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<COC<M-HI-I
: :
:.sr
*
a : : :1|S11 id : ffl
^^ : 2 "i M^s -.a -^ L
< i ^
O "S
PQ
EXCHANGE
An Economic Study of Dairying on 149
Farms in Broome County, New York
A THESIS
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
7
EDWARD GARDNER MISNER
*.
(MI
Published as Bulletin 409
Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, April 1922.
517520
N7M
CONTENTS
PAGE
Regional conditions. . .' 274
Results of the investigation 279
Part I. Concerning the entire enterprise 279
Costs 279
Feed 279
Grain and other concentrates 279
Succulent feed 282
Dry forage 282
Pasture 282
Bedding 286
Labor 287
Milk hauling 287
Use of buildings 290
Use of equipment 292
Interest 293
Miscellaneous costs . 294
Returns . . 294
Milk and milk products 294
Milk sold 294
Milk products sold 298
Milk and milk products used 298
Appreciation on cattle 300
Manure recovered 300
Miscellaneous returns ,- 33
Summary of costs and returns 304
Cost of producing milk and butterfat 304
Quantities of feed and labor per unit of product 312
Capital invested for milk production 312
Effect of changes in the price of labor, of feed, and of other factors, on the cost
of milk production 313
Part II. Concerning cows 314
Breeds 314
Numbers 314
Average production : 316
Feeds used 318
Labor required 320
Costs and returns 320
Size of herd 322
Size of farm 323
Feed used 323
Labor required 325
Use of buildings 325
Costs and returns . 327
Productive life of cows 328
Conclusions on size of herd 328
Season of milk production 329
Summer and winter seasons . . . . ' 329
Summer and winter dairies 335
Summer and winter seasons in winter dairies 358
Conclusions regarding season of production 358
Feeds and feeding 360
Nutriment and energy .' 360
Use of concentrates 368
Use of succulent feed 375
Combined effect of large proportion of energy in both grains and succulent
feed 382
Ration of the highest-producing and most profitable herd 383
271
272 CONTENTS
Results of the investigation (concluded] :
Part II (concluded) :
Production per cow ' 3^5
Intensity of feeding ... 3 8 9
Relation of production to diminishing returns 390
Relation of production and season of production to intensity of feeding and
to costs and returns 393
Relation of production to value of cows . 395
Combined effect of size of herd, season of production, and production per cow,
on costs and returns 396
Butterfat test of milk 397
Variation in test 398
Relation of test of milk to production 399
Relation of test of milk to costs and returns 399
Comparison of hill and valley farms 400
Location 400
Size of dairy business 401
Season of production 402
Production 402
Cow-testing-association herds 404
Milk hauling 407
Part III. Concerning heifers .' 411
Amounts of feed used and labor required 411
Feed 411
Labor 412
Costs, returns, and profits 413
Size of herd 414
Heifers in three seasonal groups 414
Production per cow, and costs and returns for heifers 416
Probable cost at 1920 prices 419
Results for first and second years from other sources 422
Part IV. Concerning herd bulls 423
Bull calves to be kept . 423
Herd bulls from one to two years old 423
Herd bulls more than two years old 423
Feed used 424
Labor 425
Cost of keeping herd bulls 426
Cost of bull service on farms keeping herd bulls 427
Cost of bull service on farms hiring service only 427
Total cost of bull service 427
Comparison of grade and purebred bulls " 427
Age of bull 427
Cost of bulls in three seasonal groups 43 1
Part V. Concerning veals and bulls to be sold 434
Amount and value of feed used, and miscellaneous costs and returns 434
Size of herd and number of calves vealed 435
Calves vealed in three seasonal groups 436
Summary 438
Blank form used 440
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING ON 149 FARMS IN
BROOME COUNTY, NEW YORK
E. G. MlSNER
The rapid growth of the milk trade, increases in the cost of milk pro-
duction, and advances in the price of milk to consumers, have made the
economic problems concerned in the production, transportation, and dis-
tribution of market milk of increasing public concern. This bulletin is
FlG. 48.
CHEESE FACTORIES, AND BUTTER AND CHEESE
FACTORIES,
a report of a cost study, concerned only with the problems of production,
not with those of transportation or distribution. The costs in terms of
dollars are out of date because prices have changed, but the quantities are
not affected so much by price changes.
AUTHOR'S ACKNOWI-EDGMENTS. The dairymen of Broome County, New York, furnished the produc-
tion data for this study. The investigation was under the direction of Professor G. F. Warren, of the
Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, New York State College of Agriculture.
Professor E. S. Savage, of the Department of Ar.imal Husbandry, advised for that part of the study relating
to feeding. Professor K. C. Livermore gave criticisms and helpful suggestions. E. R. Minns assisted the
writer in doing the field work. To these and to all others who helped with the work, the writer is indebted.
273
274
BULLETIN 409
^ July and August, 1915, in cooperation with the Broome County
Farm Improvement Association, data concerning the dairy business for
the year ending May i, 1915, were obtained from 149 farmers in Broome
County.
The exact figures for the pounds of milk delivered to the milk stations
and the amount paid were obtained for each farm from the companies
buying the milk. Some farmers kept no record of milk sold, and thus
FlG. 49. MILK STATIONS, IQlS
the necessity of accepting estimates as to the sales of milk was eliminated.
For 114 farms, the average butterfat test of the milk by months was given
by the companies. Other information was obtained from the farmers.
Care was taken to obtain complete and fair estimates.
The form of blank for summarizing records in this office is shown on
pages 440 to 443.
REGIONAL CONDITIONS
Broome County is one of the southern border counties of New York
State. It is bounded on the east by Delaware County, on the west by
Tioga County, on the north by Chenango and Cortland Counties, and on
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING
275
the south by the State of Pennsylvania. It contains 705 square miles,
85 per cent of which is in farms. In 1920, according to preliminary returns
for the fourteenth United States census, the population was 113,610.
Binghamton, near the center of the county, the county seat and the
only city of importance, had a population of 66,800. Three railroad lines
- the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western, the Erie, and the Delaware
and Hudson serve the county. Binghamton furnishes a fair market
/6
FlG. 50. CREAMERIES AND SKIMMING STATIONS, 1 91 8
for a considerable amount of farm produce. Most of the surplus is
shipped to New York City, 207 miles by rail.
The topography of Broome County is that of a feebly glaciated plateau
region, thru which streams have cut deep valleys. Besides many small
streams, three rivers of considerable size intersect the county, the Otselic
joining the Tioughnioga at Whitney Point in the northern part, the Tiough-
nioga joining the Chenango at Chenango Forks, and the Chenango joining
the Susquehanna at Binghamton. These river valleys are from one-half
mile to almost two miles wide, and lie at an elevation of about 800
to 900 feet.
276
BULLETIN 409
The valley soils are mapped as of the Chenango and Genesee series. 1
They are by far the more productive soils of the county, altho in some
places adjacent, to the rivers they are so low that crops are sometimes
damaged or destroyed by floods out of season.
The land back from" the valleys is rolling to steep. Much of the area is
in woods, and a large proportion is suitable only for grazing. The highest
elevations are in the southern part of the county, where the average level
of the hilltops is about 1500 feet, altho the highest point is over 2000 feet.
fr *V
FlG. 51. CONDENSARIES, IQI8
St. Lawrence County has also 19 combination milk stations and
condensaries
Aside from small areas of alluvial soils in the stream valleys, the upland
soils are generally of one type, Volusia silt loam. Thi ; is the most exten-
sive and least productive type in the county. Its distinguishing character-
istics are low humus content and low lime content. he compact subsoil
or rock, generally lying close to the surface, makes drainage conditions
unfavorable to the best crop production.
