52 BULLETIN" *716, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



small farms with poor quality had nothing left for the operator's 

 labor after 5 per cent interest on the investment was deducted from 

 the farm income. In other words, the average labor income for this 

 group of farms was nothing. The average labor income of the 

 large farm with poor quality was $88, while that of the small farms 

 with good quality was $137. The medium-sized farms with medium 

 quality had an average labor income of $125. The labor income of 

 the large farms with medium quality was $213, while that of the 

 medium-sized farms with good quality was $214. These figures in- 

 dicate that so long as the size of the business is small and the quality 

 poor the income may be increased more by improving the quality 

 of the business than by increasing the size, but that with a medium- 

 sized business with medium quality, the income may be increased 

 as much by increasing the size, while maintaining the same quality, 

 as by improving the quality while maintaining the same size. 



Table XV. — Ejects of size {crop area) and quality of business upon labor 

 income {2Jf5 farm records, Palmer Township, Washington County, Ohio). 



[Figures represent average labor income.] 



Size (crop area). 



Poor 

 quality.^ 



Medium 

 quality. 6 



Good 

 quality.c 



30 acres and less . 





S72 

 125 

 213 



$137 





S63 



88 



214 



Over 45 acres . 



453 







a Poor quality includes: Poor crops and poor stock; poor crops and medium stock; medium crops and 

 poor stock. • 



b Medium quality includes: Poor crops and good stock; medium crops and medium stock; good crops and 

 poor stock. 



c Good quality includes: Medium crops and good stock; good crops and medium stock; good crops and 

 good stock. 



The influence of quality of the business, as shown in Table XV, 

 is due to the combined weight of two quality factors, crop yields 

 and receipts per animal unit. In order to determine the influence 

 of each upon farm profits, the records were grouped so that farms 

 with different crop yields but with similar live-stock receipts could 

 be compared, and vice versa. These groupings show that for both 

 crops and live stock quality had marked effects upon the average 

 labor income, but that quality of live stock affected the income more 

 than that of crops. The quality of the live stock had just about 

 double the effect of the quality of the crops, and this should be ex- 

 pected in this area. It was pointed out on page 49 that much the 

 greater proportion of the crops produced on these farms reached 

 their market through the medium of the live stock rather than by 

 selling the crop direct, and Table III shows that a much greater 

 proportion of the farm receipts were from the live stock than from 

 the crops. Therefore, with the type of farming followed in this 

 area, the quality factor of first importance is the live stock. With 



