Title: Report of a farm management survey of 36 farms, Washington County, 1935
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094999/00001
 Material Information
Title: Report of a farm management survey of 36 farms, Washington County, 1935
Physical Description: 11 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Brumley, Frank Warner
Reitz, J. Wayne ( Julius Wayne )
University of Florida -- Agricultural Extension Service
University of Florida -- Agricultural Economics Dept
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture
Donor: unknown ( endowment ) ( endowment )
Publisher: Agricultural Extension Service, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1936
Copyright Date: 1936
 Subjects
Subject: Farm management -- Florida -- Washington County   ( lcsh )
Agricultural surveys -- Florida -- Washington County   ( lcsh )
Genre: statistics   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: At head of title: Cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics (Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914)
General Note: "July, 1936."
General Note: "Agricultural Economics Department, Agricultural Extension Service, University of Florida cooperating with the Extension Service and Agricultural Adjustment Administration, U.S.D. A."
Statement of Responsibility: by Frank W. Brumley and J. Wayne Reitz.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00094999
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 434476915

Full Text

/p/


July, 1936.


Gainesville, Fla.


COOPERATIVE
AGRICULTURE
(Aots of May


EXTENSION WORK IN
AND HOME ECONOMICS
8 and June 30, 1914)


AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
FLORIDA STATE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN
AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, COOPERATING
WILMON NEWELL, Director


REPORT OF A
OF 36 ARMS,


FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY
WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1935.


by

FRANK W, BRUMLEY
ard
J. WAYNE REITZ


AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
COOPERATING WITH THE EXTENSION SERVICE AND
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION, U. S. D. A,


JWI/d5- Ex
7/24/36 lO







REPORT OF A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF
36 FARMS, WASHINGTS*- COUNTY, 1935


In order to obtain muoh needed inforaatjta for both farmers and others
interested in agriculture, 36 Washington County farms located in the northeastern
part of the county were visited early in 1936 for the purpose of securing survey
record .:0f faim bsJineeeos,. for the orop year: 19366.

.twe ieorA4f which jwaret obbaned by trainetr uarators -eptd-aed ala iss
ftpactpoao all. rois; apd emsaeea, ftrx jivvAtor*oeas%,rop nsd liateboek :.
produfcioma rapq4e* and peter pf'or at .p*tia'y to the atudy'.fD a& Mul arm tisia
In ibtaii ag. the data eh farm.was .visited ad he-. farmer provided tiheq infort-n :
a&top either from available records or by sa, *reftil olassifieatiaon tf thearaous
items from memory. : -

The objp4- of, this worleaisT to .obtain faoats on tha busp.inessa aorgaisation ,
and operation of the farm and to determine some of the factors related to farm
profi- ts Tr I ~pl'e-rbrrienu .f.ll.i.ffi ifTH "s id; ..


Uvss OF UAND


Records werp seoured. from three types :o_ farm operators, first, those:
owning all land, second, those renting additional land, and third, those renting
the entire.fyarmni. The average number of acrsu per fair was 129 with the largest
farms operated by the owner class. (Table 1)

TABLE 1 USE OF LAND, 36 FAIMS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1935.
A. ; . : .. .,
Average -resPefarm percent of Total
S*. 7. 29 Owner .,. Part 4 .RenteF- 29 Owner S Part 4 R&-nte
Farms Owner Farms Farms Owner Farms


Total Aoro of, Crops ,- 68 65 '65 50*.28 .552:. 68:6
Aorfi,dqupulle dropped 5 4 2.4 .58 '4.5
Aores 'Lnd Gropped 50 61 488., 0.4 : 5
Rested & Idle Land 17 3 12 -2.6-. &.0 12.1
Pasture not Tillable -
Woods Fenced for Pasture 19 8 2 13.9 7.8 2.5
Woods not Fenced 22 22 8 16.0 22.3 7.8
Farmstoad, Roads & Was~ : 6 '. 7 -. 8,7 .6.5 16.9

