VoL. LXXVI. NEW YORK. r)ECE:MBEIl 20. 1017 No. 4I(;2 
The Factory System of Farming 
The “ Big Farm” Not a Success 
OT rilOVEX.—The cliseu.'^siou of the proposi¬ 
tion to reorganize fanning on the factory 
basis. can’UMl in Tiik It. N.-Y., is liecoining ex¬ 
tremely interesting. Ever since the alarm of this 
proposed menace was sung by ]Mr. Roberts (page 
lOl.j). I felt inclined to write about my exi)erience 
when working on a large farm in Central Ohio, run 
on the factory .system by a man of great wealth. 
I have not written before because I have not read 
be proved that factory methods applied to fanning 
will promote the .same efliciency there as is claimed 
for them in other industries. The contrary to this 
claim was true on the farm T referred to. though 
efforts and money were not spared to bring its man¬ 
agement as close to the factory .system as possil>le. 
d'here are several f.actors which tend to prevent the 
succe.ssfnl application of factory methods on the 
fa rm. 
EXTRA EFFORT.—A large farm must necessarily 
have some of its lields too distant from the barns. 
Where lieavy draft horses or tractors arc employed, 
some thing on such a farm is the matter of sui'crvis- 
ing the work, liu'vitably there come times when the 
men are scattered all over tlie place, and it then be¬ 
comes next to impossible to know what they are do¬ 
ing and what not. X'ot infre(iuently our fellows used 
to take tlu'ir turn in leaving their scythes and eii- 
.ioying a moving picture show in town, before the 
foreman has had time to conu' on his inspection tour. 
EXPENSE OF yiAXACEMEX'r.—The upkeep of 
the supervising force is too costly. 'I'liere is the 
general manager, commanding a respectabU> sal.ary; 
a superintendent, an assistant, heads of various de- 
—-— -:——7-— --—7----—~7 ——% 
1 7— , -"/ 7 ‘"T—“-7-^ 
■ .V ' ./ ..■■■■/- --m 
,,....... 1 .. . ' 
. -‘--A ^ 7- 
Model Milk House, Barn and Silo on the Farm of O. P. Gaarder, of Wisconsin. Fig. 694 
the article in the “Outlook” in which this system of 
farming is advocated, and did not know on what 
grounds its writer bases his arguments. I was grati¬ 
fied to read the ari-ay of arguments against this pro¬ 
posal, from a social standpoint, brought forth hy the 
editor ;uid others, and was content that those argu¬ 
ments were irrefutable. P>ut reading on page 
the article by A\'. W. Re.vnolds in which he makes a 
serious attempt to prove that factory farming is the 
only solution for the pre.^ent food shortage of the 
world, I cannot but take issue with his unjustitiable 
pessimi.sm. In the first place, it still remains to 
as is generally the case on such farms, the time 
spent in traveling to and from those lields will often 
amount to more than the time spent in actual work. 
I have seen a manager oi'dering two men with a 
.$4,000 tractor to go three miles for a stone boat 
which one horse could i»ull. because to go to the 
barn for a horse would have involved a still greater 
loss of time. I have also seen a man and a team 
travel the whole length of the farm and come back 
l)ecaus(‘ the man happened to forget a wrench for 
his mowing machine. 
SFPERVISIOX" NEEDED.—Not the least trouble- 
pa rtments. such as the bai’u boss, the lu'rdsman. the 
dairy manager, etc., mostly college men. re<-oiving 
salaries according to their station—and. linally. ihe 
working foremen, who do the le.-il diri'cting of the 
work. All these charges have to be met in compe- 
tion with the common farmers, who receive noviiiug 
for their managerial work and who get. besides, the 
unpaid help of their wives and cltihlrtm. These are 
only a few of the reast)ns wl.y faetory farming is. 
in my opinion, impracticable and unpri'titable. There 
are many others. 
A MELANFIIOLY OUTLOOK.—Put :dr. Reynolds 
