1922.] 



Labour on the Farm. 



801 



LABOUR ON THE FARM. 



II. 



A. G. EusTON, B.A., B.Sc. (Lond.), D.Sc. (Leeds), 

 and J. S. Simpson, B.Sc, 

 The University, Leeds. 



[The first part of this article in the November issue oj tlie 

 Journal dealt with the influence of the War on the labour 

 bill.'] 



A REVIEW of the labour bill per acre on the farms of which the 

 accounts were available, showed such large variations that an 

 attempt was made to analyse the factors responsible for the 

 variations. 



Size of Farm. — The farms v^ere grouped according to size 

 and the average labour bill per acre was calculated, in an attempt 

 to see if size of farm was a determining factor in the labour bill. 

 Table V illustrates the results obtained. 



Table V. — Variation of Labour Bill with Size of Farm. 



Sise of Farm, 

 acres. 



0-50 

 50-100 

 100-150 

 150-200 

 200-250 

 250-300 

 Over 300 



No. of 

 Farms- 



3 

 4 

 4 

 5 

 3 

 3 

 7 



N'o. of A cres 

 comprised. 



96 

 300 

 504 

 863 

 642 

 784 

 2,.526 



Labour Bill per 

 acre, 1921-1922. 

 £ s. d. 

 10 4 10 

 3 12 11 

 3 17 11 



3 



4 2 

 1 17 7 

 3 19 1 



As was expected the labour bill per acre on holdings of less 

 than 50 acres was much greater than that on larger farms. On 

 the basis of size alone it is impossible to correlate the remaining 

 figures, and consequently the influence of a second factor — the 

 proportion of the farm under grass — was investigated. 



Proportion of Grass. — The figures obtained are tabulated in 

 Table VI. 



Table VI. — Variation of Labour Bill with Proportion 



Percentage 

 of Farm 

 under Grass. 



0-20 

 21-40 

 41-60 

 61-80 

 81-100 



No. of 

 Farms. 



2 

 8 

 7 

 5 



of Grass. 



Acres 

 Comprised. 



336 

 1,545 

 1,754 

 1,110 



608 



Lahour Bill 

 per acre. 

 £ s. d . 

 6 3 5 



3 



4 2 

 2 12 



7 

 3 

 4 



3 19 



Group. 



1 



2 

 3 

 4 

 5 



