34 N. H. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 275 



VARIATIONS IN OUTPUT PER MAN 



Accomplishments in production can best be measured by the results 

 obtained — by the output rather than by the energy expended. 



When the 38 farms are arrayed in the order of the output* units 

 per man and then divided into three groups, Group 1, consisting of 13 

 fai-ms, ranged from 281 to 452 units per man and averaged 359; Group 

 2 with 13 farms ranged from 203 to 273 and averaged 236; Group 3 

 ranged from 103 to 193 and averaged 165 units per man. 



The average family income for the first, second and third groups, 

 as shown in Table 8, was $620, $494 and $53, respectively, indicating 

 considerable correlation between accomplishments per man, as mea- 

 sured by output units and family labor income. 



The average output per man as represented in sales** from Group 1 

 was 80,189 pounds of milk, 110 bushels of potatoes, 11 bushels of beans, 

 $191 worth of livestock and $370 in miscellaneous receipts. In con- 

 trast with this the output per man in the third group was 37,116 pounds 

 of milk, one bushel of beans, —$14 worth of livestock and $171 in mis- 

 cellaneous receipts. The second group sold from the farm an average 

 of 55,061 pounds of milk, 25 bushels of potatoes, seven bushels of 

 beans, $142 worth of stock and $370 worth of miscellaneous income 

 per man. 



It is interesting to note that Group 1 averaged 31 cows per fai-m as 

 compared to 24 for the second group and 19 in the third. Production 

 per cow in the first group averaged 6,137 pounds and in the second 

 and third groups, 4,741 and 3,948 pounds, respectively. Thus, Group 

 1 produced about 1,400 pounds more milk per cow than Group 2 and 

 2,200 pounds more than Group 3. Group 1 also attained higher out- 

 put per man than the other groups through the use of better methods, 

 better stock and more grain per cow. 



The famis averaged 807, 488 and 332 total output units, respectively, 

 for Groups 1, 2, and 3. This would indicate that on those famis where 

 total output was large, the labor could be used to better advantage. 



*Oiitpiit units are used here in place of man work units that have usually been 

 taken in other studies to measure size of business and labor efficiency. Man work 

 units are based on the number of days labor usually needed per acre of each crop 

 and per unit of each class of livestock. This gives a common denominator for 

 measuring the whole farm business. Dividing the total man work units on a 

 given farm by the number of men working on that farm gives a rough measure 

 of the work accomplished per man. 



For the conditions prevailing in Grafton Count>-, the authors believe that a 

 direct measure of production is a better me;isure of the work accomplished than 

 the acres of various crops grown and numbers of various kinds of livestock cared 

 for. Accordingly the following were selected as amounting to an output unit or 

 the equivalent of a day's work for one man during 1931-1932. 



300 lbs. of 3.7% milk, adding 4 lbs. for each .1 point decrease and subtracting 

 4 for each .1 point increase in fat. 



25 bu. of potatoes. 



3 bu. of beans. 



$10 net increase in livestock. 



$5 otiior income without use of a truck. 



$10 income with the use of a truck. 



**Sales and inventorj^ gains and losses. 



