IRLF Economic Study of Dairying on 149 Farms in Broome County, New York A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY EDWARD GARDNER MISNER Published as Bulletin 409 Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, April 1922. 294 BULLETIN 409 the interest on which amounts to $8155.45. Since veals and bulls to be sold are kept on hand for only a short time, no interest was charged on their value. The data are given in table 13. Interest was charged to the dairy enterprise on the investment in forage for the average length of time the forage was stored before it was fed, and on the investment in concentrates from the time they were paid for until they were fed. On each record this cost was distributed to cows, heifers, and herd bulls, according to the numbers of animals kept and the quantities of feed used. The average total capital so invested was $38,160, or about $256 per farm. On some farms keeping heifers and herd bulls the interest charge on feed and supplies was so small that it was not separated. The data are given in table 14: TABLE 14. INTEREST ON AVERAGE VALUE OF FEED AND SUPPLIES KEPT ON HAND FOR 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS All herds Cows Heifers Herd bulls Average value of feed and supplies on hand Number of farms having expense Interest at 5 per cent Number of farms having expense Amount charged Number of farms having expense Amount charged Number of farms having expense Amount charged $38,160 149 $1,908 149 $i ,511.50 120 $305.50 81 $91 .00 Miscellaneous costs All remaining expenses were classed as miscellaneous costs, and are given in table 15. Of these, ice, veterinary fees, medicines and disinfec- tants, fly protectors, whitewash, and expenses for testing milk, were the most important. Farmers having the expense for milk testing estimated the portion of this' expense that should be charged to cows, to heifers, to bulls to be sold, and to herd bulls. The same was done with other items not wholly chargeable to cows. The average amount of ice stored per cow was 1949 pounds. Returns Returns from dairy cattle on the farms studied were classified as (i) milk and milk products, (2) appreciation on cattle, (3) manure recovered, (4) miscellaneous returns. Milk and milk products Milk sold. Of the 149 farms, 52 sold to the Empire State Dairy Com- pany at Windsor and i to this company at Oquaga, 39 sold to Cloverdale Farms Company at Binghamton, 18 sold to F. W. Jansen at Whitney's Point, 1 6 to Bordens' at Tunnel, 7 to Sheffield Farms, Slawson-Decker Company, at Conklin, 5 to Bordens' at Whitney's Point, 3 to the Broome County Dairy Company at Binghamton, 7 a part of the year to F. W. AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 295 m |e? CO <= O tC ON Tf COVO "HO CO 10 O ^-^O t^. CO CS 0) CO (S H-I fO rh OOO H-I ^O CO ON 00 O oo o r OOOOOOMOC< 2*0 85 ONOO l^ O ^O O -" CO (S COVO 00 CO cO t^ HH lO^O i-HOjr^OcO IOHHI-ICOMI-H O t^ 10 t^ rt- rl-vO COHHO\COC ^h -IMOOO t-H C i-c >O ^t^t>. ( OO O^t< -O O O *** CO *< OO (M O OJ tO rf* i-H Tt< 1C i I i ' > . __^ '.P c?g^ooo,o K r^^oopo :S S? O'*t^"tOOtOl>. < rHOt^-OtOt^-t^-^OiC s 1^ C^l ^H Ot--O CO CO !M (M r-H - t^ OOOOO s" ~~ kO CO < K SK^OOOlO S U9 OOC ^0=0 sss^S^ t ^co ; 882; 0iC <'' I g^^ g 5 Oi~HOO >O CO ^H^HCMO^H'-icNi^HOCO O PQ \o i~>. Hi! g^NW^HTjte^W^T-ieO ; ; % < uf J 1 co co t^ 10 ^ S o ^ co "5 00 -H 00 vT H 0> J S o" i 3 K 1 IgJ I'lfe ^3SSc^2c^gSaS c O O -H CM * oi O5 O5 -^ CO O O(N 1 o o 5 en" O H O 1C IO O O CO O3 OS -H * O CM 00 lr^ CO CM t^O 8 CO 00 10 B i- 1 X > i*" , 1 n s ||| 2oS^!:^22 11 S i ^ *ft JH^,^,-,^ ID , T3 U5 5 w o < H o H CM 5 O CO TH Tf CO O CO O TM co" 1 fe >< M n 1*57.1 IJil ga-saaaa-B a- TABLE 3. I Kind of feed 1 ! i| : 11 il 1 ; : ^l>.t : i i^S : = w 2 Total dry forage AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 285 of the pasture, and money paid for the use of pasture, were included. The amount received for stock taken in to pasture was deducted to get the cost of pasturing the farmer's own stock. This cost on each record was ap- portioned to cows, heifers, herd bulls, horses, and sheep, on the animal -unit basis and according to the number of days pastured. Most of the pasture hired was for heifers and the amount paid was charged directly to them. The average date of turning out in the spring was May 14, and that of beginning full barn feeding in the fall was October 19. This allowed an average of 159 days on pasture. The dates of turning out varied from May i to June i. The dates of beginning to feed in the fall varied from September 15 to November 15. Usually the meadows were pastured after the hay was removed. They furnished considerable feed, especially on the river flats. For this no charge was made, altho such a charge should have been included. In late summer and early fall, pasture was frequently supplemented by grain or fodder or both. The dry matter in the feed used supplementary to pasture for cows was equivalent to the dry matter in ten days of winter feed. On this basis pasture furnished 149 days of full feed for cows. An average of 53.2 acres to each farm was pastured. Since the average size of farm was 156.7 acres, 34 per cent of the land was in pasture. The average value was $20.25 an acre - O n the average 3.1 acres were pastured per animal unit. The cost of pasture was $4.83 per cattle unit for the season, or 3.04 cents a day. Of this, interest and taxes comprised 72 per cent, and fencing costs 20 per cent. The balance was cash paid for hired pasture and other miscellaneous items. The charge for stock taken in to pasture was at the rate of $6.30 an animal unit for the season, or about 4 cents a day. A summary of pasture costs is given in table 4. Stock pastured, and the distribution of the cost of pasture, are given in table 5. TABLE 4. COST OF PASTURE, 2018 Cows, 607 HEIFERS, 106 HERD BULLS, 199 SHEEP, AND 124 HORSES AND COLTS 7,927.5 acres of pasture land at $20.25 = $160,509 Item Farms having t expense Cost Interest and taxes at 5 5 per cent 149 $8,828 Making and repairing fences. 