14 
BULLETIN 174, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
greater in each group where the owners believe the tractor is profit- 
able than in the groups where the owners state that the tractor is 
unprofitable. While this difference is in no case greater than 13 per 
cent, it is invariably present, which indicates that it has probably 
had some influence on the opinions of the owners. A further com- 
parison of gasoline and kerosene tractors will be found in Table IX. 
Table V. — Tractors using different fuels on farms in North Dakota and other States tvest 
of the Mississippi River. 
[Arranged according to the opinions of owners as to the tractor's desirability as an investment.] 
In the State of North Dakota. 
Result of investment as reported 
by owners. 
Gasoline. 
Kerosene. 
Motor 
spirits. 
Number 
using. 
Percent- 
age of 
number 
reported. 
Number 
using. 
Percent- 
age of 
number 
reported. 
Number 
using. 
Percent- 
age of 
number 
reported. 
37 
50 
48.7 
63.3 
33 
27 
43.4 
34.2 
6 
2 
7.9 
2.5 
30 
77 
49.2 
62.6 
29 
45 
47.5 
36.6 
2 
1 
3.3 
.8 
14 
41 
60.9 
64.1 
8 
21 
34.8 
32.8 
1 
2 
4.3 
3.1 
6 
16 
46.2 
59.3 
7 
11 
53.8 
40.7 


Fuel not 
reported. 
First season: 
Profitable... 
Unprofitable. 
Second season: 
Profitable . . . 
Unprofitable. 
Third season: 
Profitable . . . 
Unprofitable. 
Fourth season: 
Profitable. .. 
Unprofitable. 
Ik All States "West of the Mississippi River except North Dakota. 
First season: 
Profitable . . . 
Unprofitable. 
Second season: 
Profitable . . . 
Unprofitable. 
Third season: 
Profitable. .. 
Unprofitable . 
Fourth season: 
Profitable... 
Unprofitable. 
117 
78 
70 
86 
34 
39 
14 
19 
46.2 
53.4 
52.2 
59.3 
60.7 
72.2 
51.9 
52.8 
133 
65 
60 
59 
20 
15 
13 
17 
52.6 
44.5 
44.8 
40.7 
35.7 
27.8 
48.1 
47.2 
3 
3 
4 

2 



1.2 
2.1 
3.0 
3.6 
AMOUNT OF MOTIVE POWER PER FARM. 
In Table VI are comparisons of the amount and value of motive 
power maintained by the two classes of tractor users which are being 
considered, together with the value of special equipment purchased 
for use with the tractor and the average size of farms for each group. 
Little difference is shown in the average sizes of tractors, in their 
cost, or in the value of special equipment for the tractor. But the 
men who find the tractor profitable, although they show a greater 
average acreage, do not keep so many horses as those who reported 
unfavorably. A comparison of results obtained on different sizes of 
farms is shown in Table XIX. 
