20 BULLETIN 501, U. S. DEPAKTMENT OP AGEICULTUKE. 



The data from Massachusetts and Connecticut are results from the 

 experiment station herds, while the data from New Hampshire are a 

 compilation from all the herds of the Ljaideboro Cow Testing Asso- 

 ciation. These data differ in some respects from that procured from 

 complete cost records. However, considering the difference of con- 

 ditions and methods under which the herds were handled, the results, 

 from aU these sources closely coincide. 



In each case the feed cost has been determined from actual records. 

 Although many of the items other than feed were determined from 

 estimates for the New England herds, they compare closely with the 

 same items from actual records. By comparing Tables I and XIII, 

 it will be seen that the total cost of keeping a cow, both on the two 

 experiment station farms and in the cow-testing association, is some- 

 what higher than on the four farms discussed above. However, in 

 terms of the proportion which feed, labor, and other costs bear to 

 total cost, they check closely. In the feeding of a grain ration the 

 entire year the Michigan herd is handled similarly to the Connecticut 

 and Massachusetts experiment station herds, and the cost of feed in 

 these three herds is 57.2, 56.7, and 55 per cent, respectively, of the 

 total cost of keeping a cow. 



The New Hampshire figures were compiled from farm herds where 

 pasture was influential in reducing the feed cost. In this respect 

 these herds are not unlike the Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and North 

 Carolina herds, and the feed is about one-half of the total cost. 



The cost for labor, as shown by the New England records, is a little 

 higher than on the four farms; however, the per cent of the total 

 cost is a trifle lower. The cow-testing association record shows the 

 total labor to be slightly more than one-fourth of the total cost, 

 whereas at the experiment stations, where no marketing is included, 

 the labor is less than one-fourth. 



The individual items other than feed and labor show greater diver- 

 gencies, but considering them as a whole they compare fairly weU. 

 Some of the charges included in the individual items are not the same. 

 For instance, "Overhead" is entirely omitted from the New England 

 records, and a part of equipment-cost charges are either omitted or 

 were too closely linked with other items to be separated. 



The item "Miscellaneous," as shown in Table XIII, takes care of 

 a share of what might otherwise be called overhead. It also includes 

 in each case a charge of about $5 per cow for bedding. This item of 

 expense may show up on many herds, but was so small on the four 

 farms that it was included in the feed cost. Its consideration here 

 tends to offset the items not given separately on the New England 

 records. 



