FARMING IN THE BLUEGRASS IiEGION. 



25 



Table XX shows the diversity that corresponds to highest effi- 

 ciency on each type of farm. It is evident from this table that there 

 could be no general increase in efficiency through increase in diversity, 

 since the diversity which gives highest efficiency is about equal to the 

 average for each type. There is as much liability to lose through 

 overdiversity as through underdiversity. The average farm of 

 each type has no doubt about the diversity it should have. 



Table XX. — Shotting the diversity index that corresponds to maximum effi- 

 ciency on various types of farms. 



Type. 



Number 



of 

 records. 



Size of 

 farm. 



Diversity 

 index corre- 

 sponding to 

 highest 



efficiency. 



Average 

 diversity 





31 

 61 

 36 

 31 



18 



Acres. 

 174 

 344 

 256 

 316 

 683 



2.4 

 4.6 

 3.8 

 3.6 

 2.0 



2.3 





3.4 



General mixed 



4.6 





4.1 





2.8 







COST OF PRODUCTION. 



In Table XXI are shown the average unit value and cost of 

 production for several important enterprises. In arriving at these 

 figures every item of expense, including the cost of operator's labor 

 and management and of rent has been counted. Values have been de- 

 termined by current market prices. 



Table XXI. — Unit cost and value for several important enterprises on the 

 different types of farms for the year 1913. 



Type of farm. 



Num- 

 ber of 

 records. 



Corn, per 



bushel. 



Tobacco, per 

 pound. 



Wheat, per 

 bushel. 



Rye, per 

 bushel. 



Meadow hay, 

 per ton. 



Productive 



live stock; 



animal unit 



basis. 





Cost. 



Value. 



Cost. 



Value. 



Cost. 



Value. 



Cost. 



Value. 



Cost. 



Value. 



Cost. 



Value 



Tobacco 



Tobacco stock . . 



General mixed. . 



Stock with to- 

 bacco 



Stock with no 

 tobacco 



31 

 61 

 36 



31 



18 

 10 



SO. 76 

 .71 

 .73 



.65 



.64 

 .81 



$0.76 

 .76 

 .76 



.76 



.76 

 .76 



$0. 113 

 .123 

 .130 



.120 



SO. 118 

 .119 

 .116 



.117 



SO. 73 

 .88 

 .75 



.84 



.98 

 .68 



80.98 

 .98 

 .98 



.98 



.98 

 .98 



SI. 33 

 1.04 

 1.01 



1.01 



1.22 



$0.84 

 .84 

 .84 



.84 



.84 

 .84 



S16. 67 

 16.00 

 15.27 



18.94 



22.50 

 18.16 



S16.06 

 16.06 

 16.06 



16.06 



16.06 

 16.06 



$48.51 

 39.75 

 47.92 



44.86 



41.96 



66.24 



S42.40 

 47.66 

 47.73 



54.93 



53.49 



Dairy 



.127 



.104 



100. 88 







Av. of all.. 



187 



.68 



.76 



.127 



.US 



.80 



.98 



1.05 



.84 



17.75 



16.06 



44.41 52.55 



The enterprises are usually so dependent on each other, and their 

 place in the farm organization so related to the utilization of labor 

 and to other factors, that the distribution of costs is a difficult mat- 

 ter. In fact, no system has as yet been devised which can be said 

 to make this distribution in any but an approximately correct man- 