147 2, 195 Mowing and reseeding 5 69 Fertilizing and manuring 2 165 Amount paid for pasture rented 4S 793 Total . $12,250 Received for pasture . . 2O 1O5 Difference ( cost of pasture) $11 ,04.5 286 BULLETIN 409 TABLE 5. STOCK PASTURED, AND DISTRIBUTION OF PASTURE COST Kind of stock Number of farms pasturing Number of animals pastured Average number of days pastured to each farm pasturing Equivalent in animal units for entire season Amount charged Stock owned : Cows Heifers 149 122 2,018 607 159 14.6 2,018.5 205 7 $9,338 I QO7 Herd bulls IOO 1 06 i -21 76 I ^4.6 Total cattle 2 ,7-11 2 AGO ^ $11 SQI Sheep 8 IQQ I -I A ^1 ^ 1 06 Horses and colts 52 I2 4 99 64.8 248 Total owned ^ OS4 ' 2 4Q6 4 $11 04. S Stock taken in: Mature II IQ l\\ ISO Young 12 68 152 \2 S Total 7, 141 2 , S44- 8 Acres of pasture per animal unit, 3.1. Cost for each cattle unit of farmer's own stock, $4.83. Bedding Waste hay and stover from the mangers furnished a considerable quantity of bedding. No charge was made for this, since it was charged to the cattle as forage. Very little bedding was purchased. The bedding cost was apportioned to cows, heifers, and herd bulls on each farm. The data are given in table 6 : TABLE 6. BEDDING USED BY 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS All herds Cows Heifers Herd bulls Kind of bedding Num- ber of farms Amount (tons) Value Num- ber of farms Value Num- ber of farms Value Num- ber of farms Value using using using using Home-grown: Oat straw 90 269.3 $1,483 92 $1,171 65 $225 5i $87 Buckwheat straw . 21 32 7 105 22 101 i 4 Wheat straw I O.5 2 I 2 o o Rye straw : i 3-0 24 I 18 i 2 i 4 Chaff : 6 ? 27 6 17 2 6 3 4 Swamp and marsh hay . . 6 9-5 50 5 40 3 8 2 2 O ? 22 8 22 6 Total home-grown. . . . $1,713 $i,37i $245 $97 Purchased : Sawdust . . 52 ? $315 51 $275 12 $28 8 $12 Shavings 5 ? 26 5 18 I 5 I 3 Buckwheat straw I ? 14 i 2 I 10 i 2 Oat straw 3 ? 12 2 7 2 4 i I Total purchased $367 $302 $47 $18 Total bedding $2,080 $1,673 $292 $H5 AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 287 Labor Some farmers hauled their own milk, while many hired it hauled. Some spent considerable time in making and repairing pasture fences or in constructing and repairing buildings, while others spent little. For these reasons it was thought best to include such time under charges for milk hauling, pasture, and use of buildings, rather than under labor. Excepting this, and also time spent in raising and harvesting crops and time spent hauling manure from the barnyard, all human and horse labor for the dairy enterprise was charged under the heading Labor. This includes all labor in milking, taking care of milk and dairy equipment, feeding, cleaning cattle and stables, hauling and mixing feed, hauling bedding, buying and selling cattle, and? all other time spent for cattle. Not only was this labor divided as to whether it was spent for cows, for heifers, or for herd bulls, but it was also divided according to whether it was spent during the pasture period or during the winter period. The average wage of male farm labor without board in New York in 1915 was $35.80 a month. 6 This is about fifteen cents an hour for a nine-hour day, but probably is too low because use of house, wood, and other things furnished are not included in all cases. Farm operators, however, could ordinarily hire out to operate farms at more than hired men's wages, and their time, therefore, should be counted at a higher rate. The time of women and children usually is not so valuable as the time of men. The cost of labor per hour depends largely on the size of the business, on the layout of the farm, on the type and intensity of farming, and on wages. Other things being equal, the rates are usually higher on the one- man farms than on the two-man farms. But since no records of the cost of labor on these farms were available, it was necessary to charge labor to dairy cattle at the same rate on each farm, irrespective of the variations mentioned. Man labor was charged at 15 cents an hour. Since no records of any kind were available to show what woman and child labor cost, it was charged at 10 cents an hour. Horse labor was charged at 15 cents an hour. The data for labor costs are given in table 7 (page 288). Milk hauling In order to make comparisons between farms that hired milk hauled and those where milk was hauled by the farmer, the cost of hauling milk was kept separate from other costs. When the farmer drew his own milk only, or when he cooperated with neighbors in hauling, the cost was found by multiplying the hours of human and horse time required by the same rates per hour as were used for other labor. * United States Department of Agriculture. Monthly crop report, March, 1917, page 25. 2S8 BULLETIN 409 crT I Q II io * 4) a O 10 10 \OO\H< iOOOroi/5 1-1 rt M ro -^-OO O io IOO M O -*t ^tO rj- 00 i 10 cc 3 C 10 10 10 WOO 1010 C 00 CMo \000 0\ 10 10 vO CN row M o M I * * " 1" 1 l| S 5 c Tt-OM t-0000 Tj-0 t-t- l-i IO "" t^ Tf M if, T)-00 O O ro n t^c? O^ 2 Jo ^S)^ M ro M ^ M M 10 s = CN W M CN 00 M Number of farms using O\ t--O 00 1-1 00 ro , t^ IO CN IO CN IO CN a S O O ^t O IO IO 1000 1 ^2 ^oo io C* M Tt - O M CN CM II OOO IO \O^ w Cv * "i M I JH! t^^O IO IO O IO M O\ 't ro CN ro CN HI M VO 1-1 Tf r- ro i :| i M i : : : : : : .