Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Washington, D. C. August, 1925

THE FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

Data from 30 Farming Localities in 21 States for the Years 1918 to 1922

By H. W. HawrTuHorne, Associate Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricul- tural Economics

CONTENTS

Page Page

| Significance of family living from the farm_ 1 | The farm business—Continued. MOCALITIES SHUI CICd ae tes Fe aes = tases 3 MATMPTECCIDUSEE, meee eee oe eee on 23 The family living from the farm_____________ 6 Manmeincomebss serene | we aeons 25 Years of prosperity and depression________-__ 11 lnghaanl by maveoponys_ 9 Fe 26 | Cost of living of farm families______________-_- 12 AbD Or COME ss oe sak. ame eer ee ees 26 BRE arm: DUSINeSses soe ee Ske na St 13 Value of the farmer’s labor_____________- 27 S1ZC, Of Tan = ees emer ceil ure 2 19 PING TR UIT C LMS fos so Bw toate un eee tae ee 27 Sizeoniamilys-2. 2: 1 Seen. 2 al bast OmTeferen CGS, ken eas a ee omen ee 28

SIGNIFICANCE OF FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

Above their cash income from the farm, farmers have other income in the form of food products which they set aside for consumption by their families, use of houses for their shelter, and some fuel for use in their homes. In the aggregate these items, termed “the family living from the farm’’ in this Frulletin. represent an appreciable part of the cost of living of farm families on the one hand and of the returns from the farm business on the other.

Data from several thousand farms show that the value of the family living from the farm at farm prices Was approximately one-third of the cost of living of farm families and two-thirds of the cost of food, fuel, and house rent. It was one-ninth as much as the farm receipts and one-third as much as the farm income. (See fig. 1.) Variations with localities, with annual production, with years of prosperity and depression, and with different families, accompany these approxima- tions and are presented in some of the following pages. Outstanding among the variations are those in years of agricultural prosperity and depression. In 1918 and 1919, years of agricultural prosperity, the value of the family living from the farm was only about one-fifth as much as the farm income; but in 1921 and 1922, years of agri- cultural depression, it was fully one-third as much.

38143°—25t—Bull. 13383 —1

4

ra

2 BULLETIN 13388, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULILURE

The purpose of this bulletin is to place before its readers, in so far as the data will permit, the significance of the family living from the farm: Its value in relation to the cost of living of farm families and to the farm receipts, the farm income, the family income, and the labor income; its importance in comparison with the cash returns from the farm business in times of agricultural prosperity and depression; its comparative importance with farms and families of different sizes; the farmer’s recognition of its significance in evaluat- ing his labor; and the relative importance of the items that make up the family living from the farm.

The family living from the farm lends safety and stability to the farm business and to farm life. It enables the farmer to reduce materially the cash cost of living and to tide over lean years and hard times that would be ruinous if he had to buy all the living for himself and family on the market. Were it necessary to buy all of

2074 FAMILIES 950 FAMILIES 7.738 FAMILIES 5 STATES. 1919-23 14 STATES.I9I3-14 2! STATES. 1918-22 DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS (@) 1,000 O 1,000 O 1,000 2000 3000 4000

T COST OF LIVING OF . | FARM FAMILIES

|

COST. OF FOOD, HOUSE |g RENT AND FUEL

VALUE OF THE FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

ee oe —-4--— —--3-—-!}

FARM RECEIPTS ve

FARM INCOME ===

FAMILY INCOME —-=-~

LABOR INCOME °~--~

Fic. 1.—The value of the family living from the farm was 38 per cent of the cost of living of 2,074 farm families and 66 per cent of the cost of food, house rent, and fuel; it was about 12 per cent as much as the farm receipts for 7,738 farms, 29 per cent as much as the farm income, and 4.8 times as much as the labor income

the family living furnished by the farm at city retail prices the cost would be fully twice the evaluation used in this bulletin, which is at farm prices. In a study of the family living from the farm of 28 farm families in Scioto County, Ohio, in 1922, the value at city retail prices amounted to 208 per cent of that at farm prices. Important as the family living from the farm is, it should not be inferred that this living is obtained entirely free of cost to the farmer. The direct money cost for some of the items may be little, but the production of the several items represents labor, capital, and some- times cash outlay for materials. Much of the Tahoe however, is performed as an insignificant part of the main labor of the farm business, at times when the work of the main business is not urgent, and often by the wife and children. Much of the capital employed in the production of the food. items of the family living from the farm is necessary for the farm business and is at hand, and the materials

1 For definition of these and other terms used in this bulletin see pp. 13 and 14.

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM 3

used in their production are sometimes by-products or wastes from the business. Frequently some of the family living from the farm has little or no market value, and some of it is not of the better market grades. Farm families often utilize little potatoes, overripe or under- sized fruits, eggs with soiled shells, etc., for family use, and many of the garden vegetables grown on the farms in some localities can not be sold. On the other hand, the hogs, butter, poultry, etc., which go to make up part of the family living from the farm usually have a ready market. The value of the house rent includes interest and de- preciation on the house, and the cash costs of insurance, taxes, and repairs on the house. LOCALITIES STUDIED

This bulletin presents the available data which it is practicable to assemble at the present time (1925) on the family living from the farm as obtained in connection with farm business surveys made by the

SURVEYS "farm Business” x"Value of Food, Fuel and House Rent” ACost of Living of Farm Families”

Each Survey includes ‘Family Living from the Farm”

Fic. 2.—Localities from which the data in this bulletin were obtained

United States Department of Agriculture and the State agricultural colleges and experiment stations for the years 1918 to 1922. For comparison, data on the cost of food, fuel, and house rent to farm families for 1913 and 1914, and for 1919 to 1928 are included, as are data on the cost of living in farm homes for 1919 to 1923.

The farm business data were obtained from 30 localities well scat- tered over the United States (fig. 2). They total 7,738 records and represent varying types of farming under various topographic, soil, climatic, and marketing conditions. Dairy farms in the hills of New England and in Wisconsin, the cotton plantations of the Southern States, the citrus groves and early truck farms of Florida, the or- chards of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia and near Niagara Falls in New York, the grain and livestock farms of the Corn Belt, grain farms and grazing in the Great Plains region, extensive wheat farms in the Palouse country of Idaho and Washington and in northern Oregon, and farms under irrigation in the West and Northwest are all

+

represented in the data.

BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Data relative to the topography, uses of

the land, crop yields, and the principal farm receipts for each locality

are shown in Table 1.

TaBLE |.—Uses of land, crop yields, and principal receipts for farm business survey localities

[ Abbreviations: Past., pasture; w., woods; p., permanent; r., rotation; o., other; pot., potatoes; tom., tomatoes; wh., wheat; gr. fruit, grapefruit; tang., tangerines; st. berries, strawberries; st. beans, string beans; s. beets, sugar beets.

Unaccounted for land is waste land and idle crop land. Figures in parentheses indicate land inter-

planted and double-cropped. Neither woods nor permanent pasture includes woods pasture.

receipts include eggs; cattle receipts do not include dairy products.]

Locality and year

New Hampshire:

Hillsboro County, 1918. Vermont: Orange

and Windsor Counties, 1921.

Rhode Island: All counties, 1921.

New York: Niagara County, 1919.

Delaware: Sussex County, 1922.

Virginia: Frederick County, 1916-1920.

North Carolina: Catawba County, 1918.

Georgia: Sumter County, 1918.

Florida: Hillsboro County, 1917-1922.

Florida: Polk Coun- ty, 1917-1922.

Mississippi: Jones County, 1919.

Ohio: Washington County, 1912-1922.

Indiana: Clinton County, 1910 and 1918-1919.

Wisconsin: Wal- worth County, 1919.

Topog- raphy

Hilly to rough.

Level to rolling.

Rolling to hilly

Rolling __

Level to rolling.

Level _ ___ Level to rolling.

Rolling --

Hilly to rough.

Uses of the land, percentage of farm area

Poultry

Yields per acre

Woods 22, w. past. 40, p. past. 11, corn 2, hay 18, fruit 2, o. crops 2.

Woods 4, w. past. 18, p. past. 40, r. past. 1, corn 4, oats 1, hay 20, pot. 1, 0. crops 1.

Woods 15, w. past. 18, p. past. 28, r. past. 1, hay 18, corn 5, other crops 5.

Woods 3, w. past. 4, p. past. 5, r. past. 1, corn 9, wh. 9, hay 17, apples 16, peaches 11, pears 3, O. crops 18.

Woods 12, w. past. 3, p. past. 4, r. past. 6, corn 21, wheat 18, hay 12, pot. 2, other crops 4.

Woods 6, w. past. 5, p. past. 14, r. past. 8, corn 10, wh. 13, hay 9, fruit 27, 0. crops 2.

Woods 29, w. past. 6, p. past. 8, r. past. 2, corn 11, wh. 12, hay 6, cotton 6, 0. crops 10.

Woods 26, w. past. 7, p. past. 2, cotton 23, corn 20, peas (9), oats 4, o. crops 8 (11).

W. past. 51, p. past. 2, corn 8 (10), hay (2), st. berries 3, pot. 4, oranges 3, st. beans 4, other crops 14 (12).

W. past. 23, p. past. 1, oranges 33, g. fruit 22, tang. 3, other crops 4.

Woods 21, w. past. 42, p. past. 8, corn 11, cotton 8, 0. crops 7.

Woods 8, w. past. 10, p. past. 38, r. past. 2, corn 7, wh. 7, hay 12, other crops 1.

Woods 1, w. past. 6, p. past. 3, r. past. 12, corn 33, oats 20, wheat 7, nay 9, other crops 5.

Woods 1, w. past. 7, p. past. 22, r. past. 3, corn) 205) oats) 13; barley 6, hay 17, other crops 5.

Corn 39 bu., hay 1.1 t., apples 28 bbl.

Corn 43 bu., oats 35 bu., hay 1.1 t., pot. 185 bu.

Corn 43 bu., hay 1.5t., pot. 138 bu.

Corn 29 bu., wheat 18 bu., hay 1.4 t., apples 38 bbl., peaches 15 bu.

Corn 31 bu., wheat 14 bu., hay 0.9 t., pot. 102 bu.

Corn 36 bu., wheat 15 bu., hay 0.9 t., apples 55 bbl.

Corn 24 bu., wheat 9 bu., oats 17 bu., cotton 293 Ibs.

Corn 13 bu., oats 19 bu., cotton 234 Ibs.

Corn 15 bu., st. berries 65 —bu., oranges 118 box, pot. 65 bu., st. beans 71 bu.

Oranges 151 box, g. fruit 189 box, tang. 177 box.

Corn 18 bu., cotton 140 lbs.

Corn 40 bu., wheat 14 bu., hay 1.2 t.

Corn 45 bu., oats 43 bu., wheat 18 bu., hay 1.3 t.

Corn 34 bu., oats 43 bu., barley 30 bu., hay 1.6 t.

Principal receipts, per- centage of total receipts

Dairy 39, poultry 19, apples 11, cattle 9.

Dairy 59, cattle 8, poultry 7, potatoes 6.

Dairy 49, poultry 20, outside work 13, potatoes 6.

Apples 47, peaches 8, dairy 7, poultry 5,

wheat 4, tom. 4, pears 3, cattle 3, hogs 3.

Poultry 19, wheat 15, dairy 14, corn 10, pot. 8, tom. 7, hogs 5, cattle 5.

Apples 74, wheat 9,

hogs 3, cattle 3, Goin A Chita, 2, poultry 2.

Cotton and seed 35, sweet pot. 10, dairy 9, wheat 8, corn 6, cattle 6.

Cotton and seed 79, hogs 5, corn 4, pea nuts 4.

St. berries 31, oranges 12, pot. 9, st. beans 9, tom. 7, cabbage 6, cucumbers 5.

Oranges 57, grape fruit 32, tangerines 9.

Cotton and seed 38, dairy 15, cattle 11, hogs 9, poultry 4.

Cattle 21, hogs 11, poultry 19, wheat 6, outside work 12, sheep and wool 11.

Hogs 41, corn 14, oats 12, cattle 10, wheat 7, dairy 4, poultry 4.

Dairy 75, hogs 7, cattle 5, poultry 4.

a Wy

.

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

TaBLE 1.—Uses of land, crop yields, and principal receipts for farm business survey localities—Continued

Locality and year

Iowa: Tama County, 1918.

Warren County, 1918.

Calhoun Coun- ty, 1922.

Humboldt County, 1922.

South Dakota: Jones County, 1921-1922.

Kansas: Finney County, 1922 Thomas and

Sherman Counties, 1922.

Montana: Sheridan and Daniels Coun- ties, 1921-1922. Dawson and Custer Coun- ties, 1922. Colorado: Weld County, 1921.

Lincoln and Washington Counties, 1922.

Idaho: Twin Falls County, 1919-1922.

Idaho and Washing- ton: “Palouse country,’ 1919- 192

Washington: King and Pierce Counties, 1921. Yakima County, 1921-1922.

Oregon: Sherman County, 1920-1922.

Topog- raphy

Uses of the land, percentage of farm area

Yields per acre

Principal receipts, per- centage of total receipts

Level to rolling.

Rolling to hilly.

Level-_-_-_-

Level to rolling.

Rolling

to rough.

Level to hilly.

Level to rolling.

Level to rough.

Level to rolling.

Level to rough.

Level to rolling.

Rolling to hilly.

Level to rolling.

Woods 3, w. past. 2, p. past. 15, r. past. 13, corn 32, oats 18, hay 7, barley 7, other crops 2.

Woods 1, w. past. 5, p. Mast. ol, Tepasc.. os corn 23, wh. 10, hay 9, oats 10, 0. crops 3.

Woods 1, corn 39, oats 32, hay 7 (other data not available).

W:; past. 1p. past. 6; Te DAStee Oe COLM NC, oats 27, barley 2, hay 10, o. crops 1.

