acre it will be noted that, while the second group took in only $3.00 more per 

 acre than the first, the farms are smaller by twenty acres. This relative increase 

 was not large enough to make up for the large decrease in the relative size of the 

 farm as compared with the first group. The last group had not only a smaller 

 receipt per acre than both the first and second groups, but the acreage is again 

 below that of the second group by eleven acres. Ordinarily the largest farms 

 should take in the greatest total receipts, but the smaller farms should neces- 

 sarily take in a greater receipt per acre. Failure of this principle has raised 

 the cost of production of butter-fat per acre in the case of the latter two groups 

 of farmers, as is shown in Table No. 21. It has been previously pointed out in 

 this report that the farmers who operated the large farms worked at a dis- 

 advantage when interest at 7% was allowed on investment. According to Table 

 No. 21, the operators of large farms have the advantage in so far as the farmers 

 who operated largest average acreage produced butter-fat at lowest cost. This 

 is due to the fact that they built up the receipts per acre to a relatively higher 

 level, considering their larger size, than did the other two groups. 



HOW THE COST OF PRODUCING BUTTER-FAT IS INFLUENCED BY GOOD 

 CROPS AND THE ECONOMICAL EMPLOYMENT OF IjABOUR. 



Table No. 22. 



As was previously shown, good crops are a factor that improves labour 

 incomes. In Table No. 22 it is shown that good crops help to reduce the cost of 

 butter-fat production. As the yield of crop decreases, so the cost of production 

 of butter-fat increases. As far as specialization in dairying is concerned, the 

 three groups received practically the same proportion of their total farm revenue 

 through the medium of the dairy cattle. (See dairy diversity index, col. 3.) 



The group of farmers producing butter-fat at lowest cost utilized labour to 

 best advantage. They received the greatest returns for labour hired, as is shown 

 in Table No. 22, col. 4. Only 22% of their total farm receipts was spent for 

 labour. The latter two groups did not realize as well as they should have done 

 on the amount spent for labour. 



THE EFFECT OF FEEDING VERSUS BREEDING AS A MEANS OF 

 REDUCING THE COST OF BUTTER-FAT PRODUCTION. 



It is realized that good feeding and good breeding have a definite effect on 

 butter-fat yield per cow. To determine which of these factors had the greater 

 effect in reducing the cost of butter- fat production, Table No. 23 was prepared. 



On the farms having poor livestock it was found that the tendency was 

 to feed less than on farms where good livestock was kept. It will be noticed 

 that in Table- No. 23 there are no farmers in the poor livestock group who 

 practised high feeding, and in the good livestock group no farmers who practised 

 medium feeding. The farmers of the good livestock group had herds of better 

 breeding, since a greater percentage of them used pure-bred sires five years 

 and over. In the poor livestock group 33 and 36 per cent, respectively of the 

 farmers kept a pure-bred sire five years, while in the good livestock group 50 

 and 61 per cent, respectively of the farmers kept a pure-bred sire over the five- 

 year period. The amount of butter-fat increased with heavier feeding in both 

 the poor and good livestock groups. Heavier feeding increased the average pro- 

 duction in the poor livestock group by 13 pounds, and In the good livestock 

 group by 17 pounds. The difference between the production of the poor livestock 

 group and the good livestock group is much more marked than is the difference 



18 