$ : : : : 13 i ii M I cows. . . 1 1 '. o. '^S o c : o : c ". & "S bi * '^ ''9 '^c 3 pl^lilllll J w Total human labor for Horse labor for cows . . Heifers: Human labor Horse labor . . . Herd bulls: Human labor Horse labor Total human labor Total horse labor AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 289 .CO iO O M 5 o o HH t^N, 10 oo a d ON 00 5. : 2 a 1 >> 3 : : - H3 c . hH C^ 3 O ^^: TO _ _Tl JO ^ g : :^ ON Tf O o V ffi & iO 10 W |.s H Si W HI (S HH OJ (S M 3 , 2 O O O O ^- O N 00 rh oo o CN 1 13 CN rj-ON HH CN iO O ON SO M M 0^ 0* 8 ^ * " ; (N 11 e-g 3 vO O ~ f vo CO rj- H JJ| 00 iO fN 00 VO ON ON VO vO * 1? * oo 10 1^ en ON ^ O (N Tj- CS 8 1 aj lOO O O 10 O . R 3 ^"^S'S OO OO t^ VO 10 10 0? o IO HH HH HH OO I s ** O vO 13 H ^ 10 oo 10 < II 1^* O ^ GO ^^^ 8 co ON CO CO O oo rh 10 fa | 00 IOM ON r^. ON 00 oo rf ll" i 1 ' C ^3 aj tuO s s ^ c : : : : * '5* J - : : : 13 X3 A 1 J ^ I O 1 ~ H O ffi li 2QO BULLETIN 409 All charges for the use of the milk wagon, cans, and other equipment used in hauling milk, were included under dairy equipment, rather than under milk hauling. The charge, therefore, includes no expense for use of equipment. When the farmer hired his milk hauled, the money paid was considered the cost of hauling. Whenever a combination of methods was used, the cost was found by adding the cash cost to the farmer's labor charge for hauling. At the rates used in this study, human labor made up 29.8 per cent, horse labor 44.5 per cent, and cash paid 25.7 per cent, of the cost of hauling the milk. Milk-hauling charges made up 8.2 per cent of the total charges to the enterprise. Of the total time spent, only 14.8 per cent was in cooperation with neighbors. The figures for milk-hauling costs are given in table 8. Use of buildings Values at the beginning and at the end of the year, of the silos, milk houses, ice houses, and those parts of the barns and other buildings used by dairy cattle, or in storing all feed except dry forage used by them, are given in table 9 : TABLE 9. VALUE OF BUILDINGS, 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, 172 HERD BULLS, AND 76 BULLS TO BE SOLD - May 1, 1914 May I , 1915 Buildings Number of farms reporting Value Number of farms reporting Value Dairy and cattle barns* Silos 149 54. $127,612 8, cm 149 60 $128,577 9,777 Milk houses 122 4,708 124 4,821 Ice houses 94 7,494 95 3,507 Total $144 746 $146,682 Average value, $145,714. Increase in value, $1,936. * Includes 9 silos built in barns. The average of these values was $145,714, or about $978 per farm. During the year six new silos were erected, so that at the end of the year about 40 per cent of the farms had silos not built inside the barns. The number of silos does not agree with the number of farms feeding silage, for the reason that on some farms the silos were built in the barns and were included with the value of the barn. Most of the farms have milk houses separate from the barns, and 64 per cent have separate ice houses, altho AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 291 1 08 farmers used ice. Often one building is used as both a milk house and storage for ice. The charge for the use of buildings was made up of interest at 5 per cent on the average value, the cost of new buildings, cost of repairs, insurance, and decreased value. When buildings were worth more at the end of the year, the increase in value was deducted to determine the charge for their use. This was then apportioned to cows, to heifers, to herd bulls, and to bulls to be sold, according to the average number of cattle units of each class on hand at the beginning and at the end of the year. The data for use of buildings are given in table 10: TABLE 10. CHARGES FOR USE OF BUILDINGS, 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, 172 HERD BULLS, AND 76 BULLS TO BE SOLD Number of farms reporting Amount New buildings and building repairs: Purchased lumber 7 $ 287 40 Shingles and roofing 18 565 . oo Paint and glass 40 427 . 70 Hardware 113 60 Materials from farms 17 424. 50 Sand and gravel 6 21 25 Cement 2OO 40 Labor: Hired. 18 Q42 .45 Farm 26 516. 16 Horse 7 74.20 Board of labor 6 26. 50 New buildings, labor and materials 10 I ,911 . 50 Total 86 $5, 5IO 66 Interest on $145 714 at 5 per cent $7,285.70 Insurance . 455.OO Total $13,251 .36 t>ess increase in value* I ,936.00 Net charge $11 , ^15 ^6 Apportionment of cost Number of farms having expense Amount charged Cows 140 $8,705 6q Heifers 146 2,14'; 21 Herd bulls 126 464 . 46 Bulls to be sold I 2 OO * Depreciation on buildings, 2.45 per cent of average value. 2Q2 BULLETIN 409 Use of equipment The value of the different kinds of equipment used by dairy cattle, on hand at the beginning and at the end of the year, and the number of farms having each kind, are given in table 1 1 : TABLE ii. VALUE OF EQUIPMENT USED BY 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS May I, 1914 May i , iQiS Number of farms Value of equip- ment Number of farms Value of equip- ment Milk cans 120 $1,040 122 $ 997 Coolers 10 3 ii 14 Testers, bottles, and scales 17 44 18 46 Separators I ^n 16 -\2\ Churns and workers AO 85 40 8S Bottles and containers 7 ii 7 ii Milk wagons 9 i ,710 Q2 1,686 Milking machines I 250 Ice tools 91 237 91 236 Feed cutters i 25 I 25 Pumps i 3 I 3 Root cutters 4 10 2 6 Grinders and engines 10 788 14 794 Milk pails and strainers 147 314 148 332 Extra calf pails 31 33 33 34 Clipping machines 24 us 28 141 Veterinary outfits II 21 17 25 Forks, shovels, and other barn tools . . . Wheelbarrows and trucks 126 41 36o lOt 122 47 364 114 Staffs and halters 22 23 24 28 Total $5,263 $S, S^4 Average value, $5.398. Increase in