S&asTOKaS^

EX L1BR.IS

F. M. Circ. 1. Issued. January 7, 1916.

United States Department of Agriculture,

Office of the Secretary.

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management,
W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief.

Suggestions

Concerning Checking and Tabulating
Farm Management Survey Data.

A DESK MANUAL FOR
INVESTIGATORS.

WASHINGTON:

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1916.

F. M. Circ. 1. Issued January 7, 1918.

United States Department of Agriculture,
Office of the Secretary.

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management,
W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief.

Suggestions

Concerning Checking and Tabulating
Farm Management Survey Data.

A DSSK MANUAL I?OR
INVESTIGATORS.

WASHINGTON:

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1910.

F. M. Circ. 1.

CHECKING AND TABULATING FARM MANAGE-
MENT SURVEY DATA.

The value of the farm management survey as a means of analyz-
ing the agriculture of a locality is now quite generally recognized.
Such an analysis reveals both the points of excellence and the
defects of the local farming. The difficulties connected with work
of this character and the very general interest in it render it desira-
ble to set forth the methods required for satisfactory work. So far
as may be at the present time, this is done in the following pages.
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the methods of gather-
ing such data in the field. It is the use of the data after it is col-
lected that is here considered. The subject will be briefly treated
from the following standpoints:

1. Checking the office sheets.

2. Preliminary calculations.

3. Principles of tabulation.

4. Classification of farms by tenure.

5. Suggested tables.

CHECKING SURVEY RECORDS.

Survey records are taken on field blanks and later transferred to
the survey record sheet, or office blank. These transfers should be
made daily as the collecting of the data progresses. They should
then be checked in accordance with the suggestions below, and
where inconsistency or incompleteness is found, another visit
should be made to the farm. Where a survey party consists of sev-
eral men, one member should be expert in checking records. At
the close of each day's work each field man transfers his records
from the field blanks to the office blanks. The next day the office
man checks these records while the field men are taking new records.
In case the checking shows inconsistency or lack of necessary data,

(3)

the same field man who took the original record goes back to the
farmer concerned and gets the additional data.

A survey record generally consists of estimates made by the
farmer as to the details of his business for the past year. Most
farmers have the details of their business sufficiently in mind to
give a satisfactory, record, but in some cases it requires great skill
on the part of the field man in reducing his questions to the terms in
which the farmer thinks in order to get trustworthy information.

If a record is grossly inaccurate this fact is easily detected by the
system of checking outlined below. Even if it is only slightly
inaccurate this fact will usually show because of the numerous
checks in the records themselves. The following is an outline of
the work to be done in checking a record :

1. Compare the office sheet with the field blanks to see if all the
transfers have been correctly made.

2. See if the total acres of crops, pastures, woodland, etc.. equals
the total farm area.

3. Examine the yields of the crops per acre to see if they are
reasonable when compared with the normal for the year and
locality. (See next paragraph.)

4. Examine the sales to see if prices and amounts sold are rea-
sonable. If the price is unusual, there should be an explanation
on the field sheet. In general, any unusual item on a field blank
should be accompanied by a note of explanation, to show it is not
merely an error]

. 5. Balancing the live stock. Certain inconsistencies in the live-
stock record may be detected as follows:

Cows. — If the number of cows on hand at the first inventory be
added to the purchases and the sum be subtracted from the sum
of the second inventory plus sales, plus number died, the differ-
ence will show the number of heifers added to the herd during the
year. Suppose this difference is six and that in the first inventory
only four heifers were shown and that one heifer was purchased.
This shows a mistake of at least one either in the number of cows
or in the number of heifers. The number of heifers that became
cows during the year might be zero in such a case, no matter how
many heifers were on hand the first of the year. The point is: If
the number of heifers added to the herd during the year, as deter-
mined from the number of cows, is greater than the total number

of heifers on hand at the beginning of the year plus the number of
heifers purchased, the record must be wrong.

Heifers. — The record of the heifers may be checked with that of
the calves in a similar manner. In checking the record of the cows
we find the number of heifers that became cows during the year.
Add together the number of heifers in the second inventory, the
number sold, the number that died, and the number that became
cows; from this sum subtract the number in the first inventory plus
the number purchased; the difference will be the number of calves
that passed into the heifer class during the year. This number
must not exceed the number of calves at the first inventory plus
the number purchased.

Calves. — To find the number of calves born, add together the
number at the second inventory, the number sold, the number
that died, and the number that passed into the heifer class (deter-
mined in checking the heifer data), and the number that passed
into the steer class, and subtract the number at the first inventory
and the number bought. The number born should be consistent
with the number of cows on hand.

Horses. — In the case of horses, add together the number at the
second inventory, the number sold, and the number that died.
Subtract from this the number at the first inventory plus the num-
ber purchased. The difference, if any, must be made up by colts
passing from the colt class to the horse class during the year. If
this number is greater than the number of colts on hand at the
first inventory plus the number purchased, the record is wrong.

6. See if the amount of stock products sold is consistent with
the number of animals on hand. If the receipts per cow figure
out over $100 each, note whether the cows are high priced. They
should be with such a product. On the other hand, if the receipts
per cow are very low, the cows should be low priced. If the fig-
ures indicate a very high yield of wool per sheep, the price of
sheep should be correspondingly high, and vice versa. If a stal-
lion is shown in the inventory, look for breeding fees in the mis-
cellaneous receipts. If animals died or were butchered, look for
receipts from hides in miscellaneous receipts.

7. Examine the list of current expenses for the following points:
Is the amount of labor, repairs, etc., consistent with the area of
crops, the number of stock kept, etc.? If colts are reported and
no stallion kept, there should be an item for breeding fees in cmr
rent expenses. If the farm has no bull, there should be an item
for breeding fees for calves in current expenses. If the farmer

6

raises grain, but has no drill, binder, etc., there should be an item
for machinery hire. If truck crops or fruit are sold, there should
be an expense for barrels, bags, crates, etc. If the farmer retails
milk, fruit, truck, etc., there should be a relatively large equip-
ment in horses, wagons, etc., and a larger labor bill than on a
similar farm which sells wholesale. If an engine is included in
the list of machinery, there should be items for fuel and oil. If
there is grain to thrash, clover to hull, etc., there should be an
item for fuel and thrashing. If hay is sold, look for baling charges.
An unusually large labor bill might be explained by machine work
done for others or other outside work; also, by the construction of
buildings, of laying tile drains, or building of fences, etc.

If the area of pasture is large and the live-stock inventory shows
few animals on the place, look for receipts from pasture under
miscellaneous receipts.

8. See if the rate of depreciation on buildings is consistent with
the character of the buildings, as judged by their value.

9. Where new buildings or other improvements are constructed
during the year care should be taken to see that the labor used in
their construction is not included in the ordinary labor to perform
the farm work.

10. Feed and supply inventory: The amount of feed on hand at
the first inventory, plus the amount raised and the amount bought,
less the amount on hand at the second inventory, should be con-
sistent with the live stock kept to consume this feed. If there is
no hay or corn in the first inventory, then some must be bought and
should show in expenses. If the feed on hand at the beginning of
the year is small, especially on dairy farms, some must be bought.
If there is relatively a large amount on hand at the first inventory,
the amount bought should be small.

In the case of seed for field crops, such as oats, if the amount for
this year's seeding is included in the first inventory then the
record should not show seed bought for the same crop during the
year; or if it is so included it should not be charged as an expense,
for this would make a double charge for this item. When a record
does account for the item in both the first inventory and the
expenses, the item of expense is usually found to be the amount the
farmer has purchased for the following year's seeding, which item

should be accounted for in the second inventory, otherwise it
makes a double charge. It is usually best to disregard the purchase
item altogether.

The difference between wheat sold, plus wheat on hand at the
second inventory, and the wheat produced, plus wheat on hand at
the first inventory, should be a reasonable amount for seed and
bread.

11. See if the price per acre of real estate is consistent with that
of other farms in the locality.

12. On small farms the estimated value of the farmer's labor, if
very small, would call for big labor expense; but if large, would
call for small labor expense.

