﻿20 



nil.LETIX 1144, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



buildings and equipment, caused by the gradual development of his 



business and often not to be altered without rebuilding, but a tax 

 none the less on his eifort. As pointed out the judicious additional 

 expenditure for high protein feeds to balance the ration, and for 

 any kind of feed to maintain production as pastures fail has an effect 

 on the year's return greatly in excess of its relation to the im- 

 mediate cost. There is also the further means of reducing costs by 

 careful scrutiny of the relative values of the feeds available, buying 

 those which provide digestible nutrients at the lowest figures. In 

 this way the dairyman produces at the lowest possible feed cost, 

 and guards against paying excessi-ve prices. 



The constant examination of conditions is not a guaranty against 

 loss, but is effective insurance against ordinary failure to make ends 

 meet. 



SUMMARY OF COSTS. 



From this discussion it appears that the cost of producing milk 

 in 1920 on the 48 farms in question was $3.30 per 100 pounds, with 

 a modified allowance for depreciation, or $3.57 per 100 pounds with 

 depreciation as observed. This figure includes an allowance of 19 

 cents per 100 pounds for interest, which some authorities maintain 

 should not be displayed as an-element of cost, though they agree that 

 the price of the product must ordinarily be sufficient to cover it. 



Table 5. — Average cost of producing milk on J/8 Wisconsin farms, 1920. 



Item. 



Average 



cost per 



100 



pounds. 



Per cent 

 of net 

 total 

 cost. 



Feed 



$2.02 

 .29 





Allowance for manure 















1.73 

 .94 

 .09 



.54 



53 





28 



Hauling 



3 



Other costs: 





80.27 









20 









015 









055 











16 









3.30 

 .19 



100 

















3.11 

 2.65 



















10.65 









1 Or $0.46 without interest. 



To offset a part of this loss some of the farmers took whey back 

 from the factory for hog feeding, while others had skim milk for calf 

 feeding. No fair estimate of the amount of this offset was obtained. 

 Its value to a farmer depends on the use to which he puts it, and 

 while it might be argued that farmers should use all the by-product 

 in reduction of cost of the main product, cheese factory patrons do 

 not always care to feed as large a number of hogs as the whey from 

 their milk will feed, nor is it always possible to do so without chang- 

 ing their farm plans. Those who skim at the farm can make good 

 use of the skim milk for calf feeding, and often have some left over 