P. past. 70, hay 15, corn 6, oats 2, wheat 2, o. crops 2.

P. past. 63, fallow 2, corn 4, wheat 20, hay 4, o. crops 6.

P. past. 59, fallow 1, corn 5, wheat 26, hay 3, O. crops 4.

P. past. 31, fallow 8, wheat 37, oats 6, hay 4, flax 2, other crops 3.

P. past. 55, fallow 3, corn 3, wh. 20, oats 5, hay 6, 0. crops 2.

P. past. 5, alfalfa 28, wheat 9, barley 6, pot. 17, s. beets 15, other crops ll.

P. past. 55, fallow 3, corn 8, wheat 20, hay 6, 0. crops 4.

P. past. 7, wheat 31, alfalfa 20, clover 6, beans 9, pot. 6, S. beets 6, other crops 7.

WirepastelespMpaste Onn: past. 1, fallow 26, wheat 42, oats 7,. hay 9, other crops 5.

Woods 9, W. past. 38, p. past. 10, hay 25, fruit 7, o. crops 6.

P. Past. 4, r. past. 1, pot. 15, wheat 12, s. beets 3, alfalfa 42, barley 3, o. crops 10.

P. past. 19, fallow 38, wheat 36, 0. crops 5.

Corn 45 bu., oats 48 bu., barley 36 bu., hay 1.3 T.

Corn 24 bu., oats 39 bu., wheat 18 bu., hay .9 T.

Corn 48 bu., oats 43 bu., hay 1.8 T.

Corn 56 bu., oats 43 bu., hay .9 T.

Corn 26 bu., wheat 17 bu., oats 30 bu., nanvale2 ae

Corn 11 bu., wheat 14 bu., hay 1.3 T.

Corn 24 bu., wheat 11 bu., hay 2.3 T.

Wheat 18 bu., oats 33 bu., flax 8 bu.

Corn 21 bu., wheat 11 bu., oats 18 bu.

Wheat 32 bu., alfalfa PPS MADE © Oro Bio) bu., s. beets 15.6 T.

Corn 17 bu., wheat IE Joybls, Loe, Tek ab

Wheat 43 bu., alfalfa 4.2 T., beans 22 bu., pot. 258 bu., s. beets 11.2 T.

Wheat 27 bu., oats 36 bu., peas 14 bu.

‘Hay 2.6 T., st. ber- ries 130 bu., rasp- berries 88 bu.

Potatoes 327 bu., s. beets 8.6 T., wheat 40 bu., alfalfa 4.6 Ts

Wheat 22 bu_______-

Hogs 48, cattle 18, corn 13, oats 8, barley 5.

Hogs 43, cattle wheat 14, corn poultry 6.

19,

La A ‘y

Corn 45, oats 30, hogs 5, eattle 5.

Hogs 40, corn 16, cattle 10, oats 8, poultry 8, dairy 5.

Cattle 38, hogs wheat 10, dairy 8.

26,

Wheat 51, cattle 19, hogs 4, dairy 3, poul- try 2, corn 2, outside work 2.

Wheat 54, cattle 12, hogs 6, dairy 4, corn 4, poultry 3, outside work 4.

Wheat 79, flax, 3, oats 2, dairy 2.

Wheat 55, cattle 12, hogs 5, dairy 4, oats 3, poultry 3.

Potatoes 28, s. beets 27, sheep and wool 18, cattle 7, wheat 5.

Wheat 39, cattle 15, hogs 12, dairy 7, poul- try 5, corn 3, outside work 4.

Wheat 29, beans 12, pot. 12, s. beets 12) dairy 7, clover seed 6, alfalfa hay 5.

Wheat 78, oats 3, hogs 3, peas 2, dairy 2.

Poultry 46, dairy 23, st. berries 7, cattle 3, raspberries 3.

Pot. 33, hay 28, wheat 9, dairy 6, cattle 4, poultry 3, hogs 8, s. beets 3.

Wheat 84.

Data on the cost of food, fuel, and house rent to farm families on 950 farms in 1913 and 1914 were collected in 14 localities in as The Cotton Belt is represented by localities in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas; the Corn Belt by localities in Ohio,

many States.

Iowa, and Kansas, where the production of hogs is important.

A

locality each in Vermont, New York, and Wisconsin represents dairy farming, and one in Pennsylvania represents general farming with Market gardening, or trucking, is represented by a locality in New Jersey; extensive grain farming by one in North Dakota; fruit growing under irrigation by one in California; and in a locality in Maine the combination of apple growing, dairying, and sweet corn production for canning prevails.

small dairies.

6 BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ~

The data on the cost of living in farm homes of 2,074 farm families from 1919 to 1923 were obtained in six localities in New York, Ken- tucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Iowa. The locality in Livingston County, N. Y., is one of diversified farming with market milk the leading dairy product. The localities in Kentucky, one in Mason County and the other in the bluegrass region, are typical of general farming with tobacco an important cash crop. The data on Tennes- see cover localities in several counties with tobacco an important cash crop in Montgomery County and cotton in Madison County. In the black prairie land*of Texas the percentage of tenantry is very high and a one-crop system of farming with cotton as the basis prevails. Corn belt types of farming prevail in the locality in central Iowa. These studies on the cost of living in farm homes have been made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics cooperating with the several States. The Livingston County study was made in cooperation with the Bureau of Home Economics.

THE FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

The items in the make-up of the family living from the farm for each locality and each year are presented in Table 2, from which the following summary has been made:

Ninety-two per cent of the value of the family living from the farm may be grouped in 6 items: House rent, fuel, dairy products, poultry and eggs, pork and lard, and fruit and vegetables. (See Table 2 and fig. 3.)

House rent made up 36 per cent of the value of the family living from the farm; fuel, 3 per cent; and food, 61 per cent. Of the food items, animal products made up 74 per cent and crops 26 per cent of the value. Among the animals, the cow, the hog, and the hen ranked in the order named in supplying the family with food, and — pork ranked first among the meats.

The value of the family living from the farm was higher in 1918 and 1919 than in 1921 and 1922, almost entirely as a result of price levels. From the former to the latter period the price level of food had dropped while that for house rent had gone up, both of which are in accord with commodity trends.

There are no marked indications from the data that families living in the better agricultural localities obtained more family living from the farm than did those in the poorer localities. The house rent was valued at a little more, which indicates greater values in houses in the better farming localities.

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

SOURCES oF 92 PER CENT OF THE FAMILY LIVING FROM THE

. ; ‘ s Lowes ~ (HW House Rent $184 2 | or 36 per cent |)

Ss 2g, nt

Fruit and Vegetables $46 or 9 per cent

Fic, 3.—Most of the family living from the farm is included under the six items named above, Average of 7,738 families in 30 localities

"18h |ShL [LE T |Zb {LST |83

~~“ "I@E OTT Jee SMS Wee val! “108 68 |61 G |Sl |r \€T T | |08 |82

Q |08 |b9 9% T |1% |6& |e Se Wel 149 $ |'zod) $

BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE % &

pooj 19410 | $337,

)

“|

>

S

Qo ne a

mri.

z Joo

So[QvJesA pue yiniy

SpOoj JO on|[vA puv soryyUeNy

I OF

og |eh [er

[ i

O€ |12 162

Zs. $ | 229] ¢

18 |S€ |6L |€L jOTT LG GE |S Ss Ge Cheer liebe, | eek atl eee GST

nNI| ¢ |nT| ¢ | nT) ¢

|

Sis ere) es) he, ee

~ HN ID OD OD OD OH

LN MONSON

~

2

—|— |] —__—

699 {LET }08 _|0

=|

oC

yk PA eae ecraeae SoBVIOAB PUL [BIO

SOP Pian | Semman crate , AyunoY uvulieyg ‘uoZ0IQ COGRUPGe 5| apie OEY oA weedy Aue wo nT ow CERN , AqUNOD esno[veg ‘UojsUIGSBAK puB OYPRpPT

629 |PPL |6L

Nr ionen ancy

IDNA 10019004 OH10 Bids dH

1 $00}810g

Bou AL ul0g

Ayyuend

sj7un yNpVy bes:

qyun qmmpe Jed enjeA poo Jo onyjeA

pue

wWlof ay, Wolf Buran Ajyuuvf a4, f,—Z AIAV I],

GUS CO at | Mia wine eee e AJUNOD S[[Py UM ‘oyBpy CLI |293 | - eg AQUNOD YWOMTBA ‘UISMODST A ZRC OG | Rateimcatire te A ¢ AJUNOYD uoysUTYseM ‘OLIGO CO@iID0Le ipuumceee Ayuno*) OLOQSTITH “BPLO[y PAN LEY Al a PO see rh ane AYUNOD YOUopoiy ‘VIULBILA Lt it] A es re ete pee Sines 5 PUBIST Epogry | 0261 G98 S12 Toca eee SOBBIOAB PUB [BIO], GOP |920: 1|\ aaa eemennan in: peo ¢-40s0OD esno[eq ‘MoysuIyseAA puB oYPpPT zee 007 | 3)~)—SSté<CSsté«< CA TN STV UIA, ‘OYUPT SPS 1001. |b caieeeaeaens e AJUNOD UOJUT[D “BvuBIpPUT G21 Gms e AJUNOD) UOYSUTYSBM ‘OIYO GTC-\ FO, cits. on aes » Ajunoy souor ‘tddississtpy 8) 00 i| ico cea, chee SUMO alc ose |OOL ~~ AjUNOD O10qSTITH BPO PSE OZ LC ee AJUNOYD YOMopoly “VlUAdITA GORI OT: || te -caiaaees , 4JUNOH BIVZVIN ‘YIOX MON ike 6I6I COP NPGS a ee SOdBIOAB PUB [LIOT, ' oo | ea I Seam ¢ AJUNOD Wo1IE A CUP 160s |" Se. g2ee" eee e AJUNOD vuUIeT, 7BMOT 98S" 001.7. | Saucae arene e AJUNOD uojzUI[D ‘euvrpuy OLR 20.1: | ieee eee e AJUNOD BOYsUTYSe MA ‘OIYO OS NODE ee AJUNOY O1OQSTIIH ‘BPMO[T PAS (PLC | oie eh a ee Se a ¢ Patofo) 69F.|988 | 17° Tare oF peso epee ie cost e OFT MA :AjuNO_) JeyUINY ‘BIsd1004) Sor [FO | ¢ AJUNOD VQMLABO “BUTTOIBD YON OEE ICC at |aaeeinnennne AjUNOD Youopety “CrasITA 662 |98L | ~~~ AgunooH osoqsi[TA ‘errysdureyH MON of is SI6I < Z, s = e oO mB § > > al So 8 z Ajl[voo, puvw v9 Sie eared jo) Pu °

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

‘O[QVITBAB JOU BILE 4g

‘UMOYS ULYY sodv{d [RUIIDOp 91OUI OM} JSBOT 1B OF PoTIIeD O1OAK POSE WIV SODBIOAB OITA WO SUOI}LINAUIOD oY} YY} JV] 9G} OF ONp Iv UT4OT[NG SIq UI soyqey oY} UI sosvIVAG OY JO AUTOS JO 41UN Yse] OY} UT soloURdo.OSIpP JUeIedd y—" ALON

“UOTIEIS JUOUILIOAdX9 [VINA[NOIIBV IO VsoT[OO 09849 Jo AsoqINo0d A + ‘UOTIRIS JUOUTTMOAX9 [VINI[NIUISV’ 10 9Ba[[09 99RIG 99 YIIM WOT}VIVdOOD UY] ¢

"possolq ;z

“SO[GvIOZOA PUL S}JINA] YIM popnypouy 19M So0jvjOd soryITBoO]T eUIOS UT |

9¢

te

I {oF I |lF L

(Gs cP 8& GG

6& eos

LE 64 [€

SIT jes _|ee_|tz [tr Opt |So_j0F jor |P6e_ Ost cz lor |sp leer ZL |21 \ee |9% |9ez 821 tz |e |1% |00z 11% |ge |69 log leer PSI IGT ice lz lez OL pt 2 |zg 1292 Ol leh |g2 29 |ers 00z j6e 69 |g¢ lee¢ SPI |IZ |8c |er |299 epl 92 9g ee |2r€ GGT 2% 196 leg {22g 18 |pt |ee |er |g6e Og le |Sacle: (de 66 |2z |Ze |zr |6re eg lop Zh |28 |STz pl |7z_|0e |8e |90r FIZ |LT |2o |¢ l0ng Sel |Z |1e log zoe OIL |IE |Te |9r gor zgt pr |gz |19 |oT9 IST |1z or |ge j99z L6I \e& ler |ee [spe LOL {91 |2% |6z |6ez gor |#@ Ice foe leo9 PLT |¢e |6e ler 909 Zor |7e jee lop |66e PL \9T |2z |Ib |ehp 18 loz [ez 2b |Sep 66 |OF |2o |r TFT 92 let l@t {et (cat A A

gc OOT ZOL LY GOT 0%

SET [81

TAT eIl

662 06 $9

G6

is

6s_|F8e. ed 92 |9TE TZ |S¢¢ G9 |89¢ C9 NSPE OF 0k] OF |S0z OS |68§ 69 |6S€ OIT |29¢ GG = \SHE cy |L0& LE |8&% OL \2¢ 9° |LL16 LT STI v9 See 141 |80€ OS |IZ€é 66 |61G 09 |8EE 69 OTE 99 |€S¢ €h |90% GEL. | PLE 69 |P9P IG |9€€ GG 666 €L |F6G TEL |S9¢ 8G 111%

Oe |e ileen| OF 8 alate cn fia (A || Seed SSeS Hoveni Wier ta Akos) |kvaye |lame eee SEE VPASI SERS I=] at Be a GIL | CGPa esas, | Mace lace Saye MOG? ede) aera fen lf ee Oe | OCT Sct fees |e a el |6t |6t |gt |--~-|-~~\26 {LF lzze |e6 \st 6

