THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
1909. 
THE COST OF A QUART OF MILK. 
In view of the fact that there is 
a bill before the Legislature for a com¬ 
mission to investigate the milk situa¬ 
tion in New York State, and that in 
spite of increased restrictions as to 
the manner in which it is produced— 
all requiring increased expense as well 
as high-priced feed and labor—the 
price offered by the Bordens for the 
next six months is .05 lower than 
a year ago. I believe it is wise 
to look the situation squarely in 
the face and see what it actually costs 
to produce a quart of milk under nor¬ 
mal conditions. 
My own herd are grade Guernseys. 
The production last }'ear was 1,000 
pounds a head below the normal, on 
account of the prolonged drought, 
which cut down the yield in spite of 
supplementary feed. In addition we 
had three cows go to pieces during 
the year. The total yield of the three 
did not equal what one of them would 
have done when they were right. There 
were also five two-year-old heifers with 
their first calves. All these causes re¬ 
duced the yield as above. Yet these 
are things that must always be reckoned 
with. I am giving facts, not a fancy 
sketch. Had the milk yield been great¬ 
er, the cost of production per quart 
would, of course, have been less. My 
milk tests five per cent. 1 consider I 
could produce 10,000 pounds of three per 
cent milk as easily as I could 6,000 
pounds of five per cent. The former 
would not ordinarily bring as much, 
and would not furnish the kind of 
cream my trade requires. We carried 
during the year 25 head of milkers. 
The account stands as follows: 
Purchased feed :. 5556.94 
20 acres pasture. 320.00 
Soiling crops. 100.00 
100 tons of silage. 300.00 
20 tons of hay. 200.00 
Total for feed.$1,476.94 
A trifle over $59 a head. To this 
must be added $125 as interest on 25 
cows at $50 each at 10 per cent., and 
$365 for labor, making a grand total 
of $1,966.94. Taking the total yield of 
milk, 62,500 quarts—2,500 per cow— 
and dividing the total cost by that sum, 
we find the milk costs to produce .0314 
a quart. The feed purchased is just 
what I paid out in the 12 months. The 
20 acres devoted to pasture were helped 
out by some supplemental feed, such as 
clover, oats and peas, corn and not less 
than two pounds of grain daily, be¬ 
sides some after feed on the meadows. 
I reckon that the pasture would have 
cut tw'o tons of hay to the acre, or 
40 tons total. This quality of hay— 
mixed grasses—would have sold this 
year for $10 a ton. Taking off $2 a 
ton for harvesting and marketing leaves 
$8 net, or $320, which I could have 
obtained from the pasture land had I 
devoted it to hay. It seems to me this 
is the only way to figure pasture. Let 
it be understood that there is prob¬ 
ably no better in the State; in a nor¬ 
mal year it will yield fully two tons 
of cured hay to the acre. On account 
of the drought, I have this year thrown 
in the after feed. 
Most people take about four acres 
to pasture a cow. The soiling crops 
are the only ones where I have to do 
any guessing. To get at the silage is 
easy. Eight months’ feeding, 35 pounds 
a day per animal, makes approximately 
100 tons for 25 head. On the basis 
of the price of hay this year I put 
silage at $3 a ton. A year ago it would 
have been $1 a ton higher. Many fig¬ 
ure silage at the cost of production. It 
cost me much less than $3 a ton to 
produce this year and put it in the s‘.o. 
If I had the land that grew the corn 
in ear corn or potatoes, with a like 
amount of labor, I should have received 
at least $45 an acre. I know what hay 
the cows ate, and value it at what it 
would have sold for. The cost of 
gathering would be the same in either 
case. Or in other words, these prod¬ 
ucts which were fed to the cows, had 
they been sold—or their equivalent from 
the land—as they otherwise would have 
been, would have brought me in cash 
what I have charged them at. I have 
put the value of the cows at $50 each. 
I do not question that they would bring 
that under the hammer. I recently sold 
one for $75 that had been milked two 
months, and could take a like amount 
for a number more if I were willing 
to let them go. The money invested 
in these cows would, if placed in the 
savings bank, bring four per cent in¬ 
terest; if at a less certain investment, 
six per cent. In both I could be rea¬ 
sonably sure of getting the entire prin¬ 
cipal back, and in neither case would 
any milking have to be done Sundays or 
holidays. I must have not less than 10 
per cent when invested in so precarious 
a commodity as a lot of cows, for I 
find it requires about five to keep my 
dairy good each year. 
I get at the labor in this way: Al¬ 
lowing 20 minutes daily to a cow makes 
292 days in a year, at $1.25 a day is 
$365 a year, or one man’s wages. This 
would scarcely be enough for feeding 
them and cleaning the stables; but much 
of the labor of feeding would be ex¬ 
pended in putting the product fed into 
market. I will keep a man and team 
drawing out manure all the year, if 
some one will furnish it free. While 
these figures may seem high to some, 
I am sure they are correct, and the 
items of interests and labor might well 
have been put higher. If it cost over 
.03 a quart to produce milk, what about 
those who are only getting that or less? 
Directly from their cows they are get¬ 
ting no profit. On the other hand, 
through the cows they are marketing 
some of the products of the farm, some 
if which, like stalks, have little market 
value, and on these there is a profit. 
Otherwise we should be continually 
seeing such men sold out. when, as a 
matter of fact, they are paying for 
their farms. Yet it must be apparent 
that they arc not getting for their milk 
according to the cost of producing it. 
Our own sales in cash were $2,357.57. 
Deducting from this the $1,961.94 leaves 
only $395.57 real profit to be credited 
to the dairy. In addition we have the 
skim-milk, not reckoned here at all, and 
worth not less than $10 a cow. Also 
our own milk and cream for family 
use, with which the cows are credited; 
but it does not appear in the receipts. 
