446 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



more expensive. A secondary cause of loss was the hij^her cost of hous- 

 ing. The buildings were really very superior, as has been shown by the 

 inventory. 



Dairy No. 17. 



Lost in 1914 and also in 11)15. The loss of the first year can be traced 

 to no special cause as a fault in production, unless it might be that of 

 too liberal feeding. 



The reader will note that the wholesale price of the milk was 20c per 

 gallon. It is very doubtful if milk of the grade and quality of that pro- 

 duced on this farm could be profitably put upon the wholesale market 

 at that price. 



During the second year still further losses were occasioned by a large 

 number of reacting animals. 



Dairi/ No. 20. 



Lost in 1914. With the very narrow margins of profit at which dairy 

 production is conducted, it is inevitable that some will lose. This herd 

 had a reasonable production and its general conduct was not such as to 

 deserve a loss. 



Dairy No. 27. 



Lost in 1915. In this herd the production was low. Feed and labor, 

 however, were commensurately inexpensive. The items showing the 

 greatest occasion for loss were hauling milk and other horse labor, which 

 amounted to 3.9c per gallon. 



Dairy No. 29. 



Lost in 1915. The market for the grade of milk produced in this dairy 

 was not sufficiently extensive to take care of the business enterprise as 

 conducted. The necessity of maintaining a constant iuilk flow, and the 

 attendant added feeding charges, coupled with death losses, were among 

 the secondary causes for an unprofitable year. 



In reviewing the above notes, a reader might possibly assume that the 

 dairies showing the greatest losses on account of compulsory tuber- 

 culin test were those just beginning to put their product on the city 

 market. This was not true, because the greatest share of such losses 

 actually did occur in those herds in which city milk production had been 

 continuously carried on for a number of years under city inspection 

 with compulsory annual tests by the city authorities. 



The question that will arise in many readers' minds is: Under what 

 conditions are profits or losses brought about? 



No one factor seems to determine a profit or loss. In some cases high 

 [>roducing herds have failed to be remunerative; while in others very 

 low producing herds have made a profit. TJie cost of labor, feeds, the in- 

 vestment, as well as the system of management of the business, are im- 

 portant factors. Losses due to tuberculosis played a very important 

 part in raising the cost of milk, and since these losses are occasioned by, 

 and sustained wholly in compliance with city ordinance, it is eminently 

 fair and equitable that the producer should receive sufficient compensa- 

 tion for his improved product to safeguard him against losses from this 

 source. 