Total Acres Operated 156 99 100 100.0 100.0 100.0



; -prp imately, one. L, p. the land *.es ins.ooprs n .ie Np.ne .pAr' r
fal. ,,ix3 .3 the .:eta, qg popped;460.: periat T. -h re. as vey .litle doab l oropp.ing
of landr- Qvwer and, renterS- ePh had about 1 peroeat ofithe4fiaid'Teatinghaid :
idle while the renters had only 3 percent. Rented fcrw had i~a1i er aslountv of' ''
land in woodland, woodland pasture and waste land than did either of the other two
classes.

JWR/d Ext,
7/24/36-100










CAPITAL

The average capital per farm *s $3286W fb' althd4i6 fnit ias oluded in thi- 7
survey. (Table 7) There was a wide different in investment when olassed by
the thrmn1ifforenbtepyos .'*af -peo*Wrator0* The es9 vowaie* bar ;Pe -'totkl riea ment
of $3789; wopased with #080 frn theM art m-lE tfainar>id $584 fobr th& retterickfrni.
(.Table )4 "tils diffenveoe is largely abeounftod for bery he faot tibia th valutie
of land, and building reted'!:b part wer ind':.reteer 'iftiLiet was not" iiv,.toried.
Instead eoash reot wai ; ohMr.go ~cs ani1 expneso The d' me farki weoe, hodrever, larger
than the other two classes.

TABLE 2. AVI AI CAPITAL PERPAAM, P:U PA8, S WASA3IGfTb to0my, '193~i

Averago Capital Per Farm Peroont of Total
29 Ownor 3 Part 4 Rentor 29 Ownor 3 Part 4 Rentor
Farms Owner Parms Farms Owner Forms
Farms Farms
Land & Bui'di. s s. 15 $1.. 7 56-' $ 2.7 62*1 ': .i

Livestoo 858 57 820 -' 148 18. 2 64.7

Machinery & Equipaent 831 242 121 6.9 12.0 20.8

Feed & Supplies 219 158 14 5... 7.8 24.5


. '.-. . . *" .',"'- .. ... .
`1tO $378 402S $5 100.0 100.0 100.0


Lf4adiand' 44dinge-r presented 72.7 peroont of the investment o the'
owner andt2.1 percent on.the part owner farms. Total investment1 in Aiet o
machinery ,ad eqinmeont, and: feod and supplies was $1032 for owners, '767 fror '
part owners and $454 for erted farms.



S .. i.*ACRES AID !SEIEDS OF PRINCI.L CROPS'

There was an average of 66.8 aores of 9oros._.own per far., .. (Table ,3)
Alotft two-thirds of this aoreageFo*ain oorn planted either solid or in com-
bination with peanuts, velvet beans or peas. Corn was grown solid on 17 farms,
yet, on all, but. two of -these.fsame farms there were lai er fields of the interplanted
crop, e total oreae -ef -solid orne was o -ly 841 .io all f arm as oomdaredt~ ith
1308 ;a6hores Jfctorplato4. -Thae areragwe yield of corn for the several methods of
planting w~a~., 9.846wha per acrm .. . *

J.w/d Ext,
7/4/36 -100 -






-3-


On 35 out of the 36 farms there was an average of 9.5 aores of cotton
4yi^g p 6pQ s O n per 9 66 0 g
average y .elds ofS 'g pe, aore. e .papt on r,...
33 bushels per aore. ai'oese ps together wli'oor z.prbseL peront "
of the total crop acreage.


...........


TAN tI DCr_.B AJ =P YIB NF PRINCIPAL CAOKP, 36 YA l, so--I- A O UTN. ,l "9V-| 1..9-1-
S--- ^a + ..0 f ...f A ....B. -I:^IIII,-- -I IIJ I IJIII I-
Total Number Acres per Averago Poroont
Acres All of Farms Farm Yield of Tq.a"'
Farms Qri'ng Growing Per' Asr'e Ao
Harvested

Cotton 331 5 9.5 192 lbs. I?.

