EFFICIENCY STUDIES IN DAIRY FARMING 



H. C. WOODWORTH, C. W. HARRIS, Jr. 



New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station 



and 



EMIL RAUCHENSTEIN 



Bureau of Agricultural Economics 



For the year ending March 31, 1932, the family labor incomes of 

 38 farmers ^n Grafton County varied from a loss of $964 to a gain 

 of $1721. Thirteen farmers had family labor incomes ranging from 

 $711 to $1721, 13 others ranged from $184 to $670, and the 12 lowest 

 ranged from a loss of $964 to a gain of $162. 



These differences are no greater than those usually found in similar 

 studies in this and in other areas. Two years earlier the results of a 

 farm management survey of 414 farms, reported in New Hampshire 

 Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 260, showed a range in labor 

 incomes from a loss of $2,679 to a gain of $5,138. Why such differ- 

 ences in net returns? A study of records in 1930 showed that some of 

 the variations in returns are associated with dift'erences in size of busi- 

 ness as measured by farm acreage, crop acreage, number of cows, and 

 productive man work units. Some of these are associated with dif- 

 ferences in quality as measured by crop yields, pounds of milk sold 

 per cow and grade of milk. Still other variations are associated \\ith 

 labor efficiency as measured by productive man work units per man 

 or are due to some intangible personal factors, and to chance. 



But underlying most of these factors are more fundamental ones 

 which are more nearly of a causal nature. For example, high pro- 

 duction per cow may go back to skillful feeding and care and to a 

 careful and fortunate selection of breeding stock 10 and 20 years 

 earlier. Inefficiency in the use of labor may be due to inconvenient 

 arrangement of buildings and fields, and to a farm and herd too small 

 for the available family labor. 



This study was started for the purpose of going as far as possible 

 into the causes of variations in farmers' net returns in order to de- 

 termine to what extent improvements can be made by individual 

 farmers under their respective conditions. Forty farmers who had 



♦Acknowledgment is made to the following dairymen for their patience in 

 keeping records and for their co-operation in studying daiiy problems: 



E. H. Aldrich Alfred Houston K. G. Robinson 



William Blaisdell Carl Howland Perley Rutledge 



Lawrence Caswell Fred C. Lee Everett Smith 



Theodore Chamberlain Julius Lang Homer Smith 



Dwight Child Roe McDanolds Howard Smith 



Peter Dargie G. Cavis Minot Norman Smith 



Clyde Darling Fred Morrill Joseph Steams 



W. V. Darling Alonzo Morris Ernest Stevens 



Ernest Ellsworth Henry Page Ernest Underhill 



C. J. Frink Harry Partridge Heniy Underhill 



Fa\. Glidden Hugh Poor Stephen Underhill 



Leon Hall Lester Presby Charles White 



Raymond Hill George Putnam Minot Woods 



E. C. Hinman William Putnam Ollie Young 



Maurice Young 



