bie Mee eihal nen ditt wenn ee AMARA EMA Mnip Bahra eeu ee Historic, archived document Do notassume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULLETIN No. 560 ¥ OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Contribution from the Office of Farm Management. W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief. Washington, D.C. v July 9, 1917 COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES AND COST OF HORSE LABOR. A Study of Records for 316 Horses on 27 Farms in Ilinois, Ohio, and New York. By M. R. Coopmr, Scientific Assistant. CONTENTS. Page. Page. Lins) CLG G\UE ARE Ge ee a 25 Miscellaneous) costsi-eese- a. eeee ee eee 13 “SUID Ay CGO SIS S15 aes sae a eee eee 2 es WSVGA TO Speco ae ener ey tee bec oe 13 eNATIG DCAGING 4: oi cos ssc et Se ek Sk Sian atiOonsvinen efi COStsac ns saaeer et eee ee 14 MeOr COStS.... <2 2-5. nee ee peers Lae 8 | Relation of the work performed to the total Interest on value of horses...........-------- 9 TEC CECOS Tiere kiss Site a yr eae 16 BME MaIITACCOSt Mie ee ER SE yk a 9 | Cost of horse labor per hour.......-...---.--- 18 MSCOUEHMIDMENts 0.524. s26e---0e- tote 9 | Labor performed, by months...........-.-..- 19. ~ LIGNE ob oonadssouod beet ee see eee ae 9 | Relation of total crop acres per farm to crop Depreciation and appreciation. ............-- 10 ACEES| PEL MOPS sae ie See es Lei ce eit aie 22 Profit and loss on colt account...........--.- 12 Inasmuch as horses are the principal source of power on the average farm, the cost of horse labor is of vital concern to the farmer. Ithasa bearing on the net return of every farm enterprise, yet its significance is not likely to be appreciated fully by one who has not made a study of the subject. This, in large measure, is because the cost of horse labor, unlike that of hired-man labor, is chiefly made up of items of expense representing materials furnished by the farm and not involy- ing a direct cash outlay. __ The purpose of this bulletin is to show how the annual cost of keep- | Ing a farm work horse and the cost per hour worked may be deter- mined, and to point out that the cost per hour worked is the true measure of the profitableness of a horse to its owner. In other words, it Is desired to emphasize the fact that, other things being equal, the _ horse that costs $100 a year in feed, shelter, etc., and works 1,000 hours in that time, is more economical than the Ne that costs but $75 for keep and works but 500 hours, since the former costs but 10 cents per hour worked, while the latter costs 15 cents. Notr.—This bulletin should be of value to all who are interested in the study of farm-management problems. 93180°—B ull. 560—17——1 2 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SOURCES OF DATA. The data presented herein were obtained from cost-accounting — records for 316 horses on 27 farms in three States, namely, Illinois, | Ohio, and New York. In Illinois and New York the data were ob- tamed by the Office of Farm Management through direct cooperation with the farmers. The Ohio data were obtained in a like manner by — the cooperative department of the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station in cooperation with the Office of Farm Management. The — cost records kept on these farms consisted of detailed daily reports of all labor and financial transactions, complete inventories, and other necessary information for determining not only the costs and returns of farm work horses, but also the costs of operation and returns from the entire farm business. (See Table 1.) TABLE 1.—Sources of data. | Total Number | Number Years for which State. _offarms |ofyearly| data were See studied. records. collected. inehideal TEGO a oe B 10 | 18 | 1912-13-14. ____| 154 CTO ea era tn Se SS ae Bs Ye ER SE ES 7 16 | 1909-10-11-12._. 7 INE WOE Ke pes eee oR ee che eek Ae ne Fae a Lbs Se eR 10 | 18 | 1911-12-13-14. _| 90 SAN Gk pee et eae nent ee cr ae ene 27 | CPt eee ees TK 316 In Illinois data were procured in the counties of Cass, Menard, and Sangamon. ‘The principal crops raised on the 10 farms studied were corn, oats, wheat, and hay. The live stock fed were hogs and cattle. _ The 7 farms in Ohio were located, respectively, in Coshocton, Madi- son, Adams, Crawford, Greene, Holmes, and Trumbull Counties. The principal crops raised on these farms were corn, oats, wheat, and hay. The live stock fed were hogs and cattle. One farm varied from the others in that dairying and trucking were carried on. The New York data were collected in the counties of Orleans, Wyoming, Genesee, Monroe, Niagara, and Seneca. The principal crops raised on the 10 farms visited were oats, wheat, beans, pota- toes, and hay. Orcharding also was carried on extensively. Little live stock was kept, with the exception that on one farm dairying © was followed. SUMMARY OF COSTS. An itemized summary of the annual average cost per horse, and | the percentage each item of cost is of the total gross cost, for the horses studied in each State, will be found in Table 2. COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES. 3 TABLE 2.—Itemized summary of average annual costs and credits per horse, by States (27 farms, 316 horses). GROSS COSTS. ae : New York (90 Item, Illinois (154 horses).| Ohio (72 horses). horses). Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Meediand bedding las tere LS ob. $68. 75 65. 0 $76. 86 58. 8 $91. 25 57.1 BLS OI s oo cab NE es cat et cet eae lm 13. 99 13.2 27. 48 21.0 22. 09 13.8 PETER ESU mre y meiae Ma ARE Ere COR ee 7. 90 7.4 8. 66 6. 6 9. 43 5.9 SED] SITTER a5 Slee ee gna) ME a 4.95 4.7 7.18 525 12. 98 8.1 Wseotequipment! +o 62 eo2 2s ee ek 3. 82 3. 6 5. 00 3.8 5. 85 Se PETOOMIM OME tee ey Oly teria ee po ot . 86 .8 2.35 1.8 4.56 2.9 DED POCIE TO SOE NS aN st eat a oe EO 3. 46 Coen ll veneer lees raga eta ie 11. 56 7.2 ENEtOSSIONICOltSS ee Se 4 ees 2 1. 24 TOM eee Re Eee ea EIS OTP ATIEOUS I ose iin n cya seers ose nN 212 2.0 1. 90 Nea) 2.09 683 BING Geese ee pacers etter. he ice Meg al) 105. 89 100. 0 | GLOSS 100. 0 | 159. 81 100. 0 CREDITS. IVC ETAT CMe mines ny oe nM aS noo POR eA i eel eee ie | Doe OU eee $TSASOy |e oe Horse eunrcciation EUnet a ayy Oe Bia ia Well Sates as | ZENO! a eee NIMS aT eee tie SM TOIRGRER Ue Ee ONG tis OT aR a ln la ony esses ae eee alee 143 We Uses as Tayi TAces Seatac! aac Mela aie | 5. 24 | Seasons ee Tos30 Stee) 14.79 | Baan hk | | | NET COST. Cost of keeping, less credits..............-- | S1OONES anes | $120. 37 | be poet re ee $145. 02 | Rie ah mints | 1 The item of bedding is included with feed, because on many farms straw was used both as a feed and as bedding, and owing to the fact that refuse from the mangers was used for bedding, it was contrary to actual practice to attempt to make bedding a separate item. The gross costs, made up of the items of feed and bedding, labor, interest, stabling, use of equipment, shoeing, depreciation, loss on colts, and miscellaneous charges, are partially offset by credits for manure, appreciation of young work horses, and _ profits on colts. The Henan between the gross cost and the sum of these credits is the net cost of keeping a horse a year. This is, of course, the cost of the work performed by the horse. It will be seen that, with few exceptions, each item of cost was greater in Ohio than in Illinois, and still greater in’ New York. This variation in average cost is discussed in the following analysis of the several items of cost and credit. FEED AND BEDDING.! The term ‘‘feed and bedding” includes all grain, roughage, and pasture used by horses. Accurate feed records are difficult to. obtain, so that in determining the feed cost shown herein not only the ae records but also the yearly inventories of feeds and the amounts raised and purchased were all considered in arriving at the feed cost. k In the following pages, all references to feed include both feed and bedding. 