13. If a farmer has owned a farm a long time and has considerable
mortgage, this is inconsistent with a high labor income; but a new
farmer with a big mortgage may have a good labor income. If the
farmer bega;n as a laborer, then became a tenant, then an owner,
and now has no mortgage, this is proof he has made good labor
incomes in the past and should do so now if conditions on his farm
are normal.

14. All calculations in a record should be checked to see that
no errors have crept in. Thus, if the original data consisted of
area and total quantity produced, all yields of crops are calculated.
If the original data consisted of area and yield per acre, the total
production is calculated. All these calculations should be checked
to see that they are accurate. All additions and subtractions
should be gone over for the same purpose.

15. Receipts from sources having no relation to the farm busi-
ness should not be included in the farm receipts; but when part of
the labor or equipment belonging strictly to the farm is used
temporarily outside the farm, especially in the case of exchange
labor, the receipts for such use are a part of the business. Equip-
ment used continuously in other business except for short periods
should not be included in the farm business, and when used on
the farm the value for such use should be set down as an expense.

16. Records for individual farms which the comparisons sug-
gested above show to be distinctly in error must either be corrected
by securing more accurate data or they must be discarded. It is
essential that a survey party should transfer the field record of each

8

farm to the office record sheet while the survey is in progress, so
that additional data may be secured from any farm for which the
record is incomplete or inaccurate.

Before commencing the tabulation of survey data the records
should be rechecked by a competent person.

PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS.

Before beginning the tabulation of the data from a farm man-
agement survey it is necessary to make calculations to obtain all
the figures required in the tabulations. These calculations should
be made, and the results recorded on each farm record sheet; or
better, on a factor sheet prepared especially for the purpose. The
calculations usually required for each farm are as follows:

1. Value of real estate per acre.

2. Depreciation, interest, and repairs — total for buildings,
fences, and machinery, per farm and per crop acre.

3. Per cent of capital invested in each of the following factors
of production: Land, dwelling, other buildings, implements and
machinery, live stock, feed and supplies, and cash to run the farm.

4. Working capital, in dollars, and in per cent of total capital.
(The working capital consists of the investment in implements
and machinery, live stock, feed and supplies, and cash to run the
farm.)

5. Working capital per acre of crops. (If the survey is in a
region where pasture land is of prime importance and where the
percentage of pasture land on the different farms varies widely,
the pasture area should be reduced to its equivalent crop area and
added to the crop area, making the crop area equivalent of the farm,
and this calculation should be based on crop area equivalent. See
method of determining crop area equivalent under calculation
No. 55b.)

6. Pasture area percentage. That is, the percentage the pasture
area is of crop and pasture area combined.

7. Percentage of total crop area devoted to each crop.

8. Crop index. This is determined for an individual farm as
follows: Divide the quantity of each field crop produced on the
farm by the average yield of that crop for all the farms in the sur-

9

vey; add the quotients together; divide by the total area of field
crops on the farm in question.

9. Number of animals of each kind. This should be the average
number of each kind of stock on hand at different times during the
year. In the case of cows, horses, flocks of sheep, sows, and poul-
try the average of the first and second inventory is usually suffi-
cient, except when some are raised and sold between dates of
inventories. In the case of feeder steers or sheep the actual num-
ber fed should be given. When calculating the number of animal
units for pigs that are raised and sold during the year, five such
animals are usually considered an animal unit when the value
indicates they had reached some 200 pounds or more per head in
weight. If sold when the weight is much less than 200 pounds,
10 such animals are counted an animal unit.

10. Number of animal units for each kind of stock. An animal
unit is the equivalent, from the standpoint of feed required, of a
full-grown cow or horse. It is customary to count as an animal
unit 2 head of young cattle or colts, 5 hogs, 10 pigs, 7 sheep, 14
lambs, or 100 poultry. In the case of feeder steers and feeder
sheep the number of animal units calculated should be reduced in
proportion to the time on feed as compared with the full year.
Thus, 30 steers on hand six months will equal 15 animal units for
the year.

11. Percentage of animal units of each class. That is, divide
the number of animal units of each class by the total number of
animal units on the farm.

12. Crop area and pasture area per animal unit. First, includ-
ing work horses; second, excluding work horses.

13. Crop area and pasture area per cow. This calculation is
important in dairy regions.

14. Total net receipts from each kind of animals except work
horses.

15. Total net receipts from all kinds of animals except work
horses.

16. Total net receipts per animal unit for each kind of animal
except work horses.

10952—15 2

10

17. Per cent of receipts from each enterprise for which there is
a net plus receipt. (Ignore enterprises having minus incomes, as
these are sources of expenditures, not receipts.)

18. Crop acres per man. (See calculation No. 30 for method of
finding number of men.)

19. Crop acres per workhorse (or mule).

20. Cost of man labor per crop acre. The cost of man labor here
includes the value of hired labor, unpaid family labor, and the
labor of the operator.

21. Monthly wages. To find this, divide the total value of man
labor, as determined in the preceding paragraph, by the total
months of man labor.

22. Number of work horses per man.

23. Value of machinery per crop acre.

24. Cost of dwelling per crop acre.

25. Cost of other buildings per crop acre.

(In surveys including farms on which pasture is very important,
the last three calculations should be made on the basis of crop area
equivalent instead of crop area. (See No. 55-b.))

26. Value of dwelling in terms of net farm income.

27. Value of other buildings in terms of net farm income.

28. Value of all labor other than the farmer's.

29. Value of all labor, including the farmer's.

30. Number of laborers. This is the total months of labor
divided by 12.

31. Productive work units, both man and horse, on crops. (See
Table I.)

32. Productive work units, both man and horse, on live stock.
(See Table I.)

33. Productive work units, both man and horse, miscellaneous.
(See Table I.)

34. Total productive man-work units.

35. Total productive horse-work units.

36. Percentage of productive man- work units on crops.

37. Percentage of productive man- work units on live stock.

38. Percentage of productive man- work units on miscellaneous.

39. Percentage of productive horse-work units on crops.

11

40. Percentage of productive horse- work units on live stock.

41. Percentage of productive horse- work units on miscellaneous.

42. Productive work units per man. This is the total productive
man- work units divided by the number of laborers as determined
in No. 30.

43. Number of productive horse-work units per horse.

44. Wages of operator per productive work unit. This is the
labor income divided by the productive work units per man. It
shows the operator's receipts for each productive work unit done
by him.

45. Labor income per day. This is the labor income divided
by 300, it being assumed that there are 300 work days in a year.

46. Per cent of income on capital, owner farms. First, without
deducting value of owner's labor from farm income; second,
making this deduction.

47. For tenant farms, determine the landlord's percentage of
income on his investment and the tenant's percentage of income
on his investment, if he has any.

48. Total value of feed produced.

49. Total value of feed purchased.

50. Total feed produced and purchased.

51. Total value of feed crops sold.

52. Total value of feed fed. This is the sum of the feed pro-
duced and purchased, and feed on hand at the beginning of the
year, minus feed sold and feed on hand at the end of the year.

