Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1925-04-02
Study Is Made
Of Many Farms
Reasons for Success or Fail
ure by Indiana Farmers
Considered.
TRrepared by the United States Department
of Acrfculture.)


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 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 yearly variation of only
IA per cent in their corn acreage, COM
pared to 81 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
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 good
farm income, the yields on the sue
cessrul farms averaged higher than
on the unsuccessful farms. In the
case of corn the average yield on the
four best farms was so 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-
aary 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 influ-
tence 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 160 pounds, compared with SO
pounds on the four least successful
farms. The best farms had one calf
per COW every "A months, compared
ito one every Is months on the least
successful farms. Other comparisons
in favor Of the most successful farms
were: $50 per cent pigs per SOW per
year, compared with SO; 6.3 eggs per
hen per year. compared with SIS; and
1.8 chickens, compared to L. One Of
the four most profitable farms had
enough live stock to consume 1.251
bushels Of purchased corn per year in
addition to 2,4O0 bushels grown on the
farm. On the four most successful
farms the average amount of corn con-
sumed was 2,T62 bushels compared
with 2,O15 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
1,400 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 1893 pounds of mill feed
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
farms in the county. These farms also
had sales of dairy products averaging
5000 a year. In general it was noted
that the most successful farms were
better equipped with machinery than
the least successful farms, although
1t was recognized that 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
o per cent interest on their capital
and ST, 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 $605 year to the
farm income.
Farm receipts on the four most sue
cessfu out of IL farms averaged So
265. or q return of 7.2 per cent on the
capital invested, compa. ed with re-
ceipts from the four least successful
farms in this group averaging only
82.961, of an investment return Of As
per cent. While farmer here and
there made good profits during the
worst period OF the depression, others
failed to earn a reasonable profit and
a fair wage for their labor even in the
war boom years. Most OF the 100
acre farmers did well during the pros
porous period from 1916 to 1919. But
In the period from 1910 to 1915 only
about half of them succeeded in MAX
mig per cent on their capital and