OSS (ZL) s\Seaalee sa a7 g |gt |zt jat |t |i ott |9°e j6tm leer jez |p

6& |ctl \ép |@ |c |tt |pt |i |t_ |"-~-|"--l0et |0°> |For soz lpr |e Gig | Cr | Nie ie ee (ee ne lee fen Falta a Walle aS” ENE ake 1H Sele ae| ee ch te Lac ean WIGS NO) hee EATS leah el fee ecole VS) [eae ye ke, eee "16 |p"@ |9TE l92T lzt |8

DA AN ay ee ech ie eel aia “-~Jezr |6‘¢ josh loot |e |r

Te mC Feed |e er eer ete Cle | lean liess an 7 aIVET GRE PEO LES Io a aul oak ae CVa | (heii (RCs aa alee AW aITGA IG Gaels al ad ---=leor |8‘b |G0¢ ppg |--77]- >> ES WAL ete, IE 6p er | Geet el sea eet =o IAG psn lOLealciclel acest Roe ia G5" FST Sal tera Bal ce calm cule gr altes ae ealte ----It1t |o"e |¢er {zor |gz_ lor

QShe (OBE TOE th atl ey valoy eal alc te (ie Sa teh Sie line! erie lleva (eee psn SED (OTE | LO WS lool male oP sates a (a --=-l95T 19 ‘F labo |T9e |-->-|>-- 77 Bove |Zciutes Coie is aus las 9& |8t |r% [1c |~7~~|7~~7|00T jo > lees |o6 |IT Iz

ee Me SG el se ike an lee ie ““-“IG0r |e TS \Spr |ZT IF

CIC rian CR eeamaloes | OZ: 5) 2s aa Cell (s) | (s) |999 |P8% |ST \z

Gis Gees Ceres (Oyen Gia 2 Gc tale cea gece ““--Iz2T |9"e |p9p |oeT 196. |at

OE _|8EL‘L SZ |S6F ‘I ZI 6&1 18 6ST

99 19

68

pas

99 vL G0Z

SOBVIOAG PUB [BJOJ PURI al hn eel a cee SodvIOAB PUB [BIO],

23s ae Ae e AjunOD ueulseyg ‘u03019

ra a yee e AJUNOD BUITYe A ‘MOIsUTYSe AA

+ ee toy a ¢ AJUNOD S| UIA, ‘oyepT

Ss eek eet oe 5 eae e SolyUNOD

upooury ~pue UojsUIYSeAA ‘OpBIO[OD eres ¢ SOUNOD JoJsnNO pues uosSMECT ~"~, SolUNOD sjerueqd puB URprIoys

:BUBIUOIAL ~““. SoUNOD URULIOYS pue seuloy,L ple ae e AyunoY AouUT

isesuRey

, AyuNOH seuor ‘vyoyeq ytnog TTT AQUNOH Jproquny i ee ee eee ; AyuNOD unoyleg

2BMOT

, AQUNOD UOAsUTYSB AA ‘OITO = aro ae eee ¢ AJUNOD YO Sore ae © "aes ¢ AJUNOD O1OQSTIIA

:BPHNOT WT

coe ce eRe e AJUNOD xossng ‘oIvVMelOd

6261

Saini snes = wip ees SOBVIOAB PUB [L4OT,

PS tess ene ¢ AVUNOD URUIIOYSg ‘U0s0I9 ae a. os , AJUNOD BULTYB A ao San ¢ SOMUNOD 9d10Ig Puv BUT HOYSUTYSe MA 52 sa 42 i Se WE ¢ Aqunoo osno[eq ‘UojsUTIYSeAA puBw OYRpT o Sasa ¢ AYUNOD s[[ey UIM TT, ‘oyepT , AJUNOD PPA ‘OpeR1ojOD skeen ee ¢ SOUND sjlurqg pues wuepiweyg ‘vurqyuoyy ; AqunoH souor ‘vjoyeq YINOS “air eae ce iy ane } AJUNOD UIlIV AA , A4JuNO_D vuUlBy, BMOT Teer ¢ AJUNOD Uo sUIYsSeEAM ‘OIYO phaser eos ee ¢ AyUNOD OLOQSTIIH “BPMOLy

= Ay eat taciicils sommes ini + PURIST 9pOUY NN aN al al al laa a tata ¢ SOIJUNOLT)

IOSpuIM puB osuvIQ ‘“suOTIIOA

TZ6T

38143°—25t—Bull. 1338-2

10 BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The value of the family living from the farm varied with different families from nothing to over $1,000, and with wide variations in every locality. (See Table 3.) Occasional families neither lived on their farms nor drew any of their family living therefrom. This was most noticeable for the locality in Polk County, Fla., where about 40 per cent of the citrus grove owners were nonresident, usually living in nearby towns or cities; and in Frederick County, Va., where a few of the orchardists lived in town. In all of the localities other than in Polk County, Fla., the value of the family living from the farm ranged from $200 to $800 for 70 per cent or more of the families.

More of the families in practically all of the localities under study in 1918 to 1920 were within a group ranging from $400 to $600 worth of family living from the farm than there were within any other group. In 1921, in about half of the localities, more of the families were within the group ranging from $400 to $600 worth than within any other, while in the other half of the localities more of the families were within the group ranging from $200 to $400 worth than within any other. In 1922, in practically all of the localities, more of the fam- ilies were within the two groups ranging from $200 to $600 worth of family living from the farm than there were within all other groups.

TABLE 3.— Variations in the value of the family living from the farm

i Value of family living from the farm groups ° 9g 2 | = = = > ce) Year and locality Ses | s = ma EB = = = hoo os A E 3 5 - Peseeagie peaeres| a= 2 & | ee s is oe Sie Bow. dle S S oS = e | x a | $ 2 all ee a ze x ae || a x ze | | 1918 No. No. No. | No. No. No. No. | farms | farms | farms | farms | farms | farms | farms New Hampshire, Hillsboro County__________ Bin ee eee 4 2 | 54 10 2 Virginia, Frederick County -________-_______- 125 7 5 18 42 36 13 + North Carolina, Catawba County -___________ SOLS se oe eee ee 53 127 93 24 7 Georgia, Sumter County: | AWE G2 coer Os Sa es a ee eae 336 | 2 4 40 102 86 53 49 @olored 2222 ee ie Se Fee ee ee 214s SS 16 83 62 35 12 6 Florida, Hillsboro County ________-_.=______- 100. ||se2 Sa 6 49 28 11 Q 2 Ohio; Washington County == - 0 ag Rear | Ps ee Sa 15 20 7 a 1 ihidianayelinton Conntyrs=-— ee eee 1003/23 1 27 bl 15 4 2 Iowa: } Pama Countye i= 2) ose sea aes ee 209 ad Pe eset 4 peepee 73 28 14 iWiarren' @ounty = 20s oe ee ee 1esS5,| Et 1 34 102 39 5 2 Rotal= te ee ee ee 1, 754 10 | 37 368 664 429 157 £9 1919 New York, Niagara County__--.«_-______-__- a SY (i (aes oe 4 29 72 36 11 5 Virginia, Frederick County _________________- 125 4 11 15 34 39 14 8 Florida: Fillsboro! County. 2 eee LOOT eRe: 4 31 44 12 6 3 iPOlks GON GY So Sas oo et Dae 100 | 41 17 19 14 3 3 3 Mississippi, Jones County _-_______----____--- 154 | 2 1 19 58 42 18 14 Ohio, Washington County__--___.--___-_____ 159 AP a | ( 14 23 11 1 2 indiana’ Clinton: County — 5 eae 100: ae ee ee 35 43 19 21 1 Vdaho:-bywinvr alls County ees see ee 200) |e 12 60 7 34 15 | 9 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country_____ 226 | 1 6 25 93 62 25 | 14 Teale <5. Be ba ey eee eae: 48 55 | 247 451 258 95 | £9 1920 Rhode Island! 4. 29 2 ee ee 5 S|. Pee See 19 | 20 7 S 1 Virginia, Frederick County ___.._..-__.__---- ee 5 | 10 22 47 28 7 6 Florida, Hillsboro County ---__--.-..--------- | SELOOR: 5 aes oo 2 28 | 41°) Le 2o ese 6 Ohio; \Washington:County. 2-2 59 1 6 | 27 18 § ees 1 Wisconsin, Walworth County_______________-_ 262 | 1 10 | 93 118 | 32 Fy 3 Ldahos LwingkalsiCounty- 236. = = L920}. ee 8 | 34 74 48 | 17 | 11 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country _____ DATS eee 4 | 52 86 67 23 9 Oregon, Sherman County______-_____________ 1445 | > 455) |See leh 4 47 38 23 12 "Potals 2. 2 Sk ee een 1, 174 7 40} 299 451 249 79 49

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM aah

TaBLeE 3.—Variations in the value of the family living from the farm—Contd. = Value of family living from the farm groups bes £.?] 2 Bg Shee et| Sk Slee Year and locality ee z RB PEN Ee = * Bile ie Sol echee 2 S iS S = > S = = ° S S S S ~ Ge PA a a PA RB A | 1921 No. NO rei eevO I uNOe No. No. No. farms | farms | farms | farms | farms | farms | farms Vermont, Orange and Windsor Counties____- 7 Te ee as be 77 101 28 ay eS UR OGCH SANG se ase a eee we ee 84 | Bes ot 1 13 27 We i) i) Miorida; -Hallsboro: County= 22 ee 100" |e 5 38 37 | 14 4 2 Ohio, Washington County_.____----_---____- 60 | 1 3 30 21 rin eee 1 Iowa: hama Countyes. 42 sce ee eee ee QS Ue | pa 3 es 3 36 88 57 27 26 WALrentC OUNL Yaseen ee eee OO | enn 5 50 109 4] 17 7 South Dakota, Jones County _____-_________- Gly |Exerere 2 24 24 ) 2h (ES Soe Montana, Sheridan and Daniels Counties____ 625|Ee= = 19 25 14 2 1 1 OLOEAGO LV els oun hyena eee | SE SS T5OME ee 4d 54 44 34 10 4 Wdaho, win hallsiCounty=—— =. 181 1 8 56 61 35 6 14 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country __-_-_- 250g hese 9 80 108 38 13 2 Washington: kone andyPierce| Counties=-— == = 150) saa 30 84 31 aft sper ae ere. Niakaimay COUNTY. ea ee ee 1 (Gt ES Sp 19 86 51 15 3 1 Oregon, Sherman County_-_---.-.._...----_- HO 2a eee 2 28 | 64 | 33 19 6 otalge he are ee Rb, os) 2, 102 2] 110} 681] 780) 340! 116/ 73 1922 Welaware, sussex County=——-—- +22 = = ro 0) | ee ae 72 39 38 6 ee (PN Florida: | SD OLOLC OFM bytes eee ae 1005 | =aeeee 5 49 32 9 Srl eee Polini County es os ea ee ee 100 38 17 20 13 4 | 3 5 Ohio, Wiashineton: Countye = Gai | 6 38 15 Al | teri pees 1 owa: Caihouni@ountyas 22s. here 2025 See | 5 58 86 33 | 13 7 ET DOLd TC O11 bya eee ee 1A |e (isa ae 11 24 19 | 10 10 South Dakota, Jones County-____---__-_____- 66 i 6 31 22 (chi) jae a 1 Kansas: HnneyAC OUN Yaa ee ee GY fuel eae 6 21 13- 9 4 4 Thomas and Sherman Counties__________ Soh ee | 3 18 25 15 7 14 Montana: Sheridan and Daniels Counties__________ (i) ag BA ae 8 i 17 27 |} 13 3 Lei eee Dawson and Custer Counties___________- 665) Benes 15 yaya 19 6 La). ee Colorado, Washington and Lincoln Counties_ 12 | se 5 38 | 65 34 9 8 FdahowAawwanylallsiCounty- 222s ee eee Sia See 1 26 39 14 | 5 2 Washington, Yakima County______..__=-___- 1303 | sees 10 51 61 15 | PH ee Oreconsnermanm, County. 2 1525 | Sees 5 52 44 39 | 9 | 3 “ARS FGM eee = oon eB ae eR 1, 495 38 103 504 509 216 70 | 55

Gremditefiles to @ 738 105 | 345 | 2,099 | 2,855 | 1, 492 | sur | 325

YEARS OF PROSPERITY AND DEPRESSION

The relation of the family living from the farm to the farm receipts, the farm income, the family income, and the labor income, either in lean years in a locality or in years of general depression, stands out in bold contrast to their relation in years of prosperity. (See Table 4.) The family living from the farm may well be looked upon as a form of insurance, and it is wisdom on the part of farmers to produce food supplies for the farm family to the greatest practicable extent.

12 BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE _

TaBLE 4.—The relation of the family living from the farm to the farm receipts, the farm income, the family income, and the labor income, in years of prosperity and years of depression

In 1918 and 1919, years of general agricultural prosperity, the value of the family living from the farm of 2,967 farm families was about one-fifth as much as their family income; in 1921 and 1922, years of general agricultural depression, the family living from the farm of 3,597 farm families was about one-third as much as their family income. In other words, they had about five times the value of their family living from the farm to spend in cash in 1918 and 1919, as compared with only three times as much in 1921 and 1922.

The families in the localities n Washington County, Ohio, Tama County, lowa, and the Palouse country of Idaho and Washington had but little more cash to spend than a sum equal to the value of the family living from the farm in 1921 and 1922; whereas in the more prosperous years, 1918 and 1919, the families in Washington County, Ohio, had more than twice as much as the value of their family living from the farm to spend.in cash, and the families in Tama County, lowa, and those in the Palouse country of Idaho and Washington more than seven times as much.

In both Hillsboro and Polk Counties, Fla., a winter trucking and a citrus fruit section, there was little difference in the relation of the value of the family living from the farm to the family income in the years of general agricultural depression and prosperity. The years 1921 and 1922 were fully as good years for these classes of farmers as the years 1918 and 1919.

