: , a rae BULLETIN No. 260 2iiiii:~~ MARCH 1947 FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS in NORTHERN ALABAMA An analysis of the use and cosE of operation of farm tractors and workstock and their associated equipment on 479 Northern Alabama farms in 1945 AGRICULTURAL o /e EXPERIMENT STATION ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE Auburn, Alabama M. J. Funchess, Director CONTENTS Page AREA SURVEYED --------------------------------------------- 4 FARM POWER AND EQUIPMENT INVENTORIES----------------------AVAILABLE LABOR AND POWER ON FARMS 6 ---------- 6 INVESTMENT IN FARM POWER AND EQUIPMENT ------------FARM POWER AND EQUIPMENT COSTS ------------------------------COST OF OPERATING FARM TRACTORS -------------------------COST OF OPERATING TRACTOR-DRAWN EQUIPMENT 7 8 8 -----15 20 COST OF KEEPING WORKSTOCK --------------------------*COST OF OPERATING WORKSTOCK-DRAWN SUMMARY EQUIPMENT -- 24 28 --------------------------------------------------------------------- First Printing 12M FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS in NORTHERN ALABAMA BEN T. LANHAM, Jr. Associate Agricultural Economist GONTINUED farm labor shortages, high farm wage rates, and recent changes in organization of farms have focused a great many farmers' attention to the possibility of shifting to the use of tractors and tractor equipment on their farms. Many farmers who realize the economic possibilities of mechanizing their farming operations are already rapidly moving in that direction. Those farmers already largely mechanized are now planning future adjustments to utilize more efficiently the power they now have. A third group, and perhaps the largest of the three, is still undecided about using tractor power and tractor equipment on their farms. It is anticipated that the trend towards more complete mechanization will continue. Farmers are now raising questions as to the cost of operating farm tractors and the relative accomplishments of tractors and tractor equipment as compared to workstock as a source of power. Since a large number of farmers in northern Alabama have had considerable experience with tractor power in recent years, it was felt that their experiences could make a valuable contribution with respect to what might be expected of tractor power on farms in this and in other similar areas. In June 1946, basic data on the use and cost of operation of farm power and equipment were obtained from a survey' of 479 farms in this area. The farms included in the survey were distributed as shown in Figures 1 and 2. Basic data were obtained on 112 farms operated with tractor power only, on 197 farms operated with both tractor and workstock power, and on 170 farms operated with workstock power only. The purposes of this bulletin are (1) to present basic informa'Appreciation is expressed to R. M. Reaves and J. L. Liles, Jr., of the Alabama Agricultural Extension Service for their helpful suggestions in planning the project, and to all of the Extension Service personnel in northern Alabama who assisted in the collection of the basic information upon which this study is based. 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION tion on the cost of operation of farm tractors, tractor equipment, workstock, and workstock equipment; (2) to compare the requirements for major farm operations when accomplished with different levels of power and equipment; (3) to indicate the variations in costs that occur between farms operated with different sources of power; and (4) to indicate the variations in power and machinery costs that occur between different typeof-farming areas in northern Alabama. No attempt is made in this bulletin to enumerate or to explain the possible uses of the data shown herein. It should be emphasized, however, that the data in this report are based upon actual farmers' estimates, and that the figures, which appear in the following tables and discussion, are averages of these estimates. They should be used as such. Variations are normally expected to occur from year to year, or even within the same year between individual farms. Such variations must be taken into account in using these data. AREA SURVEYED The northern Alabama area included in the survey, Figures 1 and 2, represents approximately 26 per cent of the total farm land area of the state. 2 It includes two major type-of-farming areas and part of a third area.3 The Tennessee Valley area 4 is characterized by "heavy soils, reasonably level topography, and numerous large holdings of land have encouraged . . . the use of tractors and other types of labor-saving farm implements in this area."' Crop yields are relatively high. Agriculture is centered around cotton as the principal cash crop. In recent years, some shift has been made towards an increase in feed crop and livestock production; the area "is looked upon as a very important potential livestock area."6 The Highland Rim area is a part of the Tennessee Valley typeof-farming area. It differs from the remainder of the area mainly in its soil characteristics. Its soils are more difficult to cultivate; they have a tendency to thaw out and warm up later in the spring; they are more difficult to drain and are somewhat less 21940 Census. 'See Alvord, et. al., "Factors Influencing Alabama Agriculture." Ala. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. No. 250, 1941. The area descriptions in this section are based largely upon this bulletin. For a more complete description of the several areas, see pages 65-72. 4 This area includes part of the Coosa River Valley area of Alabama, Figures 1 and 2. SOp. cit., page 65. 'Ibid., page 69. FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS TRACTOR POWER AND EQUIPMENT 5 WORKSTOCK POWER AND EQUIPMENT FIG. 1. - Distribution of sample farms in Northern Alabama in study of tractor power and equipment costs, 1945. FIG. 2. - Distribution of sample farms in Northern Alabama in study of workstock power and equipment costs, 1945. responsive to good soil treatments; and they are not inherently as fertile as are those of the remainder of the Valley area. Highland Rim farms are generally smaller, but farmers follow the same farming systems as in the Valley area. Crop yields are slightly lower than on Valley soils. The Sand Mountain area varies in topography from rugged mountains to gently rolling plateaus. Soils are chiefly sandy, have high water-holding capacity, and are exceptionally responsive to proper treatments of commercial fertilizers, manure, and green manure crops. Farms are generally small family-size units. As a rule, farmers are self-sufficient in food and feed production. Cotton is the principal cash crop. Crop yields are high. Pastures in this area are poor; livestock, with the exception of poultry and some hogs, are kept largely for home use. The Upper Coastal Plain area, shown in Figures 1 and 2, represents only about 22 per cent of this area in the state.7 The 7The data shown in this bulletin for the Upper Coastal Plain area are for the sample area only. They may not be representative for the entire Upper Coastal Plain area of the state. 