390 AGRICULTURAL APPROPRIATIOX BILL, 1924. 



f)urpose, as we see it, of cost of studies is an analj^sis of the farm 

 )usiness as a basis of better farm or^nization. although it is recog- 

 nized that studies in connection with the cost of production and 

 marketing are important with robition to tariff studies, and the Tariff 

 Commission is asking us for the results of our cost of production 

 studies and cost of marketing studies as a basis for some of their 

 work. 



Mr. Anderson. Are these cost of production studies being carried 

 on in tiie same way as formerly^ ' . * 



Doctor Taylor. Yes, sir; the cost of production studies are being 

 carried on in the various parts of the I jiited States, and. so far as 

 possible, in cooperation with the States, so that each dollar we spend 

 on cost of production work results in $2 being expended for work in 

 this field. 



I would like to give you a brief statement of what is V)eing done 

 in the way of cost studies. We are making beef cattle cost stutlies 

 in a number of ])laces, the cost of fattening beef-cattle on corn farms, 

 the cost of fattening cattle on the ])astures of Kansas, and also the 

 cost on ranges. All told there are 750 farms and ranches on which 

 these beef-cattle cost studies are beino; made. 



Mr. Anderson. Do these figures snow any substantial reduction 

 in the cost of production as compared with, say, 1919^ 



Doctor Taylor. A ver}- marked reducton in cost due both to 

 the fact that the feeders are bought at a very much lower figure 

 and to the fact that the feed is very much chea])er at the present 

 time than it was. 



Mr. Anderson. Do the figures show that any considerable ])ortion 

 of the stock on these farms is produced at a loss ? 



Doctor Taylor. The figures for the last winter are showing very 

 satisfactory profits but the figures for the earlier jieriod, when the 

 feeders had oeen bought at higher prices and sold at lower prices, 

 and when very high-priced corn was being fed to them, show definite 

 lo.sses, but those figures, when put in the form of returns for the corn 

 fed to them, simply show that the man did not get as much for his 

 corn when fed to cattle as the market ])rice for corn indicated he 

 might be selling it for, although we recognize that if all of it had 

 been put in the markets the price of corn would have been different. 



Mr. Anderson. I have the general impression that the farm situa- 

 tion to-day is worse than it was a year ago, but if your statement is 

 correct — and I assume it is — that general impression would not seem 

 supported by the facts. 



Doctor Taylor. The impression that the farm situation is \st)is(' 

 than it was is based upon tlie fact tiiat while the elements of cost in 

 the producing of cattle are lower, so that when you figure the relation 

 between cost and price there seems to be a margin of profit, it is yet j 

 true that the purchasing power of the farmei', based upon a comj)ari- ' 

 .son of the prices of tlie various things the farmer has to sell with the 

 prices of the things he has to buy, is down in the sixties. The studies 

 also inchidc farm j)ractic(>s and feeding practices on these farms, .so 

 that tiic studies aic not confined simply to the (piestion of the ele- 

 ments of cost. 



Mr. Anderson. To what extent, for example, are the feeiiing prac- 

 tices with referenc*' to hogs fairly standard { 



Doctoi' Tavj.or. There is a wich' range of practice and you get 

 (fiffen'rices in cost corresponding more or less to those ranges. Some 