53. Value of feed fed per animal unit, including horses.

54. Value of feed purchased per animal unit, including horses.

55. Magnitude of business. A large number of the tabulations
which should be made are intended to bring out the relation of
magnitude of business to other factors. The magnitude of the
farm business may be measured in any one of a number of different
ways, depending upon the character of the farms included in the
tabulations. Several of these measures of magnitude are discussed
in the following paragraphs. The investigator should, after care-
ful consideration of the character of his data, determine which of
these measures will constitute the most accurate measure of magni-
tude of business and at the same time require the least work in

12

calculating, and should then use the measure thus determined
upon unless for some special reason it is desirable to use some other
measure in a particular tabulation. The following paragraphs
state the conditions under which each of these measures may be
used:

a. Size of farm in acres. — The size of the farm in acres may be
used where the type of farming is similar on all the farms, or nearly
all of them, provided the proportion of land occupied by timber
and by land devoted to pasture does not vary widely from farm
to farm. In other words, in a locality where the farms are quite
uniform in character, with about the same proportion of crop land,
pasture land, and timber land, and with similar intensity of live-
stock enterprises, the size of the farm is a satisfactory measure of
the magnitude of the farm business. Where it can be used it is
by far the simplest measure; but there are relatively few areas
where such a measure is accurate.

b. Crop area equivalent.— Where the type of farming is simi-
lar on the different farms but the proportion of pasture land and
of woodland is highly variable, a very accurate measure of magni-
tude of business is the sum of the crop area and the crop area equiva-
lent of the pasture area, which sum we may call the crop area
equivalent of the farm. It is applicable in all cases where the type
of farming is of approximately similar degree of intensity on the
different farms. In order to reduce the pasture area to its equiva-
lent crop area we have the following considerations:

We may assume that 30 pounds of dry hay per day is the daily
ration for a mature animal and that the number of acres of pasture
required to carry one mature animal during the pasture season
will furnish the equivalent of this much hay. Let C represent
the acres of pasture required to furnish this much feed daily. If
the pasture season is 5 months, or 150 days, long it must furnish
during the season the equivalent of 150 times 30 pounds of hay,
which is 2 1 tons. Let T represent the average yield of hay in tons
per acre on the farm in question. We then have C acres of pasture
furnishes the equivalent of 2^ tons of hay; C acres of pasture are

24- 2

equivalent to qr acres of hay; 1 acre of pasture is equivalent to

acres of hay; P acres of pasture are equivalent to -^ acres of hay,

where P is the total acres of pasture on the farm. Thus, to find the
number of acres of hay to which the pasture on the farm is equiva-
lent, multiply the number of acres of pasture by 2\ and divide
the product by the carrying capacity of the pasture (acres per
animal) multiplied by the average yield of hay in tons per acre.

13

Even if it is necessary to estimate roughly the carrying capacity
of the pasture, this measure of magnitude of the farm business will
usually be more accurate than merely the number of acres in the
farm.

c. Days of productive labor.— Unless there is a very great dif-
ference in the type of farming on the different farms to be tabulated ,
the total number of days of productive labor on the farm will be a
fairly accurate measure of the magnitude of the business conducted
on the farm. It is especially accurate where the relation of the
capital invested to the amount of labor required is about the same
on the different farms; but if on some of the farms there is a very
large amount of capital with relatively little labor, as is the case
on live-stock farms devoted largely to pasture, while on other farms
there is an enormous amount of labor with very little invested
capital, as is frequently the case in fruit and truck growing prop-
ositions, this measure of magnitude becomes quite inaccurate.

d. Working capital. — When the type of farming is similar, the
total amount of working capital is a very good measure of magni-
tude of business. The working capital is the sum of the value of
the live stock, machinery and tools, feed and supplies, and cash to
run the farm. Its calculation has already been provided for in
Preliminary calculations, No. 4.

e. Cost of operation. — The most accurate measure of the mag-
nitude of the farm business is the cost of operation for the year.
This consists of interest on capital, wages of the operator, current
expenses, decrease in feed and supplies, and depreciation of build-
ings, fences, and equipment. That this is the most accurate
measure of the magnitude of the business is shown by the fact that
this sum is the greatest amount a farmer can lose in any one year,
aside from the destruction of property by catastrophe. It should
be calculated for every farm if comparisons involving factors de-
pending on magnitude of business are to be made between groups
of farms of distinctly different degrees of intensity. The only case
in which it fails is that of a comparison between different localities
in which the price of real estate differs greatly although the land
is similar in productiveness; but such cases do not ordinarily arise
in a single survey.

56. Measuring the magnitude of individual enterprises. It is
ordinarily assumed that the net receipts from an enterprise consti-
tute a measure of its magnitude. This would be true if the net
receipts from each enterprise were always in proportion to the
expense of operation, but unfortunately this is not always the case.
Not infrequently a large enterprise produces a negative net income
and small ones often do likewise. Since the quantity here under

14

discussion is only to be used in obtaining averages, it will seldom
lead to wrong conclusions if these minus incomes be simply left
out of consideration. (See calculation 17.) The difficulty can be
completely overcome by using the total expense of conducting
the enterprise, including interest on the required capital, as the
measure of magnitude. It will seldom be practicable to do this;
the possible error in the other method is too small to justify the use
of this more laborious one in ordinary cases.

57. Index of diversity. There are several expressions which
may be used for diversity of business. Each of them should be
calculated for use in different tabulations.

a. In localities devoted quite largely to some form of live-stock
farming the percentage of incomes from crops is one way of express-
ing diversity. This percentage should be calculated.

In regions devoted largely to crop farming the percentage of
income from live-stock enterprises is similarly useful, though
farming may be quite diversified on the basis of crops alone, as,
in fact, it may be also on the basis of live stock. In crop-farming
regions it is well to note the percentage of income from live-stock
enterprises.

b. The number of enterprises producing more than 10 per cent
of the farm receipts may also be used as a measure of diversity,
except in cases of extreme diversity. It is possible for a highly
diversified farm to have no enterprises producing as much as 10
per cent of the receipts.

c. In some cases diversity has been measured by giving the num-
ber of enterprises producing given incomes, as $200, $500, $1,000,
etc. This method is objectionable in that it does not distinguish
between size of business and diversity of business. It leads to
wrong conclusions because it attributes to diversity effects due to
magnitude of business. The method should never be used. But
if the income from each enterprise be expressed as a percentage of the
total receipts of the farm this objection disappears. "While it is of
no value in studying the relation of diversity to efficiency in farm-
ing, since the expression for diversity is not a definite figure which
can be used in tabulations, it is a useful method of presenting data
to the farmer in farm management demonstration work. A good
plan in such work is to classify the enterprises into groups producing
1-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-60, and over 60 per cent of the farm
receipts. Two or three enterprises in the four higher groups and
three or four in the two lower indicate a very satisfactory degree of
diversity for most localities.

15

d. It is possible to get a definite figure to represent degree of
diversity by a slight extension of the principle involved in the last
method. When the magnitude of any one enterprise approaches
100 per cent of the magnitude of the farm business the business is
approaching the status of single enterprise farming. Also, when
all the enterprises are equal in magnitude the number of these enter-
prises is a measure of diversity. The highest possible degree of
diversity consists of an indefinitely large number of indefinitely
small enterprises. Then when any enterprise increases in mag-
nitude it tends to reduce the degree of diversity of the business. If
the magnitude of each enterprise be expressed in percentage of the
magnitude of the farm business, and if each magnitude be weighted
according to its distance from zero magnitude, then the sum of these
weighted magnitudes divided into unity will give a definite figure
which is a very accurate measure of diversity, and which is exceed-
ingly useful in studying the effect of actual diversity on the effi-
ciency of the business. Since the magnitude of an enterprise is
also its distance from zero, the weighted magnitudes above men-
tioned are simply the squares of the individual magnitudes. Hence
the following simple rule for calculating the degree of diversity of
the farm business:

Diversity index: First express the magnitude of each enterprise
in percentage of the sum of all these magnitudes;1 square each of
these percentages; find the sum of these squares; then divide unity
by this sum.

All the above calculations are easily made on the slide rule, squar-
ing numbers by means of the slide rule being an especially easy and
rapid process. The percentages should be expressed decimally
and carried to the third decimal place. Thus 15.5 per cent should
be expressed as .155. The squares should be carried to the fourth
decimal place. One decimal place is sufficient for the final result.
Example:

Magnitudes
of the
enterprises.

The same
in
decimals.

Squares.

$1.050
750
25
875
215
45

0.354
.253
.008
.297
.073
.015

0.1253
.0640
.0001
.0882
.0053
.0002

2,960

1.000 -J- .2831=3.5

i If receipts from an enterprise are used as the measure of its magnitude, ignore

16

This figure eliminates every other causal factor than diversity,
and hence may be safely used in tabulations designed to bring out
the effect of diversity on the efficiency of the farm business.

