8 



which profits decreased. There does seem to be a point in 

 yield per cow above which increased yield is not accompanied 

 by much further economy of feed. Recent studies of feed cost 

 as related to milk yield, made on four farms located, respec- 

 tively, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Caro- 

 lina, running for five years and involving careful, complete, 

 yearly records of 443 cow years, indicate that this point is 

 reached at a yield of between G,000 and 7,000 pounds of milk. 



The cost of feed per 100 pounds of milk decreases rapidly 

 until about 6,000 pounds' yield, after which the decline in 

 cost is very slight. The lesson from this study is that it is of 

 much greater importance to increase the milk yield up to 

 between 6,000 and 7,000 pounds than it is to attempt to get 

 the yield above this figure, as far as the economy of the use 

 of feed is concerned. It is easier to increase the quantity of 

 milk when it is low than when it is high. It is also easier to 

 increase low crop yields than it is to raise already high ones. 

 Furthermore, in both cases increasing a low yield is the most 

 profitable thing to do. In dairying, a high standard of pro- 

 duction per coAv is usually the keynote of success. According 

 to the recent Pennsylvania study of 289 dairy farms, 48 of these 

 farms showed a yield per cow of less than $50. The labor 

 income of these farms was 45 per cent below the general aver- 

 age. Twenty-eight farmers of the group had incomes per cow 

 of more than $120, and their labor income was 75 per cent 

 above the average. 



Perhaps the most conspicuous cause of success in farming is 

 prompt and fitting change in type of farming in response to 

 economic pressure, as indicated by the market price of products 

 as related to cost. The American farmers who are most suc- 

 cessful usually sense the operation of economic forces far 

 ahead of their neighbors. A large number of farmers change 

 an old established system only when forced by dire necessity. 

 Not only is there the greatest opportunity to any individual 

 farmer through quickly modifying his organization in response 

 to changed markets, but such readjustment is of great value 

 to the whole community, for such action in time becomes cor- 

 rective of the changed condition from which it sprang. Let us 

 assume, for instance, that there is a community engaged 



