26 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPAKTMEXT OF AGRICrLTUEE. 



Acres of crop land per mule. — In Table X the farms are grouped 

 according to the amount of crop land worked per mule. The farms 

 that have the fewest acres per mule, or an average of 16, secured only 

 67 days productive work from each animal, but as the number of 

 acres increased, the number of days per mule increased regularly to 

 an average of 139 on the group that operated the largest area per 

 animal. This increased employment' of the work stock resulted in a 

 corresponding decrease in the cost per day of productive labor from 

 $1.50 to $0.90. Such an economy in so important an item of cost 

 must necessarily result in lower costs of production and greater 

 profits. The cost of producing cotton decreased from 9^ cents per 

 pound on the first-mentioned group x>i farms t'o 8.3 cents on the 

 farms that operated 30 or 35 acres per mule, but it increased to 9 

 cents on the farms that had more than 35 acres per animal. This 

 result was corroborated by the index of earnings, which increases 

 markedly up to the point of 30 to 35 acres per mule. Beyond this 

 the profits are less. 



An apparent irregularity appears in that the index earnings were 

 greater for the first than for the second group of farms shown in 

 Table X. The explanation is that two or three farms with good 

 crop yields and a low investment secured a high percentage of re- 

 turns in spite of inadequate utilization of work stock. The number 

 of farms in the group was insufficient fully to neutralize the influence 

 of these few abnormal farms. 



It will be noted that the farms which cultivated the fewest acres 

 per mule average smaller in size than those which operated a larger 

 area per animal. Undoubtedly the larger farms possess advantages 

 which facilitate their organization upon a basis providing for the 

 more efficient employment of work stock labor. 



It may further be stated that the cultivation of an increased number 

 of acres per work animal was not at the expense of crop yields. In 

 fact, the lowest yields were found in the group that worked the 

 smallest area per animal. 



It is not probable that all the differences in costs and profits shown 

 can be attributed to the differences in relative employment of work 

 stock, for the men who keep their work stock efficiently employed are 

 likely to be also more efficient in other respects. But the method of 

 grouping used eliminates the effect of other factors as far as pos- 

 sible, and it is believed that the influence of area per mule has not 

 been greatly overemphasized. 



Farmers are Often advised to reduce the number of acres per mule 

 in order to cultivate the remaining acres more intensively, but the 

 preceding table would seem to show that it is much more important 

 to cultivate a sufficient number of acres per work animal to keep that 