58. Adjusted labor income. In the older settled portions of the
country magnitude of business is perhaps the most important factor
in the success of the farmer. This means that, in the majority of
cases, it has more influence on labor income than any other factor
This being the case, it is difficult to bring out the effect of other
factors unless the number of farm records is sufficiently large to
insure the elimination of the effect of magnitude of business by the
law of averages, or to permit grouping the farms first on magnitude
of business and then subdividing each group on the basis of the
factor to be studied. In any case, the law of averages will not elimi-
nate the effect of magnitude of business if the factor to be studied
itself depends on magnitude of business.1 This difficulty may
be obviated as follows: First group the farms on the basis of magni-
tude of business, making the limits of the groups as small as possible
and still have enough farms (50 to 100 if possible) to give a reliable
average for the labor income in each group; then express the labor
income of each farm in percentage of the average labor income of
its size group. We may call this percentage the "adjusted labor
income." It is a measure of success in farming as affected by fac-
tors other than magnitude of business. Thus if the labor income
of a 50-acre farm is 80 per cent of the average for its group, and that
of a 125-acre farm is 80 per cent of the average for its group, these
two farms are considered to be equally efficient, though the larger
farm may have much the larger labor income.

This adjusted labor income should be calculated for each farm
and recorded on the survey record sheet, or the special factor card
if there is one. It is especially useful in dealing with factors which
are influenced by size of farm. Thus, in studying the relation
between type of tenure and labor income, we are confronted with
the difficulty that in some localities, especially in the Northern

1 The law of averages, which plays so important a part in the study of farm man-
agement survey data, may be briefly stated as follows: In cases where variations
from a normal are just as liable to be plus as minus, the plus and minus variations
will cancel each other if tke number of cases averaged is large.

17

States, tenant farms are usually somewhat larger, on the average,
than owner farms, while share tenant farms are larger than cash
tenant farms. In order to get at the real influence of type of tenure
we must therefore eliminate the effect of size of farm. This may be
done by using the adjusted labor income. If the number of farms
in the survey were large enough the same thing could be accom-
plished by dealing only with farms of approximately the same mag-
nitude of business. Again, the number of productive work units
per man varies with size of farm, at least on small farms. We can
eliminate the influence of size of farm and study directly the effect
of number of work units per man on labor income by using the
adjusted labor income. The proportion of feed bought also depends
on size of farm; but if we use the adjusted labor income instead
of the actual labor income of each farm, we are able to study
the effect on labor income of the percentage of feed bought.
Many other illustrations might be given of the usefulness of this
adjustment.

Even when the factor the influence of which is to be studied has
no relation to size of farm, such, for instance, as the effect ot per-
centage of receipts from dairy products on labor income, we must
depend on the law of averages to eliminate the fluctuations in
labor income due to differences in magnitude of business. If the
number of farms in each group to be averaged is quite large tl..is
will occur, but if the number is not large the elimination may not
occur.

The use of the adjusted labor income in such cases removes this
difficulty and permits! the use of a smaller number of farms in each
group than would otherwise be permissible. That is, it renders
the work more accurate.

It is evident that unless the survey includes several hundred
farms it is not advisable to adjust labor income in this manner,
because there would be too few farmd in each size group to give a
reliable average labor income for each group. But when the ad-
justed labor income has once been obtained, reliable averages can
then be obtained from smaller groups of farms than before, for the
most important fluctuation in labor income has then been elimi-
nated.

10952—16 3

18

TABLE I.— List of productive work units l per acre of the various crops
and per animal unit for the various classes of live t took, for Che ter
County, Pa. The e figures -will vary more or less for different locali-
ties. The figures used should be based on average local practice.

Productive work units per acre of crops: Man. Horse.

Corn for grain 7 6

Corn for silage fi. 5 7

Potatoes 10 9

Tobacco 20 7

Wheat, oats, or other grain, oat hay, millet, peas,

and other forage 2 3

Hay 1 1

Alfalfa (two cuttings) 3 3

Sweet corn ('commercial) 10 9

Truck (commercial) 24 9

Truck (home use) 12 4. 5

Fruit (commercial when sales amount to $25 or

more per acre) 10 5

Fruit (home use) 5 1

Fruit (not bearing) 2. 5 0. 5

Productive work units per head of live stock:

Dairy cows 17 2. 5

Daliy cows (pure bred) 20 2. 5

20 veal calves 20 1

10 heifers and calves • 30 1

10 heifers and calves (pure bred) 40 1

Ibiffl 7

20 steers (for entire year) 30 1

10 colts or horses (not worked) 60 1

100 breeding ewes 50 3

100 other sheep 40 3

10 brood sows 3!i 5

50 other hogs 30 5

100 hens or other poultry 18 2

200 chickens or other poultry (raised) 18 2

i A work unit is an average day's work.

19

Productive work units per $1 of outside labor: Man. Horse.

Outside labor, man and team 0.2 0.4

Outside labor, man only 0. 4

Outside labor, marketing (man and horse) 0. 2$ 0. 2f

PRINCIPLES OF TABULATION.

The interpretation of farm management survey data consists in
the main of the discovery and measurement of causal relations be-
tween the various classes of facts contained in the data. In re-
search work in general such causal relations are studied by pro-
ducing changes in one class of phenomena and observing the
resulting changes in others. In farm management survey data the
variations to be studied are already at hand, the problem being to
arrange the data in such manner as to display the variations of one
factor and then note the variation in others supposed to depend
in some way on it.

A farm management survey record consists of the various items
constituting an analysis of the farm business. It is the interde-
pendence of these various items that is to be studied. The general
problem is to find what relation exists between the magnitude of the
various items and the efficiency of the farming. Farm management
studies have shown that success in farming depends largely on the
following factors: (1) Type of land tenure; (2) type of farming;
(3) magnitude of business; and (4) the various factors of efficiency,
such as yield per acre, income per cow, adequacy and economy of
equipment, diversity of business, productive work units per man
and per horse, etc.

In any particular case the problem is to discover the relation of
the above factors to success in farming under the conditions which
prevail in the locality to which the data relate.

Consideration of a particular case will best serve to show the
principles involved in a study of causal relations. The relation
between s' ze of farm and labor income may be used for this purpose.

Two methods of procedure present themselves. First, we may
arrange the farms in groups according to increasing size of farm
and find the corresponding variations in the average labor income

20

of each group; or, second, we may arrange them in groups according
to ascending labor income and find the corresponding variations
in the average size of farm in each of the labor income groups.
It is highly important that a proper decision be made as to which
of these methods to use. In order to show the difference in the
results obtained by the two methods a number of farms are grouped
in Table II- A according to size of farm, while in Table II-B the
same farms are grouped according to labor income.

TABLE II-A. — Farms grouped by size, and the resulting average labor
incomes determined.

Size groups.

20-40

41-60

'61-80

81-100

101-120

121+

Average labor income

$117

$235

$359

$447

$592

$715

TABLE II-B. — The same farms grouped by labor income, and the
resulting average size of farm determined.

Labor income groups.

•

-$1,000
to
-$501

-$500
to
0

$1
to

$500

$501
to
$1,000

$1,001
to
$1,500

$1,501
to
$2,000

$2,001
up.

Average sizes

114

56

, 56

94

107

120

130

Table II-A shows a gradual and regular increase in labor income
as size of farm increases. Table II-B, indeed, shows some kind of
relation, but the results are plainly distorted by the effect of some
other factor or factors. Evidently the relation sought is more clearly
and simply portrayed in the first tabulation than in the second.
The cause of the difference in results in these two tabulations is at
the bottom of all sound reasoning about farm management, data.
Unless this cause is clearly apprehended serious errors are liable to
occur in interpreting such data.

21

CAUSE OF THE IRREGULARITY IN TABLE H-B.

Labor income is the combined result of all the factors of success
mentioned a few pages back. One of these factors is magnitude
of business, in which the size of the farm is an element. Hence,
in these two tables we are studying the relation between one of the
elements of magnitude of business on the one hand and the com-
bined effect of all the factors of success on the other.

In Table II-A the farms are arranged to display the variations
in size of farm; the last line of the table shows the resulting varia-
tions in labor income. The question arises whether these varia-
tions in labor income are due entirely to variations in size of farm.

We may assume that variation in size of farm causes variations
in labor income, but what has become of the influence on labor
income of tenure, type of farming, and the various factors of effi-
ciency that the variations in the table should be wholly due to size
of farm? Let us study each of these factors separately.

