Is % >^€) Division of Agricultural Sciences UNIVERSITY O F CALIFORNIA I MMmmm&mmmNmSmmi All milk ?rib in; foj Milk vlaKiifacbirin s X s. g Purposes in alifornia Market milk D. A. CLARKE, JR. • OLAN D. FORKER • AARON C. JOHNSON, JR. ^ i CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION This bulletin reports studies that compared the net values of raw milk in alternative uses. They compared prices paid to California milk producers with those paid producers in other areas of the country. And they also tested California milk prices against the costs to processors of alternative source ingredients. The purpose of the bulletin is to • develop procedures for estimating and evaluating appropriate price levels for milk used for dairy products manufacture in California ; « • evaluate the basis for establishing different use classifications for milk for manufacturing purposes ; * • examine problems involved in determining the appropriate number of classes for such milk in California markets; and • evaluate the potentials and problems associated with the use of formulas in ' establishing prices for milk for manufacturing purposes. f Contents Summary 3 Producer Prices for Milk for Manufac- Introduction 5 turing Purposes in Other Areas .... 3^ Objectives and Procedures 8 Costs of Alternative Ingredients from Partial Net Margins for Alternative Sources Other than California .... 37^ Manufactured Dairy Products in Significance of Comparisons of California 9 Manufacturing Milk Prices 39 Elements of a Net Margin Analysis . 10 classified Pricing for Milk for 1 Yield Formulations 11 Manufacturing Uses 40 Product Prices 11 Problems of Multiple-Class Surplus Processing Costs 12 Pricing 4f/ Raw Product Cost 16 Development of Partial Net Margins . 16 Results of Partial Net Margin Analyses 17 Appendix *52 ' The Use of Formulas in Establishing > Development of Partial Net Margins . 16 Prices for Milk for Manufacturing Uses 44 JUNE, 1964 The Authors: D. A. Clarke, Jr. is Professor of Agricultural Economics, Agricul- tural Economist in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, Berkeley. Olan D. Forker is Extension Economist, Associate on the Giannini Foundation df Agricultural Economics, Berkeley. Aaron C. Johnson, Jr. is Assistant Specialist* Agricultural Experiment Station. Berkeley. Pricing Milk for Manufacturing Purposes in California 1 D. A. Clarke. Jr. • Olan D. Forker • Aaron C. Johnson, Jr. Summary Relatively low prices paid in Califor- nia during the past few years for milk for manufacturing purposes have put a I growing cost-price squeeze on Grade B i manufacturing) milk producers. Many persons have looked for ways to alleviate this problem. Bills were introduced in the state legislature, both in 1959 and 1961, 4o extend the state price control program to include manufacturing-grade milk. This study is designed to investigate some of the important factors that in- fluence the milk prices paid by manufac- turing plants and thus to provide some fundamental data on which to base an appropriate policy decision. Its objec- tives center around various techniques for analyzing and measuring the effec- tiveness of the existing pricing system and the possible consequences of alterna- tive price-setting procedures. No attempt has been made to offer specific recom- mendations on the extension of milk price control in California. Rather, the study is intended to provide information which will help our legislators and the industry in making appropriate decisions. Analyses were made of the relative movement of product prices, the prices paid by San Joaquin Valley manufactur- ing plants, and the movement of estimated processing costs which entered into the computation of partial net margins for the major products manufactured in Cali- fornia dairy processing plants. During the six-year period studied, from January, 1956, through December, 1961, a rela- tively high degree of consistency was in- dicated ; that is, the calculations of partial net margins tended to "hover" around the simple average of such margins for the entire time span. On the other hand, just as observed in other markets, the levels of estimated partial net margins varied substantially among products. These calculations indicated that, on the average, processors of butter and spray- processed nonfat dry milk solids lost ap- proximately 20 cents per hundredweight. The production of butter and condensed skim milk, on the average, was a slightly better alternative for processors and tended to result in a small profit. Proces- sors with outlets for cream and spray- processed nonfat dry milk and those with markets for cream and condensed skim milk also tended to be in a somewhat better position. Handlers who could find an outlet for the sale of ice cream mix in conjunction with any of the alternative outlets for the nonfat solids component of milk consistently made a higher profit than those whose major use of milk fat took the form of either cream or butter. Submitted for publication July 24, 1963. [3] Finally, processors of evaporated milk who could find a market outlet for their product also consistently enjoyed rather favorable positions. The trends of partial net margins rela- tive to those realized from butter-nonfat dry milk operations were studied for six years. A high degree of consistency was noted here, too, in the movements of all the alternative product combinations ex- cept evaporated milk. For the latter prod- uct, this index of relative profitability in- creased substantially in late 1957 and early 1958, stabilized at a relatively high level in 1959, increased further during mid- 1960, then definitely declined by early 1961. Prices paid by California manufactur- ing plants were compared with those paid by similar plants in Midwest areas. Throughout the period under analysis, movements in these various price series were generally similar and California producers for the most part received a price advantage over Midwest producers. For this analysis, two alternative price series had been used to reflect prices paid by Midwest plants — the reported "Mid- west condensery price series" and the recently developed "Minnesota- Wiscon- sin" price series. With the exception of two periods, one in 1951 and the other during the latter part of 1960 and early 1961, the reported San Joaquin Valley price (adjusted to 3.5 per cent milk fat content) consistently exceeded the Mid- west condensery prices by approximately 20 cents per hundredweight. Since data for the Minnesota-Wisconsin manufac- turing price series were available only since January, 1955, this comparison could be made for only a limited time period. During this time, the San Joaquin Valley manufacturing prices also ex- ceeded the level reported by this Midwest series except for two periods — the latter parts of both 1960 and 1961. On the basis of these comparisons, it may be concluded that California producers of milk for man- ufacturing purposes have fared well com- pared to their counterparts in the Mid- west. There is a slight indication, how- ever, based on the comparison with the » Minnesota-Wisconsin series, that the rela- tive position of California producers has become somewhat less favorable in recent years. Estimated cost of ingredients imported from other sources for the production of manufactured dairy products in Califor- " nia plants (particularly ice cream and , cottage cheese) was compared with the cost of producing these same products from California-produced raw product supplies. Indications were that prices of California raw product supplies in recent ^ years have been sufficiently favorable to make it unattractive for California proc- essors to substitute imported ingredients for locally produced supplies. It also seemed apparent that the relationship be- tween the costs of California raw product and those of imported ingredients has re- * mained relatively constant since 1950. No evidence of any lessening in effi- ciency was found in the operation of the market mechanism by which California manufacturing milk prices have been de- termined in recent years. On the whole, and with the exceptions noted, producer prices (as measured by the San Joaquin ~ Valley series) have generally been con- sistent with those which would have been * expected on the basis of specified rela.- tionships. Since differences in relative profita- bility exist in the manufacture of alterna-^ tive milk products, the feasibility of estab- lishing separate use-classifications for * milk for manufacturing-grade purposes can be considered. Since at present not all milk of this type is under state price t regulation, Grade B milk (which is un- regulated) can be freely substituted for* Grade A rhilk used in the higher-valued classes (except Class I). This greatly^ limits the opportunity for any substantial premiums to exist for milk for Class II purposes over manufacturing-grade milk A prices. [41 To eliminate "leakage" between use- classifications of these two grades of milk, it would be necessary to bring all milk under regulation. This could, perhaps, be accomplished by legislation similar to that presented in Senate Bill 40 of the 1961 legislative session, but there are two reasons why the pricing of milk for manufacture is far more difficult than pricing of milk for fluid purposes. First, malalignment of class prices within the nonfluid ( manufacturing) uses can be ex- pected to have serious repercussions upon resulting utilization patterns; and second, when manufacturing milk prices are seg- mented, the prices established for the lowest class use must be determined with extreme care. If such prices are too high, they can result in "homeless" milk. If too low. they will provide incentives to proc- essors to increase their demands for milk for such uses, thus increasing surpluses and depress both Class I and blend prices. Finally, the desirability of the use of some type of "automatic" formula for setting manufacturing milk prices has been discussed. In general, such formulas have advantages. They can be used to as- sure producers of at least the equivalent of the "paying ability" of milk when used for the manufacture of specific products such as butter or nonfat dry milk. Or they can be based on price series re- flecting prices paid producers in other manufacturing areas, thus assuring Cali- fornia producers prices as high as those received elsewhere. The application of formulas to manufactured milk prices is not without disadvantages, however. Dur- ing recent years, for example, California producers would have averaged a lower price than they actually received had they been paid either on a "butter- powder" or on the Minnesota-Wisconsin price series basis. Introduction In California, milk for manufacturing uses is available from two sources — manufacturing grade milk and excess Grade A supplies over Class I require- ments. In recent years the total amount of such milk has ranged from approxi- mated 2.5 billion pounds per year in 1950 to slightly less than 3.2 billion pounds during the year 1961 (see figure 1 ) . During this time span, however, the proportion of this supply derived from manufacturing grade milk has decreased from 77.0 per cent in 1950 to 48.5 per cent in 1961. Of the total commercial milk production in California at the pres- ent time, approximately 40 per cent is utilized in the manufacture of dairy prod- ucts other than fluid market milk prod- ucts. As just indicated, a little less than half of this is nroduced as manufactur- ing — or Grade B — milk, while the re- mainder, or slightly more than half, is supplied from "excess" Grade A produc- tion. Since either grade can be substituted as a raw product ingredient for any of the manufactured products, these two sources of supply, therefore, are directly in competition for the "market" for dairy products. Under current provisions of the Cali- fornia Milk Stabilization Act, 2 the Grade A portion of the supply of milk for manufacturing comes under the price jurisdiction of the Director of Agricul- ture, while the Grade B portion does not. The latter fact has led some persons to be- lieve that returns to producers of manu- facturing milk might be increased by further legislation designed to bring all milk prices under the regulatory jurisdic- 2 Th (1961) e Milk Stabilization Act, as it is commonly known, appears in California, Agricultural Code ),c. 17, div. 6, pp. 670^711. [5] 0> — c to ^ \ 59 19 1 Prices (S< \ — o /\ 58 izatioh, 4 / / 57 19! action, Util 1 1 1 56 19 MiY/c Frod 4 / / / / 1 ^ 55 19 y Products, f 1 1 2C E c 3 1 J* J 2 / ) 54 19! ztured Dair \ 1 O o r *2, — 3 ro oT I — 52 19! ^rting Servi G 5 I / / # 51 191 estock Rep \ / / / / 50 19 rop and Liv '3 m m suoimq in *spunod tion of the state pricing agency. Legisla- tion for this purpose was introduced in the 1959 Legislature (Senate Bill 1167) and also in the 1961 Legislature (Senate Bill 40) . Both bills were referred to the Assembly Interim Committee on Live- stock and Dairies for further study. Problems associated with pricing milk for manufacturing uses have received considerable attention over the years. For example, minimum producer prices for milk used for evaporated milk were established under the authority of the Agriculture Agreement Act of 1933 be- tween September, 1933, and June, 1947. In this case the prices were determined by the formula in use under marketing agreements 7 and 60 and license 100 and were always below prices actually paid. The established price, therefore, was never effective as a minimum price, and these agreements were withdrawn during 1947. Today, prices for locally produced supplies of milk eligible for fluid con- sumption but in excess of market require- ments are subject to the price control jurisdiction of governmental agencies in many areas. Federal market orders pre- vail in 82 markets in the United States, while approximately 20 states carry out ^ their own price regulations covering minimum producer prices. In each of these markets, the industry and the pric- ing agency have constantly given serious consideration to the levels and the rela- . tionships of prices set for milk entering manufacturing uses. Currently, about 4,500 dairymen in California produce manufacturing-grade milk. Except for a brief period in the earlv 1950's, when milk demand for manufacturing purposes increased during the Korean crisis and brought about a rise in milk prices, the prices received for manufacturing milk in California have remained relatively constant. Computed on the basis of 3.8 per cent milk fat and f.o.b. San Joaquin Valley plants, these prices were $3.26 per hundredweight in 1950 and $3.49 per hundredweight in 1961. During this 12-year period, prices of other products, including input factors such as feed, labor, and equipment, which are costs to dairymen, as well as the prices of Class I milk, increased at a more rapid rate. This disparity has led to an increasing cost-price squeeze on California manufacturing-grade milk pro- ducers. As stated in the final report of the Assembly Interim Committee on Live- stock and Dairies, 3 "The problem at issue centers around the generally unsatisfac- tory level of returns to California dairy farmers for milk produced for manufac- turing uses. The question at issue con- cerns whether the plight of these dairy- men can be alleviated by legislative means." In recent years the problems of pricing manufacturing milk have been variously analyzed by researchers at several land- grant colleges and by the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture. Of the analyses made in California by the Giannini Foundation, a 1953 study of pricing effi- ciency is of particular significance. 4 Most recently, a six-volume series has been published entitled Class III Milk in the New York Milkshed. 5 These studies have provided a basis for the methodology of the present investigation and have con- tributed to its progress. ' California Legislative Assembly, Interim Committee on Livestock and Dairies, Final Report 1961-62, 18: 4 (Sacramento, 1963), p. 27. 4 James B. Hassler, Pricing efficiency in the manufactured dairy products industry, Hilgardia 22: 8. August, 1953. " U. S. Marketing Economics Research Division, Class III milk in the New York milkshed, Marketing Research Report Nos. 379. 396, 400, 419, 462, and 466, 1960 and 1961. [7] Objectives and Procedures The objectives of our project are: • To develop procedures for estimating and evaluating appropriate price levels for milk used for dairy product manu- facture in California. • To analyze and evaluate the basis for establishing different use (price) classi- fications for milk for manufacturing pur- poses and to examine problems involved in determining the appropriate number of classes for such milk in California markets. • To evaluate the potentials and some of the problems associated with the use of formulas in establishing prices for milk for manufacturing uses. The general procedures of this study center around measures of the efficiency of the market for California-manufac- tured milk and its products, as well as the effectiveness of the price mechanism. Ten product combinations are analyzed in this study: (1) Cream-nonfat dry milk, (2) cream-condensed skim milk, (3) cream- cottage cheese, (4) butter-nonfat dry milk, (5) butter-condensed skim milk, (6) butter-cottage cheese, (7) ice cream mix-nonfat dry milk, (8) ice cream mix- condensed skim milk, (9) ice cream mix- cottage cheese, and (10) evaporated milk. The measures used in the analyses in- clude the determination of the quantities (or yields) of each of these alternative products manufactured from a specified amount of milk under California process- ing conditions, the prices received by processors for these products, and the respective costs of manufacture. Addi- tionally, these measures involve de- termining the appropriate costs to proc- essors of obtaining supplies from alterna- tive sources which may potentially com- pete with locally produced raw whole milk, and a comparison of prices paid California producers with those paid by plants in other areas for milk used for similar purposes. It should be noted that a study of an industry as complex as the manufactured dairy products industry cannot be ex ; pected to provide complete answers to all questions that might possibly arise. Nevertheless it is possible to arrive at sub- stantial conclusions by examining the in- ternal consistency of the prices generated > within its marketing system. In this con- text, an efficient market is viewed as a* system in which production and utiliza- tion changes as well as intermarket move- ments, respond to price changes, while at r the same time these adjustments provide an automatic and self-correcting mecha- nism that tends to keep prices in line. In such an efficient market, for example, it is expected that prices for a standardized product, such as butter, in two cities such, as San Francisco and Chicago, will tend to differ only by an amount representing appropriate transportation and handling charges. If San Francisco prices exceed Chicago prices by an amount larger than this, traders in the Midwest will increase their western shipments to take advantage of the higher prices. These increased ship-- ments will force down San Francisco prices and thereby return the market to a normal "price plus transfer cost" basis. If an examination of actual prices should reveal important price disparities, and if these disparities persist through substan- tial time periods, inefficiency within the system must be suspected. <_ Of course, comparisons of this kind can never be perfect, for no complex market system can be expected to result in per- fect adjustments in supplies, ultilization, and prices. With numerous producing firms and many markets widely dispersed throughout the country, knowledge of all market situations is necessarily imper- fect. Moreover, some lapse of time is in- evitable in making adjustment. As a re- 4 suit, prices will invariably oscillate to some extent as they "hunt" for their ap- [8 propriate level. In the analyses following here, an attempt has been made to avoid shortrun changes by focusing attention on the general price relationships through time. Using the measures described, answers to the following questions have been sought: • How efficient is the California manu- factured dairy products market in re- turning prices to producers for raw milk that are consistent with the product prices received by processors when necessary al- lowances have been made for costs of processing and marketing? This has been tested by comparing the net value of the raw material in the several uses. • How efficient is the California manu- factured dairy products industry in re- turning prices to producers that are in line with prices paid by manufactured dairy products plants in other parts of the nation? This has been tested by com- paring data on average monthly milk prices in California with reports of prices r3aid in the major manufacturing regions of the nation. • How efficient is the California manu- factured dairy products industry in re- turning prices to producers that are con- sistent with the cost to manufacturers of importing supplies of milk fat and solids- not-fat from alternative sources? This has ireen tested by comparing California man- ufacturing milk prices with the cost of alternative ingredients measured in terms i " Hassler. op. rit. of the prices of sweet cream butter and of high quality nonfat dry milk solids. A similar analysis was made by the Giannini Foundation which covered the period from the end of World War II to the early 1950's. 6 For the most part, this study indicated that the manufacturing dairy products industry in California had been operating with a high degree of pricing efficiency. However, several ex- ceptions were noted. First, government intervention during the war resulted in some inconsistencies among products — a direct result of deliberate attempts to ob- tain the maximum use of dairy products for human consumption. These attempts were implemented in part by fixing rela- tively attractive prices for such products as whole milk powder and nonfat dry milk and discouraging the flow of milk into butter and livestock feed outlets. Second, some important lags in price and production adjustments occurred. The outstanding example was the rapid de- cline in butter prices in 1948, followed at a slower rate by a reduction in cheese prices, while evaporated milk prices lagged behind and decreased at a very gradual rate. Finally, evaporated milk proved to be the major exception to the findings of pricing efficiency in the manu- factured milk industry at that time, pri- marily because three or four of the major producers of evaporated milk sell nation- ally advertised brands and were able to obtain premium prices for their differ- entiated products. Partial Net Margins for Alternative 'Manufactured Dairy Products in California This study is focused upon various measures designed to test the efficiency of the marketing system in generating prices ► consistent with those which would have prevailed if, in fact, the market had dem- onstrated perfect performance. With this as a norm, it is possible to "generate" alternative sets of estimated prices based oh specified relationships that would pre- vail under perfect market conditions. By comparing these generated prices with actual prices, the degree of efficiency of [9] the market system may be evaluated. This method of evaluating the performance of a marketing system, therefore, is not con- cerned with those attributes of an indus- try commonly treated in studies of market performance, such as structure, conduct, or behavior. It is not concerned with whether the firms making up the industry exercise a degree of market power, but rather with the price results obtained by the industry under consideration. One such measure under study investi- gates the relationships between returns realized by processors for products man- ufactured from raw milk supplies and prices paid to producers for this milk, when necessary allowances are made for costs incurred in the processing opera- tions. Differences between the "net value" of these raw product supplies (the gross value of product manufactured less man- ufacturing costs) may be considered to be "net margins." In this sense, net mar- gins may be treated as profits or losses — depending upon whether net margins are positive or negative — over and above the rate of return on investment in plants and facilities which is required to maintain necessary capital. This would be the case when "normal" profits are included as a part of the estimate of processing cost. In a market which operates in a per- fectly competitive manner, it is reason- able to expect net margins to approxi- mate zero over time. That is to say, temporary or short-run profits would tend to offset similar short-run losses. Again, due to the nature of the corrective forces put in motion by the market mech- anism, it is reasonable to assume that long-run equilibrium of this type will be obtained through a series of short-run disequilibrium situations in which prices and costs are continually seeking their appropriate adjustment. Because of the complex nature of the market studied, measurement methods and techniques can hardly be precise and testing procedures can provide no more than rou^h estimates. Conclusions drawn from such imperfect evidence should therefore be carefully evaluated. In spite of these limitations, an analysis of net> margins should : • provide an index of the net value ' of milk when used to manufacture spe- cific dairy products • provide an index of the relative prof- \ itability of manufacturing various spe- cific products from whole milk • furnish the basis for a better under- , standing of the nature of the market for manufactured dairy products < • help explain changes in the utiliza- tion of milk for manufacturing purposes. Elements of a Net Margin Analysis The four major components of the present analysis are: (1) The yields of the various products and product com- binations that can be obtained from a specified amount of raw milk. (2) The, net f.o.b. plant prices of the products under consideration. (3) The cost per hundredweight involved in processing and packaging the raw milk into finished products to the point of shipment from the manufacturing plant. (4) The raw product cost, or the price paid producers for milk of the average fat content re- ceived. These four components may be used to determine the partial net margins avail- able from the processing of any given' product (or product combination) per unit of raw milk available at any particu- lar point in time. These are termed par- tial net margins because certain expenses which enter into costs are difficult to de- termine and, even if determined, cannot easily be included in calculations of mar J gins. These expenses include overhead and administrative expenses of the firm operating the manufacturing facilities as well as advertising, merchandising, and other costs associated with marketing the product. Because these costs have been 4 excluded, it is not appropriate to consider [10] these partial net margins as synonomous \\ ith the absolute level of either profits or losses. On the other hand, to the extent that the development of the calculations discussed in the following sections are appropriate and consistent, these partial net margins should indicate the relative - profitability of alternative types of oper- ations. Even more important to this dis- cussion, these measures should be valid in measuring changes that may have oc- curred in the profitability of manufac- turing operations over the time period analyzed. Yield Formulations. — The amount of product that can be obtained from a given amount of raw milk (100 pounds, in this analysis) varies according to the particular product being processed, the quantities of fat and nonfat solids in the milk, the specifications for the separate products, and the losses incurred in proc- essing. For example, one hundredweight of milk of 3.8 per cent fat content (with the associated notfat solids) will produce •ipproximately 4.54 pounds of butter and 8.33 pounds of nonfat dry milk. Or, the same milk could be used to produce ap- proximately 9.27 pounds of 40 per cent cream and 25.52 pounds of condensed ^kim milk. For most of the manufactured dairy products under consideration in this anal- ysis, standards for fat, solids-not-fat, and moisture have been established by fed- t eral and state government laws or regu- lations. The specifications used in calcu- lating yields of all the products considered ire as follows: Butter — 80.5 per cent milk fat Cream — 40 per cent milk fat Cottage cheese — curd contains 25 per cent total milk solids; creamed to 1 per cent milk fat by addition of cream containing 20 per cent milk fat lee cream mix — 12.5 per cent milk fat, 10 per cent nonfat milk solids, 15 per cent sugar, 0.4 per cent gelatin * Nonfat dry milk — 98.5 per cent non- fat milk solids Condensed skim milk — 32 per cent total milk solids Evaporated whole milk — 7.9 per cent milk fat, 18 per cent nonfat milk solids Estimates of the pounds of a fat prod- uct and a skim product obtained from 100 pounds of whole milk of a specified fat content were made from formulas de- veloped on the basis of the above product specifications, together with certain as- sumptions concerning manufacturing op- erations. In those cases in which one of the milk components (fat or skim) was needed for standardization of the product of the other component, appropriate ad- justments were made in the product yield of the first component. Product yields for each month were based on the average fat test of milk available for manufacture for that month. The relationships for cal- culating yields of all products appear in table 1. Product Prices. — For use in this analysis, price series were obtained for seven products of the ten product combi- nations under consideration. These price series have been developed to reflect re- turns at the f.o.b. plant level and thus are net of the transportation costs of the final product from plant to market. These product prices have been obtained through two sources: price reports of the U. S. Department of Agriculture and rec- ords of firms engaged in buying and sell- ing manufactured dairy products in Cali- fornia. Regularly published reports of the Market News Service of the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture provided the neces- sary price data for butter, cream, evapo- rated milk, and nonfat dry milk. But this agency does not publish prices for prod- ucts such as ice cream mix, condensed skim milk, and cottage cheese; therefore, prices for these products were obtained from other sources. The price series de- veloped for ice cream mix and condensed skim milk are given in table 2. It was impossible to develop adequate [ii Table 1. Relationships for Calculating Yields of Specified Manufactured Dairy Products, California, 1961* (i) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) Cream Operations Cream and nonfat dry milk Ql+Q = 2.506JF - 0.2506- = 7.3067 + 0.270IF Cream and condensed skim milk 0,^ = 2.5065F - 0.2506 Q c8 = 22.3767 + 0.8272F Cream and cottage cheese Q^ = 2.1*57^F - 1.5709' *cc 1U.670U + O.