80 



N. H. Agr. Experiment Station 



[Bulletin 260 



Quite in contrast, apparently, to the results in Table 68 are those of 

 Table 69. The larger the average proportion of expenses paid for feed, 

 the better the average labor incomes. Advantage results from effi- 

 ciency, because with a larger proportion of expenses for grain there is 

 a tendency to a smaller percentage spent for labor. As a result, a con- 

 siderable change in man work units per man may be noted. The direct 

 advantage is that of increased production of milk per cow consequent 

 to better feeding. 



Table 69 — Relation of per cent of expenses in piirclniaed feed to labor income. 



Man work units per farm. 



Per cent of expenses in feed. 



Small. 



Medium. 



Large. 



Less than 275 



Number of farms 50 45 26 



Average labor income — $226 $69 $390 



Other averages : 



Per cent for feed 17 



Man work units per farm 201 



INIan work units per man 140 



Milk per cow (pounds) 4,568 



2~5 to -',5.'t 



Number of farms 57 



Average labor income — $272 



Other averages ; 



Per cent for feed 18 



Man work units per farm 370 



j\Ian work units per man 198 



Milk per cow (pounds) 4,525 



455 Or more 



Number of farms 38 



Average labor income $564 



Other averages : 



Per cent for feed 17 31 48 



Man work imits per farm 713 658 686 



Man work units per man 28G 292 339 



Milk per cow (pounds) 4,821 5,402 5,874 



Education 



Thei'c is some significance to the fact that the 92 operators in Table 

 70 who had had some training beyond the local district school got aver- 

 age labor incomes two and one-half times as high as the grouji with less 

 education. Without exception, they excelled in the average of every 

 factor tabulated whether it related to i^roduction, efficiency, or i)rices. 



In Livingston County, New York, in lf)28, the common school group 

 made labor incomes averaging $137 ; the liigii school group, $803 ; and 

 the agricultural school group, $1,218.^ 