COST OF LIVING OF FARM FAMILIES

In the localities referred to on pages 5 and 6, the average value of the family living from the farm for 950 farm families in 14 localities in 1913 and 1914, was $426, and for 2,074 farm families in 6 localities from 1919 to 1923, $623. (See Table 5.) The latter figure varies about $100 from the average of the 7,738 farms in Table 2, and the figure for 1913 and 1914 appears consistent when price differences are considered. The vaiue of the family living from the farm for the 2,074 farm families was 38 per cent of their total cost of living. Similar relationships existed between the part of the food, fuel, and house rent furnished by the farm and the total cost of food, fuel, and house rent, for the 2,074 families in 1919 to 1923 and for the 950 families in the earlier years 1913 and 1914. The value of the family living from the farm was 66 per cent of the total cost of food, fuel, and house rent for the former group and 63 per cent for the latter. (See fig. 1.) For the 6 localities in the former group of families the range was from 59 to 73 per cent, and for the 14 localities in the latter group, from 49 to 85 per cent.

5

3 FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM 13

j TasiLe 5.—Cost of living of farm families and value of the family living from the

farm | Value of 7 Cost of Number | ine ot | £000, | garni Localities Year of farm east house wine families — families ane from the | farm 1 Waevew York, Livingston County ._-...-...-----.------ 1920-21 402 $2, 012 $1, 172 $692 Kentucky: | IMasonuCOUnNtY =) a: an tee ae { 1922-23 360 | 1, 614 898 658 BITE ZrASSATCRIOME 2). Ame es ea eat AS et | 1919 241 1, 801 1, 095 697 Iowa, Boone, Story, and Sac Counties______________- | 1922-23 451 1, 680 977 698 Tennessee, Madison, Montgomery, and Williamson | AGOVTTULL ES eos ee Cel Le ey 2 eee ee Se ee eae 1919-1921 298 pe 631 461 Meevoxas: Black Prairies! ots Jie Ee EE ia Ss te | 1919 322 1, 453 804 486 BROGAN GFAVCTACES = oe Ukr Us See ee eles Se 2, 074 1, 632 938 623 ——EE— Meeiviaine, Oxford County._-...--- 2 ee ee 1914 ye eae Se eee 599 355 meewermont, Mamiville County... —-...--.. 22-222. 52-_. 8 | 1913 AO stars es 526 349 . meeNew York, Otsego County... .2.-.22.222.--2---.-2- | 1913 EGS || Sek ee 641 431 New Jersey, Gloucester County____-_______-_________- 1914 DDB ia Sere Ske 790 445 Pennsylvania, Bucks County. —-22_2-2_ ee | 1913 ABC | ARES & 608 383 North) Carolina, Gaston County 2_------- 22 ___ = -_- | 1913 EF) | eis IE 504 428 CORR A ROUp) COUNUY = a2 tee ee ; 1913 Gt UN (ee ee ee 630 520 hiow Champaion: County 22 aes a | 1913 Age let Se tee 607 451 Wiasconsiny Jefierson-County-.. | 1913 46) |) Soe 548 375 fowa, Montgomery County. 22) 22 ee 1913 Galea peal Eo ee 668 485 orth akota, Cass © OWN y ge ee 1914 aU 8) i We eto are ee 948 578 PRCT SAS pO LOU Ge © OUTING Yi ert ce Een 1913 AG eaten sues 604 426 Geehexas, Mcehlennan County. 0222-2222 1913 BAe ae! 2 4 Seeks 617 363 | California, Santa Clara County-_-..--.--------------- 1914 Saat 2 ees 698 341 (ee PRObaleAG) AV CrACeS enema ee ee ese A ek O50) cape ne | 671 | 426

1 Included in each of the two preceding columns. THE FARM BUSINESS

Certain terms as used in this bulletin are defined as follows:

Farm.—All the land operated as one unit—that is, with one set of equipment.

Farmer.—The one who directs the operations of the farm.

Farm family—The farmer and his family. It includes relatives or others living with the farmers, who do not pay board or to whom no wages are paid. It does not include any hired laborers boarding with the family, or any boarders,

_as school teachers.

Family living from the farm.—The food products set aside from the year’s production, and the fuel and house rent furnished directly by the farm for the living of the farm family. This is in addition to farm receipts, farm income, labor income, and family income as defined below.

Farm capital—tThe value at the beginning of the farm year of all real estate, machinery, livestock, and other property used to carry on the farm business.

It includes the value of the farm dwelling, but not of the household furnishings.

Farm receipts——Proceeds from the sale of crops produced during the farm year, the increase from stock, and the receipts from outside labor, rent of build- ings, etc. The increase from stock is found by subtracting the sum of the amount paid for stock purchases and the inventory value at the beginning of the year from the receipts from stock products, sales of livestock, and the inventory value at the end of the year. If the value of crops or supplies on hand at the end of the year to be carried over for the next year’s business is greater than at the beginning, the difference is considered a receipt. Farm receipts do not include the family living from the farm.

Farm expenses——Annual expenditures made in carrying on the farm business, including the value of the unpaid labor performed by members of the family, and depreciation on buildings and equipment, and excluding the value of the farm- er’s own labor. If the value of crops or supplies at the end of the year to be carried over for the next year’s business was less than at the beginning, this is considered an expense. Household or personal expenses are not included.

Ps c

¥ &

Lo

2

14 BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE _

Farm income.—The difference between the farm receipts and the farm expenses. It represents the value that may be withdrawn from the year’s business without reducing the farm capital. It does not include the family living from the farm.

Labor income.—The amount left for the labor of the operator after interest or the farm capital is deducted from the farm income. (See Table 6 for rate of interest used for each locality.) In addition to labor income, the farmer receives the family living from the farm. A minus labor income means no returns above the family living from the farm for the year’s labor of the farmer and lacking the amount indicated of paying the interest rate on the farm capital.

Percentage return on capital.—The rate returned on the farm capital after the value of the farmer’s labor is deducted from the farm income is the percentage return on capital. When the percentage return on capital is preceded by the minus sign, it means that the farmer did not realize even fair wages for his own labor and management, thus leaving nothing for the earnings on the farm capital.

The labor income represents what the farm has earned from the year’s business for the labor and management of the farmer after a charge for the capital has been deducted. On the other hand, the percentage return on capital represents what the farm has earned from the year’s business for the capital used in the business after all farm expenses have been deducted and the farmer has been allowed a fair wage for his labor and management.

Farmer’s labor.—The value of the farmer’s own labor is an allowance for the services of the farmer for labor and supervision at the rate at which he would have to pay another man to take his place. It is exclusive of the family living from the farm.

Family labor—The value of unpaid family labor is determined on the basis of what it would cost to have the same work done by hired help, or the amount of additional labor that the farm operator would have had to hire to carry on the same sized business had the family labor not been available.

Adult units—Each person under 16 years of age represents two-thirds of a unit, and each person of 16 years or older, one unit.

Family income.—The farm income plus the value of the unpaid family labor. It more nearly represents the amount available from the farm business for the farmer and his family to spend and save, provided there is no interest to pay on farm indebtedness, than any of the other items. It does not include any income from sources other than the farm business or the value of family living from the farm.

Cost of living—The expenditures of farm families. It includes items furnished by the farm and those bought. Food, clothing, house rent, fuel, other operating expenses, maintenance of health, and advancement are the important classes of items included.

The average figures for each locality in Table 6 show the variations for the different farm business survey localities in respect to the several items given in the table. The average size of farms varied from less than 100 acres in some localities to over 1,000 acres in others, and the amount of capital from less than $10,000 to over $60,000. The average farm receipts were little more than $1,000 in Wash- ington County, Ohio, in 1921, and over $13,000 in Sherman County, Oreg., in 1920. In a few localities the farm income averaged less than $1,000 per farm, even in years of such agricultural prosperity as 1918 and 1919, whereas in the same years it exceeded $4,000 in some other localities. An average of less than $100 worth of farm labor was performed by members of the farmer’s family (excluding the farmer himself) in several of the localities; but, on the farms operated by negro farmers in Sumter County, Ga., in 1918, the families (excluding the farmers themselves) performed on the aver- age over $300 worth of the farm labor. Although the average value of the family living from the farm varied from less than $300 per family in Polk County, Fla., where little more than half of the farmers lived on their farms, to over $600 in a few localities, yet it varied less for the different localities than any of the items just named. The family living from the farm was more stable than the farm receipts, the farm income, or the labor income.

15

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

Ee

O[QRIIBAB JOU ILC 1

F6S ‘T €G8 ‘2 eS T&S BL 692 COTA Teelitese oe 00L °% PLES £20 ‘G €62 ‘GZ | SEI SG se gels erage SOdBIOAB PUB [BIO], 969 ‘T OL8 ‘Pb £92 809 We? 180 ‘T 9€8 ‘T 9 109 ‘b 260 ‘Fb 699 ‘8 S61 ‘Sb | LOE 92G “>>> Kaqunod osno[ed “UOVSUIYSe A, PUB OYBPT 088 ‘T 198% | 6IT | 91 19 068 Z19 L BFL Z | 486% =| GEO's Tae ‘OE | €L (NAP Ar pas | igi Seige ce ae? Ajuno?) seq UAT, ‘Oyepy OLF ‘T C68 °% IZ1 | 06F o°9 1g9 erl ‘T ¢ PLL ‘S 188 ‘T Gog ‘F 819 ‘8 | OT OOT vorraseseresessss so" AQUNOD UOJUT[O “BUvIpUT G10 ‘T aGE ‘T OLI GZS 1 OL 88F PSL g OLI ‘T 0L8 940 ‘% £E8 ‘2 09T | het aea hoperceearte a etek re AquNO,) UOYSULYSV AA ‘OIYO O88 186 181 129 2 Teg PLP G 008 | 600 ‘I 608 ‘T 02S ‘9 PSI FSI dive A ee SS Ayunoy souor ‘tddIsstsst Ay 862 ‘T 102 ‘¢ 61 O€% 0°81 626 Z6E ‘E 8 889 °C 969 % pre's 869 ‘8% | ZP COT Sale eS Sy as nate aaraces Aqunoyg AlOd 6F8 120 ‘T 991 66F lies OL9 £62 8 G06 T&h ‘I 988 ‘% Gc9 ‘2 S (00 Tet | hccaa os eaten Ayuno,) 010qS{[LH : *BPLlOl 188 ‘T 696 ‘Z LOL 12g 29 C18 SIZ ‘T G Z8 °% Les ‘¢ 688 “9 919 ‘ZS | 6ST (cfd Rete y ces ernie eS AjUNOD) Youopoly ‘VIUTBILA 68S '% ecr ‘I | Zé ggg (1) (1) TL G 1Z€ ‘T 102 ‘T 820 ‘E 800 ‘ST | ¥9 Ie Rees tas tie rts eit a AVUNOD BABBEIN' ‘HALO A MON, | | 6161 CECT PIS ‘Z 191 69¢ ) LP9 SO alc | ees ee LEE S 0S2'2 | 269 ‘Fb CC ANGST AE eae |RSS See Sees SOBVIOAB PUB [BIO], GIP ‘TI LOPS ZIZ 62S Lav. 806 oE9 G G&S ‘% 829 ‘I £98 ‘€ 890 ‘ZE | LLT CON =. -'|ios Sana pened ace ba ae Aquno,) WodIe A 08% ‘% C6L ‘fF 91Z 79 7S I91 ‘T ZOF ‘T G 6LE ‘F 108 ‘% 98E ‘2 Crs ‘9 =| BIZ GO CAO iF ae So ies eae Aquno() Bure J, s BM I S10 T 860°& =| ZI &6F 62 LES Tap‘T |g 846% | 0091 | 848% | Sel Te | Ler 010) ae et ye es ETS AjuN0D UOJUT[D “euRIPUT 026 II8 raat 11g 8'¢ She 0&2 ¢ 669 CH ISP ‘T 181 ‘8 291 Wipe. tk Sow pe sbeery Reames enrol AqUNOD) WOPBUTYSE MA “OIYO 802 b¥6 Isl EP c'€ BES 62 8 €9L LP ‘T 17 | 1899 | 9 OOTiny SRS FSS ten eee Ayuno) O10qs[[TH “epHoLy 86E G16 ‘T SIs LLP 9°L1 L9€ LOL ‘T L 166 ‘T 98 ‘T £E6 % $00 ‘2 £31 P1Z Bind ee ee a ee RE per10jo IpP ‘T 61g ‘S PL 069 ara C19 6PL ‘T L Grr S BLE ‘Pb £28 ‘L L0G‘¥E | LBE QE ia Mi --llnnin oa anes gee im ioe eek eRe out M :Aqunog Jeyurng ‘eis100+) 926 QOL I | IST €L¢ y9 LIV GPS g ¢86 TLL -99L‘T | 848‘8 | OTT VOCS a ulnar nota} sees AJUNOD BQMLIVO “BUTTOIBD YON GLB ‘T G09 ‘E CL 9¢¢ 9 01 GIL 108 ‘% c eee ‘eg 6F8 ‘E Z8E ‘2 91g ‘9% | 19T COGr ph alate extase ona enh Ayunoy) HOMO per BIUISITA 6LE ‘T G88 OTT EES £0 G2 OI G 69L 108 ‘I OLS % SBI ‘2 621 OC WE) partes 2ee Ajuno, o10qs[[I ‘ertysdurey] Mo N SLD)7/0C $1D]]/0 $LD)]/0 SLD]]0T 1U9) LOI $1D]]07 SLD2/0 1U9) LIg $10]7]0C7 SLD]]0 SLD]] 07 SLD)]0C7 SI6I ULIv] dUIOdUL sul oud 1OQ¥] -[JaMp 10GB] WO. [eqides | s0qey sul SULIvJ jo ree Ajrurey | BUTAIT uo $,10 Eaae ot -YIOM ee wh pee Sune jeqyideg | soy JO 10q AjLVdOT puew 1v9 onye A Tareq predug | Ajrurey | ummjoy |} -miey | - hod ul posn cA a u -UIn NV fo) 0 ti (0) 4B on[e A 4S0.10qUT

