16 



BULLETIN 560, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



variation is probably caused by the greater quantities of cheaper 

 roughage fed the horses in this group and due to the fact that the 

 relative amount of manure actually saved varies considerably on 

 different farms by reason of differing methods of manure management. 



Table 11. — New York farms — Itemized average costs and credits for records showing a 

 net cost per horse above the average for the State, and for those showing a net cost per 

 horse below the average 1 (10 farms, 90 horses). 



Range of cost. 



Feed 



(cost). 



Labor 

 (cost). 



Depre- 

 ciation 

 (cost). 



Appre- 

 ciation 

 (credit). 



Colt 



loss 



(cost). 



Colt 



profit 



(credit). 



All 

 other 

 (costs). 



Manure 

 (credit) 





$95. 07 

 85.66 



$22. 76 

 21.08 



$13. 65 

 8.52 





$0.14 





$38. 54 

 29.64 



$12. 60 



Below the average cost 





$3.70 



14.50 











9.41 



1.68 



5.13 





.14 



3.70 



8.90 



1.90 









i Average net cost per horse for the State, $145.02. 



Variations in net costs between the two groups in New York were 

 less than those in both Illinois and Ohio. Eleven of the 18 yearly 

 farm records showed a cost per head greater than the average cost 

 for all records. The average net cost per horse for these 18 records 

 was $157.56, while the average per horse for the remaining 7 records 

 was $126.70, making a difference between the two groups of $30.86. 

 Of this difference $9.41, or less than one-third, was for feed. It 

 will be seen by this that the cost of feeding horses in New York was 

 more nearly uniform than it was in Illinois and Ohio. The differ- 

 ence of $1.68 for labor also was less in this State. The difference in 

 depreciation cost was $5.13. A small percentage of this was due to 

 a greater loss from deaths in the first group. The high-cost group 

 showed an average colt loss of 14 cents per horse, and the low-cost 

 group showed an average colt profit of $3.70 per horse, a difference 

 of $3.84. Th^re were no deaths of colts in either group. The more 

 colts were raised on the farms in the low-cost group. Colts also 

 showed the cheaper cost of keep and the greater appreciation in 

 value in this group. These items, depreciation and appreciation in 

 the value of horses and loss and profit on colt accounts, were, like 

 those for the Ohio farms, of considerable importance. The total 

 difference in cost of these items between the two groups was $8.97 

 per horse. The principal items under "all other costs" causing the 

 difference of $8.90 per horse were interest, shoeing, stabling, and use 

 of equipment. The difference in manure credits was less than $2. 

 As on the Ohio farms, the credit was greater in the low-cost group. 



RELATION OF THE WORK PERFORMED TO THE TOTAL FEED COST. 



As previously shown, the greatest item of cost in keeping a farm 

 work horse is for feed. The farmer who gets the maximum amount 

 of work out of his horses, and at the same time has a low feed cost, 

 is reasonably sure of obtaining horse labor at a low cost per hour. 



