7v\Q 
 
 ■ 
 
 fc> 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
 jaus or Agricultural Economics and Public Roaos 
 
 
 ECONOMIC LIMITS OF COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 
 Boulder County, Colorado. 
 
 by 
 
 R. P. Teele, Agricultural Economist 
 Bureau or Agricultural Economics 
 
 ANC 
 
 Paul A. Ewing, Associate Irrigation Economist 
 Bureau of Public Poacs 
 
 
 A Preliminary Report 
 
 
 The WORK ON WHICH THIS report IS BASED WAS DONE UNDER a. COOPERA- 
 TIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BUREAUS OF AGRICULTURAL EcONU* I M ...A" ■ ~. Pu3 
 ROACS, AND IS A PART OF A ^Er.'ERAL STUDY OF THE ECONOMIC L1MIT3 OF TH 
 COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION CARRIED ON £3Y THE COOPERATING BUREAUS*) 
 
 
 
 
THE ECONOMIC LIMITS OF COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 
 Boulder County, Colorado. 
 
 By R. p. 1 . A. a i cultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics 
 
 and 
 Paul A. Ewing, Associate Irrigation Economist, Bureau of Public Roads 
 
 ■aODUCTION 
 The survey on which this report is based is a part oh" a general 
 STUDY OF FARMING under irrigation made for the purpose of determining how 
 
 MUCH FARMERS CAN AFFORD TO PAY FOR WATER. It IS OBVIOUS THAT COST OF 
 WATER IS ONLY ONE ITEM IN THE FARMER'S COST OF PRODUCING CROPS AND THAT 
 THE PERMISSIBLE COST OF PRODUCTION DEPENDS ON RECEIPTS. CONSEQUENTLY, IT 
 
 IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE A. DEFINITE STATEMENT AS TO PERMISSIBLE COST OF WATER 
 FOR ANY TYPE OF FARMING. It IS POSSIBLE, HOWEVER, TO GET COMPREHENSIVE 
 
 T A AS TO COSTS AND RETURNS FROM FARMING UNDER IRRIGATION, AND ON THE BASIS 
 OF THE OATA AS TO OTHER COSTS AND AS TO RETURNS, DETERMINE APPROXIMATELY 
 HOW MUCH NET RETURN IS AVAILABLE FOR PAYING FOR WATER. Th I S STUDY .WAS MADE 
 
 on that basis. 
 
 Incidental to the main purpose was the desire to get information 
 as to the cost of clearing and leveling land, building farm ditches, etc. 
 
 Field work on the project began in the spring of 1924, when 
 
 SURVEYS WERE MADE IN THE SOUTHWEST, IN TEXAS AND New MEXICO, AND IN COLORADO. 
 
 The schedules used called for much the same information called for by the 
 Bureau of the Census in its census of agriculture, and when provision was 
 maoe for taking an agricultural census in 1925, arrangements were made to 
 have the enumerators, when they made the canvass for the bureau of the 
 
 -et the additional information needed for this study. a 8upplcv cntal 
 schedule containing the additional inquiries was prepared, and arrangqrfents 
 
"« RC MAOt FOR MAVIMQ THESE BILLED BY Th C CENSUS ENUMERATORS. ENUMERATORS 
 M SELECTED WITH CARE ANO OIVeN 8PECIAL INSTRUCTION AND SUPERVISION. 
 
 The plans were made ► or getting two statements: (l) a complete 
 
 TEMENT OF COST ANO RETURN8 TOR A 6 INGLE SEASON. Th 1 6 APPLIED BOTH TO 
 OWNERS OPERATING THEIR OWN FARMS AND TO TENANTS, ANO PROVIOEO A BASIS FOR 
 DETERMINING THE RETURNS TO THE OWNERS OF FARMS OPERATED BV TENANTS AS WELL 
 AS TO TH08E OPERATING THEIR OWN FARMS. (2) A 8TATEMENT OF THE FINANCIAL 
 PROGRE66 MAOE BV FARMER6 FROM THE TIME WHEN THEY ACQUIRED THEIR FARMS TO 
 THE TIME OF ENUMERATION. Th 1 6 , OF COURSE, APPLIED ONLY TO FARMERS OPERATING 
 
 the »r own farms. 
 
 The survey was made in December, 1924, and January and February, 1925. 
 The census schedule called for inventory items as of January I, 1925, and 
 
 FOR PRODUCTION ITEMS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR, 1924. The SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE 
 CALLED FOR A LIVESTOCK INVENTORY AS OF JANUARY I, 1924, FOR ADDITIONAL IN- 
 FORMATION AS TO FARM EXPENSES AND RECEIPT8 FROM FARM PRODUCTS FOR THE 
 CALENDAR YEAR 1924, AND FOR THE INFORMATION DESIRED AS TO PURCHASE PRICE, 
 CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT, ANO IMPROVEMENTS WADE SINCE PURCHASE. 
 
 THIS CANVASS WAS MADE IN SELECTED DI6TRICTS ONLY. WHILE ENUMERATORS 
 IN THESE DISTRICT8 WERE INSTRUCTED TO GET SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULES FROM ALL 
 FARMS ON WHICH IRRIGATION W*6 PRACTICED, THE OBJECT WAS TO OBTAIN THOROur.HLY 
 REPRESENTATIVE 6AMPLES , RA THER THAN TO GET COMPLETE RETURN6. CONSEQUENTLY, 
 ENUMERATORS WERE INSTRUCTED NOT TO INSIST ON REPORTS FROM FARMERS WHO OB- 
 JECTED TO AN6WCRING THE INQUIRIE8, OR FROM THOSE WHO WERE UNABLE TO GIVE 
 INFORMATION ASKED FOR. 
 
 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED AND EXPLANATIONS OF METHODS FOLLOWED ARE 
 EN ON PAQC634 ANO 35 AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPC 
 
 -2- 
 
RC ODUiMTN . J 
 
 The TERRITORY COVERED B> URVEY IN BouiPCP Coi'NTV, C 0% 
 
 CONSISTED Of-" TWO CENSUS ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, ONI NfAH T! ■ 0*-" 
 
 Boulder, and one near the city op longmont. In f- act, it was necessary 
 to throw out some of the schedules obtained because while the n f arms "ful- 
 filled the census definition, they were clearly cupurfan hcmts , whose 
 owners obtained most of their incomes from othkr sources. 
 
 The . ereo by the survey ret their watlr supply from Boulcer 
 Creek and Sa v t '. =;ains Creek, and from reservoirs filled from these streams 
 during non ~l rr i gat ing seasons. 
 
 -ter ri3hts are in the form of stock in the companies controll! - . 
 the irrigation ang reservoirs, and the original cost of construction 
 ) been paio for many years. in practice, the water rights go with the 
 
 I 
 
 land, and the values placed on the farms include the value of the water 
 supply, and the purchase prices reported include water as well as land and 
 improvements. in ssneral the water su°ply is ample. 
 
 Agriculture is quite diversified, although the larger part of the 
 
 RETLRNS TO FARMERS COME FROM TWO CROPS " GRAIN AND SUGAR BECTS. ThFGE ARE 
 
 AR FACTORIES IN THE VICINITY, AND THE REGION IS WELL SUPPLIED WITH RAIL- 
 WAY lines ~ -iways. It is connected wth Denver by interuroan car 
 . 
 The land is somewhat rolling, and the farms contain more rough and 
 waste lano than those in some of the other sections purveyed. 
 
 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY 
 
 -EDULES WERE OBTAINED *■ OR d I C? f ARMS , OF WHICH 105 WERE OPERATED 
 BY THE i R OWNERS ANO 107 WERE OPERATED BY TENANTS. ASSUMIN. THAT THE FARMS 
 
 -3- 
 
COVERED t F The RE~iON, THERE l 6 ABOUT 50 PER 
 
 I THIS I 
 IN TM( TABLES THAT FOLLO*i ALL FARMS ARE GROUPEO BY W NET RETURN," 
 THAT 18 THE EXCES8 OF RECEIPTS FROM FARM PRODUCTS OVER EXPENDITURES FOR 
 ' ARM PURPOSES, 
 
 SUMMARY 
 The sections or Boulder County covered by the survey lie in that 
 
 PARI JLORAOO WHERE T R BEET8 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT 
 
 CULTURAL ACTIVITY. TmE FARMS ARE FAIRLY LAR.C, AMD MOST OF THE 
 
 ACREAGE IS COVERED BY WATER R I 3HTS , AND, THEREFORE SUITABLE FOR GROWING 
 BEET8. 
 
 Values of las: <«ith water and improvements are not high. The 
 average value for the farms reported as operated by their owners was $149 
 
 PER ACRE, AND THE AVERAGE VALUE FOR FARMS OPERATED BY T .a.TS WAS $146 
 PER "ARMS SHOW LARGER PARTS O*- THE LAND UNDER WATER 
 
 HTS ANO IN CROPS, THE PERCE BEING 76 FOR THE OWNER-OPERATED 
 
 'ARMS, AND 89 f"OP T fcTCO FARMS. 
 
 'ME f ARMS OPERATED BY THEIR OWNERS THE AVERAGE VALUE OF LAND 
 9UILOIN-.5 WAS $ It?, 843, THE AVERA iE VALUE OF IMPLEMENTS ANO MACHINERY 
 WAS $68i\ AND OF LIVC8T0C * , AND CASH ON H ■ TOTAL 
 
 JE OF 'ARM. ThL AVERAGE INDEBTEDNESS WAS $2,979, LEAVING 
 
 NVESTMENT OF $11,545 PER FARM. 
 
 Th ..'A EXPENDITURES PER FARM FOR THE OWNER-OPERATED 
 
 i/kiMs * . *95. The l; hired labor 
 
 BECAUSE 0> VALCNCE OP Bf jWING. The NEXT L'- <M WAS 
 
 INTEREST ON DEBTS, ANO The Th TmaT T^D TO 
 
 BC FIXCO ANO ha. ON TO ANNUAL PROCXJCTION - INTEREST, T/.XES , 
 
AND WATER CHARGES - -> IQREGATE . OP THE TOTAL 0. 
 
 The average receipts per. ■-gom fa;jm products for I , or the 
 
 owner—op 1 : ^.a ted farms were $1,512, leaving a net return of $517 per farm, 
 Allow net investment at the current local rate of interest 
 
 (7.0 per cent) and depreciation on buildings at 3 per cent, and on im- 
 plements and machinery at 17 per cent, the average farm fell short of meet' 
 
 THESE 3 BY $<t93. The AVERAGE RECEIPTS FROM OUTSIDE LABOR AND THE HIRE 
 
 OF FARM ANIMALS ANO EQUIPMENT WERE $145 PER FARM, MAKING A NEGATIVE LABOR 
 INCOME OF $348 NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RENT AND FAMILY LIVING QBTAINEO 
 FROM THE FARM. 
 
 For 101 of the farmers operating their own farms whose schedules were 
 complete h to show their progress since settlement, the average initial 
 
 net worth was $6,072 and their present net worth is $11,347, making an i n~ 
 
 -E I . NET WORTH OF $5,275. The AVERAGE PERIOD OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN 12 
 
 years, making an average annual increase in net worth of $440. about one- 
 half of this increase arises from in ureases in values of real estate. 
 
 For the farms operated by tenants the average value per. farm for 
 10 AND EUILDINGS WAS $20,699. The AVERAGE GR036 return to the owners of 
 THESE "ATMS WAS 7.2 PER CENT ON THIS VALUATION, THE NET ^RETURN OVER EXPENDI- 
 TURES WAS 5.5 PER CENT, ANO OVER EXPENDITURES ANO DEPRECIATION 5.2 PER CENT. 
 
 The average value of tenant property per farm was $2,5SI, and the 
 tenants 1 cedts averaged $422, making a net investment of $2,159. 
 
 The average net return to tenants - excess of receipts from farm 
 products over expenditures for farm purposes was $1,136 per farm, which 
 
 16 $619 GREATER THAN THE NET RE "0 OWNER-OPERATORS . ThE AVERAOE 
 
 LABOR INCOME OF TENANTS WAS $95£ , WHICH 18 $1,305 GREATER THAN THE LABOR 
 INCOME OF OWNER-OPERATOR . Th I S EXCESS 18 DUE IN PART TO THE LARGER 
 
 -5- 
 
DEDUCTION »T;OM TmI iNCOm I ] R8 ON ACCOUNT OK INTEREST ON 
 
 INVC8TMCNT ANO D£ PREC I AT I ON ON BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT. 
 