ALDWUNS SsaUIsng WL Y—9 AIAV J,

a ars

. care

LETIN

BUL

16

ea 64 5 a a >) @) fa o pool ey o) = A eI = = me <a Oy a a op) 5 oOo ap) ae) veal

PLL ‘T

620 ‘% PIS ‘T P10 ‘T

989 ‘T LL6 ‘T 8Er 'S 619 608 | 8P6 ‘T G68 ‘%

$86

120 ‘T Lb9 ‘% LIg ‘T

G92 ‘I g91 P6P IT 662 LOO ss). |i ci eae ZOL ‘T GOL ‘Z 198 ‘€ 18L ‘6% | 0GZ COTaKCoae |e coe acs eh a ae SOSVIOAB PUB [VIO J, 169 ‘Pb 621 SPS po 260 ‘T £89 9 21g ‘b 166 ‘9 609 ‘TT | 028 ‘89 | Z0‘T CGT |e mat oa ae oe ega Ayunog uvurloyg ‘u0s019 092 csi. 88E 0'1- ShL P6E— 9 LL LI9 ‘% 460 ‘8 O61 ‘9T | 19 QUT Pe incase ear wags sow ta pecs apa AYUNOD BUITye A 08g 991 91g 0-o— P19 0LZ— L bIP GL ‘T 61 ‘% TLL 6 6% OGD iaig |r eee ie sap eer SolJUNO’) XdJoIg puv duLy [U0YSULYSB MA O19 G0z O8F T= 816 988 ‘Z— 9 GOP GCL ‘S Ost ‘F GIS ‘OF | Les OSGeo ma lige ime Aqjunod vsno[eg ‘uO{suIyse A pu OYepT 028 28 Pes j= 982 68L— L 882 810 ‘% 991% €60 ‘1% | IL [Sie cat tec ane we we came Ajuno” s[[ea UIMT, ‘oyBpT LI0‘€ 981 Gog 8° £96 FG 8 188 ‘% 692 ‘E 0g9 ‘9 LIZ ‘68 | 6IT OST PIII SNH GLO | OLIAM, CO OKH CO} (0K), OLF ‘T 68 g1e p9 18 92 OT 188 ‘T 618 ‘T 99% ‘E FI9 ‘SI | SIF Ce fe lhnaas solunoy speruvq pus uBplloys ‘euByuoyy 6&8 6L1 Chr Ga P98 TL9— 9 099 P92 ‘T PCPS €81 ‘Z| 890 ‘T TO SR |Past ee egret Ajunogy seuor ‘vyoxVq yANOS 9OI ‘T Grr CPS (6a 688 18L— g 196 Z09 ‘T £99 ‘% Th8 ‘PS | LLT BCG ge ase A ee et = Se Se yn Ajunoy udedie A 198 16 ZrO [he b66 ZS ‘S— G L9G 198 ‘% SIF ‘E 166 ‘29 | I1Z POG | PAA ee eae Se < aaa none ae a Ayuno, Bure, ‘BMOT ZI SPI 668 8% 098 Lei g POL oP8 900 ‘T 080 ‘2 6F1 OOS aie. eas OS AqUNO_ UOYSUTYSL AA ‘OTYO G29 ‘T 2ST 1oh 06 969 G8L 8 GLP ‘T 260 ‘% Gge ‘Eg 86S ‘8 gg COTE 23 lieeges ap sesso erates AJUNOD OLOQST[IH ‘Vpuopy COL, rt a 999 (1) (1) CLo— 9 609 920 ‘b G89 ‘b #89 ‘FT | 621 BS Pe Fe ee cae ae ope ee puvysy opoyy 669 Gol bOPF (Oy 8L¢ c6 g $2 Pee ‘T 890% 089 ‘8 LST DIG. = Rea S91JUNO) JOSPUIM PUB OSURIGQ, “VUOULIO A 1261 Ch6 ‘T 861 Te¢ (oh U6 896 COG ras (Penmaes LPL ‘T £06 ‘8 0g9 ‘¢ 822 ‘FE | 89% (29) Oot Gua te Pe ae oy SodvIOAB PUB [BIOL GSP POL ag) 19 G6I ‘T 6F9 ‘T 9 12g ‘°¢ 192 ‘2 Z80 ‘EI | 00%‘19 | 966 (i7] oe ool Weak ES CEES Soe Aqunog ueulioys ‘m9d019 196 ‘T BLS €L¢ Gal G80 ‘T GaP ‘I— 9 689 ‘T 0S8 ‘“F 68¢ ‘9 006 ‘IS | S88 [Wii | ees 2 AIVUNOD OsNo[wB_ ‘UOYSUTYSB AA PUB OYBPT 6LY ‘T 6L1 O8¢ Si 890 ‘T ZeL— M, 008 ‘T Ieh ‘% 1&2 ‘E £20 ‘6% | TL COU aes ec. oe eee ees AjUNOD S[[Bq UIA, ‘OyepT 880 ‘T 1¥Z Shp ys 66 cIg— e'¢ L¥8 Gr % Z8S ‘6 869 ‘GZ | S&T Z9Z Torerrreees === "-AQUNOD YIIOMTe AM ‘UISMOOST A. 829 €9T 6LE e'- GBs 6t— g Gog O16 GZ ‘T 888 ‘2 6PL (ok aie ea (Par Baleares cee ty Ayuno*) aoysuryse M ‘OIYO els ‘T SPI 0z¢ 0 01 PEL 106 8 69g ‘T 166 ‘T 9g¢ “¢ 908 ‘8 Pg OOD So Reese ae AyunoH O10Qgs[fIH “eplo[y 928 ‘T 66 €1¢ Day 908 e6E— g LP ‘T £88 “G 092 ‘2 FOP ‘98 | PST CC es | ee eo ene ses ee AVUNOYD Youopoty ‘VIUIsILA 6ZI ‘T CFI 10¢ 0'T OPS PST 9 P86 G60 ‘F 620 °C 688 ‘EI | SIT [So AO pea ase Saban ages ae Bor at puvyjs] 9poyy SLD]/0G SLD]}0C SLD)0C JU90 LIqI SUD] 0 SUD]]0M 1U9) LOg SLD7]0C- SLD7]0C SLD]}0T SLD2)0C 0261 ULIV] oULODUI ayy 1OQ BI 1OQ PV w1O.d [eqideo | IoOqeyt Bul SULIV] pane Ayvurey | Surat 1000) $,40 race -yIOM aa seeped rule Teqdeg | soloy jo 10q AAl[VooT pusw 1v9 A UteetertE preduy | A[turey | uinjoy | -uIRey aigal ul posn Af cl a -WIn NI oy} jo oye on[v A 4S010JUT

ponulyuoj—funwuns ssauisng WL0y—9 ATAV J,

17

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

‘IQB[IBAB JOU BIeq 1

119 ‘T 196 ‘T GOT 8I¢ Jats PSL SO Dako [s es ger es 208 ‘T 119 ‘% GLb ‘b | 225 ‘8% | $9 Aa oom | eae So apare g SOdLIOAB PUB [BJO PUBIL) £69 ‘T 19 ‘T 6FI OLF Lee 099 Oly | \sae ouen OF ‘T 708% | L9L‘E £19 ‘6G | IP CObalGall|>: aie as eeee T. SODBIOAB PUL [BIO J, 216 ‘I LOT‘T | 91 erg z" 98 v29'%Z— | 9 616 0969 | 6069 | 099'69 | FAO | cot =| Or cae Ayano uBulJeys “wose10 oe ‘I GPS SPI ra 6 T= e790 90F— 9 POE 668 ‘T | €66'% | OEE "ET | OF iS 4 Sha eg eae AVUNOD BUITYB A “WOzSUTYSE MA GH % LI¢ ‘T 96 109 08 962 9g— p CoP ‘T 86 ‘T gge‘€ | e806 | 2 JAS = ood ei coe ear aia ae AjuNoD SPA UAT, ‘oyepy ILp ‘T POL T | 681 OFS Tar oe9 STA Us St6 £28 ‘T | B9L°% | HEL '8S | SL 6ST ~“SorjuNoD Upooury pus uopsUTYsEM ‘Ope10joD F9 928 99 ecg 6° 99 gig— Or 092 826 889 ‘T 9LL ‘01 | 88% 2) iis tl ein a soryunoyD J04sNO puv UOsMB(T 099 129 ‘T O0T Lg Coy 69 4 Or 12g ‘T £08 ‘T ose ‘e | OF8 ‘ZI | Tap Oise eriGr ray coed oe sorqyunoy) sjerueq pure bat ols a ; . 100 JA P61 % ¥26 ‘T 12 199 Tags 602 110 '7= 8 $02 ‘T 919% 612 ‘Fb PGP ‘OF | 690 ‘T ZO Paulin Sf oy soljunod UBULIOYS pue sBULOY J, 192 ‘I 6e9 ‘T LLY 16 9% bL9 veL— 8 98 ‘T $66 ‘T 9g¢ ‘€ £02 ‘9% | €90 ‘I VAS OI ed i Meal ia ne te ame A Aquno +) =o eles :SBs 118 | 802 ‘T 821 268 19 888 91¢ 9 089 ‘T el ‘T are e IL ZT | &F8 DOlaes i Vien ERS sats. Chae Ayano) seuor ‘ejoyVq yINog 080 'f 9FT L¥Z 189 aa A 618 Sho — g 668 ‘T OL ‘S 690 ‘F OF6 ‘8h | O6T i fateh [8 ber BPG OE GAT? Ayuno) yploquin yy 086 ‘T PSI Z IST 02 9% 28 693— g £80 % 60L ‘T CPL ‘E OF8 ‘Sh | IST COGS 5, Gila ene Gee 4 PLM Pad Ayanoy mouyeo ‘ 1 ‘BMOT 616 | GE9 OPT LLE a 998 SIT g 064 828 Sie ‘T OFF ‘L PPL POTS Meni rs tat | ag ian AyunoD uozsuryse M ‘O1gO 898 ‘T 699 | SI £92 ara 608 PLES 8 919‘G | GLb ‘s 160; Gm al) O22 a0) wi Uys 001 Rae ap phclet. Spa: Ome eee Ayunoy) ¥lod 601 ‘T G20 ‘I LLY 0GF erg 7a) GL 8 8h8 822‘ | 920‘ | 6996 | 2 UU) aerial See aime am anti tay gin Ayanog aap a 90¢ ‘T GaP gor 61F 9'I— 16 rai— g 19% £06 O9T ‘I 022 ‘8 | 68 oc ue ml Rte eae commerce Yaak AjunoD xessng ‘orvaeled

| : Z261

18

BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TaBLE 7.—Value of the family living from the farm, by size of farm

Year and locality

1918

New Hampshire, Hillsboro Virginia, Frederick County

North Carolina, Catawba County

Georgia, Sumter County: Whi

Ohio, Washington County Indiana, Clinton County Towa: Tama County Warren County

Total and averages

1919

Florida, Hillsboro County__

Average value of family living from the farm on

County ean

New York, Niagara County____<:-_-_-_-_=__-

Virginia, Frederick County Florida:

Hillsboro County______-

Polk County

Mississippi, Jones County_-

Ohio, Washington County- Indiana, Clinton County Idaho, Twin Falls County- Idaho and Washington, Pal

Total and averages

Rhode Island Virginia, Frederick County

Florida, Hillsboro County_-

Ohio, Washington County_

Wisconsin, Walworth County dahow-RhwinvEallsiCountya.c eee

ouse country_-_-__-__

Idaho and Washington, Palouse country__-_-__-

Oregon, Sherman County Total and averages

1921

Vermont, Orange and Windsor Counties runoder sland as aaa Florida, Hillsboro County_-

Ohio, Washington County- Towa: Tama County Warren County

South Dakota, Jones County

Montana, Sheridan and Daniels Counties ____

Colorado, Weld County Idaho, Twin Falls County_

Idaho and Washington, Palouse country_____-

Washington:

King and Pierce Counties Yakima County_____-_--

Oregon, Sherman County Total and averages 1922

Delaware, Sussex County_- Florida:

Hillsboro County_____--

Polk County Ohio, Washington County- Iowa:

Calhoun County

Humboldt County

i Less than 10 farms in the group.

farms of— Num- ; ber of | Less | 400 farms than |50to 99 100 to | 200 to | 300 to pos 50 SOS ees ares a and acres & Howe over Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars 136 469 496 555 631 1415 1 653 125 391 437 616 631 1 638 1615 304 434 540 651 693 1799 1 599 336 382 548 612 if 676 878 214 289 423 514 675 794 1 822 100 390 467 1 $13 W620 es ee 47 1 666 1386 482 586 1 296 11,116 100 390 435 557 558 1 437 1 435 2098|22=eeee 566 598 686 733 803 183 1315 460 510 585 618 1727 1, 754 385 491 574 674 | 683 822 157 469 560 718 1618s) 3-682 | eee 125 384 470 645 604 1 733 1 659 io 2 Ze Ze) ee ere a 100 190 324 1 428 1 352-|-1al 5655/25 eee 154 470 567 636 729 1 660 | 994 51 1 476 485 499 607 1314) 11,084 100 382 424 544 540 1 §35 | 1325 } 200 476 498 592 1 645 1,500: |-- — 22672 =e 489 553 641 589 716 1, 213 400 504 | 589 631 636 | 751 51 487 546 482 1 482 | 1545, | 125 341 391 567 577 1755 1 §99 100 488 526 655 118) see | ee 59 1 288 368 379 1375 1424 | 11,023 262 309 404 464 548 1 525 | 1395 192 493 599 712 1708s ee | | DAN eee 586 536 608 528 | 615 44s 2h ce ae aS eek eee es 1774 1 656 1 465 | 649 1,174| 469| 492| 512| 569] 535 638 211 314 391 482 528 | 570 | 1775 84 557 642 684 1 742 1 468 | 1942 100 420 471 554 Gy |e Se |=. ee 60 1 209 Mili 417 1 403 1518 | 11,064 23) |e 1 566 600 645 | 701 1903 229) eee 443 531 574 696 1 843 i ee Ye oD 340 345 1316 479 221] see a ie are 2 1 169 1 247 274 425 150 434 474 543 610" | eee 181 447 573 652 1 695) jose a eee 200) aes 1412 433 515 443 539 150 305 406 1605 |2e2 2h Se See 175 392 369 435 1370 joc 2a eee 152 pee 22 ee eS 1 485 450 573 2, 102 378 472 529 576 | 468 564 | 86 357 399 | 466 485 2 | aa 100 391 439 536 1465; |. 222 eee 100 219 367 1572 L527 |= lee 64 176 338 | 395 377 1 485 11, 085 200) 222 388 457 486 567 651 1 862 74 1 765 725 676 651 1639 | 11, 260

