WASHINGTON ()—Eyeing price tags on food, the average city guy often is inclined to think that per haps his country cousin has all the better of it—financially, at least. Not so, declares the Agricultural Department’s bureau of agricultur al economics. The cold, unemotion al statistics show clearly, says the bureau, that the urbanite is much better off than the farmer. The bureau has just come up with its final figures on 1949 farm in come. Those figures show that in come from all sources for people living on farms averaged only $763 last year compared with an aver age of $1,555 for each person not living on farms. This disparity between the farm average and the non-farm average income has prevailed for years. In some years it has been wide and some not so wide. Before the war farm income averaged only $243 compared with $602 for the urban average, the bureau says. Each year dou bting city guys write letters to the bureau questioning its figures. Isn't something left out in figuring the farm income, like ‘the value of food raised on the farm? The bureau replies with a “No.” Included in the farm income aver age is the value of the food and the rental value of the farm dwel ling. In other words, the $763 average farm income last year included only $615 in cash. The bureau figures that the average farm person ate and used $99 worth of farm-produc ed food and fuel. It also figures that the rental value of farm dwel lings was worth an average of $49 for each person. On the other hand, the $1,555 in come of the average city resident was made up wholly of cash re ceived as wages, salaries, dividends and other forms of income. But not all the farm income is received from farming itself. The bureau figures that the average farm person received an income of $191 from non-farm sources— such as wages and income from non-farm activities, returns on non farm investments and the like.