10 X. H. Agri. Experiment Station [Bui. 244 



cost $15.48. Current interruptions were never long enough to cause 

 loss of refrigeration. 



COMPARISON OF COST OF ICE AND ELECTRIC METHODS 



Table 3 compares the initial investment and fixed charges for the 

 ice and electric methods. Three of the farms used the ice equipment 

 for both farm and house and three for the house only. 



While the original cost and total fixed charges for the first group are 

 higher than for the second, the reverse is true when the fixed charges 

 are figured in proportion to the amount of ice used by house and farm 

 respecti\'ely. Farms which handle a large quantity of ice have a 

 relatively lower fixed overhead per 100 pounds than those which use it 

 for the house only. 



The average investment in ice equipment on the six famis was $250.00. 

 One third of the total yearly fixed charges, an average of $10.52, is 

 chargeable to the house refrigerator. The variation in fixed charges for 

 house use, then, varies from 1/8 to all costs. These amounts vary from 

 $4.70 to $15.83 with an average of $12.15 for the six. 



The average ice refrigerator was found to cost $32.50. On Farm No. 

 4 the old dairy cold storage and a cool basement were used to keep the 

 food which accounts for the low $5.00 cost. The greatest investment in 

 an ice refrigerator was $50.00. The average interest and dej^reciation 

 charge was $1.62; the limits w^ere 25 cents and $2.50. 



For electric operation the investment and fixed charges are appreciably 

 greater. The investment for ice equipment was $282.50; $370.40 was the 

 average amount invested for the electric method. This is an increase of 

 31 percent. (The tendency toward increased investment and fixed 

 charges, and lower operating costs is characteristic of electrical equip- 

 ment.) The total fixed charges were $12.15 for ice and $18.20 for the 

 electrical method, a 50 percent increase. 



Features of Combination Method 



Tlie house and dairy needs on Farm No. 4 were met by an expenditure 

 of $766.50 for a single combination unit. Compared with $885.80 on 

 Farm No. 2 and $989.34 on Farm No. 1, for two sets of equipment each, 

 this represents a net saving of $120 and $225. With the improvements 

 in construction that have been made recently, the cost of equipment 

 similar to that on Farm No. 4 would be considerably less. 



In addition to a marked saving in the initial cost there is also a ^'ery 

 appreciable saving in the operating cost. As little as 30 percent of the 

 current used by the other types was used by the combination method. 



CURRENT CONSUMPTION 



Tables 4 and 5 give the kilowatt-hours of current used per month and 

 the cost on each of the six farms for the years 1926, 1927, and 1928. To 

 these have been added the years 1924 and 1925 in the case of Farm 

 No. 2. 



A tendency to elongate the period of use on Farms No. 5 and 7 by 

 earlier starting in the spring is noticeable. In 1927 both started oper- 

 ation June 1. In 1928 they started about the last of April. 