^F Butter Operations Butter and nonfat dry milk ^ = 1.2267F - 0.1227 = 7.3067 + 0.2701F Butter and condensed skim milk a = 1.2267F - 0.1227 Q^ = 22.3767 + 0.8272F Butter and cottage cheese (^ = 1.2028F - O.7689 *cc 1^.670U + 0.5 1 +23F (1) (2) (3) Ice Cream Mix Operations Ice cream mix and nonfat dry milk ^icm Ice cre« = 8.0U15F = 7.^705 - - 0.80U2 0.1+822F un mix and , condensed skim milk ^icm *cs . 8.0U13F = 23.3^53 - 0.80U2 - I.5069F Ice cream mix and condensed skim milk ^icm - 8,329^ - 5.3^37 ^cc « 15.7601 - 1.0003F Evaporated Mill! > Operations Evaporated whole milk Q = 0.0U17F + 0.938U (when F%3.85) E = 0.0398F + 0.9^58 (when F>3«85) * Explanation of symbols O40 - pounds of 40 per cent cream F = per cent fat content of milk Q P = pounds of nonfat dry milk Qcs - pounds of condensed skim milk Qtc - pounds of cottage cheese Qb = pounds of butter Qicm - pounds of ice cream mix Qk = cases of evaporated whole milk price information for cottage cheese and therefore to estimate partial net margins for any product combinations involving cottage cheese. Thus, three of the ten product combinations had to be elimi- nated from this section of the analysis. Processing Costs. — The determina- tion of processing costs is a major ele- ment of any net-margin analysis. In this phase of the study, the costs of manufac- turing were developed for all of the spec- ified product combinations. 7 Procedure for developing cost data: The technique used was the budgetary or synthetic model procedure, sometimes called the "building block technique," that has been developed and widely used in recent years by researchers concerned with investigating costs of this type. Un- der this procedure, model plants of spe- cific capacity, equipment, and labor force are developed. The models are assumed to use the processing techniques, manage- rial practices, market organization, and institutional arrangements actually pre- vailing in the industry. The primary objective in developing these cost estimates was to determine costs that would be consistent with rea* sonably efficient operations in California. These reasonably efficient levels are es- tablished by the specifications for equip- 7 A detailed description of the development of these processing costs is contained in Aaron C. Johnson, Jr., Olan D. Forker, and D. A. Clarke, Jr., "Operations and Costs of Manufacturing Dairy Products in California," * University of California, Giannini Research Report No. 272 (Berkeley, 1964), 72 pp. [12] -G rH ? ON O o o o KN PA K> KN KN KN o rH un r-l r-l r-l rH CM CM CM CM CM CM t/3 -4 -4 UN A A un A A l/\ A t/N A A r-i R -* -4 -4 -a- -a- -4- -4 -* -=* -4 -4 -a- u 1 NO NO NO VO NO NO NO NO NO NO VO NO T3 ON • • • • • • • >^ rH -4 -4 -4 -4 -* J* -4 ^» -4 -4 -4 -4 B a. CO e £ •d 8, ON ON ON J* -4 -4 -4 -* -* ^t -4 -4 ^2 SI o o o VO VO NO NO NO NO NO VO NO On • • • • • • • • T3 d -H l/N UN UN -4 -4 -4" -4 -* -d- -4 -4 -4 tn 1 § "O -2 g J3 o © crj t— ON ON ON On ON ON ON On ON ON ON ON u -3 UN O o o O o o o O o o o o >H "3 On • • • • • • • • • • o > r^ un \A UN \A l/N ON l/N m l/N l/N UN UN HH (J3 05 05 05 >h CO a 05 _^ ft d ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON § o o o o o o O O O o o o C\ • • • • • • • • • r-i o ITS iA UN l/N l/N. ir\ ITN ITN l/N UN UN UN nies; pi skim m is. rH CO co a CM CM ON ON ON r-l KN KN KN cd T3 5 * to r^ • CM CM ao • CO CO rH • KN • KN • KN r- CO 2 P c o rH c -4 -* A A A -4- -4* -* l/N UN UN l/N C 05 o< cy r-i r-l .h r-l r-l rH rH •H r-l r4 rH rH y "o en rj< o s §!<* i of thr< k and c 9.0 pou weighs a • • • KN KN • CM CM • S^ CM CM • CM CM • 3 • £ • r-l -4 -4 -* -4 -4 -4 -4 J* J -4 -4 -4 H r-l H r-l r-i rH rH H H rH rH r-i 05 «rj tO -^ CMS a fr'g : £ K nO NO vo I s - VO N0 NO P CO S. fc S 13 x ^5 X ON • • • • • • • >-< J5 "2 ^o t ^ -=»• -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -* .* -4 -* -4 ° ^ s " r-l •H r-l r-4 rH H rH r-i rH rH rA r-i a. 5 -o 05 2 P ^ >h C B co § I R cd e CO vo H r-l ON CO ON CO ON CO ON CO 8 \R NO VO from es on e ere ondei On • • • • • • • • • • -d .S -a u ■1) S- VH cu ^ -4 -4 -a- -4 KN KN KN K> -4- -* ^> Jt o r-l r-l r-l r-l r-i r-i rH rA r-i rH r-i rH ft a^ o M 5 - cs , — i r rt c > o o J2 K 3 CvJ CM ON CO VO » \R » \R ON GO ON CO ON 00 ON CO S ^^ -d -d ft * ?n On • UN iA -4 -4 • -4 • -4 Jt • -4- -4 • -4 • -4 • mix ;nt s one one rH r-l r-l r-l r-l H H rH rH rH r-i rH § S to « CO r- P j- 05 £ rS "2 tR a d 8 VO ON KN ON KN rA rA 8 5 5 3 >h CD w > a S © o o rH UN • i/n A • -4 -4 • -4 • • • UN • UN • UN • UN q bC-- *X2 eH r-i r-l r-i r-i rH rH rH rH r-i rH H " rt r" ft ft fe S s s <£ £ § ^ *_, S CO CO CO I- CO CO Month 9 r^ o i rH 9 1 1 ? CO 1 U ! O O U ! o r? 8 3 * Price serie lationship be t Based on a X Based on a 13 ment, labor, and other inputs developed in the plant synthesis. It is recognized that this procedure will not reflect "aver- age" processing costs for this area — the type that might he used directly for price- setting purposes. Nor will it reflect costs for any particular plant except for the "hypothetical" plant specified. Further- more, because the costs apply only to plants of specified size, they tell nothing about possible scale economies associated with processing at various plant volumes. Obviously, if substantial scale economies exist, plants with smaller or larger vol- umes than the hypothetical plant will ex- perience lower or higher margins than those indicated in this analysis. However, the cost levels obtained should represent those attainable under conditions of effi- cient organization. Additionally, costs for processing any one of the alternative product combinations determined by this method will tend to be consistent with the costs of others, provided that the plant specifications (building, equipment, and labor requirements) as well as the cost rates are themselves consistent. Once the model plant has been de- signed and organized as an efficient and workable operation, it becomes possible to attach money prices to the various physical inputs required and to calculate total and unit costs. In this analysis, cost rates appropriate for the year 1961 were applied and processing costs, computed for each of the alternative model plants specified — in terms of the expenses per hundred pounds of raw milk received — appear in table 3. w Modifications of 1961 cost data: Esti- mates of processing costs for the entire time period under study were obtained t by adjusting the 1961 estimates through the application of regularly reported in- * dexes. For these adjustments the process- ing cost for each product was broken down into its separate components, such as labor, utilities, building expenses, equipment expenses, consumable supplies, ' and packaging expense. Each of these cost^ components was then adjusted separately with an appropriate index. The summary 1 of annual processing costs for each model plant per hundredweight of milk receivea 1 is given in table 4. The estimated process- } ing costs for each of the alternative plants, developed by months for 1950 through* 1961, appear in tables 5-14 in the Ap- pendix. The index used to "move" labor costs was developed from wage rates supplied by the Western Conference of Teamsters. Bracket 1 wage rates were used in devel- oping the index. It was found that Bracket 1 labor costs in 1961 exceeded the basio- hourly Bracket 1 wage rates in 1951 by about 64 per cent. Therefore, with 1951 = 100. the 1961 index of labor costs was Table 3. Summary of Unit Processing Cost Estimates by Type of Plant, California, 1961 Type of plant Processing cost per 100 pounds of milk received Cream-nonfat dry milk Cream-condensed skim milk Cream- cottage cheese Butter -nonfat dry milk Butter -condensed skim milk Butter -cottage cheese Ice cream mix-nonfat dry milk Ice cream mix-condensed skim milk Ice cream mix-cottage cheese Evaporated milk dollars 0.677 0.470 0.585 0.726 0.520 0.633 0.662 O.hQk 0.622 2.07^ [ 14 .h t*- O ITNVO O KN CM ^8 -^ CM-^- CO CM C^- 3F vo r-l • • • • • • • • • • § CM -* rH C*- ON i?Nir\irN on NO --t LfNvO CO r-i $>8 rTN NO -4- CM LfN VO On-3" -3F LTNO iH • • • • • • • • • • ON ON CM VO QVD O CM mS CM C^ NO -3" IfNVO rH r-i VO s ^ iH • • • • • • • • • • ON rH CM LfN I/NCO IfN ONQ CO *> LTN-*--* VO 3^ ON VO rH rOv ^k CM rO -a- tr\ on rH H Z & fX CM CM rH rH rH CO -* CM *> ON s £33& 3d h- UN r-\ rH ON W 1 • • • • • • • • • • o o ft ON CMCQNO O tfN ffN-=T NO 3R ITN ON CO VO ON On f^v -* CO cc r-i (0 • • • • • • • • • • Ex ^ K : & r-i H ON H H ^clfS "^ •$ IfN tC\^± US ON CM O r-i VO ON bi) 1 IfN ON 1 33 l/N * ^S c u O rH e3 rfc LO rH -^ °. On Z X, VONQ t*- CM CM UN CM NO CM r-\ &3 Ss -J" LTNQ VO LfN-* rfN -3- NO cd Oh c y U •H • • • • • • • • • • w O > cc u ifN ON T3 c« J fa 3 * 00 O\c0 *> r-i-3- r-i LT\ IfN tf\^± IfN ££ R ft S3 fOv -* VO 3 3 O Oh 3 C to 5 X rH • • • • • • • • • .O j. 1 d ON rH ^ -Q < § CM ON-=t NO CM t>- -* NO ONCO -3F CM Q rfN -* M5 6 1 Q fa U O »«SR 3 w | IMAT GHT rH • • • • • • • • • • rH ^2 2 c of Est >REDWE] G* CO CM ON CM CM CM NO CM R. NO LfN Q rfN rHCQ rf\ ^t US ON I3F rTN K> LTN rf\_* -4- a, rH R ON • • • • • • • • • • ^ z OS 3 r-i fC\^t CM -4- ff\ LfN ON LfNrH VO r-i I s - ON -3F rAK>^t *3 -3- r-i ONQ rH • • • • • • • • • Cl. *2 S OS D w r-i c/) fa X u CO H r-i s 1* 3 S 3 "3 Bid «) w CO -P •S s CO CJ 1 ! 3 3 — H O 03 J2 -P O M -P TJ d) CO 1 1 • r-i T3 ~0 s r-i co a> -p c aj a> aj «h -S 3 B S a> a> «5 •H Cl en 3 co 3 OOOWffl PQ n M M W * 4— Raw Product Cost. — The raw prod- uct cost is a reflection of the price paid to producers for incoming milk supplies. ^ For this purpose, the prices used were those reported by the California Crop * and Livestock Reporting Service as the average price paid by San Joaquin Val- W ley condenseries for milk of 3.8 per cent fat content. 8 These prices were first ad- justed to reflect f.o.b. plant prices by add- < ing an appropriate transportation differ- ential to the reported ranch price data to cover costs of milk collection frorn, farm to plant. In addition, they were ad- justed to the average fat test of all milk available for manufacture within the state for the month being studied. This was accomplished by applying the current butterfat differential to the reported price for milk of the standard 3.8 fat content. 9 * Monthly raw product cost data, to- gether with fat tests, are given in table 15 in the Appendix. ^ 164.3 ; and the 1961 labor cost per hun- dredweight of milk received was divided by this index to obtain the factor which was then multiplied by the labor index for each month involved in the analysis. The resulting * figures represented the monthly labor cost per hundredweight of milk handled. All the other major components of processing cost were adjusted in a similar manner. For the building components, in- dex data were obtained for 1950 through 1960 from "ENR Cost Indexes by Region and City," Supplement to Engineering News Record, March 23, 1961; and in- dex data for 1961 came from Engineering News Record, December 21, 1961. Sev- eral indexes used were obtained from Business Statistics, 1961 Edition. A Sup- plement to the Survey of Current Busi- ness, May, 1961, published by the U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Busi- ness Economics. Among these were the "Metal and Metal Products Index," used to move equipment expenses; and the "Fuel, Power, and Lighting Materials In- dex," used for the utilities component. Two different indexes were used to move packaging costs — the "Index of Whole- sale Paper Prices," for butter and nonfat dry milk; and the "Index of Tinplate, Electrolytic, Hot Dipped," for evaporated milk. Consumable supplies were adjusted by an index developed from a simple average of the indexes used for building, equipment, and utilities costs. 8 Data for the San Joaquin Valley condensery price series were obtained directly from the Cali- fornia Bureau of Milk Stabilization. Until January, 1957, these price data had been published monthly in the Dairy Information Bulletin, issued by the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. This series was selected to represent the prices paid California producers for milk for manufacturing purposes for two reasons: (1) although based on a limited number of milk plants, it is considered reasonably representative of prices actually paid by all plants located in the San Joaquin Valley for manufacturing grade milk, and (2) it is the basis for the price established by the Bureau of Milk Stabilization for Grade A milk entering Class III uses. The adjusted price used does not reflect bulk tank premiums or other premiums paid by various processing plants. A reliable estimate of the change in average price that might result from inclusion of premiums is not available at this time. However, industry opinion indicates that in 1956 practically no bulk tank premiums were paid above quoted prices. By 1962, however, a premium of 15-25 cents per hundredweight was being paid on 50 per cent of the manufacturing milk. To the extent such premiums exist and are not included in this analysis, the price series used to reflect [trices paid by California plants understates actual prices. This has the effect of over- stating the level of partial net margins and understating the positive differential. Development of Partial Net Margins This analysis proceeds through steps which involve the gross returns from the products manufactured, the costs of prod- u uct manufacture, and the cost of raw product supplies. The procedures and the x data are illustrated in the following cal- culations, which were based on June, 1961, data. [16 1. i leld of cream per 100 given due consideration before any con- pounds of milk of 3.36 i i j j- *u u . r „,^ , elusions are reached regarding the ab- per cent fat content. .8.17 pounds , , t - i %. Pi 2. Price of cream per solute degree ot profitability oi the oper- pound $0,338 ation. 10 Furthermore, since the calcula- 3. Value of cream per 100 tions upon which they are based (product lr^lt\ ° f milk (8 ' 17x prices, raw milk prices, and processing 4. Yield of nonfat dry costs) are estimates, the partial net mar- milk per 100 pounds of g ins cannot be presumed to be highly ac- milk of 3.36 per cent curate. At best, partial net margins pro- fat content 8.21 pounds vide only a rough measure or guide to 5. Price of nonfat dry h absolute profitability of these opera- milk per pound $0,159 . , r . 7 . i • i- 6. Value of spray process tions. Viewed in this manner, this meas- nonfat dry milk (8.21 x ure can provide valuable information con- $0,159) $1.31 cerning the relative profitability of al- - r ir ternative product combinations and the i . Gross value ol cream i i i and nonfat dry milk changes that may have occurred over per 100 pounds of milk time. of 3.36 per cent fat 6> n . en $4 .07 Results of Partial Net 8. Raw product cost of Margin Analyses 100 pounds of 3.36 per cent fat content milk $3.24 Estimates of gross values, raw product 9. Gross margin (points costs > and partial net margins are graph- 7 minus 8) $0.83 ically presented in figures 2 through 8 10. Cost of processing 100 for the seven product combinations anal- pounds of 3.36 per cent d j n this stud for the iod f rom milk into cream and T -\nc^ *i i r* i, in^i nonfat dry milk $0.67 January, 1956, through December, 1961. The horizontal dotted line which appears 11. Partial net margin on eac j 1 nr ra pfi represents a simple aver- ( points 9 minus 10) $0.16 t *iT *• l * • x u age ol the partial net margins lor each The results of this sample calculation specified product combination for the six- indicate that, for the time period during year period. Each six-year average pro- which the specified product prices, raw vides a basis both for comparing changes product cost, and processing cost figures over time in the level of partial net mar- were appropriate, the partial net margin gins for each product combination and obtainable from a hundredweight of 3.36 for comparing differences in the levels milk, when used for the manufacture of of these margins among product combi- cream and nonfat dry milk, was 16 cents. nations. As previously emphasized, this partial net In general, the partial net margins for margin takes into consideration only the cream and butter combinations those costs that are associated with the tended to remain relatively stable over direct costs of raw milk and of processing. the six years studied, while those for the Expenses of administration and merchan- ice cream mix combinations showed dising must also be covered by the par- somewhat wider variations. Of all the tial net margin, and this fact must be products and product combinations anal- 10 Costs excluded from the partial net margins are (1) the overhead administration costs of the processing firm and not the plant; (2) merchandising expenses for homogenous, undifferentiated commodities sold in bulk form, f.o.b. manufacturing plant. It has been assumed that these ex- cluded costs are not likely to be large when expressed in terms of a hundredweight of milk processed, nor are they expected to vary substantially from product to product. [17] yzed, the partial net margins for the evaporated milk operation averaged high- est and showed the largest variation over time. The partial net margins for the butter combinations tended to remain close to or below zero, while those for the cream combinations tended to be slightly posi- tive. Combinations with ice cream mix tended to have higher partial net mar- gins than did those in which the fat-con- taining product was either cream or but- ter. In all instances, combinations involv- ing condensed skim milk resulted in higher* relative returns than did those using the solid nonfat portion of the milk in the form of nonfat dry milk. Thus, of the combination products, ice cream mix- condensed skim milk operations yielded the highest partial net margins, while, as indicated, butter-nonfat dry milk pro- vided the lowest return. On the whole, during the period under study, partial net margins for each prod- uct combination varied in a similar pat- tern around the six-year average, even though some combinations demonstrated somewhat more variation than did others. This similarity of pattern also appears in figures 2 through 8 for the other two lines, which show gross value and raw product cost. The most pronounced correspond- ence occurred in the ice cream mix com- binations. Partial net margins tended to be highest when both the gross value of the product and the raw product cost were at their highest levels, an indication that raw product costs (producer prices) appear to be quite responsive to changes in finished product values, but that pro- ducer prices do not adjust completely to either upward or downward movements in gross product values. The result is that the partial net values tend to be above average when gross values are high, but below average when gross values decline. One qualification to this conclusion must be noted. A substantial part of the dif- ferences in month-to-month gross values represents differences in the fat and non- fat solids content of the milk available for manufacture which affect the physical product yields. Therefore, some changes in gross value would occur even when the unit returns from the sale of product (product prices) remained unchanged. , In general, for all products except evaporated milk, the partial net margins were highest during 1956, the latter part of 1957 and early 1958, and during the latter part of 1961. They were lowest dur- ing the early part of 1959 and during the first months of 1960. The partial net mar- gins for evaporated milk, on the other hand, reached their lowest points in the latter part of 1956 and early 1957, and during the latter part of 1961 ; they reached their highest levels during mid- 1958, mid-1960, and early in 1961. The rather drastic decline in these margin levels that occurred in the latter part of the period analyzed was the result of a drop in product prices together with an increase in raw product costs. Partial net margins, by months, and the data entering into their calculation, appear in tables 16-22, pages 101 to 121. Because data on product prices were available from U. S. Department of Agri- culture sources prior to 1956 for butter, cream, nonfat dry milk, and evaporated milk, it was possible to compute partial net margins for three products or com- binations for a longer time period. These product combinations were butter-nonfat dry milk, cream-nonfat dry milk, and evaporated milk. Their partial net mar- gins were calculated back to January, 1950. As shown in figure 9, these esti- mates of partial net margins maintained the same relative position in the period from 1950 through 1955 as they had in the later six-year period analyzed. How- ever, month-to-month fluctuations — par- ticularly from mid-1951 through early 1954 — were substantially wider than at any other time. Within the full 12-year^ period, the partial net margins for both the butter and cream combinations reached their peak in February, 1952, 18] c/T 1 ■\i K 1 1 1 I' '^ c 3 O X g H ) 3 £ — u O CO x 3 \ CD «=i •1 CD CQ - C '3) <" eO 2 L / E 05 O \ - c J i J2 < / tn c/T g O DC < \ : !i f - O CD CD 2 CU H en O O H ;i? " SJD w \j-n " _C 2; '/ .5 co J 1 t: - O L-4 v O - 1 °- - p < 1h ;j CD CO c eo Q 2 1 CD co CO CO CO CO hfi 'G n — Q £ & n D CO "c/> 1 I n £>H CP •• .** CD **2 > CO £3 """3 * -1 \ -N 3 -0 2 a. \ 1 / _ i) - CD eo -a -73 * D 1 — 1 •2 * cO s- k 5 / CO WD 3 or <: CO i2 2 X x.^ y ii '1 _: CD in CO to ** O .S M Cjfi c 1 CD G co j 1 • - — H H " t> WW JO JMO/SJD||OQ « 4 ^: co 19 z 05 O h - u z O 05 1 Q Z H tn O U H U §^ 05 i— i uf c/T P X J H O ^ 05 03 o a a 2 en Q W vi z u Q Z O U Q Z < 05 w H H CQ CO w § o 1 1 \\ 1 I '! 1 - i — $ y _ A a d( t 4 _ \ * \ i i\ * I i / • i • \ (D • i cr> ; i - o : f — o> • i /i \ B ^ _ V \ ': _ o V 0> >> 1 _ O o - ^_ /: X X <-> X X ^ V 1 "° 1 I 2 — l 1 °- 1 - 1> y\ o cr s J 1 - 3 vy /: o > /: _ if) c l: o 6> \: e> £ V \ ^\ v V net m - i \ - V \s r :l ° 7 - \ ^ i: ^V{ - /: \: \j /: \: 1 1 i f / I , {! i _ 1 1 i 1 1 \: 1 -3* » 2 as a > CO O D •I k - CD m 1|IIJU ^0 J/V\0/SJD||OQ c s ^3 o •• CO © 5 | 20 < H < Oh Q ■ < t/5 u E-i b a o a, ^ i—l l-H < > X O Z OS C a £ c en Cfl u u "J? PES Oh Jh «< a. in Q z -< w OS U w OS O ! 1 \ 1 \ i \ i II: ! 1; 1: i: \ / \ /. \ — 1: — — \ :\ 'I 0, _ o> :i O •! w »l 0> .*| > — o — Q> ( * \ ^ CD o o o— o \|i - o - Q. i / 1 — o •i z or y \> ^ 3 :i - \ • t :i - \ ll li / 1/ •I •l / i: n 0) 3 i; _ o l: _ > c t/> o 6> 1 o > - E J \ ■N/ •3 :* — ^r ^ t: :l y—\ c ;-* LL V* - XJi i: I: V t i: t /: 1 i# f\ 1 1 1 V _ u o JS CD H CD ^j o o bfi c Cfi Oi V u o a -a c cd CD en m cd 9 — o -3 O S-, ft £ cd i-, «_> o sd on S g in V ft CD ^ -a 03 c > 03 en en en O 0) t- en bfi C OJ £ ft 5 ft (H « fe u > IS l<- 3 c m CD 3 s ed -O T3 «» -, p— Cfl O OS O M i •— I fad c/) Q W t« Z u Q z o u - z «< a w OS u u as D O 1 1 \l \l 1 1 •: 1 | i: \i i: - \ i _ J { - 1 t P \ l \ '•1 / — to J c — e \ CD V J J o E % c I a :t - ^J "5 k. If - £' i _ V J — * i \ ) V y / t t / / k _ m\ / r. _ 1 1 / 1 / 1 1 T 1 c 3 O £ eO _| — ,» o 03 00 •o <" ^ 0> c3 CO O 0) )_ cfi W) C CU £ B- o * 2 h- > CO lO o c en ._ e CO -O -a co CD m ro CM ))|!UJ JO 4MD/SJD||OQ C hfi CD 5b .S in CO >— i a> C en 4-> l-H CD 4) C cS 1o w *3 o i-i 4 - > eO * I US ► as ^ H O < h 2 O Z c/i c/2 W CJ O cc Oh 35 CU - Z S . i \ - > « / o a - S Q ^ fl CD \l — O O V* - o \: j 3 >• i T3 O j i _ Q. J i — O rr / - V / r \ \ - 1 1 ^* / 1,1 - 0) O il net - > O .2 V r \ q. : 1 1 - v ^k/ \i 1 1 P — i : 1 1 • * - <; :i :l / /: yn / : 1 r 1 i ix I k • 1 1 o to _c CD H ^j o u b£ C OB co OJ CJ o l_ Q< T3 C 0> ed IT) o w u 3 -o o a £ CO >-, <_i u 03 CO ^ m 5 2 (7> CU Oh ,3-ra co a > cd !« Cft Cfl o i> (H C« bfi C cu £ & o * >H « [Jh CU > 3: 2 f^- o Z lf> SH .5 2 s «J T3 -a co CU ~-i *-> cd CO £ S es 13 * CD m M! IUJ JO ro OJ |M0/SJO||Oa 5 co «J CU *3 o < eo 23 z OS o < BO z o OS H w 2; CO c/) O OS O in Q W en Z w Q Z o U «< w as U w u >H!w jo imo/sjohoq 24 o 1/3 ON in X H Z P pq z < g 3 pd < w - Oh Q Z H I CD O u u D Q O 05 Oh, -J > cd O 05 o Q - 05 O «< > W CO u -05 o J J 1 i \l 1 1: 1 : I 1 1 ' 7 f | i ! - / 1 : - ^ 1: - I (i — A / : I 1 : \ it 1 / 1 : I \ i / \ / \ I :\ i - \ • / /! - !! - \: J " \: c _ [ o a V - \ o T3 :l :/ o E - \ O k. a. A 0) c — \ 5 / : 1 : g - I a: h \ : k. o / V y :\. Q_ J — \ < : 1 : \ i> ! J — \ ° S (A 10 o a> 1 - / ^ :\ - V y r : / : / — % :/ < if ■ - J i — 1 ,:\ II i 1 / 1 s \ 1 1 3 -a o 00 11 in a> & -a as c > 03 c» Cfl (fl O ^S h- 1 Cfi m O) x S to -a -a «d v ~ *-» «J R3 >h £ c 13 w) o n3 tfi > O C bC CD '5b c m §13 <^ - ■ *-i — a> « CQ O H I— i PQ a O CJ H U D O O i < S H w 1 "O 1 >* k_ 1 "° 1 o " : f 8 i X E 1 o c 1 X E | jtf E E E o 2? o E o / (U 0) J3C to : / \ ,7 l g 1- — a> 1 \ y E 0) • 1 kirn milk Pat dry milk i k_ a> 1 m o j c v. o Q. O > 1 • « i _ LxJ 1 I • / ! * > ?- 1 4 1 f 1 M E k. T3 • \ Butter- nonf< 2 ' 2 , m oo k 0> 1^- <0 M o o CO in o in in 8 in m CO WW JO JM0/SJD||0Q ^ 4 28 ranges from a plus 20 to 25 cents per hundredweight, with a continual increase through 1959 and a continual decrease thereafter. At a somewhat higher level, the cream-nonfat dry milk combination generally demonstrates a continual in- crease. This comparison of margin trends indicates that, over the six-year period studied, production of condensed skim milk has tended to lose some of its earlier profitability advantage over nonfat dry milk, while, at the same time, cream and ._ ice cream mix usage have become rela- tively more profitable than the produc- tion of butter. The results of a similar analysis of rel- ative margin trends are presented in fig- ure 12 for the three product combinations for which partial net margins could be -computed over the 12-year period, 1950 through 1961. Cream usage increased in profitability relative to butter during the latter part of 1950 and early 1951, then remained relatively constant at about 30 cents per hundredweight through mid- 1956, after that became more variable and tended to increase during the most - recent years. The relative trends in par- tial net margins for evaporated milk in- dicate that, e,ven with greater variability, profitability tended to increase when com- pared with butter-nonfat dry milk throughout the entire period. In summary, the results of the various "analyses of partial net margins indicate that there is a difference in the level of realized returns available from the manu- facture of alternative dairy products. This fact has generally been recognized by the industry and has been demon- . strated by similar studies made in other parts of the country. 11 This, in itself is evidence of imperfection in the operation of the marketing system for dairy prod- ucts. It is generally expected that, under conditions in which a common raw prod- uct is used in alternative forms, the avail- able margins would tend towards uni- formity. Following this reasoning, it is likely that processors faced with alterna- tive utilizations would tend to shift to those products yielding the greatest re- turns. Other considerations, however, may prevent some firms from changing their output in the direction indicated by a currently favorable margin. Such considerations may include: (1) expec- tations that eventual benefits will offset prospective short-run gains in the manu- facturing operation itself, (2) inelastic demand for the product with the wider margin, (3) fluid milk operations being so important to the firm as to override a more limited possibility of gain in man- ufacturing operations, and (4) need to offer buyers a full line of products at all times. Aside from the indications of imper- fection cited above, these analyses show no significant changes in the efficiency of the market for manufacturing milk over the time period under study. In the period from 1956 through 1961, changes in the gross values of products have tended to be reasonably well transferred through the system to reflect these changes in pro- ducer prices. Generally speaking, when product prices have increased, producer prices have also increased, although normally not to the same degree — with the result that partial net margins have also increased during these periods. How- ever, decreases in product prices have not been completely transmitted through to the producer price, with the result that at these times, partial net margins have de- creased. On balance, these two conditions appear to have offset each other. The most significant departure from the above pattern occurs in the calculated partial net margins for evaporated milk. In this case, it appears that the profita- bility per unit of milk processed has in- creased rather continuously over the past 11 C. E. McAllister and D. A. Clarke, Jr., Class III Milk in the New York Milkshed: IV Process- ing Margins for Manufactured Dairy Products, U. S. Department of Agriculture Marketing Re- search Report No. 419, 1960, 102 p. [29] M c/T Z O Z 5 o u H U & Q § Z o as H W H OS < PU O w Q P H Z o < > w w X H Z 04 W '-J o 1^-* — I E ( \ k. O C o — c _ 1 k_ Q> GO i V sc: L mil - E k- - o> 3 o Q. O > LU y V \ \ _ 4ft if) CD O O C\j in O m m CO O O m O m o . >1|1UJ JO |/WD/SJD||Oa 30 12 years. It is important to note, however, that the market for evaporated milk seems now to be definitely declining, with the result that total production has decreased substantially in California over the past decade or so. Finally, as noted, the margins for some products — principally butter and nonfat dry milk — are consistently negative while others are positive at varying levels. It can be inferred from this that California producers have been paid prices higher than those consistent with the lowest- valued use — that of butter and nonfat dry milk. On the other hand, they have been paid prices lower than those consistent with the net value of other products, such as ice cream mix. This would indicate that the market has operated in such a way that processors have tended to pay producers a price which is essentially a "blend" of prices intermediate between these extremes. To the extent that the prices, which are returned to the pro- ducers, reflect the processor's "blend receipts" based on varying utilization, this can be taken to be further evidence that there is a favorable market perform- ance in the sense that processors have not been able to exercise monopsonistic ex- ploitation. Producer Prices for Milk for Manufacturing Purposes in Other Areas To MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS with which the "market" for milk for manu- facturing purposes in California has op- erated over recent years, prices paid Cali- fornia producers for such milk were com- pared with those paid by similar plants located in other major milk producing and manufacturing regions. Specifically, prices paid by San Joaquin Valley manu- facturing plants were compared with two alternative Midwest price series. First, California prices, as reflected by prices .paid by San Joaquin Valley manufac- turing plants, were compared with the reported "Midwest condensery series." 12 This Midwest series was used primarily because of the importance attached to it in establishing surplus milk prices under many of the federal milk marketing orders throughout the country. Second, California manufacturing milk prices were compared with the "Minnesota- Wisconsin manufacturing milk price series." 