52 BULLETIN lie, 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. — Effects of size {crop area) and quality of business upon labor 
income (245 farm records, Palmer Township, Washington County, Ohio). 
[Figures represent average labor income.] 
Size (crop area). 
Poor 
quality.a 
Medium 
quality, b 
Good 
quality.c 
$72 
125 
213 
$137 
31 to 45 acres 
$63 
88 
214 
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 