4 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. In each State the feed and bedding costs were more than one-half of the total gross costs of keeping the horses. These costs were — about $69 in Illinois, $77 in Ohio, and $91 in New York, varying i according to kinds, quantities, and prices of feed and bedding used. KINDS OF FEED. The number of kinds of feed used were 11 in Illinois, 16 in Ohio, and 18 in New York. In all, there were 26 different kinds. Table 3 shows the feeds used with the quantity and value of each per horse, by States. TABLE 3.—Kinds of feed used, average quantity, and value per horse, by States (27 farms, 316 horses). ees Ags! & ees New York (90 Illinois (154 horses).| Ohio (72 horses). horses). Kind of feed. | ee Cost per Quan- Cost per Quan- Cost per 42 a I os tity per ane tity per nan horse. par horse. Pas horse. ie | ASOT Teer eas gee bushels. . 57.20 $30. 90 26.50 $16.12 10. 92 $8.36 SESE See a rl ee ee dees 38. 24 TEBei ly 53.10 22.20 42.58 19.94 CE ED yey St Bato fe ee ee Bee Ree Ae ie tons ATd. 9.32 2.09 27.44 3.28 43.47 “SI 02 fa 6 ie ei a Ei eel ac Nas (e) 1.06 5.58 S| 3.43 1.38 F HOdGer oe: ee as tee ee ees ee do .22 . 36 45 f255 03 17 DBS Ger Ute a py he, pe eRe POUNES bens we IL eee see 85.50 1.18 184.50 2.51 SH OTES es s94 Bs A ea Se Ore Ss Ma a gee 4.07 106 dicots EA CORO ae ee ee Bee Se eae AO les ka Ae eee 18.7 .22 38.00 69 (around feed an. 285 oo ia che St es re Le eee eee NE Cea eRe a tearer ete ssh 140. 00 2.10 WGA ee oe eas Se er eee es Hushels- 245 a-ce2 58 EER NOR GREE Eee lr Des + 4.33 3.55 BRO e en be Seen oases aetiseeeee Oke ec ee ae eee =20 | 24 58 47 PpAMIGyate a skein. See a on eae Ps ra Le Saves! (a ties ONC? Phe PEER ee) be ak ARS eee 2 26 16 OMNIS 5 see Fe ee Ee POUNGSs-|) pee Mose. So eee Bee 50.90 66 RON CITC al ener ch see were eet ae MO elo: o) ae Saee aee 29.50 | 54 85 02 Ado lfeanteal sje od hee ee yy Bis do 27.35 Shy ln. os asses adeeed peer eee WorLonseedianeal (os 502 esse Le) ces om Ae 4.75 O81). eee SOCK tO ee ee A ee ae (Oeste @) S (Uf Peeee ee eens eee (?) .09 Oat hay and sheaf oats.............. tons. .| . 06 71 .O1 | Bi fp sees 62 2 Suh oe Seon Ss oo yo es 2 ee poundssdiee «ee see [ae eere 10.40 | 206402052 .. MeSSos eae Searsginims eo Meee tae ee ta ete Gaus: Fe oe ae ee .01 | og . 03 .34 Bennipods -.4s-b6 os ey cee ces es G06 se so oan | eeseas- dicho cee iteee eee 02 12 SLUR TE SEER e Bes he Lae aay 8 yey do.. 02 06). eae eee eee Popsioes=) fs do Werie, ay! he MuUSHels. |e see ee eee 41 099 2 ee Ae a RATT OIS 2 Be Fee ok eats eee bic eee EL SEES: Dee pale ET [eilea tga pal ied [Betis Ue ete & | Berean 35.0 9 ot Qe , Pastaire) (TASS) Hohe ee months... 4.60 7.36 2.26 3.50 1.13 1.50 Pasture (cerm stalks). -.--....---4.25 a | 55 SBS Vices ee cee ea eee Gecetecee c NALS (Dc ip et SS es i a La ee a SEMA bien et eee SAR ey (a hot | es A eat 76.86 Tesco cee | 91.25 The principal feeds used were corn, oats, hay, straw, and pasture. In Illinois these represented 97 per cent of the total feed cost. In the other two States this percentage was less, being 94.5 in Ohio and 88 in New York. Corn was the principal grain fed in Illinois, oats n Ohio and New York. The greatest quantity of hay per horse was fed in New York, and the most pasture per horse was used in Illinois. In Illinois very little horse feed was purchased, the concentrate ration being made up primarily of home-grown grains. Corn and oats, with few exceptions, were fed whole. On some farms hay was fed sparingly during idle periods of the year. Straw was used for bedding, and in some cases for feed durmg the winter months. From 5 COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES. about the middle of April to November the horses were out on grass pasture at night and through the day when not working. In some cases they were pastured on stalk fields after the corn was harvested. In Ohio a slightly greater quantity of feed per horse was purchased than in Illinois, and less pasture was used, thus necessitating the use of a greater quantity of hay, straw, and other roughage. Corn and oats were sometimes ground and mixed with other feeds that were bought. ) In New York a still greater quantity of feed was bought. Often corn and oats were ground, and mixtures of these with purchased feeds were fed. On some farms horses were never pastured. In New York the average time per horse on pasture was 1.13 months, and in Ohio 2.26 months, as against 4.93 monthsin IUinois. The quantity of hay used increased as the time of pasture decreased. COST OF FEEDS. In Table 4 the feeds are divided into three classes, namely, grain, roughage, and pasture, by States. TABLE 4.—Average quantity and cost of grain, roughage, and pasture per horse, by States (27 farms, 316 horses). Illinois (151 horses).| Ohio (72 horses). | Tepeecon (90 Kind of feed. | Average | Average | Average | Average | Average | Average quantity | cost per | quantity | cost per | quantity | cost per per horse.| horse. |perhorse.| horse. | perhorse.| horse. Cielo Saobuee tech sees eas pounds. . 4,500 $44. 93 3,347 $40. 71 2,691 $38. 55 FROME ag Cen Serta eee ee eS lee” pounds. . 4.224 16.13 6, 660 32. 65 9,513 51. 20 PASO edoles bene hae eee days. . 148 7. 69 68 3. 50 34 1.50 SOUL Sexes 158 6a ASR lle) Ae I (Ae ae ne OSES Wdces coeoee OSS) saan 91. 25 1 The item “‘roughage”’ includes, along with hay, straw, etc., small amounts of succulent roughage, such as silage and roots. Referring to the figures for the different States, it will be seen that the average total of grain per horse is less in Ohio and New York than im Illinois, while the average total of roughage per horse is greater. This is largely due to the greater relative cost of concentrated feed in the Kast. Thus the price of corn in New York, as compared with Illinois, is 42 per cent greater, and of oats 36 per cent greater, while the price of hay is only 9 per cent more in New York than in Illinois. In Table 5 is shown the average price of each feed, by States. 6 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. TABLE 5.—Average price of each feed, by States (27 farms, 316 horses). ; Tllinois Ohio |. New Kind of feed. (154 (72 | YY: ork (90 horses). | horses). | horses). | COTTA sc See ewe teen et a eer Sie ee Oe ARE 2 Se es vee era erecreee bushel..} $0. 5403 $0.608 | $0. 766 OATS, IOS Neo, BUENA IN ORE Cir ENCES OO ge do....| .3445 .418| 4684 IRyei cee fiek soe oe Sowa eae mes ee ye wie e oe eee ores ree ae GO s5 32) sae raee - 836 | -810 Sheat TVS eee Munsee SET Coe AS Ee FREY ESE: hundredweight._|.......... {60 Fe ee DES AY] Oy tae ee I te eh SS Ua ete Ae ee DuUshele see Vesta eee 615 STOLE See eee eR: SLD i ay Sasa pee SEAT Une Ma hundredweight..|.......... 1507/22 eae BT arise seeeee SEN) CUA tens - Sete eed) nee eae dosed): eee 1.385 | 1.36 os Re ET Pe eee Re MacRae clare ai A ICT Paes co erche ee eke CO F355 eae Soe 20] 1. 82 CETOUNIC MOCO Serer Sebo Se a eee Se eee a ee ie asa GOe 22 SE e eee eee 1.50 Oilimedlaysesay Seas LH PERE eas peek eed Ree Soe ae ame, eRe dossf2|tt se foo 1. 835 1. 80 Cottonseed brn caer eer aes ee ye ek eee te act eo Co oa Eee See ee 1 56) eee ee BAU fal Fay Te ales re Sek Re, Cae eR RS Sy 7 PEL ea eee he cc Ko peel FM) Ee eo a bea eR a TS (ayaa a ayes dae Ge ase SR ee Sees ETS ees Ano ee aes ae Ose: =| 35. asere loan at eee 1.30 AWihiea fee eee Soe Ree 2) eee We TSA eh a Ra, SP Reese oe bushel a: alee (at ENA 82 EOLA TOCS a gs etek eae Ere 9 SN 2 A CRO ie ee So (o (opera eee a 22) |e ae ATT OUSsee se eee ths woe See eae eee CUE Ri SAPS IEEE. SUR Ree Gos 2.) see Sea 25 TERN assim dec OF, WA Saas hae Ge cee a Sere eNREa ESSE BE NEY ton...