13 The latter series has recently been developed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and has been recom- mended by some as a replacement for the previously mentioned Midwest condens- ery price series, mainly because it is based on a much greater number of in- dividual plants. At present, the Minne- sota-Wisconsin price series is available only since January, 1955. Inasmuch as both price series represent average prices paid for milk of 3.5 per cent fat content, the California milk price series has been adjusted to this level for comparative purposes by applying appropriate butter- fat differentials to the reported prices. Since California is a deficit state in total dairy product production, prices paid for manufacturing milk in this state 12 The San Joaquin Valley price series, as previously described, has been determined by the average prices paid by condenseries located in that area. The "Midwest condensery series" is that which appears in: U. S. Statistical Reporting Service, Evaporated, Condensed and Dry Milk Report, January, 1950, through December, 1961, monthly issues; and U. S. Agricultural Stabiliza- tion and Conservation Service, Milk Marketing Orders Division, Federal Milk Order Market Sta- tistics, January, 1962, through August, 1962, monthly issues. 13 Data for the "Minnesota-Wisconsin series" were obtained by direct correspondence with the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Milk Marketing Orders Division, U. S. De- partment of Agriculture. [31 will equal or exceed prices paid for simi- lar milk in surplus-producing areas. As- suming equivalent processing costs in California arid midwestern areas, Cali- fornia producer prices, under competitive conditions, would tend to exceed those paid to Midwest producers by approxi- mately the differences in the cost of trans- porting the finished product from pro- ducing plant to the respective markets. Therefore, the amount by which Califor- nia prices can be expected to be above Midwest producer prices depends upon the quantity of milk available for manu- facture from local sources and the degree to which California production satisfies total market requirements for the various products. The nature of the interrelationships among producer prices is demonstrated in figure 13 which charts hypothetical price relationships. For this illustration, the following assumptions have been made: (1) only two products are manu- factured from locally produced raw milk in California manufacturing plants; (2) both products can either be produced locally or imported in final product form from some alternative supply area such as the Midwest; (3) one of these prod- ucts is bulky and expensive to transport, while the other is highly concentrated and can be easily and inexpensively ■ shipped over long distances; and (4) both products are produced in the alterna- tive supply area in quantities sufficient to t supply the entire California market. In this diagram, the surplus-producing area is labeled "Midwest" and the local mar- ket "California." As indicated, manufacturing plants in* the Midwest produced both products. In the absence of regulated and differenti- ated prices for milk for manufacture in this area, it is reasonable to assume that the producer milk price will be the same * for milk entering each use in that area — at a level designated P M in the diagram.* Furthermore, in the absence of process- ing and marketing costs, both products will sell at price P M in this region of manufactured milk production. Figure 13. Manufactured Dairy Products: Hypothetical Price Relationships between Two Supply Areas* Price Price CA i Midwest California * Subscript "M" designates price of milk for manufacture in the Midwest, "CA" the price of, milk used for a less concentrated product in California and "CB" the price of milk used for a more concentrated product in California. [32] When these products are shipped into a deficit market such as California, the price the products will bear must be at least the price P M plus transporting cost. The less concentrated product (A) will then sell at the price P C a in the deficit market; that is, the price at the produc- tion area (P M ) plus the cost of shipment. P G a thus becomes the upper limit for the price of locally produced milk and rep- resents the location advantage of milk for manufacturing purposes that is produced close to market. Rationally, since the California market has been defined as deficit in total dairy product require- ments, the less concentrated of the manu- factured dairy products will have first priority upon the local production of milk available for manufacturing purposes. Let us now assume that at all times local production of milk for manufacture exceeds the quantities required for pro- duction of the bulky manufactured prod- uct. It is then necessary to divert this ad- ditional supply into the more concen- trated product. Since the concentrated product (B) can be transported cheaply in terms of milk equivalent, the price paid for B at the market (Pcb) will be lower than P CA . Therefore, the price that can be paid local producers for such milk entering into product B is limited by P C b- In the absence of differentiated prices for uses A and B in California, a single price will be established for all locally produced milk used for manufacturing purposes. This price will be P C a if the milk supply is less than adequate to fill the need for product A, or P C b if the milk supply is more than enough for product A. Therefore, it is in this sense and for these reasons that the amount by which the price paid California producers for milk for manufacturing purposes will ex- ceed those paid in Midwest areas, de- pending upon the availability of locally produced milk. Differences between prices paid by San Joaquin Valley plants and those paid by Midwest condenseries are shown in figure 14 for the period from January, 1950, to August, 1962. From this it can be seen that, except for two periods — one begin- ning with the fall of 1950 and ending in the summer of 1951 and another begin- ning in the late summer of 1960 and end- ing during the spring of 1961 — California prices for milk for manufacturing pur- poses have consistently exceeded the Mid- west condensery series. During the entire period covered, Cali- fornia prices exceeded Midwest prices by approximately 7 cents per hundred- weight. During the latter part of 1950 and early 1951, prices paid California producers fell below those received by Midwest producers, for during this time, while milk prices were rising in both areas, prices in California rose less rapidly than did those in the Midwest For example, in October, 1950, the re ported price paid by Midwest condens eries for milk of 3.5 per cent fat conten was $3.02 per hundredweight, by San Joa quin Valley plants, $3.15. In November of that year, the price paid by Midwest con- denseries increased to $3.12, a rise of 10 cents per hundredweight, while the price paid by San Joaquin Valley condenseries moved up, only 7 cents, to $3.22. These price changes had the effect of decreasing the differential between the two areas by 3 cents per hundredweight. During De- cember of the same year, the Midwest condensery series increased to $3.41 (29 cents over the price paid during the pre- vious month), while prices paid by San Joaquin Valley plants increased only 2 cents to $3.24. Thus, in the space of only three months the differential prices re- ceived by California producers had de- creased to the point where they were ac- tually receiving 17 cents per hundred- weight less than were producers shipping to Midwest condenseries. This situation continued through March, 1951, but in April of that year, prices paid producers in the two regions reached "parity" at a level of $3.63 per hundredweight. This was a period of substantial price adjust- [33 l Ml — i W _ > y^\ *> ^r&~^ \ y ^^3L 1 \ ^ >S^[ \ CL — 0) o E w. Q. _c >s to k. c __ 0) t/) c 0) T3 C ■ % tO o 1 o ■4— — .+_ to to — 0) 0) > c TJ c ^ "^ (/) to t/> to — > >> — ~D — c C O (/ 7) — - 1 7^3 o CD en 00 m • o o O 10 CM >H!LU )0 |M3/SJD||0a LO C\J r O in I u ment that occurred as a result of the ac- tion in Korea. After that date, prices paid by California plants continued to increase while prices paid Midwest pro- ducers declined slightly. The result was to widen the excess of prices received by California producers over those paid to Midwest producers. The largest price differential during the period analyzed occurred in March, 1953, when California producers, on the aver- age, were paid 80 cents per hundred- weight (based on 3.5 per cent fat con- tent milk) more than was paid to pro- ducers shipping to Midwest condenseries. At that time, the San Joaquin Valley price for manufacturing grade milk was $4.08 per hundredweight, while the Mid- west condensery price series had dropped to $3.28. Then the price differential de- clined rapidly until, in 1955, it leveled off at approximately 15 cents per hundred- weight. During the early part of 1959 fhe gap again widened when the San Joaquin Valley price remained relatively constant at $3.26 per hundredweight, while prices paid by Midwest condens- eries declined. For example, the Midwest condensery series gradually declined from a level of $3.06 per hundredweight in January, 1959, to a low of $2.91 in June, 1959, at which time the differential between California and Midwest prices reached a level of 35 cents per hundred- weight. After this, the differential again .gradually declined until it reached a neg- ative level during September, 1960, when both price series began to increase in re- sponse to the change in national price support levels. However, prices paid by San Joaquin Valley plants responded less quickly than prices paid by Midwest plants. Then, early in 1961, prices paid by midwestern condenseries again began to drop while those paid by California plants maintained approximately their earlier levels, so that the differential was once again wiped out. In recent months, the differential has remained relatively constant at approximately 17 cents per hundredweight. A simple correlation and regression analysis was used to determine the nature of the relationship between those two series. In this model, the San Joaquin Val- ley producer price was used as the de- pendent variable, while the Midwest con- densery price series represented the in- dependent variable. The results of this statistical analysis indicated that slightly more than 75 per cent of the variance in the San Joaquin Valley producer price series could be explained in terms of dif- ferences in prices paid by Midwest con- denseries. 14 A further result of this analy- sis indicated that, on the average, the California price was 5 cents greater than the Midwest price and each increase of $1.00 in the prices paid by midwestern condenseries was associated with an in- crease of $1.04 in the prices paid pro- ducers by San Joaquin Valley conden- series (see figure 15). w Thus, if a price of $3.50 existed in the Midwest, the ex- pected California price would be $3.69. If the Midwest price increased to $5.00, the expected California price would be $5.25, while if the price in the Midwest dropped to $3.00, the expected California price would be $3.17. Thus it can be seen that the average differential between these price series has not been constant, but tends to increase as the level of prices in the two areas increases. The nature of this relationship is shown by the line on figure 15 labeled "average relationship." Also shown on this figure is a line labeled "equal price line" which merely reflects 14 The simple coefficient of determination (r 2 ) was .76. 15 No test was made to determine whether the regression coefficient (in this analysis, 1.04) was statistically different from 1.0. It is true that if this coefficient were unity, one could argue that these prices were competitive and that the intercept (5 cents) represented the average transporta- tion cost differential over the time period studied. The purpose of this regression analysis was limited in scope to merely a description of the degree and type of relationship that has existed between these price series. [35] Figure 15. Relationship Between San Joaquin Valley Price Ax\d Midwest Condensery Price, by Months, 1950-1961 4.25 4.00 « c 3.75 c "S 3.50 § 8 03.25 3.00 2.75 • *• • Average relationshi "N/ ^r • V — Equal price line / *%• C;/} 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 Midwest condensery price (x) Dollars/cvwt. of 3.5 per cent milk 4.00 the locus of points through which the two price series would have been equal. As previously mentioned, a second analysis was made comparing prices paid by condenseries in the San Joaquin Val- ley with those reported in the newly con- structed Minnesota-Wisconsin manufac- turing milk price series. 'Results of these comparisons are also shown in figure 14. For the bulk of the time for which com- parative data have been available (since January, 1955), the California manufac- turing milk prices have exceeded the Minnesota-Wisconsin price series. On the average, for the entire period, the San Joaquin Valley manufacturing milk price was approximately 14 cents per hundred- weight above that reported in the mid- western series. In the most recent years, however, the differential has tended to de- ^ crease and has been negative during the latter part of the years 1960 and 1961. * Early in 1960, price levels in both areas began to drop, but the decline was more rapid in California than in the Midwest. By August, 1960, producer prices in both areas had reached their low level ($3.10 per hundredweight in California and « $3.07 for the Minnesota-Wisconsin series) , with a differential of only 3 cents \ per hundredweight. Beginning with Sep- tember, 1960, following the change in na- tional price support levels, producer < prices began to increase in both areas. As in the comparison with the Midwest 4 condensery price series, California manu- [36 facturing milk plant prices increased less rapidly and by a lesser degree than did the prices paid by plants included in the Minnesota-Wisconsin series, with the re- sult that the differential became negative. By February, 1961, however, prices in the midwestern area had decreased while those in California remained at relatively constant levels. Then, in the fall of 1961 prices in both areas again were on the in- crease but, as in 1960, California milk prices failed to respond as rapidly as did Midwest prices. On the basis of the foregoing compari- sons, it appears that, on the average, the relationship between prices paid Califor- nia producers and those received by pro- ducers of milk for similar uses in other parts of the country are in line with ex- pectations. For the most part, the Cali- fornia prices have exceeded those in the surplus producing areas, but by amounts that differed over time. These differences in the amount of differential of California over Midwest prices appear to be related in part to the relative response between the two areas to changes in conditions of supply and demand and in part to the absolute level of prices for milk for man- ufacture. Costs of Alternative Ingredients from Sources Other than California A final measure designed to evaluate actual manufacturing milk prices was based on computations which reflected the f.o.b. plant cost to manufacturing plants located in California metropolitan areas of sweet butter and spray-processed nonfat dry milk, in quantities equivalent to the fat and solids content of milk ac- tually available for manufacture within this state. The sweet butter prices used were determined by adding two cents per pound to the price of butter in San Fran- cisco. 16 Nonfat dry milk prices were those determined by the level of the govern- ment support price for spray-processed dry nonfat milk. In the computations that follow the fat price was determined by dividing the butter price defined above by the factor .81, on the assumption that the average fat content of the sweet cream butter is 81 per cent. Similarly, the solids price was determined by dividing the government support price for dry nonfat milk by the factor .985 on the assumption that such dry nonfat solids contain, on the average, 1.5 per cent moisture. In this analysis, the cost of these alter- native ingredients was compared with the cost of California raw product supplies. The latter cost was based upon reported prices per hundredweight of raw milk paid by San Joaquin Valley condenseries, as adjusted for the actual fat content of milk available for manufacture, and with the addition of certain other relevant costs. These additional costs included the estimated costs of processing this milk into cream and condensed skim milk plus approximately 14 cents per hundred- weight of raw milk, the cost of trans- porting these finished products (cream and condensed skim milk) from San Joaquin Valley plant locations to plants located in the metropolitan areas of the state. 17 The data entering into the com- putation of the differentials between the 18 This premium for sweet cream butter over the reported butter price was judged to be appro- priate for use during the period under consideration. The San Francisco butter prices used in this comparison were the same -as those discussed in the section on partial net margins. 17 The processing cost estimates used in this analysis were the costs developed and described in the earlier section dealing with partial net margins. [37] o H en O u PS o fe CM < 2 u . Z en M o H P w £ o s cd •-; E en o 8 OS H [* 2 r/) O s w >H Q CO W en OS w o fc Oh Oh w D ►> en H H -< c J £ D OS n H o OS 0-. O H en O U Uh O fc O en cc < Oh *5 O (J vO r— 1 u OS E3 o 1> o CD CD Oh — Oh co 5 22 £ CO > CO to 2. a o o o o CO o tf> tf *r ro >i|'UJ JO )M3 SJ0||0(J f 38 | California raw product cost and the cost of alternative products are given in table 23, page 122. These several computations resulted in price estimates that were consistently above the prevailing costs obtained when California-produced raw product supplies were used (see figure 16). On the aver- age, during the entire period from Janu- ary, 1950, through August, 1962, the dif- ferential between the cost of bringing alternative ingredients to California plants, as represented by these calcula- tions, and the prevailing manufacturing prices was 29 cents per hundredweight. Figure 16 shows clearly that the level of the average differential (that is, the dif- ference between the estimated cost of im- porting alternative ingredients and the cost of using California-produced sup- plies) remained fairly constant around this average differential. However, short- run deviations from average differential showed a high degree of variation. Dur- ing most of the years 1950 and 1951, the amount of the differential was substanti- ally above the average, reaching its highest point in early 1952 at 77 cents per hundredweight. Immediately there- after, however, the differential dropped substantially, to become a negative amount by the end of 1952. During most of 1955 and 1956 the dif- ferential between these two series hov- ered around an average of about 35 cents per hundredweight, but by the end of 1956 it had fallen to a level of about 20 cents per hundredweight. Throughout the years 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, and early 1961, the amount of the differential gen- erally remained below the average, but by the latter part of 1961 it had again re- turned to its average level of approxi- mately 30 cents. If the assumptions which underlie these calculations are correct, it appears that the manufacturing milk prices (measured by the prices paid by San Joaquin Valley condenseries) effective during the ll 1 /*? years under considera- tion have generally been at levels which have made it more attractive for Califor- nia processors to purchase California raw product supplies than to import alterna- tive ingredients from areas outside the state. Significance of Comparisons of Manufacturing Milk Prices None of the procedures discussed in the previous sections gives an absolute measure for evaluating either the level or the movement of manufacturing milk prices in California. Each focuses atten- tion on some of the economic forces which determine appropriate price levels for this type of milk in this area, but none of these is an indicator that focuses attention on all of the price-influencing variables. Furthermore, no effort has been made here to cover all of the possible yardsticks that might be compared with actual Cali- fornia manufacturing milk prices. For example, it might be both interesting and informative to analyze the relation be- tween the changes in manufacturing milk prices and such additional factors as the cost of milk production, prices of other food products, changes in disposable in- come of consumers, or various indexes of the general level of economic activity within the state. Moreover, an alternative measure of the profitability of manufac- turing operations within California could perhaps have been obtained through a study of historic changes in the profit- and-loss position of firms primarily en- gaged in manufacturing dairy products in • this state. Another possibility might have been an analysis of the size of the "thirteenth checks" (patronage refunds) [39] distributed by operating cooperatives and by proprietary firms in this area. But these comparisons, too, would serve only as rough guides since they also focus at- tention on but a few of the price-de- termining forces. In brief, the previously discussed anal- yses have yielded results which indicate that in recent years the market for milk for manufacturing purposes in California has operated in a manner reasonably con- sistent with what would be expected under perfectly competitive conditions. The major exception to this conclusion is the fact that the levels of partial net margins varied substantially among alternative product combinations, a situa- tion which has been observed to exist also in other markets in different geographic areas. Undoubtedly there are reasons which can explain this fact. Regardless of this, the existence of these differences in the measures of relative profitability from alternative utilizations raises the question of the feasibility of establishing separate use-classifications for milk for manufacturing purposes. Classified Pricing for Milk for Manufacturing Uses From the standpoint of California milk producers it might be desirable to "sepa- rate" the products manufactured from milk available for this purpose into more than one price class in an attempt to "ex- ploit." at least in part, whatever profit advantages may exist among the different types of products produced. In fixing prices at the producer level, the Bureau of Milk Stabilization has in recent years made use of two distinct classes for Grade A milk in excess of Class I uses — classes II and III. Broadly speaking, the lowest price class (Class III) includes milk used for the production of butter and nonfat dry milk solids as well as the so-called "hard" cheeses, while the remaining products manufactured from this milk fall into Class II. For the most part, the price differential between these two classes has been approximately 20 cents per hundredweight. Roughly one half of the total milk available for manufacture in California comes from sources that are within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Bureau of Milk Stabilization — that is, Grade A milk in excess of Class I usage^ The remaining portion of the total milk supply available for manufacture is produced as manu- facturing grade milk, unregulated by this pricing agency. Since manufacturing grade milk can be substituted for non- Class I Grade A milk, dairy product manufacturers can always use manufac- turing grade milk for Class II purposes. Under present circumstances, therefore, the opportunity for any substantial premiums to exist for milk for Class II purposes over manufacturing grade milk prices seems limited. Senate Bill 40, introduced in the 1961 Legislature, contained provisions for the pricing of all milk produced in Califor- nia, including manufacturing grade milk as well as that produced under Grade A conditions. Also included in this proposed amendment to the Milk Stabilization Law was the provision for uniform class pric- ing procedures for milk not entering Class I outlets. In the discussion which follows, it has been assumed that all of these pro- visions are made effective and that no opportunity for "leakage" is possible be- tween the markets for milk produced under manufacturing grade conditions and those for Grade A supplies in excess of Class I uses. The earlier analysis of partial net mar- gins showed that processors who have outlets for products in the form of ice cream mix or evaporated milk are in a more favorable profit position than are those whose outlets are in the form of either cream or butter and the alterna- tive uses of the nonfat solids components of milk. In considering the feasibility of any substantial price differentiation for milk entering alternative product usage, [40] two important possible effects must be noted: first, the effect of price differentia- tion on the level of prices realized from the lowest-valued use, and second, its ef- fect on realized utilization in the higher- valued classifications. When considering the practicability of class pricing, still another factor must be borne in mind when a pricing agency, such as the Bureau of Milk Stabilization, is responsible for all the milk produced finding a market, the highest price that can be set for milk entering the lowest- price usage is the unique price under which conditions affecting both supply and demand are exactly met. This is the price called the "purely competitive" price level. Errors in judgment or the lack of appropriate data can result in estab- lished prices higher or lower than this competitive price. Therefore, errors of the pricing agency must always be on the low level. This absolute statement does not hold true, however, for all of the administered prices when more than one price is set for the same commodity; but it does hold true for at least one of these prices. Prices established for Class I and Class II milk, therefore, could quite pos- sibly be out of line without necessarily resulting in unsold milk. The existence of Class III, the lowest use-class, makes it possible for supplies in excess of Class I and Class II needs to find a market in some use. In this role, however, the lowest class price must be sufficiently attractive to buyers to make sure all supplies are taken. For this reason, it is likely that mandatory price regulation of all milk within the state would require a price level for the milk entering the lowest use classification that is substantially below levels currently being paid for manufac- turing grade milk which, in turn, pro- vides the base for established Class III prices. At the same time, in establishing prices for raw supplies for different products, care must be exercised so that normal and desirable utilization patterns do not become distorted. While Class I and Class II prices could be out of line without re- sulting in unsold milk, the utilization patterns could be (and would be expected to be) drastically affected by nonalign- ment. This is one of the reasons why the pricing of milk for manufacturing pur- poses is considerably more difficult than pricing milk entering fluid uses. From the standpoint of the well-being of local producers, and in the interests of main- taining the economic efficiency of the marketing system, it would be expected that the products manufactured in a defi- cit area such as California would tend to be most bulky and perishable. This, of course, is because these products are likely to be the most expensive to trans- port per unit of milk-equivalent. As in- dicated in figure 13, these are also the products from which local producers may expect the highest returns. Should dif- ferentiated price levels be established that make the highly concentrated low- valued products, such as butter and dry nonfat milk solids, relatively more attrac- tive to processors, local manufacturing operations would undoubtedly be af- fected, thus influencing the realized re- turns of producers. The use of more than one price-classi- fication for milk for manufacturing pur- poses essentially extends the classified price provisions used in most fluid milk markets. Classified pricing permits effec- tive separation of the differing demands that exist for raw whole milk. Thus, milk of similar quality is not sold at a single price in a given market, but separate prices are established depending upon the ultimate use of the different elements of the milk. Many products, both agricultural and industrial, are made from raw materials that can be used in various ways. Wheat may be ground into flour and then made into a variety of bakery goods; it may be also offered to consumers in the form of breakfast cereals, or it may be fed to livestock. Basic steel plate may be used [41 in the manufacture of automobiles, house- hold appliances, tin cans, toys, or hun- dreds of other articles. In similar fashion, milk may be sold to consumers in the bottle, separated into cream, or manu- factured into a variety of dairy products. Although milk for manufacturing pur- poses may not enter into fluid milk uses, it is used in a large number of dairy prod- ucts, many of which may have separate demands. The demand by purchasers of multiple-use raw products, therefore, is actually an aggregate, or composite, of several individual demands. In many cases, the elasticities of these component demands may vary considerably from use to use, and become the basis for dif- ferential pricing. It is thus clear that the demand by the processors for locally produced raw milk for manufacturing purposes is a "derived demand." It reflects, in part, for each of the alternative products for which it may be used, the quantities of finished prod- ucts which can be sold to consumers at al- ternative prices during any time period and the costs of processing and marketing these products. On the other hand, this de- mand is strongly influenced by the avail- ability of alternative-source supplies which normally do not fall under the jur- isdiction of local price-administering agencies. The derived demands refer to prices that will be paid to farmers by milk processors in a local area and are greatly influenced by the quantities of milk avail- able for alternative purposes. At least two factors determine the spe- cific type of program applied in any given situation: the local nature of the market, that is, the number and types of commodities which will be produced from available supplies, and the administrative problems involved in establishing and en- forcing multiple-price programs. In considering the number of classes to be established for milk entering manu- facturing uses, attention should first be directed to products included in the lowest price classification, for this cate- gory serves as a "safety valve" in pro- tecting the price structure for the entire market. If this price structure must per- mit the marketing