SOME PROFITABLE AND UNPROFITABLE FARMS. 



Table III. — Comparative distribution of receipts on 200 selected farms and on all the 

 428 farms in N^eiv Ilampshire of which data tvere obtained. 



Item. 



Crop sales 



Net. live-stock sales. . . 

 Sale of stock products 

 Increased inventory.. 

 Outs'de labor 



Total receipts. . . 



100 

 better 

 farms. 



.$347 

 260 



.389 

 184 

 138 



2.318 



100 

 poorer 

 farms. 



.S136 



121 



612 



30 



32 



931 



Average, 



428 



farms. 



$262 



162 



814 



110 



91 



1,439 



Tlie receipts from the better farms exceed those of the poorer by 

 149 per cent. The receipts from sales of stock and of stock products 

 were each more tlian twice as great on the better farms as on the 

 poorer. The crop sales on the better farms amounted to more than 

 two-and-a-half times as much as on the poorer farms. The inven- 

 tory of the better farmers increased $184 a year; that of the poorer 

 only $30 a year. The better farms would seem from that not only 

 to be selling off more products of all kinds, but to be at the same 

 time impro\'ing the total value of the business. This improvement 

 may be in the raising of more young stock, or in the buikling up of 

 the real estate, or the adding to the equipment of tools and the like. 

 The final item of receipts, namely, that from labor performed off the 

 farm, is seen to be over four times as great on the better farms as on 

 the poorer. This fact suggests that the farmers on the better farms 

 were more careful to keep the men and teams busy at outside work 

 during such times as they were not fully occupied with their farm 

 work. On the other hand, this item might be the result of a con- 

 (Htion wherein those better farmers were merely more fortunate in 

 ha\ang outside work presented to them. 



Table IV 



Comparative distribution of expenses on 200 selected fanns and on all the 

 428 farms in Neiv Ilampshire of which data were obtained. 



The average expenses per farm on the better farms were $291 or 

 36.7 per cent greater than on the poorer farms. Tliis should be 

 compared with the difference between the two groups in receipts, 



[Cir. 128] 



