| Show Farm Accounting I I f Pr tI I t tI I Project Reveals I Interesting Data I During the Sear scar car 1933 1913 farm farm- farmers farmers ers era in the state of Utah kept acI accounts accounts ac- ac I I counts of their farm businesses in cooperation with the state agricultural I tural college extension service lee At Atthe Atthe Atthe I the end of the year ear the account books were ere summarized and anal analyzed I zed d by the department of oC agricultural agricultural tural economics The primary pur pur- purI purpose pur- pur purpose purpose pose of this work was wag t tr tr- obtaIn I measures of farm profits and to disclose the factors of farm or orI organization and management that are associated with farm profits I states W Preston Thomas e erten ten awn economist ho v was in charge of the survey Labor income is the chief meas meas- measure meas- meas measure measure ure of farm profits that was used Labor income is the payment to the farm operator for this years year's work as laborer and manager on his farm It is calculated by sub r from the total farm in 10 income income come all firm farm expenses c e pences including the value salue of all family labor ex- ex except ex except the farm and inter Inter- Interest interest interest est on the c capital invested In addi addi- addi addition addition tion hon to the libor income the farm farmer farmer farmer er has faint faim which In dude a house to use live 11 e in and farm arm I produce for family living Further Furthermore more mOle the family has the interest t ton on their equity equit in m the fairs faim and the value of the unpaid family labor laborThe The C labor income of or the 1929 farmers whose hose farm account books were summarized was wis s I This is rather ther a small age wage for a ayears years year's labor and management However How However ev ever r there were ere some farmers who ho did ld considerably better Letter than the average One third of the farmers who had the highest labor Incomes a as ts a wage for tor then labor and management gement But the theone theone theone one third who had the lowest labor incomes lacked of having ant ant- any anything thing in m return for their labor and management Not only did the most profitable group of farms havo higher crop yields but they had more cash sh crops such as sugar beets and to The average a crop sales from the most profitable farms was 1323 compared to from I the least profitable farms j I Another difference in m the tv two 0 g groups routs P of firms farms was the effIciency with uth which la h libor hor or was as used The operators of them most farms worked oreel l man work days of 01 2710 bouts houis c luring the year scar ear operators of the he least pi profitable farms wort or ed cd man work ork dl days 3 or 2450 hours horns l With labor m km up a t Jle eal le part of farm expenses expense and with its being e ca pensive c I pensIVe 1 relative to the price of faun products It it t I ik ib very sery er important that it be used efficiently The size si sl e of t ese ece two groups of farm farms whether measured in terms term of crop acres Cles or capital invested was not greatly different The most profitable farms had an of acres of bf of which 72 acres were ere cropped The total farm arm m in investment investment vestment was wag The lc least st profitable had an average elage of IG I acres of which 67 were cropp cropped cropped ed The total farm Jm investment estment for this group croup roup of farms was With the pricey prices of farm faim products the loss 10 lowest est they hive have been 3 37 s eal cats c It is a signal a accomplishment fot fOI fOIa fota foia a group of hi farm mil is s to so 01 organize an their fal farms ms that they made 94 for elt t their efforts TIns This I re particularly true because e th tha things that the farmer must bu buy ate ale elv hl hi high h and moreo cr a considerable pat pait of his c expenses are fixed such cuch as s t taxes taxes- x depreciation of and ma and ance Only b by the I application of the Most effIcIent farm practices and farm manage management management management I ment methods was was it possible fot fOI an any farmer to make a profit I To each fainter fauner f aimer cooperator Sias as returned a summary ry and ind anal l I I of his farm buss business es together w with h I measures of his efficiency This was as accompanied by conic I with the average n of all farms th the most profitable and ind the least leist pro profitable profitable farms ItIS It IS ik is hoped that from this analysis net hi-net can I find the weaknesses ses es of his farm business and Cl ca cirt thus tims tl us hrie hl to e a it st says ays JM 1 Thomis Thomac I |