 3 OPERATED BY THF.lR OWNERS 
 The D~T~ Rf LATINO TO t AfTMS operateo by their owners are presented 
 in Taoles I to 7. 
 
 Size .ms and Uses of Land, 1924 
 
 .IVES FOH EACH or THE INCOME GROUPS The NUMBER OF" FARMS, 
 
 average size or farms, the average acreage per farm in crops, in 
 
 PA , AND COVERED BV WATER RIGHTS. 
 
 Of the 105 farms, if3 reported farm expenditures in excess of 
 receipts from farm products, and 52 additional farm8 reported net returns 
 less than $1,000. Assuming that $1,000 represents a fair return for the 
 
 or of the farm operator and his family, more than three—fourths of the 
 farm? show net returns less than wa3e6 for the operator and his family, 
 
 0I8RESARD: N 1 THE PART OF THE FAMILY LIVING OBTAINED FROM THE F"aRM WITH 
 
 >R INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION. THE LARGEST GROUP OF FARMS IS THAT 
 SHOWING NET RETURNS OF $| TO $999, AND THE NEXT LARGEST GROUP IS THAT 
 SHOWING NET LOSSES. 
 
 
TaHLE !. 0*NER~OPERATOR rARMS CLASSJFIED BY NET RETURNS \J , 
 
 Average size of farms and uses or land, I9e?4 
 
 Item 
 
 -• -* 
 
 Acreage per farm 
 
 rops harvester) per 
 
 • •••••••• 
 
 •e or area of f~ 
 
 UN I T 
 
 Nc 
 
 ACRE 
 
 ACRE 
 P CT 
 
 arms : Farms •_ 
 
 OF CROP FAILURE PER FARM ACRE: 
 
 RES :p CT 
 
 - RE PER FARM ! ~RE 
 
 --REA OF r ARM IP CT 
 
 RED BY WATER RIGHTS! 
 
 PER FARM IACRE 
 
 £ OF AREA OF FAR. IS '.P CT 
 
 AVEf 
 
 SHOWING 
 
 OF ALL . 
 
 net : 
 
 FA' 
 
 LOSTES : 
 
 
 28 : 
 
 86 
 
 6i£ : 
 
 50 
 
 36 : 
 
 58 
 
 : 
 
 if 
 
 1 : 
 
 5 
 
 3 : 
 
 21 
 
 21 : 
 
 c>4 
 
 33 : 
 
 65 
 
 : : 
 
 76 
 
 : 93 : 
 
 1,000* $L\ 000- 
 
 4 
 
 108 
 
 6! 
 
 22 
 
 13 
 
 00 
 
 56 
 
 $3,000 
 
 OR CVT.R 
 
 2 
 
 138 
 79 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 ?EHC RE COMPUTEO FROM THE TOTALS FOR THE "ROUP. 
 
 RETURN," AS USED IN CLASSIFYING FARMS, IS THE EXCESS OF RECEIPTS 
 .-iM PRODUCTS OVER EXPENDITURES FOR FARM PURPOSES. 
 
^■ER 
 r ABM, I , THE LAN 
 
 WAI -0P8 IN 1 9i?4 . H v, 76 PER CENT LAND IN • >6 
 
 E IRRIGATED PASTURE. THE 
 OPTS FOR FARMS OPERATED BY 3 (TABLES 8 TO 12) SHOW THAT : -MS 
 
 IR OWNERS ARE MUCH LESS HIGHLY DEVELOPED THAN THOSE OPERATEC 
 LE THE RELATION IS NOT CONSISTS'. T, THE LAK..ER FARMS ARE 
 
 THE r Q.- THE ACREAGE OF THE FARMS IN HARVESTED CROPS 
 
 3 to var. way. 
 
 Value of Farms and Farm Property , 
 
 [ I NVEf 
 YEN THE AVERAGE VALUES PER FARM AND PER ACRE 
 • ND, BUILDINQ8, LIVESTOCK, IMPLEMENTS '.'Y , AND CASH ON HA 
 
 "?M AND PER ACRE, ANO THE AVERA 
 PER ACRE . 
 
 
Table 2. Owner-operator farms classified bv net returns J/, IS 
 
 vALUC OF FARMS AND FARM PROPERTY, DEC TS , AND 
 .VESTMENT PER FARM 
 
 
 . | 
 
 AVE>- 
 
 • ms : 
 
 SHO^". 
 
 Farms si 
 
 
 
 
 $1- : 
 
 : 0t$ . 
 
 f M 
 
 : Un i t : 
 
 OF ALL : 
 
 net : 
 
 .i : 
 
 . 99* s 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 • i 
 
 :No : 
 
 farms : 
 
 losses : 
 
 
 
 
 
 Farms 
 
 
 28: 
 
 52: 
 
 19: 
 
 : 
 
 
 Acreage per farm 
 
 :acre: 
 
 96: 
 
 62: 
 
 49: 
 
 195: 
 
 176: 
 
 174 
 
 Value of land ano buildi*. 
 
 :dol : 
 
 12,843: 
 
 12,043: 
 
 9,609: 
 
 19, 
 
 . 
 
 ,000 
 
 Average per acre 
 
 : dol : 
 
 149: 
 
 193: 
 
 195: 
 
 99: 
 
 127: 
 
 
 PeRC: OF TOTAL VALUE 
 
 : dol : 
 
 89: 
 
 89: 
 
 89: 
 
 87: 
 
 87: 
 
 
 VALJE OF BUILD' 
 
 : dol : 
 
 2,852: 
 
 3,650: 
 
 2,296: 
 
 ,111: 
 
 2,825: 
 
 . 
 
 Av PER ACRE 
 
 :dol : 
 
 33: 
 
 59 
 
 46. 
 
 16 
 
 16: 
 
 
 OF TOTAL VALUE 
 
 :P ct: 
 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 21 
 
 14. 
 
 1 1 . 
 
 1 1 
 
 Value of la\d 
 
 • 
 
 :dol • 
 
 9,991 
 
 8,393 
 
 7,313 
 
 15, 168 
 
 19,513, 
 
 . 
 
 PER ACRE 
 
 : dol : 
 
 1 !6 
 
 134 
 
 148 
 
 33 
 
 
 140 
 
 PERCt OF TOTAL VALUE 
 
 :p ct: 
 
 59. 
 
 62. 
 
 68- 
 
 73 
 
 76 
 
 73 
 
 _EMENTS ANO 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 H INERY 
 
 : roL 
 
 682 
 
 568 
 
 440 
 
 • ,446 
 
 902 
 
 : 
 
 = ER ACRE 
 
 : DOL 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 : 7 
 
 : 5 
 
 
 Percentage of total value 
 
 :p ct 
 
 : 5 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 : 7 
 
 : 4 
 
 : 
 
 je of Livestock 
 
 : DOL 
 
 : 817 
 
 : 785 
 
 : 552 
 
 : 989 
 
 : 1 , 
 
 . . 
 
 AVERAGE PER ACPE 
 
 :dol 
 
 : 9 
 
 : 13 
 
 : 1 1 
 
 : 5 
 
 : 1 i 
 
 : 
 
 IE OF TOTAL VALUE 
 
 :p ct 
 
 : 6 
 
 : 6 
 
 : 5 
 
 : 4 
 
 : 8 
 
 : 
 
 ■ 
 
 : dol 
 
 : 182 
 
 : 93 
 
 : 156 
 
 : 345 
 
 : 375 
 
 : 175 
 
 *ALUE PER FARM 
 
 • 
 
 : dol 
 
 : 14, 
 
 : 13. 
 
 : 10,757 
 
 : 22,059 
 
 : 25 , 540 
 
 :33, 
 
 -..-•- 
 
 : DOL 
 
 : 168 
 
 : 216 
 
 : 219 
 
 : 1 13 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 TS 
 
 : DOL 
 
 : 2,979 
 
 : 4 , 597 
 
 : 1,969 
 
 : 2,686 
 
 : 7. 
 
 : 
 
 =ER ACRE 
 
 : DOL 
 
 : 34 
 
 : 74 
 
 : 40 
 
 14 
 
 44 
 
 : 
 
 Percentage of total value 
 
 :p ct 
 
 : 21 
 
 : 
 
 18 
 
 : 
 
 30 
 
 : 
 
 • VESTML 
 
 • 
 
 :dol 
 
 : 1 1,545 
 
 : 8,892 
 
 : 8,788 
 
 ,373 
 
 : 17, 
 
 . 
 
 Average per acre 
 
 :dol 
 
 134 
 
 : 142 
 
 : 179 
 
 : 
 
 101 
 
 : 
 
 PEf- . E OF TOTAL VALUE 
 
 :p ct 
 
 : 79 
 
 : 66 
 
 82 
 
 : 39 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 CS PER ACRE AND PERCL , ARE COMPUTED FROM THE T0TAL8 FOn THE GROUPS 
 
 \j fiVT RETURN," AS USEO IN CLASSIFYING TARf/ F.XCES8 OF RECEIPTS ' 
 
 FARM PRODUCTS CVER EXPENDITURES FOR FARM PURPOSES. 
 
 
UP SHOWIf. • " LOSSES, THC VALUE OF LAND AND 
 8UILOINQB ANO OF LAND ALONE VARIES CONSISTENTLY WITH NET RETURNS. FOR 
 
 I, VALUES Or ALL IT M <CEPT CASH ON HAND 
 * Than THOSE r R thc NEXT H INCOME iROUP. DEBTS F OR THIS 
 GROUP AS * VALUES ARE u THAN r R THE NEXT HIGHER INCOME GROUP 
 
 *BT8 CONSTITUTE A KJOHER PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL r A RM VALUE FOR THIS 
 - ANY C- *OUP. THIS IS A FURTHER REASON WHY THESE FARMS 
 IN THIS GROUP. 
 
 Cost s and Returns . 1 9e?4 
 Table 3 presents for the same groups of farms, the full data for 
 
 OVE' OSTS AND RETURNS, AS WELL AS DIRECT EXPENDITURES AND RE~ 
 FROM FARM PRODUC D COMPARISONS BCTWEEN VARIOUS GROUPS OF I T 
 S(> - TH| S TACLE ARE GIVEN |\ P3ECCDING TABLES, BUT ARE RE- 
 HERE FOR CONVENIENCE IN MAKING COMPARISON. 
 
 -10- 
 
Table 3. Owner-operator »-arms class ifieo pv net returns \J , 1924: 
 Average cost \no returns »et farm, 1TL' . 
 
 
 
 We i gmteo:Fa» 
 
 Farms showing 
 
 2L 
 
 : 
 
 AVE' 
 
 - 
 
 $'• ,000, 
 
 . . 00 
 
 , CO 
 
 1 TEM t UAJ T T 
 
 CF ALL • :\'ET ' 
 
 J9 
 
 $1 , 
 
 . 
 
 OR OVER 
 
 
 
 FARM8 :L086ES 
 
 
 
 
 
 Farms 
 
 Mo- 
 
 : 
 
 52 
 
 1 • 19 
 
 • 4 
 
 2 
 
 Acreage per farm 
 
 IACRE 
 
 36 
 
 62 
 
 : 49 
 
 195 
 
 176 
 
 174 
 
 Total value 
 
 COL , 
 
 14,584 
 
 : 13,- 
 
 : 10,757 
 
 : 22,059 
 
 ,540 
 
 :33,346 
 
 Total debts 
 
 DOL' 
 DOL ! 
 
 2,979 
 
 1 "4.597 
 
 :• \ .959 
 
 1 2.636 
 
 . 7,' 
 
 
 
 \et investment 
 
 1 1 . 545 
 
 : 8.882 
 
 : 8. 733 
 
 [19.373 
 
 17.875 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 , .. .. 
 
 . 
 
 ... _. . 
 
 * 
 
 > 
 
 
 Cos* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Farm expenditures 
 
 DOL : 
 
 995 
 
 I 1 , 1 57 
 
 : 639 
 
 . • 1 ,425 
 
 i I ,795, 
 
 1 2,309 
 
 Interest on net investment 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 AT 7 PER CENT 
 
 IDOL 
 
 , 808 
 
 : 622 
 
 : 615 
 
 : 1 , 356 
 
 : 1,251 
 
 1 2,334 
 
 , Depreciation on builcings 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : *•*. 
 