value, $271. More than three-fifths of the value of equipment is in milk cans, pails, strainers, and other dairy utensils, and wagons used in hauling milk. The farmers, with the exception of the patrons of one company, owned the cans they used. Since much of this equipment is in daily use, it requires frequent repairing and must be replaced often. Hence its upkeep repre- sents the largest part of the annual cost of dairy equipment. The charge for the use of equipment includes interest at 5 per cent on the average value at the beginning and at the end of the year, cost of equip- ment purchased during the year, repairs on equipment, and decreased value less any increase in value. This cost was apportioned for each farm, to cows, to heifers, and to herd bulls, according to the number of animals and the amount of equipment used by them. The charges are given in table 12: AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 293 TABLE 12. CHARGES FOR USE OF EQUIPMENT, 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS . Number of farms having expense Amount Interest on $5 398 at 5 per cent* 149 $ 260 qo Equipment purchased . IT.T. i ,079 30 Repairs 76 230.00 Total Si , S7Q 2O Less increase in value 271 oo Net charge . $1 ,308 20 Apportionment of cost Number r\f farms having Amount charged expense Cows 14.0 $i 015 10 Heifers 1 18 221 45 Herd bulls . ... I O2 71 6s * Depreciation, 19. 2 per cent of average value. Interest Separate interest charges at 5 per cent were made on the average value of cattle and on the average investment in feed and supplies kept on hand for cattle. As previously indicated, the other interest charges were included under use of pasture, use of buildings, and use of equipment. The average value of cows, heifers, and herd bulls was $163,124. Due to averaging each record separately, the value here used is $163,109, TABLE 13. INTEREST ON AVERAGE VALUE OF 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS Kind of stock Average number from inventory Average value from inventory Value used in charging interest Interest at 5 per cent Number of farms having expense Cows . 2 058 $m, 152 $!'*'*, 148 $6,657.40 140 Heifers under one year Heifers one year or over Bull calves to be kept Herd bulls one to two years . . Herd bulls over two years old 532.5 469.5 67 59 7 45 7,296 16,338 1,074 2,162 3,102 23,626 6,335 1,181.30 316.75 146 126 Total $163,124 $163,109 $8,155-45 BULLETIN 409 the interest on which amounts to $8155.45. Since veals and bulls to be sold are kept on hand for only a short time, no interest was charged on their value. The data are given in table 13. Interest was charged to the dairy enterprise on the investment in forage for the average length of time the forage was stored before it was fed, and on the investment in concentrates from the time they were paid for until they were fed. On each record this cost was distributed to cows, heifers, and herd bulls, according to the numbers of animals kept and the quantities of feed used. The average total capital so invested was $38,160, or about $256 per farm. On some farms keeping heifers and herd bulls the interest charge on feed and supplies was so small that it was not separated. The data are given in table 14: TABLE 14. INTEREST ON AVERAGE VALUE OF FEED AND SUPPLIES KEPT ON HAND FOR 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, AND 172 HERD BULLS All herds Cows Heifers Herd bulls Average value of feed and supplies on hand Number of farms having expense Interest at 5 per cent Number of farms having expense Amount charged Number of farms having expense Amount charged Number of farms having expense Amount charged $38,160 149 $1,908 149 $1,511.50 120 $305.50 81 $91.00 Miscellaneous costs All remaining expenses were classed as miscellaneous costs, and are given in table 15. Of these, ice, veterinary fees, medicines and disinfec- tants, fly protectors, whitewash, and expenses for testing milk, were the most important. Farmers having the expense for milk testing estimated the portion of this' expense that should be charged to cows, to heifers, to bulls to be sold, and to herd bulls. The same was done with other items not wholly chargeable to cows. The average amount of ice stored per cow was 1949 pounds. Returns Returns from dairy cattle on the farms studied were classified as (i) milk and milk products, (2) appreciation on cattle, (3) manure recovered, (4) miscellaneous returns. Milk and milk products Milk sold. Of the 149 farms, 52 sold to the Empire State Dairy Com- pany at Windsor and i to this company at Oquaga, 39 sold to Cloverdale Farms Company at Binghamton, 18 sold to F. W. Jansen at Whitney's Point, 1 6 to Bordens' at Tunnel, 7 to Sheffield Farms, Slawson-Decker Company, at Conklin, 5 to Bordens' at Whitney's Point, 3 to the Broome County Dairy Company at Binghamton, 7 a part of the year to F. W. AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 295 Ill I HH T^- HH _ CO CS W O r 04 C< E ^ i t^. ID ON 1^00 - (N \O O 1-1 IO*O l-lC4t~>.OCO CO CN CO^O 00 CO ro t^ HH \O IO HH HH CO l-l 1-1 O) iOOOOO>-iOcO COi-HONCOO0 I-H O iO O^^-O ^O \O O OO O 1-1 O M (S ro lO^O O^OO Ooooovof c J3 * '" 2" K 298 BULLETIN 409 farmers in whitewashing their barns twice a year, without charge. The figures for the returns from milk sold are given in table 17. Milk products sold. Only seven farms sold butter, and one farm sold 200 pounds of cream. The figures are given in tables 18 and 19. Milk and milk products used. The value of all milk used on each farm was calculated by multiplying the number of pounds used by the weighted average price received for all milk sold from the farm. Some farmers TABLE 1 8. RETURNS FROM MILK PRODUCTS SOLD AND MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS USED ON FARMS, 2058 Cows Num- ber of farms Number of pounds of product Number of pounds of fat Price Total value Milk products sold: Butter 7 i 015 863 $o 31 $312 76 Cream Total milk products sold I 200 40 1.50 30.00 $342 76 Milk used: Family 147 313,048 12,522 $1.63 $5 ,103.33 Hired men Milk products used: Skimmilk: Hogs 14 10 17,638 30 7OO 706 1.72 O. 20 304. 