Weather records give the mean annual temperature at Binghamton,
871 feet above sea level, for the years 1890 to 1916 inclusive, as 46.8 F.,
1 Field operations of the Bureau of Soils. United States Agr. Dept. Report n : 71-96. 1905.
Soils of the United States. United States Soils Bureau. 6111.96:744. 1913. v
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 277
and the average rainfall as 33.18 inches. About half of the rain, 15.61
inches, falls from April to August inclusive. Much of the summer rain-
fall comes in heavy showers which quickly run off, and drouths are some-
what frequent, so that pastures often need to be supplemented during
August and September.
The average length of the growing season at Binghamton for the years
mentioned was 150 days. 2 The average date of the last killing frost in
the spring was May 6, and of the first killing frost in the fall October 3.
Altho there are no weather records for the uplands of this county, the grow-
ing season there averages from two to three weeks shorter. This makes
the pasture season shorter, and the frost injury to crops, particularly to
corn, more extensive, on the hills. .
There are three types of farming common in Broome County general
farming, dairy farming, and trucking for the local markets.
Most of the trucking is confined to the valleys near the principal towns,
while general and dairy farming is found both in the valleys and on the
hills. The farms on the Volusia soil are devoted primarily to the produc-
tion of forage crops and to dairying. On a few, potatoes are grown as
a cash crop, but in general the land is too poor and the season too short
to grow other intensive crops. The distance to market is much greater
from the farms on the uplands, and this factor also influences the type.
Everything considered, dairying is the best type of farming for the upland
conditions.
According to the thirteenth census the average farm in the county in
1910 contained 102 acres. Of this, 35 acres were in crops exclusive of
fruit, 22 in woods, and 45 in pasture and other land. Of the crop land,
27 acres were in hay and forage. The other principal crops are corn,
oats, buckwheat, and potatoes. These crops are typical of the farms
studied.
Altho Broome County may be considered a leading dairy county of the
State, many dairymen, especially those of the uplands, follow an extensive
system. An abundance of pasture, a short growing season, and a soil
that is not naturally fertile, encourage the summer system. The industry
never has been so intensively developed here as it has in the neighboring
counties of Delaware and Chenango, or in many other counties of the State.
This may be due mostly to less productive soil.
During the past thirty years the system of dairying has become
increasingly more intensive. In 1880 there were 29,398 dairy cows two
years old or older on farms in the county, and 3,659,982 pounds of butter
made on farms. 3 In 1917 there were 27,029 dairy cows on 3027 farms
in the county, an average of 8.9 per farm reporting dairy cows. 4 The
2 Climatological data, New York section, August, 1916, page 94.
3 United States census report, 1880.
4 Census of the agricultural resources of New York, 1917.
2 7 8
BULLETIN 409
United States census of 1910 reported 410,291 pounds of butter made
on farms in the county during 1909. In 1900 there were twenty milk
stations in the county, and in 1916 there were forty. 5
The making of butter and cheese has practically ceased. This has
resulted in more winter milk. The next step in the development of a
more intensive system of dairying in the region will be the production of
L-S3F"
_.;_
FlG. 52. MAP OF BROOME COUNTY SHOWING LOCATION OF FARMS STUDIED
Of the 149 farmers, 104 owned all of the land they farmed, 6 owned part and share-rented additional
land, 12 owned part and cash-rented additional land, and 20 share-rented and 7 cash-rented all of the
land, they farmed. The average number of acres per farm was 157, and the average distance to market
was 3-4 miles. The average age of the farmers was 47 years
a still larger proportion of the milk in winter, as the demands of Binghamton
and New York City for market milk continue to grow.
The farms included in this survey were in various parts of the county,
but most of them were in the vicinity of Windsor, Whitney Point, and
Binghamton. Fifty were in the Susquehanna, Chenango, and Otselic
Valleys, and ninety-nine were on the hills or upland. Herds of less than
six cows were not included, but other than this there was no selection.
5 Bulletin 5, New York State Department of Agriculture, pages 4-5, 1900, and Bulletin
State Department of Agriculture, pages 3, 4, and 5, 1916.
5, New York
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 279
RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
For convenience the results of this study are arranged in five parts.
Part I considers the entire dairy enterprise as the unit of study; Part II
deals with cows only, Part III with heifers, Part IV with herd bulls, and
Part V with veals and bulls to be sold.
PART I. CONCERNING THE ENTIRE ENTERPRISE
When the entire dairy enterprise is considered the unit, all the costs of
maintaining cows, costs of growing and maintaining heifers, calves, veals,
bulls to be sold, and herd bulls, costs of marketing dairy products, and any
other costs for dairy cattle, are charged. All returns from the enterprise are
credited and the difference is considered the gain or loss on the enterprise.
The dairy is only one of the various parts of a farm business, and there-
fore the results do not show the gain or loss on the whole farm. An investi-
gation that included the labor income as well as costs and returns for the
dairy would be useful.
Costs
The various costs chargeable to dairy cattle may be classified as follows :
feed, bedding, labor, milk hauling, use of buildings, use of equipment,
interest, and miscellaneous charges.
Feed
No account was taken of feed given to stock other than dairy cattle.
The total quantities and costs of the various feedstuffs used by all dairy
cattle, by cows during the pasture period, by heifers, by herd bulls, and
by bulls raised to be sold, were obtained separately in the field. The feed
used by cows during the winter period was considered to be the difference
between the total herd quantities and the other quantities.
All grain, succulent feed, and forage raised on the farm and used by cattle,
was charged at what it would sell for at the farm, that is, its market value
less the cost of marketing. All feedstuffs purchased were charged at the
prices paid. The cost of- hauling to the farm was included with labor,
equipment, milk hauling, and other costs. Much of the purchased grain
is hauled home by the farmer when returning from delivering the milk.
This was included with the charge for milk hauling. Extra trips for feed,
as well as the time spent hauling home-grown grains to and from the mills
and the time spent mixing feed, was charged under labor.
Grain and other concentrates. With grain and other concentrates
were included all concentrated feedstuffs, namely, all grains and their
by-products whether home-grown or purchased, 4 calf meal, condimental
feeds, and salt (table i). The charge for grain represented 36 per cent
of the total feed cost and 20 per cent of the total cost of the enterprise.
On the 149 farms there were six different kinds of grain raised and fed
cattle, and at least forty-three different kinds of grain purchased and fed.
280
BULLETIN 409
11
I
0^0 -^
J 1/5 C<J t
O O O O O
CO ^ O O
-OO^OO -OOCO
(M-I^H -10
(M^tlM Ol^t^ 1 Mr~
oi-^tt^ -i-iooocoevi
r- ^ o -0004000
CO i-H
ess M "
ooi-i -coc^ t^ <M TH ^^ rt
oo -ebo o I-H o <M co o
CO^i (T-tC^'^t^' OiCO-HCD
T*< ^H lOt^CO CO ^H O
oeo" co
ti^cvcva* c"oo o"o
(NCO-H N 00-H
O3 OOJ"5
-H ooo
. lilirfi
|iil| a illl il-^ifsi
II
II
01 a-
.13
h
1!
