Historic, archived document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. Washington, D. C. April 25, 1924 TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT OKLAHOMA, KANSAS, NEBRASKA By H. R. TOLLEY, Agricultural Economist Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and W. R. HUMPHRIES, Assistant in Agricultural Engineering Bureau of Public Roads CONTENTS Description of areas . Farms operated with one tractor and horses Size and age of tractors SNORE oe San 2 Ad's Phd top Riel. alte Gal Nees BRE BAC bY SE Work done with tractors Work done with horses Horse labor equivalent of tractor work Proportion of work done with different forms of power Work stock needed in addition to tractor Cost of keeping work stock Cost of using tractors Reliability of tractors Annual cost of power for drawbar work Changes after purchase of tractor Owners’ opinions regarding use of tractors Farms on which tractors were not owned Number of work stock Cost of keeping work stock Annual! cost of power for drawbar work Changes between 1918 and 1921 Opinions concerning tractors Cost of power and man labor for different operations Farms on which no horses were owned WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1924 apn SP Re Pa re Pee eee * edly i a . — | ~ 2 oo 24. oT . ~~ Washington, D. C. April 25, 1924 TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT, OKLAHOMA, KANSAS, NEBRASKA. By H. R. Totiey, Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and W. R. Humpuetiss, Assistant in Agricultural Engineering, Bureau of Public Roads. »] D] CONTENTS. Page. | Page. Description of areas... .. SSAA an eee ae 4 | Farms operated with one tractor and horses— Farms operated with one tractor and horses. . 5 continued. size and ace of tractors... 5.22... 2.0.25. 6 Changes after purchase of tractor.......- 43 Number, of work stoéke< ie. si... 2 eee Uf Owners’ opinions regarding use of tractors 49 Work done with tractors. ..-......-.-.. 8 | Farms on which tractors were not owned. - 50 Work done with horses.................- 19 INumibercofswork: st0ck=.- =~. . =5.5-5.4--5 50 Horse labor equivalent of tractor work... 22 Cost of keeping work stock...........- 53 Proportion of work done with different Annual cost of power for drawbar work. - 54 {OLIMSTOMPOWEFS 2 80) 25. 1a k oS 23 Changes between 1918 and 1921......._.. 5d Workstock needed in addtition to tractor. 26 Opinions concerning tractors. ..........- 56 Cost of keeping work stock.............- 28 Cost of power and man labor for different Costioiusine tractors. 2-222. 2.2 ee 32 OVCTAONS Ss c2 tee ae oy) 56 Reliability of;tractors.......2..505.2.-22- 38 | Farms on which no horses were Owned...... 57 Annual cost of power for drawhbar work. . 38 | Farms on which twotractors were owned..... 58 During August and September, 1921, the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Kansas State Agricul- tural College, end the College of Agriculture of the University of Nebraska, made a study of the use of power on 390 farms on which tractors were owned, in northern Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska.! A personal visit was made to each farm and the following data ob- tained: (1) Work done during year with tractor; (2) work done during year with horses; (3) cost of using tractor; (4) cost of keeping work stock; (5) changes in operation and organization of farm after pur- chase of tractor; (6) opinions and ideas concerning use of tractor. The investigation also included 85 farms‘on which tractors were not owned, but which were comparable in size to those on which tractors were being used. These were visited to obtain data which would afford a direct comparision between costs and practices on farms where tractors were owned and on farms of similar size and type where they were not owned. 60589°—24——1 2 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Three areas were selected for the investigation: (1) Harper Count Kansas, and Alfalfa County Okla., hereinafter referred to as the south- ern area; (2) Thomas, Sheridan, Trego, Gove and Logan Counties, Kans., hereinafter referred to as the western area; (3) Phelps and Kearney Counties, Nebr., hereinafter referred to as the northern area. The location of these areas is shown in Figure 1. A report was obtained from any tractor owner willing and able to give the desired information provided he had owned his tractor for at least one year and was using it for drawbar work. A few of the men interviewed were using two tractors and a few did not own any horses. The farms on which tractors were not owned were selected so that their average size would correspond as nearly as possible to the average size of the farms on which tractors were owned. In each area, how- Se aA ie Ce min nN OK LAHOMA L_] Fig, 1.—Areasin which investigation was made. ever, tractors were in use on a majority of the larger farms and it would have been difficult if not impossible to find nontractor farms equal in number, size, and type to the farms on which tractors were owned. Table 1 shows the number of farms surveyed in each area classified according to the type of power used. The different classes of farms are discussed se parately in the following pages. TABLE I.—Number of farms of different classes visited. Le . South- | Western | North- Type of power. ernarea.| Area. | ernarea. | Total PML OMANI OTROS hb ele eee aco come eee te eee ee 120 107 127 | 354 Horses only... ..- Be bei ak Sie oa othe one's Gras sw aoe ae ee 26 31 28 | 85 weraeLOr png NO NOTSEs, 001 occu i wads ot cbccataoc Gee eee eee 4 11 0 15 POO LOIS SUG. NIOTSES 2 ob os Pel. Se eee 6 13 2 21 US i a ine Senne Bae, Gedo oo Je oe. 156 162 157 475 TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 3. The more important points brought out in the investigation con- cerning the 354 farms operated with one tractor and horses are sum- marized in Table 2, and concerning the 85 farms operated with horses only, in Table 3. TaBLE 2.—Details of operation on farms on which one tractor and horses were owned. TS TREPOT EGE 1! LETC ae ee SLAG CHT J Sse e oS Se SH Ona Sa ener amen acres. . SIS CED UO ie 1 OS ee eee Goes si Areain- wheat (seeded 1920). .....2...02.2--2-25--F-cs--ee- do.-...| Tractor work per year: Wrawipam (home fanm')=..:-2:2-s2s 22.2. s6a-- 32-225 hours. . Oli ACHOMONATIN) = soo. clot ea ob apse dade stamens dozs--| USOT. 22 $5 eee Se SEE gOe eet G0 322- SRG. as (eee a re ES @ozz=- Fuel per year for drawbar work: CASHING ae

. Se a See oe Ss aia de aa dollars. - Pers OUIe ees neo so eRe ete Sn eos eee do=te WMionkesLOcksper farms oso. 2 oSec Ses 5. cSaos Seas 3 number. . -Horse labor: HeeEaiHT POR ViCAl—. =. sm2 S552 soso sces tones Sen encee hours. - permieaukpelny Calse-s 0 See Ss.) ete sb eseenss don 2: Cost pemhour othorse labors = - 6. 52552-22222. fe cents. - Annual feed consumption, per head: Grane ss sees ae re a Se Ok msn Se. tee te ets pounds. . ciygan mOuenare 20 ee 7 ee sos o22 eo. bs eeee Sass does. EE StHETE: a 5 Sa eee ie ae ge eer months. . Cost of keeping work stock: Tein isting 22 Sa ee eee ae ee ei eae dollars. . TEP NED GL ye ete SRS See OS ee ee a 0) Cost per year of power for drawbar work: Lota Gractorand ‘work stock): - 2.2.22 222.2. -2-2<- dollars. - PGrChOWMACLG sever ot k= Sc atict tel olde ene ec cut oosee GO=ae Horse labor equivalent of total drawbar work: BCT aia seen 2 a2 yee noc Ses eo oda eS aise oes hours. . IRETECLOMACT CMS S45 -E es © tc ho 5,2 SPSS. ee eos Sede dors =: Proportion of total drawbar work done with tractors.per cent. - Increase in size of farm after purchase oftractor.--...- crop acres. . Work stock per farm if tractors were not used........-- number. . Necessary work stock per farm in addition to tractor-..-.-.- do Crop acres per horse: Relonrepiunehase OL WACLOIS..22 =< ac =22 5. >-oein2s-2 -ots2see +s NEAL on 8 Seo Ce See Oe ee ees eee PO tentialierop.acres per NOTS@>-_-.....-.- = a2 2. see -s2--s25-- Reduction per head in feed for work stock after purchase of trac- tors: SGU Alid eee AO eo eset oa Sains micis o sin sie Seiwieiseeo per cent. EA ygAMOULOMPN ARE? Bane 8 oo 28 Sakis soe este a closes dos: Reduction in family and regular hired labor.......... months. . Net increase in combined cost of power and labor due to using pict ObGee eater ee 2S Saas shoe a cies atiode:e dollars. . Proportion of owners who charged tillage practice. ...per cent. . Proportion who believed tractors responsible for increased yield SSTSACLO See ee i ed) ye 5 5a SoS oe Ge geek Sess per cent. - Proportion who believed present tractors would be profitable = 22cd00s S54 eGo SSO Oee Beng ee ee ee ee per cent. - Proportion who intend to buy others.................... do.... 1 Increase. Southern} Western | Northern) Total or area. area. area. average. 120 107 127 | 354 326 842 377 500 262 516 299 352 213 407 | We 259 365 350 | 203 | 302 24 19 | 33 | 26 50 5S Al 48 439 422 277 376 531 345 111 324 301 379 332 336 57 54 34 48 1, 499 1,556 1,375 1, 472 6.8 6.3 7.4 6.8 106 46 57 71 588 520 357 484 1.61 1.49 1.76 1.60 7.5 10.2 7.4 8.3 3, 690 3, 816 4, 206 3,914 472 393 566 482 22 18 13 17 1,529 1,247 2,421 1,765 2, 600 2,440 3, 200 2, 820 6.6 7.4 4.5 6.1 583 522 517 541 76 50 69 64 Baya 1,042 874 1,025 4.47 2.02 2.92 3.17 6, 812 7, 483 5,930 6, 670 26 15) 19 19 45 46 28 40 18 98 44 S 10.1 1552 9.6 ATS 7, 5.7 7.4 6.5 6.5 26 34 31 30 35 51 40 42 46 70 46 | 54 20 27 Ale ( 21 12 15 6 7 ay 2.9 0.8 1.4 343 157 172 206 69 62 65 66 29 14 20 21 78 84 65 75 15 85 59 72 4 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. TABLE 3.—Details of operation on farms on which tractors were not owned. | Southern| Western | Northern! Total area. area. area. farms. Pum Her Of fAXWIS... 0» + «<2 aisin wn anne semana epee ae See 26 3L 28 85 BEV OL fad. Ono Winnie noe Sn ono. 2-5 Pee ee eee acres. - 316 779 376 504 Prop aces Per larm.. <2). fo. 2... oe keen eee eee go... 250 446 288 334 Area in wheat (seeded 1920)... 2. 2 sto eee oes do.... 196 323 164 232 RVOLEStOCK per farm: -.: sess... ee see eee number. . 9.8 12.2 9.3 10.5 wae per head .25-.0.2 +. eka! - Jeers eee eee dollars. - 108 71 111 94 Necessary work stock per farm....................... number. . 9.8 1 ies 8.7 10.1 Cost of keeping work stock: Rar farm: -.. 2. bo oatect ba eeee ee aan Soe ee eee dollars. . 838 670 608 701 BU OA = acc we Ue 4 Cotes east s © a ae eee eee do.... 84 54 65 66 Annual feed consumption, per head: RETO oc ek ns 2 Becton Ste hes en, eee a pounds. . 2,073 1,780 2,927 2,246 Pay. And DOGCRAEe. see sg s canes ae oes See eee doz22 3, 160 3,140 3, 060 3,140 MASULITO! 2555 Fone cnt cane nea seei eae condemn ee months. . 6.1 6.4 3.9 5.5 Horse labor: BET AAD MON YORI acter aos oa oe ee eee See ee hours. . 6,819 6, 658 5, 561 6,346 PELMNGAG“VEL VOal 6.2 ds 35 sae ye oe eee ee doz: 709 565 610 624 ast per hour of horse labor: .-- .: 8-50. cecseso- ees eee cents. . 13 10 12 11 Increase in size of farm 1918 to 1921.............-... crop acres. . 9 78 42 45 Crop acres per horse: Reh See cr Ba nd. Soe eee ee ee doe 3 25 33 28 30 NOP Ae NL. 2 poe. ee ok ee ee do 26 37 31 32 Crop acres per necessary horse. ...:-....-----s¢<--ssace do 26 38 33 33 DESCRIPTION OF AREAS. Southern area.—According to the 1920 census of agriculture the avearge size of all farms in the southern area was 242 acres, 191 acres of which were classed as improved. On the average 119 acres of wheat, 62 per cent of the improved area, were harvested in 1919. Nearly all of the land is level and suitable for cultivation. Rainfall is usually sufficient to produce a crop of wheat. On the farms visited the yield per acre of the wheat harvested in 1921 was 20 bushels. Wheat is practically the only cash crop. Little livestock is kept, and on many of the farms none is raised for sale. Tillage practices in this area are more intensive than in either of the other areas visited. Nearly all the land planted to wheat is either plowed or listed and sledded, and in addition much of it is gone over with a disk harrow. Most of the harvesting is done with the binder and the wheat is usually threshed from the shock. Western area.—According to the 1920 census of agriculture the average size of all farms in the five counties in the western area visited was 737 acres, 527 of which were classed as improved. In 1919 159 acres of wheat per farm were harvested. The topography of much of the land makes it unsuitable for cultivation. This rough land has never been broken and most of it is utilized for grazing purposes. On most of the farms visited a larger part of the land was under cultivation, and the proportion of the area in wheat (see Table 4) was much larger than the average for the area. The rainfall is often insufficient to make a crop of wheat. The average yield in 1921 on the farms visited was 8 bushels per acre, and on many it was 5 bushels or less. Tillage practices are less intensive than in either of the other areas. Less than half of the land in wheat on the farms visited had been plowed previous to seeding, part of the remainder had been disked and on part the wheat had been sowed in the previous year’s stubble without any preparation whatever. Headers are commonly used for ee a TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 5 harvesting. However, in both this and the southern area a con- siderable number of tractor owners use combined harvesters and _ threshers. Northern area.—According to the 1920 census of agriculture the average size of all farms in the two counties of the northern area vis- ited was 245 acres, 215 acres of which were classed as improved. An average of 86 acres of wheat and 58 acres of corn per farm were har- vested in 1919. Corn occupies a greater acreage in this area than in either of the others. It is usually planted with a combined lister and drill without previous preparation of the ground.. Wheat is usu- ally planted on the corn land, much of it with one-horse drills which go between the rows of standing corn. Where the corn is cut the land is usually disked before the wheat is planted. Where wheat fol- lows wheat the land is usually plowed before planting. The average yield per acre of wheat harvested in 1921 on the farms visited was 14 oaha: FARMS OPERATED WITH ONE TRACTOR AND HORSES. Table 4 shows the average size of the 354 farms operated with one tractor and horses and the acreage devoted to different crops in the different areas. TABLE 4.—Average size of farms and crop acreage in different areas. Crop acreage. Area Total Num-) ; | | | | not area Area. _ ber of | Other Giher | _ no : farms. | Bar- Al- |Other Sowed Other Weed a PALS Wheat. tec. Oats. small| Corn.| row falfa.| hay. | feed. \crops. Total.| ped. farm. J jeraum. crops. | | Acres. |Acres.|Acres. Acres.|Acres.|Acres.|Acres.|Acres.| Acres. |Acres.|Acres.| Acres. Acres. i 9 « Southern...) 120 213 od Be 13 4 9 1 a 3| 262| 64| 326 Western....| 107 AGT |. 39 8 | 2| 2% 9 1 8 18 5| 516 | 326) s42 Northern ..| 127 177 is lige: Tp Baro 7 oe er ae hare ry ele | 299} 78| 377 Total_...