IRLF

Economic Study of Dairying on 149 Farms in Broome County, New York

A THESIS

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF

CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

BY

EDWARD GARDNER MISNER

Published as Bulletin 409 Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, April 1922.

294

BULLETIN 409

the interest on which amounts to $8155.45. Since veals and bulls to be sold are kept on hand for only a short time, no interest was charged on their value. The data are given in table 13.

Interest was charged to the dairy enterprise on the investment in forage for the average length of time the forage was stored before it was fed, and on the investment in concentrates from the time they were paid for until they were fed. On each record this cost was distributed to cows, heifers, and herd bulls, according to the numbers of animals kept and the quantities of feed used. The average total capital so invested was $38,160, or about $256 per farm. On some farms keeping heifers and herd bulls the interest charge on feed and supplies was so small that it was not separated. The data are given in table 14:

TABLE 14. INTEREST ON AVERAGE VALUE OF FEED AND SUPPLIES KEPT ON HAND FOR 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS

All herds	Cows	Heifers	Herd bulls
Average value of feed and supplies on hand	Number of farms having expense	Interest at 5 per cent	Number of farms having expense	Amount charged	Number of farms having expense	Amount charged	Number of farms having expense	Amount charged
$38,160	149	$1,908	149	$i ,511.50	120	$305.50	81	$91 .00

Miscellaneous costs

All remaining expenses were classed as miscellaneous costs, and are given in table 15. Of these, ice, veterinary fees, medicines and disinfec- tants, fly protectors, whitewash, and expenses for testing milk, were the most important. Farmers having the expense for milk testing estimated the portion of this' expense that should be charged to cows, to heifers, to bulls to be sold, and to herd bulls. The same was done with other items not wholly chargeable to cows.

The average amount of ice stored per cow was 1949 pounds.

Returns

Returns from dairy cattle on the farms studied were classified as (i) milk and milk products, (2) appreciation on cattle, (3) manure recovered, (4) miscellaneous returns.

Milk and milk products

Milk sold. — Of the 149 farms, 52 sold to the Empire State Dairy Com- pany at Windsor and i to this company at Oquaga, 39 sold to Cloverdale Farms Company at Binghamton, 18 sold to F. W. Jansen at Whitney's Point, 1 6 to Bordens' at Tunnel, 7 to Sheffield Farms, Slawson-Decker Company, at Conklin, 5 to Bordens' at Whitney's Point, 3 to the Broome County Dairy Company at Binghamton, 7 a part of the year to F. W.

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

295

£

m

|e£?§

• CO •<«=

O tC »0 ON Tf COVO

"HO CO 10 O ^-^O

t^. CO CS 0) CO (S H-I

fO rh »OOO H-I

^O CO ON 00

O

oo o r»

O»OOOOOMOC<

2*0 •« 85

ONOO l^ O« ^O O »-" CO (S COVO 00 CO cO t^ HH lO^O i-HOjr^OcO IOHHI-ICOMI-H

O

t^ 10 t^ rt- rl-vO COHHO\COC<COC<M»-HI-I

: :§

:.sr

*

a : : :1|S11 id : ffl

^^ : £2 "i M^s -.a -^ °L

<••— i ^ O "S

PQ

EXCHANGE

An Economic Study of Dairying on 149 Farms in Broome County, New York

A THESIS

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF

CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

7

EDWARD GARDNER MISNER

*.

(MI

Published as Bulletin 409 Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, April 1922.

517520

N7M

CONTENTS

PAGE

Regional conditions. . .' 274

Results of the investigation 279

Part I. Concerning the entire enterprise 279

Costs 279

Feed 279

Grain and other concentrates 279

Succulent feed 282

Dry forage 282

Pasture 282

Bedding 286

Labor 287

Milk hauling 287

Use of buildings 290

Use of equipment 292

Interest 293

Miscellaneous costs .• 294

Returns . . 294

Milk and milk products 294

Milk sold 294

Milk products sold 298

Milk and milk products used 298

Appreciation on cattle 300

Manure recovered 300

Miscellaneous returns ,-•••• 3°3

Summary of costs and returns 304

Cost of producing milk and butterfat 304

Quantities of feed and labor per unit of product 312

Capital invested for milk production 312

Effect of changes in the price of labor, of feed, and of other factors, on the cost

of milk production 313

Part II. Concerning cows 314

Breeds 314

Numbers 314

Average production : 316

Feeds used 318

Labor required 320

Costs and returns 320

Size of herd 322

Size of farm 323

Feed used 323

Labor required 325

Use of buildings 325

Costs and returns . 327

Productive life of cows 328

Conclusions on size of herd 328

Season of milk production 329

Summer and winter seasons . . . . ' 329

Summer and winter dairies 335

Summer and winter seasons in winter dairies 358

Conclusions regarding season of production 358

Feeds and feeding 360

Nutriment and energy .' 360

Use of concentrates 368

Use of succulent feed 375

Combined effect of large proportion of energy in both grains and succulent

feed 382

Ration of the highest-producing and most profitable herd 383

271

272 CONTENTS

Results of the investigation (concluded] : Part II (concluded) :

Production per cow ' 3^5

Intensity of feeding .••.••. 389

Relation of production to diminishing returns 390

Relation of production and season of production to intensity of feeding and

to costs and returns 393

Relation of production to value of cows . 395

Combined effect of size of herd, season of production, and production per cow,

on costs and returns 396

Butterfat test of milk 397

Variation in test 398

Relation of test of milk to production 399

Relation of test of milk to costs and returns 399

Comparison of hill and valley farms 400

Location 400

Size of dairy business 401

Season of production 402

Production 402

Cow-testing-association herds 404

Milk hauling 407

Part III. Concerning heifers .' 411

Amounts of feed used and labor required 411

Feed 411

Labor 412

Costs, returns, and profits 413

Size of herd 414

Heifers in three seasonal groups 414

Production per cow, and costs and returns for heifers 416

Probable cost at 1920 prices 419

Results for first and second years from other sources 422

Part IV. Concerning herd bulls 423

Bull calves to be kept . 423

Herd bulls from one to two years old 423

Herd bulls more than two years old 423

Feed used 424

Labor 425

Cost of keeping herd bulls 426

Cost of bull service on farms keeping herd bulls 427

Cost of bull service on farms hiring service only 427

Total cost of bull service 427

Comparison of grade and purebred bulls " 427

Age of bull 427

Cost of bulls in three seasonal groups 43 1

Part V. Concerning veals and bulls to be sold 434

Amount and value of feed used, and miscellaneous costs and returns 434

Size of herd and number of calves vealed 435

Calves vealed in three seasonal groups 436

Summary 438

Blank form used 440

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING ON 149 FARMS IN BROOME COUNTY, NEW YORK

E. G. MlSNER

The rapid growth of the milk trade, increases in the cost of milk pro- duction, and advances in the price of milk to consumers, have made the economic problems concerned in the production, transportation, and dis- tribution of market milk of increasing public concern. This bulletin is

FlG. 48.

CHEESE FACTORIES, AND BUTTER AND CHEESE FACTORIES,

a report of a cost study, concerned only with the problems of production, not with those of transportation or distribution. The costs in terms of dollars are out of date because prices have changed, but the quantities are not affected so much by price changes.

AUTHOR'S ACKNOWI-EDGMENTS. The dairymen of Broome County, New York, furnished the produc- tion data for this study. The investigation was under the direction of Professor G. F. Warren, of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, New York State College of Agriculture. Professor E. S. Savage, of the Department of Ar.imal Husbandry, advised for that part of the study relating to feeding. Professor K. C. Livermore gave criticisms and helpful suggestions. E. R. Minns assisted the writer in doing the field work. To these and to all others who helped with the work, the writer is indebted.

273

274

BULLETIN 409

^ July and August, 1915, in cooperation with the Broome County Farm Improvement Association, data concerning the dairy business for the year ending May i, 1915, were obtained from 149 farmers in Broome County.

The exact figures for the pounds of milk delivered to the milk stations and the amount paid were obtained for each farm from the companies buying the milk. Some farmers kept no record of milk sold, and thus

FlG. 49. MILK STATIONS, IQlS

the necessity of accepting estimates as to the sales of milk was eliminated. For 114 farms, the average butterfat test of the milk by months was given by the companies. Other information was obtained from the farmers. Care was taken to obtain complete and fair estimates.

The form of blank for summarizing records in this office is shown on

pages 440 to 443.

REGIONAL CONDITIONS

Broome County is one of the southern border counties of New York State. It is bounded on the east by Delaware County, on the west by Tioga County, on the north by Chenango and Cortland Counties, and on

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

275

the south by the State of Pennsylvania. It contains 705 square miles, 85 per cent of which is in farms. In 1920, according to preliminary returns for the fourteenth United States census, the population was 113,610. Binghamton, near the center of the county, the county seat and the only city of importance, had a population of 66,800. Three railroad lines - the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western, the Erie, and the Delaware and Hudson — serve the county. Binghamton furnishes a fair market

/6

FlG. 50. CREAMERIES AND SKIMMING STATIONS, 1 91 8

for a considerable amount of farm produce. Most of the surplus is shipped to New York City, 207 miles by rail.

The topography of Broome County is that of a feebly glaciated plateau region, thru which streams have cut deep valleys. Besides many small streams, three rivers of considerable size intersect the county, the Otselic joining the Tioughnioga at Whitney Point in the northern part, the Tiough- nioga joining the Chenango at Chenango Forks, and the Chenango joining the Susquehanna at Binghamton. These river valleys are from one-half mile to almost two miles wide, and lie at an elevation of about 800 to 900 feet.

276

BULLETIN 409

The valley soils are mapped as of the Chenango and Genesee series.1 They are by far the more productive soils of the county, altho in some places adjacent, to the rivers they are so low that crops are sometimes damaged or destroyed by floods out of season.

The land back from" the valleys is rolling to steep. Much of the area is in woods, and a large proportion is suitable only for grazing. The highest elevations are in the southern part of the county, where the average level of the hilltops is about 1500 feet, altho the highest point is over 2000 feet.

fr *V

FlG. 51. CONDENSARIES, IQI8

St. Lawrence County has also 19 combination milk stations and condensaries

Aside from small areas of alluvial soils in the stream valleys, the upland soils are generally of one type, Volusia silt loam. Thi ; is the most exten- sive and least productive type in the county. Its distinguishing character- istics are low humus content and low lime content. ™he compact subsoil or rock, generally lying close to the surface, makes drainage conditions unfavorable to the best crop production.

Weather records give the mean annual temperature at Binghamton, 871 feet above sea level, for the years 1890 to 1916 inclusive, as 46.8° F.,

1 Field operations of the Bureau of Soils. United States Agr. Dept. Report n : 71-96. 1905. Soils of the United States. United States Soils Bureau. 6111.96:744. 1913. v

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 277

and the average rainfall as 33.18 inches. About half of the rain, 15.61 inches, falls from April to August inclusive. Much of the summer rain- fall comes in heavy showers which quickly run off, and drouths are some- what frequent, so that pastures often need to be supplemented during August and September.

The average length of the growing season at Binghamton for the years mentioned was 150 days.2 The average date of the last killing frost in the spring was May 6, and of the first killing frost in the fall October 3. Altho there are no weather records for the uplands of this county, the grow- ing season there averages from two to three weeks shorter. This makes the pasture season shorter, and the frost injury to crops, particularly to corn, more extensive, on the hills. .

There are three types of farming common in Broome County — general farming, dairy farming, and trucking for the local markets.

Most of the trucking is confined to the valleys near the principal towns, while general and dairy farming is found both in the valleys and on the hills. The farms on the Volusia soil are devoted primarily to the produc- tion of forage crops and to dairying. On a few, potatoes are grown as a cash crop, but in general the land is too poor and the season too short to grow other intensive crops. The distance to market is much greater from the farms on the uplands, and this factor also influences the type. Everything considered, dairying is the best type of farming for the upland conditions.

According to the thirteenth census the average farm in the county in 1910 contained 102 acres. Of this, 35 acres were in crops exclusive of fruit, 22 in woods, and 45 in pasture and other land. Of the crop land, 27 acres were in hay and forage. The other principal crops are corn, oats, buckwheat, and potatoes. These crops are typical of the farms studied.

Altho Broome County may be considered a leading dairy county of the State, many dairymen, especially those of the uplands, follow an extensive system. An abundance of pasture, a short growing season, and a soil that is not naturally fertile, encourage the summer system. The industry never has been so intensively developed here as it has in the neighboring counties of Delaware and Chenango, or in many other counties of the State. This may be due mostly to less productive soil.

