Ma}-, 1933] Efficiency ^txhi^ie&jn' Dairy Farming 13 



The low priced gi'oup sold only Grade B milk, which averaged $1.61 

 per hundred. The average family labor income was $80. 

 _It is difficult to estimate ho\y much of 4ie-. difference in - income i.^ 

 due to the price of milk, because other factors which influence farm 

 income .were more favorable in the first and second groups. 



The number of cows per farm averaged practically the same for the 

 three groups, but the amount of grain fed and the quantity of milk 

 sold per cow were highest in the top milk price group and lowest in 

 the low jn-ice group. The first group fed 1,471 pounds of grain and 

 sold, 5,347 pounds of milk per cow. The last group fed 943 pounds of 

 grain and sold 4,474 pounds of milk. 



As Another measure, the family incomes on all the individual farms 

 were Te-estimated on the basis of a common yearly average price for 

 milk. (Table 3.) A composite price of $1.80 per hundred was taken 

 as the average received for 3.7% milk. This was based on a 20 per 

 cent surplus throughout the year. 



Butterfat was figured at the average price for the year of 29 cents 

 per pound with the usual additions or subtractions for butterfat tests 

 above or below 3.7 per cent. 



On this common price basis, about equivalent to a straight Grade B 

 price, the position of the farms as to income would be completely 

 changed. Three of the high income famis drop to a low ranking while 

 some in the low income group rise in position though not in income. 

 No doubt the men who receive a higher price for their milk would 

 farm differently if they were on a straight Grade B basis, but it is 

 well to note that the difference in price of milk received by farmers 

 in the same area is an important factor in detennining the income 

 and management practices. 



The individual farmer has limited control over the factors that make 

 up the price he receives for his milk. If he is a Grade A producer, 

 he can plan to have sufficient production at all times to take advantage 

 of the fluid milk price. He can be especially careful to maintain his 

 rating, though it is doubtful economy at present to attempt to increase 

 it. He can attempt to have as high a premium as possible for low 

 bacteria count. 



If he is a Grade B producer, he can even up production as much as is 

 consistent with the best use of his farm and labor. Some of the in- 

 dividual farmers may well produce considerable surplus even if the 

 average price received is lowered. The decision as to this should be 

 made on the marginal unit of milk produced. Given the fann, the 

 roughage, the pasture, and the labor available, will it be profitable for 

 the farm business as a whole to produce another 50 pounds or so 

 of milk? 



Since a new rating for Grade B producers is made each year, such 

 increase of production as can be stimulated in the rating period with- 

 out undue cost and without disrupting the evenness of production the 

 rest of the year, would probably be to the farmers' advantage." 