Type of tenure. — Since the type of tenure is more or less related
to size of farm, when a number of farms are grouped on size the
various forms of tenure do not distribute themselves at random in
the various size groups; tenant laborer farms will generally be
found in the groups of smaller farms, share tenant farms in the
groups of larger farms, etc. Now the form of tenure has some effect
on labor income. Hence variations in labor income due to differ-
ence in form of tenure are not eliminated, since they are not alike
in each size group. In Table I I-A this difficulty has been overcome
by using only farms of the same type of tenure. This is, in general,
the way of getting around this particular difficulty. If desired, a
similar study can be made of each type of tenure.

Type of farming. — There is more or less tendency for small
farms to be devoted to the more intensive types of farming and
large farms to the more extensive. Also, the more intensive the
type, the higher the labor income on the average for farms of similar
size. Therefore, unless the farms in each group are similar in
degree of intensiveness, the difference will tend to make the labor
income higher in the groups of small farms and lower in the others.
This difficulty was here overcome by using in both these tables only
farms of approximately the same type. This would not have been

22

necessary if we had been using "cost of operation" instead of "size
of farm."

Factors of efficiency. — Let us first consider yield of crops per
acre. Previous studies have shown that the average yield per acre
of a given crop is just about the same on farms of all sizes. This
being the case, both high yields and low yields will occur with
about the same relative frequency in all the size groups, so that the
average yield will be about the same in each group. Hence the
average labor income in the various size groups will not be affected
by variation in yield. The effect of such variations is canceled by
the law of averages.

Approximately the same is true of all the other factors of effi-
ciency, except in so far as they depend on size of farm, and in the
latter case, what influence they have on labor income is in reality
due to size of farm. Thus it costs more per acre to equip a small
farm than a large one, and this makes the expense of operating a
small farm relatively greater than that of a large one. Hence labor
income is relatively smaller on small farms than on large ones. But
this is just the kind of effects we are trying to measure. Table II-A
thus gives a clear presentation of the effect of size of farm on labor
income.

In Table II-B the farms are classified according to labor income
and averaged on size. Now labor income is the combined effect of
many causes. Let us see if the various causes cancel out in the
averages as did the effects of these causes in the previous table.

As previously stated, variation in intensiveness of farming was
completely eliminated at the outset by considering only farms that
were comparable in type, so that we need not condder thi? factor
further. The same is true of difference in form of tenure.

When the farms were grouped by size, factors of efficiency
(yield, income per cow, etc.) canceled out, because their effects
are proportional to size of farm, and unusual gains and unusual
losses were brought together in the same groups. But in Table
II-B they are thrown into different elapses, because the unusually
large gains, which occur only on large farms, are found in the
groups of large labor incomes, while the unusually large losses,
which are also found only on large farms, are found in the minus

23

labor income groups. They thus have no chance to cancel each
other. In fact the largest minus labor income group is made up
almost wholly of large farms, the average of this group being the
th-rd largest in the series. The irregularity in the size averages of
Table II-B is thus due to the fact that the basis of sorting did not
eliminate all the causes other than the one we were investigating.

It will be noticed that in Table II-A the basis of grouping is
a causal factor, that is, variation in size of farms causes a correspond-
ing variation in average labor income; while in Table II-B the
basis of grouping is a resultant, or effect, in this case of many causal
factors. Grouping on a cause gave a consistent result, because the
effects of other causes could be eliminated, while grouping on an
effect gave a result that is hard to interpret because influences not
under investigation could not be eliminated. This divergence is
the usual result of these two methods of grouping. The beginner
in farm management investigations should never group his farms
on the basis of an effect; the grouping should always be on the
basis of a cause, and the averaging is then done on an effect.

When the relation between a cause and the combined effect of
several causes, including the one in question, is not complicated
by any causal relation of both the cause and the combined effect
to some other causal factor, the variation in the averages of the
various groups of a tabulation will be due entirely to the variations
of the cause under investigation, and the table will display the
true effect of this cause.

If the effect under consideration is not the combined effect of
two or more causes, but is solely the effect of the one cause under
consideration, then it is a matter of no consequence which method
of grouping be used — that of Table II-A or that of Table II-B.
Suppose, for instance, that size of farm were the sole determining
factor in the matter of labor income; in such a case the labor income
of every farm would be directly proportional to its size, and group-
ing on either size of farm or labor income would throw exactly the
same farms into each of the groups. But such simple relations
are seldom found in farm management survey data.

To show how the influence of one causal factor may sometimes
be deduced from the combined effect of this factor and another
which can not be separated from it, let us consider the combined

24

effect of percentage of intertilled crops and number of animal
units per hundred acres of crops on the crop index of a number of
farms, as worked out by Mr. D. A. Brodie, of this office, in his
study of the relation of farm practice to soil fertility.

Table III shows this relation for a group of farms in Chester
County, Pa. A correlation exists here between percentage of
intertilled crops and number of arimal units per hundred acres
of crops, for the reason that the more heavily stocked a farm i* in
this locality, the larger its percentage of corn area. The live-
stock population is thus a causal factor in the percentage area of
intertilled crops.

TABLE III.-

-Influence of area of intertilled crops and animal units
on crop yield in Chester County, Pa.

Average

Number of farms.

Per cent of culti-
vated area in
intertilled crops.

per cent
of area in
intertilled

Animal
units per
100 acres.

Crop
index.

crops.

72

Less than 25....

20 8

37 6

96

58

25-30

27 4

41 2

100

54

30-35

32.7

48 4

105

37

35 and over

41 4

53 4

105

The table shows that as the percentage of intertilled crops in-
creases the crop index increases up to a ceitain point, but beyond
this point there is apparently a falling off. It also shows that the num -
ber of animal units per hundred acres of crops increases regularly
with increase in percentage of tilled crop area. The farms were
here grouped on percentage of intertilled crop area, a resultant
factor so far as number of animal units per given area is co.tc-crnecl;
but no difficulty is thus introduced for the reason that no other
causal relation exists to complicate matters, so that the results are
practically the same as if the number of animal units per hundred
acres of crops had been used as the basis of classification.

If the number of animals per hundred acres of crops did not con-
tinue proportional to percentage of tilled crop area this table would
offer no conclusive evidence as to the action of either of these two

25

causes separately; but as it is the results appear to be significant.
We may assume that the crop index would increase as the amount
of manure used increases within very wide limits if no disturbing
factor enters. But in this case the maximum yield appears to be
reached at a certain point, although the amount of manure used
still increases beyond that point.

It is known that summer tillage has some tendency to promote
oxidation of organic matter in the soil, and thus to destroy humus
and set free nitrates in the soil. The oftener the land is put into
a tilled crop the greater this influence should be. Finally we reach
a point where oxidation is so rapid as to reduce the amount of
organic matter in the soil more rapidly than it is being added, in
spite of the fact that more organic matter is added than before, and
the crop index thus begins to fall. Unfortunately the variation in
percentage of intertilled crops stops just at the point where it would
be most interesting to know what the next few terms of the series
would be. However, we may tentatively conclude that when the
percentage of intertilled land increases beyond about 37 per cent
in the locality in question the tillage tends to lower the crop index,
while up to that point its influence is not deducible from these data
because whatever influence tillage exerts is complicated by the
influence of intensity of stocking. Presumably the two influences
are similar up to 37 per cent of tilled crop area.

Fortunately, a survey of farms on the black prairie lands of
Illinois supplies the missing terms of the series of crop index aver-
ages in Table III. The data for the Illinois farms are given in
Table IV.

TABLE IV. — Influence of area of intertilled crops and animal units
on crop yield in Marshall silt loom — Illinois.

Number of farms.

Per cent of culti-
vated area in corn.

Average
per cent.

Animal
units per
100 acres.

Crop
index.

75...

Less than 37.5 . .

28.4

19.3

102

72

82..

37.6-48.9
49-59 9

43.3
53 9

18.1
17 7

103
100

74

60 and over .