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING
281
g
M
CM <M
(M O i-H (M i-H rH ^H ,-! rt
10 (N
O> ^h -IMOOO t-H C
i-c >O ^t^t>. (
OO O^t< -O
O <M Ot^ -CO
-,-1 -O (N <N ^H.-KM <-H
CO -^H
o .
o 1
CO CO COOt-CO <M CO
2 :S :
I
oo cs o o ooo oco o-i'-i-i -oo o -o
t -H i^ i I
CO H t-
2 co oo 5! S3 So co
i
111
SS.5S
S2SS88SS8S8S-
(M CO CO CO CO CO CO
c^cTi-HO oooo <?{<N OIM'CO t*? ao a* <n o ao cv coco ,
OO i ( T-H i-H CO O CNCO^^CN T-H i ( ^
00 t-- (M TH TH ^H S1 CM ^H T-l T-l
Sa'S
c^
-
c S"^ ^ S^.S -2
n Klil^lld ^
"I
282 BULLETIN 409
The usual practice is to buy all -the grain. Only 53 farms raised any
grain to feed cattle. Practically all of this was oats and buckwheat.
Purchased grain represented 96 per cent of the quantity used, and at the
average price of $29.86 a ton it represented also 96 per cent of the charge
for grain used by dairy cattle. The average value of home-grown grain
used was $31.48 a ton.
Succulent feed. Silage, green corn,- potatoes, cabbage, cabbage fodder,
mangels, beets, turnips, carrots, apples, soiling crops, skimmilk purchased,
and other feeds with a very high percentage of water, were classed as
succulent feed. Brewers' grains wet were converted to their dry equivalent
by considering 3.8 pounds of wet grains equal to i pound of dried grains,
and were charged under grain rather than under succulent feed. Quanti-
ties, costs, and the number of farms using each kind of succulent feed,
are given in table 2.
Corn silage was charged at $5 a ton. Under some conditions, the market
value of silage should be used when charging it to another enterprise;
but generally, in New York State, corn for the silo is not raised to be sold
either as grain or as silage, and hence it should be charged at cost. There
is no reason to believe that the cost of producing silage on the farms studied
was less than this figure.
Of the 149 farms, 69, or 46 per cent, fed silage. On these farms, 4284
tons of corn silage and 20 tons of millet silage were fed dairy cattle. An
agricultural census of the State taken in 1917 showed that 3027 farms in
Broome County kept dairy cows and 1033 grew corn for the silo in 1916;
thus, about one-third of the farms with dairy cows grew silage.
Other succulent feeds were charged at their estimated farm values.
Of all the herds, 26, or 17 per cent, fed no succulent feed. Excepting 21.8
tons of skimmilk and 1.35 tons of potatoes purchased, all succulent feed
was raised on the farms where fed.
Dry forage. All hay, corn stover, straw, and other cured roughage
was classed as dry forage. One per cent was purchased. Of this, n
farms bought 42.75 tons of hay, and two other farms bought 12 tons of
cornstalks. The amount fed to dairy cattle per farm was 35.4 tons,
of which mixed hay constituted 63 per cent. The average value of dry
forage per ton was $9.62. Details as to quantities, costs, and number of
farms using each kind of dry forage, are given in table 3 .
Pasture. Most farms had sufficient pasture for their cattle. Of the
149 farmers, 45 paid $793 to pasture some of their cattle a part or all of
the season, and 20 received $305 for stock taken in.
Pasture was charged at cost. In determining this cost, interest at 5
per cent and taxes at 0.5 per cent were charged on the value of the land
pastured. Charges for labor and materials used in making and repairing
pasture fences, in manuring when manure was hauled and applied, in
fertilizing, reseeding, mowing brush or weeds, or in any other treatment
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING
283
Jj
.5<-55
111! i
>O
***
CO <M r-l
(^ CS OO t^ OC
00 CO O C^l O >*< OO (M O OJ tO
rf* i-H Tt< 1C i I i '
> . __^
'.P
c?g^ooo,o K r^^oopo :S S?
O'*t^"tOOtOl>. < rHOt^-OtOt^-t^-^OiC s 1^
C^l ^H Ot--<tl >O CO CO !M (M r-H - t^
OOOOO<MO2Tf<iMO'OOOCOiOOOO200t^OOO
O ^H C^ OS OT< OO CJ O O5 CO i-l 00 O (M i-l
ifri ^H 1O 1O i-l i-H T-H ^
s> s" ~~
kO CO <
K SK^OOOlO S U9 OOC
^0=0 sss^S^ t ^co ; 882; 0iC <''
I
g^^ g 5 Oi~HO<MOOCOCO.-IC<lt^COC^OOtO!M^H^i
gJJi
1
o
~^
gfti!
|
284
BULLETIN 409
1
0)
; 55 '
^
3
X
111!
05
o
C5
P
3
1*5-1.1
z^^S
\^ '. \ \ \ \ \ '. \ \ '. '.
g
O
s,
J
|E a -- j'j
S
H
en
5
Herd bul
ilii
1C IO >O >O
CO ^H^HCMO^H'-icNi^HOCO
O
PQ
\o
i~>.
Hi!
g^NW^HTjte^W^T-ieO ; ;
%
<
uf
J
1
co co t^ 10 ^ S o ^ co <n co
<M O5 .-1 i-H M rt <N . .
CO
8
5
Q
3
i
n
Jill
M
i
w
W
CN
III!
t-. M CO U5 * * U> "5 00 -H 00
vT
H
0>
J
S
o"
i
3
K
1
IgJ
I'lfe
^3SSc^2c^gSaS c
O O -H CM * oi O5 O5 -^ CO O O(N
1
o
o
5
en"
O
H
O 1C IO O O
CO O3 OS -H * O CM 00 lr^ CO CM t^O
8
CO
00
10
B
i-
1
X
>
i*" ,
1
n
s
|||
2oS^!:^22 11
S
i
^ *ft
JH^,^,-,^
ID
, T3
U5
5
w
o
<
H
o
H
CM 5 O CO 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 <N
M
<t ^t <N
S
1!
* f ' "*
1
h
co .j
II
00 1-1 Os lOOO Oi M ro
ex:
n
o"
ro ^ O ro
CN 00
CN
M IO
IO M
8
c
Number
of
farms
using
OO O 00 1-1 00 <N O
<3- CN N T)- N O CN
2
(N 00 O IO
Ov
Ii
O>, t^ IO CN IO CN
IO CN
a
S
O O ^t O IO IO 1000
1
^2
^oo io
C* M Tt -
O M
CN CM
II
OOO IO \O^ w
Cv
* "i
M
I
JH!
t^^O IO IO O IO M O\
't ro CN ro CN HI
M
VO 1-1 Tf
r- ro
i :| i M i
: : : :
: : .$ : : : :
13
i ii M I
cows. . .
1
1
'. o. '^S
o c : o : c ". &
"S bi * '^ ''9 '^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 <N 00
00 O O ON
$ 2 :
fO QN
O r^
1.1
ffi&
2>~
f vo
CO rj-
H
JJ|
00 iO fN 00
VO
ON ON
VO vO
*
1? *
oo 10 1^
en
ON ^ O
(N Tj- CS
8
1
aj
lOO O O
10 O <N 00
10 o *
iO to l^>.
