20 
BULLETIN 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 effort. 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 excessive 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 Jf8 Wisconsin farms, 1920. 
Item. 
Average 
cost per 
100 
pounds. 
Per cent 
of net 
total 
cost. 
Feed 
$2.02 
.29 
1.73 
.94 
.09 
.54 
53 
28 
Hauling - 
3 
Other costs: 
SO. 27 
20 
.015 
055 
16 
Net total cost 
3.30 
.19 
100 
. 
Cost not including interest 
3.11 
2.65 
10.65 
i 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 