73.6

15.8

93

26

The small size of the Pennsylvania farms makes rather intensive
farming necessary there, so that the large herds of dairy cows kept
must be fed mainly from field crops. As corn produces more feed
per acre than any other crop commonly grown in that region, the
acreage of corn increases as the live stock increase in numbers. In
the Illinois locality, on the other hand, the area of corn increases
as live stock decrease in numbers, the corn being grown for sale.
It is also important to notice that the variation in intensity of
stocking is very slight in Illinois in the groups based on tilled crop
area, so that difference in the amount of manure available has less
influence here than in Table III. In the first two columns of
Table IV we find the crop index increasing and the intensity of
stocking slightly on the decrease as the tilled crop area increases.
Beyond a point between 28.4 and 43.3 per cent of tilled area both
decrease as tilled crop area increases. In this case the influence
of tillage seems to be more important than that of the animals kept
for the crop index increases in spite of decreasing live stock up to
the point at which we may assume that tillage becomes excessive,
beyond which humus appears to be burned up too fast and the crop
index falls off.

Apparently in both these tables the optimum percentage of in-
tertilled crops is about the same, and is in the vicinity of 35 to 40
per cent.

In the above illustration we are able to evaluate the factor of
tillage although its results are mixed up with the results of varia-
tion in the amount of available manure, for the reasons (1) that the
effect of the manure is known in advance and can thus be dis-
counted; (2) the effect of the two factors is not the same through-
out the series of averages. The same result could be arrived at
by comparing only farms with the same intensity of stocking, but
on account of the relation between number of animals and area of
corn it would require a very large number of farms to render this
possible.

Recapitulation. — In studying the relation between two factors,
the variation of one of which is supposed to be a direct cause of
variations in the other, the farms should always be grouped on the
basis of the causal factor and each group averaged on the basis of
the resultant factor. If each of two factors bears a causal relation

27

to a given resultant, while at the same time one of them bears a
causal relation to the other, unless the effect of one of them is
entirely known it is necessary to devise some means of eliminating
the effect of one of them before the effect of the other can be deter-
mined. When the number of farms is sufficiently large the effect
of one of two related causal factors may sometimes be eliminated
by limiting the investigation to farms on which there is little or
no variation in that factor. Thus, in studying the relation of size
of farm to labor income, the confusing influence of size of farm on
intensity of the type of farming may be eliminated by confining
the study to types of farming comparable in intensiveness.

CLASSIFICATION BY TENURE.

Before undertaking comparative studies of a group of farms they
must be separated into classes in which all farms in each class are
comparable. The first separation should be based on tenure, and
may include the following classes:

1. Plantations (to be considered elsewhere).

2. Manager farms; those operated by a hired manager.

3. Working owner farms; those operated by owners who take
the part of a working manager without salary.

4. Nonworking owner farms; those operated by owners who direct
but take no part in the work of the farm.

5. Owner and landlord farms; those, part of which is operated by
the owner, the remainder being rented out.

6. Owner and tenant farms; those operated as in (3), but of which
the operator owns only part of the land, holding the remainder
as a tenant.

7. Cash tenant farms; farms rented for cash and operated by
the tenant as a working manager without salary, the working
capital being furnished by the tenant.

8. Share tenant farms; those operated as in (7), but with rent
consisting of a share of the proceeds.

9. Tenant laborer (or cropper) farms; tenant farms on which the
tenant furnishes little or none of the working capital.

10. Combined tenant farms; two or more farms operated by one
tenant, but rented from different landlords, or on a different basis.

28

The above list is only suggestive. Various modifications of
these classes occur. The classification used should conform to
the facts concerning the farms to be classified.

In certain kinds of tabulation all the foregoing classes, with the
exception of plantations, may be disregarded if each farm is first
reduced to the basis of class 3. This may be done as follows:

Class 2. Manager farms. Deduct from expenses, and add to
farm income and labor income, the salary of the manager. This
applies whether the manager takes part in the farm work or merely
directs it.

Class 4. Networking owner farms. Deduct from expenses, and
add to farm income and labor income, the wages of one man for
the part of the year when hired labor is employed.

Class 5. Owner and landlord farms. Eliminate from the invest-
ment the portion of the farm rented out, and eliminate from the
records all items relating to this portion of the farm. This includes
a proportionate share of taxes and other general farm expenses in
which the land rented out should share and all receipts from and
expenses for this part of the farm.

Classes 6-10. Tenant farms of all kinds. Consider landlord and
tenant as one person, and eliminate all transactions between them.

The above reductions are necessary only in tabulations that
involve items that would be changed in making the reduction.

TABULATIONS SUGGESTED.

The following list of tabulations is suggested as a means of bring-
ing out the relations between the various elements of farm manage-
ment survey data and of showing the application of farm manage-
ment principles to the agriculture of the locality in which the
survey is made. The list is merely suggestive; in many cases some
of the tables will give no significant result, and often other tabu-
lations will be required.

In addition to the averages noted in the list of tabulations which
follow (right-hand column), each tabulation should show:

A. The number of farms in each group (and also in each sub-
group if the main groups are further subdivided).

29

B. Where the basis of grouping is quantitative (as crop area,
number of animal units, etc.) and not qualitative (as types of
tenure, type of farming, etc.), the average of each group (and sub-
group if any) for the basis of grouping should be given. Thus, if
the farms are divided into groups based on number of animal units
per 100 acres of crop, the average number of animal units per 100
acres of crops in each group should be given.

C. A summary of all the columns or lines, as the case may be
(both columns and lines if each group is divided into subgroups).

In dividing farms into groups on the basis of a quantitative
factor, as crop area, percentage of income from poultry, etc., where
possible make the size limits of the various groups such as to give
a sufficient number of farms in each group to give a reliable average,
at least in most of the groups (all groups if practicable to do so).

When the farms have been sorted on any factor, the calculations
should be made for all the tables requiring this same sorting. The
various groupings to be made, with the numbers of the tabulations
(see pp. 30 to 40) required in each, are as follows:

1. Tabulations requiring no sorting into groups: V,1 XIII,1
XXXI, LXXI, LXXIII, LXXIV, LXXV.

2. Types of tenure: I, III, IV, VI, VII, XIV, XX, XXI, XXIII,
XXIV, LXI, LXVII, LXIX.

3. Size of farm: II.

4. Crop area equivalent: VIII, IX, XV, XXII, XXV, XXVI,
XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL, XLI, XLII,
XLV, XLVI, XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, LVI, LXII, LXVIII.

5. Types of farming: X, XI, XVII, XVIII, XXXII, XXXIV,
L, LI, LII, LIII, LXVI, LXX.

6. Percentage of crop area devoted to each crop: XII, XXVII.

7. Percentage of animal units of each kind: XIX.

8. Percentage of receipts from each source: XXVIII.

9. Types of dairying — exclusive: XXIX.

10. Types of dairying — inclusive: XXX.

11. Crop acres per animal unit: XXXIII.

1 Tabulations V and XIII may be made by summarizing the results of other
tabulations, as noted later.

30

12. Magnitude of business: XXXV.

13. Productive work units per man: XLIII, LX.

14. Crop area per farm: XLIV.

15. Animal units per 100 acres of crops: XVI, LIV, LXXII.

16. Percentage of intertilled crops: LV.

17. Crop index: LVII, LIX.

18. Income per cow: LVIII.

19. Diversity index: LXIII.

20. Percentage of receipts from crops: LXIV.

21. Rotations followed: LXV.

Tabulations designed to bring out the significant relations in farm
management survey data.

Tabula-
tion No.

Basis of grouping.

Basis of averages.

PRELIMINARY
TABULATIONS.

I

II

Types of tenure...
Size of farms

Size of farms, tillable area, crop
area, tillable pasture area,
other pasture area, woodland,
waste land, value of real estate
per acre, per cent of crop and
pasture area in pasture.
Same as in Table I.

III
IV

Types of tenure...
do

Labor income and adjusted la-
bor income of farm as a whole;
of tenant; per cent over $1,000.
(For farm as a whole, reduce
to basis of working owner.)
Owner farms; per cent of in-
come on investment (see cal-
culation 46. p. 11). Tenant
farms; landlord's per cent in-
come on investment; tenant's
per cent income on invest-
ment. (See calculation 47.
P. ID

31

Tabulations designed to bring out the significant relations inform
management survey data — Continued.

Tabula-
tion No.

Basis of grouping.

Basis of averages.