| 12.16 13.14 | 13.27 RSE Wate eee ars Nee ee Re ae 2 RENEE SR aL ee Dee I Ae do. 5. 24 4.50 | 5. 08 Tria (Sree ae Bs tee IS ER re er eaca rea tye Ney ae pe hear ae eee MA se do. 4.25 SHUR | 5. 00 Oatihaywand'sheatioats 26 et Se ee ae ee eee dose = =| LI 6i LO: 80:4): eee OLS NUM =. caer Seek oe Mei in 2k SS eee Sawin sae scar does: jen saseaeee 8.00 | 10.00 IGA pOdS sere eee aes cron ia oes ee teloei ie tee = ee en Oss: 252320 ee eee 7. 20 Silate oe eo a aaas a a= eis Se Soe oe el eee St SESS ete GOs. aly, 3.00" || Fe eee ee eee BRAS HUT ENC OT ASS) Seer eyes eee eI ore alle ee nen eS month... J. 60)- | 1555 1. 34 Pasnine<(cConm stalks) ato 2 tases oo eae eee ne oe ee do-2 22) 4400p (55.5. . Slee Averare price per LOMODallerainas = —n2 Ses. ose ena ane ee gee ae 19. 97 24. 33 28. 65 Average price per toniofall roughavgesias. see. = eae na ee eae 7. 64 9. 80 10. 76 PRICES OF FEEDS. The feed costs given in the foregoing tables are based on the values of feeds at the farm for feeds raised, and on actual cash costs for feeds purchased. These costs for each year were governed somewhat by market prices, and the average value on each farm was influenced by the quality of the feed, and the relative quantity used at different prices. It will be seen that the average price per bushel of corn in Ohio was $0.067 higher than the average price in Illinois, and in New York $0.158 higher than in Ohio. Likewise, the average price per bushel of oats in Ohio was $0.074 higher than the average price in Ilhnois, and in New York $0.05 higher than in Ohio. The average price per ton of hay for Ohio was $0.98 higher than for Illinois and that for New York $0.13 higher than that for Ohio. A comparison of the variations in grain prices in the three States with figures from the Yearbooks of the U. S. Department of Agricul- ture for the years 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, and 1913 shows that in Ohio the average farm price per bushel of corn for three years was $0.046 higher than in Illinois, and in New York $0.12 higher than in Ohio. Also, these figures show that the average price per bushel of oats for these years was $0.029 higher in Ohio than in Ilhnois, and $0.084 higher in New York than in Ohio. These variations are less than those shown by the figures used in this bulletin. This is partly due to the fact that the prices used in this bulletin are averages for a ‘ small number of farms, while those shown in the Yearbooks of the | } } COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES. 7 U.S. Department of Agriculture are averages for each entire State. The grain prices shown in Table 5 are influenced also by the relative _ quantity of ground corn and oats used in the different States. It is evident that variation in feed prices had a marked influence on the total feed cost per horse in each State group. Aside from this, a study of individual farms shows that different feeding practices also had a distinct bearing on the total feed cost per horse. On some farms practically the same kinds of grain and roughage were fed throughout the year, the quantities of each varying from month to month according to the amount of work done by the horse. On other farms, the grain fed was reduced, and pasture and cheap rough- age, such as straw, fodder, etc., were substituted for hay when the horses were not worked regularly. The fact that the cost of feed was more than half of the total cost of keeping a horse should show how important to every farmer is a careful consideration of this subject. MONTHLY FEED COSTS ON SELECTED FARMS. In Table 6 are shown the variations in monthly feed costs on three individual farms, one from each of the three States. It will be seen that on each farm the greatest monthly feed costs were for March, April, May, June, and July. For these months, this cost per horse was $7.47 in Illinois, $7.60 in Ohio, and $8.92 in New York; for the remaining seven months, the average monthly feed cost per horse was $3 less in Illinois, $1.47 less in Ohio, and $2.24 less in New York. TABLE 6.— Variation in feed costs, by months, on three individual farms located, respec- tively, in Illinois, Ohio, and New York. — Month. Tllinois. Ohio. WAGED te ade choo eee et ae ee ee en lg SS. 68 $7.75 $7.94 “DE ecbec ide Fash. Sohne ee ee 7. 65 | 7.30 7.68 wiles Abce- RASA eee nS eee eee oe i 7.34 8. 42 10. 39 EE 2 2c BBE Se ake ESS ele IS ee a gerd 6. 66 7.30 10. 68 ELF acetéd heeds esd te oA. SRR ei a a ae eee ee 7.00 7.20 7.93 SAUSUSE.-..--- 2 Shae + ot See See See — eee a a ee Sees 4.70 | 6. 50 7.76 TERR TEP Lo ee 8S eae tg ey So 4.58 6. 66 7. 53 RDDGEs seeten chose ce Gc Suge Ss See ee 4.32, 6. 29 6. 23 wT WGERIDE Hee So as A i a me 4. 67 | 5. 40 6. 22 LU PPTITISGE 5b dhe see kele de Se Se Be a ee ne ee 4.40 | 5.70 6.56 2 SIU ING < Bethe een ae Some Ee tee a a a ea a 2 4. 40 | 5. 94 6. 56 UC TATRIN 66 ck eae a Ras ce eRe eae 4.23 6. 42 | 5.92 PENNA ES ERA ea Se eB he Na eon ee ne ES te 6. 74 7. 62 On this particular Illinois farm the kinds of feed and the quantity of each varied considerably according to the work done by the horse. Especiaily is this true of the pasture which was used from _ April to November, when the horses were idle. In this State during - December, January, and February corn fodder and straw were fed extensively in the place of hay. On the Ohio farm, from March to August the feeds used were ; corn, oats, bran, chop, and hay; from September to January corn : 8 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. fodder was fed in the place of hay; a part of the time in February — | hay was again substituted for corn fodder. Straw was used for — bedding only. . On the New York farm, corn, oats, rye, and hay were fed throughout the year. Greater quantities of these were fed during May and i June, while from October to February there was a marked decrease in the quantities fed. As in Ohio, straw was used for bedding only. | LABOR COSTS. ‘“‘Labor” includes the number of hours of both man and horse labor devoted to feeding and taking care of the horses, cleaning stalls, hauling feed and supplies, and to any other labor performed — for the benefit of the horse. The hauling of manure from the barn and barnyards is not charged against the horses, but becomes a part of the manure cost charged to the crop on which it is applied. TaBLE 7.—Number of hours, cost per hour, and total cost per horse of man and horse labor devoted to the care of horses, by States (27 farms, 316 horses). Illinois (154 horses). Ohio (72 horses). | New York (90 horses). _Kind of labor. liare! ost Cost Cost | 'Total Total f Total Hours.| pe | cost Hours el engi | Hours. ppee | cost. Cents. | | Cents. | Cents. | Manilnborte i cseck oases os 85.2 | 14.95 | $12.74 | 164.6} 16.00 | $26.34 | 127.3 | 16.40 $20. 88 HOrseHabortces ae eee eee 13, 1 9. 56 S25 S27 leels290 1.14 | S55) sola eeee 1.21 Din talee ke ae eats eee. 2ial|e Rael Pua 13.99 |.---22)-- sees D7. ass ee ey ede a 22. 