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM 19

TaBLE 7.—Value of the family living from the farm, by size of farm—Continued

| | Average value of family living from the farm on

farms of— Num- | Year and locality ber of | : farms Less 100 to | 200 to | 300to | . 400° than | 50 to 99 in| Cae acres 50 | acres ree coe ue and | acres | over 1922—Continued Dollars | Dollars | Dollars Dollars | Dollars | Dollars south Dakota, Jones County _.-__-=-...--.-- 0 ee ee Reece 1 233 3200, 9 13445) 419 Kansas: HinneysGountys.— soe eee eee EY (Al ae ae er (at aes 2 1188 1 402 1410 | 536 Thomas and Sherman Counties_________- SOF | Bet Se See A | 1459 1 489 690 Montana: Sheridan and Daniels Counties__________- GLa Pattee ee eee 1172; 11938 291 438 Dawson and Custer Counties_____-_-____- 20) pane pees ee 271 1292} 337 389 Colorado, Washington and Lincoln Counties _ NGS le ee |S 400 1 472 | 495 562 Idaho, Twin Falls County___.._.._.-___.____- 87 | 437 512 677 1698) |Ei2ss S| Washington, Yakima County 22-9- = 2 139 | 402 490 1380) 4| = eee ee ee ee Orevons sherman! Countye-- P26 ete |e oe < 1 460 1 343 517 ‘Rotaltandsavierages a eee | 1,495 350 456 488 516 451 541 Grand total and averages_________-___-- 7, 738 | 390 485 543 605 528 608 | | |

1 Less than 10 farms in the group. SIZE OF FARM

In general, the value of the family living from the farm was more for the large farms of a locality than for the smallfarms. The average value of the f amily living from the farm on farms of a given size group

VALUE OF THE FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

AVERAGE IN DOLLARS SIZE OF | NUMBER ACRES FARM GROUPS OF PER O 200 400 600 800 (ACRES) FARMS FARM iE 50 to /00 15 82 1/00 to 200 88 154 |

200 to 300 63 234 300 to 400 Zo 328

400 andover /4 483

Fig. 4.—The value of the family living from the farm was usually more from the large farms of a locality than from the small farms. Data from 209 farms in Tama County, Iowa, for the year 1918

in any locality was more, in most cases, than in the group of next smaller-sized farms. Considering only the groups in Table 7 with 10 farms or more, an increase in “the size of farm in a given locality was accompanied by an increase in the average value ‘of the family living from the farm 104 out of 116 times. There is a relationship between the family Bee from the farm in a locality and the size of the farms (see fig. 4), but no more marked than that between the family living from Aue Bae and the size of the farm families.

20 BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TaBLE 8.—Value of the family living from the farm by size of family

Value of family living from the farm with adult equivalent of Num- Year and locality per of arms Less = 7 and thas 3 to 3.9| 4 to 4.9| 5 to 5.9| 6 to 6.9 Over 1918 Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars New Hampshire, Hillsboro County__________-_ 136 437 505 | 597 1681 | 1732 1749 Virginia, Frederick County__________-____-____- 125 327 503 588 652 720 881 North Carolina, Catawba County_-__________- 304 429 447 545 557 615 737 Georgia, Sumter County: BVT EG Eos Sse at Ee 336 476 586 742 764 850 917 Colored ester ee ees ee es eee 214 283 321 392 472 511 617 HlordasEillsborolCountya. ee 100 323 308 448 472 1 469 698 Ohio, Washington County___-.__-_....=.....- 47 370 479 535 1 786 1619 1 866 pagans, ClintomCounty = ee 100 385 442 513 630 1465 | 1905 owa: Rama COUN tyes. Seen an ee 209 533 574 668 769 763 26 Wiarrenk© oun ty; seen ae eee ee 183 437 504 546 | 591 574 686 Rotalkandaveraces === 1, 754 426 487 580 638 662 749 1919 = | iNew: York, ‘Niagara County 22..3-.2--_--25-2_| 20-2 2224| 22 ee eee ee ee WVarginias Prederick County__.— 125 342 524 559 704 716 11, 038 Florida: ELI SHOnONG OUTITy ae 100 404 367 538 580 644 684 _ ROIs ounity === oe eee 100 127 340 1431 437 1615 824 Mississippi, Jones County___.._...--.___._--_- 154 382 505 583 700 623 818 Ohio; -WashingtoniCounty__— 51 412 460 568 1 580 1719 i915 indiana, Clinton'Countya.= = ae ee 100 402 453 529 594 1 §29 1 760 idaho Ewin halls: County. 2 ese 200 359 502 540 621 1 624 970 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country____- 226 410 604 616 674 768 886 Total and averages__.._______________- 1,056| 323| 500] 560| 647| 672 857 1920 FEU OMe wis] ara Cl eae tere eae en 51 527 399 1 §26 1 §24 1 865 1 552 Virginia, Frederick County_._-_____-__---_-__ 125 278 502 568 548 610 935 HMlonida,ceallshoro:; County —— = see ee 100 442 439 518 §22 574 883 Ohio; Washington County 2-2 59 264 347 444 1418 1417 1318 _ Wisconsin, Walworth County _______________- 262 390 445 459 492 557 547 idaho; Twin Balls’ County=-= == 192 470 - 547 576 643 689 974 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country______ 241 424 556 624 607 729 828 Oregon, Sherman County____________-_------_- 144 572 527 696 798 1775 1 963 Total and averages____________________- 174} asa" 486 | 958] 578 654 810 1921 Vermont, Orange and Windsor Counties____- 211 385 480 512 499 560 625 Rhode Island. 2... Oe Sa eae ae rts | Ei en eee ee el ee ee ee ee Florida, Hillsboro County_____....--_--__-.-- 100 366 420 451 474 521 624 Obip, Wiashinotoni County. ee 60 290 357 444 1 §21 1 $52 1605 owa: ‘Tama Countys2222). ee eee 237 524 568 717 756 654 943 Warren: County 3a ee eee 229 466 543 594 619 625 1 622 South Dakota, Jones County____-.-___-___.-- 61 257 463 521 521 1 362 1 558 Montana, Sheridan and Daniels Counties ____ 62 233 296 1 397 1 454 1 430 1 §08 Colorado; Wield County. ee 150 427 494 501 549 505 565 Idaho, Twin Falls County.-.--__-_--___-_____- 181 426 459 595 661 1 548 889 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country_-_-___ 250 408 467 454 552 566 728 Washington: King and: Pierce Counties-=_- = 150 236 358 377 350 1 374 1 442 SYK a COU Gay ee ee \75 312 378 389 434 1 §32 512 Oreconsj sherman County. = 152 516 511 598 688 1 664 1716 WROvAL ATI Osa VCLAC CS eee een ere 2,018 394 470 §22 560 557 653 1922 hie Delaware, sussex: County.) eee 86 415 423 405 1423 1 578 1 250 Florida: EI Sb Oro, CONT yee eee 100 348 399 432 434 417 590 Polk: County. ot 2 See tere a 100 160 402 1455 433 1 695 1677 Ohio) Washineton Countyo see 64 268 349 357 1 469 1 630 1605 Towa: Calhoun (Connty22 222255 = eee ee 202 429 462 544 545 888- 686 mm boldt. Conny ee 74 558 712 664 797 848 716

1 Less than 10 farms in the group. 2? Data for this sorting not available.

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM pd |

TABLE 8.—Value of the family living from the farm by size of family—Contd.

| Value of family living from the farm with adult equivalent of

Num- Year and locality pes of = = SSS arms | = | oe 3 to 3.9| 4 to 4.9/5 to 5.9| 6 to 6.9 feos 1922—Continued | Dollars | Dollars Dollars | Dollars | Dollars | Dollars pouth, Dakota: Jones: County —- 22 2----- = 66 302 | 356 430 443 1 435 1 850 Kansas: HMInne ae OLN Gye ne ee ee re 57 283 | 400 448 1 686 1750 | 1 830 Thomas and Sherman Counties_________- 82 384 | 660] 626 828 | 1602] 11,207 Montana: | Sheridan and Daniels Counties__________- 61 230 | 320 1392 1 427 1 457 | 1 584 Dawson and Custer Counties____________- 66 242 |} 1311 464} 1535 1 440 | 1 554 Colorado, Washington and Lincoln Counties _ 159 | 426 157 558 648 579 790 kdahohwinehalls’ County = eee 87 | 409 448 580 599 1 428 1 846 Washington, Yakima County-----_---------- 139 | sa) | 418 462 520 1 523 1615 OreronsonermansCountys- te ee 152 | 445 | 458 537. 600 1758 1710 Motalrandaverages e -ee e 1, 495 338 | 445 484 568 630 735 Grand total and averages__________-_-_- 7, 497 383 475 539 595 634 751

1 Less than 10 farms in the group. SIZE OF FAMILY

The size of family has been roughy measured for these farms and expressed in number of adult units, an adult unit here represent- ing one person of 16 years or older, or one and one-half persons under 16 years of age. But one exception to the statement that families

AVERAGE VALUE OF THE FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM

SIZE OF NUMBER ADULT IN DOLLARS FAMILY GROUPS OF UNITS PER O 200 400 600 800 (ADULT UNITS) FARMS FAMILY l =, Less than 3.0 29 2.0 S20 10) 420 e3 Spy “40- "toe 5:0. 33 4.5 | 5.0 to 6.0 /9 5.5 640 20m 70 i/ 625) : 7.0 and over /0 9./ — | | Al Hy

Fic. 5.—The value of the family] iving from the farm for the different families in a locality varied accord- ing to the size of the families. The data from 125 farms in Frederick County, Va., for the year 1918 of 7.0 and more adult units in a locality averaged more dollars’ worth of family living from the farm than those of less than 3.0 adult units is to be found in Table 8, and in this instance only one family was

represented in the large family grou

Considering only the groups in Table 8 with 10 farms or more, an increase in the size of family in a given locality was accompanied by an increase in the average value of the family living from the farm 164 out of 189 times. (See fig. 5.)

7D, BULLETIN 1388, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 9.—Value of the family living from the farm in relation to the farm recerpts

Percentage family living from the farm is of farm

receipts Num- Year and locality ber of farms 1 to | 10 to | 20 to | 30 to| 40 to| 50 to) 100 9 19 29 39 49 99 Over 1918 No. | No. | No. | No. | No. | No. | No. | No farms| farms) farms\|farms farms \farms |\farms | farms New Hampshire, Hillsboro County_-.-..---. 1B: ee sose 7 49 36 16 14 14.) 3.22 Virginia, Frederick County_--._.....-_.._...- 125 7 35 45 24 6 2 3 3 North Carolina, Catawba County_______--_-- 304 |_____- 3 29 51 58 57 91 15 Georgia, Sumter County: DUVET EG ae eee nape ae Pca ee 336 2 99 108 60 23 11 28 5 @Wolorede a ees ea ere os pee ea PAN Sa ee 26 81 61 26 10 10).| 34 Florida, Hillsboro County___.____.-____---__- MOD eeecs 11 35 26 15 5 6 2 Ohio; Washington County.22 A Teale ok Eee 7 10 7 6 15 2 indiana ClintonyCountyeeen== se eee eee My eee 26 53 12 4 3 7H) De peers lowa: ARamaC ounty= =e es se ee ee 209 1 104 84 14 | 5 oe et (ee iWarrenkw@ ountyaesse aaa a eee NESS es oace 29 99 35 12 2 fc | someones Motale. 2 2262 22 See Oe 1, 754 10 340 590 | 329) 172 116 170 27 1919 | INewaYork, Niagara Countyi2o2s2s5 soso eee BY/ | Banoo 19 40 34 29 10 21 4 Virginia, Frederick County-_--_-.........-_--- 125 4 37 49 17 1l 1 4 2 Florida: ETS HOron© Out ye ee 1003 ae 8 25 26 17 10 13 1 Polk County): 20 Ate ee ee ee ee 100 41 32 16 3 AS |e Peer 2 2 IVSSISSIP PI; Jones Coun tyes s6 ee eee 154 2 2 12 23 22 22 53 18 Ohio, Washington County__-_____________---- OL cps eee 18 9 12 4 8) = aa Indiana: Clinton Countyeis sae ee ee ee 1003 See 25 53 14 5 1 Qin eee Idaho, Twin Falls County____________-_____- 200s |E aie 83: |. 78 ss07 | 0)" Sel |a eo ea Idaho and Washington, Palouse country_-__-___ 226 1 135 68 21 1 ire gee | Le 2 fe ee Noy resi aye Rea Repereeegio Bra ARUN, 5 BYE pes I 1, 213 48 341 359 174 i10 49 105 27 1920 | iRnod esl Slan dashes aes eae eee ees OL eee es 23 22 4 2, ncaa: aa eae eee Virginia, Frederick County_________-___-_-_- 125 5 47 30 18 12 2 1 iHlorida; HallshoroiCountyee = es eee 100 |_____- 20 36 22 10 5 5 | 2 Ohio, Washington County__________________- 59 1 5 11 9 6 8 17 2 Wisconsin, Walworth County_______________- 262 1 53 134 54 12 6 1 1 dahoseiwinyhalls(County2=eees. eae rene SP bs see aes 39 73 31 26 10 11 2 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country_____| 241 |______ 116 76 34 6 3 cae Oregon, Sherman County-_____.__________-__- ele 2 Pea ee 97 42 2 5 ie mes paren er lee a ee ‘Pobalssee 82 2S ee ee: een ee 1,174 7 400 424 174 77 34 51 if 1921 Vermont, Orange and Windsor Counties-_____ PAN Vi (Eee 8) 51 61 31 32 21 6 Rhode. Island... eee eee eee S4slesecae 16 39 9 5 7 6 2 Florida, Hillsboro County________- enave renin OO" Bae a 27 31 24 7 4 5 2 Ohio Washington (Countys2 222-29 60 A eee sae 6 9 13 6 19 6 Iowa: Mama \C ounty2ee hese ee ee a DAY || soe 19 106 70 23 12 |e WiarreniC oun bye nero nea ee ee eee 220 ae 11 76 67 37 19 18 1 south Dakota, Jones County=.----2-4--- 222 -- Gla Saas a 17 14 12 5 5 1 Montana, Sheridan and Daniels Counties____ 623|(Saeme2 29 21 7 BF | et ace 2 ae Colorado; Wield @County= =e Nee ceed a 0s (ee eee 76 55 13 Aan. One 2: | idaho se kwan halls |County2== 20. s== see 181 1 20 69 39 17 14 18 3 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country__-___ 250) |= 78 | 107 37 20 2 Hie Washington: King and Pierce Counties_______________- ED) Wee ones 22 59 42 20 5 2 eae akin ay © OUM GY se Ngee Ss 50 59 34 13 ll 7 1 Orezon Sherman Countyaes. sone ee GY) {geese 121 27 2 Blo e. loes Se Motalet tetas S210) Oe ee a eee 2, 102 | 2 485 723 428 207 Thr 118 22