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION area shown is characterized by rolling to hilly topography and severely-eroded silt and sandy loam soils. Farms are generally small; farming is mostly in small "patchy" fields. Cotton is the principal cash crop. Crop yields are at about the state average. Commercial livestock is not important. Much idle cropland exists in the area, even on farms in active operation. FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT INVENTORIES AVAILABLE LABOR AND POWER ON FARMS The permanent labor force on the northern Alabama farms studied consisted of 2.1 families per farm in 1945, including the operator's family. Each family handled about 47 acres of crops in 1945. Families on farms operated with workstock only handled 30 acres of crops per family; on farms where tractor power was used, each family handled more than 50 acres of crops. On most farms in this area, power is supplied both by tractors and by workstock. Within the area, the range is from all tractor power on some farms to all workstock power on others. The process of change to mechanical power may be quite rapid in some areas, but farmers usually are reluctant to dispose of their workstock when tractors are first introduced on farms. Assuming that one tractor should replace the equivalent of 5 head of workstock, 8 farms operated with workstock only utilized less power per crop acre than tractor operated farms. Power available per crop acre was highest on farms where both tractors and workstock were used; this may indicate a surplus of power on many of these farms. Cotton, the principal cash crop in this area, occupied fewer acres per unit of power on farms where both tractors and workstock were used than it did on either farms operated with tractors only or with workstock only. Variations in the acreages of other major crops, as related to available farm power, are shown in Table 1. SThis study indicates that the actual replacement rate in northern Alabama has been 4.5. But on the basis of average amount of work performed in 1945, each tractor should have replaced approximately 5.0 head of workstock. FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 7 TABLE 1.-TOTAL AVAILABLE FARM POWER PER FARM RELATED TO NUMBER OF FAMILIES PER FARM AND TO CROPLAND ACREAGE PER FARM ON 479 FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Type of power used Item Unit TrTractorTracors W k only workstock only 112 1.2 0 6.0 1.8 3.3 100 56 6.0 4.2 6.0 2.3 1.8 2.8 197 1.2 2.8 8.8 2.8 3.1 143 51 6.2 3.6 4.8 2.5 2.2 3.7 170 0 2.4 2.4 1.5 1.6 44 30 5.4 4.2 6.7 1.7 2.9 4.6 fams 479 .8 2.0 6.0 2.1 2.8 98 47 6.1 4.0 5.8 2.2 2.4 3.8 Number of farms Power available per farm Tractors Workstock Total Available farm power' No. families per farm Power available per family Cropland acreage per farm Cropland acreage per family Power available per 100 acres cropland Crops planted per unit of power Cotton Corn Small grain All hay Winter legumes, turned No. No. No. Units No. Units Acres Acres Units Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres 'Assumes that one tractor should replace the equivalent of 5.0 head of workstock (based on average amount of work performed with available equipment as calculated from the data shown in Tables 11 and 18 of this bulletin). INVESTMENT IN FARM POWER AND EQUIPMENT The 1945 inventory value of farm power and equipment on northern Alabama farms averaged $1,447 per farm for tractor farms, $2,094 per farm for farms using both tractors and workstock, and $603 per farm for workstock farms. This represented an average investment of $14.47, $14.65, and $13.70 per crop acre for the respective groups, Table 2. In all major type-of-farming areas in northern Alabama, the total inventory value per farm was highest on farms where both tractors and workstock were used. In all areas the average inventory value per crop acre was lowest on farms using workstock only. This does not necessarily indicate that the costs of operating power and equipment per crop acre will be also lowest for this group of farms. 8 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 2.-AVERAGE INVESTMENT IN FARM POWER AND EQUIPMENT PER FARM AND PER CROP ACRE BY TYPE OF POWER USED ON IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 479 FARMS Type of power used Item Tractors only Per farm (Dol.) Tractors Tractor equipment Workstock Workstock equipment Total 771 676 Per crop acre (Dol.) 7.71 6.76 Tractors and workstock Per Per crop farm acre (Dol.) (Dol.) 803 592 493 206 2,094 5.62 4.14 3.45 1.44 14.65 Workstock only Per Per crop farm acre (Dol.) (Dol.) 427 176 603 9.70 4.00 13.70 1,447 14.47 FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS All of the cost data that follow are for the crop year 1945, and are based upon a study of actual farm records obtained from farm operators in northern Alabama in June 1946. The cost data shown are averages and should be used as such. Considerable variation will occur between individual farms and even on the same farm from year to year, due to variations in total investment, age and expected useful life of equipment, amount of annual use, type of work done, efficiency of use, care in the operation, maintenance, service and storage of equipment, and to many other factors. The data shown here, however, may be useful in getting the overall situation in view and in studying the economics of farm power costs. A great many of the farmers' questions relative to farm power costs and the relative accomplishments of different levels of power and equipment can be answered from the data presented herein. COST OF OPERATING FARM TRACTORS Records on 337 individual tractors for the crop year 1945 provide the basic data from which tractor costs for this area have been determined. Variations in the cost of operation normally are to be expected. Such variations might be due to the size of tractor, the proportion of full capacity used, the number of days used per year, the type of work performed, and to the age and estimated useful life of the tractor. Each of these factors have FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 9 been related to the cost of operation and the results of these analyses follow. Tractors were divided into three size groups - small, medium, and large - based on maximum rated drawbar-horsepower for the make and model of each particular machine.9 Tractors that were rated less than 18 horsepower were classified as small, those rated from 18 to 24 horsepower were classified as medium, and those rated over 24 horsepower were classified as large. The average rated horsepower for the small group was found to be 14.7, for the medium group 20.0, and for the large group 28.9. The distribution of tractors by size and by type-of-farming areas as found on the farms studied in northern Alabama in 1945 is shown in Table 3. TABLE 3.-DISTRIBUTION OF FARM TRACTORS BY SIZE IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Size tractore Small Medium Large Total of Tennessee Valley No. 63 87 62 212 Per cent 30 41 29 100 Highland Rim PerPer cent 9 4 2 15 60 27 13 100 Sand Mountain cent 43 16 13 72 60 22 18 100 U. Coastal Plain cent 25 8 5 38 66 22 12 100 All areas No. 140 115 82 337 Per cent 42 34 24 100 1See Appendix Table A. This table indicates that less than one-third of the tractors in the Tennessee Valley area are small tractors, whereas nearly two-thirds of the tractors in all other northern Alabama areas are small tractors. This variation has a marked effect upon the average cost of operation of tractors for the several areas. The costs per 10-hour day for operating tractors of different sizes are summarized in Table 4. Total operating costs are made up of two types: (1) cash costs, and (2) overhead or "fixed" costs. Each of these should be carefully considered by the farmer. The cash costs are influenced by the size of tractor, the type of work done, and the days of annual use. Overhead costs are influenced mainly by the purchase price, the age and expected useful life of the tractor, and the number of days of use. Annual overhead costs represent an item of cost that must be covered regardless of the number of days the tractor is used each year. 'Based on Official Nebraska Tractor Tests, as reported in "The Tractor Field Book," Farm Implement News Co., Chicago, Ill., 1946. Also see Appendix Table A. 10 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 4.