Belt Valley times. [volume] (Armington, Mont.) 1894-1977, 1925-04-02
Study Is Made
Of Many Farms
Reasons for Success or FAN
ure by Indiana Farmers
Considered.
Prepared By the United states ,pepartnsnt
Of AErieuiture.3

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 jusf
completed by the United States De
partment Of Agriculture. In this In
vestigRtion 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
ventigators IN detail. On the most sue
cessfuI 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 II per cent on the four least
successful farms. Variations IN other
crop acreages likewise were smaller on
the most profitable farms Il 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 Factor.
Il was shown too that while high
crop yields alone do not insure a good
farm income, the YIELDS on the sue
cessfui farms averaged higher than
on the unsuccessful farms. In the
Ease Of corn the average yield on the
four best farms was 90 bushels an
acre compared with A on the four
least successful farms. Similar pro
portions held for the other crops. In
general tIie. 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
reed to prevent diseases, and followed
rood methods of cultivation.
No one thing had a greater infiu-
nce on comparative profits than the
i've stock returns per head. On the
our most successful Clinton county
arms the yield Of butterfat per COW
vas 100 pounds compared with 90
pounds on the four least successful +.
arms. The best farms had one calf !,
,er COW every IA months, compared !.
o one every 10 months on the least ,
successful farms Other comparisons
n favor OF the most successful farms
we're: SO per cent pigs per SOW per ;,
ear, compared with SO; 6.8 eggs per !,
zen per year, compared with 5.8; and ;,
g chickens. compared to ID One OF :
he four most profitable fnrms had =,
nough live stock to consume 1881
ushels OF purchased corn per year IN
ddition TO 2,400 bushels grown on the
arm. On the four most successful
arms the average amount Of corn con Ia
nmed was 2,T62 bushels compared p
18th 2,015 bushels on the four least q
iccessful farms. bi
Protein Deficiency. $
Another important practice which +,
lowed profitable results on the most !,
iccessful farms was the purchase Of ~
lnkage for hogs. Operators Of these IA
rms recognized that most farm n
eds are deficient In protein. They a,
'nseQuentiy supplemented home
Town feeds with purchased protein
'ncentrates, During the eight years
e four most successful Clinton coun-
! farms purchased an average OF ~
900 pounds Of tankage per year. az ue
impaired to less than 100 pounds pur- &c
Iased by the least successful farmers. DC
he most successful farmers also pur- IN
lased S,36S pounds Of mill feed a erl
ar compared TO $40 pounds pur- In
ased by the least successful farmers. tal
Poultry contributed average sales of lib
% a. year. besides averaging $3.50 ga
sFth- OF eggs and meat fer the home IN
bic on the four most successful de
rms In the county. These farms also
d sales OF dairy products averaging
% a year. In general II was noted
At the most successful farms were y
tier equipped with machinery than mz
3 least successful farms, although
was recognized that q 160-acre farm N,
" easily be overequipped
Il was found that the best 10 per {
Mt OF the 400 farms investigated or
,ldsd an average yearly income,
I'm 1910 to 1922, sufIlclent to cover I
per cent interest on their capital Ia
81 .405 for labor and management, nos
d In addition an important share OF
} milk. meat poultry, eggs. vege- I
oles, fruit and fuel consumed in the tab
IN homes. Supplies thus obtained one
tn the saving made on house rent.
ied an average OF 5000 year to the Z
IA income. nln
Farm receipts on the four most sue obs
;sful out Of II farms averaged So ~,
), or return of ~ per cent on the
oital invested. compared with ne 7
pts from the four least successful n
ms In this group averaging only the
nal of An Investment raftru ~ = < -.