- | 354 959| 131 10 | iy ae 4 | 5 8 | 8| 3] 352] 148] 500 uf j 1 Cane, Sudan grass, etc. - The average size of these farms is considerably larger than the aver- age size of all farms in the different areas, and the proportion of the area in wheat was somewhat greater than for all farms as shown by census figures. On nearly every farm visited in the southern and western areas, and on most of the farms in the northern area, wheat occupied a greater acreage than any other crop and determined the amount of power kept on the farm. On the average the proportion of the crop area of the farms surveyed in wheat (seeded 1920) was 81 per cent in the Southern area, 79 per cent in the Western area, 59 per cent in the Northern area, and for all farms 74 per cent. The number of farms of different sizes based on crop acreage operated with one tractor and horses in the different areas is shown in Table 5. The size of the farms in the western area was considerably greater than in the other areas, but tillage practices and yields were such that on the average practically the same amount of power was used per farm in each of the three areas. 6 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. TaBLE 5.—Number of farms of different sizes in different areas operated with one tractor and horses. Size of farm (crop | Southern) Western | Northern || Size of farm (crop | Southern) Western | Northern acres). area. | area. area. acres). area. area. area. Less than 160...... $6 | ee 10'}| 480-620..2005 0: 5 | 22 8 Se aan se 36 5 re ae a 2 | 14 | ceeeeee OT ES CU ee ae 34 17 46 ')| ‘300 and over: =>: )-- clo cceoe 12}. a ee si | ee re 18 18 29 tS ye 7 19 if Totals te. 120 107 127 i | SIZE AND AGE OF TRACTORS. The number of tractors of different sizes in use in the different areas and the average size 1n crop acres of the farms on which they were used, are shown in Table 6. The tractors are classified according to the number of 14-inch moldboard plows pulled. The three-plow size predominated in each area. In general the larger tractors were found on the larger farms. TaBLE 6.—Number of tractors of different sizes in use in different areas and size of farms on which they are used. Southern area. | Western area. | Northern area. | All farms. Size of tractor. : | a “ a a % ‘rop 2 rop rop Nr rop Number. Shred, Number. | aaa Number. acres, | Number. see 7 = ver | | | Per farm. Per farm. Per farm. Per farm | 28 202 | 34 | 436 26 239 88 | 303 EMOW 2

Denote re nne cee apiakey 20 36 34 18 74 a pare saa Fea 9 120 Hours of tractor work: farawiar (home farm); Js... see seme oe 279.| 307 | “SSL 452.) “429 | 608.|_-.---]|_.---- 365 Bel nome farm)-) = 22.0: eee oe eee 2 13 30 42 39 ay aes pe Pe Pa 24 BEISU OTIS e $e ho 20S 8k Aa an ee ee 34 63 45 | 42 73 DONE rae ee 50 I PA ay 0)" UE 315 | 383 | 459| 536] 541] 715]......|...... 439 Western - ie as | esis ee re tc | a ne ei, eee Pen | Laer e | 2a as, death ale 29"). Aa. oe 107 Hours of tractor work: Prawpar (nome farm) 2... --.-oces.2 oe-eee oe 213°] 221 |) 228") S85.) 419 |. 464) > 458 350 Pe MGINe TAIT)... os aelsae i. s- Core Reet eine aoe 6 7 19 24 22 yal 24 19 ©Custom:....... Be wait adh bop Oh eee eee 129 64 60 41 47 54 30 53 SN ee OG ae thon, Sead adios Coe ae eee 348 292 307 450 488 539 512 422 Northern sa | : ME MITELO DOD ms pos om 2 sje Swern expec haa Seinls ab 10 27 46 29 7 Boles se Sole ee ease 127 Hours of tractor work: Drawbpar (dome farm) -.... 5.2.0. .uc% 26. 157 | - 429207) eOa8s1> 23H OT et Le od | 203 PAPAIN D GATOL). ..s'one vocec eke eb se ators \4 15 25 56 44 (Cm Ree el eee 33 PeOMies..£.. Staou. Soe TS. ass Soe See. 21 41 34 42 75 oS fl Bets PS, 41 a — P ' . bas —e oon a Ye eee res i el th i a TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 9 Table 11 and Figure 2 show the number of hours tractors were used for different kinds of work on farms of different sizes in the three areas. SOUTHERN AREA Hours of Work Size of Farm (Crop Acres) 160-239...-- YZZZZZ73 400-479....- 480 andover Less than 160 160-239_.__- 240-319-2.2- 320-399_... ee ALL AREAS 354 Fars 22772 | | | | (Bs | gum Drawhar Work = —BeltWork wz Custom Work Fic. 2.—Hours of tractor work per year on farms of different sizes. There was a larger percentage of small machines on the smaller farms than on the larger ones and to this extent the number of hours of work per year is not a true index of the amount of work done by the tractors on the farms of different sizes. The table shows, how- ever, the relative importance of the different classes of work. : The work done annually by an individual tractor depends upon the particular field operations for which it is used, the amount of belt and custom work done, and to a certain extent upon the amount of time it is out of running order when needed, as well as upon the size of the farm. The variation in the number of hours work done during the year by the 354 tractors is shown in Figure 3. The number of hours the different sizes of tractors were used for dif- ferent classes of work is shown in Table 12. The two-plow machines did considerably less belt and custom work in each area than did the larger sizes. For all areas, 88 per cent of the work done by the two- plow machines was drawbar work on the home farm, and only 26 machines, 29 per cent of the total number, did any belt work what- ever. Most of the belt work on these farms is threshing, and the small tractors are not powerful enough to drive most of the threshing machines used. (See p. 15.) 60589 ° —24——_2 10 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. TaBLE 12.—Work done annually by tractors of different sizes. Size of tractor. Area. = : = ‘ _ | Over 4- All 2-plow. | 3-plow. | 4-plow. plow. farms: Southern. OTIS MINDY... oo wine wae eee ee ee 28 73 16 3 120 Hours of tractor work: Draw bar (home farm). .-.. 2533... eee 360 368 384 160 365 Belt (home farm) =. u's: eee eee 3 28 44 14 24 CUSTOM. < oo WS co npcemtenaew onic ae 34 51 68 86 | 50 Dotal. 22.15.00 ogame eae ews eee 397 447 496 260 439 Western Rear figs THIN DEP. 2 x5 sacha eg ee as ee eee 34 49 14 | 10 107 Hours of tractor work: DrawbarGouome layin) ><) ees pene ees ae 344 350 350 | 368 350 DBelGMMOME (ar) see es oo we Soe tet oe ae 7 17 48 24 19 (USTOMI. ec eee oe te ae ee eee 41 67 31 65 53 1) © ee Sane Cees Sank! AT UR | 392 434 429 | 457 422 Northern Harms, NUWMbHEr: +... 2o.0- seb. eee eee 26 85 10 6 127 Hours of tractor work: Draw bar (homie farm)» 22... .o2c-c2, cece eek eee 209 203 233 127 203 Belt (home farm)... esos ee eee 20 33 61 41 33 CUSEOMI. « 5.2 cn foun’ 2S sn oe eee eee 21 40 101 52 41 Total: Bah Ashok So See eee) ee ee ee 250 276 395 220 277 Number of Tractors Hours per Year 50 0 25 50 0 25 50 Less than 200..| 200=399:- -» 400-599__._. 600-799... = ooend over. —_ be &) SOUTHERN AREA WESTERN AREA NORTHERN AREA Fic. 3.—Variation in number of hours per year tractors were used. DRAWBAR WORK. The average number of hours the tractors were used for various kinds of drawbar work is shown in Table 13. In each area they were used more for plowing and listing than for any other kind of work. On part of the farms tractors were used for practically every field operation except haying and cultivating row crops. ‘They were used for drawing corn binders on 3 farms in the southern area, on 7 farms in the western area, and on 2 farms in the northern area. TABLE 13.—Hours per year tractors were used for drawbar operations. Southern! Western Northern All Operation. area. area. area. | farms. ad Hours. Hours. Hours. Hours. Plowing wid listhie so. 05. oe Loi eee 140 141 122 134 Diskine. harrowing, and sledding ......-....-...-5,- 2.2) 127 69 16 70 MARINO TOW CYODS «062 fect mee oe nsk eee eae ee eee () 6 ‘ 4 USING 9) bi eee eer or 42 76 23 45 RPMI SORUNS PTR 2. op ccc ne cece onsen anc n cca eee 54 56 34 48 BMISCOMANIOONS S28 so0.0b ki ot lixvz.ic cbs cle teal eee eee 2 2 1 1 OMS. kins. ctehen le es cence be. eee 365 350 203 302 1 Less than 0.5 hour. TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. igs Plowing and listing.—Table 14 shows the number of acres plowed and listed per farm and the percentage done with tractors. On the average 18 acres per farm were plowed in the spring and 140 acres in the fall. The spring plowing was usually for spring grain or “sowed feed’’ (cane, Sudan grass, etc.), and only a small amount of either of these crops was raised on the average farm. (See Table 14). Listing was not common in any except the southern area. Fall plowing required more power than any other single operation -in each area, and the tractors did a larger proportion of this than any other operation. On many of the farms the tractors did all of the fall plowing and on only a very few farms were horses used for as much as 50 per cent of it. (See fig. 4.) Fic. 4.—The 3-plow tractoris the most common size used. Tractors are used more for plowing and listing than for any other operation. TaBLE 14.—Plowing and listing per farm and percentage done with tractors. : Southern| Western | Northern Average Operation. Area. | area. area. | all farms. Spring plowing: meCOS POY FATHE Will! tractors: .... 2-2 ees ce ce ee ce eee eee 4 23 7 10 Peete MCE eatit WHALHOISES .... <2 2-22 2 ona ncte cen esce ess 9 7 9 8 i.e chem, 1 en Sane eee 13 30 16 8 percentare Gone witht tractors. .............-.-2-----s-2-----2-- 31 77 44 56 Fall plowing: merece or tAlinWiLll SEACLOFS:.-- 0-2. 2-4-2 sts 22.22. --- 111 132 117 119 Berri srar WiLll NOTSOS).. 2205-2 oon nce een ce nee 18 21 23 21 Dn a a ee red ee ee 129 153 140° 140 DeLee CONC Witll WACLOIS.. 2.22.22... 2 fife et see ee eee ed 86 86 S4 85 Listing: Meresperfarm with tractors.....2:..::.5-.2.2.-.202062--24: 44 5 | 0 16 PPP SSESHEMY Wipe NOESCS 2222-125... ae cnet ese nds 31 2 | 0 11 LTS sedis ac AS ee pee ne a 75 | 7 0 27 PECL Are CONG wWilM TTACLOIS..\.-2-2...-.---2.+---222--5--42- 59 | GATS Ses aces 59 12 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. TABLE 15.—Disking, sledding, and harrowing per farm and percentage done with tractors. . Southern | Western | Northern| Average Operation. area. area. area. | all farms. Disking unplowed ground: Single disk— Acres per farm with tractor. ....4..22-.- 2.0.3 (‘) 2 3 2 Acres per farm with lorses .- 9.2.2 2.c.-- 5 omoccepncese 3 13 47 22 tal co! > 528 one ae opie ee ee ee ee 3 15 50 | 24 Percentage done with tractor: <2. 228k ee eee oe a ee eee eee 13 6 8 Tandem disk— | Acres per farm: with tractor. (22-4. 235. Pee sree 22 145 12 56 eves per farm ‘with Tomses 3 Fe cw ck tere tenes 6 14 0 | 6 GE eS ce ene ee a ec er 28 159 | 12 6 Percentage done with tractotscs.2-222 oes esos eae tans eee 79 91 100 90 Disking plowed ground: | Single disk— Acres per farm with tracwor. 2225.26 ses sae. coon 15 0 1 | 5 ‘Acres per farm with horses= 320 ese ee eee ee 8 2 5 5 A a een Sinan a ERLE TIN 8 23 | 2 | 6 10 Pereentage. done with tractor... 5... 32522 e isch ent beep ose ee GON Ss eks: ole soe 50 Tandem disk— | Acres per farm with tract0l.2..< <2: -2-2s--se eee se = 82 | 3 | 3 30 Acres per farm with horses.:. «2... <2. 2 egepuaces 0B. Bi ae cree | 5.7 Crop acres per necessary horse. .......... 37 43 | 46 47 | 47 GAVeree | 46 Western area: | Number of work stock owned...-........|...... G4) 7. 82 | 726" | eae) 2a tas diners 10.2 Cropiacres;per horse =~. <0. see eee ee 34 36 46 62 45.| 57 59 51 Number of work stock needed. .......-..|...-.. AND | DsDy) 6os9. \) Dilole Sabai asa: lone: 7.4 Crop acres per necessary horse. ..........|.....- 49; 51); 59 85 65 80 79 70 Northern area: | Number of work stock... ...4..22h-2ss.- 4.1 LY Yolk CUM) Via < ice (0) ft WA Lg ee |g 7.4 Crop acres perhorse: -2...54552440- 555-058 33 Sia) 39 A ee? fel aa: = mae ie 40 Number of work stock needed. .........- ra ae OW es ok i i al a Be 6.5 Crop acres per necessary horse. -........- titod 43) 47 46 50 AQ (rc seals foe 46 The number of work stock which a man considered necessary de- pended not only on the size of his farm but upon the size and type of his tractor and the particular operations for whicn he considered his tractor satisfactory. Consequently there was considerable vari- ation in the statements as to the number of work stock needed in addition to the tractors on farms of similar sizes. In general the men with smaller farms considered that they needed a proportionally greater number of work stock than did the men with larger farms. The men on the smaller farms, however, were not keeping a greater number of surplus work stock than were the men on larger farms. Of the 56 men in the Southern area with less than 240 acres in crops, 26 considered that they needed 4 horses in addition to their tractors and 12 considered that they needed 2, but only 15 of the 56 were keeping 4 head or less. Likewise, of the 52 men in this area with 240 to 399 acres in crops, 32 considered that they needed 6 head or less, but only 15 were keeping 6 head or less. Of the 22 men in the west- ern area with less than 320 acres in crops, 11 considered that they needed 4 head and 2 considered that 2 horses were sufficient for their needs. However, all but 3 of the 22 were keeping more than 4 head. Of the 37 with 320 to 479 crop acres, 27 considered that they needed 6 head or less, but only 18 were keeping 6 head or less. Of the 37 men TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. pas in the northern area with less than 240 acres in crops, 24 considered that they needed 4 head and one considered that he needed only 2, but only 13 of the 37 were keeping 4 head or less. Of 46 men with 240 to 319 crop acres 36 considered that they needed 6 head or less, but only 18 were keeping 6 head or less. | Table 28 shows the exact number of surplus work stock on the different farms. In all, 158 tractor owners, about 45 per cent, con- sidered that they needed all the work stock they were keeping. One hundred and eighty-one, about 50 per cent, were keeping more than they considered necessary, and the remaining 15 were keeping less than they considered necessary. act 9-25: $43.98 | $6.06 | $4.77 | $0.05 | $0.73 | $5.55} $7.59 | $3.00 | $1.64 | $64.09 Western: 5ssei62 22: 25. 97 5. 44 4.63 02 . 24 5.07 4. 82 1.50 2.98 41.74 Northern: 222. 252.-=. Stasi elt. OF 4.17 . 05 . 83 6. 01 5.31 5. 00 . 96 58. 86 2/0! Pa eS A 35220 7.42 4. 53 . 04 | 58 5. 51 5. 84 3.09 | 1.92 54.18 COST PER FARM OF KEEPING WORK STOCK. Table 34 shows the average annual cost per farm of keeping work stock on farms of different sizes. For all farms the average cost for the year was $541. TaBLE 34.—Cost per farm of keeping work stock on farms of different sizes, 1921. Southern area. | Western area. Northern area, Size of farm (crop acres). Number | Cost per | Number | Cost per | Number | Cost: per offarms.| farm. offarms.|} farm. offarms.| farm. LGC Ta a G0) ee ee ee 20 $350 Qalkeee a 10 $332 LED) CGS ES be hee 08 Oe Seale ae eee eres ee oe ee 36 542 5 $410 27 417 MEO Un ee Be ee eee ee ee 34 614 17 406 46 | 461 eemteeee ne ee ce. 18 | 667 18 395 | 29 | 556 COCO pe a Me hs a Mek, UF 4 BI, - 7 986 19 362 | 7 793 GS Se Se oe ee ee ee ey 742 22 670 8 1,016 Gall BD (PRS oe ae ae eee | |e ea (ee 14 GY {: 7a eens ene, aS PLL DEG! Oye ea hess SS See eee ee een pee enn (a eee a 12 843 j| Sees 6 eee | Total and average................... 