During the past thirty years the system of dairying has become increasingly more intensive. In 1880 there were 29,398 dairy cows two years old or older on farms in the county, and 3,659,982 pounds of butter made on farms.3 In 1917 there were 27,029 dairy cows on 3027 farms in the county, an average of 8.9 per farm reporting dairy cows.4 The

2 Climatological data, New York section, August, 1916, page 94.

3 United States census report, 1880.

4 Census of the agricultural resources of New York, 1917.

278

BULLETIN 409

United States census of 1910 reported 410,291 pounds of butter made on farms in the county during 1909. In 1900 there were twenty milk stations in the county, and in 1916 there were forty.5

The making of butter and cheese has practically ceased. This has resulted in more winter milk. The next step in the development of a more intensive system of dairying in the region will be the production of

L-S3F" _.;•_

FlG. 52. MAP OF BROOME COUNTY SHOWING LOCATION OF FARMS STUDIED

Of the 149 farmers, 104 owned all of the land they farmed, 6 owned part and share-rented additional land, 12 owned part and cash-rented additional land, and 20 share-rented and 7 cash-rented all of the land, they farmed. The average number of acres per farm was 157, and the average distance to market was 3-4 miles. The average age of the farmers was 47 years

a still larger proportion of the milk in winter, as the demands of Binghamton and New York City for market milk continue to grow.

The farms included in this survey were in various parts of the county, but most of them were in the vicinity of Windsor, Whitney Point, and Binghamton. Fifty were in the Susquehanna, Chenango, and Otselic Valleys, and ninety-nine were on the hills or upland. Herds of less than six cows were not included, but other than this there was no selection.

5 Bulletin 5, New York State Department of Agriculture, pages 4-5, 1900, and Bulletin State Department of Agriculture, pages 3, 4, and 5, 1916.

5, New York

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 279

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

For convenience the results of this study are arranged in five parts. Part I considers the entire dairy enterprise as the unit of study; Part II deals with cows only, Part III with heifers, Part IV with herd bulls, and Part V with veals and bulls to be sold.

PART I. CONCERNING THE ENTIRE ENTERPRISE

When the entire dairy enterprise is considered the unit, all the costs of maintaining cows, costs of growing and maintaining heifers, calves, veals, bulls to be sold, and herd bulls, costs of marketing dairy products, and any other costs for dairy cattle, are charged. All returns from the enterprise are credited and the difference is considered the gain or loss on the enterprise.

The dairy is only one of the various parts of a farm business, and there- fore the results do not show the gain or loss on the whole farm. An investi- gation that included the labor income as well as costs and returns for the dairy would be useful.

Costs

The various costs chargeable to dairy cattle may be classified as follows : feed, bedding, labor, milk hauling, use of buildings, use of equipment, interest, and miscellaneous charges.

Feed

No account was taken of feed given to stock other than dairy cattle. The total quantities and costs of the various feedstuffs used by all dairy cattle, by cows during the pasture period, by heifers, by herd bulls, and by bulls raised to be sold, were obtained separately in the field. The feed used by cows during the winter period was considered to be the difference between the total herd quantities and the other quantities.

All grain, succulent feed, and forage raised on the farm and used by cattle, was charged at what it would sell for at the farm, that is, its market value less the cost of marketing. All feedstuffs purchased were charged at the prices paid. The cost of- hauling to the farm was included with labor, equipment, milk hauling, and other costs. Much of the purchased grain is hauled home by the farmer when returning from delivering the milk. This was included with the charge for milk hauling. Extra trips for feed, as well as the time spent hauling home-grown grains to and from the mills and the time spent mixing feed, was charged under labor.

Grain and other concentrates. — With grain and other concentrates were included all concentrated feedstuffs, namely, all grains and their by-products whether home-grown or purchased,4 calf meal, condimental feeds, and salt (table i). The charge for grain represented 36 per cent of the total feed cost and 20 per cent of the total cost of the enterprise.

On the 149 farms there were six different kinds of grain raised and fed cattle, and at least forty-three different kinds of grain purchased and fed.

280

BULLETIN 409

11

I

0^0 -^

J 1/5 • C<J t

O O O O O

CO ^ O O

••

-OO^OO -OOCO

(M-I^H -10

(M^tlM •Ol^t^1Mr~

oi-^tt^ -i-iooocoevi

r- ^ o -0004000

CO • i-H

ess M"

ooi-i -coc^ t^ <M TH ^^rt oo -ebo o I-H o <M co o

CO^i— (T-tC^'^t^'— »OiCO»-HCD T*< ^H lOt^CO CO ^H O

«oeo" co

ti^cvcva* »c"oo «o"«o

(NCO-H N 00-H

O3 OOJ"5

-H ooo

. lilirfi

|iil|ailll il-^ifsi

II II

01 a-

.13

h

1!

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

281

g

M

CM <M

(M O i-H (M i-H rH • • ^H • ,-! rt

10 • • (N

O> ^h -IMOOO • t-H C i-c >O ••^t^t>. • (

O»O • O^t< • -O O <M • Ot^ • -CO

-,-1 -O (N <N •^H.-KM • <-H

CO -^H

«o .

•o 1

CO CO COOt-CO • <M • CO

2 :S :

I

oo cs o o ooo oco o«-i'-i»-i -oo o -o

t— »-H i^ i— I

CO • »H t-

2 co oo 5! S3 So co

i

111

SS.5S

S2SS88SS8S8S-

(M CO CO CO CO CO CO

c^cTi-HO ooo»o <?{<N OIM'CO t*? ao a* <n o ao cv coco ,

OO i— ( T-H i-H CO O CNCO^^CN T-H i— ( ^

00 t-- (M TH TH ^H «S1 CM ^H T-l T-l

Sa'S

c^

-

c S"^ » §^ S^.S -2

n Klil^lld ^

"I

282 BULLETIN 409

The usual practice is to buy all -the grain. Only 53 farms raised any grain to feed cattle. Practically all of this was oats and buckwheat. Purchased grain represented 96 per cent of the quantity used, and at the average price of $29.86 a ton it represented also 96 per cent of the charge for grain used by dairy cattle. The average value of home-grown grain used was $31.48 a ton.

Succulent feed. — Silage, green corn,- potatoes, cabbage, cabbage fodder, mangels, beets, turnips, carrots, apples, soiling crops, skimmilk purchased, and other feeds with a very high percentage of water, were classed as succulent feed. Brewers' grains wet were converted to their dry equivalent by considering 3.8 pounds of wet grains equal to i pound of dried grains, and were charged under grain rather than under succulent feed. Quanti- ties, costs, and the number of farms using each kind of succulent feed, are given in table 2.

Corn silage was charged at $5 a ton. Under some conditions, the market value of silage should be used when charging it to another enterprise; but generally, in New York State, corn for the silo is not raised to be sold either as grain or as silage, and hence it should be charged at cost. There is no reason to believe that the cost of producing silage on the farms studied was less than this figure.

Of the 149 farms, 69, or 46 per cent, fed silage. On these farms, 4284 tons of corn silage and 20 tons of millet silage were fed dairy cattle. An agricultural census of the State taken in 1917 showed that 3027 farms in Broome County kept dairy cows and 1033 grew corn for the silo in 1916; thus, about one-third of the farms with dairy cows grew silage.

Other succulent feeds were charged at their estimated farm values. Of all the herds, 26, or 17 per cent, fed no succulent feed. Excepting 21.8 tons of skimmilk and 1.35 tons of potatoes purchased, all succulent feed was raised on the farms where fed.

Dry forage. — All hay, corn stover, straw, and other cured roughage was classed as dry forage. One per cent was purchased. Of this, n farms bought 42.75 tons of hay, and two other farms bought 12 tons of cornstalks. The amount fed to dairy cattle per farm was 35.4 tons, of which mixed hay constituted 63 per cent. The average value of dry forage per ton was $9.62. Details as to quantities, costs, and number of farms using each kind of dry forage, are given in table 3 .

Pasture. — Most farms had sufficient pasture for their cattle. Of the 149 farmers, 45 paid $793 to pasture some of their cattle a part or all of the season, and 20 received $305 for stock taken in.

Pasture was charged at cost. In determining this cost, interest at 5 per cent and taxes at 0.5 per cent were charged on the value of the land pastured. Charges for labor and materials used in making and repairing pasture fences, in manuring when manure was hauled and applied, in fertilizing, reseeding, mowing brush or weeds, or in any other treatment

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

283

Jj

.«5<-5«5

111! i

>O

•***

• CO <M r-l

(^ CS OO t^ OC

00 CO O C^l »0 O •>*< OO (M O OJ tO rf* i-H Tt< 1C i— I i— '

> . __^

'.P

c?g^ooo,o K r^^oopo :S§ S?

O'—*t^"tOOtOl>.<rHOt^-OtOt^-t^-^OiCs1»^

C^l ^H Ot--<tl >O CO CO !M (M r-H - t^

OOOOO<MO2Tf<iMO'OOOCOiOOOO200t^OOO O ^H C^ OS OT»< OO CJ O O5 CO i-l 00 O (M i-l •ifri ^H 1O 1O i-l i-H T-H ^

s> s" ~~

kO CO <

K SK^OOOlO S U9 « OOC§

^0=0 sss^S£^t^°£co;88£2;0iC<'' £ I

g^^ g5 Oi~HO<MOOCOCO.-IC<lt^COC^OOtO!M^H^i

gJJi

1

o

~^

gfti!

|

284

BULLETIN 409

	1	0)	; 55 ••••'••••• • •	^
	£ 3 X	111!	• 05 • o •	C5
P	3	1*5-1.1 z^^S	\^ '. \ \ \ \ \ '. \ \ '. '.
g O	s,	J	|E»a-«»-» j'j	S
H en 5	Herd bul	ilii	1C IO >O >O • • CO •^H^HCMO^H'-icNi^HOCO	O
PQ \o i~>.		Hi!	g^NW^HTjte^W^T-ieO ; ;
% < uf J		1	co co t^ 10 ^ S o ^§ co <n co • • <M O5 .-1 i-H M rt <N . .	CO 8
5 « Q 3	i n	Jill	M	0 i
w W CN		III!	t-. M CO U5 •* •* U> "5 00 -H 00 • •
vT « H		0> J	S«	o" i
3 K	1	IgJ I'lfe	^§3SSc^2c^gSaS§ c§§ O O -H CM •* oi O5 O5 -^ CO »O O(N	1
o	o		5
en" O		H	»O 1C IO »O »O CO O3 OS -H •* O CM 00 lr^ CO CM t^O	8 CO
00 10		B	i-	1
X		>	i*" ,	1
n s		|||	2oS^!:^22 11	S
i		^ °*ft	JH^,^,-,^
ID		», T3	U5	«5
w o < H o		H	CM «5 O CO T»H Tf CO O CO O •«»• TM co"	1
fe >< M n		1*57.1 IJil	ga-saaaa-B a-
TABLE 3. I		Kind of feed	1 ! i| : 11 i«l 1 ; : «^l>.t : i« i^S : = w 2 £	Total dry forage

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

285

of the pasture, and money paid for the use of pasture, were included. The amount received for stock taken in to pasture was deducted to get the cost of pasturing the farmer's own stock. This cost on each record was ap- portioned to cows, heifers, herd bulls, horses, and sheep, on the animal -unit basis and according to the number of days pastured. Most of the pasture hired was for heifers and the amount paid was charged directly to them.

The average date of turning out in the spring was May 14, and that of beginning full barn feeding in the fall was October 19. This allowed an average of 159 days on pasture. The dates of turning out varied from May i to June i. The dates of beginning to feed in the fall varied from September 15 to November 15. Usually the meadows were pastured after the hay was removed. They furnished considerable feed, especially on the river flats. For this no charge was made, altho such a charge should have been included. In late summer and early fall, pasture was frequently supplemented by grain or fodder or both. The dry matter in the feed used supplementary to pasture for cows was equivalent to the dry matter in ten days of winter feed. On this basis pasture furnished 149 days of full feed for cows.

An average of 53.2 acres to each farm was pastured. Since the average size of farm was 156.7 acres, 34 per cent of the land was in pasture. The average value was $20.25 an acre- On the average 3.1 acres were pastured per animal unit.

The cost of pasture was $4.83 per cattle unit for the season, or 3.04 cents a day. Of this, interest and taxes comprised 72 per cent, and fencing costs 20 per cent. The balance was cash paid for hired pasture and other miscellaneous items. The charge for stock taken in to pasture was at the rate of $6.30 an animal unit for the season, or about 4 cents a day.

A summary of pasture costs is given in table 4. Stock pastured, and the distribution of the cost of pasture, are given in table 5.