Professor Woll says a cow will pro¬ 
duce in a year 28 tons of liquid and 
solid manure, worth at the price of 
chemicals, for the actual plant food it 
contains, $2 a ton. We save the bulk 
of ours, but divide it by two, and we 
have a value of $28 for the manure of 
one cow, or the tidy sum of $700 for 
the manure of the herd. An item not 
to be despised, in spite of the recent 
comments of a very good friend of 
mine in the agricultural press and from 
the dairy platform. 
EDWAKD VAN ALSTYNE. 
523 
TROUBLE WITH BROODER HEATER. 
C. TF ,S'., Baldwinsville / N. Y —ITow 
can I connect two gas pipes with stove and 
a barrel of water so water will circulate? 
Stove and barrel are twelve feet apart.'- 
I wish to beat three brooders for young 
chickens. This little plant is now set up, 
but water does not. circulate well; don't 
get much heat. It is homemade. 
Ans. —It is impossible to state the 
trouble in your brooder heating sys¬ 
tem without more specific information. 
It may be due to a dozen things. The 
sketch embodies the general principle 
of such a hot-water system. Presum¬ 
ing that the stove is a regular hot - 
water heater or has a coil or hot-wa¬ 
ter front, the hot water flows from the 
top and returns at the bottom. It is 
best to use one-inch pipe for the flow 
PrcCl'V 
□ 
a 
•pEz 
ftll'xt 
'rr 
/ lx<-*■{< 
- 
^ A 
A 
A 
fvt ti* Ul 
I nylx 
ARRANGEMENT OF BROODER HEATER. 
and -34-inch for the return, though one- 
inch may be used for both. Pe haps 
the tank is too large. Five or ten gal¬ 
lons should be sufficient. As shown, 
the hot water flows in at the top and 
back through the bottom. There must 
be a gradual incline from the heater to 
the tank so that no air pockets can pos¬ 
sibly occur. Air will upset the circu¬ 
lation. From the tank the water is ta¬ 
ken from near the top, flows to the 
brooders (A being brooder radiators) 
and is returned from the bottom. The 
barrel should be covered, with a small 
air vent, to retain beat. Cover the 
pipes with building paper for the same 
reason. This is the general practice. 
Hot water is delivered and taken from 
the top of the tank and the water, 
after passing through the brooder heat¬ 
ers, is taken back to the tank and the 
heater at the bottom. The details of 
course are vaiied to suit individual cir¬ 
cumstances. The essential thing is so 
to grade the pipes that water can flow 
easily without forming any air pock¬ 
ets. Even a small stove with a cor¬ 
rectly-designed system ought to give 
plenty of heat. Bottom of barrel must 
be above bottom of heating coil or re¬ 
turn pipe at stove to give best results. 
W. H. MILLEK. 
The easiest way to prove 
a thing is to show it. 
For years, we have advised 
farmers and their wives to let 
“bucket bowl” cream separa- . 
tors of all sorts alone — be¬ 
cause they wash hard, rust 
easily, are easily damaged and wear out in 
consequence. 
How do you like this solid dish pan full of 
disks? There is absolutely nothing in that 
pan but disks—just disks 'from the bottom up— 
and all from a “ bucket bowl ” machine a dis¬ 
gusted farmer and his over worked wife dis¬ 
carded for a Sharpies Dairy Tubular. 
They got very tired of washing and drying 
it twice a day. 
What’s In 
The Other Pan? 
That little piece in the other pan is the 
triple tinned, pressed steel, wear forever 
dividing wall used in the Sharpies Dairy 
Tubular Cream Separator bowl. It is about 
like a napkin ring in size and shape, is just as 
easily washed, is instantly removable and is 
absolutely all there is inside Sharpies 
Dairy Tubular Cream Separator 
bowls. 
You’ll never forget this picture. Every 
time you think of cream separators you’ll 
Pans 
ory 
f ' ' ' *' ^ 
c , 
think of the difference between the 
Sharpies Tubular and the “bucket 
bowl” kind — a difference in work, 
wear, efficiency and profits just as great as 
the difference in the contents of these two 
pans. 
It is not surprising that Tubular sales ex¬ 
ceed those of most, if not all, other separators 
combined. “Bucket bowl” sales are so re¬ 
duced, by Tubular popularity, that the leading 
maker of disk machines (the self styled 
“original” disk maker) has found it necessary 
to commence suit against a catalog house that 
has been making and selling a cheap sepa¬ 
rator with disks like his for a number of years. 
Why? Because he has lost his grip—taken a 
back seat—is so out of date that he’s scrap¬ 
ping for trade with the catalog house concern. 
Will you wash one piece or a pan full? If The Tubular is made in the world’s greatest 
you prefer one piece, then eel a Sharpies . £ . r, , , ^ 
Dairy lubular Cream Separator instead of a ~ ~ , . , 
“bucket bowl” machine. Sharpies Dairy Tu- Canada and German >'‘ 14 15 the "'° rld * great- 
bular bowls contain only one little piece, in- est cream separator. It will give you greatest 
stantly removable and just like the single satisfaction—greatest profits—greatest wear, 
piece in the dish pan. All other separators Q et ca t a log No 153 
are the “bucket bowl” kind —full of parts and 
work. The full dish pan contains the many TT»p SHl £1 PC Pn 
disks used in one of the “bucket bowl” mach- 1116 M“PieS Separator L»0. 
ines that are beinfj discarded by the car load Toronto, Can. West Chester, Pa. Portland, Ore. 
for Sharpies Dairy Tubulars. Winnipeg, Can. Chicago, Ills. San Francisco, Cal. 
