EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETINS. 427 



price received was $3,337. SDhe cost increased 49% during the period 

 given in the table, and out of the 36 months studied, only seven were 

 profitable. 



Figure IV shows the general trend of costs and prices received per 

 hundred weight of milk during the period this study covers. The great- 

 est spread between prices received and cost of production came during 

 the September months when milk production was at its lowest point, 

 thus making the cost per unit very high. 



The average yearly loss per cow was |29.39 the first year, flO.GO the 

 second year, and |20.54 the third year. 



Out of the twenty-five farms studied in this district only one made 

 a profit the first year, nine the second, and six the third. 



To have enabled all farmers to recover cost of production when sell- 

 ing milk at the prices named, a yearly average production of 8,088 

 pounds per cow would have been required. Furthermore, it would have 

 been necessary to accomplish this larger production without any addi- 

 tional expenditure for extra feed. 



In March, 191G, it cost the Webberville farmers .f2.041 per hundred- 

 weight, and in February, 1918, $3,212 or an increase of 57.4% in two 

 years. 



The average yearly loss per cow was |9.G9 the first year and |10.28 

 the second year. Out of the twenty-five farms studied four made a 

 profit the first year and nine the second year. 



As a whole, milk was produced considerably cheaper at Webberville 

 (figure V) than at Howell, which may be attributed to the smaller 

 investment, the larger amount of cheap grain fed, and the fewer hours 

 spent in caring for the dairy herd. However, the general trend of 

 prices and costs was similar to that of Howell territory. (Figure IV.) 



