58 BULLETIN 1034, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Did the operators of the small farms consider their own labor and 

 management %oorth as much as did those of the large farms? 



No. The farmers operating the small farms valued their own labor 

 and management at less than half as much as did the farmers operat- 

 ing the large farms. 



Thus it will be seen that many factors bear on the question of 

 differences in the production and returns of these farms. On some 

 farms an outstanding single factor was decisive, while on some others 

 no single factor determined results. Variation in the yielding ca- 

 pacity of the land was no doubt a prominent factor in some instances 

 and this influence is reflected in land values, as shown in Tables 30 

 and 31. There was a tendency for farms with low yields to use less 

 working capital and expend less money in operation than those with 

 high yields, and more of the farms with the low yields were under 

 mortgage than of those with the high yields. These facts suggest 

 lack of capital and possibly the need of better credit facilities on 

 some of the farms. In a few cases age or experience of the operator 

 appear to be the import&,nt factors affecting production and returns. 

 An occasional farm was found with poor yields apparently due to 

 the indifference of the operator. 



In this connection it should ever be borne in mind that the capacity 

 and efficiency of the farmer is an important factor bearing on yields 

 and profits. Judgment as to what to do, how to do it, and when to 

 do it is always telling in results. 



The data, in Tables 30 and 31 may be said to show that any given 

 farm in this area, to be profitable, should follow the type of farming 

 best adapted to its conditions, should be efficient in the use of both 

 man and horse labor, adequately yet economically equipped, and as 

 good as or better than the average farm of its type in size of business, 

 yield of crops, and returns for live stock. 



BEARING OF FARM ORGANIZATION ON COST OF PRODUCING 



COTTON.' 



When a farm or an agricultural area derives the greater part of its 

 income from a single product, the production cost per unit of the 

 product for a given year may be determined with reasonable accuracy 

 from the data collected through th^ regular farm business analysis 

 study. An example is furnished in Sumter County, where the cotton 

 crop occupied 59 per cent of the crop acreage and constituted 84 per 

 cent of thfe farm receipts in 1913, and 42 per cent of the crop acreage 

 and 76 per cent of the farm receipts in 1918. The crop acreage not 



■^ The results of the study of cost of producing- cotton on 80 of these farms vras pub- 

 lished in U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 8tiG. A study of the farms as 

 compared with the average of all these farms showed them to be somewhat above the 

 average, and this was reflected in a lower cost per pound of lint as compared with the 

 average of the 550 farms. 