 
 ANO MACMl NERY 
 
 IDOL 
 IDOL 
 
 202 
 
 205 
 
 144 
 
 : 339 
 
 
 . 
 
 Total costs 
 
 2.005 
 
 : 1 . 9 
 
 : 1 , 
 
 :■ 3. 
 
 ■i , 
 
 4,' 
 
 Rece i ots: 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Farm receipts 
 
 IDOL 
 
 I 1,512 
 
 : 694 
 
 :- 1,064' 
 
 : 2,879 
 
 4, 1731 
 
 6,306 
 
 LABOR OFF THE FARM8 
 
 DOL 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 : 
 
 : 196 
 
 : 59 
 
 ' 81: 
 
 
 
 HIRE O" WOR* ANIMALS 
 
 DOL 
 
 8-: 
 
 l * 9 
 
 :. - '"• 8, 
 
 50: 
 
 
 
 Hire of fapm machincry 
 
 , DOL 
 
 8: 
 
 l 4 
 
 1 34 
 
 0, 
 
 
 
 -ER RECEIPTS FROM FARM 
 
 
 . 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 or equipment 
 
 DOL 
 .DOL . 
 
 1 
 
 18 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 : 96: 
 
 0: 
 
 
 
 Total receipts 
 
 . 1 . 657 
 
 : ■ •:••• - 
 
 l v \ . 273 
 
 . 3.078 
 
 4.304! 
 
 6,306 
 
 ss OF receipts from farm 
 
 : 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 products ; 
 
 1 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Over expenditures 
 
 IDOL- -1 
 
 1 517- 
 
 ; *-4£3 
 
 : +425 
 
 1 1,454. 
 
 2,378: 
 
 3,997 
 
 Over expenditures and in- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 terest ON NET INVEST- 
 
 
 
 
 ', : 
 
 : 
 
 MENT 
 
 IDOL 
 
 -291 
 
 : -1085 
 
 l -190 
 
 98 
 
 1 ,127 
 
 1,663 
 
 Over expenditures, interest 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ON NET INVESTMENT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 AND DEPRECIATION 
 
 1 DOL 
 
 1 -433 
 
 : - 1 29 1 
 
 I -334 
 
 -241: 
 
 889: 
 
 1,406 
 
 LXCE88 OF TOTAL RECEIPTS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 Over expenditures 
 
 :ool 
 
 : 662 
 
 \ -463 
 
 : 632 
 
 l 1 , 653 
 
 . 2,509: 3,997 
 
 Over expenditures and in- : 
 
 :. : 
 
 : 
 
 
 : 
 
 TERCET ON NET '. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 INVESTMENT : COL 
 
 ! 
 
 :-*'!, 085 
 
 : tl7 
 
 i 297" 
 
 1 , 258 ; 
 
 1,663 
 
 Over expenditures, interest 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ON NET INVESTMENT AND 
 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 3£ PR EC I ATI ON 
 
 : DOL 
 
 : 
 
 : -1 ,291 
 
 ; -127 
 
 1 
 
 : 1,020, 
 
 1,406 
 
 J "NET RETURN," AS USED IN CAL66l*VrN<3 FARMS IS THE EXCE68 of receipts FROM 
 iM PRODUCTS OVER EXPENDITURES FQR FARM PURPOSES. 
 
Tmg Av . ro« ALL FARMS, ~.IVEN IN THE FIRST COLUMN OF TABLE 3, 
 
 Of SPECIAL ^T AS REPRESENTING THE GENERAL EXPERIENCE OF OWNER" 
 
 OPERATOR FARMERS IN BOULOER COUNTV FOR THE SEASON OF 1924. The AVERAGE 
 
 TOTAL VALUE PER FARM 16 $14,524 AND THE AVERAGE INDEBTEDNESS PER FARM IS 
 
 $2,979, LEAVING a MET investment of $11,545. On the average, the farmers 
 have debt6 equal to only about one~f!fth of the total value of their property; 
 or, stateo the other way, they have an equity of about 80 per cent in their 
 property. This 16 a much lower percentage of indebtedness than is shown by 
 most farm surveys, 
 
 The average excels per farm of receipts from farm products over ex- 
 penditures FOR THE SEASON OF 1924 WAS BUT $517 IN ADDITION TO THE,RENT AND 
 
 family living from the farm, but allowing no interest on investment and 
 nothing for depreciation. 
 
 The average net return per farm lacked $493. of being sufficient to 
 meet the interest on the net investment at the current, local interest rate, 
 
 AND DEPRECIATION. The AVERAGE RECE I PT6 FOR OUTSIDE LABOR AND THE HIRE OF 
 
 farm animals an d equ i pmcnt were $145 per farm making a negative net return 
 of $348 per farm. in addition to the ren t an d .f am i ly living obtained from the 
 farm. Similar data for :each of the groups are given in the other columns 
 of the table. 
 
 aooing recei pts .from outsioe labor to receipt8 from farm products, 
 about three-fourths of the farms did not receive enough to meet expenditures, 
 interest on investment, and dep9ec i a t i on . another group containing 19 farms 
 also fell short of enough to pay interest ano depreciation, putting 94 per 
 
 P ARMS IN THIS CLAGS; The FARMERS IN THIS SECTION HAVE SMALL IN~ 
 , ano ONLY ; ■ , .: OURTM OF the farms, 
 
 »*ILCO TO MEET EXPENDITURES AND DEPRECIATION. 
 
 -12- 
 
Receipts from farm products ano total receipts both varv with • 
 
 RETURNS . 
 
 The 3R0UP SHOWING NET LOSSES REPORT6 expenditures HIGHER THAN THfcBE 
 REPORTED SV THE NEXT HIGHER ^ROUP AND THE LOWEST RETURNS FOR ANY oROUP. The 
 NET LOSS IS DUt, T^.REFORE, T0 a COMBINATION OF HUH EXPENDITURES AND LOW 
 RETURNS, PARTICULARLY THE LATTER. 
 
 Classification jpr Farm/Expend" 
 
 i tures 
 
 In Table 4 are -given the average amounts per farm expended for 
 ^lOUS CTEMS ano the percentages that these amounts are of the average 
 
 EXPENDITURES PER FARM AND AVERAGE REC 
 
 PTS PER FARM. 
 
 
T A»LC -i. OwNER-OPCPaTOR r4«'L CO BY . TURNS J , 
 
 Principal farm e* -cr farm, IS. • 
 
 
 
 
 HTLI 
 
 ;avc ; 
 
 3 Farms 
 
 :sho 
 
 '.'S 1 
 
 SHOWING NET OE 
 
 :$l ,00Or 
 
 rufiNS OF 
 
 
 :?l - 
 
 
 CM 
 
 :Unjt 
 
 :of all 
 
 :net 
 
 r$999 . 
 
 :$I,9S9 
 
 :$ 2,999: or 
 
 
 
 J FARM^S. 
 
 :los8E8 
 : 28 
 
 • 
 
 : 
 
 
 : over 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 52 
 
 19 
 
 4 
 
 : 2 
 
 PCR FARM 
 
 :acre 
 
 : 86 
 
 : 62 
 
 49 
 
 : 195 
 
 : 176 
 
 : 174 
 
 Fact 'JDITURE8 
 
 :ool 
 
 995 
 
 : 1 , 1 57 
 
 : 639 
 
 : 1,425 
 
 : 1,795 
 
 : 2,309 
 
 PLR ACRE 
 
 : DOL 
 
 12 
 
 : • 19 
 
 13 
 
 : 7 
 
 : 10 
 
 : 13 
 
 P»ECEIPT8 FROM FARM PR0DUCT8 
 
 IDOL 
 
 : 1.512 
 
 : 
 
 : 1,064 
 
 ,879 
 
 : 4,173- 
 
 :6,306 
 
 "ER ACRE 
 
 IDOL 
 
 : 18 
 
 : 1 1 
 
 22 
 
 : 15 
 
 : 24 
 
 : 36 
 
 
 :ool 
 
 : 102 
 
 : 151 
 
 : 91 
 
 : 69 
 
 : 80 
 
 : 75 
 
 ■ ft of farm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EXPENOI TURE8 
 
 :P ct 
 
 : 10 
 
 : 13 
 
 : 14 
 
 : 5 
 
 : 4 
 
 : 3 
 
 ?€' RtCClPtl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FROM FARM PRODUCTS 
 
 ;P qt 
 
 : 7 
 
 : 22 
 
 : 9 
 
 : 2 
 
 : 2 
 
 : I 
 
 Labor 
 
 IDOL 
 
 : 200 
 
 : 136 
 
 : 99 
 
 : 339 
 
 : 532 
 
 : 922 
 
 Pep c of farm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EXPENDI TURES 
 
 :P ct 
 
 20 
 
 : 17 
 
 : 16 
 
 24 
 
 30 
 
 40 
 
 -CENTAGE of receipts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 from farm products 
 
 ,P CT 
 
 13 
 
 : 28 
 
 : 9 
 
 : 12 
 
 : 13 
 
 : 15 
 
 Annual charges for water 
 
 IDOL 
 
 1 32 
 
 : 21 
 
 : 22 
 
 : 62 
 
 76 
 
 1 100 
 
 Percentage of farm ex- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 pend! TJRES 
 
 !P CT 
 
 : 3 
 
 : 2 
 
 3 
 
 . 
 
 : 4 
 
 4 
 
 Pe. .e of receipts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FROM FARM PRODUCTS 
 
 ,P CT 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 : 2 
 
 2 
 
 2: 
 
 2 
 
 RE6T ON DEBTS 
 
 DOL 
 
 192 
 
 : 298 
 
 : 132 
 
 157 
 
 499, 
 
 
 
 Percentage of farm ex- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 penditures 
 
 P CT 
 
 19, 
 
 26 . 
 
 21, 
 
 II, 
 
 28: 
 
 
 
 Percentage of receipts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FROM FARM PRODUCTS I 
 
 P CT . 
 
 13, 
 
 43 , 
 
 12: 
 
 5 
 
 12: 
 
 
 
 Taxes 
 
 DOL 
 
 172: 
 
 160 : 
 
 118: 
 
 287: 
 
 257: 
 
 450 
 
 Percentage of farm e- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PENCI TURE8 ; 
 
 P ct ; 
 
 I7i 
 
 14 : 
 
 19: 
 
 20: 
 
 14] 
 
 19 
 
 Percentage of receipts ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -0*^ P ARM PRODUCTS ! 
 
 P CT | 
 
 1 1: 
 
 23 : 
 
 1 1: 
 
 10: 
 
 
 7 
 
 Auto, truck, and tractor 
 
 DOL : 
 
 115; 
 
 138 : 
 
 85: 
 
 170: 
 
 60: 
 
 166 
 
 Percentage of farm ex- J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PENDITURE8 
 
 P CT ! 
 
 12; 
 
 12 : 
 
 13: 
 
 12: 
 
 3: 
 
 7 
 
 Pe<- l of reccipts ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; -0M FARM products : 
 
 P ct ; 
 
 8! 
 
 20 : 
 
 8: 
 
 6: 
 
 1: 
 
 3 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 DOL : 
 
 152: 
 
 124 : 
 
 81: 
 
 314: 
 
 283: 
 
 586 
 
 c of farm e • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PENDITURE8 
 
 
 15: 
 
 II : 
 
 13: 
 
 22: 
 
 16: 
 
 25 
 
 •ECEIPT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •OM f AhM PRODUCTS I 
 
 P CT , 
 
 10: 
 
 : 
 
 B : 
 
 ' : 
 
 7: 
 
 9 
 
 PER ACRE ANC Pt ARE COMPUTEO FROM 
 
 1/ =>N," *6 USED IN CLASSIFYING FARMS, IS THE 
 
 FARM PROOUCTS OVER EXPENDITURES FOR FARM 
 
 THE TOTALS FOR THE GROUPS, 
 EXCESS OF RECEIPTS FROM 
 PURPOSES. 
 
