The Monmouth inquirer., 1925-03-26
Study Is Made
of Many Farms
Reasons for Success or Fail
ure by Indiana Farmers
Considered.
prepared by the United States Department
Of ARrlculture.l


Prepared by the United states Department
of Agrlculture.)
Methods by which certain 160-acre
farmers in central Indiana made salts
factory returns, even during the de-
preston period, are compared with the
methods used by less successful farm
ers In the same area In a study just
completed by the United States De-
partment of Agriculture. In this In
vestigation the business records Of 400
Indiana farms, covering the period
from 1910 to 1922, were studied.
How the successful farmers obtained
their results Is discussed by the in
/ ~vestigators in detail. On the most sue
cessful farms there was less variation
In cropping systems than on other
farms. Thus the -four most profitable
farms had a yearly variation of only
IA per cent In their corn acreage, COM
pared to p per cent on the four least
successful farms. Variations in other
crop acreages likewise were smaller on
the most profitable farms. 1t was also
found that the most successful farms
usually had as many fields of equal
size as there were years in the crop
rotation followed. or else they had
fields that could be combined in such
a way as to divide the crop acreage
into as many equal parts as there
were years in the crop rotation. In
other words, the best farms had the
most scientific layouts.
Live Stock a Factor.
1t was shown too that while high
crop yields alone do not insure a good
farm income, the yields on the sue
cessful farms averaged higher than
ON the unsuccessful farms. In the
case Of corn the average yield on the
four best farms was 80 bushels an
acre compared with A on the four
least successful farms. Similar pro-
portions held for the other crops. In
general the men obtaining the best
yields kept considerable live stock,
/ used commercial fertilizer. drained
land and lined the soil when neces-
sary, used good seed of varieties adapt
| ed to local conditions and treated their
seed to prevent diseases, and followed
good methods of cultivation.
No one thing had a greater iniu-
ence on comparative profits than the
live stock returns per head. On the
four most successful Clinton county
farms the yield of butterfat per COW
was 100 pounds, compared with SO
pounds on the four least successful
farms. The best farms had one calf
per COW every IA months, compared
to one every Is months on the least
successful farms. Other comparisons
in favor of the most successful farms
were: SO per cent pigs per SOW per
year, compared with SO; 6.3 eggs per
hen per year, compared with SO; and
1.S chickens, compared to IL. One Of
the four most profitable farms had
enough live stock to onsume 1851
bushels of purchased corn per year in
addition to 2,40O bushels grown on the
farm. On the four most successful
farms the average mount of corn con
sumed was 2,T62 bushels compared
with 2,015 bushels on the four least
successful farms.
Protein Deficiency.
Another important practice which
showed profitable results on the most
successful farms was the purchase of
tankage for hogs. Operators Of these
farms recognized that most farm
feeds are deficient In protein. They
consequently supplemented home
grown feeds with purchased protein
concentrates. During the eight years
the four most successful Clinton coun-
ty farms purchased an average Of
1,4OO pounds Of tankage per year, as
compared to less than 100 pounds pur-
chased by the least successful farmers.
The most successful farmers also pur-
chased 3,36S pounds of mill feed a
year, compared to $40 pounds pur-
chased by the least successful farmers.
Poultry contributed average sales of
1928 a year, besides averaging $3.50
worth of eggs and meat for the home
table on the four most successful
had sales of dairy products averaging
500 a year. In general it was noted
that the most successful farms were
better equipped with machinery than
the least successful farms. although
it was recognized that a 160-acre farm
may easily be overequipped.
1t was found that the best 10 per
cent Of the 400 farms Investigated
yielded an average yearly income,
from 1910 to 1922, sufficient to cover
5 per cent interest on their capital
and $1,465 for labor and management.
and in addition an important share of
the milk, meat, poultry, eggs, vege-
tables, fruit and fuel consumed In the
farm homes. Supplies thus obtained
with the saving made on house rent.
added an average of $6O5 a year to the
farm income.
Farm receipts on the four most sue
cessful out of II farms averaged So
2e5, or a return of 7.2 per cent on the
capital invested, compa. ed with re-
ceiDts from the four least successful