09 | | Next after feed, labor was the highest item of cost in caring for the horse, varying from 13 to 21 per cent of the total cost in the three States. Of the labor cost, 94.3 per cent was for man labor. It will be seen that the man-labor cost on the Ohio farms was more than double the cost on those in Illinois, and that on the New York farms it was more than one and one-half times the cost in Illinois. Or, in terms of hours, 85 man-hours per year were devoted on an average to the care of each horse in Iinois, while 127 and 165 hours, respec- tively, were so devoted in New York and Ohio. A study of the data shows that on an average each horse in Iinois was pastured a greater number of days than in either of the other States, thus requiring comparatively less attention. On the Ohio and New York farms a number of horses were stabled through- out the entire year, and hence required more attention than those on the farms where pasture was used. It also shows that in Ohio the care of horses on some farms was very high as compared with data on other farms in the three States; hence the high average cost for the farms in this State. / | ' COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES. 9 The cost per hour of man labor, as determined from these cost- accounting investigations, was found to be 15 cents for the Illinois farms, 16 cents for those in Ohio, and 16.5 cents for those in New York. The proprietor’s labor was charged at the same rates. The cost per hour of horse labor was found by dividing the net cost of keeping the horses by the total number of hours worked by them. The average cost was about 94 cents for the Illinois farms, 14 cents for those in Ohio, and 144 cents for those in New York. INTEREST ON VALUE OF HORSES. Although interest is an indirect cost, it must be considered before the total cost of keeping can be determined. This interest cost was figured at 5 per cent of the average value of the horse as shown by the yearly inventories. In the three States studied, interest varied from an average of $7.90 in Illinois to $9.43 in New York. The aver- age values of the horses studied in this work were as follows: Ill- nois, $158; Ohio, $173; New York, $189. STABLING COST. “Stabling cost”’ concerns that part of the buildings used for sta- bling horses and storing horse feed, and includes 5 per cent interest on the average investment, insurance, taxes, cash and labor, repairs, and depreciation. In cases where records were not kept for a long enough period to determine the depreciation of buildings, a charge of 2 per cent was made, allowance being made for all repairs that were made during the year. This cost varied from 4.7 per cent of the total gross cost of keeping in Illinois to 8.1 per cent in New York. USE OF EQUIPMENT. This item of cost embraces a charge of 5 per cent interest on the average investment in harness and all miscellaneous equipment used by the horses, both cash and labor for repairs, insurance, taxes, and depreciation. Since this equipment is used by the horses alone, its entire cost should be charged to them. In Illinois this cost was about $4 per head, and $1 and $2 higher in Ohio and New York, re- spectively. : SHOEING. This item of cost usually represents a direct outlay of cash. On many of the farms this expenditure was of minor importance, since the horses were not shod except when needed for heavy road work or when used on frozen ground. Especially was this true on the Illi- nois farms, where the average cost per horse was only $0.86 per year. On the Ohio and New York farms it was much higher, being $2.35 93180°—Bull. 560—17——2 10 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. “ and $4.56, respectively, in these States. It is true that on many farms in each State the cost of shoeing individual horses was much greater than the above averages. The fact that on some farms little shoeing was done throughout the year, and on other farms practi- cally the only horses shod were one team for the winter months, would tend to cause a low average cost per horse for each State, group. DEPRECIATION AND APPRECIATION. In determining depreciation and appreciation in value of horses a yearly inventory value was placed on each horse on the farm by careful appraisal and a record was kept of each horse bought or sold. In Illinois 11 of the 18 yearly farm records showed a net depreciation of horses. In Ohio 7 of the 16 yearly records showed a net depre- ciation, and in New York 16 of the 18 yearly records showed a net depreciation. The average net depreciation of the 316 horses was $4.50 per horse.! Of this amount $2.70 per horse was due to the death of 9 horses, valued at $855. Depreciation varied from $11.60 per horse in New York to an appreciation of $2.10 per horse in Ohio. Table 8 shows the percentage of horses that appreciated in value, the percentage that did not, and the factors influencing the aggregate depreciation or appreciation, by States. 1 Bulletin 341 of this department shows that the average annual depreciation of horses on 378 farms studied in Chester County, Pa., is $7 per head, and on 300 farms studied in Lenawee County, Mich., $7.10 per head. These figures are largely determined by the practice of farmers in disposing of horses while they are still salable at a fairly satisfactory price, and would undoubtedly be much greater if all farm horses were kept until their usefulness was at an end. Cornell University (N. Y.) bulletin 377 shows that the average annual depreciation of horses on 14 New York farms for the year 1912, andon 31 New York farms for 1913, was $14.03 and $12.10 per horse unit, respectively. Of the 45 farms studied, 12 showed an appreciation of horses. Minnesota extension bulletin 15, covering a period of four years, 1904 to 1907, inclusive, gives figures for farms studied in three different counties. In Rice County depreciation varied from $0.98 in 1905 to $15.48 in 1904, averaging for the four years $5.56 per head. In Lyon County depreciation varied from $4.20 in 1905 to $9.86 in 1904, averaging per year $6.94 per head. In Norman County depreciation varied from $2.60 in 1907 to $7.37 in 1904, averaging per year $5.82 per head. It is pointed out in the text that depreciation of the horse is an expensive item to farmers who are not able to control this expense by means of clever selling methods and by the use of young horses. Shrewd selling, however, does not affect the general principal of depreciation, since thus the loss is passed on to the buyer. Minnesota experiment station bulletin 145 gives results of a further study of horse depreciation in the above-mentioned counties. Records for Rice County for the period 1908 to 1912, inclusive, shows a varia- tion in depreciation from $0.28 in 1910 to $5.10 in 1909, and an average per year of $3.05 per head. In Lyon County the study covers a period of 3 years, 1908 to 1910, inclusive. The depreciation varied from $1.47 in 1910 to $5.60 in 1909, averaging per year $3.06 per head. In Norman County the work covered a period of 4 years, 1908 to 191], inclusive. The depreciation varied from $0.51 in 1910 to $3.42 in 1911, averaging per year $1.48 per head. It is pointed out in this bulletin that the annual depreciation as shown above is not high enough to represent a proper average charge through a long term of years. Abnormal conditions in the Minnesota horse market were largely responsible for the low depreciation charge. COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES. ! 11 TABLE 8.—Percentage of 316 horses that appreciated in value, percentage that did not appreciate, and the factors influencing the aggregate depreciation or appreciation, by States (27 farms, 316 horses). Percentage of horses that showed— ‘'Number Number |Number | Number State and number of horses. ————~———_|__ of eouen dae of colts | of colts | colts Appre-| No ap- deaths. bought. | sold. fed. cia- | precia- tion. tion. Tilinois (154 horses)..........-.. 18. 75 81. 25 33 21 21 Dye ok Sens 43 OMI OG2iWOrSeS)se isos oe Se ae 21.95 Tiss Wilisnacaoses 9 17 2 1 Uf New York (90 horses) ........