12 FARM BBS* BULLETIN 929. 



RELATIVE PROFITS. 



Subtracting the combined feed and labor costs ($38.50 per animal 

 unit for the sheep and $07.35 for the dairy cattle) from the respec- 

 tive receipts 1 ($33.16 and $75.52), it is found that the receipts from 

 sheep lacked about $5 ($5.04) per animal unit of paying for t lit* 

 feed and labor cost, while the dairy stock left a margin of slightly 

 more than $8 ($8.17) over these costs. In other words, if home-grown 

 feeds be charged at farm value, 2 with feeds purchased at cost and 

 labor at the prevailing wage, shoe]), under price and production con- 

 ditions prevailing prior to 1916 scarcely more than paid for the feed 

 consumed during the fall, winter, and spring months (to say nothing 

 of labor, summer pasture, and other costs), 3 while dairy stock paid 

 for both feed and labor and left a margin just about equal to the 

 value of unmarketed skim milk, which would go a considerable way 

 in offsetting the pasture and overhead costs. Had the production of 

 lambs been at the rate of 100 per cent rather than 75 per cent, and 

 the clip of wool been 1 pound greater per sheep, the returns from 

 sheep would have compared much more favorably with those from 

 daily cattle. It was the opinion of the majority of farmers that 

 sheep were paying better during the period to which the data per- 

 tains than formerly. This evidence, together with the figures pre- 

 sented, indicating that dairy cattle were relatively more profitable 

 than sheep for the period just prior to 1916, strongly indicates at 

 least one good reason why the sheep industry declined in the East. 



THE RELATIVE PROFITABLENESS OF SHEEP AND DAIRY CATTLE 

 AT PRESENT PRICES. 



The figures given above showing relative returns from sheep and 

 dairy cattle are based on prices and production prevailing prior to 

 1916. From a recent interview the same production still holds, but 

 under present prices, quite another story as to relative profitableness 

 of the two industries would be told. For the present season wool 

 has about trebled in price. 4 while the price of lambs has about 



1 Thesp receipts includp no PStimatP of Hip valup of manure produced, hut It Is bpllpvpd 

 that this is about thp samp ppr animal unit of sheep as per animal unit of dairy stock, 

 and that this would in no way change the conclusions as to relative profits of the two 

 kinds of live stock. 



-Market value less the cost of marketing. In case of hay, less the cost of haling and 

 hauling to market. 



3 Includes interest, use of bnildings, and any minor special costs. Depreciation and 

 use of sire, other expense Items usually included in the cost of conducting a live stock 

 enterprise, are eliminated, as with the method employed they are taken account of In 

 figuring receipts: that is, the sire in each case has been included with the rest of thp 

 stock in figuring animal units, and the receipts per animal unit represent returns over 

 losses and decreased value of breeding stock. 



* While a few farmers in New England have lecelved as high as 70 cents per pound for 

 this season*s wool, others who sold early received no more than 55 cents, so that it is 

 believed that the bulk of the 1917 clip was sold for no more than 66 cents per pound, 

 which is three times as great as the 191-1 price. 