TABLE 4. COST OF PASTURE, 2018 Cows, 607 HEIFERS, 106 HERD BULLS, 199 SHEEP,

AND 124 HORSES AND COLTS

7,927.5 acres of pasture land at $20.25 = $160,509

Item	Farms having t expense	Cost
Interest and taxes at 5 5 per cent	149	$8,828
Making and repairing fences.	147	2, 195
Mowing and reseeding	5	69
Fertilizing and manuring	2	165
Amount paid for pasture rented	4S	793
Total .		$12,250
Received for pasture . .	2O	1O5
Difference ( — cost of pasture)		$11 ,04.5

286 BULLETIN 409

TABLE 5. STOCK PASTURED, AND DISTRIBUTION OF PASTURE COST

Kind of stock	Number of farms pasturing	Number of animals pastured	Average number of days pastured to each farm pasturing	Equivalent in animal units for entire season	Amount charged
Stock owned : Cows Heifers	149 122	2,018 607	159 14.6	2,018.5 •205 7	$9,338 I QO7
Herd bulls	IOO	1 06	i -21	76 I	^4.6
Total cattle		2 ,7-11		2 AGO ^	$11 SQI
Sheep	8	IQQ	I -I A	^1 ^	1 06
Horses and colts	52	I24	99	64.8	248
Total owned		^ OS4	'	2 4Q6 4	$11 04. S
Stock taken in: Mature	II	IQ	l\\	ISO
Young	12	68	152	\2 S
Total		7, 141		2 , S44- 8

Acres of pasture per animal unit, 3.1.

Cost for each cattle unit of farmer's own stock, $4.83.

Bedding

Waste hay and stover from the mangers furnished a considerable quantity of bedding. No charge was made for this, since it was charged to the cattle as forage. Very little bedding was purchased. The bedding cost was apportioned to cows, heifers, and herd bulls on each farm. The data are given in table 6 :

TABLE 6. BEDDING USED BY 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS

	All herds	Cows	Heifers	Herd bulls
Kind of bedding	Num- ber of farms	Amount (tons)	Value	Num- ber of farms	Value	Num- ber of farms	Value	Num- ber of farms	Value
	using			using		using		using
Home-grown:
Oat straw	90	269.3	$1,483	92	$1,171	65	$225	5i	$87
Buckwheat straw .	21	32 7	105	22	101	i	4		0
Wheat straw	I	O.5	2	I	2		o		o
Rye straw : i	3-0	24	I	18	i	2	i	4
Chaff : 6	?	27	6	17	2	6	3	4
Swamp and marsh hay . . 6	9-5	50	5	40	3	8	2	2
	O	?	22	8	22		0		6
Total home-grown. . . .
		$1,713		$i,37i		$245		$97
Purchased :
Sawdust . .	52	?	$315	51	$275	12	$28	8	$12
Shavings	5	?	26	5	18	I	5	I	3
Buckwheat straw	I	?	14	i	2	I	10	i	2
Oat straw	3	?	12	2	7	2	4	i	I
Total purchased
		$367		$302		$47		$18
Total bedding			$2,080		$1,673		$292		$H5

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 287

Labor

Some farmers hauled their own milk, while many hired it hauled. Some spent considerable time in making and repairing pasture fences or in constructing and repairing buildings, while others spent little. For these reasons it was thought best to include such time under charges for milk hauling, pasture, and use of buildings, rather than under labor.

Excepting this, and also time spent in raising and harvesting crops and time spent hauling manure from the barnyard, all human and horse labor for the dairy enterprise was charged under the heading Labor. This includes all labor in milking, taking care of milk and dairy equipment, feeding, cleaning cattle and stables, hauling and mixing feed, hauling bedding, buying and selling cattle, and? all other time spent for cattle. Not only was this labor divided as to whether it was spent for cows, for heifers, or for herd bulls, but it was also divided according to whether it was spent during the pasture period or during the winter period. The average wage of male farm labor without board in New York in 1915 was $35.80 a month.6 This is about fifteen cents an hour for a nine-hour day, but probably is too low because use of house, wood, and other things furnished are not included in all cases. Farm operators, however, could ordinarily hire out to operate farms at more than hired men's wages, and their time, therefore, should be counted at a higher rate. The time of women and children usually is not so valuable as the time of men.

The cost of labor per hour depends largely on the size of the business, on the layout of the farm, on the type and intensity of farming, and on wages. Other things being equal, the rates are usually higher on the one- man farms than on the two-man farms. But since no records of the cost of labor on these farms were available, it was necessary to charge labor to dairy cattle at the same rate on each farm, irrespective of the variations mentioned.

Man labor was charged at 15 cents an hour. Since no records of any kind were available to show what woman and child labor cost, it was charged at 10 cents an hour. Horse labor was charged at 15 cents an hour.

The data for labor costs are given in table 7 (page 288).

Milk hauling

In order to make comparisons between farms that hired milk hauled and those where milk was hauled by the farmer, the cost of hauling milk was kept separate from other costs.

When the farmer drew his own milk only, or when he cooperated with neighbors in hauling, the cost was found by multiplying the hours of human and horse time required by the same rates per hour as were used for other labor.

* United States Department of Agriculture. Monthly crop report, March, 1917, page 25.

2S8

BULLETIN 409

crT

I

Q

	II	io •*	§
	4) a	0 0 O 10 0 0 10 0 \OO\H< iOOOroi/5 1-1 rt M ro -^-OO O io IOO M O -*t ^tO rj-	§ 00 i	10 cc 3	C 10 10 10 WOO 1010 C 00 CMo \000 0\	10 10 vO CN
		row M o M	I	*	* "	1"
1	l|	S 5	c 0
		Tt-OM t-0000	0	0	Tj-0 t-t-	l-i IO
	""£	t^ Tf M if, T)-00 O O	ro	n	t^c? O^	2 Jo
	Ȥ	^S)^ M ro M ^ M M	10 s	=	CN W	M CN 00 M
	Number of farms using	O\ t--O 00 1-1 00 ro <N		M	•<t ^t <N
•S	1!	* f ' "*	§
0
1 h	co .j II	00 1-1 Os lOOO Oi M ro	ex: n o"	§	ro ^ »O ro 0 CN 00 CN	M IO IO M
8 c	Number of farms using	OO O 00 1-1 00 <N O <3- CN N T)- N O CN		2	(N 00 O IO
Ov	Ii	O>, t^ IO CN IO CN IO CN	§
a	§S	O O ^t O IO IO 1000	1	^2	^oo io • C* M Tt - O M •	CN CM
•§	II	OOO IO \O^ w	Cv		* "i	M
I	JH!	t^^O IO IO O IO M O\ 't ro CN ro CN HI		M	VO 1-1 Tf • r- ro •
		i :| i M i			: : : :
		: : .$ : : : :
	13	i ii M I	cows. . .
	1 1	'. o. • • '^S o c : o : c ".£ & "S bi * '^ ''9 '^c3 pl^lilllll Jw	Total human labor for	Horse labor for cows . .	Heifers: Human labor Horse labor . . . Herd bulls: Human labor Horse labor	Total human labor Total horse labor

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

289

.CO

		iO • • O M • • 5	»o o • HH t^N,	10 oo
	a	d • • ON 00 • •	£ 5. :	2
a1	>>	3 : :		-
H3 c	.		hH	C^
3 O			^^:
TO •_£
_Tl	JO ^	g : :^	ON Tf •
	O o
V	ffi &	iO •	10 W •
|.s H	Si W HI	(S • • HH	OJ (S	M
	3 ,£ 2
	£ 0
		O O O O •^- O N 00	rh oo	o CN
	1 13	CN rj-ON HH CN iO O ON SO M M	0^ 0* •	0
8
		^	* " ;	(N
11	e-g 3 «	vO O <N» 00 00 »O O ON	$ 2 : fO QN
	O r^
1.1	ffi&	2>~	•«f vo • CO rj- •
H	JJ|	00 iO fN 00 VO	ON ON • VO vO •	*
	1? *
			oo 10 1^	0
	en		ON ^ »O (N Tj- CS	8
	1 aj	lOO O O 10 O <N 00	10 o •* iO to l^>.	R
	3	^"^S'S	OO OO t^» VO 10 10	0?
	o	IO HH HH HH	OO Is** O	vO
13	H	^	10 oo 10	<£
	II	1^* O ^ GO ^^^ 8	co ON • CO CO • O oo • rh 10 •
	fa |	00 IOM ON	r^.	ON
		00	• • oo	rf
	ll"
	i		1 ' C
	^3		aj tuO
			s s
	^	c : : : :	* '5*
	J	- : : : §	13 X3 A	1
		§J ^ I	O 1~H O
		ffi	li

2QO

BULLETIN 409

All charges for the use of the milk wagon, cans, and other equipment used in hauling milk, were included under dairy equipment, rather than under milk hauling. The charge, therefore, includes no expense for use of equipment. When the farmer hired his milk hauled, the money paid was considered the cost of hauling. Whenever a combination of methods was used, the cost was found by adding the cash cost to the farmer's labor charge for hauling.

At the rates used in this study, human labor made up 29.8 per cent, horse labor 44.5 per cent, and cash paid 25.7 per cent, of the cost of hauling the milk. Milk-hauling charges made up 8.2 per cent of the total charges to the enterprise. Of the total time spent, only 14.8 per cent was in cooperation with neighbors.

The figures for milk-hauling costs are given in table 8.

Use of buildings

Values at the beginning and at the end of the year, of the silos, milk houses, ice houses, and those parts of the barns and other buildings used by dairy cattle, or in storing all feed except dry forage used by them, are given in table 9 :

TABLE 9. VALUE OF BUILDINGS, 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, 172 HERD BULLS, AND

76 BULLS TO BE SOLD

-	May	1, 1914	May I	, 1915
Buildings	Number of farms reporting	Value	Number of farms reporting	Value
Dairy and cattle barns* Silos	149 54.	$127,612 8, cm	149 60	$128,577 9,777
Milk houses	122	4,708	124	4,821
Ice houses	94	7,494	95	3,507
Total		$144 746		$146,682

Average value, $145,714. Increase in value, $1,936.

* Includes 9 silos built in barns.

The average of these values was $145,714, or about $978 per farm. During the year six new silos were erected, so that at the end of the year about 40 per cent of the farms had silos not built inside the barns. The number of silos does not agree with the number of farms feeding silage, for the reason that on some farms the silos were built in the barns and were included with the value of the barn. Most of the farms have milk houses separate from the barns, and 64 per cent have separate ice houses, altho

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

291

1 08 farmers used ice. Often one building is used as both a milk house and storage for ice.

The charge for the use of buildings was made up of interest at 5 per cent on the average value, the cost of new buildings, cost of repairs, insurance, and decreased value. When buildings were worth more at the end of the year, the increase in value was deducted to determine the charge for their use. This was then apportioned to cows, to heifers, to herd bulls, and to bulls to be sold, according to the average number of cattle units of each class on hand at the beginning and at the end of the year.

The data for use of buildings are given in table 10:

TABLE 10. CHARGES FOR USE OF BUILDINGS, 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, 172 HERD BULLS, AND 76 BULLS TO BE SOLD

	Number of farms reporting	Amount
New buildings and building repairs: Purchased lumber	7	$ 287 40
Shingles and roofing	18	565 . oo
Paint and glass	40	427 . 70
Hardware		113 60
Materials from farms	17	424. 50
Sand and gravel	6	21 25
Cement		2OO 40
Labor: Hired.	18	Q42 .45
Farm	26	516. 16
Horse	7	74.20
Board of labor	6	26. 50
New buildings, labor and materials	10	I ,911 . 50
Total	86	$5, 5IO 66
Interest on $145 714 at 5 per cent		$7,285.70
Insurance .		455.OO
Total		$13,251 .36
t>ess increase in value*		I ,936.00
Net charge		$11 , ^15 ^6

Apportionment of cost

	Number of farms having expense	Amount charged
Cows	140	$8,705 6q
Heifers	146	2,14'; 21
Herd bulls	126	464 . 46
Bulls to be sold	I	2 OO

* Depreciation on buildings, 2.45 per cent of average value.

2Q2

BULLETIN 409

Use of equipment

The value of the different kinds of equipment used by dairy cattle, on hand at the beginning and at the end of the year, and the number of farms having each kind, are given in table 1 1 :

TABLE ii.