TYPES OF FARM- ,

V

Farms of all sizes

Per cent of total crop area de-

ING.

and tenures; no
division into
groups.

voted to each crop. This may
be obtained by summarizing
Table VI or Table VII. Simi-

lar data from recent censuses

to show whether the survey

data is representative of the

country as a whole and

whether each crop is gaming

or losing in importance or

merely holding its own.

VI

Types of tenure...

Acres of each crop and of pas-

ture; per farm reporting and

per farm, all farms.

VII

do

Percentage of crop area devoted

to each crop, per farm report-
ing, per farm, all farms. Per-

VIII

Magnitude of busi-

centage pasture area is of crop
and pasture area.
Same as in VI.

ness.

IX

.... do

Same as in VII.

X

Types of farming,

Acres of each crop per farm.

if there are
marked differ-

ences in type.

XI

.... do

Percentage of crop area devoted

to each crop.

XII

Percentage of crop

Number of farms in each per-

area devoted to

centage group. This may also

each crop. Re-

be displayed in a dot chart,

group for each

each dot representing the per-

crop and devote

centage of area devoted to a

one line of table

particular crop on one farm.

to each crop.
Make percentage
classes of suit-
able size to dis-

This table (or chart) shows the
variations in percentage area
of each crop. It may be con-
fined to only one or two lead-

play true char-

ing types of tenure. Sum-

acter of varia-

mary columns should be given

tion in percent-

showing number of farms hav-

age area of each
crop. Unimpor-

ing 1-100, 20-100, and 40-100
per cent of their area devoted

tant crops re-

to each crop.

quire small per-
centage classes.

32

Tabulations designed to bring out the significant relations in farm
management survey data — Continued.

Tabula-
tion No.

Basis of grouping.

Basis of averages.

TYPES OF FARM-
ING— COntd.

Live stock . . .

XIII

XIV
XV

XVI

Farms of all sizes
and tenures; no
division into
groups.

Types of tenure . . .

Magnitude of busi-
ness.

Animal units per
100 acres of crops

Number of animals of each class
per farm; same reduced to
animal units; the latter re-
duced to percentage of total
animal units per farm; similar
census data (number of ani-
mals only) from several recent
censuses; may be obtained by
summarizing Table XIV.
Same as first three columns of
XIII.
Percentage of animal units for
each kind of animal; this may
also be shown by dot chart.
(See XII.)
Percentage area of each crop;
also percentage of crop and

XVII
XVIII

Type of farming,
if of importance.
do ...

pasture area in pasture.
Number of animals of each kind
per farm.
Percentage of animal units of

XIX

XX
XXI

Percentage of ani-
mal units of each
kind in total per
farm. (See XII.)
Types of tenure...

do

each kind per farm
Number of farms in each per-
centage group.

Crop acres and pasture acres per
animal unit.
Crop acres and pasture acres per

XXII

XXIII
XXIV

Magnitude of busi-
ness.

Types of tenure...
do

dairy cow.
Number of animal units of each
kind per 100 acres of crops per
farm.
Actual income from each enter-
prise per farm.
Percentage of income from each

Sources of in-
come.

XXV
XXVI

Magnitude of busi-
ness.

do

enterprise (and census data).
Same as XXIII. May tabulate
each tenure separately or alt
together or only leading ten-
ure. Graph for all sizes.
Same as XXIV. (See note on

i XXVII

Percentage of crop
area devoted to
corn. (Use only
farms of com-
parable types of
farming.)

tenure under XXV.)
Labor income and adjusted la-
bor income. If different ten-
ures are used, reduce to bases
of working owners.

i Prepare tables like XXVII for each crop, and like XXVIII for each source of
income.

33

Tabulations designed to bring out the significant relations in farm
management survey data — Continued.

Tabula-
tion No.

Basis of grouping.

Basis of averages.

TYPES OF FABM-

iXXVIII

Percentage of re-

Same as XXVII.

ING — contd.

ceipts from sale

of corn. (See

XXVII.)

XXIX

Types of dairy ing,
each group to
consist only of

Size of farm; distance to mar-
ket point; number of cows;
labor income and adjusted

farms selling
only the one one

labor income. Percentage of
total dairy farms in each

XXX

dairy product.
Types of dairying,

group.
Same as in last. (In this table

each group to
consist of all

the per cents will usually add
up over 100 because some

farms selling a

farms occur in 2 or more

given product.
This wffl throw

groups.)

some farms into

more than one

class.

XXXI

List of enterprises, with conditions favorable and un-
favorable to each. (See Table XXV, Dept. Bui. 341.)

Sources of income

XXXII

Type of farming.
(Use only farms

Size of farm.

of same tenure

„ in one table. If

S6v6r3>l tortures
are important,

tabulate each

separately.)

xxxni

Crop acres per
animal unit (all

Percentage of productive work
units on crops.

kinds together).

Subdivide each

group on basis

of percentage of

dairy cows in

total animal

units. Run pri-

mary groups at

left margin; sec-

ondary as col-

umn headings.

XXXIV

Type of farming...

Same as XXXIII.

i Prepare tables like XXVII for each crop, and like XXVIII for each source of
income.

34

Tabulations designed to bring out the significant relations in farm
management survey data — Continued.

Tabula-
tion No.

Basis of grouping.

Basis of averages.

MAGNITUDE OF
BUSINESS.

XXXV

Magnitude of bus-
iness.

Labor income. (If different
tenures are combined, reduce

all to basis of working own-

(See Prelim-
inary calcula-

ers.) Graph— Magnitude as
horizontal measure, labor in-

lation No. 55.)

come vertical measure; this

graph is a line or curve, rising
as magnitude increases. (See

•

fig. 4, Dept. Bui. No. 41.)

Graph— Showing labor income

of each farm, the farms ar-

ranged in order according to

magnitude of business. (See

XXXVI

.... do

fig. 9, Dept. Bui. 341.)
Productive man work units;

crop acres per man; same per

work horse; cost of total man

labor per crop acre; monthly

wages; work horses per man;

value of machinery per crop

acre.

XXXVII

Magnitude of bus-

Two columns for each tenure;

iness. Subdi-

one for cost of dwelling and

vided by tenure.

the other for cost of other farm

buildings.

xxxvm

Magnitude of bus-
iness; using only

Same as XXXVII, expressing
cost in terms of farm income.

XXXIX

working owners.
Magnitude of bus-
iness; using only

Same as XXXVII, expressing
cost in terms of tenants' farm

cash tenants.

income.

XL

Magnitude of bus-

Do.

iness; using only

share tenants

with working

capital.

XLI

Magnitude of bus-

Do.

iness; using only

tenant laborers

(croppers).

XLII

Magnitude of bus-
iness.

Cost of depreciation, interest,
and repairs on buildings,

fences, and machinery; totals

XLIII

Number of pro-

per farm and per crop acre.
Labor income. Graph for same.

ductive work

(See XXV.)

units (man) per

farm.

XLIV

Crop area per farm.

Give percentage of farms in each
size group (based on crop area)
owning each of principal items
of field machinery. Use list

of items as left margin; crop

area groups as column head-
ings.

35

Tabulations designed to bring out the significant relations in farm
management survey data — Continued.

Tabula-
tion No.

Basis of grouping.

Basis of averages.

MAGNITUDE OF

BUSINESS— con.

XLV

Magnitude of busi-
aess. (Use work-
ing owner farms,
or other leading

Capital, in dollars; percentage of
capital invested in land, dwell-
ing, other buildings, imple-
ments and machinery, live

tenure, as basis

stoc>c, feed, and supplies, and

of grouping oa
size. Other ten-

cash to run the farm: percent-
age of working capital; work-

ures may be
added without

iag capital per acre of crop
area equivalent.

grouping on

size).

XLVI

Magnitude of busi

Percentage of income on land-

ness (cash ten-

lord's capital.

ants only).

XLVII

Magnitude of busi-

Do.

ness; using share

tenants with

XLVIII

working capital.
Magnitude of busi-

Do.

ness; using ten-

ant laoorers

XLIX

Magritude of busi-

Percentage of farms of each

ness.

tenure in each size group.

L

Type of farming,

Labor income. This tabulation

subdivided on
magnitude of

is not feasible unless large num-
bers of farms are available.

business.

