The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1915-01-21

itself, and further analysis strength
ems this conclusion.
Few fruits and vegetables were
raised on the Vermont farms and in
consequence 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 groceries, 92.s per
cent Of which were purchased. As a
result the average bill for groceries
were approximately Sl09,s4 as COM
pared with an average for all the
areas of 5000 And yet, If we judge
by the total value Of the food con-
sumed by each person in the family,
the Vermont family in its standard Of
living, ranked last. In North Caro-
lima, the average family spent only
S7l.2S on food of all kinds and lived
better than in Vermont. In this con-
nection it is noteworthy that in a
dairy section half of the families
bought butter and that only $7.25 Of
milk and $6.S1 Of eggs per person
were consumed. The milk, of course.
was reserved for sale, the supply of
eggs, however, could have been great
ly increased for the family's benefit at
trifiing outlay of trouble and ex-
pense. In Iowa the average consump-
ton per person was So dozen, in YER
mont II.
For much of this failure to make
the farm contribute directly to the
support of the family, climate and
other local conditions may be held re-
sponsible. The investigation affords
conclusive evidence, however, that in
Vermont as in many other areas the
farm is regarded too much from the
point of view Of cash returns and that
the possibility Of making it yield a
revenue of another but equally valu-
able kind is too much neglected And
if we turn from food to other factors
in the cost of living, the Importance Of
this revenue is equally striking.
Each Vermont farm supported an
average Of as persons, so that in one
way or another a revenue from it Of
$706 was necessary in order to supply
the family with necessities. But only
small part of this total expenditure
took the form of cash outlay. OF the
labor, for example, only about ! per
cent was paid for, the rest being per-
formed by members of the family.
Had they done this work for some
body else, however, they would have
been paid for it, and if it had been
performed by somebody 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 reve-
nue. from the farm.
The charge for rent must be consid-
cred 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 bust
ness. If this is done, however, it is
only fair to credit the farm with hav-
ing furnished it's occupants with shell
ter, which, as every city worker knows
has high cash value. On the Ver-
mont farms included in the investl-
cation, the average annual value of this
shelter, in other words, the house rent,
was estimated at 1913 year, figure
which included interest, depreciation
and repairs, but is very low in COM
parison with other areas.
s66.41 worth of fuel was burned
each year, practically all of which was
wood that came from the farm. This
lends point to the contention that the
average farmer does not appreciate
the real value of his woodlot. Not
only does it furnish him directly in
this way with what is the equivalent
of a considerable sum, but properly
cared for, can be made to return a
cash revenue which is not to be de-
spised.
This, however, is merely a minor IL
Illustration of the general truth, re-
vealed anew by this investigation, that
the cash crop which the average farm
err 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 may
serve the farmers purpose better than
| ~ ,noraaca zach rGrplutg