16 59 97 Poultry i 2,200 o. 15 3.30 Buttermilk: 21 7 264 O 22 15 93 Hogs 10 3 ,250 o. 23 7. 50 Poultry I f * IOO o 20 o 20 Butter, family use Cream, family use 36 II 5,656 1,000 4,808 200 0.29 1.81 i,633-97 180.64 Total milk and its products used, except that fed cattle 19 139 $7 309 oo Equivalent in pounds of milk* 371 ,457 Milk used: Heifers 134 215 464 8 619 $i 63 $3 i i 7 77 Veals and bulls to be sold Bull calves to be kept for herd bulls. 94 65 193,535 26,275 7,741 1,051 1.62 1.63 3 ,126.91 429.47 Milk products used: Skimmilk: Heifers 32 96,068 $0.18 $171.17 Veals and bulls to be sold 3 072 o 20 6 16 Bull calves to be kept for herd bulls 8 6,493 0.17 11.08 $188 41 Buttermilk: Heifers 3 i ,300 $o 19 $2 45 $2.45 Total milk and its products fed cattle 17 411 $7 265 01 Equivalent in pounds of milk* 540 907 * Excluding buttermilk. fed more milk in months when the price was below the average price for the year, and others fed more when the price was above the average. But the quantity used in the house was practically uniform thruout the season. Since the months in which milk was used were not ascertained, it was necessary to use the average yearly price. The prices used in calculating the value of skimmilk and buttermilk were those furnished by the farmers. An average of 2130 pounds of milk per family was used. The figures are given in table 18 and summarized in table 19. AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 299 .S* 1 ,916.77 ll rt m > ^ 9 ^o H ro ro 10 a Ov ' o o : *o i ? o 00 I s S Pounds si P 8 a S - ro ro ro r^ | ^ ro M O ro s oq Pounds vO 10 vO xO t^ o" 1 !! 00 * 1 > (A ~ : * -M . "2 T-1 M 2" . 2" pg C O* 1-1 M M ; o\ 2 1 S3 F : : LO t^ LO LO ro r 'N' '. ro . e 3 uS 3 i ; o - ' w 1 |SS : S ^00 N LO 1 00 00 13 " : 5 4^ ^" 8 ^ ^ - O IS 00 00 Ov LO tf 1-1 LO OO o\ 00 O O t- O O M 00 O O\ M \O M O 0\00 LOM M I 00 OO C/3 E 3? O M t- LO M -1-1 10 00 LOOO t^ t~ ro c7 : <& * 6* * jf LO LO LO <3 a; . ; . J. ^4. v^ .4. rfOO 1-1 O -> ^ t^oo o O. r^ ro ro O LONO i o S c O .^>.^ JSia M-M ^-d.SS __, Qi (-, 73 3 |jp :| : J 2 3 ationj. . . . lation I|1I a 3 o Ol^OQffi H lilllali H SS Big c II 5 II II J5 o '53 -C rC (0 . 5^ fc 302 BULLETIN 409 M o g ^S : ** _ ' 1 M (N IO 1 VI a) r d |1 ^^ 5 ^Oto ; 1C M MM . 00 13 JjioJ 10 fO M 10 O MM O e 1 ri s 1 >o'o to . vO > M c s n n nr I 1 H i'g ; O N 10 00 "rt 3 H :g j oo c ; 1 D CO oo 00 cr *jj M B H: 1 5 vO ri 1 Z o M ' O M ~3 ... ro ... | S3^'| * : : : -3- OOC -00 5 0) tooc 00 rf j r- ro O o\ t- ^r O to * . . - ro t n i jN M O Tj- t-( t- ON Jl"l O M Or- S e cl J3 13 00.- -t n 00 -00 ...(->. a o - M n O\ CO to '5 "2 .4) W 3jQ O 3 to to M to M ^ : lO 10 -CO ^10 t- M ro o" '. J5 IM tO M 00 M t M 3- ;[.:: 5 w ^ o rj !!BBI!I1I!!!I 5 OT W b fa 5 C G p, o o g ^H coo _ cOM'^-OO -O R ". 8 -1 ON ON O f^ I-H M \5 t^ 10 \O O t^-vO ^"lOOO lOOO co -co OOOOvOoOOOi-iOiOOOO -i-i P>l O r>-OO vO CO CO i-i ON i-i *> 00 M Ov rt ^- o <^ CO co >> 1 ^.^Oj M CO * 10 ""' HH M ^ 1 ^ "o bo '5 3 c r- ^^ & *d w a, ......... JB -g g c a ' ' ' ^ Q o o o ' ' o '' o o '''''' a o . .^^ ' ^ g ^^ ^Iw ^ CN| ON r^ C^ " * * CS * * hH (>1 N ' 00 hH * * CO 1 6 3 c < D " ~ CS COCN .10 vOt^-t^-OOO n rOTfiO^ O*O oo oo oo u 2 1 D a H : : : i I G * H ^ ,*Q -4- rt * j^ O -O aJ ' ^G c x *S a ' ' ' ' -M Tl-ON CO M H-l IO J> ^ ^ HH ^ 1 ,t 6 ' V) 1 d p ; ; 1 o j^^^ .-* a 1 ^ M ! "^ rj- & ** t~>. iO ^ ^ co^d" oo fti 1 Si CO^= (S | ^ j s ^C m ^a id fe '. w a a ; o 1 ! ! r*- Q * OJ a ' ^*- OJ 3 ^ ; o" CO ^J- < ! 2" H ^ : ^ : : rj- . . CN .... 10 2 s w w w * ' r^H i--J r^-J fj 3 a : : t JB a 1 a llaa .- : i o ; CN CN o ; ; rO ' X ' O O ' ' 13 , HH re rO > t/3 1 a 13 O O O O oo r*> o o o o o o <* o OO ^* HN vO ^ O^ ^O O r^ ON rj- ro lOOiOiO-vO'OiO O O 10 o 10 10 ^"O r^ o o rf* HH ON ^O r> HH ON CN O HH HH Tf CO 10 1 -j a C/3 O3 C/3 *T3 '^ ^O I 1 1 1 ' ' '; : : : : : : : : : 1 rO "^ ON fO iO ' ' O 00 HH cO ON t-- ' ' ' ' ON ' ' ' ' < 1 C5 l^. HH "^t ^1 00 00 00 \O \O e 1 8 888-^:^8 O^ O '^"'O r^* ^H . o to t^* *^ ^^ ^o ON OO fN O OO CO HH HH IO * * (N) ON ON\O 00 rj- 04 00 O -00 OOCNHHHH -HHCM>-H CO ' >-> (^ ^- . a M * s CO | w 'wwco* ^ T^ '(J *^ r/) i -*-> | S^g| : : 3 3 : : : : : : : : 3 a 3 B aaa . .^^ . . - 2 \O iO ONOO rf O ^h ON ^ rO *O < "I lOVO 00 . ^t ^ JJ N - vo COCO ON- '.'.** a ; HH CN tOCNOOOOOO uo Ot^.tvOOOfNcO rJ-iOHHOiO oo oo 7 6- i H , ' S : : : : : ::::::: :J ::::: i'S ta 'n 3 >> oS :::::::: g : :^ : : * M -M ,j> .... s 3 : **"^ O^ a 8~ :::::::: w : ^ . : .. g d x . !> TJ-OO 1 00 CO 00 00 -i Ol ro >-l C< (N) C< C< tj IS a ' ?S : i .1 : fl ** II ll i | \ fc'1 i .eturns (concluded}: Other than milk sold Milk and its pro cattle v Appreciation on c Calves and calf hi< Manure Miscellaneous. . . . I 1 1 3 Total returns rofit or loss . ^ : o w co . O< 6 8 --a 1^ ; l 11 1| j Chnrged to CCWP. PH U AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 309 The cost includes delivering to the receiving stations. Prices are paid for milk delivered. In order to be comparable the cost of production on different farms should therefore include the cost of delivery. A comparison of the herd cost and the cow cost of producing milk and butterf at is given in table 2 5 : TABLE 25. SUMMARY OF COST OF PRODUCING AND DELIVERING TO MARKET 104,732 HUNDREDWEIGHT OF MILK CONTAINING 420,673 POUNDS OF BUTTERF AT Herd cost Cow cost (2058 cows, 1002 heifers, 172 herd bulls, 377 veals, and 76 bulls to be sold) (2058 cows) Per hundred pounds of milk sold Per cent Per pound of but- terfat Per hundred pounds of milk sold Per cent Per pound of but- terfat Costs: Grain $o . 