78 X. II. AoK. Experiment Station [Bulletin 260 



Forty-nine farms in Table 67 had crop land with an average value 

 of $84 per acre. In spite of larger businesses on the average, better 

 milk production per cow and better prices for milk, this group did not 

 obtain such good average labor incomes as groups having somewhat 

 cheaper land. Although better average crop yields were also obtained, 

 there is a suggestion that the majority of these farms had land that 

 was considerably over-valued for farming jmrposes and for some of 

 the reasons suggested. 



On the other hand, the next higher grades of land as sorted in the 

 table aj)pear to contribute to better businesses and better incomes than 

 the poorer grades. Crop land values averaging $40 or $50 an acre are 

 associated with labor incomes averaging nearly $600 while less valu- 

 able land provides scarcely half as much in labor incomes. Not all the 

 advantage is due to better crop land because the farms increased in 

 average size, in production per cow and in price of milk as well as in 

 crop yields. 



If hay be groAvn on $100 land for $25 an acre, the cost of the land, 

 including interest, taxes, etc., might represent from one-fourth to one- 

 third of the total cost. But with intensive crops like potatoes where 

 the total cost per acre is high, say $150, it becomes increasingly impor- 

 tant to have the land suitable regardless of price. If the difference in 

 annual cost between $100 and $200 land were $8, this might be offset 

 by an increased potato j^ield of 10 bushels or less. 



Expenses for Labor and Feed 



These represented 54.7 per cent of all the expenses (Table 31). La- 

 bor, including un])aid, represented 24.1 ])er cent. To s]iend wisely is 

 quite as imjjortant as to earn, except for the question of priority. One j 

 cannot spend that which he has not accumulated or over which he has ' 

 no command. * i 



Plaving a given amount of work to be done, one might hire it all I 

 done, 01- hire some help to get it done, or by longer hours and more effi- 

 cient methods do it all himself. It is obvious that the proceeds of the ' 

 last metliod would all accrue to the operator, while the other methods i 

 would distribute a part or all of the proceeds to others. I 



On some of these farms the proportion of expenses that went for la- | 

 bor in getting a given amount of work done was much different than j 

 on others (Table 68). As would be expected, the farms in each size j 

 group on which a large projiortion of exjicnses went for labor pro- I 

 vided a small average labor income for their operators. With small • 

 farms having a large proportion of expenses in labor, the average la- i 

 bor income was — $395. Operators of large farms with a small pro- | 

 portion of expenses in labor obtained average labor incomes of $1,245. 

 In all cases a larger proportion of expenses for labor meant less labor 

 income. The trouble was not in paying liiglier wages — iirobably the 

 Avages paid were actually lower — but in getting less done i)er man. 

 Large exix'uses in any size group always involved much less done per 

 man tliaii in the other groups. 



