in this group which have a large percentage of improved land.
Size of Farms. From the following table it will be seen that the size of farms varies greatly in different parts of the country:
Average Number of Acres per Farm by Geographic Divisions.
| GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS | 1900 | 1890 | 1880 | 1870 | 1860 | 1850 |
| The United States | 146.6 | 136.5 | 133.7 | 153.3 | 199.2 | 202.6 |
| North Atlantic | 96.5 | 95.3 | 97.7 | 104.3 | 108.1 | 112.6 |
| South Atlantic | 108.4 | 133.6 | 157.4 | 241.1 | 352.8 | 376.4 |
| North Central | 144.5 | 133.4 | 121.9 | 123.7 | 139.7 | 143.3 |
| South Central | 155.4 | 144.0 | 150.6 | 194.4 | 321.3 | 291.0 |
| Western | 386.1 | 324.1 | 312.9 | 336.4 | 366.9 | 649.9 |
| Alaska and Hawaii[1] | 1,142.1 | ............ | ............ | ............ | ............ | ............ |
The most fundamental principle in determining the size of the American farm is that it is adapted to an area convenient for the average family. Unlike the English farmer, the typical American farmer does not expect to employ a large number of hands. Neither does he expect to supplement his farm work by hiring himself to others, as is common among the peasant class of France. A son who is a member of a large family often works for a farmer who is not blessed with a surplus of sons, and thus there is an adjustment to suit the average family. The United States, therefore, has no peasant class corresponding to that of Europe. The recent settlement of the West, in which the average homestead (160 acres) was adapted to the average family, has tended to establish this condition of things; but it is also true of the older States. One may note also that in the South, where the plantation system formerly prevailed, a rapid readjustment is taking place to suit the family unit. But the size of farm that a family can cultivate varies with the methods used in cultivation, that is to say, whether capitalistic, intensive, etc. Thus the same labor that will suffice for a grain or stock farm of a given size is sufficient for only one-half or less of that amount when a cotton farm is in question. There are certain kinds of farms that for special causes tend to depart more or less from the system above described. Such are the grazing farms of the West, the Louisiana sugar plantations, the bonanza wheat farms of the Northwest and California, and, in a less degree, the garden farms of the Atlantic Coast, where, though the farms are small, much help is employed. Referring to the foregoing table, in the Western division we have two extremes: large grazing or wheat farms, and small irrigated or fruit farms. In Wyoming less than one-seventh of the total number of farms in 1900 contained less than 100 acres each, while 42 per cent. of the farm land was contained in farms over 1000 acres and the average size for the State was 1333 acres. In Utah the average size of farms was 212.4 acres, and considerably over three-fourths of tile total number of farms contained less than 100 acres each. The average given for the North Central States is the most truly representative of the average given for any group. In that division 29.9 per cent. of the farms were between 100 and 17.5 acres each. The following table shows the relative number of farms in the different-sized groups for three census years:
Percentage of the Number of Farms in each of Seven Specified Areas in Acres—1880-1900.
| CENSUS YEAR | Under 10 |
10 and under 20 |
20 and under 50 |
50 and under 100 |
100 and under 500 |
500 and under 1,000 |
1,000 and over |
| 1900 | 4.7 | 7.1 | 21.9 | 23.8 | 39.9 | 1.8 | 0.8 |
| 1890 | 3.3 | 5.8 | 19.8 | 24.6 | 44.0 | 1.8 | 0.7 |
| 1880 | 3.5 | 6.3 | 19.5 | 25.8 | 42.3 | 1.9 | 0.7 |
The increase shown in the group 20 to 50 acres was mainly in the Southern States and particularly in the cotton belt of that region. The South Central States had 23.6 per cent. of its farms in this group in 1880 and 30.1 per cent. in 1890. The decrease in the group 50 to 100 acres was mainly in the North Central States, there being at the same time a general increase in this class in the Southern States. The decrease in the group 100 to 500 acres was most marked in the South and West. The two larger groups decreased in the South and increased in the North Central and Western divisions. In 1900 the census made three classifications for farms having between 100 and 500 acres, with the results as follows: Group 100 to 175 acres, 24.8 per cent. of the total farms; group 175 to 260 acres, 8.5 per cent. of the total farms; and group 260 to 500 acres, 6.6 per cent. of the total number of farms. The large number in the group 100 to 175 was partly the effect of the homestead claim laws. Over two-thirds of the farms in Oklahoma were in this group. The decrease in the average size of farms from 1860 to 1880 was due primarily to the rapid decrease in the size of farms in the South. The increase shown in the period 1880 to 1900 was due to the development of large bonanza and grazing farms and to the increased use of machinery.
Farm Tenure. As the country becomes older there is a rapidly increasing and almost universal tendency toward the renting system, though this is much more marked in some regions than in others. In the earlier period of development the man of small means took a claim, but now he is forced to rent. The frontier, as it pushed across the country, has been characterized by the fact that most of its farms were operated by owners. In the table below it will be seen that the highest percentage of owned farms is in the West, but the renting of farms began at
- ↑ No report prior to 1900.
