Efficiency in the employment of labour on the farm is a great factor in 

 increasing- or decreasing- the profits from farming operations. Table No. 11 shows 

 that only two groups of farmers made plus labour incomes. These were Groups 

 Nos. 1 and 3. Group No. 1 employed the time of 1.1 men for the year. This 

 group represents farms where only family labour was employed in addition to 

 that of the operator himself. The size of the farms and the type of business 

 conducted did not warrant hiring labour continuously. The average farm of 

 Group No. 3 had, in addition to the labour of the operator and small labour 

 contributions from the family, the services of a man who was continuously 

 employed. The average size of this group was eighty-eight tillable acres. The 

 size of the farm and the type of business conducted warranted such expense for 

 labour. In Groups Nos. 1 and 3 the farm help was kept more profitably employed 

 at all times than in the other groups. The work was so planned that the maximum 

 acreage was managed with least loss of time. It should be noted that in Group 

 No. 3 the crop acreage per man is the largest, while the animal units per man 

 are very high. Group No. 1 stood well in regard to efficiency of employment of 

 labour, as is indicated by the crop acres and animal units per man. Group No. 2 

 employed 1.6 men per farm. Labour in this case was that of the operator, plus 

 intermittent hired labour throughout the year. The acreage and type of business 

 conducted was such that a man could not be employed all the time. During 

 busy seasons loss occurred owing to inability to secure help at the proper time, 

 to inefficient labour that was available, or to excessive price paid for farm help. 

 Farmers of Groups Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were extravagant in the matter of labour. 

 The farm business was not organized so as to utilize to best advantage the labour 

 available. As the percentage of total farm receipts spent for labour increased, 

 so the labour income decreased. 



From Table No. 11 it appears that it would be well to organize the farm 

 operations in such a way that, with the exception of a small amount of extra 

 labour which may be hired during rush seasons, or may be supplied by the family, 

 help may be continuous. The amount of labour hired will depend upon the 

 size of the farm and the type of farming business conducted. In case a farmer 

 has a number of sons who supply him with labour, it is necessary for him so to 

 arrange his business that a good return may be provided for each of the sons. 

 Otherwise the labour wages allowed to the sons would rob the operator of the 

 income he should receive for his labour. 



THE EFFECT OF POOR AND GOOD LIVESTOCK AND POOR AND GOOD 

 CROPS ON LABOUR INCOME. 



Table No. 12. 



Table No. 12 brings out the comparative effects of good and poor crops and 

 livestock on labour income. Farmers of Group No. 1 had poor crops and poor 

 livestock and secured a heavy minus labour income when interest on investment 

 was calculated at 7%. Group No. 2 had good crops and poor livestock, but 

 increased their labour income, as compared with Group 1 by about $300.00. 

 Group No. 3 had poor crops, but good livestock, and increased their labour 

 income over Group No. 1 by nearly $900.00. These comparisons show that, 

 during the year these farming operations were studied, it was important to have 

 good yields of crops, but that it was even more important to have good livestock. 

 Most of the crops were used as feed for livestock on the farm, and the ability of 



9 



