II "LIBRA R.Y OF THE U N I VERS ITY OF ILLINOIS 00.433-444 P CIRCULATING FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON FARM EARNINGS BY M. L. MOSHER AND H. C. M. CASE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 444 ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN THE collection of data entering into a publica- tion of the character of this bulletin, the authors must necessarily depend upon the close cooperation of a large number of farmers and staff members. Upon the intelligent and conscientious record-keeping of the many farmers in the Farm Bureau Farm Manage- ment Service thruout the ten years of the study, and the painstaking collection of data by the fieldman who supervised the accounting, the trustworthiness of this bulletin is finally dependent. J. B. Andrews, W. A. Herrington, and J. B. Cunningham, present members of the Illinois Experiment Station and Extension Service staffs, and F. A. Fisher, formerly of the Experiment Station staff, were the fieldmen who thus assisted in the collection of data, and to whom the authors express their grateful appreciation. CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 475 BASIS FOR THE STUDY: FARM BUREAU FARM MANAGE- MENT SERVICE.. . 476 PART I: SPECIFIC CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRACTICES 478 CORN PRODUCTION 480 Fertility Practices Affecting Corn Yields 480 Manure 480 Raw rock phosphate 481 Soil-building legumes 481 Classification of fields according to fertility treatments 482 Cultivation Practices Affecting Corn Yields 483 Early or late working of fall-plowed ground 483 Time of working spring-plowed ground 484 Harrowing after planting, before corn is up 485 Rolling after planting, before corn is up 485 Thoro working after planting, before corn is up 485 Cultivating young corn before row cultivation begins 487 Shovel or blade cultivators 489 Number of cultivations ...... 490 Planting Practices Affecting Corn Yields 490 Thin planting often caused low yields 490 Early planting had some advantage 491 Seed Practices Affecting Corn Yields 493 Use of high-yielding well-adapted strains 493 Early selection of seed from stalk 493 Careful storage of seed 495 Ear testing for germination and disease 496 Treating seed for disease 4% Large-eared corn better on poorly treated soil 497 Smooth-eared corn best on well-treated soil 498 Summary of Profitable Corn-Growing Practices 498 OAT PRODUCTION 500 Fertility Practices Affecting Oat Yields 500 Rock phosphate most effective for oats 500 Manure next to rock phosphate 501 Classification of fields according to fertility treatments 502 Seedbed Practices Affecting Oat Yields 502 Double-disking before seeding 502 Single-disking after seeding 503 Tractor or horses for disking before seeding 504 Tractor or horses for disking after seeding 505 Tractor or horses for harrowing after seeding 505 Use of roller after seeding 505 Seeding Practices Affecting Oat Yields 506 Early seeding 506 Rate of seeding 507 Seed Practices Affecting Oat Yields 508 Use of early varieties 508 Fanning the seed 508 Dust treatment for smut 508 Summary of Profitable Oat-Growing Practices 510 BEEF AND DAIRY CATTLE ON CORN-BELT FARMS 511 Comparisons of Four Types of Cattle Enterprises 511 First comparison, 1930-1932 511 Second and third comparisons, 1931-1933 and 1932-1934 512 Place of Beef and Dual-Purpose Cattle 513 Returns from Dairy Cattle 514 HOG PRODUCTION, FEEDING, AND MARKETING 515 Wide Variation in Efficiency of Pork Production 515 Larger Hog Enterprises Relatively More Profitable 518 Large Litters Weaned Essential for Best Returns 520 Feeding and Marketing Practices Affecting Returns 520 Marketing spring pigs before January 1 520 Feeding liberal amounts of protein feed 524 Practices Used in Handling Brood Sows 524 Gilts for brood sows grown separate from herd on most profitable farms 524 Two-litter system most profitable 525 Early weaned pigs made most efficient growth 525 Type of Farrowing House and Returns From Feed Fed 525 Individual houses most profitable 525 Dirt or wood floors superior to concrete 528 Heated colony houses more profitable than unheated 528 Summary of Good Pork-Producing Practices 528 POULTRY PRODUCTION, FEEDING, AND MARKETING 531 Larger Flocks Relatively More Profitable 531 Hatching and Feeding Practices Affecting Returns 532 Early hatching 532 Fall and winter egg production 532 Year-round feeding of laying mash 533 Combination of early hatching and year-round use of laying mash. . . . 534 Health Practices Affecting Returns 536 Raising chicks on clean ground 536 Protection from mites 537 Protection from lice... . 537 PART II: MANAGEMENT AND EARNINGS 538 DIFFERENCES IN EARNINGS AMONG FIFTY-SEVEN FARMS, 1925-1934 538 Earnings of High- and of Low-Profit Farms 539 Changes in Practices Caused Changes in Earnings 541 Ten farms that improved most 543 Ten farms that declined most 544 Some Possible Factors That Proved Negligible 545 Size of farms was not an important factor 545 Quality of land was similar 547 Ownership or rental of land was not significant 547 Factors That Influenced Relative Income Levels 548 Crop yields 548 Efficiency of livestock 549 Amount of livestock 550 Cropping system. v 551 Price of grain 551 Cost of power and machinery 552 Cost of man labor 552 Miscellaneous expenses 552 Effects of Relative Amounts of Livestock and of Grain Sold 552 INTERRELATION OF DIFFERENT FACTORS IN THE ORGANI- ZATION AND OPERATION OF A FARM 555 Good Cropping System Is the Foundation of Good Farming 556 Sweet clover good for pasture and soil building 556 Timothy and bluegrass low-profit crops on tillable land 557 High proportion of land in higher-profit crops 557 Not more than half of tillable land in corn 560 High proportion of legumes and plenty of livestock 560 Amount and Kind of Livestock Warrant Careful Consideration 563 Relative profitableness of different types of farms 563 Relative profitableness varies during changing prices 565 Livestock farms having well-handled livestock most profitable 566 Livestock farms having poorly handled livestock least profitable 570 High Crop Yields Essential to Higher Incomes 570 Efficiency With Livestock Highly Important 572 Practices Affecting Prices Received 574 Prices for grain 576 Prices for livestock and livestock products. 578 Effect of Labor Costs on Income 579 Effect of inefficient labor 579 Effect of insufficient labor 579 Variation in unit labor costs with size of farm and amount of livestock 581 Horse and Machinery Costs 583 Closely related to farm incomes 583 Costs varied with size of farm and amount of livestock 585 Horse and tractor farms had about same total costs for labor, horses, and machinery 585 GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.. . 587 APPENDIX: PRACTICES FOLLOWED ON BEST-OPERATED FARMS... . 592 Urbana, Illinois August, 1938 Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made by or sponsored by the Experiment Station Farm Practices and Their Effects On Farm Earnings By M. L. MOSHER and H. C. M. CASE' INTRODUCTION )IFFERENCES of as much as a thousand to three thousand dollars a year in the net incomes of comparable farms in the same community in Illinois are not unusual. One farmer is successful, while another, having a farm the same size with the same type of soil, has a difficult time to make ends meet. Obviously such differences are due largely to differences in the organization of the farms and in the practices used in their operation. For in farming as in other lines of industry some operators are more prompt and more skillful in interpreting new technics or in making improvements in old practices, and in fitting these improvements into a well-organized business. It was for the purpose of discovering the relative importance of the different methods and practices which farmers are following that this study, involving approximately 1,000 farms in north-central Illi- nois, was made. Such an evaluation should enable farmers who are striving to improve their businesses to choose with more confidence and discrimination those practices and types of farm organization which have proved to be profitable. The study consists first of a comparison of specific practices used in crop and livestock production, and second of an analysis of the factors responsible for differences in farm earnings and the interrela- tions of these factors in the general organization and operation of a farm. All the data presented are based on carefully kept farm ac- counts. In the evaluation of some of the specific practices as many as 5,000 fields on approximately 1,000 farms were involved. The study of general organization and management practices and of the factors responsible for the differences in net income, on the other hand, was based primarily on the records kept on a selected group of fifty-seven farms thruout a ten-year period from 1925 to 1934. 1M. L. MOSHER, Professor of Farm Management Extension ; and H. C. M. CASE, Chief in Farm Management. 475 476 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, BASIS FOR THE STUDY: FARM BUREAU FARM MANAGEMENT SERVICE The operators of all the farms used as the basis for this study were members of what is known as the Illinois Farm Bureau Farm Man- agement Service. This service, conducted as a cooperative undertaking by the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station and certain of the farm bureaus, was first organized among 235 farmers in Livingston, Mc- Lean, Tazewell, and Woodford counties in 1925. Four years later it was extended to include more than 400 farmers in these counties. Expansion was also made into other counties, until in 1931 more than 800 farmers in twelve counties in north-central Illinois were enrolled in this service. About 60 percent of the cost of the service has been paid by the farmers themselves. The purposes of this organization were twofold: to assist the individual cooperators. in improving the business organization of their farms; and, from the standpoint of the Experiment Station, to collect data which would be of value to farmers thruout the state. The services rendered to the individual cooperators were the following: 1. Assistance in keeping accurate records of farm finances and production and of the practices followed in the organization and operation of the farm. 2. Assembling, analyzing, and interpreting the records of all the cooperators in such manner as to enable each farmer to compare his accomplishments with those of others in the same community working under like conditions. 3. Assisting each cooperator to interpret his own records in the light of the records of the entire group, so that he might improve his own practices. 4. Assistance for each cooperator (if such assistance seemed advis- able from the records obtained) in working out a better plan of organization for his entire farm in order to provide a larger gross income or more economical operation. 5. Conducting farm-management tours and farm-management meetings, in order that all members might see and discuss the examples of good organization found among the cooperating farms. For accomplishing the first, third, and fourth of these objectives fieldmen1 were employed. Each fieldman worked exclusively with about 200 farmers, visiting each farm four or more times a year and 'All the fieldmen were graduates of agricultural colleges, had had practical experience in farming, and were well trained in farm management. 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 477 meeting each operator at some centrally located point in the area at the end of the year for the purpose of closing the farm account books. The farm accounts themselves were of course the basic feature of the entire service and of the present study. These accounts, kept by each farmer with the assistance of the fieldman, were complete finan- cial records of the farm business. They included opening and closing inventories, all farm receipts and expenses, the production and value of all crops, livestock, and livestock products, the distribution of feed to each class of livestock, and the value of farm produce used in the home. In addition, thruout the year a record was kept of the specific prac- tices used in the production of crops and livestock. In all, for each cooperator each year, data were recorded on approximately 200 ques- tions regarding the practices used. By recording these data thruout the year, information on every phase of the farm business that materially affected farm production, income, or expenses, was obtained. These data on specific practices have been used as the basis for the first sec- tions of the present bulletin. The financial records of the farms, on the other hand, serve as the basis for the second portion of the study — that having to do with general organization and management practices and relative earnings among the different farms. 478 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, PART I: SPECIFIC CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRACTICES High yields of corn, oats, and other crops and profitable production of livestock depend on a large number of distinct practices in growing the crop or in producing, feeding, and marketing the livestock. To a casual observer the practices used by all corn growers might, for example, seem to be very much alike. There are, however, many varia- tions which taken together have a marked effect on yields. Even among a group of farmers all of whom have been successful in producing a given crop or a certain kind of livestock, there are usually wide differ- ences in practices (pages 592 to 604). Farmers themselves are in general well aware that these differences exist; and those who are most desirous of improving their own methods are always eager to learn just how someone else who has been unusually successful has gone about it. And if the more successful farmer has used somewhat different practices, the other very naturally considers whether he too should adopt those practices. When the adoption of any specific practice is being considered, the cost of putting it into operation must be weighed against the probable returns from the use of it. It is not an easy matter, however, for an individual farmer to determine just what may be expected from a given practice under actual farming conditions. When one farmer consistently grows more corn per acre than another, it is difficult to say exactly how much of the difference is due to any one practice, unless the one practice being measured is the only one in which the methods of the two differ — which is usually not the case. In order to determine the value of each specific practice, therefore, the comparisons in this section of the bulletin were made. Such an evaluation might be made in either of two ways: (1) by a series of experiments in which all practices other than the one being studied were the same; or (2) by comparing the results obtained on a large number of farms where the practice being studied was used, with those obtained on a large number of other farms where it was not used. The theory behind the second of these methods is that if the numbers of farms in the two groups are large enough, the other good and bad practices used will probably be distributed evenly enough between the two groups to give a satisfactory evaluation of the one practice accord- ing to which the farms were grouped. In the present study the second of these methods was followed. In this section of the bulletin, therefore, emphasis will be placed on 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 479 the specific practices used by the most successful farmers of the area studied — practices that have actually proved valuable in making the farm business more profitable. The values found for the different farm practices in this analysis are similar to those obtained for the same practices in controlled ex- periments by this Station. But because of variations in the extent to which certain practices were carried out on the farms included in the study, the values obtained sometimes differ in degree from those obtained in controlled experiments. For example, not all the farmers FIG. 1. — HIGH YIELDS OF GOOD-QUALITY CORN ARE BASIC ON BOTH GRAIN AND LIVESTOCK FARMS Corn produced on the farms in this study during the ten years 1925-1934 was worth about $3,000 a year per farm, when valued at the average price of corn during the period. When fed to productive livestock on the most profitable one-third of the farms, the average corn crop would account for about $4,300 gross income. High yields of sound corn thus contribute more to satisfactory incomes on corn-belt farms than any other single factor. who applied manure applied the same amounts per acre, nor did all use the same care in handling the soil to prevent serious leaching or erosion. Accordingly the average results from applying manure were probably somewhat lower than they would have been had the practice been followed uniformly and in full. Thus the results from any specific practice analyzed here do not 480 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, necessarily indicate the maximum that might be expected from that practice under the most favorable conditions. Nevertheless, the evalua- tions do indicate what may be expected from a given practice under actual farming conditions. In the study of the practices involved in corn and oat production, records for one or more years on approximately 1,000 farms of north- central Illinois, kept during the eight-year period 1925-1932, were included. Livestock-production practices involved a total of approxi- mately 800 farms, also in north-central Illinois. All these farms were in the Illinois Farm Bureau Farm Management Service. CORN PRODUCTION The acre-yield of corn on grain farms where corn occupies from a third to a half of the tillable land is probably the most important item affecting the net farm income. And on livestock farms, also, acre-yields are highly important, tho they may be overshadowed some- what by livestock efficiency (page 553). In order to discover the effect on yield of each practice used in producing corn, the practices followed on each of several thousand fields of dark prairie soil in north-central Illinois were studied during the eight years from 1925 to 1932 inclusive. In general, the practices that affect soil fertility showed more influence on the acre-yield of corn than did the practices having to do with cultivation and seed, except possibly the selection of the strain or variety of seed. Fertility Practices Affecting Corn Yields Corn yields on fields receiving the best soil treatment were influ- enced somewhat by the use of better and more carefully selected seed and more profitable cultivation practices than were used on the fields that received inferior soil treatments. Consequently the difference in yields on the two groups of fields cannot be explained entirely by the difference in soil treatments. Nevertheless, because it is a common practice of farmers to put heavier applications of manure on thinner land and also to give less productive land the preference in the use of clover and rock phosphate, the differences in yields attributed to different soil-treatment practices (Table 1) probably represent very closely the net effects of those treatments. Manure. Yields of corn were higher by approximately 3 bushels an acre on 990 fields in this study where manure treatments were used, than on 811 fields where no manure was applied. "Manure treatment" 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 481 means that a field had been covered with more or less barnyard or straw stack-bottom manure at some time during the four years pre- ceding the growing of corn. Many applications were rather light, the average probably amounting to only about 6 loads of barnyard manure an acre. Raw rock phosphate. On 322 fields where raw rock phosphate had been used, the phosphate apparently raised the level of corn yields by about 4 bushels an acre (Table 1). "Phosphate treatment," as used TABLE 1. — KIND OF SOIL TREATMENT AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of twelve comparisons" on dark prairie soils of north- central Illinois, 1925-1932) Soil treatment Number of fields Acre-yield of corn Noneb . . 811 bu. 45 3 Manure only 238 48.3 Clover only*1 833 50.3 Manure and clover 625 53.4 Clover and phosphate* 195 54 6 Manure, clover, and phosphate 127 56.9 •Each comparison involved one year's data from a large number of farms in one of the three four-county areas. bNo manure was applied during the preceding four years; nor any clover, alfalfa, or soybeans for either hay. seed, or pasture. No phosphate had ever been used. Some limestone may have been applied to some fields. "More or less manure had been applied during the preceding four years. Appli- cations varied from 2 or 3 tons of strawstack manure per acre to 12 to 15 tons of feed- lot manure. Most applications were about 5 to 7 tons per acre. No clover during preceding four years; no phosphate at any time. dFor one or more years during the preceding four, these fields had been left in clover — red, alsike, mammoth, or sweet clover, or alfalfa, either alone or in mixture. On many fields the stands had been rather poor, but good enough to leave. No manure during preceding four years; no phosphate at any time. •Rock phosphate had been applied over the entire field at some preceding time. Most applications had been from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds per acre. in this study, means that the entire field had been covered with raw rock phosphate at the rate of at least 1,000 pounds an acre sometime during previous years. Soil-building legumes. The use of clover in the rotation (red clover, alsike clover, mammoth clover, sweet clover, or alfalfa) ap- parently raised the level of corn yields by approximately 5 bushels an acre, as an average of 833 fields during the eight years from 1925 to 1932 (Table 1). From the standpoint of increasing the yields of corn, sweet clover and alfalfa appeared to be the best of the various soil-building legumes. Corn following alfalfa that was used for hay or pasture produced on fifty fields an average of 56 bushels an acre a year, while corn follow- ing small grain without clover averaged only 47 bushels an acre a 482 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, year (Table 2). Corn on 321 fields which had been in sweet clover the preceding year, either alone or in a mixture with other clovers and timothy, and used for pasture, produced an average of 57.7 bushels an acre a year. And following small grain in which sweet clover had been TABLE 2. — KIND OF CROP GROWN THE PRECEDING YEAR AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of twelve comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois' 1925-1932) Kind of crop the preceding year Average of eight comparisons* Average of twelve comparisons* Number of fields Acre-yield of corn Number of fields Acre-yield of corn Corn 1 678 ' bu. 50.2 47.0 47.5 52.0 52^4 54.0 57.7 56.0 45.7 53.5 2 395 1 659 484 511 105 119 101 bu. 50.3 48 4 54 2 58.0 57.9 46.6 55.3 Small grain without clover 561 132 364 Small grain with red, alsike, or mammoth clover Red clover for hay 156 131 321 50 94 70 Red clover for pasture Sweet clover for pasture Alfalfa Soybeans Timothy •During the first four years of these studies the record of small-grain fields without clovers seeded were not kept separate from the records of fields with clovers seeded. Neither was there any distinc- tion made between clover fields pastured and those cut for hay or for seed. bCorn following small grain with and without clover. cCorn following red clover used for either hay, pasture, or seed. seeded and where the sweet clover had been plowed under late in the fall or early the following spring, corn produced 5 bushels an acre more than on land which had grown small grain without clover. The yield of corn following sweet clover seeded in the small grain was in fact almost as high as the yield following red clover cut for hay. Corn following corn produced a higher yield than corn following small grain without clover, tho where corn is grown two or more years in succes- sion, the first corn crop is usually preceded by a legume crop and often the land has been covered with manure. The low yield of corn following soybeans (Table 2) indicates that soybeans cannot be considered a soil-building crop when the crop is removed from the land. Classification of fields according to fertility treatments. In order to eliminate so far as possible the effects of different soil treat- 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 483 ments on yield while studying the influence of other practices — those used in caring for or selecting the seed, in seedbed preparation, and in cultivation — , the fields were classified into three groups according to the care given to the soil. A field was considered to be well treated if adequate amounts of soil-building legumes had been included in the rotation and if adequate applications of manure and rock phosphate had been made. Fairly well treated soils had received some clover, manure, and phosphate treatment but not enough to place them in the TABLE 3. — QUALITY OF SOIL TREATMENT AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of twelve comparisons on dark prairie soils of north- central Illinois, 1925-1932) Care of soil* Number of fields Acre-yield of corn Well treated 1 574 bu. 53.2 Fairly well treated 3 053 49.4 Poorly treated 1 801 44.6 All three grades of soil treatment 6 428 49.0 *W 'til-treated soils were those that had received any two of the three treatments listed in Table 1, or that had received one of the treatments in full and each of the other two in part. Fairly tcell treated soils had received one treatment but not enough of the other two to qualify as well-treated soils. Poorly treated soils were those that had received little or no treatment of any of the three types listed. high-yielding class. Poorly treated soils had received little or no treat- ment with clover, manure, or phosphate. The well-treated soils pro- duced an average yield of 53.2 bushels of corn an acre during the eight years of the study, whereas the fairly well treated soils averaged 49.4 bushels, and the poorly treated soils averaged only 44.6 bushels (Table 3). Cultivation Practices Affecting Corn Yields Early or late working of fall-plowed ground. Average yields of corn on 1,028 fields in seven comparisons1 where fall-plowed ground was worked early in the spring were 1.7 bushels higher than the aver- age for 402 fields where fall-plowed ground was not worked until shortly before the corn was planted (Table 4). In only one compari- son did the late-worked ground give a higher average yield than the ground worked early, and in that case the number of late-worked fields was hardly sufficient to give a dependable average. Working fall-plowed ground as early in the spring as the soil is in condition to be worked was a common practice among the farmers who 'Each comparison involved one year's data from a large number of farms in one of the three four-county areas. 484 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 4. — TIME OF SPRING WORK ON FALL-PLOWED GROUND AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Counties and year Worked early in spring Worked late in spring Number of fields Acre- yield of corn Number of fields Acre- yield of corn Livingston, McLean. Tazewell, VVoodford 1929 172 168 346 43 68 137 94 1 028 bu. 49.6 37.4 48.6 47.7 44.1 49.4 63.4 48.6 119 100 79 21 11 48 24 402 bu. 47.4 37.1 48.6 45.5 45.7 45.0 58.7 46.9 1930 1931 Henry, Knox, Peoria, Stark 1930 1931 Grundy, LaSalle, Marshall, Putnam 1931 1932 All seven comparisons produced the highest average yields of corn over the ten-year period (pages 592 to 595). Time of working spring-plowed ground. In four of seven com- parisons the practice of working spring-plowed ground immediately after plowing, by having either a section of harrow or some other implement attached to the plow to pulverize the soil as it was turned TABLE 5. — TIME OF WORKING SPRING-PLOWED CORNSTALK GROUND AFTER PLOWING, AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1930-1932) Counties and year Worked as plowed Worked soon after plowing Not worked soon after plowing Number of fields Acre- yield of corn Number of fields Acre- yield of corn Number of fields Acre- yield of corn Livingston, McLean, Tazewell, Woodford 1930 85 91 64 68 65 36 46 455 bu. 36.1 4R.2 42.5 46.0 69.6 48.9 67.9 51.3 56 54 43 20 19 31 58 281 bu. 37.2 49.1 42.4 45.6 64.7 50.9 64.5 50.6 63 64 27 16 7 14 13 204 bu. 35.4 51.8 41.8 47.5 66.9 49.8 54.3 49.6 1931 Henry, Knox, Peoria, Stark 1930 1931 1932 Grundy, LaSalle, Marshall, Putnam 1931 i 1932 •? All seven comparisons 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 485 over, proved to be slightly more profitable than following up with a harrow or other implements soon after plowing, and it proved definitely more profitable than letting the soil lie as turned over by the plow for several weeks before working it further. As an average of all seven comparisons, the immediate working of the spring-plowed ground held an advantage of .7 bushel of corn an acre over the work- ing of the ground soon afterward, and 1.7 bushels an acre over delay- ing further working of the ground for several weeks (Table 5). This practice of working the spring-plowed ground immediately after plow- ing was followed also by those farmers who consistently obtained the highest yields of corn (page 594). Harrowing after planting, before corn is up. In seven of eight comparisons, involving more than 3,000 fields in all, the fields that were harrowed after the corn was planted and before it came up gave higher yields than those not harrowed in this manner (Table 6). As an average of all eight comparisons, the harrowed fields yielded 1.6 bushels an acre a year more than the others. Rolling after planting, before corn is up. Comparisons were made of the effects of different methods of working ground after corn was planted and before it came up. In seven of eight com- parisons corn yields were lower where the ground was rolled and not harrowed than where it was harrowed without being rolled. When a roller was used, yields were higher where it was followed by a harrow than where it was not. Tho the fields where the roller only was used were, in several of the comparisons, too few to lend much significance to the data, the fact that the results all point in the same direction is of interest. Apparently if a roller is used to reduce clods and compact the soil, it is wise to follow the roller with a harrow so that the surface of the soil will not run together and cake after a rain. Some of the most successful growers of corn (page 594) used the roller and harrow ahead of the planter when the ground was cloddy or loose, and used only the harrow and not the roller after planting. Thoro working after planting, before corn is up. Fields with well-treated soil averaged 3.1 bushels more corn an acre when culti- vated twice with harrow, weeder, or rotary hoe than the fields that received no cultivation after the corn was planted but before it came up (Table 7). On fairly well treated soil there was an advantage of 1.9 bushels an acre in favor of two cultivations over no cultivations before the corn was up. On poorly treated soil, however, there seemed 486 BULLETIN No. 441 2 M a - - 55 °* « T O Ov ^s w — a - H .2 w g « -J o = &4 ^" w r= PQ 2 g S oa V o 5 C ° z c 3^ Cu J2 - o S 3S z o M M 0 te T3 1E t^M50iv> ^t^on - Jj "o K •O 1^ '^^ 55^ KS§ 10 Harrow . Number of fields (SO O ^IO (SfMTC 10 cs •o !5 £ «00r~r»- r~-*00 0<* ^ i " ^r^t^oo'-* d«oi^— oo'o't' 0 e o •o Jl b^ 6 0 Z Number of fields HSI ««I -I i IJIjj jjii ;;; Illlj iiii lili Counties and yea > : : : § : : : jijjLiiliJjM liH; liiii iiii c : : : : * : : : : £'•'•'• S : '• o : '• 2 : « :l * :l S 8 2 :i S :S «8 g \ : > ° > c? > \ c :< c :< j < 5 O1 C — Jd O — !