22 _BULLETIN 920, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. | 
Farm No. 1, with the highest average labor income, had a good- 
sized business, but not the largest, as measured by crop area and 
amount of live stock. The crop yields for the seven-year period were 
15 per cent above the average of all farms. Most of the crops were 
fed to live stock, which returned more per head than that of mosé 
farms of the region. This farm had about the average number of 
crop acres per man and per horse. In other words, a comparison of 
the business of this farm with that of the others shows a much larger 
business, with better crop yields and higher live-stock returns than 
the average. 
Farm No. 11 had the iargest business of all. It had about average 
crop yields, but the most of the crops were fed to live stock showing 
low returns per head. Had the live-stock returns from this farm been 
as much per head as from any of the firs. six farms, it no doubt would 
have been at the top in labor income. 
Farms 24 and 25 represented the heaviest losers. The size of 
the business on each of these farms was about the average when 
measured by crop area, but much below average when measured by 
amount of live stock. Both farms show poor organization, having 
large acreages of pasture with only small amounts of live stock. The 
live-stock return per head was the factor which so adversely affected 
the profits of each farm. The crop yields were also produced less 
economically than on most of the other farms. 
Another interesting comparison in this table is in regard to the 
range in crop yields, live-stock returns, crop acres per man and per 
horse. Comparing the crop yields for the average of the seven-year 
period, we find only one man producing crops 20 per cent above the 
average of the region; also there are only two producing below 80 per 
cent of the average. In the case of live-stock returns we find a wider 
range; two farms have returns 30 per cent above the average, while 
two are below 70 per cent of the average. Since both intensity of 
farming and size of farm have a direct bearing upon crop acres per 
man and per horse, these should always be kept in mind in a study of 
the range. The figures do show, however, that in this area both the 
man and the horse cover small acreages as compared with many 
other regions but that the variation in acreage covered within the 
region is marked. 
THE INDIANA AREA. 
The area in Indiana, which is located about 40 miles north of 
Indianapolis, is typical of general crop and live-stock farming in 
north-central Indiana. The land was originally covered with heavy 
hardwood timber, except for a few strips locally known as “‘prairie.” 
The surface is level to slightly rolling and much of the land is tiled. 
The main wagon roads are improved, most of them graveled, and 
railroad points are readily accessible the year around. General farm- 
ing prevailed, with corn and hogs the leading sources of income. 
