PWIVEBSITY OF C ALIFORM I A PUBLICATIONS COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA The Cost of Producing Market Milk and Butterfat on 246 California Dairies BY R. L/ ADAMS Pieterje Bloom Mead, producer of 1004.4 pounds of butterfat and 28,235. pounds of milk. BULLETIN No. 372 November, 1923 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 1923 THE COST OF PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT ON 246 CALIFORNIA DAIRIES By E. L. ADAMS CONTENTS PAGE Part I. Introduction 5 Motive for the Study 5 Territories Studied 5 Method of collecting the data 6 Items determining costs 9 . Manner of assembling data 9 Manner of presenting the findings 16 Individual dairy findings 16 Part II. Costs of producing whole milk and butterfat 17 1. Humboldt-Del Norte District 17 Brief description of area 17 Summary of costs '. 22 Comments on cost findings 25 Costs of production by individual dairies 30 2. Marin-Sonoma District 33 Brief description of area 33 Summary of costs 36 Comments on cost findings 37 Costs of production by individual dairies 41 3. Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara District 43 Brief description of area 43 Summary of costs 46 Comments on cost findings 50 Costs of production by individual dairies 53 4. Sacramento- Yolo District 53 Brief description of area 53 Summary of costs 57 Comments on cost findings 59 Costs of production by individual dairies 64 5. San Joaquin-Stanislaus District 65 Brief description of area 65 Summary of costs 67 Comments on cost findings 68 Costs of production by individual dairies' 73 6. Fresno District 73 Brief description of area 73 Summary of costs 75 Comments on cost findings 77 Costs of production by individual dairies 83 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 7. Kern District 83 Brief description of area 83 Summary of costs 86 Comments on cost findings 88 Costs of production by individual dairies 92 8. Los Angeles-Orange District 94 Brief description of area 94 Summary of costs 97 Comments on cost findings 99 Costs of production by individual dairies 105 9. San Diego District , 105 Brief description of area 105 Summary of costs 110 Comments on cost findings Ill Costs of production by individual dairies 115 10. San Luis Obispo District '. 117 Brief description of area 117 Summary of costs 119 Comments on cost findings 121 Costs of production by individual dairies 127 11. Monterey-San Benito-Santa Cruz District 127 Brief description of area 127 Summary of costs 129 Comments on cost findings 130 Costs of production by individual dairies 135 Part III. Unit factors in producing whole milk and butterfat 137 Cost of producing 1000 pounds of whole milk or 100 pounds of butterfat.... 138 Unit factors entering into the production of whole milk and butterfat 142 Cost of production figures in relation to price-fixing 142 Part IV. Ways for increasing dairy profits disclosed by studying costs of production 146 Relation of production costs to price 146 Economizing in labor and feed 150 Variation in feed costs of different dairies 152 Variation in labor costs of different dairies 153 Eliminating boarder cows 155 Profitableness of vealing calves 157 Value of manure produced by the milking herds 159 Decreasing mortality 160 Summary 161 Acknowledgments 163 Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat PART I. INTRODUCTION MOTIVE FOR THE STUDY During the fall of 1921, the College of Agriculture, through its Division of Farm Management, undertook the task of determining the cost of producing whole milk and butterfat on representative dairies in the more important commercial dairying sections of the state. This publication is the result of the findings obtained from 14,250 cows on 246 dairies situated in eleven dairying sections. Record taking covered an entire year's business on each dairy. Most of the records were taken for the year between March 1, 1922, and March 1, 1923. A few were under observation for the year ending November 1, 1922, a number were concluded January 1, 1923, and a very few ended April 1, 1923. All results, however, are comparable because no unusual condition tended to vary the results during the entire period from November 1, 1921, to April 1, 1923. Studies were initiated on a total of 353 dairies, but, for various reasons, a considerable number were eliminated either during the period of record taking or in the final analysis. Some dairies were closed out, the owners going into other lines; some were sold; in a few cases inability to secure proper cooperation eliminated some, in- cluding two or three dairying sections which would otherwise have been included. Dairies producing certified milk were eliminated, thus confining this presentation to dairies strictly concerned with the production of whole milk or butterfat of ordinary commercial grades. TERRITORIES STUDIED Typical commercial dairying centers were selected for study in the territory from San Diego County on the south to Humboldt County on the north. The 1920 Census Report of dairy cows was made the basis for selection. Eleven districts were studied, these being : 1. The central and northern parts of Humboldt County and the southern part of Del Norte County. 2. The western portions of Marin and Sonoma counties. 3. San Francisco Bay section comprising dairies in Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara counties 4. Sacramento and Yolo counties grouped together. b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 5. Southern San Joaquin and northern Stanislaus counties con- sidered as a single district. 6. Southern Fresno and northern Kings counties grouped together. 7. The territories surrounding Bakersfield, Delano, McFarland, and Wasco in Kern County handled as a single unit. 8. Los Angeles and Orange counties handled jointly as typical of southern California conditions. 9. Certain valleys tributary to and supplying the city of San Diego in San Diego County. 10. The area around the towns of Harmony, Cambria and Cayucos in San Luis Obispo County. 11. Dairying districts in Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties which because of similar conditions could be grouped to- gether. The accompanying sketch map indicates at a glance the location of these various districts within the state's boundaries. Attempts to include other sections, notably Imperial Valley, Merced County, Glenn County, and Butte County, failed because of either a lack of interest on the part of the dairymen from whom the data had to be obtained, or inability to secure satisfactory local assistance in record taking. In the following pages, each of the eleven districts is handled separately. METHOD OF COLLECTING THE DATA Care was exercised in selection to secure so far as possible repre- sentative dairies which, grouped together, would constitute a cross- section of the industry as a whole within the particular community. If small dairies were the rule, with only a sprinkling of large dairies, those selected for study were prorated in accordance with the situation as affecting the total number of dairies. If large dairies were the rule, care was used to include in the studies a proper proportion of large dairies in the number finally selected. In the same way, an attempt was made to have good representation of the character of dairies and nationality of dairymen, in accordance with the general situation. It is believed that the findings are sufficiently typical of ( the districts so that though the number of dairies may be small, yet they constitute a reliable index. Record-taking consisted of two inventories, one at the beginning and the other at the end of the year covered by the study, and twelve monthly reports of operating details. COST OF PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 7 The first inventory reported the method of handling the dairy ; method of breeding; times of milking; nse of by-products; national^ of dairymen and milkers ; farm data covering the total acreage used in dairying and its character; the number of acres of pasture with details as to carrying capacity and values; herd data showing the number, age, condition of the herd, and average length of lactation period; a detailed report for each building and structure used in /tfftAnrfr RE X \ A ^©/: \ \ Fig. 1. ^^ \ ^ 1. Humboldt & {•-•/ **.\-*. ! 3an Bernardino \ Del Norte Counties WrA Barbara! ""r j V 2. Western Marin & A **-" \"-I_ ! VEfm(RA I A Sonoma Counties **««2s: -^ ,mm \iosan«ei£S| JJ 3. Contra Costa, Alameda, V^ ** / — -■—■«' & Santa Clara Counties \d^ "C ~ " K l+. Sacramento & Yolo Counties ^vV i riverside 1/ Stanislaus Counties Y"" i W 6. Fresno County \ % J .mperial S 7. Kern County (vicinity of Bakersfield) ss . N _ A % Q , J S. Los Angeles & Orange Counties tf9) ° ' _^___ f 9. San Diego County ** *-*****<■ ^L— -*- 10. San Luis Obispo County 11. Monterey, San Benito & Santa Cruz Counties. Fig. 1. Location of areas where cost of milk production studies were carried on. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION connection with the dairy ; a full list of dairy equipment ; an estimate of operating capital deemed necessary to meet expenses; the amount of reserve necessary to tide the business over times of business de- pression, accident, disease, market slumps; and finally, data concern- ing the management charge for dairies handled by paid managers. The second inventory was largely a repetition of the items appear- ing in the first inventory to secure data concerning herds, buildings, dairy equipment, pasture insurance, and tax charges. The monthly reports covered, for each calendar month, changes in the milking herd; amount of labor expended including rate of payment and average length of work-day; horse labor; automobile or truck utilized for the dairy; cost of contract hauling of milk; amounts, kind and farm value of both home-grown and purchased feeds used during the month; determination of feed and labor costs in connection with the keeping of bulls ; expenditures for new equip- ment such as cans, separators, milk pails ; expenditures for the upkeep of buildings — both materials and labor ; payments for insurance and taxes; outlay for supplies such as salt, spray material, washing powder, stock medicine, gasoline, and separator or milking machine parts; rental payments; receipts from sales of milk, cream, butterfat, skimmilk, cows or bulls from milking herd, unweaned calves, hides, manure; and minor miscellaneous items such as feed bags, boarding cows pending breeding, stock killed accidentally, bull service; state- ment of home or ranch use of milk, cream, skimmilk, and manure; statement of the value of calves weaned during the month and of sales of weaned young stock. Supplementary records were also taken of data necessary to properly determine the correct charge for horse labor, trucks, and automobiles used in connection with the dairy. The collection of data was obtained by three men employed solely for the purpose of helping in this investigation, supplemented by the efforts of a number of collaborators who were employed on part time to assist in rounding out the collection of information. The personnel of the collaborators consisted of ten men employed primarily at cow testing, four high school teachers, one dairy inspector, one creamery operator, and one man primarily engaged in general farming. Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat ITEMS DETERMINING COSTS The summary tables presented in connection with the details of each district set forth the various costs which, together, make up the gross cost of producing whole milk or butterfat or both, from which are then deducted credits for calves, manure, skimmilk, or any other item that should be deducted to determine the net cost. Both direct and indirect costs are included. Direct costs are made up of actual expenditures for labor, feed, hauling, and supplies. The indirect costs consists of interest on operating capital, herd charge, bull charge, building charge, corral charge, and equipment charge. MANNER OF ASSEMBLING DATA In collecting the data, attention was confined to the milking herd, all other operations being ignored. Thus, the raising of crops, of hogs, of young cattle, or similar activities were ignored as not being primarily "a phase of the dairying business. Calves were credited to the dairy at their value when four or five days old, from then on any increase in value being deemed part of the young stock operations rather than pertaining to the dairy itself. Man Labor. — Man labor was studied in hours spent in manual labor in handling the dairy at the going wage, including the value of board and other perquisites. Management was determined by estimating the amount of time spent by the operator in purely managerial details at the going salary scale for operating a similar business or at the actual rate paid if the operator were receiving a salary. Horse Lai) or. — The cost of horse labor was determined from the following items which enter into this charge: Feed; depreciation on horses, horse equipment, and barns; mortality of horses; upkeep of equipment and barns; miscellaneous items such as shoeing and veterinary ; labor of feeding and grooming ; and interest at 6 per cent on the investment in horses and horse equipment. From the sum of these items any credits for foals or rentals were made. The net cost of keeping a horse was then divided by the estimated number of hours used a year to obtain the hour cost, and the proper charge made against the dairy for all horse labor there used. Use of Trucks and Automobiles. — The charge for the use of trucks and automobiles was determined by finding out the total mile charge for all work done by such equipment and then pro-rating against 10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION the dairy its proportion based on the number of miles used solely for dairy purposes. This charge was made up of depreciation, interest, insurance, taxes, and yearly repairs, depreciation based on the original cost and estimated life of the vehicle, and interest on the average value during the year involved. To this figure was then added operating costs for gasoline, oil, tires, and tubes. Feeds. — To eliminate the necessity of becoming involved in land values, all feeds contributed by the ranch — whether pasture, hay, con- centrates, or others, were charged at farm value, i.e., market value less cost of preparing for sale and delivering. Purchased feeds were figured at cost delivered to the dairy. Hauling. — The hauling charge, if done by the ranch, was covered under labor, but if paid in cash for contract hauling was taken at the actual sum spent. On some dairies, both ranch hauling and con- tract hauling charges were encountered. Miscellaneous Items. — This classification is primarily concerned with the cost of supplies such as washing powder, gasoline, oil, fuel, separator and milking machine parts, veterinary supplies and similar items. Insurance. — Insurance when encountered is made up of the actual yearly premiums paid by the dairymen for insuring cattle, buildings, equipment, feed, or the carrying of workmen's compensation liability. The amount in each instance is entered under the proper heading. Taxes. — The sums which were actually expended by the dairymen for taxes for the year involved in the study were obtained from the assessors' books in the respective county seats, or from the books in the City Hall if the dairy happened to be within the confines of an incorporated town. Taxes were encountered in connection with the dairy herds, dairy buildings, dairying equipment, and in getting at the right charge for horse and mechanical labor. In determining the building tax, an estimate had to be made because most assessors' books gave a single figure for all buildings without segregating according to use. In such cases, it was necessary to estimate the percentage of the total sum chargeable against the dairy. Investments. — Capital invested in herds, dairy buildings, dairy equipment, and improvements in connection with the corrals and stock quarters, such as fences, feed racks, water troughs, shelters, flooring, etc., was handled as an investment. Lands used for pasturage or for the production of feed were not included under investment. Since productive land values are difficult to determine, no land investments were taken into account other than those in corrals, lanes, building Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 11 sites, feed lots, and those occupied by stock water facilities. Lands used for producing feed for the dairy were allowed a proper sum based on the going rate for pasture, and the farm value for all hay, grain, or other feeds produced, as discussed under feed above. This method eliminated danger of over-valuing lands, or inclusion of land values on a scale of suburban prices rather than upon strictly agricul- tural productive values. The value of the feeds produced, taken at farm prices, from the dairying standpoint at least, automatically determines the land value. The investment charge for lands in corrals, lanes, etc., was made up of the crop rental value for such lands. The reason for this is obvious. If lands regularly rent for $25, $30, or $40 for agricultural purposes, yet have a market value of $1000 or $1500 per acre, interest at 6 per cent, if taken at the market value, would result in an inor- dinately high charge of $60 to $90 instead of the actual payments of less than half as much. In the event that new investments were made during the year, such investments were taken into account in accordance with the length of time that they were in use during the period covered by this study and pro-rated accordingly. Interest Charges. — Interest was allowed upon all investments entering into the dairy business, as outlined in the preceding para- graph. Interest was charged against the average investments in dairy cattle, in buildings, in corral improvements and in dairying equipment, as shown by the data set forth in the two inventories. Interest was also charged upon sums needed for operating capital required to meet current expenses. The amount of herd investment upon which interest was charged was made up of the average number of cows and bulls maintained throughout the year at average values shown by the first and second inventories. This figure therefore reflects any changes in values from such causes as fluctuating markets, selling off of old cows, purchase of better stock, introduction of young heifers or any changes affecting the selling value of the herd. Interest Rate. — In all instances, interest has been charged at the flat rate of 6 per cent. While safe investments may be considered to average but 4, 4%, 4%, or some percentage close to these, yet capital utilized for farming, whether for investment or in operating expense is subject to certain risks, of which climatic changes in connection with feed production, danger of accident, possibilities of disease, fire, inadequate transportation, insufficient labor, unforeseen 12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — -EXPERIMENT STATION drops in market prices, are examples. Because of these risks, a higher rate is justified. The argument is recognized that farmers gen- erally are not financiers and if compelled to reinvest their funds in some line other than farming would have to be content with savings bank or government bond rates. Such argument ignores possible investment in municipal or industrial stocks and bonds which may pay as high as 7 to 8 per cent. The rate of interest paid for the use of money borrowed for farming purposes is sometimes advanced as the proper basis for determining the rate that a farmer should secure, but earnings from such loans are not always net to the loaner because of costs of placing and collecting, occasional bad loans, lapses in in- terest payments, and taxes upon incomes. All things considered a rate of 6 per cent was deemed fair. However, if exception be taken to the use of this particular rate, it may be pointed out that sufficient detail in the tables will permit the reworking with any other rate. Depreciation. — Ageing of cattle, wearing out of buildings and of equipment, with attendant exhaustion of capital invested therein are taken care of by depreciation. In some cases appreciation, or an actual gain in values during the year, occurred. Depreciation was taken into account in connection with the dairy herds, the buildings, the improvements of the land set aside for corrals and stock quarters, the dairying equipment, and in connection with the estimate of the costs of horse labor and use of automobiles and trucks. In the event that additional investments in buildings, equipment, or corral and stock quarters improvements were made during the year the amount of depreciation was pro-rated in occordance with the length of time used. Figures for depreciation of buildings and equipment were deter- mined from the dairyman's estimates of the probable life of the item involved divided into its first cost. Depreciation of dairy herds was determined separately for cows and bulls. Values were placed by their owners upon the animals at the time when the first inventory was taken. The value of the herds to the dairymen when the second inventory was taken was again determined, valuations being then made on the basis of any increase or decrease in the value to the dairy of the individual animals irre- spective of market changes. The figures of depreciation were deter- mined by finding the difference between the sum of the animals at the time of taking the first inventory to which was added the value (at the time of placing) of any additional animals placed in the BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 13 herd during the year. From this total was then deducted the value of the herd on the basis of the second inventory figures, to which were added any returns from sales of herd cattle, values of animals dying, receipts from sales of hides, and amount of damages recovered for animals accidentally killed. In a number of herds, an appreciation rather than a depreciation of values occurred. This method took into account disposal of old or poor stock, and, as well, increase in values of purchased cattle or home-grown heifers placed in the milking herd. Mortality in Herd. — All deaths occurring in the milking herd, of both cows and bulls, were taken at the values placed upon them at the time the loss occurred. If accidentally killed so that insurance or accident returns were obtained, the amount thus secured was credited to the herd and the net loss only taken into account. Upkeep. — All moneys spent in upkeep of buildings, dairy house equipment, or corrals and stock quarters by the individual dairies studied in a given area were recorded and the total charged as an item of cost against the year 's business of the group. For individual dairies, a figure was used which represented the average expenditures per $100 of investment for the group in determining upkeep charges for buildings and corrals together with their improvements. This method does not show variations between individual dairies but the item is of small size and relatively not important. In figuring upkeep of equipment, the actual sum expended by the individual dairy was included in arriving at the cost, since expenditure for upkeep is here largely a matter of replacing parts and making repairs, investment remaining practically the same. Credits. — From the gross cost as determined by summing up the various items — operating, investment, and overhead — were then de- ducted certain credits. These consisted of calves, skimmilk when butterfat sold as cream was the principal product, and manure. Calves. — The calves were credited to the dairy herd at a per head value when four or five days old, or at the time when the milk could be used for human consumption. The values for calves were very variable, depending on the local demand, the desirability of raising heifer calves for later incorporation in the milking herd, the breed, the possibility of saving bull calves for sires, and the pureness of the breeding. The values covered only calves that lived beyond the colostrum period, but took into account all kept, whether for future vealing or for weaning. Once the price was set for the calves, no further account was taken of them in so far as the dairy was con- cerned, although some study was made of the relative profitableness 14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. of raising to the vealing or weaning stage, with milk taken at going- prices, and the value of the marketable calf then compared with prices which could be obtained. Skimmilk. — When the output of the dairies under observation was sold as whole milk, no credit was obtainable for skimmilk, but if but- terfat was sold as cream then the amount of skimmilk was deemed a credit even though no actual use was made of it. In the case of districts selling butterfat, all whole milk used in the home or on the ranch was considered in terms of butterfat and skimmilk, the butter- fat being added to the totals sold from the district as shown by the sales, and the skimmilk credited in full. When cream was sold, only the portion recovered by the separating was credited, no allowance being made for the skimmilk shipped with the butterfat to make up the usual consistency of cream. Dairymen's estimates of the value to them of any skimmilk produced were used in obtaining weighted averages of the credit to be allowed in a given community. Manure. — Manure credits were allowed both on the sales and ranch use of the output from the dairy. In every instance the dairyman was asked to place a value on the output. As a result, in the case of some dairymen, particularly tenant farmers or operators possessing unusually rich land with no outside market for manure, the credit was small or nothing. In most cases dairymen were loath to place any estimate on the field droppings although most men believed that there was some material credit. Hence in most cases values are applicable mostly to corral accumulations. If a market exists, as is outstandingly the case in southern California, then the credit is a substantial item. If the field accumulations were added the total would undoubtedly be greater than the figure finally obtained. Net Cost. — The net cost is the result obtained after deducting the total value of the credits from the gross cost as made up from the various items discussed above. In subsequent pages the costs for the different districts have been analyzed to show the cost per cow for the various factors involved in getting at both gross and net costs. Production. — In each district both total production and average production per cow per year were determined. ' Total production, reported either as butterfat or whole milk, depending on the method of selling, was then converted for all dairies in terms of butterfat and whole milk for districts selling both products. Commonly in every district some butterfat was sold as cream during times of over- production even though whole milk selling was the rule, while in but- terfat producing areas, sales of whole milk were occasionally reported, BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 15 particularly if cheese making was practiced. In converting, full credit for all available skim mi Ik was given. Total production was finally reported in the summary tables for each of the districts according to the usual kind of product disposed of. Thus in Marin and Sonoma counties and in San Luis Obispo County the selling of butterfat as cream was the rule, in Los Angeles and Orange counties the great bulk of the output, in fact practically all, was sold as whole milk but upon a butterfat content basis. In Kern County sales were well distributed between whole milk and butterfat in cream and the production was reported in terms of both. The average production-per-cow figures are indicative rather than absolute. They were obtained by dividing the total yearly produc- tion, both for the individual dairies and for the district as a whole, by the average number of cows handled during the twelve-month period. Hence these figures may not check with the cow-testing records as they are subject to some variation because all producing -animals were taken into account including springing heifers, old cows sold off during the milking period, and other factors. The data are, however, comparable within the scope of this publication, and are valuable for the possible changes that they suggest, as set forth, later on, under the section dealing with ways of increasing dairy profits. Prices Received for Dairy Products. — Whenever prices are men- tioned to show the returns received by dairymen, the figures were obtained by adding up the total receipts from sales at point of de- livery by the producer including hauling charges for all the dairies studied in a given section and dividing by the amount of product sold. Price figures, therefore, apply only to the daries involved in the investigations, and, though indicative, may not be absolute guides to the situation in the entire community. They are based, too, on total sales, including surplus cream or milk, low grade output, and similar conditions which reduce prices otherwise obtainable. But the figures possess the advantage of being a mirror of the actual, existing conditions obtaining throughout the year covered by the study in each of the eleven sections where extensive collections of data took place: 16 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION MANNER OF PRESENTING THE FINDINGS The findings of the investigation are set forth in Parts II, III, and IV which follow. Part II records the actual costs of producing whole milk and butterf at in the eleven districts, each presented com- plete in itself, during the calendar year involved in the study, with certain pertinent details from tables prepared to show the status of each individual dairy in the district. Part III sets forth the unit factors involved in the costs as found, and constitutes a ground plan for determining future dairy costs as long as dairying practice re- mains the same in a given community. Part lV'is an outgrowth of the study in that it offers suggestive ways by which individual dairy- men may increase their profits by proper use of means already at hand. Of the three parts, Part II is perhaps of least permanent value, though basic to all the rest of the publication. Part III, with its attempts to set forth formulae for future use, is likely to be of more lasting value, while Part IV should prove of worth to all dairymen, in once more stressing the importance of individual attention to one's own business and the excellent chances for improvement which lie within the power of the individual himself. From a perusal of the contents two personal phases should stand forth, first, the part that the individual can play in working out his own business destiny, and second, the opportunity for constructive cooperation between dairymen and others. INDIVIDUAL DAIRY FINDINGS To show something of the wide variation existing in the different dairies selected from any section a table has been prepared and in- serted under each district heading, giving in detail the amount of the different items involved in determining the cost of milk and butter- fat production. For ease in comparing the findings of one district with another, and to better indicate the production which must be expected per cow in order to justify dairying under conditions as practiced in a given section in connection with costs and receipts as of 1922, this table contains a column setting forth the average costs per cow for all cows coming under observation. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0P PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 17 PART II. COSTS OF PRODUCING WHOLE MILK AND BUTTERFAT This part of the report sets forth findings concerning actual costs incurred in producing whole milk or butterfat on 246 dairies studied for the purpose of securing basic data. The results cover eleven dis- tricts, each district being discussed individually in the following pages. In all 14,250 cows were covered by the study, these being located as follows: District Number of Dairies Number of Cows Humboldt-Del Norte 25 890 Marin-Sonoma 19 996 Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara 20 2,782 Sacramento-Yolo 41 2,912 San Joaquin-Stanislaus 17 417 Fresno 17 767 Kern 15 599 Los Angeles-Orange 40 2,242 San Diego 13 583 San Luis Obispo 20 1,329 Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz 19 733 Totals 246 14,250 1. HUMBOLDT-DEL NORTE DISTRICT Brief Description of Area A year's study was successfully completed on 25 dairies in this district, 13 of these being in the Areata bottoms and 12 on cleared redwoods lands in the Orick-Requa district. The original plan of study provided for the collection of data from the Ferndale-Loleta area but though the work was started it came to an early end for lack of facilities to carry on record taking. It is unfortunate that this latter district is not included because it constitutes perhaps the best known dairying community of the Humboldt-Del Norte area. For purposes of comparison and record the findings for the two localities have been kept separate. Although operating under some- what similar conditions dairying in the Areata district is conducted on bottom lands, while the industry in the Orick-Requa district is on reclaimed forest lands. Of the 13 dairies in the Areata district 12 18 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 19 were contributory to Areata and one to Fieldbrook. In the Orick- Requa section 6 dairies were contributory to Requa and 6 to Orick. In general these dairies reflect conditions' in central and northern Humboldt County and in Del Norte County. The record taking in all cases covered the year from March 1, 1922, to March 1, 1923. The Areata dairies utilized 1256 acres of land, ranging in size from 40 to 250 acres. The land was principally bottom land with a little additional rolling and brush covered hills. These lands were utilized for pasture and for crop production. The Orick-Requa dairies utilized 1171 acres of land, consisting of creek and river bottom with some contiguous rolling and brush covered hills. Of the 1171 acres, 668 acres were reported as being used exclusively for pasture. In both districts use of pasture crops was an outstanding practice. In the Areata district pasturing was available for from eight to twelve months out of the year. Much year-round pasturing was practiced but if pasture became short the shortness occurred during the months from November to March inclusive. Pasture grasses were largely clover and rye grass which combined to make a thick sod and to pro- duce much feed. To supplement the pasture, use was made of such soiling crops as green vetch grown either singly or with barley or oats ; clover, or clover and rye grass ; green corn ; green peas and barley ; or some similar feed. Feeding of these green crops occurred during the late spring and summer months. When pasturage was either not available or scanty and green crops not to be had, hay of clover, rye grass, or both clover and rye grass, or oats and rye grass, or vetch and oats or barley, or a little alfalfa, was fed during the late fall and winter months. Use was likewise made of turnips and carrots from August on for a few months, and of beets and rutabagas during the late fall and winter months. With only a single exception, concen- trates were coconut meal and barley, with some use of mill feeds, alfalfa meal, bran, beet pulp, molasses meal, and mill screenings. Few changes in the character of the concentrates fed were made during the year. Six dairymen used three kinds, and two each used four, one, and two kinds. Two men made use of silage during the winter months. In the Orick-Requa district reliance was placed upon pasturage supplemented with hay, roots, and green feeds. All dairymen in- cluded in the studies conducted in this section possessed pasture, all but three reporting year-round pasturing, with the others having pas- 20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION ture for six months or more, usually available from April to October inclusive. All dairymen supplemented their pasture with hay of which oat hay was more generally used, although some use was made of clover, clover and rye grass, barley, and alfalfa hays. One dairy- man fed hay the year round but the majority confined hay feeding to the period from September to April, inclusive. Eight of these twelve dairymen made use during the summer months of such green feeds as green clover, green corn, and green vetch. One dairyman utilized corn as silage during the fall months. Feeding of carrots was generally practiced with some feeding of beets, such feeding being done during the months of August to March inclusive. Ten of these dairymen fed concentrates for periods varying from one to twelve months. Feeding of concentrates apparently followed no gen- eral rule, for one dairyman fed for but a single month, three more for two months, one each for three, four, eleven, and twelve months, and two for five months. When fed the usual plan was to utilize concentrates during the months from October to May with greatest feeding taking place during February, March, and April. Of the various concentrates these dairymen favored coconut meal and bar- ley, with some use of beet pulp, mill feeds, alfalfa meal, middlings, and bran. Four dairymen fed but a single kind of concentrates, three fed two kinds, one fed three kinds, and two fed four kinds. The total number of cows carried throughout the year averaged 493 in the Areata district and 397 in the Orick-Requa district. The size of herd ran from 10 to 76 cows. In the Areata district 8 of the 13 herds numbered from 10 to 37 head, 3 dairies from 45 to 55 head, and one each of 75 and 76. In the Orick-Requa section, 9 of the 12 herds averaged during the year from 12 to 34 head, the remaining 3 containing respectively 50, 59, and 62 head. The average of all herds in the Areata district was 68 ; in the Orick-Requa district 33. The Jersey breed predominated in both districts. Of the 13 Areata herds studied, 4 were composed of Jerseys, 4 of Guernseys, 2 of Jerseys and Guernseys, 1 of Shorthorns and Holsteins and 3 of mixed breeds. In the Orick-Requa district 11 of the 12 herds were reported as being Jerseys and the twelfth as " grade. " Nine of the Areata dairies and 8 of the Orick-Requa herds were headed by purebred bulls, numbering 19 head of which 16 were registered. Of the total, 13 were reported as Jerseys, 5 as Guernseys, with 1 not stated. Two registered Guernsey cows from the Areata district and 5 registered Jersey cows from the Orick-Requa district were reported. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0P PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 21 In both the Areata district and the Orick-llequa district the universal plan on the dairies studied was to breed for freshening in January, February, or March. Milking" took place at twelve-hour intervals, all dairymen milking at four, five, or six o'clock. Eight of the Areata and three of the Orick-Requa dairymen used milking machines, the rest practiced hand milking. Fig. 3. — Dairying in the redwoods, cleared land. The Orick-Eequa dairies were operating under these conditions. 22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Nationality of milkers included American, Swiss, Portuguese, Indians, Scotch-Irish, and Danes. In the two districts the nationalities of the operators were made up of 13 Americans, 5 Swiss, 3 Portuguese, 3 Danes, and 1 Scotch-Irish. Of the 13 dairymen in the Areata district 9 sold whole milk and 4 sold butterfat. Of the 12 dairymen in the Orick-Requa district all sold whole milk. In the Areata district skimmilk and buttermilk, bought back from the creameries, were utilized in the feeding of calves and hogs. Sales from the Areata district were made to the California Central Creameries, and to the United Creamery Association. The dairymen at Orick sold their product to the California Central Cream- eries ' cheese factory located at Orick, while the milk from the Requa dairies went to the Requa cheese plant of the Western Meat Company. Eight of the Areata and nine of the Orick-Requa dairymen were owners of the farms under their control, the others were tenants. Summary of Costs. — The kind and amount of the various items entering into the Areata and the Orick-Requa districts are set forth separately in the two following tables. TABLE 1 .Cost of Milk Production Summary — Arcata District, Humboldt County Number of dairies 13 Number of cows 493 Number of bulls 18 Costs Operating Labor Man— manual, 79,950 hours $ 18,295.00 Man — management 6,540.00 Horse, 1,968 hours 483.61 Insurance 70.00 Total labor cost $25,388.61 Feed Pasture $9,688.00 Hay, 807.36 tons 17,483.25 Concentrates, 269.91 tons ' 9,772.48 Roots, 2,374 tons 4,450.30 Green feed, 1,324 tons 5,660.30 Silage, 34 tons 204.00 Alfalfa meal, 7V 2 tons 243.00 Total feed costs 47,501.33 Hauling milk 1,948.43 Supplies, cow testing, etc 1,452.63 Interest on operating capital, $5,100 @ 6% 306.00 BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 23 Herd charge Interest on average investment in cattle, $40,802.56 @6% $2,448.14 Mortality: 18 cows, $1290 1,290.00 Taxes 702.92 Insurance 75.00 Gross herd charge $4,516.06 Appreciation 560.45 Net herd charge 3,955.61 Building charge Interest on average investment of $25,950.50 @ 6% $1,557.02 Depreciation 695.00 Upkeep 165.00 Taxes 192.28 Insurance 112.90 Total buildings charge 2,722.20 Corral charge Use of land, including taxes, 173^2 acres $319.50 Interest on investment in improvements, $2,838.33 @6% 170.29 Depreciation of improvements 327.30 Upkeep 137.00 Total corral charge $954.09 Equipment charge Interest on average investment of $4,724.15 @ 6% $283.41 Depreciation 796.81 Upkeep 554.53 Taxes 15.42 Total equipment charge 1,650.17 Total Gross Cost $85,879.07 Credits Calves, 168 $677.50 Hides 26.50 Manure 1,911.50 Total credits $2,615.50 Net cost of whole milk $83,263.57 Total production of whole milk 3,048,690 pounds Cost per hundredweight of whole milk $2.73 Net cast of butterfat in Cream Net cost of whole milk $83,263.57 Credit for skimmilk, 22,207.24 hundredweight @, 11.7 cents per 100 pounds 2,597.82 Net cost of butterfat in cream $80,665.75 Total production of butterfat in cream 131,842.08 pounds Cost per pound of butterfat in cream 61.2 cents » i j j- f 6184 pounds of whole milk Average annual production per cow I F ' & ' l \ 267.4 pounds of butterfat 24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 2 Cost of Milk Production Summary — Orick-Kequa Districts, Humboldt and Del Norte Counties Number of dairies 12 Number of cows 397 Number of bulls 13 Costs Operating Labor Man— manual, 48,479 hours 112,925.20 Man — management 4,080.00 Horse, 5,242 hours 978.98 Truck and automobile, 9,945 miles 898.50 Total labor cost $18,882.68 Feed Pasture $8,864.00 Hay, 505.5 tons 13,491.00 Concentrates, 67.62 tons 3,256.14 Roots, 1170 tons 2,500.80 Green feed, 426 tons 1,500.80 •Silage, 29 tons 174.00 Alfalfa meal, 2Y 2 tons 156.50 Insurance 87.00 Total feed costs 30,030.24 Hauling milk 817.12 Supplies, cow testing, etc 1,200.92 Interest on operating capital, $3,350.00 @ 6% 201.00 Herd charge Interest on average investment in cattle, $45,247.99 @6% $2,714.87 Mortality: 3 cows, $475; 1 bull, $200 675.00 Taxes 358.80 Gross herd charge $3,748.67 Appreciation 1,864.10 Net herd charge 1,884.57 Buildings charge Interest on average investment of $1 1,594.50 @ 6% $695.67 Depreciation 464.75 Upkeep 160.20 Taxes 77.38 Insurance 1 1 7.66 Total buildings charge 1,515.66 BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 25 Corral charge Use of land, including taxes $222.50 Interest on investment in improvements, $875.23 @6% 52.51 Depreciation of improvements 125.00 Upkeep : 2.00 Total corral charge 402.01 Equipment charge Interest on average investment of $2,554.21 @ 6% $153.24 Depreciation "... 585.75 Upkeep " 399.18 Taxes 10.32 Total equipment charge 1,148.49 Total gross cost $56,082.69 Credits Calves, 165 $839.00 Hides 168.80 Manure 1,199.00 Total credits $2,206.80 Net cost of whole milk $53,875.8 Total production of whole milk 2,230,182 pounds Cost per hundredweight of whole milk $2.41 Total production of butterfat in whole milk 98,746.4 pounds Cost per pound of butterf at in whole milk 54.5 cents A i j , • f 5618 pounds of whole milk. Average annual production per cow ( F , ,, \ 248.7 pounds of butterfat. Comments on Cost Findings The thirteen herds under observation in the Areata district were assessed for taxes at $17,270. Buildings utilized by the dairy were assessed at $4527, and dairy equipment at $375. The tax rate varied from $3.40 to $4.50 per $100 of assessed values. In the Orick-Eequa district the dairy cows on the twelve dairies where studies were conducted were assessed at $13,195, buildings at $2905, and dairy fixtures at $400. The tax rate varied from $2.55 to $2.99. Insurance on buildings was rather generally carried, eleven of the Areata and six of the Orick-Requa dairymen reporting sums so spent. One dairyman of the Areata district carried livestock and employer's liability insurance. Two dairy- men in the Orick-Requa district carried feed insurance. The average cost of manual labor used on these dairies, based on the totals as shown in the tables, amounted to 22.9 cents per hour in the Areata district and 26.6 cents in the Orick-Requa district. All the dairymen placed a figure represent- ing their idea of a proper management charge. These figures are shown in the summary tables and amounted to 36 per cent of the manual labor expenditures in the Areata district, and 31 per cent in the Orick-Requa district. Horses were used in connection with the dairy on but five of the Areata and four of the Orick-Requa districts. The cost on these nine dairies varied from 10.6 cents to 40.7 cents per hour of use. The average cost amounted to 24.6 cents in the Areata and 18.7 cents in the Orick-Requa districts. 26 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 4. — Typical farmstead layouts of the Areata dairying district. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 27 Fig. 4. — (Continued.) 28 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Trucks and automobiles did not figure in the Areata dairying activities under study, but in the Orick-Requa district 6 of the dairies utilized 4 trucks and 2 auto- mobiles. Costs per mile varied from 7.2 cents to 10.2 cents per mile of use, aver- aging- 9 cents per mile. The methods of feeding followed by the two sections during the year that these dairies were under observation have already been covered above. During the year from March 1, 1922, the cost for feeds consumed by the total number of cows and bulls comprising the milking herds amounted to: Pasture $20.84 per cow per year; hay $23.59 per ton; roots $1.96 per ton; green feed $4.09; silage $6.00; con- centrates $38.09. All the Areata dairymen paid for contract hauling of their dairy products and in addition each spent from $11.93 to $278.70 for supplies, cow-testing and similar items. Four of the Orick-Requa dairymen paid for contract hauling, the balance doing this work themselves, but the cost is fully covered in the figures for horse labor and use of trucks and automobiles. Estimates of necessary operating capital totaled $5100 for the Areata district and $3350 for the Orick-Requa district. Investment in the Areata herds under observation amounted to $40,802.56, of which $37,632.74 was invested in cows, or slightly less than 93 per cent. The investment in the Orick-Requa herds totaled $45,247.99, of which $42,869.25 was made up of cow values, or close to 95 per cent. In the two districts cow values per head ranged from $42.50 to $200, but averaged close to $76 in the Areata and $108 in the Orick-Requa districts. Bull values ranged from $15 to $612.50, but averaged about $179. Based on sales, deaths, purchases, and heifers brought into the milking strings, the thirteen Areata dairies enjoyed appreciation, that is an increase in value, of its dairy cows amounting to $763.45, while bulls depreciated $203, thus leaving a net appreciation for the total animals in the milking herds of $560.45. In the Orick-Requa district appreciation of cows amounted to $1674.10, and bulls gained in value to the extent of $190, so that total herd appreciation in this section totaled $1864.10. During the year covered by the record taking, the Areata dairies lost 18 cows valued at $1290, and no bulls. The Orick-Requa district lost 3 cows valued at $475 and 1 bull valued at $200. Total mortality therefore amounted to $1965. The average value of all cows dying amounted close to $84 as against a general average for both districts of $90.55. Death losses, in percentages, amounted to 3.7 per cent of the cows and per cent of the bulls in the Areata district, and to 0.8 of 1 per cent of the cows and 8 per cent of the bulls in the Orick-Requa district. Buildings utilized in connection with the dairies varied in extent, construction, and investment. The 25 dairies in the 2 districts possessed 26 milking barns (one dairy having 2), 10 milk houses, 2 shelter barns, 1 hay barn, 1' bull shed, 2 silos and an engine house. The investment per dairy farm averaged $1501.80, but ranged from $93.50 to $3889.50. Of the 25 dairies 10 had less than $1000 invested in buildings, 5 between $1000 and $2000, 8 between $2000 and $3000, and 2 in excess of $3000. The average investment in the Areata district was close to $2000, while in the Orick-Requa district the figure amounted to about $1000 per dairy. Eleven of the 25 made expenditures for building upkeep, ranging from $6 to $97, totaling $325 for both districts, or 0.9 of 1 per cent of the investment. Depreciation of dairy buildings amounted in money to $1136, or practically 3 per cent of the investment. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 29 The 25 dairies in these 2 districts utilized 33% acres of land in corrals and dairy building sites, averaging about 1% acres, but ranging from % to 4 acres. This land was given a rental value of $2.50 to $75 per acre, averaging $16.06 per acre per year. Investment in improvements such as water facilities, corral fences, shelters, and so on, totaled .$2838.33 for the Areata dairies and $875.23 for the Orick-Requa dairies. The average investment to the dairy in such items was therefore close to $218 in the Areata and to $73 in the Orick-Requa districts. The range in investment varied from $13.75 to $367.12. Eleven of the 25 dairies pos- sessed an investment of less than $100 in corral improvements, 6 had from $100 to $200 invested, 3 from $200 to $300, and 5 (all in the Areata district) over $300. Seven of these dairymen made expenditures for corral upkeep, ranging from $2 to $75, and totaling $139, or approximately y 2 of 1 per cent of the invest- ment. Depreciation amounted to $452.30, or 16 per cent of the amount invested. Dairying equipment listed from the 25 dairies in these 2 districts consisted of 11 milking machines, 8 of which were on the Areata dairies, 302 milk cans, 82 milk pails, 1 motor, 4 milk tanks, 8 separators, 11 feed troughs, 1 milk trough, and a supply of forks, brooms, shovels, brushes, and similar miscellaneous items. The investment on the 25 dairies amounted to $7278.36, amounting on an average to $271.13, and ranging from $26.85 to $892.37. The average for the Areata district amounted to $363.39, and for the Orick-Requa district to $212.83. Of the total 25 dairies, 6 possessed dairy equipment amounting to less than $100 each, 9 had an investment of from $100 to $300, 8 of from $300 to $600, and 2 of more than $600. All dairymen expended sums of money on upkeep, varying from 90 cents to $127.75, and totaling $953.71 or 13 per cent of the investment. Depre- ciation amounted during the year to $1382.56, or 19 per cent of the value of the investment. Miscellaneous returns to the dairies, other than sales of milk and cream, or credits for calves, manure, and skimmilk, consisted of empty feed sacks and hides. Sales of feed bags totalled $104 and of hides $26.50. These credits were carried directly to the department involved and the proper allowance there made. Dropped calves kept for raising or for vealing were variously valued at from 75 cents to $50. In the Areata district 168 calves were valued at $667.50, most of these being rated as worth $5 each. In the Orick-Requa district 165 calves were deemed worth saving and were giverj a total value of $839, with most of them priced at $5 per head. Dairymen figured the value of the manure from the dairies on the basis of its value to them since no sales were made. Totals of the various estimates are given in the respective summary tables. All the dairymen placed some value on the manure product. Of the total production from the 13 dairies in the Areata district consisting of 3,048,690 pounds of whole milk, 3.5 per cent was used on the dairy, 27.5 per cent sold as butterfat in cream, and 69 per cent sold as whole milk. Testing from 3.68 to 4.76 per cent butterfat in the whole milk, this was equivalent to a butter fat production of 131,842.08 pounds. The average test therefore amounted to 4.32 per cent butterfat. Credit for skimmilk in this district amounted to 22,207.24 hundredweight at an average valuation of 11.7 cents per hundred. In the Orick- Requa district total production amounted to 2,230,182 pounds of whole milk, test- ing from 4.12 to 4.74 per cent butterfat, or an average of 4.43 per cent. The production in terms of butterfat amounted to 98,746.4 pounds. Of the total pro- 30 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION duetion 8.9 per cent was used on the dairies, while 91.1 per cent was sold. Of the total sales, 6 dairies sold butterfat as cream, while the remaining 6 sold whole milk receiving a small credit for the skimmilk contained therein. Close to 36.4 per cent of the total sales were made as cream, with 54.7 per cent sold as whole milk. The average annual production per cow, figured upon the number maintained in the milking herd throughout the year amounted in the Areata district to 6184 pounds of whole milk or 267.4 pounds of butterfat. In the Orick-Eequa district the figures came to 5618 pounds of whole milk per cow or 248.7 pounds of butter- fat. The lowest average herd yield in the Areata district amounted to 3979 pounds of whole milk per cow per year, while the lowest butterfat yield was 159.1 pounds. The highest average herd production in this same district ran to 7938 pounds of whole milk per cow per year, and 347.3 pounds of butterfat. In the Orick-Eequa district the lowest yield for any herd stood at 4009 pounds of whole milk or 177.9 pounds of butterfat per cow per year. The highest herd average in the Orick- Eequa district was 7816 pounds of whole milk per cow containing an average of 360.7 pounds of butterfat. In the Areata district the average herd production fell below 6000 pounds per cow on 8 dairies, 1 of these being below 5000 pounds. In the Orick-Eequa district 7 herds averaged below 6000-pound production, 4 of these 7 being under 5000 pounds. Figured on butterfat production, 7 of the 13 dairies studied in the Areata district had an average butterfat per cow production of less than 250 pounds for the year, while 4 had a production in excess of 300 pounds. In the Orick-Eequa district 5 of the 12 dairies where record taking was conducted fell below a 250-pound average, with two topping the 300-pound figure. Based on receipts obtained by the dairymen cooperating in the collection of these costs data, the average weighed net price received from whole milk deliveries in the Areata district was $1.97 per hundredweight, while the average price obtained for butterfat was 44.7 cents per pound. In the Orick-Eequa district the selling price of whole milk amounted to $2.12 per hundredweight, and 47 cents per pound for butterfat contained therein. Costs of Production by Individual Dairies In tables 3 and 4 are set forth the average costs for the twenty-five dairies under observation for an entire year in the Areata and Orick- Requa districts. These columns set forth, one for each dairy, the various items entering into the cost of producing milk, and serve to indicate the wide spread in costs between different dairies operating in the same section. The items are given in terms of cost per cow rather than as totals for the dairy. The latter can be determined by multiplying the amount shown in the table by the number of cows as set forth in the second horizontal column. Dairies numbered 318 to 331 inclusive are in the Orick-Requa dis- trict : Those numbered 380 to 392 inclusive are in the Areata district. From the data here assembled, the cost of production for the different herds in the Areata district mounted from $2.22 to $5.77 per 100 pounds of whole milk. Butterfat production varied from 46.1 cents to almost $1.42 per pound. In the Orick-Requa district the cost ir 00 00 CM w CC CM o CM CO CM o o c M §s CM 00 CO ■-I lO N oc IO ^ 1-H ■* CO i-l O CM • • • N • • lO CO «o o * IO CO iO £^ * CO CO lO «© CO CM CM &% 6* «» m © io c O DON Tf< 00 H N iO o CM CD iO N iO CM CO i-H 00 co O i-i co (O OIN CO oc 00 • • CO *^ • • N • • OS rH a> o o- CD ©' CO* CM i-H i-H os os io os co lO IO -# 00 o •^ i-H CM CO «# CM CM r-l rH m rH CM CM CM CM S© «# e© m N 00 K H O)00«" CD t- os ^ OS oc rH l> Tj< 1§ N lOiC CO O iC oc i* os Tfl Tf CD •■# CM CM ■ • • • CM • • Tt< O o oo oo 00 N rH t^ CM I? O CM i-i TfOJO N CM 1> ^ oo >o Tt< r-i CO • • • • U5 • • O rH CO io c 00 rjl i-J iC i> id i-l 00 CM 1-H Tf t~ "HH CD «5 b- iO io io m iO tJI CM OS m m S9 m © t* CM CO tJ* CM CM o 00 CM CM cm ir: N O rH oo £ CO ^ co oo rf CM CO OS cc l> o CO iO CM CD CM CO • • • • o • • CO rH M O i> Tj< tH i-i CO CM ^ 00 00 CM GO Tf< Tf< Tt< IO •* N CO N «5 » CM CM CM & m m m m OS 00 t> 00 00 CO CO OS 00 i-l CD i-H N Tf< CO rH co ^ rH 00 rH Tf N O) K t- rH CO O ^ CO iC o • ■ • • CM • ■ rH CO r«- O Th OS CO i-t ■- 00 CD CM -# CM CM I> IO rH IO ■* CM 00 00 N S© 00 N CO m i-i 6© e# m m iO ■>* O OS CM to co ^ OS 00 rH I> rH K5NO lO oc t^ • • • N • O CM 13 O) « CD lO CO CC i™ H 00 N r-i CC ■* 00 CO iO 00 oo co m 00 N CM S© e© m 9& s© • o b- c- lO lO -* 0C oo os os t^ os co CD Tt* rH 00 £ CO ^ oo io cc 00 CO CO CO CM CO r- CM • • • • CM • • OS CO lO ^H r-l CM rH IT. o co i* -# OS i- CD O N 91 CO iO CO & «© ^ «© m to a k co »o o a io co CM O CM CO OS OS CO co K ONE iO O CM CM iO lO O os co O a- o • • • • . rH t^ io io oc CO t»" CO CO CO -^ CM >D CO oo io m CM Tf O CO CD Tt< O 00 00 1> CM m r-i «© e© m m lO CM CO rH CO 00 CO lO CO CM ^h CM O CO l> iO CO .- o ■* •>* CO l> 00 CC -* co 00 00 Tf 00 IN • . co • • »d co H ION © •*' - r-I CM 00 CM CO oo ir; co co i> CD OS 00 i> io m t» ]> CM 60 5a m «© m CM CM rf CO CM lO CM I- o fr- 00 N CM lO tJI io co "~ OS Tf< IO 1> OS r-l 00 00 H 00 t> ■ co • • CO CO Is*, rH IQ co id cm r^ O* 00 CM OS CO CM l> 15 MN OS CO CM .-H OS CO io t^ m iO i* CO «© 1-1 #• CM CM CM CM e© «© s© CO CM CO o t> O 00 1> iC So £ ■ CO M . CD • • CD CM io'on ■^' CO CM CO O OS CM d ic U5 N N rj< i-l N n io e% i> CO CM m i-i t& m m «© OS rH CM OOH(C io i* tjh io OS N CM CO CM Tt oo i^: 00 CO CO CO ^ CO CO -^ OS ^ 00 iO h CM • • . Tt< • • N ^ co r^ t-h t>i CO CO tJ< i-I CM os co co d io Tf -H CO lO Tf H -* i-H cm n m CM CM CO «© T-) CM CM CM CM S© s# «# 9% ' OlON CM CM ^ iO O i-t os co OS N CM t* CM ^.verai of Distrii 493 ■o n ic i-i CO !> O lO OS CO oo' id i-J co CM CO th id 00 tJ< t^ • 00 • 00 rH CM 00 (M 00 IC CO . . • t> rH CO CO CO 8° N CO CO ¥$ CD CO CM s» e@ «© 6% ' d 03 a 1 a ° a £ 6 a bl f- B rC □ !SJ a I os s 3 £ a c 111 o ^ •si 1 9 C -t- rC ft «« "u s ■** .. O o c 1 a Herd cha Building Corral ch 03 J3 g f ^ §^ O r- O ^j 11 O g ft 55 S 3 c 8 hJ fc I "o W et cost roducti ast per et cost roducti ost per P £ o h £ fi O £ a Z Ph c go s p W W M a S o H a cc io b- CO r- Th o o o o b- iO CO b- CM 00 00 C CM C CM CO b- Is • oo cc CO CO CM CO >o H 00 CN o" 00 CO iO io o io -H b- « CO «© CM CM eo CO r- TjH O N c cc CO cc o oc CM CO C O b- Is o oc CO CM CM fr- cc • • CO os co' iO b- CM* ' CO cc CO CM CO >0 CM IO -^ %* J^ H10« CM ^ ee CM ■* H 00Tt ee s CO b- OS >o OS b- Is CO o- 00 CM Tt 0C t> cr |> r-* rH • CD O 00 OS (M oo' cm' io — >C CO cc CO CO CM 00 Tj< ■* c co b- cc CO CO ¥$ CM «© I- * m s» oo o IO "* iO CC c eo c CO CC eo ^ a CM CM CO w 00 Tf M O N N a O CO 10 • . • b- CO CM CO ■*' CO >G CM 0C rj( N h O CO IO b> "* ■* Tf OS CO e^ CO ee * t& 6© co w. o -tf i> ": oc CM tr. b- b- eo co CO ^ CO c oonic cc O CM N 00 N • • OS i-H o" i-l cm CO CO iO iO OS •* CC i-i 00 b- o b- co rt< m CM e© «© 6© 00 CC CO 00 i- -+ CN iO c IO CC CO o Is 00 i- 00 b- b- cc OC IO oc b- CO ■<* . • • »o CO b- IO cc IM* b-' CO i- CO rf i-H CO CM 00 IO CO oc CO CO CO 9! CM «© s CO io cc TH rH OS 0C f-i o c O CM T* O. S5« CO "~ CM OC OS co tj- "t cc CO o b» OS b- • • IO i-I CO "* CC * CM ri b- OS CO b- CM co co m r ft© 1-1 » €© io oc O IN OS C O CO c CO CM iO o. CO ^ oo cc N H M - cc CM — i-i »o b- _' "* „ CO o rji O (d n ^t r- >* 00 cc O f-i CM CO CO »*" rj< TtH lo m CM «© e© CO c CO OS CM ! co" os ic CM* OS CM rH O i-i O CM b- IO u* o "# m s» €© IO b- CM OS CO b- CM 00 o OS CM b- 00 CM O Tt< OS OS C t}i 00 c co cr - • • O IO o b- ic iO d CM 1H CM IO ■>* i-l IO CM 00 b. -* IT. CM CO co i* e^ i-H «© s m CM CC iO OS CM cr -t ■* r- w ~ '" OS o 2 cr co — CO OS CO O lO cc CM CO CC • • IO CM -^ eo « b-' IC 2 d ^ CM 00 cc CM .-H CM CD iO CO b> <# ■*tO« CM s© «© €© IN 0C b- OS 00 — c- Tf( CC 00 o CM CM 2 « oo o IO CM 1> r- L" ^H IO IO CO cc • • ^ , b- CD CO « rfi iO CO i-J CM - r-i -^ CO 00 CM o >o ■* CC CM H ^ « CM e© «# e% "S ts CO rf OS IO CM £N o b- CC b- IO «3 CC b-' »c ION 00 C IO Tt< CO i- cc CN CM iO b- 00 rf IO CO CM 00 Tf< rJH IO Tt< b- -* CO KJ 9! CM «J Q e© e© m -2 d CO es E*f -r 1 a. til "o c a ^3 a 3 s 9 & & 3 -*j O OJ &«g C i « ir -n* £ § I £ a * 2 OJ ^ OS ID 3$ © i> .-< o co t~ c 3 O O 3 O CC > CO ID 5 t^ CO CO CO CN N K3 i-H o OS i-H »D «© €© ? ^ ^-1 €© N OO) W OIN" 3 ID C 3 ID Tf* O CN «* CO tJH rt 00 b- CN If 3 Tt< CO CO CO l> i-l If 3 00 O 3 <*' i- 1 CO J" co' Ci ID i-I CO O CO § N - ^ «° ^ «° _ ID CM ID «© i- 6© ^H «© rH 00 00 N h © tO if 3 OS CX 3 rH V 3 CO -t^ "5 2 IN - ) O <# H NN lOb J 00 lO CO t> l> ' "d os i- cd c 1 CO 3 CO* c c CO OS ID CM* CN CO O i-l »D «© e© ^ Gfc -H €© rH U) Tf 00 lO K> (O O > CM c 3 CM t> i CN >D i-H CN !> 0( )' CO o d 55 ■*' CO »D rH o OS CM TlH m e© ^ & r-l «© I> ID CO ID Tt< CO CC 3 H ot 3 CO o rH ,H 00 a CN ^ t» m ioo aoo if i o < 00 o CO >D 3 < ffi 00 (D 00 N C£ 3 d c CD o CM TjH ID r^ CN CD * _ w < o OS CM CO «© e© - «© —1 6© N N CO H rt O C co i> os 1 >D 00 10 CN CM ^ O HHH U3(D « CN d CO* -H rH D «© i-i e^ cm «rt CM «© rH * oo © m o n ^ 00 CI 3 CM c: 3 CO rH d -t ID 00 ID CO d IM N * CM O CM CO G© m y-4 «© H €© rH rH CO 00 OS CM CM C y-< t> Tjl a ID ID CN -, "^ cn CM CN 00 O 00 t> CO CO cc N-' ■*' d CO CO kf rH If 00 « 3 ID 3 d cr 00 00 b- »D d CO CD CM r^ CO D >D rH "tf t> O CC O Ot CM c D CO CO cm' Cs ID C r-l c rH CO 00 CO CO CN i- O CM CO «© 6© T- m rH «© rH CO Oi CO CM t> CM Tt CO « »D If O CO ^3 OS Tt< CO lO <-H CO t> ID »f OS c 1> co o m Tit •* tji t* CN ee CO c 00 rH d CO CO o OS OS CO 00 lO CO i- CZS c o if »D ID 00 t^ CO U5 •* CM CO CC d -t »D CM >D CM 00 cc CO rH CO CO €© «# IH «fc rH «© rH ffl lO H t> Tf ■* ff co cc O c O >D CN v CO ■* 00 t^ OS t^ c Tj* CN CM t- ID 00 O CO "^ rH OS - c CO CO CM 00 CM ID o OS 00 a 00 o CO b- tjh CO O K I> ID c CO -eH d CM ID rH c O OS r-l t^ «© m 1- «© rH «© Ol ^ N CO M N t*- o CM c CO CM 2 5 i-H Tt< CM OS CO CO t> CC Cf CM w co CO CO CO OS ID 00 i- CM if CC d CO ■* CM CO CM s e© ^ ' H e© - m rH 6© rH OS CO 00 ^ CO CM i- CC o rH r> OS t> 23 ^Honrtdoij CN CO Tt< ID CD ■>* If CM CO ID OS «D CM •* ^ * ^ °° l> rH "* «© e© ^ «© CD rH CM rH CM -* CC CM c CM If t^ CO 2$ co oo <-* r-t rn ■* a *o t^ CN TfH 00 N S CO CO to if N CC 8 CC ID -* rH CM tJ< H C OS rH CO «© m <- S© -H «© OS CD rH CO CM »D Tt CO c CO a ID CD 08 g OS ^ rH © ID CO CN l> O ID 00 p" rjl CO r(i o >o to ^ c<- ID CO c CO CO cm' ON >D CM O rH CO e© m " m rH 6© rH OS CO ID OS CM lO Cf N CO fj © H 00 N OS c OS a O TJH »D C OS P" CO c CO -t OS 00 00 OS CO* OS 00 CM CC 00 t> d o ^ Tt< CO CN CC CO rjH CN t^ «© 1- S© rH «© rH ^H O CO OS 00 CM 0C t f OS i- j I aJ • «S » M : hi 3 a a ^ ts -2 o3 a 6 I a a CJ ,D "3 r2 ll Its "5 ai a; =3 M S 13 £ > -3 c •s 1 c « > *c § 8^ 1 s V »< r! ,, . o .2 ^ a S W PQ O g r/ I b 4 — 1 ' "o 1 « ■ ^ 03 o M -** ^ N- CO OS ,©2 o OS 00 190.77 7784 $2.45 rH 4 rH CD 00 00 r« 00 CM CM H CM OS CN CM i- rH OS 00 iO 00 o 00 CO Ol O lO OJ O N M 6 N N rH CO CM CM €© r-t rt CO 00 oo ^H CO CN fr- rt CM 2 CM ^ 00 * O! CD O) CO 00 f O 00 00 CN OS CD CO CO 00 id CN CN CC i-H CD «© r- rt . rt 00 CM >- OS €© - rH . CO CM 3* os os os rH i-i ic H CO W CO ■* O n- o «5 oo co ■*' iO ffi N * H ic 8 00 *©2 OS CO CN ^2 C\ CO CO N CN CM 0C «© co • CM CN « 5 CO t> OS >-h iO iO CO OS H 00 N N rH o' rH rt O CO LQ CO CO CM --I If c iO iO CD e© cm OS rt OC IC «© CN iO CO N ^ . a- N- CO CC N <3© I 00 CM _ N « 2 O CM 00 O O l> O h l> CM OS CM cd id rji CO CO CM CO iO CM h 6% o rt CD iO CO CO m -h rH CO CO CN o CN CC «© 1- 00 CM 00 0C co • u- co tM CC iO «© rn' CM 00 rf —1 IT N 00 O •* CO CO 00 iO lO CO OS OS O iO OS CO ^ CN CO O H i( H CM oc rt rfi CD m cn OS CO CD CM a M OC «© CN rH rt co a OS • CV rH rH CC lO «© co co i-H CC O CO CO CM CM OS h CO COON ^i OJH O ^f O H CO O H CN H 6© —1 rt rt -t CO iO CM S© CM US CC O oo «© CN rt lO IT rH O 0- CO ^ CO c rH d CO M 'f N CO O N OS CO o »o rH 00 rH OS OS "0 00, rH CO O CM c© h O CN c CO N- CM CO m cm OS CM OS rt co (N ^ CN -t C N- CC co 0^ O fr- 00 CM rH ffi ~ rt i-H iO O 00 --I 00 CO O 00 00 —1 o rt< os id co os co rt OC co 00 OS co OC O C »2 O CD i- 00 N CN 00 & ee c 1- 00 00 CO CO i-H rH 00 OS CO i-H rH Oi lO CM rH cJS CO 00 CO OS 00 rH ON H N e© 00 00 CM o m cm OS O CN ic: CN OC N- • oo CM CM OC H rH •O O O 00 OS CM CM 00 N CO 00 © co i> id rH os io 00 CM CM CM 6© rH 0C c rH N- o CO 00 S© CM rH iO CM co iO c 1> «© CN rt ir 0C N- rH co co o CO os' CM O <* ■H CC CSNHCONCO N O OS 00 O CO iO CM OS CD 00 CO N 00N H h «© it: oo 00 rH CM rf e© cm 5 rH' ' 00 N- CN «© CN rt rt cc CC co rf CO oo iO os CM ^3 O O CO rH rH ^h O LO CM iO CM 00 CM CD H CM N CO CD CO i-H «© rH iC CO 00 rH' ^'i2 8 CO oo N- rH «© rt C tr. o cc co CN oc c (X CO 00 ^8 rt CO N O i-i CN OS rfi CO rt CO CO 00 CM CM CM CO t^ rH IO i-H e© o rH rH rt* CO «© i-H CO OS 00 iO rH CM €© r^ c c 5 rt CN C^ CO o- iO o CM >* b- CO CM iO 00 rH i-h COS iO CO iO CD CD O rH © 00 CM CON i-h S© 0C IM co rf CO 00 «© rt CM O N- iC rH CT o «© rt CN CC CN oo co OC iO CM ^Ss cn n n h/ oo w ifj CD IO N i)< 00 rH co id rH co rH CO s© co >o O CO rf CM «© rt N- rH rn' co 00 CT «© ^1 c co rt CN o c iC O rt* CM CO CO IQ CM lOHNiON h •h --H CO O 00 rH fi d CO IO N h CD (N i-H i-H «© I-H OC oo CM OS rH CO m cm CO IO CC CN N- +J CM «« w OC Q CM 'O O CO CM CO CO ■-H CO rH IO rH CM CM CO o id OS CO CD OS CM i-h «© O os rH OS CO C© CM 00 00 CO o 6© CM c 0C N- co OC CN IC 00 OC rH rH CM C > •a Q C e 'c c 53 CO 5 c 8 ^ u a : : as : : : M : : : »2 cu |^2 2-32 |J 1 8 §• * ^ w « o W O 2 - «« 1 V CD aJ 5 a "o IB G "o ± §1 h -o -f O (t ■8-a cu ^3 ■B "5 1 g ^ £ o bfl a 1 1 1 d _o M a -g 8 8 O BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 53 Costs of Production by Individual Dairies Table 8 gives in detail the costs per cow involved in the produc- tion of milk on each of the 20 dairies where cost studies were com- pleted for an entire year. Variation in costs as between different dairies and between different sections is shown in the data presented below. Dairies numbered 2, 3, and from 6 to 14 inclusive are in Alameda County, dairies numbered 4, and 16 to 23 inclusive are in Contra Costa County, while dairies numbered 226a to 230 inclusive are in Santa Clara County. The table shows that the range in the cost of producing milk was from a low of $2.13 to a high of $4.34 a hundredweight of milk. On a gallon basis, the range was from 18.3 to 37.3 cents. The district average was $2.83 per 100 pounds, or 24.4 cents a gallon. Of the 20 dairies, 10 were producing at or below the district average. 