R
3
^"^S'S
OO OO t^
VO 10 10
0?
o
IO HH HH HH
OO 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 CO IO O
co CN cs c
6 S'P
O M
OOO
vO CO
O\ 00
ONOO r>- (N \O O 1-1
IO*O l-lC4t~>.OCO
CO CN CO^O 00 CO ro t^ HH \O
IO HH HH CO l-l 1-1 O)
iOOOOO>-iOcO
COi-HONCOO<cOC<MMt-i
Tota
ding
B
296
BULLETIN 409
Jansen and a part of the year to Bordens' at Whitney's Point, and i a
part of the year to Cloverdale Farms Company and a part of the year to
the Broome County Dairy Company at Binghamton. Milk sold to Clover-
dale Farms and the Broome County Dairy Company was used in Bingham-
ton, while the remainder was for the New York market.
Practically all milk was sold on six-months contracts made with the
milk companies on October i and April i. All concerns except two paid
a flat price for milk containing a minimum percentage of butterfat. This
per cent was 3.7 for one concern, and 3.8 and 4 per cent for the others.
A premium was paid when the milk tested above a certain percentage speci-
fied in the contract. The monthly prices paid by three companies are given
in table 16. Prices paid by the other companies were about the same.
TABLE 16. MONTHLY PRICES PAID FOR MILK BY THREE COMPANIES, PER
HUNDREDWEIGHT
Company
no. i
Company
no. 2
Company
no. 3
I9 lf
May
June
$1.20
.10
35
55
.80
95
2.05
2.05
i-95
i. 80
1-75
1.50
$1.05
.00
15
30
.40
.70
.80
.80
-75
65
.60
* -55
$1.25
.20
35
-50
.60
.90
2.00
2.OO
i 95
1.85
1. 80
1.50
July. .
August
September
October
November
December
1915:
January . . .
February . . .
March
April
Per cent of butterfat re-
quired
f4.o
25
45
10 cents a hundred
pounds if 4.5 per
cent or better
2 cents a hundred
pounds for each 5
points above 70
3.7 (forAp
25
43
10 cents a hundred
pounds if 3.8 per
cent or better
10 cents a hundred
pounds if score 25
on equipment 43
on methods
ril, 3.8)
3 cents a hundred
pounds if 4.1 to
4.5 per cent inclu-
sive
None
Barn score required :
Equipment
Methods
Premiums in addition to
above:
Butterfat
Barn score
* For 3.8-per-cent milk with barn score,
t Average for year.
With one exception, each concern had an inspector visit and score the
premises at regular intervals. A premium was paid by some of the com-
panies for a higher score. This encouraged the production of clean
milk. One company furnished the lime and equipment, and assisted the
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING
297
>0 I-H O iO O^^-O ^O \O O OO O 1-1 O
M (S ro lO^O O^OO Ooooovof
c J3 * '"
2" K
298
BULLETIN 409
farmers in whitewashing their barns twice a year, without charge. The
figures for the returns from milk sold are given in table 17.
Milk products sold. Only seven farms sold butter, and one farm sold
200 pounds of cream. The figures are given in tables 18 and 19.
Milk and milk products used. The value of all milk used on each farm
was calculated by multiplying the number of pounds used by the weighted
average price received for all milk sold from the farm. Some farmers
TABLE 1 8. RETURNS FROM MILK PRODUCTS SOLD AND MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS
USED ON FARMS, 2058 Cows
Num-
ber
of
farms
Number
of pounds
of product
Number
of pounds
of fat
Price
Total value
Milk products sold:
Butter
7
i 015
863
$o 31
$312 76
Cream
Total milk products sold
I
200
40
1.50
30.00
$342 76
Milk used:
Family
147
313,048
12,522
$1.63
$5 ,103.33
Hired men
Milk products used:
Skimmilk:
Hogs
14
10
17,638
30 7OO
706
1.72
O. 20
304. 16
59 97
Poultry
i
2,200
o. 15
3.30
Buttermilk:
21
7 264
O 22
15 93
Hogs
10
3 ,250
o. 23
7. 50
Poultry
I
f * IOO
o 20
o 20
Butter, family use
Cream, family use
36
II
5,656
1,000
4,808
200
0.29
1.81
i,633-97
180.64
Total milk and its products used,
except that fed cattle
19 139
$7 309 oo
Equivalent in pounds of milk*
371 ,457
Milk used:
Heifers
134
215 464
8 619
$i 63
$3 i i 7 77
Veals and bulls to be sold
Bull calves to be kept for herd bulls.
94
65
193,535
26,275
7,741
1,051
1.62
1.63
3 ,126.91
429.47
Milk products used:
Skimmilk:
Heifers
32
96,068
$0.18
$171.17
Veals and bulls to be sold
3 072
o 20
6 16
Bull calves to be kept for herd bulls
8
6,493
0.17
11.08
$188 41
Buttermilk:
Heifers
3
i ,300
$o 19
$2 45 $2.45
Total milk and its products fed
cattle
17 411
$7 265 01
Equivalent in pounds of milk*
540 907
* Excluding buttermilk.
fed more milk in months when the price was below the average price for
the year, and others fed more when the price was above the average. But
the quantity used in the house was practically uniform thruout the season.
Since the months in which milk was used were not ascertained, it was
necessary to use the average yearly price. The prices used in calculating
the value of skimmilk and buttermilk were those furnished by the farmers.
An average of 2130 pounds of milk per family was used. The figures are
given in table 18 and summarized in table 19.
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING
299
.S*
1
,916.77
ll
rt m
>
^
9
^o
H
ro
ro 10
a
Ov
' o
o :
*o
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\
<u
N Tj-
000
00
00
M
O
6
&
*
**
S
in
ro
ro
r^
X)
O fO
ro
ro
CO
C
O\O
1/5
V5
IN 10
roo
HH
OO
ro
00
ro
^S?
xO
^
o
*
2
O I"*-
oo
00
^t 1 O
^1"
rf
fl
^
N
5
s
H
|:
Os
O 1/5
ro ro
ro-t
\o
r-
1 :
"S
tn
g :
"a
**~"o
h
rrT O
W T)
^o
3
^rSS
rt p,
11
3
300 BULLETIN 409
Appreciation on cattle
On most farms where dairy cattle are raised to replace those that die
and those that are sold, the increased value of young cattle exceeds the
depreciation and all losses due to death. On the farms studied, this excess,
or appreciation, amounted to $27,988, or 12 per cent of the returns from
cattle. Appreciation and depreciation were calculated in the following
manner :
When considering the entire herd as a unit, cattle were charged with
the first inventory and all purchases of dairy cattle. They were credited
with cattle sold or used, hides, and the second inventory.
Cows were charged with the inventory at the beginning, cows purchased,
and heifers that became cows. They were credited with cows sold or
slaughtered, cow hides, and the inventory at the end.
Heifers were charged with the first inventories, heifers purchased, and
value at birth of heifers born during the year. They were credited with
heifers sold and slaughtered, value at time of freshening of heifers that
freshened during the year for the first time, heifer hides, and the inventories
at the end.
Herd bulls were charged with the inventories at the beginning, herd
bulls purchased, and value at birth of bull calves born during the year
and to be kept for future service. 'They were credited with herd bulls
sold or slaughtered, hides, and the inventories at the end.
