THE HUMAN BASIS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 103 



one-fourth female. Over three-fifths of the laborers are members 

 of the farmers' families, and less than two-fifths are " working 

 out." 



The human element in agriculture is, as a rule, organized 

 into family groups. Where the natural family is too small for 

 the farm, additional members are taken into the family as wage 

 earners. Where the families are too large for the farm, some 

 of the members work for other families. While this is the rule, 

 there are numerous exceptions. It is by no means uncommon 

 to find a cottage on the farm where a married laborer lives and 

 works for the farmer. 



The family organization lends much to the permanency, 

 the physical and mental character, and to the means of control 

 of labor in agriculture. 



The functions of man in agriculture may be divided into 

 management and labor. There is no clear-cut division between 

 the managers and the laborers on most farms in the United 

 States. The organization is usually more or less democratic. 

 The farmer or manager participates in the labor of the farm, 

 and the other workers usually feel free to make suggestions 

 regarding the management. 



The managerial functions may be divided into two classes: 

 First, the function of determining general policies. For ex- 

 ample, the choice of a farm with respect to location and size, 

 or the choice of types of farming with respect to crops to grow 

 and live stock to keep, are questions which require careful 

 deliberation. Second, the function of immediate supervision 

 of the work. The projecting of the program of the day, and 

 the meeting of emergencies as they arise require alertness of 

 mind if the labor is to be directed with best results. Since 

 every farmer must perform both of these functions, it is evident 

 that farming is a business requiring men of many qualities. 



Farmers vary greatly in their ability as managers and as 

 workmen. This is a matter of common observation. J. E. T. 

 Rogers l says, " Just as one field may grow more corn than 

 another field, without putting the farmer to any greater cost in 



1 "Social Economy," pp. 36-37. ' 