4. SACRAMENTO-YOLO DISTRICT Brief Description of Area The request for a study of the cost of producing whole milk and butterfat had its inception in Sacramento and Yolo counties. Co- operation in»this district was such that 41 dairies supplied data in such shape that they could be included in summing up the year's work. Of the number, 20 were in Sacramento County, 18 were in Yolo County, while 3 were in San Joaquin County but so close to the Sacramento County boundary line and so similar in character that they could be included with the Sacramento-Yolo dairies. These 41 dairies were distributed over a fairly extensive territory, 5 being located at Elk Grove; 5 at Woodland; 5 at Clarksburg; 3 each at Gait, Sacramento, Thornton, and Freeport; 2 each at Davis, Esparto, Winters, and Natomas; and 1 each at Broderick, Knight's Landing, Franklin, Madison, Rio Linda, and Wilton. Eight of the records ran from January 1, 1922, to January 1, 1923, 13 for the full year beginning from February 1, 1922, and 20 for the year beginning March 1, 1922. These 41 dairies utilized 9163 acres. Nine of the 41 possessed some land maintained solely as pasture — swamp, brush, hill, hardpan land, or overflow. The pasture land amounted to about 2940 acres, or 32 per cent of the total. The remainder of the land consisted of alfalfa and grain, under irrigation, and was utilized for the pro- 54 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 8. — Typical dairy layouts of the Sacramento-Yolo district. Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 55 Fig. 8. — (Continued.) 56 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION duction of crops, to be either cut or fed off. The size of the holdings ranged from 25 to 2219 acres, but of the total all but two contained 400 acres or less. The most common size ranged 100 acres or less. The two biggest holdings were 1700 and 2219 acres respectively, with 1100 and 1385 acres of each in pasture. Thirty-two of the total pos- sessed no pasture land, relying wholly upon irrigated crops and pur- chased feed. These 32 possessed dairy holdings averaging 192 acres, with 16 containing 80 acres or less. Alfalfa is the foundation feed on all these dairies, being fed as hay, as pasture, or else cut green and hauled to the cows. All dairy- men fed some alfalfa. Other hays were of little moment. Four men used a little oat hay, and a single dairyman barley hay. The majority of the dairymen fed alfalfa hay the year round, occasionally skipping a month or two. A few fed for shorter periods. Whenever alfalfa or other pasturage was available, the cows were turned upon it, many of the dairymen feeding some 'on pasture the year round, with others utilized pastures for shorter periods. One dairyman fed a small amount of green Sudan grass, while Sudan grass pasture in connec- tion with alfalfa pasture was utilized by three dairymen. Only two dairymen did no pasturing. Green alfalfa or silage, or both, were fed by 24 dairymen, green alfalfa being confined to the growing months, with silage utilized during the season when growing crops were short. This meant the feeding of green alfalfa during the late spring, sum- mer, and early fall months, and the turning to silage for the months of October to April, in one or two cases starting a month earlier and continuing two months later. Four dairymen made use of roots such as carrots and beets, and of pumpkins. Two dairymen fed some bean straw during the fall months. Feeding of concentrates was confined to 17 of the 41 dairymen, and of these only 2 fed consistently through- out the year. The other 15 confined grain feeding to a few months out of the year, often to less than 3 months, and seldom over 6 months. Concentrates used, in order of greatest favor, were barley, beet pulp, rice by-products, coconut meal, mill feeds, bran, and scattering use of alfalfa meal, oil cake, rolled oats, middlings, molasses meal, and corn meal. The number of cows comprising these 41 herds totaled 2912 for the year covered by the study. Herds varying greatly in size were represented. Beginning with a herd averaging 20 during the year, there were 9 herds averaging less than 30 cows for the year, 8 of from 31 to 38, 6 of from 41 to 47, 3 of 51, 54, and 57, 5 of from 62 to 68, and 1 each of 73, 79, 82, 104, 153, 178, 179, and then a jump to 377 and 397. The average of all the herds, excluding the last two, amounted to 53. BuLLETir 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 57 The Holstein was the only breed reported for thirty herds, one of these being made up entirely of registered cattle. Four herds were reported of Holstein and Shorthorn, two of Jerseys, three of Hol- steins, Jerseys, and Shorthorn, and two of Holsteins and Jerseys. Twenty-nine of the dairymen had registered herd bulls, totaling 47 in number, while 5 additional dairymen were using purebred bulls, totaling 5 in number. This gives a total of 82 per cent purebred bulls. Of breeds, all but one were Holsteins, the exception being a Jersey. In addition to the bulls, 184 registered* Holstein cows were reported from 5 herds. All but two dairymen practiced all-year round breeding in order to maintain at all times about the same number of milking cows. The two exceptions bred for fall calves. Milking was done twice a day at 12-hour intervals, most of the herds being milked between 3 and 5 a.m., and again at the same hours in the afternoon. Two herds were milked on the 2:30 hours, two at 6 and one at 7. Six of the dairies used milking machines, the balance relying upon hand milking. Most of the operators gave their nationality as American. Id addition, there were four Swiss, one German-American, and one Ital- ian reported. While the use of American milkers was generally reported, there was also a sprinkling of other nationalities such as Swedish, Swiss, Italian, Portuguese, German, and Belgian. Production was fairly evenly divided between the dairymen pro- ducing whole milk for sale as such and those separating and selling the butter fat in cream. Of the 41 dairies covered by this study, 18 confined their operations to the production of whole milk, 17 to but- terf at production, and 6 sold both ways. During the year, sales were made to the Northern California Milk Producers Association, to the East Bay Creamery, Grand Royal Ice Cream Company, Sacramento Valley Creamery, Central Creameries of San Francisco, Glenn Dairy, Johnson Dairy of Sacramento, Crystal Creamery and Butter Com- pany of Sacramento, and to the Sego Condensary at Gait. Twenty of the operators owned the dairies that they were handling, while fourteen were in possession as tenants of the land and in one or two instances of the cows as well. Summary of Costs Table 9, immediately following, shows the summarized costs of producing whole milk and butterfat on 41 dairies in Sacramento and Yolo counties, where year round studies were conducted. Sufficient detail has been included to indicate the character and the amounts of the various items entering into dairy production costs of this section. 58 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 9 Cost of Milk Production Summary — Sacramento-Yolo Counties Number of dairies 41 Number of cows 2912 Number of bulls 63 Costs Operating Labor Man— annual, 366,657 hours $119,297.93 Man — management 14,938.56 Horse, 43,933 hours 3,702.32 Use of truck and automobile, 45,270 miles 3,519.52 Liability insurance : 1,081.00 Total labor cost $142,539.33 Feed Pasture $30,571.79 Hay, 9806.33 tons 135,466.07 Concentrates, 681.035 tons 20,818.58 Silage, 3989.6 tons 23,529.95 Green feed, 6,987 tons 23,818.00 Roots, 2143/6 tons 747.50 Bean straw, 30% tons 137.75 Insurance 661.40 Total feed cost 235,751.04 Hauling milk and cream 16,573.96 Supplies, cow testing, etc 10,290.87 Interest on operating capital, $26,179 @ 6% .... 1,570.74 Herd charge Interest on average investment in cattle, $327,226.58 @6% 19,633.59 Mortality: 155 cows, $14,582; 7 bulls, $l!,400 15,982.00 Taxes 3,024.30 Gross herd charge $38,639.89 Credits and appreciation 2,320.99 Net herd charge 36,318.90 Buildings charge Interest on average investment of $219,070.00 @ 6% $13,144.20 Depreciation 10,654.00 Upkeep 7,786.38 Taxes 1,960.63 Insurance 1,745.01 Total buildings charge " 35,290.22 BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 59 Corral charge Use of land, including taxes, 209.1 acres $3,780.75 Interest on investment in improvements, $51,346.75 @6%, 3,080.80 Depreciation of improvements 4,487.50 Upkeep 1,199.80 Total corral charge 12,548.85 Equipment charge Interest on average investment of $15,758.34 @ 6% $945.50 Depreciation 2,632.72 Upkeep 4,201.30 Taxes 200.17 Insurance 67.22 Total equipment charge 8,046.91 Total gross cost 498,930.82 Credits Calves, 2,534 $16,881.00 Manure 7,329.00 Total credits $24,210.00 Net cost of whole milk $474,720.82 Total production of whole milk 19,261,250 pounds Cost per hundredweight of whole milk $2.46 Total production of butterfat 671,202.03 pounds Total cost of butterfat in cream Cost of whole milk $474,720.82 Credit for skimmilk, 175,362.32 hundredweight @ 25 cents per 100 pounds 43,840.58 Cost of butterfat in cream $430,880.24 Cost per pound of butterfat in cream 64.2 cents , f 6614 pounds of whole milk Average annual prodnct.on per eow j mj . pounds of butterfat Comments on Cost Findings The 41 herds covered in making a year's study of the cost of producing whole milk and butterfat in Sacramento and Yolo counties were assessed a total of $84,985 for taxes. Dairy structures were assessed for $51,418.50, and dairy equip- ment for $4340. Tax rates in this district varied from $2.60 to $5.16 per $100 of assessed value. Total taxes paid by this group of dairymen amounted to $3,024.30 on cattle, $1,960.63 on dairy structures, $200.17 on dairy equipment, and $180 on hay and grain. Insurance premiums were paid for coverage on buildings, employer's liability, dairy equipment, and feed. Dairy buildings were insured in all but two instances. Five dairymen carried employer's liability insurance, two insured their dairy equipment, and seven carried feed insurance. 60 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION To produce the output from these 41 dairies necessitated the use of manual labor to the amount of 366,657 hours, at an average cost of 32.5 cents per hour. Time expended by the operators in management details, reported for all dairies, totaled $14,938.56, thus amounting to 12.5 per cent, or %, of the sums spent for manual labor. Thirty-seven of these 41 dairymen reported the use of horses in connection with the handling of the dairy, the total time thus expended amounting to 43,933 horse hours, costing. $3702.32. The average cost for all work done by this work- stock on the various dairies averaged 8.4 cents per hour, but varied from 5.2 to 22.7 cents per hour. Eight automobiles and five trucks on as many dairies were used in connection with the work of the dairy. The cost per mile, based on all work done by these machines, averaged 7.8 cents, varying from 3.6 to 13.3 cents a mile. The dairies utilized these machines to the extent of 45,270 miles at a total cost of $3,519.52. All but two dairymen reported the use of pasture, the total cost amounting to $30,571.79. Based on the number of cows carried by the dairies possessing or buying pasturage, the average cost per cow for the year amounted to $12.27. The costs per ton of other feeds used during the year averaged for the period when these studies were conducted: Hay, $13.82; concentrates, $31.46; green feed, $3.41; silage, $5.90; roots, $3.49; bean straw, $4.48. Thirty-six of these 41 dairymen paid cash for the hauling of their dairy out- put, the cost of this contract work amounting to $16,573.96. In addition, purchase of supplies, cow testing fees, veterinary services, and similar charges totaled $10,290.87, all dairymen finding it necessary to make expenditures of this nature. Operating capital amounted to $26,179, ranging from $22 to $10,000. The investment in milking herds on these 41 dairies for the year that they were under observation amounted to $327,226.58, of which cow values made up $311,255, or about 95 per cent, bulls to the value of $15,971.58 making up the balance. Average values of cows ranged from a low in one herd of $55 to a high average in another herd of $200. Average cow values of 28 herds amounted to $100 or less per head. The average value of all cows was close to $107 per head. Bulls ranged in value from a low of $55 to $3750, averaging close to $250 a head. Of the 63 bulls reported for the district, 30 were priced at $150 or less. Twenty-one of these 41 herds increased in cow values during the year, based on productive capacity, so that these dairies reflected an appreciation rather than a depreciation in cow values sufficiently high to offset the depreciation suffered by the other 20 herds, leaving a final figure of $7356.99 net appreciation. Seven herds reported bull appreciation, but total depreciation of the remaining herds was sufficiently high to make a net depreciation for this group of dairies amount- ing to $5,036. The total herd appreciation, on both cows and bulls, amounted to $2,320.99. Thirty-two dairies lost cows from various mortality causes during the year that these cost data were being collected. The number lost totaled 155, valued at $14,582. Seven bulls on five dairies were lost, valued at $1400. Losses thus totaled 4.7 per cent of the cows and 11.1 per cent of the bulls maintained in the herds during the year. The average value of cows dying was $94.77, or not much below the average value of the total number of cows maintained in the herds. Building equipment on these 41 dairies consisted of 48 milking barns, four dairies possessing 2 each, and one dairy 4; 42 milk houses; 47 shelter and feed Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 61 sheds, two dairies having 1 each, one 4, and one 10; and 39 silos, five having 2 each, one 6, and one 10. The investment in these structures varied on the different dairies from $433 to $46,932.50, totaled $219,070, and averaged close to $5343 per dairy. Of the 41 dairymen, 14 possessed less than a $2000 investment in dairy structures, 19 had from $2000 to $5000 invested, 3 from $5000 to $10,000, 2 between $10,000 and $20,000, and 3 in excess of $20,000. Thirty-one dairymen paid for various items of building upkeep, totaling $7786.38, and varying from $2.50 to $3242. Upkeep expenditures amounted to 3.6 per cent on the investment in dairy structures. Depreciation totaled $10,654, or 4.9 per cent of the invest- ment. A. total of 209.1 acres of land was recorded as being required for corrals and dairy building sites. Eental value was set at a total of $3780.75, thus amounting to an annual charge per acre of $18.08. Investment in fences, watering facilities, sewage disposal systems, and similar improvements amounted to $51,346.75, rang- ing from $180.50 to $17,250.80, and averaged $1252. Seventeen dairymen spent sums ranging from $2.50 to $770 for upkeep of these improvements, totaling $1199.80, or practically 2 per cent of the investment in these items. Depreciation during the year amounted to $4,487.50, or 8.7 per cent of the investment, Dairying equipment required by these 41 dairies consisted of 23 separators, 4 milking machines, 6 milk tanks, 25 milk vats, 8 can racks, 4 milk troughs, 5 heaters, 17 boilers, 8 stoves, 59 lanterns, 11 scales, 3 feed grinders, 1 ice plant, 4 milk trucks, 12 motors, 31 strainers, 19 coolers, 66 carts, 29 wheelbarrows, 7 manure pushers, 2 sprayers, 2 pumps, 9 gasoline engines, 145 forks, 59 brooms, 55 shovels, 43 wash tubs, 324 milk pails and buckets, 205 milk cans, 60 brushes, and a miscellaneous assortment of such items as hose, fire extinguishers, ther- mometers, axes, silage conveyors, cream agitators, milk testers, cowbells, clippers, pans, dippers, filters, clarifiers, whitewashing outfits, kicking chains, veterinary outfits, hobbles, hoes, manure stands, and various shafting, pulleys, and belts. Investment in this equipment totaled $15,758.34, averaged $384.34, and ranged from $21.65 to $1,803.97. Twenty of these 41 dairies had an investment in dairy equipment of less than $200 per dairy, thirteen had from $200 to $500 invested, and the remaining eight had in excess of $500 invested. All dairymen made expenditures for dairy equipment upkeep, totaling $4201.30, but ranging from $4 to $2076.20. The sum spent in upkeep was equivalent to 26.6 per cent of the investment. Depreciation amounted to $2632.72, or 16.6 per cent of the amount invested in dairy equipment. Miscellaneous receipts were scattering and unimportant. Sales of feed bags and hides were the only items recorded, the former totaling $604, the latter $65.55. A total of 2534 calves of the total number born were assigned a value by the dairymen upon whose dairies they appeared, amounting to $16,881 at the time that the dams' milk could be used for human consumption.' This figures $6.67 per head, most of the dairymen considering calves of this age as being worth $5 to $10. The lowest assigned value was $2.50 each for 46 calves, the highest $30 each for 70 calves. Two dairies reported sales of manure totaling $97.50. Of the two, one con- sidered the manure of value only to the extent that he made sales, while the other ascribed value to that used on his own farm. In addition to these two, 27 dairy- men considered the manure as having some value on their places, while 12 dairy- men deemed the manure to be of no value. Total value of manure from the 2912 cows and 63 bulls amounted to $7329. CO 00M(O«rt(SCO © © CO © CO O 00 N N* CO N © ■*' i-i CO- , ■ s 00 © «© CO OS* 198.65 7542 $2.64 $ 198.65 17.21 <* ^2 rH CO CO »o © 2* a N ^ H N H N ) 00 H IO IO N O) 3 CO CO ©' o CO ** 00 © © *2 ° rH O rH rH CO © co' ©CO - ^2 - CO ^r: 8 CO © co" 00 > CO ■* © TfH CO Tt< 00 CO rH CO CO «© co © 00 00 © 00 o CO IO rH OS m co iO © © CO 00 iO co' CO r-I «© rH CO 95 CO c co CN ^2 00 CO co © od IO CO IO © N tP © ► 2 " co ev CO if C « OCOHMO © •<# rH © r-i © OS C© rH »o »o IO CO © © co CO © »3 * © CO IO CO © CO CO CO t^ m rH rH 1> 00 CO CO CO N ^2 - © 00 IO CO -* i-l i-l — © rH > 25 CC or O H H to CO O IO © IO © © CO CO 00 CO e© co © © IO co co © CO co oo CO © m co t>- co © co co ^ co co io «fc CO rH e© co CO O CO e© co IO 00 © ■<* CO CO N CO ,2 ' H ' H 2s 1 00 00 iO © CO t^ CO 00 ffi CC © lO 00 00 tH CM IO "tH IO CO i-l CD © CO IO CO CO «© co CO © © o © t>. © N «© CO CO 1 rH OS ' N 1 © CO co' © N «^ © rH S© CO CO CO CO IO CO 00 © la oc a CO © CO © CO —I rH CO i-l O CO © 00 »o .©2 iO oo © co © co »o IO N © CO TfH O © 00 co' io © m 1 »z ~ © CO © Tff © »3 rt © © 00 IO CO i-H CO CO i-H 1> CO i-H 2 S CC IT N CO CN N 00 to H O © © l> CO CO 1> co' ^2 3 iO 1> co n d 2 ^2 » © N IO 00 CO I> CO © Tjl m ^.00 rH CO rH © '-i co N CO e© h CO CO CO ■<* © tJH i-H b- CO rH §s iO N O) O ^ h 00 >* © n o m * o OS O •* rt< t> CO CO co ic — e© © 6© rH 00 CO co rH OS O iO rH IO m rH O CO •* ^ 1 rH 1> CO* t> CO ¥$ rH rH o ^2 CO • IO 2 IO co iO Ss a- CC IT CC 00 © l> !> CO CO rH IO rH t^ CO rH CO 00 8 «© rH © o © CO 00 rH r-i OS IO © c Cn Cn II CO CO II 00 © i-I IO > \ IO rH 1 ?© rH o oc ic CO «© - • CO CO © iO rH CO CO CO CO rH © rH rH ■o 3 CO ■* CO CO N iO h CO 00 N OS CO CO (M CO* •* 00 "■# OS CO to CO OS m © © €© rH © GO Tf 00 © CO © m rH o c M 1 o co 00 c<- m r- co o o IO If CN TH © n co l>' r-i CO y-f m rH iO © co © © © CO rH m rH <* 00 CO CO 00 CO © i-H rH 2S S9 00 00 ■* CO rH CO 00 N to H IO H S© r-< © 00 ©' oo 00 N IO © TH CO iO m rH If oo io 00 T« CO* CO co i-* S% rH co o © rH IO iO © N CO IO CO CO N iflH CO 2 N CC o N CO H iO IO 'f © CO CO -tf rH CO © e© co iO • c © CO © 00 1 fr- c CM 1 «© o © © c oc m i- oo © © CO © 00 IO rH OS © rH © CO rH S £ CC OC © CO to l> ■* CO O CON ffi H H >o oo «# rH © © © rH o © co io m rH « || rH rH N © 00 d co ^2 - c oc 6© r^ CO © oo • o © CO © © CO CO 3 « •0 o o (N 00 N to N CO IO 00 © CO 00 tO oo 00 m co co CO © n co io co CO N m co co M 1 u" K €# CM o © 1— 1 CC c o «© CS CO © CO 00 CO 00 00 ION 00 tO H N H CO IO ©©■*■* iO © © ii H « N IO N 00 CO rtl © IO OS ■* CO W9HH «© © ^2 CO CO « © oo co oo c o © co IT €© r- •o • co © CO © CO •o rS <* Ol to O "O CO CO H oo co o co © i-h Tt< co' OS CN © IO IO <-I "* t* CO CO i-h oo co ^rH >o co CO © N iO «# rH K co © CO "# d co t*rH ^ CV oc IT «© 1- co • oo 00 rH I> co CO rH CO CO r- 00 IO CO CO © 00 H CON CO iO o © €© rH © 00 00 oc c o «© r- © © IT CM «*1 oc © - o tr «© r- o CO ©' © © 00 CO CO rH 00 rH rH Ave. of Dist. 2912 •o o oc © N N CO rH © O) N ^ H CON CO CO co 00 c tC «# r- © © CC •3 P 1 t 'c il s ^ o 1 hh = :' S :' £? ■■ : % - N t» 66 ^ » iO (N iO 66 66 r-l 66 rH 66 ^ 66 rH lO O H «3 W CO O 00 •o CO 00 1 n >o 00 CO rH *■ co * HlNWOCOiON CM i> IO TjH 00 CO o IO »o © TjH CO N t|J M S N N CO N CO co OS CM os n r-i CO iO 00 CM (N CN) ^ ° co IO t> 66 iO TtH OS t-- IO O l> © l> N N co n OS Tti CM ,-! 00 Tti CN CO CO co co CO CO OJ N r>- id N H (N CO co iO 00 66 iO CO i-i ■o 00 N 00 N rH CO © 2 © CO -H rji CN CO l> Tji CM i-i OS ^ r)H ,_ TtH TfH © © CO CD i-l CM CM CD 66 CM iO 9=> 66 rH 66 rH 66 rH . 66 r^ i* O i 1 CoCO ON N N O N O TtH © rH OICJN iO 0ON CO iO TjH O 00 Tt< CM 00 " © N CO CO "* CO CO "5 00 Tti i-l CM CM 8 CO IO m 8 CM 00 00 00 d TjH 66 rH 66 rH 66 rH 66 CO CO CD 00 CO IO CM CO N CO § CD Tfl (N CM o _ O CD O IO Tfi i-H CD IO CO CO (N o OS CO «» d d id © Tti co i-i N CO 00 co © t> CM Tf< OS ■O iO -* 66 iO T»H 00 66 66 r-l 66 rH 66 rH 66 rH OS O CO OS ^h o o iO CO os OS os 00 rH r^ § CO CO ® N HN H N OlO Tfl CM OS CO 00 00 OS TjJ OS CO 00 OS l> i-H >-H Tti CD 00 (N CM 00 TfJ co t>i co b- T* co CO 66 CO CN b- TfH o o CO r-l IO iONOCO OlN CO IO 00 T(H TtH o" b- CM TtH d © d CM © CN CO » N CO ri ci CN CM i-H CM O o TtH 66 o 00 iO 66 66 h 96 rH 66 rH 66 i-H CD Tt< H CO TtH T* CD IN "<* CO TtH © 00 00 Is NO HN^O "3 t> O N 00 00 I> CM TJH IO o TjH CO CM IO OS OS co 66 os 00 I> 9? 66 6% 66 66 iO CO M< iO CO tjh N CD OS N rH N co T(H © (—1 "^ CO n •^ CO CD t-h 00 CD LO r- iO t^ t> IO o IO Tf CO © T|i IO 't iO N * H CT> id TtH co CM CM OS OS 00 © ~ co ^H co id —i Tti 00 IO IN OS I> ■o CM l> Tfl © Tfi tH t- CO CO CO N 66 co TtH CM IO 66 66 rH 66 ^ 66 rH 66 r-< OS CO i-i O O CM IO o CO h- O I> © rH 00 §8 CO w O --I CO iO "H Tfi CO CN os CM os iO CM 00 TtH TfH o IN IO CO OS 00 CO CO rH t> tJh' CM i-l CM CO 00 IO 66 00 t-~ © m 66 r-l 66 rH 66 rH 66 <-< H HCJION !ON ,— 1 CO IO 00 iO TfH ,-i rl CO CO Tfl 00 i-H TtH Tfl CD «# iO ■* © IO IO o o d (O i-I ^ 00 O i-i H rji iO OS CM d cc id Tti IO CD i-l i-l iO TfH CO 66 TfH CO CM © 66 6% rH 66 rH 66 rH 66 rH t)H CO CN Tf< CO iO 00 l> CD 1— 1 l> rH CO 00 ^{ CN *** N ^ IO N IO CO IO OS iO rf< CM O TtH CO © N CO id CO Tfl Tfi OS CO CM r-l OS 00 00 CM CO 00 © (N ■* co CM CM IO 66 CN © OS CO co 00 N CO CO © © t*i O* CM CO i-H O CN r-5 cm" TtH 00 00 © iO Tfi T* iO CM CO CN N 6% CM (N TfH 66 rH 66 rH 66 rH 66 r-l CO O CO 00 iO t> CO IO CM CO co CO £> © 1> Sfe ^ OS (N ^ N CO O l> CO CO CN © o 00 T(i N t> d l> id CN «* co 00 CN 00 © TJH N-' Tt* 00 CD iO l> 6© iO TJH CM iO 66 66 rH 66 rH 66 rH 66 rH iO 00 iO ^ >o CO 00 TfH CO 00 Tf< — i CO OS 00 CO CN CM CN OS CO 00 CM w iO CM co 00 CM co © © ' 00 N 00 d o oi 00 H N »d iO CM IO 66 66 rH 66 rH 66 rH 66 rH IO 00 CO CO iO OS CM CM CN O os 1 © 00 OC iO iO OS CO TtH •*' N CO O H CO CN OS 6 00 rH 00 id CN © Tfl 00 rH rH IO CM co CD 63 co CN N iO l> © ^-1 © CO o OS 00 O OS O O i-l CM Tti Tti 00 CM CO iO CN co 00 CM l> N CO © TjH Tji © © CO TtH t- 1-H co CM ^ ° CD m o ^ ® « r-i CO O r-l CO O o l> 93 o ^ °° CO t» 93 CO TJH h 23 CD 6 r2 "o ^3 *o O L O 3= «1 i .2 s '-P CD T) rg O ? "o o."c 3 ^ r2 "o * ■8 ^ r 3 > O 1 . ■2 "8 «2 CO £1 o rt . £ 42 C3 "o 8 8 -° o P £ o EH fe o 1 ^ Z 64 ■ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-— EXPERIMENT STATION Of the 41 dairymen constituting the group from which cost data was collected during the year that these dairies were under observation, 17 sold whole milk exclusively, 17 sold butterfat exclusively, 6 sold both ^yhole milk and butterfat, and 1 retailed his output. In all, these 41 dairies produced a grand total of 19,261,550 pounds of whole milk containing 671,202.03 pounds of butterfat. Individual herd test averages varied from 3.31 to 3.76 per cent butterfat in whole milk, the average test for the total production running close to 3.5 per cent. Of the total production, 92.4 per cent was sold and 7.6 per cent used at the dairy. The average annual production of all the 2912 cows maintained during the year in these amounted to 6614 pounds of whole milk, or 230.5 pounds of butterfat per cow. The lowest herd average for the year amounted to 3208 pounds of whole milk containing 114.8 pounds of butterfat; the highest herd average reached a figure of 9510 pounds of whole milk per cow per year, containing 328.1 pounds of butterfat. Of the total 41 dairies, 22 registered an average herd production figure less than the district average for both whole milk and butterfat. Thirteen dairy herds of the 41 produced a yearly average to the cow amounting to 195.2 pounds or less of butterfat. Based on receipts from sales obtained by dairymen selling either whole milk or butterfat exclusively, and on the wholesale market, the average net price received during the year under observation amounted to 45 cents per pound of butterfat sold, and $2.16 per hundred pounds of whole milk. Costs of Production by Individual Dairies For purposes of recording the variation in costs as experienced by the individual dairies of the 41 studied in Sacramento and Yolo counties, a table is inserted (table 10), setting forth the various items entering into the cost of producing milk on the different dairies. Dairies numbered 144 to 165 inclusive are in Sacramento County ; dairies numbered from 293 to 317 inclusive are in Yolo County; dairies numbered 203, 204, and 205 are in San Joaquin County, close to the Sacramento County line, and included with this district for reasons as set forth in the opening paragraphs. The cost of production on the 41 dairies studied ranged from $1.75 to $3.50 per hundredweight of whole milk, and from 43.6 cents to 93.4 cents per pound of butterfat. The average cost for the district was $2.46 per hundredweight of whole milk and 64.2 cents per pound of butterfat. Twenty dairies produced whole milk and butterfat above the aver- age cost of the district, while the cost was below the average on 21 of the dairies. Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 65 5. SAN JOAQUIN-STANISLAUS DISTRICT Brief Description of Area Seventeen dairies contributed complete cost data in the San Joaquin-Stanislaus district. Eight of these dairies were located in Stanislaus and nine in San Joaquin counties. Six of these dairies were tributory to Ripon, five to Modesto, and one each to Lockeford, Escalon, Stockton, Hickman, Hughson, and Waterford. Conditions on these dairies were generally similar and the findings are deemed entirely comparable. All records, with but one exception, ran from January 1, 1922. The exception covered the year from April 1, 1922. These 17 dairies utilized a total of 1521 acres. The smallest hold- ing consisted of but 3 acres, corral feeding being practiced. The largest holding consisted of 400 acres, of which 300 acres were rolling hills providing some grain and some pasturage. Twelve of the 17 holdings contained less than 50 acres, ranging from 3 to 49 acres, and averaging 25 acres. These places were invariably irrigated lands utilized for the growing of alfalfa, silage crops, and grain, sometimes being double-cropped during the season. The larger holdings, those having 100 acres or more, possessed some pasture land consisting of rolling hills. Methods of feeding the milking herd varied somewhat on the different dairies, but in general consisted of corral feeding with alfalfa hay, some silage, and a limited amount of concentrates. Use of pasture was the exception rather than the rule. Thirteen dairymen reported no use of pasture whatever, while the remaining four had pasture for but limited periods, ranging from 1 to 7 months. Pasture was available during the spring and early summer months. Feeding of hay the year round was common. Thirteen dairymen fed hay 12 months, while one each fed for 11, 10, 9, and 6 months respectively. Alfalfa hay was outstandingly used, although four dairymen made some use of oat or wild grass, one dairyman using wild grass hay exclusively. Eleven of the dairymen fed silage for periods ranging from 1 to 11 months. Six of the eleven fed for 6 months or longer, feeding of silage being usually confined to the late fall, winter, and early spring months. Much variation existed in the feeding of con- centrates both in periods when such feeds were given and in the amounts fed, some dairymen using rather limited quantities. Three dairymen fed the year round, seven fed from 6 to 11 months, four fed less than 5 months, and three fed no concentrates at all. Feeding 66 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION of concentrates when practiced for less than a full year was usually confined to the late fall, winter, and early spring months. Of ten different kinds of concentrates used by these dairymen, barley was most generally fed, thirteen dairymen feeding in quantity, with six of these using no other form of concentrate. Other feeds used for a month now and then were pumpkins, utilized by one dairyman, and bean straw, fed by another. An average of 417 cows and 22 bulls were maintained on these 17 dairies during the year that these costs studies were in progress. The size of the individual herds ranged from 12 to 64, and averaged 25. Ten of the herds averaged 20 cows or less, while but one herd exceeded 38 in number, this being the 64-cow.herd just referred to. Jerseys, Guernseys, Holsteins, and one "mixed" herd were re- ported. Of the 17 herds covered by this study, 11 herds were of Holsteins, 2 of these herds being registered, 4 were Jerseys, 1 of which was registered, 1 was a combination of Jerseys and Guernseys, and 1 a mixed herd. All but one herd were headed by purebred bulls, numbering 20 in all, of which 19 were registered. Of these 20, 12 were Holsteins, 5 Jerseys, and 3 Guernseys, Seven dairymen reported registered cows, six of the seven having a total of 107 head, including 68 Jerseys and 30 Holsteins. Year round freshening of cows to insure a steady supply of milk was the rule, although three dairymen were attempting to secure the bulk of their fresh cows during the fall, winter, or early spring months. While twice a day milking was the general rule, two dairies did some three times a day milking. Generally, milking took place at 12-hour intervals beginning at 5 or 5 :30 a.m. Five of the 17 dairy- men used milking machines, the others relying on hand milkers. Nationalities of operators were stated to be American, Italian- Swiss, Swiss, and Hollander. Nationalities of milkers were Swiss, American, and Hollander. All these dairymen were concerned with the production of butter- fat either for sale in cream or as whole milk. Production of market milk did not enter into the situation. Milk sold whole was paid for on a butterfat basis, so for all practical purposes the district may be deemed as specializing in the production of butterfat. Sales were variously made to the Modesto Creamery ; the Borden Condensary, at Modesto ; the Hughson Creamery ; the Swift Creamery, at Ceres ; and to the Milk Producers' Association of Central California, at Modesto. Fourteen of the 17 dairymen owned the dairy under their charge, while three were tenants. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 67 Summary of Costs The summarized cost of producing whole milk and butterfat on the 17 dairies studied in San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties is set forth, with considerable detail, in the following table. TABLE 11 Cost of Milk Production Summary — San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties Number of dairies 17 Number of cows 417 Number of bulls 22 Costs Operating Labor Man— manual, 56,438 hours $17,539.72 Man — management 6,788.00 Horse, 5,855 hours 479.96 Truck and automobile, 180 miles 18.00 Insurance 77.75 Total labor cost $24,903.43 Feed Pasture $2,629.00 Hay, 1,862.06 tons 22,429.17 Concentrates, 187.53 tons 4,892.74 Silage, 527.40 tons 3,120.08 Miscellaneous, 5 tons 28.00 Insurance 108.00 Total feed costs 33,206.99 Hauling milk 2,857.65 Supplies, cow testing, etc 2,376.32 Interest on operating capital, $3,581 @ 6% 214.86 Herd charge Interest on average investment in cattle, $68,304.00 @ 6% $4,098.24 Depreciation 3,818.25 Mortality: 22 cows; bulls 4,050.00 Taxes 670.49 Gross herd charge $12,636.98 Credits and appreciation 4,443.00 Net herd charge ~ 8,193.98 Buildings charge Interest on average investment of $33,215.17 @ 6% $1,992.90 Depreciation 1,329.65 Upkeep 298.47 Taxes 300.27 Insurance 199.29 Total buildings charge 4,120.58 68 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Corral charge Use of land, including taxes $617.50 Interest on investment in improvements, $6,949.02 @6% : 416.91 Depreciation of improvements 624.90 Total corral charge $1,659.31 Equipment charge Interest on average investment of $4,927.14 @ 6% $295.57 Depreciation 930.43 Upkeep 268.65 Taxes 29.96 Total equipment charge 1,524.61 Total gross cost $79,057.73 Credits Calves, 353 $3,627.70 Manure 1,790.00 Total credits $5,417.70 Net cost of whole milk $73,640.03 Total production of whole milk 2,798,145 pounds Cost per hundredweight of whole milk*. $2.63 Total production of butterfat 112,699.2 pounds Cost per pound of butterfat in whole milk 65.3 cents Total cost of butterfat in cream Cost of whole milk $73,640.03 Credit for skimmilk, 25,167.10 hundredweight @ 25 cents per 100 pounds 6,291.77 Cost of butterfat in cream $67,348.26 Cost per pound of butterfat in cream 60 cents Average annual production per cow ( 671 ° P ounds of ,, whole milk { 270.3 pounds of butterfat Comments on Cost Findings The 17 herds studied throughout the year in San Joaquin and Stanislaus coun- ties were assessed for $16,285. Dairy buildings were assessed for $7075, and dairy equipment for $710. Tax rates per $100 of assessed values ranged from $2.69 to $5.22. Total taxes paid amounted to $670.49 on cattle, $300.27 on dairy structures, and $29.96 on dairy equipment. Dairy buildings were insured on all dairies, while five men carried employer's liability insurance, and five carried insurance on feed. Manual labor used on these 17 dairies cost an average of 31.1 cents an hour. A charge for management was figured by each dairyman, totaling $6788, or nearly 30 per cent on the expenditures for manual labor. Four dairymen utilized horse labor in carrying on the work of the dairies, the average cost for all work done by horses on these dairies amounting to 8.2 cents an hour. For the 5855 hours that horses were employed in connection with these four dairies, the charge amounted to $479.96. Only one automobile was reported used in connection with any of the dairies and the use of this machine totaled only $18. Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 69 The value of pasturage used by six dairymen amounted to $2629, or, for the 216 cows pastured, averaged $12.17 a head a year. Per ton costs of other feeds used by this group of dairymen, during the year that these dairies were under observation, averaged: Hay, $12.05; concentrates, $26.09; silage, $5.92; pumpkins, $5; straw, $8. All dairymen paid for contract hauling of their output, and, in addition, expended a total of $2376.32 for supplies, cow-testing fees, and similar items. Operating capital amounted to $3581, ranging from $50 to $415. The average investment in milking herds amounted to $68,304, of which bulls made up $8512, or 12.5 per cent, with the cows contributing the balance. Cow values based on herd averages ranged from $100 to $381, although twelve herds were rated as being worth between $100 and $150, three herds between $165 and $172, with the two remaining herds valued at $350 and $381 per head, respectively. The average cow value was $163.80. Bull values varied from $75 to $1250 per head, with all but 2 of the 22 bulls reported for the district possessing a value of $150 or more. Eight of the 17 herds studied in this district showed an appreciation during the year for the milking cows, while two showed appreciation of bull values. The net appreciation of cows amounted to $1415.25, the net depreciation of bulls to $791, this giving a net herd appreciation of $724.75. During the year that these dairies were under observation, 22 cows died, valued at $4050. No bulls were recorded as dying. The average value per cow of those dying amounted to $184, or in excess of the average values reported for the cows maintained in these herds during the year. Dairy structures used by these 17 dairies consisted of 17 milking barns, 15 milk houses, 1 granary, 3 feeding barns, 14 silos, and 5 sheds. Investment in these structures amounted to $33,215.17, averaging about $1950, but ranging from $340 to $5484. Five dairies were equipped with dairy structures involving an invest- ment of less than $1000, five possessed dairy buildings worth from $1000 to $2000, four of from $2000 to $3000, and four in excess of $3000. Seven dairymen spent various sums for building upkeep, totaling $298.47, and ranging from $7.50 to $109.50. Sums so spent constituted % °f 1 P er cen ^ °f the amounts invested in such items. Depreciation amounted to $1329.65, or 4 per cent of the investment. A total of 33 *4 acres of land was utilized in corrals and dairy building sites on these seventeen dairies, ranging from % an acre to 5 acres, and having an annual use value of $617.50, or $18.30 per acre. Investment in minor improve- ments, such as fences, watering facilities and sewage disposal systems, totaled $6949.02, averaged $291.12 per dairy, and ranged from $125 to $1393 for the different dairies. Nothing was reported as having been spent for corral upkeep. Depreciation for the year amounted to $624.90, or practically 9 per cent of the investment in such improvements. Dairying equipment used on these 17 dairies consisted of 6 milking machines, 12 separators, 7 milk coolers, 43 milk buckets, 107 milk cans, 9 milk carts, 6 gaso- line engines, 2 feed trucks, 1 sterilizer, 8 wheelbarrows, 10 strainers, 4 veterinary outfits, 2 clippers, 3 scales, 12 lanterns, and a varied assortment of brooms, brushes, shovels, forks, hose, and similar minor items. Investment in dairy equipment totaled $4927.14, averaged $289.83, and ranged from $39.37 to $964. Fifteen dairymen made expenditures for the purpose of maintaining this equipment, the sums so spent totaling $268.65, although varying from 60 cents to $54.03 for the 70 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION different dairies. Upkeep therefore constituted 5.5 per cent of the investment. Depreciation amounted to $930.43, or 18 per cent of the amount of the investment in such items. Calves credited to the dairy numbered 353 ; reported as worth $3627.70, or ap- proximately $10 per head. Most dairymen valued any calves saved at $5 per head, this being the lowest valuation placed. The highest was $50 a head on 11 calves. No actual sales of manure from the dairies were recorded, and of the 17 dairymen, two did not consider that the manure possessed any value. The other 15 gave the dairies credit to the extent of $1719, this being for 349 cows on these 15 dairies. Pig. 9.- Typici The barn of Fig. attached. I dairy building layouts in the San Joaquin-Stanislaus district. 9 (Continued) is the two-cow unit method with milk-house Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 71 Six of these 17 dairymen sold whole" milk as such, nine sold butterfat, and two sold both whole milk and butterfat. Total production of these 17 dairies amounted to 2,798,145 pounds of whole milk, containing 112,699.2 pounds of butterfat. Of this total production, practically 93 per cent was sold, while the remaining 7 per cent was used at the dairy. Tests of the milk from the various herds averaged from 3.4 to 5.3 per cent butterfat, averaging for the total production 4.03 per cent. The average annual production for the 417 cows studied in this district amounted to 6710 pounds of whole milk, or 270.3 pounds of butterfat. The lowest herd average of these 17 dairies was 51C6 pounds of whole milk; the highest 8667. The lowest herd average of butterfat production per cow w T as 206.2 pounds; the highest 328. Of the 17 dairies, nine herd averages were below the district Fig. 9. — (Continued.) O O © —l © 00 ,_i >o to © , ,_, fl) O O iO fl> A iO (N © t^ CN 00 © © © «© i-l e© m «© e© m CN ^ n t h n » o (N © co 1 w CN ,_, 05 a co to ■* 00 00 © CN © co t^ © © o CO © §2 CN CO CO ■*' 00 d oi to oi iO l> iO co ^ ai © © CO © r^ c © IO CO © 00 © S3 «© IN e© s© «© 1 «© «© CN O ■* O N N tO tO © t^ co 1 « ON ^H £2 T(l H CO to N IN "O ■~! © § © CN I> © iO CO •* CO >0 N lO CN © s© © CN © h ai h oo o to io © r^ OS 1 © rH X CM •* IO 00 t~- •* 00 ■* to OS 00 © IO 00 © §2 iO © >0 t> ^' CO CO © 5 S© e© e© 9© «© «© 0 00 CO t © © CO CO 00 IO co to io t>- © to >o ■* CO co ©■ © GO o 2^ © H N tO O tO N H co 00 © 00 n! © co © h- i-H rH N ^ IN i> CN CN © to e© m« (N «© CN C© CN 1 6© CN 6© CO oo h o oo « a w Tjl o Tt< 1 ■<* Tt< © N H N 00 N 00 IO to o © <* (N © l^ © © o §2 N CO N CO CO CS H CN © co § 00 co ■<* 00 8 'O to 00 t-i i-H © oo © CO 00 ^ iO as t^ (N © © IN © © © §3 © 00 N H N M tO H CO id © © id d o ION i-l © >* IO - iO «© €© «© «© «© «© l^ -* © ■* 00 o S.a © © O <-! ^' t^ I> IN CM © 00 <# Tfl © © 00 io © cn i-i © © © (N © 1— 1 t^ iO © «© 6© e© «© m » CN O) O) O N N iO O) ■* o r^ t* CN iO c8 CN 00 © oo IN N N 00 "O iO 00 N iO CO (N CO IO 00 CN o N-' b-i Cd 00 -d 00 t»' © 00 CO l> CO co © T* 00 I-H CN --I CO t^ iO t^ © © cc <© * m «© «© «© e© CN t^ 00 i-l Tt» CN CN CN © iO ,H ,_( CN © CO ■<# -tf CO © to 00 © IO "* O IO CO l> o 1^ to CN IO id © ■* 00 CO IO IN id t~ Ni *# co id IQ lO 00 CO © © © CO © 00 X «© CO iO © © CO © r^ IO (N to 8 CN t^ CO © © id o" © t^' r-i CO 00 © IN © rH oo t-- iO 1> © t^ "* 00 00 CO iO 00 CO iO co © I* e© tn CN «© CN €© s© CN * "* 1 © iO © o 82 CO t^ CN CO N CO N Tf CO ■*' id 00 IO 00 © s © Tji CN rt f^ O •<*< IN iO t^ © CO © 00 ^ CN rt © CN CN 1 © —I id id CN 00 •<*< CO IO CO ^* © id ■*' r^ O CN (N CO IN CO © CN © 8 o CN * 00 § o 6© e© «© «© CN OS ^ H H T(l IO ■* © CO © CO "* 00 © IO ,_i ,-1 © iO t> © 00 co © 00 o l> o O IN '""' CN 00 © CN CN © !>■' CN --I ■<* © t^ to t>- t^ 8 00 © OO i-H IO co t^ CN CN © e© CN «© CN «© €© CN e© © © iO O © CN o £ o CN °* 00 CO ■*' rji © id -<*i 00 © CO to t^' iO t^ © © M* r^ iO 00 CN i-l © 00 iO CO 00 t- © to 6© s e© «© ^H II «© «© O CS N -t <* ■<* © s © © ,— I 1> © O © GO © © iO © © co © © iO © o .• C b- © Aver Disti 41 © © CO © © CO CO © -a 'H g II "o _J -a "3 tn M 3 1 1 a 3 c tn ai o3 m cj ° 13 -d .a i— o -C "3£ H Q^ « h o d fl •■S| 9-S | 1 1 i 1 -i a a> 9 o a" g M pq O H a 03 ^ *s o ft 1 is 03 > IS !« ft a * s o c I o 6 £ c 8^ i 1 Y M i» Is ^ O S H a a B *o 1 o ft CO 'o "o *o c3 1 1 s (0 ■3 § 3, ! ■x fe o H O » ^ C O BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0P PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 73 average production of -whole milk, and seven dairies were below the district average butterfat production. Prices received by dairymen in this group depended upon the character of the product sold. Dairies confining their attention to sales of whole milk received sums which, averaged for the period that cost data were being collected, amounted to $2.23 per 100 pounds, or to 55% cents per pound of butterfat contained therein. During the year, sales of dairy products delivered as butterfat in cream brought average net prices of 46 cents per pound of butterfat to the dairymen who prac- ticed no other method of selling. Costs of production by Individual Dairies Table 12 shows the cost of producing butterfat on each of the 17 dairies studied in San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. The data are presented on a one-cow basis for ease in making comparisons. Dairies numbered 190 to 200 inclusive are in San Joaquin County, those numbered 282 to 292a inclusive are in Stanislaus County. The findings show that the cost of producing butterfat in this district ranged from a low of 31 cents to a high of 90 cents per pound of butterfat produced on the individual dairies. Of the 17 dairies, but six produced at a cost below the average of the group of dairies studied in this district, i.e., 60 cents a pound. 6. FRESNO DISTRICT Brief Description of Area Dairies selected in Fresno County for studying costs of production were located in the dairying section along the southern boundary of the county and included two dairies in Kings County, these two being found sufficiently similar to those selected in Fresno County to justify their inclusion in a common group. Seventeen dairies rounded out the year of record taking satisfactorily and were included in the final analyses. Of the 17, 7 were located near Riverdale, 4 in the vicinity of Laton, 3 at Burrell, and 1 each at Caruthers, Hanford, and Guern- sey. All records were taken for the calendar year from January 1, 1922, to January 1, 1923. Dairying constituted the principal enter- prise on the farms coming under this study. In size, the different holdings varied from 35 to 312 acres with a general average of 107 acres. The major portion of the land was cropped, although some salt grass pasture was maintained. The cropped areas were under irrigation and were mostly utilized for alfalfa, fed as hay or pastured green, with minor areas of oats, barley, sorghum, some silage and similar crops. Outside of salt grass 74 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION pastures, all pasturing was furnished by crops grown specifically for the purpose on irrigated and cultivated fields. Every one of the 17 dairies reported alfalfa acreage. In feeding the milking herd, pasture and alfalfa hay were chiefly used. Some dairymen used no concentrates and others who did were inclined to eliminate their use when the pastures were good or the cows not up to full production. A little barley hay, oat hay, and Sudan grass hay was fed. Sorghum was grown to some extent for pasture and for silage. Concentrates, when fed, were made up of barley, coconut meal, beet pulp, middlings, molasses, cottonseed meal, molasses screenings, alfalfa-molasses meal, alfalfa meal, corn meal, corn, and bran. Of the 17 dairies, three fed concentrates consistently throughout the year and six for various periods ranging from 3 to 9 months. Eleven used pasture the year round, one for 2 months, four for 8 to 10 months, leaving but a single dairyman who possessed no pasture. Five dairymen made use of silage, and two of green sorghum. The pastures were generally of two kinds, salt grass and Bermuda grass being utilized to some extent for dry stock, while irrigated fields were maintained for the milking cows. These irri- gated pastures were mostly alfalfa, although within a few years after planting, foxtail and wild oats creep in, both furnishing good pasture while tender and green. The total number of cows in the 17 herds averaged 767 for the year, ranging from two herds of 16 cows each to a herd of 103. The average was' 45, with two herds of 23 and 29, five of from 31 to 36, three of 41 to 47, two of 62 and 66, and one each of 71 and 84. The total number of bulls averaged 20. With the exception of two dairies the Holstein was the only breed reported. One of the two exceptions reported Holsteins and some Jerseys, the other consisted of Shorthorns. Three dairies were made up entirely of purebred Holsteins, one herd of the three being entirely registered. In addition to these three, ten additional herds were headed by registered bulls, nine of them Holsteins, the tenth failing to report the breed. Three of the 17 dairies possessed registered Hoi- st mi eows. This gave the dairies covered by the study a total of 16 registered bulls, 62 registered cows, and 16 purebred cows not regis- tered. Hence 80 per cent of the total number of bulls were registered and 10 per cent of the total number of cows either registered or purebred. Cows were bred to calf at any time throughout the year, feed and Labor conditions making the maintaining of a full milking string both feasible and desirable. BULLETIN 372] COST OF PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 75 Milking was commonly clone at 12-hour intervals, usually at 3, 4, or 5 in the morning and again at the corresponding hour in the after- noon. One dairyman milked at 1 :30; another at 2 :30; while one man had his milking done at 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Eight dairymen used milk- ing machines and nine practiced hand milking. Four nationalities were represented in this group of dairymen, there being twelve Americans, two Danish, a Swiss- American, a Swiss, and a Hollander. Nationalities of milkers employed on these dairies included Americans, Portuguese, Danish, Hollanders, Swiss, and Italians. Sales of both whole milk and butterfat in cream were reported. During the year these 17 dairies made sales to the Riverdale Cooper- ative Creamery; Jersey Farm Dairy Company, Fresno; Portuguese Dairymen's Association at Hub; Hall's Dairy and Swift's Creamery at Hanford ; Danish Creamery, Fresno ; Central California Cream- eries Company; Kings County Creamers; Lucerne Creamery, Han- ford; and the Los Angeles Creamery Company. By-products, when available, were utilized in the feeding of calves and hogs, nine of these dairies reporting such use of their skimmilk. Sixteen of the 17 men included in this study owned the land they were operating, the other was a tenant farmer. Summary of Costs The summarized cost of producing whole milk and butterfat on the 17 dairies studied in Fresno County is set forth, with considerable detail in table 13, which follows. 76 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 13 Cost of Milk Production Summary — Fresno County Number of dairies 17 Number of cows 767 Number of bulls 20 Costs Operating Labor Man— manual, 97,030 hours $29,977.20 Man — management 7,995.02 Horse, 11,922 hours 1,170.53 Insurance 33.75 Gross labor cost $39,176.50 Credits 1.65 Net labor cost $39,174.85 Feed Pasture $5,680.95 Hay, 2,988.3 tons 39,849.50 Concentrates, 267.5 tons 8,924.51 Silage, 573 tons 3,842.50 Green sorghum, 442 tons 1,428.00 Insurance 256.80 Total feed costs 59,982.26 Hauling milk and cream 5,327.81 Supplies, cow testing, etc 2,612.98 Interest on operating capital, $3,569 @ 6% 214.14 Herd charge Interest on average investment in cattle, $108,068.82 @ 6% $6,484.13 Depreciation 379.96 Mortality: 37 cows, $4,110; 1 bull, $1,800 5,910.00 Taxes 901.22 Gross herd charge $13,675.31 Credits 300.00 Net herd charge 13,375.31 Buildings charge Interest on average investment of $30,790.75 @ 6% $1,847.44 Depreciation 1,783.00 Upkeep 536.70 Taxes 212.45 Insurance 121.37 Total buildings charge 4,500.96 Corral charge Use of land, including taxes $324.50 Interest on investment in improvements, $6,563.12 @6% 393.78 Depreciation of improvements 312.25 Upkeep ' 155.00 Total corral charge 1,185.53 BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 77 Equipment charge Interest on average investment of $8,680.67 @ 6% $520.84 Depreciation :... 2,722.85 Upkeep 590.70 Taxes 33.36 Total equipment charge 3,867.75 Total gross cost 130,241.59 Credits Calves, 618 $5,713.00 Manure 2,683.00 Total credits $8,396.00 Net cost of whole milk $121,845.59 Total production of whole milk 5,209,994 pounds Cost per hundredweight of whole milk $2.34 Total production of butterf at 182,543.92 pounds Cost per pound of butterfat in whole milk 66.7 cents Total cost of butterfat in cream Cost of whole milk $121,845.59 Credit for skimmilk, 47,408.31 hundredweight @ 25 cents per 100 pounds 11,852.08 Cost of butterfat in cream $109,993.51 Cost per pound of butterfat in cream 60.2 cents . . , ,. / 6793 pounds of whole milk Average annual prodnetion per eow j fflM pounds of butterfat Comments on Cost Findings The herds included in this study were assessed for $22,950. Dairy buildings were assessed as a part of the total building equipment, so that an estimate had to be made of the portion chargeable against the dairy. This proportion amounted on an average to approximately 50 per cent, ranging from 20 to 70 per cent for the individual dairies and amounting to an assessment of $5525. Dairy fixtures were assessed for a total of $880. The tax rate per $100 of assessed value .ranged from $3.04 to $5.41, depending upon the location of the dairy. All but three of the dairymen reported the payment of premiums for buildings insurance, one carried employer's liability insurance, and seven insured feed. Totals were $121.37 for building insurance, $33.75 for workmen's compensation, and $256.80 for feed. The average cost of man labor spent in producing the dairy output on these 17 farms amounted to 30.9 cents an hour. All dairymen placed a value upon the amount of time spent in management, the total amounting to $7995.02, or over 26 per cent of the sum spent for manual labor. Horse labor used in connection with the dairy varied in cost from 5.2 to 46.0 cents per hour, or an average of 9.8 cents. All dairymen reported the use of horses in carrying on the work of their dairies. Neither automobiles nor trucks were used by these dairymen in handling their output. During the year the average costs for feeds amounted to: Pasture $4.63 an acre or $8.03 per cow per year for those who pastured, hay $13.33 a ton, concen- trates $34.11, silage $6.71, green sorghum $3..23. 78 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION A number of dairymen and one cooperative creamery held that no hauling charge was paid, but it certainly costs money to move milk and cream from the farm to the point of acceptance by a buyer. Either the dairyman pays this charge directly in cash, or else he pays it indirectly by a reduction made in quoting him prices and in making returns to him for his product. Using all available data, therefore, a figure was determined that apparently fairly represents this charge, and this figure was used whenever hauling details were lacking. This serves to place the findings of this district on a footing with the results for other sections, thus making the deductions comparable. The figure finally determined amounted to a hauling charge of 18 cents per hundredweight of whole milk or 1 cent per pound of butterfat sold as cream. This same charge was also added in getting at average prices paid, so that a proper balance has been maintained. In the event that the dairyman did his own hauling, no additional charge was made, since the cost was then covered under the totals shown for man and horse labor. As a matter of fact, though, practically no deliveries were made in this way, and the contract hauling charge covered about all the total production. Miscellaneous expenses for supplies, fuel, cow testing, and other items ranged from $11.75 to $372.00, with an average of $154 per dairy. The total monthly need for operating capital amounted to $3569 for the 17 dairies. The average value of the milking cows amounted to close to $145, the bulls to about $350. In range, cow values rose from an average of $75 for one herd to an average of $401.25 for the highest valued herd. Seven dairymen valued their herds at $100 per head or less, while three set values of $250, $350, and $401.25 per head respectively. The rest ranged between these two groups, from $120 to $182.50 per head. Bull values per head ranged from $55 to $1800. One dairyman bought a bull for $400 at the beginning of the year and reported a second inventory value of $5000 at the end of the year. If this great appreciation had been included in its entirety, the paper profits on the bull account would have been out of proportion, since much of the value in this bull lies in his future performances. During the year under observation, this bull was responsible for only one-fourth of the number of calves dropped during the twelve months covered by the study. It therefore seems fair to allow one-fourth of the increase in value as applying to the year's business. This method brought the average investment more in line with the actual facts. The investment in cows amounted to a little less than 93 per cent of the total invested in cows and bulls. Ten of the 17 dairymen reported cow appreciation aggregating $5064.50 and two bull appreciation totaling $340 during the year. The remainder reported depreciation to the extent of $3946.46 for cows and $1838 for bulls. For the district, the net herd depreciation amounted to $379.96 or about % of 1 per cent of the investment. Thirty-seven cows died of the 767 average herd number, or nearly 5 per cent. The total value was placed at $4110, or $110.09 per cow. Dying cows were there- fore equal in value to 76 per cent of the general herd average. Only one bull was reported as dying, his value being placed at $1800. Buildings for the milking herd consisted of a milking barn and milkhouse for each dairy, with an extra milking barn on one of the ranches, and seven silos. The investment in dairy buildings varied from $141 to $4000, with an average investment of $1811. Ten dairies possessed less than the average value in build- ings. Building depreciation totaled $1783 or 5.4 per cent of the investment. Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 79 Twelve dairymen spent money for upkeep of dairy buildings, ranging from $3 to $175, totaling $536.70, and averaging $31.57. This was 1.4 per cent of the building investment. Land required for corrals and dairy building sites totaled 48.5 acres, having a rental value of $324.50, or $6.69 per acre. The investment in improvements amounted to $6563.12, or $386.01 average per dairy. Depreciation ran up to $312.25, or about 5 per cent of the average investment. Six dairymen spent money on upkeep of corrals and building sites, ranging from $5 to $80, and totaling $155, or slightly over 2 per cent of the investment. These 17 dairies reported dairying equipment ranging from $21 to $1176 and totaling $8680.67 in value, the average for the 17 dairies being $510.62. The largest single item of equipment was due to investment in milking machines, of which there were eight, amounting to $4735 of the total, according to the average values of the two inventories. Other equipment reported consisted of 19 milk coolers, 16 sterilizers, 13 milk tanks, 17 separators, 8 wheelbarrows, 9 milk carts, 2 sleds, 1 manure carrier, 1 feed cart, 1 milk tester, 2 gasoline engines, 2 electric motors, 1 scales, 1 hay carrier, 2 spray pumps, 3 water heaters, 235 milk cans, 74 milk pails, and a miscellaneous assortment of strainers, hose, brooms, brushes, shovels, forks, lanterns, scrapers, stools, and bull staff. Depreciation of this equipment amounted to $2722. 85, or 41.4 per cent of the average investment. All dairymen found it necessary to expend funds on upkeep of dairy equipment in amounts ranging from $3.50 to $164.85, totaling $590.70, and averaging for these dairies $34.74 for the year. Upkeep amounted to almost 7 per cent of the investment in equipment. Other than the sale of feed sacks to the extent of $83, a $1.65 return for out- side labor, and $300 received for bull service, no miscellaneous returns creditable against the dairies were obtained. The credit for sacks was deducted from the cost of concentrates ; the herd credit shows under ' ' Herd Charge ' ' in the summary table; the small item of labor credit likewise appears under the heading of "Labor" in the summary table. The usual credits to be given the dairies for calves, manure, and skimmilk, included $2683 for manure, the output being claimed of value by all but one dairy- man, although the rate of value varied by wide extremes from a low of 50 cents per ton to a high of $4. Six hundred eighteen calves were deemed to have a value ranging from $2 to $47, and amounting in all to $5713. Fourteen of the 17 dairy- men figured the calves as being worth not to exceed $7 per head for all saved for vealing or weaning. Available skimmilk was variously estimated to be worth from 10 cents to 35 cents per 100 pounds, with a general average of 23 cents. Twelve of the 17 dairymen set the value of their skimmilk at from 20 to 30 cents per 100 pounds. Total available skimmilk from all milk produced amounted to 4,740,831 pounds, which at 25 cents per hundred pounds possessed a value of nearly $12,000. Of the 17 dairies, 5 sold whole milk on a butterfat basis, 8 confined their atten- tion to the sale of butterfat in cream, while the remaining 4 sold on a butterfat price basis both whole milk and butterfat in cream. Of the total sales 45 per cent went as whole milk, and 55 per cent as cream. Of total production, which includes milk used in the home or on the ranch, sales constituted 83.1 per cent. The average records of production made by the 767 cows covered by this study amounted to 6793 pounds of whole milk per cow per year, testing from 3.2 to 3.9 per cent butterfat, and equivalent to 237.8 pounds of butterfat a year. The 80 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 10. — Various types of milking barns. Near Eiverdale in the Fresno County section. (Photographs by L. R. Ward.) Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 81 Fig. 10. — (Continued.) I <° s so •* 00 © CO © • CO ■1 » CO y-< CO 05 r- O* d ** 00* CM* ■* b-' © id rH rH 00 CN id Ol N H 00 N © © 00 z © l>. © CN 63 rH CO CO co CO CN 63 €© 1 63 63 "5 O 00 N M O) CO iO CO CN 1 cN co 8 t-i CM I> t> rH i-h O CN o CN co iO CN CN CN 00 CO t~- CO CO' CD TjJ CN CO CO CO ©' 05 © © © © d ■* id CN 00 h00HO)H CN © © • CO © CN © t^ © 63 rH -H "*l 63 co m 1 Si co 63 CO M OOONO «5H Tt< 00 00 lO CN lO ■* !>• CN iO 1 lO CM co CN © rH © © CO t- © ■* CO 00 © CM CN r-i id © id CN ■>* 1 1 "5 «d © © CN TH O r-l # b- © © CN cc 10 ■* © ^^ m m m Si 63 (N 1 ^lONOHHH T* lO © © © 8 CM •* lO CO CO CO O t>. ID © t- IO CO lO CO ^H Tt* CO lO O 1(5 N ffl H O © © © CN lO o o •«* id © t^ IO O rH rH rH o o © CO ° 00 CO l> 63 ih © IO © © l> O N- T*4 rH lO © CO 05 * 63 m m 63 Si 63 CN CO MN HO OS W 00 co lO 1 "5 IO O © CN r-l GO CO lO 05 © CO r> CO l> © 00 © CN O- TfH CN CD © CO © H CN CO «^ CO eo <* CO CO © l> t~ 00 ^OOrHrHrH i> i^ t^ CN I> lO © 10 63 CM m m Si 63 N OJ N N to lO N 00 CO lO 1 ^ © © O M O H ^ lO lO ^-< © rH CN © © CN 00 CN © CN rH © ■HI rH lO ■*' OS © ■*' CO 00 © ■* CN id CO t^ i^ cc CO CN © 8 00 © © CO © CO 00 63 rH 63 (N 1 63 m 1 Si 6* t- © o © © b- © -^ rH CO 1 M IO 00 lO CN CM CO lO ■** OS © CO co -* © CO IO t^ 00 O 05 !> CO © id id CO CO i ■* CO iH d CO i> © CO -* t^ © s © r*I .a*- © t> © © CO 63 63 CN e© « s? U5N 00O5 tD h lO lO CN co 1 M l^ © N rt H (N CD N M © t^ CO 00 © CO IO t- O © 00 ifl CO CO CD -N Tji l> CN ' CN CO rn' Tt © 00 © "* id 00 © CO lO to CN iO "4 © (N rft CN ■* IO m s Si 63 Si 63 CN 1 © CD © CO CN H CN rH © rH 1 rH § rH iO N 00 U5 lO i< CO CO CN 1-1 t^ CN Tj< t-H 00 b- CO CO CM lO CO CN © 1-i rH >d © CO CN CN © CN m CO CN 3' g i CM co 63 93 Si 63 6© tO N W fl IN N H 00 1> rH I i-< • CO CN 00 ID CN X CN © © © © © <# © CO © CN jj CO H T)J H H 115 CN © CO © a CO a ■*' © © Tj* ^ N N H CO l> IO 00 iO CO © tH m h * CN 63 S3 63 1 Si 63 CN © CD CN CN © lO © ■ © ID Tf< 1 ■* i> I> CO © © ■* © b- rH b- 00 © tH t^ © ■* Tf< 00 co iO CO CO tH b-' © id © CN CN CM © © * s 00 | © © t^ § © CN © © ^ ^ 6© 6% 63 Si 1 Si 63 co t- iO © ■* r- CN © CO CN rH 1 '-< © CN © CO tJH CO lO i-H © CN t^ 10 t> CN 10 © CO © CO CN r-t 1 i-< 00 CO H 00 M H •* ^ 1(5 00 00 © i— I 00 o 00 CO © o rH CO CO 00 lO N O ■* H CO 00 CN © CO © © I> 06 •<* r)< T* rH CN i-l © © I> ex © l> t^ © 63 r-l CN 63 m 63 Si 63 CN -H< © "HH -HH rH C55 CO rH © rH II ^ t^ T« © "rjl © "^ © Tt< rH CO *# © o CN © CN © 00 05 t* CM 00 © CN 00 © CO CO © rn' 00 1 1> oc "* ■*' © CO >C CN CM © c © Tjl 63 63 Si Si 63 63 CM CO rH CN © © 00 rH ■HI © 10 iO 10 © CN © IO rH Tt< CN © ■>*< CN t^ ■<# O Tj< Tjl b- h- CM Tj* ■*' 05 CN CN 00 r-i CD CN CN © IO CN CM 3 T(H © © © (D lO H * . US TH © CN ^-1 CN O © 63 m CN 6© m s> 6© a CO rH lO Tf iO ^ b- ,-^ © i © CO CO CO CM cn co 9.5 0.2 2.1 6.0 5.1 1.1 5.3 © © © CO s »> n CO lO 00 CO rH rH ^ 00 oc iO co 0C ^ t^ © SO r-i 63 m m 6© 6© ■M ■hi iO CO CO © iO T* © TH CC I CC T« CN O O H to hi OO «5 O b- © t> co ■* 1> T}l CO 00 CN • ■+£ b» © CO l-i «l <£ rH 00 © t>^ lO rH ID © © oc l> oc ifl co N- d £Q^ iONhh © IO © CN 10 •Hi. co © vt / (N <>1 m S3 1 63 63 : 0) "o i -0 t 4 o c ■r> t charge . arge rit charg 8 o o r«H *o CO > rQ 42 1! c '5 * . 'c c he I* 2 Minor ite Herd cha Buildings Corral ch Equipmei CO s Ih M "o 1 *> Is "o to O J* -r 5 E fl r-f il a c 1^ IS £ 03 r« ■al 1^ -2 8 18 (H O '■+3 +j 2 -r> +r a g. IN IO CO t-i CO M iO © b-' T»J d cd o 1 n 1! CO CN rH CO I*- 00 CO ■* O CO b- tH O N N CO I> OJIN N CN CO CN CN 00 ^ ' -tf i-H i-H 00 ■ 00 CO CO O • co d © IO © co io O i-H 00 CD tH 00 i-l © CN CN c© e© e© m \\ 6© C© CN 00 i— i CD CO i-h iO CO t* co 00 II 00 © IN 00 CD l> CO 00 00 00 t> iO I-H l> O ■ © © •* CN ■ T-I CO ONN r^ a CO <# O OS CO tJ< CO i-l id t-1 ^ OS Tji d © m O <-• CD CN TjH b- CN T« i-H CN CD HH «© * -H S© h CN «© «© 1! 6© e© iO O l> t^ iO t^ i> © 00 o CD CD 01 CO OS CO ^ 00 CO CN cn d • iO CN IO CN • id i-h CO tJH 00* CN iO o OS -^ CN os T~< 00 TjH IO €© 6© e© «© ¥=> €© tH O r«. © © 00 OS 00 iO iO © II © t^ co t« © t* CN O CN O as co CO 00 OS co io t» GO © iO CD co id CN CN ■* © -th © CN CN i-H tJH 1< CO (N ^ rt co io 00 CD CN 00 tH O iO CD C© tH * IN rH & w i-l CN «© «© II e© «© l> CO — 1 CD CO CM Tfi CO -H iO || O CD © CD iO CO O "<* Tt* CO t> CD i-H 00 CN i-l 00 IN © iO CO CO »> ■* ^' CO O -# ■*' CN CO CN t> • 00 CD IO N • id CN CN IO HH tHH IO rH r-l co N if N CN i-h i-h O IO 6© H «© rH CN e© e© II «© s© CO 00 CO OS OS i— 1 OS iO ^ r-< CN © t-h io os o os ao co os oo H COM i-H T« CO CO N CN CO eq -* »! t>.' 00 i-h CO IN id id • iO CO O OS ■ © co © 00 00 CN CD CN CO CO Tf< CN co i-t th OS iO e© - 1 «# €© e© II "«© «© CO O OS CO i-H 00 IO CN O CN 1 CN CO OS O 00 ION H H H O CO N H IO . t> TJH CN t> IN CO c t-I CN CN © i-H CO id t^' CN • h* eo ^ OS • ■* CO HNS CN r-i H T}< *& l © 00 © CN (N C© CN CN TH rH e© S© €© 1 «© C© © CN CO © -h O 00 O iO iO | iO CN CO IO .-H O •* IN IN i-h t^ t^ OS CO . tH o (N N • IN 00 i* 00 TjH -# TJH rH O CD CO O I-H 00 TH t> «© i-h CN cn e© CN ^1 CN «© «© e© «© O i* IO N a iO N 00 o 00 | 00 iO co IN IO * CO D iO H IN CD co co co CO tH ID 00 00 OS IO © I-H T-H GO ' H N CN 'HH • "O tH I> iO CN th d CO CO i-h CN tH iO CN © O iO «© ■-H «© rH CN C© «© 1 c© s© t-H i-H 1^ O O 00 OS co oo 00 | 00 iO co CO 00 M M OS N N t^ iO H S C» O © IO 00 IO QC CD O 00 OS th io i-h CO •* • os co os co © o © id © o OS J> CN © CN i> © © «© T-I CN i-l c© i-h CN ^ €© 1 6© «© CN CO O OS CO l> CO O OS -H IO © OS i-H t-I CO OS IO CN CO IO i> os co l> t~ © © © I> «3 N t^ os d h co d i-I in id t> • O tH l> OS • t> IO th iO CN COCDTH rH CO CN iO CN CN T-I H OHJ rH 6© rH CN «© «© 6© m i-h O CO 00 CD co >o 00 •<* th 1 TJH CO r-| CN IN O tH 00 00 CO ■* CN N H if) CN 1> IO 00 l> CD iO 0) to d co t-I d ' cn 00 CO • © 00 if) CO • id CN CO CN IN CO i-h t> t^ © 1 © X CN N 00 00 O * O ■* CN iC N CO CO I> CN THH Tj< tH ~ ■ © •*'© «c HI N H * ■* CO iO CN CO I-H i-H CO IO 6© —I m i-h CN C© \ e© C© «© — i c^ 1 jl S O o -§ a h3 ■~ -0 H a J* o l O -»J> P cc a * -g "o 5 5 M E — cd "5 £ a b 1 a. 8 ec T? i -i- E CE e T-H « M | 3' £ CP — or l t2 "o — H^ "V. "S 03 ^ _o 03 0) c3 M i a m -c <- +- « T-. o 3 c ° 1 J3 ^ c J c 2 s is „j: n • - -g * S 1 s O §t3 *o k St "s § a > '5 ' &J I'H §11 y o a "3 x ^» ^ HJ "S 2 8 o 2 § P 12 o E- C |z Ph O 1 ^ C 52 f O 94 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 8. LOS ANGELES-ORANGE DISTRICT Brief Description of Area The year of study in the Los Angeles-Orange section rounded out with complete and satisfactory data from 40 dairies. The various dairies were selected from a rather wide extent of country, 21 being located in Los Angeles County, 14 in Orange County, and 5 in San Bernardino County. The 5 in San Bernardino County are similar in conditions to the dairies studied in Los Angeles County so these 5 are run in with the latter district and classified as Los Angeles records : Being situated 3 at Ontario and 2 at Chino, they were just over the county line. The Los Angeles dairies selected for study were situated 5 at Artesia, 4 each at Burbank and Van Nuys, 1 each at Norwalk, Whittier, and Lankershim, 1 in the city of Pasadena, and 4 in the city of Pomona. The Orange County dairies comprised 9 in the vicinity of Santa Ana, 2 at Buena Park, and 1 each at Anaheim, Garden Grove, and North Batavia. The yearly records covered mostly from January, 1922, to Janu- ary, 1923, these dates holding for all the Orange County records and for 14 from Los Angeles County. Seven of the remaining records dated from March 1, 1922, to March 1, 1923, and 5 from April 1, 1922, to April 1, 1923. Dairying is followed often in conjunction with other farm enter- prises. There is no specialized dairying section, dairies being scat- tered here and there throughout the farming belts, although usually on the lands better suited to field crop production, dairying gives way to fruit, truck, or similar intensive types of farming wherever conditions favor such practice. These 40 dairies utilized 2160 acres of land. Seven of the dairies possessed corral and dairy buildings space only, so far as their dairies were concerned, these ranging from 1 to 5 acres per dairy and totaling 19 acres. Of the remaining 2141 acres, approximately 1000 acres was utilized by a single dairy, the survey including one large herd. This leaves 32 dairies with total area of 1141 acres, or an average of less than 40 acres each. These 32 by groups possessed acreages as follows: G of 10 acres or less, 3 of from 11 to 20 acres, 15 of from 20 to 40 acres, and 8 of from 40 to 102 acres. Three of the 5 dairies located within the city limits of Pomona and Pasadena had acreages of 10 acres each, 1 possessed 35 acres, while the fifth utilized corral space only. Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 95 Considerable of the total acreage was utilized by corrals. The remainder was used for alfalfa, corn, grain, and similar feeds, with some pasture on alkali, rolling, and swamp land and on alfalfa land between cuttings. The lands are far short of producing all the feeds needed by the dairies, and of necessity recourse is had to the purchase of additional feeds in large quantities. The cropped land is mostly level, under irrigation, and farmed to produce as much feed as pos- sible. Pasturing of cattle is the exception rather than the rule. Only 9 dairymen reported pasture. Of the nine only 2 obtained year-round pasture; with the others pasturing was irregular and limited in Fig. 13. — Typical dairy herd of the Los Angeles-Orange district. amount. Heavy feeding under corral conditions is the general prac- tice and cows are forced to maximum production, otherwise dairying is not profitable enough to justify its continuance. Heavy feeding is the rule. For roughage alfalfa hay is the out- standing feed with a little additional use of oat and barley hays. Hay is fed the year round, supplemented with regular and constant use of concentrates. Considerable silage is utilized, and miscellaneous feeds such as crops cut green, bean straw, beets, and pumpkins. Of the total herd numbers, 2242 cows and 64 bulls, 393 cows and 18 bulls were in the records for Orange County, and the remainder, 1849 cows and 46 bulls, in Los Angeles County and the contiguous section of San Bernardino County which was studied as a part of the Los Angeles dairying section. The average size of herd for the dis- 96 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION trict was 56, but of the 40 herds, 22 averaged less than 40 head, and of these, 16 had less than 30 head. Only 2 herds were over 100 head in size, these containing respectively 131 and 555 head. Four herds contained 40 to 50, four 50 to 60, four 60 to 70, two 70 to 80, and two 80 to 90 head each. Of the total number of herds, 14 were in Orange County and 26 in Los Angeles County (including the neighboring strip of San Bernardino County). The herds selected for study in Orange County ran from 11 to 57 in size, and totaled 392 cows and 18 bulls. Of the 40 herds covered by the investigations in this part of the State, 1 was of registered Holsteins, 20 of Holsteins, 3 of mostly Hol- steins; 3 of Jerseys; 7 of Holstein and Jersey; 1 of Holstein and Shorthorn; 1 of Jersey, Holstein and Shorthorn; 3 "mixed"; and 1 of Guernseys and Holsteins, Twenty-six of the 40 herds reported registered bulls, 42 in num- ber, and made up 33 Holsteins, 5 Jerseys, and 4 breed not given. This is 65.5 per cent of the total bulls reported for the district. Eighteen dairies reported registered cows to the extent of 128, con- sisting of 116 Holsteins, 3 Jerseys, and 9 breed not stated. This amounts to 5.4 per cent of the total average number of cows carried by the dairies during the year. Purebred stock, not registered, was not specially listed, but would add to the numbers given here. Cows are bred to freshen at all times of the year in order to keep up a regular production 'month by month. Only six dairymen reported that they attempted to have most of their cows freshen in the fall. When dairying labor is hired, such employing comes in compe- tition with the demands of other industries. Working hours, length of work day, and wages are therefore regulated somewhat in accord with those prevailing throughout the section in general. One dairy- man milks at midnight and at 2 p.m. ; 7 at 2 or 2 :30 ; 12 at 3 or 3 :30 ; 15 at 4 or 4:30; 3 at 5; and 1 at 6. On one dairy all the cows are milked three times a day, at 2 :30 and 10 a.m., and 6 p.m. On a second dairy a part of the cows are milked three times daily, at 2 and 10 a.m. and at 6 p.m. For dairy help recourse is had to various nationalities, the list for 1922 including mostly Americans but also Portuguese, French, Hollanders, Canadians, English, German, Swiss, Italians and Irish. Among the operators themselves, farm-owning American predomin- ated, 36 of the 40 operators reporting as Americans; the other 4 claim- ing Canada, Holland, or Italy as their home countries. BULLETIN 372] C 0ST OF PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 97 Whole milk is the objective of these dairymen, the price received being determined by the butterfat content. Sales are considered in terms of hundredweight, with the price paid quoted as so much per pound of butterfat content of the milk. Thus if the price is 90 cents or $1.00 it means that these amounts are being paid for each pound of butterfat in milk of standard grade. If the price, then, is $1.00 per pound butterfat, a dairyman shipping milk testing 3.7 per cent butterfat would receive $3.70 per hundredweight. In this section of the state dairymen think in terms of butterfat, though selling whole milk, and in discussing prices it is the common practice to state returns as "so much per pound butterfat" instead of per gallon or per hun- dredweight. Milk failing to qualify under a stated grade is paid for only at the prevailing butterfat price in cream. This averages less than the price paid for whole milk, and milk so sold brings in no more than the value of the actual butterfat it contains. During the year sales were reported as being made to the Los Angeles Creamery; the California Milk Producers' Association; Burr Creamery Company, Los Angeles ; Excelsior Dairy, Santa Ana ; Sani- tary Dairy, Santa Ana ; Crescent Creamery, Los Angeles ; City Dairy, Pomona; Mutual Dairy Association; Little Rock Dairy, Los Angeles'; Hansen Dairy, Los Angeles ; Glendale Creamery Company ; Sanitary Gold Seal Dairy, Los Angeles; Santa Monica Dairy Company; Ontario and Upland Creamery; Pomona Valley Creamery; and the Whittier Sanitary Dairy. Three of the 40 dairymen retailed their output, and 1 practiced a combination of retailing and wholesaling. Of the 40 operators only 2 were tenant farmers, 1 was both owner and tenant, while the remainder were owners. Summary of Costs Table 17 sets forth the findings resulting from the assembling of the various cost items involved in the production of milk on the 40 dairies studied in Los Angeles and Orange counties. 98 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 17 Cost of Milk Production Summary — Los Angeles and Orange Counties Number of dairies 40 Number of cows 2242 Number of bulls 64 Costs Operating Labor Man— manual, 336,864 hours $122,450. 13 Man — management 18,394.34 Horse, 53,641 hours 5,782.40 Truck and automobile, 18,732 miles 915.47 Insurance 1,175.00 Total labor cost , " $148,717.34 Feed Pasture $5,999.00 Hay, 8,592.1 tons 188,785.20 Concentrates, 2,833.18 tons 102,444.15 Green feed, 6,109.75 tons 39,020.00 Silage, 6,249.98 tons 47,188.40 Pumpkins and squash, 2.427 tons 13,322.30 Bean straw, 278.5 tons 3,629.00 Insurance 687.49 Total feed costs ' $401,075.54 Hauling milk 30,306.13 Supplies, cow testing, etc 16,604.46 Interest on operating capital $51,310 @ 6% 3,078.60 Herd charge Interest on average investment in cattle, $390,432.31 @ 6% $23,425.94 Depreciation 40,496.36 Mortality: 75 cows, $11,384; 2 bulls, $165 11,549.00 Taxes 4,085.93 Insurance 563.76 Gross herd charge 80,120.99 Credits 166.00 Net herd charge 79,954.99 Buildings charge Interest on average investment of $108,455.25 ©6% 6,507.32 Depreciation 6,122.41 Upkeep 1,653.88 Taxes ■ 1,161.31 Insurance 737.22 Total buildings charge 16,182.14 BULLETIN 372] C0ST F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 99 Corral charge Use of land, including taxes, 11734 acres $3,985.00 Interest on investment in improvements, $18,687.94 @6% 1,121.27 Depreciation of improvements 2, 135.76 Upkeep 609.55 Total corral charge 7,851.58 Equipment charge Interest on average investment of $12,666.93 @ 6% 760.01 Depreciation 2,688.94 Upkeep 1,906.09 Taxes 69.37 Total equipment charge 5,424.41 Total gross cost $709,195.19 Credits Calves, 1527 $8,368.62 Manure 28,928.88 Total credits $37,297.50 Net cost of whole milk $671,897.69 Total production of whole milk 18,019,576 pounds Cost per hundredweight of whole milk $3.73 Total production of butterfat in whole milk 692,993.1 pounds Cost per pound of butterfat in whole milk 97 cents . . , ,. / 8041 pounds of whole milk Average annual production per cow < nn „ ^ , ,, n - , [ 309.2 pounds of butterfat Comments on Cost Findings In commenting upon the findings in Los Angeles and Orange counties subtotals of some of the items for each of the two counties have been inserted in the follow- ing paragraphs because of local interest in the figures for the individual counties. Orange County, herds covered by this study were assessed at $14,955 and Los Angeles County herds at $85,815. Buildings belonging to the dairies were assessed at $4033 in Orange, and $24,950 in Los Angeles counties. Dairy equipment assessments amounted to $1772 in Los Angeles County, with no assessments in Orange County. The tax rate per $100 of assessed value ranged from $3.15 to $6.45 in Orange County and from $2.88 to $5.08 in Los Angeles County. Thirty-two dairymen carried building insurance amounting to $85.73 worth of premiums in Orange County and $651.49 in Los Angeles County. Insurance of livestock was carried by but one dairy — in Los Angeles County, employers' liability insurance by 13 dairymen, and feed insurance by 15. Orange County liability insurance amounted to $173.08 and feed to $12. Los Angeles County totals amounted to $1001.92 for employers' liability and $675.49 on feed. The cost of manual labor utilized in producing the output of these dairies averaged 36.4 cents per hour in this district. Of the total hours and money spent for manual work, 72,864 hours and $25,095.90 are chargeable against Orange County dairies and the balance against those of Los Angeles County. Of the total management charge, $2916.35 was reported from Orange County. Twenty-nine 100 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION dairymen of the district placed a figure upon the time spent by them in purely management work, the total amounting to 15 per cent of the manual labor charge. Use of horses entered into the costs on 28 of the 40 dairies and were utilized to the extent of 12,750 hours in Orange and 40,891 hours in Los Angeles County. Costs amounted to $1673.42 in Orange and $4108.98 in Los Angeles County. The rate per hour throughout the district varied from 3.5 to 49.3 cents per hour for all work done by work horses. One saddle horse, kept solely for the dairy and used but a few minutes per day, cost the keeper $120 a year, or at the rate of $1.34 per hour, obviously an uneconomical proposition. The average eost per hour for all horse labor amounted to 10 cents. Nine dairymen utilized trucks or automobiles in carrying on the work of the dairies. Of the 18,732 miles traveled in such work 1947 were by Orange County dairies at a cost of $222.46. The average cost per mile for the use of this equip- ment was 4.8 cents per mile. The range in costs varied from 3.6 to 13.9 cents a mile. The low average cost for the district is traceable to the fact that 87 per cent of the total hauling was done by a single dairy, with a second-hand truck operated at a mileage cost of but 3.6 cents. Of the remaining eight dairies the cost was respectively 6, 8, 10, 10, 10, 12.3, 13.9, and 11.9 cents per mile. Of the 40 dairymen reported in this study, only 14 reported pasture and this of small value, all fed hay and concentrates, 27 fed silage, 6 fed pumpkins, squash, beets, wet beet pulp, and orange pulp, and 6 fed bean straw. All but 2 of the dairymen fed hay continuously throughout the year, alfalfa predominating with some use of barley and oat hay. Those not so feeding skipped only a month or two, and then commonly substituted green alfalfa. Feeding of concentrates was consistently practiced on all dairies throughout the year. A variety of con- centrates was used. For instance, of 32 dairies where the feed was reported in detail, the numbers of kinds of concentrates fed ranged from 3 to 8, or an average of 5. The choice of dairymen in kinds of concentrates can be gathered from the analysis of the feeds used by 32 of these 40 dairymen. Twenty-eight fed barley, 26 sugar beet pulp, 22 bran, 20 coconut meal, 17 mill feeds of various kinds, 12 cottonseed meal, 11 corn, or corn meal, 5. oats, 2 alfalfa meal, 2 "blow- overs, " and 1 each wheat, linseed oil meal, grape stems, middlings, and molasses. Silage was mostly fed during the months of October to March inclusive, with the bulk of the feeding taking place during November, December, January and February. Six dairymen fed silage all year, two for 10 months, and one for 11 months. Various use was made of green feeds from growing barley, corn, oats, and alfalfa, cauliflower leaves, pumpkins, squash, beets, beet tops, oat and bean straws, and of green beet pulp. Costs of feeds per ton during the year covered by this study averaged: Hay $21.97, concentrates $36.48, green feed $6.39, silage $7.55, pumpkins and squash $5.49, bean straw $13.03. Pasture per cow per year amounted to $2.68. The cost of hauling milk was made up of $7952.03 from Orange County and $22,354.10 from Los Angeles County. Expenditures for sup- plies, cow testing, and similar miscellaneous items amounted to $3557.92 on the Orange County dairies and $12,936.54 on those of Los Angeles County. Orange County dairymen reporting for this study gave a total operating capital of $5835, while those of Los Angeles County reported a total of $45,475. Interest at 6 per cent thus amounted to $350.10 for Orange and $2728.50 for Los Angeles counties. Dairy cattle values ranged about the same in all parts of the district, cows averaging $166.24, but ranging from $100 to $400 for herd averages. Seven dairy- Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 101 men figured their average cow values at $200 or more a head. Bull values per head covered a wide range, from $30 to $1000, but averaged $275. The total investment in herds amounted to $390,432.31, of which cow values contributed slightly over 95 per cent. Orange County herd investments made up $81,951.53 of this. Of the 40 herds reporting data for this study depreciation of cows occurred with all but 9, these 9 showing an actual appreciation. Net depreciation of cows for the district amounted to $36,633.56. Of this $11,747.50 came from the Orange County dairies. Four dairies reported bull appreciation, 15 reported no change, while the remainder showed depreciation. The total net depreciation of bulls in the district amounted to $3,862.80, to which Orange County contributed $820/00. During the year under observation 75 cows died, this number amounting to close to 3 per cent of the average number maintained in the herds. The value of those dying amounted to $11,384. Two bulls were reported as dying, these having a value of $165 each. Of the total, Orange County dairies suffered the loss of 16 cows valued at $2840 and 1 bull valued at $100. The dairy buildings consisted of 40 milking barns, 32 separate milk houses, 32 feed, hay or shelter barns, 47 silos, 4 cow sheds, and 1 engine house maintained solely for the dairy on the ranch where it was found. The investment in dairy buildings ranged from $92.50 to $23,020. Fifteen dairies had a building invest- ment of $1000 or less, 9 of from $1000 to $2000, 11 between $2000 and $5000, and 5 in excess of $5000. Of the total, Orange County dairy buildings made up $23,499.17. Thirty dairymen spent mon?y for building upkeep, ranging from $3 to $587.50 during the year, totaling $1653.88, of which $200 was incurred for Orange County dairies. For the district, building upkeep amounted to 1.5 per cent of the building investment. Depreciation of these dairy buildings amounted to $6122.41, or 5.6 per cent of the average yearly investment of $108,455.25. Invest- ment in Orange County buildings amounted to $23,499.17, with a depreciation figure of $1216.46. These 40 dairies utilized 117 1 / 4 acres of land in dairy building sites and corrals, which at going rental rates possessed an annual value of $3985, or close to $34 per acre. Investment in improvements ranged from $38.50 to $2316.32 for the individual dairies. Four dairies had invested less than $100, 23 from $100 to $500, 10 from $500 to $1000, and 3 over $1000. Depreciation of these improve- ments amounted to $2135.76 during the year, or 11.4 per cent of an investment amounting to $18,687.94. Eighteen dairies spent a total of $609.55 on upkeep, this being 3.2 per cent of the investment. Of the totals, Orange County con- tributed 33 1 /! acres of land valued at $1092.50, an investment of $6909.87, and depreciation of $904.45. The 40 dairies covered by the study included a variety of dairy equipment, of which the more important consisted of 9 milking machines, 39 wheelbarrows, 104 forks, 71 shovels, 32 feed carts, 143 milk pails, 26 milk tanks, 41 milk coolers, 7 boilers, 33 lanterns, 3 feed trucks, 6 scrapers, 12 scales, 19 tubs, 37 sterilizers, 3 refrigerating systems, 4 feed boxes, and additional, though minor equipment in the way of milk cans, testing outfit, veterinary outfits, milking stools, bull staffs, chains, ropes, and similar items. The total investment in dairying equip- ment amounted to $12,666.93, of which $1865.19 was invested on Orange County dairies. The investments ranged from $19.03 to $2900. Twelve of the dairies in the district had less than $50 apiece invested, 8 had from $50 to $100, 13 102 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 14. — Kepresentative dairy structures of the Los Angeles-Orange area. Bulletin 372] CO st of producing market milk and butterfat 103 Tig. 14. — (Continued) 104 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION between $100 and $500, five from $500 to $1000, and two in excess of $1000. Depreciation amounted to a total of $2688.94, to which Orange County dairies contributed $294.64. Based on the total investment in the district, $12,666.93, depreciation amounted to 21.2 per cent for the year. Every dairyman spent some- thing on upkeep of his dairy equipment, ranging from 42 cents to $341.25, and totaling $1906.09, or 15 per cent of the investment in equipment. No miscellaneous receipts were noted except from sales of feed sacks and $166 for bull service and boarding cows. The credit for sack receipts has been deducted from the cost of concentrates, and the herd credit shows in that por- tion of the summary table dealing with herd charges. From an average of 2242 cows carried in these herds during the year, 1527 calves were either sold for veal or retained for rearing. The common practice is to sell veal calves when but four or five days old, or by the time that the mother 's milk is fit for human consumption. Should a calf be saved for raising, the general practice is to feed 1% gallons of whole milk until the calf is three months old. Occasionally less feeding is done, as one gallon of milk daily, or else whole milk is replaced with skimmilk fortified with some form of calf meal, this feed being continued until the calf is four or five months old. A "very few calves were reported as receiving in excess of 1% gallons, rates of 2 and 2^ gallons of whole milk being recorded. Lack of skimmilk and value of whole milk tends to close culling and early sales. Most dairymen valued these calves by the time that the cows' milk could be sold at $3 or $4 per head for all either saved or vealed. The lowest, figure reported was $1.50, the highest figure $100, this latter value being for calves from purebred, registered stock. The total values for the 1527 calves saved amounted to $8368.62, or $5.48 per head. Orange County dairies saved 213 calves valued at $1071. Manure is a substantial credit. Without a single exception every dairy deemed the manure of value either for the returns secured if sales were made or for the benefits derived from its use upon the operator's land. Twenty-seven dairymen reported sales in varying amounts. In all, the value of the manure produced, whether sold or used on the ranch where it was produced, amounted to $28,928.88. This is equivalent to $12.90 per cow per year. Sales were reported at various figures, although prices of 3, 4, 5, and 6 cents per cubic foot were most frequently encountered. Manure from Orange County dairies amounted to $6128.50. The great bulk of the milk produced by these dairies was sold as whole milk but paid for in accordance with its butterfat content. Occasionally, in times of a surplus or with milk not up to standard, a little milk was skimmed and the butterfat sold. Out of a total production of 18,019,576 pounds of whole milk produced, fully 97 per cent was sold, with but 3 per cent retained on the ranch for home use or for feeding calves. This milk contained a total of 692,993.1 pounds of butterfat, the milk thus testing on an average 3.84 per cent butterfat, but ranging from 3.3 to 4.4 per cent. Of the total, Orange County contributed 3,133,060 pounds containing 132,672.3 pounds of butterfat. In the entire district the only swimmilk reported consisted of 1664 pounds valued ut but $4.16, so for all practical purposes skimmilk is not to be considered a factor in He milk production of this district. The average recoids made by the 2242 cows in this district amounted to an annual production of 8041 pounds of whole milk, containing on an average 309.2 pounds of butterfat. The lowest record reported for the district was one of 4389 poumls of whole milk containing 169.9 pounds of butterfat. This was for a herd of 90 cows. Based on the average per cow whole milk production, only two herds BULLETIN 372] COST OF PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 105 averaged less than 6000 pounds per cow, while ten dairies were above 9000 pounds and three herds above 10,000 pounds per cow. Measured on butterfat output only, four dairies fell below an average herd average of 250 pounds, while thirteen were above a 350 pound average, and two made over 400 pounds per cow. These last two contributed 42 and 75 cows respectively. The best herd average ran 10,205 pounds of whole milk per cow, on the 42-cow dairy, while the best butterfat yield averaged 421.1 pounds per cow per year, on the 75-cow dairy. The average pro- duction for the Orange County dairies' cows ranged from 6368 to 9557 pounds of whole milk to the cow, or from 245.2 to 388.2 pounds of butterfat a cow a year, with a general average for all herds studied in this county of 7982 pounds of whole milk or 338.0 pounds of butterfat to the cow per year. Based on actual sales of milk at wholesale the average price received from the dairymen whose activities were covered by this study and whose operations per- mitted the drawing of deductions, amounted to $3.50 a hundred pounds of whole milk, or 91.5 cents a pound of butterfat sold in whole milk. Costs of Production by Individual Dairies The individual costs of producing whole milk on each of the 40 dairies studied in the Los Angeles-Orange district together with the amounts of the various items entering into these costs are set forth in table 18. Based on these individual dairies the cost, though aver- aging 97 cents a pound of butterfat, actually varied from as low as 67.5 cents to as high as $1.34 a pound of butterfat produced. Of the 40 dairies the cost ran above $1.00 a pound on 17 dairies. The dairies numbered from 123 to 143 inclusive were in Orange County, those from 82 to 93 inclusive and 352 to 367 inclusive in Los Angeles County, and those from 400 to 404 inclusive in San Bernardino County. 9. SAN DIEGO DISTRICT Brief Description of Area The study in San Diego County was completed with 13 dairies. These were summarized and are here inserted at the request of those in this county who are interested in learning the outcome of the survey in this particular section. Of the 18 dairies listed for record- taking, 5 dropped out, thus leaving 13 only for the final summarizing and analyzing. These 13 dairies were scattered generally over the county in the various valleys where dairying is carried on. There is no single outstanding dairy belt, dairies being located here and there in areas favorably situated for feed production and marketing of product. These dairies are all contributory to San Diego, but are located as follows: 5 near Escondido, 2 near San Diego, and 1 each near Oceanside, Ramona, San Marcos, Barrett, Bonita and El Cajon. CN t> OS C\ -.ft rH OS 00 CO CO rH (O CO 00 N N N co CO CM «# rH CM rH d CM 402.95 9701 $4.15 388.7 CO d o CO rH 00 l> rJ4 rH O rH t> CM rH CC 05 C M U5 O 00 N (O N CO IO t> CO rH 00 rH 00 l> 00 lO (N 00 «© CM CM CO CN 8 1 CO d o t> OS If H H ^ N H (O rH 00 ON t> CO rH »o CD io e© cm »o rJ4 rH OS iO rH CM rH (^ «© CM CO rH CO CM CO CN «© CO OS T}4 H ^ CO CN CN O rH 00 CN O rH CO lO rH lO tJ4 00 h-" i-I ■>#" o ■* eo' > H 00 N H <# <# N N M H H H 9& .-4 rH CM CO m cm CN rH d i> rH © CO io oo d h oo ri n O Ol IM H H «© rH * CO m co rH rH d CM CM CO CO O OS CO CO «© e© co rH rJ4 1> Si * m ^ o io h n o <* 00 03 H to H to N-* CN 1 l> I> 00 m cm l> r* rth CM OS CM 00 o CO CO CD 00 «© CM t> rH co' co «© CO lO d rH « IT oc N tP O MM * rH rH rH O CO OS rH 8 m co O OS 00 CO rH |> «© CO CN CO rH rH CO m CO OS d CO j o> os t> os i> t-i CO CM CM 2- a p - cc CO CO b- CN rH CM CO CO CO >0 lO rH rH OS CO 00 m co OS rH IO rH CD . • t* CM CN t^ OS €© CO CN lO O lO rH rH m co CO o © rH IO rH CO rH CO CO CO rH Tf N ffl «■* O O "3 lO lO CO lO to rH 00 CM i CN OS o CO CO t^ os m co CO CN °. d Z 8 CO OS CO O CO CM CO CN IQ CO CO i-H CM 00 „ CO £ cc ir *** rH CM CO rH O rH rH CO O CO CO rH rH O CM e© co CO os d CM CO IO rH O rH OS OS CO m cm rH co i> «© CO 00 00 CO CO t> TJ4 CO CO CO CM * Ss c c CO rH CO rH O »D o CD »o e© co co rH d rH CD t» IO CD t^ CO CO m co CO CN ■ OS rH O «© CO CO d o 00 rH CO O CO rH N CO CO H §2 rt rt cc CO OS CO CO rH CM CO O rH CO lO rH co os Tt4 CO d CO O CO co rH CO rH CO «© CO O CO rH d co «© CO 00 o 00 00 rH rH CO CM rH CM CO 22 ir CO CO OS t> O CO (N00ONHN 8 rH «© rH CM CM d CO CM rH CM rH OS &> rH CO CN 00 00 r*4 CO m co CO CO CO lO © iO CO CM CO CO CM rH rH CM as t- I> CN h o> rH 00 rH © t> IO CO OS rH M CO N* iO N N lO N >o M lO CO I> CO CO S& CO co CO IO OS rH 00 N CN lO N N CC CO N H «# rH rH CO CO CM «© rH 8 CO CO o r- >o OS iO os os m co t^ CM d rH rH «© CO o d CM g 2 CC c cc *>* CO CM CM OS CO CO CM CM rH CM TJ4 rH CD IO d rH 00 CM* CN t^ CO o r^ io 00 00 m cn 00 CN CO lO co co t& CO d 00 rH rH rH IQ rH CO CO CM 3- O ^ O) CO M "O N O O O b- OS 00 rJ4 ^' CO CO CO fj N H N CO CM H co o d €» CO rH OS CN rH l> co rH 00 O CO S# CO IO OS rH CO rH O «© CO o d OS §£ c « CO rH IO O CM CO IO rH IO rH CO O rH o CM rH CM* o OS CO rH OS iO O CO m co CO CN IO rH rH S© CN CO d CM CO IC CD CO CM rH 1> CM CO CM ^ rH O rH rH O CM IO IO CO CM CM rH d <^ CO CD CD d O 00 O CO m co b- CM rH CO m co d 00 CM rH CO rH ►>. rH O CM CO *3 *J - cc CO cc N H 00 N O N OS CO CO CN »0 rH co rJ4 d e© co rH CO d CN CO —< rH OS O OS CO «© CN CO CM os CO o ¥* CO o OS 00 CM iO t- CO CM t- CM CO C > '5 I c 1 ' c c z i t a. ! 1 «i 1 g, ; : g) : C to co ^ Mj3 a *?-§ a « « S h - rfl ^ .ti rd 2> « a 1 -g 1 S I" "■a co r-i 8 T o £ H O rCt s a 1 a o rfl *o s9 o a '43 cs O r« *o •4-5 ^ II -r» -d : d CQ J2 «*-, -Q «« o —• O 111 rSJ *o rd 2 S c 11 " C> CO b- CO CO l> CO CO »o CO go c*» CO 00 a» o 00 00 CO CO CO CN O t-- CN -I CN O CO* O CO O CN 00 CO CO CO O CN -l H 00 ffl O^ H CO N O lO N M .-I CO CM S ffl N lOO 00 N lO Ol O) N iO m cn iO »o CO >o (O N K5 N lO io co b- t~- a t> 05 lO <-H »H ■># lO CM Tt< 00 lO — i 00 OS O 00 05 CO CN N H 00 O) CO CO "5 H lO lfl CD CO H N CO <* 56.23 183.74 16.05 CO OS CO cn CO CD O 00 Tt< rH lO 8 LO <* t> CN Ss 00 ^ ^ CD h CO lO OS CO CN CO rH t> O o '3 o +3 8 ^ 2 1 a i-a ? 03 s£ u ^ a ^ O +» <*h ago O J 8 • ° Xt •2 A ? * 111.9 •g S«a 108 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Ten of the records were taken for the year beginning March 1, 1922, 2 ran from January 1, 1922, and 1 from April 1, 1922. These 13 dairies utilized 1902 acres of land. The land consisted principally of bottom land used for alfalfa, corn and grain produc- tion, and rolling hills from which a negligible amount of pasture was obtained. Pasturing between cuttings of alfalfa or after crops was sometimes practiced but in general pasturing comprised a secondary and rather unimportant factor in the feeding of the milking herd. Six of the 13 dairymen reported no pasture, and the others in many instances had no definite pasture lands. Pasturage, when available, usually took place between December and June for the hill lands, and between March and October on the swamp lands. The size of the holdings ranged from 25 to 500 acres, there being eight of 100 acres or less in size, while the others consisted respectively of 200, 200, 270, 286, and 500 acres each. Feeds for the milking herd were made up of hay, concentrates, and silage, supplemented with roughage such as green alfalfa, green corn, corn stalks, and some pasture. The feeding program consisted in most instances of year-round feeding of hay, usually alfalfa — although some use was made of barley, oats, and Sudan grass hay, corn silage during some portion of the year but principally in the fall and winter months, and year-round feeding of concentrates. Every one of these 13 dairymen fed concentrates consistently, 12 fed silage, and 12 practiced year round feeding of alfalfa as hay or cut green, sometimes supplemented with green corn. The thirteenth fed oat hay for six months, having available pasturage for the remainder of the year. Considerable choice of concentrates was reported, those in greatest favor being cottonseed meal, barley, beet pulp, bran, mill feeds, with some use of coconut meal, corn meal, rice bran, linseed oil meal, ground oats, and wheat. Six dairymen varied their feeding program to include four concentrates during the year, 2 each fed 5 and 6 kinds, while 1 each fed 2, 3, and 8 kinds respectively. Seven dairymen reported the use of pasture. The total average number of cows maintained throughout the year in these 13 dairies amounted to 583 head. The sizes of herds ran from 20 to 107. There were four herds of from 20 to 27, four of from 34 to 38, three of 40, 43, and 51 respectively, one of 105, and one of 107. The average of all herds amounted to 45. Five breeds were represented. Six herds consisted of Jerseys, while the remaining seven consisted as follows : Jersey and Holstein ; Holstein and Guernsey ; Holstein, Shorthorn, and Jersey ; Holstein, Guernsey, and Jersey; Holstein; Guernsey; Shorthorn and Ayrshire. Bulletin 372] CO st OF PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND butterfat 109 Both registered and purebred bulls and cows were found on most of the dairies but in this section no inventory was taken of the actual number. All but two dairymen practiced year round breeding' to insure a constant supply of milk. The exceptions bred for either August and September or May and June freshening. Milking on 12 of the 13 dairies is done twice a day, on the thir- teenth three times, at 3 p.m., 1 a.m. and 8 a.m. On one of the other 12 a few of the cows are also milked three times daily. Where twice a day milking was practiced, the hours for milking ranged from - : - v - '.,*'*'» 'i : '■ '■ ' *■.'•: ' ' •■ ' ' V ; 1 ■ ■■!■ H MillM "111— 1 ■ i iiiiiF r* , ,.'„ - ■ Fig. 15. — Jersey cows. Typical dairy cows of San Diego County. 1 :30 a.m. and 1 :30 p.m. to 5 a.m. and 5 p.m., with most of the milking taking place at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. Milking machines were used on five dairies, hand milking being practiced on the others. All the dairymen gave their nationality as American, one qualify- ing as Danish- American. The use of American milkers was generally reported with some Indian, German, Italian and English. On 12 of the 13 dairies, production of market milk was the prin- cipal aim. On the thirteenth, butterfat was sold as cream, the skim- milk being made into cottage cheese and sold wholesale. During the year, sales of whole milk (and cream in one case) were made to the Milk Producers Association of San Diego County, to Robert Foss of Escondido, to H. B. Weston and to Fred Allen, both of San Diego, and to the San Diego P. M. Dairy. Ten of the 13 dairymen owned the dairies under their charge, 1 was a tenant, and 2 were superintendents. 110 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Summary of Costs The various items entering the cost of producing dairy products in this section are assembled in the table immediately following. TABLE 19 Cost of Milk Production Summary — San Diego County Number of dairies 13 Number of cows 583 Number of bulls 23 Costs Operating Labor Man— manual, 85,246 hours $28,480.00 Man — management 7,983.00 Horse, 5,273 hours 939.99 Truck and automobile, 5,755 miles 575.50 Insurance 302.43 Total labor cost $38,280.92 Feed Pasture $4,105.00 Hay, 1322.53 tons 28,532.78 Concentrates, 583.04 tons 24,633.75 Silage, 1342.1 tons 10,542.52 Green feed, 1002 tons 6,438.50 Insurance 118.00 Total feed cost 74,370.55 Hauling milk 7,199.39 Supplies, cow testing, etc 5,291.95 Interest on operating capital, 6% on $1250 75.00 Herd charge Interest on average investment in cattle, $86,939.50 @6% 5,216.37 Mortality: 25 cows, $3243; 1 bull, $50 3,293.00 Depreciation 5,097.50 Taxes 748.27 Insurance 10-00 Gross herd charge $14,365.14 Credits 6,163.55 Net herd charge 8,201.59 Building charge Interest on average investment of $31,944 @6% 1,916.64 Depreciation 1,663.00 Upkeep 636.75 Taxes 164.14 Insurance 186.95 Total buildings charge 4,567.48 Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 111 Corral charges Use of land, including taxes $274.50 Interest on investment in improvements, $7,395.50 @6% 443.73 Depreciation of improvements 908.00 Upkeep 19.82 Total corral charge 1,646.05 Equipment charge Interest on average investment of $9,147 @ 6% 548.82 Depreciation ,. 