The star-independent. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1904-1917, 1915-01-13

which affords a long-growing season, is
partly accountable for this difference,
the chief explanation lies in the fact
that the North Carolina farms were re-
mote from markets. that buying and
selling alike were difficult, and that in
consequence the farmers were compelled
to raise their own supplies. As a re-
suit they had comparative abundance
of food to give their families. In Penn
sylvania to a much greater extent the
farmers sold what they had and bought
what they needed. But TO great ex-
tent, also, they bought solely what ws
indispensable, and with them the result
was that their families lived compare
lively hard.
Fruits and vegetables are among
the things that the farm family be-
lieves can be dispensed with. Unless
they are grown ON the farm they are
gone without. In Pennsylvania, there
fore. vegetables formed, in money value
only ten per cent. of the family's diet,
while in North Carolina they were los
per cent. and in Georgia 17.2. The
Pennsylvania families made up for the
deficiency by the Use of groceries,
which formed 2T.1 pc. cent. of their
food supply and 97.S per cent of which
were bought. They also bought an un-
usual amount of meat, more in fact than
any other area, and 40,2 per cent. of
the entire quantity consumed. In North
Carolina this percentage was only 6.S.
On the other hand of those animal
products with which the farm might
have furnished them-poultry, milk
and eggs-each person had very little
less poultry for example than in any
other State except Vermont. less milk
than anywhere save Georgia and Texas,
both of which States had as a substi.
tute great quantities of buttermilk. Of
eggs the average person in the Penn.
sylvania area had Is dozen year, in
Iowa he had SIS dozen.
III we turn from food to other fac.
tors in the cost of living it is even
more evident that the average family is
supported, not so much by the cash
from money crops, as by what tine
farm yields in other ways. In the
Pennsylvania area. with an average
cost of maintenance for each person of
s1o1 and 5.2 persons to farm. in one
way or another revenue of approxi-
mately 1915 had to be obtained to meet
expenses. Only small part of this took
the form of cash. OF the labor, for ex-
ample, only about one per cent. was
paid for, the rest being performed 10y
members of the family. Had they done
this work for somebody else, however,
they would have been paid for it. and
II 1t had been performed by omebody
else they would have had to pay. In
other words, this labor has cash value,
and since it adds to the comfort of the
family, must be included in the revenue
from the farm.
The charge for rent must be con-
sidered in much the same way. The
value of the farm house is usually in
cluded in the value of the land. and
the whole regarded as the capital which
the farmer has invested in his business.
If this is done, however, it is only fair
TO credit the farm with having fur.
nished its occupants with shelter, which.
as every city worker knows. has a high
cash value. On the Pennsylvania farms
included in the investigation, the aver.
age annual value of this shelter-ip
other words. the house rent-was es.
tlmated at 1853 a year, figure which
included interest, depreciation and re.
pairs.
$3.50 worth of fuel was burned
each year, 81 per cent. of which was
bought. This is most unusual. for the
average percentage is 35.9: in Georgia
no fuel at all was bought and in Yer.
mont only As per cent. of total con.
sumption much greater than the Penn.
sylvanla average. The average Vermo. t
family spent in money no more than
S3.1S for fuel. the average Pennsvl.
vania family, $2S. This was prac ticailv
ali for coal, for of the s19 worth of
wood which was burned almost all came
from the farm. This lends point to
the contention that the verase farmer
does not appreciate the real value of
ms woodlot. Not only does it furnish
him directly in this way with what is
the equivalent of considerable sum.
but, properly cared for, can be made TO
return cash revenue which is not tn
be despised.
This, however, is merely a minor
illustration of the general truth. reveal.
ed a new by this Investigation. that
the cash crop which the average farmer
considers as his source of income is
not always the chief support of his
family. Increasing home production is
an effective way of diminishing cash
outlay, and in many instances NAV
serve the farmers purpose better than
an attempt to increase cash receipts to
meet increased expenses.