Sugar cano for .01 2.8 252 ga 2

Runnor peanuts 126 21 6.0 33 bu. 5.3

Sweet potatoes 37 1,2 6 59 bu. s

Solid corn 241 14.2 10,4 bu.. 0

Corn & peanuts, 1 row eaoh 684 21 32.6 10.6. bu, .2 .2

Corn, peanuts & '44'et beans,
1 row oorn & 1 I*r poanuts
& velvet beans _i. Q4 .11, 45.8 9.1 bu. 20.9

Corn, peanuts, velvet beans
& peas in differing on- o
binations 120 7 17.1 7.5 bu. 5 0

Gardens 15 5 .6

Native hay . 86 17 5,0 .6 toni 3.6

Other crops 161 6.,.

Average orTotal 2406 36 66.8 10Q oP




per t The la-s indvua sou-.e o om o.e ,.o ; ooo oro ; t

orop- -u4p Pp sole5s 3' aPa$roQ eafl% kd a* 5a3aharwseipporc:
labor, re td1 pbo percent, livestook 18.4 ^pV *B,.9pv percent. The largest individual source of income oame from the cotton crop amounting


JWR/ d Ext.
7/24/56 100


~.i ,.


,~


i,









-4.


to $226 or, ainfdst :onv- ih 6 6 ti'iS. 4i"i"Areo. ri a or' Mn6
while, hogs i41rni 4li r i. ird


TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF CASH RECEIPTS CO 86 WASHINGTON COUNTY FARMS, 1935.


CropsoC.ai cotton *44d
Corn
S--Peuatb- &


Syrup
Waterimelons

To TO W


Livestocks

Cattle
ftcher


' w. .~~=r


. 6


,;87

;s


r '


Toal


Livesto6k Produ6ts;
Eggs
Meat
Other
STo*al;

Other Inoomet
AAA,Payments.t.
'""Cotton .'
Tobaooo
Cor.Hog
their r
Tot,


.1.
:q2 .- .


.^41
23





16







42

* 25


F ,.4 *:
'Ftr.,
1..r


22.4
5.2
"--'--**-^t2
15.6
3,a
--iQte~


,F; 64





$ i86


14MO
403


.8
.WW"a-p


$ 85
4' 's


Siolo


54.0
r '-' ,''':; ';. ;''^


18&4


14.9


4.2


1.9
2.3


Misoetl ianus

Total Cash "


4.3

100.0


Egg sales amounting to $126 per faN-*k an important source of income.
Receipts for oomplianoe under the AAA program wore $85 nor farm of Wtch on 1f
was forooVttO Joatina te o of. paymetafctt ff "rotiW tdipaodine acnd 'timber, cash en t, e-heg
only 46a prketirdahti-al: :6s *edf^^ o -. 0 ** i


Jw/d "- Ext.
7/24/6 100


IA C. C1


- ~-`~--`. i""' ~1II "'.. 7m-n~ri-`T-~--~P1----~ --r T.--m- -~-`rl------- -- -,~ _~_~~ --7 --- I


- -- ---------- -- ---- ---- ------ ---------- ----- -- --. --- ~~_~_ ___.


ru--e c ~


~tsr"r-l ilP


i;' is r< -


-,-~u uh*rcn, r ~., r-~ -r~su~m


'" .


*





-5-


Cotton was sold from a larger number of farms than any other product.
(Table 5) Syrup was sold on 31 of the 36 farms for which an average of $183
was received per farm selling. Eggs were sold on 30 farms and hogs on 29.
Corn was grown on all farms and was sold;&;fr 27 farms. The obrn shown as sold
on 9 of these farms was that given the share cropper for labor, while on 3 others
a portion was for the same purpose.