120 583 107 | 522 | 127 | 517 ey rr 32 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. COST OF HORSE LABOR. Z ed The cost per hour of horse labor was determined for each farm by dividing the total cost of keeping the work stock by the total number of hours of work done by the horses owned on that farm during the year. For all farms the average cost per hour was 17 cents. In the southern area the cost was 22 cents per hour, in the western area 18 cents, and in the northern area 13 cents. There were wide variations in both the cost per head of keeping the work stock and the hours of work per head, and consequently there were wide variations in the cost of horse labor. On 68, 19 per cent of the 354 farms, the cost was less than 10 cents, and on 78, 22 per cent, it was 20 cents or more. Table 35 shows the cost per head of keeping the work stock and the cost per hour of horse labor on farms where they did different amounts of work per head. In general the cost per head of keeping the work stock was greatest on the farms where they were utilized most fully, but the cost did not decrease in proportion to the amount of work done. On the average the cost per hour of horse labor was least on the farms where the horses did the most work per head. These figures should not be interpreted to indicate that a tractor owner should use his horses on unnecessary work or on work for which the tractor could be used to better advantage just for the sake of reducing the cost per unit of work, but they do show the importance of reducing the number of work stock to a minimum and thus decreasing both the total cost per year of keeping them and the cost per hour of horse labor. TaB Le 35.—Relation of hours of work per head to cost per year of keeping work stock and cost per hour of horse labor. Southern area. Western area. Northern area. Hours per head. Num- | Cost | Cost |Num-| Cost | Cost | Num-| Cost | Cost ber of per per | ber of per per | ber of per per farms. | head. | hour. | farms. | head. | hour. | farms. | head. | hour. WOSS GOAN 200.2. tc ae owes oe 13 $74 | $0.58 16 $42 | $0.37 | AYU ORLY, ea ee ae er 40 71 44 51 18 16 | $54 $0. 16 BIN ORS OO 2 ar as a» Soe ae ae 31 | rb) -15 32 60 me 63 | 70 .14 UDR C LS Ce i ies a SS 26 89 Ai 10 56 . 09 38 78 ig MEATIGUOVON: 0-522 ..ceeeo es 10 | 102 mg! | 5 57 - 06 10 62 07 Total and average. .... 120 76 22! 107 | 50 18 127 | 69 | “ig COST OF USING TRACTORS. Each tractor owner reported the first cost of his machine and estimated the total length of its useful life. The annual deprecia- tion was determined by dividing the first cost of the tractor by its estimated life. The cash outlay for repair parts and expert labor during the year, and the amount of time spent by the owner or reg- . ular farm labor in repairing or overhauling he machine were obtained. Interest was grace at 8 per cent on the average investment. Table 36 shows the average annual charges for depreciation, interest, repairs, and upkee of the tractors of different sizes. he total annual cost of these items for each tractor was divided by the number of hours the tractor was used during the year and to this was added the cost of the fuel and oil used per hour to obtain — the cost per hour of work. The cost per acre for each operation TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. aa was obtained by multiplying the cost per hour by the number of hours required per acre. No charge was made for shelter, taxes, or insurance, but these items would amount to only a small percentage of the total cost. TABLE 36.—Average annual charges for depreciation, interest, repairs, and upkeep of tractors of different sizes, 1921. Annual charge per tractor for— Size of tractor. Number. | 7 | Renal E Farm 7epre- | Interest. eee xpert labor for | Total. | ciation. parts. labor. repairs. | LLNS Sa oe 88 $170 $43 $36 $12 36 $267 27h ee 207 242 68 50 10 8 | 378 LATIN SS Oe ST re ee eee 40 311 88 87 13 4 508 Over RDOWae fe ose toe woe 19 371 112 80 Zs 8 | 576 oi. soe 354 | 239 | 66 | 53 11 ida 376 First cost—The machines used by 36 of the tractor owners had been purchased second hand, and the reports on these machines are not included in most of the following tables and discussions con- cerning the various items of cost. The average first cost of the two- plow tractors which had been purchased new was $948, of the three- plow tractors $1,482, of the four-plow tractors $2,023, of the five- plow and larger tractors $2,505, and of all tractors $1,473. Most of these tractors had been purchased at prices considerably higher than now prevail (1924). (See p. 37.) Infe-—The average estimated hfe of the 318 machines was 6.8 years. An owner’s estimate of the life of his machine depended not only on its condition at the time and the work which he expected to do with it in the future, but also, to a considerable extent, on his opinion as to when it would be more profitable to discard it than to spend more time and money for repairs. Consequently there were wide variations in these estimates. Table 37 shows the average estimated life for machines of different sizes and ages. Evidently there was no tendency for the men who had owned their machines for a short time to overestimate the length of time they would last, since for all except the large sizes the averages for the machines which had been in use 14 months or less were lower than the averages for all machines. TaBLE 37.—Estimated life of tractors of different ages. | 2-plow tractors. 3-plow tractors. 4-plow tractors. 5-plow and larger. Age of tractors sa | (months). Average Average | Average Average Number. estimated |Number. jestimated}] Number. estimated) Number. |estimated life. | life. | life. life. | Years. | Years. | Years. Years. Mean less 5... 5... 33 5.3 76 | 6.6 13 5.6 8 7.5 LTD Sa eee 26 6.3 63 rosy 1l <0) 2 6.0 = pte a ee 16 7.9 32 6.7 9 8.0 3 4.7 ao and OVEr. ==--.-2-- 4 8.0 18 764 3 9.7 1 10.9 | | } 34 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Repairs and upkeep.—The age of a tractor has considerable in- fluence on the annual cost for repairs and upkeep and these costs for two-plow, three-plow, and four-plow tractors of different ages are summarized in Table 38. It is seen that in general the cost for the older tractors was greater than for the newer ones. In determining the repair and upkeep cost for each tractor, repair parts and expert labor were charged at the cash cost and farm labor, that is, the labor of the owner, members of the family, or the regular hired help, at 20 cents per hour. The number of tractors on which there was no cost for any of the three items during the year covered by the investigation is shown in the last three columns of the table. In all, some repair parts had been purchased during the year for 266 of the 318 machines, some expert labor had been used on 91, and some farm labor on 284. A considerably larger percentage of the tractors which had been in use a short time than of the older ones required no cash expense for repairs during the year. TABLE 38.—Annual repair and upkeep costs of tractors of different ages, 1921. | Average expense per tractor Number of tractors for— without cost for— Age of tractors (months). _Number. Fea EN grag TT ce Sa | : xper arm ; | Expert) Farm Parts. | yabor. | labor Total. | Parts. labor. | labor. 2-plow: PRIMLUOSS cence sem J eae are 33 $20; $12 $4 $36 8 22 | 7 [KD SS ease SA ae tae 26 43 15 a 65 4 20 4 eh eee ee a 2 pa 16 66 | 12 6 84 2 | 13 1 SMAHOMOVED | Siasn pase cs02~0e 4 6 | 5 4 15 0 | 3 0 3-plow: | WAS ATIOUIOSS yea eee ee 76 | 29 5 7 47 19 57 | 4 POO DOL totes 5S - 2 ee Sst se| 63 | 59 8 76 7 46 7 DIA RO ee aye A gee AER 32 | 53 | 12 | 8 73 5 20 3 Gund over: !. 0-20) ee 18 91 | 8 6 105 2 12 | 1 4-plow: | NAS AIOSS.. ete. tee seas ee 13 97 | 8 6 111 2 12 3 NS On2O. 3's ko Li ee ee 11 | 90 | 9 | 10 109 0 7 1 244 1S): ee Oe, PRO ea aie oe ae 9 | 86 | 29 | 13 128 | 1 2 1 Romain Over. ..0! eee foes 3 | 85 | 0 10 95 0 3 0 | | | Fuel and oil.—Table 39 shows the amounts of fuel and oil used pet year and per hour for the drawbar work done on the home farm y the machines of different sizes. The average tractor used 660 ‘gallons of fuel per year for drawbar work, 49 per cent of which was gasoline and 51 per cent kerosene. The average cost per gallon of the asoline used during the year covered by the investigation was 25 cents, Be cine’ 17 cents, and lubricating oil, 89 cents. These are somewhat higher than present prices in the same territory. (See p. 31.) TABLE 39.—Fuel and oil used per year and per hour for drawbar work on home farm by tractors of different sizes. | Drawbar Fuel per year. a : \Num-| work - os Oil per | Fuel per, Oil per Size of tractor. . | : | ber. Ud Gasoline. licerosene. Total. al hour. hour. . s | | = __ iad kre Hours. | Gallons. | Gallons. | Gallons. | Gallons. | Gallons. | Gallons. 210 CL ae 2 88 309 | 270 275 545 | 51 1.8 | 0. 16 RE oh, 2. 207 | 296 310 339 649 | 43 2.2 | 15 RIMS eral) Soro 2 40 334 454 | 439 893 | 62 2.7 | -19 Over 4-plow.............- 19 268 465 | 374 839 | 63 e114 A Total and average..| 354 | 302 324 336 | 660 | 48 2.2 | 16 TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 35 The amount of fuel and oil used per acre for the different operations by machines of different sizes is shown in Table 40. Although the larger machines required greater amounts of fuel and oil per hour, there should be no great difference in the amounts required per acre for the different sizes if implements which provide full loads are used. The table shows that there was little difference in the average number of gallons of fuel and oil used per acre for plowing with the different sizes. On nearly all of the other operations, however, the small machines used the least fuel and oil per acre. In alarge measure this was due to the fact that the implements used with the larger tractors did not always provide full loads for them. TaBLE 40.—Fuel and oil requirements per acre for different operations. aT } | 2-plow. | 3-plow. 4-plow. plow | All. Operation. (eee cane 2 ek eee! | Fuel.| Oil. | Fuel. Oil. | Fuel.| Oil. | Fuel.| Oil. | Fuel.| Oil. Gals.| Gals.| Gals. Gals.| Gals.| Gals.| Gals. | Gals. | Gals.) Gals. SCRE ee 2.15 | 0.21 | 2.10 0.15 | 2.20} 0.20] () Cariezos 0.18 oo Sins oe ee eee 2. 28 ZA he Os ee te FZ. OF -15 | 2.03:| 0. 16.| 2.16 .16 Se eee Ona a 00 de 32 208 1. C) (2.8) lel Ise fete 1. 24 . 08 2 PTR me St ee eee f fl Be SW a es . O8 (*) CE eee = 1.18 0g Disking plowed ground. ............---- . 96 06/| .99} .06/] @) () (@) (@) 98 06 Disking unplowed ground............-.- . 80 09; 1.04! .07| .97 () @) | 1.01 08 JA inic. oe ae 46 04; .49; .03] @) Ca ee eee) ae oe .4 03 ie 2. Se ee ee ee Ey il 06 7 .05 77 04 . 69 05 ahh 05 “OL fiird 2 ee . 80 . 06 .81 . 06 ate L06;t @)-f:@) 81 06 CVn ir. 2 ee eee @) | (@) -89} .06) (Q) (1) (4) ) . 89 06 Sie ere ee eee gE A at BS 2:3 -09; (@) Cie eee 1.25 09 1 Less than 10 tractors. COST PER YEAR AND PER HOUR OF USING TRACTORS FOR DRAWBAR WORE. Table 41 shows the average cost per year and per hour of using tractors of different sizes for drawbar work on the home farm in each area. For the entire 354 machines the average cost per year was $484, or $1.60 per hour. The average cost per year varied in the different areas in accordance with the amount of work done per year, and since in general the cost per hour was least for the machines which did the most work (Table 42) the average cost per hour was greatest in the northern area. The costs per hour on different farms using tractors of the same size showed wide variations because of differences in annual deprecia- tion and repair charges, amount of work done during the year, and the amounts of fuel and oil used. EFFECT OF HOURS OF USE PER YEAR ON COST OF USING TRACTORS. Table 42 shows the cost per hour of using two-plow, three-piow, and four-plow tractors, that were used for different amounts of work per year. The annual depreciation, repair, and interest charges did not increase in proportion to the amount of work done with the tractors, and consequently the cost per hour was least for the machines which did the greatest amount of work. These differences are reflected directly in the cost per acre or per bushel of producing crops and show how the man whose farm is so organized and managed that he obtains large use from his equipment | 36 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. can produce at low cost. A farmer should not, of course, endeavor to use his equipment as many days or hours during the year as possible just for the sa iS of reducing the cost per day or hour, for even though the cost per day or hour decreases ah increased use the total cost per year must increase. - TABLE 41.—Cost per year and per hour for using tractors of different sizes for drawbar work. Total : Drawbar | cost per Cot ied Size of tractor. Number. | work per Peete for a eae year. rawbar i kines work = Southern area: Hours. PEI OLS) ps a eae ee 4 SM Me NE eek I er i oe Ses ae 28 360 $447 $1. 24 B=DIOW wat - te See MSL OE a eters eee Aled el eee 73 368 599 1.63 A-plow:- fo osu st ooh See ote ee thee ee ee 16 384 720 1.88 Over 4—plo were. fas tee ON et ee ona et eee 3 160 683 4.27 Ocala. 2 Non Ste Supe at oe en ea el een eee 120 | 365 588 1.61 Western area: PMOW ode tac, hn o oc sett Dae 2 ete an 34 344 426 1.24 PLOW crea ie.- anion sec EE ee ee eee eee eee ee 49 350 512 1.46 AW LOW eo se sapseo orc oe ya Sloan eee ee ee ee 14 350 664 1.90 Over 42plow-< j2 2202 - 5oo ee se nates See eer ee ee 10 368 673 1.83 Motels te a Soe OS eae eee ee ee 107 350 520 1.49 Northern area: P71 0) (0) eee a Renter ae eee Be imate Re pe 26 209 304 1. 46 Bi] 0} (0) ee ae tM IEE CRAM US Sh Pes A tp has cies bay Se 85 203 356 1:75 ADO Wie dengan veins aaa He acy tte ore ae ene ee eae 10 233 487 2.09 Over4-plowe. 2. soe eee es ewe Cee ee ee ean 6 127 377 |: 2.97 Dota tee oe See Se Se ae See oe Nee 127 203 357 1.76 Allareas: PPNOW as oo ores ies, < ein Sa Oe a ee ee eee 88 309 397 1.28 S-DlOW esl ad. 5 td ooo pe ote eee ees cee ene egesacaee 207 296 479 1.62 BET LOW sia. oie cists «pnw Ee SR re or re ee ee 40 334 642 1.92 Oser 4-plow..'- 5220s 2 oete ase eee a ee eee 19 268 617 2. 30 otal. 2. /fc xg a ee eee ae ee 354 | 302 484 1.60 The table indicates that since the amount of work done has only a slight effect on the annual charges for depreciation, repairs, and in- terest charges, a farmer should give prime consideration to the cost of fuel and oil and not to the total cost per hour of use when deciding whether to use his tractor for operations where it is of doubtful value. TABLE 42.