VALUE OF EQUIPMENT USED BY 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS

	May	I, 1914	May i	, iQiS
	Number of farms	Value of equip- ment	Number of farms	Value of equip- ment
Milk cans	120	$1,040	122	$ 997
Coolers	10	3°	ii	14
Testers, bottles, and scales	17	44	18	46
Separators	I«	^n	16	-\2\
Churns and workers	AO	85	40	8S
Bottles and containers	7	ii	7	ii
Milk wagons	9°	i ,710	Q2	1,686
Milking machines			I	250
Ice tools	91	237	91	• 236
Feed cutters	i	25	I	25
Pumps	i	3	I	3
Root cutters	4	10	2	6
Grinders and engines	10	788	14	794
Milk pails and strainers	147	314	148	332
Extra calf pails	31	33	33	34
Clipping machines	24	us	28	141
Veterinary outfits	II	21	17	25
Forks, shovels, and other barn tools . . . Wheelbarrows and trucks	126 41	36o lOt	122 47	364 114
Staffs and halters	22	23	24	28
Total		$5,263		$S, S^4

Average value, $5.398. Increase in value, $271.

«

More than three-fifths of the value of equipment is in milk cans, pails, strainers, and other dairy utensils, and wagons used in hauling milk. The farmers, with the exception of the patrons of one company, owned the cans they used. Since much of this equipment is in daily use, it requires frequent repairing and must be replaced often. Hence its upkeep repre- sents the largest part of the annual cost of dairy equipment.

The charge for the use of equipment includes interest at 5 per cent on the average value at the beginning and at the end of the year, cost of equip- ment purchased during the year, repairs on equipment, and decreased value less any increase in value. This cost was apportioned for each farm, to cows, to heifers, and to herd bulls, according to the number of animals and the amount of equipment used by them. The charges are given in table 12:

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

293

TABLE 12. CHARGES FOR USE OF EQUIPMENT, 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172

HERD BULLS

.	Number of farms having expense	Amount
Interest on $5 398 at 5 per cent*	149	$ 260 qo
Equipment purchased .	IT.T.	i ,079 30
Repairs	76	230.00
Total		Si , S7Q 2O
Less increase in value		271 oo
Net charge .		$1 ,308 20

Apportionment of cost

	Number
	r\f
	farms having	Amount charged
	expense
Cows	14.0	$i 015 10
Heifers	1 18	221 45
Herd bulls . ...	I O2	71 6s

* Depreciation, 19. 2 per cent of average value.

Interest

Separate interest charges at 5 per cent were made on the average value of cattle and on the average investment in feed and supplies kept on hand for cattle. As previously indicated, the other interest charges were included under use of pasture, use of buildings, and use of equipment.

The average value of cows, heifers, and herd bulls was $163,124. Due to averaging each record separately, the value here used is $163,109,

TABLE 13.

INTEREST ON AVERAGE VALUE OF 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS

Kind of stock	Average number from inventory	Average value from inventory	Value used in charging interest	Interest at 5 per cent	Number of farms having expense
Cows .	2 058	$m, 152	$!'*'*, 148	$6,657.40	140
Heifers under one year Heifers one year or over Bull calves to be kept Herd bulls one to two years . . Herd bulls over two years old	532.5 469.5 67 59 7 45	7,296 16,338 1,074 2,162 3,102	• 23,626 6,335	1,181.30 316.75	146 126
Total		$163,124	$163,109	$8,155-45

BULLETIN 409

the interest on which amounts to $8155.45. Since veals and bulls to be sold are kept on hand for only a short time, no interest was charged on their value. The data are given in table 13.

Interest was charged to the dairy enterprise on the investment in forage for the average length of time the forage was stored before it was fed, and on the investment in concentrates from the time they were paid for until they were fed. On each record this cost was distributed to cows, heifers, and herd bulls, according to the numbers of animals kept and the quantities of feed used. The average total capital so invested was $38,160, or about $256 per farm. On some farms keeping heifers and herd bulls the interest charge on feed and supplies was so small that it was not separated. The data are given in table 14:

TABLE 14. INTEREST ON AVERAGE VALUE OF FEED AND SUPPLIES KEPT ON HAND FOR 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS

All herds	Cows	Heifers	Herd bulls
Average value of feed and supplies on hand	Number of farms having expense	Interest at 5 per cent	Number of farms having expense	Amount charged	Number of farms having expense	Amount charged	Number of farms having expense	Amount charged
$38,160	149	$1,908	149	$1,511.50	120	$305.50	81	$91.00

Miscellaneous costs

All remaining expenses were classed as miscellaneous costs, and are given in table 15. Of these, ice, veterinary fees, medicines and disinfec- tants, fly protectors, whitewash, and expenses for testing milk, were the most important. Farmers having the expense for milk testing estimated the portion of this' expense that should be charged to cows, to heifers, to bulls to be sold, and to herd bulls. The same was done with other items not wholly chargeable to cows.

The average amount of ice stored per cow was 1949 pounds.

Returns

Returns from dairy cattle on the farms studied were classified as (i) milk and milk products, (2) appreciation on cattle, (3) manure recovered, (4) miscellaneous returns.

Milk and milk products

Milk sold. — Of the 149 farms, 52 sold to the Empire State Dairy Com- pany at Windsor and i to this company at Oquaga, 39 sold to Cloverdale Farms Company at Binghamton, 18 sold to F. W. Jansen at Whitney's Point, 1 6 to Bordens' at Tunnel, 7 to Sheffield Farms, Slawson-Decker Company, at Conklin, 5 to Bordens' at Whitney's Point, 3 to the Broome County Dairy Company at Binghamton, 7 a part of the year to F. W.

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

295

Ill I

HH T^- HH • _ CO CS W

O r 04 C<

E ^

i

t^. ID ON 1^00

<N CO IO O

co CN cs c

6 S'P

O M

»OOO

vO CO O\ 00

ONOO r>- (N \O O 1-1

IO*O l-lC4t~>.OCO

CO CN CO^O 00 CO ro t^ HH \O

IO HH HH CO l-l 1-1 O)

iOOOOO>-iOcO

COi-HONCOO<cOC<MMt-i

Tota ding

B

296

BULLETIN 409

Jansen and a part of the year to Bordens' at Whitney's Point, and i a part of the year to Cloverdale Farms Company and a part of the year to the Broome County Dairy Company at Binghamton. Milk sold to Clover- dale Farms and the Broome County Dairy Company was used in Bingham- ton, while the remainder was for the New York market.

Practically all milk was sold on six-months contracts made with the milk companies on October i and April i. All concerns except two paid a flat price for milk containing a minimum percentage of butterfat. This per cent was 3.7 for one concern, and 3.8 and 4 per cent for the others. A premium was paid when the milk tested above a certain percentage speci- fied in the contract. The monthly prices paid by three companies are given in table 16. Prices paid by the other companies were about the same.

TABLE 16. MONTHLY PRICES PAID FOR MILK BY THREE COMPANIES, PER

HUNDREDWEIGHT

	Company no. i	Company no. 2	Company no. 3
I9lf May June	$1.20 .10 •35 •55 .80 •95 2.05 2.05 i-95 i. 80 1-75 1.50	$1.05 .00 •15 •30 .40 .70 .80 .80 -75 •65 .60 * -55	$1.25 .20 •35 -50 .60 .90 2.00 2.OO i 95 1.85 1. 80 1.50
July. .
August
September October
November
December 1915: January . . .
February . . .
March
April
Per cent of butterfat re- quired	f4.o 25 45 10 cents a hundred pounds if 4.5 per cent or better 2 cents a hundred pounds for each 5 points above 70	3.7 (forAp 25 43 10 cents a hundred pounds if 3.8 per cent or better 10 cents a hundred pounds if score 25 on equipment 43 on methods	ril, 3.8) 3 cents a hundred pounds if 4.1 to 4.5 per cent inclu- sive None
Barn score required : Equipment Methods Premiums in addition to above: Butterfat
Barn score

* For 3.8-per-cent milk with barn score, t Average for year.

With one exception, each concern had an inspector visit and score the premises at regular intervals. A premium was paid by some of the com- panies for a higher score. This encouraged the production of clean milk. One company furnished the lime and equipment, and assisted the

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

297

>0 I-H O iO O^^-O ^O \O O OO O 1-1 O M (S ro lO^O O^OO Ooooovof

c J3 * '"

2" K

298

BULLETIN 409

farmers in whitewashing their barns twice a year, without charge. The figures for the returns from milk sold are given in table 17.

Milk products sold. — Only seven farms sold butter, and one farm sold 200 pounds of cream. The figures are given in tables 18 and 19.

Milk and milk products used. — The value of all milk used on each farm was calculated by multiplying the number of pounds used by the weighted average price received for all milk sold from the farm. Some farmers

TABLE 1 8. RETURNS FROM MILK PRODUCTS SOLD AND MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS USED ON FARMS, 2058 Cows

	Num- ber of farms	Number of pounds of product	Number of pounds of fat	Price	Total value
Milk products sold: Butter	7	i 015	863	$o 31	$312 76
Cream Total milk products sold	I	200	40	1.50	30.00 $342 76
Milk used: Family	147	313,048	12,522	$1.63	$5 ,103.33
Hired men Milk products used: Skimmilk: Hogs	14 10	17,638 30 7OO	706	1.72 O. 20	304. 16 59 97
Poultry	i	2,200		o. 15	3.30
Buttermilk:	21	7 264		O 22	15 93
Hogs	10	3 ,250		o. 23	7. 50
Poultry	I	f * IOO		o 20	o 20
Butter, family use Cream, family use	36 II	5,656 1,000	4,808 200	0.29 1.81	i,633-97 180.64
Total milk and its products used, except that fed cattle			19 139		$7 309 oo
Equivalent in pounds of milk*		371 ,457
Milk used: Heifers	134	215 464	8 619	$i 63	$3 i i 7 77
Veals and bulls to be sold Bull calves to be kept for herd bulls.	94 65	193,535 26,275	7,741 1,051	1.62 1.63	3 ,126.91 429.47
Milk products used: Skimmilk: Heifers	32	96,068		$0.18	$171.17
Veals and bulls to be sold		3 072		o 20	6 16
Bull calves to be kept for herd bulls	8	6,493		0.17	11.08 $188 41
Buttermilk: Heifers	3	i ,300		$o 19	$2 45 $2.45
Total milk and its products fed cattle			17 411		$7 265 01
Equivalent in pounds of milk*		540 907

* Excluding buttermilk.

fed more milk in months when the price was below the average price for the year, and others fed more when the price was above the average. But the quantity used in the house was practically uniform thruout the season. Since the months in which milk was used were not ascertained, it was necessary to use the average yearly price. The prices used in calculating the value of skimmilk and buttermilk were those furnished by the farmers. An average of 2130 pounds of milk per family was used. The figures are given in table 18 and summarized in table 19.

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

299

.S*	1			,916.77
ll rt m	>			^
	•9	^•o	H	ro
	£	ro 10	a	Ov
	' o	o :	•*o	«0
i	?	o • 00 •	Is	0
S 0	Pounds	si	P	8
	0	a •	S-	ro
		ro •	ro r^
|	^		ro M O ro	s
oq	Pounds	vO • 10 • vO •	xO 0	t^ o"
	1	!!	00 • 0 •	*
1	>	(A	~ :	*
-M		.
"2	T-1	M§	2" .	2"
pg	C	O* 1-1 M	M ;	o\
	<u	N Tj- 000	00 • 0 •	00 M »O
6		&	«*	**
S
	in		ro •	ro
r^	X)	O fO	ro •	ro
CO	C	O\O	1/5 •	V5
	£	IN 10 roo HH	OO • ro •	00 ro
		^S?	xO •	^
	o	* •		•
	2	O I"*-	oo •	00
	•	^t1 O	^1" •	rf
fl		^	N •	5
	s	H	|:	Os
	£	O 1/5 ro ro ro-t	\o • r- •	0
		1 : "S	tn •
			g :
		"a	**~"o
			h
		rrT O
		W T)	^o	3
		^rS«S	rt p,	0
		11	3

300 BULLETIN 409

Appreciation on cattle

On most farms where dairy cattle are raised to replace those that die and those that are sold, the increased value of young cattle exceeds the depreciation and all losses due to death. On the farms studied, this excess, or appreciation, amounted to $27,988, or 12 per cent of the returns from cattle. Appreciation and depreciation were calculated in the following manner :

When considering the entire herd as a unit, cattle were charged with the first inventory and all purchases of dairy cattle. They were credited with cattle sold or used, hides, and the second inventory.

Cows were charged with the inventory at the beginning, cows purchased, and heifers that became cows. They were credited with cows sold or slaughtered, cow hides, and the inventory at the end.

Heifers were charged with the first inventories, heifers purchased, and value at birth of heifers born during the year. They were credited with heifers sold and slaughtered, value at time of freshening of heifers that freshened during the year for the first time, heifer hides, and the inventories at the end.

Herd bulls were charged with the inventories at the beginning, herd bulls purchased, and value at birth of bull calves born during the year and to be kept for future service. 'They were credited with herd bulls sold or slaughtered, hides, and the inventories at the end.