Veals and bulls to be sold were charged with the inventories .at the begin-
ning, purchases, and value at birth of veal calves and of bulls to be sold
that were born during the year. They were credited with veals and bulls
sold or slaughtered, hides, and the inventories at the end.
A summary of the appreciation or depreciation on each part of the
enterprise is given in table 20.
Calves born during the year were charged to heifers, herd bulls, and
veals and bulls to be sold, at their values at birth. They were credited
to cows but were not included in the returns from cattle. The data are
given in table 2 1 .
Manure recovered
No credit was given for manure produced on pasture, and neither was
the pasture charged with it. To have credited and charged manure in
these different places would have increased the total costs and total returns
for cattle by the same amount, without affecting the gain or loss on the
enterprise or the cost of producing milk. The 149 farmers estimated
that 20,642 tons of manure was recovered from cattle for use on crop land.
This is 7.7 tons per cattle unit, there being 2670.3 cattle units.
The value of manure depends, not only on the composition of the ration,
but also on the proportion and kind of litter and especially on the possible
returns from its use. Estimates as to its value at the barn averaged about
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING
301
3
LOOO
** LO
I
N ro N (S
10
g
cfl
" ': i
5
t-j- Oi
P)
00
I
1 s
a N
M ^ O 10
' ro LO
0>
2
1 S3
F : :
LO t^ LO LO ro r
'N' '.
ro .
e
3 uS
3
i ;
o
- '
w
1
|SS :
S
^00 N LO
1
00
00
13
" :
5
4^ ^"
8
<S '
S;
S
O\ LO ro
M OO ^ l-H Tf
00 LO ro r-
b
I*!
M ' LO
c
^
fe
*0
(N M LO IO t-
.
O r|
<N M Tt
O S M ro
6*O H
O\ O t-
O\ N 1-1
ro
to o LO
. :2: : :*.
s
IN
K? 3
O 00 t~-
O
LO
00 \O LO
ro
10
1*
1
o
1
j
2
y
"S5
c> ^ ^ -
<N ro
CM ro
00 t^ LO O t~-
O M LO LO -00
MM* ...
1
j
10
vl
J!
O\ r^ ro
TtrJ-
>O IS 00 00 Ov
LO tf 1-1
LO
OO
o\
00 O O t- O O M
00 O O\ M \O M O
0\00 LOM M
I
00
OO
C/3
E
3?
O M t-
LO M -1-1
10
00
LOOO t^ t~
ro
c7 :
<&
*
6*
*
jf
LO
LO LO
<3
a;
. ; .
J. ^4. v^ .4. rfOO 1-1 O
-> ^
t^oo o
O. r^ ro ro O LONO
i
o S
c
O <N ro
ro
_, ro M M ro w *
M" ro
|| I III
ii$
IF i
~- M b
"SS^
>.^>.^
JSia M-M
^-d.SS
__, Qi (-, 73
3
|jp :| : J 2
3
ationj. . . .
lation
I|1I
a 3 o
Ol^OQffi
H
lilllali
H
SS
Big
<Q
:i
ai
X) C
'
> c
II
5
II
II
J5 o
'53 -C
rC (0
.
5^ fc
302
BULLETIN 409
M
o
g
^S :
** _ '
1
M (N IO
1
VI
a) 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
<N -0
I
.8
15
I
-t
CO
I
||o|
N 10
(N N PO - (M
i
K
c w
IO N 10
(N M ro -O
. . -NO
On hand May i, 1914. .
Purchased during year. .
Born during year
Heifers that became
cows
|
eg Q ffiK QQO
1
Appreciation
Depreciation
a
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING
303
$1.25 a ton. This does not include the cost of hauling it to the field.
Manure was credited to cattle on each farm at this rate. The credit was
then apportioned to cows, to heifers, and to herd bulls, according to the
average inventory of cattle units. No attempt was made to calculate
TABLE 21. NUMBER OF CALVES BORN DURING THE YEAR, AND VALUE AT BIRTH
Num-
ber of
farms
Number
Per cent
Value
Value of
each
at
birth
Heifers to be raised or to be sold
Bulls to be kept
Bulls sold or to be sold
Calves vealed or to be vealed
Calves deaconed . . .
140
50
42
137
CI
733
54
75
937
162
37
3
4
48
8
$2,232
226
3ii
1,650
$3-05
4.19
4-15
1.76
Deacon hides . . .
so
IS8
169
i 07
Total calves born alive ....
147
1 ,061
IOO
$4 , S88
$2 ^4.
Live calves per 100 cows ....
9S
Calves born dead
3S
S^
Dead calf hides
13
21
20
Total credited to cows
Cows that aborted
2S
41
$4,608
Farrow cows
47
07
the value of manure on the basis of rations fed, for the reason that other
factors have an equal, if not greater, influence. Neither was it considered
practical to vary the credit to different classes of stock on the basis of
the composition of the rations. The value of manure was $9.66 per cattle
unit. This was u.i per cent of the total returns from cattle.
The data for manure recovered are given in table 22.
TABLE 22. MANURE RECOVERED FROM 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS, 172 HERD
BULLS, AND 76 BULLS TO BE SOLD
Manure recovered
All
herds
Cows
Heifers
Herd
bulls
Bulls to
be sold
Tons
20 , 642
IS, 917
3,870
8si
4.
Value at $1.25 a ton at the
barnyard
$25 802
$19 896 64.
$4. 8^7 6s
$1 063 21
$4. SO
Miscellaneous returns
Two farms received $157 for hauling neighbors' milk, three farms
received $52 for boarding cattle, and fifteen farms received $142 for the
use of herd bulls. These receipts were included under miscellaneous
returns and represented 0.2 per cent of the total returns from the enter-
prise. The figures for miscellaneous returns are given in table 23 :
304
BULLETIN 409
TABLE 23. MISCELLANEOUS RETURNS
Number
of
Total
Credi
ted to
Item
farms
having
receipt
amount
received
Cows
Herd
bulls
Hauling neighbors' milk
2
$i c i7
$IS7
Breeding fees
I c
14.2
$142
Boarding cows ' .
-z
S2
S2
Total
$^SI
$2OQ
$142
Summary of costs and returns
The separate items of costs and returns for the whole enterprise, and
for cows, heifers, herd bulls, and veals and bulls to be sold, given in previous
tables, are summarized in table 24.
Cost of producing milk and butterfat
In this investigation two different methods of calculating the cost of
producing milk or butterfat were used.
By one method, considering the entire herd as a unit, all returns from
the herd except milk sold were deducted from the total herd costs, and
the difference was considered the cost of milk or fat sold. Any expense
for raising young cattle to replace the herd was included in determining
the cost of production. The cost calculated in this manner is designated
thruout this bulletin as the " herd cost " of milk or butterfat.
By the second method, the returns from cows other than milk sold
were deducted from the total cost of keeping cows to determine the cost of
milk or fat. Bull service was charged at cost. The raising of heifers to
replace the herd was considered separately, and any loss or gain on them
was not charged nor credited to milk production. The cost determined
in this manner is designated thruout this bulletin as the " cow cost " of
producing milk or butterfat.
The herd cost and the cow cost of milk are practically identical. The
herd cost is the simpler to calculate, because it is not necessary to separate
the feed, labor, and other costs for heifers, bulls, and other cattle. But
the quantities of feed and labor used by the herd per hundred pounds of
milk are not so useful as the quantities used by cows only.
