LiABOTJR INCOMES ON DIFFERENT SIZED FARMS. 



Table No. 6. 



With interest on investment calculated at 7%, the farms of Group No. 2, 

 with 26 to 45 acres tillable and an average of 84 total acres, were operated with 

 greatest success. The largest farms returned the lowest labour incomes, as is 

 shown in the column of Table No. 6, "Average labour income allowing interest 

 at 7%." The next column, showing interest calculated at 3%%, proves that the 

 largest farms derived greatest labour incomes, and the smallest farms secured 

 the smallest labour incomes. The reason for the variation between these columns 

 is the different interest rate on investment charged against the farming opera- 

 tions. The capitalization of the farms was so high that the average farmer could 

 not afford to pay the higher interest; and the larger the farm the worse the 

 labour income, with the exception of Groups No. 2 and No. 3. The farmers of 

 Group No. 2 applied greater ability to the management of their farms, as is 

 shown in Table No. 7. 



Table No. 7. 



Their total receipts per acre were the largest of any of the groups, and the 

 per cent, current expense of total farm receipts was lowest. In other words, they 

 conducted the largest business per acre at lowest cost. 



The error made by Group No. 3 was that they did not take in sufficient 

 total receipts per acre. They had greater acreage than Group No. 2, and naturally 

 one would expect a smaller gross receipt per acre. But they were $19.00 per 

 acre in receipts below Group No. 2, which is an excessive drop. Again, Group 

 No. 3 spent a greater proportion of their total farm receipts on current expenses 

 than did Group No. 2. The economy practised by Group No. 2 increased their 

 labour income, while lack of economy reduced the labour income of Group No. 8. 