Veals and bulls to be sold were charged with the inventories .at the begin- ning, purchases, and value at birth of veal calves and of bulls to be sold that were born during the year. They were credited with veals and bulls sold or slaughtered, hides, and the inventories at the end.

A summary of the appreciation or depreciation on each part of the enterprise is given in table 20.

Calves born during the year were charged to heifers, herd bulls, and veals and bulls to be sold, at their values at birth. They were credited to cows but were not included in the returns from cattle. The data are given in table 2 1 .

Manure recovered

No credit was given for manure produced on pasture, and neither was the pasture charged with it. To have credited and charged manure in these different places would have increased the total costs and total returns for cattle by the same amount, without affecting the gain or loss on the enterprise or the cost of producing milk. The 149 farmers estimated that 20,642 tons of manure was recovered from cattle for use on crop land. This is 7.7 tons per cattle unit, there being 2670.3 cattle units.

The value of manure depends, not only on the composition of the ration, but also on the proportion and kind of litter and especially on the possible returns from its use. Estimates as to its value at the barn averaged about

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

301

		3	LOOO • • ** LO • •	I	N ro • N • • (S	10 g
		cfl	£" ': i	5	t-j- • • Oi	P») 00
	I	1 s	a N • •		M ^ O • • 10
					' ro • • LO
	0>	£ 2
		1 S3	F : :		LO t^ LO LO ro •• • r»		'N' '. ro .
e		3 uS			3		i ;
o							— - '
w		1	|SS :	S	^00 • N • • • LO	1	00 • 00 •
	13		£ " :	5	4^ • • • • ^"	8	<S '
	S;	S £	O\ LO ro •		M OO ^ l-H • • Tf 00 LO ro • • r-
	b	I*!			M • ' • LO
	c	£ ^
		fe	•*0 0 •		(N M LO IO • • t-	.
		O r|	<N M Tt •		O «S M • • ro
		6*O »H
		§	O\ O • t- O\ N • 1-1	0 ro	to • o • • • LO .« :2: : :*.	s	• IN
		K?3	O 00 • t~-	O LO	00 \O • • • • LO • • • ro	0 10	1*
1 o	1 j 2	y "S5 0	c> ^ • •^- <N ro • 0 CM • ro		00 t^ LO O • • • t~- O M LO LO • • -00 MM* ... 0
	1 j	10 vl J!	O\ r^ • ro TtrJ- • 0		>O IS 00 00 • • • Ov
			LO tf • 1-1	LO OO	o\ 00 O • O t- O O M 00 O • O\ M \O M O 0\00 • LOM M	I	00 • OO •
C/3	E	3?	O M • t- LO M -1-1	10 00	LOOO • t^ t~	ro	c7 :
£			<&	*•	6*	*
jf			LO		LO LO
<3		— a;	• . ; .		J. ^4. v^ .4. rfOO 1-1 O
		£-> ^	t^oo • o		O. r^ ro ro O LONO
	i	o S c	O <N • ro ro •		_, ro M M ro w •* M" ro
					|| I III
			ii$		IF— i
			~- Mb « "•SS^ >.^>.^ JSia M-M ^-d.SS __, Qi (-, •73	3	|jp :| : J 2	3	ationj. . . . lation
			I|1I a 3 o « Ol^OQffi	H	lilllali	H	££ SS Big <Q

£:i

ai

X) C

•§'«

> c

II

«5

II

II

J5 o

'53 -C

rC (0

.

£5^ fc

302

BULLETIN 409

M o		§ g	°^S : ** _ '	1	M (N • • • IO	1
VI a) rd |1		^^•° 5	^Oto ;		1C M MM •.• 00
13		JjioJ	10 fO M		10 O MM • • • O
	•e 1 ri	s 1	•>o'o to . vO •«> M	c s	n n nr	I
	1	H	i'g ;		O N 10		0 00 •
"rt	3	H	:«g j		oo		c ;
	1	D	CO • • oo • •	00 cr	*jj MB H:1	5	vO •
	ri 1	Z o	M • ' •		0 O • M ~3 ... ro • ...
	0	| S3^'|	•* : : :		-3- • OOC • • -00
	5	0)	tooc • 00 rf •	j	r- ro O o\ t- ^r O to * . . - ro t» n	0 0
	£ i	jN	M O • Tj- t-(		0 t- ON
	0	Jl"l	O M •		Or- 0
S	e cl	J3 13	00.-	-t n	0 00 -00 ...(->. a o •- • M • • • n O\ CO • ••• to	'5 £
"2 .4) W		3jQ O 3	to to • M 0 • to M	^ :	0 £lO 10 • • -CO ^10 t- M ro		o" '.
		J5 IM	tO M •		•00 M t • • • M <N • • -0
	I .8	15		I		-t	CO •
	I	||o|	0 N 10 •		(N • N PO • • - (M
	i K	c w	IO N 10		(N • M ro • • -O . . -NO
			On hand May i, 1914. . Purchased during year. . Born during year Heifers that became cows	|	£ eg Q ffiK QQO	1	Appreciation Depreciation

a

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

303

$1.25 a ton. This does not include the cost of hauling it to the field. Manure was credited to cattle on each farm at this rate. The credit was then apportioned to cows, to heifers, and to herd bulls, according to the average inventory of cattle units. No attempt was made to calculate

TABLE 21. NUMBER OF CALVES BORN DURING THE YEAR, AND VALUE AT BIRTH

	Num- ber of farms	Number	Per cent	Value	Value of each at birth
Heifers to be raised or to be sold Bulls to be kept Bulls sold or to be sold Calves vealed or to be vealed Calves deaconed . . .	140 50 42 137 CI	733 54 75 937 162	37 3 4 48 8	$2,232 226 3ii 1,650	$3-05 4.19 4-15 1.76
Deacon hides . . .	so	IS8		169	i 07
Total calves born alive ....	147	1 ,061	IOO	$4 , S88	$2 ^4.
Live calves per 100 cows ....		9S
Calves born dead	3S	S^
Dead calf hides	13	21		20
Total credited to cows Cows that aborted	2S	41		$4,608
Farrow cows	47	07

the value of manure on the basis of rations fed, for the reason that other factors have an equal, if not greater, influence. Neither was it considered practical to vary the credit to different classes of stock on the basis of the composition of the rations. The value of manure was $9.66 per cattle unit. This was u.i per cent of the total returns from cattle. The data for manure recovered are given in table 22.

TABLE 22. MANURE RECOVERED FROM 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, 172 HERD BULLS, AND 76 BULLS TO BE SOLD

Manure recovered	All herds	Cows	Heifers	Herd bulls	Bulls to be sold
Tons	20 , 642	IS, 917	3,870	8si	4.
Value at $1.25 a ton at the barnyard	$25 802	$19 896 64.	$4. 8^7 6s	$1 063 21	$4. SO

Miscellaneous returns

Two farms received $157 for hauling neighbors' milk, three farms received $52 for boarding cattle, and fifteen farms received $142 for the use of herd bulls. These receipts were included under miscellaneous returns and represented 0.2 per cent of the total returns from the enter- prise. The figures for miscellaneous returns are given in table 23 :

304

BULLETIN 409 TABLE 23. MISCELLANEOUS RETURNS

	Number of	Total	Credi	ted to
Item	farms having receipt	amount received	Cows	Herd bulls
Hauling neighbors' milk	2	$ici7	$IS7
Breeding fees	I c	14.2		$142
Boarding cows ' .	-z	S2	S2
Total „		$^SI	$2OQ	$142

Summary of costs and returns

The separate items of costs and returns for the whole enterprise, and for cows, heifers, herd bulls, and veals and bulls to be sold, given in previous tables, are summarized in table 24.

Cost of producing milk and butterfat

In this investigation two different methods of calculating the cost of producing milk or butterfat were used.

By one method, considering the entire herd as a unit, all returns from the herd except milk sold were deducted from the total herd costs, and the difference was considered the cost of milk or fat sold. Any expense for raising young cattle to replace the herd was included in determining the cost of production. The cost calculated in this manner is designated thruout this bulletin as the " herd cost " of milk or butterfat.

By the second method, the returns from cows other than milk sold were deducted from the total cost of keeping cows to determine the cost of milk or fat. Bull service was charged at cost. The raising of heifers to replace the herd was considered separately, and any loss or gain on them was not charged nor credited to milk production. The cost determined in this manner is designated thruout this bulletin as the " cow cost " of producing milk or butterfat.

The herd cost and the cow cost of milk are practically identical. The herd cost is the simpler to calculate, because it is not necessary to separate the feed, labor, and other costs for heifers, bulls, and other cattle. But the quantities of feed and labor used by the herd per hundred pounds of milk are not so useful as the quantities used by cows only.

In purebred herds, the value of young stock for breeding purposes is sometimes so great as to make the herd cost of producing milk very low. The investment in cows, depreciation on cows, amount of feed and labor, bull service, and all other costs, are higher for purebred than for grade herds. But the greater value of the calves at birth usually more than offsets these higher costs, so that the cow cost of producing milk is also usually less in purebred than in grade herds.

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

305

		888 ::: :8	8 8 8^°^vo 2 °t- °^8 « 8 8	9	£ 85
	•-a	oo N M • • • oo m M c* • • • co oo 10 r^ • • • co	O tOOO ^ Th iO iO t^* I-H rOOO M vO	f	rj ON 10 •* 0 VO CO COM
		rj CM <*"} o\	_ ._ I*T\ (Vi \_n i/^i ro	K/^	t-N^ fN^
	>	3- »;•[.::	£	5	»
w
^
o
rj			!!BBI!I1I!!!I
		5 OT W	b fa
		5 C G
		p, ° ° • • • • •	o o
	g
		^H coo _
	<J	lor^oo ON l^. M '	;; 10 i-T ;;;;;;;;;
		oo r r '
	Per cent	_C M HH M • • -00 82S0' : : :*	CO ONOO 00 M t^ 10 ^-00 HH • • 10 vOONOOOrfOfOOO ' <HH 10 (N	O 8	0 CO
		8888 : : :8	SO 10 10 ONVO O »0 O 0 • • O OvOfxll>«cOM'^-OO • -O	R	"£. 8
	-1	ON ON O f^» • • • I-H M \5 t^ • • • 10	\O O t^-vO ^"lOOO lOOO co • -co OOOOvOoOOOi-iOiOOOO • -i-i P>l O r>-OO vO CO CO i-i ON i-i • • *>•	00	M Ov rt ^- o <^ CO co >>
1		^.^•Oj • M	CO °* 10 ""' HH M ^	1	^ "o bo '5
£3					c •r-
^^					&
		*d • • •	• • w a, .........		JB
	-g	g £ c a ' ' ' ^ Q o o o ' ' o	'•'• o o '•'••••'•'•'•'•		«
	a o		. .^^		' ^
					g
	^^		^Iw ^
		CN| ON r^ C^ " * * CS	* * hH (>1		N
			' 00 hH * * CO		1
					6 3 c
<	D "	~ CS COCN • • .10	vOt^-t^-OOO n rOTfiO^ O*O		oo oo oo u
2 1	D a H	: : :			i I
					G *°
					H ^
					,*Q -4-»
					rt
			* j^		O -O
			aJ '		^G c
		x— *S	a ' ' ' '		-M <U rt
		1-^4
		:| :•::::	....... .£ ....		§ ^ §
			:::::::: 8 : • : :		? u 1
					3 *u %M
					*— * ^•^ »c
		. ^-»	j3 -5^		4J 4-J -M I-,
		. CX	w --0 w' •		O cJ O «i
		; o . x ; . i	'"0 "P ^		"^ *-^ "Tl P^H "Tl M
			! I . • • ' . c • ' u o		7^ 0^^^ a
		it ;ls;ig: :: 6	-|J dj & . j* O	j	Returns: Other than milk s< Milk products s Milk and its pn except that fe Milk and its pn * Fat calves sold, sla

