50 



N. H. Agr. Experimext Station 



[Bulletin 260 



sons why size^eontribiites to better incomes. Under conditions existing 

 in the year of the study, the table suggests that one should have about 

 the average number of cows to expect an average labor income ; he 

 should have 25 cows to get hired man's wages ; still better results could 

 be obtained by keeping more cows. 



Table 38 — Relation of numhcr of coics per farm to labor income. 



Man Work Units 



One of the best measures of size for comparing farms would be to 

 add up all the work that each farm provided during the year. Such a 

 measure is the man work unit. A work unit may be thought of as rep- 

 resenting approximately a day's work. There were 43 farms that pro- 

 vided less than 200 days of work to be done for the year (Table 39). 

 The average man on a well-organized farm would have done the aver- 

 age amount of work on these farms in 146 days, or some six months. 

 The average labor income of this group was minus $12 ; that is, these 

 farms lacked $12 of furnishing the operator with enough receipts to 

 pay all expenses including interest on capital. In contrast to this situa- 

 tion, there Avere 109 farms that provided an average of 711 work units. 



I 



Table 39 — Relation of man icork units per farm to labor income. 



A little over two men, accomplishing 306 work units per man, did all 

 the work. The reward was an average labor income for the group of 

 $937. The very consistent changes in labor incomes with increasing 