In purebred herds, the value of young stock for breeding purposes is
sometimes so great as to make the herd cost of producing milk very low.
The investment in cows, depreciation on cows, amount of feed and labor,
bull service, and all other costs, are higher for purebred than for grade
herds. But the greater value of the calves at birth usually more than
offsets these higher costs, so that the cow cost of producing milk is also
usually less in purebred than in grade herds.
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING
305
888 ::: :8
8 8 8^^vo 2 t- ^8 8 8
9
85
-a
oo N M oo
m M c* co
oo 10 r^ co
O tOOO ^ Th iO iO t^* I-H rOOO M vO
f
rj ON 10
* VO
CO COM
rj CM <*"} o\
_ ._ I*T\ (Vi \_n i/^i ro
K/^
t-N^ fN^
>
3- ;[.::
5
w
^
o
rj
!!BBI!I1I!!!I
5 OT W
b fa
5 C G
p,
o o
g
^H coo _
<J
lor^oo
ON l^. M '
;; 10 i-T ;;;;;;;;;
oo r r '
Per cent
_C M HH M -00
82S ' : : :*
CO ONOO 00 M t^ 10 ^-00 HH 10
vOONOOOrfOfOOO ' <HH
10 (N
O
8
CO
8888 : : :8
SO 10 10 ONVO O O O
OvOf x ll>cOM'^-OO -O
R
". 8
-1
ON ON O f^ I-H
M \5 t^ 10
\O O t^-vO ^"lOOO lOOO co -co
OOOOvOoOOOi-iOiOOOO -i-i
P>l O r>-OO vO CO CO i-i ON i-i *>
00
M Ov rt
^- o <^
CO co >>
1
^.^Oj M
CO * 10 ""' HH M ^
1
^ "o
bo
'5
3
c
r-
^^
&
*d
w a, .........
JB
-g
g c a ' ' ' ^
Q o o o ' ' o
'' o o ''''''
a
o
. .^^
' ^
g
^^
^Iw ^
CN| ON r^ C^ " * * CS
* * hH (>1
N
' 00 hH *
* CO
1
6
3
c
<
D "
~ CS COCN .10
vOt^-t^-OOO n rOTfiO^ O*O
oo oo oo u
2
1
D
a
H
: : :
i
I
G *
H ^
,*Q -4-
rt
* j^
O -O
aJ '
^G c
x *S
a ' ' ' '
-M <U rt
1-^4
:| :::::
....... . ....
^
:::::::: 8 : : :
? u 1
3 *u %M
* * ^^ c
. ^-
j3 -5^
4J 4-J -M I-,
. CX
w -- w '
O cJ O i
; o . x ; . i
'"0 "P ^
"^ *-^ "Tl P^H "Tl M
! I . ' . c ' u o
7^ 0^^^ a
it ;l s ; ig : : :
6
-|J dj & . j* O
j
Returns:
Other than milk s<
Milk products s
Milk and its pn
except that fe
Milk and its pn
* Fat calves sold, sla
306
BULLETIN 409
: 8^"8
5-
?!
COO
vO O
8
o
-i
06 vd ON
d
(N
(N r4-
vO
,3
^vSci'S
s
oo oo
CO 5=
a
~
^
*.
>
Tl-ON
CO
M
H-l IO
J>
^
^
HH
^ 1
,t
6
' V)
1
d
p
; ;
1
o
j^^^
.-*
a
1 ^
M
! "^
rj-
&
<N
(S I-H O
IO
CO
8 :
PH
8:88
s,
W
OO N
sS
2-1
00 C^' i-i
(N|
oi
,4- ^
H- P-I
13
oo o 10
ON 00 CO
ON
lo
CO ON
Ov^
'rt
>**
t~>. iO
^
^
co^d"
oo
fti
1
Si
CO^=
(S |
^ j
s
^C
m
^a
id
fe
'. w
a
a
; o
1
! !
r*-
Q
*
OJ
a
' ^*-
OJ
3
^
; o"
CO
^J-
<
!
2"
H
<u
O - 01 CO
t^
3
E
H
!.
2
II
^
^
1
" !
1
a !
"8
a
C '^
80J
r^ w
1
9 ^
1
i
1 1 '
f| 8 l s
c/r
w' '
Ija
llflcl
3
E5
1
lj
HI
StfE
a;.^ <u
c ^ <j o ^ ^
Z3
H ^
-^a^
lo
s
1
8^1
ffi
O O
AN ECONOMIC STLDY OF DAIRYING
307
8. o o o I-H
O O HH ON
^0
0----0
o"
I
o
>
^ : ^ : :
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 <T> ' ' ' '
<
1 C5 l^. HH "^t ^1
00 00 00 \O \O
e
1
8 888-^:^8
O^ O '^"'O r^* ^H . o
to t^* *^ ^^ ^o ON
OO fN O OO CO HH HH IO * * (N)
ON ON\O 00 rj- 04 00 O -00
OOCNHHHH -HHCM>-H CO ' >->
(^ ^- . a M
*
s
CO
|
w 'wwco*
^ T^ '(J *^
r/)
i
-*->
| S^g|
: : 3 3 : : : : : : : :
3
a 3 B aaa
. .^^ . .
-
2
\O iO ONOO rf O
^h ON
^
rO *O
<
"I lOVO 00 . ^t ^
JJ N -
vo COCO ON-
'.'.**
a
;
HH CN tOCNOOOOOO uo
Ot^.tvOOOfNcO rJ-iOHHOiO
oo oo
7
6-
i
H
, '
S : : : : :
::::::: :J :::::
i'S ta
'n
3 >>
oS
:::::::: g : :^ : :
* M -M
,j> ....
s 3 :
**"^ O^
a
8~
:::::::: w : ^ . :
.. g
d
x <u
^) C/3
::::::::!: 1 1 :
T3 S ^3 X
111!
! ill! 1
^ <u _ ^^4
a ^^'1
_ g |go | l^ll
t5co Qc^c^^CQcS
CJ
in
13
!!^
I!!!!
308
BULLETIN 409
a
8. o
. 10
&3
|
13
vd 4-
oo
6 ON
00 00
: :
+
3
4,
i|1
i
^n
1
; "*" ;
-1
o-o
O (N O
ON ro ^
ro "Q HH
11
\ \
3-
:-
I
o
'S
;
0)
f
a
g
oo
; . a .
o
. _o
a
!-(
. IO
. oo
10
. \O
VO HH
3
r>. !>
TJ-OO
1
00 CO
00 00
<N Tj-
r^oo
e
5 ::* :
tfi. 1
U-I
o
; o ;
:
^jrf
oo
'.'.'. ^ '.
a
OO O >-i Ol ro
>-l C< (N) C< C<
tj
IS
a
'
?S : i
.1 :
fl **
II ll
i
| \
fc'1 i
.eturns (concluded}:
Other than milk sold
Milk and its pro
cattle v
Appreciation on c
Calves and calf hi<
Manure
Miscellaneous. . . .
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 <N t^-
1/5 PO <N
NMOlOM
O CO <N POOO
OMH r- 't
PO O t^O PO <
i 8
lo
-J ^, OT
c S P
Ml
aj S^
On Co
^"o
^
If
3 I2
BULLETIN 409
When the calculations were based on the total amount of milk or butter-
fat produced, the cow cost of production was practically the same as when
the milk or fat sold was used. The cow cost per hundred pounds of milk
produced was $1.689, and the cost per hundred pounds sold was $1.693.