-AVERAGE COST OF OPERATING SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE TRACTORS PER 10-HOUR DAY IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Item No. of tractors Av. rated drawbar horsepower Av. purchase price Present age Est. total useful life Cost per 10-hr. day Cash costs' Fuel (gas or fuel oil) Grease, oil, filters Repairs and new tires Service labor Total cash costs Overhead costs 2 Depreciation Interest' Taxes, housing, ins. Total overhead costs 4 Total cost per 10-hour day Hours used per year On farm Custom work Total Unit No. Av. of all farms operating Small Medium Large tractors tractors tractors tractors 140 14.7 842 4 11 115 20.0 1,111 5 13 H.P. Dol. Yr. Yr. 82 28.9 1,260 5 12 337 20.0 1,036 5 12 Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Hr. Hr. Hr. Dol. Dol. 1.59 .26 .87 .22 2.94 1.01 .34 .14 1.49 4.43 557 124 681 1.97 .45 1.12 .32 3.86 .92 .36 .29 1.57 5.43 786 56 842 .54 456.99 2.54 .62 .97 .31 4.44 1.04 .38 .30 1.72 6.16 814 93 907 .62 558.38 1.95 .41 .98 .28 3.62 .98 .36 .26 1.60 5.22 697 96 793 .52 413.90 i s Total cost per hour' 4 Total cost per year 4 .44 301.81 1Gasoline $0.199 per gallon, fuel oil $0.104 per gallon, lubricating oil $0.190 per quart, grease $0.145 per pound, oil filters $0.66 each, service labor $0.41 per hour, and repairs and new tires as reported by farmers. 2Purchase price less 10 per cent (for trade-in-value) divided by the estimated total years of useful life. 'One-half of the purchase price plus 10 per cent (for trade-in-value) multiplied by 5 per 4cent. Exclusive of the wages paid or value of the labor of the tractor driver. In comparing tractor costs by sizes, particular attention should be given to the fact that large tractors develop more horsepower; and, when used with the proper size of equipment, they will accomplish more work in a given amount of time than will small tractors. A detailed breakdown of the costs of operation for tractors by size groups is given in Table 4. All tractors averaged $3.62 per 10-hour day for cash costs. Fuel comprised over 50 per cent of this amount. Cash costs per 10-hour day of use increased as the size of tractor increased. On many farms service labor may not be a direct cash expense because some farmers will drive FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 11 and service their own tractors. Annual repair costs per tractor in northern Alabama were high in 1945, amounting to an average of 98 cents per 10-hour day of use for all tractors. Most of the explanation for this high cost is apparently due to lack of proper care in operation and storage of tractors, lack of timeliness of repairs and lubrication, and to some extent to the age of tractors and the topography of the land on which they are used. Most tractors in operation in 1945 were relatively old machines, and were probably being used more than in normal times. Shortages of repair parts due to the war increased repair costs and needs. Repair costs are also affected by the amount of annual use and by the experience of the operator. Overhead costs (depreciation, interest on investment, taxes, housing, and insurance) averaged $1.60 per 10-hour day of use for all tractors. Few tractors are used to the point where only junk value remains. Most tractors are traded in on new ones before they are completely worn out. A trade-in value of 10 per cent of the new cost was assumed in figuring depreciation. Annual depreciation was based on farmers' estimates of the useful life of the tractors and the average purchase price minus 10 per cent. The interest rate used was 5 per cent. This rate is less than is usually paid by farmers when machinery is purchased on a credit arrangement. However, it is more than farmers can realize by investing their money elsewhere in normal times, and is more than farmers would generally pay on long-time loans. In computing interest charges, it was assumed that dealers would make an average concession of about 10 per cent from list prices of new tractors in the form of trade-in values for old ones. The annual interest charge, therefore, was based on 5 per cent of one-half of the new cost plus 10 per cent. Costs of taxes, housing, and insurance are farmers' estimates. Total operating costs per 10-hour day averaged $5.22 for all tractors. On an hourly basis, total operating costs for small tractors amounted to 44 cents, medium tractors 54 cents, and large tractors 62 cents. In 1945, small-tractors were used 681 hours, medium tractors 842 hours, and large tractors 907 hours. Tractor costs were higher on farms where both tractors and workstock were used than on farms operated with tractors only. The data in Table 5 indicate that the cost per hour of use amounted to 56 cents where both tractors and workstock were used but was only 46 cents where tractors were the only source of 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 5.-AVERAGE COST OF OPERATING TRACTORS RELATED TO TYPE OF POWER USED ON FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Item No. of tractors Av. rated drawbar horsepower Cost per 10-hour day Cash costs Overhead costs Total Hours used per year On farm Custom work Total Costs per hour used Total annual costs Unit No. H.P. Dol. Dol Dol. Hr. Hr. Hr. Dol. Dol. Type of power used on farms Tractor power Tractors and only workstock 134 19.0 3.29 1.36 4.65 703 122 825 .46 384.68 203 20.7 3.85 1.71 5.56 693 79 772 .56 429.23 power. This difference is due both to the difference in average rated horsepower of the two groups and to the number of days used as shown in Table 5. By type-of-farming areas, tractor costs were highest in the Tennessee Valley area and lowest in the Upper Coastal Plain area of northern Alabama. The Valley area had larger tractors on the average than any other area, Table 6. Farms in this TABLE 6.-AVERAGE COST OF OPERATING TRACTORS IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Item No. of tractors Av. rated drawbar horsepower Costs per 10-hour day Cash costs Overhead costs Total Hours used per year On farm Custom work Total Cost per hour used Total annual costs Unit No. H.P. Dol. Dol. Dol. Hr. Hr. Hr. Dol. Dol. U. Sand Tennessee Highland Mountain Coastal Rim Valley Valley Rim Mountain Plain 212 21.0 4.17 1.59 5.76 797 27 824 .58 474.30 15 18.3 3.47 1.61 5.08 573 139 712 .51 361.90 72 18.7 2.89 1.80 4.69 475 205 680 .47 318.96 38 17.1 2.31 1.21 3.52 599 248 847 .35 298.10 FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 13 area were also larger than in other areas; consequently, tractors were used more hours per farm in the Valley than in other areas. Custom work was lowest in the Valley area and highest in the Upper Coastal Plain area. The effects of the proportion of the full horsepower capacity of tractors utilized on the average cost of operation is indicated by the data on fuel requirements, Table 7. Total operating costs will be higher when tractors are used for heavy drawbar work, such as breaking, disking, and bedding, than when used for such TABLE 7.--AVERAGE FUEL AND OIL REQUIREMENTS PER 10-HOUR DAY FOR TRACTORS WITH HEAVY AND LIGHT DRAWBAR LOADS AND FOR BELT WORK IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Requirements per 10-hour day traNctors Heavy load' Light Load 2 Belt work (No.) Small tractors Medium tractors Large tractors All tractors 140 115 82 337 Fuel (Gal.) 12.4 17.7 24.1 17.1 Oil (Qt.) 