FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM 
23 
Table 9. — Value of the family living from the farm in relation to the farm 
receipts — Continued 
Num- 
ber of 
farms 
Percentage family 
living 
rece 
from the farm is of farm 
lpts 
Year and locality 

lto 
9 
10 to 
19 
20 to 
29 
30 to 
39 
40 to 
49 
50 to 
99 
100 
and 
over 
1922 
86 
100 
100 
64 
202 
74 
66 
57 
82 
61 
66 
159 
87 
139 
152 
No. 
farms 
No. 
farms 
No. 
farms 
6 
36 
14 
15 
111 
32 
29 
15 
31 
20 
15 
61 
34 
46 
52 
No. 
farms 
11 
22 
5 
11 
34 
19 
14 
12 
15 
9 
15 
48 
16 
41 
7 
No. 
farms 
24 
5 
1 
10 
11 
5 
6 
11 
3 
12 
22 
9 
20 
4 
No. 
farms 
12 
5 
No. 
farms 
25 
7 
No. 
farms 
8 
Florida: 
Hillsboro County ..... 
""38" 
...... 
23 
42 
1 
44 
12 
15 
16 
14 
27 
10 
10 
16 
14 
87 
2 
Polk County 
10 
2 
5 
1 
5 
5 
1 
2 
5 
7 
7 
1 
15 
2 
Iowa: 
Calhoun County . . . 
I 
1 
2 
4 
1 
10 
12 
5 
10 
1 
Kansas: 
Finney County ... . . . .. . . . 
2 
Montana: 
Sheridan and Daniels Counties. . 
Dawson and Custer Counties 
2 
Colorado, Washington and Lincoln Counties. 
Idaho, Twin Falls County. 
1 
1 
Oregon, Sherman County 
Total. 
1,495 
38 
331 
517 
279 
150 
68 
94 
18 
Grand total. 
7,738 
105 
1,897 
2,613 
1,384 
716 
384 
538 
101 
FARM RECEIPTS 
For all of the farm business survey records included in this study 
the value of the family living from the farm was approximately 
one-ninth as much as the farm receipts, with variations from less 
than one-tw^entieth in a few localities with large farms and large 
capitalization or with highly specialized types of farming, to more 
than one-fifth in some localities with small farms and small capitaliza- 
tion or with little specialization as to type of farming. Prominent 
among the former localities are Polk County, Fla., Sherman County, 
Oreg., and the Palouse country of Idaho and Washington; and among 
the latter are Sussex County, Deh, Catawba County, N. C, Jones 
County, Miss., and Washington County, Ohio. 
With all the variations for different localities in the relation of 
the value of the family living from the farm to the farm receipts, 
there were even greater variations for the different farms of a locality. 
(See Table 9.) In fully one-third of the localities there were a few 
farms with the value of the family living from the farm amounting 
to more than their farm receipts, and in most of the localities there 
w T ere some farms where it amounted to as much as 50 per cent or 
more of their farm receipts. Bearing in mind that the operating 
expenses of the farm business must be paid from the receipts, such 
farms had left from the farm business but little cash available for 
the use of the family. It was not that the value of the family living 
from the farm was so much on these farms when compared with the 
others, but that the farm receipts were so low. 
