SOME PROFITABLE AND UNPROFITABLE FARMS. 



9 



The better farms supported 60 per cent more cows than the poorer 

 and while their vahie per head was reckoned as only S2 more on the 

 better farms the sales of dairy products amounted to almost $25 

 more per cow. This suggests that sufficient records of the produc- 

 tion of cows are not kept to estabhsh their real values. Better care 

 and feeding may be responsible for much of the difference in produc- 

 tion, but it is also likely that most cows are not valued according to 

 their natural producing capacity. 



The better farmers kept the same average number of horses as the 

 poorer, but their value was $14 a head greater on the better farms. 

 This difference in value is not in proportion to the difference in earn- 

 ings from outside labor, as the latter appears in the distribution of 

 receipts. 



The better farms have 50 per cent more animal units than the 

 poorer group, corresponding to the greater investment in live stock 

 as well as other movable property. 



Table VI. — Comparison of miscellaneous factors on 200 selected farms and on all the 

 428 farms in New Hampshire of which data were obtained. 



100 Average, 

 Item. better ! poorer 428 



farms. 



Age of farmer years. 



Interest on in vestment 



Family labor 



Labor income 



51 



$308 



$70 



$266 



The farmers operating the better 100 farms were on the average 

 8 years 3^ounger than those on the poorer 100 farms. The better 

 farms had a larger interest charge by $12 than the poorer, corre- 

 spondmg to the small difference in investment. The better farms 

 had the help of the family in farm labor to a value of less than 40 

 per cent of that on the poorer farms, a difference of $77. It will be 

 remembered that the better farms had a cash outlay for hired labor 

 of $78 more than that of the poorer. The total labor value, aside 

 from the farmer's own time, was on the poorer farms almost the 

 same as on the better. The greater proportion supplied by the family 

 on the poorer farms does not seem to have been used so efficiently as 

 the greater proportion of hired labor on the better farms. On the 

 poorer farms the whole family evidently worked harder than on the 

 better and to no purpose, for it will be remembered that the labor 

 income of the better farms was $830 against a minus labor income of 

 $341 on the poorer. 



COMPARISON OF THREE AVERAGE FARMS. 



Three farms have been selected from those surveyed, and the results 

 are given here to show the character of the individual farms. Two 

 of these farms, Nos. 1 and 2, are successful, and the other, No. 3, 

 shows a minus labor income. 

 92584°— Cir. 128—13 2 