 -14- 
 
Considering all farms in one group, pay rop hireo labor »s the 
 laroest single i t€*4 of expenditure, interest on debts is th1 largest, 
 and taxes make the thiro largest item. The annual charge for water is but 
 3 per cent o r the total expenditures, ano equals but '2 per cent of total 
 receipts from farm products- 
 
 For the group showing net losses, the items of expenditure rank 
 the same as r o« all farms /. i th the exception of tnterest on debts which is 
 
 THE LARGEST ITEM FOR THE n NET LOSS " 3ROUP. The EX PEN O I TURE FOR f'EED IS 
 
 LARGER T~A\ THE SAME ITEM FOR ANY OTHER GPOUP. 
 
 The PEBCEVTAii THAT EXPENDITURES FOR HIRED LABOR FORM OF THE TOTAL 
 
 expenditures varies with net return except for the group showing net losses. 
 In this section this is due to the fact that the growing of the profitable 
 crop, b eets, involves large expenditures for labor. 
 
 Class i f i cat i on of R cce i pt s from Farm Products 
 Table 5 sives the average receipts per farm from farm products and 
 average receipts per farm frqm the principal sources of income. 
 
 -15- 
 
Table 5. Owner- opera tor 
 
 FaRM RETURN6 
 
 'ARMS Classified BY NET 
 
 PER FARM FROM PRINCIPAL 
 
 RETURNS \J , 1924: 
 80URCE6 IN 1924 
 
 
 
 .hted: 
 
 
 
 average : 
 
 TEM 
 
 Unit : 
 
 of all 
 farms : 
 
 FaRM6 
 
 Number; 
 
 
 ACREAGE PER FARM 
 
 acre : 
 
 86: 
 
 Receipts from farm prooucts 
 
 dollar: 
 
 1,512: 
 
 AvC^a^E PER ACRE 
 
 dollar: 
 
 18: 
 
 Livestock 
 
 dollar; 
 
 96: 
 
 Percentage of total 
 
 P CT 
 
 6: 
 
 Poultry 
 
 dollar: 
 
 46: 
 
 Percentage of total 
 
 P CT | 
 
 3: 
 
 roducts 
 
 [dollar; 
 
 ': 182: 
 
 Percentage of total 
 
 P ct ; 
 
 12: 
 
 Poultry products 
 
 dollar: 
 
 * 106: 
 
 Percentage of total 
 
 P CT , 
 
 7: 
 
 jKA IN 
 
 collar: 
 
 517: 
 
 =?CENTAGE OF TOTAL 
 
 P ct : 
 
 34: 
 
 
 collar: 
 
 63: 
 
 Pf MTAOC OF TOTAL 
 
 P ct : 
 
 4: 
 
 ~R BEET6 
 
 dollar: 
 
 • • 
 
 407: 
 
 Percenta .e of total 
 
 P ct ; 
 
 27: 
 
 Farms 
 
 Farms 
 
 SHOWl NG : 
 
 $1 
 
 NET 
 
 $999 : 
 
 losses 
 
 
 28 
 
 52: 
 
 62 
 
 49: 
 
 694 
 
 1,064: 
 
 1 1 
 
 22: 
 
 46 
 
 44: 
 
 7 
 
 4: 
 
 26 
 
 51 : 
 
 4 
 
 5: 
 
 158 
 
 165: 
 
 23 
 
 • 16: 
 
 76 
 
 97: 
 
 1 1. 
 
 9: 
 
 ' 179 
 
 263: 
 
 26 
 
 25: 
 
 29: 
 
 47: 
 
 4 
 
 4: 
 
 iaoi 
 
 298: 
 
 17. 
 
 28: 
 
 SHQW IN G NET R E TURNS Qf 
 
 I ,000-r$2,000-r $3,000 
 
 OR 
 OVER 
 
 $ 1,999: 
 
 $2,999: 
 
 19: 
 195 
 
 4: 
 176: 
 
 2,879 
 
 15 
 
 4,173: 
 24: 
 
 145 
 5 
 
 198: 
 6: 
 
 33 
 1 
 
 183: 
 4: 
 
 252 
 9 
 
 122: 
 3: 
 
 (52 
 
 5 
 
 221: 
 5: 
 
 1,389 
 48 
 
 1 , 1 57 : 
 28: 
 
 146 
 5 
 
 150: 
 4: 
 
 636 
 22 
 
 1,989: 
 48: 
 
 2 
 
 174 
 
 6,306 
 . 36 
 
 1,500 
 24 
 
 56 
 
 439 
 7 
 
 80 
 1 
 
 2,318 
 37 
 
 
 
 
 1,913 
 30 
 
 Av PER ACRE AND PERCENTAGES ARE COMPUTED FROM THE TOTALS FOR GR0UP8. 
 
 \J "NET RETURN," AS U8ED IN CLASSIFYING FARMS, IS THE EXCESS OF RECEIPTS 
 FROM FARM PRODUCTS OVER EXPENDITURES FOR FARM PRODUCTS. 
 
 -16- 
 
The most striking and s ant ► act brought out in Taole 5 ts 
 
 THE iRfAT IMPORTANCE OF GRAIN IN THE AGRICULTURE Of THIS SECTION, THIS 
 
 CROP BEING MORE IMPORTANT THAN SUGAR BEETS. RECEJPT6 FROM SUGAR BEET8 
 
 CONSTITUTE 27 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM FARM PRODUCT8 FOR ALL 
 
 FARMS WHILE RECEIPTS FROM GRAIN WERE 34 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL. On THE 
 
 OTHER HAND, FOR THE GROUP OF FARMS SHOWING NET LOSSES RECEIPTS FROM SUGAR 
 
 BEETS ARE BUT 17 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL, WHILE DAIRY PRODUCTS AND POULTRY 
 
 PRODUCTS ARE OF MUCH MORE IMPORTANCE THAN IN THE OTHER GROUPS. 
 
 SETTLERS 1 PROGRESS 
 
 The FINANCIAL PROGRESS OF THE FARMERS OPERATING THEIR OWN FARMS 
 
 from the date of purchase to the date of enumeration is shown by table 6. 
 The farms are grouped by date of purchase. 
 
 The average purchase price of the farms reported was $8,950 and 
 the present value of land and buildings is $12,804, making an increase in 
 the value of $3,854 per farm. the cost of improvements made 6ince purchase 
 has been $1,202, making a net increase in value of real estate if depreci- 
 ation is neglected, of $2,652 per farm. all groups of the farms purchased 
 prior to 1320, show net increases in value of real estate, while all those 
 purchased since 1919 show net losses. 
 
 the average initial net worth of the 0wner6 of the farms reported 
 was $0,072, and the average present net worth is $11,347, making an in- 
 CREASE IN NET WORTH OF $5,275. The AVERAGE PERIOD OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN 
 12 YEARS, MA -\1 AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE IN NET WORTH OF $440 PER FARM. 
 
 THE INCREASE IN VALUE OF REAL ESTATE EQUALS ALMOST EXACTLY ONE- 
 HALF OF THE INCREASE IN NET WO^TH. RECEIPTS FROM OUTSIOE EMPLOYMENT, OUT- 
 SIDE CAPITAL PUT INTO THE FARM, AND CAPITAL TAKEN OUT OF THE FARMS ARE 
 
 -17- 
 
not law • to be 0»" grfat importance. 
 
 Only one group - that composed of tml 5 farms purchaseo in 1923 — 
 shows a oecrease in net worth. 
 
 In Table 7 certain significant comparisons are made. The sum of* 
 the purchase price plus cost of improvements 16 compared with thl present 
 value of the farms. *- amount of deferreo payments on the purchase price 
 is compared with the present debts, deferred payment6 being the nearest 
 approach possible to the amount - " debts at the time of purchase. 
 
 The amounts of cash on hand and values of livestock and equipment 
 at th[ time of purchase and at the time of enumeration are compared. 
 
 The RESULTS OF THE COMPARISON OF PURCHASE PRICE PLUS COST OF IM- 
 PROVEMENTS AND PRESENT^ALUE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION WITH TaBLE 6. 
 
 / « 
 
 Thf AVERAGE FOR ALL FARMS SHOWS A SLIGHT DECREASE IN DEBTS. ElGMT 
 
 of dup8 show decreases, two show increases, and one shows no change. 
 Cash on hand is unimportant at either period, but the average for 
 all farms shows a decrease in this item. all groups show increases in 
 values of livestock and equipment except that the 1920 group shows a decrease 
 in the value of livestock. 
 
 -18- 
 
- 19 - 
 
 lo 6.-Owner-oporator faros 6 :roupcu by dato of settlement: Fil 
 pr of c. , avcrag farm 
 
 • 
 • 
 
 Iten : ^ iu 
 
 I 
 ill : 
 
 { r^p : 
 
 Prior : 
 
 to : 
 
 1903 • 
 
 19C. 
 1907 : 
 
 1908- : 
 191. 
 
 ? : 
 
 l l J18 : 
 
 
 83: 
 
 •17: 
 
 1: 
 21: 
 
 65: 
 
 8,950: 
 
 5,185: 
 342: 
 
 197: 
 
 348: 
 
 81: 
 
 : 
 
 6: 
 23: 
 
 64: 
 
 3,584: 
 
 3,035: 
 393: 
 
 125: 
 158:. 
 
 7 : 
 
 ! 
 
 79: 
 
 I 
 9: 
 
 120: 
 
 7,371* 
 
 6,200: 
 71: 
 
 186: 
 400: 
 
 162: 
 69: 
 
 1: 
 
 80: 
 
 83: 
 
 8,5551 
 
 6,500: 
 7: 
 
 277: 
 501: 
 
 20: 
 96: 
 
 58: 
 
 0: 
 19: 
 
 67: 
 
 8,42l! 
 
 5,205: 
 108: 
 
 195: 
 346: 
 
 n- 
 7<.': 
 
 29: 
 
 2 : * 
 36: 
 
 65: 
 
 12,800| 
 
 2,500: 
 512: 
 
 159: 
 586: 
 
 
 Acreage of crops harvested ; • 
 
 a ir. crop failure : ■ 
 
 . pasture in 191. cr, : 
 Acreage cover.-! by : • 
 
 • * 
 
 Purchase price ;dol. : 
 
 • 
 
 .ial paynent :dol.: 
 
 . hand aft nent . . . .dol.: 
 
 Pr: t to farms: : : 
 
 ;nts and -ry..;dol.: 
 
 Ini-. 1 t "orth .....: dol.: 
 
 6,072: 
 
 3,712: 
 
 5,857: 
 
 7,235: 
 
 5 L 856: 
 
 4,157: 
 
 roveoents made : 
 
 :dol.: 
 
 Purchase price plus cost of ; : 
 
 -.-_ cr.ts.Ui»de since t : 
 
 - . : dol . : 
 
 t val - : ■ 
 
 Land a. - 1 dings : dol . ; 
 
 - 3 and nachincry . . : dol . , 
 
 1,202; 
 
 10,152: 
 
 12,804 
 624 
 817 
 178 
 
 2,075: 
 
 5,659: 
 
 12,9711 
 578: 
 831: 
 3D5: 
 
 1,966 
 
 9,337 
 
 "17,793 
 
 . ,221 
 
 * 433 
 
 101 
 
 1,314: 
 
 ; 9,869: 
 
 : 13,955: 
 : 63-1 
 : 985 
 : 398 
 
 1,151: 
 
 9,582: 
 
 12,342: 
 
 715: 
 
 : 1,023: 
 
 : 190: 
 
 1,459: 
 
 14,259: 
 
 14,875: 
 
 941: 
 1,463: 
 
 139: 
 
 
 1 3tal value : dol . 
 
 Debts: 
 
 Uortga^cs : dol . 
 
 : 14,423 
 
 : 2,841 
 : 157 
 : 11 
 : 67 
 
 : U.GG6: 
 
 ! i 
 
 : 0: 
 
 : 0: 
 
 0: 
 
 57; 
 
 19, 54 3 
 
 857 
 
 143 
 
 
 
 
 
 : 15,972 
 
 : 3,228 
 
 : 182 
 
 
 
 
 
 : 14,270: 
 
 : 2,172: 
 
 : 3-17: 
 
 25 : 
 
 : 125: 
 
 17,418. 
 
 4,612: 
 
 218: 
 
 43: 
 
 375: 
 
 
 
 • J. deb t s ;i dol . 
 
