FARM-MANAGEMENT STUDY IN 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 
