I\iay, 1933] Efficiency Studies in Dairy Farming 



11 



of 187 iK)iinds, but almost immediately his production fell below 187 

 pounds and continued to decline. He could have sold 13,000 pounds 

 more milk as fiuitl if he had planned his production more carefully. 

 There is no particular advantage in establishing a rating if it is not 

 fully used thereafter. 



It is costly and difficult for the farmer to shift materially the fresh- 

 ening dates of his cows; and since there is no assurance of the perma- 

 nence of the rating period, the individual farmer makes a mistake if 

 he aims too high. 



In Figure 2, the example of a Grade A producer with even daily 

 production, is typical of six farms in the group. Cows freshened on 



800 



700 



600 



500 



o 



<0 



Q 

 Z 



400 



300 



200 



100 



1 15 1 15 1 15 1 15 1 15 1 15 1 15 1 15 1 15 1 15 1 15 1 15 1 



Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 



Fig. 2. Daily milk production on one grade A farm. (Typical of six farms with 

 even production). Averaged by 15-day periods. 



this particular farm as follows: three in April, one in May, four in 

 June and four in early August, seven in September and seven in Octo- 

 ber; three in November, two in December, one in February and two 

 in March. The operator took advantage of this rating, yet had little 

 surplus. The average price for his milk not counting premiums for 

 low bacteria count was S1.97. 



Figure 3 shows an example of uneven production and is typical of 

 32 farms. In this instance one cow freshened in June, four in late 

 August, four in September, two in October and two in November. 

 Tiie average price received for milk aside from premiums was $1.66. 

 At times production was less than 30 per cent of the rating, yet 14 

 per cent of the milk went as surplus. 



Even production is not easy to obtain, and with the best skill and 

 planning the individual may fail. A more even output can result from 



