TH 5% OFGANIZATICN AND MANAG?Y”NT 0F INSTITUTI5NAL FAEVS OF MICHIGAN by FflAfiSfiN W CLVNN A; A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of "ichigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for tne degree of MASTER OF SCIfNCF Department of Farm Management 1942 TW 7W6 ' A CK‘L‘IW” LFWGMZN T The autnor wisnes to acknowledge the assistance of Pro- fessor E.B. Hill of the Farm Management Pegartnent in mak- ing this stuiy and to tnank Mr. John B. Strange of the Hichigan Department of Agriculture for providing many of the records without which tne study could not have been made- —C.A.s. TABLF 0F CSNZFNTS Purpose of State Institutional Farms Administration of State Farms Records Kept on state Farms nocation of state Institution Farms Map Showing Location of State Farms Kalamazoo and Traverse City Farms The Kalamazoo State Hospital Farm Traverse City State Hospital Farm Comparisons with Individually Owned and Operated Farms Summary Conclusion Appendix p.31 p.35 p.36 p.41 Organization and Management of Institutional Farms of Michigan Glenn A . Swanson For many years the State of Vichigan has been operating farms in connection with 16 of its State Institutions. These farms range in size from 62 to 7330 crop acres. They include a total of about 12,500 crop acres, or the eouivalent of 200 average size Michigan farms. Pecently there has been renwwed interest in the functbon, organization, and management of these farms. Much study has been made of the organization and manage- ment of privately owned or Operated farms but very little stu- dy has been made of institutional or public owned farms. Most W of the public owned farms are large units and operate on large budgets as contrasted with the privately operated farms. Decent comments in regard to the State farms has shown the need of same additional and useable data concerning the mana agement and operation of these farms. It was with that thought in mind that this study was made. The time available for this study did not permit a de- tailed study of each of the State Institutional farms. Since many features of the farms are very similar, case studies were made of two of the farms. The first part of the study covers some of these readily comparable items While the latt- er section is an analysis of the two farms. A general survey was made first to obtain the location, acreage and other items of information for all of the farms, and also to learn some— thing of the policies and the administration and accounting (‘3) procedures which apply to all of the units. The two farms selected for the detailed study of organ- ization and management were the ones at the Kalamazoo and Traverse City State Uospitals. For both of these a complete farm analysis was attempted. Although there are many factors or conditions which might affect the reliability of such an undertaking as compared to one made of average farms, it was thought that such a study would throw some light on the sub— ject of institutional farm management. PURPOSE 3? TH? STAT? INSTITUTION FAFVS when most of the State Institutions were started, pro- visions were made to establish farms in connection with them. This was done because farms are considered to have a definite place in the operation of such institutions. The following are a few of the important reasons for this belief: first , the inmates need some form of occupational training: second, the institutions use large amounts of farm produce: and third, the State farms could be used as a source of good foundation stock for the farmers and at the same time provide the insti— tutions with an extra source of income. The State Institutions are primarily maintained to re- habilitate the inmates as much as possible, and wobk or oc- cupation of the body and mind is an important part of such. The farms provide much work that is of the proper type and level for man; of the inmates. Many of the common farm en- terprises can make use of a large amount of man power but 'Z L’ they still do not reouire a high degree of skill or training on the part of the “ell—supervised workers. “any persons con— (0 ider the above the primary reason for having farms with the State institutions, and the general policy on most of the farms has been to provide as much inmate training as possible. For most of the State Institutions, food purchases are one of the larger items of expense. Not only are large amounts of food used but also many of the inmates in the medical in- stitutions are on special diets which require special foods at above average costs. ”ilk, fruit, and vegetables are com- monly required foods in these Special diets and are also foods which require a large number of men hours in their pro- duction. Thus many of the State Institutions, having both the ertra requirement for these foods and the available low cost labor, have turned to filling their own needs as far as practicable. A large herd of Holsteins, and a large acreage of garden crops and fruit trees have become the policy of most of the state farms. In the production of these huge cuantities of food, sur- plUSes occasionally arise on some of the farms. For the crops and livestock products such surpluses are rare, only a few institutions make a practice of placing any products on the open market. The Southern Vichigan Prison has raised sugar beets for sale, while the Kalamazoo Hospital and Mount Pleas— ant Training School have sold some livestock products. Coca- sionally certain products are sold to other institutions. With the dairy cattle the story is different as many of the institutions regularly have an excess of breeding stock. Since most of the state herds have exceptionally high pro- duction averages, many of the farms consider themselves a source of outstanding breeding or foundation animals. This is undoubtedly a better way to dispose of these animals than to veal or butcher the excess for meat consumption by the institution. Pecently the policy has been to sell only the bulls whose dams have production records of at least five hundred pounds of butter fat. APMINIFTPATIov fr was smart FAFVS As with man State agencies, the administration of the State Institutional farms is more or less controlled or at least influenced by several governmental bodies. From a fin- ancial point of view the funds for operating and fer capital expenditures for the aarms come from legislative appropria- tion. These are separate