With smaller numbers, omit

the subdivisions on size and

use labor income adjusted for

magnitude of business.

LI

do...

Total capital.

LII

...do....

Working capital per acre.

LIII

.... do.. .

Total labor.

QUALITY OF BUSI-
NESS.

LIV

Intensity of stock-
ing (animal units

Crop index; yield per acre of
each crop.

per 100 acres of

crops. If per-

centage of pas-

ture area is

highly variable,

use crop area

equivalent).

LV

Percentage of inter-

Do.

tilled crops.

LVI

Magnitude of busi-

Do.

LVII

ness.
Crop index ....

Labor income. (Use adjusted

labor income If number of

farms is small.)

LVIII

Income per cow...

Do.

36

Tabulations designed to bring out the significant relations in farm
management survey data — Continued.

Tabula-
tion No.

Basis of grouping.

Basis of averages.

QUALITY OF BUSI-

LIX

Crop index; subdi-

Labor income. (Use adjusted

NESS— contd.

vide on income

labor incomes if number of

LX

per cow.
Productive work

farms is small.)
Size of farm; productive work

units per man.

units per horse; labor income;

adjusted labor income; re-

ceipts per cow; wages of opera-
tor per day (labor income di-

vided by productive work

units per man); labor income

per day for 300-day year (la-
bor income divided by 300).

LXI

Types of tenure...

Yield per acre, each crop; crop

index.

FABM ORGANIZA-

LXH

Magnitude of bus-

Diversity index.

TION.

iness.

LXIII

Diversity index...

Labor income; adjusted labor

income.

LXIV

Percentage of re-

Do.

LXV

ceipts from crops.
Tabulate the princ

ipal rotations, record number of

farms using each, average size of these farms, and

numbers of animal units of each kind per 100 acres

of crops.

LXVI

Types of farming. . Percentage of receipts required
for operating expenses.

LXVII

Types of tenure ... Do.

Lxvni

Magnitude of bus- Percentage of expenses for each

iness. item of expense.

LXIX

Types of tenure...; Do.

LXX
LXXI

Types of farming. . < Do.
Cost of feed per animal unit and income per animal
unit other than v ork horses. (See Table V,

attached, for illustration.)

LXXII

Value of manure per animal unit. (See Table

VI, attached, for illustration.)

LXXIII

Acres of feedable crops and of pasture per animal

unit. (See Table VII, attached, for illustration.

LXXIV

Rate of depreciation of dairy cows. (See Table

VIII, attached, for illustration.)

LXXV

Rate of depreciation of farm work horses. (See

Table IX, attached, for illustration.)

37

MODELS FOR TABULATIONS LXXI TO LXXV.

TABLE V (Tabulation LXXI). — Feed cost per animal unit on 378
farms operated by owners; Chester County, Pa.

'

.

Amount
raised.

Amount
sold.

Amount
con-
sumed.

Trice.

Value
of feed
con-
sumed.

. „

Corn for grain and other

Bushels.
265, 313

Bushels.

25. 788

Bushels.
239, 525

Bushel.
$0.75

$179,644

Silage

Tons.

6,678

Tons.

Tons.

6,678

Ton.
4.00

26, 712

Hay

12, 481

5,642

6,839

18.00

123 102

Oats . .

Bushels.
54,360

Bushels.
2, 725

Bushels.
51,635

Bushel.
0.50

25. 818

Rye

224

52

172

.80

138

Barley

229

229

.75

172

Oats and speltz

160

160

.60

96

Straw 1

Tons.
5,000

Tons.
900

Tons.
4,100

Ton.
4.00

16.400

Stover1

6,000

fi,OJOO

5.00

30,OOC

I

i Yield estimated.

Total value of farm feed 5402, 082. 00

Increase in inventory value 36, 061. 00

Total value of farm feed consumed 366/021. 00

Total value of farm feed consumed per animal unit 49. 79

Value of feed purchased. ....... .'. . . . . . . . . 74, 304. 00

Value of feed purchased per animal unit 10. 11

Total feed cost i........ ; 440, 325. 00

Total feed cost per animal unit. .' 59. 90

38

TABLE VI (Tabulation LXXII). — Value of manure per animal unit
determined by comparing two groups of Chester County, Pa.,
farms.

{The first group contains 94 farms (one-fourth of entire number) having the least
number of animal units per 100 acres of crops (average, 20.36). The second group
includes 94 farms having the highest number of animal units per 100 acres of crops
(average, 56.85). Difference, 36.49 animal units— 378 owner farms, Chester
County, Pa.]

Crops.

Corn.

Potatoes.

Wheat.

Oats.

Hay.

Acres per 100 acres of crops *•
Average yield per acre (bushels or
tons):
Lowest group 94 farms

23.00
59 98

6.21
7Q ig

18.8
23 90

6.6
37 86

45.4
1 22

Highest group, 94 farms

71.83

83 09

25.56

43 67

1.55

Increase in yield per acre (bushels or
tons)

11.85

3.91

1.66

5.81

.33

Increase in production per 100 acres
of crops (bushels or tons).

272 55

24.24

31.21

38.35

14.98

Prices !

$0 80

$1 04

$0 92

$0 55

$22 12

Value of increased production per
100 acres of crops

$218 04

$25 21

$28 71

$21 09

$331 36

* Areas and prices are the averages for the entire 378 farms operated by their
owners. These are used hi order to eliminate factors other than the quantity of
manure available. The crop areas given here are per 100 acres of the five crops men-
tioned.

Total of last line 624.41

Excess of fertilizer used by second group, per 100 acres of all crops 48. 00

Increase due to 36.49 animal units 576. 41

Increase due to one animal unit . 15. 80

39

TABLE VII (Tabulation LXIII).— Acres of feedable crops and
pasture per animal unit — 378 owner farms, Chester County, Pa.

Acreage of farms.

40 or
less.

41-60

61-80

81-100

101-120

121-160

Over
160.

All
farms.

Number of farms
Number of animal
units per farm

Corn for grain

54

7.6

61
12.5

60
16.6

68
20.2

52
24.4

61
26.7

22
41.8

378
19.4

Per animal unit.

I 0.60

.13

.99

0.59

.14
1.05

0.60

.18
1.22

0.62

.20
1.26

0.63

.17
1.15

0.62

.19
1.40

0.68

.22
1.26

0.62

.18
1.23

Corn for silage

Other corn

Oats and other
grains for feed

A.U hay

Total feed crops.
Pasture1

1.72

.38

1.78
1.08

2.00
1.10

2.08
1.08

1.95
1.23

2.21
1.27

2.16
1.41

2.03
1.18

Grand total
Value of farm feeds
sold

2.60
$13.43
12.75

2.86
$15.37
8.85

3.10
$20.55
9.61

3.16
$20. 80
9.36

3.18
$17. 94
11.10

3.48
$25.41
8.34

3.57
$30.25
13.37

3.21
$21.08
10.11

Value of feed pur-
chased.. .

1 Does not include work horses.

40

TABLE VIII (Tabulation LXXIV). — Showing depreciation of dairy
cows — 378 farms operated by owners, Pennsylvania.

Number.

Value
per head.

Total
value.

First Inventory

4 196

$56 10

$235 400

Cows purchased

589

63.84

37' 605

Cows raised ....

345

63 84

22 025

Total

295 030

Second inventory

4 164

57.01

237 430

Cows sold and slaughtered

895

37 36

33 437

Total

270 867

Difference

24 163

Increase at end of year in value

.91

3 789

Total loss

27 952

Average investment

236' 415

Kate of depreciation per cent

11 82

TABLE IX (Tabulation LXXV). — Showing depreciation of horses—.
378 farms operated by owners, Chester County, Pa.

Number.

Value
per head.

Total
value.

Value at first inventory ....

1 369

$135 98

$186 183

Value of horses purchased

103

157. 36

16 208

Value of horses raised

8

157. 36

1 259

Total

203 650

Value at second inventory

1 367

138. 95

189 947

Value of horses sold

64

128 02

8 193

Total

198 140

Loss

5 510

Increase in price during year

2.97

4 060

Total loss

9 570

Average investment

188 065

Rate of depreciation per cent. .

5.09

o