460 o. 236 0.485 O. Ill 20. i 10.3 21. I 4.8 $o. 1146 0.0587 o. 1207 0.0276 $0.409 0.215 0.389 0.089 2O. 2 10.6 19.2 4-4 $0. IOI9 0.0535 0.0968 0.0222 Succulent feed Dry forage Pasture Total feed $1.292 0.020 0.523 0.018 0.188 o. 108 0.012 O.078 0.018 0.002 56.3 0.9 22.8 0.8 8.2 4-7 0.5 3-4 0.8 O.I i . 5 $0.3216 o . 0049 o. 1302 0.0045 o . 0468 0.0269 0.0031 0.0194 0.0045 0.0004 $1 . IO2 0.016 0:472 1 0.016 0.188 0.083 O.OIO 0.064 0.014 O.O02 O.OI7 0.055 0.033 54-4 0.8 23-3 0.8 9-3 4.1 o.S 3- 1 0.7 O.I 0.8 o.S 1.6 $0.2744 o . 0040 o. 1174 o . 0040 0.0468 0.0207 0.0024 0.0158 0.0036 o . 0004 0.0043 0.0136 0.0083 Bedding Human labor Horse labor Hauling milk Use of buildings Use of equipment Interest on cattle Interest on feed and supplies Breeding fees Cost of keeping herd bulls Depreciation on cows M iscellaneous 0.035 0.0088 Total costs $2.294 100. $0.5711 $2.072 100. $0.5157 Returns other than milk sold: Milk products sold Milk and its products used on farm, except that fed cattle $0.003 0.070 0.267 0.247 0.003 $0.0008 0.0174 o . 0665 0.0613 0.0008 $0.003 0.070 0.070 0.044 o. 190 O.002 $0.0008 0.0174 0.0173 0.0109 0.0473 0.0005 Milk and its products fed cattle. . . Appreciation on cattle , . . . Calves and calf hides Manure M iscellaneous Total returns, other than milk sold Cost of milk or butterfat at market . $0.590 $1.704 $o. 1468 $0.4243 $0.379 $1.693 $0.0942 $0.4215 The gross herd charges per hundred pounds of milk sold were $2.29, but the returns other than milk sold amounted to 59 cents per hundred pounds. The herd cost of milk, therefore, was $1.70 per hundred pounds sold. The gross cow charges were $2.07 per hundred pounds, and the returns other than milk sold were 38 cents. Hence, the cow cost of milk was $1.69 per hundred pounds sold. The herd cost and the cow cost were practically the same, the former being i.i cents per hundred pounds higher. In other words, the loss on heifers, above the gain on veals and bulls to be sold, increased the cost of milk production only by this amount. 3io BULLETIN 409 The gross herd charges were 57.1 cents per pound of butterfat sold. The returns other than for milk sold were 14.7 cents, so that the net herd cost per pound of butterfat was 42.4 cents. ft*;. t . .:.'" ''; % / :;:/: *** r* * * * * * * $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.0 ' $3.00 $3. FlG. 53- VARIATION IN HERD COST OF PRODUCING MILK, 149 FARMS The cow charges were 51.6 cents per pound of butterfat. The returns, except for milk sold, were 9.4 cents, making the net cow cost per pound of butterfat sold 42.2 cents. Per cent of all mi!k sold $0.80 $1.17 $1.38 $1.63 $1.87 $2.14 $2.30 Cost per too pounds -in 1915 FlG. 54. VARIATION IN HERD COST OF PRODUCING MILK, 149 FARMS $2.81 AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING S 3w CD c o OMN r-Tf POO Ov-o 01 Ov ^ Tf PO POO ^i~ ) PO 2 An average of about 4 pounds of milk, containing 4 per cent of butter- fat, was produced per pound of grain fed. The quantities of feed used on these farms per pound of butterfat produced, check closely with the quantities used in experiment station herds, as shown in table 33. The AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING w . 1 il ' cog O^ G PQ l ON O O) ON O OO rO rOOO v> IO CS IO M 00 VO ^00 HH ID 0000 M O vO oo O t^ l^. HH ON CM M hi osoo vO -00 ' * t* * 3 O- vo 00 O >O O oovo iOi-ioo O O l^ O ^- O -^- >O Tt-00 cO CM CMfOCMtOCMCMtOCMCMCO ^j- r<-} i_i Q f\) ON O ON O vO Tj- ON ON t" to tooo vo fO CM O CM IO CO t-^ IO I-H VO O r)- ON CO CM w a 2 0) 00 PQ a ON I? .tf C HH* '-M O ^0) hH l.s t5 e ?3 P pq 3 20 BULLETIN 409 station herds used more grain but less dry forage. Since grain contains from two to two and one-half times as much energy as does hay, the extra grain used compensates for the smaller amount of dry forage, especially if one allows for the use of a better grade of hay at the stations. No account could be taken of pasture, as it was reported in days but not in acres used. At the New Jersey and Massachusetts stations, very little pasture was used. These stations depended largely on soiling crops for summer feeding. Labor required An average per cow of 90. i hours of human labor was spent in milking, 19.6 hours in hauling the milk, and 77.7 hours in other work. This is a total of 187.4 hours per cow, 3.38 hours per hundred pounds of milk pro- duced, and '0.85 hour per pound of butterfat produced. Most of the horse labor was in hauling the milk. This amounted to 28.4 hours out of a total of 33.9 hours per cow. The data on labor required are given in table 34: TABLE 34. LABOR REQUIRED FOR 2058 Cows Hours per cow* Hours per 100 pounds of milk produced Hours per pound of butterfat produced Human labor: Milking: Man 76.2 1. 18 o. ^4 Woman 8.0 o. 14 0.04 Child S-Q O. II o.o^ Total QO I i 61 O 41 Care of cows, product, and utensils: Man .... 64. q i . 17 o ^o Woman 7.0 o. i^ o.o^ Child 2 4 0.04 O.OI Hauling feed 2.O 0.04 O.OI Other human labor I .4 O.O2 o.oo Total 167 8 7 o^ o 76 Hauling milk IQ 6 O -*5 o oq Total human labor .... 