A STUDY m THE COST OlP* PRODtJClNG MILK. , 5 



The variation in numbers of cows in each herd is eliminated by 

 reducing the costs to the cow basis. All cows in each herd, whether 

 milking the full year or not, were considered on the basis of days fed 

 in making the yearly average number of cows. The average number 

 of cows for different years in each herd whose records are considered 

 in compiling the various tables of results per cow are shown in Table II. 



Table II. — Size of herds on the four farms, by years. 



Year. 



Wisconsin 

 farm. 



Michigan 

 farm. 



Pennsyl- 

 vania 

 farm. 



North 



Carolina 



farm. 



1909 



49.50 

 43.00- 

 44.43 

 45. 45 



58.00 

 52.81 

 49.80 

 46.30 





16.38 



1910 



36.58 

 31.75 

 38.44 

 36.70 



14.1,7 



1911 



12.67 



1912 



15.50 



191.3 



18.75 



1914. : 







20.60 













Average - 



45.60 



51.73 



35.87 



16.35 







FEED AND BEDDING. 



On all the farms the most important of the cost items in the pro- 

 duction of milk is the expense for feed. In fact, this item is of such 

 proportions that it is often used alone in connection with value of 

 products in stud5ang the relative profitableness of individual cows in 

 the same herd. Frequently the mistake is made, in the absence of the 

 full consideration of all the factors of cost, of figuring as net profit 

 the difference between milk receipts and feed cost. On the Wiscon- 

 sin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania farms the feed is approxi- 

 mately one-half of the total cost. On the Michigan farm this item 

 is 57.2 per cent of total cost. The difference is caused by a difference 

 in method of feeding. The first three herds depend largely upon 

 pasture for summer feed, while the fourth is stall-fed throughout 

 the year. 



In connection with this point it may be of interest to examine the 

 feeding practice on each of the four farms. A word regarding feed 

 costs is important for the purpose of showing how they were deter- 

 mined. Farm-grown feeds were charged to the cows at farm value, 

 which varied somewhat with the locality and quality. AU purchased 

 feeds were charged at actual cost, the hauling being included in the 

 charge for labor.^ Pasture was valued at the customary rate in each 

 locality. Any charges for bedding are included with feeds under the 

 heading of dry roughage. For the most part, however, the bedding 

 consisted of refuse from the mangers, supplemented with straw and 

 spoiled fodder, which had little or no value above the labor of hauling. 

 The actual quantity for which a charge is made is so small on these 

 farms that it is questionable whether bedding need be considered in 

 the heading with feed. 



lit should be observed that these costs were obtained prior to 1915, and in making application of these 

 figures due allowance should be made for variations in the cost of feed, etc. 