of the entire supply produced within an area, then only price levels attractive to raw milk buyers at all times should be established for the lowest value classification. Products to be in- cluded in this lowest price category also depend upon the available milk supply and the local market demand for products that can be manufactured from this supply. In the past, producer returns have been lowest for milk used for the rela- tively highly concentrated products such as butter and the "hard" cheeses, for these products can be shipped at low cost over relatively long distances. The market prices for these products (which influence the prices producers can receive from processors) are largely determined on the basis of supply and demand forces which focus on the vast manufacturing capacity of the largely surplus milk producing regions. Inasmuch as some milk must be used for low-valued products at any or all times during the year, the maximum price charged for milk in the class in which these products are included must be sufficiently low to provide a reasonable profit to the processors of these low- margin products. Hence, the lowest price classification should be reserved for those products for which (from the standpoint of the local market) the quantities taken are most sensitive to changes in price. These products are also normally subject to storage. By this means, this low-value category can act as a "safety valve" to reduce market pressure and assure an outlet for all supplies. The products to be included in any possible intermediate classes also depend upon differences in the demand elas- ticities for these remaining products. If substantial differences in these demand elasticities should exist, it would.be ad- vantageous from the producer standpoint to make further class segmentation. [42] Problems of Multiple-Class Sur- plus Pricing. — At the present time, little is known about the elasticities of demand for locally produced raw milk supplies entering such outlets as ice cream, "soft" cheeses, cottage cheese, and the various cultured products. Logically, these demands will depend partly on the relative profitability of producing and marketing the different products and, to a much larger extent, on the prices of alternative source supplies. Some insight into the nature of demand for milk for alternative products can be obtained through the following hypo- thetical situation. Assume two alterna- tive product combinations — one, the pro- duction of 40 per cent cream and nonfat dry milk; the other, an ice cream mix- cottage cheese operation. Approximately the following quantities of these products can be obtained from a hundredweight of 3.5 per cent milk fat content: From a cream-nonfat dry milk opera- tion: Cream (40 per cent milkfat) — 8.521 pounds Nonfat dry milk solids— 8.110 pounds. From an ice cream mix-cottage cheese operation : Ice cream mix — 20.272 pounds Cottage cheese — 11.745 pounds. Assume further that the following prices exist for these products: Cream — 32 cents per pound Nonfat dry milk — 13.75 cents per pound Ice cream mix — 16.5 cents per pound Cottage cheese — 12.5 cents per pound. By applying the appropriate product yields to the respective product prices in the cream-nonfat dry milk operation, it can be seen that the value of cream pro- duced is about $2.73 and_ the value of the nonfat dry milk is $1.12. These two amounts total $3.85, the combined value of the products manufactured from this milk. After deducting from this an esti- mated processing cost of 60 cents per hundredweight of milk, the estimated "net value" is $3.25 per hundredweight. A similar computation for the ice cream mix-cottage cheese operation gives the value of ice cream mix at about $3.34 and the returns from the sale of cottage cheese at $1.47 — a total of $4.81. When an estimated processing cost of 60 cents per hundredweight of milk is de- ducted from this figure, the estimated "net value" is $4.21. Taken alone, this information suggests that the demand for milk for these two purposes might differ. To the extent to which the assumptions made concerning product yields, f .o.b. plant-product prices, and processing costs are realistic, alterna- tive profit opportunities in the manufac- ture of these different product combina- tions are indicated. Based on this differ- ence alone, one might argue that proces- sors can "afford" to pay higher prices for raw milk going into ice cream and cot- tage cheese than for that entering the cream-nonfat dry milk processes. How- ever, the demand for raw products from local sources for any particular use de- pends only in part on the amount of the return which processors can expect to re- ceive from the manufacture and sale of the finished product. Certainly, no milk will be purchased for any given use at prices which will not return the raw prod- uct cost plus the expenses of processing and marketing the finished product (in- cluding a return for normal profit) . This then sets one type of upper limit to the level of raw product prices over any sub- stantial time period. To demonstrate the point that raw prod- uct demand by processors is only partly determined by profitability, let us make the following further assumptions. To produce the approximately 20^ pounds of ice cream mix that can be obtained from a hundredweight of 3.5 per cent whole milk, more than 2% pounds of [43] milk fat and a little more than 2 pounds of nonfat solids are required. To produce 11% pounds of cottage cheese will re- quire slightly less than y 2 pound of milk fat and about 2% pounds of nonfat solids. We further assume that the processor of these two products has the alternative of obtaining the milk fat and nonfat solids requirements from sources other than locally produced whole milk supplies. For example, the milk fat can be obtained either in the form of cream or sweet cream butter from alternative sources. Similarly, the nonfat solids needs can be secured in the form of condensed skim milk or dry nonfat milk. At prices, for example, of 32 cents per pound of cream (as given above), or, equivalently, 64 cents per pound of sweet cream butter, and with alternative source prices for nonfat solids of approximately 14 cents per pound, the combined fat and solids requirements for these products in the amounts required to manufacture the equivalent of one hundredweight of 3.5 milk can be obtained for about $3.00. If the added cost of reconstituting these "dry" ingredients is not substantially higher than 25 cents, the ice cream mix- cottage cheese manufacturer will find that the "alternative cost" of using ingredients other than raw milk supplies is quite closely related to the "net value" of the raw milk used for the production of cream and dry nonfat milk. On the basis of these assumptions, the milk demand for ice cream mix and cottage cheese pur- poses would be virtually nonexistent at prices substantially in excess of the $3.25 level indicated in the above hypothetical example, since the "demand" for any commodity, including that for raw sup- plies of milk by processors, refers to the schedule of quantities that will be taken at alternative prices. A word of warning: the assumption that the conditions affecting the demand and supply of milk are known and, there- fore, "appropriate" prices can be de- termined by the pricing agency is, for reasons presented earlier, quite un- realistic. When conditions exist in which "inap- propriate" prices or price relationships- occur, these may be expected to influence processors' decisions on utilization. For example, let us assume that the price of milk for ice cream has been set "too high" relative to the price of similar milk going into the manufacture of butter. Manufacturing margins for the produc- tion of butter from local supplies would then become relatively more favorable than those for ice cream production. This would have the effect of discouraging utilization of milk which returns larger proceeds to producers while encouraging the use of outlets which result in lower prices. As a result of the dangers of dis- torting normal utilization patterns through the malalignment of class prices, it may be in the long-run interest of pro- ducers to keep the number of classes to a minimum, in spite of the apparent loss in short-run opportunities. The Use of Formulas in Establishing Prices for Milk for Manufacturing Uses In this section, the question is raised as to whether some type of formula could be successfully used either (1) in judg- ing the appropriateness of the level of prices producers receive for their milk or (2) as a basis for establishing such prices in the event that milk for manu- facturing purposes is brought under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Milk Stabi- lization. In recent years, all markets under federal milk regulation have used a [44 "formula" method for determining Class I prices. Most of these federally regulated markets also use some type of formula for establishing prices for pooled milk in excess of Class I requirements. The term "formula" denotes a basis, more or less fixed, for "automatically" making changes in prices to be paid to producers for milk. Two different types of formulas have been used for establishing Class I milk prices. One type relates fluid milk prices to manufacturing milk price levels, and the other is based on general economic activity. The former usually includes either or both the prices paid for manu- facturing milk at specified plants and the current prices received from the sale of dairy products, such as butter, nonfat dry milk, and cheese. The latter relies primarily on movements of regularly pub- lished indexes of general economic ac- tivity and consumer income and may in- clude indexes of cost factors, such as feed prices and farm wages. Most of the for- mulas used today for establishing prices for surplus milk are based either on milk prices paid for similar purposes by manu- facturing plants in nearby areas or on the movements of current prices for dairy products. Regardless of the type of formula used, or the type of milk to which it is applied, the results of formula calculations do not pretend to reflect all of the forces of supply and demand which focus on a par- ticular market, and the specific compo- nents are actually of secondary impor- tance. Thus, milk price formulas cannot be accepted as exact indicators of "proper" price levels. Instead, such for- mulas must be considered merely as de- vices which are useful in determining the time and direction for price changes, but which require continual study and modi- fication. The success of a particular for- mula can be judged only pragmatically: it is "good" so long as it "works all right." A formula was used early in 1948 to price Class I milk in California. This for- mula was based on feed costs and manu- facturing milk prices, with the greatest weight placed on the latter. When manu- facturing milk prices increased contra- seasonally during the early summer of 1948, producers, as well as others, felt that an increase in Class I prices was undesirable, and use of the formula was discontinued on July 1, 1948. Formulas have also been used in the past to establish prices for manufacturing milk. From 1933 to the middle of 1947, formulas were used under a national agreement to establish minimum prices to be paid producers for milk delivered to condenseries. Under this program, the state of California was designated as a region, and minimum prices per hundred- weight for 3.5 per cent milk were set by the following formula: the San Fran- cisco price for 92-score butter was multi- plied by 4.2, which represented the ap- proximate yield of butter per hundred- weight of 3.5 per cent milk. At no time during its operation did this formula pro- duce a minimum price as high as the average price actually paid by California condenseries. The discrepancy between the formula minimum price and the ac- tual price widened during the war pe- riod and, in 1946, averaged $1.60 per hundredweight, or about 46 cents per pound of milk fat. This program was dis- continued in 1947. In any discussion of milk price for- mulas, a major fundamental difference should be noted between the nature of the Grade A market and the manufactur- ing milk market. Because of the bulk and perishability of fluid milk and the ex- istence of rigorous sanitary requirements, producers of market milk are confined to areas surrounding their markets. Grade A markets are, therefore, predominantly local. As a result, fluid milk markets are not in direct competition with distant areas, and prices for market milk can be established and maintained successfully within fairly broad limits. Thus, for all practical purposes, fluid milk prices in [45] California may be established independ- ently of fluid milk prices in other states. It is still possible that a price established at levels too high may cause internal problems of surplus milk production and, conversely, that prices too low may set in motion forces which ultimately will re- sult in an undersupply of milk; but any inaccuracies that may exist in fluid milk pricing will not normally generate prob- lems of an external nature. In this sense, the Director of Agriculture can say that this is the price that must be paid for Class I milk to all producers delivering milk to distributors in California. The consumer price can then be varied to match this given level of producer prices, and consumers are free to determine the quantities they will buy at these fixed prices. The quantities purchased then become the major restriction upon exces- sively high prices. This does not mean that California may not have a difficult surplus problem due to expanded produc- tion and reduced sales, or that the Di- rector may not be subject to the charge of neglect of his responsibilities to the pub- lic 'welfare should the prices established be too high. It simply means that if con- sumers in California want milk, they must pay the established price. Competi- tion from lower-priced milk from outside areas will tend to be eliminated by high transport costs, rigid inspection, or other restrictions. The manufacturing milk situation pre- sents a different picture. The market for manufacturing milk is in fact the market for the end products; it is nationwide and, in some aspects, even worldwide. Unlike fluid milk, manufactured dairy products are usually concentrated and nonperishable and can be transported from one area to another at low cost and with little or no loss in quality. If for any length of time the price of butter in San Francisco is higher than the Chicago price plus transportation charges, Mid- west operators will find it more profitable to ship their product west than to sell on the Chicago market. As a result of the in- creased supply, the local price will be- come depressed until it again approxi- mates the Chicago price plus cost of trans- portation to West Coast markets. For these and other reasons, formulas or other pricing procedures for manufac- turing milk must function within the lim- its imposed by these interregional price relationships. Prices paid to producers should be directly related to the values of the products manufactured from the milk. Producers can have little hope of receiv- ing more than the net proceeds from the sale of the finished product. If raw prod- uct prices exceed these net proceeds, the loss would eventually force processors to discontinue these operations. Since most dairy products are manu- factured by companies operating in more than one area, prices paid to producers t in different areas will not differ consist- ently and for a long period by much more than the difference in the processing costs in the two areas and the costs of trans- porting the product from the lower-priced to the higher-priced region. If the price in any area were consistently higher than this, an incentive would exist for the proc- essing company to discontinue its local operation, expand production in the lower-priced area, and ship the finished products into the higher-priced region. The fact that product prices and producer prices tend to be closely related in differ- ent areas has been borne out by previous empirical studies. These two criteria — (1) that producer prices should be related to product values and (2) that producer prices among re- gions should be consistent — suggest two possible formulas which may be useful as guides in pricing manufacturing milk. The first formula will be called a "net value" formula and the second a "com- petitive price" formula. The net value formula is based on the premise that the price paid for milk by any plant over a period of time can be no higher than the f.o.b. plant value of the products manu- [46] factured from the milk less the direct costs of processing plus a minimum allowance for return on investment necessary to en- able the plant to continue in operation. The competitive price formula, on the other hand, is based on the belief that the price paid to producers in a given area (such as California) will, over the long run, tend to be consistent with prices which prevail in alternative source sup- plies. Calculations for both of these for- mulas have been carried out to demon- strate how they would have operated in the past in comparison with actual prices paid. The discussion of partial net margins has shown that indexes of relative profit- ability in the manufacture of alternative types of dairy products usually vary with the products manufactured. It is to be expected, therefore, that variations in net value computations also will differ in ac- cordance with the products for which the value computations are made. To illus- trate this point, two net value computa- tions have been made — one based on but- ter and nonfat dry milk solids, the other on an evaporated milk operation. 18 These net value computations are given in tables 24 and 25, where they are also compared with the actual cost of raw milk and the differentials calculated. In figure 17, the results of the net value calculations for a butter and nonfat solids operation are compared with the prices actually paid, by months, from January, 1950, through August, 1961. Both the ac- tual prices paid for raw milk and the net value calculations were based on the aver- age fat test of all milk available for manu- facture in California during this period. In other words, unlike some of the other comparisons made in this study, these are based on a varying, rather than a stan- dardized, fat test. This, in part, explains the rather high degree of variability from month to month that is demonstrated in this chart. With few exceptions — notably, during most of 1950, the latter half of 1953, and 1954 — prices actually paid by San Joa- quin Valley condenseries exceeded the net value computations for this milk when used in a butter-nonfat dry milk solids op- eration. For the entire period the amount by which the prices paid exceeded these formula calculations averaged 11.3 cents per hundredweight. The range of these differential amounts (the amount by which the prices paid exceeded the net value of milk in a butter-powder opera- tion) ran from a high of 62 cents in Jan- uary, 1953, to a low of -32 cents per hundredweight during the month of Feb- ruary, 1952. This would mean that if the California manufacturing milk price had been "pegged" to the net value of milk when used in a butter-powder operation during the entire period from 1950 through 1961, California milk producers would have received an average of 11.3 cents per hundredweight less than they actually realized. The diagram further demon- strates that this discrepancy between ac- tual prices and this type of formula price has been greatest in recent years. In 1958, the average amount by which the actual price exceeded formula prices amounted to 18.5 cents per hundredweight; in 1959 it amounted to 30.5 cents per hundred- weight; in 1960 the differential was 28.1 cents per hundredweight; and in 1961 the difference amounted to 17.8 cents per hundred pounds. The average differential for the entire period, 1958 through 1961, amounted to 23.7 cents per hundred pounds of milk. A similar comparison of actual prices with formula prices based on an evapo- 18 The net value computations were determined as follows : Gross value = current product prices per unit of product multiplied by product yield per hundredweight of whole milk. Net value = gross value less processing costs. In all instances, the prices, yields, and cost estimates were the same as those used in the prior discussion of partial net margins. [47] as Q H )\\\[JJ JO JMO/SJD||Oa 48 | rated milk operation shows quite a differ- ent situation. As also shown in figure 17, the net value of milk used for evaporated milk exceeded the prices paid by San Joaquin Valley condenseries in all months during the period 1950 through 1961. The average amount of this differential for the entire period amounted to about Si. 23 per hundredweight. The greatest discrepancy between these actual and cal- culated prices occurred in May, 1958, when the net value of milk for the manu- facture of evaporated milk exceeded the raw product cost of that milk by $1.76 per hundred pounds. The point at which this differential became the lowest oc- curred in December, 1952, when the net value of such milk exceeded the raw prod- uct cost by 47 cents per hundredweight. As mentioned, the production of evap- orated milk has tended to provide proc- essors with a relatively greater margin than the production of more concentrated products such as butter, cheese, and other storable products. If California producers had been paid on the basis of the net value of milk when used for evaporated milk during the period 1950 through 1961, they would, in all periods, have re- ceived substantially greater returns than actually realized. However, the produc- tion trend of evaporated milk in Cali- fornia has been downward — approxi- mately 212 million pounds in 1961 as compared with nearly 313 million pounds in 1950, a decrease of approximately 32 per cent. The production of evaporated milk in 1961 accounted for only about 13 per cent of the total amount of milk available for manufacture. That is why it is highly unlikely that the manufactured dairy product industry could have sup- ported producer prices as high as those indicated by their net value in an evap- orated milk operation during this period. The "competitive price" criterion com- pares prices received by California pro- ducers for milk for manufacture with ► those reported paid to producers in the Midwest when both sets of prices have been adjusted to comparable levels of milkfat. These representative price series have already been compared in an earlier section, but the subject is given further consideration here because it has been suggested that the Bureau of Milk Sta- bilization abandon the use of the "San Joaquin Valley condensery prices" as a basis of establishing the level of the Class III Grade A milk price and substitute one of the Midwest price series as an in- dicator of the value of California pro- duced supplies. This argument is sup- ported by the decline in both the number of plants producing evaporated milk and the total quantity of evaporated milk pro- duced in recent years. Some believe, therefore, that a price series based on the operation of San Joaquin Valley con- denseries has become less precise as a measure of milk values. Without consid- ering the merits of this argument, the ef- fect of such a change is here indicated. A comparison of the level and move- ments of the California price series with those of the Midwest condensery prices is shown in figure 18. As explained earlier, the California series has been adjusted to the 3.5 per cent milkfat level of the Mid- west series by the application of the ap- propriate butterfat differentials. No fur- ther adjustment has been made to allow for transportation cost of the finished products. As expected, these data show a con- siderable similarity in their patterns of movement. On the average, from Jan- uary, 1950, through August, 1962, the prices paid California producers exceeded those of the midwestern condenseries by approximately 17 cents per hundred- weight for milk of this fat test. The amount of the differential between the two price series varied substantially dur- ing those years, starting at relatively low levels of about 5 cents per hundredweight during 1950 and 1951 and widening dur- ing the next two years until it reached an annual average level of 46 cents per hun- dred pounds during 1953. The highest [49] >||!IU JO J«\0/SiO||OQ I 50| monthly differential of the entire period was 80 cents, in March, 1953. During 1954 through 1956 the annual differen- tial leveled off at about 14 cents, increas- ing slightly between 1957 and 1959. The Midwest prices exceeded California prices for a few months late in 1960, but early in 1962 this differential returned to its average for the entire period of about 17 cents. A similar comparison, with substan- tially the same results, was made with the more recently developed Minnesota-Wis- consin price series. This is also presented in figure 18. The major difference was observed in recent years when the aver- age differential between these two sets of prices has decreased. For the entire period for which data on this Midwest price series have been available, the aver- age differential of California prices over Midwest prices was about 14 cents per hundredweight for milk of 3.5 per cent fat test. The widest annual average differ- ential occurred in 1959 at a level of nearly 24 cents. Monthly differentials, however, became negative in the latter part of 1960 (the largest negative differential was 8 cents in December) . These monthly dif- ferentials again became negative, by lesser amounts, during the last half of 1961. In the first eight months of 1962, California prices have exceeded Midwest prices at an average of slightly more than 3 cents per hundredweight. On the basis of these data, it can be concluded that producers would have re- ceived less than their actual income if either of these two Midwest price series had been used as the criterion for pric- ing. The general pattern of conformance of these alternative price series suggests, that similar factors affect the supply and demand for milk for manufacturing pur- poses in the two producing areas. To the extent that either of the Midwest price series can be used to judge the perform- ance of the California market in reflect- ing changes in these price determinants, there is evidence that the market in Cali- fornia has been quite responsive. How- ever, there seems to be little basis for con- cluding that any fixed relationship has existed over time between the price dif- ferentials in these areas. [51] Appendix Table 5. Costs of PkocessiNG 100 Pounds of Milk Into Cream and Nonfat Dry Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961* TOTAL CONSUMABLE! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY dollars per hundredweight 1950 .175 .175 .175 .175 .175 .089 .089 .089 .088 .089 .021 .021 .021 .022 .022 .093 .093 .093 .09^ .095 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .06l .061 .06l .062 .062 .450 .450 .450 .452 .454 JUNE .175 .090 .022 .097 .012 .062 .458 JULY .175 .091 .023 .097 .012 .063 .461 AUGUST .175 .091 .023 .099 .012 .064 .464 SEPTEMBER .175 .092 .023 .101 .012 .065 .468 OCTOBER .175 .092 .023 .103 .012 .066 .471 NOVEMBER .175 .093 .023 .105 .012 .067 .475 DECEMBER JANUARY .175 .092 .023 .108 .012 .069 .479 1951 .179 .093 .023 .110 .012 .070 .487 FEBRUARY .179 .09U .023 .110 .012 .070 .488 MARCH .179 .094 .023 .110 .012 .070 .488 APRIL .179 .094 .023 .110 .012 .070 .488 MAY .179 .093 .023 .110 .012 .070 .487 JUNE .179 .093 .023 .109 .012 .070 .486 JULY .179 .094 .023 109 .012 .071 .488 AUGUST .179 .093 .023 .109 .012 .072 .488 SEPTEMBER .179 .094 .023 .109 .012 .073 .490 OCTOBER .179 .094 .023 .109 .012 .073 .490 NOVEMBER .179 .094 .023 .109 .012 .073 .490 DECEMBER .179 .09^ .023 .109 .012 .073 .490 JANUARY .188 .09^ .023 .109 .012 .073 .499 FEBRUARY .188 .094 .023 .109 .012 .074 .500 MARCH .188 .09^ .023 .109 .012 .074 .500 APRIL .188 .093 .025 .109 .013 .074 .502 MAY .188 .093 .025 .108 .013 .074 .501 JUNE .188 .093 .025 .108 .013 .074 .501 JULY .188 .093 .025 .108 .013 .074 .501 AUGUST .188 .093 .025 .110 .013 .074 .503 SEPTEMBER .188 .093 .025 .111 .013 .074 .504 OCTOBER .188 .094 .025 .110 .013 .075 .505 NOVEMBER .188 .094 .025 .110 .013 .075 .505 DECEMBER .188 .094 .025 .110 .013 .075 .505 See p. 56 for footnotes. [52] Continued on next page Table 5 — Cream and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL t.O.VSLMABLEt PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BU1LD1.NC EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST .1 \M \H\ dollar. per hundred ivci^ht .195 .095 .025 .110 .013 .075 .513 i Kimi \r\ .195 .095 .025 .111 .013 .075 .51^ \i\i«:h .195 .095 .025 .112 .013 .075 •515 U'KII. .195 .09^ .02^ .111 .013 .075 .512 m u .195 .09*+ .02U .112 .013 .075 •513 JUNK .195 .095 .02** .113 .013 .071+ .511* .11 1.\ .195 .098 .026 .115 .011* .075 .523 UGl'ST .195 .097 .026 .115 .011+ .075 .522 SEPTEMBER .195 .097 .026 .11U .013 .076 .521 ()( HIRER .195 .098 .026 .111* .011* .076 .523 M>\ EMBER .195 .098 .026 .111* .011* .076 .523 DECEMBER • 195 .098 .026 .113 .011* .076 .522 j wiun .200 .097 .026 .113 .011* .076 .526 1 EBRl \RY .200 .097 .026 .112 .011+ .076 .525 \1 VKCH .200 .096 .026 .112 .011+ .076 .521* XI'RIL .200 .095 .027 •113 .011+ .076 .525 MM .200 .095 .027 .113 .011+ .076 .525 JUNE .200 .095 .027 .113 .011* .076 .525 MIA .200 .093 .028 .111* .011* .076 .525 VLGIST .200 .09** .028 .111* .011* .076 .526 SEPTEMBER .200 .09*+ .028 .115 .011+ .076 .527 OCTOBER .200 .09** .029 .115 .011* .076 .528 NOVEMBER .200 .09^ .029 .115 .011* .076 .528 DECEMBER 1 \\l \K\ .200 .09 1 * .029 .115 .011+ .076 .528 .208 .095 .029 .116 .015 .076 •539 i i:bri\r\ .208 .095 .029 .117 .015 .076 .51+0 M\KCH .208 .095 .029 • 117 .015 .076 .51+0 M'KIL .208 .09** .030 .118 .015 .076 • 5 1 *! MU .208 .09*+ .030 .118 .015 .077 .5U2 JIVE .208 .09^ .030 .118 .015 .077 .5U2 JULY .208 .093 .030 .122 .015 .07c .51+6 ircrsT .208 .09I+ .030 .121* .015 .078 • 5^9 SEI>T EMBER .208 .095 .030 .126 .015 .078 • 552 (K TOBKR .208 .095 .030 .127 .015 .078 .553 NO\ EMBER .208 .095 .030 .127 .015 .079 .55^ DECEMBER .208 .096 .030 .128 .015 .079 .556 Continued on next page 53 Table 5 — Cream and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL 1 o\»l MABI l.t 1-ACkAi.lM. I'HIM I.V»|\«. MONTH LABOR LTIUTIKS 111 111)1 M- 1 VI 1 I'M KM >l Pl'l.l MM MABIlt MTI'I.Y thtlhim \nr humirrtlu fight .066 .066 .066 .066 .065 .066 .067 .068 .069 .069 .069 .069 .030 .030 .030 .031 .031 .031 .031 .031 .031 .031 .031 .031 i960 .113 .113 .112 .112 .112 .112 .ill .112 .111 .111 .111 .110 1961 .21+0 .069 .031 .110 .21+0 .070 .031 .111 .21+0 .069 .031 .111 .21+0 .068 .032 .111 .21+0 .067 .032 .111 .21+0 .068 .032 .111 .21+0 .068 .032 .111 .21+0 .068 .032 .112 .21+0 .067 .032 .112 .21+0 .067 .032 .111 .21+0 .067 .032 .111 .21+0 .068 .032 .111 .019 .019 .019 .019 .019 .019 .019 .019 .019 .019 .019 .019 KACKAMM- >LTr1.Y % TOTAL I1MM L»IN«- COST .018 .1*50 .018 .1+50 .018 .1+1+9 .019 • U51 .019 .1+50 .019 .*51 .019 .U51 .019 • U53 .019 .U53 .019 .^53 .019 • U53 .019 .U52 .1+69 .U71 .U70 .U70 .1+69 .1*70 .1+70 .U71 .U70 .1+69 .1+69 .U70 Calculation of constants used to adjust I95O-I961 cost figures for cream-condensed skim milk: Labor Building Equipment Utilities Annual average labor costs, 1961 _ »2U0 Annual average labor index, 1961 ~ I6U.3 .lU6l Annual average building costs, 1961 Annual average index of construction and building costs, 1961 = .0035 Annual average equipment costs, 1961 Consumable supplies Annual average index of metal and metal products, 1961 Annual average utility costs, I96I Annual average index of fuel, power, and lighting materials Annual average consumable supplies costs, I961 .019 Annual average of combined indexes for building ~ 391«3 costs, metal and metal products, and fuel, power, and lighting materials, 1961 .111 152.9 .0726 I90T 00^9 .066 115.0 0591 t Consumable supply costs include laboratory supplies, office supplies, cleaning supplies, and liability insurance. * Blanks mean no packaging costs incurred in this plant. 60 Table 7. Costs of Processing 100 Pounds of Milk Into Cream and Cottage Cheese, by Months, California, 1950-1961* TOTAL iONSUMABLEt PACKACI.NC PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES UUILUINC EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY J COST JANUARY dttiurs per hundredweight _ .228 .026 .014 .088 .011 .367 FEBRUARY .228 .026 .014 .088 .011 .367 MARCH .228 .026 .014 .088 .011 .367 XPRIL .228 .026 .014 .089 .011 .368 MAY .228 .026 .014 .090 .011 .369 JUNE .228 .026 .014 .092 .012 .372 JULY .228 .027 .015 .092 .012 .374 AUGUST .228 .027 .015 .093 .012 •375 SEPTEMBER .228 .027 .015 .096 .012 .378 OCTOBER .228 .027 .015 .098 .012 .380 NOVEMBER .228 .027 .015 .099 .012 .381 DECEMBER J ANUARY .228 .027 .015 .103 - .012 .385 .232 .027 .015 .105 .012 .391 FEBRUARY .232 .028 .015 .104 .012 .391 MARCH .232 .028 .015 .104 .012 .391 APRIL .232 .027 .015 .104 .012 .390 MAY .232 .027 .015 .104 .012 .390 JUNE .232 .027 .015 .103 .012 .389 JULY .232 .027 .015 .103 .012 .389 AUGUST .232 .027 .015 .103 .012 .389 SEPTEMBER .232 .027 .015 .103 .012 .389 OCTOBER .232 .027 .015 .103 .012 .389 NOVEMBER .232 .027 .015 .103 .012 .389 DECEMBER JANUARY .232 .028 1 .015 .103 .012 .390 1952 .244 .028 .015 .103 .012 .402 FEBRUARY .244 .028 .015 .103 .012 .402 MARCH .244 .028 .015 .103 .012 .402 APRIL .244 .027 .016 .103 .013 .403 MAY .244 .027 .016 .103 .013 .403 JUNE .244 .027 .016 .102 .013 .402 JULY .2kk .027 .017 .103 .013 .404 AUGUST .244 .027 .017 .105 .013 .406 SEPTEMBER .244 .027 .017 .105 .013 .406 OCTOBER .244 .027 .016 .105 .013 .405 NOVEMBER .244 .027 .016 .104 .013 .404 DECEMBER .244 .028 .016 .105 .013 .406 See p, 65 for footnotes. Continued on next page [61 Table 7 — Cream and Cottage Cheese, continued TOTAL consumable! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY supply! COST JANUARY dollars per huridredivright .253 .028 .016 .105 .013 1 • M5 FEBRUARY .253 .028 .016 .105 .013 .M5 MARCH .253 .028 .016 .106 .013 .416 \PKIL .253 .028 .016 .105 .013 • M5 MAY .253 .028 .016 .106 .013 .416 JUNE .253 .028 .016 .107 .013 .417 .11 LY .253 .029 .017 .109 .014 .422 AUGUST .253 .029 .017 .109 .014 .422 SEPTEMBER .253 .029 .017 .108 .013 .420 OCTOBER .253 .029 .017 .108 .014 .421 NOVEMBER .253 .029 .017 .108 .014 .421 DECEMBER J ANUARY .253 .029 .017 .107 .014 1 .420 , .260 .028 .017 .107 .014 .426 FEBRUARY .260 .028 .017 .106 .014 .425 MARCH .260 .028 .017 .106 .014 .425 APRIL .260 .028 .018 .107 .014 .427 MAY .260 .028 .018 .107 .014 .427 JUNE .260 .028 .018 .107 .014 .427 J LEY .260 .027 .018 .108 .014 .427 AUGUST .260 .027 .018 .108 .014 .427 SEPTEMBEK .260 .027 .018 .109 .014 .428 OCTOBER .260 .027 .019 .109 .014 .429 NOVEMBER .260 .028 .019 .110 .014 .^31 DECEMBER JANUARY .260 .028 .019 .109 .014 .430 .270 .028 .019 .110 .015 .442 FEBRUARY .270 .028 .019 .111 .015 .443 MARCH .270 .028 .019 .111 .015 .443 APRIL .270 .028 .020 .112 .015 .445 MAY .270 .027 .020 .112 .015 .444 JUNE .270 .027 .020 .112 .015 .444 JULY .270 .027 .020 .115 .015 .447 AUGUST .270 .028 .020 .118 .015 .451 SEPTEMBEK .270 .028 .020 .120 .015 .^53 OCTOBER .270 .028 .020 .120 .015 .^53 NOVEMBER .270 .028 .020 .120 .015 .^53 A54J DECEMBER .270 .028 .020 .121 .015 62 ] Continued on next page Table 7 — Cream and Cottage Cheese, continued TOTAL CONSUMABLE! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES IIUILDIISC EQUIPMENT .SUPPLY SUPPLY J COST JANUARY thdltirs \wr hundredweight .276 .029 .020 .122 .015 .1+62 FEBRUARY .276 .029 .020 .122 .016 .463 MARCH .276 .029 .020 .123 .016 ,U6k \PRIL .276 .028 .021 .125 .016 .466 MAY .276 .028 .021 .124 .016 .1*65 JUNE .276 .028 .021 .123 .016 .464 JIM .276 .028 .021 .122 .016 .1+63 AUGUST .276 .029 .021 .127 .016 .1469 SEPTEMBER .276 .029 .021 .128 .016 .1*70 OCTOBER .276 .029 .021 .128 .016 .470 NOVEMBER .276 .029 .021 .128 .016 .1+70 DECEMBER J ANUARY .276 .029 .021 .128 .016 .1*70 .285 .030 .021 .128 .016 .480 FEBRUARY .285 .031 .021 .128 .016 .1+81 MARCH .285 .031 .021 .127 .016 .480 APRIL .285 .031 .022 .127 .017 .1*82 MAY .285 .030 .022 .126 .017 .1+80 JUNE .285 .030 .022 .127 .017 .1+81 JULY .285 .030 .022 .128 .017 .1+62 AUGUST .285 .030 .022 .129 .017 .1+83 SEPTEMBER .285 .030 .022 .128 .017 .1+82 OCTOBER .285 .030 .022 .127 .017 .1+81 NOVEMBER .285 .030 .022 .127 .017 .1+81 DECEMBER JANUARY .285 .030 .022 .127 .017 .1+81 .292 .030 .022 .126 .017 .U87 FEBRUARY .292 .029 .022 .127 .017 .U87 MARCH .292 .029 .022 .126 .017 .1+86 \PRIL .292 .0^9 .023 .125 .017 .1+86 MAY .292 .028 .023 .125 .017 .1+85 JUNE .292 .028 .023 .125 .017 .1+85 JULY .292 .029 .02*+ .125 .018 .1+88 AUGUST .292 .029 .024 .127 .018 .1+90 SEPTEMBER .292 .029 .021* .128 .018 .1+91 OCTOBER .292 .029 .024 .128 .018 .1+91 NOVEMBER .292 .029 .024 .129 .018 .1+92 DECEMBER .292 .029 .021* .129 .018 .1+92 63 Continued on next page Table 7 — Cream and Cottage Cheese, continued TOTAL CO.NSLMABLEt PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars per hundred weight 1959 •325 .029 .02U .129 .018 .525 FEBRUARY .325 • 030 .02* .129 .018 .526 MARCH .325 .030 .02* .129 .018 .526 APRIL .325 .029 .02* .129 .018 •525 MAY .325 .029 .02* .129 .018 .525 JUNE .325 .029 .02* .129 .018 .525 JULY .325 .029 .025 .129 .018 .526 AUGUST .325 .029 .025 .129 .018 .526 SEPTEMBER .325 .029 .025 .130 .018 .527 OCTOBER .325 .029 .025 .130 .018 .527 NOVEMBER .325 .029 .025 .131 .018 .528 DECEMBER JANUARY .325 .029 .025 .131 .018 .528 i960 .35* .029 .025 .131 .018 •557 FEBRUARY • 35* .029 .025 .131 .018 • 557 MARCH • 35* .029 .025 .130 .018 .556 • 558 • 557 • 558 •557 • 558 • 558 • 557 .556 .556 APRIL • 35* .029 .026 .130 .019 MAY • 35* .028 .026 .130 .019 JUNE • 35* .029 .026 .130 .019 JULY • 35* .029 .026 .129 .019 AUGUST SEPTEMBER • 35* .35* .030 .030 .026 .026 .129 .129 .019 .019 OCTOBER NOVEMBER • 35* • 35* .030 .030 .025 .025 .129 .128 .019 .019 DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH • 35* .030 .025 .128 .019 1961 .382 .382 .030 .030 .025 .025 .128 .128 .019 .019 .58* .58* APRIL • 382 .382 .382 .382 .382 .382 .382 .382 .382 .382 .030 .025 .128 .019 .58* MAY .030 .027 .129 .019 .587 JUNE .029 .027 .129 .019 .586 JULY • 029 .027 .129 .019 .586 AUGUST .029 .027 .129 .019 .586 SEPTEMBER .029 .027 .129 .019 .586 OCTOBER .029 .027 .130 .019 .587 NOVEMBER .029 .026 .129 .019 .585 DECEMBER .029 .026 .128 .019 • 58U .030 .026 .129 .019 .586 64 Continued on next page Table 7 — Cream and Cottage Cheese, concluded 'Calculation of constants used to adjust 1950-1961 cost figures for cream -cottage cheese: Labor Building Equipment Utilities Annual average labor costs, 1961 .382 o\o\ " Annual average labor index, 1961 = 164.3 = * * Annual average building costs, 1961 _ .026 _ qq^q Annual average index of construction and building costs, 1961 ~ 906 ' y * J£ * Annual average equipment costs, 1961 ^122 152-9 Consumable supplies Annual average index of metal and metal products, 1961 Annual average utility costs, 1961 Annual average index of fuel, power, and lighting materials, 196I Annual average consumable supplies costs, 1961 _ .019 _ qoUQ Annual average of combined indexes for building 391*3 costs, metal and metal products, and fuel, power, and lighting materials, 1961 .081*3 .030 115.0 .0257 Consumable supply costs include laboratory supplies, office supplies, cleaning supplies, and liability insurance. {•Blanks mean no packaging costs incurred in this plant. Table 8. Costs of Processing 100 Pounds of Milk Into Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961* TOTAL < ONSUMABLtt PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILD1NC EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars /ht hundred weight .198 .089 .022 .092 .011 .071 .*83 FEBRUARY .198 .089 .022 .093 .011 .071 .484 MARCH .198 .089 .022 .093 .011 .071 .m \PRIL .198 .086 .022 .093 .011 .071 .483 MAY .198 .089 .022 .091+ .011 .071 .485 JUNE .198 .090 .022 .096 .011 .071 .488 JULY .198 .091 .023 .096 .011 .072 .491 AUGUST .198 .091 .023 .098 .011 .073 .494 SEPTEMBER .198 .092 .023 .100 .011 .074 .498 OCTOBER .198 .092 .023 .103 .011 .076 .503 NOVEMBER .198 .093 .023 .104 .011 .077 .506 DECEMBER .198 .092 .023 .108 .011 .079 .511 See p. 69 for footnotes. Continued on next page [65 Table 8 — Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued ToTAI. IO\M MABI \ t I'ACKACIX. mo« t.v>IM. MONTH LABOR UTILITIES MILIUM. MJI IPMKNT MTPLV M.IT1.V COST JANUARY ilitihir- \h-t humlrvd wight .202 .093 .023 .109 .011 .080 .518 FEBRUARY .202 .094 .023 .109 .011 .080 .519 MARCH .202 .094 .023 .109 .011 .080 .519 \PHIL .202 .091* .024 .109 .012 .080 .521 MA\ .202 .093 .024 .109 .012 .080 .520 JUNE .202 .093 .024 .108 .012 .081 .520 Jl'Ll .202 .094 .024 .108 .012 .081 •521 AUGUST .202 .093 .024 .108 .012 .082 .521 SEPTEMBER .202 .094 .024 .108 .012 .083 .523 OCTOBER .202 .094 .024 .108 .012 .084 .524 NOVEMBER .202 .094 .024 .108 .012 .084 .524 DECEMBER JANUARY .202 .094 .024 .108 .012 .084 .524 .212 .094 .024 .108 .012 .084 •53^ FEBRUARY .212 .094 .024 .108 .012 .085 •535 MARCH .212 .09*+ .024 .108 .012 .085 •535 APRIL .212 .093 .025 .108 .012 .085 •535 MAY .212 .093 .025 .108 .012 .085 •535 JUNE .212 .093 .025 .107 .012 .085 •53^ JULY .212 .093 .026 .108 .012 .085 .536 AUGUST .212 .093 .026 .110 .012 .085 •538 SEPTEMBER .212 .093 .026 .110 .012 .085 •538 OCTOBER .212 .094 .025 .110 .012 .086 •539 NOVEMBER .212 .094 .025 .109 .012 .086 .538 DECEMBER JANUARY .212 .094 .025 .109 .012 .086 .538 1953 .220 .095 .025 .109 .012 .086 .547 FEBRUARY .220 .095 .025 .110 .012 .086 .548 MARCH .220 .095 .025 .111 .012 .086 .549 APRIL .220 .094 .025 .110 .012 .086 .547 MAY .220 .094 .025 .111 .012 .086 .548 JUNE .220 .095 .025 .112 .012 .086 .550 JULY .220 .098 .026 .114 .013 .086 •557 AUGUST .220 .097 .026 .114 .013 .086 .556 SEPTEMBER .220 .097 .026 .113 .013 .087 .556 OCTOBER .220 .098 .027 .113 .013 .087 .558 NOVEMBER .220 .098 .027 .113 .013 .087 .558 DECEMBER .220 .098 .027 .113 .013 .087 .558 i 66 I (.ontinued on next page Table 8 — Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL « ONSUMABLtt PACKACINC I'ROCLSSI.NC MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars fter hundredi wight .226 .097 .027 .112 .013 .087 .562 FEBRUARY .226 .097 .027 .111 .013 .087 .561 MARCH .226 .096 .027 .112 .013 .087 .561 \PRIL .226 .095 .028 .112 .013 .087 .561 MAY .226 .095 .028 .112 .013 .087 .561 JUNE .226 .095 .028 .112 .013 .087 .561 JULY .226 .093 .028 .113 .013 .087 .560 AUGUST .226 .094 .028 .114 .013 .087 .562 SEPTEMBER .226 .094 .028 .114 .013 .087 .562 OCTOBER .226 .094 .029 .115 .013 .087 .564 NOVEMBER .226 .094 .029 .115 .014 .087 .565 DECEMBER JANUARY .226 .094 .029 .115 .014 .087 .565 .23^ .095 .030 .115 .014 .087 • 575 FEBRUARY .234 .095 .030 .116 .014 .088 .577 MARCH .234 .095 .030 .116 .014 .088 .577 APRIL .234 .094 .030 .117 .014 .088 .577 MAY .234 .094 .030 .117 .014 .088 .577 JUNE .234 .094 .030 .117 .014 .089 .578 JULY .234 .093 .031 .121 .014 .090 .583 AUCUST .234 .094 .031 .123 .014 .090 .586 SEPTEMBER .234 •095 .031 .125 .014 .090 .589 OCTOBER .234 .095 .031 .126 .014 .090 .590 NOVEMBER .234 .095 .031 .126 .014 .090 .590 DECEMBER JANUARY .234 .096 .031 .127 .014 .091 .593 .240 .097 .031 .128 .015 .092 .603 FEBRUARY .240 .098 .031 .128 .015 .093 .605 MARCH .240 •097 .031 .129 .015 .093 .605 APRIL .240 .097 .033 .130 .015 .093 .608 MAY .240 .097 .033 .130 .015 .093 .608 JUNE .240 .097 .033 .129 .015 .094 .608 JULY .240 .097 .033 .128 .015 .095 .608 AUCUST .240 .097 .033 .133 .015 .095 .613 SEPTEMBER .240 .098 .033 .134 .015 .095 .615 OCTOBER .240 .098 .032 .134 .015 .095 .614 NOVEMBER .240 .098 .032 .134 .015 .095 .614 DECEMBER .240 .100 .032 .134 .015 .095 .616 Continued on next page 07 Table 8 — Butter and ]\onf at Dry Milk, continued TOTAL ( ONSLMABLtt PACKAGING PRIM KSNING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST .JANUARY dollar n f>er hundna weight .21*8 .102 .032 .134 .015 .095 .626 FEBRUARY .248 .105 .032 .134 .015 .095 .629 MARCH .248 .105 .032 .133 .015 .096 .629 M'KIL .248 .105 .034 .133 .016 .097 .633 MAY .2hS .104 .034 .132 .016 .098 .632 JUNE .248 .103 .034 .133 .016 .098 .632 .JULY .248 .102 .034 .135 .016 .098 .633 AUGUST .248 .102 .034 .135 .016 .098 .633 SEPTEMBER .248 .102 .034 .134 .016 .098 .632 OCTOBER .2kQ .102 .034 .133 .016 .098 .631 NOVEMBER .248 .102 .034 •133 .016 .098 .631 DECEMBER JANUARY .248 .102 .034 .133 .016 .098 .631 .254 .102 .034 .132 .016 .098 .636 FEBRUARY .254 .100 .034 .133 .016 .098 .635 MARCH .254 .099 .034 .132 .016 .098 .633 APRIL .25k .097 .036 .131 .016 .098 .632 MAY .254 .097 .036 .131 .016 .097 .631 JUNE .254 .097 .036 .131 .016 .097 .631 JULY .254 .098 .037 .131 .017 .097 .634 AUGUST .254 .100 .037 .133 .017 .097 .638 SEPTEMBER .254 .100 .037 .134 .017 .097 .639 OCTOBER .254 .099 .037 .134 .017 .097 .638 NOVEMBER .254 .099 .037 .135 .017 .097 .639 DECEMBER JANUARY .254 .099 .037 .135 .017 .097 .639 .282 .100 .037 .135 .017 .097 .668 FEBRUARY .282 .101 .037 .135 .017 .097 .669 MARCH .282 .101 .037 .136 .017 .097 .670 APRIL .282 .100 .037 .135 .017 .098 .669 MAY .282 .100 .037 .135 .017 .098 .669 JUNE .282 .098 .037 .135 .017 .098 .667 JULY .282 .098 .039 .135 .017 .099 .670 AUGUST .282 .099 .039 .135 .017 .099 .671 SEPTEMBER .282 .098 .039 .136 .017 •099 .671 OCTOBER .282 .098 .038 .136 .017 .099 .670 NOVEMBER .282 .098 .038 .138 .017 .099 .672 DECEMBER .282 .098 .038 .137 .017 .099 .671 I 68 Continued on next page Table 8 — Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, concluded TOTAL tONSLMABl.tt PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPI'LY COST JANUARY dollar v jht hundredweight ! I960 .307 .098 .038 .137 .017 .099 .696 KKBRUAR1 •307 .098 .038 •137 .017 .099 .696 MARCH .307 .099 .038 .136 .017 .099 .696 M'KIL .307 .099 .oto .136 .018 .100 .700 MAY .307 •097 .Ok) .136 .018 .100 .698 JUNE .307 •099 .040 .136 .018 .100 .700 .11 LY .307 .100 .040 •135 .018 .100 .700 AUGUST .307 .101 .040 .136 .018 .100 .702 SEPTEMBER .307 .102 .040 .136 .018 .100 .703 OCTOBER .307 .102 .039 .135 .018 .100 .701 NOVEMBER .307 .102 .039 .134 .018 .100 .700 DECEMBER J X.NUARY .307 .102 .039 .13^ .018 .100 .700 .331 .103 .040 .1* .018 .100 .726 FEBRUARY •331 .103 .040 •13^ .018 .100 .726 MARCH .331 .103 .040 .135 .018 .100 .727 AI'KIL .331 .101 .041 .135 .018 .100 .726 MAY .331 .100 .041 .135 .018 .100 .725 JUNE .331 .100 .041 .135 .018 .100 .725 Jl I.\ .331 .101 .041 .135 .018 .100 .726 AUGUST .331 .100 .041 .136 .018 .100 .726 SEPTEMBER .331 .100 .041 .136 .018 .100 .726 OCTOBER .331 .099 .041 .135 .018 .100 .724 NOVEMBER .331 .100 .041 .135 .018 .100 .725 DECEMBER * •331 .101 1 .041 •135 .018 .100 .726 •Calculation of constants used to adjust 1950-1961 cost figures for butter-nonfat dry milk: Labor Building Equipment ■ Utilities Consumable supplies « Packaging Supplies Insurance. Annual average labor costs, Annual average labor index, Annual average building costs, 1961 «■■»■•— ^-•«*» Annual average index of construction and building costs, I96I Annual average equipment costs, 1961 .135 _ Annual average index of metal and metal products, 1961 = 152. 9 " * 3 Annual average utility costs, 1961 .101 Annual average index of fuel, power, and lighting materials, 196I = 115.0 Annual average consumable supplies costs, 1961 .018 ^, Annual average of combined indexes for building = 391.3 = ,0M6 costs, metal and metal products, and fuel, power, and lighting materials, 1961 .O878 Annual average packaging supplies costs, 1961 * average Index of wholesale prices, I96I .100 I55T5 .0686 t Consumable supply costs include laboratory supplies, office supplies, cleaning supplies, and liability [69 Table 9. Costs of Processing 100 Pounds of Milk Into Butter and Condensed Skim Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961* TOTAL CONSUMABLE! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST dollars per hundredweight 1950 .165 .060 .017 .076 .011 .009 .338 JANUARY .165 .060 .017 .076 .011 .009 .338 FEBRUARY .165 .060 .017 .076 .011 .009 .338 MARCH .165 .060 .018 .076 .011 .009 .339 APRIL .165 .060 .018 .077 .011 .009 .31*0 MAY .165 .06l .018 .079 .011 .009 .3^3 JUNE .165 .061 .018 •079 .011 .009 .3^3 JULY .165 .061 .018 .080 .011 .010 .345 AUGUST .165 .062 .018 .082 .011 .010 .3^8 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NHVFlVf RFR .165 .062 .019 .084 .011 .010 .351 .165 .062 .019 .085 .011 .010 .352 11UV C IVL D LI\ DECEMBER JANUARY .165 .062 .019 .088 .011 .010 .355 .169 .063 .019 .090 .011 .010 .362 FEBRUARY .169 .063 .019 .090 .011 .010 .362 MARCH .169 .063 .019 .089 .011 .010 .361 APRIL .169 .063 .019 .090 .012 .010 .363 MAY .169 .063 .019 .089 .012 .010 .362 JUNE .169 .063 .019 .089 .012 .010 .362 JULY .169 .063 .019 .089 .012 .011 .363 AUGUST .169 .063 .019 .089 .012 .011 .363 SEPTEMBER .169 .063 .019 .089 .012 .011 .363 OCTOBER .169 .063 .019 .089 .012 .011 .363 NOVEMBER .169 .063 .019 .089 .012 .011 .363 DECEMBER JANUARY .169 .063 .019 .089 .012 .011 .363 .177 .063 .019 .089 .012 .011 .371 FEBRUARY .177 .063 .019 .089 .012 .011 .371 MARCH .177 .063 .019 .089 .012 .011 .371 APRIL .177 .063 .020 .089 .012 .011 .372 MAY .177 .063 .020 .088 .012 .011 .371 JUNE .177 .063 .020 .088 .012 .011 .371 JULY .177 .063 .021 .088 .012 .011 .372 AUGUST .177 .063 .021 .090 .012 .011 .374 SEPTEMBER .177 .063 .021 .090 .012 .011 .374 OCTOBER .177 .063 .020 .090 .012 .011 .373 NOVEMBER .177 .063 1 .020 .090 .012 .011 .373 DECEMBER .177 .063 .020 .090 .012 .011 .373 See p. 7*4 for footnotes. Continued on next page I 70 I Table 9 — Butter and Condensed Skim Milk, continued TOTAL CONSUMABLE^ PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDirvC EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollar v per hundredweight .184 .064 .020 .090 .012 .011 .381 FEBRUARY .184 .064 .020 .090 .012 .011 .381 MARCH .184 .064 .020 .091 .012 .011 .382 APRIL .184 .063 .020 .091 .012 .011 .381 MAY .184 .063 .020 .091 .012 .011 .381 JUNE .184 .064 .020 .092 .012 .011 .383 JULY .184 .066 .021 .094 .013 .011 .389 AUGUST .184 .066 .021 .094 .013 .011 .389 SEPTEMBER .184 .066 .021 .093 .013 .011 .388 OCTOBER .184 .066 .022 .093 .013 .011 .389 NOVEMBER .184 .066 .022 .093 .013 .011 .389 DECEMBER JANUARY .184 .066 .022 i •093 .013 .011 .389 .189 .065 .022 .092 .013 .011 .392 FEBRUARY .189 .065 .022 .092 .013 .011 .392 MARCH .189 .065 .022 .092 .013 .011 .392 APRIL .189 .064 .022 .092 .013 .011 .391 MAY .189 .064 .022 .092 .013 .011 .391 JUNE .189 .064 .022 .092 .013 .011 •391 JULY .189 .063 .023 .093 .013 .011 .392 AUGUST .189 .063 .023 .093 .013 .011 .392 SEPTEMBER .189 .063 .023 .094 .013 .011 •393 OCTOBER .189 .063 .023 .094 .013 .011 •393 NOVEMBER .189 .063 .023 .094 .014 .011 .39^ DECEMBER JANUARY .189 .063 .023 .094 .014 .011 .39^ .196 .064 .024 .094 .014 .011 .403 FEBRUARY .196 .064 .024 .095 .014 .011 .404 MARCH .196 .064 .024 .096 .014 .011 .405 APRIL .196 .063 .024 .096 .014 .011 .404 MAY .196 .063 .024 .096 .014 .011 .404 JUNE .196 .063 .024 .096 .014 .011 .404 JULY .196 .063 .025 •099 .014 .012 .409 AUGUST .196 .063 .025 .101 .014 .012 .411 SEPTEMBER .196 .064 .025 .103 .014 .012 .414 OCTOBER .196 .064 .025 .103 .014 .012 .414 NOVEMBER .196 .064 .025 .104 .014 .012 • U15 DECEMBER 196 .065 .025 .104 .014 .012 .416 I Continued on next page [71 Table 9 — Butter and Condensed Skim Milk, continued TOTAL lONM MABI.ht IACKAUM. WOO.SMX. MONTH LABOR UTILITIES IUII.IH.NC KOUI'MENT SLPI'LY MJITI.Y COST JVM'ARl (hJlnr\ fur hundredweight .201 .066 .025 .105 .015 .012 ,k2k FEBRUARY .201 .066 .025 .105 .015 .012 .1*21* MARCH .201 .066 .025 .106 .015 .012 .1*25 VI'KIL .201 .065 .026 .107 .015 .012 .U26 MAY .201 .065 .026 .107 .015 .012 .1*26 JUNE .201 .065 .026 .106 .015 .012 .1*25 .iin .201 .065 .026 .105 .015 .012 .1*2** AUGUST .201 .066 .026 .109 .015 .012 .1*29 SEPTEMBER .201 .066 .026 .110 .015 .012 .1*30 0< TOHER .201 .066 .026 .110 .015 .012 .1*30 NOVEMBER .201 .066 .026 .110 .015 .012 .U30 DECEMBER JANUARY .201 .067 .026 .111 .015 .012 .432 1957 .207 .069 .026 .110 .015 .012 .1*39 FEBRUARY .207 .071 .026 .110 .015 .012 .Ma MARCH .207 .070 .026 .110 .015 .012 .1*1*0 APRIL .207 .071 .027 .109 .016 .013 .1*1*3 MAY .207 .070 .027 .109 .016 .013 .1*1*2 JUNE .207 .069 .027 .109 .016 .013 .1*1*1 JULY .207 069 .027 .111 .016 .013 Ml AUGUST .207 .069 .027 .111 .016 .013 .1*1*3 SEPTEMBER .207 .069 .027 .110 .016 .013 .kk2 OCTOBER .207 .068 .027 .109 .016 .013 .kko NOVEMBER .207 .068 .027 .109 .016 .013 .kko DECEMBER JANUARY .207 .069 .027 .109 .016 .013 .kkl .212 .069 .027 .109 .016 .013 .kk6 FEBRUARY .212 .067 .027 .109 .016 .013 .kkk MARCH .212 .066 .027 .109 .016 .013 .kkl APRIL .212 .066 .029 .108 .016 .013 .kkk MAY .212 .065 .029 .108 .016 .013 .kkl JUNE .212 .065 .029 .108 .016 .013 .kkl JULY .212 .066 .030 .108 .017 .013 .kk6 AUGUST .212 .067 .030 .109 .017 .013 .1*1*8 SEPTEMBER .212 .067 .030 .110 .017 .013 .kk9 OCTOBER .212 .067 .029 .110 .017 .013 .kk& NOVEMBER .212 .067 .029 .111 .017 .013 .W+9 DECEMBER .212 .067 .029 L^i .017 .013 .U49 I 72 Continued on next page Table 9 — Butter and Condensed Skim Milk, continued TOTAL CONSUMABLE! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars per hundredweight .236 .067 .029 .111 .017 .013 .473 FEBRUARY .236 .068 .029 .111 .017 .013 m kjk MARCH .236 .068 .029 .112 .017 .013 A75 APRIL .236 .067 .030 .111 .017 .013 .h-jk MAY .236 .067 .030 .111 .017 .013 .k-jk JUNE .236 .066 .030 .111 .017 .013 .1+73 JULY .236 .066 .031 .111 .017 .013 .k-jh AUGUST .236 .066 .031 .111 .017 .013 .k7k SEPTEMBER .236 .066 .031 .112 .017 .013 .1*75 OCTOBER .236 .066 .031 .112 .017 .013 .1*75 NOVEMBER .236 .066 .031 .113 .017 .013 A76 DECEMBER JANUARY .236 .066 .031 .113 .017 .013 .1*76 .257 .066 .031 .113 .017 .013 .1*97 FEBRUARY .257 .066 .031 .113 .017 .013 .1*97 MARCH .257 .066 .031 .112 .017 .013 .1*96 APRIL .257 .066 .032 .112 .018 .013 .1*98 MAY .257 .065 .032 .112 .018 .013 .1*97 JUNE .257 .066 .032 .112 .018 .013 .1*98 JULY .257 .067 .031 .111 .018 .013 .^97 AUGUST .257 .068 .031 .112 .018 .013 .1*99 SEPTEMBER .257 .069 .031 .111 .018 .013 .1*99 OCTOBER .257 .069 .032 .111 .018 .013 .500 NOVEMBER .257 .069 .032 .111 .018 .013 .500 DECEMBER JANUARY .257 .069 .032 .110 • .018 .013 .1*99 1961 .277 .069 .032 .110 .018 .013 .519 FEBRUARY .277 .069 .032 .111 .018 .013 .520 MARCH .277 .069 .032 .111 .018 .013 .520 APRIL .277 .068 .033 .111 .018 .013 .520 MAY .277 .067 .033 .111 .018 .013 .519 JUNE .277 .068 .033 .111 .018 .013 .520 JULY .277 .068 .033 .111 .018 .013 .520 AUGUST .277 .068 .033 .112 .018 .013 .521 SEPTEMBER .277 .067 .033 .112 .018 .013 .520 OCTOBER .277 .067 .033 .111 .018 .013 .519 NOVEMBER .277 .067 .033 .111 .018 .013 .519 DECEMBER .277 .068 .033 .111 .018 .013 .520 73 1 Continued on next page Table 9 — Butter and Condensed Skim Milk, concluded Calculation of constants used to adjust 1950-1961 cost figures for butter-condensed skim milk: Labor Building Equipment Utilities Consianable supplies Annual average labor costs, Annual average labor index, 1961 T96T .277 1PT3 .1686 Annual average building costs, 1961 .0] Annual average index of construction and building costs, 1961 .0036 Annual average equipment costs, 1961 Annual average index of metal and metal products, Annual average utility costs, 1961 Annual average index of fuel, power, and lighting materials Annual average consumable supplies costs, 1961 __ .018 Annual average of combined indexes for building " 391*3 costs, metal and metal products, and fuel, power, and lighting materials, 1961 T96T = 1^9 = '° 726 I96T .ooi«6 .068 115.0 = .0591 Packaging supplies = Annual average packaging supplies costs, I96I = .013 = >oo89 Annual average index of wholesale prices, 1961 IU5.6 t Consumable supply costs include laboratory supplies, office supplies, cleaning supplies, and liability insurance . Table 10. Costs of Processing 100 Pounds of Milk Into Butter and Cottage Cheese, by Months, California, 1950-1961* See p. 78 for footnotes. TOTAL consumable! I'ACKACIMC PROCESSING LABOR UTILITIES ... BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollar fier hundred Wright 1950 .250 .027 .014 .087 .011 .008 •397 KKBRUARV .250 .027 .OlU .088 .011 .008 .398 MAKC1I .250 .027 .014 .088 .011 .008 .398 M'KIL .250 .026 .014 .088 .011 .008 •397 MAY .250 .027 .014 .089 .011 .008 •399 JUNE .250 .027 .014 .091 .011 .008 .401 Jl'Ll .250 .027 .015 .091 .012 .008 .403 AUGUST .250 .027 .015 .093 .012 .008 .405 SKI'TEMBEK .250 .027 .015 .095 .012 .008 .407 CM TOBER .250 .027 .015 .097 .012 .008 .409 NOVEMBER .250 .028 .015 .099 .012 .008 .412 DECEMBER .250 .027 .015 .102 .012 .008 .414 Continued on next page f 74 Table 10 — Butter and Cottage Cheese, continued TOTAL CONSUMABLEt PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES UUILDINC EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollar s \ht hundredweight .255 .028 .015 .104 .012 .009 .423 FEBRUARY .255 .028 .015 .104 .012 .009 .423 MARCH .255 .028 .015 .103 .013 .009 .422 XI'RIL .255 .028 015 .103 .012 .009 .422 MAY .255 .028 .015 .103 .012 .009 .422 JUNE .255 .028 .015 .103 .012 .009 .422 JULY .255 .028 .015 .102 .012 .009 .421 AUGUST .255 .028 .015 .102 .012 .009 .i»21 SEPTEMBER .255 .028 .015 .102 .012 .009 .421 OCTOBER .255 .028 .015 .102 .012 .009 .421 NOVEMBER .255 .028 .015 .103 .012 .009 .422 DECEMBER JANUARY .255 .028 .015 .103 .012 .009 .422 .268 .028 .015 .102 .012 .009 .434 FEBRUARY .268 .028 .015 .103 .012 .009 .435 MARCH .268 .028 .015 .103 .012 .009 .435 APRIL .268 .028 .016 .103 .013 .009 .437 MAY .268 .028 .016 .102 .013 .009 .436 JUNE .268 .028 .016 .101 .013 .009 .435 JULY .268 .028 .017 .102 .013 .009 .437 AUGUST .268 .028 .017 .104 .013 .009 .439 SEPTEMBER .268 .028 .017 .104 .013 .009 .439 OCTOBER .268 .028 .016 .104 .013 .009 .438 NOVEMBER .268 .028 .016 .104 .013 .009 .438 DECEMBER JANUARY .268 .028 .016 .104 .013 .009 .438 .278 .028 .016 .104 .013 .009 .448 FEBRUARY .278 .028 .016 .104 .013 .009 .448 MARCH .278 .028 .016 .105 .013 .009 .449 APRIL .278 .028 .016 .105 .013 .009 .449 MAY .278 .028 .016 .105 .013 .009 .449 JUNE .278 .028 .016 .106 .013 .009 .450 JULY .278 .029 .017 .108 .013 .009 .454 AUGUST .278 .029 .017 .108 .013 .009 .454 SEPTEMBER .278 .029 .017 .108 .013 .009 .454 OCTOBER .278 .029 .017 .107 .013 .009 .^53 NOVEMBER .278 .029 .017 .107 .013 .009 .453 DECEMBER .278 .029 .017 .107 .013 .009 .453 75 Continued on next page Table 10 — Butter and Cottage Cheese, continued TOTAI. CONSUMABLE! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars per hundred* aright 195^ .285 .029 .017 .106 .013 009 .459 FEBRUARY .285 .029 .017 .106 .013 009 .459 MARCH .285 .029 .017 .106 .013 009 .459 APRIL .285 .028 .018 .106 .014 009 .460 MAY .285 .028 .018 .106 .014 .009 .460 JUNE .285 .028 .018 .106 .014 .009 .460 JULY .285 .028 .018 .107 .014 .009 .461 AUGUST .285 .028 .018 .108 .014 ,009 .462 SEPTEMBER .285 .028 .018 .108 .014 .009 .462 OCTOBER .285 .028 .019 .109 .014 .009 .464 NOVEMBER .285 .028 .019 .109 .014 .009 .464 DECEMBER JANUARY .285 .028 .019 .109 .014 .009 .464 .296 .028 .019 .109 .014 009 .475 FEBRUARY .296 .028 .019 .110 .014 009 .476 MARCH .296 .028 .019 .110 .014 009 .476 APRIL .296 .028 .020 .111 .015 009 .479 MAY .296 .028 .020 .111 .015 009 .479 JUNE .296 .028 .020 .111 .015 009 .479 JULY .296 .028 .020 .114 .015 ,010 .483 AUGUST .296 .028 .020 .117 .015 .010 .486 SEPTEMBER .296 .028 .020 .119 .015 ,010 .488 OCTOBER .296 .028 .020 .119 .015 .010 .488 NOVEMBER .296 .028 .020 .120 .015 .010 .489 DECEMBER JANUARY .296 .029 .020 .120 .015 .010 .490 .303 .029 .020 ! .121 .015 .010 .498 FEBRUARY .303 .029 .020 .121 .015 .010 .498 MARCH .303 .029 .020 .123 .015 .010 •500 APRIL .303 .029 .021 .124 .016 .OUD .503 MAY .303 .029 .021 .123 .016 .010 .502 JUNE .303 .029 .021 .122 .016 .010 .501 JULY .303 .029 .021 .121 .016 .010 .500 AUGUST .303 .029 .021 .126 .016 .010 .505 SEPTEMBER .303 .029 .021 .127 .016 .010 .506 OCTOBER .303 .029 .021 .127 .016 .010 .506 NOVEMBER .303 .029 .021 .127 .016 .010 .506 DECEMBER .303 .030 .021 .127 .016 .010 .507 [76 Continued on next page Table 10 — Butter and Cottage Cheese, continued TOTAL • OVSl.MABl.ht I'ACKACI.Nb I'HOCKSNIM. MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING KOI IPMENT SLTFLY SUPPLY COST JVMARV (htllur* per hundredweight .313 .030 .021 .127 .016 .010 .517 FEBRUARY .313 .031 .021 .127 .016 .010 .518 MARCH .313 .031 .021 .126 .016 .010 .517 \PHIL .313 .031 .022 .126 .016 .010 .518 M\\ .313 .031 .022 .126 .016 .01c .518 JUNE .313 .031 .022 .126 .016 .010 .518 MIA .313 .030 .022 .128 .017 .010 .520 MCL'ST .313 .030 .022 .128 .017 .010 .520 SEPTEMBER .313 .030 .022 .127 .017 .010 .519 OCTOBER .313 .030 .022 .126 .016 .010 .517 NOVEMBER .313 .030 .022 .126 .016 .010 .517 DECEMBER JANUARY .313 .030 .022 .126 .016 .010 .517 .321 .030 .022 .126 ! .016 .010 .525 FEBRUARY .321 .030 .022 .126 .016 .010 .525 MARCH .321 .029 .022 .125 .016 .010 .523 APRIL .321 .029 .023 .124 .017 .010 .524 MAY .321 .029 .023 .124 .017 .010 .524 JUNE .321 .029 .023 .125 .017 .010 .525 JULY .321 .029 .024 .125 .017 .010 .526 AUGUST .321 .030 .024 .126 .017 .010 .528 SEPTEMBER .321 .030 .024 .127 .017 .010 .529 OCTOBER .321 .030 .024 .127 .017 .010 .529 NOVEMBER .321 .030 .024 .128 .017 .010 .530 DECEMBER JANUARY .321 .030 .024 .128 .017 .010 .530 .356 .030 .02U .128 .017 .010 .565 FEBRUARY .356 .030 .024 .128 .017 .010 .565 MARCH •356 .030 .024 .129 .017 .010 .566 APRIL .356 .030 .024 .128 .017 .010 .565 MAY .356 .030 .024 .128 .017 .010 .565 JUNE .356 .029 .024 .128 .017 .010 .564 JULY .356 .029 .025 .128 .018 .010 .566 AUGUST .356 .029 .025 .128 .018 .010 .566 SEPTEMBER .356 .029 .025 .129 .018 .010 .567 OCTOBER .356 .029 .025 .129 .018 .011 .568 NOVEMBER .356 .029 .025 .130 .018 .011 .569 DECEMBER .356 | .029 .025 .130 .018 .011 .569 77 Continued on next page Table 10 — Butter and Cottage Cheese, concluded TOTAL MlNM MABM.t PACKAUM. r*«M.».V»IN«. MONTH LABOR UTILITIES UIIIUMNC MM IP.MLM MPPI.V SUPPLY COST JANUARY ihtflars iht hundredu right I9bU .388 .029 .025 .130 .018 ♦ Oil .601 mm i \r\ .388 .029 .025 .130 .018 .011 .601 MARCH .388 .029 .025 .129 .018 .011 .600 \PRIL .388 .029 .026 .129 .018 .011 .601 MAY .388 .029 .026 .129 .018 .011 .601 JUNE .388 .029 .026 .129 .018 .011 .601 Jl'Ll .388 .030 .026 .128 .018 .011 .601 AUGUST .388 .030 .026 .129 .018 .011 .602 SEPTEMBER .388 .030 .026 .128 .018 .011 .601 OCTOBER .388 .030 .025 .128 .018 .011 .600 NOVEMBER .388 .030 .025 .127 .018 .011 .599 DECEMBER JANUARY .388 .030 .025 .127 .018 .011 .599 .if 19 .031 .025 .127 .018 .011 .631 FEBRUARY .if 19 .031 .025 .127 .018 .011 .631 MARCH .if 19 .031 .025 .128 .018 .011 .632 APRIL .If 19 .030 .027 .128 .019 .011 .63U MAY .if 19 .030 .027 .128 .019 .011 .63U JUNE .if 19 .030 .027 .128 .019 .011 .63^ JULY .if 19 .030 .027 .128 .019 .011 .63U AUGUST .if 19 .030 .027 .129 .019 .011 .635 SEPTEMBER .if 19 .030 .027 .129 .019 .011 .635 OCTOBER .if 19 .030 .026 .128 .019 .011 .633 NOVEMBER .if 19 .030 .026 .128 .019 .011 .633 DECEMBER .U19 , .030 .026 .128 .019 .011 1 .633 • Calculation of constants used to adjust 1950-1961 cost figures for butter -cottage cheese: Labor Building Equipment Utilities »$-•*» Annual average labor costs, 1961 Annual average labor index, 196I Annual average building costs, 1961 _ .026 ~ Annual average index of construction and building costs, 1961 " 906 * _ Annual average equipment costs, 1961 _ .128 ^ -g-- Annual average index of metal and metal products, 1961 " 152.9 * •°°37 u Annual average utility costs, 1961 .C Annual average index of fuel, power, and lighting materials, 1961 .0029 II5.O * .0262 Consumable supplies = Annual average consumable supplies costs, 196l _ Annual average of combined indexes for building costs, metal and metal products, and fuel, power, and lighting materials, 1961 Packaging supplies Annual average packaging supplies costs, 1961 .011 Annual average index of wholesale prices, I961 ~ 145.6 .OOlfO .0073 Consumable supply costs include laboratory supplies, office supplies, cleaning supplies, and liability insurance. 78 Table 11. Costs of Processing 100 Pounds of Milk Into Ice Cream Mix and Nonfat Dry Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961* TOTAL CONSUMABLE! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILD1>C EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST .1 A MARY dollars jht hundreds -vright .182 .070 .024 .105 .011 .042 .434 FEBRUARY .182 .070 .024 .106 .011 .043 .436 MARCH .182 .070 .024 .106 .011 .043 .436 \I>RIL .182 .069 .025 .106 .011 .043 .436 MAY .182 .070 .025 .107 .011 .043 .438 JUNE .182 .070 .025 .110 .012 .043 .442 .ILLY .182 .071 .026 .110 .012 .043 .444 AUGUST .182 .071 .026 .112 .012 .044 .447 SEPTEMBER .182 .072 .026 .114 .012 .045 .451 OCTOBER .182 .072 .026 .117 .012 .046 .455 NOVEMBER .182 .072 .026 .119 .012 .046 .457 DECEMBER JANUARY .182 .072 .026 .123 .012 .048 .463 .186 .073 .026 .125 .012 .048 .470 FEBRUARY .186 .07^ .026 .125 .012 .048 .471 MARCH .186 .07*+ .026 .124 .012 .048 .470 APRIL .186 .073 .027 .124 .012 .048 .470 MAY .186 .073 .027 .124 .012 .048 .470 JUNE .186 .073 .027 .124 .012 .049 .471 JULY .186 .073 .026 .123 .012 .049 .469 AUGUST .186 .073 .026 .123 .012 .049 .469 SEPTEMBER .186 .073 .026 .123 .012 .050 .470 OCTOBER .186 .073 .026 .123 .012 .050 .470 NOVEMBER .186 .073 .026 .123 .012 .051 .471 DECEMBER J \NUARY .186 .074 .026 .123 .012 .051 .472 .195 .074 .027 .123 .012 .051 .482 FEBRUARY .195 .074 .027 .123 .012 .051 .482 MARCH .195 .oik .027 .123 .012 .051 .482 APRIL .195 .073 .028 .123 .013 .051 .483 MAY .195 .073 .028 .123 .013 .051 .483 JUNE .195 .073 .028 .122 .013 .051 .482 JULY .195 .073 .029 .123 .013 .051 .484 AUGUST .195 .073 .029 .125 .013 .051 .486 SEPTEMBER .195 .073 .029 .125 .013 .051 .486 OCTOBER .195 .073 . .028 .125 .013 .052 .486 NOVEMBER .195 .073 .028 .125 .013 .052 .486 DECEMBER .195 .074 .028 .125 .013 .052 .487 See p. 83 for footnotes. Continued on next page 79] Table 11 — Ice Cream Mix and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL tJONSUMABLEt PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars jter hundred weight .203 .074 .028 .125 .013 .052 .495 FEBRUARY .203 .074 .028 .125 .013 .052 .495 MARCH .203 .07*+ .028 .126 .013 .052 .496 M'KIL .203 .074 .028 .126 .013 .052 .496 MAY .203 .07*+ .028 .127 .013 .052 .497 JUNE .203 .074 .028 .128 .013 .052 .498 JULY .203 .076 .029 .130 .01* .052 .504 AUGUST .203 .076 .029 .130 .014 .052 .504 SEPTEMBER .203 .076 .029 .129 .013 .052 .502 OCTOBER .203 .076 .030 .129 .014 .052 .504 NOVEMBER .203 .076 .030 .129 .01* .052 .504 DECEMBER JANUARY .203 .076 .030 .128 .014 .052 •503 .207 .076 .030 .128 .01* .052 .507 FEBRUARY .207 .076 .030 .127 .014 .052 .506 MARCH .207 .075 .030 .127 .014 .052 .505 APRIL .207 .075 .031 .128 .014 .052 .507 MAY .207 .074 .031 .128 .014 .052 .506 JUNE .207 .074 .031 .128 .014 .052 .506 JULY .207 .073 .032 .129 .014 .052 .507 AUGUST .207 .073 .032 .130 .014 .052 .508 SEPTEMBER .207 • 073 .032 .130 .014 .052 .508 OCTOBER .207 .073 .032 .131 .014 .052 .509 NOVEMBER .207 .074 .032 .131 .014 .052 .510 DECEMBER JANUARY .207 .074 .032 .131 .014 .052 .510 .216 .075 .033 .131 .015 .053 .523 FEBRUARY .216 .075 .033 .132 .015 .053 .524 MARCH .216 .075 .033 .133 .015 .053 .525 APRIL .216 .074 .034 .13* .015 .053 .526 MAY .216 .074 .034 .133 .015 .053 .525 JUNE .216 .073 .034 .13* .015 .053 .525 JULY .216 .073 .034 .138 .015 .054 .530 AUGUST .216 .074 .034 .1*0 .015 .054 •533 SEPTEMBER .216 .074 .034 .1*3 .015 .054 .536 OCTOBER .216 .074 .034 .1*3 .015 .054 .536 NOVEMBER .216 .075 .034 .144 .015 .054 .538 DECEMBER .216 .075 .034 .1*5 .015 .055 .540 Continued on next page I 80 I Table 11 — Ice Cream Mix and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL 1 ONSLMABLtt PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BU1LDINC EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollar i iter hundredweight .221 .076 .035 .11+6 .016 .056 .550 FEBRUARY .221 .076 .035 .146 .016 .056 .550 MARCH .221 .076 .035 .148 .016 .056 •552 \PRIL .221 .076 .036 .149 .016 .056 .554 MAY .221 .076 .036 .148 .016 .056 •553 JUNE .221 .076 .036 .147 .016 .057 •553 JULY .221 .076 .036 .146 .016 .057 .552 AUGUST .221 .076 .036 .151 .016 .057 •557 SEPTEMBER .221 .076 .036 .153 .016 .057 •559 OCTOBER .221 .077 .036 .153 .016 .057 .560 NOVEMBER .221 .076 .036 .153 .016 .057 •559 DECEMBER JANUARY .221 .078 .036 .153 .016 .057 .561 1957 .228 .080 .036 .153 .016 .057 .570 FEBRUARY .228 .082 .036 .152 .016 .057 .571 MARCH .228 .082 .036 .152 .016 .058 .572 APRIL .228 .082 .038 .151 .017 .058 .574 MAY .228 .081 .038 .151 .017 .059 .574 JUNE .228 .081 .038 .152 .017 .059 •575 JULY .228 .080 .038 .153 .017 .059 •575 AUGUST .228 .080 .038 .15* .017 .059 •576 SEPTEMBER .228 .080 .038 .153 .017 .059 •575 OCTOBER .228 .080 .038 .152 .017 .059 .574 NOVEMBER .228 .079 .038 .151 .017 .059 .572 DECEMBER JANUARY .228 .080 .038 .152 .017 .059 .574 .234 .080 .038 .151 .017 .059 •579 FEBRUARY .234 .078 .038 .151 .017 .059 •577 MARCH .234 .077 .038 .151 .017 .059 .576 APRIL .234 .076 .0U0 .150 .017 .059 .576 MAY .234 .076 .040 .150 .017 .059 .576 JUNE .234 .076 .040 .150 .017 .059 .576 JULY .234 .077 .041 .150 .018 .059 •579 AUGUST .234 .078 .04l .152 .018 .059 .582 SEPTEMBER .23*+ .078 .041 .152 .018 .059 .582 OCTOBER .234 .078 .041 .153 .018 .059 .583 NOVEMBER .23*+ .077 .041 .154 .018 .059 .583 DECEMBER .234 .078 .041 .154 .018 .059 .584 81 Continued on next page Table 11 — Ice Cream Mix and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL consumable! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUlLDIfsG EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST dollars per hundred vcight 1959 .1 \Nl ARY .260 .078 .o4i .154 .018 .059 .610 FEBRUARY .260 .079 ,o4i .151* .018 .059 .611 MARCH .260 .079 .041 • 155 .018 .059 .612 \PRIL .260 .078 .041 .15* .018 .059 .610 MAY .260 .078 .041 .15U .018 .059 .610 JUNE .260 .076 .04l • 15U .018 .059 .608 Jl'Ll .260 .076 .043 .15* .018 .059 .610 AUGUST .260 •077 .043 .15* .018 .059 .611 SEPTEMBER .260 •077 .043 • 155 .018 .059 .612 OCTOBER .260 .077 .042 .156 .018 .060 .613 NOVEMBER .260 .076 .042 • 157 .018 .060 .613 DECEMBER JANUARY .260 .077 .042 .156 .018 .060 .613 .283 •077 .043 .157 .018 .060 .638 FEBRUARY .283 .077 .043 .156 .018 .060 .637 MARCH .283 .077 .043 .156 .018 .060 .637 APRIL .283 •077 .044 .156 .019 .060 .639 MAY .283 .076 .044 • 155 .019 .060 .637 JUNE .283 .077 .044 • 155 .019 .060 .638 JULY .283 .078 .044 .15* .019 .060 .638 AUGUST .283 .079 .044 .155 .019 .060 .640 SEPTEMBER .283 .080 .044 • 155 .019 .060 .641 OCTOBER .283 .080 .044 .15"» .019 .060 .640 NOVEMBER .283 .080 .044 • 153 .019 .060 .639 DECEMBER .JAMAR1 .283 .080 .044 • 153 .019 .060 .639 .305 .081 .044 • 153 .019 .060 .662 KEBRl AR\ .305 .081 .044 • 153 .019 .060 .662 MARCH .305 .081 .044 •153 .019 .060 .662 APRIL .305 .079 .046 .15* .019 .060 .663 MAY .305 .078 .046 .151* .019 .060 .662 JUNE .305 .079 .046 • 15* .019 .060 .663 JULY .305 .079 .046 •15* .019 .060 .663 AUGUST .305 .079 .046 • 155 .019 .060 .664 SEPTEMBER .305 .078 .046 • 155 .019 .060 .663 OCTOBER .305 .078 .046 • 15* .019 .060 .662 .NOVEMBER .305 .078 .046 .153 .019 .060 .661 DECEMBER .305 •079 .046 • 15U .019 .060 .663 (Continued on next page I 82 I Table 11 — Ice Cream Mix and Nonfat Dry Milk, concluded •Calculation of constants used to adjust I95O-1961 cost figures for ice cream mix-nonfat dry milx: Labor Equipment Utilities Annual average labor costs. Annual average labor index, Consumable supplies Packaging supplies ■ 1961 196X isf!-- 18 * Annual average building costs, I96I Annual average index of construction and building costs, 1961 " Annual average equipment costs, 1961 •iSk Annual average index of metal and metal products, 1961 152.9 .OV = .1007 .0050 Annual average utility costs, 1961 Annual average index of fuel, power, and lighting materials, 196T 115.0 .0687 Annual average consumable supplies costs, 1961 Annual average of combined indexes for building costs, metal and metal products, and fuel, power and lighting materials, 1961 Annual average packaging supplies costs, 1961 Annual average index of wholesale prices, 1961 391.3 = .00U9 .060 1553 * Cons unable supply costs include laboratory supplies, Insurance. .0413 office supplies, cleaning supplies, and liability Table 12. Costs of Processing 100 Pounds of Milk Into Ice Cream Mix and Condensed Skim Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961* TOTAL consumable! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY % COST JANUARY dollars fter hundredweight .150 .047 .017 .087 .011 .312 FEBRUARY .150 .0Vf .017 .088 .011 .313 MARCH .150 .Okf .017 .088 .011 .313 APRIL .150 .046 .018 .088 .011 .313 MAY .150 .047 .018 .089 .011 .315 JUNE .150 .047 .018 .091 .012 .318 JULY .150 .Oi48 .018 .091 .012 .319 AUGUST .150 .048 .018 .093 .012 .321 SEPTEMBER .150 .oka .018 .095 .012 .323 OCTOBER .150 .048 .019 .097 .012 .326 NOVEMBER .150 .049 .019 .099 .012 .329 DECEMBER .150 .048 .019 .102 .012 .331 See p. 87 for footnotes . Continued on next page 83 Table 12 — Ice Cream Mix and Condensed Skim Milk, continued CONSL'MABLEt PACKAGING TOTAL PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILD1ISG EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollar. per hundred weight ^153 .01+9 .019 .104 .012 •337 KEBRUARY .153 .050 .019 .104 .012 .338 MARCH .153 .049 .019 .103 .012 .336 VPKIL .153 .049 .019 .103 .012 .336 MAY .153 .049 .019 .103 .012 .336 JUNE .153 .049 .019 .103 .012 .336 .11 LY .153 .049 .019 .102 .012 •335 AUGUST .153 .0U9 .019 .102 .012 •335 SEPTEMBER .153 .049 .019 .102 .012 •335 OCTOBER .153 .049 .019 .102 .012 •335 NOVEMBER .153 .0U9 .019 .103 .012 .336 DECEMBER JANUARY .153 .050 .019 .103 .012 •337 .161 .050 .019 .102 .012 .344 FEBRUARY .161 .049 .019 .103 .012 .344 MARCH .161 .050 .019 .103 .012 •3^5 APRIL .161 .049 .020 .103 .013 .346 MAY .161 .049 .020 .102 .013 .345 JUNE .161 .049 .020 .101 .013 .344 JULY .161 .049 .021 .102 .013 .346 AUGUST .161 .049 .021 .104 .013 .348 SEPTEMBER .161 .049 .021 .104 .013 .348 OCTOBER .161 .049 .020 .104 .013 .347 NOVEMBER .161 .049 .020 .104 .013 .347 DECEMBER JANUARY .161 .049 .020 .104 .013 .347 1953 .167 .050 .020 .104 .013 • 35 1 * 1 E BRIAR V .167 .050 .020 .104 .013 .35^ MARCH .167 .050 .020 .105 .013 • 355 APRIL .167 .050 .020 .105 .013 • 355 MAY .167 .049 .020 .105 .013 .35^ JUNE .167 .050 .020 .106 .013 .356 JULY .167 .051 .021 .108 .014 .361 AUGUST .167 .051 .021 .108 .014 .361 SEITEMBER .167 .051 .021 .108 .013 .360 0< TOBER .167 .051 .022 .107 .014 .361 NOVEMBER .167 .051 .022 .107 .014 .361 DECEMBER .167 .051 .022 4 .107 .014 - .361 Continued on next page I 84 Table 12 — Ice Cream Mix and Condensed Skim Milk, continued 1 TOTAL CONSUMABLEt PACKACINC PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY J COST JANUARY dollars fter hundredweight •171 .051 .022 .106 .014 J .364 FEBRUARY .171 .051 .022 .106 .014 .364 MARCH .171 .050 .022 .106 .014 .363 APRIL .171 • 050 .022 .106 .014 , .363 MAY .171 .050 .022 .106 .014 .363 JUNE .171 .050 .022 .106 .014 .363 JULY .171 .049 .023 .107 .014 .364 AUGUST .171 .01*9 .023 .108 .014 .365 SEPTEMBER .171 .049 .023 .108 .014 .365 OCTOBER .171 .049 .023 .109 .014 .366 NOVEMBER .171 .050 .023 .109 .014 .367 DECEMBER JANUARY .171 .050 .023 .109 .014 .367 195b .178 .050 .024 .109 .015 .376 FEBRUARY .178 .050 .024 .110 .015 • 377 MARCH .178 .050 .024 .110 .015 • 377 APRIL .178 .050 .024 .111 .015 .378 MAY .178 .0^9 .024 .111 .015 .377 JUNE .178 .049 .024 .111 .015 • 377 JULY .178 .049 .025 .114 .015 .381 AUGUST .178 .049 .025 .117 .015 .384 SEPTEMBER .178 .050 .025 .119 .015 .387 OCTOBER .178 .050 .025 .119 .015 .387 NOVEMBER .178 .050 .025 .120 .015 .388 DECEMBER JANUARY .178 .050 .025 .120 .015 .388 .182 .051 .025 .121 .016 • 395 FEBRUARY .182 .051 .025 .121 .016 • 395 MARCH .182 .051 .025 .123 .016 .397 \PKIL .182 .051 .026 .124 .016 .399 MAY .182 .051 .026 .123 .016 .398 JUNE .182 ,,051 .026 .122 .016 .397 J L'LY .182 .051 .026 .121 .016 .396 AUGUST .182 .051 .026 .126 .016 .401 SEPTEMBER .182 .051 .026 .127 .016 .402 OCTOBER .182 .051 .026 .127 .016 .402 NOVEMBER .182 .051 .026 .127 .016 .402 DECEMBER .182 .053 .026 .127 .016 .404 Continued on next page 85 Table 12 — Ice Cream Mix and Condensed Skim Milk, Continued TOTAL consumable! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LAMB UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY t COST JANUARY dollar ? jter hundredweight .188 .054 .026 .127 .016 .411 FEBRUARY .188 .055 .026 .127 .016 .412 MARCH .188 .055 .026 .126 .016 .411 APRIL .188 .055 .027 .126 .017 .413 MAY .188 .055 .027 .126 .017 ■ .413 JUNE .188 .054 .027 .126 .017 .412 JULY .188 .054 .027 .128 .017 .414 AUGUST .188 .054 .027 .128 .017 .414 SEPTEMBER .188 .054 .027 .127 .017 .413 OCTOBER .188 .053 .027 .126 .017 .411 NOVEMBER .188 .053 .027 .126 .017 .411 DECEMBER JANUARY .188 .054 .027 .126 .017 .412 .192 .054 .027 .126 .017 .416 FEBRUARY .192 .052 .027 .126 .017 .414 MARCH .192 .052 .027 .125 .017 .413 APRIL .192 .051 .029 .124 .017 .413 MAY .192 .051 .029 .124 .017 .413 JUNE .192 .051 .029 .125 .017 .414 JULY .192 .052 .030 .125 .018 .417 AUCUST .192 .052 .030 .126 .018 .418 SEPTEMBER .192 .053 .030 .127 .018 .420 OCTOBER .192 .052 .029 .127 .018 .418 NOVEMBER .192 .052 .029 .128 .018 .419 DECEMBER JANUARY .192 .052 .029 .128 .018 .419 .214 .053 .029 .128 .018 .442 FEBRUARY .214 .053 .029 .128 .018 .442 MARCH .2lU .053 .029 .129 .018 .443 \PRIL .214 .053 .030 .128 .018 .443 MAY .214 .052 .030 .128 .018 .442 JUNE .214 .051 .030 .128 .018 .441 JULY .214 .051 .031 .128 .018 .442 AUCUST .214 .052 .031 .128 .018 .443 SEPTEMBER .214 .052 .031 .129 .018 .444 OCTOBER .214 .051 .031 .129 .018 .443 NOVEMBER .214 .051 .031 .130 .018 .444 DECEMBER .214 .051 .031 .130 .018 .444 86 Continued on next page Table 12 — Ice Cream Mix and Condensed Skim Milk, concluded TOTAL CONSUMABLEt PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY j COST JANUARY dollar s fter hundredweight .233 .052 .031 .130 .018 ,h6k FEBRUARY .233 .052 .031 .130 .018 .k6h MARCH .233 .052 .031 .129 .018 .U63 APRIL .233 .052 .032 .129 .019 .U65 MAY .233 .051 .032 .129 .019 Mk JUNE .233 .052 .032 .129 .019 .1*65 JULY .233 .052 .031 .128 .019 .1*63 AUGUST .233 .053 .031 .129 .019 .H6$ SEPTEMBER .233 .05*+ .031 .128 .019 .1*65 OCTOBER .233 .05^ .032 .128 .019 .U66 NOVEMBER .233 .05U .032 .127 .019 .1+65 DECEMBER JANUARY .233 .054 .032 .127 .019 .1*65 .251 .05U .032 .127 .019 .1+83 FEBRUARY .251 .05^ .032 .127 .019 .U83 MARCH .251 .05^ .032 .128 .019 .kQk APRIL .251 .053 .033 .128 .019 .hQk MAY .251 .052 .033 .128 .019 .483 JUNE .251 .053 .033 .128 .019 .hQk JULY .251 .053 .033 .128 .019 .h8h AUGUST .251 .053 .033 .129 .019 .U85 SEPTEMBER .251 .052 .033 .129 .019 .hQk OCTOBER .251 .052 .033 .128 .019 .U83 NOVEMBER .251 .053 .033 .128 .019 .h&k DECEMBER .251 .053 .033 .128 .019 .k&k • Calculation of constants used to adjust 1950-1961 cost figures for ice cream mix -condensed skim milk: Labor Building Equipment Utilities Annual average labor costs, Annual average labor index, 1961 I96T I5f?3 .1529 Annual average building costs, 1961 • 03 Annual average index of construction and building costs, 1961 ~ ~90b m Annual average equipment costs, 1961 _ .126 m -g— " Annual average index of metal and metal products, 1961 ~ 152.9 " Annual average utility costs, 1961 .0036 115.0 .'C*6l Annual average index of fuel, power, and lighting materials, ,^, m ... „ ,. Annual average consumable supplies costs, 1961 .01$ Consumable supplies = ^^ aver& ^ of combined ^exes for building = jfij costs, metal and metal products, and fuel, power, and lighting materials, 1961 ' Consumable supply costs include laboratory supplies, office supplies, cleaning supplies, and liability - insurance. t r Blanks mean no packaging costs incurred in this plant. cS7 Table 13. Costs of Processing 100 Pounds of Milk Into Ice Cream Mix and Cottage Cheese, by Months, California, 1950-1961* TOTAL consumable! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST dollar s per hundredweight .234 .023 .020 .100 .011 .388 JANUARY .234 .023 .020 .100 .011 .388 FEBRUARY .234 .023 .020 .100 .011 .388 MARCH .234 .023 .020 .101 .011 .389 APRIL .234 .023 .020 .102 .011 .390 MAY .234 .024 .020 .104 .012 .394 JUNE .234 .02k .021 .104 .012 •395 JULY .234 .024 .021 .106 .012 •397 AUGUST .234 .024 .021 .108 .012 •399 SEPTEMBER .234 .024 .021 .111 .012 .402 OCTOBER .234 .024 .021 .113 .012 .404 NOVEMBER .234 .024 .021 .117 .012 .408 DECEMBER JANUARY .239 .024 .021 .119 .012 .415 FEBRUARY .239 .025 .021 .118 .012 .415 MARCH .239 .025 .021 .118 .012 .415 APRIL .239 .024 .022 .118 .012 .415 MAY .239 .024 .022 .118 .012 .415 JUNE .239 .024 .022 .117 .012 .414 JULY .239 .024 .022 .117 .012 .414 AUGUST .239 .024 .022 .117 .012 .414 SEPTEMBEK .239 .025 .022 .117 .012 .415 OCTOBER .239 .025 .022 .117 .012 .415 NOVEMBER .239 .025 .022 .117 .012 .415 DECEMBER JANUARY .239 .025 .022 .117 .012 .415 .251 .025 .022 .117 .012 .427 FEBRUARY .251 .025 .022 .117 .012 .427 MARCH .251 .025 .022 .117 .012 .427 APRIL .251 .024 .023 .117 .013 .428 MAY .251 .024 .023 .116 .013 .427 JUNE .251 .024 .023 .116 .013 .427 JULY .251 .024 .023 .117 .013 .428 AUGUST .251 .024 .023 .119 .013 .430 SEPTEMBER .251 .024 .023 .119 .013 .430 OCTOBER .251 .025 .023 .119 .013 .431 NOVEMBER .251 .025 .023 .118 .013 .430 DECEMBER .251 .025 .023 .119 .013 .431 See p. < n for : Footnot es. I 88 Continued on next page Table 13 — Ice Cream Mix and Cottage Cheese, continued TOTAL (.U.VSLMABLfct PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDINC EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars per hundred weight .261 .025 .023 .119 .013 .441 FEBRUARY .261 .025 .023 .119 .013 .441 MARCH .261 .025 .023 .120 .013 .442 \PKIL .261 .025 .023 .120 .013 .442 MAY .261 .025 .023 .120 .013 .442 JUNE .261 .025 .023 .121 .013 .443 JULY .261 .026 .024 .124 .014 .449 AUGUST .261 .026 .024 .124 .014 .449 SEPTEMBER .261 .026 .024 .123 .013 .447 OCTOBER .261 .026 .025 .122 .014 .448 NOVEMBER .261 .026 .025 .122 .014 .448 DECEMBER JANUARY .261 .026 .025 .122 .014 .446 .268 .025 .025 .122 .014 .454 FEBRUARY .268 .025 .025 .121 .014 .453 MARCH .268 .025 .025 .121 .014 .453 APRIL .268 .025 .025 .121 .014 .453 MAY .268 .025 .025 .122 .014 .454 JUNE .268 .025 .025 .122 .014 .454 JULY .268 .02*+ .026 .122 .014 .454 AUGUST .268 .025 .026 .123 .014 .456 SEPTEMBER .268 .025 .026 .123 .014 .456 OCTOBER .268 .025 .027 .124 .014 .458 NOVEMBER .268 .025 .027 .124 .014 .458 DECEMBER JANUARY .268 .025 .027 .124 .014 .458 .278 .025 .027 .124 .015 .469 FEBRUARY .278 .025 .027 .126 .015 .471 MARCH .278 .025 .027 .126 .015 .471 APRIL .278 .025 .028 .127 .015 .473 MAY .278 .025 .028 .127 .015 .473 JUNE .278 .025 .028 .127 .015 .473 JULY .278 .024 .028 .131 .015 .476 AUGUST .278 .025 .028 .133 .015 .479 SEPTEMBER .278 .025 .028 .136 .015 .482 OCTOBER .278 .025 .028 .136 .015 .482 NOVEMBER .278 .025 .028 .137 .015 .483 DECEMBER .278 .025 .028 .138 .015 .464 89 Continued on next page Table 13 — Ice Cream Mix and Cottage Cheese, continued TOTAL 1 iinsI MABLL" PACKAGING PR«H KSSINC MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILD1>C EQUIPMENT M..PPLY hLPPLY COST JANUARY dollar v per hundri-i iweight .1956 .285 .026 .028 .139 .016 .*9* FEBRUARY .285 .026 .028 .139 .016 .494 MARCH .285 .026 .028 .1*0 .016 .495 VI'KIL .285 .025 .030 .1*1 .016 .497 MAY .285 .025 .030 .1*0 .016 .496 JUNE .285 .025 .030 .139 .016 .495 JULY .285 .025 .030 .139 .016 .495 AUGUST .285 .026 .030 .1** .016 .501 SEPTEMBER .285 .026 .030 .1*5 .016 .502 OCTOBER .285 .025 .030 .1*6 .016 .502 NOVEMBER .285 .026 .030 .1*5 .016 .502 DECEMBER JANUARY .285 .026 .030 .146 .016 .503 .29^ .027 .030 .146 .016 .513 FEBRUARY .29^ .028 .030 .1*5 .016 .513 MARCH .29^ .027 .030 .1** .016 .511 APRIL .29^ .027 .031 .1*3 .017 .512 MAY .29^ .027 .031 .1*3 .017 .512 JUNE .29^ .027 .031 .1** .017 .513 JULY .29U .027 .031 .1*6 .017 .515 AUGUST .29^ .027 .031 .146 .017 .515 SEPTEMBER .29^ .027 .031 .1*6 .017 .515 OCTOBER .29^ .027 .031 .1** .017 .513 NOVEMBER .294 .027 .031 .1** .017 .513 DECEMBER JANUARY .294 .027 .031 .11** .017 .513 .301 .027 .031 .1*3 .017 .519 FEBRUARY .301 .026 .031 .143 .017 .518 MARCH .301 .026 .031 .1*3 .017 .518 APRIL .301 .026 .033 .1*2 .017 .519 MAY .301 .025 .033 .1*2 .017 .518 JUNE .301 .025 .033 .1*2 .017 .518 JULY .301 .026 .03U .1*2 .018 .521 AUGUST .301 .026 .03k .1** .018 .523 SEPTEMBER .301 .026 .031* .1*5 .018 .524 OCTOBER .301 .026 .033 .1*6 .018 .524 NOVEMBER .301 .026 .033 .1*6 .018 .524 DECEMBER .301 .026 .033 .1*6 .018 .524 Continued on next page 90 Table 13— Ice Cream Mix and Cottage Cheese, continued TOTAL consumable" PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollar* per hundredweight 1959 • 335 .026 .033 .1146 .018 •558 FEBRUARY • 335 .026 .033 .147 .018 •559 MARCH • 335 .026 .033 .147 .018 •559 APRIL • 335 .026 .034 .1U6 .018 •559 MAY .335 .026 .034 .11*6 .018 •559 JUNE • 335 .026 .034 .147 .018 .560 JULY • 335 .026 .035 .146 .018 .560 AUGUST • 335 .026 .035 .11*6 .018 .560 SEPTEMBER • 335 .026 .035 .147 .018 .561 OCTOBER • 335 .026 .035 .148 .018 .562 NOVEMBER .335 .026 .035 .149 .018 .563 DECEMBER JANUARY • 335 .026 .035 .148 .018 .562 ij6b .364 .026 .035 .149 .018 •592 FEBRUARY • 364 .026 .035 .148 .018 .591 MARCH .364 .026 .035 .148 .018 .591 APRIL .364 .026 .036 .148 .019 •593 MAY .364 .025 .036 .147 .019 •591 JUNE .364 .026 .036 .147 .019 .592 JULY .364 .026 .036 .147 .019 .592 AUGUST • 364 .02? .036 .147 .019 •593 SEPTEMBER .364 .027 .036 .147 .019 •593 OCTOBER .364 .027 .036 .li«6 .019 •592 NOVEMBER • 364 .027 .036 .11*6 .019 .592 DECEMBER JANUARY .364 .027 .036 .11*6 .019 •592 l?5l • 393 .027 .036 .146 .019 .621 FEBRUARY • 393 .027 .036 .11*6 .019 .621 MARCH .393 .027 .036 .146 .019 .621 APRIL .393 .026 .038 .11*6 .019 .622 MAY • 393 .026 .038 .11*6 .019 .622 JUNE .393 .026 .038 .11*6 .019 .622 JULY .393 .026 .038 .146 .019 .622 AUGUST .393 .026 .038 .147 .019 .623 SEPTEMBER .393 .026 .038 .147 .019 .623 OCTOBER .393 .026 .037 .11*6 .019 .621 NOVEMBER .393 .026 .037 .11*6 .019 .621 DECEMBER .393 .026 .037 .11*6 .019 .621 91 I Continued on next page Table 13 — Ice Cream Mix and Cottage Cheese, concluded • Calculation of constants used to adjust 1950-1961 cost figures for ice cream mix -cottage cheese: Labor Building Equipment Utilities Annual average labor costs. Annual average labor index, 1961 1951 " 15573 .2391 Annual average building costs , I96I • 0] Annual average index of construction and building costs. Annual average equipment costs, 1961 Annual average index of metal and metal products, Annual average utility costs, 1961 T90T 19dT = .1U6 152.9 - .ooUi - .0956 power Annual average index of fuel. Annual average consumable supplies costs, I961 Consumable supplies = ^^ g^gg Qf comblned 1 ^ exe8 for bSnggg costs, metal and metal products and lighting materials, 1961 and lighting materials .019 391.3 and fuel, power, 196T - .COU9 .026 115.0 .0230 * Consumable supply costs include laboratory supplies, office supplies, cleaning supplies, and liability insurance. * Blanks mean no packaging costs incurred in this plant. Table 14. Costs of Processing 100 Pounds of Milk Into Evaporated Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961* TOTAL consumable! PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars per hundred weight .221 .01+6 1 .019 .072 .015 1.021 1.39 1 * FEBRUARY .221 .01+6 .019 .073 .015 1.021 1.395 MARCH .221 .01*6 .019 .073 .015 1.021 1.395 APRIL .221 .oi+6 .020 .073 .015 1.021 1.396 MAY .221 .01+6 .020 .07U .015 1.021 1.397 JUNE .221 .01+6 .020 .075 .016 1.021 1.399 JULY .221 .01+7 .021 .076 .016 1.021 1.1+02 AUGUST .221 .01+7 .021 .077 .016 1.021 1.1+03 SEPTEMBER .221 .01+7 .021 .079 .016 1.021 1.1+05 OCTOBER .221 .01+7 .021 .080 .016 1.021 1.1+06 NOVEMBER .221 .01+8 .021 .082 .016 1.021 1.1+09 DECEMBER »— .221 .oi+7 .021 .081+ .016 1.021 1.1+10 See p. 96 for footnotes. Continued on next page 92 Table 14 — Evaporated Milk, continued TOTAL ONSUMABLfct HACK AC INC PROCESS! .NC MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BU1LD1NC EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars fter hundredweight .226 .048 .021 .086 .016 1.183 1.580 FEBRUARY .226 .049 .021 .086 .016 1.183 1.581 MARCH .226 .01+8 .021 .085 .016 1.183 1.579 U»K1L .226 .048 .021 .085 .017 1.183 1.580 MAY .226 .048 .021 .085 .017 1.183 1.580 JUNE .226 .048 .021 .085 .017 1.183 1.580 JULY .226 .048 .021 .085 .017 1.183 1.580 AUGUST .226 .048 .021 .085 .017 1.183 1.580 SEPTEMBER .226 .048 .021 .085 .017 1.183 1.580 OCTOBER .226 .048 .021 .085 .017 1.184 1.581 NOVEMBER .226 .048 .021 .085 .017 1.184 1.581 DECEMBER JANUARY .226 .049 .021 .085 .017 1.184 1.582 1 .237 .049 .021 .085 .017 1.184 1.593 FEBRUARY .237 .048 .021 .O85 .017 1.184 1.592 MARCH .237 .049 .021 .085 .017 1.184 1.593 APRIL .237 .048 .023 .085 .017 1.184 1.59 1 * MAY •237 .048 .023 .084 .017 1.184 1.593 JUNE .237 .048 .023 .084 .017 1.184 1.593 JULY •237 .048 .023 .084 .018 1.184 1.59 1 * AUGUST .237 .048 .023 .086 .018 1.218 1.630 SEPTEMBER .237 .048 .023 .086 .018 1.218 1.630 OCTOBER .237 .048 .022 .086 .017 1.218 1.628 NOVEMBER .237 .048 .022 .086 .017 1.218 1.628 DECEMBER JANUARY •237 .048 .022 .086 .017 1.218 1.628 .246 .049 .022 .086 .017 1.218 1.638 FEBRUARY .246 .049 .022 .086 .017 1.218 1.638 MARCH .246 .049 .022 .087 .017 1.218 1.639 APRIL .246 .049 .022 .087 .017 1.218 1.639 MAY .246 .048 .022 .087 .017 1.218 1.638 JUNE .246 .048 .022 .088 .017 1.218 1.640 JULY .246 .050 .023 .090 .018 1.218 1.645 AUGUST .246 .05c .023 .090 .018 1.218 1.645 SEPTEMBER .2U6 .050 .023 .089 .018 1.218 1.644 OCTOBER .2h6 .050" .024 .089 .018 1.218 1.645 NOVEMBER .246 .050 .024 .089 .018 1.218 1.645 DECEMBER .2U6 .050 .024 .088 .018 1.218 1.644 Continued on next page 93 Table 14 — Evaporated Milk, continued TOTAL CONSUMABLE! PACKAGING PROChSSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDIfsC EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars per hundredweight 195* A .253 .050 .021* .088 .018 1 1.202 1.635 , February .253 .050 .02U .087 .018 1.202 1.631* MARCH .253 .0^9 .021* .088 .018 1.202 1.63U APRIL .253 .0U9 .025 .088 .019 1.202 1.636 MAY .253 .0^9 .025 .088 .019 1.202 1.636 JUNE .253 .01*9 .025 .088 .019 1.202 1.636 JULY .253 .01*8 .025 .089 .019 1.202 1.636 AUGUST .253 .0U8 .025 .089 .019 1.202 1.636 SEPTEMBER .253 .0U8 .025 .089 .019 1.202 1.636 OCTOBER .253 .01*8 .026 .090 .019 1.219 1.655 NOVEMBER .253 .0U9 .026 .090 .019 1.219 1.656 DECEMBER JANUARY .253 .01*9 .026 .090 1 .019 1.219 1.656 .262 .0U9 .026 .090 .020 1.219 1.666 FEBRUARY .262 .0U9 .026 .091 .020 1.219 1.667 MARCH .262 .0U9 .026 .091 .020 1.219 1.667 APRIL .262 .01*9 .027 .092 .020 1.219 1.669 MAY .262 .01*8 .027 .092 .020 1.219 1.668 JUNE .262 .01*8 .027 .092 .020 1.219 1.668 JULY .262 .01*8 .028 .095 .021 1.219 1.673 AUGUST .262 .01*8 .028 .097 .021 1.219 1.675 SEPTEMBER .262 .01*9 .028 .098 .021 1.219 1.677 OCTOBER .262 .0U9 .027 .099 .021 1.286 1.7W* NOVEMBER .262 .01*9 .027 .099 .021 1.286 1.7^ DECEMBER JANUARY .262 .01*9 .027 .100 .021 1.286 1.7^5 .269 .01*9 .028 .101 .021 1.286 1.755 FEBRUARY .269 .01*8 .028 .101 .021 1.286 1.755 MARCH .269 .01*9 .028 .102 .021 1.286 1.756 APRIL .269 .01*8 .029 .102 .022 1.286 1.758 MAY .269 .01*8 .029 .102 .022 1-353 1.825 JUNE .269 .01*8 .029 .101 .022 1.353 I.82U JULY .269 .01*8 .029 .100 .022 1.353 1.823 AUGUST SEPTEMBER ArTHRRR .269 .269 .01*8 .01*8 .029 .029 .101* .105 .022 .022 1.353 1.353 1.827 1.828 UL 1 * it> r.r\ NOVEMBER DECEMBER .269 .269 .01*8 .01*8 .029 .029 .105 .105 .022 .022 1.353 1.371 1.828 1.81*6 .269 .01*8 .029 .106 .022 1.371 1.81*9 Continued on next page 94 Table 14 — Evaporated Milk, continued TOTAL l.ONSUMABLtt PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY (foliar /ter hundred weight .278 .053 .029 .105 .022 1.371 1.858 FEBRUARY .278 .054 .029 .105 .022 1.371 1.859 MARCH .278 .054 .029 .105 .022 1.371 1.859 XPRIL .278 .054 .030 .104 .023 1.371 1.860 MAY .278 .054 .030 .104 .023 1.430 1.919 JUNE .278 .053 .030 .104 .023 1.430 1.918 JULY .278 .053 .031 .106 .023 1.430 1.921 AUGUST .278 .053 .031 .106 .023 1.430 1.921 SEPTEMBER .278 .052 .031 .105 .023 1.430 1.919 (MTOBER .278 .052 .030 .105 .023 1.430 1.918 NOVEMBER .278 .052 .030 .104 .023 1.430 1.917 DECEMBER JANUARY .278 .053 .030 .104 .023 1.430 1.918 .284 .052 .030 .104 .023 1.430 1.923 FEBRUARY .284 .051 .030 .104 .022 1.430 1.921 MARCH .284 .051 .030 .104 .022 1.430 1.921 APRIL .284 .050 .032 .103 .023 1.430 1.922 MAY .284 .050 .032 .103 .023 1.430 1.922 JUNE .284 .050 .032 .103 .023 1.430 1.922 JULY .284 .051 .033 .103 .024 1.430 1.925 AUGUST .284 .051 .033 .105 .024 1.430 1.927 SEPTEMBER .284 .052 .033 .105 .024 1.430 1.928 OCTOBER .284 .051 .032 .105 .024 1.430 1.926 NOVEMBER .284 .051 .032 .106 .024 1.483 1.980 DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL .284 .051 .032 .106 .024 1.483 1.980 .316 .316 .316 .316 .051 .052 .052 .052 .033 .033 .033 .033 .106 .106 .106 .106 .024 .024 .024 .024 1.483 1.483 1.483 1.483 2.013 2.014 2.014 2.014 MAY .316 .051 .033 .106 .024 1.483 2.013 JUNE JULY .316 .050 •033 .106 .024 1.483 2.012 .316 .050 .034 .106 .025 1.483 2.014 AUGUST .316 .050 .034 .106 .025 1.483 2.015 SEITEMBER .316 .051 .034 .107 .025 1.483 2.016 OCTOBER .316 .050 .034 .107 .025 1.483 2.015 NOVEMBER .316 .050. .034 .108 .025 1.483 2.016 DECEMBER .316 .050 .034 .108 .025 1.483 2.016 Continued on next page 95 Table 14 — Evaporated Milk, concluded TOTAL CO.NSUMABLEt PACKAGING PROCESSING MONTH LABOR UTILITIES BUILDING EQUIPMENT SUPPLY SUPPLY COST JANUARY dollars fter hundredweight I960 .344 .051 .03^ .108 .025 l.i+83 2.045 FEBRUARY • 344 .051 .03^ .108 .025 1.483 2.045 .MARCH • 344 .051 .03^ .107 .025 1.1*83 2.044 VPRIL ,3kk .051 .035 .107 .025 1.483 2.045 MAY .344 .050 .035 .107 .025 1.483 2.044 JUNE •344 .051 .035 .107 .025 1.483 2.045 JULY .344 .051 .035 .106 .025 1.483 2.044 AUGUST • 344 .052 .035 .106 .025 1.483 2.045 SEPTEMBER • 344 .052 .035 .106 .025 1.483 2.045 OCTOBER • 344 .053 .035 .106 .025 1.483 2.046 NOVEMBER .344 .052 .035 .106 .025 1.483 2.045 DECEMBER JANUARY • 344 .053 .035 .105 .025 1.483 2.045 • 371 .053 .035 .105 .025 1.483 2.072 FEBRUARY • 371 .053 .035 .106 .025 1.483 2.073 MARCH .371 •053 .035 .106 .025 1.483 2.073 APRIL .371 .052 .037 .106 .026 1.483 2.075 MAY .371 .051 .037 .106 .026 1.483 2.074 JUNE .371 .052 .037 .106 .026 1.483 2.075 JULY .371 .052 .037 .106 .026 1.483 2.075 AUGUST .371 .052 .037 .106 .026 1.483 2.075 SEPTEMBER .371 .051 .037 .107 .026 1.483 2.075 OCTOBER .371 .051 .036 .106 .026 1.483 2.073 NOVEMBER .371 .052 .036 .106 .026 1.483 2.074 DECEMBER • 371 .052 .036 .106 .026 1.483 2.074 Calculation of constants used to adjust 1950-1961 cost figures for evaporated milk! Labor Building Equipment Utilities Consumable supplies . Annual average labor costs, 196l Annual average labor index, 196I u Annual average building costs, 1961 m--*# Annual average index of construction and building costs, 1961 * Annual average equipment costs, 1961 .106" Annual average index of metal and metal products, 1961 = 152. 9 Annual average utility costs, 196l Annual average index of fuel, power, and lighting materials, 1961 = 115.0 Annual average consumable supplies costs, 196l .026 ^^- Annual average of combined indexes for building = 391.3 ~ • 00b0 costs, metal and metal products, and fuel, power, and lighting materials, 1961 «= .0040 .0693 .052 .OU52 Packaging supplies i96L .9194 Annual average packaging supplies costB, Annual average index of tinplate, electr hot dipped, 1961 f lna!£SSi e 8upply costs incl «de laboratory supplies, office supplies, cleaning supplies, and liability insurance. I 96 I Table 15. Adjusted Average Prices Paid by San Joaquin Valley Condenseries for Milk for Manufacturing, by Months, California, 1950-1962 S\N JOAQUIN EAT TEST Ol ADJUSTED \ MA.VA MILK USED PRICK 3.8 PER CENT KOR l K\w MILK Month PRICK M \\TFACTURI\C* COST ) t* Hollars per dollars per ixni \m hundredweight per cent hundredweight 1950 3.25 4.21 3.60 1 KBR! \m 3-25 3.89 3.33 MARCH 3-23 3.66 3.11 \PRIL 3.17 3.47 2.89 MAY 3.14 3.38 2.79 JUNE 3.10 3.41 2.78 JULY 3.10 3.44 2.81 vrorsT 3.17 3.52 2.93 SEPTEMBER 3.25 3.67 3.14 OCTOBER 3.42 3.89 3.50 NOV KM BLR 3-50 4.01 3.69 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.52 4.03 3.72 1951 3.76 4.15 4.11 1 KBRUARY 3.82 3.94 3.96 MARCH 3.86 3.76 3.82 APRIL 3.94 3.53 3.66 MAY 4.02 3.47 3.59 JUNE 4.05 3.40 3.62 JULY 4.05 3.47 3.70 AUGUST 4.05 3.56 3.79 SKPT EMBER 4.05 3.74 3.99 OCTOBER 4.05 3.96 4.22 NOVEMBER 4.05 4.01 4.27 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.17 4.17 4.58 4.20 4.33 4.79 KKBRUARY 4.28 3.84 4.33 MARCH 4.46 3.73 4.38 APRIL 4.47 3.53 4.15 MAY 4.48 3.29 3.88 JUNE 4.38 3.35 3.86 JULY 4.48 3.37 3.97 AUGUST 4.51 3.46 4.11 S KPT EMBER 4,58 3.69 4.45 OCTOBER 4.58 3.79 4.57 NOVEMBER 4.58 4.04 4.87 DECEMBER 4.50 4.28 5.07 See p. 101 for footnotes. [97 1 Continued on next page Table 15 — Prices Paid, San Joaquin Valley Condenseries, for Milk, cont S\N JOAQITX FAT TEST OF M) JUSTED VALLEY MILK USED PRICE 3.8 PER CENT FOR (RAW MILK Month PRICE MANUFACTURING* COST)T Hollars per dollars per JANUARY hundredweight per cent hundredweight 1953 4.49 4.15 4.90 FEBRUARY 4.52 3.71 4.43 MARCH 4.43 3.55 4.20 APRIL 4. 11 3-42 3.79 MAY 3.82 3.40 3.51 J UNE 3.69 3.37 3.36 JULY 3.68 3.35 3.34 lUCL'ST 3.73 3.49 3.50 SEPTEMBER 3.77 3.67 3.67 OCTOBER 3.78 3.84 3.81 NOVEMBER 3.78 3.92 3.87 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.77 4.02 3.94 1954 3.65 4.05 3.83 FEBRUARY 3.57 3.86 3.61 MARCH 3.^3 3.69 3.35 APRIL 3.27 3.51 3.08 MAY 3.16 3.35 2.87 JUNE 3.1^ 3.33 2.83 JULY 3.16 3.36 2.87 UCUST 3.21 3.49 3.01 SEPTEMBER 3.27 3.69 3.20 OCTOBER 3.33 3.81 3.34 NOVEMBER 3.41 3.93 3.50 DECEMBER JVM'ARI 3.41 4.09 3.60 1955 3-42 4.22 3.70 FEBRUARY 3.42 3.90 3.49 MARCH 3.39 3.64 3.28 \PRIL 3.34 3.43 3.10 MAY 3.28 3.39 3.01 JUNE 3.27 3.35 2.97 JULY 3.30 3.36 3.01 M GUST 3.33 3.43 3.09 SEPTEMBER 3.36 3.63 3.25 OCTOBER 3-40 3.79 3.39 NOVEMBER 3.40 3.96 3.50 DECEMBER 3.45 4.09 3.64 Continued on next page I 98 I Table lS^Prices Paid, San Joaquin Valley Condenseries, for Milk, cont SAN JOAQUIN FAT TEST OF XDJUSTED \\U.K\ MILK USED PRICE 3.8 PER CENT FOR IK AW MILK Month PRICE MANUFACTl KIM,* COST)t Hollars per dollars per J ANUARY hundredweight per cent hundredweight 3-45 4.08 3.63 FEBRUARY 3-45 3.91 3.52 MARCH 3.H 3.56 3.25 APRIL 3-36 3.45 3.13 MAY 3.35 3.33 3.06 JUNE 3.35 3.24 2.99 .ILLY 3.35 3.30 3.02 AUGUST 3-40 3.42 3.15 SEPTEMBER 3.50 3.60 3.36 OCTOBER 3.60 3.83 3.62 NOVEMBER 3.65 4.02 3.80 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.70 4.06 3.89 1957 3.70 4.19 3.99 FEBRUARY 3.70 3.86 •3.74 MARCH 3.60 3.70 3.53 APRIL 3.50 3.41 3.23 MAY 3.^8 3.32 3.15 JUNE 3.45 3.28 3.11 JULY 3^5 3.30 3.12 AUGUST 3.45 3.41 3.20 SEPTEMBER 3.50 3.62 3.37 OCTOBER 3.50 3.88 3.56 NOVEMBER 3.50 3.95 3.60 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.50 4.08 3.70 3.49 4.14 3.72 FEBRUARY 3.48 3.96 3.59 MARCH 3.45 3.84 3.48 APRIL 3.34 3.71 3.28 MAY 3.25 3.28 2.91 JUNE 3.25 3.24 2.89 JULY 3.25 3.29 2.92 AUGUST 3.25 3.34 2.95 SEPTEMBER 3.31 3.57 3.16 OCTOBER 3.40 3.73 3.35 NOVEMBER 3.45 3.87 3.50 DECEMBER 3.45 3.97 3.56 Continued on next page 99 Table 15 — Prices Paid, San Joaquin Valley Condenseries, for Milk, cont SAN JOAQUIN FAT TEST OF ADJUSTED VALLEY MILK USED PRICE 3.8 PER CENT FOR (RAW MILK Month PRICE MANUFACTURING* cost)! dollars per dollars per JANUARY hundredweight per cent hundredweight 3^5 4.09 3.64 FEBRUARY 3-^5 3.95 3.55 MARCH 3-*5 3.62 3.33 APRIL 3-^5 3.3^ 3.15 MAY 3.45 3.30 3.12 JUNE 3-^5 3.28 3.11 JULY 3-^5 3.30 3.12 AUGUST 3-1*5 3.38 3.18 SEPTEMBER 3-^5 3.61 3-33 OCTOBER 3^5 3.75 3-42 NOVEMBER 3.^5 3.84 3.48 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.45 3.95 3.55 3.^5 U.15 3.68 FEBRUARY 3^5 3.90 3.52 MARCH 3.4o 3.64 3.30 APRIL 3-35 3.3^ 3.05 MAY 3-30 3.31 2.98 JUNE 3.30 3.26 2.95 JULY 3.30 3.30 2.98 AUGUST 3-30 3.38 3.03 SEPTEMBER 3-37 3.57 3.22 OCTOBER 3.^5 3.76 3.42 NOVEMBER 3.^5 3.98 3.57 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.^5 4.07 3.63 3-*5 4.10 3.64 FEBRUARY 3- 45 3.82 3.46 MARCH 3.50 3.61 3.37 APRIL 3-55 3.42 3.28 MAY 3.55 3.40 3.27 JUNE 3-55 3.36 3.24 JULY 3.^5 3.35 3.14 AUGUST 3.^5 3.42 3.20 SEPTEMBER 3-^5 3.61 3.33 OCTOBER 3.50 3.81 3.51 NOVEMBER 3.50 3.98 3.63 DECEMBER 3.50 4.10 3.71 Continued on next page 100 Table 15 — Prices Paid, San Joaquin Valley Condenseries, for Milk, SAN JOAQUIN FAT TEST OF ADJUSTED VALLEY MILK USED PRICE 3.8 PEH CENT FOR (RAW MILK Month PRICE MANUFACTURING* COST ) f Hollars per dollars per JANUARY hundredweight per cent hundredweight 1962 3.50 4.22 3-77 FEBRUARY 3^9 4.12 3.70 MARCH 3.44 3. 87 3.49 \PRIL 3.30 3.49 3.10 MAY 3.25 3.35 2.96 JUNE 3.25 3.31 2.93 JULY 3.25 3.33 2.94 AUGUST 3.25 3.41 3.00 'Computed on the basis of the average of actual milk available for manufacture. Prices adjusted from 3.8 per cent fat basis to average fat test. Adjustment was required because pro- duct yields were calculated on the basis of the average fat test. Prices from January, 1950 through March, 1953, were adjusted by direct ratio; thereafter actual differentials, supplied by the Califor- nia Bureau of Milk Stabilization, were used. Sourcet Price data obtained in letter of May, 1963 from L. R. Walker, Milk Economist, California Bureau of Milk Stabilization. Table 16. Partial Net Margins for Cream and Nonfat Dry Milk per 100 Pounds of Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961 TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE VALUE OF (COLUMN 1 RAW (COLUMN 3 (COLUMN OF NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH CREAM DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars icr hundredw eight 3^5 1.06 k.51 3.60 .91 M .46 FEBRUARY 3.19 1.04 4.23 3.33 .90 .*5 M MARCH 2.86 1.04 3.90 3.11 •79 .*5 .3* APRIL 2.64 1.03 3.67 2.89 .78 .*5 .33 MAY 2.56 1.03 3.59 2.79 .80 •*5 .35 JUNE 2.% 1.03 3.6l 2.78 .83 .46 .38 JULY 2.67 1.03 3.70 2.81 .89 .46 M AUGUST 2.79 1.03 3.82 2.93 .89 .46 A3 SEPTEMBER 3.08 1.04 4.12 3.14 .98 .hi .51 OCTOBER 3.29 1.04 ^•33 3.50 .83 .v, .36 NOVEMBER 3^3 1.05 4.48 3.69 .79 .48 .31 DECEMBER 3.56 1.05 . _ . i — 1 4.61 3.72 .89 .48 .41 See p. 105 for footnotes* Continued on next page 101 Table 16— Partial Net Margins for Cream and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE VALUE OF (column 1 RAW ( COLUMN 3 ( COLUMN OF NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH CREAM DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars per Jiundredweifoht 1951 3.9^ 1.05 4.99 4.11 .88 .49 • 39 FEBRUARY 3.7^ 1.05 4.79 3.96 •83 .49 .34 MARCH 3^3 1.25 4.68 3.82 .86 .49 • 37 APRIL 3.20 1.24 4.44 3.66 .78 .49 .29 MAY 3.21 1.24 4.45 3.59 .86 .49 • 37 JUNE 3. IT 1.23 4.40 3.62 .78 .49 .29 JULY 3.12 1.24 4.36 3.70 .66 .49 .17 AUGUST 3.15 1.24 4.39 3.79 .60 .49 .11 SEPTEMBER 3.35 1.25 4.60 3.99 .61 .49 .12 OCTOBER 3.67 1.26 4.93 4.22 •71 .49 .22 NOVEMBER 3.89 1.26 5.15 4.27 .88 .49 •39 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.29 1.26 5.55 4.58 •97 .49 .48 4.56 1.27 5.83 4.79 1.04 .50 .54 FEBRUARY 4.31 1.25 5.56 4.33 1.23 .50 .73 MARCH 3.86 1.25 5.11 4.38 •73 .50 .23 APRIL 3.29 1.1*0 4.69 4.15 .54 .50 .04 MAY 3.05 1.39 4.44 3.88 .56 .50 .06 JUNE 3.09 1.40 4.49 3.86 .63 .50 .13 JULY 3.18 1.40 4.58 3.97 .61 .50 .11 AUGUST 3. *K) 1.40 4.80 4.11 .69 .50 .19 SEPTEMBER 3.61 1.41 5.02 4.45 •57 .50 .07 OCTOBER 3.66 1.42 5.08 4.57 .51 .50 .01 NOVEMBER 3.81 1.43 5.24 4.87 • 37 .50 -.13 DECEMBER JANUARY 3-90 1.44 5.34 5.07 .27 .50 -23 1953 3.73 1.43 5.16 4.90 .26 .51 -.25 FEBRUARY 3.33 1.41 4.74 4.43 .31 .51 -.20 MARCH 3.18 1.41 4.59 4.20 • 39 •52 -13 APRIL 2.92 1.32 4.24 3.79 .45 .51 -.06 MAY 2.90 1.32 4.22 3.51 .71 .51 .21 JUNE 2.88 1.32 4.20 3.36 .84 .51 • 33 JULY 2.86 1.31 4.17 3.34 .83 .52 .31 AUGUST 3.01 1.32 4.33 3.50 .83 .52 .31 SEPTEMBER 3.19 1.33 4.52 3.67 .85 .52 • 33 OCTOBER 3.40 1.33 4.73 3.81 • 92 •52 .40 NOVEMBER 3^5 1.34 4.79 3.87 .92 •52 .40 DECEMBER 3.^7 1.34 4.81 3.94 .87 .52 •35 k 102 Continued on next pa^e Table 16 — Partial Net Margins for Cream and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE VALUE OF (COLUMN 1 RAW ( COLUMN 3 ( COLUMN OF NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH CREAM DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars , ocr hundredweight 195* 3.1*6 1.3* *.82 3.83 • 99 • 53 .46 FEBRUARY 3-31 1.3* *.65 3.61 1.04 • 52 • 52 MARCH 3.11 1.33 4.44 3.35 1.09 • 52 • 57 APRIL 2.66 1.2* 3.90 3.08 .82 .52 .30 MAY 2.49 1.23 3.72 2.87 .85 .52 • 33 JUNE 2.47 1.23 3.70 2.83 .87 • 52 • 35 JULY 2.52 1.23 3.75 2.87 .88 .52 .36 AUGUST 2.65 1.2* 3.89 3.01 .88 • 53 • 35 SEPTEMBER 2.84 1.2* *.08 3.20 .88 • 53 • 35 OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2.98 3.09 1.25 1.27 *.23 *.36 3.3* 3.50 .89 .86 • 53 • 53 .36 • 33 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.25 1.27 *.52 3.60 • 92 • 53 •39 1955 3.31 1.28 *.59 3.70 .89 .5* •35 FEBRUARY 3.01* 1.27 *.3l 3.*9 .82 .5* .28 MARCH 2.83 1.26 *.09 3.28 .81 .5* .27 APRIL 2.57 1.25 3.82 3.10 .72 .5* .18 MAY 2.5* 1.25 3.79 3.01 .78 .5* .24 JUNE 2.5* 1.2* 3.78 2.97 .81 .5* .27 JULY 2.54 1.2* 3.78 3.01 .77 • 55 .22 AUGUST 2.61 1.25 3.86 3.09 • 77 • 55 .22 SEPTEMBER 2.83 1.26 *.09 3.25 .84 • 55 .29 OCTOBER 2.95 1.26 *.21 3.39 .82 • 55 .27 NOVEMBER 3.09 1.27 *.36 3.50 .86 .55 .31 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.20 1.27 4.47 3.6* .83 .56 .27 3.1* 1.27 *.*1 3.63 .78 .56 .22 FEBRUARY 3.08 1.27 *.35 3.52 .83 • 57 .26 MARCH 2.78 1.25 4.03 3.25 .78 • 57 .21 \PRIL 2.70 1.25 3.95 3.13 .82 .57 .25 MAY 2.60 1.2* 3-84 3. 06 .78 • 57 .21 JUNE 2.55 1.2* 3.79 2.99 .80 • 57 .23 JULY 2.60 1.24 3.84 3.02 .82 .57 .25 AUGUST 2.72 1.25 3.97 3.15 .82 .58 .24 SEPTEMBER 2.96 1.25 4.21 3.36 .85 .58 .27 OCTOBER 3.19 1.26 4.45 3.62 .83 .58 .25 NOVEMBER 3.39 1.27 4.66 3.80 .86 .58 .28 DECEMBER 3-3* 1.27 4.61 3.89 .72 .58 .14 103 Continued on next page Table 16 — Partial Net Margins for Cream and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE VALUE OF (column 1 RAW ( COLUMN 3 (COLUMN OF NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH CREAM DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars , icr hundredweight 3^5 1.28 ^•73 3.79 .7* •59 .15 FEBRUARY 3-17 1.27 4.44 3.7^ .70 •59 .11 MARCH 2.93 1.26 4. 19 3.53 .66 •59 .07 APRIL 2.70 1.25 3.95 3.23 .72 •59 .13 MAY 2.61 1.24 3.85 3.15 .70 -59 .11 JUNE 2.56 1.24 3.80 3.11 .69 • 59 .10 JULY 2.6l 1.24 3.85 3.12 .73 • 59 .14 AUGUST 2.70 1.25 3.95 3.20 .75 • 59 .16 SEPTEMBER 2.96 1.25 4.21 3.37 .84 .59 .25 OCTOBER NOVEMBER 3.19 3.24 1.27 1.27 4.46 U.51 3.56 3.60 .90 .91 .59 • 59 .31 .32 UbLLMbbK JANUARY 3.3^ 1.27 4.61 3.70 .91 • 59 .32 3.3^ 1.28 4.62 3.72 .90 .60 .30 FEBRUARY 3.18 1.27 4.45 3.59 .86 .59 .27 MARCH 3.02 1.26 4.28 3.48 .80 • 59 .21 APRIL 2.81 1.11 3.92 3.28 .64 • 59 .05 MAY 2. 1+7 1.10 3.57 2.91 .66 • 59 .07 JUNE 2. U5 1.10 3.55 2.89 .66 .59 .07 JULY 2.50 1.10 3.60 2.92 .68 • 59 .09 AUGUST 2.53 1.10 3.63 2.95 .68 .60 .08 SEPTEMBER 2.80 1.11 3.81 3.16 .65 .60 .05 OCTOBER 2.93 1.11 4.04 3.35 .69 .60 .09 NOVEMBER 3.04 1.12 4.16 3.50 .66 .60 .06 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.18 1.12 4.30 3.56 .76 .60 .14 3.27 1.13 4.40 3.64 .76 .62 .14 FEBRUARY 3.10 1.12 4.22 3.55 .67 .63 .04 MARCH 2.83 1.11 3.9h 3.33 .61 .63 -.02 APRIL 2.60 1.10 3.70 3.15 • 55 .63 -.08 MAY 2.58 1.10 3.68 3.12 .56 .63 -.07 JUNE 2.55 1.10 3.65 3.H • 5^ .62 -.08 JULY 2.57 1.10 3.67 3.12 • 55 .63 -.08 AUGUST 2.66 1.10 3.76 3.18 .58 .63 -.05 SEPTEMBER 2.98 1.11 4.09 3.33 .76 .63 .13 OCTOBER 3.08 1.11 4.19 3.42 .77 .63 .14 NOVEMBER 3.20 1.12 4.32 3.48 .84 .63 .21 DECEMBER 3.23 1.12 *.35 3.55 .80 .63 .17 101 Continued on next page Table 16— Partial Net Margins for Cream and Nonfat Dry Milk, concluded TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE VALUE OF (COLUMN 1 RAW (COLUMN 3 (COLUMN OF NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH CREAM DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars ) ocr hundredweight I960 3-33 1.13 4.46 3.68 .78 .65 .13 FEBRUARY 3.12 1.12 4.24 3.52 .72 •65 .07 MARCH 2.91 1.11 4.02 3.30 .72 .65 .07 APRIL 2.66 1.10 3.76 3.05 .71 .65 .06 MAY 2.66 1.10 3.76 2.98 .78 •65 .13 JUNE 2.60 1.10 3.70 2.95 .75 .65 .10 JULY 2.63 1.10 3.73 2.98 .75 .65 .10 AUGUST 2.70 1.10 3.80 3.03 .77 .66 .11 SEPTEMBER 2.93 1.15 4.08 3.22 .86 .66 .20 OCTOBER 3.12 1.16 4.28 3. 42 .86 .66 .20 NOVEMBER 3.31 1.16 4.47 3.57 .90 .66 .24 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.36 1.17 4.53 3.63 .90 .66 .24 1961 3.39 1.17 4.56 3.64 .92 .68 .24 FEBRUARY 3.15 1.16 4-31 3.46 .85 .68 .17 MARCH 2.97 1.32 4.29 3.37 .92 .68 .24 APRIL 2.81 1.31 4.12 3.28 .84 .68 .16 MAY 2.81 1.31 4.12 3.27 .85 .68 .17 JUNE 2.76 1.31 4.07 3.24 .83 .68 .15 JULY 2.75 1.35 4.10 3.14 .96 .68 .28 AUGUST 2.81 1.35 4.l6 3.20 .96 .68 .28 SEPTEMBER 2.97 1.36 4-33 3.33 1.00 .68 • 32 OCTOBER 3.1** 1.37 U.51 3.51 1.00 .68 • 32 NOVEMBER 3.29 1.37 4.66 3.63 1.03 .68 •35 DECEMBER 3.39 1.38 4.77 3.71 1.06 .68 • 38 •from table 15. * From table 5« 105 Table 17. Partial Net Margins for Cream and Condensed Skim Milk per 100 Pounds of Milk, by Months, California, 1956-1961 TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE OF VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE CONDENSED* (column 1 RAW ( COLUMN 3 t COLUMN OF SKIM PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH CREAM MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 if 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars ocr hundredweight Z-lh 1.31 4.45 3.63 .82 .38 .44 FEBRUARY 3.08 1.30 4.38 3.52 .86 .38 .48 MARCH 2.78 1.29 if. 07 3.25 .82 .39 .43 APRIL 2.70 1.28 3.98 3.13 .85 .39 .46 MAY 2.60 1.28 3.88 3.06 .82 .39 .43 JUNE 2.55 1*28 3.83 2.99 .84 • 39 .45 JULY 2.60 1.28 3.88 3.02 .86 .38 .48 AUGUST SEPTEMBER 2.72 2.96 1.28 1.29 4.00 4.25 3.15 3.36 .85 .89 •39 • 39 .46 .50 UL 1 UoLK NOVEMBER 3.19 3.39 1.30 1.31 U.1+9 U. 70 3.62 3.80 .87 • 90 •39 •39 .48 .51 DECEMBER JANUARY 3-34 1.31 4.65 3.89 • 7b • 39 • 37 3.^5 1.32 lf.77 3.99 .78 .40 .38 FEBRUARY 3.17 1.30 4.47 3.74 .73 .40 .33 MARCH 2.93 1.29 If. 22 3.53 .69 .40 .29 APRIL 2.70 1.28 3.98 3.23 • 75 .40 • 35 MAY 2.61 1.28 3.89 3.15 .74 .40 .34 JUNE 2.56 1.28 3.84 3.11 .73 .40 .33 JULY 2.61 1.28 3.89 3.12 • 77 .40 • 37 AUGUST 2.70 1.28 3.98 3.20 .78 .40 .38 SEPTEMBER 2.96 1.29 if. 25 3.37 .88 .40 .48 OCTOBER 3.19 1.30 4.49 3.56 .93 .40 •53 NOVEMBER 3. 24 1.31 *.55 3.60 .95 .40 .55 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.3^ 1.31 4.65 3.70 • 95 .40 •55 3.34 1.31 4.65 3.72 .93 .41 • 52 FEBRUARY 3.18 1.31 4.49 3.59 .90 .40 • 50 MARCH 3.02 1.30 if. 32 3.48 .84 .40 .44 APRIL 2.81 1.18 3.99 3.28 • 71 .40 • 31 MAY 2.47 1.16 3.63 2.91 • 72 .40 .32 JUNE 2.45 1.16 3.61 2.89 • 72 .40 .32 JULY 2.50 1.16 3.66 2.92 .74 .40 .34 AUGUST 2.53 1.17 3.70 2.95 .75 .41 .34 SEPTEMBER 2.80 1.18 3.98 3.16 .82 .41 .41 OCTOBER 2.93 1.18 4. 11 3.35 • 76 .41 • 35 NOVEMBER 3.01* 1.19 4.23 3.50 •73 .41 .32 DECEMBER 3.18 1.19 4.37 3.56 .81 .41 .40 See p. 107 for footnotes I 106 Continued on next page Table 17 — Partial Net Margins for Cream and Condensed Skim Milk, concluded TOTAL CROSS PARTIAL VALUE OF VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE CONDENSED (COLUMN 1 RAW (column 3 1 COLUMN OF SKIM PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH CREAM MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 .JANUARY dollars /, cr hundredweight 1959 3.27 " 1 1.20 k.iq 3.6U •83 .43 .1*0 FEBRUARY 3.10 1.19 U.29 3.55 •74 .43 .31 MARCH 2.83 1.18 U.Ol 3.33 .68 A3 .25 APRIL 2.60 1.17 3.77 3.15 .62 • 43 .19 MAY 2.58 1.17 3.75 3.12 .63 A3 .20 JUNE 2.55 1.16 3.71 3.11 .60 .43 .17 JULY 2.57 1.17 3.7^ 3.12 .62 .43 .19 AUGUST 2.66 1.17 3.83 3.18 •65 • 43 .22 SEPTEMBER 2.98 1.18 U.16 3.33 .83 .43 .UO OCTOBER 3.08 1.18 U.26 3.U2 .84 •43 .Ul NOVEMBER 3.20 1.19 U.39 3.^8 •91 • 43 .1*8 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.23 » 1.19 k.kZ 3.55 .87 • 43 .hk 3.33 1.20 U.53 3.68 •85 .45 .1*0 FEBRUARY 3.12 1.19 Mi 3.52 •79 .45 .31* MARCH 2.91 1.13 k.Ok 3.30 .7* .45 .29 APRIL 2.66 1.12 3.78 3.05 •73 .45 .28 MAY 2.66 1.12 3.78 2.98 .80 .45 • 35 JUNE 2.60 1.12 3.72 2.95 •77 .45 • 32 JULY 2.63 1.12 3.75 2.98 •77 .45 .32 AUGUST 2.70 1.12 3.82 3.03 •79 .45 .31* SEPTEMBER 2.93 1.16 i*.o8 3.22 .86 • 45 .1*1 OCTOBER 3.12 1.17 4.28 3.1*2 .86 .45 .1*1 NOVEMBER 3.31 1.18 1*.1*9 3.57 •92 .45 .1*7 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.36 1.18 k.$k 3.63 .91 .45 .h6 1961 3.39 1.18 U.57 3.6U •93 .47 .1*6 FEBRUARY 3.15 1.17 U.32 3.1*6 .86 .47 .39 MARCH 2.97 1.29 U.26 3.37 .89 .47 .1*2 APRIL 2.81 1.29 1*.10 3.28 .82 • 47 .35 MAY 2.81 1.28 i*.09 3.27 .82 .47 .35 JUNE 2.76 1.28 k.ok 3.2l* .80 .47 .33 JUL^ 2.75 1.32 U.07 3.11* •93 .47 .1*6 AUGUST 2.81 1.32 U.13 3.20 •93 .47 .U6 SEPTEMBER 2.97 1.33 U.30 3.33 •97 .47 .50 OCTOBER 3.1U 1.3* U.l»8 3.51 •97 .47 .50 NOVEMBER 3.29 1.* U.63 3.63 1.00 .47 .53 DECEMBER 3.39 1.35 U.7U 3.71 1.03 .47 .56 From table 15 • From table 6. I 107 Table 18. Partial Net Margins for Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk per 100 Pounds of Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961 TOTAL VALUE GROSS MARGIN PARTIAL NET MARGIN VALUE OF (COLUMN 1 RAW (COLUMN 3 (COLUMN VALUE OF NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH BUTTER DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 dollars j ocr hundredweight 3-13 1.06 4.19 3.60 • 59 .48 .11 JANUARY 2.94 1.04 3.98 3.33 .65 .48 .17 FEBRUARY 2.64 i.o4 3.68 3.11 • 57 .48 .09 MARCH 2.46 1.03 3.49 2.89 .60 .48 .12 APRIL 2.39 1.03 3.42 2.79 .63 .48 .15 MAY 2.42 1.03 3.45 2.78 .67 .49 .18 JUNE 2.1*8 1.03 3.51 2.81 .70 .49 .21 AUGUST 2.60 1.03 3.63 2.93 .70 .49 .21 SEPTEMBER 2.79 1.04 3.83 3.14 .69 .50 .19 OCTOBER 3.00 1.04 4.04 3.50 .54 .50 .04 NOVEMBER 3-12 1.05 4.17 3.69 .48 .51 -.03 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.22 1.05 4.27 3.72 • 55 • 51 .04 3.60 1.05 4.65 4.11 .54 .52 .02 FEBRUARY 3.M 1.05 4.46 3.96 • 50 .52 -.02 MARCH 3.16 1.25 4.4l 3.82 • 59 .52 .07 APRIL 2.93 1.24 4.17 3.66 .51 .52 -.01 MAY 2.9^ 1.24 4.18 3.59 • 59 .52 .07 JUNE 2.90 1.23 4.13 3.62 • 51 .52 -.01 JULY 2.86 1.24 4.10 3.70 .40 .52 -.12 AUGUST 2.88 1.24 4.12 3.79 • 33 .52 -.19 SEPTEMBER 3.06 1.25 4.31 3.99 .32 .52 -.20 OCTOBER 3.35 1.26 4.61 4.22 • 39 .52 -.13 NOVEMBER 3.53 1.26 4.79 4.27 .52 • 52 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.81 1.26 5.07 4.58 .49 .52 -.03 1952 4.16 1.27 5.43 4.79 .64 .53 .11 FEBRUARY 3.94 1.25 5.19 4.33 .86 .54 .32 MARCH 3.53 1.25 4.78 4.38 .40 .54 -.14 APRIL 3.02 1.40 4.42 4.15 .27 .54 -.27 MAY 2.77 1.39 4.16 3.88 .28 .54 -.26 JUNE 2.83 1.40 4.23 3.86 .37 .54 -.17 J L'LY 2.95 1.40 4.35 3.97 .38 .54 -.16 AUGUST 3.10 1.40 4.50 4.11 • 39 .54 -.15 SEPTEMBER 3.35 1.41 4.76 4.45 .31 .54 -.23 OCTOBER 3.39 1.42 4.81 4.57 .24 .54 -.30 NOVEMBER 3.51 1.43 4.94 4.87 .07 .54 -.47 DECEMBER 3.56 1.44 5.00 5.07 -.07 .54 -.61 See p. Ill for footnotes. Continued on next page 108 I Table 18 — Partial Net Margins for Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE OF (column 1 RAW (column 3 ( COLUMN VALUE OF NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH BUTTER DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars per hundredweight 3.40 1.43 4.83 4.90 -.07 •55 -.62 FEBRUARY 3-07 1.41 4.48 4.43 .05 • 55 -.50 MARCH 2.94 1.41 M5 4.20 .15 .55 -.40 APRIL 2.71 1.32 4.03 3.79 .24 • 55 -.31 MAY 2.63 1.32 3.95 3.51 .44 .55 -.11 JUNE 2.63 1.32 3.95 3.36 • 59 •55 .04 JULY 2.6l 1.31 3.92 3.34 .58 .56 .02 AUGUST 2.74 1.32 4.06 3.50 .56 .56 SEPTEMBER 2.91 1.33 4.24 3.67 • 57 .56 .01 OCTOBER 3.10 1.33 4.43 3.81 .62 .56 .06 NOVEMBER 3.16 1.34 4.50 3.87 .63 •56 .07 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.17 1.34 Mi 3.94 • 57 .56 .01 1954 3.18 1.34 4.52 3.83 .69 .56 .13 FEBRUARY 3.02 1.34 4.36 3.61 • 75 •56 .19 MARCH 2.88 1.33 4.21 3.35 .86 .56 .30 APRIL 2 A3 1.24 3.67 3.08 • 59 .56 .03 MAY 2.25 1.23 3.48 2.87 .61 .56 .05 JUNE 2.24 1.23 3.47 2.83 .64 .56 .08 JULY 2.29 1.23 3.52 2.87 .65 .56 .09 AUGUST d.kO 1.24 3.64 3.01 .63 .56 .07 SEPTEMBER 2.56 1.24 3.80 3.20 .60 .56 .04 OCTOBER 2.71 1.25 3.96 3.34 .62 .56 .06 NOVEMBER 2.80 1.27 4.07 3.50 .57 .56 .01 DECEMBER JANUARY 2.96 1.27 4.23 3.60 .63 .56 .07 1955 3.00 1.28 4.28 ! 3.70 • 58 .58 FEBRUARY 2.77 1.27 4.04 3.49 • 55 • 58 -.03 MARCH 2.56 1.26 3.82 3.28 .54 .58 -.04 APRIL 2.33 1.25 3.58 3.10 .48 • 58 -.10 MAY 2.30 1.25 3.55 3.01 .54 .58 -.04 JUNE 2.30 1.24 3.54 2.97 • 57 .58 -.01 JULY 2.31 1.24 3.55 3.01 .54 • 58 -.04 AUGUST 2.36 1.25 3.61 3.09 '•52 • 59 -07 SEPTEMBER 2,56 1.26 3.82 3.25 • 57 • 59 -.02 OCTOBER 2.68 1.26 3.94 3.39 •55 •59 -.04 NOVEMBER 2.80 1.27 4.07 3.50 • 57 • 59 -.02 DECEMBER 2.90 1.2? 4.17 3.64 .53 • 59 -.06 109 Continued on next page Table 18 — Partial Net Margins for Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, continued TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE OF (COLUMN 1 RAW ( COLUMN 3 (COLUMN VALUE OF NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH BUTTER DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars vcr liutulredu wight 2.81* 1.27 4.11 3.63 .48 .60 -.12 FEBRUARY 2.84 1.27 4.11 3.52 • 59 .60 -.01 MARCH 2.52 1.25 3.77 3.25 .52 .60 -.08 APRIL 2.45 1.25 3.70 3.13 • 57 .61 -.04 MAY 2.34 1.24 3.58 3.06 .52 .61 -.09 JUNE 2.31 1.24 3.55 2.99 .56 .61 -.05 JULY 2.36 1.24 3.60 3.02 .58 .61 -.03 AUGUST 2.47 1.25 3.72 3.15 • 57 .61 -.04 SEPTEMBER 2.68 1.25 3.93 3.36 .57 .62 -.05 OCTOBER 2.91 1.26 4.17 3.62 • 55 .61 -.06 NOVEMBER 3.10 1.27 4.37 3.80 • 57 .61 -.04 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.04 1.27 4.31 3.89 .42 .62 -.20 1957 3.08 1.28 4.36 3.99 • 37 .63 -.26 FEBRUARY 2.81 1.27 4.08 3.74 .34 .63 -.29 MARCH 2.68 1.26 3.94 3.53 .41 .63 -.22 APRIL 2.44 1.25 3.69 3.23 .46 .63 -.17 MAY 2.32 1.24 3.56 3.15 .41 .63 -.22 JUNE 2.31 1.24 3.55 3.11 .44 .63 -19 JULY 2.38 1.24 3.62 3.12 .50 .63 -13 AUGUST 2. U9 1.25 3.74 3.20 .54 .63 -.09 SEPTEMBER 2.75 1.25 4.00 3.37 .63 .63 OCTOBER 2.94 1.27 4.21 3.56 .65 .63 .02 NOVEMBER 2.97 1.27 4.24 3. 60 .64 .63 .01 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.01 1.27 4.28 3.70 .58 .63 -.05 2.96 1.28 4.23 3.72 .51 .64 -13 FEBRUARY 2.81 1.27 4.08 3.59 .49 .64 -15 MARCH 2.70 1.26 3.96 3.48 .48 .63 -.15 APRIL 2.57 1.11 3.68 3.28 .40 .63 -23 MAY 2.24 1.10 3.34 2.91 .43 .63 -.20 JUNE 2.22 1.10 3.32 2.89 .43 .63 -.20 J ULY 2.26 1.10 3.36 2.92 .44 .63 -19 AUGUST 2.31 1.10 3.41 2.95 .46 .64 -.18 SEPTEMBER 2.59 1.11 3.70 3.16 .54 .64 -.10 OCTOBER 2.70 1.11 3.81 3.35 .46 .64 -18 NOVEMBER 2.71 1.12 3.83 3.50 .33 .64 -31 DECEMBER 2.88 1.12 4.00 3-56 .44 .64 -.20 Continued on next page 110 i Table 18 — Partial Net Margins for Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, concluded TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE OF (column 1 RAW (column 3 (COLUMN VALUE OF NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH BUTTER DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6 ) 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars p cr hundredweight 1955T 2.86 1.13 3.99 3.61* .35 .67 -32 FEBRUARY 2.76 1.12 3.88 3.55 • 33 •67 -.3* MARCH 2.51 1.11 3.62 3.33 .29 .67 -.38 APRIL 2.30 1.10 3.1*0 3.15 .25 .67 -.1*2 MAY 2.28 1.10 3.38 3.12 .26 .67 -.1*1 JUNE 2.26 1.10 3.36 3.11 .25 .67 -.1*2 JULY 2.29 1.10 3.39 3.12 .27 .67 -.1*0 AUGUST 2.1*2 1.10 3.52 3.18 .3* .67 -33 SEPTEMBER 2.71 1.11 3.82 3.33 .h9 .67 -.18 OCTOBER 2.79 1.11 3.90 3.1*2 .1*8 .67 -.19 NOVEMBER 2.91* 1.12 U.oi* 3.U8 .56 .67 -.11 DECEMBER JANUARY 2.93 t 1.12 i*.o6 3.55 .51 .67 -.16 I960 2.87 1.13 i*.oo 3.68 .32 •70 ..38 FEBRUARY 2.70 1.12 3.82 3.52 .30 .70 -.1*0 MARCH 2.52 1.11 3.63 3.30 • 33 •70 -37 APRIL 2.30 1.10 3.1*0 3.05 • 35 .70 -35 MAY 2.28 1.10 3.38 2.98 .1*0 •70 -.30 JUNE 2.25 1.10 3.35 2.95 .1*0 .70 -.30 JULY 2.28 1.10 3.38 2.98 .1*0 •70 -.30 AUGUST 2.36 1.10 3.1*6 3.03 A3 •70 -.27 SEPTEMBER 2.66 1.15 3.81 3.22 .59 •70 -.11 OCTOBER 2.7^ 1.16 3.90 3.1*2 .1*8 .70 -.22 NOVEMBER 2.9^ 1.16 U.10 3.57 • 53 •70 -.17 DECEMBER JANUARY 2.96 1.17 J*. 13 3.63 .50 .70 -.20 2.97 1.17 l*.ll* 3.61* .50 •73 -23 FEBRUARY 2.75 1.16 3.91 3.1*6 •*5 •73 -.28 MARCH 2.61 1.32 3.93 3.37 .56 •73 -17 APRIL 2A5 1.31 3.76 3.28 .1*8 •73 -25 MAY 2.M* 1.31 3.75 3.27 .1*8 .72 -.21* JUNE 2.1*0 1.31 3.71 3.21* • U7 •72 -25 JULY 2.39 1.35 3.7^ 3.11* .60 •73 -13 AUGUST 2.1*1* 1.35 3.79 3.20 • 59 •73 -.11* SEPTEMBER 2.59 1.36 3.95 3.33 .62 •73 -.11 OCTOBER 2.7U 1.37 l*.ll 3.51 .60 •72 -.12 NOVEMBER 2.87 1.37 l*.2l* 3.63 .61 •72 -.11 DECEMBER 2.96 1.38 U.3I* 3.71 .63 •73 -.10 From table 15, + From table 8. Ill Table 19. Partial Net Margins for Butter and Condensed Skim Milk per 100 Pounds of Milk, by Months, California, 1956-1961 TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE OF VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE CONDENSED (COLUMN 1 RAW (column 3 ( COLUMN VALUE OF SKIM PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH BUTTER MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JANUARY ■!■■ •Hdrs per hunu red weight- 195b 2.84 1.31 4.15 3.63 .52 .42 .10 FEBRUARY 2.84 1.30 4.14 3.52 .62 .42 .20 MARCH 2.52 1.29 3.81 3.25 .56 .42 .14 APRIL 2.45 1.28 3.73 3.13 .60 .43 .17 MAY 2.34 1.28 3.62 3.06 • 5b .43 .13 JUNE 2.31 1.28 3.59 2.99 .60 .42 .18 JULY 2.36 1.28 3.64 3.02 .62 .42 .20 AUGUST 2.47 1.28 3.75 3.15 .60 .43 .17 SEPTEMBER 2.68 1.29 3.97 3.36 .61 .43 .18 OCTOBER 2.91 1.30 4.21 3.62 • 59 .*3 .16 NOVEMBER 3.10 1.31 4.41 3.80 .61 .43 .18 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.04 1.31 4.35 3.89 .46 .43 .03 1957 3.08 1.32 4.40 3.99 .41 .44 -.03 FEBRUARY 2.81 1.30 4.11 3.74 • 37 .44 -.07 MARCH 2.68 1.29 3.97 3.53 .44 .44 APRIL 2.44 1.28 3.72 3.23 .49 .44 .05 MAY 2.32 1.28 3.60 3.15 .45 .44 .01 JUNE 2.31 1.28 3.59 3.11 .48 .44 .04 JULY 2.38 1.28 3.66 3.12 .54 .44 .10 AUGUST 2.49 1.28 3.77 3.20 • 57 .44 .13 SEPTEMBER 2.75 1.29 4.04 3.37 .67 .44 .23 OCTOBER 2.94 1.30 4.24 3.56 .6Q .44 .24 NOVEMBER 2.97 1.31 4.28 3.60 .68 .44 .24 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.01 1.31 4.32 3.70 .62 .44 .18 1956 — ■ 2.95 1.31 4.26 3.72 .54 .45 .09 FEBRUARY 2.81 1.31 4.12 3.59 • 53 .44 .09 MARCH 2.70 1.30 4.00 3.48 • 52 .44 .08 \PRIL 2.57 1.18 3.75 3.28 .47 .44 .03 MAY 2.24 1.16 3.40 2.91 .49 .44 .05 JUNE 2.22 1.16 3.38 2.89 .49 .44 .05 JULY 2.26 1.16 3.42 2.92 .50 .45 .05 AUGUST 2.31 1.17 3.48 2.95 • 53 .45 .08 SEPTEMBER 2.59 1.18 3.77 3.16 .61 .45 .16 OCTOBER 2.70 1.18 3.88 3.35 • 53 .45 .08 NOVEMBER 2.71 1.19 3.90 3.50 .40 .45 -.05 DECEMBER 2.88 1.19 4.07 3.56 .51 .45 .06 See p. 113 for footnotes. 12 Continued on next page Table 19 — Partial Net Margins for Butter and Condensed Skim Milk, concluded TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE OF VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE CONDENSED (column 1 RAW (column 3 ( COLUMN VALUE OF SKIM PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH BUTTER MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars \ jcr hundredweight 1959 2.86 1.20 4.06 3.64 .42 .47 -.05 FEBRUARY 2.76 1.19 3.95 3.55 .40 .47 -.07 MARCH 2.51 1.18 3.69 3.33 .36 .48 -.12 APRIL 2.30 1.17 3.47 3.15 .32 .47 -15 MAY 2.28 1.17 3.45 3.12 •33 .47 -.14 JUNE 2.26 1.16 3.42 3.11 .31 .47 -.16 JULY 2.29 1.17 3.46 3.12 .34 .47 -.13 AUGUST 2.42 1.17 3.59 3.18 .41 .47 -.06 SEPTEMBER 2.T1 1.18 3.89 3.33 .56 .48 .08 OCTOBER 2.79 1.18 3.97 3.42 .55 .48 .07 NOVEMBER 2.92 1.19 4.11 3.48 .63 .48 .15 DECEMBER JANUARY 2.94 1.19 4.13 3.55 .58 .48 .10 I960 2.87 1.20 4.07 3.68 • 39 .50 -.11 FEBRUARY 2.70 1.19 3.89 3.52 •37 .50 -.13 MARCH 2.52 1.13 3.65 3.30 • 35 .50 -15 APRIL 2.30 1.12 3.42 3.05 • 37 .50 -13 MAY 2.28 1.12 3.40 2.98 .42 • 50 -.08 JUNE 2.25 1.12 ' 3.37 2.95 .42 .50 -.08 JULY 2.28 1.12 3.40 2.98 .42 .50 -.08 AUGUST 2.36 1.12 3.48 3.03 .45 .50 -.05 SEPTEMBER 2.66 1.16 3.82 3.22 .60 .50 .10 OCTOBER 2.74 1.17 3.91 3.42 .49 .50 -.01 NOVEMBER 2.94 1.18 4.12 3.57 • 55 .50 .05 DECEMBER JANUARY 2.96 1.18 4.14 3.63 • 51 .50 .01 2.97 1.18 4.15 3.64 .51 .52 -.01 FEBRUARY 2.75 1.17 3.92 3.46 .46 • 52 -.06 MARCH 2.61 1.29 3.90 3.37 • 53 .52 .01 APRIL 2.45 1.29 3.74 3.28 .46 • 52 -.06 MAY 2.44 1.28 3.72 3.27 .45 .52 -.07 JUNE 2.40 1.28 3.68 3.24 .44 .52 -.08 JULY 2.39 1.32 3.71 3.14 • 57 .52 .05 AUGUST 2.kk 1.32 3.76 3.20 • 56 • 52 .04 SEPTEMBER 2.59 1.33 3.92 3.33 • 59 • 52 .07 OCTOBER 2.74 1.34 4.08 3.51 • 57 • 52 .05 NOVEMBER 2.87 l.-}k 4.21 3.63 • 58 .52 .06 DECEMBER 2.96 1.35 4.31 3.71 .60 • 52 .08 # From table 15 • + From table 9. 113 Table 20. Partial Net Margins for Ice Cream Mix and Nonfat Dry Milk per 100 Pounds of Milk, by Months, California, 1956-1961 TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE OF VALUE OF (column 1 RAW ( COLUMN 3 (COLUMN ICE CREAM NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH MIX DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars /, cr hundredweight 4.84 .83 5.67 3.63 2.04 • 55 1.49 FEBRUARY 4.63 •85 5.48 3.52 1.96 •55 1.41 MARCH 4.17 •87 5.04 3.25 1.79 • 55 1.24 APRIL 3-95 .88 4.83 3.13 1.70 • 55 1.15 MAY 3-74 •89 4.63 3.06 1.57 • 55 1.02 JUNE 3.63 • 90 ^53 2.99 1.5* • 55 •99 JULY 3.69 •89 4.58 3.02 1.56 • 55 1.01 AUGUST 3.83 .88 4.71 3.15 1.56 •56 1.00 SEPTEMBER 4.22 • 87 5.09 3.36 1.73 •56 1.17 OCTOBER 4.63 .85 5.48 3.62 1.86 .56 1.30 NOVEMBER 4.87 .84 5.71 3.80 1.91 • 56 1.35 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.92 .83 5.75 3.89 1.86 • 56 1.30 5.08 • 83 5.91 3.99 1.92 • 57 1.35 FEBRUARY 4.60 •85 5^5 3.7^ 1.71 • 57 1.14 MARCH Ml .86 5.17 3.53 1.64 • 57 1.07 APRIL 3.91 .88 4.79 3.23 1.56 • 57 .99 MAY 3.77 .89 4.66 3.15 1.51 • 57 .94 JUNE 3.72 .89 4.61 3.11 1.50 • 58 .92 JULY 3.75 .89 4.64 3.12 1.52 • 58 .9* AUGUST 3.88 .88 4.76 3.20 1.56 • 58 • 98 SEPTEMBER 4.22 •87 5.09 3.37 1.72 • 58 1.14 OCTOBER J*.53 • 85 5.38 3.56 1.82 • 57 1.25 NOVEMBER 4.61 .84 5.45 3.60 I.85 • 57 1.28 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.76 •83 5.59 3.70 I.89 • 57 1.32 4.84 .83 5.67 3.72 1.95 • 58 1.37 FEBRUARY M5 .8U 5.39 3.59 1.80 • 58 1.22 MARCH 4.41 .85 5.26 3.48 I.78 • 58 1.20 APRIL 4.10 • 76 4.86 3.28 1.58 • 58 1.00 MAY 3.55 •79 4.34 2.91 1.