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.2 Fuel (Gal.) 8.6 13.1 18.0 12.4 Oil (Qt.) .8 1.3 1.2 1.1 etc. Fuel Oil (Gal.) (Qt.) 8.6 13.5 17.0 11.7 .8 1.5 1.1 1.1 'Includes breaking, disking, bedding, etc. 2Includes planting, cultivating, combining, mowing, harrowing, light drawbar work as planting, cultivating, and mowing or for belt work. On the average, from 34 to 46 per cent more fuel was consumed when tractors were doing heavy drawbar work than when doing light drawbar or belt work. Variations in oil consumption were of a lesser degree than fuel consumption. Calculations of the total operating costs in dollars were not attempted because of the difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory method for allocation of overhead costs, repairs, and service labor costs where tractors were used for both heavy and light drawbar work. Operating costs of tractors per 10-hour day depend not only on the size of the tractor and the type of work done, but also on the number of days used during the year. The relationship between the number of days used per year and the cost of operating tractors per 10-hour day is shown in Table 8. A total of 54 tractors was used less than 40 days a year at an average cost of 95 cents an hour. One hundred and thirty-four tractors were used from 40 to 80 days at an average cost of 64 cents an 14 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION hour. Ninety-six tractors were used from 80 to 120 days at an average cost of 51 cents an hour. The fifty-three tractors used 120 days and over were operated at a cost of 37 cents an hour. Variations in cost per hour for different sizes of tractors in relation to number of days used followed the same general pattern as shown in Table 8. TABLE 8.-COST PER 10-HOUR NUMBER OF DAY FOR OPERATING YEAR IN TRACTORS RELATED TO 1945 DAYS USED PER NORTHERN ALABAMA, Days used per year No. of Av. days tractors used Cost per 10-hour day Cash Overhead Total Cost per hour Under 40 40- 79 80-119 (No.) 54 134 96 (Days) 27 59 96 (Dol.) 5.36 4.29 3.70 (Dol.) 4.12 2.11 1.42 (Dol.) 9.48 6.40 5.12 (Dol.) .95 .64 .51 120 and over All tractors 53 337 154 79 2.84 3.62 .86 1.60 3.70 5.22 .37 .52 Farmers who plan to replace workstock with tractors should take these variations into account. On small farms, it should be remembered that some additional use may be made of tractors by engaging in custom work. The possibilities of such a system ,are indicated by the data on custom work given in Table 6. In the Tennessee Valley area, where farms are generally large, custom work made up less than 4 per cent of total annual use of tractors. In other areas, where farms are generally small, custom work amounted to 20 to 30 per cent of the total annual tractor use. Farmers operating small units should also recognize that a small farm tractor may be too large for the size of farm they are operating. Data on custom work in Table 4 indicate one possibility of increasing the annual use of such a tractor. In northern Alabama small tractors in 1945 were used twice as many days for custom work as were tractors in the two larger groups. Custom work made up nearly 20 per cent of the annual total for small tractors, but averaged less than 10 per cent for the two larger groups. Northern Alabama farmers strongly prefer having tractors mounted on rubber tires to those mounted on steel. This study shows that 311 tractors were mounted on rubber and only 26 or 7.7 per cent of the total were on steel. Farmers estimated that the expected life of rubber tires on rear wheels would be 5.2 years and on front wheels 4.2 years. In general, farmers' estimates show that tires on small tractors will last longer than FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 15 those on large tractors. Variations in farmers' estimates for different sizes of tractors by areas are shown in Table 9. The variation in the life of tires is dependent both upon the extent of annual use, and on the treatment and care given to proper service, use, and storage of tires on tractors. TABLE 9.-ESTIMATED LIFE OF RUBBER TIRES ON TRACTORS BY SIZE OF TRACTOR IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Size of tractor All Area tractors Large Medium Small Rear Front Rear Front Rear Front Rear Front wheels wheels wheels wheels wheels wheels wheels wheels (Yr.) Tennessee Valley Highland Rim Sand Mountain Upper Coastal Plain All areas 5.4 4.7 4.8 5.6 5.2 (Yr.) 4.1 4.6 4.6 5.5 4.6 (Yr.) 5.9 6.3 3.9 6.2 5.7 (Yr.) 4.9 5.3 3.2 5.0 4.7 (Yr.) 4.8 5.0 3.8 6.4 4.6 (Yr.) 3.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.4 (Yr.) 5.4 5.0 4.4 5.8 5.2 (Yr.) 4.0 4.7 4.2 5.1 4.2 CosTs OF OPERATING TRACTOR-DRAWN EQUIPMENT Tractor costs make up only a part of the mechanization analysis. To complete the picture requires an appraisal of the costs of operating the equipment used in conjunction with the tractor. The expense for farm machinery upkeep and repairs is usually a substantial item on most tractor farms. In this study, data were obtained and analyzed on the cost of operating individual pieces of farm equipment. The results of this analysis on an annual cost basis are summarized in Table 10. Tractor-drawn equipment costs per acre covered and per hour used are shown for individual pieces of equipment in Table 11. The usual rates for performing different operations with tractors and with different levels and types of tractor equipment are also given in Table 11. The rates shown are averages. Considerable variation occurs in actual practice, depending upon the size of tractor, the topography of cropland, the experience of the operator, and many other factors. Some of the rates of performance for tractor equipment in Table 11 may change in the future as farmers gain additional experience in handling tractors and tractor equipment. The data shown can be made quite useful by farmers, however, in studying the sizes and types of equipment they may wish to purchase or use, and in making 16 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 10.--AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE AND AVERAGE ANNUAL COST OF OPERATING TRACTOR EQUIPMENT ON 309 FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Av. annual cost per Total Av. pur- Pres- est. Repair Type of equipment chase ent useand DeInterup- precia- e ful price' age 2 est tion' keep life TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS: ( Dol.) (Yr.) (Yr.) (Dol.) (Dol.) machine Taxes housing Total 2 ins. f.-Tandem disk Plow, 1-bottom Plow, 2-bottom Plow, 3-bottom Plow, 1-disk Plow, 2-disk Plow, 3-disk Plow, 4-disk Plow, 5-disk Harrow, disk Harrow, spike tooth Harrow, spring tooth Cultipacker Drag, home-made Tillage tool PLANTING EQUIPMENT: * 159 79 139 244 123 172 249 220 213 141 34 27 107 20 140 98 160 190 84 157 300 603 773 865 561 129 144 160 74 162 588 145 166 36 77 146 115 195 58 61 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 5 6 5 6 4 4 3 5 7 4 5 7 4 4 4 2 5 5 5 7 3 6 8 5 6 12 18 15 17 13 13 13 13 8 12 12 11 15 10 11 12 12 16 13 14 14 10 9 9 9 13 13 12 15 12 15 17 15 17 13 12 19 13 10 14 13.29 9.46 15.66 26.96 4.75 15.20 39.81 24.81 6.67 10.06 1.39 3.56 4.72 .96 5.98 2.61 8.27 12.28 7.13 14.15 65.00 32.06 64.13 74.05 12.25 8.76 11.99 18.58 2.44 10.99 22.30 5.00 3.07 1.71 2.79 11.58 3.26 13.69 1.40 1.92 11.92 3.95 8.34 12.92 8.52 11.91 17.24 15.23 23.97 10.68 2.55 2.21 6.42 1.80 11.45 7.35 12.00 10.69 5.82 10.09 19.28 54.27 77.30 86.50 56.10 8.93 9.97 12.00 4.44 12.15 35.28 7.68 9.96 1.91 5.33 10.95 5.45 13.50 5.22 3.92 (Dol.) (Dol.) (Dol.) 4.37 .36 29.94 2.17 .41 15.99 3.82 1.08 28.90 6.71 1.60 48.19 3.63 .81 17.71 4.73 .92 32.76 6.84 1.24 65.13 6.05 2.12 48.21 5.86 .25 36.75 3.87 .87 25.48 .93 .27 5.14 .74 .06 6.57 2.94 .62 14.70 .55 .25 3.56 3.85 .52 21.80 2.69 4.40 5.22 2.31 4.32 8.25 16.58 21.26 23.79 15.43 3.55 3.96 4.40 2.03 4.45 16.17 3.99 4.56 .99 2.12 4.02 3.16 5.36 1.60 1.68 .41 .95 2.00 .48 1.24 .00 13.06 25.62 30.19 15.74 29.80 92.53 Planter, 1-row Planter, 2-row Grain drill CULTIVATING EQUIPMENT: Cultivator, 1-row t. Cultivator, 2-row Cultivator, 4-row HARVESTING EQUIPMENT: Combine, small Combine, medium Combine, large --Corn picker Mower, 4-5 feet Mower, 6 feet Mower, 7 feet Rake, dump or sulky Rake, side delivery STATIONARY MACHINES: 6.70 109.61 7.17 169.86 2.97 187.31 1.08 84.86 .54 21.78 1.61 27.53 .83 35.81 .47 9.38 .51 28.10 1.17 1.92 1.55 .56 .37 .41 .68 1.41 .39 .33 74.92 18.59 19.14 5.17 10.61 26.96 12.55 33.96 8.61 7.85 Hay baler Feed grinder, burr Hammer mill Wood saw, portable VEHICLES AND MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT: Trailer, 2-wheel Trailer, 4-wheel Wagon, 2-horse Manure spreader Lime spreader Stalk cutter, 2-row 'Based on original new cost. 2 Based on farmers' estimates of new parts, replacement items, repair costs, and service labor. 