The cow cost of fat was 42 cents per pound produced, or 42.2 cents per
pound sold.
The lowest herd cost of milk production was 56 cents per hundred
pounds. To increased value -on purebred cows and higher values of the
calves at birth this low cost was due. The highest cost was $3.19 per
hundred pounds. Of the farms studied, 48 per cent produced milk at
less than the average cost, but 54 per cent of the milk was produced at
less than the average cost. The more efficient farms produce a larger
proportion of the product. The average cost of all milk produced below
the average cost was $1.39 per hundred pounds, and of all milk at the
average cost or above, $2.06 per hundred pounds.
Variations in the herd cost of producing milk on these farms are shown
in table 26 and in figures 53 and 54.
Quantities of feed and labor per unit of product
The amounts of feed and labor used by all herds, per hundred pounds
of milk produced, per hundred pounds produced except that fed cattle,
and per hundred pounds sold, are given in table 27:
TABLE 27. AMOUNTS OF FEED AND LABOR USED BY 2058 Cows, 1002 HEIFERS,
172 HERD BULLS, AND 76 BULLS TO BE SOLD, PER HUNDRED POUNDS OF MILK
Per 100
pounds of i
nilk
Produced
Produced,
except
that
fed cattle
Sold
Pounds
Grain
28.3
2Q 7
30.8
Succulent feed
qi .6
06 i
99.6
Dry forage
02 7
Q7 -3
100 8
Hours
Hauling milk
O ^5
O V7
O 10
Other labor ,
7
j. ci
-j 64.
Horse labor:
Hauling milk
o m
O ^d.
o s6
Other labor
on
O 12
O 12
Capital invested for milk production
The average investment for milk production was $3381 per farm, $244.78
per cow, and $4.42 per hundred pounds of milk or $1.10 per pound of
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING
butterfat produced. These values would have been higher in 1920, due
to a higher price level for all commodities. The data are given in table 28 :
TABLE 28. CAPITAL INVESTED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 11,385,590
OF MILK CONTAINING 457,223 POUNDS OF BUTTERFAT, 149 HERDS
POUNDS
Total
capital
Per
cent
Per
farm
Per
cow
Per 100
pounds
of milk
produced
Per
pound of
butterfat
produced
Cows
$1-1-2 14.8
26 4.
$804.
$64. 70
$1 17
$O 2Q
Herd bulls
Other cattle
6,335
23,626
i-3
4.7
42
ISO
3.08
II 48
0.05
O.2I
O.OI
O OS
Buildings
145,714
28 9
078
70.80
1.28
O \2
Equipment
C -7Q8
I i
16
2 62
O OS
O OI
Pasture land
jcj ^76
JO o
I 016
77 c6
I Til
O "\\
Feed and supplies .....
38,160
7.6
256
18.54
0-33
0.09
Total . ...
$SO^ , 757
IOO O
$-z -181
$24.4. 78
$4. 4.2
$i 10
Interest at 5 per cent
$25,188
$169
$12 24
$O 221
$o oss
Effect of changes in the price of labor, of feed, and of other factors,
on the cost of milk production
The cost of producing milk for any particular farm or for any region
is not constant. Whenever the price of cows, the price of feed, the value
of land, or wages, change, then the cost of milk production also changes.
Hence, when interpreting results of milk-production studies, it is important
to keep in mind the possible effect of such changes on cost.
In table 29 are shown the approximate changes in cost made by the
change of a single item, provided all other costs remain constant. An
increase in any item, however, is accompained by changes in practically
all other items. For example, if any cost increases, the cost of cows, and
TABLE 29. EFFECT OF CHANGES IN PRICES OF LABOR, FEED, AND OTHER
FACTORS, ON COST OF PRODUCTION WHEN THE ENTIRE HERD is CONSIDERED
If other conditions remained exactly the same,
a. change of:
The cost of
producing 100
pounds of milk
The cost of
producing
i pound of
butterfat
i per cent in the interest rate
Cents
4. 4.
Cents
j j
$10 an acre in the value of pasture land
-I -3
o 8
i cent an hour of human labor
o- o
1 8
OQ
$i a ton for grain
I 4.
$i a ton for succulent feed . .
4. 6
0.4
J J
$i a ton for dry forage
4. 6
I 2
Would change on these farms
314 BULLETIN 409
hence depreciation and interest on them, also increases. If wages increase,
the cost of pasture and buildings goes up. Moreover, a change in the
cost of feed, cows, or labor causes dairymen to modify their practices. For
all these reasons, one can never safely predict what will be the effect of a
change in any one item on the cost of production as a whole.
PART II. CONCERNING COWS
Breeds
Practically all of the dairy herds in Broome County are of grade stock,
but most of the cattle carry some Holstein blood. Probably animals of
this breed are best adapted to the production of market milk under the
prevailing conditions of the region, chiefly because of their large size.
About two per cent of the dairy cattle in the county are purebred. In
January, 1917, there were 498 purebred Holsteins on 45 farms, 53 pure-
bred Jerseys on 7 farms, 40 purebred Ayrshires on 2 farms, and 20 pure-
bred Guernseys on 6 farms, in Broome County. On 3 1 of the farms there
were less than 6 head of purebred dairy cattle, and on only 8 of the 149
farms were there as many as 20 purebreds.
On the farms included in this study there were only 39 registered cows.
Excepting one Ayrshire and one Dutch Belted, these were all Holsteins.
Records for two purebred Holstein herds containing 52 cows were obtained,
but were not included in the tabulations. The market for purebred
dairy cattle in the southern -tier counties is relatively undeveloped. It is
no doubt due largely to this fact, and to the more extensive system
of dairying, that few purebred animals have been brought into the
county.
Owing to the fact that the herds were so largely of Holstein charac-
teristics, it was impossible to group them in any manner that would allow
a comparison of one breed with another. There were six herds of pure-
bred Holstein and Holstein grades, twenty-eight high-grade Holstein
herds, twenty-eight herds comprised of Holstein grades and animals of
mixed breeding, eleven herds of part Holstein grades and part Jersey
grades, six herds of part Holstein grades and part Guernsey grades, and
seventy herds of various other combinations of breeding. Most of the
larger herds are Holstein grades, while more of the smaller herds are of
mixed breeding.
Numbers
The inventories, purchases, sales, and deaths of cows are given in detail
in table 20 (page 301). The average number of cows was 2058, and the
average value was $65 a head. The number per farm varied from 6 to
37, the average being 13.8.
During the year 47 farms purchased 134 cows at an average price of
$64 a head. On 103 farms there were 304 heifers that freshened for the
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 315
first time during the year. The average value at the time of freshening
was $57 a head. About one cow was purchased or raised for each five
kept. But as the herds are increasing in size, and as some cows are sold
for production, only one cow of each seven or eight is actually replaced
each year. The estimates of 131 dairymen as to the time cows remained
in the herd after first freshening averaged 7.5 years.
Of the cows disposed of, 208 were slaughtered or sold for slaughter on
86 farms, and 117 were sold for breeding and production on 42 farms. The
average price received for the former was $38, for the latter $54, a head.