—Lffect of hours of use per year on cost of using tractors. Average | Hours of} Cost per | Cost per Number é ‘ hours of | drawbar |} year for | hour for Hours of use per year. Peat use per | work per| drawbar | drawbar : year. year. work. work. 2-plow: mess than! 200... Sa 6) ac ee 16 160 147 $263 $1.79 DY US 08) a ey pee a ee oe ls Pal be Ss Be 42 280 258 365 1.41 BOOM BOOS S.. = Pat ne ace See ae eee 24 494 417 469 ta | EMM ONOVGl nc... i oe ee Some ee eee 6 799 669 689 1.03 3-plow: BECAN REA DOU: Soc. US dans seeks ae ee Seem 47 134 116 357 3.08 PUTCO. ces ok oe. SRE Oe ee eee ee 76 298 232 429 1.85 UT US a aE ete ARR MORI a, MN TR eae peek oa st ak 56 494 399 555 1.39 SRM PANG OVER cc eos cco. oe eta tote cee eee eee 28 744 568 665 74 4-plow: BRCS SMS T AN) sooo ance < owes weet. see oe eee 4 115 96 340 3. 5A EMO IIS tats oh te a ail kre sae Be on od oe eee 13 309 252 580 2.30 See ARENDS ea ea ice aias Peis ms Deeg = ee 15 496 379 687 1.81 Bina dvOVeL- <2 cen. ues Cc eee 8 746 503 809 1.61 aes Pee Aa et —— ee eee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee a i St ee Se ee TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 37 COST OF USING TRACTORS IN 1922 AND 1923. The prices of tractors declined considerably in 1921 and 1922, and prices of fuel and oil were somewhat lower during 1922 and 1923 than during the year covered by the investigation. Tables 43 and 44 show the approximate average cost in 1922 and 1923 of using simi- lar tractors purchased at prices current in 1922 and 1923 and doing the same amount of work as was done by the machines on the farms surveyed. The depreciation figures shown in each table were ob- tained by dividing the first cost during the year by the average estimated life as obtained from the tractor owners. The interest charge was computed at 8 per cent of the first cost. The cost for repairs and upkeep are the same as the 1921 costs obtained from the farmers. The approximate tank-wagon prices to farmers of gaso- line, kerosene, and lubricating oil in these areas during the year ended August 1, 1922, were 21 cents, 12 cents, and 70 cents per gal- lon respectively; in 1923, 20 cents, 11 cents, and 67 cents respectively. The costs for fuel and oil, as shown in Tables 43 and 44, were obtained by charging the amounts used for drawbar work in 1921 at the above prices. TABLE 43.—1922 cost of using tractors. | Southern} Western | Northern All farms | area. | area. area. Syst Le 2 ee ae ee ee dollars..| 1, 100 1, 100 1, 000 1, 065 CE SEEDED et DG en eee years. . 6.8 6.3 7.4 6.8 Ur a ee SO pe eee dollars. . 162 | 175 135 157 a SUTEEG1 SUE Pee Le See ee Ee ee ee ee doz 2-. 50 | 51 45 49 Annual cost Ofrepairs and upkeep --:.------.-:--.----..- dete =| 106 | 46 57 71 Tn: eee do 318 | 272 | 237.00 | 277 Per cent drawbar work is of total........-.----- get arg 83 83 73 80 Annual cost of depreciation, interest, and repairs for drawbar OU" BOT TE, Da en ee ee dollars. -| 264 226 173 222 Annual cost offuel for drawbar work: | VBISG a. Boh tg ie i on ee ae ae Oe ee d0.222 112 72 23 68 USUI SC ee ee Ree ane dos: 36 45 40 40 Cost oflubricating oil for drawbar work ..........--------- do..-: 40 38 24 34 €ost per year for draw bar work ..--.---..--..-.------s---- do....| 452 381 260 364 Post perhourtordraw Dar WOLEK...2. 5s. s2224-.-551...2.22- GO=sce 1. 24 | 1.09 1. 28 1.21 Cest of drawbar work, 1922 percentage of 1921.........-......-.-- 77 73 73 75 TABLE 44.—1923 cost of using tractors. | South- | West- | North- | All erm area. | ern area. | ern area.| farms. 2 lS? COS GUA eae Se re ee ee dollars 1, 100 1,075 960 1, 045 io SSSEOT 03 Oe le I ee years 6.8 6.3 7.4 6.8 PUMP MEMEOrnION._..-.5.. 52-2 - 2 s<-ss=0----2 2 toe dollars. . 162 171 130 | 154 SUITES Stig Rete ee eee ee dor 50 50 44 48 Annual cost of repairs and upkeep.....---...--.----.-.---- de: 5-. 106 46 57 71 Do et a ee do 318| 267 231 273 Percent drawbar work is of total... .--.......s-2.-2:-s2-ee00--s 83 83 73 80 Annual cost of depreciation, interest, and repairs for drawbar Wiis. Ac ea! Bee Aen ae ey sae ies ee ee dollars. . 264 222 169 218 Annual cost of fuel for drawbar work GOEL Eee Og ee er ee os es et adore: 106 69 22 65 LEU STS PG ec ee me Sa Ay A ae eee dos: 33 42 37 37 Cost of lubricating oil for drawbar work................-- doe == 38 36 23 32 Cost per year for drawbar work..........-.....-----.---- do. i... 441 369 251 352 Cast perhoeur, for. draw bar Work... =. ....-2.2..-.2-2-s22 dos. 1.21 1.05 1. 24 1.16 Cost of drawbar work, 1923 percentage of 1921.-..-........-..--. 75 17 70 7 38 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. RELIABILITY OF TRACTORS. The reliability of a tractor has a decided effect on its profitable- ness. ‘To obtain definite information on this point each farmer vis- ited was asked how many days during the year his tractor was out of running order, and for how many days it was needed while out of order. On the average the 354 tractors were out of running order 10.6 days, but were needed for an average of only 2.1 days of work during that time. Some of them had broken down near the end of the season and had not been repaired immediately, and some had been taken down for repairs or overhauling and allowed to remain out of run- ning order for considerable periods when not needed. Two hundred and twelve, or 60 per cent of the total, had been out of order during the year, but 59 of the 212 had not been needed for any work while out of order. The remaining 153 had been needed for an average of about 5 days of work while out of commission. No great difference in reliability was shown among the different sizes. About 61 per cent of the two-plow tractors, 57 per cent of the three-plow, and 50 per cent of the shir alo and larger machines were not out of order when needed at any time during the year. The age of the tractors likewise had no marked influence on their relia- bility. Of 130 machines which had been purchased new and which had been in use 14 months or less, 72, or 55 per cent, had not been out of order when needed, and the remaining 58 had been out of order when needed for an average of 4.6 days. Of 86 machines which had been purchased new and which had been used 27 months or more, 54, or 63 per cent, had always been ready when needed and the remaining 32 had been out of order when needed for 6.1 days on the average. The number of days tractors were out of order when needed in each area is shown in Table 45. In the southern area some time had been lost by about 60 per cent of the machines, in the western area by 40 per cent, and in the northern area by about 30 per cent. Considering only those which had been out of order when needed, the time lost by each machine amounted on the average to 5 days, 4.7 days, and 4.5 days in the southern, western, and northern areas, respectively. : TABLE 45.—Days per year tractors were out of order when needed. Number out of order when needed for— Average. Number lapis SPT ae Area, of For those tractors. | 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 days For all | out of or- | days. days. days. days. or more. | tractors. | der 1 day or more. eS. a? | | Senter. - 5-2. - 2... 120 47 34 16 6 17 Bont 5.0 WMOSUCIMc oto. 55 cee 107 64 12 il 11 9 1.9 4.7 Wortern. 22-2 ..5623. 127 90 17 8 5 7 L3 4.5 BOTA eee eS 354 201 63 35 22 | 33 2.1 4.7 ANNUAL COST OF POWER FOR DRAWBAR WORK. On the average farm the cost of keeping work stock during the year was $541 and the cost of using the tractor for drawbar work was $484. Thus the total annual cost of power for drawbar work was ea le i, taal ee nia ee Me = — > a ; TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 39 $1,025, or $2.91 per crop acre. The cost of using the tractor was 47 per cent of the total. Table 46 shows these items for the farms of different sizes in each area. In the southern and western areas the cost of using the tractor was 50 per cent and in the northern area 41 per cent of the total cost. While the total cost of power ....- increases with the size of the farm Fiabe at 500 Dollars 1500 2000 in each area the average cost per Less than\60 crop acre for power was higher on the small farms than on the large 320-399. ones. In general both tractors 400-479... and work stock were utilized more 4); fully on the larger farms (see = Tables 11 and 23) and since on the average the cost per unit of work Lessthan|60. SOUTHERN AREA done with either form of power 349-319” decreased as the amount of work 320-399. done annually increased, the total cost of power was proportionally ¢40-799 less on the large farms. Figure 14 800andover shows graphically the cost of power : on farms of different sizes. WESTERN AREA On many of the farms more work [tegsthani¢o J stock than necessary were still 160-239... being kept and the cost per farm 355-399 of keeping work stock would have 400-479 been reduced by an average of 7 agains about $115 (see p. 47) if they had been sold. Likewise, if the tractor NORTHERN AREA work had been done with machines 354 Farms _—_—»< [oa purchased at current prices the ALL AREAS 2 cost would, on the average, be ® something like 25 per cent lower than the figures shown. TABLE 46.—Cost of power for drawbar work on farms of different sizes, 1921. emus //orses c— 7Jrocrors Fig. 14.—Cost of power for drawbar work, 1921. boar Average | Costof | Cost of : Z | Per cent = a | Number size Keeping | tractor Total Cost per | tractor Size of farm (crop acres). of (crop eaekes-tacdatec | Coe crop eost is | farms. acTes). stock. |barwork.) Y@!- acre. | of total. Southern area: WSS GMATTAGO! S25 e228 T 20 130 $350 307 $757 | $5. 82 54 GU CODA OE Re ee ket | 36 202 542 477 1,019 | 5. 04 47 PAAR SE see ee 34 278 614 596 1,210 4.35 49 a7. ape ee ee ee 18 359 667 769 1, 436 4.00 Be cli \ ite ee es | 7 415 986 855 1,H1 4.44 46 Ae A OVOr 3 2 Fe { 5 41 742 1, 022 | 1, 764 3. 26 58 Total and average......_. 120 262 583 588 1,171 4,47 | 50 Western area: Pa et an se UL ea Ne Ee iG 219 410 256 666 3. 04 38 PAM EOI see a) k 17 281 406 366 772 2.75 47 TE DE eS ee 18 350 395 433 828 2.37 52 IUD 7 PR 19 44] 362 521 883 2. 00 59 ie UN Se sy! 22 555 670 | 658 | 1,328 2.39 50 TEL ne ee 14 703 578 | 667 1,245 1.77 x muscu evers 2 22'S: 12 1,054 | 843 | 47 1, 390 1. 32 39 Total and average.....__. 107 516 | Boe 5 1,042 2.02 50 Northern area: Se SS ee a es ess thaw 160.6 5.22 io 10 135 | 333 260 593 4.39 44 i 27 202 417 279 | 696 3.45 | 40 “1 iL! See ee 46 276 461 345 | 806 2.92 43 Ae 29 | 369 556 422 978 2.65 43 UST LY a ae 7 438 793 373 | 1, 166 2.66 32 2 a ee 8 585 1,016— 550 | 1, 566 2.68 | 35 Total and average....___- 127 299 517 | 357 874 2.92 41 40 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. VARIATIONS IN COST. There were wide variations in the cost of power on individual farms, the total cost of power for drawbar work on some farms having been twice as great as on others of the same size and type. Figure 15 shows the variations in each area. In this figure each dot represents one farm, the vertical distance from the base line represents the combined cost of keeping work stock and of using the tractor for drawbar work, and the horizontal distance from the left represents the crop area of thefarm. The heavy lines connect the points representing the average cost on farms of different sizes as shown in Table 46. In some cases the death or injury of some of the work stock caused heavy depreciation and a high cost of power for the year; on other farms Bit repair costs for the tractors were responsible. It is evident, however, that the proper management of tractor and work stock and the judicious choice of sources of power for different operations would have resulted in a considerable decrease in the cost of power for the year on many of the farms. SOME FARMS WITH LOW COSTS FOR POWER. The story of an individual farm on which the costs indicate an efficient use of power should be of value in showing how power can be obtained at alow cost. Table 47 is asummary of the data incident to the cost of power for drawbar work on six such farms, two in each of thethree areas. Therelative costsfor power on thesefarms as compared with the other farms in the same areas are shown in Figure 15. TaBLE 47.—Farms with low costs of power for drawbar work. Southern area. | Western area. | Northern area. _————$—$—<—<<— | qc“§ |——uqe | ————qq— | um i | RERODVALCD on nek ok oc oc te ph ee ate ea eee acres... 146 392 740 | 1,090 145 622 Area imiwiheat.o.-ccc. 2-5. Coase os es oe do.-se 125 285 275 900 85 450 ATCA MMNCOMM: <2 te dct ec oe tans seco eee eee dow: 0 30 80 0 60 120 REZBODURACHOY 92. = 2-6. mos Seana ea eeee reer plows. . 2 3 3 3 3 4 Watevotpurchase of-tractor - =. 4... sea eee eee July | Aug Mar. | June. | Aug Apr. 1919. | 1919. | 1920. | 1920. | 1918 1920. Nek Of wOlK StOCk!(..1-. shoes tat sea eee 2 8.5 10 20 4 12 Tractor work per year: Drawbats 2). 62-0 iy. 25 eee oe ee hours... 342 242 489 534 123 266 [S521 ee, See an RE EMD ik” oS Oo eel pS do... : 5 120 0 20 75 238 Gustom: 2208. en kee Pee gdo-=- 0 180 140 0 0 355. SOTO ee a lain claw shee ea ee ee ee aoe 347 542 629 554 198 859 Horselabor equivalent oftractor (drawbar) work..do..| 2,013 | 2,638 | 4,446] 4,910 716 4,026 PIT SUCOST ONULACLOS . Fo..25% oc «cet eetemccceee dollars. . 790 | 1,200} 1,095] 1,760 | 1,660 2,505 Pemimaved topalliies =...) =e nocee eee eee years... 8 8 5 10 10 6 Annual cost ofrepairs and upkeep............ dollars. . 22 116 50 5 7 237 Fuel per year for drawbar work: BRSOLUO So yoc co Se a n eee t e galls... 571 578 6 67 3 10 iNenosenes <2 5- 0 ete Jae ogee eee ee GO: s2tle seen se lae eee 1, 274 844 262 700 Oil per year for drawbar work.................. doz 33 48 98 44 16 30 Cost of using tractor for drawbar work: ATE ORT 5 oe 2 est od Se. Soe eee dollars. . 339 331 462 432 202 373 ee en nae do..:.| 0.99} 1.37] 0.94] 0.81] 3.64 1. 40 Zou yaine of work stock...\.....- 22-2 2.----neces go...2 55 650 612] 2,100 400 1, 435 Annual feed consumption per head: Chi Woes | eae Seer nie a Em ees = pounds..} 1,600 | 1,596 360 600 | 2,800 1,470 avant MOU eDAPOs 2.6 ee once ewe en rece ees do....}| 3,000 | 2,340] 4,000] 6,000 | 5,006 1, 660 Cost of keeping work stock per year.........-- dollars. . 115 601 392 740 261 794 Cost per head of keeping work stock per year....do.... 58 71 39 37 65 66 PICISGISDOMMON VOals- cons ns-- ws wes. 2cs-~- sees hours..| 1,765} 6,988 | 3,820] 7,160 | 2,317 6, 896 Hare labor per Meads 2 Soba. ese cere te) 882 822 382 359 579 575 Cost.per hour of horselabor.....-.....-..-.<---: cents 7 1 11 12 Horse labor equivalent of total drawbar work. -.hours..} 3,778 | 9,626] 8,266 | 12,070 | 3,033 | 10,922 Proportion of total drawbar work done with trac- BORE oes oe, Sage Bere eee ee eas oe es per cent. . 53 28 54 41 23 37 Total cost per year of power for drawbar work (tractor eitd HGrse) 2.32 eters ee ee dollars. . 454 932 854 | 1,172 463 1, 167 Cost per crop acre of power for drawbar work....do....| 1.32 2. 38 1.15 1.08 3.19 1. 86 Annual Cost of Power— Dollars Sanna FEET ee | | te mee tlt iro Bee 000 ara pie : ae Farm No.2 80 160 240 320 400 480 0 80 160 240 320 400 480 640 800 Crop Acres Crop Acres SOUTHERN AREA NORTHERN AREA Annual Cost of Power —Dol//ars 080 160 240 320 400 480 640 800 60 120 Crop Acres WESTERN AREA Fig. 15.—Variation in total cost of power per farm for all the areas. 41 42 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Farm No. 1, southern area.