from the funds provided for the institutions proper, but are granted at the same time. Then all expected cash empenditures for all purposes must be budgeted and approved by the state Budget Peuartment. After the funds have been appropriated and budgeted, the actual ex- penditures must be requisitioned of and approved by the bus- iness manager of the institution. Thus the financial end of the business on an institutional farm differs much frrm the private enterprise and among other things recuires much long time planning. For several years the state T“apartment of Agriculture* *The Bureau of Animal Indfistry does tn 3 work in the “apart- ment of Agriculture. has exercised a limited amount of general supervisory au- thority over all the State farms. Its main function has been to help correlate the operations of the various farms, espec- ially aiding in joint purchases and in the livestock breeding programs. Pesides furnishing a full time veterenarian for the q . farms, the Department has kept the herd records, recommended the breeding programs, and partially Supervised the purchase and sale of breeding stock. There is very little visible evi- dence of the Department of Agriculture supervising the cropp- ing programs to any eitent. The determination of the policies of the individual farms is usually carried out by the business manager of the institu- tion and the farm superintendent. In some cases where the dairy superintendent is responsible directly to the business ‘manager he helps set the policies for the management of the dairy herd. These policies are Supposedly based on the needs of the institution for food and occupational therapy. PVCORDS KEPT 0N STAlF FARMS As in all well regulated governmental insitutions, acc- urate and fairly detailed cash records are kept on the farms, Since expenditures are only made following a Bequisition, this is not a difficult job for a bookkeeper. The requisi- tions for cash are charged against the appropriation for the farm. The records do not stop at the cash accounts, but tran— sactions between the insitution as Such and the farm where no cash is involved are ais. entered in the exgenses and in- come. Thus in farm accounting terms they are keeping re- cords not only on the entire farm but also some double en- try accounts on each enterprise. The record of the production of crops and livestock on the farms is kept on daily record cards as it is turned into the stores department. These record cards are summarized mon— thly and reports sent to the proper authorities, including the State Department of AgriCulture. The dairy herds are on official test and production records are kept on each animal. Inventories of all crops and livestock are made at the end of the fiscal year. In addition, monthly reports of the numbers of cattle, hogs, and poultry are made. Occasionally complete livestock inventories, with values, are made at different times durigg the year as they are requested by one of the administrative agencies. nther records kept by some of the farms are the farm sup- erintendent's fiéld book and annual land use maps. The sup- erintendent's field book usually contains a history of each field giving the crops grown, soil treatment, and other sim- ilar information. The farm maps usually record the same data only on annual maps instead of the field diary. Also during the later part of the winter or early spring each farm sends a statement of the crops to be planted or land use plan to the Department of Agriculture. The State has set up a general accounting procedure which is followed by all the farms. Under this plan inventory items, as machinery and equipment, do not depreciate until they are soli or otherwise disposed of. When a piece of ma— chinery is purchased it is inventoried at cost and is held at that value as long as it is on the farm. The inventory values of livestock are handled in almost the same method. Then the animal is born, or a given number od-days afterwards, a set value is given it. This value increases according to a fired schedule until the animal reaches a given age or production, than the value remains constant until the animal is sold or butchered. All changes in inventories are entered into the fiscal summaries as incomes or expenses. When an animal is sold, butcherd or dies, its current inventory value is entered as expense against the enterprise and farm just as feed purchases hired labor, and veterinarian services. The amount that the young livestock increases in value is entered as an income to the business. Thus instead of recording a change in inventory the; enter both an increase and a decrease. _All produce raised on the farm passes throggh a control account, supervised by the stores department where the re- cords are kept. The stores record the duality and value of the product and this is credited to the proper enterprise. when the product is used it is charged to the proper enterprise or institutional department, although no funds are transferred. Thus when hay is harvested it is credited to field chps and when fed to the cattle it is charged to that enterprise. The annual fiscal records are on an enterprise basis and when they 8’ are summarized no adjustment are made for these inter-enter- prise double entry eipense and income. All records of production are for the entire farm only, without any breafidowqhs to production of individual fields. Even the superintendent's field book which shows the crops raised and the soil treatment by fields does not give this information except in a few cases. The most complete source of data on amount of labor hired and wages is the monthly requisitions for the workers pay. The farm superintendent in most cases is the time keeper but all information seems to be turned over to the institutional managers office where the records are kept and the payments are made. When any cash, as for labor or feed purchased, is paid out for expenses on the farm this is charged against the leg— islative appropriation for the farm. The only cash income for the farm, outside of this appropriation, comes from the sale of surplus produce which is most cases is breeding stock from the dairy herd. This cash income from these two sourses must be sufficient for all cash farm erpenses. Two general summaries are made of the farm records. The stores department of the institutions make a monthly summary of the production and