40 BULLETIN" 920, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Farms may also be grouped with reference to each of the factors 

 shown in the table. If they be grouped with reference to the number 

 of crop acres, it wiU be found that of the 20 farms leading in number 

 of crop acres 15 had labor incomes higher than the average labor 

 incomes of the 100 farms, and 5 had labor incomes below the average; 

 while of the 20 farms lowest in number of crop acres only four had 

 labor incomes above the average and 16 below the average. 



A comparison of the labor incomes of the 20 farms highest in 

 amount of live stock (productive animal units) with the lowest 20, 

 shows that 15 of the former group and only 2 of the latter group had 

 labor incomes above the average. 



Fourteen of the 20 farms highest in crop yields had labor incomes 

 above the average, while each of the 20 farms lowest in crop yields 

 failed to reach the average labor income of the region. 



By selecting the 20 farms with the highest returns from live stock 

 per animal and the 20 with lowest returns per animal, we find that 15 

 farms of the former group and only 3 farms of the latter group had 

 labor incomes above the average of that of the 100 farms. 



Selecting the 20 farms having the highest number of crop acres per 

 man and the 20 farms having the lowest, we find that of the highest 20 

 fifteen had labor incomes above the average, and of the lowest 20 only 

 3 had labor incomes above the average. 



Ten of the 20 farms leading in number of crop acres per horse had 

 above the average labor income, while only five of the 20 lowest in 

 crop acres per horse had more than the average labor income. 



When making studies of Table VIII it should be kept in mind. 

 that the data shown therein represent a seven-year average for each 

 farm, so that the influence of any condition of uncommon occurrence 

 on a given farm is largely eliminated. 



The data in Table VIII also lend themselves to an interesting 

 study in range in crop yields, live-stock returns and crop acres per 

 man and per horse, since it is based upon an average of seven years' 

 results. Crop yields did not exceed 18 per cent above the average on 

 any farm, and only three were 20 per cent or more below the average. 

 Live-stock returns show a wider range; the farm with the highest 

 returns was 40 per cent above the average and that with the lowest 

 60 per cent below. On the latter farm, however, 53 per cent 

 of the owner's receipts were from the sale of crops. The farmer 

 who receives the greater part of his income from his live stock 

 will seldom faU below 75 per cent of the average returns in his 

 locality when averaged for a period of years, but for any one year 

 the variation both in live-stock returns or crop yields may be more 

 pronounced. On one farm an average of 96 acres of crops per man 

 and 30 per horse were worked and the yields were 12 per cent above 