3Purchase price less 10 per cent (for trade-in value) divided by the estimated total years of useful life. 4 One-half of the purchase price plus 10 per cent (for trade-in value) multiplied by 5 per cent. FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 17 TABLE 11.-AVERAGE ANNUAL USE, RATES OF PERFORMANCE, AND COSTS PER UNIT OF PERFORMANCE FOR SPECIFIED TYPES OF TRACTOR EQUIPMENT ON 309 FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Type of equipment Annual use Acres Hours of Acres Hours urper items cov'd used day acre (No.) (Acres) (Hr.) (Acres) (Hr.) .63 1.96 1.47 .79 2.22 1.64 1.18 .96 .68 .64 .41 .60 .43 .51 .72 .94 .59 .56 1.09 .56 .30 1.47 1.33 1.35 1.25 .69 .66 .55 .56 .43 --- No. Cost per acre (Dol.) .15 .27 .27 .16 .27 .25 .45 .35 .24 .15 .04 .04 .09 .02 .33 .25 .22 .24 .15 .13 .17 1.99 2.00 2.26 .48 .31 .39 .30 .18 .19 Cost per hour (Dol.) .24 .14 .18 .20 .12 .15 .38 .36 .35 .23 .08 .07 .20 .04 .45 .26 .37 .43 .14 .23 .58 1.35 1.50 1.67 .38 .44 .60 .54 .32 .43 .80 .22 .20 .10 TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS: Tandem disk Plow, 1-bottom Plow, 2-bottom Plow, 3-bottom Plow, 1-disk Plow, 2-disk Plow, 3-disk Plow, 4-disk Plow, 5-disk Harrow, disk Harrow, spike tooth Harrow, spring tooth Cultipacker Drag, home-made Tillage tool PLANTING EQUIPMENT: 30 15 50 5 4 192 39 4 3 248 110 12 51 16 10 38 106 43 64 182 3 37 45 21 4 27 29 45 37 10 21 14 45 64 205 61 107 300 65 134 146 139 155 175 158 154 169 183 66 53 119 126 103 228 533 55 85 83 177 71 70 120 51 149 -- 129 119 157 236 144 220 172 133 105 112 65 92 73 94 48 50 70 70 112 128 160 81 113 112 221 49 46 66 29 65 94 86 15.9 5.1 6.8 12.6 4.5 6.1 8.5 10.5 14.7 15.7 24.1 16.6 23.1 19.5 13.9 10.6 16.9 17.8 9.2 17.8 33.3 6.8 7.5 7.4 8.0 14.4 15.2 18.3 17.8 23.4 -- Planter, 1-row Planter, 2-row Grain drill CULTIVATING EQUIPMENT: Cultivator, 1-row Cultivator, 2-row Cultivator, 4-row HARVESTING EQUIPMENT: Combine, small Combine, medium Combine, large Corn picker Mower, 4-5 feet Mower, 6 feet Mower, 7 feet Rake, dump or sulky Rake, side 'delivery STATIONARY MACHINES: Hay baler Feed grinder, burr Hammer mill Wood saw, portable VEHICLES AND MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT: _ __ 97 52 . Trailer, 2-wheel Trailer, 4-wheel Wagon, 2-horse Manure spreader Lime spreader Stalk cutter, 2-row 80 8 42 12 28 18 -65 46 88 175 336. 122 135 36 33 .. .. 4.8 12.7 26.3 2.08 .79 .38 .52 .19 .09 06 08 .10 .25 .24 .24 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION farm plans for adjustments in organization or of shifting from workstock power to tractor power. The data in Table 11 indicate, in general, that as more work is done with a particular machine its average cost per unit of use declines. These data show that larger machines usually accomplish more work in a given amount of time, that costs per acre are usually lower, and that costs per hour are usually higher than with smaller machines. Much of the tractor-drawn equipment on northern Alabama farms is used only for a short period each year, and this is usually far below the maximum possible use. If the amount of use of such equipment were increased, the cost per acre would be reduced. On some individual farms it was found that some equipment costs were higher per acre than had the work been hired on a custom basis. This might be due to one of two reasons: Either the farmer desired to be completely independent of others, or he may not have been aware of the true costs per unit of service. The most effective means of lowering costs per acre and costs per hour is to increase the annual use of implements. This does not suggest increasing the acreage on which the machines are used on the operator's farm, provided the most profitable combination of enterprises already exists on the farm. However, when the acreage on the operator's farm is insufficient, costs may be lowered by cooperative use of machines. Such cooperation may be accomplished (1) by joint ownership and use with others, (2) by renting machines and furnishing his own power, or (3) by hiring the work done on a custom basis where the machine, power, and labor are all furnished. Some farmers with limited resources and only a small amount of annual need for a machine, may find a profitable opportunity in purchasing dependable second-hand equipment to lower their machinery investment. Such equipment, however, must fit the type and size of power available and the size of enterprises on which it is to be used. Particular care should be taken in buying only serviceable machines. Since depreciation makes up a large part of the total costs of machinery operation, an attempt to extend the useful life of each machine through better care will often prove to be a worthwhile means of lowering costs. Also, timeliness of making re- FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 19 pairs and necessary lubrication are important in keeping down repair and upkeep costs. What do the total farm machinery operating costs per farm for tractor-drawn machinery amount to each year in this area? Total annual costs per farm (exclusive of power and labor costs) will depend upon: (1) total investment in farm machinery; (2) age, expected useful life, and state of repair of each implement; (3) efficiency with which each implement is operated; (4) annual use of each implement; and (5) care taken in properly servicing, operating, and storing each implement. TABLE 12.-COST OF OPERATING ALL TRACTOR-DRAWN MACHINERY ON FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945' On farms operated with tractor power only On farms operated with workstock Cost Annual per Cost per hour cost acrecre in of per farm tractorcrops cropuse use (Dol.) Repairs and upkeep Depreciation Interest Taxes, housing, insurance Total 94 112 38 11 255 (Dol) .095 .113 .038 .011 .257 (Dol.) .94 1.12 .38 .11 2.55 Cost Cost Annual per per hour cost in of per farm tractorcrops (Dol.) 73 87 29 8 197 (Dol.) .079 .094 .031 .009 .213 (Dol.) .51 .61 .20 .06 1.38 'Excludes tractor and labor costs. The total farm machinery operating costs for tractor-drawn equipment averaged $255 per farm in northern Alabama in 1945 for farms operated only with tractors, Table 12. Where both tractors and workstock were used, tractor-drawn machinery costs averaged $197 per farm. Average expenses amounted to $2.55 per crop acre, and to 26 cents per hour of tractor use on farms operated only with tractors. But where both tractors and workstock were used, average expenses were $1.38 per crop acre, and 21 cents per hour of tractor use. This reduction in expense per crop acre was due both to a smaller investment in tractor-drawn equipment in the latter group and also to its larger average acreage of cropland per farm. 20 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION COSTS OF KEEPING WORKSTOCK Records from 367 farms on 952 head of workstock for the crop year 1945 provide the basic data from which workstock costs for northern Alabama have been determined. Approximately 90 per cent of all records on workstock were on mules. Records were obtained only on workstock that were on the surveyed farms throughout the crop year 1945 and that were used for some type of field work or general farm work during the year. Variations between farms in workstock costs are normally expected to occur from year to year and even within the same year. Such variations might be due to changes in the level of feed prices alone. They may also be due to differences in the age, expected work life and value of workstock, number of days used annually, type of work performed, kind and amount of feed