livestock. These summaries are taken from the daily record cards and are sent to the D,partment of Agriculture. At the end of the fiscal year the monthly pro— duction figures are totaled to obtain an annual record which is partially or completely published with the annual fiscal report of the farm. The other major Summary report made out is the annualfis— cal report. This is a summary of cash and non-cash erpen- ses and incomes. In this report the farm business is divided into the following compartments: dairy, poultry, swine, fruit, garden, field crops, potatoes, power, improvements, and gener- al. Thus the report might be said to be partially on an eneer- prise cost accounting basis. This cost accounting procedure is not complete in that the expenses are not completely ca- rried over into the productive enterprises. The expenses and incomes for each of the enterprises are itemized by groups that fit into the general accounting system for the institu- tion. A few other summary reports are made out and are chiefly to assist in develpoing the budget. In some of these reports labor and cash expenses are summarized more completely than in the regular fiscal reports. The primary reason for keeping the records on the farms seems to be to keep the fiscal operations straight. This is a requirement for all state supported institutions and the records are necessary inmaxing out the budget prior to re- questing the appropriation from the legislature. The dairy production records are needed in the breeding pr gram which is being supervised by the “apartment of Agriculture. The other production records are required by the Department of Agriculture and are used by some institutions in their ann- ual reports. The need for and use of other records is more or 10 less left up to the individual farm superintendents or insti— tution managers, Pecords set up with these general purposes in mind are apt to be of only limited use for analyzing the farm business. Part of the information needed to really study the operation and management of the farm is lacking. nn neither of the farms studied could the number of litters of pigs farrowed be deter- mined. In other cases so much extra material was included in the information desired that it was impossible to secure the information. Machinery and equipment expenses were divided in- to so ma ny accounts that an accurate figure could not be determined. The gross expense and income figures given in the fiscal reports include not only the casn transactions but al— so the inter-enterprise credits. Thus these figures are far in excess of the true figures. Still this enterprise cash accounting system is not carried out completely so the fig- ures given are of little value in studying the farm business on the enterprise basis. The cash crop expenses, as fertili— zers, seed tr atment and spray materials , were covered up or lost in an entry termed agricultural supplies which in- cluded besides these, the raised seeds and other home grown produce used on the crops, even the manure in some places. Vere serious than the lack of information or existence of excess material is the difficulty is securing that which is available in useable form. Many of the needed figures are not summarized and can be found onlyh on the original re- cords. Much information, as the number of workers and wages 11 paid, can be faund only on the daily record cards or requis- itbnns slips. In both institutions studied, data on the feed purchase and the hired labor was very difficult or impossi- ble to obtain. Pepair and maintenance eypenses, especially on machinery, were anything but easy to sort out of a maze of itemized accounts. Vuch of the difficulty was due to the use of the names of institutional accounts in itemizing the farm expenses. In some cases ten ov’more summary items were list- ed that might well be mostly repair expenses. Although the accounting procedures were the same for all the institutions, the actual accounting practices differed greatly between the various institutions. One farm will cre- dit the manure to the dairy herd and then charge it to the field crops and garden, while another will forget it com— pletely. At one institution the farm will be charged for the food for the hired labor and the inmates who w6 Corn* - - - — Value crops produced per tillable acre%* 826.34 2”.5f 20.34 55.24 Crop sales, total # 932 117 4 118 Feed purchases, total d”11,255 16,385 1J,126 15,588 from Institution's Stores Fepartment. This applies to Tables 2 to 9. * Corn yields are not given because the acreage was not divided between corn for grain and silage. **These figures include garden and orchard. 19 age value of crops produced per tillable acre was 814.78 (this is figured without the garden and orchard‘. The dairy herd was being enlarged during the peri d. The total productive animal units was increased from £24 to 288 and the tillable acres per animal unit decreased from 4.5 to 3.6. also feed purchases increased from 911,255 to 919,126. on the other hand livest ck income per tillable acre increased from i"‘E’:.8.6<.‘: to £147.45. The stock program has been due to the increased live- need of more milk as part of the supply is still being purchased. Table 4 summarizes Table 4. Livestock Drogram at Kalamazoo State Hospital Farm, 1957-39 Item 1357-58 1958-59 1939-40 Average Productive animal units 224 24? £98 257 Tillable acres per p.a.ua 4.5 4.4 5.6 4.1 Livestock income per . tillable acre a 58.60 40.72 47.45 42.52 T“airy: . Milk cows No. 107 118 155‘ 117 Milk pr duced per cow Lbs.1l,254 11,497 12,786 11,879 Dairy credits,tota1 a 27,423 29,571 35,158 30,475 Dairy credits per cow a 256 251 (81 i 0 Ca ttle income 5 4,884 4,171 4,945 4,667 Costs per p.a.u.: Veed and bedding 4 109.56 116.50 1 8.65 lld.29 Labor t 27.74 51.55 52.62 30.69 Partial net cost of producing milk per cwt.** a 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 Pogs: Fows V0. 57 6_ E7 61 Hogs sold no. 2 2 7? 55 Pork produced Lbs. 59,m10 80,760 108,097 82,60; Income fromhogs * 7,985 9,749 11,073 9,602 Partial net cost of producing pork per cwt.