187.4 \ 38 o.8s Horse labor: Hauling milk 28 4 o si O I"l Other horse labor c S o 10 o 02 Total horse labor -j-z q 0.61 o is * Totals are given in table 7 (page 288). Costs and returns The total costs per cow were $105.43. Of this, 53.2 per cent was for feed including pasture, 22.8 per cent was for human labor except milk AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 321 hauling, and 24 per cent was for the remaining items. The total returns per cow were $102.62, of which 81.2 per cent was for milk sold, 9.4 per cent was for manure, and 9.4 per cent was for other items. The average loss on cows was $2.81 per cow. (Table 35.) Of the 149 herds, there were 61, or 41 per cent, that showed a profit on cows. A common question that arises whenever results of cost studies are Stated, is, if the actual loss is equal to the apparent loss, how do such producers remain in business? The answer is that they do one or more of the following things : first, accept lower wages than the rate at which their time is charged; secondly, accept less than farm value for roughage used; thirdly, accept a lower rate of interest on their investment than the rate charged. If these farmers received interest on their investment, the farm value of farm-grown roughage, and all other costs, they then received 11.3 cents an hour for human labor. TABLE 35. AVERAGE COSTS AND RETURNS, 2058 Cows* Item Per cow Per cent of total Costs: Grain . $20 83 IQ. 7 Succulent feed 10.04 10.4 Dry forage . . . . IQ. 79 18.8 Pasture . . . . 4. S4 4. 1 Total feed $56 10 c-j 2 Bedding o 81 O 8 Human labor 24 OI 22 8 Horse labor o 82 o 8 Hauling milk 57 Q I Use of buildings . ... 4.2^ 4 O Use of equipment . . . . O 49 O.4 Interest on cows . 7;2^ 7. I Interest on feed and supplies O. T\ o. 7 Depreciation on cows 2.78 2.6 Bull service ' 0.96 0.9 Miscellaneous I .70 1.6 Total costs $IO5 4^ IOO O Returns : Milk sold $83 . 36 81.2 Milk products sold o. 17 O.2 Milk and its products used 7 08 6 Q Calves and calf hides 2 24 2.2 Manure . O 67 9 4 Miscellaneous. ... O IO O. I Total returns $IO2.62 IOO.O Loss . $2 8l ; Totals are given in table 24 (pages 305 to 308). 322 BULLETIN 409 If they received 15 cents an hour for all man time and 10 cents an hour for all time of women and children, and interest on their investment, they then received 90 per cent of the value of hay and other roughage used. If it be assumed that the cost of feed and human labor represents the same proportion of the net cost of producing milk when feed and labor costs are high as when they are low, and that the quantities found in thi? study are used in the production of milk, then the yearly cost for 192^ price conditions may be computed as shown in table 36. The cost with the prices used would be $3.47 per hundred pounds. The index number of the prices of all commodities in the United States for the year 1920 was 243, as compared with 99 for the twelve months covered by this investiga- tion. 8 The average price paid in 1920 to producers of milk for the New York market was $3.56 per hundred pounds. 9 Considering that the general price level stood at 245 as compared with that of 1914-15, this price of $3.56 in 1920 was about equal to a price of $1.45 in the years covered by this study. A cost of $3.47 would be approximately no greater when compared with the general price level than a cost of $1.42 in 1914-15. In the spring months of March, April, and May, 1920, the price of milk was low relative to feed and labor costs, but considering the year as a whole, it would appear that prices paid to shippers of fluid milk for the New York market were fairly well adjusted to cost of production. The figures for costs and returns are given in table 35, and the probable cost in 1920 of keeping a cow and producing milk is shown in table 36. TABLE 36. PROBABLE COST IN 1920 OF PRODUCING MILK Per cow Per 100 pounds of milk Amount used by 2058 cows in I9I4-IS Estimated price in 1920 Cost at, estimated 1920 prices Amount used by 2058 cows in 1914-15 Cost at estimated 1920 prices Grain . Silage 1,407 pounds 3,806 pounds 83? pounds 3,453 pounds 709 pounds 187.4 hours $60 . oo 7.00 5.00 20.00 IO.OO 0.35 $42.21 13.32 2.09 34-53 3-54 65.59 25 . 4 pounds 68. 8 pounds 15. i pounds 62 . 4 pounds 12.8 pounds 3.38 hours $0.762 0.241 0.038 0.624 0.064 1 . 183 Other succulent feed Hay Other drv forage Human labor , . . Total feed and human labor . . . $161.28 $2.912 Per cent of net cost, 83.9 Total cost assuming that feed and labor represent the same per cent of the net cost as in 1914-15 $192.23 $3-471 Size of herd Of the herds on the farms studied, 36 per cent had from six to ten cows, 26 per cent had more than ten but not more than fourteen cows, 18 8 United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Review, vol. 12, no. 5, May, 1921. 9 The Milk Reporter, Sussex, New Jersey, January, 1921, page 16. AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 323 per cent had more than fourteen but not more than eighteen cows, and 20 per cent had more than eighteen cows. Size of farm The size of the dairy is governed largely by the size of the farm. Farms keeping from six to ten cows averaged 1 1 1 acres, those with more than ten but not more than fourteen cows averaged 145 acres, those with more than fourteen but not more than eighteen cows averaged 177 acres, and those with more than eighteen cows averaged 238 acres. The average distance to the milk station is less from farms with large herds than from farms with small herds. This is explained by the fact that a greater proportion of the large herds are in the valleys. The combined effect of a large load and a shorter haul considerably reduced marketing charges for the larger herds. Feed used Larger herds used more grain and more succulent feed psr cow, but less dry forage, than did smaller herds. Production was better, and more of the milk was made, in winter. In other words,, a more intensive system was followed. This is to