306

BULLETIN 409

			: 8^"8	5-	?!	COO vO O	8§ o
		-i	• 06 vd ON	d	(N	(N r4-	vO •
		,3	^vSci'S	s		oo oo	CO 5=
		a	~		^	*.
		>	• Tl-ON	CO	M	H-l IO	J>
			^	^	HH	^ 1	,«t
	6		' V)		1
		d p	;§ ;		1
		o	j^^^		.-*
		a	1 ^		M
			! "^		rj-
		&	0 • « <N (S • I-H O		IO CO	0 • 8 :
		PH
			8:88	s,	W	OO N	sS
		2-1	00 • C^' i-i	(N|	oi	,4- ^	•H- P-I
		13	oo • o 10 ON • 00 CO	ON	lo	CO ON	Ov^
	'rt	>**	t~>. • iO	^	^	co^d"	oo
fti	1			£	Si	CO^= (S |
§	^— j
s	^C				m
•^a					id
fe			'. w		a
£•		a	; o		1	! !
r*-		Q	*
OJ		a	'• ^*-		OJ
3		^	; o"		CO
«					•^J-
<			!		2"
H
		<u	O •- 01 CO		t^
		3
	E	H
			!.	2			II
			^	^			1
			"§ !	1
			a ! "8	a			C '^
			80J r^ w	1			9 ^
			»1	i			1 1 '
			f|8l s	c/r		w' '	Ija
			llflcl	3 E5	1	lj	HI StfE a;.^ <u
			c ^ <j o ^ ^		Z3	H ^	-^a^
			lo		s	1	8^1
			ffi				O O

AN ECONOMIC STLDY OF DAIRYING

307

		8. o o o I-H • • • O O HH ON • •	^••••0 0 0----0 0	o"
I o	>	^ : ^ : :	rj- . . CN • .... 10	2s
		w w w * '
r^H		i-£-J r^-J f£j
3		§ a£§§ : :
tJB	a 1	a llaa .- :
i		o ; CN CN «o ; ; rO ' X ' O »O ' '
13 ,«		HH • re rO • •
>
t/3 1	a 13	O O O O oo r*>» • o o o o o o •<*• • o OO ^* HN vO ^ O^ • ^O O r^ ON rj- • ro	lOOiOiO-vO'OiO O • • • O 10 o 10 10 • ^"O r^ o • • • o rf* HH ON • ^O r>» HH ON • • • CN O HH HH • Tf CO	10
1 £	-»j a	C/3 O3 C/3 *T3 '^ ^O I 1 1 1 0 0 ' '	'; §§ : : : : : : : : :
	1	rO "^ ON fO iO ' ' O 00 HH cO ON t-- ' '	' ' ON <T> ' ' ' '
	<	°1 C5 l^. HH "^t ^1 • • 00 00 00 \O \O • •
e	1	8 888-^:^8 O^ O '^"'O r^* ^H . o to t^* *^ ^^ ^o ON	OO fN O OO • CO HH HH IO * * (N) ON ON\O 00 • rj- 04 00 O • -00 OOCNHHHH -HHCM>-H CO ' • >-> (^ ^- . a M •	* s CO	•
|		w 'wwco*	• • • • •
		»^ T^ '(J *^	r/)
i	-*->	| S^g§|§	: : 3 3 : :• : : : : : :
	3	a ° 3 B aaa	. .^^ . .		- •
	2	\O iO ONOO rf O	^h ON		^
	£		rO *O
	<	"I lOVO 00 °. ^t ^	• • JJ N-
		vo COCO ON-	'.'.**
a	;	HH CN tOCNOOOOOO uo	•Ot^.tvOOOfNcO rJ-iOHHOiO		oo oo
7 6-	i H		, '•
		S : : : : :	::::::: :J :::::		i'S ta
			'n		3 >>
		oS	:::::::: g : :^ : :		* M -M
		,j> ....	s • • 3 : •		**"^ O^
		a 8~	:::::::: w :• ^ . :		.. • § g
		•d x <u ^) C/3	::::::::!: 1 1 :		T3 S ^3 X 111!
		! ill!1 ^ <u _ ^^4 a ^^'§1 • _g|go | l^ll «t5co Qc^c^^CQcS CJ		in 13	!!^ I!!!!

308

BULLETIN 409

•a		8. o • . 10 •			&3
|	13	vd • 4- • oo •			6 ON 00 00
0		£ : :			£ +
3	4,	i|1		i
^n	1	; "*" ;		• •
	-1	o-«o O • (N O ON • ro ^ ro • "Q HH			11	\ \
3-		£ :-		•	I
o
'S			;
0)						f
a	g	oo ; . a .
	o	. _o
	a	••!-(•
		. • IO •
		. • oo •
		§• 10 • . \O			VO HH
	3	r>. • !•>« •			TJ-OO
	1	00 • CO • 00 • 00 •			<N Tj- r^oo
e		5 ::* :			tfi. 1
U-I	o	; o ;	:			• •
	^jrf	• oo •
		'.'.'. ^ '.
a		OO O >-i Ol ro >-l C< (N) C< C<		tj
IS
a					• •'
		?S : i	.1 :		•	fl ** • •
		II ll	§ i		| \	fc'1 i »
		.eturns (concluded}: Other than milk sold Milk and its pro cattle v Appreciation on c£ Calves and calf hi< Manure Miscellaneous. . . .	I1	1 3	Total returns rofit or loss	. ^ : o w co . O< 6 8 --a 1^ ;l 11 1|	j Chnrged to CCWP.
					PH	U 0

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

309

The cost includes delivering to the receiving stations. Prices are paid for milk delivered. In order to be comparable the cost of production on different farms should therefore include the cost of delivery.

A comparison of the herd cost and the cow cost of producing milk and butterf at is given in table 2 5 :

TABLE 25. SUMMARY OF COST OF PRODUCING AND DELIVERING TO MARKET 104,732 HUNDREDWEIGHT OF MILK CONTAINING 420,673 POUNDS OF BUTTERF AT

	Herd cost	Cow cost
(2058 cows, 1002 heifers, 172 herd bulls, 377 veals, and 76 bulls to be sold)	(2058 cows)
Per hundred pounds of milk sold	Per cent	Per pound of but- terfat	Per hundred pounds of milk sold	Per cent	Per pound of but- terfat
Costs: Grain	$o . 460 o. 236 0.485 O. Ill	20. i 10.3 21. I 4.8	$o. 1146 0.0587 o. 1207 0.0276	$0.409 0.215 0.389 0.089	2O. 2 10.6 19.2 4-4	$0. IOI9 0.0535 0.0968 0.0222
Succulent feed Dry forage
Pasture
Total feed
$1.292 0.020 0.523 0.018 0.188 o. 108 0.012 O.078 0.018 0.002	56.3 0.9 22.8 0.8 8.2 4-7 0.5 3-4 0.8 O.I i . 5	$0.3216 o . 0049 o. 1302 0.0045 o . 0468 0.0269 0.0031 0.0194 0.0045 0.0004	$1 . IO2 0.016 0:472 1 0.016 0.188 0.083 O.OIO 0.064 0.014 O.O02 O.OI7 0.055 0.033	54-4 0.8 23-3 0.8 9-3 4.1 o.S 3- 1 0.7 O.I 0.8 o.S 1.6	$0.2744 o . 0040 o. 1174 o . 0040 0.0468 0.0207 0.0024 0.0158 0.0036 o . 0004 0.0043 0.0136 0.0083
Bedding Human labor
Horse labor Hauling milk Use of buildings
Use of equipment Interest on cattle
Interest on feed and supplies Breeding fees
Cost of keeping herd bulls
Depreciation on cows M iscellaneous	0.035	0.0088
Total costs
$2.294	100. 0	$0.5711	$2.072	100. 0	$0.5157
Returns other than milk sold: Milk products sold Milk and its products used on farm, except that fed cattle	$0.003 0.070 0.267 0.247 0.003		$0.0008 0.0174 o . 0665 0.0613 0.0008	$0.003 0.070 0.070 0.044 o. 190 O.002		$0.0008 0.0174 0.0173 0.0109 0.0473 0.0005
Milk and its products fed cattle. . . Appreciation on cattle , . . . Calves and calf hides
Manure M iscellaneous
Total returns, other than milk sold Cost of milk or butterfat at market .
$0.590 $1.704		$o. 1468 $0.4243	$0.379 $1.693		$0.0942 $0.4215

The gross herd charges per hundred pounds of milk sold were $2.29, but the returns other than milk sold amounted to 59 cents per hundred pounds. The herd cost of milk, therefore, was $1.70 per hundred pounds sold.

The gross cow charges were $2.07 per hundred pounds, and the returns other than milk sold were 38 cents. Hence, the cow cost of milk was $1.69 per hundred pounds sold.

The herd cost and the cow cost were practically the same, the former being i.i cents per hundred pounds higher. In other words, the loss on heifers, above the gain on veals and bulls to be sold, increased the cost of milk production only by this amount.

3io

BULLETIN 409

The gross herd charges were 57.1 cents per pound of butterfat sold. The returns other than for milk sold were 14.7 cents, so that the net herd cost per pound of butterfat was 42.4 cents.

			ft*;. t
	. • • •	.:.'•"• ••'•';	%••• •/ :;:/•:	•*•*•* r»«*	* • * * •*	• •
		* •• ••«		* •
0 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.£0 ' $3.00 $3.
FlG. 53- VARIATION IN HERD COST OF PRODUCING MILK, 149 FARMS

The cow charges were 51.6 cents per pound of butterfat. The returns, except for milk sold, were 9.4 cents, making the net cow cost per pound of butterfat sold 42.2 cents.

Per cent

of all mi!k sold

$0.80

$1.17

$1.38 $1.63 $1.87 $2.14 $2.30

Cost per too pounds -in 1915

FlG. 54. VARIATION IN HERD COST OF PRODUCING MILK, 149 FARMS

$2.81

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

S 3«w

CD c o

OMN r-Tf POO Ov-o 01 Ov ^ Tf PO POO ^i~

) PO <N t^- 1/5 PO <N

NMOlOM O CO <N POOO OMH 0 r- 't

PO O t^O PO <

i8

lo

-»J ^, OT

c S P

Ml

aj S^ On Co

^"o

^ If

3I2

BULLETIN 409

When the calculations were based on the total amount of milk or butter- fat produced, the cow cost of production was practically the same as when the milk or fat sold was used. The cow cost per hundred pounds of milk produced was $1.689, and the cost per hundred pounds sold was $1.693. The cow cost of fat was 42 cents per pound produced, or 42.2 cents per pound sold.

The lowest herd cost of milk production was 56 cents per hundred pounds. To increased value -on purebred cows and higher values of the calves at birth this low cost was due. The highest cost was $3.19 per hundred pounds. Of the farms studied, 48 per cent produced milk at less than the average cost, but 54 per cent of the milk was produced at less than the average cost. The more efficient farms produce a larger proportion of the product. The average cost of all milk produced below the average cost was $1.39 per hundred pounds, and of all milk at the average cost or above, $2.06 per hundred pounds.

Variations in the herd cost of producing milk on these farms are shown in table 26 and in figures 53 and 54.

Quantities of feed and labor per unit of product

The amounts of feed and labor used by all herds, per hundred pounds of milk produced, per hundred pounds produced except that fed cattle, and per hundred pounds sold, are given in table 27:

TABLE 27. AMOUNTS OF FEED AND LABOR USED BY 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, 172 HERD BULLS, AND 76 BULLS TO BE SOLD, PER HUNDRED POUNDS OF MILK

	Per 100	pounds of i	nilk
	Produced	Produced, except that fed cattle	Sold
		Pounds
Grain	28.3	2Q 7	30.8
Succulent feed	qi .6	06 i	99.6
Dry forage	02 7	Q7 -3	100 8
		Hours
Hauling milk	O ^5	O V7	O 10
Other labor ,	7 «	•j. ci	-j 64.
Horse labor: Hauling milk	o m	O ^d.	o s6
Other labor	on	O 12	O 12

Capital invested for milk production

The average investment for milk production was $3381 per farm, $244.78 per cow, and $4.42 per hundred pounds of milk or $1.10 per pound of

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

butterfat produced. These values would have been higher in 1920, due to a higher price level for all commodities. The data are given in table 28 :

TABLE 28. CAPITAL INVESTED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 11,385,590 OF MILK CONTAINING 457,223 POUNDS OF BUTTERFAT, 149 HERDS

POUNDS

	Total capital	Per cent	Per farm	Per cow	Per 100 pounds of milk produced	Per pound of butterfat produced
Cows	$1-1-2 14.8	26 4.	$804.	$64. 70	$1 17	$O 2Q
Herd bulls Other cattle	6,335 23,626	i-3 4.7	42 ISO	3.08 II 48	0.05 O.2I	O.OI O OS
Buildings	145,714	28 9	078	70.80	1.28	O \2
Equipment	C -7Q8	I i	16	2 62	O OS	O OI
Pasture land	jcj ^76	•JO o	I 016	77 c6	I Til	O "\\
Feed and supplies .....	38,160	7.6	256	18.54	0-33	0.09
Total . ...	$SO^ , 757	IOO O	$-z -181	$24.4. 78	$4. 4.2	$i 10
Interest at 5 per cent	$25,188		$169	$12 24	$O 221	$o oss

Effect of changes in the price of labor, of feed, and of other factors, on the cost of milk production

The cost of producing milk for any particular farm or for any region is not constant. Whenever the price of cows, the price of feed, the value of land, or wages, change, then the cost of milk production also changes. Hence, when interpreting results of milk-production studies, it is important to keep in mind the possible effect of such changes on cost.