** e 9.82 8.55 8.56 9.10 * Productive animal unit. **These costs do not include m.st capital charges, as build- ing depreCiation, etc. the livestock program of the farm for the three year period. During the period studied the dair; herd averaged 117 milk cows with an average prrduction of 11,873 pounds of milk. All of this milk was used in the institution and was credited to the farm at the rate of 42.25 per hundred pounds which made the annual milk sales average 430,475. Other cattle income amounted to d4,667 per year, mcst ofl which came from the credit for beef and the sale of surplus breeding stock. A "partial net cost" figure for producing milk was cilculated by subtracting the cattle inCnme and change in inventory from the total expense* of the entire herd. This "partial net cost" figure does not include any charges for use of buildings, deprecaition on eouipment, or interest on investment. For each of the three years this "partial net cost" was approxiamtely al.66 per hundred pounds of milk. An accurate comparison of these cost figures with other studies was impossible as no study coulfibe found that was made on exactly the same basis. Any attempt to adjust the figures by estimating the omitted costs would, at best. be subject to much inaccuracy. The depreciation on buildings and equip- ment has never been determined, building maintenance and gen- eral expenses are entered in separate accounts, and manure credits are not given. Also their dairy recerds are kept on a herd basis. * This figure is the total expense figure stated in the fiscal report less the inventory value of the stock sold, butchered or died during the year. Hogs were the only other productive livestock enter- prise besides the cattle. These were kept to produce part of the fresh pork needed by the institution and to make use of the garbage that is available from feeding the large number of patients and help. The average number of sows kept was just over 61 fer the three year period. The general plan was to breed gilts and butcher them after they have raised their first litters. The pork production averaged 82,602 pounds which was valued at t8,060.40. 73 hogs were sold the last year and onlyt three during the first two years. A "partial net cost" figure similar to the one for milk was calculated for the pork and it amounted to 4913.10 per hundred pounds for the {eriod. This figure, of crurse, includes only a few of the capital charges. A few of the expenses and efficiency factors are given Table 5. “xpense and foiciency Factors on Valamazco State Hospital Farm. 1937-39. _- Items 193”-38 1935-5: 1989-40 'Average Gross income per til.A. t 49.47 54.86 52.64 52.37 Total expenses per ti1.A t 45.04 ;2.02 44.96 44.01 VAN LABOP Men hired No. 21 23 22.8 22.6 Inmate workers To. 92 95 95 95 Man labor expense per til.A. 0 15.3 13.63 14.‘5 14.75 DOWVP A ND MACPIHFPY Horses No. 3 37 Z6 37 Tractors No. 8 8 8 8 Total house power . of tractors 127 127 1%7 1?” Feed bought per til.A. 4 10.44 14.52 16.79 13.97 in Table 5. The total expenses, after inter—farm credits N1 4‘ deducted, averaged d49,116 or t44.01 per tillable acre. This seems very high but is partially due to the heavy livestock program and the large acreage of fruits and vegetables. A very complete breakdown of these expenses was impossible due to the methods of keeping records. The expense for labor and feed purchased were the only important ones that could be accuratley determined. The labor expense includes only the actual cash paid out to the hired farm employees. Wany of the wnrkcrs received their meals and lodging at the institution but this is not charged against the farm, at least not in the fiscal report. 0f the 22.5 farm employees, six were classified as supervisors and the rest as farm hands. The annual labor bill was $16,331 or about @726 per man. Most of the hired man are kept on the year round with little extra help in the summer. The man lab r expense per tillable acre averaged t14.7?. The value of this figure is questiunable because of the large dairy herd. An attempt was made to determine the number of productive man work units but this was given up due to the large acreage of orchard and garden. Also thetise of an un- known amount of inmate labor would lower the reliability of any figures on productive days work per man. The inmates make up part of the labor supply for the farm. nuring the regular season these workers are available for nine hours of work for five days a week, but at least one half hour each day is used in going to and from work. The inmate helpers are not forced to work and some do not work. 7") ")3 Also the value of some of the inmates as farm wokkers is limited 2y their ability. All the teamster are inmates and also one tractor driver. The inmates are not paid for this work and no charge is made against the farm. The only improvement expenses included in the fiscal report was an account termed "improvement maintenance". Whether or not this account included repair or maintenanee items only is not known as the amount seemed rather high th first year for just expenses for repairs. These funls for capital expenses are usually in separate or earmarked appropriations. A more complete picture of the power and machinery is shown in the appendix than is given in Table 5, The size of these tractors is given in drawbar hora 11."; power according to the Nebraska field tests except where Such rating is hacking, in Which case the manufacturer's rating is used. No accurate cost figures on either power or macainery casts are available. The tract rs and truck eypenses were combined (1‘ with the costs for the horses, so these figure' may present a fair picture of the power operating costs per acre. Other machinery costs are spread out through so many aCCuunts and included in so many different entries that attempting to de— termine the total figure would recuire too much guess work. mamas-es CIT: “T HOSPITAL we»: The 890 acre farm at the Traverse City Ptate Hcspital is divided into two units, but there all the livestock is kept on the home farm. The west farm contains 160 acres of roll- ing upland loam soil. Very little of this land is sufficient- ly level to be cultivated without danger of serious erosion. Ini fact good conservation practices would probably reouire that much of t.e 160 acres never be used for cultivated crops. About 40 acres of orchard has been set out in attempt tp make some use of the land. This farm was purchased about ten years ago when more land was needed, but undoubtedly very little good judgnnnt was used when this piece of land was selected. It is located less than a mile from tne home farm but this is up.a fairly steep grade most of the distance. There are about 730 