FARM MANAGEMENT IN THE PROVO ARBEA. fi, 
Table 3 presents the average of all the dairy farms included in the 
survey. Notall are operated by owners, there being two tenant farms 
included and two which are operated by owners with additional land 
‘rented. These are all handled as though run by straight owners, 
the operators being charged with the landlord’s expenses, credited 
with the corresponding receipts and interest on the landlord’s invest- 
ment deducted from the farm income to secure the labor income. 
Six of these farms sold butter or butter fat, 11 sold market milk, and. 
1 sold as much of one as of the other. The market-milk men averaged 
approximately $1.45 per 100 pounds for their product, while butter 
sold for 30 to 35 cents, and butter fat for 28 to 32 cents per pound. The 
men selling whole milk averaged somewhat larger labor incomes than 
the others, but their line of production is quite limited and the market 
for milk is already fully supplied except for a short time in late sum- 
mer. One of the butter-fat farms, a large, well-managed unit, made 
a, labor income better than most of these marketing the product as 
whole milk. The skim milk was fed to hogs, and the hogs were raised 
with aminimum of labor. ‘The receipts from hogs largely account tor 
the unusually high profitableness of this farm. 
TABLE 4.—Average area, capital, receipts, expenses, farm and labor income on 
seven tenant (rented) farms. (Utah Lake Valley.) 
Item. Farm. | Tenant. | Landlord. 
Acres 
SHVAD OH WN. |S SRO SH RBS oes aesedeeo saswd nas sdwadndas Sosecdsetbsodanee SON OB Tee eee seine seeeeeeine 
billaplejarca,perianm asso) se5. eee — eee a een n= ees ee == einen Hee eS Soucces|laccoaoo2ccoe 
GHOD DIKE OE Tea, «see ewe ees slseee bode Sos oebbecsseer seas Season asEsdee 257-3) | RBpoosss5|boosconceaee 
Capp ihalleere ee ee = ee ees eet Eo ea MN oee eo ceeer necne| seo secsaas $1,117 $17, 469 
HESGEOUDUS-oee sens ene See osedsdecaccgscsesngecde sooessesassrecs|[bc soseeose 2,118 1,617 
IDp-q OG HRUSE > A AOA ee aster peas SeSes4= ce See ner Senor sae see Sse De sre se ran a BoSescescc 1,050 589 
Farm income.....-...-------------------------- +--+ ++ 2 22222 eee eee seer elon eee eee 1,068 1,028 
Waborineome. je. <--- \-- 6 = - =) ieee be = a a ww se eae ee = ee wine eee O12 We eee oe 
Per cent on investment.....-...-..-..---------.----------++---+--------- Desa cial ccs ees 5,793 
Table 4 presents the results secured from 7 farms operated by 
tenants. The tenants made a labor income of $1,012, and the land- 
lords 5.79 per cent on their investment. 
RENTING COMPARED WITH BUYING. 
From the preceding tables and discussion it seems very clear that 
the man with limited capital should rent rather than buy land in 
this area. The prevailing rate of interest on farm mortgages is 8 
per cent. The average owner of the 22 renting additional land had 
the use of $4,447 in real estate belonging to the landlords, and paid 
only 4.1 per cent for it ($182). The tenants paid less than 6 per 
cent on the average, but with only $1,100 owned capital they made 
labor incomes much larger than the men in Table 2 or in the first 
two groupsin Table 1. The man with a small farm would do well to 
rent additional land and use the capital represented at a relatively 