—This farm of 146 crop acres was operated with a two- plow tractor and two head of workstock at a total cost for power of $454, or $1.32 per crop acre. The power furnished by the tractor for drawbar work cost $339 for the year, or $0.99 per hour. This low cost is the result of comparatively small investment, few repairs, an estimated life of eight years, and normal use of fuel and oil. The low investment in the work stock and their full utilization on all of the two-horse opera- tions is responsible for the low cost of 7 cents per hour for horse labor. The tractor plowed 85 acres and listed and sledded 40 acres of the wheat ground, disked and harrowed (in combination) the oats ground (11 acres), drilled the wheat and oats, and harvested them with an 8-foot binder. The horses plowed 4 acres for Sudan grass, harrowed three and one-half days in preparing the wheat ground, planted and cultivated 6 acres of corn, made 4 acres of hay, stacked 80 acres of grain, headed 6 acres of kafir, and were used 43 days for threshing. A third horse was purchased for use in harrowing and listing, and sold when this work was completed. Had all of the drawbar work on this farm been done with horses, 3,778 hours of horse labor would have been required. On this basis the tractor work represents 53 per cent of the total drawbar work done on this farm. The owner of this farm had just begun farming in that community, consequently no changes due to the use of the tractor were recorded. ‘‘More work in a given time?’ was considered the chief advantage of the tractor and “‘first cost and depreciation”’ the chief disadvantage. Farm No. 2, southern area.—This farm is considerably larger than farm No. 1 (see Table 47), and an average of 8.5 head of work stock in addition to a 3-plow tractor was used in its operation. The total cost of power for drawbar work represents an increase of 205 per cent, with a corresponding increase of 270 per cent in crop acres overfarm No.1. The tractor was used for 242 hours of drawbar work, or 28 per cent of the total. The depreciation and repair charges for the year were both considerably higher than on farm No. 1, but the large amount of belt and custom work done reduced the propor- tion of these costs chargeable to drawbar work so that the cost for the year was practi- cally the same as for the tractor on farm No. 1. The cost of keeping work stock on this farm includes $100 depreciation for the loss of one horse during the year, and interest on a larger investment than on farm No. 1. The yearly horse labor per head is practically the same on the two farms, although more of the heavy work was done by horses on farm No. 2. The horses did 50 acres of spring plowing, 60 acres of fall plowing, 37 acres of listing, 335 acres of seeding, and drew the binder and header on 335 acres, in addition to performing 1,568 hours of other labor. The tractor did 225 acres of fall plowing, 215 acres of harrowing, and was used for threshing on the farm, besides doing 8,000 bushels of custom threshing. The size of the farm had not been changed since the purchase of the tractor, but the work stock had been decreased by 5.5 head. The horses had all been purchased and no colts were being raised at the time of the investigation. Three months less of family labor was used during the year than had been used before the tractor was pur- chased. ‘‘Saving horses in hot weather,’ and ‘first cost and depreciation?’ were thought to be the greatest advantage and disadvantage of the tractor. The owner believed that in 1921 an increased yield of 5 bushels of wheat per acre was directly traceable to the use of the tractor through greater depth of plowing, better seed bed preparation, and more timely work. Farm No. 1, western area.—On this farm the tractor was used for a greater variety of work than on any of the others described. In addition to 103 hours of plowing and 137 hours of disking it was used for seeding 565 acres of grain, cutting 155 acres of grain, listing and planting 65 a res of corn, and cutting 25 acres of corn with a corn binder. The seeding was done with two 8-foot drills, and a 2-row lister and drill was used for planting corn. The tractor did 54 per cent of the total drawbar work on the farm, which is 8 per cent above the average for the western area, at a cost of 89 per cent of the average cost for drawbar work. The tractor was out of order for six days when it was needed for disking. During the year $40 for new parts, $5 for expert labor and two and one-half days of farm labor were spent on it. The horses were fed 2 tons of roughage per head and a light grain ration supplemented by five months of wheat, four months of grass, and three months of night pasture during the year. The low cost for feed, together with a $50 colt credit, were largely responsible for the low cost of $39 per year per head for keeping the horses. ‘Two work horses had been disposed of after the purchase of the tractor and the owner stated that he had made a marked reduction in the grain ration allowed the remaining horses. Farm No. 2, Western area: This farm was by far the largest one of the six and the total cost of power for drawbar work was naturally greatest, yet the cost per cro acre was only $1.08, which is less than on any of the other farms. Five hundred an Det Te a TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 43 fifty-four hours of work with $5 annual repairs and an estimated life of 10 years resulted in the low cost of 81 cents per hour for using the tractor for drawbar work. Twelve mares, six geldings and two mules were kept on this farm. The mares were kept primarily to raise colts and the operator considered that only 12 head of work stock in addition to the tractor were necessary for the proper operation of the farm. The mares had produced six mule colts during the year and the colt credit for the year reduced the cost of keeping horses by $210. The low grain ration fed was another factor contributing to the low cost ($37 per year) of keeping work stock. In addition to fall plowing, disking, drilling, and cutting cane with a grain binder, the tractor was used 1] days for harvesting grain with acombine. Large horse-drawn equipment was used on thisfarm. For plowing, a three-bottom disk plow and a three- bottom moldboard plow, each drawn by six horses, were used. ‘Two-row listers were used and a 14-foot header, each of which was drawn by six horses. The owner estimated that the grain ration per head of the work stock had been reduced 50 per cent and roughage 20 per cent after the purchase of the tractor and stated that he could raise more colts since the tractor was doing most of the heavy work. Farm No. 1, Northern area: Twenty-three per cent of the total drawbar work was done with the tractor on this farm, which is the smallest farm of the six. Eighty-five acres of wheat and 60 acres of corn were the only crops raised. The tractor plowed 30 acres for wheat, disked the remainder of the wheat ground, drilled 30 acres, and cut the entire 85 acres with a 7-foot binder. The horses seeded 55 acres of wheat with one-horse drills in the standing corn, listed, and cultivated (three times) 60 acres of corn, and were used for stacking grain, husking corn from the standing stalks, and for hauling wheat from the thresher to the grain bin. Four horses were needed (the same number as was on hand) to do the work and one colt was being raised. The work stock were fed 50 bushels of corn and 24 tons of roughage per head per year supplemented by three months of grass and four months of stubble and stalk pasture. The cost per head of keeping the horses was $4 below the average for the area and the hours of horse labor 13 above the average. The cost per crop acre for power, $3.19, was the highest of the six farms because of the small size of the farm. Likewise the cost per hour of using the tractor, $1.64, was highest on this farm, despite a low depreciation and few repairs. Yet when the size of the farm is considered the cost of power was very low. (See Fig. 15.) In addition to the drawbar work the tractor was used two and one-half days for shelling corn and five days for shredding fodder. It had displaced two head of work stock. The owner believed it had been responsible for an increase of 5 bushels per acre in his yield of wheat in 1920. He was using it as his primary source of power and considered it a profitable investment. Farm No. 2, northern area: The horses did all of the drawbar work on this farm except 330 acres of fall plowing, and harvesting 475 acres of grain. These two opera- - tions however, required 37 per cent of the total power for drawbar work. Of the total hours of work per year done with the tractor, 31 per cent was drawbar, 28 per cent was belt, and 31 per cent was custom work. Hence this four-plow tractor follows the general rule that the larger tractors are used for a greater amount of belt work than the smaller ones. Three 7-foot grain binders were pulled on this farm at one time at a cost for power and man labor of 39 cents per acre compared with 87 cents per acre for all farms where tractors were used for this work. The tractor was overhauled between busy seasons at a total cost of $237 of which $50 was for expert labor. Twelve head of work stock, the same number as the operator stated he needed, were kept, and four colts were being raised. A reduction in both grain and the hay ration of 30 per cent per head and an increase of 10 per cent in pasture had been made since the purchase of the tractor. When farming with horses only, 18 head had been kept for 480 crop acres, one for every 27 crop acres. At the time of the investigation 142 additional crop acres were being farmed with 12 head of work stock, one for each 52 crop acres. CHANGES AFTER PURCHASE OF TRACTOR. For each farm visited a record was obtained of any changes in size of farm, in the number of work stock and in the amount of feed consumed per head, in the amount of family and regular hired labor used or in tillage practice which had been made since the purchase of the tractor. From this and other information obtained the change im the cost of power and labor due to the use of the tractors and the change in investment due to their purchase were computed. 44 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. CHANGE IN SIZE OF FARM. Table 48 shows the changes in size of the farm in the different areas. Twenty-seven of the 354 tractor owners had purchased their machines when they started farming and the reports of these men are not in- cluded. Of the 327 farms, 191, or 58 per cent, had not been changed in size, 114, or 35 per cent, ‘had been made larger by an average of 166 crop acres, ‘and the remaining 22 had been decreased by an average of 111 crop acres. For all farms there was an average increase of 50 crop acres after the tractors were purchased. The increase was greatest in the western area, 98 crop acres, and least in the southern area, 18 crop acres. About 40 per cent of the tractor owners in the western and northern areas and only a little over 25 per cent of those in the south- ern area had increased the size of their farm. The reports of the Bureau of the Census show that between 1910 and 1920 there had been an average increase of 11 improved acres per farm in the southern area, 230 in the western area, and 16 in the northern area. While the increase in the size of these farms after tractors were purchased was doubtless greater than the increase in the size of all farms during the same time in these areas, it is probable that the tractors were not “primarily responsible for the i increase, as there was also an average increase of about 45 crop acres on the 85 farms where tractors were not owned. (See Table 64.) TaBLeE 48.—Change in size of farm after purchase of tractors. No change in SE Increased in size. Decreased in size. All farms. Total * A num- Average size. verage size. verage size. Area. ber of farms. |Num-| AVel- |Num- Num- ber. or ber. | Before ber. | Before Before ‘ ur- 1921 ur- 1921 es 1921 chase chase Crop Crop Crop Crop | Crop | Crop | Crop acres acres. | acres acres acres acres acres Sotithern. .....- --:. 116 75 250 31 201 309 10 353 210 245 263 WOSEOTII... <2. 54-2 96 52 498 38 318 576 6 367 302 419 517 INiorthern...=-...:. 115 64 269 45 220 347 6 309 201 252 296 MOEA s os 327 191 324 114 247 413 22 344 233 | 299 | 349 CHANGES IN WORK STOCK. Before the tractors were purchased the 327 men had been farming an average of 299 crop acres and keeping 9.8 head of work stock—one for each 30 crop acres. In the southern area there had been one horse for each 26 crop acres, in the western area one for each 34 crop acres, and in the northern area one for each 31 crop acres before the tractors were purchased. These men had been keeping practically the same number of work stock in proportion to the size of their farms before they purchased tractors, as the men who were farming with horses only were keeping in 1921. (See Table 58.) In Table 49 the ‘‘ work stock per farm if tractors were not used”? was determined by dividing the average size (crop acres) of the farms in each area by 26, 34, and 31, respectively. The “work stock per farm, 1921” and “ necessary work stock per farm” are the same as given in Table 27. On the average bs TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 45 the 354 men were keeping 3.4 head less than they would have been keeping if they had not owned tractors, and they considered that they needed 5.2 head less, an actual reduction of about 30 per cent and a potential reduction of about 45 per cent. The reduction had been createst in the western area and least in the northern area. TABLE 49.—Displacement of work stock by tractors. Work | stock per| Work pte Actual | Potential ; . Number | farmif |stockper| Jo reduc- reduc- Area. of farms. tractors farm, | stock per | 400 per | tion per | werenot| 1921. |*" "PB farm. farm. | used. ; LE eee 120 10.1 7.5 | 5.7 2.6 4.4 _ | LEIDER Ses Ae gs il eae 107 15.2 10.2 7.4 5.0 7.8 _ oes St ee eee 127 | 9.6 7.4 6.5 | 2.2 3.1 eee 34 | Fie 8.3 6.5 3.4 5. 2 | CHANGES IN FEED OF WORK STOCK. Each man was asked for an estimate of the change in the amounts of grain, hay, and roughage, and pasture consumed per head by the work stock after the tractor was purchased, and it was found that about three-fourths of them had made some change in their feeding practices. The averages of the estimates for each area are given in Table 50. Based on the amount of feed consumed per head by the work stock on the same farms during the year covered by the inves- tigation, the change had amounted on the average to a reduction of about 460 pounds of grain and 210 pounds of hay and roughage per head. TABLE 50.—Average of tractor owners’ estimates of change in feed per head of work stock after purchase of tractors. Change in annual consump- | Nymber s tion per head. : of roar perc | if Farmers ie Farmers. | g ees | Grain. | #4y.ad} pasture. | img no fea ches "| change. Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cenit. | Mmmnnemerene: fable Aa. 2582/7 So oe de 116 —20 | +2 +9 | 30 SOT 2 Se a eee rere 96 a 5 +5 | 16 _ USD sob! oy 2S ae gig 115 —17 —t +3 | 32 (ooo SR ee eae a 327 2] 7 | +6 78 CHANGE IN AMOUNT OF LABOR USED. For each farm the number of months of family labor and of regular hired labor used per year before the tractor was purchased and that used during the year covered by the investigation were obtained. The amount of extra or day labor used was not determined, as on practically all of the farms visited extra labor was employed only during the harvesting and threshing season, and it was not believed that the tractor could have any influence on the amount of such 46 BULLETIN 1202, U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. labor used. Neither were any reductions in the amounts of time actually spent at farm work by the operators of the farms themselves obtained. For the 327 farms an average of 6.1 months of family and regular hired labor was used during the year of the investigation. This was 0.9 month less than had been used before the tractors were pur- chased. As stated above, the farms had been increased in size b van average of 50 crop acres. Table 51 shows the changes on the 191 farms which had not been changed in size after the tractors were purchased. Sixty-five, or 34 per cent, of the 191 men had reduced the amount of labor; 116 or 60 per cent, had made no change, and the remaining 10 had increased the amount of labor used. For the entire 191 there had been an average reduction of 1.4 months, and for the 65 farms where the labor had been reduced, an average reduction of 4.1 months. The reduction was greatest in the western area, 2.5 months, and least in the northern area, 0.8 month. TaBLe 51.—Change in family and regular hired labor after purchase of tractor on 191 farms where size was not changed. Months of family and hired | Number of farms where labor A Average labor per farm. | was— ene Aunaber ee, : of farms. Before Reduc- Not Tn- acres). |purchase,| 1921 tion, | Reduced.) snanged.| creased. Southern..........- bes 75 250 6.6 5.4 1.2 28 45, 2 Miesterne = =. 2s 52 498 9.0 6.5 2.5 22 27 3 Northern.........---- ‘of. UR 269 6.5 5.7 8 15 44 5 UN) 25 (See Saar ae 191 324 7.2 5.8 1.4 65 116 10 CHANGE IN TILLAGE PRACTICE. With regard to tillage practice, each farmer was asked (1) whether he was making it a practice since he purchased his tractor to plow a greater percentage of his land and to reduce correspondingly the amount listed or disked without plowing; (2) whether he plowed to a greater depth than formerly; and (3) whether he practiced better seed-bed preparation other than plowing than he did before he purchased his tractor. The replies to these questions are sum- marized in Table 52. In all, 215, or 66 per cent, of the 327 reported some change in tillage practice. In the southern and northern areas more men reported deeper plowing than either of the other changes, while in the western area more plowing and less disking and listing was reported by the greatest number. TABLE 52.—Change in tillage practice after purchase of tractors. Number = Number who did Pia rak ee N anes who |Number| better Area. of reported | reported ioctahec pers seed -bed farmers.) no | some | Ser cent| Heeper. (tion other change. | change. ofland. than plowing. I ee eh Ne eee 116 36 80 41 65 50 ermereeateets ss ewe Pe ee eee ee 96 36 60 46 32 36 Denvemirteties. .o8 2. oe oo oe ol eed 115 40 75 44 58 41 SS a Sn ke ee | heaT 112 215 131 155 127 COREE 2) SG lll SR Eg al Mean tie aS 100 34 66 40 47 39 ! The 27 of the 354 farmers interviewed not included in this table started farming with tractors. 7 | : A { 4 | 4 | : TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 47. CHANGE IN COST OF POWER AND LABOR. In Table 53 is summarized for each area the average change in the combined cost of power and labor due to the use of the tractor. The cost of using the tractor for drawbar work and of keeping the work stock are shown in Table 46. The ‘‘cost of power with horses only”’ has been obtained by multiplying the average cost per head of keep- ing the work stock m each area as given in Table 29 by the number of ‘‘work stock if tractors were not used” as given in Table 49. The value of the saving in family and regular hired labor was obtained by crediting the reduction in labor on the farms which were not changed in size (Table 51) at $50 per month. It is seen that for all farms there was an average net increase in the combined cost of power and labor of $206 for the year. If the surplus work stock had all been sold and the cost per head of keeping the remaining ones not increased there would have been an average reduction of about $115 in the annual cost of power. The value of the feed consumed per head by the work stock on these farms where tractors were owned was on the average $4 less than that on the 85 farms where tractors were not owned. If it were assumed that the cost per head of keeping the work stock would have been $4 greater if tractors had not been used a further saving of about $47 per farm would be shown. TABLE 53.—Changes in annual cost of power and labor due to use of tractor (averages), L921. Southern} Western | Northern All area. area. area. farms. Cost per farm of power for drawbar work, 1921: | BIRTECL CEO Trt fe Psy A ES is Saran sun bin, Jae w c/ayare creeie tee $588 $520 $357 $484 WVIOEKES LOC Kee pasate rene Fe dee tons or ac ae acis ide Seg Hage 583 522 517 541 TOD Soar 8s Se eS BSB ee Bee Be Oe ae eel ei eae iBalAl 1,042 874 1, 025 Costofpower wichwhorses,on ly... - ...2: =... 2-522 -2-----2-2--- 765 767 662 749 Increase in cost of power due to using tractor.................-- 406 275 212 276 Saving in family and regular hired labor (at $50 per month)..-. 60 125 40 70 Net increase in cost of power and labor due to using tractor. .... 346 150 172 206 As shown in Tables 32, 33, and 44, both the cost of using tractors and the cost of keeping work stock were lower in 1922 and 1923 than in 1921. Table 54 compares the average change which would have occurred in the annual cost of power and labor for the years of 1922 and 1923 with the change shown in Table 53 for the year 1921, pro- vided tractors purchased at prices current in 1922 and 1923 had been used. It is seen that if tractors purchased at 1922 prices had been used on these farms during the year of 1922, the average net increase in the cost of power and labor due to using the tractors would have been $123, and if tractors purchased at prices current in 1923 had been used during the year of 1923, the average net increase in cost of power and labor due to using the tractors would have been $98, as compared with the average of $206 for the machines in use at the time of the investigation. 48 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. TaBLe 54.—Changes in annual cost of power and labor due to using tractors in 1921, 1922, and 1923. 1921 1922 | 1923 Cost per farm of power for drawbar work: TACCON, 5 20.55 oo nk oe oe Soe ae ee ee Oe OE Re eee ee ees Sint $364 $352 Work stock.2 22h. $f. 5 0 ee en Ce ee eee see 541 415 450 | rn Aime eerste i MR aed En Ro BOAT pee 1,025 779 802 Costiof power with: horses only-032 5s ase ena aes coe eee ae ne 586 634 Increase in cost of power due to usiug tractors....................-.- 276 193 | 168 Saving in family and regular hired labor (at $50 per month)............... 70 70 70 Net increase in cost of power and labor due to using tractor........- 206 | 123 | 98 INCREASE IN INVESTMENT DUE TO PURCHASE OF TRACTOR. In Table 55 is summarized for each area the average increase in investment due to the purchase of the tractors. In each area this increase had amounted to between $1,300 and $1,400. The cost of the tractors is shown on page 33. The value of the work stock displaced was obtained by crediting the actual reduction in work stock as shown in Table 49 at the average value of all work stock as shown in Table 8. A record of the number and value of implements for drawbar work which each owner purchased for use with his tractor and the number and value of horse-drawn implements which he had sold was obtained. The averages are shown in Table 55. Practically every man had purchased some special tractor implements but only 23, about 7 per cent of the entire number, had disposed of any of their old horse-drawn implements. TaBLE 55.—Increase in investment due to purchase of tractor. Southern] Western Northern All Item. area. area. | area. | farms. MON OUUPACUOD. os 205 See 2 cs ees he ee eee ae $1, 423 $1, 524 $1, 327 $1, 419 Cost offield implements for tractor:-...s..5-1--.2----2 22... 222 265 278 255 a ee Sey OL a Oe Wits. (5 eee 1,645 1,789| 1,605] 1,674 Wialueof work stock displaced: ..¢.a/2.2 SATIN. 2 eae Palate: 260 460 242 340 Value of horse-drawn implements sold.............-...--------- 3 4 2 3 abet oc. dtork ban dae ae oe ee eee 263 464 244 | 343 INeciIMncreasoin investment..\\.. 24. =~ aes gee ne oe ee eee 1, 382 1,325 1,361 1, 331 FARMS ON WHICH NO CHANGES WERE MADE AFTER PURCHASE OF TRACTORS. As shown in Table 51, only 65 of the 191 men who had not changed the size of their farms had reduced the amount of labor used. It was _ found also that only 89 of these 191 had reduced the number of work stock kept. Ninety-one were still keeping the same number of work stock, and 11 were keeping more than before the tractors were pur- chased. Seventy-three of these 102 who were keeping the same or greater number of work stock on the same acreage had not reduced the amount of family or regular hired labor used. Ten of the 73 were using more labor than formerly. Some of these farms where there TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 49 was no reduction in labor had been run by the operator alone even before the tractor was purchased, and it is possible that on some of them not enough work stock to carry on the work properly had been kept. This was not true in most of the 73 cases, however. Although the use of a tractor may increase the yield by making possible better tillage practice and more timely work (see p. 46), and may reduce the amount of time which its owner must actually spend at farm work, it is obvious that one will not often prove profit- able unless the owner does at least one of the following: (1) In- creases the size of his farm; (2) reduces the number of his work stock; or (3) reduces the amount of paid labor used. OWNERS’ OPINIONS REGARDING USE OF TRACTORS. There are a number of more or less intangible factors connected with the use of tractors which are not directly measurable in dollars and cents, but which nevertheless must be considered in determining whether or not a tractor is profitable. Accordingly each tractor owner was asked a number of questions designed to reveal his opinion and ideas concerning the use of a tractor on his farm. The replies to these questions are summarized in Table 56. TABLE 56.—Owners’ opinions regarding use of tractors. Southern | Western |Northern All area. area. area. | farms. Proportion who consider greatest advantage of tractor to be— | Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cent. GE) Shore AvOlK 1M: arP1VeM time... <5. 32 = =2-.5--<5-s053---22- 65 82 | Ys (2): oavaneehorses:in hot weather. . = 3. .3.-2.s:-.----+--5s: 28 10 | 27 | 22 (5) JSSU Tey SP Se SE Sas ee et ad ae Sa se fh 8 16 10 Proportion who consider greatest disadvantage to be— | CDP Rspeos; and depreciation } | 2-3! -5...22Si 2.42.2 565:; 34 27 34 31 2) SLUM OR ONSOs Soe 45 55. o ns yahoos sess web oadee = 25 31 | 31 29 pmeito there reese ll hat es tase de 41 42 35 40 Proportion who use tractors as primary source of power........ 64 74 42 59 Proportion who use tractors as supplemetary to horses.........- 36 26 58 4] Proportion who believe tractors responsible for increased yield (PRU GRE SH oe Sa SEG, Ae oe Ce ke a er 29 14 | 20 21 Proportion who believe tractors have no influence on yield per TG a cecseet eS See el See a eee a 69 82 79 77 Proportion who believe tractors responsible for decreased yield Duele Pert 3 2, \ey Bee ESS eg Sl ee oe eet Se ee ee 2 4 | 1 | 2 Proportion who had owned other tractors. .............-...-.-- 25 25 24 25 Proportion who believe present tractors will be profitable... ... 78 84 | 65 75 Proportion-whointenG to buy .others..........-.:2.2..-.-+-.-- 75 85 | 59 72 There are, of course, in the minds of these farmers many advan- tages and disadvantages connected with the use of tractors other than those listed in the table, but less than 10 per cent of the tractor owners interviewed considered any other single factor the greatest advantage or the greatest disadvantage. Each farmer was asked whether he planned to use his tractor as the primary source of power for field work, i. e., for all work for which it was satisfactory and to use his work stock only on operations where the tractors could not be used satisfactorily, or whether he planned to use his work stock as the chief source of power and the tractor only during rush seasons or at times when the horses could not work satisfactorily. * 50 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. As stated on page 46 the majority of these men made some change in their tillage practice after the purchase of their machines, and a great many of them considered that one of the greatest advantages of the tractor was that it enabled them to do their work at the time when it should be done. The value of more thorough tillage than has ordinarily been done and the gains resulting from early prepara- tion of the seed bed for wheat in these areas are unusually recognized. However, other factors, especially the weather, have such a pre- ponderant influence upon yields that it is impossible except over a long period of years to determine definitely the effect of different tillage practices and of performing operations at different dates. Nevertheless each tractor owner was asked whether he considered that the use of his tractor had resulted in any change in yields per acre On any crop in any year. Finally, each tractor owner was asked if he had owned and used a tractor previous to the one he then had, if he believed his present tractor would prove profitable, and if he intended to buy another when it was worn out. FARMS ON WHICH TRACTORS WERE NOT OWNED. The size of the farms on which tractors were not owned and the area in crops are shown in Table 57. The average size of these farms and the average crop area are slightly less than of the farms on which tractors were owned. Likewise the proportion of the crop area in wheat was somewhat less and the proportion in crops planted in the spring correspondingly greater. For these farms 69 per cent of the crop area was in wheat, compared with 74 per cent for the farms on which tractors were owned. The smaller wheat acreage lessens some- what the requirements of both power and labor during the peak load period of the wheat harvesting and seeding seasons. In interpreting the data presented concerning these 85 farms it must be remembered that they are not at all typical of all the farms in these areas on which tractors are not owned. TABLE 57.