 : 3.076 
 
 : 57: 
 
 ! 1,000 
 
 : 3,410 
 
 : 2 , 669 
 
 ,348: 
 
 rth : dol . 
 
 in no t vot th j dol . 
 
 • 
 
 :nt value of : 
 farm over purchase price ; 
 plus coct of improvements :dol. 
 
 receipts from outside : 
 employment since pure:. _ c ._.: dol. 
 . tal put into far:.-.: dol . 
 -.1 taken out of fam : 
 
 : 11,347 
 : 5,275 
 
 : 2,652 
 
 : 
 
 273 
 282 
 
 : 14,629 
 : 10,317 
 
 : 7,312 
 
 : 147 
 : 36 
 : 495 
 
 I 18,548 
 
 : 11,691 
 
 : 8,456 
 
 429 
 : C 
 
 : 
 
 : 12,562 
 : 5,277 
 
 : 4,086 
 
 : 378 
 : 227 
 : 1,503 
 
 : 11,601 
 
 : 5,745 
 
 : 2, 
 
 : 580. 
 
 : 660- 
 
 8: 
 
 12,170: 
 ; 8,003: 
 
 616: 
 
 7- 1: 
 
 312: 
 75: 
 
- ISa - 
 
 Tablo 6. -Owner-operator furr.s grouped by dato of sc . .t: Financial 
 
 progross of sottlors, avoragc cont'd. 
 
 It.-. 
 
 Far || . . , 
 
 Acreago por far 
 
 Acreago of crops harveitod 
 
 
 
 Acreage in crop failuro 
 
 - - 
 
 Acreage in pastur- -24, 
 -age covorod by r.atcr 
 rights in 1924 
 
 chaeo price 
 
 il payment 
 
 Cash on hand after paym<- 
 Proporty brought to : ■ . 
 Implements and machinery., 
 
 Livestock 
 
 . tial r. 
 
 Cost of i.Tipro .3 made 
 since pur 
 
 Purchase price pluc cost of 
 inn; - ::ce 
 pcu 
 
 Present valuo: 
 
 Land and buildings , 
 
 Imp: fee. 'and machinery . . 
 
 Liv 
 
 Car ffld 
 
 Total value. 
 
 Dot*. 
 
 Mortgages 
 
 Pcrso: 
 
 Herd credit, 
 
 Other dc I . 
 
 Tot-1 debts. 
 
 • . 
 
 .:>o in net 
 
 ess of present valuo of 
 180 price 
 plus cost of impr 
 
 to from outside 
 eoploymont ainco purchase.. 
 Outside capital put into farm 
 our c 
 
 .nit 
 
 1919 
 
 :. 
 
 ::o 
 
 aero 
 
 aero 
 
 acre 
 ion 
 
 aero 
 
 dol. 
 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 
 dol. 
 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 Ml. 
 
 dol. 
 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 
 lol. 
 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 dol. 
 
 12 
 79 
 
 45 
 
 
 
 
 72 
 
 12,236 
 
 1,872 
 208 
 
 167 
 
 199 
 
 
 747 
 
 12,983 
 
 15,233 
 
 544 
 
 1,019 
 
 108 
 
 16,904 
 
 6,183 
 
 272 
 
 
 
 
 
 :, ".. :.- 
 
 io, 
 
 .003 
 
 2,250 
 
 502 
 60C 
 
 67 
 
 1920 
 
 13 
 39 
 
 29 
 
 1 
 5 
 
 39 
 
 9,831 
 
 5,892 
 
 631 
 
 265 
 771 
 
 7,559 
 
 8-17 
 
 10,173 
 
 10,061 
 
 315 
 
 305 
 
 50 
 
 1921 
 
 8 
 57 
 
 44 
 
 1 
 8 
 
 56 
 
 14,744 
 
 8,206 
 125 
 
 69 
 
 39 
 
 
 47- 
 
 15,218 
 
 12,250 
 244 
 352 
 151 
 
 10,732: 13,497 
 
 t 
 
 2,946 
 32 
 19 
 31 
 
 :,:::; 
 
 7 , 704 
 
 -117 
 
 259 
 52 
 2381 
 
 4,900 
 
 63 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 ^7972 
 
 8,525 
 86 
 
 -0,968 
 
 249 
 128 
 
 
 
 19 22 
 
 2 
 
 22 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 1923 
 
 : 
 
 22 
 
 6,230 
 
 6,250 
 2,000 
 
 
 
 
 8,250 
 
 2,350 
 
 8,600 
 
 8,500 
 
 725 
 
 225 
 
 50 
 
 9,500 
 
 250 
 
 
 
 
 25C 
 
 9,250 
 1,000 
 
 -100 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 5 
 35 
 
 25 
 
 
 6 
 
 4,820 
 
 515 
 55 
 
 6,690 
 
 
 7,164 
 
 7,100 
 
 700 
 
 257 
 
 90 
 
 6,147 
 
 2,180 
 
 
 
 
 L.i,: 
 
 5,957 
 
 - : 
 
 • 
 
 513; 
 
 0: 
 
 69: 
 
 
 L: 
 
 2: 
 
 : 
 0: 
 0: 
 
 3,625: 
 
 1,625: 
 0: 
 
 0: 
 
 1 , 62w. 
 
 
 3,600; 
 
 100: 
 
 75: 
 
 0: 
 
 3,773: 
 
 .00; 
 0: 
 0: 
 0: 
 
 0, ^ *: 
 
 1,775: 
 150: 
 
 -. i: 
 
 0- 
 
 :: 
 
Table 7. Owner-operator farms. Comparison of values of various 
 items at time of settlement and at time of enumeration 
 
 1 TEM 
 
 hace: 
 
 PRICE 
 
 plus : 
 improve - : 
 ml jts vs : 
 
 ORCFE.NT : 
 
 v.-.lue : 
 
 Deferred: 
 
 payments: 
 
 vp : 
 
 pfesent i 
 
 DEBTS : 
 
 Cash : 
 
 Equ i p- : 
 
 ' ML' 
 
 Li >. 
 STOCK 
 
 
 ) ! 
 
 5,659 : 
 12,97 1 : 
 
 Dollars : 
 
 Dollars : 
 303 
 
 Dollars : 
 
 !25 
 
 573 
 
 Dollars 
 
 Settlers prior to 1903 (14 farms 
 - settlement : 
 At enumeration 
 
 548 ! 
 57 : 
 
 158 
 
 Increase 
 
 +7 r 3ia 
 
 -4 
 
 
 53 
 
 + 373 
 
 1903 - 1907 settlers (7 farms) : 
 At settlement 
 -" enumeration 
 
 ! 9,337 • 
 . IT.' 
 
 1,171 
 1.000 
 
 71 
 101 
 
 186 
 
 . 1,221 
 
 : 400 
 : 433 
 
 Increase 
 
 + 3,45 
 
 -171 
 
 +30 
 
 + 1 ,0 
 
 + 33 
 
 1903 - 1912 settlers (li farms). 
 
 At SETTLEMr 
 
 At enumeration 
 
 ! 9,869 ! 
 T ,955 
 
 . ' 2,065 
 
 3,^10 
 
 : 7 
 
 398 
 
 : 277 
 634 
 
 : 501 
 
 Increase 
 
 +4.0 
 
 . +1,351 
 
 +-5S 
 
 +-357 
 
 +464 
 
 1913 - 1917 SETTLERS (20 farms) 
 at settlement 
 At enumeration 
 
 ; 9,582 : 
 . 12.342 
 
 , 3,215 
 •3.359 
 
 103 : 
 
 190 
 
 196 : 
 : 715 
 
 346 
 
 1.023 
 
 Increase 
 
 s f2. 
 
 546 
 
 + 32 
 
 
 ! +677 
 
 1918 settlers (8 farms) 
 At settlement 
 At enumeration 
 
 : 14,259 
 : 14, 
 
 : 9,900 
 
 : 5.243 
 
 : 512 
 
 : 
 
 : 169 
 : 941 
 
 : 586 
 
 : 1.463 
 
 -REA6& 
 
 : 
 
 : -4,652 
 
 -373 
 
 ^773 
 
 : +377 
 
 1919 settlers (12 farms) 
 
 SETTLEMc 
 
 At enumeration 
 
 : 12, 
 : 15,233 
 
 : 7,364 
 
 : 6.455 
 
 : c£9 
 
 : 103 
 
 : 167 
 
 : 544 
 
 : 199 
 
 : 1.019 
 
 Increase 
 
 : +2.250 
 
 : - 33 
 
 : 
 
 : 77 
 
 : + 
 
 1920 8ettlers (13 farms) 
 At settlement 
 At enumeration 
 
 : 10,178 
 
 : 
 
 -',,439 
 
 : , 
 
 : G3I 
 
 : 
 
 : 265 
 
 : 
 
 : 77 1 
 : 306 
 
 Increase 
 
 : 
 
 : -411 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 : - ' 
 
 -20- 
 
TaOLE 7. OWNER-O^EPATO* f ARMS : ComPaRI60N OF VALUES OF VARIOUS 
 
 ITEMS AT TIME OF SETTLEMENT AND AT TIME OF ENUMERATION (CQNTINUEo) 
 
 l Purchase : 
 
 -rreo : 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 PR 1 c e 
 
 payment^ : : 
 
 
 
 
 
 plus : 
 
 vs 
 
 Cafh : 
 
 Equip- : 
 
 .'E- 
 
 1 TEM 
 
 'improve- : 
 ts vs : 
 bcnt : 
 
 VALUE 
 
 PRESENT I 
 DEBTS I 
 
 
 ment 
 
 STOCK 
 
 
 Dollars ! 
 
 Dollars : 
 
 Dollars : 
 
 Dollars : 
 
 vllarb 
 
 1921 SETTLERS ( 8 FARMS) [ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A r SETTLEMENT 
 
 15,219 l 
 
 , 38 i 
 
 !*5 
 
 69 : 
 
 39 
 
 ENUMERAT ION 
 
 iL.r 
 
 ••,"7 2 
 
 
 <f44 
 
 ! 
 
 Increase 
 
 -2.9 
 
 - , " ■ 
 
 ►2S 
 
 « 175 
 
 4-813 
 
 1922 8ETTLER8 (2 FARMS) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 At settlement 
 
 8,600 
 
 : 
 
 1 2,000 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 ENUMERATI ON 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 
 50 • 
 
 : 725 
 
 225 
 
 Increase 
 
 - 
 
 : 
 
 : -1.9 
 
 +72r 
 
 -225 
 
 1923 8ETTLER8 (5 FARMS ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 AT 6LTTLEVU 
 
 : 7 , 1 54 
 
 ; 2,190 
 
 l 1,300 
 
 : 515 
 
 55 
 
 At enumeration 
 
 : 7, 100 
 
 : 2,123 
 
 I 90 
 
 : 700 
 
 : 
 
 Increase 
 
 ■ 54 
 
 : -10 
 
 . -I.2IC 
 
 + • 
 
 . -202 
 
 1924 SETTLERS (1 FARM) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 At settlement 
 
 : 3,625 
 
 : 2,000 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 ENUMERATI ON 
 
 : 3. 600 
 
 : 2.000 
 
 
 
 : 100 
 
 : 75 
 
 Increase 
 
 : - ^5 
 
 3 
 
 
 - ;: • 
 
 . 
 
 All settlers (101 farms) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 At settlement 
 
 : 10,152 
 
 : 3,765 
 
 : 342 
 
 : 197 
 
 348 
 
 AT ENUMERATION 
 
 : 12.804 
 
 : 3.075 
 
 ; 73 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 Increase 
 
 : 1-2.6 
 
 : - JI8S 
 
 -164 
 
 : t427 
 
 : +4® 
 
 -21- 
 
TO 12. 
 
 FARMS OPERATED BY TENANTS 
 
 - RELATING TO F A RMS OPERATED BY TENANTS ARE GIVEN IN TaBLE8 8 
 
 Size of Farms and Uses or Land 
 19^4 
 
 Table 8 presents statistics as to size and uses of land kor 107 
 farms operated bv tenants. 
 