••<«• 55SS )8Si § 1 :„ 5 .22 K f! 1 1O 1* »O 1" 5-§ S^ S 2 fsoai1 __ I g~ •o < jj 5^55 ^SS 5S5 S ^ "o O u Z ^2 C OO^^1 00 h Voodford : E : .... 0) ... Counties and yea V Livingston, McLean, Tazewell, V 1929 1930 1931 Average Henry, Knox, Peoria, Stark 1930 1931 1932 Average Grundy, LaSallc, Marshall, Putn 1931 1932 Average AH eight comparisons 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 489 minimum necessary to kill weeds and keep the surface of the soil in good condition (see page 594). Shovel or blade cultivators. The old question which is better, the shovel cultivator or the blade cultivator, is answered by these comparisons (Table 9) to the satisfaction of many good corn growers. On well-treated land, where the soil was in good physical condition, the blades had a slight advantage over the six-shovel cultivator in twelve comparisons covering a period of eight years. Blades were used on 601 fields having well-treated soil, and shovels on 447 fields. On the FIG. 2. — GOOD STANDS OF STRONG STALKS ARE NECESSARY TO HIGH YIELDS OF CORN Planting healthy, viable seed of a high-yielding strain of corn in a well- prepared seedbed of fertile soil, and cultivating so as to kill weeds without dam- age to the corn plants, are important measures in producing good yields of sound corn. other hand, the shovels had a slight advantage on 894 fields where the soil was fairly well treated, and a decided advantage on 457 fields where the soil was poorly treated. Some of the best corn growers in north-central Illinois are turning to the broad spear-point type of shovel (page 594). 490 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 9. — KIND OF Row CULTIVATOR USED AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of twelve comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1925-1932) Care of soil Kind of cultivator Number of fields Acre- yield of corn Well treated Common, six shovels. . . . Blades 447 601 bu. 54.9 55.8 Fairly well treated Common, six shovels. . . . 894 51.6 Blades 1 126 50.9 Poorly treated Common, six shovels. . . . 457 47.9 Blades 690 46.1 All three grades of soil treatment Common, six shovels. . . . 1 798 51.5 Blades 2 417 50.9 Number of cultivations. When the fields were classified accord- ing to number of cultivations (including use of harrow, rotary hoe, or row cultivator) after the corn was up, the advantage, if any, was in favor of only three cultivations rather than four or five (Table 10). This was particularly true on the well-treated soils, and is in accord with the statement already made that the best corn growers prepare the seedbed very thoroly, and then after the corn is up do only as much cultivating as is necessary in order to kill weeds. Planting Practices Affecting Corn Yields Thin planting often caused low yields. Farmers in this study were planting too few kernels to the hill rather than too many. On well-treated land 180 fields having an average of about 3 stalks to a TABLE 10. — NUMBER OF CULTIVATIONS AFTER CORN WAS UP AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of eight comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Care of soil Number of cultivations* Number of fields Acre-yield of corn Well treated Three 462 bu. 53.8 Four 247 52.3 Five 77 52.7 Three 1 060 51 2 Four 573 50.6 Five . . 211 50 6 Poorly treated Three 644 46.6 Four 306 48 5 Five 96 46.7 All three grades of soil treatment f Three 2 166 50.5 Four 1 126 50.5 ^ Five 384 50.0 •The tools used were row cultivators, harrows, rotary hoes, weeders, and rollers. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 491 hill after cultivation averaged approximately 9 bushels an acre more than 553 fields having an average of 2 stalks per hill (Table 11). Those having 3 stalks per hill averaged 4.3 bushels more than those having 2J/2 stalks per hill. While the differences for fields having fairly well treated soil and poorly treated soil were not so great, they were in the same direction. Of all of the practices having to do with soil fertility, cultivation, seed, and seed treatment, apparently no single practice has more to do with getting a good yield of corn than planting plenty of seed and TABLE 11. — NUMBER OF STALKS PER HILL AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of eleven comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1925-1927 and 1929-1932) Care of soil Stalks per hill, after cultivation Number of fields Acre-yield of corn Well treated 1.75 to 2.24 553 bu. 50.6 2 25 to 2.74 594 55.3 2.75 to 3.24 180 59.6 Fairly well treated 1 . 75 to 2 . 24 1 280 48.7 2.25 to 2.74 1 067 52.7 2.75 to 3.24 . . . 240 54.7 Poorly treated 1.75 to 2.24.. . 897 44.6 2 . 25 to 2 . 74 532 47.3 2.75 to 3.24 92 51.9 All three grades of soil treatment . ... 1 .75 to 2.24. .. 2 730 47.9 2.25 to 2.74 2 193 51.7 2.75 to 3.24 512 55.4 using careful cultivation so that a good stand is maintained. In thirty- two of the thirty-three comparisons on well-treated, fairly well treated, and poorly treated soils, involving a total of 5,435 fields averaging about 25 acres each, those fields having an average of 3 stalks to a hill produced higher yields than those having an average of only 2 stalks to a hill. Early planting had some advantage. In 1932 corn planted dur- ing the first ten days of May produced 3 bushels an acre more than that planted from May 10 to May 19, as an average of all three grades of soil treatment (Table 12). The yield on a few fields planted after May 20 was lower by an average of 1.2 bushels an acre. In 1929 a marked difference of 2.2 bushels an acre occurred in favor of planting during the first ten days of May rather than during the second ten days. In 1930 and 1931 the earlier planting apparently held no advantage. As an average of the four years, and including 4,042 fields, the 492 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, id tn a « w 8 « ^ E T3 IE .0000 KiOM^ mooo O-iOOO ft i ° _* ,^^5*5 (NO>a =.--'- o o>a 1 b'o < Average ol Number of fields t^t^ PJ 335° tt^*t >O (N^f OX — op«t~ OOIOOV lOf SO"5 "5O — voro *)> t»-H«* •*Tj«tS w w 48 3° * SSS 00 10 -" sO^OO — oo C "". C t^.^ir»5 VO>0« o* Number of fields t^^WJ f*5 »H *•* SWJK 2^ 00 -«S CO-* — •<*ON — •/• — «•* •«• T3 a •— *~ >> o . 'fOOv voesa vomfo » Z2 - O < *555 555 ^^^ r~oooo - - - Ov Number of fields ^SS W) «SVO tS^HlO TttO 10'* 10 ooio") N»H «o«s — IO««H 00 1/5 •< •o 3g >> o . O-*(N « — » w*oo 1O •*•*,* oooa Tjicot«5 •*'*'O r x c MfO'* Ov Number of fields U1W5VO S«^ faints •*«-! Om oo 0010 oa«* fSlOTj- 00 CN •o 2g Xo . OV---H M»00 Omo O X 00 » C* Ol« lOiOO) OOO'* *>*> >r»r>*if> ^ Number of fields H«5 «2 ffil (s es>o g 2 "Z c O-fOOOO OOONOO >0(S«t^ -<00«t^ lIlS • C*"* 1* *SK2S SSSK if. !f. 0 1/510 |||s Number of fields 1/5 o O */) O» *> O y? 2S5S5 fS'OCMO ^»>-">O (N •o "u g 11 -s I"8 *S5SE SK=;K 5555 KSSK If* Number of fields S-*s s"Si S25K ^11 n-o 11 2 'xo .«00>* 0^0000 «*^ ™-,, S^ ft 8 II Number of fields £S5§ ISS1 3S1S 8(N >O ^O (SW — ^- U-. X U", ts « ^< : : '•» \\\A ' ' * 01 •o c j,' '. "= j)° ' C a 'a "1 -2 ll^ ll*5 ".So m.5'o "Sta "Sta l| 2 a| 2 |l|| n<| &o< 56^ Krug* Other good strains'". All other kinds0. . . . Average of all kin Krug* Other good strains'". All other kinds" .... Average of all kin< Care of soil V- Well treated Fairly well treated 3 1 £ 1 1 8 •o I M i the De ll bl half of Yellow i- a rt 3 mpe, elds se nt her good A, Somm od strains not m o 17 i1 e ^•5 ' g-S M M "2 C. o — S.S a lis rai Krug "Oth trains. "All 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 495 TABLE 14. — METHOD OF SELECTING SEED AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of eight comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1925-1932) Care of soil Method of selecting seed Number of fields Acre- yield of corn Well treated From stalks, before husking .... 808 bu. 53.8 128 52.3 Fairly well treated From stalks, before husking. . . . 1 432 50.9 At husking 285 49.8 Poorly treated From stalks, before husking .... 958 45.2 201 45.1 All three grades of soil treatment From stalks, before husking .... At husking 3 198 614 50.0 49.1 of eight comparisons involving 3,812 fields during 1925-1932, the stalk-selected seed yielded 1.5 bushels an acre more than that selected at husking time on well-treated soil, 1.1 bushels more on fairly well treated soil, and only .1 bushel more on poorly treated soil. Careful storage of seed. The careful drying and storage of seed corn proved to be more profitable than any other practice having to do with the seed except the use of high-yielding strains. Careful handling of seed (drying it with heat in the fall, and storing it where it would TABLE 15. — METHOD OF STORING SEED AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of eleven comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1925-1927 and 1929-1932) Care of soil Method of storing seed* Number of fields Acre-yield of corn Well treated Dried with heat and kept from hh 384 51 8 Not dried with heat and not kept from freezing 530 48.9 Fairly well treated Dried with heat and kept from 554 48 1 Not dried with heat and not kept from 1 120 45 6 Poorly treated Dried with heat and kept from freezing 367 42.6 Not dried with heat and not kept from freezing 690 41.9 All three grades of soil treatment. . Dried with heat and kept from 1 305 47.5 Not dried with heat and not kept from 2 340 45 5 •Most seed described as "dried with heat and kept from freezing" was stored on racks in attics, dry basements, or in seed houses. Most seed described as "not dried with heat and not kept from freezing" was hung up in driveways of corncribs or barns and in machine sheds and left there over winter. 496 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, not freeze) resulted in yields averaging for all fields 2 bushels an acre more than the yields from seed not so handled (Table 15). On well- treated soil the difference was 2.9 bushels an- acre, on fairly well treated soil 2.5 bushels, and on poorly treated soil .7 bushel in favor of the carefully handled seed. Most of the seed that was not dried with heat and not kept from freezing was hung up for the winter in the driveways of corncribs or barns or in machine sheds. Since approximately two-thirds of all of the fields were planted with this poorly handled seed, it is evident that many corn-belt farmers have an opportunity to increase their acre- yields of corn thru more careful drying and storing of the seed. Ear testing for germination and disease. On 2,522 fields for which the seed had been carefully tested for germination and disease, TABLE 16. — EAR-TESTING OF SEED FOR GERMINATION AND DISEASE AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of nine comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1925-1932) Care of soil Method of testing seed* Number of fields Acre- yield of corn Well treated Each ear tested 718 464 1 109 1 050 695 703 2 522 2 217 bu. 54.6 52.9 52.0 49.8 46.2 44.1 50.9 48.9 Fairly well treated General, or no test . . . Each ear tested Poorly treated General, or no test .... Each ear tested General, or no test .... Each ear tested General, or no test •"Each ear tested" means that a few grains from each ear were tested in a germinator of some kind and only the ears showing good germination and apparent freedom from disease were used for seed. All methods of ear testing and all degrees of disease selection were included in this one class. "General or no test" means that only a few ears from the seed supply were tested, or that no test of any kind was made. the yields of corn averaged approximately 2 bushels an acre more than on 2,217 fields planted with seed which had received only a gen- eral test or had not been tested at all (Table 16). Approximately the same differences in yield occurred on well-treated, on fairly well treated, and on poorly treated soils. Evidently a high proportion of corn-belt farmers who still use open-pollinated seed could profitably increase their yields of corn by adopting the practice of carefully test- ing each year's seed for germination and disease. Treating seed for disease. Approximately 60 percent of the fields included in this study were planted with seed treated with one of the dust treatments for the control of corn diseases (Table 17). 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 497 TABLE 17. — TREATMENT OF SEED FOR DISEASES AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of eight comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Care of soil Treatment of seed Number of fields Acre- yield of corn Well treated Treated for disease. . . . 572 bu. 53.1 187 52.7 Fairly well treated Treated for disease .... 1 217 51.2 Not treated 549 50.1 Poorly treated Treated for disease. . . . 729 47.1 Not treated 290 45.9 A llthree grades of soil treatment Treated for disease .... 2 518 50.5 Not treated 1 026 49.6 In general the treatment for disease was a little more effective on the less productive land than on land that was in the best state of fertility. On the well-treated soil the corn grown from treated seed yielded .4 bushel an acre more than the corn grown from untreated seed; on fairly well treated soil it yielded 1.1 bushels an acre more; and on poorly treated soil it yielded 1.2 bushels an acre more. This greater advantage of dust treatment on poorly treated soil may have resulted from the fact that less of the seed used on poorly treated soil had been ear-tested for germination and disease (Table 16). Large-eared corn better on poorly treated soil. Strains of corn described by the growers as producing large seed ears yielded an aver- age of 2.6 bushels an acre more on the poorly treated soil than strains of seed described as having medium-sized ears (Table 18). On the fairly well treated soil the large-eared strains had an advantage of only .8 bushel an acre. But on well-treated land, the strains having medium- TABLE 18. — SIZE OF SEED EARS AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of seven comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois* 1929-1932) Care of soil Size of seed ears Number of fields Acre-yield of corn Well treated Large 137 bu. 49.7 Medium 538 50.9 Large 275 49.4 Medium 1 321 48 6 Large 117 46 7 764 44 1 All three grades of soil treatment Large 529 48.6 Medium 2 623 47 9 498 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, sized ears yielded 1.2 bushels an acre more than the large-eared strains. On poorly treated soil only about one field in seven was planted with the large-eared type, while on well-treated soil about one field in four was planted with that type. Smooth-eared corn best on well-treated soil. Corn having very little indentation of kernels yielded on well-treated soil about 2 bushels an acre more than corn having medium indentation. On fairly well TABLE 19. — INDENTATION OF KERNEL OF SEED EARS AS RELATED TO CORN YIELDS (Averages of five comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Care of soil Indentation of kernel Number of fields Acre-yield of corn Well treated Smooth 329 bu. 52.7 Medium 204 50.7 Fairly well treated Smooth 709 50.7 Medium .... 552 49.0 Poorly treated Smooth .... 485 45.3 Medium 329 45.1 All three grades of soil treatment Smooth 1 523 49.5 Medium 1 085 48.3 treated soil the difference was 1.7 bushels and on poorly treated soil only .2 bushel an acre in favor of the smooth ears (Table 19). Summary of Profitable Corn-Growing Practices A summary of the gains in yield of corn brought about by follow- ing the superior practices discussed in this section is given in Table 20. Total gains in yield resulting from including clover in the rotation, from applying manure once in the rotation, and from applications of rock phosphate amounted to 11.7 bushels an acre. The superior practices used in the preparation of the seedbed, in the time and rate of planting, and in the cultivation of the crop accounted for gains of 9.9 bushels an acre on fields having good soil treatment, 9.4 bushels an acre on fields with fair soil treatment, and 9.2 bushels an acre on fields having poor soil treatment. Those practices having to do with the kind or strain and with the selection, storage, and testing of seed resulted in total gains of 9.8 bushels an acre on well-treated soil, 10.5 bushels an acre on fairly well treated soil, and 7.4 bushels an acre on poorly treated soil. The total gains for all of these superior practices, which cover approximately all measurable practices involved in the growing of 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND M.HEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 499 TABLE 20. — GAINS IN CORN YIELDS, AND ESTIMATED TOTAL YIELDS, FROM VARIOUS PRACTICES Practice followed Quality of soil treatment Good Fair Poor Gains in corn yields from various practices Soil treatments Clover in rotation bu. 5.0 bu. 2.5 bu. Manure during preceding four years 2.8 1.4 Rock phosphate used J.9 1.9 Total gain from soil treatments 11.7 5.8 Cultural practices 1.7 1.7 1.7 Harrowing after planting 1.6 1.6 1.6 Blade cultivator rather than shovels .9 0 0 0 .7 1.8 Time of planting — May 1 to 10 rather than May 10 to 20 1.4 1.4 1.4 Thickness of planting 4.3 4.0 2.7 Total gain from cultural practices 9.9 9.4 9.2 Seed practices Kind of seed 3.3 3.6 3.3 Method of seed selection 1.5 1.1 .1 Method of seed storage 2.9 2.5 .7 Method of seed testing 1.7 2.2 2.1 Disease treatment of seed .4 1.1 1.2 Total gain from seed practices 9.8 10.5 7.4 Total gain from good practices 31.4 25.7 16.6 Estimated total yields following different combinations of practices All poor practices 35.0 All good practices 66.4 Cultural and seed practices good, soil treatment fair 60.7 Cultural and seed practices good. 51.6 corn, amounted to 31.4 bushels an acre on well-treated soil, 25.7 bushels an acre on fairly well treated soil, and 16.6 bushels an acre on poorly treated soil. Differences in yield resulting from the different practices con- sidered separately were small, in some cases almost too small to seem significant. But when all these differences are added together they account for about the same differences in yield as are actually found on two fields, on one of which good practices are followed and the other of which is poorly handled. For example, over the ten-year period from 1925 to 1934 a few of the fifty-seven farms that were included in the study produced an average of only about 35 bushels of corn an acre ; while, on the other hand, one of the fifty-seven pro- duced an average of 63.5 bushels an acre during the same ten years. On another farm where the operator owned 90 acres and rented 100 acres in addition, the home farm produced an average of 63.5 bushels of 500 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, corn an acre during the ten years and the rented land 53 bushels an acre. On the rented land, which would not grow clover, no measures were taken to improve the soil, but good practices were used in seed- bed preparation, in cultivation, and in the selection and care of seed. Thus altho a tenant may be unable to follow good soil-improvement practices, it will pay him to follow the superior practices pertaining to the selection and care of seed and the tillage of the land. Tho some of the increases in yield of corn attributed to different practices were probably due to the fact that the same man who fol- lowed one good practice was also following other good practices, the fact remains that the total increase in yield brought about by the good practices was approximately what is found when good farming in general is compared with poor farming. OAT PRODUCTION Good yields of oats help to increase the farm profits even tho oats are considered one of the least profitable crops commonly grown in north-central Illinois. In total acreage oats have continued next to corn, probably because they are a good nurse crop for clovers and grasses, a good feed crop, and their production does not interfere with the production of corn. During the eight years from 1925 to 1932 inclusive, a study of the practices followed in growing oats, similar to the study of corn described in the foregoing section, was made. Only fields that were 10 acres or more in size and were on the best types of prairie soil of north-central Illinois were included. Fertility Practices Affecting Oat Yields Practices affecting soil fertility were of first importance in increas- ing oat yields. Rock phosphate most effective for oats. Those fields that had been covered with rock phosphate at some previous time, and that had grown clover at least once during the preceding four years, produced an average of 8.4 bushels more oats per acre than the fields that had grown clover but had received no phosphate (Table 21). In neither case were fields included on which manure had been applied during the preceding four years. The 48 fields that received phosphate, that had grown clover, and that had been manured during the preceding four years averaged 6.3 bushels more oats an acre than the 144 fields that had grown clover and had been manured but on which no phosphate 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 501 FIG 3. — OATS STILL HAVE AN IMPORTANT PLACE ON CORN-BELT FARMS Farmers in this study who followed the better practices in growing oats had oat yields 39.7 bushels an acre higher than the farmers who followed inferior practices (page 510). While usually considered a low-profit crop, oats fill an important place in corn-belt rotations as a nurse crop for soil-building legumes, and as feed and bedding for livestock. had ever been applied. As an average of these two comparisons, which involve all fields where rock phosphate had been used, the phosphate apparently increased the yield of oats by about 7.3 bushels an acre. Manure next to rock phosphate. The fields that had received manure during the preceding four years produced an average of 4.5 bushels more oats an acre than the fields that had not been manured but that had in other ways been treated the same. That the growing of clovers in rotation was less effective in in- creasing yields of oats than applications of manure or rock phosphate is not surprising when one realizes that usually two crops of corn were grown on clover land between the growing of clover and the growing of oats. The corn under such conditions seems to get most of the benefit of the clover. 502 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Classification of fields according to fertility treatments. For the purpose of eliminating the effects of the care of the soil while study- ing the influences of other practices, the oat fields were classified into three groups as were the cornfields — those having well-treated soil, those having fairly well treated soil, and those whose soil received poor treatment. The practices studied were seedbed preparation, seed- ing, and care of the seed. TABLE 21. — KIND OF SOIL TREATMENT AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of six comparisons on dark prairie soils of north- central Illinois, 1925-1927 and 1929-1931) Soil treatment Number of fields Acre-yield of oats None* 522 bu. 36.6 Manure only*1 123 40.9 Clover only0 277 39.4 Manure and clover 144 44.2 79 47.8 Manure, clover, and phosphate 48 SO. S •No manure was applied during the preceding four years; nor any clover, alfalfa, or soybeans for either hay, seed, or pasture. No phosphate had ever been used. Some limestone may have been applied to some fields. bMore or less manure had been applied during the preceding four years. Appli- cations varied from 2 or 3 tons of strawstack manure per acre to 12 to 15 tons of feed- lot manure. Most applications were about 5 to 7 tons per acre. No clover during preceding four years; no phosphate at any time. cFor one or more years during the preceding four, these fields had been left in clover — red, alsike, mammoth, or sweet clover, or alfalfa, either alone or in mixture On many fields the stands had been rather poor, but good enough to leave. No manure during preceding four years; no phosphate at any time. dRock phosphate had been applied over the entire field at some preceding time. Most applications had been from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds per acre. The fields that were well treated from the standpoint of the use of deep-rooted legumes, manure, and phosphate produced an average of 47.6 bushels of oats an acre (Table 22). Fairly well treated fields produced an average of 43.8 bushels, and poorly treated fields only 39.7 bushels an acre a year. These data are based on the averages of eleven comparisons involving 2,225 fields on dark prairie soil of north- central Illinois during the years 1925 to 1927 and 1929 to 1932 inclusive. Seedbed Practices Affecting Oat Yields Double-disking before seeding. As an average of three grades of soil treatment, 191 fields that were double-disked before the oats were sown yielded 3.0 bushels an acre more than 610 fields that were not disked before seeding, and 2.3 bushels an acre more than 453 fields that were only single-disked before the seed was sown (Table 23). The advantage of double-disking before seeding appeared to be greater on poorly treated soils than on well-treated soils. Probably the 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 503 TABLE 22. — QUALITY OF SOIL TREATMENT AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of eleven comparisons on dark prairie soils of north- central Illinois, 1925-1927 and 1929-1932) Care of soil* Number of fields Acre-yield of oats Well treated 350 bu. 47.6 Fairly well treated 919 43.8 Poorly treated 956 39.7 All three grades of soil treatment 2 225 43.7 • Well-treated soils were those that had received any two of the three treatments listed in Tahlt 21, or that had received one of the treatments in full and each of the other two in part, fairly well treated toils had received one treatment but not enough of the other two to qualify as well-treated soils. Poorly treated soils were those that had received little or no treatment of any of the three types listed. reason was that poorly treated soils are in poorer physical condition and are more likely to become hard than are well-treated soils, and consequently they need thoro working to get them in better physical condition. Single-disking after seeding. On 332 fields of poorly treated soil that were double-disked after seeding, oats yielded 1.9 bushels an acre more, on the average, than on 255 fields of poorly treated soil that were only single-disked after seeding (Table 24). But on the well- treated soil the fields that were single-disked after seeding produced an average of 2.5 bushels more oats an acre than the fields that were double-disked. Neither practice held any particular advantage over the other on the fairly well treated soil. These data, as well as the data on disking before planting, indicate TABLE 23. — NUMBER OF DISKINGS BEFORE SEEDING AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of five comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1930-1932) Care of soil Times disked Number of fields Acre-yield of oats Well treated None 81 bu. 51 0 Single 65 51.1 Double 34 52 8 Fairly well treated None 239 45.5 Single 203 47.8 Double 88 48 7 Poorly treated None 290 41.4 Single 185 41 3 Double 69 45.6 All three grades of soil treatment None 610 46.0 Single 453 46 7 Double 191 49.0 504 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 24. — NUMBER OF DISKINGS AFTER SEEDING AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of five comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Care of soil Times disked Number of fields Acre-yield of oats Well treated Single 73 bu. 54.1 Double 93 51.6 Fairly well treated Single 219 47.0 Double 309 47.4 Poorly treated Single 255 41.3 Double 332 43.2 All three grades of soil treatment Single 547 47.5 Double 734 47.4 that on poorly treated land the more thoro working of the seedbed for oats is an advantage. On the well-treated soil the extra work may have given no advantage because of the tendency to plant the oats too deep or to make the seedbed too loose when land that works up readily is double-disked. Tractor or horses for disking before seeding. As an average of six comparisons during the four years 1929-1932, in which all three grades of soil treatment were included, 386 fields disked with a tractor before the oats were seeded averaged 48.9 bushels an acre, while 440 fields disked with horses before the oats were seeded averaged 47.3 bushels — an average difference of 1.6 bushels an acre in favor of tractor disking (Table 25). There was a somewhat greater advantage in favor of tractor disking on well-treated land than on either fairly well treated or poorly treated soil. The difference in favor of tractor disking is probably accounted TABLE 25. — USE OF HORSES OR TRACTOR FOR DISKING BEFORE SEEDING AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of six comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Care of soil Power used Number of fields Acre-yield of oats Well treated Horses 73 bu. 51.7 Tractor 55 54 5 Fairly well treated Horses Tractor .... 196 180 47.4 49 0 Poorly treated . , \ 171 42 8 Tractor 151 43.2 All three grades of soil treatment Horses Tractor 440 386 47.3 48.9 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 505 for by the more thoro working of the soil by the heavy tractor disks than by the lighter horse-drawn implements. Timeliness in getting the work done with a tractor was also probably a reason for the better yields. Tractor or horses for disking after seeding. In comparisons in- volving 1,588 fields and all three grades of soil treatment during the four years 1929-1932, tractor-drawn disks and horse-drawn disks appeared to be equally effective for working land after the oats were seeded (Table 26). Probably the tendency to cover the oats too deep or to make the seedbed too loose when disking with heavy tractor TABLE 26. — USE OF HORSES OR TRACTOR FOR DISKING AFTER SEEDING AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of eight comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Care of soil Power used Number of fields Acre-yield of oats Well treated Horses 83 bu. 53.3 Fairly well treated . . Tractor 125 244 53.0 47.7 Tractor .... 