fed, and to many other factors. Total annual net cost per head for all workstock surveyed in northern Alabama was $227.06 in 1945. Table 13 shows that feed costs made up $169.54 or nearly 70 per cent of the total. Corn and legume hay were the main sources of feed. The average amount reported fed per head in 1945 was the equivalent of 66 bushels of corn and 2 tons of legume hay. 10 Because feed costs in this area make up three-fourths of the total annual costs, they represent the chief factor in determining cost variations. Workstock costs per acre or per hour of use depend both upon the prices and rates of feeding and on the annual use per head. A sharp change in feed prices (or value) would have a direct influence on workstock costs in the same direction as the price change. Chore labor, which represents the time spent in caring for workstock, was valued by farmers at $46.91 per head. Farmers estimated they spent an average of 168 hours for chore labor per head in 1945 and estimated its value at 28 cents per hour. Depreciation amounted to 5 per cent of the annual workstock costs. The average value of workstock in 1945 was estimated by farmers to be $177 per head." The estimated years of useful life was 17, resulting in a depreciation cost of $10.41 per head lOThis represents farmers' estimates of feed fed. A feed balance sheet was not used in obtaining these estimates. It is likely that these estimates, therefore, are somewhat higher than would normally exist in this area. "xEstimated 1945 value was used to eliminate the wide differences in purchase price of workstock that existed between pre-war and war-time prices of workstock. FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 21 annually or of 6 per cent of the 1945 value. Harness costs amounted to $5.86 per head annually. Interest at 5 per cent of one-half of the 1945 value amounted to $4.42 per head. All other costs, including taxes, housing, insurance, veterinary fees, medicine, and shoeing, amounted to $9.28 per head annually. 2 Credit for manure" amounted to $19.35 per head. Variations in annual workstock costs per head between farms operated with workstock only and those operated with both workstock and tractors are shown in detail in Table 13. TABLE 13.-WORKSTOCK COSTS PER HEAD IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Item No. of farms No. of workstock Present age Est. total work life Average weight Av. value (1945) Annual costs Av. of all farms operated withAll Workstock Workstock farms only and tractors Unit No. No. Yr. Yr. Lb. Dol. -- - --- r 170 402 9 18 1,041 178 197 550 9 17 1,095 176 367 952 9 17 1,068 177 Feed' All grain All hay All pasture Other Total Other costs Harness Chore labor 2 Depreciation Interest' Taxes, housing, ins. Miscellaneous' Total costs Credit for manure5 Net annual costs 10-hour days worked Cost per 10-hour day worked Cost per hour worked Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Days Dol. Dol. 98.49 69.21 7.15 .03 174.88 5.79 47.89 9.88 4.45 3.78 5.43 252.10 19.35 232.75 76 3.06 .31 89.00 68.81 8.16 .01 165.98 5.91 46.09 10.35 4.40 3.76 5.56 242.05 19.35 222.70 48 4.64 .46 92.85 68.99 7.68 .02 169.54 5.85 46.91 10.41 4.42 3.77 5.51 246.41 19.35 227.06 61 3.72 .37 as reported by farmers multiplied by farmers' estimates of the amount of each specified feed fed per head. 2Average value (1945) divided by estimated total years of work life. 'One-half of the average value (1945) multiplied by 5 per cent. 4 lncludes veterinary fees, medicine, cost of shoeing, and other miscellaneous cash expenses. 5 Represents the N-P-K content of 60 per cent of the annual production from a 1000pound animal multiplied by current (1945) values of N-P-K as fertilizers. "Represents the current (1945) value of the N-P-K annual production of a 1,000 pound animal. content of 60 per cent of the 'Value 22 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION This study indicates that workstock were used, on the average, for a total of 61 days or 610 hours per year, including all hauling and other general farm work. Based on 1945 costs and credits, as shown in Table 13, workstock costs per hour of use amounted to 37 cents. On farms operated with workstock only the cost per hour was 31 cents, whereas on farms using both workstock and tractors for power, workstock costs amounted to 46 cents an hour. This difference was due largely to the difference in the number of hours of annual use between the two groups. Farmers who used workstock only reported approximately 60 per cent greater use of workstock per head annually than operators who used both workstock and tractors on their farms. This may mean that some farms using both power sources, have a surplus of power on the farm. Results of this study indicate that where both tractors and workstock are available on farms, the bulk of the land preparation is done with tractors, while workstock are used for the bulk of the planting and cultivating. This situation may have developed partly because of the shortage of certain types of tractor equipment during the war years. Also, on many farms the use of tractors is relatively new. Farmers are often slow in disposing of their workstock until they are sure they can handle all of their farming operations with tractor power. Some farmers, too, have not fully made the necessary adjustments in their cropping systems and organization of their labor to enable them to dispose of their workstock. It is expected, however, that the shift to tractors will continue at an increasing rate as more tractors and tractor-drawn equipment become available. Maintaining farm incomes at a level sufficiently high to encourage more widespread commercial agricultural production will promote the most rapid increase in the adoption of tractors and other labor-saving machinery on northern Alabama farms. In this case, workstock costs would remain high and displacement of workstock would continue at an increasing rate. Farmers in northern Alabama probably will not buy additional workstock if tractors and tractor equipment are available. Workstock costs per hour of use were highest in the Tennessee Valley and Sand Mountain areas. This was due both to the relatively low number of days used annually and to high annual feed costs. Farmers in these areas reported higher feeding rates FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 23 IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF TABLE 14.-WORKSTOCK COSTS PER HEAD NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Item No. of farms No. of workstock Unit Tennessee Highland Valley Rim Valley 170 454 172.58 42.96 10.06 4.5.2 3.81 6.05 6.44 246.42 19.35 227.07 53 4.28 .43 68 2.0 Rim 35 71 170.03 33.46 8.55 3.85 3.54 6.37 4.80 230.60 19.35 211.25 75 2.82 .28 53 2.6 No. No. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Days Dol. Dol. Bu. Ton Sand Upper Mountain Coastal Mountain 107 281 174.01 58.55 10.33 4.65 3.86 5.55 5.00 261.95 19.35 242.60 62 3.91 .39 71 1.8 Plain 55 146 156.41 48.18 8.20 4.10 3.64 5.91 4.20 230.64 19.35 211.29 74 2.86 .29 67 1.8 Annual costs Feed Chore labor Depreciation Interest Taxes, housing, ins. Harness Miscellaneous Total Credit for manure Net annual costs 10-hour days worked Cost per 10-hour day Cost per hour worked Feed fed annually Corn Legume hay per head annually for grain than did farmers in other areas. Total annual costs per head, as shown in Table 14, were highest in the Sand Mountain area. Other than high feed costs, a major factor contributing to this high total cost was chore labor. Farmers in this area devoted an average of 183 hours per head annually to chore labor, and valued such labor at 82 cents an hour. The fact that Sand Mountain farmers devote nearly 10 per cent more time to chore labor for workstock than do other farmers in northern Alabama is probably because it is a usual practice in this area to feed work animals in a dry lot throughout most of the year. Pastures are very poor when available on farms. This may also partly explain the high feeding rates followed by Sand Mountain farmers. Workstock costs per hour of use decreased as the number of hours worked increased in all areas of northern Alabama, as shown in Table 15. On farms where workstock were used less than 500 hours annually, the costs per hour of use amounted to $1.04. On farms where workstock were used 1,100 hours or more, the costs were only 17 cents per hour. Data in Table 16 24 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION HOURS TABLE 15.