 Table 6. Tenant farms classified bv net returns \J , 1924: 
 Average size of farms and uses of land 
 
 TEM 
 
 Farms 
 
 Acreage per farm 
 
 Acreage of crops harvested 
 per farm 
 
 Percentage of area of 
 farm 
 
 Acreage of crop failure 
 per farm 
 
 Percentage of planted 
 
 ACRES 
 
 acrea j e n pasture per farm 
 Percentage of area of 
 farm 
 
 Unit 
 
 No 
 
 ACRE 
 
 ACRE 
 P CT 
 
 ACRE 
 P CT 
 ACRE 
 P CT 
 
 AC5£ SVERED BY WATER 
 
 PER FARM :acre 
 
 Percentage of area of : 
 
 fARM |P CT 
 
 We i gmted:Farms 
 
 AVERAGE 
 OF ALL 
 FARMS 
 
 142 
 103 
 
 73 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 16 
 i I 
 
 126 
 
 89 
 
 SHOWING 
 
 NET 
 
 LOSSES 
 18 
 80 
 
 60 
 75 
 
 3 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 
 74 
 93 
 
 Farms showing net re t urns qf 
 
 $1 
 $999 
 
 39 
 36 
 
 95 
 70 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 I I 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 85 
 
 $1,000-:$ 2, 000? $3,000 
 
 $1,999 
 
 .$2,999: 
 
 34 
 144 
 ! 
 
 : 7: 
 
 : 243: 
 
 i . 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 : !46: 
 
 77 
 
 : 60: 
 
 -i/ 
 
 : 2: 
 
 ■il 
 
 t: 
 
 15 
 
 68: 
 
 10: 
 
 28: 
 
 OR 
 OVER 
 
 27 
 
 ee 
 
 9 
 202 
 
 65 
 82 
 
 t 
 
 243 
 100 
 
 21 
 
 10 
 
 80 
 89 
 
 Percentages are commuted from the totals for the groups. 
 
 \j "net return," a8 used in classifying farms, is the exce8s of receipts 
 from farm products over expenditures for farm purp08es. 
 
 2} Lesb THAN one-half of one PER CENT. 
 
 -22- 
 
El . 3r THE TENANT FARMS SHOWED NET LOSSES FOR 1924. Tw I RTY" 
 NINC ADDITIONAL FaRMS SHOWED >* jRNS LESS THAN $1,000. The TWO GROUPS 
 
 constitute slightly more than one~half the farms reported, showing that one" 
 half the tcnant farmers maoe no more than wages, aside from rent and family 
 living obtained from the farm. 
 
 The average acreage pep farm is 142 acres which is 56 acres greater 
 than the average size of owner~operate d farms. the acreage of harvested 
 cr0p6 per farm is 103 acres which is 53 acres larger than the corresponding 
 
 JRE FOR THE OWNER-OPERATED FARMS. The AVERAGE ACREAGE COVERED BY WATER 
 
 rights exceeds the corresponding figure for the farms operated by their 
 owners by an even wider margin - 6! acres. 
 
 The acreage in pasture in this group is only about one-half as 
 - as for the owner-operated farms. 
 
 The tenant farms are not only much larger than those operated by 
 their owners, but they are much more highly improved. 
 
 The ACREAGE OF CROP FAILURE per FARM is not large for ANY GROUP. 
 
 Value of Tenant Farms and Farm Property, Debts , 
 Net Investment , ano Expenditures and Receipts for 1924 . 
 
 In Table 9 are presented the data as to the value of farms operated 
 by tenants, the value of tenasits ' property, their debts, and their expendi- 
 tures ano receipt8 for 1924. 
 
 -23- 
 
Tablc asbifieo 3v . »e j/, 1 9c?4 : Value of 
 
 . PROPERTY, DEUTS, NET INVESTMENT PEn FARM, , 
 AND RETURNS IN 1924. 
 
 
 Acreage per farm 
 
 PER ACnC 
 
 Value of te\ants property 
 Implements a\: machinery 
 
 Av : . ; =tz 
 
 Li vest 
 
 Average per acre 
 
 H ON H. 
 rOTAL ANT PROPERTY 
 
 re ' ts 
 
 Tenants 1 \ct in 
 
 rm expend i tu- 
 srest - inve8tme 
 
 ' i at | on .on implements 
 
 Total cost 
 
 -- 
 
 "ROM FARM PRODUCTS 
 
 -LS 
 0T- COME FROM FARM 
 
 Tot ov. FAf- . 
 
 PROPERTY 
 
 n PTS FROM FARM 
 . OJCTS 
 
 Over expenditures 
 
 O IN- 
 
 OvE~ "JRES 
 
 
 TEFEST 
 AND DEF 
 
 
 :ave- 
 
 o:Farms :F\kvs 
 : show in : 
 
 tHOV 
 
 
 
 . .300 
 
 Fw>2, 
 
 . 
 
 Unit 
 
 :OF ALL 
 
 : fa 
 
 : NET 
 ILOt 
 
 : -99 
 
 : 3 1,999 
 
 . 999 
 
 : or 
 
 '.OVER 
 
 Nc 
 
 
 : 18 
 
 : 39 
 
 : 
 
 7 
 
 : 
 
 
 : 
 
 : SO 
 
 : 136 
 
 : 
 
 : 243 
 
 202 
 
 
 : ao, 
 
 : 12,094 
 
 :I7, 
 
 ,988 
 
 , 143 
 
 :32,000 
 
 DOL. 
 
 : !46 
 
 : 
 
 : 130 
 
 : 
 
 : 141 
 
 : 
 
 DOL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 COLLAR 
 
 : 723 
 
 732 
 
 657 
 
 796 
 
 : 
 
 : 700 
 
 ,-AR 
 
 : 5 
 
 : 9 
 
 : 5 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 : 3 
 
 COLLAR 
 
 : I , 
 
 : 1,295 
 
 : 1,109 
 
 ,281 
 
 : 3,262 
 
 . 29 
 
 DOL 
 
 : 13 
 
 : 15 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 : 13 
 
 : 14 
 
 DOLLAR 
 
 : 70 
 
 : 34 
 
 : 
 
 : 43 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 DOL: 
 
 : 2, 
 
 . 2,0 
 
 : 1.861 
 
 : 3. 120 
 
 : 3.955 
 
 . . 
 
 DOL 
 
 422 
 
 604 
 
 41 i 
 
 : 404 
 
 : ~229- 
 
 : ~i>yr 
 
 DOLLAR 
 
 : a. 
 
 : 1,457 
 
 : I .450 
 
 : 2.716 
 
 : 3,725 
 
 : 3,423 
 
 DOLLAR 
 
 ! 2,. 7-, 
 
 : 1,890 
 
 : 1,932 
 
 .752 
 
 : 4, 173 
 
 : 4,603 
 
 DOL 
 
 : 152 
 
 102 
 
 : 102 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 : 240 
 
 _AR 
 
 I23i 
 
 124 
 
 1 13 
 
 : 135 
 
 : 1 15 
 
 : 
 
 OOLLAR 
 
 2. a 
 
 2, ! 
 
 2. ! 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 DOL 
 
 3,710. 
 
 1, 
 
 2,507: 
 
 .217 
 
 : 6,510 
 
 : 9,424 
 
 dollar; 
 
 
 159 
 
 99. 
 
 
 13. 
 
 39 
 
 -ar: 
 
 9: 
 
 23 i 
 
 9: 
 
 3 
 
 18. 
 
 - 
 
 DOLL 
 
 5: 
 
 
 : 
 
 18 : 
 
 ! 
 
 Q 
 
 LARI 
 
 3, 
 
 1, 
 
 2, 
 
 . 267: 
 
 6, 
 
 53 
 
 oollap: 
 
 1,136: 
 
 - • 
 
 525: 
 
 . ,465: 
 
 2,337: 
 
 4,821 
 
 DOL; : 
 
 ; 
 
 - £77: 
 
 : 
 
 .275: 
 
 2,076: 
 
 
 ar: 
 
 : 
 
 - 1 
 
 310: 
 
 : 
 
 1 ,951: 
 
 . 
 
 H NEXT PA 
 
Tao .ms class if i eo bv net N8 _i/ , 1924; Value of 
 
 »A PRC , OEQTf , INVESTMENT PER FA' COST 
 
 ANO RETURNS IN 1924 (cONTINUl 
 
 
 
 •is : 
 avl' : how i no: 
 
 Farms s 
 
 . 
 
 NET 
 
 
 $1- ■ 
 
 . 
 
 • V 
 
 •UNIT! 
 
 . ll : 
 
 : 
 
 LOSSES 
 
 $999 : 
 
 . 399: 
 
 . 
 
 RECEI PTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Over expenoi tures 
 
 :dol 
 
 , 1 , 233 
 
 -293 
 
 . 633: 
 
 ; 1,533 
 
 : 2,368 
 
 Over exp* and in- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 N NET INVESTMENT 
 
 : col 
 
 ! 1,091 
 
 : -395 
 
 : 531 
 
 . 1 , 3< 
 
 . 
 
 NOI TURES, INTEREST 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NT, AND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DEPRECI ATI ON 
 
 : DOL 
 
 959 
 
 : -519 
 
 : 418 
 
 : 1 ,208 
 
 : 1,992 
 
 OR 
 
 • . 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 PER ACRE ARE COMPUTED FROM THE TOTALS t-OR THC QROUF . 
 
 I RETURN," AS UfED IN CLASSIFYING FARMS, IS THE lCEIPTS 
 
 FROM FARM PRODUCTS OVER EXPENDITURES FOR FARM PURPOSL . 
 
 
The average value of the farms operated by tenants wa6 much i 
 than the av value of the farms operated by their owners, becaus: (he 
 
 H TOTAL a: AND THE LARGER ACREAGES UNDER WATER Rl 
 
 the average value of tenant property per f .. , of course, sv 
 because it includes no land and builds . in this :cction th t ve 
 
 more livestock and equipment than have the owners opcrating their own ft 
 ther class mas • eedin3 stock. 
 
 Tenant farm expenditures are much larger than those for owners 
 ■ incluoe rent, and the cultivation of much larger acreages of 
 
 CRC 
 
 The average receipts from FARM products per faf.m ARE MORE than twice 
 
 LAR..C FOB THE TENANT FARMS AS FOR THE OWNER-OPERATED FARMS, AND THE EXC: 
 °TS OVER EXPENDITURES IS MO&E THAN TV/ I C E AS GREAT. The FINANCIAL 
 ADVA OYED BY THE TENANTS IS OFFSET IN PART BY RISING VALUES OF REAL 
 
 UT THE AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE IN VALUE OF REAL ESTATE IS LESS THAN 
 " THE EXCESS OF NET INCOME TO THE' TENANTS OVER THAT TO 
 OWNERS FOr 
 
 BOTH FARM EXPENDITURES AND RECEIPTS FROM FARM PRODUCTS VARY WITH 
 , THROUGHOUT THE GROUPS. Th E GROUP SHOWING NET LOSSES SHO 
 
 1 EBTEDNESS PER FARM, AND BY FAR THE LOWEST RETUPNS F ROM FARM 
 IT SHOWS THE LA( IZTURNC FROM OUTSIDE LABOR. 
 
 Class i^ icat ion pr l "arm Expenqi tu- 
 Table 10 gives, for the * farms, the ■ amounts -mm 
 expended for various items, ihat these am0unt8 api. 
 
 the average expenditures per farm, and of the average p cc e i pt8 pc^ farm 
 
 FROM r A fiM PROOUC 
 
T FARMS CLAS6lf I ED BV NET R , I 924 ; 
 
 PrinCipai PER FARM IN 1924 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ARM 
 
 
 
 
 -L r*k. NOITURES 
 
 
 =»ER ACRE 
 
 
 
 IPTS FROM 
 
 CARM PRODUCTS 
 
 Av - • ACRE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OF 
 
 FARM 
 
 expendi - : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 RECEI PTS 
 
 from: 
 
 FARM PRO DC C 
 
 
 
 OR 
 
 
 
 
 
 Percen • 
 
 OF 
 
 F a RM 
 
 EXPENDI- I 
 
 ES 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pepcenta 
 
 OF 
 
 RECEIPTS 
 
 from : 
 
 -~*M PRODUCTS 
 
 
 
 T ON DEBTS 
 
 
 
 
 OF 
 
 
 ex pen: 
 
 TURES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Or 
 
 RECE 1 PTS 
 
 from: 
 
 MM PRODUCTS 
 
 
 
 cs 
 
 
 
 
 
 Percen • 
 
 OF 
 
 FARM 
 
 EXPENDI "I 
 
 TURES 
 
 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 OF 
 
 RECE 1 PTS 
 
 from : 
 
 FARM PRODUCTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OF 
 
 
 EXPENDI - : 
 
 TUB 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 OF 
 
 RECEI PT 
 
 from : 
 
 • <M PRODUC 
 
 
 
 AlJTC , '., AND 
 
 tractor 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 OF 
 
 TARM 
 
 ex pen: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 OF 
 
 receipts 
 
 from: 
 
 DUCTS 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i - : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Or 
 
 RECT I PTS 
 
 from; 
 
 •?M PRODU'' 
 
 
 
 
 OF ALL i 
 
 showing: 
 
 NET 
 
 
 NET 
 
 
 : 
 39 : 
 
 199: 
 
 99: 
 
 00 
 
 OR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OVER 
 
 No 
 acre 
 
 
 18 
 
 39. 
 