-- 4.95 | 95.05 | 6 6 3 1 2 18 The three States (316 horses).; 15.60 84.40 | 9 36 41 5 | 3 68 On the Illinois and New York farms colts became work horses when from 24 to 4 years of age. The age of work horses that depre- ciated in value varied considerably, depending on their usage and care. The average age of work horses that appreciated in value was about 4 years. The average age of those that neither appreciated nor depreciated in value was about 8 years, and the average age of those that depreciated in value was about 11 years. In Ohio data showing the age of all the horses studied were not obtained; however, the data that were obtained along this line showed about the same results as those in Illinois and New York. : In Illinois about 19 per cent of the horses appreciated in value at the rate of $36.05 per head per year, while the average depreciation for the other 81 per cent was $12.55 per head. At this rate it will be seen that a $36 appreciation of one horse practically would offset the depreciation of three others. Thus the appreciation of one horse out of every 5.34 kept resulted in an average net depreciation for all horses of but $3.46 per head. Of the 154 horses included in the records from this State 3 died, causing a loss of $350. In other words, the death loss was about 1 out of every 51. In considering the reason for the number of young horses on these farms and the low depreciation of work horses it was found that there was an average of one colt for every four work horses kept. Further, no colts were sold, all being developed into work horses, 11 becoming work horses during the time in which data were collected. It also will be seen that the same number of horses was bought as was sold. Three died and had to be replaced, and a part of the farmers enlarged their business, thus requiring more horses. With the continued raising and developing of colts into work horses, however, it is safe to say that ordinarily a greater number of young horses will be developed than will be needed in the farm business. On the Ohio farms about 22 per cent of the horses appreciated in value at the rate of $56.90 per head. The average depreciation of 12 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. the remaining 78 per cent was $13.30 per head. At this rate the appreciation of 1 horse would offset the depreciation of more than 4 other horses. Thus the appreciation of 1 horse out of every 4.55 resulted in an average net appreciation of $2.10 per head for the total number of horses. While no deaths occurred in this group, 2 horses were severely injured, entailing a loss of $175. On the Ohio farms there was an average of one colt for every 10 work horses kept. This was about two-thirds less than on the Ilinois farms, and yet the depreciation of horses was $5.56 per head less than in Illinois. By this it will be seen that the net appreciation of horses in Ohio was not so much due to the raising of young horses as in Ilhnois. A study of the data shows that the reason for this was that on some farms a practice was made of buying young horses, and, after working them for a time, selling them at an increase in value. During the years this study was made 9 horses were bought and 17 were sold, 8 of the 17 having been on the farms at the time this work was begun. The horses bought and sold were mostly young draft stock, which accounts for the high appreciation of $56.90 per horse. In following this practice, at times more horses were kept than were needed to do the farm work. Other data in this bulletin show that the average horse worked less hours per year on the Ohio farms than on the Llinois or New York farms. On the New York farms the relative number of horses that appre- ciated in value was a great deal less than in each of the other States— less than 5 per cent—at the rate of $44.40 per head. The deprecia- tion per head of the remaining 95 per cent was $14.48. At this rate, the appreciation of one horse would a little more than offset the de- preciation of three other horses. Thus, the average net depreciation was $11.56 for all horses. One reason for this depreciation being higher than in the other two States was a loss of $505 due to the death of 6 horses, or about 1 out of every 15. Thus, more than 484 per cent of the total depreciation was due to deaths. The number of colts on these farms was less than in Illinois. For every work horse sold two were bought. It seems that these farmers have but recently started to replace the old horses by raising colts. PROFIT AND LOSS ON COLT ACCOUNT. In determining these items of loss or credit, young stock were con- sidered as colts from the time they were born until they were broken to work. The cost of keeping the colts on each farm was found by the same method followed in arriving at the cost of keeping work horses. This account was credited with the value of manure pro- duced by the colts and their appreciation in value. It was found that colts usually showed a good profit during the first and second years, and under favorable conditions broke about even for the third COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES. 13 year; that is, the increased cost of keep for the third year was not always covered by the increase in value. Of the 43 colts fed on the Illinois farms, 19 were born during the years this work was done. A loss of 4 cents per head on the Illinois farms was due to the deaths of 4 colts valued at $300. In Ohio the loss was higher, averag- ing $1.24 per head. Of the 7 colts fed, but 1 was born during the period of this work, On the New York farms the colts showed an average profit of $1.43 per head. No.deaths occurred, and of the 18 fed, 8 were born during the years of this work. Under favorable conditions the raising of colts is one way of keeping down the cost of horse labor. (See fig. 1.) Fig. 1.—Under favorable conditions the raising of colts is one way of keeping down the cost of farm- horse labor. MISCELLANEOUS COSTS. “Miscellaneous costs,’’ a minor item, embraces insurance, share of taxes, veterinary services and medicine, salt, etc. The average of these costs per head varied from $1.90 on the Ohio farms to $2.12 in Illinois. The cost in New York was about the same as that in Iinois. The amount expended for this group of items varies con- siderably on different farms. The variation is, however, in almost direct proportion to the amount expended for veterinary services. MANURE. Horses were credited with only the manure recovered from the stables and feed lot, which was valued at $1 per ton before removal. 14 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. The amount credited was determined by means of the yearly inven- tories and a record of the number of tons hauled to the fields. On the Illinois farms the average manure credit was $5.24; in Ohio, $8.20; and in New York, $13.36 per horse. On individual farms there was a wide variation in the amount of horse manure actually saved, This variation is accounted for to a large extent by the. individual practices of Manure management, and the extent to which roughage was utilized for feed and bedding purposes. A study of the average manure credits and their relation to the average amounts of feed used per horse (pp. 3 and 5) shows that the average Manure credit per horse is greatest in the States where the horses were fed the greatest quantities of grain and roughage ne pastured the least number of days. VARIATIONS IN NET COSTS. In Tables 9, 10, and 11, the data for each State are divided into two eroups with reference to net costs. The first group includes those years for which the net cost per horse was greater than the average for the State. The second group inciudes those years for which the net cost per horse was less than the average for the State. TABLE 9.—Iilinois farms—Itemized average costs and credits for records showing a net cost per horse above the average OE the State, and for those showing a net cost per horse below the average | (10 farms, 154 horses). eee Appre-| Colt | Colt All | ciation | ciation} loss | profit | other erode (cost). Kee) (cost). ais (costs). (er ). Feed | Labor (cost). (cast. Range of cost. Above the average cost.......