10 



N. H. Agr. Experiment Station 



[Bulletin 275 



rating system in which average prices were higher when production was 

 constant and near the rated amount. However, this incentive has not 

 been clear and definite enough to influence all Grade A producers. 



On the other hand the Grade B producer until recently has not had 

 sr.fficient inducement to eliminate spring seasonal surplus. While fluid 

 and surplus prices have been lower at this season, they have not been 

 enough lower to tempt some of the farmers away from large produc- 

 tion in the flush pasture season. 



Figure 1 shows that the a^•erage daily production for the year on 37 

 farms is veiy low just previous to the rating period. This is clue 

 partly to the difficulties of holding up production in the summer months 



450 



Fig. 1. A comparison of daily milk production and price received for fluid and 



surplus milk, 37 farms. 



and partly to the necessity of drying off cows in preparation for heavy 

 production when they freshen in or just previous to the rating period. 



Under ordinary conditions, the basic rating plan had a tendency to 

 shift the period of low production rather than to even up the output 

 adequately. This is true largely because the large surplus at the rat- 

 ing season was made in the attempt to maintain a good rating. A 

 few producers had planned a very large surplus at this time with the 

 intent of raising their rating, but the usual result was that the rating 

 was seldom advanced more than 10 pounds per day. 



Under existing conditions several men increased production in the 

 rating period, and then were not able to take full advantage of the 

 rating established. For instance, as illustrated in Figure 3, one oper- 

 ator had four cows freshen in August and four in September. By pro- 

 ducing as high as 300 pounds a day, he was able to establish a rating 