acres of farm land tn the home farm or at the institution. About one—half of this is muck or an old cedar swamp which has been cleared and tiled except for 30 to 40 acres. The rest is mostly rolling upland, much of which is nonptillable. There is same woods and considerable waste land due to roads and partial use by the institution. All of the livestock and practically all of the machinery is kept at the home farm. The two units contain about 890 acres of which about 70 per cent is classes as tillable. Although the land has not changed, the amount that was classed as tillable varied somewhat between years. The only apparent reason fcr this was that more of the waste lands or slopes were cropped some years. The average gross income and expenses were 969,701 and ¢60,551 respectively after the inter—enterprmse incomes and expenses were remdved. The average later supply was 26.4 employees a 1 about 75 inmates. Table 6. Size of Farm Pusiness at Traverse City State Hos— pital 1937-29 Item 1937 1978 1979 19erage Total acres operated No. 890 890 890 990 Acres rented No. 0 O O 0 Crop acres No. 594 672 62” 034 Gross income 071,107 ”0,786 6",Ell 69,701 Total expenses d‘61,396 58,271- 61;”PE 61, 23 Host of the tillable landfiasPsed for the fairly high valued crops that would fit into the plan of producing food for the institution. The cropping program was roughly 24 per cent of the tillable land in hay and pasture, ll per cent in small grains and seeding, 25 per cent in corn, 24 per cent in orchard and garden, 7 per cent in potatoes and .4 per cent in other crops. The yields of most of the crops were fair to high. The potatoes averaged 239 bushels per acre, the barley averaged 27 bushels per acre and the hay about 2.1 tons per acre. The corn acreage was not accurately divided between that harvest- ed for silage and grain, but allding sufficient acreage to produce the silage at a yield of ten tons per acre, the grain would yield 37 bushels of shelled corn per acre. Both the use of high valued crops and the yields'were reflected in the value of crops per tillable acre. With the garden and orchard taken out this firure was 926.17 and even with the potatoes removed, the value of just the feed 26 crops was 621.71 per acre. The fact that about 86: tons of hay are bought every year may be part of the reason that such a cropping prcgram can be followed with satisfactory results. Table 7. Crop Program of Traverse city State Hospital Farm 1937—39 Item 1937 1938 1979 Average Percent of til. A. in: Hay M 1'7 ES 28 96 Pasture M 9 6 6 7 Corn f 25 23 19 23 flats 4 11 C 4 5 Parley 4 V 6 4 5 Feedings 6 O O C O Potatoes T 7 6 8 7 Garden 4 9 10 13 11 Orchard 4 12 la 14 13 other fl 2 4 6 4 Yield per acre: Hay Ton ..4 1.4 2.1 2.1 nats* Pu. O 0 O O Barley pu. 24 17 46 E" Potatoes Pu. 254 235 P67 Z?9 Corn** Pu. O C O 0 value crops produced per til. A . * 49.60 51.46 43.14 48.1“ Crop sales, total a O O O O As at Valamazoo, an intensive livestock program is also followed at this farm where the average livestock load was 305 productive animals units. This was one animal unit for each 1.6 acres of tillable land in feed crops, as compared to * No production figures for oats could be found for these yeaBs. aarhe division of corn acreage bet"een gnain and silage as shown in records, gave yields of corn for grain of 42 to 88 bushel of shelled corn per acre. Table 8 Livestock Program at Traverse City Farm, 1937—39. Ftate Pospital Item 193”-38 1936-39 193fl—4O Average Productive animal units No. 390 310 215 205 Tillable acres per p.a.u.No 1. 2.0 1.7 1.8 Livestock income per tillable acre T 112.51 93.89 100.m7 19?.D7 Dairy: Milk cows No. 1:5 126 1?5 129 Vilk produced per cow Lb.1l,656 11,805 11,621 11,697 Dairy credits, total @34,D4O 34,563 $6,664 $5,039 Dairy credits per cow * 272 274 272 2’? Cattle income 6 6,363 5,825 5,249 5,899 Costs per p.a.u. Feed and bedding dt122.85?- 165.55 146.91 145.95 Feed and bedding% 6123.48 32.3 128.10 125.78 Labor 6 35.11 39.2. 28,18 37.£B "Partial net cost" ofpro- ducing milk per cwt. 6 2.06 2.37 2.17 2.18 "Partial net cost" of pro- ducing milk per cwta a 1.95 2.64 2.61 2.00 Hogs: Sows Mo. 38 35 4O 58 Hogs sold No. 0 O O 0 Pork produced Eb.84,586 88,”18 86,845 86,"16 Income from hogs 612,735 8,857 ”,227 9,5n2 "Partial net cost" of pro- ducing pork per cwt. 6 7.:6 8.C 5.8? ”.65 Poultry: Hens No. 33? 514 590 496 Fags pr duced per hen “o. 190 190 177 186 Vgg credits per hen 9 3.20 3.59 2.26 2.96 ng sales total 6 1222 1,844 1,33 1,446 6.2 for the average farmer in that part of the state for the same years. The livestock income per feed crop acre averaged $116.32. The demand for milk and this intensive program possible. the purchase of feed make * Figures adjusted to be as near comparable to those Kalamazoo Hospital Farm as practical. of the 28 Fairying is the important livestock enterprise. Puring the three years an average of 129 cows were kept which made an average prnduction of 11,695 pounds of milk credited at the value of “272. The cattle income, other than milk, amount— ed to d15,899 per year. A "partial net cost" figure vas also cilculated for this herd. As at Valamazeo no capital and buidd- ing charges were included. This figure was $2.18 per hundred weight when a manure credit was allowed. This "partial net costn is not comparable with the one for Kalamazoo because some extra charges were included as food for the hired labor and inmate helpers. Then some feed prices were out of line, mangles were entered at 60.62 per crate or s22.50 per ton at Traverse City and at 64.00 per ton at Kalamazoo. After these charges and credits were made comparable as possible between the two farms, the "partial net cost" for Traverse City was de2.5-0 per hundred weight or 4”1.24 more than the Kalamazoo figure. Pogs are also raised at Traverse City t: help supply. fresh? ODDK and consume the garbage. The only records on these were found in the monthly production sheets and the annual fiscal report. A n average of 38 sows were kept and 417 hogs were butchered to furnish 86,716 pounds of pork. The "partial net cost" per hundred pounds of pork was “7.05, which is over 52.00 less than the Kalamazoo "partial net cost". How much of this difference is due to 'better' book— keeping and how much to better farming could not be deter— mined. A poultry flock is kept at Traverse City. The general program is to purcnase about 2050 chicks in the spring and