-...---: | $78.05 | $16.20 | $4.48 | Spat Se | 592 4e $21. 02 $5. 45- Below the average cost.....---.------ 60:00" |) Ld. S64, 252i tar oe eee $3.98] 548 43 | 5. 06- PPTereNGe eres a SN ie 1805 | 4:24) 1.96 |W | 3.92 | — 2. 59 .39 1 Average net cost for the State, $100.65. One-half of the 18 yearly farm records showed a net cost greater than the average for all records. The average net cost for this eroup was $118.22 per horse, while the average net cost for the nine yearly records with a cost less than the State average was $84.47, making a difference of $33.75. Of this difference, $18.05 was for feed and $4.24 was for labor. From this it will be seen that the principal difference in cost in this State was for feed, though it naturally follows that a somewhat greater amount of labor will be required for the horses in handling the larger quantities of feed utilized by the better-fed group. The item of depreciation is $1.96 per horse greater than for the low-cost group. The total death loss of $350 for all farms was in this group, and it is interesting to note that, had no deaths occurred, the depreciation would have been greater in the low-cost group. In the high-cost group, thare was a COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES. 15 net loss of $3.92 per horse on the colt account, and in the low-cost group a net profit of $3.38 per horse. This makes a difference between the two groups of $7.30 per horse. The greater part of this | is due to the death of four colts valued at $300. It will be seen that | in addition to the loss of the colts themselves, there was the loss of all feed and attention furnished them. There was a slight difference of 39 cents in the manure credits in favor of the high-cost group. ‘TABLE 10.—Ohio farms—Itemized average costs and credits for records showing a net cost per horse above the average for the State, and for those showing a net cost per horse below the average ' (7 farms, 72 horses). | | | Depre-| Appre-| Colt Colt | All Feed | Labor ciation | ciation | loss profit | other Manure Range of cost. e i | (cost). | (cost). | (egst), |(credit).| (cost). |(credit).| (costs). “Creat. Above the average cost............-.. | $92.12 | $31.09 | $0.07 |........ $25800|Sete se $27. 35 $7. 16 Below the average cost..._.........-. GOs OU tn 23300). 5 eee Wee S40) evn Se ey re $0.34 | 22.57 9.35 |————_- Poses ee at [A SS | DD WTEC COL ae arpa ys es ot oe leet eal 7.59 . 07 4. 50 2. 86 . 34 £78 2.19 1 Average net cost per horse for the State, $120.37. Variations in costs between the two groups on the Ohio farms were found to be similar to those in Illinois. One-half of the 16 yearly farm records showed a net cost greater than the average for all records. The average net cost per horse for this group was $146.33, while the average net cost per horse for the low-cost group of eight records was $91.89. The difference in cost between the two groups was $54.44, which is $20.69 greater than the difference in Illinois. Feed and labor made up $39.70, or 73 per cent of this difference. Here, as in Ithinois, it will be seen that these two items are the princi- pal factors controlling variations in cost on the average farm. While there was a slight depreciation per horse in the high-cost group, there was an appreciation of $4.50 in the low-cost group, making a difference in cost of $4.57 per horse. Similar conditions were found regarding loss and profit on the colt account; that is, the high-cost group showed an average colt-account loss of $2.86 per horse, while the low-cost group showed an average profit of 34 cents per horse on this account. The depreciation and appreciation of horses, and the loss and profit on colt accounts, are items worth considering when it is understood that these differences in cost between the two groups were about $8 per horse. The difference in all other costs between the two groups was $4.78. This difference was largely due to the higher cost of interest, shoeing, medicine and veterinary services, stabling, and use of equipment in the high-cost group. Other items of cost, such as taxes, insurance, and miscellaneous, were about the same in each group. There was an average variation in manure credits of $2.19 per horse, the greatest credit appearing in the low-cost group. This 16 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. variation is probably caused by the greater quantities of cheaper. roughage fed the horses in this group and due to the fact that the relative amount of manure actually saved varies considerably on different farms by reason of differing methods of manure management. — TaBLeE 11.—New York farms—Itemized average costs and credits for records showing a net cost per horse above the average for the State, and for those showing a net cost per horse below the average ! (10 farms, 90 horses). Waneadialaianor Depre- | Appre- | Colt Colt Range of cost. ciation | ciation loss profit other Manure (cost). | (cost). (cost). | (credit).| (cost). | (credit).| (costs). (credit) Above the average cost......-- $955070|) 2$2225763)) 8 S13365) |eeeeen see SORIA |S eee $38.54 | $12.60 | Below the average cost....---- 85. 66 21.08 S302) | be cereal teers oe $3. 70 29. 64 14.50 DitkerenC@2s-sa—2--—- —-e 9.41 1.68 dE UGy ese scoue 5 14! 3. 70 8. 90 1.90 1 Average net cost per horse for the State, $145.02. Variations in net costs between the two groups in New York were ~ less than those in both Illinois and Ohio. Eleven of the 18 yearly farm records showed a cost per head greater than the average cost for all records. The average net cost per horse for these 18 records was $157.56, while the average per horse for the remaining 7 records 4 was $126.70, making a difference between the two groups of $30.86. Of this difference $9.41, or less than one-third, was for feed. It will be seen by this that the cost of feeding horses in New York was more nearly uniform than it was in Illinois and Ohio. The differ- ence of $1.68 for labor also was less in this State. The difference in ~ depreciation cost was $5.13. A small percentage ot this was due to a greater loss from deaths in the first group. The high-cost group showed an average colt loss of 14 cents per horse, and the low-cost group showed an average colt profit of $3.70 per horse, a difference of $3.84. There were no deaths of colts in either group. The more colts were raised on the farms in the low-cost group. Colts also — showed the cheaper cost of keep and the greater appreciation in value in this group. These items, depreciation and appreciation im the value of horses and loss and profit on colt accounts, were, like those for the Ohio farms, of considerable importance. The total difference in cost of these items between the two groups was $8.97 per horse. The principal items under ‘‘all other costs” causing the difference of $8.90 per horse were interest, shoeing, stabling, and use of equipment. The difference in manure credits was less than $2. As on the Ohio farms, the credit was greater in the low-cost group. RELATION OF THE WORK PERFORMED TO THE TOTAL FEED COST. As previously shown, the greatest item of cost in keeping a farm work horse is for feed. The farmer who gets the maximum amount of work out of his horses, and at the same time has a low feed cost, is reasonably sure of obtaining horse labor at a low cost per hour. é | e COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES. LG In order to show the relation existing, if any, between the total of work done by a horse and the total cost of feed, the yearly records for each State were divided into two groups with reference to the average total of work done per horse. (See Table 12.) The first eroup contains the data for those farms on which the horses worked more hours than the average for all records in that State. The second group contains data for those farms on which the hours worked per horse were less than the average for the State group. TABLE 12.