TABLE R filBEori OPrPIARt& fVMGE VALUE P-RPAI SB3LLING B3gati T *WWc

. ...:, . .' : I .. IbII e l .
rop. .. .'- -* i: :j '* li f
Crops:


Cotton, .. .. .

Corn
Peanuts
Watermelonp. -.
Sweet potatoes

6arden

Cowpeas, solid
Irish potartos
Cantaloupes,
Tomatoes ,,
Turnip greens

Cucumbers
Squash
Butter beans4
String beas.'
Velvet boa q:

vestook:


18
13


*4'11-
70


2

1

1


Hogs .

Cattle
Horses & mules
Turkeys :

Livestock Product;
Eggs
Ma1r fresh1rmred
Butter
o4^r

Other Spuroes of Income:
Coj Payments
Martabor
Syppi. Payments
Peanut Payments

,Cash rent ;
Turpentine ''
Building rent
Wood & lumber
Cross ties
7 Making sy rup

7/246 100


S1
* ; 1


S29

15
1-



30
8
1
1


32
10
l8
4.

4


114


l0O


44
40
25

45



40
26
25
25





170


180
4

180
4 * **


- 71
180
108


48
72
69

.
6" ,


26
25
15


e44 .


Li


-i- - ----- ---- -- ---


--


.- :. :'


I







- *;4 Ike


: -- ,. :" ..-. ..... -S '- .. ', :' .-'- ,.;' ," ".
f4 1.
,". .,. ,

Cash expenses include all current expenses and cash paid out for new
equipment add buildir a dur g th yeaSi :Ih e 'total 6'sh' expei aes i i gd $6 : '
per farm (Table 6), Of this ami~. ri. r ea i hid~:,i, was for hired labor
and boari d $ReI es: texp en e ure it.ling taxes, new buildings, and building
and fenoe reair~ a monted to 1: per- n ':o total as did machine ,ad equi .ent
oosts. P~ie r costing an average of p88 per farm was an important item.

Miscellfneaos expenditures which include cash rental payments on part'
owner and rented .farms, feed purchased; syrup cans, baling wire, etc. amouvitd'
to $155 per farW" or 23.1 percent of all. expenses.
., ; V ,:* .'^ *:.


TABLE 6. CURMET FARM EXPENSES ON 36 WASHINGTON COUNTY FARMS,


1935;it'


S:. Average Per Farm Percent of ;o&al

Labor
Cash wages $86 129' ""
Share labor 99 14,7 .
Contract labor 6 1,0
Board : 14 2O- :
Total -'" $205 ""- 806

Machinery:
Maohinery repairs $10 l15 -
New maohiq"ry 24 38
Auto cost. (farm share) s15 28s
Truck cost (farm share) 16 2,4
New auto or truckL .3
Other .25 3,8
.,Total 983

Real Estate:
Taxes $22 3.3
Buildings repairs 82 4,8
New buildings 22 2 ; .
Fenoes 8a .0 3.0
Total '" "* 96 :6 -' "g : ~"" 14,.g

Fertilizer .$ 88 13,2
Seeds 23 3,4
AAA Taxes & Allotments 10 : -
Miscellaneous 1. : 155 "- 2"

Total $ .. $670 .


Cash expenses on your farm were: labQr __, achinery $, estate
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a~nr $ i.h ....e"; ...... .. it. , :


$ 4 fertilizer $i .

JWR/d Ext.
7/24/36 100
'u ..I:i T :-(:~1I. -- ~: 1I. I '~


.-..*-*;..'" .. --.... .. .--*-**-* ** **r..- <* ** *--. ~- .*^ .._. -* *'- -**- l*** .-,.,.. C.. ..*. .^
." o '* -. ,
r~~~' .., :;.: :,


i: .-'
'






-7-


LABOR INCOME AND FARM EARNINGS

The average farm income for the 56 farms was $168 (Table 7). This is the
difference between oash receipts of $1010, and expenses of $842 which includes
$68 decrease, in oapitl and $66 allowed for unpaid family labor.