)

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM 93

TABLE 9.—Value of the family living from the farm in relation to the farm recet pts—Continued

Percentage family living from the farm is of farm

receipts : Num- Year and locality ber of farms 1 to | 10 to | 20 to| 30 to | 40 to | 50 to Bee 9 19 29 39 49 99 Over 1922 NOG |e NOs) eLViOnn eVOnn| meV OLN | eLVO | neLVOn leer Os farms) farms| farms| farms | farms| farms | farms | farms Delaware, sussex ©ounbtya=-2--=----------- 86))|/22 2222 jE eee 6 LS 24 P| as . Florida: | EnLISHOLGn@ oun tyme eee 1007 Pa 23 36 22 5 5 7 2 olka oun Tyne eee ee es ee 100 38 42 14 5 1 py) bese aa PR ESE 1 Ohio, Washington County =----- == G4 see 2" if 15 11 10 10 15 2 Iowa: GalhounsCountyase se ee 202) | ae 44 111 34 11 Qi | Se ee Hin bold aC oun ty= eae ee eee Ph bi aaa at 12 32 19 5 5 ji [esc South Dakota, Jones County________________- G6) 22ee—= 15 29 14 6 1 1 Ligh baci as Kansas: : Minne ya oun yeas een ae ee OE BY lees 16 15 12 7 5 PA a Thomas and Sherman Counties__________ S2Eenedas 14 31 15 11 5 4 2 Montana: Sheridan and Daniels Counties__________- 6 27 20 9 3 1 1S | Eee Dawson and Custer Counties____________ 5} || e ee 10 15 15 12 2 10 2 Colorado, Washington and Lincoln Counties_ Tse) See 10 61 48 22 5 12 1 ldano we bwanehallsi@ountyaee=.- Siglpee se 16 34 16 9 if oii 9| Washington, Yakima County —______________. 118%). || Sees 14 46 41 20 i 10 1 Oregon Sherman County=—2 3 15 2p ee 87 52 Uf 4 1 1 (ea. Fe | BS NE oe a Re Be 1,495 | 38] 331) 517| 279| 150} 68| 94] 18 i j | Granditotal essen on es ee ey | 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-twentieth 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, Del., 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 hving 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 Were 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.

24

BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 10.—Value of the family living from the farm in relation to the farm income

Percentage family living from the farm is of farm income

Num- Year and locality ber as 1 20 40 0 to to to 19 39 59 1918 No. | No. | No. | No. farms | farms | farms | farms New Hampshire, Hillsboro County_-_________ 136) eos 2 28 29 Mirginia, Frederick. County:-- - 25-252 125 7 43 31 18 North Carolina, Catawba County __________-_ 304s peewee 4 52 79 Georgia, Sumter County: AWD Gets ates 228 UM SS wile tees a Nie ea 336 2 92 7 72 Colored t= 2 2: eee a aa eee 7A Voll aera 40 91 41 iWorida, Elilishoro Countys.__- = NOD) [Pye 11 16 20 Ohio; Washineton County. = AN Se =i 8 9 indiana. Clinton Countya= === 1003; =e 48 45 1 Towa: SRaMN a © OUT Gye ese eee eee em 209 1 134 59 8 Wiarrén ‘County. == oe ee fSse zeae 55 74 28 TPotalizes ses OR ee ker ee ae 1, 754 10 430 483 305 1919 New York, Niagara County___--____________- 174 16 40 27 Mirginia, irederick County=--_2 = 2s 125 4 40 33 18 Florida: EIS DOrOa@ oun tye ee ee LOOR Sea 10 17 11 IRolkaC oun ty = ee ue 100 41 34 9 3 | Mississippi, Jones County____---____--_____- 154 2 2 13 24 Ohio} Washington County ee Sy nee ees 1 21 ral} indranaeClintonsCountyes =o eee LOOT |ESaeee 47 34 8 Fdaho,wiwineballsi@ oun yess ena 200 | tenes 94 64 16 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country____| 226 1 137 57 9 of Rio] 2 | (eae ies Sys Ot oe AM oe eS 1, 213 48 379 288 127 1920 hod etisland seein as ae eee ae E55 pa| fea 11 9 5 Mirginia, Fredericki@ounty__<2=_ 325 2) 23 125 5 24 14 14 Mlorida, Hullsbore|County=_— ee 1003) sass 25 25 17 Ohio, Washington County—__-=_ = 125 Ses 22) 59 1 3 8 4 Wisconsin, Walworth County _______________ 262 1 23 79 43 tdaho;shwinsk alls County eee ee 1O2T Se eee 28 55 23 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country____| 241 |______ 60 54 22 Oregon, Sherman County=--- =e ee 1440) |e 74 30 13 ROG S 2 SIE wate oe ee 1, 174 ‘a 248 274 141 1921 Vermont, Orange and Windsor Counties ____ Past tee & 2a 6 27 29 iRhodeAsland2242-- 3a. Shae ee S4pec.3- 12 18 4 Honda vEMHShoro. Countyen a= =e eee 100s cease 26 24 14 Ohio, Washington County __--2---.-___-=_-- 60 Ey gee oes 4 5 Towa: Rama County. >) 2s2 5. .ee see aan ee eee het 237 ks eae 10 51 24 Wiarren: County, 3-28. a ee [ye 220 Ree 12 58 44 South Dakota, Jones County___-_---___-___- Glee tee 7 10 6 Montana, Sheridan and Daniels Counties ___ 62g [eee 25 14 8 Colorado” Wield’U@ountya.= ee 1505 |e 58 45 ll idaho; Ewin Halls County= =e | 181 1 6} 40 25 Idaho and Washington, Palouse country__-___ | eogzuO: jae ee 16 33 28 Washington: King and Pierce Counties_______________ 150) eee 10 22 16 Makima COUN Gye te eee 2 ee [75a Zick.” a2: 19 Oregon, Sherman’ County=—_ 22 22) ee U5Qa eee ae 94} 36 6 Bl 80) FW Uae cease ous it lane aie oa e279 | 2, 102 2 309 | 406 239

Farms

60 | 80 | 100 | With

to to and fae 79 99 | over | ‘2m

In-

come

No: | “No. | No. ine Nos farms \farms farms | farms 15 | “ile eos 16 1 3 9 3 46| 39) 79 | 5 25| 15|. 48 3 22 5 em 2 TE ie pam Stand 10 3 lege 3 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 ji Nees 5 5 148 100 | 230 48 13 Yiohen sa 21 8 7 9 6 18 5| 28 1 1 je ee 7 15| 16] 66 16 33 hi ee 3 Stand 1 6 4| 15 1 5 2] 12 3 72 | °°43 )) 185 |. Nts 1 2 9 14 9 4| 2 | 31 5 9| 15 | 4 4 4| 25 | 10 ON ALO bye 39 12 a ey 28 12 Z| (BB 54 ry eae il 12 69| 45] 198| 192 20} 23] 64 | 42 5 Dob Sete 27 7 | eb for Shel 11 2 Sal zee] 16 is| 18| 531 65 30| 16| 45 | 24 4 thal gal (i 17 3 1 6 5 9 iia aaa © 14 16} 12| 49] 32 20! -10| 57 86 19 9| 44 30 LD. | 4106 | 22972) 47 Te baa 3 | 9

{

163 | 114 | 444 425

My

Se

A!

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM 25

TaBLE 10.—Value of the family living from the farm in relation to the farm income—Continued

Percentage family living from the farm is of farm

income Num- Year and locality eo io faunas 1 20 40 60 80 100 re 0 to to to to to and | f 19 7] 0395) AT] 179s 99)" | over lheee come 1922 No. | No. | No. | No. |- No. | No. | No. No. farms | farms | farms} farms) farms} farms\farms | farms Delaware, Sussex County..-.__...._.____---- SHViaae ae 1 4 2 15 8 36 Florida: I SHOLO: © OUNTYy=2 = 2 ean ee sad (0 Dud | eee 17 17 15 5 2 18 26 Lerehic (Ovo buain ieee ee we ee Se mes 100 38 40 9 3 2 1 5 2 Ohio, Washington County__-_______- pes Se G4 Sane. 3 9 4 14 8) 19 6 Iowa: x CalhouniCountyen = PAUP oS nee 69 77 31 14 3 poe |e eee Enum boldt County. 2 TA a EO =e 14 28 13 7 1 u 4 South Dakota; Jones County ___--.---------- Woe Beene 19 23) 12) 3 2 2 5 Kansas: Himneys County ss 2=) Pee oe. OU ESE 2 5 12 | 6 2 4 8 10 Thomas and Sherman Counties_-__--_____ Sy | oe 17 18}. 11 3 2 16 15 Montana: | Sheridan and Daniels Counties_________- | Gly wae 25 10 12 2 2 As 9 Dawson and Custer Counties___________- 66) [22a ee 9 19 12 5 1 12 8 Colorado, Washington and Lincoln Counties_| 159 |______ 10 36 34 12 9 28 30 Kaaho; dhwan Malls Countys-= 5 S71 wee 18 17 14 8 5 11 14 Washington, Yakima County -—________-_-___ 139 ae 5 17 19 13 3 38 44 @regon, Sherman, Countys— 222.5 = 102 eee 26 37 14 10 3 15 47 PR OUAIEE oe Fa ee he PEP ee A fee Jae 1, 495 38 288 | 333 202 115 5D 224 240 Grand :totalest beaks ee eee 7, 738 105 |1, 654 (1,784 |1,014 567 362 /1, 281 971

FARM INCOME

For all of the farms shown in Table 6 the value of the family living from the farm was, on the average, approximately one-third as large as the farm income, the latter representing the difference between the farm receipts and the farm expenses. In some of the localities the value of the family living from the farm amounted to more than as much as the farm income. ‘These instances, however, usually occurred in the years 1921 or 1922, years when the farm receipts were usually so much less than in the more prosperous years 1918 and 1919.

Comparisons of the family living from the farm in relation to the farm income should be made for those localities in which data were obtained both in 1918 or 1919 and in 1921 or 1922. The value of the family living from the farm was generally larger relative to the farm income in 1921 or 1922 than in 1918 or 1919, principally because of the lower farm incomes, the value of the family living from the farm showing less change than the farm income from the earlier to the later years. An exception is found in Hillsboro County, Fla., where the truck farmers had almost as large farm incomes in 1922 as in 1919. The relation between the value of the family living from the farm and the farm receipts did not change so much from 1918 and 1919 to 1921 and 1922 as did the relation between the value of the-family living from the farm and the farm income. Receipts fell off sharply, while expenses in some of the localities Mestaccil thus leaving wider percentage variations in the farm income.

As with the farm receipts, the value of the family living from the farm in relation to the farm income varied more with the different

26 BULLETIN 1338, U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

farms of a locality than with the different localities. (See Table 10.) For all of the farms in the last two columns of Table 10 the value of the family lving from the farm equaled or exceeded the farm income. In other words, the cash spendable income from these farms amounted to no more and usually to less than the value of the family living from the farm.

FAMILY INCOME

More or less farm labor was performed by members of the family other than the operator himebe in all of the localities under study. The estimates of the worth of this type of labor varied from an average of less than $100 per farm in some localites to over $200 in others; the extremes being $18 per farm in Polk County, Fla., in 1922, and $318 on those farms nn negro operators in Sumter County, Ga., in 1918. The value of this labor was less than one-third as much as the value of the family living from the farm in most localities, ap- proached or exceeded one-half as much in some localities, but did not equal the value of the family living from the farm in any locality. The unpaid family labor when added to the farm income more nearly represents the amount available from the farm business for owner farmers and their families to spend and save than any of the other incomes discussed herein, and it is termed the family income. The family income was but a negligible increase over the farm income in a few localities, as in Polk County, Fla., but in localities with com- paratively low farm incomes or relatively large amounts of family ~ labor it sometimes represented an increase of 20 per cent or more over the farm income, as in Washington County, Ohio. It some- times represented in a given locality a small relative increase over the farm income in some years and a large increase in other years, as in the Palouse country of Idaho and Washington in the years 1919 and 1921.