 
 7. 
 243: 
 
 202 
 
 DOL 
 
 DOL 
 DOL 
 
 . .74 
 
 18 
 
 : 3,710 
 
 26 
 
 : 1,890 
 : 
 
 : 1,415 
 18 
 
 • 1,982 
 
 15 
 
 ,507 
 
 13 
 
 . ^2 
 
 19 
 
 :4,2I7 
 
 29 
 
 : 
 
 : 6,510 
 27 
 
 :9,4i 
 
 47 
 
 DOL 
 
 : 189 
 
 296 
 
 149 
 
 , ' 
 
 
 : ; 
 
 P CT 
 
 : 7 
 
 : 16 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 
 3 
 
 DOL 
 
 5 
 499 
 
 21 
 595 
 
 : 6 
 : 355 
 
 4 
 : 474 
 
 ! 
 
 : 997 
 
 2 
 
 P CT 
 
 19 
 
 31 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 . 
 
 14 
 
 P CT 
 
 DOL 
 
 13 
 
 42 
 19 
 
 14 
 : 13 
 
 : 11 
 : 6 
 
 : 15 
 
 
 7 
 
 : 
 
 P CT 
 
 ! il 
 
 : 1 
 
 : 1 
 
 1 2/ 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 P CT 
 DOL 
 
 i 2/ 
 
 : 17 
 
 1 
 : 1 1 
 
 : 1 
 : 15 
 
 : 2/ 
 
 22 
 
 : 
 
 : 20 
 
 : 
 : 22 
 
 P CT 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 2/ 
 
 1 
 
 P T 
 DOL 
 
 i 2/ 
 
 : 1,497 
 
 : 1 
 61 1 
 
 : 1 
 : 1,118 
 
 I 1 
 : 1 ,737 
 
 » i 
 . 5! 
 
 2/ 
 
 :3,3 
 
 P CT 
 
 58 
 
 : 32 
 
 : 56 
 
 
 56 
 
 : 
 
 P CT 
 DOL 
 
 : 
 
 43 
 
 : 
 
 45 
 1 14 
 
 ! 1 
 
 : 01 
 
 
 P CT 
 
 5 
 
 12 
 
 ! 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 C. i 
 
 2 
 
 P CT 
 DOL 
 
 226 
 
 16 
 125 
 
 21 1 
 
 , a 
 
 1 300 l 
 
 ! 3 
 
 P CT 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 1 1 
 
 9 : 
 
 7 , 
 
 8 
 
 P CT 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 8: 
 
 
 
 
 OMPUTEO FRO.V THE TOTALS FOFi ROUPS. 
 
 ARMS IS TH<" I JM 
 
 FARM PRODUCTS OVf- 3 FOR FARM PUR r 
 
 8 THAN ON OF ON 
 
 
as is to be expected, the larjcst item of expenditure *'or the 
 tenant farms is rent. for all farms taken as a group, ano for each 
 of the groups, except that showing net l08ses, rent is more than half 
 of the total expend i tures f or farm purposes. for all farms taken a8 
 a jroup rent equals 40 per cent of the total receipts from farm product 
 while for the group showing net losses it equals 43 per cent of thf. re- 
 ceipts from farm prooucts. 
 
 Hired labor is the second largest item of expenditure, being 19 
 per cent of the total for all farms. for the groups it ranges from 14 
 per cent to 31 per cent, the latter percentage being that for the group 
 
 SHOWING NET LOSSES. The IMPORTANCE OF THIS ITEM ARISES FROM THE PREVALENCE 
 
 of the growing of sugar beets which requires a large amount of hand labor. 
 Feed is the only other item of expenditure of great importance on 
 the tenant farms. 
 
 " .--'F IF I CAT I ON QF RECEI PTS FROM FaRM PRODUCTS 
 
 Table II gives the average receipts per farm from farm products 
 
 FOR FARM8 OPERATED BY TENANTS AND THE RECEIPTS PER FARM FROM THE 
 PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF INCOME. 
 
 -27- 
 
TaOUC II. TENANT FARMS CLA6BIFIEO BV NET RETURNS \J , I 924 \ 
 Rr TURNS PER FARM FROM PRINCIPAL 60URCE6 IN I 924 
 
 I TEM 
 
 Farms 
 
 Ac "CR f-arm 
 
 Receipts from farm products 
 
 AvCRAGE PCR ACRE 
 
 Livestock 
 
 Percentage of total 
 
 Poultry 
 
 Percentage of total 
 
 Da i rv prooucts 
 
 Percentage of total 
 
 Poultry products 
 
 Percentage of total 
 
 • IN 
 
 Percentage of total 
 
 Hay 
 
 Percentage o^ tctal 
 
 AR BEETS 
 
 Percentage of total 
 
 : Unit: 
 • _ 
 
 : 
 
 :acre : 
 
 :dol : 
 
 : ool : 
 
 : DOL 
 
 iP ot : 
 
 : dol : 
 
 :P ct : 
 
 :ool : 
 
 :P ct : 
 
 : dol : 
 
 :P ct : 
 
 : dol : 
 
 :P ct : 
 
 : dol : 
 
 :P ct : 
 
 :dol : 
 
 : P ct : 
 
 AVERAGE 
 Or ALL 
 F ARM S 
 
 14c? 
 
 3,710 
 26 
 
 240 
 6 
 
 42 
 
 253 
 
 7 
 : 
 61: 
 2: 
 
 j 
 
 34 
 
 385 
 10 
 
 ,■212 
 34 
 
 ;Parms : 
 
 Farms e net returns 0*" 
 
 showing; 
 
 $1 : 
 
 .5,000 
 
 NET 
 
 $999' 
 
 .$1,999 
 
 :$2,999: or 
 
 LOSSES . 
 
 
 
 
 0VT.R 
 9 
 
 18: 
 
 39; 
 
 34: 
 
 7 
 
 80, 
 
 136- 
 
 144: 
 
 243: 202 
 
 1 ,415 
 
 ,507: 
 
 4,217- 
 
 6,510: 
 
 9,424 
 
 18 
 
 18 
 
 29 
 
 27 
 
 47 
 
 164, 
 
 94: 
 
 212, 
 
 759. 
 
 728 
 
 12: 
 
 4: 5 
 
 12. 
 
 8 
 
 49 
 
 37 
 
 54 
 
 26: 
 
 18 
 
 3 
 
 ! 
 
 : ; 
 
 i sl i 
 
 2/ 
 
 125 
 
 295 
 
 259 
 
 274 
 
 289 
 
 9 
 
 : 12 
 
 : 6 
 
 4. 
 
 3 
 
 28 
 
 : 52 
 
 99 
 
 34 
 
 43 
 
 2 
 
 : 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 ■i/ 
 
 221 
 
 : 1,105 
 
 ,331 
 
 : 1,865 
 
 .3,093 
 
 16 
 
 : 
 
 32 
 
 29 
 
 33 
 
 207 
 
 : 319 
 
 : 452 
 
 466 
 
 . 686 
 
 15 
 
 : 13 
 
 II 
 
 ; 7 
 
 7 
 
 321 
 
 : 536 
 
 : 1,420 
 
 : 2,976 
 
 35 
 
 23 
 
 : 21 
 
 : 34 
 
 : 46 
 
 48 
 
 Averages per acre and percentages are computed from totals f or the groups. 
 \J "Net return," as U6E0 in classifying farms, is the excess of receipts 
 
 FROM FARM PRODUCTS OVEN EXPENDITURES FOR FARM PURPOSES. 
 
 2J Less than one-half o^ one per cent. 
 
 -29- 
 
The leaoinj 6ojrces or income arc the same for t.u 1. \r 
 
 F 0- ^ATORs - URAIN AND *UGAR BEETS . FOR rWi i ARM8 
 
 THE TWO ARE OF ABOUT EQUAL IMPORTANCE. The RELATIVE IMPORTA'. 
 BEETS VARIES WITH THE NET RETURNS TOR THE VARIOUS GROUPS EXCEPT TOR TmC 
 GROUP SHOWIN.. \fT LOSSES. FOR THE ".ROUP SHOWr. | GRAIN AND 
 
 AR BEETS ARE OF LESS IMPORTANCE THAN FOR MOST OF THE OTHER GROUPS, 
 
 while hay and livestock are of greater importance. 
 
 Returns to Oners of Rented Farms 
 Table 12 shows the average values of renteo farms and the cost 
 
 ANO RETURNS TO . THE OWNERS OF THESE FARMS IN 1924. 
 
 -29- 
 
Farms clacch irn ev net returns \Jjo tenants, iC 
 Returns to a of renteo farms 
 
 T| V 
 
 Farm 6 
 
 Ac - - hm 
 
 ACRLACil. OF CROPS HARVESTED 
 
 IN 
 
 -M6 
 
 Uni t 
 
 ACRE 
 ACRE 
 P CT 
 
 Value of land and ouildinqs:dol 
 
 AvCPA^C PCR ACRE : DOL 
 
 JE OF buildings : DOL 
 
 per acre : dol 
 
 Value of land : dol 
 
 i'cr acre : dol 
 
 Costs: 19! : 
 
 Ta^ :dol 
 
 Insurance : dol 
 
 Annual charge for water: dol 
 Depreciation on buildings:dol 
 
 Total costs 
 
 / 
 
 Returns, 1924 
 
 R{ : dol 
 
 Average per acre : dol 
 
 Percenta .r. return on 
 
 value of farm :P ct 
 Net return over taxes, 
 insurance and water 
 
 charges : dol 
 Percentage return on 
 
 value of farm '.p ct 
 net rfzturn over taxes, 
 
 jrance, water charge 
 
 and depreciation : dol 
 
 p .eturn on : 
 
 value of farm %[ 
 
 DOL 
 
 : ■ 
 
 i 
 
 : -■• L L 
 
 j:Fa 
 
 .'ING 
 
 MR { 
 9 
 
 • 
 
 . 
 
 : or 
 
 : 
 
 142 
 
 : 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 : OVER 
 
 : 
 
 : I3G 
 
 144 
 
 : 
 
 202 
 
 : 103 
 
 60 
 
 95 
 
 : III 
 
 146 
 
 : 165 
 
 : 73 
 
 75 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 60 
 
 82 
 
 : 20,699 
 : 146: 
 
 ; 12,094 
 151 
 
 : 17,654 
 : 130 
 
 :22,9eS 
 160 
 
 , !43 
 141 
 
 : 32,000 
 : 158 
 
 : 2,712 
 
 : 19; 
 
 W.256 
 28 
 
 : 1,969 
 14 
 
 : 3,188 
 2if 
 
 . 4,829 
 20 
 
 : 3,400 
 
 : '7 
 
 : 17,987. 
 : \Z7: 
 
 9,838 
 123 
 
 :I5,685 
 116 
 
 : 19,800 
 
 ,29,314 
 121 
 
 : 28,600 
 141 
 
 : 254- 
 
 7: 
 
 : 88; 
 
 : 81. 
 
 152 
 
 6 
 49 
 69 
 
 : 2a0 
 : 5 
 
 : 77 
 59 
 
 287 
 
 8 
 
 88 
 
 96 
 
 388. 
 
 12 
 
 192 
 
 145. 
 
 : 372 
 
 8 
 
 139 
 
 102 
 
 : 430; 
 
 275 
 
 361 
 
 
 ' 
 
 ! 
 