TABLE 7T *U Tiflt 6' N R 1S9M*G a"t .,15-:8.

Average Pe.ilaim a -. ".'.-Your iSa :

Total Pan.qp ta- .. .

Cwak--yiEy- - --1 41--W-- -- - -

Cash ,a,~p Expenses4.:
S...iur t .-- .-' - re- --- -- ---- ....
LI pstook purchased 37
To.ta, $ 708
Cash Farm Income ( 302
Lofs deorease.n capital $ 608 -
Pis increase i capital ";
LSjs unpaid' fah4ly labor 66.. :

Income for Capital & Operator s Labor $ 168
.-Lsa.. ; interest on capital $230

Operator's Labor Income $ -62
Vavei -o0-1food-iroducttiraTehQd Hor----#9 9 --- ---. --- --- -
Operator's Labor Income Plus Food
Products Furnished Home $ 232


In order to make comparisons of inoame between farms it is necessary to
considh aroer atle halAi- iIepti and eaxpeas. rna expenshiun'o gb e nti if e r e
inordsAri'i~-iie i Fe ioffeedai d fleat6krtairizig- the year as wlf'oKi for new
build engoedlhqiitat add t Lteiae-u oMif bhoiild podt e -rnadei'for the 'houe
of u SdP ai tr e bza id deerefsrif Ip itad.' fie6 oreais. and 'oahrgies *ie r
ta aivais $d8 i4,i,*jl Wilting heteavis rai ^(deWadi-ar-d4t$ ihUiosti the
operate^31 is th@4ntereaWt Maiit 'an'%fi er&gapit 1f (6 eet Ky&egi ~ e'e~irn-
for the ope rtorts A1rofte sjar tn gn ai -"0
the farmer, after allowing ror1 all cash and non-cash expenses including an interest
charge or investment, received $62 less than nothing for his labor income. It
should be noted, however, that the value of food products furnished the home
was $294 per farm which brings the average operator's earnings of $232 into, a more
favorable position. In addition each had a home and on all but one wood for'fa'rmf~'
and home use.

JMR./d* Ext.
7/24/36 100








I8-.


FOOD PRODUCTS FOR FAMILY USE



The -value of food produc~ta fur-aished the home averagig per farm

with an average 'value of 0100 was furnished'onalli farms.0 "6hiok~ns,, eggs, oorn

family tiblb' on.*eaoh of the-r'ftatin


TABL&-S.8.----.FOOD PRODUCTS FOR ?M~YUSE, 36 FARMS, VWAHINGTON COUNTfs 1986. 4






Chiekena&. 36 30 head-' 14
Milk 3292 gals. 78
Eggs.,,, *. 36 i. i7 7 doz
Corn `.36.-...... 6 b% a.'
syrup 34 .. ae
Sweet potatoosR..'- .. 28 3- o '-
Garden 36 ..~48


Average per Fars4

.77 77 .06t ., Inr






an aver~q i os'.tsowhvan4~*~ng ~qz a
is a wids t ya iatiorn 1s f 04t1: t,q ft# q go
least 4pr!,f~a3 ~a r*t1~~~ -tr 4p)jf v~r qt
ones araiq4ma 4WuI A pW" 04Jc;1. fa
R1,W941W 4r, .,q,-?











inoomke-*4 rwqrq ,; -. he, g r j .,&, to

following q aq ",In r -P4
U.se *taoe;.-:~ .... .- .f* j . ,.-., s.















