Numerical difference

Dad was a share crop farmer in northeastern Kansas when I was a kid growing up. He farmed with horses and did not get a tractor until I left the farm to enlist in the Navy. Eight draft horses and two cow ponies. Was the number of horses used on farms more or less than the number of tractors now?

Some of my neighbors get by with maybe one big tractor and a pickup or two. Likely more or less comparable to eight draft animals and a couple riding horses

My dad began farming in 1948 or so. Started out with just one tractor, and then acquired a second tractor some years later. Didn't own a pickup truck until 1962.

I was raised in the South, TN to be exact, and most farming when I was small was done with mules. Except in the Amish communities I never saw more than one team of mules working at anything. We got our first tractor when I was in high school which was before we got indoor plumbing and air conditioning.

I don't have an answer, just a guess. It takes more horses to equal the work one tractor can do so if we look at actual working horses compared to actual working tractors my guess is there were more horses back then than we have tractors now.

Well, judging by Amish farms around me, I'd guess the "average" 40-60 acre mixed crop/livestock farm pre-tractor would have had at least 2 teams of draft type horses and 2 road horses. But that would depend on size of the farm, what and where they were farming, if they were a young guy starting out or an older, well established farm and if they bred their own stock. Same thing with tractors. The guy with the shiny new 4wd turbo charged articulated rig probably has at least a half dozen other tractors too. The dirt poor farmer might have 2 tractors that run and 3 in the yard waiting on money to fix them, and not one of them worth more than a couple grand!

The only mules here in Ohio were used to pull the canal boats on the Miami-erie canal. Mules were never used on farms. And to give a compairson the John Deere H was advertised as doing the work of 3 horses, The unstyled B as being 4 horses. Here it took 3 head to pull a 1 bottom sulky plow, 2 could do a walking plow. Never any 2 bottom gang plows as the farms were not large enough for that.

Here's a link for everyone ..... not completely up to date but gives a bit of an idea what has happened over time with animal vs tractor power.
Tractor vs Work Animal counts .....

I suspect a small tractor could replace 2 horses on a mower, hay rake, two row planter, two row cultivator, 30 bushel high wheeled wagon/bobsled or a manure spreader. A large tractor could replace 4 to 6 horses/mules on a two or three bottom plow, disk, heavy hay rack pulling a hay loader, or other heavy tillage.

How many acres was the farm in Kansas? How many sons or hired hands were available to drive the other teams of horses?

In western Iowa, the rule of thumb was that 1/4 of the farm would be needed for pasture hay and oats to support the horses needed on the farm. The other 3/4 could go to cash crops and other livestock. On a 160 acre farm, about 40 acres would be needed to support the horses.

Really interesting post! gm

Our neighbor when I was a kid moved to Texas in1936 from Georgia and bought 100 acres. He said he had 20 good mules and 4 hired hands on his Georgia cotton/corn farm. He would put 4 teams in the field and change them out at noon daily. He was considered "well to do" in his area since mule ownership was a wealth marker etc. he had a Case 2 row tractor and a 1937 Chevrolet car that he bought new after moving to Texas but never another mule. I came to know him about 1955. He told my dad he never made much money in Texas.

Dad(died in '86)said there's more d#&* horses around now than when we farmed with them. Every air line pilot comes out here(60 miles NW of Chicago),buys 5 or 10 acres,gets a Cub or N Ford,and horse for daughter.Daughter grows up and leaves,horse stays.He grew up with horses,Started farming on his own in '44,no horses! His older brothers started "custom farming" in 1930s with an F-12 Farmall.I cut a lot of hay with it in '50s

The mules were much better at working than horses. Less temperamental, more hardy and smarter.

I'm told there are more horses now around here than when they farmed with them. Sadly most just hang around the barn an hang out. Rarely do I see them ridden or harnessed to something.

That said, my dad farmed this place with one small tractor. Now there are 5 and each has a job. Or more! How about your farm?

Labor day I was helping my son move from Richmond to Lakemoor. He bought a nice looking house just across Rt. 120 from the lake. I came home on 120 through Harvard. Past a lot of fancy real-estate between McHenry and Woodstock and a few horses too, first time I've been in that area.

There were many many horses used in those days and would sure outnumber the # of tractors in use. One tractor can farm many acres and it would take a huge # of horses to replace them. Seen pics of large farms done with horses and the barns and hired help it took just think the horse had to eat every day and the acres of just hay for them was unreal. So the # of them was great.

Dad farmed 160 acres. Three sons.

My Grandpa paid for a nice 104 acre farm near Bremen Ky. , started using a team of mules and a yoke of oxen, Retired in 1970 and never owned a tractor.

From what I have been told a farm had to have enough horses to change teams midday. I remember a story about my great grandfather cutting oats for hire. The binder needed 3 horses and they had to be changed at midday then the second team worked through the hottest part of the day and on a really long day the first 3 would go back out about 5 pm for a couple of hours. Then the next day the second 3 that had worked the afternoon did the morning and evening to give the other 3 a break. Horses also spent a part of their time resting for a few minutes every round or so. This is why a small tractor could replace so many horses.

Just my opinion, but the old saw about 1/4 of the farm needed to support the horses is garbage. There are a zillion variables that make it obvious that you can't just pick a number out of the air like that and have it apply across the board as an average. And for those that think a small tractor, ie- a Farmall A or C, a VAC Case, an 8n or something like that will do all the work of a good team- sorry, I don't buy it. I've spent enough time behind a team and on a tractor seat to know that's another "Well, it's true on dry ground, in good weather, if nothing on the tractor breaks and if you have the proper implements for that size tractor on your particular ground".

The reason horses died out is simply because any fool can steer a tractor, because it doesn't require care everyday and because in many case a tractor is a lot faster than horses. So instead of 2 teams working 10 hours a day, you could have one tractor work 12 or 14 hours a day or more. You cut out the hired man, the extra team and harness and implements. It was a money saver in exchange for one man working a lot more hours. What you lost was the ability to work in conditions a tractor couldn't, on ground a tractor couldn't, with a fraction of the compaction, the ability to breed replacements and for self repair or the power unit. But, life also became a lot easier and less cruel for the horses. Not everyone, in fact most people, aren't great with horses and tend to ignore their condition, just get 'er done. The biggest thing you lost going to a tractor was independence. To buy the tractor you became tied to the bank, the fuel dealer, the mechanic and parts supplier. A broken tractor won't heal itself over time like a horse with a pulled muscle will. So off to the dealer to buy a new tractor, which requires a loan and interest and so on. Not saying that good or bad, but it what it is.

It's not as simple as many make it all out to be.