In table 29 are shown the approximate changes in cost made by the change of a single item, provided all other costs remain constant. An increase in any item, however, is accompained by changes in practically all other items. For example, if any cost increases, the cost of cows, and

TABLE 29. EFFECT OF CHANGES IN PRICES OF LABOR, FEED, AND OTHER FACTORS, ON COST OF PRODUCTION WHEN THE ENTIRE HERD is CONSIDERED

If other conditions remained exactly the same, a. change of:	The cost of producing 100 pounds of milk	The cost of producing i pound of butterfat
i per cent in the interest rate	Cents 4. 4.	Cents j j
$10 an acre in the value of pasture land	-I -3	o 8
i cent an hour of human labor	o- o 1 8	OQ
$i a ton for grain	I 4.
$i a ton for succulent feed . .	4. 6	0.4 J J
$i a ton for dry forage	4. 6	I 2

Would change on these farms

314 BULLETIN 409

hence depreciation and interest on them, also increases. If wages increase, the cost of pasture and buildings goes up. Moreover, a change in the cost of feed, cows, or labor causes dairymen to modify their practices. For all these reasons, one can never safely predict what will be the effect of a change in any one item on the cost of production as a whole.

PART II. CONCERNING COWS

Breeds

Practically all of the dairy herds in Broome County are of grade stock, but most of the cattle carry some Holstein blood. Probably animals of this breed are best adapted to the production of market milk under the prevailing conditions of the region, chiefly because of their large size.

About two per cent of the dairy cattle in the county are purebred. In January, 1917, there were 498 purebred Holsteins on 45 farms, 53 pure- bred Jerseys on 7 farms, 40 purebred Ayrshires on 2 farms, and 20 pure- bred Guernseys on 6 farms, in Broome County. On 3 1 of the farms there were less than 6 head of purebred dairy cattle, and on only 8 of the 149 farms were there as many as 20 purebreds.

On the farms included in this study there were only 39 registered cows. Excepting one Ayrshire and one Dutch Belted, these were all Holsteins. Records for two purebred Holstein herds containing 52 cows were obtained, but were not included in the tabulations. The market for purebred dairy cattle in the southern -tier counties is relatively undeveloped. It is no doubt due largely to this fact, and to the more extensive system of dairying, that few purebred animals have been brought into the county.

Owing to the fact that the herds were so largely of Holstein charac- teristics, it was impossible to group them in any manner that would allow a comparison of one breed with another. There were six herds of pure- bred Holstein and Holstein grades, twenty-eight high-grade Holstein herds, twenty-eight herds comprised of Holstein grades and animals of mixed breeding, eleven herds of part Holstein grades and part Jersey grades, six herds of part Holstein grades and part Guernsey grades, and seventy herds of various other combinations of breeding. Most of the larger herds are Holstein grades, while more of the smaller herds are of mixed breeding.

Numbers

The inventories, purchases, sales, and deaths of cows are given in detail in table 20 (page 301). The average number of cows was 2058, and the average value was $65 a head. The number per farm varied from 6 to 37, the average being 13.8.

During the year 47 farms purchased 134 cows at an average price of $64 a head. On 103 farms there were 304 heifers that freshened for the

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 315

first time during the year. The average value at the time of freshening was $57 a head. About one cow was purchased or raised for each five kept. But as the herds are increasing in size, and as some cows are sold for production, only one cow of each seven or eight is actually replaced each year. The estimates of 131 dairymen as to the time cows remained in the herd after first freshening averaged 7.5 years.

Of the cows disposed of, 208 were slaughtered or sold for slaughter on 86 farms, and 117 were sold for breeding and production on 42 farms. The average price received for the former was $38, for the latter $54, a head.

FlG. 55. GOING TO THE BUTCHER

The figures indicate that about two-thirds of the cows disposed of are slaughtered or sold for slaughter, and that the remaining third go into other herds to be milked. But farmers do not know exactly where the cows they sell go. The relatively low price of those sold for production suggests that probably some that went to the block have been included in this group.

During the year 38 farms lost 55 cows by death or accident. Of these cows, 49 died, 4 were killed on the railroad, and 2 were killed by lightning. This is 2.7 per cent of the average number of cows. Receipts from the sales of hides and insurance for cows killed amounted to $7.82 per cow lost.

The average price of all cows slaughtered and sold was $44 a head. This is $21 a head less than the average value of cows. The depreciation

3i6

BULLETIN 409

on cows and the loss due to death was $5722, or 4.3 per cent of the average value of cows. About two-thirds of this loss is represented by the difference between the value of cows and the price received for those sold, and one- third by deaths. Since the beef value of cows is not in proportion to their value for milk, depreciation and losses due to death are higher with higher- priced cows.

Average production

The average production per cow was 5532 pounds of milk, of which 5089 pounds was sold and 443 pounds was used on the farms, and 222.2 pounds of butterfat, of which 204.4 pounds was sold. About 42 per cent of the milk was produced in the six months beginning on October i, and 58 per cent in the summer months from April to September.

The income from the sale of milk was more evenly distributed thruout the year than was the production. While more milk was sold in summer, the price received was so much less that the returns did not far exceed the returns in the winter months.

The data on average production are given in table 30:

TABLE 30. PRODUCTION PER Cow AND ITS DISTRIBUTION, 2058 Cows

	Number of pounds of milk per cow	Per cent of total yearly production	Number of pounds of butterfat per cow	Receipts per cow from milk sold	Per cent of total receipts
Milk sold: May	614	12 I	24 o	$7 86	Q 4
June	621	12 2	24 2	7 co	Q O
Tulv	CO I	Q 8	20 o	6 82	8 2
August	'IQl	7 7	16 o	6 06	7 1
September	"2CC	7 O	14 Q	5QQ	7 2
October	368	7 2	ICC	7 22	8 7
November	-1-2Q	6 s	i^ 8	6 78	8 I
December	•24.C	6 8	14- S	71^	8 6
January	^S8	7 o	H-i	7 14	8 6
February	^28	6 4	12 8	6 17	7 4
March	^05	7 8	IS 4-	7.1*	8 <;
April	4J.Q	8 8	17 S	6 77	8 i
Retail	T.A.	O 7	I c	O 7Q	O Q
Total	c o8Q	IOO O	2O4 4	$8l l6	IOO O
Milk not sold	A A -7		17 8	7 2S
		•
Total	5r-?2		222 2	$90 6 1

Relative to the receipts on the New York market, much more milk was produced during the summer on the farms studied. The production in February, the lowest month, was 53 per cent of the June production, while on the New York market for the same year the amount received in February was 92 per cent of the amount received in June.

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 317

Less milk is furnished the city during July, August, or September than during January by the zones nearer the city.7 These zones are the districts of most intensive dairying. The supply from the further zones, however, is much greater during the summer months. Prices paid for milk to be

40

20

Jan. Feb.

Mar.

Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.

Dec.

FlG. 56. PRODUCTION AND PRICE FOR 149 BROOME COUNTY FARMS COMPARED WITH RECEIPTS ON, AND WITH AVERAGE PRICES PAID AT SHIPPING STATIONS TO PRODUCERS FOR, THE NEW YORK MARKET

shipped to cities during these months must be in close accord with the prices that can be obtained from milk by making it into butter, cheese, or condensed milk, else milk will be attracted to the shipping stations from the factories and too great a surplus results. Production on these Broome County farms is more' typical of the far zones than of the districts nearer the city.

7 Preliminary Report of the Joint Legislative Committee on Dairy Products, Livestock, and Poultry. New York Senate Document, no. 35, page 340.

318

BULLETIN 409

The figures for distribution are given in table 3 1 :

TABLE 31. DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION, AND PRICES RECEIVED FOR MILK, ON 149 BROOME COUNTY FARMS, COMPARED WITH DISTRIBUTION OF RECEIPTS IN THE NEW YORK MARKET AND WITH AVERAGE PRICES PAID AT SHIJM'INC; STATIONS TO PRODUCERS OF MILK FOR NEW YORK CITY, IN THE SAME YEAR

Month	Daily average receipts on New York market, 40- quart cans	Per cent (June figure taken- as 100)	Milk sold by 149 farms (hundred- weight)	Ter cent (June figure taken as 100)	Average prices paid producers for New York market*	Average prices received by 149 farms
1914: May.	C'l 4CQ	08	12 6^5	OQ	$1 25	$i 28
June	M8o7	IOO	12 , 77Q	IOO	I 20	I 21
July	CI AC. A	04-	10 312	81	I 41	i ^6
, August September October November December 1915: January	50.058 49,831 48,641 47,852 48,411 48, ^2	91 91 89 87 88 88	s; 045 7,294 7,579 6,783 7,108 7,359	63 57 59 53 56 58	i-53 i .64 1.76 2.00 2.00 1 94	i-55 1.69 1.96 2.06 2.06 2 .OO
February	5O,529	92	6,748	53	1.85	1.88
March	CQ QQ6	QT.	8 1 18	00 64.	I 76	i 80
April	52 4.IQ	06	92AT.	72	I 5^	I 51

*As given in The Milk Reporter, Sussex, New Jersey, for the respective months.

Feeds used

The total amounts and values of the various kinds of feed used by cows are given in previous tables. The amounts per cow, per hundred pounds of milk produced, and per pound of butterfat produced, are shown

in table 32:

TABLE 32. FEED USED BY 2058 Cows

				Pounds use	d
	From table	Total	Per cow	Per 100 pounds of milk produced	Per pound of butterfat produced
Grain	r	2 895 814 pounds	I 4.O7	25 4.	6 i
Silage	2	3n T c Q tons	•z 806	68 8	T 7 T
Other succulent feed. . . Hay	2	861.43 tons 3e c •? A ? tons	837 3/151	15.1 62 4.	i/ . 1 3-8 T C C
Other dry forage	T.	729.60 tons	r«K)O 7OQ	12 8	1o- o T> 2

An average of about 4 pounds of milk, containing 4 per cent of butter- fat, was produced per pound of grain fed. The quantities of feed used on these farms per pound of butterfat produced, check closely with the quantities used in experiment station herds, as shown in table 33. The

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

w .

1

il

'

cog

O^ G

•

PQ

l

ON O O) ON O OO rO rOOO v£> IO CS IO M 00 VO ^00 HH ID

0000 M O

vO oo O t^

l^. HH ON CM

M hi osoo

• • vO -00

' * t* * 3

• • O- • vo

• 00 O

• >O O

oovo iOi-ioo O O

l^ O ^- O -^- >O Tt-00 cO CM

CMfOCMtOCMCMtOCMCMCO

^j- r<-} i_i Q f\) ON O ON O vO Tj- ON ON t"

to tooo vo

fO CM O

CM IO CO

t-^ IO I-H

VO

O r)- ON CO CM

w

a2

0) 00

PQ

a ON

I?

.tf

C HH*

'-M O

^0) hH

l.s

«t5

e ?3 P

pq

320

BULLETIN 409

station herds used more grain but less dry forage. Since grain contains from two to two and one-half times as much energy as does hay, the extra grain used compensates for the smaller amount of dry forage, especially if one allows for the use of a better grade of hay at the stations. No account could be taken of pasture, as it was reported in days but not in acres used. At the New Jersey and Massachusetts stations, very little pasture was used. These stations depended largely on soiling crops for summer feeding.

Labor required

An average per cow of 90. i hours of human labor was spent in milking, 19.6 hours in hauling the milk, and 77.7 hours in other work. This is a total of 187.4 hours per cow, 3.38 hours per hundred pounds of milk pro- duced, and '0.85 hour per pound of butterfat produced.

Most of the horse labor was in hauling the milk. This amounted to 28.4 hours out of a total of 33.9 hours per cow.

The data on labor required are given in table 34:

TABLE 34. LABOR REQUIRED FOR 2058 Cows

	Hours per cow*	Hours per 100 pounds of milk produced	Hours per pound of butterfat produced
Human labor: Milking: Man	76.2	1. 18	o. ^4
Woman	8.0	o. 14	0.04
Child	S-Q	O. II	o.o^
Total	QO I	i 61	O 41
Care of cows, product, and utensils: Man ....	64. q	i . 17	o ^o
Woman	7.0	o. i^	o.o^
Child	2 4	0.04	O.OI
Hauling feed	2.O	0.04	O.OI
Other human labor	I .4	O.O2	o.oo
Total	167 8	•7 o^	o 76
Hauling milk	IQ 6	O -*5	o oq
Total human labor ....	187.4	\ 38	o.8s
Horse labor: Hauling milk	28 4	o si	O I"l
Other horse labor	c S	o 10	o 02
Total horse labor	-j-z q	0.61	o is

* Totals are given in table 7 (page 288).