JM/4
7/4/i6" lw 16









fl.fTONM. ACRES -OCRS 8T0 IABOR INiCOl . ...,

In order to determine the effect of acres of drops Ohi labor inciome the' 6
Washington Couqty oQr4~cord? w ,so rtitd t o...two sie. groups (Table 9), ..For both
groups thexliborinooae wa : iS the larger farms, the
loA a.a g this .la:- *- - e' 'year '':
farmres loa"d asI oftt e n t r. :e o .unppfitable
as min~esred' lar' 'io6 a.' sind4 loa i 'in rease i 'th volip oft business.
It is apparent, 'weer, t1at intist inis~aoe som of th6se larger faims were
fairly, su.cessul~d-.'. lthe--w age lightly more sioce ffil than the
smaller one

't should be n~6d that for the siiller farms expenses were 87 percent
of receipts and for the larger farms. 82 ,erce,,of reoqipts. Consi4qring only -
total receipts and expenses without m: aing a charge for capital inJ4 vestedthe farm
income '& 102 for the smaller farms and '50 for the larger farms.

TABLE 9. _RVLATION,0F 'ACRES OF CROPS TO RBBtPTS, 'EKiPtESES AND LABOR INCOME,
36 FARMS, WASHINGTON COUNTY 1935.-
Acres Ac .. oics s. orr
orop ; rai of rops Lw e T LeW enhe E pons0 Income
Range Crope Sold Sold Products .
Sold'

Less than 67 20 47.2 $346 $ 99 $210 $ 98 $ 753 $ 651 $102 e71
67 and over 16 91.4 795- 9 75 248 1410 1160 250 -51

Average 36 66.8 545 186 150 164 1046 87. 168 -62
-- ',ai.. ," 71"- .^". ., -_ .-, ,. ,f ..

The tota1~ roeipts for your fairm' wre -$ expenses c' rop ld ,..,
livetoiok ad , ives1toJk. produces sod $' .Comparoe theas fL4Ure
with the group of farms nearost your erop acroagp in tablo 9,




or farms with a considerable amout of livegtpok or having orops such as..
cotton osetigar cane A: quiring aftlargo amount of ldbor per acre, the measure of
total proqotive wo.,;;units per': arm is qidered a 'iore rolioble indioab "or
size of business than crop aores, The 36 farms have been grouped aooording to
productiy.,iaan work giwtis in tab;e 10. .. '...

It is ro95dly .pksorvedA t* ha R nthoiwvarega ;t farm. i'yh halngr amimt
of Vorki oa.. productly ie hafd sealer. br Uli ~we- loes.. whorefttrm phr- -
fitablihedss i sure4r fm inocoe, t*icB ,, t "otrna for-bath the apertorkts
labcr andr & t4e, er s a markoda r.4 reaas. ip, inoino w:th- fthagreatbr vmaar of
work uirits. 1t i a.4so4 heod tt p rn.;tha m plwih-thflarger qa beeiof wotrk
units, a greater proportioa of receipts were from livastook kthan-o-n "faa'maller lifa'ls.

JR/d Ext.
7/24/36 100






-10-..


That both man and mule labor. is used to better advanage:-on the larger farms
is indicated in table 10. In the smaller size group the average work units per
man was 178 while for the larger size group it was 248. A similar increase in
offi ci~noy is shown, for mule labor ,. .
TABLE 1.' REATION OF 'ROJiJTlt A W U 2f oJ FACTORS .U LABOR

Prod elo .. *a t.0 ci 8n wait*a F
M. W. u a sa er E AEui oer or PeFr rops Rivstoo Qcoq I;ncome
Range lb o ,

Less than 456 21 322 1.8 178 1.8 109 $339 $165 $ *0 $ -98
456 and over 15 644 2,65 .248 2..46. 135 35 ,8 676, :8, ,.04- -11
Average'. 86 456 ,: 20 2.i 122 5 5 3~ : 62

* Man equivalent is the average number of men on the farm throughout the year*
For example, if there are 30 months- of man labor spent on a farm, the.ian equiv .
talent is 30 7 12 or 2.5. ..;: -.. ..
I/ A-psdetive -man iMwrcd t iaU'v':J-to- -wr'? 'b onoa orspri' o ." a W ij pstoo1 Q -
other prdaifbtive WQ9.r -A-. pro.e3 ?oy e ',s ts s samp.' Qopt| applying
to librse an iin tle elabr. .
2/ In imputing man equivaleon and produtiyreawork units per tan a $light y smaller
....nmbar.of ~- f was.4ed-b6seaiee-knf ormatin-- on the -mount 1f por hbr was
lAoking. .. : ..

