52 X. II. AcH. ExPEKiMEXT STATION [Bulletin 260 



This whole ^I'oup o! -VJo larnis with 15.7 cows and 229 acres of land 

 per farm is made up of units much superior in size to the average for 

 the State. The State's average was 6.2 cows, and 131.5 acres of land 

 per farm.* This comparison would indicate that the farms surveyed 

 were twice as large as the average for the State, but other areas may 

 have had more cash crops or more poultry to offset a part of this ap- 

 parent discrepancy. 



Total Receipts 



This measure of size of business, often used in industry, changes 

 not only with volume, but also with prices. Individual farms may 

 be eliminated from certain groups because of losses due to poor 

 management or misfortune. In other w^ords, this measure is very 

 close to net income, because all that remains to be done is to subtract 

 expenses. There are two observations to be made in connection with 

 Table 41, in which this measure is used. The first one is trite. Re- 

 ceipts must be built up to several thousand dollars before even a fair 

 labor income can be expected. Satisfactory labor incomes are impossi- 

 ble with small receipts. The second observation is to call attention to 

 the fact that $5,000 receipts on one farm is better than $2,500 on each 

 of two farms. Two men working on one farm in the group having 

 average receipts of $5,449 would each get hired men's wages of around 

 $600, one presumably as a laborer and the other as an operator. The 

 two men as operators of farms each averaging $2,455 receipts would 

 get only $74 a piece for their time. In other w^ords, the proportion of 

 income that accrues to labor increases with gross receipts. This fact 

 is evidenced in the last column of the table, which indicates that 17 

 per cent of total receipts accrued to labor income in the last group 

 but only 3 per cent in the second group. 



Number of Men 



Because it takes more men to run a large business than a small one, 

 it should be possible to measure size by the number of men employed 

 on the farm. Such a method was used in making Table 42. The size 

 of farms increases as indicated by a consistent change in average man 

 work units |)er farm from 244 to 769. Prodiiction per cow or ])rice of 

 milk or both tend to increase, but there is little response in labor in- 

 comes. The reason is not far to seek. The number of men employed on 

 farms is a result of size and not a cause. When we select farms be- 

 cause they have more men employed there is no guarantee that the 

 men will be used efficiently. The group that emplo.ved an average of 

 approximately two men was the least efficient of all wnth 212 work 

 units per man, and the group having 2.5 men was next in inefficiency. 

 When size was measured by work units per farm, the work units per 

 man ranged from 125 to 306 ; and when size was measured by number 



* United States Census, lO.TO. Aijrieulture, New ITainpsliire, pp. 6 and 9. 

 Cows and heifers born before 1928, kept mainly for milk produetion, 08,792, 

 reported by 11,018 farms. 