—Relation of work done to the total feed cost, by States (27 farms, 316 horses), Illinois (154 horses— | Ohio (72 horses—aver- | New York (90 horses— average hours worked age hours worked average hours worked 1,053). 867). 1,020). Records ali eee hours | 4 vor. hae Never P age Aver- | Aver- age Aver- | Aver- age Aver- | Aver- hours |age feedjage feed} hours age feedjage feed] hours |age feedlage feed workedicost perjcost per}worked|cost perjcost per|/worked cost perjcost per per | horse. | hour. per | horse. | hour. per | horse. | hour. horse. horse. horse. Above the average1......... 1,200 | $75.20 | $0.063 | 1,055 | $89.00 | $0.084 | 1,172 | $97.30 | $0.084 Below the average 1..........! 880 | 67.30 077 723 | 67.30 . 093 863 | 385.00 . 098 Ditterences eas Ne | 320 7.90 . 014 332 | 21.70 . 009 309 | 12.30 . 014 1.The number of records included are as follows: ‘‘ Above the average”’ in Illinois 8; in Ohio, 7; in New York 9. ‘Below the average”’ in Illincis 9; in Ohio 9; in New York 9. From this table it will be seen that the average feed cost per horse in each State group was greater for those horses that worked more hours than the average for the group, showing that there is a certain relation between the work done and the quantity of feed consumed per horse. Referring to the average feed cost per hour of labor, it will be seen that the excess in feed cost for the harder-working horses was more than offset by the extra number of hours worked by them, so that the average feed cost per hour of labor in this group was about 14 cents less on the Illinois and New York farms and about 1 cent less on the Ohio farms. A further study of these factors, together with the relation of the total hours of labor worked to the total cost per hour of horse labor on all farms, is shown in fig. 2. Refer- ring to the lower line and each “X”’ in this graph, it will be seen that while there was a tendency for the feed cost per hour to decrease as the total hours worked increased, on different farms where the horses worked approximately the same number of hours, there was a wide variation in the average feed cost per hour of labor. This variation was especially noticeable in the case of those horses that worked from 800 to 900 hours per year. In this group the aver- age feed cost per hour varied on different farms from about 4} cents to 112 cents. On one farm in the group of horses that worked between 500 and 600 hours, the feed cost per hour was 19 cents. This high cost was due to the fact that the horses were fed heavily on the best of feed throughout the year, though working but few hours per day. 18 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE On six farms where the horses worked from about 800 to 1,300 hours per year, the average feed cost per hour was less than 5 cents. This low feed cost per hour was largely due to the judicious use of the cheaper grades of feed and pasture on the farm when the horses did light work or were idle, and to the high number of hours worked per day during the busy crop season when the horses were fed greater quantities and higher-priced feeds. These differences in the feed cost per hour indicate clearly that on many farms the importance of light and heavy feeding and the use of the cheaper feeds, according to the amount of work required, is not fully realized. Figure 2 further shows that on anaverage on the farms studied there was a fairly uniform difference between the average feed cost and the total cost per hour of horse labor, showing that the number of hours worked and the feed cost per horse are the controlling factors in the total cost per hour of horse labor. ac 2 oO <= c Tie a = o ° 1) 1100 1200 1300 TOTAL HOURS wees FEED COST — awcoue TOTAL COST X TEED COST ON INDIVIDUAL FARMS Fic. 2. Relation of total hours worked to feed est and to total cost per hour of horse labor, for all arms. COST OF HORSE LABOR PER HOUR. The cost of horse labor per hour depends on the net cost yearly to keep a horse, and the total amount of work done. (See Table 13.) TABLE 13.—Cost of horse labor per hour (27 farms, 316 horses). Average hours worked. Average | Average net cost | cost per per hour horse. | worked. State. l Per yal 2Per Er year. jweekday.) Sunday. | | Cents. WWintois (158 Horses). 2-2 2-0= 2-2 be, A ans 3.30 0.40 $100. 65 9.56 RIONT2 BOTSCS) Pe tees cents tote ee eee eee 866 2.70 -46 120. 37 13. 90 3.24 -13| 145.02 14. 22 WV EWiY OL COOMOFSCS) Shc wewne ace ocd ete e eee | 1,020 From the averages shown in Table 13 it will be seen that in all cases under consideration the average cost of horse labor is over 94 cents (on the New York farms over 14 cents), while in no instance i I COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES. 19 F does the average time worked per week day rise above 34 hours. It may be noted, as illustrative of the application of these figures, that if the New York and Ohio farmers concerned had hired their horses ~~. out at 10 cents per hour, and had failed to work them more than 1,020 ; and 866 hours per year, respectively, they would have lost on each horse about 4 cents per hour worked. Of the various ways of keeping down the cost of horse labor, one of the best is to keep the horses busy (see fig. 3). yas Fig. 3.—Of the various ways of keeping down the cost of horse labor, one of the best is to keep the horses busy. LABOR PERFORMED, BY MONTHS. In figure 4 is shown the average work done per horse, by months, for each State group. Referring to this graph, the general importance of horse labor on these farms for May, June, and July will be seen. In each State very little labor was performed by the horses during January, February, and March. Thereafter the work increased until, during May, the maximum for any one month was reached. From then on to the end of the year there was a fairly uniform decrease in the hours worked per month. In New York and Illinois the increases in October and November are due to grain threshing and corn harvest. On the Ohio farms, with few exceptions, the average total of labor performed each month was less than on the Illinois and New York farms. Also, it will be noticed that during April, May, November, and December the horses on the Illinois farms worked more hours per ee re 20 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. horse than those in New York, while the horses on the New York farms did the greatest amount of work between June and November. [van] Fea] MAR] APA WAY [Jun [JUL [AUS[SEP [OCT [NOW]OEC, HORSE LABOR me ee NEW YORK ae ILLINOIS wore OHIO Fic. 4.—Average number of hours worked per horse, by months. Referring to figure 5, in which is shown the extra horse labor used on the farms studied, it is found that in Illinois the greatest amount of extra horse labor was required during August. In Ohio and New York the greatest amount appears in October. This extra horse labor was usually exchange work among neighbors, the major part being used in grain threshing, corn harvest, and fall seeding. NUMBER OF IDLE WEEK DAYS PER YEAR. As previously shown, each horse. worked approximately three and one-fourth hours per week day on an average throughout the year. There were, however, on all of the farms a few week days im every month when no horse labor was performed. (See Table 14.) Ineach State over 50 per cent of the total number of week days during which no horse labor was performed are found in the months of January, February, March, and December. For the remainder of the year the week days when no labor was performed varied for different months COST OF KEEPING FARM HORSES. 