DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNIT1 1> MATES 325 



$7.20 ; that of implements and machinery from 0.89 to 1.44 ; 

 and that of live stock from $3.67 to $5.60. 



Another way to show the movement is to study the average 

 value of farm property per farm. This, however, is not as satisfac- 

 tory a basis as the average value per acre of land, because of the 

 double movement. Hetween 1900 and 1910 the average size of 

 farms decreased from 146.2 acres to 138.1 acres. This decrease of 

 8.1 acres, or 5.5 per cent, in the average size of farms counter- 

 balanced in part the increase in the average value of all farm 

 property per farm. On the other hand, the average acreage of 

 improved land per farm increased 4.2 per cent, the decrease 

 being entirely in the unimproved land. The increases, however, 

 are not as large as they would have been had the farms remained 

 the same in size. The average value of all farm property per 

 farm for all farms in the United States was $3563 in 1900, 

 whereas in 1910 it was $6444. The increase in the value of 

 land alone was from $2276 per farm to $4476 per farm ; that 

 of buildings was from $620 to 994 ; that of implements and 

 machinery was from $131 to $199; and that of live stock was 

 from $536 to $774. 



When all of these facts are brought together, it becomes clear 

 that (luring the first ten years of the new century the increase in 

 quantity of farm property was very small. I have already noted 

 that the inerease in the acreage of land in farms was only 4.8 per 

 cent. Since the number of farms increased only 10.9 per cent, 1 

 think we may safely assume that the number of sets of farm 

 buildings iiu reased probably not more than 10.9 per cent. Doubt- 

 hiring the decade th-re ivm many additional buildings 

 added to those already on farms ; but the number of new build- 

 . -reeled was probably far short of the increase reported in 

 value of the farm buildings. The increase in the aereage of 

 improved land in farms was given as 15.4 per cent. \\V may 

 assume- that the increase in the quantity f implements and ma- 

 chinery was at least 15.4 per cent, .md since the use of imple- 

 ments and machinery is more or less 

 rapidly, we may assume that eaeh ' added to its supply of 



