Norwich bulletin., 1915-01-29
COMPARES II BEST FARMS WITH 23 POOR ONES,
In One New London County Township
 Survey by H. F. Reyes of Storrs.

H. F. Keves, farm management extension agent employed by the Con necticut Agricultural college eXten- sion service in cooperation with the
 United States department of agricul-
 ture, has completed the first survey in
 Connecticut of 70 farms in a New London county township. Besides
 making the survey in Connecticut
 the efficiency agent is conducting farm management field studies and
 demonstration, the aim being to in- crease the net income of the farm
 CTS. The work consists in taking
 @ record of the farmer business for one year and comparing it with other farm records from the same commun-
 ity. < summary is submitted to the
 farmer. Some interesting facts are Ngained from the survey.
 The averages of 70 farms are given
 in the first survey. An interesting
 comparison is made between the av-
 erageS Qf the Il best farms and the
 averages of 9 poor farms. According
 to the figures there are many farm
 CTS who would be better off if they
 were working as form hands with their
 capital invested in farms and equip
 ment at interest in a bank. The fig
 ures show that from many farms only
 partial support is derived by the farm CT his income from his farm being
 supplemented by revenue from other sources. The survey shows that the
 improved farms are the profitable ones.
 Of the Il best farms the average income from labor is $1,199. The
 average total capital invested is $S,S26. The size of the farms av- craze 135 acres, 50 of which are in crops. The average number of COWS
 on each farm is IS, and the average amount received from each COW per year is $108. The average total re- ceipts from the profitable farms is S, 3S2 and the average expenses $1,740.
 The income from crops totals $520 and from stock S2,055. The amount of feed purchased on the best farms is $640 for each farm.
 The averages of 9 poor farms tell
 the story of the unsuccessful farmer | On these farms the average amount
 received for labor totals only S3T3. The whole receipts amount to only S1,132 while the expenses foot S1,061, leaving little to the farmer to show for his years work and interest on his capital invested in the poor farms is $7.S03 and each farm averages Il acres larger than the II best farms Al though the poor farms are larger in acreage only three-fourths as many COWS are kept on them as on the prof itable farms. In comparison with the $52o received from crops on the best farms, only S113 is received on the poor farms. The amount of feed pur- chased on the protitless farms averag- es only about $200 less than the amount expended on the Il best farms The averages for all 70 farms as re- corded by the survey are as follows Labor income, $214; total capital in vested, $Z,341; acres, 11S; acres in crops, 10; number of COWS. 12, F; to- tai receipts, S1,67T; total expenses s1,073; milk receipts per COW, sS4 crop index, 100; income from crops s17S: income from Stock, S1256; feed purchased, sSS9; per cent. working capital. 21.
 So far the surveys have been made in two towns in New London coun- ty only, but the work is to be extend ed into other counties oR the state.