FARM-MANAGEMENT STUDY ]N_ ANDERSON CO., S. C. 29 



price of land and the quality of grazing the pastures in this area 

 afford, stockers and feeders can not be profitably produced except 

 on very limited areas of waste land, or on land that is too poor for 

 growing crops profitably, yet which will furnish some grazing. 

 Cottonseed meal and hulls have been used for fattening cattle in 

 South Carolina, but even when silage was added to the ration, this 

 method of fattening cattle appears to have been not entirely satis- 

 factory. When meal was worth $20 per ton and hulls $4 per ton, 

 and feeders could be bought cheaply in the mountains of North Caro- 

 lina and Tennessee, many farmers throughout the State fattened 

 cattle for the market, but as other cattlemen from other parts of the 

 country competed for the feeders, and the price of meal and hulls 

 went up, South Carolina farmers went out of the business, and only a 

 small percentage of the number of cattle fattened in this way 10 years 

 ago are now fattened in the State. Farmers in the corn belt of the 

 Middle West, where the cost of producing corn and hay is much 

 lower than it is in the Belton area, have an advantage in fattening 

 cattle over the Anderson County farmer, which, under the conditions, 

 can not be overcome. Another factor that is against the growing of 

 beef cattle in this area is the density of the population. There is 

 already one family for less than 25 acres of cultivated land. If the 

 family makes a living, the farming must be intensive. Beef-cattle 

 farming, particularly raising stockers and feeders, is an extensive 

 kind of farming requiring comparatively much land and little labor. 

 If such a type were established in the Belton area, much of the labor 

 would be thrown out of employment. These considerations explain 

 why beef cattle are not found on these farms and furnish substantial 

 proof that conditions are not favorable for the production of beef 

 cattle in this area. 



The number of sheep in the entire county in 1910, according to 

 the census report, was only 245. Consequently, this branch of live 

 stock need not be discussed, except to say that the same competition 

 of the western ranges that drove sheep out of New England also 

 drove them out of South Carolina. However, the conditions which 

 caused the abandonment of sheep in this county several years ago 

 are now changed, and it is well worth considering whether in view 

 of the shortage in wool and mutton it would not be profitable to 

 farm owners to have small flocks of sheep as a part of the system of 

 diversified farming. A small flock of sheep, like a small flock of 

 chickens, can be maintained on the average farm with very little 

 outlay for maintenance. 



The average number of chickens per farm was 41. There were a 

 few farms with more than 100 hens. Some of the large flocks were 

 profitable, and some were not, the small number of eggs obtained 



