The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1915-01-12
S47I3

Sl47l3
Compared with the figures obtained by
similar surveys of areas in New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Kansas,
Iowa. North Carolina. Georgia, and Tex
as, made in the course of the investiga
ton. this is so small that it apparently
implies low standard Of living The
average cost OF maintenance per person
for all the areas studied was Sl76--
notable increase over the Vermont figure
Of STAT. The difference, agricultural au-
thorities say. is largely to be accounted
for by the fact that comparatively little
was raised on the Vermont farms for
home consumption much OF what the
family used had to be bought and in
consequence IL used as little az possible.
/ Food is the great factor in the cost OF
maintaining life. OF this the average fam
/ ily in the Vermont area consumed each
year 1861 60 OF which 5S.2 per cent came
directly from the farm. The correspond
ing averages for all the areas were
$4,000 and 63 per cent respectively. In
the Georgia area the averages were
s4S045 and 7S3 From these figures il
would appear that il the farm family is
10 live well il must raise much OF what
it consumes itself. and further analysis
strengthens this conclusion.
Few fruits and vegetables were raised
on the Vermont farms and in conse-
quencc these formed smaller part OF
the total food supply than in any other |
area except Ohio. The Vermont family /
made up for this lack by the use of gro
ceries, 92.S per cent OF which were pur-
chased. As result the average bin for /
groceries was approximately Sl00s4 as (
compared with an average for all the I
areas Of 5000. And vet, II we Judge 4
by the total value Of the food consumed 4
by each person IN the family. the Yer. .
mont family in is standard of living. /
ranked last. In North Carolina. the
average family spent only S7l 2S on food
OF an kinds and lived better than Ia
Vermont In this connection IL Is note.
worthy that in a dairy section half Of
the families bought butter aud that only
1925 Of milk and S6sl Of eggs per per.
son were consumed The milk Of course.
was reserved for sale, the supply OF eggs
however, could have been greatly in.
creased for the family's benefit at
trfing outlay 81 trouble and expense.
Ia Iowa the average consumption per
person was - dozen. IN Vermont ~.
For much Of this failure to make the /
farm contribute directly 70 The supper,
Of the family climate and other local
conditions NAV ~ held responsible Tho
affords conclusive evidence. Z
however that N Vermont a. IN many .
other areas the farm j. regarded too
much from the point Of view Of cash Re-
Turns and that the possibility OF making
{ WELD 4 revenue u another but equal. g
N valuable kind j. Too much neglected y
And IL We turn from food 70 other fac. ).
ors 10 tho cost Of living. the importance !.
4 tins Revenue b equally striking
Zach Vermont farm supported an aver. h.
r. ~ ~ persons. 20 that u one way
II another q revenue from il 81 500 VAS
necessary in order e supply the family a
with necessities. ~ unlv = email part
& this total Expenditure took the form
y cash outlay 81 ths labor for - =
mple. anlr about ! per esat uas paid
~. The rest bring performed ~ mem.
ers ~ tie family had thex dome tbis
rerk for somfho3t eise. haWrter. thrt
would hasf haen fa1 i1f ii and ID i had A
zen Performed hf somebody alze that
.auld base Bad e. FaF in either words
lshuf bias fasH fhiur sud sfnrs f
dis t0 the r1ufo-t 81 the famHr mast =
y rn.luied rn ere reeVnus from size !.
arnn.
The Charge a raHt must = e6fs
~ RI wui go rnf T1r tsfr =
fhf frFrrinnae s. usrslif fnfinfaf = !.
81 fafua 81 80 Bird anl 49, uisrfs n
Hrln8 Is ti~ aps eti fhs farm 4.
aa ffe SIS rrsnas ~ ts
afa tnwfas erif faH 81 credit u
a farr uft haflue furnis.sd lfs - ~
erffa uHk ~ uhih O. rseN s
t tnnue taa t8et raa ~ m
n fmaff frfns us- d
fif rresr rrnH s.
5 lus n t8s strtaf RI fst.sf ua~as So h
amst rnt wa nanasrE AZ A N III
wMk iaasaf rtaresi affr
atiHr fH -arars iff 81 urr lrr A.
rrsrar uft w araea
ars nl .nns aassF nurtt
aa
us es ff ~
~
M
w
-s t w H t
fra ar