22 BULLETIN 1144, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
favorably situated dairymen to the point of giving up milk produc- 
tion, and they seem likely to persist, partly because milk production 
seems to pay better than other alternatives and partly because they 
are willing to take less for their milk and therefore less for their 
services than others. This is what makes it so hard for dairymen 
to agree on a price and to hold together when a price is set. No 
price can be established on " cost of .production," for, once a price is 
made, costs are immediately altered either by increasing production 
or decreasing or increasing costs of materials, or, more than likely, a 
combination of these alternatives. During the process of adjustment 
some dairymen are bound to suffer loss. 
Some farmers concerned in this study were able to produce milk 
at a cost less than the price received by virtue of unusually high 
production or of unusually low expenses, or of a combination of the 
two, resulting in low unit costs. Most of them also had other enter- 
prises which contributed to the annual income. Farm income ex- 
ceeded farm outlay, but out of that margin had to come the living 
of the family and the maintenance of the farm buildings, equipment, 
live stock, and supplies. Many dairymen had to draw on these sup- 
plementary sources of income in 1920 to make up for deficits in the 
main line. 
The supplementary sources of income are different in the different 
areas. The farmers in the Sheboygan County group sold crops, hogs, 
and poultry products in about equal amounts. The Columbia County 
group sold peas for canning, and hogs. The Milwaukee district 
groups sold truck crops and potatoes; The Ozaukee County group 
sold potatoes, sugar beets, and poultry. The Marathon County group 
sold some crops, hogs, and logs. A few farms reported no income 
except from the dairy enterprise. The receipts from crops varied 
from nothing up to about $4,000, hogs up to $1,400, poultry and eggs 
up to $975. The average increase in cattle other than cows was $493. 
The expenses incurred in producing these items were not separated. 
With the exception of the cattle, these supplementary sources of 
income do not warrant figuring an average, as an average would give 
only a vague and distorted idea of them. The crop inventory at the 
end of the year was in most cases larger in quantity than on January 
1, but smaller in value, the price shrinkage amounting to several 
hundred dollars on many farms if compared with the crop value 
figured at prices in effect January 1, 1920. 
The larger farms offered greater opportunity for employing the 
labor available, had larger incomes and larger expenses. As far as 
milk production is concerned, there does not-, seem to be any correla- 
tion' between size of farm and cost of milk. Recession of inventory 
values absorbed a large part of such income as might be figured. 