445 47.9 Poorly treated Horses 235 44.3 Tractor 456 43.8 All three grades of soil treatment Horses 562 48.4 Tractor 1 026 48.2 disks accounts for the failure of tractor disking after seeding to hold the same advantage over disking with horses that it held before seeding. Tractor or horses for harrowing after seeding. The 902 fields of oats harrowed with horses produced average yields of 47.3 bushels an acre in six comparisons during the four years 1929-1932 inclusive, whereas the 570 fields harrowed with tractors produced average yields of 46.7 bushels, or .6 bushel less than the fields harrowed with horses (Table 27). There was a slight advantage for the horses on the well- treated land and on the poorly treated land, but on the fairly well treated land the yields accompanying the two methods were practically the same. Use of roller after seeding. In four of six comparisons involving 1.443 fields of oats, 213 of which were rolled either before or after the grain was up, the use of the roller resulted in higher average yields than those obtained on fields that were not rolled at all (Table 28). The value of rolling was especially noticeable during the dry season 506 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 27. — USE OF HORSES OR TRACTOR FOR HARROWING AFTER SEEDING AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of six comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Care of soil Power used Number of fields Acre-yield of oats Well treated Horses 143 bu. 52.0 Tractor .... 73 51.5 Fairly well treated .... Horses 386 47.1 Tractor 245 47.3 Poorly treated Horses 373 42.7 Tractor 252 41.2 All three grades of soil treatment Horses 902 47.3 Tractor 570 46.7 of 1930. As an average of the six studies, fields rolled before the grain was up produced 49.0 bushels; fields rolled after the grain was up, 48.4 bushels ; and fields not rolled at all, only 46.7 bushels an acre a year. Seeding Practices Affecting Oat Yields Early seeding. Oats seeded in March yielded an average of 47.8 bushels an acre on 833 fields in six comparisons involving all three grades of soil treatment. Oats seeded from April 1 to April 15 on 756 fields yielded an average of only 44.0 bushels an acre, or 3.8 bushels less than the March seeding. On well-treated land the difference in favor of the March seeding amounted to 5.7 bushels; on fairly well TABLE 28. — USE OF ROLLER AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of six comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1928 and 1930-1932) Counties and year Rolled before grain was up Rolled after grain was up Not rolled Number of fields Acre- yield of oats Number of fields Acre- yield of oats Number of fields Acre- yield of oats Livingston. McLean, Tazewell, Woodford 1928 15 24 10 \23 - 32 34 138 bit. 52.1 42.6 44.3 49.9 49.8 55.5 49.0 13 12 11 21 7 11 75 ku. 53.6 43.3 47.3 48.6 46.9 50.8 48.4 155 318 340 107 167 143 1 230 bu. 56.3 36.1 48.8 44.9 44.0 49.9 46.7 1930 1931 Henry. Knox. Peoria, Stark 1930 1931 1932 All six comparisons 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 507 TABLE 29. — TIME OF SEEDING AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of six comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1931) Care of soil Time of seeding Number of fields Acre-yield of oats Well treated March 109 bu. 54.0 April 1 to 15. . . 118 368 48.3 47.2 Poorly treated April 1 to 15. . . March 337 356 43.8 42.3 All three grades of soil t reatment April 1 to 15. . . March April 1 to 15. . . 301 833 756 40.0 47.8 44.0 treated land, 3.4 bushels ; and on poorly treated land, 2.3 bushels. These records are for the three years 1929 to 1931 (Table 29). Among the fifty-seven farmers who were in the accounting service during the ten years the four who had the highest average yields of oats practiced early seeding of oats (see page 595). Rate of seeding. In five comparisons involving 1,264 fields and all three grades of soil treatment, the average yield of oats during the four years 1929-1932 was 46.9 bushels an acre on fields where 2 to 21/2 bushels an acre was sown and 47.4 bushels where 2i/2 to 3 bushels an acre was sown (Table 30). Thus the increase in yield amounted to the same as the increase in amount of seed used. Few fields were seeded with less than 2 or more than 3 bushels of seed per acre. So from the standpoint of yields there seems to be no disadvantage in sowing only about 2 to 2j/2 bushels of seed per acre; and in- asmuch as thinly seeded oats make a better nurse crop for clover TABLE 30. — RATE OF SEEDING AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of five comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Care of soil Seed sown per acre Number of fields Acre-yield of oats Well treated bu. 2.1 to 2.5 56 feu. 52.3 2.6 to 3.0 120 52.1 Fairly well treated 2.1 to2.5... 2 6 to 3 . 0 . . 161 347 46.3 47.9 Poorly treated 2.1 to 2.5.. . 173 42.0 2.6 to 3.0 407 42.3 All three grades of soil treatment 2.1 to2.5 2.6 to 3.0 390 874 46.9 47.4 508 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, than those thickly seeded, there is probably a definite advantage in the thinner seeding. Seed Practices Affecting Oat Yields Use of early varieties. The relatively early varieties of oats — Iowa 103 and lowar — yielded 44.5 bushels an acre as an average of 1,305 fields including all three grades of soil treatment during the six years 1925-1931 (Table 31). The later varieties — Silvermine, Big Four, and Great American — produced on 403 fields an average of 40.2 bushels an acre, or 4.3 bushels less than the average of the two earlier TABLE 31. — VARIETY SOWN AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of six comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1925-1927 and 1929-1931) Care of soil Varieties Number of fields Acre-yield of oats Well treated Iowa 103 and lowar* 222 bu. 49.8 Fairly well treated Silvermine, Big Four, Great American1" . . Iowa 103 and lowar 77 540 45.7 43.9 Poorly treated Silvermine, Big Four, Great American. . . Iowa 103 and lowar 153 543 39.6 39.8 All three grades of soil treatment. . Silvermine, Big Four, Great American . . . Iowa 103 and lowar Silvermine, Big Four, Great American. . . 173 1 305 403 35.2 44.5 40.2 •Early to medium-early varieties. bMedium to medium-late varieties. varieties. This superiority in yield of early varieties was approxi- mately the same for all three grades of soil treatment. Not a large enough acreage of any other single variety of oats was grown to warrant making separate studies of other varieties. Fanning the seed. On well-treated land 156 fields planted with seed that had been thoroly fanned and screened yielded an average of 51.5 bushels an acre during the four years 1929-1932, whereas on the same quality of land planted with seed that had not been fanned or screened, the yield was only 48.9 bushels an acre — a difference of 2.6 bushels in favor of the fields for which the seed had been fanned (Table 32). The difference in favor of the fanned seed on fairly well treated soil was 2.4 bushels an acre; and on poorly treated soil, .4 bushel an acre. As an average of all three grades of soil treatment, the difference in favor of the fanned seed was 1.8 bushels an acre. Dust treatment for smut. Two hundred twenty fields planted with seed oats that had been treated with one of the dust treatments 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 509 TABLE 32. — FANNING THE SEED AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of five comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Care of soil Use of fanning mill Number of fields Acre- yield of oats Well treated Seed fanned 156 bu. 51.5 Seed not fanned .... 38 408 48.9 47.2 Poorly treated Seed not fanned .... Seed fanned 149 314 44.8 41.1 AH three grades of soil treatment Seed not fanned .... 154 878 40.7 46.6 Seed not fanned .... 341 44.8 for smut produced an average of 51.7 bushels an acre during the four years 1929-1932, or 5.4 bushels an acre more than 763 fields where the seed had received no treatment for smut (Table 33). The advantage of treating seed oats with formalin for smut on 417 fields was only 1.1 bushels an acre over no treatment at all. This slight advantage of treating seed with formalin over not treat- ing it at all, and the markedly higher yields on fields where the seed was treated with dust, was evident on each of the three grades of soil. The increase accompanying dust treatment of seed on well-treated land was 8.1 bushels an acre a year; on fairly well treated land, 4.2 bushels; and on poorly treated land, 4.1 bushels. Either the formalin treatment as used was not effective, or it was injurious to germination of the seed. TABLE 33. — TREATMENT OF SEED FOR SMUT AS RELATED TO OAT YIELDS (Averages of five comparisons on dark prairie soils of north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Care of soil Treatment of seed Number of fields Acre- yield of oats Well treated No treatment 73 bit. 50.3 Treated with formalin Treated with dust* 75 52 52.0 58.4 Fairly well treated No treatment Treated with formalin Treated with dust 297 174 99 46.9 47.3 51 1 Poorly treated No treatment 393 41.6 Treated with formalin Treated with dust 168 69 43.0 45 7 •\11 three grades of soil treatment. . . No treatment 763 46.3 Treated with formalin Treated with dust 417 220 47.4 51 7 •"Treated with dust" means that the seed was treated with one of the chemical dust treatments. 510 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Summary of Profitable Oat-Growing Practices The gains in yield resulting from the various practices used in growing oats are summarized in Table 34. Total gains resulting from the superior practices amounted to 39.7 bushels an acre on soils re- ceiving good treatment, 25.2 bushels on soils receiving fair treatment, and 17.5 bushels on soils receiving poor treatment. Unquestionably in some cases the increases credited to some one practice were partly due to other good practices followed along with the one being studied. The gains credited to the fanning of seed and to dust treatment for smut are probably of this class. On the whole, TABLE 34. — GAINS IN OAT YIELDS FROM VARIOUS PRACTICES Practices followed Gains in oat yields when soil received — Good treatment Fair treatment Poor treatment Soil treatments bu. 7.3 4.5 3.C 14.8 1.8 0 2.5 5.7 10.0 4.2 2.6 8.1 14.9 39.7 bu. 3.6' 2.2« 1.5" 7.> 3.2 .4 0 3.4 7.0 4.3 2.4 4.2 10.9 25.2 bu. Cultural practices Double rather than no disking before seeding 4.2 1.9 0 2.3 8.4 4.6 .4 4.1 9.1 17.5 Double rather than single disking after seeding Single rather than double disking after seeding . . March rather than April seeding Total gain from cultural practices Seed practices Early rather than late varieties Fanned rather than unfanned seed Dust treatment rather than no treatment for smut . . Total gain from all practices •These gains from fair soil treatments with rock phosphate, manure, and clover are assumed amounts based on half the gains from full treatments, as described in Table 21, page 502. however, the gain credited to each practice may be considered approxi- mately a net gain for that practice as carried out under farm condi- tions. Thruout the ten years, records from individual farms where good practices were generally followed and from other farms where poor practices were followed show total differences in average yield of oats approximately equal to those shown in Table 34. Evidently, then, a combination of the following practices brings the best yields of oats: early seeding of early varieties; the use of seed that has been carefully fanned and that has been treated with some good dust treatment to prevent smut; the inclusion of clover in the rotation at least one year in four ; the application of manure ; and the application of rock phosphate on land that is deficient in phosphorus. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 511 BEEF AND DAIRY CATTLE ON CORN-BELT FARMS Cattle have an important place on corn-belt farms. If well handled they make economic use of nontillable pasture, legumes needed for soil improvement, low-grade grain, and roughages which are by- products of grain production. In this study it was not possible to make a complete analysis of cattle production practices because of (1) the relatively small number of cattle kept on the farms included; and (2) the differences in the nature of the cattle enterprises themselves, varying as these enter- prises did among dairy, dual-purpose, and beef-cow herds, feeder steers, and various combinations of these four classes. Comparisons of Four Types of Cattle Enterprises First comparison, 1930-1932. During the three-year period 1930 to 1932 a study was made of the four kinds of cattle enterprises on farms in Henry, Knox, Peoria, and Stark counties (Table 35). Be- cause of low and falling prices for cattle and dairy products during this period, the returns from cattle enterprises of all kinds were extremely low. Of the different sorts of cow herds, the dairy herds brought an average return of $130 for each hundred dollars' worth of feed fed, the dual-purpose herds brought $100, and the beef-cow herds only $71. A fair farm value was assigned to all roughage used by livestock even tho it would not have been sold if livestock had not used it on the farm. In interpreting these figures the fact must be kept in mind that the dual-purpose cattle and the beef-cow herds were at a distinct disad- vantage because of the low price received for the beef produced. The three-year average selling price of beef from the dual-purpose herds was only $6.16 per hundred ; from the beef-cow herds, $6.29 ; but from purchased feeder steers it was $8.54. While some of this lower price for beef from the beef-cow herds was due to the selling of old cows, most of it was due to the poor quality of the beef calves sold. That im- provement could be made at this point is shown by the fact that the beef sold from one farm on which about 40 beef cows were kept, brought an average price of $8.85 per hundredweight during the same period. Beef-cow herds and dual-purpose herds used more hay and pasture in proportion to grain than either dairy cattle or feeder steers. They likewise used a cheaper class of roughage than the dairy cattle, not so much of it being alfalfa hay and silage. These proportions are not 512 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, shown in the tables of data published here, but they are evident in the records kept. Second and third comparisons, 1931-1933 and 1932-1934. Similar but less complete comparisons were made of the four different types of cattle enterprises from the three-year records of farms in Grundy, LaSalle, Marshall and Putnam counties in 1931, 1932, and 1933 and TABLE 35. — KIND OF CATTLE ENTERPRISE AS RELATED TO RETURNS PER $100 FEED FED (Averages of three three-year comparisons) Items Dairy- cow herd Beef -cow herd Dual- purpose cow herd Feeders bought Average 1930-1932 (Henry, Knox, Peoria, Stark) Number of farms 33 11 20 9 Average number of cows in herd . 11 2 11 7 9 3 Return" per 3100 feed fed £130 % 71 9100 5102 Percent of cattle units that wre milked 61.7 12.8 36. 0 8 2 Pounds of milk per cow milked 7 251 5 9.S6 6 084 5 772 Pounds of milk oer cow in herd 6 231 1 419 3 995 Pounds of beef per cow in herd 277 745 667 Price paid pr 100 pounds rattle bou?ht 3 6.44 $ 8 23 ? 7 14 % 7 47 Price received per 100 pounds cattle sold 5.20 6.29 6 16 8 54 Returns per 100 pounds beef produced $ 2.76 % 4 34 £ 3 83 $ 7 21 Returns per 100 pounds milk produced 1 32 1 13 1 16 in Feed cost per 100 pounds beef or 1 ,000 pound* milk*. . Percent of total value of feed representing — Grain and grain in silage 7.67 35.0 7.72 35.2 6.74 35.4 7.29 62.7 Protein concentrates 6 5 1 2 2 1 8 0 Hay and roughage in silage 39.9 31 6 31 6 15.7 Pasture 18 6 32 0 30 9 n 6 Average 1931-1933 (Grundy. LaSalle. Marshall. Putnam) and 1932-1934 (Livingston, McLean, Tazewell, Woodford) Total number of farms 130 17 17 19 Returns per 3100 feed fed ?166 % 76 3103 ?117 Price paid per 100 pounds of beef bought ? 4.75 $ 4 51 % 5.05 Price received per 100 pounds of beef sold 5.30 4.41 6.28 •In a comparison of beef and dairy farms approximately the same value of feed was required to produce 1 pound of beef or 10 pounds of milk. in Livingston, McLean, Tazewell, and Woodford counties in 1932, 1933, and 1934 (Table 35). The average price received for beef in these two comparisons vs^as $4.41 per hundred-weight from dual- purpose herds, $5.30 from beef-cow herds, and $6.28 from feeder cattle, mostly range calves. As in the earlier comparison, this dif- ference in price was due largely to differences in quality of cattle sold. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 513 Place of Beef and Dual-Purpose Cattle Despite these apparently low returns there is an important place on many corn-belt farms for beef and dual-purpose cows. The use made of large quantities of pasture and unsalable roughage, as shown in Table 35, and the effect that plenty of livestock has on crop yields, as shown in Table 69, page 568, offset to a large degree the apparently low returns for feed. FIG. 4. — PLENTY OF LEGUMES AND LIVESTOCK INCREASE THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE SOIL Of forty farms in this study, twenty had 92 percent more legumes than the others, enough livestock to use the legumes, 20 percent less corn, and 38 percent less oats. The twenty with the most legumes and livestock produced the higher average net incomes (page 560). Beef and dual-purpose cows could be made much more profitable on these farms, however, by keeping only good-quality cows, using only low-set, beef-type sires, disposing of all cows that do not breed regularly, keeping the cows almost entirely on pasture and unsalable roughage, and full- feeding the calves on grain from weaning or earlier until marketed as fat calves or baby beeves. All these practices are necessary if such herds are to pay well for feed used. 514 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Returns From Dairy Cattle The returns for feed fed to dairy cattle varied greatly according to (1) the production per cow, and (2) the percentage of the total cattle units1 in the dairy herd that consisted of cows being milked. Three- year records of dairy herds in which eight or more cows were being milked and for which there was no special dairy market, were selected for study. The records for 1930-1932 were from herds in Henry, Knox, Peoria, and Stark counties, and those for 1931-1933 were from herds in Grundy, LaSalle, Marshall, and Putnam counties (Table 36). TABLE 36. — PRODUCTION OF MILK PER Cow MILKED, AND PERCENT OF CATTLE UNITS THAT WERE Cows MILKED, AS RELATED TO RETURNS PER $100 FEED FED TO ALL CATTLE, ON FARMS WHERE ONLY DAIRY CATTLE WERE KEPT (Averages of two three-year comparisons: one in Henry, Knox, Peoria, and Stark counties in 1930-1932, and the other in Grundy, LaSalle, Marshall, and Putnam counties in 1931-1933) Basis for grouping farms Number of herds Average number of cows per herd Average produc- tion of milk per cow Percent of cattle units that were cows milked Dairy returns per 100 pounds milk Returns* per 9100 feed fed Herds producing most milk per cote Herds with highest proportion of cows milked 14 11.2 Ib. 8 815 71.1 £1.18 3168 Herds with lowest proportion of cows milked 14 10.6 8 518 57.3 1.20 143 Herds producing least milk per cow Herds with highest proportion of cows milked ... . 14 11 3 5 930 64 0 1 31 142 Herds with lowest proportion of cows milked 14 9.7 6 107 43.5 1.13 107 All herds having — Highest producing cows 28 10 9 8 666 64 2 1.19 156 Lowest producing cows 28 10 5 6 018 53.7 1.17 125 Highest proportion of cows milked Lowest proportion of cows milked 28 28 11.2 10.2 7 372 7 312 67.5 50.4 1.24 1.17 155 125 •Includes returns from dairy products and stock sold. Thru the sale of dairy products and cattle, twenty-eight herds that produced an average of 8,666 pounds of milk per cow milked returned $156 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. On the other hand, a like number of herds that produced an average of only 6,018 pounds of milk per cow milked returned only $125 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. When the same farms were regrouped, the twenty-eight herds in which 67.5 percent of the total cattle units1 in the dairy herd con- sisted of cows milked returned $155 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. In the same number of herds where only 50.4 percent of 'A "cattle unit" is one mature cow or bull, or the equivalent in young stock. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 515 the cattle units consisted of cows that were being milked, the returns were only $125 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. Herds combining high production per cow and high proportion of cows milked were, of course, the most profitable. Fourteen herds in which 71.1 percent of all the cattle were milked and in which the cows were all high producers brought the relatively high return of $168 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. In contrast, the fourteen herds in which only 43.5 percent of all the cattle were milked and in which the cows were low producers brought the low average return of only $107. When one realizes that under normal conditions the total cost of maintaining a dairy herd (costs of feed, labor, depreciation of equipment, veterinary fees, etc.) amounts to about $170 for each $100 of feed fed, the desirability of keeping only as many cattle other than cows milked as is necessary to replenish the dairy herd, and the importance of keeping only high-producing cows, becomes evident. Of course in herds where good quality young dairy stock are being raised for sale at profitable prices, the proportion of cows milked may well be lower. HOG PRODUCTION, FEEDING, AND MARKETING As is typical of north-central Illinois, more of the average annual income on the farms included in this study was gained from hogs than from any other kind of livestock. The efficiency with which hogs are produced, fed, and marketed is undoubtedly the most important factor determining the net income on farms where half or more of the grain produced is fed to hogs. For the present study the practices followed in producing pork on 280 farms in 1930, 388 farms in 1931, and 320 farms in 1932 formed the basis for the following comparisons.1 Wide Variation in Efficiency of Pork Production According to the "enterprise studies" made by this Station, the total returns from pork sold must be about $120 or more per $100 of feed fed in order for the pork-producing enterprise to be profitable.2 'Tho most of the more economical producers of pork in this study followed the general practices outlined in what is known as the McLean County System of Swine Sanitation, it was practically impossible to find an accurate measure of the effectiveness with which the sanitation practices were carried out. Con- sequently no data on these practices are included in this bulletin. 'See 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 390, "Some Important Factors Affecting Costs in Hog Production." 516 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, FIG. 5.- -LARGE LITTERS OF HEALTHY PIGS ARE ESSENTIAL TO PROFITABLE PORK PRODUCTION On farms in this study where large litters of pigs were raised (7 to 9 pigs at weaning time), the pork enterprise returned about $22 more income per hun- dred dollars' worth of feed than it did on farms where the litters at weaning time were smaller (3 to 5 pigs — page 521). Raising the pigs on legume pasture where no hogs were kept the preceding year is an important measure in keeping the pigs healthy. In the present study of hog enterprises, the records were divided into five equal-numbered groups according to the returns per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed to hogs (Table 37). During the three years the returns earned by the five groups on this basis of feed fed aver- aged from lowest to highest as follows: $87, $111, $124, $139, and $167. Thus during those years approximately 40 percent of the hog enterprises failed to bring in enough income to pay for the feed and the other expenses involved in producing pork. But, on the other hand, farmers who managed this enterprise reasonably well made money even during the years of extremely low hog prices. Profits from hogs vary, of course, according to the relative prices of feed and hogs. Thus in 1930 and in 1932, when the corn-hog ratio was favorable for hogs, only the one-fifth of the farms that had the lowest returns for feed fed failed to have income enough from the hogs to pay for the feed and the other expenses of production. But in 1931, when prices of feed were comparatively high, hogs were 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ox EARNINGS 517 518 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, profitable on only the two-fifths of the farms that had the highest returns for feed fed. Average return from hogs on all farms over the three-year period was $123 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. The greater profitableness of the pork enterprise on some of the farms was due both to higher gross returns and to lower feed costs per hundredweight of pork produced (Table 37). The average return for pork produced on the one-fifth of the farms that earned the lowest returns for feed was $4.45 per hundredweight; whereas on the one- fifth with the most profitable production the average was $5.29. Feed costs on the least profitable farms amounted to $5.01 per hundred- weight of pork, and on the most profitable farms to only $3.23. The differences in feed costs and in gross returns were largely influenced by number of pigs weaned per litter and proportion of hogs carried past January 1. Pigs weaned per litter averaged 5.4 on the one-fifth of the farms that had the lowest returns from feed fed to hogs, but 6.3 on the one-fifth having the best returns. Pork on hand January 1 represented 59 percent of the sales of pork during the year on the one-fifth of the farms that had the lowest returns, but only 45.7 percent on the one-fifth that had highest returns for feed fed. These factors affecting the profitableness of pork production are discussed in more detail in the following sections. Larger Hog Enterprises Relatively More Profitable The average return from hogs on 121 farms producing from 10,- 000 to 20,000 pounds of pork per farm was only $117 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed (Table 38). This return approximates the cost of feed and other costs incident to pork production. Average returns of approximately $125 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed were secured on farms producing more than 20,000 pounds of pork per year. Above the 20,000-pound level about the same returns for feed fed were secured regardless of the size of the enterprise. On the farms having the smaller hog enterprises the average number of pigs weaned per litter was smaller; the feed costs per hundredweight of pork were slightly higher ; and the returns per hundredweight of pork were lower. The lower returns for feed fed in smaller herds were apparently due in part to the fact that these farmers carried past January 1 a higher percentage of the hogs marketed during the year. While there was practically no difference in total weight of feed required per hundredweight of pork produced, more protein feed per hundred pounds of grain was fed on the farms having the large enterorises. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 519 GO r-^-w^ 35 H Nt g_s= a Is *» a 4 a ^-. d fS &l i] ro " 2 ° Ro — OvO»es IS u. 3 g.s S o &. c "O C n iS /; — •ill . OMn«v)h- § « "~ c O. u * 1OO'OOO s. 3 15 |§M s §| r M •£ 2 % a t &i c •5 3 S§ S-s |8S "•* •*5'*55 J 0 (0 ds i E "8 u n rt "o"0 < 5 «! "*" tx S o oit ~ WNO^Os 1 arisons l§§ |&9 i^^ «. ^^^55; : of total 5 O. 5 J E 1 ( ^ c 3 ^ 00 O< 00 O CS i - ji * 6,5 w>min>oto i L, •*- a " "~ s 0 So ^ | rt fc- 00 E > II — X "" /. X t - »— ' a z •z 9 3 H 5 i & i £•§ o "*• 5 c Bg JS i it »• (N»O ^f E 3 33 3 o 'Weight of 11 ZZxxx 2'g'SSS" 520 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Large Litters Weaned Essential for Best Returns Large litters of healthy pigs must be raised if pork production is to be profitable. During the three years studied, the farms where 8 to 9 pigs per litter were weaned averaged $132 returns per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed to hogs, and those having 7 to 8 pigs weaned per litter averaged $131 (Table 39). On the other hand, those farms where 3 to 4 pigs per litter were weaned had returns amounting to only $107, and those weaning 4 to 5 pigs per litter, only $112. Part of the higher returns on the farms where the litters weaned were large came from a more efficient use of feed, — only 403 pounds of feed being required for 100 pounds of gain, as compared with 468 pounds required on the farms where only 3 to 4 pigs per litter were weaned. The close relation between number of pigs weaned per litter and some of the other factors that influence the returns for feed is appar- ent in Tables 39, 40, 41, and 48. Thus on the farms with the small litters a difference in the amount of protein feed fed probably ac- counted for some of the increase in the amount of feed required per hundred pounds of gain. On these farms only 4.8 pounds of protein feed was fed per 100 pounds of grain, whereas 7.6 pounds was used where litters were large. Furthermore the farms weaning the large litters obtained somewhat higher prices for their hogs, — $4.99 per hundredweight compared with $4.70 obtained by the farms with the small litters. Much of this difference was apparently due to difference in time of marketing. On the farms when the larger litters were weaned, a considerably larger portion of the hogs was sold in the fall than was sold from the farm where the small litters were weaned, as is indicated in the difference in the proportions of hogs on hand January 1. Feeding and Marketing Practices Affecting Returns Marketing spring pigs before January 1. Of all the practices studied in the pork-production enterprise, none appears to be more effective in bringing about high returns for feed fed than pushing the spring pigs along with rapid gains so that they may be put on the market in the fall while the price is usually best. Rapid gains are usually cheap gains.1 And furthermore it is quite generally known that the price of hogs is usually highest during August, September, and the first part of October. A second period of relatively high prices usually comes during March and April (see Fig. 6). 'See 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 390, "Some Important Factors Affecting Hog Production," p. 33. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 521 Jl Co t- (N — "5 -• H ill O — fSQO * t^O>OvO — Ov §*& as «t t •*iOlrt'* *» £-8 w c M = -* : : g 00 0 &£ P f •* f 1"O «O s. 11= •i- C 3 . 00 (N«-"'tO c&& 'BO «2 £ — — c c •-•->- H •O 3.* K O u *" »2 . oe •* o> • -j ^10— i^Oin tl 5 « a£g O SJ (3 cCi^ fe OlO f»JOvt~l« O, U5>mOf1'^< 1 , 2 g «j OiOiO't'O't S S.W Si " £ TJ-i«>Ot^oO Average number of farms • - < 5 < § o ^_ Z 9 - |l ^•0 f^ fS (N t~ f^ f f^»»>c^w. o ^ = 5 &* W &{ ill f^ « i^ 1O Q "1 O'-O.X*'^ 3£S as lomi"^ 1- 1" 51 - ~^ 8 S.o SS!22^^ PU *» L lie vS Q'S . ^«fO ^ >^>O & il» 58 o — cu — oo womi"^ Feed fed per 100 pounds pork . »*"toeo •«> ^ — ^moo o> ~* <^^t t •«"*'* 13 "c* c « — •a & •~ x ^ i^ c c t- u e « a°s e}4 CU-C fe r^tNa^m** >O 00 — D c 8 u s ^- "5 00 1— I>- « a ~ I s O O ^ *O »O »O Number of farms ^"»3OfS — O ^~>t^ tS»" 0 • 11 II &S li 11 o eJ oJ o>' » » j; &§ £ 3 !»J o,o,o>o!a 2 p4. ^ in "" § 2 § fi fs" u- = C -r CM U §81 — — c I1« . o 1 I Q ° » U3 /*» — 1§U "8 "S f "cfT .- Z Q § ill s j D a u * $ J3 III \> **5 f*» *N X *O ^* ge of the 0 | 1 8 "^ V 1 percenta d s z — x "o £ - £ minmm o » §.