The revised cropping and livestock plan outlined in Table 18 was used 

 as a basis for testing alternative patterns of machinery and equipment or- 

 ganization. As with the small farm, only the aspects of the farm business 

 associated with the. use of machinery and equipment were analyzed in detail. 

 Estimates were made of the effects of alternative equipment patterns upon 

 additional farm costs and additional farm returns. 



The cropping operations showing both crop acres and acres of work are 

 given in Table 19. 



Table 19. — Annual Acreage Associated with Cropping Operations, Farm B 



Operation 



Plowing 

 Harrowing 

 Planting corn 

 Cultivating corn 

 Spreading manure 

 Spreading fertilizer and lime 

 Seeding grass 

 Harvesting hay 

 Harvesting corn silage 

 Pasture maintenance 



Alternative 1 — Recommended Combination of Self-owned Equipment 



The crop programs and cropping operations for farms A and B are 

 similar and the proportions of the total number of acres of work in various 

 jobs is practically the same. The major difference is that farm B has con- 

 siderably more crop acreage. To compensate for the larger acreage, the 

 tractor is medium-sized, the truck 1^/4 ton, the breaking plow has two 14'' 

 bottoms, and the wagon is omitted. The total job hours of machine work on 

 farm B are a third greater than on farm A with 2 acres more corn silage, 

 30 acres more hay and rotation pasture, 3 acres more new seedings, and 10 

 acres more pasture. 



The combination consisting of all owned equipment for farm B is shown 

 in Table 20. This represents the optimum combination of mechanically 

 powered machinery that would meet the functional requirements of the farm 

 cropping program with the existing supply of labor. Direct operating costs 

 of this combination of machinery with no charge for labor amounted to $363 

 per year and total machinery costs amounted to $1,348 per year. 



Alternative 2 — Joint Ownership 



Joint ownership would permit reduction of costs of production by lower- 

 ing annual ownership costs roughly by half. But on farms of this size the 

 workload per machine is probably large enough for the loss of timeliness of 

 operation to offset the advantages of lower ownership costs. Evaluation of 

 this alternative method as an opportunity to reduce production costs must 

 be related to the circumstances of each situation. 



Alternative 3 — Substitution of Custom-hired for Self-owned Machinery 



Substituting custom-hired for owned machinery in performing all of 

 the field operations would require a cash payment of $3,196 on farm B. 



28 