—Average size of farms without tractors and acres in crops in different areas. Acres in— Num- | l | Total he pies ore heals | Bar- ie ; Oth- Igowed | Oth- aa pede of ~ Wheat. ley, | Oats.| Corn.) ,oy, | Alfalfa. er [pooqi| er > | ped. | farm. | ~ crops. hay crops. ieee ea es saniiiaad aula Sea Acres.| Acres.| Acres Southern. ... 26 ins los, ee eae 13 15 6 8 5 6 1 250 66 316 Western... . -| 31 323 29 | ~ 10 BJs = OME see Sean 11 8 8 446 333 779 Northern....| 28 164 3 10 SOM esses 7 4 ees 288 88 376 Total..| 85} 232} 11) 11] 50 5 Ba tre 10 3| 334] 170| 504 1 Cane, Sudan grass, etc. NUMBER OF WORK STOCK. Table 58 shows the number of work stock, their weight, and value on these farms. The average weight of the work stock was not widely different from that on the farms on which tractors were owned. The value placed on them by the owners was on the average TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. ol $8 per head greater in the southern area and $21 per head less in the western area, than on the farms where tractors were being used. The proportions of mares, geldings, and mules were practically th same on the two classes of farms. : TaBLE 58.—Total number of work stock, their weight, and value in different areas on farms without tractors. Mares. Geldings. Mules. | Av- erage! ay. | Num- num | erage Area. ber of Av A Aver- | Aver- Aver- | Aver- Pua value farms.| Num- oe Ng ss Num-| ~ ave’ | stock ee ber age age | ber. 2 age | ber. pee ag SOCK! head. * | weight.) value. weight.) value. weight.| value.| per | farm.| Pounds Pounds Pounds | Si 26 | 124) 1,283] $110 69 | 1,277 $86 63 | 1,137] $130} 9.8} $108 . (2372 31 210 1, 219 71 124 1, 215 67 44 979 $2) 122-2 71 Northern... 28 136 1, 334 113 1li 1, 305 104 14 1, 233 148 9.3 111 Topale. =. - 85 470 1,277 94 304 1, 263 85 121 1, 097 E5025 94 Table 59 shows the number of colts on these farms. For the entire 85 farms there was one colt less than a year of age for each 7.9 head of work stock and one for each 4.1 mares—a somewhat greater proportion in each case than on the farms where tractors were owned. There were some horses or mules which had not been broken to har- ness on four-fifths of these farms and on only a little over half of the tractor farms. TaBLE 59.—Number of work stock and number of colts in different areas on farms without tractors. | ass tees Other colts. Number of farms. Nun INSTT ee ee Area. ber of aes | With arms colts less se stock. Horse. | Mule. | Horse. | Mule. than 1 ore WE year of aay a age. SOuLHeIN=-- ==). 2-s52-- 3 26 256 9 19 33 46 14 18 6 DWESiCEH Ae a a2 ese Sa 31 378 4] 26 7 18 21 | 21 2 WNorpneric- == 6) 5s 23>... 28 261 17 2 27 5 7 13 10 cir! ieee es are 85 895 67 47 136 | 69 42 | 52 | 18 HORSE LABOR. Table 60 shows the hours of horse labor used per farm on each operation, and Table 61 the hours per head per year, the hours per crop acre, and the crop area per horse on these farms where tractors were not owned. The hours of horse labor per farm was somewhat less than the total power used per farm for drawbar work where tractors were owned (see Tables 22 and 25) but the crop area was correspondingly less, so that the power used per crop acre was prac- tically the same on both classes of farms in each area. On these fe more horse labor was used for plowing and listing than for any other class of work. (See fig. 16.) yo BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Each farmer was asked how many work stock he considered neces- sary for the proper operation of his farm, and it was found that there were only 25 surplus horses on the entire 85 farms. These men were keeping an average of 10.5 head—one for each 32 crop acres— and they considered that they needed 10.2 head, one for each 33 crop acres. The crop area per horse is the same on the nontractor farms in the southern and northern areas as it was on the tractor farms before the machines were purchased, and about 10 per cent greater in the western area. TaBLE 60.—Hours of horse labor per farm on which tractors were not owned. Average number of hours per farm. Operation. Southern | Western | Northern All area. area. area. farms. ae DIOWING 2. Sooo ee coe ne nee oe eee 126 234 110 160 SIP IOWINE. Ys 2. ik en eee ee terre ee ee 454 1, 084 850 814 LUTE eae mi ARG MEE RERE NE GTR mi ac 9 2 615 7 0 191 Total plowine and lishing. se sae eee ee 1, 195 1,325 960 1, 165 IDiskineyplowediground =)... Owl. ee ee eee vee 270 0 32 | 93 Disking wmplowedserounds: 47-502. Seek eee ee cee ee 86 Wiea| Pe OG 377 arrOwane ie. 42 3. Aa ciao so sc ek es See ee Pits eae ae 741 68 203 318 ROOT ie Ss oo ens os oe Sent ee eee a Ec a ee ees ee 586 6 0 182 Other: fitting ground:.;.25.. 5s. Yess Eee eee 0 1 4 2 Total fitting ground other than plowing and listing. .....-- 1, 683 850 446 | 972 10 1 11 9 i li A os Pope AE ee bel AS arson 8 511 804 404 583 iDrawine-prainsbinder .«. S-8 5-2 6 as. sh Sse tee eee ae 492 58 258 | 257 AC KIMOO TIE te nn Ree oy SSE ee eR eee 0 44 60 | 36 Drawinep header sore cn io b= etek Woke dr. a Oe Se eee Se 48 656 136 299 iDrawine heaGer wagons: W.,./:2 sac. =e be soe oe eee ee 12 380 90 172 Total harvesting grain crops...... Le PA et rake PE eee 552 1, 138 544 | 764 ehrashing 2.-3sefo0. 22 ths Le Re ee eee eee 791 258 201 402 Planting: row Crops: (2 2u22 see) UE oe yee ee Wot 103 321 370 270 Cultivatin garowCropss: =. 22 3b loaeu. Seba fe ee ee ee 226 306 595 | 377 Drawing row binder. ........... 5 eo orc yo a, ee 16 74 104 66 Eiailinsiensilage; corms: 22082. # sc de on ae ee eee 6 0 9 5 SKN COMIN. (3.2, ste 5. atten ee eR oe, See 96 271 330 | 237 Motgléharvestimeirowicrops ls. se es ose ee eee eee 118 345 443 308 MON ea y: «52 235 beck os Sa Pea A eee ae ae 74 41 58 56 UKIN ORV Ae, 2! eo ee eer mee Loo See Bn ieee See 43 19 34 382 oadime an dthauling hays ots Vite ae eae poe ee oe 73 46 24 47 Sweeping. and stacking hays: (0.. -b-ms- 5 5th a ee eee 28 20 64 37 Total haying operations> = fe se.) seo sehe | ees 218 126 180 172 ailing teed. oe. 2c io ees hae he ee soe eee 262 | ° 493 257 345 PPA IMANNINO S oe Pee 2 oe ee = ete Se oe ee ee 343 86 283 229 Muscellaneous work on farm =... -£%. oo. - 08 Sioa 374 217 167 248 Total miscellaneous work.........-. OE oh eek ‘ 979 796 707 822 Eauling rain on road.2.. 2.3.5.2. St ice cc bnceeee ee: 449 320, 262 | 340 MOpher road hawlines: 2! Fst, 5 tec e Se he a) eee eee 73 95 122 | 97 Polal Toad hatin 2." sc. cache. akan sees cates gee 522 415 384 437 ALOLeL borselaborper farm: 2 Foo. 8 eee cae ee eee 6, 898 6, 684 5, 234 6, 272 Horse Jabor hired for, threshing. 4% - i 2.8). $532.25). eek 461 | 12 0 146 Miner worse labor bired..-.< 5... lac uote eee eee eee 19 48 9 26 Horse labor ‘hiredout..<.. 24 oPeec be: PS ees 401 34 118 141 Total labor by horses owned! . 27> Milos acute es 6,819 6, 658 5, 243 | 6, 241 1 In addition to the horse labor hired out for farm work one farmer used 8,960 hours horse labor during the year for contract work in connection with road building. \ . ee TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 55% In the southern and western areas the hours of work per horse were greater on these farms than on the tractor farms, but as stated on e 26, this was largely due to the large number of surplus work stock kept on the tractor farms. TasLE 61.—Horse labor per head, and crop area per horse on farms without tractors. i | = | Horse labor Horse labor} Crop acres | Crop acres Number of per crop | per horse | per neces- acre. | kept. sary horse. Area. per head farms. per year. Fic. 16.—Two-bottom lister drawn by six horses. On the farms where tractors were not used, more horse labor was used for plowing and listing than for any other class of work. COST OF KEEPING WORK STOCK. Table 62 shows the annual cost per head of keeping the work stock. The costs were computed in the same manner as the corresponding costs on the tractor farms. TABLE 62.—Annual cost per head of keeping work stock on farms without tractors. r Cost per head. es Net eee | Manure olt | cost Area. | ber of l : | farms. | Har- | Shoe-| Veteri- | Inter-| Depre- | credit. | credit. | per Feed. | Chores. ness.| ing. | mary. | est. | ciation. [head. Southern........._. 26 | $59.34 | $7.41 |$4.35 |$0.01 | $0.80 |$8.86| $7.61] $3.00] $1.85 |$s3.53 Western............ 31| 34.44] 7.02| 4.30|0.00| 0.17] 5.85| 7.05{ 1.50] 3.58| 53.75 Northern........... 23} 42.87] 9.95 | 3.62] 0.19] 0.33 /.9.09) 5.55} 500 1.30 | 65.30 eee eS | eee ee Fae ES ee Pe eee oe ee Total......... 85 | 44.02 | 7.97 | 4.12 | 0.06 | 0.40 | 7.64 | 6.79| 294| 243 | 65.63 54 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. The annual feed consumption per head is shown in Table 63. In_ the southern and western areas the horses on the non-tractor farms | did considerably more work per head than on the tractor farms and~ received a correspondingly greater amount of feed. In the southern area the value of the feed consumed per head on the nontractor farms was about $10 greater than on the tractor farms, and in the western area about $5 greater. The time spent per head doing chores was also greater on the nontractor farms in these areas. The average depreciation charge per head amounted to about 7 per cent of the value of the in stock for all nontractor farms, and to between 8 and 9 per cent for all tractor farms. On account of the greater number of colts, the colt credit per head was somewhat greater on the nontractor farms. TABLE 63.—Feed for work stock on farms without tractors. Average annual consumption per head. Num- Area. ber of Straw B leet tick ota . farms.|Hay.| and | Oats. 1 ios Corn. hay au nas stover. y- Grass. | Wheat.| Stalk. | Night. oe > | Sa Tons.| Tons. |Bush.|Bush.|Bush.| Month.| Month.| Month.| Month.|Pounds.| Pounds. Southern. .... 26 | 1.52 0.06 | 39.8} 0.2) 10.1 2.0 Ae See 3.8] 3,160} 12,073 Western. .... Sh || eS yy E200) Ue Sy SO Sad 2.6 3.6 0. 2 4.0] 3,140 1, 780 Northern. .... 28 | 1.39 14 | 30.5 4] 34.5 1.3 .9 17 3.3 3, 060 2, 927 Total. - 85 | 1.438 ~ 14 | 26.5 TAN) TiE6 2.0 2.9 a0 is 3,140 | 1 2,242 1 In addition to grain shown an average of 3.9 bushels of kafir and milo per head was fed in the southern area, or 1.2 bushels for all farms. - COST OF HORSE LABOR. For the entire 85 farms the cost per hour of horse labor was 11 cents, compared with 17 cents on the 354 farms on which tractors were owned. In the southern area the cost per hour was 13 cents on the nontractor farms and 22 cents on the tractor farms; in the western area, 10 cents on the nontractor farms and 18 cents on the tractor farms; in the northern area, 12 cents on the nontractor farms and 13 cents on the tractor farms. As stated on page 32 the annual cost of keeping a horse does not increase in proportion to the amount of work it does, and the high cost per hour of horse labor on the tractor farms was very largely due to the low utilization of the work stock compared with the utilization on the nontractor farms. ANNUAL COST OF POWER FOR DRAWBAR WORK. Since the work stock on the nontractor farms did all the drawbar work, the cost of keeping them represents the entire cost of power for drawbar work and is comparable to the combined cost of keeping the work stock and of using the tractors for drawbar work on the tractor farms. The average cost on the 85 nontractor farms was $701, or $2.10 per crop acre, compared with $1,025, or $2.91 per cro acre, on the 354 tractor farms. Disposal of the surplus work stoc would have reduced the cost somewhat on the tractor farms, and the average cost of power for drawbar work on the tractor farms in 1922 and 1923, if no surplus work stock were kept and if tractors pur- chased at current prices were used, would have been only a few dol- lars per year higher than the average cost on the nontractor farms. The average cost per farm of keeping work stock on the nontractor farms was $838, or $3.35 per crop acre, in the southern area; $670, or \ ' _ TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. ey. $1.50 per crop acre, in the western area; and $608, or $2.11 per crop acre, in the northern area. As was the case on the tractor farms, there were wide variations in the costs on similar farms of the same size, and the cost could doubtless have been reduced considerably on many of the farms by more efficient management. CHANGES BETWEEN 1918 AND 1921. Farmers who did not own tractors were asked for a record of any changes in the size of their farms, in the amount of labor used, and in tillage practice since 1918; that is, during the three years prior to the investigation. Four of the 85 men had started farming during that time and their reports are not included in the following discussion. SIZE OF FARM. Table 64 shows the changes in the size of the farms. Forty-four, a little more than half, of the 81 farms had not been changed in size; 31 had been increased in size, and 6 had been reduced. For the entire number there had been an average increase of 45 crop acres. As was the case with the farms on which tractors were owned, the increase had been greatest in the western area and least in the southern area. TABLE 64.—Change in size of farm, 1918 to 1921. | No change. | Increasedin size. Decreased in size. All farms. _ |S Se | ey ee Area ber of | Num-| Aver- | Num- | Averagesize. | Num-| Average size. | Average size. oe (LEG) SPS) a |farms.| size. farms.| 1918 1921 |farms.| 1918 1921 | 1918 1921 Crop Crop Crop Crop Crop Crop acres. | acres. acrés. | acres. | acres. | acres. Southern 24 17 258 5) 145 2 331 206 240 | 249 Western. 30 13 404 14 | 333 3 443 389 375 453 Northern 27 14 278 | |. 28 1 300 206 246 288 Total..... | igi 44| 308 i ey 6| 382 | 297 | 292 | 337 1 Fourfarms notincluded, as they had begun operation during the period covered. LABOR. Table 65 shows the change between 1918 and 1921 in the amount of family and regular hired labor used on the 44 farms which had not been changed in size. On the average there had been an increase of 0.3 month of regular labor other than that of the operator himself. The size of these farms was less than the size of the tractor farms shown in Table 51, and this fact must be borne in mind in comparing the amount of labor used on the tractor and nontractor farms. TABLE 65.—Change in family and regular labor on farms not changed in size, 1918 to 1921. | Family and hired r ; | labor per farm. Area. Number | Average | of farms. size. 1918 1921 | | | Cropacres.| Months. | Months. OTT tlt 8 ee ee 17 | 258 oy 5.1 0.6 decrease LlUTUTA 22 oe ee eee 13 -| 404 5. 0 6.4 | 1.4increase. TOFD ECE Tus 5 esi i 14 278 6. 2 6.4 | 0.2 increase. 