-WORKSTOCK COSTS PER HOUR RELATED TO NUMBER OF USED IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 No. of hours worked 0- 499 500- 699 700- 899 900-1,099 1,100 and over All farms Tennessee Sand Upper Coastal Highland Valley LU Rim Plain )Vr9 Mountain (Dol.) (Dol.) (Dol.) (Dol.) 1.06 2.00 .96 .80 .39 .32 .44 .35 .34 .32 .29 .24 .23 .25 .26 .31 .14 .18 .19 .18 .43 .28 .39 .29 TABLE 16.-WORKSTOCK COSTS PER HOUR RELATED TO NUMBER OF HOURS USED BY TYPE OF POWER USED ON FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 No. of hours worked r\l r~-*rrrrrr~ 0- 499 500- 699 700- 899 900-1,099 1,100 and over All farms Type of power used on farms All Workst ock Workstock and only tractors farms (Dol. ) (Dol.) (Dol.) .63 1.15 1.04 .39 .38 .39 .29 .31 .30 S.24 .26 .25 .18 .15 .17 U .31 .46 .37 show the variations in workstock costs per hour when related to number of hours used by type of power on farms in this area. CosTs OF OPERATING WORKSTOCK-DRAWN EQUIPMENT Total annual costs of operating different types and sizes of workstock-drawn equipment on 867 northern Alabama farms in 1945 are summarized for individual pieces of equipment in Table 17. Workstock-drawn equipment costs per acre covered and per hour used in 1945 are shown in Table 18. The usual rates for performing different operations with workstock and different levels of workstock equipment are also given in Table 18. These rates are averages and should be used as such. Considerable variation may occur in these rates and costs from year to year, or even within the same year between different farms. Such variation might be due to topography, soil conditions, amount of use, experience of the operator, and to many other factors. These FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 25 FARM~ POWsER and EQUIPMENT TABLE COSTS 2 OF 17.-AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE AND AVERAGE ANNUAL COST OPERATING SPECIFIED TYPES OF WORKSTOCK EQUIPMENT ON 367 FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Av. annual cost per implement Tpofequipment poAV. Present chs est.lRepairD uselife and huTaxs est 4 ins.' price1 age (Dol.) HARNESS TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS: ful u-preiakeep 20 2.74 2.93 7.19 5.37 1.96 2.15 3.39 2.31 2.49 1.60 3.14 6.08 2.85 2.30 3.92 2.92 1.69 3.10 2.25 2.94 6.69 7.12 5.40 8.09 1.75 2.29 .46 1.08 2.25 .31 .82 2.50 1.29 3.07 .98 1.58 7.09 .83 1.99 4.62 .50 .33 .22 1.34 .93 4.82 3.48 4.20 5.91 2.43 angd oa (Yr.) (Yr.) (Dol.) (Dol.) (Dol.) (Dol.) (Dol.) 5 9 8 11 14 10 11 9 4 5 8 7 6 6 6 8 11 8 3 7 10 9 8 9 10 10 20 18 19 25 20 18 17 12 10 16 15 12 13 13 16 22 17 14 17 18 17 15 17 19 .57 .23 .49 1.07 .20 .41 1.12 .55 .92 .25 .63 2.66 .25 .65 1.50 .20 .18 .09 .47 .40 2.17 1.48 1.57 2.51 1.16 .25 .18 .39 .85 .16 .33 .90 .44 .74 .20 .51 2.13 .20 .52 1.20 .16 .15 .08 .37 .32 1.73 1.18 1.26 2.01 .93 5.85 3.80 9.15 9.54 2.63 3.71 7.91 4.59 7.22 3.03 5.86 17.96 4.13 5.46 11.24 3.78 2.35 3.49 4.43 4.59 15.41 13.26 12.43 18.52 6.27 22.90 9.14 Turn plow, 1-horse Turn plow, 2-horse 19.54 42.81 Disk plow Middlebuster, 1-horse 7.92 Middlebuster, 2-horse 16.36 44.93 Harrow, disk 21.92 Harrow, section Roller 36.85 Drag, home-made 9.85 PLANTING EQUIPMENT: Planter, 1-row Planter, 2-row Fert. dist., 1-row Vetch drill Small grain drill CULTIVATING EQUIPMENT: 25.29 106.39 9.91 25.83 60.10 7.99 7.31 3.76 18.78 15.84 86.75 59.19 63.00 Gee whiz (scratcher) Joe harrow (top) Georgia stuck (single) Weeder Fowler cultivator Riding cult., 1-row Walking cult., 1-row Walking cult., 2-row HARVESTING EQUIPMENT: Mower, 2-horse Rake, dump VEHICLES AND MISCELLANEOUS EQU IPMENT: 100.51 46.23 143.00 Hay baler, stat. Lime spreader 40.00 Wagon, 2-horse 101.10 Stalk cutter, 1-row 38.42 Stalk cutter, 2-row 28.87 Slip scoop 6.90 1 1 r 12 3 11 9 11 8 21 13.28 1.01 11 20 10.09 16 2.73 19 2.53 16 r\~ .77 6.81 3.64 5.05 2.40 1.52 .43 3.57 1.00 2.53 .96 .72 .17 2.86 .80 2.02 .77 .58 .14 26.52 6.45 19.69 6.86 5.35 1.51 'Based on original new cost. 'Based on farmers' estimates of costs of new parts, replacement items, repair costs, and 3 service labor. 4 Purchase price divided by estimated total years of useful life. One-half of the purchase price multiplied by 5 per cent. 26 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 18.-AVERAGE ANNUAL USE, RATES OF PERFORMANCE, AND COSTS PER UNIT OF PERFORMANCE FOR SPECIFIED TYPES OF WORKSTOCK EQUIPMENT ON 367 FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945 Type of equipment No. of items Annual use Acres Hours cov'd used Acres r 10day Hours per acre (Hr.) 5.00 4.54 2.94 2.50 1.59 1.78 .91 1.15 .88 1.61 .81 1.72 1.64 1.61 2.04 1.64 1.96 .74 1.67 1.47 1.52 1.33 1.28 .71 Cost per acre (Dol.) .34 .33 .35 .20 .20 .30 .09 .19 .07 .15 .24 .11 .21 .24 .14 .10 .09 .10 .20 .23 .17 .21 .60 .21 Cost per hour (Dol.) .07 .07 .12 .08 .12 .17 .10 .16 .08 .09 .30 .06 .13 .15 .07 .06 .05 .14 .12 .16 .11 .16 .46 .30 (No.) (Acres) (Hr.) (Acres) TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS: Turn plow, 1-horse Turn plow, 2-horse Disk plow Middlebuster, 1-horse Middlebuster, 2-horse Harrow, disk Harrow, section Roller Drag, home-made PLANTING EQUIPMENT: 171 520 16 20 85 76 220 6 37 289 97 214 93 13 11 28 27 13 19 26 53 38 45 39 74 38 26 46 27 24 37 43 23 67 77 60 31 30 55 127 79 32 30 46 48 44 40 63 60 65 43 74 55 39 73 32 38 98 117 80 40 21 2.0 2.2 3.4 4.0 6.3 5.6 11.0 8.7 11.3 6.2 12.3 5.8 6.1 6.2 4.9 6.1 5.1 13.6 6.0 6.8 6.6 7.5 7.8 14.1 Planter, 1-row Planter, 2-row Fert. dist., 1-row Vetch drill Small grain drill CULTIVATING EQUIPMENT: Gee whiz (scratcher) 339 Joe harrow (top) 98 Georgia stock (single) 433 Weeder 19 Fowler cultivator 27 Riding cult., 1-row 27 Walking cult., 1-row 283 Walking cult., 2-row 9 HARVESTING EQUIPMENT: Mower, 2-horse Rake, dump VEHICLES AND MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT: 164 158 Hay baler, stat. Lime spreader Wagon, 2-horse Stalk cutter, 1-row Stalk cutter, 2-row Slip scoop 13 8 276 116 30 25 53 20 44 38 - 17 217 54 49 21 17.5 -. 23 .57 1.22 1.30 .21 .16 .14 828.2 7.7 .38 .09 .13 .11 .07 data, however, can be useful to farmers particularly in farm planning, such as making needed adjustments in organization, evaluating the relative merits of tractor and workstock power on a given farm, and in planning a farming system to combat the influences of high farm wages, labor shortages, and high production costs. The data in Table 18 indicate, in general, that as more work FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 27 is done with a particular implement its average cost per unit of use declines. These data show that larger implements usually accomplish more work in a given amount of time, that costs per acre are usually lower, and that costs per hour are usually higher than when using smaller implements. The most effective means of lowering costs per acre and costs per hour is to increase the amount of annual use of implements. Annual depreciation costs might be lowered by extending the life of implements through better care. Timeliness of making adjustments and repairs and the necessary lubrication are also important in keeping down annual repair and upkeep costs. What do the total farm machinery operating costs per farm for workstock-drawn machinery amount to each year in this area? Total costs (exclusive of workstock and labor costs) will depend upon: (1) total investment in such machinery; (2) age, expected useful life, and state of repair of each implement; (3) efficiency with which each implement is operated; (4) annual use of each implement; and (5) care taken in properly servicing, operating, and storing each implement. Total annual expenses for operating workstock-drawn equipment in northern Alabama averaged less than $100 per farm in 1945. It was slightly higher on farms where both tractors and workstock were used than on farms operated only with workstock. Average expenses amounted to $2.07 per crop acre, and to 5 cents per hour of workstock use on farms operated only with workstock. Where both tractors and workstock were used, average expenses amounted to 68 cents per crop acre, and to 7 cents per hour of workstock use, Table 19. TABLE 19.