21. and in different States from about 1 day to 53 days per montn. On an average the horses were idle the fewest days in Illinois and the most in New York. Weather conditions and the farming systems followed were influencing factors in this variation from month to month. ME a at a ae se a ao fe a ie a ee i oa fe = == ¢ td Seen. Pe te See el ie 2 4 ww G4e = Ree] ama NEW YORK ae ILLINOIS e2zce OHIO = Fic. 5.—Average number of total hours of extra horse labor employed, by months. TABLE 14,—Average number of week days when no horse labor was performed, by months. Tllinois Ohio New York Month. (10 farms).| (7 farms). | (10 farms). VETO, s Sb Sec ca ENC ches Cee ET a eee el tg Oe ee 8.3 9.7 12.4 INOPDYROB TAT SESS we eC Ae ye ne ag ga 5.8 7.0 9.5 BOO. Sas 5 So ces Ae US GE AER a TN stAT See ae 1 pA 7.0 6.8 12.0 PANT Tr] prepare ears Shar co ee th Yaad I cul EN Noe ee Dy Ue ak OE TE 4.6 4.6 IN Teaver ements Speen BUS ie aan atk PA a Po ts 5.0 22 1.3 UING = 3 Sb SoS Sse St IS AE eS I ee a a gee eee ial 2.5 2 OU aa cob cise s SoSH ee eee ee, SIMA er Ea ne ee aR ey oe Eee ota en ayeeea er? Boal 1.5 PAUL ESLLS Lee a ea rae Sete Cel pg RAC A OS SN ee a oe 3.8 2 5.3 SS TO LTA T Le Teter ay ese Pate pics heat gy TET a ee ae 3.0 4.0 3.5 OID OSE oS SG I AEM, STS ae a UG ee eg 3.5 5.4 4.8 IONE O 2s se Seite Re es SA ie AR SRNL at Ala ts Pepa gees aot Perse 1.9 3.5 5.8 DEOMI TES del a ith se LEI es Ig PN oe en eer aeRO ell 7.6 11.3 MANO EY (an = och yo Bt Seale ts a Pie et cls ree a a a ad 48.4 58.5 73.2 22 BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. RELATION OF TOTAL CROP ACRES PER FARM TO CROP ACRES PER HORSE. It has been shown that on an average the feed cost and total cost per hour of horse labor on the farms studied decreased as the number of hours worked per horse increased. The amount of work required _per horse depends on the size of the business and the number of horses on the farm. On most of the farms included in this study the size of the business depended largely.on the number of crop acres in the farm; that is, acres under cultivation. It is true that a great deal of horse labor other than crop labor was performed on these farms, but it is safe to say that in every case the horses required to tend the crops during the crop season could easily do all other necessary labor. The relation of crop acres per farm to crop acres per horse is shown in Table 15, by States. TABLE 15.—Relaiion of total crop acres per farm to crop acres per horse, by States (27 farms, 316 horses). Illinois (10 farms— | Ohio (7farms— | New York (10 farms— averagesize, 166 acres).. average size, 74acres). | average size, 94 acres). Farms. | Average | Average | Average | Average | Average | Average per farm. | per horse. | per farm. | per horse. | per farm. | per horse. | , Acres Acres. Acres Acres. Acres. Acres. Farms above the average size.....-.. PANY Pps 7. 93.7 17.8 112.74 20 Farms below the averagesize....... 111.2 16.8 54.7 | 14.6 " 79.07 17 Differences 8/28 sn.) eels | 119.0 5.4 39.0 | 3.2 | 42. 67 3 From these figures it appears that the large farms permit of a more efficient use of horse labor than do the small farms. On the large farms in Illinois there were 22.2 acres in crops per horse, while on the small farms there were but 16.8 acres per horse. Similar results were found on both the Ohio and the New York farms, though in these States the difference between the two groups was not as great as in Tilnois. —<«-. on PUBLICATIONS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RELATING TO HORSES. AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT. Principles of Horse Feeding. (Farmers’ Bulletin 170.) Horseshoeing. (Farmers’ Bulletin 179.) Breeds of Drait Horses. (Farmers’ Bulletin 619.) Breaking and Training Colts. (Farmers’ Bulletin 667.) How to Select a Sound Horse. (Farmers’ Bulletin 779.) Breeding Horses for the United States Army. (Bureau of Animal Industry Cir- cular 178.) Horse and Mule Raising in the South. (Special—Office of the Secretary. ) FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Influence of Age on the Value of Dairy Cows and Farm Work Horses. (Department Bulletin 413.) Price 5 cents. Judging Horses as a Subject of Instruction in Secondary Schools. (Department Bulletin 487.) Price 10 cents. Suggestions for Horse and Mule Raising in the South. (Bureau of Animal Industry Circular 124.) Price 5 cents. The Preservation of Our Native Types of Horses. (Bureau of Animal Industry Circular 137.) Price 10 cents. Mycotic Lymphangitis of Horses. (Bureau of Animal Industry Circular 155.) Price 5 cents. Special Report on Diseases of the Horse. (Bureau of Animal Industry Special Report.) Price 65 cents. ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FRCI- THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DCCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C. AT 5 CENTS PER COPY Se ee ae 7 “ — bi — i — 7 > ” a i ~ ~~ - ~~ 7 i ral . x “a ™~ a | . i en en oe = 1 . = me : < S n - ” ~e ; - ef ~ — o- . _ - ~ ~ -_ . . ~ - am ~ : “ . al pall . “ese! 4 ‘ = _ ‘ ~ a - : % 4 “ an ~ ; : : - “ P : ty a on = 7 ms tt *« “+8 - Pe . : — ~ — om t a ee , “e - - . re y “~~ ‘co = ~ ae _—- - o partied = . p- od ~ a - an nae 7 in = = in é -- - p< . “ , eres apa ow bs I 7 ww ~ —— en ~ e+ m~ on new aa = - - ~ ~' ~ . a6 ee — wins z ~ - - 7 =~ ~ —— . ~ — wr af ~ 2 - = Wow or ae * re * ~ ata ~ ~- ~ i om \ Fe ee ee eh Ried ~ _—“ - ~ ied _~- . ~ ee Wwe ee a Se ll a inet ~ ee .—~ + me hast . a—w pcg mene *. sas ee shag eaten ag Aa seat ge ae ete a a Gt Bid — tel oares de — Sr oiemte " " = w) rere een an eA, ’ — ene ee nen a war Oty Saw Re aaioat racinees airs — % Pogey ee aura ge en ae ~ -_ ss te a es ‘ teat 7 ~ at on pa be \fna ~— _—“ ‘ ~ av tyres _~ oe RM ee ee em rr e-CAR rn - - - - _ — > ae - 4” ee ten wh yar ee - » et OO Oe . eee . Se a en ahd #, -—"s Nae - ~~ « — y ¥ Atta . we a eet — mall oh a ont rene a ee eT es en I pre ai am » An. arty He eg late er awn be, tera baat h- DS ee -< —— —t- -~< vn any ene ee meen” a Pett APN RIG a OR a ~ eopnpira ie aan epeenPateanretenne es net eer wie dn pewenye we Ce cia ged ee yew vee a wel AeA OO pS 0 Peery + —o - - tte: ¥ A OE itera ew ee lid hithans Mare) or al eet rye tyme rye tnt hy te ae ee a a at ye w — - nm ae ~ -~on . apn eae ON ta OE eS Le Saleen e-") inenpeh hae mun go ea’) eA oe Aeee bea aa ee Sr nw roca eee Ceram me At a tl AI ene Be amare om Naat iron Meme oe ee OA Or Dect) OE Ae PURO Dh At el Ee Oe tp ae tig aaa ee tw ™ = . . = th ty tara “ Fe ro bgny Otte os ee tery er A: Ae aytyininey¢ gy eeianny < ~~ ee = yee ee ee a a nt, atid adil Wil SPF ee A, we A“+ —— = - na D ne + Ane GRE tm PR ne le en henge ee —~— eee re rete Ny GR rl ey Opa Be) My adling A Mp, mtv cane i te : 4 ge nt ate eT A ony vr . , 1 _ oe M — * a es i - ‘ ~ Ren ee oe re Ane, Ne PA ee ted net a ad ne Tt Pe ae bos << at a) ee a ere , anes oreo natall toed ~ te b mei genengrel ag rte Son a ee pee appa areas tee ns meena eat ome aap 4 * . Sette oe — na “= . —_ - ~ ae Oe ~ a od - et a vee Ape, Peay O AOE PO tg SDPO DT Sa ee ee CA eerie +o : etn PEO ORpey ety * \ eee’ 6 ae toa AAD a nent angel sp ngs eee ‘ - - lomanphcsaienadabeattads : A a fae Te Oe PETE ON tin * aera cod = eee ett yep GM o- qaereeew erry - is eh nk seep Aa ag, bare ¥ ‘ ee a ae woe, ee ODPL a Ch apr crane enter ~e ” J la Sa «wt wey a phy eee Nave . p weeee . etthm 4 * ~ soars M0 eh A lee ye . ety? tons ~ On ere * = ~~ —_ ee ee . | al « on i os ~ . A ~- ve, ’ * 4 em “* we a 4 a, s ve er pe diet’ ~—* wer vt aa “ bar ms " J ‘f wn ‘ (tara tery ed We or ge enti tet PNG — « “) ene rae re 1 nee Orme oer we ee eee bh ees te 9 ee oe