70 



N. 11. Agr. Experimext Statiox 



[Bulletin 260 



increase in labor incomes as compared to the first part of the table. 

 In a region selling cash crops, this measure of efficiency becomes very- 

 effective. AYith a given crop, say potatoes, the number of acres per 

 • man, or a saving in man labor per acre, would be very imjjortant on 

 these farms as elsewhere. 



Tons of Milk Produced Per Man 



This depends on size, production per cow, and efficiency. The num- 

 ber of cows per man may contribute as well as the production of 

 milk i)er cow. On farms selling milk, it is a rather important meas- 

 ure of results. The average production per man for these farms was 

 22.7 tons (Table 62). There were 105 farms, not one of which had as 

 much as 15 tons per man ; in fact, an average of only 9.4 tons. On 

 these, the averge labor income was — $96. Between 21 and 26 tons 

 of milk per man returned an average labor income of $324 to 67 opera- 

 tors. This is about the minimum amount with which one might expect 

 to qualify as a reasonably good dairyman. Over half of the operators 

 failed to attain this level of efficiency. There were 79 farms on which 

 the operators attained the excellent record of practically 41 tons of 

 milk per man with average labor incomes of $1,118. The prerequisites 

 for success as indicated by the table are plenty of cows, good milk pro- 

 duction, and an efficient organization for getting things done 

 size, good quality and labor efficiency. 



good 



Table 62 — Relation of tons of milk produced per man to labor income. 



Size and Labor Efficiency 



Size and labor efficiency as measured by man work units ]^er farm 

 and man work units ])er man, are shown in their relations to labor in- 

 come in Table 63. Previous tables have included their combined influ- 

 ence in so far as they are usually associated, but the i)reseiit table was 

 intended to separate the effects of the two factors. 



In the first place, one should note that the limits of the work units 

 per man have been changed for each size grou]). There were no small 

 farms that were highly efficient in the use of labor. The average of 

 220 work units per man for the least efficient group of large farms is 

 the same as the average work units per man for the most efficient group 

 of small farms. 