place about 600 pullets in the laying house after the old hens have been killed in September. The records at the State .ge number of hens as H" Agricultural Department gives the aver 496 with a production of 186 eggs per bird. The farm fiscal report shows the total production of 7,655 dozen eggs per year which are credited at 19.1 cents. The "partial net cost” figure on the e comes out to be 25 cents per dozen. The fis- cal reports show an average annual loss of *4?8.84 on the poultry flock. The gross expenses averaged 4“.35.."5‘6 per tillable acre. These of course do not include very many of the capital charges connected with a farming business. with this high expense it is necessary to do more than just raise feed crops on the farm. The labor expense in the records on this farm included not only the cash paid out but also the food for the farm employees and part of the inmate workers. This total labor charge amounted to 645.18 per tillable acre. During the period studied an average of 6.3 employees with supervisory duties and 20.1 farmhands were hired to work on the farm. fine cook for the farm cottage was included in this group. An average of 75 to 80 inmates worked on the farm. This number is much higher in the summer than during the remain- der of the year. About 20 worked in the dairy Earn the year round. These inmates were away from their cottages about seven hours per day so they actually worked only six to six and a Quarter hours. Fere also none of the inmates were forced to work and some did not. None of these workers did any teaming or worked with machinery. The types of work that inmates ere allo ed to do at ach farm seemed to be determined by the medical advisor. The only building eip ens es given in the fiscal report were included in the improvement maintenance account. These amounted to 55.51 per animal unit annua 11y for the three years. Machinery expenses are too spread out to assemble in any useful figures. The power for the farm was furnished by ten horses and three tractors. Thus the power for each hun- dred acres of crop land was 1.5 horses and 0.? of a tractor. This fraction of a tractor amounts to ten horse power accord- ing to the Nebraska Field Test Pating. Table 9. Fxpense and r"fficiency Factors on reverse City state HCSpital Farm ,937-89 Item 1987-88 1938-89 1989-40 Average Gross income per til.A. 9 119.71 105.3 105.52 109.95 Total erpenses per tillable acre “ 102.? 86.71 9o.6" 95.36 MAN LAPOP . Men hired No. 27 26.1 26.? 96.4 Inmate workers No. 75 T5 75 ”5 Van labor expense per tillable acre T 4".47 33.46 46.75 45.18 Pew”? AN“ "ACFIHTPY Horses No. 16 10 19 10 Tractors No. 3 3 7 3 Total horsepower of tractors No. 69 69 69 69 coMPAaIsoNs w1TH INVIVITUshLY owner AN? opssarep Piers Any attempt to ompare these farms With any other is not only difficult but also very risky from the standpoint of good farm analysis. As already stated the difference in accounting practices limits the value of any camparison be— tween the two farms. Then in comparing them with the private commercial farms still more obstacles are enc untered. In spite of these handicaps, this was tried in two ways. The two farms were compared to each other and each one was com— ared to the average of the farms that are in the Farm Manage- ment Department's farm accounting project. The records of farms in Area 2* were used for the farm at Valamazoo, and Area 12* figures were used for the Traverse City farm. In this pa rt of the study all figures which were greatly affect- ed by the accounting procedures were avoided as much as poss— ible. size 2: 9usiness—— In size of business the only compar— ison made was between the twog instituional farms as both are much larger than the average of the private farms. The total expenses at Traverse city were about 23 per cent move than at Kalamazoo on 57 percent fewer tillable acres, but they kept about 10 per cent more cows or 19 per cent more productive animal units and had 17 per cent more hired help to do the work. *Area 2 includes the counties of Kalamazoo, Ft.Joseph, Cass and parts of Barry, Allegan, Calhoun, and Branch. ** Area 12 includes the counties of Werford, Vissaukee, and parts of Grand Traverse, Penzie, 1Wanistee, Yalkaska, meet, Cheyboygan, Antrim, Charlevoix and Otsego counties. I" e] (‘5) The Crops Program——nf the two institutional farms, the one at Kalamazoo has more acres in small grains and seedings and less in corn and fruit. Comparing the Yalamaaoo farm with the Area 2 farmers*, more of its crop land Was in orchard and garden and less in wheat and pasture while corn and the other small grains were about equal. The Traverse City farm was much more intensively farmed than those of the farm account cooperators in teas 12. They had a smaller amount of their land in hay and pisture and more in fruit and vegetables. The Area 12 farmers pastured about £1 per cent of their till- able land while only 7 per cent was used fior that purpose at the institutional farm/ In regard to crop yields the institution farms stood above the regular farmers. A detailed report of their yields can be found in Table A of the arpendix. For hay, corn, oats, barley and wheat the Valamazoo farm out—yielded the Area 2 farmers by 4 to 66 per cent. on crop yield index basis, Vala- mazoo was 116 and the regular farmers were 100. At Traverse City onlynthe hay and potato yield could be compared and the institution farm ranked 55 per cent ahead of the cocperators on the crop yield index for these cro;s. The value of crops per tillable acre also gave the edge to institutional farms. When the orchard and vegetable crops were deducted these figures were thus: Kalamazoo p14.53, * All figures for the farm account cooperators farms are area averages for the years of 1937, 1938, and 1933. Area 2 “13.21; Traverse City $19.41; and A rea 12 T14.l5. These figures reflect the higher valued crops and higher yields on the Traverse City farms. The Livestock Program-~The total number of livestock is much larger on the institutional farms. When placed on a tillable acre basis, these figures become more comparable. Kalamazoo had 3.6 productive animal units per tillable acre, Traverse City had 1.6, Area 2 had 5.5, and Area 12 had 6.2. This also showed the more intensive live stock program at the institutional farms. . Kalamaaoo had a record of 11,879 pounds of milk per cow per year, Traverse City had 11,695 pounds. The