FARM-MANAGEMENT STUDY IN ANDERSON CO., S. C. 

 Table XIII. — Relation of size of farm to efficiency. 



19 



Size (acres). 



Number 

 of farms. 



Group. 



IV,- CCIll 



',1 ivl in ii 



on invest- 

 ment. 



Income 



per mule. 





2 

 10 

 11 



6 



7 

 11 



9 

 13 



C 

 B 

 A 

 B 

 C 

 B 

 A 

 B 



c 



B 

 A 

 B 

 C 



o-0.41 

 .08 

 4.13 

 1.08 

 4.32 

 4.80 

 6.74 

 4.22 

 2.43 

 2.52 

 6. 03 

 4.70 

 .23 



$211 



10 to 20 



288 



21 to 25 



341 



26 to 30 



2. OS 



31 to 35 



311 



36to40 



352 



41 to 45 



412 



46 to 50 



299 





7 

 2 



315 



56 to 60 



239 



61 to 65 



7 

 4 

 3 



398 



66 to 70 



457 



71 to 75 



304 







a LOSS. 



This table illustrates an application to farm-management studies 

 of what is known as the law of recurring efficiency. As the size of 

 the business increases (see fig. 6) a point is reached where the single 

 unit of organization can be utilized most profitably. For some 

 distance above this point the size does not permit the proper adjust- 

 ment of the unit, and the business loses efficiency. As the size 

 keeps on increasing another point is reached where two units fit in 

 well, and a high point of efficiency is again reached. These high 

 points, or the periods of efficiency on these farms, were on farms 

 having 21 to 25, 41 to 45, and 61 to 65 acres per farm. Comparing 

 these data with the most profitable acreage per work animal,- it can be 

 seen that these sizes are sizes for well-organized one, two, and three mule 

 farms. Farms that were too large or too small for a given number of 

 mules were less profitable. There were only a few farms in each of 

 the groups in this table, but the influence of efficient sizes is so strong 

 that a large number of farms is not required to discern the effect. 



We may now take those farms having the more favorable sizes, 

 namely, those of 21 to 25, 41 to 45, and 61 to 65 acres, and compare 

 them still further with those having less favorable sizes. In Table 

 XIII the groups of farms are labeled A, B, and C, as an indication 

 of the f avorableness of size, the A groups having the most favorable 

 and C the least favorable size. By combining all the A groups into 

 one, the B groups into another, and the C groups into a third, the 

 effect of the favorableness of size can be clearly seen. The farm in- 

 come, the labor income, the per cent return on the investment, and 

 the income per mule (see Table XIV) are all highest on the farms 

 having the more favorable sizes. In the A groups the farm income is 

 48 per cent higher than, and the per cent return on the investment 

 more than double, that in the C groups. 



