FARM PROFITS. 55 



Farmer No. 1, with the highest labor income, had a comparatively 

 large business when measured by crop area or by number of animal 

 units) and while his crop yields Were 7 per cent below the average, 

 practically his entire income was from live stock, which returned 12 

 per cent more per head than the average of the region. 



Farmer No. 60, with the lowest labor income, had as large a busi- 

 ness as did No. 1, when measured by crop area, but much smaller 

 when measured by number of productive animal units. His crop 

 yields were 16 per cent below the average and his returns per head 

 of live stock 14 per cent below the average of the region. 



Only 5 of the 60 farmers had over 10 per cent of their receipts from 

 the sale of crops. 



Crop yields for the 5-year average showed a range of from 25 per 

 cent below to 28 per cent above the average, and live stock of from 

 49 per cent below to 32 per cent above the average. The highest 

 acreage of crops reported per man was 63, and the lowest 21. The 

 highest acreage of crops per horse was 28 and the lowest 10. 



GOOD MANAGEMENT INCREASES PROFITS. 



The aim of this bulletin has been to show actual economic con- 

 ditions as they existed in the three areas herein discussed. While 

 the average profits in each area were rather low, and while many 

 farmers made very low profits, yet the well-managed farms gave 

 much larger returns, as pointed out previously. Each farmer is 

 given his place on the labor income charts (figs. 7, 13, and 19) for 

 each year. Figure 19 has been discussed in Wisconsin Experiment 

 Station Bulletin No. 300 as follows. (This discussion has also a gen- 

 eral application to the findings for the Ohio and Indiana areas.) 



This [chart] shows what skill, energy, and good management can do in the way of 

 winning a good labor income at a time when other farmers are losing money. The 

 fact that under most favorable conditions with respect to prices some farmers win no 

 labor income beyond things furnished the family by the farm, helps one to understand 

 why there may be discontent among the farmers when at the same time many farmers 

 are known to be prospering. It is not to be expected that prices will be high enough 

 to give a labor income to the indolent and inefficient, but it is necessary that the 

 industrious, competent farmers be amply paid for their products if the business of 

 farming is to continue to improve. 



In farming, as in other occupations, the prizes are for those who have ability. The 

 wide range in labor income shown in figure 19 and more accurately arrayed in Table 

 X, gives evidence that the man of skill, industry, and judgment can hope to earn a 

 handsome income by operating a farm. 



This is the ground for hope that there will ever be those who can climb the ladder 

 to independence. But with this hope for tbe man at the head of the class goes the 

 gloomy outlook for the man at the foot of the class. 



The number of farmers who made a minus labor income in the years 1913, 1914, 

 and 1915 is entirely too great. On the average for the five years one out of every six 

 farmers netted a loss ranging from $20 to $598, omitting what the family received 

 from the farm. This would seem to be too high a percentage of submerged farmers 