1,842.25 Upkeep 1,476.71 Taxes 34.14 Total equipment charge 3,901.92 Total gross cost $143,534.85 Credits Manure $5,546.00 Calves, 444 . 4,674.97 Total credits $10,220.97 Net cost of whole milk $133,313.88 Total production of whole milk 3,629,419 pounds Cost per hundredweight of whole milk $3.67 Total production of butterfat in whole milk 155,923 pounds Cost per pound of butterfat in whole milk 86 cents 6225 pounds of whole milk Average annual production per cow.... [ 267.3 pounds of butterfat Comments on Costs Findings The 13 herds included in the study conducted in San Diego County were assessed for taxes at $17,360. Dairy equipment assessments amounted to $900. Prorata of building assessments, chargeable against the dairy, amounted to $3850. The tax rate varied from $2.71 to $5.64 per $100 of assessment. The amount of taxes paid totaled $748.27 on dairy cattle, $164.14 on buildings, and $34.14 on dairy equipment. Insurance was carried on buildings, workmen, cattle, and feed. Ten dairymen carried insurance on buildings, 7 on employers ? liability, 1 on cattle, and 3 on feed. The amounts carried are shown in table 19. The average cost for manual labor used on these 13 dairies amounted to 33.4 cents per hour. Twelve of the dairymen placed a figure for time spent in manage- ment, amounting to about 28 per cent of the manual labor expenditure. Horse labor was utilized on but four dairies, and cost from 8.1 to 27.6 cents per hour. The average cost amounted to 17.8 cents per hour. Total use amounted to 5273 hours. One truck and three automobiles figured in carrying on the dairy work on as many dairies. Cost of operating averaged 10 cents a mile for a total use of 5755 miles. The general practice iu feeding has already been touched upon. Pasturing was practiced by only 7 per cent of the 13 dairymen. For those who pastured, 112 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 16. — Typical dairy layouts and conditions where studies were conducted in San Diego County. Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 113 Fig. 16. — (Continued.) 114 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION the cost was $12.59 per cow per year. The cost per ton of feeds used during the year on these 13 dairies averaged: Hay, $21.57; concentrates, $42.67; silage, $7.86; green feed, $6.42. Totals spent for contract hauling, purchase of supplies, payments for cow test- ing, and similar items are set forth in the table. Nine of the 13 dairymen paid for contract hauling, while all had miscellaneous expenditures to meet. Operating capital amounted to $1250, most of the dairymen running bills during the month and paying for them with the milk check so that operating capital remained at a rather low level. The investment in milking herds during the year that these dairies were under observation amounted to $86,939.50, of which $7500 was in bull values and the balance in cows. Bulls, therefore, made up slightly more than 8 per cent of the total and cows slightly less than 92 per cent. Average cow values of individual herds ran from $77.50 a head to $277, with an average value for the district of $136.26. Bull values ranged from $100 to $700, averaging $326. Based on sales, deaths, purchases, and heifers brought into the milking strings, the 13 dairies registered an appreciation in the value of the cows maintained, amounting to $1126.05. Five dairies reported appreciation in their milking herds, while eight reported a depreciation. Bulls showed a net depreciation of $160, thus bringing the net appreciation of both cows and bulls to $966.05. During the year covered by the record-taking, 25 cows died valued at $3243, and 1 bull valued at $50. Based on the average number maintained in the milk- ing herds, this amounted to 4.4 per cent of the cows, and 4 per cent of the bulls. The average value of cows dying amounted to close to $150, or an average higher than the average value reported for all the cows covered by this study. Dairy building equipment consisted of a milking barn and milk house on each dairy, with one dairy possessing a second milk house, 14 silos on 11 dairies, and 13 shelter and feed barns on 11 dairies. The investment in dairy buildings varied from $616 to $6047, with an average investment of $2457. The investment on the different dairies was variable, 2 dairies having an investment of less than .$1000, 5 of from $1000 to $2000, 2 of from $2000 to $3000, while the remaining 4 had investments of $3969, $4115, $4859, and $6047. Seven dairymen spent money for building upkeep, ranging from $8 to $445, and totaling $636.75, which was 2 per cent of the investment in buildings. Depreciation of dairy buildings totaled $1663 and thus amounted to about 5 per cent of the investment. Land required for corrals and dairy buildings totaled 57 acres, having a rental value of $274.50, or $4.82 per acre per year. The investment in improvements such as fences and watering facilities amounted to $7395.50, ranging from $95 to $1194, and averaging $568.88. Depreciation of these improvements totaled $908, or a little over 12 per cent of the investment. Upkeep of corrals necessitated but little expenditure. Dairying equipment reported consisted of 2 separators, 9 milking machines, 237 milk cans, 50 milk pails, 5 milk vats, 11 sterilizers, 12 aerators and vats, 5 boilers, 3 scales, 6 washtubs, 8 wheelbarrows, 3 milk fever outfits, 3 veterinary outfits, 2 refrigerating machines, 17 hay forks, 12 brooms, 8 shovels, 15 lanterns, and miscellaneous items as feed carts, fuel tank, mixing bin, litter truck, silage trucks, dehorner, scrapers, fly sprayers, gas engine, motor, milk testing outfit, and wagon. The total investment in these items amounted to $9147, ranging on the different dairies from $28 to $1968, with an average investment of $703.61. All BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 115 dairymen found it necessary Co make expenditures for dairy equipment upkeep, the total amounting to $1476.71, or close to 16 per cent of the average yearly investment. Depreciation of dairy equipment amounted to $1842.25, or about 20 per cent of the investment. Miscellaneous returns consisted of receipts from sales of feed sacks amount- ing to $243.50, and bull service amounting to $100. These items were credited directly to the department concerned. A total of 444 calves was reported as a credit to the dairies, amounting to $6474.97, or averaging $14.58 per head at the time that the dam's milk was fit for human consumption. Values reported ranged from $1.50 to $75 per head. Sales of manure from the dairies amounted to $572, which added to the value ascribed to the manure used on the ranch totaled $5546. The total production from these 13 dairies stated in terms of whole milk amounted to 3,629,419 pounds containing 155,823 pounds of butterfat. The tests ran from 3.7 to 5 per cent butterfat, with an average test for the total produc- tion of 4.3 per cent. Of the total production, 88 per cent was sold, the remainder being used by the dairymen's families or for calves. Family use totaled 8256 gallons or 71,001 pounds. The average production per cow per year made by the 583 cows studied in this district amounted to 6225 pounds of whole milk or 267 pounds of butterfat. Based on herd average performance, the lowest yield for a single dairy amounted to 177 pounds of butterfat; the highest, 434 pounds. Figured as whole milk, the lowest annual average per cow was 4303 pounds; the highest, 11,152 pounds. Of the 13 dairies, the average of 6 was below 250 pounds of butterfat per cow per year. The average of 10 was under 7000 pounds of whole milk per cow per year. Based on actual sales of whole milk made from the dairies which confined their activities to the production of whole milk for the wholesale market, the average price received throughout the year amounted to $3.57 a hundredweight of whole milk. This is equivalent to 80.2 cents a pound of butterfat contained in the milk sold. Cost of Production by Individual Dairies For purposes of showing the wide range in the amounts of the different items entering into the cost of producing milk as reflected by individual dairies, as well as to permit the making of comparisons, table 20 sets forth the cow cost for each group of items which are shown summarized in the district table already presented for each of the 13 dairies. The cost of producing whole milk ranged from a low of $2.57 to a high of $5.43, with an average of $3.67 a hundred- weight. In terms of butterfat, since this is the basis upon which the dairymen are paid, the range was from 65 cents to $1.10, with an average of 86 cents a pound. Six men produced at or below the average cost for the district, the remaining seven above. 00 00 © 00 CO t^ Cs 00 oc o co c 8 «■ CO ^ tO M 00t» © r OS 00 CM CM N ) • CO • b- N M CO O « r)i (O OS CC CM *# CO i- 00 ** OS CM CM t- C k n< ■* as rH * CM i- ©S as as <* O O H « O ifl cow 00 CO o CO „. CO ^ (O N N (0U3 N« CO o CO tH t* CN • CM -OS d o) oo O) f~ t^ IT i-l OS 'O CN HON <-" rH (N io as r-l rH * co CO as aS as ffl lOO N M CO O) rH C --4 OS o co ^ O O CM CO CO r- ec 00 c 00 CO iO c . o • - <# MOlfflNNr 115 © H ec CO cc o t^ CO Tt< CN os rt< as OS as CM as as rH >C O CM T}t C IC b- tC- l> 00 o 00 _ 2 ^ O O CO CM © C o rn W CO 00 00 cc • 00 • Tf d "# CO t^ 00 CO CM <* CM* O t^ o t-*. 2 « M (N H O) Ol « o cs i- N CN U3 rt • io • cr to CM rjJ CM CO TjJ CN cd c CO i-H CM rf CO o t>- rH b- OS — 00 r-i as — i CM * CO — CM r-H as as as N M • CO ■ Oi O Tt< CO CM 00 00 CD Tf H (N as rH CO CM 9^ co t^ as- <35 CN "* CM 0C •^ CM CM CN l» CO t^ CO as l> co co as as O OS O 00 O Tf cc t^ r- CO ■* o N (15 O N U3 rH CO co >o as c: 00 c iO CO CO -^ CO CT ec o> oc O CO r-i C O "O O -rji t* CO <* CO IT • CM • "tf 00 N CO OJ 10 00 CM rH 00 t- io as as as as O to M N O) 'f CC lO c io co o g£ O OS CO CO CO iC X t^ o 00 CO H r- ■ CM • C CO S O » S N H CO cd t> oocne 00 00 CB •* H lO t*< co as as 1 ^ 1 m CM as CO (N CO ■* CM OC o r-i O CM o o 00 - tO tO H H r|l 1C CO OS OC O -h io t+ N. ur - - co • cc T-H ^ S N N CO Ol Tt cc CM 10 t^ OS tH CN o WHOfl t^ co io as as rH CM as CM as O CO CM O CO lit 0C tJ< CC 00 ^ o t"- ^ OS © © U7) OS CN CO O CN t^ CM CO OS k ^ ■ T-i ■ t~~ ^ r-l N d in m os io ic CO - OS 00 rfi OS CO CO c 00 Ti- Tt< tH o co ~- t^ CO CO CO OS iC CC rt oc • r-l • C >o u; « (N «d r-I TjJ TjJ T* CO 00 N h H rf C o CD OS CO CM CM cm t^ as as -h co as co as "o "5 CO h- IQ b- -^ CN o O CO t^ t^ o • 'C ro (O i(J iO O 00 OC o r- '■ T-* tj< t> cn ec ec CM iO cd t^ to io to h ■ CM • CC 00 CM CO CN d 00 ON N H -* — cm co as 'S c 6 8 . ' c c 5 c Si "3 l-J o " o a C % g — - 1 a tE 1 0^ I c 3 £ - ■s E W I " 1 Eh 1 a 1 1 G c T P. s c3ri ft (-. 8 o i ' Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing MARKET MILK AND BUTTERPAT 117 10. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Brief Description of Area Twenty dairies are included in the finding's for San Luis Obispo County, the records covering the year from January 1, 1922, to Janu- ary 1, 1923, in all cases. The dairying belt, of which the dairies reported in this study are a part, lies along the coast between Cayucos and Cambria, centering around Harmony. Five of the dairymen gave their address as Cambria, 3 as Cayucos, and 12 as Harmony. Dairy- ing is a major and important enterprise in this section, being con- ducted on the rolling hills and small valleys, with much of the land in pasture, although suitable areas are cropped. The buildings are located in the carious, and the similarity in arrangement and type of construction is rather striking, one dairy being largely patterned after another. A total of 12,056 acres was utilized by these 20 dairies of which 9879 acres were reported as being maintained in permanent pastures. Hence with an average holding of about 600 acres, 82 per cent was used for pastures and 18 per cent cropped. The smallest holding of the 20 amounted to 160 acres: the largest was 1366 acres. Eight holdings were less than 500 acres in extent; 10 of from 500 to 886 acres; and 2 of more than 1300 acres, these 2 being 1320 and 1366 acres respectively. Oat hay was the common roughage. A little alfalfa was grown. Although two or three silos were under construction at the conclusion of the year covered by this study, not a single one of these 20 dairy- men had an available silo in use during this study. Nearly all hay was fed loose. Outside of a little hay sold to local dairymen when themselves short of feed, there is practically no market, the hauling charge to the nearest shipping point during ordinary years being pro- hibitive. Rolled oats was the more common concentrate feci. A little cottonseed meal, beet pulp and middlings were used by some men. Two or three used carrots, squashes, pumpkins, and beets raised on an acre or two of ground. Pasture was more or less available the year round. The cows were out at all seasons. The best of the pasture season, however, was from April to October, supplementary feeds of hay, roots, squashes, and concentrates being utilized during the remainder of the year, in amounts depending upon the carrying capacity of the pasture. Pas- ture is largely made up of alfileria, bur clover, foxtail, wild oats, broncho grass, and similar common coast range feeds. 118 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 17. — Typical range conditions of the San Luis Obispo area. Feeds consist largely of alfilaria, bur clover, fox tail, wild oats and broncho grass. The best of the pasture is available from April to October. Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 119 These 20 herds contained a total of 1329 cows, in herds ranging from 16 to 167 animals. Only a single dairy of the group had less than 30 cows, 11 dairies had from 33 to 62 cows; 6 dairies from 65 to 98 cows; and 2 dairies over 100 cows, these containing 145 and 167 cows respectively. Of the 20 herds, 15 were classified as scrubs ; 3 herds as grade Shorthorns; 1 grade Jersey; and 1 a mixture of grade Jerseys and grade Shorthorns. Three dairies possessed a total of 4 registered bulls, consisting of 2 Jerseys and 2 Shorthorns, Two registered Jer- sey heifers were recorded. The common practice is to permit the bulls to run with the cows so that freshening will take place during October, November, and December, drying up the cows for the months of July, August, and September. Most of the labor was done by the family. When men are hired, they are expected to pitch in with the family, lend a hand not only at milking but also in the fields during plowing, planting, and har- vesting. The usual work day is from 12 to 14 hours in length. Most milking is done at 4 a.m. and again at 4 p.m. Swiss predominated in the nationalities of the dairymen, 17 dairy- men being so designated, although commonly American-born. The three remaining dairies were reported to be in the hands of Americans. Swiss, American, Italian, Spanish, and German-American milkers were recorded. Both milk and cream were sold, the former to be made into cheese. All milk or cream was sold on a butterfat basis, and all sales by the dairymen in this group were made to the Harmony Valley Creamery Association. Those who sell cream have their skim- milk for home use, and those who sell whole milk get the whey back, these by-products being used in feeding calves and hogs. Butter- milk from the manufacture of butter is retained by the creamery. Of these 20 dairies, 12 were in the hands of tenants, 6 were operated by the owners, and 2 were under a combination of owner- tenant. Summary of Costs The various cost items involved in the production of milk on the 20 dairies studied in San Luis Obispo County are assembled and set forth in table 21. 120 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 21 Cost of Milk Production Summary — San Luis Obispo County Number of dairies 20 Number of cows 1329 Number of bulls 37 Costs Operating Labor Man— manual, 156,051 hours $37,296.19 Man — management 6,064.43 Horse, 12,769 hours 2,805.06 Truck and automobile, 27,198 miles 2,922.01 Total labor cost $49,087.69 Feed Pasture $13,512.21 Hay, 2264 tons 33,960.00 Concentrates, 222.97 tons 7,598.77 Pumpkins, squashes, carrots 723.00 Green alfalfa, 205 tons 1,025.00 Straw, 20 tons 200.00 Total feed cost " 57,018.98 Supplies, cow testing, hauling, cream, etc 2,635.45 Interest on operating capital, 6% on $7900 474.00 Herd charge Interest on average investment in cattle, $101,480.51 @ 6% 6,088.83 Mortality: 43 cows, $2770; 3 bulls, $185 2,955.00 Depreciation; cows, $1610; bulls, $888 2,498.00 Taxes 881.35 Insurance none Total herd charge 12,423.18 Buildings charge Interest on average investment of $50,514.50 @ 6 % $3,030.87 Depreciation 1,311.00 Upkeep 478.00 Taxes 210.50 Insurance 190.48 Total buildings charge 5/220.85 C Jorral charge Use of land, including taxes $78.00 Interest on investment in improvements, $7,779 @6% 466.74 Depreciation of improvements 451.10 Upkeep 60,00 Total corral charge 1,055.84 BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 121 Equipment charge Interest on average investment of $15,059.96 @ 6% $903.60 Depreciation....: 1,550.25 Upkeep 718.70 Taxes 30.89 ' Total equipment charge 3,203.44 Total gross cost 131,119.43 Credits Manure $450.00 Calves, 1165 5,601.00 Skimmilk, 5,107,072 pounds @ 20 cents per 100 pounds 10,214.16 Total credits $16,265.16 Net cost $114,854.27 Total production of butterfat 214,340.2 pounds Average cost per pound of butterfat 53.6 cents Average annual production per cow 161.3 pounds of butterfat Comments on Cost Findings The livestock belonging to the 20 milking herds from which the data were taken were assessed at $34,989, of which $1890 drew a tax rate of $2.85, with the balance at $2.50. The assessment on dairy buildings amounted to $8350, of which $500 was at the rate of $2.85. Dairy fixtures assessments amounted to $1225, $75 being at the tax rate of $2.85. One dairy was in a community with a tax rate of $2.85 per $100; the tax rate for the remainder being at $2.50 per $100. Eleven of the 20 dairymen carried building insurance. No workmen's com- pensation nor cattle insurance were reported. On an average, the cost of manual labor used by these dairies amounted to 23.9 cents per hour. Management amounted to 16.3 per cent of the manual labor cost. The cost of horse labor varied from 10.4 to 44.1 cents per hour, the average being 21.9 cents per hour. The rather high rate holding for this community is traceable to the use of saddle horses, every dairy keeping one and one dairy keeping two which, used but a relatively short time each day, resulted in a rate somewhat higher than might otherwise be expected. Teams are used for dairy purposes only once or twice a year, and then for only about a week's time in cleaning corrals. The cost on four dairies was over 40 cents per hour and over 30 cents on three more. Only one man had contract provision for hauling his output to market, the rate being % cent a butterfat pound; the other 19 dairymen maintained 14 trucks and 5 automobiles for this purpose. Cream was hauled every two days and milk every day, as a rule. The average cost of operation, based on total work done, amounted to 10.7 cents per mile, with a range of from 8.2 cents to 27.1 cents per mile. The dairy work required travel to the extent of 27,198 miles. Of the 9879 acres of pasture actually used by the group of dairies studied in this section, 66.6 per cent was utilized by the milking herd, or a total of 6581 acres. The value of this pasture amounted to $13,512.21, or $2.05 per acre. This 122 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 18. — Types of dairy buildings of the San Luis Obispo section. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 123 Fig. 18. — {Continued.) 124 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION meant an average use per cow per year of close to 5 acres, thus necessitating a cost figure of $10.25 per cow per year for pasturage, a figure that includes pastur- age used by bulls. To supplement the pasture, these 20 dairies fed 2264 tons of hay at an average value of $15 per ton; 222.97 tons of concentrates at an average cost of $34.03 per ton; 150 tons of pumpkins, squashes, and carrots at $4.82 per ton; 20 tons of straw at $20 per ton; and 205 tons of green alfalfa at $5 per ton. Some difficulty was experienced by the dairymen in their efforts to set feed values. The task was easy enough with concentrates because practically all are purchased and shipped in, but with hay, green alfalfa, and pasture some trouble was experienced in getting at a proper figure because of the limited sales and small demand. Ultimately, an acceptable figure was secured. Operating capital required by the 20 dairies amounted to $7900, or an average of $395 per dairy. Miscellaneous operating expenses for fuel, power, and other items ranged from $29.50 to $513.26, the total being $2614.37. Cow values for the livestock comprising the milking herd taken from an average of the two annual inventories ranged from $60 to $90 per head. Seven dairymen valued their cows at $75 per head, and six more at $67.50. The average for all the cows included in the study amounted to $73.12 per head. Bulls were priced at from $32.50 to $443 each, with an average value of -$116.50. Thirteen dairies were being operated with bulls valued at less than $75 each. Of the total average investment in cows and bulls, about 4 per cent was in bull values and 96 per cent in cows. In assembling data in connection with herd depreciation, six dairies figured an appreciation in their cow values amounting to $2459, which served to cut the total depreciation accruing to the other 14 dairies to a net figure of $4069. Net cow depreciation, therefore, amounted to $1610. One bull appreciated in value to the extent of $5, but the other 36 fell off in value to the amount of $893, thus leaving a net depreciation in bulls for the district of $888. Forty-three cows died, or a little over 3 per cent of the average number main-, tained in the herds under study. These were reported as having a value of $2770, or $64.42 per head. This amounted to about 88 per cent of the average value reported for all animals. Three bulls, having a total value of $185, died. The total herd mortality, made up of both cows and bulls, amounted to $2955. Dairy building equipment for the 20 dairies consisted of a dairy barn and milkhouse for each dairy, and 18 granaries on as many dairies. Nine dairies expended money for building upkeep, ranging from $5 to $225, and totaling $478, or slightly less than 1 per cent of the investment. The investment in building equipment varied from $587.50 to $5455. Three dairies were using equipment valued at less than $1000; the dairy buildings on five dairies ranged from one to two thousand dollars; on six dairies from two to three thousand dollars; on four dairies from three to four thousand dollars; and on two dairies was in excess of four thousand dollars. The average for the 20 amounted to about $2500. Thirty-seven and one-half acres of land were in use for building sites and corrals, this acreage possessing a rental value of $78. This amounted to an aver- age acre rental of $2.07. Investment in improvements ranged from $72.50 to $1292, amounting to a total of $7779, or an average of $389 per dairy. Twelve dairies had less than the average invested and eight had more. The depreciation of these improvements amounted to from $5 to $66.25, or an average for the 20 dairies of $22.55. This is equivalent to practically 10 per cent of the investment. Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 125 Only five dairymen found it necessary to spend cash for corral upkeep, with the total thus spent amounting to but $60, or only % of 1 per cent of the investment. The investment in dairy equipment ranged from $217.85 to $2253.90, with an average of $753. Ten dairies had an investment of less than $500, while five each had invested respectively between $500 and $1000, and five more than $1000. The 20 dairies were equipped with 7 milking machines, 23 separators, 24 gaso- line engines, 22 milk vats, 19 kettles, 3 boilers, 22 milk strainers, 5 coolers, 99 milk pails, 70 pitchforks, 25 shovels, 3 scrapers, 19 wheelbarrows, 228 milk cans, 48 lanterns, and necessary shafting, belting, and sinks. Four veterinary out- fits, a water wheel, 1 pair of clippers, 1 pump, 1 lighting plant, 1 set of scales, and the usual complement of brushes and brooms completed the list. All but one of these 20 dairies found it necessary to spend something for dairy equipment upkeep, the sums ranging from 50 cents to $144.75, the total amounting to $718.70, or an average for the 20 dairies of $35.93. Upkeep was 4.7 per cent of the invest- ment in dairy equipment. No returns of a miscellaneous nature were reported for the dairies. Only sales of milk and cream, with credit for calves, manure, and skimmilk were credited to the dairying operations. Values per head for calves saved for vealing or rearing ranged from $3 to $8 a head, with most of the dairymen figuring their calves when dropped as being worth $5 a head. The total value of 1165 calves retained amounted to $5601, or an average of $4.81. Only minor values were assigned by dairymen to the manure produced by the dairy herd. Two dairymen reported it as of no value to them, one dairyman reported the total value as $100, while the rest figured the worth at from $20 to $25. This gave the herds a total credit of but $450 for all manure produced. No sales of manure were made, and this value is based on dairymen's estimates of the value of the manure to them. All 20 dairies made the sale of cream their primary object, although during the period under observation 7 of the 20 sold some whole milk. The sale of whole milk constituted 15 per cent of the total sales. Of the total production, figured on a butterfat basis, 91.7 per cent was sold, and the remaining 8.3 per cent used either in the home or in feeding calves. Milk tests ranged from 3.7 to 4.2 per cent but- terfat, with a general average of 3.8 per cent, with cream separated to test close to 40 per cent. Estimates of the value of the skimmilk varied from 12 to 30 cents a hundred pounds, with 20 cents a hundred pounds considered the average value for the district. As no sales were made of the skimmilk, values are based solely on dairy- men 's personal estimates of its feeding value for calves and hogs. The average annual production, per cow amounted to 161.3 pounds of butter- fat. The lowest herd average amounted to 107.3 pounds; the highest was 239.5 pounds. The averages for eight herds was below 150 pounds per cow per year, while six more were below 175 pounds. Only four herds averaged 200 pounds or more, the figures for these being respectively 200, 203, 223, and 239 pounds per cow per year. Prices received by these dairymen based on receipts from actual sales averaged 46.6 cents a pound for butterfat sold as cream, and 48.8 cents a pound for butter- fat sold in whole milk. iO CM CM a © IC © O co ec S" 5 CO CM CM t^ CO H O 'f OOh CO l> CM ' tP 00 IO 9& iH 00 IO IO 00 co © 9,2 CO © co id © S& SI 00 CO lO h O o CO ^ Tt< © Tf< IO iO 00 o iO 00 CM 9,2 co co © iO © © 9, CM CO 00 cm' 00 l-l © IO i-H i-H Tf r-l IN ^ oc cc n m © io O IO 9& ^H © CM >* 0 © CM ^H iO co co © © co © CO o ©' 9,° 00 © IC co 00 CM 9,^ iO © © 00 H 00 M H H CO 2 i- tr. co 91 00 © © © © --H © IO y-i CM CO .-H 2 c CM "* 0C oc tN co 91 O iO © CM iO CO rH © 00 i-H to CO © 00 © b» co 9,^ © co © © 00 9, CM © CO CO IO Tf< CO t^ CM CM 2 * cJ IT. 91 iO © © © © t- CM tJ< © © CO iM © 9# -1 CM iO CO 9,2 © © © o © © 9, o CO CM © i-l © CO CM 2 « oc c o- ■"# © © io © co H 00 ffl Tf H O 00 co i> 9,2 CM IO 1> 9,2 iO © 1> CM IO © 9, 00 © CO CO O ■<* CM i* ^ CM 2 b- N *" co © cm o -# © oo HNN MOJN N O CD N (N ^ CO N^f i-H 9, CM IO © 91* © iO CC CT CT oc 9, © O CM 9,°° © © In. OS CM * co ff CM co 91 (n. © CO O t*- CM © © CO © CO CM 00 © d © co id 0C 9, © © 0C © 9, 00 © © © © IO i-H (N ■<* CM cm c-q 2 r- "H O CO © © © i-l t^ Tji CO >0 © CM © Tt< i* CXI 9% © iO co e© .-H © © CM CC 9, i- o CD 00 CO em ^ © o CM IN. 00 IO §2 CM K © © oo Tt< r> io t# CO © 00 00 t^ 00 00 © © CM 00 CO i-l >* CO 9% co iO 9,2 CM CM CT co CO © OC as 05 CM © CO 00 © 8« C<1 N IO ■* Cft N N © lO O CO CO ■<# © © © T-i © co t-i co co 9, © 00 co CC CM 9,°° CM © c CO 9, © © co co 00 IO CM lt: CC CC « 3 O N N 00 rt N t^ © ^ TfH IO CM iO © 9% — i i> co © © © © 9,2 « CO 00 CO 00 © ■ ■* CM © iO CM iO 95 © iO © © O 00 iO CM CO iO CO o © CM CO 9% H © 9, ^ © © 00 co © (M l-H Tt< ■* i-H 1^ Ave. of Dist. 1329 ■* © Tt< IO CO © i-H © © co co © t^ ■* © CM IN © CO CM 1 S^ © © 00 9,°> •O <* 9, C © © CM Tf CC OC 9, CO © © co iO c > '5 c 1 c « c V co a t o i- O 1 a ft to ai ^ W -G <-, n pq O w 1 o co CO O fei o H -3 "^ 1 - lo g o a O "o "S 8- > S 03 a c3/2 <*H CO -3 3 6 "o "o 25 a St CO o rt O ,0 co a «*h CD o o a ■§ a> a> 0. *^ S •<> O Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 127 Costs of Production by Individual Dairies The variation in the various items determining costs, such as oper- ating costs, overhead items, and amount of production per cow for the dairies studied in San Luis Obispo County is set forth in table 22. The average for the district is also shown for each item. The average cost of producing butterfat was 53.6 cents for the twenty dairies under observation. The range was from a low of 41.6 cents to a high of 76.9 cents, 10 dairies producing at or below the average district cost. 11. MONTEREY-SAN BENITO-SANTA CRUZ DISTRICT Brief Description of Area Complete records covering a year's business on 33 dairies located in the principal dairying sections of Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties were obtained. In the final summary, however, 14 dairies were eliminated, these being situated on rolling hills close to the coast or in the redwoods and hardly comparable with the others. Dairies reported for this district, therefore, are those operating under conditions of irrigated alfalfa and other field crops. Of the 19 dairies finally summarized and analyzed, 9 were in San Benito County, 8 in Monterey County, and 2 in Santa Cruz County, county lines, however, making little difference since these dairies were being conducted under similar conditions and hence comparable, irrespective of geographical boundaries. Of the 19 dairies, 9 were in the vicinity of Hollister, 4 contributory to Watsonville, and 6 close to Greenfield. Record taking was begun January 1, 1922, on 3 of the 19 dairies, February 1, 1922, on 6, and March 1, 1922, on 10. These 19 dairies utilized a total of 1944 acres, ranging in size from 25 to 400 acres, Ten of these dairies possessed only alfalfa land, the total area utilized by these 10 amounting to 613 acres, thus averaging 61.3 acres, though ranging from 30 to 100 acres. The dairies using the larger areas, 100 acres or over, usually possessed some swamp land used for pasture, or rolling hills producing grain or pasturage in addition to their cropped fields. All the dairies possessed some alfalfa land. Some variation in feeding methods occurred on these dairies. In general, the use of pasture, either natural or alfalfa or grain stubble, was available, and used by four dairymen throughout the year. Two dairymen reported the use of pasture for 11 months, while 6 used pasturage intermittently for from 2 to 8 months. Three dairymen reported no pasturage, 1 almost none, and 2 did not give usable 128 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION details. When pasturage was reported for less than 8 months, it was usually available during the spring and summer months. Feed- ing of hay, either alone or as a supplement to the pasturage, was universally reported. Year-round feeding of hay was practiced by 17 of these 19 dairymen, with greatest use of alfalfa hay, although some small quantities of barley, oat, and wild grass hays were occa- sionally fed. Dairymen who did not feed continuously used other feeds such as silage and concentrates to supplement the pastures. Feeding of concentrates was done only to a very limited extent. Only 1 dairyman fed consistently throughout the year. Eleven men fed none whatever. The remaining 7 fed spasmodically for from 1 to 4 months, the longer feeding being practiced during the winter months to supplement other available feeds. Occasionally, for a month or two, a little use was made of sugar beet tops, green alfalfa, green barley, green grass, potatoes, sugar beet roots, and carrots. Five dairymen used silage made of corn, or corn and sunflowers, while one man put up a little green barley silage. Silage feeding was resorted to during the late fall, winter, and early spring months, for periods lasting from 3 to 8 months. During the year that these 19 dairies were under observation, an average of 732 cows and 21 bulls were maintained in the milking herds. The size of the individual herds varied from 16 to 71 cows, averaging 38. Seven dairies averaged less than 30 cows in the herd during the year, 10 had from 30 to 60 cows, and 2 had over 60 cows in the herd. The Holstein cow was outstandingly well represented, 18 of the 19 herds consisting practically entirely of this one breed, while the remaining herd was made up of both Holsteins and Jerseys. Nine of these dairies were headed by purebred registered bulls, 10 in number, all of the Holstein breed. Year round freshening of cows was the rule, to insure a continuous supply of milking cows. Milking on every dairy was done at approximately 12-hour inter- vals, although a few dairymen began their afternoon milking an hour earlier than in the morning. One dairyman milked at 1 o'clock, 10 at 4 and 4 :30, 6 at 5, and 2 at 6 o'clock. With but a single exception where a milking machine was consistently in use, all cows were milked by hand. Nationalities of both operators and milkers were stated as Ameri- can, Italian-Swiss, Swiss, Danish, Italian, Portuguese, and French. Of the 19 dairies studied in this section, 16 specialized in the production and sale of whole milk, with the remaining 3 selling both Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 129 whole milk and butterfat. The latter 3 retailed their product; the others sold wholesale to F. M. Frazell Cheese Factory, Gilroy; Hol- lister Creamery; Watsonville Creamery; United Milk Company of San Francisco; Nestle 's Food Company, Gonzales; and to the Salinas Valley Dairymen's Association. The personnel of the operators on these 19 dairies consisted of 15 owners and 4 tenants. Summary of Costs In table 23 are set forth the condensed findings concerning the cost factors — kinds, amounts, and totals — entering into the produc- tion of whole milk and butterfat in this district. TABLE 23 Cost of Milk Production Summary — Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz Counties Number of dairies 19 Number of cows 732 Number of bulls 21 Costs Operating Labor Man— manual, 101,674 hours $30,352.88 Man — management 6,120.00 Horse, 9,259 hours 979.99 Truck and automobile, 17,942 miles 1,046.27 Insurance 202.10 Total labor cost $38,701.24 Feed Pasture $11,182.10 Hay, 3395 tons 51,156.00 Concentrates, 47.46 tons 1,315.69 Silage, 426^ tons 2,550.84 Green feed, 8453^ tons 3,491.87 Roots, 55.2 tons 374.00 Total feed costs 70,070.50 Hauling milk 2,465.56 Supplies, cow testing, etc 1,887.46 Interest on operating capital, $7,990.00 @ 6% 479.40 Herd charge Interest on average investment in cattle, $75,314.48 @ 6% $4,518.86 Depreciation 387.07 Mortality: 21 cows, $1,870; 1 bull, $250 2,120.00 Taxes : 1,068.35 Total herd charge 8,094.28 130 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION Building charge Interest on average investment of $43,434.50 @ 6% $2,606.07 Depreciation 1,672.00 Upkeep 761.17 Taxes 292.25 Insurance 227.90 Total buildings charge 5,559.39 Corral charge Use of land, including taxes, 72 acres $1,231.00 Interest on investment in improvements, $6,780.50 ©6% 406.83 Depreciation of improvements 787.00 Upkeep 189.00 Total corral charge 2,613.83 Equipment charge Interest on average investment of $6,587.04 @ 6% $395.14 Depreciation 1,160.13 Upkeep 521.18 Taxes 19.16 Total equipment charge 2,095.61 Total gross cost $131,967.27 Credits Calves, 627 $3,866.85 Manure 1,184.50 Total credits $5,051.35 Net cost of whole milk $126,915.92 Total production of whole milk 5,002,049 pounds Cost per hundredweight of whole milk $2,54 Total production of butterf at in whole milk 181,400.41 pounds Cost per pound of butterfat in whole milk : 70 cents . , , ,. f 6829 pounds of whole milk Average annual production per eow j ^ ^^ of butterfat Comments on Cost Findings The 19 herds concerned in the cost of milk production studies conducted in Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties were assessed for $32,200. The buildings used in connection with these dairies were assessed for $8887.50. Dairy equipment was assessed for $620. Tax rates per $100 of assessed value varied from $2.70 to $4.93. Total taxes paid amounted to $1068.35 on cattle, $292.25 on dairy buildings, and $19.16 on dairy equipment. Buildings and employer's liability were the only kinds of insurance carried in connection with the dairies. Fifteen of the 19 dairymen carried building insur- ance, and 7 carried employer's liability insurance. Manual labor used in carrying on the work of these dairies cost an average of 30 cents an hour. Eighteen of the 19 dairymen estimated that their time spent wholly in management was worth a total of $6120, or 20 per cent of the amount expended for manual labor. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 131 Eleven of these dairymen used horse labor in connection with the work of the dairies. The cost an hour, based on all work done by the work horses averaged 10.6 cents, although ranging from 5.7 to 27.6 cents. Two trucks, two automobiles, and one tractor were used in carrying on the work of the dairy by as many dairymen. The cost a mile ranged from 3 to 10 cents, averaging close to 5 cents a mile. The value of the pasturage used by 16 dairymen amounted to $17.12 a cow a year for the number of cows carried by the dairies having pasture. The costs per ton for other feeds used during the year that these dairies were under obser- vation averaged for the year: Hay, $15.07; concentrates, $29.83; green feed, $4.13; silage, $6.00; and roots, $6.76. Twelve of these dairymen had their product hauled under contract, paying $2465.56 for this service. In addition, purchase of supplies, payments for cow testing, and similar items totaled $1887.46, all dairymen reporting minor expendi- tures of this sort during the year. Operating capital amounted to $7990 or $420 per dairy. The average investment in milking herds for the year amounted to $75,314.48, of which bull values made up $2,963.73, or close to 4 per cent, while the cows made up the balance. Cow values per head based on the different herd averages ranged from $60 to $150. All cows covered by the study averaged $94.48. Bull values ranged from $47.50 to $350, and averaged $141. Of the 21 bulls in the district, 14 were valued at $150 or less. Cow values reflected an appreciation in 11 of these 19 dairies but the depre- ciation occurring in the remaining 8 herds was sufficient to more than offset these gains, so that a net depreciation for all herds took place, amounting to $67.07. Bull appreciation occurred on 5 dairies and bull depreciation on the remaining 14, the final figure showing a net depreciation of $320. Total herd depreciation amounted to $387.07. Mortality of the milking herds, during the year covered by this study, amounted to 21 cows valued at $1870, and one bull valued at $250, or total losses of $2120. The average value of cows dying amounted to close to $80 a head, or nearly 85 per cent of the average of all cows in the herds. Building equipment of these dairies consisted of 18 milking barns, 1 dairy having no barn, 13 milk houses, 11 feed, calf, and shelter sheds, and 8 silos. The investment in these structures varied from nothing to $4947, averaged $2391, and totaled $43,434.50. Eight dairies possessed an investment of from $2000 to $3000, six of from $1000 to $2000, four of more than $3000, and only the one having no equipment classified as having less than $1000 invested. Nine dairymen made expenditures for building upkeep, ranging from $5 to $410, and totaling $761.17. This amounted to an annual upkeep expense equivalent to 1.7 per cent of the investment in such equipment. Depreciation totaled $1672, or practically 4 per cent of the investment. Land used for corrals and dairy structures amounted to 72 acres, the indi- vidual dairies utilizing from one to ten acres each. Use of this land was figured at $1231, or at the annual rate of $17.10 per acre. Investment in corral fences, watering facilities, and similar improvements ranged from $131.50 to $655.50, totaled $6780.50, and averaged $356.68 a dairy. Five dairymen spent various sums for upkeep of these improvements, varying from $10 to $103, and totaling $189. Upkeep expenditures are therefore equal to 2.8 per cent of the investment 132 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Pig. 19. — Typical dairy building equipment and Layouts of the Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz districts. Bulletin :'.^| cost of producing market milk and butterfat 133 Fig. 10. — (Continued.) 134 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION in such improvements. Depreciation during the year amounted to $787, or 11.6 per cent of the amount of the investment. • Dairying equipment shown by the inventories of the various items required to carry on the work of the dairies consisted of 4 milking machines, 5 separators, 266 milk cans, 70 pails, 20 coolers, 4 sterilizing tanks, 8 washing vats, 12 wheel- barrows, 5 veterinary outfits, 7 lanterns, 19 shovels, 31 forks, 20 brushes, 20 brooms, 4 boilers, 1 manure cart, 3 manure scrapers, 1 feed mixing box, 1 corral scraper, 2 wagons, 1 sled, 4 strainers, 4 milk receiving vats, 1 clarifier, 3 coal oil burners and pressure tanks, and a miscellaneous assortmeut of hose. Investment in this equipment totaled $6587.04, averaged $346.79 per dairy, and ranged from $22.90 on the dairy having the least equipment to $1250.75 on the dairy having fhe most. During the year, all dairymen found it necessary to make expenditures for equipment upkeep, ranging from $4.40 to $75.30, and totaling $521.18. This amounted to about 8 per cent of the investment. Depreciation amounted to $1160.13, or 17.6 per cent of the investment. Miscellaneous returns were unimportant. Sales of feed sacks to the amount of $1 and $5.35 worth of hides were the only items of this nature reported. Credit for calves produced by the milking herd amounted to $3861.50, this sum being set as constituting the value of 627 calves saved for either vealing or rearing. The average value thus amounted to $6.15 per head. The lowest price reported was $2.50 a head, the highest $8.00. No sales of manure produced by these dairies were recorded, but ranch use gave to the herds a credit for manure to the amount of $1184.50. This sum was the total reported by 12 dairymen, the others deeming the manure of no value to them. The total number of cows on the dairies of men assigning some value to the output of manure amounted to 485 head. Of the 19 dairymen in this district, 3 sold both whole milk and butterfat as cream, while the others confined their sales to whole milk only. Total production, in terms of whole milk amounted to 5,002,049 pounds; in terms of butterfat, to 181,400.41 pounds. Of this production, 6.6 per cent was used at the dairy, and 93.4 per cent sold. Tests of the different dairies averaged from 3.4 to 4 per cent butterfat in milk, or a general average for the district during the year that these studies were under way of 3.6 per cent. The average annual production for the 732 cows studied amounted to 6829 pounds of whole milk, or 248 pounds of butterfat per cow. The lowest herd average of the 19 dairies was 4438 pounds of whole milk per cow per year, con- taining 159 pounds of butterfat. The highest herd average amounted to 9641 pounds of whole milk containing 347 pounds of butterfat per cow. Of the 19 dairies, 9 were below the average whole milk yield per cow, while 4 were barely above the average. Nine were 15 pounds or more below the average butterfat yield of the total 19 dairies, while 5 averages of individual herds hovered close to the average butterfat yield for the district. Since only 2 of these 19 dairymen sold cream, the data of prices received for this product are too scanty for averaging. Prices received for wholesale selling of whole milk averaged $1.98 per 100 pounds, which was equivalent to 55 cents per pound for the butterfat contained therein. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 135 Costs of Production by Individual Dairies In table 24 are set forth the various items entering into the cost of producing milk on each of the 19 dairies studied in Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties. These are figured on an average per cow basis, for both cost items and production. Dairies numbered 112 to 118 inclusive are in the Salinas Valley of Monterey County, dairies numbered 248 to 250 are likewise in Monterey County but classify more fittingly perhaps with the two dairies in Santa Cruz County, numbers 249 and 251, since these four are located in close proximity to each other. The dairies numbered 166 to 174 inclusive are in San Benito County. The cost of producing whole milk on each of these dairies, as shown by the findings, ranges from a low of $1.56 to a high of $3.76 per 100 pounds, while butterfat costs varied from 43 cents to $1.04 per pound. Nine of the dairies produced their output at a figure at or less than the average cost for the 19. *# a Si T* ,_, N _, o> n CM CO i "5 r? CM N TH O t> 1> rH 00 I> I> LO €© 00 «© ^ r-l m rH M O N« h iO CO r-l n ■* i ■* ffi S O 00 tJ( N CD 00 t> LO CO 00 1 es 1 S© rH m rH e© 1 CD SO •* N 00 00 H 1 o rH ffl | a$ « to oj in ffi o a w IO N t> 00 CD ffl o co N LO "#' ffl ai -^ © cm' ih to ffl d Tt< Tf< * a h .-i ^ CD «* ed o €© 1 m r-l m rH «© 1 N O h (O iO * h •* oo co II Sa id « H CO (N 00 m CO 00 t^ 00 ffl N o IO tH CO M N 00 CO ^' CO CM CO 00 00 CN 00 lO CO i-H CN CO CO* 00 e© ih m * o T* TtH N o N cd od n d d id (N ffl id co o CN co d GO CM rH rH co (M ffl m l> 6© rH * m c^ m cm ^ iO 00 H O 00 lO 1 rH rH o co 1 c«- NOON tOO "OO l> ■* ■>* iO CO o rH IO ffl IO I> CO NNN ffl i-lci ri ffl ■*' •*' 00 cm" CN ffl ^lOffl *^ m rH to «© 1 co t^ 00 rH t- l>- 00 b- LO N- 00 o 1 ffl lO 00 CO ffl CO N CO CM o CO N o s ^ •rV TjH CO ■*' b- CO ffl CO CN 00 I> co CN CO ai O rH rH LO LO ffl m t^ «© th r-i m cm «# CM rH CO t*- iO 00 rH LO ffl CM 1^. i— i II co §£ H H ffl CO CO'* H LO l> 00 o ffl o N ii g^ CO th' IO ffl »- CO CO CO ffl d N CN 00 tOO H a ffl CO ee ii 00 m <-* $& CM m r-l ffl rf< ffl tH t^ CO CO LO rH •<& LO i §3 iO N to Tt< * CN O CM LO !> 00 co tH o CD 1 "t h co id s to io d d d co ffl CN CM N ** 00 rH r-l «© 6© rH CO m rH CO «© 1 CO o t- m ffl -# b- t-< "# ffl LO N §s iO 00 CO i-h CM O LQ LO 00 CO 00 LO Tj< o ffl ffl O* I> rH CO ffl U5 Tt< ■* ffl CO CD iO IO CM «© * CM CO 00 e© iO €© ■* CO iO CO -^ CM CO o CO 00 00 00 is O ffl i-H t> iO ■* ffl t^ -# id 00 d s CO CM ffl 1> 00 CO CO 6© ffl €© e© cm «© CM CO CO 00 ffl CO O 00 o oo CM CO I 2 w i< O h h co h cq CO CD ffl N iO co o N co S "5 ffl CO IO N N ri H N CO d ■* CM co CM iO rH e© • s ^2 co «© II *& O CM Tt< ffl 00 CM 00 co t}< o> o II tH 2 <» CM —i O LO 00 -tf tM LO I> ^ cs co OC o rH "* r>- cd t>i •<# id cm lo LO rt< d T* CN CN s iO 00 i-f N t^ N m CD 1 «© m rH «© rH ON O h CO ON t> r- o LO '° I-H N i< Tf HN OO LO CN co co T* co O M *- O N tO O IO N CO iO l> GO **l ai ai GO ION CM co LO CO m CO m m -I m rH 1 LO CM O ffl 00 N CO t- CO rH CD 1 2 o 00 CO 00 N to to ^ o T« CO LO CO CO o O JZJ CO ffl CM 00 id 00 rH CO co LC CN co CD -* co «© r-l ■' m oc ^ O 6% CM oc m 1 CD Tf co b- i— i t^ co co LO CO CN 1 2 2 N CN IM fflN h K 5 O CO CM 00 o O CO CM CM © l> 00 rH CO CT L0 ** CC CN CO ffl oo cq h h -* Tt< OC m N m ^h e@ *• o ffl CM oc co CM "* 1 2 »- N CO lOffl O CM oc (N CD iO CC CC ■OH O rH ^ HOW'* CO i-J CC LO oc aq ai Tfi LO O CN oc ^ °° cc 99 N «© rH m rH «© rH •M CO CO O iO ffl N CC CC a- N S . tS « 00 CO CO O LO lO oc I— oc CM ffl a oc ai O a) .2 co N id td H N CO CN c CC co CN d iO ffl t-t oc ^ CC m r- < «© ©© r- m r* c > i- '? (= 1 . - c 7 i u 1 i u. E a s- Is a 6 9 - i a b a ■f J 'I 9 i E c § cc e a E .£ E 1 a c a ■ C 1 E- 6 ,1- o "1 "o 1 o "o rC <« t: o e .2 c Si V 0-i -a 'S >" rH 'C - CP rC a ^ S 1 o S 1 "o c i i ? l 1 Ph i CO 3 ° -° M 4'1 c „2 O r; 1. 1 s o BULLETIN 372] C0 ST OF PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 137 PART III. UNIT FACTORS IN PRODUCING WHOLE MILK AND BUTTERFAT From the various data presented in Part II, it is possible to work out certain of the unit factors involved in the production of whole milk or butterfat. By "unit factors" are meant the basic items making up the completed cost, and measured in terms of time and quantity whenever possible, rather than in dollars and cents. Such calculations provide a formula which will apply in future years so long as dairying practice remains the same. The principal purpose of this section, therefore, is to provide a working basis for future years, determined from the results of the investigations conducted in 1922, so that with the findings thus secured it will be possible to substitute new rates and thus determine costs for any future year. Such calculations and presentations tend to place in reasonably per- manent form the work of a single year. The unit factors set forth the amount of labor, feed, hauling, sup- plies, interest on operating capital, and charges for herd, buildings, corrals, and equipment reported in quantity, dollars, and percentages for a stated amount of product. When dealing with unit factors entering into production costs, it is possible to consider hours and pounds as units of the labor and feed factors. But apparently the only satisfactory unit of measure- ment is the dollar when considering the factors of supplies, interest on operating capital, and herd, building and equipment charges. In figuring credits, the dollar, with the exception of the skimmilk credit, must likewise be made the unit. In the following discussion of unit factors of production costs, "R" represents the going rate in dollars for the particular item during any year. ' ' x ' ' represents the purchasing power of the dollar as compared with 1922, the year of this survey. For example, "R" might represent a rate of 30 cents an hour for labor or $20 a ton for hay. The purchasing power of the dollar may increase to twice its 1922 value, in which case "x" would equal 2; or it might decrease to one-half its value during 1922, in which case ll x" would equal one-half. In the following section showing the method of determining the cost of producing 1000 pounds of whole milk and 100 pounds of butterfat, it will be noted that the designation is 1 over x, e.g., — j 138 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION instead of "x." The inverse ratio is used because this factor in- fluences the known unit factors inversely. For example, if the dollar of tomorrow will buy twice the amount of supplies that it will today, its purchasing power is twice that of today, and the capital needed for the same amount of supplies is reduced to one-half. Therefore, the inverse ratio is always to be used. The purchasing' power of the dollar for any given year as com- pared with 1922, or "sc" may be determined from current statistical business data published by bankers, business rating agencies, or similar sources. In using this formula, based on factors entering into production costs, the application of the going rates during any year to the units herein set out will determine the production costs during that year so long as practices remain the same as in 1922. Insurance on feed and workmen's compensation or accident insur- ance are not shown as unit factors. In supplying these data these items should be shown as part of the rate, i.e., if the rate for hay is $15 a ton and insurance amounts to 5 cents a ton, the rate to be used is $15.05. Accident insurance should be added to the manual labor charge, the amount being determined by the current rate per $100 of wages paid. COST OF PRODUCING 1000 POUNDS OF WHOLE MILK AND 100 POUNDS OF BUTTERFAT " E " represents the going rate for the particular item set opposite during any year. "x" represents the purchasing power of the dollar during that year as com- pared with 1922. If the rate is the same, it is expressed by the figure { ' 1 ' ' j if it is one-half the 1922 value, the figure is " % ' ' ; if, on the other hand, the new rate is twice the 1922 value, the " 2 ' ' is used, etc. ** represents the unit factor for each item. Details are set forth, further on, under the discussion of the unit factors for each of the 11 districts. Labor Manual labor ** hours @ E. Management ** per cent of manual labor. Horse labor ** hours @ E. Use of truck ** miles @ E. Feeds Pasture ** acres @ E. Hay ** pounds @ E. Concentrates ** pounds @ E. Silage ** poun ds @ E. Miscellaneous feeds ** pounds @ //. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 139 Miscellaneous Hauling : For butterfat, 100 X B per pound. For milk, 10 X B per hundredweight. Supplies: '— X $**. x Interest on operating capital: — X $**. Herd charge: — X $**. x Building charge: — X $**. x Corral charge: — X $**. x Equipment charge: — X $**. x The sum of the above items gives the total gross cost. From this, the following credits must be deducted: Credits Calf: ** XB. Manure: — X $**. x The difference between the sum of these two credits and the total gross cost is the cost of producing 1000 pounds of whole milk. To determine butterfat cost, a skimmilk credit must be added to the two credits noted above. Skimmilk: ** @ B. The sum of the three credits deducted from the total gross gives the cost of producing 100 pounds of butterfat. Percentages of Different Items Entering into the Cost of Producing Whole Milk and Butterfat An idea of the relative importance of the different items entering into the costs of producing" whole milk and butterfat can be gained from the percentage of each entering into the gross costs. Table 25 gives in detail for each of the 11 districts where cost studies were conducted and for the dairies from which full and usable data were collected the percentage of each item making up the cost totals. co -*j si O N (D NOO i-O 00 © CO OS CO 06 «i h t-i ci ■* ^ M tO 00 CO ' t-J ffl N N ■* © 1> — I CO l> CO »D "O CO CO o CO •<* •* CO t^ CO CO ■*' IN CO O t-i Ol O N "* CO CO CO id co" t* 00 CO I . CO CD CO N © Tji d cd 2 3 ^ o- ™ =3 O O C nj CO CO g CO CO CO IN 00 4) H O 00N CO -^ +s « O ° d 7t o o S3 -S 5 h io o co co >o D " O at aj co w O : 9* : O : o O co :'^ s; : « g £? J .2 & : cn £ jS u PQ 5 a cq 4) O a rSQ £SS P H P r9 Q P (/■ Fl * a H fl c? 1—1 M C o> $ Q P H 142 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION UNIT FACTORS ENTERING INTO THE PRODUCTION OF WHOLE MILK AND BUTTERFAT In tables 26, 27, and 28 immediately following are set forth data showing the amount of labor, feed, and other items entering into the production of 1000 pounds of whole milk or 100 pounds of butterfat. The findings for each district are presented individually. In every case, data from all the dairies studied in a given district, as appear- ing in Part II of this report, were used in determining the figures of unit factors. The basic data is in accordance with conditions encoun- tered during the year 1922. Since the rates of the year that these studies were made are already set forth in Part II, no further reference to them appears necessary in connection with the unit factors. Unit factors in terms of time and quantity, whenever such can be determined, are of more lasting value and interest than are the rates which may hold for but limited periods. The items manual labor, horse labor, use of trucks and automobiles, feeds, management, hauling, supplies, interest on operating capital, herd charge, buildings charge, corrals charge, equipment charge, com- prise the total gross charge, from which is then deducted the total of credits to give the net cost. COST OF PRODUCTION FIGURES IN RELATION TO PRICE-FIXING H. E. Erdman, Associate Professor of Rural Institutions, College of Agriculture, in discussing some of the possibilities as well as some of the limitations in the use of unit cost data and formulae in connec- tion with price-fixing, sounds a warning. He says : The idea has naturally been put forth that price changes might be made in accordance with changes in the costs of producing milk as indicated by the appli- cation of current prices to these unit factors. This idea was advanced in several parts of the country during and immediately following the war. The dairymen in the New York and Chicago milk-producing areas particularly had data of this sort at hand, and naturally attempted to establish prices of whole milk on the basis of cost changes so shown. On the face of it, this plan should have worked; but trouble arose at once when it was attempted to establish prices from month to month on this basis. Market prices of whole milk over any short period are governed more directly by the supply of and demand for whole milk and by the market prices of such products as butter, cheese and condensed milk, than by costs of production. Furthermore, prices of butter and cheese in the main are established outside of whole milk market districts, and the prices of all three are very directly affected by foreign competition. It was found that at certain times milk simply could not be sold on the basis of costs thus computed, for an increase in the price of milk almost invariably resulted in decreased consumption. The attempt thus to estab- lish prices was therefore soon given up. Such data are valuable, however, to provide starting-points in the discussion of milk price changes whether on the part of producers demanding increases or of consumers or dealers demanding decreases, for they reflect fairly accurately any important changes in costs of production so long as methods of production remain unchanged in the localities in question. ji 3S 00 * CN ■* 1 ajiiuup\[ co CO ID t~ CD •D « 1 s «© M rH O «4H O U-, O <£ o w o «*-. o «_, O «« o ^, O «H Q w a 2 ^ 2 "3 CO o3 3 o 2 ^ 2 "3 rfl ° 2 ^ 3 O 2 ^ o co "^3 2 "=4 ^fl o 03 CO 03 0) 03 CO 03 CO O O > a > a > a > fl > c t> > > fl > fl u-; O u- O t« O «*H O «« o «« o «_ o <~ o o o O O ©lo ©|© s|s 2 Is -Is -Is 1° 00 © -Is -Is CO 00 tN lO Tji t^ © 00 CN aSj^qo ^uauidinbg »o CO "* lO b- "0 CO © Tt< CD ID ID os CO ,_l ■* ID CN aSiraqo s[bjjoq CM t* i CO >o CN »D "* "* »D © 00 co b- CD O o CD ^_i 93xeqo sSuqqmg 00 CM 00 T* 00 OS © CN — 3 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 O CD s CO CD O <* CD CN aSjBqo pjaH i 00 OS CN ID CN •D CN CN © p3^ldBO Sui O CN 00 © 00 o o »D t^ CN © -^jrado no ^saja^ui i o ■«* co lO o OS CN © 00 saqddng ID CO 8 VO 00 "5 CO © "* CO co a CO CO a CO CI fl fl (-1 fcn u ti G U o O 3 fl 9 fl 3 O 3 3 o o O O O O O joqiq psnuBui CO CN »o b- co 00 © ,_, DO 00 g Oh P O g jo ^uao ja,J[ CN CO CO CO CN CD >o 00 CN © CN spunod co * 'snoauTqposrj^ CO CO CO 8 CO spunod 'saaqnj CN CN CN PUB S^OO|J CO l^ CN a 2 05 O spunod 'paaj uaaiQ CN O CD CO CO OS CD CN b- g 00 © co ID ID 00 CO CO fc spunod 'aSiqiS CN t- b- b- CO as CN CN ID CN © © © g spunod 'sa^'Ba^uaouoQ CN b- rH CN e CO CO o OS CO CO CN CO © CO 00 o o 00 00 ■* © © spunod 'Abh os .-i ■* 00 CN O CO CO CN CO o ID © CN ID CO rH T* os ** OS CO CO CO »D b- IQ OS o 00 CO ain^SBj co T-! CO - CN sapui OS 00 •* _ o o © © © 'sajiqouio^nB ^ JO S5[0nj^ JO 8Sj} smoq Tt< ^ CO _ CO OS o rJH © 'joqiq 9sjoh i-l CO CN CN CN CN CO rt rt CO iH iH •H co CO t^ »o CN 'aoq^i p3nuBj>\[ rjH b- CN i-l OS o CN 00 § 00 CO CN O CN 5 1 i o3 1 o 6 1 2 Q nboldt-Del Nor meda-Contra C c -t- c s £ t 4 "3 03 op a 3 ! c a §0 a o 1 i < c e a 1 d co W S s w S -e fl 3 dec . fl s o c O OQ W * 02 £ w k) cc S En h W CM o >o ,Q p o spunod 'jjjuuuit>[g co CO' CM CT> •O co CO co 1 CM CM CN CM CM 1 CO CT> OJ t^ t-» i— I t~ o IO ■* co CM 8inUBT\T 1 1 o rH '""' 1-1 1-1 s s OJ CD D c CD CD 0) 0J ^ ■3 5 si § 1 K "5 ° XI ^ S «; -3 o <*-. X o .*, /3 o «*- O X > o ~3 rf 5 t > o CD ? o « 03 ^_ 1 ^ 03 g «*- "S 6 "o "S o *o o "S *o "1 2 «|2 si => -1 1 2 S| 3 S|§ ^H o CO CM co o ogjBqo ^U9radmbg 00 N co CM Tt< <* co r~ t^ lO o en agjBqo s^jjoq CO o m 00 ■* CD co Ttl •& CD CO CD CM co eSj'Bqo sSmppng co CM id o co CM CO CM CM cm rH t^ co rH O agi'Bqo p.i9H CM co O 00 id p3^ldB0 3ui oo co CM 0> CM 00 CO CM CM -^Baodo uo ^S3J9^iii ^ TH CO rH co 00 co saqddng CD to r "| ■* r^ CM CM m CD a CD 0 Tj< CM oc f^ Sfi lO CD ir: co cc O CD aanfSBj CM CM CO CT « o3 sapui iC t> CM o c t^ 'sapqouioj'nB t> CC CM jo sqon.il jo osft sanoq u: «- CM . CC CD CO CM 'joqiq p3nuBj/\j "t if lO IC ir t^ CO « 9 E c E | ID a •a C5 QQ i c c C i Q c a E 9 D 1 03 | 1 1 O s c c a 3 L. >o t>. «o >o co 5> 4) CU

"o o £-sl > ^ e3 g «« cci o >* o o o cS o "o *o "o -l§ *«I8 CN | 2 00 |g '*|g CN 00 o lO aSxBqo ^uauidmbgr CN 8© t^ cn - Ci co iO ■* 93JBI{0 sjbjjoq lo © - o <* <* co OS CD aSxeqo sSinpjing CO co o> O CN CN CO «& T-fl CO to CD aSjraqo pi9H lO LO CN T* CM «o Tt< S'eu'ep\[ rb CN co CO o 00 o aan^sBjj 00 CN co sairui CO t^ t- OS 'saiiqouio^nB Tj* (M CO a jo sqo'nj'j jo asjq sjnoq - t^ •^ - 'joqiei 9SJOH CO l~- CO lO t^ LO CD o sjnoq LO CO * CO 'joqej j-enuep\r LO <# L0 »o d A g 5 to c c3 '2 Q o 22 3 G c c _j << c 11 3 o m U i— ( 1-1 a * 146 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION PART IV. WAYS FOR INCREASING DAIRY PROFITS DIS- CLOSED BY STUDYING COSTS OF PRODUCTION Certain suggestive ways for increasing profits from dairying operations have developed during the course of this year-and-a-half study of the costs of producing milk on dairies in 11 important com- mercial dairying sections of the state, located in 21 counties. It is the plan to set forth here some of the more outstanding of these in the hope that individual dairymen may thereby perceive opportunities for benefiting themselves through instituting economies, curtailing leaks, or otherwise reorganizing their business on a more profitable basis. The individual dairy farmer can perhaps do but little toward actually determining the prices that he will receive for his product. He can, however, do much in regulating his own business. That a good deal of improvement is possible along the line of greater economy is an interesting and important outcome of these investigations. While no attempt is here made to cover all things which can be done by the individual, enough are set forth to show something of the sit- uation and to start thinking dairymen along this line of endeavor. RELATION OF PRODUCTION COSTS TO PRICE A discussion of whether or not prices should be raised or lowered is not particularly pertinent to this publication but attention may well be called to the fact that in all the districts studied there are a number of dairies selling their output at a price below the cost of producing. For purposes of illustration two districts have been selected for tabulation, one specializing in the sale of butterfat, the Marin-Sonoma section, the other of whole milk, the Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara area. Cost data for the dairies in each group are set forth in two tables in order of costs, together with the percentage of total production contributed by each. This is done in such a way that one can tell at a glance what amount of the milk production of these dairies would be curtailed if the output had been stopped when average price received and cost average came into balance. Though the data are drawn from a single year and hence may be subject to future changes in operating costs, overhead charges, or prices received thus altering the point where costs and prices come into balance, yet they are instructive and possess a marked suggestive value. Further- Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 147 more, the idea can well be extended to the study of the entire output of a given community in order to determine whether or not there is over-production and thus whether the business should be curtailed or a wider market sought. From the dairymen 's standpoint it serves to emphasize his need of knowing just what his business is doing so that if his activities are placing him on the wrong side of the balance line he may take steps to improve conditions. As the dairies on which the studies were conducted are typical of the many in any of the districts under observation, the situation shown in the table holds for all. The manner of presenting, as herein set forth, is sometimes re- ferred to as the "bulkline" method of comparing costs and prices, and is of value in showing the point which prices should reach to insure a satisfactory supply of any given commodity within the limits of current costs. TABLE 29 Showing the Percentage of Production Above, Below, and on a Line with Average Costs and Average Receipts. Data from Nineteen Dairies Producing Butterfat, Marin and Sonoma Counties Cost of Percentage of ' Number producing a total Accumulative Point of average costs of dairy pound of butterfat production contributed percentages and receipts Cents 259 35.6 10.6 10.6 258 38.0 4.1 14.7 268 39.0 5.1 19.8 261 39.0 4.6 24.4 263 39.0 6.2 30.6 103 41.0 7.3 37.9 Averaged price received 43.8 cents 274 44.5 3.1 41.0 264 46.0 7.5 48.5 260 47.0 4.3 52.8 Average cost 49.2 cents 262 49.5 3.4 56.2 275 52.5 11.7 67.9 281 53.0 5.7 73.6 265 53.0 3.8 77.4 278 58.0 4.2 81.6 104 60.5 4.2 85.8 98a 62.5 4.6 90.4 257 70.0 4.5 94.9 95 74.0 2.8 97.7 102 82.0 2.3 100.0 148 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION From these data it is evident that of the total output from these dairies 41 per cent was produced at a cost equal to or below the average price received during the year. Men able to sell at an equal price broke even, men producing at a cost below the selling price obviously made a profit. On the other hand dairymen whose costs 'were more than the selling price received produced at a loss. It is significant that more than half of the production from this small group of dairies was sold at less than cost, cost being considered as figured after the manner shown in the summary tables of Part II. In numbers this means that but seven of the 19 dairymen in this .group produced at a cost equal to or less than the selling price. In a similar way the findings for a whole milk district — the Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara section — are presented in detail in table 30. TABLE 30 Showing the Percentage cf Production Above, Below, and on a Line with Average Costs and Average Keceipts. Data from Twenty Dairies in the Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara District Cort of rTrm" er of production per Proportion Cumulative Point of average costs and of dairy 100 pounds of ■whole milk of output output receipts 9 $2.13 .8 .8 14 2.19 6.4 7.2 7 2.44 .6 7.8 230 2.45 10.2 18.0 Average price received G 2.51 12. 30.0 $2.50 2 2.55 6.1. 36.1 220 \ 2 63 7.5 43.6 228 2.69 6.2 49.8 227 2.72 1.2 51.0 13 2.76 2.6 53.6 4 2.79 2.0 55.6 Average cost $2.83 3 2.86 10 2 65.8 21 2.88 4.1 69.9 3 . 24 10.0 79.9 220 3 . 