22 
BULLETIN 651, U. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGEICULTUEE. 
corn were not so good as in the group having four or more mules, 
Evidently a two-mule farm with the proper acreage per work animal 
is the best size of farm for this community. 
Table XVII. — Relation of number of work stock per farm, on farms having 17 or more 
crop acres per ivork animal, to pcr-cent return on investment and yield of crops. 
Number of 
farms hav- 
ing 17 or 
more acres 
per work 
animal. 
Per cent 
return 
on invest- 
ment. 
Yield per acre. 
Number of work stock per farm. 
Net lint 
cotton. 
Com. 
1 
17 
37 
13 
17 
3.02 
4.82 
3.73 
3.32 
Pounds. 
220 
246 
233 
242 
Bushels. 
18.6 
2 . 
16.6 
3 
17.2 
19.6 
There are several reasons for the relatively high efficiency of the 
two-mule farm. The operator himself usually works, and he takes 
more interest in the laborer and the laborer in him than where there 
is a larger number of laborers on the farm. Frequently, also, the 
second mule is worked by the operator's son, and all the labor is per- 
formed by a single family. This tends toward increasing the effi- 
ciency of the labor. Furthermore,, the two-mule farms can use two- 
horse implements, giving a more economical use of man and mule 
labor. Frequently one man with two mules can do the plowing and 
cultivating while another man is doing handwork. Also, the work 
animal is not necessarily idle when the plowhand is doing handwork, 
as it is on a one-mule farm. 
A high degree of managerial skill is not needed on a two-mule farm, 
as the business is not complicated. It was noted in this survey that 
the value of the operator's services, on the average, did not increase 
until farms using more than two mules were reached, showing that on 
this size of farm managerial ability was not of such importance as to 
command a premium. 
COMBINATION OF ENTERPRISES. 
In newly settled areas, where agriculture is largely in the experimental 
stage, the combination of enterprises, or the type of farming, is the factor 
that usually has most to do with variation in farm profits. But as 
the agriculture grows older fewer mistakes are made in this respect, 
for the farmer who fails to include the most profitable enterprises in 
the organization and give each its proper weight soon finds his busi- 
ness so unprofitable that he must either change his methods, quit 
farming, or be content with a poor living. For this reason, in any old 
established area where the standard is already high there is not as 
much opportunity to improve the efficiency of farms by changing or 
adjusting the combination of enterprises as there is by increasing 