 : 1,497: 
 : II: 
 
 611: 
 8 
 
 i.ua. 
 
 8 
 
 1,737: 
 12 
 
 2,351. 
 10: 
 
 3,338 
 17 
 
 : 7.2: 
 
 5.0. 
 
 6.3: 
 
 7.6 
 
 6.9: 
 
 10.4 
 
 : 1 . 1 48 : 
 
 404. 
 
 I 
 816: 
 
 1,354: 
 
 1,759' 
 
 2,819 
 
 : 5.5: 
 
 3.3; 
 
 4.6: 
 
 5.9: 
 
 5.2. 
 
 8.8 
 
 : 1,067: 
 
 336: 
 
 757: 
 
 1,258: 
 
 1,614; 
 
 2,717 
 
 k 5.2J 
 
 k 2,8; 
 
 v 4^3j 
 
 *.., V * &i 
 
 I 4-7: 
 
 8.5 
 
 Averages per acre and percentages are computed from thc totals for the groups. 
 
 \J "Net return," as used in classifying farms, is the excess of receipts from 
 farm products over expenditures for farm purposes. 
 
 -30- 
 
The AVCRAGC aR086 RETUR*: I R8 OF RENTED F ARMS IS 7.2 PEW 
 
 CENT C^ .ALUATIONS POT O'J Imi St • «rWS; THf I i \ m rUNN Atiovr FXPrNDl" 
 
 TURES IS 5.5 PER CENi; A'.'C THi LTURN ABOVE EXITNOI TUBES AND Dl I A" 
 
 •'ER CE AODITION, THE OWNERS HAVE THE BENEFIT OF, INCREASE 
 
 IN VALUE OF REAL ESTATE, , PRESUMABLY, IS AS CfiEAT FOR THESE FARMS AS 
 
 FOR THOSE OPERATED BY THEIR OWNERS, SHOWN ON PAuE I 9a . 
 
 The perce\ta_e of return to the owners tends to vary with the net 
 return to the te\a\ts of ml farms. 
 
 CC DN OF RETURNS TO OWNER-OPERATORS AND TO TENANTS 
 
 In Table 13, the returns to owner-operators ano to tenants are 
 
 COMPARED. ThROJ-HOUT THE TABLE THE RETURNS TO TENANTS EXCEED THOSE TO 
 
 ohyner— operators . The "labor income," shov-n by the last line or the table 
 • mTS is more THAN three and one-half times as great AS that for 
 
 THE OWNER-OPERATORS. 
 
 Table 3mpari30n of returns to owner-operators and to tenants, 1924 
 
 
 ESS c c Rl " from farm products: 
 
 Over exoi. and interest on net investme\t 
 
 cs, interest on net i n vestment. and 
 
 I ATI ON 
 
 Excess o r total receipts 
 
 3 EXCC (U D IMTI -EST ON NET INVESTMENT 
 
 0\ ■ , * ". T ON NET INVESTMENT, 
 
 UN I T 
 
 Nor 
 
 DOLLAR 
 DOLLAR 
 
 DOLLAR 
 
 DOLLAR 
 DOLLAR 
 
 OOLLAR 
 
 OWNFR- 
 
 OPERA- 
 
 TQRS 
 
 105 
 
 517 
 
 -201 
 
 ! 
 -146 
 
 -348 
 
 TENANTS 
 
 107 
 
 I, 136 
 934 
 
 861 
 
 I , 233 
 1,081 
 
 958 
 
 -31- 
 
PF COST OF 
 
 As STATED IN T .KAPHS 0~ THIS REPORT, IT IS NOT 
 
 POSSIBLE TO JO AND WATER, ANO IN MOST CASES, IT 
 
 IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ST K The COST Or LAND ANO WATER, BECAUSE THE, PRICE 
 
 PA 10 BV THE PRESET HOLDERS O^ THE FARMS INCLUDED BOTH, WITH NO SEPARATE 
 PRICE AST. TO EACH. CVEN IP IT WERE POSSIBLE TO SEGREGATE ITEMS OP 
 
 COST, THE TOTAL IS THE SIGNIFICANT FIGURE, SINCE IT 16 WHAT THE SETTLER 
 MUST MEET IP HE IS TO SUCCEED. Th I S TOTAL MAY 9E MACE UP OP CHEAP LAND 
 AND HIGH-PRICED WATER 0* OP HIGH~PRICED LAN Z AND CHEAP WATER. In THE CASE 
 
 O c THE SECTION OP BOULOER COUNTY COVERED BY THIS SURVEY MOST OP THE PRESENT 
 HOLDERS OP THt LAND PGUGhT AFTER THE WATER RIGHTS WERE PAID FOR AND LAND 
 WATER WERE INCLUDcC IN A SIN-LE PRICE. 
 
 The AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE FARMS INCLUDED IN THE TABULATION 
 JLE 6), WAS ^3,950, INCLUDING WHATEVER IMPROVEMENTS WERE ON THE LAND AT 
 THE TIME OF PURCHASE. Th I S WAS AT THE RATE OF ABOUT $108. PER ACRE. HOW- 
 EVER, THE PARMS INCLUDE, ON THE AVERAGE, ABOUT ONE - THiRD AS MUCH LAND NOT 
 "CR WATE-> RIGHTS \<?4 PER CENT OF THE TOTAl) AS THERE IS ACREAGE COVERED 
 
 3y water rights* 
 
 The average excess of receipts from farm products ovep expendi- 
 tures IN I9«r*4 FOR ALL OWN£R~OPERA TL D ^ARMS TAKEN AS A SINGLE GROUP WAS 
 $517 PER ' T ABLES 3 AND 13). FROM THIS MUST COME WHATEVER ALLOWANCE 
 
 Iff STCRCST ON '".NT, DEPRECIATION, THE LABOR OF THE FARM 
 
 OPERATOR AND HI8 PAMILY ON TH r -ARM, AND THE REDUCTION OF INDEBTEDNESS ON 
 THF >■ AIM. 
 
 DEOUC T TEREST ON NCT NVCSTMENT AND DEPRECIATION ON BUILDINGS 
 
 ANO CQUI' IS A ^ E LABOR INCOME. BUT INTEREST ON NET I N~ 
 
 VEF • AND- DEPRECIATION ARE NOT EXPENDITURES, SO THAT The AVERAGE OWNER - 
 
 -3<>- 
 
OPERATOR IN THIS DISTRICT MAS $5 I 7 IN AODITION T D FAMILY Ll\ 
 
 08TAINEO FRO r $ I I FOR OUTS I DE LAB , WHICH TO L>. . 
 
 REDUCE HIS DEBTS, AND MAI iMPROVl 
 
 From the I9J4 record , 1 appears, therefore, tw ^s in the 
 section or Boulder County covrRtD ov the survey acre not • 
 
 THEIR INVESTMENT AND DEPREC I AT I 0'- . H LAND AND WATER COS T I N i $108 
 PER ACRE, AND HAD ONLY A SMALL ' ON WHICH TO LIVE. 
 
 
MITION '- • ■ ■ : • 
 
 FaRM . - Th> ^T0P8 WERE INSTRUCTED TO GET SUPf al 
 
 SCHEQULE6 FROM ALL FARMERS WHO V/CRE ALL On ANY PART Or THEIR 
 
 farms. T- , the Census r ion of a farm has been followed. 
 
 OH CENSUS PURPOSES, IP ALL THE LAND WHICH IS DIRECTLY 
 FaRMEO BY ONE PERSON, EITHER BY HIS OWN LABOR ALONE Of< WITH THE ASS I b 
 ' VBER8 OF HIS HOUSEMOLO, OR HI PCD EMPLOYEES, 
 
 "Do NOT REPORT AS A FARM ANY TRACT OF LAND OF LESS THAN THREE ACRES, 
 UNLESS ITS PRODUCTS IN 1924 WERE VALUED AT $250 OR MOF ■ 
 
 Valuc . - The values of farms ano farm property are those given by 
 
 ■ rm rs to the census enumerators. enumerators were instructed 
 
 to accept the farm operators 1 valuations unless they had rearv. to believe 
 
 that they were below the actual values of the farms or were grossly exagger- 
 
 guch cases they were to q i ve , as vcakly as they could oetermine, 
 
 or which the farm including buildings and improvements, would 
 
 SELL UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS (.NOT AT FORCED SALe). As A RULE ENUMERATORS 
 
 e local men who were well informeo as to local values through their 
 vledqe of transfers, appraisals for loa i . 3 assessments for taxation. 
 
 Water rights, in many places, go with the land, and their value is 
 udeo in the values of the r arvs. i\ othcr places they may be owned 
 tly of the land and can be assigned a separate value. in an a^- 
 
 without w ^ittle value, while land with water may have 
 
 a high value; but usually it is not possible to t ate the value that 
 
 shoulo be assigneo to the land from that that should be assigned to the water, 
 that should be assigned to the improvements made 9y the settlers 
 way of development. '/.here water rights may be sold separately from 
 land there are, usually, enough transfers to f i x values. 
 
 '• 'nvi . t investment, as used in this study, is the 
 
 ice between the 8um of the values of the farm, its eouipment and live- 
 stock, and cash on hand, ano the sum of the debts of all classes. 
 
 For computing interest on net investment, the r , t e used is the 
 
 .'mb by dividing the total interest paid on >vll classes of 
 tednes8 by the total amount of debts on which the interest is compute.. 
 
 Ta/T R .— r \ FARMS ARE NOT REPORTED FOR »=*APMS OPERATED BY 
 
 "HE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE NET RETURNS TO C 'ROM RENTED 
 •MS, TW i OF THE AMOUNT C TO THE VALUE OF FARMS HAS BE 
 
 INCO TOR 1 JMS PEPORTED BY THu I R OWNERS, AND THE RATE OETE^ 
 18 WAY 13 USED IN EST I ON RENTED FARt. . 
 
 FOR • THL I R OWNERS IT IS ASSUMEO THAT 
 
 '.ONE. IN CASES IN WHICh 
 D AND THE AM0UNT8 OF PREMIUMS ARE NOT REPORTED, 
 JM8 ARl / :'. THC OASIS O^ AV, • • i.S COMPUTED FROM THE 
 
 BOTH ARE REPORTED. N COMPUTING THE N MS TO 1 
 
OWNERS OF" RENTED FARMS PREMIUMS ON INSURANCE ON BUILDINGS ARE ESTIMATED ON 
 3ASIS OT THE RATIO Be . VALUE OF" BU' NO AMOUNT OK JM8 
 
 "N WHICH BOTH THES' R E REPORTED. 
 
 Rent . - The censuc ole calls for the amount of cash re?, i , 
 
 while the supp. | dule calls for the quantities and values of 
 
 products delivered to the owner as rental. n values were not reporteo 
 
 ave- ~>n other reports from the same project were used in 
 
 computing value . 
 
 ■- ipts , 192-+ . - The a/ounts reported as receipts from liv 
 and po. -re the net increases from january i, 1924, to january , 
 
 into account the inventories at the tv/o dates and purchases 
 sales during the ye- . 
 
 For LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PRODUCTS AND FOR CROPS THE VALUES OF 
 
 PRODUC >LD, AND THE VALUES OF PRODUCTS HELD FOR SALE CONSTITUTE RECEIPT . 
 
 5 OF PRODUCTS USED OR HELD FOR FAMILY USE OR FOR FEED OR SEED ARE 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 ON SOME OF THE PROJECTS SURVEYED SUGiAR BEETS IS AN T.'POPTANT CROP. 
 3EETS WERE SOLD ON CONTRACTS UNDER WHICH THE PRICE TO BE RECEIVED BY 
 
 .WES WAS DETERMINED BY THE PRICE RECEIVED FOR THE SUGAR MADE FROM THE 
 "HE FULL PRICE THAT THEY RECEIVED FOR 1924 BEETS WAS NOT 
 DE |L THE FALL OF 1925 AFTER THE COMPUTATIONS WERE '^ADE. In COM~ 
 
 PU i£ VALUE OF SU'iAR E.EETS THE APPROXIMATE PRICE RECEIVED f OR 1923 BEETS 
 
 
v OF FLORIDA 
 
 3 1262 08921 5247 
 
 II I llllll III III 
 ¥1 
 
 
 
 f1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^