* O oo | ^ M 0 C 0 0 3 fe wj m •o, m f | 8 £ 'o^ •s Q 'C Cu js §03 a es c CO § c § 0 " 0* ~ i 35 ^ a — m « « J| E 3 U. «5 5 w 1 u be "o — Q « 2 w H "* Ii — 3 I i' ^ ^^^ z 5 *5 C I i 1. "~. — • r4 a ^»« i H -J M £ — § • < jj H 1? 1 * •g I' i e s 1 1 5 1 n i * 5 524 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, those on which 100 percent or more of the total sold during the year was carried past that date realized only $94 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. Feeding liberal amounts of protein feed. A return of only $117 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed to hogs was realized on the farms where less than 2 pounds of protein feed was fed with 100 pounds of grain (Table 41 ). On the other hand, on the farms where 2 to 4 pounds of protein feed was fed, $120 was received, and on those where 6 pounds or more was fed, about $124 was realized per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. Similarly on those farms where less than 2 pounds of protein feed per 100 pounds of grain was fed, 460 pounds of feed for each hundredweight of pork produced was required. But on the farms where protein feed was fed at the rate of 6 or more pounds per 100 pounds of grain, only about 420 to 430 pounds of feed was required for each hundredweight of pork produced. Again the close connection between the various factors influencing returns for feed fed may be pointed out. The rapid and economical gains of the pigs on the 93 farms which apparently marketed all spring pigs before the first of the year was made possible, in part at least, by the liberal use of protein feed and in part by raising larger litters (Table 40). On the farms w-here the spring pigs were sold early, 8.3 pounds of protein feed was fed per hundred pounds of grain and the litters averaged 6.3 pigs per litter; whereas only 4.6 pounds of protein feed per hundred pounds of grain was fed and only 5.7 pigs per litter were weaned, on the average, on the farms that carried 80 to 100 percent of their sales past January 1. Practices Used in Handling Brood Sows Gilts for brood sows grown separate from herd on most profit- able farms. Tho many of the brood sows used on these corn-belt farms were selected from the feedlots at breeding time, the most profitable pork production was found on farms where the gilts to be used for breeding purposes were selected early and grown separately from the hogs being fed for market (Table 42). An average of 61 farms per year followed the practice of growing brood sows sepa- rately from the feeding herd, and as an average of the three years 1930-1932 these farms produced $125 worth of pork per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. On the other hand, on an average of 164 farms per year where the brood sows were picked from the feedlot at breeding time, only $121 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed was realized. 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 525 While it is difficult to determine how much of the advantage on the farms that raised gilts separate from fattening hogs was due to this practice and how much was due to various other good practices, the fact remains that those who followed the practice were somewhat more successful than those who did not follow it. The most successful producers of pork among the farms included in the ten-year study were very particular in the selection and feeding of brood sows (page 599). Two-litter system most profitable. The two-litter system in which one lot of sows produces early spring pigs and fall pigs, ap- peared to be more profitable than any other system in common use (Table 43). As an average of the three years during which these studies were made, the farms using this two-litter system had average returns of $126 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed to hogs. The next best systems seemed to be the one-litter system where late spring pigs are raised and the two-litter system where late spring pigs and fall pigs are produced. Where early spring pigs were produced under the one-litter system, the returns were not enough to justify the greater expense for production. Tho the three-litter system (which means, usually, first litters from gilts farrowing in May or June, second litters from the same mothers farrowing in February or March, and third litters farrowing the following August) proved profitable on some of the best pork-producing farms, the average return for feed fed was not so high on the farms using this system as on those using the two-litter system. Early weaned pigs made most efficient growth. Farms where pigs were weaned at seven or eight weeks of age had average re- turns of $126 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed (Table 44). Where the pigs were not weaned until they were 11 or 12 weeks old, however, the average returns amounted to only $114. With the late weaning of pigs was associated large feed requirements and the carry- ing of large numbers of hogs past January 1. Type of Farrowing House and Returns From Feed Fed Individual houses most profitable. Average income from hogs on the farms where only individual farrowing houses were used amounted to $123 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed (Table 45) ; whereas on farms on which either stationary or movable colony houses, each accommodating several sows, were used, a return of only $119 for the same value of feed fed was obtained. Slightly larger litters were produced on the farms using colony houses, but the pigs 526 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, § Is X = 8 H2 22 H 8 Is Q Id U. Q Id H sg-s f^ O **5 *O O» ocao — x O U •? S. • • b, 2s * 8 OS — a! '^ 8§ -i §o ^- o &• o o ^ tn *7 &fi 11 P s (V .2" o R. S 0 e ?n o H |£ J|fl . — (N «NO 00 J Q "" H &H ~ >OU5 t~^ 00 3i C t-t rt ^j S •s ^ *^ o «^ a - c Ul OJ £ •0 M 0! V ]| en •£ !l S « c ^ 50 ®55 S c J a .S •Jo *8 >• » fe- 2: M « c TD w h I CM 52 c ll- 1 § ° S P ••^ t-» \O **> O O 2 « H c in *38 i% 3 V ~ O M rt , ^ ^ J2 o °u — — u fe 5 5 o a • « 1 a 8 5? - 1 gufc •^-O ^00 O percent ^ u •^ \c *o »o »o >o d 2^ .*c B g *^ £ Q «~ Z ® « < |i -« a^ «-> b OS ^~ z • ^ f_ c • m •o ••s § c ; n '. ti 1 J Id S E u c == I o H S "H>2 o 1. M"S T3_ w 0 «"= 8- w c 9s •5 •* r K.E ^ ^ .5 c ^5 s u -1 3 *"&& i^S'aVfe &s t 3 i2 ^ ^ «. ^ ^ 41 -2 ^'VM ^•ww -^tuw t g » * -j= g § c ^: = a'S -c • ti l^ 5J?B S8 1 \\ £~ - S 5i !r m 1 d *^ N B 5 ^ •0 3JJ o' SS55 M Q. — TfTt t •* *8 a 2 d £ is oO fc" J= u H U* jj t cd ^"S- 3 d C c a" .OJ= >, ~ b-OOt- S (0 2 c < 0 |S| 0 SS fe tSOOCN — | "8 n •- 2 C 2 « fid R - s- a B 8 1 = g 3 S >" V •4-O.OOC 1 < 2 * &5 «in>n'io c( i] J2 60 i- ' "o E OB - ^ D o b£ 3 2 'o U -f. I E r < Ejs --5BS & P" 1 3 B _2 0 i — i S < 5 ^ a o m"S B a g : _: "5 * o n tn on tn oo 5 o l§& *» £-9 «J B 8 ol- o x o 8 8 8 P 5 ill •S in vd t^ 11 £ 111 .00 ••* **) 11* U.- lit |§! -^ - «o a» c o o* rt U Q — , 1 2 fc «j O 0 0* a — C C i^. £ "o 1-3 823 2 M C L •2 3 i A B ^ C fl •a a II, K Is S B B '> O O •- o o •§ U 0 - q M h Q H M £-2 D — J C u — o S 5 'c * S. 2 e HS u, tj b |8 (N O CO i§" Si g 3 JJ C* -) IO V) to IS* ** r Hi . x o- -r <: -r B •™B — ' 1O1O «O W ^ ii" H i§! ~* <*5 •«»•••»• 3 fii ^ * * ^ * •ft. toto to-* to «S OOO O — — P IOIO . >>." >> C .7 B »{ B IM 03 o § o 1 12 O O O O p UJS O •* 0-00 O u. 3 ^& Q t/S ** W oi ~* u o £r — c ** 2 g |"| 0— O !i "C o o 5 *» ij i.zf g § w £ •^ the yea 35 "— • Q &H ~ « IO t^ c £"2 |8- •c 3 g g C •o a g "o •< J= fc » • J E U3 R ^"O *O 3 ^ I tn _C ||& =233 3 "o en to." Ed c SC 'C ^ u ^ * g c §- 0 g 0 O -C >, •.j mr~ O *J ^ § t c« 0 ° 3 S c i^^ i 1 0 J "o « « CJ5 V M •< Q. 2 u, E e H ° 5 u 8 < u si ?l *C m v) I ft 5 z. E 3 "*! 'o o LRTIFICIAL Averages umber of farms '- . — o o. g **< *— ' Z 3 0 C « in £ 3 I •d 1 C c ^ o ^* t« •* i! 1 1 a si K «- CO 3 < 41 ||J DC c 2"o ^* "<3 [53 -2 4?^ 3 §ll 1 ? 6 * £ 530 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, OU, o N^ bg jg « » §-.£ < w w >, g > OS t •* < rt tfl ^ **" 2 z e c- •< ° "— > en S z S 1° 8 !/5 ... s§ s o a =. a Y !1 i§' 52 S &l •O 3J^ 5fa 5i8 Proportion o hogs on han January !• "8u ss oj.^i Fs ia •ga M >> II 83 •O otein ht o 0 to 3.9 r more 5 O (NCMOO p-jO^ — -* January c o •o c JJI-XN-* c o 00^ C^ >O § I P^OftS 1 •o SK2S r- -; -J -r 5 i ^ ** •o c" Jj c a M ^ c •o ^ || "•» fS tN« tS 3.C V) IO V) >O 8"° O-" — « £•* ~"3, si ks -< 3 11 •o! c"o ""• ir. ^r LO ur, •<*•*•* 10 ll O>OC ~4C5 f «'i 1- c'o |s •o'S fi ^^ 3 * &2 a-^d 1S ^^ t-» \O 00 t** ®1 c Tj< l/l Tf I/) fe o^ f*5 fN rO **) vO ^ °« O " ^o ~" Si r- w 1!° C . O»-rO^ J!o u •a 23:22 a 2222 1 SS2S o 0 HI • C 'H '£ I 1 i 1 6 K K B \ 2 9 1 > 2 * BSS? < ® £ S5 °'""S r c- =• 222 222 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 531 was less than 40 percent of the sales for the year. In contrast to this, only $102 return per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed was secured on an average of 18 farms on which less than 5.5 pigs were weaned per litter, less than 4 pounds of protein feed were fed per 100 pounds of grain, and the hogs on hand January 1 were 60 percent or more of the sales of pork during the year. Eighteen farms on which medium- sized litters were weaned, on which a medium amount of protein feed was fed, and on which a medium amount of pork was on hand January 1, gave a medium return of $118 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. POULTRY PRODUCTION, FEEDING, AND MARKETING Poultry is a minor enterprise on most farms of north-central Illinois when the entire farm business is considered. From the view- point of income for family living expenses, however, it becomes a major enterprise on a large portion of the farms. The average annual income from poultry per farm on fifty-seven farms enrolled in the Farm Bureau Farm Management Service thruout the ten-year period from 1925 to 1934 was $251 in addition to the poultry and eggs used by the family. During the four years from 1929 to 1932, records were kept of the practices followed in raising poultry on several hundred farms each year. These records are the basis for this part of the study. Larger Flocks Relatively More Profitable Poultry flocks consisting of 200 to 300 hens were more profitable than smaller flocks. The measure of relative profitableness was the total return from poultry and eggs, both those sold and those used on the farm, per $100 invested in the flock at the beginning of the year (Table 49). * An average return of $260 for each hundred dollars invested was realized from flocks of 250 to 300 hens during the four years from 1929 to 1932. Almost as good a return was received from flocks of 200 to 250 hens. But during the same period an average of only $199 for each hundred dollars invested was secured from flocks of 50 to 100 hens. Nearly half the flocks compared contained fewer than 100 hens per flock. It was quite clear that the average small flock was not handled carefully enough to give the best results. 'This inventory value includes only the value of the poultry, and not the value of feed, equipment, or supplies on hand. 532 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 49. — SIZE OF FLOCK AS RELATED TO RETURNS (Averages of four comparisons on farms in north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Basis for grouping faring: number of hens in flock Number of farms Number of hens per flock Number of eggs per hen Returns from eggs per hen Returns from stock per $100 invested in flock Total returns per 8100 invested in flock 50 to 99 hens 151 76 92 31.63 $91 £199 100 to 149 hens 111 12C 94 1 70 75 197 ISO to 199 hens 42 170 101 1.82 72 213 200 to 249 hens 14 222 117 2.23 67 254 250 to 299 hens 7 274 126 2 43 68 260 All flocks 366 113 96 1 78 79 109 Hatching and Feeding Practices Affecting Returns Early hatching. Poultry flocks in which the chicks were hatched in March showed average returns of $255 per hundred dollars invested (Table 50). On the other hand, flocks in which chicks were hatched during April brought in only $213, and flocks in which chicks were hatched in May brought in only $175, per hundred dollars invested. Average egg yields per hen were 112, 101, and 91 eggs per year for flocks having chicks hatched in March, April, and May respectively. Fall and winter egg production. The time of year that hens are FIG 7. — POULTRY PROVIDES LARGE PART OF INCOME FOR FAMILY LIVING o^f MANY CORN-BELT FARMS Early hatched pullets raised on clean ground, brought into production for fall and winter eggs, and fed a good laying mash thruout the year, usually brought profitable returns. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 533 TABLE 50. — TIME OF HATCHING CHICKS AS RELATED TO RETURNS FROM POULTRY (Four comparisons on farms in north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Month hatched Number of farms Number of hens per flock Number of eggs per hen Returns from eggs per hen Returns from stock per $100 invested in flock Total returns per ?100 invested in flock March 1929* 24 128 115 33.09 ?128 ?332 1930 41 126 102 2.09 88 240 1931 63 133 122 2.01 90 247 1932 28 162 110 1.56 49 199 Average 39 137 112 2.19 89 255 April 1929 61 118 91 2.27 108 238 1930 104 115 96 2.04 69 209 1931 142 116 107 1.61 73 203 1932 46 135 109 1.39 60 201 Average 88 121 101 1.83 78 213 May 1929>> 30 96 80 1.85 69 176 1930 41 138 91 1.86 63 202 1931 65 123 98 1.34 48 165 1932 30 98 96 1.16 48 157 Average 42 114 91 1.55 57 175 •Hatched in February and March. bHatched in May and June. in production affects both the total number of eggs produced per hen and the average price received per dozen for all eggs sold during the year. Flocks that produced during October, November, and Dec- ember 20 percent or more of their total egg production for the year, produced an average of 36 eggs per hen more in 1933, 34 more in 1934, and 38 more in 1935 than flocks that produced less than 10 percent of their eggs during those months (Table 51). Furthermore, average Illinois prices of eggs during the late fall and early winter were during this period well above the average prices during the re- mainder of the year (Fig. 6, page 522). The average price received for all eggs sold during the year was 4.6 cents more in 1933, 4.3 cents more in 1934, and 4.0 cents more in 1935 where the larger production was obtained during the fall and winter months. Thus while the three-year average price received for eggs by the owners of the flocks that produced the most eggs during the fall was 4.3 cents more per dozen, the feed cost was only 2.4 cents per dozen more even when all feed fed to the flock was charged to egg production. Thus it is evident that the early hatching of chicks and the feeding of pullets for fall and winter production were highly profitable practices. Year-round feeding of laying mash. Hens fed a laying mash all the year produced an average of 112 eggs per hen; the eggs were 534 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 51. — TIME OF PRODUCING EGGS: RELATION TO PRODUCTION PER HEN, COST OF FEED, AND PRICE RECEIVED FOR EGGS (Averages of three comparisons on farms in north-central Illinois, 1933-1935) Basis for grouping: percent of eggs produced during October, November, and December Number of farms Average number of hens per farm Average number of eggs per hen Average feed cost per dozen eggs* Average price per dozen all eggs sold 1933 None to 9.9 95 111 97 cents 8.6 cents 13.2 10.0 to 19.9 72 132 117 9 6 14 4 20.0 or more 40 165 133 10.3 17 8 All farms 207 128 113 9 5 15 1 1934 None to 9.9 92 120 102 13.6 16 4 10.0 to 19.9 73 137 118 15.1 17.5 20 . 0 or more 45 148 136 15.1 20.7 All farms 210 132 116 14.5 18 1 1935 None to 9.9 83 101 97 16.0 23.1 10.0 to 19.9 88 121 117 18 2 24 7 20.0 or more 51 151 135 19.8 27.1 All farms 222 121 116 18.2 25.2 Three-year average None to 9.9 90 111 99 12.7 17.6 10.0 to 19.9 78 130 117 14.3 18.9 20.0 or more 45 155 135 15.1 21.9 All farms 213 127 115 14.1 19 5 •All feed fed to poultry charged to egg production. valued at $2.11 per hen, and there was a total return of $238 per hundred dollars invested in the poultry flock (Table 52). In contrast to this, the hens on farms where mash was fed only part of the year produced only 86 eggs per hen, valued at $1.48, and a total return of only $185 was earned for each hundred dollars invested in the flock. On a relatively small number of farms where no mash was fed, only 79 eggs were produced per hen per year, valued at $1.27, and the entire flock brought an income of only $156 per hundred dollars invested. Thus the feeding of a laying mash the year around is necessary if the farm flock is to bring a desirable return on the investment. Combination of early hatching and year-round use of laying mash. Early hatching of chicks and the use of laying mash thruout the year led, in combination, to excellent results. In order to measure the results where this combination of practices was used, the poultry records for each of the four years 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932 were divided into three groups according to the months in which chicks were hatched. Each of the three groups was then subdivided into two groups, one consisting of those farms on which laying mash was fed all twelve months and the other of the farms on which laying mash was fed only part or none of the time (Table 53). 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 535 TABLE 52. — FEEDING LAYING MASH TO HENS AS RELATED TO RETURNS FROM POULTRY (Four comparisons on farms in north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Use of laying mash Number of farms Number of hens per flock Number of eggs per hen Returns from eggs per hen Returns from stock per Sinn invested in flock Total returns per 3100 invested in flock Mash fed thruout the year 1929 95 134 106 %1 71 3100 9268 1930 150 135 105 2 25 78 234 1931 161 135 118 1 88 84 231 1932 72 164 118 1 61 57 218 Average 120 142 112 2.11 80 238 Mash fed part of year 1929 91 100 80 1 95 99 214 1930 98 112 75 1 52 74 184 1931 217 114 100 1.44 73 186 1932 82 104 87 99 60 155 Average 122 108 86 1 48 76 185 No mash fed 1929 24 112 68 1 49 99 191 1930 22 122 83 1 51 69 168 1931 47 97 78 1 10 53 141 1932 16 84 87 99 41 122 Average 27 104 79 1.27 66 156 Flock owners who hatched their chicks in February or March and fed a laying mash all the year had a yearly production of 117 eggs per hen and a return of $267 per hundred dollars invested in the flock. In contrast, on those farms where the chicks were not hatched until May or June and laying mash was not fed at all or was fed only part of the year, only 81 eggs were produced per hen and only $148 was realized per hundred dollars invested in the flock. TABLE 53. — COMBINED EFFECT OF EARLY HATCHING OF CHICKS AND YEAR-ROUND FEEDING OF LAYING MASH ON RETURNS FROM POULTRY FLOCKS (Averages of four comparisons on farms in north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Time of hatching chicks Use of laying mash Number of farms Number of hens per flock Number of eggs per hen Returns from eggs per hen Returns from stock per £100 invested in flock Total returns per $100 invested in flock February and March April May and June 27 14 42 42 14 33 148.5 110.3 139.0 105.1 156.9 94.0 117 96 114 86 106 81 $2.38 1.75 2.11 1.48 1.85 1.31 589 97 73 81 59 56 $267 224 236 186 203 148 None used, or used pan of year None used, or used pan None used, or used pan 536 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 54. — RAISING CHICKS ON CLEAN GROUND AS RELATED TO RETURNS FROM POULTRY (Four comparisons on farms in north-central Illinois, 1929-1932) Method used Number of farms Number of hens per flock Number of eggs per hen Returns from eggs per hen Returns from stock per J100 invested in flock Total re- turns per J100 in- vested in flock Chicks raised on clean ground 1929 77 121 96 J2.5C J113 $257 1930 . . . . 88 122 97 2.08 85 233 1931 126 130 115 1.78 74 214 1932 . 55 132 104 1.36 59 196 Average 86 126 103 1.93 83 225 Chicks raised on old ground 1929 83 111 91 2.20 85 219 1930 123 115 85 1.71 69 189 1931 292 115 101 1.50 78 196 1932 119 121 102 1.28 57 179 Average 154 116 95 1.68 72 196 By adopting these two practices many owners of farm flocks could double their poultry returns. Health Practices Affecting Returns Raising chicks on clean ground. Farmers who provided clean ground for their chicks had an average income of $225 per hundred TABLE 55. — PROTECTION FROM MITES AS RELATED TO RETURNS FROM POULTRY (Three comparisons on farms in north-central Illinois, 1930-1932) Treatment used Number of farms Number of hens per flock Number of eggs per hen Returns from eggs per hen Returns from stock per 8100 invested in flock Total returns per 8100 invested in flock None 1930 11 116 86 81.62 % 57 8169 1931 28 96 104 1.57 63 194 1932 4 98 99 1.28 10 129 Average 14 103 96 1.49 43 164 Creosote 1930 50 115 90 1.77 86 208 1931 58 122 99 1.43 72 184 1932 17 107 100 1.26 73 199 Average 42 115 96 1.49 77 197 Crankcase oil 1930 34 130 72 1.57 83 194 1931 46 139 104 1.68 72 213 1932 . . 15 133 92 1.18 61 169 Average 32 134 89 1.48 72 192 Other treatments 1930 * 4S 121 97 2.03 84 223 1931 76 111 105 1.57 78 201 1932 38 138 117 1.44 61 207 Average 52 123 106 1.68 74 210 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 537 dollars invested in the flock (Table 54). In contrast, an average of only $196 was received by those who raised their chicks on old ground. The higher income from flocks where the chicks were raised on clean ground, however, cannot be credited entirely to this practice, for these flocks had better egg production per hen and produced more poultry for sale, as is indicated by the higher return from stock. Protection from mites. Creosote, crankcase oil, and various other treatments appeared to be of equal value in controlling mites. As an average of the comparisons made during the three years 1930- 1932, flocks which were given some form of treatment for mites brought returns of approximately $200 per hundred dollars invested in the flock (Table 55). In contrast, flocks which were given no treatment for mites earned an average return of only $164 per hundred dollars invested. Protection from lice. The flock owners who used patented remedies to destroy lice had returns of only $174 per hundred dollars of flock investment (Table 56). The average egg production per hen in these flocks was only 92 eggs. On the other hand, where sodium fluorid and other simple treatments were used the returns ranged from $200 to $214 per hundred dollars invested and egg production ranged from 99 to 105 eggs per hen. TABLE 56. — PROTECTION FROM LICE, AS RELATED TO RETURNS FROM POULTRY (Three comparisons on farms in north-central Illinois, 1930-1932) Treatment used Number of farms Number of hens per flock Number of eggs per hen Returns from eggs per hen Returns from stock per $100 invested in flock Total returns per 9100 invested in flock None 1930 60 126 96 ?2.01 % 68 $212 1931 153 120 105 .57 74 202 1932 45 120 99 .17 50 163 86 122 100 .58 64 192 Sodium fluorid 1930 57 116 97 .98 85 217 1931 . 47 115 too .47 77 193 1932 17 128 101 .27 63 189 40 120 99 .57 75 200 Patent remedies 1930 42 115 83 .67 87 206 1 93 1 . 35 120 94 .39 63 174 1932 9 125 99 .32 19 143 29 120 92 .46 56 174 Other treatments 1930 63 127 99 2.13 76 227 1 93 1 117 120 111 .70 83 214 1932 49 141 106 .40 62 201 76 129 105 .74 74 214 538 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, PART II: MANAGEMENT AND EARNINGS Tho farmers are interested in improving their methods of pro- ducing a given crop or of raising a certain kind of livestock, there is much more than this involved in the matter of organizing and operating their farms profitably. It is not unusual for a farmer to excel in one or a few lines of work but to do so poorly in others that the gains from the good work are offset by the losses from the poor, with the result that his farming operations as a whole are unprofitable. In general, satisfactory farm earnings depend to a large extent upon the skill of the farmer in so organizing his business that a large portion of the good farming practices may be followed and a reasonable balance between the different factors influencing farm earnings may be maintained. In Part II, therefore, the various factors which cause differences in earnings among similar farms, and the in- terrelations of those factors as they affect the organization and operation of a farm, will be discussed. DIFFERENCES IN EARNINGS AMONG FIFTY-SEVEN FARMS, 1925-1934 In the preceding section the analysis was centered around certain specific, or individual, practices followed in crop and livestock pro- duction. In this section analysis is centered around certain so-called "factors," each of which involves a number of specific practices. The effects which these factors had on net earnings is described. In- asmuch as the farms varied considerably with respect to the practices followed, the earnings also, as might be expected, varied widely. This variation occurred even tho the farms were in the same community and had similar natural advantages (soil, topography, and weather) and market opportunities. Records of fifty-seven farms for which data were available thruout the ten years from 1925 to 1934 furnished the data for this part of the study. The operators of these farms were members of the Farm Bureau Farm Management Service continuously thruout this period. Six others of the original 235 cooperators also kept continuous records thruout this period, but those records have not been included because the farms were of unusual size or the type of farm organiza- tion was decidedly different from that of the others, or the operator moved from one farm to another within the ten-year period. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 539 Earnings of High- and of Low-Profit Farms Of the fifty-seven farms the one-third having the highest yearly net incomes averaged $2,888 per farm, and the one-third having lowest net incomes averaged $1,102 — a difference of $1,786 a year (Table 57 and Fig. 8). Thus, as an average, each of the nineteen most profitable farms had $17,860 more net income for the ten years than each of the nineteen least profitable farms. TABLE 57. — INVESTMENTS, RECEIPTS, EXPENSES, AND EARNINGS ON INVENTORY BASIS ON FIFTY-SEVEN ILLINOIS FARMS, 1925-1934 Items 19 most profitable farms 19 medium profitable farms 19 least profitable farms Average, 57 farms Capital investments Land $ 36 202 % 37 032 $ 33 148 % 35 460 Farm improvements 5 514 7 037 7 084 6 545 Livestock, tola! 3 433 3 174 2 913 3 173 Horses 734 696 808 746 Cattle 1 469 1 521 1 012 1 334 Hog* 954 622 659 745 Sheep 102 107 257 155 Bees 1 92 15 36 Poultry 173 136 162 157 Machinery and equipment 2 229 2 612 1 996 2 279 Feed, grain, and supplies 3 777 4 204 3 087 3 690 Total capital investment % 51 155 $ 54 059 $ 48 228 % 51 147 Receipts mod net increase* Livestock, total $ 3 567 % 2 443 % 2 196 $ 2 728 Horses 23 Cattle . ;. . 885 496 373 585 Hogs 1 800 I 021 1 118 1 313 Sheep 72 32 129 78 Bees 40 2 14 Poultry 114 86 119 106 Egg sales 193 103 140 145 Dairy sales 480 665 315 487 Feed, grain, and supplies 1 944 2 750 1 629 2 107 Labor off farm 96 108 69 92 Miscellaneous receipts 47 50 49 49 Family living from farm 424 325 348 368 Total receipts and net increases ' $ 6 078 % 5 676 % 4 291 8 5 344 Expenses and net decreases % 272 % 340 % 334 I 316 Horses 25 3 2 Productive-livestock decreases 1 Machinery and equipment 525 570 504 533 Feed, grain, and supplies Livestock expense 46 47 52 48 Crop expense 214 267 239 240 Hired labor 516 659 443 539 Taxes 474 509 465 483 Miscellaneous expenses 49 53 53 52 Total expenses and net decrease* % 2 097 ? 2 470 % 2 093 % 2 213 % 3 981 % 3 206 $ 2 198 % 3 131 Unpaid labor, total 1 093 1 (t'JN 1 096 1 095 Operator's labor 913 856 890 886 180 242 206 209 Net income from investment and management. . . . Rate earned on total farm investment 2 888 5.65% 2 108 3.90% 1 102 2.28% 2 036 3.98% Return to capital and to operator's labor and management, total % 3 801 % 2 964 $ 1 992 % 2 922 5 % of capital investment 2 558 2 703 2 411 2 558 1 243 261 - 419 364 540 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, The amount by which the earnings of the most profitable farms exceeded the earnings of the least profitable farms varied from year to year in keeping with changes in the general level of farm earnings (Table 58 and Fig. 9). When the average earnings of all farms were high there was a large difference between the earnings of the two groups ; when the average earnings were low, the differences were AVERAGE NET INCOME PER FARM 0 1000 ZOOO '3000 19 MOST PROFITABLE 19 MEDIUM PROFITABLE 19 LEAST PROFITABLE *2888 2108 1102 I •...••;•' ] 1 .• '.-:' .-'-.:•. '.•': :V ".':,'• "'.... \.-v : .i'i 1 '..-.••' ' '"'••• -' ] I 1 FIG. 8. — AVERAGE NET INCOME FROM THREE GROUPS OF FARMS, 1925-1934 The nineteen most profitable farms in a group of fifty-seven averaged $780 more net income per year than the nineteen medium profitable farms, and they averaged $1,786 more per year than the nineteen least profitable farms. These pronounced differences are largely traceable to differences in organization and operation. much smaller. In 1931 and 1932, the years of heaviest losses in farming, the one-fifth most profitable farms had, on an average, $2,000 more net income than the- one-fifth least profitable farms. In 1928 and 1934, on the other hand, when the average net income per farm in this study was more than $3,000, the most profitable TABLE 58. — AVERAGE NET EARNINGS OF ALL FARMS IN FARM BUREAU FARM MAN- AGEMENT SERVICE, AND DIFFERENCES IN NET EARNINGS BETWEEN LEAST PROFITABLE AND MOST PROFITABLE FARMS, 1925-1934 Year Number of farms Average earnings of — Difference be- tween most profitable and least profitable groups All farms One-fifth most profitable farms One-fifth least profitable farms 1925 225 210 200 150 380 380 3f5 430 324 335 295 $1 920 1 665 2 187 3 344 3 133 558 -550« -506- 2 131 3 090 \ %\ 697 $3 788 3 480 3 849 4 947 4 728 2 161 646 678 3 770 5 305 ?3 335 3 80 - 6- 455 1 073 1 351 - 799- -I 619» -1 241» 712 1 019 * 103 $3 708 3 486 3 394 3 874 3 377 2 960 2 265 1 919 3 058 4 286 S3 232 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932b . . . 1933 1934 Average •Minus sign indicates a net loss. bFrom 1925 to 1931 farms in Livingston, McLean. Tazewell, and Woodford counties only were included. Beginning in 1932 farms in other adjoining counties in north-central Illinois were included. 1938] $ 6000 5000 ct 2 a 4000 u a ill 03000 o t- ^ 2000 < | 1000 < Uj o 2 ° LJ $ -1000 -2000 FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 541 / / \ ^--— ONE-FIFTH MOST \^" PROFITABLE FARMS / / / " -, \ / / / ALL FARMS— «^ / \\ w / $ / —-^ ^•^ ^ ^^ \ \ ^L ..