-COST OF OPERATING ALL WORKSTOCK-DRAWN FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 19451 MACHINERY ON On farms operated with workstock power only Item Annual cost per farm Cost per hour of W/S use Cost per acre in crops On farms operated with workstock and tractors Annual cost per farm Cost per hour of W/S use Cost per acre in crops (Dol.) Repairs and upkeep Depreciation Interest Taxes, housing, ins. Total 39 30 12 10 91 (Dol.) .021 .016 .007 .006 .050 (Dol.) .89 .68 .27 .23 2.07 (Dol.) 42 33 12 10 97 (Dol.) .031 .025 .009 .007 .072 (Dol.) .29 .23 .09 .07 .68 'Excludes workstock and labor costs. 28 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SUMMARY Maximum economies made possible through mechanization can be realized only when all available equipment is used at near capacity. For this reason, larger farms are usually the first to mechanize. In northern Alabama, cropland acreage per farm averaged more than twice as much for tractor-operated farms as it did for workstock-operated farms in 1945. In addition, cropland acreage handled per family was nearly twice as great on tractor farms as on workstock farms. The 1945 inventory value of farm power and equipment on northern Alabama farms averaged $1,447 per farm for tractor farms, $2,094 per farm on farms using both tractors and workstock, and $603 per farm for workstock farms. This represented an average investment of $14.47, $14.65, and $13.70 per crop acre for the respective groups. The average cost of operating all farm tractors in this area in 1945 was 52 cents per hour of use. This does not include the wages of the tractor driver. Costs per hour varied by size of tractor, type of power used on farms, type of work performed, and the amount of annual use. Average costs of operating small tractors were 44 cents per hour, medium tractors 54 cents per hour, and large tractors 62 cents per hour. Small tractors were used in 1945 an average of 681 hours, medium tractors 842 hours, and large tractors 907 hours. Operating costs for tractors on farms operated with tractor power only averaged 46 cents per hour. On farms where both tractors and workstock were used, tractor costs averaged 56 cents per hour. The average hours of use were 825 and 772 for the respective groups. Variation in tractor costs by type of work performed is indicated by fuel requirements per 10-hour day for different types of work. Fuel consumption averaged 17.1 gallons per 10-hour day for heavy drawbar work, 12.4 gallons for light drawbar work, and 11.7 gallons for belt work. Tractors used less than 400 hours annually were operated at a cost of 95 cents per hour; from 400 to 800 hours, 64 cents; FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS 29 from 800 to 1,200 hours, 51 cents; and over 1,200 hours, 37 cents an hour. The average annual cost of operating tractor-drawn machinery was $255 per farm in northern Alabama in 1945 for farms operated with tractors only, and was $197 per farm for those operated with both tractors and workstock. This represented a cost of $2.55 and $1.38 per crop acre for the respective groups. More than one-third of the useful years of life of all tractordrawn equipment on northern Alabama farms have been spent. The average age of all tractor equipment was 4.6 years, while the average total years of useful life was estimated to be 12.7 years. Net annual workstock costs averaged $227.06 per head in northern Alabama in 1945. Feed charges, including pasture, comprised nearly 70 per cent of the total costs, excluding credit for manure. Costs varied widely by type of power used on farms, and by the amount of annual use. Average costs for all workstock in the area amounted to 37 cents per hour of use in 1945. On farms operated with workstock only, workstock costs averaged 31 cents per hour. On farms where both workstock and tractors were used, workstock costs averaged 46 cents per hour. The average hours of use were 760 and 480 for the respective groups. Workstock that were used less than 500 hours annually cost an average of $1.04 per hour of use; from 500 to 700 hours, 39 cents; from 700 to 900 hours, 30 cents; from 900 to 1,100 hours, 25 cents; and over 1,100 hours, 17 cents per hour. The average annual cost of operating workstock-drawn equipment was less than $100 per farm in northern Alabama in 1945. This represented a cost of $2.07 per acre in crops on farms operated with workstock only and 68 cents per acre in crops on farms operated with both tractors and workstock. More than half of the useful years of life of all workstockdrawn equipment on northern Alabama farms have been spent. The average age of all workstock equipment was 9.1 years, and the average total years of useful life was estimated to be 17.3 years. In northern Alabama, this study indicates that, on the average, each tractor in this area has replaced an average of 4.5 head of workstock. It indicates that, on the basis of average amounts of work performed in 1945, each tractor should have replaced 30 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION approximately 5 head of workstock. It indicates that, on the basis of potential capacity of power and equipment on farms in 1945, each tractor could have replaced approximately 6 head of workstock. Data on rates of performance for both tractor-drawn and workstock-drawn equipment indicate, in general that: 1) Cost per unit of performance declines as the amount of annual use increases. 2) Larger equipment usually accomplishes more work in a given amount of time than smaller equipment. 3) Costs per acre covered are usually lower when using larger equipment than when using smaller equipment. 4) Costs per hour of use are usually higher when using larger equipment than when using smaller equipment. APPENDIX TABLE A.-DISTRIBUTION OF MAKES AND MODELS OF TRACTORS BY SIZE AS FOUND NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945' IN OPERATION ON FARMS IN '17 Small tractors (Rated less than 18 h.p. on drawbar) Medium tractors (Rated 18-24 h.p. on drawbar) Large tractors (Rated over 24 h.p. on drawbar) 0 Make John Deere John Deere John Deere McC-D Farmall McC-D Farmall McC-D Farmall McC-Deering McC-Deering Allis-Chalmers Allis-Chalmers Allis-Chalmers Oliver Model L Drawbar h.p. rated 9 12 13 13 15 15 12 15 13 16 15 17 Mae Mae John Deere Mdl Mdl B -Drawbar hp. rated 18 John John John John Mk Mk Deere Deere Deere Deere Model A AR G D M MD F30 H Drawbar h.p. rated 26 26 28 28 31 31 25 26 m C m H LA McC-D Farmall H 21 McC-D Farmall McC-D Farmall McC-Deering Allis-Chalmers 10 B F12 F14 B C RC 60 McC-Deering Allis-Chalmers F20 wC 21 20 -I Oliver Case Case Fordson M-Moline 70 VC SC 20 19 19 19 Oliver Case Case Caterpillar 80 D DC D2 GT 30 31 33 25 33 48 w Ford 17 20 M-Moline M-Moline B. F. Avery Ford-Ferguson 16 17 'Based on official Nebraska Tractor Tests, as reported in "The Tractor Field Book," Farm Implement News Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1946. R 530 $y.