institutions have built up their production per cow far above the average for the State. The markets that the institutional farms had for their milk gave them the advantage in dairy sales per cow to such an extent that these figures are not comparable. Traverse City had a :ales per cow of ¢2"2* , Valamazoo had #260* , Area 2 farmers had @107, and Area 12 farmers had 983. As the institutions do not have records on the number of litter farrowed, the only hog figures that are in any way comparable is the income per sow. These figures are as folbows: Valamazoo tl57. Area 2 i‘1'76, Traverse City #255, and Area 12 9121. * Both institution farms credited their milk at $2.25 per cwt. and although the production per cow was higher at Kala- mazoo, the dairy sales per cow was more at Traverse City. The latter figure was calculated by dividing the total cre- dits for milk by.the average number of cows. Expense and foiciency Factors—- The expense and effic— iency factors are very difficult to Compare between the in— stitutional farms and those of the cooperators in the two areas. At the institutions much more money was handled re- gardless of what basis it is put on. onenses per tillable acre were two and a half and over six times greater on the state owned farms. They also spent more money in proportion to the amount that they took in. The exgense per one hundred d llar income is as follows: Falamazoo ”87, Area 2 “76, Trav- erse City @89 and Area 12 “78. The results of some labor efficiency measurements are given in Table 10. These are of questianable value because of the differences in accounting and purposes of the business but they may throw some‘light on the labor situation of the farms. Table 10. Labor Efficiency Factors on Kalamazoo and Traverse City state Hospital Farms and Farms of Account Cooperators in Areas 2 and 12, averages of 1937-39. Items Area 2 Valamazoo Trav.City Area 12 Men employed No. 1.9 22.6 26.4 1.7 expense per tilla 1e acre * ".18 14.73 45.18 8.16 Tillable acres per man No. ”5 49 24 5” Productive animal units per man No. 13.6 11.4 11.6 9.L / The institutional farms and those of the farmers could not be compared as far as their impr.vement and machinery costs were concerned. A comparison of power might be made on the basis of tillable acres per horse, but this would disregard the tractor power. For the three year period Yal- Imazoo had one horse for every 30 acres of tillable land, Area 2 farmers had one for every .5 acres. The ratio for Traverse City and Area if farmers were 1 to 63.1 and l to 40 respectively. SUT-WA FY The farm policy for the State I nstitutions has two important features, The first of these is to produce a por— tion of food needed by the inmates and staff and the other is to provide work or training for the inmates. Although either the state Hospital Commission or the State Correction Commission has charge of the administration of the farms, this phase is more or less marked by joint supervision with other State agencies. The Department of Agriculture has a major role in the actual management of the farms while a few other governmental bodies have some influence, especially through financial control. The putstanding feature of the accounting procedures use by the farms is the stress placed upon the financial part of the records. Except for the dairy figures, most other information is difficult or impossible to obtain accurately. The general organization of the farms studied seemed to be well adapted to the policies of producing food and {'Q 0) providing work, The dairy production is the strong part of the farm business and, in general, crop yields were well above the average. At the Valamazoo farm the land utilization program could be questioned in a few places. The data on labor, machinery, and other expenses were in such form as to be of little value in making an analysis of this phase of the farm business. CONCLUSION Considering the needs of these institutions the gen- eral program for the farms seems to be along the right lines. As with most farms, either publicly or privately owned, there are places where the administration could be improved. The results obtained would probably be better if the Department of Agriculture would do as much for the crops and other live— stock as they are now doing for the dairy herd. Their guid— ance and coordinating efforts have undoubtedly helped ob- tain the high milk production records, and should be help- ful to the rest of the farming business. Both farms studied had many strong points in their programs. The state Depart- ment of Agriculture could assist all the institution farms by picking up the good features of their farm management program and passing them on to others. The other governing bodies could also make contributions to improve these farms. Several differences in administration between the various institutions need to be ironed out. For evample, why should 37 there be so much difference between the type of work done by the inmates as there is at the farms studied when the same class of inmates is at both places. Perhaps the biggest place that these differences exist is in the accounting practices. These should be standardized between the institutions. The main purpose for keeping re- cords on a farm is to provide information suitable for the study and improvement of the business. One of the best means by which a farm mane er may check his achievements is to compare them with someone else's . Because of the type of busi- ness, it is very difficult to compare institution farms with private ones, but comparisons between the various insti- tutional farms WOuld be very helpful. Such comparisons will be of very limited value as long as major differences in bookkeeping methods exist. Changes should he made in the records to increase their usefulness. 