Costs and returns

The total costs per cow were $105.43. Of this, 53.2 per cent was for feed including pasture, 22.8 per cent was for human labor except milk

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

321

hauling, and 24 per cent was for the remaining items. The total returns per cow were $102.62, of which 81.2 per cent was for milk sold, 9.4 per cent was for manure, and 9.4 per cent was for other items. The average loss on cows was $2.81 per cow. (Table 35.) Of the 149 herds, there were 61, or 41 per cent, that showed a profit on cows.

A common question that arises whenever results of cost studies are Stated, is, if the actual loss is equal to the apparent loss, how do such producers remain in business? The answer is that they do one or more of the following things : first, accept lower wages than the rate at which their time is charged; secondly, accept less than farm value for roughage used; thirdly, accept a lower rate of interest on their investment than the rate charged.

If these farmers received interest on their investment, the farm value of farm-grown roughage, and all other costs, they then received 11.3 cents an hour for human labor.

TABLE 35. AVERAGE COSTS AND RETURNS, 2058 Cows*

Item	Per cow	Per cent of total
Costs: Grain .	$20 83	IQ. 7
Succulent feed	10.04	10.4
Dry forage . . . .	IQ. 79	18.8
Pasture . . . .	4. S4	4. 1
Total feed	$56 10	c-j 2
Bedding	o 81	O 8
Human labor	24 OI	22 8
Horse labor	o 82	o 8
Hauling milk	0 57	Q I
Use of buildings . ...	4.2^	4 O
Use of equipment . . . .	O 49	O.4
Interest on cows .	7;2^	7. I
Interest on feed and supplies	O. T\	o. 7
Depreciation on cows	2.78	2.6
Bull service	' 0.96	0.9
Miscellaneous	I .70	1.6
Total costs	$IO5 4^	IOO O
Returns : Milk sold	$83 . 36	81.2
Milk products sold	o. 17	O.2
Milk and its products used	7 08	6 Q
Calves and calf hides	2 24	2.2
Manure .	O 67	9 4
Miscellaneous. ...	O IO	O. I
Total returns	$IO2.62	IOO.O
Loss .	$2 8l

; Totals are given in table 24 (pages 305 to 308).

322

BULLETIN 409

If they received 15 cents an hour for all man time and 10 cents an hour for all time of women and children, and interest on their investment, they then received 90 per cent of the value of hay and other roughage used.

If it be assumed that the cost of feed and human labor represents the same proportion of the net cost of producing milk when feed and labor costs are high as when they are low, and that the quantities found in thi? study are used in the production of milk, then the yearly cost for 192^ price conditions may be computed as shown in table 36. The cost with the prices used would be $3.47 per hundred pounds. The index number of the prices of all commodities in the United States for the year 1920 was 243, as compared with 99 for the twelve months covered by this investiga- tion.8 The average price paid in 1920 to producers of milk for the New York market was $3.56 per hundred pounds. 9 Considering that the general price level stood at 245 as compared with that of 1914-15, this price of $3.56 in 1920 was about equal to a price of $1.45 in the years covered by this study. A cost of $3.47 would be approximately no greater when compared with the general price level than a cost of $1.42 in 1914-15. In the spring months of March, April, and May, 1920, the price of milk was low relative to feed and labor costs, but considering the year as a whole, it would appear that prices paid to shippers of fluid milk for the New York market were fairly well adjusted to cost of production.

The figures for costs and returns are given in table 35, and the probable cost in 1920 of keeping a cow and producing milk is shown in table 36.

TABLE 36. PROBABLE COST IN 1920 OF PRODUCING MILK

	Per cow	Per 100 pounds of milk
Amount used by 2058 cows in I9I4-IS	Estimated price in 1920	Cost at, estimated 1920 prices	Amount used by 2058 cows in 1914-15	Cost at estimated 1920 prices
Grain . Silage	1,407 pounds 3,806 pounds 83? pounds 3,453 pounds 709 pounds 187.4 hours	$60 . oo 7.00 5.00 20.00 IO.OO 0.35	$42.21 13.32 2.09 34-53 3-54 65.59	25 . 4 pounds 68. 8 pounds 15. i pounds 62 . 4 pounds 12.8 pounds 3.38 hours	$0.762 0.241 0.038 0.624 0.064 1 . 183
Other succulent feed Hay
Other drv forage
Human labor , . .
Total feed and human labor . . .			$161.28		$2.912

Per cent of net cost, 83.9

Total cost assuming that feed and labor represent the same per cent of the net cost as in 1914-15

$192.23

$3-471

Size of herd

Of the herds on the farms studied, 36 per cent had from six to ten cows, 26 per cent had more than ten but not more than fourteen cows, 18

8 United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Review, vol. 12, no. 5, May, 1921.

9 The Milk Reporter, Sussex, New Jersey, January, 1921, page 16.

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

323

per cent had more than fourteen but not more than eighteen cows, and 20 per cent had more than eighteen cows.

Size of farm

The size of the dairy is governed largely by the size of the farm. Farms keeping from six to ten cows averaged 1 1 1 acres, those with more than ten but not more than fourteen cows averaged 145 acres, those with more than fourteen but not more than eighteen cows averaged 177 acres, and those with more than eighteen cows averaged 238 acres.

The average distance to the milk station is less from farms with large herds than from farms with small herds. This is explained by the fact that a greater proportion of the large herds are in the valleys. The combined effect of a large load and a shorter haul considerably reduced marketing charges for the larger herds.

Feed used

Larger herds used more grain and more succulent feed psr cow, but less dry forage, than did smaller herds. Production was better, and more of the milk was made, in winter. In other words,, a more intensive system was followed. This is to be expected since many of these farms are nearer

TABLE 37. RELATION OF SIZE OF HERD TO VARIOUS FACTORS

	Number of cows per farm
6 to 10	10+ to 14	14+ to 18	Over 1 8
Number of farms	54 in 3-7 33 21 61 461 8.6 612.9 9-7 11.4 9 17 40 5,461 4-i 223 L3I3 2,549 811 4,534 18 33	39 145 3-8 3i 8 79 485 12.4 623.0 9i 16.0 8 20 40 5,323 4.0 213 i,343 3,822 837 4,225 22 56	27 177 2-5 19 8 70 436 16.1 569-1 8.4 21. I 7 25 40 5,344 4.0 216 1,448 1,712 633 4,777 9 33	29 238 31 16 13 55 676 23 3 865.3 8.0 29.8 15 52 45 5,853 4.0 233 1,484 6,001 988 3,468 20 69
Acres per farm Miles to market
Number of farms on hills Number of farms in valleys
Per cent of farms on hills ....
Number of cows
Cows per farm
Number of cattle units Acres per cattle unit
Cattle units per farm
Number using purebred bulls Per cent using purebred bulls . . .
Per cent of milk produced in six months, October to March
Pounds of milk per cow
Test of milk
Pounds of butterfa,t per cow
Pounds of grain per cow
Pounds of silage per cow
Pounds of other succulent feed per cow . Pounds of dry forage per cow Number of farms feeding silage
Per cent feeding silage

324

BULLETIN 409

gj

t

B

111

II

31 £j

ro M-i-i

•O M

NO

M N O

00 \O r*}

a t-M

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

325

the market and on land that is better adapted to raising good winter feed. Some of the better production in the large herds may be due to the use of silage and to better feeding generally.

Data showing the relation of the size of herd to various other factors are given in table 37.

L abor required

The most important influence of size of herd is on labor per cow and per unit of product. The higher farm wages are, the more important this influence becomes.

In herds of from six to ten cows, averaging 8.6 cows, the labor averaged 217 hours per cow and 3.97 hours per hundred pounds of milk. Less labor was required in each of the groups of larger herds. In herds with more than eighteen cows, averaging 23.3 cows, the figures were i&i hours per cow and 2.75 hours per hundred pounds of milk. The da^a are given in table 38.

At 1 5 cents an hour the labor charges per hundred pounds of milk would be 19 cents more for 9-cow herds than for 2 3 -cow herds. At 30 cents an hour they would be 37 cents more, and at 40 cents per hour they would be 49 cents more, per hundred pounds. The figures are given in table 39 :

TABLE 39. RELATION OF SIZE OF HERD TO LABOR CHARGE PER UNIT OF PRODUCT

Number of cows per farm	Hours per cow*	Hours per 100 pounds of milk produced*	Labor charges at various rates per hour
15 cents	20 cents	30 cents	40 cents
8.6	217 199 184 161	3-97 3-73 3-45 2-75	$0.60 0.56 0.52 0.41	$0.79 0-75 0.69 0-55	$1.19 I. 12 I.O4 0.82	$1-59 1.49 1.38 I. 10
12.4
16 I
2T..T.
Difference between 9- and 23-cow hei	-ds	$0.19	$0.24	$0.37	$0.49

* Including time for hauling milk.

Use of buildings

Much time is often wasted in doing chores in unhandy barns. The inconvenient location o.f milk house, ice house, or silo increases labor. Barns with cows facing outward so that a wagon, a sled, or a spreader may be driven thru for the manure, save labor, especially if the manure is hauled daily. Such an arrangement is also more convenient when a milking machine is used. There is very little work at the mangers during the pasture period.

The investment in buildings per cow, and the charge for their use, was highest in the small herds. Many small herds were housed in additions attached to the main barn, which reduced the cost of shelter. The larger

BULLETIN 409

HH ONOO 10 CO HH CD CO

8888

TJ-iO O 00 vO f*^ r^» cs iO ON O t^

CO 00 ONVO O OO CO fO ONOO (N

00 ON MvO

ON M

OvO

SOOio O O iO^

oor^O O O 1-1 O

iO M to to

oo oo O O

10 O O O

ON O O O

vd vd t^. d ir> o t-> M

ON ON t^

10 10 r^oo

t^fCi-ih-iTj- oo -^- « i->. ONO

vO to t-i l^. O iO

r>s c< TJ-OO to o

ON O vo HI O O

8888

od vd d oi oo 10 cooo

O O O ON M cooo iO t->. iO O f4~ vO '?t- ONVO

Tj- O rj- O "^ Q

to O « p 1^ 5

vd

ON O ON rs

(N (S

O «O 1-1 ON >OOO iO>-i r^oo ON r>.

ON fOOO Tj- t^. M O) ON m tO

00

t-,

00 O t^ i-i ON O

8 8 8 8

ON »ooo vo oo t^ 10 r^

ONVO ^J"vO

>o iovo oo 10 10

oo t^- O O Ol O

VO O HH O HH O

r-N. 10 r^vo vo 10

- HH tOCO '

l-l IO ON

CO

o oo HH

vO OO O t^ ^h O» (N CO O vO

ON O ON cs 00

8888

to CO ON 00 fOON

wOOvOCNMOO CO ro ON rOOO p-i

to ON cs O iovO oo O

VO Oj oo

oo i-i N ON ON

a

si? I

1

:•»: :

• 'o £ -d •

HI a

•• W OH 03 W

o

AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING

327

FlG. 57. A WELL-LIGHTED, WELL-VENTILATED, CLEAN, AND COMFORTABLE STABLE

herds were kept in -more expensive basements. This increased the cost of shelter. For these reasons the difference in the charge per cow for the use of buildings is relatively little between small and large herds.

Costs and returns

The cost of keeping a cow was less in the larger herds. Partly, because of this, but also because the returns were better, there was a greater profit per cow in the larger herds. In small herds the loss was $8 per cow. In the medium-sized herds the average loss was $9 per cow. But in the larger herds with an average of 23.3 cows there was a gain » of about $7 per cow. The figures are given in table 40.

TABLE 41. RELATION OF SIZE OF HERD TO COST OF PRODUCTION AND TO AVERAGE

PRICE FOR PRODUCT

Number of cows per farm

	6 tc	10	104-	to 14	144	to 1 8	Ove	r 18
	Herd	Cow	Herd	Cow	Herd	Cow	Herd	Cow
	cost	cost	cost	cost	cost	cost	cost	cost
Cost per hundred pounds of milk sold Per cent of cost (first group	$1.82	$1.80	$1.81	$1.81	$1.74	$1.72	$i.S4	$i-54
taken as 100)	JOO	100	99	101	96	96	85	86
Cost per pound of butter-
fat in milk sold	$o 448	$0 441	$0 454	$o 454	$o 429	S° 4 '4	$o 388	$o 387
Amount received per hun-
dred pounds of milk sold .	$1	64	$i	62	$i	61	$i •	66