-'' \v — ^— • — A ff^"f t ONE-FIFT* >ROFITABLE H LEAST — . FARMS "\ \ V - // \ ,--*^' / FIG. 9. — INCOME TRENDS DURING A TEN-YEAR PERIOD ON THE MOST PROFITABLE, THE LEAST PROFITABLE, AND ALL FIFTY-SEVEN FARMS When farm incomes in general were low, the net-income differences between the most profitable and the least profitable farms tended to decrease ; and when they were higher, the differences tended to increase. Thruont the ten-year period, however, there were distinct differences between the incomes of the two groups of farms. farms earned approximately $4,000 per farm more net income than the least profitable farms. These differences of $2,000 per farm when average earnings were low and about $4,000 per farm during years of relatively high average earnings, were due largely to differences in the organization and operation of the two groups of farms. The obvious conclusion is that good farming pays at all times — during depressions as well as during periods of prosperity. Changes in Practices Caused Changes in Earnings As a group these fifty-seven farmers improved the organization and operation of their farms more rapidly than the average farmer usually does. Among the fifty-seven, however, some made more rapid progress than others. In the three-year period 1932-1934 the earnings of ten farms were increased above those of the three-year period 1925-1927 by $1,463 per farm per year more than the average 542 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, of the entire group. The farms on which the greatest improvement was made were, for the most part, those that were in the lower half of the group at the beginning of the ten-year period (Fig. 10). Two farms that were in about the middle of the group during 1925-1927 moved to the fourth and sixth highest places during 1932-1934. Two others changed from thirty-ninth and thirty-eighth positions to second and third places. Others moved from near the lowest of the entire EARNINGS OF 57 FARMS DURING 1932 -33 -'34 EARNINGS OF SAME 57 FARMS/ // / ' /y / // ^ .A 0 U FIG 10. — RATES EARNED ON TOTAL FARM INVESTMENTS ON FIFTY-SEVEN FARMS DURING Two THREE- YEAR PERIODS, 1925-1927 AND 1932-1934 Each bar represents a farm. The dotted lines connect ten farms whose earn- ings advanced most from the earlier period (lower part of graph) to the later period (upper part of graph). In spite of price declines, drouth, and chinch bug damage, which caused a general lowering of farm incomes at this time, the operators of these ten farms\ succeeded in raising their earnings to quite a marked degree. All but one of them were in the lower half of the group in the earlier period and all but one were in the upper group in the later period. Changes in organization and operation were responsible for this improvement as shown in Table 59. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 543 group up to midway or higher. One farm changed from fifty- fourth position during the first three years to the highest in earnings during the last three years. A few farms were consistently high in earnings thruout the ten-year period, and others were consistently low. Some, of course, moved from higher to lower positions. Ten farms that improved most. The points at which changes were made in the practices of the ten farms showing most improve- ment during the ten-year period are indicated in Table 59. In reading this table or the following discussion, it must be carefully kept in mind that the "improvement" or "net change" indicated for each item is relative. It is the difference between the average change on all fifty- seven farms and the average change on the ten farms. For example, the net change in rate earned on the total farm investment shown for the ten farms, 3.73 percent, is not an absolute increase ; it represents a decline of 1.08 in the average rate earned by all fifty-seven farms and an increase of 2.65 in the rate earned by the ten farms. Changes affecting crop production accounted for part of the im- provement of these ten farms. Thus in relation to the average of the fifty-seven farms, the yield of corn on the ten farms increased an TABLE 59. — CHANGES AFFECTING PROFITABLENESS OF Two GROUPS OF ILLINOIS FARMS, COMPARED WITH THE AVERAGE CHANGES MADE ON FIFTY-SEVEN FARMS FROM 1925-1927 TO 1932-1934 Item 10 farms whose earn- ings improved most 10 farms whose earn- ings declined most Above or below average* Average net changes Above or below average* Average net changes Rate earned on total farm investment + + + + + + + + + 3.73% 4.0 5.5% $2.24 $26.00 $ .50 $ 1.09 1.4 $34.00 13.8 2.9 + + + + + + 3.00% 5.4 .1 $ .06 $11.00 $ .34 $ .28 1.8 $13.00 2.9 5.1 Yield of corn — bushels per acre Proportion of acreage in higher-profit crops*" Value of feed fed to productive livestock, per acre . . . Returns per $100 feed fed to productive livestock Number of eggs produced per hen •A plus sign ( +) indicates an increase, and a minus sign (— ) a decrease as compared with the average of all farms. ••Percentage of tillable land in high-profit crops plus one-half of the percentage in medium-profit crops. 544 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, average of 4 bushels an acre. Likewise a higher percentage than average of tillable land was planted to the higher-profit crops. When full credit is given to the high-profit crops and one-half credit to medium-profit crops, the increased amount of tillable land devoted to the higher-profit crops on these farms was 5.5 percent more than the average. Changes in practices used in handling livestock were, however, more important than those affecting crop production in accounting for the increased earnings of the ten farms making the most improve- ment. The value of feed fed to productive livestock on the ten farms increased, in relation to the average change in this item on the fifty- seven, by $2.24 an acre ; and the returns per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed increased relatively by $26. While the number of cows milked per farm declined on the ten farms, in relation to the fifty- seven-farm average, the returns per cow increased $34. Also the number of hens kept per farm increased 13.8 hens relatively, and the number of eggs laid per hen increased 2.9 eggs relatively. That the increases in earnings on these ten farms were due to the improvement of farming practices is indicated also by the fact that the ten farms averaged 190 acres per farm, whereas the average size of the fifty-seven farms was 246 acres. This is a significant fact, clearly indicating that in this area where farms generally are 160 acres or larger the first step in attempting to increase the farm earnings should be to study the zuay in which the farm is organised rather than to set about to increase the size of the farm. The farms in the areas studied are generally large enough to be operated profitably if they are well organized and well managed. Also acreage, as a rule, is quite definitely fixed, and it is not an easy matter to increase it as a means of increasing the income. Ten farms that declined most. When in comparison with the average of a group some farms advance in earning power, others naturally must show a decline. Of the fifty-seven farms the ten that had the greatest relative declines in earning power showed an average reduction in earnings, in relation to the average of the fifty-seven farms, of 3 percent on the investment from 1925-1927 to 1932-1934 (Table 59). This 3 percent on the average capital investment of $48,325 per farm amounted to an average of $1,450 less income per farm each year. A lower acre-yield of crops was the most obvious factor account- ing for the relative decline in earnings on these ten farms. The corn yield, compared with the general average, declined 5.4 bushels an acre 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 545 from 1925-1927 to 1932-1934. Nor were the livestock handled so efficiently in the later period. The returns on these ten farms declined $11 more per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed than did the average returns on the fifty-seven farms; and, while the number of cows milked per farm increased 1.8 cows, the returns per cow declined $13. Price-levels of farm products were lower in 1932-1934 than during the earlier period, as may be seen from Fig. 10, but price-levels affected the earnings of farms that improved as well as of those that declined. Some Possible Factors That Proved Negligible Most farmers who give thought to the reasons why one farmer earns more or less than another do not distinguish closely enough between those matters which have an important effect and certain others which, tho they must be considered, have a lesser effect upon farm earnings. For example, size of farm and quality of soil are thought by most farmers to be matters of first importance in de- termining income. To a certain extent, of course, they are right: the farm must be large enough to support an enterprise of reasonable size, and high-quality soil is a valuable asset. But from the fact that in- comes vary greatly among farms of the same size, having soils of similar quality, one might well conclude that there are other reasons more important than these. The factors which proved in this study to be more or less negligible in their effects will be discussed here, before considering those othei factors which did largely account for the differences in farm earnings. Size of farms was not an important factor. Within the range of acreages represented by these fifty-seven farms, the relative size of the farms had little influence on the returns on the farm investment. The nineteen most profitable farms had an average of 244.4 acres per farm, and the nineteen least profitable farms averaged 234.4 acres per farm (Table 60). On the most profitable farms 92.1 percent of the acreage was tillable, and on the least profitable farms 89.3 per- cent was tillable. The differences of 10 acres per farm and 2.8 per- cent tillable land were not enough to have any appreciable influence on farm earnings. Both the net income per acre and the rate earned on the total farm investment were practically the same for large, medium-sized, and small farms (Table 61), tho the net income per acre of the medium- sized farms was slightly the largest. Medium-sized farms held a slight advantage in crop yields and in prices received for products sold. 546 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 60. — FACTORS RELATED TO ORGANIZATION AND EARNINGS ON FIFTY-SEVEN ILLINOIS FARMS, 1925-1934 Items 19 most profitable farms 19 medium profitable farms 19 least profitable farms Average, 57 farms Rate earned on total farm investment 5.65% 3.90% 2.28% 3.98% Labor and management wage 31243 3 261 3-419 3 364 Reciipts, expenses, and net income Gross receipts per acre 24.87 21.80 18.31 21.69 Total expenses per acre 13.05 13.70 13.61 13.43 Net income per acre 11 .82 8.10 4.70 8.26 Size and intensity of business 244.4 260.4 234.4 246 4 Total productive man-work-units per farm Productive man-work-units per acre 438.1 1.79 407.7 1.57 369.7 1.58 405.1 1.64 3 148.13 3 142.21 3 141.42 3 143.91 Percent of land tillable 92.1 91.7 89.3 91.1 Percent of tillable land in — Corn 44.6 46.1 42.8 44.6 15.8 14.9 15.6 15.4 High-profit crops 63.9 61.4 62.6 62.6 Medium-profit crops 13.1 13.2 12.3 12.7 23.0 25.4 25.1 24.7 High-profit plus'half of medium-profit crops. . . Crop yields Corn, bushels per acre 70.4 49.5 68.0 47.2 68.7 45.8 69.0 47.6 Oats, bushels per acre 38.0 38.4 35.6 37.4 Wheat, bushels per acre 22.9 23.7 21.9 22.7 Crop-yield index 103.1 100.9 95.7 100.0 A mount of livestock Value of feed fed per acre % 10.82 3 7.36 3 8.19 3 8.77 Total animal units in cattle 19 9 18 1 14 7 17.6 Number of cows milked 6.7 7.2 5.4 6.4 Pounds of pork produced 25 222 14 817 16 210 18 750 Number of hens kept 124 89 106 107 Livestock efficiency Cattle-efficiency index 106 103 92 100 Hog returns per 3100 feed 3 150 3 139 3 135 3 142 Sheep returns per 3100 feed 107 87 96 98 Poultry returns per 3100 invested 229 190 202 209 Returns from all livestock per #100 feed 147 138 129 139 All livestock efficiency index 104.5 98.9 95.1 100.0 Price index for products sold 101.4 101.2 97.0 100.0 Labor, power, and machinery costs Man-labor cost per man-work-unit 3 3.57 3 4.19 3 4.09 3 3.94 Man-labor cost per acre of farm 6.40 6.57 6.44 6.47 Horse-and-machinery cost per man-work-unit . Horse-and-machinery cost per acre of farm .... Selected items of expense per acre, total Farm improvements 2.07 3.71 3 13.05 1.11 2.42 3.79 3 13.70 1 31 2.52 3.97 % 13.61 1.43 2.33 3.82 3 13.43 1.28 Machinery and equipment 2.15 2.19 2.15 2.16 Miscellaneous livestock expense .19 .18 .22 .20 Miscellaneous crop expense .88 1.03 1.02 .97 Hired and home labor 6.58 6.74 6.57 6.64 Taxes 1 94 1 95 1 99 1.96 Miscellaneous expenses .20 .30 .23 .22 Expense per flOO gross income £ 52 £ 63 3 74 % 62 The small farms would have shown a disadvantage if the value of the farm produce used in the home had not been included as part of the income of the farm. The amount of farm produce used depends on the size of the family, not the size of the farm. With the farm 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 547 produce included, the smallest farms realized only slightly lower net incomes per acre than either the large or the medium-sized farms. Quality of land was similar. Tho in quality of land the most profitable one-third of the farms had a slight advantage over the least profitable one-third, the difference was not enough to prevent TABLE 61. — RATES EARNED ON TOTAL FARM INVESTMENT, AND OTHER MEASURES OF THE FARM BUSINESS, ON FARMS OF DIFFERENT SIZES, 1925-1934 Items 22 farms with 199.9 acres or less 19 farms with 200 to 279. 9 acres 16 farms with 280 acres or more Size of farm, acres 163.6 245.5 361.4 Rate earned on total farm investment 3.90% 3.98% 4.02% Labor and management wage 3 505 £369 8155 Total investment per acre % 206.83 % 211.28 $ 205.04 Gross income per acre 23.88 22.52 20.31 Total expense per acre 15.83 14.12 12.07 Net income per acre 8.05 8.40 8.24 Value of crops per acre $ 19.04 % 18.97 $ 18.93 Value of feed fed per acre 9.21 9.20 8.14 Crop-yield index 101.1 102.4 97.4 Percent of land tillable 89.0 91.8 91.7 Percent of tillable land in higher-profit crops* 71.6 67.1 68.8 Percent of tillable land in legumes 22.0 17.6 17.9 Livestock-efficiency index 101.0 100.1 99.4 Total man-work-units per farm 303 . 8 401.5 549.0 Man-work-units on livestock per man-work-unit on crops 1.19 .85 .74 Labor cost per man-work-unit ? 4.22 $ 4.06 » 3.62 Horse-and-machinery cost per man-work-unit Price index for products sold 2.28 97.8 2.31 101.8 2.37 . 99.7 •Percentage in high-profit crops plus one-half of the percentage in medium-profit crops. a direct comparison of the two groups of farms (Table 60). On the nineteen most profitable farms the land was valued at $148.13 per acre, and 92.1 percent of all the land was tillable. On the nineteen least profitable farms the land was appraised at $141.42 an acre, and 89.3 percent was tillable. Ownership or rental of land was not significant. The propor- tions of farms owned and of farms rented by the operators were ap- proximately the same in the three groups of farms — the one-third most profitable, the one-third medium profitable, and the one-third least profitable. Thus the tenants were apparently farming as profit- ably as the owners. While this was true of this particular group of farms, it must be remembered that these were highly selected farms. 548 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Factors That Influenced Relative Income Levels Differences in net incomes on the most profitable and the least profitable farms were shown in the preceding section not to have been primarily due to differences in size of farm, in quality of land, or in ownership or rental by the operator. They must therefore have been due to differences in the organization and operation practices followed on the two groups of farms. The factors that were primarily respon- sible for the differences in incomes are discussed here in the order of their importance: (1) crop yields, (2) returns for feed fed to live- stock, (3) amounts of livestock kept, (4) cropping systems, (5) prices received, (6) power and machinery costs, and (7) labor costs. Mis- cellaneous expenses, tho not considered one of the seven important factors, also has its bearing upon incomes, and is discussed along with the other factors. Inasmuch as these were the factors that affected the earnings most, the farms that excelled in the most of them had the best incomes. One of the fifty-seven farmers who did more effective work than the average with respect to each of the above factors (Fig. 11) earned an average net income of $4,050 a year for the ten-year period, — an amount almost double the average, tho the farm itself was only about average size. Another farmer who did less effective work with respect to each of the factors earned an average net income over the ten-year period of only $1,125 a year. Also, as is shown in Fig. 11, six of the farms that excelled in six of the seven factors earned average net incomes of $2,890 per farm per year; ten farms that excelled in four factors earned average net incomes of $2,140 per farm per year; and 13 farms that excelled in only two of the factors earned only $1,550 per farm per year. In view of these analyses the statement may safely be made that on selected farms any one of the factors discussed on the following pages may be of sufficient importance to make a farm relatively profit- able or unprofitable. Crop yields and returns for feed fed to livestock were the most important factors on these particular farms during this ten-year period. During another period, or in another area where the type of farming was different, other factors might be relatively more important. In areas of low land values and uniform soil conditions, for example, the economy with which labor and power were used might be the most important factor affecting farm earnings. Crop yields. Differences in yields of crops had more to do with placing farms in the different profit-groups than any other one factor. The nineteen most profitable farms produced 3.7 bushels more corn 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 549 per acre, 2.4 bushels more oats, 1.0 bushel more wheat, and propor- tionately higher yields of other crops, than the nineteen least profitable farms (Table 60). When these differences in yields of corn, oats, wheat, and other crops are multiplied by the average acreages of the several crops grown and by the average ten-year prices received, there NUMBER OF FACTORS IN WHICH FARMS EXCELLED PERCENT EARNED ON INVESTMENT 1 23456 7 ft FARM) 6 (e FARMS) 5 (11 FARMS) 4 3 (12 FARMS) 2 (i3 FARMS) 1 (3 FARMS) 0 ft FARM) NET IN- COME •* ADJUSTED TO AVERAGE CAPITAL FIG. 11. — RATE EARNED AND NET INCOME FROM FARMS EXCELLING IN DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF EFFICIENCY FACTORS, FIFTY- SEVEN FARMS, 1925-1934 The factors whose influences were measured were crop yields, returns for feed fed to livestock, amounts of livestock kept, cropping systems, prices re- ceived for farm products, power and machinery costs, and labor costs. The more of these in which the farms excelled the more profitable the farms were. is shown to have been a total difference of $484 per farm in favor of the nineteen farms having the higher average yields (Fig. 12). The ten-year average prices for the major crops were 63 cents for corn, 35 cents for oats, and 96 cents for wheat. The differences in value due to differences in yield of all crops grown on tillable land, including grain, hay, canning crops, and pasture, were considered in calculating the total difference of $484. Efficiency of livestock. Second oniy to crop yields in placing the farms in the different profit-groups was the efficiency with which livestock was produced or purchased, fed, and marketed. The value of feed used annually on all the farms averaged $2,160 per farm at farm prices.1 The most profitable one-third of the farms realized an average of $147 from each hundred dollars' worth of feed fed to productive livestock, while the least profitable one-third received only $129 (Table 60). The $18 larger returns per hundred dollars' worth of feed used on the more profitable farms would thus amount to $389 'A fair farm value was assigned to all roughage used by livestock even tho it would not have been sold if livestock had not used it on the farm. 550 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, more net income per year (Fig. 12). Efficiency of handling livestock, as discussed here, did not include the cost of keeping horses. Only about 43 percent of the grain produced on the fifty-seven farms during the ten-year period was fed on the farms, and the re- maining 57 percent was sold. Where most of the grain raised is fed on the farms, livestock efficiency becomes relatively more important in its effects on farm earnings and is frequently of greater importance than differences in yields (see pages 553 and 572 to 574). FACTORS NET INCOME DIFFERENCES TRACEABLE TO DIFFERENT FACTORS 0 100 200 300 400 *5OO CROP YIELDS EFFICIENCY OF LIVESTOCK AMOUNT OF LIVESTOCK CROPPING SYSTEM PRICE OF GRAIN COST OF POWER AND MACHINERY COST OF MAN LABOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES FIG. 12. — EXTENT TO WHICH CERTAIN FACTORS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR DIFFER- ENCES BETWEEN AVERAGE NET INCOME OF THE NINETEEN MOST PROFITABLE OF FIFTY-SEVEN FARMS AND THE NINETEEN LEAST PROFITABLE, 1925-1934 Crop yields and livestock efficiency accounted for more than half the $1,673 difference traceable to all seven factors. The total difference between the average net incomes of the two groups of farms was $1,786 (Fig. 8). Amount of livestock. A larger amount of livestock kept on the most profitable one-third of the farms was an important factor in the higher incomes of these farms. The amount of livestock on the different groups of farms is indicated by the value of feed fed per acre. On the most profitable one-third of the farms the average value of feed fed per acre to productive livestock was $10.82, and on the least profitable one-third, $8.19 (Table 60). On an average-sized farm in the area studied (246 acres), this greater value of feed fed on the most profitable one-third of the farms would amount to $647. And at a margin of $39 above feed value for $100 worth of feed fed (average return for the fifty-seven farms) the additional net income from feeding $647 more feed to livestock would amount to $253 per farm. On the other hand, the value of feed fed per acre to productive livestock was 83 cents higher on the least profitable one-third of the farms than on the medium-profitable one-third. This variance is 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 551 explained by the fact that some of the least profitable farms were livestock farms on which the livestock was inefficiently handled (see page 570). Cropping system. Analysis of the acreages, yields, and values of all grain, hay, and pasture crops grown indicates that the most profit- able one-third of the farms realized an average of $176 more per farm per year than the least profitable one-third, because of better cropping systems. By "cropping system" is meant the proportion of tillable land in different crops, some of which return much lower gross in- comes per acre than others. Most of the advantage in cropping systems on the nineteen most profitable farms consisted in their having larger percentages of tillable land in corn, canning crops, barley, and alfalfa, and smaller percentages in oats and timothy than were found on the nineteen least profitable farms (Table 65, page 559). The relative values of the different crops in the cropping systems were determined by the following method. On the nineteen most profitable farms the percent of tillable land in corn, for example, was 44.6, whereas on the nineteen least profitable farms it was only 42.8 (Table 60, page 546). When applied to 224.4 acres of tillable land (the average for all fifty-seven farms), this difference of 1.8 percent amounted to 4.04 acres of corn. Since the average yield of corn was 47.6 bushels an acre, and the average price was 63 cents a bushel, the difference of 4.04 acres in corn accounted for $121 more gross income on the nineteen most profitable farms. This method was used for all crops, including hay and pasture, and the differences in percentages of the various crops grown determined the relative values of the cropping systems. Price of grain. Higher prices obtained for grain on the most profitable one-third of the farms would have accounted for $157 more gross income than on the least profitable one-third if each farm had sold an amount equivalent to the average of the amounts sold on all fifty-seven farms. The most and the least profitable groups re- ceived the same average price for oats, but the most profitable one- third received an average of 5 cents a bushel more for corn and 9 cents more for wheat than the least profitable one-third. A part of the differ- ence in prices received was due to differences in quality of grain. Differences in prices received for livestock and livestock products made up part of the differences credited to "livestock efficiency" dis- cussed on pages 549 to 550, and consequently are not taken up here. A relatively high price for dairy products was responsible for placing several farms in the high-profit group. 552 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Cost of power and machinery. The total acre-cost of horse and tractor power and of machinery was $3.71 on the most profitable one- third of the farms and $3.97 on the least profitable one-third. The difference of 26 cents an acre amounted to $64 less cost per farm in favor of the most profitable farms. Cost of man labor. The total labor cost, including that of the operator and his family at hired-man rates, was $6.40 an acre on the nineteen most profitable farms and $6.44 an acre on the nineteen least profitable farms. This difference of 4 cents an acre in labor costs, applied to the average number of acres on all fifty-seven farms, amounted to $10 more net income for the most profitable farms. It is significant that with slightly lower power, machinery, and man-labor costs the nineteen most profitable farms produced and marketed crops and livestock that were worth an average of about $1,460 more per farm per year than those produced and marketed on the nineteen least profitable farms. Miscellaneous expenses. Miscellaneous expenses (expenses other than for labor, power, and machinery) amounted to $4.32 an acre on the most profitable farms and $4.89 an acre on the least profitable farms. This difference of 57 cents an acre accounted for $140 difference in expense in favor of the most profitable one-third of the farms. More than half of the 57 cents difference per acre was due to differences in the upkeep of farm improvements (Table 60). Investments in farm improvements, not including the residence of the operator, were, on an average, $1,570 per farm larger on the nineteen least profitable farms than on the nineteen most profitable farms (Table 57, page 539), even tho the least profitable farms were the smaller (Table 60). Large and expensive buildings on a farm become a liability unless they are efficiently used for the storage of feed and machinery or the housing of livestock. Effects of Relative Amounts of Livestock and of Grain Sold The relative importance of livestock efficiency and of efficiency in crop production naturally varies according to whether a farm is a "livestock" farm or a "grain" farm. Together these two factors were the most important influences on net income on the fifty-seven farms during the ten-year period studied (page 548). In order to ascertain just what part these factors and the others of the eight discussed in the preceding section played in determining net incomes on farms feeding different amounts of livestock and selling different amounts of grain, three groups of three-year farm records covering periods of 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 553 differing price conditions were studied. Each group of three-year records was divided into three subgroups according to the value of feed fed per acre to productive livestock, and then each of these sub- groups was further divided into three groups according to the rate earned on the total farm investment. The approximate differences between the net incomes of the most profitable and the least profitable farms were then calculated in the manner described on pages 548 to 552. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 62. On the livestock farms on which approximately all the crops pro- duced were fed, more than half the total located difference in incomes was found, as an average of three comparisons, to be in livestock efficiency. On these same farms an average of only 12.2 percent of the total located difference in incomes was due to differences in crop yields. This does not mean that good yields of crops are unimportant on livestock farms. As a matter of fact, livestock farms in general maintain high crop yields better than grain farms (Table 69, page 568). But it does mean that on livestock farms the gains and losses due to differences in livestock efficiency outweigh all other factors. On mixed-livestock-and-grain farms, on which about half the total crops grown were fed, livestock efficiency and crop yields had about the same influence in placing the farms in the high- or the low-earning groups, according to the averages of three comparisons (Table 62). Finally, on the grain farms, where only about one-fourth of the crops grown were fed, crop yields were definitely more important than livestock efficiency in placing the farms in high- or low-earning groups. This relationship held true in each of the three studies of these farms. The price received for grain also proved to be an im- portant factor in placing grain farms in high- or low-earning groups. Tho these two factors — livestock efficiency and crop yields — are in general the most important of the influences bearing upon earnings on central Illinois farms, it is essential for the farmer to study all phases of the farm business carefully in order to avoid losses wherever they may occur. As a group, and sometimes individually, the other factors — cost of horse power and machinery, miscellaneous expenses (including upkeep of farm improvements), the cost of man labor, and the price received for grain — \vere consistently important in their influence on farm earnings ; and on some farms one or more of these apparently minor factors proved to be of major importance. For ex- ample, on one 160-acre farm during the ten-year period $12,740 was paid for new machinery, repairs, and fuel for machines. On a 200- acre farm during the same period only $4,990 was paid for the same 554 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, U, O Q W « Ul — § £ £S «u S - H O ui z z s U J§ CQ < S g u — Z H - I s« *J |8 H o u 5 X - H K O < 55 5 s sl tn « go Z w w < £ t^ Q S H M 55 2 a & 55 to 2O K so, a&5 s « X 1 H M to u O g w a Q 2 «< SS 55 a 2 < 2 to U O O « J Ou ^1 U CO £ 7. **• S "* «-> 3 oor-^aON^^OO ftfl *V2 : : : : S!?2aot-w'27g £5E 1 < 8 § "•J" 00 •"« — OOOOCMO*^'**'CMNO f*> ^« — — «_ i r*) i ^ SNO —I O NO ^ fS * (N CN 1/5 06 •«»• (N S5 S) 5 t^ NO ON NO 3 •- N wo S10" 1 - 1 - *" *» 5 N S o EST O'C 0 O ui IN oo t^ 'f r^ "5 oc •* O oO't'*'--Wu^r«»^-ON *» *» *» E|- O'C 0 t^ CM ro O — —• ON IO 00 W ON *» S M S «•! ON •— c •" ^"* •OUIOO^^NOWO •o C 0 0 (V CO &£.£ ^8- : : : : SSS^00-^0, g § fcS^ £ : i c > E • | < 8 | ^ *t S "* ** s O ON CM — 2-g I 1 3 M o'C 6 t~ IT) O t- 69 £ co rt • CJ — |2 Livestoc E SA O'C 0 — »< NO 00 ON NO "> -« NO IO ON >H U1 Nfl <-C « W> 1 M -" — IO — i oer> CON •e~ 3 « •«s O'C 0 U1 (N 00 00 NO f~ NO -" «> ON CM i/) in ~* •• CN ^H i t^ — 00 1^ NO *» v* ll- 8ff- •2-q ° o £1° &£•£• S- .... --O.JNOW -g ll u S£| = > E 3 < 8 i ON ONO ^'^-•OOPSONOCSNO -" CM CS O V> CM -< -H 5 ^ Sg S8« -ii- = S estock fa fij* O'C 0 O IO —< W* t- «N 00 O «n» — S 5 ^ H- H « > 3 O'C 0 in - - CM' gj— 33 " w — -H — O — go' 31 £ = s«0 igi CM CM -,f~^^-v5POOOin s^ O'C O o|g ^ in t^ t^ w> •-> | oo fo -. « oo ^ 1 . s^ *> s :-> :^| ^ : lit : :^: : : : : : JS(. c c 1 o > • v a -o ' --3^ • -g : II i 2s > i! ifl iij yitytil! iiiii^j K t • 1 1 aS3ooail4 Zfc < cu < •Comparison No. 1 bComparison No. 'i 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 555 items. The net decrease in the machinery account during the ten years was $11,340 for the first farm and only $5,730 for the second farm. The second farm was not only 40 acres larger but fed twice as much feed to livestock during the ten years. On the first farm a high ma- chinery cost was one of the main reasons for a low net income, whereas on the second farm the low machinery cost contributed greatly to a high net income. • INTERRELATION OF DIFFERENT FACTORS IN THE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF A FARM In organizing and managing a farm for profit, a farmer should consider how he can make improvement with respect to each of the several factors which influence earnings; and in so doing he should not neglect to consider how the different practices may affect each other. Some of the factors are very closely related, as, for example, crop yields and amounts of livestock ; others, such as prices received, operate more or less independently. The interrelationships among different parts of the farm business make it difficult for a farmer to estimate the relative influence which different factors may have in determining his earnings. For example, a farmer who obtains high yields of crops or high returns from live- stock may put into his farming operations more labor than is used on other farms, and he may feel that his labor costs are too high. But high labor costs may be justified if the increased labor results in cor- respondingly higher earnings, and he should not fail to consider the effects that lowering his labor input might have on crop yields or livestock production, and consequently on income. On the other hand, a farm may have high costs for labor, power, and equipment but only medium or poor yields of crops and low returns from feed fed to livestock. On such a farm the earnings are low — and the fault may lie either in the high costs for labor, power, and equipment or in the low yields from crops and low returns from livestock, or in both of these factors. In order to clear up some of these interrelationships and enable farmers to estimate more accurately the importance in their own farm organizations of the various factors influencing earnings, the factors discussed in the foregoing section are taken up again here. The dis- cussion of their bearing upon earnings is continued, but on the basis of a classification of farms according to their efficiency with the factor being considered, rather than according to their ranking in high- or 556 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, low-earning groups. Not only the fifty-seven farms with the ten-year records are included, but others, all in the Farm Bureau Farm Man- agement Service, involving a total of, about 1,000 farms in twelve counties in north-central Illinois, enter into the various comparisons. Good Cropping System Is the Foundation of Good Farming A well-planned rotation of high-profit crops and a careful arrange- ment of fields is essential to the best farming. All those farms that produced the highest yields during the ten years had well-established rotations that included sweet clover or alfalfa at least one year in four or five. The farms that produced livestock most economically used rotated legume pastures to provide both protein feed and sani- tation. The farms that used labor and power most efficiently were divided into a few large fields arranged so as to extend as near to the farm buildings as practicable. As a means of measuring the relative profitableness of different cropping systems in this study, the crops commonly grown in north- central Illinois were classified into three groups according to their profitableness — high-profit crops, medium-profit crops, and low-profit crops. The high-profit crops included corn, winter wheat, alfalfa, sweet clover, and canning crops. The medium-profit crops included spring wheat, barley, soybeans, red clover, and a mixture of red clover and timothy. The low-profit crops included oats, and timothy or blue- grass on tillable land. This classification is based largely on cost-of- production studies conducted by the Illinois Station over a long period of years in north-central Illinois.1 Sweet clover good for pasture and soil building. Pasture crops were classified as high-, medium-, or low-profit crops partly on the basis of their livestock-carrying capacity and partly according to their soil-building value. Pastures containing sweet clover alone or with other clovers and timothy furnished more forage per acre than any other kind of pasture common on the farms in this study (Table 63). Sweet-clover pasture furnished approximately one- fourth more carrying capacity per acre than either bluegrass or a mixture of red clover and timothy on tillable land. Pasturage obtained during the year of seeding is not included in Table 63, tho this first-autumn pasturage sometimes amounted to as much as one-third of that ob- tained the following year. In comparing sweet-clover or red-clover pastures with permanent pastures of bluegrass or timothy, the pastur- 'See 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 329, "Organizing the Corn-Belt Farm for Profitable Production." 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 557 TABLE 63. — PASTURE DAYS PER SEASON SUPPLIED BY DIFFERENT KINDS OF PASTURE CROPS (Data from farms in Livingston, McLean, Tazewell, and VVoodford counties, 1925-1926 and 1928-1930) Kind of pasture crop Total number of fields Total number of acres Average number of pasture days* per acre per season Sweet clover alone 113 2 621 103 Sweet clover mixed with other clovers and timothy. All pastures containing sweet clover 159 272 3 353 5 974 94 98 Red or alsike clover mixed with timothy . . . 70 1 628 79 Bluegrass 159 4 159 77 On tillable landb 75 1 478 80 On nontillable !andb . . . . 58 2 040 69 One "pasture day" is equivalent to the grazing supplied for one mature cow or horse for one day. bA distinction between "bluegrass on tillable land" and "bluegrass on nontillable land" was made only during the last three years of these pasture comparisons, 1928 to 1930. age furnished the first fall after small grain should be taken into consideration. As a soil-building crop sweet clover used either for seed or for pasture \vas about twice as effective as red clover used for hay or pasture (average for all farms in the study, Table 2, page 482). Timothy and bluegrass low-profit crops on tillable land. On the farms where timothy or bluegrass was grown on tillable land, a smaller-than-average acreage of the soil-building legumes — alfalfa, sweet clover, red clover, alsike clover, and mammoth clover — was included in the rotation, a larger proportion of grain crops was grown on the rotated land, and crop yields tended to decline (Table 64). Consequently the net income per acre of the farm was lower on farms having bluegrass or timothy on tillable land than on farms using rotated legumes for pasture or hay. On farms on which little or none of the tillable land was left in bluegrass and timothy, the yield of corn averaged 48.8 bushels an acre and soil-building legumes were grown on an average of 16.9 percent of the tillable land each year; whereas on farms on which an average of 9.5 percent of the tillable land was in timothy or bluegrass, the yield of corn averaged only 45.0 bushels an acre and soil-building legumes were grown on an average of only 11.4 percent of the tillable land (Table 64). High proportion of land in higher-profit crops. As a means of measuring the value of different crops in the cropping system, the fifty-seven farms were divided into three groups according to the 558 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 64. — PERCENT OF TILLABLE LAND IN BLUEGRASS AND TIMOTHY AS RELATED TO NET INCOME PER ACRE OF THE FARM (Based on records of farms in Livingston, McLean, Tazewell, and Woodford counties during three three-year periods, 1925-1934. All these farms had good corn land and were 90 percent or more tillable) Years represented, and basis for grouping farms: range in percent of tillable land in bluegrass or timothy Number of farms Percent of tillable land in — Feed fed per acre Yield of corn Net in- come per acre of farm Bluegrass and timothy Legumes except soybeans Soy- beans 1925-1927 .Oto .9 24 31 53 67 47 54 52 32 27 48 37 45 .1 3.0 11.3 .1 2.8 9.1 .0 2.4 8.0 .1 2.7 9.5 16.7 14.9 11.0 15.5 14.1 10.3 18.5 17.7 12.8 16.9 15.6 11.4 .3 1.1 1.6 2.7 3.7 2.5 3.4 3.0 6.1 2.1 2.6 3.4 $11.09 7.47 9.64 9.54 9.05 8.92 5.79 6.18 5.16 8.81 7.57 7.91 bit. 54.2 49.9 49.1 47.4 45.0 43.4 44.7 45.4 42.5 48.8 46.8 45.0 311.83 9.65 8.06 5.56 5.17 4.36 6.47 7.51 5.69 7.95 7.44 6.04 1 . 0 to 4 . 9 5 . 0 or more 1929-1931 .Oto .9 ... 1.0 to 4.9 5 . 0 or more 1932-1934 . 0 to .9 1.0 to 4.9 .... 5 . 0 or more Averaf.es, all periods . 0 to .9 1 . 0 to 4 . 9 . 5 . 0 or more .... . . percentage of tillable land in high-profit crops (corn, winter wheat, alfalfa, sweet clover, and canning and truck crops) plus half of the percentage of tillable land in medium-profit crops (spring wheat, barley, soybeans, and red, alsike, or mammoth clover). The advantage of growing the more profitable crops on a large proportion of the tillable land is shown in Table 65. The nineteen farms on which the highest percent of profitable crops was grown during the ten years received higher annual returns (higher on the average by 1.05 percent of the farm investment) than the nineteen farms having the least percentages of land in those crops. This yearly difference of 1.05 percent on the farm investment amounted to $537 more net income per farm for the farms growing the more profitable crops. Crop yields were 7.9 percent above average on the farms having the most land in the more profitable crops, and 4.5 percent below average on the farms having the least land in those crops. This difference in yields was to be expected in view of the fact thru there was twice as much alfalfa and sweet clover grown, and nearly 50 percent more feed fed, on the farms having the high percentage of land in the more profitable crops. There was a close relation between large acreages of alfalfa and sweet clover, efficient livestock, high crop yields, and high net incomes on these farms. 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 559 TABLE 65. — PERCENT OF TILLABLE LAND IN HIGHER-PROFIT CROPS AS RELATED TO RATE EARNED ON TOTAL FARM INVESTMENT (Based on records of fifty-seven farms in Livingston, McLean, Tazewell, and Woodford counties, 1925-1934) Items 19 farms with kit/test percent of higher- profit crops 19 farms with medium percent of higher- profit crops 19 farms with lotcest percent of higher- profit crops perct. Tillable land in higher- profit crops* 76.4 Tillable land in high-profit crops, total11 69.8 Corn 41.9 Winter wheat 9.5 Alfalfa 5.1 Sweet clover 7.9 Canning and miscellaneous 5.4 Tillable land in medium-profit crops, total*1 13.4 Spring wheat .7 Barley 2.4 Soybeans 4.6 Clover 2.5 Clover and timothy mixed 1.7 Miscellaneous 1.5 Tillable land in low-profit crops. totalb 16.8 Oats 13.8 Timothy .7 Bluegrass 2.0 Miscellaneous '.3 Rate earned on total farm investment 4.52 Percent of land tillable 87.5 Percent of tillable land in legumes 23.8 Crop-yield index 107.9 Livestock-efficiency index 101 .4 Value of feed fed per acre ?11.72 Gross income per acre $25 . 35 Total expense per acre 15 .80 Net income per acre 9.55 perct, 68.9 63.6 48.5 3.5 2.6 7.9 1.1 10.8 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.1 25.6 24.0 .5 1.0 4.02 91.3 17.2 98.5 99.1 $ 7.03 $20.83 12.72 8.11 ptrct. 63.1 56.1 43.1 4.8 2.6 4.0 1.6 13.9 .9 2.5 3.5 3.9 2.5 .6 30.0 22.2 2.8 4.1 .9 3.47 93.8 16.4 95.5 99.4 $ 7.99 $20.22 12.92 7.30 •Percentage in high-profit crops plus one-half of the percentage in medium-profit crops. bThis separation of crops into high-profit, medium-profit, and low-profit groups is based largely on detailed cost studies conducted on farms in central Illinois. See 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 329, "Or- ganizing the Corn-Belt Farm for Profitable Production." One of the chief problems of a grain farmer is how to grow enough legumes to maintain nitrogen and organic matter in the soil and at the same time dispose of the legumes profitably. Some solve this problem partially by harvesting clover for seed. But clover seed crops are un- certain in north-central Illinois, and many farmers will not take the risk involved in letting clover stand a year in order to get a seed crop. Other grain farmers who have land on which sweet clover grows readily sow sweet clover with small grain and plow it under in the fall or spring for corn. This practice is a good one on land on which for any reason it is impractical to pasture livestock, but it does not appear to maintain fertility as well as when the sweet clover is allowed to stand over a full year and is pastured (Table 2, page 482). It is not 560 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, unlikely, however, that some of the stands of sweet clover plowed under for corn were not so uniform nor so heavy as those that were retained for pasture. Not more than half of tillable land in corn. Growing corn on more than 50 percent of the tillable land is a practice of doubtful value unless the best care otherwise is given the soil. On farms having an average of about half the tillable land in corn the net income per acre was approximately the same as on farms having more land in corn (Table 66). As the percentage of tillable land in corn increased from about 35 percent to 40, to 45, to 50, to 55 percent, the net in- come per acre increased from $5.42 to $6.12, to $6.54, to $7.08, to $7.17. These figures are averages of data obtained in three three-year comparisons during 1925-1927, 1929-1931, and 1932-1934 in Living- ston, McLean, Tazewell, and Woodford counties. While the proportion of tillable land left down in soil-building legumes declined from 17.5 percent on farms having less than 37.5 percent of the tillable land in corn to 11.1 percent on farms having more than 52.4 percent of tillable land in corn, the productivity of the soil was apparently maintained by the feeding of more feed and the plowing under of more first-year sweet clover. As an average of two of the three-year studies, first-year sweet clover was plowed under for corn on 7 percent of the tillable land on farms where 52.5 percent or more of the tillable land was in corn (Table 66). High proportion of legumes and plenty of livestock. Plenty of legumes in the cropping system, combined with enough livestock to make economic use of the legumes, proved profitable on the farms included in this study. Of the fifty-seven farms, the twenty that had the highest percentage of tillable land in soil-building legumes and that fed the most livestock proved to be slightly more profitable than the twenty that had the least legumes and least livestock (Table 67). The twenty farms that had a ten-year average of 21.4 percent till- able land in soil-building legumes had an average of only 39.9 percent tillable land in corn and 16.8 percent in oats. In contrast, the twenty farms that had an average of only 11.1 percent of tillable land in legumes had 47.8 percent in corn and 23.2 percent in oats. But with more livestock to use the larger acreage of legumes, the farms with 92 percent more legumes, 20 percent less corn, and 38 percent less oats produced the higher average net incomes during the ten years. Furthermore the productivity of the twenty farms with the most legumes and livestock increased during the ten years, while that of the twenty farms with the least legumes and livestock declined (F,ig. 13). 1938] FARM PRACTICES AMI THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 561 x "B * -- w rt w * ^ u, ^ = O 4) '^ g-5^ U u •*-* « o IS ^ SE .8 J en J H C ^ sill S.S-0 c u 2 JS UJ u C D- JS S c o o b C ™ C u — u 4( (S !*s- s§ 3 rt 2X u — •*! 3 — X 5^1 Sgl fill SvMQO^QO ••* *O 00 f^ *N »•**) ^* •• »O O *^ r~ r~ OG » O ">*••*•*•* •C'O«t^O 10 « O ^ b- 5~" . f*5 1-» **} o* O ••«••* f} O ••• *!• © ^ O *o **> ^ «-^ >O O> — O <•> mt^r^iNt^ r^OO'fO' «'> tOO'i« 'tOVOxO 'fO"»'^'»' ^*23*' t\\\\\ INN! |NNi !!N JQ;;;:; o»;i:i; 2----- §1))) liiliiiijiiiiljijifllli B •••••) '!* ••••!; *»'-'-(u B • • • • i ,9in^^ v c o"*";'*;'';1- '•!"!***. * ^ " "i t "; * £ I-.' pj r^ (N 2 <^t~' (N t-' (»i 2 O r^ (N t-.' (N 2 2} t-.' (N I-.' (N 562 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 67. — PERCENT OF TILLABLE LAND IN SOIL-BUILDING LEGUMES AND OF AMOUNT OF LIVESTOCK FED, AS RELATED TO NET INCOME PER ACRE OF THE FARM (Based on records of fifty-seven farms in Livingston, McLean, Tazewell, and Woodford counties, 1925-1934) Items 20 farms with most legumes and most livestock 20 farms with least legumes and least livestock Percent of tillable land in soil-building legumes* 21.4 11.1 Percent of tillable land in corn 39.9 47.8 Percent of tillable land in oats 16.8 23.2 Feed fed per acre to all livestock $13.55 % 6.88 Net income per acre 8 8.01 ? 7.80 49 5 45 0 Yield of oats, bushels per acre 37.8 35.8 •The legumes included were alfalfa and sweet clover, red clover, alsike clover, or mammoth clover left down for the second year. During the three years 1925-1927, the twenty farms with the most legumes and livestock produced an average of 51.9 bushels of corn an acre — 2.2 bushels an acre more than the average of 175 farms on good corn land in the four counties during these three years. The same twenty farms produced an average of 49.9 bushels of corn an acre during the three years 1932-1934, — which was 5.7 bushels more than the average of 150 farms on which records were kept during CORN YIELDS, 1925-1927 FARMS BUSHELS OF CORN PER ACRE 10 20 30 40 5O ALL 175 FARMS 20 WITH MOST LEGUMES AND LIVESTOCK 20 WITH LEAST LEGUMES AND LIVESTOCK 49.7 51.9 49.0 CORN YIELDS, 1932-1934 ALL 150 FARMS SAME 20, MOST LEGUMES AND LIVESTOCK SAME 20. LEAST LEGUMES AND LIVESTOCK FIG 13. — CORN YIELDS IN RELATION TO AMOUNT OF LEGUMES AND LIVESTOCK Tho the average corn yield was lower by 5Vi bushels an acre during the sec- ond three-year period because \of severe drouth and chinch bug damage, the farms with most legumes and livestock had yields only 2 bushels an acre lower than during the first period. On farms with least legumes and livestock corn yields dropped 8.5 bushels an acre. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 563 those three years.1 These twenty farms therefore increased their ability to produce corn by 3.5 bushels an acre more than the average of all farms on which records were kept. On the other hand, the twenty farms having the least legumes and livestock during the ten years reduced their producing power by 3.0 bushels of corn an acre below the average of all the farms. There was thus a net difference of 6.5 bushels of corn an acre in favor of the farms having the most legumes and livestock. These data, given in Table 67 and Fig. 13, might at first thought appear contradictory to those in Table 66, where the farms with the larger acreage of corn were shown to be the most profitable. However, on the farms for which data are given in Table 66, those having the larger acreages of legumes and the smaller acreage of corn had less livestock than the farms with the larger acreage of corn and smaller acreage of legumes. Thus it is evident that the most profitable com- bination was one where plenty of legumes were grown to help maintain soil fertility and enough well-handled livestock was kept to make economic use of the legumes. Furthermore, the data indicate that as time goes on these differences may be expected to increase. Amount and Kind of Livestock Warrant Careful Consideration The amount and the kind of livestock that may be kept most profit- ably on a corn-belt farm depend on such matters as the amount of untillable land that can be used only for pasture, the proportion of tillable land on which legumes or other soil-conserving crops need to be grown, the market for various farm products, and the ability and inclination of the operator. Farms that have comparatively large acreages of untillable pasture must necessarily be used as cattle or sheep farms in order to utilize the pasture land economically. Relative profitableness of different types of farms.* In this study 'Average yields on all farms during the three years 1932-1934 were lower than during 1925-1927 because of drouth, chinch bug damage, and other unfavorable conditions. 'For the purposes of this study the farms enrolled in the accounting service thruout the ten years were classified into eight types according to the most important sources of income on each. The types and the proportions of in- come necessary to classify the farms were: hog farms, 40 percent or more of income from hogs; feeder-cattle farms, 40 percent or more of income from feeder cattle; dairy farms, 40 percent from dairy products; cattle-and-hog farms, 40 percent or more from hogs and cattle together; grain and mixed livestock farms, 40 percent or more from grain and another 40 percent or more from livestock of all sorts; grain farms. 70 percent or more from grain; (Footnote concluded on following page.) 564 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, the farms on which the bulk of the income was from hogs appeared to have a slight advantage in income over other types of farms (Fig. 14). Too few feeder-cattle farms and dairy farms were included, how- ever, for the records to be considered typical of the incomes to be expected from those types of farming. Nevertheless it is significant that the livestock farms (the four types on which hogs, or feeder cattle, or dairy cattle, or hogs and cattle together furnished the bulk of the income) produced ten-year incomes well above those of the farms on NET INCOME FROM DIFFERENT TYPES OF FARMS 1925-1934 TYPES OF FARMS 10-YEAR AVERAGE ANNUAL NET INCOME PER FARM *1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 8 HOG FARMS 2370 2280 2260 2040 1930 1830 1390' i • • •'-.'* •!;:• -'.'.•,-••. •'.;'•] • ' i i 2 FEEDER-CATTLE FARMS 2 DAIRY FARMS 10 CATTLE AND HOG FARMS 15 GRAIN AND MIXED LIVESTOCK FARMS 9 GRAIN FARMS 9 GRAIN AND CATTLE AND HOG FARMS 8 GENERAL FARMS v\;.> ^V^>~J • 1 ;^ .»•; • i i m±MMMM^r • • i i i • :;:^y::.;v;i.vp:»;-o;;;i;:^;] 1 • •::^-;:-^:i:^*{^A£ \ Eg£?l AVERAGE FOR GROUP • NET INCOME OF INDIVIDUAL FARMS FIG. 14. — AVERAGE ANNUAL NET INCOMES FROM DIFFERENT TYPES OF FARMS, 1925-1934 Tho in general the livestock farms were somewhat more profitable than the grain farms, there was a wider spread in net income among the farms in the livestock groups than among the farms in the grain group. (For basis of classi- fication of these farms, see footnote 2, page 563.) which grain provided the larger share of the income. It is well to notice, tho, that some of the least profitable farms were livestock farms, and that there was less variation in the incomes from grain farms and from grain and mixed livestock farms than from farms of any other type. Larger variations in incomes among livestock farms might be expected, for such farms have two important places at which to gain or lose — crops in addition to livestock. Only one of the eight general farms had an average net income for the ten years above the average of all of the farms. Had the grain and cattle and hog farmk, 40 percent or more from grain and another 40 percent or more from cattle and hogs together ; and general farms, no one source contributing as much as 40 percent. The farms in any one class had less than 40 percent of their income from any source other than that indicated. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 565 livestock of these general farms been well managed, the increased in- come from it would have placed the farms in one of the livestock groups. Poor livestock management, rather than lack of livestock, caused these farms to be classified as general farms. Relative profitableness varies during changing prices. Relative earnings of different types of farms for any short period of years evidently depend largely on the relative prices of the products sold (Table 68, and Figs. 15 and 16). Of the six types of farms studied (hog, beef-cattle, dairy, grain and mixed livestock, grain, and general farms), no one type proved to be more profitable than the average of all farms during all three three- year periods (1925-1927, 1929-1931, and 1932-34), and none showed poorer-than-average earnings during all three periods. Earnings from beef -cattle and from dairy farms varied more from period to period than earnings from the other types of farms, tho too few beef-cattle 2.00 AIN AND LIVESTOCK <--*>— —" ""* " -1.50 1925-1927 1929-1931 1932-1934 FIG. 15. — RELATIVE PROFITABLENESS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FARMS DURING THREE THREE-YEAR PERIODS No one type of farm was most profitable thruout all three periods. The variations in relative profitableness are accounted for largely by changes in the price relations between grain and livestock (Fig. 16) and by changes in the efficiency of the organization and operation of these farms during the ten-year period. The numbers of farms of the different types are shown in Table 68. ,4 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, ILLINOIS PRICES OF FARM PRODUCTS 1925 1933 1934 FIG. 16. — RELATIVE ILLINOIS PRICES OF HOGS, BEEF CATTLE, DAIRY PRODUCTS, AND CORN, 1925-1934 Tho price trends of corn, livestock, and livestock products followed the same general pattern during this period, the positions of these commodities in relation to each other changed frequently. (Based on prices reported in Circular 434, Illinois Crop and Livestock Statistics.) and dairy farms were included to furnish dependable samples of those types of farming. Earnings from grain and mixed livestock farms varied the least from period to period, giving basis for the idea that during periods of varying prices farms with diversified incomes have more consistent earnings than more specialized farms. Livestock farms having well-handled livestock most profitable. Livestock farms on which the livestock was most efficiently produced (or purchased), fed, and marketed proved more profitable than grain farms having the best crop yields. The superiority of the livestock farms that had well-managed livestock was evident in all four com- parisons, each of which included only farms having good corn land and that were 90 percent or more tillable (Table 69 and Fig. 17). These farms could have been conducted either as livestock or as grain farms. In each comparison the twenty or thirty farms on which the value of the feed fed per acre was highest were selected as the livestock farms; and an equal number of farms showing the smallest value of feed fed per acre were selected as the grain farms. As an average of 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 567 TC r*i & 1 1 S —-O^"^ IN v> I^O>»«Sv5 00 rl E-o S-o 10 C* Ov i s V 1 <^ (N (N > Average of t Number of farms .n z •" •— i 4) 1 S - — 2 "- c x -r «o g I^O-* — •*« s 1 <^ (N l/J (N r») ro oT w "a* = = ss H H S §1 R 8 cs 2 Number of farms !0«O>3;iO-« O -« ^-«i (N m sources. For e one source. A f Id w 2 -O <* ^ •< ^ W TJ 1 B —' •« p — o~\r, r~> o £r~s5'-»5,o,oo »• different ny other U O 5^ Oi-a 5 o> i A — N«, e" £1 •sT RELATED TO , Tazewell, ar » 2 Number of farms fS >o — O<*5^in <•> i mounts s and les ource. tu * b. =" 0 0 19 farms with medium labor cost per M-W-U 19 farms with kifh labor cost per M-W-U Labor cost per man-work-unit . . ? 3.26 55 3.99 8 5.02 Horse-and-machinery cost per man-work-unit .... 2.10 2.39 2.63 Labor cost per acre 5.83 6.48 7.36 Labor cost per crop acre 7.25 8.04 9.15 Rate earned on total farm investment 4.73% 3.49% 3.53% Size of farm, acres 286.8 247.4 205.0 Total investment per acre ? 204.37 £ 208.01 % 211.50 Gross income per acre 22.64 20.98 22.17 Total expense per acre 12.97 13.73 14.71 Net income per acre 9.67 7.25 7.46 Value of crops per acre % 18.74 % 18.43 % 19.95 Value of feed fed per acre 10.54 8.69 6.38 Crop-yield index 98.1 97.7 105.3 Percent of land tillable 91.2 90.9 91.0 Percent of tillable land in higher-profit cropsc 68.8 68.8 69.2 Percent of tillable land in legumes 19.4 17.8 19.2 Livestock-efficiency index 100.5 98.9 101.2 Total man-work-units per farm 513.0 402.0 300.5 Man-work-units on livestock per man-work-unit on crops 1.06 .86 .69 Price index for products sold 100.6 99.0 100.4 Percent of farm years with tractor 91.1 80.5 68.4 Percent of farm years with truck 43.2 36.8 34.2 Percent of farm years with tractor cultivator 7.9 10.5 6.6 Number of horses per farm 7.11 6.47 6.52 •One man-work-unit is the average amount of work on crops or livestock accomplished by one farm worker in a 10-hour day. Standards for use in these studies were obtained from complete-cost and enterprise studies conducted by the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Illinois. •"Abbreviation for man-work-unit. "Percentage in high-profit crops plus one-half of the percentage in medium-profit crops. percent more livestock per acre was fed on these farms than was fed on the nineteen farms with high labor costs, the yields should have been considerably greater (page 562). The inference is clear that because of insufficient labor, yields were considerably reduced. On the other hand, the data show that the nineteen farms with the high labor costs had yields equivalent to 105.3 percent of the average yields produced on all of the farms, altho with the smaller amounts of live- stock on the nineteen farms lower yields would normally be expected. This relation of crop yields and labor costs is shown also in the discussion of the relation of crop yields to net farm incomes (Table 75), where it was pointed put that the labor costs per man-work-unit were higher on the nineteen farms producing the largest crop yields than on the nineteen low-producing farms, and where it was shown also that the farms with the high yields had the higher incomes. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 581 The effect of the use of tractors on labor costs, and consequently on incomes, is shown in Table 75 by the fact that on the average the nineteen farms with low labor costs had tractors on them 91.1 percent of the ten-year period, while the nineteen farms with high labor costs had tractors only 68.4 percent of the period. Variation in unit labor costs with size of farm and amount of livestock. It is a well-known fact that acre-costs for labor are normally less on large farms than on small farms. Since the man- work-unit is a measure of the acreage of crops and the amounts of livestock that an average farmer cares for in a ten-hour day, it is to be expected that labor costs per man-work-unit would vary greatly with the size of the farm and the amount of livestock. The nineteen farms with the low labor costs per man-work-unit averaged 286.8 acres and fed $10.54 worth of feed per acre; whereas the nineteen farms with high labor costs contained only 205 acres per farm and used only $6.38 worth of feed per acre. FIG. 19. — BIG TEAMS REDUCE AMOUNT AND COST OF MAN LABOR The nineteen farms that had the lowest costs for horses and machinery per man-work-unit during the ten years of this study returned an average of $229 more net income an acre than the nineteen farms that had the highest costs for these items. 