TaBLE 11.—Value of the family living from the farm and labor income

Labor in- Labor in- come more come less than value than value

Year of the of the family living | family living from the from the farm farm Number Number farms farms HOUR es 2 Fas § a es FE RE Fed Oe eed ae eee eee ee eee 977 777 1!) Kae Oe See ese eS acy ee re ea ee Tele Be 627 586 A G2OTER A NE t APRN CAMARA RBs PTE BRO: AGT TS Ni eee Cad nT OE pee 301 873 NOD |e Gane} 2 epee e) ied bas of Ds eed * Ee BEE iar ee eek es eae 401 1, 701 1 77S ee ene ey lata aes Nak AE at Sy sene ie a ee Ee ge aa or yee A ge 334 1, 161 TOtalSs 2 Oa AS CR gS eA in Rel ea Sh a a a 2, 640 5, 098

LABOR INCOME

After allowing interest on the farm capital the returns for the farmer’s labor, above his family living from the farm, is the labor income. It is the farm income less interest on the farm capital. In the prosperous years, 1918 and 1919, the labor income averaged over $1,000 per farm. (See Table 6.) In the less prosperous years, 1920, 1921, and 1922, it was theoretically a minus quantity, meaning

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM 27

that there was not enough left from the farm receipts after paying the farm expenses to allow the interest rate on the farm capital. Of course, the farmer had his family living from the farm.

The value of the family living from the farm averaged less than the labor income in 1918 and 1919, but more in 1920, 1921, and 1922. In 1918 and 1919 the labor income exceeded the value of the family living from the farm on more than one-half of the farms; but in 1920, 1921, and 1922 the labor income was less than the value of the family living from the farm on most of the farms. (See Table 11.)

VALUE OF THE FARMER’S LABOR

To those accustomed to buying their entire family living from their wage the value at which farmers estimated the worth of their labor, as shown in Table 6, may seem low. ‘This figure, however, is not intended to represent the entire value of the farmer’s labor, but only that above the perquisites furnished by the farm. (See defini- tion of farmer’s labor, p. 14.) The value of the farmer’s labor above perquisites averaged about one-half more than the value of the family living from the farm, which may be understood to mean that farmers were cognizant of the important part which the family living from the farm played in the compensation for their labors.

TENURE

Tenants operated 24 per cent of all the farms included herein; owners who rented additional land operated 18 per cent; and owners who did not rent additional land, 58 per cent. In some of the localities there were but few tenants and in some others they oper- ated as many or more than one-half of all the farms. They often operated larger farms than owners, the average size of the tenant farms being 257 acres and those of owners 190 acres. Tenant and owner families each averaged 4.1 adult units. The value of the family living from the farm was a little less for tenants than for owner families—the value of the food furnished by the farm was practically the same, but that of the house rent was less.

That the farm receipts, the farm income, etc., from the farms operated by tenants are divided between tenant and landlord, must receive consideration in any application of the data on the preceding pages to tenant families. On the tenant farms in this study the divisions between tenant and landlord were:

——————————_

| Tenant Landlord |

| Per cent Per cent

EVE CE TT) bs nearer SiC ETE: ee ee ce ee ee =| 68 32 HEN TCOMC Seeeaee muuae ee. Ct ct eee Pe iy Oe ee 48 52 Retrinlivalingn ca rOmerhepariineese: 2 ee 8) OS re Ee eee Phe ey KO, | ee teen

The value of the family living from the farm of tenant families was, therefore, much larger in proportion to the tenant’s receipts, farm income, family income, etc., than indicated by the Pe

ages. This only emphasizes the vital importance of the family ie from the farm to the well-being of many tenant farmers, and especial encouragement should be extended to tenant farmers to

28 BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

produce an abundant supply of food products for consumption by their families.

Some owners who rented additional land were very like the owners who did not, in that they owned most of the land they operated; some were very like the tenants in that they rented most of the land they operated; and others rented about as much land as they owned.

LIST OF REFERENCES

The following is a list of the publications relative to the organization and management of farms, and -to the family living from the farm in the localities included in this bulletin:

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Dixon, H. M., and Hawtuorne, H. W. Farm profits—figures from the same farms for a series of years. 1920. Dept. Bul. 920. Funk, W. C. Home supplies furnished by the farm. 1920. Farmers’ Bul. 1082. Funk, W. C. Value to farm families of food, fuel, and use of house. 1916. Dept. Bul. 410. Funk, W. C. What the farm contributes directly to the farmer’s living. 1914. Farmers’ Bul. 635. HAWTHORNE, H. W. : Five-year farm management survey in Palmer Township, Washington County, Ohio, 1912-1916. 1918. Dept. Bul. 716. HawtTHornNeE, H. W., and Drxon, H: M. Farm organization and management in Clinton County, Ind. 1924. Dept. Bul. 1258: HAWTHORNE, H. W., Dixon, H. M., and MontcGomMEry, FRANK. Farm management and farm organization in Sumter County, Ga. 1922. Dept. Bul. 1034. . HawtTuHorne, H. W., Dixon, H. M., MontcomeEry, FRANK, and ROBERTSON, LYNN. Successful farming on 80-acre farms in central Indiana. 1924. Farmers’ Bul. 1421. JOHNSON, E. R., and Strait, E. D. Farming the logged-off uplands in western Washington. 1924. Dept. Bul. 1236. JOHNSON, J. M., and Strait, E. D. Farm management in Catawba County, N. C. 1922. Dept Bul. 1070. KirKPATRICK, KE. L., AtTwatEeR, H. W., and Batuey, I. M. Family living in farm homes, an economic study of 402 farm families in Livingston County, N. Y. 1924. Dept. Bul. 1214. SANDERS, J. T. Farm ownership and tenancy in the Black Prairie of Texas. 1922. Dept. Bul. 1068.

PRELIMINARY MIMEOGRAPHED REPORTS AVAILABLE IN LIBRARIES, BUT NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT

Coopmr, M. R.

Cost of wheat production and incomes from farming in eastern Washington and northern Idaho for the years 1919, 1920, and 1921. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economies, Divisions of Cost of Production and Farm Management in cooperation with Idaho and Washington State Colleges of Agriculture. 1923.

Cooper, M. R.

Cost of production and farm business analysis survey on 229 farms for 1919, and 241 farms for 1920, Palouse area, Idaho and Washington. Issued by the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics. 1922.

Funk, W. C.

Business analysis of 100 truck farms, Hillsboro County, Fla. Issued by the

Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Management. 1922. Funk, W. C.

Incomes and profits of 100 fruit farms, Polk County, Fla. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economies, Division of Farm Organization and Cost of Production. 1922.

FAMILY LIVING FROM THE FARM 29

Funk, W. C., and JEnninGs, R. D. A Farm business analysis of 136 farms in Hillsboro County, N. H. Issued by the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics. [1920?]

Kirkpatrick, E. L., and SanpErs, J. T.

Cost of living in farm homes in several areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 1924.

Kirkpatrick, E. L., and von TUNGELN, G. H.

Cost of living in farm homes in several areas of Iowa. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 1924.

Nicuouts, W. D., and Kirxpatrick, E. L.

Costs of living in farm homes, Mason County, Ky. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 1924.

REYNOLDsON, L. A.

Farming in northeastern Montana. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Divisions‘of Farm Management and Land Economics. 1923.

ReEyYNOLDSON, L. A.

Progress of farmers in northeastern Montana for two years. Issued by the

: Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Divisions of Farm Management and Land Economics. 1923.

REYNOLDSON, L. A.

Progress of farmers who have settled in southeastern Montana. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Divisions of Farm Management and Land Economics. 1924.

Source material from the Clinton County, Indiana, Farm business survey. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Management. 1923-1924. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1258 is based on this material.

Section I. Tenure, acreages and yields on each of 100 farms in Clinton County, Ind., 1910 and 1913 to 1919. 1923.

Section II. Livestock and labor on each of 100 farms in Clinton County, Ind., 1910 and 1913 to 1919. 1923.

Section III. Capital on each of 100 farms in Clinton County, Ind., 1910 and 1913 to 1919. 1924.

Section IV. Receipts on each of 100 farms in Clinton County, Ind., 1910 and 1913 to 1919. 1924.

Section V. Expenses on each of 100 farms in Clinton County, Ind., 1910 and 1913 to 1919. 1924.

Section VI. Farm income on each of 100 farms in Clinton County, Ind., 1910 and 1918 to 1919. 1924.

Swinson, C. R.

Cost of producing apples and farm business analysis for 48 orchard farms for five years, 1916-1920, Shenandoah Valley, Winchester, Frederick County, Va. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economies [1920?]

WasHBuRrN, R.S8., ScuppER, H. D., and Gunn, R. V.

Cost of producing winter wheat and incomes from wheat farming, Sherman County, Oreg., 1920-1921. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Eco- nomics in cooperation with the Oregon Agricultural College. 1923.

Wooten, E. O.

Dry farming in eastern Colorado. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultura] Economics, Division of Farm Management. 1924.

Dry farming in western Kansas. Issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 1925.

STATE PUBLICATIONS

HuntTER, BYRon. Preliminary report. Business analysis of 181 general crop, 11 dairy and 10 fruit farms, Twin Falls County, Idaho, 1921. 1923. Idaho Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 132. HuntTER, Byron. Preliminary report on farm organization in Twin Falls and Latah Counties. 1921. Idaho Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 128. Hunter, Byron, and Nucxots, S. B. Farm costs and relative profitableness of seven crops, Twin Falls County, Idaho, 1919 and 1920. 1922. Idaho Agr. Exp. Sta. Research Bul. 2. Kirkpatrick, E. L. Standard of life in a typical section of diversified farming. 1923. Cornell Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 423.

Papier i tr "

30 BULLETIN 1338, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE _

Mouncer H. B. Iowa farm management surveys, Blackhawk, Grundy and Tama Counties. 1921. JIowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 198. Pence, M. O. Study of the farm business of the Lewes community. 1923. Del. Univ. Ext. Serv. in Agr. and Home Economics, Ext. Bul. 9.

PRELIMINARY MIMEOGRAPHED REPORTS AVAILABLE IN LIBRARIES, BUT NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT Dopeg. L. 8. , .

Study of the business on one hundred-nine farms in Rhode Island for the year of 1921. Issued by the farm bureaus of Rhode Island, Rhode Island State Board of Agriculture, the Rhode Island State College, and the U. 8. Department of Agriculture cooperating. [1922?]

JoHNSON, E. R., and Nucko.s, 8S. B. :

Farm business analysis of 175 irrigated farms in Yakima County, Wash., 1921. Issued by the State College of Washington in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1922.

RuHopDE IsLAND, STATE COLLEGE.

Analysis of the business of 51 farms in Rhode Island for the year 1920. Issued in cooperation with the farm bureaus of Rhode Island, Rhode Island State Board of Agriculture and the U. 8. Department of Agricul- ture. [1921?]

WorsHaM, C. G.

Studies in developing farms on western South Dakota ranges for the years 1921 and 1922. Issued in cooperation with the South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. 1923. 8S. Dak. Dept. Agr. Circ. 5.

ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

July 15, 1925

ISCCTELONMOfPAQTUCULLUTCS = 22-2 W. M. JarpIne. PAISSESLOUREE CCT CLOT Ye = ee ae Se ee R. W. Dunwap. Mrrectomofisceeninple WoT. 22-2225. 2. = 1d 1D 1bvNbion Director of Regulatory Work_____------.----WALTER G. CAMPBELL. DRCCLOIAONPELLLCMSUOM WOT oe ee C. W. WARBURTON. DincclomoypnnyfOnmaore 2822 28 ee NELSON ANTRIM CRAWFORD. Director of Personnel and Business Administra-

(WOM Ba aoe 2 ee W. W. StockBERGER. S@iGuiGRe 2S SEs sk Be ee ee R. W. WILLIAMS. WY @GHOGP (BURA. ok Sn re ee Cuarues F. Marvin, Chief. Bureau of Agricultural Economics______------ Henry C. Taytor, Chief. BUremunof Amina Lnausimy——..-2 5 2 Joun R. Mouter, Chief. EUUTCU Us OMMEALETLLILGUSUY Pe oe Wiuuiam A. Taytor, Chief. IO eStUSChULCC AEE ear ee A W. B. GREELEY, Chief. BS RCUUEO RO LCNUUSUGY Sree, oe ee C. A. Brownge, Chief. DUCT. Of SOUSLS | aS ee Mitton Wuitney, Chief. Brineaucoj eB MLOmMology = =e ee L. O. Howarp, Chief. Binea Of PLOloguca iSUnvey = ee KE. W. Netson, Chief. BUrcOn, Gfilawolve OGds= 22025. 2 Le ele Tuomas H. MacDona tp, Chief. Bumeont Of some rLconomics =). -_ Louise STANLEY, Chief. UCU URO MOU ClG et aS ee C. W. Larson, Chief. Fixed Nitrogen Research Laboratory_-—--_-----~_- F. G. CotTtrE.u, Director. OjiccamPapenimment Statvons 42 == == == = EK. W. ALLEN, Chief. Office of Cooperative Extension Work___------ C. B. Situ, Chief. ORO) Sa EE SE Te ee ee CLARIBEL R. BARNETT, Librarian. mencromHonichiiural Board. - =. -._--____-_- C. L. Maruatt, Chairman. Insecticide and Fungicide Board__-_---------- J. K. Haywoop, Chairman. Packers and Stockyards Administration _ - - - ~~ - JoHun T. Carne, in Charge. Grain Futures Admivistration.....--.------- J.W.T. DuveE., Acting in Charge.

This bulletin is a contribution from

Bureau of Agricultural Economics __--------- Henry C. Taytor, Chief. Division of Farm Management and Cost of TORO CUEON = Cre ee R. H. Wiucox, in Charge.

ol

ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT

5 CENTS PER COPY V