be expected since many of these farms are nearer TABLE 37. RELATION OF SIZE OF HERD TO VARIOUS FACTORS Number of cows per farm 6 to 10 10+ to 14 14+ to 18 Over 1 8 Number of farms 54 in 3-7 33 21 61 461 8.6 612.9 9-7 11.4 9 17 40 5,461 4-i 223 L3I3 2,549 811 4,534 18 33 39 145 3-8 3i 8 79 485 12.4 623.0 9i 16.0 8 20 40 5,323 4.0 213 i,343 3,822 837 4,225 22 56 27 177 2-5 19 8 70 436 16.1 569-1 8.4 21. I 7 25 40 5,344 4.0 216 1,448 1,712 633 4,777 9 33 29 238 31 16 13 55 676 23 3 865.3 8.0 29.8 15 52 45 5,853 4.0 233 1,484 6,001 988 3,468 20 69 Acres per farm Miles to market Number of farms on hills Number of farms in valleys Per cent of farms on hills .... Number of cows Cows per farm Number of cattle units Acres per cattle unit Cattle units per farm Number using purebred bulls Per cent using purebred bulls . . . Per cent of milk produced in six months, October to March Pounds of milk per cow Test of milk Pounds of butterfa,t per cow Pounds of grain per cow Pounds of silage per cow Pounds of other succulent feed per cow . Pounds of dry forage per cow Number of farms feeding silage Per cent feeding silage 324 BULLETIN 409 gj t B 111 II 31 j ro M-i-i O M NO M N O 00 \O r*} a t-M AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 325 the market and on land that is better adapted to raising good winter feed. Some of the better production in the large herds may be due to the use of silage and to better feeding generally. Data showing the relation of the size of herd to various other factors are given in table 37. L abor required The most important influence of size of herd is on labor per cow and per unit of product. The higher farm wages are, the more important this influence becomes. In herds of from six to ten cows, averaging 8.6 cows, the labor averaged 217 hours per cow and 3.97 hours per hundred pounds of milk. Less labor was required in each of the groups of larger herds. In herds with more than eighteen cows, averaging 23.3 cows, the figures were i&i hours per cow and 2.75 hours per hundred pounds of milk. The da^a are given in table 38. At 1 5 cents an hour the labor charges per hundred pounds of milk would be 19 cents more for 9-cow herds than for 2 3 -cow herds. At 30 cents an hour they would be 37 cents more, and at 40 cents per hour they would be 49 cents more, per hundred pounds. The figures are given in table 39 : TABLE 39. RELATION OF SIZE OF HERD TO LABOR CHARGE PER UNIT OF PRODUCT Number of cows per farm Hours per cow* Hours per 100 pounds of milk produced* Labor charges at various rates per hour 15 cents 20 cents 30 cents 40 cents 8.6 217 199 184 161 3-97 3-73 3-45 2-75 $0.60 0.56 0.52 0.41 $0.79 0-75 0.69 0-55 $1.19 I. 12 I.O4 0.82 $1-59 1.49 1.38 I. 10 12.4 16 I 2T..T. Difference between 9- and 23-cow hei -ds $0.19 $0.24 $0.37 $0.49 * Including time for hauling milk. Use of buildings Much time is often wasted in doing chores in unhandy barns. The inconvenient location o.f milk house, ice house, or silo increases labor. Barns with cows facing outward so that a wagon, a sled, or a spreader may be driven thru for the manure, save labor, especially if the manure is hauled daily. Such an arrangement is also more convenient when a milking machine is used. There is very little work at the mangers during the pasture period. The investment in buildings per cow, and the charge for their use, was highest in the small herds. Many small herds were housed in additions attached to the main barn, which reduced the cost of shelter. The larger BULLETIN 409 HH ONOO 10 CO HH CD CO 8888 TJ-iO O 00 vO f*^ r^ cs iO ON O t^ CO 00 ONVO O OO CO fO ONOO (N 00 ON MvO ON M OvO SOOio O O iO^ oor^O O O 1-1 O iO M to to oo oo O O 10 O O O ON O O O vd vd t^. d ir> o t-> M ON ON t^ 10 10 r^oo t^fCi-ih-iTj- oo -^- i->. ONO vO to t-i l^. O iO r>s c< TJ-OO to o ON O vo HI O O 8888 od vd d oi oo 10 cooo O O O ON M cooo iO t->. iO O f4~ vO '?t- ONVO Tj- O rj- O "^ Q to O p 1^ 5 vd ON O ON rs (N (S O O 1-1 ON >OOO iO>-i r^oo ON r>. ON fOOO Tj- t^. M O) ON m tO 00 t-, 00 O t^ i-i ON O 8 8 8 8 ON ooo vo oo t^ 10 r^ ONVO ^J"vO >o iovo oo 10 10 oo t^- O O Ol O VO O HH O HH O r-N. 10 r^vo vo 10 - HH tOCO ' l-l IO ON CO o oo HH vO OO O t^ ^h O (N CO O vO ON O ON cs 00 8888 to CO ON 00 fOON wOOvOCNMOO CO ro ON rOOO p-i to ON cs O iovO oo O VO Oj oo oo i-i N ON ON a si? I 1 :: : 'o -d HI a W OH 03 W o AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 327 FlG. 57. A WELL-LIGHTED, WELL-VENTILATED, CLEAN, AND COMFORTABLE STABLE herds were kept in -more expensive basements. This increased the cost of shelter. For these reasons the difference in the charge per cow for the use of buildings is relatively little between small and large herds. Costs and returns The cost of keeping a cow was less in the larger herds. Partly, because of this, but also because the returns were better, there was a greater profit per cow in the larger herds. In small herds the loss was $8 per cow. In the medium-sized herds the average loss was $9 per cow. But in the larger herds with an average of 23.3 cows there was a gain of about $7 per cow. The figures are given in table 40. TABLE 41. RELATION OF SIZE OF HERD TO COST OF PRODUCTION AND TO AVERAGE PRICE FOR PRODUCT Number of cows per farm 6 tc 10 104- to 14 144 to 1 8 Ove r 18 Herd Cow Herd Cow Herd Cow Herd Cow cost cost cost cost cost cost cost cost Cost per hundred pounds of milk sold Per cent of cost (first group $1.82 $1.80 $1.81 $1.81 $1.74 $1.72 $i.S4 $i-54 taken as 100) JOO 100 99 101 96 96 85 86 Cost per pound of butter- fat in milk sold $o 448 $0 441 $0 454 $o 454 $o 429 S 4 '4 $o 388 $o 387 Amount received per hun- dred pounds of milk sold . $1 64 $i 62 $i 61 $i 66