582 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Variations in labor costs according to amounts of crops raised and livestock handled are shown in Table 76. For example, on an average farm where 60.0 to 99.9 man-work-units were expended on crops, and .20 to .59 man-work-units were expended on livestock for each man-work-unit on crops, the labor cost was $5.10 for ten hours of work on crops plus 2 to 5.9 hours of work on livestock. But with the same amount of work on livestock for each man-work-unit on crops, the unit cost for labor declined as the amount of work on crops increased, until, on farms where 340 to 379.9 man-work-units were TABLE 76. — LABOR COST PER MAN-WORK-UNIT ON CROPS PLUS COST FOR PRO- PORTIONATE MAN-WORK-UNITS ON LIVESTOCK, ON FARMS WHERE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF WORK WERE PUT INTO CROPS AND LIVESTOCK (Averages of three three-year comparisons: one in 1930-1932, one in 1931-1933, and one in 1932-1934) M-W-I> on livestock per M-W-U on crops Labor cost per M-W-U on crops plus proportionate M-W-U on livestock when total M-W-U on crops per farm were — 60.0 to 99.9 100.0 to 139.9 140.0 to 179.9 180.0 to 219.9 220.0 to 259.9 260.0 to 299.9 300.0 to 339.9 340.0 to 379.9 . 20 to . 59 85.10 5.86 6.62 7.37 8.14 8.89 9.65 10.40 11.17 84.66 5.43 6.19 6.94 7.70 8.46 9.21 9.98 10.74 84.13 4.89 5.65 6.41 7.16 7.91 8.68 9.44 10.20 83.76 4.52 5.28 6.05 6.80 7.55 8.31 9.07 9.93 83.55 4.31 5.07 5.83 6.59 7.33 8.10 8.86 9.62 83.39 4.16 4.91 5.68 6.43 7.19 7.95 8.70 9.47 83.27 4.03 4.79 5.56 6.31 7.07 7.83 8.58 9.35 83.16 3.93 4.69 5.45 6.21 6.96 7.71 8.46 9.23 . 60 to .99 1.00 to 1.39 1.40 to 1.79 1.80 to 2. 19 2.20 to 2.59 2.60 to 2.99 3.00 to 3.39 3.40 to 3.79 •Abbreviation for man-work-unit. expended on crops, the cost was only $3.16 for ten hours of work on crops plus 2 to 5.9 hours work on livestock. Again where the amount of work on crops remained the same (60.0 to 99.9 man-work-units), the unit cost for labor declined as the relative amount of work on livestock increased, until, on farms where 3.40 to 3.79 man-work- units were expended on livestock for each man-work-unit on crops, the cost for 10 hours of work on crops plus 34 to 37.9 hours of work on livestock was $11.17. And when both the amount of work on crops and the amount of work on livestock increased, the unit cost for labor declined still more. On farms where 340 to 379.9 man-work-units were expended on crops and 3.40 to 3.79 man-work-units were ex- pended on livestock for each man-work-unit on crops, the cost for 10 hours of work on crops plus 34 to 37.9 hours of work on livestock- was only $9.23. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 583 Horse and Machinery Costs Closely related to farm incomes. On some farms extremely high costs for horses and machinery are chiefly responsible for low net incomes. On the other hand, some farms with rather low yields show profits because the costs for power and machinery are kept low (Table 77). Of the fifty-seven farms having ten-year records, the nineteen that had the lowest horse-and-machinery costs per man-work- unit had average net incomes $2.29 an acre higher than the nineteen farms that had the highest costs for horses and machinery. Most of this difference in net income may be accounted for by the $1.50 higher acre-cost for horses and machinery on the nineteen farms with the high horse-and-machinery costs. Crop yields may suffer if the use of power and machinery in the TABLE 77. — HORSE-AND-MACHINERY COST PER MAN-WORK-UNIT AS RELATED TO RATE EARNED ON TOTAL FARM INVESTMENT (Based on records of fifty-seven farms in Livingston, McLean, Tazewell, and Woodford counties, 1925-1934) Items 19 farms with low cost per M-W-U* 19 farms with medium cost per M-W-U 19 farms with high cost per M-W-U Horse-and-machinery cost per man-work-unit . . . % 1.76 ? 2.27 ? 3.03 Horse-and-machinery cost per acre 3.20 3.61 4.70 Rate earned on total farm investment 4.39% 4.26% 3.22% Size of farm, acres 215.4 297.1 226.8 Total investment per acre 2 206.11 3 206.93 % 209.79 Gross income per acre 22.28 21.61 22.11 Total expense per acre 13.24 12.79 15.36 Net income per acre 9.04 8.82 6.75 Value of crops per acre 17.66 19.36 19.71 Value of feed fed per acre 9.49 8.59 8.31 Crop- yield index 95. 6 101.5 102.2 Percent of land tillable 91.9 90.4 91.1 Percent of tillable land in higher-profit cropsb Percent of tillable land in legumes 66.5 18.7 69.2 18.3 70.7 19.6 Livestock-efficiency index 104.2 100.2 95.4 391.2 472.2 352.1 Man-work-units on livestock per man-work-unit on 1.14 .83 .74 ? 3.60 $ 3.86 % 4.42 99.5 99.2 101.7 Percent of farm years with tractor 70.5 86.8 82.6 Percent of farm years with truck 31.6 50.0 32.6 Percent of farm years with tractor cultivator 6.6 10.5 7.9 Number of work horses per farm 5.99 7.61 6.51 % 57 $ 62 % 63 Net increase from horses 15 — 2 —19 361 598 639 59 30 27 •Abbreviation for man-work-unit. bPercentage in high-profit crops plus one-half of the percentage in medium-profit crops. •Cost of all feed fed to horses, divided by the number of work horses. 584 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, production of crops is skimped too much (Table 77), just as they do when too little labor is used (Table 75). On the nineteen farms with low horse-and-machinery costs the yields of grain and hay were only 95.6 percent of the average for all fifty-seven farms, while on the nineteen farms with the highest horse-and-machinery costs the yields were 102.2 percent of average. FIG. 20. — LARGE-SCALE MACHINES WERE USED ON MANY OF THE FARMS IN THIS STUDY On large farms where power and machinery were well adjusted to the needs of the farm, large-scale machinery reduced unit costs of production. Cooperative ownership and operation provide for economic use of such machines on small and medium-sized farms. Some farmers in these studies reduced their power costs by raising a few colts. As an average, on the nineteen farms with low horse-and- machinery costs, the value of horses increased $15 per farm annually while on the nineteen farms with high horse-and-machinery costs there was an annual net decrease of $19 per farm in the horse account (Table 77). On the farms with the low costs for horses and machinery the horses were kept with $6 less feed per work horse than on the high-cost farms. Custom work also served to reduce costs. The farm- ers with the low horse-and-machinery costs did an average of $59 worth of custom work annually, while the farmers with the high costs received only $27 a year from custom work. Also the farmers with the high horse-and-machinery costs used tractors to a greater extent 1938} FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ox EARNINGS 585 (82.6 percent of the ten-year period) than the farmers with the low costs (70.5 percent of the ten-year period). These differences are small, but they indicate means used by some farmers to reduce net costs. Costs varied with size of farm and amount of livestock. Horse and machinery costs per man-work-unit expended on crops declined as the amount of work on crops increased (Table 78). However, the unit cost for horses and machinery did not decline so rapidly with the TABLE 78. — COSTS FOR HORSES, MACHINERY, AND EQUIPMENT PER MAN-WORK- UNIT ON CROPS, PLUS COST FOR PROPORTIONATE MAN- WORK-UNITS ON LIVESTOCK, ON FARMS WHERE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF WORK WERE PUT INTO CROPS AND LIVESTOCK (Averages of three three-year comparisons: one in 1930-1932, one in 1931-1933, and one in 1932-1934) M-W-U* on livestock per M-W-U on crops Costs for horses, machinery, and equipment per M-W-l1 on crops plus pro- portionate M-W-U on livestock when total M-W-l.' on crops per farm were — 60.0 to 99.0 100.0 to 139.9 140.0 to 179.9 180. C to 219.9 220.0 to 259.9 260. C to 299.9 300.0 to 339.9 340.0 to 379.9 . 20 to 59 £3.44 3 77 $3.25 3.58 3.92 4.27 4.56 4.84 5.11 5.37 5.64 23.08 3.41 3.75 4.10 4.37 4.67 4.94 5.20 5.47 £2.91 3.23 3.58 3.92 4.21 4.49 4.75 5.02 5.29 32.74 3.07 3.40 3.75 4.05 4.32 4.59 4.85 5.12 32.64 2.96 3.30 3.65 3.94 4.22 4.48 4.75 5.01 32.53 2.85 3.19 3.54 3.83 4.11 4.37 4.64 4.90 32.43 2.75 3.09 3.44 3.73 4.01 4.27 4.54 4.80 .60 to .99 1.00 to 1.39 4.11 4.46 4.75 5.02 5.29 5.55 5.82 1 .40 to 1.79 . . . 1.80 to 2.19 2 . 20 to 2 59 2 . 60 to 2 . 99 3.00 to 3.39 3 . 40 to 3 . 79 . . •Abbreviation for man-work-unit. increase in the amount of work on crops as did the unit cost of labor (Tables 78 and 76). On the other hand, the cost of horses, machinery, and equipment increased as the amount of livestock increased (Table 78). The in- crease is accounted for by the larger amount of haying machinery included on the livestock farms and the additional feed grinders, feeders, and waterers, movable hog and poultry houses, feed bunks, and other equipment needed on livestock farms but not on grain farms. Horse and tractor farms had about same total costs for labor, horses, and machinery. Among the fifty-seven farms included in the ten-year study, only six were operated with horses alone during all the ten years. In total costs for labor, horses, and machinery there was no appreciable difference between these six farms and six others of the same size which had tractors on them all ten years (Table 79). There was, however, a marked difference in the amounts paid out in 586 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, TABLE 79. — RELATIVE COSTS OF LABOR, POWER, AND MACHINERY ON FARMS OPER- ATED ONLY WITH HORSES AND ON FARMS OPERATED WITH TRACTORS AND HORSES* (Based on ten-year records on six horse-operated farms and six farms of about same size and same amounts of livestock operated with tractors and horses all ten years, 1925-1934) Items Six farms operated with horses only Six farms operated with tractors and horses Average size of farms 163 171 Value of feed fed per acre ? 7.26 $ 9.22 ? 920 ? 896 270 210 Annual cost of machinery, including depreciation 172 293 Total annual cost of labor, horses, and machinery ? 1 362 $ 1 399 Annual cost per acre 8.36 8.18 Annual cash cost of horses and machinery £ 119 $ 285 •This subject is discussed fully in 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 395, "A Study of the Cost of Horse and Tractor Power on Illinois Farms." cash during the ten years. On farms operated with horses an average of only $1,190 per farm was spent for horses and machinery; whereas on the farms where tractors were used an average of $2,850 was spent per farm for these items. The difference in total cash outlay thus amounted to $1,660. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARN- INGS 587 GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Practices used in the production of corn, oats, beef cattle, dairy cattle, hogs, and poultry on farms in north-central Illinois are evalu- ated in Part I of the present bulletin; and in Part II the effects on farm income of such factors as crop yields, livestock efficiency, amounts of livestock, cropping systems, prices received, and costs for power, machinery, and labor are discussed. The evaluation of specific practices is based on records from ap- proximately 1,000 farms. The discussion of factors influencing earn- ings is based on records from a selected group of fifty-seven of these farms extending over the ten-year period from 1925 to 1934 as well as on the records of the 1,000 farms for shorter periods of time. The operators of all the farms included in both parts of the study were members of the Illinois Farm Bureau Farm Management Service, a cooperative farm-accounting service conducted by the Illinois Agri- cultural Experiment Station and the farm bureaus in north-central Illinois. Following are some of the important facts brought out with re- spect to the effects of the better practices on the success of certain enterprises, and of the influence of various factors on total farm earnings. 1. Corn. — Average gains in yield of corn resulting from the use of the better practices in growing this crop totaled 31.4 bushels an acre. Of this total, soil-treatment practices accounted for 11.7 bushels an acre. The use of deep-rooted soil-building legumes (mainly sweet clover and alfalfa) in the rotation had greater effect than the use of either manure or rock phosphate. On well-treated soils good cultiva- tion practices accounted for 9.9 bushels an acre : and practices having to do with the kind, selection, storage, and preparation of seed brought about gains of 9.8 bushels an acre. The use of high-yielding, well-adapted varieties, the planting of enough seed to secure a good stand, and cultivating so as to maintain the stand were outstanding seed and cultivation practices. 2. Oats.— Superior practices in growing oats resulted in total average gains of 39.7 bushels an acre on well-treated land, 25.2 bushels an acre on fairly well-treated land, and 17.5 bushels an acre on poorly treated land. The superior practices were the early seeding of an early variety, the use of seed that has been carefully fanned and treated with a good dust treatment to prevent smut ; the inclusion of clover in the rotation at least one year in four ; the application of 588 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, manure; and the application of rock phosphate on land deficient in phosphorus. 3. Beef Cattle. — Beef sold from herds of beef or dual-purpose cows brought considerably lower returns for feed fed than purchased feeder cattle, when a fair farm value was assigned to the roughage consumed by the cow herds, including the roughage ordinarily con- sidered unsalable. To a considerable extent the lower returns were due to the poorer quality of the home-raised beef. By keeping good quality cows and good beef-type sires, by feeding the cows almost entirely on pasture and roughage and by full- feeding the calves on grain from weaning time (or earlier) onward, many corn-belt farmers could increase their profits. 4. Dairy Cattle. — Returns for feed fed to dairy herds were influ- enced about equally by the proportion of the herd consisting of cows being milked and the amount of milk produced per cow. Fourteen herds in which 71.1 percent of all cattle were milked and which pro- duced an average of 8,815 pounds of milk per cow, returned an average of $168 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. Fourteen other herds, in which only 43.5 percent of the cattle were cows being milked and which produced an average of only 6,107 pounds of milk per cow, returned an average during the same period of only $107 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed — $61 less than the former herds. 5. Hogs. — The farmers who followed the better practices in pro- ducing, feeding, and marketing their hogs had $33 (32 percent) higher average return per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed than did the other farmers, — the difference between $135 and $102. They kept sows that produced large litters, by skilful handling of sows and pigs they brought a large proportion of the pigs thru to weaning time, they fed liberal amounts of protein feed, and they had the spring crop of pigs" ready for market in the fall. 6. Poultry. — Where the pullets were hatched in February or March and a laying mash was fed thruout the year, poultry brought an aver- age return $119 greater (80 percent greater) per hundred dollars invested in the flock than where the pullets were not hatched until May or June and where laying mash was fed only part of the year or not at all. The returns in the first instance were $267, in the second, $148. An average of 117 eggs per hen per year was the record of the better managed flocks ; 81 eggs, or 70 percent as many as in the better managed flocks, was the record of the less profitable flocks. 7. Sources of Differences in Income. — Differences of $2,000 to $3.000 a year in net incomes were common, even on farms the same 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 589 in size and having equal opportunities as regards natural soil fertility, topography, weather, and market facilities. Between the nineteen most profitable and the nineteen least profitable of fifty-seven farms over the period from 1925 to 1934, $1,673 average annual difference in net income could be accounted for by the relative effectiveness of the two groups with respect to seven different factors. These factors and the extent to which each accounted for differences in income were: crop yields, 28 percent ; efficiency of livestock, 23 percent ; amount of livestock, 15 percent; cropping system, 11 percent; prices received for grain, 10 percent (about 55 percent of the grain produced was sold) ; miscellaneous expenses, 8 percent (farm improvements, limestone, taxes, and miscellaneous crop and livestock expenses) ; acre-cost for horses, machinery, and equipment, 4 percent ; and acre-cost for labor (including labor of operator and family) 1 percent. 8. Improvement Resulting From Changed Practices. — Of the fifty- seven farmers, the ten who made most improvement in earnings com- pared with the average of the group during the ten years from 1925 to 1934, earned approximately $1,500 a year more at the end of the period than they would have earned had they continued to farm thru- out the period as they did during the first three years of the period. These improvements in earnings were due very largely to changes in the organization and operation of the farms as a result of membership in the Farm Bureau Farm Management Service. 9. Cropping System. — Farms having a high percentage of tillable land in the higher-profit crops (corn, winter wheat, alfalfa, sweet clover) produced much better average annual net incomes than neighboring farms having a relatively high percentage of tillable land in the low-profit crops (oats, timothy, bluegrass). All-tillable farms obtaining practically all of their pasture and hay from rotated soil- building legumes produced higher yields of grain and better net incomes than neighboring all-tillable farms which depended upon timothy and bluegrass for a considerable part of their hay and pasture. 10. Livestock Efficiency. — Livestock farms on which the livestock was efficiently produced, fed, and marketed were more profitable than rrain farms on which the best crop yields were secured. On the other hand, the least profitable farms of all were livestock farms on which the livestock was poorly handled. This situation might be expected because the livestock farms have two main opportunities (grain and livestock) for success or failure, where the grain farms have but one. 590 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, 11. Legumes, Livestock, and Crop Yields. — While there was very little difference between the average annual income of livestock farms and that of the grain farms, the crop yields on the farms having the most livestock and the most legumes showed a marked increase dur- ing the ten years, whereas on the farms having least legumes and least livestock the yields declined. Twenty livestock farms having an aver- age of 21.4 percent of their tillable land in soil-building legumes in- creased their annual corn yields by 3.5 bushels an acre compared with the average of all record-keeping farms. On the other hand, on the 20 grain farms having only 11.1 percent of their tillable land in soil- building legumes, annual corn yields declined 3 bushels per acre compared with the average of all record-keeping farms. 12. Crop Yields. — Differences in crop yields had more to do with causing differences in net incomes than any other factor on the farms where half or more of the grain or other crops produced was sold. But on farms where half or more of the crops produced was fed on the farm, the influence of crop yields on farm earnings was over- shadowed by the efficiency with which livestock was produced. 13. Prices Received. — Management practices influenced materially the prices received for certain farm products, particularly hogs and eggs. Having spring pigs ready to be marketed in the fall, and managing laying flocks so that a substantial percentage of the eggs produced annually were produced during October, November, and December were important practices in enabling farmers to obtain highest average prices for those products. 14. Successful Farmers Used Combinations of Best Practices. — Methods used by individual farmers who excelled in particular enter- prises, such as in the production of corn or of hogs, were for the most part combinations of those practices that separately brought the best returns (see Appendix for account of practices followed by the most successful farmers). When a certain practice leads to better yields or earnings on farms in general and at the same time is followed by farmers who excel in the particular enterprise to which it applies, one may feel doubly sure of the worth of the practice. Thruout this study, as was perhaps to be expected, marked varia- tion \vas evident in the effectiveness with which different farmers applied some of the practices studied. No data are presented on this point, but it was clear from close observation of these farms and farm- ers that differences in the timeliness and thoroness of applying some of the practices were largely responsible for the variations in their 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 591 effectiveness. A practice that is ordinarily considered superior may in reality bring little advantage unless it is put into operation skilfully, thoroly, and at the right time. Farmers who are striving to bring back to a profitable state farms that have been poorly organized over a period of years, and on which inferior practices have been followed, should not be unduly discour- aged if their efforts are not rewarded fully and immediately. Such farms cannot be transformed in a year or two, but over a period of a decade much can be done. One reason why progress is slow is that it is seldom possible to put into effect all the better practices at once — the complete reorganization of a farm usually requires several years. Another reason is that the effects of some of the best practices are cumulative — they tend to become more pronounced from year to year. Thus the process of reorganizing a farm for profit is one of careful planning for the future as well as for the present. Over a period of ten or a dozen years a relatively unprofitable farm that is carefully reorganized and more skilfully operated will show a definite improve- ment, as has been demonstrated by the experiences of a number of the farmers enrolled in the Farm Bureau Farm Management Service. 592 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, APPENDIX PRACTICES FOLLOWED ON BEST-OPERATED FARMS In the main body of this bulletin the practices used on a large number of farms in north-central Illinois have been evaluated and discussed, mostly from the standpoint of the individual practices themselves. Thus the yields of corn obtained on all the farms follow- ing the practice of working fall-plowed ground early in the spring have been compared with yields obtained where that practice was not followed ; and yields or returns from other practices have been similarly compared. In order to gain an accurate idea of the value of any one practice, the results obtained from following that practice on many farms have been averaged. The attempt has" been all the way thru to get away from the purely personal and instead to show general or average values. But farmers are interested not only in the way one practice works on a great many farms, but also in the way the many practices that enter into the production of one crop or one kind of livestock are selected and fitted together by the best farmers. Several brief accounts are therefore included here, showing how the most successful growers of corn and of oats, the most successful dairymen, poultry raisers, and other stockmen have conducted their businesses. The practices they have actually followed, and that have seemed the most important to them, are the ones listed here. Very naturally some of the practices were not, perhaps, the best that might have been followed. However, they happened to be the ones actually followed by those who got the best total results. Corn Practices on Farm With Highest Corn Yields Corn yields on one farm averaged 63.5 bushels an acre during the ten years from 1925 to 1934, whereas the average on fifty-seven farms, most of which had similar soil, was only 47.6 bushels. The methods which enabled this farmer to produce 4 bushels of corn where most men produced only 3 were outlined by him as follows: Rotation. Grows sweet clover and alfalfa on one-fourth of the land each year in a four-year rotation of corn, corn, oats, and sweet clover and alfalfa. Manure. Hauls out all manure from week to week, winter and summer. Spreads 12 to 15 loads per acre on thinner parts of fields. Spreads winter manure on stalk fields ahead of second-year corn. Spreac's summer manure on pasture ahead of first year corn. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 593 Seedbed preparation. Considers thoro working of the seedbed very important. Fall plon'ing. — Whenever possible, fall-plows fields having black clay loam soil. Disks fall-plowed land as early as possible in the spring — that is, immediately after sowing oats. Disks plowed land again and again, when- ever weeds start, if the condition of soil permits. Double-disks and harrows ahead of the corn planter. Uses roller and harrow ahead of planter if the ground is loose. Never works the soil when it is too wet to crumble when pressed in the hand. Spring ploiving. — Plows all ground as early as possible. Plows only deep enough to do a good job of covering residues. Double-disks as deep as possible before plowing. Usually double-disks twice where manure has been applied and stalks are not removed. Keeps a section of harrow on the plow so that all soil is harrowed twice as it is plowed. Disks whenever weeds start. Double-disks and harrows ahead of the planter. Uses roller and harrow ahead of the planter if ground is cloddy or loose. Cultivation. Usually does not work ground at all after the corn is planted until it is up and large enough for row cultivation. Sometimes — not often — uses rotary hoe to break a crust before regular cultivation begins. Cultivates shallow with sweep type of cultivator shovels. Cultivates only often enough to kill weeds, usually three times. Has used a power cultivator for four years. Enables him to get over the corn rapidly and kill weeds when they are in the stage to be killed most readily. Seed. Uses Krug corn of his own selection from seed purchased several years ago. (Since this study closed he has changed to hybrid corn.) Picks seed in field before frost, stores on racks in a furnace-heated house, and culls as it is placed on racks. Tests seed for germination and disease, culling the seed as it is taken from racks to test, and again after testing eight or ten kernels from each ear. Plants so as to get a stand averaging 2i/$ to 3 stalks per hill. Plants in rows 3 feet 4 inches each way. Corn Practices on Ten Farms With Highest Corn Yields A summary of the corn-growing practices followed by ten of the farmers who produced the highest yields of corn during the ten-year period 1925-1934 is given in the following outline. The average yield from all the 8,348 acres of corn grown on these ten farms during the ten years was 55.9 bushels an acre. A considerable amount of the 594 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, acreage was rented land on which no soil-improvement practices had been followed. Rotations. All ten of these farmers follow on their home farms regular rotations that include sweet clover or alfalfa one year in three to five years. Several have used three-year rotations to build up soil fertility rapidly, then after one or two rounds with sweet clover have adopted four-year rotations. Pasturing sweet clover one year in four by cattle or sheep has practically eliminated vines on these and other farms. Manure. Most of these ten farmers keep manure hauled out winter and summer, and most of the manure is put on fields that will be in corn the following year. Some spread the manure rather heavily on the thinner parts of the fields, others spread only five or six loads per acre on all of each field once in the rotation. Limestone and phosphate. Limestone has been used wherever needed in order to grow sweet clover and alfalfa. Rock phosphate has been used on about half of the total acreage of these farms. On some of the farms none has been used; on others all of the rotated land has been covered. Seedbed preparation. Fall-plowed ground is harrowed or disked as soon as possible after oat sowing on nearly all the farms. Both fall- plowed and spring-plowed ground is disked by most of these farmers whenever weeds start. Spring plowing is done as early as possible on most farms. Ground to be spring-plowed is disked before plowing on nearly every farm. Where manure has been spread on stalk ground, the manure and stalks are thoroly disked into the soil before plowing. In spring plowing most of the ten farmers drag a section of harrow behind the plow. Some prefer instead to follow with the harrow from two to four hours after plowing. Several use a roller and a harrow ahead of the planter if the ground is cloddy or loose. A few are beginning to use a spring-tooth harrow ahead of the planter, especially where first-year sweet clover has been plowed in the fall. Cultivation. While about two-thirds of these ten farmers harrow corn ground after planting, the two who produced the highest yields during the ten years do not harrow corn either before or after it is up. Five of the ten farmers use only straight or spear-point shovels. One uses shovels the first two times and lays by with blades. Three use blades. One uses sweep shovels. Several make a practice of going thru fields with hoes after cultiva- tion to cut out any weeds missed by cultivators. Seed. Krug corn, developed in this area and well adapted to local conditions, was used almost exclusively on these ten farms during the ten years covered by this study. One of the farmers, however, used Sommer Yellow Dent for part of his crop. And at the end of the ten- year period (1934) several were trying hybrids. Several of the farmers made a practice of buying, every one to three years, half a bushel or 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 595 more of seed grown from George Krug's own selection, and then of selecting seed from the crop grown from this new seed. All ten farmers are particular about seed selection, storage, and careful culling. About half test each ear for germination and disease. About half treat seed with one of the dust treatments for the control of seedling diseases. Oat Practices on Four Farms With Highest Oat Yields Of the fifty-seven farmers who were in the accounting service thruout the ten years, the four who produced the highest yields of oats during the ten years had average yields of 50 bushels an acre. The more important practices followed by these four farmers were the following: Rotations. All four follow regular rotations which include legumes at least one year in four. Fertilizer. Three of the four feed most of the grain they produce, and make careful use of manure. All four have applied more than the average amount of rock phosphate applied on the farms in the Farm Bureau Farm Management Service. Seed. All four insist on early seeding. Gopher variety was used the last few years of the study on all four farms, tho lowar yielded better on several other farms in 1934. Three of the four stress thoro cleaning of seed by screening and fanning. All four treat seed for smut at least every other year. Dust treatment was the most common treatment during the last five years of the study. Dairy Practices on Four Farms With Most Profitable Dairy Herds The four most profitable dairy herds during the ten-year period studied returned $192 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed, which is $43 more than the average dairy herd returned. Only a small part of this advantage was due to better prices for dairy products from these four farms. In accounting for their success all four of the owners of these herds emphasized the following points: Herd improvement. All four herds were in dairy herd improve- ment associations during most of the ten years. Low-producing cows are sold and replaced by heifers from high-producing cows. During the last three years of the period milk production in these herds averaged 8,380 pounds per cow per year — about 1,140 pounds above the average of all dairy herds. One herd of ten purebred cows averaged 417 pounds of butterfat per cow during the last four years of the study. All four farmers used purebred sires with known production records back of them. All four are careful to select sires that have better records back of them than the cows with which they are to be mated. 5% BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Feed. All feed carefully balanced grain rations and feed in propor- tion to milk production. During the last few years of this study the prices of dairy products were low, and the tendency was to feed only a light grain ration while the cows were on good legume pastures. Comfort of cows. Quiet handling and regular milking and care of all cattle is emphasized about as much by these men as the matter of good stock and careful feeding. The comfort of the cows is given special attention on these farms. Practices Followed by Two Farmers Successful With Beef-Cow Herds According to the experiences of a few farmers who have been successful with beef-cow herds, there is good opportunity for many corn-belt farmers to increase their net incomes by putting a few good- quality beef cows on their farms and then giving them careful atten- tion. Beef-cow herds must be well handled in order to be profitable. During the ten-year period covered by this study, one herd of Angus cattle returned an average of $110 for each hundred dollars' worth of pasture, hay, silage and grain fed, whereas the average return from beef-cow herds was only $91. The methods used in handling this particular herd of Angus cattle were as follows: Quality. The 32-cow herd was started with good purebred stock — three cows, a heifer and a heifer calf — about fifteen years ago. The sire has always been of the best type from a good breeding herd. Calving. Cows are bred so that calves will come during March and April. About 90-percent calf crops are obtained. Nonproducing cows are sold. Calves are castrated just before going on pasture with the cows the last of May. Feed. Cows and calves are summered on untillable bluegrass pasture and on rotated sweet-clover pasture. Cows are wintered in stalk fields with no protection except some timber pasture and a high railroad grade that serves as a windbreak. In late winter and during calving time cows are fed some corn fodder or silage. Calves run with cows on pasture without grain during the summer and fall. They are weaned in November, and full-fed in drylot until finished in June, July, or August. They are fed shelled corn, oats, soy- bean oil meal, and alfalfa hay. Marketing. Some of the calves are sold to 4-H club members, but most are fed for market. One year seventeen head of steers and heifers were sold at an average weight of 933 pounds. In regard to length of feed and time of selling, this farmer confers with the cattle salesmen for a farmers' livestock commission company. Quiet handling. The quiet handling of cows and calves is very apparent on this farm. Another farmer who did well with his beef cows had a small herd 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 597 of about ten cows on a 240-acre grain farm. This herd returned $134 per hundred dollars' worth of feed fed during the ten-year period, which was $43 (47 percent) more than the average beef -cow herds paid for their feed. During the ten years this herd returned for the same amount of feed $2,610 more than the average beef-cow herd. The owner emphasized the following practices: Quality. The cows in this herd are large, good beef-type cows, and the sire is purebred and always well selected. Feed. The cows are summered on clover pastures and carried thru most of the winter in the clover fields and the stalk fields. After March 1 until grass comes, clover hay and usually a little grain are fed. Some winters no grain was needed. Calves come in April, run with the cows without grain, and usually are sold in November at weights of 500 to 600 pounds. Some years the calves are fed in drylot during the winter and sold the following summer. Calving. The herd is kept healthy and about 90-percent calf crops are obtained. Nonproducing cows are sold. Practices Used by Four Stockmen Who Purchased Feeder Cattle Purchased feeder cattle paid an average of $131 for each hundred dollars' worth of feed fed on four farms where cattle were fed con- sistently thru the ten-year period studied. One feeder obtained $158, or $27 above the average, for each hundred dollars' worth of feed fed. He summarized his methods in these words: "I do not produce crops to feed cattle, but feed cattle to market crops more profitably and to carry out an efficient plan of farm management." Some practices that he considers most important are the following: Buying. Buys and sells thru a farmers' livestock marketing agency, which he has patronized since it was started. Buys light-weight calves of good quality in the fall while prices are relatively low and there is a large assortment from which to choose. Feeding. Feeds calves according to the amount or kind of feed on hand. Alfalfa hay is the foundation of all rations. Feeds green corn direct from the field, cut with a field silage cutter. This method elim- inates much labor, waste, and storage costs, and provides a ready-made seedbed for wheat. The silo is filled for winter feeding. Marketing. Time of selling varies with the market situation. He prefers to sell a few calves at a time as they arc ready for market. Another feeder who has fed consistently and profitably summarizes his methods as follows: Buying. Purchases extra-quality calves, and sticks to the same breeding from year to year. Usually gets the calves about October 20 to 30, fills them with grass and hay, and begins to feed. 598 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Feeding. Feeds calves all they will eat from the start and never roughs them thru the winter. For the first four months he feeds all the grain the calves will clean up in fifteen to twenty minutes. He feeds much roughage in addition, preferably corn fodder, for it develops capacity for a large amount of feed. He always feeds a balanced ration. Prefers linseed oil meal at the rate of about 2 pounds a day. He feeds calves regularly at the same hours each day, and sees that each calf is at the bunk getting its share. This extra care leads to uni- formity in finish and in dressing percentage. Grows barley and soybeans in the crop rotation, but sells them and buys corn, whenever the price relations make the exchange profitable. Buys concentrates and some corn in quantities when they seem cheapest. Marketing. Puts cattle on market when the class and quality of beef he has is wanted more than other classes, usually during July and August. Always markets the same quality of beef; a practice which has given him a reputation that helps sales. A third feeder who has been particularly successful and has missed feeding cattle only one year in eighteen, lays emphasis on quality of feeders bought, good feed, comfortable quarters in winter, and guidance in buying and selling thru a farmers' livestock commis- sion company. In general he follows two plans of feeding, depending on feed supplies. One plan is to buy calves in the fall, get them on full feed by November, and sell in late spring or early summer. The sec- ond plan is to buy yearlings in May and carry them thru the summer and fall on grass alone if the pasture is good. If the pasture is a little short, some grain is fed. In either case they are put on feed the last of December after cleaning the stalk fields and are sold as heavy well-finished cattle in August or September. A fourth feeder who fed cattle nine of the ten years covered by this study has developed a rather definite program which differs in some respects from the others recorded. "In the first place," he explains, "I like cattle." This he regards as particularly important. His methods are in general the following: Buying. Feeds the same class of cattle in the same way year after year, following the rule that "practice makes perfect." He prefers good to choice heavy calves or light yearlings rather than light calves. Buys in August or early September. Feeding. Feeds the driest hay on the farm for a day or two. On the second day he turns the calves into pasture for an hour, and thereafter increases the time on pasture a little each day until they are on pasture all the time. Keeps the cattle on grass until about November. Full-feeds on self-feeder from about November until July or August. Feeds ground corn-and-cob rheal mixed with protein concentrate at the rate of 1 : 10 or 1 : 12 in the self-feeder. Uses pea-size oil meal mostly. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 599 Changes to shelled corn about the first of May for finishing the cattle. Feeds silage and a light feed of hay once a day. Marketing. Depends on a farmers' livestock commission company for advice in buying and selling. Practices Followed by Successful Pork Producers One of the most successful producers of pork during the ten-year study, who has raised an average of about 500 hogs a year, has been unusually successful in raising large litters and in keeping down costs for feed, equipment, and labor. His methods are approximately as follows: Breeding stock. Selects brood sows from large (but not excessively large) litters having good mothers. Marks the pigs at birth and keeps records so that selections can be made after the pigs are weaned. Prefers litters of 8 to 10 rather than more. Selects sows of intermediate type rather than those that are rangy or chuffy. Selects purebred boars from large litters from good breeding herds. Selects vigorous boars of intermediate type. Provides for exercise of brood sows by feeding at some distance from sleeping quarters. Farrowing and raising pigs. Spring pigs are farrowed about March 1, so that they may be put on the market at six to eight months of age during August or September when prices are usually best. Fall pigs are farrowed during August, and are pushed along for the March market, which is usually good. Both spring and fall pigs are farrowed in two six-pen brooder houses. One is a stationary hen house converted into a farrowing house; the other is movable. The movable one is made in two sections, each section narrow enough to be dragged thru an ordinary gate. Before sows go to the farrowing pens they are confined closely and sprinkled with a mixture of crankcase oil, fuel oil and a little dip. Sows are placed in farrowing pens a day or two before time to farrow. As pigs are farrowed they are placed in small pens under the brooder-stove hover. There is a separate small pen for each of the six litters. Pigs are put with sow to nurse every two or three hours. They are returned to their pens when thru nursing. When pigs are three or four days old the sows and pigs are taken to an alfalfa or clover field and placed in individual houses. Boars are castrated when only three or four days old, at the time they are taken to the field. Pigs are vaccinated before weaning when four or five weeks old. For spring pigs the alfalfa or clover field is divided into temporary inclosures about 150 by 250 feet in size, each inclosure accommodating four sows and litters in individual houses. In the summer a few more litters per lot are put in lots of about two acres each. 600 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Feeding hogs. Keeps hogs on good alfalfa, clover, or rape as many months as possible. Self-feeds ear corn, or throws it out on ground or feeding floor. Self-feeds tankage and oil-meal; includes alfalfa meal in winter. Pipes or hauls water to field. Uses automatic waterers on platforms with drains to take wasted water out of lot, so as to avoid mudholes. For winter feeding he houses 150 to 200 fall pigs in a deep shed open on the east all the way to the eaves. The shed, built for the purpose, is 28 feet wide, 36 feet long and 7 feet to the eaves. It has a dirt floor, and opens to the east onto a large concrete feeding floor. The corncrib is on the north side of the feeding floor. An automatic waterer and self-feeders for protein supplements are inside the shed. For bedding, corn fodder is used because it does not work up as dusty as straw. Corn fodder is cut as the corn is husked and is shocked outside of the shed for bedding. A shed of this size is ample for about 150 to 200 pigs. Flu has never developed among the hogs on this farm in this type of shed. This feeder handles his hogs quietly and does all he can to make them comfortable. His neighbors are surprised to notice how quiet several hundred hogs on one farm can be. He never calls them. He says that it would scare his hogs to call them, and that he would not have a dog on the place. Comfort, regular care, kindness, sanitation, legume pastures, ear corn, simple protein supplements, plenty of clean water, and produc- tion of good quality hogs in time for the best markets all work together for economical pork production on this farm. Other pork producers whose ten-year records show especially economical production all emphasize good quality of breeding stock of the intermediate type, sanitation, clean water at all times, protein supplements, timely production for good markets, exercise and care of brood sows, and full feed from birth to market. One successful producer marks pigs in all medium-sized litters (seven or eight pigs) having good mothers. When the pigs weigh from 100 to 150 pounds he pens the pigs of each marked litter by themselves. With several such litters penned up side by side, he selects sows from the litters that have made the most uniformly good growth and are of the best marketable types. He places more im- portance on finish than on size, and he prefers a blocky type of boar in order to get an early finish on the hogs. He puts a maximum of ten sows in one field of five acres of clover or alfalfa. For early hog pasture he likes rye. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 601 Practices Followed by Successful Poultrymen One of the most successful poultrymen among the fifty-seven farmers who were in the accounting service during the ten years emphasized the fact that he had "always been interested in poul- try." He listed his methods as follows: Breeding. Uses the best breeding available within reasonable price limits. Hatches eggs from his own flock in his own incubator. Housing. Confines hens thruout the year. Lets them out about 4 o'clock each day when weather permits. Thus he always knows what they eat and where to get the eggs. Keeps pullets and year-old hens in separate houses. Sanitation. Plows runs in fall and plants to annual crops. Keeps houses clean and dry. Cleans houses regularly about once a month. Keeps dropping boards screened. Provides at least three square feet of floor space for each bird. Has clean water in fountains at all times. Warms water in winter. Worms pullets when they go to laying house. Feeding. Balances feeds, mostly home grown, for all poultry. Holds pullets back by cutting down on protein feed a month before placing them in laying house. Feeds pullets cracked corn only, during this period. Feeds pullets laying mash in hoppers and grain in hoppers from the time they are put in laying house until spring. Feeds hens laying mash in hoppers and grain in litter at night. Culling. Culls rigidly at all times. When a hen shows that she has stopped laying, she is sold. Toe punches all pullets and keeps hens only one year. Eggs. Produces good quality eggs, clean, and free from obnoxious odors. A few of the practices emphasized by other farmers who were more successful with poultry than the average are included here also. No attempt is made to list all the practices followed by these men, but only to indicate what each considered most important. One, for example, says that regularity in care of chickens and thoro clean- liness about the poultry houses are important items in his wife's program for poultry. Another, who feeds green feed or sprouted oats during the fall and winter and keeps his flock confined the year around, emphasizes sanitation and cleanliness. One farmer separates the pullets from the cockerels when they are old enough to get along without heat, and puts them in a brooder house in an alfalfa field or cornfield. He feeds the following mash summer and winter: 500 pounds yellow corn free from mold; 250 pounds hull-less oats ; 50 pounds soybean oil meal ; 50 pounds meat scrap; 50 pounds bran; and (in winter) 50 pounds alfalfa meal. 602 BULLETIN No. 444 [August, Another farmer keeps hens confined all but two months. He says, "Egg production goes down when hens go out." He feeds a home- mixed mash the year round, consisting of 100 pounds clean yellow corn; 100 pounds oats; 100 pounds bran; 100 pounds middlings; 100 pounds meat scrap; 25 pounds alfalfa meal; 5 pounds salt. In winter one pint of cod-liver oil is added to each 100 pounds of the mash. One of the farmers insists on sanitation, regular culling, and good feed. He uses a year-round mash consisting of 100 pounds clean yellow corn and 100 pounds of a 26 percent commercial protein feed. One of the most successful is unusually particular about cleanli- ness and regularity in the care of poultry. The chickens get all the milk they will eat in the form of cottage cheese. Peat moss is used in brooder houses because it absorbs so much moisture. One farmer culls by using trap nests three or four times a year. He says, "Raising poultry is an every-day chore and not a rainy-day job." He uses a home-mixed chick starter consisting of 52 pounds clean yellow corn, 25 pounds middlings, 20 pounds dried buttermilk, 1 pound ground oystershell, 1 pound salt and 1 pint of cod-liver oil. Still another is particular about sanitation. He says, "We avoid walking from the old hens to the young stock as much as possible." Hens are confined to a range of about half an acre. Two ranges are alternated, one being farmed each year. Practices Used to Keep Down Labor, Power, and Machinery Costs One of the ten-year cooperators whose farm excelled in all seven of the major factors responsible for differences in incomes during the ten years 1925-1934 (page 549), listed his "rules" as follows: Labor. Plans work so as to use labor to advantage. Uses no more hired labor than is necessary. Keeps one man the year round on the 280 acres that he farms. Hires day labor from time to time as needed. All grain produced is fed on the farm. Power. Uses a tractor for plowing and disking and horses for harrowing and cultivating. Keeps only as many horses as necessary — six work horses. Keeps horses in good condition. When not at work they are pastured on legume pasture. When working they are fed good grain and hay. In winter they run in stalk fields and are fed straw. Machinery. Keeps only the necessary amount of equipment. Buys some used machinery. He skys, "It pays to shop around." Keeps ma- chinery repaired. Buys repairs when work for season is finished. Over- hauls machines in spring. Houses machines when not in use. 1938] FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON EARNINGS 603 Another farmer who has been successful in keeping down operat- ing costs has operated his 120 acres with six horses. He says that his four-year rotation of corn, corn, oats, and alfalfa distributes labor and power needs. He repairs machinery during the winter. Horses harvest their own feed in good legume pastures and stalk fields when not working. Each year he raises one or two colts from mares that do their share of the work. Uses a multiple hitch. Has boys in school haul manure on Saturdays. One of the most successful farmers buys medium-priced nine- or ten-year old horses that are good workers and gentle. He has enough machinery and horses to do good work, but none extra. During rush seasons he runs his tractor day and night. He carries a small note- book and pencil and writes down things that need to be done when- ever he notices them. He says, "If a rainy day comes and I wonder just what to do, I look over my notebook. I have always done this." His heavy repair work he hires done. He either repairs machines before they are put away or makes note of needed repairs and puts the note into the tool box or ties it to the machine. He said, "I had a boxing go out on a cultivator the last day we used it. I got a new boxing and tied it to the wheel before I put the cultivator away." Another of the very best farmers says, "Labor efficiency depends directly upon having and following some well-thought-out plan." As the need for repairs appears he makes note of the need on a card and hangs the card on a hook in the shop. Then he gets parts well ahead of the time needed. He keeps machines well oiled and greased. One man emphasized the use of plenty of the best oil and grease that he can buy. He changes engine oil "religiously," and uses a force oil can. He replaces parts as soon as they become badly worn, and before they break. Another has a more complete shop than is found on most farms. It has room for overhauling machines in winter. Bolts are bought in dozen lots and kept in boxes in assorted sizes. He cooperates with his brother in the ownership of large machines. One farmer boils his wagon wheels in oil and paints them every other year. He has reduced the labor cost for fighting weeds by adopting a rotation of corn, corn, oats, and sweet-clover pasture. "Pasturing the land one year in four has cut out my weed troubles," he said. One man who farms with horses has lost but one mature horse dur- ing the whole time he has been farming. Perhaps one reason is that he takes water to the field during hot weather. Yfi /.fill 1 1 604 BULLETIN No. 444 Several of those whose costs for labor and for horses and ma- chinery are low stated that they did not put in as long hours in the field as some, but that they tried to be regular with their work. Some said that they worked with their hired men whenever possible. 12M— 8-38— 14503 AUTHOR INDEX 605 AUTHOR INDEX 1. ALLISON, L. E. see KADOW 17 2. ALP, H. H., ASHBY, R. C., and CARD, L. E. Studies of the Market Quality of Eggs From 109 Farms in Southeastern Illinois 397-411 3. ANDERSON, H. VV. see KADOW 17, 18 4. ASHBY, R. C. see ALP 2 5. BIGGER, J. H. see DUNCAN 11, FARRAR 12 6. CARD, L. E. see ALP 2 7. CARROLL, W. E., GARRIGUS, W. P., HUNT, G. E., and SMITH, R. A. Value and Use of Oats in the Rations of Growing- Fattening Swine 113-171 8. CARROLL, W. E. see MITCHELL 23 9. CASE, H. C. M. see MOSHER 24 10. DECKER, S. VV., and LLOYD, J. W. The Market for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in Peoria 57-112 11. DUNCAN, G. H., SNELLING, R. O., MUMM, W. J., BIGGER, J. H., and LANG, A. L. Illinois Corn Performance Tests, 1937 349-396 12. FARRAR, M. D., FLINT, W. P., and BIGGER, J. H. Oil Baits for Grasshopper and Army- worm Control 413-420 13. FLINT, W. P. see FARRAR 12 14. GARRIGUS, W. P. see CARROLL 7, MITCHELL 23 15. HAMILTON, T. S. see MITCHELL 23 16. HUNT, G. E. see CARROLL 7, MITCHELL 23 17. KADOW, K. J., ALLISON, L. E., and ANDERSON, H. W. Effect of Chemical Treatment of Pea Seed on Nodulation by Rhizo- bium Leguminosarum 1-12 18. KADOW, K. J., and ANDERSON, H. W. Damping-Off Control, an Evaluation of Seed and Soil Treatments 289-348 19. KLAAS, HELEN see WOODRUFF 30 20. LANG, A. L. see DUNCAN 11 21. LLOYD, J. W., and WEAVER, B. L. Fertilizer Experiments • with Greenhouse Tomatoes. . 273-288 22. LLOYD, J. W. see DECKER 10 23. MITCHELL, H. H., CARROLL, W. E., HAMILTON, T. S., GAR- RIGUS, W. P., and HUNT, G. E. Calcium and Phosphorus Supplements for Growing Swine 13-54 24. MOSHER, M. L., and CASE, H. C. M. Farm Practices and Their Effects on Farm Earn- ings 469-604 25. MUMM, W. J. see DUNCAN 11 26. SMITH, R. A. see CARROLL 7 27. SNELLING, R. O. see DUNCAN 1 1 28. WEAVER, B. L. see LLOYD 21 29. WIMER, D. C. Composition of Mature Corn Stover as Af- fected by Variety, Soil Type, and Fertilizer Treatment. . 173-272 30. WOODRUFF, SYBIL, and KLAAS, HELEN. A Study of Soybean Varieties With Reference to Their Use as Food 421-467 /rid 1. 1 606 INDEX INDEX PAGE Armyworm, control by oil baits 413-420 Bluegrass, soil improvement value in relation to net income per acre 557-559 Bonemeal, value as calcium supplement for swine 28-33 CALCIUM AND PHOSPHORUS SUPPLEMENTS FOR GROWING SWINE 13-54 literature cited 53-54 see also Contents in bulletin 14 Cattle, beef and dairy, relative profitableness , 511-515, 578, 579 see also Contents in bulletin '. 472 Chickens, see Poultry Chinch bug damage to corn 355, 386-388 Clover, sweet, forage yield compared with other pasture grasses 556-557 Corn, feed for swine, compared with oats, see OATS, VALUE AND USE IN THE RATIONS OF GROWING-FATTENING SWINE Corn, production practices 480-500 see also Contents in bulletin 471 Corn hybrids, performance tests in 1937 349-396 CORN PERFORMANCE TESTS, ILLINOIS, 1937 349-396 see also Contents in bulletin 350 CORN STOVER, COMPOSITION OF MATURE 173-272 list of tables and charts 271-272 literature cited 257 summary and conclusions 252-256 see also Contents in bulletin 174 Crop rotation, relative profitableness of different systems 556-563 Crop yields, effect on income 556-563, 570-572 Cropping systems, see Crop rotation DAMPING-OFF CONTROL: AN EVALUATION OF SEED AND SOIL TREATMENTS. . 289-348 bibliography 344-348 summary and conclusions 338-340 see also Contents in bulletin 290 Egg production, see EGGS, STUDIES OF THE MARKET QUALITY EGGS, STUDIES OF THE MARKET QUALITY FROM 109 FARMS IN SOUTH- EASTERN ILLINOIS 397-411 summary and conclusions 411 see also Contents in bulletin 398 Farm earnings, factors affecting, see FARM PRACTICES Farm labor costs, factors affecting 579-582 Farm management, see FARM PRACTICES Farm operation and organization, see FARM PRACTICES Farm power costs in relation to rate earned 583-586 FARM PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON FARM EARNINGS 469-604 summary and conclusion 587-591 see also Contents in bulletin 471-474 Farm prices, factors affecting 574-579 Farms, relative profitableness of different types 563-570 FERTILIZER EXPERIMENTS WITH GREENHOUSE TOMATOES 273-288 conclusions 288 literature cited ,. 287 see also Contents in bulletin ...,-. 274 Fertilizer treatment, effect on composition of mature corn stover, see CORN STOVER Flours soybean, compared 451-452 INDEX 607 PACK Frosts, dates of killing in latest spring and earliest fall 193-196 Fruits, marketing in Peoria, survey 57-112 Fungi, cause of damping-off, see DAMPING-OFF Grasshoppers, control by oil baits 413-420 Hogs, see Swine Limestone, value as calcium supplement for swine 28-33 Livestock system, relative profitableness, compared with grain system , 563-570, 572-574 Lodging in corn 355, 370-371, 376-379, 389-390 MARKET FOR FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN PEORIA 57-112 summary 102-105 see also Contents in bulletin 58 Marketing, see Eggs, Fruits, Vegetables Mineral mixtures, complex vs. simple for swine 22-27 Nodulation, effect of chemical treatment of pea seed 1-12 Oats, production practices 500-510 see also Contents in bulletin 471-472 OATS, VALUE AND USE IN THE RATIONS OF GROWING-FATTENING SWINE. .113-171 list of tables 171 literature cited 168 summary 166-167 see also Contents in bulletin 114 OIL BAITS FOR GRASSHOPPER AND ARMYWORM CONTROL 413-420 PEA SEED, EFFECT OF CHEMICAL TREATMENT ON NODULATION BY RHIZO- BIUM LEGUMINOSARUM 1-12 discussion and conclusions 10-12 literature cited 12 see also Contents in bulletin 2 Peoria, marketing fresh fruits and vegetables, survey 57-112 Phosphate, rock, value as calcium supplement for swine 28-34 Phosphorus, supplement in ration for swine 13-54 Plant foliage injury from poison baits for insects 417-418 Poultry production, feeding and marketing 531-537 see also Contents in bulletin 472-473 Protein supplement to balance oat rations for swine 126-127 Rainfall, distribution during the growing season of 1928 193-196 Residues, effect on composition of mature corn stover, see CORN STOVER Rock phosphate, see Phosphate, rock Rootworm in corn 355, 370-371, 376-379, 389-390 Rotation, see Crop rotation Seed treatment for control of damping-off 289-348 Seed treatment of pea seed, see PEA SEED, EFFECT OF CHEMICAL TREATMENT ON NODULATION Seedlings, seed and soil treatment for control of damping-off, see DAMPING-OFF Soil characteristics of corn testing fields, see CORN PERFORMANCE TESTS Soil management practices on corn testing fields, see CORN PERFORMANCE TESTS Soil treatment for control of damping-off 289-348 Soil type, influence on composition of mature corn stover, see CORN STOVER Soybean oilmeal, protein concentrate for swine 22, 24 SOYBEAN VARIETIES WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR USE AS FOOD 421-467 literature cited 454-455 summary 453 see also Contents in bulletin 424 ur.u 608 INDEX PACK Soybeans, vegetable chemical analysis 441-448 methods of preserving 448-451 Swine calcium and phosphorus supplements 13-54 oats, value and use in rations 113-171 production practices 515-531 see also Contents in bulletin 472 Tankage, protein supplement for swine 22, 23, 127-128 Timothy, soil-improvement value in relation to net income per acre 557-559 Tomatoes fertilizer experiments 273-288 yields from different fertilizer treatments 273-288 Vegetable seedlings, seed and soil treatments for control of damping-off, see DAM PING-OFF Vegetables, marketing in Peoria, survey 57-112 DIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA C002