No. 7. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 295 



I get at the labor in this way: Allowing twenty minutes daily 

 to milk a cow, 292 days in a year, at $1.25 a day, is |365, or one 

 man's wages. This would scarcely be enough for feeding them and 

 cleaning the stables, but much of the labor of feeding would be ex- 

 pended in putting the product fed into market. I will keep a man 

 and team drawing out manure all the year, if some one will furnish 

 it free. While these figures may seem high to some, I am sure they 

 are correct, and the items of interest and labor might well have been 

 put higher. If it costs more than three cents a quart to produce 

 milk, what about those who are only getting that or less? 



It must be apparent that they are not getting for their milk ac- 

 cording to the cost of producing it. Our sales in cash were |2,357.57. 

 Deducting from this the $1,966.94 leaves only |395.57 real profit to 

 be credited to the dairy. In addition we have the skim milk, not 

 reckoned here at all, and worth not less than |10 a cow. Also our 

 own milk and cream for family use, with which the cows are credited ; 

 but it does not appear in the receipts. 



As I have intimated, the yield was not large; yet, all will agree, 

 not much below the average of the rank and file of the dairies of 

 the State producing a milk with a much lower fat content. Much 

 of the profit came from my being able to obtain, through being my 

 own manufacturer, a little better than the average price and from 

 the skim milk left on the farm, but had I been obliged to live, buy 

 shoes for the babies, educate them, pay doctor bills, etc., solely from 

 the profit of those cows there would not have been much to reduce 

 the mortgage. 



The large producing dairies — of which there are many — would 

 stand little higher in profit, because of a less price received and no 

 by-product left on the farm. 



If these statements stand as facts, then the profit is too small. 

 What is the remedy? The res})onse goes up, "A higher price for 

 the milk?" And to this we all say "Amen," with reason and justice. 

 But this is not the first remedy. 



Ex-President Smith in a recent address gave the following figures, 

 taken from the Station Herd Eecord for the years 1905 to 1908. I 

 quote: 



"In 1905 wheat bran cost us |17 a ton; gluten feed, |24; cotton- 

 seed meal, |28; cornmeal, $22; dried distillers' grains, $27, and oats, 

 36 cents a bushel. 



"In 1906 wheat bran was $22.50 a ton; gluten feed, $28; cotton- 

 seed meal, $29; malt sprouts, $18; oats, 40 cents, and corn 56 cents 

 a bushel. 



"In 1907 wheat bran was $22 a ton; gluten feed, $29; cottonseed 

 meal, $29.70 ; malt sprouts, $18.50 ; oats, 40 cents, and corn, 54 cents 

 a bushel. 



"In 1908 wheat bran was $23.50 a ton; gluten feed, $31; cotton- 

 seed meal, $33; oats, 50 cents, and corn, 75 cents a bushel." 



From these figures it is apparent that in this brief period there 

 has been an advance in the cost of feed of $7 a head, with a constant 

 or equal yield and no advance in price. This $7 is taken from the 

 dairyman's profit. Ko account here is made of the increased cost 

 of labor and higher value of cows. Should we go back a decade 

 we find these feeds very much lower. The Avriter has within a shorter 

 period laid them in for much less than the figures given by Mr. 



