FARM MANAGEMENT IN THE PROVO AREA. 5 
pressing, and when the time of both man and team would otherwise 
_ be largely wasted. The item of outside labor will be discussed in some 
detail later. The average receipts therefrom considerably more than 
account for the difference between the labor incomes of the farmers 
on small units as shown by the 1913 and 1914 surveys. One man in 
group 1 made a labor income of more than $1,000, seven of more 
than $500, and one had a minus labor income, i. e., he failed to pay 
interest on his capital, and got nothing for his year of farm work. 
The second group of farms, 29 in number, is of the same general 
type as the first, but the average area is more than four times as large 
and the crop area more than three times as large, 46.05 as against 
13.34 acres. The capital is a little more than double that of group 1, 
and the labor income two-thirds greater. Seven of these farmers 
made labor incomes of more than $1,000, 14 of more than $500, and 
4 made minus labor incomes. They simply illustrate the fact that it 
takes money to make money, but that the more there is the more 
may be lost. 
The third group of farms, 20 in number, comprises the live-stock 
units operated by owners. Two of these men breed and raise horses, 
four specialize in chickens, and the remainder conduct dairy farms. 
These operators produce for the home market almost exclusively. 
This type of farming is not yet overdone, but the possibilities for 
extension, except along certain lines, seem somewhat limited. The 
average labor income is $1,394. 
The average labor income of all 75 owners ($728) compares favor- 
ably with labor-income figures secured in surveys made in other parts 
of the country. 
TABLE 2.—Average area, capital, receipts, expenses, farm imcome, and labor 
amcome on 22 farms operated by owners renting additional land. (Utah Lake 
Valley.) 
First Second. 
up 
E group m 
Ttem. (8 small ( ie All farms. 
farms). farms) 
SPUU CETL, ESS ee te ee ee eer cate er eae acres. - 20. 03 113. 25 79. 35 
HAVMHAEOMOWFCGS: © Clee as sthe) ee A EPR ST ae 0. 53 8. 03 89. 18 59. 67 
MOAVAGUALATEATENPEM sso. (oko. es ee ee dor. 12. 00 24.07 19. 68 
Wlablelareawer farms, LA. ST 8S) BoA ie Sit dots 18.59 47. 62 37.07 
OSPR AE CORDOL AAI a pore nap ee ac yer et ns aa ope nar doze: : 17.00 43.70 33. 99 
@Wapitals os. LE OS NRE Se SERN UNE UY Ree a ee $3,597 | $8, 041 $6, 425 
PEP ECIE Smet Pere me Ae ee note be 482 A ee 1,026 2,197 1,770 
SEER HS OS MEET teen ost We ee ra De wen ERE» ER RAR NL AVRO 448 1,095 859 
ARIVANCOME} 75 3158 2352. fee kt Se So ah este i, LR NAR RE Yt 578 1,102 911 
PPD IEE COIN Otek 2 nee: mare ieny meme mame TON STAT Oe Ste tak wees he 398 700 590 
t 
Table 2 presents the results from 22 farms where the operator owns 
an area which he deems too small for profitable farm management 
and rents additional land to overcome this drawback. This method 
of operation is becoming more and more general here, as elsewhere, 
with the rise in land values. It represents a step midway between 
tenant and owner, and is very effective in enabling men with limited 