FlG. 55. GOING TO THE BUTCHER
The figures indicate that about two-thirds of the cows disposed of are
slaughtered or sold for slaughter, and that the remaining third go into
other herds to be milked. But farmers do not know exactly where the
cows they sell go. The relatively low price of those sold for production
suggests that probably some that went to the block have been included
in this group.
During the year 38 farms lost 55 cows by death or accident. Of these
cows, 49 died, 4 were killed on the railroad, and 2 were killed by lightning.
This is 2.7 per cent of the average number of cows. Receipts from the
sales of hides and insurance for cows killed amounted to $7.82 per cow lost.
The average price of all cows slaughtered and sold was $44 a head.
This is $21 a head less than the average value of cows. The depreciation
3 i6
BULLETIN 409
on cows and the loss due to death was $5722, or 4.3 per cent of the average
value of cows. About two-thirds of this loss is represented by the difference
between the value of cows and the price received for those sold, and one-
third by deaths. Since the beef value of cows is not in proportion to their
value for milk, depreciation and losses due to death are higher with higher-
priced cows.
Average production
The average production per cow was 5532 pounds of milk, of which
5089 pounds was sold and 443 pounds was used on the farms, and 222.2
pounds of butterfat, of which 204.4 pounds was sold. About 42 per cent
of the milk was produced in the six months beginning on October i, and
58 per cent in the summer months from April to September.
The income from the sale of milk was more evenly distributed thruout
the year than was the production. While more milk was sold in summer,
the price received was so much less that the returns did not far exceed the
returns in the winter months.
The data on average production are given in table 30:
TABLE 30. PRODUCTION PER Cow AND ITS DISTRIBUTION, 2058 Cows
Number
of pounds
of milk
per cow
Per cent
of total
yearly
production
Number
of pounds
of
butterfat
per cow
Receipts
per cow
from
milk
sold
Per cent
of total
receipts
Milk sold:
May
614
12 I
24 o
$7 86
Q 4
June
621
12 2
24 2
7 co
Q O
Tulv
CO I
Q 8
20 o
6 82
8 2
August
'IQl
7 7
16 o
6 06
7 1
September
"2CC
7 O
14 Q
5QQ
7 2
October
368
7 2
ICC
7 22
8 7
November
-1-2Q
6 s
i^ 8
6 78
8 I
December
24.C
6 8
14- S
71^
8 6
January
^S8
7 o
H-i
7 14
8 6
February
^28
6 4
12 8
6 17
7 4
March
^05
7 8
IS 4-
7.1*
8 <;
April
4J.Q
8 8
17 S
6 77
8 i
Retail
T.A.
O 7
I c
O 7Q
O Q
Total
c o8Q
IOO O
2O4 4
$8l l6
IOO O
Milk not sold
A A -7
17 8
7 2S
Total
5r-?2
222 2
$90 6 1
Relative to the receipts on the New York market, much more milk was
produced during the summer on the farms studied. The production in
February, the lowest month, was 53 per cent of the June production, while
on the New York market for the same year the amount received in February
was 92 per cent of the amount received in June.
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING 317
Less milk is furnished the city during July, August, or September than
during January by the zones nearer the city. 7 These zones are the districts
of most intensive dairying. The supply from the further zones, however,
is much greater during the summer months. Prices paid for milk to be
40
20
Jan. Feb.
Mar.
Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.
Dec.
FlG. 56. PRODUCTION AND PRICE FOR 149 BROOME COUNTY FARMS COMPARED WITH
RECEIPTS ON, AND WITH AVERAGE PRICES PAID AT SHIPPING STATIONS TO PRODUCERS
FOR, THE NEW YORK MARKET
shipped to cities during these months must be in close accord with the
prices that can be obtained from milk by making it into butter, cheese, or
condensed milk, else milk will be attracted to the shipping stations from
the factories and too great a surplus results. Production on these Broome
County farms is more' typical of the far zones than of the districts nearer
the city.
7 Preliminary Report of the Joint Legislative Committee on Dairy Products, Livestock, and Poultry.
New York Senate Document, no. 35, page 340.
318
BULLETIN 409
The figures for distribution are given in table 3 1 :
TABLE 31. DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION, AND PRICES RECEIVED FOR MILK,
ON 149 BROOME COUNTY FARMS, COMPARED WITH DISTRIBUTION OF RECEIPTS
IN THE NEW YORK MARKET AND WITH AVERAGE PRICES PAID AT SHIJM'INC;
STATIONS TO PRODUCERS OF MILK FOR NEW YORK CITY, IN THE SAME YEAR
Month
Daily
average
receipts on
New York
market, 40-
quart cans
Per cent
(June
figure
taken-
as
100)
Milk
sold by
149
farms
(hundred-
weight)
Ter cent
(June
figure
taken
as
100)
Average
prices
paid
producers
for New
York
market*
Average
prices
received
by 149
farms
1914:
May.
C'l 4CQ
08
12 6^5
OQ
$1 25
$i 28
June
M8o7
IOO
12 , 77Q
IOO
I 20
I 21
July
CI AC. A
04-
10 312
81
I 41
i ^6
, August
September
October
November
December
1915:
January
5 .058
49,831
48,641
47,852
48,411
48, ^2
91
91
8 9
87
88
88
s; 045
7,294
7,579
6,783
7,108
7,359
63
57
59
53
56
58
i-53
i .64
1.76
2.00
2.00
1 94
i-55
1.69
1.96
2.06
2.06
2 .OO
February
5O,529
92
6,748
53
1.85
1.88
March
CQ QQ6
QT.
8 1 18
00
64.
I 76
i 80
April
52 4.IQ
06
92AT.
72
I 5^
I 51
*As given in The Milk Reporter, Sussex, New Jersey, for the respective months.
Feeds used
The total amounts and values of the various kinds of feed used by
cows are given in previous tables. The amounts per cow, per hundred
pounds of milk produced, and per pound of butterfat produced, are shown
in table 32:
TABLE 32. FEED USED BY 2058 Cows
Pounds use
d
From
table
Total
Per cow
Per 100
pounds
of milk
produced
Per pound
of butterfat
produced
Grain
r
2 895 814 pounds
I 4.O7
25 4.
6 i
Silage
2
3n T c Q tons
z 806
68 8
T 7 T
Other succulent feed. . .
Hay
2
861.43 tons
3e c ? A ? tons
837
3/151
15.1
62 4.
i/ . 1
3-8
T C C
Other dry forage
T.
729.60 tons
rK)O
7OQ
12 8
1 o- o
T> 2
An average of about 4 pounds of milk, containing 4 per cent of butter-
fat, was produced per pound of grain fed. The quantities of feed used on
these farms per pound of butterfat produced, check closely with the
quantities used in experiment station herds, as shown in table 33. The
AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF DAIRYING
w .
1
il
'
cog
O^ G
PQ
l
ON O O) ON O OO rO rOOO v>
IO CS IO M 00 VO ^00 HH ID
0000 M O
vO oo O t^
l^. HH ON CM
M hi osoo
vO -00
' * t* * 3
O- vo
00 O
>O O
oovo iOi-ioo O O
l^ O ^- O -^- >O Tt-00 cO CM
CMfOCMtOCMCMtOCMCMCO
^j- r<-} i_i Q f\) ON O
ON O vO Tj- ON ON t"
to tooo vo
fO CM O
CM IO CO
t-^ IO I-H
VO
O r)-
ON CO
CM
w
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