RELATIONN OPF PRICE IlT TO L4R INCOME ., .

The 14 farms on whioi abovo average prices were received obtained an above
avora l o abor o even hoghktA% wat'st'~H-i mr- fgtr" (Thib6~-X)j"&nd oiily
$30 higher than those farms on which below averago.prioes worerreogivddi..e op .
yields.wwore also abov avwerago on thso 't rmswhoero higher prices wore recooied.
It is apparent1 howaver,'that the sze: of business was'more important. in it's effbot
on labor income for those farms in 1935 than prices received..

TABLE 11. RELATION OF PRICE IIND I TO VARIOUS FACTORS AND LABOR INCOME,
2Q& UamITON.SEQEY
Price Index .6.of" Prioe Crop Total Farm Labor
Range Farms Index Index M.W.U. Income Income
Below Average 22 9.4 9 .7 439 :.$125 $-75
Above Average. 14 110.4 '. 11.4 483 39 42

Average All Farms 36 100.0 100.0 4.56 168 '-62 '

The pxgi9 index sa a means of measurii g 'the prices invidual fAier reOeia a.
in oomparison .i*ith, othar- famorn e ine th& ara. If a. 'taier.' pzre inddex is 1,00,
that. moesa, on th a- average fore all prducts sold, that he receivedd voirage Lirops.
If bolow- r 'abbve. l001'he received below or abo'v average tribes, TIi pilouA.g..
the prico index pricess .no nly o f~y of all tops sold but also of eggs, hogs 'ahid'
fresh and ure& meat were- used.

JWR/d Ext 0
7/24/36 190






-11-


COMPARISON OF MOST PROFITABLE FARMS WITH ALL FARMS.


The question may be asked, "How did certain items on the more profitable
farms compare with the average?" Using labor income as a measure of profitableness,
the best one-fourth group of farms were summarized and compared with the average
for all 36 farms (Table 12). This is certainly not a conclusive method of detor-
mining what factors are most important in offooting income, but the data do show
that the more profitable farms wore above average in acres of crops, crop and price
index and cash receipts from syrup and hogs. They also received a larger percentage
of cash income from livestock and livestock products than the average.

TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF 36 FARMS IN COMPARISON WITH IINE MOST PROFITABLE FARMS,
WASHINGTON COUNTY 1935.
Average
All Farms Bost p fourth

Number of Farms 36 9
Size of Business:
Acres operated 128.7 121.7
Acres crop land 64.3 70.1
Acres of crops* 66.8 72.4
Capital '3266 $5348

Production:
Crop index 100 1003.
Price:
Crop price index 100 103.4
Income:
Farm receipts $1046 $1413
Farm expenses 878 892
Farm income 168 521
Labor income -62 287
Percent of Cash Receipts from Crops,
Livestock, & Livestock Products:
Crops:
Cotton & cottonseed 25.7 22,3
Corn 6.0 2.5
Peanuts & peanut hay 4.8 1.6
Cane for syrup 17.8 24.7
Watermelons 3.8 2.9
Other 358 1.4
Total 6 5574
Livestock & Livestock Products:
Hogs 16.0 21.8
Cattle 2*6 4.5
Other 2.5 3.2
Eggs 14.3 13,0
Moat 1.8 2.1
Other .#9
Total 1891! Mot
Total Crops, Livestock &
Livestock Products 100 100
* Includes acros double cropped.
JWR/d Ext.
24/36 100




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs