mini-
mum of fat, were wheat biscuit, oranges, and sugar. In case the
subjects so desired, they were permitted to take tea or coffee, without
milk or cream, with their meals. All constituents of the diet ex-
cept the tea or coffee were eaten cold.

The feces resulting from the diet under consideration were identi-
fied by means of charcoal taken in gelatin capsules with the first
meal of the test period and with the first' meal following the test
period. The feces were collected in weighed glass containers and
dried in an electric oven regulated to maintain a temperature of
95° C, pulverized and analyzed. The urine was not collected or
analyzed, and no attempt Avas made to maintain a nitrogen equi-
librium, since in this investigation attention was centered on the
digestibility of the fats.

The customary three-day or nine-meal test period was judged to
be of sufficient duration to permit of satisfactory analytical results
and still not so long as to become monotonous. No record of the
body weights of the subjects was kept, but, the men were expected
to submit a report of their physical condition during the interdict
periods as well as during the experimental periods. As they re-
ported being in normal physical condition throughout the investiga-
tion their reports will not be referred to in detail.

SUBJECTS.

Men between 20 and 40 years of age, of norma-l health and appetite,
served as subjects for this investigation. With one exception, they
were all students and, while they were mainlf^ engaged in mental
activities, their exercise was enough to make their energy require-
ments considerably in excess of those persons with sedentary occu-
pations. They had all had previous experience in such experimental
work and fully appreciated the necessity for accuracy in carrying
out the directions given, saving uneaten portions of food, collecting

lU. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 310 (1915).

=> Recently Plaisance and Monsch (Jour. Home Econ., 9 (1917), No. 4, p. 167) Lave
reported tbat when caramel is prepared by heating sugar at temperatures of 180° C. and
200° C. from 0.02 per cent to 0.09 per cent of furfurol is formed. The authors further
state that if the caramel is subsequently cooked in the presence of water the furfurol is
removed, which perhaps may explain the absence of any toxic effects resulting from tUe
use of caramel in the preparation of the blancmange.

4 BULLETIN 630, U. S". DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

feces, etc. While there were no prescribed hours for eating, the
subjects were informed that regularity' was desired and they were
requested to follow their normal daily routine as far as possible.

ALMOND OIL.

Commercial almond oil is obtained by subjecting the seeds of
Prunus amygdalus to hydraulic pressure. Almond oil, of which
considerable quantities appear in commerce, is principally used in
the preparation of ointments, emulsions, and toilet soaps. It pos-
sesses, however, all the essentials characteristic of an edible oil, and
hence the question of its value as human food is an interesting one.
The literature shows no investigations of the digestibility of almond
oil as such.

In a series of digestion experiments conducted to determine the
relative digestibility of fruits and nuts Jaffa ^ studied the digesti-
bility of almonds eaten in conjunction with bananas, apples, dates,
olives, and oranges combined in different ways. The total fat of
the diet was found to be 84 per cent digested. Inasmuch as 83 per
cent, or approximately 97 grams of the 117 grams of fat eaten daily,
was derived from the almonds, this value should very nearly repre-
sent the digestibility of almond oil when eaten as a constituent of
almonds.

The almond oil studied in this investigation was prepared by ex-
pression from a supply of first quality sweet almond nuts purchased
in the open market. The oil which was obtained had no marked
flavor or odor and, judged by household tests, was a very satisfac-
tory table oil. It was incorporated in the usual cornstarch blanc-
mange and eaten by the four subjects who assisted in this study.
The results of the four experiments are included in the following
table :

Data of digestion experiments with almond oil in a simple mixed diet.

•

Weight
of foods.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 555, subject H. R. G.:

Blancmange containing almond oil

Grams.

1,463.0
306. 0
458.0
17.0

Grams.

672.0

27.6

398.0

Grams.

27.4

32.4

3.7

Grams.

170.9

4.6

0.9

Grams.

580.0

236.5

53.1

17.0

Grams.

12.7
4.9

Fruit

2.3

Total food consumed

2,244.0
77.0

1,097.6

63.5
24.6
38.9

176.4

6.7

169.7

886.6
40.0
846.6

19.9

5.7

14.2

61.3

96.2

95.5

71.4

lU. S. Dept. Agr., Office Expt. Stas. Bui. 132 (1903).

DIGESTIBILITY OF SOME NUT OILS. 5

Data of diijCHtion experiments with almond oil in a simple mixed diet—Contd.

Weight
of foods.

Constituents of foods.

Kxperiment, sulijeet, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

Exporiment No. 556, subject A. J. H.:

Blancmange containing almond oil

Grams.
1,671.0

Grams.
767.5

Grams.
31.2

Grams.
195.2

Grams.
662.6

Grams.
14.5

Fruit

324. 0
42.0

281.6

2.6

0.6

37.6
42.0

1.6

Sugar

2,037.0
85.0

1,049.1

33.8
27.1
6.7

195.8

26.9

168.9

742.2
21.4
720.8

16.1

9.6

Amount utilized

6.5

Per cent utilized

19.8

86.3

97.1

40.4

Experiment No. 557, subject P. K.:

Blancmange containing almond oil

2,0r.9.0

320.0

038. 0

67.0

950.3

28.8
554.4

38.7

33.9

5.1

241.7
4.8
1.3

820.3

247.4

74.0

67.0

18.0
5.1

Fruit

3.2

Sugar

3,094.0
89.0

1,533.5

77.7
28.4
49.3

247.8

13.7

2.34.1

1,208.7

38.7

1.170.0

26.3

8.2

Amount utilized

18.1

Per cent utilized

63.4

94.5 1 96.8

68.8

Experiment No. 558, subject C. J. W._:

1,945.0

287.0

975.0

29.0

893.3
25.8
847.3

30. 4

30.4

7.8

227.2 : 771.2
4.3 1 221.9
1.9 1 113.1

16. e
4.6

4.9

29.0

o**^

3,236.0
102.0

1,766.4

74.6
32.8
41.8

233.4

10.7

222.7

1,135.2

50.2

1,085.0

26.4

8.3

18.1

Per cent utilized

56.0

95.4 95.6

68.6

Average food consumed per subject per day . . .

8S4.3

453.9

20.8

71.1

1 331.1

1 ''■^

,Siimmar!j of digestion experiments iritlt almond oil in a simple mixed diet.

Experiment No.

555
556
557

558

Subject.

H.R.G

A.J.H

P.K

C.J. W

Average

Protein.

Per cent.
61.3
19.8
63.4
56.0

50.1

Fat.

Per cent.
96.2
86.3
94.5
95.4

93.1

Carbo-
hydrates.

Per cent.
95.5
97.1

96. S
95.6

Ash.

Per cent.
71.4
40 4

68.8
68.6

62.3

In the four experiments made with the ahiiond oil an average of 21
grams of protein, 71 grams of fat (of which TO grams was almond
oil), and 331 grains of carbohydrates was eaten per man per day, and
of these amounts 50.1 per cent of the protein, 93.1 per cent of the fat,
and 9G.3 per cent of the carbohydrates was digested. The value, 93.1
per cent obtained for the digestibility of fat, applies to the digesti-
bility of the total fat of the diet and is increased to 97.1 when allow-
ance is made for the undigested residue resulting from the basal
ration and occurring in the ether extract of the feces.

6 BULLETIN 630, U. S. DEPAKTMENT OF AGElCULTtTEE.

The coefficient of digestibility of almond oil as determined by these
experiments is, for all practical purposes, identical with the coeffi-
cient of digestibility, 97 per cent, reported in an earlier paper* of this
series for the most widely used animal fats, butter, and lard.

BLACK-WALNUT OIL.

Black-walnut oil, which is obtained from the nuts of Juglans nigra,
is commercially classified as a drying oil. "Wlien free from fatty
acid, it is said to be preferred to any other oil for making artists'
white paints, since it makes them less liable to crack than if prepared
with linseed oil. Black walnuts are rich in oil,- 56 per cent being
contained in the edible portion, and when subjected to pressure yield
a yellow oil possessing the characteristic odor and flavor of the nuts.
Although this flavor is esteemed by many, it is somewhat too pro-
nounced to make this oil as generally adaptable for cooking or salad
purposes as the others here considered.

A supply of first quality nuts w^as obtained from a local dealer.
The kernels were ground in a common household meat chopper, after
which the oil was extracted by hydraulic pressure without heating;
approximately a 50 per cent yield resulting.

In all other determinations of the coefficients of digestibility of the
many fats included in this series, the basal ration served in conjunc-
tion with the blancmange, which contained the fat under considera-
tion, consisted of wheat biscuit, fruit, sugar, and tea or coffee if de-
sired. The basal ration served in the experiments with the black-
walnut oil was of a slightly different composition, because, owing to
the exhaustion of the available supply of the w^heat biscuit, it be-
came necessary to replace them by crackers. However, since the com-
position of the crackers was quite similar to that of the wheat biscuit,
it is not thought that this change in the basal ration has in any way
vitiated the values obtained in these experiments for comparison with
values obtained for the digestibility of other oils studied.

Four young men of normal health and activity served as subjects
for the tests made with the black-walnut oil; the following tables
contain the essential data for interpreting the results obtained.

HJ. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 310 (1915).

«U. S. Dept. Agr., Office Expt. Stas. Bui. 28 (1906), rev. ed.

DIGESTIBILITY OF SOME NUT OILS. Y

Data of digestion experiments loith hlack-walnut oil in a simple mdxed diet.

Weight
of foods.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 565, subject H. R. G.:

Blancmange containing black-wakiut oil ..

Grams.

1,406.0
2SS. 0
464.0

Grams.

685.6

19.9

403.2

Grams.
27.3
23.3
3.7

Grams.

127.1

38.6

1.0

Grams.

555.2

203. 9

53.8

Grams.
10.8
2.3

Fruit

2.3

J

2, 158. 0
51.0

1, 108. 7

54.3
19.5
34.8

166.7

6.5

160.2

812.9
20.2
792.7

15.4

4.8

10.6

64.1

96.1

97.5

68.8

Experiment No. 566, subject A. J. H.:

Blancmange containing black-walnut oil ..

1,800.0
132.0
145.0
85.0

877.7

9.1

126.0

34.9
10.7
1.2

162.7

17.7

.3

710.8
93.5
16.8
85.0

13.9
1.0

Fruit

.7

2, 162. 0
70.0

1,012.8

46.8
25.5
21.3

180.7
14.6
166.1

906.1
22.7
883.4

15.6

7.2

8.4

.

45.5

91.9

97.5

53.8

Blancmange containing black-walnut oil ..

2,115.0
308.0
78S.0
100.0

1,031.3
21.2

684. 8

41.0

24.9

6.3

191.2

41.3

1.6

835.2
218.1
91.4
100.0

16.3
2.5

Fruit

3.9

3,311.0
47.0

1,737.3

72.2
17.4
54.8

234.1

7.8
226.3

1,244.7

17.0

1,227.7

22.7

4.8

17.9

75.9

96.7

98.6

78.9

Experiment No. 568, subject C. J. W.:

Blancmange containing black-walnut oil ..

2,125.0

293.0

792.0

74.0

1,036.1

20.2
688.2

41.2
23.7
6.3

192.1

39.3

1.6

839.2

207.5

91.9

74.0

16.4
2.3

Fruit

4.0

3,284.0
81.0

1,744.5

71.2
29.4
41.8

233.0

12.8

220.2

1,212.6

30.8

1,181.8

22.7

8.0

14.7

58.7

94.5

97.5

64.8

909.6

466.9

20.4

67.9

348.0

6.4

Snm))i(inj of digestion experiments u-ith blaek-n-almit oil in a simple mixed diet.

Experiment No.

Subject.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

565

H. R. G

Per cent.
64.1
45.5
75.9

5S. 7

Per cent.
96.1
91.9
96.7
94.5

Per cent.
97.5
97.5
98.6
97.5

Per cent.
68.8

566

A.J. H

53.8

567

P. K

78.9

568

C.J. W

64.8

61.1

94.8

97.8

66.6

It will be noted from the above data of the digestion experiments
with black-walnut oil that the total fat of the diet was 94.8 per cent
digested. On an average 56 grams of black-walnut oil were eaten per
man per day. If allowance is made for the other-extracted material
resulting from the nonfatty portion of the diet, the digestibility of

8

BlTLLEtliT 630, U. S. BEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

black-walnut oil becomes 97.5 per cent. The protein and carbohy-
drate portions of the diet were 61.1 per cent and 97.8 per cent digested,
respectively, figures comparing favorably with those usually obtained
for these constituents in other tests of this series, and indicating that
this oil does not decrease the digestibility of other food materials
consumed in conjunction with it.

BRAZIL-NUT OIL.

Brazil-nut oil is obtained from the seeds of Bertholletia excelsa,
which is indigenous to tropical South America, and which occurs
there in both the wild and the cultivated state. These nuts are espe-
cially rich in oil, which, according to Lewkowitsch,^ may make up as
much as 73 per cent of the dried nuts.

The oil, obtained by cold pressing a quantity of fresh Brazil nuts,
was odorless and nearly colorless, and possessed a flavor similar to
that of the nuts, though very much less pronounced.

Jaffa 2 studied the digestibility of Brazil nuts when eaten as a
part of diets containing such foods as apples, bananas, granose (a
wheat preparation), grapes, honey, milk, olive oil, and tomatoes. In
the three experiments an average of 106 grams of fat was eaten daily,
with an average digestibility of 89 per cent (91.2 per cent, 84.3 per
cent, 91.5 per cent) for the total fat, of which 92 per cent was Brazil-
nut oil.

The following experiments were made to determine the digestibility
of Brazil-nut oil under conditions similar to those in the other experi-
ments in the present series.

Data of digestion experiments with Brazil-nut oil in a simple mixed diet.

Weight
of foods.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 551, subject H. R. G.:

Blancmange containing Brazil-nut oil

Grams.

1,399.0
259.0
874.0
56.0

Grams.
657.4
23.3
759.5

Grams.

26.1

27.5

7.0

Grams.

168.9

3.9

1.7

Grams.

534.4

200.2

101.4

56.0

Grams.
12.2
4.1

Fruit

4.4

Sugar

2,588.0
74.0

1,440.2

60.6
24.3
36.3

174.5

7.4

167.1

892.0
36.4
855.6

20.7

5.9

Amount utilized

14.8

Per cent utilized

59.9

95.8

95.9

71.5

Experiment No. 553, subject P. K.:

Blancmange containing Brazil-nut oil

2,185.0

452.0

866.0

37.0

1,026.7
40.7
752.6

40.9
47.9
6.9

263.7
6.8
1.7

834.7

349.4

100.5

37.0

19.0
7.2

Fruit

4.3

Sugar

3,540.0
85.0

1,820.0

95.7
26.1
69.6

272.2

12.9

259.3

1,321.6

38.8

1,282.8

30.5

7.2

Amount utilized

23.3

Per cent utilized

72.7

95.3

97.0

76.4

* Chemical Technology and Analysis of Oils, Fats, and Waxes. London
Co. (Ltd.), 1909, 4 ed., vol. 2, p. 188.
2 Loc. cit.

Macmillan &

DIGESTIBILITY OF SOME NUT OILS. 9

Data of digestion experiments imth Brazil-nut oil in a simple mixed diet — Contd.

Weight
of foods.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 554, subject C. J. W.:

Blancmange containing Brazil-nut oil

Granu.

2,477.0

332.0

1,045.0

Grams.

1,163.9

29.9

908.1

Grams.

46.3

35.2

8.4

Grams.

299.0

5.0

2.1

Grams.
946.2
256.6
121.2

Grams.

21.6

5.3

Fruit

5.2

Total food consumed

3,854.0
128.0

2,101.9

89.9
38.8
51.1

306.1
23.6
282.5

1,324.0

51.1

1,272.9

32.1

14.5

17.6

56.8

92. 3

96.1

54.8

Average food consumed per subject per day . . .

1, 109. 1

595.8

27.4

83.6

393.1

9.2

Summary of digestic

n experiments ivith Brazil-nut oil

"n 0 simple mixed diet.

Experiment No.

Subject.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

551

H. R. G

Per cent.
59.9

72.7
56.8

Per cent.

95.8
95.3
92.3

Percent.
95.9
97.0
96.1

Per cent.
71.5

553

P. K

76.4

554

C. J. W..

54.8

Average

63.1

94.5

96.3

67.6

As indicated by the above experiments the digestibility of the
protein, fat, and carbohydrate portions of the diet was 63,1 per cent,
94.5 per cent, and 96.3 per cent, respectively. The value for the
digestibility of the total fat of the diet, 94.5 per cent, is increased to
96.3 per cent for Brazil-nut oil alone when account is taken of the
metabolic products and any undigested portion of the fat supplied
by the basal ration.

The high digestibility of Brazil-nut oil and the relatively high
digestibility of Brazil nuts as a whole, as reported by Jaffa,^ would
indicate that from a dietetic standpoint these nuts are worthy the
high place accorded them as food.

BUTTERNUT OIL.

The kernel of the butternut (Juglans cinerea) when subjected to
pressure yields a light yellow oil which apparently has received little
attention from investigators. No report was found in the literature
of any study of its physical and chemical properties, its use for in-
dustrial or edible purposes, or its nutritive value. In view of the
high fat content of butternuts — it is reported ^ that the kernels con-
tain over 61 per cent of oil — and of the rather extensive use of butter-

• U. S. Dept. Agr., Office Expt. Stas. Bui. 132 (1903).
2U. S. Dept. Agr., Office Expt. Stas. Bui. 28 (1899), p. 74, rev. ed.
18030°— 18— Bull. 630 2

10

BULLETIN 630, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

nuts in some localities, it appeared desirable to determine the digesti-
bility of butternut oil for comparison with the values obtained for
the digestibility of other nut oils.

Since it was impossible to procure any butternut oil in the market.
2 bushels of nuts were secured in northern New England. When
these had been thoroughlj^ dried the kernels were removed and the
oil expressed (cold pressed) with a hydraulic press. The freshly
made oil possessed the qualities of a good salad oil and did not
exhibit in any appreciable degree the characteristic butternut flavor.
The chemical and physical properties of this oil were studied by
E. H. Kerr, of the Bureau of Animal Industry, whose report describes
it as : A clear, golden yellow oil of mild, pleasant odor, and agreeable
taste. The refractive index at 40° was found to be 1.4710, and the
iodin number 156,90.

In this study of its digestibility, the butternut oil was, as usual,
incorporated in a cornstarch blancmange and served in conjunction
with the customary basal ration. Three subjects assisted in this study
and the results which were obtained are reported in the table which
follows :

Data of digestion experiments irith Jiutternut oil in a simple mixed diet.

Weight

of
foods.

Constituents of foods.

E.xperiraent, subject, and diet

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 732, subject R. F. C:

Blancmange containing butternut oil . .
Wheat biscuit

Grams.
1,205.0

400.0
1,381.0

184.0

Grams.

589.3

36.0

1, 200. 1

Grams.
21. b
42.4
11.0

Grams.

109.3

6.0

2.8

Grams.
473.1
309.2
160.2
184.0

Grams.
5.8
6 4

Fruit

6 9

Sugar

Total food consumed . . .

3,170.0
118.0

1, 825. 4

80.9
44.1
36.8

118.1

17.4

100.7

1,126.5

42.9

1,083.6

19 1

Feces

13 6

Amount utilized

5.5

Per cent utilized

45.5

85.3

96.2

28.8

Experiment No. 733, subject P. K.:

Blancmange containing butternut oil

Wheat biscuit

1, 460. 0
307.0
691.0
257.0

714.1

27.6

600.5

33.3

32.6

5.5

132.4
4.6
1.4

573.2
237.3
80.2
257.0

7.0
4 9

Fruit

3 4

Sugar

Total food consumed

2, 715. 0
84.0

1,342.2

71.4
27.7
43.7

138.4

19.1

119.3

1, 147. 7

28.9

1,118.8

15 3

Feces

8 3

Amount utilized

7 0

Per cent utilized

61.2

86.2

97.5

45 8

Experiment No. 734, subject J. C. M. :

Blancmange containing butternut oil

Wheat biscuit

1,612.0
387.0

1,293.0
161.0

788.4

34.8

1,123.6

36.8
41.0
10.3

146.2
5.8
2.6

632.9
299.2
150.0
161.0

7. 7
6 2

Fruit ■. .

6 5

Sugar

Total food consumed

3, 453. 0
75.0

1,946.8

88.1
24.1
64.0

154.6

8.2

146.4

1,24.3.1
35.3

1,207.8

20 4

Feces

7 4

Amount utilized

13 0

Per cent utilized

72.6

94.7

97.2

63 7

Average food consumed per subject per day.

1, 037. 6

568.3

26.7

45.7

390.8

6.1

DIGESTIBILITY OF SOME NUT OILS. 11

Summary of dUjestion experiments irith hitttenuit oil in a simple mixed diet.

Experiment No.

Subject.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

732

R. F.C

P. K

Per cent.
45.5
61.2
72.6

Per cent.
85.3
86.2
94.7

Per cent.
96.2
97.5
97.2

Per cent.
28.8

733

45.8

734

J. CM

63.7

59.8

88.7

97.0

46.1

The supply of butternut oil ob.tainable was small and so it was not
possible to provide as large a quantity of it per day as was the case
with the other oils studied, and the average daily consumption was
only 46 grams per man. The butternut-oil blancmange was as palat-
able as the similar dish used in the other tests, and there is every
reason to believe that more of the oil would have been eaten had it
been possible to supply a blancmange richer in it. The digestibility
of the total fat in the diet was found to be 88.7 per cent. The calcu-
lated digestihility of butternut oil alone, which represented the
greater part of the total fat, when estimated in the usual manner,
with corrections for metabolic products and undigested fat from the
basal ration, is 95.4 per cent, a value which compares favorably with
the digestibility of other food oils which have been studied.

The protein and carbohydrates supplied by the ration were utilized
as completely as in other experiments of this series, being 60 per cent
and 97 per cent digested, respectively. Considering the results as
a whole, it is apparent that butternut oil, expressed from fresh, sound
butternuts, when eaten as a constituent of a simple mixed diet, is a
Avell assimilated ^nd palatable food oil.

ENGLISH-WALNUT OIL.

The English or Persian walnut tree (Juglans regia) is widely dis-
tributed, and the nuts are very generally used for human food. Eng-
lish-walnut oil is expressed for illuminating and for edible purposes
in several parts of Europe. The cold-pressed oil is almost colorless
and has a pleasant smell and agreeable taste, while, according to
Lewkowitsch,^ if hot pressed it has a greenish tinge and acrid taste
and odor.

A survey of the literature revealed little information as regards
the digestibility of English-walnut oil. Jaffa ' made a series of 11
digestion experiments in which he studied the digestibilty of walnuts
eaten in conjunction with other common food materials. On an aver-
age the subjects ate 97 grams of fat per day, of which 86 grams was
walnut oil. The digestibility of the total fat of the diet was 85
per cent. Since the fat derived from the other constituents of the

''- Loc. cit.

12

BULLETIN 630, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

diet (grapes, granose, pears, milk, apples, dried figs, bananas,
oranges, dried prunes, dates) is believed to be very well utilized
by the human body, the results of these experiments would indicate
that the coefficient of digestibility of walnut oil eaten as a constituent
of the nuts would not be far from 85 per cent.

In the experiments here reported the walnut oil, which was cold
pressed from a good grade of nuts, was fed in the usual manner to
three healthy J^oung men, and the data obtained are recorded in the
following table :

Data of (Ugcstion experiments with English-walnut

0(7 in

a simple mi. red diet.

Weight
of foods.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbohy-
drates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 355, subject D. G. G.:

Blancmange containing walnut oil

Grams.

1,736.0
402.0
705.0
.107.0

Grams.
918.7
36.2
612.7

Grams.

32.5

42.6

5.6

Grams.

200.7

6.0-

1.4

Grams.

566.8

310.8

81.8

107.0

Grams.
8.3
6.4

Pruit

3.5

2, 950. 0
86.0

1,567.6

80.7
29.1
51.6

217.1

9.5

207.6

1,060.4

39.4

1,027.0

IS. 2

8.0

Amount utilized

10.2

Per cent utilized -

63.9

9.5.6

96.3

56. 0

Experiment No. 356, subject R. L. S.:

2,081.0

339.0

450.0

96.0

1,101.3

30.5

391.0

38.9
35.9
3.6

251. 4
5.1
0.9

679. 4

262. 1

52.2

96.0

10.0

5.4

Fruit

2.3

2,966.0
60.0

1,522.8

78.4
19.8
58.6

257.4

12.4

245.0

1,089.7

21.8

1,067.9

17.7

6.0

Amount utilized

11.7

Per cent utilized

74.7

95.2

98.0

66. 1

Experiment No. 357, subject 0. E. S.:

Blancmange containing walnut oil

2,026.0
310.0

1,341.0
229.0

1,072.2

27.9

1,165.3

37.9
32.9
10.7

244.7
4.6
2_.7

661. 5
239.6

155. 6
229.0

9.7
5.0

Fruit

6.7

Sugar

3,906.0
88.0

2,265.4

81.5
24.3

57.2

252.0

19.0

233.0

1,285.7

33.5

1,252.2

21.4

11.2

Amount utilized

10.2

Per cent utilized

70.2

92.5

97.4

47.7

Average food consumed per subject per day . . .

1,091.3

595.1

26.7

80.7

382.4

6.4

SvmmdV!/ of digeMion experiments irith Enfili.^h-iralniit oil in a .simple mixed

diet.

Experiment No.

Subject.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbohy-
drates.

Ash.

355

D. G. G

Per cent.
63.9
74.7
70.2

Per cent.
95.6
95.2
92.5

Per cent.
96.3
98. 0

97.4

Per cent.
56.0

3.56

R.L.S

O.E.S

Average

66. 1

357

47.7

69.6

94.4

97.2

56.6

DIGESTIBILITY OF SOME NUT OILS. 13

The average coefficient of digestibility of the total fat of the diet
is 94.4 per cent. If proper allowance is made for the metabolic
products and the undigested fat remaining from the basal ration it
becomes 97.6 per cent for English-walnut oil alone. The protein and
carbohydrate of the diet are shown to be 69.G per cent and 97.2 per
cent digested, respectively.

The difference between the coefficient of digestibility, 97.6 per cent,
obtained in these experiments and the 85 per cent or less obtained by
Jaffa ^ in his series of 11 digestion experiments, in which the whole
nuts were eaten, is thought to be due in part to the form in which
the oil was used and may be due in part to Jaffa's considering the
ether extract of whole nuts as fat whereas substances other than fat
were doubtless extracted, and also may be due in part to no correc-
tion being made for metabolic products occurring in the ether ex-
tract of the feces. In the latter case it was taken as a constituent
of the nut and was probably less readily and completely acted upon
by the digestive juices than when it had been mechanically separated
and was taken as a separated fat.

The subjects consumed on an average 78 grams (69.9 grams, 83.8
grams, 81.6 grams) of English-walnut oil daily. All three of the
subjects reported a laxative effect as a result of the diet ; one experi-
enced the effect at the beginning of the test period, one at the end,
and one during the entire experimental period. Accordingly, it is
believed that the limit of tolerance for this oil is not greatly in excess

of 80 grams daily.

HICKORY-NUT OIL.

The oil of the hickory nut {Carya ovata) is not separated for
edible purposes in this country. It is not Avithout interest to note,
however, that the American Indians used hickory-nut oil for food
purposes. The oil, according to Carr,^ was obtained by mixing the
pounded nuts in boiling water, straining off the oily liquid, and
skimming off the oil which floated on the water in which the nuts
were boiled. " [They] kept it in gourds or earthen pots, etc., using
it as we do butter on their bread or to give body and flavor to their
broth when meat was scarce."^

Carr also states that oil was obtained from acorns and used in a
similar way.

The digestibility of hickory-nut oil is of interest in view of the
large quantities of hickory nuts eaten yearly and especially since the
edible portion is reported ^ to contain 67 per cent of oil.

^ Loc. cit.

2Proc. Amer. Antiquarian Soc, n. ser., 10 (1895), pp. 171, 172, 181. "The Food
of Certain American Indians and their Methods of Preparing It."
»U. S. Dept. Agr., Office Expt. Stas. Bui. 28 (1906), rev. ed., p. 75.

14

BULLETIN 630. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

Since it was impossible to purchase edible hickory-nut oil, a quan-
tity sufficient for the purpose of this investigation was obtained by
cold pressing a good grade of nuts purchased in the open market.
The resulting oil, which was taken to represent average hickory-nut
oil, was of a pale yellow color, without odor, and had a flavor resem-
bling somewhat the nuts from which it was obtained. The supply
of oil was very limited, and so no tests were made of its value for
table purposes.

The oil, incorporated in the blancmange in the usual manner, was
considered only from the standpoint of digestibility, and no attempt
was made to determine how much of the oil can be used without pro-
during a laxative effect (limit of tolerance) , though it may be assumed
that the amount is in excess of that taken in these experiments. The
data obtained are given in the following table:

Data of digest ion cxijcrimcnts ici

til hickory-nut oil in a

simple mixed diet.

Weight
of foods.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, suljject, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 601, subject A. J. H.:

Blancmange containing hiclcory-nut oil ...

Grams.

1,807.0

190.0

Grams.

811.8

17.1

Grams.
38.4
20.1

Grams.

253.0

2.9

Grams.
696.9
146.9

Grams.
6.9
3.0

1,997.0
21.0

828.9

58.5
7.6
50.9

255.9

4.1

251.8

843.8

6.8

837.0

9.9

2.5

7.4

Per cent utilized

87.0

98.4

99.2

74.7

Experiment No. 602, subject P. K.:

Blancmange containing hickory-nut oil ...

2,327.0
402.0
770.0
162.0

1,045.5
36.2
669.1

49.5
42.6
6.2

325.8
6.0
1.5

897.4

310.8

89.3

162.0

8.8
6.4

Fruit

3.9

3,661.0
64.0

1,750.8

98.3
20.0
78.3

333.3

9.8

323.5

1,459.5

28.0

1,431.5

19.1

6.2

12.9

79.7

97.1

98.1

67.5

Experiment No. 603, subject J. C. M.:

Blancmange containing hickory-nut oil . . .

1,796.0
245.0
682.0
114.0

807.0
22.0
592.7

38.2

26.0

5.4

251.4
3.7
1.4

692.6
189.4
79.1
114.0

6.8
3.9

Fruit

3.4

Total food consumed

2,837.0
81.0

1,421.7

69.6
24.9
44.7

256.5

8.9

247.6

1,075.1

38.7

1,036.4

14.1

8.5

Amount utilized

5.6

Per cent utilized

64.2

96.5

96.4

39.7

Experiment No. 604, subject C. J. W.:

Blancmange containing hickory-nut oil . . .

2,213.0

360.0

576.0

81.0

994.3
32.4
500.5

47.0

38.2

4.6

309.8
5.4
1.2

853.5

278.3

66.8

81.0

8.4
5.7

Fruit

2.9

Total food consumed

3, 230. 0
81.0

1,527.2

89.8
26.7
63.1

316.4
10.1

306. 3

1,279.6
37.1

1,242.5

17.0

7.1

9.9

Per cent utilized

70.3

96.8

97.1

58.2

Average food consumed per subject per day. . .

977.1

460.7

26.3

96.9

388.2

5.0

DIGESTIBILITY OF SOME NUT OILS. 15

Summary of digestion exijeriments iritli hickonj-init oil in a ftimple mixed diet.

Experiment No.

Subject.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

601

A. J.H

Per cent.
87.0
79.7
6-1.2
70.3

Per cent.
98.4
97.1
96.5
96.8

Per cent.
99.2
98.1
96.4
97.1

Per cent,
74.7

60''

P.K

67.5

603

J. CM

39.7

604

C. J.W

58.2

75.3

97.2

97.7

60.0

The average coefficient of digestibility of the fat eaten, of which
over 98 per cent was hickory-nut oil, was 97.2 per cent, while 75.3 per
cent of the protein and 97.7 per cent of the carbohydrates were
retained in the body. The value for the digestibility of hickory-nut
oil alone, obtained by making allowance for the metabolic products
and the undigested fat resulting from the accessory foods of the diet,
is 99.3 per cent. The subjects consumed an average of 95 gi-ams of
hickory-nut oil daily without any physiological disturbances. Thus
it may be reasonably concluded that if hickory-nut oil were available
in quantity it would prove very satisfactory for food purposes.

PECAN OIL.

This oil is obtained from the nuts of Canja pecan, which are native
and also largely cultivated in North America. Pecan oil, although
it possesses the characteristics of a salad oil, is not expressed for
edible purposes on a commercial basis. However, since the wide use
of the kernels as food entails a corresponding consumption of the oil,
and since the expressed oil appears to be well suited for table pur-
poses, it seemed desirable to include pecan oil among the nut oils to
be studied.

Xo reports of digestion experiments made with pecan oil were
found in the literature. Jaifa ^ reports four experiments made to
study the relative digestibility of the nuts eaten with fruits. Of a
total of 78 grams of fat eaten per man per day, 74 grams was derived
from pecans, which were included in a simple diet containing com-
mon fruits and nuts. The total fat of the diet was found to be 85 per
cent digested, but since over 94 per cent of the entire fat eaten was
supplied by the pecans this value should, so far as these results are
concerned, approximate the coefficient of digestibility of the oil in
pecans. The low value, 85 per cent, may be due partly to the subjects
not masticating the nuts to such a degree of fineness that the bod}"
could completely assimilate the fat in them.

Four experiments Avere made in the present series to determine the
digestibility of pecan oil when eaten under conditions identical with

1 Loc. cit.

16

BULLETIN 630, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTTrRE.

those maintained for the test periods with other edible fats studied.
The results obtained are included in the table which follows.

Data of digestion experiments with pecan oil in a simple mixed diet.

Weight.
of foods.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet.

Water.

Proteiii.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 405, subject D. G. G.:

Blancmange containing pecan oil

Grams.
1, 857. 0

315.0
1,341.0

121.0

Grams.

864.4

28.4

1,165.3

Grams.
37.2
33.4
10.7

Grams.

291.7

4.7

2.7

Grams.
655.9
243. 5
155. 6
121.0

Grams.

7.8
5.0

Eruit

6.7

3,634.0
104.0

2,058.1

81.3
34.3
47.0

299.1

19.0

280.1

1, 176. 0

39.5

1,136.5

19.5

11.2

8.3

57.8

93.6

96.6

42.6

Experiment No. 406, subject A. J. H.:

Blancmange containing pecan oil

2,474.0

575.0

1,413.0

66.0

1,151.6

,51.8

1,227.9

49.5
60.9
11.3

388.7
8.6
2.8

873.8
444.5
163.9
66.0

10.4
9.2

Fruit

7.1

4, 528. 0
127.0

2, 431. 3

121.7
42.3
79.4

400.1
19.6

380.5

1, 548. 2

51.1

1,497.1

26.7

14.0

12.7

6.5.2

9.5.1

96.7

47.6

Experiment No. 407, subject R. L. S.:

Blancmange containing pecan oil

1,780.0
294.0
909. 0
117.0

828.6

26.4

842.1

3.5.6
31.2

7.8

279.6
4.4
1.9

628.7
227.3
112.4
117.0

7.5
4.7

Emit

4.8

3,160.0
46.0

1,697.1

74.6
12.8
61.8

28.5.9
8.9

277.0

1,085.4

18.4

1,067.0

17.0

5.9

11.1

82.8

96.9

98.3

65.3

Experiment No. 408, subject 0. E. S.:

Blancmange containing pecan oil

1,834.0
246.0

1,202.0
240.0

853. 7

22.1

1,044.6

36.7
26.1
9.6

288.1
3.7
2.4

647.8
190.2
139.4
240.0

7.7
3.9

Fruit

6.0

3,. 522.0
107.0

1,920.4

72.4
30.8
41.6

294.2
29.0
265.2

1,217.4

36.3

1,181.1

17.6

10.9

Amount utilized

6.7

Per cent utilized

1 57.5

90.1

97.0

38.1

Average food consumed per subject per day.

1, 237. 0

675.6

29.2

100.6

418.9

6.7

Summary of digestion experiments with pecan oil in a simple mixed diet.

Experiment No.

Subject.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

405

D. G. G

Per cent.

57.8
65.2
82.8
57.5

Per cent.
93.6
95.1
96.9
90.1

Per cent.
96.6
96.7
98.3
97.0

Per cent.
42.6

406

A.J. H

47.6

407

R.L.S

O.E.S

65.3

408

38.1

65.9

93.9

97.2

48.4

The above data indicate that an average of 107 grams of fat, of
which 104 grams was pecan oil, was eaten per subject per day for

DIGESTIBILITY OF SOME NUT OILS. 17

the four test periods which were made to determine the digestibility
of pecan oil. The coefficients of digestibility for the constituents of
the diet were for protein. 65.9 per cent; for fat, 93.9 per cent; and
for carbohydrates, 97.2 per cent. Experiments made to determine
the significance of the ether extract of the feces resulting from the
basal ration without the addition of fat have been reported in an
earlier paper; ^ making alloAvance for that portion of the ether
extract of the feces which results from the basal ration, the value
for the digestibilit}^ of the total fat, 93.9 per cent, becomes 96.8 per
cent for the pecan oil alone.

CONCLUSIONS.

An average of 70 grams of almond, 56 grams of black-walnut, 81
grams of Brazil-nut, 43 grams of butternut, 78 grams of English-
walnut, 95 grams of hickory-nut, and 10-i grams of pecan oil was
eaten per subject per day in the experiments, out of a total of 71
grams, 68 grams, 84 grams, 46 grams, 80 grams, 97 grams, and 107
grams of fat supplied by the respective diets.

The oils studied in this investigation were found to be well di-
gested, the coefficients of digestibility being 97.1 per cent for almond
oil, 97.5 per cent for black-walnut oil, 96.3 per cent for Brazil-nut oil,
95.4 per cent for butternut oil, 97.6 per cent for English-walnut oil,
99.3 per cent for hickory-nut oil, and 96.8 per cent for pecan oil.

The nut oils, which are liquid at ordinary temperatures, have prac-
tically the same digestibility as the common vegetable oils (cotton-
seed, peanut, olive, sesame, and coconut oils), which are also liquid
at ordinary temperatures.

While in these experiments as much as 81 grams of almond oil, 64
grams of black-walnut oil, 100 grams of Brazil-nut oil, 49 grams of
butternut oil, 109 grams of hickory-nut oil, and 130 grams of pecan
oil were eaten per day by one of the subjects for a 3-day test period,
no laxative effect was noted; accordingly the limits of tolerance for
these fats is in excess of these amounts. In the experiments with
English-walnut oil the three subjects are 69.9 grams, 83.8 grams, and
81.6 grams per day and all reported a slight laxative effect.

The values obtained for the digestibility of the protein and carbo-
hydrates eaten in conjunction with the different nut oils are in agree-
ment with those obtained in the earlier experiments of this series,
indicating that the nut oils did not exert any unusual influence on
the digestibility of the foods eaten with them.

The results of this study of the digestibility of these nut oils indi-
cate that they are very well assimilated by the human body, and that
whenever available they could be used freely for food purposes.

lU. S. Dept- Agr. Bui. 310 (1915), p. 17.

PUBLICATIONS OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL-
TURE RELATING TO FOOD AND NUTRITION.

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION.

Meats: Composition and Cooking. By Chas. D. Woods. Pp. 31, figs. 4. 1904.

(Farmers' Bulletin 34.)
The Use of Milk as Food. By R. D. Milner. Pp. 44. 1911. (Farmers' Bulle-
tin 363.)
Care of Food in the Home. By Mrs. IMary Hinmau Abel. Pp. 46, figs. 2. 191(J-

(Farmer.s' Bulletin 37.5.)
Economical Use of Meat in the Home. By C. F. Langworthy and Caroline L,

Hunt. Pp. 30. 1910. (Farmers' Bulletin 391.)
Cheese and Its Economical Uses in the Diet. By C. F. Lang\vorthy and Caro^

line L. Hunt. Pp.40. 1912. (Farmers' Bulletin 487.)
Mutton and Its Value in the Diet. By C. F. Langworthy and Caroline L. Hunt.

Pp. 32, figs. 2. 1913. (Farmers' Bulletin 526.)
The Detection of Phytosterol in Mixtures of Animal and Vegetable Fats. By

R.H.Kerr. Pp.4. 1913. (Bureau of Animal Industry Circular 212.)
Some American Vegetable Food Oils, Their Sources and Method of Production.

By H. S. Bailey. V. S. Dept. Agi*. Yearbook 1916. Pp. 159-170.

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Studies on the Influence of Cooking upon the Nutritive Value of IMeats at the

University of Illinois, 1903-4. By H. S. Grindley, D. Sc. and A. D,

Emmett, A. M. Pp. 230, tables 136. 1905. (Office of Experiment Stations

Bulletin 162.) Price, 20 cents.
Studies of the Effect of Different Methods of Cooking upon the Thoroughness

and Ease of Digestion of Meats at the University of Illinois. H. S. Grindley,

D. Sc, Timothy Mojonnier, M. S., and Horace C. Porter, Ph. D. Pp. 100,

tables 38. 1907. (Office of Experiment Stations Bulletin 193.) Price, 15

cents.
Digestibility of Some Animal Fats. By C. F. Langworthy and A, D. Holmes.

Pp. 23. 1915. (Department Bulletin 310.) Price, 5 cents.
Digestibility of Very Young Veal. By C. F. Lang^vorthy and A. D. Holmes.

Pp. 577-588. 1916. (Journal of Agricultural Research, 6 (1916), No. 16.)

Price, 5 cents.
Digestibility of Hard Palates of Cattle. By C. F. Lang^vorthy and A. D.

Holmes. Pp. 641-648. 1916. (Journal of Agricultural Research, 6 (1916),

No. 17.) Price, 5 cents.
Fats and Their Economical Use in the Home. By A. D. Holmes and H. L,

Lang. Pp. 26, 1916. (Department Bulletin 469.) Price, 5 cents.
Studies on the Digestibility of the Grain Sorghums. By C. F. Langworthy and

A. D. Holmes. Pp. 30. 1916, (Department Bulletin 470.) Price, 5 cents.

la

DIGESTIBILITY OF SOME NUT OILS. 19

Digestibility of Some Vegetable Fats. By 0. F. Langworthy and A. D. Holmes.

Pp. 20. 1917. (Department Bulletin 505.) Price, 5 cents.
Studies on the Digestibility of Some Animal Fats. By C. F. Lang^vorthy and

A. D. Holmes. Pp. 20. 1917. (Department Bulletin 507.) Price, 5 cents.
Experiments in the Determination of the Digestibility of Millets. By C. F.

Langworthy and A. D. Holmes. Pp. 11. 1917. (Department Bulletin 525.)

Price, 5 cents.
Digestibility of Dasheen. By C. F. Langworthy and A. D. Holmes. Pp. 12.

1917. (Department Bulletin 612.) Price, 5 cents.
Experiments on the Digestibility of Fish. By A, D. Holmes. Pp. 15. 1917.

(Department Bulletin 649.) Price, 5 cents.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

5 CENTS PER COPY

WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 191S|

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 631

Contribution from the Bureau of Animal Industry
JOHN R. MOHLEK, Chief

Washington, D. C. T April 19, 1918

FIVE YEARS' CALF-FEEDING WORK
IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI

By

W. F. WARD and S. S. JERDAN

Of the Animal Husbandry Division

CONTENTS

Page
I. Winter Fattening of Calves in Alabama on Cottonseed Meal, Cot-

tonseedHuIl.s.Corn-and-Cub Meal, and Alfalfa Hay, 1911-12 . 1

II. Fatienini; Calves in Alabama on Cottonseed Meal, Cottonssed

Hulls. Corn Chop, and Corn Silage, 1912-13 14

HI. Fattening Calves in Mississippi on Cottonseed Meal, Corn, Cot-
tonseed Hulls, Corn Silage, and Alfalfa Hay, 1914-15 .... 21
IV. Fattening Calves in Mississippi on Cottonseed Meal, Corn, Corn

Silage, and Alfalfa, 1915-16 29

V. Fattening Late (Short-Aged) Calves for Market 89

VI. General Discussion of Five Years' Experiments 48

\
WASHINGTON
GOVEKNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 631

Contribution from the Bureau of Animal Industry
JOHN K. MOHLER, Chief

Washington, D. C.

April 19, 1918

FIVE YEARS' CALF-FEEDING WORK IN ALABAMA
AND MISSISSIPPL

By W. F. Ward and S. S. Jerdan.
Of the Animal Hiishandri/ Division.

CONTENTS.

iiJiRUi

Page.

II.

Winter fattening of calves in
Alabama on cottonseed meal,
cottonseed hulls, corn-and-
cob meal, and alfalfa hay,
1911-12

Fattening calves in Alabama on
cottonseed meal, cottonseed
hulls, corn chop, and corn
silage, 1912-13

Page,

III. Faitening calves in Mississippi

on cottonseed meal, corn, cot-
tonseed hulls, corn silage,
and alfalfa Lay, 1914-15

IV. Fattening calves in Mississippi

on cottonseed meal, corn,
corn silage. and alfalfa,

1915-16

V. Fattening late (short-aged)

calves for market

VI. General discussion of five
years' experiments

21

29

48

I. WINTER FATTENING OF CALVES ON COTTONSEED
MEAL, COTTONSEED HULLS, CORN-AND-COB MEAL, AND
ALFALFA HAY.

PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTS.

During the winter of 1910-11 (November 17 to March 17) this
bureau, working in cooperation with the Alabama Experiment Sta-
tion, carried on an experiment in fattening calves on various rations.
These results are published in Bulletin 147 of the Bureau of Animal
Industry and in Bulletin 158 of the Alabama Experiment Station.
The first lot of calves was fattened on a ration of cottonseed meal,
hulls, and alfalfa hay. The second lot was given a one-third ration
of corn-and-cob meal in conjunction with the cottonseed meal, hulls,
and hay. The third lot was given a liberal allowance of corn-and-cob
meal and a rather small allowance of cottonseed meal, the corn-and-
cob meal constituting two-thirds of the concentrated part of the
ration. As the work reported in the present bulletin is really a dupli-

iThis work was done in cooperation with the Alabama Experiment Station, J. F.
Duggar, director, and the Mississippi Experiment Station, E. R. Lloyd, director. G. A.
Scott, of the Animal Husbandry Division, U. S. Department of Agriculture, assisted in
preparing computations.

16709°— 18— Bull. 631 1

2 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

cation of that previously reported, it -will be of interest to introduce the
discussion with a short extract from the above-mentioned publication,
especially since the two years' work do not agree in all particulars.
In the discussion following the financial statement, it was stated that
all the calves were fed at a profit (the calves were bought at $3.50 a
hundred pounds and sold for $5.01, $5.11, and $5.26, respectively, in
lots 1, 2, and 3), the lowest being $1.48 per calf in lot 3 and the high-
est $2.25 per calf in lot 2. These profits meant that the corn and the
hay raised on the farm were sold, through the calves, at TO cents a
bushel and $15 a ton, respectively ; that the money expended for cot-
tonseed meal and hulls was all returned to the owner; that the fer-
tilizer value of these feeds was left on the farm, and, in addition,
each calf returned the above additional profits. The monetary re-
turns were satisfactory, as by means of the calves the farm feeds
were sold for more than could have been secured for them on the
market, and their fertilizing value was left on the farm in the shape
of barnyard manure.

The calves in lot 3, which received the heavy ration of corn-and-
cob meal, returned the smallest profit, notwithstanding the fact that
they sold for the highest price at Cincinnati. The increase in the
price did not overcome the added expense of feeding a heavy ration of
corn-and-cob meal. Although it did not pay to feed the heavy ration
of corn-and-cob meal, it did pay to feed the small amount of corn-and-
cob meal that was used in lot 2, as the calves in this lot proved to be
the most profitable. This indicates that when fattening beef calves
with cottonseed meal and corn-and-cob meal as the concentrates one-
third of the concentrated part of the ration can consist profitably of
corn-and-cob meal, but it is less profitable to have corn-and-cob meal
constitute two-thirds of the concentrated part of the ration.

However, there was one factor that had not been taken into consid-
eration which, if considered, adds to the profits of lots 2 and 3, es-
pecially the latter. Some undigested corn passed through the calves
in these two lots ; hogs following them would have derived no little
benefit from the droppings. In fact, several hogs did follow the
steers in lot 3, but no record was kept of their gains. These gains
should be credited to the calves.

In the present test, hogs followed those calves that were fed a par-
tial ration of corn.

OBJECTS OF WORK.

As with the previous test, the main object in this calf- feeding work
w^as to determine whether tlie farmer can afford to raise a good grade
of beef calves and finish them for the market when they are about
a year old. In the South the usual custom is to keep the offspring
until they are from 2 to 4 years old before finishing them for the
market. Many farmers, however, are now asking if it would not be

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 3

more profitable to sell the calves while they are yet young, thus making
it possible to increase the size of the breeding herd. As stated before,
some results of calf- feeding work have been published ; the present
publication must be considered only a report of the progress of the
work, as the experiments are being continued and new phases studied.
The calves in this test were divided into three lots so that a com-
parison of the value of certain feeds for fattening young calves could
be made. The following problems were studied :

1. The calves were raised on the farm where they were fattened,
and one object was to learn whether a farmer profitably can raise and
fatten calves for the market by the time they are a year old.

2. To make a comparison of southern feeds and combinations of
feeds that may be used for fattening calves during the winter months.

This work was carried on upon the farm of O. E. Cobb, of Simiter-
ville, Ala., with whom the bureau and the station have been in co-
operation for a number of years. Mr. Cobb furnished the calves and
the feed and the Bureau of Animal Industry and the Alabama
Experiment Station provided a trained man to live on the farm and
have personal supervision of the experimental work. In this way all
the tests were made under average farm conditions and at the same
time were executed in an unusually accurate and painstaking manner.
The junior author of this bulletin was stationed upon the farm and
had personal supervision of the w^ork.

KIND OF CALVES USED.

The calves used in this work were all high-grade animals. They
were not, however, uniform in breed and breeding, as Hereford,
Shorthorn, Aberdeen- Angus, and Red Polled blood were all repre-
sented. The calves, however, were far better than the average raised
in the western part of Alabama, as they were from one-half to seven-
eighths pure bred. The majority of the calves were raised on the
farm where the feeding was done; however, there were not a suffi-
cient number, so some were purchased from neighboring farmers in
Sumter County. All had been born the preceding spring, so they
were from G to 8 months of age when the fattening experiment began.
During the summer they had run with their dams on good pasture,
and during this time they demanded practically no attention from
the owner, except to see that they were salted and dipped. Both the
cows and the calves were dipped regidarly all through the summer
months to reduce the number of ticks.

On November 19, 1911, when the fattening period began, the calves
averaged 376 pounds in weight.

GENERAL PLAN OF THE WORK.

When fall arrived and the pastures were exhausted, the calves
were taken from their dams and placed m this experiment. The

4 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

original intention had been to begin the winter feeding work in the
fall just as soon as the pastures were exhausted and the milk flow
of the dams diminished, to avoid losing any part of the calf fat.
but on account of a short unavoidable delay the feeding was not
begun until the above-mentioned date. In the meantime the calves
doubtless lost a feAv pounds in weight after the pastures became
short. This, of course, was unfortunate.

The calves were weighed individually on November 16 and IT,
and the average of the two weights taken to determine the initial
weight. The test began, therefore, on November 17, but on the day
previous the calves were tagged and numbered, dehorned, the males
castrated, and the whole number divided into three lots as nearly
equal in size, quality, and breeding as possible. Each lot of calves
was fed from November 17, 1911, to March 3, 1912, a period of 107
days, on the following feeds :

Lot 1. Cottonseed meal ; cottonseed hulls ; mixed alfalfa hay.

Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, two-thirds; corn-and-cob meal, one-third; oottonseetl
hulls ; mixed alfalfa hay.

Lot 3. Cottonseed meal, one-third ; corn-and-cob meal, two-thirds ; cottonseed
hulls ; mixed alfalfa hay.

SHELTER AND LOTS.

The calves were young, so each lot was provided with shelter
sufficiently good to turn the cold rains and break the cold north winds.
Shelter would not have been necessary for mature steers, but the ex-
perience of former work^ thoroughly demonstrated that young calves
will not do well, even this far south, without some protection from
the cold winds and rains of the winter months. Each lot of calves
was confined in a |-acre paddock and the calves had the privilege of
staying either in the open lots or under the sheds. The lots were not
paved. The winter of 1911-12 was unusually wet, consequently the
uncovered parts of the lots became excessively muddy at times. The
ground floors of the sheds were always dry, however, so the calves
had comfortable and convenient places in w^hich to lie down.

METHOD OF FEEDING AND HANDLING THE CALVES.

The calves were fed twice each day ; the first feed was given about
7 o'clock in the morning, and the second at 5 o'clock in the evening.
The concentrated feeds were placed in troughs, each of which was
about 12 feet long and 3 feet wide. When both cottonseed meal and
corn-and-cob meal were used they were mixed thoroughly with the
cottonseed hulls. The hay was fed in separate hay racks. The con-
centrated feeds were fed in such amounts that the troughs were
cleaned thoroughly within one hour after feeding, but hay was kept
in the racks all the time. Both the troughs and the racks were under

1 Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 147 and Alabama Experiment Station Bulle-
tin 158.

CALF FEEDIXG IX ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 5

sheds, SO that the feed never became wet and the calves had com-
fortable quarters in which to eat. Salt was supplied regularly, and
fresh water from a deep well was supplied in clean cement troughs.
As stated above, at the beginning and end of the experiment indi-
vidual weights were secured on two successive days. During the course
of the test the total weight of each lot was secured every 28 days.

CHARACTER AND PRICE OF FEEDS.

Cottonseed meal, corn-ancl-cob meal, cottonseed hulls, and mixed
alfalfa hay were used in this test. The cottonseed meal and the
cottonseed hulls were purchased at a local market and hauled to
the farm, a distance of 1) miles. The corn for the corn-and-cob
meal and the mixed alfalfa hay were grown upon the farm where
the test was made. The cottonseed meal was only fair in quality.
The corn was of high quality. The wdiole ears of corn with the
shucks were run through a grinder and made into corn-and-cob meal.
The ha}^, made of a mixture of alfalfa and Johnson grass, was bright
and had been well cured, but the Johnson grass was somewhat coarse.
During a part of the test, from January 10 to February 8, Johnson-
grass hay alone was fed, as it was not possible to secure a supply of
the mixed hay during this short period.

As stated in the first part of the bulletin, it is always unsatis-
factory to render a financial statement in work of this character, as
the price of the feeds, as well as of the cattle, varies considerably
from time to time and from place to place. The really important
data are those showing the daily gains and the amount of feed re-
quired to make 100 pounds of gain. In this test the feeds were
valued as follows:

Cottonseed meal per ton__ $26. 00

Cottonseed hulls do 7. 00

Corn-and-cob meal do 20. 00

Mixed alfalfa hay do 14.00

As a matter of fact, the cottonseed meal cost only $24.50 a ton and
the cottonseed hulls $7.50 a ton, but the above prices were adopted
for the sake of uniformity. They represent fairly accurately the
average prices of feeds in the State. The prices on the other two
feeds represent exactly the market prices when the test was made.

DAILY RATIONS.

The farmer who undertakes to fatten young animals should under-
stand that the younger the animal the greater the skill required to
care for and feed it. Young calves should not be cared for and fed
in a careless manner. With animals of this class one case of careless-
ness in overfeeding may retard very seriously the whole future de-
velopment. Table 1 shows the average amount of feed eaten by each
calf daily:

6 BULLETIN 631, V. S, DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table 1. — Average daily rations (November 7, 1911, to March 3, 1912).

Lot
No.

Number
of calves.

Ration.

Feed
con-
sumed
by each
calf daily.

16
15

16

[Cottonseed meal

Pounds.
2.16

1

10.26

1 Mixed alfalfa hay

4.31

[Cottonseed meal , two-thirds

2.01

1.00

2

1 Cottonseed hulls

9.89

[Mixed alfalfa hay

4.16

[Cottonseed meal , one-third

1.23

2.44

i

1 Cottonseed hulls

9.56

4.05

Each calf in lot 1 ate an average of 2.61 pounds of cottonseed meal,
10.26 pounds of cottonseed hulls, and 4.31 pounds of hay during the
whole fattening period of 107 days. It should be understood, how-
ever^ that these calves were not started off suddenly with these
amounts of feeds; they gradually were made accustomed to the feeds,
especially cottonseed meal, by beginning with small amounts. For
instance, on November 17, the day the test was begun, each calf in
this lot was given only 1.5 pounds of cottonseed meal, and this
amount was divided equally between two feeds; on this same day
each calf ate 7 pounds of cottonseed hulls and 4 pounds of hay. On
December 2, or 15 days after the test began, the daily feed of each
calf in the test had been raised to 2 pounds of cottonseed meal, 9
pounds of cottonseed hulls, and 4 pounds of hay. By January 13
the daily feed for each calf had been raised to 3 pounds of cottonseed
meal, 11 pounds of cottonseed hulls, and a fraction over 4 pounds of
hay. The daily allowance of cottonseed meal was not increased after
this date.

The calves in lots 2 and 3 were fed somewhat more liberally on the
concentrated part of the rations and more sparingly on the rough-
age parts. This could be done because of the introduction of corn-
and-cob meal. Changes in either the amount or the kind of feed
should be made gradually, especially when dealing with young
animals.

WEIGHTS AND GAINS.

When the first weights were secured," in Xovember, the calves
averaged from 6 to 8 months in age. On this date they averaged 376
pounds in weight. Though not large for their age, they were consid-
erably larger than the average for this State. Their dams were large
for Alabama cows, probably averaging 1.000 pounds in weight in
normal breeding condition, and they should have produced larger
calves. In Department Bulletin 73 it is seen that calves averaging
460 pounds at 9^ months of age were gotten from cows which aver-
aged only 630 pounds in weight in their winter form, or about 850

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

pounds in the summer. The calves, however, had not been pampered
in any Avay during the summer months; they simply had run with
their dams on a reasonably good pasture.

Table 2 shows that exceedingly satisfactory gains Avere secured
during this winter test :

Table 2. — Weights, total (/a ins, and arcrage daily gains (Novcniher 11, Wll, to

March 3, 1012).

T-ot

Number

No.

of calves.

1

16

2

15

3

16

Ration.

Average
initial

weight of
calves.

Average

final

weight of

calves.

Total

gain of

each calf.

Average
daily
gain of

each calf.

{Cottonseed meal
Cottonseed hulls
Mixed alfalfa hay

i Cottonseed meal ^ two-thirds. . .
Com-and-cob meal, one-third. .
Cottonseed hulls
Mixed alfalfa hay

I Cottonseed meaf, one-third
Com-and-cob meal, two-thirds
Cottonseed hulls
Mixed alfalfa hav

Pounds.
376

3T5

Pounds.

584

562

Pounds.

208

187

Pounds.
1.94

1.75

376

The gains were all satisfactory, but an exact reverse of the results
secured the previous winter. In the previous year's test the calves
that were fed corn-and-cob meal along with the cottonseed meal
gained more rapidly than those that ate cottonseed meal as the sole
concentrate, and the greater the amount of corn-and-cob meal eaten
the more rapid the gains. The calves in lot 1, which ate cottonseed
meal, gained at an average daily rate of 1.94 pounds, while the
calves in lots 2 and 3, where the cottonseed meal was supplemented
and partly replaced by corn-and-cob meal gained at the respective
rates of 1.75 and 1.59 pounds daily. The only explanation that can
be offered is that the calves of all lots were fed more concentrate per
head daily during the winter of 1910-11 than they were during the
winter of 1911-12, and the amount of concentrates fed for lots 2 and
3 in 1911-12 was too small to make large gains on fattening calves.

When sold, March 3, 1912, these calves were, on the average, about
12 months old. Those in lot 1 had attained an average weight of 584
pounds, but those in lots 2 and 3 were somewhat lighter. Although
not large, these calves were perhaps as large at 12 months as the
average southern steer at twice the age. The increased size was
due partly to the infusion of some good beef blood and partly to
liberal feeding and good care.

QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED REQUIRED TO MAKE 100 POUNDS

OF GAIN.

The finishing or fattening period continued from November 17.
1911. to- March 3. 1912, a period of 107 days. During this time the
calves were fed practically all they would eat, especially of the

8

BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

roughages, hay and hulls. The grain part of the rations was limited
in every case to a definite and rather small amount. But Table 2
shows that satisfactory gains were obtained, and Table 3 shows that
the cost to make 100 pounds of gain was not excessive, although the
feeds used were all expensive ones. In fact, the gains were made
cheaply in every case, much more cheaply than can be made with
older animals, the cost per hundred pounds ranging from $5.14 to
$6.43. In the previous winter's work it cost from $6.19 to $6.83 to
make 100 pounds of increase in weight where the same kind of
calves were used and the same kind of feeds employed, yet in refer-
ring to the cheapness of gains of the calves the authors stated that —

The gains were made cheaply. This was due to several factors. First, the
calves were young and growing, and young animals of all kinds can be made
to increase in weight more economically than old ones. Second, the calves
were very thrifty, and so made good use of the feed that they ate. Third, all
of the rations were extremely palatable, especially the two which had the
corn-and-cob meal mixed with the cottonseed meal. A young animal of any
kind will not make satisfactory gains on an unpalatable ration. Fourth, the
calves had comfortable quarters and were fed and watered regularly.

Table 3. — Quantiti/ and cost of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain
{Nov. 11, 1911, to Mar. 3, 1912, 107 days).

Lot
No.

Ration.

[Cottonseed meal

Cottonseed hulls

(Mixed alfalfa hay

[Cottonseed meal", two-thirds . .
I Corn-and-cob meal, one-third.

I Cottonseed hulls

[Mixed alfalfa hay

Cottonseed meal, one-third

ICom-and-cob meal, two-thirds

Cottonseed hulls

[Mixed alfalfa hay

Total
amount

of feed
eaten by
each calf.

Pounds.
279

1,098
462
21.5
107

1,058
44.5
130
260

1,02.3
423

Pounds
of feed
to make

100
pounds
of gain.

Pounds.
134
528
222
115

58
566
238

77
154
602
255

Cost of
feed to
make 100
pounds
of gain.

Jo. 14

6.43

The calves in lot 1, where cottonseed meal, hulls, and mixed hay
were used, made the cheapest gains, each 100 pounds of gain in the
lot, costing only $5.14, whereas an equal amount of increase in weight
in lots 2 and 3, where corn-and-cob meal constituted a part of the
ration, cost $5.72 and $6.43, respectively. In this test the corn-and-
cob meal did not cheapen the ration in either case. In the test pre-
viously reported, the introduction of a small amount of corn-and-cob
meal did decrease the cost a few cents, but where the larger propor-
tion of corn-and-cob meal was employed it cost more to make 100
pounds of gain than in the lot where cottonseed meal was the sole
concentrated feed. Lot 3 in both experiments showed up to a con-
siderable disadvantage. When the two tests are considered together,
sufficient evidence is at hand to show conclusively that it does not

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 9

pay to replace two-thirds of the cottonseed meal part of the ration
by corn-and-cob meal when cottonseed meal can be bought at $26
a ton and corn costs 70 cents a bushel.

In lot 1 only 134 pounds of cottonseed meal, 528 pounds of cotton-
seed hulls, and 222 pounds of hay were required to produce a gain in
weight of 100 pounds; this was an extremeh^ satisfactory outcome.
In lot 2, where one-third of the grain part of the ration was made
up of corn-and-cob meal, to make an equal number of pounds of in-
crease required 115 pounds of cottonseed meal, 58 pounds of corn-
and-cob meal, 5G6 pounds of hulls, and 238 pounds of hay. The in-
troduction, therefore, of the corn-and-cob meal caused a correspond-
ing increase in both the total pounds of grain and roughage required
to make 100 pounds of gain. In lot 3, where two-thirds of the grain
part of the ration was made up of corn-and-cob meal, to make 100
pounds of increase in weight required the use of 77 pounds of cotton-
seed meal, 154 pounds of corn-and-cob meal, 602 pounds of cottonseed
hulls, and 255 pounds of hay. This was unsatisfactory indeed when
compared with the results obtained in lot 1, where no corn-and-cob
meal was used.

This test indicates that while cottonseed meal and hulls are cheap,
and corn and farm-grown roughage, such as hay. are high-priced, it
pays better to purchase i^uch commercial feeds as cottonseed meal and
hulls than to purchase corn and hay for fattening calves. However,
the boll weevil and the campaign for diversified farming are causing
a change in the farming methods of the South, with the result that
corn will be raised to a greater extent, a surplus being produced in
some sections, and more forage will be raised. The by-products
from such farming usually will have to be fed on the farm, and will
be much cheaper than the prices charged here. Then, too, such feeds
will be produced by many farmers who can not market them because
of remoteness from markets, poor roads, poor shipping facilities or
high freight rates, and lack of knowledge about the proper prepara-
tion of such feeds for the market. Under such conditions the feeds
can be used profitably for the stock.

With the prices of feeds charged in this experiment, if all profit
is reckoned as the price received for the corn fed, the calves of lot 2
returned $3.57 per bushel for each bushel of corn consumed, and those
of lot 3 returned $1.62 per bushel for the corn. Or, if all feeds ex-
cept hay are charged at market prices and the profit is considered
as the price received for the hay consumed, the hay was sold by
means of the calves at prices ranging from $29.81 to $37.43 per ton.

In this experiment it paid, and paid well, to buy both cottonseed
meal and hulls and sell them by means of the calves ; but it was also
very profitable to use the calves as a means of marketing the hay and
the corn which were grown upon the farm.
16T00°— 18— BulL 631—2

10 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

SLAUGHTER DATA.

At the close of the test the calves which had been sold by farm
weights were shipped to Meridian, Miss., wdiere complete indi-
vidual slaughter records were secured. Immediately after securing
the final farm weights the calves were driven from the farm to Epes,
Ala., a distance of 9 miles, to be shipped. They were on the
cars approximately 14 hours, and were fed and watered once after
reaching their destination and before tlie final weights were taken.

Table 4- — Slaughter data.

Lot
No.

Ration.

Average
final
farm

weight.

final

farm

weights

after 3

per cent

shrink-

Average
market
weight.

Average

loss in

shipping.

Percent-
age
dressed
out by
farm
weights.

Percent-
age
dressed
out by-
mark ct
weights.

[Cottonseed meal

< Cottonseed hulls

I Mixed alfalfa hay

I Cottonseed meal, two-thirds. .
Corn-and-cob meal, one-third.
Cottonseed hulls
Mixed alfalfa hay

Cottonseed meal, one-third. . .
Com-and-cob meal, two-thirds

( 'of tonseed hulls

Mixed alfalfa hay

Pounds.
> 562

Pounds.
545

535

Pounds.
500

Pounds.
62

63

Per cent.
46.3

47.3

Per cent
50.56

51.8

523

46.3

The calves lost heavily in weight, as a result of being shipped.
Those in lots 1 and 2 lost practically the same, 62 and 63 pounds,
respectively, but those in lot 3, where more corn-and-cob meal was
used, did not suffer such great losses, as each calf in this lot shrank
only 52 pounds. The last two columns of Table 4 show that the
calves were not very fat as compared with corn-fed cattle of the
North. They were, however, in good killing condition and suited
the local market demand. The animals in lots 1 and 2 dressed out,
by market weights, practically the same, 50.56 per cent and 51.8
per cent, respectively. Those in the third lot were not so well fin-
ished, as shown by the fact that they dressed out only 49.7 per cent
by their market weight.

Taken as a whole, the shrinkage on these calves amounted to 10,7
per cent of their final farm weight. The shipping distance was 40
miles, but it is not probable that they would have suffered a very
much greater loss in weight had the distance been three or four
times as great, for it is very probable that the greatest portion of the
loss in weight occurred during the drive to the loading points

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPL 11

FINANCIAL STATEaiENT.

The majority of these calves were raised on the farm on which
they were fattened. A few^, however, were purchased from neigh-
boring farmers; those purchased cost 4 cents a pound, and as they
very accurately represented an average of the whole number, the
initial or fall value of all was placed at 4 cents a pound on the farm
without shrinkage. When they were ready to be marketed buyers
visited the farm and made bids. They were sold to a buyer of
Meridian, Miss., for 5^ cents a pound on the farm, after a 3 per cent
deduction on farm weights. The buyer, therefore paid all expenses
of shipping.

The following statements show the complete financial record :

Table 5. — Financial statement.

Lot 1. Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, mixed alfalfa hay :

To 16 calves— G.OlO pounds, at 4 cents a pound $240. 40

To 4,4G6 pounds of cottonseed meal, at $26 a ton 58. 06

To 17,.568 pounds of cottonseed hulls, at $7 a ton 61. 49

To 7,380 rwunds of mixed alfalfa hay, at $14 a ton 51. 66

Total expenditures 411. 61

By sale of 16 calves — 9.336 pounds, at 5i cents a pound 49S. 07

Total profit on lot 86.46

Average profit on each calf 5. 40

Lot 2. Cottonseed meal two-thirds, corn-and-cob meal one-third, cotton-
seed hulls, mixed alfalfa hay :

To 15 calves — 5,623 pounds, at 4 cents a pound 224. 92

To 8.220 pounds of cottonseed meal, at .$26 a ton 41. 86

To 1,610 pounds of corn-and-cob meal, at $20 a ton 16. 10

To 15.872 pounds of cottonseed hulls, at $7 a ton 55. .55

To 6,677 pounds of mixed alfalfa hay, at $14 a ton 46. 74

Total expenditures 385. 17

By sale of 15 calves — 8,430 pounds, at 5i cents, a pound 449. 74

Total profit on lot 64.57

Average profit on each calf 4. 30

Lot. 3. Cottonseed meal one-third, corn-and-cob meal two-thirds, cotton-
seed hulls, mixed alfalfa hay :

To 16 calves — 6,010 pounds, at 4 cents a pound 240. 40

To 2,083 pounds of cottonseed meal, at $26 a ton 27.08

To 4,166 pounds of corn-and-cob meal, at .$20 a ton 41. 66

To 16,370 pounds of cottonseed hulls, at $7 a ton 57. 30

To 6,932 pounds of mixed alfalfa hay, at $14 a ton 48. .52

Total expenditures 414. 96

By sale of 16 calves — 8,730 pounds, at 5* cents a pound 480. 15

Total profit on lot 65.19

Average profit on each calf_, , 4. 07

12 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

As previously stated, hogs followed the calves that had a partial
ration of corn-and-cob meal and received some benefit from the
droppings. This item does not appear in the above financial state-
ment, but it is discussed in a later paragraph.

Leaving out of consideration for the present the results secured
from the hogs, it is seen that the greatest profit was realized on the
calves that were fed cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, and mixed
alfalfa hay. It did not pay to feed the corn-and-cob meal along
with the cottonseed meal at the prevailing prices of the two feeds,
and the greater the proportion of corn used the smaller the resultant
profits. In lot 1 each calf returned a clear profit of $5.40; but in
lot 2, where one-third of the cottonseed meal was replaced by corn-
and-cob meal, a profit of only $4.30 was made on each animal; and
in lot 3, where two-thirds of the cottonseed meal was replaced by
corn-and-cob meal, the profit per calf dropped to $4.07. All the
profits, however, were satisfactory ; but, leaving out of consideration
the profits derived from the hogs, the cottonseed meal ration proved
to be the most profitable.

HOGS FOLLOWING CALVES.

It was thought that if hogs were allowed to follow the calves that
ate a partial ration of corn-and-cob meal they would derive some
benefit from the undigested corn in the droppings. In a former test ^
an effort was made to get some benefit from the droppings when the
steers ate nothing except cottonseed meal as the concentrate, but this
ended in a failure, so no pigs Avere placed in lot 1. Eight pigs,
averaging 87 pounds in weight, were placed in lot 2, and an equal
number, averaging 89 pounds in weight, in lot 3. Of course, these
pigs were not able to secure sufficient feed from the droppings alone
to produce rapid gains, so the droppings were supplemented by corn.
These pigs followed the calves throughout the test, and during the
whole time those in lot 2 ate 3,715 pounds of shelled corn in addition
to what undigested corn they secured from the droppings of the
calves, but those in lot 3 ate only 2,953 pounds of corn. These feeds
caused all the pigs to make rapid gains. Those in the second lot
increased in weight 805 pounds, but the pigs in the third lot increased
in weight only 689 pounds.

Small profits were made on each one of the lots of pigs, and these
profits should be credited to the calves, or at least added to the total
profits made in lots 2 and 3. With corn valued at 70 cents a bushel and
hogs selling at 7 cents a pound, the hogs in lot 2 and 3 returned final
profits of $9.91 and $11.32, respectively. "WHien these profits are added
to those already secured upon the calves in these two lots, the total

^Bareau of Animal InQastry Bulletia 103.

CALF FEEDING IlKT ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 13

profits on each calf were increased to $4.97 ini lot 2 and to $4.78
in lot 3.

When the combined profits on the hogs and the calves in lots 2
and 3 are considered, it is seen that they are still smaller than the
profits realized on the calves of lot 1, where cottonseed meal was the
sole concentrate.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS.

1. The objects of this test were (1), to leam whether a farmer
profitably can raise and fatten calves for the market by the time they
are a year old, and, (2), to make a comparison of southern feeds and
combinations of feeds which may be used for fattening calves during
the winter months.

2. The calves were all high-grade animals, being far better than
the average of the State. When the feeding test began, November
17, 1911, they averaged 376 pounds in weight and were from 6 to 8
months of age.

3. The 47 calves were divided into three lots and fed from Novem-
ber 17, 1911, to March 3, 1912, on the following feeds:

Lot 1. Cottonseed meal ; cottonseeil hulls ; mixed alfalfa hay.

Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, two-thirds ; corn-and-cob meal, one-third ; cottonseed
hulls ; mixed alfalfa hay.

Lot 3. Cottonseed meal, one-third; corn-and-cob meal, two-thirds; cottonseed
hulls ; mixed alfalfa hay.

4. For the whole period of 107 days an average daily gain of 1.94,
1.75, and 1.59 pounds was secured in lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

5. For the whole period of 107 days it cost $5.14, $5.72, and $6.43
to make 100 pounds of increase in live w^eight in lots 1, 2, and 3, re-
spectively.

6. In the fall of 1911 the calves cost 4 cents a pound. At the end
of the test they were sold on the farm for 5^ cents a pound.

7. Each calf in lots 1, 2, and 3. netted a clear profit of $5.40, $4.30,
and $4.07, respectively. Hogs followed the calves that received some
corn and derived some benefit from the droppings. When the profits
on the hogs, as well as on the calves, are taken into consideration,
each calf in lots 1, 2, and 3 netted a clear profit of $5.40, $4.97, and
$4.78, respectively.

8. In this particular test it did not pay, therefore, to add corn-and-
cob meal to a basal ration of cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, and
alfalfa hay if both farm-grown and purchased feeds are charged at
market prices. On farms remote from markets, where a surplus of
roughage and corn is produced, it would have been very profitable to
feed the corn, as the farmer would have secured market prices for his
roughage and corn and in addition would have made a nice profit on
his calves, without the expenditure of much money for purchased
feeds.

II. FATTENING BEEF CALVES ON COTTONSEED MEAL,
COTTONSEED HULLS, CORN CHOP, AND CORN SILAGE.

PLAN OF WORK.

This test was conducted during the winter of 1912-13. The feed-
ing began November 29, 1912, and closed, as far as the corn silage
was concerned, March 3, 1913. The supply of corn silage was ex-
hausted on March 3, but the calves were not ready for sale, so all
were placed in one lot (they had formerly been divided into three
lots for the sake of certain feed comparisons) and continued on a
ration of cottonseed meal, corn chop, cottonseed hulls, and mixed
alfalfa hay until April 29, 1913, when they were sold.

As these calves were of the same breeding, had been raised in the
same way and from the same cows, and were fed in the same lots
as those fully reported upon in Part I of this bulletin, it is not neces-
sary to enter into a discussion of the objects of the work, of the kind
of calves used, of the general plan of the work, of the method of
feeding and handling, and of the shelter and lots.

THE RATIONS EMPLOYED.

Practically the only material way in which this test varied from
the previous one Avas in the feeds used. In this test corn silage was
introduced into the rations of two of the lots and was fed from
November 29, 1912, to March 3, 1913, when the supply was exhausted.
Each lot of 16 calves was fed the following feeds :

Lot 1. Cottonseed meal ; cottonseed hulls.

Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, two-thirds ; corn chop, one-third ; cottonseed hulls ;
corn silage.

Lot 3. Cottonseed meal ; cottonseed hulls ; corn silage.

On March 3, 1913, they were all thrown together as one lot and
continued to April 29, 1913, on the following:

Lot 4. Cottonseed meal ; corn chop ; cottonseed hulls ; mixed hay.

Corn silage was the only new feed introduced. In the financial
statements it is valued at $3 a ton, and the other feeds are valued
as on page 7.

The cottonseed meal this year was fresh and bright, analyzing
from 7.5 to 7.7 per cent ammonia. The cottonseed hulls were only
fair in quality. The corn chop (made by grinding shelled corn)
was of excellent quality. The corn from which the chop was made
was grown upon the farm and was fresh and hard. The corn silage,
however, was poor in quality owing to the fact that the fodder had
become too dry before it was made into silage.
14

CALF FEEDING IN" ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

15

DAILY RATIONS.

The test proper did not begin until November 29, 1912. Previous
to this time, however, the calves were eating a small daily ration com-
posed of cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, and mixed hay. The pre-
liminary period continued 15 days, during which time the calves be-
came accustomed to eating dry feeds.

Table 16 shows the average amount of feed eaten daily by each
calf, but it should be borne in mind that these amounts were reached
by gradual and careful increases.

Table Q.—Avcraffe daily radons {Nov. 29, 1912, to Mar. 3, 1913).

Lot Number
No.' of calves.

Ration.

fCottonseed meal

\Cottonseed hulls

i Cottonseed meal, two-thirds
Corn chop, one-third
Cottonseed hulls
Corn silage

(Cottonseed meal

-,' Cottonseed hulls

I Corn silage

Average
amount of
feed eaten

by each
calf daily.

Pounds.

2.61
14.13

1.76
.88

6.56
13.29

2.63

6.53
13.03

When the test began, each calf in lot 1 was eating daily a little less
than 2 pounds of meal and 11 pounds of hulls. It should be remem-
bered that the calves had been eating these feeds for 15 days before
the test began. On December 12, or 14 days later, the 16 calves were
raised to a daily ration of 34 pounds of cottonseed meal and 220
pounds of cottonseed hulls. On January 3 another increase in the
meal was made, when the daily allowance was increased to 40
pounds. On January 14 a third increase was made, when the cot-
tonseed meal was increased to 44 pounds. The 16 calves never ate
more than 56 pounds of cottonseed meal daily, or 3| pounds per
head per day.

If the corn silage had been of better quality, each calf would have
eaten much more than 13 pounds daily. Each calf should have con-
sumed not less than 20 pounds. No hay was used in this test; cot-
tonseed hulls were used in place of the hay. In addition to the
amount of silage eaten daily, it is seen that each calf in lots 2 and 3
ate 5.56 and 6.53 pounds, respectively, of cottonseed hulls.

WEIGHTS AND GAINS.

When the test w^as begun, November 29, 1912, the calves averaged
from 6 to 8 months in age. As stated previously, they were out of
the same cows as the calves that were used in the experiment reported
in Part I, and were consequently similar in size, breeding, and qual-

16

BULLETIN" 631, U. S. DEPAETMENT OE AGEICULTTJRE.

ity. Wlien the test began, the "16 calves averaged 371 pounds in
weight. During the summer months the calves had run with their
dams upon a reasonably good pasture. These calves, during the pas-
ture season, became infested with cattle ticks, as the cattle grazed in
a very large wooded pasture of 20,000 acres and it was a difficult
matter to find all of them at each dipping period. The ticks doubt-
less interf erred with the development of the calves. The calves that
were used in the previous year's work were raised in a pasture that
was almost, if not quite, free of ticks, and they were considerably
heavier than the calves used in the present test.

Table 7.-

-WeUjlits, total gains, and averaqe daily gains {Nov.
Mar. 3, 1913).

1912, to

Lot

Number

No.

of calves.

1

16

2

15

3

15

Ration.

Average
initial
weight

of calves.

Average

final

weight

of calves.

Average
total

gain per
calf.

Average
daily

gain per
calf.

f Cottonseed meal

\Cottonseed hulls

i Cottonseed meal, tv.'o-tliirds
Corn chop, one-third
Cottonseed hulls
Corn silage

i Cottonseed meal
Cottonseed hulls
Corn silage

Pounds.
I 365

393

357

Pounds.
505

508
497

Pounds.
140

Pounds.
1.49

1.23
1.49

It is interesting to note the effect upon the daily gains of calves
when one-third of the ration of cottonseed meal is replaced by corn
chop. Each calf in lot 3 ate, on the average, 2.63 pounds of cotton-
seed meal each day. Each calf in lot 2 consumed 1.76 pounds of
cottonseed meal plus 0.88 pound of corn chop each day ; that is, each
pound of corn chop replaced one pound of cottonseed meal. When
this was done the last column in Table 7 shows that the daily gains
were reduced materially. That is, one pound of corn was not equal
to one pound of cottonseed meal as a fattening ration for calves. In
lot 3, where cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, and corn silage were
fed, the calves gained at the rate of 1.49 pounds daily. In lot 2,
where a part of the cottonseed meal was replaced by corn chop (one
pound of corn chop replacing one pound of cottonseed meal), the
average daily gains dropped to only 1.23 pounds. The calves in lot
1, where only cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls were fed, gained
at the rate of 1.49 pounds daily, or exactly the same as the daily
gains recorded in lot 3.

QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED REQUIRED TO MAKE 100 POUNDS

OF GAIN.

In the following statement cottonseed meal is valued at $26 a ton,
cottonseed hulls at $7 a ton, corn silage at $3 a ton, and corn at 70
cents a bushel. These prices represent fairly accurately the average

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

17

prices of the State. In this test, as well as in the previous one, the
cost of making 100 pounds of gain was not excessive.

Table 8.— Quantity and cost of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain.

Lot

No.

Ration.

fCottonseed meal

■\Cottonseed hulls

i Cottonseed meal, two-thirds
Cottonseed hulls
Com chop, one-third
Corn silage

(Cottonseed meal

■{cottonseed hulls

(Corn silage

Total
feed
eaten
by each
calf.

Pounds.
245

1,329

164

617

82

1,249
267
G14

1,225

Average
feed to

make 100
pounds
of gain.

Pounds.
175
946
144
536
72
1,084
176
438
875

Average

cost of
feed to
make 100
pounds
of gain.

I $5. 59
6.09

5.13

The cheapest gains were made in lot 3, where a ration of cotton-
seed meal, cottonseed hulls, and corn silage was used, as each 100
pounds of increase in live weight cost $5.13. It should not be in-
ferred immediately, however, from the above that this combination
of feeds is the best of the three. The cost of the gains does not
determine absolutely the final profits. Although the cost of the
gains is a very important factor in determining final profits, there
are other factors which must be taken into consideration as well.
The final selling price of the cattle must be considered as an impor-
tant factor. If expensive gains are accompanied by a proportionate
increase in the final value and selling price of the cattle, the cost of
the gains is a minor consideration; but if expensive gains do not
increase the final selling price of the animal in proportion to the
increased expense of making the gains those feeds which have caused
the expensive gains should be eliminated. The most expensive gains
were encountered in lot 2, where com chop replaced a part of the
cottonseed meal. In this lot it cost $6.09 to make 100 pounds of
increase in weight. Where only cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls
were fed (lot 1) each 100 pounds of gain was made at a cost of $5.59.

When the results of lots 1 and 3 are compared it is seen that 875
pounds of corn silage saved 508 pounds of cottonseed hulls. At this
rate 1 ton of corn silage saved 1,161 pounds of cottonseed hulls;
when hulls are valued at $7 a ton the corn silage, therefore, was
worth for fattening these calves $4.06 a ton.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE SILAGE PERIOD.

The supply of silage was exhausted March 3, 1913. The calves
had been in the feed lot only 91 days and they were not in condition
to be sold at that date. Therefore they were all thrown together
16709°— 18— Bull. 631 3

18 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

in one lot and fed from March 3 to April 29 — a period of 58 days —
on a ration of cottonseed meal, corn chop, cottonseed hulls, and mixed
hay.

Before the silage period ended an estimated value was placed on
each lot of calves. The calves in lot 1 were in much better condi-
tion than those in either of the other two lots, so they were valued
at 5^ cents a pound and the calves in lots 2 and 3 at 5^ cents a pound.
At the beginning of the experiment, November 29, 1912, they were
all valued at 4| cents a pound. %

Table 9. — Financial statement for silage period.
Lot 1. Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls :

To 16 calves — 5,836 pounds, at 4J cents a pound $262. 62

To 3,925 pounds of cottonseed meal, at $26 a ton 51.03

To 21,258 pounds of cottonseed hulls, at $7 a ton 74.40

Total expenditures 388. 05

By sale of 16 calves — 8,083 pounds, at 5i cents a pound 431. 23

Total profit on lot 43.18

Average profit on each calf 2. 70

Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, two-thirds ; corn chop, one-third ; cottonseed
hulls ; corn silage :

To 15 calves^5,900 pounds, at 4i cents a pound $265. 50

To 2,481 pounds of cottonseed meal, at $26 a ton 32. 25

To 1,236 pounds of corn chop, at $20 a ton 12. 36

To 9,253 pounds of cottonseed hulls, at $7 a ton 32. 39

To 18,734 pounds of corn silage, at $3 a ton 28. 10

Total expenditures 370. 60

By sale of 15 calve.s — 7,628 pounds, at 5i cents a pound 388. 46

Total profit on lot 17.86

Average profit on each calf 1. 19

Lot 3. Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, corn silage:

To 15 calves — 5,3.50 pounds, at 4* cents a pound— 240. 75

To 3.702 pounds of cottonseed meal, at $26 a ton 48. 13

To 9,205 pounds of cottonseed hulls, at $7 a ton 32.22

To 18.375 pounds of corn silage, at $3 a ton 27. 56

Total expenditures 348. 66

By sale of 15 calves — 7,420 pounds, at 5| cents a pound 377. 86

Total profit on lot 29.20

Average profit on each calf 1. 95

If these calves had been sold March 3, or when the supply of silage
gave out, the greatest profit would have been made on the calves in
lot 1, and the smallest profit in lot 2, where both corn chop and
com silage were used. But they were not ready to be sold upon

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 19

that date. As a matter of fact 6 of the best heifers were taken out
of the test on March 3 and kept on the farm for future breeding pur-
poses, so only 40 calves were in the test from March 3 to April 29.

SUBSEQUENT FINISHING PERIOD.

During the short period of 58 days, from jSIarch 3 to April 29,
1913, each one of the calves ate 204 pounds of cottonseed meal, 52
pounds of corn cliop, 346 pounds of cottonseed hulls, and 371 pounds
of mixed hay. (The hay, in fact, more properly should be called
Johnson-grjiss hay, as there was very little alfalfa in it; it was
valued at $10 a ton.) During this period the calves did not make
good gains — only 1.09 pounds daily. The cost to make the increase
in live weight was more than normal, being $11.31 to make 100
pounds of gain.

Notwithstanding the fact that the gains were rather, small during
this last period of 58 days, the calves were in reasonal)ly good con-
dition at the end and sold for satisfactory prices. They were sold
to a buyer of Meridian, Miss., by farm weight less 3 per cent shrink-
age. The 30 largest and best calves sold for 7 cents a pound. The
5 smallest ones sold for 6 cents a pound, and 5 others sold for 6i
cents a pound. Table 10 shows the results of feeding the 40 calves
during the last 58 days. The initial cost — $5.40 per hundred-
weight— represents the value placed upon them at the close of the
silage period, March 3.

Table 10. — Financial statement for last period of 58 days.

Lots 1, 2, and 3 combined. Cottonseed meal, corn chop, cottonseed
hulls, mixed hay :

To 40 calves— 21,035 pounds, at $5.40 per cwt $1, 135. 89

To 8,156 pounds of cottonseed meal, at $26 a ton 106. 03

To 2,075 pounds of corn chop, at $20 a ton 25. 94

To 13,848 pounds of cottonseed hulls, at $7 a ton 48. 47

To 14,847 pounds of hay, at $10 a ton 74. 24

Total expenditures 1, 390. 57

By sale of 40 calves 1,562.92

Total profit on 40 calves for last 58 days 172. 35

Average profit on each calf for feeding period of last 58 days_ 4. 31

Average profit on each calf for first 94 days 1. 96

Total profit on each calf 6. 27

These calves sold for good prices and finally returned excellent
profits, as a clear profit of $6.27 was realized on each animal. If
they had been sold March 3, an average net profit of only $1.96
would have been made on each calf, so it paid well to hold them
longer and finish them more. The most of the profit was made
during the last 58 days.

20 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

SUMMARY STATEMENT.

1. The objects of this test and the kinds of calves used were very
similar to those of the previous test.

2. The whole number of 46 calves was divided into three lots and
fed from November 29, 1912, to March 3, 1913, the following rations:

Lot 1. Cottonseed meal ; cottonseed hulls.

Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, two-thirds; corn chop, one-third; cottonseed hulls;
corn silage.
Lot 3. Cottonseed meal ; cottonseed hulls ; corn silage.

The supply of corn silage was exhausted by March 3, but the calves
were not ready for the market, so on this date they were all thrown
together as one lot and continued on :

Cottonseed meal ; corn chop ; cottonseed hulls ; mixed hay.

3. During the silage period (November 29 to March 3) an average
daily gain of 1.49, 1.23, and 1.49 pounds was secured in lots 1, 2, and
3, respectively.

4. During the silage period (November 29 to March 3) it cost
$5.59, $6.09, and $5.13 to make 100 pounds of increase in live weight
in lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

5. In the fall of 1912 the calves cost 4^ cents a pound. At the end
of the silage period they were not ready to be sold and estimated
values were placed upon each lot. The calves in lot 1 were valued at
5^ cents a pound, and those in lots 2 and 3 at 5^ cents a pound.

6. Each calf during the silage period netted a clear profit of $2.70,
$1.19, and $1.95 in lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

7. By comparing lot 1 with lot 3 it is found that one ton of corn
silage saved 1,161 pounds of cottonseed hulls. If cottonseed hulls
cost $7 per ton, the corn silage, therefore, was worth $4.06 per ton
for fattening these calves.

8. This test clearly demonstrates that if corn is to replace part of
a cottonseed meal ration, more than one pound of corn should be
used to take the place of one pound of cottonseed meal. In other
words, cottonseed meal has a greater feeding value, pound for pound,
than shelled com.

9. After the supply of silage was exhausted the calves were all fed
58 days longer on a ration composed of cottonseed meal, corn chop,
cottonseed hulls, and mixed hay. They gained during this period
only 1.09 pounds daily, but their value increased very materially, and
at the end they sold for almost 7 cents a pound on the farm.

10. For the entire period November 29 to April 29 each calf re-
turned a clear profit of $6.27.

III. FATTENING CALVES ON COTTONSEED MEAL, CORN,
COTTONSEED HULLS, CORN SILAGE, AND ALFALFA
HAY.

TRANSFER OF WORK FROM ALABAMA TO MISSISSIPPI.

The cattle-feeding work which was conducted in Alabama in co-
operation with tlie Experiment Station from 1904 to 1913 was
transferred to the tick-free sections of Mississippi in 1914. An ex-
perimental farm was established near Canton, Miss., in the " brown
loam " section of the State, and another at Abbott, Miss., near West
Point, in the black-prairie section. The work which is reported
herewith was conducted on the farm of Mr. Ben Walker at Abbott.

That section of Mississippi has long been recognized as a splendid
live-stock section, for the prairie soils have a large lime content
which induces good growth in the various clovers and alfalfa, thus
furnishing good pastures and an abundance of forage. Conditions
are very similar to those in western Alabama, where the former
work was conducted. The land in the Mississippi pastures was not
so rolling as in Alabama, but there was little difference in the type
of soil and its fertility.

The object of this test was to get further information concerning
the use of cottonseed meal and mixtures of cottonseed meal and corn
for finishing calves for the market. This is a continuation of the
work conducted in Alabama.

CALVES USED.

The calves used in the experiment were grade Shorthorn, Angus,
and Red Polled, the Shorthorns predominating in numbers. They
were out of grade beef cows and sired by registered bulls. All but
one were raised upon the farm and ran with their dams in black-
prairie pastures until just before the test was started. In size they
were somewhat larger than the average Mississippi calves at wean-
ing time, but they were of about the same size and quality as the
grade beef calves found upon the good stock farms of the State.
They represented the second or third cross of good beef bulls on
the native Mississippi cows. They averaged 400 pounds each when
taken from their dams on October 25, 1914, to be weaned, dehorned,
and started on a preliminary feed. All calves were valued at 5
cents a pound on the farm without any deduction for shrinkage.

FEED LOTS AND WATER SUPPLY.

All the calves were fed in a large barn, which was open enough
on the sides to permit thorough ventilation. About 50 square feet
of space was allowed for each calf for lying down and exercising.

21

22 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICtJLTURE.

The plan of the barn was such that the calves could not have the
run of the open lots. The pens were kept well bedded for the first
six weeks, but there were so many steers on feed at the same time
that but small amounts of bedding could be used after the sixth
week. The pens were muddy and sloppy during the latter half of
the feeding periods.

A water trough was in each pen and water was furnished from
a deep well. Feed throughs were used for feeding the silage and
grain, and the alfalfa was fed in racks over the troughs. The shat-
tered leaves from the racks fell into the feed trough, so there was
no waste of feed.

The feeding was done at 7 o'clock in the morning and 3 o'clock
in the afternoon.

CHARACTER AND PRICE OF THE FEEDS.

As this experiment was for the comparison of grain rations the
roughage for all lots was the same. The calves of all lots were fed
about 5| pounds of cottonseed hulls and 3i pounds of alfalfa hay
per head daily and given in addition all of the silage they would eat.
The cottonseed meal was about the average in quality. Analysis
showed an ammonia content equal to about 7.2 per cent nitrogen.
The corn was not quite as good as the average of Mississippi corn.

The cottonseed hulls were of average quality, the hulls used being
good for the entire time except for a very short period when some
hulls of an inferior grade were received. These were fed but a few
days until good hulls could be obtained. The alfalfa hay was bright
and of good quality, but contained a little Johnson grass. The corn
silage contained very little grain this year and was not as good as
usually is made on southern farms. Taken as a whole the feeds, with
the exception of the silage, were just about the average of what are
used on the stock farms of the South during average years.
The following prices were used for the feeds :

Cottonseed meal per ton__ $23. 50

Cottonseed hulls do 6.50

Corn-and-cob meal per bushel— . 70

Corn silage per ton__ 3.00

Alfalfa hay do 15.00

The prices used for cottonseed hulls and meal were the actual cost,
whereas the prices used for other feeds were those used in other ex-
periments and represented a good price for the farm-grown feeds
and a profit to the farm in the production of them.

AVERAGE DAILY RATIONS BY PERIODS.

The calves of all lots had a preliminary feeding period from Oc-
tober 25 to November 13, during which time they were getting ac-
customed to the feed lots, to eating their feeds, and were recovering

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

23

from dehorning. They were therefore in condition to take readily
to their feeds when started in the regular feeding period beginning
November 13. The feeds for all calves were increased gradually
until the end of the second 28-day period, after which time the
amount of concentrates was maintained at the same figures.

The calves of each lot were given daily about the same amount of
cottonseed hulls with which the concentrates were mixed and had in
addition all the alfalfa hay and corn silage they would eat. The
weighed hay was put in racks for the calves to eat at will and such
an amount of silage was fed as the calves would clean up in one hour
after feeding. It is seen that the calves receiving corn-and-cob meal
did not eat quite as much alfalfa or corn silage as the calves of lot 1.

Table 11. — Average daily rations by 28-day periods (Nov. Ik, 1914, to Apr. 5,

1915).

Lot

No.

Number
of calves.

Ration.

First
period.

Second
period.

ThiM
period.

Fourth
period.

Fifth
period,
31 days.

14
12

14

Pounds.
2.8
5.0

11.3
3.6
2.6
1.3
4.9

11.1
3.3
1.4
2.9
5.0

11.2
3.5

Pounds.
3.4
5.0

11.4
3.9
3.3
1.6
4.7

11.2
3.6
1.8
3.6
4.7

11.1
3.6

Pounds.
4.0
6.1

13.8
3.4
3.3
1.6
5.7

12.9
3.1
1.9
3.7
4.8

11.5
3.2

Pounds.
4.0
6.4

14.2
2.7
3.3
1.6
6.4

14.2
3.3
1.9
3.7
5.3

11.8
2.7

Pounds.
4.0

6.8

1

14.8

1 Alfalfa hay

3.9

3.6

1.8

2

Cottonseed hulls

7.1

15.1

4.4

2.0

3.0

3

6.3

13.0

4.1

During the first 28-day period the calves of lot 1 consumed on the
average 2.8 pounds of cottonseed meal, 5 pounds of cottonseed hulls,
3.6 pounds alfalfa hay, and 11.3 pounds of silage, while the calves of
lot 2 consumed 2.6 pounds of cottonseed meal and one-half as much
corn-and-cob meal. Each calf in lot 3 ate 4.3 pounds of the mixture
of one-third cottonseed meal and two-thirds corn-and-cob meal per
head per day.

During the third period and thereafter each calf of lots 1, 2, and 3
was fed 4, 4.9^ and 5.6 pounds of concentrates per day, respectively.
As these calves were less than 12 months old, it seemed best not to
feed them more cottonseed meal than these amounts. As the calves
were never fed a heavy grain ration, the amount of roughage con-
sumed did not decrease as the feeding progressed, but in fact in-
creased gradually as the calves increased in weight. The amount of
alfalfa hay consumed by each lot was very uniform for all lots and
for all periods of the experiment. For some unknown reason the
calves of all lots consumed more silage than usual during the last
two periods and somewhat less hay than the average.

24 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTUKE.

WEIGHTS AND GAINS.

The calves used in this experiment were raised on tick-free pastures
and weighed over 400 pounds each, being somewhat lieavier at wean-
ing time than the calves used in previous tests. They were of about
the same quality and breeding as the calves used in former years.
They were put on a preliminary feed from October 25 to November
13, and during that time they were dehorned and the males castrated.

The calves were weighed individually on three consecutive days
and an average was made of all weighings and used as the initial
weight. The regular feeding period began November 13, 1914. Each
lot of calves was weighed every 28 days during the test, and all
calves were weighed individually at the close of the test. The calves
were weighed about 10 o'clock each weigh day.

Table 12. — Weights and gains {Nov. 13, 191J,

, to Ap)

•. 5, 1915, 1-1,3 days).

Lot
No.

Ration.

Average
initial
weight

per calf.

Average

final

weight

per calf.

Average
total
gains

per calf.

Average
daily
gains

per calf.

1

[Cottonseed meal

1 Cottonseed hulls

] Pounds.
\ 437

427

-

Pounds.
682

695

663

Pounds.
245

268

227

Pounds.

1 Com silage

lAlfalfahay

1.71

fCottoruseed meal , two-thirds

"?.

Com-and-cob meal, one-third

■^Cottonseed hulls

1 87

Com silage

Alfalfa hay

[Cottonseed meal , one-third

ICom-and-oob meal, two-thirds . .

1 Cottonseed hulls

1.59

[AUalfahay

• Preliminary feeding Oct. 25 to Nov. 12, inclufive.

The calves of lots 1, 2, and 3 were about the same size at the be-
ginning of the test, averaging 437, 427, and 436 pounds, respectively.
During the entire feeding period of 143 days the calves in each lot
made a total gain of 245, 268, and 227 pounds per head, or an aver-
age daily gain of 1.71, 1.87, and 1.59 pounds per head. The gains
for the first two lots were very satisfactory for calves of this size and
quality. The gain for lot 3 was not so satisfactory, but when the
daily rations of the calves are considered it is seen that the calves of
lot 3 did not get as valuable a grain ration as those of lot 2, if the
theory is true that one pound of cottonseed meal is equal in feeding
value to two pounds of corn for fattening calves.

QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED REQUIRED TO MAKE 100 POUNDS

OF GAIN.

Figures showing the amount of different Irinds or combinations of
feeds required to make 100 pounds of gain in weight are of most
importance to prospective feeders. When a feeder knows the valua-

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI,

25

(ion of his cattle and the avaihible feeds, he can determine easily
which feeds it will be most profitable to use, if he is given the data
showing the amount of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain
and the effects of such feeds on the quality of the carcass and knows
the .selling price of the animal.

Table 13. — Quantifu (iiid cofit of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain
(Nor. 13, li)lJ,, to Apr. 5, 1915, l.'iS days).

Lot
No.

Feed to
make 100
pounds
of gain.

Cost of

100

jiounds

gain.

i Cottonseed meal
Cottonseed hulls
Com silage
Alfalfa hay

Cottonseed meal, two-thirds.
Com-and-cob meal, one-third

Cottonseed hul Is

Com silage

Alfalfa hay

Cottonseed meal, one-third . . ,
Com-and-cob meal, two-thu'd

Cottonseed hulls

Com silage

Alfalfa hay

Pounds.
214
346
774
207
172
86
309
690
IPl
112
225
331
753
217

Stj. 34

There is not a great variation in the amount of roughage required
to make 100 pounds of gain on the calves of the various lots. Each
lot received the same roughage. The calves of lots 1, 2, and 3 re-
quired 1,327, 1,190, and 1,303 pounds of roughage, respectively, to
make 100 pounds of gain in live Aveight. The calves of lot 1, which
consumed a small amount of concentrate per day, ate more rough-
age than either of the other lots and likewise they made a greater
gain in weight than the calves of lot 3. The calves of lots 1 and 3
required about 100 pounds more roughage to make 100 pounds of
gain than the calves of lot 2.

Since all the calves received the same kind of roughage and re-
quired about the same amount of roughage to make 100 pounds of
gain, a direct comparison can be made of the concentrates.

When cottonseed meal was the sole concentrate the calves (lot 1)
required 214 pounds to make 100 pounds of gain. The calves of
lot 2 required 172 pounds of cottonseed meal and 86 pounds of corn-
and-cob meal to make the same amount of gain, whereas the calves
of lot 3 required 112 pounds of cottonseed meal and 225 pounds of
corn-and-cob meal.

In this test, when one-third of the cottonseed meal Avas replaced
by an equal amount of corn-and-cob meal each pound of cottonseed
meal proved to be equal to 2.05 pounds of corn-and-cob meal, and
when tAvo-thirds of the ration Avas made up of corn-and-cob meal
each 1 pound of cottonseed meal proved the equivalent of 2.21
pounds of corn-and-cob meal. This result has been in keeping with
16709°— IS— Bull, uai 1

26 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPAETMEISTT OF AGEICULTURE.

much of the other work done with corn and cottonseed meal in
the South.

At the prices which prevailed for feeds in 1914-15, namely, cot-
tonseed meal $23.50 per ton, corn 70 cents per bushel, cottonseed
hulls $6.50 per ton, alfalfa hay $15 per ton, and silage at $3 per
ton, the cost of 100 pounds of gain for lots 1, 2, and 3 was $0.34,
$6.34, and $7.40, respectively. This is exceedingly satisfactory, as
the average for all calves was less than 7 cents per pound of gain.
For mature annimals fed on similar feeds the cost of each pound
of gain would have been from 1| to 4 cents more, showing the
superior manner in which the calves utilize their feed. In fact,
good calves are the only class of cattle that will put on gains in
the feed lot at a price equal to or less than the selling price of the
calves per pound.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

The calves used in this experiment were bought and inventoried
at 5 cents a pound by farm weights without any shrinkage being
deducted for fill. This price on the farm would have been equal to
about 0 cents on the market, as it would have cost the producer
about 1 cent a pound to cover the expense of shipping and marketing
and the loss in weight. All feeds were charged at the prevailing
prices named and charges were made for shipping and selling the
calves. The total cost of freight, commission, feed, yardage, weigh-
ing, and insurance amounted to $2.17 per head.

Table H.—Fimmcial statement {Nov. 13, 191.',, to Apr. 5, 1915, 1J,S days).

Lot 1. Cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, corn silage, alfalfu hay :

To 14 calves— 6,118 pounds, at .$5 per hundredweight $.305.90

To 7,342 pounds cottonseed meal, at $23.50 per ton 86. 27

To 11.853 pounds cottonseed hulls, at $6.50 per ton 38. 52

To 26,533 pounds corn silage, at $3 per ton 39. 80

To 7,110 pounds alfalfa hay, at $15 per ton 53.32

To freight, yardage, commission, insurance, etc., 14 head, at $2,175

per head 30. 45

Total expenditures 554. 26

By sale of 14 calves — 8,740 pounds, at $7.25 per hundredweight • C33. 65

Total profit on lot 1 79. 39

Average profit per calf 5. 67

Lot 2. Cottonseed nieal two-thirds, cottonseed hulls, corn-and-cob meal
one-third, corn silage, alfalfa hay :

To 12 calves — 5,124 pounds, at $5 per hundredweight 256. 20

To 5,529 pounds cottonseed meal, at $23.50 per ton 64. 96

To 2,764 pounds corn-and-coh meal, at 70 cents per bushel 27. 64

To 9.940 pounds cottonseed hulls, at .$6.50 per ton 32. 30

To 22,185 pounds corn silage, at $3 per ton 33. 28

To 6,155 pounds alfalfa hay, at $15 per ton 46. 16

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 27

To freight, yardage, c•omnn^^■sion, Insurauce, etc., 12 calves, at

$2,175 per head $26. 10

Total expenditures 486. 64

By sale of 10 calves— 6,130 pounds, at $7.25 per hundredweight 444. 42

By sale of 2 calves — 1.200 pounds, at .fO.oO per hundredweight 78. 00

Total by sale of 12 calves 522. 42

Total profit on lot 2 35. 78

Average profit per calf 2.98

Lot 3. Cottonseed meal one-third, corn-and-cob meal two-thirds, cotton-
seed hulls, corn silage, alfalfa hay :

To 14 calves — 6,111 pounds, at $5 per hundredweight 30-5. 55

To 3,756 pounds cottonseed meal, at $23.50 per ton 44. 13

To 7,141 pounds corn-and-cob meal, at 70 cents per bushel 71. 41

To 10,512 pounds cottonseed hulls, at $6.-50 per ton 34. 16

To 23.922 pounds corn silage, at $3 per ton 35. 88

To 6,897 pounds alfalfa hay, at $15 per ton 51.73

To freight, yardage, commission, insurance, etc., 14 calves, at

$2,175 per head 30.45

Total expenditures 573. 31

By sale of 12 calves— 7.600 pounds, at $7.25 per hundredweight 551. 00

By sale of 2 calves — 1,100 pounds, at $0.50 per hundredweight 72. 15

Total by .sale of 14 calves 623. 15

Total profit on lot 3 49. 84

Average profit per calf 3. 56

The cnlves of lot 1 were finished somewhat better and a little more
uniformly than those of either of the other lots. The calves of lots
2 and 3 showed lack of finish due to the small grain ration fed. This
was reflected in the selling price of the animals, for all calves of lot
1 sold for $7.25 per hundred straight through, whereas there were
two calves in each of the other lots which brought but $6.50 per 100
pounds, and all the others brought $7.25 per hundredweight.

Table 14 shows that no charge is made for the labor of feeding
the calves, which was small, nor is any credit given the calves for the
manure produced, nor for pork produced in lots 2 and 3. By this
method the calves of lot 1 showed a net profit of $5.67 per head ; those
of lot 2. $2.98 ; and the ones of lot 3, $3.56 each.

^Y[\en no pork credit is allowed for lots 2 and 3, and it would
have been small because of the light corn ration, it is seen that the
calves of lot 1 were more profitable than those of the other lots. This
is partly due to the very cheap price of cottonseed meal at that time
(due to the outbreak of the war) and the comparatively high price
of corn charged on the farm where it was grown. It was estimated
that the corn was produced at a cost not to exceed 40 cents per bushel,
and if it had been sold it w^ould not have brought the farmer more

28

BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

than 50 cents per bushel net, because of the distance from a shipping
point, remoteness from market, and the bad condition of the roads
OA'er which it would have to have been handled.

When it is considered that by feeding the calves the corn, the corn
silage and hay were sold through the calves at excellent prices, and
more than that, a net cash profit was made, the results are considered
very satisfactory.

SLAUGHTER DATA.

The calves were driven from the farm 6 miles to the loading pens.

The shrinkage in transit was 36, 57, and 29 pounds for the calves
of lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The heavier shrink of the calves of
lot 2 is unaccounted for. The average shrinkage per head for all
calves was 41 pounds. Although the calves of lot 2 made the largest
daily gain, they had not fattened as well as either of the other lots,
and this is reflected in the manner in which they dressed out. The
calves of lot 1 sold for a little more per hundredweight and dressed
out slightly higher than either of the other lots.

By farm weights the calves of lot 1 killed out nearly 2^ per cent
more than those of lot 2 and 0.4 per cent more than those of lot 3.
By market weights the calves of all three lots killed out very uni-
formly, lot 1 killing out a little better than either of the other two
lots. The purchaser reported that all the calves killed out well and
produced nice carcasses. The calves as a whole dressed out slightlv
over 54 per cent by sale weights.

Table 15. — Slaughter data.

Lot
No.

Ration.

1 Cottonseed meal
Cottonseed hulls
Corn silage
Alfalfa hay

1 Cottonseed meal, two-thirds. ,
Corn-and-oob meal, one-third
Cottonseed hulls
Corn silage
Alfalfa hay

1 Cottonseed meal, one-third. . .
Corn-and-cob meal, two-third;
Cottonseed hulls
Corn silage
Alfalfa hay

Average

farm

weight

of each

calf
4-12-15.

Pounds.
660

Average
market
weight
of each

calf
4-14-15.

Pounds.
624

611

Average
shrink

Pounds.
36

29

Average
weight

of
carcass.

Pounds.
342

335

Percent-
age
dressed
by farm
weights.

Per cent.
51. 8S

Percent-
age

dressed
bv

market

weights.

Per cent.
54. .So

SUMMARY STATEMENT.

1. The object of this test was to get further information con-
cerning the use of cottonseed meal and mixtures of cottonseed meal
and corn for finishing calves for the market.

2. The average initial weights of the calves used in the test were
as follows: Lot 1, 437; lot 2. 427; lot 3, 436 pounds. The final

CALF FEEDIXG IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 29

weights were: Lot 1, 68-2; lot 2, 695; and lot 3, 663 pounds. The
average daily gains per calf were: Lot 1, 1.71; lot 2, 1.87; and lot
3, 1.59 pounds.

3. All lots received corn silage, alfalfa hay. and cottonseed hulls
as roughage. Lot 1 consumed 21-t pounds of cottonseed meal for
each 100 pounds gain. Lot 2 consumed 172 pounds of cottonseed
meal and 86 pounds of corn-and-cob meal per 100 poimds gain. Lot
3 consumed 112 pounds cottonseed meal and 225 pounds of corn-and-
cob meal for the same amount of gain.

4. The costs per 100 pounds of gain were as follows: Lot 1, $6.34;
lot 2, $6.31; and lot 3, $7.40. The calves of all lots made gains very
cheaply.

5. The amount of roughage required to make 100 pounds of gain
was greatest with lot 1 and the smallest with lot 2.

6. The average profits per head for each of the lots were as fol-
lows: Lot 1, $5.67; lot 2, $2.98; and lot 3, $3.56.

7. The shrinkage of lots 1, 2, and 3 was 36, 57, and 29 pounds,
respectivel}'. The heavy shrinkage of lot 2 can not be explained.

8. By market weights the calves dressed out as follows: Lot 1,
64.85 ; lot 2, 54.05 ; lot 3, 53.87 per cent.

9. There were no pigs following the calves of lots 2 and 3. Under
these conditions it did not pay as well to feed a mixture of cotton-
seed meal and corn-and-cob meal as it did to feed cottonseed meal
as the sole concentrate.

IV. FATTENING CALVES ON COTTONSEED MEAL, CORN,
CORN SILAGE, AND ALFALFA.

PLAN OF WORK.

The calf-feeding work for the winter of 1915-16 was conducted on
the farm of Mr. Ben Walker near West Point, Miss., in the black-
prairie section of the State. As the lots, shelter, and watering facili-
ties have been described in connection with the previous year's work
it is needless to repeat here. The only difference in conditions was
that the calf pens were concreted during the summer months in order
that the calves would not be forced to stand in the mud as they had
during the latter part of the experiment of the previous year.

The calves were of about the same grade as those of the previous
year, as half of them were raised on the farm and the other half
bought from a neighboring farmer for 5 cents per pound. The
majority of the calves were Shorthorns and Herefords, but a few
Angus calves also were included. All the calves had run with their
dams until about two weeks before the experiment started, when the

30 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUKE.

purchased calves were weaned, dehorned, marked, and turned into
an alfalfa field until the experiment was started. The home-raised
calves Avere weaned, dehorned, and marked just a few days before the
experiment was to start. All the calves had been dropped in the
spring and w^ere from 7 to 8 months old when weaned.

The calves were weighed individually on November 11, and again
on the 12th, on w^hich date they were divided into three similar lots
and started on feed.

OBJECTS OF THE WORK.

In the Alabama experiments the calves were given small rations
of grain for comparatively short periods. They made satisfactory
gains and were in good killing order but were not well finished at the
close of the tests. In this test it was decided to feed the calves for a
longer period and to give them a heavier grain ration in order to have
them well finished before they w ere sold.

The objects of this test were:

1. To see if good grade calves such as can be raised easily in Mis-
sissippi can be finished for the market economically and profitably.

2. To make a comparative study of the value of cottonseed meal
alone, a combination of cottonseed meal and shelled corn, and shelled
corn alone, as concentrated feeds to be used in finishing calves that
were to be fed silage as the principal roughage, with a small amount
of alfalfa hay.

3. To determine approximately how much manure could be saved
by feeding calves on a concrete floor under shelter.

CHARACTER AND PRICES OF THE FEEDS USED.

As this test was a comparison of grain feeds, the same kind of
roughage was fed to all three lots. Feeders generally have the im-
pression that cattle which are being fattened will do somewhat better
if they are given a small amount of some palatable hay when they
are fed corn silage as the chief roughage. For this reason the calves
of all lots were given about 4^ pounds of alfalfa hay per day in addi-
tion to all of the corn silage they would eat.

The cottonseed meal used was bright and of good quality, analyz-
ing from 7^ to 8 per cent of ammonia. The corn was of good quality,
being well matured and sound. The silage was of good quality, hav-
ing been cut at the proper stage and carrying considerable grain.
The corn probably Avould have yielded 45 bushels to the acre. The
alfalfa was of rather low grade, as it had been damaged by heavy
dews.

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

31

The feeds were charged at the following prices:

Cottonseed meal per ton__ $27. 00

Corn per bushel-- . 70

Corn silase P^i" ton_- 3. 00

Alfalfa hay ^^o 15. 00

AVERAGE DAILY RATIONS.

As all the calves were accustomed to alfalfa they were started
on about 6 pounds of alfalfa hay and about 15 pounds of silage per
day. The silage was increased rapidly as the calves became accus-
tomed to it until at the end of two weeks they were given all they
would clean up within one hour after feeding. As the calves were
to be fed a long period they were started on a small amount of
grain and (his was very gradually increased until the fourth month
after which they were given the maximum amount of grain until the
close of the test.

It is a well-known fact that cattle to be fed for a long period
will make almost as large gains and much more economical gains
if they are fed a medium grain ration with all the good roughage
they will eat for first part of the feeding period, and then given a
heavy grain ration during the latter part of the period. This method
was followed.

Table 16 shows the average amount of feed consumed daily by
each of the calves in lots 1, 2, and 3 for each 28-day period they
were fed.

Table 16. — Average daily rations by 28-daii periods, 1915-16.

Lot
No.

Ration.

First
period.

Second
period.

Third
period.

Fourth
period.

Fifth
period.

Sixth

period

(16 days).

Average

for

entire

of 156

days.

Pounds.
2.2
16.8
5.9
1.00
4.1
14.7
5.8
6.0
13.6
5.5

Pounds.
2.7

22.7
5.8
1.2
4.8

18.3
5.4
7.1

13.7
5.6

Pounds.
3.5

23.8
4.0
1.3
5.4

18.3
4.0
8.1

15.6
4.0

Pounds.
4.3

25.3
4.0
1.6
6.6

18.9
4.0
9.7

14.3
4.0

Pounds.
5.0

23.7
4.0
2.0
8.0

16.2
3.9

11.1

12.1
3.6

Pounds.
5.0

26.7
4.0
2.0
8.0

18.6
4.0

12.2

13.3
4.0

Pounds.
3.69

1

22.87

IMfalfahay

4.65

1.49

1 Shelled com

6.01

2

17.43

Ldfalfahay

4.57
8.78

3

Jcorn silage

1 Alfafla hay

13.80
4.49

During the first 28-day period each calf in lot 1 consumed 2.2
pounds of cottonseed meal, 2.7 pounds for the .second period, and this
amount was increased gradually as the feeding progressed until dur-
ing the fifth and sixth periods the calves were on full feed, eating 5
pounds of cottonseed meal per head per day. The calves consumed
5.9 pounds of alfalfa and 16.8 pounds of corn silage per head per day
the first period, but the hay was decreased after the second period to

32

BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

4 pounds per head daily, and all of the corn silage was given that the
calves would eat. This increased as the amount of hay was reduced,
until during the last three periods each calf ate about 25 pounds of
silage daily.

The concentrated feeds of the other two lots were increased in
about the same manner. When the calves of lot 2 were on full feed
the}^ consumed 2 pounds of cottonseed meal and 8 pounds of shelled
corn per head daily, whereas each calf in lot 3 received 12 pounds of
shelled corn each day. The amount of silage consumed by the calves
of lot 2 was about 7 pounds less than that consumed by the calves of
lot 1. The calves of lot 3, which were fed on shelled corn alone as
the concentrate, consumed but about half as much silage each day
during the last two periods as the calves which were fed cottonseed
meal. The amount of alfalfa hay was the same for all of the lots.

The last column of Table 16 shows the average amount of feed
consumed daily by each calf for the entire feeding period of 156 days.

Table 17 shows the average initial weight, the average final weight,
the average gain per calf, and average daily gain per calf for the
entire feeding period.

Table 17. — Total and daily fiains (.Yor. 12, Wlo. to Apr. 16, 1916, 156 days).

Lot
No.

Ration.

Average

initial

weight

per calf.

Average

final
weight
per calf.

Average
total
gains

per calf.

Average

daily

gains
per calf.

{Cottonseed meal.
Corn silage
Alfalfa hay

i Cottonseed meal .
Shelled com
Corn silage
Alfalfa hay

[Shelled corn

<Com silage

(Alfalfa hay

Pounds.
430

430

Pounds.
701

Pounds.
271

Pounds.
1.74

The average weights of the calves of the three lots were very uni-
form at the beginning of the test, being 430, 430, and 434 pounds
for lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average total gain per calf
for the entire period was 271, 265, and 280 pounds, or a daily gain of
1.74, 1,70, and 1.80 pounds per head, respectively. These gains were
very satisfactory for a long feeding period and they indicate that
all the calves did well.

The calves of lot 1 were inclined to grow and did not fatten as
rapidly as the calves of either of the other two lots. The calves of
lot 3 were the fattest of the three lots, although there was not a
great deal of difference between the calves of lots 2 and 3.

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

33

QUANTITY AND COST OF FEED TO MAKE 100 POUNDS OF GAIN.

The most important data in any feeding experiment are those re-
hiting to the daily ration, the rate of gain made by the animals, the
amount of feed which is required to make 100 pounds of gain in
weight, and the difference in selling price which results from the
different methods of feeding. With these figures any prospective
feeder can determine fairly accurately what feeds he had better use
in fattening his cattle, how much he will need, and the gains he may
expect ; and knowing the cost of his cattle and feeds and about what
the finished cattle will sell for he can approximate the profit or loss
which may result from fattening his stock.

In the past farmers and stoclanen have paid too little attention to
these figures and laid too much stress upon the financial outcome of
the special test to get the most good out of the experimental work.

Table 18 shows the amount of feed required to produce 100 pounds
of gain in weight on the calves and also the comparative cost of 100
pounds of gain.

Table IS. — Quantity and cost of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain, and
stiliny price of calves {Nov. 12, 1915, to Apr. 12, 1916, 156 days).

Lot
No.

Ration.

Feed to
make 100
p lunds
of gain.

Cost
of 100
pounds
gain.i

Selling
price of
calves
per 100
pounds.

[Cottonseed meal.

1 -{Corn silage

I.Vlfalfa

i Cottonseed meal.
Shelled cjm
Com silage
.\lfalfa hay

(Shelled corn

n'orn silage

[Alfalfa hay

Pounds.
213

1,318

208

88

353

1,025
2G9
489
769
250

$6.86

8.58

» Prices of feeds used: Cottonseed meal, $27 per ton; corn, 70 cents per bushel; corn silage, $3 per ton;
alfalfa hay, $15 per ton.

The calves in all three lots received the same kind of roughage,
but ate varying amounts, dependent upon their appetites after con-
suming their grain. The daily gain of the calves in all lots was
fairly uniform, but the amount of roughage consumed varied con-
siderabh'. This variation is reflected in the amount of roughage
required to make 100 pounds of gain.

The amount of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain is seen
to be 213 pounds of cottonseed meal, 1,318 pounds of silage, and
268 pounds of alfalfa hay for lot 1 ; 88 pounds of cottonseed meal,
353 pounds of shelled com, 1,025 pounds of silage, and 269 pounds
of alfalfa for lot 2; and 489 pounds of shelled corn, 769 pounds of
silage, and 250 pounds of alfalfa for lot 3.

S4 BULLETIN 631, tJ. S. DEPAETMEKT OF AGBICULTURE.

The comparative cost of 100 pounds of gain for lots 1, 2, and 3
are $6.86, $9.05, and $9.14, respectively. The calves of lot 1 are
seen to have required a very small amount of cottonseed meal and
a comparatively large amount of cheap roughage to make 100 pounds
of gain, while the opposite is true of the calves of lot 3, which re-
ceived shelled corn as a concentrate. The calves of lot 3 required
more than twice as much grain to make 100 pounds of gain, some-
what less alfalfa, and only a little more than half as much silage.
This resulted in more expensive gains for the calves receiving corn.
The amount of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain on the
calves is considerably smaller than the amount required to put the
same amount of gain on mature cattle. In fact it is seldom possible
to make gains on any class of cattle in the dry lot, except calves, at
a smaller cost than the selling price of the animals. This was done
with the calves of lot 1.

The exclusive use of cottonseed meal as a concentrate for feeding
calves has resulted invariably in good daily gains and very economi-
cal gains, but at the same time there has been a tendency for such
calves to grow more and fatten less than is desirable while fattening.
This has resulted in such calves selling for somewhat less than corn-
fed calves, as shown in Table 18. The difference in selling price is
often great enough almost to overcome the difference in the cost of
production. There was a difference of 49 cents per 100 pounds in
the selling price of the calves of lots 1 and 3 and a difference of 41
cents per hundredweight in the selling price of the calves of lots
1 and 2.

Strictly prime calves can not be made by feeding cottonseed meal
as the sole concentrate, and though it is not always most profitable
to put the maximum finish on calves it is usually more profitable to
have them well finished than half fat. It is more frequently the
case that extra finish on calves pays better than it does on steers of
two years or older.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Although any financial statement that is made is more or less un-
satisfactory because there are so many variations from year to year
in the prices of feeds, selling prices of animals, and margin of profit
that the financial outcome may be reversed completely if any very
radical change is made in any one of these factors, such a statement
usually is desired by the reader and is of some value for compara-
tive purposes.

One-half the calves used in this experiment were purchased for 5
cents a pound, pasture weights, without any shrink, so all the calves
are charged in at that price. At this price the farmers made a
profit raising them, as the cows were worth but about $45 each and

CALF FEEDING IIST ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. S5

the cost of wintering cows and pasturing them in that section of
Mississippi is comparatively small. They were shipped to the St.
Louis market, where they were sold. All the charges for shipping
and selling are included in Table 19 with the other charges:

Table 19.— Financial Statement {Nov. 12, 1P15, to Apr. 16, 1916, 156 days).

Lot 1. Cottonseed meal, corn silage, alfalfa hay :

To 15 calves — 6.450 pounds, at $5 per hundredweight .$322. 50

To 8.636J pounds cottonseed meal, at $27 per ton $116. 59

To .53..')22 pounds corn silage, at $3 per ton 80. 28

To 10,890 pounds alfalfa hay, at $15 per ton 81. 68

Total cost of feed 278,55

To freight charges 29. .52

To commission 7.03

To yardage, hay, etc 4. 83

Total miscellaneous expenditures -41. 38

Total expenditures $642. 43

By sale of 15 calves — 9,790 pounds, at $8,168 per hundredweight.. 799. 65

Total net profit on lot 1 157.22

Average net profit per calf 10. 48

Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, shelled corn, corn silage, alfalfa hay :

To 14 calves— 6.0174 pounds, at $5 per hundredweight $300. 88

To 3.2.56 pounds cottonseed meal, at $27 per ton .$43. 96

To 13,116 pounds shelled corn, at 70 cents per bushel 163. 95

To 38.076 pounds corn silage, at $3 per ton 57. 11

To 9,986 pounds alfalfa hay, at $15 per ton 74. 90

Total cost of feed 339,92

To freight charges 27. .55

To commission 6. 56

To yardage, hay, etc 4. 51

Total miscellaneous expenditures 38. 62

Total expenditures 679.42

By sale of 14 calves — 9,320 pounds, at $8,578 per hundredweight.. 799. 35

Total net profit on lot 2 119.93

Average net profit per calf 8. 57

Lot 3. Shelled corn, corn silage, alfalfa hay :

To 15 calves — 6,.505 pounds, at $5 per hundredweight .$325. 25

To 20,.547 pounds shelled corn (366.9 bushels), at 70 cents

per bushel $256. 84

To 32.289 pounds corn silage, at $3 per ton 48. 43

To 10,515 pounds alfalfa hay, at $15 per ton 78. 86

Total cost of feed 384.13

36 BULLETIN 631, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

To freight charges .$29. 52

To commission 7. 03

To yardage, hay, etc 4. 83

Total miscelhineoiis expenditures $41.38

Total expenditures 750. 76

By sale of 15 calves— 10.170 pounds, at $8,662 per hundredweight- 880.93

Total net profit on lot 3 130. 17

Average net profit per calf 8. 68

In Table 10 no credit is given for the pork made by hogs follow-
ing the calves of lots 2 and 3. Without considering this, exceedingly
satisfactory profits were made on all the calves. The calves of lot 1
made a profit of $10.48 per head, those of lot 2 made $8.57 each, and
the calves of lot 3 realized a net profit of $8.68, after paying the
farmer an exceedingly good price for his corn, corn silage, and al-
falfa hay.

Hogs were put in lots 2 and 3 to follow the calves, but owing to
cholera breaking out on one part of the farm some of the fattest
shoats were sold. Later some pigs and sows were permitted to fol-
low the calves, but with existing conditions accurate records could not
be kept of the gains made by them. It is estimated, however, that
there should have been a pork credit of at least $3 per calf for each
of the calves of lot 3.

If the pork credit had been but $2 per calf in lot 3, that would
have meant that the calves that were fed a ration of shelled corn
alone had paid the farmer 70 cents a bushel for the corn produced
on the farm as well as market prices for all the roughage consumed,
and in addition made as much profit as the calves that had been fed
exclusively on cottonseed meal costing but $27 per ton. Further-
more it indicates that the diversified farmer of the South, with plenty
of nutritious feeds, as silage, alfalfa, clover or cowpea hay, and corn,
can finish out good calves without making cash expenditures for any
purchased feeds. The farmer who does not have corn to feed but
has good roughage, such as silage and hay, can feel sure that he can
make good gains and economical gains by feeding cottonseed meal
as the sole concentrate, but he can not get the calves quite as well
finished, because of their tendency to grow when fed a heavy protein
ration.

RECORD OF MANURE PRODUCED.

The calves were kept in pens having concrete floors under shelter,
and the pens were scraped out daily and the manure weighed. No
bedding was used, so there was some waste of liquid manure. Table
20 shows the amount of manure saved from the calves of each pen
or lot :

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

37

Table 20.— Manure yields (3"or. 12, I'Jlo, to Apr. 16, 1916, 156 days).

Pounds.

Lot 1. Total yield 68,235

Average per calf 4,549

Average per calf daily 29. 16

Lot 2. Total yield 60, 090

Average per calf 4, 083

Average per calf daily 26. 17

Lot 3. Total yield 49, 830

Average per calf 3, 322

Average per calf daily 21. 29

It is seen that for the 156-day period there were saved from each
calf in lot 1, 29.16 pounds of manure daily, while 26.17 pounds per
head were saved from lot 2, and 21.29 pounds daily from each calf
of lot 3.

No definite reason can be given for the calves of lot 1 producing
more manure than those of the other lots. Can it be possible that
the high protein ration caused the calves to drink more water, thereby
causing more liquid manure to be voided ? The fact remains that the
average amount of manure produced per day by such calves was
about 27 pounds per head.

SLAUGHTER DATA.
In shipping to the St. Louis market the calves were in transit
26 hours. The average net shrinkage per head was 48, 29, and 36
pounds for lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively, amounting to 6.8, 4.2, and
5.0 per cent of their live weights. The average shrinkage on calves
of this weight in transit 26 hours usually ranges from 5 to 7^ per
cent of their live weight. It is seen that the shrinkage here was a
little less than average. The difference in shrinkage between the
calves of the three lots can not be accounted for, as they were handled
exactly alike. It is to be expected that the calves of lot 1 would
shrink somewhat more than the other calves because they were not
as fat and had been consuming a greater amount of roughage per
day, but the difference was quite large.

Table 21. — Slaughter data.

Lot
No.

Ration.

Average
fam
weight
per calf
4-16-16.

Avenge
market
weight
per calf
4-19-16.

Average
shrink-
age in
transit.

Percent-
age of
shrink-

Average
weight

of
carcass.

Per-
centage
dressed
by farm
weights.

Per-
centage
dressed

by
market,
weights.i

{Cottonseed meal.
Com silage
Alfalfa hay

I Cottonseed meal.
Shelled com
Com silage
Alfalfa hay

[Shelled com

3 •(Com silage

I [Alfalfa hay

Pounds.
701

695

Pounds.
653

678

Pounds.
48

29

Per cent.

Pounds.
363

387

Per cent.
49.3

5.3.7

Pounds.
54.4

56.0
55.9

1 Three calves, No3. 22, 17, and 8, weighing 450, 500, and 480 pounds, respectively, were sold from lots
1, 2, and 3, as stockers. Thus slaughter data were obtained on the lots from 14, 13, and 14, calves, re-
spectively. The farm weights of Nos. 22, 17, and 8 were 483, 520, and 515 pounds, respectively.

38 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The carcasses of the calves of lot 1 did not show as much fat or
finish as those of lots 2 and 3. No difference could be seen between
the carcasses of lots 2 and 3, as they were well finished. By the farm
weights the calves of lots 1, 2, and 3 dressed out 49.3, 53.7, and 53.1
per cent, respectively. By the market weights the calves of lot 1
dressed out 54.4 per cent ; those of lot 2, 56 per cent ; and the calves
of lot 3, 55.9 per cent of their live weight.

SUMMARY STATEMENT.

1. The objects of this test were (1) to see if the feeding of heavy
grain rations to calves until they were well finished would be profit-
able; (2) to make a comparative study of the value of cottonseed
meal alone, a combination of cottonseed meal and shelled corn, and
shelled com alone, to be fed with a ration of silage with a small
allowance of alfalfa hay; and (3) to determine approximately how
much manure can be saved by feeding calves on a concrete floor.

2. The calves were good grade calves having from tv/o to three
crosses of beef blood on original scrub stock. They were from 6 to
8 months of age and weighed 271, 265, and 280 pounds for lots 1, 2,
and 3, respectively, at weaning time, when the experiment began.

3. When on full feed the calves were eating the following ration
per head per day :

Pounds.

Lot 1. — Cottonseed meal 5.0

Corn silage 26.7

Alfalfa hay 4.0

Lot 2.— Cottonseed meal 2. 0

Shelled corn 8.0

Corn silage 18.6

Alfalfa 4. 0

Lot 3.— Shelled corn 12.0

Corn silage 13.3

Alfalfa 4. 0

The calves that consumed a heavy grain ration consumed a smaller
grain ration and vice versa.

4. The calves were fed for 156 days and during that entire time
made a daily gain of 1.74, 1.7, and 1.8 for lots 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
This is a good gain for calves for a long feeding period.

5. The cost of making 100 pounds of gain for each of the three
lots was $8.17, $8.58, and $8.66, respectively.

6. When no pork credit is allowed the calves of lots 2 and 3 the
average profit per head was: Lot 1, $10.48; lot 2, $8.57; and lot 3,
$8.68. It is estimated that the pork produced was worth about $3
per calf, which would make the com feeding slightly more profitable
than feeding cottonseed meal alone.

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 39

7. The calves of lots 1, 2, and 3 produced 29.2, 26.2, and 21.3
pounds of manure per head per day. No beddmg was used and the
manure was scraped up and weighed daily. Some of the liquid
was lost.

8. During shipment the calves of lots 1, 2, and 3 shrank 48, 29, and
36 pounds, respectively, or 6.8, 4.2, and 5,0 per cent of their live
weight.

9. The calves dressed out 54.4, 56.0, and 55.9 per cent of market-
able meat. These percentages indicate that there was practically no
difference in the fatness of the calves of lots 2 and 3, but both lots
were much fatter than the calves of lot 1.

V. FATTENING LATE (SHORT-AGED) CALVES FOR

MARKET.

HANDLING OF LATE CALVES.

In the foregoing parts of this bulletin are discussed various meth-
ods of fattening calves for the market during winter months. Ex-
perience has taught many feeders that a good growthy calf 6 months
or more of age goes on feed and is fed much more satisfactorily than
calves of a younger age. A calf 6 to 8 months old when put on feed
does not seem to go off feed so easily as a younger calf, and as a
result usually makes a larger and more uniform gain in weight from
month to month than calves from 3 to 5 months of age.

In the South, where cattle usually are handled as a side line on
the farm, the calves usually are dropped any time from January
to August and some even later. Even on the good stock farms, where
the time of breeding the cows is regulated as far as possible, it is
seldom that all the calves are born during the early spring months;
there are always some late or short-aged calves if the bull is kept with
the cows until most of them get with calf.

How to handle these calves has long been a problem. ^Yhen calves
are selected for feeding purposes in the fall, the late ones always are
cut back because of their age and size. Many of the younger ones
are permitted to nurse their dams during the winter months, are
weaned in the spring, and put on pasture to be grown out as yearlings
or two-year-olds.

In the fall of 1915 there were a large number of such calves on the
farm at Abbott, Miss., where the cooperative cattle-feeding work was
being conducted jointly by the Bureau of Animal Industry and the
Mississippi Agricultural College. It was decided to let these calves
nurse their dams during the winter, maintaining the dams on a
ration of coarse hay, silage, and a small amount of cottonseed meal,

40 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

und then wean the calves in the spring and feed them out on pasture
for the fall market. In case the calves would not become sufficiently-
fat and heavy on pasture, they were to be finished in the dry lot
the following fall.

PLAN AND OBJECT OF THE WORK.

The objects of the work were as follows :

1. To determine if short-aged or late summer calves could be fed
out or finished economically and profitably the following year.

2. To learn whether cottonseed cake or a mixture of cottonseed
cake and shelled corn was most satisfactory and profitable as a
grain ration for fattening calves on grass and in the dry lot.

The dams of the calves ran in the stalk fields and meadows of the
plantation during most of the winter, but during the latter part they
were fed some rough hay, silage, and a small amount of either cotton-
seed or cottonseed cake. The calves ran with their dams during this
period and picked up some feed. They were from 6 to 8 months old
in the spring when they were taken from their dams, weaned, divided
into two lots as nearly equal in quality, breeding, and size as it was
possible to get them, and put on pasture, where they were to be
given a supplemental grain ration once a day.

The calves were principally grade Shorthorns and Red Polls,
although a few calves of other breeding were among them.

Water was obtained from pools or ponds in the pasture, and these
became very muddy and foul from the calves standing in them. This
is the common method of watering cattle in the prairie region of
Mississippi and Alabama.

CHARACTER AND PRICES OF FEEDS USED.

The two lots of calves were grazed on pastures as nearly uniform,
with respect to the character of grasses, amount of grazing, character
of soil and water, as it was possible to get. The pastures used were
native unimproved prairie pastures with some relatively unimportant
native grasses and Lespedeza or Japan clover growing on them.
The Lespedeza furnished the principal grazing, although there was
some crab grass and foxtail which was grazed to a certain extent.
The pastures had many bare places where no plants grew. Good
improved pastures could be made on such land by plowing, disking,
and planting to good grasses and legumes^ but in their native state
they were relatively poor prairie pastures. About 4 acres were
allowed for each calf.

The summer of 1916 was an unusually droughty one, and as a
result the pastures were poor and short all summer. There was no

CALF FEEDING IN" ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 41

rain on the pastures from Jiil}^ 25 to October 30, and as a result the
calves had to be taken off pasture on October 31 and put in the feed
lot because of scarcity of water and shortness of grass.

The cottonseed cake which was fed while the calves were on pasture
contained about 38 per cent protein and was bright in color. It
was a medium grade of cake. The corn was good sound corn, free
from weevils. Cottonseed cake cost $30.50 per ton, and corn was
valued at 80 cents per bushel. Pasture was charged at the rate of
50 cents per head for each 28-day period.

METHODS OF FEEDING AND HANDLING THE CALVES.

The calves were fed once each day, between 5 and 0 o'clock in the
afternoon. They were numbered by means of metal tags on neck
straps. The cottonseed cake and the mixture of one-third cottonseed
cake and two-thirds shelled corn were fed in troughs located at a
convenient place in each pasture. Salt was given the calves once
a week.

The calves of lot 1 were started on 1 pound of cottonseed cake per
day and this amount gradually increased until at the end of the
second 28-day period they were eating 3 pounds per day, and at the
end of the third period they were eating 44 pounds per head per
da}'. They were fed this amount for the rest of the summer.

The calves of lot 2 were started on one-half pound of cottonseed
meal and 1 pound of corn per head daily. This was increased gi-adu-
ally until at the end of the second period they were eating 1 pound
of cottonseed meal and 2 pounds of corn. By the end of the third
28-day period they were eating 3 pounds of cottonseed meal and 6
pounds of shelled corn per head daily. This amount was fed until
the end of the grazing season, October 30, 1916.

Each of the calves was weighed individually three days in suc-
cession at the beginning of the experiment and the average taken as
the initial weight. Each lot of calves was weighed each 28 days
thereafter as a whole, and individual weights again were taken at the
end of the grazing season.

RESULTS OF THE SUMMER FEEDING.

Table 23 shows the results of the calf feeding for the entire summer
period. May 5 to October 30, 1916, inclusive.

There were 25 calves in each lot at the beginning of the experiment,
but one calf in lot 2 died of blackleg, leaving but 21 in that lot.
The calves of each lot were fed from May 5 to October 30, inclusive,
or 179 days. The average weight of the calves of lot 1 on May 5
was 333 pounds and the average weight of those of lot 2 was 310
pounds. During the summer each calf in lot 1 gained 252 pounds
and each calf in lot 2 gained 293 pounds. The average daily gain
of lots 1 and 2 was 1.11 and 1.63 pounds per head, respectively.

42

BULLETIN 631, U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

These gains seem rather small for calves that were fed as liberally
as these, but when the exceedingly droughty summer with the re-
sulting poor pastures is considered the calves did very well. The
calves of lot 2, which were fed a heavier grain ration than those of
lot 1, made the larger gains.

Table 2S.—Calf feeding during the summer of 1916 {May 5 to Oct. 30, 179 days).

Item.

Lot 1:

pasture and

cottonseed

cake.

Lot 2:

pasture and

one-third

cottonseed

cake;

two-thirds

shelled

com.

Number of calves

Length of feeding period days . .

Average initial weight of calves, May 5 pounds. .

Average final weight of calves, OctoiDer 30 do

Average total gain per head do

Average daily gala per head do —

Amount of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain|g{^gj°"|gom'^'^'^*'".'?'.°X*?^' '

Cost of making 100 pounds gain, pasture included

Cost of calves per hundredweight, May 5

Cost of calves per head. May 5

Cost of feed per head for entire summer

Cost of pasture per head for entiie summer

Total cost per calf on Oct. 30, 1916

Average cost per hundredweight in fal 1 , October 30

24

179

340

633

293

1.63

126

250

$6.58

5.00

17.00

16.08

3.20

36.27

5.73

It is seen that the calves of lot 1 required 247 pounds of cotton-
seed cake in addition to grass to make 100 pounds of gain in weight,
and the calves of lot 2 required 126 pounds of cottonseed cake and
250 pounds of shelled corn for producing 100 pounds of gain in
weight. When the feeds are charged at market prices and pasture
at 50 cents per head for each 28-day period it cost $5,01: and $6.58
to make 100 pounds of gain in live weight on the calves of lots 1 and
2, respectively.

The calves were valued at 5 cents a pound on May 5, when the
experiment began, the cost per head at that time being $16.65 for
lot 1 and $17 for lot 2. The cost of the concentrate fed during the
summer was $9.50 per calf for lot 1 and $16.08 per head for lot 2.
There was a pasturage charge of $3.20 per head for the calves of
each lot for the summer. The total cost per calf in the fall of the
year (October 30, 1916) was $29.37 for lot 1 and $36.27 for lot 2.
The average cost per hundredweight in the fall was $5.02 for the
calves of lot 1 and $5.73 for the calves of lot 2.

At this time the calves of lot 2 were in much better shape than
those of lot 1. but the calves of each lot had been growing consid-
erably and were not well enough finished to be marketed at this time.
As they were not fat enough for market on October 30 and the
grass was very short, it was decided to put the calves in the dry lot
and feed them corn silage for roughage and continue the grain ration
the same as when the calves were on pasture until they were finished.

CALF FEEDIISTG IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

43

METHOD OF HANDLING THE CALVES.

The calves were weighed up on October 30 and transferred to the
barn, where they were started on feed October 31, 1916. The calves
of each lot were fed in pens in a large barn which was open enough
on the sides and ends so there was plenty of ventilation at all times.
The pens were concreted, so the calves were not in the mud. Fresh
water from a deep well was kept before the calves at all times. The
silage was fed in troughs and the grain ration mixed with it. The
silage was of good quality and was eaten readily by the calves.
Feeding was done at T a. m. and 3.30 p. m. each day. The calves
were weighed each 28 days while on feed.

AVERAGE DAILY RATIONS.

Table 24 shows the daily rations per calf by 28-day periods

Table 24. — Average daily rations bii 2S-da!/ periods {Oct. 31, WIG, to Jan. 5,

1917, 67 days).

Ration.

Total

First
period.

Second
period.

Third

period

(11 days).

amount
of feed
eaten

per head.

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

4.5

4.5

4.5

299

35.8

37.8

37.5

2,460

3.0

3.0

3.0

199

6.0

6.0

6.0

399

27.6

30.3

30.0

1,938

Average
daily
ration

for entire
period.

/Cottonseed meal

\Corn silage

I Cottonseed meal
•| Shelled com. . ..
|Com silage

Pounds.
4.5

37.0
3.0
6.0

29.1

During the first 28 days of the feeding period the calves of lot 1
consumed 35.8 pounds of silage per head per day, and those of lot 2
consumed 27.6 pounds.

The grain ration for each calf of lot 1 was 4.5 pounds of cotton-
seed meal per day for the entire period, and each calf in lot 2 was fed
3 pounds of cottonseed meal and 6 pounds of corn daily.

For the remainder of the feeding period, the calves of lot 1 ate
about 37.5 pounds of silage per head per day, and those of lot 2
about 30 pounds each. The average daily ration for the entire period
was 4.5 pounds of cottonseed meal and 37 pounds of silage for lot 1,
and 3 pounds cottonseed meal, 6 pounds shelled corn, and 29.1 pounds
of silage for lot 2.

TOTAL AND DAILY GAINS.

The total and the daily gains made by each calf are shown in
table 25.

At the beginning of the winter feeding the calves of lot 1 averaged
585 pounds in weight. During the 67 days the calves were on feed
(he calves of lot 1 receiving cottonseed meal gained 100 pounds each,

44

BULLETIN 631^ U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

or an average daily gain per calf of 1.49 pounds. The calves of lot
2, averaging 633 pounds, gained 102 pounds, or 1.52 pounds per head
per day. These gains were not large, but it must be remembered
that the calves had been on feed some time before being put in dry
lot. They fattened much more rapidly than the gains would indi-
cate, and at the end of the feeding period were quite fat.

Table 2:j.— Total and daily gains {Oct. 31, 1916, to Jan. 5, 1917, 67 days).

Lot
No.

Number

of
calves.

Ration.

Tc '/Cottonseed meal
^^ tSilage

i Cottonseed meal
Shelled corn
Corn silage

Average
initial
weight

per head.

Pounds.

[ 585

633

Average

final

weight

per head.

Pounds.
6S5

Total

average

gain per

head.

Pounds.
100

102

Average

daily-
gain per
head.

PouTids.
1.49

AMOUNT AND COST OF FEED REQUIRED TO MAKE 100 POUNDS

OF GAIN.

Table 26 shows the total gain, the total amount of feed consumed
per calf, the amount of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain,
and the cost of 100 pounds of gain with feeds charged at market
prices.

Table 26.

-A7nount and cost of feed required to produce 100 pounds of gain
{Oct. 31, 1916, to Jan. 5, 1917, 67 days).

Lot
No.

Number
of calves.

Ration.

Total
amount

of feed
eaten per

head.

Average
total

gains per
head.

Feed re-
quired to
make 100
pounds
of gain.

Cost of
feed to
make 100
pounds
of gain.

1

25
24

/Cottonseed meal

Pounds.
299

2,400
199
399

1,938

Pounds.
100

Pounds.
299
2,460
195.1
391.1
1,900

1 S9. 82
1

\Silage

[Cottonseed meal

102

?.

< Shelled com

\ 12.44

1 SUage

Prices of feeds used :

Cottonseed meal per ton__ $41. 00

Shelled corn per bushel-_ . 80

Corn silage per ton__ 3. 00

The calves of lot 1 consumed 299 pounds of cottonseed meal and
2.460 pounds of silage for each 100 pounds of gain in weight, while
those of lot 2 consumed 195 pounds of cottonseed meal, 391 pounds
of corn, and 1,900 pounds of silage to make the same amount of gain.
Each 100 pounds of gain cost $9.82 and $12.44 for lots 1 and 2,
respectively. The calves receiving cottonseed meal as the sole con-
centrate consumed 560 pounds more silage for each 100 pounds of
gain in weight, but they consumed so much less concentrated ration
that the gains cost almost 3 cents a pound less.

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI,

45

SLAUGHTER DATA.

The calves were driven from the farm at Abbott to West Point,
Miss., and from there they were shipped to the St. Louis market.
They were in transit 25 hours, and shrank 41 and 47 pounds per head
for lots 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 27.— Slaughter data {May 5, 1916, to January 5, 1917, ^.',6 days).

Lot No.

Number
of calves.

Averape
final farm

weight
per head.

Pounds.
735

Average Average

market shrinkage

weight en route

per head., to market.

Average
Shrinkage price paid

en route
tomarket.

Pounds.
644
692

Pounds.
41

47

Per ceni.
5.9
6.4

per hun-
dred-
weight,

$8. 0.5
8.47

Average
weight
of car-
■cass.i

Pounds.
340
379

Per cent dressed —

By farm
weignt.

Per cent.
49.6
51.5

By mar-
ket
weight.

Per cent.
52.8
54.7

1 Farm weights less 2 per cent shrinkage.

The calves of lot 1 sold for $8.05 per hundredweight, and those of
lot 2 sold for $8.47 per hundred pounds. The calves of lot 1 dressed
out 52.8 per cent and those of lot 2 dressed out 54,7 per cent by market
weights. The corn-fed calves were fatter than the cottonseed-meal
calves at the end of the feeding test, and this was reflected in the
dressing percentage.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

The financial outcome of this experiment was very satisfactory.
The calves cost or were valued at $5 per hundredweight in the spring.
Cottonseed cake in the summer cost $30.50 per ton, and the cotton-
seed meal in the winter cost $41.50 per ton. Corn silage was charged
at $3 per ton^ and pasture was charged in at 50 cents per calf per
28-day period.

Table 28 shows the financial outcome of the feeding of both lots of
calves :

Table 28. — Financial statement.
Lot 1:

To purchase 25 calves — 8.32.5 pounds, at $5 per hundredweight $416. 25

To 1.5,575 pounds cottonseed cake, at .$30.50 per ton 237. 52

To pasture, 179 days, at 50 cents per head per 28 days, 25 calves 79. 91

To 7,475 pounds cottonseed meal, at $41 per ton 1.53. 24

To 61..500 pounds corn silage, at $3 per ton__.

To freight charges to market

To commission, $15 ; yardage and feed, $8.25-

92.25
43.75
23.25

Total expenditures 1, 046. 17

By sale of 25 calves— 16,100 pounds, at $8.05 1, 296. 05

Total profit 249. 88

Average profit per calf .^_,_,„., ^_,, 10. 00

46 BULLETIN 631, tJ. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

Lot 2:

1*0 piifchase 24 calves— 8,lT0 pounds, at $5 per hundrertweiglit $408. 50

To 8,856 pounds cottonseed cake, at $30.50 per ton 135. 05

To 17,568 pounds shelled corn, at 80 cents per bushel 250. 97

To pasture, 24 calves, 179 days, at 50 cents each per 28 days 76. 71

To 4,776 pounds cottonseed meal, at $41 per ton _-_ 97. 91

To 9,576 pounds shelled corn, at 80 cents per bushel . 136. 80

To 46,512 pounds silage, at $3 per ton , 69. 77

To freight charges to market, 24 calves . 42, 00

To commission, $14.40; yardage and feeds, $7.92 22,32

Total expenditures _^_^. 1, 240. 03

By sale of 24 calves— 16,600 pounds, at $8.48 per hundredweight.- 1, 407. 68
By pork credit for hogs following calves ^^ 63, 63

Total 1, 471. 31

Total profit on 24 calves 231,28

Average pi-ofit per calf 9. 64

There were eight shoats which followed the calves of lot 2 while
in the feeding lot from November 7, 1916, to January 5, 1917, or 60
days. These shoats got no feed other than what they picked up
behind the calves. They cost 7^ cents per pound in the fall when
they were put in the feed lot. While they followed the calves they
gained 470 pounds in weight, or almost 1 pound per head per day.
The hogs sold for 10 cents a pound, making a total profit of $63.63.

After the calves paid for all the feeds consumed at market prices,
paid for the pasture at the rate of 50 cents per head per 28-day
periods, and paid for themselves at the prevailing price in the spring
and given a credit for pork produced they returned a profit of $10
a head when fed as lot 1 and $9.64 when fed as lot 2. If the shoats
had cost 10 cents per pound and sold for 10 cents per pound they
still would have returned a profit of $47; and when the calves are
given the credit for this amount of pork they produced, the profit per
calf woidd have been $8.91 per head instead of the actual profit of
$9.64 which was realized.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.

This experiment indicates that it is possible to handle the " short-
aged " calves, which always occur to a certain extent in all herds, in
such a manner as to realize a nice profit on them. As the calves
are too young to give satisfactory and profitable results by giving
a short feed in the fall and winter, it is a good plan to let them nurse
the cows during the winter while maintaining the cows and calves
in fair condition in an economical manner, weaning the calves when
grass becomes good in the spring, and feeding them on grass during
the summer. In case they did not become fat enough for the market
while on grass or if the market was weak and unsatisfactory they
could be finished in the feed lot for the Christmas market or for a
later market if desirable.

GALF feeding in ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 4*7

Cottonseed meal proved a very satisfactory concentrated ration
for the calves while on grass and also when being fed silage during
the winter. There was a greater tendency for the cottonseed-meal-
fed calves to grow instead of fattening than was the case with the
calves fed on shelled corn supplemented with cottonseed meal. The
cottonseed-meal-fed calves made satisfactory and economical gains
when the kind and condition of pasture were considered, as the sum-
mer of 1916 was a most unfavorable one in the prairie of Mississippi
for fattening cattle on grass.

The experiment indicates also that where corn can not be marketed
readily it can be fed to calves very satisfactorily and at a good return.
The corn-fed calves made better although more expensive gains than
the calves fed on cottonseed meal alone. If the profits on the hogs
and the increased selling price of the calves are taken into considera-
tion, the corn-fed calves made almost as much profit as the others.

If all the feeds except corn are charged at market prices and the
profit is considered, the value of the corn fed to the calves gave a
return of $1.57 per bushel for every bushel of corn consumed. It
is seen, therefore, that the feeding of corn would have been exceed-
ingly profitable to the man who could not have sold his corn in any
other way and would have been much more profitable to market it
in this Avay if a good market had been accessible.

Should the farmer who can sell his corn readily and purchase
cottonseed meal for feeding sell his corn or feed it ? To answer this
question let us see at what price he would have to charge his corn to
the calves in order to make as much profit as the cottonseed-meal-fcd
calves made. In this experiment, if the shelled corn had been charged
at 77 cents per bushel, the calves of each lot would have made the
same profit, namely, $10 per head. If corn could not have been sold
for enough over 77 cents per bushel for preparing it for market and
marketing, it would have been much more profitable to feed it to
calves than to sell it. This test indicates clearly that with good
calves corn can be fed at a profit even though it is worth a high price.
The better the calves, the more expensive corn can be fed without
danger of loss. With scrub or cheap cattle the southern farmer can
not afford to use high-priced corn.

In these experiments no charge has been made for labor, nor any
credit given for the manure produced. The value of the manure
will overbalance the cost of feeding, so that there is an indirect profit
in calf-feeding which has not been included or discussed in the
results.

This experiment indicates that while cattle are high-priced and
good pastures can be obtained for grazing purposes, the problem of
what to do with short-aged or late calves may be solved very profit-
ably by handling in the same manner tried out in this test.

48 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

SUMMARY.

1. Short-aged calves that are too young to wean and put on feed
in the fall can be fed grain while on pasture the following summer
and sold directly oif grass or finished in the dry lot,

2. During both the summer and the winter feeding periods the
calves that were fed shelled corn and cottonseed meal made larger but
more expensive gains than those fed on cottonseed meal as the sole
concentrate.

3. Gains made during the summer are very much cheaper than
those made in the dry lot during the winter.

4. The grain ration of the calves of lot 1 cost $9.50 and that for
lot 2, $16.08 for the summer.

5. The calves cost $5 per 100 pounds in the spring and the cost in
the fall after all feed and pasture was charged against them was
$5.02 and $5.73 per hundredweight for lots 1 and 2, respectively.

6. When on full feed, each calf of lot 1 ate 4| pounds of cottonseed
cake per day ; and of lot 2, 3 pounds cottonseed cake and 6 pounds of
shelled corn.

7. The calves were fed 179 days on pasture and 67 days in the dry
lot, or a total of 246 days.

8. The calves of lot 2, which received shelled com, were much
fatter than those of lot 1 when finished and they dressed out 2 per
cent more. They also sold for 43 cents more per hundredweight.

9. Eight pigs following the calves of lot 2 made one pound per
head per day gain and returned a pork credit per calf of $2.65.

10. When the pork credit is considered the calves fed corn re-
turned almost the same profit as the calves fed cottonseed meal.

11. For each calf of lot 2 to make the same profit as lot 1, namely,
$10 per head, the corn had to be charged at 77 cents per bushel
instead of 80 cents.

VI. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE FIVE YEARS' EXPERI-

MENTS.

The prices of the feeds and cattle used varied so much from year
to year that the financial statements of the various experiments are
not strictly comparable. If cottonseed meal was very cheap one year
and comparatively high another year, the financial outcome of the
two experiments would be misleading. This is true of all similar
experiments, and for this reason experimental data can not be used
directly by a feeder where conditions are different from those re-
ported in the experiment.

If the farmer is given certain data as to the average daily gains,
the amount of feed required to make 100 pounds of gain, and if he

CALF FEEDIXG IX ALABAMA AXD MISSISSIPPI. 49

knows what his cattle and feed cost, he can figure out very closely
how much profit he can make out of steer feeding if he receives 1^,
2, 2|, or 3 cents margin or spread on cattle. The data mentioned are
given in each of the experiments reported in this bulletin, and can,
therefore, be used by anvone familiar with figuring out profits on
cattle feeding.

To put the work reported in this bulletin on a more comparable
basis and to bring it more up to date some tabulations have been pre-
pared which show the amount of feed required to make 100 pounds
of gain, the cost of 100 pounds of gain, and the profit realized per
calf in each experiment, if they had be€n sold at various margins.
All calves are charged in at the average price of 6^ cents per pound
on the farm, and the average price of all of the feeds for the years
1915 and 1916 are used.

The Bureau of Crop Estimates furnished the following prices on
various feeds. These are the average for good quality for the years
of 1915 and 1916.

Cottonseed meal per ton__ $36. 00

Cottonseed cake do 36. 00

Shelled corn per bushel .86

Coi'n-and-cob meal per ton 26.00

Cotton.seed hulLs do 14. 00

Mixed alfalfa hay do 16.00

Corn silage do 3.50

Corn stover do 8.00

Cowpea hay do 15. 00

Oat straw do 8. 00

The prices of feed used in the calculation of Table 29 were as
follows :

Cottonseed meal per ton__ 36.00

Corn per bushel — . 86

Corn-and-cob meal do 26. 00

Corn chop do 32.00

Cottonseed hulls do 14. 00

Corn silage do 3.50

Alfalfa hay do 18. 00

Mixed alfalfa hay do 16.00

Pasture 50 cents per head for 28-day period.

If these prices for the feeds are used the cost of 100 pounds of gain
for the calves of lot 1 ranged from $7.89 in 1911-12 to $9.77 in
1912-13.

The cost of 100 pounds of gain for the corn-fed calves of lot 2
ranged from $8.68 to $9.65 per 100 pounds, or somewhat higher than
for the cottonseed-meal-fed calves.

The calves of lot 3, which were fed a heavy corn ration, made
still more expensive gains, the cost of each 100 pounds of gain
ranging from $7.77 to $11.13.

50

BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

Table 29. — Amount of feed consumed per hundred pounds gain and cost per

hundred pounds gain.

Station and year.

Ration.

Lotl.

Lot 2.

Lot 3.

Alabama, 1911-12.

Feed per hundredweight gain:

Cottonseed meal pounds . .

Corn-and-coli meal do

Cottonseed hulls do —

Mixed alfalfa hay do —

Cost per hundredweight gain

Alabama, 1912-13.

Abbott, Miss., 1914-15.

Abbott, Miss., 1915-16..

Abbott, Miss., 1916-17
Summer

Feed per hundredweight gain:

Cottonseed meal pounds..!

Corn chop do

Cottonseed hulls do '

Com silage do — '

Cost per hundredweight gain j

Feed per hundredweight gain: j

Cottonseed meal pounds. . j

Corn-and-cob meal do. . .

Cottonseed hulls do. . .

Corn silage do. . .

Alfalfa hay do . . .

Cost per hundredweight gain

528
222

175
946'
9.' 77'

214

Feed per himdredweight gain;

Cottonseed meal pounds.

Shelled corn do...

Corn silage do...

Alfalfa hay do. . .

Cost per hundredweight gain

Feed per hundredweight gain:

Cottonseed cake pounds .

Shelled corn do. . .

Pasture do...

Cost per hundredweight gain

346

774

207

$9.48

1,318

268

$8.55

247

115

58
566
238

144
72

536
1,084
$9.39

172
86
309
690
191
$9.31

353
1,025

269
$9.65

126
250

77
154
602
255

$9.64

176

438
875

$7.77

112
225
331
753
217
$10.33

489

769

250

$11.13

Winter.

Feed per hundredweight gain:

Cottonseed meal pounds.

Shelled com do. . .

Com silage do. . .

Cost per hundredweight gain

$5.04

299
'2,' 460

$6.58

195
391

1,900
$12.86

The calf- feeding work of 1916-17 shows most clearly the value of
pasture supplemented with a grain ration for fattening calves. The
cottonseed-meal-fed calves of lot 1 made 100 pounds of gain in the
summer for $5.04, whereas in the winter the same gain in weight cost
$9.68. When one-third cottonseed meal and two-thirds shelled corn
were fed as the grain ration the calves of lot 2 made gains during the
summer at $6.58 and during the winter at $12.86 per 100 pounds.

In Table 30 no account is taken of the pork that would be produced
behind the calves receiving corn, and this amount must be calculated
and added to the profits for the cx)rn-fed calves. There w^ould be no
pork credit for the calves of lot 1, fed cottonseed meal, and a smaller
credit for those fed corn-and-cob meal than the ones fed shelled corn
or broken ear corn. At the present prices of pork, it would be con-
servative to add a pork credit of $2 to $3.50 per calf for the calves
of lots 2 and 3 for the last three years, depending upon the amount
of corn fed to each lot. This amount of profit should be added to
the profit shown in the table.

In Table 29 it is seen that in every year except 1912-13 where corn
■was fed the cost of the gains was more than where cottonseed meal
was fed as the sole concentrate.

CALF FEEDING IN AL.^BAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

51

The profit per calf as shown in Table 30 is computed on the basis
of a spread or margin of selling over purchase price of 1^, 2, 2^ and
2^ cents per pound.

Table 30. — Profit realized per calf if they sell for li. 2, 21, and 2^ centa above
cost price of Qi cents per pound}

Sold at

margin

of—

Profit per calf.

Station and year.

Lotl.

Lot 2.

Lot 3.

Alabama 191 1 12

Cents.

n

2

2i

2i

n

2
2i

2\

Ji
2

2i
2i

\\
2
2J
1\

li

2

25

2:V

$5.80
a 75
10.24
11.65

2.99
5.52
6.78
8.04

-3.89

- .76

.79

2.35

3.98
7.24
8.87
10.50

6.11
9.33
10 94
12.55

$4.37
7.17
8.58
9.98

4.52
7.06
8.33
9.60

-5.99

-2.11

-1.41

.11

-2.90

.42

2.08

3.74

-4.12

- .66

1.07

2.79

$2.88

5.48
6.97
8.33

Alabama 1912-13

5.50

7.97
9.21
10.45

Aboott Miss. 1914-15

-4.92

-1.81

- .24

1.29

'\bbott, Miss., 1915-16

-7.81

-4.43
-2.73
-1.04

Ahhott Mi<N 1Q16-17

1 No credit has been given in the table for the pork produced.

Table 30 shows that when the average price of feeds for the last
two years is taken as a standard, the calves that were fed cottonseed
meal as the sole concentrate would have made a nice profit every
year, except one, on a margin of 1^ cents per pound.

During the years 1911-12 and 1912-13, when ear corn ground into
corn-and-cob meal was fed in very small quantities a bigger profit
was shown on a margin of 1^ cents than where corn was fed in larger
amounts daily. The work of each of the first two years is strictly
comparable with each other, and the work of each of the last three
years is also comparable, but as light corn rations were fed the first
two years and heavy ones the last three years, the two groups of
years are not comparable with each other. In the work of the last
three years, where a medium to heavy grain ration was fed, there
would be naturally a larger pork credit per calf, otherwise the heavy
corn feeding would have been A-ery unprofitable.

The calves that were fed corn liberally made more rapid gains than
calves fed on cottonseed meal alone and fattened much faster, as
there was a tendency for the calves that were fed cottonseed meal as
the sole concentrate to grow instead of fattening. The corn-fed

52 BULLETIN 631, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

calves also sold somewhat higher because they were fatter; but
though prime calves could not be made when cottonseed meal was fed
as the sole concentrate, it wTas usually more economical and more
profitable to feed cottonseed meal alone than to feed a combination
of cottonseed meal and corn or a ration of corn alone. This is owing
to the comparative cheapness of cottonseed meal with corn when the
feeding value of the two concentrates is considered. As long as cot-
tonseed meal remains cheap and com relatively high in price the re-
sults probably will be the same. There are some exceptions to this,
however. On farms where considerable corn is raised and can be
marketed only at considerable expense, the farmer can get a good
price for the com by feeding it to his calves and hogs. The higher
the quality of the calves the less danger of loss there is in feeding
more expensive corn. Calves of high quality usually pay better re-
turns for the feed consumed than scrub calves.

When corn was fed liberally the calves invariably finished out bet-
ter than the cottonseed-meal-fed calves and usually made larger daily
gains. They usually sold for somewhat more per hundredweight and
killed out a higher percentage of drassed meat.

Although prime calves could not be made by feeding cottonseed
meal as the sole concentrate, the calves became fat enough and made
gains cheap enough to sell well and return a good profit year after
year. While cottonseed meal continues relatively cheap, good profits
can be made by feeding it to fattening calves.

Corn silage proved a much more satisfactory roughage for fatten-
ing calves than cottonseed hulls.

The calves made a profit every year when feeds were charged in
at cost; but in some cases the profit was small, as the value of the
manure has not been considered in writing up these tests.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FOR THE FIVE YEARS' CALF FEEDING.

The calf-feeding work reported in this bulletin covers a period of
five years. The calves used in all of the experiments were very simi-
lar in age. size, breeding, and quality. Those fed during the first
four years of the experimental work reported in this bulletin were
fed in a very similar manner, as the general conditions under which
the feeding was done were very similar. The calves averaged from
six to eight months of age in the fall when they were put on feed.

In all five years' work there has been a comparison of the value of
cottonseed meal and a combination of cottonseed meal and corn for
fattening calves for the market. In some cases the corn was fed as
corn-and-cob meal, in others as corn chop, and in still others as
shelled corn, but the comparison of cottonseed meal and corn has
remained throughout.

CALF FEEDING IN ALABAMA AXD MISSISSIPPI. 53

The roughage used during one year was not the same as that used
another year, but each year the roughage was exactly the same for
the lots which were being compared.

In the first two tests, where corn was substituted for cottonseed
meal, the substitution was made pound for pound and the results
were unsatisfactory, because a pound of corn has a much smaller
feeding value than a pound of cottonseed meal; and the corn-fed
calves therefore were getting a smaller amount of digestible nutrients
and consequently did not do as well as the cottonseed-meal-fed calves.
During the later experiments, where corn was substituted for cotton-
seed meal, the substitution was made in about the proportion of 2
pounds of corn for 1 pound of cottonseed meal.

The use of corn invariably increased the cost of the gains made,
regardless of the kind and amount of roughage used. Where corn
was fed very sparingly as a substitute for cottonseed meal, the
amount or size of the daily gains of the calves was not increased : but
where corn was fed liberally the calves made larger daily gains than
the calves fed on cottonseed meal alone. The increased gains were
not great enough, however, to overbalance or offset the increased cost
of the gains, so the cottonseed-meal-fed calves were usually a little
more profitable.

Unless the calves that were fed coiti were followed by shoats to
utilize the waste grain, the feeding of corn was not as profitable as
the use of cottonseed meal as the sole concentrate.

In the South, during the last three years, there has often been a
margin of 2 to 3 cents a pound between purchase price of calves at
weaning time and selling price in the spring. Under such conditions,
with the current prices of feedstuffs, the feeding of calves for the
market has been very profitable.

The work of 1916-17 indicates that calves too young to wean and
fatten for market in the fall can be made to pay a nice profit by
letting them nurse the cows during the winter, feeding them grain
on grass the following summer, and selling them in the fall, or by
following the summer feeding with a short feeding in the dry lot and
selling about Christmas or soon after.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-
CULTURE RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS BULLETIN.

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Forage Crops for the Cotton Region. (Farmers' Bulletin 509.)

Texas or Ticli Fever. (Farmers' Bulletin 569.)

Handling and Feeding of Silage. (B'armers' Bulletin 578.)

Beef Production in the South. ( Farmers' Bulletin 580. )

Economical Cattle Feeding in the Corn Belt. (Farmers' Bulletin 588.)

Breeds of Beef Cattle. (Farmers' Bulletin 612.)

Cottonseed Meal for Feeding Beef Cattle. (Farmers' Bulletin 655.)

Production of Baby Beef. ( Farmers' Bulletin 811. )

How Live Stock is Handled in the Bluegrass Region of Kentucky. (Farmers'

Bulletin 812.)
Utilization of Farm Wastes in Feeding Live Stock. (Farmers' Bulletin 873.)
Raising and Fattening Beef Calves in Alabama. (Department Bulletin 73.)
The Production of Beef in the South. (Yearbook Separate 627.)

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Feeding for Meat Production. (Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 108.)
Price, 10 cents.

Beef Production in Alabama : 1. Cost of Raising Cattle. 2. Wintering Steers
Preparatory to Summer Fattening on Pasture. 3. Fattening Cattle on Pas-
ture. (Bureau of Animal Industry Buleltin 131.) Price, 10 cents.

Nutritive Value of Nonprotein of Feeding Stuffs. (Bureau of Animal Industry
Bulletin 139.) Price, 10 cents.

Maintenance Rations of Farm Animals. (Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin
143.) Price, 15 cents.

Fattening Calves in Alabama. (Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 147.)
Price, 10 cents.

Feeding Beef Cattle in Alabama: 1. Winter Pattering on Cottonseed Meal,
Cotton.seed Hulls, Corn Silage, and Johnson Grass Hay. 2. Wintering Steers
Followed by Summer Fattening on Pasture. 3. Value of Shelter for Fatten-
ing Cattle in Alabama. 4. Early Compared with Late Fattening of Steers
on Pasture. (Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 159.) Price, 10 cents.

Fattening Cattle in Alabama. (Department Bulletin 110.) Price, 5 cents.

Use of Energy Values in the Computation of Rations for Farm Animals. ( De-
partment Bulletin 459. ) Price, 5 cents.

A Method of Calculating Economical Balanced Rations. (Department Bulletin
627.) Price, 5 cents.

Meat Situation in the United States. Part IV. Utilization and Efficiency of
Available American Feed Stuffs. (Report 112.) Price, 5 cents.
54

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

10 CEN^TS PER COPY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

mmm BULLETIN No. 632

Contribution Trnni the Bureau of flant Industry
\\M. A. TAYLOR, Chief

WW

Washington, D. C.

PROFESSIONAL PAPER

November 30, 1917

THE UTILIZATION OF WASTE TOMATO SEEDS

AND SKINS.

By Frank Rabak, Clicniical BioUxjist, Drug-Plant and Poisonous-riant Investi-
gations, Bureau of Plant Industry.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Introduction 1

Commercial products from tomato refuse 1

Accumulation and disposal of tomato waste. . 3

Percentages of seeds and skins 3

DryinK the waste material and separat-
ing the seeds o

Extraction of tomato-seed oil 5

Physical and chemical properties of the

crude and the refined oil 7

Page.

Extraction of tomato-seed oil— Continued.

Chemical examination of the oil 7

Available quantity of the oil 9

I'ses and value of the oil ID

Tomato-seed meal 11

Utilization for stock feeding 11

Available quantity of the meal 12

Summary 12

literature cited 14

INTRODUCTION.

The manufacture of tomato products in the United States con-
stitutes an industry of large and growing proportions and impor-
tance. Tomatoes serve as the basis for two general classes of prod-
ucts, in one of which the fresh whole tomatoes are used and in the
other the pulp alone, as in the manufacture of catsups and soups.
For this latter class large quantities of tomatoes are required, from
which the seeds and skins at present are discarded as useless.

The increased interest in the production of foodstuffs throughout
the country will doubtless result in an extension of all canning and
packing operations, including tomato products. In the following
pages attention is directed to the possible utilization of the Avaste
tomato material, not only from the standpoint of food conservation,
but as a profitable adjunct to the tomato-canning industry,

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS FROM TOMATO REFUSE.

By proper treatment, tomato refuse may be made to produce
two important products, namely, fixed oil and meal, both of which

18025°— 17

2 BULLETIN 632, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

possess considerable value. The seeds of the tomato contain a fatty
oil of excellent quality, and the seed cake is valuable as a stock food.

Considerable work has already been done in foreign countries,
especially in Italy, on the utilization of tomato Avaste. Battaglia
(4)^ in 1901 investigated tomato-seed oil and reported on its prop-
erties. Later, Kochs (9), in an investigation of certain residues,
mentioned tomato-seed oil and discussed its properties, stating that
17.3 per cent of oil having an agreeable taste and smell could be ob-
tained from the seeds.

In the manufacture of tomato products, Italy perhaps leads all
countries. The industry there has assumed such proportions that
the problem of the proper disposal of the residues has become an
important consideration. Perciabosco and Semeraro (12) in 1910
investigated tomato residues with a view to extracting the fatty oil,
determining also the industrial value of the oil and the fertilizer
and feeding values of the residues after extraction. The oil ex
tracted by carbon liisulphid was found to have properties similar to
those of the oil previously reported by Battaglia. The fat-free
residues were found to be useful for fertilizing purposes.

Harcourt (6) in 1907 called attention to the tomato refuse ac-
cumulating in increasing quantities at the canning factories in
Canada. It was reported that a large portion of the refuse was
flushed into near-by rivers, but in some cases it was allowed to
accumulate near the factories, thus becoming a nuisance. Some of
the refuse was spread over the land as a fertilizer. The manurial
value was tested and found to compare favorably with barnyard
manure in the three important elements, potash, phosphoric acid,
and nitrogen.

Accomazzo (1) in 1910 stated that in the province of Parma, Italy.
850,000 quintals (83.660 tons) of tomatoes were used annually. This
quantity would yield from 11,000 to 12,000 tons of skins and seeds,
containing about 80 per cent moisture. After removing the greater
portion of the moisture the residue would amount to about 3,000 to
4,000 tons, of which about two-thirds are seeds. It is stated that
these seeds when extracted by pressure yield 18 per cent of oil and
by solvents 20 per cent. It would therefore be possible to recover
from 500 to 600 tons of oil from the waste seeds. Tomato-seed oil
is stated to have a heat value about equal to that of olive oil. When
treated with driers it acquires good drying properties and is also
useful in soap making. The press cake is said to have excellent
nutritive value.

Fachini (5) also recommends the extraction of oil from the seeds,
but instead of drying the residue, as proposed by Accomazzo, he

*The serial numbers In parentheses refer to "Literature cited," pp. 14—15.

UTILIZATION OF WASTE TOMATO SEEDS AND SKINS. 3

suggests i\ method of separating the seeds from the skins by agitat-
ing the material with water and allowing it to settle, whereupon the
seeds fall to the bottom. The greater part of the water can then be
removed from the wet seeds by centrifugal machines, after which
the seeds arc dried easih' and the oil can be removed by exti'action
or pressure.

According to Consul Keena (8). Florence. Italy, the utilization
of tomato Avaste and the extraction of the oil from the seeds was
first attempted by a firm in Parma in 1910. The success of the
undertaking led to the establishment of two other factories the fol-
lowing year. About .5,000 metric tons (1 metric ton=2,204 pounds)
of wet tomato waste, corresponding to 1,500 metric tons of dry waste,
were worked out for the extraction of the oil and manufacture of
the meal. These operations yielded 150 tons of oil, 800 tons of oil
cake, and 500 tons of tomato skins.

Tomato-seed oil has been utilized in the manufacture of soap, and
the conversion of the crude oil into an edible oil is also receiving
attention. The press cake is used in the manufacture of stock feed,
while the skins are suggested as a fertilizer.

The seeds are sold at Parma for 14 cents per 100 pounds, while at
Naples the wet residue is sold at 4 to 8 cents per 100 pounds. This
residue, which ferments readily, must be collected and dried daily.
When dry it sells at $1.75 to $2.20 per 100 pounds.

More recently attention has been called by Shriver (14) to the vast
quantities of tomato seeds and skins accumulating as waste products
from the rapidly growing canned-tomato industry in Italy. The
problem of the proper disposition of this waste has been receiving at-
tention since 1908. at which time a manufacturing plant was estab-
lished in Milan, with branch drying plants at Parma, Ceriale, Cervia,
Piacenza, and Pilastro.

The oil is sold in the crude state for $7 per 100 pounds, and the
refined oil for $8.75 per 100 pounds. The press cake is mixed with the
skins and other ingredients and sold as stock feed.

The yield of oil from the seeds is stated by Shriver to be about 20
l)er cent by pressure and 22 per cent by solvents. In 1913, from 100
to 150 metric tons of oil and 1.000 metric tons of stock feed were
manufactured in Milan from the press cake and skins.

Bailey and Burnett (3), working with American tomato seeds, ex-
tracted the oil by pressure and found that it could be refined and
bleached easily and was apparently a satisfactory food oil.

ACCUMULATION AND DISPOSAL OF TOMATO WASTE.

PERCENTAGES OF SEEDS AND SKINS.

For the preparation of tomato pulp, the fresh tomatoes, after being
carefully sorted to remove the culls, are thoroughly washed by a

4 BULLETIN 632^ U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

stream of water under pressure, then passed into receptacles where
they are cooked with steam, and afterward are transferred to a
cyclone machine, which removes the pulp. The seeds and skins pass
out and are discarded. By the cold process the Avashed tomatoes
l.ass directly to the cyclone machine.

The total quantity of tomato waste which accumulates annually
in the United States depends not only upon the pack of any particu-
lar season but also upon the percentage of seeds contained in the
fresh tomatoes. The seed content varies with the variety of tomato.
Estimated from the figures given by Accomazzo (1), Italian-grown
tomatoes contain 14.7 per cent of Avet waste, of Avhich about 80 per
cent is water. After removing the greater portion of the water,
the waste amounts to 4.8 per cent. Of this Avaste. which probably
still contains some moisture. 73 per cent is seeds. The dry waste as
it occurs in Italy is stated to contain about 66 per cent by weight of
seeds (15). These percentages are considerably higher than the
results obtained from American-grown tomatoes.

Two experiments in different localities were made with American-
grown tomatoes which had been used for pulping purposes, to de-
termine the percentage of seeds and skins. The quantity of fresh
tomatoes used in the two experiments was 2,320 pounds and 5,344
pounds, respectively. The results were as follows : Wet waste, 5.43
and 5.44 per cent; dry waste, 1.11 and 0.95 per cent. The dry waste
in these experiments contained 46.3 and 42.8 per cent seeds and 53.7
and 57.2 per cent skins, respectively.

According to Street (16, p. 128-129), fresh tomatoes contain 1.35
per cent dry waste, consisting of 49.3 per cent seeds and 50.7 per
cent skins. Using these figures as a basis for calculation, American-
grown tomatoes contain on the average about 1.13 per cent dry waste,
of which 46.1 per cent is seeds and 53.9 per cent skins. Fresh toma-
toes therefore contain the equivalent of 0.52 per cent dry seeds and
0.61 per cent dry skins.

In order to learn the approximate annual output of tomato refuse
in the United States, the writer personally visited 21 of the largest
tomato-pulping firms. These manufacturing concerns operate largely
in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio in the Middle West, and New
Jersey. Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware, and Maryland in the
East. Detailed figures regarding the output of refuse were not
available in each State. The extent of the industry, however, may
be realized when it is learned that in Indiana alone 120,000 tons of
tomatoes are pulped annually. Applying the percentages previously
mentioned, the amount of dry waste in this one State would be about
1,356 tons, or 624 tons of seeds and 732 tons of skins.

Not all the firms engaged in pulping tomatoes could be reached ;
therefore accurate information in regard to the total quantity used

UTILIZATION OF WASTE TOMATO SEEDS AND SKINS. 5

annually could not be obtained. But from the figures gi\en by the
lirms visited, supplemented by correspondence with other firms, it is
estimated that 275,000 tons are ])ulped annually. Adding to this the
tonnage of culls, from which also the seeds and skins could be sepa-
rated, a conservative estimate would be about 300,000 tons.

This Umnage. of course, would vary from year to year. However,
owing to the increasing demand for tomato pnxhicts, the tonnage
will tend to increase each year.

The quantity of wet waste resulting annually would be about
16.000 tons, which would yield approximately 3,000 tons of dry
waste. This dry waste Avould yield about 1,500 tons of dry seeds
and 1,800 tons of dry skins.

DRYING THE WASTE MATERIAL AND SEPARATING THE SEEDS.

An unportaut problem in connection with the utilization of tomato
waste is the drying of the mass and separating the seeds from the
skins. According to Shriver (U, p. 21-22), this problem is handled
in Italy in the following manner:

The wet seeds aud skins are passed through a press to remove as much of
the moisture as possible. They are then passed through a desiccator, or drier,
in which the material is kept in constant motion by means of horizontal con-
veyers, finally emerging from the machine in a dry condition. Heat is applied
to the drier by means of steam pipes or by forced air.

It is stated that about 10 tons of residue can be dried in 24 hours.
The final operation consists in passing the dried material through a
machine supplied with a series of sieves and fans, which results in
the complete separation of the seeds from the skins.

A number of types of desiccators, or driers, are manufactured in
the United States which would be admirably suited for drying the
wet waste. It has been suggested that a sugar-beet drier would
handle the material efficiently. No great difficulty should be ex-
perienced in constructing a separator consisting of sieves and fans
for the separation of the seeds from the skins.

EXTRACTION OF TOMATO-SEED OIL.

Two methods of extraction are applicable for obtaining fatty oil
from seeds. The pressure method is perhai)s the simplest and most
expeditious, being well adapted to seeds containing a fairly high per-
centage of oil. The most careful manipulation of this process, how-
ever, leaves a residual portion of the oil in the press cake. The ex-
peller type of press is perhaps the best adapted for seeds having
a comparatively low percentage of oil. Even with this type of ma-
chine a small percentage of oil remains in the press cake. This, how-
ever, is not a total loss, since the value of the cake is enhanced by
the presence of some fat. A distinct advantage of the pressure

6 BULLETIN m2, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

method is in the better quality of the product obtained. Pressed oils
usually contain less impurities and consequently are more readily
and effectively refined.

When the maximum percentage of oil is desired from certain ma-
terials the volatile-solvent method of extraction serves best. The
principal solvents which may be employed are benzine, petroleum
ether, gasoline, and carbon tetrachlorid. A disadvantage of this
method is in the inflammability of many of the solvents, necessi-
tating careful handling and operation. This trouble is largely over-
come by the use of carbon tetrachlorid, which is noninflammable and
possesses a higher boiling point than any of the other solvents and
hence is capable of effecting more complete recovery. Oils obtained
by the solvent extraction method are usually less pure than expressed
oils, containing much coloring n^atter and other impurities extracted
by the particular solvent employed. No great difficulty is experi-
enced, however, in refining the oils thus obtained. Pressed oils also
require refining.

Apparatus of the continuous-extraction type is usually employed.
This kind of apparatus minimizes the quantity of solvent used and
prevents loss of the solvent during the operation. Practically all the
solvent may be recovered from the oil and residue and thus be avail-
able for further use. A practical example of the use of a volatile
solvent for the extraction of fatty oil is the use of benzine in the ex-
traction of soy-bean oil (11). The disadvantages of the solvent
method as compared with the advantages of the pressure method
are largely offset by the lower cost of the apparatus, the smaller ex-
pense of operation, and the higher yield of oil obtainable.

Continuous extractors and hydraulic presses are obtainable from
American manufacturers of chemical and pharmaceutical machinery.

Either of the two methods mentioned may be used effectively in
the extraction of oil from tomato seeds. The solvent extraction
method was used for obtaining the samples in the experiments de-
scribed in this bulletin. The apparatus employed was the contin-
uous-extraction type, the solvents used being ether and carbon tetra-
chlorid. The yield of oil from the ground seeds with either solvent
was practically the same, averaging 22 per cent. The crude oil was
pale greenish yellow in color with a fatty, slightly rancid odor and
fatty, slightly bitter taste.

In refining the crude oil the objectionable odor was removed by
passing steam through the oil until little or no odor was perceptible.
The deodorized oil was then heated on a steam bath for about one
hour with fuller's earth (kaolin) and finally filtered while hot
through filter paper. This procedure effected decolorization of the
oil to a Urarked degree. The refined oil possessed a very pale yel-
lowish color with bland fatty and agreeable nutlike taste and smell.

UTILIZATION Oi' WASTE TOMATO SEEDS AND SKINS. 7

PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE CRUDE AND THE REFINED OILS.

Some of the more common physical and chemical constants of the
crude and the refined oils were determined, as shown in T;dde I. For
purposes of comparison the properties of some of the tomato-seed
oils of foreign origin are also included in the table.

Table I. — Physical and chemical constants'^ of tomato-seed oil front, domestic

and foreign tomatoes.

Domestic oil.

Foreign investigators.

Physical

and chemical

constants.

Crude.

Refined.

Acco-

mazzo(l).

Battaglia

(4).

Kochs (9).

Percia-

bosco and

Semeraro

(12).

Color

Pale greenish yel-
low.

Fatty, nutlike,
slightly rancid.

Fattv, slightly
bitter.

0 9216 6

Very pale yellow. .

Brownish red.

Agreeable, to-
matolike.
do

Odor

Fatty, bland, nut-

Taste

like.
Fatty, bland, nut-

Specific gravity.
Index of refrac-

like: no bitter
aftertaste.
0 9184 6

0.920 c...

0.922 <•...
1 5730 . . .

0.920'-

0.9244.C

L4694d

1.471^(1

tion.
Congealing point

Turbid at 0° C;
yellow gelati-
nous mass at
-7°C.

8.8

190.4

Turbid at 2° C;
solid, very pale
yellow mass at
-10' C.

2.5

188.6

Thick liquid
at -9" C.

9

Acid value . .

"183.6.".".;
117

26.3

190.4....

106.9....

1.823.

Saponification

value,
lodin value

183.6

117.8

1S9.4.

108

114.2

87.7.

o Determined according to standard methods (17). > At 24° C.

cAtl5°C. dAt25°C.

From Table I may be noted the general effect of the refining
process upon the physical and chemical properties of the oil. The
color, odor, and taste of the refined oil show much improvement over
the same properties of the crude oil. The specific gravity and index
of refraction show changes due to the removal of impurities by the
refining process. The congealing point of the refined oil has likewise
changed. The acid value is materially lower than that of the crude
oil, owing to the removal of the free fatty acids. The saponification
and iodin values show similar differences due to the removal of im-
purities.

Among the oils of foreign origin the properties reported by Bat-
taglia correspond more nearly to those of the crude oil of domestic
origin, while the remainder compare favorably in most cases with the
refined domestic oil.

CHEMICAL EXAMINATION OF THE OIL.

In addition to the chemical constants a further examination of the
refined oil was made to determine its approximate composition. The
determinations were made according to standard methods (17, p.
138-139). No soluble acids were found, but 96.2 per cent of insoluble

8

BULLETIN 6?/l, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUBB.

acids ^vere present. These insoluble acids were separated into the
solid and liquid acids by means of the lead-ether method (17, p. -ib).
The mixed acids were found to consist of solid acids 17.54 per cent
and liquid acids 75.84 per cent.

The physical and chemical properties of the insoluble acids and the
solid and liquid acids, were determined with the results sliown in
Table II.

Table II.

-Physical and chemical properties of insoluble, solid, and liquid acids
of tomato-seed oil.

Physical and chemical
properties.

Insoluble acids.

Solid acids.

Liquid acids.

Color

Pale golden yellow;
partly solid.

Snowy white, flaky

Fatty

Pale golden yellow.

Odor

Pleasant, nutlike.

Taste

Fatty, tallowlike

Sweetish, nutlike, be-

Specific gravity at 25° C. .

0.9100 ...

coming slightly bitter.
0.9013.

1.4655

1.4654.

25° C.
Congealing poiat

+ 21.5° C. to +20.5° C...
180

Melting point; 53.5° C. . .
204

192.3

104.3

130.

The solid acids, comprising 17.54 per cent of the oil, probably
consist largely of palmitic and stearic acids with neutralization
values of 219.1 and 197.5, respectively. The neutralization value
204 would indicate a mixture of these two acids. Although the melt-
ing point of crude solid acids is considerably lower than either
palmitic or stearic acids, which melt when pure at G2° C. and 69° C,
respectively, it is very probable that this is tlue to the presence of
impurities.

Calculating from the neutralization value 204, the mean molec-
ular weight of the solid acids wus found to be 275. This indicates
the presence of palmitic and stearic acids, since the molecular weight
of these acids are 256 and 284, respectively.

In order to ascertain the approximate proportions of these two
acids in the mixed solid acids, a calculation was made according
to the method suggested by Lewkowitsch (10, v. 1, p. 515), using as
a basis 275, the mean molecular weight of these solid acids. By
this method, the percentage of palmitic acid was found to be 67.8
and of stearic acid 32.2.

Since 17.54 per cent of the original oil consists of solid acids, the
oil therefore contains palmitic acid 11.88 per cent and stearic acid
5.64 per cent. Because the palmitic and stearic acids exist in the oil
as palmitin and stearin, it is necessary to reduce the above figures
to terms of these glycerids. The glycerid palmitin contains 95.29
per cent of palmitic acid, and the glycerid stearin contains 95.73
per cent of stearic acid. By calculation, therefore, it is found that

UTILIZATION OF WASTE TOMATO SEEDS AND SKINS. 9

tomato-seed oil contains 12.47 per cent of pahuitin and 5.89 per
cent of stearin.

The liquid acids, constituting- 75.84 per cent of the oil, possess
properties which indicate the presence of oleic acid and possibly
some linoleic acid.

The specific gravity of the liquid acids, 0.9013 at 25° C,
would indicate a mixture of oleic and linoleic acids, since the specific
gravity of pure oleic acid is 0.893 at 25° C. and linoleic acid 0.9206
at 14° C. The index of refraction corresponds closely with oleic
acid, which possesses an index of refraction of 1.4603 at 25° C.

The neutralization value of 192.3 is somewhat lower than that of
pure oleic acid, 198.9, and pure linoleic acid, 200.4. The iodin value,
130, possibly also indicates a mixture of oleic and linoleic acids
with a preponderance of oleic acid. Some connnercial oleic acids
have idoin values as high as 100 to 110, while pure linoleic acid
possesses an iodin value of 181.42.

Using the method ofXewkowitsch (10, v. 1, p. 457), for calculating
the approximate proportions of oleic and linoleic acids present from
the iodin value as a basis, it was found that the liquid acids consist of
56.8 per cent of oleic acid and 43.2 per cent of linoleic acid. Reducing
these percentages of oleic and linoleic acids to terms of the original
oil, which consists of 75.84 per cent of liquid acids, it is found that
the oil contains approximately 43,07 per cent of oleic acid and 32.76
per cent of linoleic acid. These acids are contained in the oil in
the form of the glycerids olein and linolein, which contain 95.7 and
95.67 per cent, respectively, of oleic and linoleic acids. By calculation
it is found, therefore, that the oil consists approximately of 45 per
cent of olein and 34.2 per cent of linolein.

A summary of the results of the chemical examination of tomato-
seed oil indicates the following approximate composition: Olein, 45
per cent; linolein, 34.2 per cent: palmitin. 12.47 per cent; stearin,
5.89 per cent — the remaining portion consisting of free acids and
unsaponifiable matter.

AVAILABLE QUANTITY OF THE OIL.

Estimating the annual output of dry tomato waste from the various
pulping plants in the United States at 3,390 tons, there Avoukl result
from this waste 1,560 tons of dry seeds. The quantity of oil capable
of being extracted from these seeds is readily ascertained. Since by
extracting with volatile solvents 22 per cent of the oil can be ob-
tained, the total available quantity would be about 343 tons annually.
This quantity would, however, increase each year with the increased
output of tomato products.

10 BULLETIN 032, U. S. DEra.KTMEKT OF AGKIUULTURE.

USES AND VALUE OF THE OIL.

Classifying fatt}^ oils as drying, semidrying, and nondrying, to-
mato-seed oil possibly falls into the semidrying class, bordering,
however, very nearly on the nondrying class. In order that the na-
ture of tomato-seed oil may be better imderstood, a comparison is
given in Table III of some of the more important properties of a
number of oils of commerce belonging in the same class with tomato-
seed oil (10, V. 2).

Table III.

-Physical and chemical properties of tomato-seed oil and several
important oils of commerce.

Oils.

Specific gravity
at 15° C.

Congealing
point (°C).

Saponiflcation
value.

lodin value.

Index of
refraction
at20°C.

Tomato seed

0.9184a

0.922 to 0.930...
0. 924 to 0. 927 .. .
0.9203 to 0.9260..
0.9213

Turbid at -2;
pale yellow
solid " mass
at -10.

3 to 4

188.6

191 to 196. 5
190. 6 to 192. 9
187.6 to 194.6
188 to 193. 4

114.2

100.9 to 116.9
121 to 124
103 to 115
112 to 130. 8

fc 1.4715

1. 4722

witseh (10, p. 149-150).
Soy bean, Lewkowitsch

(10, p. 123).
Sesame, Lewkowitsch

(10, p. 173).
Corn, Lewkowitsch (10,

p. 131-132).

+ 15 to + 8....
- 4 to - 6....
-10 to -20...

1.4728
i 1. 4768

o At 24=0.

6 At25°C.

c At 15.5 °C.

The similarity of tomato-seed oil to the commercial oils given in
Table III indicates the classification of this oil. The oils mentioned
in connection with tomato-seed oil are applied commercially in a
number of ways. As edible oils they are highly prized. On account
of their drying properties some are employed extensively in the
manufacture of paints and varnishes, while others find important
application as soap stock.

Tomato-seed oil," with properties similar to cottonseed, soy-bean,
sesame, and corn oils, should be equally useful and applicable to the
same purposes as these oils of commerce.

Experiments conducted with tomato-seed oil by Dr. A. D. Holmes,
of the Office of Home Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
to determine its digestibility, showed that the oil possesses a coeffi-
cient of digestibility of &7, comparing favorably Avith olive, almond,
cottonseed, peanut, coconut, sesame, walnut, and brazil-nut oils.
Well-refined tomato-seed oil is therefore to be recommended for
culinary purposes. As a salad oil it should prove very satisfactory.
The edible quality of the oil suggests also its possible hydrogenation
and application as a margarine oil.

An experiment to determine its saponifying properties was con-
ducted in order to obtain information regarding its possible use
as soaD stock. By cold saponification with caustic soda and subse-

UTII.IZATION OF WASTK TOMATO SEEDS AND SKINS.

11

quent salting and pressing, a soap of good texture with excellent
lathering qualities was produced. If combined with oils rich in
palmitin or stearin, satisfactory toilet soap doubtless could be pre-
pared. Owing to the present threatened shortage of oils for the
manufacture of soaps and glycerine the utilization of tomato-seed
oil as a soap stock asserts itself.

Experiments to determine tlie drying properties of the oil showed
that 16 days were required to form a soft, sticky film. The nature
of the film as Avell as the time of drying could in all probability be
improved and hastened by the addition of siccatives or driers to the
oil. It appears, therefore, that the oil possesses a certain value as
a paint or varnish oil.

The \alue of the oil in commei'ce would necessarily depend upon
the particular use to which it could be a])plied and to the demand
in general for fatty oils. From the results of the investigation, it
appears that it should prove a valuable addition to the edible or
condimental oils now in use. Likewise it should find an important
place among the much-needed soap oils of commerce.

TOMATO-SEED MEAL.

UTILIZATION FOR STOCK FEEDING.

The residue remaining after extracting the oil from the seeds
constitutes the meal. The utilization of this meal as stock feed is
suggested. In order to ascertain the approximate composition of
the meal, a careful analysis was made. The results are shown in
Table IV, together with analyses of some commercial stock feeds
as given by Henry and Morrison (7, p. 634—636).

Table IV.

-Composition of tomato-seed meal as compared with various commer-
cial stock feeds.

Feeding stuff.

Tomato-seed meal

Cottonseed meal

Sunflower seed (prime)

Sesame-oil ealce

Palm-nut cake

Rape seedcake

Linseed meal (new process)

Moisture.

7.15

7.8
10.0

9.8
10.4
10.0

9.6

Constituents (per cent).

Ash.

■1.64
6.6
4.2
10.7
4.3
7.9
5.6

Protein.

37.0

39.8
34.8
37.5
16.8
31.2
36.9

Nitrogen-
free
extract.

29.10

27.4

21.8

21.7

35.0

30.0

36.3

Fiber.

22.11

10.1

10.9

6.3
24.0
11.3

8.7

Ether
e.xtraet.

8.3
18.3
14.0

9.5

In moisture and ash content, the tomato-seed meal compares favor-
ably with the other feed stuffs. In protein content, it ranks with sun-
flower seedcake, cottonseed meal, sesame-oil cake, rape seedciUvC, and
linseed meal, being considerably higher than palm-nut cake and some-

12 BULLETIN 632, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

what lower than cottonseed meal. Since the tomato-seed meal which
was subjected to analysis was from ether-extracted seeds, the ether
extract does not enter into consideration. The meal from seed ex-
pressed by hydraulic pressure Avould contain from 5 to 7 per cent
ether extract, which represents the residual fat left in the cake.
The crude-fiber content is relatively high as compared with the other
feeds, being lower, however, than that of palm-nut cake. The content
of nitrogen-free extract, consisting largely of carbohydrates, is higher
than in such meals as cottonseed, sunflower, and sesame, and lower
than in palm-nut, rape-seed, and linseed cake.

From the results of the analysis and the comparison with standard
stock feeds it Avould appear that tomato-seed meal possesses proper-
ties of considerable value for stock feeding. In this connection it
may be stated that in Italy, where the utilization of tomato residues
is in practical operation, experiments with the meal or cake have
demonstrated its value as a feed for stock. Aguet (2) has reported
;i factory in operation at San Giovanni a Teduccio, near Naples, for
the industrial manufacture of tomato seedcake. Feeding trials con-
ducted at the Royal Higher School of Agriculture at Portici with
milch cows showed tomato seedcake to be equal in food value to lin-
seed cake. Later, Scarpitti (13) conducted extensive investigations
with the seedcake as a feed for milch cows, stating that it is richer
than flaxseed cake in protein and fat and is superior to it ,in its
influence upon the weight and lacteal secretion of the cows.

Shriver (14, p. 21-23) describes the manufacture of stock feed
from the dried tomato waste after the extraction of the oil. A num-
ber of grades of stock feed under the name " Nutritivo " are mam,;-
factured by a firm at Milan, Italy, from the dried skins mixed with
molasses and the meal from the extracted seeds. This feed for
cattle is sold at prices ranging, according to quality, from $1.32
to $1.49 per 100 pounds. The seedcake after the oil is expressed is
sold at $1.32 per 100 pounds.

AVAILABLE QUANTITY OF THE MEAL.

After extracting the oil from the estimated quantity of tomato
seeds which accumulate annually, there would remain as a by-iJroduct
about 1,200 tons of the meal. In addition to this large quantity
of meal there would also be available about 1,800 tons of tomato skins.
In view of the use to which the dried skins ivre applied in Italy
by incorporating them with the meal, this would increase the total
available quantity to about 3,000 tons.

SUMMARY.

The foregoing investigation shoAvs that the vast quantities of to-
mato refuse accumulating each year at tomato-pulping factories can

UTILIZATIOX OF WASTE TOMATO SEEDS AXD SKIXS. 13

be ivduced to two products, namely, fixed oil and meal, each of which
may be made commercialh' useful.

The oil from the seeds should find ready disposal as an edible oil
or as a soap oil, as shown by the experiments made to determine its
applicability to these })urposes. By pi'oper treatment it can be made
useful as a drying oil for paint and varnish purposes.

The meal has been shown by analysis and comparison with other
meals to possess valuable qualities as stock feed, and the utility of
the meal for this purpose should therefore be assured.

The accumulation of tomato residues occurs principally in two sec-
tions of the United States, namely, the North-Central States lying
east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio Eivers and the North
Atlantic States. The reduction of this Avaste material to oil and
meal could be handled most logically by establishing reducing plants
at some central point in each of these sections, where the crude ma-
terial could l)e collected with the least expense for transportation and
handling. A cooperative i^lan of manufacture Avould perhaps be the
most feasible and effective method for establishing the industry upon
a practical basis.

In vieAv therefore of the threatened shortage of fatty oils and in
the interest of food conservation, tomato refuse may be considered as
an available source for the manufacture of oil and oil cake. As the
demand for tomato products increases, the quantity of this waste
material will also increase, and it is suggested as an economic measure
of both agricultural and industrial importance that the utilization
of this material be considered.

LITERATURE CITED.

(1) AccoMAzzo. Pekict.e.

1910. Uiilizzazioiie d^i cascanii della lavorazione del pomodoro. In
nix. Agr.. anno 16, no. 24. p. 371-372. mi.

(2) AGt'KT, .l.NMES.

1913. Un miovo prodotto per ralimentazione del bestiame. In Rol.
Quindic. Soc. Agr. Ital.. anno 18. no. 4, p. 126-127.

(3 I BAii.KY. H. S., and Bltrnett, L. B.

1914. Tomato-seed oil. (Abstract.) In Science, n. s., v. 39. no. 1017,
p. 953.

(4) Batt.\glia, L.

1901. Ricerclie suU olio dei semi ili pomodoro. In Ann. Soc. Chim.
Milano. 1901. fasc. 3/4, p. 127.

(5) Fachini, S.

1911. By-products of some chemical industries. (Abstract.) In
Chem. Abstract.s, v. 5, no. 13, p. 2309-2310. (Original article in
Indust. Chim., v. 11, p. 76-79, 1911. Not seen.)

(6) Harcoxrt, p.

190S. Tomato refuse. In 33d Ann. Rpt., Out. Agr. Col. and Expt.
Farm, 1907. p. 69-70

(7) Hknky W. a., and TvIorkison, F. B.

litis. Feeds and Feeding, ed. lo, 691 p. Madison, Wis.
(S) Keen a, L. J.

1913. Tomato-seed oil in Italy. In U. S. Dept. Com., Bur. Foreign
and Dom. Com., Daily Consular and Trade Rpts., 16th year, no.
273, p. 954.

(9) KocHs, Julius.

1908. Untersuchung verschiedeuer fetter Oele, welche aus Pressriick-
standen gewonnen wurden. In Chem. Rev. Fett u. Harz Indus.,
.Tahrg. 15. Heft 10, p. 256-257.

(10) Lewkowitsch, J.

1909. Chemical Technology and Analysis of Oils, Fats, and Waxes,
ed. 4, 3 v., illus.. fold. tab. London.

(11) PARLETT, H. G.

1914. New bean-oil extracting mill at Dairen on the benzine system.
In Bd. Trade Jour. (London), v. 86, no. 923, p. 385.

(12) Perciabosco. F., and Semeraro, F.

1910. Utilizzazione dei residui della lavorazione del pomodoro. /?t
Staz. .Sper. Agr. Ital., v. 43, p. 260-272.

(13) ScABPiTTi, Giovanni.

1914. II panello di semi di pomodoro nell'alimentazione delle vacche
da latte. In Indust. Latt. e Zootech., anno 12, no. 14, p. 213-214.

(14) Shriveb, J. A.

1915. Canned-tomato industry in Italy. U. S. Dept. Com., Bur.
Foreign and Dom. Com., Special Agents" Ser. 93, 23 p.

14

UTILIZATION OF WASTE TOMATO SEEDS AND SKINS. 15

(15) Smith, J. A.

1912. Tomato-seed oil in Italy. In U. S. Dept. Com., Bur. Foreign
and Dom. Com., Daily Consular and Trade Rpts.. 15th year, no.
224. p. 1514.
(IG) Street. J. P.

inil. Report on vegetables. In U. S. Dept. Agr.. Bur. Chem. Bnl. 137.
p. 122-134.
(17) Wiley. H. W., ed.

1908. Official and provisional methods of analysis, Association of
Official Agricultural Cliemists. As compiled hy the committee on
revision of methods. U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Chem. Bui. 107 (rev.).
Reprinted 1912.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF TmS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCUEED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

■WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

b CENTS PER COPY
V

WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1917

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

^ BULLETIN No. 633

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management

W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief

Washington, D. C.

February 25, 1918

FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL FARMING NEAR
MONETT, MO.

By W. J. Spillman, Chief, Office of Farm Management.

CONTENTS.

Page.

The area in the survey was made 1

The local agriculture 2

Farms classified according to type of farming. 4

Sources of receipts 5

Percentage of area in different crops 5

Kinds of fruit and their local importance 6

Relation of type of farming to size of farm 7

Investment 7

Profitableness of the various types 8

Page.
The proper status of the strawberry industry

in southwest Missouri 10

The speculative nature of fruit enterprises. . . 10

Maintenance of soil fertility 12

Organization of some typical farms 14

Organization of dairy farms 17

A well-organized two-man farm 19

Legumes 22

Tenure 24

THE AREA IN WHICH THE SURVEY WAS MADE.

During the summer of 1915 an analysis was made of the business
of 274 farms lying within a radius of about 5 miles of the town of
Monett, in southwestern Missouri/ the center of the survey area lying
in the line between Barry and Lawrence Counties. This locality is
typical of a considerable area lying along the western margin of the
Ozark area and the eastern margin of the western prairies. In gen-
eral, the highest uplands were originally prairie and the slopes and
bottom lands timbered.

The surface would be described, for the most part, as gently roll-
ing. A small stream flows from east to west through the town of
Monett. The bottom lands bordering it form a tract from a quarter
to a half mile wide, flanked on each side by a moderate rise of land
hardly prominent enough to be described as bluffs. Beyond is gently
rolling upland originally covered, for the most part, with blackjack
timber (a species of oak) and extending back to the prairie areas
covering the ridges between streams.

1 The farm analyses on which this bulletin is based were made by Messrs. Walter .f.
Tubbs, Ivan Allen, C. E. Allred, and F. D. Crura, under the direction of Mr. F. H.
Branch. Mr. R. D. Jennings has rendered material assistance in tabulating the data
and computing the tables. Acknowledgment is also due to the many farmers who kindly
furnished details concerning their farm business, thus making this study possible.

18027

-IS— Bull. 633-

2 BULLETIN 633, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The soil of this region was formed mostly from limestone in which
was imbedded a considerable amount of flint, sometimes in rather
large masses. The limestone itself was dissolved out by rain water
carrying small quantities of carbonic-acid gas in solution, leaving
the impurities of the limestone (consisting mainly of small or large
particles of flint) to constitute the resulting soil. On the slopes,
where'the finer particles of soil have been washed away, the land is
rocky, the rocks consisting of angular fragments of flint, for the most
part from 1 to 3 or 4 inches in diameter. Elsewhere, especially
where the land was originally covered with blackjack timber, the
soil is rather gravelly. The alluvial soil of the bottoms contains more
or less gravel. On the higher ridges, which were originally prairie,
the soil is somewhat finer in texture and less inclined to be gravelly.
These prairie soils were formed in part from shales. On the whole,
the soil may be described as gravelly loam or gravelly silt loam.
Like most medium to heavy soils, it is fairly fertile, especially when
abundantly supplied with decaying organic matter such as manure
and the refuse from crops.

The first settlers who came into this region came mainly from
wooded regions and took up land along the streams. Most of the
stream bottoms have been in cultivation for about three-quarters of
a century. About 40 or 45 years ago farmers began to come into the
region from prairie districts, especially from Illinois. These settled
on the prairies. The prairie lands have thus been in cultivation
somewhat less than half a century.

The wooded slopes between the prairies and the bottom lands have
been cleared and put into cultivation mainly during the last 30 years,
the amount of woodland left being scarcely sufficient to supply local
farm needs.

THE LOCAL AGRICULTURE.

Wheat is decidedly the most important of the local crops at the
present time, corn being second in importance. The percentage of
the crop, area devoted to wheat for the crop year 1913-14 on the
farms included in this survey was 48.8, or practically half of
the entire area. Corn occupied 25.1 per cent. The position of
these two crops, so far as acreage is concerned, has been practically
reversed in the last 20 years. In 1890, according to the census for
that year, corn occupied 46 per cent of the crop area in Barry County
and 41 per cent in Lawrence County. In the same year wheat occu-
pied 24 per cent of the crop area of Barry County and 33 per cent in
Lawrence Count3\

The reason for this change in the status of wheat and corn in this
locality is not known definitely. The present high price of wheat is
Jiot responsible for it, for the crop to which this survey relates was

FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL FARMING NEAR MONETT, MO. 3

sown in the fall of 1013, when the pi-ice of wheat was still moderate.
It is probable that the frequent occurrence of hog cholera in this
region may be partly responsible for the decrease in the acreage of
corn and the increase in the acreage of wheat, as the number of hogs
kept on these farms has decreased considerably in recent years.

The oat crop occupied 10.8 per cent of the crop area on these
farms, which is about a normal acreage for this crop. A great many
farmers here do not grow oats. In general, the crop is not satisfac-
tory, it being too far north for winter oats and too far south for
spring oats. Xot infrequently the crop is an entire failure. The
reason for the persistence of the ont crop under such unfavorable
conditions is its value as feed for horses and the scarcity of other
kinds of i-oughage. For the most part, the oats are cut and bound
and fed in the sheaf. A portion of the crop may be thrashed and
fed as grain.

Various hay crops occupy about 9 per cent of the crop area of the
farms surveyed, which is approximately the status occupied by such
crops for the last quarter of a century. About two-thirds of the hay
land is in timothy or timothy and clover, the rest being in millet,
sorghum, oats, rye, etc.

FRUITS.

The town of Monett is the center of one of the most importartt
strawberry-producing regions in this country. The acreage of berries
is not large when compared with that of wheat and corn, or even hay,
but it is very considerable when the intensity of the strawberry enter-
prise is taken into consideration. Of the 244 farms ^ included in this
bulletin, 1.5 per cent of the total crop area was in strawberries, two-
thirds of which were in bearing. Other fruit crops also are more or
less prominent. Apples occupy 2.6 per cent of the total crop area,
and other fruits six-tenths of 1 per cent. While small areas of fruit
are found on farms of all sizes, it is mainly the smaller farms that
make fruit growing a specialty.

YIELDS PER ACRE.

The average yield of corn on these farms for the year 1914 was 25
bushels per acre, which is approximately normal. The yield of this
crop in Barry County at the last three censuses was, respectively, 26,
25, and 17 bushels. In Lawrence County it was 26, 21, and 24
bushels.

The average yield of oats for the year of this survey was 24 bushels,
as compared with census figures of 21, 22, and 23 for Barry County,
and 22, 25, and 26 for Lawrence County. This again is a normal
yield.

1 Thirty farms operated by owners who rented out a pai-t of their land are omitted in
most of the discussion which follows.

4 BULLETIN 633, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGKICULTUEE.

The jdeld of Avheat for the year of the survey Avas somewhat above
the normal, being 16 bushels as compared with Barry County yields
of 13, 10, and 12 bushels at the last three censuses and Lawrence
Count}^ yields of 14, 12, and 14 bushels. This higher yield of wheat
is believed to be due to a recent marked increase in the use of com-
mercial fertilizers rather than to climatic conditions for the year.

The yield of hay was about half a ton per acre. This is a little less
than half the normal yield according to the census figures. But tlie
minor place occupied by hay crops in the agriculture of this locality
renders this low yield of hay relatively unimportant.

The average yield of strawberries the year of the farm survey was
74 crates per acre, as compared with Barry County yields of 62 and
50 crates for the last two census years, and Lawrence County yields
of 90 and 56 crates. Considering the marked variability in the
yields of this crop, the yield for the year of the survey may be con-
sidered as practically normal.

FARMS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO TYPE OF FARMING.

The 244 farms included in this study may be divided into five
groups according to type of farming carried on, though in most
ciises the line of division between the various types is more or less
ai-bitrary. One hundred and sixteen of them may be classed as grain
and live-stock farms. They consist of farms on wdiich the principal
income is from grain, in nearly all cases wheat, with more than 10 per
cent of the total income from some one type of live stock, usually
cattle or hogs.

On 66 of the farms grain (wheat in most cases, corn in a few
others) constituted the only source of income exceeding 10 per cent
of the total receipts. These are classed as grain farms. Forty-one are
classed as grain and fruit farms. They include farms on w^hicli both
grain and fruit are important sources of income, with no other income
from any one source exceeding 10 per cent of the total.

Seventeen of the farms are classed as fruit farms. The average in-
come from fruit on these farms is about 60 per cent of the total.
About half of these fruit farms had 10 per cent or more of their in-
come from cattle.

There were four farms which made the dairy business an impor-
tant feature. On two of them dairying was the only important source
of income ; on the other two grain was about as important as dairying,
but these four farms were grouped together because they were the
only ones on which the dairy business was a principal feature of the
farming. Because of the small number of dairy farms they are
omitted from most of the tabulations for the reason that averages of
only four items have little meaning.

FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL FAJRMING NEAR MONETX, MO. 5

SOURCES OF RECEIPTS.

Table 1 shows the sources from which these 2-1:4 farms obtained
their income.

Table 1. — Sources of receipts (,2-'/.'/ frirDis near Monett, Mo.).
[Figures represent percentage of total receipts.]

Source.

Grain
and
live
stocli
farms
(116).

Grain
farms
(66).

Grain
and
fruit
farms
(41).

Fruit
farms
(17).

Source.

Grain
and
live
stock
farms
(116).

Grain
farms
(60).

Grain
and
fruit

farms
(41).

Fruit
farms
(17).

Com

Perct.

4.3

.8

48.2

2.3

1.3

1.1

58.0

15.4

Perct.

8.0

1.0

60.7

1.8

.3

1.6

73.4

G.7

Perct.

1.6

.6

34.9

30.1

7.7

2.2

77.1

5.4

Per ct.

2.2

.3

1.7

50.3

8.5

2.6

65.6

11.9

Horses

Perct.

6.5

.1

7.1

5.0

.4

34. ,5

7. 5

Perct.
5.2

Perct.
3.7

Per ct.
3.5

Sheep

Wheat

llogs

2.0
4.9
.2
19.0
7.6

3.6
4.5
.2
17.2
5.7

2.7

Poultry

4.2

Other fruits

Other stock

.1

Other crops

All stock

25.4

Miscellaneous

7.3

Cattle

It will be seen that there is a considerable degree of diversity in
the farming of this region. Wheat is decidedly the most important
source of income on the grain and live-stock and on the grain farms,
about ocjual to small fruits on the grain and fruit farms, while on the
fruit farms there is no other imi)ortant source of income from crops
than small fruits, especially strawberries. Among the various classes
of live stock, cattle lead as a source of income in all the groups.
Poultry furnishes from 4 per cent to 5 per cent of income in eacli
group. Hogs are unimportant, except on the grain and live-stock
farms, where the income from them constitutes about 7 per cent of
the total receipts.

PERCENTAGE AREA IN DIFFERENT CROPS.

Table 2 shows for the four principal types of farming the per-
centage of land devoted to various crops.

Table 2. — L'ehiliou of type of farming to peiventagc area in different crops (S-H
farms near Monett, Mo.).

[Figures represent percentage of land devoted to crops specified.]

Crop.

Com

Wheat . .

Oats

Hav

Millet . . .
Sorghum

Grain

and

live

stock

farms.

Per ct.

26.9

48.5

11.3

6.8

1.0

.7

Grain
farms.

Perct.

26.0

53.1

11.3

5.1

.4

.3

Grain
and
fruit

farms.

Perct.
19.6
50.2

8.8

5.0

.6

.6

Fruit
farms.

Per ct.

33.9

9.0

7.4

7.7
2.6
2.9

Crop.

Grain

and

live

stock

farms.

Other forage

Strawberries

Other small fruits. .

Apples

Other fruits

Other crops

Per ct.

1.3
.5
.1

2.1
.3
.5

Grain
farms.

Perct.

1.1

.4

1.0
.5

.4

Grain
and
fruit

farms.

Perct.
0.4
5.1
1.2
6.3
1.0
1.2

Fruit
farms.

Perct.
5.8
9.3
10.8
5.8
3.2
1.6

6 BULLETIN 633^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

On the grain and live-stock farms and on the grain farms corn
occupies about one-fourth of the total crop area, wheat about half,
oats about 11 per cent, hay 5 to 7 per cent, with no other crop occu-
pying as much as 2 per cent of the area except in the case of apples
on the grain and live-stock farms. On the grain and fruit farms
the area of corn is smaller, and that of wheat is about the same as
in the two preceding groups, while strawberries rise to 5 per cent
and apples to 6 per cent of the entire crop area. On the fruit farms
corn occupies one-third of the total crop area, wheat oats, and hay
are about equally important, occupying from 7 per cent to 9 per cent,
strawberries occupy 9.3 per cent, and other small fruits 10.8 per cent,
while apples are nearly as important is in the preceding group,

KINDS OF FRUIT AND THEIR LOCAL IMPORTANCE.

Of the 17 farms here classed as fruit farms, strawberries were pro-
duced on all but one, and on this one there was an acre of new plant-
ing of strawberries. On three of these farms the area of bearing
strawberries was 1 acre; on four it was 1^ acres; on one it was 2
acres; on four 2^ acres; on one 3 acres; on one 4 acres; and on two
6 acres. The total sales of strawberries on 16 of these farms
amounted to $8,251, an average of $516 per farm.

The next most important fruit is blackberries. They were grown
on 12 of the 17 fruit farms. One of the farms with 6 acres of straw-
berries had also 12 acres of blackberries. The other farm having 6
acres of strawberries had 10 acres of blackberries. Two farms had a
quarter of an acre of blackberries each, 5 farms had from 1 to 1| acres,
and the remaining 3 from 3^ to 5 acres. The 2 farms having large
acreages of both strawberries and blackberries also had large acre-
ages of raspberries, one 10 acres and the other 7. Three other farms had
from 1 to 2i acres of raspberries. There were 5 acres of dewberries
on one farm and a quarter of an acre of grapes on each of 2 farms.

Of the tree fruits, nearly all fruit farms had apples; but only five
derived any income from this source, the largest amount being $250.
Seven farms also had small acreages of peaches, in only two cases
more than 1| acres, the area in these two cases being respectively 4|
and 6 acres. The sales of peaches on the two farms last mentioned
were respectively $300 and 600 ; on the other three farms $15 to $75
per farm. Two farms had small incomes from cherries, one from
plums, and one from pears, in no case exceeding $100. One farm had
three-quarters of an acre in nursery stock, from which sales amount-
ing to $170 were made. The total acreage of blackberries on these
farms was 41 acres and the total acreage of strawberries 43; but
more than half the blackberries were on two farms, so that straw-
berries may be considered by far the most general fruit crop of the
region.

FACTORS OP SUCCESSFUL FARMING NEAR MONETT, MO.

RELATION OF TYPE OF FARMING TO SIZE OF FARM.

In Table 3 the 244 farms are divided into groups based on area in
crops. Tlie table shows for each of these size-groups the percentage
of farms that follow the different types of farming.

Table 3.^ — Percentage of farms in each of six size-grmtps, devoted to type of
farming specified {data from 24i farms in the vicinity of Monett, Mo.).

Number.

Acres in crops.

Type.

39 or less.

40-79

80-119 120-159

160-199

200 or
more.

Grain and live stock

116
66
41
17

4

Per cent.
19
19
24
38

Per cent.

43

34

20

2

1

Per cent.

59

24

12

2

3

Per cent.
66
23

8

Per cent.
60
20
20

Per cent.
67

Grain

33

Grain and fruit .

Fruit

Dairv

3

i

Number

244

37

103

58

35

5

6

It will be noticed that of the farms having less than 40 acres in
crops 38 per cent are fruit farms and 24 per cent grain and fruit
farms. In this group there are also 19 per cent of grain and live
stock farms and 19 per cent of grain farms. These figures bring out
the important fact that among the small farms fruit is a predominat-
ing enterprise. This is as it should be, for these farms are too small
to give full employment in the production of corn and wheat, the
staple crops of the region, and it is necesi?ary, in order that their
owners shall make an adequate living, that they introduce enter-
prises that give more work per acre than corn and wheat.

In the next size-group, consisting of farms having from 40 to 79
acres of crops, the largest percentage consists of grain and live-stock
farms, with grain farms next, followed by grain and fruit farms.
Only 2 per cent of these farms are fruit farms, while one of them is
a dairy farm.

In the third size-group, containing farms with 80 to 119 acres of
crops, more than half of them are grain and live-stock farms. This
is true of each of the three remaining groups. In these last four
groups there is still a considerable percentage of grain farms and a
few grain and fruit farms. There is a single fruit farm in the third
size-group. Two of the dairy farms are in this group, and one in
the next higher group.

The last line of the table shows the number of farms in each size-
group, while the first column shows the number of farms in each

type-group.

INVESTMENT.

Table 4 shows the relation between size of farm and the total in-
vestment and the lelation between type of farming and total invest-
ment. One of the fruit farms is omitted from this table and from

8

BULLETIN 633, U. S. DEPAETMEXT OF AGRICULTUEE.

Table 5 for reasons that will be given later, but this makes only a
slight change in the figures.

Table 4. — Average total investment on farms of different size and type (2.^3
farms near Monett, Mo.).

Acres In crops.

Type.

65 or loss.

66-95

96-125

126 and
over.

All sizes.

Average.

Grain and live stock

$5,926
5, 0S4
5,190

$9,335

7,824

2 10,114

$12, S75
1 12, 251

$17,386

$11,015
7,395-
7,594
4,919
9,033

Acres.
95

Grain

76

Grain and fruit

68

Fruits

36

All types

81

1 96 and over.

2 66 and over.

3 Not including one exceptional farm

PROFITABLENESS OF THE VARIOUS TYPES.

Table 5 shows the relation between labor income and size of farm,
and the relation between labor income and type of farming. It may
be explained here that labor income is what the farmer gets for his
labor and managing ability. It is found by deducting from the net
income of the farm a fair rate of interest on the investment, which in
this case was taken to be 5 per cent. In addition to labor income as
obtained in this manner the farmer has what the farm furnishes
toward the family living.

Table 5.

-Labor incomes on farms of different size and type (S-'/S farms near
Monett, Mo.).

Acres in crops.

Type.

65 or less.

65-95

96-125

125 and
over.

All sizes.

Grain and live stock farms

$117
41
232

$321
313

598

$617
414

$759

$438
192

Grain farms

Grain and fruit farms

410

Fruit farms '

294

All types

370

1 Not including one exceptional farm.

As previously stated, one of the fruit farms is omitted from this
tabulation. It was a very exceptional farm. It had 0 acres of straw-
berries, from which the sales amounted to $1,408; 10 acres of black-
berries, with sales of $1,650; 10 acres of raspberries, with sales of
$900; 5 acres of dewberries, with sales of $175; 10 acres of apples,
with sales of $180 ; and G acres of peaches, with sales of $600. There
was also 1 acre of young cherry trees. This farm is thus seen to be
a highly specialized fruit farm. That its owner was an expert fruit

FACTOKS OF SUCCESSFUL FAKMING NEAR MONETT, MO. 9

grower is attested b}^ the fact that his labor income amounted to about
$2,500. That is, the net income of his farm was $2,500 more than 5
per cent on his investment.

The rehition between hibor income and the size of farm as indicated
b}^ the area in crops is brought out very strikingly in Table 5. Tak-
ing first the grain and live stock farms, those in the group having Go
acres or less in crops each made only $117 more than interest on their
investment. As the area in crops increases the labor income increases,
averaging $759 for the group having 125 or more acres in crops.
The grain farms and the grain and fruit farms tell the same story.

In all the surveys that have been made by the Office of Farm
Management the results have shown conclusively that men of average
ability must farm rather large areas in order to secure a satisfactory
income. It is only the exceptional man that can realize the ideal of
the "little farm well tilled." The average man should not try to
do so. Just how large a farm should be for best results it is difficult
to say. A good deal depends upon the type of farming. A farm of
an intensive type — that is, one which requires a great deal of labor
and working capital for each acre in cultivation — may be smaller
than one devoted to enterprises requiring less labor and working
capital.

The two-man farm has many advantages as opposed to a one-man
farm, for in a great many farm operations two men are needed. So
far as profit of the owner is concerned, there appears to be no upper
limit to the size of farms except the managerial ability of the opera-
tor; but wdien farms are larger than fair-sized two-man farms — that
is, farms that will give two men constant employment throughout
the year — certain important disadvantages to the community appear.
In the first place, the community is filled up with a class of hired
labor which is not an addition to the permanent citizenship; farm
houses are farther apart; there are fewer children for the district
school; and it is more difficult to secure good roads. The two-man
farm may, for many reasons, be considered as approaching the ideal
for American conditions.

There is room in every community for a few farms devoted to the
production of vegetables and fruits, and these may w^ell be small
farms because of the intensive labor such farming involves. This is
especially true when the markets for the products of such farms are
local. But when the farmer must depend upon distant markets and
is thus thrown into competition with other regions engaged in similar
types of farming, the small, intensive farm is placed at a serious dis-
advantage. Only about 4 per cent of the total crop area of the entire
country is devoted to fruits and vegetables, yet this area supplies
approximately the entire demand for products of this class. A rela-
tively slight increase in the production of fruits and vegetables re-
18027"— 18— Bull. 633 2

10 BULLETIN 633, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

suits in flooding the market and thus lowering prices below the point
of profit. Farming based wholly on vegetables and fruits to be sold
in distant markets is thus decidedly a speculative business. In general
it is an unsafe kind of farming, though in some years it may be
highly profitable.

THE PROPER STATUS OF THE STRAWBERRY INDUSTRY IN SOUTH-
WEST MISSOURI.

A farm that is large enough to give full employment to the labor
available to the owner in the production of wheat, corn, and live-
stock products can be made profitable in this region w^ithout depend-
inff on fruit as a source of income. Yet even on these farms a small
acreage of strawberries properly tended is a desirable enterprise. In
some years the income from them will be small, but in other years
it will be considerable. Even if the crop is an entire failure, the
farmer is not crippled financially.

On farms that are too small to give full employment in the pro-
duction of wheat, corn,. and live-stock products there is greater need
of some intensive crop like strawberries as a means of giving em-
ployment to farm labor ; that is, of increasing the magnitude of the
farm business. The force of this remark is shown by the experience
of farmers in this community, for by far the greater portion of the
strawberry area is on the smaller farms, as should be the case. How-
ever, Table 5, showing the average labor income from different types
of farming, shows that the very small farms devoted mainly to fruit
are not as satisfactory as larger farms on w^hich grain and live stock
are the main sources of income.

In this connection it may be noted that the average value of man
labor per crop-acre on the grain and live-stock farms was $5.16, on
the grain and fruit farms $7.45, while on the 17 fruit farms it was
$14.92, or nearly three times as much as on the grain and live-stock
farms.

The number of acres of crops per man on the four types of farms
was as follows: Grain and live stock, 59.3; grain, 54.3; grain and
fruit. 42.5; fruit, 22.3. This shows the greater intensity of fruit
farming as compared with the other types prevailing in the region.

THE SPECULATIVE NATURE OF FRUIT ENTERPRISES.

Fruit crops of all kinds are occasionally a complete loss from un-
timely frost. This has been the case with the strawberry crop in
the vicinity of Monett, Mo., once in the last 10 years.

In occasional years also prices are so low that no profit is made
in the business. These are years when the crop is unusually good in

FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL FARMING NEAR MONETT, MO. 11

a number of the leading fruit-producing sections of the country.
This region has experienced two such years in the hist decade.

These occasional years which produce no profit and sometimes re-
sult in rather heavy loss make fruit growing a speculative business.
In the long run the good crops or the high prices, or the occasional
combination of a good crop with high prices, will bring in enough
money to make the business profitable in localities that are well
adapted to it, as this region undoubtedly is to the strawberry crop.
But the uncertainty of a profit in any particular year renders it
unwise for the farmer to depend entirely on income from such enter-
prises. On farms devoted largely to fruit groAving this uncertainty
may be obviated partially by having several kinds of fruit, for it is
hardly likely that all of them will fail to produce a profit in any one
3'ear. The most successful fruit fann found in this survey w^as really
a diversified fruit farm. It must be remembered, however, that it
takes a man of very unusual ability to make a success with a business
of this character. Where fruit is a minor enterprise, such diversifi-
cation is not so necessary and may even be quite undesirable.

If there is a good local market which renders shipping to distant
points unnecessary, there is considerable advantage in growing sev-
eral kinds of fruit ; but where shipping is necessary the saving from
shipping in car lots is so great as to place the producer of small lots
at a disadvantage. Diversification in fruit growing as a means of
insurance against crop loss must therefore be undertaken only after
careful consideration of the marketing problem.

Another factor which must be taken into consideration is the dan-
ger from disease and insect pests to which fruit crops of all kinds
are exposed. Occasionally a disease gets a start among strawberries,
appears in the nurseries, and is spread over a large region before its
presence is suspected. This causes heavy loss, not only to the nurs-
eryman, but to those who have bought plants from him.

With all these disadvantages, however, the facts indicate that the
strawberry business is a good one for the farmers of this region. It
seems to be clear also that in the vast majority of cases the proper
place of this crop is represented by a few acres. The smaller the
farm the larger the acreage of strawberries required to fill in the
labor schedule. The fact that the largest acreage of strawberries
on any one farm was 6 acres is significant. This is about what an
ordinary farm family can take care of except at harvest time. On
the larger farms 1 or 2 acres of strawberries would generally be de-
sirable.

Nothing has been said here about the amount of labor required in
harvesting the strawberry crop, since no particular local difficulty
appears to arise in this connection. The work is made more or less
a festival, and thousands of people from the surrounding towns come

12 BULLETIN 633, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTUKE.

into camp near the fields for the few weeks when there is a rush of
work of this kind. The amount of labor required for harvesting
the crop is therefore not really a limiting factor in the acreage that
the farmer can grow. The limit is represented rather by the area
which he and his family can tend at times other than harvest.

MAINTENANCE OF SOIL FERTILITY.

The systems of farming which prevail generally in this region are
not such as to maintain satisfactorily the fertility of the soil. As a
result the yields on most farms are low. The three more important
factors in maintaining crop yields are the use of manure, the plow-
ing under of sod crops or green manure crops, and the use of com-
mercial fertilizers. On most of these farms the amount of live stock
kept is small compared with that kept on farms farther north. The
amount of manure produced on the farm is not sufficient to maintain
the fertility of the soil at a satisfactory level. Furthermore, on ac-
count of the general mildness of the climate, farm animals are not
kept indoors much of the time, and a good part of the manure thus is
not available for distribution on the tilled fields. Farmers therefore
get relatively little from the manure actually produced on the farm.

In order to determine the results actually obtained from manure the
farms in this survey were divided into two equal groups, the first
consisting of those farms having less live stock than the average per
hundred acres of crops, and the second of those having more than the
average. A comparison was then made between these two groups of
farms with respect to the average yield of each of the more important
crops. The difference in favor of the farms having the more live
stock was as follows: Com, 1^ bushels per acre; wheat, 0.6 bushel;
oats, 2.5 bushels ; hay, 0.1 ton.

When the relative acreage of these crops and the average price of
their products for the last 10 years are taken into account this
difference in yield in favor of the farms having more live stock than
the average amounts to $5.14 per year for each animal found on the
farms having most live stock over and above those found on farms
having least live stock. In other words, under the average condi-
tions which prevail in this locality the farmer, on the average, ac-
tually gets in crop returns $5.14 from the manure of each 1,000-
pound animal or its equivalent in smaller animals. This is a very
low valuation for manure, a fact which undoubtedly is due largely
to the small proportion of the manure that is actually applied to the
fields. By taking the best possible care of manure, by distributing
this manure in the fall of the year on land that is to be devoted to
corn the next year, and either disking it into the land or plowing

FACTORS OP SUCCESSFUL FARMING NEAR MONETT, MO,

18

shallow before cold weather it is probable that these fanners would
get practically double the result they now get from this manure.

In this connection it may be stated that in Chester County, Pa.,
where the live stock consists mainly of dairy cows which are kept in
stables practically all winter and at nights during most of the sum-
mer and where the manure is managed with unusual care the value
of manure per cow was foimd by the method above outlined to
amouut to between $15 and $16 a year.

Table 6 shows the average yield of corn and wheat on the tw^o
groups of farms designated as grain and live-stock farms and grain
farms. This table shows that on the average the grain and live-
stock farms obtained 3.7 bushels more corn per acre than did the
straight grain farms. On the other hand, the grain farms obtained
an average of O.G of a bushel more wheat per acre than the grain and
live-stock farms. This difference is due to two causes. In the first
place, manure is applied mainly to com land on both groups of
farms. The grain and live-stock farms, having more manure, get
larger yields of corn. But wheat gets comparatively little benefit
from the manure, dependence being placed on commercial fertilizers
for this crop. Table G shows that the grain farmers used more
fertilizer than the grain and live-stock farmers. Hence they get
larger yields of wheat. The figures of this table show that, for those
farms using commercial fertilizers, the grain farmers used $11 worth
more per 100 acres of crops than did the grain and live-stock farmers.

Table 6. — Yield of corn and wheat on grain and lire stock and on grain farms
{182 farms near Monett, Mo.).

Type.

Corn.

Wheat.

FertiUzer bought
per 100 acres of
crops.

Farms
reporting.

All farms.

Grain and live stock farms

Bu.
26.8
23.1

Bu.
16.1
16.7

844.5
55.5

S33.0
40.3

Grain farms

Studies of methods of maintaining good yields have shown that
the plowing under of sod crops is very important. Crops of this
character are not much grown in this region, almost the only sod
crop being a few acres of timothy, and usually this is left down for
many years and pastured rather closely, so that even when it is
plowed up not much effect results from the sod plowed under. In
the absence of sod crops and of abundant manure the plowing under
of crops especially sown for the purpose becomes important. But

14

BULLETIN 633, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

this is a practice very little follo^yed in this region. This phase of
the problem of maintaining soil fertility will be referred to again in
discussing the organization of farms in this area.

To show how important from the standpoint of profit good crop
yields are, the data given in Table 7 will be of interest. In order to
make the meaning of this table clear, it is necessary to tell what the
crop index is. To say that the crop index of a particular farm is 90
means that the average yield of crops on this farm is 90 per cent of
the average of the community. The farms included in this survey
were divided into three groups, the first consisting of those on which
the crop index was 90 or less, the second those having a crop index from
90 to 110, and the third those with a crop nidex of more than 110.
There were 88 farms in the first group, 86 in the second, and 70 in
the third. The average size of farm was nearly the same in each
group. The average of the crop indexes of the first group was 76,
the second 100, and the third 129. The average labor income of the
first group was $122, of the second $377, and of the third $676.
These figures show the outstanding importance of keeping the land
fertile. It is one of the most important problems confronting
farmers in this region.

Table 7. — The effect of crop index rjn profitft {2'i'i farms near Monett, Mo.).

Number of farms

Average orop index. . .
Average labor income

Groups based on crop index.

90 and 90.1 to
under. 110.

SS

76

$122

SO
100

$377

110.1 and
over.

70
129

?G7(5

ORGANIZATION OF SOME TYPICAL FARMS.

The organization of three typical grain and live-stock farms is
shown in Table 8. Each of these farms has from 105^- to 107 acres
in crops. It happens also in each case that the operator owns part
of the land and rents additional land. The first one rents 62 acres,
the second one 40, and the third one 38. These farmers have recog-
nized the fact that it is easier to make a satisfactory income on a
large farm than on a small one, and have chosen a very satisfactory
means of enlarging their business in the absence of sufficient capital
to own all the land they can till. It will be noted that they have
almost exactly the same amount of live stock, the investment in this
item being about $1,100 in each case. On one of them the value of the
buildings, other than the dwelling, is very low. This is due to the
fact that the buildings are very old and practically ready to be
torn down.

PACTOES OP SUCCESSPUL FARMING NEAE MONETT, MO.

15

Table S. — Three successful grain and live-stock farms {desUjmited I, II, and
III) operated by oiimers renting additional land {Monet t, Mo., area).

THE FARM.

III.

Area in crops acres.

Area in pasture do...

Area rented do...

Investment of operator dollars .

Value of real estate per acre do. ..

Value of live stock do. . .

Value of imjilements and machinery do...

Feed and sujiplies on hand do...

Cash for currcni expenses do...

Value of ilwcllint; do...

Value of other buildings do. . .

105.1

34"

(12

9,493

50

1,127

215

111
40

750
75

lOG

15

40

7, 5G8

48

1,132

305

101

30

800

400

107

37

38

10, 493

01

1,094

108

191

40

500

500

Kind.

Acres.

Yield per acre.'

Sales.

I.

II.

III.

I.

II.

III.

I.

II.

III.

Corn

41

59

5

27

64

10

4

49

58

35
16
15

33
14

27

37
22

$340
700

S55
623

$589

Wheat

874

Oats

i

36

22

i

1

1,002

678

1,403

1

I Yields given are: For corn, wheat, and oats, bushels; for berries, crates; for grapes, baskets.

LIVE STOCK.

Kind.

Number.

Sales and increases in
value.

I.

II.

III.

I.

II.

III.

Cows

5
1

4
2

5
6

$230

85
8

$260
70

$350

10

323
230

330
260

300

225

4

5
2
12
05

8

3

13

100

25

95'

06
94

103
100
175

59
04

-20

Colts

120

11
05

112

Poultry

96

204

RECEIPTS, EXPENDITURES, AND PROFITS.

Item.

Total receipts

Rent

Other expenses

Net income

Interest on investment at 5 per cent
Labor income

S2,070
406
380
1,285
475
810

IL

$1, 835
322
582
931
378
553

III.

$2,604

294

433

1,857

525

1,332

16 BULLETIN 633, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table 8. — Three successful grain and live-stock farms {designated I, II, and
III) operated by mcncrs renting additional land {Monett, Mo., area). — Con.

FACTORS AFFECTING PROFITS.

Item.

Income per cow from sale of dairy products

Feed bought

Fertilizers bought

Value of family labor

Cost of labor hired

Months of labor on the farm

Average crop yields in percentage of community average.

75
10
30
45
14.
HI

II.

105

6
182
IS. 6
103

III.

$45

20
54
93
17.
140

The second section of the table shows the crops grown on these
farms— first, the acreage of each crop ; second, the yield per acre ; and
third, the sales of crop products. Each farm has approximately GO
acres of wheat. The second farm has only 27 acres of corn, but the
other two have between 40 and 50 acres. It will be seen later that the
second farm is not as successful as the other two. Too much land
is in wheat. This is shown by the yield of crops on these farms.
On the second farm the yield of wheat is only 14 bushels, while on the
third it is 22 bushels. Two of the farms have small acreages of oats,
none of which is sold. The second farm has undertaken to increase
its income by adding 4 acres of strawberries, which is probably wise
in this case, though the acreage is a little large for the conditions.
The first farm has a small patch of blackberries, from which there
was an income of $22. The second farm has a small patch of grapes,
but with no income from this source.

A study of the results given later in this table leads to the con-
clusion that the second farm is not so well organized and managed
as the first and third. It has too much of its land in wheat, too little
in corn, and too much in oats. The presence of grapes on the farm,
a crop not well adapted to the region, confirms this conclusion. It
will be noticed that the total income from the sale of crops on the
second farm is only two-thirds to one-half as much as on the other
two.

The next section of the table shows the live stock on these farms.
Each farm has from four to five cows and from two to six head of
young cattle. One of the farms reports a steer, which was a calf
raised on the farm. The total income from cattle on each farm was
from $323 to $360, of which $225 to $260 was from the sale of cream.
Tliese farmers were patrons of a creamery. The second farm raised
two colts, and the third raised three. The third farm has too many
horses for its size, but this defect is balanced by the raising of colts.
The income from hogs varies from $95 to $175, and from poultry
from $59 to $96. Both of these sources of income could be made
more important with profit.

The total receipts on these farms, shown in the next section of the
table, vary from about $1,800 on the second to $2,600 on the third.

FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL FARMING NEAR MONETT, MO. 17

The amount of rent they pay runs from about $300 to $400. Other
expenses run from about $400 to $600. The high expenses on the
second farm are due to the hirge amount of hibor hired, which comes
to $182. On the other two farms this figure is less than $100.

The net income, after deducting rent and other expenses, varies
on these three farms from $031 to $1,857. This represents interest
on the investment and wages for the labor and managing ability
of the operator. Deducting interest on the investment, these three
farms have labor incomes of from $500 to $1,300. These are con-
siderably above the average for the region. Especially in the case
of the first and third farms the labor incomes are very satisfactory.

The last section of the table shows a few of the factors which
affect the general results obtained on these farms. The most im-
portant figures are those relating to the average yield of crops on
these farms, given in the last line of the table. On the first farm the
average yield of crops is 11 per cent above the average for the
farms surveyed in the community, on the second 3 per cent above,
while on the third farm it is 40 per cent above. It will be noticed
that the labor income is approximately proportional to these figures
expressing the average yield of crops on these farms.

Two of the farms obtained incomes from the sale of cream amount-
ing to about $45 per cow. The other sold $65 worth of cream per
cow. The amount of feed bought is small, the third farm, with its
good yields, spending nothing for this purpose.

The total amount of labor on these three farms was equivalent to
from 14.5 to 18.6 months of labor for one man. In other words,
these farms are intermediate between one-man and two-man farms.
Undoubtedly it would be profitable to convert each of them into full
two-man farms by the addition of a little more live stock, a small
acreage of forage crops, and a small acreage of strawberries.

The organization of the grain farms in this region differs from
that of the grain and live stock farms mainly in the smaller amount
of live stock kept, the greater acreage of land devoted to wheat, and
the smaller acreage devoted to corn. On the grain and fruit farms
the organization differs from that of the grain and live-stock farms
by the introduction of a few acres of fruit, usually of strawberries,
and by the smaller amount of live stock kept.

ORGANIZATION OF DAIRY FARMS.

As previously stated, four farms were found in this survey hav-
ing considerable income from dairy products. The smallest number
of cows on any of these four farms was 13 and the largest number
28. The income from the sale of dairy products on the four farms

18 BULLETIN 633, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

was, respectively, $1,840 from 28 cows, $1,125 from 17 cows, $600
from 20 cows, and $624 from 13 cows. The farm having 28 cows
raised 12 acres of corn and 10 acres of sorghum fodder ; also 4 acres
of millet and 3 acres of rye for hay. It had only 52.5 acres of crops,
there being only 14 acres of wheat. The other three farms had from
100 to 135 acres of crops, including from 40 to 60 acres of wheat.
One of these farms had 30 acres of corn, 15 of which was cut for
silage. Because of the large number of cows on these farms it was
necessary to supplement the corn, by other kinds of forage. As al-
ready stated, one of the farms did this by growing 10 acres of
sorghum fodder, 4 acres of milkt, and 3 acres of rye hay. An-
other, which had 20 acres of corn, grew also 20 acres of sorghum
fodder. The farm which had 15 acres of corn for grain and 15 acres
of silage had 12 acres of clover for hay and 15 acres of rye pasture.
The other farm had 40 acres of corn, 5 acres of cowpeas, and 25
acres of oats.

Two of these farms sold all their milk at retail in the town of
Monett, the retail price being 4^ cents a quart. The income per cow
for milk sold on these two farms was, in both cases, $6?. A third
farm obtained $200 for retail milk at 5 cents a quart and $400 from
cream sold to the creamery at an average of 25 cents per pound for
butter fat. The fourth farm sold only butter, the average price being
2T| cents, and the income from this source being $624. The labor
incomes on these farms were $1,691, $552, $663, and $1,299, re-
spectively.

A good dairy cow should produce 4,000 or 5,000 pounds of good
milk a year. The average pounds of milk per cow on these four
farms, not counting the milk consumed on the farm, was as follows :
3,188, 3,743, 2,030, and 2,268. On three of them the cows were all
Jerseys, some of them pure bred and others grades. One of the
farms had Jersey grade cows with a Hereford bull. It also had four
pure-bred Hereford cows and was probably changing from the dairy
business to the beef-cattle business. It would be a great mistake
for a dairyman to use a bull of a beef breed if he wishes to continue
in the dairy business.

Judging by the experience of the majority of farmers here the
proper status of dairying in this region, except for the few farms
that are needed to supply milk to the town, is represented by the
keeping of a few cows mainly as a means of converting roughage
and other unsalable materials into a salable product, the cream
being sold to creameries and the young stock being raised mainly
on waste products of the farm. These cows should be either good
dairy cows or good animals of a beef breed, the principal income
from them in the latter case being from the sale of young stock.

FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL FARMING NEAR MONETT, MO. 19

A WELL-ORGANIZED TWO-MAN FARM.

These studies indicate that a satisfactory business can be conducted
on a well-organized farm in this region. The most important diffi-
culty confronting the farmers here appears to lie in the fact that the
system of farming which seems to be best adapted to local economic
conditions does not provide satisfactory means of keeping up the
fertility of the soil. The most important factors in maintaining
fertility are sod crops, manure, and fertilizers. The area of sod crops
grown on these farms or needed in the local farm economy is very
small and has very little influence on the fertility of the soil. Par-
ticularly is this the case when the sod, which usually is timothy, is
kept for several years and pastured rather closely before being
plowed up.

The amount of li^-e stock kept on these farms is not only small, but
such animals as are maintained are kept out of doors a very large
part of the time and a great deal of the manure is lost, so far as
the field crops are concerned.

Aside from the loss of manure from unconfined live stock, the prin-
cipal wastage on these farms is in corn fodder and wheat straw.
There is every reason to believe that if cowpeas were planted with
all the corn at the time the corn is planted, using two cowpea seed for
every grain or corn, and then cutting the corn for fodder, it would
pay these farmers to keep enough live stock to consume these corn
stalks with the cowpea vines on them. If the stock kept for this pur-
pose are dairy cows it will be necessary, of course, to buy considerable
quantities of mill products to feed with the roughage. Whether this
will pay will depend on the dairy quality of the cows kept. Con-
ditions are not highly favorable to the dairy industry here. They
are rather favorable to the raising of beef cattle. A considerable
herd of cows of a beef breed could be maintained on these farms
largely on roughage in winter and pasture in sunnner, and as this
roughage is now available it would seem that this business ought to
add considerably to the farm income in this region. Particularly
would this be true if the cows were such as to produce $45 to $60
w^orth of dairy products per year in addition to a good calf.

In this connection it may be mentioned that in recent years quite
a number of farmers in this general region have stocked their farms
with pure-bred beef cattle, and the results are proving to be very
satisfactory. This is a type of cattle farming that does not require
? great deal of labor and that provides an outlet for the wastes
which now occur on these farms. At the same time it does not re-
quire the purchase of large quantities of mill stuffs, for these ani-
mals can be maintained very well on cornstalks and cowpea fodder
of good quality, a little straw, and a little corn, Avith perhaps an

20 BULLETIN 633^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTTJEE.

occasional feed of bran or shorts. If good pastures are provided for
the summer season, the expense of keeping a mature herd of this kind
will be rather small.

These studies indicate that a well-organized two-man farm in this
region might be based upon the following crops : Corn and cowpeas,
40 acres; wheat, 60 acres; miscellaneous forage crops, such as soy-
beans, sorghum, oats, alfalfa, each in small acreages, say 2 to 4
acres; half an acre of garden; 1^ acres of apple orchard, mainly for
home use. There might also be 3 acres of strawberries, 2 in bear-
ing. This would give 117 acres of crops.

Two men, with four good horses, and with all the heavy work done
with four-horse implements, could tend all these crops easily and
do all the work, except at harvest time, without additional help;
and they would have time to spare.

A good complement of live stock for such a farm would be two
mules and four high-grade brood mares, these four mares doing the
full Avork of two horses, and when bred to a sound pure-bred stallion
or the same type or breed should raise two colts each year. These
two colts, when sold at a year old, should bring at least $100. Since
the two mares not at work could be maintained rather cheaply and
could help to consume some of the wastage on the farm, it is believed
that this $100 income from colts would more than justify the keep-
ing of the two additional mares.

Five cows, either of a dairy breed or of a beef breed, with five
young cattle constantly on hand, would, with the help of the horses,
consume the larger part of the waste of the farm, together with the
small areas of miscellaneous forage crops mentioned above.

Two good brood sows, each raising two litters a year, amounting
to at least 20 pigs during the year, w^ould be about the right com-
plement of swine, though if proper means were taken to guard
against cholera, and if the relative price of corn and hogs should jus-
tify it, the number of brood sows kept might be larger than this. As-
suming that five hogs will be needed for home use, this would permit
a sale of fifteen 200-pound hogs a year.

Such a farm could maintain 150 hens easily, with very little
cost. These hens, if handled with a little intelligent care, should
easily bring in a dollar apiece annually, in addition to poultry prod-
ucts used on the farm.

Such a complement of live stock as outlined would consume most
of the corn, all the corn and cowpea fodder, the miscellaneous forage
crops, and a portion of the straw. The remainder of the straw
should be used very liberally for bedding for the live stock.

An organization such as this could be established on a farm of
160 acres, provided there is not over 10 acres of waste land, which,
in the nature of the case, must be devoted to the growing of timber.
This would permit, in addition to the 117 acres of crops, 26 acres

FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL FARMING NEAR MONETT, MO. 21

of i?ermaneiit pasture, 5 acres for roads and fences. 2 acres for yards
and lots, and 10 acres for woods. If much of the farm is rough hind,
the area would have to be proportionately larger.

Such a farm would be particularly advantageous for a farmer with
one or two growing boj's large enough to take part in the farm work;
also for the farmer who is growing old and is no longer able to make
a full hand at the heavy work on the farm. "With one dependable
hand hired by the year and the use of four-horse implements as far
as practicable, the hired man could do nearly all the field work of
such a farm, leaving the owner to look after the live stock, the straw-
berries, garden, and orchard, and to keep in repair the buildings,
fences, implements, etc. The farm family could tend the poultry.

Such a farm would have the equivalent of about eighteen 1,000-
pound animals. These animals would produce approximately 180
tons of manure in a year. The bulk and value of this manure could
be increased greatly by the liberal use ol straw as bedding. By
proper management 100 tons of mixed manure and straw could be
distributed on the fields every year. This would give an average of
2-| tons for every acre of corn on the farm. Such use of the manure
should have a very important influence in keeping -up the fertility of
the soil.

The wheat straw produced on this farm should be returned to the
land in some way. As much of it as possible should be used as bed-
ding for the farm animals, and in this way be put into the manure.
This gives a chance to rot the stravr before it is put back on the
land, a very important matter, since partially rotted straw is much
better for the land than fresh straw. Such of it as can not be used
in this waj' may be scattered directly on the fields. A very thin coat-
ing of straw can be spread upon wheat during the winter. A better
plan is to scatter straw in the fall of the year on land that is to be
devoted to com the next year and then disk it into the soil before
winter sets in.

Each field will be in wheat three times in succession, the first time
following corn. After the third crop of wheat has been harvested
from the field it would be a good plan to sow some crop immediately.
It would not be necessary to plow for this crop, but it would be ad-
visable to run a disk harrow over the land. The crop might consist
of corn or sorghum sown thickly, or it might be cowpeas or soy
beans. At some convenient time in the late summer or early winter
this crop should be plowed under. It might be pastured for a while
before plowing. By using all these means of adding humus-making
material to the soil, and then by the use of such fertilizers for wheat
as local experience has proved to be most profitable, the yields of
corn and wheat might easily be raised considerably above the average
for the region.

22 BULLETIN 633, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

LEGUMES.

From the standpoint of the farmer the most important character-
istic of the legume crops, like clover, alfalfa, cowpeas, soy beans, etc.,
is the fact that each of them has the power of supporting in their
roots a kind of bacteria that gets nitrogen out of the air, and thus
crops of this kind enrich the soil in nitrogen —one of the most im-
portant elements of soil fertility.

Clover has been gi-own more or less in southwestern Missouri since
the country was settled. In some localities it is well established and
holds a place in the cropping system. But, generally speaking, the
experience of the farmers of this section with the clover crop has not
been satisfactory. In those regions w'here clover is grown regularly
the common practice is to sow it in the spring on winter wheat or
with some spring grain crop. This method has been tried many
times by the farmers of this region, sometimes with complete success
but more often with more or less complete failure. The trouble is
that in many years the moisture is not sufficient for both the grain
crop and the young clover crop, and the clover dies either before the
grain crop is harvested or immediately thereafter.

A few farmers of this general region have been successful with
clover by sowing it alone in the spring on well-prepared land. It
makes a small crop the first year and a good crop the second year:
but this takes two years' use of the land m order to get a crop of
clover, which is not satisfactory to most farmers. If the farmer could
depend upon securing a good stand of clover by sowing it in the
spring on winter wheat, the closer crop undoubtedly would be stand-
ard in this section ; but since this method is not dependable, clover is
of very small importance here.

Most of these farmers have tried alfalfa. Generally speaking, the
crop has failed, though a few farmers in these two counties have
grown it with greater or less success. It can not be recommended
generally as a field crop here, though it is probable that with a little
special attention a few acres of it might be grown to advantage on
almost any farm. In this region it should be sown only on the
richest land, and the land should be thoroughly limed and thoroughly
inoculated either with dirt from an alfalfa field or from a sweet
clover patch or with pure cultures of the alfalfa bacteria. If then
the land is well prepared and harrowed frequently enough to kill the
weed seeds in the surface, and the alfalfa sown at a time when the
land has proper moisture in it late in the summer or in very early
fall, the chance for a good stand of alfalfa is fair.

The only legume which is grown from time to time with success by
practically all these farmers is the cowpea. All the land in this
region appears to be inoculated for this crop ; that is, it contains the

FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL FAEMIXG NEAR MONETT, MO. 23

particular kind of bacteria that the cowpea crop requires in order to
thrive. A few farmers grow a considerable acreage of cowpeas for
hay. Relatively few plant cowpeas in their cornfields. But in view of
the fact that the system of farming which prevails in this region is
one which does not maintain soil fertility, it is advisable for farmers
generally to give more attention to the cowpea crop. It has already
been suggested that it is a good plan to plant the cowpeas with the
(torn at the time the corn is planted. AVhen this is done the roots of
the cowpeas will leave considerable nitrogen in the soil, and the
cowpea vines, which will be harvested with the corn fodder, will ulti-
mately be converted into manure and returned to the soil. In case
the corn is not to be cut for fodder, it is just as well to plant the cow-
peas in the corn at the time of the last cultivation of the corn and
then plow the vines under either early in the winter or the next
spring. This, of course, is not practicable where wheat is to follow
corn, but it can be done where corn or any other spring crop follows
corn.

The so}^-bean crop deserves more attention than it has received
from farmers in this region. It has been tried frequently here, but
not always with satisfactory results, for the reason that some farmers
do not understand its requirements. Cowpeas have been grown in
America for 150 years, and the soil all over the eastern half of the
United States appears to be thoroughly inoculated for this crop.
Soy beans, on the other hand, were brought to this country rather
recently from Japan and Manchuria. They will not thrive unless
the soil has the proper kind of bacteria in it, and these bacteria are
not yet generalh^ spread over the country. Hence, in order to grov,'
soy beans successfully the soil must be inoculated for them.

There are several methods of inoculating the soil for soy beans.
Soy-bean seed carr}^ some of the inoculating material, but ver}^
little. If a small patch be planted to soy beans for two or three
years in succession it will become well inoculated, and the soil from
this patch may then be used for inoculating any other part of the
farm where soy beans are to be planted. Another method is to
moisten the soy-bean seed with water in which a little glue has been
dissolved, sprinkle a little dirt from a soy-bean field over the seed, let
it dry, and then plant the seed. Great care must be used in this
method not to let the sun shine on the seed, for sunlight kills these
bacteria very quickly. Another method is to use the pure cultures
of the soy-bean bacteria such as those furnished b,y the United States
Department of Agriculture.

Soy beans have several very distinct advantages over cowpeas.
The most important is that they ordinarily yield from half as much
again to twice as much seed per acre as do cowpeas. They can be
made into hay more easily than cowpeas, and this hay, if fed Avith a

24

BULLETIX G33, U, S, DEPAETMEXT OF AGEICULTTJEE.

proper mixture of coarser material, such as corn fodder, is just as
good as cowpea hay. Another very important point is that soy
beans can be used for hog pasture at any time, for hogs will eat the
leaves on soy beans greedily, ^yhile cowpeas are good hog pasture only
when the seed is ripe. Soy beans are also excellent human food.

The subject of legumes is discussed here somewhat in detail be-
cause of the great need for means of building up soil fertility in this
region. In view of the fact that clover is not satisfactory, it is
believed that it would be very distinctly advantageous for these
farmers to sow cowpeas or soy beans, or at least some crop that will
make a growth that can be turned under after wheat that is to be
followed by corn.

TENURE.

One hundred and thirty-two of the farms studied in this survey
were operated by their owners; 88 were operated by owners renting
additional land; 24 were operated by tenants. Of 30 of the larger
farms, part was rented out, the owner having more land than he
could operate satisfactorily. Of the 88 owners renting additional
land, 53 were in the group of grain and live-stock farmers and 18 in
the group of grain farmers. Exactly half of the tenants were on
grain farms, 9 on grain and live-stock farms, 2 on grain and fruit
farms, and 1 on a fruit farm. Less than 10 per cent of the farms m
this region are operated by tenants. This is much lower than tlie
general average of tenant farming in the Middle West, or for tliat
matter in any large area in the country. This is due partly to the
average small incomes made on farms in the region. A tenant farm
ordinarily must contribute to the living of two families. Hence
tenant farming is not common outside of the plantation system in
the South except where the farms are fairly large and productive.

Table 10 gives some interesting facts about land tenure in this
region.

Table 10.^ — Rehttion of tenure to profits {132 farms near ifonett, Afo.).

Item.

Owners,

Owners, ''^ting
auai-
tional.

Number of farms

Crop area acres. .

Capital dollars..

Farm income do

Percentage on investment ' per cent. .

132

7(1.5

9,130

705

5.2

87.8
6,519

748
5.8

Owners,

part

rented

out.

30

S9. 2

10,370

603

3.5

24

83.4

1,0G1

477

18.7

Landlord.

24

83.4

7,144

232

3.2

1 After deducting operator's labor from farm income.

Tenant farms, on the average, have a larger crop acreage than
owner farms. Tenants, with a capital only one-ninth that of the
owners, obtained an income more than lialf as large. By deducting

FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL FARMING NEAR MONETT, MO.

25

from the farm income the vahic of the farmer's hibor and convertmg
the remainder into percentage of the investment of the operator, the
results shown in the hist line of this table are obtained. The average
income en the investment of owners is 5.2 per cent. Farmers who
own some land and rent other land have only about two-thirds as
much capital as those who own all their land, but they make 5.8 per
cent interest on their capital. Those farmers who have more land
than they can till properly and rent part of it out make only 3^
per cent on their investment. The tenant, Avhose capital is all in-
vested in live stock, implements and machinery, and other working
capital, makes, in addition to his wages, 18.7 per cent interest on his
investment. The owners of the tenant farms make 3.2 per cent net
income after deducting their expenses.

The facts in this table are of interest to the young man who is
just starting out with a very small amount of capital. They indicate
that his wisest course is to farm a few years as a tenant, for by so
doing he can make more money than if he invested his small capital
in land.

Tableau. — Rtlatiun of a given amount of capital to farm income of otcners and
tenants (220 farms near Moiictt, Mo.).

Capital group.

Owners.

Number.

Farm
area.

Farm
income.

Tenants.

Number.

Farm
area.

Farm
income.

8500 and less . . .

S501-$l,000

Sl,001-S2,000...
S2,001-S4,000...
S4,001-S6,000...
S6,(X)1-S8,000...
SS.001-810,000..
$10,001-S15,000.
Over .515,000...
All farms

23

54

50

72

32

94

38

131

54

156

23

250

220

123

$337
441
613
982
1, 135
1, 545
834

99
122
317

$337

363

436

1,442

This fact is brought out still more strikingly in Table 11. Con-
sidering onl}" owners and tenants, three farmers are found with $500
or less invested. These are all tenants farming an average area of 52
acres and making a net income of $337. In the next group are 10
farmers having a capital of $500 to $1,000, operating farms averaging
99 acres in area and making incomes of $363. These are all tenant
farmers. In the next group 9 farmers, with capital of from one
to two thousand, are operating farms of 122 acres and obtaining
a net income of $436. It is significant that these also are tenant
farmers.

In the next group, with $2,000 to $4,000 capital, are 25 farmers.
All but two of them have bought small farms. Those who have
bought farms are making incomes averaging $337. The two who

26 BULLETTISr 633, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

have remained tenants are making incomes averaging $1,442. Be-
yond this point the desire for economic independence and other ad-
vantages that accrue from the ownership of land becomes so strong
that every farmer is an owner. It will be noticed that among the
farms included in this study just as soon as the average income rises
to a point which represents a satisfactory standard of living from
owner operation tenantry ceases.

Another factor is involved here. The two farmers in the fourth
group who remained tenants are operating farms averaging 317
acres in size. These farms are almost too large for the managerial
ability of the average man. Hence the man on these farms who has
more than $4,000 worth of capital finds it difficult to utilize all his
capital as a tenant and very naturally invests it in land. The lesson
is clear, however, for the young man with a small capital. For a few
years at least it will be distinctly to his financial advant-age to rent
a good farm as large as his capital will permit. When he has saved
enough to make a fii'st payment on a farm large enough to permit a
good standard- of living, he then may well contemplate becoming
an owner, and it is desirable from the standpoint of the public wel-
fare that he do so.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE RELATING TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS
BULLETIN

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION.

Corn Cultivation. (Farmers' Bulletin 414.)

Oats: Growing the Crop. (Farmers' Bulletin 424.)

Barley: Growing tlie Crop. (Farmers' Bulletin 443.)

Good Seed Potatoes and How to Produce Them. (Farmers' Bulletin 533.)

System of Farm Cost Accounting. (Farmers' Bulletin 572.)

A Corn-Belt Farming System AVhich Saves Harvest Lahor hy Hogging Down
Crops. (Farmei's' Bulletin 614.)

School Lessons on Corn. (Farmers' Bulletin 617.)

Growing Hard Spring Wheat. (Farmers' Bulletin 678.)

Management of Sandy Land Farms in Northern Indiana and Southern Michi-
gan. (Farmers' Bulletin 716.)

Economic Study of Farm Tractor in Corn Belt. (Farmers' Bulletin 719.)

Corn Culture in Southeastern States. (Farmers" Bulletin 729.)

The Farmers' Income. (Farmers' Bulletin 746.)

Increasing the Potato Crop hy Spraying. (Farmers' Bulletin 868.)

An Example of Successful Farm Management in Southern New York. (Depart-
ment Bulletin 32.)

Farm-Management Survey of Three Representative Areas in Indiana, Illinois,
and Iowa. (Department Bulletin 41.)

Farm Management Practice of Chester County, Pennsylvania. (Department
Bulletin 341.)

Farming on Cut-Over Lands of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. (Depart-
ment Bulletin 42.5.)

Farming in Blue Grass Region, Study of Organization and Management of
178 Farms in Central Kentucky. (Department Bulletin 482.)

What is Farm Management. (Bureau of Plant Industry Bulletin 259.)

Some Outstanding Factors in Profitable Farming. ( Separate 661. From Year-
book, 1915.)

FOB SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

A Successful Hog and Seed-Corn Farm. (Farmers' Bulletin 272.) Price 5

cents.
Farm Practice in Columbia Basin Uplands. (Farmers' Bulletin 294.) Price

5 cents.
A Successful Alabama Diversification Farm. (Farmers' Bulletin 310.) Price

5 cents.
A Profitable Cotton Farm. (Farmers' Bulletin 364.) Price 5 cents.
Keplanning a Farm for Profit. (Farmers' Bulletin 370.) Price 5 cents.
A More Profitable Corn-Planting Method. (Farmers' Bulletin 400.) Price 5

cents.
Soil Conservation. (Farmers' Bulletin 406.) Price 5 cents.
How a City Family ^Managed a Farm. (Farmers' Bulletin 432.) Price 5 cents.
A System of Farming in Central New Jersey. (Farmers' Bulletin 472.) Price

5 cents.

27

28 BULLETIN 633, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGKICULTUEE.

Lessons for American Potato Growers From German Exepriences. (Depart-
ment Bulletin 47.) Price 5 cents.

Diversified Agriculture and Relation of Banker to Farmer. (Department Cir-
cular 50.) Price 5 cents.

Influence of Relative Area in Intertilled and Other Classes of Crops on Crop
Yield. (Department Circular 57.) Price 5 cents.

Factors of Efliciency in Farming. (Separate- 617. From Year Book 1913.)
Price 5 cents.

Jlovement from City and Town to Farms. (Separate 641. From Year Book
1914.) Price 5 cents.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

5 CENTS PER COPY
A

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I; BULLETIN No. 634 fcm

Contribution from the Bureau of Chemistry
CARL L. ALSBERG, Chief

Washington, D, C.

PROFESSIONAL PAPER

April 4, 1918

A PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL STUDY OF THE KAFm

KERNEL.

By George L. Bidwell,
Chemist in Charge, Cattle Food and Grain Investigation Laboratory.

The grains of nonsaccliarine sorghums are becoming very impor-
tant commercially. Although heretofore largely limited in their
use to feeding farm animals, they are now being employed in increas-
ing amounts for human food, a matter which has been studied by the
Office of Home Economics of the Department of Agriculture.^ Fur-
thermore, the attention of manufacturers of alcohol and starch is
being turned to these grains. As a basis for a process which would
utilize nonsaccliarine sorghums, probably one of the cheapest sources
of starch, in the manufacture of starch and feedstuffs, a study was
made in the Bureau of Chemistry of the ph3"sical characteristics and
chemical composition of the kafir kernel, and the various parts into
which it might be separated by milling. Kafir was selected because
it is typical of this class of grains, and economically as important as
any of them. Therefore a sample of Dawn kafir (Dwarf BlackhuU),
C. I. 340, was obtained from the Bureau of Plant Industry for this
purpose. This sample was grown at the Cereal Field Station,
Amarillo, Tex., in 1915, and is the same grain as that used in the
food experiments.^

The kafir kernel shows some interesting physical characteristics.
It is obovoid, or broadly ellipsoid, convex on the outer or dorsal
sm'face, and somewhat flattened on the inner or ventral surface. It
might be considered as developed from a sphere by first rolling it
in such a way as to lengthen one diameter slightly, then flattening it
on one side. The tip is more or less pointed. Beneath the tip is the
hilum, or point of attaclmient of the seed. The outer end usually is
rounded, but often bears a tiny, double, claw-like point. The endo-
sperm, the main portion of the kernel, is horny without, inclosing a
white, starchy mass. The germ lies in a depression in the endosperm,
near the tip of the seed. The kernel is covered with a thin skin or
bran coat, dirty white in color, spotted or blotched with dark reddish
brown or black. Figure 1 shows the interior structure of the seed.

> U. S. Dept. Agr. BuJ. 470, and Farmers' Bui. 559.
17995°— IS— Bull. 634

BULLETIN 634, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Fifty kernels of kafir were measured with a micrometer in three
directions. As a kernel of kafir lay on a flat surface the vertical
diameter was called the thickness; the shorter horizontal diameter, the
width, and the long diameter, the length. The maximum and mini-
mum as well as the average dimensions are shown in the following table :

Table I.

—Measurements of 50 hernels of dwarf hlack-hulled while hafir, in millimeters.

Dimension.

Maximum.

Minimum.

Average.

Thickness

Mm.
2.74
3.71
4.57

Mm.
2.16
2.95
3.07

Mm.
2 46

Width

3 33

Length

3 90

T/^NSI/£>?S£'

One thousand kernels of this sample weighed 23^ grams. There-
fore, one kernel weighs on an average 0.0235 gram. From the

measurements recorded in the
table the average volume of
these kernels was calculated
and found to be 16.78 cubic
milhmeters and the surface of
such a grain 32.98 square milli-
meters.

One hundred and fifty-seven
grams of kafir were treated with
sufficient water to loosen the
bran and then separated with
a dissecting needle into bran,
germ, and endosperm. It was
found that only enough water
to wet the surface of the kernel
was required and with two
hours' standing in this condi-
tion the bran could be removed
easily. Regardless of the time
of soaking, there was always
some difficulty in getting the
bran loose at the tip. The
separation of the germ and endosperm at that point was also diflScult.
For that reason there is probably a small amount of starch mixed with
the germ, but special care was taken to keep tliis as small as possible.
It was found that 6. 1 per cent, by weight, of the kafir kernel was
bran ; 10 per cent was germ ; 83.9 per cent was endosperm. This would
amount to 1.02 cubic millimeters of bran; 1.68 cubic nuUimeters of
germ; 14.1 cubic millimetersof endosperm, if we assume that those three
substances have practically the same specific gravity. On the same
assumption the thickness of the bran would average 0.031 millimeter.
Surrounding the endosperm lies a very friable, more or less granular
layer which seems to carry a large amount of coloring matter. Tliis

Fig. 1.— Sections of kafir kernels showing (^ ) germ,
(B) starchy endosperm, f C) horny endosperm.

THE KAFIR KERNEL,

colored layer does not cover the germ but passes between it and the
endosperm, as is evidenced in the very liighly colored kernels where
the germ is seen clearly through the bran by appearing lighter in color
than the endosperm. In a small proportion, possibly 1 per cent of
the kernels, this coloration was very pronounced. An extended study
of this color was not made, but in extracting ground kafir in a paper
capsule, both with ether and with chloroform, a red coloration was
noted upon the lower part of the capsule, and this coloring matter
was also noticeable in the solutions during the crude fiber determina-
tion. It was thought that this coloring matter might be associated
with tannin, but tests for this substance failed to show its presence.
Additional tests by the Pharmacognosy and Leather and Paper
Laboratories of this bureau confirmed these results.

The next step in this work was the determination of the compo-
sition of the kafir kernel and of the various products into which it
had been separated by the method described above. It was found
that by grinding the endosperm in a small coffee mill a rough sepa-
ration of starchy and horny endosperm could be made. The mate-
rial was reground through the mill several times until it would all
pass a 20-mesh sieve; then the material that would pass a 40-mesh
sieve was called "starchy endospemi" (6), and the part that re-
mained on the 40-mesli sieve was called "horny endosperm" (7).
No. 6 was floury in appearance and No. 7 had the appearance of sand.

An examination of sections of the seeds shows that the starchy
part lies in the center of the endosperm, surrounded on all sides by
the horny endosperm, except that it reaches the under side of the germ.

The following samples were analyzed:

(1) Sample of whole kafir.

(2) Sample of whole kafir moistened and allowed to stand over
night, dried and ground for analysis in order to approximate but
somewhat intensify any changes which might be caused by
moistening of the various parts.

(3) Pure endosperm, as defined above.

(4) Pure germ, as defined above.

(5) Pure bran, as defined above.

(6) Starchy endosperm, as defined above.

(7) Plorny endosperm, as defined above.

Table II. — The composition ofhafir and its various parts on a water-free basis.

the

Sample.

Per cent

of whole

kafir.

Ash.

Ether
extract.

Crude
protein

(•NX6.25).

Crude
fiber.

Nitrofjen-
free ex-
tract.

Pento-
sans.

Starch.

(1) Whole kafir

(2) Whole kafir mois-
tened and allowed
to stand over nipht.

(3) Pure endosperm . .

U) Pure germ

(5) Pure bran

100.0

100.0
83.9
10.0

0.1

3.5.0

48.9

Per cent.
1.8

1.7

.3

13.2

2.0

.3
.3

Per cent.
4.1

4.2

.7

31.5

6.8

.8
.7

Per cent.
12.7

12.7
12.7
19.3

4.8

10.1
13.7

Per cent.
1.8

1.8

.8

3.8

1C.2

.8
•7

Per cent.
79.6

79.0
85.5
32.2
70.2

86. 5
83.8

Per cent.
3.3

3.8
1.9
6.1

18.4

1.9
1.6

Per cent.
61.9

63.2
69.3

(6) Starchy endo-
sperm . . .

70 4

(7) Horny endosperm

68.8

4 BULLETIN 634, V. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTUKE.

An attempt to determine galactans on these samples was made, but
the residts are omitted, since in no case were the results over 1 per
cent and on attempting to recover the mucic acid from the precipi-
tates none was found.

The methods of analysis were those of the Association of Official
Agricultural Chemists, as given in the journal of that association.
The starch was estimated by the diastase method.

The results on sample No. 2 show that no change which could be
detected by the analyses made was caused by soaking.

These analyses may well be compared with those of different par's
of the corn kernel made by Hopkins, Smith, and East ^ in their study
of the structure of the corn kernel. In this work three samples of
corn differentiated by the amount of protein contained, namely, low,
medium, and high, were examined. The one containing the medium
amount of protein has been selected for comparison with kafir, since
it is nearest the normal. They divided the horny endosperm into
two parts, "horny gluten " and ''horny starch." These analyses have
been combined so as to compare with kafir "horny endosperm."
They also divided the starchy portion into "crown starch" and "tip
starch." These have also been combined to correspond to kafir
"starchy endosperm."

The following table compares the parts of the kafir kernel with the
corresponding parts of the corn kernel:

Table III. — Comparison of kafir and corn separations.

Material.

Kernel.

Ash.

Ether
extract.

Protein.

Carbohy-
drates.

Per cent.
7.39
CI

55. 59
48.9

2.5.49
35.0

11.53
10.0

Per cent.
0.79
2.0

.44
.3

.26
.3

9.90
13.2

Per cent.
0.89
6.8

1.15
•7

.24

.8

34.84
31.5

Per cent.
3.90
4.8

11.85
14.5

7.84
11. GG

19.80
19.3

Per cent.
94.36

8fi. 4

Ilorny endosperm:

86. 56

Kafir

84.5

Starchy endosperm:

Corn

91.66

Kafir

87.3

Germ:

35. 46

3G.0

The figures for percentage of the various parts of the corn kernel
are taken from Table III on page 87 of the Illinois bulletin, and those
for the composition are taken from Table I, on page 83.

In comparmg the analyses of kafir bran with corn bran, or corn
hulls, the most noticeable difference is in ether extract. The kernel
of corn is developed under the protection of husks, but the kernel of
kafir grows in a somewhat exposed condition. When measuring the
kernels it was found that they seemed slippery and it was difficult to
hold them with a forceps. This led to the belief that the kernel

> Illinois Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 87, Aug., 1903, p. 83.

THE KAFIR KERNEL. 5

might be covered with a protective film of some waxy or fatty mate-
rial and it seemed worth while to ascertain the nature of it. A large
quantity of whole kafir therefore was washed rapidly with ether
and cliloroform. This removed soluble material to the extent of
one-tenth of 1 per cent. On examination this was found to contain
16 per cent of unsaponifiable matter, which indicates that the kernel
is probably covered with a fihn of waxy material.

According to Baird ^ the amoimt of unsaponifiable matter in kafir
fat is 1.7 per cent. The kafir fat studied by him, however, was a
gasoline extract of the entire grain, and he described it as having a
consistency like vaselme although somewhat harder. In this investi-
gation the ether extract from the pure bran was found to be some-
what harder than that described by Baird, and it was found that it
hardened rapidly in the fat flasks and cracked from shrinking. The
ether extract from the germ, on the other hand, was found to be a
clear yellowish oil. The kafir fat described by Bau-d was a mixture
of the sohd extract from the bran and the liquid extract from the
germ, as well as a small amount from the endosperm, and thus the
material had tiie consistency he describes.

In stud\Tng the analysis of the two portions of the endosperm of
kafir and corn it will be noted that, though the protem is higher in
the kafir, the horny endosperm in each case has more protein than
has the starchy endosperm. The germs of corn and kafir are very
similar in composition.

Table IV gives the distribution of the various constituents among
the different parts of the kernel expressed in percentages of the total
amount of each constituent in the entire grain :

Table IV. — Distribution of constituents.

Material.

Germ

Bran

Starchy endosperm
Horny endosperm. .
Whole endosperm . .

Whole
kafir.

Per cent.

10.0

6. 1

35.0

48.9
83.9

Ash.

Per cent.

77.9
7.2
6.2
8.7

14.9

Ether
extract.

Per cent.
75.2
9.9
6.7
8.2
14.9

Crude
protein

(NX6.25),

Per cent.
15 5
2.3
28.4
53.8
82.2

Crude
fiber.

Per cent.
19.1
49.7
14.1
17.1
31.2

Nitrogen-
free e.x-

tract.

Per cent.

4.1

5.5

38.4

52.0

90.4

The results of this study show that corresponding parts of the
kafir and corn kernels resemble each other in composition and appear-
ance, and lead us to believe that if kafir were handled in a manner
similar to that used in the preparation of corn products, kafir products
might be substituted for the corresponding corn products.

1 Oklahoma Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 89, June, 1910.

6 BULLETIN 634^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RELATING
TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS BULLETIN.

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Breeding Millet and Sorgo for Drought Adaptation. (Department Bulletin No. 291.)
Studies on the Digestibility of the Grain Sorghums. (Department Bulletin No. 470.)
Experiments in Determination of Digestibility of Millets. (Department Bulletin

No. 525.)
Kafir as a Grain Crop. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 552.)

Use of Corn, Kafir, and Cowpeas in the Home. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 559.)
Uses of Sorghum Grain. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 686.)

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON. D. C.

Corn, Milo, and Kafir in Southern Great Plains Area. (Departmeut Bulletin 242.)
Price, 5 cents.

Saccharine Sorghums for Forage. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 246.) Price, 5 cents.

Better Grain-Sorghum Crops. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 448.) Price, 5 cents.

Importance and Improvement of Grain Sorghums. (Bureau of Plant Industry Bul-
letin No. 203.) Price, 10 cents.

Grain-Sorghum Production in San Antonio Region of Texas. (Bureau of Plant
Industry Bulletin 237.) Price, 5 cents.

Kaoliangs, New Group of Grain Sorghums. (Bureau of Plant Industry Bulletin No.
253.) Price, 15 cents.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PITBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

5 CENTS PER COPY
V

WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 635

Contribution from the Bureau of Chemistry
CARL L. ALSBERG, Chief

Washington, D. C.

March 9, 1918

THE COMMERCIAL FREEZING AND STORING OF

FISH.

By Ernest D. Clakk, Investigator in Fish and Fish Products, and Lix)yd H.
Almy, Assistant Chemist, Food Research Laboratory, prepared under the
direction of M, E. Pennington, Chief, Food Research Laboratory.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Freezing a means ofconserving the fish supply. 1

Preparation of fish 2

Location of freezers ; — ; . . : 3

Cleaning fish 3

Freezing fish 3

Freezing in ice or brine 4

Glazing 4

Page.

Cold storage of fish 5

Packing fish for storage 6

Reglazing 6

Period of storage , 7

Food value of frozen fish 7

Handling of frozen fish after storage 8

Summary 9

FREEZING AS A MEANS OF CONSERVING THE FISH SUPPLY.

But for the fact that fish can be frozen and held in storage for
months without important change in food value or flavor vast quan-
tities of fish would go to waste, and this valuable nitrogenous food
and substitute for meat would be scarce or even unobtainable, except
in the smoked, salted, or canned form, during a large part of the
year. The additional fact that fish properly frozen and inclosed in
a protective glaze of clear ice may be shipped long distances without
deterioration permits many inland communities to obtain in the
winter favorite varieties taken in distant waters. Without such
conservation bluefish would be on the market for only a few weeks,
and then mostly in the vicinity of certain waters; salmon, unless
canned or smoked, would be unknown in many sections ; there would
be no country-wide interchange of halibut, pike, mackerel, smelts,
and other popular fish ; and during the winter, when storms prevent
fishing and schools of fish migrate to deep water or southward, fish
of many varieties would be a costly delicacy instead of occupying
their matter-of-fact place on the table.

32658"— 18— Bull. 635 1

2 BULLETIN 635, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The commercial supply of fish depends on weather conditions and
on the brief periods during which certain fish appear at banks or in
rivers to feed or to spawn. Much of the fish crop, therefore, is as
strictly seasonal as are the harvests of most of the perishable land
crops. During certain seasons fish are landed in quantities far in
excess of immediate needs, and, without effective conservation, these
vast temporary surpluses would go to waste. The importance ot
saving the surplus of spring, summer, and fall catches for later use
was appreciated long before conservation by freezing became known.
Each fishing season large quantities were saved, as they still are, by
canning, smoking, salting, and pickling. Freezing and storage, how-
ever, has the advantage over these other methods, in that it does not
alter the flavor or appearance of fish, and therefore makes available
months later, in almost the natural condition, the spring or summer
catches of seine or hook.

The fish-freezing plants (PI. I, fig. 1) located at many points on
our coasts and the Great Lakes, and constituting an important indus-
try, are becoming increasingly useful as sources of nitrogenous food
to make up the deficiencies in the meat supply. Their work is true
food conservation. Harvests of fish, unlike land crops, add to rather
than take from the fertility of our soils. Meat represents the con-
version by animals of grain or other foodstuffs into another form of
food. Fish, however, represent the conversion of valueless aquatic
vegetation or animal material into human food, and, had merely for
the labor of harvesting, they are a net gain in the food supply.

PREPARATION OF FISH.

To produce frozen fish which after several months of storage will
be practically equal in food value and flavor to freshly caught fish,
it is essential that they be placed in the freezing rooms as soon aa
possible after they leave the water. The fish should be handled as
little as possible, for any bruising, breaking of the skins, or damage
to fins either lessens their keeping quality or lowers the attractiveness
of the fish at market. Under no circumstances should fish be allowed
to become warm from the time they are caught until they are frozen.
Very slight exposure to warmth causes changes in their flesh which
no amount of freezing will remove.

The ideal method of freezing fish is that employed in winter In
Canada and other very cold sections (PI. I, fig. 2), where fish caught
through the ice or on the edge of the ocean are allowed to freeze natu-
rally as they leave the water. Such fish from our northern lakes,
and others, like the smelt from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick,
begin to freeze while they are still flopping on the ice or in the snow.
These frozen fish, which commonly have twisted bodies, due to being
frozen almost instantaneously while still alive, are known on the

COMMERCIAL FREEZING AND STORING OF FISH. 3

market as " winter caught " or " naturally frozen " stock, and, when
the handling subsequent to the quick freezing is such that thawing
does not occur before the market is reached, they usually command
a premium because of their very fine flavor. While those who freeze
fish by artificial means rarely would be able to have fish delivered
alive to their plants, owners of freezers should make every effort to
have their fish delivered in prime condition.

LOCATION OF FREEZERS.

Fish freezers, therefore, are best located near those fishing grounds
which yield a regular supply of perfectly fresh fish (PI. II, fig. 1).
If the plant is distant from the fishing ground, or if the fish can
not be delivered while still cold and within three or four hours after
they are taken from the water, the owner should demand that the
fishermen carry in the holds of their boats cracked ice for the proper
storing of the fish as they are taken. To avoid extra handling the
plant should be located near the water's edge, and, if feasible, pro-
vided with mechanical conveyors which carry fish directly from the
boats to the cleaning tanks (PI. II, fig. 2).

CLEANING FISH.

Fish as they are received in the plant must be washed free from
all dirt and slime in clean, cold, running water conveniently pro-
vided in long tanks. Whether the fish should be " gutted " before
freezing depends upon their size and kind, and also, to some extent,
upon the market to be supplied. Xew^ York and Boston, for example,
prefer salmon frozen in the " round " ; other sections require that
the entrails be removed before freezing. In the case of bluefish and
other larger fish which are heavy feeders or which eat freely of
animal material, gutting before freezing seems desirable. This is
true also of fish which contain much oil, especially in the liver. Fish
containing much partly digested feed in the stomach or having much
oil in the flesh, deteriorate more quickly than do empty or lean
varieties. Gutting of smaller fish, such as butterfish, small mackerel,
small weakfish, and bass, is impracticable. These fish commonly
are frozen in their natural state in pans containing about -iO pounds
(PI. Ill, fig. 1). Larger fish, like halibut and salmon, usually are
not placed in pans but are washed and frozen separately, especially
on the Pacific coast, where the fish frozen are largely of these two
varieties, although some black cod or " sablefish " are handled.

FREEZING FISH.

In the most successful establishments the panned fish are placed
directly on the refrigerator pipes in the " sharp freezer " room the
temperature of which varies from —5° to —15° F. (PI. III. fig. 2).

4 BULLETIN 635, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

These pipes are usually direct expansion pipes from the ammonia
refrigerating plant. They are so arranged that they make a series
of shelves one above the other, each consisting of numerous pipes.
Passageways are left between each set of shelves for the convenient
handling of trucks. Some plants have installed mechanical con-
veyors to facilitate carrying the fish to and from the fish-freezing
rooms.

The operators remove the frozen fish from the pan by pouring a
little cold water on the outside of the pan, which causes sufficient
melting to allow the frozen fish to slip out in a block. Fish which
are to be frozen separately are laid on thin metal sheets resting on
the cold pipes, or they are suspended in the air from iron rods or
hooks. Fish, single or panned, freeze thoroughly in from 12 to 30
hours, according to their size and the temperature of the freezing
room.

FREEZING IN ICE OR IN BRINE.

The older method of freezing fish by packing them in covered pans
which then are buried in ice and salt still is practiced in some dis-
tricts. This plan is not adapted to freezing fish rapidly on a large
scale and does not lend itself to accurate control of temperature.
Methods of freezing fish in saturated salt brine, cooled to low tem-
peratures by freezing coils, recently have been patented. The salt
m brine chilled almost to its freezing point apparently does not pene-
trate into the fish to any great extent, and freezing is much more
rapid than in air. These processes have great merit from the theo-
retical point of view, and appear to be adapted to commercial condi-
tions, but as yet they have not been adopted by the trade in this
country.

GLAZING.

Glazing, an important step in the freezing of fish, is designed to
incase each fish or each block of frozen fish with an air-tight pro-
tective envelope or cover of clear ice. Unless glazed, the skins of
frozen fish are liable to turn white and the fish themselves will
shrivel because of loss of moisture which takes place even at freezing
temperatures. Noses and fins of frozen fish, unless protected by
glazing, are the first points to show the effect of loss of moisture.
Glazing also helps to prevent the eyes of the fish from becoming
opaque and shrunken and to obviate deterioration which makes the
gills, which normally are bright red, darker and brownish. Glazing
prevents the evaporation of the moisture from the flesh of the fish,
prevents the entrance of air which tends to make the fish oils dete-
riorate, provides an ice surface upon which molds and fungi can not
grow, and finally helps to protect the fish from mechanical injuries
which mar its appearance.

COMMERCIAL FREEZING AND STORING OF FISH. 5

For glazing, the frozen fish are taken to the glazing room, which
is held at a temperature of 20° to 25° F., or just cold enough to
cause thin layers of cold water to freeze rapidly. The glazers
slide the frozen cakes of panned fish, or the separately frozen fish,
quickly through a trough of clean, clear water held just above the
freezing point. (PI. IV, fig. 1.) This water covers the product
with a thin film which in the cold air freezes instantly into a crystal-
clear glaze of ice like a transparent varnish. Unless the water is
changed frequently, however, it is apt to collect oils or other material
from the fish Avhich will prevent the glaze from forming evenly on
all parts of the fish or give the ice coating a cloudy appearance.

Fish are passed through the water from three to five times until the
several coats of glaze form a sufficiently heavy and permanent ice
envelope covering the entire surface. Even before glazing the blocks
of frozen fish in the pans have become solid cakes, the fish being
held together by the freezing of the thin layer of water between them,
and the glazing still further cements them to each other. Glazing
of fish adds about 5 per cent to their weight, although this varies
with the size of the fish and the number of glazings. To expedite
the glazing of separately frozen fish, operators on the Pacific coast
place the fish on small platforms, which are lowered by a winch into
a tank of water and raised again. This process is repeated until
the glaze which hermetically seals the fish and. prevents deterioration
is of the proper thickness.

COLD STORAGE OF FISH.

The glazed fish are taken immediately to the cold-storage rooms
to be kept until sent to market. (PI. IV, fig. 2.) These are rooms
with coils of ammonia or brine pipes attached to walls and ceilings,
but not ari-anged in the form of shelves, as in the freezing rooms.

The subject of the proper temperature for the long storage of
frozen fish has been much discussed. Investigation seems to prove
that ordinarily the most economical and safest temperature for hold-
ing fish is at any point from zero to 10° F., with as little variation
in temperature as possible. Some plants, especially small establish-
ments in isolated localities, try to keep their frozen fish at from —5°
to -f 5° F., because fish held at these temperatures would not spoil
quickly should an accident to the refrigerating machinery interrupt
artificial refrigeration for a day or two.

In determining the temperature of the storage room, operators are
cautioned not to be guided by floor temperatures alone, but to place
thermometers so that readings can be taken at the top of the room,
to which the warmer air naturally rises, affecting the uppermost
fish. It is suggested that if the owner can not provide two or more
thermometers he hang a thermometer from a pulley on the ceiling
32658°— 18— RuU. 63.5 2

6 BULLETIN 635, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

SO that he can take readings of the air at various heights, especially
at and above the upper fish. Every operator, of course, under-
stands the importance of keeping doors to cold storages closed, par-
ticularly when they open into outside air or .into halls warmer than
the storage rooms themselves.

PACKING FISH FOR STORAGE.

Before storage, frozen fish, especially on the Atlantic coast, com-
monly are placed in boxes lined with heavy Manila paper, which
makes a better-looking package and gives additional protection.
These boxes simplify the handling and shipping of fish, and also
enable warehousemen to comply with any local laws which require
that the date of entering the storage be stamped on the packages.
Boxing the frozen fish before storage, by lessening the free circula-
tion of air among the fish, helps also to prevent evaporation of the
ice glaze, for ice evaporates even at freezing temperatures, as is
evidenced by the gradual shrinking of a block of ice outdoors, even
in zero weather. Boxed fish which have received from three to five
glazings usually keep from three to five months without losing their
glaze, or much longer than unboxed fish exposed to the air.

Four or five cakes of the panned fish, or 120 to 160 pounds, com-
monly are packed in one box, whose length and width are just large
enough to take these cakes from the pans. Separately frozen fish,
such as halibut, salmon, and other large fish, generally are first
wrapped in a fish-wrapping paper, usually a vegetable parchment
paper, and packed carefully in boxes lined with Manila paper. On
the Pacific coast longer narrow boxes are used for packing halibut
and salmon. While under some conditions the cheaper sorts of fish
are stored in bulk, either in bins or in stacks, the boxed fish keep their
glaze better and are less liable to damage from handling.

REGLAZING.

Because the glaze gradually evaporates, it is necessary, if the fish
are to be kept in storage for a long time, to remove them from their
boxes and reglaze them at intervals of from three to four months.
Reglazing of fish stacked or kept in bins is somewhat more difficult.
A method occasionally followed in reglazing such fish is to use a
hose with a special spray nozzle, similar to that employed in white-
washing. The nozzle plays a finely-divided stream of clean water
on the piles of frozen fish, and this, freezing rapidly, reglazes them
more or less satisfactorily. The glaze naturally evaporates most
rapidly from the outer surface of the pile most exposed to air, and
these parts fortunately are most accessible to the reglazing spray.

Bui. 635, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate I.

FiQ. 1.— The Largest Fish Freezer in the United States.

The State of Massachusetts built this freezer, which has a capacity of 15,000,000 pounds of

frozen fish.

Fig. 2.— Winter-Caught, or Naturally Frozen, Fish.

Bui. 635, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture

Plate II.

Fig. 1.— Newly Caught Fish Carried by Wagon from Beach to Freezer.

Fig. 2.— Conveyor Carrying Fish from Ice Hold of Boat to Freezer.

Bui. 635, U. S. Dept. of Aericulture.

Plate III.

Fig. 1.— Panning Fish, Previously Washed in Long Tank Beside which the
Men are Standing.

Fig. 2.— Sharp Freezer Room.

Bui. 635, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate IV.

Fig. 1.— Putting Fish in Ice Envelopes.

Fig. 2.— Cold-Storage Room. Piles of Frozen Halibut Ready for Boxing and

Shipment.

COMMERCIAL FREEZING AND STORING OF FISH. 7

PERIOD OF STORAGE.

The average period of storage for fish, as shown by investigation
and statistics, is approximately only eight months. Much frozen fish,
however, is sold within a few months after it is stored, and only
rarely are batches of fish held as long as twelve months. Careful
analysis of fish properly stored for such periods fails to indicate
any important change in the food value of the fish, or to reveal any
noticeable alteration in the flavor. To study in a practical way the
effect of freezing storage on flavor, one of the writers^ arranged a
test with a large group of people who were unaware that they were
being used for subjects. These people were served a half portion of
fresh fish (mackerel) and a half portion of the same species of fish
properly frozen and stored for nine months. The average individual
was unable to distinguish between the fresh fish and the frozen fish,
and a number expressed a preference for the frozen lot.

In an effort to determine the natural storage limits for frozen
fish, the department's investigators recently held frozen fish for
twenty-seven months under close observation in a Government ex-
perimental freezer. Elaborate analyses of the fish at various time
intervals and at the end of this period failed to show changes which
rendered them at all unsuitable for food, or to indicate any impor-
tant differences in chemical composition between these fish and fresh
fish or fish stored for shorter periods. The actual period for which
any batch of fish will be held in storage depends, of course, largely
upon the market conditions. Only under very unusual circumstances
are frozen fish held for more than one year, because the season of
fresh fish of any particular species will recur in ten or twelve months,
and frozen fish bring lower prices than fresh fish. Frozen fish must
be marketed before fresh fish again become plentiful on the market.
Other deterrents against holding fish for any great length of time
are the cost of refrigeration, labor, and reglazing, insurance during
storage, interest on capital, and other factors which promote with-
drawal from storage as soon as a favorable market can be obtained.
The legal limit on the storage of fish in several States varies from
nine to twelve months, although in certain States extensions can be
secured upon application to the proper authorities. Observations
show, however, that only under very abnormal conditions and in
unusual seasons is there either any necessity for or commercial ad-
vantage in holding fish longer than nine or ten months.

FOOD VALUE OF FROZEN FISH.

Fresh fish, properly frozen, glazed, and held at low temperatures
for nine months or a year show no important changes in composi-
tion to the food chemist or bacteriologist. No lessening of palata-

1 Prom unpublished Investigations of L. H. Almy.

8 BULLETIN 635, U. S. DEPAKTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

bility noticeable to the average housewife occurs. This is to be
expected, as freezing, unlike most other preservative measures, takes
nothing from the fish and adds nothing to it except a thin outer
covering of ice which soon melts upon thawing the fish for con-
sumption. The low temperatures at which the flesh is held in
storage are well designed to prevent chemical or other changes over
a number of months. Freezing, however, merely holds the fish in
the condition in which it entered the freezing room. Cold can not
restore freshness to old fish nor overcome deterioration from care-
less handling or exposure to warmth. The freezer can deliver fish
practically as good as but not better than that which it receives.

To determine the behavior of fish under storage the Bureau of
Chemistry held fish for the excessively long period of twenty-seven
months in cold storage under its control. At different times sample
lots of fish were withdrawn and analyzed. These studies showed no
significant difference in composition between the frozen fish and
fresh fish of the same species. Of special interest is the fact that no
loss of those nitrogenous constituents which give to fish its chief food
value was noted.

According to these analyses, the process of freezing and storing
causes no appreciable chemical change in those constituents upon
which the food values are usually calculated, even when the storage
is prolonged for greater periods than are necessary or profitable in
commercial practice. In some cases the chemists were able to detect
after storage very slight changes in the percentage of ammonia and
certain other constituents. These changes, however, affect in no
way the food value of the fish, and, in fact, the differences often
were not as great in the same lot of fish before and after storage as
they were between two individuals of the same species when analyzed
in the fresh condition.

HANDLING OF FROZEN FISH AFTER STORAGE.

When frozen fish have thawed they are as perishable as fresh fish,
and should be consumed as quickly as possible. Even partial thaw-
ing lessens greatly the perfect protection of glazing and hard freez-
ing. Retailers, therefore, should make every effort to have their
frozen fish reach them hard frozen with glaze unimpaired. After
the fish reach them the retailers should make very effort to keep
them hard frozen and glazed until they are actually sold. This
best can be accomplished by ordering frequently and not in excess
of immediate sale. Customers should be encouraged to buy fish in
the hard-frozen state, either to be thawed out to order by the retailer
or, even better, delivered to the housewife hard frozen. She then
should place them in a covered utensil in the refrigerator, or other
cold place, and allow them to thaw gradually. Fish never should

COMMERCIAL FREEZING AND STORING OF FISH. 9

be thawed by exposure to heat or by soaking in either cold or warm
water. Such rapid thawing lessens their food value, and tends to
dissolve out flavors essential to their palatability.

SUMMARY.

Freezing and freezer storage will hold fish for many months in
the condition in which they were received, but will not repair dete-
rioration due to previous heating or mishandling.

Freezers should accept only fish that are in prime condition.
Unless delivered within three or four hours after being taken from
the water, fish should be kept under refrigeration in the boats.

Rapid freezing at as low temperatures as possible is necessary
in many plants in order to insure a good product and to handle
receipts as they arrive.

Glazing by inclosing the fish in an envelope of ice prevents loss
of moisture, protects the fish from molds and bacteria, and makes
them less subject to mechanical injury. Fish to be stored for more
than three to five months should be reglazed occasionally, as in time
the glaze evaporates, even at low temperatures.

The most economical temperature for storing fish is probably at
some constant temperature between 0° and -|-10° F., although some
freezers hold that lower temperatures tend to delay evaporation of
the glaze.

Boxing fish before storage helps to prevent loss of glaze, and pro-
tects the product from mechanical injury.

Properly frozen fish reach the retailer in excellent condition. He
should keep them hard frozen until they are sold. The practice
of thawing fish by warming or in water greatly lessens their food
value and flavor.

Chemical analyses show no significant changes in fish held twenty-
seven months, or for a period much longer than would be necessary
or profitable in storing fish commercially.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RELATING TO REFRIGERATION.

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Study of Preparation of Frozen and Dried Eggs in Producing Section. (De-
partment Bulletin No. 224.)
Shrimp, Handling, Transportation, and Uses. (Department Bulletin No. 538.)
Studies of Poultry from Farm to Consumer. (Chemistry Circular No. 64.)
Practical Suggestions for Preparation of Frozen and Dried Eggs. Statement
Based on Investigation Made in Producing Section During Summer of 1911.
(Chemistry Circular No. 98.)
Supplementing our Meat Supply with Fish. (Separate 623 from Yearbook
1913.)

PUBLICATIONS FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERN-
MENT PRINTING OFFICE. WASHINGTON. D. C.

Changes in Fresh Beef During Cold-Storage, Above Freezing. (Department
Bulletin No. 433.) Price, 10 cents.

Preliminary Study of Effects of Cold-Storage on Eggs, Quail, and Chickens.
(Chemistry Bulletin No. 115.) Price, 40 cents.

Bacteriological Study of Shell, Frozen, and Desiccated Eggs, Made Under Labo-
ratory Conditions at Washington, D. C. (Chemistry BsUetin No. 158.)
Price. 10 cents.

Handling of Dressed Poultry a Thousand Miles from Market (Separate 591
from Yearbook 1912. ) Price, 15 cents.

Shipping Fish Three Thousand Miles to Market. (Separate 665 from Yearbook
1915. ) Price, 5 cents.
10

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

/;ENTS PER COPY
V

WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRIXTIXG OFFICE : 3938

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 636

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Contribution from the Office of Farm Management, W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief
(In cooperation with the Office of Horticultural and Pomological Investigations)

Washington, D. C.

May 10, 1918

COST OF PRODUCTION OF APPLES
IN THE PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO

A DETAILED STUDY OF THE CURRENT COST FACTORS
INVOLVED IN THE MAINTENANCE OF ORCHARDS AND THE
HANDLING OF THE CROP ON 38 REPRESENTATIVE BEAR-
ING ORCHARDS, PAYETTE DISTRICT IN WESTERN IDAHO

By

S. M. THOMSON, Scientific Assistant
G. H. MILLER, Assistant Agriculturist

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Results 1

Location and Extent of Districts Studied . 3

History and Development 3

Conditions ....o 6

Farm Organization .<, 8

Farm Investments ....10

Orchards 11

Yields 13

Markets and Prices .c 14

Page

Orchard Management 14

Handling the Crop 25

Packing-house Labor 27

Culls and Cider Apples 29

Total Labor Costs 30

Material and Fixed Costs . e .... 31
Summary of All Costs Considered ... 33
Factors Affecting the Annual Cost of Pro-
duction ...e... ...... 34

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 636

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management
W. J. SPILLMAN. Chief

Washington, D. C.

May 10, 1918

COST OF PRODUCTION OF APPLES IN THE PAY.
ETTE VALLEY, IDAHO.

A detailed study of the current cost factors involved in the maintenance of orchards and the handling
of the crop on 38 representative bearing orchards, Payette district in western Idaho.

By S. U. Thomson, Scientific Assistant, and G. H. Miller, Assistant Agriculturist.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Summary of results 1

Location and extent of district studied 3

History and development 3

Conditions *'

Farm organization S

Farm investments 10

Orchards 11

Yields 13

Markets and prices 14

Page.

Orchard management 14

Handling the crop 25

Packing-house labor 27

Culls and cider apples 23

Total labor costs 30

Material and fLxed costs 31

Summary of all costs considered 33

Factors aflecting the aimual cost of produc-
tion 34

The cost studies upon which this bulletin is based were made during
the year 1915 in an intensive commercitil apple district in the vicinity
of Pa^^ette, Idaho (see Fig. 1). The number of commercial apple
orchards of bearing age in this region was very limited, so that but
38 detailed and accurate records could be obtained. These are
t}^ical of the region, however, and present data which fairly illustrate
apple-growing conditions in this region.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS.

Following is a brief resume of the more important averages brought
out by this study:

Size of 38 farms studied, 53.39 acres.

Size of bearing apple orchard, 11.33 acres.

Investment per farm, $20,689.62.

Investment per acre of bearing apples, $613.16.

Trees per acre, 63.34.

Annual >aeld per acre, 337 hexes.

Net labor costs, $103.40 per acre, $0.3068 per box (43.14 per cent of total annual net
cost of production).

All other costs, $136.25 per acre, $0.4043 per box (56.86 per cent of total annual net
cost of production).

Total annual net cost of production, $0.7111 per box.

Note. — Acknowledgment is due to the OtBce of Horticultural and Pomologieal Investigations of the
Bureau of Plant Industry for material assistance in the preparation of this bulletin; also to Mr. J.
Clifford Folger, who aided in securing the necessary data.
19461°— 18— Bull. 636 1

2 BULLETIN" 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEIC.ULTURE.

In the light of the facts developed the following conclusions have
been drawn as to the business of the farms studied :

The stability of the agriculture of these farms is due to the fart tliat, in llie main,
they have been developed along more or less diversified lines.

■75^"

IDAHO

Fig. 1.— Map showing the State of Idaho and the location of the Payctto fruit region.

Although the specialized fruit ranches may be the more successful in some years,
the general and more diversified farms are the more successful on the average of a
series of years.

Both average price and average cost of production for the region are kept ])elo\v the
level of those of many other apple-growing regions by the presence of a number of
poorly cared for orchards producing low-grade apples.

COST OF PRODUCTION OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 3

Proper soil, good drainage, and a site not subject to frost danger are essential to the
success of the apple industry on these fai'ms.

Investment in land, yield, quality of fruit, soil, climate, and price received for fruit
are all important limiting factors in the production of fruit and should be considered
carefully by the present or prospective fruit grower.

Though these conclusions are advanced as applying only to the 38
farms studied, it is beheved that they will apply in large measure to
the Payette fruit region as a whole.

LOCATION AND EXTENT OF DISTRICT STUDIED.

The Payette, apple-gro^vnng section is located near Snake River,
in the extreme northwestern part of Canyon County, on the Oregon
Short Line Railway. Canyon County is in western Idaho, about
150 miles north of the Nevada line. (See fig. 2.) The elevation at
Payette is 2,159 feet. This is a very extensive region, the limits
of which are not well defined, as fruit growing is scattered the length
of the Payette Valley and also follows the Snake and Boise River
valleys. The most intensive of the bearing-orchard sections, how-
ever, is located in what is known as the Fruitland district, which is
a triangular bench Ipng between the Payette and Snake Rivers,
incluchng about 25,000 acres of irrigated land. (See PI. I.)

Only a small portion of the bench land is devoted to fruit. Hay
and grain farming is the prevaihng type, and considerable live stock
is raised. (See fig. 3.) The principal shipping stations are Fruit-
land, a station about 5 miles south of Payette, and New PljTuouth,
a station 12 miles southeast of Payette. The elevation of Fruitland
is about 2,200 feet. The entire bench is comparatively flat, rising
from the rivers on either side and forming a broad, level table.
From where the Payette River empties into the Snake River, fruit
continues along the east bank of that river, in scattered areas, as
far north as Weiser, a distance of about 18 miles from Payette.
Other shipping stations are Emmett, Parma, and Woodspur.

The estimated extent of orchard acreage in the Payette district
is approximately 20,000 acres, of which 90 per cent is in apples.
Prune plantings take up most of the remaining acreage. The greater
part of the apple acreage has not yet come into bearing. Pears,
cherries, peaches, and berries are grown only to a hmited extent.

As this region is located a long way from the centers of distribu-
tion, the transportation problem is an important one. Tlius the
location has had much to do ^\^th the development of the type of
agriculture, and many farmers have found it more profitable to feed
their grain and hay to stock than to sliip bulky products to distant
markets.

fflSTORY AND DEVELOPMENT.

The Payette Valley is an old settled region. A few ranches were
taken up as early as 1849, but it was not until after 1884, when the
raihoad came in, that the development of the district was marked.

4 BULLETIN 636, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

-^qWEISER

^VWA 5 H 1 N G T C

>n/ COyiNTY

/

^ )/

' f

>-

1 fl^Si:^^^^^*''^^ A_ — .^-'

y^^^^^"^^^ / Jul ^

z /^jr^^vT

<^/A^ J

Oi/ 0 0 u .^

%^J^^^"^

^

;;>^EnMETT\^

OI

/:

^^~"^^^^C *x

^^

Li

"^^ o.-^^

"^^^J^

\\

DC

O

OWY H EE 1
COUNTY 1

PA^^
(pV

s

>-

\

M

k

Fig. 2. — Map of Canyon County, showing the most intensive fruit area of that section.

COST OF PRODIT^TTOX OP APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 5

In 1881 the first irrigation ])rojoct was started. (See PL II.)
Prior to tliis time the farming industry was confined largely to
raising horses and cattle and growing gi-ain for home consumption.

Tlie history of the orchard industry in the Payette region dates
from the early eighties, but it was not until about 1895 that commer-
cial plantings of prunes and apples were made. Most of the planting
has been done since 1900. Dm-ing the last four or five years the
})lanting of apples has fallen off, but jirunes still are being planted in
commercial quantities.

Tlie early orchards were largely home orchards and were made
up of many varieties, including Wolf River, Lawver, Ben Davis,
Baldwin, and many other old varieties. The later orchards are made
up largely of Jonathan and Winesap, which are the principal com-
mercial varieties of the valley to-day. Mining towns, such as Butte

Fig. 3.— A small ranch near Fruitland showing the type of diversified farming practiced.

and Anaconda, together with the smaller settlements located nearer
Payette, offered the best markets for the products of the valley in
early years, but with a growth of the industry more distant markets
were sought.

Many of the owners of the older bearing orchards are those who
bought the land at comparatively low prices and developed it them-
selves. Homesteads could have been taken up in the valley as late
as 1895. Much of the younger acreage of apples and a few of the
older tracts are held by a class of newcomers who have settled in
' the valley during the last few years. Omng to frosts and occasional
years of poor prices, many growers have been disappointed some-
what in the apple industry. Taking into consideration the agri-
cultural experience of the region, it would seem that specialized
fruit growdng does not promise to become relatively as important
as in some regions^which by virtue of their location, soil, and climate
are better adapted to the production of high-grade apples.

6 BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE.

CONDITIONS.

LABOR CONDITIONS.

Labor conditions in the valley, generally speaking, are very good.
Month help is often employed with an addition of day help during
harvesting. The average labor rate is somewhat less than in the
speciahzed northwest fruit districts, where labor is largely dependent
on fruit, with Httle general farming to fill in the gaps between the
busy seasons. Here labor can find employment for the entire year
on account of the gi-eat diversity and kinds of farming followed.
Grain, hay, stock, and fruit imder both intensive and extensive types
of farming are found.

At the time of this survey the labor rate on the farms studied was
$0.20 per hour for man labor and $0.15 per hour for horse labor.
The hoi-se-labor rate is figured on the basis of the value of team labor
where one grower works for another and is perhaps liigher than
would be the actual cost of keeping a team. However, in the case
of the fruit ranchers so many of the farms are specialized that profit-
able emplo^mient for these teams tlu"oughout the season can not be
depended on, as on the large diversified farms. Thus $0.15 per hour,
although apparently a rate comparatively higher than the man-hour
rate, is really a fair rate, all things being considered. It is necessary
to keep horses on these ranches. Man labor is at all times present in
the community, and its rate is determined by the commimity, while
the rate of the hoi^ie labor is determined by the size and type of farm
on wliich the orchards are located.

SOCIAL CONDITIONS.

The social conditions are all that coidd be desired. There are
excellent schools and churches within easy access of most parts of the
valley, and farmei-s' social organizations flourish. The type of farm
is generally extensive enough so that the cliildren remain in the
community and help build it up. Tlie farmers as a class come very
largely from the same walk of life and thus are able to understand
and cooperate with each other more or less on a common basis.

Such modern rural improvements as mail service, telephones, etc.,
are found throughout the region.

TRANSPORTATION.

Tliis district is somewhat at a disadvantage in being a long way
from the centers of distribution. Tliis disadvantage is most marked
in the case of the fruit industry, for fruit, especially soft fruit, is a
higlily perishable product.

The Payette Valley Railway traverses the Payette Valley and
connects with the Oregon Short Line Railway. Tlie town of Payette
is located on the main line of the Oregon Short, Line. The shipping
facilities from here are good, but some idea of the distance from the

COST OF PEODUCTTOi^ OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 7

nearer large cities may be obtained from the fact that Payette is 462
miles from Salt Lake City, Utah, and 460 miles from Spokane, Wash.
In eai'ly years much of the fruit was disposed of in the local markets,
especially in the mining towns and the small cities of Idaho. How-
ever, wdth the increased production in other parts of the State it was
necessary to find an outlet into the large trade channels of the
country.

SOIL.i

Tlie soils in the parts of Payette Valley where fruit is grown are of
various t}^es. The prevaihng type is a sandy loam varying greatly
in texture and dejjth in different parts of the valley. Most of the
soil along the Payette River is of an alluvial natiu-e. The river bank
is comparatively low, but the lands are not generally subject to over-
flow. The sandy-loam ty]3e of soil, found on the bench and higher
cultivated lands on wliich much of the best fruit is located, varies
from 2 to 4 feet in depth, and the subsoil is permeable to water.
Crops of all kinds apparently do well on tliis type of soil. There are
some types found in which the surface soil is the sandy loam, a few
inches in depth, shading into the clay loam at a depth of about 2 feet.
Much of this loam area is underlain with hardpan.

The sandy-loam type of soil found about Fruitland seems especially
adapted to fruit cidture. Much of this region is beheved to have
been formerly a large fresh-water lake, the soil being composed in
many places of very thick sedimentary deposits. Tliis region also is
formed largely of volcanic material. Much of the soil contains a
considerable percentage of soluble salts, and alkali often appeal's on the
siu'face after irrigation.

CLIMATE.

Tlie climate of thePayette and Snake River Valleys is arid tosemiarid.
It is characterized by little precipitation, a relativel}^ low humidity,
moderate temperatm-e, abundance of sunshine, clear ah', and slow wind
movement. The annual precipitation is much greater in the moun-
tains than upon the lower lands. This region is dependent upon the
mountain snows formed during the winter for its supply of water for
irrigation during the summer. Low water or a lack of water for suf-
ficient irrigation is due to a relatively light snowfall the preceding
winter. The mean annual temperature for Payette is about 50° F.
The maximum temperature during the past 15 years was 111° F. on
July 23, 1905, and the minimum for the same period was —26° F. on
January 26, 1910. Table I shows these temperatures, together with
the dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first in the
autumn. Late frosts are not uncommon throughout this region, and
they often cause considerable damage and render the fruit crop un-
certain. Haiist.di'nisralsd somfetimesJoccur,: However, the damage
from hail is usivally much less.'jthan in fruit regions at higher altitudes.

' Soil survey of the Boise area, Idaho (Field 'Operations, Bureau of Soils, 1901).

BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

Table I. — Dates of spring and fall frosts , annual rainfall, and viean annual temperature

at Payette, Idaho.

[Altitude, 2,159 feet.]

Year.

Last
frost in
spring.

First

frost in

fall.

Annual
precipi-
tation.

Annual

temper-

atiu-e.

Highest tempera-
ture.

Lowest tempena-
ture.

Degrees.

Date.

Degrees.

Date.

1900

Apr. 13
June 4
May 1

Sept. 25
Oct. 16
Sept. 16

10.60
13.50
14.04

53.7
53.3
51.2

104
106
102

July 30
July 23
June 23

10

5

-13

Dec. 31

1901

Feb. 8

1902

Jan. 28

1904

June 23
May 21

Oct. 16
Oct. 8

18
8.86

52.1
51.2

107
111

Aug. 13
July 23

- 3

- 2

Jan. 4

1905

Feb. 11

,

1907

May 2
Apr. 29
May 17
Apr. 6
Apr. 16
May 18
May 17
June 5
May 4

Sept. 14
Sept. 26
Sept. 18
Sept. 29
Sept. 26
Sept. 16
Sept. 18
Oct. 24
Sept. 14

9.95
7.52

10

10.38
9.74

13.15

14.26
5.90
9.67

51.3
50.7
50.6
50.1
48.9
48.4
48.9
50.3
50.9

103
108
104
107
104
101
102
103
103

Aug. 1
July 31
July 22
July 13
July 17

...do

Aug. 24
Aug. 14
July 22

- 1
5

- 2

-26

- 3
-23

- 7

- 8

- 5

Jan. 16

1908

Feb. 1

1909

Dec. 28

1910

Jan. 3

1911

Dec. 21

1912

Jan. 8

1913.

Jan. 6

1914

Dec. 8

1915.

Dec. 30

Average (14 years). . .

May 10

Sept. 28

11.11

50.8

104.6

July 29

-5.2

Jan. 10

» Data incomplete.

FARM ORGANIZATION.

The Payette Valley is a comparatively old and established farm-
ing section. It is one of general farming, although fruit occupies an

Fig. 4.— A large alfalfa field near Payette at the time of harvesting the third crop. Alfalfa often yields

8 tons per acre in this region.

important place in its agriculture. (See fig. 3.) The fruit areas
are limited and for the most part are located near a few shipping
stations. The average size of the farms included in this investigation

Bui. 636, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate I.

Bui. 636, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

PLATE II.

COST OF PRODUCTION OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO.

9

is 53.39 acres, with 11.33 acres in bearing apples. Tliis is a much
higher percentage of orchard land than would be found by taking
all the farms in the valley. The farms about Fruitland are very
largely speciahzed fruit farms, and in many cases the acreage is made
up wholly of fruit. In the somewhat outlying districts, which were
settled more recently and irrigated, the type of agriculture is much
more general.

The community as a whole may be considered a staple farming
community, as there are enough of various farming enterprises to
insm-e the success of at least a portion of the ranchers each year.
Dauy farms, of which there are a number in this region, are organ-

FiG. o.—A farmstead scene oil oik of the hii^her bench lands. Owing to difficulty in irrigating and the
high cost of water, some of these settlers have had to economize in order to retain their land.

ized on the basis of raising all the feed to be used on the place. On
most of the dairy farms considerable hay and grain are sold. (See
fig. 4.) Nearly all the fruit growers keep at least some stock, those
with mulch-crop orchards keeping the greater number. Nearly
every rancher raises hogs for home use and several for sale. The
growers also raise garden truck, potatoes, etc., for home use, so that
the farm contributes a very large percentage of the products used
by the occupants.

Tributary to this region are large stock-grazing areas. Much of
the land recently irrigated is devoted to raismg alfalfa. (See fig. 5.)
Raising clover and alfalfa seed is also an important and profitable
branch of farming found here. As might be expected, the more
intensive type of farming is found near the towns, where the fruit
19461«_18— Bull. 636 2

10 BULLETIN 636^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUKE,

is handled by local warehouses and associations without necessitat-
ing any long haul.

In speaking of Payette Valley and Canyon County area as a region
it may be considered as representing a very successful and diversi-
fied type of agricidture. However, the farms studied are all fruit
ranches, for the most part somewhat speciahzed. The orchards on
those wliich are not specialized show more or less a lack of care.
Especially is this true of the large ranches where cattle are kept.

The men found on these ranches are for the most part farmers;
that is to say, they are not men from other professions who have
selected farming and apple growing as a means of retiring from
active life, as have so many residents of other fruit sections of the
Northwest. These men did not expect unusual prices or crops, and
with land at a reasonable figure they have been able to build up a
stable business. Tliere are of coiu-se some ranchers who located on
sections hard to irrigate, and who, caught in years of low prices with
little working capital, have lost out.

In general, the ranchers are intelligent and progressive and wilhng to
adopt new ideas and to apply them to conditions. They are practical
men of limited capital who tend to develop their farming along more
conservative lines than one liiids in certain regions where speculators
have been responsible for the dcvelo])ment.

FARM INVESTMENTS.

The average total investment per farm in the case of the 38 randies
for wliich data were o])tained is $20,689.62, the average size of farm is
53.39 acres, and the investment per acre of apple orchard averages
$613.16.1

Table II shows the comparative investments on the clean-cultural
and mulch-crop orchards. The" machinery equipment investment on
the farms studied ($542.63 per farm) represents present value of
equipment. It may be stated, however, that the equipment on these
farms is generally in fairly good condition, much of it being compara-
tively new.

As might be expected, the mulch-crop orchards show the greatest
investment in stock other than horses. Hogs often are pastured on
the alfalfa orchards.

1 In all these investment figures each farm is given the same weight en -xj. -.'cre basis.

COST OF PRODUCTION OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 11

Table II. — Size of f :rms and of investments for firms studied in the Paijetle region,

IdcJio.

Item.

System of orchard man-
agcment on farm.

Clean-
cultural.

Mulch-
crop.

All records.

Number of records

Average sLo farm (acres)

Investment per farm:

Total . . . :

In land and improvements

In equipment

Average size orchard (acres) '.

Per cent of farm i n orchard

Investment per acre of orchard:

Total :

In equipment

Per cent of total farm in^estncnt apple orchard represents

Per cent of land and improvement invastment app^e orchard

represents

Number of horses per farm

Investment in other stock per farm

16
60.05

$22,324.28

$20,697.66

$531.25

13.. 06

33.65

$581.25
$16.94
38.27

41.59

4.19

$496.00

48.55

$19. 500. 77

$17, SIS. IS

$550.91

9.70

37.88

$636.36
S23.09
36.34

39.80

3.50

$666.41

38
53.39

$20,689.62

$19,030.59

$5:2.63

11. .33

36.10

$613. 16
$20.50
37.16

40.55

3. 79

$594! 66

The investment in farm land on the farms studied in the Payette
region determines to a great degree the success of the farmer. In the
earlier years settlers bought or homesteaded land and developed it
gradually, thus acquiring the land at a much lower price than did the
later settlei"s, who usually bought from real estate companies and
paid much of their capital down on the land. For this reason
many of these men who came from other parts and paid $300 to
$500 and often more per acre for some of this land found them-
selves unable to compete with those who had acquired land at a much
lower figure. Thus, in years of bad fruit prices and general poOr crops
men with httle means of marketing their produce Vvithout an -actual
loss have not been able to succeed. Others are having trouble in
meeting the interest payments on the heavy mortgages which they

carry.

ORCHARDS.

SIZE AND TYPE.

The ap])le orchards in the valley differ greatly in size, but tliose
studied average 11.33 acres. The 16 clean-cultural orchards average
13.56 acres, and the 22 mulch crop, 9.70 acres. These orchards vary
in their general condition and in the number of trees per acre. Many
of them are more or less neglected, and some are on soil not well
adaptetl to fruit culture. Others are located in regions liable to
frost.

The poorest orchards are those in alfalfa and bluegrass which have
been down for a number of years and have been cut off or pastured
annually by stock and never returned to the land. There is a ten-
dency to neglect the older orchards, especially as regards soil
management.

12

BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTTJRE.

AGE OF ORCHARD.

The orchards in the Fruitland and Woodspur districts near Payette
average nearly 15 years in age. There were many early plantings,
but these were confined to very limited areas. Some of the older
orchards are found in the vicinity of New Plymouth, but they are
scattered widely. Many of the older orchards are neglected.

INVESTMENT IN ORCHARDS.

Tlie average investment per acre in the orchards of the Payette
district is much less than that of some other fruit regions. (See
Table II.) This is due to the fact that. Payette VaUey is not as favor-
ably located as some other regions in regard to transportation and is
in a general farming region which has been developed along non-
speculative lines.

Fig. 6.

-A 5-yrar-old Delicious orchard near Boise. Note the habit of growth and size of these trees. This
grower believes in little pruning for young trees of this sort.

The average investment in bearing apple orchards is $613.16 per
acre, and the average equipment investment is $20.50 per acre.
This includes only machinery and orchard equipment. Tlie bearing
apple orchard represents 37.16 per cent of the total farm investment
and 40.55 per cent of the total land and improvement investment.
There is a comparatively small acreage of young apples not yet in
bearing on these 38 farms, and few apples are now being planted.
There is, however, a large acreage in other fruits, especially prunes.

VARIETIES.

Many varieties of apples are grown commercially in the Payette
Valley, but the leading of these is the Jonathan, which usually
brings a good price but has the disadvantage of being suscepti-
ble to blight and mildew. This is followed by the Winesap.
Others of commercial importance are the Rome Beauty, Ben Davis,
aud Ai'kansas Black, Varieties that formerly were planted very

COST OF PKODUCTIOX OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 13

extensively and that are now found largely in tiie older orchards are
Baldwin, Wealthy, Wolf River, Lawver, Ai'kansas, Missouri, York
Imperial, and many fall varieties. There are a few varieties which
are found in smaller numbers but which are popular commercially.
Among these are Wliite Pearmain, Delicious, and StaymanWinesap.
The Ben Davis, although found in many orchards throughout the
valley, is no longer being planted and is seldom found in orchards
under 10 years of age. (See fig. 6.)

METHOD OF SETTING.

The trees are set by various methods. Usually either the square
or diagonal method is used. A popular distance is 28 by 28 feet on
the diagonal, but the older orchards are set by all methods, and the
trees are all distances apart. The trees per acre vary between the
limits of 50 and 90, the average for the farms studied being 63.

YIELDS.

The yields of the orchards studied in Payette Valley are fairly uni-
form. In arriving at these residts the yield was secured for a period
of five years, including seasons of both light and heavy yields, thus
giving a fair average. It was found that in the case of the clean-
cultural orchards there is a yield of 336 packed boxes per acre and in
the mulch-crop orchards a yield of 338 per acre, making 5.7 boxes
per tree in the clean and 5.1 boxes in the mulch crop, there being
about eight more trees per acre in the mulch-crop orchards. (See
Table III.)

Many factors influence the yield — the number of trees per acre, the
variety, size, and age of trees, size of orchard, the amount of pruning,
thiiming, and propping practiced, the percentage of marketable fruit,
etc. Generally speaking, the smaller the orchard the larger the yield
per acre. On account of the relatively smaU number of orchards
which were available in this region, no definite conclusions can be
reached in this regard.

Table III. — Packed-box yields on farms studied in Pmjette Valley, Idaho.

Orchard management.

Number

of
orchards.

Size of
orchard.

Age of
orchard.

Trees
per acre.

Yield
per acre.

Yield
per tree.

16
22

Acres.
13.56
9.70

Years.
14.25
15.18

58.6
66.8

Packed
boxes.
336
338

Packed
boxes.
5.7

5.1

All orchards. . .

38

11.33

14.79

63.3

337

5.3

The age of the orchard has little apparent effect on the yield after
the trees reach 10 years of age. The Jonathan variety comes into
bearing at a comparatively early age, as does also the Winesap.

In addition to the packed-box yield of 337 boxes for all orchards
studied, there is also a considerable yield of cuUed fruit, which is not
considered in the discussion of yields, though credited to the orchard.

14

JBULLETlisr 636, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE.

MARKETS AND PRICES.

The apples of the Payette Valley and the immediate region have of
late years returned the grower varying prices per box f. o. b. shipping
station. The average price received by these 38 growers was $1 .06 per
packed box in 1910, $0.95 in 1911, $0.62 in 1912, $1.02 in 1913, and
$0.37 in 1914, or an average for the five years of $0,804. The aver-
age annual cost of production per box, considering the average yield
over these five years, is $0.7111. In cases of low prices there is gen-
erally a higher yield, and consequently the cost of production is
reduced somewhat for that year. However, in 1912 and 1914 the
cost of production was greater than the price received for fruit.
These figures refer to the price for packed fruit received by the grower
f. o. b. shipping point. Only on general farms and in the case of
men with considerable working capital, can growers weather years
with such disastrous fruit prices as those of the year 1914.

The fruit in this region is marketed in three grades — extra fancy,
fancy, and C grade — as is done in,some other regions of the Northwest,
Tlie growers have had many difficult marketing problems to face, in
common with other Northwest regions.

ORCHARD MANAGEMENT.

MANURING.

Manuring is practiced by 63 per cent, or i24 out of the 38 growers.
In the case of the Jonathan orchards some growers do not apply
manure, for the stated reason that it stimulates wood growth. The
prevalence of fire bhght and its activity in rapidly growing trees
account for their caution in this regard.

Manure usually is applied from a wagon, one man and two horses
forming the crew. Application is made generally during the spring
or fall or, in some cases, as the manure accumulates. The rate of
application is variable, ranging from 5 to 1 5 tons per acre. Table IV
will serve to show the manuring practices and costs.

Table IV. — Relation between vianuring practices and costs of apple production on
farms studied in Payette Valley, Idaho.

Num-
ber of
farms.

Per

icre.

Total

cost per

bo.x.

Orchard management.

Man
hours.

Horse
hours.

Cost of
labor.

Tons of
ma-
nure.

Mate-
rial
cost.

Total
cost.

Clean-cultural

n

13

5.19
6.67

9.90
13.04

$2.52
3.29

6.99
6.68

$8.98
10.02

$11.50
13.31

$0.0342

.0394

All records..

24

38

5.96
3.78

11.60
7.32

2.94
1.85

6.36
4.02

9.54
6.03

12.48

7.88

.0370

All records, pro rata a

.0234

o In this line appear the averages derived by distributing the cost of manuring over all the farms
surveyed in order to secure a figure that legitimately can be used in figuring the regional cost of apple
production.

COST OP PR0DI'CTI0:^5■ OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 15

It is foiiiid tliat more manure is applied amiually per acre on or-
chards in mulch crop than on clean-cultural orchards. This is partly
due to the fact that the mulch-crop orchards are smaller, thus making
more manure available per acre, and partly to the fact that the farms
which have orchards in midch crop keep about one-third more stocl;
than those which have the clean-cultural orchards. It is found that
the labor cost for manuring is 1.79 per cent of the total net labor cost,
while the material cost' is 4.43 per cent of the total material and fixed
cost, making the total cost of manuring 3.28 per cent of the ammal
net cost of production.

PRUNING,

Pruning is practiced generally every year by aU growers. The
open-head tree system is the most popular form of pruning, and from
four to seven leaders with a well-opened head is the type sought. As

i$ fM-.

Z-ii^'z^S-^'

^'■:^&M^^^^

W^ -^B^^S^' ■'^'

wi ^t|f-*4 "^ -^ '

■-^

l^^M'-

'^i:,

"S*"?

■|^HHPP'A

lit

■^^

'~~ <liiii

mstm-'

HMV

•""' , ':,■

jUmSM^-

"'ii^^j

iiifi'iiiiiiiiiifMn

Fig. 7.— A young orchard near Payette from which alfalfa has been harvested. Note the flock of 700
turkeys. A great diversity of live stock is profitably raised in this section.

the principal variety of the Payette Valley is the Jonathan, it is nec-
essary to give the tree plenty of light in order to give color to the
fruit. There is no noticeable tendency as yet to head back the tops
of the trees in order to keep their height reduced (See fig. 7.) The
cost of pruning is $0.15 per tree, or $0.0281 per box. Tliis, as will
be seen (Table V), is identical with the cost of thinning for aU the
orchards.

The pruning cost is somewhat higher for mulch-crop orchards than
for clean-cultivated orchards. This, no doubt, is partly due to the
fact that the average acreage of the mulch-crop orchards is about 4
acres less than that of those under the clean-cultural system, thus
offering opportunity for more detailed care per acre Pruning costs
make up 9.16 per cent of the total net labor costs and 3.95 per cent
of the total amiual net cost of production.

16

BULLETIN 636; U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

HAULING BRUSH.

The growers in this region usually make a practice of trimming out
the brush after it is pruned from the trees and Saving the larger
limbs for fuel. As there is a scarcity of native timber in this region,
firewood is valuable, being priced at $4 to $5 per cord. The smaller
brush is thrown on a sled or wagon and hauled to a convenient place
for burning.

Considering all records, there is found to be a credit of $0.58 per
acre annually for wood and a charge of $3.45 per acre, or $0.0103 per
box, for the hauling and disposal of brush. Tliis makes up 3.36 per
cent of the net labor cost, or 1.45 per cent of the total annual net
cost of production. Where only one or two cords arc obtained from
the orchard each year, the labor of trimming out the heavy wood for
fuel represents almost the value of the wood.

THINNING.

Thinning is practiced generally throughout the valley. Tlie work
usually is done by day labor at the rate of S2 per day. As in other
regions, thinning is practiced either by pulling the apples from the
trees or by using thinning shears. The growers have many ideas as
to the value of thinning. Some claim that excessive thinning of
Jonathans tends to increase the apples in size and consequently to
increase the hability of breaking down in storage. It is thought by
many that the average-sized apple has somewhat better keeping
qualities than the very large one. No definite statement can be
made in regard to this question from the data at hand.

In the Payette VaUey pruning and thinning are done to such an
extent that the necessity for propping is obviated largely. Thinning
usually is done during the early part of the season, preferably in
June. There is found to be an average for those who thin of 48.64
man-hours per acre, or a cost of $0,154 per tree; but when this is
distributed among all records there are 47.36 man-hours, or $9,47
annual labor charge per acre. Tliis is a cost of $0.15 per tree, $0.0281
per box, or 9.16 per cent of the total net labor cost. The cost for
thinning in the valley when prorated among all records is identical
with the cost of pruning. (See Table V.)

Table V. — Averngc time mid cost of pruning, tldnning, and propping for farms studied

in Payette Valley, Idaho.

Operation.

Pruning. .
Thinning
Propping

Per cent
of growers
practic-
ing.

100. 00
97.37
78.95

Man-
hours.

47.41
48.64
7.60

Horse-
hours.

Per acre. Per tree. Per box

9.73
3.07

.150
.1.54
.048

?0. 0281
. 0289
.0091

COST OF PRODUCTION OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 17

Table VI. — Pruning, thinning, and propping costs when prorated over all orchards
studied in Payette Valley, Idaho.

Operation.

Per cent
of growers
practic-
ing.

Man-
hours.

Horse-
hours,

Cost.

Per acre.

Per tree.

Per box.

100.00
97.37
78.95

47.41
47.36
6.00

$9.48
9.47
2.42

SO. 150
.1.50
.038

SO. 0281

. 0281

8.15

.0072

PROPPING.

Propping is not practiced so generally in the Payette region as in
many other apple regions. It is found that practically 79 per cent
of the growers prop. Wliere propping is not practiced at all it is
the general rule for the growers to lighten the limbs by careful thinning
and thus avoid the breaking down of the trees laden with fruit.
Most growers haul out and set up props in a single operation, a wagon
or truck bemg drawn by two horses, with one or two men to complete
the crew. The cost of tending the props after being set up is very
Uttle. Board props are used almost exclusively, although a few
growers use poles. These board props are usually 1 inch in thickness
and vary in width from 2h inches to 4 inches. These props usually
can be bought for about $16 per thousand board feet. The length
varies from 8 to 14 feet, and the boards usually are notched or
cleated at the top. The propping cost ($3.07 per acre) is not quite
one-third of the pruning or thinning cost and is 2.35 per cent of the
total net labor cost, or practically 1 per cent of the total annual net
cost of production. (See Table V.)

SOIL MANAGEMENT.

There are two distinct types of soil management in the valley, the
clean cultural and the mulch crop. The mulch-crop system of
management as practiced in the valley is largely one of keeping the
orchard in sod for a period of years, so that, properly speaking,
it receives very little benefit from a leguminous mulch crop. Some
of these orchards are in bluegrass, but all are classed as mulch-crop
orchards, as they are under the same general system of management.
Sixteen of the 38 orchards are under the clean-cultural and 22 under
the mulch-crop system. The average annual cost of plowing and
cultivating on the former is $9.37 per acre, while in the case of the
latter it is $2.72.

The system of soil management practiced is the most important
factor influencing the health of the tree and the general producing
capacity of the orchard.

19461°— 18— Bull. G30 3

18 BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMEXT OF AGRICULTURE.

The soil in the orchards of the valley apparently has not yet been
depleted by clean cultivation, as has the soil of certain other regions.
The growers seem to realize that humus is necessary for the soil and
have applied considerable maiim'e, thus lessening the necessity of
returning humus to the soil in other ways. If this mulch cropping
were practiced with a view to aiding the orchard and handled accord-
ingly, the residts no doubt would be different, but many of the larger
and older orchards are down in mulch crop which has been there
many years and is practically sod.

A few orchardists turn under their mulch crops from time to time,
and one of the most successful orchardists in the valley alternates
the mulch-crop and clean-cultural system every year. To a great
extent the grower himself can determine from the health and vigor
of his own orchard which type of soil management he should follow,
and a combination of both systems would seem to be best as far as
the orchard itself is concerned, but perhaps not the most profitable
when the pasture and hay value of the crop on the orchard is taken
into consideration.

CULTIVATION.

All the orchards in the valley have at least a small annual charge
for cultivation. The least charge appears on those orchards which
are in bluegrass for permanent pasture, in which case only occasional
rills for irrigating are made, or sometimes the orchard may be disked,
or harrowed with the spring tooth. (See Table VII.)

In regard to plowing, it was found that 12 (nearly 32 per cent)
practice it, plowing on an average of 1.38 acres a day. The cost
is $3.61 per acre for those who plow. (See Table VII.) Considering
all orchards under both kinds of management, the acre charge for
plowing is $0.85, and the box cost $0.0025.

Twenty-two (nearly 58 per cent) of the orchardists disk, the 7-foot
riding disk being used ordinarily. This disking is done usually in
the early spring and often prior to any other operation on the soil.
A comparatively small percentage of the growers use the spring-
tooth harrow. The spike- tooth harrow is used by 15 (nearly 40
per cent) of the orchardists. Various other implements are used
on a few orchards.

Cultivation begins as a rule during the latter part of March or
shortly after. Plowing is often the first operation in the spring.
Som.e growers use either spring or spike tooth harrow for the first
operation and follow this with a disk in order to loosen up the soil.
Later in the spring, after the weeds have started, the disk may be
, used again, either one or both ways, and then followed by the spike
or spring tooth harrow before the first irrigation. Other growers
may in addition use the cultivator once or twice.

COST OF PRODUCTION OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 19
Table VII. — Cultivation practices on the 38 farms studied in Payette Valley, Idaho.

Implement.

Per
cent of
numljer
using.

Num-
ber
clean.

Num-
ber Man-
mulch hours,
crop.

Horse-
hours.

Acres
per
day.

Cost
per
acre.

Width

of
imple-
ment.

Plow 31.58

Disk 57.89

Spring-tooth harrow 15. 79

Spike-tooth harrow 39.47

Crease shovel plow I 3(;. 84

Crease (6-foot cultivator; ! 10. 52

Float ' 10. ."2

Weeder 5. 26

Cult ivat or 5. 26

Corrugator ' 5. 26

Alfalfa ditcher 2. 63

Mormon ditcher 2. 63

Biller ! 21.05

3

1

4

1

1

2

2

1

1

4

4

7.23
1.77
l.Sl

.96
1.64

.92
1.24

. 96
1.00

i.:o

1.88
2.00

i.bi

14.46

3.;4

3.C2
1.92
3.28
1.84
2.48
1.92
2.00
3.00
3.76
4.00
2,02

1.38
5.65
5.52

10.42
6.10

10.87
8.06

10.42

10.00
6.C7
.5.32
5.00
9.90

53.61
.89
.91
.48
.82
.46
.62
.48
.50
.75
.94
1.00
.51

Feet.

; bv 14
8

It can not be said that the average grower practices intensive
cultivation as it is practiced in some commercial districts. The
water supply has been adequate to supplement the normal rainfall,
so that there has been no pressing need of conserving moisture.
Some growers cultivate their orchards between irrigations, particu-
larly after the first. Most orchardists, however, do not cultivate
the land after the first irrigation rills have been laid out. For all
orchards under all systems of management the average total annual
cost for cultivation, including plowing, is $5.52 per acre, or $0.0164
per box. (See Table VIII.) ^

Table VIII. — Total of all cultivation costs per acre and per box on farms studied in

Payette Valley, Idaho.

Clean cultural.

Mulch crop.

All orchards.

Cost per
acre.

Cost per
box.

Cost per
acre.

Cost per
box.

Cost pen-
acre.

Cost per
box.

SI. 44
7.93
9.37

$0. 0043
.0236
.0279

SO. 42
2. .30
2.72

$0. 0013
. 0068
.0081

SO. So
4.67
5.52

SO. 0025

Other cultivation

.0139

.0164

MULCH CROPS.

The use of midch crops has become general witliin the last few
years. Only a few orchardists take off more than one crop of hay,
and many use the crop entirely for pasture or leave it on the ground,
although many others make throe cuttings, which may be taken off
or left on the ground as a mulch. The most common method of haiid-
Img mulch crops in this region, however, is to allow hogs to pasture
off the crop. In this w^ay the soil is enriched and at the same time
the wormy and inferior fruit on the ground is utilized for feed.

Where mulch crops are grown, it is the practice to go on the land
with a disk in the latter part of March or the first of Aprils The

20

BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

orchardists may follow this with some other cultivation tool, such
as the spring or spike tooth haiTow. Following this, however, there
is no further treatment of the soil aside from the rilling for irrigation.
A few men plow under their mulch crops as an annual practice, but
most of them leave them in for several years, although the growers
say it is the intention to turn under and resow the mulch crop at
intervals of from three to four years.

The kinds of mulch crops used vary somewhat from those in other
regions. Alfalfa seems to be the most popular and is used largely
for pasture. There are many orchards in bluegrass, which also is

Fig. 8. — A large packing shed of a fruit grower near Boise.

used as a pasture. This has been down in some cases 10 or 12 years.
The older orchards, which show the greatest amount of neglect, are
the ones which are in mulch crops, or, more properly speaking, which
have been in sod for a number of years. Such an orchard really can
not be said to be under the mulch-crop system.

These mulch-crop orchards are often irrigated by means of flood-
ing, although about half are irrigated by means of rills. Generally
the pastured orchards are flooded, while the better-cared-for orchards
are rilled.

It is found that 7 of the 22 men who use some form of mulch crop
have their orchards in clover, and 9 have them in alfalfa. Four
pasture their orchards in addition to taking the hay off, while seven
make a practice of pasturing the orchard and not taking off any hay.
There is a net credit of $7.40 per acre for hay and pasture, or a
credit per box of SO. 022, for the 22 growers who use some kind of
mulch crop. (See Table IX.)

COST OF PRODUCTION" OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 21
Table IX. — Credit derived from mulch crop on farms studied in Payette Valley, Idaho.

Per acre.

Net credit
per box.

Number of records.

Cost of
harvesting.

Hay credit.

Pasture
credit.

Total
credit.

Net credit.

22

J1.87

$0.21

S3. 06

$9.27

$7.40

$0,022

IRRIGATION.

In the Fruitland district there are two important irrigation projects.
One is the Noble ditch, watering about 6,000 acres, with an average
maintenance fee of but httle over $1 per acre per year. This was
organized in 1894 and receives its water from the Payette River.
Tlie higher land in tbe south Payette district is watered by the
Farmers' Cooperative ditch, which is a large project embracing about
13,000 acres. It taps the Payette River at Emmett, farther up the
stream than the opening of the Noble ditch. Tlie maintenance charges
for this ditch are from SI. 50 to $2 per acre per year; the water from
it is turned on about the first of May.

In the region north of Payette, or the Woodspur section, are found
districts known, respectively, as the Lower Payette district and Pay-
ette Heights. Tlie former comprises the greater acreage. Tlie Payette
ditch furnishes water at a low maintenance cost which will average
about $0.50 per acre per year. In order to water the Payette Heights,
it has been necessary in many cases to install pumping plants to lift
the water up to the higher lands. This makes the cost of irrigating
very much higher than that on lands watered by a gravity flow.
In many cases it is $6 to $7 per acre per year for the water delivered
on the land. For the most part the water is conducted in open
ditches or flumes, and piping systems are not common. It is neces-
sary to irrigate all orchards in this region, as the annual rainfall is
not sufficient to sustain the trees. On an average 4.7 irrigations
are made annually on the 38 orchards studied in the vaUey, the
mulch-crop orchardists averaging 5.18 irrigations, while the clean
cultural average 4.06. In the case of the clean-cultivated orchards,
the first irrigation usually is made during the latter part of May or
the fii-st of June, and the last during the latter part of August. These
irrigations are made at regular intervals during this period. (See
Table X.)

Table X. — Average number of irrigations and practices for farms studied in Payette

Valley, Idaho.

Number of
irrigations.

Average
man hours
per irriga-
tion.

Total
man hours
for all irri-
gations.

Cost per

acre per

irrigation.

Cost per
acre for all
irrigations.

Cost per
box for all
irrigations.

4.06
.5.18
4.71

2.434
1.725
1.983

9.88
8.94
9.34

SO. 486
.345
.398

$1.98
1.79

1.87

$0. 0059

.^53

All records

•'■~)55

22 BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Tlie rilling for the irrigation is done either by shovel cultivators,
single plows, corrugators, or homemade rillers. In irrigating the
mulch-crop orchards the system of flooding is used to a great extent.
In flooding the time is considerably reduced, for this method aims
to cover the whole orchard by allowing the water to follow its own
course. Tlie topography of the land and type of soil will determine
the method of applying the water.

Where mulch-crop orchards are rilled, a common tool used is a
"corrugator," consisting of two metal shoveUike attachments 'with
a substantial iron frame. Six rills usually are made per tree row.
As a rule, the date for the first irrigation is earUer on mulch crop
than on the clean-cultivated orchards, the first watering usually
being made during the first two weeks in May and seldom later
than the last of this month. In a few cases men flood their orchards
in the fall.

The average time for irrigating the mulch-crop orchards is 1.72
man-hours, with an acre cost of $0,345, or for the 5.18 irrigations
there is a charge of 8.94 man-hours and a cost of $1.79 per acre, or
$0.0053 per box for labor.

Considering aU records, irrigation costs $1.87 per acre or $0.0055
per box. The average annual water tax is $1.28 per acre, or $0.0038
per box, and the total for labor and water tax is $3.15 per acre, or
$0.0093 per box.

SPRAYING.

The spraying program of the Payette district is comparatively
uniform. AU growers from whom records were taken make one dor-
mant lime-sulphur spray and one calyx arsenate-of-lead spray. They
average 2.09 other arsenate-of-lead sprays, making an average of
4.09 sprays for the season.

All the growers except three own their own spray rigs, which gen-
erally are of standard make, although there are a few assembled rigs.
When the spray outfit is hired, the usual price is $1 per hour ior man,
team, and outfit. The grower's average investment in the spray
outfit for those owning them is $360. The spray-rig engine varies
from 2 to 3^ horsepower, the majority being 2^. The 200-gallon
tank is the one most commonly used. There are very few men who
use spray towers on their rigs, though in the older orchards spray
towers are an advantage.

It is found that the life of the average spray rig is approximately
9^ years, and that the depreciation amounts to $37.80 annually.
This, added to an annual upkeep of $16 and an annual interest
charge of $28.80 on the original investment, makes an annual charge
of $82.60 per spray rig.

Approximately 20 acres of fruit are sprayed annually by each spray
rig. This would then give an acre charge of $4.13 for depreciation.

COST OF PRODUCTION OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY., IDAHO. 23

upkeep, and interest, together M'itli SO. 74 for oil and gasoline, making
a total annual charge of $4.87 per acre for the use of the spray rig and
engine. Those who hire their spraying done pay for the rig itself
about $0.50 per hour, wages of man and team making up the reipiainder
of the charge of $1 i)er hour. .Vllowing the same number of spray
hours per acre for those who hire the spraying done, there would then
be an annual charge of $5.73. In reahty, however, there are usually
fewer hours spent per acre for those who hire than for those wlio do
their own spraying. There is an average of 10 spray-rig hours an
acre for those who hire the spraying done, thus maldng the annual
cost $5 per acre, or $0.13 more per acre than for those who own their
spray rig.

Most spray rigs have two leads of 50-foot rubber hose and use an
8 to 10 foot spray rod. The pressure varies from 125 to 275 pounds,
but usually is about 200 pounds.

There are many orchard pests and diseases which the grower finds
it necessary to control. The most important pests are the San Jose
scale and the^codhng moth. These made their appearance in the
early years of the commercial apple industry in this region. There
are others wliich rec[uire less attention and which the growers in this
section have had httle trouble in combating as yet, such as the
green aphis, woolly apliis, oyster-shell bark louse, blister mite, etc.

Table XI. — Payette spraying -practices and costs {38 records).

Aver-

Per

icre.

Acres

Gal-

Gal-
lons
per
tree.

Per acre.

Total
cost
per
box.

Kind of spray.

age
num-
ber of j Man-
sprays, hours.

Horse-
hours.

per

10

hours.

lons
per
acre.

Labor
cost.

Mate-
rial
cost.

Total
cost.

Strength of
spray.

Lime - sulphur
dormant spray.

Calyx or first lead
aJsenate spray.

Other lead -arse-
nate sprays.

1.00
1.00

2.09

8.24
7.51

15.96

6.05
5.42

11.45

3.31
3.69

3.65

388.56
378.09

776.49

6.14
5.97

12.27

$2.56
2.31

4.91

S7.29
2.00

4.14

$9.85
4.31

9.05

$0.0292
.0128

.0269

lto9.

2 lbs. lead to

50 gals.

water.
2 lbs. lead to

50 gals.

water.

Total all sprays.

4.09

31.71

22.92

3.57

1.543.14

24.38

9.78

13.43

23.21

.0689

The more important apple diseases are blight, mildew, and apple
scab. Blight is by far the most serious, and as yet there is no effective
remedy other than cutting out the infected parts 6 or 7 inches below
the infection, using great care to disinfect the tools with corrosive
subUmate. Mildew and scab are present and have caused considerable
trouble. The. apple scab made its first appearance in Idaho in Latah
Comity, in 1897, being noticed at a much later date in Canyon County.
The growers considered in these records, however, had not made a
practice of spraying to prevent either of these diseases up to the time
these data were taken. It was found that all growers thoroughly

24 BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

believe in the application of the first spray, made for the San Jose
scale. Heavy losses have been suffered in the past from this pest,
and now a great deal of attention is given to its control. When all
growers spray with a dormant lime-sulphur spray of a strength vary-
ing from 1 to 8 to 1 to 11, it apparently holds the scale in check, so
that little damage to the fruit is experienced. Applications of tliis
dormant lime-sulphur spray are made every year, usually during the
latter part of March or the first of April, after the buds begin to swell.

The usual spraying crew consists of three men and two horses, two
men using the two leads of hose, and the tliird man driving the team.

The average crew will spray 3.31 acres in 10 hours, applying 388.56
gallons per acre, or 6.14 gallons per tree. The labor cost is $2.56 per
acre, and the material cost $7.29, making a total cost of $9.85 per
acre, or $0.0292 per box. (See Table XI.)

The first lead-arsenate spray of the season, known as the calyx
spray, is made for the control of the codling moth. This application
is made when about 80 per cent of the petals have fallen, which is
usually the first or second week in May. It ordinarily consists of
lead arsenate and water, paste lead arsenate being used at the average
strength of 8 pounds to a 200-gaUon tank of water, or dry lead arsenate
4 pomids to a 200-gallon tank of water. Lime-sulphur or atomic
sulphur, sometimes used in this spray for scab prevention, is not as
yet used by any of these growers. In applying this spray the average
crew will spray 3.69 acres in 10 hours, applying 378.09 gallons per acre,
or 5.97 gallons per tree, with a labor cost of $2.31 and a material cost
of $2.00, or a total cost of $4.31 per acre.

The second spray for the control of the codling moth usually is
made about three weeks later than the first and is spoken of as the
"three weeks' spray." In severe cases, however, a spray is made 10
days after the time the petals fall, using the same strength of lead as
in the case of the calyx spray. The third, and usually the last,
application is made during the last week of July. Where four appli-
cations are made, the second usually follows the calyx in about 10
days, the third about the first of June, and the fourth the latter part
of July. As a rule, however, either the second or fourth spray is
omitted, making a total of only three applications of lead for the con-
trol of the codling moth larvse. For these lead sprays other than the
calyx spray, the average crew will spray 3.65 acres per day, applying
about 1,350 gallons in tliis tiiiie.

Considering all sprays, the total labor cost for spraying is $9.78,
while the total material cost is $13.43, making a total of all costs for
labor and material of $23.21 per acre, or $0.0689 per box. The cost
of the spray rig itself, including the gasoline, upkeep, etc., is not
included here, but is included under the annual equipment charge to
be found imder the fixed costs.

COST OF PRODUCTION OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 25

In 1915 and 1916 atomic sulphur was used in some other sprays,
than the calyx and doubtless will bo used more generally m the future
for the control of apple diseases, particularly mildew.

MISCELLANEOUS.

There are some items which do not appear in the regular labor
column. These are classed as miscellaneous items. The principal
of these are cuttuig bUght, cleaning laterals and waste ditches, mow-
ing weeds, hoeuig about the orchard, and doctoring trees, and there
are many other small items which appear on but a few farm reports.
In this district miscellaneous labor is made up entirely of man labor,
the cost of which is S1.41 per acre, or $0.0042 per box.

HANDLING THE CROP.

The cost of handhng the crop makes up 60.95 per cent of the total
annual net labor cost of production, or 26.30 per cent of the total
of all net costs. The items which go to make up this handling are:
Picldng, orchard foreman, all packing-house labor, mclu(Ung sorting,
packing, nailing, stamping, waiting, etc., and any other labor a])out
the packing house, such as packing foreman. The hauling, which
is a part tf the handhng costs, includes hauling shooks from the
station, hatding empty boxes to and fuU boxes from the orchard, and
hauhng packed boxes to the association or station. Before discuss-
ing these items it should be stated that a large number of men in
this region pick their fruit and haul it to the association or ware-
house where it is packed, the grower being charged a price which
varies with different branch packing houses of the central association.
At the time of this study, 14, or practically 37 per cent of the 38
growers, did not pack their own fruit, but took it to these associa-
tion pacldng houses, where it was sorted, sized, and packed.

PICKING.

Picldng in this regiim is done very largely by day labor at the rate
of $2 per 10-hour day, although sometimes growers contract with
men to pick at $0.04 per box. The picking season usually begins m
early September and lasts mitil late in October. The first commer-
cial variety picked-iii this region is the Jonathan. Growers ordinarily
begin to pick these about September 10, or sometimes earlier where
apples are intended for foreign trade. Two or more pickings often
are made for such varieties as the Jonathan and Rome Beauty.
These apples are picked for color, and as aU the apples on the tree
are not colored evenly at one time, it is desirable to make more
than one picking. Other varieties usually are taken off at one pick-
ing. On this account the grower can pick more boxes per day of
such varieties as Ben Davis than he can of Jonathan.

26 BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

All picking is done by hand. The ordinary stepladder, varying in
length l)ut usually light and easily handled, is commonly used.

A canvas picking bag is used by nearly all growers. Some of the
growers use orchard boxes, in which the apples are hauled from the
orchard to the packing house. These boxes are larger and heavier
than the ordinary apple box and are commonly called lug boxes.
However, as in other Northwest sections, these growers usually handle
their apples in the ordinary packing boxes which have been made up
and hauled into the orchard at convenient places for the pickers. As
these same boxes are used for packing, more care is taken m handling
them than in handling the lug boxes.

It is found that the average picker will pick 67 loose boxes per
day, or enough to make 44 packed boxes. The average picking
crew consists of from three to four men. On the farms studied, with
a yield of 337 boxes per acre, it costs $15.53 per acre, or $0.0461 per
box for picking. (See Table XIII.) The pickuig time and cost are
affected by yield, size of orchard, variety of apple, weather conditions,
uniformity of the fruit, and many other factors. Owmg to the limit-
ed number of orchards from which data were obtained, no defuiite
conclusions could be reached as to the relative influence of these
different factors on the cost.

There are a few men with large orchards who employ an orchard
foreman to supermtend the pickers. On the toial labor cost tliis
foreman labor is coml)ined with the picldiig labor, but influences it
very little, the cost, mcludhig the foreman, bemg $0. 0465 per box.
This is because there were only two orchards which used an orchard
foreman who did not also act as a picker.

The pickhig labor, includuig the orchard foreman, makes up 15.16
per cent of the total net labor cost and 6.54 per cent of the total
annual net cost of production.

HAULING.

HauUng costs include hauling shooks, hauling* the loose boxes to
and from the orchard, antl hauling to the station or association.
Twenty-four men haul shooks, the others handling their fruit tlirough
an association from which they obtain their made-up boxes. In
the case of these 24 orchardists, one man and team haul 471 shooks
per load a distance of 1.24 rmles at a cost of $0.87 per acre, or $0.0026
per box. (See Table XII.) After these shooks are hauled, they
are made up on the ranch at an average cost of $0.85 per hun-
dred. This cost is included under made-up box cost in material
and fixed costs. AH growers haul empty boxes to the orchard.
Fourteen of these haid from the association packing house, while 24
haul from their own packing house on the ranch. The cost of hauling

COST OF PRODUCTION OP APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 27

these loose boxes to the orchard is $0,006 per box. There are 24
growers who haul full loose boxes into the packing house, the other 14
hauling direct to the warehouse or association. An orchard truck is
generally used by the 24 who haul to their own packing houses, hauling
a load of 53 boxes at a cost of $3.96 per acre, or $0.0121 per box.

All growers haul full boxes of fruit from the ranch to the association
or station. Twenty-four of these haul packed boxes, while 14 haul
boxes to be packed at the association. The average cost is $5.16
per acre, or $0.0153 per box.

Table XII. — Average cost for hauling irliere a crew of one man and two horses is used.

Numher g
Pr^«f-!peHofd.

Number
of miles

Cost.

Per acre.

Per box.

Per box
per mile.

Haul shooks

Haul empty out

Haul full in

Haul to station. .

471

1.24

$0.87
2.01
3.96
6.16

.0026
. (X)HO
.0121
.0153

When all hauling costs are considered they are found to amount to
$0.0306 per box. This is relatively low, as compared to the cost in
some regions, owing to the fact that most orchards here are in the
immediate vicinity of the shipping stations and also to the fact that
haiding the full boxes from the orchard to the rancher's packing shed
is done away with in the case of the 14 orchardists who haul their
loose boxes direct to the association packing house.

PACKING-HOUSE LABOR.

The principal items of packing-house labor are the sorting and
packing. As 14 of these men have their apples packed by the asso-
ciation, this discussion applies only to the 24 growers who do their
own packing. All these 24 growers have sorters for their fruit apart'
from the packers.

SORTING.

Sorting in this region is nearly all done by hand, women being
largely employed for this work. As yet very few mechanical sizers
have been brought into the valley, except for use in association
packing houses. The apples are usually sorted into three grades;
extra fancy, fancy, and C grade. The apples that are used for cider
nearly all pass the sorters ; that is to say; these apples are taken out
by the sorters from the boxes of picked fruit. The labor of sorting
depends on the variety of fruit and its relative freedom from insect
or fungus injury. The sorters usually do not size the fruit, but only
sort it into the grades, the packer sizing his own fruit.

28

BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

The average sorter when doing nothing else will sort from 75 to 80
packed boxes in 10 hours, or about 125 loose boxes. The sorting
"" cost when the 24 orchards are considered is $8.84 per acre, or $0.0266
per box.

Table Xlll.— Average cost for handling other than hauling (38 records).

Item.

Picking

Supervision by picking foreman

Sorting

Packing

Nailing and waiting

Nail ins

Waiting

Supervision by packing foreman
Other packing labor

Number of

orchards

practicing.

Boxes in
10 liours.

43.38
289. 86
75.19
5.5. 75
170. 94
312.50
259. 74
338. 98
19G. 08

Cost per
acre.

$15. 53
2.62
8.84
16.62
3.35
2.25
2.39
2.17
3.58

Cost per
box.

80.0461
.0069
. 0206
.0500
.0117
.0064
.0077
.0059
.0102

Number in
crew.

3.21

1.00
3.54
5.63
1 00
1.00
1.00
l.C.O
1.22

PACKING.

The packing wage per box is ordinarily $0.05 for sorted apples.
Much of the packing is done by young women. In a few cases packers
are hired by the day.

Provision for packing-house accommodations has been made by
nearly every grower. (See fig. 8.) Sometimes barns or sheds are
used for this purpose during the harvesting season. In a few cases
complete and well-arranged packing sheds have been built at a cost
of several hundred dollars. The average packing shed, however, docs
not represent a very great outlay of money. Often it is but a shed
or barn temporarily converted to this purpose.

The packers have the apples before them sorted into the three dif-
ferent grades, which they size as they pack. The experienced packer
ciin teU very readily by looking at the apple to what size it belongs.
Thus the average packer has three or four boxes before him in which
to put apples of the same grade but different sizes. The packer
is usually required only to wrap and pack the apples. In some cases,
however, the packer also lines the boxes, although this is often the
work of a waiter or extra helper in the packing house.

The average number of packed boxes per day in the case of these
24 men is 55.7 per packer.

NAILING, ETC.

Seventeen of these 24 men make a practice of using one man for
nailing alone, while seven combine naihng and waiting. For those
who nail it was found that one man wiU do 312 boxes in 10 hours at
a cost of $0.0064 per box, whUe for those who nail and wait it is
found that the average man will do 171 boxes in 10 hours at a cost of
$0.0117 per box.

COST OF PRODUCTION" OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 29

Twelve of the packers have a waiter whose business it is to wait
on the sorters and packers. This waiter will handle the boxes and
wait on a crew putting out 260 boxes per day. The cost per box for
this labor is $0.0077. Nearly half of the men who pack their own
apples either employ a packing-house foreman, or the owner himself
acts in tliis capacity in addition to doing other packing-house labor.
In these cases the packing-house foreman is employed separately
from any packer or sorter. The cost per box for such men as have
a foreman is $0.0059, figured at the regular labor rate of $0.20 per
hour, although if the foreman is hired he is frequently paid at a
higher rate. Many growers use still other packing-house labor. Such
labor usually includes the man who helps truck the boxes and does
various other things that are often done by waiters.

The total packing-house labor cost, including those who have their
packing done at the association, is $41.64 per acre, or $0.1236 per
box.

Both the associations and the growers generally use the Northwest
diagonal pack. The extra fancy and fancy grades and often the
C grades are wrapped. C grades, and sometimes fancy apples, in
poor-price years, are packed but not wrapped. The distributors
make a practice of wrapping all three grades. The association charge
in such cases includes not only labor, but the box, paper, nails, etc.,
also the cost of handling the box, together with an inspection fee and
sinking fund. However, in this study of costs onJy the actual packing
and box costs are considered. Inspection, sinking fund, overhead
expenses, etc., are items which are not taken into consideration in
any of this cost-production work, since they are factors which ordi-
narily enter into the cost of marketing after the apples are dehvered
at the station.

All handling labor cost has now been discussed. If to the packing-
house labor of $0.1236 per box is added the cost of made-up box,
including paper, nails, etc. ($0.1585), there is a total material and
labor cost per box of $0.2821 within the pacldng house. If to this
are added all other handling labor costs, there is a total for handling,
including labor and material, of $0.3612 per box, or after the culls
are credited, it is reduced to $0.3455 per box as a net labor and
material cost.

CULLS AND CIDER APPLES.

Many growers sell a few tons of cider or drier apples each year.
These are known as the "cull apples," and may come either from the
packing shed or be picked up from the ground in the orchard. In the
Payette region, however, very few growers pick up windfalls and sell
them as cider apples. Most of the apples used for cider in this section

30 BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

are separated from the better grades by tlic sorters in the packing
house, as the price received hardly wouhl warrant the hibor of picking
up the apples in the orchard. The price per ton varies, but is usually
from $5 to S6, deUvered at the cider factory. At present there is
not a large enough demand for cider apples to justify handling all
those available in the valley. A great many growers do not sell
tlieir cull apples, but feed them to hogs, valuing them at from S3 to
$4 per ton as hog feed.

The credit per acre derived from culls averages S5.40 for the or-
chards under the clean-cultural system and $5.22 for those under the
mulch-crop system. For all orchards there was a credit of $5.29 per
acre, leaving a net credit of $4.61 after the labor cost of picking up
and hauling culls is taken out. By crechting this, the cost of hand-
ling labor is reduced from $0.2007 per box to $0.1870 per box.

TOTAL LABOR COSTS.

The total of all labor costs after crediting the maintenance labor
with the hay or pasture credit and the handling labor with the cull
credit, is $103.40 per acre, or $0.3068 per box. (See Table XIV.)
This is 43.14 per cent of the total annual net cost of production. The
net maintenance labor costs $40.38 per acre, or $0.1198 per box,
making up 16.84 per cent of the total annual net cost, while the net
handling labor amounts to $63.02 per acre, or $0.1870 per box, and
makes up 26.30 per cent of the total annual net production cost.

As may be seen from the labor table, the costs of thinning and
prmiing are the largest maintenance costs. They make up 18.32
per cent of the total net labor cost. These total labor costs are for
an average of all the bearing orchards considered and are on the
basis of a yield of 337 boxes per acre. The table is self-explanatory
and shows the difference between the clean-cultural and mulch-
crop orchards, there being a difference in the net maintenance costs
of $0.0229 per box, this cost being greater in the case of the clean-
cultural orchards. However, for all net labor the cost per box is
practically the same in both the clean-cultural and the mulch-cro])
orchards, being $0.3085 in the case of the former and $0.3054 in the
case of the latter.

COST OF PRODUCTIOlSr OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 31
Table XIY .—Sumynary table of all labor costs, 38 farms in Payette Valley, Idaho.

Clean-cultural manage-
ment (16 records; 336
boxes per record).

Mulch-crop manage-
ment (22 records: 338
boxes per record).

Combined management (38
records; 337 boxes per record).

Item.

Cost
per
acre.

Cost
per
box.

Per
cent

of
total

net
cost.

Cost
per
acre.

Cost
per
box.

Per
cent

of
total

net
cost.

Cost
per
acre.

Cost
per
box.

Per
cent of
total
net
labor
cost.

Per

cent

of

total
net
cost.

Mamiring

$1.74
8.47
3.59
1.44
7. 93
1.98
8.41
1.81
1.23
2.44
6.38

10. 0052
. 0252
. 0107
. 0043
.0236
.0059
.0250
.0054
.0037
.0072
.0190

0.74
3. 58
1.52

.61
3.35

.84
3.56

.77

.53
1.02
2.70

$1.94

10.22

3.34

.42

2.30

1.79

10.25

2.87

1.54

2.64

7.84

.01

1.87

$0. 0057
.0302
.0099
.0013
.0068
.0053
.0303
.0085
.0046
.0078
.0232

0.79
4.22

1.38
.18
.95
.74
4.23
1.19
.64
1.09
3.24

SI. 85
9.48
3.45
.85
4.67
1.87
9.47
2.42
1.41
2.56
7.22

SO. 0055
. 02S1
.0103
.0025
.0139
. 0055
.0281
.0072
.0042
.0076
.0214

1.79
9.16
3.36
.81
4. .53
1.79
9.16
2.35
1.37
2.48
6.98

0.77

3.95

Disposal of brush

1.45
.35

Cultivating

1.96
.78

3.95

1.01

.59

Limo-sulphur spray

1.06

Lead sprays

3.01

.0055

. 77

1.08

.0032

1.04

.45

Total labor cost previous
to haudling

45.42

.1352

19.22

47.03 .1391

19.42

46.33

.1375

44.82

19.33

9.27
.50

.0274
.0015

3.S2
.21

5.37
.58

.0160
.0017

5.22
.55

2.25

Wood credit

.69

.0021

.30

.24

Totalcredit

.69

.0021

.30

9.77 1 .0289

4.03

5.95

.0177 5.77

2.49

Total net labor cost pre-
vious to handling

44.73

.1331

18. 92 37. 26

.1102

15.39

40.38

.1198

39.05

16.84

.68

5.27
15.45
37.39

4.60
.94

.0020

.0157.
.0460
.1113

.0137
.0028

.28

.2.23.
6.54
15.82

1.95
.40

.46

4.13
15.82
44.73

5.56
.50

.0014

.0122
.0468
; 1323

.0165
.0015

.20

1.70
6.54

18.47

2.30
.21

.55

4.61
15.67
41.64

5.16
.68

.0016

.0137
.0465
.1236

.0153
.0020

.52

4.46
15.16
40.29

4.99
.65

.23

Hauling loose boxes to and

1.93

Picking and orchard foreman

All packing-house labor

Hauling to station or associa-
tion

Picking up and hauling culls.

6.54
17.38

2.15
.28

Total labor cost for
handling

64.33
5.40

.1915
.0161

27.22
2.29

71.20
5.22

.2107
.0155

29.42
2.17

68.31
5.29

.2027
.0157

66.07
5.12

28.51

2.21

Total net labor cost for
handling

58. 93

.1754

24. 93

65.98

.1952

27.25

63. 02

.1870

60.95

26.30

Total net cost of all labor.

103.66

.3085

43.85 103.24

.3054 42.64

103. 40

.3068 1 100. 00

43. 14

MATERIAL AND FIXED COSTS.

Costs other than labor, including the material and fixed cost,
amount to $136.25 per acre, or 56.86 per cent of the total aimual net
cost of production. (See Table XV.) The material costs are made up
of manure, spray materials (mcluding lime-sulphur, lead, and other
spray materials used), seed, and the cost of made-up box, including
paper and nails. This material cost amounts to $72.94 per acre, or
$0.2164 per box. It makes up 30.43 per cent of the total annual net
cost of production. There was no appreciable difference between the
material costs of the clean-cultural and mulch-crop orchards, the cost
being $0.2148 per box in the case of the clean-cultural and $0.2176
per box in the case of the mulch-crop orchards. The cost of made-up

32

BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

box is the largest single item of the material cost, amomiting to
$0.1585 per box. This cost is made up as follows:

Cost of box shook $0. 1100

Cost to make up 0085

Cost of wrappin'7 paper 0275

Nails 0036

Cost of cardboard 0044

Cost of linino; paper 0045

Total 1585

The spray material is the second largest material cost, the lime
and sulphur costing $7.29 per acre and the lead amounting to $6.14
per acre, making a total spray-materiiJ cost of $13.43 per acre, or a
box cost of $0.0398. This spray material makes up 9.84 per cent of
the total material and fixed cost and 5.60 per cent of the total annual
net cost of production. A commercial brand of lime and sulphur
is used. The ordinary arsenate of lead paste is generally used,
although a few growers use the dry lead.

Table XV. — Summary table of material and fixed costs, 38 farms in Payette Valley,

Idaho.

Item.

Manure

Lime and sulphur

Arsenate of lead (first spray),

Otlier spray material

Seed ,

Cost of made-up box

Total material cost

Interest charge

Apple-building charge.
Equipment charge . . . .

Sprayer hire

Tax."

Insurance

Water rent

Total fixed cost .

Total material
fixed costs

and

Clean-cultural man-
agement (16 rec-
ords; 336 bo.xes per
record).

Charge
per
acre,

$6.17
6.98
1.94
3.81

53. 26

72.16

46. 50
2.87
4.24

4.94
.26

1.78

60. .59

132. 75

Per
Charge cent of

per
box.

.0184
.0208
.0058
.0113

.1585

.1384
.0085
.0126

.0147
.0008
.0053

total
net
cost.

2.61
2.96

22. 53

Mulch-crop manage-
ment (22 records;
338 boxes per rec-
ord).

Charge
per
acre.

S5.92

7.51

2.04

4.39

.12

53.57

30. .53 73.55

19.67
1.21
1.79

2.09
.11
.75

56.15

50.91

3.13

5.55

.70

3.82

.28

.91

65. 30

138.85

Charge
per
box.

.0175
.0222
.0060
.0130
.0004
. 1585

.2176

Per

cent of

total

net
cost.

2.44
3.10

.84
1.81

.06
22.13

30, 38

.1506
.0093
.0164
.0021
.0113
.0008
.0027

21.03

1.30

2.29

.29

1.58

.11

.38

. 1932 I 26. 98

.4108

57.36

Combined management (38
records; 337 boxes per
record).

Charge
per
acre.

$6.03

7.29

2.00

4.14

.07

53.41

72.94

Charge
per
box.

.0179
.0216
.00.59
.0123
.0002
.1.585

.2164

49.05
3.02
4.99

.41
4.29

.27
1.28

63.31

.14.56
.0090
.0148
.0012
.0127
.0008
.0038

.1879

Per

cent of
total
mate-
rial
and
fixed
cost.

4.43
5.34
1.46
3.04
.05
39.20

.53. .52

36.01

2.23

3.66

.30

3.14

.20

.94

46.48

100.00

Per

cent

of
total

net
cost.

2.51
3.04

.83
1.73

.03
22.29

30.43

20.48

1.27

2.08

.17

1.79

.11

.53

26.43

The third largest item of material cost is the manure. For all
orchards an average of 4.02 tons per acre is appUed annually, at a
material cost of $6.03 and a box charge of $0.0179. This makes up

COST OF PRODUCTION OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 33

4.43 per cent of the total material and fixed cost and 2.51 per cent of
the total annual net cost.

The other item of material cost is the seed, which amounts to but
S0.07 annual charge per acre over all orchards and SO. 12 per acre for
those under mulch-crop orchards. This charge is for alfalfa, blue-
grass, or clover seed, which is sown only occasionally.

Under fixed costs are included such items as interest on apple
orchard, the apple-building charge, equipment (including spray-rig
hire), taxes, insurance, and water rent. The fixed costs amount to
S63.31 per acre annually, or $0.1879 per box. They make up 46.48
per cent of the material and fixed cost and 26.43 per cent of the total
annual net cost of production.

The interest charge ($49.05 per acre, or $0.1456 per box) is larger
than all other items combined, being 20.48 per cent of the annual
net cost of production. The equipment charge is figured at the rate
of 25 per cent annual charge on equipment investment. The greatest
item of equipment investment is the spray rig, which practically all
growers own and on which there is ordinarily a large depreciation.
The fact that the depreciation charge appears low is due to the fact
that all equipment is figured at present value, while under the dis-
cussion of spray rigs the depreciation and upkeep is figured on the
original investment. The annual equipment charge per acre is $5.40,
or $0.0160 per box, being 3.96 per cent of the total material and fixed
cost, or 2.25 per cent of the total annual net cost of production.
The spray rig makes up over 75 per cent of this annual equipment
charge.

The material cost in the case of Payette is about the same per box
as found in other Northwest apple regions. However, in the case of
the fixed cost there is a much lower charge per acre and per box than
in most other Northwest regions, due to the fact that the average in-
vestment in land is much lower. The equipment charge in the Payette
region is also somewhat less than in more intensive and specialized
regions, for the farms are larger and the tools, with the exception of
the spray rig, are used for many other purposes than for orchard
operations.

The total material and fixed cost, amounting to $0.4043 per box, of
which 53.52 per cent is for material and 46.48 per cent for fixed cost,
represents all costs other than labor.

SUMMARY OF ALL COSTS CONSIDERED.

When all items entering into the annual net cost of production of
apples on the 38 farms studied are considered, there is found to be a
cost of $0.7111 per box for all records, for clean-cultural orchards
$0.7036, and for mulch-crop orchards $0.7162. It is thus found that

34

BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

it costs slightly over 1 cent more per box for the mulch-crop thaii
for the clean-cultural orchards. This difference in cost is princi-
pally due to the greater fixed costs on the mulch-crop orchards. It
will be seen from Table XVI that the percentage of the various costs
which go to make up the total cost is nearly the same in both kinds
of records.

Table XVI. — Summary of all costs for Sf^ far ins in Payette Valley, Idaho.

Item.

Total
toll
Total
ling
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total

net cost of labor previous

aiidlins,'

net cost of 1 abor for hand-

net cost of all labor

material cost

fixed cost ,

material and fixed costs. .
not cost

Total net cost on the tree . . .
Total net cost of handling a.

Clean-cultural manaee-
nient ( 16 records : 336
boxes per record).

Cost
per
acre.

$44. 73

.5S. 93
103. 66
72.16
60. 59
132. 75
236. 41

121.35
115.06

Cost
per
box.

SO. 1331

. 17.54
.3085
.2148
. 1803
. 3951
.7036

.3612
.3424

Per
cent

of
total

net
cost.

18.92

24.93
43.85
30. 53
25. 62
56. 15
100.00

51.33

48.67

Mulch-crop manas-e-
ment ( 22 records ; 338
boxes per record).

Cost
per
acre.

$37. 26

65. 98
103. 24
73. .55
65. 30
138. 85
242.09

119.41
122. 68

Cost
per
box.

$0.1102

. 19.52
. 3054
.2176
.1932
.4108
.7162

.3.5,32
.3630

Per
cent

of
total

net
cost.

15.39

27. 25
42- 64
30. 38
26. 98
57. 36
100.00

49. 32
50.68

Combined manage-
ment (38 records; 337
boxes per record).

Cost
per
acre.

$40.38

63.02
103. 40
72.94
63.31
136. 25
239.65

120. 20
119.45

Cost
per
box.

$0. 1198

.1870
.3068
.2164
.1879
.4043
.7111

.3.566
.3545

Per

cent
of
total
net
cost.

16.84

26.30
43.14
30.43
26. 43
56. 86
100.00

50.16
49.84

a Includes total net cost of labor for handling, cost of made-up boxes, and apple-building charge.

If the material and fixed costs are combined, the cost of the clean-
cultural orchards is 56.15 per cent and of the mulch-crop 57.36 per
cent of the total annual net cost of production. It is thus apparent
that the cost of production varies but little under the two systems
of management.

Seventy-one cents per box may be considered a fair figure for the
cost of production in Payette Valley under normal prices for labor
and material.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE ANNUAL COST OF PRODUCTION.

The principal factors which affect the cost are the same for Payette
VaUey as for aU other apple regions studied thus far. The one which
has the greatest effect upon the cost per box is the yield per acre. Table
XVII serves to show the cost of production per acre and per box.
Orchards having various yields are divided into 10 groups ranging
from 122 to 572 boxes per acre in yield. The maintenance cost is
found to remain practically the same per acre in the case of the high
yields as in the case of the low, but the maintenance cost per box
very materially decreases as the yield per acre increases. The hand-
ling and material box costs are little influenced by the yield,
wiiile the fixed cost, although remaining much the same per acre,

COST OP PRODUCTION OF APPLES, PAYETTE VALLEY, IDAHO. 35

docreases very rapidly per box as the yield increases. This is as
miglit be expected, since these fixed costs refer to those annual
charges which have little or nothing to do with the upkeep of the
orchard or the harvesting of the fruit.

Other factors affecting the cost are the size of the orchard, tlie
system of orchard management practiced, the amount of credit de-
rived from liay, wood, culls, etc.

In tlie case of the smaller yields the grower actually lacks consid-
erable of making any interest on his investment. For instance, with
a yield of 122 boxes per acre, and assuming that the grower gets
$0.80 for all grades of apples, which is much higher than he gets
some years, he would lose 11.4 per cent on his investment in bearing
apple orchard. However, with the yield of 221 boxes he makes
3.94 per cent, and with the yield of 331 he makes 8.84 per cent.
For those orchards that yield 419 he makes 16.64 per cent, and for
those that yield 572 he makes 38 per cent. This, it should be remxem-
bered, is on the basis of the grower receiving $0.80 f. o. b, for all
grades of box apples.

It should be stated in this connection that with the yield as high
as 572 boxes, as is sometimes the case in heavy crop years, there is
often a smaller profit per box than in years when the crop is light.
This is due to the fact that most orchards have a full crop the same
year. Thus, when the crop is light, apples are scarce, and the price is
correspondingly high. When there is a heavy crop, apples are plentiful
and often bring a very low price to the grower.

Table XVTI. — Summary table showing effect of yield upon cost {38 records).

Item.

Average yields (packed boxes)

Total net maintenance cost per acre . .
Total net maintenance cost per box. .

Total not haniliing cost per acre

Total net handling cost per box

Total net labor cost per acre ,

Total net labor cost per box

Total material cost

Total fixed cost

Total material and fixed cost per acre
Total material and fi.xed cost per box

Total net cost per acre

Total net cost per box

Groups.

150 boxes 151 to 200
or less. boxes.

122
S42.73
.3502
19.29
. 15S1

02.02
.5084

47.51
75.74
123.25
1.0102

185.27
1.5186

177
$39.84

.2251
37.76
.2133

77.60
.4384

44.84
51.19
96.03
.5425

173.63
.9810

201 to 250
boxes.

221
$39.72

.1797
42.95
.1942

82.67
.3741

49.48
52. 72
102.20
.4624

184.87
.8365

251 to 300 301 to 350
boxes. boxes.

271

$25.63
.0946
49.46
.1825

75.09
.2771

64.93
59.54
124.47
.4593

199. 56
.7364

331

$55.85

.1687
68. 72
.2076

124.57
.3763

85.62
48.70
134.32
.4058

258. 89
.7821

36 BULLETIN 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table X.XI1.— Summary table showing effect of yield upon cost {08 records)— Contd.

Item.

Average jdelds (packed boxes)

Total net" maintenance cosi per acre .
Total net maintenance cosi per box . .
Total net handling cost per acre . . . : .
Total net handling cost per box

Total net labor cost per acre

Total net labor cost per box

Total material cost

Tot al fi xed cost

Total material and fixed cost per acre
Total material and fixed cost per box

Total net cost per acre

Total net cost per box

Groups.

351 to 400
boxes.

380
$43.25

.1138
64.71
.1703

107.96
.2841

75. 4S
S3. 58
159.06
.4186

207.02
. 7027

401 to 450
boxes.

419
$35.36

. 0844
86.12
.2055

121.48
.2899

82.61
74.16
156. 77
.3742

278.25
.6641

451 to 500
boxes.

494
$34.80
.0704

75.78
.1534

110.58
.2238

102. 40
57.01
159.41
.3227

269. 99
.5465

501 to 550
boxes.

539
$57.49

.1067
110.21

.2045

167.70
.3111

105. 39
82.35
187. 74
.3483

355.44
.6594

551to60u
bo.ves.

572
$45.09

.0788
88.70
.1551

133.79
.2339

114.83
59.73
174.06
.3052

308.35
.5391

The material and fixed charges, which make up all costs other than
the labor costs, amount to .$136.25 per acre, or $0.4043 per box.
Material and fixed costs make up 56.86 per cent of tlie total annual
net cost of production, which is $0.7111 per box.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

10 CENTS PER COPY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 637

^^ Office of the Secretary v^g.

Office of the Secretary

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management

W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief

S\J9^'^^U

Washington, D. C.

January 14, 1918

A METHOD OF CALCULATING ECONOMICAL BAL-
ANCED RATIONS.

By J. C. RuNDLES, Scientific Assistant.

CONTENTS.

New method of balancing rations 2

How to use Tables I and II 7

Table of equivalent prices 7

How to use Table III 8

Relative value of feeds 8

Relative value of protein feeds 8

How to use Table IV 12

Relative value of carbohydrate feedswhen the

cheapest available feed is nitrogenous 13

How to use Table V 16

Howtouse Table VI 17

Economy in feeding is of prime importance to the feeder. It in-
volves judgment in tlie selection of feeds as well as skill in the mixing
of rations. The feeder may know that he needs a concentrate rich
in carbohydrates or one rich in protein, yet be at a loss to determine
the cheapest form of the desired concentrate to buy. Again, he
may have certain feeds available and be unable to determine the
most economical proportion in which they should be fed to give a
ration of a desired nutritive ratio. Tliis bulletin suggests ways in
which these problems may be solved by fixed rule as they arise.

It is, of course, generally understood among students of nutrition
that protein, carbohydrate, and fat content of a feeding stuff is not
the only factor affecting its feed value. Proteins differ in their
nutritive qualities, while some substances not included in the classes
above mentioned are necessary to the proper maintenance of the
bodily functions. The palatability and succulence of a feeding stuff
has much to do with its value as a feed. Many feeding stuffs have
physiological effects entirely apart from their nutritive quaUties.
Again, a ration may be perfectly balanced from the standpoint of
relative content of protein and energy producers, and yet be quite
impracticable because too bulky or too concentrated. It is there-
fore imderetood that any consideration of a feeding stuff or a ration

18026°— is— Bull. 637 1

2 BULLETIN 637, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTXJKE.

based only on chemical composition is to be taken merely as a guide,
to be followed in the light of all the knowledge obtainable about
animal nutrition.

NEW METHOD OF BALANCING RATIONS.

The method of balancing rations commonly used might well be
called the "Cut and Try Method." It is faulty for the reason that
it usually necessitates several trials to secure the desired result. By
using the method described in these pages, balancing a ration is a
simple matter of multiplication and division.^

Table I gives the excess protein per pound for different protein
feeds when used in rations of various nutritive ratios. To illustrate:
A hundred pounds of dried brewer's grains contains 21.5 pounds
digestible protein and 44.2 pounds digestible carbohydrates. A
ration with a nutritive ratio of 1:4, requires only 11.05 poimds pro-
tein to balance 44.2 pounds of carbohydrates. Hence, in such a
ration, 100 pounds of this feed contains 21.5-11.05, or 10.45 pounds
of excess protein. The excess protein in a single pound is thus
0.1045 pound. (See Table I, column headed "Ratio 1 to 4," oppo-
site brewer's grains, dried.) In rations having wider ratios the
excess protein is proportionally greater.

Some of the figures in Table I are printed in italics. These repre-
sent deficiency instead of excess in protein. Thus, in a ration of
ratio 1:4, a pound of rye is deficient in protein by 0.0798 pound,
while in a ration of ratio 1 : 10, it has an excess of protein amounting
to 0.0270 pound.

In hke manner Table II shows the protein deficiency per pound
for various carbohydrate feeds as compared with rations of specified
nutritive ratios. Tlie italic figures in this table represent excess
protein. Thus, in a ration of ratio 1:4, a pound of buckwheat is
deficient in protein by 0.0572 pound, while in a ration with ratio 1 : 10
it has an excess of 0.0257 pound of protein.

> The tables used in this Imlletin are l)ased upon Table III, Pigostible nutrients and fertilizing constit-
uents, in Henry's " Feeds and Feeding." It was necessary to inelude the digestil)le fat, with its equivalent
fuel value (2,1 xcarbohychate) witli the carbohydrate in order to prepare the tables. In proposing a mathe-
matical method for halaucing rations dilTcrent from the one commonly employed, the same assumptions
are made as in the case of tiie usual method, viz, that fats have two and one-fourth times the feeding
value of the carbohydrates and that a pound of carbohydrates or protein has a uniform value whatever its
source. Tiie latter assumption is, of course, not strictly true. Proteins differ somewhat in their nutri-
tive value, and sugars have nutritive and physiological effects somewhat different from those of starches.
Nevertheless, the assumption of the equality of value of these nutritive elements in various feed stuffs
introduces a no greater source of error in the method proposed in this bulletin than in the usual method
of lialancing rations.

The method of balancing rations described in this bulletin is ba.sed on the principle (alligation) proposed
by i'rof. J. T. Willard in Kansas Experiment Station BuUet-iu 115, but tlio method of applying this
principle is different, and is believed to be simpler and more convenient, especially when several feeding
atuHs are to be uaed in the ration.

CAI,CULATINO ECONOMICAL BALANCED RATIONS. 3

Tahle I. — The amount of excess protein per pound of given protein feeds ivhen used in
rations with the following specified nutritive ratios.

Protein feeds.

L Concentrates:

Urcwcrs' grains, dried

Cottonseed meal, choice

Cottonseed meal, good

Cowpoa seed

Distillers' Rrains, dry, corn

Di.sl illcrs' grains, dry, ryo

Drif.l hloorl

Fish iiiimI , hinh in fat

Fisli meal, low in fat

(Jcnn oil meal, (IL G.)

Glul.'nfcid (IL (J.)

(;lul(iifc.Ml (L. (i.)

Linscc'i meal (N. i'.)

LinsciMl meal (O. P.)

Malt sprouts

Aleal and hone meal, 30-40 per

cent ash

Meat and hone meal, over 40 per

cent ash

Peanuts with hulls

Peanut cake from hulled nuts

Rye

Eye middlings

Soy-bean seed

Tankage, 55-()0 per cent

Tankage, 45-55 per cent

Tankage, below 45 per cent ash. . .

Vcl vet-bean seed

Wheat (lour middlings

Wheat bran, winter

Wheat shorts, standard, wheat

middlings

II. Roughage:

Alfalfa hay

Alfalfa meal .'

Clover hay, alsike, all analyses

Clover hay, crimson

Clover hay, red , all analyses

Clover hay, sweet, yellow

Clover hay, sweet, white

Cowpea hay, all analyses

Molasses alfalfa feeds

Peanut-vine hay with shells

Peas and oat hay

Skim milk , centrifugal

Soy bean hay

V^el vet bean hay

Vetch hay

Digestible-

Pro-
tein,
per
100
lbs.
teed.

21.5

37.0

31. G

19.4

22.4

13.0

09.1

37.8

40.9

10

21.6

15.1

31.7

30.2

20.3

37.0

30.9
18.4
42.
9.8
12. G
30.7
54.0
48.0
37. G
18.1
15.7
12.2

13.4

10. (
10.2
7.9
9.7
7.(
10.0
10.9
13.1
8.5
9.6
8.3
3.0
11.7
12.0
11.6

Car-
bohy-
drate,
per 100
pounds
feed. I

44.2
41.2
43.2
57.0
6(i.5
52.8

2.0
20.1

5.0
66. 0
59.1
68.0
44.2
47.7
50.3

24.8

22.1

88.7

36. 6

71.1

62.5

55.2

28.6

30,

37.0

62.7

62.5

47.4

55.9

41.0
40.5
39.4
39.0
43.3
37.0
39.8
35. 9
42.1
58.3
40.5
5,

41.9
43.5
46.4

Nutri-
tive
ratio 1.

.7
4.8

.9
7.2
5.0
1.8

.5

.0
1.0
3.5
4.0
3.9

4.2

3.9
4.0
5.0
4.0
.'5.7
3.7
3.7
2.7
5.0
6.1
4.9
1.5
3.6
3.6
4.0

Ratio
lto4

0. 1045
. 2(i7()
. 2080

.or.i;

. 0578

.004

.(i360

.3128

.3905

."0682
.(J20n
.2065
.1828
.0772

.3080

.2538
.(J.VH
.3365
.0708
. 0S02
. 1690
. 468,
. 4030
. 2820
. 0242

.miH

.0035

.0035
.0008
.0195
.0001.
. 0322
. 0075
.0005
.0412
. 0202

. o.m

.OIX
. ()22i
.0122
.0112

Ratio
lto5.

Ratio
ItoG

). 12(J6 0.

. 2870

.229(i

.080

.091

.0304

. 6870

.32,08

. 3990

.033

.0978

.0118

.228t

. 20<i(

.1024

.3204

. 2648

.00(i(

.3.548

.04-'f:

.001

. 1961

.482H

.41S1

. 3008

. 0.551

.032

.0272

.0222

.024
.021
.0002
.019

.0106
. 026
.02<M
. 0.592
. 0008

.02on

.fX)2
. 025

. o;n2

.033
.0232

413
.3013
. 2M0
. (W9
.1132
.088
. 6876
. 334.'
. 4007
.0

.1175
. 0367
. 2.133
. 2225
. 1192

. 328(

.2722
. 03<;2
. 3670
. 0^0()
.0218
. 21.50
. 4923
. 42,H7
.3133
. 07(;,"
. 0529
.0.13

.041

. 0376
. 0345
.0133
. 032
. f)038
. 0383
. 0427
.0712
.0148
.0012
.01.5.'
. 02<iX
. 0.(71
. 0-175
.0387

Ratio Ratio
lto7. lto8.

. 1.519
.3111
. 2543
.112*
. 1290
.OtiOO
. 6881
.3407
. 4019
. 0707
. 131(:
. 053
. 2.539
.2339
.1311

.3346

.2774
. 0573
. 3757

.oom;

. 0367
.2281
. 4991
. 4360
. 322,3
.0914
.0077
.0543

.0541

.0474
.0441
. 0227
.0413
.0141
. 0471
. 0521
. 0797
.0249
.0127
.0251
. 0281
.0.571
. 0579
.0497

0. 1597
.318
. 2620
.1227
. 1409
.07
. 6,H,8;
. 3454
. 4028
. 0825
.1421
. 0«i53
. 2617
.2424
.1401

.3390

.2814
.0731
.3X23
.01
. 0470
. 2380
.5042
.4415
. 3290
. 1021
. 07S9
. 0027

.0641

. 0547
.0514

. 0298
. 0 1.S2
.0219
. 0538
. 0592
. 0S61
. 0324
.0231
. 0.(24
.0291
. ()(,16
. 0(;.56
. 058

Ratio
lto9.

1. 16.59
.3242
. 26H0
. 1307
. 1.501
. 0773
. 688S
. 3490
. 40,34
.0917
. 1.503
.0748
. 2079
. 2490
.1471

. 3424

.2844
. 0854
.3873
.02
. 0.565
. 2457
.5082
. 44.58
. 3342
.1113
.08
. 0093

.0719

. 0604
. 057
. 0.352
. 053
. 0279
. 0588
.0648
.0911
. 0382
.0312
. 038
. 02!)9
. 0704
.0717
. 004 1

Ratio
ItolO

0. 1708
,3288
.2728
. 1370
. 1.575
. 0832
. 6S90
.3519
. 40 10
, 099
. 1.569
.0824
.2728
. 2543
. 1.527

. 3452

. 2869
.0953
.3914
. 0279
. 0635
. 2518
.5112
. 4492
. 33.84
.ll.VJ
. 0945
. 0746

. 0781

. 065
.0015
. 0390
.058
. 0327
. oo:{

. 0692
. 0951
. 0429
. 0377
.0425
. 0.305
. 0751
.0705
. 0690

' The carbohydrate includes the fat with its usual fuel value (2\ times carbohydrate In Tables V
and VI). Reference: Table III, Digestible nutrients and fertilizing constituents, lienry's "Feeds and
Feeding."'

The use of Tables I and II in l)alancing rations is illustrated in
the following examples:

1 . How much cottonseed meal is required to balance a dairy
ration consisting of 30 pounds corn silage, 10 pounds alfalfa hay,
and 3 pounds com meal, giving a nutritive ratio of 1:6?

4 BULLETIISr 637, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGKICULTUKE.

Solution:

Protein.

Excess.

Deficiency.

30 pounds corn silage.
10 pounds alfalfa hay.
3 pounds corn meal . .

0. 3760

,1776

.3760

Subtracting

1 pound cottonseed meal, excess..
Pounds cottonseed meal required.

.6786
.3760

.3013

.3026
1

Table II. — The amount of protein deficiency per pound of given carbohydrate feeds in
rations ivith the folloioing specified nutritive ratios.

Digestible-

Nutri-
tive
ratio 1.

Ratio
1 to4.

Ratio
to 5.

Ratio
1 to 6.

Ratio
lto7.

Ratio
lto8.

Carbohydrate feeds.

Pro-
tein.

Car-
bohy-
drate.

Ratio Ratio
1 to 9.1 to 10.

I. Concentrates:

9.0
4.6
8.3
8.1
6.9
6.1
9.1
8.2
10.0
7.0
6.3
9.0
8.7

8.2
7.4
1.0
9.4
9.7
8.0
4.7
7.9
9.9
9.2
7.5
8.7

2.3
3.0
1.1
2.1

. 5
4.1
1.9
4.8
8.5
4.5
1.0

.9
2.8

.7
5.9
1.7
3.0
4.0
4.0

70.4
67.0
68.7
55.3
76.9
72.0
68.9
74.0
72.8
77.6
76.7
71.0
71.2

58.4
57.1
58.2
60.6
60.7
74.1
68.4
57.9
71.1
70.5
72.0
71.0

16.2
50.7
16.6
17.5
12.4
48.8
42.6
53.5
42.1
41.9
44.6
18.0
49.3
15.5
50.5
15.0
45.5
42.2
50.3
36.2

7.8

14.6

8.3

6.8

11.1

11.8

7.6

9.0

7.3

11.1

12.2

7.9

8.2

7.1
7.7

58.2
6.4
6.3
9.3

14.6
7.3
7.2
7.7
9.6
8.2

7.0
16.9
15.1

8.3
24.8
11.9
22.4
11.1

5.0

9.3
44.6
20.0
17.6
22. 1

*'a6

8.8
15.2
10.6
12.6
51.7

0.086
.1215
.0888
.0572
.1232
.1190
.0812
.1030
.082
.1240
. 1288
. 0875
.0910

.064

.0688

.1355

.0575

.0548

.1052

.1240

.0658

. 07 ss

. 0S43

. 1050

.0905

.0175

.0968

. 0305

.0228

.026

.081

.0875

.0858

.0203

. 0598

.1015

.036

. 0953

.0318

. 0673

.0205

. 0838

.0655

.0858

.0835

0.0508
.088
.0544
.0296
.0848
.083
.0468
.066
.0456
.0852
.0904
.052
.0554

.0348
. 0402
.1064
.0272
. 0244
.0682
.0898
. 0368
. 0432
.049
.069
.055

.0094

.0714

. 0222

.014

.0198

.0566

. 0662

.059

.0008

.0388

.0792

.027

.0706

.024

.042

.013

.061

.0444

.0606

.0654

0.0273
.0657
. 0315
.0112
.0592
.059
.0238
.0413
.0213
. 0593
.0648
.0283
.0317

.01533

.0212

.0870

.007

. 0042

.0435

.067

.0175

.0195

.0255

.045

.0314

.004

.0545

.0167

.0082

.01.57

.0403

.052

.0412

.0/48

.0248

.0643

.021

. 0542

.0188

.0252

.008

.0458

.0303

.0438

.0533

0.0106
.0497
.0151
.002
.0409
.0419
.0074
.0237
.004
.0409
.0466
.0114
.0147

.0014
.0076
.0731
.007 It
.0103
.0259
.0507
.0037
.0026
.0087
.0279
.0144

.0001

.0424

.0127

.004

.0127

.0287

. 0419

. 02S4

. 0^40

.0149

,0537

.0167

.0424

.0151

.0131

.0044

.035

.0203

.0319

.0447

0.002
.0377
.0029
.0119
.0271
.029
.0049
.0105
.009
.027
.0329
.0012
.002

.009

.0026

. 0628

.0182

.0211

.0126

.0385

.0066

.0101

.0039

.015

.0018

.0028
. 0334
.0098

.ax)9

.0105

.02

.0342

.0189

.0324

.0074

. 0458

.0135

.0336

. 0124

.0041

.0018

. 0269

. 0128

.0229

.0383

0.0118
.0284
. 0067
.0196
.0164
.019
.0144
.0002
.0191
.0162
.0222
.0111
.0079

.0171

.0106

.0547

. 0267

.0296

.0023

.029

.0147

.0200

.OW

.005

.0081

.005

.0263

.0074

.0016

. 0088

.0132

.0283

.0114

. 03S2

.0016

.0396

.011

.0268

.0102

. 0029

. 0003

.0206

.0069

.0159

.0332

0.0196

.021

Broom-corn seed

.0143

.0257

Corn meal, chop, or shelled corn. . .

.0079
.011

Corn, oat, and barley feed

.0221

Durra grain

.0080

Germ oil meal (L..G.)

Hominy feed (H. G.)

.0272
.0076

Hominy feed (L. G.)

.0137
.0190

Milo grain

.0158

Molasses feeds, below 10 per cent

.0236

Molasses feeds, 10-15 per cent fiber.

Molasses or blackstrap

Oats, ground (H. G.)

Oats

.0169
.0482

.OSSIf
. 0363

.0P59

■ Rice rough

. 0214

Rice bran (H. G.)

.021i

Rye

.0279

Rye meal

.0215

.003

Wheat, winter

.0160

II. Roughages:

Blue grass, Kentucky, all analyses. .
Corn fodder, medium in water

.0068
.0207
.0056

Corn and clover silage

. 0035

Corn stover, green, ears oH

Kafir fodder, dry

. OOY4
.0078

. 0236

Millet, German

.0055

MoIasses-aUalfa feeds

. 0429

Oat hay

. 0031

.0346

Sorghum and cowpea silage

Sorghum dry fodder

.009
.0213

Sweet sorghum, green

.0085

.0085

Soy beans and corn

. 0020

.0155

Timothy and clover

.0022

Wheat hay

.0103

.0292

CALCULATING ECONOMICAL BALANCED EATIONS. 5

TTie excess or deficiency in protein of each feeding stuff in the above
example is found first for one pound, in Table I or II, in the column
headed "Ratio 1 to 6." The figures given in the table are then
multiplied by the nmnber of pounds of the respective feeding stuffs
in the ration. Thus, in a ration with a 1 : 6 ratio, a pound of corn
silage is deficient in protein to the extent of 0.0167 pound. (See
Table II, column headed "Ratio 1 to 6," line beginning "Corn silage,
well matured.") There being 30 pounds of silage, the total protein
deficiency in silage is 0.0167X30 = 0.5010 pound. Subtracting the
excess protein in 10 pounds of alfalfa (0.376 pound), the net deficit
of protein is found to be 0.3026 pound. Dividing this by the excess
protein in one pound of cottonseed meal, which is 0.3013 pound, we
find that it takes almost 1 pound of the latter to balance the ration
to a 1 to 6 ratio. After adding this pound of cottonseed meal, the
balanced ration stands as follows :

Protein.

Excess.

Deficiency.

30 pounds corn silage

10 pounds alfalfa hay

3 pounds corn meal

1 pound cottonseed meal .

0. 3760
".'3613'

0.5010

.1776

Sometimes it may be desirable to balance a ration, not simply by
adding a protein feeding stuff, but by substituting it for one less rich
in protein. Suppose, for instance, that we desire to substitute
enough cottonseed meal for corn meal in the above ration to make the
nutritive ratio 1 to 6. In this case the ration is worked out as follows •

Protein.

Excess.

Deficiency,

30 pounds com silage.
10 pounds alfalfa hay.
3 pounds corn meal . .

. 0. 3760

0.5010
".'i776

.3760

.6786
.3760

Net deficiency.

Taking out 1 pound corn meal reduces deficiency

Adding 1 pound cottonseed meal reduces deficiency.

Total reduction per pound substituted

Pounds to be substituted, 0. 3026h-0. 3605=0.84.

Corn meal remaining after substitution, 3.00—0.84=2.16.

0. 0592
.3013

.3605

6 BULLETIN 63*7, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

The resulting ration is therefore:

30 pounds com silage

10 pounds alfalfa hay

2.16 pounds corn meal

0.84 pound cottonseed meal.

Protein.

Excess. Deficiency.

0. 3760

.6291

0. 5010

.6289

2. When a ratio of 1 : 6 is desired, how much alfalfa meal is required
to balance a dairy ration of 35 pounds corn silage, 4 pounds corn
meal, and 2 pounds cottonseed meal ?

Solution :

35 povmds corn silage

4 pounds corn meal

2 pounds cottonseed meal .

Excess protein in 1 pound alfalfa meal.
Pounds alfalfa meal required

Protein.

0. 6026

.6026

Deficiency.

0. 5845
.2368

.8213
.6026

0. 0345) . 2187

6.3

3. In a ration for hogs it is desired to feed alfalfa meal and tankage
in equal parts along with sufficient corn meal to give a nutritive
ratio of 1 to 7. In what proportion should the feeding stuffs be
mixed ?

Solution:

1 pound tankage

1 pound alfalfa meal

1 pound corn meal, deficiency

Pounds com meal required . . .

Protein excess.

0. 4991
.0441

0.0409) .5432

13.3

The proportion in which to mix the feeds is, therefore, tankage
1 poimd, alfalfa meal 1 pound, and corn meal 13.3 pounds.

4. In order to secure a beef-feeding ration with a ratio 1 to 8,
how much good cottonseed meal should be added to a ration con-
sisting of corn silage 21 pounds, shelled corn 14 pounds, com, oat,
barley feed 3 pounds, and alfalfa hay 3 poimds ?

CALCULATING ECONOMICAL BALANCED RATIONS.

Solution:

Protein.

Excess.

Deficiency.

21 pounds com silage

14 pounds shelled corn

3 povinds com, oat, barley feed .
3 pounds alfalfa hay

0.2058
.3794

0. 0147
.1641

.1788

.5852

.1788

1 pound cottonseed meal, excess. . .
Pounds cottonseed meal required.

0.2620) .4064

1.55

HOW TO USE TABLES I AND II.

Given the desired nutritive ratio and a ration, or certain feeds in
bulk to balance, proceed as follows:

(a) Turn to Table II. In the column representing the nutritive
ratio desired find the protein deficiency for 1 pound of each of the
carbohydrate feeds that are to be fed.

(b) For each feed multiply the protein deficiency per pomid by
the total quantity of that feed, add the products, and the sum is the
digestible protein deficiency, or quantity required to balance the
carbohydrate feeds.

(c) Turn to Table I. Note the amount of excess protein in 1
pound of each of the protein feeds to be fed given opposite the names
of the feeds in the column representing the desired nutritive ratio.

(d) For each feed multiply the excess protein per pound by the
total quantity of that feed, disregarding the one to be used for
balancing the ration, and the sum of the products represents the total
protein excess in the nitrogenous part of the feed or ration.

(e) Subtract the total amount of excess digestible protein furnished
by the known quantity of the protein feeds from the total amount
of protein required by the carbohydrate feeds and divide the differ-
ence by the excess amount of digestible protein furnished in 1 pound
of the protein feed used for balancing the same.

TABLE OF EQUIVALENT PRICES.

It is often desirable in this connection to know what prices per
bushel of grain correspond to hundred-weight values, and vice versa.
For that reason Table III has been prepared.

8 BULLETIN 637, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

Table III. — Varioiis values of grain per bushel and corresponding values per 100

pounds.

Value per 100 pounds.

Value per
bushel.

Wheat.

Rye.

Oats.

Barley.

Buck-
wheat.

Com,
shelled.

Com on
cob.

Potatoes.

$0.20
30

80.62
.94
1.25
1.56
1.87
2.19
2.50
2.81
3.12
3.44
3.75
4.06
4.37
4.69
5.00
5.31
5.62
5.94
6.25
6.56
6.87
7.19
7.50
7.81

40

$0.83
1.04
1.25
1.46
1.67
1.87
2.08
2.29
2. 50
2.71
2.92
3.12
3.33
3.54
3.75
3.96
4.17
4.37
4.58
4.79
5.00
5.21

.$0.83
1.04
1. 25
1.46
1.67
1.87
2.08
2.29
2.50
2.71
2.92
3.12
3.33
3.54
3.75
3.96
4.17
4.37
4.58
4.79
5.00
5.21

$0.67

.50

SO. 89
1.07
1.25
1.43
1.61
1.79
1.96
2.14
2.32
2.50
2.68
2.86
3.04
3.21
3.39
3.57
3.75
3.93
4.11
4.29
4.46

$0.89
1.07
1.25
1.43
1.01
1.79
1.96
2.14
2.32
2.50
2.68
2. '86
3.04
3.21
3.39
3.57
3.75
3.93
4.11
4.29
4.46

10. 73
.88
1.03
1.18
1.32
1.47
1.62
1.76
1.91
2.00
2.21
2.35
2.50
2.65
2.79
2.94
3.09
3.24
3.38
3.53
3.68

.83

.60
.70
.80
.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50

$1.00
1.17
1.33
1.50
1.07
1.83
2.00
2.17
2. .33
2.50
2.67
2.83
3.00
3.17
3.33
3.50
3.67
3.83
4.00
4.17

1.00
1.17
1.33
1.50
1.67
1.83
2.00
2.17
2.33
2. 50
2.67
2.83
3.00
3.17
3.33
3.50
.3.67
3.83
4.00
4.17

Bushels per
100 pounds.

Bushels per
ton

1.667
33J

1.786
35f

3. 125
62i

2.083
41§

2.083

1.786
35f

1.471
29^

1.667
33§

HOW TO USE TABLE III.

The use of Table III can be well illustrated by examples. Given
$2.50 as the value of 100 pounds of barley, what is the corresponding
value per bushel? Look for $2.50 in column headed "Value per 100
pounds, barley." Opposite this value in column "Value per bushel"
is given the corresponding value of barley per bushel, which is $1.20.

RELATIVE VALUE OF FEEDS.

The selhng price of a feed is not a reUable guide to its relative
feeding value. The carbohydrate feeds (com, oats, barley, kafir,
and various others) and the protein feeds (cotton-seed meal, tank-
age, and brewers' grains) are found on the market at various prices.
The feeder wants to know, with certain given prices, "What is the
cheapest feed to buy — what is the true value of a bushel of oats, rye,
or barley for feed when corn is worth 80 cents a bushel, or what is
the value of a ton of brewers' grains, linseed meal, or bran when
cotton-seed meal is worth $30 per ton and corn a dollar a bushel?"
In the following pages there are presented tables, by the use of which
these questions can be answered.

RELATIVE VALUE OF PROTEIN FEEDS.

In locahties in which the cheapest and most available feeding
stuffs are deficient in protem and where, in consequence, it is neces-
sary to buy nitrogenous concentrates as a means of balancing the
ration, the feeder's problem is to obtain the needed protein with the
smallest possible outlay of money. The method here outlined
shows how this may be done.

CALCULATING ECOXOMICAL BALANCED EATIONS.

X o

i-fCO-^COC^I^OC SiOC C5C*^^C»«^CC'

S:COC'CsOOl005r^lOO&C^0500

U5t0l50CC)l-I~COtCi—(Mt^lC>-i-<0>t^CO-^— <(NOOCTO"3eO

£.2^0

^ o •-< OS *o »c 50

COINiOQ

ooc^occr>c3c^;Dc/:oowc>j-r

2.9

s £ '" rr ^ ^ " ^ " <= c ~ -^ — '-'"o -^ oc tc >.~ o -^ -r o

y: w -^ -r rt 12 -5- CI c:^ t-t c^j — ■ --

- CI c:^ t-t c^j 3t I - X L-b o cs -T r^

^CDC^.^NO-t-MOC^'^OOOOO

O 1^ -^ »0 'C O ^- i-H

ccxc:0'rM't^t^cj'-^»C50t^c^Nos»-t

10 CD
OOJ

■so

c a
o o

. ^ ~ . . ^ . r ^ ^ ^ "^ ~ ^ ^ '^ ^ " "" "^ "^ ^ '"• <^ —> "^ fo

-^F-Ht-tMWCJ ^ CC CM C^ C^ T

■^ CO O -< 1^ «; t~ -,0 X O 10 C: — -r 1~ -O (M CM 0> --= (M l- -J ^ C5 J5 cq o K

■ptortscj C5.-<t-^;j;«'iooi-^oooio6eMcomoo-;Mrocoi-:o

IN CM CM (M rt rt —( CO — 1 <N N r-. —I rH M C^ -< CM

i—lt-IC^CM .-I

^ " ^ ^ "^ ^ ^ ^ ": " ^ ? ~: T ^ ^ ^ ■-"" '~ '~ '^ == ' "" °^ '^ '-'' -^

^rt^rtCM^ CMCMCMCM^rt,^ CO-!cMXi:;;^CMeMS3

1 T-l l-H .-H CM r-<

^$2?:St;S2?frSt;SJsP:;"=«'°c<^'^s«oocoo5>o<Naoi^

>^^ojtcocoi-^xo6^«o

OXOCDCMCOCIOOCOOO

--! i-l i-H rt CM --I

CM — < »< CM .-< rH i-l

CM 1-1 — I —1 rt rt .

-cM«-<rt ■~;=i-rt-^;:;s

r.^i'^m.'i^ — ./^.^^, -^ .»■_.« <XCOa5tOC005i-<

<— 1 (N i-iS

O'-'^O.<r«0t0C-)«=X-<'OC0 — xcootoco05i-<cooc5ob-. --Jc

L-icM-

-.cr^rrcO'-r^coccoop'JCMroto
CMOO(N-CM^C-H=5r;i~ocM"0'i:i-«r-5u5o3ctc;:5t^n35oo

2^22S^ '~'-^2;2coo = ^^i.-;,-;o»

CM CC 1^ 00 TT -r rH C-J

s.'r2S23;£3!2?;S?>S2;s:!::r;<».?3?2«?'er

• COO:D r^X

'^^■-=5^!^C;0-^_-rOCMt-CCCOCMO>Or-ctoiffla5oSoTi-d6,^005i5

— •OCCOX'-^l^tOCOC^OXlO^COlOr-^f-lO-HCMCSr-HCMaSf^^— *_t..^
CMOO;=COCC«OCC»ICeMC:t-CMXCOOr^SxScMS5o°SxM

■ jc =c -< o ■-•; u3 -^ -^ -.^ 00 o

? C") O W X 00 o .•

o o o o
*— .— _e o

J K a C3

5 S i" «

C 0

p-2

C3 C3„

_;.?'2 ^ o

;•: r 2 ^- /- :-'-^ c; -J!r.Z^

^--^'^a p ^^ ^'"^ ^"^

Ke£-£H>

18026°— 18— Bull. 637-

10

BULLETIIST 637, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

PL, «

cc 1— 1 1^ -^ -r -

'C^aC'^t^t^C0OiC<IOi

COCOCOC^lt-^COiCOiCiGCC^OiOcO''

CSi C^ .-H ^ .-H <N CS CS •-< 'I C«C<0)

OOGCOOO-fOOCSJOOOOOOCC

c^f-iooocco'^c^'— t-^OTj-i— i-cr--M

i-HOS-rcO'-H-rt'tOOcOCOOO^'O'-H-ni

C0'^»0OO5DC0C0-rt~*C0Tr'cCt^>0

»0 lO T -Tf CO CO 1-^ CO >0 i-H tJ- C4 L'5 :d t-^

r-H T-( r-H r-H rH ,-1 l-H .-I ^ CM 1-H i-H l-i

r-l T-< i-H ^ ,-4 Tl ^ ^ T-H C^ r-ti-Hl-4

coi-Hac';r;oO'-HO':oo50ii^coi-^o

rrcsoioooccoot-'-c^iooocO'-Ho;

»-h»-<OOC^OCOO'-1ocO'-h»-hC^c^

00003'— <3SF-ioio-Treoi-HOi-H»-l

t-^OCOiCOCOOOOOiT-iiOySOsO
»0 ^r W •-< O l^ t'- lO X 1— * t^ f-H t^ O 1^

coccxxoit^oiwccc^c^T-iccoioi

CD»OC0(NO00C0CD00Q0<NOt^O'©

i>^t^t>t-^o6ccoccDwoc4*-^r^Gco6

J3 >>

t^9?9^5<^^'

X3 M

(y ra rt '

3 C3 >

-^ o

, U4 U <D i^ r^ >

a* Q> O O CL
> fc» > > te^i!

o o o_o g o

S.S

3 s

m'C

7S

^1

CALCULATING ECONOMICAL BALANCED RATIONS. 11

As seen in Table IV, a ton of corn contains 1,538 pounds of carbo-
hydrates and 138 poimds of protein, or 0.0897 pounds of protein for
each pound of carbohydrates. Hereafter, in the discussion of this
table, this 0.0897 pound of protein to each pound of carbohydrates
is referred to as '' proportional protein." It is the proportion of
protein accompanying carbohydrates in corn.

A ton of dried brewers' grams contains 884 pounds of carbohy-
drates and 430 pounds of protein. Now, in corn, 884 pomids of
carbohydrates would be accompanied by 79 pounds of pro tern (884 X
0.097 = 79). The nutrients in a ton of dried brewer's grams may
thus be classified as foUows:

Pounds.

Carbohydrates, 884 pounds, proportional protein 79

excess protein 351

Total protein 430

The digestible carbohydrate content of a ton of each of the various
protein feeds is given in Table IV, first column to the right of the
double rule. The digestible protein per ton is given m the next
colunm. This is the sum of the proportional protein, given in next
to the last column, and the excess protein, given in the last column.
The proportional protein in choice cottonseed meal, for instance,
which is 74 pounds, merely represents the protem obtained in com
along mth 824 pounds of carbohydrates, which is the amount of the
latter contained in a ton of choice cotton seed meal.

The method here outlined is based on the assumption that the
carbohydrates and "proportional protein" in a ton of any expensive
protein feed are worth just what they would cost m the cheap and
standard carbohydrate feed used as a basis of comparison (corn in
Table IV).

The first 11 columns of figures in Table IV give the value of the
carbohydrates and proportional protein in a ton of each of the
various nitrogenous feeds when the price of corn is as shown in the
column headings.

When corn is worth more than a doUar a bushel, the value of the
carbohydi-ate and proportional protein given in Table IV may be
easily obtained by either combining the figures given in two columns
or by adding to the values given in one column a proportional part
of the values given in another. For example, when com is worth
SI. 50 a bushel, double the amounts given in column headed ''$0.75";
when it is worth $1.15 a bushel add to the values given in column
headed "$1.00" one-third the amount given in colunm headed
"$0.45."

To illustrate the method of arriving at the cost of a pound of
excess protein, let us assume that com is 60 cents a bushel and
peanut cake is $30 a ton. In the colunm headed "$0.60" we find

12 BULLETIN 637, XJ. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

that when corn is 60 cents per bushel the carbohydrates and propor-
tional protein in a ton of peanut cake are worth $10.21. The excess
protein in a ton of cake thus costs $30- $10.21 =$19.79. Since
there are 790 pounds of this excess protein, a single pound costs
$19.79 ^790 = $0,025, or 2.5 cents.

A few additional problems will show the facility with which com-
putations may be made by use of this table.

1. Corn is available at 60 cents a bushel. Choice cottonseed meal
can be bought at $32 a ton and high-grade gluten feed at $24.
Which of the latter is the cheaper source of protein ?

Solution:

Cottonseed meal. Gluten feed.

$32.00 $24.00

'11.49 '16.48

2 666) 20. 51 2 326) 7. 56

0. 0308 0. 0232

Hence, gluten feed, under the conditions named, is the cheaper
source of protein. It furnishes this element at 2.32 cents per pound,
as against 3.08 cents for cottonseed meal.

In case the price of corn is not given exactly in the table, use the
nearest price given. In this case the result will not be exact, but the
inaccuracy will be of such nature that the result is never misleading,

2. With corn at 80 cents a bushel, choice cottonseed meal $45 per
ton, and tankage (45-55 per eent) $50 per ton, which of the latter
furnishes protein more cheaply ?

Solution:

Cottonseed meal. Tankage.

$45. 00 $50. 00

15.30 11.44

666) 29.70 907) 38.56
0. 0446 0. 0425

The $15.30 and $11.44 in the above solution are taken from Table

IV, column headed ''$0.80"; the 666 and 907 are taken from the last

column. Tankage is seen to be the cheaper source of protein at the

prices given.

HOW TO USE TABLE IV.

Given a certain number of protein feeds with the local selling
prices per ton, to determine the relative cost of protein per pound,
proceed as follows :

1. In columns headed "Value of corn per bushel" select the one
corresponding most nearly to the local market price of that grain.

2. In that column take the amount found opposite the name of the
feed in question and subtract it from the local selling price of that
feed. The difference represents the value of the excess carbohydrate.

» From colmnn headed $0.60 in Table IV. This figm'e is the value of the carbohydrates and proportional
protein in a ton of the feed in question.
* From last column of Table IV. Pounds of excess protein in a ton of this feed.

CALCULATING ECONOMICAL BALANCED RATIONS. 13

3. In the last column opposite the name of the feed is given the
amount of excess protein in a ton. Divide the value obtained above
by this amount and the result is the value of a pound of excess pro-
tein, when bought in the feed considered.

RELATIVE VALUE OF CARBOHYDRATE FEEDS WHEN THE CHEAPEST
AVAILABLE FEED IS NITROGENOUS.

In some sections of the country tlie most available feeding stuff is
distinctly nitrogenous in character, and it is desirable to buy carbo-
naceous feeding stuffs to balance the ration. Thus, in the South,
cottonseed meal is frequently the basic feeding stuff, while in many
parts of the West alfalfa occupies tliis position. In such cases it
becomes desirable to know the cheapest available source of carbo-
hydrates. The method of procedure is given in the following pages.
It is similar to that already given for evaluating protein feeds.

As seen in Table V a ton of choice cottonseed meal contains 740
pounds of digestible protein and 824 pounds of digestible carbohy-
drate, or 1.113 pounds of carbohydrate for each pound of protein.
Hereafter, in the discussion of this table, this 1.113 pounds of carbo-
hydrate to each pound of protein is referred to as "proportional car-
bohydrate." It is the proportion of carbohydrates accompanying
protein in cottonseed meal.

A ton of barley contains 180 pounds of protein and 1,408 pounds
of carbohydrate. Now, in cottonseed meal, 180 pounds of protein
would be accompanied by 200 pounds of carbohydrate (180 X 1.113 =
200). The nutrients in a ton of barley may thus be classified as
follows :

Pounds.

Proteins 180 pounds, proportional carbohydrates 200

excess carbohydrates 1, 208

Total carbohydrates = 1, 408

The digestible protein content of a ton of each of the various
carbohydrate feeds is given in Table V, first column to the right of
the double rule. The digestible carbohydrate per ton is given in the
next column. This is the sum of the proportional carbohydrate,
given in next to the last column, and the excess carbohydrate, given
in the last column. The proportional carbohydrate in dry beet pulp,
for instance, wliich is 102 pounds, merely represents the carbohydrate
obtained in cottonseed meal along with 92 pounds of protein, which
is the amount of the latter contained in a ton of dry beet pulp.

The method here outlined is the same as that for Table IV. It is
based on the assumption that the protein and the proportional car-
bohydrate in a ton of any expensive carbohydrate feed are worth
just what they would cost in the cheap protein feed used as a basis
of comparison (cottonseed meal in Table V).

14

BULLETIN 637, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTTJRE.

^ n C3

■ • MO O Oi OS (N CC (N »i^ X 1^ 05 O CC O --0 O O t^ C^ I>-

l05I-CCCOC^i(N^;005050SOaiCC(NCSC^(M(NCO

P o ^^

ggs

OTt<COMCOMt^»-(CDOO-^(NOSCCiCcOOiOOOOiOO»Or^'^iN
_ _ -5Q0IOC0O CO tN CD OOlO tJHOCJCS OOOOCD r-^O >0 I~0 (NO :OC5l^
C» l-l 1-1 1-1 l-H l-l C^ i-l(M CO ■* i-H rH (M rH rt 1-1 i-l(N C-< 1-1 -H F-l N C^ 1-1 -< (N

g.3

C Cud

00OTt<'^0CiO00OC0OC^C^-rt<O'1*-fMGCCS"^C^)(N(NCCCSOOO00
O-^l'-OCOTt^I^OOiOCNGOiOCCC^C^f't'^rJTp'-i.-HOiCC'-C'C^i— "-^C^-^

rH ^ ,H r-4 i-H rH rH C^ CC '^ t-l T-l ^ rH ,-t i-t i-t i-( i-H rH tH r-l t-I tI tI <N

^-0505r•-•^»CCC<»OOCCCO»OOOt~'-"»J«0»-tGOOrf^'--('0';DO^"-05'— (Tt<T-H

os'^oocoi^cDoicxJoi^cvit^loosoi'-HaicocxJoot-^oou^ocicc

CC»t^t^>Ci005C0Ot-(C0'Oc0i-HC0O0000cDOaDOt^Tt<00OTt«OO00

cc-^Tt*coi--coos'^'t*0'Xi"--^oot^ioO'^oc^ooocoocoCiOr-!:o

^ CS ■^ '^ CO CO TjH --^ iC CiO --i CQ CO "^ -^ ' TjH Tp rj^ »0 lO CO -^ C^ 1^5 TjH Tj5 -^ O

»COtOOOOt^O>C<liCOiOTfiCiOCOO*OC^OCO'-HOC't*'— i.-HCO'^CO'^
OGOCOCSOO'<*<COCOOOI^OOiCO»0'^'^rOOOiOOOOC^050I^O»r5 0i

CO '-H CO CO N Ci CO CO "^ <© 00 CS c4 CO CO ' CO CO CO CO CO oi CO ^ '<d^ CO CO CO -^

CO'^Tt^OiOu^OCSOOTt'OsOCO^r^OC^O'N-^MOt^l-^asCOiOO
^iMCIi— lCO:OTt*(Nr"-'^OCQOI^'^COCSCOCSOOiOOi'— tCSOTt*OCOCO

j:5 hog

CO

a

•^ -^ K C3 ■-3 c/3 w) OT

g

^1

ECCMf-KMMw , bc^ a,C 'CIS

ti c Eg o^ji2,^,5i2i2 ^ ^ ^ a; ©bJc
^oos:3oooo'csc3.-.2.2>->>i'a

CALCULATING ECONOMICAL BALANCED RATIONS. 15

The first seven columns of figures in Table V give the value of
the protein and proportional carbohydrate in a ton of the various
carbohydrate feeds when the price of cottonseed meal is as shown in
the column headings. When the value of cottonseed meal varies
from that given in the column headings the value of protein and
proportional carbohydrate can be made to correspond by increasing
the figures in one of the columns a proportional amount. For in-
stance, when cottonseed meal is worth $12 per ton the figures in
column headed $10 should be increased by ^, or 20 per cent.

To illustrate the method of arriving at the cost of a pound of
excess carbohydrate let us assume that choice cottonseed meal is
$35 and dried beet pulp $15 per ton. In the column headed "$35.00"
we find that when cottonseed meal is $35, the protein and propor-
tional carbohydrate in a ton of dried beet pulp are worth $4.35.
The excess carbohydrate in a ton of beet pulp thus costs $15 — $4.35 =
$10.65. Since there are 1,238 pounds of this excess carbohydrate, a
single pound costs $10.65^1,238 = 0.86 cents. A few additional
problems will show the ease with which computations may be made
by use of this table.

Problem 1. — Choice cottonseed meal is available at $35 per ton.
Sorghum grain can be bought at $20, rough price at $28, and shelled
corn at $30.35, or 85 cents per bushel. Which is the cheapest source
of carbohydrate ?

Solution :

Sorghum Shelled Rough

grain. corn. rice.

$20. 00 $30. 35 $28. 00

17.10 ^6.53 M.45

1273) 12.90 2 1384) 23.82 n263) 23.55

0. 0101 0. 0172 0. 0186

Problem 2. — Given cottonseed meal at $30 per ton and shelled

osrn at 95 cents per bushel, what is the value per ton of barley, oats,

and rye for balancing a cottonseed meal ration ?
Solution :

$33. 92 (Value of ton of corn at 95 cents per bushel. See Table HI.)
5.59 (See Table V, column headed $30, opposite corn, shelled.)

1384) 28.33 (For 1384, see last column Table V, opposite corn, shelled.)
0. 0204 (Value of a pound of excess carbohydrates ui corn. )

Barley: A ton of barley contains 1,208 pounds of excess carbo-
hydrates, which, at 2.04 cents per pound, is worth $24.64.^ The
protein and the remaining carbohydrates are worth $7.30. (See
Table V, column headed "$30.00," opposite barley.) Hence,

1 See column headed "$35.00" (Table V). These figures represent the value of the protein and propor-
tional carbohydrate in a ton of these feeds when cottonseed meal is worth $35 per ton.

2 See last column, Table V.

3 It is assumed that a pound of excess digestible carbohydrate has the same value regardless of the feed
which supplies it. When cottonseed meal is worth $30 and corn 95 cents, a pound of excess carbohydrate
has a value of 2.04 cents. This figure is used for determining the value of the excess carbohydrate in oats
and rye. The value of the remaining carbohydrate content and the protein in these feeds is taken from
Table V.

16 BULLETIN 637, IT. S. DEPAETMENT OP AGRICULTURE.

under the conditions named, a ton of barley is worth $24.64 + $7. 30 =
$31.94. In a hke manner the value of a ton of oats and rye are ob-
tained :

Oats: 998X0.0204=120.36
7.86

28. 22 (Value of a ton of oats.)
Rye: 1202X0.0204= 24.52
8.02

32. 54 (Value of a ton of rye.)

The value of each of these grains per bushel is now easily found from
Table III to be as follows: Barley, 77 cents; oats, 45 cents; rye, 91

HOW TO USE TABLE V.

Given a certain number of carbohydrate feeds with the local selling
prices per ton, to determine the relative cost of excess carbohydrate
per pound, proceed as follows :

(1) In columns headed "Value of cottonseed meal" select the one
corresponding most nearly to the local market price of that feed.

(2) In that column take the amount found opposite the name of the
feed in question and subtract it from the local selling price of that feed.
The difference represents the cost of the excess carbohydrate.

(3) In the last column opposite the name of the feed is given the
amount of excess carbohydrate in a ton. Divide the value obtained
above by this amount and the result is the cost of a pound of excess
carbohydrate when bought in the feed considered.

In many sections of the West and Southwest alfalfa hay is the basic
feeding stuff. It is distinctly nitrogenous in character, and it is often
desirable to buy carbonaceous feeding stuffs to balance the ration.
The method of procedure is the same as that already given in con-
nection with Table V. •

As seen in Table VI, a ton of alfalfa hay contains 212 pounds^ of
digestible protein and 820 pounds * of digestible carbohydrates, or
3.868 pounds of carbohydrates for each pound of protein. Hereafter in
the discussion of this table this 3.868 pounds of carbohydrates to each
pound of protein is referred to as " proportional carbohydrates." It is
the proportion of carbohydrates accompanying protein in alfalfa hay.

A ton of barley contains 180 pounds of protein, and 1408 pounds
of carbohydrates. Now, in alfalfa hay, 180 pounds of protein would
be accompanied by 696 pounds of carbohydrates (180x3.868 = 696).
The nutrients in a ton of barley may thus be classified as follows:

Pounds.

Protein 180 pounds, proportional carbohydrates ' 696

excess carbohydrates ' 712

Total carbohydrates ' 1, 408

1 See Table VI, last four columns opposite names of feeds in question, for the distribution of the nutrients
in a ton of each.

CALCULATING ECONOMICAL BALANCED RATIONS. l7

The proportional carbohydi-ato in barley, for instance, which is
696 pounds, merely represents the carbohydrates obtained in aKalfa
hay along with 180 pounds of protein, which is the amount of the
latter contained in a ton of barley.

As previously stated, the method here outlined is based on the
assumption that the protein and "proportional carbohydrates" in a
ton of any expensive carbohydrate feed are worth just what they
would cost in the cheap protein feed used as a basis of comparison
(aKalfa hay in Table VI).

The first 10 colunms of figures in Table VI give the value of the
protein and the proportional carbohydrates in a ton of the various
carbohych-ate feeds when the price of alfalfa hay is as shown in the
column headings. Other figures to correspond to a different value of
alfalfa hay may be easily obtained either by combining the figui'es of
two columns in Table VI or by increasing those of one column by a
proportional part of those in another column. For instance, when
alfalfa is worth $7, increase the figures found in column headed
"$6.00" by one-fourth of those found in column headed "$4.00" to
get figui'es corresponding to aKalfa at $7.

To iUustrate the method of arriving at the cost of a pound of excess
protein let us assume that alfalfa hay is $10 per ton and barley is
available at $22.88 a ton or 55 cents a bushel. In the column headed
"$10.00" we find that when aKaKa is $10 per ton the protein and the
proportional carbohydrate in a ton of barley is worth $8.49. The
excess carbohydrate in a ton of barley thus costs $22.88 -$8.49 =
$14.39. Since there are 712 pounds of excess carbohydi-ate, a single
pound costs $14.39 ^712 = $0.0202, or 2.02 cents.

The use of Table VI is further iUustrated in the following problem:

Alfalfa hay is available at $12, shelled corn at $25, barley at $23,
and milo grain at $24 a ton. Which of the thi-ee grains is cheapest as
a source of carbohydrates for balancing an aKaKa ration ?
Solution:

Corn. Barley. Milo.

$25.00 $23.00 $24.00

17.8I U0.19 ^9.85

^ 1004) 17.19 2 7^2) 12.81 ^ 75^) 14 15

3 0.0171 ^ 0.0180 3 0.01884

In this case, corn is the cheapest som'ce of carbohydrates,

HOW TO USE TABLE VI.
Follow the directions given for the use of Table V.

1 Table VI, column headed "$12.00," opposite corn, barley and milo. These figures represent the
Value of the protein and proportional carbohydrate in a ton of the feeds in question.

2 Table VI, last column.

3 Value of a pound of excess carbohydrates.

18

BULLETIN 637, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

"OO-^OC^-fOt^rfi-HW-^O^OlO-^-

? ^COOO Ot^ -

rt OC I-^ CO d g r- 3 K ■>!■ rt 2 CS iO CO TO t~ 0<5 00 CO 3 3 ■ ,. ..^ ,^. w -T-

CpCDt^lM'rJ'C^I-S'-^TfiCOCSr^CDfOt

cocococOiOTri^«Dt>-cviiO'<roco

r^'-rc^t^t>-o-raioi:oc90f0*t<

'^COt^OtM'OCD^H^TrcO'^COt^^Ji
lO >0 CO t^ t^ ^r O O t^ !>. »0 O OS

S '^
§'•3

ccoco-^oooooocooc<i'rt^o-^'<j'Ooi>»«Ncq-<*'oceqc^cMooooo

0'^Ot^CO-<rl-GCiO(N>OCOCS'M-^CO-^^T-(^COOCasC>^i-H^W-Si
•^C0i-ICC»0-^C0'^TPC0O»0TJiTPi-lrHf-H00C<l(NM-^O-<S'Tr"-^-*ji0S

O <N <M CO 00 IM C^ -

OOOOO^TfOfNOOM'O'^-

OOCncOCDCOCMOOCOOCC-^C^COI^tNCOTrl^OOOSOSCDT'CSOOtOt^-l*

iS

'^?3S3'^^*^''^'^oa>'-^iroi:^cscoo-^iooioO'*'05c^'^c<ic'ic^

-n' O O TT lO C^ I- W CO *-0 OC' 00

CMOiOcOTTCOOOOOtNcO'O

lococ^focir^iococccooit^io-^c^coo-'

<M O aO CO ^ --rn '

^r-lWC^rHrHCSCMlN-VrHi-IC^C^ CSCMC^C^WT-IC^CS<N<M(MC^iCO

ciioor^t— oocOTr-cooocDc^i-Hco-^iOTfcot-^oocD-^TrOioOi— It—

CN'Xf-li0C^C0-^C0iOCTJi00CCN»0C000"^Oi-H00O00I>-C0t:0O»0t—

'-HOOiOiO'^'rHoicoooOTr'-HOWoj^^Oc^c^1-Ho6tDeO'--^r^Oo6

CCOOQOCOC^'— it^-l— t— OOi—tOiGOtNOit— CO'^-rf'Ot-^OOClO'tDiOCVIC^
Oi<X5C^CC'OlOT-HTPOC'-((>I0005'^QC'^a50t^COOO'-(T7iCOCQi-(-^0

C^GOf-1— It— COTTOiOiOOOt^Wi— I'^OSiO-^Oi-^OiOOOO'tOt— I^I—
^O^^CCTrT-^OlOC*^c6o6^-^OtC'<3^^COc4T^lOcOt^C^C^cOOC^-^0

£— lO-^l-r-COOOcOi-HCCOOOit-COM-^TTOCOt-CCCOOOOOCOC^
rH 1— ( I— I 1— I »-t r-f (M i-H r-1 ,-h ,-h ,— t .— ( i-H ,— ( ^H t-H t-H »-( .— I r-(

Oi'-Ht-Oi-l'-iOOOC^OOWCOOiiOCOOOOOtN'^OOCSIcD'g'ONOiiO^
T-tCS»-lTr0005COC^COcD05»-ii-HGOi-HC4COCOCDOlCOOOe^Tr-^OOGO

OtOOJoJt— COOOii-HCOt— t— OOSi-HOioOOioOiOOJoO'MOOOoicO

Oi'^'^cC'— iiooc-^cdOO-^osi-H-r-

-lOCCiOOrrCCt— -— 1»

o6-^t>i><£J<oooi-^oi"Ocow5o6oD 'r^tdcocooiTri— <:doio6t^GCi-H

Oit— T-Ht— rHor-ciioioccioosr-ioososi-HOc^iO'^cot— Tfcot— .-H

t— ■n'.-tC^CNXiX''-HiO'T(NI— t— lOt— •-(iOtT'i— iCOiOOCO-^OscOiOO)

8OG0O'-<»0iCrr<©Tr<:0t— CiC^t-rra>'-tiN0iCDC0(>»O»-iTfNi-H
i:0t0t--0i-:r»-t:0OC00i»OOa:»0C0T-i00C0':rcDi0OOC^C^050i

iO C*J -^ 'g' CO M l6 -<r tri oi CO CO »o '^ * -.^ tT tT i6 lO C^ tt -^ lO to tP tT ^

O'^COCOOOCOOSt-fOTfOOOOOCCOiOii-HiOcCt- (NOO-^t-COOOO

■^ t- o 1— I :d CO -r o t— w cC' CO -^ c^ CO o 1— c^ lo tic I— o CO I- -^ «:■ c^ (C

COf-i -^ M C^ M CO CO CO ';0 C^ Ca CO CO 'cOCicOCOCOT-HCOC^COCOtNCO'T

_,'? o n s o
:3 o ^r®

D<o Ol

5 di r-

„ to m^H

-a-i

■||o§SS£52

C3QJ3t-ooOp^

»;3 O O **-■ (-<
! W « W W P

' Q^ © © o r'

:^ 03

. sic g
_ . „ „ „ , as 03 c3

. c3=; o o o o-gtI.Si.Si.a ^>.fegfi

PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS BULLETIN.

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Raising and Fattening Beef Calves in Alabama. (Department Bulletin 73.)

Economical Cattle Feeding in the Corn Belt. (Farmers' Bulletin 588.)

The Feeding of Dairy Cows. (Farmers' Bulletin 743.)

Feeding and Management of Daiiy Calves and Young Dairy Stock. (Farmers' Bulle-
tin 777.)

Equipment for Farm Sheep Raising. (Farmers' Bulletin 810.)

How Live Stock is Handled in the Bluegrass Region of Kentucky. (Farmers' Bulle-
tin 812.)

Farm Sheep Raising for Beginners. (Farmers' Bulletin 840.)

Utilization of Farm Wastes in Feeding Live Stock. (Farmers' Bulletin 873.)

Swine Management. (Farmers' Bulletin 874.)

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, D. C.

Cost of Raising a Dairy Cow. (Department Bulletin 49.) Price, 5 cents.

Fattening Cattle in Alabama. (Department Bulletin 110.) Price, Scents.

Use of Energy Values in the Computation of Rations for Farm Animals. (Department
Bulletia 459.) Price, 5 cents.

Study in Cost of Producing Milk on Dairy Farms in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylva-
nia, and North Carolina. (Department Bulletin 501.) Price, 5 cents.

Feeding Farm Animals. (Farmers' Bulletin 22.) Price, 5 cents.

Principles of Horse Feeding. (Farmers' Bulletin 170.) Price, 5 cents.

Pig Management. (Farmers' Bulletin 205.) Price, 5 cents.

Crimson Clover, Utilization. (Farmers' Bulletin 579.) Price, 5 cents.

Feeding for Meat Production. (Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 108.) Price,
10 cents.

Beef Production in Alabama, 1. Cost of Raising Cattle. 2. Wintering Steers Pre-
paratory to Summer Fattening on Pasture. 3. Fattening Cattle on Pasture. (Bu-
reau of Animal Industry Bulletin 131.) Price, 10 cents.

Nutritive Value of Non -protein of Feeding Stuffs. (Bureau of Animal Industry Bul-
tin 139.) Price, 10 cents.

Maintenance Rations of Farm Animals. (Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 143.)
Price, 15 cents.

Feeding Beef Cattle in Alabama, 1. Winter Fattening on Cottonseed Meal, Cottonseed
Hulls, Corn Silage, and Johnson Grass Hay. 2. Wintering Steers Followed by
Summer Fattening on Pasture. 3. Value of Shelter for Fattening Cattle in Ala-
bama. 4. Early Compared with Late Fattening of Steers on Pasture. (Bureau of
Animal Industry Bulletin 159.) Price, 10 cents.

Meat Situation in tlie United States. Part IV. Utilization and Efficiency of Avail-
able American Feed Stuffs. (Report 112.) Price, 5 cents.

19

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

5 CENTS PER COPY
V

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 638

Contribution from the Forest Service
HENRY S. GRAVES. Forester

Washington, D. C.

April 8, 1918

FORESTRY AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT

By

SAMUEL T. DANA, Assistant Chief of
Forest Investigations

CONTENTS

Too Little Attention Paid to Some Effects

of Forest Devastation 1

WTjy Our Forests Have Been Devastated . 2
Neglected Evils of Destrnctive Lum-
bering 3

A Roving Lumber Industry 3

Abandoned Towns ........ 4

Desertad Farms 6

Local Shortages of Timber 8

Speculation 10

Commnnlty Development' Interrupted 16

Page
Neglected Evils, etc. — Continued.

Abandoned Railroads 19

A Lower Standard of Population ... 20
Suggestions for a Rational Timberland

Policy 21

Need for a Different System of Han-
dling Forest Lands 21

Land Classification 23

Continuous Forest Production ... 25

StabilUy of PoUcy 28

Public Control and Ownership ... 30

Community Benefits 82

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1918

FOREST SERVICE.

HENRY S. GRAVES, Forester.
ALBERT F. POTTER, Associate Forester.

BRANCH OF RESEARCH.

Eable H. Clapp, Assistant Forester in charge.

FoBEST Investigations.

RzVPUAEL ZoN, Chief.
S. T. Dana, Assistant Chief.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 638

(,'ontribution from the Forest Service
HENUY S. GKAVES, Forester

^■\J^'^^U

Washington, D, C.

April 8, 1918

FORESTRY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

By Samuel T. Dana, As>;l><t<iiii Oticf of Fuient Incestiyations.

CONTENTS.

Page.
Too little attention paid to some clTeci.s of

forest devastation 1

Why our forests have been devastated. . . 2

Neglected evils of destructive lumberin<,' 3

A roving- lumber industry 3

Abandoned towns 4

Deserted farms tj

Local short ages of limber 8

Speculation 10

Community dexclopmcnt inlerruiiled 10

Abandoned railroads 19

Page.

Neglected evils, etc.— Continued.

A lower standard of population 20

SuKKfi"!tionsfora rational timberland policy.. 21
Need for a dili'erent system of handling

forest lands 21

Land classification 23

Continuous forest production 2.j

Stability of policy 28

I'nblic control and ownership 30

Community benefits 32

TOO LITTLE ATTENTION PAID TO SOME EFFECTS OF FOREST

DEVASTATION.

Nowadays the more obvious results of forest devastation, such as
fires, increase in soil erosion, and irregularity of stream flow, are
pretty generally recognized. But so far comparatively little atten-
tion has been paid to certain economic and social effects of forest
devastation, perhaps less apparent but scarcely less harmful. These
are at once an indictment of the system that has made them possible
and a challenge to devise a better one.

In a very literal sense our civilization has been built on wood.
From the forests that once stretched almost unbroken from Maine
to Florida, from the immense timber stands of the Lake States, and
from those of the Rocky Mountains and Pacific coast has come, in
turn, the material needed for the development of farms and the
building of homes as settlement pushed ever westward. Unquestion-
ably, the remarkable progress of agriculture has been made possible
in large measure by an easily accessible supply of timber.

And along Avith the material for agricultural development the for-
ests have given us also one of the greatest of our basic manufacturing
industries. Of (he 14 groups of industries recognized by the last
census, the lumber industry stands third in number of wage earners
and fourth in value of product. In its allied branches of logging,
milling, and manufacture it employs 907,000 persons, or 13.7 per cent
of all the wage earners in the country. The value of its annual

10940°— Bull. 63S— IS 1

2 BULLETIN 638, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

output of lumber and remanufactured products amounts to $1,582,-
000,000. From the crude mills and moderate cuts of early days has
come the modern mill of enormous capacity and elaborate equipment.
To-day the lumber industry produces an annual cut of some hundred
billion board feet of wood, furnishes a means of support for several
millions of people, and in hiuidreds of ways is closely interwoven
in the fabric of our economic life.

But there is another "side to the pijc'ture. Too often has forest utili-
zation been synonymous with forest destruction. Our forests, for the
most part, have been used not as a crop, a renewable resource, but as
a mine, which could jdeld its wealth but once and then must be "aban-
doned. In many places when the forest " mine " became exhausted,
the civilization and prosperity that forest exploitation brought
about declined and disappeared. Other evils, inseparable from the
system, also have followed in the wake of destructiA'e lumbering.
To point out some of the harmful economic and social effects and to
suggest a remedy is the object of this bulletin. Before doing so,
however, the reason for the destructi\^eness of ordinary lumbering
operations in tlie United States will be touched upon briefly, since
this offers a clue to the solution of the problem.

WHY OUR FORESTS HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED.

The chief reason why forest destruction rather than forest conser-
■ vation has held sway in the United States is clearly the individu-
alistic economic system under which the natural resources of the
country have been utilized. The theory has been that individual ini-
tiative and self-interest, stimulated by the desire for pecuniary gain,
could be trusted to secure the ciuickest and most nearly complete
utilization of these resources, and that in the long run private owner-
ship and development would result in the greatest good to the entire
community. In line v:ith this idea both the Federal and State
Governments, until a comparatively few ye&vs ago^ almost uniformly
followed the policy of disposmg of their forest lands as rapidly as
possible. Enormous areas were sold, generally for a fraction of their
real value, given away as railroad, highway, or other grants, and
acquired — often for " homestead " purposes — under the various pub-
lic-land laws. Within the last century several hundred million acres
of forest lands in the United States have passed from public to
private ownership.

Complete control over the bulk of the forests in the country has
been turned over to thousands of private owners, each of whom has
followed his own individual interest in handling his property.
There has been no uniformity either in point of view or in practice.
Some owners have cut conservatively, others recklessly, and still

FORESTRY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 3

others not ai till. Probiibly the one idea which most owners have
had in common was to adopt whatever course appeared to be the
most profitable financially. Ordinarily, under the prevailing eco-
nomic conditions, this meant cutting with entire disregard for the
future. Enormous stands of apparently inexhaustible virgin timber
were available, stumpage prices were low, and corapetition was keen.
As a result the average lumberman was forced to conduct his busi-
ness in the cheapest possible maimer and very naturally felt no
inclination to incur the additional expense necessary to secure closer
utilization of timber, to provide for reforestation, or even to insure
fire protection. This does not mean that the lumberman had less
regard than otlier men for the needs of the future and for the rights
of generations yet unborn, but merely that he was acting, in accord-
ance witli the necessities imposed by the accepted system, as his
individual interests dictated.

The net result has been that in the handling of our forest re-
sources forestry has been conspicuous by its absence. Little attempt
has been made to keep forest land productive, and still less to secure
11 continuous yield of wood. Speculation in timber has been rife
almost from the very beginning. Stumpage has been acquired for
little or nothing, and i^rofits in the lumber industrj^ have been de-
rived very generally from this source rather than from the logging
and milling end of the business. Comparatively little thought has
been given to the future, which has been left to take care of itself.

In the discussion that follows there is no desire to minimize the
role that the lumber industry has played in opening up undeveloped
regions and creating national wealth. It is not lumbering, but de-
structive lumbering, that calls for a remedy. And the responsi-
bility for destructive lumbering rests not with any individual or
group of individuals, but with an economic system that tends to
hinder rather than to help permanent community development.

NEGLECTED EVILS OF DESTRUCTIVE LUMBERING.

A ROVING LUMBER INDUSTRY.

One of the most obvious economic effects of treating the forest as
a mine rather than as a crop has been to make lumbering in the
United States a roving industry, moving from one region to another
as the timber resources of each in turn have been depleted. Not
only have the States consisting chiefly of agricultural land, such as
Ohio and Indiana, been largely cut out, but also those wath large
areas of land primarily valuable for forest production. New York
State, for example, which in 1850 stood first in the amount of lumber
produced, is now twenty-fourth. Pennsylvania, which was first in
1860, now stands eighteenth. Michigan, ^vhich held first place from

4 BULLETIN 638, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

1870 to 1890, is now thirteenth. Wisconsin, which headed the list
from 1000 to 1904, has now dropped to tenth phice.

And £0 the himber industry has migrated from one region to an-
other as the center of prodiiction has shifted from the Northeast to
the Lake States and then to the South, and is now shifting to the
Pacific Northwest. This movement has been due in part to the nor-
mal clearing of land for agriculture and to the opening up and
deA-elopment of hitherto comparatively unsettled and inaccessible
regions richly endowed with timber resources, but in part also to the
fact that on most of the cut-over areas no steps were taken to secure
a second crop to form the basis of another cut, and still less to pro-
vide for continuous forest production. The land to a large extent
has been rendered unproductive, towns and farms have been aban-
doned, timber supplies have been depleted, transportation facilities
have been crippled, and the community generally has been rendered
poorer and less independent.

From a social standpoint one of the most significant phases of this
lack of permanence in the lumber industry has been the influence
that it has exerted on the movement of population and on the pros-
perity of cities and towns. Only in those regions where agricultural
lands strongly predominate have cities originally built up by the
lumber industry succeeded in maintaining an uninterrupted growth
and prosperity as the lumber was cut out. Many cities less favorably
situated with respect to agricultural lands have also succeeded in
maintaining their existence as the timber has gone by the introduc-
tion of other industries, but oft^n only after a more or less prolonged
period of depression, and in any event with less prospect of attaining
the development that would have been possible if the forest land
tributary to them had been kept productive.

ABANDONED TOWNS.

But the effects of forest devastation on community development
are seen most clearly in the smaller towns in the regions primarily
adapted to timber production. Here deserted villages are signposts
that too often mark the trail of lumbering operations. As in the
mining regions of the West, towns spring up almost overnight,
flourish for a few years until the adjacent timber is cut out, and then
sink rapidly to inactivity or even complete extinction. Unlike min-
ing towns, however, there is not the same necessity for their dis-
appearance. Timber is a renewable resource, which can be so handled
as to insure continuity of cut and therefore of industry.

In the mountain counties of Pennsylvania, particularly in the
northern part of the State, one comes upon town after town that has
declined with the passing of the forest. Eun down and deserted
houses still standing give an idea of the towns' former prosperity.

FORESTRY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 5

Six and eight room frame houses with up to half an acre of hmd
can be bought for from $200 to $400.

Most striking of all, perhaps, is the rise and fall of Cross Fork,
in the hills of southeastern Potter County. In the fall of 1893,
before lumbering operations started, perhaps five or six families
were living on the site where two j-ears later stood a busy town.
For some 14 years Cross Fork led a feverish existence while the
forest wealth was stripped from the surrounding hills. The life
of the town was, of course, the big sawmill, which had a daily
capacity of 230,000 board feet and Avas up to date in every respect.
In 1897 a stave mill was established also, and various other minor
wood-r.sing industries existed at different times. In its prime Cross
Fork had a population of 2,000 or more and was generally known
as one of the liveliest, most hustling places in the State. A branch
line of the Buffalo and Susquehanna Railroad was built to the town.
Stores of all kinds flourished. There were seven hotels, four
churches, a Y. M. C. A. with baths and gymnasium, a large, up-to-
date high school, two systems of waterworks, and two electric light
systems.

But the prosperity of the town was as short-lived as the timber
supply. In the spring of 1909 the big sawmill shut dov.n for good.
From then on the population dwindled rapidly. Fires became so
frequent that the insurance companies canceled their policies. Five-
room frame houses with bath were offered for sale for from $25 to $35
without finding a buyer. In the winter of 1912-13 the stave mill
also ceased operations, and the next fall railroad service, which for
sometime had been limited to three trains a Aveek, stopped altogether.
To-day the total population consists of but 60 persons. It if had not
been for the State, which bought up the cut-over lands and has under-
taken in earnest the work of reconstruction, the town would be as
desolate as the surrounding hills. As it is, Cross Fork is now a quiet
little hamlet, the merest shadow of its former self and without hope
for an industrial and useful future until the timber grows again.

The cut-over lands of the Lake States tell the same story of tem-
porary prosperity characterized by the rise and fall of mushroom
towns. Immense tracts of little value for anything except timber
production have been left dotted with deserted villages as the lumber
industry devasted them and swept on. Meredith, for example, was
once a prosperous town in the northeastern corner or Clare County,
Mich., for which one looks in vain on any modern map. To-day its
hotels are in ruins, the town hall has been moved elsewhere, the rail-
road which connected it with the outside world has been torn up, and
its population has dwindled from 500 to 3.

6 BULLETIN 63S, U. S. DEPARTMEK-T OF AGEICLTLTTJKE.

In Oscoda County, Mich., the town of Mclvinley has met a similar
fate. Unlike many other v.oods towns it never had a large sawmill,
but was rather a distributing center for the surrounding region. It
had railroad and machine shops, a small sawmill and a shingle mill
cutting uuiterial for local use, and served as headquarters for ad-
jacent lumbering operations. The usual assortment of schools,
churches, stores, hotels, and saloons met the needs of the 500 or more
people in the town itself, to say nothing of the 2,500 lumberjacks in
the surrounding woods. To-day the town is nothing but a memory.
A few deserted houses, the foundations of the old shops, and a popu-
lation of three, one of v;hom is a county pauper, are all that is left
of its former activity. Its prosperity departed with the forests that
gave it birth.

Farther west, in Wisconsin, the same trail of deserted villages has
been left in the wake of the lumber industry. If it were not for the
summer tourists who, in spite of the desolation of the cut-over lands,
are attracted to the region by the beauty of its lakes the decline of
many of the towns would be still more marked. Throughout the
region desolation and decay have followed the prosperity that lasted
only as long as the timber.

DESERTED FARMS.

In some regions the practice of timber " mining "" has actually
tended to cause the abandonment of farms as well as of towns.
Nearly everywhere the fullest use of the natural resources of the
country demands that both forestry and agriculture be practiced,
each in its appropriate place, since most regions contain both farm
land and forest land, although of coui^e in widely varying propor-
tions. Even in the best farming districts there are usually certain
areas that should he devoted to woodlots, and patches suitable for
cultivation are found in regions composed mainly of absolute forest
land. Where the cultivable land is rather scattered, of onty medium
quality, or at some distance from a satisfactory market, it is often
necessary for the region to have some other industrj'^ in order to make
farming practicable. Profitable returns can not be secured from the
farm alone. In sudi regions permanent wood-using industries afford
additional opportunities for the farmer to secure employment. They
not only help to tide him over the difficult period when he is clearing
his land and getting a start, but they also furnish an extra source of
income after he has become well established. Moreover, the presence
of a population permanently employed in the wood-using industries
creates a strong local marker for farm products. This often enables
the farmer to dispose profitably of material that could not be shipped
to a more distant market. Additional industries also help to secure

FORESTRY AITD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 7

better tiansportation facilities. .Not infi'equentiy these various fac-
tors, either sinirly or in combhiation, are just enough to make the
ditference between success and faihire for the individual farmer.
Ortain it is th;it where hxrge areas of forest lands are interspersed
with smaller areas potentiall.y valuable for agriculture, the manage-
ment of the forest lands on the basis of a sustained annual yield may
be absolutely necessary for the development of the agricultural lands,
and in anj^ event v/ill make their utilization more profitable.

Unfortunately, forest exploitation in the past has been such as to
make this ideal conspicuous by its absence. Under the individualis-
tic economic system of the past there has been an irresistible pres-
sure on the majority of private owners to cut clear and then abandon
their land. The result has been lack of permanence not only in
wood-using industries but in many regions in farming also. How-
ever desirable the clearing of the forest may have been in regions
chiefly valuable for cultivation, in regions where forest lands pre-
dominate it has in the long run hindered rather than helped agri-
culture.

In Pennsylvania, for example, during the decade from 1900 to 1910,
a period of rising prices for farm products, the mrniber of farms
decreased nearly 5,000. At the same time the area of land in farms
decreased more than 780,000 acres, and the area of improved land in
farms more than 530,000 acres. Y\"hile the total population of the
State v/as increasing 21.6 per cent, the number of farms decreased
2.2 per cent and the acreage of total farm land 4.1 per cent. The hire
of the city and the development of better lands elsew^here may par-
tially explain these facts. It is significant, however, that deserted
farms are a common sight in the once timbered mountains, and that
their abandonment has foilovved the departure of the lumber indus-
try. With the passing of the local market and the opportunities for
outside employment, their owners found farming a precarious busi-
ness.

It is entirely possible, furthermore, to go to an extreme in the
deforestation of all lands that are suitable for agriculture and that
eventually should be cleared and cultivated. There is no advantage
in removing the forests and aljandoning such lands before they actu-
ally can be put to use. Under present conditions, however, this
course is by no means uncommon. In Wisconsin, for instance, tiie
State Agricultural College estimates that there are now 10,000,000
acres of cut-over lands, of which three-fourths may be agricultural
At the present rate of improvement, however — 50,000 acres annu-
^\\y — it will be 150 years before this entire area is brought under
cultivation. In other words, if the land had been maintained in
forest it would be possible to raise from one to three timber crops on

8 BULLETIN GZS, V. S. DEPAETMEXT OF AGEICULTUEE.

it before it could be utilized fidly for agriculture. If forestry had
been practiced on only three-fourths of this 10.000.000 acres, and if
the annual growth had been only 300 board feet per acre, there would
be an annual production of 2^ billion board feet annually. This is
almost exactly twice the present lumber cut of the State. The pro-
duction of this amount of material vrould support a good-sized pop-
ulation, stimulate business, provide a market for local agricultural
products, and offer employment to the settler during slack times on
the farm. Clearly nothing has been gained and mucli has Ijeen lost
by abandoning forest production on the land before the time for its
cultivation was ripe.

There are large areas that once v^ere used for farms, justifiably
perhaps, but that under present conditions should be used for the
production of timber crops. In New England and New York, for
example, thousands of acres that were cultivated before the opening
up of the more fertile lands farther west are now properly being
allowed to revert to forest. This conversion is being permitted for
the most part to take place in a haphazard fashion, and consequently
is proceeding all too slowly and irregularh\ Proper care of these
areas v>ould help greatly to increase their productiveness.

A somewhat similar situation exists in northern Georgia, where
approximately 10 per cent of the mountainous land now being
acquired by the Government for National Forest purposes consists
cf abandoned farm lands. Practically the entire farming commu-
nity that had settled there moved out in a body to raise cotton on
the level, sandy lands of the coastal plain. In nearly all parts of
the country are tracts that formerly were settled, cultivated for a
vvdiile, and then abandoned either because the land was inherently
unsuitable for permanent farming or because more valuable lands
elsewhere became available for settlement. As a general rule, there
is more danger that attempts will be made to cultivate land better
suited for timber crops than that really good agricultural land will
be retained in forest.

LOCAL SHORTAGES OF TIMBER.

Thanks to the successive opening up of fresh sources of supply
as the lumber industry has moved south and west, the United States
has not yet experienced a general shortage of timber. Sufficient
wood still is cut each year to meet the needs of the country. This
is being done, however, at the expense of the forest capital, and is
possible only because the country has been so fortunate as to have
available for im.mediate use the accumulation of many centuries of
forest growth. The best available estimates indicate that for many
years the annual cut of wood x>roducts of all kinds has greatly

Bui. 638, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate I.

F-23139A

A Virgin Forest of Hemlock and White Pine in Western Pennsylvania.
Stands of this kind are now rare and in their place are denuded, fire-swept areas.

Bui. 638, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate II.

Fig. 1.— Cut-Over and Burned-Over Land in Northern Pennsylvania.

This area was formerly covered with a lieavy stand of conifers similar to that shown in Plate I.
Forests of this sort were the source of busy, prosperous commiuiities while the timber was
being cut. The region is now practically deserted and the area covered with worthless fire
cherry, aspen, and sweet fern.

Fig. 2.— How Pennsylvania is Building Up Forest Communities.

Many of the devastated lands are now the property of the State, which is attempting to reforest
them and to build up permanent forest communities. At Pine Grove Furnace, in the heart of
one of the State forests, all of the buildings in the town as well as the surroiniding forest lands
are owned by the State. The building shown in the picture has been repaired and improved,
and is now rented for use as a hotel.

j|. f 38, U. S. Deot. of Agriculture

Plate 111.

Fig. 1.— An Area Clear Cut for Charcoal for the Leadville, Colo., Mines,
Note high stumps, lack of reproduction, and erosion in right foreground.

F-23I49A

Fig. 2.— a Hillside Clear Cut for Acid Wood in Northern Pennsylvania.
The ruts down which the logs are dragged aflord excellent opportunity for the starting of erosion.

Bui. 638, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate IV.

Fig. 1.— General View of a Pennsylvania Town, the Population of which
FOR Many Years was About 600, But is now Only 40.

The tannery, on which the prosperity of the town depended, is shown at the righl of the picture.

f

FiQ. 2.— Another View of the Tannery, Showing more Clearly the Number of
Dwellings by which it was Surrounded.

All of these buildings, like many others in the town, are now abandoned. Property values have
depreciated materially with the departure of the forests.

FOKESTKY AXD COMMUXIIY DEVELOPMENT. 9

exceeded the annual growth. Obviously, such a program can not
be continued indefinitely. A few more decades will probably wit-
ness the exhaustion of the bulk of the virgin forests of the country
except in the more inaccessible portions of the western States.

In the meantime in many parts of the country local shortages in
standing timber have already occurred, with the consequent neces-
sity of importing lumber from a distance and at correspondingly
higher prices. Many regions which once were blessed with "inex-
haustible'' forest resources and from which vast quantities of lumber
have been shipped now have to depend on other parts of the country
for the bulk of their timber. Muskegon, Mich., formerly one of the
largest sawmill towns in the world, offers a good example of this. In
1887 the sawmills of the town had a cut of more than 065,000,000 feet
of lumber and 520,000,000 shingles; and it is estimated that the entire
output of the forests tributary to the Muskegon River has exceeded
25 billion board feet. To-day lumbering operations have practically
ceased. One small mill cuts some 3 or 4 million feet a year of in-
ferior material picked up here and there along the shore of the lake.
What lumber is used comes mainly from the South and from Wis-
consin and JNIinnesota.

Depletion of local supplies has resulted very naturally in more
or less marked increases in the prices of wood products in general.
In spite of the fact that cheap stumpage has been available in other
parts of the country, transportation charges have added materially
to the cost of the lumber at the point of consumption. In the
Middle West, for example, 20 per cent or more of the present retail
price of lumber represents freight charges. Western lumber paying
freights of from $10 to $18 per thousand board feet is a considerable
factor in the supply of the East. Obviously, if the center of lumber
l^yroduction is to be located thousands of miles from the center of
population, retail prices are bound to rise and the consumer must
either pay the bill or go without.

The possibility of supplementing our own depleted forest re-
sources from abroad has often been suggested optimistically but all
too vaguely. Careful studies of foreign sources of supply seem to
indicate that too much reliance should not be placed on this hope.
Surplus supplies of timber still exist in Eussia, Finland, and Swe-
den, but the growing demands of other European countries are almost
certain to render comparatively little of this available for use in the
United States. The forest resources of Central and South America
are still to a large extent unknown, but it is very doubtful whether
they can be counted on to supply us with any considerable amount
of timber suitable for ordinary construction purposes. Canada still
has a surplus, but this, too, is being rapidly depleted, and it is reason-
16940°— Bull. 63S— 18 2

10 BULLETIN 638^ U, S. DEPAETMEl!^T OF AGRICULTURE.

able to suppose that in the not distant future practically the entire
production of its forests will be needed for home consumption by tlie
constantly increasing population. Importations from any of these
sources, moreover, involve considerable charges for transportation,
with a corresponding increase in price to the consumer.

It seems certain that in the long run the United States must relj'"
on its own resources to supply its needs for lumber, ties, paper, and
other wood products, as well as for naval stores and wood distilla-
tion products. It is equally certain, furthermore, that these supplies
should be produced as near the point of consumption as possible
through the full use of forest land wherever it occurs. Too little
attention has so far been paid to these fundamental truths. As a
result, lumber prices have increased in the cut-over regions, and the
pinch of inadequate supplies has already been felt in many localities.

SPECULATION.

IN STANDING TIMBER.

Speculation, both in standing timber and in cut-over lands, is
another serious evil that has attended the exploitation of the forests.
The subject is so big a one, however, as to make it impossible in a
bulletin such as this to do more than touch briefly on a few of its more
important aspects.

Large bodies of mature timber have been acquired with no inten-
tion of utilizing them immediately, but Avith the idea of trading them
off as soon as possible at a substantial profit or of holding them for
a rise in price. As transportation facilities have been developed and
the country built up, there naturally has been a rapid rise in stump-
age values, particularly in the newer sections. In parts of the
Northwest, for example, the original price at which timber was
acquired from the Government has been multiplied in subsequent
transfers anywhere from ten to twenty times within the short space
of ten or fifteen years. Millions of acres of the finest timberlands
in the country passed every j'^ear from public to private ownership ;
hundreds of fortunes were made merely by buying and selling stump-
age; and the entire tendency was to promote timber speculation at
the expense of timber production. In a general way, although per-
haps not in such acute form, this has been the history of timber
ownership throughout the country. In fact, so rapidl}" have forest
properties, originally acquired at little or no expense, increased in
value that the lumber industry as a whole has looked for its profits
to timber ownership rather than to logging and milling — that is,
to the speculative rather than to the operative end of the business.
Only too frequently have speculative returns concealed actual losses
resulting from inefficiency of operation.

FORESTRY AXD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 11

It has often been claimed that the incentive to make money by
speculation has been one of the important factors in bringing about
the development of many parts of the country, and pftrticuhuiy of
the Western States. To what extent tliis is true depends on whether
speculation is defined as a business venture involving considerable
risk and therefore demanding a high interest return, or merely as an
investment entailing no productive operations and depending for its
profit on an expected increase in value. In the former sense, specula-
tion undoubtedly has done much to open up previously unsettled
portions of the country. In the latter sense, this may also be true of
speculation in standing timber so far as such speculation has led
to actual production as a means of realizing on the investment.
Furthermore, it is obvious that the taxes paid by private owners
of timberland, whether speculators or not, have aided materially in
supporting local community improvements and governments. On
the other hand, it may be open to question whether the development
stimulated in these ways was always a normal and healthy one.

In many parts of the country, but particularly in the South and
West, timber owners to-day find themselves in the position of having
an overload of stumpage. Urged on by the belief that stnmpage
values were bound to rise indefinitely and that speculative profits are
an inevitable consequence of timber ownership, they acquired enor-
mous areas of forest lands, far in excess of the present needs of the
industry. Contrary to expectation, these now have become a burden
instead of an asset. Carrying charges, such as interest on the invest-
ment, taxation, and fire protection, in many cases are mounting up
faster than the stumpage is increasing in value.

In California and the Pacific Northwest, for example, the capital-
ized value of privately owned timberlands is estimated at approxi-
mately $1,100,000,000. Much of this is bonded, and on all of it carry-
ing charges are heavy, while in recent years stumpage values have
risen little or not at all. Consequently, all except the strongest owners
have been forced to cut, irrespective of the demand, in order to meet
current expenses and to retire their investment. In times of depressed
market conditions the natural result of this has been to bring about a
greater cut than the market can absorb at prevailing prices, with con-
sequent failure of the weaker owners and general instability of the
lumber industry.

From the standpoint of the manufacturer, overproduction begins
when lumber prices do not return the cost of production plus a living
profit. Curiously enough, this condition sometimes has accompanied
a decrease in the total lumber cut. The explanation of this paradox
lies in the fact that a decreasing demand for lumber, which is of
course particularly marked in periods of general depression, means
lower prices. In other words, the decreased demand that always ac-

12 BULLETIN G38^ U, S. DEPAETMEXT OF AGRICULTUEE.

companies poor markets may be more than sufficient to offset even a
considerable decrease in supply. This was the case in western Wash-
ington in 1915, when overproduction was very ma.rked in spite of a
lumber production approximately 13 per cent less than that of 1913.
In addition to the losses to manufacturers brought about by such a
condition, this reduced cut probably meant a decrease of from
$7,000,000 to $8,000,000 in wages paid to laborers, to say nothing of
correspondingly decreased expenditures for supplies and equipment.
Moreover, logging at such times is accompanied by a waste of much
material in the woods, since depressed market conditions make it
unprofitable to harvest the lower grades and inferior species. From
the standpoint of the public, overproduction caused by timber specu-
lation means the premature and wasteful exploitation of an essential
resource, decreased opportunities for the employment of labor and
investment of capital, and hard times generally for individuals and
industries dependent on lumbering.

IN CUT-OVER LANDS.

Tying up agricultural lands. — Perhaps even more important from
a social standpoint than the holding of m.ature timber is speculation
in cut-over lands. This does not mean that such speculation has
been universal. On the contrary, many owners, actuated by real
public spirit, have attempted to secure the settlement of their cut-
over lands under the right conditions or to hold them for future
forest production. In spite of such instances, however, speculation
in cut-over lands has been much too frequent, and has acted in two
opposite directions : to prevent the development of good agricultural
lands, and to encourage the settlement of nonagricultural lands.
Whether such lands are put on or kept off the market depends en-
tirely on the speculator, who naturally follows whichever course ap-
parently will be most profitable for him, irrespective of its effect on
the individual settler or on the community.

In the case of lands which are really suitable for agriculture,
the tendency is for the speculator to hold them out of use in order
to secure the benefit of the rise in land values that is sure to follow
increase of f)opulation. This is done more often by offering the lands
for sale at a price in excess of their true present value than by re-
fusal to sell at any price. Examples of this practice, which generally
is looked upon as " good business," are so common as scarcely to ex-
cite comment. A single illustration of how it works out in actual
practice will therefore suffice.

In western Washington some 700,000 acres were eliminated from
the Olympic National Forest in 1900 and in 1901 for the ostensible
reason that the area was good agricultural land and that its reten-

FORESTRY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 13

tion under public ownership blocked development. The usual course
of events then took phice. The bulk of the land, which was for the
most part heavily timbered, was at once taken up under the different
land laws by " homesteaders," who immediately proceeded to dispose
of it to various timber companies. Considerable areas were cut over
by these companies, while other portions were held for speculation.
Most of the cut-over lands have passed into the hands of land com-
panies; a very small portion into the hands of bona fide settlers.
Forty dollars and over per acre is asked for tracts that will require
at least $150 more per acre to clear. Fifteen years after the elimina-
tion of the area from the National Forest only some 600 acres out of
the 700,000 had been put under cultivation. Timberland worth
$30,000,000 has passed from public to private ownership, and the
development of the bulk of the area that is fitted for agriculture has
been postponed indefinitely.

It is estimated that on the west coast of Washington and Oregon
there are now some 4,000,000 acres of cut-over Douglas fir lands, and
that this area is being added to at the rate of about 150,000 acres a
year. Although a large part of this area consists of good agricultural
soil, only a comparatively small portion of it has been put under cul-
tivation, and the agricultural development of the region is proceed-
ing much more slowly than its resources warrant. This is due in
part to the high cost of clearing the land of stumps and logging
debris, to lack of transportation facilities, and to distance from mar-
ket. But all these difficulties are intensified by the speculative value
placed upon the land, which often adds just enough burden to make
its cultivation unprofitable and so to keep it out of use.

Selling sand barrens and summps for farms.— In the case of non-
agricultural cut-over lands there is little or no promise of a specula-
.tive rise in value, and the speculator usually disposes of them as
rapidly as possible. Misrepresentation very often plays an impor-
tant part in this. Dreary, sterile sand barrens and water-soaked
swamps are pictured as fertile, wonderfully productive farm lands,
as extraordinarily fine grazing grounds, or as the most delightful
locations for summer resorts. Naturally, it is those who know least
about such things who are ensnared most easily. Clerks, stenog-
raphers, mill hands, day laborers, and others from the city, wdio would
have difficulty in making a living off the most fertile farm in the
country, not infrequently invest all they have in the hope of being
able to establish themselves independently on a piece of land of their
very own. In such cases it is only a few years before inevitable fail-
ure forces them to abandon the land and return to their tasks with
just a little less confidence in themselves, a little less hope for the
future, and a great deal less faith in the honesty of their fellow man.

14 BULLETIN" 638_, U. S. DEPAETMEI^T OF AGEICULTURE.

The sand plains of Michigan and Wisconsin are dotted with de-
caying dwellings and abandoned fields that tell the tale of the spec-
ulator in cut-over lands and his victims. Practically all these areas,
which originaly were covered with timber, were at one time the prop-
erty of the State. Gradually, however, the bulk of them passed into
the hands of private owners who proceeded to strip them of their tim-
ber. The cut-over lands were then sold to the so-called development
companies or allowed to revert to the State for taxes. Large areas
of these delinquent tax lands also fell into the hands of speculators
through subsequent sale by the State. What happened to them can
best be made clear by citing a few instances.

In Michigan, for example, until a few years ago the practice was
for the State to sell, at an average price of approximately $1 an acre,
lands that had reverted to it through the nonpayment of taxes. A
large proportion of these lands was acquired by speculators, many of
whom were not even residents of the State, and who proceeded to use
them as a means for exploiting the more credulous portion of the
general public. It has been estimated officially that less than 5 per
cent of the lands disposed of in this way were sold to actual settlers.

The land sharks naturally proceeded to realize on their investment
as soon and as handsomely as possible. One lot of lands purchased
from the State for an average of 86 cents an acre was sold for $12
per acre, a profit of about 1,300 per cent. Still greater profits some-
times were made by the shrewd scheme of dividing the land into
summer-resort lots consisting of from one-tenth to one-fourth acre,
and selling these for from $10 to $15 a lot. Practially all these
sales were made through misrepresentation. Full-page advertise-
ments in the Chicago and Detroit papers and attractively illustrated
l^amphlets contained such statements as the following:

We have a glorious climate, the best water on e.-trth. and easily.
cleared land which produces as much money per acre as any in the
United States or Canada. Come and be one of us.

Eoscommou County will grow more and better wheat, oats, rye.
speltz, timothy hay, clover seed, beans, field peas, potatoes, cabbages,
sugar beets, turnips, and rutabagas to the acre than any other county
in the State, or in Illinois, Indiana, or Ohio.

Lands with such wonderful possibilities as these were to be had
from the development companies for the nominal sum of $6 and up
per acre. To some extent they were bought as an investment, usually
by city dwellers of small means, in anticipation of the rapid rise in
value that surely would take place in lands so full of promise. Con-
siderable areas, however, were bought by bona fide settlers. One
land company stated that during the period from 1901 to 1907 more
land in Eoscommon and Crawford Counties was sold to active

FOEESTEY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 15

farmers than in all the rest of the State together. These prospective
settlers included both actual farmers who were attracted b}^ the cheap
price and ease of clearing, and clerks, stenographers, and other cit)''
Avorkers who had no real knowledge of agriculture but were dazzled
by the prospect of an easy and independent life. Needless to say,
their expectations were not realized. As one of the State forest war-
dens expressed it:

A man will have more fun for his money by throwing it in the lake and see-
ing the splash. When these poor fellows from the cities bny a section of this
Jantl they expect to be able to grow something upon it. The result is that they
eke out a miserable existence for a year or so, and then abandon the farm and
are glad to get back to the city, where the pay envelope is handed out each
Saturday night.

This does not mean that the entire region is nonagricultural ;
portions of it contain good land where farming is profitable. It
does mean, however, that the lands which have reverted to the State
for taxes and which form the principal stock in trade of the
land companies have been classified naturally by a gradual culling
process as the poorest in the region. They are chiefly light sands of
the type concerning which one of the old-timers once said :

Of course yoti can farm those lands. All you need is two things — a shower
of rain every week day and a shower of fertilizer on Sunday.

Not having sufficient control over the elements to bring about such
a desirable combination, most of the would-be settlers sooner or later
were forced to give up their attempts to cultivate land better suited
for forest production than for farming. The result of the activities
of the land speculators in forcing the settlement of nonagricultural
lands in these regions has been described as follows by a man thor-
oughly familiar with local conditions:

T spent five days around Harrison and I saw abandoned farms in great
numbers. I will bet I saw 100 farmhouses boarded up and desolate, and in
some of them were the cook stoves, rocking chairs, and a lot of other stuff left
behind, for they evidently had no money to cart it away. A whole lot of life's
tragedy is written on the Michigan sand barrens. New settlers are going in
right along to try the same old experiment of thrashing a living out of the sand
and nothingness, and will meet with the same result.

A similar fate met those who invested in summer-resort lots,
whether for speculation or for actual residence. A few of these were
desirable locations on lake fronts, but the great majority were on
desolate sand barrens or in impassable sphagnum swamps. These
facts, of course, did not appear in the advertisements. Purchasers
were led to believe that they were securing property of unusual
attractiveness in a colony that was bound to be one of the most popu-
lar summer resorts in the State. In order to get the thing started
and to secure the right kind of people prices were reduced at the

16 BULLETIN 638^ U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTUKE.

outset (to a point where the profit to the speculator would be only
a few hundred per cent), or one or two extra lots would be thrown
in as a bonus. Not infrequently it happened that when an owner
came to look up his lot on the ground he found it in an entirely dif-
ferent location from that which he had been shown on the map.

A particularly pitiful case is that of a laundress from Chicago
who bought a lot in a proposed colony that was to be one of the
largest and most desirable in the State. As she thouglit the matter
over, however, she became more and more convinced that one lot
would not be sufficient to handle all of the business that she undoubt-
edly would have. So she looked up the promoter to see whether it
would still be possible to add another to it. Yes, he w^ould be glad
to accommodate her, although the rate at which the property had
been selling would necessitate a small advance in price. The laun-
dress^ of course, was delighted at her good forfune. Some time later,
when she came to look up her property, she found that her original
lot, like most of the others in the colony, was in the midst of a
sphagnum swamp, and that the second one was a mile or more from
it on the other side of a lake ! The extent to which the colony actu-
ally developed may be judged from the fact that in the spring of
1916, 1,078 lots in the original "park" and its three "additions"
were advertised for taxes in the local newspaper.

Statements made by land companies that 44,000 acres of land in
the vicinity of certain lakes in Eoscommon County changed owners
between July 1, 1004, and June 1, 1005, and that up to February,
1908, about 40,000 people had bought lands and lots around Higgins
Lake, may be true. Nevertheless, the fact that the population of the
entire county in 1010, according to the census, was only 2,274 is suffi-
cient proof that these activities did not result in really developing the
region. As a matter of fact, permanent settlers have not been se-
cured. Instead the land has been neglected and laid waste by fire,
and little progress has been made in the production of the crop for
which it is best suited— timber. Had the State adopted earlier its
present policy of reserving for forest purposes all lands which revert
to the State for nonpayment of taxes and which are nonagricultural,
speculation in these lands W'Ould have been largely averted and a
good start made toward restoring the forest and eventually building
up permanent forest communities.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERRUPTED.

TOO FEW OR TOO MANY IMPROVEIIENTS,

The amount of taxes contributed by the lumber industry in well-
wooded regions has varied markedly from place to place. Instances
are by no means unknown where receipts from taxes in lumber towns
have been extraordinarily small in view of the amount of taxable

FOBESTRY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 17

property in the town. Such property has belonged mainly to the large
lumber companies, which Avere by far the best organized and the most
powerful influence in the community. Seldom, under these circum-
stances, did the township officials impose a heavy tax rate or assess
the company property at a sufficiently high value. As a result, the
community did not have sufficient funds to pay for the improvements
that its resources fully justified. Schools were cheaply built, poorly
equipped, and manned with inefficient teachers; roads were badly
constructed and their maintenance neglected ; proper sanitation was
not provided; and water and lighting systems were inadequate or
entirely lacking.

On the other hand, instances also are known whore towns with
very similar conditions have gone to the other extreme in such mat-
ters. Schools, roads, and other public works have been constructed
that w^ere almost too good for the community. When this has hap-
pened, the bills have usually been paid, at least in part, not by in-
creased taxation, but by issuing bonds or notes. Sometimes these have
been made payable several years after the date of issue, sometimes on
demand. In the latter case, however, it has been likely to happen
that because of " financial difficulties " or for other reasons payment
of the notes has been postponed from year to year. In either event
it has often come about that the obligations have remained outstand-
ing until after the departure of the lumber company, which, having
had the benefit of the improvements, left them to be paid for in
large part by others.

DEPRECIATION IN PEOPEKTY VALUES.

In addition to the general demoralization caused by such practices
as these, the community is impoverished through the destruction of
its most valuable resource. Onl}^ too often this has been the means
of practically bankrupting communities in regions where land is of
little value for anything except forest production. Thriving mann-
facturing towns have been succeeded by almost deserted villages.
Taxable property has been reduced to a minimum. Not only this,
but the value of the propery that remains is impaired seriously as a
result of the decrease in population. In towns where values have
depreciated in this way it is not uncommon to find houses and lots
offered for sale for amounts which shortly before, when prosperity
abounded, would have been insufficient to pay more than a few
months' rent.

Even in regions where the land is well suited for agriculture and
cventualh^ should bo cleared for cultivation, too rapid removal of
the forest may be detrimental because of its effect in reducing taxable
values. All farming communities require a certain length of time

16940°— Bull. 63S— IS 3

18 BULLETIN 638, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

to become firmly established, and it is a great assistance if otlier in-
dustries are present to help tide over this preparator}"" period. In
regions where the land is primarily valuable for forest production,
the maintenance of the forest property in a productive condition is
of course essential for the continued prosperity of the inhabitants.

It has been stated ^ that " there are in Pennsylvania several coun-
ties that were once prosperous, because rich in forest, but which are
now reduced to an almost bankrupt condition because the timber is
gone. The land is too poor and cold to encourage remunerative agri-
culture." Stewardson Township, in which is located the once busy
sawmill town of Cross Fork, is in one of these counties. Assessed
real estate values in this township dropped from $896,8G2 in 1904 to
$18,815 in 1914 — a decrease of 98 per cent in 10 years.^ The precari-
ous financial condition of the town is emphasized by the fact that it
is still carrying a debt of several thousand dollars in school and road
bonds left over from the days of its prosperity. If it had not been
for the State, which for some years has been buying up cut-over land
in that region, on which it has paid the township annually 2 cents an
acre for schools and an equal amount for roads, bankruptcy would
have been inevitable. As it happens, the $1,645.60 paid to the town-
ship each year by the State has been sufficient to save the situation.

DELINQUENT TAX LANDS.

Still another aspect of the matter is that concerned with delinquent
tax lands. In some sections of the country timberland owners have
indulged in the practice of allowing their taxes to lapse for several
years until they amounted to more than the value of the land, and then
buying title from the State again for the nominal sum of $1 an acre
or thereabouts. This cheap way of paying taxes has meant, of course,
a loss to the community approximately equal to the gain to the indi-
vidual, in addition to the cost of advertising.

Advertising of such delinquent tax lands has in itself been a heavy
expense to the State, though a material profit to the small country
newspapers. In Michigan, for example, during the 10 years from
1896 to 1905, more than a million and a half dollars was spent for ad-
vertising delinquent tax lands and for extra clerical help in the
auditor general's office. In the supplement to the Roscommon
Herald-Xews for March 30, 1916, were i^ublished no less than 4,131
descriptions of land and lots in Roscommon County alone on which
taxes were delinquent. Three thousand one hundred and seventy-
four of these were for village and " resort " lots. The advertisements
covered more than four and a half pages and must have been the
source of considerable profit to the paper. In all probability the

1 " Areas of Desolation in Pennsylvania," by J. T. Rothrock. 1915.

" See reports o£ the State Secretary of Internal Affairs in Pennsylvania.

FOKESTKY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 19

expense incurred by the State in this advertising was ahnost a com-
plete loss, since it is not likely that more than a very small per cent
of the lands ad^•ertised, consisting for the most part of sand barrens
and swamps, actually were sold.

Such conditions obviously tended to put a premium on fraudulent
land dealing. Cut-over lands of little value except for forest pro-
duction, for example, could be acquired cheaply by the speculator,
divided into small lots, the smaller and more numerous the better,
and sold as resort lots, fruit farms, or chicken ranches to persons
unacquainted with local conditions. Almost any price would be
suflicient to net a handsome profit. In addition the register of deeds
would receive a tidy sum for recording transfers of title. Before
long the purchasers would discover the true character of the land
they had bought, taxes would be allowed to lapse, and the local news-
papers would benefit substantially from the subsequent advertisement
of delinquent tax lands by the State. Some years later the land
again might be acquired by speculators and the same procedure
repeated. Such transactions have proved highly profitable to spec-
ulators, newspapers, and registers of deeds, and equally unprofitable
to the individual investor and the general public. At the same time
the land has been withheld from the use to which it was best suited.

ABANDONED RAILROADS.

The way in which the forest resources of a region are handled
has an important mfluence on the development and permanence of
its transportation facilities. To a very considerable extent the lum-
ber industry has been instrumental in connecting remote regions
with the rest of the country. In some parts of the country practi-
cally every one of the main trunk lines of to-day started as a logging
railroad. Lumbering was the only industry to call people to the
region in any considerable numbers, and woad products were the
only freight to come out. "Wliere the land was valuable for agricul-
ture, farming to a large extent succeeded lumbering. Often, how-
ever, there were no local markets for the farm crops raised on such
lands, and it was only because transportation facilities, which had
already been developed by the forest resources of the country, were
availaiile, that their successful utilization was possible. In other
words, the forest by calling the railroads into existence made pos-
sible agriculture, which in turn made the railroads permanent.

In regions primarily adapted to forest production, destructive lum-
bering has a very different ultimate effect on transportation facili-
ties. Here logging railroads in abundance are constructed while the
timber is being exploited, and the most remote points are made easy
of access. With the removal of the timber, however, the railroads

20 BULLETIN 638;, V. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

go too. Business dwindles away to little or nothing, and it is not
long before the rails are pulled up and the region left inaccessible
and desolate. Hundreds of miles of abandoned railroad grades with
rotting ties are to be seen where the history of the lumber industry-
has taken this course.

In regions where large areas of absolute forest land are inter-
spersed with patches of good agricultural land the same thing is true.
Complete removal of the forest means a marked depreciation in the
value of the farm land, if not its entire abandonment. With the tim-
ber gone, the amount of freight to be handled is reduced to such an
extent that it may be unprofitable for the railroad to continue oper-
ation; and even if the railroad is maintained, the decreased business
to be taken care of necessarily involves poorer service. If the forests
were so handled as to insure continuous production, transportation
facilities then could be maintained, agriculture developed wherever
conditions were favorable, and the fullest possible utilization secured
of all the resources of the region.

In this connection it is worth Avhile to note that on land of average
quality the production, in weight, of wood material is fully as great
as, if not greater than, that of farm crops. Suppose, for example,
that an acre of land will produce 1,500 pounds a year, dry weight,
of wheat or oats, including both grain and straw. The same land,
even if given practically no attention, should produce at least half
a. cord of wood a year, with approximately the same dry weight.
If the forest is projoerly handled, however, it should be possible to
double this yield, giving an advantage of 1,500 pounds in favor of
the w^ood. On poor land, scarcely fitted for agriculture at all, the
comparison undoubtedly would be even more favorable to the wood.

A LOWER STANDARD OF POPULATION.

One cf the unfortui>ate results of the failure of lumber operations,
as usually conducted, to build up well-organized, stable communi-
ties is seen both in the character of the population dependent on it
and in that left on the cut-over lands after the industry has moved on.

The average lumberjack is a hardy, picturesque figure; but, moving
from place to place and from region to region as the timber is cut
out, he necessarily leads a roving, restless existence. A permanent
liome and a normal family life are impossible. In western Washing-
ton, for example, only 14 per cent of the employees in logging camps
are married.^ For these few the difficulties in the way of leading an
orderly life, of maintaining a normal home, and of giving their chil-
dren even a fair education are almost insuperable. A typical lumber

1 " Need of Working Plans on National Forests and the Policies Whioli Should Be
Enrtodied in Them," by B. P. Kirkland, in the Proceedings of the Society of American
Foresters, Vol. X, No. 4.

FOEESTEY AXD COMMUXITY DEVELOPMENT. 21

camp, with its prevailingly rough, masculine population, its cheap
buildings, and its frequent lack of sanitation, is by no means the best
f)lace in which to rear a family.

Nor are conditions greatly superior in the rude sawmill towns
which flourish for a few years while the timber is being cut, only to
fade away with its disappearance. Here there may be more of the
elementary conveniences and decencies of life, but there is the same
atmosphere of unrest, of instability, and even of immorality. The
life of such towns is likely to be abnormal and their prosperity only
temporary. Permanent homes, strong characters, and good citizens
can not be built on so unstable a foundation.

As to the after effects of destructive lumbering, the scanty popu-
lation left in the cut-over nonagricultural regions has little chance
for development. Deserted villages and the barren lands by whicli
they are surrounded not only offer little opportunity for employment
but also exercise a depressing influence on the settler and his family.
The men with most ambition, enterprise, and energy, the people who
really accomplish things, move on to new fields, where they are not
faced by the prospect of certain stagnation. It is usually the weaker
ones who are left behind. Particularly serious is the effect of such
deterioration on the coming generation.

Destructive lumbering also has its effect on the well-being of the
city dweller by destroying his vacation ground. For the sportsman,
the nature lover, and the recreationist, the conversion of a magnifi-
cent virgin forest into an ugly, stump-covered, and fire-blackened
waste represents a very real loss. Xot only have the trees them-
selves gone, but with them the flowers and ferns, the mosses and
lichens, the birds and the deer, all that gave the woods their peculiar
charm. Even springs may have gone dry and brooks become turbid
and unlovely. From the mountains and the valleys, the streams and
the lakes, man draws his inspiration and his strength; and to all of
these the forest adds the final touch. Who cares to go fishing on a
river or boating on a lake that has no trees? Without them some-
thing vital is lacking. A country once rich in forests can not allow
them to be converted into unsightly wastes without paying a penalty,
however intangible, in weakening the character of its population.

SUGGESTIONS FOR A RATIONAL TIMBERLAND POLICY.

NEED FOR A DIFFERENT SYSTEM OF HANDLING FOREST LANDS,

That, from a social standpoint, the system under which our forest
resources have been handled in the past has not worked well is fairly
clear. Sufficient lumber has been supplied to meet the needs of the
country as a whole, but this has lieen done in such a way as to cause
much waste and in certain localities to bring about local shortages of

22 BULLETIN" 638^ V. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGBICULTUKE.

timber. Forest regions have been well developed, provided with
excellent transportation facilities, and made prosperons for a few
3'ears, only to be stripped of their timber and left desolate, poverty-i
stricken, and depopulated. Speculation and fraudulent land deal-
ing have been practiced extensively. Permanent homes and normal
family life have been the exception rather than the rule, and the
standard of citizenship has been lowered.

For all these results the economic system adopted by the country,
rather than the individual timber owner or operator, is of course
primarily responsible. The individual was not only allowed, but
actually encouraged, to follow whatever course would best advance
his own interests ; and if in doing so he brought about certain social
and economic effects that were detrimental to the welfare of the com-
munity as a whole, the public has only itself to blame for the result.

The private owner very naturally did not feel that it was incum-
bent upon him to provide for the needs of future generations, nor did
the adoption of such measures as would place the forest on a per-
manent producing basis appeal to him as an attractive investment.
As a matter of fact, probably the great majority of private owners,
and indeed of the general public, hardly thought of such matters at
all, or if they did, it was generally with the easy feeling that the
future would take care of itself. How it has done so in a number of
important respects has been pointed out in the preceding pages.

It has often been argued that these results, regrettable as they are,
could not have been avoided, because the country could have been
developed at a satisfactory rate only by the individualistic "let-
alone" system that was actually adopted. This statement is open
to considerable question; but even if it is true, that is no reason why
the system should still be continued. Economic conditions have
changed completely within the last century, and, more important
still, the general public now has an entirely different attitude toward
problems that affect the community welfare. The tendency of the
times is clearly to emphasize the social rather than the purely in-
dividualistic point of view. A system that may have been suited to
the needs of the country a century or even a few decades ago irxnj be
distinctly unsuited to them now. This is very evidently the case so
far as the " let-alone '' system of handling our forest lands is con-
cerned. From a community standpoint that system obviously has
broken down. The problem now is to replace it by one that so far ag
possible will retain the good and eliminate the evil of the old system.
Fundamentally this involves merely substituting the practice of
forestry for timber " mining,"* but this in turn involves a number of
different steps that deserve some further consideration.

rOKESTEY AXD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 23

LAND CLASSIFICATION.

The first step is to determine what kinds should be devoted to
forest production. As a basis for this, it would be extremely desirable
to have a thorough classification of lands throughout the country
made by competent public authorities. This classification should
aim to point out the use to which the land is best adapted. Obvi-i
ously it is an economic waste to grow trees on the best agricultural
lands or to attempt to farm the poorest forest lands — so obvious, in
fact, that the mistake is seldom made. But between these two ex-
tremes are all sorts of cases in which, the economic waste of putting
the land to the wrong use is less obvious but none the less real. On
such lands as these a classification is particularly needed.

A great deal has already been accomplished in the way of soil and
geological survej^s. These are valuable so far as they go, but they do
not go far enough. What is needefd is not only information regard-
ing the origin, composition, and depth of the soil, and the topography
and climate of the region, but an interpretation of these factors in
terms of their usefulness to man. The best present use of the land,
furthermore, depends not only on the physical factors of soil and
climate, but also on such economic factors as the availability and
quality of agricultural lands elsewhere, the market for agricultural
crops, transportation facilities, and the like. In the last analysis
the problem boils down to such specific questions as these: Should
this piece of land under x^resent economic conditions be devoted to
oak or to alfalfa? Should that piece be used for growing white pine
or corn ?

Such a classification as this, which of course should be conducted
by representatives of the State or Nation, can not help involving
many difficulties. Years ago it probably would have been imprac-
ticable: even to-day mistakes will be made. But that is no reason
why the work should not be undertaken as promptly and pushed as
rapidly as possible. A small start has already been made in this
direction. In the National Forests, for example, no land is opened
for entry under the homestead laws until it has been examined care-
fully to determine whether it really has agricultural possibilities.
In the last few years surveys have been made of entire Forests, and
on the basis of these surveys the land has been classified permanently
as primarily valuable for agricultural or for forest purposes. In
some of the State forest reserves agricultural settlement is not allowed
at all or only after a thorough examination to determine the value of
the particular tract of land for this purpose.

Many areas in every region can be classified almost at once as
either agricultural (including gi^azing) or forest land. ISIany others
will have to be classified as intermediate, by which is meant that the}'

24 BULLETI]!^ 638_, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGKICULTUEE.

may be devoted to either purpose as local conditions and the eco-
nomic development of the region make one or the other more profit-
able. Undoubtedly many of these intermediate lands, perhaps most
of them, for the present can be used most advantageously for the pro-
duction of timber crops. A great deal of land that may properly be
devoted to forest production to-day in all probability can be used
more profitably for agriculture fifty years hence. Millions of acres
of cut-over and timbered land in the Lake States, the Southern
States, and the Pacific Northwest are of this character. An im-
partial land classification would recognize this fact and would desig-
nate them as primarily valuable, under present conditions, for forest
purposes. This designation might well be changed in subsequent
classifications, which would obviously be necessary from time to time
in the case of intermediate and doubtful lands.

In making such a classification still another factor should be taken
into account. This is the amount of land that should be retained in
forest in order to prevent erosion and irregular run-ofi^ and to sup-
ply the countrj^'s needs for timber. Experience abroad has shown
that countries with considerable hilly and mountainous land are likely
to sufi^er from erosion and from alternating floods and low water when
tJie forest is reduced to 20 per cent or less of the total area. Expe-
rience has also shown that approximately 100 acres of forest land per
100 inhabitants are necessary for a country to be self-sustaining as
regards its wood supph', even with a much smaller per capita con-
sumption of wood than exists in the United States. Both these facts
can well prove useful to the Nation and to individual States as a
guide in determining the extent to v\'hich they should allow their
forest areas to be reduced.

After a land classification has oiice been made, the next step is
to see that the land is actually used for the jDurpose to which it is
best adapted. At first sight it might appear to be sufficient to publish
the result of the classification and then to leave the matter entirely
to the private owner^ since he naturally would be inclined to devote
the land to that use which would bring him the highest returns. It
is doubtful^ however, whether this is a safe assumption. Taking
human nature as it is, it seems more likely that ignorance and
prejudice would still lead in many cases to the wrong use of land,
and, worse still, that a desire for speculative gains would frequently
lead to its nonuse. State supervision of land-settlement enterprises,
on the general principle of the "blue-sky laws" now applied in
many States to the operations of corporations seeking to sell securi-
ties, probably would go far toward protecting the innocent but
ignorant settler or investor; and a system of taxation that would
absorb at least the greater part of the rental value that the land

Bui. 638, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate V.

Fig. 1.— All that is Left of the Once Prosperous Town of Cross Fork, Pa.

■With the departure of the sawmill its population shrank from 2,000 to 61, aud the assessed value of
its real estate from S896,862 to §18,815.

F-27I7IA

Fig. 2.— Approximately Half of the Houses in this Michigan Town are now

Deserted.

The sawmill, ou which the prosperity of the town depended, ceased operations about five years ago.

Bui. 638, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate VI.

Fig. 1 .—Desolation on the Au Sable River, Mich.

The sawdust heaps in the background mark the ruins of a former sawmill, while the rotting piles in
the foreground are all that is left of the extensive wharves that formerly lined the river and lake
front.

F-27175A

FiQ. 2.— These Drifting Sand Dunes were Once a Part of a Prosperous Michigan

Sawmill Town.

In the foreground note the hydrant, a part of the excellent water system formerly maintained by

the town.

FORESTRY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 25

Avoiild liave if used for the purpoi^e appro\ed b}^ the chissification
would undoubtedly help to encourage its use for that purpose and
to discourage speculation.

CONTINUOUS FOREST PRODUCTION.

"When the lands that are to be devoted to the production of vood
have been detinitely marked olf, preferably by some system of expert
public classification, or, if that is not yet possible, by the judgment
of the individual owner, destructive lumbering must be replaced by
forest management. The first step in this direction is to insure ade-
quate fire protection both of standing timber and cut-over lands.
During recent yeai's a great deal has been accomplished along this
line through the combined efforts of the National and State Govern-
ments, some 40 fire protective associations, and many individual
OAvners. With an average annual loss of at least $10,000,000 from
forest fires, however, much still remains to be done. Adequate fire
protection is absolutely essential for the practice of forestry.

A second step is to keep the forest lands of the country continu-
ovisly productive. A policy that allows immense areas of potentially
productive forest lands to lie idle is not only short-sighted but
exceedingly wasteful. If the 100 million acres of logged-off and
burned-over forest lands on which, according to the estimate of the
National Conservation Commission in 1908, little or no growth is
now taking place, are capable of producing an annual return of $1
an acre, by allowing them to lie idle we are practically throwing
away each year $100,000,000. Probably an equal amount is being lost
each year through failure to secure the greatest possible growth on
the remaining forest lands of the country. Even a nation so richly
blessed with natural resources as the United States can ill afford such
prodigality.

To reforest by artificial means the devastated areas is a task of
enormous magnitude and in its entirety of almost prohibitive ex-
pense. Even if planting ^can be done successfully at an average cost
of from $5 to $10 per acre, it will involve an outlay of several hun-
dred million dollars. From this outlay, moreover, no return can be
received for many decades. If compound interest is charged against
it, the original investment will have doubled over and over again
before the crop can be harvested. This means that there are very
definite limits to which artificial reforestation can be conducted prof-
itably, particularly by the private owner. Forestry that starts with
the bare land is at best an expensive undertaking, and from a purely
financial standpoint has very distinct limitations. If forestry is
not to be practiced until the land has been denuded, we shall have
but little of it for many years. Planting will be necessary in some
cases, but it will not solve the whole problem or any great part of it.

26 BULLETIjST 638, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

A much better way to keep forest land productive is to start before
the trees are removed. Steps should be taken to put the forest in
better condition, and in this way to increase its productive capacity.
Above all, however, every precaution should be taken to see that
when the original stand is removed, adequate provision is made for
a new crop to take its place. Forestry that starts while the trees
are still on the ground is neither so difficult nor so costly a business
as one that involves reclamation of denuded land. Ordinarily the
new crop can be started at little expense by natural reproduction
from the trees in the original stand. Even in those comparatively
rare cases where planting must be resorted to, the burden is not so
great as in the planting of land that has been denuded and aban-
doned, since the land is not so overgrown by weeds and brush and
since onh^ partial planting is usually necessary.

Starting the practice of silviculture before the land is denuded is
also a prerequisite to the tliird step necessary to replace timber
" mining "' by forestry. This step consists in regulating the cutting
of the timber on any given unit so that the same amount of material
can be removed year after year; or, in other words, of utilizing the
forest only as fast as it gi'ows. It is perfectly possible for any
capable forester to do this. The fact that timber is a crop that
requires m.any years to mature is no reason wh}'' an appl^oximately
equal annual yield should not be obtained from forest land as well
as from farm land. The only difference is that in the case of the
timber the crop can not be removed from the same spot every year.
Instead, the unit under forest management must be sufficiently large
so that it can be divided into the same number of parts as there are
years in the period required for the wood crop to reach maturity.
One of these parts can then be cut each year, and a new forest started
on it and allowed to grow until all the other parts have been cut,
when it will again be ready for cutting. This process, of course, can
be kept up indefinitely, and a permanent forest community estab-
lished for the utilization of the annual cut. .

Where the forest is composed of trees of different ages, so that
clear cutting of anj^ given area is not practicable, the general prin-
ciples for securing the same yield year after year still hold, although
their practical application is not so simple. In this case, scattered
trees are selected for cutting. This means that the cutting must
cover a larger area each year and that partial cuttings on the same
area must be made more often than where the trees are all of ap-
proximately the same age.

The size of the area that is necessary to provide a sufficient annual
cut of timber to be profitable will naturally vary more or less in differ-
ent parts of the country, according to the rate of growth, market con-

FORESTRY AXD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEJfT. 27

ditions, transportation facilities, and similar factors. Many forest
regions, however, now have enough timber and are sufficiently de-
veloped economically so that a sustained annual yield large enough
to warrant lumbering operations can be obtained within easy work-
ing distance of a permanent center; and this will become more and
more true, both for these and other regions, as settlement and de-
velopment of the country proceed. Even where for one reason or
another it may not be feasible to continue lumbering operations
indefinitely from the same center, it is entirely possible to apply
the same general principle. The only difference is that there would
be temporary subcentei^, which would be moved from place to place
at infrequent intervals, but which would nevertheless support a per-
manent population and would always remain in the same general
region. The essential point is to maintain a balance between the
annual cut and the annual growth on any given unit, which prefer-
ably should be as small as economic conditions make practicable,
and to have a definite and comprehensive plan for the utilization
of this cut.

If in the actual handling of our forest resources this ideal has been
conspicuous by its absence, the blame uiry be laid upon economic con-
ditions that have hitherto prevailed. The system of unregulated pri-
vate ownership, the vast bodies of mature timber ready for cutting,
the pressure of unrestricted competition, and the fact that lumbering-
has been a pioneer industry, which operated chiefly in regions of
comparatively poor economic development, all conspired to make it
unprofitable, and therefore impracticable, to handle the forests on a
permanent basis. The time now has come, however, when this is no
longer true. Conditions to-day are radically different in nearly
every respect from those which heretofore have imparted to the in-
dustry its temporary character. It is now possible to practice the
kind of forest management that will make the industry permanent
and self-supporting.

Handling the forest lands of the country on the basis of sustained
3'ield b}' no means necessarily involves decreased returns from the
business. On the contrar}^-, it may prove even more profitable. "\A^ien
timber "mining" is practiced the only profit that can ordinarily
accrue to the timber owner is through a speculative rise in the value
of his stumpage. This increase in value must be sufficient to meet not
only the usual carrying charges but also a depletion charge for the
forest capital destroyed. Assuming that the present stand of timber
under private ownership is 2,200 billion board feet and that at the
present rate of cutting all this will be removed in 55 years, the deple-
tion charge against the industry is nearly 2 per cent. Until recently
stumpage values have risen rapidly enough to met both this depletion

28 BULLETIN 638, V. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

charge and carrying charges, and at the same time to yield a satisfac-
tory return on the investment. With stumpage prices at their present
level, however, and rising only comparatively slowly, it is doubtful
whether this will continue to be true — certainly not to the extent
that it has been in the past.

When forestry is practiced, however, the timber owner not only
profits from any rise in stumpage value that may occur, but by keep-
ing his forest continuousl}^ productive he avoids any depletion charge
and provides a young, growing stand to meet carrying charges and to
yield a return on the investment. To illustrate by a single example,
an overmature stand of Douglas fir may produce a net growth of
from 0 to 50, or at most 100, board feet per acre per year, while a
young, well-stocked stand of the same species may yield approxi-
mately 800 board feet per acre per year up to 100 years of age. This
means that on every acre that is cut over and reproduced to young
growth, the annual wood production is at least eight times as great
as it was before. As the cutting proceeds the amount of young
growth increases steadily, until finally the virgin timber is replaced
entirely by growing trees of all ages from one year to maturity.
These have an annual productive capacity 700 per cent greater than
that of the original stand and are therefore more capable of paying
their own way and of yielding a permanent return on the invest-
ment. The establishment of the new crop will, of course, ordinarily
cost something ; but if this is done by means of natural reproduction
at the time the original stand is removed, the expense need not be
great. The time has now come wdien the practice of forestry will
benefit not only the community, but also the industry itself.

STABILITY OF POLICY.

Stability of policy is vital to the practice of forestry. The produc-
tion of timber is a long-time process, and as such demands foresight
and continuity of management. Carefully prepared plans extending
many decades into the future must be worked out in order to make it
possible to secure the same yield year after year from any given
forest. Plans for different forests will naturally vary more or less,
according to the character of the forest, economic conditions, and the
wishes of the owners, but all must have the common characteristic of
assuming that the general policy on which they are based will be
adhered to. Natural causes, such as fire, wind, insects, and fungi,
will ordinarily interfere seriously enough with the carrying out of
any plan without subjecting it to the additional handicap of a vacil-
lating policy. From the standpoint of the technical forester a con-
stantly shifting policy is almost as fatal to the practice of forestry as
no policy at all.

FORESTBY AXD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 29

From a financial standpoint also, stability of policy is necessary
in order to make timber production a profitable business. Like other
long-time investments, forestry can not be expected to yield a high
rate of interest. In most parts of the country it will not return a
profit greater than 5 per cent. This points directly to the necessity
for cheap money, which is to be had only in businesses firmly estab-
lished on a sound and stable foundation. Up to this time the lumber
industry has subsisted chiefly on speculative capital, which has
seldom cost less than 6 per cent and usually more. Whether this
was necessary in the early development of the industry is perhaps
debatable, but it is also immaterial so far as present conditions are
concei-ned. The important point is that a stage has now been reached
where the industry can not continue to yield the speculative returns
that it has in the past. Carrying charges in most parts of the coun-
try have now become so heavy that they are mounting up as fast or
faster than stumpage is increasing in value. In other words, timber
holding, pure and simple, is becoming unremunerative and must be
supplemented by timber growing. But timber growing, from the
very nature of the product, will not pay a high rate of interest, and
the only way in which money can be obtained at low rates is bv
putting the business on a stable, nonspeculative basis.

There is no good reason why forestry, the business of continuous
timber production, should not be put on such a basis. We already
know enough about our forest trees to keep the land productive and
to make the annual cut approximately equal to the annual o-rowth.
Stumpage prices are now sufficiently high to yield a moderate return
if forest management is started before the trees are cut off. Euro-
pean experience has proved that Avith adecjuate care and protection
the business of timber growing is one of the safest and most conserva-
tive forms of investment.

How to secure a clear-cut and stable forest policy is one of the
chief problems to be solved in placing the management of our forests
on a sound and permanent basis. Taking the country as a whole,
private ownership has so far failed to do this. It is true that in
many parts of the Northeast the prevailing uneven-aged forest, lim-
ited fire hazard, and favorable markets have resulted in the practice
of a crude sort of forestry. Because of the character of the forest,
clear cutting has been the exception rather than the rule, and fores,
production has been more nearly continuous here than in other party
of the country. But these good effects, like the bad effects elsewhere,
have been mainly accidental and not the result of any far-sighted
policy. With comparatively few exceptions private oAvnership so
far has l)een content to let the future take care of itself. Neverthe-
less, it is possible that under the changed conditions that now exist
many private owners may find it to their advantage to adopt a stable

so BULLETIN" 638^ IT. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE.

policy, which would enable them to reallj'- practice forestry. Every
effort should be made to bring about such a desirable result, since it
appears certain that for many years at least the bulk of forest lands
©f the country will remain in private hands.

If the adoption of a stable forest policy is to become at all gen-
eral among private owners, it will involve a radical change in the
character of much of the capital now invested in timberlands. The
business of growing timber under forestr}^ principles will not attract
speculative capital. Timber stocks and bonds, however, if properly
secured b}^ laud and timber under forest management, may prove
a safe and profitable investment for saving banks, insurance com-
panies, and individuals who are looking for security rather than for
hi^h returns. Any change necessary to make such investments avail-
able must neress^irily involve the elimination of the speculative ele-
ment in timber holding. Probably this will take place gradually and
will be accompanied by more or less liquidation, according to market
conditions during the transition period. It has also been suggested
that some widespread organization among timber owners, under re-
strictions to safeguard the public interests, would go far toward
bringing about the desired stability.

PUBLIC CONTROL AND OWNERSHIP.

Increased public participation in the management of timberlands
will be another powerful factor in bringing about the practice of
forestry and in doing away with the evils that so far have accom-
panied uncontrolled private ownership. For one thing, it seems
probable that in time the United States will follow the lead of many
other countries in exercising public control o\er privately owned
"^ protection forests," that is. mountain forests which help to ])rotect
the land from erosion and to insure uniform stream flow. This func-
tion of the forest is so important to the welfare of the entire com-
munity that the control of such areas has generally l)een looked upon
as a proper function of the Government. Control is usually exercised
by requiring absolute fire protection and by regulating the cutting of
the forest in such a way as to maintain the desired protection.

Public control may, in the not ver_y distant future, also extend to
many private forests which are managed primarily for timber pro-
duction and in which the protective feature is of little or no impor-
tance. This control may affect both the technical and the business
end of forest administration. If forest owners should be permitted
to organize on any considerable scale as a means of assisting them to
practice forestry'', it is certain that the public would want a deciding
voice in matters affecting its own interests-. It would, for example,
wish to supervise the finaucing. and particularly to exercise absolute
control o^ er any steps looking toward arbitrary limitation of cut or

FOEESTRY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 31

fixation of prices. Whedier this v.ould involve public control over
certain technical aspects of forest production would depend alto-
gether on the need for such action. If private ov.ners, either indi-
vidually or collectively, prove incapable of practicing- forestry, the
public, foi- its own protection, nisisi take a hand in the business.
This would in all probability invohe the particii^ation of teclinical
foresters, employed by the public, in the preparation of detailed
forest working plans covering fire protection, methods of cutting,
amount of material to be removed eacK year, and similar matters.

Public inllucnce in the handling of the forest lands of the country
will also make itself felt through the extension of public ownersliip.
This is a logical and inevitable development. The public, whether
represented by the Federal or State Governments, is in many re-
spects in a much better position to practice forestry than the average
individual or corporation. It does not liave to secure such a high
rate of interest on its investment, it is not under the same pressure
to secure the greatest possible returns immediately, it is not affected
b}^ speculation, and, above all, it is concerned fully as much with
tlie future a;; with the present. The State exists primarily for the
purpose of promoting the development and incrc-asing the well-being
of its entire population, both present and future. One of its main
functions is to provide for its own prosperous perpetuity. For-
estry, which necessarily looks to the future as well as to the present,
is a peculiarly appropriate function to be assumed by the Gov-
ernment.

Considerable advance has already been made in this direction. In
1872, when the Yellowstone Park was established, the first step was
taken to retain public control over even a small portion of the
forested area of the country. The most important advance in this
direction came in 1891, when Congress authorized the Pi-esident to
set aside forest reserves — ^now called National Foi^sts — from the
unappropriated public domain. Since then a steadily increasing
amount of forest land has been brought under management for the
benefit of the public. To-day some 136,000.000 acres in the United
States proper are held by the Federal Government as National For-
ests, and some 3^ million acres by 13 different States as State forests.
^Yith four-fifths of the timberland of the country still under private
fswnership, however, there is no danger of moving in this direction
too ra])idly. On the contrar3^ every effort should Ije made to increase
both Federal and State holdings whenever and wherever possible.

Above all, title should be retained to all forest land now publicly
owned. New York, in 1883. passed legislation prohibiting the
further sale of land acquired through nonpayment of taxes. Since
1905 Pennsylvania has ceased to sell its public land for 26f cents an

32 BULLETIN 638, V. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

acre, while at the same time buying back for forest-reserve purposes
similar land, stripped of its timber, for $3 or $4 an acre. Michigan
no longer disposes of its delinquent-tax lands for $1 an acre, but holds
such lands, when nonagricultural in character, for forest reserves.
Similar action by all States vrould go far toward forming a substan-
tial nucleus around which an adequate system of State forests could
eventually be built up. The Federal Government should retain the
forest lands that it already holds and should add to these, as oppor-
tunity permits, both by purchase and by exchange. The objection
that such a policy will decrease local revenues by withdrawing lands
from taxation can be readily met in two ways. The State can con-
struct and maintain its fair share of community improvements, or
it can contribute to the local communities on the basis of the acreage
or value of such lands or the receipts from them; or both methods
can be used, as is now done in the case of the National Forests,

As public ownership gradually increases and a larger and larger
proportion of the forest lands of the country are managed for a sus-
tained annual yield, this policy will undoubtedly have a marked in-
fluence in bringing about a more conservative and more permanent
liandling of forest lands still held by private owners and particularly
by big corporations.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

The practice of forestry on the forest lands of the country will
oliviously benefit the community in general by doing away with the
harmful social and economic effects of timber " mining." When
continuous forest production is secured on lands classified by experts
as primarily valuable for that purpose, lumbering will no longer
be a roving industry, leaving desolation and abandoned towns in its
wake. Instead there will be a permanent population engaged in the
care and utilization of the forest and its products. This forest com-
munity also will make profitable the cultivation of whatever farming
land there is in the region and so help to support a permanent agri-
cultural population.

Forestry thus will tend to check the present alarming drift from
the country to the city, and Avill contribute materially toAvard build-
ing up a larger rural population. By furnishing opportunities for
employment where none now exist, it ■vf'ill do its share to assist in
solving the vexed problem of the unemployed. In Australia the
undertaking of State forestry has in fact been strongly advocated
as a considerable remedy for rural depopulation, unemployment, and
pauperism. A well-managed forest requires much labor in protect-
ing it from fire and other injuries, in nursery and planting work, in
making thinnings, in constructing roads, trails, bridges, telephones,
and other permanent improvements, and in cutting the timber and
other products and getting them to the market, to say nothing of the

Bui. 638, U. S. Dept, of Agriculture.

Plate VII.

F-2377SA

Fig. 1.— a Bit of Virgin Norway Pine Forest on the Shore of Trout Lake, Wis.

Thousands ot acres formerly covered with stands of this sort are now desolate as a result of destruc-
tive lumbering and fires.

Fig. 2.— Plantation Made by the State of Vy/iscoNsiN on Cut-Over Land on
THE Outskirts of the Town of Star Lake.

The building ou the right is a State forest ranger station.

Bui. 638, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate VIII.

FiQ. 1.— Poor Farm Land May be Good Forest Land.

This area in Roscommon County, Mich., formerly covered with a good stand of pine, was clear
cut and an attempt made to farm it. It was soon abandoned, however, and reverted to the State
for taxes. It is in the heart of one of the State Forest Reserves and is now bemg used for
forest production, for which it is preeminently suited.

FiQ. 2.— A Cut-Over Area, Stripped of Its Timber, Being Reforested by the
Pennsylvania Department of Forestry.

Two fire lines are shown in the picture, one on each side of the plantation.

FORESTRY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 33

subsequent manufacture of such products. In England and Aus-
tralia it is estimated that forests give ten times as much average
employment as sheep farms of tlie same size, without taking into
account tlie population absorbed in attendant industries, which in
many cases is said to amount to treble this figure.

The population supported by stable forest industries will also be
of a higher type than the wandering, pioneer character of the lum-
ber industry hitherto has made possible. Pennanent homes and a
normal family life, coupled with increased social and educational op-
portunities, will develop the more civilized virtues without destroying
the courage, vigor, alertness, and physical prowess that always have
been characteristic of the typical woodsman. The strength of the
Nation comes primarily from the soil, and the welfare of the entire
counti-y is promoted by any industry that affords permanent employ-
ment for a large rural population of high type.

In addition to the stable communities of permanent inhabitants
which the practice of forestry will make possible, the transient popu-
lation tliat will be attracted to the region for sport or recreation
must not be overlooked. Such visitors not only will gain health and
inspiration from their visits but will add materially to the prosperity
of the local communities. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are
now spent every year by hunters, fishermen, tourists, and others in
search of recreation. The scenic attractions of a region are a very
substantial asset to the transportation companies, owners of hotels
and other summer resorts, guides, and local settlers. They help mate-
rially to increase business and to promote the development of the
community in general.

The maintenance of forest lands in a continuously productive con-
dition will further benefit the individual and the community by assur-
ing a local supply of wood. This will do away with the local short-
ages of timber which arc now becoming pronounced in many re-
gions once well forested and will thus obviate the necessity of paying
high freight charges and to a certain extent middlemen's charges
on material imported from considerable distances. The establishment
of permanent settlements will also stabilize transportation facilities,
which in turn will contribute to the development of the entire region.
And finally the use of the land for the purpose to which it is best
suited, under such public supervision as may be necessary, will to 3
large extent do away with the speculation and fraud which hitherto
have so often accompanied forest destruction.

In a word, the practice of forestry on forests lands throughout
the country would mean the building up of permanent, prosperous,
forest communities which would contribute immeasurably to the de-
velopment and welfare of the Nation.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE RELATING TO FORESTRY.

AVAILABLE FOR FKEE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Forest Planting in Eastern United States. (Department Bulletin 153.)
Our Foreign Trade in Farm ami Forest Products. (Department P.ulletiu 206.)
Forests of Porto Rico ; Past, Present, and Futiu-e, and Tlieir Pliysical and Eco-
nomic Environment. (Department Bulletin 354.)
Western Yellow Pine in Oregon. (Department Bulletin 418.)
Sugar Pine. (Departemnt Bulletin 426.)

Forest Planting in Western Kansas. (Forestry Circular 161.)
Paper Birch in the Northeast. (Forestry Circular 163.)
Natural Revegetation of Depleted Mountain Grazing Lands, Progress Report.

(Forestry Circular 169.)
Profession of Forestry. (Forestry Circular 207.)
National Forest Manual, Grazing Section. (Forestry Miscellaneous.)
The Country's Forests, (Forestry Miscellaneous.)
The National Forests and the Farmer. (Separate 633. from Yearbook 1914.)

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNJ.fENT FEINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Forest Management of Loblolly Pine in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

(Department Bulletin 11.) Price 15 cents.
Forest Pathology in Forest Regulations. (Department Bulletin 275. t Price

10 cents.
The Northern Hardwood Forest: Its Composition, Growth, and Management.

(Department Bulletin 2S5.) Price 20 cents.
Tree Planting on Rural School (Jrounds. (Farmers' Bulletin 134.) Price 5

cents.
Primer of Forestry: Part I. (Farmers' Bulletin 173.) Price 5 cents.
Primer of Forestry: Part II. Practical Forestry. (Farmers' Bulletin 358.)

Price 5 cents.
Forest Working Plan for Township 40. Totten and Crossfields Purchase,

Hamilton County, New York State Forest Preserve : Preceded by Discussion

of Conservative Lumbering and Water Supply, (Forestry Bulletin 30.)

Price 25 cents.
How to Grow and Plant Conifers in Northeastern States. (Forestry Bulietia

76. ) Price 10 cents.
Forests of Ala.ska. (Forestry Bulletin 81.) Price 25 cents.
Olympic National Forest. Its Resources and Their Management. (Forestry

Bulletin 89.) Price 10 cents.
Second-Growth Hardwoods in Connecticut. (Forestry Bulletin 90.) Price 15

cents.
Crater National Forest. Its Resources and Their Conservation. (Forestry Bul-
letin 100.) Price 10 cents.
Forest Conditions in Louisiana. (Forestry Bulletin 114.) Price 10 cents.

34

PUBLICATIONS. 35

Fort Vulle.v Exiiorimeut Station: Couiito^ite Type ou Apacbe National Forest.

(Forestry Bulletin 125.) Price 5 cents.
Forest Preservation and National Prosiierity, Portions of Addresses DeliAered

at American Forest Congress, Washington, January, 1905. (Forestry Circular

35.) Price 5 cents.
Forest Planting on Northern Prairies. (Fore.-<try Circular 145.) I'rice 5 cents.
Native and Planted Timber of Iowa. (Forestry Circular 154.) I'rice 5 cents.
Timber Supply in the United States. (Forestry Circular 160.) Price 5 cents.
Forests of the United States, Their Use. (Forestry Circular 171.) frice 5

cents.
Assistance to Private Owners iu Practical Forestry. (Forestry Circular 203.)

Price 5 ceuts.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF Tms PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

10 CENTS PER COPY
V

Kfl

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 639

Joint Contribntlon from the Bureau of Animai Industry, JOHN R. MOHLER, Chief
and the Buredu of Markets, CHARLES J. BRAND, Chief

Washington, D. C. ▼ February 15, 1918

THE MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF
DETROIT, MICH., IN 1915

By

CLARENCE E. CLEMENT, Dairy Division, Bureau of Animal Industry
and GUSTAV P. WARBER, Bureau of Markets

CONTENTS

Page

Economic Phases of the Market Milk Business 1

Market Demands and Sources of Supply 2

Buying Milk from Farmers 4

Prices Paid to Farmers 4

Collecting and Handling Milk in the Ccantry 8

Cost of Collecting Milk at Country Stailons 10

Transportation of Milk to the City 11

Cost of Milk Delivered to the City 13

Trade Demands in Detroit 14

Preparing Milk for City 'Distribution ....- 16

Before Compulsory Pasteurization .16

After Compulsory Pasteurization 17

Capital Invested and Cost of Handling Milk at City Plants .... 18

City Distribution of Milk Id'

Summary of Comparative Costs of Handling and Distributing Milk . . 23

Conclusions 27

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 639

Joint Contribution from the Bureau of Animal Industry,

JOHN R. MOHLER. Chief, and the

Bureau of Marlcets,

CHARLES J. BRAND, Chief

J^f^%J-U

J^T'i^u

Washington, D. C.

February 15, 1918

THE MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETROIT,
MICH., IN 1915.

By Clabence E. Clement, Dainj Division, Bureau of Animal Industry, ancT
GusTAv I'. Warber, Bureau of Markets. '

CONTENTS.

Page.

Economicphasesof the market milk business. 1

Market demands and sources of supply 2

Buying milk from farmers 4

Prices paid to farmers 4

Collecting and handling milk in the country . 8

Costof collecting milk atcountrystations. 10

Transportation of milk to the city • 11

Cost of milk delivered to the city 1.3

Trade demands in Detroit 14

Page.

Preparing milk for city distribution 16

Before compulsory pasteurization 16

After compulsory pasteurization 17

Capital invested and cost of handling

milk at city plants 18

City distribution of milk 19

Summary of comparative costs of handling

and distributing milk 23

Conclusions 27

ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MARKET MILK BUSINESS.

Preliminary studies by the Department of x^gricultiire have shown
the existence of many uneconomical practices in the market milk
business. These practices have been largely the result of the rapid
changes that the business has undergone in recent years. Con-
stantly increasing demands for market milk in the larger cities of
this country have resulted in such a rapid increase in the business of
" middlemen " or dealers that many fundamentally uneconomic mar-
keting practices have developed and wasteful leaks have been allowed
to occur daily. In short, efficiency systems have not kept pace with
the growth and development of the business.

Note. — This bulletin should be of interest to milk dealers, city and State milk-inspection
officials, consumers' leagues, producers' organizations, and students of the subject of
market milk.

19462°— 18— Bull. 639 1

2 BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

In the present study ^ is presented a general analysis of the market
milk business as conducted in Detroit, Mich., during the year 1915,
with a view of indicating some of the fundamental explanations of
existing market conditions and milk marketing practices in the
larger American cities. The cost of milk, wages, and many items of
expense have increased greatly since the data were obtained, and for
that reason no attempt has been made to show absolute cost and
profit figures. Some cost analyses are presented, however, in a way
that will point out fimdamental tendencies not dependent upon
transitory changes in prices and which help to explain some of the
prevailing market practices.

The city of Detroit, Mich., was selected for the study primarily
because in many respects milk marketing methods in that city are
representative of those in other large cities of the United States.
Since the pasteurization of market milk had been made compulsory
by ordinance in Detroit three months before the investigations were
begun, the selection of that city also permitted a study of the effects
of compulsory pasteurization upon the number of dealers engaged in
the business and upon the methods of handling and distributing
milk.

MARKET DEMANDS AND SOURCES OF SUPPLY.

The average quantity of market milk consumed daily in Detroit
during August, 1915, was approximately 47,569 gallons, and of
market cream 5,953 gallons. Based upon an estimated population
of 600,000 this would provide approximately 0.63 of a pint of milk
and 0.08 of a pint of cream per capita daily. The consumption is
not uniform throughout the year, however. The shipments of milk
during May and June were the highest of the year, but the receipts
were in excess of the city consumption during those months.

According to the records of one of the largest dealers, the market
demand for milk in per cent of the yearly consumption is shown
below by seasons:

■^ Per cent

of total.

Spring 26. 7

Summer.
Fan.

30.2
20.9

Winter 22.2

100

It will be noted that the consumption during the summer months
was one-half higher than during the fall months.

1 Most of the data upon which this study is based were collected during September and
October, 1915. Figures of total quantities of milk handled and general information con-
cerning'the nature of the business of all the dealers were obtained from the records of
transportation companies and the flies of the milk-inspection department of the Detroit
board of health. The cost analyses were based upon the records of certain typical dealers.

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETROIT, MICH,, IN 1915. 3

Figure 1 sIioavs the area from which the supply of milk and cream
was obtained, each dot representing one 10-gallon can of milk or
cream. The small squares show the location of country milk stations
where milk was collected, weighed, and cooled before it was trans-
ported to the city pasteurizing and bottling plants. The figure

_RAIUROADS

-ELECTRIC Litres
ONE lO GAL CAN
COUNTRY MILK 5TA

Pifj. 1. — Sources of milk and cream supply of Detroit, and the steam and electric rail-
ways over which most of it is transported to the city.

shoves that the greater part of Detroit's supply of milk was pro-
duced within 30 miles of the center of the city. Some shipments of
cream originated in zones 100 miles distant or more. Because of
the stringent regulations of the board of health in regard to city
dairies, the quantity of milk produced within the city was negligible.

4 BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

BUYING MILK FROM FARMERS.

Figure 1 also shows the necessity for middlemen to handle and
distribute the greater part of the city's supply. Farmers living more
than 6 or 8 miles from town generally considered it impracticable
to deliver their milk to the consumers. The quantity of milk pro-
duced on the average farm in that territory is not sufficient for
economical market distribution by the farmer. To realize the great-
est labor income he usually deems it advisable to devote his entire
attention to farming operations.

In Table I the milk dealers operating in Detroit during the month
of August, 1915, are grouped according to the quantity of milk
handled as well as the quantities supplied to other dealers who did
not buy from farmers direct.

Table I. — Milk dealers loJio bought from farmers during August, .1915, according

to volume of business.

Gallons handled dally.

Less than 150 gallons. .

150 to 250 gallons

251 to 500 gallons

501 to 1,000 gallons

More than 1,000 gallons

Total

Number of
plants.

Number of

gallons

handled

daily.

336

5, 594

3, 9li0

3, 305

40, 205

53,400

Per cent of
total city
supply.

0.63
10.46
7.41
6.29
75.21

100. 00

Number of
gallons
sold to
dealers
not buy-
ing from
farmers.

569

915

1,195

2,165

4,844

Per cent of
supply
sold to
dealers
not buy-
ing from
farmers.

10.17
23.11
35. 51
5.38

9.06

Sixt^^-eight dealers in Detroit bought milk from farmers direct
and had plants for preparing it for market distribution, either
through their own or other dealers' equipment. The grouping of the
dealers in accordance with average quantities of milk handled daily
shows that the greater portion of the business was handled by com-
paratively few dealers.

PRICES PAID TO FARMERS.

Most of the larger dealers paid for milk on a butterfat basis, while
the majority of smaller ones bought their milk by weight or measure
without allowing premiums or making deductions based on butterfat
content, sediment test, bacterial content, or the score of the dairy
farm on which it was produced. The larger companies usually
based their monthly price quotations to farmers upon a butterfat
test of 3,5 per cent. For each one-tenth of 1 per cent butterfat the
milk tested below 3.5 per cent the price was reduced 2 cents a hun-

MABKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETEOIT, MICH., IN 1915. 5

dredweight. For milk testing more than 3.7 per cent a premium of
2 cents for each one-tenth of 1 per cent butterfat was paid. When
compared upon a common basis the prices actually paid by the vari-
ous dealers were found to vary considerably.

Figure 2 shows the average prices (f. o. b. Detroit) paid by milk
dealers handling different quantities of milk during 1915, as well as
the rather wide seasonal variations in prices paid to farmers. A
fundamental reason for these variations is that at certain seasons
the quantity of milk supplied by farmers is either above or below
the city demands, because farmers generally can not regvdate their
daily and seasonal production in accordance with the varying de-
mands of city consumers. As farmers generally did not utilize the

Jan Tcb. Mar. Apr. Mav June Julv Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. DlC.

I.IO

Fu

/

\

V'

^^p-'

— ~

■\

4

/

'n/

_ ^-

'//

.^

^

\ \

"•^

\

y

/

/
/'

\

\

/
/

\
\

/

('

\
\

/

/

/ average: of all ocallrs

av. or ocalcrs operating 1-5 wagons

z:

:: :

-

■

G-23
30 -ISO

■

2. — Average prices paid farmers by all milk dealers, grouped according to number
of delivery wagons operated by each.

milk produced in excess of the demands for market milk, the dealers
bought all the milk. That necessitated the manufacture of cheese,
butter, or condensed milk, which seldom yield as much as market
milk. Some of the dealers who had no facilities for the economical
disposal of skim milk actually dumped it into the sewers.

The prices paid by the larger dealers fluctuated more than those
paid by the smaller ones. The latter also usually paid the highest
prices for their milk, which is explained in part by the fact that the
former obtained their supplies from localities farther from the city,
where competition for market milk was not so keen, and where in-
creased costs of transportation tended to reduce the prices paid to
the farmer as is shown in Table 11.

6 BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

Table II. — Transportation costs in relation to farmers' prices.

Shipping station
number.

Freight or
truckling
cost per
10-gailon
canto
Detroit.

Farm

prices per

10-gallon

can to

Detroit.

Cost to
dealer
f. 0. b.

Detroit.

Shipping station
number.

Freight or
trucking
cost per
10-gallon
can to
Detroit.

Farm

prices per

10-gallon

can to

Detroit.

Cost to
dealer
f. 0. b.
Detroit.

1

$0.15
.15
.15
.175
.175
.175

$1.53
1.49
1.53
1.53
1.42
1.53

$1.68
1.64
1.C8
1.705
1.595
1.705

7

$0.20
.22
.23
.24
.28
.30

$1..53
1.42
1.42
1.36
1.28
1.23

$1.73

2

8

1.64

3

9

1.65

4

10

1.60

5

11

1.56

6

12

1.53

This table shows that although there was a tendency to pay less for
milk or cream as tlie distance and cost of transportation increased,

JAN FcB Mar a

= R M

«v Ju

1915

NL Ju

i_y A

jG Sl

DT 0

:t No^ D

c

fi.ee

^^

p.

^

-^

^-.

/

/

'ft.

^JLK

/

^'^v

,/

/
/

/

\

/

J/

y

\

--—

X

/

.95

"■^

^,-

/

Fig. 3. — Comparisons of average prices paid by Detroit milk dealers with value of the
milk if the cream had been delivered to local creameries and the skim milk fed to
live stock on the farm.

the prices actually paid to farmers depended upon other factors as
well. In territory where farmers could sell to local creameries or
cheese factories the prices for milk were influenced by the prevailing
market prices of butter and cheese.

Table III and figure 3 show the relation between average prices
paid by the Detroit milk dealers in 1915 and the average monthly
wholesale butter quotations in Chicago. The table and figure also
present the estimated possible returns which farmers might have
obtained if they had marketed their cream at local cooperative cream-
eries, whose product is generally sold in accordance with Chicago
quotations. The estimated returns are based upon the assumption

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETEOIT, MICH., IN 1915. 7

that skim milk has a value of 30 cents a hmidreclweight for feeding
purposes. Ninety pounds of skim milk were allowed for each 100
of whole milk.

Table III. — Average prices, hy months, paid for 100 pounds of 3.7 per cent milk
by all classes of milk dealers in Detroit; also estimated average returns for
butterfat delivered to a local creamery.

Average prices paid per hundredweight
of milk.

Average
prices per
pound for
butter.i

Possible returns
from creameries.2

Months.

Small
dealers.

Medium
dealers.

Large
dealers.

All
dealers.

For but-
terfat per
hundred-
weight of
milk.

For but-
terfat plus
27 cents

for 90
pounds of

skim

milk.

81.91
1.91
1.91
1.68
1.68
1.68
1.795
1.68
1.68
1.91
1.91
1.91

$1,884
1.884
1.864
1.678
1.63
1.588
1.618
1.720
1.760
1.S51
1.864
1.942

SI. 836
1.823
1.77
1.442
1.180
1.235
1.343
1.523
1.616
1.733
1.780
1.860

SI. 876
1.872
1.848
1.60
1.73
1.501
1.585
1.641
1.685
1.831
1.851
1.904

Cents.
31.7
30.437
27.204
30. 375
27.46
27. 175
25.5
24.293
25.016
27. 156
30. 025
33. 208

SI. 321

1.264
1.119
1.262
1.130
1.118
1.042
.987
1.020
1.117
1.246
1.390

$1. 591

February

1.534

March

1.389

April

1.532

May

June

1.400
1.388

July

1.312

August

1.257

September

1.290

October

1.387

November

1.516

December

1.660

Total average

1.805

1.774

1.595

1.744

28.295

1.168

1.438

1 Butter prices are the montlily averages of Chicago quotations on the basis of which most of the creameries
of that section sell their butter.

- These returns are computed on basis of 3.7 per cent butterfat in milk and on the basis of 22 per cent
overrun in butter manufacture, and a cost of 2.42 cents a poimd for manufacture.

The table and figure also show that there was no constant relation
between the monthly average wholesale prices of butter in the Chi-
cago market and monthly average prices paid for milk by Detroit
dealers. Farmers in that territory generally received higher prices
for milk than they would have obtained if they had delivered the
cream to local creameries for the manufacture of butter and had fed
the skim milk on the farm. Farmers have found that it requires
great care and expense to produce and deliver daily a good grade of
market milk, whereas three deliveries a week are usually sufficient
for buttermaking purposes.

At certain seasons of the year, however, some of the dealers bought
milk for less than it would have yielded the farmers if it had been
utilized in the manufacture of butter and the feeding of live stock,
which may be explained by the fact that the companies which own
and control country milk stations may obtain virtual buying monop-
olies in certain localities. The prices paid to farmers for milk
usually depend upon existing competition. Small dealers who do
not own or control country milk stations are generally unable to buy
milk in distant areas. In the absence of market information and ac-
tive competition of manufacturing plants it may also be possible to
buy market milk for less than it would yield for manufacturing
purposes.

19462°— 18— Bull. 639 2

BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

COLLECTING AND HANDLING MILK IN THE COUNTRY.

The milk dealers in Detroit obtained their supplies of milk and
cream either from individual farmers direct or through country
receiving and cooling stations. The smaller dealers usually gathered
their supplies near by, mainly because they could not afford the
investments in country receiving stations, through which the larger
dealers collect the most of their supplies from the more distant areas
of production. (See fig. 1 and Table IV.) Most of the supply
which came from neighboring territory was gathered from farms
by means of wagons or motor trucks owned by the city dealers. Con-
siderable quantities of both milk and cream were also shipped directly .
to the city by farmers who lived near railway stations or crossroads
milk-shipping platforms. There was keen competition for all sup-
plies of milk or cream directly accessible to the city.

In order to obtain milk from many farmers who lived too far from
railroad stations or shipping platforms to make direct shipping prac-
ticable, it was necessary to establish facilities for collecting milk
enough at one place to permit more economical transportation to the
city plant. Farmers generally do not consider it advisable to make
daily trips for delivering milk when the shipping station is more
than 5 miles away. An additional advantage of the country receiving
and cooling stations was that milk could be cooled to the proper tem-
perature before it was shipped to the city; furthermore, the inspec-
tion and buying of milk according to quality was expedited. "When a
farmer watches the sampling of his milk and the making of sediment
and butterfat tests he understands better the justice of paying differ-
ent prices for different grades of milk. It often happens that dairy
products can be manufactured more economically in the country
than in the city, and for that reason the larger milk companies fre-
quently operate country milk plants, where the surplus not required
for market milk trade may be converted into other products.

Table IV shows the quantities of market milk obtained through
country stations during June, 1915.

Table IY. — Milk obtained thronr/Ji cnnntnj stations during June, 1915.

Number of wagons operated by dealers.

Number
of dealers.

Number
ofstations
from
which
miJkwas
received.

Number of gallons
received monthly.

Per cent
of total
shipped
through
stations.

From
stations.

From
farms.

1 to 5

55
11
2

291,600
239,005
153, 257

6 to 29

22
51

356, 224
1,002,606

59.8

30 to 150

86.7

Total

68

73

1,358,830

683, 862

66.5

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETROIT, MICH., IN 1915.

9

The total number of gallons handled by different groups of dealers,
as shown in Tables I and II, does not correspond to the total shown
in Table IV, because large quantities of milk were bought from
farmers by those dealers and not used for market milk purposes but
manufactured into butter, cheese, condensed milk, powdered milk,
and casein.

The larger companies obtained the greater part of their supply
through the country milk stations or "collecting depots," which
the}^ usually owned. A few of the country stations were owned
either by farmers' cooperative associations or by individual farmers
whose dairy houses were equipped to handle truck loads of milk pro-
duced on neighboring farms. (See PI. I, fig. 1.)

The typical milk-receiving station consisted of a wooden-framed
building equipped Avith a small boiler, apparatus for washing and
sterilizing milk utensils, scales for weighing milk, and a tank for
holding the cans of milk in ice water until time to ship to the city.
During the winter natural ice was usually stored in an adjoining
building for use in the summer. Stations which skimmed or utilized
surplus milk at certain seasons had additional and more expensive
equipment, such as receiving tanks, mixing vats, cheese vats, sepa-
rators, churns, pasteurizers, coolers, and equipment for condensing
milk. (See PI. I, fig. 2.)

Table V shows the relation of the amounts invested in 16 country
milk stations to the number of gallons handled daily.

Table V. — Relation of inrcstnient in countnj stations to gallons of milk handled

daily during June, 1915.

Station number.

Gallons of milk lian-
dled daily.

Investment
in buildings

and
equipment.

Invest-
ment per
gallon

Cooled.

Skimmed.

handled
daily.

1

77

124

172

226

317

382

447

465

779

842

1,009

760

738

1,907

1,404

2,662

$380. 00

818.00

440.00

876.00

1,325.00

1,675.00

609.00

1,325.00

3,450.00

4,553.00

2, 253. 00

1,800.00

1,952.00

4, 752. 00

2,0.53.00

5,745.00

$4.94

2

6.60

3

2.59

4

3.88

5

4.18

6

4.39

7

1.36

8

2.85

9

4.43

10

5.41

11

2.23

12

720
830

1.22

13

1.24

14

2.49

15

1,155

.80

16

2.16

769

2,125.00

3.17

The investment in the stations does not bear a direct relation to
(he quantity of milk shipped. Some of the stations were creameries
or cheese factories which had been converted into receiving stations,

10

BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPAKTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

and neither the buildings nor the equipment had been specially pro-
vided for the milk-station business. In some cases the investment
was larger than necessary when neither milk skimming nor dairy
manufacturing was done. Table VI shows the daily expense of
maintaining and operating the stations included in Table V.

Table VI. — Average daily expense of coUecting and handling milk at country
stations during June, 1915.

Gallons handled daily.

Deprecia-
tion and

interest on
building

and equip-
ment.

Labor and
supplies
in plant.

Route costs
of collect-
ing milk.

Total

station

expenses.

Average

station number.

Cooled.

Skimmed.

cost per

gallon

handled.

1

77

124

172

226

317

382

447

465

779

842

1,009

760

738

1,907

1,404

2,662

80.17

.36

.20

.39

.59

.74

.27

.59

1.53

2.02

1.00

.80

.87

2.11

.91

2.55

SO. 90
.70
.90
1.23
1.60
1.60
.97
2.47
3.53
2.87
2.70
2.87
3.53
3.97
3.90
5.63

$1.07
1.06
1.10
1.62
2.19
2.34
1.24
3.06
9.56
8.09
3.70
17.54
14.48
10.13
4.81
8.18

$0,013

2

.008

3

.006

4

.007

5

.006

6

.006

.002

g

.006

9

$4.50
3.20

.012

10

.009

11

.003

12

720
830

13.87
10.08
4.05

.011

13

.009

14

.005

15

1,155

.001

16

.003

Average

769

901

.94

2.48

7.14

1

5.64

.007

The average cost per gallon of milk for operating the stations
varied greatly. When surplus quantities of milk and cream were
manufactured into butter, cheese, etc., at country stations, the operat-
ing expenses were increased. Some stations, however, show higher
operating expenses than others, because the cost of collecting the
milk in the country was included in the statement of expenses.

COST OF COLLECTING MILK AT COUNTRY STATIONS.

The prices paid for milk were usually based upon its delivery
f. o. b. the city plant. The cost of transportation, therefore, must
be deducted in order to obtain the farmers' actual net returns. In
order to get sufficiently large supplies at some stations the milk
dealers had established " milk-collecting routes " for collecting milk
and cream from farmers living as far away as 10 miles. At 19
country milk stations there were 843 patrons, of whom 503 had their
milk delivered by paid route men.

The farmers' share of the costs of country collecting averaged 12|
cents a hundredweight and varied from 8 to 18 cents a 10-gallon can.
In addition to the amount paid by the farmer, the milk dealers were
sometimes obliged to pay the route men a bonus of from $2 to $3 a

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETROIT, MICH., IN 1015, H

trip, depending upon the length of the route. The varying costs on
different routes at a single country station for country collecting are
shown in Table VII.

T^vBLE VII. — Cost of collecting milk, hy routes, June, 1915.

Number of route.

Number

of
patrons.

Pounds of
milk.

Paid by
farmers.

Paid by
company.

Average
total cost

per
hundred-
weight.

1

6
14
11
13
14
20
23
16
11

4

29,113

41,380
32, 402
35,815
30,242
67,911
60, 732
48,544
43, 153
11,629

$29.11
60.51
32.40
46.18
45.96

117.72
91.09
76.76
43. 16
14.09

$0,100

2 ..

$75.00
32.40
75.00
87.50

117.72
91.09
76.76
60.00
14.09

.327

3

.199

4

.338

5

.441

6

.346

7

.299

8 .

.316

9

.239

10

.242

TRANSPORTATION OF MILK TO THE CITY.

A large portion of the milk produced within a radius of 20 miles
of Detroit was " trucked " to the city plants either by team or by au-
tomobile, but the greater part of the total monthly receipts of milk
and cream was shipped on either steam or electric railroads. Table
VIII gives the total quantities of milk and cream (both sweet and
sour) which were received in Detroit during the month of July, 1915.

Table VIII. — Quantities of milk received in Detroit during July, 1915.

Means of transportation.

n„ii«r,o Percent
Gallons. „ft„tai_

630, 990
637,860
239,780

41.8

Electric roads .

42.3

15.9

Total

1, 508, 630

100.0

The electric lines provided milk cars with side-extension decks
which permitted two tiers of cans, while the shipments on steam roads
were handled in ordinary baggage cars. The farmers delivered their
milk to the shipping stations early in the morning, and most of it
arrived in Detroit by noon of the same day. Very little milk was in
transit more than 4 hours. In wai-m weather it was " precooled "
either on the farm or at the country milk stations before it was
shipped, as refrigeration was not provided (except in one instance)
by the roads.

Table IX gives a comparison of the milk and cream tariffs (effec-
tive August 1, 1915) for shipments of 10-gallon cans of milk or cream
into Detroit on the various transportation lines.

12

BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPABTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table IX. — Comparison of transportation rates wi electric and steam rail/ways
in the Detroit market milk territory during the year 1915.

Rates per

10-gallon

can.

Distance, in miles, for which rates apply.

Detroit

United
Railways
(electric).

Pere
Marquette
Railroad.

Michigan

Central

Railroad.

Grand

Trunk

Railroad.

$0.15
.20
.21
.22
.23
.24
.25
.26
.27
.28
.29
.30

1-30

1-25
1-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41^5
46-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-100

1-25
1-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-100

1-17
18-55

31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-100

56-75

76-100

In order to transport bottled milk from a milk-bottling plant
about 30 miles from Detroit, an insulated milk car on the electric line
was equipped with brine pipes by means of which the car could be
refrigerated. Refrigeration was obtained by connecting the brine
coils under the ceiling of the car with the brine tanks in the country
milk plant, and while the car was being loaded the cold brine was
j)umped through the coils, thus cooling or refrigerating the car.
Milk containers made of fiber were used in place of glass bottles.
(SeePl. II, fig. 1.)

The concrete roads which extend into the country surrounding
Detroit make it pos.sible to haul a considerable portion of the milk
direct from the farms or country milk stations to the city milk
plants. Both horse-drawn and motor trucks are used for the pur-
pose, although, because of their greater speed, the latter are super-
seding the former, especially on long hauls.

From a number of country milk stations milk was trucked to the
city plants by the same men who had charge of the receiving and
cooling operations. The actual amounts paid by milk dealers to per-
sons who hauled milk from country stations to the city, by either
motor or horse truck, were ascertained at several stations. Table X
presents a comparison of the trucking costs with the transportation
rates for equal distances by rail.

Table X. — Costs of trucking milk compared with rail transportation rates.

Number of station.

Average
number
of cans
hauled
daily.

Distance
hauled
(miles).

Comparative transportation
costs per can.

Trucks.

Steam
road.s.

Electric ,
roads.

1

30.7
31.6
46.5
40.5
112.5
49.4
41.1
43.7

12
12
12
15
15
20
25
25

$0. 15
.15
.15
.175
.175
.175
.175
.175

$0.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20

$0.15

2

.15

3

.15

4

.15

5

.15

6

.15

7 . ..

.15

8

.15

49.5

17

. 1656

.20

.15

Bui. 639, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate I.

Fig. 1,— One of the Newer Country Stations where Milk was Received and
Cooled before being Trucked to the City or to the Railway Shipping
Point.

Fig. 2.— a Condensary from which Shipments of Market Milk were Made in
Such Quantities as were Required from Day to Day.

Bui. t39, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate

/ ) ( i

\\\\>^^*^^

Fig. 1.— Interior View of a Special Refrigerator Car Used for Transporting
Milk in Fiber Containers from a Country Milk Plant to Detroit.

Fig. 2.— a City Pasteurizing and Bottling Plant Handling Approximately 145
Gallons Daily and Supplying Two Delivery Wagons.

The total iuvestmeut in plant and equipment was S4,274, which was an average of S29.4S per

gallon handled daily.

Bui. 639, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate III.

Fig. 1.— One of the Largest City Milk Plants, with a Capacity for Handling
Approximately 15,000 Gallons Daily.

The average per gallon investment for the group of largest plants in Detroit was approximately $30.

FiQ. 2.— Attractive but Expensive Equipment.

The disproportionate per gallon investments in equipment between small and large dealers are
caused mainly by the well-kept and attractive horses, barns, wagons, and wagon sheds. Such
costly investments, however, together with other advertising expenses, are necessitated by
competition.

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETEOIT, MICH., IN 1915.

13

In most cases the cost of trucking was less than the cost of trans-
portation by steam railroad and the same as by electric road. It
should be explained that electric lines did not serve those stations
where costs of trucking were higher than the rates for equal dis-
tances on the electric railways.

When the milk was shipped by either steam or electric roads, an
additional cost of about 1| cents for each 10-gallon can was usually
incurred in trucking the milk from the city terminal milk platform
to the city milk plant.

COST OF MILK DELIVERED TO THE CITY.

Figure 2 and Table III show the average prices paid by small,
medium, and large dealers for milk f. o. b. Detroit. As shown in
Table IV, the smaller dealers did not receive their supplies through
country milk stations. To show the total cost of milk f . o. b. Detroit
when received through country stations, and the relation of the costs
of collecting and handling at these stations, the records of certain
typical stations were obtained from a few dealers and are presented
in Table XL

Table XI. — Relation of daily handling and transportation expenses at country
plants to prices paid fanners and total cost of milk f. o. 6. Detroit during
June, 1915.

Paid farmers.

Costs of collecting and
handling at country-
station.

E.xpenses of

transporting to

Detroit.

Total cost of milk f. o. b.
Detroit.

station number.

Amount
per day.

Net

price

per

gallon.

Amount
per day.

In per
cent of
amount
paid
farm-
ers.

Cost

per

gallon.

Amount
per day.

Cost

per

gallon.

Amount
per day.

In per

cent of

amount

paid

farm-
ers.

Total
cost
per

gallon.

1

$7.00

12.00

17.00

22.00

30.00

44.00

44.00

54.00

99.00

&5.00

108. 00

83.00

98.00

267.00

141.00

284.00

$0. 092
.098
.099
.098
.095
.116
.100
.117
.128
.102
.108
.115
.148
.141,
.114
.107

$1.07
1.06
1.10
1.62
2.19
2.34
1.24
3.06
9.56
8.09
3.70
17.54
14.48
10.13
4.81
8.18

1.5
8.8
6.4
7.3
7.3
5.3
2.8
5.6
9.6
9.5
3.4
21.1
14.7
3.7
3.4
2.8

$0. 013
.008
.006
.007
.006
.006
.002
.006
.012
.009
.003
.011
.009
.005
.001
.003

$1.13

1.83

4.73

3.37

2.57

5.70

6.70

6.97

11.67

23.57

27.23

17.47

16.23

51.47

33.67

71.83

$0. 014
.014
.027
.014
.008
.014
.014
.014
.014
.027
.026
.011
.010
.026
.013
.026

$9.20

14.89

22.83

26.99

34.76

52.04

51.94

64.03

120. 23

116. 66

138.93

118. 01

128.71

328. 60

179. 48

364.01

131.3
124.0
134.2
122.6
115.8
118.2
118.0
118.5
121.4
137.2
128. 6
142.1
131.3
123.0
127.2
128.1

$0. 119

120

3

132

4

.119

109

6

.136

7

.116

8

.137

9

.154

10

.138

11

.137

12

.137

13

.167

14

.172

1.5

128

16

.136

Average...

87.00

.113

5.63

7.0

.006

17.88

.017

110. 70

126.3

.134

The '' net prices " paid farmers at different stations during the
month of June, 1915, varied from 9.2 cents to 14.8 cents a gallon.
These prices are not the same as those quoted in the schedule of prices
for milk delivered f. o. b. Detroit, but are what the fanners actually
received at the particular stations after transportation costs had been

14

BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGBICULTURE.

deducted. The average costs of collecting, handling, and transport-
ing to city amount to approximately 25 per cent of the net price paid
to the farmers. The last column of the table shows that the cost of
milk delivered in Detroit varied considerably, depending upon where
it was bought and the varying costs of collecting, handling at sta-
tions, and transportation to the city. The dealers paid varying
prices in different communities, in accordance with the local competi-
tive conditions and the city demands for market milk. There was
no fundamental cost basis for the prices which then prevailed in the
Detroit territory. (See also Table II and fig. 2.)

TRADE DEMANDS IN DETROIT.

The business of milk dealers usually consisted of a combination of
wholesale and retail trade. The wholesale trade required milk and
cream in both cans and bottles; hotels, restaurants, ice-cream manu-
facturers, and bakeries generally purchased bulk goods, while hospi-
tals, sanitariums, saloons, and soda fountains required both bulk and
bottled goods. Eetail stores also bought bottled goods at wholesale
prices. Prices paid by that class of tirade varied greatly, depending
largely upon the grade and quantity purchased, as well as upon
changing market conditions. Wholesale prices for common milk
generally fluctuated around 22 cents a gallon in bulk and 7 cent's a
quart in bottles.

The retail trade of milk dealers consisted of sales to families and
(for luncheon) to office and factory workers. The retail price for
common milk in Defroit during June, July, and August, 1915 (the
time covered by this study) was about 8 cents a quart.

Table XII shows the variation of demand on retail milk routes.

Table XII. — Variable demands of retail customers for milk, cream, and other
milk products, hy different retail routes.

Number of
customers
on route.

351

214

343

273

319

356

336

344

342

125

Afeiage.SOO

Common milk-

122 34. 7 236
92 42.9,130
15645.4,215
109i39. 9,188
130 40. 7120:
129 36.2239
134 39. 8 252

53.1
45.9
56.0

42.6

3-

67.2
60.7
62.6
68.8
64.8
67.1
75.0
72.9
73.0
56.0

68.0

Certified and
special.

Cream.

Butter-
milk.

0.8

9.6
3.2

12.5

10.9
8.7

14.3
3.5
2.3
9.6

16.0

6.8
5.6
7.2

12.8
8.7

16.0
.2
1.1
7.3
9.6

7.4

Average
daily sales.

$24.44
14.50
27.70
22.22
24.02
26.54
22.61
26.54
28.62
11.83

22.90

0.069
.06
.08
.081
.075
.074
.06'
.07'
.083
.093

.076

$247. 00
183.00
409.00
261.00
339.00
351.00
234.00
321.00
440.00
176.00

296.00

50. 703
.855

1.192
.956

1.062
.985
.696
.933

1. 286

1.408

.986

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETROIT, MICH., IN 1915.

15

The table shows also that the milk dealers of Detroit handled a
variety of goods in various-sized containers, some of which were
demanded by relatively few customers. This custom has developed
because it was found advisable to supply the exact quantities in the
kind and size of containers demanded. To increase the demand for

^(yA/£/&/S tk lo Vft K

K3.e

^ 3.^
\3.2
\3.0
\2.8

£ ^-^

\2.2
\2.0

~~

~

1

'

~"

'

;

...

'

1

/

\

/

\

/

»

/

/

/

1

A

■—

/

■-*i

/

\l

\^

/

>

>k

/»

s,

/•

^

'--

/

\

I

^

/

V

y

/

\

I

f

\

y

'""

•-.

(

y

<'
1

V

f-

\

/

,''

>

1

/

\

1

»..

/

\

/\

!

'

--

-_,

/

1

^,

'

■ ^/^/IX A>SC/r/PrS /// PS/? C£Aff'0/'^0'A^iy/?£CS/y££>a^/?//V<^ r//£ A/o//r/f

-^/}//.r s/]i£s /// PS/? c^vr 0£ s/i^S'S os/^/lt £)6/p//vs r//s /vo/\/rjV

Fig. 4. — Daily fluctuation in receipts and sales of milk in per cent of total supply and

sales for the month.

some special goods certain dealers often advertise them extensively,

because it also tends to increase the sales of common milk and cream.

The fluctuating daily demands in relation to the monthly sales of

market milk are illustrated by figure 4. The daily sales of market

Route.
Numbers —* i

Pints of Milk

Quarts of Milk

'/a Pints of Cream

-Value, of Route Sales
-Quarts of Buttermilk
-Gills of Cream

Fig. 5. — Chart showing one day's sales on 14 retail routes serving approximately an
equal number of customers.

milk are shown in per cent of the total sales for the month. In
order to furnish the exact quantities of goods that might be required
by the trade at any time and hold the business, it was necessary for
milk dealers to have on hand a sufficient quantity of goods to supply
all probable demands. To avoid excessive losses from surplus

16 BULLETIN G39, U. S. DEPAT^TMENT OF AGKICULTUEE.

Fig. 6. — Location of city milk plants In Detroit before compulsory pasteurization.

quantities which were not needed by the trade, dealers utilized the
surplus by manufacturing it into some less perishable product, such
as butter, cheese, or condensed milk.

The various demands of consumers for goods put up in different-
sized containers are graphically illustrated in figure 5. Although
there were approximately an equal number of customers on each of
the 14 routes, and though the value of sales was approximately the
same, the demands for goods in different-sized containers varied
greatly. To supply the demands for market milk and its deriva-
tives it was necessary for dealers to equip their plants properly for
distributing in the city the milk received from various producers in
the country.

PREPARING MILK FOR CITY DISTRIBUTION.

BEFORE COMPULSORY PASTEURIZATION.

Prior to the enforcement of the milk-pasteurization ordinance
there were 158 milk dealers in Detroit, and the " plants " were situ-
ated in different parts of the city, as shown in figure 6. Twenty-four
dealers used the " flash " method of pasteurization and 19 the " hold-
ing" process. There were 91 dealers who bottled raw milk, each

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETROIT, MICH,, IN 1915. 17

Fig. 7.-

-System of city distribution of market milk in Detroit after compulsory
pasteurization.

handling from 40 to 1,500 gallons daily. Only a few of the smaller
plants were equipped with steam boilers, the greater portion using
gas heaters to furnish hot water for washing the milk bottles and
utensils. Forty-four dealers purchased pasteurized milk in bulk
from 23 other dealers, which they bottled and sold to both retail and
wholesale trade.

The records of the Detroit Board of Health showed higher bacterial
counts in milk pasteurized by the flash method than that pasteurized
by the holding method. The pasteurized milk which was purchased
from other dealers often showed higher bacterial counts than the
samples of the raw milk before pasteurization. The bacterial counts
were usually higher in the pasteurized milk purchased from other
dealers for bottling than in that which was pasteurized and bottled in
the same plant.

AFTER COMPULSORY PASTEURIZATION.

The pasteurization ordinance which became effective May 1, 1915,
required that all milk be pasteurized by the holding process in plants
equipped in accordance with regulations adopted by the milk-
inspection department of the city board of health.

18

BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGBICULTURE.

August 1, 1915, three months after the pasteurization ordinance
became effective, there were 68 plants in which milk was prepared for
market distribution. Approximately 75 per cent of the total milk
supply was pasteurized by 11 dealers whose average daily output per
plant was more than 3,600 gallons. About 10 per cent of the city's
milk supply was distributed by small dealers who purchased their
supplies from other dealers who operated pasteurizing plants. (See
fig. 7.)

CAPITAL INVESTED AND COST OF HANDLING MILK AT CITY PLANTS.

To show the investments required for milk plants and equipment,
and the varying costs of handling milk in preparing it for distribu-
tion in the city, the records of 28 representative dealers were obtained.
Table XIII shows the varying investments in relation to the operat-
ing costs in the plants, according to increasing costs of handling.

Table XIII. — Relation of cost of handling to capital investments, supplies, and
lal)or in twenty-eight citif milk plants.

Investments.

Supplies.2

Labor.

Handling

Gallons

cost per
gallon. 1

handled
daily.

Total.

Per gallon

handled

daily.

Per day.

Per
gallon.

Per day.

Per
gallon.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

2.3

1,600

S13,300

$8.31

14.96

0.9

$13. 68

0.9

2.4

350

4,320

12.34

11. S4

1.2

1.99

.6

2.6

9,706

267, 575

27.57

70.01

.7

167. 82

1.7

2.6

2,000

16, 824

8.41

16.57

.8

27.21

1.4

2.7

850

7,154

9.54

5.48

.7

10.68

1.4

2.8

1,450

41,643

28.72

9.76

.7

14.25

1.0

3.1

1,450

IS, 720

12.90

18.42

1.3

17.03

1.2

3.3

220

1,917

8.71

2.45

1.1

3.81

1.7

3.3

340

3,502

10.30

3.24

1.0

5.98

1.8

3.4

470

2,527

5.38

4.87

1.0

9.86

2.1

3.6

400

5,312

13.28

4.20

1.0

7.40

1.9

3.7

165

3,029

18.36

1.95

1.2

2.71

1.6

3.8

2,119

97, 457

45.99

11.79

.6

47.31

2.2

3.9

425

7,595

17. 87

5.61

1.3

7.12

1.7

4.4

335

4,542

13.56

5.43

1.6

5.98

1.8

4.4

100

1,186

11.87

1.64

1.6

2.00

2.0

4.5

310

3,847

12.41

5.18

1.7

5.84

1.9

5.2

230

4,927

21.42

2.35

1.0

7.13

3.1

5.2

1,300

7,315

5.63

36.10

2.8

9.97

.8

5.3

100

1,829

18.29

1.18

1.2

2.99

3.0

5.4

240

7,141

29.75

3.70

1.5

6.04

2.5

5.4

530

20, 251

38.21

6.76

1.3

10.54

1.0

6.1

135

1,829

13.55

1.57

1.2

■ 5.60

4.1

6.8

85

2,705

31.82

1.24

1.5

3.00

3.5

6.8

1,260

110,592

87.77

33.78

2.7

21.80

1.7

7.0

145

4,274

29.48

3.58

2.5

4.70

3.2

7.1

90

2,762

30.69

2.18

2.4

2.56

2.8

7.2

40

1,725

43. 13

.51

1.3

1.50

3.8

Ave. 4.4

940.9

23, 778

21.97

10.23

1.4

15.23

2.01

1 These unit costs include charges for depreciation and interest on capital invested, supplies, and labor
expenses (all the items which could be definitely charged against hapdiing in plant).

2 Supplies include charges for fuel, ice, power and light, bottles, caps, washing powder, bnishes, etc.

A study of the table reveals rather wide variations in the costs of
handling milk in the different plants, many of which are caused by
the varying proportions of bottled and bulk milk handled. The

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETROIT, MICH., IN 1915.

19

average costs per gallon handled at the different plants, therefore,
are not cxact'lj' comparable, for it does not cost so much to pasteurize
and put into cans the milk sold to other dealers or to wholesale trade
as it does to pasteurize and bottle milk for the retail trade.

It is important t© note the disproportionate investments in milk
plants and equipment. The investments per gallon handled daily
range all the way from $5.38 to $87.77, and illustrate the lack of
standardization of milk plants and equipment. It is obvious that a
relatively low investment greatly reduces the interest and deprecia-
tion charges against each gallon handled. In thoSe plants where the
operating costs per unit were the lowest, the investments per gallon
were generally comparatively small and the expenditures for sup-
plies and labor in proportion to capital invested were greater. (See
PL II, fig. 2, and PI. Ill, fig. 1.)

Some of the disproportionate investments may be accounted for by
the fact that some plants were old and handled a large proportion of
bulk dnilk, whereas others were newly built for the purpose of in-
creasing the business.

CITY DISTRIBUTION OF MILK.

The number of milk dealers engaged in the business of distributing
milk in Detroit, August 1, 1915, and the size of the business of those
dealers grouped according to number of delivery wagons operated,
are shown in Table XIV.

Table XIV. — Quantity of milk and cream distribvted daiUi hij dealers {(jrouped
aeeordiiKj to number of wagons oi)erated).

Number

of
dealers.

Total
number

of
wagons.

Average
nimiber
of wag-
ons per
dealer.

Gallons sold daily.

Per cent
of total.

Number of wagons.

Milk.

Cream.

1 to5

127
7
4
2

201
80
70

235

1.5

11.4

17.5

117.5

15, 179
8,340
6,050

18,000

271

367

215

5,100

28 8

6 to 15 .

16.3
11 7

16 to 30

31 to 150

43 2

On August 1, 1915, there were 140 milk distributors, or 18 fewer
than on May 1, when the pasteurizing ordinance became effective.
Of these dealers 127 operated from 1 to 5 w^agons each. Two of the
larger companies, operating more than 30 delivery wagons each,
together distributed nearly 44 per cent of the total milk supply of
the city.

Figure 7 is a graphic presentation of the system of distribution
which prevailed in August, 1915. The locations of the milk-pasteur-
izing and bottling plants are indicated by squares. The areas of the
squares represent the relative quantities of milk pasteurized in the

20

BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

plants. The small circles indicate the location of the different dealers
in the city. The number of radii within the circle represents the
number of delivery routes operated b}' each dealer. When a dealer
purchased his supply from a pasteurizing and bottling plant, a broken
line shows his connection with the plant from which the supply was
obtained. A comparison of the map with figure 6, which presents
conditions on May 1, 1915, shows that the number of city milk plants
was reduced on August 1, but that the number of milk dealers had
not decreased greatly.

In addition to the dealers referred to in figure 7 there were t^vo
dealers who operated plants in the country where milk was pasteur-
ized, bottled, and shipped to Detroit. By selling to hotels, restau-
rants, and factories it was possible for one of the suburban plants to
sell practically its entire supply at wholesale. The other plant bot-
tled a considerable portion of its supply in the country, and either
shipped the remainder in bulk to the city or manufactured it into
cheese. This plant used fiber containers instead of glass bottles for
goods sold in retail quantities. Instead of delivering direct to con-
sumers, which would have required an investment in retail delivery
equipment and the maintenance of a city sales organization, arrange-
ments were made with grocery stores to retail the^milk. There were
some objections to the use of fiber containers, but storekeepers gen-
erally accepted them, because no losses were incurred by the failure
of customers to return the empty bottles. The use of these containers
was ver}^ successful for that class of trade.

Table XV shows the proportion of retail and wholesale trade of
dealers handling different quantities of milk.

Table XV. — Relation of retail to wholesale business.

Average
number
of wag-
ons per
dealer.

Quarts sold daily.

Per cent sold.

Number of wagons.

Retail.

MTiole-

sale.

Retail.

Whole-
sale.

lto5

1.5 34,752

11.4 20,700

17.5 12,900
117.5 4.i (inn

25,964
12, 660
11,300
26,400

57.2
02.0
53.3
63.3

42 8

6 to 15

38.0

16 to 30

46 7

31 to 150

36.7

Different dealers had various proportions of wholesale and retail
business, and there was no definite relation between the quantity of
milk handled and the proportion of wholesale to retail sales.

The relation of the size of a dealer's business to the daily variation
in quantities of market milk sold at wholesale and retail is shown in
figure 8. AMiile the records of both the larger and smaller dealers
showed considerable variation in their total daily sales, the sales of

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETEOIT, MICH., IN 1915.

21

the larger companies fluctuated less than those of the smaller ones,
possibly because their ownership of country stations enabled them
to provide an ample supply and better facilities for utilizmg any sur-
plus. The smaller concerns, because of the comparatively small
quantities handled, usually found the manufacture of by-products to
be less profitable than the selling of a temporary surplus to whole-
sale trade even at greatly reduced prices.

The small dealers usually made both wholesale and retail deliveries
from the same wagon, while the larger dealers generally operated
their wholesale routes separately. Because of the irregidar and ex-
acting service required by the wholesale trade, a large part of the
sales to that class of trade is often made by special delivery trucks.
Figure 8 gives a graphic presentation of the comparative amounts
of wholesale business of large dealers handled by special delivery.

Table XVI shows the investment required for delivery equipment
in relation to the cost of delivering milk from city plants to the
various classes of trade.

Table XVI. — Relation of costs per quart delivered to investments in delivery
equipment, average number of quarts delivered per wagon, and per cent of
sales at retail for 28 dealers.

Investments in deliv-

ery equipment.

Average

Cost per
quart.i

Number
of deliv-
ery

quarts

delivered

per

Per cent
of sales
at retail.

Per

Total.

gallon

delivered

daily.

wagons.

wagon
daily.

Cents.

0.5

.«1,005.00

$3.24

1

1,240

0.0

.8

956.00

4.35

3

293

77.3

.9

1,527.00

9.25

1

660

50.0

1.1

14,899.10

8.92

14

477

54.5

1.2

527.50

4.06

2

260

73.1

1.2

7,280.00

6.31

12

384

62.5

1.2

2,480.00

6.12

4

405

47.1

1.2

8,773.00

6.05

14

414

93.3

1.2

870.00

8.70

1

400

77.2

1.3

2,907.00

12.11

3

320

60.0

1.3

1,180.00

8.74

1

540

77.3

1.3

40,050.85

18.90

14

605

58.9

1.4

170,090.04

17.52

99

392

81.3

1.4

15,055.50

9.45

16

400

53.3

1.4

692.00

8.14

1

340

62.5

1.4

2,096.00

6.45

3

433

76.9

1.4

8,779.00

6.86

14

366

34.5

1.5

3,030.00

10.10

4

300

65.0

1.5

1,160.00

4.64

5

200

60.0

1.5

1,595.50

6.94

3

307

73.8

1.5

575.00

14.38

1

160

85.0

1.6

1,570.00

17.44

2

180

61.5

1.6

2,740.00

8.06

4

340

74.5

1.6

7,375.00

17.35

4

425

65.0

1.7

785.50

7.85

2

200

64.3

1.7

2,023.33

7.83

3

447

71.4

1.8

2,831.50

5.34

6

353

80.0

2.5

29,225.35

23.19

20

252

50.9

2 1.38

2 11,881.75

2 9.58

29

2 396

2 63.9

1 These unit costs do not include items of administration, office expenses, advertising, licenses, insurance,
taxes , and other miscellaneous expenses.

2 Average.

22 BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table XVI shows that the cost of delivering a quart of milk in the
city is dependent upon many things besides the average number of
quarts delivered daily by each delivery wagon. The most economical
delivery was effected by a dealer who sold bottled milk exclusively,
but delivered in relatively large quantities to retail stores only. The
dealer whose delivery cost per quart was the highest had comparatively
small average sales per wagon in relation to the proportion of sales
made to wholesale trade. The figures suggest possible economies in
milk distribution if all sales were made through the medium of
established retail stores. The table, however, does not indicate the
cost of delivering to the consumer by the retail stores.

The item " investments in delivery equipment " includes horses,
barns, wagon sheds, automobile trucks, delivery wagons, and sundry
articles used in delivering milk. The reasons for the wide variations

Mo/viyiy I

rHu/?soAy I
/^/?/a^y\

S47Z//?£i4y\

tVSfKLY eaSweSS 0/=^/JO£^L^^ OP£/?/mM3 cess 7W4/Vy«7/7af7V WAGOA/S.

Si/A/aAy\
7z/£sa4y\

Fig. 8. — Relation of size of business to fluctuations in daily sales at wholesale and retail.

in delivery investments per gallon delivered are the varying propor-
tions sold at wholesale, and the fact that some of the larger dealers
had unusually high-priced horses and very costly stables. Such un-
usually large investments in delivery equipment are maintained for
advertising as well as for direct utility. (PI. Ill, fig. 2.)

Figure 9 illustrates the cost of city delivery in relation to amount
of sales on 14 city delivery routes. Routes Nos. 1, 7, and 9 were en-
gaged in a strictly wholesale delivery of bottled milk to retail stores,
restaurants, and hotels. The business on the other routes consisted
mainly of retail delivery at the family door, with only a few de-
liveries to grocery stores.

The heavy line in the figure shows the variation in the value of
daily sales on the routes. Pasteurizing and bottling expenses at the
city plant are included in the item " cost of goods." The item " cost

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETROIT, MICH., IN 1915.

23

of goods and selling expenses" does not include overhead charges
for taxes, administrative expenses, or losses occasioned by breakage
or spoilage of goods on routes. The chart is designed to show the
profit from business on different sales routes. Some routes show a
good margin of profit, while others are run at an actual loss. The
dealer who would expand his business under existing competition
often finds it advisable to build up new routes at the expense of other
routes which are profitable. Such expenses are the inevitable results
of any competitive system of distribution. Figure 9, like Table XVI,
suggests that considerable savings in delivery costs can be effected
through a more centralized distributing organization.

Route

UMBZRS

000

900

to

600

kj

700
GOO

t<

Q:

kJ

J:

500
A-00

300

200

100

1 2 3 -V 5 B 7 a 8 10 II 12 13 14

I

\

\

1

\

t
1

\

\

1
1

\

/

\

V

\

1

1
1

\
\

/

\

\

v

/

1

\

1 \

/

\

/

\

\
\

y

/
/

1

/}

/ J
/ /

\ \

/

\

\

1

\

v\

^

y

/

//

\\

\

\

^

^

K

'

\ A

r

\

J\

\ ^

ll

'^N

.<rf.^

^

'

^\ 1

y

h'

""

llQO

SO ft

80

70

60

50

01

Fig. 9.

40

30 (0

Q

20 Q
CD

03
C3

Number of Bottles to

Receipts or Value of Goods

Cost of Goods and Selling' Expenses

-■ Cost of Goo os

-Average number of bottles delivered and value of sales in relation to cost of
goods and expenses of delivery on 14 selected routes.

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE COSTS OF HANDLING AND DIS-
TRIBUTING MILK.

In the foregoing tables and figures only such expenses were in-
cluded as might be definitely allocated or fairly apportioned to either
the expenses of handling milk in plants or of delivering in the city.
Miscellaneous expenses, insurance, taxes, and charges for advertising,
administrative, and office expenses were not included in any tables
or graphs. In order to bring out some of the comparative advantages
and disadvantages of small and large businesses, these items of ex-
pense are included in Table XVII, which shows the average per
gallon investments and expenses of 28 dealers grouped according to
the number of gallons handled daily.

24

BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table XVII. — Comparative investments and costs per gallon of handlinfl and
distributing milk hy 28 dealers grouped aecordiny to quantities handled.

Dealsrs grouped

03

according to

number of gal-

For handling

For delivery.

For administration.

-H

M

lons handled

IS
ft

X

§

1

daily.

1
>

0

8

a
2

M

.9

i

§

WW
<B

bfi

a
ca

d

3

o
fcja
o

£1

>

<

P/O

l-H

a.
as

a

.2

"a
p<

D
CO

o

0)

eg

II

» a
a^

£

p.

C.2
g s

"3

H-l

ft
p.

a

CO

i
■a .

a

.2
ft

CO

to

S3
03

0
1

Galls

a-t

(?/,?

tts.

as.

Cts.

Cts.

Cte.

Cts.

Cts.

a«.

Cte.

cts.

Cts.

Cte.

loO

99

$23,725

1.2

1.7

3.20

$9. 117

0.48

1.08

3.36

0.10

0.5

0.10

11.72

151 to 500.

315

13.870

.6

1.3

1.8

8.348

.38

.91

2.94

0.489

6.62

.09

.V3

.08

8.85

501 to
1,000....

640

21.535

1.0

1.0

1.7

6.404

.39

.85

3.50

.165

.007

.10

1.30

.04

9.90

1,001 to
1,500....

1,365

32.485

1.2

1.8

1.2

10.039

.54

1.01

3.46

.516

.02

.02

.90

.04

.01

10.20

1,501 to
2,000....

1,800

8.395

.4

.9

1.1

9.160

.61

.83I2.54

.183

.01

.10

.70

.05

.03

7.30

2,001 to
3,000....

2,119

45. 625

1.0

.6

2.2

18. 980

.43

.92

3.69

.730

.04

.40

.70

.30

.20

.06

10.50

More than
3,000....

9,706

27.375

.2

.7

1.7

17.520

.21

1.29

4.01

6.570

.29

.25

.43

.05

.20

9.30

Average
of all
groups..

2,292

24.715

.8

1.142

1.842

11. 3666

.43

.98 3.36

1.236

.0645

.151

.751

.175

.091

.003

9.819

1 See note below Table XIII, page 18. , . ■, ^ + „ ..1 n„

2 Supplies for delivery include charges for horse feed and shoeing, lanterns, automobile
supplies, milk carriers, etc. . , ,.

3 Investment for administration include office furniture and appliances.

^ Supplies for administration include office supplies, such as route books, accounting
forms and books, tickets, stationery, electric lights, etc. . ^ ■ ■ . *,„„ „ni^„,.«

6 Salaries for administration include salaries of office clerks and administrative oOiceib.
In some plants only a part of a man's salary was charged to the item, as some of the time
was charged directly to labor for either handling or delivery.

Table XVII and figure 10 show that on the average the cost of
handling milk is less in the larger-sized plants than in the smaller
ones. The groups handling daily from 1,001 to 1,500 gallons and

COST- Q^ /V^A/OL/A/G /^A/O D/ST/?/S(/T/0/V

^1

Fig. 10. — Cost of handling and distributing a gallon of milk.

MARKET MTLK BUSINESS OF DETROIT, MICH,, IN 1915.

25

in-

/V^A7/3£/? O/^ &/i^^O/VS /y/)/V£)^/^0

£>/)//. y

^

1

C>

S ^0

Q

^ 0 § § §

i ^ ? ^ ?

§

"?

from 2,001 to 3,000 gallons do not conform strictly to the general
tendency, because the plants in these groups had large investments
in buildings and equipment, and were not operated at full capacity
in all cases. The delivery costs per gallon do not vary in accord-
ance with the size of the business; the reasons are indicated in
Table XVI and figure 9.

Figure 11 shows graphically the differences in per gallon
vestments by dealers,
grouped according to ^£^^sa>s <f/?o^/^^^ ^c^/?^//vs ro

number of gallons
handled daily. The ex-
tremely disproportion-
ate investments for
both handling and de-
livering are explained
in the discussion fol-
lowing Tables XIII
and XVI. The general
tendency, however, was
for the handling in-
vestment to increase
with the size of the
plant to the point of a
plant handling as high
as 2,001 to 3,000 gal-
lons. The group han-
dling 1,501 to 2,000 gal-
lons has a dispropor-
tionately low invest-
ment because in that
group the dealers had
equipped some old
wooden buildings for
temporary use until
thoroughly modern
plants could be con-
structed and satisfac- ^i<^- ^^■-
torily equipped. Plants
handling less than 150 gallons present another exception to the gen-
eral tendency which in part can be explained by the fact that they
were not operated at full capacity. The figures would also indicate
that unless a dealer can handle at least 150 gallons his plant invest-
ment charge will be high. It will be noted that in general the larger
dealers had greater investments in delivery equipment than the
smaller ones. That is in part explained by the fact that many of

^s^/p'^/?)^ //vK^sr/^£'/vr

-Average investments per gallon for handling
and distributing milk.

26

BULLETIN 639, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE.

c>

I

!5

0

0

'>j

"^

\

:s.

s

^•0

the larger dealers maintained expensive barns and wagons, while
some of the smaller ones had much less costly delivery outfits.

The differences in costs of supplies and in the charges for interest
and depreciation are in the main the result of differences in the per
gallon investments. Figure 12 shows radical differences in the cost
of supplies in milk plants. As many of the dealers had operated
their newly equipped plants for only a short time, and since some
plants were not arranged efficiently or were not operated at full
capacity, the most economical use of supplies was not possible.

Aside from advantages of busi-
ness experience, however, and
differences in the extent to which
machinery was run at full ca-
pacity, the larger dealers were
able to effect considerable econ-
omies by the purchase of su])-
plies in large quantities.

Figure 13 shows that the larger
dealers have lower labor costs per
gallon in plant operations than
the smaller plants, owing to the
economies effected through spe-
cialization of labor. The apparent
exception in the case of the two
larger groups is to be explained
by the fact that a larger propor-
tion of their output consisted of
bottled goods than in the case of
the smaller plants. In delivering
milk, however, there appears to
be no definite relation between
the size of the business and the
per gallon labor costs.

The figures of the comparative
costs in Table XVII represent the
expenses of handling at the city
plant and of delivering to the va-
rious classes of trade. They do not include, however, such expenses
as are imposed on the business by surplus milk, soured or spoiled
milk, shrinkage in handling, shortages on delivery routes, and bad
bills. These items of loss or expense of the business were not obtain-
able from many dealers, because of a lack of efficient business organ-
ization or inadequacy of accounting systems to check such losses.
On account of the omission of those items of expense, Table XVII
possibly does not bring out all the comparative economies of large

I I

30

s.o

/.o

<\l

v

■

^

—

\

■

■

■

E-i-

I

\.

0

■ ■ H ■

■

h

t\

N

O

Vk

R

M

I l^lllll

Fig. 12. — Variations in charges for in-
terest and depreciation and cost of sup-
plies per gallon.

MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETROIT, MICH., IN 1915.

27

^s>iiSA>s GA>o<y/>^£> /'ictro/?£>/A/G ro

and small businesses. (See fig. 10.) The losses from spoilage and
temporary surplus or shortage of a supply of milk were compara-
tively less for the larger dealers. In the case of all dealers, regard-
less of the size of their business, the losses from bad bills were small.
Through the use of the ticket system a large part of the retail busi-
ness was done on advance payments.

It' is noteworthy that only the larger dealers had expenses listed
under the item of advertising. Practically all the dealers had ex-
penses which may have been properly listed under that item, but
were listed under either administrative or miscellaneous expenses.
Besides the readily recognized expenses of advertising, practically all
the dealers made contributions Ox
gifts of various kinds to gain or
retain the good will of consumers.
The comparatively expensive de-
livery equipment of the larger
dealers also' has a certain advertis-
ing value, although such expenses
are not listed under that item.

In this connection it is impor-
tant to note the lack of uniformity
in provision made for the adminis-
trative end of the business, but in
general the administrative ex-
penses, which included office ex-
penses, tended to increase in pro-
portion to the size of the business.
The smallest dealers had prac-
tically no administrative invest-
ments. See Table XVII.)
Though the larger dealers gener-
ally had better administrative organizations, the personal supervision
which the smaller ones were able to give to the business was an impor-
tant factor in lowering their expenses.

Fig. 13.

//f osi./k's/fr

-Vai'iatioDs in cost of labor per
gallon.

CONCLUSIONS.

1. The demands for market milk in Detroit necessit'ated arrange-
ments for obtaining a supply from farmers living too far from the
city to effect an economical distribution of their comparatively small
production. (Fig. 1 and pp. 2-4.)

2. The prices paid to farmers by the various dealers competing
with one another in the market milk business of the cit'y varied con-
siderably. Milk dealers as Avell as the farmers were dissatisfied with
conditions then existing. (Figs. 2 and 3 and pp. 4r-7.)

28 MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETEOIT, MICH., IN 1915.

3. A lack of standardization in the construction and equipment of
country milk stations contributed largely to the varying costs of
handling milk in the country. (PI. I and pp. 8-10.)

4. Because they owned the country milk stations the larger dealer?^
were able to obtain milk more cheaply in relatively distant areas of
production. (PI. I and pp. 12-14.)

5. Inconvenient train schedules, lack of satisfactory refrigeration
facilities, and comparatively high transportation rates prevented
some dealers from obtaining a supply of milk from certain areas of
production. (Fig. 1 ; PI. I, fig. 1 ; PI. II, fig. 1, and pp. 3, 11-14.)

6. The fluctuating daily demands for market milk and its various
derivatives in the city necessitate the use of proper equipment for
handling and distributing milk and for the economical utilization of
temporary surpluses (Fig. 4 and pp. 14-16.)

7. The variation in costs of preparing milk for city distribution
was caused primarily by a lack of standardization in plant construc-
tion and equipment, and by the fact that some plants Were not run
efficiently or at full capacity. (Figs. 11 and 12; PI. II, fig. 2; PI.
Ill, fig. 1, and pp. 18-19.)

8. The low cost of delivering milk in wholesale quantities to retail
stores suggests possible economies by dealers if such a system of dis-
tribution were practiced by all. (Fig. 9; PL III, fig. 2, and pp.
19-23.)

9. The cost of handling and distributing in the city does not vary
directly in proportion to the number of gallons handled, although
the .larger dealers do effect certain economies not possible to the
smaller ones. (Figs. 11, 12, and 13 and pp. 23-27.)

10. In the case of many dealers there was evidence of administra-
tive weaknesses which affected not only the internal economies of
the business but also the relations of the business with producers and
consumers. (P. 27.)

o

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 640

Contribution from ttie Bureau of Entomology
L. O. HOWARD, Chief

Washington, D. C.

April 8, 1918

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY

By

E. A. BACK, Entomologist, and C. E. PEMBERTON, Assistant

Entomologist, Mediterranean and Other

Fruit Fly Investigations

CONTENTS

Page
Distribution Throughout the World . . 2
Establishment and Spread in Hawaii . . 3
How the Fruit Fly got into Hawaii ... 4
Losses Incurred Through the Fruit Fly . 5
What the Mediterranean Fruit Fly is Like 7
Fruits, Nuts, and Vegetables Attacked . 11
Host Fruits of Commercial Value ... 15
Artificial Methods of Control not Satis-
factory Under Hawaiian Conditions . 24

Page
The Campaign Against the Fruit Fly In

Hawaii 26

Natural Control of the Fruit Fly . . , .37
Quarantine Measures to Prevent Intro-
duction 41

Summary 42

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICB

1918

ONE OF THE WORST enemies of fruit grown in
tropical and semitropical countries is the Medi-
terranean fruit fly. Constant vigilance is necessary
to prevent its establishment in North America. It is
particularly destructive because it is difficult to con-
trol and attacks man}^ kinds of fruits, nuts, and vege-
tables. In the Hawaiian Islands, where it has caused
great damage since 1910, it attacks 72 kinds of fruits.
A partial list of these contains oranges, grapefruit,
lemons, limes, kumquats, tangerines, peaches, apples,
figs, apricots, bananas, mangoes, avocados, sapotas,
loquats, persimmons, guavas, quinces, papayas,
pears, plums, grapes, eggplant, tomatoes, and even
cotton bolls. Most of these are now grown or can be
grown in our Southern States, the Gulf region, and
California and the Southwest.

The purpose of this bulletin is to give alike to the
citizen of Hawaii, the fruit grower of the 'United
States mainland, and the traveler information that
will help to convey a clear conception of the difficult
problem that has developed with the introduction of
the Mediterranean fruit fly into the Hawaiian Is-
lands. The pest can be kept out of the rich semi-
tropical fruit-growing sections of the United States
only by the hearty and intelligent cooperation of all.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

IWI BULLETIN No. 640 fclb

^"'^J^ Contribution from the Bureau of Entomology 'Wi^^^^f^

fe^'5?*?< I,. O. HOW ARD. Chief ^^^^^

.>"Lr5-^-/<^

Washington, D. C.

April 8, 1918

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY.

CONTENTS.

Distribution throughout the worM 2

Establishment au<l spread in Hawaii ;>

How the fruit fl.v K'ot into Hawaii 4

Losses incurred through the fniit flj' 5

AVhat the Mediterranean fruit fly is like 7

Fruits, nuts, and vegetables attacked 11

Host fruits of commercial value 1.5

Page.

Artificial methods of control not satisfactory

under Hawaiian conditions 24

The campaign against the fruit fly in Hawaii . . 2G

Natural control of the fruit fly 'at

Quarentine measures to prevent introduction. 11

Summary 12

rPHE HORTICULTLHAL DEVELOPMENT of the Hawaiian
J- Islands has been almost stopped smce 1910 by the activity of two
fruit-fly pests — the Mechterranean fruit fly^ and the melon fly.-^

These two pests are being intercepted continually by quarantme
ofTicials at our ports of entry and they are therefore feared b}-, and are
of vital interest to, every fruit and vegetable grower in the warmer por-
tions of the Pacific and Gulf coast States. Ever}^ possible barrier to
the establishment of these pests on the mainland United States is bcino-
erected by the Federal Horticultural Board, working in cooperation
with State officials. Quarantines now regulate the movement of
horticultural products from infested countries; hence the greatest
danger to Cahfornia, Plorida, and Mexican territory now lies in the
unintentional spread of fruit-fly pests by uninformed travelers who
may carry infested fruits upon their persons or in their baggage.

The Mediterranean fruit fly (lig. 1) is one of the recently introduced
pests of Hawaii. It has found climatic and food conditions so favor-
able that at present there is not a family unaffected by its ravao-es.
It is doubtful if there exist in any other place in the world conditions
so favorable to the rapid spread and thorough establishment of this
pest as those in the Hawaiian Islands.

' "The Mediterranean Fruit Fly in.Hawaii," E. A. Back and C. E. Pemberton, Department of Agri-
culture Bulletin MG. ( Ceratitis capitata Wied.)

2 "The Melon Fly in Hawaii," E. A. Back and C. E. Pemberton, Department of Agriculture Bulletin
491. {Bactroccra cucurbitae Coq.)

3 "The Melon Fly," E. A. Back, C. E. Pemberton, Department of Agriculture Bulletin 643.
Note.— The manuscript of this paper was prepared for publication as a Farmers' Bulletm, but owing

to the fact that it deals with an insect which has not yet been introduced into the United States it was
considered more appropriate to issue it in the series of Department Bulletins.
103876°— IS— Bull. 640 1

2 BULLETIN 640^ U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

The Mediterranean fruit fly is a cosmopolitan pest. It has hecn
known to science for 100 years and during these years has spread
throughout the world, until to-day the North American continent
is the only large land area upon which it has not become established.
It first attracted serious attention in London, where oranges arriving
from the Azores were discovered to be badly decayed and wormy.
(See fig. 2.) It was recorded as a pest in Spain in 1842, in ^Vlgeria
in 1858, in Italy in 1863, in Sicily in 1878, and in Tunis in 1885. In
1889 it was first reported in South Africa. It became established
in the western part of AustraUa in 1897 and in the eastern part in

Fig. 1.— Adiilt male Mediterranean fruit fly. Greatly enlarged . (Howard.)

1898. In 1899 it was detected in Tasmania, in 1900 it was found
attacking the apricot orchards near Paris, France, and during 1901
it was reported from New Zealand and Brazil. Compere, in 1904,
found the pest in Egypt, and in Asiatic Turkey at Beirut and Jeru-
salem. Argentina was reported infested in 1905. Between 1909
and 1914 it was found in the eastern and western parts of Africa,
and in 1915 it was fii-st reported from the Island of Madagascar.
During 1916 it caused serious damage to the orange, tangerine,
peach, pear, and apple crops of the Patras consular district of Greece,
it is claimed that this was the fii'st time in 10 years or more that this
pest had been noticed in tliis district' of Greece. The Bermuda
Islands became infested durino; 1865.

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUTT FIA'.

ESTABLISHMENT AND SPREAD IN HAWAII.

The presence of the Mediterranean fruit fly in the Hawaiian Ishmds
was first discovered at Ilonoluhi on June 21, 1910, and by the fall
of that year the pest was well established in the Punchbowl district
of the city. r>y October, 1911, it was found on the Island of Kauai,
and by January, 1912, on the Island of Molokai and in the Kohala
district of the Island of Hawaii (see fig. 3). During March, 1912,

Fig. 2.— Loagitudiaal section orgrapefruit showing destruction of pulp caused by larva' ol Mediterranean

fruit fly. (Original.)

the Kona district was found infested, and by May of the same year
the fruit fly was discovered for the first time on the Island of Maui.
The towns of Naalehu and Hilea of the Kan district of Hawaii were
infested by March, 1913, and by the early months of 1914 infesta-
tions were found in the Hilo and the Hammakua districts of the same
island. By July, 1914, or four years after its first discovery at Hon-
lulu, the pest had spread to every important island of the Territory
of Hawaii and to-day is weU estabUshed in every village and wild
2uava scrub.

4 BULLETIlSr 640, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OP AC4ETCULTURE.

HOW THE FRUIT FLY GOT INTO HAWAII.

A nunibcr of popular accounts tell how the Mediteiianeaii fi'uit
fly hecaino estahhshed in Hoiiohdu, but they are without foundation.

Estabhshment came as a natiu'al sequence of the development of
rapid ocean travel and cold storage, aided b}^ unusually favorable
shore conditions about the harbor of Honolulu. Hawaii was in no
danger of infestation until 1898. Before that year ships touching

THE MEDTTERRAXEAlSr FRUIT FLT. 5

at Ilonoliihi plii'd hotwcon countries not infested l)y this pest. East-
ern Australia v, as not infested before 1898. With the development
of rapid ocean transportation and cold storage on ships, the Medi-
terranean countries were enabled profitably to export oranges to
Australia, and it was in these shipments of fruits that the fruit fly
reached Australian shores and became established about Perth and
Sydney.

Establishment in Kawaii at Honolulu followed natm'ally the com-
mercial jump of the pest from the Mediterranean countries to Aus-
tralia. Honolulu is a port of call for ships plying between eastern
Australian ports and San Francisco and Vancouver, and the voyage
of about two weeks required for passage from Australia to Honolulu
is through a tropical climate permitting rapid development of the
fruit fly. No one ever will know just how the pest reached Honolulu
on these vessels from Australia, but in view of the rigid inspection
serA'ice of the Hawaiian Board of Agricultm'e it seems probable that
larva^ faUing from infested fruits in the ships' stores — in those days
often kept on deck — transformed to the winged adult stage by the
time of arrival at Honolulu. From 7 to 10 years ago trees bearing
fruits in which the fruit fly could develop grew in greater abundance
within a stone's thi-ow of the docks than at the present time and
offered an excellent breeding place for stray adults flying from the
ships dm-ing the time these were in port. There is probably no
port in the world where conditions were so favorable for the estab-
lishment of this particular pest as was that of Honolidu 10 years ago.

LOSSES INCURRED THROUGH THE FRUIT FLY.

The economic importance of the Mediterranean fruit fly as a pest
of fruits varies with the climate of its natm-al abode, or habitat.
Thus, in France, near Paris, where it has been known to attack
apricots and peaches, it has not become a serious pest, because of
climatic checks. Such checks to the severity of its attacks have been
noted in portions of Australia, South Africa, and elsewhere, and
would be operative in continental United States except in portions
of California and the Southern States. On the other hand, in tropical
and semitropical comitries the fruit fly is capable of becoming a pest
of first importance, and, as in the Hawaiian Islands, may be classed
as the most important insect pest to horticultural development.

Practically every fruit crop of value to man is subject to attack by
this fruit fly. Not only is it of importance as a destroyer of fruit,
but it is the cause of numerous stringent quarantines which cost
the State and Federal Governments much money to make effective
and which rob countries of good or prospective markets for theh
fruit. Fortunately, it has been found that the Chinese banana and
the pineapple, the two most valuable species of fresh fruits formerly

BULLETIN 040, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

exported from Hawaii, offer so little danger as carriers of the Med-
iterranean fruit fly, when they are packed for shipment, that this
part of Hawaii's export trade in fresh fruits with the coast may still
be carried on, provided the inspections of the Federal Horticultural

Board now in force
are continued. The
necessary quaran-
tines against all other
host fruits, however,
particularly against
such fruits as the avo-
cado and mango, has
had, and will continue
to have, a serious ef-
fect upon horticul-
tural pm-suits and the
development of the
small farmer.

At present the in-
festation of edible
fruits in the coastal
regions of Hawaii is
general and about as
severe as could be ex-
pected. The work of
the Mediterranean
fruit fly, with that of
the melon fly, has put
a most serious check
upon the horticul-
tural development of
the islands just at a
time when this devel-
opment was gather-
ing strength. In
South Africa the
Mediterranean fruit
fly is regarded as one
of the greatest draw-
backs to the develop-
ment of the fruit in-
dustry in Cape Colony, where, it is stated, during certain favorable sea-
sons large areas of apricots, figs, pears, plums, apples (fig. 4), and
quinces are almost all affected. Many instances of damage to citrus
and other crops in southern Europe, South America, Africa, and Aus-

FiG. 4.— Apples destroyed by larvae of Mediterranean fruit fly. Al-
though an apple externally may appear normal aside from the dark
spots where the female fly punctured the skin in laying her eggs, the
pulp is often found badly decayed and eaten out Tiy tlie maggots,
as shown in the lower fruit. (Original.)

THE MEDITEEEANKAN FEUIT FLY.

tralia might be added to impress one unfamiliar with the ravages of this
pest that it is one that can not he trifled with. The amomit of
damage which would result through the introduction of this fruit
fly is so great that every effort should be taken to prevent its estab-
lishment in new terri-
tory.

WHAT THE MEDITERRA-
NEAN FRUIT FLY IS
LIKE.

Tl\e adults.— Tho
Mediten-anean fruit fly
is an insect that in the
adult stage resembles in
size and general shape
the ordinary house fly,
but differs greatly in the
color pattern of the
body and \vings and in
its habits. In figin-e 5
three adults may be seen
attempting to lay eggs
in an orange. The glis-
tening black spots upon
the insects' back, the
two white bands on the yellowish abdomen, and the 3'ellow and
black markings of the mngs at once distinguish this fruit fly from
aU other insects in Hawaii. Tlie colors, bro^vn, yellow, black, and
white, predominate and forai a pattern that can be recognized easily

after comparison with the drawing of the
adidt fly (fig. 1).

Tlie eggs. — The female fly is able to

drill, with the sharp end of her body, small

pinhole-like breaks or punctm-es in the skin

of fruits, and tlirough these punctm-es she

lays her eggs. Naturally, these egg pmic-

tures are so small that they are not seen

by the average person. Ordinarily the fly

lays from one to six eggs through these

holes into a small cavity made for them

just beneath in the pulp or rind. In

some instances several hmidred of the small white eggs, which

are only about one-twenty-seventh of an inch long and shaped as

those iflust rated in figures 6, 7, and 21, may accmnulate in a single

1U3876°— 18— Bull. 640 2

Fig. 5.— Throe adults of the Mediterranean fruit fly on a sweet
orange. Aliout two-thirds naturalsize. (Authors' illustration.)

Fig. 6. — ("ross seel ion of a small apricot
showing eggs laid through skin in five
lilaces. (Authors' illustration.)

8

BULLETIN im, V. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

XI6

Fig. 7.— Cross section of peach sho\\ing general
shriveling of walls of egg cavity and separation
of eggs. Drawing made one and one-half days
after eggs were laid. (Authors' illustration. )

egg cavity as the result of repeated egg laying by many females

through the same opening in the skin.

The larvse. — The eggs hatch into whitish larv?e, or maggots, that

burrow or tunnel in all directions through the pulp, feeding as they

go and causing decays to start.
When first hatched they are very
difficult to detect, but when full
growni they are very white and,
although only four-sixteenths to
five-sixteenths of an inch long,
are quite easily seen. Full-grown
maggots have the pecidiar habit, if
taken out of the fruit and placed
upon a smooth surface, of curling
up and jimiping from 1 to 6 inches.
For the general appearance of
the larvse see figures 8 and 9, a.

The impsd. — After leaving the
fruit upon which tliey have fed,
the larvse either burrow into the
soil to depths varying np to 2

inches or seek shelter under any object upon the ground and there

transform to the pupa or chrysalis stage. During this stage the

insect is not able to move and re-
sembles the seedlike object illustrated

in figure 9, h. Altliough outwardly

appearing quite dead, inwardly tlie

wonderful changes are taking place

by means of which nature transforms

the ugly maggot into the beautiful fly;

and in tlie course of a few days the

adult fly breaks fortli from tlie pupa,

pushes her way up tln'ough the soil,

and, as the mother of a second gen-
eration, flies back to the tree and

searches for fruits in which to lay her

eggs.

INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT THE ADULT FLY.

Incapable of infhcting bodily injury
on man, the adult fly is, nevertheless,
the fruit growers' most persistent
enemy in Hawaii, for she is contin-
uousl}^ searching for fruits in which
to lay her eggs. Adults die within three to four days if tiioy liave

Fig. 8.— Small mango fruit cut to show white
larvae or maggots of Mediterranean fruit
fly and damage they have caused.
(Sevenn.)

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY. 9

no food; but if they can secure the juices of fruits or the honeydew
of insects, which form the bulk of thek food, they may live long
periods. Two flies lived for 230 and 315 days, respectively. But as a
rule life is much shorter, although many live to be four to six months
old. Many die when they are very young, even if they have had food.
In Honolulu females begin to lay eggs when 4 to 10 days old,
and, like hens, only much more faithfully, continue to develop and
lay eggs in fruits almost daily so long as they live. A female may
lay on an average from 4 to 6 eggs a day, 22 eggs being the largest
numlxir known to have been laid by a fly during any one day. On 10
consecutive days one fly laid 8, 11, 9, 6, 8, 3, 3, 3, 3, and 9 eggs;
another laid 0, 5, 14, 8, 13, 10, 6, 4, 4, and 0 eggs. The largest
number of eggs laid during hfe by a shigle female kept in the labo-

FiG 9.— Mediterranean fruit fly: a, Larvce, or maggots; b, pupae, or ctirysalids. Twice naluralsize.

(Original.)

ratory was 622. This fly lived only 153 days. It is probable that
800 eggs, or even more, may be laid by single hardy females under
favorable conditions.

It is also important, from the standpoint of control, to know that
females deprived of a chance to lay eggs in fruits for a period of four
to six months when certain crops are not in season have the power
to begin depositing eggs as actively as younger fUes when fruits
sufficiently ripe become available for oviposition. Thus one female
kept in the laboratory for the first five months of her life without
fruits in which to lay eggs laid 11, 4, 9, and 9 eggs during the first
four days of the sixth month of her life when fruits were placed in
the cage with her.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FAVORING RAPID INCREASE IN HAWAII.

The time required by the fly to pass through tlie egg, larva, and
pupa stages depends very much upon the chmate. The climate of
Honolulu and of the coastwise regions of Hawaii in general is very

10

BULLETIN 640, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

favorable to fruit-fly increase. At Honolulu the temperature rarely
drops as low as 58° F., and then only for a few hours during one or

two nights in the year.
The daily range in
temperature is small,
averaging between 8
and 11 degrees, while
the normal montlily
m e a n temperatures
range between 70.9° F.
in the winter and 79°
F. in the summer.
Biological work has
shown that even the
lowest monthly means
of localities up to 1,500
feet elevation have lit-
tle effect upon the fruit
fly other than to retard
somewhat its develop-
ment. It is never cold
enough throughout the
coastal regions of Ha-
waii to render either
the adults or the larvae
in ac ti ve . There are
no periods of the year
at any Hawaiian port
when climatic condi-
tions arc unfavorable
for fruit-fly increase.
A continuous temper-
ature of 58° to 62° F.,
or the lowest range of
temperature usually
experienced, does not
increase the normal
mortality among the
larvae.

LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED
FOR DEVELOPMENT.

During the warmest
Hawaiian we ather ,
when the mean tem-
perature averages about 79.5° F., the Mediterranean fruit fly recpiires
as few as 17 or as many as 33 days to pass tlu"oughits immature stages.

Fig. 10.— Three important edible fruits subject to fruit-fly attack:
a, Strawberry guava; b, loquat: c, star apple. These are grown also
for their ornamental value. (Original.)

THE MEDTTET^HAKKAlSr FRUTT FT.Y. 11

At this season by far the larger number pass throiigli these stages
in 18 to 20 days. At an average mean temperature of ()S° F., Avhich
is about the coolest temperature in Hawaii where fruits are gener-
ally grown, the innnature stages re([uire 40 to 69 days.

Just what the length of the immature stages may be in cooler
regions can not be definitely stated, but experiments indicate that it
may be considerably increased. The egg stage has been increased
fi'om a normal of 2 days at Honolulu in summer to 25 days by tlie
apphcation for 22 days of a temperature of 48° to 53° F. A well-
grown larva survived a temperature of 48° to 54° F. for 79 days.
A newly-hatched larva remained practically dormant for 57 days at
an out-of-door temperature ranging from 27° to 73° F. (mean 48°
F.), whereas in Honolulu during summer it would have remained in
this stage only 2 (hiys. The fruit fly has been held in the pupa
stage for about two months at an out-of-door temperature ranging
between 38° and 72° F. (mean, about 54° F.). Had the mean been
about 79° F., it would have remained in the pupa stage only 9 to 11
days. Three larvse in very firm apples required 28, 58, and 74 days
to become full grown and leave the fruit to pupate at Kealakekua,
where the temperature ranged l)etween 58° and 80° F. (mean, about
68° F.). Add to the 74 days required for larval maturity 4 days
for the egg stage and 20 days for the pupa stage, and one has 98
days, or over three months, as the time required for the fly to pass
through the immature stages under certain host conditions at a
mean of 68° F. Thus while these stages may be completed in as
few as 17 days, tlu'ee to four months is a very conservative estimate
for possible length under less favorable chmatic conditions, or a
period sufficiently long to outlast the coolest seasons of the
semi tropics.

FRUITS, NUTS, AND VEGETABLES ATTACKED.

The Mediterranean fruit fly is particularl}^ injurious because it
attacks so many more different kinds of fruits of value to man than
does any other known fruit fly. In the Hawaiian Islands 72 kinds
of fruits have been found infested. Fortunately, the pineapple is
not infested, and the banana is free from attack when shipped under
commercial conditions. The fruit fly has been reared from the
following fruits: Fruits that are heavily or generally infested are
marked (1), those that serve quite often as hosts or of which many
escape infestation are marked (2), and those rarely infested are
marked (3).

12 BULLETTTSr 640, IT, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

List of host fruits of the Mediterranean fniit fly .

SCIENTIFIC NAME. COMMON NAME.

1. Achras sapota (3) Sapodilla.

2. Acordia sp. (:5 ) Acorclia.

3. Anona viwicata {2^ Sour sop.

4. Arengia saccharifera (3) Sugar palm .

5. Artocarpus indsa (3) Breadfruit.

6. Averrhoa caramhola (2) Oarambola.

7. Calopliyllum inophyllum (I) Ball kamani.

8. Capsicum sp. (2) Bell peppers (fip;. 1 7, p. 10).

9. Carica papaya (2) Papaya.

10. Carica qvercifoHa (2) Dwarf papaya.

11. Carissa arduina (2) Carissa (%. 11, /()•

12. Casimiroa edulis (!) Sapota.

13. Cestrum sp. (3) Cliinese inkberry.

14. ChrysophyJlum cainito (1) Star apple (fig. 10, c).

15. Chrysophyllum oliviforme (l) Damson plum (fig. 11, d).

16. Chrysophyllum sp. (1) Chrysophyllum.

17. Citrus japonica (1) Chinese orange (fig. 18, p. 20).

18. Citrus japonica (1) Kumquat.

19. Citrus nobilis (1) Tangerine.

20. Citrus nobilis (1) Mandarin .

21. Citrus medica lirnetta (1 1 Lime.

22. Citrus medica limonum (1) Lfemon (fig. 19, p. 21).

23. Citrus decumana (1) Grapefruit (figs. 2, 20, 21 , 22, pp.

and 23).

24. Citrus decumana (1) Shaddock.

25. Citrus aurantium (1) Sweet orange.

26. Citrus aurantium var. aniara t 1 Sour orange.

27. Clausena vKimpi (3) Wampi.

28. Coffea arahica (1) Coffee (fig. 11, b).

29. Coffea liberica (1) Liberian coffee.

30. Cydonia vulgaris (1) Quince.

31 . Diospyros decandra (1) Persimmon.

32. Eriobotry a japonica (1) Loquat (fig. 10, b).

33. Eugenia brasiliensis (1) Brazilian plum or Spanish cherry.

34. Eugenia jambos (1) Rose apple (fig. 11, g).

35. Eugenia michelH (1) Surinam cherry.

36. Eugenia uniflora (1) French cherry.

37. Ficus carica (1) Fig.

38. Garcinia mangostana (2) Mangosteen.

39. Garcinia xanthochymus (2) Mangosteen.

40. Gossypium spp. (2) Cultivated cotton (fig. 11 , e\

41. Jambosa malaccensis (2) Mountain apple.

42. Lantanis placuachulla (3) Palm.

43. Lycopersicum esculentum (2) Tomato.

44. Litchi chinensis (3) Lichee nuts (fig. 11, c).

45. Mangifera indica (1) Mango (figs. 8, 24, pp. 8 and 2.j).

46. Mimu^ops elcngi (1) Elengi tree (fig. 11, i).

47. Murraya exotica (1) Mock orange (fig. 11 , /).

48. Musa spp. (3) Banana (figs. 14 and 15, ]). 17).

49. Noronhia emarginata (3) Noronhia.

50. Ochrosia elliptica (2) Ochrosia.

THE MEDITEERAXEAN" FRUIT FLY.

13

Fig. 11 .—Ornamental trees and shrubs grown in Hawaiithat support the fruit fly. It is useless to protect
edible fruits when ornamentals are allowed to grow near by that harbor the fruit fly: a, The bestill,
showing drops of white sap that exude when the fly punctures the skin; 6, a cotTee cherry sectioned to
show the maggots feeding on the pulp; c, the lichee nut is not attacked by the fly unless the outer skin
has broken; d,a, damson plum, showing an adult fly caught in the sticky sap; e, a cotton boll infested
by the pink bollworra and the fruit fly; /, a cluster of mock-orange berries: g, a rose apple sectioned to
showfruit-flyattack; h, the carissa, showing drops of white sapthathave exuded from punctures made
in the skin by the fruit fly; /, the elengi berries, that develop many fruit flies.

14 BUI.T.ETTN 640, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ACiFilCULTURE.

51 . Opuntia vulgaris (2) Prickly pear.

52. Passiflora sp. (3 ) Passion vine.

53. Persea gratissima (2) Avocado (fig. 13).

54. Phoenix dactylifera (3) .Date palm.

55. Psidium cattleyanum (1) Strawberry guava (fig. 10, a).

56. Psidium guayava (1) Sweet red and whi te leiiK m guavaa.

57. Psidium guayava pomiferma [D Common guava.

58. Psidium guayava pyriferum (3) Waiawi.

59. Prunus persica (1) Peach (fig. 7, p. 8).

60. Prunus persica var. ne.ctarina ( 1 ) Nectarine.

61. Prunus armeniaca (1) Apricot (fig. G, p. 7).

62. Prunus spp. (1) Plum.

63. Punica granalum (3) Pomegranate.

64. Pyrus spp. (1) Apple (fig. 4, p. 6).

65. Pyrus spp. (I) - -Pear (fig. 12).

66. Solanum melongena (3) Eggplant.

67. Spondias dulris (3) Wi.

68. Terminalia catappa (1 ) Winged kamani or tropical almond.

69. Terminalia chebula (1) Natal plum.

70. Thevetia neriifolia (1) Bestill (fig. 1 1, a).

71. Vitis labrusca (3) Grape (fig. 25, p. 26).

72. Santalwm freycinetianum var. liflorale

(3) Beach sandalwood.

This list shows that practically all the ordinary useful and edible
fruits hi Hawaii are infested heavily. Thus peaches can not be grown
at present, for they are ruhied before they become well grown; Chi-
nese oranges (fig. 18), tangerhies, figs, loquats (fig. 10, h), rose apples
(fig, 11, ^),many varieties of mangoes (figs. 8, 24), certain avocados
(fig. 13), guavas (fig. 10, a), coffee cherries (fig. 11, h), star apples
(fig. 10, c), sapotas, persimmons, apples (fig. 4), pears (fig. 12),
plums, nectarines, and quinces — all these are badly infested. On the
other hand, a large percentage of the ripening fruits of the tomato,
prickly pear, mangosteens, mountain apples, and wampis are free
from attack, although certain fruits may be at times heavily infested.
Wlien tomatoes are wormy, the melon fly, and not tlie Mediterra-
nean fruit fly, is usually the insect doing the damage. Ordinarily,
sweet bell poppers are not generally infested, and cotton bolls be-
come infested only after tli<\v have been damaged hy some other
insect (figs. 17 and 11, ^).

The pomegranate, breadfruit, eggplant, Ma, grape (fig. 25), date,
certain seeds of pahns, lichee nuts (fig. 11, c), and the Chinese ink-
berry are very rarely infested, even in Honolulu. For practical pur-
poses they may be said to be immmie. Lichee nuts ripening on the
tree become infested only when the outer shell breaks, thus exposing
the white pulp to attack.

Hawaiian iruits, nuts, and vegetal)lcs not listed are free from
attack.

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY.

15

ORNAMENTALS SERVING AS HOSTS.

Not only does the Mediterranean fruit fly attack the ordinary
cultivated fruits, hut in Hawaii it has shown a preference for the fruits
of many onia mental trees and shni])s. Thus the nuts of the wing<^d
kamani, th? hall kama-
ni, the rose apple, dam-
son plum, star apple,
Brazilian plum or Sj^an-
ish cherry, the Surinam
and French cherries,
tlie berries of the mock
orange and elengi tree,
the fruits of the Natal
plum, and the mature
fruits of the bestill are
all usually well infested.
Even the fruits of cer-
tain palms and the
beach sandalwood may
harbor the fly. Orna-
mentals less subject to
attack may be found in
th? foregoing complete
list.

HOST FRUITS OF COM-
MERCIAL VALUE.

PINEAPPLES.

M a n y experiments
have been carried on to
determine whether the
Mediterranean fruit fly
can live in the pineap-
ple. It has been found
that even under forced
laboratory conditions
the fly can not live or
mature in green or ripe pineapples. No person has ever found a
pineapple infested by this pest in Hawaii.

PAPAYAS.

The papaya is one of the commonest plants about Honolulu. Its

fruit is the universal breakfast fruit. Probably not one person in a

thousand in Honolulu, however, knows that papayas become infested.

Unless the fruits are allowed to remain upon the trees until overripe,

103876°— 18— Bull. 640 3

Fig. 12.— Bartlett pear, the palp of which has been entirely eaten
out hy the mac;gots of the Mediterranean fruit fly. The fruits
often remain on the tree and shrivel up after they have lieen
rumed. (Authors' illustration.)

16

BULLETIN 640, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

the fruit fly can not mature in them. The milky juice, wliich exudes
copiously from breaks in the skin of the fiTiits up to the time when

the fruits can be cut
for ripening in the
house, contains a di-
gestive principle that
is fatal to the eggs
and larvse of the fly.
Tliis juice protects
the fruits from infes-
tation when imma-
ture. But as the
fruits become over-
ripe, and also unfit
for the table, the juice
flows less abundantly
from breaks in tlie
skin made by the fly
wlien she attempts to
lay her eggs, and the
eggs which slie then
lays can mature. As
many as 205 fhes have
been reared from sin-
gle overripe fruits.
So while tlie papaya
is a host fruit, it is
practically never in-
fested until too ripe
or otherwise unfit for
the table.

AVOCADOS.

With the exception
of one or two early
varieties, the infesta-
tion of the avocado
is so obscure that the
general belief prevails
in Honolulu that this
fruit is free from at-
tack. The Guate-
mala, or nutmeg, variety is the only one free from attack when growing
luiinjured. Theskinof allother varieties, whether tliinor of usual tough-
ness, canbe punctured by the adult fly, as proved by many examinations
of fruits. The avocado, hke the ordinary pear, is best when picked

Fig. 13.— Avocado. This valuable fruit of California and Florida is
subject to infestation in Hawaii. In this instance the maggots are
vrorking at the stem and blossom ends. (Authors' illustration.)

THE MEDITEBRAXEAN' FRUIT FLY.

17

Fig. 14.— Cooking banana of the Popoulu variety taken from tree in an infested condition. Note small
round holes in the skin through which maggots left the fruit when they became full gro^vn. (Authors'
illustration.)

Fig. 15.— Cooking banana of the Moa variety cut to show destruction of pulp by maggots of the Medi
terranean fruit fly. (Authors' illustration.)

18

BULLETIN 640, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

while still hard, though mature, and allowed to soften in storage.
With most varieties it is not until the fruits are mature enough for
gathering or dropping that adults lay eggs in them. Many fruits
upon the market are not in the least affected. Wliile avocadoes are
not usually a favorite host for the fly, they are sufficiently infested
to warrant the quarantine prohibiting the sliipment of them to the
mainland. (See fig. 13.)

BANANAS.

Experimentation during the past four years in Hawaii has proved
that the Chinese banana^ and the Bluefields banana ^ are prac-
tically immune from attack if harvested and shipped to the coast in
accordance with the demands of the trade and the Federal Horti-

^^JfBV^^

Fig. 16.— Loss to coffee-mill owners due to infestation of coffee cherries by Mediterranean fruit fly.
Coffee beans to left pulped from uninfested cherries; beans to right pulped from infested cherries.
Cherries failing to pulp, because infested, appear as black; pulped beans are grayish white. (Orig-
inal.)

cultural Board. Persons wishing the residts of careful experimental
work used as a basis for these conclusions may obtain them in
printed form by applying to the Bureau of Entomology. The
immunity of commercial varieties of bananas has been shown to be
due to the fact that neither the eggs nor the newly-hatched larvse
can survive in the tannin-laden peel of the green though mature fruit.
Indeed, the copious and sudden flow of sap from egg punctures made
by the female fly in unrijie bananas renders the successful placing of
eggs in such fruits difficult and rare.

No fruits of the Cliinese variety ripening prematurely on bunches
in plantations have been found infested. But of the cooking bananas,
ffies have been reared from the ripe and yellowish fruits of the tliin-
skinned Popoulu variety (fig. 14) growing in the field, and from the

1 Musa cavendisMi.

2 Musa sapientum.

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY,

19

well-grown though green-colored fruits of the Moa A^ariety, the peel
of which had become cracked, thus causing a break in nature's normal
protection to the pulp. Figure 1 o is a cross section of a Moa banana,
showing the tunnels made through the pulp by the larvae, and the
darkened decayed areas about the tumiels. Adidts have been reared
also from another variety of cooking bananas.

Because fhes have been reared from cooking bananas, it is not
considered safe to permit their export to the coast, and they have
been placed on the
list of quarantined
fruits by the Federal
Horticultural Board.
The Chinese and Blue-
fields bananas may
still ])e exported from
Hawaii, provided
they are grown and
inspected before shi]>-
meiit in accordance
with Federal regula-
tions. So far as is
knoAAai, the "apple''
and the "ice-cream"
bananas common in
Hawaii are not in-
fested.

COFFEE.

Coffee cherries as
they ripen are favor-
ite hosts of the Medi-
terranean fruit fly.
Fortunatelj^, the
larvae attack only the
pulp surrounding the
beans or seeds, and
in no way affect the
value of the latter (see
fig. 11, h). Chemical analyses of Ijeans from infested and uninfested
cherries, tasting tests of coffee made from similar roasted beans, and
weigliings made of dried beans have failed to reveal any ill effect to
the beans themselves due to fruit-fl}^ attack.

The uni-estricted development of larvas within coffee clierries,
however, does bring about certain losses to the grower and mill
OAVuer. Before parasites were introduced cherries became infested

Fig. 17. — Sweet bell pepper infested by Mediterranean fruit- fly larvae.
Note that the upper right-hand portion of fruit has decayed as a
result of attack. This decay later extends to all parts of the fruit.
(Original.)

20

BULLETIlSr 640, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

as soon as they began to turn white from green in the final ripening
process, and the hirvae, numbering from 2 to 8, were able to become
nearly full grown by the time the cherries had turned red. The pulp
surrounding the beans varies from two to seven fifteenths of an inch
in thickness, or is scarcely thicker than the well-grown larva of the
fruit fly (see fig. 30, p. 39). Therefore, by the time the cherry is ordi-
narily ready for harvesting, the larvae have devoured practically all
the pulp, leaving the seeds hanging more or less loosely within a
sack comprised of the thin skin of the cherry. If the weather
happens to be dry, the skin shrivels and hardens about the beans

and the cherry remains on
the branch indefuiitely and
resembles those killed by
disease. However, should
the harvesting season be
rainy, the skin decays rap-
idly, and under the weight
of the beans the cherry falls
to the ground. A slight jar
may at such times cause
many cherries to fall to the
gi'omid, where they are
lost. This type of loss ne-
cessitates extra pickings
and greater cost for labor.
Since the successful intro-
duction of parasites the
fruit fly has been so re-
duced in the coffee field
that the infestation of
cherries occurs so late in the ripening process that extra pickings
are not necessary, and the cherries on reaching the pulping mills
during the height of the harvesting season contain chiefly eggs
or young larvae which have not had an opportunity to reduce the
pulp.

Badly infested cherries do not pulp as readily when run through
the pulping mill, and naturally weigh much less than somid cherries.
(Fig. 16.) The loss in number of cherries in a given weight of badly
infested fruit has been found to vary at times from 27 to 59 per cent.
This loss in weight, which takes place only in the wortliless pulp, and
in no way affects the bean, which alone is of commercial value,
brought about a financial loss to growers who sold their fruit by
weight according to prices obtained before the fruit fly was intro-

FiG. 18.— Chinese orange sectioned to show damage lay Medi-
terranean fruit fly. Chinese oranges, knmquats, tanger-
ines, satsuma oranges, and many limes are easily and gen-
erally infested because of their loose peel and lack of a thick
protective ra^. (Original.)

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY.

21

duced. This has been appreciated and has caused a readjustment of
prices paid for coffee "in the cherry'' and has been responsible for
the erection of many small pulping mills throughout the Kona coffee
district.

It seems reasonable to believe that the remarkable success of
introduced parasites in checking the infestation of coffee will free the
coffee grower from fm'-
ther worry so far as the
Mediterranean fruit fly
is concerned.

CITRUS FRUITS.

•»»•
'."i»*

While all citrus fruits
are favorite hosts of the
Mediterranean fruit fly,
certain of them are
found to contain larvte
more often than others.
No citrus fruits are too
acid for fruit-fly devel-
opment. Larvse have
been reared from the
soiu-est lemons. Adult
flies are fond of laying
eggs in large nimibei-s
in all citrus fruits. Thus
13 punctures in one
gi-apefruit contained
76, 153, 32, 25, 18, 8,
46, 113, and 9 eggs, re-
spectively. Thirty-nine
oranges, either yellow
or orange in color, con-
tained an average of 32
egg punctures, with a
maximum of 108 and a minimum of 7 punctures. In 50 ripe lemons
1,422 eggs were laid in 185 punctures. Yet no adult flies developed
from this gi-apefruit or from the oranges and lemons. On the other
hand, well ripened Chinese oranges (fig. 18), thin-skinned limes, kimi-
c[uats, and tangerines are so generally infested with larvse in the
pulp before they become well ripened that they are always regarded
with suspicion.

Although many eggs are laid in lemons, it is rare that lemons
are found with maggots in the pulp even when the fruits are so ripe

Fig. 19. — Lemons of commercial varieties have never been found
with larvfe of the Mediterranean fruit fly destroying the pulp
imless they have had the rind cut or broken previous to attack.
The adult flies may pimcture the skin and lay eggs, as indicated
by the discolored spots, but the eggs and larvse die in the peel.
(Original.)

22

BULLETIN 640, IT. s. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Fig. 20.— Ripe grapefmit showing copious gummy secretions that
may, though more often do not, follow attack by Mediterranean fruit
fly. (Original.)

that tliey fall to the
ground. Why, then,
are Chinese oranges
and tangerines easily
infested with larvae
in the pulp whereas
lemons, grapefruit,
and oranges ward off
fatal attack either
entirely or until after
they are overripe ?

The reason is that
a great mortahty oc-
curs among the eggs
and newly hatched
larvae in citrus fruits
having a thick peel-
ing or rind. In Chi-
nese oranges the peel is so thin that the fruit fly can lay her eggs

through it into the pulp itself or between the pulp and the rind,

so that the larvae on hatching can at once begin

to feed on the pulp. As a result the pulp of

the Cliinese orange (fig. 18) is almost always

infested with larvfe. The case is different vdih

lemons (fig. 19), grapefruit (fig. 20), and ordi-
nary seedling oranges. In these fruits the peel

is so thick that the fly must deposit her eggs in

the outer part of tlie white rag as illustrated in

figure 21. In making the punctm'e she often

ruptures an oil ceU in the rind, and the oil thus

liberated kiUs the eggs. But if the eggs are laid

between oil cells, the young larvae have difficulty

in making their way through the rag to the pulp,

and a very high percentage of them die in the

attempt.

Then, too, a gaU-like hardening develops quite

rapidly about the egg cavity in oranges, grape-
fruit, and lemons, as indicated by the darkened

area about the egg cavity in figm'e 21. This

hardening often makes of the cavity a prison

from which the young larvae can not escape and

in which they are literally starved to death.
It thus happens that the larvae that succeed

in entering the rag of the peel from the egg

cavity are able to reach the pulp of grapefruit

Fig. 21. — Section of grapefruit
rind, showing two egg cavi-
ties, one in cross section.
Drawing made one week af-
ter fruit was picked. Note
conical elevation about egg
cavities left by withering of
riad; also thickened walls of
egg cavity and single larval
channel in the rag. (Authors'
illustration.)

THE MEDITERRAXEAISr FRUIT FLY,

23

and oranges in astonishingh^ small numbers because of the imper-
viousness of the rag. It is the persistent attack of successive f amiUes
of larvae hatching from different batches of eggs laid in the same
punctures that finally breaks down the barrier between the young
larvfE and the pulp. A fuller discussion of the infestation of all citrus
fruits may be had on apphcation to the Bureau of Entomology.

Regardless of what has just been stated concerning the great
niortahty that occurs among the eggs and young larvfe in the rind

Fig. 22.

-Cross section of grapefruit to indicate difReuIty of always telling from exterior appearance of a
fruit that maggots are eating out the pulp. (Authors' illustration. )

of grapefruit, oranges, and lemons, adult flies have been reared from
them all. Lemons, however, have never been known to be infested
in the pulp unless the rind has first become broken by thorn pricks,
decays, or in some other mechanical manner. And in spite of the
fact that oranges and grapefruit may become very wormy, as illus-
trated in figures 2 and 22, they are usually uninfested in the pulp,
and are fit for table use if they are gathered as soon as they ripen.
But if citrus fruits were grown commercially in Hawaii in large

24

BULLETIN 640^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

orchards as they are in Florida and Cahfornia, and were severely-
attacked as .they are in Hawaii to-day, they could not be shipped
profitably, for, although they might not contain larvae within the
pulp, the many breaks in the rind made by the flies while laying eggs
would make possible the entry of various molds (see fig. 23) that

Fig. 23.— Orange injured by Mediterranean fruit fly. Each black spot represents a place where the fruit
fly has punctured the rind to lay eggs, but the maggots were not able to eat through the peel, and died.
About the mjured spot decays have started which at first affect only the peel. Blue mold grows rapidly
in these injured spots. (Original.)

would cause unprecedented decays while the shipments were en route
to market.

ARTIFICIAL METHODS OF CONTROL NOT SATISFACTORY UNDER
HAWAIIAN CONDITIONS.

It is unfortunate that the satisfactory methods of control used
against the Mediterranean fruit fly in several other countries, par-
ticularly m portions of South Africa and Australia, have failed in
Hawaii. There are, however, several good reasons for such failures.
The great money-makmg crops of Hawaii at present are sugar, pine-
apples, rice, coffee, taro, bananas, and cattle. But sugar, pmeapples,
and taro are not attacked by this fruit fly, and, as already sho^vn,
coffee and bananas are not sufficiently attacked to hi jure their com-
mercial value. With one exception, including a small number of

THE MEDITERRANEAN" FRUIT FLY.

25

avocados, no commercial orchards exist in Hawaii. Still there is
hardly a family, miless it be in the business section of Honolulu,
that docs not grow a number of fruit trees, such as oranges, lemons,
papayas, peaches, avocados, limes, grapefruit, guavas, bananas, man-
goes, etc., that bear prodigally mider normal Hawaiian cultural con-
ditions, and, mitil the advent of the fruit fly in 1910, formed a most
welcome addition to the food supply.

Much of the native-grown fruit that is sold in the local market is
gro\vn on trees scattered here and there in dooryards and is in

excess of what the

owner needs. Practi-
cally no one depends
on growing fruit for
his living. No devel-
oped fruit industry
exists such as one
finds on the mam-
land , and no moneyed
mterest concerns it-
self with steps for
fruit-fly eradication.
In other words, there
are no impeUing in-
centives to solidify
public opinion for the
consistent and coop-
erative use of artificial
remedial measures
that could be made
effective if their ap-
phcation would yield
returns warranting
the expenditure.

The situation also
is made more difficult
by reason of the large amount of vegetation, bearing fruits of little
or no value to man, that grows throughout the islands and that
can not be eradicated without the expenditure of prohibitive sums
of money.

But this great abmidance of dooryard and wild host vegetation
has had such a vital part in the undoing of artificial control measures
and in the success of parasite introductions that it is worthy of fur-
ther attention. Aided by a favorable climate, it has made of Hawaii
a fruit-fly paradise that is not dupHcated elsewhere on the earth.

Fig. 24.— Improved manso sectioned to show havoc caused by maggots
of Mediterranean fruit fly. (Authors' illustration.)

26 BULLETIN 640^ U. S. DEPARTMENT 0!F AGRICULTURE.

THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE FRUIT FLY IN HAWAII.

HOST CONDITIONS IN HONOLULU AND HILO.

The residents of Honolulu and Hilo are justly proud of their mag-
nificent vegetation and have taken great pleasure m growing an

Fig. 25.— This bunch of grapes, apparently perfect, con-
tains one berry that is decayed and contains a larva
of the Mediterranean fruit fly. The Isabella grapes
in Hawaii are seldom attacked, even in Honolulu,
yet they are likely to carry the fly to California.
(Original.)

unusually large assortment of trees and shrubs on their properties.
An inventory of such trees and shrubs in the portion of Honolulu
bounded by Lililia, Pmichbowl, Beretania, and School Streets gave
a total of 4,610 that bore fruits in which the fruit fly can develop.

THE MEDITEBRAXEAN FRUIT FLY.

27

Table II. — Number and species of host trca-- of the Mediterranean fruit fiy growing •iri that
portion of Honolulu hounded by Liliha, Punchbowl, Beretania, and School Streets.

Apricot 1

Avocado 653

Breadfruit

Carambola

Chinese inkbcrry .

Chinese orange

Coffee

Coffee, Liberian. .

Cotton

Custard apple

Damson phim. . . .

Fig

Giiava, common...
Guava, strawberry

Java plum

Kamani, ball

Kamani, winged. .

Kumquat

Lemon

Lichee

Lime

Loquat

58
48

6
148
298

8
11

1

4

201

94

73

80

4
13

4

oo
40
10
33

Mandarin

Mango

jMangosteen . . . .
Mountain apple.

Mock orange

Orange, sweet. .

28

1,154

7

41

33

372

Papaya 687

Peach

Pear, Bartlett

Pomegranate

Pomelo

Rose apple

Sapodilla

Sapota

Sour sop

Spanish cherry

Star apple

Surinam cherry

Wi '.

Waiawi

69
2

128
15
25

5
30
57
1
4
63
19
60

Total 4,610

In tliis area of 60 blocks of varying size, 712 dooryards, or estates,
averaged 6.5 host trees or slirubs.

In Hilo, island of Hawaii, host conditions are quite as favorable for
fruit-fly increase as in Honolulu. Thus the following numbers of host
trees and slu-ubs were found in certain yards during March, 1914.

Yard 1.

Rose apple 1

Surinam cherry 4

Japanese plum 2

Moimtain apple 0

Star apple 1

Coffee trees 34

Common guava 20

Brazilian banana 15

Avocado 4

Mango 3

Papaya 2

Orange 5

Peach

Grape

Winged kamani

Mangosteen

Fig

Mimusops

Yard 2 — Continued.

Orange 2

Strawberry guava 2

Coffee 14

Bananas.

Avocado 2

Peach 1

Fig 3

Mountain apple 2

Lichee nut 2

Common guava 3

Yard 2.

Surinam cherry,

Papaya

Thevetia

Yard 3.

Rose apple 11

Mango 2

Thevetia 3

Avocado 1

Yard 4.

Peach

Mango

Loquat

Winged kamani

Surinam cherry

Strawberry guava

28

BULLETIN 640, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The great variety of host vegetation which ripens its fruit at
different seasons leaves no time in Hawaii when fruits are entirely
out of season. The fact that certain hosts, such as the Chinese
orange, Surinam cherry, and mock orange, bear several crops a year
and others, such as specimens of the ball and the winged kamanis and
the bestill, appear to be seldom entirely free from ripening fruits,
assure food for the fruit fly the year round. The succession of fruits
also is increased by the individuahty of trees of the same species, or
even of certain branches of a single tree, wliich results in a very
uneven ri])ening of the fruit. While the data in Table III do not
indicate the seasonal abundance of host fruits, they have been sum-
marized from the collections of clean-culture inspections during 1913
to show the remarkable succession of host fruits ripening in greater
or less abundance tlu'oughout the year in Honolulu. The presence of
so much ripening fruit, much of it on tall trees such as those illustrated
in figures 26, 27, and 28, has made it possible for the fruit fly to
multiply with unprecedented rapidity and thwart artificial remedial
measures.

Table III. — Data indicating the seasons of the year when inspectors of the clean-culture
campaign collected various fruits infested by the Mediterranean fruit fly. ^

Fruit.

Avocado

Carambola

Chinese orange

ClirvsoplivUuin spp.

Coffee. ..."

Damson plum

Surinam cherry

Fig.

Grapefruit

Guava

Kamaiii, ball

Kumquat

Lime

Loquat

Mango

Mock orange

Mountain apple.

Papaya.
Peach . .

X

Prickly pear

Rose apple

Star apple I . . .

Bestill I X

Sour sop

Mandarin X

Lemon | X

Kamani, winged : X

Spanish cherry '...

Bartlett pear L . .

a<

1 Tliis table is not intended 1 3 iudicate the seasonal abundance of host fruits.

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY.

29

Table III. — Data indicating the seasons of the year when inspectors of the clean-culture
campaign collected various fruits infested hij the Mediterranean fruit fiij ' — Continued.

Fruit.

1^

c

1

a

t-s

1-5

5S

>->

"3

c5

1

l-s

X
X
X

1

^<

X
X
X

4

ti

a

X
X
X

1
bi

s
<

X
X
X
X
X

(N CO

ti ti

< <

X

X 1 X

X
X
X

X X

X
X

1

X X

Cliiiiese orange

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 1 X

X X

X

Coffee ..."

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

V

X

X X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

%

X X

X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X

X X

Fig

X

X

X

Guava

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

x"

X X

Kamani, ball..

X X

X X

Lime .

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

x'

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X

X
X

Mock orange

X X

Mouataiu apple

Oraiisje

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

'x'

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

'x'

X

X
X
X

X X

X X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X X

Kose apple

X
X
X
X

X

X

"x

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X ....

Bestill. .

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

"x"

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

x'

X
X

X

'x"

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

'x"

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X X

X X

Mandarin ....

X X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X X

X X

X X

'"' ' ^''' !"■"■

Fruit.

CO

o

d

ft

IN

ft

«2

5^-

ft-g

3

o

5

o

c4

i

o

o

1 .

■(-=• >
o o

1

>
o

1

>

o

?5

2

>
o

d

>
o

ft

i

a

CO

CO
(M

o

o

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

'x'

X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

V

Carambola ....

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

V

V

coffee.^..^.. . .^^^ :::

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

V

Damson plum

Surinam cherry ....

X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X

"x"

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X

X

"x"

X
X

X
X

"x

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

"x

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

x

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X

x'

X
X

V

Fig

Y

Grapefruit

"x"

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

Y

Guava

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X

Y

Kamani, ba l.

Y

Y

Lime

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

Y

Loquat

Y

Mango

X
X

1

X
X

Y

Mock orange . . .

X

X

X

X

X

X

Y

Mountain apple

Y

Orange

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

Y

Papaya

Y

Peach

Y

X
X

'x'

X
X
X

1

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

Y

Prickly pear

X.
X

X

X
X

Y

Rose apple

Y

Star apple.

1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Bestill

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X

X

'x"

X
X

X

'x'

X
X
X

Y

Sour sop

Y

ATanrlnrin . , .

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

Y

Lemon

Y

Kamani, winged

Spanish cherry . .

X

Y

30

BULLETIN 640, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

HOST CONDITIONS IN THE COUNTRY.

While host conditions within the city limits render useless such
artificial control measures as can be applied under existing condi-
tions, coimtry host conditions are almost, if not quite, as discour-
aging. Here the fruit fly has been able to establish itself, often
miles from towns, in some one or more of its hosts which have es-
caped cultivation and have spread over uncultivated and luicultiva-
ble areas. Of such hosts, the common guava is the most abundant.
It has taken possession of the roadsides, pastures (as shown in fig.
26), vacant town lots, mountain gulches and hillsides, and even
crevices on precipices. So easily does the plant grow from seed and
so thoroughly distributed are its seeds by cattle, birds, and man,

Fig. 26.— Men cutting down a dense thicket of guava bushes. In such a guava serab ripening fruits are
present throughout the entu'e year and in them the Mediterranean fruit fly breeds, often far from culti-
vated fields. (Authors' illustration.)

that it is seldom that in the lowlands, except in very arid areas, a
bush can not be found within a stone's throw. In pastures and moun-
tain gulches up to an elevation of at least 1,500 feet, particularly
where sheltered from strong winds and well watered, the giiavas may
become very treelike and form dense thickets. While the guava
fiiiits most heavily during the spring and fall months, the bushes
are continuously in bloom and ripen a sufficient number of fruits to
support the finiit fly every month in the year.

Second to the guava as a host occurring in the wild uncultivated
areas is the prickly-pear cactus. Though the fi-uits of this plant are
not preferred by the fruit fly, they are sufficiently infested in the
absence of more favored hosts to serve as food, and, as in the case of
the guava, there is almost no time during the year when a few ripe
fruits can not be found in any cactus scrub.

THE MF.DTTF.T^rtAXKAX FTtUTT FT.Y. P,l

Other host fruits, wild or esca]KHl, are not so genernlly distributed.
As a few of the many examples, there may be mentioned a grove of
ball kaniani trees hi an isolated valley on the Island of Molokai,
g-ulches overgro^v^l with the passion vine and the damson plum on
the island of Maui, the thickets of winged kamani growhig along the
windward shores of the island of Oahu, and the wild coffee in the
forests of Oahu and Hawaii.

In addition to the wild fruits in country places, the fruit fly finds
strongholds in the many, and often isolated, native home sites scat-
tered throughout the coastal region. About these may be growing
the mango, rose apple, orange, peach, ball and winged kamanis, etc.
The Kona district of Hawaii has large areas contammg thousands of
acres of coffee under cultivation in which the fmit fly finds food at
all seasons of the year, because of the uneven ripening of the crops
due to tlie varying altitudes at which coffee is grown.

CLEAN CULTURE A FAILURE IN HAWAII.

Clean culture in its broadest sense includes not only the detection,
collection, and destraction of all infested f raits, but also the elimi-
nation of useless or unnecessary host vegetation. In some one or all
of its phases it has been recommended and practiced in every coun-
try where the fmit fly is a pest, but in nearly all of these the apparent
incUfference displayed by the majority of the people, no matter how
much thoy may have lamented their losses, has rendered clean culture
inefficient.

The clean-culture campaign instituted by the Hawaiian board of agri-
culture during the fall of 1911 and continued by the Federal Bureau
of Entomology from October, 1912, until Apiil, 1914, was a failure from
the very start in that it did not protect fraits from attack. There were
mhior contributory causes, but the maui reason for failure was the
insui-mountable difficulties placed in the way of success by territorial
legislation, adverse host and climatic conditions, and the lack of any
commercially grown crop worth protecting. This method of control
proved hopeless after the first few mojiths' trial from the stand-
point of alleviatmg the Hawaiian situation, and while the destraction
of fmit was encouraged, in the absence of a better plan for lessening
the opportunities for spread of the pest to the coast by means of
mfested fraits carried on board ships saihng from Honolulu, it has
since been discontinued.

It is doubtful if any clean-culture campaign agamst the frait fly
has ever been organized so efficiently or on so large a scale as was
that organized by the Hawaiian board to uiclude Honolulu. That
this method should prove a failure under Hawaiian conditions is no
reflection upon the abihty of those directly m charge of the work.
The law prohibited mspectors from gathering and destroying the

32

BULLETIlSr 640, U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

fruits unless they could first prove to the satisfaction of the property
holders that each fi-uit was infested. This restriction placed upon
the activity of the inspectors led to numerous difficulties between
inspectors and those opposed to clean culture. This law also pro-
hibited a systematic gathering of all host fruits within a given area,
thus necessitating many examinations for the removal, as they
ripened, of the fruits of each single tree. As fi-uits ripen rapidly in
the semitropics, it proved a physical impossibility to arrange visits
of inspectors frequently enougli to prevent infested fruits from falling
to the ground.

The data of Tables II and III demonstrate the immense number
and diversity of host trees and shrubs in Honolulu and the ease with

Fig. 27. -Ball kamani trees growTi for shade and ornament. This tree grows to a large size, and some-
times in dense thickets in the forest. Its fruits ripen at all seasons of the year and are badly infested by
the Mediterranean fruit fly. (.Vuthors' illustration.)

which the fruit fly, uncurlxMl b}" climatic conditions, finds fruit for
egg laying during any day of the year. It is absurd to endeavor to
remove all the fruit from many of the liuge trees of the islands. There
are numerous large trees (figs. 27, 2S) beneath which infested fruits
may be gathered each week in the year, yet the trees are so tall and
brittle that no inspector can remove the fruits before they ripen.
One yard in Hilo has 15 host trees from 20 to 50 feet high. To these
examples might be added many others in which the removal of fruits
is equally impracticable. Often the fruits of the star apple, for
instance, ripening in the tops of tall trees do not fall until long after
they have shriveled up and until after the many larvae developing
withm have matured and dropped from them to the ground. One

THE MEDITEREAXEAN FRUTT FLY,

33

acre of guava or of coffee can support the fly throughout the year
widiout the aid of other host fruits and form a center for the
rciiifestation of surrounding areas. Notwithstanding the fact that
the bulk of the ripening and uifested fruits can be collected except
during the mango season, lasting from May to July, and fruit-fly
conditions unquestionahly improved from the standpoint of the
numerical abundance of adult flies, the important fact remains that
the number of fruit flies that succeed in reaching maturity is suf-
Hciently large to infest practically every fruit ripening within the city.
Clean culture can not be made (effective under present conditions.
Tlie islands are thorougUy overrun with the fruit fly, and tliis apphes

Fig. 2S.— The fniits of this tree, the winged kamani, ripening throiTghout the year, are badly infested by
the Mediterranean fruit fly. The nuts of this one tree are enough to supply adult flies for an entire
ueighborliood. (Authors' illustration.)

quite as much to the guava scrubs in pastures or lava flows and in
mountain gulches as within city limits. By far the larger proportion
of the host trees and shrubs are grown more for protection from the
tropic sun and for their ornamental value than for their fruits. Large
numbers of the host fruits are not edible. The destruction of host
vegetation is out of the question until it can be proved that some
worth-while advantage can be gained. To cut dowm all host trees in
Honolulu at present would mean the removal of a large percentage
of her prized vegetation without giving her citizens any adequate
compensation.

34 F.TTLLETTN CAO, U. R. DEPARTMENT OF AORICUETURE.

VALUE OF ELIMINATING HOST VEGETATION.

In Honolulu many mango and orango trees were (Mtlier cut down
or severely trimmed, but those cut formed too small a percentage of
the entire host vegetation to serve a practical purpose. The only
places where the elimination of host vegetation yielded favorable
results were about banana and pineapple plantations where the w^ork
was done in accordance with the regulations of the Federal Horti-
cultural Board. In these instances the destruction of vegetation did
not eliminate the adult flies, for these came in from surrounding
areas. It did, however, lessen the danger of immature stages becoming
attached to the packing materialof bananas and pineapples shipped
to the mainland.

Should the Mediterranean fruit fly ever become established in
California or the Southei-n States, however, wh(u-e there is no such
wealth of native host fruits and whei^e climatic conditions will prove
an important factor in control, the elimination of host vegetation
will play a most valuable part in remedial measures. In Algeria the
infestation of oranges greatly increased after such crops as peaches
and persimmons were grown. These fruits furnished food for the
fly during the summer and early fall months, wdiich w^ere for the fly
starvation months previous to the cultivation of these crops. Aided
by these summer crops, the fruit fly was able to increase greatly,
so that when the orange crop began to ripen during the fall and winter
months the pest could attack it with increased force. In Bermuda
the elimination of a comparatively few host trees, numerically speak-
ing, would mean the elimination of breeding places for considerable
areas. The destruction of unnecessary and valueless host trees will
not only restrict the breeding ground, but will often so break up the
sequence of ripening hosts tliat many adult flies will die while
attempting to bridge the starvation periods when no fruits can be
found for egg laying.

DESTRUCTION OF INFESTED FRUITS AND SPRAYING.

The destruction of infested fruits and spraying are remedial meas-
ures that should go hand in hand. In Honolulu they liave not given
satisfactory results for reasons beyond the control of man, as set
forth on pages 24 to 33. Nevertheless, they can be made successful
in commercial orchards, if applied with intelligence and persistence
throughout a neighborhood. One mdifferent neighbor can spoil the
work carried on in surrounding orchards. A community of growers
must determine in wdiat crop their interests are centered and im-
partially eliminate nonessential fruits. Then, and, as a rule, not
until then, will labor spent on the destruction of infested fruits and

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY. 35

on spraying prove worth while. Sprays are apphed to kill the aihilts;
fruits are destroyed to kill the eggs and contained larvse.

DESTRUCTION OK INFESTED lUUITS.

Larv?e infesting fruits may he killed hy submerging the fruits in
wa((>r ()i- by burying, boiling, or burning the fruits. The choice of
method will depend largely upon the quantity of fruit to be handled
and upon local conditions. The surest way to kill all immature
stages of the fruit fly is to boil or burn the fruits. Burning the fruits
is often expensive and, when trash in compost holes is depended upon
to furnish the fuel, the burning operation is likely to be unsatisfactory;
for in Honolulu, at least, the amount of fruit to burn is so greatly in
(wcess of the trash that the work is incompletely done. Bringing
infested fruits to the boiling point will kill all forms of the fruit fly.
Submerging fruits in ordinaiycold water for five days will either kill
all larvEe and eggs or prevent their further development.

Burial in soil is a satisfactory method, provided the fruit is ])uried
deep enough and afterwards cracks are prevented from developing in
the earth above the fruits as the latter decay and settle. It should
be remembered that just after transforming from the pupa the
adults are so soft that they have the remarkable ability to force their
way through incredibly small openings. Plence, a crack in the soil
extending down to the fruit, even though it be no wider than the
tliickness of ordinary blotting paper, is wide enough to permit the
achilts to reach the surface and so thwart the purpose of fruit burial.
Adults can not make their way through 1 foot of well-tamped soil,
but because burial or burning is left to subordinates, who may
slight the work, ])oihng or submej-gence of fruit in water is more
higlily recommended.

SPRAriNG.

As adult [lies can not lay eggs until 4 to 10 days after they emerge
from the ])upa, anything that will kill them during this period is
useful. Such a remedy has been found in poisoned-bait sprays.
These are composed of a sweet substance attractive to the flies,
a poison, and water, Mally, wlio first used a poisoned spray in control-
ling this pest, used a formula containing: Sugar, 3 pounds; arsenate of
lead, 4 ounces; water, 5 gallons. This he apphed at the rate of 1 to
1\ pints to each 10-year-old peach or nectarine tree. Lounsbury
used 6 pounds of brown sugar, 6 ounces of arsenate of lead paste,
and 8 gallons of water. Severin used the Mally formula but increased
the poison to 5 ounces. Weinland used 3^ ounces of arsenate of
lead, 10 pounds of brown sugar, 5 gallons of plantation molasses,
and 50 gallons of water. All of these formulas have j^roved to be
efficacious.

36 BULLETIN 640, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Attempts to control tlie Mediterranean fruit fly under Honolulu
conditions were unsuccessful. The number of adults killed was
o-reat, yet a sufficient number survived to infest all fruits that ripened.
From what is known, however, of the benefits derived from these
sprays in other countries, there is no question but that poisoned-bait
sprays, when intelligently applied under such commercial conditions
as exist in California and Florida, will prove successful. Thus Mally
in South Africa states that a "severe outbreak of the pest in a commer-
cial peach orchard was brought to a sudden and practically complete
halt, and the fruit maturing later was marked under the guarantee of
freedom from maggots," while the infestation among fruits on check
trees increased until all fruits became infested. Newman in Western
Austraha estimates the cost of spraying an acre when one apphca-
tion of one pint of spray per tree is made every 12 to 14 days to
be from $1,50 to $2 per fortnight, and states that this sum is a mere
bagatelle to the loss of fruit during a similar period over a like area.
Both MaUy and Newman, working under conditions of less rainfall
than obtained at Honolulu, and more like those of California and of
fall and winter in Florida, believe that good results will follow the
consistent application of poisoned bait sprays, particularly when
supplemented by the proper destruction of infested fruits.

Honeybees are not endangered by the application of poisoned-
bait sprays.

COLD-STORAGE TEMPERATURES.

Cold-storage temperatures do not lessen the damage already done
fruits by larvae within them, but they may become of inestimable
value in guarding fruits against further attacks while in storage or
transit and in freeing them from suspicion as carriers of the fruit fly.

For the details of the effect of cold-storage temperatureii upon
eggs, larvae, and pupae of the Mediterranean fruit fly, application
should be made to the Bureau of Entomology for articles already
published. Fruits of almost any variety commonly held in storage
are held at temperatures varying from 32° to 45° F., with preference
shown to a range of 32° to 36° F. It may be said that no immature
stages of the Mediterranean fruit fly can survive refrigeration for
seven weeks at 40° to 45° F., for thi-ee weeks at 33° to 40° F., or for
two weeks at 32° to 33° F.

It seems reasonable to conclude that sooner or later the certifica-
tion of properly refrigerated fruit wiU be practicable. When an
association of fruit growers, or a people, find it financially worth
while, there is no reason why they can not operate a central refrigera-
tion plant under the supervision of an official whose reputation shall
be sufficient to guarantee aU fruits sent out from the plant to be
absolutely free from danger as carriers of the fruit fly.

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY.

37

PROTECTIVE COVERINGS.

The only certain method now kn()^\•n of protecting fruit from fruit-
fly attack in Hawaii is to cover them, when still very green, with some
type of covering through which the fly can not lay her eggs. In many
places ordinary cheesecloth sewed into hags, large enough to be slipped
over the tree and tied about the trunk, have been used. These have
been tried in Honolulu, but difficidty was experienced in putting the
bags on soon enough and in making certain that no adidt female flies
were inclosed during the process.
Considering the cost of material
and the real danger of inclosing
flies, the impossibility of covering
many trees, and the breakage due
to winds, this method of protection
is not recommended.

The protection of the fruit on
individual branches with cover-
ings of cloth or paper is entirely
feasible and very popular in Ha-
waii, Individual fruits inclosed
in ordinary paper bags (fig. 29) are
well and cheaply protected. Cov-
erings of cheesecloth for separate
fruits are not as good as paper, for
the fruit fly can lay her eggs
tlirough certain coarser-woven
kinds after the cloth has become
matted against the fruit by rains.

Orange and small mango trees
with their fruits inclosed in paper
bags are often seen in Honolulu.
Though this method of covering
each fruit gives protection, it in-
volves much labor and patience,
and its practicability can be de-
termined only by the value placed
upon the fruit hy the owner. So severe, however, is fruit-fly attack
in Hawaii that this method, or some one of its many modified forms,
must be used if fruits are to be brought to maturity uninfested.

NATURAL CONTROL OF THE FRUIT FLY.

No striking examples of control b}- natural agencies were evident
in Hawaii previous to the introducl ion of parasites. Larva) are kdled
in large numbers within fruits which are permitted to remain on the

Fig. 29.— Quince fruit protected from fruit-fly
attack by a paper bag. The bag is slipped over
the fruit while it is still quite green. Although
this method of protection is not practical on a
large scale, it is used much in Hawaii for the
protection of dooryard or experimental fruits.
(Original.)

38 BULLETIN 640, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

ground exposed to the direct sunlight in summer, but many larvse
escape even from such fruits. An examination of 17 mangoes
exposed over sand on shallow trays to the sun for two days in August
revealed 17 living and 98 dead well-growni larvse in the fruit, and 103
that succeeded in safely leaving the fruit to form pupae in the sand
beneath. The small brown ant,* so common about the lowlands of
Hawaii, unquestionably is a factor in natural control. It is fre-
quently fomid swarming over and in fallen fruits and kills many
larvae as they leave the fruits to pupate. Ants were observed to
remove from a fallen ball kamani nut 86 medium-sized larvse during
a 40-minute period, but they failed to reach 34 other larvae in a firmer
portion of the fruit.

No natural checks upon fruit-fly increase in Hawaii, aside from
introduced parasites, are of practical value; but in many other lands
climatic checks are unquestionably of great value, and, as in many
places in Spain, for instance, are the only chocks tliat make fruit
production possible without the use of remedial measures.

CLIMATIC CHECKS.

Observations made in various countries indicate that the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly will not be a serious pest when the monthly mean
temperature falls to or below 50° F. for from three to four consecutive
months during the year. In Hawaii the climate is not cold enough
throughout the fruit-growing regions to act as a serious check on
fruit-fly increase. Development progresses most rapidly after the
Hawaiian means reach 75° to 79° ¥. At a mean of 68° F. develop-
ment requires about twice the time. A temperature of 58° to 62° F.
may increase the period of d(n-olopment to three to four times the
normal period for the warmest weather. Larval development in
apples stored outdoors at temp<^ratures ranging from 31° to 64°
F. (mean, about 51° F.) was slow and was attended by no un-
usual mortality. No development occurred at 26° to 70° F.
(mean, 48° F.), and nearly all larA'ae were dead at the end
of six weeks. Very few fruit flies can develop at 49° to 50° F.,
and none at temperatures below this point. Complete mortality
will foUow continued exposure to temperatures below 50° F. An
exposure for two to three weeks at 32° F. wiU kill all stages of the
fruit fly, but an exposure to this low temperature for four days has
practicaUy no effect upon the fly. Sixty-two of 248 larvae survived
an exposure for five days to 21° to 28° F. These facts indicate that
the Mediterranean fruit fly is a very hardy and persistent enemy in
spite of the quickness with which it responds to checks upon its
develo])ment resulting from the low temperatures ordinarily experi-
enced in semitropical countries.

' Pheidole megacephala Fab,

THE MEDITEERANEAN ERUTT FLY.

39

PARASITES.

The very climalic and host ooiKhlioiis that have made the Medi-
terranean fruit fl}^ an unusually si>rious pest in Hawaii and that,
with crop conditions as they are, have made artificial methods of
control impractical)le, have been most favorable for an attempt
at control by means of parasites. An abundance of the fruit fly upon
which to feed and a climate permitting increase each month in the
year have made conditions ideal. The search for and discovery of
parasites, and their introduction and establishment where previously
there had been none, has been one of the entomological romances of
the present time. The
parasites now at woi'k
killing the fruit fly in
Hawaii have been in-
troduced by the Ha-
waiian Board of Agri-
culture and Forestry as
a result of the Silvestri
and the Fullaway-
Bridwell expeditions
to Africa.

These two expedi-
tions resulted in the
establishment in the
islands between May,

1913, and October,

1914, of four promis-
ing parasites : one from
South Africa,* one
from eastern Austra-
lia,2 and two from
Nigeria,^ West Africa.
Of these, only one, the
South African Opius,
was discovered as a
parasite of the Mediterranean fruit fly. The three others were found
parasitizing other fruit flies, and they have adapted themselves
in Hawaii to the Mediterranean fruit fly. None of them, however,
lias been known to attack the melon fly in the gardens in
Hawaii. Large numbers of all the parasites have been reared and
have been hberated in all parts of the islands, until to-day they are
well able to care for themselves. They have multiplied with
remarkable rapidity and have unquestionably reduced the numerical

Fig. 30. — Diagrammatic drawing of a cross section of a coffee cherry
to illustrate couiparative ease with which the South African para-
site can lay eggs in the fruit-fly larva: a, ColTee bean; b, pulp
destroyed by maggot; c, skin of cherry; d, maggot of fruit fly; e,
parasite forcing its stinger through skin of cherry into maggot.
(Original.)

' Opius humitis Silv. ^ D'mchasina tri/oni Cam. ^ D.fullawayi Silv. and Tilrastkhiis giffardianu^ Silv.

40 BULLETIN 640, U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

abundance of the fruit fly. To-day no batch of infested fruit can })o
collected from which fruit-fly parasites can not be roared.

Only a beginning has been made in determining the effe(;tiveii(^ss
of parasites as a control factor against the fruit fly in Hawaii. The
rapidity of estabhshment and the increase of the parasites have been
very gratifying, yet the data already published recording the per-
centages of parasitism during the years 1914, 1915, and 1916 indicate
that while parasitism in thin-meated fruits, such as coffee (see (fig. 30),
may be consistently very high, in tliicker fruits, like the orange, it is
consistently very low. Thus the parasitism among larvse developing in
coffee may range between 90 and 100 per cent, while that among larvae
of the Chinese orange is more likely to range from almost nothing
to 30 per cent. High parasitism among larvae in such fruits as coffee
is due to the fact that the larvse are witliin reach of the parasite.
On the other hand, the larvae within such fruits as the orange may
feed about the seeds and therefore remain safe from attack so long
as they stay at the core, and are subject to attacks only when they
come to the surface of the fruit.

Since adult fruit flies can live many months and lay eggs quite
regularly, they have been able, with the aid of the unprecedented vari-
ety and abundance of host fruits in Hawaii, thus far to keep such an
ascendancy over their parasites that they cause the infestation of
practically aU fruits ripening. It would appear that unless effective
pupal and egg parasites are introduced, or more care is given to the
elimination of host fruits which more thoroughly protect the larvae
from parasite attack, or to the planting of fruits which make possible
the reproduction of large numbers of parasites, little practical value
wiU result from the work of the parasites from the standpoint of ren-
dering host fruits free from attack.

Though it seems evident that the favored host fruits will always be
well infested if present cultural conditions continue, it is hopt>d
that the efficiency of the parasites may be sufficiently enhanced
to free from attack such fruits as the avocado and the better varieties
of mangoes. In Kona, Hawaii, where the percentage of parasitism
in coffee cherries (see fig. 30) has been phenomenaUy high for tliree
years, it has not been high enough to free more than an occasional
cherry from attack. The control exerted by parasites has, however,
effected a benefit to coffee growers which probably already has repaid
the Territory of Hawaii for all money expended in the introduction
of parasites.

The general effectiveness of control by parasites can be increased
best by the discovery and introduction of a good egg parasite.

THE MEDTTERKAXF.AN FRUTT FT,Y.
QUARANTINE MEASURES TO PREVENT INTRODUCTION.

41

To provonl tlic McdiloiTiiucan fiuii fly from becomiii^- estnblisliod
in the iiiaiiilaiKl of the I'nitcd States, the Federal Horticultural Board
has promulgated Quarantine No. lo, which provi(h^s that its agents,

Fig. :il.— Chinese laborers inspecting' han;in;i:-. I'.,)> li iiniih oi imniii:) ; oxpmunl irnm Hawaii to Cali-
fornia is inspected for bruised, cracked, or suspicious looking fruits. (Original.)

both in Hawaii and at the mainland ports of entry, shall have strict
supervision over the movements of all fruits permitted entry to the
mainland from Hawaii. Quarantine No. 13 makes it unlawful for a

Fig. '.2. -InspectmL; bananas as tlicy are imloaded on the docks at .-^an Framasco: Inspecidi luuKiaK cer-
tain that each bunch bears an inspection tag and has been wrapped in material permitted by law.
(I'holo by Maskew.)

person to ship or carry any fruit from the Hawaiian Islands except
ordinary eating bananas, pineapples, taro, and coconuts, and these
will not be passed by inspectors at ports of entry, such as San Fran-
cisco, Los Angeles, or Seattle, unless they have been inspected b}- the

42

BULLETTW 640, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRTCULTUEE.

Federal agents in Hawaii and bear a Federal certificate of inspection.
(Fig. 31.)

In Hawaii every precaution is taken to have bananas and pine-
apples grown under conditions that will prevent spread of the fruit
fly. Plantations, packing sheds, and packing materials are inspected
sufficiently often to insure their being hi keeping with the regulations
of the Federal Board. No fruit can be lawfully accepted for trans-
portation to the mainland by any transporting company in Hawaii
until it has been inspected and passed and permits for its acceptance
have been issued to the transporting company by agents of the Board.
Furthermore, no fruit can be lawfully removed from ships at ports
of entry at the mainland unless the permit issued the transporting
company in Hawaii is found attached to the bill of lading by the

Fig. 33.— Pineapples never breed fruit flies iu Hawaii. To be doubly certain that the pacldng material
contains no fruit-fly pupae, all crates of pineapples unloaded on the docks at San Francisco are fumigated
with gas after tarpaulins have been thrown over the crates to prevent the gas from escaping. (Photo
by Maskew.)

Federal agent, and unless each package or crate of fruit bears the
inspection tag above referred to. (Figs. 32 and 33.)

Passengers and ships are permitted to take on board in Hawaii
fruits of all descriptions for consumption while en route to the coast.
All contraband fruits, however, must be eaten or destroyed before
the ship comes within the 3-mile limit of the mainland. Otherwise
the transporting company, or the individual passenger, whichever is
the offender, is subject to fuie or imprisonment, or both.

SUMMARY.

The Mediterranean fruit fly has become so thoroughly entrenched
in Hawaii as a result of favorable climatic and host conditions that
artificial remedial measures for its control are not practicable. Intro-
duced parasites have multiplied wonderfully well and already have
proved of practical value in safeguarding the coffee crop from losses
due to fruit-fly attack. Though it is certain that the parasites can

TITE MEDITEERAXEAN FRIHT FTvY. 43

never exterminate the fruit lly or cause the raisiug of the quarantine
against Hawaiian fruits, much ultimate good is expected of them. It
is^hoped that by lessening the abundance of the fruit fly many fruits
that now become badly infested before they are ripe enough to eat
may be able to mature uninfested to a point where they will be useful
to man. At present almost all edible fruits in Hawaii, and many
ornamentals, making a total of 72 kinds of fruit, are subject to attack.
Judging from the past history of the Mediterranean fruit fly, only
the vigilance of quarantine officials and the hearty cooperation of
travelci-s will prevent its establishment in California and the Gulf
States. Every barrier possible has been erected by State and Federal
quarantines, so that there is now httle danger of the pest gaining
entry through the medium of commercial shipments of fresh fruits.
But quarantine ofhcials have found the pest in fruit concealed by
tourists and in mail and express packages sent from infested countries
by uninformed persons, and it is by such avenues that the pest is most
hkely to be introduced. These avenues, also, are the most difficult
of detection, and their closing is dependent mainly upon educa-
tional campaigns to convmce the public of the necessity of quaran-
tine measures, and upon the unselfishness and personal honesty of
travelers. At present only bananas, pineapples, taro, coconuts, and
certain other vegetable products not subject to attack, are permitted
entry from Hawaii, and these only after the regulations of the
Federal Horticultui^al Board have been fulfilled.

PUBLICATICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RELATING TO INSECTS INJURIOUS TO CITRUS AND OTHER SUB-
TROPICAL FRUITS.

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Control of the Citrus Thrips in California and Arizona. (Farmers' Bulletin 674.)
Carbon Disulphid as an Insecticide. (Farmers' Bulletin 799.)
Common ]\Iealybug and its Control in California. (Farmers' Bulletin 8()2.
Fumigation of Ornamental Greenhouse Plants with Hydrocyanic-acid Gas. (Farm-
ers' Bulletin 880.)
Fumigation of Citrus Trees. (Farmers' Bulletin 923.)
Control of the Argentine Ant in Orange Groves. (Farmers' Bulletin 928.)
Spraying for the Control of Insects and I\Iites Attacking Citrus Trees in Florida.

(Farmers' Bulletin 933.)
Citrus Friiit Insects in Mediterranean Countries. (Department Bulletin 134.^
The Mediterranean Fruit Fly in Bermuda. (Department Bulletin IGl.)
Katydids Injurious to Oranges in California. (Department Bulletin 256.)
Argentine Ant: Distribution and Control in the United States. (Department

Bulletin 377.)
The Melon Fly in Hawaii. (Department Bulletin 491.)

Fumigation of Ornamental Greenhouse Plants with Ilydrocyanic-acid Gas. (Depart-
ment Bulletin 513.)
The Mediterranean Fruit Fly in Hawaii. (Department Bulletin 536.)
The Citrus Thrips. (Department Bulletin 616.)
The Mellon Fly. (Department Bulletin 643.)
Some Reasons for Spraying to Control Insect and Mite Enemies of Citrus Trees in

Florida. (Department Bulletin 645.)
The Argentine Ant in Relation to Citrus Orchards. (Department Bulletin 647.)
Preparations for Winter Fumigation for Citrus White Fly. (Entomology Circular 111.)
Spraying for White Flies in Florida. (Entomology Circular 168.)

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mango Weevil. (Entomology Circular 141.) 1911. Price, 5 cents.

Fumigation for Citrus ^^^lite Fly, as Adapted to Florida Conditions. (Entomology

Bulletin 76.) 1908. Price, 15 cents.
Fumigation Investigations in California. (Entomology Bulletin 79.) 1909. Price,

15 cents.
Hydrocyanic-acid Gas Fumigation in California. (Entomology Bulletin 90, 3 pts.)

1913. Price, 20 cents.
Fumigation of Citrus Trees. (Entomology Bulletin 90, pt. 1.) 1913. Price, 20 cents.
Value of Sodium Cyanid for Fumigation Purposes. (Entomology Bulletin 90, pt.

II.) 1913. Price, 5 cents.
Chemistry of Fumigation with Hydrocyanic-acid Gas. (Entomology Bulletin 90,

pt. III.) 1913. Price, 5 cents.
White Flies Injurious to Citrus in Florida. (Entomology Bulletin 92.) 1911. Price,

25 cents.
Orange Thrips, Report of Progress. (Entomology Bulletin 99, pt. I.) 1911. Price,

5 cents.
Red-banded Thrips. (Entomology Bulletin 99, pt. II.) 1912. Price, 5 cents.
Natural Control of White Flies in Florida. (Entomology Bulletin 102.) 1912. Price,

20 cents.
44

O

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 641

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management

W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief

Washington, D. C.

March 4, 1918

FARM PRACTICE IN THE PRODUCTION OF HAY IN STEUBEN
COUNTY, N. Y., AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, PA.

(A detailed study of the amount of labor required per acre and per ton for each
operation, and the machinery charges per acre and per ton.)

By H. B. McCltre. Agriculturist.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Object and scope 1

Facts brought out 1

Description of the areas 2

Page.

Labor charges for dilTerent operations 4

Machinery charges 12

Total cost of producing hay 14

OBJECT AND SCOPE.

Since hay is very susceptible to damage by bad weather at harvest
time, and often demands attention when other farm work is pressing,
the problem of getting haying done with a minimum expenditure of
time and labor is of great importance to the hay grower. The object
of this bulletin is to present data that may help the farmer in solving
this problem.

The figures on labor and other factors of production given in the
following pages were obtauied in a study of hay production made
in 1915 on 52 farms in Steuben County, N. Y., and on 37 farms in
Washington County, Pa. The methods used by hay growers are
practically the same for both of these sections, so that results for each
operation are comparable.^

FACTS BROUGHT OUT.

The total items of production, including labor, machinery charges,
interest on hay land, taxes, and seed, averaged $5 per ton for the
New York area and S6.10 for the Pennsylvania area, with an average
yield of about one and a half tons per acre.

1 Acknowledgment is due to Mr. Robert W. Meyer for vaiuabla assistance in the collection of the data
discussed in this bulletin.
18024°— 18

2 BULLETIISr 641, JJ. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

It was found that the amount of man labor required to produce a
ton of hay averaged 4.2 hours for the 52 farms studied in the New
York and 5.23 hours for the 37 farms in the Pennsylvania area. The
number of hours of horse labor is almost the same as the number of
man hours, 4.22 per ton for New York and 5 for Pennsylvania.

About 36 per cent of all hay produced on the New York farms was
sold, while but 17 per cent from the Pennsylvania area reached the
market.

The average life of hay meadows was 3.66 years for the New York
farms and 4.10 years for the Pennsylvania farms.

The average farm value of hay on December 1 for a period of 10
years (1906-1915) was $14.62 per ton for the New York farms and
$15.14 for the Pennsylvania farms. With a yield of about one and a
half tons per acre, there is an excess over cost of production of $9.62
per ton for the New York farms and $9.04 per ton for the Pennsyl-
vania farms in the farm value of No. 1 hay, wliich indicates that under
average conditions hay growing is a profitable farm enterprise in these

areas

DESCRIPTION OF AREAS STUDIED.

Steuben County, N. Y., is one of the more important hay-producing
counties in the State. It ranks among the first 10 in total produc-
tion, both of timothy alone and timothy and clover mixed hay.

In general the surface in this county is very uneven, being broken
by a series of long, rather steep hills and moderately broad valleys.
The important towns in most cases are connected by good pike roads,
which are a great asset in marketing farm crops.

In Washington County, Pa., the hills are of sUghtly less elevation
than those in the New York area, though the slopes are steeper. In
the main, however, the topography is the same with reference to
f acihtv for making liav.

SIZE OF FARMS.

The average size of the farms studied in Pennsjdvania was 171
acres; of the New York farms, 202 acres. (See Table II.) The
tillable area per farm is about the same in each State, approximately
156 acres. On the New York farms 35 per cent of the tillable area is
in hay, as compared to 26 per cent on the Pennsylvania farms. There
is no apparent reason for this large difference in hay area. Wash-
ington County is close to the Pittsburgh market, where there is a con-
stant demand for hay, while the hay from Steuben County must be
shipped much farther to market — to Buffalo or New York City.

Table I, compiled from census figures (1910 report), gives statistics
on the per cent of land in hay for both counties. The per cent of
tillable area in hay for each county as a whole is lower than that for
the farms where the records were taken. (Compare with Table II.)

FARM PRACTICE IX PRODUCTIOX OF HAY,

Table I. — Per cent of farm land in hay and amount of haij produced.
(From 13th Census Report, 1910.)

Item

Land in farms (acres)

Improved land in farms

(acres)

Per cent of farm land im-
proved

Per ^'ent of farm land in tame

and cultivated hay

Timothy alone

Timothy and clover,
mixed

Steuben

Coimty,

N. Y.

Wash-
ington
County,
Pa."

818,373
599,303

22.5
10.3

503,923
432,001

17.3
12.7

4.3

Item.

Steuben

County,

N. Y.

Per cent of improved land in
tame and cultivated hay ... 30. 8

Timothy alone 14.1

Timothy and clover,

mixed 16. 1

Production (in tons): 1

Tame and cultivated hay. ' 184, 767

Timothyalone 84,362

Timothy and clover,
mixed 9i3, 405

Wash-
ington
County,
Pa."

20.2
U.8

87,292
64,014

Table II. — Size of farm and per cent of land in hay.

Item.

37 farms in

Washington

County,

Pa.

Average size of farm (acres) . . .

Tillable area (acres)

Per cent of farm land tillable. .

Land in hay (acres):

Per cent of total farm land
Per cent of tillable land. . .

171.00
156.00
90.8

24.1
26.5

AMOUNT OF HAY SOLD.

Four-fiftlis of the farms studied in the New York area and two-
thirds of those studied in the Pennsylvania area sell more or less hay.
As shown in Table III, almost half of the hay grown on the New
York farms that sold hay is marketed, while only about one-thnd is
sold by the Pennsjdrania farms that grew^ for the market.

Table III. — Amount of hay grown fur market.

Item.

Steuben

County,

N. Y.

Washington

County,

Pa.

52
43
44

37

21

30

LABOR RATE.

On these farms labor is usually at a premium during harvest time.
In both regions the season in w^hich first-class hay can be made is
limited to about 10 working days. On nearly aU of the farms in
each section the farm owner works in the hay field, and in this study
the owners' labor has been given the same value as that of hired help.
The man-labor rate has been fixed at 20 cents an hour, which is wdiat
the farmer has to pay during the hay-malcing season. By assuming
a single rate for all man labor and not allowing a higher rate for the

4 BULLETIN 641, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

owner (though the latter, of coui-se, is also a manager), the results
obtained show the average labor requirements for each operation.
Horse labor is fixed at 13 cents an hour.

LABOR CHARGES FOR DIFFERENT OPERATIONS.

SEEDING.

On all the farms studied it is customary either to sow timothy in
the fall on wheat with clover following in the spring or to sow both
in the spring with oats, using the grain drill. There is no charge for
horse labor used, for when seeding is not done by the drill with grain
it is done by hand, either broadcast or by the use of a mechanical
seeder, and the seed is sufficiently covered by the spring thaw.

In the New York area wheelbarrow seeders are used on 17 out of
the 52 farms and ''hand" seeders on 1.3 farms. The other 22 farms
sow grass seed and clover in the grain drill with oats. In Pennsyl-
vania 11 farms use hand seeders and the rest seed broadcast by hand.
(See Table IV.)

About the same amount of work can be done per day with each
method of hand seeding, the average being 16.80 acres for the New
York farms and 15.50 acres for the Pennsylvania farms. A man can
seed by hand between 1^ and If acres per hour. The cost of labor
for seeding, spread over the life of the meadow, is 2 cents per ton
per year in each State. Tliere is a slight variation in the average life
of the meadows.

Table IV. — Cost of hand seeding.

Item.

Number seeding by hand

Average life of meadow, including years used for pasture (years)
Seeded by hand (acres)

Tons produced

Hours of man labor:

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

Amount seeded:

Per day (acres)

Per hour (acres)

Cost of man labor (at 20 cents per hour):

Per day

Per acre

Per hour

Cost per year during life of meadow and pasture:

Per acre

Per ton

52 farms
Steuben
County,
N. Y.

30

3.66
1.411
2,116

9.43
.561
.374

16.80

,20 tons)

1.76

,67 tons)

$1.88
.122
.075

.030
.020

37 farms in ■

Washington

County,

Pa."

37
4.10
1.411
2,201

10.0
.643
.412

15.54

(24.24 tons)

1.55

1 2.42 tons)

$2.00
.128
.082

.031

AMOUNT OF SEED GROWN.

The New York farmers visited sow 2.23 pounds less of timothy
and 0.62 pound more of clover seed per acre than do the Penn-
sylvania farmers. The initial cost of seed is practically the same in

FARM PRACTICE IN PRODUCTION OF HAY. 5

both areas, averaging in 1915 about $2.15 per acre and 11.41 per
ton for the first crop of hay. (See Table V.)

The average life of the meadow, including years used for pasture,
is 0.68 year longer for the Pennsylvania farms than for the New
York farms. The cost of seed per ton per year of meadow life is 7
cents less for the Pennsylvania group than for the New York group.

The yield per acre has an important })earing on the seed cost per

ton of hay. In the New York area, for example, where the lowest

yield found on an individual farm was 1 ton per acre, and the highest

3 tons per acre, the seed cost per ton of hay is $0.62 for the 1-ton-

per-acre farm, while the seed cost for the 3-ton-per-acre farm is

only $0.20.

Table V.^ — Cost of seed and amount soivn in 1915.

Item.

Amoixnt of timothy sowti, per acre:

Pounds ."

Quarts

Cost of timothy seed, per acre, at $3.40 per bushel
Amoimt of clover sown, per acre:

Poimds

Quarts

Cost of seed, per acre, at $9.2.5 per bushel

Cost of timolliy and clover seed, per acre

Cost of seed per year during life of meadow:

Per acre ."

Per ton

i.535
343

MOWING.

In the New York area the 5-foot mower is used almost exclusively.
Only a few 6-foot mowers and no 7-foot mowers are used. In the
Pennsylvania area the 6-foot mower predominates, though a few
7-foot machines are used. The hay cut per horn-, however, is about
the same for each State, averaging 1 ton. The acreage grown per
farm in the New York group is about two-thirds more than the
average per farm in the Pennsylvania group. In Pennsylvania,
while a larger mower is used, the fields are smaller, which necessitates
more waste time in mowing. Another factor that would tend to
decrease the amount mowed per hour in Pennsylvania is that the
surface is more broken. The hiUs are steeper in general than in New
York, where the topography is more gently sloping. The cost per
ton for labor for mowing is about 28 cents in each case. (See
Table VI.)

BULLETIN 641, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGE'ICULTUEE.

Table VI. — Cost of mowing.

Item.

52 farms in
Steuben
County,

N. y:

37 farms in

"Washington

County

Pa."

Amount produced per year (tons)

n 4,047
1.50
5.14

-•IS. 410
e 1,604

8.36
.935
.622

$1.67
$0. 187
$0. 124

16.72
1.870
1.246

$2.17
.243
.162

$3.84
.430
. 280

6 2,201
1.56

Yield per acre (tons)

AVidth of mower (feet)

5 92

Man labor:

Hay mowed per dav (tons)

d 16 400

Hay mowed per hour (tons)

' 1 685

Hours of labor—

Per day

9 73

Per acre

925

Per ton

593

Cost of man labor, at 20 cents per hour—
Per day

$1 94

Per acre

$0 185

Per ton

$0 lis

Horse labor:

Hours of labor—

Per day

19 46

1 850

Per ton

1 186

Per day

$2 53

Per acre

.240

Per ton

154

Cost of man and horse labor:

Per day

$4.47

425

Per ton

•>79

a 2,698 acres. '' 1,411 acres. c 8.940 acres. d lO.olO acres.

< 1.070 acres. / 1.080 acres.

The tedder is used on over half of the farms in both States. The
acreage tedded per hour averages 1.62 acres for the New York group
and 1.28 for the Pennsylvania group. The average width of tedders
used on the New York farms is 1.9 feet more than the average for
those used hj the Pennsylvania farms, which would account for the
fact that 0.3 acre more work is done per hour in New York than in
Pennsylvania. (See Table VII.)

The acreage of hay actually tedded per year is probably less than
the figures would indicate, for when weather conditions are favorable
it is not necessary to ted all of the hay unless the crop is heavy. On
the farms using tedders, however, it was assumed in this study that
all hay was tedded. The cost per ton for tedding is 19 cents for the
New York group and 23 cents fpr the PennsA'lvania group.

Table VII. — Cost of tedding.

Item.

Number of farms using tedder

Amount tedded per year (total tons) .

Yield per acre (tons)

Width of tedder (feet)

Man labor:

Hay tedded per day (tons)

Hay tedded per hom- (tons)

Hoiirs of labor —

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

a 1,461 acres.

>> 926 acres.

12.07 acres.

'' 12.66 acres.

52 farms in
Steuben
County,

N. Y".

29
o 2, 191
1.50
8.76

<: 18. 10
'■2.43

37 farms in

Washington

County,

Pa.

21

b 1,444
1.56
6.85

d 19. 75
/ 1.99

7.45
.617
.441

/ 1.28 acres

9.90

.782
.501

FARM PRACTICE IX PRODUCTION OF HAY.

Table Yll.—Cost

of tedding —

ontinued.

Item.

52 farms in

Steuben

Count J',

N. Y.

37 farms in

Washington

County,

ra.'

Man labor— Continupd.

Tost of man lalior, at 20 cents per hour—

SI. 49
.123

.0S2

14.90
1.234
.,S22

■

$1.93
.160
.107

.S3. 42
.283
1 .189

SI. 98

.156

.100

Horse lal)or:

Hours of labor-

19. 80

1..560

1.001

Cost of horse labor, at 13 cents per hour-

$2.57

.202

.130

Cost of man and hor.se lal)or:

S4.55

.358

.230

RAKING.

The common two-horse dump rake is generally used hy the farmers
of both groups. Both the side-dehvery rake and side-deUvery tedder
are used to a certain extent. Neither bunching nor gleaning is prac-
ticed, except by a few farmers. (See Table VIII.)

Wider rakes, b}- 0.18 foot, are used in the New York farms than
on the Pennsylvania farms. The amount of hay raked per houi* is
about 2.3 acres for New York and 2.0 acres for Pennsylvania. The
cost of labor per ton for raking is 13 cents for New York and 15 cents
for Pennsylvania.

The cost of raking is one factor in haymaking costs that can some-
times be reduced materially by using a boy to operate the rake.

Table VIII. — Cost of raking.

Item.

Number of farms using rake

Yield per acre (tons)

Width of ralie (feet)

Man labor:

Hay raked per day (tons)

Hay raked per hoiir (tons)

Hours of labor —

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

Cost of man labor, at 20 cents per hour —

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

Horse labor:

Hours of labor—

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

Cost of horse labor, at 13 cents per hour —

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

Cost of man and horse labor:

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

52 farms in
Steuben
County,

n.y:

37 farms in
Washing-
ton County,
Pa.

52
1.50
10.83

37
1.56
10.65

"25.95
'• 3. 442

6 24.42
d 3. 010

7.54
.436
.290

8.11
.518
.332

$1.51

.087
.058

SI. 62
.103
.066

1.5.08

.872
.580

16.22
1.036
.664

?L96
.113
.075

S2.10
.134
.086

$3.47
.200
.133

83.72
.237
.151

a 17.30 acres

'? 1.930 acres.

8 BULLETIN 641, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

LOADING. HAULING, AND PUTTING HAY INTO THE BARN.

The crew most generally used in the New York area is one of four
men and two horses. On the 52 New York farms there were found
30 four-man crews, 13 three-man crews, 7 two-man crews, 1 eight-
man crew, and 1 six-man crew. Small crews do not as a rule keep
any horse or team at the barn, the team used for hauhng being also
used for hoisting. (See figs. 1 and 2.)

In the cases of about half of the four-man crews one man remains
at the barn to drive the team :n the hay fork while unloading, and
does nothing at other times. In such cases the fourth man is usually
an old man or boy unable to work at loading. The four-man arrange-
ment allows two men to work in the mow, enough to put the hay away
in good shape.

Fig. l.-Hay loador in operation. The loader saves time and puts hay on the wagon more cheaply than

it can be pitched by hnnd.

T^Tien six, seven, or more men are used, there is a barn crew of from
three to four who do all of the unloading, the driver unhitcliing from
the load when reaching the barn and taking an empty wagon back to
the field. The two-man crew allows one man to work in the mow
and one to stick the hay fork and drive the hoisting team.

In the Pennsylvania area there were found 4 four-man crews, 27
tln-ee-man crews, 1 two-man crew, 3 seven-man crews, and 2 six-man
crews. (See Table IX. )

The amount of hay handled per crew per hour is about 1.50 tons
for the New York group and 1 for the Pennsylvania group, at a cost
of 60 cents and 96 cents, respectively.

FARM PRACTICE IX PRODUCTION OF HAY,

Fic. 2.— Unloading hay at the barn with horse power. This nietlioil is much more rapid than unload-
ing by hand, and horses do the hard part of the work.

Table IX. — Cost ofhringirig hay from the field and putting into ham.

Item.

Amount produced per year (tons)

Yield per acre (tons)

Average number of men in crew

Man laijor:

Hay handled per day (tons)

Hay handled per hour (tons )

H ours of labor per day

Man hours —

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

Cost of man labor, at 20 cents per hour—

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

Horse labor:

Average number of horses used

Hours of horse labor —

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

Cost of horse labor, at 13 cents per hour-

Per day

Per acre

Per ton

Cost of man and horse labor:

Per day

'Per acre

Per ton

52 farms in
Steuben
Count V,

n.y:

cll.
el.

So,

047

.50

66

970
480
09

r5,5

71.5

475

93
743
495

37 farms in
Washing-
ton County,
Pa. "

.17

.275

.516

.36

.295

.197

.29

. OSS
.692

&2,201
1.56
3.57

d9.375

M.080

8.67

31.86
5. 300
3.400

S6.37
1.060

2.27

20.11
3.346
2.145

S2.61
.435
.279

1.495
. 9.59

a 2,988 acres,
fc 1,411 acres.

c 7.980 acres,
d 6.010 acres.

10 BULLETIN 641, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ACxRICULTUEE.

LENGTH OF WORKING DAY AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED.

The hours of labor and amount of work done for each of the haying
operations on the farms studied is shown in Table X.

Table X. — Hours of work per day and amount accomplished in hay-making operations.

' >peration.

52 farms in Steuben County. ?». Y.

Seeding hy hand

Mowing

Tedding

Raking

Loading, hauling, and
putting into barn

Farms Hours
report- | worked
ing each per daj-
opera- per
tion. man.

9.43
8.36
7.45

7.54

8.09

Hours

worked

per day

per

horse.

Amount of

hay handled

per day.

Acres. Tons.

16.72
14. 9()
15.08

16.80

8.94 I 13.41
12.07 ! 18.10
17..30 i 25.95

7.98 11.97

37 farms in Washington County, Pa,.

Farms
report-
ing each
opera-
tion.

Amount of
Hours Hours hav handled
worked worked per day.
per day per day I

per I per I ^

man. 1 horse. Acres. Tons.

10.00
9.73
9.90
8.11

19.46
19.80
16.22

8.67 , 20.11

15. .54
10. 51
12.66
15. 65

6.01

16.40
19.75
24i42

9.37

WORK ACCOMPLISHED PER HOUR.

The work accomplished per hour, under average conditions, is
shown in Table XI. For all farms studied the average per hour for
seeding is 1.66 acres; for mowing, 1.07 acres; for tedding, 1.45 acres;
for raking, 2.65 acres; and for loading, hauling, and putting into the
barn, 3.61 tons. The operation of loading, hauling, and putting into
barn is performed by tlu-ee men or four men, depending upon the
length of haul and the adaptabilit}^ and efficiency of the men.

Table XI may be of some assistance to those who wish to make
plans for harvesting hay, acreage and length of working day being
known :

Table XI. — Amount of hay handled per hour.

< >peration.

Seeding

Mowing

Tedding

Raking

Loading, haul-
ing, and put-
ting into barn

52 farms in Steuben County, X. Y.

37 farms in Washington County, Pa.

Farms
report-
ing each
opera-
tion.

Num- Num-

(feet) ^^'^'^°^ ^"^'""'^
ueet;. ^^j^_ horses.

Width i

1

5.14

1

8.76

1

10. S3

1

3.66 2.23

Acras.

1.780
1.070
1.620
2. 295

1.604
2.430
3.442

Farms
report-
ing each
opera-
tion.

Width
(feet).

5.92
6.85
10.65

Num-
ber of
men.

Num-
ber of
horses.

2.27

1.5.50
1.080
1.280
1.930

.693

Tons.

1.685
1.990
3.010

FABM PEACTICE IX PRODUCTION OF HAY.
AMOUNT OF LABOR REQUIRED PER ACRE AND PER TON.

11

The amount of labor required per acre and per ton on the farms
studied is shown in Table XII :

Table XII. — Labor required per acre and per ton for different operations.

MEN.

Operation.

Seedins; by hand a

Mowins;. ."

TeddinV

RakiTig

Loading, unloading and putting
into bam

52 farms in Steuben County, N. Y.

Farms
reporting

each
operation

Total.

Num-
ber of
men.

Man-hours.

Per
acre.

0.561
.935
.617
.436

3.715

6. 264

Per
ton.

0.622
.441
.290

37farms in Washington County, Pa.

Farms
reporting

each
operation.

4.202

Num-
ber of
men.

Man-hours.

Per
acre.

0.643
.925

.782
.518

3.57 5.300

8.168

Per
ton.

0. .593
..501
.332

3.400

n Actual amount of labor required to seed an acre and not prorated for life of meadow.

HORSKS.

Operation.

Mowing

Tedding ..,',

Raking

Loading, unloading, and putting
into bam

' Horse-hours.

Farms Num-

reporting ber of

each I horses. Per Per
operation. acre. ton.

Farms xt„_

reporting! k" ,

each "I her of

operation ^^o^ses.

1.870
1.234

.872

2.23 2.275

1.246
.882
.580

1.516

2
2
2

2.27

Total 1 6.251

4.224

Horse-hours.

Per
acre.

1.850
1.560
1.036

3.346

7.792

Per

ton.

1.186

1.001

.664

2.145

COMPARISON OF LABOR COSTS FOR DIFFERENT OPERATIONS.

The cost of man and horse labor for the different operations is
shown in Table XIII. The total labor cost per ton for the New York
group is $1.31, and for the Pennsylvania gi'oup, $1.63. The differ-
ence in cost is due almost entirely to the cost of loading, hauling, and
putting into the barn, which is 32 cents higher in Pennsylvania than
in New York. The costs for other operations show only very slight
differences.

12

BULLETIN 641, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Taule XIII. — Cost of man labor and of horse labor prr acre and per ton for different

operations.

MAN LABOR.

52 farms

n Steuben County,
N. Y.

37 farms in Wasiiington Coun-
ty, Pa.

Operation.

Farms.

Cost.

Farms.

Cost.

Per acre.

Per ton.

Per acre.

Per ton.

30
52
29
52

52

$0,030
.187
.123
.087

.743

$0. 020
.124
.082
.058

.495

37
37
21
37

37

$0,031
.185
.156
.103

1.060

$0,020

.118

Tedding

.100

.066

Loading, unloading, and putting into tiie
bam

.680

Total

1.170

.779

1.535

.984

a Cost during life of meadow.
HORSE LABOR.

52
29
52
52

80.243
.160
.113
.295

.$0. 162
.107
.075
.197

37
21
37
37

$0. 240
.202
.134
.435

SO. 1.54

Tedding

.130

.085

Loading, hauling, and putting into barn —

.279

Total

.811

.541

1.011

.648

1.981

1.310

2.546

1.632

MACHINERY CHARGES.

Haying machinery is used but a few days per year on these farms.
When ordinary care is used in operating machinery, the cost of re-
pairs is but a small portion of the total cost of production. Machinery
charges include repairs, interest, and depreciation or replacement,
but not the value of labor in making repairs, regarding which it was
not possible to get accurate data. However, this item is not im-
portant.

Interest on machinery, in most cases, equals the cost of repairs.
It has been figured at 5 per cent, which is the prevailing rate in each
region. (wSoe Table XIV.)

Table XIV. — Repairs, interest, and depreciation on hay machinery.
REPAIRS.

52 farms in Steuben County, N. Y.

37 farms in A\'ashington County, Pa.

Kind of
machine.

Farms
report-
ing.

Cost.

Farms
report-
ing.

Cost.

Per

day
used.

Per

year.

Total
for
life.

Per

acre.

Per
ton.

Per

day
used.

Per
year.

Total
for
life.

Per

acre.

Per

ton.

30
52
29
52

I

Mowers

Tedders

Rakes

10. 295
.148
.226

$1. 52
.60
.64

$16. 19
10.24
11.26

$0. 033
.012
.013

$0. 022
.008
.008

37 $0,328
21 . 140
37 . 118

ji.igo $17.20

.488 11.84
.289 7.28

$0. 031
.011
.007

$0,020
.007
.004

FARM PRACTICE IX PRODUCTION OF HAY. 13

Table XIV. — Repairs, interest, ami (h prceiation on luii/ vuirhlnrr:/ — (".uitiiuiod.

INTEREST.

52 farms in Steuben County, N. Y.

37 farms in Washington County, Pa.

Kind of
machine.

Farms
report-
ing.

Cost.

Fajms
report-
ing.

Cost.

Per

day
used.

Per
year.

Total
for
life.

Per Per
acre, i ton.

Per
day
used.'

Per
year.

Total
for
life.

Per
acre.

Par
ton.

Hancl seeders.
Vv'lieei barrow-

17
13

$0. 058

.340
.235
.204
.222

$0,052

.271
1.200
.819
.629

SI. 02

4.75
12.78
14.07
11.08

$0. 004

.019
.027
.017
.013

?0. 003

.012
.018
.011
.008

11

80. 091

$0. 051

$1. 05

$0. 006

$0,004

Mowers

Tedders

Rakes

52
29

52

37
21

37

.315

.226
.310

1.141

.784
.757

16.51
19. 03
19.07

.030
.017
.019

.019
.011
.012

REPAIRS,

INTEREST,

AND

DEPRECIATION.

Hand seeders.
Wheelbarrow

17

13

52
29
52

SO. 172

1.078
1. 330

.805
.927

$0. 155

.86
6.83
3.25
2.62

$3.02

15. 05
72.83
55. 45
46.20

80. Oil

.061
.148
.066
.053

80.007

.040
.099
.044
.035

11

80. 262

$0. 146

$3.00

$0. 017

$0. OH

Mowers

I'edders

Rakes

37
21
37

1.450
.711
.903

5.280
2.470
2.200

76.46
61.02

55.48

.138

.o-e

.057

.088
.036
.037

WORK DONE BY MACHINERY.

Table XV shows the amount of work done by machinery in acres
and in tons per day, per year, and dm-ing its life. On the Pennsyl-
vania farms, mowers, tedders, and rakes cover a greater acreage
during life than they do on the New York farms.

Table XV. — Service rendered by machinery.
52 FARMS IN STEUBEN COUNTY", N. Y.

Farms
report-
ing.

Width of
machine.

Amount of hay handled.

Kind of machine.

Per day.

Per

year.

Total dm-ing
life.

.\cres.

Tons.

Acres.

Tons.

Acres.

Tons.

Hand seeders

17
13
52
29
52

Feet.

15. 53
17.69
8.94
12.07
17.30

'"26." .53'
13.41
18.10
25.95

13.99
14.11
46.10
48. 65
49.00

"'2i."i6"
69. 15

82.97
73.50

271. 20
247. 00
490. 00
SU.OO
862. 00

406. 80

370. ,50

5.14
8.76
10.82

735. 00

Tedders

1,247.00

Rakes

1,293.60

37 FARMS IN

WASHINGTON COUNTY, PA.

11

15.00

8.37

171.00

273. 20

37
21

37

5. 92
6.85
10. 65

10.51
12.66
15.65

16.40
19.75
24.42

38.13
44.10
38.14

59.50
68.80
59.50

551. 00

1,070.00

961. 00

859. 50

Tedders . . . ..

1,670.00

Rakes

1,498.00

LIFE OF MACHINERY.

Table XVI shows the service rendered by machinery in days used,
per year and for its hfe. Mowers are used about the same number
of days in each region. Tedders are used 16 more days and rakes

14

BULLETIN 641, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

11 more days on the Pennsylvania farms than on the New York
farms. All haying machinery is well taken care of in both sections.
The practice of allowing machinery to stand out of doors, customary
in some parts of the middle west, is not common in the east.

Table XVI. — Life of machinery and number of days used.

Kiiid of machine.

52 farms in Steuben County,
N. Y.

37 farms in Washington County,
Pa.

Farms
report-
ing.

Hand seeders

Wheelbarrow seeders.

Mowers

Tedders

Rakes

Days
used
per
year.

0.904
.797
5. 1.50
4. 030
2. 830

Years'
service.

19.40
17.50
10.65
17.07
17.60

Days

used

during

life.

17.52
13. 96
54.80
68.85
49.80

Farms
report-
ing.

Days
use"d
per
year.

3. 620
3. 4S()
2. 430

Years'
service.

14.46
24. 28
25.20

Days

used

during

life.

52. 42
84. .■)()
61.40

In Table XVII are sho^vn comparative figures on interest and
taxes on hay land for the two regions :

Table XVII. — Interest and taxes on hay land.

Item.

Average value of entire farm

Average value of hay land

Interest on hay land at 5 per cent

Taxes on hay land

Interest and taxes

52 farms in Steuben
County, N. Y.

37 farms in Wash-
ington County,
Pa.

Per acre. Per ton. Per acre. Per ton

S55. 35

80.10

4.00

.801

4. 801

$2,670

. .534

3.204

$72.84
105. 40
5.27
1.054
6.324

$3. 380

.675

4.055

TOTAL COST OF PRODUCING HAY.

In Table XVIII is given a summary of the cost of all labor, of
machinery charges, seed cost, taxes, and interest on hay land. This
amounts to $5 per ton for the New York farms and $6.10 for the
Pennsylvania farms. This cost is obtained by prorating the cost of
seeding, tedding, etc., to cover the total hay area sm'veyed in each
section.^

Table XIX presents the cost of producing hay on farms where there
is a charge for seeding and tedding. The cost of these operations,
machinery charges, seed cost, taxes, and interest on land, amount to
$7,704 per acre and $5,154 per ton for the New York and $9,673 per
acre and $6,202 per ton for the Pennsylvania group.

On farms where hay is not seeded with a grain crop, but where
the seed bed is prepared especially, there will be an additional labor
charge of perhaps from 75 cents to $1 per acre per year, depending
upon the life of the meadow.

1 Commercial fertilizers are used very little in the areas studied, and not at all on the hay crop. Hence
there is no charge for fertilizers.

FARM PEACTICE IX PRODUCTIOX OF HAY,

15

Table XVIII. — Cost of man and horse labor, repairs, interest, and depreciation on
viachinery fur haying operations.

52 farms in Steuben Count

',N.Y.

37 farms

in "Washington County,
Pa.

Operation.

Farms
report-
ing each
opera-
tion.

Cost.

Farms
report-
ing each
opera-
tion.

Cost.

Per
day.

Per
acre.

Per
ton.

Per
day.

Per
acre.

Per

ton.

Seeding; with hand seeder

Seeding with wheelbarrow seeder.
Average for seeding

17
13
30
52
29
52

52

«2.052
2.958
2.553
5.170
4. 225
4.397

8.290
24.635

$0. Oil
.091
.065
..578
..349
.253

1.038
2.283

$0,027
.060
.042
.385
.2.33
.168

.692
1.520

11

$2.26

.$0. 048

$0,031

11
37
21
37

37

2.26
5.920
5.261
4.623

8.980
27.024

.048
..563
.414
.294

1.495
2.814

.031
.360

Tedding

.266

RaV-ing

.188

Loading, hauling, and putting
into barn ... . . .

.959

1.804

Table XIX. — Actual cost of producing 4JU7 tons of hay on 52 farms in Steuben County,
N. Y., and 2,201 tons on 37 farms in Washington County, Pa.

Item of cost.

Preparing seed bed

Seeding

Mowing

Tedding _

Raking '

Loading, hauling, and putting into barn

Repairs, interest, and depreciation on hay loaders.

Seed

Taxes and 5 per cent of hay land .

Total

Cost of man and horse labor, repairs, interest,
and depreciation on machinery.

52 farms in Steuben
County, N. Y.

37 farms in 'Washington
County, ]'a.

6.100

COST OF BALING HAY.

Only a small per cent of tlie liay producers in the areas surveyed
own their own hay presses. Most of the market hay is baled by the
country buyer and shipper, or else by custom balers. Tlie customary
price for baling is $1.50 per ton, and often the hay grower is expected
to fm'nish one or two pitchers and board the press crew of three or
four men. With the ordinary crew this brings the cost of pressing
up to about $2 per ton.^

COST OF HAULING TO MARKET.

It is almost impossible to determine the average cost of hauling
hay to market without making special time studies, since hay is
marketed in quantities varying from a ton to a carload. Tliis opera-
tion is usually performed by farm man labor and horse labor, and
not by those making a business of hauling, as is the case in the
^Middle West, where hay is grown on a more extensive scale. The

1 Considerable information secured in this study on the management of baling crews and the cost of
baling will be pubUshed in other bulletins.

16

BULLETIN 641, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

condition of the roads has a decided influence on the cost, as l^ad
roads make it impossible to haul a full load and necessitate a longer
time per trip.

From the report of 25 farmers in the New York area it was fomid
that the average distance to market was 3 miles and the cost of
hauling 70 cents per ton.

Table XX. — Labor cost per ton when the yield varies. {52 farms in Steuben

County, iV.'y.)

Operation.

Labor cost per ton when
yield is —

3 tons per 1.50 tons 1 ton per
acre. per acre. acre.

Seeding..
Mowing -
Tedding.

Raking.

Loading, liauling, and unloading.

Total

$0. 021
.192
.116
.084
.692

$0,042
.385
.233
.168
.692

SO. 063
.577
.349
.252
.692

1.105

1.520

1.933

^mmd

'^^^^ %?^^<f^^s^^^\^i

Fig. 3. — A good stand of timothy and clover, yielding over two ton.s per acre. The cost of production
decreases and profits increase as the yield per acre increases.

EFFECT OF YIELD ON THE COST OF LABOR PER TON.

Tlie cost of labor per ton is directly afi"ected by yield in see(Ung,
mowing, tedding, and raking, since the amount of work acctsmplished
per hour in these operations is nearly the same for a light yield as
for a heavy one. Even the cost of loading by hand, hauling, and
putting into the barn is but slightly affected by variation in yield.

For the purpose of illustrating the effect of yield upon labor cost
per ton Table XX has been prepared, based on the cost in the New
York area, where the yield is 1.50 tons per acre. It will be seen that
the labor cost per ton decreases as the yield increases, the cost with
a 1-ton yield being almost double the cost with a 3-ton vield. (See
fig. 3.)

WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 642

Contribntion from the Bureau of Animal Industry
JOHN R. MOHLER. Chief

Washington, D. C. T April 30, 1918

THE FOUR ESSENTIAL FACTORS IN

THE PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW

BACTERIAL CONTENT

By

S. HENRY AYERS, LEE B. COOK, and PAUL W. CLEMMER
of the Dairy Division

CONTENTS

Page

Factors Influencing the Sanitary Quality of Milk 1

Objects of the Investigation 3

Description of Barn and Methods Used in the Production of the Milk . . 3

Method of Sampling and Making the Bacterial Count 5

The Experimental Work 5

Contamination of Milk by Unsterilized Utensils 25

Contamination of Milk by Manure and Dirt 32

The Three Most Essential Factors in the Production.of Milk of Low Bacte-
rial Content 38

A Practical Demonstration on Six Farms 39

Bacterial Counts of Fresh Milk on the Average Faim 43

The Effect of Temperature on the Growth of Bacteria in Milk 45

Summary 58

Conclusions 59

Literature Cited 61

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 642

s^t'^^^u

Contribution Trom the Bureau of Animal Industry
JOHN R. MOHLER, Chief

Washington, D. C.

April 30, 1918

THE FOUR ESSENTIAL FACTORS IN THE PRODUCTION OF
MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

By S. Hknry Ayeks, Lee B. Cook, and I'aul W. Clemmer, of the Dairy Division.^

CONTENTS.

Factors influencing the sanitary quality of
milk 1

Objects of the investigation 3

Description of barn and methods used in the
production of the milk 3

Method of sampling and making the bacterial
count 5

The experimental work 5

Contamination of railk by unsterilized uten-
sils 25

Contamination of milk by manure and dirt . . . 32

The three most essential factors in the produc-
tion of milk of low bacterial content 38

A practical demonstration on six farms 39

Bacterial counts of fresh milk on the average

farm 43

The effect of temperature on the growth of

bacteria in milk 45

Summary 5S

Conclusions 59

Literature cited 61

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SANITARY QUALITY OF MILK.

The production of milk of a high sanitary quality involves a
knowledge of the influence of numerous factors. Whether these fac-
tors are all grouped under one head and considered as a single unit
or are grouped into several units, each directly connected with a
separate phase of the production of sanitary milk, may not at first
thought be of any importance.

Consideration of that point, however, must lead to the view that
to deal intelligently with the factors which influence the sanitary
quality of milk they must be grouped in such way as to bring to-
gether those which are of importance in connection with a definite
phase of production. As an example, the question of abundant light

1 The authors acknowledge their indebtedness to T. E. Woodward, of the Dairy Division ;
also to W. R. Hale and W. F. Turner, formerly of this division, who made the work
possible through their supervision of the experimental barn. They also extend their
thanks to the dairy farmers near Grove City, Pa., and to R. R. Welch, of this division,
who assisted in making a practical demonstration of the work.
18989°— IS— Bull. 642 1

2 BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

may be mentioned. It has long been recognized that an abundance
of light is necessary for the production of high-grade milk, but that
factor must first be placed under a certain group of factors before
it can be adjudged correctly. Depending upon whether it bears a
direct relation to the bacterial content of milk or exerts a marked
influence on the health and comfort of the cattle, it should be grouped
accordingly.

In view of these facts, the following group of factors have been
selected as a means of clarifying the subject:

1. Factors concerned in the production of milk wliich is practically free from
visible dirt and which has a low bacterial content.

2. Factors most directly concerned in the prevention of the infection of milk
with pathogenic organisms.

3. Factors of importance in connection with the health of the cattle.

4. Factors concerned in providing and maintaining conditions suitable for
the production of a food prod,uct, even though they may not directly affect the
quality of the product.

It is realized that some factors may enter into more than one of
the groups above, but their greatest importance can generally be
assigned to one definite group. For example, the sterilization of
utensils is of primary importance in the production of milk of low
bacterial content, but it is also a measure in the prevention of infec-
tion with pathogenic organisms.

This paper considers only the factors in group 1; that is, those
concerned in the production of milk practically free from visible
dirt and of low bacterial content.

It is not to be questioned that milk of low bacterial content may be
produced under conditions in which every possible factor is con-
trolled, but it is reasonable to suppose that, relatively speaking, some
factors may be of more importance than others. It may be possible,
therefore, on the average farm, to produce milk of low bacterial con-
tent by the combination of a certain few factors which affect the
quality of milk more than others. Some of the factors have been
extensively investigated, and the results of much excellent work per-
taining to the subject have been published. Such work, however,
has dealt largely with the value of one factor or with the compara-
tive importance of two or more factors. In our work the problem
has been studied from a somewhat different angle.

The endeavor has been to determine methods for the production
of milk of low bacterial content in the barn of the ordinary type.
The experimental work was confined to a study of conditions which
affect the bacterial content of milk sufficiently to be measured. \Vliile
it is realized that many conditions under which milk is produced
may affect its quality from a sanitary or economic standpoint, no at-
tempt was made to study them unless they could be measured in terms
of the bacterial count.

^

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT. 6

OBJECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION.

The objects of the investigation may be outlined as follows :

1. To work on only frosli milk at Ihc time of milking, in order to eliminate
the factor of bacterial growth.

2. To obtain conditions as bad as possible in an experimental barn in order
to improve them and also to determine tlie number of bacteria in fresh, dirty
milk.

3. To introduce one factor of improvement at a time, so us eventually to
obtain milk of low bacterial content.

4. To return to the dirty conditions and then again produce low-count milk
by the application of the necessary factors with the object of checking the
value of the factors previously determined.

^. To show the relative importance of the selected factors.

6. To use a combination of the essential factors in a practical manner on
farms in order to determine their value when used by the average farmer.

7. To show the growth of bacteria in various grades of milk (graded from
a bacterial standpoint) when held for different periods of time at various
temperatures.

Since the term " production of milk " is usuall}^ considered to
cover the entire period in which it i.s in the farmer's hands, the bac-
terial content during- production, as used in that sense, must be con-
sidered from two distinct standpoints, first, the bacteria introduced
through contamination, and second, their growth in the milk.

In this paper, however, we shall consider the tenn " production of
milk" to cover only the period from the time the milk leaves the
cow until it is in the delivery cans or bottles, which includes the
time the milk is subject to the usual sources of contamination. The
time the milk is held on the fann will be considered as an entirely
different phase of production, since the bacterial content during that
period is not usually influenced by contamination, but is subject to
increase through bacterial growth.

Particular attention is called to the fact that extreme conditions
of filth were used merely to emphasize the importance of certain
factors. No legitimate excuse can be conceived for the production
of milk from dirty cattle or in a filthy stable,

DESCRIPTION OF BARN AND METHODS USED IN THE PRODUC-
TION OF THE MILK.

For the experiments a small barn was constructed at the Dairy
Division farm at Beltsville. Md., a view of which is shown as figure 1.
The building provided space for four cows and w\as of wooden con-
struction throughout, including floor, gutter, and mangers. The
walls were left in the rough; that is, with exposed beams, etc.
The loft above the cows was constructed of narrow boards laid from
1 to 2 inches apart on crossbeams. From the loft hay was thrown
down and the cows fed just before milking. The stable had two
doors and two windows ; the latter were small and provided only 2

4 BULLETIN 642, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

square feet of light for each cow. Five hundred cubic feet of air
space was provided for each cow. An untrained milker, wearing
ordinary work clothes and giving no special attention to the cleanli-
ness of his hands, was employed to milk and take care of the cows.

During the work the cows were alternated from time to time in
order to equalize any unusual results due to the individual animal.
For example, in working with the small-top and open pails two cows
were milked first into the open pail and a few days later were milked
into the small-top pail.

In all the work the milk was poured unstrained into cans in the
barn. The small-top pail used in the experiments was the type with

Fig. 1. — Experimental barn used iu this iuvestigaiioLi.

a hood or cover on an ordinary pail, as shown in figure 2. Utensils
were sterilized by being placed in a sterilizer, steamed for 30 minutes,
and afterwards allowed to remain there until used. When the uten-
sils were not sterilized they were merely washed clean and inverted
in the milk house. Covers were not placed on the cans, and the
utensils were left in that position until time to milk.

Sterile utensils in the strict sense of the term means their absolute
freedom from living organisms. When the statement is made that
utensils were sterilized it means that they were free from all bacteria
which are destroyed by flowing steam at 100° C. (212° F.). There
are, of course, a few spores which are resistant to flowing steam and
which can be destroyed only by steam of high temperature under
pressure.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

METHOD OF SAMPLING AND MAKING THE BACTERIAL COUNT.

After milking, the cans of milk were promptly carried from the
barn to the milk room, a distance of a few hundred feet, situated in
the same building as the laboratory. Long-handled white-agate
dippers, cleaned between milkings and sterilized just before using,
were used to stir the milk and to take the sample. A separate dipper
was used for each sample, and the milk was poured carefully into
sterile pint bottles, which were immediately closed with sterile caps.
The fact that the
laboratory was
ill the same build-
ing made it pos-
sible to pour the
plates within one
hour after milk-
ing. The same
routine was fol-
lowed at both
morning and eve-
ning milkings,
regardless of how
the other factors
varied. Since
the interpreta-
tion of results
depends partly
on the nature of
the medium and
on its subsequent
incubation it is

neceSSarV to state ^'''" ^" — '^^^*^ small-toi> pall used in the experiments.

exactly how the counts were obtained. For the sake of uniformity
plain-extract agar, prepared according to the revised recommenda-
tions of the Committee on Standard Methods of Bacterial Milk
Analysife,^ was used. The plates were incubated for five days at
30° C. (86° F.) and counted with the aid of a hand glass of three
and one-half diameters magnification.

THE EXPERIMENTAL WORK.

In the experiments the plan was to begin with conditions in which
the barn and cows were as filthy as possible. When those conditions

1 Rochester meeting of American Public Health Association, September, 1915 (Commit-
tee on Standard Methods).

6 BULLETIN 642, tJ. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

were obtained it was the intention, by the gradual elimination of
certain factors which contribute to the contamination of milk, to
produce milk that was practically free from visible dirt and had a
low bacterial content. Following that, the next step was to dupli-
cate the conditions in order to determine again the value of the
essential factors. To show clearly the scope of the work and the
conditions under which the milk was produced, the experiments are
listed in the order in which they were conducted :

Experi-
ment No. Period covered. Conditions.

1. July 22, to August 14, 1915 Cows and floor were dirty and the

manure was removed weekly. The
utensils were not sterilized.

2. September 14 to October 7. 1915 Cows and floor were dirty and the

manure was removed weekly. The
utensils were sterilized.

3. November 10 to 24, 1915 Cows and floor were dirty and the

manure was removed twice a
week. Udders and teats of the
cows were washed and the utensils
Avere sterilized.

4. February 27 to April 10, 1916 Cows were clean and bedded, floor

was clean, and the manure was
removed daily. ladders and teats
of the cows were washed ; also of
two others not washed. The uten-
sils were sterilized.

5. Ai)ril 11 to IMay 6, 1916 Cows and floor were dirty and the

manui'e was removed weekly. The
utensils were sterilized.

6. May 8 to 31, 1916 Cows and floor were dirty and the

manure was removed weekly. The
utensils were not sterilized.

7. June 5 to 13, 1916 Cows aud floor were clean and the

manure was removed daily. Ud-
ders and teats of the cows were
washed and the utensils were
sterilized.

During the dates not covered by the periods above the cows were
kept in the barn and the relative value of the factors was studied by
other methods. The general conditions of the barn as previously
described, method of feeding, etc., were not changed during the
experiments. The results obtained in the various experiments above
outlined will be described in their proper order.

EXPERIMENT NO. 1 (COWS AND FLOOR DIRTY, MANURE REMOVED WEEKLY,
UTENSILS NOT STERILIZED).

The first condition of the barn was one of extreme filth. Four cows
were placed there on January 28, 1915, and the first experiment was
begun on July 22 of that year. In the intervening period no atten-

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT. 7

tion was given to the stable except to remove manure. Dust was
allowed to accumulate in the barn ; consequently at the beginning of
the first experiment its condition was little if any better than that of
the average low-grade barn. During the experiment, which extended
from July 22 to August 14, the manure was removed once a week ; as
a result varying quantities of filth were present on the floor and on
the cows. A picture of the barn just before the weekly removal of
the manure is shown in figure 3. It will be noted that the gutter
was filled with manure and the floor almost entirely covered.
Fiffure 4 shows one of the cows at that time. It will be seen that

Fig. 3.-— Condition ul' l.iarn during Exporinirnt No. 1.

the flanks, udder, and teats of the cow were almost entirely covered
with manure. The general type of milker employed through-
out the experiments may also be seen in the picture. Under such
barn conditions and with unsterilized utensils it seemed probable
that the bacterial counts obtained would be as high as those from any
other dirty barn. It is not intended to intimate that conditions in the
average barn in -this covmtr}^ are as bad as these, but, as stated, for
the purposes of the experiment it was desired to have the worst pos-
sible conditions.

Two cows were milked into open and the other two into small-top
pails, which were washed clean but not sterilized. The milk was
then poured into clean, unsterilized cans in the barn, after which it
was carried to the milk house, where samples were taken immediately
both night and morning.

8

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

At each milking a sample was taken from the open pail and one
from the small-top pail. In this connection it must be understood
that the sample came from a can, but that the open or small-top pail
was used in the milking.

Table 1 shows the bacterial analyses of 32 samples of milk. The
numbers rejpresent milkings, both in the table and throughout the
bulletin. It will be seen from the table that the first count of milk
from the open pail was 14,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter. As the
manure accumulated on the floor during the first week and the cows
became more dirtv the bacterial content of the milk increased. The

Fig. 4. — Condition of one of the cows during Experiment No. 1.

highest count obtained with the open pail was 1,200,000 and with
the small-top pail 750,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter. Through-
out the experiment the counts from the open pail were higher than
the corresponding counts from the small-top pail. The difference is
represented fairly well by the average count of the 32 samples from
the open pail, which was 497,653 bacteria per cubic centimeter, as
compared with 368,214 for the small-top pail.

It must be remembered, however, that the actual value of the small-
top pail can not be determined accurately from these results for the
reason that the utensils were not sterilized, which brings in an un-
known factor, since the number of bacteria introduced into the milk
from the unsterilized utensils is variable. The figures show that the
use of the small-top pail was of some value, even when none of the
utensils w^ere sterilized.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

Table 1. — Bacteria per cubic centimeter in dual samples of fresh milk produced
under conditions described in Experiment No. 1.

Date.

Sample

No.

0)ien
pail.

Small-
top pail.

Date.

Sample
No.

Open

pail.

Small-
top pail.

1915.

1

3
4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IG
17

14,000
170,000
125, 000
280, 000
600,000

1915.

Aug. 5, a. m

Aug. 5, p. m

Aug. 6, p. m

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

600,000
650, 000
400,000
300,000

600,000

July 23, a. in

45, 000
(10, 000
150, 000
4.50, 000
200, 000
130,01)0
160, 000
175.000
200, 000
340, 000
750, 000
350,000
750,000

550,000

July 24, a. ni .

Aug. 7, a. m

Aug. 9, a. m

250,000

400,000

July 27, a. m

Aug. 9, p. m

Aug. 10, a. m

Aug. 10, p. m

Aug. 11, a. m

Aug. 11, p. m

550, 000

500,000

July 27, p. m

July 2S, a. in

240,000
350, 000
390, 000
320, 000
500, 000
900,000

500, 000

350,000
400, 000
900,000
1,200,000
800,000
600,000
450,000
700,000

450, 000

July 28, p. m

300, 000

450, 000

July 29, p. m ...

Aug. 12, a. m

Aug. 12, p. m

500, 000

July 30, a. m

July 31, a. m

400, 000

Aug. 13, a. m

450, 000

Aug 3, a ni

Aug. 13, p. m

300, 000

550,000

Aug. 14, a. m

Average

500,000

400,000

600,000

497,053

368,214

Perhaps the most interesting pomt brought out by the results was
the relatively low bacterial count obtained in all samples. It is rea-
sonable to suppose that milk produced under such extremely filthy
conditions would contain millions of bactA-ia per cubic centimeter.
The figures indicate very clearly, however, that large numbers of
bacteria are not commonly found in fresh milk. Even when ex-
tremeh' high counts are obtained, they are probably attributable to
some other factor, such as growth or subsequent infection during the
various stages of handling. Throughout the experiments the milk
was examined before cooling, as it was the intention to avoid the
variable factor of contamination from unsterilized coolers.

EXPERIMENT NO. 2 (COWS AND FLOOR DIRTY, MANURE REMOVED WEEKLY,

UTENSILS STERILIZED).

Having determined the number of bacteria in fresh milk produced
under extreme conditions of filth, where unsterilized utensils were
used, the next step was to use one factor which was considered of
utmost importance in preventing contamination, namely, sterilized
utensils. Samples of milk were taken from September 14 to October
7, 1915, under conditions as nearl}^ identical as possible with those
of the previous experiment, with the exception that the cans and
pails were sterilized.

By the use of sterilized utensils a remarkable decrease in the bac-
terial content of the milk was found. From the results of 36 sam-
ples shown in Table 2 it will be seen that the average count of milk
from open pails w'as 22,077 bacteria per cubic centimeter, compared
with 17,027 from small-top pails. Comparison Avith the results shown
in Table 1 is convincing proof of the value of sterilized utensils. It
should be remembered that the figures represent samples taken under
filthy conditions and that the only factor contributing to the differ-
ence in the bacterial count was the use of sterilized utensils.

The range in the bacterial content of samples taken from the open
■pail during the experiment was from 2,500 to 80,000, and in the sam-
18989°— 18— Bull. 642 2

10

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

pies from the small-top pail from 2,100 to 60,000 per cubic centi-
meter. It is quite remarkable that the counts were not higher on
account of the dirty condition of cows and barn floor.

Table 2.- — Bacteria per cubic centimeter in dual samples of fresh milk produced
under conditions described in Experiment No. '2.

Date.

Sample
No.

Open
pail.

Small-
top pail.

Date.

Sample
No.

Open
paiL

Small-
top pail.

Sept. 14

Sept. 15

1915.
a. m

1

2
3
4
5
6

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
18
19

20,000
40,000
25, 000
13,000
10, 000
12, 000

5,600
10,500
75, 000

4,500
32, 000

5,600

7,500
14,500
16,000

2,500
18,000

5,600
16,t00

9,000
20,000
11,000
16, 000

3,500
23,000

2,400
45, 000
35, 000

3,200
24,000

2,500

3,800

2,600
12,500

2,800
14,000

2,100

7,200

1915.

Sept. 25, p. m

Sept. 27, a. m

Sept. 27, p. m

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

5,000
55,000
12,000
36,000

4,100
25,000
14, 000

9,000
11,000
65, 000
80, 000
40. 000
18, 000
15,000
60,000
25, 000

8,600

2,500

a. m

30,000

Sept. 15

p. m..

9,000

Sept. 16

a. m

Sept. 28, a. m

Sept. 28, p. m

Sept. 29, a. m

Sept. 30, a. m

Sept. 30, p. m

Oct. 1, a. m

21,000

Sept. 16

p. m..

3,400

Sept. 17
Sept. 17
Sept. 18
Sept. 20

a. m

p. m

a. m

a. m

p. m

a. ra

60,000
12,000
12,000
9,000

Sept. 20

Oct. 1, p. m

20, 000

Sept. 21

Oct. 2, a. m

60, 000

Sept. 21

p. m

Oct. 4, a. m

Oct. 5, a. m

55, 000

Sept. 22

a. m

9,000

Sept. 22

p. m

Oct. 5, p. m

5,500

Sept. 23

a. m. .

Oct. 6, a. m. .. .

45,000

Sept. 23

p. m

Oct. 6, p. m

13,000

Sept. 24

a. m. .

Oct. 7, a. m.

7,000

Sept. 24
Sept. 25

a. m

22,677

17,027

Fig. 5. — Bacterial content of milk from sterilized open and small-top pails during

Experiment No. 2.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

11

From the results it is possible to determine something of the value
of the small-top as compared with that- of the open pail. The average
of the bacterial counts of milk from the small-top pail as given in
Table 2 was about 5,500 bacteria per cubic centimeter lower than that
of milk from the corresponding open pail. The true value of the
small-top pail, however, is more definitely shown in figure 5, in which
the bacterial count of each sample of milk is shown and plotted in
columns. The comparative heights indicate the difference in the
number of bacteria per cubic centimeter in milk from open and small-
top pails at the same milking. In 29 of the 36 samples the bacterial
count of milk from the open pail wasliigher than that from the small-
top. The results confirm the conclusions of previous investigators
as to the value of the small-top pail.

EXPERIMENT NO. 3. (COWS AND FLOOR DIRTY, MANURE REMOVED TWICE A
WEEK. UDDERS AND TEATS OF THE COWS WASHED, UTENSILS STERILIZED).

In Experiment No. 2 the use of sterilized utensils, as has been
shown, resulted in a remarkable lowering of the bacterial count. In
Experiment Xo. 3, where sterilized utensils were used, a second factor
was introduced, which consisted in washing the udders and teats of
the cows.

The condition of the barn, as shown in figure 6, was the same as in
the previous experiments except that the manure was removed twice

Fig. 6. — Condition of barn during Experiment Xo. 3.

12

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

a week. It will be noticed that the walls and ceiling were extremely
dirty. Hay protruded through the open ceiling, and the gutter was
completely filled with manure which was scattered over the floor
toward the stanchions.

The condition of the cows is well illustrated by figure 7, Their
flanks were caked with manure, but the visible dirt was removed from
the udders, wdiich were washed before each milking. After having
been thoroughly washed with clean water and a cloth they were wiped
with another clean, damp cloth rinsed in clean water. The flanks of
the cows, which were liable to be rubbed by the milker's arm, also
were kept clean.

During the period from Xovember 10 to 21, 1015, 18 samples of
milk were examined from the open and 23 samples from the small-top
pail. The results in Table 3 show that the average number of bac-
teria in milk from the open pail was 6,106 bacteria per cubic centi-
meter, compared with 2,886 from the small-top j^ail.

In the experiment 12 samples of milk were drawn directly from
the udder into sterile tubes at about the middle of the milking. The
average count of the milk from the four cows was 987 bacteria per
cubic centimeter. The difference between that average and the aver-
age in the milk from the open pail is 5,179, which represents the
number of bacteria per cubic centimeter introduced through external
contamination. The average number of bacteria per cubic centimeter
of 23 samples from the small-top pail was 2,886 ; subtracting 987 from
the count, the remainder, 1,889 bacteria per cubic centimeter, repre-
sents the number added through external contamination.

Table 3.-

-Bacteria per cnhic ccntitnctcr in dual samples of fresh milk produced
nndcr conditions described in Experiment No. 3.

Date.

Sample
No.

Open
pail.

Small-
top pail.

Date.

Sample

No.

Open
pail.

Small-
top paiL

1915.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

3,500
3S, ono
1, 700
2,100
11,200
4,300
2,800
5,100
2,000

2,400
3,100
2,400
4,300
1,500
1,S00
1,000
2,900
2,700
1.200
2,700
2,800
2,100
2,000
3,800

1915.
Nov. 19, p. ra

16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23

4,500

Nov. 11, a. m

Nov. 20, a. m

Nov. 20, p. m

3,600

4,300
1,E00

Nov. 12, a. m

Nov. 22, a. m

Nov. 22, p. m

5,600

2, ceo

5,000

Nov 13, a. m

Nov. 23, a. m

Nov. 23, p. m

Nov. 24, a. m

8,500

4,103

2,703

2,800

4, COO

Average of milk
samples

6,166
987

3,200
i,700
4, GOO
3, 500
C,200

2,886

Nov. 17, p. m

Average of 12
udder samples.

987

Difference

5,179

1,8C9

The results show that wdieii the udders were washed clean and the
small-top, sterilized pail is used it is possible to produce milk of a
bacterial count closely corresponding to the number found in milk

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

13

drawn directly from the udder. In all cases in which the bacteria
in milk as it left the udder were counted the figures were low, be-
cause the results represented milk drawn in the middle of milking.
It is, of course, well laiown that the " foremilk " contains more bac-
teria per cubic centimeter than. the "middle milk." The difference
between the bacterial count of the " regular milk " and of milk drawn
directly from the udder ("middle milk") is designated as external
contamination. As the foremilk is included in the regular milk this
difference is probably greater than it should be.

The figures show also the value of the small-top pail. The
difference, however, is not fairly represented by the average, for
the reason that two samples of milk from the open pail were much
higher than the others, which raised the average.

The most striking fact brought out by the experiment is that milk
of a low bacterial count can be obtained, even under filthy condi-
tions, if careful attention is given to three simple factors, namely,
sterilized utensils, sniall-top pails, and clean udders and teats.

Attention is called to the fact that the experiment was conducted
under filthy conditions in order to emphasize the value of the three
factors mentioned. Common decency alone should not permit the
production of milk under such conditions.

Fig. 7. — Condition of one of the cows during Experiment No. 3.

14

BULLETIN 642, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

EXPERIMENT NO. 4 (COWS CLEANED AND BEDDED, FLOOR CLEAN, MANURE RE-
MOVED DAILY, UDDERS AND TEATS OF TWO COWS WASHED AND OF TWO)
OTHERS NOT WASHED, UTENSILS STERILIZED).

The results obtained in previous experiments show that it was pos-
sible to obtain milk of a low bacterial count from dirty cows in a
dirty stable. Under such conditions it is absolutely necessary to keep
the udders and teats of the cows clean, but when the barn floor is
covered with manure it is very difficult to do so. To attempt to
produce low-count milk under conditions previously described would
certainly show poor judgment on the part of the dairyman. It
would be unreasonable, therefore, to attempt to keep the udder and
teats of the cow absolutely clean when the animal is lying in manure
a part of the day. The reasonable way to lessen the work of keep-
ing the cows clean is to remove the manure at least once a day and
to keep the floor clean. To keep the cows clean is a matter of
economy as well as of common decency.

As may be noted in figure 8, the conditions of the walls and ceiling
of the barn were the same as in previous experiments. Straw was
used for bedding and the floors and gutter were practically free from
manure. A picture of one of the cows also is shown in figure 9. The
cows during this experiment were cleaned daily with currycomb and
brush, and very little effort was required to keep them free from
visible dirt.

Fig. 8. — Condition of barn during Experiment No. 4.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT. 15

Fig. 9.- — Condition oi ouv vil' tlio cows during Experiment No. 4.

During the experiment, which was continued from February 28 to
April 10, 1916, the udders and teats of two cows were washed just
before milking and the other two were not washed. When the udders
were washed clean water and a cloth were used, and they were then
wiped with another clean cloth rinsed in clean water. Small-top
pails were used throughout the experiment, and the utensils were
sterilized.

The results of the bacteriological examination of the milk pro-
duced under these conditions are given in Table 4. The average
bacterial count of milk when the udders and teats were washed was
2,154 per cubic centimeter, and 4,524 when they were not washed.
The average counts show relatively little difference from a bac-
teriological standpoint so far as the quality of the milk is concerned.
An examination of the table, however, shows that there is more uni-
formity of counts when the udder was washed than when unwashed.
The samples from the washed udders ranged from 620 to 5,400,
while those from the unwashed udders ranged from 1,090 to 20,000
bacteria per cubic centimeter. The results indicate that under the
conditions it is possible to produce milk with a very low bacterial
count without washing the udders. If it is desired, however, to
produce milk of a uniformly low count when fresh, it is advisable
to wash the udders.

16

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPAETMENT OE AGRICULTURE.

Table 4. — Bacteria per cubic centimeter in dual samples of fresh milk produced
under conditions as described in Experiment No. .'/.

Sample

No.

Udder and teats.

Date.

Sample
No.

Udder and teats.

Date.

Washed.

Not
washed.

Washed.

Not
washed.

191G.
Feb 28 p m

1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
30

1,600
3,700
5,400
2,200
4, TOO
3,300
1,130
2,270
1,600
2,700

980
3,900
2,5C0
1,400
1,370
1,150

830
1,480

f:20
3,6C0

910
1,920

820
2,550
1,140
2,190
1,970
1,3C0
1,520

820

080
2,190
1,6G0
2,070
1,140
2,290

1,800
9,900
3,600

6, ;:oo

0,300
4,700
2,250
5,300
3, ICO
6, ceo
1,520

13,3C0
5, ICO

20,400
1,2C0
2,370
1,050
2,210
1,120
8,7C0
1,590

2,3:o

2,GtO
14,800
1,0C0
2,110
2,080
2,040
1,510
3,070
2,390
3,410
3, 240
G,('20
2,480
3,110

1910.
Mar. 23, p. m

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
40
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
GO
61
62
63
64
65

810
1,310
1,3C0
2,410
1,350
2,740
1,530
2,9C0
2,300
2,CC0
3,9r0
1,8C0
4,2C0
1,500
4,700
1,6C0
2,3C0
3,400
1,4C0
2,2:0
1,9-0
2,9C0

800
1,4C0
2,7C0
3,4r0
3,2C0
2, ICO
2,4C0

2,660
4,800
2,970
4,010

Feb 29, a . m

Mar. 24, a. m

Feb. 29, p. m

Mar. 25, a. m

4 200

Mar. 27, a. m

4,750
6 700

Mar. 27, p. m

Mar. 28, p. m

3,600

Mar. 29, a. m

3 200

Mar. 29, p. m

5' 100

Mar. 30, a. m

3,500

Mar. 30 p. m

3 300

6 '900

4 100

3 400

7^400
4 100

Mar. 13, a. m

Apr. 4, a. m

4*700

5,500

5,300
2 200

7,300

5 200

Mar. 10, a. m

3,300

Mar. 16, p. m

Mar.- 17, a.m.

1,500

Apr. 8am

9,400
2,300
3,900

Mar. 18, a. m

Mar. 19, p. m...

Apr. 10, p. m

7,200

Average of milk

Mar. 20, p. m

2,154
739

4,524

Mar. 21, p. m

Average of ud-
der samples .

Mar. 22, a. m .

757

Mar. 23, a. m

1,415

3 767

The interpretation of the average comits obtained from washed
and unwashed udders must receive special attention. The counts
as they stand show 2,154 bacteria per cubic centimeter from cows
with washed udders and 4,524 bacteria from those with unwashed
udders. It can be said tliat w^ashing the udder reduced the bacterial
counts about 50 per cent, which agrees in a general way with the
results obtamed by Stocking.^ This assertion should not be made,
however, without taking into consideration the actual bacterial con-
tent of the milk. "V^Hien the number of bacteria is small a 50 per cent
reduction indicates practically no difference in the quality of the milk,
as, for example, a count of 2,000 per cubic centimeter compared w^ith
1,000. If, how^ever, the counts were as high as 1,000,000 and 500,000,
respectiveh^, in tlie two samples, the factor causing the difference
would still produce a 50 per cent reduction, but there would be a much
greater difference in the quality of the milk with the higher counts.

The bacterial counts of the 65 samples in this experiment have
been plotted and are shown in figure 10, which brings out in a
striking manner the fact that milk from the washed- udders has

1 See list of references at end of bulletin.

PEODUCTIOX OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT. 17

V^ .^ .^ .^ v?«

<i K> .f? u * ^ ^ ^ A A via \^ ■A) s^

sssnssssssss

SSSS3SSS:

ss2sssns3s

SSS2 ssss ssss ssss

Fig. 10.— Effect of washing the udder and teats on the bacterial content of milk.
1S989°— IS— Bull. 642 3

18 BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

almost always a lower count than that from the unwashed udders.
The results again lead to the conclusion, as in Experiment No. 3, that
three simple factors are necessaiy for the production of milk practi-
cally free from visible dirt and with a low bacterial content when
drawn, namely, sterilized utensils, clean cows (especially the udder
and teats), and the small-top paiL

During Experiment Xo. 4 the udders of two cows were washed and
two left unwashed, and frequently the practice was reversed. The
change was made in order to eliminate the bacterial variation due
to a difference in number of bacteria in the milk from the udder
of each cow.

Occasionally the bacterial content of the middle milk drawn di-
rectly from the cow was determined, as in Experiment Xo. 3. The
average bacterial content of such milk drawn directly from the un-
washed udders was 757 per cubic centimeter, and from the washed
udders 739. Subtracting these numbers from the averages shown
in Table 4, there remain differences of 3,7G7 bacteria per cubic
centimeter in the case of the unwashed udders and 1,415 in the case
of the washed udders, which, represent the external contamination.
However, as already pointed out in connection with the previous
experiment, there is probably less external contamination than the
figures show.

The small additions of bacteria in milk from both washed and
unwashed udders must be kept in mind, as they represent the total
external contamination caused by factors formerly regarded as
important but which have not been considered in these experiments
in the production of low-count milk, which also was relatively free
from visible sediment.

In order to show further that the fresh milk produced under such
conditions was of high quality from a bacteriological standpoint
and compared closely with the middle milk as drawn from the
udder, the bacterial groups in a number of samples were determined
by what is designated as the milk-tube method. This consisted of
picking off each colony on a plate and inoculating into litmus-milk
tubes. Tubes were incubated for 14 days at 30° C. (80° F.), and the
bacteria from the plate were then divided into groups according to
the reactions produced. By that method it was possible to divide
the bacteria developing on a plate into 6 groups, namely, the acid-
forming, coagulating-acid forming, the inert (which produce no
change in milk), the alkali-forming, the peptonizing, and the acid-
coagulating peptonizing groups. A number of samples of milk were
studied by that method, and as often as possible samples were taken
directly from the uddep at the same milking. The resists of the

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

19

work, showing the per cent of the various groups found in the regu-
hir milk and the corresponding samples of middle milk directly from
the udder, are shown in Table 5. It is interesting to note that the
average per cent of the bacterial groups in the milk checks very
closely with the average of those in the milk taken directly from the
udder. Taking the bacterial groups and counts into consideration,
it seems evident that milk produced under the conditions of the
experiment was of a high quality from a bacteriological standpoint
and was very similar to that taken directly from the udder of the
cow. The results of the experiment agree closely with those ob-
tained by Xorth (■?.). who found it possible to produce low-count
milk by the use of small-top, sterilized pails in an old barn.

Table 5. — A comparison of the hacfrridi groups found in clean milk of low
bacterial count and in milk directly from the udder.

BACTERIAL GROUPS IX MILK SAMPLES.

Date.

Feb. 29.
Feb. 29.
Mar. 1 . .
Mar. 1 . .
Mar. 3 . .
Mar. 17.
Mar. 24 .
Mar. 24.

Average .

Sample
No.

Acid
coagu-
lating.

Per cent.
44.45

0
47.62

0

69.40
63.06

7.00
75.30

38.36

Acid.

Per cent.
12.96
57.14

4.76
17.56
10.39

5.09
85.00
10.24

25.39

Inert.

Per cent.
25. 92
37.14
14.29
75.68
14.75
17.19
3.00
11.44

Alkali.

Per cent.
0
0
0
0
0
.64
2.00
3.02

24.93

.C4

Pepton-
izing.

Per cent.
0

5. 72
0

6.76
0

11.48
3.00
0

3.37

Acid
coagu-
lating
(pepton-
izing).

Per cent.
16.67

0
33.33

0

5.46

2.54

0

0

7.25

BACTERIAL GROUPS IN MILK DIRECTLY FROM THE UDDER.

Acid

Date.

Cow
No.

Acid
coagu-
lating.

Acid.

Inert.

Alkali.

Pepton-
izing.

coagu-
lating
(pepton-
izing).

1916.

Feb. 29

Feb. 2;)

2
23
26

2
23
23

2
23
26
23
26

Per cent.
19.00

0

82.86
28.04

5.11
85.71
68.34

2.94
77.09

5.78
64.58

Percent.
39.00
97.81

8.57
64.02
87.66
14.29
12.08
88.82

0

72.83
16.67

Per cent.
36.00
0

8.57
3.27
3.83
0

5.00
1.18
2.08
14.46
16.67

Per cent.
1.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.73
0

Percent.
5.00
2.19
0

4.67
0
0
0
0

2.08
1.73
2.08

Percent.
0
0

Feb. 29

Mar 9

0
0

Mar 9

3.40

Mar.9

Mar. 16

Mar. 16

Mar. 16

Mar. 24

Mar. 24

0
14.58

7.06
18.75

3.47

0

39.95

45.61

8.28

.25

1.61

4.29

20

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

EXPERIMENT NO. 5.

(COWS AND FLOOR DIRTY, MANURE REMOVED WEEKLY,
UTENSILS STERILIZED.)

This experiment was conducted under the same conditions as Ex-
periment No. 2. Having determined the essential factors necessary
for the production of fresh milk of low bacterial content, it was
considered advisable to reproduce the original condition^ in order to
check the three factors again. Consequently, in the experiment the
cows w^ere allowed to get dirty and the manure was removed only
once a week, but the other conditions of the barn were not changed.
The object was to determine the factor of dirty cows ; therefore, the
utensils were sterilized in order not to add another factor. The con-
dition of the barn and of the cows is illustrated in figures 11 and 12,
respectively. Particular attention is directed to the extremely large
quantity of filth on the floor of the barn.

During the experiment, w^hich continued from April 11 to May 6,
1916, 41 samples of milk were examined from both small-top and
open pails. The average count of samples from the former was
24,439, and from the latter 86,212 bacteria per cubic centimeter, as
shown in Table 6.

Fig. 11. — Condition of barn during Experiment No. 5.

J>EOr)UCTlON OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

'21

Fm. 12. — Condition ol" one of the cow« during E.\periuieut No. 5.

Table 6. — Bacteria per cubic centimeter in dual samples of fresh milk produced
iinder conditions described in Experiment No. 5.

Date.

Sample
No.

Open
pail.

Small-top
pail.

Date.

Sample
No.

Open
pail.

Small-top
pail.

1916.

Apr. 11, a. m

Apr. 11, p. m

Apr. 12, a. m

Apr. 12, p. m

Apr. 13, a. m

1

2

3

4

5

0

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

10,600

4,500

8,100

2,400

13, 900

6,400

165, 000

360, 000

240,000

83,000

112,000

65,000

58,000

121,000

144,000

276,000

112,000

163,000

940, 000

158,000

16,500

4,800

4,300

4,800

5,600

2,500

10, 800

6,100

26, 900

105,000

29,800

14,600

31,300

19,700

18,200

78,000

21,100

122,000

72,000

79,000

166,000

9,600

3,200

2,100

1916.
Apr. 26, a. m

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
. 39
40
41

19,600

5,600

69, 000

9,400

66, 000

10,800

53,000

29,000

15, 900

8,900

8,100

16, 100

3,500

4,100

2,600

65, 000

11,500

61,000

11, 400

7,500

3,500

7,200

Apr. 27, a. m

Apr. 27, p. m

1,900

Apr. 28, a. m

17, 700

Apr. 28, p. m

1,900

Apr. 14, a. m

Apr. 14, p. m

Apr. 15, a. m

Apr. 17, a. m

Apr. 17, p. m

Apr. 18, a. m

Apr. 18, p. m

Apr. 19, a. m

Apr. 19, p. m

Apr. 20, a. m

Apr. 20, p. m

Apr. 21, a. m

Apr. 24, a. m

Apr. 24, p. m

Apr. 25, a. m

Apr. 29, a. m

31,000

Apr. 29, p. m

3,500

May 1, p. m

7,300

May 2, a. m

6,100

May 2, p. m

2,S0C

May 3, a. m

10,200

May 3, p. m

13,100

May 4, a. m..

May 4, p. m

May 5, a. m

May 5, p. m

May 6, a. m

May 6, p. m

Average

8,400

3,100
23,000

6, 600
10,900

3,700

86,212

24,439

Apr. 25, p. m

If the average bacterial counts in the experiment are compared
with those in Table 2, a similar experiment, it will be seen that the
average count from the small-top pail was 24,439 in one series
and 17,027 in the other. The open pail showed a greater variation,
being 86,212 in one case and 22,677 in the other. In the last series
with the open pail (Table 6) there are a few high counts which

22

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPAETMEKT OF AGRICULTURE.

raise the average greatly. The figures are of interest because with
similar barn conditions, dirty cows, and the manure removed
weekly, practically the same average number of bacteria were intro-
duced at periods of time which were about six months apart. The
results again show that the number of bacteria introduced through
manure was not so large as had been expected.

An examination of Table 6 shows the value of the small-top pail,
which is most strikingly shown in graphic form in figure 13.

i« V< I* (°

Fio. 13. — Bacterial content of milk from sterilized small-top and open pails during

Experiment No. 5.

EXPERIMENT NO. 6. (COWS AND FLOORS DIRTY, MANURE REMOVED WEEKLY,
UTENSILS NOT STERILIZED.)

The conditions of this experiment were similar to those of Ex-
periment No. 1. Table 7, covering the period from May 8 to 31,
1916, shows the average count of 36 samples of milk from the
small-top pail to be 114,497, compared with 153,905 bacteria per
cubic centimeter for the open pail. A comparison of the averages
with those in Experiment No. 1, results of which are given in Table
1, shows that the counts in the latter experiment were considerably
higher, which may be explained by the variable bacterial content
of unsterilized utensils.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

23

Tahle 7. — fidctirin iter cuhic ccnthtictcr in ditdl .sdiiiplcs of fresh milk pro-
duced under conditions described in Experiment No. 6.

1916.
May 8, a. m..
May 9, p. m. .
May 10, a. m.
May 11,1). ni-
May 12, a. m.
May 11', p. m.
May i;{, a. m.
May i:i, p. m.
May l.i, a. m.
May 15, p. m.
May Iti, a. m.
May Iti, p. m.
May 17, a. m.
May 17, p. m.
May IS, a. m.
May IS, ]). m.
May 19, a. m.
May 21, p. m.
May J'J, a. m.

Sample
No.

Open
pail.

119.000
.■>:!. 0(X)
'.'•-', .500
39, 000
ti.SOO
31 'i., 300
lOS, 000
4S, 000
82, 000
34,000
11.5,000
120, 000
207, 000
151,000
154,000
99,000
107, 000
120,000
210,000

Small-top
pail.

.5.5, 000

12, 200

IS, 100

19, .500

12,400

0, 100

71,000

40, 000

193, 000

5li, 000

109, 000

100,000

210,000

42, 000

08,000

74,000

94,000

87,000

159,000

May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May

1916.
p. m.
a. m.
p. m.
a. m.
p. m.
a. m.
p. m.
a. m.
p. m.
a. m.
p. m.
a. m.
p. m.
a. m.
p. m.
a. m.
p. m.

Average.

Sample
No.

Open
pail.

10S,000
202,000
279,000
332,000
227, 000
21.5, 000
198,000
209, 000
181,000
170,000
190,000
250, 000
240, 000
33>i, 000
191,000
99, 000
94,000

Small-top
pail.

125,000

230,000

201,000

205,000

148,000

108, 000

80, 000

157, 000

78, 000

180,000

93,000

128,000

312, 000

101, 000

94,000

74, 000

63,000

153,905

114,497

In all the experiments the utensils were probably washed more
carefully than on the average farm, and to show how many bacteria
may be introduced into milk under dirty conditions when utensils
are not washed until just before milking, figures from another series
of experiments may be of interest. In the latter experiments milk
produced with the use of the small-top pails showed an average
count of 1,309,000 compared with 2,015,000 bacteria per cubic centi-
meter in open pails. "Wliile in this experiment utensils were han-
dled in an extremely careless manner, the results show that a large
number of bacteria may be introduced from unsterilized utensils.

While the average count from the open pail was higher than from
the small-top pail, the value of the latter can not be accurately deter-
mined from the results, because the utensils were not sterilized. In
a general way, however, the small-top pail has some value even under
the conditions described. i

The results obtained in Experiment No. 6 confirm those obtained
in our first experiment and indicate that the greatest contamination
of milk comes from the use of unsterilized utensils.

EXPERIMENT NO. 7. (COWS AND FLOOR CLEAN, MANURE REMOVED DAILY,
UDDERS AND TEATS OF COWS WASHED, UTENSILS STERILIZED.)

Experiment No. 7 was conducted under the same conditions as
Experiment No. 4 except that the cows were not bedded. The gen-
eral condition of the bam during the experiment is illustrated in
figure 14 and that of the cows in figure 15. The floor of the stable
was kept comparatively clean, the manure was removed daily, the
utensils were sterilized, and at each milking the cows were cleaned
and udders and teats were wiped with a damp cloth. Only a few
samples of milk were taken during this experiment, which continued

24

BULLETIN 642, XT. S. DEPARTME17T OF AGRICULTURE.

from June 5 to 15, 1916. The average bacterial count of 15 samples
from the small-top pail was 2,667 and from the open pail 4,947
bacteria per cubic centimeter, as shown in Table 8. In the previous
series (Table 4) the average bacterial count was 2,154, compared with
2,667, the average count obtained in this series. The figures are par-
ticularly interesting, as they represent average counts of milk pro-
duced under similar conditions with periods of time about three
months apart. The bacterial counts of milk from the small-top com-
pared with open pails again show the value of the former type.

Table 8. — Bacteria per cubic centimeter in dual samples of fresh milk pro-
duced under conditions described in Experiment No. 7.

Date.

Sample
No.

Open
pail.

Small-top
pail.

Date.

Sample
No.

Open
pail.

Small-top
pail.

1916.

1

2

3
4
5
6

7
8
9

4,900
21,300
3,700
3,100
4,900
3,700
2,800
7,500
2,900

1,300
1,200
6,400
2,300
2,200
1,400
2,400
3,300
1,300

1916.
June 10, a. m

10
11
12
13
14
15

3,100
8,400
3,800
1,700
1,500
900

2,300

June 10, p. m

1,000

June 12, a. m

5,400

June 12, p. m

4,600

June 13, a. m

2,100

June 13, p. m

2,200

Average

4,947

2,667

June 9, p. m ^

1

Fiu. 14. — Condition of barn during Experiment No. 7.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

25

-(.'oiiiliuui] (p1' ilif Uauk aud uddiT ni iui<' nf the
cows during Experiment No. 7.

During' this ex-
periment the aver-
age count of the
middle milk taken
d i r e c 1 1 3' from the
udder of two cows
was 1,172 bactx^ria
per cubic centimeter,
w h i c h , ■ subtracted
from 2,G67, the
count of the entire
milking which was
milked into small-
top pails, leaves
1.495. or the number
of bactei'ia per cubic
centimeter intro-
duced into the small-
top pail by external
contamination.

Similarly the aver-
age udder count of
middle milk of the two cows milked into open pails was 1,557, which,
when subtracted from the average of the open pail, 4,947, gives a
difference of 3,390 bacteria j^er cubic centimeter to represent the
number introduced by external contamination.

In this final experiment we again used a few simple factors,
namely, sterilized utensils, clean cows with clean udders and teats,
and the small-top pail. The figures confirm the previous results.

CONTAMINATION OF MILK BY UNSTERILIZED UTENSILS.

In this work the results have indicated that generally the greatest
contamination of milk, comes from the use of unsterilized utensils.
Since that factor is so important in the production of low-count
milk it deserves special consideration, and therefore additional data
on the subject are presented.

Table 9 shows the results of the bacterial examination of CO sam-
ples of milk from both sterilized and unsterilized small-top pails.
Each number represents two samples taken at the same milking,
Avhen two cows were milked into a sterilized pail and two into an un-
sterilized one. All the cows were cleaned and bedded, but the udders
were not washed. The 60 samples from the sterilized pail showed an
average bacterial count of 6,306, compared with 73,308 for the un-
sterilized pail, a difference of 67,002, which represents the average
number of bacteria per cubic centimeter introduced through unsteril-
18989°— 18— Bull. 642 4

26

BULLETIISr 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

ized utensils. The results appear graphically in figure IG, which
shows the remarkable difference between the bacterial content of milk
from sterilized and unsterilized utensils. The highest bacterial count
of all the samples from sterilized utensils was 21,500 and from un-
sterilized utensils 284,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter.

Table 9. — Bacteria per cubic centimeter in dual samples of fresh milk irlien
sterilized and unsterilized utensils icere used.

Sam-
P'e

No.

Small-top pail.

Date.

Sam-
ple

No.

SmaM-toppail.

Date.

Steril-
ized.

Unster-
ilized.

Steril- ' Unster-
ized. ilized.

Jan. 19

1916. .

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
' 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

3 700
5,800
6,900

12,500
4,900
8,100
3,. 300
6,900
3,800
4,200
6,800
6, 600

21,500
4,500
4,900
3,700
7,800
3,400

17,500
2,000

15,800
9,300
3,500
5,100
3,000
9,900
2,700

19,300
2,600
5,300
2,900

• 17,500

li2,000
47, 600
38,200
18,400

126,000
68,000
9,700
Q6,000
16, .-00
85,000
18,600
27,900
5,100
48, .^00

141,000
54,000

203, 000
98, 000

102, 000
64, 700
92,000
97,000
32, 200
28, 200
7,400
37, JOO
11,800

284,000
54,000
08,000

1910.

Feb. 8, a. m

Feb. 8, p. m

Feb. 9, a.m

Feb. 9, p. m

Feb. 10 a m

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

16,700
2,900
0, 800

56,000
37,000
18,300

Jan. 20

, a. m

Jan. 20

p. m

Jan. 21

Jan. 21

p. m

3 100 '*''' f^"^

Jan. 23

, p. m

Feb. 10, p. m

Feb. 11, a.m

1,500
5,400
2,900
6,300
2,500
4,200
12,500
7,500
4,. 500
1,500
6,300
3,100
6,900
8,900
8,500
5,800
2,500
6,200
6,200
8,900
5,100
3,900
4,600
3,200

42, 500
37 100

Jan. 24

, a. m

Jan. 24

, p. m -

Feb. 11, p. m

Feb. 12, a.m

Feb. 13, p. m

Feb. 14, p. m

Feb. 15, a.m

94,000
33,900
21,200
19,800
55,200
68 000

Jan. 25

, a. m

Jan. 25
Jan. 26

, p. m

, a. m

Jan. 26

, p. m ...

Jan. 27

a. m

Jan. 27

p. m

Feb. lo'a.m .

Jan. 28

, a. m

Feb. 16 p m

117 000

Jan. 28

Feb. 17, a.m...

Feb 17 p m

195,000
65 000

Jan. 29

, a. ni

Jan. 30

, p. m

Feb. 18* a m

152 000

Jan. 31

a. m

Feb. IS, p. m

103 000

Jan. 31

, p. ra

106,000
62,000
83 000

Feb. 1,

I"cb. 20, p. m

Feb. 1,

p. m

Feb. 22, p. m

Feb. 2,

Feb. 23, a.m

Feb. 23, p. m

39 700

Feb. 3,

a. m

97 000

Feb. 3,

p. m

Feb. 24, a. m..

97 000

Feb. 4,

a. m

Feb. 24, p. m

133 000

Feb. 4,

p. m

Feb. 25, a.m

Feb. 25, p. m

Feb. 26, a. m

130 000

Feb. 5,

a. m

131 000

Feb. 6,

p. m

134 000

Feb. 7

Feb. 7,

p. m

6,306

73, 308

The diagram shows that in two cases, numbers 20 and 28, the milk
from the sterilized utensils was slightly higher in bacterial content
than that from the unsterilized. In both cases the counts were rela-
tively low, which indicates that the unsterilized utensils in these par-
ticular cases were thoroughl}'^ w^ashed in very hot water. Throughout
the series, as soon as the samples were taken the pails and cans were
washed in hot water — 54.4° C. (130° F.) — in which washing powder
had been dissolved. The insides of the cans and pails were scrubbed
with a brush. After washing, the cans were inverted and remained
uncovered until the next milking. It is evident that they were washed
better than they would have been on the average farm. By this
method of handling it is apparent that the number of bacteria in the
unsterilized cans would be smaller than in those in which milk had
stood for a considerable time, for in the latter case there is an oppor-
tunity for a great multiplication of bacteria. The higher the bac-

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL, CONTENT.

27

terial count in the milk, the higher it woiikl be in the can after the
milk is poured out. The more milk there is left in the can before
washing, the higher the count would probably be after washing, and
consequentl}' the greater the contamination of the fresh milk placed
in the can. The method of handling utensils in the experiment ex-

y ^ I sK^ ^ I .^ ^ I I I

Fig. 16. — Bacterial contents of milk from sterilized (black) and unsterilized (white) utensils.

28 BULLETIN 642, U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

plains, therefore, the rekitively low count found in milk placed in the
unsterilized utensils.

The number of bacteria introduced into milk by unsterilized uten-
sils is extremely variable because of the many different ways in which
the utensils may be handled. To show the variation other experi-
ments were conducted, the results of which are shown in Table 10.
In these experiments the manure was removed only twice a week and
the cows were dirty. Under the conditions the average count of
30 samples of milk from sterilized utensils was 31,040 bacteria per
cubic centimeter, which represents the contamination of the milk,
largely by manure, but does not include that from unsterilized uten-
sils. Under the same conditions 50 samples of milk were taken, di-
rectly after milking, from washed but not sterilized utensils. The
average count of this series of samples was 6G6,520. Deducting
31,040, the average count from sterilized utensils, the remainder,
635,480, represents the average bacterial contamination per cubic
centimeter of milk resulting from unsterilized utensils. Referring
to the contamination by unsterilized utensils discussed in the previous
experiment and shown in Table 9, it may be seen that the contamina-
tion in the two experiments was very different, being in the former
relatively low and in the latter ver}^ high.

To show further the variability of the factor of unsterilized uten-
sils, another series of samples was examined under the same barn
conditions but with utensils treated in a different manner. After
milking, the milk was poured from the utensils, but the drainings
were allowed to remain. The utensils were j^laced upright on the
floor until the next milking, or about eiglit hours later, when they were
washed in the same manner as in the previous expeiiments. The 20
samples of milk taken under these conditions averaged 1,667,000
bacteria per cubic centimeter, as shown in Table 10. The count was
nearly three times that of the average of 50 samples in wdiich the
utensils were washed immediately after milking but not sterilized.
By deducting the average figure of 31,040 bacteria obtained in the
samples from sterilized utensils, the average number introduced from
unsterilized ones held eight hours before w^ashing was about 1,635,000
bacteria per cubic centimeter. While that method of handling uten-
sils may not represent average conditions in practice, it is not unu-
sual. The results indicate that a very large number of bacteria may
be introduced into milk from washed, unsterilized utensils.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

29

Tahle 10.-

-Xiinibcr of bacteria per cubic centimeter introduced into milk tlirough
tnisterilizcd utensils.

Sample No.

1

2.
3

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14
15
16
17.
18
19.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Utensils
steril-
ized.

Utensils
■washed
directly

after
milking.

27,000
f)S, 000
54,000
83.000
28, 000
96,000
11,800
39,000
23,600
98, 000
21,600
12,400
10. 200
22, 000
12, 100
42, 000
16, 400
22, 800
24,000
37, 000
13. .')00
57. tK)0
14, 200
15, 500
8,000
7,600

225,

1,140,

270,

620,

6.S0,

1,0.SI1,

490,

850,

840,

1.4.")0,

2, 400,

1,950,

260,

610,

340,

630^

179.

366,

304.

460,

1,320,

790,

1,0 :o,

295,

1, 9 10,

690,

Utensils
hold 8
hours
before

washing.

670,
820,
300,
800,
170,
440,
621),
860,
570,
630,
300,
720,
120,
840,
OSO,
920,
160.
820,
200,
300,

Sample No.

Utensils
steril-
ized.

27 24,500

28 25,000

29 16,500

30 ' 10, ,500

31

32

33... .'

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44 i

45 '

46 '

47

48

49

50

Average... 31,040

Utensils
washed
directly

after
milking.

Utensils
held 8
hours
before

wasliing.

1,310,000
520, 000
750.000
460, 000
320, 000
440,000
ISO, 000
490, 000
318,000
497,000
580, 000
440,000
780,000
710, 000
590, 000
310,000
450,000
230,000
190,000
230,000
182,000
340,000
560, 000
670,000

,520 1,667,000

Several determinations of the total number of bacteria in washed
cans and pails were made just before milking. They were obtained as
follows : P'our hundred cubic centimeters of sterile water was placed
in each utensil and vigorously shaken, the contents were then poured
into a sterile receptacle and the number of bacteria determined in the
usual way. The results of some of the determinations are shown in
Table 11. Five-gallon cans were washed, as has been described, with
hot water at approximately 51.4° C. (130° F.) in which washing
powder was dissolved. The interior of the utensils was scrubbed with
a brush, then rinsed, inverted, and left uncovered. in the milk house.
The number of bacteria per can ranged from 292,000,000 to 5,520,-
000,000 and in the pails from 2,400 to 12,600,000. Table 11 also shows
two counts of pails and cans which had been held eight hours before
being washed, one can showing 15,600,000,000 and the other
16,800,000,000 bacteria, while the pails showed 44,000,000 and 700,-
000,000 bacteria, respectively. The results show the great variation
that may occur in can and pail counts when held under dili'erent
conditions.

30

BULLETIN 642, XJ. S. DEJPAllTMElsrT Oli' AGRICULTURE.

Table 11. — Total number of bacteria found in elean-iraslicd but nnsterilized

ntcnsils.

Series No.

Washed can.

Washed pail.

Series No.

Washed can.

Washed pail.

1

728,000,000
816, 000, 000
860,000,000

5,520,000,000
624,000,000
870,000,000

1,580,000,000

76,400
2,600
2,400

17,600

8,800

12,600,000

1,380,000

8

292,000,000
1,220,000,000
1, 180. 000. 000
1, 6^0, 000. 000

1 16, 800, 000, ono

115,600,000,000

4, 200, 000

2

9

652, 000

3

4

10 :..

11

12

2,200,000
10,400,000

5

1700,000,000

6

13

44,000,000

1 Held 8 hours before washing.

During the work it was thought that one rinsing of a can with
sterile water probably did not remove all the bacteria from the in-
terior. To determine the point several tests were made, the results
of which are shown in Table 12. In the first test the can was rinsed
twice, with 400 cubic centimeters of sterile water each time. The
first rinsing showed 860,000,000 bacteria and the second 478,800,000,
or a total of 1,338,800,000 bacteria in the can. In a second test, in
which the can was rinsed three times, each rinsing showed large
numbers of bacteria, the count being lower after each rinsing. In a
third test, in which four rinsings were made, the last one still re-
moved a large number of bacteria. It follows from these results
that one rinsing removes only a portion of the bacteria from the can,
and therefore is not a true measure of the number of bacteria present.
The highest total count per 5-gallon can in that test was 8,876,000,000
bacteria. A simple calculation proves that if this can were filled
with milk, 469,132 bacteria would be added to each cubic centimeter
through contamination from the can. This merely shows the possi-
bility of great contamination from nnsterilized utensils.

Table 12.

-Effect of several rinsings in determining the number of bacteria
in cans.

Number of rinsing.

Number of bac-
teria per
washed can.

1

860, 000. 000
478, 800, 000

2

Total

1.338,800,000

1

5, 520, 000, 000

2, 640. 000, 000

716,000,000

2

3

Total

8,876,000,000

1

624,000,000

316,000,000

109,000,000

72,000,000

2

3

4

Total

1,121,000,000

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

31

As a matter of additional interest, some experiments were con-
ducted which show that bacteria grow in washed cans which are
closed before they are thoroughly dried. To illustrate the point, two
5-gallon cans were sterilized, then one was filled with milk, which
was immediately poured into the other, and that in turn immediately
emptied. The operation was performed in order, to introduce into
each can approxinuitely the same number of bacteria. Each can
was then washed in exactly the same manner, the excess of water
being shaken out and the cover replaced. A determination of the
number of bacteria in one of the freshly washed cans was then made.
The other can, which it may be assumed contained approximately the
same number of bacteria at that time, was allowed to stand at a
warm temperature for 24 hours, when the number of bacteria was
determined. An examination of the results in Table 13 shows that
in each of the seven tests there was a great increase in the number
of bacteria in the cans during the holding period of 21 hours. The
importance of drying cans thoroughly after washing, particularly
when they are immediately covered, is therefore evident.

Table 13. — Bacterial growth in cans covered before being dried.

*

Bacteria per can.

Senes No.

Bacteria per can

Series No.

Freshly
washed.

24 hours after
washing.

, Freshly
washed.

24 hours after
washing.

1

2

3 ^...-

4

960, 000

618, 000

137,000

91,000

847,000,000

2,612,000,000

336,000.000

428,000,000

5.
6.
7.

V

99, eoo

1 5, 570, 000
305, 000

320, 000, 000

74S. 000, 000
138, 000, 000

Utensils that have not been sterilized, besides adding large num-
bers of bacteria to milk, introduce types which greatly affect the re-
lation of the various bacterial groups in it. This matter also was in-,
vestigated, determinations having been nifide of the bacterial groups
in milk drawn directly from the udder, 'from sterilized utensils, from
unsterilized utensils, and from washings of unsterilized cans. Table
14 summarizes the results of this work. Numerous samples from
different sources have been averaged in the table. The bacterial
groups were determined by the milk-tube method, which has been
described.

The bacterial groups in the samples of milk drawn directly from
the udder compare very closely with those in the milk from sterilized
utensils. It will be noted that in the milk from unsterilized utensils
there was a great increase in the percentage of the alkali-forming
•and peptonizing groups. While the- acid-coagulating peptonizing
group was not found in milk from utensils not sterilized, it was pres-

32

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

ent in the milk drawn directly from the udder. It was not found
for the reason that the bacterial count being so great such dilutions
had to be used in plating that the small number of bacteria of that
type did not appear on the plates. It is also of interest to note that
the washings from the unsterilized cans contained high percentages
of the alkali-forming bacteria and particularly the peptonizing
group. The addition of peptonizing bacteria in large numbers to
milk is a matter of considerable importance, since they may be highly
undesirable in that they produce putrefactive changes. North has
frequently called attention to the importance of the use of sterilized
utensils, which has been further emphasized by results obtained by
Prucha, Harding, and Weeter (3). The work of these investigators
and our own experiments indicate clearly that the use of sterilized
utensils is the greatest factor in the production of milk of low bac-
terial count.

Table 14. — Bacterial groups in milk directly from the udder, in fresh milk from
sterilized and unsterilized utensils, and in washings from clean but unsteril-
ized cans.

Number
of samples
averaged.

Bacterial groups.

Source of sample.

Acid co-
agulating

Acid.

Inert.

\lkali i Pepto-
Alkali. ! jjjj^jjjg_

Acid co-
agulating
(pepto-
nizing).

Udder

47
19
17
2

Per cent.

46.21

25.81

11. 54

.39

Perceni.

37. 25

39.22

16.99

1.85

Percent.
9.41
25.51
31.55
11.64

Per cent.

0.45

.71

14.14

19.24

Per cent.

1.36

3.26

25.79

66.87

Per cent.
5.09

Milk from sterilized utensils. . . .
Milk from unsterilized utensils. .
Washings from unsterilized cans.

5.49

0

0

The small dairyman often has difficulty in providing an inex-
pensive apparatus for sterilizing his utensils. Realizing this, a sim-
ple steam sterilizer has been devised in the Dairy Division. The
sterilizer, fully described in Farmers' Bulletin 748, entitled "A Sim-
ple Steam Sterilizer for Farm Dairy Utensils," is inexpensive to
construct and operate and provides a practical method for sterilizing
dairy utensils on a small scale. The bulletin will be sent free to
anyone on request to the Department of Agriculture.

CONTAMINATION OF MILK BY MANURE AND DIRT.

It has been shown that unsterilized utensils are a source of very
great contamination of milk, but they are not the only means of con-
tamination. Statements have been made, and possibly it has been the
general belief, that the greatest contamination of milk comes from
manure and other accumulations of dirt on the body of the cow.
The results. in these experiments indicate that while that is an im-
portant source of contamination from the standpoint of the number

Bui. 642, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate I.

Rmnll-tni^ iiail.

14,6u0

upan -^1.1.

a3,000

■>i.jiii l--.-)p i)jij.i .
21,100

f^^

S -'i-^r.--^

vP9a, tfftU.

144,000

•

31,300

A.

?&-.>'

112, 000

122,000

275,000

\W

6b, 000

72,000

112,000

Id, 200

■^^^f^f^.

166,000

Comparison of Sediment and Bacterial Count of Milk from Small-Top and
Open Pails During Experiment No. 5. Bacteria Per Cubic Centimeter and
Sediment Disks from one Pint of Milk.

Continued in Plates II and HI.

Bui. 642, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate II

Small -top pail.

96,000

1%'

3,200

2,100

Ugflii pail.

150,000

i6,500

4,800

^':.i^->

'Jii^^-f- '''

Kinni 1-tnp pnH

1,900

69,000

9,400

*•-.%

17,700

66,000

7,IjOO

3,500

(

19,fi00

1,900

t<:;.,.

\ \

19 i^M^-^l

i,600

31,000

53,000

i^.

20 ;

>4^

5»»«

(^i'"'

Comparison of Sediment and Bacterial Count of Milk from Small-Top and
Open Pails During Experiment No. 5. Bacteria Per Cubic Centimeter and
Sediment Disks from one Pint of Milk.

See also Plates I and III.

Bui. 642, U. 5. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate III.

■S-nnl 1-t..n nail .

iifinn nnTi ,

SmHl i-tnn gHll .

uoan PHJl.

C9,000

w

13,100

J.bOO

7,300

^

lb, 900

B,400

27 / . '

4-,10'J

6,100

2 , 'JOO

10,200

8,900

if!,. \ ■' " .•
'1 • .■■.•■*

3,100

/

d.lQO

» /'^K;

16,100

■^i^^y..

2b T -•; --• S

^<^^

6,600

/"■

' ■■/'■

6b, 000

11,500
30 / '■ "'

V

Comparison of Sediment and Bacterial Count of Milk from Small-Top and
Open Pails During Experiment No. 5. Bacteria Per Cubic Centimeter and
Sediment Disks from one Pint of Milk.

Continued from Plates I and II.

Bui. 642, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate IV.

Smnll-lnp pnil ,

lipan puiT ■

Small-top pail.

Open pail.

1,300

\

1,400

\

3,700

1,200

21,300

. /

/

2,400

/

V

J, 800

6,400

3,700

3.300

I •

7,'jOO

2,300

3,100

1,300

i /

2,300

\*

3,100

Comparison of the Sediment and Bacterial Count of Milk from Small-Top
AND Open Pails During Experiment No. 7. Bacteria Per Cubic Centimeter
AND Sediment Disks from one Pint of Milk.

Bui. 642, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate V.

o

1-

U Q.

H

UJ

1-

z

7

o

5

s
o

(\

re

111

u.

CO

CO

UJ

T

CO

h

Q

O

H

H

z

1-
7.

UJ

•s.

3

a

O

UJ

O"^

.J

o

<

z

tc

<

UJ

1-

o

X

.A.

*-A

:<>

Bui. 642, U. S. Depl. of Agriculture.

Plate VI.

Sediment Disks Showing from 0.01 to 0.5 Gram of Fresh Manure.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

33

of bacteria introduced, it is a factor of less importance than un-
sterilized utensils. Nevertheless, dirt and manure should be kept
out of millv, not only to help insure the production of milk of low
bacterial count, but also to minimize the possibility of infection by
disease-producing- organisms, particularly that of bovine tubercu-
losis. It has been shown by Shroeder (4) that cattle having tuber-
culosis swallow their sputum, so that the tubercle bacilli in it pass
through their bodies and into the manure.

The small-top pail was designed for the purpose of helping to
prevent the entrance of manure and dirt into milk. Many investiga-
tions, among which may be mentioned the work of Stocking (5),
also Harding (0) and his associates, and Lamson (7), have shown
it to be of great assistance in this connection. Throughout the
experiments both the open and small-top pails were used, and
attention is again called to the value of the small-top pail in
the experiments whether the cows were clean or dirty. Table 15
gives a summary of the average bacterial counts from milk from the
sterilized open and small-top pails. Discussion of the results is
unnecessary, as they confirm what has been recognized, namely, that
lower bacterial counts can be obtained when a small-top pail is used.
In all except the last figures in Table 15 the averages represent the
counts at the same milking when two cows were milked into open
and two into small-top pails. The most interesting point in connec-
tion with the figures is the fact that even under extremely dirty
condition-s relatively low average bacterial counts were obtained.
The original cost of a small-top pail is little more than that of an
open pail; it is no more expensive to care for and is of distinct
value in preventing the entrance of manure and dirt info milk;
consequently it should always be used.

Table 15. — Siimmary of hactcrial counts of milk drawn under various conditions
into sterilized open and small-top pails.

Number

Bacteria per cubic cen-
timeter.

Condition of cows and barn floor.

of samples
averaged.

Open pail

(steril-
ized).

Small-top
pail (steril-
ized).

36

22,677

86,212

6,1G6

4,947

8,681

17,027

41

24,439

Cows dirty! udiiers and teats clean, manure removed twice a week

23
15
32

2,886
2,667

Cows clean and bedded, udders not washed, manure removed daily...

16,306

I 65 samples.

The value of the small-top pail is well illustrated in Plates I, II,
and III, in which a series of sediment disks is shown. The cotton
disks show the sediment from milk when a small-top and an open

34 BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

pail were used at the same milking; in each case the bacterial count
is shown above the disk. During the work the manure was remoA^ed
from the stable only twice a week, and as a result the cows were
extremely dirty. A study of the disks shows that in nearly every
case when the small-top pail was used there was less sediment in the
milk. The most striking difference is shown in sample 21. In some
samples, however, there was apparently little or no difference, and
when the disks from both the small-top and open pails showed little
sediment there was, as a rule, less relative difference between the
disks from the two types *of pails.

The average number of bacteria per cubic centimeter in the 30
samples from the small-top pail was 29,263 and in milk from the open
pail 87,380. The most striking difference in the bacterial count is
shown in sample 10, where samples from small-top and open pails
contained a large quantity of sediment. So far as could be judged,
one kind of pail contained about as much as the other, but the bac-
terial count of the milk from the small-top pail was 166,000 and
from the open pail 940,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter. It is inter-
esting to note that in the majority of cases in which the sediment
disks showed a large quantity of manure there was a relatively, low
bacterial count. Occasionally a sample showed a large quantity of
sediment and a high count, while other samples containing a similar
amount had a low count. This is well illustrated in samples 10 and,
21, which represent sediment in milk from the open pail and may
be explained by the variation in the number of bacteria in samples of
manure.

Wlien the cows were clean and the udders free from visible dirt
there was much less difference in the sediment in milk from the
small-top and open pails, as is well illustrated in Plate IV, which
'shows the sediment disks of milk drawn in small-top and open pails
under those conditions. -The cow^s were kept clean, the manure was
removed daily from the stable, and the udders were wiped with a
damp cloth just before milking. One of the cows and the -interior of
the barn are shown in figures 14 and 15. It must be remembered
that the sediment disks represent the sediment in unstrained milk.
Of the 10 samples examined, some showed practically no difference
in the quantity of sediment in milk from the small-top and open
pails, but as a rule the small-top pail contained less sediment and a
slightly lower bacterial content. The average number of bacteria
per cubic centimeter from the small-top pail in the 10 samples was
2.410 and from the open paiL. 5,740. It will be noted in sample 2
that milk from the open pail showed 21,300 bacteria per cubic centi-
meter, which raised the average of all the samples from the open
pails. ,

PRODUCTION OF MILK OP LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT. 35

Throughout the work it was found that, in spite of the variation
in the number of bacteria in manure, a fairly constant relation
existed between the quantity of sediment and the bacterial count.
The relation can be established only when fresh, unstrained milk,
handled in sterilized utensils, is examined. Some attempts have
been made by investigators to establish a relation between the sedi-
ment test and bacterial count in market milk, which, of cmirse, has
proved impossible, because the history of the milk was not known.

Campbell (8) draws the following conclusions: "The quantity of
sediment or visible dirt present on the disk is no criterion as to the
kind or number of bacteria contained in the milk." He made tests with
samples of milk which were collected on the railroad station platform
from cans as they arrived from various farmers. The conclusion is
of course correct, but it should be qualified by a statement as to where
the samples were taken. In such cases there are three unknown
factors, namely, whether the milk was strained, whether it was han-
dled in sterilized or unsterilized utensils, and what proportion of the
bacterial count is due to contamination and what proportion due to
growth. If the milk has been strained on the farm it is certain that
there is no relation between the sediment and the bacterial count;
neither will there be any if the milk has been handled in unsterilized
utensils, which may introduce large numbers of bacteria. Neither
can any relation be expected unless the comparison is made on fresh
milk, since bacteria multiply rapidly unless the milk is held at a low
temperature. The only way in which the relation can be established
"between sediment and the bacterial count is by a study of fresh, un-
strained milk at the farm, and where sterilized utensils are used.
Under such conditions there is a general relation between the sedi-
ment and the bacterial count, as is shown in Plate V, which shows
the sediment disks from a pint of milk' together with the jiumber of
bacteria per cubic centimeter in it. At the beginning of the experi-
ment the floor in the barn was clean, the cows were fairly clean, and
for a period of nine days the manure was allowed to accumulate on'
the floor. During that time the cows were not cleaned : consequently
they became dirtier each day. The experiment began on October 12
and continued to October 23, during which time samples of milk were
examined from each morning's and night's milking. The first two
rows in Plate V show the sediment test and bacterial count of samples
of milk at each morning's milking, the lower two rows the results
from the night's milking. At the beginning, when conditions were
fairly clean, it will be noted that there was a little sediment and that
the bacterial count was low. On each successive day, as the cows and
barn floor became dirtier, the quantity of sediment gradually in-
creased together with the bacterial count. There were slight fluctu-

36 BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

at ions in the quantity of sediment as well as in the bacterial count,
but on the whole there was a strikingly close relation. Plate V shows
that after the morning milking on October 22 there was a decided
drop in the quantity of sediment as well as in the bacterial count.
On that date the manure was removed from the stable in the after-
noon. That night's milk showed decidedly less sediment and a lower
bacterial count, as did also both milkings of October 23. The results
show that there is some direct relation between the sediment and
bacterial count which always may be influenced by the variable num-
ber of bacteria in the manure. It is therefore quite evident that the
sediment test is of value only under certain conditions.

Bacterial counts shown in Plate V are particularly interesting
since they show that a very large quantity of sediment, in other
words, manure, is necessary to create high counts provided the princi-
pal source of contamination is manure. In the experiment in which
the manure was not removed nor the cows cleaned for nine days, the
highest count obtained was 1,550,000, and the next highest w^as
1,150,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter. The other counts ranged
from 6,600 to 450,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter. After the
manure was removed the experiment was repeated under similar con-
ditions for 10 da3"s. During the latter period the highest count ob-
tained was ,82,000 and the lowest 6,600. In both experiments steril-
ized utensils were used; consequently, the contamination was due
principally to the introduction of manure into the milk. The figures
indicate that counts above 200,000 per cubic centimeter in milk usu-
ally should not be attributed entirely to contamination from manure.

The number of bacteria in 57 samples of fresh cow manure was
determined, and the results are shown in Table 16. The range in
number of bacteria per gram was from 2,900,000 to 690,000,000, the
average number per gram being 49,645,614. From these results it can
be assumed, therefore, that the average bacterial content of fresh
manure is about 50,000,000 per gram. From that number it is possi-
ble to calculate the number of bacteria added to each cubic centimeter
of a pint of milk through contamination by definite quantities of
manure. Table 17 shows the number of bacteria that would be added
to each cubic centi-meter of milk if fresh manure were added in quan-
tities varying from 0.5 to 0.01 of a gram, assuming an average gram
sample to contain " 50,000,000 bacteria. The figures show that 0.5
gram of fresh manure would add 52,854 bacteria to each cubic centi-
meter of a pint of milk, while 0.01 of a gram of manure would add
1,057.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT,

37

T.M5T.K

1C,.—\iim

Iicr of hue

tcriii in fra^li cur iiKUUirc.

Sample No.

Bacteria
per gram.

Sample No,

Bacteria
per gram.

Sample No.

Bacteria
per gram.

Sample No.

Bacteria
per gram.

1

14, ,500. 000
51,000.000

3,500.000
12,000.000
40, 000, 000

8.000.000
52, 000. 000
95 ■?nn (inn

Ifi

12, 000, 000
60, 000, (MK)
4.0(X1.f00
15. 000. OCO
120, 000. COO
11.000.()(X)

8. OK). 000
40. 000. (100

9, 000, OI'.O
7, 500, COO

30. 000. COO
9. 500. OCO

27, 300, 000
5,100,000
6,000,000

31

32

33

6.200.000
5.S00.000
7. ,S00, 000
6, 900, 000
41.000.000
8S, 000. 000
14,. 500, (00
11.000.0(10
55.000.(00
5.000,(100
32, 000, 000
13.000.000
40, 000, 000
9, .500. 000
26.300.000

46

6,800.000

2

17

47

9,400,000

3

IS

48 1 71,000,000

4..

19

31

35

49 1 3S, 700, 000

5

20

50 ! 17,200,000

6

21

36

51 i 41,000,000

22

37

3*^

39.. ..

52 '..: 60.000,000

$

23

53

10, 400, (K)0

9 i 650,000,000

21

54

55

8, 700, 000

10 R' iTfio nim

25

40

41

42

3,200,000
2,900.000

11

15,000.000

: 26

50

12

160, 000, 000
30. 000, 000
19, 700, 000

690, 000, 000

27..

57

11,500,000

13

2S

43

Average..

14

29

44..

49,645,614

15

30.

45

T.VKLK 17.

-Theoreticdl nidiihcr of Ixicteria which iikiii he (idiJcd to milk hi/ rary-
iny quantities of vianurc.

Quantity of wet
manure added to
Ipint of milk.

Number of bac-
teria added to

each cubic centi-
meter of milk.

Grain.
0.5
.4
.3
.2
.1

.075
.05
.025
.01

.52, 8.54

42, 2S3

31,712

21.141

10,571

7,907

5,285

2,642

1,057

In order to show how much manure would be added to the milk,
on the basis shown in Table IT, Plate VI shows a number of sedi-
ment disks.^ It will be seen from the figure that 0.5 of a gram of
wet manure represents a quantity far in excess of that found in milk
as produced on an average farm, and by referring again to Table IT
it is evident that this excessive quantitj^ of manure would add only
52,854 bacteria per cubic centimeter. If 0.1 of a gram of manure
were added to a pint of milk, that quantity would add only 10,571
bacteria to each cubic centimeter.

It is realized, of course, that these figures are only relative because
of the variation in the bacterial content of manure, and, furthermore,
that which does enter the milk is not necessarily fresh. The figures,
however, confirm former conclusions that manure, though an im-
portant source of contamination in general, is not so great a factor
as unsterilized utensils in causing high bacterial counts.

1 The authors are indebted to Oeorcre B. T.nylor, of the Dairy Division, for this series
of disks showing definite quantities of fresh manure.

38 BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

THE THREE MOST ESSENTIAL FACTORS IN THE PRODUCTION
OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

In connection with the term " production of milk " as used in this
paper, it is evident that there are three essential factors which most
influence the bacterial content. Named in the order of their im-
portance they are. first, the use of sterilized utensils; second, clean
cows, particularly the udders and teats; third, the use of the small-
top pail. By the use of these factors it has been possible to produce
milk of a low bacterial count and practically free from visible dirt
in an experimental barn which rej)resents a poor type found in this
country. In fact, the counts obtained were so low that only 2,000 to
3,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter were introduced through external
contamination.. A large number of factors not considered in this
paper are responsible for' this cont^amir^ation. Some of them have
been extensively studied by Stocking (1), Harding (9), Kuehle (10),
and Prucha (11).

It is evident, therefore, that the three simple factors mentioned
prevent most of the contamination of milk. It is possible, however,
that under some circumstances low-count milk can not be j)roduced
by means of these few factors. It has been shown that they prevent
most of the external contamination and that by their use it is possible
to produce milk with a bacterial content very nearly as low as that
drawn directly from the udder. If milk drawn directly from the
udder is high in bacteria, it is impossible -under any conditions to
produce a low-count milk.

It is well known that freshly drawn milk from some cows is some-
times high in bacteria ; if there are, therefore, a number of such cows
in a herd, the bacterial content of the mixed milk will be relatively
high. As an example it may be well to mention a case in which milk
produced in a sanitary barn from clean cows and with sterilized
utensils averaged 5,096 bacteria per cubic centimeter for 28 samples.
In the herd there were cows whose milk occasionally was abnormal,
in that it contained a few small clots and the last milk sometimes was
slightly stringy. The milk from these cows was kept separate from
the regular herd milk, with the result that 28 samples of it, produced
at the same time as the other samples, averaged 137,786 bacteria
per cubic centimeter. It is therefore evident that with cows of that
type it would be impossible under any conditions to produce a low-
count milk.

It is not known how common such cows are in this country, and
the point is mentioned merely to show why it is sometimes impossible,
even with the three essential factors, to produce milk of low bac-
terial count.

The criticism may be raised that the value of the essential factors
was determined under experimental conditions which do not repre-

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

39

sent practical conditions on the farm; therefore the following ex-
periment was conducted under actual farm conditions to determine
their value when used by the average dairyman.

A PRACTICAL DEMONSTRATION ON SIX FARMS.

In order to demonstrate the practical value of the three essential
factors previously
mentioned they were
applied on six farms
in the vicinity of
Grove City, Pa., with
the voluntary coop-
eration of the dairy-
men. Five of the
farms sent milk and
one sent cream to the
experimental cream-
ery operated at Grove
City by the Dairy
Division. It seemed
advisable to have one
producer of cream, ill order to determine whether these factors would
improve its quality.

Tlie scores of the six farms, according to the dairy-farm score card

used by the Dairy Division, United States Department of Agricul-

_ ture, were as follows:
^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^

40.9, and 38.4 out of a
possible 100. The in-
teriors of the barns
are shown in figures
17 to 21, inclusive.
The plan was to de-
termine, first, the bac-
terial content of the
fresh milk and cream
on the farm under the
existing conditions;
then to place in opera-
tion the three factors,

namely, sterilized utensils, clean cows with clean udders and teats,

and small-top pails.

For the work small-top pails of the type shown in figure 2 were

lent to the farmers, together with simple steam sterilizers which are

described in Farmers' Bulletin 718. The method of operating the

Fig. 18. — Interior of barn at farm No. 20.

40

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

sterilizer was demonstrated to the farmers, who were then left
to operate it without further assistance. As the work was carried on
during the summer and the cows were in pasture most of the time,

their udders were

always practically
free from visible
dirt; therefore that
factor received no
further considera-
tion.

At each milking
the milk was stirred
by means of a long,
sterile pipette, after
w^hich samples were
taken from each can
and a composite

-Interiur of baiii at laiiu No. 27. sample made, which

was immediately placed in ice water and plated wdthin an hour and
a half. For a period of three weeks samples were taken at each
farm under the usual conditions (open pails, not sterilized) and for
the three weeks following, when small-top pails, sterilized, were in
operation.

Table 18 shows the bacterial count of each sample obtained from
the night's milk, fresh, on each farm during the entire six weeks, also

Fig. 19.

Fig. 20. — loterior of barn at farm No. 43.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

41

Fi(i, 21. — Interior of l)arn at farm No. 178.

the average counts. Figure 22 shows graphically the summarized
and average results of the series of samples from each farm before
and after the three essential factors were introduced. It will be noted
that among the six farms some produced milk of a relatively low
bacterial content. Milk produced from farms 20 and 43 under the
ordinary conditions showed, respectively, average counts of 15,050
and 34.861 bacteria per cubic centimeter, while after the introduction
of the three essential factors the count was reduced to 4,656 and
2,050, respectively. The greatest average decrease due to the intro-

A€f*x3r/pa^

£><7y*^./=^^^i ^>if>3tfc5ar /\ty/^^i^.^ ct^ ^^^^^'^y^ ^^/^ c c

iSfv-eaflr /3m

^Bfv'Eyfar /sm

/yt^-'PSSt^ £^

^^/^^^^ /sm

y*C-#»««£?P*J'

Fig. 22. Average bacterial content of night's milk, produced on farms near Grove City,

Pa., before and after using the three most essential factors for the production of milk
of low bacterial content.

42

BULLETIN 642, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

duction of the essential factors was noted on farm 27, where the
average count was reduced from 186,995 to 3,606 bacteria per cubic
centimeter. On farm 178 the average number of bacteria in the
cream was reduced from 49,181 to 3,025 per cubic centimeter; all the
separator parts were sterilized in the simple steam sterilizer and held
in it until ready for use.

Table 18. — Bacteria per cubic ccniintcfcr in daiUj samples of milk {5 farms) and
cream. (1 farm), showinfj effect of using small-top pails and sterilized utensils.

Open pails, uten-

Small-top paib.

Open paUs, uten-

Small-top pails

Farm

sils not sterilized

utensils sterilized

Farm

sils not sterilized

utensils sterilized

No.

(3 weeks, July 23

(3 weeks, Aug. 15

No.

(3 weeks, July 23

(3 weeks, Aug. 15

to Aug. 12).

to Sept. 2).

to Aug. 12).

to Sept. 2).

1

233, 000

3,500

29

80, 000

1,200

SI, 000

2,700

109. 000

600

103.000

51.300

65.000

1,700

17fi, 000

8,500

8,000

1,100

67. 000

3,200

16, 200

900

220, 000

4,100

80, 000

3, 1.50

17,300

4,, 500

8. .500

2,800

139, 000

10,000

25.300

1,300

15,200

4,100

302. 000

1.700

16,900

5,000

19.000

1.750

2S. ,500

30. 000

400, 000

1.300

49. 000

10. 000

30, 000

2,200

212. 000

7.600

44,800

1.100

49. 000

9,000

6,000

7,000

88, 000

10,800

140. 000

2,, 300

32, 300

5,900

11.000

1,300

600, 000

100,000

12, 600

10, 600

71.000

9.400

Average of 19 sam-

Average of 16 sam-

Average of 19 sam-

Average of 16 sam-

ples, 116,384.

ples, 10,637.

43

plesj^ 77,095.

ples, 1,962.

20

10. 300

3,100

4.200

1,100

143.000

800

70,000

900 '

7,000

5,400

320. 000

2.000

.5. SOO

2,900

61.000

1,700

12. 000

700

6.600

2,700

1.200

3,800

2.000

5.600

5.300

3.300

9.700

1.700

17.400

4,500

2,600

5.600

3.300

2,700

6.000

2., 5.50

3.200

2,550

6.000

2, 0.50

5,400

2,050

16.000

2,200

6,200

26, 100

30.000

1,700

20,000

2,800

64.000

1.600

9.700

2,700

11,400

1,100

5,000

800

3,600

1,000

6,700

10,300

4,600

900

5,200

4,000

4,200

2,800

Averat;e of 18 sam-

Average of 16 sam-

Average of 18 sam-

Average of 16 sam-

ples, 15,050.

ples, 4,656.

ples, 34,861.
Average of 93 sam-
ples, 87,391.

ples, 2,150.
Average of 80 sam-
ples, 4,602.

27

420,000
134,000
91,000

2,300
1,600
3,100

178

12, 000

2,100

47,000

2,400

(cream).

6,000

100

1.55. 000

1,400

52.000

2,200

93,000

4,000

15,000

1,300

77,000

1,900

2.400

4,200

1.88, 000

1,800

15. 500

2,250

118,000

1,800

17.400

3,400

102. 000

24,000

3.200

3,700

44.200

2,300

7,200

10,000

406,000

1,500

24, 700

750

140, OOO

2,800

35, 700

2.000

1.140.000

2,500

94,000

3.600

92, 000

2,000

300.000

2,600

34,400

, 2,300

8,000

2.400

13, 300

173, 000

3.300

105,000
1.53,000

20. 800

4,. 500

Average of 16 sam-
ples, 49,181.

Average of 16 sam-
ples, 3,025.

Average of 19 sam-

Average of 16 sam-

ples, 186,995.

ples, 3,606.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT. 43

The average bacterial count of 93 samples of milk taken from the
five farms under the ordinary conditions was 87,391 per cubic centi-
meter, which was reduced to 4,002 after the introduction of the three
essential factors. The highest average bacterial count in fresh milk
after the introduction of. these factors was 10,637 and the lowest
1,9G2 per cubic centimeter.

It is believed that the results offer proof of the practical value of
the three essential factors, namely, sterilized utensils, clean cows
with clean udders and teats, and the use of small-top pails, for the
production of milk of low bacterial count when fresh, on the average
farm. The effect of holding the milk on the farm Avas not consid-
ered in this work.

BACTERIAL COUNTS OF FRESH MILK ON THE AVERAGE FARM.

One of the interesting points noted throughout this work was the
fact that very high bacterial counts were not obtained, even under
extremely dirty barn conditions, with dirty cows, and unsterilized
utensils. As a rule, samples of fresh milk taken directly after milk-
ing, when produced under these conditions, contained less than
1,000,000 and usually below 500,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter. It
must be remembered that in this work fresh milk which had not been
strained or cooled was examined. It is realized, of course, that strain-
ino- and coolinir over unsterilized coolers would increase the bacterial
count to some extent. This observation led to the belief that in all
probability the bacterial count of fresh milk as produced on the
average farm is not so high as has been generally believed.

In order to obtain some information on this point, 249 samples of
fresh milk from 12 different farms around Grove City, Pa., were
examined during the summer of 1916. The milk was strained but
not cooled. The condition of the barns and the methods of handling
milk probably represent the average on uninspected farms in the
North and North Central part of this country and would score on
the average approximately 40 points out of a possible 100, based on
the United States Department of Agriculture dairy-farm score card.

The results of the examination of samples of morning's and night's
milk are shown in Table 19. The night's samples averaged 115,135,
and the morning's samples averaged 180,696 bacteria per cubic centi-
meter, and the average for all was 135,146.

44 BULLETIN? 642, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table 19. — The bacterial content of 2^9 samples of fresh milk as produced on 12

farms.

Farm

Bacteria

Farm

Bacteria

Farm

Bacteria

Farm

Bacteria

Farm

Bacteria

No.

per c. c.

No.

per c. c.

No.

per c. e.

No.

per c. c.

No.

per c. c.

1

233,000

14

119,000

20

10,300

• 27

20,000

43

2,000

81,000

130, 000

143,000

42,000

9,700

103,000

190,000

7,000

92,f)00

2,(500

176,000

290,000

5,800

1 130,000

6,000

67,000

90,000

12,000

1242,000

6,000

220,000

64,000

1,200

136,000

16, 000

17,300

1,250,000

5,300

14,000

30, 000

139,000

1505,000

17,400

1 26,000

64,000

15,200

1400,000

3,300

1250,000

11,400

16,900

1600,000

3,200

1 16,000

3,600

28,500

1 145,000

5,400

1 20,000

4,600

49,000

1820,000

6,200

1 64 , 000

4,000

212,000

121,000

20,000

2,800

49,000

1 168,000

9,700

80,000

88,000

1230,000

5,000

29

109,000

47

13,000

32,800

1470,000

6,700

65, 000

42,000

600,000

1 121,000

5,200

8,000

15,000

12,600

12,270,000

4,200

16,200

19,000

71,000
110,000

11,890,000
1230,000

80,000
8,500

2,970,000
1 16,000

23

240, 000

4,000
10,000

11,020,000

400, 000
112,000

25,300
302,000

16,000
1.55,000

16

13,000

29,400

65,000

19,000

1 6,000

60,000

25, 000

170, 000

400,000

1 32,000

126,900

20,000

1145,000

30,000

133,000

1222,000

13,000

1 490,000

44,800

126,000

22, 000

1233,000

6,000

78

49, 000

127,000

14,000

1300,000

140,000

70,000

133,000

4,000

1 63,000

11,000

180,000

1100,000

14,000

1 37, 000

100,000

35,000

154,000

40,000

10,600

75,000

136,000

27, 000

27

420,000

9,400

62,000

156,000

95,000
450,000

134,000
91,000
47,000

6,000
17,000
50,000

24,000
45,000
12,000

5

147,000

24,000

474,000

1 480,000

155,000

8,000

23,000

92,000

'i>2,000

93,000

220,000

136,000

127,000

1 41,000

77,000

1 54,000

85,000

173,000

1 29,000

188,000

1 34,000

3(10,000

110,000

1 22, 000

118,000

1 6,000

1 50,000

34,000

17

30 000

102, 000

1 15,000

1 153,000

20,000

21 '000
20 000

44,200

I 14,000

1 58, 000

39,700

406,000

1 114, WO

129,000

26,000

78^ 000
84 000

140,000
1,140,000

1 27, 000
1 40,000

124,000
1 38, 000

14

219,000
445,000

1 40^000
1 4 000

92,600
34,400

1 170,000

1 10,000
1 34,000

237,000

1 11^000
198,000
133,000
1 34 000

13,300

4,200

180,000

205,000

105,000

43

70,000

177,000

204,000

153,000

320,000

166,000

69,000

82,000

64,000

1 51,000

46,000

44,000

6,600

1 Morning's milk.

Average of all samples, 249, taken on 12 farms was 135,146 bacteria per cubic centimeter.

Average of 173 samples of night's milk taken on 12 farms was 115,135 bacteria per cuViic centimctor.

Average of 76 samples of morning's milk taken on 9 farms was 180,696 bacteria per cubic centimeter.

The samples may be grouped according to the number of bacteria
per cubic centimeter, as follows:

Samples.

1,000,001 or more 1 6

500,001 to 1,000,000 4

2.50.001 to .500,000 16

100.001 to 2.50.000 49

50.001 to 100,000 44

50,000 or belo^^ 130

Total 249

These figures indicate that the presence of millions of bacteria in
milk, which in the past have been considered to a large extent as

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT. 45

evidence of great contamination, is evidently not due in most cases to
original contamination. The resadts show that extremely high connt-s
in milk are in general the result of bacterial growth rather than
original contamination.

THE EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON THE GROWTH OF BACTERIA

IN MILK.

The results shown in the previous discussion of the factors essen-
tial for the production of milk of low bacterial count when fresh
iipply only to fresh milk. The daii'yman must remember that when
milk of that kind has been produced his responsibility has not ended,
for the* milk must be kept cold to prevent the growth of bacteria.
The three factors discussed prevent to a large degree the contamina-
tion of milk during production, as the term is used in this bulletin.
In the broad sense of the term " production of milk," the .effect of
temperature at Avhich the milk is held on the farm must also be con-
sidered. It is one of the greatest problems in the handling of milk
on the farm, and extensive studies have been made to show the effect
of holding milk at different tempemtures -during varying lengths of
time. Samples of milk produced under different conditions were
held at 4.4°, 10°, and 15.5° C. (40°, 50°, and 00° F.) and examined
when fresh and after each interval of 24 hours for 96 hours, or 4
claj's. The milk was produced in the experimental barn under three
different sets of conditions, as follows:

First. Cows were clean and bedded ; the udders washed part of the
time and left unwashed part of the time; the small-top pail used;
and all utensils were sterilized.

Second. Cows were dirty; the manure was removed twice a week;
both open and small-top pails used ; and all utensils were sterilized.

Third. Conditions same as second except that the utensils were not
sterilized.

Complete detailed results showing the growth of the bacteria in
the milk produced under the different conditions mentioned are given.
Twenty samples produced under condition 1 were studied ; 34 samples
under condition 2, and 30 under condition 3.

The bacterial development in milk having a low count, as described
under the first condition, is shown in Table 20. The calculated ratio
of the bacterial growth in each sample is shown in Table 21. The
bacterial development in milk under the second condition mentioned
is shown in Table 22 and the ratio of the bacterial development in
Table 23. Tables 24 and 25 show similar results for milk produced
under the third condition. The summary of the averages of all the
samples studied during this work is shown in Table 26. It will be
noted that the milk produced under the three conditions wdien fresh
showed somewhat different bacterial counts; that produced under
condition 1 averaged 4,295 bacteria per cubic centimeter; under con-
dition 2, 39,082; and under condition 3, 136,533. It will be seen,

46 BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

therefore, that three different grades of milk, based on their bacterial
counts, were considered.

The figures presented in the tables show that with two samples of
approximately the same initial bacterial count the increase was
not always at exactly the same rate. In some determinations there
were occasional counts far above normal at given periods, which
can be explained by the fact that there may have been a slight
variation in bacterial tjq^es, although the initial count was approxi-
mately the same. One t3q:)e may have grown more rapidly at a
certain temperature than the types in other samples. It is believed,
hoAvever, that in this work the variations above the normal were
due to inability to control absolutely the temperatures in the hold-
ing boxes. In general, however, the variations had little or no
effect upon the average counts for the entire series of samples
studied. .

In Table 26 the average results have been grouped in two differ-
ent ways; first, to show the growth of bacteria in a series of sam-
ples produced under the three conditions and having different
initial counts, when held at 4.4°, 10°, and 15.5° C. (40°, 50°, and
60° F.), respectively; second, to show the growth of bacteria in
each grade of milk when held at the same temperatures. In the
lower part of the table are shown the average ratios of bacterial
growth arranged to correspond to the counts in the upper portion.
The ratios were obtained by dividing the count, after each succes-
sive period of 24 hours, by the initial count.

In the sample held at 4.4° C. (40° F.) there was a relatively
small growth of bacteria during the period of 96 hours. A most in-
teresting effect of temperature on the gj-owth of bacteria is shown
by the samples of milk produced under the third condition and held
at 10° C. (50° F.). It will be seen that when milk with an average
count of 4,295 was held for 72 hours, the average count was but
little higher than that of milk with an original count of 136,553
per cubic centimeter held 24 hours at the same temperature. A
similar condition was found also among samples of low-count milk
held 48 hours at 15.5° C. (60° F.), which showed a count of ap-
proximately 33,000,000 bacteria, while high-count milk reached ap-
proximately 24,000,000 in 24 hours. At the end of 96 hours the
bacterial growth reaches a point where the counts are so high as
to be approximately the same for all grades, cf milk.

It is evident that the development of bacteria in different grades
of milk at 10° C. (50° F.) has a direct practical bearing. For ex-
ample, if milk were produced on a farm under conditions^ which
Avhen fresh averaged approximately 4,000 bacteria per cubic centi-
meter, when held at 10° C. (50° F.) for 48 hours it would contain
an average of approximately 127,000. If milk were produced under

1 Morning's callk,

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

47

condition 3, which when fresh averaged approximated 13G,000
bacteria per cubic centimeter, when held for 48 hours at 10° C.
(50° F.) its average count would be approximately 13,000,000. The
difference in count would be of great importance if an attempt were
being made to market a milk of low bacterial content.

Table 20. — Groicth of bacteria in milk produced under condition 1 when held
at .',4°, 10°, ond 15.5° C. {.',0° , 50°, and 60° F.).

Sample No.

Temper-
ature.

Fresh.

24 hours.

48 hours.

72 hours.

96 hours.

1

4.4° C.

MO°F.).

3,500
6,900
3,400
7,400
4,700
5,300
7,300
3,300
9, 400
3,900
3,900
4,200
4,700
1,600
3,400
2,200
2, 900
1,400
3,400
2, 100

2,500
7,700
3,700
7,100
5,900
3,300
5,300
4,200

4,166'

7,400
3,500
4,300
2,300
3,800
2,400
2,600
1,700

3,300
7,300
3,800
6, 200
5,. 300
2, 900
4,500

14,400
8,900
4,100
4,100
4,200

11,600

21,100

2

13,100

3 .•

3,400

4

3,500

16,000

G

7

8,500

8

3,400
11,800
5,400
10, 100
9,300
5,200
3,800
40,500
2,200

7,600

9

11,400
3,900
5,300
4,700
4,800
2, .500
6,900
2,300
3,200

21,000

10 ...

11 ...

18,200

12

22, 600
6,500

13

14

23,400

15

109, 000

10

17

21,000

18

6,100
2,500
4,100

18,000
2,200

19..

1,600
2,300

20

2,700

Average..

4,295

4,138

4,566

8,427

19,693

1

10° C.

(50° F.).

3,500
6,900
3,400
7,400
4,700
5,300
7,. 300
3,300
9,400
3,900
3,900
4,200
4,700
1,600
3,400
2, 200
2,900
1,400
3,400
2, 100

6,400
14,400
5,800
8,900
10,800
6,100
5,100
4,700

8,200
55,600
26,000
35,000
33,000
510,000
22,000

4,500,000
3,760,000
570,000
260,000
8,700,000
6, 400, 000

34,800,000
96,000,000
13,300,000
19,300,000
43,500,000

2

3

7

6,700,000

180,000

90,000

1,440,000

5,100,000

39, 000, 000

1,260,000

1,150,000

31,000,000

190, 000

9

28,000

18,500

7,200

900,000

205,000

71,000

280,000

13,600

42, 000

4, 100, 000

5,900

8,100
41,200
20, 200
18, 200
65,000

5,200
12,700

6,400

11

95,000,000

12

212,000,000
14,200,000

13

20, 200, 000
55,000,000

15

16

17

12,200,000
1,400,000

190,000
95,000
170,000

19

28,000
16, 000

3,600,000

20

6,200

4,295

13,961

l'^7 727 ' 5 ~*^T '^"7

39,490,625

'

' '

1

2

i

15.5° C.
(60° F.).

f 3, 500
6,900
3,400
7,400
4,700
5,300
7.300
3,300
9,400
3,900
3,900
4,200
4,700
1,600
3,400
2,200
2,900
1,400
3,400
2,100

1,250,000

1,300,000

160,000

156, 000

10,200,000

1,010.000

310,000

55,000

74,000,000
42,500,000
13,200,000
20,600,000
31,800,000
28,200,000
18,900,000

265,000,000
170,000,000
87,000,000
172,000,000
1,550,000,000
242,000,000

4,240,000,000

3

4

208,000,000
1,180,000,000
2, 100, 000, 000

6

7

149,000,000

S

74,000,000

71,000,000

248,000,000

750, 000, 000

1, MO, 000, 000

112,000,000

22,000,000

152, 000, 000

112,000,000

106,000,000

9 i

5,800,000
14,800,000
63,000,000
85,000,000
23,100,000
17,300,000
97,100,000
24,900,000
14,500,000

152,000,000

10

270,000

1,220,000

1,580,000

240, 000

74,000

10, 100, 000

102, 000

110,000

105,000

830," 666'

11

12

910,000,000

13

276, 000, 000

14

1,490,000,000
2,040,000,000

15

16

17

270, 000, 000

18

59,000,000
64,000,000
87,000,000

157,000,000

19 ,...,,

7,900,000
11,600,000

201,000,000

20 ,.,

Average ,,

4,295

1,887,8^

33,011,111

326,500,000 1 902.785.714

.

48

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

Table 21. — Ratio of bafterial groivth in milk produced under eoiidition 1 when
held at 44°, 10°, and 15.5° C. (40°, 50°. and 60° F.).

Sample No.

Tempera-
ture.

Fresh.

24 hours. 48 hours.

72 hours.

96 hours.

^ 4.4° C.
■ (40°F.).

Average.

10° C.
(50° F.).

Average.

Average.

, 15.5° C.
'(60°F.).

'0
1.11
1.08
0

1.25
0
0
1.27

0

1.05

1.09

0

1.12

0

0

4.11

1.28

1.20

0

0

2.18

6.02

1.89

1

0

3.40

1.05

1.89

0

0

1.43

1.11

1.09

0

1.21

1.21

1

1.35

1.11

1.02

1.56

2.02

1.04

1.10

1.03
1.25
1.38
2.58
2.21
1.10
2.37
11.91
1

1.16
2.30
2.23

4.66
5.38
1.38
1.46
32.05

1.28

1.25

1.82

2.08

1.70

1.20

2.29

1.15

0

1.42

1.51
2.07
9.80
4.29
11.37
1.91
2.36
4.37
4.57

2.9^

357.1
188.4

47

21
2, 170. 2
190.5

42.4

16.6

69.2
312.8
376. 1

51

46.2
2,970.5

40. 3

37.9

75

157.1

398.6

0
1.09

4.35

0

1.95

7.24
1.28
0

2.06

5.10

2.34

8.05

7.64

4.72

7.02

96.20

3.01

1, 285. 7
544.9
107. 6
35.1

1,8.')1

1,018.8

2.97

4.74

1.84

214. 20

43.60

44.30

82.30

6.18

14.40

54.5

9.5

369.2

1,307.6

9, 285. 7

268

718.7

9,117.6

86.3

9, 942. 8
13,913
3,911.7
2, 608. 1
9, 255. 3

917.8
166. 6
436 1

24,358.9
50,476.1
3,021.2
12, 625
16, 176. 4

8.23
7.01

135.7
27.9

4

206. 8

1

000

1

058. 8

31.07 I 1,464.7

21, 142. 8
6, 159. 4
3, 882. 3
2, 783. 7
6, 765. 9
5,320.7
2,589

7.5, 714. 2
24, 037. 6
25, 588. 2
23, 243. 2
329, 787. 2
45, 660. 9

617

3, 794. 8
16, 1.53. 8
20, 23S

4,914.8
10, 812. 5
28,558.8
11,318.1

5,000

22,424.2
7, 553. 1
63, 589. 7
192,307.6
390, 476. 1
23, 829. 7
13, 750
44, 705. 8
50, 909

9, 629. 6

1,211,428.5

61,176.4

159. 459. 4

446. 808. 5

20,410.9
32,121.2
16,170.2

58,723.4
931,250
600,000

2, 323. 5
5, 523. 8

42, 142. 8
18, 823. 5
41,428.5

93, 103. 4
112,142.8
59,117.6

288,231.8

1 Bacterial count less than imtial count.

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT,

49

Table 22. — Groirth of bacteria in milk produced under condition 2 when held
at 44\ 10°, and 15.5° C. U0° , 50°, and 60° F.).

Sample No.

Temper-
ature.

-Vverage.

4.4° C.
(40° F.)

Average.

10°
(50°

Fresh.

10,000

8,100

i:i,900

165,000

210, 000

85,000

65,000

121,000

16,500

19,600

611,000

66, 000

53,000

8,900

16,100

4,100

65,000

4,300

5,600

10,800

26, 900

29,800

14,600

19,700

78,000

3,200

7,500

7,200

17,700

31,000

6,100

10,200

8,400

23,000

39,082

10,600

8,100

13,900

165,000

240,000

8i,000

65,000

121,000

16,500

19,600

69,000

66,000

53,000

8,900

16,100

4,100

65,000

4,300

5,600

10,800

26, 900

29,800

14,600

19,700

78,000

3,200

7,500

7,200

17, 700

31,000

6,100

10,200

8,400

23,000

39,082

24 hours.

11,600
14,500

176,000

290,000
240,000
890,000
29, 800
39,300
65,000
72,000

11,500
13,400

7, 900
82,000

4,400
13, 700

29,500

111,000
79,000
99,000
2,800
14,800
23,300
45,000

20,400
9,800
10, 100
59,000

88,028

68,000
137,000

382,000
'866,066

48 hours.

19,000

""i4,'i66'
'376,'666'

300,000
970,000
20, 100
35,600
448,000

199,000
17,700
34,000
8,200

5,500

9,600

74,000
371,000
141,000
176,000
2,900
22,300
26,000

68,000
17,800
18,600
11,200

121,864

270,000

85,000

960,000
83,000
51,000
321,000
181,000

910,000
3,100,000

380,000
1,190,000

389,000

76,000

9,800,000

42,000
37,000
18,500
116,000
65,000
53,000

1,100,000
112,000
630,000
240,000

123,000

348,000
176,000
172,000
5,500
43,000
78,000
116,000

23,000

47,000

12,800

272,000

177,437

252,000
' "81,666

130,000
1,080,000
. 340,000

740,000
11,000

167,000

250,000

210,000
11,000
42,000
26,000

831,615

72 hours.

14,800

254,000

540,000

1,. 560, 000

410,000

37,000
23,000

98,000
470,000
24,000
28,000

217,000

11,800

46,000

77,000

355,000

106,000

2,700
14,500

58,000
37,000
17,500
19,600

49,000

186,245

330,000

1,700.000

1,400,000

5,900,000

850,000

96 hours.

508.000

35,000

660,000

480,000

3,050,000

26,000

15,300,000

156,000

620,000

29,000

4,100

1,800,000

38,000

32,000
67,000

2, 500
'226,666

34,000
13,200

4,500
58,000

1,056,922
8,100,000

4,400,000
6,800,000
2,800,000
24,500,000

580,000
6,060,000

20,400,000

800,000

2,400,000

2.50,000

320,000

9,100,000
'2,'976,'666'

250,000

350,000

4,600,000

810,000

82,000,000

63,000,000

5,200,000

8,800,000

2,900,000

26,700,000

4, 700, 000

900,000
1,100,000

380,000
3,900,000

120,600
1,900,000

570,000
430,000
45,000
120,000

420,000
1,761,458

3,600,000

29,600,000

3,900,000

5.50,000

3,200,000

220,000
1,300,000

13,079,166

50

BtJLLETiK 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table 22. — Groicth of bacteria in milk produced under conditions 2 when held
at 44°, 10°, and 15.5° C. (40°, 50°, and 60° F.)— Continued.

Sample No.

Temper-
ature.

Fresh.

15.5° C.
(60° F.) \

Average.

10,600

8,100

13,900

165,000

2-10, 000

8(,000

65,000

121,000

16,500

19,600

69,000

66,000

53,000

8,900

16, 100

4,100

65,000

4,300

5,600

10, 800

26,900

29,800

14,600

19,700

78,000

3,200

7,500

7,200

17,700

31,000

6,100

10,200

8,400

23,000

39,082

24 hours.

1,100,000
2,100,000

4,900,000

7,200,000
4,400,000
3,080,000
720,000
8,900,000
14,800,000

1,870,000
6,400,000
2,400,000
4,500,000
1,200,000
1,700,000

3,600,000

6,100,000
17,700,000
5,200,000
140,000
5,300,000
2,150,000
2,100,000

1,190,000
3,300,000
3,. 300, 000
5,100,000,

4,461,111

48 hours.

35,300,000

9,600,000

126,000,000
112,000,000
,366,000,000
339,000,000
53,200,000
33,400,000
203,000,000

190,000,000
22,800,000
226,000,000
152,000,000

12,600,
22,000,
61,000,
34,600,
9,700,
19, .300,
158,000,

84.000,
19,. 500,
164,000,
177,000,

11,600,000

8,200,000

000
000
000
000

72 hours.

92,000,000

390,000,000
1,690, 000; 000
3,470,000,000
2,280,000,000

108,000,000
670,000,000

270,000,000

210,000,000

1,200,000,000

560,000,000

630,000,000

42,000,000

180,000,000
190,000,000
340,000,000
521,000,000

45,000,000
520,000,000

1,SO,000,000
320,000,000
140,000,000
490,000,000

660,000,000

99,120,000

633,375,000

96 hours.

142,000,000

990,000,000
2,610,000,000
1,820,000,000
2,320,000,000

1,370,000,000

2,070,000,000

8 iO, 000, 000

5,500,000,000

135,000,000

1,280,000,000

1,340,000,000

970,000,000

376,000,000

690,000,000

1, 21^0, 000, 000
600,000,000
780,000,000

340,000,000
1,590,000,000

1,355,650,000

Table 23.

-Ratio of hacterial groirtli in milk produced under condition 2 irhcii
held at 44°, 10°, and 15.5° C. (40°, 50°, and 60° F.).

Sample No.

Temper-
ature.

Fresh.

24 hours.

48 hours.

72 hours.

96 hours.

1

4.4° C.
■ (40° F.)

1.1
1.7

1.8

47.9

2

1.8

3

i.i

2.5

1.1

1.5
2.2

18.7
6.3

4

5 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

1.5

2

6

3.5
3.6
7.3
1.8
2
10
1.1

36.7

7

4.6

8

1.2

1.8

6.5

g

9

2.2
1.2

1:5'

8.8
2.7
1.7

1.6

10

11

221.7

12

2.4

13

3.7
1.9
2.1
2

11.7

14

1.3

0

1.9

1.3

1.1

2.4

3.2

15

16

0

17

3.3

27.6

is:::::::::. .::::. :x

19

1.3

8.8

2.1

20

21 V

0

2.9

1.1

1.7

2.6

24.3

5.4

2.5

22

2.5
25.4
7.1
2.2
0

2.9
3.6

23

7.6

4

1.3

0

1.9

3.2

2.5

7.8

24

25

26 ,..

0
1.9

0

27

28

30.5

29

3.3
1.2
2.8
1.9

- .^- . . .

30

2.2
2.9
1.8
1.3

1.1

31 .

3.3
0

1.2
2.5

2.2

32

33

0

34

2.1

2.5

Average

2.4

3.8

4.4

22.1

PRODtTCTlON OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

51

T\BLE 23 — Ratio of bacterini (/roirtli in milk produced under condition 2 when
held at J,4° , 10°, and 15.5° C. (-',0°, 50°, and 60° i^.)— Continued.

Sample No.

Temper-
ature.

Fresh.

24 hours.

48 hours.

72 hours.

96 hours.

10° C.
(50° F.)

6.4
16.9

25.4

764.1

40.7

6.1

316.5

2.3

10.3
58.3
71
13

41.2

3.8
37.3

5.8

9.8
23.5

3.8
142

116.6

6

10.3

295.1

7.9

5

2.6

4.6

2.7

9

35.1
309.1

1,236.3

1,188.4

12.1
45.2
28
19.8

954.5

20.7
12.5
39.1
58.5

98.1

14

4.7
2.2
4.5
1.7
15.1
9.4

988.7

j5

707.3

17 1

140

410.7

58.6

1,093.5

530.3

(. 0

83.3

21

4.5

9.3
11.7
315
41.1

40.9

4.3
73.9
17.2

9.4
.3.4
22.2
34.7

12.7

23

23.8
8.9
2.2
1.7
5.7

10.8
6.5

267.1

37.5
253.3

1,125

27

4,111.1

29

32.2
13.8
7.3
11.7

220.3

6.7

1.8

4.1

3.1

17-7

31 !

3.7
4.6
1.5
11.8

524.5

33 "

26.2

18.2

56.5

6.7

24.3

86

612.3

15.5° C.
(60° F.)

J

103.7
259.2

3,330.1

13,396.2

11,358

690.6

71,223

29.6

2,363.6

7,041.6

41,807.2

35,076.9

15,818.1

525
1,349.4
5,630.7
2,801.6
3,224.2
1,704
2,942

7,583.3

g .

27,951.8

110.7
36.4

186.6
36.7

128.9

224.2

6, ,545. 4
34, 183. 6

83. 030. 3

10 ....

12

4, 090. 9

3,962.2

134,831.3

34,782.6

14,848.4

3, 584. 9
2,561.7
14,037.2
37,073.1

14

16

210.1
397.5
585.3
69.2
279
303.5

232,584.2

202, 439
84,61.5.3

9,692.3

18

20

22

24

26

28

'30

32

34

2,697.6

31 395 3

7,500

759.2

118,518.5

133.8

6,691.4
6,375.8
23,287.6
26, 598. 9

49,814.1
32, 550. 3

422.8
1,.506.8
3,096.4

443.5

3,031.2

2,573.3

21,944.4

417.8
898.4
66.6
43.7
706.6
298.6
118.6

25, 753. 4

14,062.5
69,333.3

215,625

10, 196. 4
10,322.5
22, 950. 8
48,039.2

68,361.5

2, 709. 6
3,196.7
16,078.4
21,071.4

19,354.8

195
323.5
392.8
221.7

127,868.8

40, 476. 2

28, 695. 6

69,130.4

1..

351

6,114.8

24,990.1

73,920.8

1

1 Bacterial count less than initial count.

52

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table 24. — Growth of bacteria in milk produced under condition 3 when held at 4-4'^
10°, and 15.5° C. (40°, 50° and 60° F.).

Sample No.

Temper-
ature.

Fresh.

24 hours.

48 hours.

72 hoiu^s.

96 hours.

1

4.4° C.
(40° F.)

149,000

9,200

22, 500

6,300

6,800

8,200

115,000

207, 000

216,000

202,000

332,000

215,000

209,000

176,000

256,000

55,000

4,100

18, 100

11,400

12,400

193, 000

169,000

210,000

159,000

230, 000

265,000

168,000

157,000

186,000

128,000

262,000

8,200

39,000

6,200

12,200

127, 000

356,000

290,000

1,440,000

600, 000

278,000

224,000

207,000

354,000
15, 600
41,000
24, 000

386,000
63,000
60,000

620,000

2

9,500

3

4

135, 000

5

13, 600

620, 000

1,020,000

19,000

6

165, 000
790,000
252, 000
2,700,000
720, 000
266, 000
256,000

970,000

8

9

3,550,000
910, 000
407,000

3, 840, 000

10

2, 700, 000

11

12

250,000

13

14

260, 000

15

208, 000
82,000
32,000
26,000
38,000

480, 000
51,000
24,000
41,000

460, 000

16.

52,000
2,500
37,000
15, 700
36,000
313,000
243,000
186, 000
650,000
970, 000
254,000
158,000
106,000

106,000

17

5,200

18

19

53,000

20

35,000
540, 000
530, 000

68, 000

21

295, 000
510,000
300, 000
3,900,000
1,450,000
246, 000
162,000

596,000

22

23

24

4,200,000

1,720,000

244,000

4,800,000

25

1,560,000

26

27

195,000

28

29

240, 000

30

98,000

86,000

170,000

136,533

281,646

538, 775

749, 030

852, 835

1

10° C.
(50° F.)

J

149, 000

9,200

22, 500

6,300

6,800

8,200

115,000

207,000

216,000

202,000

332, 000

215,000

209, 000

176,000

256,000

55, 000

4, 100

18,100

11, 400

12, 400

193,000

169, 000

210,000

159, 000

230,000

265,000

168,000

157, 000

186,000

128,000

380, 000

37,000

107,000

38,000

91,000

1,540,000

3, 180, 000

1, 560, 000

2,400,000

1,490,000

4,200,000

930,000

840,000

1,770,000
510, 000

2,080,000
490,000

7,900,000

126, 000

34,800,000

48,000,000

3,600,000

3

4

8,606,666

5

11,700,000
31,200,000
45,000,000

39, 400, 000

9, 600, 000
29, 600, 000
16, 800, 000
53, 000, 000
35,600,000
14, 300, 000

4,400,000

78,000,000

7

9

65,000,000
31, 000, 000
26,300,000

96,000,000

10

33,900,000

11

34,200,000

13

20,100,000

24,200,000

20,100,000

220, 000

55,000

8, 900, 000

32,200,000

9, oOO, 666

27, 500, 000

260,000

35,000

490, 000

2,080,000

36,500,000

15

2, 040, 000

47, 000

4,300

43,000

52, 000

394,000

1,230,000

620, 000

560, 000

2,700,000

2,180,000

1,210,000

560, 000

240,000

"'"i,"666,'666'

15,600,000

16.

18, 400, 000

17

560,000

19

58,000,000

20

19, 300, 000
45, 000, 000
28,800,000

53,000,000

21.

13, 900, 000
27, 000, 000
5, 700, 000
42,000,000
24, 700, 000
9,100,000
2,770,000

76,000,000

22

23

68, 000, 000
33, 600, 000
25,200,000

110,000,000

25

34,900,000

26

27

41,300,000

18,800,000
26, 700, 000
22,700,000

38, 700, 000

29.

4, 630, 000
17,400,000

2:5,400,000

26, 300, 000

136, 533

1,170,546

13,662,115

25,687,541

41,207,272

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

53

Table 24. — Grout It of bacteria in inilh- produced under condition 3 ichcn held
at 44°, 10°, and 15.5° C. UiO° , 50°, and 60° F.) — Continued.

1..

2..

3..
4..

5..
6..
7..
8..
9..
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
2fi.
27.
28.
29.
30.

Sample No.

Temper-
ature.

Average.

, 15.5° C.
(60° F.).

149,000

9,200

22, 500

6, 300

6,800

8, 200

115,000

207, 000

216, 000

202,000

332,000

215, 000

209,000

176,000

256,000

55,000

4,100

18. 100

11,400

12. 400

193, 000

169, 000

210,000

159, 000

230. 000

21 lo, 0(10

IfiS, 0(10

157,(11)0

ISO, 000

128, 000

17, .800, 000
2,900,000
76,000,000
4,700,000
10, 300, 000
32, 300, 000
22,600,000
16,200,000
46,000,000
11,300,000
19,400,000
9,700,000
10, 200, 000

67,000,000

1,600,000

510,000

11,600,000

88,000,000

5, 500, 000

72, 000, 000

11,900,000

11,5.50,000

21,600,000

2^, 1(K),000

2), !00, 000

7, 100,000

.S, 300, 000

52,000,000

130,533 I 24,673,571

410,000,000

21^,000.0(10

l,ni;o,(ioii,ooo

2.35, 000, 000

125,000,000
198,000,0(M)
145,000,000
165, 000, 000
12S,000,000
147, 000, 000
126,000,000

4i;o.O()o, 000

4,200,000,000
1,410,000.000
1,0.')0,000,000
5S0, 01)0. 000
1,S00, 000, 01)0

411,000,000
373, 000, 000
310,000,000
344,000,000
362,000,000
243, 000, 000
87, 000, 000

730,000,000
2, 270, 000, 000

72 hours.

2,430,000,000

160, 000, (KX)

1,540,000,000

'i,ii6,'66o,cK)6

910,000,000
1,(1.50,000,000

1,060,000,000
190,000,000
210, 000, 000

1,160,000,000
1,720,000,000
6, 900, 000, 000
1,280,000,000
3,000,000,000
8,400,000,000

4,400,000,000
4,900,000,000
3,140,000,000

790,000,000
730,000,000
340,000,000

96 hotrrs.

10,400,000,000
1,640,000,000
2,230,000,000

1,590,000,000
1,430,000,000

1,260,000,000
8,-300,000,000
4,400,000,000
9,100,000,000

2,190,000,000
1,750,000,000
5, 400, 000, 000

12, 500, 000, 000
21,600,000,000

1,970,000,000
8, 400, 000, 000
1,380,000,000

3,900,000,000
4,600,000.000
2,410,000,000
1,540,000,000

639, 8.84, 615

2,407,083,333, 5,346,666,066

Table 25.-

-Ratio of hacteriol grovth in milk produced under condition 3 when
held at 44°, 10°, and 15.5° C, 40°, 50^, and 60° F.

Sample No.

Temper- Fresh,
aturc.

24
hours.

48
hours.

72
hours.

96
hours.

1 .

4.4° r.
(40° F.)

1.75
10
1.73
0

1.79
1.54
3.09
1.40
6. 66
2.97
0

1.04
0

2.37
1.69
1.82
3.80

2.59

6.84
2.66

4.16

2

1.03

3

4

21.40

5

2
75.60

8.86

2.79

6

2.01
6.86
1.21
12.50
3.56
0
1.19

118. 20

8 .

9

16. 40
4.50
1.22

17.70

10

13.30

11

12 .

1.16

13

14

1.47

15

0

1.49
7.80
1.43
3. 33

1.87
0

5.85
2.26

2.' .82'

2.79
3.13

1.79

16

0

0

2.04

1.37

2.90

1.62

1.43

0

4.08

4.21

0

0

0

1.92

17

1.26

18

19

4.64

20

5.48

21

1.52
3.01
1.42
24.50
6.30
0
0

3.08

22

23 .

24

26. 40

7.47
0

30.10

25

6.78

26

27

1.16

28

29

1.09

30 ;

0

0

1.32

2.47

4.62

10.19

11.99

. .. . .

1 Bacterial count less than initial count.

54

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

Table 25. — Ratio of bacterial growth in milk produced under condition 3 ivhen
held at ^J,°, 10°, and 15.5° C. (J,0°, 50°, and 60° F.)— Continued.

Sample No.

Temper-
ature.

Fresh.

24
hours.

48
hours.

72
hours.

96
hours.

1

10° C.
(50° F.)

2.5

4

4.7

6

1.3.3
1S7.8
27.6

7.5
11.1

7.3
12.6

4.3

4

11.8

55.4
92.4

77.7

5.3.0

13.6

1,546.6

322.1
391.3

2

3

4

1,365
5 794 1

5

1,720.5

3,804.8

391.3

6 ....

1,170.7
257.6

81.1
245.3
176.2

43

20.4

9,512.1

7

8

9

300.9

153.4

-9.2

10

11

12

159
154
207 3

13

96.1
137.5

78. 5
4

13.4
491.7

14

53.9
107.4
4.7
0
27
182.4

15

7.9

0

1.1

2.3

4.5

31.7
6.3
3.6
2.6

16.9
9.4
4.5
3.3
1.5

60 9
334 5

16

17

136.5

18

19

5,087.7
4 274 1

20

1,556.4
233. 1
170.4

21

72
159.7

27.1
264.1
107.3

34.3

16.4

393.7

22

23

24

427.6
146
95

691.8
151.7

25

26

27

215 8

28

119.7
143.5
177.3

29

24.8
135.9

125.8

205.4

30

8.2

14.6

137.9

498.1

1 385 1

1

15.5° C.
(60° F.

f 1 i 119. 4

2, 751. 6
23,695.6
47,111.1
40,476.1

16, ,308. 7
17,391.3
68, 444. 4

2

315.2
3,377.7

746

1,514.7

3,939

196. 5

78.2

212.9

5.5.9

58.5

45.1

48.8

3

4

1,650,793.6
241,176.4
271,951.2

5

163,235.2

110,975.6

14,347.8

6 '

15,243.9
1,721.7
700.4
763. 8
633. 6
442.7
586

8

9

4,907.4
940.5
632. 5

7,361.1
7,079.2

10.

11

12

5,8fi0 4

13

5,,'J50 2
9, 772. 7
26,953.1
23. 272. 7
7.31,707.3
464,088.3

39,712.9
25 000

14 ■

2, 613. 6
16,406.2
26, 181. 8

256,097.5
32,044.1

157,894.7

15 j

16 1

261.7

29

124. 3
640.8
7,719.2
443.5
373

70.4

55

135.8
123.4

92

42.2

52.8

35,546.8

17 !

18 !

19

192,105.2
141 129

20

354,838.7
25, 388. 6
18,520.7

21

22

2,129.5
2,207.1
1,476.1
2, 163. 5
1,57.3.9
916.9
517.8

27,979.2

23

24

25

26

4,968.5
3,173.9
1,283

"'12,' 547.' 7'
45, 161. 2
10, 781. 2

78,616.3
93,913

27

28

23,214.2
29,299.3
12,956.9
12,031.2

29

3,924.7
17, 734. 3

30

406.2

Average

759.9

25, 308

61 527 2 1 ifin 87.'? fi

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT.

55

Table 26. — Snminary of rcsultti sliotni in Tables 20 to 25 inclusive.

AVERAGE NUMBER OF BACTERIA.

Temperature.

Section l.

50° F.

60° F.

Condi-
tion.

Fresh.

40° F.
50° F.
60° F.

40° F.
50° F .
60° F.

40° F.
50° F.
60° F.

Section 2.

4,295

39,082
136,533

4,295
39, 082
130,533

4,295
39,082
136,533

4,295
4,295
4,295

39,082
39,082
39,082

1.36,533
136,5.33
136,533

4', 138

88,028
281,646

13,961

177, 4H7

1,170,546

1,, 587, 333
4,461,111
24,673,571

4,138

13,961

1,587,333

88, 028

177,4:i7

4,461,111

281,646

1,170,546

24,673,571

48 hours.

4,566
121,864
538,775

127,727

831,615

13,662,115

33,011,111
99,120,000
639,884,615

4,566

127,727

33,011,111

121,864

831,615

99,120,000

538,775

13,662,115

639,884,615

72 hours.

8,427
186,245
749,030

5,725,277

1,761,458

25,687,541

326,500,000

633,375,000

2,407,083,3.33

8,247

5,725,277

326,500,000

186,245

1,731,875

6,33,375,000

749,030

25,687,541

2,407,083,333

96 hours.

19,693

1,056,922

852,835

39,490,625
13,079,166
41,207,272

962,785,714
1,3.55,6,50,000
5, 346, 666, 666

19,693
39,490,625
962,785,714

1,056,922

13,097,166

1,355,650,000

852, 835

41,207,272

5, 346, 666, 666

RATIO OF GROWTH.

40° F

[ 1
\ 2
1 3

I 1
I 2
1 3

f 1

I 2
1 3

I 1

f ^
[ ^

1 i

1.25

2.40
2.47

3.34
6.70
14.68

398. 60
.351. 00
759. 90

1.25

3.34

398.60

2.40

6. 70

.351.00

2.47

14.68

759. 90

1.21
3.80
4.62

31.07
24.30
137.94

8,772.10
6,114.80
25,308.00

1.21

31.07
• 8,772.10

3.80

24.-0

6,114.80

4.62

137. 94

25,308.00

2.66
4.40
10.19

1,464.70

86.00

498. 06

79,809.50
24,990.10
61,527.20

2.66

1,464.70

79, 809. 50

4.40

86.00

24,990.10

10.19

498. 06

61,527.20

5.10
22.10

50° F

11.99

9,629.60
612. 30

60° F

1,385.06

288,231.80
73,920.80

40° F

160,873.60
5.10

50° F

60°F

40° F

9,629.60
288,231.80

22.10

50° F

612.30

60° F

73,920.80

40° F

11.99

,50° F

1,385.C6

60° F

160,873.60

The effect of low temperature on the bacterial growth in any one of
the grades of milk demands special attention. From section 2 of
Table 26, it is evident that even if milk when fresh shows a low
bacterial count the number of bacteria will be high if it is held at a
high temperature. For example, milk with an average count of ap-
proximately 4,000 when held 24 hours at 4.4° C. (40° F.) showed ap-
proximately the same count. At 10° C. (50° F.) the count was about
13,000, while at 15.5° C. (60° F.) the average M'as about 1,500,000.
The results show in every case the great value of holding milk at 10°
C. (50° F.) rather than 15.5° C. (60° F.)

It is realized that night's milk is generally held on the farm for
periods of from 12 to 15 hours before delivery ; it is, therefore, im-
portant to know what bacterial increase will occur in milk held about
that period of time. In order to obtain data on the subject, samples
of milk produced under clean conditions in sterilized utensils and also

56

BULLETIN 642, U. S.- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

samples of milk produced under dirty conditions were held at 15.5° C.
(60° F.) and 21.1° C. (70° F.) and examined when fresh, and after
12, 21, and 48 hours.

From Table 27 it will be seen that 16 samples of milk pro-
duced under clean conditions in sterilized utensils when fresh
averaged 3,243 bacteria per cubic centimeter. After 12 hours at
15.5° C. (60° F.) the average count was 4,056 and at 21.1° C.
(70° F.) 19,312 bacteria per cubic centimeter. This shows an
advantage of holding at the lower temperature which is more valuable
when the milk is held for 24 hours, as the average count was then
123,562 when held at 15.5° C. (60° F.) and 10,006,875 when held at
21.1° C. (70° F.). After 48 hours the average count at both temper-
atures was high, but the milk held at 15.5° C. (60° F.) was much
lower.

The samples of milk produced under dirty conditions in unsterilized
utensils ranged from 10,900 to 2,210,000 when fresh and averaged
707,761 bacteria per cubic centimeter. This high initial average count
increased to 3.370,961 after 12 hours at 15.5° C. (60° F.) and to
6,608,846 after 12 hours at 21.1° C. (70° F.). The counts were, of
course, very high at later periods at both temperatures.

Table 27. — Growth of bacteria in milk ichcii held at 15.5° C. (60° F.) and

21.1° C. (70° F.).
MILK PRODUCED UNDER CLEAN CONDITIONS IN STERILIZED UTENSILS.

Sample No.

Fresh.

Held at 15.5° C. (60° F.)for—

Held at 21.1° C. (70° r.)for—

12 hours.

24 hours.

48 hours.

12 hours.

24 hours.

48 hours.

1 .

1,800
1,900
1,700
3,100
11,200
7,900
1,800
700
5,600
1,100
3,400
1,400
3,100
1,200
3,800
2,200

2,300
2,000
1,100
1,800
7,300
8,700
2,100
1,700
1,900
3,100
5,100
18,300
2,200
2,000
3,000
2,300

48,000
56,000
.55,000
54,000
83,000
51,000
78,000
28,000
23,000
74,000
38,000
810,000
60,000
261,000
112,000
146.000

13,200,000
16,500,000
38,000,000

8,100
23, 100
13,600
29, 100
14,700
37,000

2,300

6,800
25, 200
19,500
13,200
58, 000

4,100
32,500

5,800
16,000

4,100,000

26,200,000

25,700,000

12,400,000

4, 700, 000

8,200,000

510, 000

1,880,000

5,400,000

30,000,000

10,200,000

5, 700, 000

4,100,000

4,920,000

6,000,000

11,500,000

1,290,000,000

2

860,000,000

3

2,410,000,000

4

5

41,000,000
57,000,000
12,900,000
4,800,000
20,100,000
42,000,000
14,100,000

1,340,000,000

6.

1,810,000,000

7

81,000,000

8

82,000,000

9

2,980,000,000

10

128,000,000

11

960, 000, 000

12

13. .

18,100,000
46,000,000
16,600,000

1,380,000,000

14

6,400,000,000

15..

6, 460, 000, 000

16

Average.

3,243

4,056

123, 562

26,176,923

19,312

10,006,875

2,014,692,307

MILK PRODUCED UNDER DIRTY CONDITIONS IN UNSTERILIZED UTENSILS.

1

10,900

1,520,000

1,880,000

1,030,000

2,210,000

1,810,000

330,000

159,000

96,000

37,000

18,000

12,000

28,000

2

3.

4

5

6

7.

8

9

10

11.

12

13

Average.

707,761

15,500

8,600,000

8,700,000

5,400,000

11,700,000

1,930,000

4,200,000

1,210,000

1,310,000

560,0000

180,000

24,000

71,000

3,376,961

182,000

148,000,000

154,000,000

22,900,000

81,000,000

68,000,000

10,300,000

22, 600, 000

29, 400, 000

43,800,000

47,200,000

1,480,000

2,300,000

48,550,923

169,000,000
840,000,000
1,180,000,000
28,000,000
Itil.OOO.OlM)
11 3, 01 10, 000
110,000,000

212,000,000
100,000,000
45,000,000

58,000

12,800,000

17,600,000

8,200,000

13,700,000

6.100,000

10,200,000

2, S 30,000

10,400,000

2,360,000

1,370,000

99,000

198,000

296,100,000 6,608,846

49,000,000
460,000,000
'.160,000, 000
630,000,000
149,000,000
75,000,000
37,000,000

114,000,000
26,000,000
96,000,000
32, 000, 000
35,000,000

1,780,000,000
7,. 100, 000, 000
460,000,000
620,000,000
540,000,000
1,860,000,000
350,000,000

1,840,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,080,000,000

221,916,666

1,853 000,000

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT,

57

The ratio of growth of bacteria in Table 28 shows an interesting
point. The ratios were determined as previously explained in this
publication (p. 46). It will be noted that there was a higher ratio
of growth in milk produced under dirty conditions in unsterilized
utensils than in samples of milk produced under clean conditions in
sterilized utensils. This seemed to be true when milk was held at
15.5° C. (60° F.) for 12 and 24 hours. At 21.1° C. (70° F.) the
statement holds true only for the first 12 hours. From that and
other observations it seems evident that the bacteria wdiich are intro-
duced from unsterilized utensils grow faster at temj^eratures near
15.5° C. (60° F.) than those in a low-count milk produced in steril-
ized utensils.

The results obtained by holding milk at 15.5° C. (60° F.) and 21.1°
C. (70° F.) for various periods of time, show the advantage of the
lower temperature and further give data on the bacterial increase
which will take place at those temperatures when both low and high-
count milk are held for varying periods of time.

The effect of temperature on the growth of bacteria in milk during
storage and transportation is a matter of very great' importance. It
is evident from the previous results that if a low-count milk is de-
sired it must be cooled and held at 10° C. (50° F.) or lower on the
farm, unless it is delivered immediately after each milking. There-
fore, for the production, in a broad sense of the term, of milk of low
bacterial content a fourth factor, proper refrigeration, must be added
to the three factors previously discussed.

Table 28. — Ratio of growth of bacteria in milk when held at 15.5° 0. (60° F.)

and 21.1° C. (70° F.).

MILK PRODUCED UNDER CLEAN CONDITION? IN STERILIZED UTENSILS.

Sample No.

Fresh.

Held at 15.5° C. (60

" F.) for—

Held at 21.1° C. (70

' F.) for—

12 hours.

24 hours.

48 hours.

12 hours.

24 hours.

48 hours.

1

1.27
1.05
0
0
0

1.07
1.16
2.43
0

2.81
1.50
13.07
0

1.66
0
1.04

26.6

29.4

32.3

17.4

7.4

6.4

43.3

40

4.1

67.2

11.1

578.5

19.3

217.5

29.4

66. 3

7,333.3
8,684 2
22, 352. 9

4.5

12.1
8

9.3
1.3
4.6
1.2
9.7
4.5

17.7
3.8

41.4
1.3

27.1
1.5
7.2

2, 277. 7

13, 789. 4
13,941.1
4,000

419.6

l,037.c^

283.3

2, 685. 7

964.2

27,818.1

3,000

4,071.4

1,322.5

4,100

1,.57S.9

5, 227. 2

716,666.6

2

4.52,631.5

3

1,417,647

4

5 .

36, 607. 1
7,215.1
7, 166. 6
6,428.5
3, 589. 2

38,181.8
4, 147

119,642.8
229,113.9

6

7

45, 000
115,714.2

8.. . . . .

9

532,142.8

10

116,363.6
282,352.9

11 :..,

12.........

13...'. . ..

5, 838. 7
38,333.3
•4,368.4

448, 387

14

533, 333. 3

15

1,700,000

16

1.69 74.76

14,634.3

9.7

5,407.3

885, 307. 3

58

BULLETIN 642, U. S. DEPARTMeHT OF AGRICULTURE.

Table 28. — Ratio of growth of bacteria in milk uhen held at 15.5° C. (60° F.)
and 21.1° C. (70° F.)— Continued.

MILK PRODUCED UNDER DIRTY CONDITIONS IN UNSTERILIZED UTENSILS.

1 . ..

1.4
5.0
4.5
4.9
5.3
1

1.2
7.6
13.6
15.1
10
2
2.5

10.6
97.3
81.9
21

•30.6
37.5
31.2
142.1
130.4
1,183.7
2, 022. 2
123.3
82.1

5.3

8.4

9.3

7.5

6.2

3.4

30.9

17.7

108.3

63.7

76.1

8.2

7.1

4,495.4
302.0
510.0
577.9
07.4
41.4
112.1

2

1,111.8

440.8

1,082.5

12.0

90.0

342.4

691.8

11,710.5

3 .

3, 989. 3

4

422

5

280.5

6

298.3

7

5, 036. 3
2,201.2

8

9

1. 187. 5
702.7

5,333.3

2. 600. 6
1,250

10

5, 729. 7
5, 555. 5
3,750

49,729.7

11

83,333.3
173,333.3

12

13

5.7

354.7

1,881.3

27

1,437.3

33, 093. 4

SUMMARY.

1. Milk of low bacterial content and practically free from visible
dirt, when fresh, was produced in an experimental barn under condi-
tions similar to those on the average low-grade farm.

2. Three simple factors were necessar}^ for the production of milk
with a low bacterial content, namely, sterilized utensils, clean cows
with clean udders and teats, and the small-top pail. A fourth factor,
holding the milk at a temperature near 10° C. (50° F.) or lower, is
necessary in order to keep the bacterial content low.

3. The average count of 65 samples of fresh milk produced by the
aid of the three factors, except that the udders and teats were not
washed, was 4,524 bacteria per cubic centimeter. The average count
of milk directly from the udder was 757 bacteria per cubic centi-
meter; the difference of 3,767 therefore represents the number intro-
duced through external contamination. During the same period
when the udder and teats of the cows were washed, the average of
the 65 samples was 2,154 bacteria per cubic centimeter, and as the
average udder count was 739, the difference, 1,415 bacteria, repre-
sented those added through external contamination.

Washing the udder and teats of the cows not only caused a decrease
in the bacterial content of the milk but also more nearly uniform
counts.

A study of the bacterial groups in the low-count milk showed that
they correspond closely to those in the milk drawn directly from the
udder.

4. A practical demonstration of the value of the three essential
factors was made on six farms. The results indicate that it is pos-
sible for the average farmer with inexpensive equipment to produce
milk of low bacterial content with little extra work.

5. The results indicate that in general the greatest contamination
of milk comes from the use of unsterilized utensils. The simple steam

tRODUCMON OF MlLIt OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT, 59

sterilizer described in Farmers' Bulletin 748 ^ was used very success-
fully for the sterilization of utensils on the farms.

G. Small-top pails were found to lessen the quantity of manure
which may gain entrance into milk and to assist in lowering the
bacterial count.

7. The sediment test was found to bear a somewhat close relation to
the number of bacteria in fresh, unstrained milk handled in sterilized
utensils.

8. From an examination of a large number of samples of fresh milk
produced under varying conditions in an experimental barn and of
samples from a number of farms, it is believed that as a general rule
the bacterial content is relatively low. It would seem that when the
count is in the millions it is the result of bacterial growth in the milk
while being held.

9. To show the growth of bacteria in milk held at various tempera-
tures for varying periods, a large number of samples were held at
4.4°, 10°, 15.5°, and 21.1° C. (40°, 50°, 60°, and 70° F.). It is abso-
lutely necessary, if milk is held on the farm, to keep it near 10° C.
(50° F.) or lower, in order to restrain bacterial growth, if the dairy-
man wishes to market milk of low bacterial content.

CONCLUSIONS.

The results of the experiments indicate that it is possible for the
average dairyman on the average farm, without expensive barns and
equipment, to produce milk (practically free from visible dirt)
which when fresh has a low bacterial count. By the use of the three
simple factors, namely, sterilized utensils, clean cows with clean ud-
ders and teats, and the small-top pail, it should be possible on the
average farm to produce milk which corresponds closely to milk as
it leaves the udder of the cow. A fourth factor of holding milk at
as near 10° C. (50° F.) as possible is also absolutely necessary.

To emphasize the value of the three simple factors, figure 23 shows
the average bacterial counts of milk produced under the various con-
ditions described in this bulletin. The results will not be discussed
in detail, but in a general way the figure gives a picture of the
results of the experiments in the order in which they were conducted.
The experiments were begun with dirty conditions and unsterilized
utensils, and milk of high bacterial count was obtained. Next the
factor of sterilized utensils was introduced, followed by the addi-
tional factor of clean udder and teats. A combination of the factors
and the use of a small-top pail permitted the production of a low-
count milk, which closely corresponded to that drawn directly from
the udder. In order to check the value of the essential factors, they
were again eliminated until a high-count milk was produced, then
reintroduced until a low-count milk was again obtained.

^ Farmers' Bulletin 748 will be sent free to any one on application to ttie department.

60

BULLETIlSr 642, tJ. S. DEtAETMEi^t OF AGRICULTURE.

The value of these
factors was thor-
oughly determined
by experiments con-
ducted in an experi-
mental barn and fur-
t h e r demonstrated
by their successful
practical application
on several farms.

In connection with
the production of
milk of low bacterial
content and which is
practically free from
visible dirt, it seems
evident from the re-
sults that undue
emphasis has been
given to factors and
methods of minor
importance, while
those which directly
affect the bacterial
content have not
been sufficiently em-
phasized.

It must again be
pointed out that only
one phase of the
production of a sani-
tary milk has been
considered in this
paper. No attempt
has been made to
study the factors
which are most di-
rectly concerned
with preventing the
infection of milk by
pathogenic organ-
isms. The factors
affecting the health
of the cattle have not

PKODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT. 61

been studied, nor has the influence of general conditions of cleanliness
surrounding the production of milk been given consideration.

LITERATURE CITED.

(1) Stocking, W. A., Jr.

1906. Quality of milk affected by common dairy practices. Conn.
(Storrs) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 42.

(2) North, Charles E.

1908. A method of milk production. In Med. Rec. [N. Y.], v. 73, no. 7,

p. 263-266.
1917. A survey of dairy score cards. In Amer. Jour. Pub. Health, v. 7,

no. 1, p. 25-39.

(3) Prucha, M. J., Harding, H. A., and Weeteb, H. M.

1915. Utensils as a source of bacterial contamination of milk. In
Science, N. S., v. 42, no. 1080, p. 853.

(4) SCHROEUEK, E. C.

1910. The relation of the tuberculous cow to public health. /)( U. S.
Dept. Agr. Bur. Anim. Indus. 25th Ann. Rpt., 1908, p. 109-153.
(5) Stocking, W. A., Jr.

1907. Comparative studies with covered milk pails. Conn. (Storrs)
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 48.

(0) Harding, H. A., Wilson, J. K., and Smith, G. A.

1910. The modern milk pail. N. Y. (Geneva) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 326.

(7) Lamson, R. W.

1914. Inexpensive aids in producing sanitary milk. Md. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bui. 181.

(8) Campbell, H. C.

1916. Comparison of the bacterial count of milk with the sediment or
dirt test. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 361.

(9) Harding, H. A., Ruehle, G. L., Wilson, J. K., and Smith, G. A.

1913. The effect of certain dairy operations upon the germ content of
milk. N. Y. (Geneva) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 365.
(10) Ruehle, G. L. A., and Kulp, W. L.

1915. Germ content of stable air and its effect upon the germ content
of milk. N. Y. (Geneva) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 409,

(11 » Prucha, M. J., and Weeter, H. M.

1917. Univ. of 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 199.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RELATING TO MILK AND DAIRYING.

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Use of Milk as Food, (i^'armers' Bulletin No. 363.)

Care of Milk and Its Use in the Home. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 413.)

Clean Milk: Production and Handling. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 602.)

Plan for a Small Dairy House. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 689.)

A Simple Steam Sterilizer for Farm Dairy Utensils. (Farmers' Bulletin

No. 748.)
Making Butter on tlie Farm. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 876.)
Application of Refrigeration to Handling of Milk. (Department Bulletin No.

98.)
Present Status of Pasteurization of Milk. (Department Bulletin No. 342.)
Comparison of Bacterial Count of Milk Witli Sediment or Dirt Test. (De-
partment Bulletin No. 361.)
Study in Cost of Producing Milk on Daii-y Farms in Wisconsin, Michigan,

Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. (Department Bulletin No. 501.)
Experiment in Conmiunity Dairying. (Yearbook Sep. No. 707.)

PUBLICATIONS FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERN-
MENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Cream Separator on AVestern Farms. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 201.) I'rice, 5
cents.

Bacteria in Milk. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 348.) Price, 5 cents.

Bacteria in Milk. (Farmei's' Bulletin No. 490.) Price, 5 cents.

Farm Butter Making. (Farmers' Bulletin No. 541.) Price, 5 cents.

Medical Milk. Commissions and Certified Milk. (Department Bulletin No. 1.)
Price, 10 cents.

Alcohol Test in Relation to Milk. (Department Bulletin No. 202.) Price, 5
cents.

Pasteurizing Milk in Bottles and Bottling Hot Milk Pasteurized in Bulk. (De-
partment Bulletin No. 240.) Price. 5 cents.

Milk and Cream Contests. (Department Bulletin No. 356.) Price, 5 cents.

Cooling Hot-Bottled Pasteurized Milk by Forced Air. (Department Bulletin
No. 420.) Price, 10 cents.

Labor Requirements of Dairy Farms Influenced by Milking Machines. (De-
partment Bulletin No. 423.) Price, 5 cents.

Bacteria of Pasteurized and Unpasteurized Milk Under Laboratory Conditions.
(Bureau Animal Industry Bulletin No. 73.) Price, 5 cents.

Milk Supply of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. (Bureau Animal In-
dustry Bulletin No. 81.) Price, 5 cents.

Milking Machine as Factor in Dairying, Preliminary Report I. Practical
Studies of Milking Machine; II. Bacteriological Studies of Milking Machine.
(Bureau Animal Industry Bulletin No. 92.) Price, 15 cents.

Relation of Tuberculous Lesions to Mode of Infection. (Bureau Animal Indus-
try Bulletin No. 93.) Price, 5 cents.

Leucocytes in Milk, Methods of Determination and Effect of Heat upon Their
Number. (Bureau Animal Industry Bulletin No. 117.) Price, 5 cents.
62

PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT. 63

Bacteriology of Commercially Pasteurized and Raw Market Milk. (Bureau

Animal Industry Bulletin No. 126.) Price, 15 cents.
IMilk Supply of Chicago and Washington, 1911. (Bureau Animal Industry

Bulletin No. 138.) I'rice, 15 cents.
Study of Bacteria which Survive Pasteurization. (Bureau Animal Industry

Bulletin No. 101.) Price, 10 cents.
Some Important Factors in Production of Sanitary Milk. (Bureau Aninud In-
dustry Circular No. 142.) Price, 5 cents.
Competitive Exhibitions of Milk and Cream, with Report of Exhibition Held at

Pittsburgh, Pa., in Cooperation with Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce.

(Bureau Animal Industry Circular No. 151.) Price, 5 cents.
Extra Cost of Producing Clean Milk. (Bureau Animal Industry Circular No.

170.) Price, 5 cents.
Pasteurization of Milk. (Bureau Animal Industry Circular No. 184.) Price,

5 cents.
Plan for Small Dairy House. (Bureau Animal Industry Circular No. 195.)

Price, 5 cents.
Directions for Home Pasteurization of Milk. (Bureau Animal Industry Circu-
lar No. 197.) Price, 5 cents.
Score-Card System of Dairy Inspection. (Bureau Animal Industry Circular

No. 199.) Price. 5 cents.
Milk and Cream Contests, How to Conduct Them, and How to Prepare Samples

for Competition. (Bureau Animal Industry Circular No. 205.) Price, 5

cents.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBMCATION MAY BE PROCUHED FROM

THE SITERIXTEXDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

■WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

15 CENTS PER COPY

V

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 643

Contribution from the Bnreaa of Entomology
L. O. HOWARD, Cider

Washington, D. C.

March 8, 1918

THE MELON FLY

By

E. A. BACK, Entomologist

and C. E. PEMBERTON, Assistant Entomologist

Mediterranean and Other Fruit Fly Investigations

CONTENTS

Page

Wliat tlie Melon Fly Is Llk^ 3

Origin and Distribution 4

Establisliment and Spread In Hawaii . . 4

Metliods of Spread 7

Economic Importance 7

Nature of Injury Caused by the Melon Fly 8

Food or Host Plants 16

Page

Interesting Facts Concerning the Adult Fly 22

Why the Melon Fly is a Serious Pest . . 24

Control Measures 25

Measures Talcen to Keep Fruit Flies of
Hawaii from Gaining a Foothold in Con-
tinental United States 29

Summary ^••* '^

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1918

THE MELON FLY is a truck-crop pest that in
the course of international commerce has been
spread from its native home in the Indo-Malayan
region to the Hawaiian Islands, and has become so
thoroughly established that it can not be eradicated.
Owing to its destructive work, such fruits as musk-
melons, watermelons, pumpkins, squashes, cucum-
bers, vegetable marrows, and tomatoes can not be
gi'own to-day in many parts of the Hawaiian Islands
unless the plants are screened. Cantaloupes and
watermelons, instead of being common and cheap
delicacies, as in former years, are now a luxury
even for the wealthy; and cantaloupes, formerly
grown in quantities about Honolulu, are now im-
ported from California. Owing to the danger of
introducing the melon fly into countries where it
does not now exist, quarantines prohibit the export
of Hawaiian-grown eggplant, bell peppers, and
tomatoes, thus shutting off an income formerly
enjoyed by the small farmer. In short, it is not
possible to exaggerate the seriousness of this insect
undQr Hawaiian coastal conditions.

The problem, however, is not entirely a local one
to be fought out by the people of Hawaii. Should
the melon fly once break through the Federal quar-
antine barriers and become established on the main-
land of the United States, it will exact a large
annual toll of the truck crops of the South. It is
important, therefore, that truck growers learn some-
thing about this pest, so difficult of control, in order
that they may become actively interested in keeping
it out

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

S\m^''^yJ'U

1 BULLETIN No. 643

Contribution from the Bureau of Entomology
L. O. HOWARD, Chief

Washington, D. C.

March 8, 1918

THE MELON FLY/

By E, A. Back, Entomologist, and C. E. Pembekton, Assistant Entomologist,

Mediterranean and Other Fruit Fly Investigations. '^,

CONTENTS.

"WTiat the melon fly is like 3

Origin and distribution 4

Establisliincnt and spread in Hawaii 4

Methods of spread 7

Economic importance 7

Nature of injury caused by the melon fly 8

Food or host plants H'

Interesting facts concerning the adult fly 22

Why the melon fly is a serious pest 24

Control measures 25

Measures taken to keep fruit flies of Hawaii
from gaining a foothold in continental

United States 29

Summary 30

THE MELON FLY is a serious pest that never slioukl have
gained access to the Hawaiian Islands. Its establishment in
Hawaii came naturally enough, as in the case of many of our worst
insect enemies, along with the development of unrestricted modern
commerce, and owing to the lack, in earlier days, of a knowledge of
pests in other lands likely to be introduced into ours, or of any
quickened public opinion which, at last thoroughly alive to the
great financial losses that may be averted, is to-day heartily sup-
porting Federal quarantines directed against just such pests as
the melon fly.

The melon fly is now established thoroughly throughout the

coastal regions of the Hawaiian Islands and never will be eradi-

' cated. It attacks many vegetables that otherwise could be grown

readily by the poorer people, who are least able to purchase them.

Melons, pumpkins, squashes, cucumbers, and tomatoes, and some

1 Bactrocera cucurhitac Coq. ; order Diptora. family Trypetidae.

For a more extended account of the melon fly see Back, E. A., and Femberton, C. E..
The melon fly in Hawaii. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 401. 64 p., 24 pi., 10 flg. 1917. This
may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Frinting Office,
Washington, D. C, for 25 cents.

Note. — The manuscript of this paper was prepared for publication as a Farmers' Bul-
letin, but owing to the fact that it deals with an insect which has not yet been introduced
into the continental United States it was considered more appropriate to issue it in the
series of Department Bulletins.

18314° — 18— Bull. 643

BULLETIN 643, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

other vegetables to-day can not be grown in many parts of the islands
except with great eiffort ; they must be imported from across the sea,
as a result of melon-fly attack.

The melon fly is capable of living and causing damage through-
out the warmer portions of the mainland United States. As it is

Fig. 1. — Tip of watermelon vine, showing adult melon fly laying eggs in ovary of a flower
still in bud, an unaffected male bloom, and withered and drooping growing tip of vine.
A female melon fly has deposited eggs In the vine at base of leafstalk, and the young
larvEe hatching have nearly severed the vine at this point. (Authors' illustration.)

being intercepted rather frequently by official inspectors at Cali-
fornia ports on ships from Hawaii, the importance of cooperation by
all in making the quarantine of the Federal Horticultural Board a
success in keeping out this very serious pest will be readily appre-
ciated.

THE MELOX FLY, 3

WHAT THE MELON FLY IS LIKE.

The melon fly, like other so-called " fruit flies," is similar to the
ordinary house fly in some respects; the adnlt lays small Avhite eggs
from Mhich hatch larvae, or maggots, which when fnll grown trans-
form into pupae. Later the adult emerges from the pupa, as the
butterfly does from the chryalis, and the cycle of life — adult, egg,
larva, pupa — is repeated with each successive generation. Fig-
ure 1 shows an adult melon fly about to lay eggs in the bud of a
watermelon. Xote the relative size of the fly and the bud. The
adult female, greatly enlarged, is shown in figure 2. When it is
remembered that the adult is from one-fourth to one-third of an
inch long, that its body is of a yellowish to a yellowish-brown color.

^c/^"- •**

Fig. 2. — Adult fem;ilp of the melon fly. Greatly enlarged. (Authors' illustration.)

and the markings between the wings, which appear white in the
figure, are bright canary yellow in the living insect, and that the
Avings are banded with dark brown, it will not be difficidt to recog-
nize this pest.

The female fly drills small, pinhole-like openings in the skin of
vegetables with the sharp tip of her body, called the ovipositor.
Through these punctures she lays her white eggs, which are about one
twenty-fifth of an inch long. If a small squash flower be cut open
after the female fly has laid her eggs, a small cavit}^ containing the
eggs, such as is illustrated by figure 3, is shown. The larvae, or mag-
gots, that hatch from the eggs feed in various parts of the host plant.
They have two l)lack hooklike processes in the head that serve as
jaws in aiding them to break up their food and to force their way

BULLETIN- 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGKICULTUEE.

through the pLant tissues. But as the hirvse, even when full grown,
are only about two-fifths of an inch long, a detailed description of
them is of little value. It is enough to know that they differ very
little from the ordinary white maggots, of equal size, with which
the reader is doubtless familiar. The larvae when full grown leave
the host to transform to the pupa stage just beneath the surface of
the soil, or beneath any protecting object. They even may transform
to the pupa within the host fruit, but this is a rare occurrence. Figure
4 shows larvae and pupse about twice natural size.
In figure 6 are shown well-grown larvae feeding in
the root of a young watermelon plant. Figure 5
represents an enlarged larva.

As the melon fly usually first forces itself upon
the attention of the market gardener by the dam-
age it does, it is more important to be able to recog-
nize it by its work than by a mere description of
the different stages. The reader, therefore, is
directed particularly to the illustrations, for, be-
sides showing types of injury, they make clear
that it is in the lar^'a stage that the melon fly
causes its greatest damage.

ORIGIN AND DISTRIBUTION.

The original home of the melon ^y is the Indo-
Malayan region. At present it is known to occur
in various parts of India, in Ceylon, Java, Macao,
Timor, northern Australia, about Singapore, in
southern China at Canton and Hongkong, in the
Philippine Islands, in Formosa, and in the Ha-
waiian Islands. There is some doubt at present
about its occurrence at Nagasaki, Japan.

It is believed that the melon fly was introduced
into the Hawaiian Islands at Honolulu from
It probably arrived in the larva stage in vege-
tables brought along as food from Japan by Japanese coolies emi-
grating as steerage passengers to work on the sugar plantations in
Hawaii.

ESTABLISHMENT AND SPREAD IN HAWAII.

The melon fly was first observed in Hawaii, so far as records show,
by Mr. Byron O. Clark, who, during October to .December, 1897,
found it almost impossible to grow cucumbers, squashes, melons, and
similar vegetables in the Kalihi district of Honolulu and about Pearl
City. During August, 1898. the pest already was established at Lau-

FiG. 3. — The melon
fly : a. Eggs de-
posited in cavity
in young pumpkin
flower ; b, single
egg, much en-
larged. (Authors'
illustration.)

Japan or China.

THE MELON FLY. 5

pahoehoe, Island of Hawaii. Indications are that the melon fly was
introduced as early as 1895.

That the melon fly is an introduced pest is proved by the inter-
esting fact that the gourd calabashes used by the Hawaiian natives
during the past century, many of which are preserved in various

■piG. 4. — Melon fly: a, Woll-growu lurvii- ; b, puijaria. Twice natural size. (Original.)

Fig. 5. — The melon fly : Third-instar larva, a. Lateral view of entire body ; b, dorsal view
of anterior end ; c, d, lateral and ventral views of same. Much enlarged. (Authors'
ilhistration.)

museums and private collections, are free from evidences of melon-
fly attack. Modern utensils largely have superseded calabashes dur-
ing these later days, but the few that are grown show the surface
defects due to the attack of the melon fly.

Although no satisfactory record has been made of the spread of
the melon fly to the various islands of Hawaii, it is now a well-

6 BULLETIN 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE.

Fig. 6. — 1, Watormelon seedling destroyed by larvse of melon fly feeding in taproot,
crown, and leaf petioles; 2, work of larvse in root, enlarged. (Authors' illus-
tration.)

THE MELON FLY. 7

established and serious pest throughout all the coastal regions. It
has been Imown even to attack cucumbers and squash at altitudes
ranging up to 4,000 or 4,500 feet.

METHODS OF SPREAD.

The melon fly probably is carried more often from one locality
or country to another in the larva stage than in any other form.
Quarantine officials at San Francisco have found living larv?e in
host fruits arriving at San Francisco on ships from Honolulu, and
records prove that the melon fly in the larva stage is able to bridge
the six or seven days required by the slower vessels to cover the 2,000
miles between the Hawaiian Islands and California, since infested
fruits have been intercepted and condemned at least once a year
since 1912. Host fruits taken on board ships as ship's stores are
capable of carrying the melon flj^ as larvae, or later as pupae, in the
fruit containers, for vovages occupying a longer time than is re-
quired to cross the Pacific Ocean, and thus may l)ecome a factor in
spreading the pest through vessels plying between almost all coun-
tries where climatic conditions are favorable for the establishment
of the fly.

The spread from one country to another at a considerable distance
probably starts with the fly in the larva stage, but the spread from
town to town, or over short distances, as between islands of the
Hawaiian group, may occur in the adult or pupa stage. A female fly
has been observed to alight on an automobile top and be carried 16
miles from the country into the citj^ of Honolulu. On another occa-
sion an adult was seen flying about an interisland boat en route from
Honolulu to Hilo, on the island of Hawaii. This fly was not observed
after the boat weighed anchor at the port of Lahaina, on the island
of Maui, or 72 miles from Honolulu. These two instances will ex-
plain the spread of the pest, in the adult stage, about the islands of
Hawaii, even if it could not be transported in the larva stage.

When larvae form their puparia on bare surfaces, and particularly
on a cloth surface, the puparia may adhere sufficiently well to make
it possible for them to be transported considerable distances under
favorable circumstances. Although no definite instances are known
where the melon fly has been spread thus, distribution in this fashion
is quite feasible and to be expected.

ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE.

The melon fly is the most important pest of varieties of melons,
squashes, and curcurbits in general grown in the Hawaiian Islands,
and probably elseAvhere. Its persistent attack has caused many per-
sons to abandon the growing of the more susceptible host fruits.

BULLETIN 643, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

Other fruits can be grown for the most part only under cover and at
increased cost. The unrestricted cultivation of fruits and vegetables
in Hawaii has been ruined by the melon fly and the Mediterranean
fruit fly. Though the latter is probably the more to be feared, many
persons regard the melon fly as of greater im-
portance from an Hawaiian standpoint, for it
attacks with the greatest persistency such crops
as squashes, pumpkins, vegetable marrows, to-
matoes, and beans, all of which could furnish
under the ideal Hawaiian climatic conditions
an abundance of food for the poorer people.
Such vegetables as muslmielons, watermelons,
pumpkins, squashes, and tomatoes can not be
grown to-day in many parts of the islands
unless the plants are screened carefully.

Cantaloupes and watermelons, instead of be-
ing common and cheap delicacies, as in former
years, are now a luxury for even the wealthy.
Cantaloupes, once grown in large quantities
about Honolulu, now are imported from Cali-
fornia. It is no longer possible to grow pump-
kins as stock food on idle land. Quarantines
prohibit the export of early shipments of egg-
plant, bell peppers, and tomatoes, thus shut-
ting off an income formerly enjoyed by the
small farmer. The loss to market gardeners in
Hawaii as a result of melon-fly attack has been
placed conservatively at three-fourths of a mil-
lion dollars annually. It is not possible to
exaggerate the importance of the melon fly
as a serious pest under Hawaiian coastal con-
ditions.

NATURE OF INJURY CAUSED BY THE
MELON FLY.

Fig. 7. — Older squasb
vine with abnormal
growths "due to work
of melon-fly larvce.
(Authors' illustra-
tion.)

The melon fly does not confine its attack to
the fruits of its host or food plants. It may
attack the young seedling, the flower, the root,
the stem, or the fruit.

INJURY TO SEEDLING PLANTS,

The melon fly attacks with severity the young succulent seedling
plants of watermelon and cantaloupe. The female fly lays her eggs in

THE MELON FLY, \)

the crown of the plant, and the UirvEc, on hatching, feed there first.
They Later burrow down into the taproot and upward into the
petioles of the leaves, and even into any young runners that are form-
ing. The capacity of the melon fly for injuring a watermelon seedling
is shown in figure 6 (p. 6). The enlarged figure of the root shows
four full-grown larvae eating their way into the root. In the figure
of the seedling the larvae have almost severed the leaf to the left,
and have tunneled completely through one of the petioles and so
destroyed it that the w^eight of the leaf has caused its stem to break
over. Injury to a seedling runner is shown in figure 8. In cer-
tain places in Hawaii where the melon fly is very abundant, entire

Fig. 8.— Seedling- watermelon showing runner killed tack by burrowing melon-fly larvae.

(Authors' illustration.)

fields of watermelons may be killed before the plants can develop
runners. Squash, pumpkin, cucumber, tomato, and bean seedlings
almost never are attacked. Larvfe never are found in the roots of
older plants.

INJURY TO THE STEM.

As the plant becomes older, it is still subject to attack. The female
fly lays her eggs in the rapidly growing pumpkin and squash vines,
but the larvae after hatching do very little damage, although they are
able to mature. They often cause abnormal swellings or cancerlike
spots where a colony of them are feeding, as illustrated by figure 7 ;
but if the injury threatens the stem, the plant throws out roots on
either side of the part affected to offset the damage. Such attacks
upon the stem are not of importance, except in the case of watermelon
and cantaloupe.

18314<'_18— Bull. 643 2

10

BULLETIN 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGKICULTUEE.

But in the two plants last mentioned the injury resulting from
attack upon the stems may be very serious, and in many cases cause
a complete failure of the crop. Figure 9 shows a portion of a canta-

FiG. 9. — Cantaloupe vine attacked by melon fly in eight places, including stalk, leaf
petioles, and young fruit. (Authors' illustration.)

loupe vine that has been attacked in eight places. So persistent is
attack upon cantaloupe in Hawaii that the vine can not be grown
satisfactorily except in isolated spots or under cover.

THE MELON FLY. H

Figures 1 and 10 shoAv a common condition found in watermelon
fields. Tlie female fly usually chooses the growing tip of the runners
in which to lay her eggs. In making a place in the vine for her eggs
she practically severs the tip of the vine so that it may fail to grow

Fm. lU. — .Succulent watermelou vine sectioned to expose Ave well-grown larvse of the
melon fly which have eaten out the interior, causing the vine to wither and die back
to the point of original infestation. (Authors' illustration.)

beyond the point of injury. The growing end of the vine, however,
usually is ruined, for, if the egg-laying process does not cause serious
damage, the larvse hatching, numbering from 2 to 10, begin to feed
and bring about a hasty destruction. Figure 1 shows the drooping,

12 BULLETIN 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

withered, growing tip. In this case the eggs were laid just beyond
the leaf and flower stalks.

When the eggs are laid in the older though still very young and
succulent watermelon vine, the larvse, on hatching, tunnel their way

FIG. 11.— Melon-fly eggs in blooms of pumpkin. Two buds of the male bloom sectioned
to show the eggs deposited through the corolla. (Authors' illustration.)

through the vine, eating out the center and causing it to wilt and die.
Figure 10 shows a vine sectioned to expose the five well-grown larvae
which have killed it beyond the l)ase of the leaf in the upper left-
hand corner of the illustration. The serious setback to vine develop-

THE MELON PLY.

13

ment that this type of injiuy causes is readily apparent. Such pnm-
ino: back of the vines, repeated over and ae;ain. may prevent the
formation of sufficient growth
for the development of fruits.

INJURY TO THE BLOOM.

Although injury to the seedling-
plant and to the groAving stem is
greatest in Avatermelon and can-
taloupe and is of little importance
among squashes, cucumbers, and
pumpkins, the inj\ny to the
bloom is very serious among all
these crops except that of the cu-
cumber. Among pumpkins and
squashes both the male and fe-
male blooms are affected; but
among the watermelons, canta-
loupes, chayotes, and Chinese
marrows the male or staminate
bloom escapes attack. It is not
uncommon to examine luxuri-
antly growing fields of squashes
and pumpkins during the w^arm
months and not find a single un-
affected bloom. Uninformed
growers often question Avhy their
vines set no fruits. The condi-
tion of the blooms illustrated in
figures 11 to 14 is the answer.

The unfertilized ovaries of all
cucurbit blooms are especially
attractive to female melon flies.
The flies lay eggs in the undevel-
oped and unfertilized ovaries of
the bloom before the blossom un-
folds, and the larA^se, on hatch-
ing, often so ruin the ovaries,
as indicated by their burrows
shown in figure 12, that the
flower never unfolds. In those
varieties having long, narrow
fruits the ovaries are man}' times
so eaten out and decayed that the weight of the upper part of the bud
causes the ovary to break (see fig. 13). So complete is the destruction

Fic. 12. — Work of melou-fly larvti; iu bring
ing about destruction of ovaries of
pumpkin bloom even before the corolla
has entirely withered.

14

BULLETIN 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

of the ovaries of watermelon bloom that in dry weather the remains
of the bloom wither and become mummified, as shown in figure 15.

An examination of the buds of the male bloom in any field through-
out the coastal regions of the Island of Oahu, particularly during
the months from March to November, will reveal the severity of
attack centered on this portion of the plant.
Wherever the buds have been attacked, a whit-
ish gumlike excretion exudes which hardens
about the point of attack. On cutting the buds
lengthwise, batches of eggs can be seen among
the folds of the corolla, or in the stamens and
receptacle, as shown in figure 11 (p. 12). As
the eggs are pure white and are in clusters
of 2 to 10 or more, they are seen easily with-
out the aid of a lens. If the eggs have been
laid from 2 to 6 days, the inside of the bud
may have been alread}^ eaten out by the rap-
idly developing larvae. Buds attacked before
they are half grown usually are destroyed com-
pletely before the blossom unfolds. Figure 11
shows three stages in the destruction of the
staminate bloom. The bud a is a mass of
decay within ; the stamens have been devoured
and the larvpe already have begun to burrow
about the base; 6 shows a bud that has been
severed by the feeding of the larvae and nas
fallen over under its own weight; and g is the
upright stem of the bud, after the essential
parts of the bloom have been ruined and have
fallen to the ground. Although attack may
occur so late in the development of the male
bloom that the corolla can unfold, it is more
often than not that eggs, or even young larva?,
can be seen on the inside of the corolla when
the flower is in full bloom. The melon fly never
attacks the bloom after the corolla has unfolded.

Fig. 13. — ris tilla to
bloom of squash in
which larviB of tho
melon fly have so de-
voured the unferti-
lized ovary that the
bloom is destroyed be-
fore the flower can
unfold. (Authors'
illustration.)

INJURY TO NEWLY SET FRUITS.

The greatest destruction among fruits usu-
ally occurs when they are very young, either
before they are fertilized or just after they have set. At this
stage of development the young fruits are expanding very rap-
idly. Figure 16 shows the damage done to three young pumpkin
fruits. About the damaged areas calluses are formed by the fruit
in an attempt to repair the damage, but this attempt seldom

THE MELON FLY,

15

prevents secondary decays from starting, and these bring about the
destruction of such portions as escape the hir\te. The sectioned
pumpkin in figure 17 shows how a colony of larvae may eat into a
young fruit, become full grown, and leave it -without causing a com-
plete destruction. It also shows how smaller, weaker colonies may
develop in the outer portion of the pulp.

INJURY TO OTHER FRUITS.

Complete destruction of fruits by larvae of the melon fly rarely
occurs after they have become 4 to 5 inches in diameter, for then

Fig. 14. — Buds of male flowers of pumpkin damaged by larvas of melon fly, a, t, and c
representing various stages in tlie destruction of tlie bloom, (.\uthors' illustration.)

the portion of the fruit containing the seeds, or the part preferred
by the larvae, is well protected by the outer meat}^ pulp and by the
rind. Such colonies of larvae as are then able to become established
in pumpkins and squashes usually develop in the outer portions of
•the fruit and do not penetrate to the center. In cantaloupes, water-
melons, cucumbers, and marrows, however, the larvae more easily may
work their way down to the softer, central portions and there com-
plete their development, while the outer portion of the fruit remains
quite firm. Figure 19 (p. 20) shows the cross section of a water-
melon that had the general external appearance of being sound.

16

BULLETIN 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Yet, when cut open, it Avas found that its center had been eaten away
entirely and the well-grown larvae had made tunnels, shown some-
what reduced, throughout the rind.

Numerous similar examples of destruction might be described.
But it is important to remember the fact that melon-fly attack upon
the older fruits is far more likely, except in the case of the canta-
loupe, cucumber, and tomato, to result in larval development in open

surface wounds and
in deformities.

One of the squashes
of figure 21, the cu-
cumbers of figure 18,
and the watermelon
of figure 20 illustrate
types of deformities
very common in Ha-
waii. Wherever the
fruits have been only
slightly damaged by
melon-fly attack, de-
formities result. It
is seldom that a per-
fectly formed cucur-
bit is seen in the
markets of Honolulu
unless the fruit was
grown under protec-
tive coverings. Al-
though deformities
do not completely
ruin the fruit, they
restrict development
and prevent the fruit
from reaching its
normal size, as illustrated by the unaffected squash and the badly
deformed squash of figure 21 (p. 22). Cucumbers and watermelons
so badly deformed as those shown in figures 18 and 20 are not salable,
even though they contain no larvae. The purchaser of fruit has
learned from experience that deformed cucumbers must be viewed
with suspicion, for, although they may be fit for the table, they may
contain maggots.

FOOD OR HOST PLANTS.

The food or host plants of the melon fly may be divided into those
preferred and those occasionally infested and may be listed as
follows :

Fig. 15. — Section of watermelon vine, showing two fruits
so devoured by larv£E of the melon fly that they have
become mummified during dry weather following attack.
Note that the remains of the blossom still persist.
(Authors' illustration.)

THE MELON FLY.

17

1. Cantaloupe.

2. Watermelon.

3. Pumpkin.

4. Squash.

5. Gourds.

1. Eggplant.

2. Water lemon

flora sp.).

1. Sycos sp.

]. Kohlrabi.

CULTIVATED.

Preferred.

6. Chinese cucumber

(Moniordicd sp. K

7. Chinese melon.
S. Chayote.

9. Cucumber.

Occasionally infested.

10. Tomato.

11. String beans.

12. Cowpeas.

3. Orange.
{I'assi- 4. Fig.

5. Papaya.

6. Peach.

7. IMango.

8. Citrullus (Java).

WILD.
2. Momordica sp.
Et^roneously recorded host fruits.

2. Cabbage. 3. Peppers.

CUCURBITACEOUS PLANTS.

All the cucurbitaceous
plants are subject to severe
infestation, particularly
of the young f r u i t s .
Cantaloupes are the most
susceptible, since the vines
as well as the fruit are
attacked badly at all
stages of growth, and the
fruits do not appear to
develop the resistance to
attack found among the
older watermelons, pump-
kins, and squashes. Ordi-
narily the cucumber is
resistant to attack when
very young, although it is
rare that cucumbers of-
fered for sale in Honolulu
do not show some evidence
of attack, even w hen
very carefully collected.
Cantaloupes and cucum-
bers may be used success-
fully by the female fly for
egg laying up to the time

Fig. 1G. — Various deformities of very young pump-
kins caused by infestations started before or just
after fertilization of tlie ovary. These fruits per-
sist for a time, owing to calluses developing about
points of attack, but they never reach a much
larger size and are ultimately destroyed by fungi
and secondary attack. (Authors' illustration.)

18

BULLETIN 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

they are ready for market. Although cantaloupe growmg has been
abandoned practically in Hawaii since the advent of the melon fly,
cucumbers are grown without protection of an}' sort. Practically all
fruits reaching a size fit for salad use show evidences of attack at one

or more spots, but
the percentage of
fruits rendered un-
marketable is not
1 a r g e enough to
force the oriental
growers to cover
the young fruits,
although it avouIcI
appear disastrously
large to American
market gardeners,
who place a high
value on their time.
During midwinter
150 out of 153 cu-
cumbers, ready for
the market at Moi-
liili, were found in-
fested variously.

All cucurbits grow
with such rapidity
in Hawaii that the
oriental is willing to
permit the pest to
destroy fully 50 per
cent of the fruits
rather than go to the
expense of covering
each fruit as soon as
or before it sets. To
prevent wholesale in-
jury, all cucurbits
except cucumbers
must be covered be-
fore or just after
blooming.

Aside from the
fact that the seedlings and vines of all cucurbits except canta-
loupe and watermelon are attacked but slightly, there is little differ-
ence in the susceptibility to attack of the yoimg fruits under

Pig. 17. — Cross section of young pumpkin, showing work
of larvse of melon fly. Each affected area represents
the location of a colony of larvae. (Authors' illus-
tration.)

THE MELON FLY.

19

Hawaiian conditions. Inasmuch as tlie fly has been permitted to
increase unchecked since its introduction, it has become so abundant
that slight differences in inherent resistance to attack are not evident

Fig. 18. — Damage to cucumbers by lai-vae of melon fly. (Authors' illustration.)

among host fruits growing in the field. The infestation is ex-
cessive in all unprotected fruits. If by chance pumpkins, squashes,
and watermelons escape infestation until they are from 4 to 6 inches

20

BULLETIN 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

in diameter they may reach maturity, although before they reach
maturity pumpkins and squashes may support numerous colonies of
larvse in open surface \rounds and become badly deformed. Out of
254 nearly full-grown pumpkins growing at Kahuku during the
winter months, 250 were found variously deformed. As msmj as 650
adults have been reared from a pumpkin not more than 4 inches
long; the staminate bloom while still a bud may support as many
as 37 well-grown larvae.

TOMATOES.

Tomatoes are very susceptible to attack. All tomatoes offered for
sale in Honolulu are likely to be infested, as shown by the ref)orts of

Fig. 19. — Cross section of young watermelon, showing destruction of interior by larvie of
melon fly. Reduced one-fourth. (Authors' illustration.)

the market fruit-fly inspector covering several months. Fifteen ripe
or partly ripe fruits examined at Hauula on March 21, 1915, con-
tained eggs or larvse. Such severe infestation is so general during
the warmer months that data are superfluous. Under climatic condi-
tions less favorable for the increase of the melon fly the tomato
probably would be found to be less susceptible to attack than cucur-
bitaceous crops. The fruits of the small wild tomatoes and the spiny
yellow-fruited Solanum, common in Hawaii, all are found growing
about fields of cucurbitaceous crops, but never yet have been found
infested. During January and February fields of tomatoes may pro-
duce a large percentage of sound fruits, owing to the effect of the

THE MELON FLY.

21

cooler weather upon the activities of the fly
tomato are subject to attack.

Only the fruits of the

STRING BEANS.

The ordinar}' varieties of string beans grown on the mainland as
a rule are not infested by the melon fly. Of the variety commonly
known as the Yellow "Wax bean, 375 pods sufficiently ripe to have
turned color were ex-
amined at Haleiwa and
were found free from
attack, although grow-
ing close to a field of
badly infested pump-
kins, in March, Exami-
nations of string beans
in other localities, par-
ticularly about Hono-
lulu, indicate that
seldom are an}^ of the
varieties infested ex-
cept the more fleshj^,
long-podded Chinese
variet3\ This variety
may be attacked very
badly when grown
near other favored
host fruits or on land
recently cleared of
such crops, as illus-
trated by figure 22. As
many as 36 well-grown
larvae have been found
within a single pod.

Although the Chi-
nese variet}' is the only
one at times generally
and badly affected,
beans of all varieties
except the Lima bean should be included in (quarantine lists. The
Lima bean never has been found infested. Only the pods of beans
usually are infested. The larvae prefer to feed upon the fleshy por-
tions of the pod, but sometimes attack the seeds. In badly infested
pods, attacked before the seeds are well grown, the larvae may eat out
the seeds and leave nothing but the outer portion untouched. This
also is true of cowpeas.

Fig. 20. — Deformed watermelon resulting from late in-
festation by larvse of melon fly. (Authors' illustra-
tion.)

oo

BULLETIN 643, U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGKICULTUEE.

COWPEAS.

Although cowpeas are not grown to any great extent in Hawaii,
they are subject to melon-fly attack. Only the pods are affected. As
many as 37 larvae have been taken from a single pod. When infesta-
tion occurs earh^ the 3"oung seeds may be devoured, but attack is cen-
tered more often upon the pod itself. Some varieties of cowpeas
appear to be less liable than others to attack by the melon fly.

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES THAT ARE SELDOM OR NEVER ATTACKED.

Several observers have stated that the melon fly attacks eggplant,
bell peppers, cabbage, and kohlrabi. During a period of three years

the representatives of
the department have
not found any of
these vegetables af-
fected. The Mediter-
ranean fruit fly has
been found attacking
eggplant and bell
peppers, but only in
small numbers. Even
in the laboratorj^ egg-
plant was found im-
mune to melon - fly
attack if the fruits
were spund. Adult
melon flies, however,
wei^e reared from
fruits first M^eakened
by decays.

Adults have been

Fig. 21.— Damage to squash by larvip of melon fly. Of the reared from Orange,

two fruits illustrated, the one to the right is normal. mano'o fif mmvT
and the one to the left, the stunted and deformed fruit ' *= ' *=' t "^ t ■- ^ ' '

caused by melon-fly attack. (Authors' illustration.) pcacll, apple, and

water lemon. These
fruits, however, do not serve regularly as hosts of the melon fly.
Only in rare instances does the melon fly attack them, and then
only slightly. For practical purposes aside from quarantines all the
fruits and vegetables listed under this subheading are free from
attack by the melon fl}'.

INTERESTING FACTS CONCERNING THE ADULT FLY.

The most interesting facts about the adult melon fly center about
the length of life and the capacity ta lay eggs. No flies have been

THE MELON FLY. 23

known to live longer than 4| days without food and water, or longer
than 5 days with water but no food. But if they can feed upon
plant juices, such as the sap that exudes from cut or broken surfaces
of pumpkin vines, cucumber fruits, papayas, etc., or the sap exuding
from the breaks made in host plants during egg laying, adults may
live many months. One female lived from February 17, 191J:, to
April 4. 1015, or 13-J months. The length of adult life is variable

Fig. 22. — Destruction of green bean pods by larva of melon fly. In a and 6 a por-
tion of the pods has been removed to expose larvre and their worl?. In a are
shown four well-grown larvae. Pods in different stages of drying out after the
larvte have left them are shown in c and d. (Authors' illustration.)

under like conditions. From the standpoint of longevity the chief
interest centers about the fact that certain adults may live long
periods and thus keep the pest alive during seasons when host fruits
are not in season.

Female ^ies may begin to lay eggs as soon as 14 days after they
emerge from the pupa during the warmer months, when the mean
temperatures range from 75° to 79° F. During the winter, at a mean

24 BULLETIN 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

of about 71° F., many adults may not lay until 44 days after emer-
gence. The season of the year and the nature of their food have an
influence upon the rapidity with which eggs are formed.

But once the female fly begins to lay eggs, she may continue to do
so throughout life. The largest number of eggs laid by any female
in confinement is 687, but 1,000 probably may be laid by vigorous
long-lived flies. While 37 is the largest number of eggs laid by a
single individual during any one day, the number varies, and may
be as few as 1. On many daj^s no eggs are laid. Unlike the female
of the Mediterranean fruit fly, which lays a few eggs almost daily,
the female melon fly lays more eggs per day, but at greater intervals.
Thus one fly deposited 14, 19, 13, 29, 16, 19, 16, 12, 17, 7, 9, 16, 7, 12,
37, 25, 21, 21, 28, 6, and 18 eggs, respectively, per day during the first
three months (summer months) after depositing her first eggs; she
laid no eggs in fruits until she was 51 days old, and, after she began
laying, laid eggs on only 21 out of 90 days. During the seventh,
eighth, and ninth months of her life (winter months) she deposited
10, 2, 18, 14, 15, 20, 13, 9, and 3 eggs.

Female flies can resume normal egg laying after periods of scarcity
of host fruits. Females that have not been given an opportunity to
lay eggs within fruits for periods ranging from 3 to 9 months after
emergence have begun to deposit eggs at a normal rate as soon as
fruits were placed with them in the laboratory rearing cages.

WHY THE MELON FLY IS A SERIOUS PEST.

The melon fly is a serious pest in Hawaii because it finds in the
coastal areas a favorable climate and plenty of food. Regardless of
the great discouragement due to its ravages, the oriental market
gardeners, and others to a less extent, plant its host vegetation in
rotation on the same or neighboring plats of ground. No attempt is
made to prevent the flies from maturing in infested fruits. The de-
caying and infested fruits of the cucumber crop, for instance, are
left on the field that is to be planted to tomatoes, or the flies develop-
ing from the cucumbers migrate to attack the melons just coming
into bearing in the near-by field. No system of control, aside from
covering successfully a small portion of the fruit that sets, is prac-
ticed.

It thus happens that large numbers of adults mature, and, as the
climate is favorable, they multiply rapidly. During the warmest
Hawaiian weather, when the mean temperature averages about 79°
F., the egg, larva, and pupa stages may be passed in as few as 12 or
as many as 29 days, according to the individual and its' host. The
complete life cycle is subject to great variation, according to the

THE MELON FLY. 25

longevity of the adult. Since one female fly has been known to live
431 days, it is evident that the complete life cycle from the laying of
the egg to the death of the fly may be 443 to 460 days when the im-
mature stages are passed during the warmer portions of the year.
At an average mean temperature of about 68° F., which is the coolest
temperature found in Hawaii where fruits are available in numbers
for study, the immature stages are passed in 40 to 45 daj^s. It is
difficult to state just what the variation in the life cycle may be in
colder climates, but it may range between 3 and 4 months.

This rapidity of increase throughout the coastal regions permits
from 8 to 11 generations of the melon fly a year, when a generation is
considered to extend from the time the egg is laid until the female of
the next generation begins to deposit eggs. As the females are
capable of li^•ing many months and of depositing eggs at frequent
intervals throughout life, the generations become hopelessly mixed.
It is possible for a female ovipositing on January 1 to be still alive
and laying eggs the following January along with the progeny of
11 generations of her descendants. It is, therefore, small wonder
that the melon fly, under such favorable conditions, swarms through-
out the market gardens of Hawaii and leaves little unaffected that is
not protected by man.

CONTROL MEASURES.

NATURAL CONTROL.

No agencies at present are working in the Hawaiian Islands to
bring about, even periodically, a very large natural reduction in the
abundance of melon flies. The mortality among the immature stages,
or among the adults, is not sufficiently high to be of practical value,
although sometimes 90 per cent of the larvae may be found dead in
certain decaj'ing fruits.

In climates colder than that of the Hawaiian coastal areas mor-
tality due to cold temperatures will play a particularly active part
in reducing the pest. While the cooler weather of the winter months
does prolong the period of development throughout the coastal re-
gions, the long life of the adult flies ajid the capacity of females for
continued egg-laying make it difficult for market gardeners to benefit
to any marked extent from the effects of cool weather if they allow
their fruits to remain unprotected. The cooler weather in the more
isolated gardens holds down the number of adults and limits their
activity to a fewer hours during the day when it is Avarm enough for
them to attack fruits, and in this way makes possible greater success
in saving fruits by the use of various protective coverings than fol-
lows the use of the same measures during the summer months.

26 BULLETIN 643^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

PARASITES.

Hawaii lias no native pa>rasit.es that attack the melon fly, but the
Hawaiian Board of Agriculture and Forestry has introduced a para-
site from India. This parasite ^ was introduced at Honolulu during
the early part of 1916, and has been reared and distributed in large
numbers, but it is not known yet whether it will check the ravages of
the melon fly in a p^-actical manner. It has become established, how-
ever, and promises to be useful.

ARTIFICIAL CONTROL.

Individual growers of vegetables in Hawaii are likely to be dis-
couraged in the application of remedial measures for the control of
the melon fly. Host fruits are grown in rotation in the numerous
garden spots and market-garden areas chiefly by uneducated orien-
tals, who do not appreciate the necessity for a united fight against
the fly. The usual custom among these laborers is to permit infested
fruits to decay in the field. In certain uncultivated areas the wild
Sycos and Chinese cucumbers run wild and furnish fruits in which
the melon fly can breed throughout the year, even though no culti-
vated crops are grown. This abundance of cultivated and wild host
fruits, coupled with a climate favorable for rapid multiplication,
produces many adult flies which spread in all directions to render
valueless all remedial measures except those that involve protective
coverings for the fruits.

It thus happens that no artificial control measures have been
applied successfully in controlling the melon fly under Hawaiian
conditions. The only means now employed to safeguard fruits is
that of protecting the young fruits with some type of covering until
they are large enough to withstand attack. Trapping adults has
proved a failure, and killing them by spraying thus far has given
poor results. If all gi'owers would cooperate systematically (1) in
the destruction of the eggs and larvae by submerging infested fruits
in Waaler or by boiling and (2) in the destruction of the adults by
spraying, the value of spraying with a poisoned bait and of covering
the young fruits would be enhanced to a point where either might
be sufficiently effective to be recommended as satisfactory. But so
long as the cultivation of host plants is largely in the hands of
orientals and others who do not appear to be amenable to instruc-
tion as modified by western standards, no relief can be expected.

SPRAYING.

Since adult melon flies do not deposit eggs for 2 to 4 weeks after
emergence during the summer, and only after relatively longer periods

^ Opuis fletcheri Silv.

THE MELON FLY. 27

during the wlntei', but feed continuously throughout this period, it
is evident that any spray that will kill them before they begin to lay
eggs is valuable. A poisoned-bait spray^ containing 5 ounces of lead
arsenate in paste form, 2^ pounds of brown sugar, and 5 gallons
of water, is very effective in killing adults. This spray, used at the
rate of 30 gallons to the acre, was applied by means of a knapsack
sprayer. About 2 acres of Chinese melons and cucumbers in a field
fairly well isolated, from the Hawaiian standpoint, which means
that no host fruits were growing within 500 yards, w^ere sprayed on
May 21, 2G, and 28. June 1, 4, 8, 14, and 23 during typical summer
weather. Six hours after an application many adults were sluggish
and flew with difficulty, but within 24 hours many dead adults could
be found among the vines. Although the adidts were lessened nu-
merically by the spray, the young fruits were punctured as badly at
the end of the experiment as at the beginning.

Although negative results have followed the use of poisoned-bait
sprays in Hawaii, failure has been due to the peculiar conditions sur-
rounding the fields sprayed that permit an influx of female flies.
Under commercial conditions, where cantaloupes, pumpkins, and
watermelons are grown in large quantities in fairly dry climatas, it is
reasonable to believe that sufficiently good results will follow the
use of poisoned sprays to make their application practicable as a
method of control.

DESTRl^CTION OF INFESTKD FKVITS.

Larvw and eggs may be killed by submerging the infested por-
tions of the plant in water, or by burying, boiling, or burning. Choice
of method will depend largely upon the amount of fruit to be
handled and upon local conditions. There is no surer way to kill all
immature stages than to boil or burn the fruits. Burning is often
expensive, and, when trash in compost holes is depended upon to
furnish the fuel, is likely to be unsatisfactory, particularly where, as
in Honolulu, the quantity of infested material is so great. Bringing
infested fruits to the boiling point will kill all forms. The sub-
merging of fruits in ordinary tap water for five days will either
kill all larvae and eggs or stop further development.

Burial in soil is a satisfactory method, provided the fruits are
buried deep enough and cracks are prevented from developing in
the earth above the fruits as the latter decay and settle. It must
be remembered that just after transforming from the pupa the
adults are so soft that they can force their way through very small
openings. A crack in the soil extending down to the fruit, even
though it be no wider than ordinary blotting paper, is still wide
enough to allow the adults to reach the surface and thwart the pur-
pose of fruit Inirial. Adults can not make their way through a foot

28

BULLETIN 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

of well-tamped soil, but have been known to force their way through
2 to 3 feet of dry loose sand beneath which their pupse had been
buried.

Because burial and burning may be left to subordinates who may
not have the interests of the owner so much at heart, boiling or sub-
mergence in water is more highly recommended. The larvee will
not injure cattle if the fruits are used as feed, but many larvge may
escape before they are eaten ; hence this method of destruction is not
recommended unless the fruits have a real value as a food.

PROTECTIVE COVERINGS.

The protection of fruits and plants by covering with^oil, paper,
or cloth is a great labor-consuming operation, yet this ts the only
method that will protect under present Hawaiian conditions. Even

Fig. 23. — Protecting cucurbits from attack by melon flies. Each fruit (in this case
of Momordica sp.) is placed, immediately after it has been fertilized, within a long
envelope made of newspaper. (Authors' illustration.)

as practiced to-day, less than 25 per cent of all fruits covered, except
certain Chinese marrows, are actually saved from attack. In a
slightly cooler climate than that of coastal Hawaii a high percentage
of the fruits could be saved. As it is, the great attraction of the un-
fertilized ovaries of the bloom makes it difficult to put on coverings
before the flowers are infested. During the warmer portions of the
year the bloom of cucurbits, with the exception of the cucumber, should
be i^rotected at least three to four days before the flower unfolds.
At present many fruits are covered, but rather indifferently and
ineffectively. During April only 0 out of 43 fruits of the Chinese
melon that had been covered were sound, while on the same date 119

THE MELON" FLY. 29

out of 692 young protected watermelons were actually free from in-
festation.

Certain Japanese growers ward off attack by burying the young
fruits in the soil or by surrounding them with straw or trash until
they are sufficiently old to withstand fatal attack. In certain light
soils cantaloupes are kept buried in the soil until they are ripe and
they appear upon the market almost white in color. The most suc-
cessful of protective coverings are those shown in figure 24. In this
case the Momordica vines are grown over bushes, hence the young
fruits can be found easily and inclosed in long cases made from
newspapers and resembling envelopes cut across at both ends. These
cases are left open at the lower end, but are never entered by the
adult flies.

MEASURES TAKEN TO KEEP THE FRUIT FLIES OF HAWAII FROM
GAINING A FOOTHOLD IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.

The Federal Horticultural Board, by means of its Quarantine
No. 13, entitled "Mediterranean Fruit Fly and Melon Fly," issued
March 23, 1914, is doing all that man can do to prevent the two
fruit-fly pests of Hawaii from becoming introduced into main-
land United States. The regulations of the quarantine practically
have put a stop to the movement of fruits and vegetables from
Hawaii. Certain fruits and vegetables, however, such as bananas
of the noncooking type, pineapples, taro, and coconuts, and others,
when it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Department of Agri-
culture that in the form in which they are to be shipped they are
not and can not be a means of conveying either the Mediterranean
fruit fly or the melon fly, may be moved or allowed to move from
Hawaii into or through any other State, Territory, or District of
the United States when they have been inspected by the United
States Department of Agriculture, certified to be free from infesta-
tation, and marked in compliance Avith the regulations. Pineapples,
taro, and coconuts do not support the fruit flies of Hawaii, neither
do bananas when shipped according to trade requirements. In prac-
tice the quarantine eliminates all shipments of fruit except the four
just mentioned, and of these pineapples and bananas only are regu-
larly shipped.

The enforcement of the quarantine is divided between the repre-
sentative of the board in Hawaii and those at the ports of entry to
the mainland, notably San Francisco, San Pedro, and Seattle. In
Hawaii it is the duty of the inspector to see that the fruit is grown
under conditions reasonably sanitary from a fruit-fly standpoint, that
each package or bundle offered for shipment is inspected and bears a
certificate to that effect, and that transporting companies do not re-

30 BULLETIN" 643, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

ceive for shipment consignments of fruit unless they have received
from the Federal Horticultural Board a permit for such action.
These permits, which give data on the kind, amount, and origin of
fruit, the name and address of consignor and consignee, and dates,
are issued in triplicate ; the duplicate and triplicate remain- in the
files of the transporting company and the Federal Horticultural
Board, respectively. The original is attached to the bill of lading
accompanying the shipment and no consignment of fruit is permitted
to leave the ship at the port of destination unless this permit is pre-
sented to the Federal inspector.

The duty of the inspector at the mainland ports is to make certain
that no express or freight consignments leave ships arriving from
Hawaii unaccompanied by the permit above mentioned, and that no
quarantined fruits or vegetables are present either in the ship's lock-
ers as ships' stores or in the possession of passengers, for all such are
contraband after the ship passes within the 3-mile limit of the main-
land. The inspector of the port of entry also must receive from each
passenger a statement that he has in his baggage no contraband fruits
or vegetables. Inspectors also have the right to search the personal
belongings of passengers and members of the crew.

There seems little danger of fruit-fly pests reaching vhe mainland
from Hawaii in commercial consignments of fruit since Quarantine
No. 13 went into effect. Tlie greaiest danger at jjresent lies in the
careless introduction of the pests hy uninformed travelers who^ with-
out appreciating the great ftmaMciaZ losses the' Government is attempt-
ing to avert, persist in concealing about their persoiis and baggage
contraband fruits, or in': sending these by express or post in packages
the contents of 'which are not stated ti^uthfully. These are the a.ve-
nues of introduction that no law can close thoroughly. To close them,
honesty and cooperation with the Federal Horticultural Board on the
part of all are necessary.

SUMMARY.

The melon fly, a native of the Indo-Malayan region, is one of a
number of very destructive pests that are likely to be introduced into
the mainland United States. The quarantine officers of the Federal
Horticultural Board and of California are each year intercepting it
in infested fruits at California ports on ships from the Hawaiian
Islands.

The melon fly was introduced into Hawaii about 1895 by Japanese
immigrants in fruits which they brought with them as food from
Japan. Before its arrival in Hawaii, cantaloupes, watermelons, toma-
toes, and all kinds of cucurbitaceous crops, such as pumpkins,
squashes, cucumbers, etc., were grown in large quantities and were

- THE MELON FLY. 31

cheap. They could be groAvn in every dooryard. Because of the
ravages of the pest, these crops can not be grown now by the average
person, and only with great difficulty in market gardens. Many
fruits must be imported, and the cost of all has been increased as a
result of melon-fly attack. Even cowpeas and string beans may be
infested. It is impossible to overstate the destructiveness of the
melon fly to cucurbitaceous crops imder Hawaiian coastal conditions,
where none of these can be brought to maturity except with the
exercise of the greatest care on the part of market gardeners.

Since there are as many as 8 to 11 generations of the melon fly a
year, and the female flies may live to be over a 3'ear old and lay eggs
throughout life, the pest can multipl}^ very rapidh'. Xo agencies
have been found to.be working at present in- Hawaii that bring about,
even periodical!}', a great natural reduction in the abundance of
melon flies. No native parasites are known to attack the melon fly,
but it is hoped that the parasite introduced from India during 191G
may prove effective. In colder climates cold weather will prove a
marked and valuable control factor. Predacious enemies and several
forms of mortality recorded are of no practical value under Hawaiian
conditions.

Xo satisfactory artificial measures have been applied" successfully
in combating the melon Hj under Hawaiian conditions. Poisoned-
bait sprays promise to jield effective results under other cultural con-
ditions. In Hawaii these sprays would be effective if they were used
consistent!}' and universally, but they are not. At present cucurbits
can be grown only by the use of coverings of various sorts for tlie
protection of the very young fruit. Killing the immature stages by
submergence in water, by burial in soil, or by boiling are not applied
as methods of control, although they are effective when intelligently
applied. Artificial methods of control are not likely to prove satis-
factory in Hawaii so long as the growing of the chief host plants
remains in the hands of uneducated oriental laborers who do not
practice clean cultural methods or cooperate in applying remedial
measures.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RELATING TO INSECTS INJURIOUS TO CITRUS AND OTHER
SUBTROPICAL FRUITS.

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Control of the Citrus Thrips in California and Arizona, (Farmers' Bulletin

674.)
Carbon Disulphid as an Insecticide. (Farmers' Bulletin 799.)
Common Mealybug: and its Control in California. (Farmers' Bulletin 862.)
Fumigation of Ornamental Greenhouse Plants with Hydrocyanic-acid Gas.

(Farmers' Bulletin 880.)
Fumigation of Citrus Trees. (Farmers' Bulletin 923.)

Control of the Argentine Ant in Orange Groves. (Farmers' Bulletin 928.)
Spraying for the Control of Insects and Mites Attacking Citrus Trees in

Florida. (Farmers' Bulletin 933.)
Citrus Fruit Insects in Mediterranean Countries. (Department Bulletin 134.)
The Mediterranean Fruit Fly in Bermuda. (Department Bulletin 161.)
Argentine Ant: Distribution and Control in the United States. (Department

Bulletin 377.)
The Citrus Thrips, (Department Bulletin 616.)
The Mediterranean Fruit Fly. (Department Buleltin 640.)
Some Reasons for Spraying to Control Insect and Mite Enemies of Citrus Trees

in Florida. (Department Bulletin 645.)
The Argentine Ant in Relation to Citrus Orchards. (Department Bulletin

647.)
Preparations for Winter Fumigation for Citrus White Fly. (Entomology

Circular 111.)
Spraying for White Flies in Florida. (Entomology Circular 168.)

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Kat.vdids Injurious to Oranges in California. (Department Bulletin 256.)

Price. 10 cents.
The Melon Fly in Hawaii. (Department Bulletin 491.) Price, 25 cent.s.
Fumigation of Ornamental Greenhouse Plants with Hydrocyanic-acid Gas.

(Department Bulletin 513.) Price, 5 cents.
Mango Weevil. (Entomology Circular 141.) 1911. Price, 5 cents.
Fumigation for Citrus White Fly, as Adapted to Florida Conditions. (Ento-
mology Bulletin 70. ) 1908. Price, 15 cents.
Fumigation Investigations in California. (Entomology Bulletin 79.) 1909.

Price, 15 cents.
Hydrocyanic-acid Gas Fumigation in California. (Entomology Bulletin 90,

3 pts.) 1913. Price, 20 cents.
Fumigation of Citrus Trees. (Entomology Bulletin 90. pt. I.) 1913. Price,

20 cents.
Value of Sodium Cyanid for Fumigation Purposes. (Entomology Bulletin 90,

pt. II.) 1913. Price. 5 cents.
Chemistry of Fumigation with Hydrocyanic-acid Gas. (Entomology Bulletin

90. pt. III.) 1913. Price, 5 cents.
White Flies Injurious to Citrus in Florida. (Entomology Bulletin 92.) 1911.

Price, 25 cents.
Orange Thrips, Report of Progress. (Entomology Bulletin 99. pt. I.) 1911,

Price, 5 cents.
Red-banded Thrips. (Entomology Bulletin 99, pt. II.) 1912, Price, 5 cents.
Natural Control of White Flies in Florida. (Entomology Bulletin 102.) 1912,

Price, 20 cents.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

10 CENTS PER COPY

32

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

jri^f^^?V6.

BULLETIN No. 644

Contribution from the Bureau of Plant Industry
WM. A. TAYLOR, Chief

Washington, D. C.

PROFESSIONAL PAPER

January 18, 1918

LINT PERCENTAGE AND LINT INDEX OF COT-
TON AND METHODS OF DETERMINATION.

By G. S. Meloy, Assistant, Crop Aiflhitiitlzation and Cotton Brecdiny.

CONTENTS.

Pa^e.
Relation oflintpercentagestolint indexes — 1 I

Lint porceatajes 2

LLat indexes 2

Illustrations of the relation betivoen lint per-

ccnta-"e and lint index 3

Lint index determines the number cf bolls to

the pound of fiber 5

Relation of the lint index to the cost of pick-
ing s

Increasing the lint perrentare dees not alter
the cost of production if the lint index re-
mains constant s

Page.

Improved methods for obtaining lint per-
centa::es 8

Advantages of using samples cf standard
wei-ht 10

Methods of calculating lint indexes and seed
wei-hts 10

Number of seeds in a standard sample an in-
dication of their size 10

Planters can estimate the lint index II

Summary U

RELATION OF LINT PERCENTAGES TO LINT INDEXES.

The diiiiger of reducing the vitality and earliness of cotton vari-
eties and of breeding varieties with undesirable characters by over-
emphasizing the percentage of lint as a measure of their compara-
tive values was ]:)ointed out in 1908 by Mr. O. F, Cook.^ It was sug-
gested that the weight of the lint or fiber ginned from 100 seeds, in-
stead of the lint percentage alone, be used as an additional standard'
for judging varieties. This standard of comparison was called the-
lint index. Subsequent experience has not only demonstrated the
desirability of using this standard, but has led to the development
of improved methods and devices for determining both the lint index
and the lint percentage in experimental samples of seed cotton with
which breeders haA'^e to work.

1 Cook, O. F. Danger in judging cotton vjii
Bur. Plant Indus. Clr. 11, 16 p. 1908.
21683°— 18— Bull. 644

ieties bj^ lint percentages. V. S. Dept. Agr.,

2 BULLETIN t)44, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUT>TURE.

That a clearer understanding may be had of the relations between
lint percentages and lint indexes in cotton varieties, as discussed in
this paper, a brief definition of each is included, together with a word
as to the adoption of these measures of cotton values.

LINT PERCENTAGES.

The percentage of lint, or lint per cent, as it is generally termed,
is the relation bet\\een the weight of the fiber and the weight of the
heeds from which the fiber is obtained in the process of ginning and
is exi)ressed as a percentage of the unginned seed cotton. A decrease
in the weight of the seeds without a corresponding decrease in the
weight of the fiber would alter this relation in the direction of in-
creasing the percentage of lint. Conversely, an increase in the
weight of the seeds without change in the weight of the fiber would
result in a reduction in the percentage of lint.

The first commercial use of the percentage of lint was made by
earh' operators of gins, who purchased cotton in the seed, ginned it,
and resold the products. In those days, when the seed was consid-
ered a waste product, it was of especial importance to these gin oper-
ators to know the ultimate value of the seed cotton they purchased.
The amount of fiber they might secure from a given weight of seed
cotton, or the lint percentage, was the basis of such purchases. The
emphasis laid upon the percentage of lint by these buyers of seed
cotton naturally led to the belief among the growers that it was the
chief factor or measure of value of varieties. To-day this relic of
an admittedly bad method of selling cotton ^ is still accepted with-
out question or apparent examination by planters and also by many
of the breeders of cotton. The result is that inferior and unproduc-
tive varieties frequently have been planted merely because their lint
percentages are high, while varieties that are superior both in pro-
ductiveness and in quality of fiber have been rejected because their
percentages of lint are considered low.

LINT INDEXES.

The lint index is the weight in grams of the fiber produced by 100
seeds and may be said 'to be a measure of the abundance of the fibcM-
rather than a measure of the relation between the weight of tlie
fiber and the weight of the seed, as is the percentage of lint.

Through years of association, the general cotton-growing public
has come to consider a lint percentage of 33^ a basis of credit for a
variety of cotton. So, in time, breeders may determine a basic lint

1 Creswell, C. F. Disadvantages of soiling cotton in tiie sppfl. T. S. Dept. Agr. Riil.
375, 18 p. 191(>.

Losses from selling cotton in I lie seed. IJ. S. Dept. Agr.. Farmers' l?nl. llo.

8 p. 1916.

LIXT PERCENTAGE AND LINT INDEX OF COTTON. 3

index, a depart ure from which will be considered an indication of
either merit or demerit for a variety. The better varieties of Upland
long-staple cottons have been found thus far to have a lint index of
5 to C, and the better varieties of Upland short staples a lint index of
7 to 8. ^''arieties have been examined which wore found to have a lint
index as low as 4, and one variety was seen with a lint index of 9.50.

In order to facilitate the finding of lint indexes Table I has been
prepared, in which the lint indexes, corresponding with various
weights of seed and percentages of lint, are given. This table prob-
ably covers the range of commercial varieties. In using it the per-
centage of lint and the weight of 100 seeds of the variety or selection
are first ascertained ; then the lint index may be found in the column
under the lint percentage, opposite the weight of the seeds. For
example, a variety in Avhich the seeds weigh 12 grams per hundred
and which gins 35 per cent of lint will have a lint index of 6.46;
that is. the lint ginned from 100 seeds wnll weigh 6.46 grams.

Taui.k I. — Lint iiidc.r of a .sample of cotton irJioi tlic trcuiht of 100 needs and the
percentage of lint ar.c knoirn.

(Formula: 'Weight of seed -=- percentage of seed x percentage of lint = lint index.]

Weight of 100 giiu'.cd
seeds.

t;.0 grams.,
(i..') grams..
7.0 grams..

i.o grams..
8.0 grams..
8.5 grams..

9.0 gi-ams. .
y.o grams. .
10.0 grams.

10.5 grams.
1 1.0 grams.
U.5 grams.

12.0 gi'ams.
12.5 grams.
13.0 grams.

1:^.5 grams.
14.0 grams.
14-5 grams.

lo.O grams.
15.5 grams.
16.0 grams.

Percentage of lint.

25 26 27

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

In- In- In- ' In- In- In- In- I In-

hi. (lei.\dci. dcx.\dci. dcxJdcxJdex.
?. (1(1 2. 10 2. 24 2. 332. 45i2. 57 2. 69 2. 82
1. 16 2. 28 2. 40 2. 53'2. 65i2. 78 2. 92:3. 06
2. 33 2. 462. 59 2. 72|2. 86 3. 00 3. 14 3. 29

2.50 2.63 2.77 2.9213
2.66 2.812.96 3.113.27
2. 83|2. 98 3. 14 3.30 3.47

,'3.00!3.16 3.32 3.503.67
, 3. 16 3. 33 3. 51 3. 69 3. 88
. 3. 33j3. 51 3. 69i3. 89 4. 08

13. 5013. 693. 88)4.08 4. 28
'3.67,3. 86 4.07,4.284.49

;3.83|4.024.25 4.47J4.69

In-
dex.
2.95
3.20
3.45

3. 21 3. 36 3. 53 3. 69
3. 43 3. 59|3. 76 3. 94
3. 64i3. 82 4. 00 4. 19

3. 8514.04 4.234.43
4.07:4.27!4.47 4.68

4. 28i4. 49

4. 5014. 71
4. 71 4. 95
4. 93 5. 17

14. 00l4. 2r4. 43I4. 67'4. 90 5. 14
14. 16 4. 36 4. 6214. 86'5. 115.36
|4. 33 4. 58 4. 81 .5. 05,5. 30 5. 57

4. 71 4. 92

I
4.94 5.18
5. 18 5. 42
5. 41 5. 67

In- In- In- In- 1 In-
dex, del. del. d(i. \dei
3.09 3.23.3.37 3.52,3.6
3. 3513. 50 3. 65 3. 81 3. 98
3. 61|3. 77,3. 94 4. 11 4. 29

3. 8614. 02
4.12 4.31

4.38,4.58

4. 21 '4. 40
4. 50 4. 69

4.78,4.99

4. 6314. 85 5. 06'5. 28
4.90 5.115.34 5.58
5. 15 5. 39 5. 62,5. 87

5.41
5.67
5.92

5.38 5.64.5.916.17
5.62 5.88 6.16 6.43
5.8416.116.41.6.71

. !4. 50 4. 74'5. 00'5. 23 5. 51 5. 77 6. 07'6. 35^6. 65'6. 95
, ,4. 68 4. 91 5. 17,5. 45 5. 71 6. 00 6. 29 6. 58 6. 89 7. 21
,4. S3 5. 10 5. 36,5. 53 5. 92 6. 21|6. 51 6. 82 7. 1317. 47

5. 00 5. 27'5. Ss'o. 83 6. 12 6. 43l6. 74 7. 067. 38 7. 72
5. 17 5. 45 5. 73 6. 03 6. 33 6. 54,6. 97 7. 29|7. 63 7. 97
5. 33 5. 62 5. 92,6. 22 6. 53 6. 86l7. 19 7. 52 7. 88 8. 24

5.65l5.9l!6.17

5.9316.18:6.45
6.19 6.48] 6. 76

4.60
4.91
5.21

5.52
5.82
6.13

6.43
6.75
7.05

6.4616.75 7.05 7.35
6.74 7.03i7.33 7.67
7.00 7.30|7.63|7.97

7.267.597.93!8.27
7.54 7.^*8.22 8.58
7. 8018. 15,8. 52 8. 89

8. 06 8. 43 S. 81
8. 35 8. 72 9. 10
8.619.00 9.38

9.19
9.50
9.81

In-
dex.
3.83
4.15
4.47

4.80
5.11
5.44

5.75
6.0s
6.39

6.71
7.03
7.36

In-
dex.
4. 00
4.33
4.67

5.00
5.33
5.67

6.00
6.34
6.67

7.00

7.35
7.68

7.67 8.00
8.00 8.34
8.35 8.66

8.62
8.94
9.26

9.58
9.99
10.22

9.00
9.35
9.65

10.00
10. 33
10.66

In-
dex.
4.16

4.51
4.86

5.2

5.5
5.91

6.25
6.6(
6.95

7.3C
7.65
8.0!

In-
dex.
4.34
4.71
5.07

5.44
5.80
6.15

6.52

6.88
7.24

7.60
7.98
8.33

8.3: 8.68
8.6S, 9.05
9.04 9.40

9.37 9.77
9.73 10.01
10.06|10.50

10.16ll0.33
10.76ill.22
11.1111.57

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE RELATION BETWEEN LINT PERCENTAGE

AND LINT INDEX.

A few examples of possible combinations of characters that may
be found in varieties, as shown in Table I, are here given to illustrate
the relation between lint percentage and lint index.

4 BULLETIN 644, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

The lint index given for a seed weight of IH + 25 per cent is practi-
cally identical with that given for a seed weight of 6 + 42 per cent.
In each case practically the same quantity of fiber is obtainable from
a ^iven number of seeds, although one variety has a lint percentage
of 25 and the other 42. Thus it is seen that the larger percentage of
Ihit is due entirely to a decrease in the weight of the seeds without
change in the amount of fiber per seed, a striking illustration of the
fallacy of basing an opinion as to the value of a variety of cotton on
the percentage of lint alone.

A high percentage of lint, therefore, does not necessarily mean an
abundance of fiber. The fiber is actually less abundant when there is
42 per cent of lint in a variety the seeds of which weigh 8 grams per
hundred than when there is 30 per cent of lint in a variety the seeds
of which, weigh 14 grams per hundred.

That the percentage of lint Avill steadily increase as the size of the
seed decreases without altering materially the actual amount of fiber
obtainable may be seen if the lint index under a seed weight of
13 _^ 25 per cent be taken as a base. Approximately the same lint
index may be traced diagonally across the table to the lint index
under a seed weight of 6 + 42 per cent. It can readily be appreciated
that this trend represents the possible results of selection based on
lint percentages alone.

Conversely, an increase in the weight of the seed may reduce the
percentage of lint without reducing the actual amount of lint; but
i;nless the reduction in the percentage of lint is proportionate with
the increase in the size of the seed the abundance of the lint is also
increased, notwithstanding the reduction of the lint percentage.

This is in accord with the results obtained by Mr. T. H. Kearney
in his work in the acclimatization of Egyptian cotton,^ in which he
noted that the lint percentages of his best selections were steadily
decreasing from year to year below that of the original imported
strain, but on ascertaining the lint indexes of the selections and
imported stock he found that there was no actual diminution in the
quantity of fiber produced. The decrease in the lint percentage was
due entirely to an increase in the weight of the seeds. IVIr. Kearney
concludes :

The negative correlation between the characters lint percentage and weight
of seeds is sufficiently pronounced to indicate that a high percentage of lint
is in large measure associated with low weight of seeds. * * * it might
be inferred from these facts that lint percentage can be used with greater
safety as an index of productiveness in comparing individual plants of a fairly
uniform variety tlian in comparing different varieties.

That the percentage of lint of a selection or variety of cotton
should be considered only in the light of the lint index is Avell illus-

1 Kearney, T. H. Lint index and lint percentage in cotton breeding. In Ann. Hpt.
Amer. Breeders' Assn., v. 7/S, p. 2.")-29. 1912.

LINT PERCENTAGE AND LINT INDEX OF COTTON. 5

trated by comparing the lint indexes given with a seed weight of 8.5
under lint percentages 32 and 42. An increase of 10 in the lint per-
centage here results in an increase in the lint index or actual quantity
of fiber of 4 to 6.15. Practically the same increase in the abundance
of fiber would be obtained by increasing the weight of the seeds from
8.5 to 13 grams per hundred, while the percentage of lint i-emained at
32, or the same result might be secured if the weight of the seeds be
increased from 8.5 to 11 grams per hundred and at the same time the
percentage of lint be also increased from 32 to 36.

LINT INDEX DETERMINES THE NUMBER OF BOLLS TO THE

POUND OF FIBER.

The average Upland cotton boll usually contains eight or nine seeds
per lock. Five-locked bolls will therefore contain 40 to 45 seeds
per boll. The number of seeds yielding 1 pound of fiber may be
found, after the lint index is known, by dividing the number of
grams in 1 pound by the weight of the fiber on one seed, or one one-
hundredth of the lint index. Roughly, 453 grams equal 1 pound.
Therefore, all varieties of cotton that have a lint index of 4 will
require 11,235 seeds to produce a pound of fiber. The number of
seeds per pound of fiber is constant for every lint index, as indicated
by the following formula :

453 -. j^^ — '- = number of seeds producing 1 pound of fiber.

The lint index, therefore, determines tlie number of bolls to the
pound of fiber.

The number of seeds and of bolls to the pound of fiber computed
for different lint indexes is given in Table II.

That the differences in the lint indexes are coincident with the
variation in the size of the seeds is shown by the weights of the
seeds per hundred as given in the l?st column, the weights in this
case being based on a percentage of lint of 33.

RELATION OF THE LINT INDEX TO THE COST OF PICKING.

The number of seeds that must be harvested so that a pound of fiber
ma}^ be secured is an item of considerable importance in the cost of
picking cotton. \n indication of the possible reduction in the cost
of harvesting resulting from an increase in the lint index may be had
from the following examples, taken from Table II.

If the weight of the seeds be increased from 8.5 to 11.3 grams per
hundred with a constant lint percentage of 33, the lint index will
have been increased from 4.20 to 5.60, an increase of 1.40 grams of
filler per hundred seeds, or 33:\ per cent. This increase m the amount
f)f fiber will have been secured without changing the percentage of
lint, and results in reducing the number of seeds required to produce 1

6

BULLETIN 644, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

pound of fiber from 10,785 to 8,089. This reduction of 2,696 seeds
is equal to 67 bolls of 40 seeds each, or 60 bolls of 45 seeds each, or
an average of 64 bolls, which means a saving of 25 per cent in the
number of bolls to be picked.

Tablk II. — Relation of the lint index to the numher of seals and of o-locked
bolls required to produce 1 pound of cotton fiber.

Lint index

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8.0

Total reductions due to an increase
of 4 grams in weight of 100 seeds. .

llequired to produce 1 pound of fiber.

Number
of .seeds.

11,325
10, 785
10,295
9,847
y,437
9,060

8,711
8,388
8,089
7,810
7,550

7,306

7,078
6,864
6,661
6,472

6,291
6,121
5,960
5, 807
5, 662

5,653

Number of bolls.

Bolls of
40 seeds.

2S3
269
257
246
235
226

217
209
202
195

182
176
171
166
161

157
153
149
145
141

Bolls of
45 seeds.

251
239

228
218
209
201

193
186
179
173
167

162
157
1.52
148
143

139
136
132
129
125

Average.

Average
differ-
ence in

number
of bolls for

each 10
points
in lint
index.

Weight o(
100 seeds,
the lint
percent-
age
being 33.

Grams.
8.1
8.5
8.9
9.3
9.7
10.1

10.5
10.9
11.3
11.8
12.2

12.6
13.0
13.4
13.8
14.2

14.6
15.0
15.4
15.8
16.2

Increasing the lint index from 4 to 5 reduces the number of seeds
to be harvested to secure 1 pound of cotton fiber from 11,325 to 9,060,
or from 267 .bolls to 213 bolls. Expressed in terms of bolls to be
picked, this is an average reduction of 54 bolls per pound of fiber. In
other words, a variety with a lint index of 4 will run 25.3 per cent
more bolls to the pound of fiber than a variety with a lint index of 5.
In terms of labor employed, this means that if two men are picking
at the same rate or number of bolls per hour, the one picking in a
variety having a lint index of 5 will gather the same quantity of fiber
in 8 hours that the other, working in a variety with a lint index
of 4, will gather in 10 hours.

If a variety having a lint index of 6 be compared with one having a
lint index of 4, it Avill be seen that 90 bolls more, or 50.8 per cent, must
be gathered in the smaller seeded variety than in the larger seeded in
order to secure a pound of fiber. In the one case the laborer must
pick 88,500 bolls, while in the other he must gather some 183,500 bolls
to get a bale of lint cotton. We have seen from Table T that the same

LINT FEKCKNTAGK AND LINT INDEX OF COTTON.

lint index may be found in varieties differing greatly in their percent-
ages of lint; in other words, that the lint index is a measure of the
iibundance of the lint independent of the percentage of lint. There-
fore, the number of bolls necessary to be picked to yield a bale of
lint remains constant for each lint index regardless of the percentage
of lint.

Five-locked bolls to the number of 88,500 will yield a bale of cot-
ton in all varieties having a lint index of G, and 133,500 five-locked
bolls will be required in all varieties having a lint index of 4.

A variety of cotton which has a lint index of -t and a lint per-
centage of 33 Avill have seeds weighing 8.1 grams per hundred, or 12.1
grams per hundred nnginned A^aeds. (Table 11.) A variety with a
lint index of 5 and the same Lnt percentage Avill have seeds weighing
10.1 grams per hundred, or 15,1 grams per hundred unginned seeds.
Therefore, if the laborers pick at the rate of 1,500 bolls per hour and
the average number of seeds is between 40 and 45 to the boll, 1.500
bulls of the variety with' the lint index of 4 will weigh 7,713.7 gTanis,
or 17 pounds and 0.09 op^ce.^ Fifteen hundred bolls of the variety
with the lint index of 5*'vviil \veigh 9,026.2 grams, or 21 pounds and
3.5 ounces, of seed cotton. Thus, there is a difference of 1,912.5
grams, or 4 pounds and 3.4 ounces, per hour, or 24.8 per cent in favor
of the variety with the lint index of 5. In other words, the man
picking in the variety with the lint index of 5 will gather the same
quantity of cotton fiber in eight hours that the one working in the
variety with the lint index of 4 will gather in 10 hours, and if both
men work a full 10 hours, picking the same number of bolls per hour,
the one in the variety with the lint index of 5 will have 24.8 per cent
more pounds of seed cotton at the end of the day than the man work-
ing in the variety with the lint index of 4. This may account for
the fact that pickers often gather more cotton in a day in one man's
field than in another's, and may also suggest a reason for the other-
wise unexplainable aversion which pickers have for some fields.

Table III. — Conipaii^on of two varieties nf cotton groirn in .soiitlicrn Georgia.

Lint.

Comparison of 5-locked bolls.

Per

cent-

Index.

Length.

Weifjht
of 10
bolls.

Number to the
pound.

Number required

to yield one
500-p"ound bale.

Variety.

Of

seed

cotton.

I.inl.

Tolal.

Per

plant

(at
10,600
plants

per
acre).

Esti-
mated
percent-
age.

A

36
41

Inches.
8.7 IjV
6.4 I

Grams.

109

72

42
63

116
158

58,000
79,000

5.6
7.5

40 to 45

B

20 to 25

8 BULLETIN 644, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE-

On a recent visit to southern Georgia the writer was asked to com-
pare two varieties of cotton growing in the neighborhood, for the
benefit of the local cotton farmers. Ten 5-locked bolls of each of the
two varieties were secured and examined, with the results shown in
Table III. Variety B was the local favorite, since it had the higher
percentage of lint. In this section of Georgia, although the smaller
farmers pick their own cotton, tliey had not appreciated the disad-
vantages of the variety they were growing, even from the standpoint
of the labor of picking.

INCREASING THE LINT PERCENTAGE DOES NOT ALTER THE COST
OF PRODUCTION IF THE LINT INDEX REMAINS CONSTANT.

In the case referred to, in which the same lint index was traced
through all percentages of lint from 25 to 42, the labor of harvesting
the crop and the efficiency of the laborers themselves are the same in
each case. For, since the lint index, wliich determines the number of
bolls to the pound of fiber, is constant, the number of seeds and of
bolls producing a pound of fiber also i\';^tii*iiis constant.

There is another relation of the lint iiidex which has not been
worked out as yet, but which may be suggested here as a possibility.

Both Tables I and II show that the higher lint indexes are asso-
ciated with the heavier seeds. Heavy seeds have a relatively larger
percentage of kernels to hulls than smaller or lighter seeds, and the
oil content may be found to be associated also with heavier seeds.

IMPROVED METHODS FOR OBTAINING LINT PERCENTAGES.

The usual method of obtaining the percentage of lint in cotton
varieties is to weigh a random specimen of the seed cotton and gin
it; then reweigh the seed, calculate the percentage of seed, and set
down the difference as the percentage of lint. Few workers in cot-
ton selections weigh the lint after ginning and calculate the per-
centage of lint directly. These operations occasion considerable
labor and care in making the various records, and, of course, the
more numerous the calculations and entries in the records the greater
the liability to error. Owing to these and other considerations it
has been found advantageous to begin with a standard sample of seed
cotton of 100 grams in weight, a method which a^'oids the necessit}'^
for recording the original weight of the specimen. After this stand-
ard sample has been ginned the seeds are weighed. Each gram of
seed then represents 1 per cent of the original seed cotton. The
difference between the weight of the seed and 100 grams is the weight
of the lint removed in ginning and is also the percentage of lint.
Thus, this method avoids the necessity for recording the net Aveight
of the seed and of calculating the percentage of lint.

Since this procedure for finding the percentage of lint has been in
operation, a balance has been placed (m the market equipped for the

Ln\T PERCENTACiE AND LINT INDEX OF COTTON,

9

direct reudiiig of the lint i)0]-centai>v. The beam is graduated to a
luaxiimini of 100 graiiu-. A second graduation is placed on the lower
edge of the beam at the right. Reading in the reverse direction, or
to the left, thi^ grathuition shows the ditference between 100 grams

|li|l|llll|llll|llll|llll|llll|llll|llll|llll|llll|in[|llll|llltTTfX ii|iiii|li;!|Mii|iMiiMirr-

SO

lllllTiil

l)M_)o I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 M I I I I I I M I ll I [ I I 1 1 ' I 1

O /yAT^

T.ii-si.ni lialaii

jradiiatcil for the diroct reading of thi- Hut per^
ceutaye of cotton.

and (he weight indicated, as the rider is moA'cd from the 100-gram
mark toward zero. (Fig. 1.) By the use of this balance the per-
centage of lint, which in this case is the difference between the net
weight of the seed and the original weight of the specimen of seed
cotton, mav be rend at a "lance without tlie trouble of subtraction.

Fig. 2. — A balance for the direct reading of the lint percentage of cotton.

Thus, if the seeds of a 100-gram sample of seed cotton are found
after ginning to weigh 65 grams, the weight of the lint removed is
35 grams, which is 35 per cent of the original weight of the seed
cotton, or the lint percentage. (Fig. 2.)

10 BULLETIN 044, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

ADVANTAGES OF USING SAMPLES OF STANDARD WEIGHT.

By the use of a balance such as that just described, the sample is
standardized and the work of ascertaining the lint percentage re-
duced to two entries in the records, the name of the selection and the
percentage of lint, and all calculations have been avoided.

The use of the standard sample of seed cotton has other very mate-
rial advantages. It will be shown that the adoption of the standard
sample simplifies the methods of calculating lint indexes and the
weights of seeds, that the number of seeds of a standard sample is a
direct indication of their size, and that tables ma}^ now be prepared
by Avhich i)lanters without special apparatus may ascertain the lint
index of a variety.

METHODS OF CALCULATING LINT INDEXES AND SEED WEIGHTS.

Having used the standard sample of 100 grams of seed cotton and
determined the percentage of lint, which, as has been seen, is the
actual weight of the lint, the lint index and the weight of the seeds
per hundred may be obtained from the data in hand by the use of
the following formulas:

Percentase of lint .. ,„„ ,• . • .

X ]0!) = hilt index.

Number of seeds in specimen
Percentage of seed

X 10() = wei<,dit of 100 8oech.

Number of seeds in specimen

The lint index may also be determined in the following manner.
If a sensitive balance is to be had, the Aveight of 100 fair average
seeds fairly ginned should be secured bj' actual weighing, or, better,
the average weight of two lots of 100 seeds should be secured. The
following formula may then be used to determine the lint index:

Weiaht of 100 seeds ^ , .. , . . ,

f> — ' — 7 f -^ X Imt perceutatiP = lint index.

Percentage or seed '

NUMBER OF SEEDS IN A STANDARD SAMPLE AN INDICATION OF

THEIR SIZE.

In the absence of a balance sensitive to the hundi-edth of a gram,
on which such small lots of seeds as 100 ma}' be accurately weighed,
the use of the standard specimen of seed cotton has another ad-
vantage in that the number of seeds in the specimen may be taken
as a direct indication of their size, and the weight of the seeds
per hundred may be found by reference to Table IV. This table
gives a list of the numbers of seeds in standard specimens of 100
grams of seed cotton, calculated foi" various percentages of lint and
weights of seed per hundred.

LINT PERCENTAGE AND LINT INDEX OF COTTON.

11

Having ascertained the weif>ht of the seeds per liundred from
Table IV and Imowing the percentage of lint, the lint index may
then l)e ascertained hy reference (o Table I.

Tabi.k IV. — Xuinber of .seeds in a .stiiiiilnrd .sainplc of 100 i/rams of seed eotton
at different lint pcreentages and iccights of seed per hundred.

Weisht

Percentageof lint.

of 100

{Tinned
seeds.

23

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Seeds

42

ar„m.

Seeds

Seeds

Seeds

Seeds

Seeds

.Seeds

Seeds

•Seeds

.Seeds

Seeds

Seeds

.Seeds

.Seeds

Seeds

Seeds

.Seeds

Seeds

6.0
6.5
7.0

1,2.50
1,153
1,071

1,233
1.13S
1,057

1,216
1,123
1,042

1,200
1. 107
l,02,s

1,183
1,092
1,014

1,166
1,076
1,000

1,150
1,061

985

1,132

1,046

971

1,116

1,030

957

1,100
1,015

942

1,083

1,000

928

1,066
984
914

1,050

969
900

i,o;53

9.53

885

1,016

938

871

1,000

923

857

983

907
842

966
892

828

7.5
8.0
S.5

1,000
937

8S2

986
92,5

870

973
912

85S

960
9IK)

847

946

S87
835

933

875
823

920

862
811

906

,860
800

893
837

788

880
825
776

866
812
764

853
8(X)
752

840
787
741

826
775
729

813
762
717

800
750
705

786
737
694

773
725
682

9.0
9.5
10.0

833
789
750

822
778
740

811

768
730

800
757
720

788
747
710

777
736
700

766
726
690

755
715
680

744
705
670

733
694
660

722
684
650

711

673
640

700
663
630

688
652
620

677
642
610

666
631
600

655
621
590

644
610
580

10.5
11.0
11.5

714
681
652

704
672
643

695
663
634

685
654
626

676
645
617

666
636
608

657
627
600

647
618
591

63S
609
582

628
600
573

619
590
565

609
581
556

600
572
547

590
563
539

580
554
530

571
545
521

561
536
513

552
527
504

12.0
12.5
13.0

625
576

616
592
569

60S
5S4
561

600
576
553

591

508
546

683
560
538

575
552
530

566
544
523

558
536
515

550
528
507

.541
520
500

.533
.512
492

525
504

484

516
496
476

508
488
469

500
480
461

491
472
453

483
464
446

13.5
14.0
14.5

555
535
517

548
528
510

540

521
503

533

514
496

525

507
489

518

500
482

511
493
475

503

485
468

496

478
462

488
471
455

481
464
448

474
4.57
441

466
450
434

459
442
427

451

435
420

444
428
413

437
421
406

429
414
400

15.0
15.5
1-5.0

500
483
468

493

477
462

486
470
456

480
464
450

473

458
443

466
451
437

460
445
431

453
438
425

446
432
418

440
425
412

433
419
406

426
412
400

420
406
393

413
400
387

406
393
381

400
387
375

393
380
368

386
374
362

PLANTERS CAN ESTIMATE THE LINT INDEX.

Since 100 grams e(j[iial approximately 3^ ounces, a grower may
determine with fair accuracy the size of the seeds of the variety he
plants by ascertaining the number of seeds in 3-1- ounces of seed cotton
and referring to Table IV, He can then estimate the lint index of '
his variety by a reference to Table I. For example, if a grower finds
5()C) seeds in 3^ ounces of his seed cotton and his cotton is ginning out
:>2 per cent of lint, by reference to Table IV the seed will be found
to weigh 12 grams per hundred. Referring then to Table I, under a
.seed weight of 12 -|- 32 percent, the lint index will be found to be ^.C)!.

SUMMARY.

(1) The percentage of lint is the relation between the Aveight of
the fiber and the weight of the seeds from which the fiber is obtained
in the process of ginning and is expressed as a percentage of the un-
ginned seed cotton. The use of a lint percentage originated with
buyers of seed cotton, and if used by breeders and growers as a meas-
ure of the comparative value of varieties it should l)e employed with

12 BULLETIN ()44, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

c'iiutioii, since it is misleadin*^ if used except in connection with the
lint index.

(2) An increase in the percentage of Imt may be due entirely to
a i-eduction in the size of the seed without change in the quantity of
fiber.

(3) The lint index is a measure of the abundance of the fiber
rather than a measure of the relation between the weight of the fiber
and the weight of the seed, as is the percentage of lint.

(4) The lint index determines the number of bolls yielding a
pound of fiber. The number of seeds and of bolls required to produce
1 jjound of fiber is constant for all varieties of cotton that have the
same lint index, regardless of the percentage of lint.

(5) An increase in the lint index is correlated with an increase in
the weight of the seeds and reduces the number of bolts required to
produce a pound of fiber.

(6) The lint index is an important factor in the cost of cotton pro-
duction. An increase of a single gram in the weight of the fiber
per hundred seeds, without change in the percentage of lint, mate-
rially reduces the labor of picking cotton. The efficiency of the
pickers also is thereby increased.

(7) It is essential that a planter know the lint index of a variety,
as well as the percentage of lint, in choosing a variety to be planted.

(8) Simple methods for ascertaining the lint index, the lint per-
centage, and the weight of seeds are described, and tables to simplify
computation are given.

(9) The importance is shown of using a standard specimen of
100 grams of seed cotton in making determinations of lint percent-
ages, lint indexes, and the weights of seeds.

(10) A method is described by w^hich a planter, without special
apparatus, may estimate the lint index and the size of the seed of
a variety of cotton by counting the number of seeds in 3| ounces of
seed cotton and referring to the tables in this bulletin.

WASHINGTON CfJVKUXMENT I'KINTING OFFICET : 19ir

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 645

Contribution from the Bureau of Entomology
L. O. HOWARD. Chief

J^S^'^i,

Washington, D. C.

January 26, 1918

SOME REASONS FOR SPRAYING TO CONTROL INSECT
AND MITE ENEMIES OF CITRUS TREES IN FLORIDA.

By W. W. YoTHEES,
Entomological Assistant, Tropical and Subtropical Fruit Insect Investigations.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Gradual adoption of spraying * 1

Pests of importance 2

Injiu-y to trees and fruit 2

The grading of fruit 3

Reduction in size caused by insects 8

Page

Better grades of fruit bring better prices 13

Spraj'ing scheme for controlling citrus pests. 15

Cost of spraying J6

Profits and benefits " 17

Conclusion 18

GRADUAL ADOPTION OF SPRAYING.

Among Florida growers there have been developing during late
years what may be called two schools for the control of citrus
pests. One of these favors dependence upon natural enemies; the
other, upon artificial methods, particularly spraying. The relative
merits of these two general methods of control are not discussed
here, since, as time passes, it becomes more and more evident that
there is room for both under the widely varying conditions sur-
rounding Florida groves. Enthusiastic supporters of control by
natural agencies such as entomogenous fimgi do not believe that the
lowering of the grade and the reduction in the size of the fruits and
of the yield, if any, are of sufficient importance to demand attention.
Or perhaps the case may be stated more fairly by saying that they
believe that it is more profitable to use no measures for the control
of pests, contending that it pays better to grow the lower grades
of fruit without treatment than the better gi'ades with treatment.

It is interesting, however, and very encouraging to note the gradual
adoption of a system of spraying for the improvement of orchard
conditions by men who, only a few years before the Federal Bureau
of Entomology began its demonstration work, believed in, and de-
pended upon, natural agencies as the best all-round method of con-
trol. This change has come partly through a realization that fungi

21698°— 18— Bull. 645 1

BULLETIN 645, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGKICULTUKE.

parasitic on certain injurious insects, excellent as they are, have
fallen short of what was expected of them, but more as a result of a
spraying system developed by the writer, which, by taking all pests
into consideration instead of merely the white flies, has proved the
direct financial gain that will follow the intelligent application of
spra}^ mixtures. It is to certain advantages of this system of spray-
ing that attention is called in this bulletin. Perhaps the best argu-
ment in favor of spraying is to be found in the difficulty experienced
in securing the same grove for demonstration purposes two or three
years in succession. Once the owner has seen with his own eyes the
benefits resulting from careful and well-timed spraying, he refuses
to accept the losses that he knows will come to him or his company
through the setting aside of blocks of trees to serve as checks in com-
munity demonstration work.

PESTS OF IMPORTANCE.

Of the total damage caused by insects and mites to citrus in
Florida, more than 95 per cent may be attributed to six species. In
the order of their destructiveness, these are the citrus white fly,^ the
purple scale,^ the rust mite,^ the red scale,* the cloudy-winged white
fly,^ and the red spider.^ There are several other pests of secondary
importance, such as the woolly white fly,^ the purple mite,^ and the
chaff scale.^ The citrus white fly now infests nearly all the groves
in the State. The purple scale is found in greater or less numbers on
every citrus tree.

INJURY TO TREES AND FRUIT.

The presence of these pests on the trees and fruit produces
blemishes Avhich cause fruit to be placed in a much lower grade than
would be the case if these blemishes were not present. Wliile the
excellent methods of washing the fruit remove nearly all the sooty
mold which follows attacks of the white fly, usually some of it is left
near the stem end. When this is present the fruit is placed in a gi-ade
lower than if it were absent. The presence of scale insects on the fruit
lowers the grade, and, when these are abundant, makes the fruit
practically unmarketable unless the scales are removed by hand wash-
ing. Perhaps the greatest cause for lowering the grade of fruit is
the blemish following rust-mite injury. All these pests devitalize the
trees, and this type of injury is much more important than the low-
ering of the grade of the fruit, because the yield is reduced. This

1 Dialeurodes citri Ashmead.
" Lepidosaphes heckii Newman.
'' Eriopliyea oleivorus Ashmead.
■• Chrysomphalus aonidum Lirnteus.
■• Aleyrodat nuMfera Berger, now known
as Dialeurodes citrifolii Morgan.

•^ Tetranychus sexmaculatus Rile.v.
'' Aleurothriwus howardi Quaintnnce.
*' Tetranychus citri McGregor.
'■> Parlatoria pergandii Comstoek

SPRAYING TO CONTEOI. EXEMTES OF CITEUS TEEES. 3

devitalization is well known and admitted by the citrus growers,
but few really appreciate the magnitude of this type of damage.
Thousands of trees have been seen so injured by the purple scale that
all the inside foliage and small limbs had be^n killed, and only a
mere " shell " of foliage remained. In one small community in 1915
it was estimated that the damage amounted to $30,000. It cost four
times as much to remove the dead wood resulting from insect attack
as it would have cost to prevent the damage, and two crops of fruit
were lost in addition. At least 75 per cent of the total damage could
have been prevented for less than $2,000. Many citrus growers,
realizing that this injury to the trees follows severe scale infestation,
apply extra fertilizer so that the trees may have enough nourishment
not only for the production of a good crop of fruit, but also to meet
the demands made upon their vitality by the feeding scales. The be-
lief is general that more fertilizer is required to get residts in a
grove heavily infested with scale insects and wdiite flies than in one
that is comparatively free from these pests.

To express the extent of this devitalizing effect in a statistical way
or on a percentage basis is very difficult. In the two instances given
below the damage caused by insect pests and mites is most strikingly
shown. Although it is only proper to admit that these two cases rep-
resent extreme injury by pests, they indicate that the devitalizing
effect which results in diminished jdeld is much greater, on an aver-
age, than most growers have thought possible.

In one instance a row of 16 trees was left unsprayed for three sea-
sons, 1913, 1914, and 1915. The remainder of the grove was sprayed.
The citrus white fly was making its first appearance in the grove.
During the year 1913 there was little or no difference in the yields of
the sprayed trees and the unsprayed check trees. In 1914 the un-
sprayed row had about 5 boxes of fruit, sJnd the adjoining row of
16 sprayed trees about 60 boxes. All common species of fungi para-
sitic on the white fly and scale insects were present in great abun-
dance. In 1915 the difference was not so great; the unsprayed row
had about 20 boxes of fruit, and the adjoining sprayed row about 50
boxes.

As another instance, in a grapefruit grove at Safety Harbor S4
trees left without treatment during the summer of 1914 averaged
two-thirds of a box per tree less than the trees adjoining which were
sprayed. The reduction in the yield due to failure to spray was
caused by the smaller size of the fruit resulting from rust-mite
attack. There seems to be no evidence that the actual number of
grapefruit on the unsprayed trees was less than on the sprayed trees.

During the year 1915 the same trees received the. same treatment
as during 1914. The sprayed trees had at least a goo-d half crop,
or about four boxes per tree. The trees adjoining w^hich were left

4 BULLETIN 645, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

imsprayed during both years yielded only from one-half to one box
per tree. This difference was so marked that all the laborers in the
grove noticed it as early as August 1.

THE GRADING OF FRUIT.

PRESENT STATUS.

The percentage of first-grade fruit shipped out of Florida is not
as great as it should be. To illustrate this point several tables have
been prepared which give the percentages of the various grades
shipped. These data have been obtained with difficulty. At first it
w^as thought that information could be obtained from the growers.
As a matter of fact the growers, as a class, do not know the percent-
age of the fruit in the different grades or the price received for the
respective grades, for the reason that a large percentage of the citrus
crop is sold on the tree, and shipped by those commission firms own-
ing groves.

No information regarding the percentages of the various grades
shipped could be obtained from the shipping companies. One im-
portant firm wrote that such large quantities of their fruit had been
sold at so much per box, regardless of gi'ade and size, that they were
unable to give any information about grades and prices. The reports
of the New York auction and the Florida Citrus Exchange were
available.

The grading of fruit in Florida is in a most chaotic states. Certain
grades marked " fancy " bring less money than third or fourth-
grade brands. There are no standards for the various grades of
fruit; the different grades vary as the season advances, and from
year to year. It is very difficult to place each brand of fruit in its
proper place. Attempt, however, was made to place it just as the
shipper had intended. The Citrus Exchange key to the various
brands was followed for all Exchange fruit. Wherever the word
" fancy " occurred, this was placed in the first grade, " bright " in
the second, and so on. This was strictly adhered to. The follow-
ing table will explain this more fully :

First grade.

Second grade.

Third grade. Fourth grade.

Fifth grade.

Fancy

Bright

Golden

Russet

Plain.

Stripes No. 1

Stripes R

Stripes Y

Yellow

Big Cj'press.
Plain.

Blue

Red

Deerfield F

Deerfield B

Deerfield G .

J R. W. Fancy

J. R. W. Choice

Balls of J

J. R. W. Golden

Florida Sunshine

In order to arrive at the best estimate of the grades of fruit shipped
from Florida at present it seemed best to adopt two fairly distinct
methods to determine this for New York City and compare the re-
sults with those obtained from other sources.

SPKAYHSra TO CONTEOL ENEMIES OF CITRUS TREES. 5

By the first luothod the records of fruit sold on four days of each
month in New York City were taken into consideration. Usually
the days selected were the 3d, 10th, 20th, and 28th or 30th of each
month, but other days might have been chosen just as well. The per-
centages of the A-arious grades of fruit shipped, based upon the rec-
ords for these representative da3'^s, are given in Table 1.

Table 1. — Percentages
from Florida

of various
to New York

grades of oranges and grapef
City during the season of 1915

niit shipped
-16.

Oranges.

Grapefruit.

Month.

First
grade.

Second
grade.

Third
grade.

Fourth
grade.

Fifth
grade.

First
grade.

Second
grade.

Third
grade.

Fourth
grade.

Fifth
grade.

8.17
13.93
12.26

2.60
.25

1.16

48.55
43.79
38.30
32.28
25. 89
20.91

37.14
40.18
40.89
47.07
52.64
50.80

5.63
1.87
7.58
14.66
17.39
25.51

0.5
.25
.95
2.38
3.81
1.60

13.85

20.02

9.44

2.58

.6

.0

55.6
33.68
46.72
21.46
9.7
17.0

26.61

39. .55

35.31

48.90

50.6

58.57

4.43
6.73
8.7
18.77
33.4
20.36

0.0

.0

January

.0

8.3

March

5.65

4.33

Entire season.

6.68

34.82 45.07

11.80

1.62

6.92

29.86

44.74

15.24 3.25

The data in Table 1 are based upon the sale of 128,487 boxes of
oranges and 31,479 boxes of grapefruit. In the second method for
determining the percentage of fruit shipped to New York City in
the various grades, the fruit was placed in only three grades instead
of five. The fruit was classified by the same method used for Table
1, except that fruit marked " fancy " and " No. 1 " was placed in the
first grade, and all " plain," fourth and fifth grade fruit was left
out. The results, based upon a study of the auction sales, including
400,806 boxes of oranges and 126,193 boxes of grapefruit, showed
that the percentages of fruit in the three grades were 35.56, 44.33,
and 20.10 for oranges, and 34.43, 45.61, and 20 for grapefruit.

These data and those of Table 1 show that the two methods for
determining the grades shipped give about the same results. The
better grades are shipped during November and December; the
poorer grades, toward the close of the season. To a considerable
extent this due to the demmnd of the holiday trade, which calls for
the best fruit obtainable. This demand causes such a keen competi-
tion among packers that it is difficult for any but the better grades
to find a market until after Christmas.

Since the fruit sold in New York City grades much higher than
that sold in other markets, and, in fact, better than the average fruit
of the State, the percentages of the different grades of fruit of this
market and those of other markets must be compared, in order to
arrive at a just conclusion as to the amount of fruit in the diilerent
grades shipped from the entire State. Such a comparison of grades
sold in New York City and other markets, including Baltimore,
Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis,
is made in Table 2.

6 BULLETIN" 645, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

Table 2. — rercentagcs of various grades of oranges and grapefruit shipiKd
from Florida to Neiv York Vitg and other markets during the season of
1915-16.

Oranges.

Grapefruit.

Market.

First
grade.

Second
grade.

Third
grade.

Total
boxes.

First
grade.

Second Third
grade, grade.

Total
boxes.

New York City. .

35.66
8.30

44.33
44.57

20.10
47.13

868,541
5,096,817

34.43

8.85

45.61
36.2

20.00

S4 Q

272,621
1,544,929

Other markets

Totals and weighted per-
centages

12.39

44.53

43.08

5,965,358

12.67

37. 62 • 40. 69

1,817,550

Taking into consideration all sources of information regarding
oranges and grapefruit shipped out of Florida, the conclusion is
reached that for the purpose of this bulletin the percentages of fruit
in the first, second, and third grades approximate 13, 41, and 46,
respectively.

RAISING THE GRADE OP FRUIT BY SPRAYING.

Since by no means all Florida fruit is graded so "vrell as that
shipped to New York, the problem of raising the standard is an im-
portant one. Is it worth while? Will it pay? From the results of
work in Florida it may be asserted confidentl}' that it is worth while
and that it will pay in a very large number of Florida groves. Table
3 gives the percentages of the grades of fruit shipped from the same
grove during 1914, 1915, 1916 and during 1917, up to January 15.
In 1914 the small amount of spraying done came too late to prevent
blemishes caused by rust mites. In 1915 and 1917 the spraying was
done at the proper time, but in 1916 the application was made a little
too late to produce the best results. The data resulting from this
experimental work are so striking that comment is unnecessary.

T.\BLE 3. — Result of spraying upon the percentages of grapefruit in the various

grades.

Year and treatment.

Grade of fruit.

1914

1915

1916

1917

Not
sprayed.

Well
sprayed.

Sprayed
too late
for best
results.

Well
sprayed.

First

2.7
15.8
50.0
31.5

34.3
51.5
10.2
3.7

15.8
51.6
17.3
15.3

33.7

Second

46.3

Tliird

14 2

Fourth

5.9

In a second grapefruit grove during the season of 1913-14, when
no spraying was done, the percentages of fruit in the four grades
ran 0, 13.8, 65.5, and 20.8, respectively. During the season of 1914-15

SPKAYIISrCx TO COXTROL EXRMTF.S OF CTTPvUS TREES. 7

the fruit from the same trees after having been sprayed ran for the
same grades 12.-1, 73.1, 14.5 and 0 per cent, respectively. These data,
presented by Mr. S. F. Poole before the Florida Horticultural So-
ciety,^ show that spraying raised the percentages of fruit in the
first two grades from about 14 to 85.5 per cent, while the same treat-
ment lowered the percentage in the inferior third and fourth grades
from 86.37 to 14.5 per cent and raised all fruit above the fourth grade.
In a third grove the grapefruit of the season of 1913-14, which
had developed without protection by spraying, gave O.G, 24, 59,
and 16.4 per cent, respectively, in the four grades. The same trees,
properly sprayed during 1914, yielded fruits during the 1914-15
season which graded for the same grades 27.4, 67.5, 5, and 0 per
cent, respectively. In other words, spraying increased the amount of
fruit in the first tAvo grades from 24.6 to 94.9 per cent and reduced
that in the lower grades from 75.4 to 5 per ceiit ; increased the first
grade from 0.6 to 27.4 per cent and reduced the fourth grade from
16.4 per cent to zero. The fruit in the two groves upon which data
have been given were graded by the Winter Haven Citrus Growers-
Association, and the spraying was done under the direction of Mr. S.
F. Poole, of Winter Haven.

The foregoing data, secured in the same grove two or more years in
succession, may raise the question whether the relative abundance
of pests, or more favorable climatic conditions, may not have been
an important factor in the better crops secured after spraying.
Without discussing this point at length the data secured in various
groves are given beloAv :

Grove 1. — During 1913, 900 boxes of fruit picked from unsprayed
orange trees in the community graded 32.6 per cent " bright '' and
67.3 per cent " russet," while 914 boxes picked from a sprayed grove
and apparently equally well cared for in other respects graded 90.4
per cent " bright " and 9.5 per cent " russet."

Grove 2.—\vl the Hill grove at Winter Haven, which was sprayed
during 1914, the oranges shipped 60 per cent first, 35 per cent second,
and 5 per cent third grade; and the grapefruit, 30 per cent first,
67 per cent second, and 3 per cent third grade. The general run of
fruit grown in the same vicinity, upon trees in the same general state
of culture except that many had not been sprayed at all and others
sprayed only indifferently, and packed by the same packing house,
may be taken as a fairly good index to the grade of fruit produced
during the same season. This fruit shipped 10 per cent first, 62
per cent second, and 28 per cent third.

Grove 3. — In this grapefruit groxe one block of trees was sprayed,
a second block was left unsprayed after June, while a third block
was kept as a check. Aside from spraying, the trees received practi-

1 Florida Horticultural Society Report. 1915, pp. 130-132.

8 BULLETIN 645^ U. S. DEPAETMElTT OF AGEICULTURE.

cally the same treatment as regards cultivation and fertilization.
The fruit in the sprayed and unsprayed blocks gi-ew on trees about
30 feet apart, or in adjoining rows, and was picked and packed
on the same day. The carload of sprayed fruit shipped 87.4 per
cent first and second and 12.6 per cent third and fourth grades;
the unsprayed carload shipped no first, 3.3 per cent second, and 96.6
per cent third and fourth grades. A more striking example of what
a maximum infestation of rust mites will do and the benefits derived
from spraying can scarcely be conceived. The carload of fruit left
unsprayed after June shipped 80.3 per cent first and second and 19.6
per cent third and fourth grades, thus indicating that if rust mites
are controlled thoroughly until the 1st of July on grapefruit little
damage will result. In other groves russeting has been observed in
January and February.

Grove Jf. — In this grapefruit grove, 1 mile distant from grove 3,
sprayed and unsprayed fruit was grown during 1914 in adjoining
rows. The fruit from the sprayed trees shipped 18.8, 58.1, 15.1, and
7.9 per cent, respectively, in the four grades known as " fancy,"
" bright," " russet," and " plain." The fruits from the unsprayed
trees shipped 0.6, 43.6, 49.7 and 6 per cent, respectively, in the same
four grades. The percentage of second grade^ or "bright," fruit
from the unsprayed trees is much greater than from unsprayed trees
of grove 3, since the rust mites did not do so much damage in this
grove. It will be noticed that 15.1 per cent of the fruit from sprayed
trees was russeted, whereas 49.7 per cent was russeted on the un-
sprayed trees. In grove 4 the poorer results were due to the ineffi-
ciency of the spray solution.

The foregoing data, under the general head of grades of fruit,
should convince any grower that it is possible to raise the grade
of fruit by killing pests so that the fruit will grade at least 35 per
cent first, 50 per cent second, and 15 per cent third, instead of the
present average for the State, which is 13 per cent first, 41 per cent
second, and 46 per cent third. Fruit usually will grow to a remark-
able state of perfection on healthy trees if only the insects and mites
are controlled. One grove, the fruit of which was packed by an asso-
ciation noted for its high-class work, produced 90 per cent " Blue,"
or A No. 1 grade. The writer has seen 120,000 boxes of grapefruit
from sprayed trees that graded 60 per cent first and 25 per cent

second.

REDUCTION IN SIZE CAUSED BY INSECTS.

Insects and mites not only lower the grades of the fruit by the
blemishes they cause, but reduce the size to a considerable extent.
In raising the grades of the fruit by spraying, large benefits are
obtained in preventing the pests from reducing the size. In com-
mercial grading it is very difficult to show the difference in size of

SPBAYTXG TO CONTROL ENEMIES OF CITRUS TREES.

9

oranges that have been damaged by mites and those that have not,
since in commercial houses all large, coarse fruits, as well as more
or less fruit that is inferior, are always placed in the second or third
grades with the " russets." This reduction in size is so great, how-
ever, that even in commercial grading the difference in size in the
respective grades is considerable. Thus, in 941 boxes of oranges
of the first grade, 7,111 boxes of the second, and 3,376 boxes of the
third there were, on an average, 184.2, 197.9, and 200.4 oranges per
box; a difference of 7 per cent in the number of fruits per box in the
first and second grades, and of 8.8 per cent of those in the first and
third grades.

The difference in size of the fruit of the various grades ranges
from 4 to 14 per cent. In one community the general run of " bright "
fruit (unaffected by mites) averaged 203.8 oranges per box, and the
russeted fruit 222.2, or a difference of 9.28 per cent in favor of un-
affected fruit. In another near-by grove that was sprayed the
"bright" fruit averaged 214 and the "russets" 228 fruits per box,
which is a difference of 6.6 per cent.

The number of grapefruit in 360 first, 970 second, and 279 third-
grade boxes of fruit averaged 53.2, 57.5, and 51.9, respectively. In
this instance the difference in number of fruits per box in the first
and second grades is 8.2 per cent. Undoubtedly so many large,
coarse fruits were placed in the third grade that these made the
average number of fruits per box less than even in the first grade.

It is much better, however, to make comparison of fruit of the
same variety from the same grove, and data are given here for this
purpose. Table 4 shows the numbers of grapefruit per box for the
various grades in a car of sprayed and of unsprayed fruit and of
fruit which was not sprayed after Jime. These are the same car-
loads of fruit referred to on page 7, grove 3.

Table 4. — Nnmher of grapefruit per box from trees sprayed and unsprayed and
from trees unsprayed after Jwne.

Number of grapefruit per box.

Grade.

Sprayed.

Not

sprayed

after

June.

Not
sprayed.

1. Fancy

42.2
43.6
45.2

38.8

46.6
49.7
52.3
43.2

0.0

2. Bright

48.4

3. Russet

49.3

4. Plain

46.1

General average

42.8

49.0

49.1

It will be seen that the sprayed fruit averaged 42.8 and the un-
sprayed fruit 49.1 fruits per box. This difference may not appear to
be very great at first sight, but if the unsprayed fruit had been as
21698°— 18— Bull. 645—2.

10 BULLETIN 645, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

large as the sprayed, there would have been 344.1 boxes of fruit in-
stead of 300, or a gain of 14.7 per cent. The "russet" grade is smaller
in all cars than either the " fancy " or " bright." All large, coarse
fruits, were packed in the *' plain," although they might be classed as
"brights." Table 4, although it contains the data given by a com-
mercial concern, does not indicate as great a difference as really
existed. On the unsprayed trees there were many fruits so small and
of such poor quality that they were never sent through the packing
house.

Grapefruit grown about 1 mile from that discussed in Table 4 was
sprayed with a different material, soda-sulphur. The sprayed and
unsprayed fruit was picked on the same day. The number of fruits
per box from the sprayed trees averaged, for the same grades given in
Table 4, 47.8, 51.7, 56, and 53.4 per box, respectively ; from the un-
sprayed trees, 52.3, 56.7, 59.5, and 0, respectively. The "russet"
fruit in both cases was much smaller than any of the other grades.
Taken as a whole, the fruit from the sprayed and unsprayed trees
averaged 51.5 and 57.8 fruits per box, respectively, which gives a
percentage difference of 12.3 in the number of fruits in favor of
spraying. In another instance grapefruit from sprayed trees aver-
aged 50.2 fruits per box as compared with 57.8 fruits from un-
sprayed trees in adjoining rows; a difference of 15.2 per cent in
favor of sprayed fruits.

The reduction in size follovving rust-mite attack accounts, to a
certain extent, for the small number of boxes produced in 1911, when
practically all the unsprayed citrus fruit was " russet," and about
half was " black russet," or about two sizes smaller than it would have
been had it not been affected by rust mites. One test shows that 66
sprayed fruits filled the same box as 99 unsprayed fruits picked from
an adjoining row, or a difference of 33 J per cent. From orange tre&s
sprayed with lime-sulphur, 1-25, April 22, 1911, 338 fruits averaged
3.29 inches in diameter. The skin of this fruit was smooth and the
texture good. From unsprayed adjoining orange trees 1,234 fruits
averaged 2.58 inches. It would require 112 of the former to fill the
average orange box and 226 of the latter, or twice as many.

The reduction in size in also shown by the average weight of the
fruit. In a miscellaneous lot of oranges, graded commercially, 575
" brights " weighed 241 pounds and 575 " russets " weighed 225 J
pounds, which made a difference of 6;^ per cent. This fruit, of
course, had been picked at the same time and from the same grove
and the collection represented all the different sizes. The fruit had
not received any spraying. In another lot, 75 " bright "' grapefruit
which had been sprayed thoroughly throughout the season weighed
99.75 pounds, and 75 fruits which had received no spraying through-
out the year weighed 88 pounds, which makes a difference of 11.77
per cent.

SPRAYING TO CONTROL ENEMIES OF CITEUS TREES. 11

The foregoing data show that the loss resulting from the reduction
in size of the fruit is close to 12.5 per cent, or about one size. About
half the citrus crop of Florida suffers this loss. The data also con-
firm the observations made on the size of " brights " and "russets"
when packed. "VMien fruit is graded in a packing house and then
run through the sizer the full bin on the '* bright " side is invariably
one size larger than the full bin on the "russet" side. These facts
also substantiate the statement of Mr. S. O. Chase, of Sanford, Fla.,
who figured out more than 25 years ago that the increase in
size which results from spraying pays for the cost of spraymg.
They also confirm the statements of Mr. F. D. Waite, of Palmetto,
and Mr. A. B. Harrington, of Winter Haven, that rust mites reduce
the size about 12| per cent.

The belief is general in Florida that " russet " fruit will ship bet-
ter, or with less decay, than " bright " fruit. If this is the case it is
possible that the supposedl}^ superior shipping qualities of the " rus-
set " fruit might outweigh any advantages which the " bright " fruit
might possess, "While the data given in the following paragraphs
may not be entirely conclusive, they certainly show that bright fruit,
which retains its natural " waxy " coating for protection, ships
equally as well or better than " russet " fruit, or fruit that has been
injured by rust mites to the extent of losing its normal protection.

Test 1 : Grapefruit — On January 30, 24 brights and 24 russets were
picked and placed in the laboratory. These were examined from
time to time, and on April 7 46| per cent of the bright fruit had
decayed and 58^ per cent of the russets.

Test 2 : Fifty-one grapefruit each, of brights and russets, were
picked on the same da}^ as the preceding and placed in the laboratory.
On April 7, 49 per cent of the brights had decayed and 75^ per cent
of the russets.

Test 3 : Oranges — One box of bright oranges and one box of russet
oranges, each containing 200 fruits^ w^ere purchased at the packing
house on March 9. These fruits were picked from the same grove.
On April 7 the bright oranges showed 48^ per cent decay and the
russet oranges 59 per cent.

Test 4 : One box of brights and one box of russets containing 160
oranges each were set aside March 9. On April 7, 29.3 per cent of
the bright fruit had rotted and 30.6 per cent of the russets.

Test 5 : One box each of brights and russets, containing 150 oranges
each, were used on March 3. On April 7, 50 per cent of the bright
fruit had decayed and 66 per cent of the russet.

Test 6: One-half box each of brights and russets were put under
observation on March 3. On April 7, 54 per cent of the brights had
rotted and 74 per cent of the russets.

12

BULLETIN 645, U. S, DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

In the spring of 1917 another series of experiments was conducted
to determine the relative merits of bright and russet fruit with refer-
ence to their carrying qualities. Twelve lots of oranges, each con-
taining an equal number of brights and russets, were picked and
carefully selected so as to avoid anj^ mechanical injuries. So far as
possible, the brights and russets from each lot were taken from the
same tree. Examinations were usually made every seven days. Table
5 gives the percentage of decay for each period of all the lots.

Table 5. — Percentage of decay of " brights" and "russets."

Number
of days.

" Brights."

"Russets."

Number

of

sound

fruits.

Number

of

decayed

fruits.

Total
number

of
decayed

fruits.

Per

cent

decay.

Number

of

sound

frmts.

Number

of
decayed
fruits.

Total
number

of
decayed

fruits.

Per

cent
decay.

5
12
19
26
33
40
47
54
61

95
94
93
89
79
71
60
59
50
34

0
1
1
4

10
8

11
1
9
4

0

1

2

6

16

24

35

36

45

49

0.0

1.05

2.10

6.31

16.84

25.26

36.8

37.89

47.36

51.57

95

11
87
78
56
40
31
12
11

0

0

0

8

9

22

16

9

19

1

0
0
0

8
17
39
55
64
83
84

0.0
.0
.0

8.42
17.90
41.05
57.90
67. 36
87.36
88.42

The above experiment was terminated about 2| months after it
was started. At that time 27 of the bright fruits were sound, 25
of which were eaten, and only 3 of the russets were sound, none
of which were edible. The 95 bright fruits had averaged 51 days and
the 95 russet had averaged 36 days before developing decay. In 11
of the 12 lots the brights lasted longer than the russets. According
to weight, the percentage of decay was 45,3 in the brights and 64,8
in the russets.

The rate of evaporation of the juices is also much gTeater in
russet fruit than in bright. From January 30 to April 7, 1915, 24
bright grapefruit lost 4.7 per cent and 24 russet lost 13.6 per cent
from evaporation. During the same time 51 bright grapefruit lost
5.9 per cent, and the 51 russet lost 9.5 per cent. One box of bright
oranges lost 10.4 per cent, and another box of russets containing the
same number of fruits lost 15 per cent. Another box of brights lost
14.8 per cent by evaporation and the box of russets lost 17.9 per cent.
In one box of half brights and half russets the brights lost 17.4 per
cent and the russets 21 per cent. In one box of brights the loss from
evaporation was the same as that sustained by the russet box. In 8
of the 12 lots mentioned under " decay " (Table 5) the percentage of
evaporation was greater from russet than from bright fruit and the
total of the 12 lots showed the russets evaporated 23.12 per cent and
the bright 22.68 per cent.

SPRAYIiSTG TO CONTROL ENEMIES OF CITEUS TREES.

13

There seems to be an impression among consumers and retail
dealers that russet fruit is a variety of citrus instead of being the
result of the former presence of thousands of rust mites. The re-
sponsibility for this erroneous idea rests with the salesman. It is
considered good salesmanship to sell what goods there are on hand
and to convince the purchaser of the merits of the same. Since more
than half the crop is russet, some explanation must be made to the
consumer as to the quality of the fruit he purchases. The explana-
tion that russet fruit is a variety fulfills all the requirements of good
salesmanship. The necessity for this exercise of shrewd salesman-
ship, as well as its continuation, rests with the Florida citrus grower.

One also hears frequently in Florida that russet fruit is sweeter
than bright. So far as is known, no analyses indicate that such is the
case. Since the russet fruit is not sold before the holidays, it has
ample opportunity fully to ripen, so no russet fruit is ever sour. In
some tests made March 25, 1914, several russet and bright oranges
were peeled so that they could not be told apart by the taster. These
were given to a person to taste. In both cases where bright and
russet fruit were compared, the person pronounced that the bright
was the sweeter. On January 29, 1915, five men pronounced sprayed
fruit sweeter and possessed of a greater refinement and delicacy of
flavor than unsprayed fruit from adjoining rows.

BETTER GRADES OF FRUIT BRING BETTER PRICES.

Obviously it is useless to raise the grade of fruit if second and
third grade fruit sell for as much as the first grade. There is no
reason to spend money to make first-grade fruit unless the improved
fruit brings a good yield on the investment required to produce it.

In order to show the difference in price received for different
grades of fruit Tables 6 and T have been prepared. The data of
Table G are based upon the returns from the 128,487 boxes of oranges
and the 31,479 boxes of grapefruit, and these data are given in
Table 1.

Table 6. — Difference in the price received in the Neiv York market for different
grades of oranges and grapefruit during the season of 1915-16.

Month.

November .
December. .

January

February . .

March

April

Difference in price received between the grades of-

Oranges.

First

and

second

grade.

SO. 39

.57

.23

.73

1.36

Second
and
third

grade.

SO. 28
.08
.14
.14

-.09
.14

Third

and

fourth

-SO. 01
.09

-.00
.14

-.16
.06

Fourth
and
fifth

grade.

SO. 39
.05
.37
.37
.49
.67

Total
difler-
ence.

SI. 06

.79

.74

1.38

1.59

1.82

Grapefruit.

First

and

second

grade.

SO. 66
.55
.37
.68
2.22
.00

Second
and
third

grade.

SO. 36
.57
.36
.25
.43
.18

Third

and

fourth

gi'ade.

Fourth
and
fifth

grade.

SO. 29
.26
.34
.25
.47
.17

$0.00
.00
.00
.03
.29
.25

Total
differ-
ence.

SI. 30
1.36

1.08

1.21

U.20

.60

I Dillerence between second and fifth grades; first grade is unusual sale.

14

BULLETIlSr 645, IT. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

The dash ( — ) placed before the difference in price indicates that
a lower grade sold for more than the next higher grade. This oc-
curred several times among the grades of oranges, but not among
those of grapefruit. The only explanation that can be offered for
this irregularity is that the lower grades had the sizes desired by
the trade at the particular time of the sale.

Table 7 shows the differences in price for the grades of 400,805
boxes of oranges and 126,193 boxes of grapefruit when these are
divided into three instead of five grades.

Table 7. — Differences in the price receved in the Neto TorJc market for diffrrent
grades of oranges and grapefruit during the season of 1915-16.

Difference in price received between the grades of —

Month.

Oranges.

Grapefruit

First and
second
grades.

Second

and third

grades.

First and
third
grades.

First and
second
grades.

Second

and third

grades.

First and
third
grades.

November

SO. 342
.243
.221
.168
.099
.226

$0. 044
.136
.117
.114
.054
.110

SO. 385
.379
.338
.282
.045
.336

$0. 517
.369
.237
.378
.295
.0J9

SO. 314
.654
.362
.325
.569
.279

SO. 831

Decemljer

1.023

January

.599

February

.703

March

.864

April

.338

If the difference in price received for the first and third grades be
added and the sum be divided by the number of months, an average
difference of 30 cents in price received for the oranges and 72 cents
for the grapefruit is obtained. In a miscellaneous lot of 5,427 boxes
of fruit, the first grade averaged 48.8 cents more than did the second
grade, and the second averaged 8.3 cents more than did the third
grade.

Opportunity is seldom presented for comparing the price of
sprayed and unsprayed fruit from the same grove. Through the
cooperation of Mr. J. A. Stevens, of De Land, this was done with
two carloads of grapefruit shipped in 1914 from sprayed and un-
sprayed trees, that were picked and packed on the same day and
sold in the same market. The sprayed fruit sold for $1.94 per box ;
the unsprayed fruit for $1.G9. These respective prices are disap-
pointing. It had been anticipated that there would be at least a
difference of 75 cents instead of 25 cents in favor of the sprayed
fruit. The net profits due to spraying, however, were sufficient to
pay one-fourth of the freight charges. Although the difference is
slight, it is more than four times what it cost to spray the trees. The
prices of the respective grades of the fruit could not be obtained.

In a grove about 1 mile distant from the grove previously men-
tioned 516 and 300 boxes of gTapefruit, respectively, were picked from

SPRAYIKG TO CONTROL F.KEMIES OF CTTRUS TREES. 15

spra3'ed niicl un.sprayed trees in adjoining rows. It is not loiown
Avhether all tlK> fruit was sold in the same market. The sprayed
fruit brought 98 cents per box, the unsprayed fruit 85 cents per bo a.
The difference in price, though small, was twice the cost of spraying.
Because of the vagaries of the market, due to the daily fluctuation
in supply and demand, it can not be stated that the better grades
will always bring the better price, yet the data presented leave
no doubt that spraying raises the grade of the fruit and largely over-
comes the devitalized effect caused by insects, and that, other things
being equal, the better grades bring better prices.

SPRAYING SCHEME FOR CONTROLLING CITRUS PESTS.

As a general proposition the time to spray for the control of all
pests of citrus trees is when they are present in such numbers that, if
left to reproduce without artificial hindrance, they would soon become
injurious. In other words the pests should be killed before they can
do much damage to either the tree or the fruit. The pests should
always be kept in such a state of repression that they can do little
or no damage. In case the various pests of citrus are permitted to
become so abundant as to cause injury, the profits which ma}^ be ex-
pected from artificial treatment, such as spraying with an insecticide,
are, to a certain extent, lost. Fortunately the life history and habits
of nearly all citrus pests are such that good results can be obtained at
any time of the year when the spray is applied. Nevertheless there
are times when spraying is more opportune than at others. These
periods come when the largest number of the insects are verj?^ young,
for then they are killed most easily.

The following spray scheme has been used very extensively for
four summers in Florida and generally has given satisfactory re-
sults. It must be admitted, however, that no hard and fast scheme
can be recommended, and that to a large extent the number of
sprayings depends on the thoroughness of the work.

I. Parafjin-oil emulsion; Government formvbla^ 1-66 or 1 'per cent
of oil. May. — The main object of spraying at this time is to kill
white flies, scale insects, and, to a large extent, rust mites. This
treatment, however, must not be relied upon to control rust mites.
The spraying should be done after the adults of the first brood of
white flies have disappeared and before the appearance of those of
the second brood. The fruit should be an inch or more in diameter.
Since this treatment is given before the beginning of the rainy season,
it does not interfere with the work of the beneficial fungi in reducing
those insects not killed by the spray.

II. Limxi-siilphur solution., 32° Baume, ISO to 1-75. June to
July. — The main object of this treatment is to kill rust mites, and the

16 BULLETIN 645, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

correct time for its application varies with the appearance of the
maximum number of the rust mites. It should be applied before the
mites get very abundant and before any russeting appears. It will
also kill some scales and white flies, but is not of great value for
that purpose.

III, Paraffin-oil emulsion; GovernTwent forTnula 1-66, or 1 per
cent of oil. August 25 to Octoher 31. — This is the second spraying
for white flies and scale insects. The object of spraying at this time is
to kill the white-fly larvae which are the progeny of the third and
last brood. It is this brood that causes nearly all the damage from
the white flies, and the earlier they are killed the better it is for the
trees. This spraying also will remove the sooty mold from the trees
and a sufficient amount from the fruit to permit the fruit to be col-
ored up by the sun. Soda-sulphur^ 1-50., may be added to this spray-
ing to increase its effectiveness in killing rust mites.

IV. Lime-sulphur solution, 32° Baume, 1-50 to 1-76. Novemher
or Decemher. — The object of this spraying is to kill rust mites, and
it may or may not be necessary, depending on the abundance of the
mites.

It may be necessary to spray for rust mites before Treatment I
is given. This is especially the case with grapefruit in the more
southern counties. In case the red spider becomes abundant enough
to cause injury, an application of lime-sulphur solution should be
given. In case of heavy scale-insect infestation it may be necessary
to spray three times with the oil spra^^s, in which case the treatment
can be given in midsummer or in winter. If the red scale is very
abundant, two sprayings with the oil emulsions should be given at
intervals of about a month.

The paraffin-oil emulsion may be made according to directions
given in Circular No. 168, Bureau of Entomology.

In addition to the foregoing there are three highly satisfactory
miscible-oil sprays on the market in Florida.

The soda-sulphur solution is made according to the standard
formula: 30 pounds of sulphur, 20 pounds of caustic soda, and 20
gallons of water. This tests about 16° Baume and may be used 1— 10
instead of lime-sulphur solution, but it is not so effective in control-
ling rust mites. It has an advantage over lime-sulphur solution in
that it mixes readily with the oil emulsions.^

COST OF SPRAYING.

The cost of spraying depends upon many different factors, such as
the size of the trees, nearness to water^ convenience of operation,
type of spraying outfit employed, insecticide used, and character of

^For directions for maliing lime-sulphur solution see Farmers' Bulletin 908.

SPRAYING TO CONTROL ENEMIES OF CITRUS TREES. 17

the labor, Xo grower should expect to spray a bearing tree for less
than 3 cents for each application. It would be better to place the
minimum at 4 cents. It should not require more than 10 cents to
spray the largest trees in the State if any considerable number are
present in one grove. An average cost per tree should not exceed 5
tCT 6 cents. If one figures the cost per box, a minimum would be 1
cent per application for oil spray and somewhat less for lime-sulphur.
A maximum would be 1^ cents for either insecticide. An expenditure
of more than 6 cents per box for the entire year should be unnecessary.

PROFITS AND BENEFITS.

It is impossible to express accurately the percentage of profit to be
expected from spraying to control pests on citrus. The same condi-
tion applies to cultural and other grove operations in Florida. The
data at hand are sufficiently accurate, however, to be worth pre-
senting.

It has been shown that the better grades bring more money than
the lower, yet it would bo fallacious to assume that if the entire crop
were of a high gi^ade the grower would receive correspondingly
higher prices. The trade will consume only so much high-gi-ade fruit.
It is reasonabl}^ certain, however, that the Florida crop has not yet
reached the high standard where it would be no longer profitable to
produce more high-grade fruit.

At present 13 per cent first, 41 per cent second, and 46 per cent
third grade oranges are shipped from the State, and it is possible
and practicable to raise this standard to 35, 50, and 15 per cent for
firet, second, and third grades, respectively. It is assumed that the
trade would handle fruit of this quality. Thus, the first grade is
increased 22 per cent and the second 9 per cent. If 7,600,000 boxes
are taken as the basis for the crop of 1915-16, there would be
1,273,087 boxes more in the first grade if spraying were done. These
would sell, according to Table 7 (oranges) for 21.6 cents ^ more per
box, or an increase of $275,181. There would also be 9 per cent more
second grade, or 521,177 boxee. These would sell for 9,6 cents more,
or an increase of $50,033.

The percentage of the various grades of grapefruit was not very
different from that of the oranges, so 13, 41, and 46 per cent may be
used to represent the first, second, and third grades of grapefruit,
respectively. The standard for grapefruit also can be raised to grade
35, 50, and 15 per cent. There would then be 22 per cent, or 399,685
boxes, which would sell for 30,9 cents per box more, an increase
of $123,559. There would be 9 per cent, or 163,508 boxes, which would

1 New York City prices. Other prices could not be obtained.

18 BULLETIN 645, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

sell, according to Table 7 (grapefruit), for 41.7 cents more per box,
or an increase of $61,182.

The total increase in value by raising the grade would be $509,955
for the entire crop of oranges and grapefruit.

Elsewhere in this bulletin it has been shown that " russet " fruit is
of about on-e size, or about 12.5 per cent smaller than noiTnal fruit.
If it is estimated that one-half of the crop is " russet " there would
be a reduction of 475,000 boxes, which, valued at $1, would produce
a loss of $475,000. This is extremely conservative. As a matter of
fact, 100,000 boxes of fruit in Florida are thrown away because the
fruit is too small !

In regard to the reduction in yield caused by the devitalization of
the trees, it is very conservative to estimate this at 10 per cent, or
760,000 boxes. In reality it is probably 20 to 25 per cent, and many
sjDrayed groves prove this to be true, but for this estimate it is placed
at 10 per cent. This amount of fruit is valued at $760,000.

This would make a total of $1,744,955 as a minimum estimate for
the increase that could be expected from spraying the entire crop.
The cost of spraying groves producing 7,600,000 boxes would be not
more than 6 cents per box, or $456,000. This would be a net gain of
$1,288,965 in the value of the crop produced. This gain could be
divided in half and still a handsome profit would follow spraying.

In addition to the direct profit, there is the satisfaction, which every
enthusiastic orange grower must feel, in maintaining h,ealthy trees
and producing high-grade fruit.

CONCLUSION.

Of the total damage caused by insects and mites to citrus in
Florida, more than 95 per cent may be attributed to six species.
These, in the order of their destructiveness, are the citrus white fly/
the purple scale, the rust mite, the red scale, the cloudy-winged
white fly, and the red spider.

Aside from the satisfaction of growing fine fruit and owning-
healthy trees, it is estimated from the data reported in this bulletin
that had the 1915-16 crop of oranges and grapefruit been sprayed
according to the schedule recommended, the growers of Florida
would have increased their net returns by $1,288,955.

There is no reason why the standard percentage of fruit in the
higher grades can not be raised so that the percentage in the first,
second, and third grades will be 35, 50, and 15 instead of, as at pres-
ent, 13, 41, and 46. In one of several instances given, spraying in-
creased the amount of fruit in the first and second grades from 24.6
to 94.9 per cent, and reduced that in the third and fourth from 75.4

SPRAYING TO CONTROL ENEMIES OF CITRUS TREES. 19

to 5 per cent; increased the amount in the first grade from 0.6 to
27.4 per cent, and reduced that in the fourth from 16.4 per cent to
zero.

The better prices which, in most instances, can be obtained for
the better gi'ades of fruit fully warrant the adoption of a spray sys-
tem that improves the gi^ade and the amount of fruit produced.
The data presented leave no doubt as to the practicability of making
such improvement in the Florida citrus crop if the grower will ad-
here to the spray schedule outlined.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBUCATION MAY BE PROCUEED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

5 CENTS PER COPY
A

WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1917

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 646

Contribution from the States Relations Service
A. C. TRUE, Director.

Washington, D. C.

PROFESSIONAL PAPER

April 8, 1918

LESSONS ON PORK PRODUCTION FOR ELEMEN-
TARY RURAL SCHOOLS.^

By E. A. Miller, Specialist in Agricultural Education.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Introduction 1

Lesson 1 2

II 6

III 9

TV : 12

V 13

Page.

Lesson VI 15

VII 17

VIII 18

IX 21

Boys' pig clubs 25

INTRODUCTION.

Tmportance. — The growing of hogs is recognized as one of the most
important phases of the hvc-stock industry. The value of hogs as
meat-producing animals is attested by the facts that they are gro^\^l
on 70 per cent of farms and that they constitute so large a part
of the number of all farm animals. The United States Department
of Agriculture Crop Report gives the following interesting figures
with reference to the number of each kind of the leading farm animals
in our country on January 1, 1917: Hogs, 67,453,000; sheep,
48,483,000; milch cows, 22,768,000; other cattle, 40,819,000; horses
and mules, 25,765,000.

Educational value. — The great importance of the subject as indi-
cated in the previous paragraph and th(^ readiness with which it
lends itself to the teaching of the principles of breeding, feeding, and
management of farm animals give it unusual educational value. The
apphcation of these principles in connection with hogs may be studied
and observed in the brief period of one year. Its educational value
is recognized by school officials and extension workers and it is being
made use of as a home project and as a phase of club work.

It is with a view to introducing into the schools in a definite way
the study of this important phase of animal husbandry that the fol-

' Prepared under the direction of C. H. Lane, Chief Specialist in Agricultural Education.
Note.— This bulletin is intended for the use of teachers of elementary agriculture.
27820°— 18— Bull. 646 1

2 jSULLETIN 646, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTXTRe.

lowing lessons are outlined. Each lesson topic affords ample material
for one or more recitation periods.

Practical exercises. — The principles set forth in these lessons should
be given practical appUcation by the pupils in the growing of pigs at
home. Such practice is usually denominated "home project" work.
Suggestions in this connection under the heading "Practical exer-
cises/' are given with each lesson. Each member of the class should
have charge of one or more pigs or assume responsibility for the care
of hogs at home.

References. — The publications referred to may be had from the
United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, so long
as available. Teachers and pupils should write to the State college
of agriculture for publications on the subject. All reference material
possible should be secured at the beginning of the year.

Correlations. — Some suggestions are made in connection mth each
lesson topic as to the utilization of this subject in vitalizing the other
subjects in the school curriculum. These correlation suggestions are
not intended as a part of the lesson in connection with which they
appear, but should be used Avith recitations in the other subjects.
Teachers in rural schools should take advantage of every opportunity
to give purpose to school instruction by connecting it with the prob-
lems at the homes of the pupils.

Note to the teacher. — To make most effective the teachinff of the lesson topics
found in this publication the following points should be kept in mind and observed:
(1) A monthly or seasonal sequence plan should be followed in the presentation of
top'ics; (2) simple classroom exercises such as the working out of feeding rations
should be performed; and (3) members of the class should carry on home work with
pigs for profit. To have real educational value this home work should meet the
following requirements: (a) The work with pigs should be a part of the regular instruc-
tion in agriculture; (6) a definite plan should be followed in raising, feeding, and
managing pigs; (c) the parents of pupils should agree to and approve the home work
of pupils; (d) the home work should be carefully supervised by some competent
person; and (e) detailed records of labor, methods, expenditures, and incomes should
be kept and reported upon in WTiting by the pupil.

LESSON I.

TOPIC: TYPES AND BREEDS.

r?we.— Early fall.

Lesson outline. —^Ylqyq are two types of swine, namely, the fat or
lard type, and the bacon type. Both types are found to a greater or
less extent in most parts of the country and are the outcome of local
conditions rather than market requirements. The lard type prevails
in sections where corn is used as the principal feed, and the bacon
type is generally found on farms where corn is scarce and market
conditions warrant the production of this type of hog.

The lard tj^pe (fig. 1 ) of hogs is one which has a compact, thick, deep,
smooth body and is capable of fattening rapidly and maturing early.

PORK PRODUCTION FOR RURAL SCHOOLS. 3

The hams, back, and shoulders are the most valuabk* parts and should
be developed to the greatest possible extent. The whole bod}'- of the
animal should be covered with a thick layer of flesh representing the
extreme development of meat production. This t^^^e of hog, under
good conditions, should weigh 200 pounds or more when 7 to 9
months of age. This is the most popular market weight. Due to
the facts that corn is the most abundant hog feed and lard hogs
mature very early, this type predominates.

The most popular breeds of the lard type are the Berkshire, the
Poland-Cliiua, tlio Duroc-Jei-sey, the Chester AVliite, and the Hamp-
shire.

Tlie Berkshire had its origin in England and takes its name from
a shire or county by that name. The color is black with white mark-

Fig, i.— The lard type.

ings in the face, on the feet, and on the tip of the tail. Tlie face is
moderately dished and the snout is of medium length. The eai-s are
usually erect, though they may incline forward in aged animals.

The Poland-China originated in Butler and Warren Counties, Ohio.
"^The breed takes its name from the two breeds from the crossing of
wliich it is supposed to have residted, namely, a Poland breed and a
Cliinese breed. The color is black with white on feet, face, and tail.
The face is nearly straight and the jowl is full and heavy. Tlie ears
shoidd be firmly attached with the tip drooped.

The Duroc-Jersey had its origin in the blending of two red breeds,
the Jereey Reds of New Jereey and the Durocs of New York. The
color is cherry or yellowish red. The face is sUghtly dished, the snout
is of medium length, and the ear is drooped.

4

BULLETIN 646, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTLIRE.

The original Chester White had its origin in Chester County, Pa.,
hence the name. There are two other strains known as the Improved
Chester White or Todd's Improved Chester White, and the Ohio
Improved Chester White, commonly known as the OIC strain.
The color is white. The face is straight; the snout is usiuilly longer
than that of the Poland-China. The ear is drooped. In general
conformation the Chester White and Poland-China are very much
alike.

The Hampshire breed was formerly known by the name of Thin
Eind. The breed seems to have had its ongin in Hampshire, England.
The color is black with a white belt 4 to 1 2 inches wide encircling the

Fig. 2.— The bacon type.

body and including the forelegs. Tlie face is straight and the ear
inclines forward but does not droop.

The bacon tyi3e (fig. 2) differs from the lard type in that the
animals are more active, have longer legs and stronger bones, and do
not carry as much fat as the latter. Tlieir bodies are longer than
those of the lard hogs. The hams and shoulders are light but the
bodies are deep and wide. The most popular market weight ranges
from 175 to 200 pounds.

The most common breeds of this type are the Tamworth and the
York.shire.

The Tamworth is of English origin and takes its name from Tam-
worth in Staffordshire. The color varies from a golden red to a
chestnut shade. The face is practically straight, the snout is long
and straight, and the ear is inclined slightly forward.

PORK PRODUCTION FOR RURAL SCHOOLS.

The large Yorkshire breed orighiated in England and takes the
name of the shire of that name. The color is wliite. The face is
slightly dished and the snout is of medium length. The ears are
large and erect, but may inchne forward in old animals.

Study questions. — Name the t}^)es of hogs. Give the distinguish-
ing points of each type. Name the leading breeds of each type.
Briefly describe each breed. What other breeds are found in the
comnnmity? Describe each. To which type does each belong?
For what purposes are hogs grown in the community ? Home meat
supply? Market?

References. — Farmers' Bulletin 765.

Practical exercises. — Make a hog survey of the community, using
the accompanying table for tabulating the facts collected.

Name of pupil .

Community Hog Survey.
Date

Purebred.

Males.

Num-
btr.

Berksliire

Poland-China.
Duroc-Jersey. .
Chester White.
Tamworth ....

Yorkshire

Hampsliire

Value,

Sows.

Num-
ber.

Value,

Small pigs.

Num-
ber.

Value.

Large pigs.

Num-
ber.

Value.

Total.

Num-
ber.

Value.

Notes.

Gradf.s-.

Berkshire

Poland-Cliin-,1.

Duroc-Je

Chester While.
Tamworth . . . .

Yorkshire

riampshire

Scrub

Grand total.

Correlations. — Few people know how to make tabulation^i of facts
or to interpret statistical tables made by others. Exercises of this
kind can be made a most important part of the written work of the
pupils. Such work is provided in the foregoing "practical exercise."
In addition to WTitten work, facts are provided by such a tabulation
for exercises in arithmetic adapted to the advancement of the pupils.

Compare the geographical conditions of the community with those
sections in wliich various breeds of hogs originated.

Require the pupils to make sketches of the different breeds of iiogs
found in the community, placing special emphasis upon the charac-
teristic features of each breed.

6 BULLETIN 646, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

LESSON II.

TOPIC: HOUSES.

Time. — Early fall.

Lesson outline. — Location: A well-drained site should be selected
and, if possible, should have sufficient elevation to give the hogs a
climl) in reaching it. If practicable the house should occupy the
south side of a hill.

Principles of construction: Four important tilings should be
observed in hog-house construction; namely, light, ventilation,
warmth, and cleanliness. Light is provided by placing the house
along a north and south line and l)y putting in suitable doors and

Fig. 3.— Larse or community house.

windows. Doors, windows, and roof ventilation furnish a proper
interchange of air. Hogs need good ventilation as well as people.
A well-constructed house with good floor and bedding provides
sufficient warmth.

Let it be remembered that the hog has little natural protection
from cold; hence the necessity for comfortable quarters. Cement
makes a satisfactory floor, but in colder climates must be covered
with wooden false floors. A good floor makes it much easier to keep
the house clean. The arrangement of the house should be such that
the beds and feed floors are well separated.

Kinds of houses: There are two general classes of houses — large
community or stationary (fig. 3), and small individual or movable
(fig. 4). The large house has individual pens and is intended for

PORK PROnUCTTON POR RURAL SCHOOLS. 7

quite a num])('r of hogs. The advantages of the large house are:
It is more economical for a large number of hogs; it is convenient
for feeding and affords provisions for saving manure. If the house
is to be quite large it is usually advisable to arrange the pens in two
rows with an alley way between. The alley should be 4 to 6 feet
wide uidess it is desirable to have space for the passing of a wagon.
In that event the alley should be 8 to 10 feet wide.

The individual house, as the name suggests, is intended for one hog
or for a sow and hov brood. One decided advantage of the individ-
ual or ])()rtal)le liouse is that it can be moved from place to place

Fig. 4. — Indi^'idual or colony house.

and can thus be kept sanitary and made accessible to pastures.
There are two general styles of individual houses, namely, the box-
shaped with four upright walls and the A-shaped. The dimensions
should be 6 feet by 10 feet, or 8 feet by 8 feet. Wooden floors are
good, l)ut not necessary. The floor should be higher than the outside
level of the ground, to insure dryness. All houses should be suf-
ficiently high to permit the attendant to move about them with
comparative freedom. By placing fenders on the walls a few inches
from the floor, individual houses may be used for farrowmg pens.

Farrowing pens : When a number of sows are kept on a farm it may
be desirable to have a regular farrowuig pen. A small house pro-

8

BULLETIN 646^ LT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

vided with fenders (fig. 5) serves as a farrowing pen. Fenders may
be made of 2 by 6 inch scantUng and firmly attached to the walls
of the pen some 6 inches above the floor. The object of the fender
is to prevent the sow overlying young pigs.

Study questions. — What constitutes a good location for a hog
house? What are the essentials of a good hog house? Name,
describe, and give advantages of the different kinds of hog houses.
What kinds of hog houses are found in the community? Wliich
kind is most commonly used? Wliich seems most satisfactory?

References. — Farmers' Bulletins 4.38 and 566.

Fig. 5. — A small house provided with fenders.

Praciical exercises. — (1) Take the class to visit a modern hog house
in the community. Take notes on its location, construction, purpose,
and accessories. Make a sketch of the general plan and arrangement.
(2) When a visit is impraclical)lo, have members of the class make
written reports covering points mentioned in Exercise 1 as to hog
houses at their own homes. (3) Pig-project members sliould provide
proper housing for then- pigs. The individual house is suitable for
pig-project work.

Correlatiow^. — -Written work and drawing worJv are provided in the
practical exercises.

Arithmetic: Finding the amount of material, its cost, and the cost
of constructioii of the hog house visited or the houses r(^j)orted upon
by the members of the class provides splendid exercises in arithmetic.

PORK PRODUCTION FOR RURAL SCHOOLS. 9

LESSON III.

TOPIC: SWINE JUDGING.

Time. — Fall. Before fairs.

Lesson outline. — Purpose: To know that a hog possesses the neces-
sary qualities for laying on fat or producing good bacon, or for trans-
mitting such qualities to its offspring is important in comiection with
prohtahle swine production. There are ccrtam characteristics
pecuMar to the fat or lard type of hog and the same is true of the bacon
tj^pe. Those either directly or prospectively interested in swine
production should be able to recognize those characteristics. Hence
the necessity for judging swme.

Fig. 6.— Parts of the hog: 1, snout; 2, eye; 3, face; 4, ear; 5, jowl; 6, neck: 7, shoulder; 8, foreleg; 9, hind-
leg; 10, breast; 11, ehcstlinc; 12, hack; 13, loin; 14, side; 15, tail; 16, fore flank; 17, hind flank; IS, hip;
19, rump; 20, belly; 21, ham; 22, stifle; 23, hock; 24, pasterns; 25, dewclaws; 26, foot.

Parts of the hog (fig. 6 - : Before attempting the use of the score
card the pupils should become familiar with tlie locations and names
of the parts of the hog. The accompanying diagram with its legend
should be studied carefully before using the score card.

The score cards : These are merely guides in making detailed studies
of the hogs. Arbitrary values are assigned to the various pomts to
emphasize their relative importance. The accompanying score
cards should be studied carefully to enable the pupils to become
famihar with them before attempting to use them. As much practice
as possible should then be given in judging both fat and bacon
types of hogs. The teacher should arrange for visits to farms of the
community where pure-bred hogs are kept.
27820°— 18— Bull. 64C 2

10 BULLETIN 646, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

SCORE CARDS.

Score Card for Lard Hogs.
Breed Name Register No.

Perfect
score.

General appearance, 36:

Weight, score accordinfr 1 o age

Form, deep, broad, low, long, symmetrical compact, standing
squarely on legs

Quality, hair silky; skin tine; bone fine; flesh smooth, mellow, and
free from lumps or wrinkles

Condition, deep, even covering of flesh, especially in regions of val-
uable cuts

Head and neck, 6:

Snout , medium length, not coarse

Eyes, full, mild, )>right

Face, short, cheeks full

Ears, fine, medium size, soft

Jowl, strong, neal. liroad

Neck, tliick, medium length

Fore quarters, 10:

Shoulders, broad, deep, full, compact on top

Breast, advanced, wide

Legs, straight, short, strong; bone clean: pasterns upright; feet

medium size

Body, 30:

Chest, deep, broad, large girth

Sides, deep,len'rthy, full: ribs close and well sprung

Back, broad, straight , tliickly and evenly fleshed

Loin, wide, thick, straight

Belly , straight , even

Hind (luarters, IS:

Hips, wide apart , smooth

Rump, long, wide, evenly Heshed, straight

Ham, heavily fleshed, plump, full, deep, wide

Thighs, fleshed close to hocks

Le"s, straight, short, strong; bone clean; pasterns upright: feet
metlium size

Total.

Student's
score.

Corrected
score.

Remarks

Name of pupiL

Date

PORK PRODUCTION FOR RURAL SCHOOLS.

11

Breed .

Score Card for Bacon Hogs.
Name

Register No.

General appearance, 36:

Weight, 170 to 200 pounds, largely the result of thick covering of firm
flesh

Form, long, level, smooth, deep

Quality, hair fine, skin thin: bone fine; firm, even covering of flesh
■without any soft liunches of fat or wrinkles

Gondii ion, deep, uniform covering of flesh, especially in regions of

valualile cuts

Head and neck, 6:

Snout , fine

Eyes, full, mild, bright

Face, slim

Ears, tliin, medium size

Jowl, H;,'lit , trim

Neck, nu'diiun length, Ught

Fore quarters, 10:

Shoulders, free from roughness, smooth, compact, and same width
as back and hind quarters

Breast, moderately wide, lull

Legs, straight, short, strong; bone clean; pasterns upright, short; feet

medium size

Body, 34:

Cliest, deep, full girth

Back, medium and imiform in width, smooth, slightly arched

Sides, long, smooth, level from lieginning of shjulders to end of hind
quarters. The side at all points should touch a straight edge run-
ning from fore to hind quarter

Ribs, deep

Belly, trim, firm, tliick without any flabbiness or shrinkage at flank. .
Hind quarters, 14:

Hips, smooth, wide: proportionate to rest of body

Rump, long, even, straidit , ruimdeil toward tail.

Gammon, firm, rounded, taperin,', lleshed deep, and low toward liocks.

Legs, straiglit, short, strong, feet medium size; bone clean; pasterns
upright ;

Perfect
score.

Total.

Student's Corrected
score. I score.

Remark-.

Name of pupil Date

Siudy (piesiions. — Wliat is tlie purpose of judging swine ? What i:,
a score card ? What are the characteristics of a good fat or lard hog: ?
Bacon hog ? Wliat are tlie purposes of the fat or hird hog ? Bacon
hog? In what respects do the two types differ? Which is better
adapted to the community ? Have each member of the class make
an outhne diagram showing the parts of the hog. Name the parts.

References. — Farmers' Bulletin 566. Get State agricultural college
publications.

Pmciical exercises. — ^(1) The teacher should arrange to give mem-
bers of the class practice in judging different breeds of pure-bred hogs
in the community. Where practicable, secure the assistance of the
county demonstration agent or some person especially quahfied in this
respect. The class should judge the pigs owned by project members.

(2) If a community or county fair is conducted the teacher should
take advantage of it to give the members of the class an opportunity
to study and judge the best hogs in the community or county.

Correlations. — Require the mem])ers of the class to make several
copies of the score cards for their personal use.

Making outline diagrams of hogs showing tne parts of the hog
affords practice in drawing.

12 BULLETIN 646, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

LESSON IV.

TOPIC: FATTENING MEAT HOGS.

Time. — Early fall.

Lesson outline. — It is too expensive to fatten hogs entirely on corn
and other concentrated feed; hence the necessity for fall pastures and
other supplementary feed. During the first part of the fattening
period the hogs should have access to good pastures such as cowpeas,
soy hcans, or peanuts in the South, and ahalfa or clover in the North
and West. During tliis period some concentrated feed should be used
to supplement the pastures. It is estimated that fattenmg hogs when
on good pasture should be fed about 2 to 4 per cent of their weight
daily of concentrated feed. After the pastures are exhausted the

-•■ Flogging domi'

hogs should be placed in a small lot and finished off with concentrated
feed. During the finishing off period the animals should receive
daily 4 to 6 per cent of their weight of concentrated feed.

The practice of '^logging down" corn (fig. 7) has come to be a
desirable method of fattening hogs in some sections. The advantage
of this method is that the farmer's time is not consumed in o:atherin2
and feedmg the corn to the hogs. To balance the ration and supply
succulent food, it is well to grow with the corn such crops as cowpeas,
soy beans, peanuts, rape, pumpkins, and the like. Where peanuts,
cowpeas, or soy beans can not be grown it is necessary to feed the hogs
alfalfa hay to balance the ration during early stages of the fattening
period.

When hogs are being finished off in a small lot corn will, as a rule,
constitute the principal part of the ration, yet it should be supple-

PORK PRODUCTION FOR RURAL SCHOOLS. 13

monted with nitrogenous and succulent feeds. The followmg com-
binations arc suggested as rations :

1. Corn, 2 parts, wheat middlings, 1 part.

2. Corn, 2 parts, soy-l)ean meal, 1 part.

3. Corn, 5 parts, linseed meal, 1 j^art.

4. Corn, 9 parts, tankage, 1 part.

5. Corn, 1 part, wheat middlings 1 part, skim milk, 6 parts.
Hogs should he kept clean, ample fresh water supplied, and smal

quantities of succulent feed provided during the finishing-off period.

Siudy (luesiions. — What forage crops are grown in the community
as grazing crops for hogs ^ What concentrated feeds are used to
supplement corn for fattening hogs during the finishing-off period?
Have each memher of the class submit a statement showing the
method of fattening practiced at his own home. This should include
the pasture crops, the feed used to supplement pastures and the
rations fed during the fmishing-off process.

Beferences. — Farmers' Bulletins 874, 411, and 913. Write to the
agricultural college of the State for bulletins on the feeding or fatten-
ing of hogs.

PmCiical exercises. — (1) Students carrying on home projects with
hogs should have pasturage for their hogs that are to be fattened.
Select the pigs to be fattened. Make out rations of concentrated
feeds, using those food materials that can be used most economically.
These will usually include home-grown feeds.

(2) Members of the class that are not carrying on home projects
with pigs should assume charge of the feeding and care of the fattening
hogs at home. If feeding is to be done intelhgently the hogs should
be weighed at the beginning of tlie fattening period and at intervals
of a week or 10 days thereafter. The weights of the hogs provide a
basis for calculating the proper amount of feed.

Correlations. — Written reports of methods employed in fattening
hogs at the homes of the pupils provide language work.

Calculating rations and the amounts of different kinds of feed
needed to fatten the hogs of project members or at the homes of
pupils provides interesting exercises in arithmetic. The cost of the
materials used in the rations should be based on local prices.

LESSON V.

TOPIC: SELECTING BREEDING STOCK.

Time. — Late fall or early winter.

Lesson outline. — Importance of the brood sow: Influence of the
sow upon the offspring is just as great as that of the male. Mis-
mating or a poor sow will not only give unsatisfactory results in
breeding, but it will likely discourage the beginning breeder. This
latter fact would be especially true of a youth carrpng on a home
project with swine.

14 BULLETIN 646, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

Qualities of a good sow: If possible, secure a pure-bred animal of
a good strain. The forehead should be broad, the throat clean and
trim, the neck moderately thin, the shoulders smooth and deep, the
back wide and straight, the chest vnde and deep, sides straight and
deep, the body long and capacious, pelvic region broad and well
developed, legs straight and moderately short, and a generally refined
appearance; yet overrefinement ma}^ indicate a delicate constitu-
tion.

If a number of Irrood sows are to be used they should be uniform
in type. This is necessary to secure a uniform lot of pigs. It is
very unsatisfactory and unprofitable in breeding to have litters of
pigs varying in appearance and lacking uniformity. To insure a
uniform result it is advisable to select sows from a weU-established
strain of hogs.

Importance of the male: As was indicated in the case of the sow,
both parents have practically the same influence on the quality of
the offspring; however, the male has the greater influence on the
entire herd, since every pig is sired by the male, whereas all pigs do
not have the same dam.

While too much stress can not be placed on the importance of the
sow, if possible the male should be superior to the sow. Regardless
of the type of the sow, a poor male should never be used.

Qualities of a good male: Secure a pure-bred animal of a good
strain. The masculine characteristics should be strongly developed,
especially in the head and neck; the back should be broad, arched
and deeply fleshed; sides deep and long; quarters well developed;
legs straight and strong. The animal should stand well up on his
toes.

Mating: Overrefined sows shoidd be mated to rather masculine
males, and coai-se sows should be mated to males of high quality in-
dicated by fine bone, skin and hair.

Study questions. — Compare the importance of the sow and the male.
If there are pupils in the class doing home project work with pigs,
have them compare their brood sows with the quaUties set forth as
desirable. If members of the class contemplate buying a brood sow
or securing the services of a male, they shoidd apply the standards
set forth in the lesson.

References. — Farmers' Bulletins 874 and 566.

Practical exercises. — (1) Meml)ers of the class who are beginning
home projects with swine should select and secure their breeding
stock. (2j Those who have grown a litter of pigs should select the
animals best adapted to breeding purposes and dispose of them as
such. Other pigs should be fattened for meat or disposed of for
that purpose.

Correlations. — ^Have pupils write a brief description of a desirable
brood sow.

POEK PRODUCTION FOR RURAL SCHOOLS. 15

LESSON VI.
TOPIC: DRESSING AND CURING MEAT.

Time. — ^Midwinter.

Lesson outline. — Dressing. Killing: This is done by inserting a
knife with a narrow straight blade 8 inches long into the hog's throat
just in front of the breastbone. The point of the knife should be
tlirected toward the root of the tail in line with the backbone. When
the knife has been inserted 6 or 8 inches it should be given a quick
turn and withdrawn.

Scalding and scraping: In scalding the best residts are had by
using water at a temperature of 185° to 195°. Boihng water placed
in a cold barrel is ordinarily reduced to a proper temperature. If
the water is too cool much time is required in removing the hair and
if it is too hot the hair is likely to set. A shovelful of hard wood ashes,
a lump of lime, a handful of soap, a little pine tar or tablespoonful
of lye helps to loosen the hair.

The hog should not be scalded before life is extinct or the surface
blood will be cooked, giving the body a reddish tinge. While being
scalded the hog should be kept constantly moving. As soon as the
liair and scurf slip easily from the surface scalding is complete. If
the water is too hot scald the hind endiirst; if not, scald the front
end in order to get a good scald on the head, wliich is difficidt to
clean. Clean the head and feet fu^st. The hands and a knife or a
candlestick scraper are all that are necessary to remove the hair.
After the hair is practically aU removed rinse the body with hot
water and shave the remaining haii-s with a sharp knife. Raise the
gambrel cords, insert the stick and hang up the hog.

Removing the entrails: Split the hog between the hind legs,
separating the bones by cutting tlii'ough the joint with a knife.
Next run the knife down the middle hne of the body, guiding with
the right hand and shielding the point with the left hand. SpUt
the breastbone with a knife or an axe and continue the cut on down
to the cliin. Remove the entrails. Open the jaw and insert a small
block to allow free drainage. Wash out all the blood with cold
water. The carcass should now be allowed to cool over night. If
the weather is warm remove the backbone to hasten cooling.

Cutting (fig. 8): Pork may be cut as soon as thoroughly cool.
Remove the head back of the ears, remove the backbone and the
sparerib, cut off the shoulders between the fourth and fifth ribs, and
cut off the hams 2 inches in front of the pelvic bones. Trim the
hams to smooth rounded pieces. Remove the fat from all parts and
take out the loin. Cut the sides into two or three pieces.

Curing meat: The meat should be allowed to cool thoroughly before
it is salted. If the weather is cool, 24 to 36 hours is sufhcient time
to allow for this purpose.

16 BULLETIN 6-16, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGKICULTUEE.

A clean hardwood barrel is a suitable vessel in which to cure meat.
To insure cleanliness, scald the barrel thoroughly. Salt, saltpeter,
and sugar or molasses are used most commonly as preservatives.
Too much saltpeter should not be used, as it is harmful to the health.
Two to four ounces per 100 pounds of meat is as much as it is well to
use. Salt and saltpeter have a tendency to dry out and harden the
meat, hence by adding a little sugar or molasses the meat is softened
and the flavor is improved. For each 100 pounds of meat use 5 pounds
of salt, 2 pounds of granulated sugar, and 2 ounces of saltpeter. Mix
them thorougldy and rub the meat once every three days with a tliird
of the mixture.

The brine-cured meats are considered best for farm use. Brine is
less troublesome and at the same time gives better protection against
insects and vermin. During warm weather brine should be watched

Fig. 8.— Cuts of pork: 1, head; 2, shoulder; 3, loin; 4, bell.v; 5, ham. Pure-bred liorkshire barrow.

carefully. If it becomes ropy it should be leboiled or new brine made.
Ten pounds of salt, 2 ounces of saltpeter dissolved in 4 gallons of
boihng water should be used to each 100 pounds of meat. Cool the
brine before pouring it over the meat. Meat should remain in the
brine three to four days for every pound of meat in each piece.

After the meat has been cured thoroughly by one of the foregoing
methods it should be smoked. The meat should be washed thor-
oughly and permitted to drip before the smoking process begins. The
smoke should be provided by a slow fire of some hard wood, such as
green hickory or maple. In the winter months the smoke should be
kept going continuously until the smoking is completed. During the
spring and summer a light fire should be kept going a day at a time
every two or three days. This intermittent smoking should be kept
up for two weeks, then provide a continuous smoke for 24 to 36 hours
and the smoking is completed.

Stmli/ questions. — Secure a written report from each member of the
class covering the following: Hov^ are hogs butchered ? What devices

PORK PRODUCTION FOR RURAL SCHOOLS. 17

are used in scalding and in elevating the carcass for dressing? What
instruments are used in dressing the carcass and in cutting up the
meat? What vessels are used in which to cure the meat? What
preservatives are used for curing? Give the pro[)ortions of the pre-
serving materials used.

References. — Farmers' Bulletin 913. Write to the State agricul-
tural college for publications on dressing and curing meat.

Practical exercises. — Make a study of the community's pork pro-
duction: (a) How many hogs butchered at each farm? {J>) The
dressed weight of each hog ? (c) The total weight of the hogs dressed
on the farms of the community? ((/) The value at local prices of the
pork dressed in the community? (e) The amount of dressed pork
sold and shipped out of the community? (f) The number and
value of all the fat hogs sold and shipped out of the community?
Tabulate these facts.

Correlations. — Collecting and tabulating the facts called for in prac-
tical exercises provide language and arithmetic exercises.

Geography: Does the community produce its supply of pork? If
not, in what markets is it purchased ? The returns from what money
crop are spent for pork? If the community has a surplus of pork,
in what markets is it sold? Are other products bought in the same
markets ? Could they be home gro^v^l ?

LESSON VII.

TOPIC: SOW AND PIG MANAGEMENT.

Time. — Spring or fall.

Lesson outline. — Care and feed of the sow: Many farmers have their
sows farrow during the months of March and April and in the early
Tall months in the South. Smce the w^eather is often severe in north-
ern sections during March and April, care should be taken to protect
the sow from cold. Give her enough straw to make a warm bed, but
not so much as to allow the little pigs to get covered and crushed.
The sow should have clean water but nothing else for the first 24
hours after the pigs arrive.

On the second day a thin bran mash or skim milk will be relished.
Feed moderately for the firet week. A mixture of two parts of corn
and one of middlings may be fed in increasing amounts until the
sow is eatmg a full feed. If skim milk can be fed in addition to the
grain, there is nothing better to make the sow give a full flow of milk.
Another good grain mixture for the sow at this time is six parts of
corn and one of oil meal. If skim milk is available, the sow will do
weU on 4 pounds of milk to 1 of corn. A fuU grain ration for a day
should never bo more tlian 4 per cent of the sow's live weight. If the
sow can be put on alfalfa, clover, bluegrass, or rape pasture, less

18 BULLETIN 646, U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

corn will be required. A corn ration of about 2 per cent of the sow's
live weight with good pasture makes a cheap and adequate supply.

Care and feed of the young pigs : As soon as the little pigs begin to eat
they will do best if fed additional slop in a separate pen and away from
their mother and the larger pigs. Tliis can be done by having a pen
or a lot where choice clover or other forage crop is gi-owing to which
the pigs may have access, but where the opening is so small that the
larger pigs can not pass through. Wlien the young pigs are from 8
to 10 weeks old they should be weaned. This often causes a serious
check in their growth, but should not do so. When it is desirable
to wean the pigs put the mother in a pen leaving a creep for the pigs.
Feed the sow sparingly; give water instead of slop and have the
grain ration dry. Wliile the sow is receiving a maintenance ration
the pigs should be fed all they will consume without waste. A ration
consisting of such feeds as skim milk, middlings, corn, and green
forage will satisfy the pigs' appetites and simplify the weaning.

Study questions. — What advantages are there in having sows far-
row during the early spring months ? What precautions should be
taken to protect young pigs from severe weather? Give directions
for the care of the sow after the arrival of the pigs. Give directions
for the care of the pigs until weaned: after weaning.

References. — Farmers' Bulletins 874 and 566. Secure State agri-
cultural college publications on the subject.

Practical exercises. — (1) Students who have home projects with
swine should secure a pig and begin to give it attention. If it is the
purpose of the boy to go into the work more extensively he should
have a sow and litter of pigs to care for. Observe instructions in
tliis lesson.

(2) Boys in the class who are not carrying on projects with pigs
should assume responsibility for the care of a sow and htter of pigs
from the time the pigs arrive until they are weaned.

Correlations. — Arithmetic: The entire expense in connection with
the project should be kept. In projects including a sow and litter
of pigs, the feed of the sow should be charged against the pigs until
the pigs are weaned. Cash accounting with the growing of the pigs
provides exercises in arithmetic.

LESSON VIII.

TOPIC: FORAGE CROPS.

Time. — Spring.

Lesson outline. — Importance: The successful and economical pro-
duction of pork depends in a large measure upon good permanent
pastures supplemented by other forage crops. There should be on an
average 1 acre of permanent pasture for each brood sow kept. Green
forage is little more than a maintenance ration, and if rapid gains are
desired hogs should have a hberal allowance of grain. Growing

PORK PRODUCTION FOR RURAL SCHOOLS.

19

forage crops and grazing them off is a good method of improving
soils kicking in organic matter.

Kinds of crops: (a) For the cotton helt Bermuda, bur clover,
white clover and Lespedeza make good permanent pastures. These
should be supplemented by small grains and rape for ^vinte^, crimson
clover and vetch for spring, cowpeas (fig. 9) and sorghum for summer,
corn with soy beans, velvet beans or peanuts for fall. (?;) For the
Central and Middle Atlantic States, incluchng the bluegrass region,
bluegi'ass should be used largely for permanent pasture. It should
be supplemented by rye (fig. 10) for winter, rape (fig. ll>for spring,
red clover for spring and summer, corn with soy beans and vape for

'§^^:

Fig. 9. — Grazing cowpeas.

fall, {c) For the Northern and Ea:itern States bluegrass or redtop
provides permanent pasture. Supplementary grazing should be
furnished by oats and peas for spring, rape and red clover for sum-
mer, and early field corn for fall. ((/) For the West grazing is fui--
nished by alfalfa and corn. Corn should be "hogged down."

Study questions. — \Vliat is the value of the permanent pasture?
Why are supplementary crops necessary? What grazing crops are
used in the community for permanent hog pastures ? What supple-
mentary grazing crops are grown? Make out a list of seasonal
succession crops for supplementary grazing adapted to the com-
munity. Compare this list with the crops suggested for your sec-
tion of the country.

20

BULLETIN 646, U. S. DEPAKTMEXT OF AOTtlCULTTJRE.

i?(/>rmcf,s.— Farmers' Biilletins874, 272*, 331*, 41 1,566, 599*. Write
to the State agricultural college for publications relating to the subject .

Fig. 10.— Grazing rye. ■

Practical exercises. — (1) Students carrying on home projects with
pigs should provide pasturage and supplementary grazing. At
least 1 acre of a good permanent pasture shoidd be provid(>d for the

WZ^^^J-^-'Tr.

Fig. 11.— Grazing raix'.

brood sow and her litter of pigs. Seasonal supplementary crops
should also be grown. At least three-tentlis of an acre of each crop
should be provided for each mature hog.

* May be obtained only from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing OflSce, Wash-
ington, D. C.

PORK PRODUCTION FOR RURAL SCHOOLS.

21

(2) Make a stud}^ of tho permanent pastures of the community
with reference to the Uipe or t3"pes of soil used, the kind or kinds of
^ass crop, the period of the year (hiring wliich grazing is afforded,
the hfe in yeai-s of each kind of permanent pasture, the method of
])hinting or seeding, the number of acres in permanent pasture on
each farm, the total pastui'e acreage in the community, the percent-
age of arable land devoted to pa;^turage, and the average number of
hogs an acre of pasture su])port:..

Correlations. — Tabulating the information called for in Exercise 2
provides ^^Titten Avoik and exercises in arithmetic.

LESSON IX.
TOPIC: SANITATION AND DISEASES.

Time. — Spring.

Lesson outline. — Sanitation: Hogs should be provided with clean,
dry, wcU-vontilated quarters. F'eeding places should be ke])t clean

Ki(i. 12.— A cement wallow — a desirable type.

and the water supply pure. Hogs should be allowed access only to
streams the sources and courses of which are known to be uncon-
taminated. Wallows (fig. 12) should be kept clean and supphed
constantly Avith clean water. The houses and immediate premises
shoidd be thorouglily disinfected (fig. 13) once a month with air-
slaked lime or a 5 per cent solution of crude carbolic acid. Animals
that show indications of sickness should be immediately isolated

22

BULLETIN 646, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

and the premises thorouglily disinfected. New hogs brought to the
farm should be isolated or quarantined for two weeks before they
are permitted to run with the herd.

Hog hoe : Hogs, and especially young pigs, often suffer much from
tills cause. When numerous, lice axe a serious drain on vitality,
fattening is prevented by them, and hogs so affected are very much
more subject to disease. To eradicate lice, dip, spray, or rub hogs
with crude oil, crude-oil emulsion, or kerosene-oil emulsion every
10 days for three or four applications.

Fig. 13.— Disinfecting a hog house.

Mange: (a) This very troublesome affection with hogs is caused
by a mite or parasite that pricks the skin of the hog to get tissue
fluid. This injury produces a red spot which finally results in a
scale under which mites may be found, (b) The symptoms are itch-
ing followed by a loss of hair and thickening and cracking of the
skin, (c) Treat mange by applying lime sulphur or nicotine dip
once every 10 days for three cUppings. Hogs should be washed thor-
oughly with soap, water, and brush before dipping, to remove the
scales.

Hog cholera: (a) The real cause of hog cholera is a very small germ
found in the blood or urine. It may be said that anything which
tends to lower the health of the animal, such as improper feeding,
insanitary conditions of hog lots, damp or cold sleeping places, and

PORK PRODUCTION FOR RI'RAL SCHOOLS.

23

dirty drinking and feeding troughs may be regarded as an indirect
cause.

Since the disease can only be started by the introduction of the
germ into the herd, and the organism is always present in the bodies
of sick hogs and is thro^^^l off in the feces and urine, the most dan-
gerous factor in. spreading the disease is the sick animal.

It may get into the herd by sick hogs esca])ing from a neighboring
herd, by the purcliase of new stock not showing symptoms, by re-
turning show hogs after visits to fairs or stockyards, and by the
]iurchase of hogs which apparently have recovered.

Fig. 14.— Scrubhing and cleaning the part preparatory to injecting the serum.

(h) The symptoms are not constant and uniform, therefore the
disease can not always be diagnosed with absolute certainty. Ani-
mals suffering from intestinal troubles, indigestion, and poisoning
exhibit symptoms which closely resemble those of cholera.

In the early stages, hogs huddle together; have high temperatm-es
(105 to 107° F. or higher); are constipated; the feces often streaked
with blood; a characteristic odor is present; and after the third or
fourth day diarrhea develops. As death approaches there is usually
a reddening of the skin on the under surface of the body, snout, and
ears. This turns into a purple color if death is delayed a day or
two. There is a discharge of mucus from the eyes. Coughing may
or may not be present. In chronic cases there is emaciation, and
patient may hnger for da^-s and weeks.

24

BULLETIN 646, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTtJEE.

(c) Prevention is the better treatment. Separate sick animals from
the herd at once. Vaccinate (figs. 14 and 15) the apparently healthy
hogs with antihog-cholera serum. This serum only protects the
hogs against cholera. It is a preventive and in no wise a cure. It
is advisable to take the temperature of the hogs. This should not
be more than 104° F.

Burn or bury the carcasses of hogs that have died with the disease,
disinfect all pens and yards after an outbreak of cholera. Burn all
manure, litter, and straw, then apply a coat of coal tar. Pens should
be situated so that they can be properly drained and cleaned.

Fig. Ij.— injpcting the senim in the Hank.

Proper feeding, plenty of exercise, clean pens, and an abundance
of sunsliine wiU do a great deal toward protecting hogs from cholera.

Study questions. — What steps should be taken to prevent diseases
of hogs ? "WTiat diseases are most commonly found in the commun-
ity ? What diseases have proved most serious ? What methods have
been employed to prevent or to eradicate diseases ? What type or
types of dipping vats are used in the community ? Have each mem-
ber of the class describe a vat that is used at his own home or at the
home of a neighbor.

Practical exercises. — Make a study of the diseases of hogs in the
community for the preceding year with reference to the following

PORK PRODUCTION FOR RURAL SCHOOLS. 25

points: (a) The kinds of diseases, (h) the number of hogs affected by
each disease, (c) the treatment used in connection with each disease,
(d) the number of mature hogs lost from disease, (e) the estimated
vahie of such hogs, (/) the number of pigs lost from disease, (g) the
estimated value of the pigs, (h) and the total estimated value of all
hogs lost from disease. These facts should be tabulated and pre-
served for study.

Correlations. — Written work and arithmetic problems are involved
in the foregoing practical exercises.

PIG-CLUB WORK.

In the use of this publication it is suggested that teachers apply
the facts set forth in the lessons to the activities of the pig-club
work. For full instructions on pig-club work and record books to
he used by members of pig chibs, teachers and pupils should write
to the extension divisions of the State agricultural colleges and to
the United States Department of Agriculture.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RELATING TO HOGS.

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Feeding Hogs in the South. (Farmers' Bulletin 411.) '

Hog Houses. (Farmers' Bulletin 438.)

Boys' Pig Clubs. (Farmers' Bulletin 566.)

Breeds of Swine. (Farmers' Bulletin 765.)

Castration of Pigs. (Farmers' Bulletin 780.)

Tubercidosis of Hogs. (Farmers' Bulletin 781.)

Live Stock Classification at County Fairs. (Farmers' Bulletin 822.)

Hog Cholera: Prevention and Treatment. (Farmers' Bidletin 834.)

Swine Management. (Farmers' Bulletin 874.)

The Self-Feeder for Hogs. (Farmers' Bulletin 906. )

Killing Hogs and Curing Pork. (Farmers' Bulletin 913.)

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WA.SH1NGTON, D. C.

Pasture and Grain Crops for Hog.s in the Pacific Northwest. (Farmers' Bulletin

599.) Price, 5 cents.
The Hog Industry. (Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 47.) Price, 30 cents.
Etiology of Hog Cholera. (Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 72.) Price, 25

cents.
Recent Work of Bureau of Animal Industry Concerning Cause and Prevention of

Hog Cholera. (Separate 484 from Yearbook 1908.) Price, 5 cents.
Feeding Dried Pressed Potatoes to Smne. (Department Bulletin 596.) Price. 5

cents.
Fish l^Ieal as a Feed for Swine. (Department Bulletin 610.) Price, 5 cents.
Disposal of City Garbage by Feeding to Hogs. (Office Secretary Circular 80.) Price,

5 cents.
Swine Judging Suggestions for Pig-Club Members. (Office Secretary Circular 83.)

Price, 5 cents.
26

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

5 CENTS PER COPY

WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 647

Contribution from the Bureau of Entomology
L. O. HOWARD, Cljief

Washington, D. C.

May 3, 1918

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION
TO CITRUS GROVES

By

J. R. HORTON, Scientific Assistant, Tropical and
Subtropical Fruit Insect Investigations

CONTENTS

Introduction 1

General Belief as to Damage to Orange

Trees 2

General Account of Orange Culture in

Louisiana 4

Distribution of the Ant in the Orange

Groves of the United States .... 7

Feeding Habits of the Ant 8

Kelations with Insects Injurious to Citrus

Trees 15

Relations with Insect Enemies of Scales

and Aphids 4g

Nests and Protective Stmctares of the
Ant 52

Cultural Conditions in Ant-Invaded vs.
Ant-Free Orange Groves in Louisiana 56

Demonstration in Improvement of Ant-
Invaded Groves in Louisiana .... 57

Experiments in Controlling the Argen-
tine Ant CO

Summary and Conclusions ..... 71

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 647

Contribution Trom the Bureau of Entomolosjr
L. O. HOWARD, Chief

Washington, D. C,

May 3, 1918

THE ARGENTINE ANT' IN RELATION TO CITRUS

GROVES.

By J, R. HoBTON, Scientific Assistant, Tropical and Subtropical Fruit Insect

Investigations.'

CONTENTS.

Introduction 1

General belief as to damage to orange trees. . . 2
General account of orange culture in

Louisiana 4

Distribution of the ant in the orange groves

of the United States 7

Feeding habits of the ant 8

Relations with insects injurious to citrus trees 15
Relations with insect enemies of scales and

aphids 48

Nests and protective structures of the Argen-
tine ant 52

Cultural conditions in ant-invaded vs. ant-
frec orange groves in Louisiana 56

Demonstration in improvement of ant-
invaded groves in Louisiana 57

Experiments in controlling the Argentine ant 60

Summary and conclusions 71

INTRODUCTION.

The Argentine ant {Iridomyrviex humilis Mayr) is a native of
tropical America, occurring in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uru-
guay. It was first introduced into the United States at New Orleans
about 30 years ago and was fairly numerous in parts of that city as
early as 1891.^ A few years later it had become established thor-
oughly in and around New Orleans and was causing great annoyance
as a household, garden, and field pest. Early it was carried to Cali-
fornia, where it has become established widely. It is especially
numerous in parts of Uhe citrus districts of Los Angeles and River-
side Counties and in the city of Los Angeles and occurs as far north
as San Francisco and as far south as San Diego.

1 For a discussion of other phases of the Argentine ant problem see Department of
Agriculture Bulletin No. 377, by E. R. Barber, entitled " The Argentine Ant : Distribution
and Control in the United States."'

2 Transferred to Cereal and Forage Insect Investigations, Oct. 1, 1917.

* Foster, Ed. The introduction of Iridotnyrmex humilis into New Orleans. In Jour.
Econ. Ent., v. 1, p. 289-293. 1908.

Note. — This bulletin Is of especial interest to citrus growers in the southeastern States
and generally to the public in that section.
27139°— 18— Bull. 647 ^l

2 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTUBE.

The Argentine ant has been the subject of special study by this
bureau for several years, more particularly as to its activity as a
house pest, but also as to its general economy in relation to garden,
orchard, and field cultures. The facts secured in the investigations ^
prior to 1913 indicated a very important injurious relationship of
this ant to citrus culture in Louisiana. As a result of this apparent
condition and in response to numerous complaints of injury to citrus
trees occasioned directly and indirectly by this ant, a special in-
vestigation was instituted in 1913 under the supervision of Mr. C. L.
Marlatt, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Entomology, to deter-
mine the exact economic importance of the ant as a citrus pest and
to devise effective means of preventing damage in citrus orchards.

GENERAL BELIEF AS TO DAMAGE TO ORANGE TREES.

It has been recognized generally that a few species of ants may
injure orchard and other crops either directly, by feeding on plant
parts, or indirectly, through their symbiotic relations with scale
insects and aphids.

The important features of the activities of ants toward certain
scales and aphids, viz., soliciting " honeydew " excretion from them,
carrying them about, constructing shelters over them, and combating
their enemies, were pointed out more than a century ago by Pierre
Huber,^ some of whose observations were made upon orange-infesting
species. Huber, however, makes no mention of injury caused to
orange trees by these habits.

Direct injury by ants, so severe as to cause the death of the trees
in orange, cacao, coffee, and cotton plantations in the West Indies,
is cited by the French historian Eobin,^ contemporaneous with
Huber. Robin probably referred to leaf -cutting ants, Atta spp.,
several species of which destroy trees in tropical America by de-
foliation.

Although the habits of ants in relation to plants and plant pests
have been studied by many observers since these early writers, ex-
treme views as to damage to orchard trees by ants, especially through
the fostering of insect pests, have developed only since the Argentine
ant became established thoroughly in southern Louisiana. This ant
made the greatest impression upon people by its unusual abundance
and aggressiveness, and became the subject of study by many laymen
as well as entomologists. Interest in ants, especially as orchard

1 Titus, E. G. Report on the " New Orleans " Ant U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Ent. Bui. 52.
1904.

Newell, Wilmon, and Barber, T. C. The Argentine Ant. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Ent.
Bui. 122, 1913.

2 Huber, .lean Pierre. Recherches sur les Moeurs des Fourmis Indigenes. Paris, 1810.
'Robin, C[laude] C. Voyages dans I'lnterieur de la Louisiane . . . 1802-1807, Tome I,

p. 215. Paris, 1807.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 3

pests, as indicated by the number of titles on this subject appearing
in entomohigical literature, has increased greatly throughout the
world in the past 10 years.

The principal convictions which had arisen, on the influence of
the Argentine ant on citrus fruit trees in Louisiana, are expressed
in the writings of Dr. Titus ^ and Messrs. Newell and Barber.^
Titus states, substantially, that the ants aid in the distribution of
aphids and scale insects on citrus and other trees, remove young
scales to new territory, establish colonies of certain species, and
appear to have become caretakers for all kinds of scales and plant-
lice.

Newell and Barber, in addition to expressing the belief that the
ants shelter and protect scale insects, aphids, and white flies, and
establish them upon other plants, are of the opinion that it is in the
orange groves that this ant has inflicted probably the most serious
injury. They note that ant invasion is followed by so rapid an in-
crease of scale insects that, unless prompt measures are taken against
the ants, the second year of infestation shows a severe reduction in
the crop, the third year almost complete loss, and the fourth or fifth
vear witnesses the death of many of the trees. These authors state
further that the ants are particularly severe in their attacks upon
the blossoms of the orange.

The opinion of the Louisiana orange growers themselves on this
subject may be summarized from the answers received to inquiries
made and submitted in 1914 as to whether the ant injures the trees
and in what ways. Of those growers replying to the question, about
61 per cent believed it to be injurious, 33 per cent stated that they
did not know, and about 6 per cent believed that it was not injurious.
The prevailing beliefs as to the nature of the injury were, (1) that
it prevents bearing, (2) destroys blossoms and roots, (3) eats feeder
roots, (4) destroys the fruit, (5) takes the sap out of the new growth,
(6) causes the death of limbs by traveling continuously over the
same spot, and (7) injures the bloom, causing the oranges to drop.
It was believed also that the ants increase, disseminate, and protect
scale insects and drive out lady-beetles. One answer, however, was
to the effect that the ants are beneficial because they destroy other
msects. It was generally agreed that the ant causes most severe
injury to the orange trees, resulting in a complete loss of crop and
culminating in the death of the trees.

A preliminary survey of the orange orchards of Louisiana made
it plain that many of them were suffering from some undetermined
noxious influences. The trees were, as a rule, undersized, poorly
shaped, lacking in the abundance of clear, dark green foliage which

iQp. cit., p. 79-84. -Op. ciL

4 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

characterizes the healthy orange tree, and production was far below
the standard for trees of their average age. During the blossoming
period the flowers were often somewhat too numerous and con-
spicuous, a condition which characterizes a " sick " tree, and dying
and dead trees were numerous throughout the district.

The apparent cause of the diseased condition of the trees was
often traced to heavy infestations by scale insects and white flies,
but obviously, in some cases, other factors contributed to this condi-
tion. Many orchards not invaded by ants exhibited the same symp-
toms as those overrun by ants. Manifestly, the amount of injury
done by the ant must be distinguished from that due to other causes,
and this involves a knowledge of the general conditions characteriz-
ing citrus culture in Louisiana.

The investigation therefore was planned to cover, first, a thor-
ough study of the habits of the Argentine ant in relation to orange
trees, and, second, a study of the cultural practices and other condi-
tions which might affect the successful raising of oranges in Lou-
isiana. An experiment in the reclamation of an ant-invaded and
practically abandoned orchard was conducted to determine what
might be done in the way of making such orchards profitable. The
problem of ant destruction and control in the orchards was taken
up at the beginning of the investigation and continued throughout
its course.

GENERAL ACCOUNT OF ORANGE CULTURE IN LOUISIANA.

Louisiana is, perhaps, the oldest citrus-producing State in the
Union. Orange trees have been cultivated there for at least 200
years and, perhaps, longer, at least one introduction having been
made from Cape Haitien (Cap Francois), Santo Domingo, by the
original French concessionaires, who arrived in Louisiana in 1718,^
and it is probable that citrus trees had been grown there by the
Spanish colonists previous to this introduction.

During the long period that has elapsed since this introduction
orange trees have suffered occasionally from severe freezes, and
several times have been killed to the ground. Freezes of this ex-
treme sort, occurring in the period from about 1718 to 1806, are
mentioned by Le Page du Pratz,^ Robin,^ and several other writers.
Similar killing freezes have occurred during the past century, one, in
1835, killing every orange tree from the shores of the Atlantic to the
Mississippi ; * others, the last one of which at least was equally dis-

1 Le Page du Pratz. The History of Louisiana. Translated from the French of M.
Le Page du Pratz, v. 2, p. 17-18. London, 1763.

2 Op. cit., V. 2, p. 17.
»Op. cit, p. 474.

*De Bow, J. D. B. In Review, T. 18, p. «09. New Orleans, 1855.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 5

astroiis, occurred in 1886/ 1895, and 1899.^ These freezes had the
effect largely to discourage the commercial growing of oranges in
Louisiana. Many of the succeeding citrus orchards consisted mainly
of volunteer sprouts from the old roots allowed to grow at will with-
out care or culture. After the later freezes considerable nursery
stock, untrue to name and poor in quality, was imported into the
State. The present citrus industry of Louisiana has developed since
the great freeze of 1899, and all the trees now growing have sprung
from old roots or have been planted during or subsequent to that
year.

Considerable damage also has been sustained by some of the
orange orchards from floods due to excessive rainfall and high water
and from tidal waves blown in from the Gulf of Mexico and the
Barataria section by hurricanes and lesser storms.^ An orange
oroAver informed the writer that such storms had, by washing
salt water from the Gulf over the orange trees on the left bank
of the river below Pointe a la Hache, caused almost complete
abandonment of orange growing in that section. Of the 8 or 10
severe storms of this nature, occurring in the past several years,
those of 1893 and 1915 probably caused the greatest damage to citrus
orchards. The storm of 1893 was followed by a tidal wave which
" engulfed everything before it," * the water sweeping over the orange
groves to a depth of from 3 to 5 feet or more in places, and remaining
there for several days. While the present investigation was still in
progress there occurred the most severe hurricane of all, that of
September 29, 1915. Besides destroying more than 90 per cent of
the entire orange crop of the State, and extensively damaging many
of the trees by stripping off their leaves and breaking branches, this
storm blew water in, at first directly from the Gulf and river; and,
on its recurve, brought brackish water, laden with millions of tons
of rushes from the Barataria swamps. The water remained about
the trees in parts of the orange section for several days, and the
rushes were deposited from 3 to 4 feet deep on the ground, many
of the trees being laden with them. It is difficult, at present, to
estimate the damage that will result from this storm to trees not
actually killed; but one way in Avhich it will manifest itself will be
m the increased number of poorly formed trees "due to killing of
the branches by defoliation.

iStubbs, W. C, and Morgan, H. A. The Orange and Other Citrus Fruits. La. St.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Special Bui., p. 5, 1893.

= Reeords of the freezes of 1886, 1895, and 1899 are contained in U. S. Weather Bureau
reports.

3 See Humphreys, Capt. A. A., and Abbot, Lieut. H. L., " Report upon the I'hysics and
Hydraulics of the Mississippi River," Washington, 1861, for a record of the earlier floods
along the lower Mississippi ; and Cline, Dr. I. M., in articles in the U. S. Dept. Agr.
Weather Bur. Buls. M (1904) and Y (1913), by H. C. Frankenfield.

* Garriott, E. B. West India Hurricanes. U. S. Dept. Agr. Weather Bur. Bui. 11,
p. 40. Washington, 1900.

6 BULLETIN G47, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The principal source of damage to the present citrus plantings is,
however, neglect of a proper routine of nursery and orchard prac-
tice, including control of insect pests. Pruning in the nursery to
produce symmetrical trees with the greatest possible production of
fruit-bearing wood has been neglected. Later, when planted in the
orchard, branches of various sizes are allowed to die from one cause
or another, often from scale insects, and the dead wood removed,
leaving a misshapen tree. The trees are nearly always planted too
close. Owing to the shallowness of the soil ^ the orange roots must
spread to a great distance close to the surface, those of the diiferent
rows thus meeting and forming a network over the entire orchard.
The branches of the various trees in the row also interlace in many
cases, resulting in comparatively puny and undersized trees and low
production. Furthermore, it is often impossible, at least always
difficult, to get about in the orchard to give it the proper cultiva-
tion and spraying, and in cultivating the bark frequently is bruised
and branches of varying sizes are broken.

Cultivation, fertilization, and spraying are neglected very often
or practiced only intermittently. As stated by their owners, about
38 per cent of the orchards are not cultivated at all, the weeds in
many of them growing almost as high as the trees. About 10 per
cent of the orange groves receive such cultivation as is necessary for
the raising of vegetables, which are grown between the rows.

Several classes of fertilizer are used, regularly by some, and in-
termittently by others. The chief kinds used are cotton seed, either
meal or whole, commercial mixed fertilizer, stable manure, and
shrimp hulls; sometimes two or more of these are used together.
Approximately 37 per cent of the orchards, however, had received
no fertilization of any kind for several years. A considerable pro-
portion of the orchards, about 30 per cent, are sown with a cover
crop, generally cowpeas.

No standard program of controlling insect pests has been followed,
except by a very few of the more progressive growers. According
to reports received from 97 per cent of the orange growers of the
State, spraying against scale insects, the white fly, and the rust
mite has been practiced at one time or another in the last five years
by only 15 per cent of those who reported. Some of those who
sprayed made only 1 application a year, others as high as 5, and
11 different combinations of insecticides had been used with an

* The water table in Plaquemines Parish, where over 90 per cent of the citrus fruit of
Louisiana is produced, lies from 1 foot beneath the surface in some orchards to 7 feet
In others, but the average depth throughout the parish is only 22 feet. Draining usually
is accomplished by open ditches, from 1 to 2J feet deep and from 2 to 3 feet wide at
the top, leading to an outfall canal, which connects with a bayou of the swamps. In
some cases there is a pump, propelled by a gas engine, to hasten the outflow and care
for exceptionally heavy rains ; and around some groves rear and side levees are con-
structed. About 40 per cent of the groves, however, have no drainage system.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 7

array of spraying machinery that was even more diversified and
inefficient than tlie insecticides. About 6.5 per cent of those who
reported had at one time or another treated for the white fly by
spraying the spores of the three or four entomophagous fungi known
to attack this insect.

After becoming familiar with the relations of the Argentine ant
to the trees and the infesting scale and other insects, the history of
the plantings, the natural conditions, and the widespread neglect of
good cultural practices, one is forced to conclude that the latter are
factors of much greater importance than the ant as causes of damage
to and the destruction of citrus trees in Louisiana. The progressive
decrease of production occurring in the last five or six years,^ as well
as most of the more severe forms of injury to the trees, is due to a
combination of the causes here enumerated. The several armored
scales, the white fly, and the rust mite, which, of course, cause much
injury to the trees, can be controlled without difficulty in the presence
of the ants and regardless of them, as will be shown later. It is pos-
sible that under new conditions the citrus mealybug and the fluted
scale may become serious pests in the orange groves of Louisiana.
The mealybug might become abundant on trees kept clean of other
scales and white flies or in the event of a scourge overtaking its
natural enemies. The fluted scale, from all reports, already has
become a serious pest to ornamental orange and other trees in the city
of New Orleans since the present investigation was discontinued, and
later may be expected to infest the orange groves.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE ANT IN THE ORANGE GROVES OF THE

UNITED STATES.

LOUISIANA.

Data on the distribution of the Argentine ant in the orange groves
of Louisiana have been received from the owners or by actual in-
spection of 99 per cent of the groves of the State. The ants are
present in 26.1 per cent, or about one-fourth of these groves. On
the west bank of the Mississippi Kiver, from McDonoughville to
Home Place, in Plaquemines Parish, the ants are in 62.9 per cent
of the groves; from Home Place to Buras, exclusive of the latter,
they are present in 77.3 per cent of the orchards; from Buras to
Venice, inclusive, they have invaded only 5.5 per cent. On the east
bank of the river, in Orleans, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines Parishes,
23.8 per cent of the orchards between New Orleans and Olga^ La.,
are infested with the Argentine ant. Over 95 per cent of the citrus

' The actual reduction of the orange crop of Louisiana, based on complete data as to
number of bearing trees and amounts of greatest and last (i. e., 1914) crops of SO per
cent of the bearing trees of the State, is 36.8 per cent. The present production, In othor
words, is only 63.2 per cent of what the orange trees have proved themselves capable of
producing.

8 BULLETIN 647, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

fruits of the State are produced in these three parishes, so the above
figures give an accurate idea of the proportion of the orange groves
that come under the influence of the ants. The ant has not yet
gained an entrance into any of the seedling orange groves of Cam-
eron Parish.

CALIFORNIA.

In California the ants are present in a considerable number of
the groves at Riverside, Corona, Uplands, Duarte, Monrovia, Sierra
Madre, Alhambra, San Marino, South Pasadena, Pasadena, and
Altadena. They have gained a foothold in one spot in the town of
Pomona, but have not yet been reported in any of the orange groves.
When they do arrive there, however, they undoubtedly will bring the
mealybug into great prominence, as a minor outbreak occurred dur-
ing the summer of 1916, and conditions are the same there as at
Alhambra. They are distributed pretty thoroughly throughout
parts of the cities of Los Angeles and Pasadena. In Ventura County
they infest some of the groves at Santa Paula and occur in several
groves in one block at Fillmore. They have every appearance of
having been introduced into this section within the last three or four
years. In San Diego County they have not yet gained a foothold in
any of the orange groves, but they have been introduced into the
fair grounds, in the city of San Diego, where they overrun many of
the ornamental plants both out of doors and in the conservatories.

FEEDING HABITS OF THE ANT.

The damage to orange trees by the Argentine ant must be either
direct, through habits of feeding upon plant parts and tunneling
and nesting about the roots, or indirect, through its relations with
harmful insects and as a carrier of citrus diseases, or both. Not
only were the nature and amount of the injury inflicted by the ant
learned through a study of its foraging and nesting habits, but a
successful method of controlling it as well.

It is not the intention here to specify all the foods which the ant
has been observed to utilize, or to describe its well-known ravages
into household supplies, but rather to describe its feeding habits in
the orange groves and particularly in their bearing upon the orange
trees. The ant is omnivorous, and though much of its food is de-
rived from plant sources, it exhibits a distinct need for animal food
and utilizes not only the flesh but also the excreta and other effluvia
of animals as well. Its need for flesh food is so marked that in the
artificial formicary, when flesh food is not furnished, it almost al-
ways will feed to some extent upon its own young.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 9

FOODS OF THE ANT DERIVED FROM PLANT SOURCES.

Method of the Ant in Obtaining Plant Nectab.

The floral, and occasionally extra-floral, nectar of many kinds of
plants forms the most dependable food of the ants from a direct
plant source. The flowers of citrus and many other cultivated and
wild plants are visited habitually for their nectar, which is lapped
up from the area around the base of the stamens and petals, this
area being evidently the location of the principal nectar-producing
glands, at least in citrus.

With the aid of a hand lens the tube-shaped tongue of the feeding
ant may be seen moving rapidly and continuously, in conjunction
with the labial palpi, over the surface of the floral organs, while the
food apparently is being pushed back by a thin, elbowed member that
moves constantly within the tube. The ant often continues lapping
up the liquid until a full crop is indicated by the distended semi-
transparent gaster, this requiring from 15 to 30 minutes. It then
usually rests for a period in the flower, or it may at once start its
descent toward the nest. On their way down the tree forage-laden
ants frequently rest in any sheltered location serving to exclude
light and breezes, and almost invariably a group of ants resting
motionless may be discovered in such places along the trails.

Ants Poisoned by Floral Nectar.

Occasionally the ants are poisoned by the nectar from loquat
blossoms. On one occasion attention was attracted to a certain group
of blossoms by the fact that most of the ants in that neighborhood
were assisting sick comrades, carrying dead ants, or standing slug-
gishly about. Close observation of many of the last mentioned
showed them to have the mandibles wide open — rather an unusual
attitude. Under a hand lens one was seen finally to open the mouth
so wide that the mandibles extended at right angles to the sides of
the head and to regurgitate a drop of yellowish fluid. Obviously
it was a sick ant. It did not attempt again to feed. The loquat
blossom has a heavy, sweet odor peculiarly its own, but suggesting
that of the peach or almond, and it seems probable that at times the
nectar may contain traces of prussic acid. In addition to obtaining
the nectar from the flowers, the ant gets a good proportion of its
flesh food there, as will be shown later.

Utilization of Plant Sap and Fruit Juices as Food.

The ant also utilizes the unmodified plant sap from orange and
some other trees whenever it is able to obtain it. It habitually feeds
upon the sap from wounds in the bark and often has been observed
working in considerable numbers on every freshly made cut of the

10 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

priming saw in the orange groves, lapping up the sap, just as it does
the nectar from flowers, and the sap-laden ants passing from the
wounds to the nest in the soil. This habit of visiting cuts and bruises
on orange trees may be of importance in the carriage of certain
disease germs to places where they may infect the trees readily
through wounds.

The ant is very fond of the juice of many kinds of fresh fruits and
makes the most of the rotting oranges on the ground and the split
fruit on the tree. It may be laid down as a practically infallible
rule that the ants do not make the initial break into the rind or peel
of fruits. This fact was announced long ago as true of European
ants in general by Forel,^ who, as a result of his observations of these
ants on pear, apple, peach, and orange trees, concluded that they
never make the first incision through the skin of these fruits. The
same is true of the Argentine ant as regards the orange, fig, plum,
peach, and loquat in Louisiana. In some orange groves in winter
the juice from bruised, decaying, and split oranges forms the ants'
principal source of food. The ants also feed to a large extent upon
figs when the fruits become soft upon the trees and many fall to the
ground. Entrance to even this soft, thin-skinned fruit is gained
almost invariably through wounds made by birds and the adult
wood-boring beetle Ptychodes trilineatus Fab., or through a minute
break in the calyx cup or the wrinklelike cracks which commonly
form in the skin of the Louisiana fig. As a rule the ants do not
carry away particles of the flesh of fruits. The flesh gradually dis-
appears from an attacked fruit because deprived of the juice which
constituted most of its mass. On entering a fruit the ants first lick
up all the juice ready at hand. A shred of the flesh then is taken in
the mandibles and the juice squeezed out and simultaneously lapped
up by the tongue. This is repeated until all the flesh of that
particular fruit has disappeared.

Direct Injury to Blossoms and Other Plant Parts.

INJURY to blossoms.

The ant sometimes chews into the stamens and petals of the orange
and other flowers, but by no means habitually, and it is rare indeed
that so many blossoms are injured as to cause any loss of importance.
After examining thousands of blossoms in the worst ant-infested
orchards during three seasons for such injury, it has been necessary
to conclude that this activity of the ant is of no economic consequence.
In certain situations where the ants are very numerous and desirable
food relatively scarce some damage may occur in this way. It occurs

*Forel, Dr. Auguste. Les Fourmis de la Suisse, p. 422. 1875.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 11

almost exclusively on isolated trees, where the number of blossoms
and of host insects of the ant are low in comparison with the number
of visiting ants.

The following points have been noted as being generally true where
the ants do use the mandibles on the blossoms: The parts attacked
are usually the petals and stamens of open and presumably pol-
lenized blossoms, and in most cases there is no evidence that the fruit
is injured thereby. The attack usually begins in a wound made by
other insects, and the work of destruction proceeds slowly. As many
ants as could be accommodated by the blossoms have been observed
to work steadily for one-half day without being able to destroy two
petals completely. The ants never have been detected carrying away
particles of the blossom tissue; evidently they desire only the juice.
The mandibles are used to squeeze the juice out of a portion of the
petal or stamen, that it may be lapped up by the tongue. The work
of other insects often may be mistaken for that of the Argentine ant
in the orange groves of southern Louisiana. Thus the blossoms of
both the orange and the loquat may be found badly chewed and
ragged, with tunnels cut into the unopened buds, while all are cov-
ered with ants inside and out, seeming to make a positive case against
the ant. When such cases have been examined with a determination
either to see the ants cutting the holes or to discover what did cut
them, the real culprit always turned out to be a bud moth,^ Uranotes
7/ielmus Hiibn., an unidentified case-bearing lepidopterous insect, or
katydids.

A few of the flowers other than citrus more commonly visited by
the ants in the Louisiana orange groves are those of the loquat or
so-called Japanese plum {Eriohotrya japonica Lindl.), peach, cow-
peas, clovers, dock, goldenrod, and aster.

INJtTEY TO KOOTS.

The possibility of the ant causing direct injury to plant parts other
than the blossoms and fruit, and particularly to the roots, was in-
vestigated. In the orange groves the ants habitually nest in the
ground near the base of the trees, and often the entrance to the nest
will be found directly against the trunk. Many nests in these situa-
tions were examined, and both the underground tunnels of the ants
and some of the roots of the trees traced for a considerable distance.
Dead and dying trees which were said to have been injured or killed
by the ants and healthy but heavily infested trees were selected for
these examinations.

The principal facts brought to light were as follows: The ants
never were found nesting directly in the root clusters of young

'■ Identified by Dr. Harrison G. Dyar.

12 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTTJRE.

orange trees. They never were found to have tunneled along the
principal roots of the older trees, nor were nests found near enough
to these roots to affect them. The smaller roots of sickly and dying
trees were generally deficient in number. The most evident cause
of the poor condition of these trees was gummosis, the trees in some
cases being almost completely girdled by it at the crown, and the
bark in this section and for some distance along the principal roots
being in a rotten condition. No orange roots were found harboring
insects of any kind ; there were no host insects of the ant there. In
a word, the roots had not the slightest injury traceable to the ants.

FOODS OF THE ANT DERIVED FROM ANIMAL SOURCES.

Animal Food Other Than Insects.

A considerable proportion of the food of the ant in the orange groves,
even aside from the excretions of scales, aphids, and treehoppers, is
of animal origin. The ant habitually feeds upon the flesh of all
animals, from the round worms to the vertebrates, that become avail-
able to it. In addition to the dead and injured insects, which it
finds in all sorts of locations, there is a more or less regular supply
of the very prevalent crustacean known as the fiddler crab, which
constantly is being crushed underfoot, and of certain small fishes oc-
casionally left in the drainage ditches by the sudden removal of
water by pumping. The ant also commonly visits piles of discarded
oyster shells and feeds upon the particles of flesh adhering at the
point of attachment of the oyster. Occasionally it also finds dead
birds, field mice, rats, etc. It is unable to break the skin of a rat,
as was proved by an experiment, but will clean out the liquids about
the eyes and inside the mouth. The ant does not appear to eat
muscular tissue in solid form, but shreds it off with the mandibles,
lapping up the juices as it works, in the same manner as with fruits.
In the artificial formicaries the particles of muscle not eaten are
piled up in one of the chambers, and it seems possible that these
may be drawn upon at times when meat is scarce.

In the stable the ant constantly visits the manure and captures the
larvae of house flies and other insects. It also visits human excre-
ment, whether directly feeding upon it or solely for the capture of
scatophagous insects is uncertain. Large trails have been found of
ants carrying dung from chicken coops to the nest, and it appears
that the ant may utilize this dry excrement for food. Often it is
seen visiting bird's nests for the same purpose, though it also finds
among the feathers certain refuse that is attractive to it and, perhaps,
captures bird lice to some extent. It also has been seen feeding upon
the liquid portion of freshly voided chicken excrement.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 13

It is especially fond of sputum and the mucous secretion from the
bronchial and nasal passages, particularly if voided by persons
afflicted with a cold. The habit of the ant in getting into the mouth,
ears, and nose of infants, whenever opportunity offers, is probably
due to its fondness for mucus. Activities such as these, which are
habitual with the ants to the full extent that opportunity offers,
under certain circumstances obviously may be very important in re-
lation to sanitation.

Living Insects as Ant Food.

The flesh food most esteemed by the ants seems to be made up of
the insects which they capture alive. It is not solely for nectar that
they visit the flowers of citrus and other plants, but also for the
thrips, gnats, and other insects which they are able to capture there.
A certain proportion of the ants foraging in the trees almost invari-
ably are found to be carrying insects. The number so engaged will
depend upon the availability of these insects. In a large number of
observations on this habit, in all seasons, it was found that from as
low as 0.49 per cent to as high as 45.8 per cent of the ants foraging
in orange trees carried insects. Usually, however, less than 1 per
cent will be engaged in capturing insects, and when the proportion
is larger than 5 per cent it is because a special opportunity is offered.
For example, on fig trees in Louisiana there is usually a period of
emergence of psocids in the spring when other ant food is scarce, and
the ants hang around the psocid groups and capture the insects as
they emerge. Again, during the blossoming period of the small-
leaved privet the ants are able to capture numerous thrips from the
blossoms. The blossoms are narrowly campanulate, and the ants, un-
able to pass between the stamens, await and capture the thrips as they
attempt to leave. Large numbers of foraging ants are found carry-
ing white flies at each emergence period of the flies, on both orange
trees and privets. All these insects, of course, may be captured from
the same trees at the same time. For example, on one occasion, when
all the ants carrying insects on a privet tree in one and one-third
hours' time were captured and their prey examined, it was found
that 32.7 per cent of the prey were thrips {Frankliniella sp.), 46.5
per cent nectar-feeding gnats, 13.8 per cent white flies, and 5 per
cent psocids. Often, however, they are engaged almost exclusively
in the capture of one particular species.

Large numbers of insects are captured on the ground, on weeds
and ornamental trees, and in manure piles in the orange orchards of
which no special account is taken because their capture has no bear-
ing on the relation of the ants to orange trees. The ants also capture
living and dead mealybugs, immature soft brown and black scales,

14 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

aphids, immature stages of the white fly, and adult aphid and scale
parasites, but so rarely that this activity is unimportant. The more
important relationship of the ant as an enemy of the white fly in
the adult stage is discussed on pages 38-40.

Insect Excretions ok Honeydew as Ant Food.

The most dependable, if not the most abundant, supply of food of
animal origin utilized by the ants in the orange groves is the honey-
dew excreted by the several species of soft scales, plant-lice, and tree-
hoppers which it attends.

METHOD OF OBTAINING HONEYDEW FROM THE SOFT SCALES, APHIDS, AND TREE-
HOPPERS.

The ants can be best observed obtaining sweet excretions from their
host insects on the warmer days of winter, as fewer ants are run-
ning at such times and they can be observed more closely without
disturbing them. The process is essentially the same with one species
of host as with another. Taking the black scale, for example, the ant
approaches a mature or immature but settled insect and strokes the
body with one antenna after the other, rapidly and rhythmically.
If no liquid appears after 15 or 20 strokes, the ant usually passes on
to another scale or rests motionless by the first. Unless the scales are
very numerous a proportion of the ants always are waiting, and the
principal function of the small shelter structures found over scale
groups is believed to be to protect the waiting ants from light,
breezes, and, sometimes, the too copiously falling honeydew and its
attendant mold. When the scale is ready to excrete the anal plates
open slowly outward and from between them is extruded a tubular
organ, at the extremity of which appears a droplet of colorless fluid.
This the ant takes and swallows at once. The tube is then retracted
and the anal plates close. The whole operation requires only a few
seconds, not allowing time for closer examination of the mechanism.

The extreme lightness of the antenna! stroke suggests the possi-
bility of the presence of minute sense hairs on the body of the scale,
which, if they occur, probably are distributed over the entire surface,
as the stroking is not confined to the immediate region of the excre-
tory pore. Attempts to* induce excretion by stroking with a hair in
imitation of the ants failed. From scales under the microscope there
was no response to palpation with hairs of various stiffness. "When
the shell was pierced with a needle the anal plates half opened re-
flexly, but not far enough for further observation.

The process is very similar with the mealybug, as the following
observation will illustrate: The droplet of mealybug excretion is
considerably larger in proportion to the size of the individual insect
than that of either the black or the soft brown scale. Two ants were

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 15

watched as they simiiUaneously stroked a mature mealybug on fig.
Soon the posterior pair of spines moved slowly apart and a fleshy,
pyramidal organ Avas extruded, at the tip of which there slowly ap-
peared a droplet of colorless excretion. This both ants grasped with
their mandibles, one standing at each side, and held until it slowly
disappeared down their throats. The excretion was distinctly
viscous, as shown by the plainly visible indentations made in the
globule by the two pairs of mandibles, and the slowness with which
it was swallowed. Ants often have been captured carrying down
the tree semisolid globules of mealybug excretion. These they car-
ried in their jaws, as tliey would carry insects. The excretion of the
fluted scale also is voluminous and viscid.

The ants also have been seen to obtain honeydcAV from a species of
treehopper (family Membracidae) occurring on goldenrod in the
Louisiana orange orchards. Only the larvae of this insect (identi-
fied by the late Mr. Otto Heidemann as Entijlia hactriana Germ.)
were attended by the ants so far as observed. When ready to excrete,
the tip of the abdomen was elevated and a droplet of translucent
yellow liquid appeared. This was taken by the ants and carried in
the jaws like a minute ball of jelly.

The ants will take the body juices of scalas and aphids as readily
as their excretions, and the aphids often have been cut with a needle
for the purpose of observing this fact.

The ants induce excretion in aphids by stroking with the antennae,
in much the same manner as they do the scale insects. The con-
sistency of the excretion of aphids varies considerably, that from
some kinds being thick and jellylike, while from others it is almost
watery. An aphid occurring on cypress in Louisiana, for example,
rxcretes a very thick honeydew which the ants swallow slowly and
with apparent difficulty. The ants often are seen carrying these
semisolid globules of honeydew in their jaws to the nest. Usually
the ant hastily seizes the droplet the instant it appears, the liquid
being flipped off to a distance if not promptly taken. The black
scale also appears to throw the excretion to a distance, though not
observed, as much of the sooty mold collects on the upper surface of
rliQ leaves which are under the scales. Some of the aphids attended —
for example, the common orange-infesting species— have well-de-
veloped abdominal protective siphons, but these organs are absent
from others.

RELATIONS WITH INSECTS INJURIOUS TO CITRUS TREES.

It has been shown that the Argentine ant is rarely directly in-
jurious to citrus, either through its feeding or its nesting habits.
Through the one persistent habit of visiting freshly made wounds
27139°— 18— Bull. 647 2

16 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

on the trees it may be of great importance as a conveyor of citrus
diseases, but the actual extent to which it increases the spread of
diseases as yet remains to be determined. Since almost all the
damage so far caused by the ant has been through its relations with
the injurious citrus insects, this damage must be solely in the nature
of an intensification of the work of these insects. Only that portion
of such injury in excess of that normally caused by these insects can
be due to their relations with the ants. It is, therefore, necessary to
bear in mind that only a few of the citrus-infesting insects are of
importance, and they cause practically all of the insect injury. The
ant must be proved to enhancegreatly the damage done by these major
pests before a case can be made against it as a destroyer of orange
trees. The major pests of citrus in Louisiana are four species of
armored scale insects, the citrus white fly, and the rust mite, any one
of which will cause more loss than all of the lesser pests, including
the soft scales and the aphids, together.

RELATIONS WITH THE AR ORED SCALES.

Status of the Armored Scales of Citrus in Louisiana.

The four important armored scale insects of citrus in Louisiana
are, in the order of their importance, the purple scale {Lepidosaphes
heckii Newm.), the chaff scale {Parlatoria pergandei Comst.), the
long scale {Lepidosaphes gloverii Pack.), and the white scale {Chi-
onaspis citri Comst.). The purple scale is the most numerous and
destructive of the citrus scales, infesting fruit, leaves, branches, and
trunk, and generally incrusting the branches and trunk along with
the chaff and long scales. The chaff scale infests nearly every budded
bearing tree in the State, incrusting especially the trunk and larger
branches, and at times overflowing onto the fruit and leaves in con-
siderable numbers. The long and white scales also occur on most of
the trees, but do not become so numerous as the first two, either of
which would outrank them both as pests. The status of these scales
does not seem to have changed much, excepting perhaps that of the
white and chaff scales, in the last 12 or 15 years. The purple scale,
according to Morgan,^ was considered one of the most dangerous
scaks in the State at that time (1893). The white scale, however,
considered by Morgan ^ as one of the most destructive of the scales,
causing bursting of the bark, does not now get so numerous as the
others and causes little damage. The chaff scale, which Morgan
states was not recognized as very destructive,^ now must be accorded
second place to the purple scale as a scale pest of citrus in the State.
Dr. Howard states that the chaff scale was the preponderating scale
of citrus at a certain plantation on Bayou Teche as early as 1880.

» See Stubbs and Morgan, op. cit., p. 57. * Ibid., p. 64. ^ ibid., p. 62.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 17

It is worth noting here that the sweet seedling trees of Cameron
Parish, which are apparently of Sicilian origin, are much more re-
sistant to these scales than the budded trees. Although the more
important scales occur on this type of tree, the infestation is always
very light. The citrus white fly, likewise, has not become a pest on
the Sicilian seedling trees, and these appear to be especially well
adapted to the conditions found in southern Louisiana.

The status of other armored scales of citrus occurring in Lou-
isiana is about as follows: The Florida red scale, which Morgan
noted as occurring only at New Orleans and Southport,^ just across
the river, in 1893, is now found scatteringly throughout Orleans, St.
Bernard, and Plaquemines Parishes on citrus, palm, banana, olean-
der, privets, camphor, and other trees. It never has been of more
than very minor importance. The California red scale {Ghryfiom-
phalus aurantii Mask.), a very serious pest in parts of southern Cali-
fornia, has been reported on an ornamental tree {Podocarpus ja-
ponica) in Audubon Park, New Orleans,^ and has been observed
there by the writer, but does not occur in the orange groves.

The Ant Does Not Attend the Armored Scales of Citrus.

The armored scales do not excrete honeydew or any similar liquid
attractive to the ants, and are not, therefore, attended by the latter.
On the contrary, they probably would become the prey of the ants
if it were not for their protective shield or scale. Many hours of
observations, extending over a period of nearly three years, on the
actions of the ants toward the armored scales have shown conclu-
sively that they do not directly attend the scales either in the ex-
pectation of receiving honeydew or of capturing emerging parasites,
which, by the way, are neither numerous nor effective. In the course
of these observations ants several times have appeared to be palpat-
ing armored scales with the antennae, but on closer examination the
real subject of their attentions always has proved to be a young mealy-
bug or other soft scale resting close to the hard scales. The pre-
dominance of the armored scales makes impossible that their attend-
ance should escape notice if it occurred.

It was discovered early that ant shelters sometimes occur over
large and small groups of the diaspine scales, but this activity could
not afford protection of the least consequence to these scales, for
the number thus covered is infinitesimally small in comparison with
those not covered. That even those scales under the shelters receive
only dubious protection from them is shown by the fact that they
are often infected with some of the prevailing scale fungi. The fre-

1 See Stubbs and Morgan, op. cit., p. 60.

= Barber, T. C. The scale insects of Audubon Park. In Jour. Econ. Ent., v. 4, p. 450.
1911.

18 BULLETIN 647^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

quent occurrence of living soft scales or of remains indicating that
such had occupied these shelters is evidence that they generally were
built while the ants were attending these scales and had no relation
to the armored scales which they covered.

The forced conclusion is that any protection afforded the armored
scales by the ants must be incidental and due merely to their pres-
ence on the trees and their very manifest habit of attempting to
prey upon all insects not supplying honeydew with which they come
in contact. For this protection to be so effective as to be of great
economic importance the scales must have enemies so efficient as
usually to keep them greatly reduced. The fact is, however, that
these scales are not kept under reasonable control by their enemies,
even in orchards where there are no ants.

Parasites and Predators of the Armored Scales of Citrus in Louisiana.

Although there was not time for a thorough study of the enemies
of the armored scales of citrus in Louisiana, great batches of scale
material from ant-free orchards have failed to produce more than a
sprinkling of internal parasites. The more common hymenopterous
parasites, reared from purple and chaff scale material selected because
of the frequency of exit holes, were Aspuliotiphagus citrmus Craw,
and C occojyhagus jiavoscutellum Ashm.^ A small black lady-beetle,^
Hyperaspis signata Oliv., with wing covers marked with a spot of
red about the middle of each, feeds upon these scales to some extent,
and a still smaller ladybeetle, Scymnus punctlcollis Lee, is suspected
of it. Larvae, pupae, and adults of a large coccinellid, Chilocorus
hivulnerus Muls., frequently are found in large numbers upon trees
overrun by ants, and a minute black species, Microioeisia misella
Lec.,^ also often occurs on some of the trees by the hundreds. Both
of these insects are suspected of feeding upon the early stages of the
armored scales, but neither of them seems to be deterred greatly by
the ants. At all events, they are found in considerable numbers on
trees infested by the ants.

Influence of the Ant on Abundance of Armored Scales in Louisiana.

In addition to prolonged field observations on the relations of the
ants to the armored scales, experiments were conducted for the same
purpose by excluding the ants from certain trees and noting the
effect of their presence or absence on the scales. Thus the ants were
excluded from one of two vigorous young orange trees having an
approximately equal infestation of the purple scale and allowed free
access to the other. Notes were made at intervals on the number of

1 Identifications by Dr. L. O. Howard.
'" Identified by Mr. E. A. Schwarz.
•Identified by Mr. H. S. Barber.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES.

19

sound and parasitized scales, the presence or absence of scale enemies,
and the activities of the ants. This experiment was started on April
28 and concluded October 24, 1914. There was a large colony of the
ants about the base of the nonbanded tree throughout the experiment,
but the ants did not visit the tree, except to keep it patrolled by
scouts, until several soft brown scales became established there, and
at no time were they discovered paying the slightest attention to
the purple scales. No scale enemies of any consequence were seen
on either tree, and there was never any evidence of parasitism. The
results of this experiment are summarized in Table I.

Table I.-

-Experiment to discover the effect of ants upon the armored scales of
citrus. Louisiana, 1911}.

Ants present.

Ants excluded.

Date.

Number of sound scales
present.

Number
of scales
showing
parasit-
ism.

Number and activities
of ants on trees.

Number of sound scales
present.

Number
of scales
showing
parasit-
ism.

May 7

97

0
0
0
0

0
0

0

Only 3 scouts in tree . .

283

0

125

591

0

June 19

198 .

.do

591

0

July 17

Aug. 13
Sept. 25

276

8 ants capturing white
flies.

530

0

1,130

1,372

0

5,700 (estimated)

10 ants attending soft
brown scale only.

50 ants, all attending
soft brown scale only.

7,200 (estimated)

Trunk and main
branches literally
covered.

0

Oct. 24

Trunk and main branches
literally covered.

0

Reference to Table I will show that on May 7 there were 97 scales
on the ant-invaded tree and 283 on the tree from which ants w^ere ex-
cluded. The number gradually increased on each tree from June
to October, except that there was a slight and unaccountable decrease
on the tree from which ants were excluded during June and July.
On September 25 it was estimated that there were 5,700 scales on the
ant-invaded and 7,200 on the ant-free tree. By October 24 the trunk
and main branches of both were literally covered with the scales,
and it was impossible to distinguish between the two as to infesta-
tion. The scales had increased at approximately the same rate on
both trees. The health of the trees remained good throughout, except
for a few yellow spots made on the leaves by the feeding of scale
groups.

In another experiment the ants were excluded from a block of
more than 200 bearing orange trees for several months, while an
equal number of trees adjoining were left untreated as checks. The
color of the trees in the treated block showed improvement over
those in the check block, and this improvement was attributed to the

20 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUBE.

cultivation and pruning received by the trees. There was no ap-
parent difference between the two sets of trees as to abundance of
armored scales.

RELATIONS WITH THE SOFT SCALES.

Status of the Soft Scales of Citbus in Louisiana,

Only four of the six principal citrus-infesting species of soft scales
occurring in Louisiana have been discovered in the orange section
of Plaquemines Parish. These are the soft brown scale (Coccus
hesperiduTn L.), the citrus mealybug (Pseudococcus citri Risso), the
Florida wax scale [Ceroplastes floridensis Comst.), and the barnacle
scale {C. cirripediformis Comst,). No injury to citrus, serious or
slight, ever has been attributed to the last two scales in the history of
the orange industry in the United States, nor do they now cause
noticeable injury to citrus in Louisiana. The first two are the only
citrus soft scales occurring in sufficient numbers in the orange groves
to attract attention.

Morgan ^ states that the citrus mealybug was very abundant in
some of the orchards of Louisiana in 1893, especially in those well
protected from winds and in thick-growing trees such as the man-
darin, but was not a particularly serious pest at that time. These
statements apply equally well for all practical purposes at present.
The mealybugs occur scatteringly throughout the groves of Plaque-
mines, St. Bernard, and Orleans Parishes. They usually make a
strong start in the spring and early summer and threaten seriously
to infest certain orchards, but between the middle of June and the
first of August they are brought under control by their natural ene-
mies. Infestation goes the same course on fig trees in yards in New
Orleans, except that the mealybugs are at times somewhat slower in
being subdued there than in the orange gi'oves.

Regarding the soft brown scale, Morgan's statement that " it ap-
pears and disappears, being kept in check by parasites, and for this
reason has not attracted the attention of the orange growers " ^ also
applies to-day. Its status is still essentially the same, though it is
undoubtedly true that this scale will now be found in larger groups,
in places, because of abundant attendance by the Argentine ant. It
occurs upon nearly every budded orange tree over 3 years of age in
the State, and also on banana, rose, and loquat in the orange groves.
The important thing is, however, that it does not cause death or seri-
ous injury even to the twigs which it inhabits, does not blemish the
fruit, and is not of noteworthy economic importance even in orchards
overrun by ant-:.

» Op. clt., p. 69. « Ibid., p. 68.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 21

The black scale (Saissefia oleae Bern.) apparently was first noted
in Louisiana in 1910, when it was taken upon certain plants in
Audubon Park, New Orleans, by Barber.^ It occurs commonly on
oleander in many places about the city, but not a single specimen
has been found in the orange groves.

The fluted scale {I eery a purchasi Mask.), according to Mr. Ed.
Foster, who for many years has been an enthusiastic and discerning
observer of insect life about New Orleans, occurred in places near
present spots of infestation in and near that city as early as 1891,
and this is confirmed by the statements of certain nurserymen and
growers. It now occurs in many yards in the uptown districts of the
city and in several nurseries, but has not been discovered in the
orange groves.

The Ant as a Protector of Soft Scales,
influence of the ant on abundance of mealybugs on citrus in louisiana.

It was not possible to find sufficiently heavy infestations of mealy-
bugs in the orange orchards of Louisiana during the years 1913 to
1915 to make experiments to determine the relative increase on ant-
infested as compared with ant-free trees. Even in orchards overrun
with ants the mealybug infestations were scattering and did not per-
sist long enough to permit the desired experiments and observations
to be made. The nonimportance of the mealybug as a pest in the
orange groves of the State, however, seemed to make it unnecessary
to conduct special experiments on them. Nevertheless, mealybugs
were fairly abundant on fig trees in the laboratory grounds in New
Orleans, and experiments of this nature were conducted on these
trees and also on vigorous young orange trees, which were especially
colonized with mealybugs for this purpose. The ants first began
to frequent the fig trees in large numbers early in April, at which
time mealybugs were rare and could be found only in small numbers
in the most hidden places, such as old wounds, under dead bark, etc.

On April 27 several groups of mealybugs which still occurred only
in hidden places on the trunks and larger branches of the fig were
transferred to each of two orange trees. By May 7 they had settled
themselves permanently on the trees. Thereafter ants were excluded
from one of the trees; in the case of the other, in addition to the
ants patrolling it from the ground, a large colony, including 25
queens and many eggs and young, was transferred to the soil in
the pot, where the ants took up their abode near the base of the tree.
Observations were made at frequent intervals. The number of sound
and parasitized mealybugs was counted and notes made on the

^Barber, T. C. The Coccidae of Audubon Park, New Orleans, La. In Jour. Econ. Ent,.
V. 3, p. 424. 1910.

22

BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

known or suspected enemias, while the activities of the ants were
observed on the unprotected tree. The results are summarized in
Table II.

Table II. — Iiifliiciicc of the Ar<i( iiliiic ant on ahn)ida)ice of Dicdhjhitgs on oranfjc.

Lou island, 191 'i.

Ants present.

Ants excluded.

Date.

Number
of sound
mealy-
bugs on
tree.

Number
of para-
sitized
mealy-
bugs.

Number
and kind
of mealy-
bug ene-
mies on
tree.

Number
of soimd
mealy-
bugs on
tree.

Number
of para-
sitized
mealy-
bugs on
tree.

Number
and kind
of mealy-
bug ene-
mies on
tree.

May 7

593
234

214

20
3
6
2

0

110(31.9

percent).

3(1.3 per

cent).

0

0

0

0

1 T

2T

4D,3T,
IL.IS,
IC.

0

1 P

0

0

1,126
859

727

7
0
0
0

1

209 (19.5

percent).

90(11 per

cent).

0

0

0

0

1 T

May l?i

4 T, 3 I-.
3 L 1 C

May 21

Jime 3

1 S.
2D 1 L

June 12

0

Jul V 29

0

Aug. 15

0

Symbols: T=tubuliferan thrips; L=larva of the pyralid moth LaetiUa coccidivora Comst.; D=larvfe of
the dipteron Lcucojns griscola Fall&.; C=coccinellidR; S=Syrphus fly larvse; P=the mealybug parasite
Paralcptomastix abnormia (iir.

At the time of beginning the experiment, May 7, there were 593
mealybugs on the ant-invaded and 1,126 on the ant-free trees. The
mealybugs gradually disappeared from both trees, as shown in Table
II, until by June 12 there were practically none. There was consid-
erable parasitization and the continuous presence in the mealybug
groups of several different predacious enemies. On May 13, for ex-
ample, 31.9 per cent of the mealybugs on the ant-invaded tree were
found to be parasitized, and 19.5 per cent of those on the protected
tree also were parasitized. On May 21 the percentage of parasitism
among the ant-attended mealybugs was 1.3 per cent, whereas among
those on the protected tree it was 11 per cent. Predatory enemies
occurred among or near the mealybugs on both trees as long as the
mealybugs lasted. The more common ones were predacious thrips,
coccid-feeding larvae of the moth Laetilia coccidivora Comst. (identi-
fied by Dr. Harrison G. Dyar), and the two-winged fly Leucopis
griseola Fallen (identified by Mr. Frederick Knab), unidentified
lady-beetles, and larvse of syrphus flies. At least one parasite,
Paraleytomastix ahnoi^mis Gir. (identified by Mr. A. A. Girault), was
found on one of the leaves of the ant-infested tree. There was no
evidence that the mealybugs were being attacked by fungus or other
disease.

The slightly greater persistence of the mealybugs on the ant-
frequented tree has little practical significarce and in part was ac-
counted for by the following circumstance: On June 12 a strip of

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 23

cloth was tied about the branch on which 3 mealj^bugs still remained
on the ant-infested tree to mark their location, and the persistence
of mealybugs in this tree after June 12 was due to their being
sheltered by this cloth. The instinct for hunting shelter is much
stronger in the young mealybugs than in any other of the soft scales
and doubtless results from their being the preferred food of preda-
tory insects.

During the course of the foregoing experiment on orange trees the
mealybugs on the bearing fig trees, under constant attendance by the
ants, had increased gradually, and during May overflowed their
hiding place in the crevices of the bark and began to infest some of
the smaller branches and leaves. On the branches they formed small
groups and infested a considerable number of leaves, spreading along
the underside, mostly in singles, twos, and threes. The period of
maximum infestation of the fig trees extended from about the middle
of May to the latter part of July. On June 2G, while at its height,
six of the trees were banded and the ants excluded for a period of 98
days, or until October 2, while six others were left unhanded and
used as checks.

The work of the enemies and parasites had become evident by the
middle of June, however, and it was apparent that the mealybugs
were having a struggle to make further headway. By about the
middle of July they had begun to lose ground, and from that time
very rapidly disappeared from all unsheltered portions of all trees,
banded and unhanded alike. The mealybugs very rarel}^, if ever,
succeed in reaching maturity on fig leaves, even on ant-infested trees.
A heavy parasitization was indicated early in July, due principally
to a small, yellow-brown hymenopterous parasite.^

After August 15 the few mealybugs remaining on the large fig
trees were in protected situations in the bark of the trunk and larger
branches. The ant trails also had become thin in the unhanded trees
by that time because of the scarcity of mealybugs. As for injury to
figs by mealybugs, though a few small groups appeared on some of
the fruits of ant-infested trees during this experiment, the per-
centage of fruits so affected was so small as to be negligible. Prac-
tically all the fruit was clean and bright at picking time. The

1 This insect (Paraleptomastix abnormis Gir.) measures about 1 mm. long, some speci-
mens less ; general color yellow, marked on head, thorax, abdomen, and wings with smoky
gray ; the wings with three rows of dusky, broken, transverse stripes near base, middle,
and tip, respectively, giving them a spotted appearance ; legs and antennae very long and
slender, the former light yellow, the latter smoky brown. The insect has the peculiarity
of keeping the wings elevated and in movement when running about on the leaves, which
aids in distinguishing it in the field. The technical description by Girault is given in
The Entomologist, v. 48, p. 184, London, 1915. While this parasite has been introduced
into California, in localities in Alhambra, Duarte, and Sierra Madre, it has not yet become
established as thoroughly there as in Louisiana, but if it does become so it will be an
Important factor in reducing the ant-attended mealybug infestations in that State.

24 BULLETIN 647, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

leaves were of a clear, bright green, with very little sooting at any
time. These trees, however, were receiving better attention than
the average yard trees about the city. They had been kept well
pruned and braced; weeds had been kept down, and the trees had
shown vast improvement over their condition when first taken in
charge. At no time during the three seasons in which they were
under care was there any large amount of sooting of figs due to
mealybugs. The fruit infestations usually were confined to one or
two mealybugs in the calyx depression and the collection of a small
group at this point on a small number of them.

The mealybug conditions for the years 1913 and 1915 were the
same as described for 1914, both on fig trees and on orange trees in
the city of New Orleans and in the orange groves proper of Louisiana.
The sweet seedling trees of Cameron Parish are apparently not sus-
ceptible to the attacks of the citrus mealybugs at all; at least none
ever was found on these trees.

Although certain groups of mealybugs may become larger because
of heavy ant attendance in Louisiana, the status of this insect does
not appear to have been changed by the protection received from
the Argentine ant. The mealybugs usually appear in some trees in
some of the orange groves as well as on fig trees during April. At
times they become numerous enough to attract attention for a few
weeks in May, June, and July, but in the last-named month they
rapidly disappear, while their enemies increase, and by the last of
July or early Jn August hardly any mealybugs can be found.

The most important enemy of the mealybug in Louisiana appears
to be the Sicilian mealybug parasite {ParaleptoTnastix dbnormis Gir.) .
Of the numerous predatory enemies, the most conspicuous were cer-
tain lady-beetles, larvae of the green lacewing flies, larvae of the small
gray fly Leucopis griseola Fallen, and lepidopterus larvae, of which
the most prevalent was Laetilia ooccldivora Comst. The last-named
insect has the habit of spinning a more or less tubular web over the
mealybug groups and feeding under its protection through the larva
period, thus effectively defending itself against ants and other
enemies. Another mealybug enemy of less importance, but some-
times fairly prevalent among mealybugs and other coccids, is a
species of tubuliferan thrips which has not been identified.

INFLUENCE OF THE ANT ON ABUNDANCE OF MEALYBUGS ON CITBUS IN CALIFORNIA.

In parts of Los Angeles County, Cal., the attendance of the Ar-
gentine ant upon the citrus and other mealybugs has a much more
pronounced effect in favoring persistent, heavy infestation than in
Louisiana. This is especially the case with healthy trees that are

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES.

25

comparatively free from other infesting insects. Several experi-
ments were conducted in that county in the summer of 1916 which
bring out pretty well the varying effects of ant attendance on the
mealybugs under different conditions.

Experiment I.

The subject of Experiment I was an orange tree whose 6 main
branches had been cut back to stubs about 2 to 3 feet long. Three
of the stubs, with 28 new shoots, were banded to exclude the ants,
while the other 3, with 27 shoots, were left free to the ants. Mealy-
bug infestation, prevalence of mealybug enemies, ant attendance,
and vigor of tree were noted at intervals from the beginning of the
experiment, April 14, to its conclusion, September 2, 1916. The re-
sults are summarized in Tables III and IV.

Table III.

-Effect of the Argentine ant on abundance of mealyhugs on orange.
Lus Angeles County, Cal., 1916.

Date.

Ants present.

Mealybug infestation.

Number
of mealy-
bug ene-
mies seen

Ants excluded.

Mealybug infestation.

Number
of mealy-
bug ene-
mies seen.

Apr. 14

May 3

May 17

July 6

July 17

74 clusters and groups

106 groups

361 groups of 10 to 150 bugs each

112 groups, 10 to 50 ovipositing fe-
males with egg masses

As on July 6, but more young scat-
tered over leaves

73 clusters and groups

83 groups

45 groups of 10 to 30 bugs each

12 ovipositing females only with
egg masses: 9 masses of destroyed
mealybug material

No living mealybugs

The larger groups or clusters of mealybugs at first occurred on
the main branches, where they had passed the winter, but the mi-
grating young formed smaller but populous groups at the bases of
the smaller branches and of the leaves. It will be noted that at the
outset of this experiment there was nearly complete uniformity in
the amount of infestation between the branches from which ants
W3re excluded and those to which ants had access. Substantial
uniformity of infestation persisted up to May 3, when there was a
somewhat greater number of groups of mealybugs and more scat-
tered individuals on ant-invaded branches than on those kept free
from ants. Between May 3 and July 17 the mealybugs rapidly
diminished to complete disappearance on the branches from which
ants were excluded, whereas on those to which ants had access mealy-
bugs continued to increase rapidly for a time, reaching the high
point of infestation on May 17. Thereafter the infestation de-
creased on these branches also, but much more slowly than on tiiose

26

BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

from which ants were exchided, remaining, on July 17, about one-
third as heavy as on May 17.

Up to July 17, therefore, the presence of the ants had a very
notable effect in increasing and maintaining mealybug infestation.
On this date the band was removed from one of the branches so that
reinfestation under ant attendance might be observed, and one of
the branches previously free to ant attendance was banded. No
marked results were obtained from this test. As indicated in Table
IV, a slight reinfestation of mealybugs occurred on all the brandies
free from infestation on July 17, but there was a general decrease of
infestation on both types of branches and on the entire tree through-
out August. The only living mealybugs remaining on either set of
branches during August were young which were scattered over the
leaves, the insects being destroyed by their predatory enemies before
reaching maturity, and by September 2 the entire infestation on the
tree was reduced to an insignificant amount. In other words, on
this particular tree the effect of the ant in increasing and maintain-
ing the mealybug was marked up to the middle or end of July, but
this effect was practically lost during August.

Table IV. — Effect of the Argentine ant on abundance of mealyhuos on orange.
Los Angeles County, Cat., 1916.

Date.

Aug. 7
Aug. 16
Sept. 2

Ants present.

From Apr. 14 to Sept. 2.

50
153
1 1, 750

a

•A <

1,000
575
216

;o.2i

20
3.6
.12

as

From July 17 to
Sept. 2.

a*

a

^1-
SB'-

Z ■<

189 21

382 71

1, 465 50

a a

O 0

;oj

0.111
.18
.03

Ants excluded.

From Apr. 14 to Sept. 2.

a »*

405

251

1 1,690

81
122
43

03 gv--
<

0.2

.4

.02

From July 17 to
Sept. 2.

O.S

aS

150
128
645

:5 M

OJ2

a-e

0.2
.14
.07

«a

o »

as

^ All of the leaves examined.

The efficiency of natural enemies, as affected by the ant, was seen
in the first period of the experiment, from April 14 to July 17.
From April 14 to May 17 the number of mealybug enemies occurring
on the branches from which ants were excluded did not differ widely
from that on branches to which ants had access; yet, although by
the latter date these enemies had reduced greatly the number of
mealybugs on branches kept free from ants, their effect on mealy-
bugs attended by ants was negligible. It appears that the mealybug
predators are able to avoid capture by the ants, but are incapable
of reaching the mealybug groups closely attended by them.

THE ARGENTINE AXT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES.

27

From May 17 to July 17 tlie mealybug enemies rapidly decreased
and disappeared from branches kept free from ants and greatly in-
creased on those Avhere ants Avere present, following, as would
naturally be anticipated, the available food suppl3\ In the succeed-
ing period of the experiment, from July 17 to September 2, after a
certain amount of fluctuation, depending upon the supply of host
insects, the natural enemies finally disappeared from all branches
with the practical disappearance of their prey.

Experiment II.

The second experiment was conducted in the same locality, at
Alhambra. Cal., on eight bearing navel-orange trees, four of which
were banded with adhesives on April 24 and kept free from ants,
while the alternating four Avere left accessible to ants for compari-
son. The results of this experiment, which are summarized in Table
V, were similar to those in the preceding experiment, except that
on the ant-invaded trees heavy mealybug infestation persisted
throughout the experiment, or until September 12.

Table V. — Effect of the Argentine ant on abundance of mealybugs on orange
trees, Los Angeles County, Cal., 1916.

Ants present.

Ants excluded.

Mealybug infestation.

Mealybug infestation.

Date.

On fruits.

On other parts of
trees.

On fruits.

Total
number
exam-
ined.

Num-
ber in-
fested.

Per
cent in-
fested.

Total
num-
ber ex-
amined.

Num-
ber in-
fested.

Per
cent in-
fested.

On other parts of
trees.

May 24
July 10
July 24

Aug. 7

Aug. 31
Sept. 12

800
1,405
1,261

1,.596

1,310
1,249

1200
328
766

923

728
421

25

24
60.7

57.8

55.5
33.7

Approximately as on

Apr. 24.
242 groups of 1 to 5

mealybugs.
296 small groups,

many scattered

young.
206 small groups,

many scattered

young.
Many scattered

800
1,154
1,263

1,288

1,086
1,282

1 150
5
34

91

59

64

18.7

.43

2.6

7.

5.4

4.9

Approximately as
on Apr. 24.

12 groups of 1 to 5
mealybugs.

7 small groups,
many scattered
yoimg.

Many scattered in-
dividuals.

None.
Do.

' From 1 to 5 mealybugs hidden imder the sepals only of each infested fruit.

At the beginning of this experiment, April 24, mealybug infesta-
tion was slight, only 103 scattered individual mealybugs and small
groups occurring on the trees from which ants were excluded and 7U
individuals and small groups on those to which ants were allowed
access, the ant-excluded trees being slightly more infested.

On May 24 young mealybugs were found concealed under the
sepals of 25 per cent of the young fruits on the ant-invaded trees

28 BULLETIN 647, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

and 18.7 per cent of those on ant-excluded trees, showing a slight
tendency toward worse infestation under ant attendance. The
marked tendency of mealybugs to establish themselves under the
sepals of the young fruits and in similar situations to secure sheltered
feeding places must be taken into account when considering the
subject of the transfer of mealybugs by ants to establish new colonies.

Between May 24 and July 24 mealybug infestation rapidly in-
creased on the trees to which auts had access, while it decreased,
with slight fluctuations, to an almost insignificant amount on those
from which ants were barred. From July 24 to September 2 there
was a slow reduction in the amount of mealybug infestation on the
ant-traversed trees, an increasing number of mealybugs' remains indi-
cating increased effectiveness of the natural enemies, which had
become more numerous following the food supply. On the trees
from which the ants were barred the mealybug infestation in the
same period, with minor fluctuations in which the highest point
was slight infestation of 7 per cent of the fruit, was maintained at a
negligible amount.

The most important early activity of mealybug predators occurred
on the very small fruits, these insects occurring with mealybugs
under the sepals as soon as the mealybugs arrived there and pre-
venting the growth of infestations from these spots. From July 24
to the close of the experiment, September 12, the number of preda-
tory enemies, again following the available supply of food insects,
was greater on the trees traversed by the ants than on those from
which ants were barred, there being from five to eight times as many
on the former as on the latter trees at the times examined. The prin-
cipal enemies of the mealybugs occurring on these trees were Coc-
cinellidae, Hemerobiidae, Chrysopidae, Pyralidae, and Syrphidae.
During this latter period of the experiment, following the decrease
in percentage of infested fruits on the ant-traversed trees, the in-
creasing effectiveness of the mealybug enemies was manifested in the
occurrence of an increasing number of fruits which had been rid
of mealybugs, their previous infestation being indicated by bits ot
cottony secretion, sooty mold, etc.

Experiments III and IV.

Two other experiments conducted at Alhambra, Cal., with nursery
trees and potted seedling orange trees brought out very similar
results. The nursery trees, owing to too late transplanting, failed
to thrive and did not become very heavily infested with mealybugs,
but showed less plainly but quite as certainly the results of ant
attendance in increasing these insects.

In the experiment on potted orange seedlings, 6 of the young
plants were infested artificially with mealybugs, and on May 17,

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES.

29

after the mealybugs had become located, the ants were excluded
from 3 of the plants on which there were 4,573 young bugs and
allowed free access to the remaining 3, on which there were 3,094
mealybugs. On August 21 there were only 577 mealybugs left on
the plants from which ants were excluded, 40.6 per cent of the
leaves being infested with an average of 3.2 mealybugs each ; whereas
on the plants traversed by ants there were 5,461 mealybugs, 74.5
per cent of the leaves being infested with an average of 29 mealy-
bugs each.

Experiment V.

In the fifth experiment, which was conducted at Duarte, Cal., it
was demonstrated that the effect of the ants in increasing the abund-
ance of mealybugs may be largely neutralized in the presence of un-
checked infestation by the black scale {Saissetia oleae Bern.). Ten
bearing naval-orange trees of about equal condition and equal
mealybug, ant, and black-scale infestation, the last-named being
heavy, and with fully 90 per cent of sooting of the leaves, the trees
not having been fumigated since 1913, were selected for this experi-
ment. On April 20 five of the trees were banded with adhesive mix-
ture to exclude ants, and the alternating five left accessible to ants
for comparison. The results of this experiment are summarized in
Table VI.

Table VI. — Effect of the Argentine ant on ahundance of mealybugs on orange
trees heavily infested with the black scale (Saissetia oleae). Los Angeles
County, Cal, 1916.

Ants present.

Ants excluded.

Mealybug infestation.

Mealybug infestation.

Date.

On fruits.

On other parts of

On fruits.

Total

Total

On other parts of

number

Num-
ber in-

Per

cent in-

trees.

num-
ber ex-
amined.

Num-
ber in-

Per
cent in-

trees.

ined.

fested.

fested.

fested.

fested.

Per cf.

Per ct.

May 25

100

80

80

Many scattered
mealybugs and
small groups.

100

94

94

Many scattered
mealybugs and
small groups.

July 7

«7

156

35.6

11.4 per cent of new
shoots infested.

304

165

54.2

33.1 per cent of new
shoots infested.

July 21

455

154

33.8

51 groups of 1 to 30
young and 17 adults
with egg masses.

382

193

50.5

36 groups of 1 to 15
yoimg and 47
adults with egg
masses.

Aug. 15

409

143

34.9

81 groups of 1 to 5
mealybugs each.

376

165

43.8

20 groups of 1 to 5
mealybugs each

Sept 11

364"

198

54.5

79 groups of 1 to 5
mealybugs each.

340

137

40.2

41 individual
mealybugs only.

30 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

The initial mealybug infestation, on April 20, was much greater
on these trees than on those used in experiment No. 2, there being on
the trees left free to ants 1,661 individual mealybugs and small
groups, and 10 infested ripe fruits; and on those from which ants
were excluded, 1,896 individuals and small groups and 4 infested
ripe fruits.

There was no appreciable increase of infestation between April
20 and May 25, but on the latter date a few mealybugs occurred
under the sepals of many of the little fruits, a larger percentage of
infestation occurring on the trees from which ants were excluded
than on those to which they had access.

Between May 25 and July 7 the intensity of fruit infestation in-
creased on all trees, though the percentage of fruits infested de-
creased. On July 7 about 18 per cent more fruits and 22 per cent
more new shoots were infested on the trees protected against ants
than on those frequented by them; and, while several fruits on the
latter were infested more severely than any on the former, the trees
free from ants continued to suffer a larger amount of fi'uit infesta-
tion from July 7 to August 15.

From August 15 to the close of the experiment, on September 11,
the infestation was slightly worse on the trees to which ants had ac-
cess. With the exception of such minor fluctuations as those indi-
cated, however, the amount of mealybug infestation remained practi-
cally the same on ant-invaded trees as on those free from ants
throughout the period from July 7 to September 11.

The struggle of the mealybugs to find suitable spots to feed and
avoid their natural enemies on these scale-infested trees was marked.
Every available spot free from sooty mold was occupied by them,
and groups often occurred under sheets of the mold where it had
lifted from the leaf. Even on the fruits the mealybugs w^ere crowded
by the black scale, and the practically equal and slight infestation
on both sets of trees was due largely to this crowding.

Mealybug enemies were numerous on both sets of trees throughout
the experiment, especially the green and the brown lacewings, and
larvse of the green frequently were seen feeding upon larvae and
cocoons of their own kind and of the brown lacewings. Bits of
cottony secretion of the mealybugs entangling the exuviae of mealy-
bug enemies were numerous at every examination. Others of the
more numerous mealybug predators were the lady-beetles Hyper-
aspis lateralis Muls. and RMzoMus ventralis Erh.,^ the predacious
caterpillar Holcocera iceryaeella Riley ,2 the predacious fly Leucopis
hella Loew, and the predacious bug Zelus renardii Kolen.

1 R. ventralis is primarily a blacli-scale enemy, but it also feeds upon mealybugs.
- Identified by Mr. Carl Heinrich.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 31

EXPEHIMENT VI.

In the following experiment, verifying the results of the one pre-
ceding, 4 trees longer subject to unchecked black-scale infestation
w^ere used, 2 of them being banded on June 2, the other 2 left free
to ants.

Table VII. — Effect of Argentine ant on abundance o fmcalyhugs in the presence
of heavy black-scale infestation on orange. Los Angeles County, Cal., 1916.

Ants present.

Ants excluded.

Date.

Fruit infestation.

Fruit infestation.

With
mealy-
bugs.

With
black
scale.

With
sooty
mold.

With
mealy-
bugs.

With
black

scale.

With
sooty
mold.

Percent.
37.5
32.9

48.1
39.6

Per cent.

Per cent.

Per cent.
32.5

PcT cent.

Per cent.

July 7

94.4
53.5
91.7

100

100
100

20.2
20.5
21.2

ioo

45.7
98.7

100

Aug 15

100

Sept 11

100

The fruit infestation on different dates, summarized in Table VII,
shows that mealybugs were ahvays somewhat more numerous on the
fruit patrolled by ants, but that almost no change in degree of in-
festation occurred on either lot of trees. Most of the fruit on all
trees was infested with young black scales, and all was sooty through-
out the experiment.

RELATION OF THE ANT TO MEALYBUG OUTBREAKS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

The foregoing experiments establish beyond a doubt that the at-
tendance of ants upon mealybugs in Los Angeles County, Cal., has
the effect of greatly increasing their abundance, particularly during
the first half of the summer, upon healthy trees comparatively free
from other scale insects, causing severe infestations where otherwise
they w^ould be so scarce as hardly to come to notice at all.

This does not mean, however, that the mealybug outbreaks do not
occur in southern California except in the presence of ants. More
than 300 outbreaks of the citrus and other species of mealybugs were
reported during the summer of 1916 in and about Pasadena by Dr.
A. G. Smith, the local county inspector. The writer inspected 167 of
these for ants, but, while the Argentine ant was present in 72 of
them, and other ants in 16 more, there were no ants in the remaining
79. Nevertheless, it is a fact that in Los Angeles County the enemies
of the citrus mealybug bring it under control early in the season and
generally cause its almost complete disappearance when there are no
ants present to prevent.

27139°— 18— Bull. 647 ^3

32 BULLETIN 04*7, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Most of the mealybug outbreaks in Los Anjjeles County orange
groves which came to attention during the summer of 1916 did not
long remain Aery severe unless the Argentine ant was in attendance.
An outbreak that occurred at Pomona may be cited as an example
of what usually occurs under such circumstances. The mealybugs
appeared in the orange trees in a certain locality and on walnut trees
bordering the groves in April and May and were rather numerous
on many trees during the latter month. By June 23. however, they
had become so scarce that it was difficult to find them at all. None
could be found on the walnut trees, and though some orange trees
were found on which 15 out of 18 of the young oranges were infested,
there were only from 1 to 10 mealybugs per fruit, hidden under the
sepals. Predacious caterpillars, tubuliferan thrips, and small lady-
beetles {Seymnus sp.) were also rather common under the sepals of
these fruits and apparently feeding upon the mealybugs. The Ar-
gentine ant did not occur in this section, and there were no other ants
in the worst infested trees at the time of this examination.

In San Diego County, on the contrary, the mealybug infestations
were very bad in some of the groves where there were no ants in
attendance at the time of the inspection, June 27 and 28. In the
Lemongrove district three orchards were inspected, and all trees
examined were infested very badly Avith mealybugs. In two of the
orchards there were no ants of any species on the trees examined,
but in the thii-d a fcAv small red ants occurred on some of the trees.
The Argentine ant is not yet present in any of the orange groves of
ihis county, although it has been introduced into the fairgrounds at
San Diego. In the SweetAvater Valley the lemon trees inspected also
Avere infested very badly Avith mealybugs, but Avhile two species of
ants Avere fairly common on some of the trees, the Argentine ant Avas
not present. The infestations Avere equally as bad on a number of
trees on Avhich there Avere no ants as on those Avhere the ants occurred.

In the Chula Vista district the infestation in the last tAvo or three
years had been quite as severe as at Lemongrove and in the SAveet-
Avater Valley, but during the summer of 1916 it Avas so slight as to
give no apprehension. This fact is attributed locally to the occur-
rence of, mealybug enemies, and especially the lady-beetle Crypto-
Jaemus montrouzieri Muls., in much greater numbers this year than
usually.

In the El Cajon Valley, which is considerably farther inland than
the three orange districts previously mentioned, and is almost com-
pletely shut in from air currents from the coast by the surrounding
foothills, no mealybugs could be found, and Mr. H. M. Armitage,
horticultural commissioner of San Diego County, stated that none
had been found by the local inspectors.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 33

In San Diego County, therefore, the conditions are such that the
mealybug infestation is just as persistent in trees where there are no
ants as in other localities overrun by them. This infestation may
remain severe for from one to several seasons, and then there will
come a period when the mealybugs will disappear almost wholly.
This fact has just been illustrated in the Chula Vista district, and
IS no doubt due to variations in abundance of the mealybug enemies
m that section.

INFLUENCE OF THE ANT ON ABUNDANCE OF OTHER MEALYBUGS IN CALIFORNIA.

The number and severity of outbreaks of other species of mealy-
bugs in Pasadena have been increasing during the last three years.
Dr. A. (i. Smith, county horticultural inspector for the Pasadena
District, states that in an inspection five years ago, covering the dis-
trict bounded by Fairoaks, Colorado, and Lake Streets and the Alta-
dena boundary line, only one mealybug infestation was found. An
inspection three years ago of the same section of Pasadena produced
18 infestations, mostly on rice-paper plants. During the summer of
1916, up to the time this information was given, only the north half
of this section, or from the Altadena line to North Orange Grove
Avenue, had been inspected, but infestations were found in numerous
places and on many more host plants than ever before. The worst
of these outbreaks have occurred in territory invaded by the Argen-
tine ant, and undoubtedly have been especially severe and persistent
only where attended by this ant.

A number of the outbreaks discovered by Dr. Smith's inspectors
early in the summer of 1916 had been greatly reduced, and the mealy-
bugs had almost disappeared by August where there were no ants in
attendance. The species concerned in these outbreaks and the host
plants most commonly infested in this section are as follows: Pseudo-
coccus citrofhilus Claus. on pittosporum, oignonia, tecoma, citrus;
P seudococcus hakerl Essig. on Chamaerops and Washington palms,
peppers, laurestinas, nightshade, tomato, banana, aralia, fig, cam-
phor, and various garden plants; Pseudococcus longispinus Targ.
on Dracaena palms, citrus, and some shrubs; Pseudococcus ryani Coc\.
on cypress hedge. Outbreaks of these species of variable degree
occur every spring, but are less persistent and usually are controlled
early by their natural enemies where no ants are present.

Another species, known as the golden mealybug {Pseudococcus
aurilanatus Mask.), attacks the Araucaria tree in many localities
about Pasadena and remains numerous throughout the summer,
regardless of whether ants are present or not, and often causes the
defoliation of the trees. This mealybug either is not controlled by

34 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

the various predators to the same extent as are the others mentionefl
above, or there may be some relation between it and its favorite food
plant which makes this insect distasteful to these predators.^

INFLUENCE OF THE ANT ON ABUNDANCE OF THE FLUTED SCALE IN LOUISIANA.

The fluted or cottony cushion scale {I eery a 'purehcm Mask.) ranks
second only to the mealj^bugs as to preference by the Argentine ant,
owing, as with the mealybugs, to the large amount of viscid excre-
tion given oU' by the insect. In spite of heavy attendance by the ant,
however, the fluted scale has not been able to thrive and become
abundant in Louisiana, except during the last season in New Orleans.
This scale is believed by some, as previously stated, to have occurred
on Metairie Ridge and in various places in New Orleans prior to
the destructive freeze of 1895. Whether this is true or whether the
insect has been imported into Louisiana only in A^ery recent years is
not certain. At all events the insect did not come to attention in the
State until the fall of 1912, when it was found by the State in-
spector.^ During the years 1913 to 1915, inclusive, closer attention
was paid to the insect, and it was found at various places in New
Orleans. Still it did not occur in the orange groves, and the infesta-
tions in and about the city were very scattering. Whenever they
occurred in some numbers on a plant, they were viewed with such
apprehension that extermination was attempted. It was, therefore,
impossible to get a sufficient infestation under suitable conditions for
experiments to determine the influence of the ant on their increase.
During the summer of 1916, judging from reports received from New
Orleans, the fluted scale spread more rapidly and became more
numerous about the city than at any previous time, but the exact part
played in this increase by the ant is not known.

INFLUENCE OF THE ANT ON THE FLUTED SCALE IN CALIFORNIA.

The status of the fluted scale in California in recent years is given
by Quayle,^ who states that the infestations become as bad at times
in some localities as Avhen at their height in earlier years. As a rule,
however, the insect does not become munerous enough to be con-
sidered of economic importance.

No citrus orchards or trees could be found sufficiently infested
with the fluted scale in southern California to serve for any adequate
tests as to the influence of the Argentine ant. The scale occurred

' A condition such as this apparently occurs in the case of the fluted scale on Spanish
broom in Ventura County, Cal.

- Tucker, E. S. Suppression of the Cottony Cushion Scale in Louisiana. La. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bui. 145. 1914

sQuayle, H. J. Citrus Fiuit Insects. Cal. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 214, p. 470. 1911.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 35

very scatteringly and, as a rule, was parasitized or had been de-
stroyed by its natural enemies. This was true in orchards overrun
by ants and in orcliards free from ants, indicatini^. at least, that
so far in southern California the hel[)ful influence of the ant, if any,
in relation to this scale insect has not overcome the effective control
of the scale by its natural enemies.

Aside from the well-lvuown effectiveness of the Australian lady-
beetle (Novius cardinal/s Muls.), this control seems to be due, in
Los Angeles County, chiefly to the parasitic fly Gryptoehaetum mono-
phlehl Skuse, aided, however, by hymenopterous parasites and the
larvtie of lacewing flies.

INFLUENCE OF THE ANT ON ABUNDANCE OF THE BLACK SCALE IN LOUISIANA.

As already stated, the black scale {Saissetia oleae Bern.) does not
yet occur in the orange groves proper of Louisiana, and, Mierefore,
as with the fluted scale, no extensive tree-banding experiments could
be conducted in this State during the seasons 1913 to 191.5 to deter-
mine the effect of ant attendance on its abundance.

The black scale occurred in moderate numbers on oleander in
Xew Orleans, and from these trees was transferred and colonized
on young orange trees and an experiment of this nature attempted.
The progeny of the colonized scales made an equally good start on
both ant-free and ant-invaded orange trees. Nevertheless, the scales
failed to reach maturity in a single instance, even where constantly
attended by ants, and although they decreased a trifle more slowly
where attended than where not attended by ants, all scales had dis-
appeared from both banded and nonbanded trees within six weeks
from the starting of the experiment.

INFLUENCE OF THE ANT ON ABUNDANCE OF THE BLACK SCALE IN CALIFORNIA.

The black scale has been rated as the most economically important
of the citrus scales in California,^ where it is generally controlled by
fumigation. The observations on the relation of the ant to this scale
were made in orchards in which fumigation had been temporarily
neglected. In an experiment in which fi^'e scale-infested orange trees
were banded to exclude ants in April, and a similar five left accessible
to them, the amount of scale infestation remained practically equal
on both sets of trees throughout the summer, from April to
September.

In other words, after excluding the ants from five of these trees
lor a period of nearly five months but little difference in the amount
of black-scale infestation or in quantity of sooty mold could be de-
tected between them and five similar trees very heavily invaded by

1 Quayle, H. J., op. cit., p. 445.

36 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

ants during the entire period. What difference existed was unfavor-
able to the view that the ants cause greater increase of the black
scales. Xone of the trees had been fumigated since 1914.

In another experiment two more black-scale infested trees were
banded against ants in flune and two similar trees left accessible to
them. These trees had not been fumigated for three years. As in
the case of the first experiment, the amount of black-scale infestation
remained practically equal on both banded and nonbanded trees
throughout the remainder of the season.

Sometimes there is a greater amount of black-scale infestation on
trees where there are no ants than on other trees of the same age and
condition overrun by ants. Thus, in a block of orange trees not fumi-
gated for two years more than half the fruit on a number of the
trees on w^hich there were no ants was scaly, while on a number of
trees overrun by ants less than one-fourth of it was scaly. In this
case the greatest scale infestation occurred on trees located next to
older and heavily infested ones from which the scales had come by the
usual means of dissemination, but there was no indication that the
ants caused an increase of the scales on the trees on which they
occurred.

In various orchards in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, in Avhich
there were no ants and in which fumigation had been neglected for
from two to four years, the black-scale infestation was quite as
severe as is ever seen where the ants are present. In fact, in order to
keep the black scale from reaching injurious numbers it has been found
necessary every year to fumigate some orchards in which there were no
Argentine ants and very few of other kinds. Sometimes a second
fumigation is needed in the same season because of rapid reinfesta-
tion by what is called an offhatch, or an extra generation of scales,
caused by their more rapid development on especially suitable trees.

It is evident, therefore, that the black scale in southern California
is capable of reaching a very injurious degree of infestation in a
single season, regardless of whether ants are present or not. Its
natural enemies are not sufficiently numerous to prevent severe in-
festation, even though there is no interference from ants. The effect
of the ant in accelerating the increase of this scale is therefore of
little practical importance and does not compare with its importance
as affecting the mealybugs.

INFLUENCE OF THE ANT ON ABUNDANCE OF THE SOFT BROWN SCALE IN LOUISIANA.

As was the case with the black scale, it was impossible to find a
sufficient number of orange trees in Louisiana heavily infested with
the soft brown scale {Coccus hesperidum L.) to conduct extensive

THE AKGEXTINE AN"T IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 37

pxperinients to determine the effect of the ants. In a test conducted
upon young orange trees colonized with the scales, two of the trees,
on which there were 5,425 and 334 young scales, respectively, were
banded to exclude ants, while a third, on which there w^ere 3,100
scales, was left accessible to the ants for comparison. The number
of scales gradually diminished on all the trees, accompanied by a cor-
responding increase of parasitized scale remains, until within two
months from the time of starting the experiment practically all had
been destroyed.

The destruction of these scales was caused almost exclusively by
parasites, the percentage of parasitized scales increasing, with slight
fluctuations, at the same rate on the tree frequented by ants as on the
(wo ti-ees from whic^i ants w^ere excluded. There was nothing in the
condition of the trees or in their suitability as a food plant of this
scale to prevent the scales from thriving, as w^as shown by the fact
that a few sound scales which had secured perfect shelter from para-
sites remained on the trees as late as October, three and one-half
months after all those not sheltered had been destroyed.

It was plainly seen in this experiment, and many other observa-
tions bear out this conclusion, that the internal parasites are the
most effective enemies of the soft brown scale in Louisiana and that
"the Argentine ant does not extensively prevent the work of these
insects. A considerable number of adult parasites were seen on these
trees during the examinations, and fully as many on the ant-invaded
trees as on the noninvaded ones. Two species of chalcids,^ viz,
Eupehnus coccidis Gir. and C occophagus coccidis Gir,, were reared
from ant-attended soft brown scales in Louisiana.

While an orange tree occasionally would be found in Louisiana
with one or more small branches very heavily infested with the soft
brow'n scale, assiduously attended by the ants, the worst infestations
that came to notice were on plants other than citrus. For example,
in an orange grove at Buras, where this scale was present in small
numbers and scattered on orange trees, one limb of a rosebush was
found infested so severely that in a space 1 foot long on a branch
about one-eighth inch in diameter there were 1,440 scales.

Large groups of this sort sometimes are found in which there is
very little evidence of parasitism, but usually from 2 to 60 per cent
or more of all the scales occurring in such groups either contain the
parasites or show their exit holes.

The soft brown scale, undoubtedly is held in check in Louisiana
orange groves, regardless of whether ants are present or not, by its
natural enemies and particularly by the internal parasites.

1 Identified by Mr. A. A. Girault.

38 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

INFLUENCE OF THE ANT ON ABUNDANCE OF THE SOFT BROWN SCALE IN CALIFORNIA.

There was no opportunity during the season of 1916 to study the
etIVct of the ants on abundance of the soft brown scale in the orange
groves of southern California because of the scarcity of the scales.
Larger groups of this scale occur on various ornamentals where
attended b}^ the ants than where there are no ants, and its abundance
on camphor, bottle, and pepper trees and many others along some
of the streets of Pasadena where the Argentine ant occurs makes it
appear that the ant has the ett'ect of greatly increasing the infesta-
tions there. Neither the soft brown scale nor the closely related
citricola scale ^ occurred in any greater number in the ant-invaded
orange groves of Los Angeles County than in those where the ant
did not occur. In Riverside County, on the contrary, large groups
of the soft brown scale were found more easily in the ant-invaded
than in the noninvaded orchards. Quayle - has noted that the soft
brown scale becomes especially serious under the influence of the ant
in that county. Several orchards were mentioned b}^ Mr. D. D.
Sharp, Riverside County horticultural commissioner, in which the
soft brown scale had become so numerous as a result of attendance
by the ant as to attract general attention. In one of the most severely
ant-infested orchards, however, wdiich it w^as said had not been fumi-_
gated for several 3^ears, there was a large parasitization of the soft
brown scale, as high as 82 per cent of them being found destroyed
by parasites in a group under heavy ant attendance.

It appears, therefore, that the Argentine ant may afford enough
protection to the soft brown scale at times on certain trees or in cer-
tain localities to cause the formation of larger groups than is cus-
tomary and retard the destruction of the insect by its natural ene-
mies. This effect has not, hoAvever, been marked enough either in
California or Louisiana to change the rank of the scale as a citrus
pest of merely minor importance. This is due to the fact that in-
ternal parasites and not predacious enemies are the chief factor in
the natural control of the scale.

relations with the citrus white fly.«

The Ant as an Enejiy of the White Fly.

The only direct relation which the Argentine ant bears to the
citrus wdiite fly is that of predator. The first knowledge of this fact
came as a result of observations made in anT)range grove at Happy
Jack, La., in April, 1913. At that time the prevailing belief, which

■• Coccus citricola CampbeH.

2 Quayle, H. J. In Jour. Econ. Ent, v. 9, p. 472. 1916.

3 The citrus white fly (Dlaleurodes citri Ashm.). The cloudy-winged white fly {Dialeii-
rodes citrifoUi Morgan) also occurs in Louisiana, but is greatly outnumbered by the
first-named species.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 39

was shared by the writer, was that the ants fostered the white fly
for its excretions, and when many ants were seen carrying adult
white flies down an orange tree it was taken as evidence that they
were transferring this pest to other trees and cohinizing them thereon.
As a principal occupation of the ants on nearly every tree was carry-
ing white flies, however, and the reason for carrying only adults was
not clear, the opportimity was taken to observe this work more
closely.

It was noticed that comparatively few ants were carrying white
flies up the trunk, but that a very large majority, certainh^ over 95
per cent, were carrying them down only. If the ants were estab-
lishing the white flies on other trees, it seemed that at least there
should be somewhere near the same proportion carrying them up
as were carrying them down the trees. Many of the ants therefore
were traced as they carried the insects up and down the trees. In-
variably those going up trees were traced to some cranny, where
they poised in the dark for a rest or to avoid a breeze, or they would
go up a short distance and then turn and go down again. In-
variably those going down the tree were traced to the entrance to
an underground nest, where they disappeared from view. Some of
these entrances were directly at the base of the tree, but digging out
such tunnels proved that the ants were not nesting about the roots
of the trees or other plants on which the white fly might feed. It
also disclosed the complete absence of underground colonies of living
white flies and the presence of piles of dead remains of adults in the
ant tunnels.

The next step was to examine white flies carried by the ants to de-
termine whether they were living or dead. Some of them were liv-
ing, and a good many more were dead, but the most important dis-
covery Avas that a very large majority still had their wings crumpled,
as they are immediately after emergence from the pupa case, show-
ing that the}' were captured just as they emerged.

The percentage of white flies which the ants destroy must vary
widely in the various groves at different times, and is probably never
high enough to be of great economic importance. In a series of ten
examinations to determine what proportion of the ants descending
orange and privet trees with forage had captured white flies, the fol-
lowing data were gathered on the subject:

All the ants passing a point on the trunk going down the tree in
a certain leng^ h of time, usually from 10 minutes to a half hour,
were counted and classified as to whether or not they carried forage.
Those carrying liquid forage could be distinguished by the distended
gaster. The kinds of insects carried were noted without disturb-
ing the ants where possible; otherwise the prey was collected. In

40 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

these examinations it was found that from as low as 0.7 per cent to
as high as 54 per cent of the ants which had any kind of forage car-
ried white flies. Other of the lower percentages were 0.9 per cent,
3.1 per cent, 3.2 per cent, and 13.8 per cent; while other higher per-
centages were 21 per cent, 21.7 per cent, 34.7 per cent, and 38.4 per
cent. Most of these examinations were made at times when the
foraging was not too heavy, so that the ants could be counted without
danger of confusion, and the number of ants carrying white flies
was often too large to count. The percentage of ants with forage in
their possession in these examinations ranged from 16.1 per cent to
75.8 per cent.

The above phenomena, which Avere observed many times on citrus
and other plants every season spent in Louisiana, always may be
seen during the emergence periods of the white flies in orange groves
invaded by the ant. At times the ants with their captives are so
numerous that the most casual glance will discover them as they go
wavering doAvn the trunks with the white-fly wings spread above
their heads like diminutive sails. At times, when such a caravan is
suddenly struck by a light breeze, the little sails will scatter in every
direction as the ants hunt for temporary shelter to prevent being
blown out of their course. The only possible direct part played by
the ant in its relations witli the adult citrus white fly in Louisiana
is that of predacious enemy.

Relations of the Ant with Immature Stages of the White Fly.

Investigation of the behavior of the ants toward larva? and pupae
of the citrus white fly brought out the fact that, although they hover
about these immature stages more or less, they do not palpate the
larvae or directly obtain their excretion, but that they watch over
the pupa^ solely for the purpose of capturing the emerging adult
insects. Although the ants do not capture living white-fly larvae, and
only a comparatively few pupae, they are occasionally seen carrying
the latter. Th'; pupae taken are nearly always those in which the
transformation to the adult is almost completed, the ants becoming
impatient at waiting for the adult to appear or being impelled to
attack by its attempts to extricate itself from the puparium. In
some instances as many as 8.7 per cent of the white flies taken from
the ants have been pupa?, but this proportion is doubtless above the
average.

When most of the white flies on a heavily infested tree overrun
Avith ants are in tlie larva stage the ants never are found in attend-
ance in considerable numbers on the worst infested leaves. The ants
have been seen to lick the leaf surface in the vicinity of white-fly
larvae and they undoubtedly secure a certain amount of white-fly

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 41

excretion in this secondan' numner. especially when other food is
scarce in the trees. If any large proportion of the white-fly excre-
tion were taken by the ants, however, the sooty-mold fungus would
be by so much the less pi-evalent in ant-invaded trees ; this, however,
is not the case. The ants do prevent to a very large extent the col-
lection of excretory matter and the formation of sooty mold after
mealybugs, even inducing such rapid excretion in certain young
stages that the mealybug is unable to form the wooly covering, its
body remaining almost naked and pink.

Effect of the Ant on Abundance of the White Fly.

An experiment to determine the effect of the ants on abundance of
white flies was started on April 25, 1914, a young orange tree with
S38 white-fly eggs being banded to exclude ants and a similar tree
with 1,474 eggs kept accessible to ants for comparison. The per-
centages of young stages of the white fly dying from unknown
causes and the quantity of new growth on the two trees were noted
at every examination to make sure that the difference in white-fly
infestation was not due to varying food conditions.

On May 13 there were on the tree from which ants were excluded
949 sound and 113 dead larvae and pupsie and 189 unhatched eggs;
on the tree that was accessible to ants there were 434 sound and 109
dead larvae and pupee and 112 living eggs. Between May 13 and
June 12 the nonbanded tree was merely kept under surveillance by
scouting ants, but on June 12 white-fly emergence was at its height
and the ants had formed a heavy trail into the tree, where they were
capturing the emerging adults. Living white-fly larva? and pupae
were comparatively scarce and about equal in number on both trees.
The remarkable thing Avas, however, that on the ant-invaded ti.ee
there were 1G7 empty pupa cases from which white flies had emerged
and only 8 of the adult white flies, whereas on that from which ants
were excluded there were 151 empty pupa cases and 130 of the
emerged adults. In other words, the nonbanded tree was swarming
w^ith ants, some of which were carrying adults, and only 4.51 per
cent of the emerged adults remained on the tree, whereas on the tree
from Avhich ants were excluded almost the same amount of emergence
had occurred and 8G per cent of all the emerged white flies w^ere still
on the leaves.

From June 12 to about the middle of August the white flies in-
creased faster on the tree from which the ants were excluded than
on the other. On July 1 there were 5,435 living young on the
former and only 1,919 on the latter. The percentage of dead was
practically the same on both, being 12.9 per cent of all young on

42 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTLTRE.

the tree from which ants were exchided and 10.4 per cent on the tree
to which they had access.

On July 17 the banded tree still led in white-fly infestation, there
being 3,711 living young on this tree to 1,497 on the ant-patrolled
tree, and by the 13th of August white-fly eggs, larvae, and pupse were
too numerous on both plants to count. This final heavy infestation of
both trees was expected, as it was improbable that complete white-
fly control in the height of its breeding period could be accomplished
by the ant.

The relations of the ants to emerging white flies brought out in
the foregoing experiment led to similar observations on other trees
On June 12, at the height of a Avhite-fly emergence period, two more
trees from which ants were excluded and two on which they were
present were inspected. On the first two trees there were 431 empty
pupa cases from which white flies had emerged, and 369 adult white
flies, or 85.6 per -cent of all which had emerged, still renuiined upon
the trees. On the ant-invaded trees there were 600 empty pupa cases
with emergence slits, but only 36 of the white flies, or 6 per cent of
the emergence, remained upon the ti-ees.

These observations indicate that the principal direct eflt'ect of the
Argentine ant upon the citrus white fly in Louisiana is to destroy a
varying proportion of them, thus entitling this ant to be called a
white-fly enemy.

RELATIONS WITH APHIDS.

The relation of the Argentine ant to aphids has been observed
principally on the orange-infesting species, chief of which is Aphis
qosfujjni Glov. In Louisiana, however, certain observations have
been made upon the relations of this ant with aphids on loquat,
elder, privet, oak, cypress, and certain weeds.

The Ant as a Protector of Aphids.

The orange aphid appears in considerable numbers, sometimes
very large numbers, on the newer growth early in the spring, often
increases throughout April and May, causing some of the leaves to
curl, and thereafter rapidly disappears, while a heavy parasitization
is indicated by numerous dried skins punctured by the exit holes of
the parasites. This condition, which has long existed both in Cali-
fornia and in Louisiana, has not been altered materially even in
groves and trees overrun by the Argentine ant. In Louisiana it
occurs in scattered groups in January and February, often greatly
increases in March, and becomes numerous on tender leaves and some
of the blossoms in certain orchards during April and May. Even
where heavily attended by the ant, however, its natural enemies.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 43

and chiefly the internal parasites, have so reduced it by July or
August that it is difficult to find specimens.

The following examples will serve to illustrate the ineffectiveness
of the ant against the parasites of the orange aphis: On April 22,
1914, in an orange grove overrun with ants at Happy Jack. La.,
aphids Avere very numerous, averaging about 3-1 per leaf of the worst
infested leaves, and undoubtedly would have done much damage
had their increase continued long at the same rate. Even at this
time, however, the aphid shells punctured by parasite exit holes indi-
cated a parasitization of 29.7 per cent. Three hymenopterous para-
sites seen ovipositing in the aphids among the ants w^ere watched
until they had parasitized nearly every aphid on their respective
leaves. While ovipositing in the aphids these little insects nimbly
avoided the ants without flying. On May 15 living aphids could be
found on these trees only with difficulty. In the meantime, too,
many of the parasitized remains previously seen had been blown
from the leaves, so that there was very little evidence tliat aphids
had ever been numerous there.

On April 28, 1915, 15 per cent of the ant-attended aphids in an
orange grove at Ollie. La., had been parasitized, but living aphids
were still rather numerous, averaging 20 per leaf on those leaves
examined. By May 12 the aphis infestation in this grove had de-
creased more than 50 per cent, and 49 per cent of the remaining
aphids were parasitized. On May 27 an examination of tw'enty-five
times as many suitable leaves as before revealed an average of only
about two aphids per leaf, and 92.6 per cent of these were parasitized.
The foregoing observations are merely examples of what may be
seen annually in almost any grove in Louisiana in which ants and
aphids occur.

At Alhambra, Cal., early in April, 1916, a trail of ants was found
leading to flourishing small colonies of aphids on the new sprouts
of an orange tree that had been cut back about 4 feet from the
ground. The aphids were very numerous and not more than one per
group showed evidence of parasitism. On April 21 fully half of the
aphids had disappeared from this tree and 79.6 per cent of the re-
mainder were parasitized. Ten aphid-feeding lady-beetles {Hippo-
damia convergens Guerin) and a few syrphid-fly larv?e also occurred
on the tree.

At Duarte, Cal., 20 young ant-invaded orange trees, badly infested
with aphids on the new leaves about the middle of April, were almost
completely free fi'om them when examined on May 19. The lew
aphids remaining alive were being attended by the ants, but not
one-tenth of 1 per cent of what had previously been present remained
on the trees at this time, and discolored and dried shells with their
parasite exit holes were everywhere present.

44 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Again, at Sierra Madre, Cal., on June 16, scattered groups of
aphids attended by ants on several trees revealed a parasitization of
92.1 per cent. On one of these trees 14 syrphid larvae with 1 coccinel-
lid larva and 15 or 20 ants were found working on the same groups
of aphids.

The relations of the Argentine ant to an aphid commonly occuring
on elder in Louisiana were observed especially because of the excep-
tional abundance attained by this plant-louse early in the summer
and its abundant attendance "by the ants. During March and April
the aphids become too numerous for the trees to support and thou-
sands fall to the ground, covering the grass under the trees and
crawling back up the trunks in large numbers for days at a time.
This aphid is progressively destroyed by predacious enemies and
especially by parasites, until by the middle of June it invariably has
been reduced to an insignificant number, which gather about the
bases of the stems and leaves, where the best possible shelter occurs.
On April 24, 1914, the comparatively few shells and aphids remain-
ing on one of these trees were counted. There were only 1,667 in
all, 529 of which were living, 68.4 per cent being parasitized. The
principal parasite concerned was identified by Dr. L. O. Howard as
a species of Aphidencyrtus.

On March 24, 1914, 9 robust young elder plants in pots were in-
fested with the aphids and placed where the ants could get to them.
About a month later. May 7, there were on all plants 2,436 living and
apparently sound aphids and 985, or 28.7 per cent, parasitized. All
parasitized shells w^ere removed, and, on May 13, 1.18 per cent more
aphids, parasitized since the previous examination, were removed,
after which ants were excluded from 4 of the plants, on which were
418 sound aphids, and allowed access to the remaining 5, on which
were 535 aphids.

On June 3 only 47 living aphids remained on the ant-free plants,
but 119 were on the ant-invaded plants: and by June 16, at which
time most all tlie aphids h;ul disappeared from the large elder trees
thereabouts, not a living aphid was left on any of the little plants.

In another experiment 2 robust elder plants were colonized with
aphids on March 24. One plant Avas given 187 aphids and placed in
a large trail of ants, and the other was given 185 aphids and placed
where the ants could not get to it. By April 8 there were 3,194
living, apparently sound aphids on the ant-attended plant, an in-
crease in 15 days of 1,708 per cent; and on the ant-excluded plant
there were 2,514, an increase of 1,364 per cent. The more rapid rate
of increase on the ant-attended plant seemingly was due to the activi-
ties of the ant, other factors being apparently the same in both cases.
The number of living sound aphids soon began to decrease on both

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO C1TRU9 GROVES. 45

plants, and as in the beginning it had increased more slowly on
the ant-free plant, it now decreased more rapidly on that plant.

On April 25 the number of aphids on the ant-attended plant had
decreased to 2,043. on the ant-free plant to 802, and. from that date
on the decrease continued as follows: On the ant-attended plant
there remained, on May 6, 182 aphids ; on May 20, 18 ; on June 3, 23 ;
while on the ant-free plant, on Ma}' 6, there were only 52 aphids,
and on May 20 all had disappeared. The ants, therefore, appeared
to give a slight advantage to the aphids up to this time, but by
June 16 all had disappeared from both plants, the parasites having
won in the struggle for their possession. It is seen therefore that
although the ant attends the orange and certain other species of
aphids having Aery efficient internal parasites, it is unable to pre-
vent the destruction of these aphids and cause an}' notewortliy in-
crease in their number.

TKANSPORTATION OF APHIDS AND COCCmS.

Although at times nearly 50 per cent of the ants foraging in citrus
and some other trees capture insects and carry them down the tree,
taking it throughout the season the average is less than 1 per cent.
About 8 per cent of the total foraging Avorkers counted in all ex-
aminations were engaged in carrying all kinds of insects, but this
isj of course, above the average, as counts were made onW upon trees
where the ants were engaged conspicuousl}' in the transportation of
insects. Only a fraction of 1 per cent, viz, 0.5 per cent, of the in-
sects carried by the ants were scales and aphids. and only under ex-
ceptional circumstances is the number carried worth considering.

Extended observations on the activity of the ants in transporting
scales and aphids have led to the following conclusions:

(1) The ants feed to a slight extent upon the surplus insects when
its host scale.- or aphids are very numerous, upon those that have
died from parasitism or some other cause, and upon male scales as
fully as their ability to capture them allows.

(2) The ants utilize dead shells of the black and some of the
armored scales for the construction of shelters and feed upon the
softer by-products and detritus of these scales.

(3) Direct dissemination of orange scales and aphids by the ant
is only incidental and is negligible. Indirectly the ants aid in the
dissemination of some of these insects by greatly increasing them on
particular trees, and from these points of heavy infestation they
spread b}^ the usual means.

Some of the facts which lead to the foregoing conclusions are as
follows: A large majority of the scales and aphids carried b}' the

46 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

ants are dead. Thus about 94 per cent of the mealybugs taken from
the ants were dead or discolored and scarcely able to move, while
with the black scales and aphids carried the percentage of dead was
still higher. On the other hand, of those insects which do not fur-
nish honej^dew to the ants most are alive when taken from their
captors. Nearly all captive white flies are alive, as are the psocids,
and even such fragile insects as thrips may be handled so lightly by
their captors as to remain apparently uninjured. Thus, on one
occasion, a thrips dropped by an ant at once started to run, when
another ant seized and bit it viciously several times, after which the
only sign of life was a twitching of legs and antennae.

The ants almost always carry their scale and aphid hosts, as well
as all other captured insects, to the nest, which is rarely if ever so
situated as to afford living conditions to these insects. On rare occa-
sions, in Louisiana, living mealybugs had been found in ant trap-
nests, containing only dried straw and manure, but this happened in
winter, when the mealybugs left not only the trees where there were
ants, but also those in a part of the orchard where no ants occurred,
and located on Bermuda grass. The soft scales found in ants' nests
almost always have been dead. On one occasion when an exception-
ally large number of ants carrying mealybugs down an orange tree
could be traced to the nest in the rotting wood, many dead and dis-
colored mealybugs and mealybug particles were found and 80 whole
bugs counted. There were only 2 living mealybugs, and these ap-
peared to be diseased, being unable to move except for twitching the
legs a little.

The ants carry their host insects in considerable number only when
thase insects are exceptionally numerous, at which times they are
able to supply a great deal more honeydew than the ants actually
require. In Louisiana the ant attendance on the black scale and the
citrus mealybug was nearly always in greater number than could
obtain honeydew from them continuously. In California, however,
the black scale, where unchecked by fumigation, becomes very numer-
ous, overflowing the trees and covering them with sooty mold. On
such trees the ants carry many scales at times. Thus in one orchard,
in which both ants and black scales occurred in exceptionally large
numbers, an unusually large number of ants were so engaged. For-
tunately for observation, many of the nests to which ants could be
traced were in the rotting stubs of cut branches. In these nests the
scale phase most readily seen (that is, shells of mature scales) was
scattered throughout the ants' galleries. Many nests, with their
contents, were removed and examined, and the remains of numerous
insects found there, but the black scales, of which there were 118
yoimg stages, all dead, and 97 shells of mature scales, outnumbered

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 47

all others. Ants, with scales, also were traced to underground tun-
nels, which led neither to tree roots nor to any plant roots on whicl^.
the scales could live.

Aphids, too, are transported only when the infestation is very
heavy. The largest numbers carried were upon maple and elder
trees, on which aphis infestation persisted somewhat longer than on
orange trees because of more rapid parasitism of the orange-infesting
siDecies. A great nuijority of the aphids carried were dead. Since
almost all are destroyed by parasites, some undoubtedly contain
parasites when taken by the ants, but the number thus destroyed
is too small to reduce the effectiveness of these enemies. The destina-
tion of the aphids carried was generally the underground nest. Only
a very small percentage of the ants carry thesti insects up tree,
and, when traced, these always have gone into one of the ant shelters
for rest or, ultimately, retraced their steps down the tree.

Experiments have been tried several times to induce the ants to
remove scales and aphids from unsuitable food to a place where they
could thrive. As an example of these experiments, about two dozen
elderberry stems, very heavily infested with aphids, were on one
occasion placed in the midst of thousands of ants at the base of an
elderberry tree and examined at intervals thereafter. At the end
of an hour aphids were leaving the stems, many were scattered about
in the short grass, and a considerable number of others were travel-
ing up the tree trunk. A great majority of the ants paid no atten-
tion to these wanderers, but a few followed and stroked individual
aphids Avhile in motion. One such ant, becoming impatient after a
few minutes of unrewarded effort, seized an aphid by a leg and
pulled it about this way and that for a distance of fully a foot, when
it let go and went its way.

Similar experiments were performed with mealybugs, infested
stems being cut and placed among numerous ants in pots containing
vigorous young orange trees. The ants would attend and stroke these
mealybugs indefinitely, but in not a single instance did one transport
a mealybug from a dying stem to the flourishing growth of the
young orange tree. Many of the mealybugs would w^ander off the
dr}^ stems, and some of them would find their own wa}^ sooner or later
into the healthy tree.

On one occasion, in California, a good opportunity was presented
to the ants to assist mealybugs to regain trees from which they had
been knocked by spraying Avith water under high pressure. The ant
invasion was from " very heavy " to " extremely heavy " in about TO
per cent of the trees examined, the remainder having " light " or
"very light" trails. Some of the mealybugs hit by the water were
27139°— 18— Bull. 647 4

48 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

Imocked from one part of the tree to another, often landing on the
trunk or larger branches. From 10 to 17 trees were examined each
time, and in all these inspections only 8 ants were found carrying
mealybugs, 7 of which were dead. In from one-half to 3 hours
after spraying an average of 3 mealybugs per tree were crawling up
the trunk; 18 hours after spraying the number had increased to 5 per
tree average; at about 48 hours after spraying there was on an
average only 1 mealybug returning to every 4 trees. Certainly the
ants did not assist to any appreciable extent in their return.

The ants occasionally become impatient with aphids and scales
that fail to excrete and seize these insects, just as at times they be-
come impatient at waiting for an adult white fly to emerge f id
seize the pupa. The pile of mealybug remains found in the tree
nest previously referred to indicates that the mealybugs were utilized
as flesh food. There is little doubt that if sufficient time and pains
were taken the ants actually might be observed eating occasional
aphids and scale insects.

RELATIONS WITH INSECT ENEMIES OF SCALES AND APHIDS.

EXTENT OF CAPTURE OF PREDATORY AND PARASITIC INSECTS.

The ants are antagonistic to all the predacious and parasitic
insect enemies of coccids and aphids, but not more so than they are
to all other insects which do not furnish them with honeydew.
The ants are habitually carnivorous and view all other insects, ex-
cepting perhaps some of the myrmecophiles, either as their cattle,
furnishing them with liquid food, or as their prey, useful as flesh
food. Although the ants take every opportunity to capture both
predators and parasites of the scales and plant-lice, the number of
this class of insects captured is very small. The close and constant
attendance of the ants at scales and aphids, by preventing free ovi-
position and feeding of the natural enemies, accounts mainly for the
ants' effectiveness as protectors of these pests, although the ants do
feed to some extent upon eggs of certain scale predators.

A large number of insects have been taken from the ant and
identified, and only 0.72 per cent of all the insects carried have been
predator}'- on species attended by the ants. These consisted of larvre
of the Leucopidae, the brown lacewings, Syrphidae, and Lepidoptera,
the last very rarely, indeed. It is seen, therefore, that the number
of predatory enemies of the soft scales and aphids which the ant is
able to capture is insignificant. The number of internal parasites
captured is still smaller, being only one one-hundredth of 1 per
cent of the insects taken from the ants.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 49

MEANS OF DEFENSE OF THE LACEWING INSECTS.

The following observation will illustrate the methods of defense
of certain of the predatory enemies of soft scales and aphids. The
larvae of the lacewing flies when attacked emit a fluid from the tip
of the abdomen which, though so small in amount that it can
scarcely be seen, strongly affects the ants. The larvae will avoid
the ants if possible by keeping out of their trails when moving, and
when feeding upon mealybugs take up a position under the groups,
where they are protected by their prey. On a tree in which many
cocoons of Chrysopa calif omica Coq. occurred and which was over-
run with ants a larva of the Chrysopa was seen crawling up the
trunk on the opposite side from the ant trails. The larva w^as
teased over into the midst of the ants, with the following result:
An ant seized it by a foreleg, when it brought the tip of its abdo-
men forward and touched the ant, which then dropped to the
ground. A second ant ran up, but as the chrysoi^id brought the tip
of the abdomen forward, backed aw^ay, and the larva resumed its
journey. Another ant took hold and, receiving the same treatment,
backed hurriedly away in a circle, frantically brushing its head
with the forefeet. Four ants then made a combined attack. The
larva deliberately w^aited until they had a good hold, probably to
l)e sure of its mark and conserve the secretion, when it touched them,
and they acted precisely as had the preceding one. All these ants
soon ceased to move and acted as if very sick. In the meantime the
chrj^sopid passed out of the ant trail and proceeded up the tree.
The larva3 of the brown lacewings defend themselves in precisely
the same manner, emitting a minute globule of bright amber to red
fluid that is evidently injurious to the ants.

MEANS OF DEFENSE OF THE LADY-BEETLES.

The larvae of various coccinellids are protected by a covering of
spines or of cottony excretion and by a thick yellowish material
exuded from pores situated along the margins and dorsum of the
body. Ants many times have been seen attempting to seize larvae
of the mealybug-feeding species Hyperaspis lateralis Muls., but not
in a single instance did they succeed in capturing one. This larva,
when feeding in the midst of mealybugs, usually remains perfectly
motionless and does not attract the attention of the ants. When
moving and attacked by them it flattens first one side to the surface,
pnd, if attacked by several ants at once, it flattens down all around,
leaving only the cottony filaments exposed. Sometimes the ants then
will pull out masses of this cotton, and on one occasion they were

50 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

observed to pull out so much of it that the thorax of the lady-beetle
was made completely bare. In spite of this the object of the attack
was able to escape. At another ^ime several ants were attacking one
of these larva? at once and each of them pulled out a mass of cotton
from time to time. It soon was seen that some of them were unable
to loosen the material from the jaws and were thus kept out of the
contest.

The larvge of such species as Goccinella calif ornica Coq. and Hip-
podamia converf/e7is Guer. rely principally upon immobility, flatten-
ing out, and their spiny covering for protection. The larva of Rhizo-
bius ventralis Erichs. depends upon immobility, its natural flatness of
body, and, in the presence of the black scale, which is its preferred
food insect, the honey dew from the scales collects in the setae
on its body and becomes coated with sooty mold, blending to some
extent with the sooty, sirupy leaf surface. The final emergency
protection of all these larva", after having exhausted the defensive
means of protection, is the so-called '' reflex bleeding," or excretion,
of a poisonous, repellent substance from the glands of the body.
This occurs whenever the larva is roughly handled or there is danger
of enemies actually destroying it.

The adult coccinellids defend themselves principally by flattening
out, thus presenting the wing covers to the enemy, and by kicking.
The kick consists of a sharp jerk of the leg by which the ant, threat-
ening to seize it, is prevented from so doing. The ants often have
been observed trying to capture adult lady-beetles, but never have
they been seen to succeed. A single instance will illustrate the
method of defense: On an orange tree overrun by the ants and also
harboring numerous lady-beetles {Goccinella calif ornica), one of the
lady-beetles was seen traveling up the trunk in the trail of ants.
Most of the ants were passing hurriedly by, swerving aside to avoid
contact with it, but one ant was following and trying to seize one of
its legs. This ant moved from side to side of the coccinellid, its
jaws wide open, rushing it whenever there appeared to be an oppor-
tunity. Every time the ant would attempt to take hold, however,
the lady-beetle would either give a quick snap of its leg or would
lower the body on that side. This ant finally was joined by a second.,
and both tried for 10 or 15 minutes, without success, to capture the
insect. There seems to be evidence that adult coccinellids also some-
times secrete a repellent fluid in very small amounts when attacked
by ants, for the ants often back suddenly away on coming into con-
tact with them. As a last resort adult coccinellids also have recourse
to " bleeding," which seems capable of repelling many ants at once
and even much larger enemies.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 51

Lady-beetles often occur in large numbers on trees overrun by ants.
This was commonly the case in Louisiana with a minute, shiny black
lady-beetle, Microweisia mlsella Lee, which occurs in large numbers
on trunic and branches of orange trees at certain times of the year.
This insect apparently feeds upon eggs and young of the chaff and
purple scales and is entirely oblivious of the ants. The same is true
of the large twice-stabbed lady-beetle, Chilocorus hivulnerus Muls.,
which often occurs in large numbers in all stages upon heavily ant-
invaded trees.

In California, large numbers of adult Hippodamia convergens
und Coccinella californica and all stages of the black lady-beetle
{Rhizohius ventralis) occur at times on orange trees overrun by ants.
On one occasion more than 1,000 adults of the first two and the
ashy gray lady-beetle {OUa ahdominaUs Say), all of which feed ex-
tensively on the excretions of the black scale, were counted upon 10
trees on which the ants were exceptionally numerous. Again, more
than 60 of the black lady-beetles were found upon each of a number
of young orange trees overrun by ants. A certain click-beetle,
Limonius suhauratus Lec.,^ which feeds upon this excretion, is also
fearless of the ants.

MEANS OF DEFENSE OF THE PREDACIOUS PYRALIDAE.

The principal means of defense of the larvae of the predacious
Lepidoptera which feed upon soft scales and mealybugs consists in
moving the body rapidly from side to side like the cracking of a
whip. The larva of Laetilla coccidivora Comst., however, protects
itself chiefly by means of a tubular web which it spins over itself and
its prey and through which ants can not pass. The nearly mature
larvpe are protected rather effectively also by the spines on their
bodies, and several times have been seen moving among numerous
ants, apparently hunting for a place to pupate, without being mo-
lested.

MEANS OF DEFENSE OF THE SYRPHIDAE.

The larvae of aphid and mealybug feeding syrphids also often
are found on the leaves and fruit among the ants. The ants, though
once or tAvice they have been found with very young larvae of an
unidentified species of syrphid in their possession, apparently never
disturb them under ordinary conditions. The immobility and the
spines of those species which have been observed working among
aphids and mealybugs among ants appear to protect them adequately
from the ants.

1 Identified by Mr. J. A. Hyslop.

52 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGEICULTUKE.

INTERFERENCE OF ANTS WITH THE WORK OF PREDACIOUS INSECTS.

Although the ants are unable to capture in more than insignificant
numbers the insects predatory on the soft scales of citrus, to a con-
siderable extent they do interfere with their work of destroying scales,
as has already been indicated. This is particularly true of those
scales which occur in groups, such as the citrus mealybug and soft
brown and some other scales, the predators being unable to oviposit
in groups closely attended by the ants. Under normal conditions
the citrus mealybug, in Los Angeles County, Cal., is held in almost
complete control by its predacious enemies, chief of which are some
three or four species of lady-beetles, the brown and green lacewings,
and at least three kinds of predacious flies.^ Rearings of enemies from
a number of large batches of mealybug material collected among the
ants at intervals from April to September, 1916,, from scattered locali-
ties in Los Angeles County gave 71.8 per cent external feeders and
28.1 per cent parasites.

Against the internal parasites, however, the ants appear to be
much. less effective, as has already been indicated. Of the internal
parasites reared from citrus mealybugs in California by the writer,
only 9.7 per cent are know^n to be primary parasites of the mealybugs.

NESTS AND PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES OF THE ANT.

LOCATION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEST PROPER.

The Argentine ant, which is very ingenious at construction, builds
its nest to meet the requirements of a comparatively few simple
needs, a primary one of Avhich is darkness. Aside from any special
aversion which the ant may have to light, it seeks the darkness for
safety, and it is only in the dark that the workers ever rest " off
guard." The queens, especially the older ones, spend nearly all their
time where the darkness is greatest, and when moving in the trails
of the foragers, which they frequently do, invariably pass rapidly
from shelter to shelter, spending as little time as possible in the open
places. The ants never permit their young to remain in the light
for long at a time, and both they and the great mass of the queens
always are found in the darkest, most obscure parts of the nest.

Another requirement of the ant is a proper regulation of tempera-
ture and moisture to suit its young and itself. In exceptionally dry
weather, such as often occurs in Louisiana from February to April
or May, and in California throughout every summer, the nest will

1 The natural enemies of the mealybugs of citrus in southern California are being
studied by Mr. R. S. Woglum and are referred to here only in a general way, as necessary
to show their relationships to the Argentine ant.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 53

be tunneled into the ground. The depth will depend upon liow far
it is necessary to go to find the needed amount of moisture. It is in
the underground nest also that the most comfortable temperature
can be found, both in summer when it is very hot and in winter
when it is very cold. In the cities the walls of buildings often are
utilized, the ants taking advantage of the artificial warmth and
shelter afforded. In rainy weather, when the soil is very damp, the
underground nest will be abandoned for a location above ground,
in buildings, trees, piles of dry weeds, piles of lumber, etc., and
under almost any kind of shelter. When the ants are caught in the
ground by a sudden rain, in situations where there are no convenient
trees, buildings, or other shelter, "sheds" are constructed out of
particles of soil and trash along the surface of the ground. These
sheds are sometimes very large and are elaborately tunneled into
galleries and pavilions. They dry out much more rapidly than the
packed soil of the ground, and the young are kept in them until the
ground again becomes dry.

OFFSHOOT NESTS AND RUNWAYS.

The ants habitually construct temporary quarters and utilize nat-
ural shelters along the foraging trail, especially if the food supply
is distant from the nest, as places in which to rest, secluded from
light, heat, and wind, and in which wandering queens may hide.

If the food supply is large, attracting many ants for a long period,
the ants gradually construct runways, or series of shelters, between
the nest and the food source, tunneling them in the ground or build-
ing them up of particles of soil and trash, according to circum-
stances. As these structures are built toward the sources of food
and the queens are more or less constantly traveling in the trails of
the foragers, it is in this direction that the colony expands. When-
ever one of these wandering queens finds a suitably dark and secluded
spot along the trail she makes her abode there permanently, de-
posits eggs, and starts a secondary colony. Queens, eggs, and young
occur almost constantly in the larger, more secluded slielters along
the foraging trails. This is the most important means of local
spread of the colony.

A good illustration of the formation of offshoot nests in the ground
occurred in the field poisoning tests at New Orleans. A supply of
poisoned sirup kept near a fig tree for several months in 1913
attracted ants from three colonies in turn, all of which finally de-
serted the neighborhood. On October 2 workers from a fourth
colony, nesting in an outbuilding 72 feet distant, arrived, and by
October 8 the file of ants from nest to jar had increased enormously.

54 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPAKTMENT OF AGBICULTUEE.

The ants soon began tunneling into the ground at short intervals
along the entire course of the trail, and by October 15 these shafts
were numerous. The foragers still followed the original trail along
the surface of the ground, but could no longer be traced for its
entire length, as they were continually disappearing into the tunnels.
Queens gradually separated from the original colony and took up
their abode in the tunnels, until finally there was a string of small
colonies all along the trail from mother colony to sirup. The origi-
nal purpose of the tunnels doubtless was to protect the workers from
light and heat while they rested from their labors, but the queens
found them well adapted for nesting purposes.

SHELTER STRUCTURES, OR " COW SHEDS."

In the trees the ants invariably utilize such natural shelters as
cracks and depressions in the bark, abandoned tunnels of borers, the
space between touching leaves and fruits, etc., often further exclud-
ing light by piling particles of trash along the edges of cracks and
walling in the space between nearly touching leaves, fruits, and
branches. A portion of the ants foraging in trees almost invariably
may be seen retracing their steps up the tree, carrying either liquid
forage or pre}^ with them. If traced, these ants usually will be
found seeking a rest in the nearest shelter of the sort mentioned.
Sometimes, while resting, their forage is deposited nearby and occa-
sionally thereafter forgotten ; at other times it is held indefinitely in
the jaws.

The erection of the so-called " cow sheds " over scale insects and
aphids is a further extension of this habit of building shelters in
which the worker ants can rest. The number of ants attending
aphid and coccid groups is almost always greater than can secure
honeydew continuously. Some of them, therefore, always must be
waiting until their hosts have a fresh supply ready. During this
period of waiting and unrequited solicitation the " cow sheds " serve
the usual ant-protective purpose. These structures, of course, may
protect from enemies the particular insects covered by them, but,
even if this protection were absolute, no great number would benefit
by it, because comparatively so few are covered. The occasional
occurrence of parasitized remains of scales under these "cow sheds"
indicates, furthermore, that the protection afforded even those com-
paratively few scales is often faulty.

On orange trees badly infested by the black scale shelter structures
sometimes are found over groups of mealybugs, and in this case their
most important function happens to be protection of the ants and
mealybugs against the honeydew of the scale and its accompanying

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 55

sooty and green mold. Again, it seems to be primarily the ants
that are protected, as they await the excretion from the mealybugs.
Perhaps the clearest proof that these shelters ai-e built mainly in
response to the needs of resting worker ants is the fact that under
certain circumstances they will be built on the tables supporting
artificial formicaries, where no scales or aphids occur. Six formi-
caries of the Janet type were kept on small tables set in pans of oil
(see PL IV). Food, poisoned sirup, and water were placed on the
tables outside the formicaries. When sick from a poison, the ants
are very eager for water with which, perhaps, to wash out the crops,
and numerous sick ants constantly hung about the water plate.
Whenever sufficient trash Avas allowed them they would build a
shelter tent from the edge of the formicary to that of the water dish,
arid this tent always would be full of ants regurgitating the poison
and cleaning each other's mouth parts.

THE HABIT OF BURYING NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES.

Another activity of the ant somewhat along this line is the habit
of piling debris upon noxious substances. On rare occasions they
bridge bands of sticky material placed on the tree trunks in this
manner. Generally, however, this is done only where the substance
is actually injurious. In the field poison tests frequent cases were
observed where the shelter-constructing and trash-piling habit
merged into one. When foraging at the poison jars it was of common
occurrence for the ants to construct out of particles of soft soil
elaborate shelters about the sides of the jars, and sometimes com-
pletely over them. (PI. I.) As they learned the effects of the
sirup they often would deposit more and more particles on the
sponge within the jar and finally fill the entrance hole completely.
In one case, for example, they partly covered the sponge and filled
the entrance to one of the jars nine times in the course of several
months. In an experiment w^ith moth balls placed in a saucer with
sirup poured over them, the ants eagerly took the sirup for a week,
at the end of which time there were large numbers of dead in the
mixture. The ants then became engaged principally in removing
the dead. The saucer had been placed on a piece of white crepe
paper, and when this accidentally got wet the ants bit out particles
of the paper and constructed an elaborate shelter completely around
the edge of the saucer. Under this large numbers of workers might
be found at all times. As they continued to feed and get poisoned,
however, they began piling bits of paper on the moth balls and
finally completely covered them with the " confetti."

56 BULLETIN 647, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

CULTURAL CONDITIONS IN ANT-INVADED VS. ANT-FREE
ORANGE GROVES IN LOUISIANA.i

As already stated, the Argentine ant infests only slightly more
than 26 per cent of the orange groves of Louisiana as yet. It was
found that 40.7 per cent of the groves that had never had the ants
m them were in " poor " condition, while about the same proportion
(43.9 per cent) of those that were infested with ants were in good
condition. In other words, about 15.4 per cent more of the ant-
jnvadecl groves were in "poor'' condition than of the noninvaded
groves, but this is probably in large part due to the greater neglect
of the ant-infestecl trees because of that infestation, many of the
owners becoming discouraged as soon as they found the ants present.
A considerable number of groves had been abandoned completely
because the ants had gotten into them. A slightly greater reduction
in crop had occurred in the groves infested by ants, this reduction
being, however, only about 0.22 box per tree greater than in those
free from ants. Both the maximum and the last (1914) crops were
far below what they should be in both ant-invaded and ant-free
orange groves for trees of their age, being in each case less than
1 packed box per tree. In Cameron Parish the large sweet seedling
orange trees, in Avhich the Argentine ant does not occur, helped to
raise the production average for the groves free from ants, as these
trees produce from 5 to 15 boxes each.

Thus it is seen that there is practically no difference between those
groves in Louisiana where the ants are present and those where they
are not, either in the condition of the trees or in the amount of fruit
produced. It is undoubtedly true, however, that where the scale,
white-fly, and rust-mite infestations are heavy and no attempt is
made to control them the crop will be reduced considerably. The
effect of these insects also will be unusually pronounced on trees that
are weakened by too close planting, poor drainage, and cultural
neglect. The ants appear to have no effect on the rust mite.

That groves completely overrun with the ants and in a badly run-
down condition from neglect can be revived and brought back to
their normal bearing condition without treating the ants or keeping
them from the trees has been demonstrated. The principal features
of this work will be related here briefly.

1 The data on conditions affecting the culture of orange trees in Louisiana were obtained
partly by means of questions submitted to the orange growers, partly by personal insppp-
tion of the groves, and are complete on about 96 per cent of the groves of the State.
Those groves with a large percentage of trees fairly large for their age, symmetrical,
with moderately dense foliage, of good color, and bearing an average-sized crop according
to local standards, were classed as " good." Those showing a large percentage of under-
sized trees, with thin foliage, many dead and dying bi-anches, poor color, lack of growth,
and poor crop were classed as " poor."

Bui. 647, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate I.

Protective "Sheds" of the Argentine Ant.
Surface shelter of soil particles constructed by the Argentine ant about a poison jar. (Original.)

Bui. 647, U. S. Dept. of Agricjrture.

Plate II.

Sl_'

Louisiana Budded Orange Tree.

Peculiarity of growth of the Citrus trifolirifa stock, and a comparatively very slight iucrustatiou of

lichens. (Original.)

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 57

DEMONSTRATION IN IMPROVEMENT OF ANT-INVADED GROVES

IN LOUISIANA.

If preventing the Argentine ant from getting into the orange trees
would effect the practical commercial control of the chief armored
scales and the white fly in Louisiana, as it does that of the citrus
mealj'bugs in Los Angeles County, Cal., the problem of controlling
these insects would be simply one of getting rid of the ants. The
natural enemies of the principal pests of Louisiana, however, are
unable, even in the absence of ants, to prevent severe infestation.
On the other hand, if thorough measures of control were practiced
against these insects, there should be no reason to worry about the
ants. If the citrus niealj^bugs in California orange groves were as
thoroughly controlled by the regular fumigations as are the armored
and black scales, the ants could do only a negligible amount of harm
through these insects.

DESCRIPTION OF DEMONSTRATION ORCHARD.

The orchard reclamation work about to be described was conducted
on a grove at Ollie, La., practically abandoned, except for the har-
vesting of the crop. The grove consisted of about 1,055 sweet, naval,
mandarin, tangerine, and Jaffa trees, a block of 603 of which were
treated, the remaining 452 being left as checks. All the trees were
\ery thinly foliaged, with small tops, and many of them with mul-
tiple trunks. Many of the leaves were yellow and a moderate num-
ber of branches were dead. The trees were poorly shaped, and
branches were much tangled as a result of bad pruning. Many
of the trees were suffering badly with gummosis,^ some being almost
Ciompletel}' gifdled about the base of the trunk and larger roots by
this disease. (See PI. III.)

The ant infestation was as heavy as has ever been seen in any orchard.
All the trees were very badly infested with chaff, purple, and long
scales, the first named being exceptionally numerous. Almost all the
fruit had been very badly discolored by the rust mite every year, and,
in some years, infestations of the citrus white ifly were also severe.

The largest crop ever produced by the full orchard of 1,055 trees
was 1,400 boxes, occurring in the year 1911. The crop of the 1914
season had been only 400 boxes; or, in other words, the orchard had
suffered a crop reduction of 71.4 per cent in three years,

TREATMENT OF THE ORCHARD.

The demonstration work of improving this grove was started in
February, 1915, and continued until interrupted by the hurricane of

* Also called " sore shin " disease.

58 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

September 29, 1915. The treatment consisted solely of spraying,
cultivation, and tree surgery.

Spraying was conducted against the chaff and purple scales, citrus
white fly, and rust mite, and for the destruction of the lichens and
moss which covered the trees (see PL II). The trees were sprayed
only three times, the first application, for scales and the white fly,
being started February 12 ; the second, for lichens and moss. May 12 ;
and the third, almost exclusively for scales and rust mite on the fruit,
on July 2G. Two different brands of paraffin-base lubricating oil
made into emulsions containing 1 per cent of the oil and 0.5 per cent
of soap were used in the insecticidal work. A commercial lime-
sulphur preparation was used in the fungicidal work.

The tree surgery consisted of pruning to improve the shape of the
trees, the removal of wood diseased with gummosis, and the cutting
back of Jaffa trees preparatory to rebudding. In some cases where
the trees branched from the ground into several trunks, those trunks
with poor tops which gave no promise of improvement were removed
entire. The pruning of smaller branches was very light and con-
sisted in the removal of all dead ones and thinning out of those
entangled. All wood infected with gummosis was gouged out
with a chisel and mallet and the wounds painted with a mixture of
1 part of creosote to 2 parts of coal tar. This work was all con-
ducted in the spring, from March to June.

The demonstration plat was clean cultivated throughout the
season by plowing and cross-plowing, followed by disking both
ways of the orchard, four cultivations, March 8, May 12, June 21,
and August 26, respectively, being necessary. Close to the trees,
where the plow could not reach, the weeds were kept down by hoeing.
As the orchard had never before been cross-plowed,' a good many
fairly large roots were broken in this work, but the trees did not
suffer any apparent ill effect from this rough treatment. The drain-
age ditches surrounding the plat were all deepened about a foot and
the weeds choking them removed.

RESULTS OF ORCHARD TREATMENT.

Within three weeks after the application of the lime-sulphur
solution most of the lichens with which the trunks and larger
branches were coated had fallen off completely, a solution of 30°
Baume, at 1 volume to 50 volumes of water, accomplishing this result.

Owing to the thinness of the trees and scarcity of food in propor-
tion to the number of scales in this orchard, an exceptionally large
number of these insects settled on the fruit. A count of the chaff
and purple scales on 100 fruits from each of the two blocks on June
23 gave 112 on the sprayed fruits and 3,365 on the unsprayed, rep-

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 59

resenting a reduction of 96.7 per cent by sprajnng. By May 27 the
leaves of the unsprayed trees had become quite badly infested with
white flies. A count of those on 100 leaves picked at random from
these trees gave 26,200 larvae and pupse, while on an equal number
from the sprayed trees there were only 73, a reduction, therefore, of
99.7 per cent.

The rust mite began to appear on the fruit in June, and by the
23d of that month there were 50 to 60 mites per fruit on unsprayed
trees, while on the sprayed they could only be found on the row of
trees adjoining the unsprayed block and then only to the number
of 10 per fruit.

On August 5, after the second insecticidal application, examination
of 100 fruits on the sprayed trees gave 987 scales, or an average of
about 9 per fruit, and 89 rust mites, the latter being so scarce that
they were difficult to find. The unsprayed fruits were so badly in-
fested that scales could be counted in the time available on only 10
fruits, on which there were 6,982, and the rust mites were quite too
numerous to count. Fully 75 per cent of the unsprayed fruit had
by that date become discolored by the rust mites.

By September the trees in the experimental block had responded
lieautifully to the treatment, and many persons commented on their
improved appearance.

About ten times as much new growth occurred on these trees as
on the untreated trees. The fruit was larger, and a very large per-
centage of it entirely clean. The storm of September 28-29, however,
blew down and broke many of the trees and knocked approximately
87.2 per cent of the fruit to the ground, preventing bringing the
work to a completely satisfactory conclusion.

It was possible, however, to count most of the fruit on the ground
and that on the trees and examine it for insect injuries. There were
practically tAvice as many fruits per producing tree left on the treated
as on the untreated trees. Owing to the morass of weeds in the
untreated block and to much of the fruit having been removed and
sold by the owner, it was impracticable to count the fallen fruit in
that block. In the treated block all the fruit which was not washed
out of the orchard was counted and examined for insect injury.
There were on the ground and on the trees 69,672 sweet oranges,
tangerines, and mandarins, which, averaging about 200 to the box,
made approximately 348 packed boxes of fruit. It was estimated
that nearly one-fourth of the fruit w^as not recovered. The pro-
duction was, therefore, about 435 boxes, or more than as much fruit
as the entire orchard had produced the previous year, as a result of
only one season's treatment.

60 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The cost of the full treatment for the season was about 33 cents per
tree. It is scarcely necessary to say that complete destruction of the
ants would not bring about these results, nor did the ants in any
degree prevent their attainment.

EXPERIMENTS IN CONTROLLING THE ARGENTINE ANT.

POISONING TESTS.

In the poisoning work conducted against the Argentine ant in
Louisiana the following 16 poisons were tested: Strychnine sul-
phate, potassium cyanid, oxalic acid, arsenic trioxid, lead arsenate,
Paris green, tartar emetic, oxid of antimonj', mercuric chlorid, mer-
curous chlorid, copper sulphate, sulphate of iron, chrome alum,
sodium arsenite, chloral hydrate, powdered extract of belladonna.
As 14 of them were given a thorough trial at three different strengths
in the field, and 20 further tests were made on imprisoned colonies,
there were 62 experiments in all.

Methods of Conducting Poisoning Tests.

The receptacle used for the poisoned sirup was a deep-shouldered
fruit jar of the type illustrated in Plate IV, with a tin lid with rub-
ber band attached. A single entrance hole for the ants was punched
in the center of the lid. To aid the ants in reaching the sirup, a
piece of sponge was put into each jar. Scrap or waste sponges en-
tirely suitable for this use may be purchased at wholesale drug
stores for about 25 cents per pound.

Upon beginning to forage at the poison, the ants would be traced
to their nest and the location and size of the colony recorded, after
which it would be watched and the effect of the poison noted. A
definite amount of sirup, usually 4 or 8 ounces, was placed in each
jar, every time, and the amounts taken by the ants thus learned.

In poisoning tests on imprisoned ants each colony Avas confined
to a low table supporting a three-celled Janet type plaster of Paris
formicary, furnished with vent holes covered with bronze gauze. The
ants were allowed to roam at will on top of the formicary and the
4-inch margin between the sides of the formicary and the edge of the
table. (See PI. IV.) To prevent ants from leaving the tables, the
latter were placed in shallow galvanized-iron pans about 8 inches
wider and longer than the table tops, containing a lubricating oil
costing from 15 to 25 cents per gallon. The advantages of this oil
were the extreme slowness with which it evaporates, its lack of an
odor which might disturb the ants, and its nondrying property.
Fresh sirup, cockroaches or other meat, and water were always at

3ul 647, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate III

Bui. 647, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate IV,

Interior of Formicariu:-!.

Type of formicary used in pait poisonins; exiieriment.s, and meiliodof preventing the escape
of ants by resting tables in shallow pans of lubricat ing oil. (Original.)

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 61

hand on the table, in addition to the poison, in order to approximate
field conditions as nearly as possible. With this apparatus and
method of feeding, ant colonies have been kept in a state of health
for nearly two years. In some cases, where the ants are confined for
prolonged periods without flesh food, they feed upon their own eggs
and young.

Summary of Results of Poisoning Tests.

In conducting tests on nonimprisoned ants, difficulty was experi-
enced in determining the effect of the poison upon the ant colony.
Desertion of the nest may mean that the ants have been destroyed,
that the poison has merely impelled them to move, that they have
moved from need of better quarters, or that they have discovered
more abundant and suitable food elsewhere. The colony may move
slowly from the immediate neighborhood of the poison, but its scouts
continue to hang about the latter indefinitely. It may remain where
it is and follow the original trail near the poison witliout visiting it.
Slow migration may occur, giving the impression that the colony
is being destroyed, when such is not the case. From 26 to 298 days
were required to bring out the results. If the poison dosage is too
strong, the ants will leave it before much harm befalls them; if so
weak as to assure continuous feeding, its action is extremely slow.
The amounts of poisoned sirup consumed by the ants in field tests
varied from as low as O.O-t ounce per day over a period of 189 days
to as high as 1.2 ounces per day for 296 days. Dead worker ants
were found in or near the poison jars only in the case of three of the
poisons, viz, strychnine, potassium cyanid, and arsenic. Large
numbers of dead ants occurred often only at the jars containing
potassium cyanid.

The poisons selected for a final testing upon imprisoned colonies
were strychnine, potassium cyanid, arsenic trioxid, lead arsenate,
mercuric and mercurous chlorid, tartar emetic, sodium arsenite,
chloral hydrate, and belladonna. The first symptoms of poisoning
shown by the imprisoned colonies are a strong desire on the part of
the workers for water and assiduous cleansing of the body, par-
ticularly the jaws. An ant will commonly regurgitate a dose of
poison, and a sister worker will cleanse her distended jaws with
great thoroughness, repeatedly going over them with the mandibles
and tongue. The next effect upon the colony is generally the death
of some of the j^oung. followed by a slackening, and finally a cessa-
tion of oviposition. The young then die rapidly, followed by work-
ers, until all of both phases are dead. The queens then begin to do
their own foraging, and finally succumb to the poison, at times not
until several days after the demise of the last worker.

62 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

The poisons which came through both tests with the best record
were :

(1) Chloral hydrate, 3 gm., to sirup, 120 gm.

(2) Sodium arsenite, 0.143 to 0.287 gm., to sirup, 120 gm.

(3) Arsenic trioxid, 0.125 to 0.250 gm., to sirup, 120 gm.

(4) Lead arsenate, 1.0 gm., to sirup, 120 gm.

(5) Tartar emetic, 0.525 gm., to sirup 120 gm.

By far the most rapid and successful of all was the chloral hydrate
mixture.

Poisoning Ants in the Orange Groves.

Two exjDeriments were conducted in an attempt to destroy the ants
in orange groves by means of poisoning. One of these, in which the
trees were not banded and weeds were allowed to flourish during
the experiment, failed to have any appreciable effect upon the ants.

In the otlier one a plat of 237 orange trees was first completely
isolated from the rest of the orchard by means of barrier ditches.
All weeds and trash were then removed from the plat, and the trees
all banded with an adhesive mixture, thus limiting the food supply
for ants within the plat to the poison and a comparatively few rotting
oranges, dead insects, and fiddler crabs. The ground in the plat was
almost covered with a mass of ants, there being 250 " very large,"
" large," and " small " colonies, or more than one for every tree.
The ants took the poison intermittently, attendance being abundant
at certain jars at one time, at others the next, and attendance at the
poison was no doubt greater than it would otherwise have been be-
cause of the scarcity of food.

The result of the poisoning and tree banding together was to re-
duce the ants after about four months to 2 " large " and 17 " very
small " colonies. On ordinary inspection and comparison Avith the
adjoining plat one would say that there were no ants left in the
treated plat. The poison, in itself, was not a marked success, how-
ever, as cutting off the food supply had caused fully 75 per cent of
the ants to migrate, as shown by the speed with which the first large
disappearance of ants took place, and the frequent occurrence of
thousands of dead ants on the water in the ditches.

USE OF TREE-BANDING MIXTURES.

It seems doubtful whether adhesive and other repellent mixtures to
be applied to the trunks of the trees will ever be used extensively as
ant barriers in Louisiana orange groves. Such barriers do not reduce
the ant population and can not be considered as a positive means of
control. When used on a large scale bands of this sort need more or
less frequent inspection and renewal or respreading, and the cost of

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 63

maintenance would not be justified under present conditions by the
increased crop returns.

In Los Angeles County, Cal., it appears that the citrus mealybug
could be completely controlled in many cases merely by excluding the
ants from the trees. Should that condition remain indefiniteh% band-
ing the trees would probably be as cheap a method of checking the
mealybug as any other. At all events tree-banding mixtures will
always have a use in protecting yard and ornamental trees, beehives,
etc., from the ants. They may be used also to advantage in some cases
in connection with poisoning and trapping the ants.

In an endeavor to discover an ant barrier of this nature which
would be impervious to changes in the weather, and which would only
require infrequent renewal or respreading, more than 20 mixtures
were tested upon orange, fig. and other trees. Lack of space prevents
including detailed results of the individual experiments, and only
the general conclusions already published elsewhere ^ will be stated.

Adhesive Mixtures.

The most effective material of the adhesive type tested was made
after the following formula :

Flowers of sulphur, part by weight 1

Commercial tree adhesive, parts by weight 6

All the lumps in the sulphur should be broken and the two in-
gredients thoroughly stirred together with a wooden paddle. The
sulphur not only greatly prolongs the softness of the material, but
appears to have a sufficiently repellent effect upon the ants to prevent
them from bridging the bands with bits of trash or their own bodies.
This mixture will remain effective in rainy, foggy, or exceptionally dry
weather for from 3 to 5 months. If directly exposed for long periods
to the sun, however, the surface becomes hard enough for ants to
pass, and the bands should, therefore, be applied where the shade of
the tree will protect them. This mixture must not be applied di-
rectly to the bark of trees, as it will be to some extent absorbed and
may in time cause injury. It should be applied to tire tape or other
waterproof material wiiich has first been wrapped about the trunk.

Repellent Mercuric Shellac.

It is well known that corrosive sublimate has a strongly repellent
effect upon the ants, and is the active ingredient in most, if not all,
of the "ant tapes" found on the market, as well as of those watery
solutions to be applied to household furniture with a paint brush.

1 Horton, J. R. Some weather-proof bands for use against ants. In Mo. Bui. Cal. St.
Comm. Hort., v. 5, p. 419-421. 1916.

27139°— 18— Bull. 647 5

64 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUKE.

It seemed desirable to give this chemical a thorough trial in the
field, but it was necessary to devise a means of protecting the mer-
curic salt from rain. The ant tapes and liquids on the market were
useless for outdoor work, because their value was quickly destroyed
by moisture.

In original experiments performed by the writer it was found
that the corrosive sublimate could be made impervious to water by
dissolving this salt in an alcoholic solution of shellac. A consider-
able experimentation, in which both methyl and ethyl alcohol and
various strengths of the mercury were used, resulted in the following
formula, which was most satisfactory :

Corrosive sublimate gm 20

Ethyl alcoiiol c. c__ 60

Shellac gm__ 31

The corrosive sublimate is first dissolved in the alcohol, then the
shellac added, and the mixture shaken until all is dissolved.

In the few tests made with this mixture in the field it proved
effective against the ants for about two months under the most
trying conditions. It is less effective, however, than the adhesive
mixture previously described, and too expensive for use on a large
scale. It must never be applied directly to trees, as it will quickly
kill the bark clear through and ultimately destroy the tree. It may
Ije used by first applying thickly to strips of cloth, or soaking the
latter in the solution, and then allowing them to dry out thoroughly.
This method is, however, too tedious and expensive for practical use.

Shellac solution of corrosive sublimate, made after the foregoing
formula and painted in bands from 6 to 8 inches wide on the legs of
tables, refrigerators, etc., where food is kept, ordinarily will keep
che ants away for a year or more. The banding material will not
long retain its strength when applied to metal surfaces, such as
stove legs and galvanized-iron garbage pails.

There is considerable danger attendant upon the careless use of
corrosive sublimate, but if the precaution is taken not to get it into
a cut or abrasion, or into the mouth or eyes while mixing, there is
nothing to fear from it. It is much safer to handle in the form of a
shellac solution than in that of an ant tape, being applied with a
paint brush and not requiring any direct handling whatever. Once
the " paint " has become dry there is no chance for the corrosive
sublimate to shake loose and get into food. In making ant tape,
on the contrary, there is danger of splashing the solution into the
face or of getting it into a slight cut on the hands in soaking and
drying the cloth strips, and when these are applied the loose poison
in the fibers of the cloth is a constant source of danger to young
children and domestic pets.

Bui. 647, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate V.

Trapping the Argentine Ant.

Ant trap nest and fumigating cover used in destroying the Argentine ant in the orange groves of

Louisiana. (Original.)

Bui. 647, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate VI

Trapping the Argentine Ant.

Mass of dead ants killed in one of the traps nests at Happy Jack, La. About one-third
natural size. (Original.)

THE AEGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 65

EFFECT OF CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE.

A poisonous emanation appears to be given off by the mercuric
shellac band which is very injurious to the ants, as one example of
the behavior of ants which have crossed it will illustrate. An ant
attempting to cross one of these bands suddenly stopped when part
way across and began to stroke the antennae with the first pair of
legs. It remained on the band about 1^ minutes, turning slowly
about, stroking the antennae, and drawing the legs between the
mandibles. It then slowly retraced its steps off the band and moved
aimlessly about for a time, often getting in the way of other ants.
Soon one of these stopped and took hold of one of its antennae.
This made it active long enough to disengage itself, when it again
became sluggish and wandered aimlessly. This continued as long
as it was watched — about 10 minutes. Other ants, some of which
were themselves sick, were trying to drag their dizzy fellows to a
shelter. Most of the sick ants finally became very sluggish and many
of them fell from the tree.

TRAPPING THE ARGENTINE ANT IN LOUISIANA.

By far the best and the only practical means of destroying the
Argentine ant in the orange groves of Louisiana is by trapping.
The discovery that the ants would collect in large numbers in boxes
of decaying vegetation in winter was first made by Messrs. Newell
and Barber, who described a method of destroying them based on
this fact.^ The method of trapping about to be described differs
in several important respects, however, from that recommended by
these gentlemen. It is based mainly upon the fact that a very slight
rain at any season of the year will cause the ant colonies to come out
of the ground, where most of them nest, and seek dry, sheltered
places.

Effect of Rains Upon the Ants.

The favorite rainy-weather nesting places of the ants are under
loose boards, piles of lumber, boxes, logs, sacks, and pieces of cloth,
piles of bricks, piles of dead weeds, under and in the sides of build-
ings, etc. They also preferably seek high ground, and, other condi-
tions being equal, the largest colonies will be found on the ditch
banks and the high ground at the base of the trees. Just as foraging
workers often complete a partial natural shelter found upon a tree
or elsewhere by making walls of bits of trash, the ants often build
elaborate structures of soil particles and trash under the loose boards
and other shelters found on or near the ground.

The idea of using the traps about to be described was first sug-
gested by the behavior of the ant colonies in an orange orchard in

»0p. clt., p. 95-96.

66 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE.

which a poisoning experiment was being conducted. As the jars
used would be partly filled with water every time it rained, a shelter
was made for each of them out of two ends of an orange box nailed
together in the shape of a gable. Soon after these covers had been
laid, every one was found to harbor an ant colony which crowded it
to its fullest capacity. Protection from the rain alone not satisfying
the ants, they shut out the light and drafts by completely filling in
the space between the jar and the top and ends of the cover with
particles of soil. Each nest was no doubt ideal from the ants' point
of view. Each was honeycombed with galleries of all shapes and
sizes, ramifying in every direction. Any desired degree of moisture
could probably be had in these galleries, those nearest the top being
driest, and those directly on the surface of the ground most humid.
The occupants would only need to move to underground quarters
should prolonged dry weather occur. Each of these " ant castles,"
as they might be called, was perfectly protected from rain by a good
pine roof. On removing the roof and looking into the galleries,
thousands of eggs, young, and queens were revealed. Many solid
masses of young and eggs as large as a hen's egg could be collected
in these shelters. It was very evident that the ants could be much
more rapidly destroyed when gathered together in this manner than
by the tedious and unsatisfactory method of feeding them poison.

Protection from rain and drafts, good drainage, and darkness be-
ing the principal nesting requisites of the ants, it appeared that these
requirements could best be met by a box with a roof. It was also
found that ants could be induced to mass more thoroughly in numer-
ous comparatively small colonies than in a few extremely large ones.
A small covered box-trap was, therefore, given a trial, 15 of them
being used in the first test. This was so satisfactory that it was fol-
lowed by a large-scale experiment in which over 400 traps were used.

Description of Ant Traps and Fumigating Covers.

The first traps (see PI. V) were made of |-inch cypress; but sap
pine proved to be just as good and was cheaper. Each trap con-
sisted of the following 9 pieces : Two sides, 12 by 12 inches ; 2 sides,
10 by 12 inches; 1 bottom, 10 by 10 inches; 2 top pieces, 8 by 12
inches, and 2 pieces of triangular molding 12 inches long. First the
smaller sides and bottom are fastened together with rosined nails
or screws to prevent warping, then the larger sides added. The top
pieces are fastened together in the form of a gable, with a tight
joint, this roof being set loosely on top of the box. The pieces of
molding are nailed across the inner side of the roof where it touches
the top of the trap to hold it in place.

Covers to keep the gas in while fumigating are made of 28-gauge
galvanized iron, each consisting of one piece 38 inches by 13^ inches,

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 67

bent into two right angles, forming two sides and the top, and two
pieces 13^ by 13^ inches, forming the other two sides. The edges of
the latter two pieces are folded inwardly over those of the first piece
and hammered tightly together. Covers with soldered, instead of
hammered, seams are preferable, however, unless the latter are very
well made. The completed cover should measure 12| by 12^ by 12^
inches inside, leaving a margin of ^ inch to turn down all around
the outside to reinforce the open edge.

Results of Ant-Tbapping Experiment.

The experiment, the results of which are about to be briefly stated,
was conducted in a block of approximately 19 acres ^ of bearing
orange trees completely overrun with ants, located at Happy Jack,
La. The traps, numbering 415 in all, or about 22 per acre, were set
April 21-22, 1914. A trap was placed on a slight elevation at the
outer edge of the spread of every second tree each way, or one trap
to each four trees. Tests of various kinds of filler had shown pre-
viously that the best for summer was dry grass and weeds ; for winter,
equal parts of decaying manure and dry grass and weeds. From the
time of setting the traps until the first rain, about 56 days, the ants
were nesting almost wholly at from 8 inches to 1^ feet in the ground.
Even after such a period of prolonged drought, however, a rain of
about 0.2 inch, occurring June 18, 1914, was sufficient to drive them
into the traps in large numbers.

Tests of different strengths of carbon disulphid and strong am-
monia water as fumigants proved that 12 ounces per trap of the
ammonia was satisfactory. The carbon disulphid, however, proved
satisfactory at as little as 2 fluid ounces per trap, allowing the traps
to fumigate for 1 hour.

The first fumigation was started June 23, at which time it was nec-
essary to fumigate 334 of the traps, only those which contained large
and complete colonies being disturbed. The second, third, and
fourth fumigations were started July 21, August 26, and September
28, respectively, completing the summer's killing. A solid mass of
ants, in all stages, nearly as large as a man's hat, was killed in each
trap each time. The workers and even the queens were so numerous
that it was entirely out of the question to separate and count them in
any large number of the traps (see PI. VI). The queens, however,
were counted each time in one or two traps with an average killing,
and in this way it was estimated that 1,161,323 queens were killed in
these first four or summer fumigations, 600,000 in the first two,
295,895 in the third, and 265,428 in the fourth. All of the traps were

* All references to the acre are to the " square acre," not the " acre front."

68

BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

full and fumigated the second and third times, and 404 of them the
fourth time. The next five fumigations were started November 12,
and December 4, 1914, and January 7, February 25, and June 7, 1915,
the number of traps fumigated being 409, 403, 405, 305, and 21 at
each respective fumigation. The number of queens killed in the last
five fumigations was 34,765, 32,240, 55,080, 19,215, and 4,599, re-
spectively.

Before undertaking the work, an agreement had been made be-
tween the officers of the Bureau of Entomology and the orange grove
company by which that company was, among other things, to main-
tain open barrier ditches^ around the treated block, and keep that
block of the orchard in a state of clean cultivation at its own expense
throughout the course of the experiment. Succeeding events, how-
ever, prevented the company, through no fault of its officers, from
carrying out its part of the agreement. The result was that the
ditches were not maintained, and weeds and trash remained in the
orchard at all times; hence, many ants migrated into the block,
often being traced directly to the traps, and other nesting places be-
sides the traps were numerous. The persistent habit of the queen
ants of forming small offshoot colonies along the worker's trails is
at once the principal means of spread and a great safeguard to the
species. In the interval from the second to fifth fumigations, from
41 to 46 trails of ants were found migrating into the orchards from
the direction of the levee alone, at every examination. Many ants
from outside the orchard were, therefore, killed in the traps, and the
duration of the work w^as unnecessarily prolonged thereby. The
record of ants killed at the various fumigations is given in Table
VIII.

Table VIII. — Results of ant-trapping experiment in an orange grove.

Louisiana, 1914-15.

Fumiga-
tion
No.

Date of
beginning.

Number
of traps
necessary
to fumi-
gate.

Estimated

number of

queen ants

killed.

Fumiga-
tion
No.

Date of
beginning.

Number
of traps
necessary
to fumi-
gate.

Estimated

number of

queen ants

killed

1

June 23,1914
Julv 21,1914
Aug. 26,1914
Sept. 2S, 1914
Nov. 12,1914
Dec. 4,1914

334
415
415
404
409
403

1 600,000

295, 895
265, 428
34,765
32, 240

7

Jan. 7, 1915
Feb. 25,1915
June 7,1915

405

305

21

55, 080

2

8

19,215

3

9

4,599

Total .

5

1,307 222

6

1 It should be noted that a ditch of this sort already occurred along each side of the
orchard from front to back, being constantly necessary to drain off the surface water.
It was only necessary to clean the weeds out of these ditches and deepen them a little,
and excavate a short ditch across the front of the place. The ants were prevented from
coming in at the rear by the marsh.

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 69

After the eighth fumigation, February 27, 1915, there was very
decided reduction in the number of ants in the orchard, and the fore-
man of the place remarked that the ants were getting very scarce in
the block. Only straggling workers occurred in a few of the traps
from this time until the next fumigation, June 7. On March 25
examination of 30 orange trees revealed only one scout ant, and it
was reported that there were no more ants about. A ranch hand said
he had uncovered only three nests in plowing the entire block, while
in a neighboring orchard (which had been treated for ants by the
flooding method for three years or longer) he had raised so many
he could not keep track of them. On the same date the ants were
extremely numerous in the orange trees in an adjoining grove.

A further examination on April 16 showed ants to be present on
only 1 in 40 trees, and then not numerous enough to form trails.
There were no ants at the blossoms or at the numerous aphids on the
trees. Some large umbrella trees, which usually had from six to eight
large trails, were absolutely free from ants. In the house it was no
longer necessary to isolate food supplies, beds, etc., from the ants,
from which there was not the slightest further annoyance, as stated
by both the foreman and his wife. In the upper portion of the same
property, about 90 rows from the experimental block, on the con-
trary, the ants were running in heavy trails up all the trees and were
numerous in the blossoms and at aphids.

After the February fumigation another was not warranted for
about three and one-half months, or until June 7, when 21 of the
traps contained sufficiently large colonies to seem to warrant their
destruction. The killing of queens had been reduced from nearly
300,000 in each of the first three or four fumigations to less than
5,000, and, of course, all the other stages had been comparably
reduced. The experiment was a complete success, for it reduced the
ants to negligible numbers.

The following rough but not widely erroneous estimates will give
an idea of the populousness of the ants in this orchard: The total
estimated number of queens killed, as reference to Table VII will
show, was 1,307,222. The workers and young must be estimated by
volume. In the first four fumigations every trap fumigated con-
tained fully one-half gallon of ants in all stages, and in each of the
succeeding five nearly a quart. The total number of traps fumigated
in the first four operations was 1,508; therefore 784 gallons, or about
15^ barrels, of ants were destroyed. In the remaining five fumiga-
tions there were 1,543 traps: therefore about 385 gallons, or about
7^ barrels, of ants were destroyed. The bulk of the ants destroyed
in this work, therefore, would be almost great enough to fill twenty-
three 50-gallGn barrels.

70 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Method and Cost of Fumigating Ant Traps.

It is recommended that not less than 25 traps per acre of 100 trees
be used in ant trapping in the orange groves. There should also be
12 covers for each 100 traps. A trap should be placed near every
other tree each way. For example, one near each of the first, third,
and fifth trees in the first row, then similarly in the third, fifth,
and seventh rows, etc. The traps should be located just under the
outer spread of the trees, where they will not be in the way of the
cultivator or so close to the tree that the latter will be injured by
the fumigant. The distance from the trunk should be about 4 feet.
They should be placed upon slight, level elevations made by throw-
ing up and smoothing off a few shovelfuls of dirt.

The ants will be destroyed much faster if every part of the
orchard, including ditch banks and the tree hills, is kept free from
weeds, loose boards, boxes, sacks, etc. It is, of course, not recom-
mended to plow and cultivate during the winter months, but the
orchard should be kept clean during the summer. In winter the
traps should be filled with damp but not wet stable manure and dry
weeds, the manure occupying the lower half of the box. In summer
the manure, which is used principally for its heat, may be omitted.
It is important to keep the lids on the traps at all times, as they
keep out the rain, a very essential condition, darken the nest, and in
winter help to retain its warmth.

When the trap is full of ants and ready to fumigate the lid is
thrown off, 2 fluid ounces of carbon disulphid poured in, and the
cover quickly slipped on, the edges being banked with dirt to aid
in retaining the gas. One man can do the work where the number
of traps is small. Where the number of traps is larger they can be
fumigated most efficiently by a crew of three men, one of whom
measures and pours the liquid while the others remove the covers
from fumigated traps, place them over those to be fumigated, and
bank them with earth. A shovelful of soil tamped down at each
side is sufficient. The traps must be allowed to fumigate for an
hour. A crew of three men working continuously can handle 48
covers, removing them from one lot of traps and resetting them over
the next in from 50 minutes to an hour. Two ounces of carbon di-
sulphid will kill every ant in the trap and ants, worms, and sow-
bugs for 3 inches in the ground beneath. While the same trap filler
may be used indefinitely, it and the traps should be given a thorough
airing after each fumigation.

The figures here given on the cost of installing and operating the
traps are based entirely upon the foregoing experiment conducted
by the Bureau of Entomology. The cost of the traps, made of
C-grade sap pine, all parts cut to fit, knocked down, was $0.23 each,

THE AKGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 71

to which must be added an additional $0.08 for transportation and
setting up, making a net cost of $0.31 each. The covers were made
and delivered for $0.75 each. On this basis the first cost of traps
and covers per acre would be about as follows :

25 traps, at ?0.31 each $7. 75

3 covers, at $0.75 each 2. 25

Net cost of traps and covers per acre 10. 00

A crew of three have in practice fumigated 400 traps in 1^ eight-
hour days, their services, at the rate of $1.25 per day each, costing
$5.62. The carbon disulphid at that time cost $10.75 per hundred
pounds. On this basis the cost of fumigating per acre of 100 trees
per time would be about as follows :

Cost of labor fumigating 25 traps, at $0.014 $0.35

Cost of fumigant, 25 traps, at $0.013 . 325

Net cost of fumigation per acre .675

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

Most of the orange groves of southern Louisiana, with the excep-
tion of well-tended groves and seedling orchards, have been de-
clining in the last seven or eight years. As a rule, maximum pro-
ductiveness is reached at from 7 to 10 years of age, after which it
diminishes, the actual crop loss up to 1914 being approximately 37
per cent of the known possible production. The principal cause of
this decline of trees and loss of crop, which has been largely blamed
upon the Argentine ant, is cultural neglect.

The part played by the ant in causing this condition has been
exaggerated. The only direct injury done by the ant is to destroy a
negligible number of orange blossoms. The ants do not attend the
armored scales of citrus or secure honey dew from them, nor do
they disseminate the living scales. They do, however, disturb the
predatory enemies of these scales, preventing the destruction of as
large a proportion of them as would otherwise occur. Nevertheless,
the natural enemies of the armored scales do not prevent heavy in-
festation even in orchards free from ants. The ant can not prevent
the control of the armored scales in Louisiana by spraying nor will
it increase the cost of spraying. Destruction of the ants will not
control these scales, and they must be controlled if orange growing in
that State is to be made profitable.

Under present conditions the Argentine ant does not cause excep-
tionally severe infestations in the orange groves of Louisiana, even
of those soft scales to which it is most favorable. The mealybugs
have not been of importance as an orange pest in ant-invaded or-
chards during the years 1913 to 1915, partly due to the effective-

72 BULLETIN 647, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

ness of natural enemies, especially certain internal parasites, partly
to overcrowding of the trees by armored scales and white flies, and
partly because of the poor physical condition of the trees.

In Los Angeles County, Cal., where the trees are kept free from
other scales and vigorously growing, the mealybugs increase tre-
mendously as a result of ant attendance. Ordinarily they are kept
under complete control, where the ants do not occur, by their preda-
tory enemies. In orchards where fumigation has been neglected
and the trees become overcrowded with the black scale, the mealy-
bug does not benefit so much from ant attendance, and infestation is
much milder.

The fluted scale has never been found in the orange groves proper
of Louisiana, and the part played by the Argentine ant in causing
the outbreak of this scale at New Orleans in 1916 is not laiown. The
occurrence of this outbreak, closely following the 1915 hurricane,
suggests the probability that the insect was largely spread by this
means. The fluted scale is unable, under present conditions, to thrive
on the orange trees of southern California even under the heaviest
ant attendance, apparently being held in check principally by the
Australian lady-beetle {Novius cardinalis Muls.), the green lace-
wings, and the dipterous larva Crypto chaetum monophlehi Slfuse.

While the black scale occurs in New Orleans under constant at-
tendance by the Argentine ant, the ant has failed to bring it into
prominence there, and not a single infestation or even a single speci-
men has been discovered in any of the orange groves of Louisiana.
In California the black scale infestations often become very severe
after a single season during which fumigation has been neglected.
In two years' time the insect is capable of increasing from almost
none at all to such extreme numbers as to occupy every suitable
feeding spot on the trees which it infests. Attendance by the ant
for a single season does not noticeably increase the infestation of the .
black scale in California, where it reaches a maximum whether the
ant is present or not. The natural enemies of this scale are not
numerous and effective enough to control it.

"While exceptionally large numbers of the soft brown scale occur
on certain host plants or parts of such plants under ant attendance in
Louisiana, the natural enemies of this scale, especially the internal
parasites, continue to hold it to insignificant numbers in the orange
groves under present conditions. In Riverside County, Cal., this
scale appears to have increased considerably in certain ant-infested
orchards, but is generally controlled along with other scales by fumi-
gation. In Los Angeles County both the soft brown and the citri-
cola scales are scarce in ant-invaded as well as other orchards. The
soft brown scale, however, is undoubtedly more numerous on cam-

THE ARGENTINE ANT IN RELATION TO CITRUS GROVES. 73

phor and bottle trees {Sterculia diversifolia) and some other plants
in sections of Pasadena where the ants occur than in sections where
they do not.

There is reason to believe that the Argentine ant may be an active
agent in the spread of diseases through its habit of visiting various
parts of the tree, and particularly freshly made wounds, for the pur-
pose of feeding. It appears to introduce gummosis and wood-rotting
fungi in this way more rapidly than could otherwise be the case. It
may act as a conveyor of diseases of bacterial origin, such as the
citrus canker, by carr3dng the causal organisms about on its legs
and body.

The control of the Argentine ant in Louisiana by the trapping
method described in preceding pages is entirely practicable at a
moderate cost. If ants are deterred by barrier ditches from entering
the grove rapidly, five or six fumigations about a month apart should
so reduce the worst infestations that annoyance from ants will cease.
Thereafter fumigation of a few of the traps once in every three to
six months will suffice to prevent further molestation. The esti-
mated cost of reducing the ants from most extreme numbers to the
few remaining where there is effective control would be about $6.03
per acre ^ for labor and fumigant, or not to exceed $16.03, including
the first cost of traps and covers. It is believed that large sections
of territory where the annual rainfall is heavy could be effectively
and economically freed from ants by this method if all the members
of the community would cooperate in the undertaking. Although
the labor of ant destruction might be somewhat prolonged in cities
because of the numerous buildings and other suitable nesting places,
this method, it is believed, might be advantageously adapted to city
use.

Destruction of the ants in Louisiana orange groves will not effec-
tively control the armored scales, or the white flies and the rust mite,
and would not pay for itself in actual crop increase. Eegardless
of the antS' many run-down orange groves in Louisiana can be so
improved by one season's thorough spraying and cultural treat-
ment as almost to double their production. The success of certain
orchards in southern Louisiana demonstrates that oranges can be
profitably grown there if the trees are carefully selected and planted
and the best-known cultural practices and methods of insect con-
trol followed. The growing of citrus is a business which is in-
creasingly requiring thoroughgoing business methods, and this
applies in Louisiana as elsewhere.

^ The term acre as used in southern Louisiana means an acre along the river front
by 40 acres deep, and should not be confused with the present use of the term, signify-
ing 160 square rods.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-
CULTURE RELATING TO INSECTS INJURIOUS TO CITRUS AND
OTHER SUBTROPICAL FRUITS.

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Control of the Citrus Tlirips in California and Arizona. (Farmers' Bulletin

674.)
Carbon Disulphid as an Insecticide. (Farmers' Bulletin 799.)
Common Mealybug and its Control in California. (Farmers' Bulletin 862.)
Fumigation of Ornamental Greenhouse Plants with Hydrocyanic-acid Gas.

(Farmers' Bulletin 880.)
Control of the Argentine Ant in Orange Groves. (Farmers' Bulletin 928.)
Spraying for the Control of Insects and Mites Attacking Citrus Trees in

Florida. (Farmers' Bulletin 932.)
Citrus Fruit Insects in Mediterranean Countries. (Department Bulletin 134.)
The Mediterranean Fruit Fly in Bermuda. (Department Bulletin 161.)
Katydids Injurious to Oranges in California. (Department Bulletin 256.)
Argentine Ant : Distribution and Control in the United States. (Department

Bulletin 377.)
The Melon Fly in Hawaii. (Department Bulletin 491.)
Fumigation of Ornamental Greenhouse Plants with Hydrocyanic-acid Gas.

(Department Bulletin 513.)
The Citrus Thrips. (Department Bulletin 616.)
The Mediterranean Fruit Fly. (Department Bulletin 640.)
The Melon Fly. (Department Bulletin 643.)
Some Reasons for Spraying to Control Insect and Mite Enemies of Citrus Trees

in Florida. (Department Bulletin 645.)
Preparations for Winter Fumigation for Citrus White Fly. (Entomology Cir-
cular 111.)
Spraying for White Flies in Florida. (Entomology Circular 168.)

FOB SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The Mediterranean Fruit Fly in Hawaii. (Department Bulletin 536.) Price,

30 cents.
Mango Weevil. (Entomology Circular 141.) 1911. Price, 5 cents.
Fumigation for Citrus White Fly. as Adapted to Florida Conditions. (Ento-
mology Bulletin 76.) 1908. Price, 15 cents.
Fumigation Investigations in California. (Entomology Bulletin 79.) 1909.

Price, 15 cents.
Hydrocyanic-acid Gas Fumigation in California. (Entomology Bulletin 90,

3 pts.) 1913. Price, 20 cents.
Fumigation of Citrus Trees. (Entomology Bulletin 90, Pt. I.) 1913. Price,

20 cents.
Value of Sodium Cyanid for Fumigation Purposes. (Entomology Bulletin 90,

Pt. II.) 1913. Price, 5 cents.
Chemistry of Fumigation with Hydrocyanic-acid Gas. (Entomology Bulletin

90, Pt. III.) 1913. Price, 5 cents.
White Flies Injurious to Citrus in Florida. (Entomology Bulletin 92.) 1911.

Price, 25 cents.
Orange Thrips, Report of Progress. (Entomology Bulletin 99, Pt. I.) 1911.

Price, 5 cents.
Red-banded Thrips. (Entomology Bulletin 99, Pt. II.) 1912. Price, 5 cents.
Natural Control of White Flies in Florida. (Entomology Bulletin 102.) 1912.

Price, 20 cents.
74

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBUCATION MAY BE PEOCtTRED FBOH

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

16 CENTS PER COPY
V

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 648

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management
W. J. SPILLMAN, Cliief

Washington, D. C.

May 1, 1918

A FARM-MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN
BROOKS COUNTY, GEORGIA

By

E. S. HASKELL, Assistant Agriculturist

CONTENTS

Page
Description of Area Surveyed .... 1
Method and Scope of Investigation . . .'i

Type of Farming 7

Tenure and Landlord's Profits .... 13
Labor Systems 14

Page

Size of Business iti

Quality of Farm Business 2U

Organization 30

Cost of Production 41

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

.S"LAf''^\j't.

Washington, D. C.

BULLETIN No. 648

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management.

W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief.

May 1, 1918

A FARM-MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS
COUNTY, GEORGIA.

By E. S. Haskell, A-sfiista)it Agriculturist.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Description of area surveyed 1

Method and scope of investigation 5

Type of farming "

Tenure and landlord's profits 13

Labor systems 14

Size of business 18

Quality of farm business 20

Organization '. 30

Cost of production O-

DESCRIPTION OF AREA SURVEYED.

Brooks County is located in the southern part of the coastal plain,
just west of the center of the southern tier of counties in Georgia,
about 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. The area covered by this
survey is in the southern half of the county, bordering on the Florida
State line. The location is shown by the shaded portion of the map,
figure 1.'

This area was selected for study because here has been developed
a diversified and profitable type of agriculture, with cotton retained
as the chief single source of income. For years these farmers have
developed the sAvine industry and the production on the farm of the
products consumed in the home to a point that has been equaled in
but few places in t'he South. It is believed that the type of farming
found here embodies features that might with profit be adopted in
many parts of the cotton belt. This is particularly true now that
the recent rapid advance of the cotton-boll weevil into this section
has forced many farmers to face the necessity of reorganizing their
farms upon a basis involving less dependence than. hitherto upon the

1 For assistance in collecting the data upon which this study is based, acknowledgment
is due to Messrs. M. A. Crosby, C. E. Hope, A. G. Smith, and F. D. Stevens, of the staff
of the Office of Farm Management ; to J. M. Purdom, Jr., temporarily employed by the
Office of Farm Management ; and to Messrs. S. H. Starr and E. C. Westbrook, of the
faculty of the Georgia State College of Agriculture. Special acknowledgment is due
Prof. Starr, who also assisted in tabulating the data.
27202°— 18— Bull. 648 1

BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGKICULTUEE.

single crop, cotton. At the time this survey was made (1914) the
boll weevil had not invaded Georgia, but since then the entire south-
ern part of the State has become infested. Of this, more will be said
in another place.

The topography of the southern half of Brooks County is gentl}'
rolling to flat. Most of it has sufficient slope to provide good natural

Tig. 1.-

-Map of Georgia, showing, in black, location of area surveyed,
indicates Coastal Plain section.

Shaded area

drainage, though considerable areas, particularly near the streams,
are rendered swampy and of little value because of insufficient

drainage.

The soil of this area is distinctly sandy, being mainly of the Nor-
folk sandy loam and closely related types. It is a gray sand, under-
laid at a depth of from 10 to 40 inches or more by a yellow subsoil of
a heavier texture. The soil is quite uniform over the area covered by
this survey and is fairly representative of the soils over a consider-

A FARM MAl^AGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA.

able part of the coastal plain of this and the adjoining States.
Farther north in the county the soils become gradually heavier, grad-
ing into the Euston and Tifton series, but this survey has been con-
fined to farms on the lighter soils found in the southern half of the
county.

The climate of Brooks County is warm and equable. The winters
are mild, and the summers, though long and warm, are tempered by
Gulf breezes. Snow falls rarely, and temperatures lower than 30°
F. seldom occur, though thin ice frequently forms during the winter
months. Killing frosts may occur any time between November 15
and March 1. The annual precipitation amounts to 52 inches; the
heaviest rainfall occurs during the months of J\me, July, and Au-
gvist. In figure 2 the
average precipitation
and that for the year
1914 are shown by
months.

Quitman, the county
seat, with a popula-
tion of about 4,000, is
just south of the cen-
ter of the county and
in the northern part
of the area included
in fill's survey. The
Atlantic Coast Line
Kailroad crosses the
county from east to
west and the South
Georgia Railroad
from north to south,
both passing through Quitman. These two railroads provide most
of the area with good transportation facilities to outside markets,
though some parts of the area, notably in the southwestern part of
the county, are 8 to 10 miles or more from shipping points. The
public roads of the county are of sandy clay, and the principal roads
are being rapidh^^ improved.

For years Brooks County has grown nearly all the live-stock
feedstufFs consumed, together with a surplus to be sold in other
markets. As a result, the local prices for such feeds are appreciably
lower than those that prevail in the near-b}^ counties which continue
to purchase a part of their feeds from outside sources. Thus, in
this county, the 1914 prices of corn and oats averaged about 75 cents
and 50 cents per bushel, respectively, as compared with $1 and 75
cents throughout the greater part of the State.

II

10
9

12 8

r
0
Z 7

z

I ^

o

1-

0. 4

O

C 3

a.

Z
0

1

1 \
1 '

•

1 J

1 '

M

1 \
1 1

1

^

1

/

/

1
1

\

1

t
t

/ /
/ /
/ /

\

1
1

/^

1

/

V

\

//

y

1

J/

\

\

/

1

1

/

/
/

V

>y

v

JAN.

FEB

MAR.

APR.

MAY J UN.

JUL.

AUG. SE.R

OCT

NOV.

OE.C.

914.

1

Fig. 2. — Precipitation by mouths at Quitman, Ga.

4 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Brooks Count.y has long been noted for the amount and quality
of pork produced, much of which has brought a substantial premium
in the larger markets of this and adjoining States. Until recently,
practically all the pork was killed and cured on the farms; but a
packing plant is now in operation in an adjoining county, thus
providing a ready market for live stock on the hoof.

Brooks County was organized in 1858. The pioneer settlers came
to this section largely from the older parts of the State early in the
last century, but it was not until the first railroad, the present
Atlantic Coast Line, was built, just prior to 1860, that settlement
was given an impetus. The older settlers came largely from northern
Georgia, the Carolipas, and Virginia.

The direction and rate of the development of the agriculture of
the county are shown by the census data presented in Table 1. In
1800, 15.3 per cent of the land area was classed as improved farm
land, a percentage that increased through each succeeding decade to
36.9 per cent at the time of the last census. A large part of the county
is still covered by longleaf pine and other timber.

Tabt.e I. — Census (lata, Brooks County, Ga.

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

300

394

930

1,176

1,823

2,646

81.1
18.8

65.8
28.0

83.9
27.4

74.6
33.7

87.6
37.4

85.8

43.0

Per cent of land area in improved farm land .

15.3

18.4

23.2

25.2

32.7

36.9

890
1G8

550
1.52

297
82

209
70

158
59

106.6

Improved acres per farm

45.9

$1.05
4,954.00

$t.l2
3,097.00

$3. 79
1,465.00

$t. 76
1,296.00

S4.65
1,219.00

$14.60

2,377.00

Per cent of farms operated by owTiers and

66.2
14.4

19.4

62 9.
15.7

21.4

50.3
35.9

13.8

41.5

26.6

Per cent of farms operated hy share ten-
ants o

31.9

657

856

14,797

3,113

491

777

8,196

4,921

823

958

13,032

4, .596

956

1,225

11,319

1,946

1,192

1,776

11,170

961

1,205

2,875

14,178

610

18, 629
62.1

37.0

11,087
28.3

18.3

17,243
18.5

22.6

22,766
19.4

27.5

29,885
16.4

27.8

47,210

17.8

NumTier of swine per 100 acres improved

38.9

21, 255

6,288

23,027

173, .530

14,087

163, 862

161

879

22, 161

9,194

26,157

270, 978

13,225

122, 775

HI

565

6,884

91,685

16,096

7,151

38, 428

384, 220

11, 299

104,530

116

500

10,307

196, 724

34,065

Cotton jbaiesv:::

4,406

3,466

13, 977
40, 121

Corn jbusheis::

223,353

171,190

546,760
9,512

O^^s \busheis..

6,911

4.5, 716

143,120
279

^^y^ \bushels..

1,914

1,738

1,900
14,775

Peanuts jbusheis"

365,395

^ 1 1

o It should be borne in mind that in the census returns croppers are treated as farm operators, though in
reality they are wage hands receiving their wage in the form of a share of the crop. The numbers of actual
farms are, therefore, considerably smaller than given in the table, and the average sizes of farms are cor-
respondingly larger. Most of the farmers classed as "share tenants " are in reality croppers. There are
but few share tenants, properly speaking, in Brooks County.

A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 5

From the first, cotton and corn have been the crops of greatest
importance. By 1900 the cotton acreage had declined, relatively, as
compared with other crops, following a number of years of low
cotton prices, but since that date cotton has been developed more
rapidly than any of the other crops. The acreage of oats increased
rapidly up to 1880, but since then it has steadily declined both in
actual acreage and relatively. The plantings of rye have been in-
creasing since 1880, but the total acreage is still small, this crop
being used mainly for pasture purposes. The rapid increase in the
planting of peanuts is noteworthy, the acreage having increased
from G,88-4 acres in 1880 to 14,775 in 1910. This increase has been
coincident with and a result of the development of the swine in-
dustry. The peanut acreage in Brooks County was in 1910 consid-
erably in excess of that of any other county in Georgia, and equal
to nearly 10 per cent of the total for the State.

Of the different classes of live stock other than work stock, swine
is the only one that has increased in importance. The number of
sheep has declined rapidly since 1870, to an insignificant number, and
the number of cattle was nearh^ the same at the time of the last
census as it was in 1860. The number of hogs in the county declined
somewhat from 1860 to 1870, but since then the number has con-
stantly increased from 11,087 to 47.210 in 1910. Measured in terms
of the number per 100 acres of improved farm land, the number of
hogs declined from 37 to 18.3 during the decade between 1860 and
1870. but since that time the number has increased to 38.9 per 100
acres.

Since this survey was made the acreage of peanuts groAvn and the
number of hogs produced have increased very rapidh^ This has
been due partly to the better market offered for hogs, but
principally to the invasion of the boll weevil, which has greatly in-
creased the hazard of cotton growing.

METHOD AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION.

In this study a record was obtained from each farmer of the
amount and value of each class of farm property; the amounts,
sources, and nature of all receipts and expenses; the amounts and
values of each item contributed by the farm toward the family liv-
ing; the amount of labor expended on each enterprise, and data on
numerous other factors necessary in making a complete analysis of
the farm business and calculating the cost of each productive enter-
prise. The methods and details of calculating costs will be dis-
cussed in another place.

A farm-management survey should represent conditions that are
as nearly normal as possible if the results are to be useful and of
wide application. This is particularly true of crop yields and mar-

6 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE.

ket conditions. Yields in Brooks County for the yeav covered by
this study (1914) were approximately normal for all crops except
cotton, which made yields somewhat above the average. This high
yield would tend to a certain extent to present results bearing on
the cotton crop in a too favorable light.

However, the market price of cotton during the year studied was
low, owing to conditions growing out of the European war. The
average 5-year price received by these 106 farmers was estimated
by them to be 10.4 cents per pound of gross lint, whereas for the
1914 crop they received 7.1 cents, or about 32 per cent below normal.
Undoubtedly this estimated 5-year price of cotton was conservative,
a fact which would tend to counterbalance the effect of the rather

Fig. 3. — Woodland constitutes approximately half of the farm area. The prevailing
timber is the long leaf pine, which is rapidly being turpentined.

large yield. To correct the effect of this abnormality, the average
price received by each farmer for cotton during the preceding 5-year
period was substituted for the 1914 price in figatring the returns
from the farm.

The price of watermelons fell during the shipping season tx3 a
low figure, with the result that many of the farmers, particularly
those who had a late crop, received a very low price for a part of
the crop, and many melons which otherwise would have been mar-
ketable were not even harvested. The average price received for
the melons sold from farms studied was $52.11 per carload, whereas
the estimated average 5-year price amounted to $57.80. In every
case where the price received was abnormal, the farmer's estimated
5-year average price was substituted.

Market conditions were normal for all crops sold except cotton
and melons, and it is believed that with these substitutions men-

A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 7

tioned the results of this survey represent a close approximation
to average conditions. It is true, however, that the cattle market
was somewhat low, but this affected, appreciably the income from
only three of the farms. Also the price of hogs was slightly
depressed, but not sufficiently so to warrant substitutions.

Numerous losses from hog cholera occurred throughout the county,
and on a few of the farms studied such losses were serious, but taken
together these losses represented approximately the average losses
from that source during the preceding years.

TYPE OF FARMING.

Table II shows how the farm area is divided. The lOG farms
surveyed average in size 331 acres, of which less than half, or 145
acres, are devoted to planted crops. Scarcely any idle crop land

£ r.^

ITEMS

5^1

INVESTMENT PER FARM
»iooo 2000 3000 4000 5000 teooo

REAL ESTATE
LIVE STOCK

•6788
1064

755

U 8

' »49T0 ' ' 'tis* ' *300 •3fe4.

ii«asa*K«*i%\^*s%^&\ii5!SSA'«»s^^

»,39 tcsS

■■*:r-i;-1

FEED & SUPPLIES

615

7 5

m^

IMPLEMENTS &M'CH"irr

331

3.7

^

CASH

134

1.5

Sl.»o ^owtu..-. ^,u».,^^. g,r«..LOC. i3wo..sTo„

Fig. 4. — Distribution of farm investnioiit.

is found, and less than 2 acres per farm -of pasture in rotation.
Permanent pasture, other than woods pastured, includes less than
8 acres per farm, slightly more than half of which is tillable. The
remaining farm area (see fig. 3), or 53.3 per cent of the total acreage,
consists of woods and waste land. About one-fifth of the woods
and waste land, or 11.4 per cent of the total farm area, either can
not be brought under cultivation at all, or not without a large outlay,
since it consists of roads, ponds, and swampy areas near the streams.
A like area of the woodland is fenced and utilized as pasture, leav-
ing exactly one-fifth of the farm area in woodland that could be
cleared but is actually used only as a source of wood, lumber, and
turpentine, and as a public i-ange. The woodland, if fenced, fur-
nishes a low-grade pasture which serves mainly to tide the live stock
over the late winter, spring, and early summer period when the
crop area as now organized does not provide sufficient pasturage.
The unfenced woodland serves a like purpose, it being a common
practice to allow cattle and hogs to graze the public roads and
range. The woodland is covered for the most part with longleaf
pine, some of which is being turpentined preparatory to lumbering
and clearing, while more is held as a source of firewood and future
lumber supply. Several turpentine stills and sawmills are in opera-
tion in the county.

27202°— 18— Bull. 648 2

BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.
Table II. — Distribution of farm area {106 farms, Brooks County, Ga.).

Total
acres
per

farm.

Acres of
crop

land per
farm.

Per cent of farm area m—

Crop
land.

Woods
pastured.

Other
pasture.

Woods

not

pastured.

Waste,

swamp,

etc.

Total
woods

and
waste.

331

145

43.9

11.4

2.8

30.5 i 11. 4 : 53.3

1 1

DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL.

The average capital per farm and the manner in which that capital
is distributed among its different elements are shown in figure 4.
Three-fourths of the average farm capital consists of real estate,
leaving one-fourth as working capital; and nearly three- fourths of

ITEMS

o 1

^0- <
UJ O l"-

I i

^ 5

ACRES PER FARM
10 20 30 40

50

CORN

PLANUTS

COTTON

OATS

COWPEAS

watermelons
rye:

MI5CEL.

55.0

45.2

38.1

26.6

1 5.0

7.7

6.0

7.5

37 9
31.2
263
16.3

10.3
5.3
4.1
5.2

^^^^ 1

^^mmryyy>y^i^:ii^^miiiiii^^^

mi^:iy^^^^ii!^^:iif^

B First Crop ^ Second & Intcrploi ted Crops

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 acre 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 w^as 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 SI'KVEY 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.
IVliilc 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. Avhile peanuts follow, with 31.2

Fig. 6.-

-Corn and peanuts arc commonly planted in alternate rows. This is a sound
practice (see page 54 (.

per cent ; cotton comes third with 20. 3 per cent ; and oats fourth with
18.3 i^er 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 b}^ a later table.
Cowpeas for hay occupy fifth place in point of acreage, though this
is nearly all a second crop, being ])lanted after oats, rye, or water-
melons. Watermelons come next with 5.3 per cent of the crop area,
:^llowed 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 harvested. 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 AGE.ICULTUEE.

acreages. However, they have an important phice in the econoni}^ 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 survev.

ITEMS

UNITS
PER

FARM

ANIMAL UNIT5 PER FARM
5 10 15

20

ALL live: stock
CATT l e:

2 8.6
1 2.2

H

SNA/IN e:

1 1. 1

■

WORK STOCK

4.4

^m

poultry'

.7

>

OTHERS

.2

Fui. 7. — Nuiul)er of animal units per farm of different classes of live stocli.

On a very few farms colts are groAvn, 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 Ill.—Averaf/c value pe?- animal unit of receipts from cattle, Iwgs, and
poultry (106 farms. Brooks County, Ga.). Receipts include sales, increased
inventories, and products consumed in the farm home.

Item.

Cattle.

Hogs.

Poultry.

Sales and increased inventory, per animal unit

$9.68
9.73

$37. 60
ll.£0

$42 25

Value of products consumed on farm, per animal unit . ...

65 35

Total credits per animal unit

19.41

49.40
9.88

107 60

Total credits per hog unit a

a The equivalent of a 200-pound 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. 11

pared with $19.41. Xearlv half of the receipts from cattle consisted
of dairy products sold and consumed in the home, 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

1 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-secur(>d farm loans. In this study 8 per cent interest is the rate
used. Frequently prices of land are influenced by factors other than the present earning
power for farming purposes. In such cases it is better, 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 earnings 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-managt'ment 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 earninys 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 study 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 prjfits to capital and the other to the
operator's labor and management. Both havihg been found very useful in this study,
and are the ones used throughout as the principal measures of farm efliciency.

12

BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

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-

ITEMS

J o ^
3 w 5

1 o *

I°0;

S200

RECilPTS PEH FARM
400 600 600 1000

tizoo

COT TON

SwrNE

CATTLE AND PHODUCTS

".ig

116

131
119

so 2
IS 1
4 4

^^^^B^^T^TTT^^^

[Jj[[J!!^

^^^^^^;^^^

CORN

148

n

5fc

^^o

MlSCttVANtOUS CROPi

69

96

2 t

^.^'■jsa

OATS AND H'E

I6i

-

i 1

■■■

WATERMELONS

155

6

56

■■■B

FEED AND SUPPLIES

81

-

JO

■i

POULTRY AND EGGS

30

46

"

^

SUGAR CANE AND SxnuP

*0

^4

1 5

S

COWPEA HAY

*b

-

1 1

■

MISCELLANEOUS RECPTS

46

-

n

■

OTHER LIVE STOCK

16

t

6

1

■ ,».,.c.,..S3c..,c„ ,.,«,«- .o«

Fig. 8. — Sources of farm receipts and pnjducts consumed in tlie 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 gi^eatly exceed the sales
therefrom.

The method 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 Avhen this measure is used the corn crop

A FARM MANAGEMEXT 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
crops assume more importance than the receipts would indicate.
A considerable part of the last-named crop is grown for hog pasture.

Fig. 9. — Griiulins sugar cane and evaporatiug the sirup. Nearly every farm in this sec-
tion grows a patch of sugar cane, and on many of tlie 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 we 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,
and machinery; ginning, bagging and ties; and taxes.

TENURE AND LANDLORD'S PROFITS.

Of the 106 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

BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

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 paicl was cash or " standing " rent, it was possible to calculate

ITEMS

u z <
q; uJ li-
ir 1- It

ZJ X uJ
O LJ D_

llJU. ='X
Q. O OuJ

CURRENT EXPENSES PER

*3 00 6 OO 9 00

FARM

*i2 no

TOTAL CURRENT CXPELNSES

$IAI6
607
264

1 oo.o

51.0
1 6.6

LABOR (EXCEPT OPERATOR)
COMMERICAL FERTILIZER

Ms^:^4^^iSAfeS*%;i%%%%;%%^i;rts^

FEED PURCHASED

69

A. 9

■

REPAIRS

60

4.2

■

GINNING, BAGGING ftTIES

5*

3 8

■

TAXES

A8

3,4

■

MISCELLANEOUS

1 1 't

8.1

■

^ CROPPER LA

^°" O WAGE LABOR S FAMILY

LABOR

Fi

3. 10.-

-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 Avere 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
]>icked, 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 system 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 aiid 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 least, 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, expenses, 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. G4

Seed, etc .86

Total 130.26

Cropper's net income* 258.44

Estimated value of cropper's lal^or 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 $258.41, 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
average 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 work 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 Avhich
those calculations are based were secured from the operator and not
from the cropper.

COMPARATIVE YIELDS AND COSTS BY WAGE AND BY CROPPER SYSTEM.

Table Y 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 bis own crop.

A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 17

Table V. — Conipanitirr yields and unit cost of crops by icaye and croijpcr sys-
tems (Brooks County, Ga.).

Cotton.

Com (solid).

Com (with
peanuts).

Peanuts Peanuts (with
(solid). [ 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.

Number of farms

93

53

47 1 14

77

43

49

4

76

42

Average yield of principal
products '. -

o316

a 272

b 15 6 13

6 13

6 12

Pastured. Pastured.

' 1 r^

Cost per unit of principal
products:

SO. 0^0

$0.48

$0.83 1.20

"$6.'67'

$0. 3S
. 93

$2.56
7.53

$1.74

$0. 093

.097

.366

Average or total for sys-

.093

.089

.83

.84

- .67

.66

11.09

10.09

5.70

5.40

a Pounds of lint.

6 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 systc^ms, being 83 to 84 cents a bushel. But under the
cropper system there is a wide divergence bet^'cen the cost to cropper
and 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 with 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 work 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 AGRICULTTJRE.

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
year'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
white
opera-
tors.

All col-
ore!
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

S24,.500

$8, 992

$13, .329

$3,275

Receipts:

$413

101

35

11

$845
185
39
23

$1, 420

460

92

70

$2, .560

931

99

14

$5,527

1,482

155

118

$1,964

584

81

46

$2,213

702
87
49

$896

Live stock (exclusive of work stock)...

80
53

31

560

1,092

2,042

3,604

7,282

2,675

3,051

1,060

Expenses:

$232
21
37

$541

88
40

63

$996
124
83

71

$1,846
172
138

114

$4, 195

325

92

198

SI, 416
142
75

90

$1,639
1.58
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
107

$360
324

$768
575

$1,334

888

$2, 471
1,959

$952
720

$1,069
826

$456

Interest at 8 per cent

262

59

267

12

33

39

377

14

53

193

479

14

98-

446

544

16

133

.512
612

IS
306

232

453

15

116

213

507

15

132

194

228

Wood used by operator

14

House rent

<0

Farmer's earnings

371

$61

480
$118

784
$98

1,139
$119

1,448
$102

816
$101

897

$88

476

$159

432

598

882

1.258

1,.5.50

917

9S5

635

Estimated value of operator's labor

$153

S270

$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 gi-oups vary in ahnost direct pro-
portion to the size of the farm. The same is true of both the kbor
income and the farmer's earnings. Thus the farm income varies fi-om
$2-26 for the smallest-farm size group to $2,471 for the largest-farm
group, giving 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 and 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 See definition in footnote, p. 13.

a Farm value of wood (uncut) used in ttie farm liome. Tliis does not include wood
used by croppers and wa;.'e hands. However, the latter is included in labor costs in
calculating costs of production.

3 Ton per cent of the present value of the dwelling (not the cost when new> is taken
to cover the interest, taxes, and insurance.

20 BULLETIN 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 $207 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 secondary 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, $810, 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

^ Tho crop index ropresents the relative yields of all crops on any farm or group of
farms as compared with the averaj;e 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 the 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 jjer cent of the a\-erage fanner's earnings secured
from 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.o

Number
of farms.

Average

crop

index.

Farmer's
earnings.

Index of
earnings.

Per cent
return on
invest-
ment.

Less than O.SO

13
43
21
29

69
92
104
126

$586

708

840

1,061

80
87
108
116

2.9

0 SO to 0 1'9

5.6

1 IX) to 1 O'J

6.7

8.2

106

100

816

100

6.2

a Sec 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 11.6 cents per pound to produce, but this cost de-
creased to 7.5 cents per pound when the yields exceeded 100 pounds
per acre. The low yields mentioned show a loss of $1.03 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 year's business. Tims the
farms that secured cotton yields of less than 200 pounds per acre
returned farmers' earnings equal to only 47 per cent of the average
returned by all farms of a similar size, whereas the farms yielding
more than 400 pounds per acre returned earnings 37 per cent larger
than the averasre.

1 It will be noticpd that the number of records for cotton and corn aro greater than
the number of farms surveyed. This is duo to the fact that the costs of the wage crops
have been kept separate from those of the croppers, since the two sets of crops are
I'.andlod by more or less independent systems and are treated difl'erently. Thus, many of
the farms furnish two separate records of costs of cotton and corn. In this and one or
two other tabulations these separate records have been treated as though coming from
different farms.

22

BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPAETMENT OP AGRICULTURE.

Table VIII. — Relation of crop yields to costs per crop unit and profits per acre

{Brooks County, Ga.).

Crop.

Yield.

Number
of farms.

Average

acre
yield.

Cost per
crop
imit.

Profit
or loss,

per
acre.

f Under 200 pounds. . .

15

43
17

172
258
338
4.50

SO. 116
.091
.078
.075

a— $1.63

I200 to 299 pounds

5.29

1 300 to 399 pounds.

[400 and over

18.19

143

299

.091

7.04

fUnder 10 bushels

12

33

11

5

9.3
13.4

17.8
24.2

1.26

.85
.73
.66

a--4.66

JlO to 15 bushels

a — 1.16

1 16 to 20 bushels

lOver 20 bushels

2.54

Average

61

14.3

.89

a — 1.31

f Under 10 bushels

IS
37
33
32

8.2
10.1
13.6
16.7

.80
.74
.70
.57

a— .17

1 10 to 12 bushels

.04

|12 to 15 bushels

[Over 15 bushels

2.92

Average

120

12.4

.70

.82

f Under 10 bushels

8
22
22
10

8

8.4
11.2
16.1
21.5
27.9

.84
.73
.47
.37
.36

a— 2. 53

10 to 15 bushels

a— 1.68

■j 15 to 20 bushels

1.21

20 to 25 bushels

3.42

Over 25 bushels

4.44

70

15.8

.56

.56

fUnder 0.5 ton.

16

37

5

8

.34

.56

..82

1.06

26.88
17.20
12.03
11.23

0— 1.74

Jo 5 to 0 75 ton

.68

10.75 to 1 ton

8.62

66

.59

18.57

1.42

5
13
17
10

.29
.42
.51
.70

73.36
53.68
51.26
41.60

a— 3.69

Jo. 35 to 0.49 carload

1.84

|0.50 to 0.59 carload

[0.6O and over

15.08

Average

45

.50

52.54

4.23

fUnder 100 bushels

7
12

7

70
100
162

.36
.28
.22

14.18

•j 100 bushels

27.27

1 Over 100 bushels

65.01

26

108

.29

33.90

a Loss.

These results would indicate that where the market prices and other
conditions a're similar to those found at the time these records were
taken it is necessary to obtain a cotton yield greater that 200 pounds
of net lint per acre if a profit is to be secured. But these records
were taken before the cotton-boll weevil had invaded the coimty.
With the expenses of fighting the weevil added, either yields higher
than 200 pounds per acre, or prices higher than 10 cents per pound
are necessary if the crop is to show a profit to the grower.

The data presented also indicate that under the conditions found,
with corn at an average price of 75 cents per bushel, it is necessary to
secure a yield above 10 bushels per acre of corn planted in rows alter-
nating with peanuts, or about 18 bushels of corn planted " solid." if a
profit is to be shown when figured by cost determination methods.

A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA.

23

Similarly, oats must yield about 15 bushels to show a profit at an
average price of approximately 50 cents: but when the yield slightly
exceeds 25 bushels, the cost is reduced to 36 cents per bushel. The
latter yields a good margin of profit.

CoAvpea hay yielding one-tliird of a ton to the acre costs $26.88 per
ton to produce, and entailed a loss of $1,74 per acre. Increasing the

lELD PN CARLOADS

-SWEET POTATOES

6 .8

VIE LD - COWPEA ^

z

D
0
0.

a: 08

\

\

\

s

0.

"

z

-1 "6

o

g.C4
0

Fig. 11. — Relation of yields of principal crops to cost per crop unit.

yield to one-half a ton brought the cost down to approximately the
market price, and increasing it to slightly over a ton reduced the cost
per ton to $11.23 and resulted in an acre profit of $8.62.

Watermelon yields of one-third of a carload per acre must bring
about $75 per car at the point of loading, if the grower is to " break
27202°— 18— Bull. 648 4

24

BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

even." But if he increases this yield to half a carload he can sell for
$50 without loss, and if he further increases the production to two-
thirds of a car per acre, $40 per load will cover all costs.

All the yields of sweet potatoes found show a wide margin of
profit. Average yields of TO bushels per acre cost 36 cents per
bushel; increasing the yield to 100 bushels reduced the cost to 28
cents, while a further increase to 162 bushels further reduced the cost
to 22 cents. The records for this crop are few in number and repre-
sent small scale production. But the costs and margins shown would
indicate that the crop offers commercial possibilities for the grower.

The manner in Avhich the costs per crop unit decrease with increas-
ing yields is shown for the six important crops by the curves in
figure 11.

There is, of course, for each crop under any set of conditions a
point beyond which any further increase in yield can be secured only
at 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 those farms is the increasing of the crop yields.

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 productive days mule labor per mule to
farm, returns, acres per nmle, a/rid 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

02
88
112
137
172

$1 70

76 to 100

26
33
21
14

1 23

101 to 125

1.00

126 to 150 •. .

84

151 and over

.72

All farms

106 1 11S

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 G2 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.

Table X. — KeJation of number of acres of aop land per mule to utilisation of
mule labor and to farm 7-ctunis (Brooks County, Ga.).

< 1.25
Q

C
uJ
0.

gioo

ID
<

lO

o
o

.50

.25

0

\

\

v

V

V^

T5 100 (25 150
DAYS PRODUCTIVE LABOR PER MULE

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
lal)or
per
mule.

Cost
of cotton

per
poimd.

Index cf
earnings.

Less than 20

U
IS
21
24
32

16
22
27
32
42

48

81

113

144

233

.5.1
7.8
7.9
9.0
9.4

67
S9
108
121
139

$0,095
.092
.092
.083
.090

80

2:) to 21 9

71

2.5 to 29.9

103

30to31.9

123
101

106 1 31

145

8.6

113 .030

100

26 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Acres of crop land fer 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 t'o 8.3 cents on the
farms that operated 30 or 35 acres per mule, but it increased to 9
cents on the farms 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 number
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 the
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
grouping 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 3o acres per mule \^•ould
seem to be the proper acreage iiiulor the conditions here found. The
soil on these farms 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 tliis 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 af 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 XL The cotton crop Avas 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 mule labor expended in preparatory tillage
of cotton to costs and profits {Brooks Cmtnty, Ga.).

Days mule labor per acre, preparatory tillage.

Number

of
records.

Average
mule
days

prepara-
tory

tillage.

Yield
of net
Unt.

Profit
per acre.

Cost of
net lint

per
pound.

Less than 1.5

1.5 to 1.9

2.0to2.4

2.5 and over

All records

1.14
1.77
2. 22
2.S9

Pounds.
292
293
298
311

88.47
8.37
6.53
6.22

$0,086
.087
.093
.096

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 harvesting 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. — ReJation of cost of fertilizer applications to yields, costs, and profits

(Brooks County, Ga.).

Crop.

Cost of fertilizers per acre.

Average
Numher cost of
of records, fertilizer

per acre.

Yield
per acre.

Cost per ^^^^^^
crop unit.| >°|S^Per

f J!2 and less

23 i $1.42
56 3.00
35 4.85
13 6. 78
9 8.76
7 11.32

Pounds,
a 263
283
293
314
383
427

80.087
.088
.096
.101
.094
.086

$7. 45

$> to$4

8.00

$1 to $6

4.83

Cotton

SC) to $8

SStoSlO

9.15

$10 and over

11.00

143 4. 32 299

.091 7.04

a Net lint.

A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA.

29

Table Xli. — Relation of cost of fertilizer applications to yields, costs, and profits
(Brooks County, Ga.) — Contiuued.

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.

($1. 50 and less

28
22
11

$n.70
1.S9
4.19

Bushels.
13.4
14.1
16.7

$0.85
.86
1.03

a-$0.79

]$1. .50 to S2.50

a- 1.02

($2.50 and over

0- 3.40

61

1.76

14.3

.89

a- 1.31

fO

16
39

46
19

0
.97
1.91
3.21

11.2
11.5
12.6
15.1

.57
.63
.74
.94

1.72

Corn, with peanuts

1 Under $1.50

1S1..50to$2..50

l$2.50 and over

1.44
.64

0— .75

120

1.56

12.4

.70

.82

f 0

55
15

0
1.92

14.9
19.2

.55
.61

.76

Oats

0 .14

70

.41

15.8

.56

.56

16
15
14

5.86
7.82
9.80

Carload.

.48
.50
.52

47.60
50.48
52.50

4.06

is7to$9

2.96

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

IS3toS4....

26.78

Sweet potatoes

1S4 to87

29.59

[S7 and over

55.83

26

4.70

108

.29

33.90

a Loss.

It wa.s found that with every crop for which there were a suffi-
cient number of records to make tabuhitions, 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
67 cents per bushel without fertilizer, which cost increased to 94
cents when the most fertilizer was applied. The profits per acre
decreased in even greater proportion than the cost per bushel
increased.

Cotton 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 AGRICULTTJEE.

Only 15 out of TO 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 j)rofit 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 nrgcnl 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 farmers 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 types 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
have 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

BULLETIN 648^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICTJLTUEE.

Table XIII. — Relation of dircrsiti/ to cost of work-stock labor and to farm
profits {Brooks Connty, Ga.).

Diversity index.

Number
of farms.

Average

diversity

index."

Acres of
crop land
per farm.

Cost of
mule
labor

per day.

Crop
index.

Index

of
earnings.

Less than 2

27
54
25

1.5
3.0

4.7

89
147
194

$1.20
1.04
.98

0.98
1.02
1.00

85
100
116

2 to 3.9

4 and over

All farms

106

3.0

145

1.07

1.00

106

It is easily j^ossible for diversification to be carried to an un-
profitable extreme.^ Beyond a not well-defined limit, further
diversification may be at tlie 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 FAEM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA.

33

Table XIV

-Kchition of size of farm and labor of oitvrator to value of food
consumed in the home (Brooks County, (Ja.).

Farms with total crop area o

f—

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.

Number cf farms

18

21

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:

S4.5. 90
266. 90

$69. 60
37.5. 71

$67.91
479. 10

$81. 09
543.60

$104. 25
611.69

$72. 70
453. 29

$77. 65
506. 59

$56.30

228. 30

312. 80

445. 31

547. 01

624. 69

715. 94

525. 99

584. 24

284. 60

&4.54

89.06

91. 17 i 107. 70

125. 60

99.25

106. 22

55.80

Per cent of family food contributed-
by farm

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

Poultry and eggs

6.2

Dairy products

Other live-stock products

14.6
.1

Total live-stock products

Fruits and nuts

Vegetables

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
16.7
19 8

Per cent food contributed by farm is

72

78

61

48

42

54

57

48

a Com meal and hominy, sinip,.sugar cane, peanuts.

The total value per farm of that part of the family living fur-
nished b}' the farm and the relation that this factor bears to the farm
returns from other sources have been shown for farms of diilerent
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 family and per person.^
Thus, the average value of food consumed on the group of farms
under 50 acres is $312.80 per famih', 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 average jH'ices on the farms and in the local
markets, and are conservative.

2 A person, as the term is used in this bulletin, means the equivalent of an adult fed
in the farm home throuiihout the year. The number of adults per farm includes hired
help and others boai'ded in the operator's home.

34

BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AORICULTURe!

Two-thirds of the vahie 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.).

Kinds nf food.

Unit.

Purchased:

Flour

Sugar

Coffee, tea, cocoa, chocolate, postum.

Rice

Meat, laid, cheese, fish

All other food

Total food purchased

Produced on farm:

Pork

Lard

Dairy products >>

Poultry

Eggs

other Live-stock products c

Com (meal and hominy) d

Cane sirup

Sugar cane

Peanuts

Pecans

Sweet potatoes

Irish potatoes

Beans and peas (green, in hulls) e.
Turnips, rutabagas, and collards..

Watermelons

Tomatoes

Cabbage

Green corn

Okra

Onions

Squash and pumpkins

Cucumbers

Beets i

Other vegetables

Grapes (scuppernong)

Peaches

Pigs

Pears

Oranges and grape fruit

Apples and vinegar

Total food produced

Pounds .

do..

do..

do..

do..

Pounds . .

do...

Gallons..
Number.
Dozens...

Bushels.
Gallons.
Stalks...
Bushels .
Poimds .
Bushels .

do..

do..

Number.
Bushels..
Heads . . .
Bushels..
....do...
....do...
....do...
....do...
....do...

Per family.

Quantity. Value.

810
191

770
185
471
69
111

27.4

38.6

524

.86

40.9

52.2

8.9

15.2

128
4.4
83
3.8
2.6
1.6
2.0
.9

Bushels.
....do..
....do..
....do..

3.9
1.9
2.3
2.1

S30. 34
13.37
7.33
4.37
2.60
14.69

72.70

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. SO

6.32

4.5!

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

Per person.o

Quantity. Value

153
36

145
35

5.2
7.3
99
.16

7.7
9. 85
1.68
2.87

24.15
.83

15.67
.72
.49
.30
.38
.17
.15

.74
.36
.43
.40

$5.73

2.52

1.38

.83

.49

2.77

20.47
4.34
22.36
4.62
4.13
.29
6.17
2.92
1.51
.16
1.39
4.92
1.67
2.13
1.28
1.19
.86
.78
.72
.49
.34
.17
.16
.16
.19
.89
.71
.52
.40
.33
.25

Note.— Values of food produced represent sale values on the farm.

o Adult equivalent.

b Milk, cream, and butter expressed as their equivalents in gallons of whole milk.

c Honey, $1.52; goats and kids, $0.04.

d Includes some corn bread and hominy fed to dogs and chickens.

« Lima beans, ^nap beans, and cowpeas.

A FAEM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA.

35

Of the food purchased, flour constitutes much the largest item,
equaling 41.7 per cent of the total ; sugar comes next with 18.4 per
cent; the beverages (coffee, tea, cocoa, chocohxte, postum) constitute
10.1 per cent; rice equals 6 per cent; and all other items make up
the remaining 23.8 per cent.

Much has been said about the production of home supplies on the
farm, and farmers are often urged to increase the proportion of the
family food produced at home by growing more foods and buying
less. But in this study it has been found that the ratio of food grown
to that consumed is of less consequence than is the actual amount
produced. However, in a tabulation made, but not presented here,
there was found to be a certain relation between the percentage of
family food produced at home and the farm returns as measured by

ii

03<

■7!

ITEMS

<30

SK

^100

200 300 400

''SCO

TOTAL FOOD
SWINE PRODUCTS

*4 53
131

100.0
290

1

mv.ssv/A

DAIRY PRODUCTS

1 1 8

26.2

i^i^H

VEGETABLES

80

n.6

1^^

(1)

MISCELLANEOUS PROD'CTS

52

1 1.4

^^

POULTRY 8t EGGS

46

10.2

IH

FRUIT AND NUTS

24

5.2

■

OTHER UVE STOCK PROD'CTS

2

.4

1

■ ..»..„.,.

^.0

„„.»...

Fig. 13. — Value per farm of food products consumed in the home.

the farmer's earnings. Thus, the farmers growing less than 80
per cent of the food consumed had earnings 11 per cent lower than
the average for farms of a similar size, while the similar return was
7 per cent above the average for those who produced more than 90
per cent of their own food. However, only 19 of the 106 farms fell
in the former group, and only 28 in the latter, showing that the range
of percentages was not so wide as would ordinarily be expected.

When the farms were grouped on the basis of the value of food
grown at home the fai-mer's earnings and per cent return on the in-
vestment indicated considerably greater returns from the farms
which furnished the more food. Thus, farms furnishing food to the
value of less than $250 each gave gross labor incomes 19 per cent
below the average, while returns were 44 per cent above the average
on the farms supplying more than $f)00 worth of products.

When the farms were grouped on the amount of food furnished per
person, tabulations showed much the higher returns from farms

36 BULLETIN 648^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

supplying food to the value of from $75 to $100 per person than
those furnishing either more or less than that range.

It would apj^ear that the farmers who have produced the largest
supply of family food at home have not thereby, on these farms,
reduced the amount of food purchased. Rather, those who produced
the most also purchased the most, since it is seen that the percentage
of the total food bought is fairly constant. Those who produced the
most food lived much better than those who produced less. The ques-
tion of producing supplies at home seems, therefore, on these farms
at least, to be not one of reducing the exjoense for purchased products,
but it is rather one of a better standard of living.

CROPPING SYSTEMS.

In any region where economic conditions have been fairly uniform
and operating over a considerable term of years, the type or types
of agriculture tend to a stability of form that changes only in re-
sponse to changes in the economic forces. Wide departures from
practices that fit the economic factors at work are likely to lead
to financial disaster to those persisting in them. The result is the
automatic elimination of those continuing such wrong practices, and
the eventual disappearance of the latter from the farming of the
region. It will usually be found in an old established region that
the average practices more or less closely approximate the best
practice.

The proper selection of farm enterprises is a large factor in deter-
mining the success of the business. Of equal importance is the com-
bining of these enterprises in the proportions that best fit the local
conditions. Such a combination will be one that most efficiently
employs the farm crew and equii:)ment. Ordinarily, it will be one
that distributes the labor, both man and work-stock, rather evenly
throughout the year. But it is not to be assumed that under any
set of conditions there is only one type of farming that may be
safely followed, or that within the type there is not a certain range
of choice in the selection of enterprises to be adopted and in the
proportions in which these enterprises should be fitted together. In
an area like Brooks County especially, with a growing season extend-
ing nearly throughout the year, and with a long list of crops adapted
to the soil and climate, the choice is a rather wide one, largely de-
pendent upon the abilities and inclinations of the individual farmer.

Much may be learned from a study of the average practices, and
more especially of the practices which long experience has shown to
be the ones best adapted to the region. This does not imply that
the average practices are necessarily the best that could be devised.
On the contrary, it will usually be found that they may be improved
upon in important respects. Nevertheless, a study of the returns

A FAEM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA.

37

secured when enterprises are combined in different proportions will
help to shoAv the proportions that are best adapted to the local con-
ditions. Such a study has been made for the important crops found
on the farms surveyed, and the results are presented in Table XYI.
The index of earnings and the per cent returns on investment are
the measures of efficiency used.

Tahi,k XVI. — Rddtioii fif per rent of flic crop <ire<t in specified crops to gross
labor income and retunis on investment [Brooks County, Ga.).

Crop.

Cotton.

Corn.

Oats and rye.

Per cent of crop land in
specified crop.

Co^\'peas (for hay).

Watermelons .

0

Oto 10

10 to 20

20 to 30

30 to 40

40 and over.

Under 30...

30 to 40

40 to 50

50 and over.

Under 5

oto 10

10 to 20

20 to 30

30 and over.

Under 5

oto 10

10 to 15

15 and over.

Under 5

5 to 10

10 to 20

20 and over

Average

Xuml)er

per cent
crop land
in speci-

Farmers'

Index of

of farms.

earnings.

eammgs.

fied crop.

2

0

$372

$70

10

7

553

90

24

15

753

89

25

25

1,112

128

23

33

801

97

22

49

724

86

19

26

852

93

37

36

1,077

113

24

44

756

92

20

57

474

92

22

2

635

92

16

8

664

97

27

15

872

112

23

24

1,032

112

18

38

815

77

39

1

638

90

17

8

907

104

33

12

904

103

17

22

963

111

64

.5

749

97

21

7.0

999

103

14

14.0

854

111

(

29.0

797

"

Per cent
return on
invest-
ment.

2.0
3.2
5.7

7.7
7.2
5.6

6.4
7.5
5.9
4.8

7.9
6.5
6.9
6.8
5.0

5.3
5.6
6.8
7.8

5.7
6.8

7.4
6.3

Reference to Table XVI will show that the farms with from 20 to
30 per cent, or an average of 2o per cent, of the crop land planted
to cotton, gave higher returns than did those with either a larger or
smaller proportion than this. Thu.s, the farms with no cotton planted
returned farmers' earnings amounting to $372. As the percentage
of the crop land in cotton increased, up to 25 per cent, the farmers'
earnings increased to $1,112. But a further increase in the propor-
tion of land in cotton resulted in lower earnings, amounting to $724
for the group of farms with the largest proportion, or over 1:0 per
cent of the land in cotton.

Expressed in another way, the farms w^ith no cotton returned
farmers' earnings amounting to but 70 per cent of the aA'erage of
farms of a similar size. With increasing proportions of cotton
planted, up to 25 per cent of the crop area, the returns increased to
28 per cent above the average, but decreased to 86 per cent with a
still further increase m the proportion of cotton.

38 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Measured in still another way, the " no-cotton " farms returned 2
per cent on the investment, while increasing the proportions of cot-
ton gave increasing returns up to 7.7 per cent for the farms with one-
fourth of the land in cotton. Furthef increase in the cotton area
reduced the return to 5.6 per cent on the investment.

These results would indicate that where conditions are similar to
those found on these farms at the time this survey was made, but
with cotton figured at the normal S-^'ear price, the proper proportion
of the crop land to be devoted to cotton to give the greatest farm
profits is approximately one-fourth. Other farm-management sur-
veys in the South have shown that in the areas represented more than
one-fourth of the crop land should be planted to cotton to produce
the largest profits. But such surveys have been made on types of soil
heavier and better adapted to cotton than those in Brooks County.
On such heavy soils, the maintenance of fertility by the growing of
legumes, cover crops, etc., is not of such prime importance as it is on
these lighter soils.

Corn is grown in Brooks County primarily as a feed for the live
stock on the farm. However, a surplus is sold, the returns amount-
ing to 5.6 per cent of the farm receipts. In a tabulation not shown,
it was found that the farms getting from 1 to 5 per cent of the total
receipts from the sale of corn were more profitable than those getting
either a smaller or larger proportion from that source. This would
indicate that sufficient corn should be planted to provide for all the
farm needs. To insure this, a small margin of safety should be
allowed, which will ordinarily mean a small surplus for sale. The
proportion of land to be planted to corn, therefore, will be largely
determined by the yield secured and the amount of live stock kept.
The corn yields reported are rather low, but it should be remembered
that the greater part of the corn grown is planted in alternate rows
with peanuts. In considering, therefore, what area can profitably
bedevoted to this crop, due credit must be given to the pork produced
by the accompanying peanut crop, as well as to the improvement in
the soil fertility resulting from pasturing off the peanuts. The last-
mentioned consideration is a very important one on these light soils.

In Table XVI tabulations similar to the one for cotton just dis-
cussed are also shown for the other important crops. The group of
farms with from 30 to 40 per cent, or an average of 37 per cent, of
the crop area in corn, gave considerably better returns, measured by
both the farmers' earnings and return on the investment, than did
those with either a greater or smaller proportion in that crop. This
would indicate that approximately one-third of the crop area of
these farms should be planted to corn. The cost-of-production data,
to be discussed later, suggest that most of this corn should be grown
with peanuts as an interplanted crop.

A. FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 39

Oats are grown on these farms largely as a source of feed for
live stock, especially work stock, as a winter cover crop, and to pro-
vide winter and spring pasture for hogs and cattle. It is also a
source of cash sales, amounting on the average to 4.6 per cent of all
farm receipts. On 25 of the farms the sales of this grain amounted
to more than 5 per cent of the receipts. The cost records show that
as a grain crop, oats, at the average yields obtained, returned but a
narrow margin of profit, and the census data in the first part of this
bulletin show that both the relative and actual acreage of the crop
has been steadily decreasing in the county since 1880. Apparently
it is not as a cash crop that oats should fill an important place on
these farms, but rather as a source of farm feed and as a pasture
and cover crop.

Eoferring again to Table XVI it is seen that the farms with from
10 to 30 per cent of the crop land in oats and rye together returned
larger profits than did those with either a greater or a less propor-
tion devoted to these crops.

Cowpeas are grown for hay on practically all these farms, and on
one-third of them it is a source of cash sales. It is, in fact, the crop
that furnishes the greater part of the hay grown. Approximately
one-half of the acreage of oats and rye is followed by this crop, a
proportion that is lower than that ordinaril}'^ found further north
in the State. The lower proportion here is due to the heavy summer
rains which often make the curing of this crop a difficult matter.
The tabulation in Table XVI, however, indicates that the crop
might w^ith profit be grown more extensively than it is. The group
of farms with the least of this crop planted returned the lowest
profits, while the farms with the largest proportion of the crop land
so planted got the highest returns.

The farms wdth from 10 to 20 per cent of the crop land planted to
watermelons returned greater profits than did those with either more
or less. However, this crop is a rather speculative one and too
much dependence should not be placed upon such a tabulation.

Summarizing the results of the tabulations in Table XVI, it would
seem that a cropping system adapted to the conditions on these
farms at the time this survey was taken should divide the crop land
approximately as follows: One-fourth to be planted to cotton, one-
third to corn, 20 to 30 per cent in oats and rye to be followed by
cowpea hay or a similar crop, and the balance to be planted to
miscellaneous crops, the latter depending upon the individual tastes
and inclinations of the farmer. The amount of oats, rye, and cow-
peas to be grown should be governed by the amount of live stock
kept. If many hogs are raised, most of the corn should be planted
in alternate rows with peanuts, the latter to be hogged off.^

1 For a further discussion of tlie crops grown on these farms, see pp. 53—57.

40

BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTUEE.

The above percentages of the crop area in the different crops are
very close to the average for all of the farms studied, though there
is a wide range in the proportions found on the different farms.
Likewise, when the 25 farms showing the best returns are selected,
it is found that the crop areas are divided in proportions very
closely approaching those found to be the most profitable in the
above tabulation.

Elsewhere it has been pointed out that since this survey was made
the cotton-])oll weevil has invaded the county, and it can not be
donbted that the proper organization of the farms has been to a
large extent changed thereby. Whether or not the proportion of
land in cotton found by this study to be most profitable will continue
to be so under boll-weevil conditions can not be answered by the
data at hand. It is certain, however, that the cost and hazard of
growing the crop have been greatly increased, especially in this
immediate section, where the mild winters and heavy summer rain-
fall favor the work of the weevil considerably more than do condi-
tions even a short distance farther north in the State. In other
infested areas with similar soil and climatic conditions, but where
cotton has been more exclusively relied upon as the source of the
farm income, a reduction in the proportion of land in cotton will
likely be necessary. To the farmers in such areas, this study of the
diversified farms of Brooks County should be of considerable value.

Taisle XVII. — Relation of sirhic r(ii.si)i(/ to fanii profits {lirooJci Count i/. Cn.).

Number of hogs per 100 acres croj) kind.

Number
of farms.

Average
number
of hogs
per 100
acres
crop land.

Index of
earnings.

Per cent
return on
invest-
ment.

Less than 20

19
42
26
19

18.8
32.4
50.3
74.1

92
94
97
124

5 1

20to40

5 1

40to60

7 0

60 and over

8 6

All farms

106

41.8

100

6 2

The presence of the boll weevil in the region of this survey must
mean for many of the farmers a reduction in the proportion of
the land planted to cotton. The question of what to substitute for
the cotton displaced is a serious problem, a partial answer to which
is found in Table XVII. The farms have here been grouped on
the basis of the number of hogs kept per 100 acres of crop land.
The group of farms with less than 20 hogs per 100 acres returned
earnings equal to but 92 per cent of those from farms of a similar
size, but as the number of hogs increased the returns increased. The
farms with more than 60 hogs per 100 acres, or an average of 71.1,
gave earnings 24 per cent higher than the average. Likewise, the

A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 41

returns on the investment increased from 5.1 per cent for the farms
with the lowest rehitive number of hogs to 8.6 per cent for the farms
with the most liogs.

In another table, not shown, there was found to be a close and
direct relation between the percentage of farm receipts obtained
from hogs and the profits from the year's business. It should be
borne in mind that these results were obtained before the advent of
the boll weevil, and that the farms heavily stocked with hogs were
not the ones that grew the largest proportion of cotton. In the
presence of the weevil, hog raising should offer still greater relative
advantages in the form of profits.

Pig. 14. — Brooks County has long been noted for its produetiun of hogs, an enterprise
that, since the invasion of the boll weevil, is partly, and profitably, replacing cotton.

These results would seem to indicate clearly that in the production
of swine one of the most profitable substitutes for cotton is to be
found. Since this survey was made, the production of hogs in this
part of the State has been increasing at a remarkable rate. The
problem of the proper organization of farms for the production of
hogs in this area is the subject of a separate study. (See fig. 1-i.)

COST OF PRODUCTION.

Results obtained by cost accounting on the farm should not be
given a too literal interpretation. It will frequently be found that
cost-accounting methods indicate that certain farm enterprises are
being conducted at a loss, but it does not necessarily follow that such
enterprises should be abandoned. On the other hand, such enter-
prises may add materially to the profits from the year's business.
It may be found, for example, on a farm devoted principally to

42 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

the growing of cotton that the production of com and oats cost
more than the market prices of these crops. But a large part of
the equipment and man and mule labor that must be maintained for
the growing of cotton is used also in producing the other crops,
and much of this use is at a time when the equipment and labor
are not needed for the primary crop. The additional expense
incurred when corn or oats, in this instance, are added to the crop-
ping system may be very much less than the amount of the costs
charged to these crops by the usual cost-accounting methods. It
may also be found that the secondary crops grown do not materially,
if at all, reduce the amount of cotton that can be grown with a
given crew and equipment. The cost of producing any of the usual
farm crops, therefore, should be considered with a proper view to
the farm or cropping system as a whole, rather than from the stand-
point of an independent crop.

To determine the costs of producing farm products by means of
daily cost-accounting records is slow and expensive. The present
study is an attempt to secure by the much quicker survey method,
applying well-established cost-accounting principles, the costs and
other factors that are ordinarily obtained only by accounting. It is
believed that the much larger number of records that may be secured
by this method sufficiently neutralize any sacrifice in minute accuracy
of details in individual records. The larger number of records that
may be obtained greatly increases the number of problems that may
be studied.

The essential feature of the method here used is that the overhead
costs of the farm business are distributed among all of the productive
enterprises^ in proportion to the amount of labor expended on each.
The total costs for the farm of man labor, work-stock labor, annual
cost of equipment, and interest on the cash required to operate the
business are determined separately. All other items of cost are
charged directly to the enterprises to which they apply.

The total number of days of productive man labor expended on the
farm for the year is determined. This total is divided into the
total cost of man labor to ascertain the cost of each day of productive
labor. To determine for any crop the acre cost of man labor, this
cost per day is multiplied by the number of days of man labor ex-
pended on an acre of that crop. The per acre share of the interest

iThe term productive enterprise is used in this investigation to designate all crops,
live stock, or other source of income that add directly or indirectly to the gross farm
income. Productive labor of man or work stock includes all labor applied directly to a
productive enterprise. It does not include such labor as repairing buildings, fences, tor-
races, and ditches, or the care of work stock. The amount of productive labor devoted
to each enterprise was determined by individual estimates from eacli farmer, the esti-
mates being made in detail by separate operations, and later reduced to terms of man
days and mule days per acre of crop, or unit of other product.

A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 43

•

on cash to operate the farm is determined in the same way. Likewise,
the cost of work stock and of implements and machinery are dis-
tributed in a simihir manner, but on the basis of the amount of mule
labor expended on each enterprise. By this system the productive
enterprises of the farm carry the entire overhead charge of the
l)usiness. The costs of all crops grown by the wage system have been
kept separate from the costs of those grown by the cropper system.
For the latter the costs of the labor are considered from the point of
view of the two parties to the system and not from that of the farm
operator alone.

LAND RENT.

The land-rent charge against the crops was based upon the farmer's
estimate of the amount that the crop land would return in the form
of cash rent or its equivalent. When only a single crop occupied the
land during the year, that crop bore the entire annual rent charge,
and when more than pne crop was grown the charge was in most
cases divided evenly between them. However, in th6 case of corn
and peanuts planted together, 63 per cent of the rent was charged to
the corn and 37 per cent to the peanuts, for reasons explained later.

FERTILIZERS.^

The fertilizer charge includes all commercial fertilizers, cotton-
seed, cottonseed meal, and stable manure applied. Stable manure
is charged at the estimated value in the lot, which usually amounts
to $1 per load, and all other materials at the price paid or the market
value. The costs of hauling from the shipping point and to the
field are included under the labor charges.

MAN LAB0R.2

Included in the man-labor charge are the cash wages paid and
the value of rations furnished to all hired labor : the estimated value
of the farmer's labor, the cropper's labor, and all family labor; as
well as the perquisites furnished to each of these in the form of
wood (uncut) and the renting value of the garden and house lot. It
was assumed that the rent charge for the crop land covered the use
of the buildings thereon. The relative and actual costs of the
different elements of man labor are shown in figure 15, the figures
given in every case including the perquisites. The cost of
the operator's labor includes all supervision as well as the
manual labor performed. All of the operator's labor charge against
the cropper system consists of recompense for supervision. The cost
given for cropper labor represents the amount that the croppers
would receive in the form of wages for performing the same amount
of labor. This differs from the item of cropper labor as given under
current expenses. (See p. 16.)

1 For a detailed discussion of fertilizers applied see pp. 30-32.

2 For a discussion of the labor systems see pp. 16-19.

44

BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTTJEE.

The oj^erator's labor was the largest item in the total labor cost,
equaling 38 per cent of the latter, followed in order by the cash-
paid labor, the unpaid family labor, and the cropper labor. On the
average, there were 926 da^^s of productive labor expended per
farm, of which 570 days were devoted to the w^ages crops and 356

LABOR

^z

entire: farm

o '^

WAGE SYSTEM

1"- E

in <

O 1^

o

CROPPER SYSTEM

»I00 JOO SOO *«)0

♦ lOO 200 ♦300

*IOO 200 '100

OPERATOR
CASH -PAID
FAMILY
CROPPER

*4.2

ni

\1Z

—

*32 6
100

-

*86
16
71

172

1

TOTAL

1083

758

345

Fig. 15. — Cost of man labor per farm, for the farm as a whole, and for the wage and
cropper systems separately.

days to the cropper crops. The average cost per day of the pro-
ductive labor was $1.20.^

The man-labor charge was by far the largest item in the cost of
producing crops, amounting to 40.4 per cent of the latter.

WORK-STOCK LABOR.

The second largest item in the cost of crop production is work-
stock labor, which accounted for 19.2 per cent of the total cost. In
calculating the cost of work-stock labor the items considered were
feed, depreciation, interest on present valu6, shoeing, veterinary
charges, and losses from injuries. It w^as assumed that the value of
the manure produced was offset by the cost of water, taxes on the
work stock, and interest, taxes, and insurance upon the feed. The
labor of caring for work stock was considered as nonproductive;
hence, by this system of cost determination, the cost of such labor is
automatically distributed among all the productive enterprises on the
farm. The stable charge is assumed to be covered by the rent of the
crop land.

These farms maintained an average of 4.4 head of productive work
stock, three-fourths of which consisted of mules. The average values
at the beginning of the year were $152 per mule and $145 per horse,
or an average of $150 per head of work stock. The average cost of
keeping a horse or mule for the year amounted to $115.46, the items
of Avhich are shown in figure 16. Three-fourths of this cost consisted
of feeds, and 59 per. cent of the feed cost consisted of corn. Hay
made up about 20 per cent of the feed cost, corn fodder 8 per cent,
oats nearly 12 per cent, and all other feed 1.5 per cent. The latter
consisted of green feed, mostly sorghum and pasture. Most of the
oats were fed in the sheaf.

^ Unweighted average.

A FARM MANAGEMENT SUEVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA.

45

ITEMS

s^

N

COST PER ANIMAL
•■lO 20 ^0 40 50 60

10

60

FEED COST

DEPRECIATION

INTEREST

VETERINARY. SHOEING,
ETC.

I6 6-.
1-73

14.5
13 ^
10 3

• „,, «.0.0. ••.> •..«■ •.,! i

s^

I

0o™.

TOTAL

115.46

100,00

Fig. 10. — 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 vakie 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
rtmounted 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 producti\e mule labor.

ITEMS

o > 2

tso

COST OR VALUE

100 ISO

PER FARM

200 250

300

PRESENT VALUE OF
IMPLEMENTS et MACHINERY

$

330 00

TOTAL ANNUAL CO&T

104.54

51.7

n^^^^^i

I^I^B

~

DEPRE-CIATlON
INTEREST, TAAES, INS.
REPAIRS
MACHINERY HIRED

5S.44

32.54

15.14

1.42

16 9

4.6
.4

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 value of the imple-

1 This cost is the average per day per farm, whereas the costs given in figure IG are
averages per animal.

-The total annual cost, $104.54, shown in figure IT, represents the gross cost. Sub-
tracting the receipts from machinery hired out, $1.07, leaves $103.47 as the net cost
per farin.

46

BULLETIN 648, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

ments and machinery- This means that in its present condition the
equipment will have an average life 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.

PRODUCTIVE 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 Avork-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 jnelds are also shown.

Table XVIII. — Productive days of man and mule labor expended per acre and
average yields of the principal cropa (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) «...

Peanuts harvested (solid)

Peanuts harvested (in corn)

Peanuts "hogged-off " (solid) o . .
Peanuts "hogged-off" (in corn) a

Oats

Oat hay

Rye

Eye 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, h 0.71 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.

1 A ■work unit is an average day's work.

A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA.

47

fN O "* O '-":0 ^
C^ CO <-< i-H CM ^ |>

CO CO o ^ " c4 -^

CO to -r c^ " c t>^ o "^

-res xt:'^
S2 ^°S

CO (M (M OO »0 iC CO O O (N

00 OS »0 00 CO C-1

t^^OOOCO"*COh-
i-<t^CiCOOCOCOO

Cl>— 'OCC«CC^O»OCOCO
OOXCOOOO'V'-'OjO

^ ^ -rt^ ^t^ CO

CDOi

CO O -* CO t^ '-H GO
CC .-t .-I CO O r-H GO

-^ I

O -H o "C (o o

i ^ , O '-^

o t^ o o cc -^ l^ o

O o

e C c 2 S °
o fc. ^ cs t: VI

£ s S s ~-^ <!i t* S

3 a>

«- » t-ii ,

^ O

P.—

0^0

;SS

■5°

.g

48

BULLETIlSr 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

a>

(M -^ COCD c:

■'1' ■'t

•

CO •

^

OC^tVCOO) OO ;

LO 1

»o

_J_3

i

cot>: c^ ■ '.-;-* •

oi •

oi

cc

D

^ ;

^

^

02*^ '

2

- 1

CO

CO «o >o u^ •— • CC 00 '

CO CO

O

?'

c^

ooojoc^o ^O ;

OCM

"^

C' 1

1-3 ' T-H ' ' T-H *

lO ^*

-d

«© ;

»

»-(

a

cS

i

c

3

~

1

CO

00 Oi t^ CO lO QO t^ •

o o

O

I>

(rqccMC<io COO ;

'-H rf

t—

3

o

rt Mr-< ■ ■ ■ ■ •

CO ►-■

•o

o

^ ;

O

o

R

o

^

a

Oi

:Ot^ -^ ^ GO OiiO ■

co-r

1

Q
(^

■t:^

t^ 10*0 10 0'"''"' •

o-jl-

o

"^

2

C-i ^ C^ ■ ' r^ ' •

ri >-'

•-4

d

ee I

*"*

K

"3

~>

m

^

!

s

"~

»o

^ lOt^ lOiMC-lOOOq

•o :

lO

•* Ol

9s

dto

S

C3

Ot~ OJCOO OO'-hO
^ .-i ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ji

o ■

o

CO o

o

A

«@

~ ee.

CC

03

O

O

_

o

o

lO^O'-IOOO^ •

OCD

•'*

lO^

to 'JO

i;

t3

Cvt

OOC^O^'-iOi^ •

COO

c^

cso

°;2

J'

"3

OJ >-'

<:»

a!

•M 00

03

■tj

o

ft

lO

M'cot^ascoc^'^X)

00 •

oc

ooo

l> M

J

^

lOW— I'l'OO^IM

Tj. .

■^

t- CO

to t—

o

J

'6

"3

-H c^ cs ■ ' ci ■ .e

oi ;

oi

2*^

■" CO

=5>

H

»o

CO coo -^ ^^ QO '

05 •

S

tea

OlO)

CO o o 04 (N OS "5" ;

(M 1

c^

c^ o

cs »-»

■6

d

8

rH OC -H ■ ■ ■ * •

CO '

CO

^i

S -^

t— 1

C3

lO

CO O C-l O C^ 00 o

^

^

::^^

E;S

V-^

3

j-H iC CO Oi CO CS 00

CO

CO

(N O

CO 05

^2

O^

'd

cot- oi ' * ^

CO

CO

O CO

,fcj

S

•^

e©M

CO

CO

-^

€^

o

o

S

Ph

Ul

S

J-

A

^

OCOCOCOOC^QOC^

t-

t—

-t-r^

Ol »o

TO

Ot— t— C^lC^lCStOCO

CO

CO

o o

CD »C

"Q

O r/!

to CO ^ --4 * oc o o

t>^

t^

^ CO

^S

g

&g

e4 ->

CO

CO

a;' ^

€^

X°

V

■ ^

y

"

s~

c-^

cc

«

O

O

><

1— 1

^

^

>A

m

<

'

H

• "

-e j3

; o

'C

p S

I -J

o

1

o

fi

a
55

o

^

F
1

c
_<

c

c
a

<

J

c

n

>

3

3^

5 :

3 o

: 1

o

c

c;

>

c

c
c

1

3 22

•m p.a

; s

1

■d

S e o f>.

fe3cg|

C3 § 9 o

.S ® '^■:s
ego£
E S «' "s

.h P 0.03

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-

L'lG. IS. — For many years peanuts have been grown extensively in Brooks County, prin-
cipally as a crop to be " hogged ofE ". 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 decreasing
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 yieids and costs by the two systems are discussed in the first part of this
bulletin.

50

BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

O CO GC 00

o>

,_,

oco

CO

s

o

CO COr-^ C^ .

(NO •

oo

CO

.-5 ' r-I ' •

CO o'

CO

o^

"S

6%

M

"S'

"H

s

ft

o

o

ti ^

S~t

%^

■^ 1

»0 t^ (M .

oo ^

uO 1

OCOO ;

O O)

c^

1

o

o

a

^ •

-H e

'^

Ph

-;

w

1^

O ^OCN

i~ :

CO

CO

c3

o

t^ •

lO •

>o

ft

03

C^ i-<(N

S

.

f~t

^

'O

ft

1?

si;
o

o

^i

i

00 '•

cocq i

«o

CO

■+J ^

t-t

CO •

o»-i •

lO

§

-^

ft
ft

U :

c^'

oi

s

2

CL,

o

u

(N lO >0 (N

0<N ■

CD

CO

-r C) 00 CO

^ X. 0

o

C: t-- GO Tji

^ 00 I

00

fe

0

1

lO

TI-' r-i 6 '6 O

'^ '-r d

ft
a

1

o

a
o

€^

1

0

CO
CO

d

i;t 000

;-H

«o

O^H lO

QO

00

'^ CD 0:1 CO

00

OOt- ■

CO

o

t- 0 • r- CO

S -o-

n

ft

c~i

oi

^ci Eoo

o

ft

^

©■Ci ««

0 " CM

Q

2
o

0

s «>

^

00 O COCD^ OOi

03

CT>

w 00 -^ 0

.•00

o

'-H 05 lO O O --"^O

o

o

S'S°

i

o

CO *C^ * ' ' *

00

00

■0 d

m

o-o e©

T3 C-)

8

ft
O

•a

0

. . 00

0 e«

a

Ut

fe

C<1

OOCOOl

(M

CJ

^ C3 TJ' CO

d

j_; C3 0

OOffl

iO

■0 -H E CO 0

e^

■a " d

5

ft

(>5

CO

CO

ft

e©

©■^ »*

X) CM

i

0

0 e©

■i"

u

<:DcDC^ GO

lOO I^

lO

.ra

CM CO CM

CM 0

o

(>< «30

CO

CO

CO l-

.CO CM

a

■^

-t.O rt

TJIN •

^

COCDCO

'iM'rt

d^

^ -a^o

S cj 0

«@

IM

CM

w

S CM

M

^'-m

w «^^

t—t

'^

ft

.c

2

CO

o

O

s

°

fH

^

ai»oo ^

r^

I^

c<im CO

CMOcg

;m

00

CO l>i oo

co-^r . ocM

«©

. CO t--6^

CO

1

'cq^

CO

o

oi CO a '^ .

-g^d

ft

._ u 0

o

2

e©

►-1 ^

M 5

o

o

^

^

'^lOiMOO.-ii-ioOC:

m

m

t^ 00 CO r*

OCM

o

(M Oi lO Oi O CO CO l>

0^ .CO 02

ft

. +^ — (O

■dcM ";

C3

COCO-^ ' ' 'r-I

ira

t^ CM a " .

S " CO

C3

tH

9^

■^ 0

■M

"P

s

ft

^ «^

0:

02 ^^

'§

o

o

__s

0

o

o

•S

£;

»o

r^lOCOCC

CO

0 t^ CO 0

c

10 cr rr"

CO

3
ft

03

CO r-. t- ;C

c^

00

coco fl ^ _.

ee -OO!" 1

CD ^ lO 1

o

ft

e«^

»-<

•;-i 0

-M

a

a ^

M ^

o
O

Q

1

kri •

t-.

0 '

0

4J •

o3 •

• ta

h ■

• ^

01 .

ft •

■ ft

0 ;

: 0

;a

■^ •

■ T}

§ ■.

i -g

t-i •

:fe

; >>

ft •

1

■ ft

* M

ft :

; ft

1 3

0 .

p

: ft

0 ,

>

1 "

■ ft
• 0

>> •

• >i

' ^

t/

ja :

;^

■ 0

•_^

?.:

a

:■§

-

J

c

: >

■ a

»

'S '

!-

■'S 0 0

" :

c

00+^

:*

5 J

B c3

: i

2 :

>

■ •a » ft

:8g

; b

3 'S

: ft

>-4 I

■ 5 -Tw

;:?>§8

•

;-

' b

1 i.

3 1

£

C3

2 l§a 1

0 ^2lS

0 3 0 <u

ft

ftss-^

o<0

3

®4

3«

3

-P

^ 1

'

r
ii

3
3

1

A FAEM MANAGEMENT SURVEY 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-vear 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 peanuts ready for thrashing. The recent high prices offered
for peanuts by the oil mills 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.

^ By qross lint is meant the weight 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 AGRICULTURE.

CORN AND PEANUTS.

Since corn and peanuts are commonly grown on the same land,
die cotits 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 rows 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

lirmliii-l ioii ,ii' |ic,-i mil - liir ili'' in.irlMi nuny power
have been introducfd. The straw is baled aud used lor feed.

two crops together results in distinct economies of labor and use of
land, wdiich much more than offsets the somewhat lower corn yield.
Com grown alone costs 83 cents per bushel to produce by the wage
system, and 84 cents by the cropper system, whereas corn grown with
peanuts cost 67 and 6G 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 Avhen 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 FAEM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 58

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 aere
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 groAvn on these farms primarily to furnish pasture for
hogs, only 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 machinery, the
cost per bushel would have been considerably lower than shown in
the 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-
Aested, 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.
On many they were grown for a winter cover crop and to furnish
Avinter 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. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE.

margin of profit per bushel. As a grain crop, rye is very uncertain
on this light, sandy soil, bnt 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
this 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 $1G.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 i^roportionate part of the land-
rent charge. The net cost of this croj) 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 figiu-ed 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 merchantable melons left in the field. AA^hen the cost is com-
puted for the entire acreage of melons grown on the 46 farms, the
cost per acre amounts to $2-2.17. 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 shoAvn herein
represent the cost of the growing 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
fann 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 comparatiAel}^ 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 yield 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. DEPAETMEKT OF AGRICULTURE.

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. — Cont of feeding cattle on 3 farms {Brooks Coiinty, Ga.).

Number of cattle fed, 378: number of poimds gained, f.2.070.

Cost.

Man labor (208.5 days)

Mule labor (323 days)

Equipment cost

Cottonseed meal (UO tons)

Cotton hulls (122.2 tons

Hay (3 tons)

Silajre (corn and sorghum) (132 tons).

Pasture b

Bedding c (125 loads)

Dipping, dehorning

Interest, i

Taxes

$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

Gross cost

Manure credit (1,120 loads) .

5,641.46
1,120.00

Net cost of gains

Cost of cattle at beginning of feeding period .

Cost of cattle at end of feeding period .
Price received f . o. b. Quitman

4, 524. 46
7, 612. 00

12, 136. 46
12,091.00

Loss.

Cost per 100 pounds of gain (weight at Quitman).

45.46
7.29

o Charged at cost of production.

b 123 head for 2 montlis and 200 head for 3} months.

c Oats, rye, and pine straw. Cost of hauling included under labor charges.

The 378 cattle fed gained 62,070 pounds, or KU 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 t"he 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 ])er
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 MAXAGEMENT SURVEY TN 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.

ITE M5

}- ^
z S
0 u."

crog

COST PER lOO POUNDS LIVE WEIGHT
»i.00 2.00 3 00 4.00 5.0O

TOTAL COST
FtED COST
MAN LA BOR
INTEREST BcTAXES
MULE LABOR- EOUIPM'T
VETLRINARY, SERUM, ETC

lOO.O

65 0
9.T

1 .0
.9

mi^Msmi^si^immm^immmmm^^^^^^

m

1

1

^ Olher Fixture Scom ^ W&termeloni Fe<J ^ Manure Credits

Fig. 21. — Cost of swine production.

It will be seen by the table that of the gross cost of producing
hogs, one-half is accounted for by the cost of peanuts pastured, two-
thirds hy all crops pastured, and 85 per cent by all classes of feeds.
The peanuts, oats, rye, and sweet potatoes fed were all pasture crops
and have no definite commercial value, 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.

T.VBLE XXII. — r'o.v/ (if .strinc production on 55 farms (BroolxH Coviifi/, Ga.).
Number of hog units a per farm, 77; poimds of live weight gains per farm, U.033.

Peanuts, pastured (32 acres) b

Oats and rye, pastured

Sweet potatoes, pastured (2.24 acres) b

Woods pasture

other pasture

Cost per
farm.

$309. 34

2(1. 03
19.80
9.78
10.70

Total pasture cost.

Com (173 bushels)

Watermelons, fed

375. 65

129. 40

8.43

Total feed cost

Man labor (41 days)

Mule labor (5.1 days)

Equipment

Veterinary, serum, dips, medicine.

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
19.62
.82

604. 17
40.85

Cost per

100
pounds

live
weight.

$2.80
.23
.18
.09
.10

3.40
1.17

4. 65
.53
.05
.01
.05
.18
.01

5.48
.37

Per cent

of Rross

cost.

51.2
4.3
3.3
1.6
1.8

62.2

21.4

1.4

85.0
9.7

3.3
.1

100.0

6.8

5.11
4.73

a See footnote, p. 60, for definitions.

b Charged at cost of production.

58 BULLETIN 648. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Next to feeds, the largest item of cost is that of man hibor, equal-
ing nearly 10 per cent of the gross 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 ^ 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 bo 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 sirine. — It has long been the prac-
tice of the farmers of Brooks County to slaughter their hogs at
home. Recently, however, 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
10,395 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 slaughtered or on hand
at the end of the year were reduced to hog units by dividing the total live weight by 200
l)ounds.

" The live-weight gain inclvides tlie weight of all hogs sold and slaughtered, and any
differences in the weights of all hogs on the farms at the beginning and ending of the
farm year.

^ In getting these estimates the farmers were aslced, first, how much more rent they
would be willing to pay for the use of Brooks 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, tliey
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 MAXAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA.

59

46 cents per hundred pounds. The average cost was 54 cents. This
does not inchide 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.

Table XXIII. — Coat of killing and curing swine {Brooks County, Ga.).

Number of farms.

Average per farm:

Live weight killed (pounds).

Number of hogs killed

Average weight per hog killed (pounds).

Man labor (days).
Male labor (days).

Cost of man labor..
Cost of mule labor.
Equipment cost . . .
Building charge a..

Salt

Borax

loe

Farms liaving each specified number of
poimds of swine (live w:eight) killed
per farm.

Average
of all
farms.

50

,438

47.2

179

18.01
1.57

Total cost

Cost per 100 pounds of Uve weight killed.

$23.51
1.29

.10
7.73
9.28

.43
3.10

45.54
0.54

Less

than

5,000

pounds.

14

2,764
21
132

5,000 to

7,000
pounds.

10.1

.40

813. 58

.43

.03

3.96

4.22

.50

1.22

23.95
0.87

10

5,446
33.7
161

13.5

.82

$15. 20

.73

.09

5.60

6.32

.57

1.08

29.58
0.54

7,000 to

10,000

pounds.

12

8,266
4S
172

20.3
1.4

48.60
0.59

10,000
poiuids
and over.

14

16,395
83
193

27.1
3.5

$36.65
3.08
.14
13.04
16.15
.40
6.40

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 Accouuting, (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 Farmei-'s Living. (Farmers' Bulletin

635.)
A Method of Analyzing Farm Business. (Farmers' Bulletin GGl.)
Trenching Machinery used for the Construction of Trenches for the Tile i:)rains.

(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 Federal 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 York. (Depart-
ment Bulletin 82.)
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 ^29.)
What is Farm Management. (Bureau of Plant Industry Bulletin 2.59.)

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 Use 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 cents.
Agricultural Conditions in Southern New York. (Bureau of Plant Industry

Circular 64.) Price 5 cents.
60

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 649 ^mt

^^s^'^^u

Contribution from the States Relations Service
A. C. TRUE, Director

Washington, D. C.

PROFESSIONAL PAPER

April 13, 1918

EXPERIMENTS ON THE DIGESTIBILITY OF FISH.^

By A. I). Holmes, Specialist in Charge of Digestion Experiments, Office of Home

Economics.

CONTENTS.

Introduction 1

Digestion experiments with men 3

Treparation of fish 4

Nature of the diet 5

Boston mackerel C

Butterflsh 8

Grayflsh 9

Salmon 12

Summary 14

INTRODUCTION.

While many studies have been made of the digestibiUt}^ of milk,
cereals, fats, vegetables, and meats (especially beef), less information
is available regarding the digestibility of fish. Slowzoff ^ has reported
experiments with six persons in which fish was substituted for meat
in an otherwise uniform diet to determine its effect on the metabohsm
of phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium. He found no change in
the metabohsm of phosphorus; the absorption of calcium was dimin-
ished 5 per cent, and the absorption of magnesium was increased 8
per cent. Kifanitsyn ^ found that the protein supplied by salt cod
was 90 per cent digested by human subjects when the fish was eaten
alone and 94.4 per cent digested when eaten as a part of a mixed diet.
Rozov,^ in a study of the relative digestibility of the fat of smoked
and fresh smelt, found that it was 98 per cent utihzed in the smoked
and 97 per cent in the fresh. Slowzoff and Krawtschenko ^ report

1 Prepared imder the direction of C. F. Langworthy, Chief, Office of Home Economics.

2 Verhandl. Gesell. Russ. Arzte St. Petersb., 76 (1909), p. 220.

3 Nutritive Value of the Cod. Diss., Imp. Mil. Med. Acad. [St. Petersb.], 1887, pp. 56. (Russian.]

* Comparative Assimilation of Fats from Fresh and Smoked Fish. Diss., Imp. Mil. Med. Acad. [ St.
Petersb.], 1891, pp. 48. [Russian.]

6 Verhandl. Gesell. Russ. Arzte St. Petersb., 1907-8; abs. in Zentbl. Gesam. Physiol, u. Path. StoS-
wechsels, n. ser., 4 (1909), No. 1, p. 40.

Note. — This bulletin records studies of the digestibility of Boston mackerel, butterfish, grayflsh, and
salmon, and is primarily of interest to students and investigators of food problems.
28623°— 18— BuU. 649

2 BULLETIN 649, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

that the absorption of mineral salts is better on a diet containing
fresh or saltf'fish and poorer on a diet containing dried fish than on a
diet containing beef. Van Slyke and White/ using the rate of excre-
tion of nitrogen in the urine as an index of the rate of protein diges-
tion, found that boiled cod (fresh) was more rapidly digested than
boiled beef, boiled weakfish, boiled mussel, and boiled cod (salt).
Rosenfeld,^ in a study of the nutritive value of fish (sea pike and sea
salmon), concludes that fish causes the excretion of a smaller
amount of uric acid than meat and that fish is equal to beef for
maintaining nitrogen equilibrium. In digestion experiments with
beef and fish, Atwater^ compared the amounts of protein, fat. and
ash assimilated, and obtained the same coefficients of digestibility
for both food materials.

Studies of the digestibility of canned salmon have been reported
by Milner,'* who found in four experiments in which an average of
401 grams of sahuon was eaten daily for three days with a simple
mixed basal ration consisting of bread, milk, butter, and sugar, that
96 per cent of the protein and 97 per cent of the fat of the salmon
were retained by the body.

A number of other investigators have studied the value of fish flesh
for food purposes hy means of artificial digestion experiments.
Honigsberg ^ studied the relative digestibility of fish and found that
pepsin digested whitefish protein more rapidly than raw and less
rapidly than cooked beef. In a study of the digestibility of fish pro-
tein by trypsin, White and Crozier ** found that boiled codfish and
dogfish digested more readily than boiled beef. Sulima ^ conducted
experiments to determine whether there were differences in food in
the raw state and that cooked at a high temperature which would
affect the digestive process and concluded that gastric digestion was
much slower with cooked than with uncooked fish (sardines). This
difi'erence, he bcheved, was due to the enzyms present in the raw
fish. Konig and Spittgerber,^ as a result of determinations of the
composition, energy value, and constants of fish fat, and a study of
tlie digestibility of fish flesh by means of artificial digestion exper-
iments, concluded that fish flesh is as easily and completely digested
as meat.

In the earliest elaborate series of mvestigations of food materials
made in tliis country, Atwater^ studied the composition of fish,
and the results of tliis investigation contributed largely to the gen-

1 Jour. Biol. Chem., 9 (1911), No. 3-4, pp. 219-229.

2 Zentbl. Inn. Med., 27 (1906), No. 7, pp. 169-176.

3 Ztsehr. Biol., 24 (1888), No. 1, pp. 16-28; abs. in Jahresber. Tier Chem., 17 (1887), p. 418.
* Connecticut Storrs Sta. Rpt. 1905, p. 142.

6 Wiener Med. BI., 5 (1882), Nos. 19, pp. 582-585; 20, pp. 614-616.
6 Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc., 33 (1911), No. 12, pp. 2042-2048.
' Arch. Hyg., 75 (1912), No. 6-7, pp. 235-264.

8 Landw. Jahrb., 38 (1909), Sup. 4, pp. 1-169.

9 U. S. Comr. Fish and Fisheries Rpt. 1883, pp. 423-494.

DIGESTIBILITY OF FISH. 3

eral knowledge of the food valuei of fish and its importance as a
source of fat and other nutrients in the diet. The results of his
studies ^ of 50 or more varieties showed that, on an average, fish
contains over 18 per cent of protein, and about 4 per cent of fat.
GeneraUzing from tliese data it has been pointed out '^ that fish
may be divided on tJie basis of their fat content into three classes:
Tliose with over 5 per cent fat such as shad, salmon, butterfisli, and
lierring; those containing from 2 to 5 per cent fat such as wliitefisii,
halibut, and porgy ; and tliose containing less than 2 per cent fat sucli
as bluefish, haddock, and cod. It is evident that fish, Uke meat, may
contribute materially to the fat of the diet, particularly if the fatter
varieties are eaten. On the basis of the protein they suppl}'^ they
also resemble meat, and tliis is true too with respect to the ways in
wliich they are used in the diet. Accordingly, fish should be
considered as a protein food and classed with the meats. However,
notwithstanding the fact that protein is essential in the diet and fat
is supplied in a readily assimilated form in fish, the use of fish is
small in comparison with the use of beef, pork, and mutton, winch
are also sources of animal protein. The demand for land animal
"meats" is at present in excess of the supply, whde the possible sup-
ply of fish is beheved to be much greater than the present demand.
In view of the attempts wliich are being made to interest the
public in methods of reducing the consumption of meat without
lessening the nutritive value and attractiveness of the diet, definite
knowledge of the food value of fish is of especial importance. And
so, as part of the studies of the food value and uses of fish in the home,
which are being undertaken, it seemed desirable to study the digesti-
bihty of some varieties of fish taken to be representative of general
types, including some which are well known and one, grayfish,
which is comparatively new in the American market.

DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS WITH MEN.

Seven young men (medical and dental students) who had gained
experience in other investigations of like character, served as sub-
jects in this investigation. They were all normal individuals of good
health, and reasonably active. During the experimental period they
were requested to observe their usual routine as regards amount of
exercise taken, hours of eating, etc. From their knowledge of physi-
ology and previous experience in this type of work, they were suf-
ficiently informed of the nature of their duties to appreciate the im-
portance of carefully following the directions given them.

For the pm'pose of this investigation a special fore period and after
period were not considered necessary, and accordingly the subjects

I Loc. cit. and U. S. Dept. Agr., Office Expt. Stas. Bui. 28 (1906), rev. ed., pp. 45-50.
8 U. S. Dept. Agr., Farmers' Bui. 85 (1898), p. 14.

4 BULLETIN 649^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

were allowed to follow their customary dietary routine preceding and
following the experimental period. For the purpose of identifying
the feces of the experimental period, three or fom* gelatin capsules
containing about 0.3 gram of pulverized charcoal were taken with
the first meal of the experimental period and with the first meal fol-
lowing it ; the separation of the feces due to the diet under investiga-
tion was easily made at the lines of demarcation made by the por-
tions dully colored by the charcoal.

Inasmuch as this study is concerned principally with the coefhcient
of digestibility of the protein and fat of the fish, no attempt was made
to maintain a nitrogen equilibrium or uniform body weight of the sub-
jects. The urine resulting from the experimental periods was not
collected, for it was considered that any constituents of the foods
which had been sufficiently broken down to appear in the urine
had undergone the process of digestion; fiu-thermore, the results ob-
tained by collecting and analyzing the urine of a short test period
are not entirely conclusive since the urine can not be separated as
satisfactorily as the feces.

PREPARATION OF FISH.

In this study of the digestibihty of different types of fish, fresh
butterfish and Boston mackerel were used, and canned grayfish and
canned salmon. A fish loaf seemed to be the best form in wliich to
prepare the fish for eating, since sufficient quantities for the enthe
experimental period could be prepared at one time. Furthermore,
it was easy to prepare a fish loaf having a uniform composition and
one which would not change materially on standing by the settling
out of fat or evaporation of water.

The butterfish and mackerel received a preliminary cooking before
being incorporated in the fish loaf. The fish, after being cleaned, were
thoroughly washed and placed as close as possible to each other in a
covered cooker, water was added, and they were cooked for one-hiilf
hour. They were not boiled, but steamed in a very small quantity
of water wiiich prevented browning or sticking to the pan. To
prevent any loss due to extracted fat and protein, the water in
whicli the fish were steamed was retained and mixed with the fish
meat, Beythien ^ having reported that the water in which fish
were boiled contained 8.8 to 11.3 per cent of the total fish protein.
After this preliminary cooking of the butterfisli and mackerel, the
bones, any pieces of fins, etc., were removed and the fish meat was
cut in an ordinary household meat cutter. The bones and bits of
skin were removed from the canned grayfish and sahnon, and the
solid meat was minced in a meat cutter. From this point the prepa-

1 Pharm. Centralhalle, 47 (1900), p. 140.

DIGESTIBILITY OF FISH. 5

ration of the fish, loaf was identical for the canned and fresh fish.
In each instance a quantity of the fish to be studied sufficient for the
entire test period, after being mixed with salt and pepper, was very
thoroughly and uniformly mixed and baked for two to three hours
in a moderate oven. Whatever crust formed during baking was
removed, and tlie remaining portion was again thorouglily mixed
in order to secure a uniform product, after which a sample was
taken for analysis.

NATURE OF THE DIET.

Inasmuch as experience has shown that in studying the digestibility
of a single food it is desirable to supply the food material under con-
sideration as a part of a simple mixed diet, a suitable basal ration
was served with the fish loaf. It consisted of boiled potatoes, crackers,
apple sauce, sugar, tea or coffee, and a Uttle lemon juice as a condi-
ment in some cases. In accordance with the usual custom, a sufficient
supply of the special food under consideration (fish loaf) and of the
other foods was prepared in advance for the whole experimental
period. The fish loaf was kept in a refrigerator at 15° C. and remained
fresh and in good condition, as did also the potatoes, which were
boiled, mashed, and thoroughly mixed to insure uniform composi-
tion. The apples, which were eaten raw, were of good grade and
pleasant flavor. The crackers or ''biscuits" used were taken from
a large lot and assumed to be of uniform composition. Though no
attempt was made to have all eat Uke amounts, the subjects were
urged to eat liberally of the fish loaf and moderately of the crackers
and potatoes, following tlieir individual preferences with respect to
the apples and the tea or coffee.

As a whole, the ration, though it contained no added fat and only
moderate amounts of carbohydrates, was reasonably generous as
regards protein and energy and was varied enough not to become
tiresome.

The food for each man for each meal was weighed in advance and
kept separate. All remaining uneaten was weighed. The difference
between the amoimt furnished and the amount remaining repre-
sented the amount eaten.

Samples of the food were reserved for analysis. The small amount
of lemon juice (on an average, 35 grams per day), which was eaten
with the butterfish and the Boston mackerel, was disregarded in
computing the food value of tfie diet.

The feces were collected, sampled, and analyzed by the methods
followed in the department's digestion experiments, of which the
present investigation forms a part.^

1 U. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 310 (1915), pp. 23. See list on last page.

6 BULLETIN 649; U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

BOSTON MACKEREL.

The investigations reported in this paper, which form a part of
an extended study of the digestibiUty, nutritive value, and uses in
the home of fish and fish products, have to do particularly with the
digestibility of protein. One of the varieties of fish, Boston mack-
erel, here studied in comparison with other sorts of fish, has, however,
been considered from the standpoint of the relative digestibility of
animal fats of different kinds in an earher bulletin.*

Boston mackerel (Scomher scomhrus, Ijinnseus) is a liighly fla-
vored fish, whicii can be compared to moderately fat meat in food
value, since it supplies good amounts of both protein and fat. Tliis
fish, which is found tiiroughout the north Atlantic, spends tlie winter
months in deep water; in tlie spring, schools rise to the surface and
approach the land. This fish forms one of the chief products of
the New England fisheries, tlie catch dming tlie year 1916 amounting
to approximately 16,000,000 pounds. Tlie fish used in this inves-
tigation were purchased at a local market and weighed, after clean-
ing, approximately 3 pounds each. They were procured at the
height of the season, were in prime condition, and when prepared
in the form of a fish loaf made a most appetizing dish. While the
Boston mackerel possesses a characteristic flavor which is quite
pronounced in the boiled or fried fish, this flavor was not evident in
the fish loaf.

Three subjects fiving under normal conditions, who had acquired
considerable experience in work of this kind in connection with the
determination of the digestibiUty of some of the common edible fats
of animal and vegetable origin, assisted in this study. The results
wliich were obtained in the three-day test period follow.

» U.S.Dept.Agr.Bul.507 (1917), p.l6.

DIGESTIBILTTy OF FISH. 7

Data of digestion experiments with Boston mackerel in a simple mixed diet.

Weight
of food.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hy-
drates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 444, subject D. G. G.:

Boston maekerol (in form of fish loaf)

Orams.

1,496.0
439.0
284.0

1,320.0
171.0

Orams.

926.0

331.5

19.6

1,116.7

Grams.

323.0

11.0

23.0

5.3

Orams.

199.9

.4

38.0

6.6

Orams.

Grams.
47.1

Potato

91.7
201.1
187.4
171.0

4.4

Crackers

2.3

Fruit

4.0

3, 710. 0
67.0

2,393.8

362.3

19.3

343.0

244.9

10.1

234.8

651.2
31.9
619.3

57.8

Feces

5.7

52 1

Per cent utilized

94.7

95.9

95.1

90.1

Experiment No. 446, subject R. L. S.:

Boston mackerel (in form of fish loaf)

1, 1S4. 0
227.0
243.0

1,376.0
58.0

732.9

171.4

16.8

1, 164. 1

255.6
5.7
19.7
5.5

158.2

.2

32.6

6.9

37.3

Potato

47.4
172.0
195.4

58.0

2.3

1.9

Fruit

4.1

Sugar

Total food consumed

3,088.0
53.0

2,085.2

286.5

21.9

264.6

197.9

7.5

190.4

472.8

16.2

456.6

45.6

7.4

38.2

92.4

96.2

96.6

83.8

Experiment No. 447. subject 0. E. S.:

1,348.0
476.0
171.0

1, .i94. 0
165. 0

834.4

359.4

11.8

1,348.5

291.0
11.9
13.8
6.4

180.1

.5

22.9

8.0

42.5

99.5
121.1
226.3
165.0

4.7

Fruit

1.4

4.8

Total food consumed

3, 754. 0
70.0

2,554.1

323.1

28.6

294.5

211.5

12.2

199.3

611.9

21.6

590.3

53.4

Feces

7 6

45.8

91.1

94.2

96.5

85.8

Average food consumed per subject per day. ...

1, 172. 4

781.4

108.0

72.7

192.9

17.4

Summary of digestion experiments with Boston mackerel in a simple mixed diet.

Experiment No.

Subject.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

444

D. G. G

Per cent.
94.7
92.4
91.1

Per cent.
95.9
96.2
94.2

Per cent.
95.1
96.6
96.5

Per cent.
90.1

446

R.L.S

0. E. S

83 8

447

85.8

Average

92.7

95.4

96.1

86.6

An average of 108 grams of protein, 73 grams of fat, and 193
grams of carbohydrates was consumed per man daily during the test
periods with Boston mackerel, the fuel value of the diet being 1,861
calories. These constituents were found to be 92.7 per cent, 95.4
per cent, and 96.1 per cent digested, respectively. The coefficients
of digestibility for the fish protein and fat were found to be 93.1 per
cent and 95.2 per cent, respectively, when allowance was made for
the undigested protein and fat resulting from the basal ration.

BULLETIN 649, TJ. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

BUTTERFISH.

Butterfish {Poronotus triacanthus) was chosen for one series of
studies as an excellent fish of the type commonly used as pan fish.
Butterfish occurs on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from Maine to Texas,
and during the year 1915 the catch of the coastal fisheries of New
York and New Jersey amounted to over 5,000,000 pounds. At times
it is taken in such abundance that a glut in the market results, and,
since this fish is usually sold fresh, great quantities are wasted. The
butterfish which was studied in the experiments here reported was of
a good commercial grade, purchased in the local market, and it was
believed to be representative of this type of fish procured under the
ordinary trade conditions.

The three subjects who assisted in the study of the digestibility of
butterfish, following the same routine which has hitherto proved en-
tirely satisfactory, ate an average of 105 grams of protein, 37 grams
of fat, and 208 grams of carbohydrates, daily, the fuel value of the
diet being 1,585 calories. The data obtained for the three-day test
period are included in the following table :

Data of digestion experiments with butterfish in a simple mixed diet.

Weight
of food.

Constituents of foods.

Expenment, subject, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbohy-
drates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 452, subject D. G. G.:

Butterfish (in form of fish loaf) . .

Grams.

1,533.0
115. 0
322.0

1,259.0
189.0

Grams.

1, 120. 9
86. S
22.2

1,065.1

Grams.

303.7

2.9

26.1

6.0

Grams.
74.5

0.1
43.1

6.3

Grams.

Grams.
33.9

24.0
228.0
178.8
189.0

1.2

Crackers . .

2.6

Fruit

3.8

Sugar

Total food consumed

3,418.0
46.0

2, 295. 0

337.7

22.8

314.9

124.0

7.5

116.5

619.8
11.3

608 5

41.6

Feces

4.4

Amount utilized .

37.1

93.2

94.0

98.2

89.4

Experiment No. 454, subject R. L. S.:
Butterfish (in form of fish loaf)

1,419.0
139.0
355. 0

1,423.0
163 0

1,0.37.6

104.9

24.5

1,203 8

281.1
3.5

28.8
5.7

69.0
0.1

47.6
7.1

31.3

Potato

29.1
251.3
202.1
163.0

1.4

2.8

Fruit

4.3

Total food consumed

3,499.0
60.0

2, 370. 8

319.1

24.9

294.2

123.8

9.5

114 3

645.5

16.5

629.0

39.8

9.1

30.7

92.2

92.3

97.4

77.1

Experiment No. 455, subject 0. E. S.:
Buttc'fish (in form of fish loaf)

1,290.0
569.0
122.0

1,474.0
196.0

943.2

429.6

8.4

1,247.0

255.6
14.2
9.9
5.9

62.7
0.6

16.3
7.4

28.5

Potato

118.9

86.4

209 3

196. 0

6.7

Crackers . .

1.0

Fruit

4.4

3,661.0
68.0

2,Cfi8.2

285.6

29.6

256.0

87.0
14.5
72.5

610.6

14.3

696.3

39.6

9.6

Amount utiUzed

30.0

Per cent utilized

89.6

83.3

97.7

75.8

Average food consumed per subject per day

1,174.2

810.5

104.7

37.2

208.4

13.4

DIGESTIBILITY OF FISH.

Summary of digestion experiments with butter fish in a simple mixed diet.

9

Experiment No.

Subject.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbohy-
drates.

Ash.

452

D.G.G

R.L.S

O.E.S

A verage

Percent.
93.2
92.2
89.6

Percent.
94.0
92.3
83.3

Percent.
9S.2
97.4
97.7

Percent.
89.4

454

77.1

455

75.8

91.7

89.9

97.8

80.8

In the digestion experiments made with butterfish, the subjects ate
an average of 471 grams of fish daily, which suppUed 93 grams of
protein and 23 grams of fat. The protein, fat, and carbohydrates
of the total diet were found to ho 91.7 per cent, 89.9 per cent, and

97.8 per cent digested, respectively. The values 91.7 per cent and

89.9 per cent for the digestibility of the protein and fat of the total
diet become 91.9 per cent and 86.4 per cent, respectively, if allow-
ance is made for the undigested protein and fat resulting from the
basal ration. The estimated value, 86.4 per cent, for the digesti-
bihty of the fat of butterfisli is somewhat lower than that of the
other fish fats here reported. This lower value is no doubt in part
due to the "heaping up of errors" involved in estimating the diges-
tibility of a fat of a single food when it represents so small a por-
tion of the total fat eaten. The subjects reported that they re-
mained in normal physical condition during the experimental
periods, except that subjects D. G. G. and O. E. S. reported that
the diet produced a constipating effect, which was due, no doubt,
to its very complete utiUzation.

CRAYFISH.

The grayfish (Squalus acanihias, Linnaeus), which is very abundant
and easy to catch, though known to be wholesome, of good flavor,
and usable for many appetizing dishes, has not been utihzed to any
extent in this country for food purposes, but iias been considered
largely as a som^ce of oil and fish scrap, a fishery industry by-product
of value for fertilizer material. Recently the Bureau of Fisheries
has devoted considerable attention to the possible use of this fish in
human nutrition and is of the opinion that it constitutes a cheap and
very wholesome food.

In the literature consulted, no reports were found of the digesti-
bihty of grayfish. In order to judge of the value of the grayfish in
the dietary, it seemed desirable to obtain information on this point,
and, accordingly, tests were made in which canned graj^h was
served in the form of a fish loaf in conj miction with the simple basal
ration employed in the other tests reported in this paper. The canned
fish used for this study was supplied by the Bureau of Fisheries and was
taken to be representative of a large pack put up by a conmiercial
concern under the direction of the Bureau of Fisheries.

10

BULLETIN 649, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTURE.

Denis * in a study of the blood of a number of fishes found urea in
the blood of the grayfish. An analysis of the canned grayfish showed
that the flesh of this fish contained both ammoniacal and nrea
nitrogen. The amount of nitrogen present in this form is, however,
relatively small, and when allowance was made in the experiments
which follow for this nonprotein nitrogen it was found that the
value for the coefficient of digestibility of protein was not materially
changed.

Eight digestion experiments have been made with the grayfish
and the results obtained for the three-day test period are reported in
the following: table:

Data of digestion experiments with grayfish in a simple mixed diet.

Weight
of food.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-

hy-
drates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 535, subject H. R. G.:

Grams.

1,409.0
486. 0
400.0
581.0

Grams.
971.2
366.9
27.6
491.5

Grams.

244.3

12.1

32.4

2.3

Grams.

160.8

0.5

53.6

2.9

Grams.

Grams.
32.7

Potato

Crackers

Fruit

101.6

283.2

82.5

4.9
3.2
1.8

2,876.0
64.0

1,857.2

291.1
37.8
253.3

217.8

7.3

210.5

467.3

15.3

452.0

42.6

3.6

39.0

87.0

96.6

96.7

91.5

Experiment No. 537, subject P. K.:

1,621.0
507.0
529.0
890.0

1,117.3

382.8

36.5

752.9

281.1
12.7
42.9
3.6

185.0
0.5
70.9
4.4

37.6

105.9
374.5
126.4

6.1

4.2

Fruit

2.7

Total food consumed

3,547.0
39.0

2, 289. 5

340.3

17.7

322.6

260.8

8.5

252.3

606.8

8.1

598.7

49.6

4.7

44.9

94.8

96.7

98.7

90.5

Experiment No. 538, subject C. J. W.:

1,331.0

452.0

202.0

944.0

12.0

917.4

341.3

13.9

798.6

230.8
11.3
16.4
3.8

151.9
0.4
27.1
4.7

30.9

Potato

94.5
143.0
134.1

12.0

4.5

1.6

Fruit

2.8

2,941.0
65.0

2,071.2

262.3

27.7

234.6

184.1

13.9

170.2

383.6

14.9

368.7

39.8

8.5

31.3

89.4

92.4

96.1

78.6

Experiment No. 547, subject H. R. G.:

1,142.0
425.0
343.0
599.0

762.2

320.9

23.7

506.8

219.7

10.6

27.8

2.4

132.2

0.4

46.0

3.0

27.9

Potato

88.8
242.8
85.0

4.3

2.7

Fruit

1.8

Total food consumed

2,509.0
49.0

1,613.6

260.5
26.7
233.8

181.6

7.6

174.0

416.6

9.7

406.9

36.7

5.0

31.7

89.8

95.8

97.7

86.4

1 Jour. Biol. Chem., K, (1913), No. 3, pp. 389-393.

DIGESTIBILITY OF FISH. 11

Data of digestion experiments with gray fish in a simple mixed diet— Continued.

Weight
of food.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hy-
drates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 548, subject A. J. H.:

Orams.
1,097.0

Orams.
732.1

Orams.
211.1

Orams.
127.0

Orams.

Orams.
26.8

70.0

168.0

4.0

5.2
142.1

6.2
0.7

10.2
0.8

53.8

23.9

4.0

0.6

0.5

Sugar

1,345.0
19.0

879.4

218.0

6.5

211.5

138.0

5.7

132.3

81.7
3.7
78. 0

27.9

3.1

Amount utilized

24.8

Per cent utilized

97.0

95.9

95.5

88.9

Experiment No. 549, subject P. K.:

1,634.0
500.0
463.0
926.0

1,090.5

377.5

32.0

783.4

314.4

12.5

37.5

3.7

189.2
0.5
62.0
4.6

39.9

104.5
327. 8
131.5

5.0

3.7

Fniit

2.8

Sugar

3,523.0
36.0

2,283.4

368.1

15.4

352.7

256.3

9.9

246.4

563.8

6.1

557.7

51.4

4.6

Amount utilized

46.8

Per cent utilized

95.8

96.1

98.9

91.1

1.175.0
434.0
416.0

1,038.0
35.0

773.7

327.7

28.7

878.1

230.5
10.9
33.7

4.2

153.0
0.4

55.8
5.2

17.8

90.7
294.5
147.4

35.0

4.3

3.3

3.1

Sugar -

3, 098. 0
34.0

2,008.2

279.3

13.6

265. 7-

214.4

10.0

204.4

567.6

5.9

561.7

28.5

4.5

24.0

Per cent utilized

95.1

95.3

99.0

84.2

Experiment No. 580, subject C. J. W.:

1,151.0
462.0
185.0

1,108.0
112.0

3, 078. 0
58.0

757.9

348.8

12.7

988.1

225.8
11.5
15.0
4.7

149.9

0.5

24.8

5.8

17.4

Potato

96.6
131.0
165.9
112.0

4.6

1.5

Pruit

3.5

Sugar

2,107.5

257.0
22.8
234.2

181.0

15.5

165.5

505.5

11.5

494.0

27.0

8.2

Amount utilized

18.8

Per cent utilized

91.1

91.4

97.7

69.6

Average food consumed per subject per day

954.9

629.6

94.9

68.1

149.7

12.6

Summary of digestion experiments vnth gray fish in a simple mixed diet.

Experiment No.

535
537
538
647
548
549
579
580

Subject.

Protein.

Per cent.

H.R.G 87.0

P.K 94.8

C. J.W 89.4

H.R.G 89.8

A.J.H 97.0

P.K 95.8

p.k;:::: i 95.1

C. J. W I 91.1

Average I 92. 5

Fat.

Per cent.
96.6
96.7
92.4
95.8
95.9
96.1
95.3
91.4

95.0

Carbo-
hydrates,

Per cent.
96.7
98.7
%. 1
97.7
95.5
98. 9
99.0
97.7

97.5

Ash.

Per cent .
91.5
90.5
78.6
86.4
88.9
91.1
84.2
69.6

85.1

12

BULLETIN 649, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Considering the diet as a whole, 95 grams of protein, 68 grams of
fat, and 150 grams of carbohydrates were eaten per day, of which
92.5 per cent of the protein, 95 per cent of the fat, and 97.5 per cent
of the carbohydrates were digested. The fuel value of the diet was
1,592 calories. The estimated digestibihty of grayfish protein and
fat as obtained by making allowance for the unutilized protein and
fat resulting from the accessory foods of the diet are 92.8 per cent
and 94.3 per cent, respectively.

The four different subjects who assisted in the eight experiments
conducted to determine the digestibihty of grayfish ate on an average
440 grams of grayfish daily as compared with 471 grams of butter-
fish, 448 grams of mackerel, and 355 grams of salmon, which would
indicate that this fish was eaten with as much relish as the other

fish studied.

SALMON.

Since difficulty was experienced in securing fresh salmon for the
purpose of this investigation, a good grade of canned salmon (Chinook
salmon, Oncorhynchus tschawytscJia) was used instead in the experi-
ments here reported. The canned salmon was purchased without
regard to any commercial brand from a wholesale grocer, and was
taken to represent this type of fish in general use.

The results obtamed in three-day test periods with salmon are
given in the table which follows:

Data of digestion experiments with salmon in a simple mixed diet.

Weight
of food.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbohy-
drates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 561, subject H. R. G.:

Grams.

1,004.0
411.0
297.0
514.0
23.0

Grams.

621.8

310.3

20.5

434.8

Grams.

249.8

10.3

24.0

2.1

Grams.

108.8

0.4

39.8

2.6

Grams.

Grams.
23.6

Potato

85.9

210.3

73.0

23.0

4.1

2.4

Fruit .

1.5

Total food consumed

2, 249. 0
46.0

1,387.4

286.2

23.3

262.9

151.6

4.7

146.9

392.2

13.5

378.7

31.6

4.5

Amount utilized

27.1

Per cent utilized

' 91.9

96.9

96.6

85.8

Experiment No. 562, .subject A. J. H.:

854.0

528.9

212.5

92.5

20.1

104.0
103.0
24.0

7.2

87.2

8.4
0.4

14.0
0.5

73.6
14.6
24.0

0.8

Fruit

0.3

Sugar

1,08.5.0
42.0

623.3

221.3

18.3

203.0

107.0
12.1
94.9

112.2

6.7

105.5

21.2

4.9

Amount utilized

16.3

91.7

88.7

94.0

76.9

DIGESTIBILITY OF FISH, 13

Data of digestion experiments tvith salmon in a sim,ple mixed diet — Continued .

'

Weight
of food.

Constituents of foods.

Experiment, subject, and diet.

Water.

Protein.

Fat.

Carbohy-
drates.

Ash.

Experiment No. 563, subject P. K.:

Orams.

l,2.';(i.O

.5.5S. 0

325.0

717.0

60.0

Grams.

796.4

417.5

22.4

606.6

Orams.

320.0
13.8
26.3
2.9

Orams.

139.4
0.6
43.6
3.6

Grams.

Grams.

30.2

Potato

115.6

230.1

101.8

60.0

5.5

Crackers

Fruit

2.6
2.1

Total food consumed

2,941.0
49.0

1,842.9

363.0

16.4

346. 6

187.2

6.2

181.0

507.5
19.1

488.4

40.4

7.3

33.1

95.5

96.7

96.2

81.9

Experiment No. 564, subject C. J. W.:

1,115.0
431.0
177.0
842.0
105.0

690. 5

325.4

12.2

712.3

277.4
10.8
14.4
3.4

120.9
0.4

23.7
4.2

26.2

Potato

90.1
125.3
119.6
105.0

4.3

Crackers

1.4

Fruit

2.5

Total food consumed

2, 670. 0
56.0

1,740.4

306.0

23.6

282.4

149.2

7.4
141.8

440.0

18.4
421.6

34.4

6.6

27.8

92.3

95.0

95.8

80.8

Average food consumed per subject per day —

745.4

466.2

98.0

49.6

121.0

10.6

Summary of digestion experiments with salmon in a simple mixed diet.

Experiment No.

Subject .

Protein.

Fat.

Carbo-
hydrates.

Ash.

561

H. R. G

Percent.
91.9
91.7
95.5
92.3

Per cent.
96.9
88.7
96.7
95.0

Per cent.
96.6
94.0
96.2

95.8

Per cent.
85.8

562 ....

A. J.H

76.9

563

P. K

81.9

564

C. J. W

80.8

92.9

94.3

95.7

81.4

In the test periods in which canned sahnon was included in the
experimental ration, the subjects ate an average of 355 grams of
salmon daily. The total diet eaten supphed 98 grams of protein, 50
grams of fat, and 121 grams of carbohydrates per day, and the coef-
ficients of digestibihty were found to be 92.9 per cent for protein,
94.3 per cent for fat, and 95.7 per cent for carbohydrates. The fuel
value of the diet was 1,326 calories. When allowance is made for
the undigested protein and fat residues occurring in the feces result-
mg from the accessory foods of the diet, the digestibihty for the
protein and fat of salmon is found to be 93.2 per cent and 93.7 per
cent, respectively, and indicates that salmon is very completely uti-
Hzed by the human body.

14 BULLETIN 649, U. S. DEPARTMEISTT OF AGRICULTUKE.

SUMMARY.

In the study of the digestibility of the protein and fat supplied
by some common varieties, fish in the form of "fish loaf" was served
as the major part of a simple mixed diet, which also included pota-
toes, crackers, fruit, sugar, and tea or coffee. The principal results
are summarized in the following table:

Summary of results of all digestion experiments.

Number of
experiments.

Kind of fish.

Average
amount of
fish eaten
per man
per day.

Digestibility-
offish
protein.

Digestibility
of fish fat.

3

3

8
4

Mackerel . ,
Butterfish
Orayfish. .
Salmon...

Grami.

448
471
440
355

Per cent.
93.1
91.9
92.8
93.2

Per cent .

9.5.2
86.4
94.3
93.7

On an average j the subjects ate 448 grams of Boston mackerel,
471 grams of butterfish, 440 grams of grayfish, and 355 grams of
salmon daily, which would indicate that in every case the fish was
eaten with relish.

Considering the experiments as a whole, the total diet supplied on
an average 99 grams of protein, 60 grams of fat, and 160 grams of
carbohydrates daily, the fuel value being 1,576 calories. The low
amount of fat and of carbohydrates was due to the fact that butter
and similar fat were omitted and the foods other than fish loaf which
supplied both protein and carbohydrates, were limited in order that
both the fat and the protein in the diet might be contributed in as
large proportion as possible by the fish.

The average coefficients of digestibility for fish proteins were:
Boston mackerel, 93.1 per centj butterfish, 91.9 per cent; grayfish,
92.8 per cent; and salmon, 93.2 per cent. In view of the close
agreement, it would seem, from a dietetic standpoint, that the differ-
ent fishes studied would supply protein in equally available form.

The average coefficients of digestibihty of the fish fats were found to
be as follows: Boston mackerel, 95.2 per cent; butterfish, 86.4 per
cent; grayfish, 94.3 per cent; and sahnon, 93.7 per cent. As these
figures show, the fats were well assimilated in the case of the mack-
erel, grayish, and sahnon, which, according to the usual custom, are
to be regarded as "fat fishes." Considering the experiments as a
whole, the very complete utilization x)f the protein and fat supphed
by the fishes studied offer additional experimental evidence that
fish is a very valuable food and that its extensive use in tiie dietary
is especially desirable.

PUBLICATIONS OF U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RELATING TO
FOOD AND NUTRITION.

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Meats. Composition and Cooking. By Chas. D. Woods. Pp. 31, figs. 4. 1904.

(Farmers' Bulletin 34.^
The Use of Milk as Food. By R. D. Milner. Pp.44. 1911. (Farmers' Bulletin 363.)
Care of Food in the Home. By Mrs. Mary Hinman Abel. Pp. 46, figs. 2. 1910.

(Farmers' Bulletin 375.)
Economical Use of Meat in the Home. By C. F. Langworthy and Caroline L. Hunt.

Pp.30. 1910. (Farmers' Bulletin 391.)
Cheese and Its Economical Uses in the Diet. By C. F. Langworthy and Caroline L.

Hunt. Pp.40. 1912. ("Farmers' Bulletin 487.)
Mutton and Its Value in the Diet. By C. F. Langworthy and Caroline L. Hunt. Pp.

32, figs. 2. 1913. (Farmers' Bulletin 526.)
The Detection of Phytosterol in Mixtures of Animal and Vegetable Fats. By R. H.

Kerr. Pp. 4. 1913. (Bureau of Animal Industry Circular 212.)

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Studies on the Influence of Cooldng upon the Nutritive Value of Meats at the L^ni-

versity of Illinois, 1903-1904. By H. S. Grindley, Sc. D., and A. D. Emmett,

A. M. Pp. 230, tables 136. 1905. (Office of Experiment Stations Bulletin 162.)

Price, 20 cents.
Studies of the Effect of Different Methods of Cooking upon the Thoroughness and

Ease of Digestion of Meats at the University of Illinois. H. S. Grindley, D. Sc,

Timothy Mojonnier, M. S., and Horace C. Porter, Ph. D. Pp. 100, tables 38. 1907.

(Office of Experiment Stations Bulletin 193.) Price, 15 cents.
Digestibility of Some Animal Fats. By C. F. Langworthy and A. D. Holmes. Pp. 23.

1915. (Department Bulletin 310.) Price, 5 cents.
Digestibility of Very Young Veal. By C. F. Langw&rthy and A. D. Holmes. Pp.

577-588. 1916. (Journal of Agricultural Research, 6 (1916), No. 16.) Price, 5

cents.
Digestibility of Hard Palates of Cattle. By C. F. Langworthy and A. D. Holmes.

Pp. 641-648. 1916. (Journal of Agricultural Researcdi, 6 (1916), No. 17.) Price,

5 cents.
Fats and Their Economical Use in the Home. By A. D. Holmes and H. L. Lang.

Pp.26. 1916. (Department Bulletin 469.) Price, 5 cents.
Studies on the Digestibility of the Grain Sorghums. By C. F. Langworthy and A.

D.Holmes. Pp.30. 1916. (Department Bulletin 470.) Price, 5 cents.
Digestibility of Some Vegetable Fats. By C. F. Langworthy and A. D. Holmes.

Pp.20. 1917. (Department Bulletin 505.) Price, 5 cents.
Studies on the Digestibility of Some Animal Fats. By C. F. Langworthy and A. D.

Holmes. Pp.20. 1917. (Department Bulletin 507.) Price, 5 cents.
Experiments in the Determination of the Digestibility of Millets. By C. F. Lang-
worthy and A. D. Holmes. Pp. 11. 1917. (Department Bulletin 525.) Price,

5 cents.
Digestibility of Dasheen. By C. F. Langworthy and A. D. Holmes. Pp. 12. 1917.

(Department Bulletin 612.) Price, 5 cents.
Studies on the Digestibility of Some Nut Oils. By A. D. Holmes. Pp. 19. 1917.

(Department Bulletin 630.) Price, 5 cents.

15

o

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 650

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Contribution fh>m the OfSce of Farm Management

W. J. SPILLRIAN, Chief

Washington, D. C.

February 26, 1918

LEASE CONTRACTS USED IN
RENTING FARMS ON SHARES

A STUDY OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF IN\TSTMENTS, EXPENSES
AND INCOMES BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT

By

E. V. WILCOX, Agriculturist

CONTENTS

Different Sysfema

Length of Lease Period .

Methods of Sharinj; Crcps and Stock

Products .

Methods of Sharing Fastiue

Contracts for Clearing Land

Ownership of Equipment

Methods of Sharing Expenses ....
Unexhausted Value of Fertilizers . . .

Repairs and Improvements

Privileges and Perquisites

Page

Restrictions 22

Supervision by the Landlord ..... 22

Good Husbandry 22

Advances to Tenant 23

General Systems of Share Leasing . . 23

Sample Stock-Share Lease 24

Assumptions Underlying Lease Con-
tracts 28

Suggestions Toward a Rational Lease

Contract 33

Status of the Tenant ........ 36

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1918

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 650

Office of the Secretary

Contribution Trom the Office of Farm Management

W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief

^\J^'^^U

Washington, D, C.

February 26, 1918

LEASE CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS

ON SHARES.

[A study of the distribution of investments, expenses, and income between

landlord and tenant.]

By E. V. Wilcox, Agriculturist.

CONTENTS.

Different systems 1

Length of lease period 3

Methods of sharing crops and stock products. . 4

Methods of sharing pasture 15

Contracts for clearing land 15

Ownership of equipment 15

Methods of sharing expenses 17

Unexhausted value of fertilizers 20

Repairs and improvements 21

Privileges and perquisites 21

Page

Restrictions ■ 22

Supervision by the landlord 22

Good husbandry 22

Advances to tenant 23

General systems of share leasing 23

Sample stock-share lease 24

Assumptions underlying lease contracts 28

Suggestions toward a rational lease contract . . 33

Status of the tenant 36

DIFFERENT SYSTEMS.

About 37 per cent of the farms in the United States are operated
by tenants under lease. Acute interest is being manifested by both
landowners and tenants in the general features and special stipula-
tions of lease contracts. Numerous inquiries are being made as to
proper methods of sharing equipment, labor, and other expenses in-
volved in farm operations, and as to the proper fractions to use in
dividing proceeds. Practically all these questions are of an agricul-
tural rather than a legal nature. It is a matter of much importance,
therefore, to study lease contracts from a pure farm management
standpoint. The wording of a lease is a comparatively simple prob-
lem after the conditions essential to fairness have been agreed upon.
Several methods of leasing are in use, as shown by an examination
of leases in force. Farms may be rented for cash, either a stipulated

28624°— 18— Bun. 650 1 1

2 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

sum for the whofe farm or a certain cash rent per acre. Cash rent
varies according to local conditions from $2 to $30 per acre, being
commonly $4 to $10 per acre in the north central States. Under the
cash renting system the landlord furnishes simply the real estate
while the tenant furnishes all working capital, bears all operating ex-
penses, and receives all proceeds. A modified form of this system
consists in paying a specified number of bushels of grain or bales of
cotton, etc., in lieu of cash.

A great many methods of share leasing are to be noted. Under
this system much variation exists in the methods of sharing equip-
ment and expenses, the proceeds being divided accordingly half-and-
half, one-third and two-thirds, one-fourth and three- fourths, two-
fifths and three-fifths, two-sevenths and five-sevenths, or by some
other fraction. For example, " share croppers " oh cotton farms fur-
nish nothing but labor and receive one-half of the cotton. " Share
renters "' furnish labor, tools, and mules and receive two-thirds of
the cotton on very fertile land or three-fourths on poorer land. On
some share-rented general farms the tenant may supply all live stock
and receive a share of the' crops and all animal products, or pro-
ductive stock may be jointly owned and the products shared.

In many cases the chief crop areas of the farm are rented on
shares, while the tenant pays cash for the farmstead, pasture, hay
land, com land, or some other specified area. This method of leas-
ing is commonly called the share-cash system.

Lease forms. — Printed lease forms seem to be of little avail except
on large estates where the whole system has been thoroughly worked
out by the manager, and where a uniform set of conditions is pre-
scribed for all tenants on the estate. For the most part, however,
printed lease forms contain only generalities. Usually it is neces-
sary for landlord arfd tenant to agree by consultation on the features
of the contract and then write a lease embodying these stipulations.
Very often no written contract is made, the agreement being merely
verbal. A written lease is more satisfactory, however, especially
in the event of some subsequent disagreement or misunderstanding.

Basis of discussion. — The following discussion of the various fea-
tures of leases is based partly on a study of lease contracts in actual
operation and partly on surveys of tenant farms throughout the
country. These leases and survey records not only show the great
variation in lease contracts under different conditions, but also indi-
cate a basis for a rational lease form providing a reasonably just
and fair sharing of equipment, expenses, and proceeds. The number
of lease contracts examined was 258, every State being represented.
The number of tenant farm survey records studied with regard to

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 3

the essential features of the lease agreement was 2,907, including
records from 414 dairy farms, 320 stock farms, 298 general farms in
the corn belt, 1,113 cotton farms, 453 wheat farms, 176 potato farms,
100 sugar-beet farms, and 33 bean farms. The lease contract often
contains minor specific agreements between landowner and tenant
not definitely indicated in a farm survey record. All available farm
leases, therefore, have been examined with reference to those points.

LENGTH OF LEASE PERIOD.

In a majority of cases the lease runs for only one year, usually
with privilege of renewal upon one or two months' notice. Often
the lease provides more positively that the contract is understood to
be continuous from year to year unless due notice of intent to dis-
continue is served by either party. The lease year may coincide
with the calendar year, or, more commonly, with the crop year
(March 1 to March 1).

Contrary to natural expectation and popular belief, annual lease
contracts may not mean more frequent moving of the tenant than do
long-term contracts. In fact, investigations on Wisconsin and Illi-
nois dairy farms show that tenants remain longer on the same farm
under an annual renewable lease than under lease contracts of two,
three, or five years' duration. On Kansas grain farms tenants often
have remained 15 to 20 years on the same farm under an annual
lease. Moreover, in some sections tenants have operated the same
farm 25 to 50 years under annual leases, in the meantime buying
farms which they in turn have leased to others. In fact, there are
leaseholds which have descended from father to son, the present
tenants having been born on farms then operated by their fathers,
thus continuing tenant occupancy under annual lease without change
into the second generation. Formerly farms might be leased in New
York for as long as 99 years, but in 1846 the New York Legislature
passed a law prohibiting leasing under longer contracts than 12
years. The purpose of this law was to check the establishment of a
tenant class.

England is often incorrectly cited as a country where tenancy
problems have been solved by the adoption of a system of long-term
leases. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of leases in England
are for one year only, and are renewable. The same tendency is seen
in the United States.

Most lease contracts with negro tenants on cotton farms, Polish
tenants on onion farms, Italian tenants on strawberry farms, Portu-
guese tenants on bean farms, and Japanese and Chinese tenants on
potato farms are verbal, annual, and renewable. In general, the

4 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTTTRE.

duration and permanency of tenant tenure seem not to be correlated
with either a written or a verbal form of lease.^

Many tenants and some landowners prefer long-term leases, run-
ning 5 to 10 years. Replies to a questionnaire recently addressed to
tenants on Kansas wheat farms show that in almost every case the
tenant would prefer a contract longer than one year. In a survey
of 143 tenant dairy farms in Wisconsin and Illinois 76 per cent of
the leases in Wisconsin and 66 per cent of those in Illinois were for
one year, while 14 per cent of those in Illinois were for five years.

In the case of certain special conditions a long-term lease is re-
quired for the successful fulfillment of the contract. When live stock
is leased it is customary to make a contract for 5 to 10 years. Con-
tracts with a tenant for clearing land commonly give the tenant 5
or 6 years to bring the land into condition and receive adequate
returns for the labor of clearing. On an Indiana farm rented for
growing nursery stock the lease ran 8 years to enable all nursery
stock to mature and to allow time for selling the matured stock to
compensate for the extra preparatory expense of the first 2 years.
Moreover, in various States an occasional farm devoted to general
farming is leased for 10 years or more, rarely under a 15-year
contract.

METHODS OF SHARING CROPS AND STOCK PRODUCTS.

FIELD CROPS.

Corn. — On general farms in the corn belt when the tenant fur-
nishes working capital and hired labor the landowner commonly
receives one-half of the corn as well as of other crops. This is the
prevailing custom in Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Mary-
land, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
Considerable variation in the share of corn, however, is to be noted
in these States. Sometimes the landlord receives only two-fifths,
one-third, or even one-fourth of the com. On certain New Jersey

1 The legal requirements governing the execution and recording of leases are usually
prescribed by statute. It might be stated as a general rule of law that "All that is
necessary to the execution of a lease is that it should be signed and delivered. It is not
necessary that it should be witnessed or acknowledged except for the purpose of en-
titling it to record." (L. A. Jones, A Treatise on the Law of Landlord and Tenant.)
This general rule is modified, however, in one or more particulars by the statutory
law of many of the States. For example, most States require that leases for three
years or longer be executed with the usual formality of a deed, while in one State at
least no lease of land, except it be by deed, is eflfectual for more than one year. (Ec-
vised Code of Delaware, 1915. ) " In practically every jurisdiction, by statutory enact-
ment, every lease of land, or interest therein, for a period in excess of that designated
by statute, must be recorded in the county where the land is situated, and a failure to
so record will render the lease void as to subsequent encumbrancers and purchasers
without notice, and for a valuable consideration, who first duly record their convey-
ances." (Encyclopedia of Law and Procedure.)

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 5

farms where the huulowner pays all expenses, including hired labor,
he receiAes two-thirds of the corn. The same fraction for division
of the corn is used on Ohio farms where the tenant receives a small
guaranteed wage in addition to one-third of the corn. Occasionally
in Virginia the tenant supplies three-fourths of the fertilizer on
corn land and receives three-fourths of the corn. Share croppers on
cotton farms, who furnish nothing but labor, commonly receive one-
half of the corn or pay cash rent for corn land, while share renters,
who furnish the working capital and the labor, usually get two-
thirds of the corn. In cases on Colorado farms where the tenant
supplies tools and horses and pays all expenses the landowner re-
ceives one-third of the corn. On general farms in Delaware the
landowner usually gets one-half of all crops, including corn.

Wheat and other grain and seed crops. — The examination of 453
survey records^ on tenant wheat farms in Kansas, Nebraska, Min-
nesota, North Dakota, and INIontana shows that on 267 of these farms
the landowner receives one-third, on lOG farms one-half, and on 80
farms two-fifths of the wheat. On these farms the tenant supplied
working capital and hired labor. Occasionally other fractions, such
as two-sevenths or five-twelfths are used in dividing the wheat in
the wheat States of the upper Mississippi valley. Through the corn
belt the tenant usually pays one-half of the wheat and other grains
on share-rented farms. Very generally where several cereal grains
are raised on the same farm all of these grains are divided between
landlord and tenant by the same fraction, the lease prescribing that
the landowner shall receive either one-half or one-third of all grain.
The landowner's share of small cereal grains, as is the case with
many other crops, is smaller in western States than in the corn belt.
Frequently the landowner receives only one-third of the wheat and
other grain, especially when the tenant paj^s thrashing expenses, as
compared with one-half of the corn. Rye is commonly divided half
and half. In the cotton belt share croppers usually receive one-half
of the oats and share renters two-thirds. In Colorado the landowner
commonly receives one-third of the oats and less often one-half,
while in the corn belt and various other States the landowner
usually receives one-half of the oats or more rarely one-third or
two-fifths. On some New Jersey farms the landlord may pay all
expenses and receive two-thirds of the oats and wheat, his share
otherwise being one-half.

On rice farms in Texas when the tenant supplies tools and mules
and the landlord furnishes all seed- and water, the landlord com-
monly receives either two-fifths or one-half of the rice, depending
upon the location and fertility of the farm.

1 Records furnished for examination by courtesy of GflBce of Extension Worls in the

North and West, States Relations Service.

6 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Millet is seldom a crop of sufficient importance on tenant farms
to be mentioned in a lease contract. On a half share rented farm
in Texas the landowner receives one-half of the millet.

The division of clover and alfalfa seed on tenant farms is rarely
specified in lease contracts, and few records are therefore available
in reference to this point. In Indiana the landowner commonly re-
ceives two-fifths of the clover seed produced on the farm. In Colo-
rado the landowner may receive one-half of the alfalfa seed produced
on the farm as compared with one-third of the corn and potatoes
grown on the same farm.

Sunflowers are rarely an important enterprise on tenant farms.
On one Kentucky farm where this crop is grown on a considerable
scale the expense and equipment are shared equally and the land-
lord receives one-half of the sunflower seed, as well as one-half of
the corn and alfalfa. In this case the work stock is fed from un-
divided feed.

Hay and fodder. — Almost universally on share rented farms, when
the tenant furnishes working capital and hired labor, hay is divided
/lalf-and-half if sold at all. Otherwise the hay produced on the
farm is used in feeding partnership stock, but if the landowner owns
no stock the tenant may pay cash rent for hay land.

On dairy farms and stock farms throughout the country it is fre-
quently prescribed in the lease contract that hay and fodder shall
not be sold except with the permission of the landlord, but shall be
fed to the stock on the farm. On grain farms the tenant often pays
a cash rent for hay land and has all the product to sell or to feed to
his own stock. In general, when the hay is shared half-and-half
the tenant is required to pay one-half of all expenses and to supply
the necessary tools and work stock. In a few cases, however, the
tenant receives three- fourths of the hay. In Alabama and elsewhere
in the cotton belt share croppers on cotton farms commonly receive
one-half of the corn fodder, sorghum, and other fodder produced on
the farm. In Colorado when the tenant furnishes tools, horses, feed,
labor, and thrashing expense, he usually receives one-half of the
alfalfa and less often one-third. The baling expenses are usually
shared proportionately to the share of the crop received by the tenant
and landlord. On such farms the water assessment is commonly
paid by the landlord, less often by the tenant, or sometimes is
shared equally. In Kentucky, with all working capital and expense
shared equally, the tenant's share of the alfalfa is one-half, while
be may receive one-third of the timothy or less often three-fifths.
Wide variation occurs on Nebraska farms with reference to the frac-
tional sharing of hay, the tenant receiving one-half or three-fifths
or even two-thirds as his share.

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 7

It is frequently stipulated in the lease that straw shall not be
burned or removed from the farm. In some cases, however, it is
specified that the land owner shall receive one-half or three-fourths
of the straw.

In the few instances in which the division of sweet clover is men-
tioned in the lease contract this crop is divided for the most part
half-and-half.

Cotton. — As already indicated, cotton is commonly raised on tenant
farms under one or the other of two systems known as share cropping
and share renting, cash renting being a less common method. Under
the share cropping system the cotton crop is divided half and half.
Some variations are noted in the customs which prevail in different
States in regard to the share croppers. In Alabama the landlord
commonly furnishes all machinery and work stock and one-half of
the fertilizer; less frequently he furnishes all of the work stock and
fertilizer, while the tenant furnishes all machinery and feed. The
landlord commonly provides all seed and pays for one-half of the
ginning. In Georgia the landlord usually provides all w^orking
capital and pays all expenses except for ginning and fertilizer, which
are shared equally. The same arrangement prevails in Louisiana,
but the tenant may also get one-half of the corn or pay cash rent
for corn land, as is frequently the case in other cotton States. In
Mississippi the tenant ordinarily supplies all labor and one-half the
fertilizer, while the landlord provides cabin, garden, tools, mules,
feed, seed, and fuel. The tenant may also pay cash rent for all land
not planted in cotton. Occasionally in North Carolina the landlord
furnishes all of the fertilizer. The landlord may furnish one-half
or all of the fertilizer and one-half of the seed. Similar arrange-
ments are customary in South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and
Texas. Share croppers are essentially laborers under a system which
gives them a personal interest in securing good yields.

Under the method of share renting the tenant commonly furnishes
mules, feed, tools, seed, and labor, while the landlord supplies land,
cabin, garden, and fuel. For the most part the expenses for fer-
tilizer, ginning, and bagging are paid by each party in proportion
to his share of the crop. The landlord receives one-fourth or one-
third of the cotton, according to local conditions and fertility of the
soil. The understood conditions for share renting are practically
the same in all of the cotton States. A law was passed in Texas
prescribing that the landlord shall not receive more than one-third
of the grain and one-fourth of the cotton for land leased under these
conditions.

Under the cash renting system the tenant pays all expenses and
the rent is paid in a specified number of bales of cotton. In Alabama

8 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

the tenant pays 1^ to 2^ bales of cotton per mule, but in Alabama
and other cotton States the rent may be 2 to 3 bales per mule on
more fertile land. Comparatively few tenants on cotton farms pay
a fixed amount of money rent.

Potatoes. — Records on 176 New Jersey tenant farms on which
potatoes are an important crop indicate that the potatoes were shared
half-and-half on 157 farms on which the tenant furnished work stock,
machinery, and hired labor, and by some other fraction on 19 farms.
In New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and throughout the corn
belt potatoes are commonly shared half-and-half. In the wheat
States the landowner more commonly receives one-third of the pota-
toes. In the Greeley potato district of Colorado the common practice
is for the landlord to receive one-third of the potatoes. In Delaware,
when the landlord furnishes tools, machinery, work stock, and one-
half of the potato seed, other expenses being shared equally, the crop
is divided half-and-half. In a few instances in Indiana the landlord
accepts as his share one-half of the potatoes in the field before dig-
ging, or one-third "in the bushel" (dug and measured), at the
option of the tenant. Frequently, however, the potato crop is shared
half-and-half " in the bushel." A common custom in North Dakoto
and elsewhere is for the landlord to furnish one-half of the seed
potatoes, receiving one-half of the crop.

Sugar heets. — In Michigan, sugar beets are grown extensively by
farmers who receive instructions from field superintendents em
ployed by the sugar companies. The required contract labor is com-
monly secured through the factory manager and is paid for by tha
farmer. The farmers who grow sugar beets under these conditions
do the work of blocking, thinning, hoeing, and topping. According
to records obtained on 100 tenant farms in Colorado on which sugar
beets are grown, the tenant invariably supplies all tools, feed, work
stock, and labor, while the landlord pays the water assessments and
land tax. Under this system the landlord receives one-fourth of tho
sugar beets. In a few instances, however, the landowner supplies
tools, feed, supplies, horse labor, and twine, while the tenant pro-
vides all hand labor. Under this arrangement the landowner re-
ceives tw^o-thirds of the sugar beets and all of the beet tops. Occa-
sionally the landowner receives only one-fifth or one-sixth of the
sugar beets. The prevailing fraction is one-fourth, and the present
tendency is toward an even larger share. Moreover, in a few in-
stances the tenant pays one-half of the water assessment. In prac-
tically all cases the tenant hauls the crop to market. Leases on
sugar-beet farms are for the most part written and of one-year
duration.

Tobacco. — Tlie number of leases on tobacco farms available for
study is not sufficient to determine with any certainty the most com-

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 9

mon method of sharing this crop, but a considerable variation is
noted in the conditions mentioned in leases, particularly in Ken-
tucky, Ohio,^ Tennessee, and Virginia. On a number of Kentucky
farms where the tenant furnishes all tools, work stock, and general
seed, he receives two-thirds of the tobacco. Under this arrangement
the expenses for fertilizer and fuel are usually shared proportion-
ally to the division of the crop. In some instances, however, the land-
lord may bear one-half of the cost of baling the tobacco and receive
one-half of the crop. On general farms in Ohio where tobacco is an
important enterprise the tenant may furnish tools and work horses
and receive four-sevenths of the tobacco, or the landowner may sup-
ply one-half of the seed and receive two-fifths of the tobacco. On cer-
tain Tennessee tobacco farms where the landlord provides all tools,
mules, feed, and one-half of the fertilizer and spraying material, the
tobacco is divided half-and-half. The same condition prevails in
Virginia. When, on the other hand, the tenant supplies all tools,
mules, feed, and seed, and pays for three-fourths of the fertilizer, he
receives also three- fourths of the tobacco.

Flax. — Flax is frequently an important crop on tenant farms in
North Dakota. On such farms the tenant commonly supplies the
iiorses and tools, Avhile the landowner provides all seed. Other ex-
penses, including plowing, are commonly shared equally. Under
ihese conditions the landlord receives one-half of the flax.

Hops. — In farm leases in New York in which the division of hops
is mentioned, the tenant is usually required to furnish the tools and
horses, while the landlord supplies all poles required for the growth
of the crop. Other expenses, including sulphur, and labor for pick-
ing the hops, are shared equally and the crop is divided half-and-
half.

ORCHARD FRUITS.

Fruit in general. — On farms on which fruit is not an important
enterprise the lease contract often specifies a certain division of the
fruit as a whole without mention of the kind of fruit. In some cases
the landlord pays a horticulturist to teach the tenant how to prune
and spray. The cost of spraying materials is usually shared in pro-
portion to the division of the crop. Almost universally, under these
conditions, the fruit is divided equally.

Nursery stocl\ — An Indiana farm was leased under a partnership
arrangement for growing all kinds of nursery stock, including apple,
peach, plum, pear, cherry, raspberry, blackberry, shrubbery, etc.
The period of the lease was eight years. Under this arrangement the
landlord received one-half of the wholesale price of all nursery

1 In a group of 28 Ohio farms the landlord's share of the tobacco is two-fifths on
16 and one-half on 12 farms.

28624°— 18— Bull. 050 2

10 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTTJRE.

stock, and if any retail sales were made the tenant received the dif-
ference between the retail price and one-half of the wholesale price,
as recompense for his extra labor in making small sales. Under this
contract the landlord also received one-half of the fruit. The tenant
supplied all equipment and paid all expenses, including marketing.
At the expiration of the lease the remaining nursery stock was di-
vided half-and-half.

Apples. — The apple crop is usually shared half-and-half between
tenant and landlord. This is the prevailing custom in New York.
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, and
elsewhere. On New York farms when the tenant provides only the
labor, the landlord receives two-thirds of the apples, while when all
expenses, including apple storage and hired labor, are shared equally
the crop is divided half-and-half. In Pennsylvania the landlord fre-
quently pays two-thirds of the fertilizer bill for orchard crops on
farms where the apples are shared half-and-half.

Peaches, pears^ plimis, and cherries. — The method of dividing these
crops is mentioned so rarely in lease contracts that no reliable conclu-
sion as to the usual practice can be drawn. From the small available
number of lease records, however, it appears that on farms where all
expenses are shared equally the crop of peaches, plums, and pears,
is divided half-and-half. On New York farms, where the tenant
sometimes supplies nothing but labor, the landlord may receive two-
fifths of the cherries and two-thirds of the apples and peaches. On
Indiana farms, when the tenant supplies horses and tools, and the
cost of hired labor, marketing, and spraying is shared equally, the
landlord receives one-half of the peaches. When the tenant furnishes
only the labor on New York farms the landlord may receive two-
thirds of the peaches, and when the tenant provides two-thirds of
the barrels and all labor, while the landlord provides all fertilizer,
spraying material, and horses, the landlord's share is one-third of
the peaches and pears.

TRUCK CROPS AND BERRIES.

Onions. — On tenant farms in New Jersey devoted to truck raising,
the landowner usually pays the taxes and fertilizer bills, while other
expenses except labor are shared equally. The tenant supplies tools,
machinery, and horses. On such farms the landowner receives one-
half of the onions, but when the tenant supplies only labor the land-
owner's share is two-thirds.

On rented onion farms in Massachusetts the tenant usually pro-
vides hand tools, hand labor, and seed, while the landowner fur-
nishes all horse labor and fertilizer and pays the taxes. The cost of
bags is for the most part shared equally, but in some cases is paid by

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 11

the purchasers. Under these conditions the landowner receives one-
half of the onions.

On rented onion farms in New York the tenant furnishes one-half
the tools, fertilizer, and seed, and all hand labor, while the land-
owner supplies all horse labor and crates, and receives one-half of
the onions.

Cahhage. — On New York cabbage farms where the tenant pro-
vides the tools, horses, and all labor, while other expenses are shared
equally, the crop is divided half-and-half. On rented farms in Colo-
rado where cabbage is an important enterprise, the tenant may fur-
nish all tools, feed, supplies, and horse labor, and receive one-half
the crop, or the landowner may furnish all tools, feed, supplies, and
horse labor, while the tenant provides all hand labor and 45 per
cent of the seed. Under the latter condition the tenant's share of
the crop is 45 per cent.

Celery. — Certain small tenant farms in California are devoted
almost exclusively to the production of celery. On such farms the
landlord furnishes the tools, work stock, and feed, while the tenant
provides all hand labor, including the labor of spraying. Under
these conditions the landlord's share of the crop is two-thirds. The
tenant on these farms, as is also the case on onion farms in Massa-
chusetts, is really a laborer paid with a portion of the crop instead
of a cash wage. Such leases are almost always verbal and run for
only one year, but are renewable.

Cucumbers. — Few records are available showing the method of
sharing this crop. Cucumbers are grown on a commercial scale
under a system of tenancy on several farms in Colorado. The land-
owner commonly provides all tools, feed, supplies, horse labor, and
seed, while the tenant furnishes all hand labor, and receives 70 per
cent of the crop.

Tomatoes. — On certain tenant farms in Delaware where all ex-
penses are shared equally except labor, which is furnished by the
tenant, the landlord receives two-fifths of the tomatoes and one-
half of the grain, but sometimes his share of the tomatoes is only
one-fourth. In Maryland in cases where the tenant supplies tools,
horses, and all labor, and where all other expenses, including seed,
baskets, and crates, are shared equally, the landlord receives one-
half the tomatoes. The common custom in New Jersey is for the
landlord and tenant to furnish hampers and spraying material
jointly, while the landlord pays the taxes and fertilizer bills and
receives one-half the tomatoes. Occasionally the tenant furnishes
only the labor, in which case the landlord's share of the tomatoes
is two-thirds.

Canteloupes. — A few of the tenant farms in Maryland produce
canteloupes on a large scale. On these farms the tenant supplies

12 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTTJEE.

the tools, mules, and labor, while other expenses are shared equally
and the crop is divided half-and-half.

Peas and hea.ns. — On 26 out of 33 tenant farms in Colorado on
Avhich beans are an important crop the landowner receives one-
third of the beans as his share. Peas raised for canning purposes
in Maryland are shared half-and-half when the tenant furnishes
tools, work horses, and labor, other expenses being shared equally.
In New York when the tenant supplies tools and horses, and all
expenses are shared equally, the landlord receives one-half of the
beans. In a few instances when dry navy beans are marketed the
landlord receives one-half of the product, although he bears only
45 per cent of the expenses.

Berries and grapes. — In Maryland when the tenant furnishes
tools and horses and the landlord pays all fertilizer bills the straw-
berries are divided half-and-half, under a lease stipulating that
other expenses, including crates and picking labor, are to be shared
equally. On strawberry farms in Louisiana when all expenses, in-
cluding picking labor, are shared equally the crop is divided half-
and-half. The tenant is required to take plants from old straw-
berry beds for replanting.

On berry farms in Kansas when the tenant furnishes tools and
horses and the landowner all seed and plants, the rent paid by the
tenant is one-half of the strawberries, raspberries, and grapes. On
such farms the tenant is required to renovate old berry patches by
plowing them up and planting them in cowpeas for one season.

LIVE STOCK AND STOCK PRODUCTS.

Cows. — In Arizona a system has grown up whereby cows are
rented to farmers. Similar arrangements are noted occasionally
elsewhere. A creamery ow^ner may furnish cows to farmers for a
portion of the cream returns each month or for a cash payment of
50 cents to $1.50 per month. Under this system the owner of the
cows also receives one-half of the increase in calves. Occasionally
other owners of cows may rent them to farmers for one-half the
increase, the calves to be divided when six months old and the
farmer to have all of the milk.

Breeding dairy cattle. — In Wisconsin a business man may buy a
herd of dairy cattle, including bull, coavs, and heifers, and may then
make a long-term contract, usually for five years, with a farm owner
who is to take care of the herd on his farm. The farmer furnishes
feed, care, stable room, veterinary fees, and all general running
expenses. The owner of the herd pays insurance and taxes on the
stock. Under this system bull calves are sold as is found convenient
and the proceeds are divided half and half. The returns from the

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 13

sale of heifer calves previously to final settlement go two-thirds to
the oAvnor and one-third to the farmer. At the termination of the
contract enough stock is sold to repay the owner for his original
investment, while the remainder goes two-thirds to the owner and
one-third to the farmer. In cases of this sort the farmer receives
all of the milk.

According to another scheme somewhat in vogue in Wisconsin,
the farmer stables, pastures, feeds, and cares for the cattle furnished
by the breeder, and receives 50 cents a head per month from May to
October, inclusive, and $2 per head per month from November to
April, inclusive. The farmer also receives $1 per month per head
for testing the cows to determine the milk yield and percentage of
fat. The farmer and the cattle breeder share equally in the invest-
ment and in all expenses except feed and labor, which are furnished
by the farmer. Moreover, the cattle breeder pays for stenographer,
and other expenses connected with correspondence. Both share
equally in the sales, but the farmer receives all of the milk.

These s.ystems of handling cows and breeding stock are, of course,
not comparable with any general system of leasing land for the pur-
pose of stock production, since the farm owner is virtually a tenant
in relation to the cattle breeder or owner of the live stock. The
few cases in which the conditions of the contract arrangement are
known are merely considered interesting as showing the methods
wliieh have been adopted for handling such problems.

Milk and cream. — On dairy farms in all States where expenses are
shared equally the landowner receives one-half the milk, whether it
is sold as market milk or to a condenser, butter factory, or cheese
factory, or one-half of the cream. The landlord may furnish one-
half the cows and sometimes one-half the tools and work horses. In
some States the landlord furnishes all of the cows, but the tenant
must bear half of the expense of cows purchased to keep up the herd
and replace cows that die. Sometimes, as in vSussex County, N. J.,
the tenant furnishes only labor and one-third of the feed and fertil-
izer, receiving one-third of the milk proceeds. A similar arrange-
ment is found in Delaware.

Beef cattle. — In several States where the production of beef cattle
has become a large industry, as in Iowa, for example, the tenant may
furnish tools and work horses, haul the miljc and pay the road taxes,
while the landlord pays other real estate taxes and furnishes one-
half the cows, beef cattle, and hogs. In cases of this sort the cost of
feed and seed is shared equally and the proceeds from the cattle
which are sold are divided half and half.

A breeder of Angus cattle in Illinois rented herds of these cattle
to a number of farmers for 10 years. The bull calves were sold as

14 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

opportunities arose, the proceeds being divided equally, while all
female animals were retained until the end of the lease period and
then divided equally. In another instance of renting Angus cattle
to farmers for a five-year period the plan involved an equal division
of all cattle at the end of the lease period. The farmer who took
care of the cattle purchased a half interest in the herd. The division
of the increase varied from year to year. Of the first generation of
calves three-fourths went to the farmer, and of the second generation
seven-eighths. The reason for this variation in the fractional divi-
sion was found in the high cost of feed, which was supplied by the
farmer.

Colts. — Very commonly when work horses belonging to the tenant
are allowed free pasture and are fed from undivided feed, the land-
lord pays stallion service fees and receives one-half of the colts.

Hogs. — On hog farms, as in Iowa and Oklahoma for example, the
tenant may supply all the labor, tools, and horses, and one-half the
hogs, the cost for feed being shared equally. Under these conditions
the proceeds from the hogs are divided half and half. Occasionally
a farmer rents sows with pig from a hog owner and cares for them
until the pigs are weaned. The pigs are then divided equally and
the hog owner receives a number of sows equal to that originally
furnished. If the pigs are fattened the owner of the stock must
furnish one-half the feed.

Sheep. — On Indiana farms when the tenant supplies the tools,
horses, and labor, and pays all the expenses, and the landlord fur-
nishes all the sheep, the lambs and wool are divided in equal shares.
At the termination of the lease, usually made for a five-year period,
the tenant must return to the landlord the number of sheep furnished
by him at the start. In other instances the landlord furnishes one-
half the sheep and receives as his share of the proceeds one-half the
wool. In Maryland, on general farms rented for one-half share, the
tenant may supply the tools and work stock and one-half the fer-
tilizer, seed, and productive stock, receiving one-half the proceeds
from sheep.

Angora goats. — In a few instances goat breeders have rented goats
to farm owners for one-half the mohair and kids. In such cases the
farmer bears all expenses.

Poultry and eggs. — On most rented farms the tenant owns all the
poultry, being allowed to keep 50 to 100 hens and occasionally a few
ducks, geese, turkeys, and guinea fowl. Quite often, however, the
tenant is prohibited from keeping any poultry except hens. In such
cases the returns from the poultry belong entirely to the tenant, but
occasionally the landlord may specify for himself the privilege of
receiving eggs and fowls for table use. Where poultry constitutes

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 15

a more important enterprise in the operation of the farm the fowls
may be owned jointly. In such cases as, for instance, in Delaware,
on one-half share rented farms, the landlord receives one-half the
eggs and increase. In a few instances on dairy farms, particularly
in Indiana, the landowner receives two-thirds the eggs.

METHODS OF SHARING PASTURE.

In the corn belt the common practice on high-priced land is to
require the tenant to pay a cash rent for pasture on crop farms,
while in regions where land prices are low the tenant may receive
the use of the pasture free as a perquisite. The cash rent for farm
pasture ranges from $1 to $10 per acre, being usually $4 to $6 per
acre. Such pasture land is commonly in a system of rotation, and it
is considered as potentially crop land. The rent per acre, therefore,
is fixed at about the same price as would be charged under a cash
system for the crop area of the farm.

On general farms in Colorado, rented on shares with expenses
shared equally, the tenant may receive one-half the proceeds from
the use of pasture. These proceeds commonly come from fees for
pasturing outside horses or other stock. In general, w hen the tenant
has the free use of pasture for his work stock and a few cows and
hogs, he is required to share equally with the landowner the colt and
calf proceeds.

CONTRACTS FOR CLEARING LAND.

In some leases special stipulations are made regarding compensa-
tion of the tenant for clearing land. On an Indiana farm under a
six-year lease the landlord furnished tile, while the tenant cleared the
brush, fitted the land for cultivation and put in the tile drains, re-
ceiving as compensation all products produced on the land for the
six-year period. Sometimes the tenant clears a few acres of land
adjoining the other cultivated fields, receiving w^ages and all the crops
for one year in return for his labor.

OWNERSHIP OF EQUIPMENT.

Share croppers on cotton farms usually provide none of the equip-
ment, the tools, mules, and feed being furnished by the landlord, and
other expenses except labor being shared equally, and receive one-half
the cotton. Share renters on cotton farms usually furnish tools,
mules, and feed, and receive two-thirds or three-fourths of the cotton.
The landlord furnishes all equipment and horse labor on celery
farms, as in the arrangement in vogue under the share-cropping

16 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

system for tenants, and receives two-thirds of the celery. The ten-
ant under this system supplies all hand labor.

On general farms throughout the country where several extensive
crops are produced, the tenant is commonly expected to provide tools
and work stock. Occasionally the landlord may furnish certain
pieces of machinery and sometimes a part of the horses; or rarely
the landlord supplies all equipment as an offset to certain other con-
siderations. On such farms the landlord's share is one-half, one-
third, two-fifths, or some other fraction of all crops, according to
local conditions. On some tenant farms in Ohio the landlord sup-
plies all equipment and receives two-thirds of all crops. On a few
Virginia farms where the tenant furnishes all equipment he receives
three-fourths of the crops; usually, however, in that State under
these conditions the tenant's share is two-thirds.

On stock farms it is customary for the landlord and tenant to hold
an equal interest in all productive stock. They either purchase the
stock in partnership or one owns the stock before the contract is en-
tered into and the other buys a half interest, or the landlord may
provide all the stock, sharing the increase and proceeds equally. In
such cases the landlord receives at the expiration of the lease his
original number of stock. Occasionally the landlord may own all
productive stock, pay the tenant wages for caring for the stock, and
take all stock proceeds. The tenant thereby obviously becomes a
mere hired laborer. In a few instances the landowner supplies all
of the poultry and receives as his share one-half the eggs and in-
crease.

On dairy farms custom varies with regard to the ownership of the
cows, pigs, and poultry. In Wisconsin the ccTWs and chickens are
commonly owned half and half. Sometimes the landlord owns all
the cows and chickens. More frequently the tenant owns all of the
chickens. In Illinois the landlord usually owns all cows, the tenant
bearing one-half of the cost of cows to replace those that die, while
less often the cows are owned in partnership. The tenant most fre-
quently supplies all of the chickens, but they may be owned jointly.
In Vermont the landlord usually owns all of the cows and the tenant
one-half of the other productive stock. In Delaware the landlord
usually owns all of the cows or, less frequently, one-half of them.
In New Jersey the tenant commonly owns one-half of the cows and
hogs and all of the poultry, receiving all of the returns from the
poultry, while other proceeds are divided equally. Occasionally, in
Sussex County, N. J., and in Delaware, the tenant may furnish only
the labor, while the landlord owns all the cows and pays two-thirds
of the cost of feed and fertilizer, receiving as his share two-thirds
of the dairy products. In Pennsylvania the landlord commonly owns

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 17

one-half of the cows and other productive stock. A similar custom
prevails in Maryland, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and
Washington.

METHODS OF SHARING EXPENSES.

A wide variation is seen in different localities in the methods of
sharing operating expenses. Frequently individual items of expense
are not strictly shared, but are assigned, some to the landlord and
some to the tenant, in an attempt to equalize the burden of expense.
An increasing tendency, hoAvever, is seen toward specifying in the
lease the fractions of different items of expense to be borne by the
landlord and tenant. Recently the custom seems to be gaining
ground of shading all expenses equally.

FERTILIZERS.

Share croppers on cotton farms usually provide one-half of the
fertilizer, or in some cases the landlord supplies all fertilizer. Share
renters, on the other hand, furnish three-fourths or two-thirds of the
fertilizer, according as their share of the cotton is three-fourths or
two-thirds. On half-share dairy farms and general farms in Dela-
ware the landlord provides one-half of all of the fertilizer. The land-
lord almost invariably supplies all lime used on the farm. In Indiana
and Illinois the landlord commonly provides one-half of the ferti-
lizer, less often all of it. Similar conditions prevail generally through-
out the country. The sharing of the cost of fertilizer is often pro-
portionate to the share of crops. On the other hand, the landlord
often provides the larger share of the fertilizer, for example, two-
thirds, three-fifths or three-fourths on half-share rented farms. In
many instances the landlord provides aU of the fertilizer, especially
in case of an annual lease. On tenant truck farms in New Jersey, for
example, the landlord furnishes all manure and usually all of the
commercial fertilizer.

SEED.

The farm owner commonly pays for one-half of the seed or plants
in the case of grain, potatoes, corn, cabbage, cucumbers, and various
other crops, but all possible methods for dividing the expense of seed
are in vogue. For example, the landlord frequently supplies all
grass and clover seed and one-half the other seed, or he may furnish
all seed, or in some cases the tenant may supply all seed, or finally,
the landlord may supply all grass seed while the tenant furnishes
other seed, especially in case of an annual lease where the tenant can
not expect to derive the full benefit from the use of grass seed.
28624°— 18— Bull 650 3

18 BULLETIN G50, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ACxRICULTUEE.

CRATES, HAMPERS, BASKETS, BARRELS, BOXES, BAGS. ETC.

Expenses for all of these articles are usually borne equally. Bags
for grain may be supplied in proportion to the share of the crop
received by each party. The tenant may provide one-half or all of
the baskets for tomatoes. Bags for onions may be equally shared,
but in some cases the purchaser pays for them. On other farms the
landlord may provide all crates for onions and all barrels for apples,
or may furnish a part of them in proportion to his share of the crop.

GINNING, THRASHING, TWINE, FUEL, AND OIL.

The share cropper on cotton farms usually pays one-half the
expense of ginning, and share renters pay their proportionate share
of ginning (two-thirds or three-fourths), while the landlord usually
provides the fuel. On grain, dairy, stock, and general farms through-
onl the country the cost of thrashing, twine, fuel, and oil is either
shared equally or the landlord provides all or the tenant all. In
still other cases the thrashing expens3 is shared equally w^hile the
tenant pays for the twine. Or, finally, the thrashing expense may be
shared in proportion to the tenant's and landlord's shares of grain.

SILO FILLING. SHREDDING, AND BALING.

Expenses for these operations are commonly shared equally. In
some cases, however, the tenant pays for all of them, while very
frequently the baling expense is shared in proportion to the shares
of the hay.

MILK CANS, MILK HAULING, AND MARKETING CROPS.

On dairy farms the tenant provides all or the larger share, or
one-half of the milk cans, according to local custom. In Illinois
the tenant furnishes one-half or more of the cans, while in Wisconsin
he provides all of the cans. The tenant nearly always bears the
expenses of hauling milk. Leases nearly always contain a clause
on the method of sale and marketing of partnership crops and on
the delivery of the landlord's share of the crops. A division of crops
may be made at the farm, after which the landlord's share of the
crops may be stored in a crib, granary, or barn. In other cases the
tenant may be required to deliver the landlord's share to his home,
elevator, railroad station, or to any point within a specified distance
at the discretion of the landlord. On Kansas grain farms the land-
lord may receive one-third of the grain at the farm or only one-
fourth if delivered by the tenant to the railroad station 10 miles
distant. Again in Indiana the landlord may receive one-half of the
potatoes in the field or one-third " in the bushel " at the tenant's

CONTKACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 19

option. The tenant is often required to market all crop and stock
products without previous division and to make the proper division
of proceeds at a specihcd l)ank. In one instance on an Indiana peach
farm the marketing expenses are shared equally. In the central
wheat belt the teuant may be paid wages for delivering the land-
lord's grain to market, or may receive the free use of corn land
in return for such labor.

SPRAYING, BLACKSMITHING AND VETERINARY FEES.

On stock and dairy farms ordinary veterinary fees and the cost
of testing cows for tuberculosis and of vaccinating hogs for cholera
are usually shared equally. Blacksmithing expenses are commonly
borne by the tenant, or may be shared equally. Vitriol and formalin
used for treating seed grain for smut may be provided by the tenant
or may be shared equally. Spray material for use in orchards and
on other crops is commonly provided jointly, or may rarely all be
furnished by the tenant or the landlord. The tenant usually sup-
l)lies labor for spraying. On celery farms in California the landlord
supplies all spraying material.

FEED.

On stock and dairy farms in Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Pennsyl-
vania, Delaware, Virginia, and elsewliere, the cost of purchased feed
is usually shared equally. The tenant's work stock may or may not
be fed from* the common grain and fodder. When stock breeders
rent stock to farmers on shares the farmers are usually required to
furnish all necessary feed.

LABOR.

The tenant usually supplies all labor, not only his own but also
hired labor and horse labor. At the opposite extreme, however, there
are instances in which the tenant receives wages for his own work,
while all horse and hired labor is shared equally. On celery farms
in California, on cotton farms leased to share croppers, on onion
farms in Massachusetts and New York, and occasionally on general
farms in various States, the landlord supplies all horse labor and the
tenant all hand labor. On a peach farm in Indiana the cost of hired
labor is borne jointly. The cost of hired labor on dairy farms is
often shared half and half, as it is also on a sunflower farm in Ken-
tucky. Landlord and tenant often share equally also the labor of
picking berries in Louisiana, Maryland, and elsewhere, and occasion-
ally on general farms in Michigan, New York, South Dakota, and
elsewhere — usually also the labor of picking hops, and occasionally
the cost of plowing, especially on North Dakota wheat farms. Some-

20 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

times the landlord pays wages for the family labor of the tenant.
In Ohio the extra labor required in handling tobacco is commonly
shared in proportion to the shares of the crop. On share truck
farms the landlord usually pays a part of the cost of labor required
in picking and harvesting the crops.

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Storage and freight. — Cold storage expenses on apples and other
fruits and freight on stock shipments and on other products are
usually shared equally or in proportion to the tenant's and landlord's
share of the products.

Service fees. — The landlord in most cases pays all stallion service
fees, and under such conditions may receive one-half the colts pro-
duced by the tenant's work horses.

Water assessments. — On irrigated farms in Colorado and else-
where, the landlord may pay all water rates, or less often this ex-
pense may be shared equally, or in some ^ases the tenant pays all.
In all cases, however, the tenant is required to keep irrigation
ditches, weirs, and flumes in order.

Taxes., insurance., and telephone. — The landlord usually pays all
insurance on real estate, while the insurance on partnership live
stock and equipment is shared equally. Occasionally the tenant pays
the insurance on real estate, especially in the case of an absentee
landlord. The tenant may pay the road taxes and school taxes, while
the landlord pays other real estate taxes, or the tenant may pay
one-half of the road taxes. In some cases the landlord pays all
real estate taxes, while in other instances all taxes are shared equally.
Taxes on partnership stock and equipment are almost always shared
jointly or in proportion to the shares of the proceeds. In North
Dakota the tenant may work out the road tax in return for the free
use of corn land, especially on wheat farms. The tenant usually
pays the rental for telephone services, though sometimes this ex-
pense is shared.

UNEXHAUSTED VALUE OF FERTILIZERS.

Little attention has been given in this country to the practice,
universal in the English tenant system, of granting an allowance to
a departing tenant for the unexhausted value of fertilizers bought
and applied by him during his period of tenancy. This principle is
recognized with respect to lime, which is nearly always paid for by
the landowner. But there are other materials, commonly applied to
the soil, which are not exhausted in a single year. Rock phosphate,
for example, is not exhausted within a period shorter than four

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 21

years. If, therefore, a tenant applies rock phosphate one, two or
three years before the termination of his period of tenancy, he does
not receive the full benefit of the expense which he has incurred.
The matter is frequently discussed in agricultural papers, but rarely,
if ever, is it taken into consideration in leases. If a tenant by his
own efforts and progressive methods increases the productivity of a
farm, it is only just that the improvement should be duly recognized.

REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS.

The landlord almost universally furnishes all materials needed in
repairing buildings and fences, and in making other permanent im-
provements as required, while the tenant furnishes all labor except
skilled labor necessary for making the required repairs and improve-
ments. The tenant, however, is commonly paid wages for work on
extensive improvements, such as ditching, tile draining, building
silos, etc. Often the landlord pays for the services of a skilled hor-
ticulturist to prune orchards or instruct the tenant how to prune
them. In the case of extensive improvements the landlord may sup-
ply all labor while the tenant is required to board the laborers.

PRIVILEGES AND PERQUISITES.

The landowner may grant certain privileges to the tenant free or
for a fixed sum of money or other valuable consideration, and may
also reserve certain rights for himself. The tenant's perquisites
commonly include the use of dwelling house, other buildings, garden,
and pasture, the taldng of dead and down timber for fuel, the keep-
ing of 50 or 100 chickens, and more rarely a few guinea fowls, ducks,
geese, and turkeys, the raising of a few hogs and cows to supply his
family needs, and the use of fruit and other farm produce for his
table. Frequently the landlord grants the tenant the privilege of
keeping a considerable number of cattle, hogs, and poultry, the
tenant receiving all proceeds from such stock in return for the
manure which they produce.

All these privileges may be granted free, or the tenant may be
required to pay a lump sum for the use of the farmstead, or a fixed
sum per acre. In some cases of partnership farming the value of
all products taken for table use by the landlord and the tenant is
charged against their respective accounts.

The landlord may reserve the use of one or two rooms in the
farmhouse, or a portion of the garden, or certain timber areas or
hunting rights. Moreover, the landlord may reserve the privilege
of the joint use of the farmhouse, living expenses being shared pro-
portionately with the tenant, or the right to receive poultry, eggs.

22 BULLETIN 650, U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

pork, milk, fruit, potatoes, and other -farm products for table use, or
the right to keep a driving horse in the pasture. Sometimes the
tenant is required to pay a special " improvement rent " of $25 annu-
ally in return for improvements to be made on the place by the land-
lord.

RESTRICTIONS.

The lease contract often contains a clause placing certain restric-
tions upon the operations of the tenant. For example, it is some-
times specified that alfalfa and clover land shall not be over-grazed,
that stock must not be turned upon the pasture in the spring until
the frost is out of the ground, that hogs must be ringed to prevent
rooting, or must be immunized against cholera before being brought
on the farm, or that the tenant must cut no young or growing timber.
Some landowners do not allow the tenant to keep sheep, goats, pi-
geons, geese, ducks, or turkeys. Frequently the lease prescribes that
no straw shall be burned, that cornstalks must be plowed under,
that a certain rotation must be followed, that no fodder may be sold
from the farm, that certain specified crops shall not be grown, that
certain pasture land shall not be plowed, that a specified area shall
be kept in pasture and meadow, or that only a specified number of
horses shall be kept by the tenant.

SUPERVISION BY THE LANDLORD.

The amount of supervision exercised by the landlord ranges from
daily or weekly visits to the farm, involving constant consultation
with the tenant concerning all farm operations, or rare or occasional
visits, to a condition of complete aloofness in which the landlord's
only apparent interest is in receiving the rent. The landlord may
live on a neighboring farm or in a near-by town or in another county
or city or even in a foreign country. Naturally the landlord's inter-
est in the farm operations is less under a cash-renting system than
under a system of share farming. In partnership farming, in which
each party furnishes part of the equipment and both expenses and
proceeds are shared, it is commonly stipulated that all important
matters shall be settled by consultation between the landlord and

tenant.

GOOD HUSBANDRY.

Lease contracts commonly stipulate that the tenant shall operate
the farm in a " good husbandman-like manner " or in a " workman-
like manner." These phrases are accepted as meaning that the tenant
shall plow to a proper depth, do all farm operations at the proper
time, promote crop yields and prevent waste, keep drains open, de-
stroy weeds, haul out manure, etc.

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 23

ADVANCES TO TENANT.

Advances of cash or supplies by the landlord to the tenant usually
bear the current local rate of interest and are ordinarily secured by
crop lien, chattel mortgage, or both.

GENERAL SYSTEMS OF SHARE LEASING.

DAIRY FARMS.

On dairy farms the landlord may provide one-half of the cows,
while the tenant furnishes the other half of the cows and all of the
horses and machinery and receives one-half of the proceeds. In other
cases the landlord may own all the cows while the tenant furnishes
all other equipment and receives one-half of the proceeds. In such
cases the tenant bears one-half of the loss by death of the cows or
one-half of the cost of cows purchased to keep up the herd. In still
other instances the landlord may furnish everything except labor
and receive two -thirds of the proceeds. In the first two systems ex-
penses are shared about equally, while in the third system expenses
are borne in proportion to the shares of the landlord and tenant in
the proceeds. Occasionally all equipment, including cows, hogs, poul-
try, work horses, tools, machinery, and other working capital, are
shared equally, as well as all expenses of whatever nature. In this
case also the proceeds are shared half-and-half.

STOCK FARMS.

On stock farms the tenant commonly supplies tools and horses
while the landlord furnishes half of the productive stock and re-
ceives one-half the proceeds. The landlord may provide all of the
productive stock, or other modifications of this system may be
adopted, though usually any such adjustment is to make fair a half-
and-half sharing of the proceeds.

GENERAL FARMS.

In general farming, as well as in grain farming, the tenant may
furnish the tools and horses and pay the landlord as rent one-half,
two-fifths, one-third, two-sevenths, or one-fourth of the crops, ac-
cording to the local conditions. In other instances the landlord may
furnish all of the equipment and take two-thirds of the crops or
more ; rarely only one-half of the crops. On cotton farms where the
tenant furnishes all equipment he receives two-thirds or three-fourths
of the cotton and where he supplies only the labor he receives one-
half of the cotton.

These few cases may be taken to illustrate the types of share leas-
ing systems in which the landlord receives a certain fractional part

24 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

of all crops and products of a given farm rather than different
fractions for different crops. A study of actual leases shows that,
aside from large estates wliere a uniform contract is prescribed for
all tenants on a given estate, there are rarely two lease contracts
containing identical stipulations.

Leases vary in their main features and in almost innumerable less
important details. They differ in the method of sharing equipment,
expense, and proceeds. They show how greatly varied have been
the attempts to balance one item of expense or equipment with
another. They may specify a long list of items of expense, equip-
ment, privileges, perquisites, restrictions, reservations, etc., which are
not shared but are to be borne or enjoyed exclusively either by the
landlord or by the tenant. The money value of these expenses and
privileges can not be known in advance, but only at the end of the
year. These items may amount in the aggregate, however, to an
important sum for both parties.

In some cases no items of expense or privileges are shared. In
such leases the items are merely divided between landlord and tenant
in a manner which is supposed to be more or less fair. The landlord
may pay for the fertilizer, lime, grass seed, twine, etc., while the
tenant pays for thrashing, grain seed, blue vitriol, and fuel. Both
the tenant and landlord may enjoy a large number of privileges of
which the money value is not determined nor even approximately
estimated.

SAMPLE STOCK-SHARE LEASE.

Farm leases examined during this study vary in length from 1
to 14 typewritten pages, according to the amount of detail which
the contracting parties wish to specify. The following is a sample
stock-share lease form for use on farms on which live stock is owned
in common, as adopted by the landlord-tenant conference under the
auspices of the Winnebago County Farm Improvement Association,
held at Rockford, 111., January 31, 1916. It does not contain a clause
stating how the lease may be renewed, but otherwise is sufficiently
detailed.

This indenture, made and entered into this — day of February, 191-, by

and between , party of the first part, lessor, and ,

party of the second part, lessee,

Witnesseth, that the first party in consideration of the agreements and stipu-
lations hereinafter mentioned to be kept and performed by the second party,
has leased and does by these presents rent and lease unto the second party, the

following described real estate situated in the county of and the State

of — , to wit :

(Example: NE. — sec. — , T. — , R. — , containing acres.)

To have and to hold the said premises unto said second party from the 1st
day of March, 191- at 12 m., to the 1st day of March, 191- at 12 m., being

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 25

p term of one year, with the privilege of renewal for each succeeding year as
long as both parties agree.

This leasing arrangement is known as a stock-share plan. The parties to
this contract shall be partners * and will cooperate fully according to the terms
of this lease, in order that each may receive the largest returns consistent
with a practical system of cropping and soil management which shall maintain
and even increase the fertility of the land, with the purpose that this farm
shall not decrease in productiveness and value.

The type of farming, as agreed upon, is live stock and . The plan is to

feed most of the crops on the farm, depending upon the sale of live stock and
dairy products as the principal source of income.

(Here state as fully as desired the kind and number of live stock to be kept
on the farm; also the plans for crop rotation and soil fertilization.)

The following shall be furnished and shared by :

The first party will furnish above-described farm, including the improve-
ments thereon, and shall pay all taxes and insurance on said property. He
shall furnish material needed for repairs and improvements, and shall build
new permanent fences and make other permanent improvements as required,
and shall furnish all phosphates and limestone fertilizers required on said
farm. He shall pay stallion-service fees on mares owned by lessee; colts to
be owned in common.

The second party shall furnish all horses (not to exceed ), harness,

implements, farm machinery, and labor necessary to do all work reqyired to
properly conduct this farming business as described in this agreement. He
shall make all repairs and improvements where skilled labor is not required,

except as herein specified. He shall haul, from railroad station or

source of supply, all material for repairing buildings and fences, which may be

needed in the operation of said farm. He shall haul from railroad

station or source of supply and spread on the land limestone, phosphate,

and other fertilizers purchased by lessor for use on said farm. He shall deliver

to market all produce from the farm free of cost to lessor. Lessee

agrees to operate said farm in a workmanlike manner, and to do the necessary
work in good season and to care for the crops and live stock properly, pre-
venting all unnecessary waste or loss or damage to lessor's property. He fur-
ther agrees that he will not burn any cornstalks, straw, or other vegetable
matter grown upon said farm, but that all this material shall be spread upon
the land as manure.

Lessee may have potatoes and garden truck and such fruit as the farm affords,
milk, poultry, and eggs, for family use only.

Lessor and lessee shall furnish jointly all seed grain, grass seed, clover, and
alfalfa .seed sown on said farm during the period of this lease; also all live
stock other than work horses, and feed, including hired pasture, if such be-
comes necessary, for the same, including lessee's horses. They shall furnish
binder twine and all fuel for tank heater, thrashing, corn shredding, silage
cutting, hay baling, corn shelling, clover hulling, veterinary fees, and stallion
service fees on mares owned in common. Each party shall pay one-half of all
taxes and insurance on all personal property owned in common.

They shall share equally in all the proceeds from the sale of live stock,
poultry, grain, and other produce raised on said farm. Milk and cream checks
shall be divided by purchaser. The butter used by either party shall be taken
out of his share. Each party may gather and keep his own share of fruit.
Buying and selling of materials, live stock, and other farm produce shall be
left largely with the lessee, but all sales and purchases of more than $

» This agreement is not a legal partnership.

26 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

shall be made with the knowledge and consent of the lessor. All joint business
in the way of payments and receipts shall be through Bank of .

Both lessor and lessee shall own in common, each an undivided one-half,
all live stock, excepting as hereinbefore provided for, owned and produced upon
said farm ; and such of said stock as the parties shall agree upon shall be sold
at such time as may be satisfactory to both.

Whenever any cattle, hogs, grain, corn, or hay or any other product of said
farm shall be sold, the proceeds shall be equally divided between the parties, or,
if agreed upon, it may again be invested in other stock, grain, or material for
the common use and benefit of the parties.

Lessee further covenants and agrees that he will farm said land in a good,
farmlike, and workmanlike manner ; that he will commit no waste nor suffer
injury to be done to the premises ; that he will allow no noxious weeds to go
to seed on said premises, and will keep the weeds and grass cut in the roads
adjoining the land.

Lessee also agrees that he will draw out and scatter on said premises, on or
before December 1st of each year, on the fields where it is most needed, fol-
lowing out the plan of farming agreed upon in this contract, all manure being
and made on said premises up to December 1st next preceding the end of the
term, and that in default of so dravnng out and scattering said manure, he
shall pay to lessor as penalty the sum of $ .

That he will leave as many acres plowed on said premises at the end of his
term as. he finds plowed when he takes possession, and in default of so doing he
shall pay to lessor $ an acre for each acre short of such number.

That he shall keep the buildings, fences, and other improvements on said
premises in as good repair and condition as the same are when he goes into
possession, or as good as they may be put in during said terms, loss by fire
or inevitable and ordinary wear excepted ; that he vrill not assign this lease or
sublet any part of said premises without written consent of lessor ; that he will
not bring mortgaged property on said premises without the consent of said
lessor ; that he will not sell or remove any of the farm crop from said premises
without the consent of the lessor ; that he will not break up any established
watercourses or ditches or undertake any other operation which will injure
said land.

That in case he shall, from any cause, neglect, refuse, or be unable to prop-
erly prepare said land, sow, plant, harvest, or care for any and all crops to be
raised on said land, said lessor, his agents, heirs, or assigns, may at their
option take possession thereof and of the crops growing or being grown thereon,
and properly care for the same, and sell the same, and the proceeds remaining
after payment of the rents, cost, and expenses and damages shall go to lessee.
That he will surrender the stubble land, for the purpose of plowing, in the fall
preceding the termination of this lease, as soon as the crop has been removed
from the same ; that he will surrender possession of said premises at the end
of the term, or sooner termination thereof, and if immediate possession be not

given, that he will pay lessor, or assigns, the sum of $ for each and

every day possession is thus withheld, as damages for nonsurrender.

That a failure to keep and perform any of the agreements hereinbefore men-
tioned shall, at the option of said lessor, or assigns, operate as a forfeiture of
this lease and terminate the term, and lessor may take possession of the prem-
ises at once without process of law, or he may bring an action at law for pos-
session, said lessee being, from the date of such failure, a tenant holding over
after the expiration of his term ; that in consideration of this lease, and the
agreements herein contained on the part of the lessor, said lessee covenants
and agrees to keep and perform tlie agreements hereinbefore set forth, hereby

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 27

covenantinp; that moneys due from him to said lessor for plowing?, or damages,
or otherwise, shall be and hereby are dtH>lared and made a perpetual lien on any
and all crops, stock, and other personal property of lessee at any time kept,
had, or used on said premises, whether the same are exempt from execution or
not, such lien to attach from the commencement of the term.

Said lessor reserves the right of himself, his employees, or assigns to enter
upon said premises at any time for the purpose of viewing the same or making
repairs or improvements thereon, the same not to interfere with the occupancy
of the lessee; and reserves the right to himself or agent to enter upon said
premises for the purpose of plowing the stubble land, from which the crops
shall have been removed, in the fall preceding the termination of this lease.

It is understood and agreed by both parties that the lessee's reward for all
farm improvements which he is required to make according to the terms of
this contract shall come in the increased yields and greater returns which
should result and which will be shared by lessee if he continues to operate said
farm.

But in case this lease is terminated before lessee receives the benefit from
such improvements, he shall receive reasonable compensation for such im-
provements. For example, hauling and spreading rock phosphate and ground
limestone, seed clover and alfalfa, laying drainage, tile, stump pulling, etc.

(Here state reward to be given lessee for unexhausted improvements.)

That in consideration of this lease and the agreements herein contained
on the part of the lessee, said lessor covenants and agrees to keep and perform
the agreements herein set forth, hereby covenanting that any compensations
due from him to said lessee for improvement work, etc., shall be a lien on
his share of the personal property, and must be paid before the proceeds are
equally divided.

And likewise, for failure to provide for and carry out any improvements
on said farm which are agreed to in this lease, said lessor shall be liable for
damages to said lessee to reimburse him for the loss which jnay result from
such default.

At the end of the term of this lease, an accounting shall be had between
the respective parties hereto, and the produce, stock, etc., upon said farm
belonging to lessor and lessee shall be equally divided. Lessee shall divide
each kind of live stock into two equal lots, as near as may be, and lessor
shall have his choice of lots of each kind of live stock, which division shall
be final and binding upon both parties. And if a proper settlement can not
be made in this way, all parties hereto agree to have a public sale on the
premises for the purpose of dissolution. After all joint debts of lessor and
lessee and the expenses of having the sale are paid, the proceeds shall be
equally divided.

But if one or both parties object to a sale and prefer a division of said
property, then each shall select an arbitrator. They jointly shall select a
third, and the three shall make such division of said property as to them
shall seem equitable, giving each party one-half of the same, after deducting
from each party's share such indemnities or adding such compensations as
may be justly charged or credited to him according to the terms of this con-
tract.

Neither party shall have the right to bind the other by any contract out-
Bide the scope of this agreement, or by any purchases made within the scope
of this agreement, except with the consent of the other, imless hereinbefore
provided for.

(Signed) ■ — .

(Signed) .

28 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING LEASE CONTRACTS.

A study of leases in actual operation discloses the existence of a
few interesting general assumptions which are of much value In
establishing a basis for a rational form of lease contract. Share
renters on good cotton farms may pay the landlord one-third the
cotton, but only one-fourth on poor farms. Similar arrangements
are to be noted in other parts of the United States. The obvious
assumption underlying this adjustment is that on fertile farms the
landlord is entitled to a larger share of the crops than on poor
farms under otherwise similar conditions. The same consideration
is, of course, apparent in renting land for cash, the cash rent per
acre varying with the agricultural value of the land.

In many cases the landlord accepts as rent a smaller share of
the produce delivered at the railroad station than at the farm.
For example, on a Kansas grain farm the landlord takes one-third
of the wheat at the farm or one-fourth at the railroad station at
the option of the tenant. The assumption in such cases evidently
is that the farther the farm from market the smaller should be
the landlord's share of the crops if the tenant is required to haul
them to market. This assumption is manifestly in accord with
justice and common sense.

On general farms the landlord's share is often different for dif-
ferent crops. For example in Colorado the landlord may get one-
half of the hay, one-third of the grain, and one-fourth of the sugar
beets, or one-half of the hay, one-half of the apples, one-third of
the wheat, one-third of the potatoes, and one-fourth of the sugar
beets. In Delaware the landlord may get two-fifths of the tomatoes
and one-half of the grain, or one-fourth of the tomatoes and one-
half of the grain. In Indiana the landlord may get two-thirds of
the eggs and one-half of the milk, or one-half of the hay and corn
and one-third of the wheat and oats, or two-fifths of the wheat and
one-half of the corn. In Iowa the landlord may get one-half of the
hay and two-fifths of the corn. In the cotton belt the landlord may
get one-third of the corn and one-fourth of the cotton. In Michigan
and Missouri the landlord may get one-half of the hay and one-third
of the corn. In Nebraska the landlord may get one-half of the hay
and one-fourth of the corn. In Ohio the landlord may get one-half
of the hay and corn and three-sevenths of the tobacco, or one-half
of the hay and corn and two-fifths of the tobacco and apples. In
all these cases of variation in the shares of different crops on a given
farm the tenant provided all labor. The specified differences in the
shares of different crops is an acknowledgement of the fact that
more labor is required for the production of certain crops than for
others, and that the shares should in justice be correspondingly modi-

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 29

fied. More labor must be expended on sugar beets, potatoes, tobacco,
and grain than on hay.

On reLatively infertile farms the landlord may provide tools and
work horses, pay one-half the expenses except labor and take one-half
the products. The plain assumption here is that on these poor farms
the land is not equal to the labor in productive value but that land
and equipment together approximately equal the labor.

There are a few instances of partnership farming of which an
Indiana farm may be taken as an example. On this farm the land-
lord furnishes one-half of all equipment, including tools, machinery,
cows, other productive stock, and work horses. All expenses, includ-
ing even taxes and hired labor, are shared equally, and the proceeds
are divided half and half. In this case the underlying assumption
evidently is that the tenant's head and hand work is equal in value
to the use of the land, for everything except land and the tenant's
own labor is shared equally.

Many lease contracts used in farming by the general half-share
system stipulate that the tenant shall furnish all tools, machinery,
and work stock, and one-half of the cows and other productive stock,
and that expenses shall be shared equally. Here the assumption is
that the tenant's labor is not equal in value to the use of the land,
but that the tenant's labor plus the use of tools and horses equals the
use of the land.

Thus it appears to be assumed in lease contracts that on average
farms labor offsets or balances the use of the land, while on poor
farms labor is of more value and on exceptionally fertile farms of
less value than the use of the land. This is merely another way of
saying that the landlord's share of the crops should vary with the
agricultural value of the soil.

It may be well to discuss further some of the points involved in
these assumptions, especially since there is at present an active
interest among landowners and tenants in attempts to arrive at a
rational basis for lease contracts.

The assumption that labor offsets or balances the land underlies
much of the discussion of tenancy in England and also prevails
widely in this country. This assumption seems to involve, as a more
precise definition of the amount of labor concerned, an amount suf-
ficient to carry on the ordinary operations of a farm under a system
of general farming.

If, therefore, we start with the assumption that the amount of
labor necessary to operate a farm for general purposes is equal in
value to the productive power of the farm, it would then seem fair
to assume that for the equal sharing of all farm produce between
tenant and landowner, each should contribute one-half of the

30 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

necessary investment in work stock, productive stock, implements,
farm machinery, and other operating capital, and should also share
equally all expenses connected with the operation of the farm. In
several individual instances this plan has been used as a basis of
a half-and-half share lease and has apparently given good satis-
faction to both tenant and landowner. Under such a contract the
extra labor involved in the production of special or intensive crops
should naturally be considered as a part of the expense. This would
apply to such crops as berries, tobacco, hops, cotton, onions, sugar
beets, celery, and also to potatoes and apples.

It is obviously desirable that farm leases should be based on a plan
which will not only give the tenant an elastic value for his labor
and managerial ability to compensate for the possible rise of land
values under the influence of speculative expectation and of com-
petition of tenants, but will also give the tenant an equal personal
interest with the landowner in the use of the most businesslike and
scientific methods of farming to increase production, and also in
economy with reference to all expenses connected with farm opera-
tions. These desirable features of a satisfactory form of lease would
seem to be largely supplied by the contract in question. In one of
the few individual instances in which essentially this form of con-
tract is now in operation it is provided in the contract not only that
all working capital shall be furnished in equal shares and that all
expenses shall be shared equally, but also that all farm products
used for family purposes by either the tenant or landowner shall
be paid for by the respective party to the agreement. In cases where
it is not convenient for landowner and tenant to furnish exactly
equal shares of the working capital, all requirements of justice and
fairness would be served by allowing each party the interest on his
share of the working capital, to be taken out of the gross proceeds
before the final division into equal shares. Where the landowner
and tenant do not contribute equal shares of the working capital,
it would be necessary to take out not only the interest on the unlike
shares, but also all expense of the farm operations, before dividing
the net proceeds into equal parts. If, however, the sharing of the
working capital were equal, the amount of farm income to be shared
equally could readily be determined by subtracting the total expense
from the gross returns.

The great variation which is to be noted in the shares of the land-
owner and tenant in different systems of share leasing is evidence of
the long struggle which has been undergone in attempts to devise
methods of division satisfactory to both parties. It is apparent,
however, from the variation in the shares for landowner and tenant
proposed in leases, that the method of division has come about as a

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 31

result of mutual demands and concessions and is therefore for the
most part the final outcome of the blind operation of economic forces
rather than the result of a deliberately planned system of division.

It would seem that the main physical factors which operate in
the production of farm products are land, working capital, and
labor. If, therefore, an agreement could be reached on a reasonable
valuation of land and a reasonable rate of interest which this land
should draw, and also upon a satisfactory payment for labor and a
rate of interest on working capital, these three factors, namely,
interest on land, interest on working capital, and wages for labor,
could be used as a rational basis for a percentage distribution of
products.

One of the great difficulties in establishing such a rational basis
for the division of farm products under a share system of leasing is
found in arriving at a proper estimate of the value of land. Farm
land in the better farming sections is now held at prices which indi-
cate the strong influence of speculative expectation of further rise
in land prices. In fact much land is already capitalized at so high a
price that the owner is forced to accept a lower rate of interest from
the operation of the farm than could be reasonably expected from the
same amount of capital otherwise invested. In estimating the value
of the relative contributions of working capital and land to farm
production, it is necessary to take into consideration the high relative
risk and depreciation involved in the maintenance of live stock and
farm machinery, as compared with the indestructibility of farm land.
It may perhaps be fair to consider the relative contribution of a
dollar invested as working capital as about three times that of a
dollar invested in land, working capital yielding 10 per cent and
land 3^ per cent interest.

The" tenant's services can not justly be considered as consisting
merely of manual labor. His managerial ability is an important part
of his services. It is unfair, therefore, to rate the tenant's services
to the partnership at the same value for all values of farms in a given
neighborhood. A labor income of $500 might be an adequate recom-
pense for a tenant's services on a $10,000 farm, but on a farm worth
$50,000 his time and managerial ability are worth more. No business
man would think of putting in charge of a $50,000 plant a man whose
services were worth no more than $500. In order to obviate such an
Injustice to the tenant, it is necessary to assume that the value of his
labor and managerial ability increases somewhat in proportion to
the increase in the value of the farm.

The tendency at present is for the land to take an increasingly
large proportion of the joint product of land, working capital, and
labor. In many of the richest farming districts land values have be-
come so high that the landlord's interest on his investment is only 3

32 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

or 4 per cent. If, for example, $1,200 is the maximum rent which a
landowner can expect to obtain for the use of his farm by a tenant,
it is apparent that the owner may consider this $1,200 as 2 per cent
interest on $60,000 or 4 per cent on $30,000. Some landowners have
felt that the rate of income derived from rented land ought to keep
pace with the increase in land values. In the attempt to obtain such
an increase of income they have tried to avoid the appearance of
claiming more than one-half of the net proceeds. This has been ac-
complished by requiring the tenant to furnish more than half of the
working capital, by charging cash rent for the farmstead, pasture,
or certain other " privileges," or by exacting an arbitrary " improve-
ment rent." The tenant is thereby forced to pay as rent not only
half of the farm income but also an additional sum in cash.

There is an obvious advantage to both parties in the strictly half
and half system of leasing. It offers no opportunity for either party
to get the better of the bargain by indirect, methods. Landlord and
tenant contribute equally to the partnership, share all expenses
equally, and therefore receive equal shares of the farm income. The
manner in which this system operates may be seen in the following
average example constructed from survey records on farms in the
corn belt. In this example the business of a 160-acre farm worth
$25,000 is analyzed on a basis of good average yields and normal
prices under a strict partnership system of leasing.

Analysis of the business of a $25,000 farm leased under the half-and-half

system.
Receipts :
Crops —

65 acres corn — Tenant. Owner. Farm.

1,500 bushels sold $375 $375

800 bushels fed.

35 acres wheat, 1,000 bushels sold 500 500

15 acres oats —

300 bushels sold - 60 60

300 bushels fed.
20 acres hay —

5 tons sold 25 25

20 tons fed.

135 acres crops.

20 acres rotation pasture.

5 acres waste.
Stock—

12 cows, cattle, milk, etc 350 350

6 horses or mules =35 —35

Swine 250 250

Poultry and eggs 75 75

Total 1.600 1, COO $3,200

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 33

Exnenses ■ Tenant. Owner. Farm.

Hirer! labor and board $200 $200

Family labor 25 25

Cash expense of operation and repair 300 300

Depreciation of equipment, 14 per cent of $500__ 35 35

Depreciation of buildings, 6 per cent of $2,000__ 60 60

Interest on working capital, 6 per cent of $2,500_ 75 75

Taxes on real estate and equipment 80 80

Total 775 775 $1,550

Farm income 1, 650

Reward for tenant's management and labor 825

Reward for use of real estate 825

Interest on real estate (per cent) 3.8

The tenant receives $825, half of the net profit, as a reward of his labor
and management, also an allowance for half of the value of the family labor,
and board of hired labor furnished, and the interest on his half of the working
capital. His working capital is maintained at the same value at which he
turned it into the partnership or is replaced.

The landowner receives, in addition to his $825, an allowance of the interest
on his half of the working capital, as well as having all taxes paid on his real
estate and an allowance for depreciation.

Interest on working capital in the above example is charged at 6 per cent.
The rate would be about 10 per cent if it included depreciation charges.

SUGGESTIONS TOWARD A RATIONAL LEASE CONTRACT.

The conditions under which the various existing types of share
farming have developed have led landowners to include in lease
contracts such a bewildering variety of rights and privileges of
unspecified money value that at first sight it would seem impossible
to say whether the contract is just or not. The approximate value
of all these items, however, is generally known. Shrewd judgment
and local experience enable the landowner and tenant to estimate
closely what the thrashing, twine, feed, seed, and fertilizer bills will
be. Nevertheless, lease contracts in which various items of expense
and privilege are empirically adjusted and assigned to tenant or
landlord are never, except by mere accident, strictly fair, but are
always slightly in favor of landlord or tenant. Any injustice of
this sort may become a source of friction between landlord and tenant
and may lead to more frequent moving on the part of the tenant.

In some cases the tenant is a son or other relative of the landlord,
in which event other considerations than those of strict business
principles may be reflected in the stipulations of the lease. Or the
owner may be a speculator merely holding the land for sale at an
advanced price, being willing to accept a low rent pending sale and
expecting to take his profit from the rise in the price of land rather

34 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

than in rent. But sheer generosity and charity are no more fre-
quently seen in farm lease contracts than in other business transac-
tions. Such cases may be left out of consideration, for most lease
contracts are intended to be strict business propositions.

Many farm leases now in operation indicate an apparently satis-
factory manner of eliminating; all unknown quantities from a lease,
reducing it to a simple, specific, and readily understandable form.
According to these contracts all equipment, including tools, machin-
ery, work stock, productive stock, and other working capital, is
owned in equal partnership ; all expenses, including hired labor and
taxes, are shared equally, and the proceeds are divided half-and-half.
All products taken for family use by either landlord or tenant are
charged against the respective parties. This system is obviously fair
and explicit. The objection may be raised that it involves much
bookkeeping, but farm bookkeeping is desirable from every stand-
point. In fact, many lease contracts stipulate that the tenant shall
keep a complete daybook in which ever}' item of expense and receipt
is entered.

Such a contract provides a basis for the fair and equal sharing
of all crops which may be grown on a farm, however unlike the
amounts of labor required for their "production, for if all expense
for extra and hired labor is shared equally it is obviously just that
the proceeds from crops requiring extra labor should be shared on
the same basis as those which require little labor. Moreover, the
unfairness of requiring the tenant to deliver crops to distant markets
is obviated by sharing the expense of the labor thus involved.

Again, this plan is readily adaptable to cases in which the tenant
and landlord furnish working capital in unequal shares. In such
cases it is merely necessary to take out of the undivided farm income
the interest on each one's share of the working capital and also the
operating expenses, after which the remainder is divided half-and-
half. Many leases constructed on this plan are in operation.

Share farming seems to be based on the idea of equal division of
the proceeds. In those cases in which the fractions are not half and
half, but one-third and two-thirds, one- fourth and three-fourths, or
two- fifths and three- fifths the unequal sharing is an adjustment to
the fact that operating expenses and the cost of equipment are not
borne equally. Even in such cases it would appear preferable that
all expenses and interest on the unequal shares of working capital
be taken out of the undivided farm income and that the remaining
proceeds be then divided equally. The feeling of full and frank
partnership between the landlord and tenant would thus be kept to
the fore. The tendency would thereby be to avoid reducing the ten-
ant to the status of a hired laborer receiving a bonus in the crops as
an inducement for extra effort.

CONTRACTS USED IN RENTING FARMS ON SHARES. 35

While the central point upon which the various stipulations in
farm leases for share renting are focused is the idea of providing a
just basis for a partnership in which the proceeds shall be shared
equally, the first attempts to provide such a basis were naturally only
approximations to justice. The various items of expense and equip-
ment were borne by the landowner or tenant in such a manner as
to balance one another as nearly equally as might be. In cases where
it was not convenient for landowner and tenant to share these items
equally an adjustment was reached by dividing the proceeds un-
equally. Even in such cases, however, the idea of equal sharing was
apparently the point of departure, and the unequal sharing of pro-
ceeds was an adjustment to the fact that the two parties had con-
tributed unequally to the business.

At least two apparent exceptions to the fundamental half-and-half
principle of tenant farming are widely prevalent. One of these is
the share-cropping method of operating cotton farms. The area
operated by a share cropper is usually too small to yield a living for
his family and pay a reasonable interest on one-half of the working
capital required for the operation of the farm. The share cropper
is therefore required to furnish no working capital. In fact, he is
virtually a hired laborer rather than a tenant.

The other exception is typified by a form of lease contract used
in renting general crop farms throughout the country. Where there
is actual competition among tenants for the opportunity to operate
farms, landowners commonly exact a bonus in the form of a require-
ment that the tenant furnish most or all of the working capital.
The assumption underlying this practice is, as explained above, that
the tenant's own labor alone is not equal in value to the use of the
land, but that labor plus working capital equals land in productive
value.

Many recent farm leases indicate the possibility of using more
flexible and, at the same time, more precise methods of adjusting
the division of proceeds to the relative contribution of landowner
and tenant to the partnership. These recent methods, which are
gradually coming into vogue, involve in all cases the equal sharing
of proceeds. Both landowner and tenant receive one-half of the
net farm income. If equipment and other working capital are fur-
nished in equal shares and all expenses are shared equally, one-half
of the farm income naturally goes to each party without further
adjustment. If the working capital is furnished in unequal shares,
expenses and interest on each one's share of the working capital are
taken from the gross returns, after which the net farm income is
shared equally.

Underlying the lease contract in such cases is the assumption that
the tenant's labor is equal in value to the use of the land. For

36 BULLETIN 650, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

farms on which it is assumed that the tenant's labor is either of
greater or less value than the use of the land, a modification of the
same general method is coming into use. According to this modified
plan it is stipulated in the lease that from the gross returns shall be
taken a specified wage for the tenant, a specified interest on land for
the landowner, and all expenses, after which the proceeds are divided
equally. Under this system it has been found necessary to stipulate
that the tenant's wages shall be paid before the interest on land is
taken from the gross receipts. Otherwise, in poor years, the tenant
might suffer an undue hardship.

In localities where land values, under speculative influences, have
reached a figure higher than their actual productive power for agri-
cultural purposes would warrant, it may in time become necessary
to distinguish between the two elements in land values — actual pro-
ductive power and the increase due to anticipated rise in price. In
such an event it would seem fair to disregard the latter in leasing
land for agricultural purposes, for the tenant shares only in the
crop-producing power of the land, and can not participate in the
speculative rise of land values.

STATUS OF THE TENANT.

The economic position of the tenant varies greatly under different
systems of leasing. Under cash rent the tenant is completely inde-
pendent. He makes plans on his own initiative, organizes his re-
sources, determines all matters of policy at his own discretion, decides
the time and manner of applying labor to the various farm enter-
prises, and receives all returns. Share leasing involves a partnership
arrangement in which the two parties are jointly interested and deter-
mine all details of plan by mutual consultation. In some leases,
however, it is stipulated that in case of failure of the landowner and
tenant to agree on methods the judgment of the landowner shall pre-
vail. If the landowner furnishes most or all of the equipment he re-
tains title to all crops and products till they are sold and division
made, and in general directs all farm operations. Under these con-
ditions the tenant is virtually a hired man. Such tenants may re-
ceive money advances from the landowner and thus become even
more dependent than the ordinary hired man. In fact there is no
sharp line of demarcation in status between tenant and manager or
hired man working wholly under direction of the landowner.

o

y^J,

New York Botanical Garden Llbrar

3 5185 00293 2984