^3 • 58 .85 JUNE 3.51 •79 4.30 2.89 1.41 • 58 .83 JULY 3.56 •79 M5 2.92 1^3 .58 .85 AUGUST 3.62 •79 4.41 2.95 1.46 • 58 .88 SEPTEMBER 3.91 •77 4.68 3.16 1.52 • 58 .94 OCTOBER 4.25 .76 5.01 3.35 1.66 • 58 1.08 NOVEMBER 4.45 •75 5.20 3.50 1.70 • 58 1.12 DECEMBER k.57 •75 5.32 3.56 1.76 • 58 1.18 See p. 115 for footnotes. f 114 Continued on next page Table 20 — Partial Net Margins for Ice Cream Mix and Nonfat Dry Milk, concluded TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE OF VALUE OF (column 1 RAW ( COLUMN 3 ( COLUMN ICE CREAM NONFAT PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH MIX DRY MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars per hundredweight 1959 k.Jl .7* r 5-*5 1 3.6U 1 1.81 .61 1.20 FEBRUARY If. 5* •75 5.29 3.55 1.7* .61 1.13 MARCH *.15 .77 4.92 3.33 1.59 .61 • 98 APRIL 3.82 .79 *.6l 3.15 l.*6 .61 .85 MAY 3-77 •79 if.56 3.12 1.** .61 .83 JUNE 3-75 •79 k. 5* 3.11 i.*3 .61 .82 JULY 3-77 •79 if. 56 3.12 1.U4 .61 .83 AUGUST 3-87 .78 if.65 3.\L8 l.*7 .61 .86 SEPTEMBER l*. 17 .77 k.9k 3.33 1.6?. .61 1.00 OCTOBER U.3* .76 5.10 3.*f2 1.68 .61 1.07 NOVEMBER k.kk •75 5.19 3-*8 1.71 .61 1.10 DECEMBER JANUARY lf.58 •75 5.33 3.55 1.76 .61 1.17 *.8l .73 5-5* 3.68 1.86 .6if 1.22 FEBRUARY U.52 •75 5.27 3.52 1.75 .6if 1.11 MARCH *.15 •77 if.92 3.30 1.62 .6k .98 APRIL 3-73 .79 if. 52 3.05 1.1*7 .6* .83 MAY 3.67 •79 if.if6 2.98 l.lf8 .6k .8* JUNE 3.61 .79 if.lfO 2.95 1.45 .6k .81 JULY 3.66 .79 *.*5 2.98 1A7 .6k .83 AUGUST 3.75 .78 *-53 3.03 1.50 .6k .86 SEPTEMBER U.03 .80 U. 83 3.22 1.61 .6k •97 OCTOBER *-35 •79 5.1* 3.*2 1.72 .6k 1.08 NOVEMBER 4.61 •77 5.38 3.57 1.81 .6k 1.17 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.72 .77 5A9 3.63 1.86 .6k 1.22 1961 4.75 .76 5.51 3.6k I.87 .66 1.21 FEBRUARY lf.*2 .78 5.20 3.1*6 1.7* .66 1.08 MARCH If. 30 .91 5.21 3.37 1.8* .66 1.18 APRIL k.OS .93 *.99 3.28 1.71 .66 1.05 MAY k.ok .93 *.97 3.27 1.70 .66 1.0* JUNE 3.90 .93 4. 83 3.2U 1.59 .66 • 93 JULY 3.89 .96 U.85 3.1* 1.71 .66 1.05 AUGUST 3.98 •95 *.93 3.20 1.73 .66 1.07 SEPTEMBER U.26 .94 5.20 3.33 1.87 .66 1.21 OCTOBER If. 57 .92 5.U9 3.51 1.98 .66 1.32 NOVEMBER U.78 .91 5.69 3.63 2.06 .66 l.lfO DECEMBER *-93 .90 5.83 3.71 2.12 .66 l.*6 ^rom table 15, Yom table 11. 115 1 Table 21. Partial Net Margins for Ice Cream Mix and Condensed Skim Milk per 100 Pounds of Milk, by Months, California, 1956-1961 TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE OF VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE OF CONDENSED (column 1 RAW (COLUMN 3 (COLUMN ICE CREAM SKIM PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH MIX MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JANUARY dollars per hundredweight 195S 4.84 .88 5.72 3.63 2.09 .40 1.69 FEBRUARY 4.63 .89 5.52 3.52 2.00 .40 1.60 MARCH 4.17 • 92 5.09 3.25 1.84 .40 1.44 APRIL 3-95 .92 4.87 3.13 1.74 .40 1.34 MAY 3-74 .93 4.67 3.06 1.61 .40 1.21 JUNE 3.63 .94 4.57 2.99 1.58 .40 1.18 JULY 3.69 .94 4.63 3.02 1.61 .40 1.21 AUGUST 3.83 .93 4.76 3.15 1.61 .40 1.21 SEPTEMBER 4.22 .91 5.13 3.36 1.77 .40 1.37 OCTOBER 4.63 .89 5.52 3.62 1.90 .40 1.50 NOVEMBER 4.87 .88 5.75 3.80 1.95 .40 1.55 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.92 .88 5.80 3.89 1.91 .40 1.51 5.08 .87 5.95 3.99 I.96 .41 1.55 FEBRUARY 4.60 .89 5.49 3.74 1.75 .41 1.3* MARCH 4.31 .90 5.21 3.53 1.68 .41 1.27 APRIL 3.91 .93 4.84 3.23 1.61 .41 1.20 MAY 3-77 .93 4.70 3.15 1.55 .41 1.14 JUNE 3.72 .94 4.66 3.11 1.55 .41 1.14 JULY 3.75 .94 4.69 3.12 1.57 .41 1.16 AUGUST 3.88 • 93 4.81 3.20 1.61 .41 1.20 SEPTEMBER 4.22 .91 5.13 3.37 1.76 .41 1.35 OCTOBER ^•53 .89 5.42 3.56 1.86 .41 1.45 NOVEMBER 4.61 .89 5.50 3.60 1.90 .41 1.49 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.76 .88 5.64 3.70 1.94 .41 1.53 195U 4.84 .87 5.71 3.72 1.99 .42 1.57 FEBRUARY 4.55 .88 5.43 3.59 1.84 .41 1.43 MARCH 4.41 .89 5.30 3.48 1.82 .41 1.41 \PKIL 4.10 .82 4.92 3.28 1.64 .41 1.23 MAY 3.55 .85 4.40 2.91 I.49 .41 1.08 JUNE 3.51 .86 4.37 2.89 1.48 .41 1.07 JULY 3.56 .85 4.4l 2.92 1.49 .42 1.07 AUGUST 3.62 .85 4.47 2.95 1.52 .42 1.10 SEPTEMBER 3.91 .83 4.74 3.16 1.58 .42 1.16 OCTOBER 4.25 .82 5.07 3.35 1.72 .42 1.30 NOVEMBER 4.45 .81 5.26 3.50 I.76 .42 I.34 DECEMBER 4.57 .81 5.38 3.56 1.82 .42 1.40 See p. 117 for footnotes. (Continued on next page 116 Table 21 — Partial Net Margins for Ice Cream Mix and Condensed Skim Milk, concluded TOTAL GROSS PARTIAL VALUE OF VALUE MARGIN NET MARGIN VALUE OF CONDENSEE (COLUMN 1 RAW (column 3 (COLUMN ICE CREAM SKIM PLUS MILK MINUS PROCESSING 5 MINUS MONTH MIX MILK COLUMN 2) COST* COLUMN 4) COSTf COLUMN 6) 1 2 3 k 5 6 J JANUARY dollan per Jtundredwei&ht k.fl .80 5.51 3.64 I.87 .44 1.43 FEBRUARY 4.54 .81 5.35 3.55 1.80 .44 1.36 MARCH *.15 .83 4.98 3.33 I.65 .44 1.21 APRIL 3.82 .85 4.67 3.15 1.52 .44 1.08 MAY 3-77 .85 4.62 3.12 1.50 .44 1.06 JUNE 3-75 .85 4.60 3.11 1.49 .44 1.05 JULY 3-77 .85 4.62 3.12 1.50 .44 1.06 AUGUST 3-87 .85 4.72 3.18 1.54 .44 1.10 SEPTEMBER 4.17 .83 5.00 3.33 I.67 .44 1.23 OCTOBER 4.34 .82 5.16 3.42 1.74 .44 1.30 NOVEMBER 4.44 .81 5.25 3.48 1.77 .44. 1.33 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.58 .81 5.39 3.55 1.84 .44 1.40 19b0 4.81 •79 5.60 3.68 1.92 .46 1.46 FEBRUARY 4.52 .81 5.33 3.52 1.81 .46 1.35 MARCH 4.15 .80 4.95 3.30 I.65 .46 1.19 APRIL 3-73 .82 4.55 3.05 1.50 .46 1.04 MAY 3.67 .82 4.49 2.98 1.51 .46 1.05 JUNE 3.61 .82 4.43 2.95 1.48 .U6 1.02 JULY 3.66 .82 4.48 2.98 1.50 .46 1.04 AUGUST 3.75 .81 4.56 3.03 1.53 .46 1.07 SEPTEMBER 4.03 .82 4.85 3.22 I.63 .46 1.17 OCTOBER 4.35 .81 5.16 3.42 1.74 .47 1.27 NOVEMBER 4.61 .80 5.41 3.57 1.84 .U6 I.38 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.72 .79 5.51 3.63 1.88 .46 1.42 I961 4.75 •79 5.54 3.64 1.90 .48 1.42 FEBRUARY 4.42 .81 5.23 3.46 1.77 .48 1.29 MARCH 4.30 .91 5.21 3.37 1.84 .48 1.36 APRIL 4.06 .93 4.99 3.28 1.71 .48 1.23 MAY 4.04 •93 4.97 3.27 1.70 .48 1.22 JUNE 3.90 .93 4.83 3.24 1.59 .48 1.11 JULY 3.89 .96 4.85 3.14 1.71 .48 1.23 AUGUST 3.98 .95 4.93 3.20 1.73 .48 1.25 SEPTEMBER 4.26 .94 5.20 3.33 1.87 .48 1.39 OCTOBER 4.57 .92 5.49 3.51 I.98 .48 1.50 NOVEMBER 4.78 .91 5.69 3.63 2.06 .48 1.58 DECEMBER 4.93 .90 5.83 3.71 2.12 .48 1.64 •From table 15. + From table 12. 117 1 Table 22. Partial Net Margins for Evaporated Milk per 100 Pounds of Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961 PARTIAL (.ROSS NET MARGIN MARGIN VALUE OF RAW (COLUMN 1 1 COLUMN 3 EVAPORATED MILK MINI'S PROCESSING MINIS MONTH MILK COST* COLUMN 2) cost! - COLUMN 4) J XNLARY 1 2 3 4 5 dollars \ut hundrrdt fright 5-55 3.60 1.95 1.39 .56 FEBRUARY 5-50 3.33 2.17 1.40 • 77 MARCH 5.^5 3.11 2.34 1.40 .94 \PRIL 5.4o 2.89 2.51 1.40 1.11 MAY 5.40 2.79 2.61 1.40 1.21 J INK 5-43 2.78 2.65 1.40 1.25 JULY 5.51 2.81 2.70 1.40 1.30 UT.l'ST 5.56 2.93 2.63 1.40 1.23 SEPTEMBER 5.56 3.1* 2.42 1.40 1.02 OC TOBER 5.88 3.50 2.38 1.41 • 97 NOVEMBER 5-94 3.69 2.25 1.41 .84 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.07 3.72 2.35 1.41 .94 1951 6.63 4.11 2.52 1.58 .94 FEBRUARY 6.71 3.96 2.75 1.58 1.17 MARCH 6.71 3.82 2.89 1.58 1.31 \PRIL 6.71 3.66 3.05 1.58 I.47 MAY 6.59 3.59 3.00 I.58 1.42 JUNE 6.59 3.62 2.97 1.58 1.39 JULY 6.53 3.70 2.83 1.58 1.25 AUGUST 6.45 3.79 2.66 1.58 1.08 SEPTEMBER 6.54 3.99 2.55 1.58 •97 OCTOBER 6.60 4.22 2.38 1.58 .80 NOVEMBER 6.66 4.27 2.39 1.58 .81 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.75 U.58 2.17 1.58 • 59 1952 6.92 4.79 2.13 1.59 .54 FEBRUARY 6.76 ^33 2.43 1.59 .84 MARCH 6.98 4.38 2.60 1.59 1.01 APRIL 6.98 ^.15 2.83 1.59 1.24 MAY 6.91 3.88 3.03 1.59 1.44 JUNE 6.91 3.86 3.05 1.59 1.46 JULY 6.91 3.97 2.94 1.59 1.35 AUGUST 6.91 4.11 2.80 I.63 1.17 SEPTEMBER 6.98 4.45 2.53 I.63 • 90 OCTOBER 7.0U 4.57 2.47 I.63 .84 NOVEMBER 1 DECEMBER 7.10 4.87 2.23 I.63 .60 7.17 5.07 2.10 I.63 .47 See p # 121 for footnotes. Continued on next page 113 Table 22 — Partial Net Margins for Evaporated Milk, continued PARTIAL GROSS NET MARGIN MARGIN VALUE OF RAW (COLUMN 1 ( COLUMN 3 EVAPORATEI MILK MINUS PROCESSING MINUS MONTH MILK COST* COLUMN 2) COSTf COLUMN 4) JANUARY 1 2 3 k 5 dollars /x*r hundredweight 7-10 k.90 2.20 l.6k .56 FEBRUARY 6.98 k.kl 2.55 l.6k .91 MARCH 6.91 4.20 2.71 l.6k 1.07 APRIL 6.64 3.79 2.85 l.6k 1.21 MAY 6.6k 3.51 3.13 l.6k 1.49 JUNE 6.51 3.36 3.15 l.6k 1.51 JULY 6.37 3.34 3.03 l.6k 1.39 AUGUST 6.37 3.50 2.87 1.64 1.23 SEPTEMBER 6A3 3.67 2.76 l.6k 1.12 OCTOBER 6.U9 3.81 2.68 1.6k 1.04 NOVEMBER 6.49 3.87 2.62 1.6k • 98 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.34 3.94 2.4o 1.6k .76 6.27 3.83 2.kk 1.6k .80 FEBRUARY 6.22 3.61 2.61 I.63 .98 MARCH 6.34 3.35 2.99 I.63 1.36 APRIL 6.10 3.08 3.02 1.64 1.38 MAY 6.10 2.87 3.23 1.64 1.59 JUNE 6.10 2.83 3.27 1.64 I.63 JULY 6.10 2.87 3.23 1.64 1.59 AUGUST 6.10 3.01 3.09 1.64 1.45 SEPTEMBER 6.16 3.20 2.96 1.64 1.32 OCTOBER 6.22 3.34 2.88 1.66 1.22 NOVEMBER 6.22 3.50 2.72 1.66 1.06 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.27 3.60 2.67 1.66 1.01 6.27 3.70 2.57 1.67 .90 FEBRUARY 6.22 3.^9 2.73 1.67 1.06 MARCH 6.16 3.28 2.88 1.67 1.21 APRIL 6.10 3.10 3.00 1.67 1.33 MAY 6.10 3.01 3.09 1.67 1.42 JUNE 6.10 2.97 3.13 1.67 1.46 JULY 6.10 3.01 3.09 1.67 1.42 AUGUST 6.10 3.09 3.01 1.68 1.33 SEPTEMBER 6.16 3.25 2.91 1.68 1.23 OCTOBER 6.22 3.39 2.83 1.74 1.09 NOVEMBER 6.29 3.50 2.79 1.74 1.05 DECEMBER 6.kk 3-64 2.80 1.74 1.06 I 119 Continued on next page Table 22 — Partial Net Margins for Evaporated Milk, continued PARTIAL GROSS NET MARGIN MARGIN VALUE OF RAW 1 COLUMN 1 ( COLUMN 3 EVAPORATED MILK MINUS PROCESSING MINUS MONTH MILK COST* COLUMN 2) cost! COLUMN 4) JANUARY 1 2 3 4 5 dollars imt hundredweight 6.44 3.63 2.81 1.76 1 1.05 FEBRUARY 6.38 3.52 2.86 1.76 1.10 MARCH 6.32 3.25 3.07 1.76 1.31 APRIL 6.26 3.13 3.13 1.76 1.37 MAY 6.26 3.06 3.20 1.82 1.38 JUNE 6.21 2.99 3.22 1.82 1.40 JULY 6.26 3.02 3. 24 1.82 1.42 AUGUST 6.26 3.15 3.H 1.83 1.28 SEPTEMBER 6.32 3.36 2.96 I.83 1.13 OCTOBER 6.38 3.62 2.76 I.83 • 93 NOVEMBER 6.44 3.80 2.64 1.85 • 79 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.56 3.89 2.67 1.85 .82 6.60 3.99 2.61 1.86 • 75 FEBRUARY 6.54 3.71* 2.80 1.86 .94 MARCH 6. 49 3.53 2.96 1.86 1.10 APRIL 6.43 3.23 3.20 1.86 1.3* MAY 6A3 3.15 3.28 1.92 1.36 JUNE 6.1*3 3.11 3.32 1.92 1.40 JULY 6.43 3.12 3.31 1.92 1.39 AUGUST 6.U3 3.20 3.23 1.92 1.31 SEPTEMBER 6.1*9 3.37 3.12 1.92 1.20 OCTOBER 6.51+ 3.56 2.98 1.92 1.06 NOVEMBER 6.58 3.60 2.98 1.92 1.06 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.77 3.70 3.07 1.92 1.15 6.77 3.72 3.05 1.92 1.13 FEBRUARY 6.71 3.59 3.12 1.92 1.20 MARCH 6.71 3.1+8 3.23 1.92 1.31 APRIL 6.65 3.28 3.37 1.92 1.45 MAY 6.59 2.91 3.68 1.92 1.76 JUNE 6.53 2.89 3.64 I.92 1.72 JULY 6.59 2.92 3.62 1.92 1.70 AUGUST 6.59 2.95 3.64 1.93 1.71 SEPTEMBER 6.65 3.16 3.49 1.93 1.56 OCTOBER 6.65 3.35 3.30 1.93 1.37 NOVEMBER 6.71 3.50 3.21 1.98 1.23 DECEMBER 6.71 3.56 3.15 I.98 1.17 I 120 Continued on next page Table 22 — Partial Net Margins for Evaporated Milk, concluded PARTIAL GROSS NET MARGIN MARGIN VALUE OF Raw ( COLUMN 1 ( COLUMN 3 EVAPORATED MILK MINUS PROCESSING MINUS MONTH MILK COST* COLUMN 2) COSTf COLUMN 4) JANUARY 1 2 3 4 5 dollars per hundredw fight 6.82 3.64 3.18 2.01 1.17 FEBRUARY 6.82 3.55 3.27 2.01 1.26 MARCH 6.76 3.33 3.43 2.01 1.42 APRIL 6.70 3.15 3.55 2.01 1.54 MAY 6.70 3.12 3.58 2.01 1.57 JUNE 6.70 3.11 3.59 2.01 1.58 JULY 6.70 3.12 3.58 2.01 1.57 AUGUST 6.70 3.18 3.52 2.02 1.50 SEPTEMBER 6.76 3.33 3.43 2.02 1.41 OCTOBER 6.78 3.42 3.36 2.02 1.34 NOVEMBER 6.82 3.48 3.34 2.02 1.32 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.82 3.55 3.27 2.02 1*.25 6.88 3.68 3.20 2.04 1.16 FEBRUARY 6.82 3.52 3.30 2.04 1.26 MARCH 6.76 3.30 3.46 2.04 1.42 APRIL 6.70 3.05 3.65 2.04 1.61 MAY 6.70 2.98 3.72 2.04 1.68 JUNE 6.63 2.95 3.68 2.04 1.64 JULY 6.70 2.98 3.72 2.04 1.68 AUGUST 6.70 3.03 3.67 2.04 I.63 SEPTEMBER 6.76 3.22 3.54 2.04 1.50 OCTOBER 7.04 3.42 3.62 2.05 1.57 NOVEMBER 7.04 3.57 3.47 2.04 1.43 DECEMBER JANUARY 7.10 3.63 3.47 2.04 1.43 7.15 3.64 3.51 2.07 1.44 FEBRUARY 7.10 3.1*6 3.64 2.07 1.57 MARCH 7.03 3.37 3.66 2.07 1.59 APRIL 6.97 3.28 3.69 2.08 1.61 MAY 6.97 3.27 3.70 2.07 I.63 JUNE 6.97 3.24 3.73 2.08 1.65 JULY 6.97 3.14 3.83 2.08 1.75 AUGUST 6.52 3.20 3.32 2.08 1.24 SEPTEMBER 6.43 3.33 3.10 2.08 1.02 OCTOBER 6.49 3.51 2.98 2.07 .91 NOVEMBER 6.49 3.63 2.86 2.07 • 79 DECEMBER 6.55 3.71 2.84 2.07 .77 From table 15. From table llu I 121 Table 23. Comparison of Raw Milk Cost with Cost of Alternative Ingredients, by Months, California, 1950-1962 I'ROCKSSINO < OSTOF < REAM TOTAL COST OF RAW WD (ON- TRANS- COST OF \LTERNATIVK MILK l>K\SF.I)SKIM PORTATION RAW INCRE- DIFFKKKN- cost* MILK'!' costJ MILK* IHKNTSi; II \hf, .1 \\l ARY i tollur.s \wr huiulrcdut ip,ht 3.6o .31 .14 4.05 4.54 .49 FEBRUARY 3-33 .31 .14 3.78 4.32 •^ MARCH 3.11 .31 .14 3.56 3.99 ^3 APRIL 2.89 .31 .14 3.3* 3.79 •v> M\\ 2.79 .31 .14 3.24 3.72 .48 JUNE 2.78 .31 .14 3.23 3.74 .51 .11X1 2.81 .31 .14 3.26 3.81 • 55 MCI ST 2.93 .31 .14 3.38 3.90 .52 SEPTEMBER 3.1^ .32 .14 3.60 *.15 • 55 OCTOBER 3.50 .32 .14 3.96 4.39 .*3 NOVEMBER 3.69 .32 .14 ^.15 ^.51 • 36 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.72 .32 .14 4.18 4.62 .44 19 >1 4.11 •33 .14 4.58 5.02 4.82 .44 FEBRUARY 3.96 •33 .14 4.43 .39 MARCH 3.82 •33 .14 4.29 ^.75 .46 APRIL 3.66 •33 .14 ^.13 4.50 • 37 MAY 3.59 •33 .14 4.06 ^.51 *5 JUNE 3.62 •33 .14 4.09 4.46 • 37 .11 LY 3.70 •33 .14 4.17 4.43 .26 AUGUST 3.79 •33 .14 4.26 4.46 .20 SEPTEMBER 3.99 •33 .14 4.46 4.65 .19 OCTOBER 4.22 •33 .14 4.69 4.97 .28 NOVEMBER 4.27 •33 .14 4.74 5.17 .1*3 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.58 •33 .14 5.05 5.58 • 53 ^.79 .& .14 5.27 5.84 .57 FEBRUARY M3 • 3^ .14 4.81 5.57 .76 MARCH 4.38 .3* .14 4.86 5.1^ .28 APRIL *.15 .3* .14 4.63 4.77 .14 MAY 3.88 • 3U .14 4.36 4.49 .13 JUNE 3.86 • 3^ .14 4.34 4.56 .22 JULY 3.97 • 3U .14 4.45 4.69 .24 AUGUST U.11 • 3U .14 4.59 4.86 .27 SEPTEMBER 4.45 •3»> .14 4.93 5.12 .19 OCTOBER 4.57 • 3^ .14 5.05 5.17 .12 NOVEMBER 4.87 ! .3^ .14 5.35 5.33 -.02 DECEMBER 5.07 1 -3U .14 ?-55 5.4o -.15 See p, 126 for footnotes. Continued on next page 122] Table 23 — Comparison Raw Milk Cost, Cost Alternative Ingredients, cont^ PROCESSING COST OK CREAM TOTAL COST OF RAW \NU CON- TRANS- COST OF ALTERNATIVE MILK DENSED SKIM PORTATION RAW INCKK- DIKKKRKN- COST* MILK? COST J MILKJj DIENTSJI TULlJ J VM'ARY 1 lollar.s per hundredweight U.90 .3* ,1k 5.38 5.23 .15 KEBRUARA 4.43 • 3^ ,1k 4.91 4.85 ,06 MARCH 4.20 • 35 ,1k 4.69 4.69 W'RIL 3.79 .3* ,lk 4.27 4.36 ■ 09 MA\ 3.51 .3* ,lk 3.99 4.27 .28 JUNE 3.36 • 35 .14 3.85 4.26 .41 .11 L\ 3.3^ • 35 .14 3.83 4.24 ,4l AUGUST 3.50 • 35 .14 3.99 4.39 .40 SEPTEMBER 3.67 • 35 .Ik 4.16 4.58 .42 OCTOBER 3.81 • 35 ,1k 4.30 fc.79 49 NOVEMBER 3.87 • 35 .Ik 4.36 4.86 .50 DECEMBER .1 VM'ARY 3.9^ • 35 .14 4.43 4.89 .46 3.83 • 36 .Ik *-33 4.89 56 FEBRUARY 3.61 • 36 .Ik 4.11 4.72 61 MARCH 3.35 • 36 .14 3.85 4.54 69 \PRIL 3.08 • 36 .14 3.58 3.98 40 MAY 2.87 • 36 .14 3.37 3.78 41 JUNE 2.83 • 36 .14 3.33 3.77 44 JULY « 2.87 • 36 .14 3.37 3.82 ^5 AUGUST 3.01 • 36 .14 3.51 3.95 44 SEPTEMBER 3.20 .36 .14 3.70 4.14 44 OCTOBER 3.3^ • 36 .14 3.84 4.29 ^5 NOVEMBER 3.50 • 36 .14 4.00 4.41 .41 DECEMBER J \Nl \R\ 3.60 • 36 .14 4.10 4.60 50 3.70 • 37 .14 4.21 4.65 .44 FEBRUARY 3A9 • 37 .14 4.00 4.37 37 MARCH 3.28 • 37 .14 3.79 ^.15 .36 M'KIL 3.10 • 37 .14 3.61 3.89 38 MAY 3.01 • 37 .14 3.52 3.85 33 JUNE 2.97 • 37 .14 3.48 3.85 • 37 JULY 3.01 • 37 .14 3.52 3.86 3^ U'Gl'ST 3.09 • 37 .14 3.60 3.91 31 SEPTEMBER 3.25 • 38 .14 3.77 4.14 37 OCTOBER 3-39 • 38 .14 3.91 4.28 37 NOVEMBER 3.50 • 38 .14 4.02 4.42 40 DECEMBER 3-64 • 38 .14 4.16 4.54 38 I 123 Continued on next page Table 23 Comparison Raw Milk Cost, Cost Alternative Ingredients, 'cont. «■ PROCESSING TOST OK CREAM TOTAL COSI OF RAW AND CON- TRANS- COST OK U.TKRNATIVK H1EKEHEN- MILK 1 KNSEDSKIM PORTATION RAW INGRE- . r COST* MILK-! COST J MILK* 1 DIENTS II XL" .1 VM'ARY dollars per hundredweight 1Q56 3.63 .38 .11+ U.15 1+.1+7 .32 FEBRUARY 3-52 .38 .11+ 1+.01+ i+.i+l •37 MARCH 3.25 •39 .11+ 3.78 1+.10 .32 VPRIL 3.13 •39 .11+ 3.66 1+.02 .36 MAY 3.06 •39 .11+ 3.59 3.90 .31 JUNE 2.99 •39 .11+ 3.52 3.85 •33 .11 L\ 3.02 .38 .11+ 3.5^ 3.90 .36 AUGUST 3.15 •39 .11+ 3.68 1+.03 •35 SEPTEMBER 3.36 •39 .11+ 3.89 1+.26 •37 OCTOBER 3.62 •39 .11+ U.15 1+.52 •37 NOVEMBER 3.80 •39 .11+ U.33 1+.73 .1+0 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.89 •39 .11+ 1+.1+2 1+.60 .18 3.99 .1+0 .11+ U.53 1+.65 .12 1 KBRUARY 3.7^ .1+0 .11+ 1+.28 *.35 .07 MARCH 3.53 .1+0 .11+ 1+.07 1+.20 .13 APRIL 3.23 .1+0 .11+ 3.77 3.93 .16 MAY 3.15 .1+0 .11+ 3.69 3.81 .12 JUNE 3.11 .1+0 .11+ 3.65 3.80 .15 JULY 3.12 .1+0 .11+ 3.66 3.92 .26 AUGUST 3.20 .1+0 .11+ 3.71* 3.98 .21+ SEPTEMBER 3.37 .1+0 .11+ 3.91 1+.27 .36 OCTOBER 3.56 .1+0 .11+ 1+.10 1+.1+8 .38 NOVEMBER 3.60 .1+0 .11+ 1+.11+ H.53 •39 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.70 .1+0 .11+ 1+.21+ 1+.58 • 3 1 * 3.72 .1+1 .11+ 1+.27 1+.59 .32 1 EBRUARN. 3.59 .1+0 .11+ 1+.13 1+.1+3 .30 MARCH 3.1+8 .1+0 .11+ 1+.02 1+.30 .28 APRIL 3.28 .1+0 .11+ 3.82 1+.00 .18 MAY 2.91 .1+0 .11+ 3^5 3.63 .18 JUNE 2.89 .1+0 .11+ 3M 3.60 .17 JULY 2.92 .1+0 .11+ 3.1+6 ! 3.65 .19 AUGUST 2.95 .1+1 .11+ 3.50 3.71 .21 SEPTEMBER 3.16 .1+1 .11+ 3.71 1+.01 .30 OCTOBER 3.35 .1+1 .11+ 3.90 1+.10 .20 NOVEMBER 3.50 .1+1 .11+ 1+.05 1 1+.17 .12 DKCEMBER 3.56 .1+1 .11+ 1+.11 1+.31+ .23 Continued on next page 124 Table 23 — Comparison Raw Milk Cost, Cost Alternative Ingredients, cont, PROCESSING COST OF CREAM TOTAL COST OF RAW AND CON- TRANS- COST OF ALTERNATIVE MILK DENSED SKIM PORTATION RAW INGRE- DIFFEKKN- COST* MILKY COSTj MILK§ DIENTS || TIALff JANUARY dollars per hundredweight 1959 3.64 A3 .14 4.21 4.32 .11 FEBRUARY 3-55 .** .14 4.12 4.20 .08 MARCH 3-33 A3 .14 3.90 3.93 .03 U'KIL 3.15 A3 .14 3.72 3.70 -.02 MAY 3.12 A3 .14 3.69 3.67 -.02 JUNE 3-11 A3 .14 3.68 3.65 -.03 JULY 3.12 A3 .14 3.69 3.68 -.01 AUGUST 3.18 A3 .14 3.75 3.83 .08 SEPTEMBER 3-33 A3 .14 3.90 4.14 .24 OCTOBER 3.42 A3 .14 3.99 4.23 .24 NOVEMBER 3.48 A3 .14 4.05 4.38 •33 DECEMBER JANUARY 3-55 .1*3 .14 4.12 4.41 .29 3.68 A5 .14 4.27 4.35 .08 FEBRUARY 3-52 A5 .14 4.11 4.15 .04 MARCH 3-30 A5 .14 3.89 3.95 .06 APRIL 3.05 M .14 3.64 3.69 .05 MAY 2.98 A5 .14 3.59 3.67 .08 JUNE 2.95 A5 .14 3.54 3.63 .09 JULY 2.98 A5 .14 3.57 3.67 .10 AUCUST 3.03 .45 .14 3.62 3.76 .14 SEPTEMBER 3.22 A5 .14 3.81 4.06 .25 OCTOBER 3.42 A5 .14 4.01 4.23 .22 NOVEMBER 3.57 A5 .14 4.16 4.45 .29 DECEMBER JANUARY 3.63 .*5 .14 4.22 4.48 .26 3.64 A7 .14 4.25 4.49 .24 FEBRUARY 3.46 A7 .14 4.07 4.25 .18 MARCH 3.37 A7 .14 3.98 4.25 .27 APRIL 3.28 A7 .14 3.89 4.08 .19 MAY 3.27 A7 .14 3.88 4.06 .18 JUNE 3.24 A7 .14 3.85 4.02 .17 JULY 3.14 A7 .14 3.75 4.05 .30 AUCUST 3.20 A7 .14 3.81 4.11 .30 SEPTEMBER 3.33 A7 .14 3.94 4.28 .34 OCTOBER 3.51 A7 .14 4.12 4.45 • 33 NOVEMBER 3.63 -A7 .14 4.24 4.60 • 36 DECEMBER 3.71 A7 .14 4.32 4.71 • 39 | Continued on next page 125 Table 23 — Comparison Raw Milk Cost, Cost Alternative Ingredients, concluded PROCESSING COST OF (REAM TOTAL cost of RAW AND CON- TRANS- COST OF \LTERNATIVE MILK DENSED SKIM PORTATION RAW INGRE- DIFFEREN- .COST* MILKY costt MILK* DIENTS i| TIAL^ JANUARY dollars per hundredweight 3-77 .hi .l4 4.38 4.81 .43 FEBRUARY 3.70 -hi .1U 4.31 4.72 .41 MARCH 3.^9 .hi .14 4.10 4.49 • 39 \PRIL 3.10 .hi .14 3.71 3.91 .20 MAY 3.96 .hi .14 3.57 3.78 .21 JUNE 2.93 .hi .14 3.54 3.75 .21 JULY 2.9^ .h& .14 3.56 3.77 .21 AUGUST 3.00 >hQ .14 3.62 3.83 .21 •?rm table 15. tprom table 6. * Estimated cost of transporting cream and condensed skim milk from San Joaquin Valley locations to metropolitan plants. Estimate of costs of receiving California-produced milk at Valley plants, processing it into cream and condensed skim milk, and transporting these ingredients to metropolitan ice cream plants. I San Francisco 92-score butter price ♦ 2 cents per pound [l.235 x fat test (see column 2, table 15)] ♦ price of nonfat dry solids, spray-processed [(fat test x .UUi) ♦ 7.07] . January, 1950 - August, 19^2, average differential - 29 cents. Table 24. Comparison of Net Value of Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk with Cost of Raw Milk per 100 Pounds of Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961 RAW TOTAL PROCESSING NET MILK DIFFER EN MONTH V\LIE* cost! value:!: COST§ TIALJI JANUARY dollu rs per hundn d Weight 4.19 .48 3.71 3.60 .11 FERRl AR\ 3-98 .48 3.50 3.33 .17 MARCH 3.68 .48 3.20 3.11 .09 \PRIL 3.49 .48 3.01 2.89 .12 MAY 3.42 .48 2.94 2.79 .15 JUNE 3.45 .49 2.96 2.78 .18 .irn 3.51 .49 3.02 2.81 .21 \UCUST 3.63 .49 3.14 2.93 .21 SEPTEMBER 3.83 .50 3.33 3.14 .19 OCTOBER 4.04 .50 3.54 3.50 .04 NOVEMBER 4.17 • 51 3.66 3.69 -.03 .DECEMBER 4.27 .51 3.76 3.72 .04 See p. 130 for footnotes. I 126| Continued on next page Table 24 — Comparison Net Value Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, Cost of Raw Milk, continued KWV TOTAL PROCESSING NET MILK RIKPEREN MONTH VlLl'E* cost! value:!; COST* TIM.'! JANUARY dollars per hundrv du<'i(>hl 4.65 .52 4.13 4.11 .02 PEBRI Am 4.46 .52 3.94 3.96 -.02 MARCH 4.4i •52 3.89 3.82 .07 \PRIL 4.17 .52 3.65 3.66 -.01 MAY 4.18 .52 3.66 3.59 .07 JUNE 4.13 .52 3.61 3.62 -.01 .11 l.\ 4.10 .52 3.58 3.70 -.12 Ud ST 4.12 •52 3.60 3.79 -19 SEPTEMBER 4.31 .52 3.79 3.99 -.20 OCTOBER 4.61 .52 4.09 4.22 -13 NOVEMBER 4.79 .52 4.27 4.27 DECEMBER .1 \M \IO 5-07 .52 4.55 4.58 -.03 1952 5-43 •53 4.90 4.79 .11 / 1 imr \rn 5-19 .54 4.65 4.33 .32 MARCH 4.78 •54 4.24 4.38 -.14 \I»RIL 4.42 .54 3.88 4.15 -27 M\\ 4.16 .54 3.62 3.88 -.26 JUNE 4.23 .54 3.69 3.86 -.17 JULY 4.35 .54 3.81 3.97 -.16 UGl'ST 4.50 .54 3.96 4.11 -.15 SEPTEMBER 4.76 .54 4.22 4.45 -.23 OCTOBER 4.81 .54 4.27 4.57 -.30 NOVEMBER 4.94 .54 4.40 4.87 -.47 DECEMBER .1 \M \K\ 5.00 .54 4.46 5.07 -.61 4.83 •55 4.28 4.90 -.62 PEBRUAR1 4.48 •55 3.93 4.43 -.50 MARCH 4.35 •55 3.80 4.20 -.40 \PKIL 4.03 •55 3-48 3.79 -31 M \N 3.95 •55 3.40 3.51 -.11 JUNE 3.95 •55 3.40 3.36 .04 .11 \A 3.92 .56 3.36 3.34 .02 UCI ST 4.06 .56 3.50 3.50 SEPTEMBER 4.24 .56 3.68 3.67 .01 Ol TOBER 4.43 .56 3.87 3.81 .06 NONEMRER 4.50 •56 3.94 3.87 .07 DECEMBER 4.51 .56 3.95 3.94 .01 Continued on next page I 127 Table 24— Comparison Net Value Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, Cost of Raw Milk, continued m\v TOTAL PROCESSING NET MILK DIFFEREN MONTH VALUE* cost! value:;. COST$ TIALlI JANLAR1 dollars fur lumdrc dwrif*ht 195^ U.52 • 56 3.96 3.83 .13 FEBRUARY U.36 • 56 3.80 3.61 .19 M ARCH 1*. 21 .56 3.65 3.35 .30 APRIL 3.67 • 56 3.11 3.08 .03 MAY 3-48 .56 2.92 2.87 .05 JUNE 3-47 •56 2.91 2.83 .08 JULY 3.52 •56 2.96 2.87 .09 AUGUST 3.64 .56 3.08 3.01 .07 SEPTEMBER 3.80 .56 3.24 3.20 .04 OCTOBER 3.96 • 56 3.40 3.34 .06 NO\ EMBER 4.07 .56 3.51 3.50 .01 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.23 .56 3.67 3.60 .07 4.28 .58 3.70 3.70 FEBRUARY 4.o4 .58 3.1*6 3.49 -.03 MARCH 3.82 .58 3.24 3.28 -.04 APRIL 3.58 .58 3.00 3.10 -.10 MAY 3.55 • 58 2.97 3.01 -.04 JUNE 3-54 .58 2.96 2.97 -.01 JULY 3.55 .58 2.97 3.01 -.04 AUGUST 3.61 •59 3.02 3.09 -.07 SEPTEMBER 3.82 • 59 3.23 3.25 -.02 OCTOBER 3-94 • 59 3.35 3.39 -.04 NOVEMBER 4.07 .59 3.^8 3.50 -.02 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.17 • 59 3.58 3.6U -.06 4.11 .60 3.51 3.63 -.12 FEBRUARY 4.11 .60 3.51 3.52 -.01 MARCH 3.77 .60 3.17 3.25 -.08 APRIL 3.70 .61 3.09 3.13 -.04 MAY 3.58 .61 2.97 3.06 -.09 JUNE 3.55 .61 2.94 2.99 -.05 JULY 3.60 .61 2.99 3.02 -.03 \ I GUST 3.72 .61 3.11 3.15 -.04 SEPTEMBER 3.93 .62 3.31 3.36 -.05 OCTOBER 4.17 .61 3.56 3.62 -.06 NOVEMBER 4.37 .61 3.76 3.80 -.04 DECEMBER 4.31 .62 3.69 3.89 -.20 Continued on next page 128 I Table 24 — Comparison Net Value Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, Cost of Raw Milk, continued RAW TOTAL PROCESSING NET MILK DIFFKKKN MONTH VALUE* COSTf value* COST§ TIALlj JANUARY (l(tll(ir. 1 /mt huiuin'dwnfihl h.36 •63 3.73 3.99 -.26 FKBRl ARV 4.08 •63 3.45 3.74 -29 MARCH 3-94 .63 3.31 3.53 -.22 APRIL 3.69 .63 3.06 3.23 -17 MAY 3.56 .63 2.93 3.15 -.22 JUNE 3.55 .63 2.92 3.11 -19 JULY 3.62 •63 2.99 3.12 -13 VUGUST 3-74 .63 3.11 3.20 -.09 SEPTEMBER 4.00 .63 3.37 3.37 OCTOBER 4.21 •63 3.58 3.56 .02 NOVEMBER 4.24 •63 3.61 3.60 .01 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.28 .63 3.65 3.70 -.05 1958 4.23 .64 3.59 3.72 -13 FEBRUARY 4.08 .64 3.44 3.59 -.15 MARCH 3.96 •63 3.33 3.48 -15 APRIL 3.68 .63 3.05 3.28 -23 MAY 3.34 .63 2.71 2.91 -.20 JUNE 3.32 • 63 2.69 2.89 -.20 JULY 3.36 .63 2.73 2.92 -.19 AUGUST 3.41 .64 2.77 2.95 -.18 SEPTEMBER 3.70 .64 3.06 3.16 -.10 OCTOBER 3.81 .64 3.17 3.35 -.18 NOVEMBER 3.83 .64 3.19 3.50 -31 DECEMBER JANUARY 4.00 .64 3.36 3.56 -.20 3.99 .67 3.32 3.64 -32 FEBRUARY 3.88 .67 3.21 3.55 -34 MARCH 3.62 .67 2.95 3.33 -.38 APRIL 3.40 .67 2.73 3.15 -.42 MAY 3.38 •67 2.71 3.12 -.41 JUNE 3.36 .67 2.69 3.11 -.42 JULY 3.39 .67 2.72 3.12 -.40 AUGUST 3.52 .67 2.85 3.18 -33 SEPTEMBER 3.82 .67 3.15 3.33 -.18 OCTOBER 3.90 .67 3.23 3.42 -.19 NOVEMBER 4.04 .67 3.37 3.48 -.11 DECEMBER 4.06 • 67 3.39 3.55 -.16 129 Continued on next page Table 24 Comparison Net Value Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk, Cost of Raw Milk, concluded KWV TOTAL PROCESSING NET MILK DIM EREN- MONTH V\LUE* cost! \ \li:e:|: COST> 1 1 \l. dollar* \ur hutulrv lurifihl JANLAR1 I960 4.00 .70 3.30 3.68 -38 IK BR I AM 3.82 .70 3.12 3.52 -.40 M XKCH 3.63 .70 2.93 3.30 -37 VI'RIL 3.40 .70 2.70 3.05 -35 MAY 3-38 .70 2.68 2.98 -.30 JUNK 3.35 .70 2.65 2.95 -.30 .iin 3.38 .70 2.68 2.98 -.30 UCIST 3.46 .70 2.76 3.03 -27 SEPTEMBER 3.81 .70 3.11 3.22 -.11 OCTOBER 3.90 .70 3.20 3.42 -.22 NOVEMBER' 4.10 .70 3.40 3.57 -17 DECEMBER .1 \M \K\ *.13 .70 3.^3 3.63 -.20 1961 4.14 •73 3.M 3.64 -.23 1 EBRI \K\ 3.91 •73 3.18 3.46 -.28 MARCH 3.93 •73 3.20 3.37 -17 APRIL 3.76 •73 3.03 3.28 -25 MAY 3-75 •72 3.03 3.27 -.24 JUNE 3.71 .72 2.99 3-24 -25 JULY 3.7^ •73 3.01 3.1* -13 AUGUST 3.79 •73 3.06 3.20 -.14 SEPTEMBER 3.95 •73 3.22 3.33 -.11 OCTOBER 4.11 •72 3.39 3.51 -.12 NOVEMBER 4.24 •72 3.52 3.63 -.11 DECEMBER 4.34 •73 3.61 3.71 -.10 * From table 18 • * From table 8 • 1 Total value minus processing cost. §From table 15. " Net value minus raw milk cost. f 130 Table 25. Comparison of Net Value of Evaporated Milk with Cost of Raw Milk per 100 Poinds of Milk, by Months, California, 1950-1961 RAW TOTAL PROCESSING NET MILK DIFFER EN MONTH VALUE* COSTf value!* COST§ TIALJI JANUARY dttllar s fH-r hundredweight 5-55 1.39 4.16 3.60 .56 FEBRUARY 5-50 1.40 4.10 3.33 •77 MARCH 5^5 1.40 4.05 3.11 .94 APRIL 5.4o 1.40 4.00 2.89 1.11 MAY 5.4o 1.40 4.00 2.79 1.21 JUNE 5-43 1.40 4.03 2.78 1.25 JULY 5.51 1.40 4.11 2.81 1.30 AUGUST 5.56 1.40 4.16 2.93 1.23 SEPTEMBER 5.56 1.40 4.16 3.14 1.02 OCTOBER 5.88 1.41 4.47 3.50 • 97 NOVEMBER 5-94 1.41 4.53 3.69 .84 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.07 1.41 4.66 3.72 .94 6.63 1.58 5.05 4.11 .94 FEBRUARY 6.71 I.58 5.13 3.96 1.17 MARCH 6.71 I.58 5.13 3.82 1.31 APRIL 6.71 I.58 5.13 3.66 1.47 MAY 6.59 I.58 5.01 3.59 1.42 JUNE 6.59 1.58 5.01 3.62 1.39 JULY 6.53 I.58 4.95 3.70 1.25 AUCUST 6.45 I.58 4.87 3.79 1.08 SEPTEMBER 6.54 I.58 4.96 3.99 .97 OCTOBER 6.60 I.58 5.02 4.22 .80 NOVEMBER 6.66 I.58 5.08 4.27 .81 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.75 I.58 5.17 4.58 .59 6.92 1.59 5.33 4.79 .54 FEBRUARY 6.76 1.59 5.17 4.33 .84 MARCH 6,98 1.59 5.39 4.38 1.01 \PRIL 6.98 1.59 5.39 4.15 1.24 MAY 6.91 1.59 5.32 3.88 1.44 JUNE 6.91 1.59 5.32 3.86 1.46 JULY 6.91 1.59 5.32 3.97 1.35 AUGUST 6.91 I.63 5.28 4.11 1.17 SEPTEMBER 6.98 I.63 5.35 4.45 .90 OCTOBER 7.04 I.63 5.41 4.57 .84 NOVEMBER 7.10 I.63 5.47 4.87 .60 DECEMBER 7.17 1.63 5.54 5.07 .47 See p. 134 for footnotes 131 Continued on next page Table 25 — Comparison Net Value Evaporated Milk, Raw Milk, continued RAW TOTAL PROCESSING NET MILK DIFFER EN ~ MONTH V\LUE* COSTf VALUE J COST§ TIALJI JANUARY dollars per hundredweight 1953 7-10 1.64 5.46 4.90 .56 HKBRUARY 6.98 1.64 5.34 4.43 .91 MARCH 6.91 1.64 5.27 4.20 1.07 \PRIL 6.64 1.64 5.00 3.79 1.21 MAY 6.64 1.64 5.00 3.51 1.49 JUNE 6.51 1.64 4.87 3.36 1.51 JULY 6.37 1.64 4.73 3.34 1.39 AUGUST 6.37 1.64 4.73 3.50 1.23 SEPTEMBER 6.43 1.64 4.79 3.67 1.12 OCTOBER 6.1*9 1.64 4.85 3.81 1.04 NOVEMBER 6. 49 1.64 4.85 3.87 .98 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.3k 1.64 4.70 3.94 .76 1954 6.Z1 1.64 4.63 3.83 .80 FEBRUARY 6.22 1.63 4.59 3.6l • 98 MARCH 6.lk I.63 4.71 3.35 I.36 APRIL 6.10 1.64 4.46 3.08 I.38 MAY 6.10 1.64 4.46 2.87 1.59 JUNE 6.10 1.64 4.46 2.83 I.63 JULY 6.10 1.64 4.46 2.87 1.59 AUCUST 6.10 1.64 4.46 3.01 l.*5 SEPTEMBER 6.16 1.64 4.52 3.20 1.32 OCTOBER 6.22 1.66 4.56 1 3.3^ 1.22 NOVEMBER 6.22 1.66 4.56 3.50 1.06 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.27 1.66 4.61 3.60 1.01 1955 1 6.27 I.67 4.60 3.70 .90 FEBRUARY 6.22 I.67 ^.55 3.49 1.06 MARCH 6.16 1.67 4.49 3.28 1.21 \PRIL 6.10 1.67 4.43 3.10 1.33 MAY 6.10 I.67 4.43 3.01 1.42 JUNE 6.10 1.67 4.43 2.97 1.46 JULY 6.10 1.67 4.43 3.01 1.42 \UGUST 6.10 1.68 4.42 3.09 1.33 SEPTEMBER 6.16 1.68 4.48 3.25 1.23 OCTOBER 6.22 1.74 4.48 3.39 1.09 NOVEMBER 6.29 I.74 ^55 3.50 1.05 DECEMBER 6.kk I.74 4.70 3.64 1.06 Continued on next page 132 Table 25 — Comparison Net Value Evaporated Milk, Raw Milk, continued RAW TOTAL PROCESSING NET MILK IHKKEKEN- MONTH VXLUE* cost! value! COST§ ti\l!| JANUARY dollars fMT hundrrdwri^hl 1956 6.kk 1.76 U.68 3.63 1.05 FEBRUARY 6.38 1.76 : 4.62 3.52 1.10 MARCH 6.32 I.76 i+. 56 3.25 1.31 XI'RIL 6.26 1.76 k.50 3.13 1.37 MAY 6.26 1.82 k.kk 3.06 1.38 JUNE 6.21 1.82 4.39 2.99 1.1+0 JULY 6.26 1.82 k.kk 3.02 1.1+2 VUCUST 6.26 I.83 k.ki 3.15 1.28 SEPTEMBER 6.32 1.83 ; k.k9 3.36 1.13 OCTOBER 6.38 1.83 ^•55 3.62 •93 NOVEMBER 6.M+ 1.85 1+.59 3.80 •79 DECEMBER HNUAR\ 6.56 1.85 U.71 3.89 .82 6.60 1.86 k.jk 3.99 •75 FEBRUARY 6.5** 1.86 k.68 3.7^ .9^ MARCH 6.1*9 1.86 U.63 3.53 1.10 APRIL 6A3 1.86 4.57 3.23 1.* MAY 6.43 1.92 Ml 3.15 1.36 JUNE 6.1+3 1 1.92 ^51 3.11 1.1*0 JULY 6.U3 1 1.92 ^.51 3.12 1.39 AUGUST 6.U3 ! 1.92 ^•51 3.20 1.31 SEPTEMBER 6.1+9 1.92 ^57 3.37 1.20 OCTOBER 6.5U 1.92 U.62 3.56 1.06 NOVEMBER 6.58 1.92 1+.66 1 3.60 1.06 DECEMBER JXNUARY 6.77 1.92 U.85 i ; 3.70 1 1.15 6.77 1.92 U.85 3.72 i 1.13 FEBRUARY 6.71 1.92 1+.79 3.59 1 1.20 MARCH 6.71 1.92 k.J9 j 3.^8 1.31 XI'RIL 6.65 1.92 k.T3 3.28 l.*5 MAY 6.59 1.92 1 4.67 2.91 1.76 JUNE 6.53 1.92 ! k.6l 1 2.89 1.72 JULY 6.59 1.92 U.67 2.92 1.75 XI GIST 6.59 1.93 U.66 2.95 1.71 SEPTEMBER 6.65 1.93 U.72 3.16 1.56 Ol TOKER 6.65 1-93 1+.72 3.35 1.37 NO\ EMBER 6.71 I.98 k.J3 3.50 1.23 DECEMBER 6.71 I.98 1+.73 3.56 1.17 Continued on next page 133 Table 25 — Comparison Net Value Evaporated Milk, Raw Milk, concluded RAW TOTAL PROCESSING NET MILK IHFFEREN- MONTH V\Ll'E* COSTf value! COST§ TI\L|| JANUARY doilui •s \ht hundredweight u» 6.82 2.01 4.81 3.64 1.17 FEBRUARY 6.82 2.01 4.81 3.55 1.26 MARCH 6.76 2.01 4.75 3.33 1.42 APRIL 6.70 2.01 4.69 3.15 1.5* MAY 6.70 2.01 4.69 3.12 1.57 JUNE 6.70 2.01 4.69 3.11 1.58 JULY 6.70 2.01 4.69 3.12 1.57 AUGUST 6.70 2.02 4.68 3.18 1.50 SEPTEMBER 6.76 2.02 4.74 3.33 1.41 OCTOBER 6.78 2.02 4.76 3.42 1.3 1 * NOVEMBER 6.82 2.02 4.80 3.48 1.32 DECEMBER JANUARY 6.82 2.02 4.80 3.55 1.25 6.88 2.04 4.84 3.68 1.16 FEBRUARY 6.82 2.04 4.78 3.52 1.26 MARCH 6.76 2.04 4.72 3.30 1.42 APRIL 6.70 2.04 4.66 3.05 1.61 MAY 6.70 2.04 4.66 2.98 1.68 JUNE 6.63 2.04 *-59 1 2.95 1.64 JULY 6.70 2.04 4.66 1 2.98 1.68 AUCUST 6.70 2.04 4.66 ! 3.03 1.63 SEPTEMBER 6.76 2.