6 pael goee Ry Slee en alee tin tone ieee 44 | 308 | 5.6 5.9 | 0.3 increase. | 56 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. CHANGE IN TILLAGE PRACTICE. These farmers were asked the same questions concerning their tillage practices as were the tractor owners. It was found, however, that only 4 of the entire 85 were making it a practice to plow a greater percentage of their land, plow deeper, or do better seed-bed preparation other than plowing in 1921 than in 1918. OPINIONS CONCERNING TRACTORS. To determine the attitude of men who do not own tractors toward their use, each man was asked why he did not own a tractor, and — if he intended to buy one in the future. Of the 85 men, 23 stated — definitely that they expected to buy tractors in the future, 11 were undecided, and 51 said that they intended to continue farming with ~ horses only. Ten of the 85 men had previously owned tractors but had disposed of them, chiefly because they were considered more expensive than horses. As a reason for not owns tractor, the first cost or cost of operat- — ing the machine was given by 42 of the 85 men. Some of these 42 stated that the lack of capital alone had prevented their purchasing machines. Sixteen of the men thought the tractors would not be 4 paying investments and 8 considered themselves mechanically in- | competent to operate tractors. COST OF POWER AND MAN LABOR FOR DIFFERENT OPERATIONS. The average costs per acre of power, and of power and man labor, for the different field operations when done with tractors and horses are shown in. Table 66 both for the farms where tractors were owned and those where tractors were not owned. Costs for operations per- formed by less than 20 men are omitted. TABLE 66.—Cost per acre of power and man labor for different operations when done with tractors and horses. (Averages for all farms. ) Farms on which tractors were owned. Farms on which tractors were not With tractors 1921. | With horses 1921. | @WPed, with horses 1921. Operation. Cost Cost J Cost Num- Cost |_ Per Num- Cost |. Pet Num- Cost |. Pet ber acre of | ber acre of | ber acre of per- wer | per- power | per- :| power form- i 4s Sand - a cat and | form- ies es ana ing. |POWer-) man | ing. power! man | ing. |POWe'-| man labor. labor. labor. Spring Plowing .2 sc se Aaemee ake ees foe oe 111 | $1.64 | $1.84] 116 | $1.50 | $1.9 54 | $1.12) $1.61 Kall Plowing s.%. < .524..4 as aos ee ule 2 299.) 1.84) 2.504}. 102.) 1.29.) 1. 75 62 93 1.34 LEATS 6 {Re SER Te gee ort e Teme eae OS Be 43 -98 | 1.10 43 -82] 1.03 25 . 4 .74 saan gr 320 oS! oF eee oe cee 24.) 105 Dede 52 - 66 . 88 25 -48 .70 Disking plowed ground: ingle :Qiski: so. of oe oo ees eee (1) Sics see ele ceeee 30 52 67-| -@) -|nes2eseteoeeee ANON) OISk 75 An 47. eee aoe eee 61 86 oa ig (62) va | ES ain) RT es QO)» lassotes|seepene Disking unplowed ground: INPIO CISKs Jc eae hea eee ont see (2): Be eee ecees 87 - 40 . 55 40 - 30 44 emiem. disk. - 82). oc Us Pe oe ss 102 -79 . 89 30 89°} 1.09) @) |... eee Diskingin combination....-.......-.-:-. 46 .92 | 1.03 Ot | Stasis elena = Sa O |. <0. 0lbeneeee ATID ei tg ihe oh os Se enitaae Balas Oe 101 .39 -45 |] 181 24 -32 63 20 . 28 POPU Se ee oo Saou oe bebe dea ete ates 194 . 60 -68 | 273 39 52 85 28 - 40 ASR PCO £25 no Pie am war's 4-dlee 41 -98 | 1.09 | 224 -78 | 1.04 66 . 54 . 78 Drawinies DIN Gr f2c)s5 2S shal ar ee ee 177 - 68 .87 | 188 - 43 e106 67 24 - 43 Drawine mesder) 8207 vo. Psee's 7. =. Stes 22 - 40 SOL |) 108 .33 41 47 24 «Ol APA COMIN Ours coe etre tect ee 34 HR be . 88 OM sce messlomnan ae ere |e 1 Performed by less than 20 men: TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 57 Costs for power are based upon the costs of using tractors and of keeping work stock on the individual farms during the year covered by the investigation. The cost of man labor has been calculated at the flat rate of 20 cents per hour for man labor on all farms both when using tractors and when using horses. Costs for the grain binder, header and combine when drawn with tractors include the labor of a man on the machine as well as that of the tractor operator. The labor of only one man is included in the costs of all other opera- tions shown. Costs per acre in 1922 of power with tractors were computed on a basis of 75 per cent of the costs for the year of the investigation, and the same rate (20 cents per hour) was charged for man labor. On account of the lower cost per hour of horse labor on the farms where tractors were not owned the costs per acre of power for the different operations were in every case lower than the costs for the / same operations when done with horses on the farms where tractors were owned. FARMS ON WHICH NO HORSES WERE OWNED. Eleven farms in the western area kept no work stock. On two of these farms no horse labor was used for planting and harvesting the one crop, wheat. A combine drawn by the tractor was used in each case to harvest the crop. On the remaining nine farms horse labor was hired as needed, usually to harvest wheat, an average of 1,025 hours for the nine farms being used. These farms were much smaller than either of the other classes previously discussed—454 acres in total size, and 306 acres in seal of which 271 acres, about 90 per cent, was in wheat. (See Tables 2 and 3.) On seven farms wheat was the only crop grown. The _ tractors were used for 82 per cent of the total drawbar work on these seven farms, compared with 76 per cent on the entire 11. The drawbar work on the 11 farms amounted to an equivalent of 10 hours of horse labor per crop acre, compared with 15 hours on the farms where some horses were owned. (See pages 25 and 53.) TaBLE 67.— Utilization and cost of using tractors on farms on which no horses were owned. Average | Average Item. per Item. per tractor. tractor. MSISEDOL OMIATING 2! oe oa. sio oe wasos es ss 11 Fuel per year for drawbar work: SePEIOMLEAChOE-«-4 =. 2s 72-5. months.. 13.8 || Gasoline. ee ree nae gallons. . 349 marst cost of tractor...-.s...-.--- dollars..| 1054 IKiGLOSGNGM eee Seek ee doee:< 219 ®stimated total life...-.......... years... 5.8 Oil per year for drawbar work. .... Gdor=2 49 Annual cost of repairs and upkeep Cost of using tractor for drawbar work: eer te sores << soe wk Be dollars. . 25. 00 Pen yeares 2520226. 5....'... dollars... 399. 00 Tractor work per year: Per NOULSs 66 sae cc wok ceca ces do. 1.36 Drawbar (home farm) ....... hours. . 293.2 || + DE eee eel FOG Custom (home farm)......... do 90.0 |; Total (home farm)............ doz. 2 383. 0 Sixty-four per cent of the tractors were of the two-plow size. The first cost, annual cost of repairs and upkeep, and cost per year and per hour for drawbar work are less on these farms than on the _ 1-tractor-and-horse farms on which only 31 per cent of the tractors were of the two-plow size. More custom work but considerable less . 58 BULLETIN 1202, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. belt and drawbar work was done than on the farms having one tractor in addition to horses. The estimated total life was one-half year less than that of the tractors on the other farms. Seven of the eleven farmers began farming without horses. The entire number considered their tractors profitable investments and five found no disadvantage in using them. FARMS ON WHICH TWO TRACTORS WERE OWNED. Two tractors were owned and used for drawbar work on 6 farms in the southern area, 13 in the western area, and 2 in the northern area. A summary of the utilization and cost of using the tractors on these farms in the western area (being the largest group) is given in Table 68. TABLE 68.— Utilization and cost of using tractors, farms on which two tractors were owned (western area). Average | Average Item. per Item. per tractor. tractor. APOIO! LLACtOr.: -.% 25006 Sos saoe months.. 1 26.4 Fuel per year for drawbar work: Birsticostiof tractor....2-=-...-: dollars. .| 1 1, 606. 00 Gasoline: 32: 25% 22ers gallons. . 538 Estimated total life. ............. years... 16.3 KGFOSENC See sce oa: oc eee eee dosa 376 Annual cost of repairs and upkeep Oil per year for drawbar work. ...do.... GY 503 eee eee geen eee dollars. . 90.00 || Cost of using tractor for drawbar work: Tractor work per year: POE YOals se eee eee dollars. - 595. 00 Drawbar (home farm)........ hour. . 315 Per bourse as. sos. cee ccs dosiz: 1. 89 Belpre ees ee ose 19 CHER) 0) (ee SSeS ate ee do 24 STS ah ene och ai ore oe ee sac do 359 1 Five tractors purchased secondhand not included. The two-tractor farms are more than 300 acres larger than the one-tractor farms in the same area. The percentage of the total area in crops likewise is greater (75 per cent and 61 per cent, respectively) as is the percentage of crop area in wheat (87 per cent and 79 per cent, respectively). But 3 of the 13 farms have a crop area smaller than the average crop area for the one-tractor farms. Of the 26 tractors, of which Table 68 is a summary, 5 were pur- chased second-hand at an average cost of $760 compared with $1,606 for the new tractors. All aia there were seven 2-plow tractors, nine 3-plow, five 4-plow, and five larger. On one farm only were two tractors of 2-plow size used. On six of the farms, however, the two tractors were of the same size. On seven of the farms at least one 4-plow tractor was owned. There is no marked difference between the utilization and cost of using tractors on the two-tractor farms and on the farms on which one tractor is owned. In the former group the first cost is somewhat larger because larger sized tractors are used; repairs are slightly more, ed estimated total life one-half year less; there is a difference of but 17 hours in the total utilization per year. There is a difference of $111 per year in the cost of using tractors for drawbar work (40 cents per our) in favor of the one-tractor farms. . It would have required 7,154 hours of horse labor to accomplish the drawbar work done with the tractors on these farms. This represents 78 per cent of the total drawbar work compared with 46 ee ee. ae ee ee “ wate at TRACTORS AND HORSES IN THE WINTER WHEAT BELT. 59 er cent for the one-tractor farms. On the two-tractor farms nearly half of the ground seeded to small grain had no preparation previous to drilling, while only about one-fifth of the ground on the one- tractor farms had no previous preparation. Consequently, the equivalent of but 10 hours of horse labor was required for the drawbar work on each crop acre on the former farms as compared with 14 hours on the one tractor farms. TABLE 69.— Utilization and cost of keeping work stock. Average Average Item. per Item. per farm, farm. EN(IMU DOM OMATING = 2 2 5 2< <0 oie cnic: 02. 5-2 JoHN R. Mouter, Chief. Pamems.of Plant Industry 22) 22a Wurm A. Taytor, Chief. PE WOETUICE Soe Se wa Net eee ae W. B. GREELEY, Chief. arerenias O) CHEMABIY. <2 ne ce eo eee C. A. Browne, Chief. Pema, OTIS), 620 e ae ee ee ee ee Mitton Waurrtney, Chief. Fea of PE atomology. 2. <2. 22 ss 2 eeee L. O. Howarp, Chief. Bureau of Biological Survey.......-..------- E. W. Netson, Chief. eae DIC RONG OC ik 3 ate ote Toomas H. MacDona.p, Chief. Bureau of Home Economics.......-.-.------ Louise STANLEY. Office of Experiment Stations.......-...---- E. W. Aen, Chief. Fixed Nitrogen Research Laboratory .....-.--- F. G. Corrrett, Director. Sp Ee Rae Efe pe aie ge ah CLARIBEL R. Barnett, Librarian. Federal Horticultural Board........--------- C. L. Martatr, CHAIRMAN. Insecticide and Fungicide Board............ J. K. Haywoop, Chairman. Packers and Stockyards Administration... .... CHESTER MorriLt, Assistant to the Grain Future Trading Act Administration . - i} Secretary. DEMO Ss 2. = don ee Ce Sao ae R. W. W1t1aMs. This bulletin is a joint contribution from weereatof Public Roads:. -2t2ee5- 25 2c ee Tuomas H. MacDona tp, Chief. Division of Agricultural Engineering..... S. H. McCrory, Chief. Bureau of Agricultural Economics ......-.-- Henry C. Taytor, Chief. Division of Farm Management.......... H. R. Toney, in charge. Bureau of Animal Industry............---- JoHN H. Mouter, Chief. Animal Husbandry Division..........- E. W. SHEETS, Acting Chie. 69 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 10 CENTS PER COPY V : : ot) - , Ae a 7 } : a 7 . : Wan ere : ; _ : 7 ; 1 : a ‘ 7 a 7. i i) I : _ _ y : - 1 ¢ ‘ n f° vr ® : i A - yu, * ’ ” en fi. & - ’ a ’ 7 7 ; ar es t a : ¢ r : S204 (ee: i : : ¢ : 4 - ie = = = - 7) : a. 7 tr t » - . : fe 7 | ee 7 a : : , i of ¥ e ; * ue ao i ta S % se 7 , ‘ ' - : > : i! I 7¢ _ - 4 ; ’ 7 : Ls nd x : . } . ars 7 = : ' ' th i a hi ' ’ a 4 ‘ ' : 7 ; 7 7 4 a t ‘ © a - a : ¥ a) an me ae ‘ ¥ iu i 7 A nw volte A ‘ i ri - - _ =~ ' ' h ' : he : 4 ; a. a ' : i DG ey ory : : a Z : Ae 7 i ri :. a i 7 7 my - = - Si a a 4 af ® - —— a) : . a 5 =e 3 a i. =4 t - i : os oe - _ an : “a oa yo - > Me ‘ i : sm © ad : = i> ny a _ i 7 a 7 7 ~ ‘ion? Dy aS ae : ae t._i - “s ( _ © : 7 1 : = ~ gi tas : a 2 4 a - 7" AGG 5 ee a a. Ss = a o : 7 a a ol? a are "~ _ no Sal = Ss -§ é w 6 7 ai oe ee S-— ae a = 7 on os "1, oe a « =f aan a pel ew care tie” a So eel : mr & Vig. Se 7 ee a iA 7 i ee ar) ; Bey Pal ys s oy >< ~ ,. on, 1 wane ~ ioe % > 5m oY oe aD ioe wet : 3° tee Se as eee — a ee eee BaP : Sa > " > i? 6 i oe ee i ee i fs ~~ 4 2 ‘ q Re we eT = —_ yoy ae ® Pats ie i 7 ; ie ee eee a wa C4 of at @, a _ mm Ae _ — a rea. ee ae ~~ a 7 hy | . " moe am, a a ore 7 iD - a ” ei “S21 ae a> oh — =: a roll as a oo ~~ ars 7 ae * 7 ws 7 + as a een int af teens Oe . “et yeeers m ~ =e 7”. >. re ai 7 > =a)? 44 oe a ii, as a g oe 2) an , 7 Sag co WS 2 Oe ial oa aes a a Soe a aoe ata, Son ne - 4 9F au 6 re ~ = ln a baht os he - - 7 _ eT oe - \ ns at f “ 1 = ve se C= 7 s a, par re hi Cee ot glia ee c= ieee, » Adie => as ae me” = —— 7 > — a a be >) ya mee ih oeren |. ac %GARAG . =— » - & Bait i = 7 oo ee ae by & _ i - ~ ‘ : : Uae ey | _ : es pee eet * ii, > a lo Cee ‘i Me — — _— hens — nm he a 7 — —- 7 vee “ cerns ae ae a er see a) - = 7 oe el -. 15 7 ne? 7 A Se ee ee Te © Se aa re * “2 i,”—n - .- — _ SS 7 an oo r= h— =e a. _ 7 ae te : 7 : 7 - CSN 286 hs <. +o a Sa = — -~ oa —. —s 7 7 7 - ia - aS = : - a a ©) yy, e We .s. a i} ‘7 7 - — - =a 7 - a : har - ~~) 7 aa - _ 7 et -{ as a - > = 7 Py: - Bt at om ; s 7 7 7 1S - ri ~ ».©¢ ~ ae = : _ rt - ee: - a - - fat , a 7 — ; Naan - : ; 7 a 7 7 2 J ies : . a 1 od 7 : . on 7 “a. -) 3 ‘ : 7 ated eS ni _ To _ : A : - 7 sc > an : rh _ > BOF 1 ’ 7 : - - : re 7, ~~ : — ¥ Aa 7 ey : 4 ; : ~ vg LY 7 a 7 - * <4 her 3 = >i) a eee Se ee eh hin er - ml “y — a. A ve and ¥ 7 Pe 2 Lo . -_ 7 r a) ; -— 7 an 7 : 7 a t 7 ea : ‘i ahs Sh - . a , 2) fae , a > >et_ we ok a Se tah Ne One . Se PS =i » oo at ee, : ’ -_ 7 _ nal es 1 e | “ery oe a oa - = 8 » 4. og n x; 7 rl =r — ad == 7, Ve Me 2 er A = oes iv -* > — — " j 7 nae — a 7 : eee te 7 — = ‘1 2 ie 7 : : i haf i _ ~~ ou « : wes 7 . = © — Oa ae , ® 7 Bc. © * = - ad - ; = - mh 9 ve es - - ; 7 = 7 i rs ': » -3 a& % . : E 7 cy « a 7 me” » oe od 7 - a ; r - - - oe 7 « - - : = ~ 7 d rss y as, a Pi red %, 7 - my 7 7 a Sy ae 7 7 7 « 7 @ . wae a ie ; on i - on : - ee fr 4 ruse 7 u a et el Oo al Le = ea i ee ne - Py ps: ey > i<_-* 7 - 7 eae 7 b "has ; a ae ee Seti ey M, Gat. ML a is OO | =~ Coe 2a fh 7 | (are aa i | a Aa : a es 7 7 , ) = : ie at, : nd mre So - ? J 7 - ia 7 7 or | _ — > rt La) A 7 ey et yo ie . LY) Oe i + t > - ry ne . n D : 4 ag re? aii eat adn ™! pa My “5 apn eee each 1Fe- 15°) | ae 7 = 7 fox PP ing. ae: > WoO =i) Serf 2. eT -