26 5.4 85.3 in 3 33 6.6 91 9 3 [3 2.S 91 7 1 CO G 17 , ,, 1.9 93.3 IS 4 :;i 1 5 100.0 Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTEBFAT L49 Table 30 indicates the situation with respect to dairymen whose costs were studied in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara coun- ties. Of the 20 dairies only 30 per cent of the total production was secured for costs at or below the average price received by them of $2.50 per 100 pounds. This means that 70 per cent of the supply from this group was produced at a loss. From tables made up for all the dairies in the other districts where costs of producing whole milk and butterfat were studied, similar deductions were made. The findings are set forth in the folic paragraphs. In the Areata district of Humboldt County none of the output was produced at a cost within the price received for the product, when sold either as butterfat or as whole milk. In the Orick-Requa district 2 dairymen of the 12 from whom records were obtained produced both butterfat and whole milk at a co t less thru the price received for the output. Their production amounted to 13.4 per cent of the butterfat and 15.3 per cent of the whole milk totals produced by all tb j dairymen in the district from whom data were secured. Butterfat costs in the Sacramento-Yolo district were such 11. at, of (he dai-y- men reporting costs in this study, only two, producing but a iiii'e more than 8 per cent of the output of the group, received a price equal to or less than their costs of production. The situation in connection with the production of whole milk was more favorable, practically 24 per cent being produced at costs not exceeding the price received, yet 76 per cent even in whole milk production co t more than the price received. Twenty-nine of the 41 dairymen produced wl milk at a loss. In the San Joaquin-Stanislaus district, 5 of the 17 dairies where cost data were collected produced their butterfat at costs equal' to or below the price received. Their combined production was 44 per cent of the total yields recorded for the group. Thus, over half the output of these dairymen went on the market at less than cost of production. Seven of the 17 dairymen in the Fresno County district produced butterfat at- a cost equal to or below the price received during the year. Their combined production amounted to 50.8 per cent of the production of ail the dairymen in the group where cost data were collected. Figured on a whole milk basis, 8 dairy- men were able to show costs either equal to or below the price received, their total output being 55.6 per cent of that of the entiie group. In Kern County, 7 of the 15 dairymen from whom cost data were obtained were able to produce butterfat at a cost equal to or below the average price re- ceived. Total production of these 7 amounted to 70 per cent of the total for the group. On a whole milk basis, 9 produced at or below the selling price, their combined output being 74 per cent of the total. In the Los Angeles-Orange district, 17 of the 40 dairymen included in the study conducted in this section produced whole milk at a cost equal to or below the average price per pound of butterfat content paid for whole milk. Their combined production was but 34.1 per cent of the total output of the group studied. This left a total of 65.9 per cent selling at less than the cost of production. 150 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Figured on a whole milk basis, 6 of the 13 San Diego County dairymen whose costs were studied were able to produce at a cost equal to or below the average price received during the year. The combined output of these men amounted to 62.2 per cent of the total for the group. Figured as butterfat, only 4 men pro- duced at a cost about equal to or below the average price received, their production being 38.5 per cent of the total for the group. Six of the 20 San Luis Obispo dairymen who cooperated in this study pro- duced, butterfat at a cost equal to or below the price received. Their combined output amounted to nearly 40 per cent of the total. Fourteen dairymen producing 60 per cent of the output therefore faced costs greater than the price they received. In Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties most of the dairymen whose dairies were studied also sold at a price below the cost of production. Of the 19 dairymen, all but two lost money when their output was figured on a butterfat basis, these two producing but a little more than 10 per cent of the combined output of the dairymen of this group. Similarly but two dairymen received a price for their output, when figured on a whole milk basis, equal to or more than their costs of production, and their output constituted but a little more than 10 per cent of the total for the group. In reviewing the situation as set forth, above, some allowance must necessarily be made for certain uneconomical and inefficient practices for which dairymen are responsible. Obviously, in deter- mining a price that the consumer should be called upon to pay, it is necessary that dairying be placed upon a basis of efficiency so that labor is used to the best advantage, economy in feeding is practiced, and profitless cows are eliminated. In brief, proper handling of the dairy, intelligent management, and conservatism in making invest- ments in cattle, buildings, and equipment must go hand in hand. These tables show that in radically different dairying sections, different in average costs, average yields, methods of handling average receipts, and kinds of products, there are dairies producing at a loss. Such data emphasize the need for both community interest in the dairying business and for individual inquiry on the part of the dairy- men as to what means can be taken on the dairy to help the situation. ECONOMIZING IN LABOR AND FEED Of the many factors entering into the cost of producing whole milk and butterfat the two outstanding items are labor and feed. Economy in operating expenses will therefore pay greatest returns when directed toward saving in these expenditures. The importance of feed and labor in the cost totals is shown in table 31. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERPAT 151 The table indicates that labor and feed ranged from 73.5 per cent of the total gross cost in one district to 85.7 per cent in another. Labor alone ranged from 20.9 per cent to 37.4 per cent of the total gross cost and feed alone from 42 per cent to 56 per cent. Because these two items make up such a large part of the total costs, attention may well be given to their efficient use and management. Buying in bulk and when prices are low are obvious factors for economy. In feeding, care should be exercised to prevent waste. The use of properly designed feed racks makes for a saving of hay. At TABLE 31 Showing Percentages of Labor and Feed Entering into Milk Costs Production Percentage of gross cost Percentage Labor Feed and feed Humboldt-Del Norte Per cent 31.2 24.8 29.4 28.6 31.5 30.0 30.4 20.9 26.7 37.4 29.3 Per cent 54.5 53.3 45.5 47.2 42.0 45.9 52.0 56.5 51.8 43.5 53.1 Per cent 85.7 78.1 74.9 75.8 73.5 75.9 82.4 77.4 78.5 80.9 82.4 times, the prices of certain kinds of hay or mill feeds mount very high. Then substitution should be made of other less expensive feeds from which the same, or practically the same, results can be obtained. In utilizing concentrates, the cow herself should possess a capacity to make full and economic use of these higher priced feeds, and con- versely cows possessing such capacity should be fed to fully develop their inherent productive capacity. Feeding a cow beyond her capacity results in waste; on the other hand, the quantity of feed supplied each cow should not be below the quantity she requires for the most efficient production. The most economical use of feeds comes through careful buying, careful feeding, and utilization of knowledge concerning the production of each individual animal. 152 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Variation in Feed Costs of Different Dairies To illustrate the range in feed costs per 100 pounds of whole milk or per pound of butterfat, the costs by individual dairies in three districts operating under different conditions are shown in table 32. TABLE 32 G nc wing Variation in Feed Cost per 100 Pounds of Milk or 1 Pound of BUTTERFAT Alarr.eda-Contra Costa- Santa Clara Kern Los Angeles and Orange Cost of feed a Cost of feed a Cost of feed a D Jry number 100 pounds Dairy number pound of Dairy number 100 pounds of milk butterfat of milk Cents 14 S .C06 75 19.4 403 $1.63 9 .'.51 67 21.4 353 1.73 21 .9:4 76 23.6 129 1.81 6 .9:0 57 24.9 363 1.81 7 1.027 72 25.8 83 1.82 2C0 1.0S9 63 26.0 131 1.83 13 1.113 59 30.5 126 1.91 2 1.123 71 33.9 358 1.93 10 1 . 235 58 34.0 141 1.94 2 26 A 1 2',o 62 34 93 1.95 221 1.431 56 35.0 91 1.99 4 1.4 Q 1 66 37.2 366 2.03 227 1.41 5 61 38.8 90 2.08 3 1 5 65 52.7 352 2.09 12 1 . 02S 60 56.4 138 2.11 16 1.635 89 2.11 17 1.680 92 2.15 23 1.695 402 2.18 18 1.922 143 2.20 29 1.942 82 123 401 364 365 359 136 361 355 142 404 362 367 356 137 124 125 360 140 400 134 2.20 2.21 2.21 2.25 2.25 2.29 2.33 2.38 2.38 2.40 2.47 2.51 2.55 2.60 2.64 2.65 2.66 2.70 2.72 2.73 2.91 Average $1,340 Average 31.1 Average $2.23 BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 153 This table shows that in the Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara district the average cost of feed per 100 pounds of milk ranged from a low of 90.6 cents to a high of $1.94 with an average of $1.34. The lowest figure in the data for this district is traceable to a high produc- tion per cow and the use of cheap hay, the next tAvo lowest costs to use of pasture. The highest figure is largely due to a price for hay somewhat higher than the district average and the next few highest largely to a production somewhat beiow r the average. For the production of one pound of butterfat in the Kern district, the feed cost ranged from 19.4 cents to 56.4 cents, with an average of 31.1 cents for the 15 dairies. As far as could be ascertained, the low cost of feed was due to an abundance of pasture for a longer period than was available to the average dairy in the district, and the greater proportion of this pasture to hay fed than with most of the dairies. In one case of high feed cost, low production was prob- ably responsible. In the two cases of highest feed cost, the amount of hay reported was excessive or else there was great waste in feeding. The feed charge in the Los Angeles-Orange district ranged from $1.63 to $2.91 per 100 pounds of milk with an average of $2.23 for the 40 dairies. Low feed cost was accomplished very largely through high production, while in the cases of high feed costs there was an unnecessary waste in hay, too much being used, or else the production was low. Variation in Labor Costs of Different Dairies The variation in labor costs per 100 pounds of who>e milk or per pound of butterfat on individual dairies is illustrated in tab'c 33. According to the data presented in table 33, the range in labor cost per 100 pounds of milk in the Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara district was from a low of 40 cents to a high of 90 cents, with an aver- age of 66 cents. The three dairies reporting the lowest labor costs used milking machines, to the use of which, at least in part, can be attributed the low labor charge. The high figure can be attributed to low production in part; the next high figure to higher wages than were ordinarily paid in the district; and the third high figure again to low production. The costs of labor on the fifteen dairies in Kern County ranged from 9.5 cents to 31.3 cents a pound of butterfat, with an average of 14.9 cents. The dairy with the lowest labor co:ts evi- dently increased the efficiency of the labor by the use of a milking machine. Other cases of low labor costs were noted where the operator and family did all the work and reported family wages at a lower 154 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION rate than was ordinarily given. Where the cost of labor was high, it was invariably found that the average production per cow of these dairies was low. TABLE 33 Showing Variation in Cost of Manual Labor per Unit of Production in Three Districts Alameda-Contra Costa- Santa Clara Kern Los Angeles and Orange Cost of labor a Cost of labor a Cost of labor a Dairy number 100 pounds Dairy number pound of Dairy number 100 pounds of milk butterfat of milk 230 $ .408 72 $ .095 366 $ .407 229 .436 75 .119 401 .428 23 .578 62 .122 93 .458 14 .611 57 .131 402 .477 226A .622 58 .134 403 .487 3 .656 76 .139 82 .552 2 .672 67 .141 355 .573 4 .672 63 .142 361 .574 228 .673 65 .144 404 .579 10 .692 71 .149 353 .581 9 .695 59 .156 356 .585 13 .740 60 .161 143 .587 16 .741 66 .204 400 .615 227 .744 56 .237 363 .632 21 .758 61 .313 352 .635 7 .762 359 .638 12 .787 365 .644 18 .825 140 .658 6 .895 91 .693 17 .902 124 358 131 126 367 141 90 129 137 92 123 360 83 362 134 125 142 136 89 138 364 .722 .726 .733 .742 .748 .767 .767 .768 .777 .778 .792 .813 .823 .830 .887 .928 .940 .942 .987 1.027 1.032 Average $ .658 Average ' $ .149 Average $ .680 Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 155 In the Los Angeles-Orange district, the labor charge ranged from 41 cents to $1.03 per 100 pounds of milk, with an average of 68 cents. High production per cow was the chief reason for low labor costs. More milkers in number than the average for similar sized herds resulted in high labor charges, even though high production prevailed on these dairies. The size of the herd is an important factor in the efficient use of labor, that is, the size of the herd should be in multiples of the number that one man can economically and satisfactorily care for. Herds of odd numbers cause more or less loss of time. Proper arrangement of buildings and corrals, such as proximity of the granary to the feeding barn or the milk house to the milking barn saves time. The use of labor saving machinery is another factor of importance. However, it is possible for the operating and overhead costs of such machinery to more than offset the saving in manual labor. Properly planning the dairy work is another factor in economical use of labor. This implies a carefully worked out schedule and daily routine for both the operator and his men. Greater efficiency in the use of labor may also be brought about by increasing production and applying most labor to those cows which will respond and less labor to those that do not justify such expendi- tures. ELIMINATING BOARDER COWS From the data presented in the preceding tables, it is possible to find the point in the amount of production, to fall below which means a loss for every cow thus failing to measure up to the standard. The desirability of properly testing cows for production and of disposing of unprofitable animals is amply shown by these findings. Table 34 shows the amount of production required under 1922 conditions of breeding, feeding, handling, costs, and prices. If a cow in a given district is to pay for her keep, she must produce an amount equal to the figures set forth in. this table for that district. Cows producing less are maintained at a loss if lacking in inherent possibilities of greater production, or if economies cannot be prac- ticed to reduce costs. Of course, if higher prices are obtained from sales, or if cheaper feeds or labor are secured, or a saving in other items of cost brought about, the required production per cow neces- sary to break even will be lowered. But, conversely, a lower price for products or increased costs will raise the standard of production which the individual cow will be called upon to make if she is to be profit- 156 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION able. Knowledge of what one's cows are doing as individuals is a substantial aid in reorganizing the business for greater profits. In this connection it may be added that some dairymen deem it wise to retain temporarily some poor animals in order to utilize feed and labor that otherwise would go to waste, so that some returns are forth- coming pending ultimate weeding out of the poorer individuals. The actual average production per cow as worked out in these studies is also shown in table 34. TABLE 34 Production tek Ctw Necessary to Meet all Items of Average Costs District Required production per cow per year Actual production per cow in 1922 as shown by studies Whole milk — pounds Butterfat — pounds Whole milk — - pounds Butterfat — pounds Kum'-ol It-Del Norte 7950 6850 8100 or 942 gals. 7550 6985 5123 8560 G445 8750 369 333 243 328 351 298 233 328 285 185 315 6184 5618 7180 or 835 gals. 6614 6793 5993 8041 6225 6829 267 249 216 Contra Costa-Alameda- 230 270 238 234 Los Angeles-Orange- 309 267 161 Monterey-San Benito-Santa Cruz .. 248 In many cases, it can be shown that the high labor cost and the high feed cost on many dairies are directly traceable to low produc- tion per cow. Closely correlated with the elimination of boarder, cows is the desirability of breeding up the productive capacity of the present herds. Saving of calves from cows known to be good producers is sometimes practiced. With this may well go more attention to the keeping and using of better bulls on dairies where the raising of young stock to replace aging cows or to increase the size of the herd is. both economically practical and in line with the inclinations of the operator. In collecting data from most of the districts, the number of pure- bred cinr! registered bulls was recorded. It is perhaps pertinent at this point to recapitulate the findings. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK, AND BUTTERFAT 157 Of the grand total of 13,667 cows and 371 bulls in the 233 herds in the 10 districts where such data were collected, there were reported but 528 purebred cows and 207 purebred bulls. This is equivalent to slightly less than 4 per cent of purebred cows and 56 per cent of purebred bulls in use. On some dairies, particularly in centers where whole milk pro- duction is the rule and limited quarters for dairying and lack of pasture for young stock largely precludes the raising of heifers, com- mon bulls may be justifiable because of reduced investment and small depreciation. In fact, where all calves are to be vealed, the use of a beef breed rather than a dairy breed bull may actually help to increase profits. On the other hand, though, good management sug- gests the use of good dairy breed bulls, the saving of promising calves, and their proper rearing wherever feed conditions permit. PROFITABLENESS OF VEAL1NG CALVES From a study of feed costs involved in raising calves it is evident that increased profits can be obtained by giving attention to the value of milk fed to calves and the length of time calves are kept on whole milk. Although this is a phase which concerns production of young stock rather than production of milk, the opportunity for increasing profits is such that attention may well be called to its possibilities. It is a matter to be worked out by each dairyman for himself, but it is not a difficult task to compute the amounts of milk fed, both whole and skim, determine the value of this mi;k, and com- pare the figure with the value of the calf at weaning or vealing age. On some dairies, killing of calves when dropped will be found justi- fiable. On other dairies, the raising of heifer calves for ultimately placing in the milking herd, or of young stock having a high breed value, is fully justified. Proper feeding is, of course, essentia 1 , and economy in cost should not be sought at the expense of correct feeding principles. Data are presented below illustrating this point, based on the 1922 costs, manner of feeding as reported by dairymen, and with all items other than feed, such as labor, use of buildings and corrals, ignored. For purposes of comparison, four districts are discussed. These are Marin-Sonoma, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, and Monterey-San Benito- Santa Cruz. In the Marin-Sonoma district, the general practice was found to consist in feeding calves to be kept for veal for periods of from three to four weeks. During this time, each calf consumed an average of 42 gallons of whole milk, containing 14.5 pounds of butterfat, which, 158 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION at prevailing market price, was worth $6.35. The average selling price per calf amounted to $10.22, so that the average net returns per calf amounted to $3.87 more than the cost of the milk. Out of this would still be deducted labor, use of equipment, and similar items, if net profit were to be determined. In San Luis Obispo County, calves saved for ultimate vealing are permitted to run with their dams until three or four weeks old, when they are sold. Based on the average production per cow for the dairies under observation, it was possible to figure the amount of marketable milk used by the calves which otherwise could have been sold. It amounted to 38 gallons of whole milk containing 12.3 pounds of butterfat, which at the prevailing market rates had a value of $5.73. The average selling price for the calves was $9.60, thus netting $3.87 a calf above the value of the milk consumed. Dairymen in Fresno County who raised veal valves fed them for from three to seven weeks upon a diet of whole milk. On an average, each calf utilized 58.4 gallons of whole milk containing 17.8 pounds of butterfat, worth at the prevailing market $11.12. The average selling price of calves was $7.50, so that the average calf in this district failed by $3.62 of paying for the feed that it consumed. In the Monterey-San Benito-Santa Cruz district, dairymen had the choice of selling many of their calves for "from $4.00 to $6.00 when four or five days old or else for an average of $9.04 when three or four weeks old after either feeding them by hand or allowing them to run with the cows. When the longer feeding period was used, the calves consumed an average of 42 gallons of milk, having a market value of $7.60. Long-time feeding, therefore, returned but $1.44 more than the cost of feed, as against a return of $4.00 to $6.00 for a few-days-old calf. Other districts are not discussed because in several of them the dairymen dispose of any calves possessing a value at the time that the cow's milk can be used for human consumption, or else the calves are killed when they are born because of the lack of any kind of market. Vealing few-days-old calves was found to be the rule in the Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara and the Los Angeles-Orange dis- tricts. While a little selling of new-born calves was practiced in San Diego County, a large number of calves were killed because feeding was deemed to be prohibitive. Discarding calves was the rule in Humboldt County. Factors to be taken into account in determining the best practice to be used in connection with calves are : Value of calf at time when the dam's milk can be used for human consumption, prices received Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing market milk and butterfat 159 for veal at end of colostrum, period and later, length of time that calf is kept on whole milk, possibility of substituting skimmilk in whole or in part during the feeding period, market value of the milk and butterfat consumed, gain of calf during the feeding period, and suit- ability of the breed for vealing. In some districts, it was evident that more attention to the raising of calves for addition to the milking herds of other sections might well receive attention, as, for example, in San Luis Obispo County, where the existing conditions of feed, labor, market price, and available facilities are favorable. Raising of calves from suitable stock for sale to dairymen operating under conditions which prohibit the rearing of their cows has possibilities not only as a side line but as a possibility for actually replacing some of the present dairying activities. VALUE OF MANURE PRODUCED BY THE MILKING HERDS From the figures showing dairymen's estimates of what they con- sidered the manure produced by their milking herds to be worth to them, it is evident that many dairymen are either hazy concerning the amount of credit which should be allowed for this by-product, or else are misinformed as to the actual value that manure has in con- nection with maintaining the crop producing power of land. In table 35 is shown the average value of manure per cow made up from dairymen's estimates in each district. The range in value is considerable and partly traceable to varying market demands according to location. For example, the citrus and truck growers of southern California provide a market that is reflected in the estimates of the dairymen supplying manure to these growers, a condition that does not hold in many sections, such as Humboldt, Marin-Sonoma and San Luis Obispo districts. TABLE 35 Showing Dairymen's Estimates of the Average Annual Value per Animal for Manure Produced Value per Head _.. , . for Manure Produced JJlstrict by Dairy Animals Humboldt $3.37 Marin-Sonoma 1.62 Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara 4.17 Sacramento-Yolo 2.46 San Joaquin-Stanislaus 4.08 Fresno 3.44 Kern 4.20 Los Angeles-Orange 12.54 San Diego 9.18 San Luis Obispo .33 Monterey-San Benito-Santa Cruz ..., 1.57 160 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION When one considers that the average output for a 1000-pound cow during the year amounts to 2.8 tons of urine and 9.88 tons of dung, or a total of 12.68 tons a year, containing 79.22 pounds of potash, 125.21 pounds of nitrogen, and 24.30 pounds of phosphorus, it is onable to believe that the value of manure is under- valued. Not all this content can ordinarily be recovered by the dairyman, but only a relatively small proportion need be retained to exceed most of the estimates of worth as shown in the foregoing table. If market values of plant foods are taken at 20 cents a pound for nitrogen, 5 cents for phosphorus, and 4 cents for potash, a year 's output to the cow would have a value of $29.43, or $2.28 a ton. DECREASING MORTALITY Certain losses among the dairy herds were reported which suggest that there is opportunity for some attention to this phase of dairy lcoking to the lessening of mortality from avoidable A number of animals were recorded as having died because or bloat or from swallowing bits of baling wire. Possible losses from b T oiting msy be reduced or avoided by following the practice of cer- tain dairy men who keep their losses at a very low figure by holding tha cows in corrals until the dew is off the feed, by giving dry rough- age such as straw before turning the cows out, by accustoming the cow3 to new feeds gradually, and by not pasturing them when the : is f osly. Careful watch for possible bloating is likewise main- tained by these dairymen and prompt measures taken to relieve ani- in distress. of a pair of pliers in opening hay bales instead of hacking with a hatchet does away with the danger of cutting off short bits re which may be swallowed by the cow and cause internal com- itions. An eicmentary knowledge of veterinary science would be an ad- to all dairymen. Early treatment of minor ailments will not nee mortality but also the expense incidental to hiring small ,'oI), done. Re ognition of troubles which may ultimately prove disastrous and disposal of animnls when they still possess a meat value are of' increasing the profit r.bl en ess of the dairy on some farms. Bulletin 372] C0ST 0F producing MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 1 61 SUMMARY The cost of producing whole milk and butterfat on 246 California dairies in 11 districts, studied during 1922, was found to b ows : Humboldt-Del Norte district, $2.73 per 100 pounds of whole mLk or 61.2 cents a pound of butterfat in the Areata district and $2.41 per 100 pounds of whole milk or 54.5 cents per pound of butterfat ; Marin- Sonoma district, 49.2 cents a pound of butterfat; Alameda-Co Costa-Santa Clara district, $2.83 per 100 pounds of whole milk (24.4 cents a gallon) ; Sacramento-Yolo district, $2.46 per 100 pounds ol whole milk or 64.2 cents a pound of butterfat; San Joaquin-Stanislaus district, $2.63 per 100 pounds of whole milk or 60 cents a pound or butterfat; Fresno district, $2.34 per 100 pounds of whole milk or 60.2 cents a pound of butter; Kern district, $2.23 per 100 pounds of whole milk or 50.1 cents a pound of butterfat; Los Angeles-Orange district, $3.73 per 100 pounds of whole milk or at the rate of 97 cents a pound of butterfat contained in whole milk ; San Diego district, $3.67 per 100 pounds of whole milk or at the rate of 86 cents a pound ol butter- fat contained in w r hole milk; San Luis Obispo district, 53. G cents a pound of butterfat; Monterey-San Benito-Santa Cruz district, $2.54 cents per 100 pounds of whole milk or 70 cents a pound of butter Lit. During the period of the study, manual labor costs by district averages ranged from 24.1 to 38.2 cents an hour; management from 8.4 .to 39 per cent of the sums spent for manual labor ; horse labor costs from 8.0 to 21.9 cents an hour; truck and automobile use from 4.8 to 12.5 cents a mile; pasture from $2.68 to $23.16 a cow a year; hay from $12.05 to $23.59 per ton; concentrates from $26.09 to $42.67; silage from $4.81 to $7.86; and green feed from $3.10 to $6.42 per ton. Part III records the unit factor findings of the amounts of the different items which together make up the cost of producing whole milk and butterfat. * Ways of increasing profits suggested by the study are greater economy in the use of labor and feed, elimination of calf feeding, more efficient use of manure, and more definite attempts to reduce mortality. The number of dairies in each district from which complete and usable cost data were obtained were as follows : Humboldt-Del Norte, 25 ; Marin-Sonoma, 19 ; Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara, 20 ; Sac- 162 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION r amen to- Yolo, 41 ; San Joaquin-Stanislaus, 17 ; Fresno, 17 ; Kern, 15 ; Los Angeles-Orange, 40 ; San Diego, 13 ; San Luis Obispo, 20 ; Mon- terey-San Benito-Santa Cruz, 19. On the basis of the dairies studied in each district, the findings indicate that of the total output the proportion produced at a cost equal to or below the average price received during the year, by dis- tracts, amounted as follows : Humboldt-Del Norte, vicinity of Areata, none, Orick-Requa, 16.4 per cent of butterfat and 15.3 per cent of whole milk ; Marin-Sonoma, 41 per cent of butterfat ; Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara, 30 per cent of whole milk ; Sacramento-Yolo, 8 per cent of butterfat and 24 per cent of whole milk ; San Joaquin-Stanis- laus, 44 per cent of milk ; Fresno, 50.8 per cent of butterfat and 55.6 per cent of whole milk ; Kern, 70 per cent of butterfat and 74 per cent of whole milk; Los Angeles-Orange, 34.1 per cent of milk; San Diego 62.2 per cent of milk; San Luis Obispo, 40 per cent of butterfat; Monterey-San Benito-Santa Cruz, 10 per cent of both butterfat and whole milk. Of the various items making up gross cost of production, labor and feed are most important. Percentages for each of these items and the total of the two were found to be for the various districts as follows: Humboldt-Del Norte, labor 31.2, feed 54.5, total 85.7 per cent ; Marin- Sonoma, labor 24.8, feed 53.3, total 78.1 per cent; Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara, labor 29.4, feed 45.5, total 74.9 per cent; Sacra- mento-Yolo, labor 28.6, feed 47.2, total 75.8 per cent; San Joaquin- Stanislaus, labor 31.5, feed 42.0, total 73.5 per cent; Fresno, labor 30.0, feed 45.9, total 75.9 per cent; Kern, labor 30.4, feed 52.0, total 82.4 per cent; Los Angeles-Orange, labor 20.9, feed 56.5, total 77.4 per cent; San Diego, labor 26.7, feed 51.8, total 78.5 per cent; San Luis Obispo, labor 37.4, feed 43.5, total 80.9 per cent; Monterey-San Benito-Santa Cruz, labor 29.3, feed 53.1, total 82.4 per cent. Of the total output of these dairies, the amount sold by each group ranged from 83.1 to 97 per cent, the remainder being retained at the dairy for feeding of calves or for family or employees' use. Averages for eight of the eleven districts show that between 91.7 and 94 per cent of the output was sold. One district, Los Angeles-Orange, sold more than 94 per cent, the figure for this district being 97 per cent, while two districts recorded less than 91.7 per cent sold, these being Fresno with 83.1 per cent and San Diego with 88 per cent. BULLETIN 372] C0ST 0F PRODUCING MARKET MILK AND BUTTERFAT 163 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The combined efforts of many have gone into the preparation of this publication. It is not possible to list all who have helped, but it is right that attention be called to those who have rendered substantial aid in making this publication possible. Much credit is due to Mr. W. N. Brown and to Mr. J. A. McKee, employed for about one and one-half years in the collecting, assem- bling, and analyzing of the various data, for their zeal and interest. Mr. Brown, in addition to his other duties, contributed substantial aid in the preparation of the final manuscript. Mr. A. E. de Fremery rendered valuable assistance in the collecting and assembling of field data. All helped in conducting meetings with dairymen. Credit is due to the dairymen who for many months collected data and patiently submitted to seemingly endless questioning, without whose ready and willing cooperation this contribution of economic dairy data would be far from complete and even perhaps actually impossible of attainment. Occupying responsible positions as local representatives were F. J. Obara and W. A. Beer in Humboldt and Del Norte counties, C. C. Rosa and E. Brain, assisting in western Marin and Sonoma counties, George Wolf in San Joaquin County, M. L. Gorow in Stanislaus County, L. R. Ward in Fresno County, G. P. Penfield in Kern County, L. D. Sanborn, Arthur E. Dewey, G. C. Radditz, and I. J. Wolf in Los Angeles County, John Bichan in Orange County, W. W. Coke in San Bernardino County, M. G. Salmina in San Luis Obispo County, P. Livingston in Monterey County, A. G. Rinn in Santa Cruz County. Others who had a substantial part in the carrying forward of the work were W. Bedford, H. B. Cobb, M. H. Kimball, T. R. Screaton, S. K. Starr, and Professor F. W. Woll. The United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics, aided financially in the carrying on of the work. Their appropriation of $1500 toward the salary of one of the men during 18 months beginning January 1, 1922, was equivalent to 9 per cent of the California State funds made available for the work. The Department's funds were utilized in the collection of data in the Alameda-Contra Costa-Santa Clara and San Diego districts. Duplicate sales sheets prepared for us by a number of creamery operators and their office assistants were of substantial aid. So, too, 164 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION was the assistance of assessors and tax collectors in helping us secure the proper taxation charges made against the various dairies. Substantial contributions in the way of office assistance were made by R. E. Largent, L. E. Haseltine, R. E. Bowen, Arthur E. Dewey, C. I. Brainerd, and others who labored to put the field records in usable shape.