AN APPRAISAL OF POWER USED ON FARMS 
15 
five-year period 1919 to 1923, inclusive; Figure 18 shows the rela- 
tion between the primary horsepower per worker and the value of 
crops for the same period; and!^ Figure 19 shows the relation be- 
tween the number of horses per worker and the volume of crop 
production in a nmnber of European countries and representative 
States under prewar conditions.'^ 
United SMes 
Alabama 
Missis s ipp / 
Georgia 
Arkansas 
3oufh Carol ina- 
Norfh Carolina- 
Louisiana 
Kentucky 
Florida 
Tennessee 
West Virginia^. 
Virginia 
Nev*/ Mexico 
Texas 
Arizona.^ 
Oklahoma 
Utati 
Rhode /stand— 
Mary /and 
Missouri 
Connecticut 
Nei^ Hampshire-. 
A>tassaohusetts _ 
Detail a re 
Ohio 
Ate\/ada 
Maine 
Indiana 
New Jersey 
Michiaan 
Wyoming 
Colorado 
Vermont 
California 
Oregon . 
Washington 
yVe*v York.^^-. 
Wisconsin 
Idaho 
lin'no/s 
Pennsylvania. . 
f/tinnesota 
Kansas 
Montana 
Nebraska 
North Dakota.. 
loiva 
South Dakotd— 
$500 
'^lai^hiner^j, ^ | \cr6p Value 
$1,000 
^ 
$1,500 
$ 2.000 
Fig. 17." 
-Relation between machinery available and value of crops produced per worker. 
1920 census. Crop value, Department of Agriculture average 1919-1923. 
Machinery, 
The cost of using power equipment is also considerable, and its 
adoption becomes profitable only if the net earnings of the owner or 
' Horses or their equivalent animal power only are used for comparison in this case because information 
with regard to the mechanical power per worker for European countries is not available. In Italy cattle, 
buffaloes, burros, and even dogs are used as draft animals, and in Hungary and France cattle represent a 
considerable part of the power equipment. In making the computation five cattle, buffaloes, or burros 
were considered as the equal of two horses. 