0n the whole, sufficient data is kept to provide for a fair analysis of the farm business but much of it is so buried in other material that it is practically useless. Better methods should be worked out for summarizing the records so that the more pertinent information is more avail- able. The present procedure of separating the data by enter— prises or compartments should be carried out more completely. As this study is based upon records that are now two crop seasons away, suggestions on the organization and manage- ment may be someWhat out of date. As was stated before, little can be said about the expense and income factors on institutional farms. Compared to private farms the cats are high, income is also up, and in many respects they conduct a different type of business. The crop records at Kalamazoo showed that oats out- yielded barley in total digestible nutrients by over 50 per cent. The corn acreage produced nearly two and one half times more feed per acre than that sown to barley. These results would indicate that the small grains, perferably oats, should be limited to the needs for nurse crops and corn should be used to produce the grain. For the years lQFV-SQ the acreage devoted to the seeding alone of legumes and to unharvested crops, as green manure crops, seemed unusually large. Since large amounts of feed are purchased, very care- ful studies could be made to determine what proportion of the roughages and of the grains should be grown. The plan of using the "Home farm" at Kalamazoo for orchard and garden should be continued with more emphasis on the fruits. At the Traverse City farm the yields were very good except for the small grains. The acreage of these probably should be limited to nurse crops and the he; fields left as many years as they are productive so that less seeding is necessary. Since succulent feeds are considered so necessary by the herdsmen the possibilities of grass silage could be further studied. This would cut down the needed corvbr cul- tivated acreage. Also if the reported yields of mangles are customary, more of these could be used to replace part of the silage corn. Greater use of windbreaks might help in lessening the wind damage on the muck lands. The dairy herds seem to be giving as good results as any of the enterprises on the farms. Since milk is one of the most important and expensive foods needed at the insti- tutions, the dairy herd should produce as much of their re— quirement as possible. This may mean fewer heifers to be sold. These animals were selling for about one hundred dollars a head during the years 1927—? , and it is very doubtful if they were sold at a profit. The information on the rest of the livestock is rather limited. The diff- 'erence in the "partial net cost" of producing pork between the two institutions as shown by the fiscal records would indicate that some thought should be given as to why this difference should exist. The poultry flock at Traverse City was in the red for two of the three years covered by the study.* This enterprise would need very high theraputic value to justify these results. The practice of replacing the entire flock with pullets eaCh gear is ouestionable. It is difficult to mahe an analysis of the efficiency factors on institutional farms. The using of hired labor to drive two—horse teams is very questionable. Unless the * From the annual fiscal report, and it does not include‘ most of the capital costs. 40 horses can be driven by the cheaper inmate workers their number should be very limited on the farms. On the other hand the amount of tractor power and other machinery needed to do the farming at these. institutions should be invest- igated. Maybe the use of the shifts during the rush Seasons would greatly reduce these requirements. A couple of other comments might be made concerning the Traverse City farm. Since so much feed has to be purchased every year it would seem advisable to add 150 to 200 more acres of good farm land to the unit. This would lessen the need of cultivating so much of the west unit where c sts are high and results are only fair. The present plan of he ping this unit into cultivated crops should be continued. An al- ternative of this suggestion might be to keep fewer cows and buy part of the needed milk. These farms are set up in such a way that good results should be espected. The units are large, and well-equipped, the soil is above average, and they are well-backed finan- cially. The expensive item of production is hired labor which some persons claim is off-set by the free inmate labor. Proper organization and management should result in costs as least as low as these of the average private farmer. 4/ APP?NPIY Table A. Power and machinery at Kalamazoo state Hospital, 1937 to 1989 Tractors: Wake Vodel Drawbar Horsepower John Deere “ 29.90 John Deere D 23.90 Farmall f—l4 14.84 Farmall f-14 14.84 Parrett 15. Parrett l5. Centaur 10. Bolen A . l n . I 0 Total horsepower of the 8 units 130. 48 Horses: Number 37 Power per 100 tillable acres: Horses 3.3 Tractors 11.5 F.P. Machinery Inventory (at original cost) $30,389.91 Table B. Power and Machinery at Traverse City State Hos- pital, 1937 to 1939. Tractors: Make Model Drawbar Forsepower John Deere A 18.43 Caterpillar 22 25.2 Caterpillar 22 25.21 K Total horsepower of the 0 units 68.85 Horses: Number 10 Power per 100 tillable acres: Horses 1.5 Tractors 10.9 H.P. Machinery Inventory (at original cost\ d’12,:216589 I Table C. Farm A nalysis Factors of the Farms at Kalamazoo and Traverse City state chpitals and of Farm Account Co- operators in Areas 2 and 12. Averages of l95”,38 and 39. Area 2 Kalama- Traverse Area 12 zoo City ‘ Size of sUstvass Total acres operated No 191 246 890 179 Acres tillable No 142 1116 634 9” Gross income a 5384 58,453 69,701 1,994 Gross expense * 2454 49,116 60,457 1,512 VYPENSP AND FFFICITUCY FACTOPS Total labor espense a 1016 16,331 £6,659 792 Labor expense per til.A.f 7.18 14."? 45.18 8.16 Men No 1.9 22.6 26.4 1.7 Work horses per til. A. No 3.3 E 10 2.4 CPCP PRTGPA" Der cent tillable acres in: Pay 6 2 32 27 33 Pasture ¢ 18 5 7 21 Corn 6 19 16 i3 1? flats and Barley 4 9 3 ll _8 Wheat T 14 6 0 5 Potatoes 8 1 0 7 6 Garden and orchard 5 1 16 24 1 yield per acre: Pay Tonsl.6 1.9 2.1 . 1.? Corn* Pu. 41 — - E” oats Pu. 32 LE 0 2” Wheat “u. 20 E6 - 13 Potaotes Bu. - - 279 168 Value of field crops produced per tillable acre s 13.21 14.78 26.17 14.15 LIVVSTficV DPOCPAM Productive animal units No 25.8 257 305 15.8 Ti1.A. per p.a.u. V0 5.5 5.6 1.6 6.2 Income per til. A. 4 15.51 47.70 116.32 11.22 Dairy cows No 9.7 117 129 3.6 Dairy product sales per cow a 107 260 272 83 Dairy products sales, total - T 1039 *0,475 35,¢53 ”15 Sows No 2.8 61.- 38 .8 Fog income, total d 493 9,602 9,652 97 Hens W0 82 0 496 47 Poultry and egg income 0 202 0 1889 118 * Corn yields not computed for institutional farms as acreage is not accurately divided between corn for silage and grain. 6 2322 031 ll IIIII ll" I I I Ill lull I I I 3 129 minimum“!