"‘o-- 17‘— —— ,., - .... 1-. ‘ 7.. - -~,( .- ‘ o A ,- ’ - , ~ a A t - 5 ' _ , , , '. A , , - _ , ‘ . , ‘ n - . . ' ’ - ‘ _ ,: rs: ’8 571$“ THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled "A Study of Certain Dairy Management Practices and Their Effect on Dairy Returns in Three Arias of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in 19 8" presented by RICHARD W . CHRIS TIAN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 113.8. degree in Agricultural Economics Date November 20, 1950 0-169 " yu-m"- :2" ' A STUDY OF CERTAIN DAIRY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND THEIR EFFECT ON DAIRY RETURNS IN THREE AREAS OF THE UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN IN 1948 BY RICHARD W. CHRISTIAN N A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan ' State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1950 VITA Richard W. Christian PERSONAL: Age - 31 years, October A, 1950 Religion - Protestant Birthplace - WOOdland, Michigan Height - 6' O" Nationality - American Weight - 160 pounds Marital Status - Married Health - Excellent EDUCATION: High School - Woodland, Michigan; graduated 1937. College - Michigan State College, East Lansing; graduated December l9hl, B. S. degree in Agricultural Economics. COLLEGE AFFILIATIONS: Farmhouse Fraternity and Alpha Zeta Agricultural Hon- orary. EXPERIENCE: Reared on an 80-acre general farm in Barry County, Michigan. Ten months full-time, three years one-half time work for the Tabulating Department of Michigan State College, working with IBM tabulating equipment. Fifteen months in American Field Service, volunteer ambulance corps, driving an ambulance with British 8th Army in North.Africa. Twenty-nine months in the U. S. Army, ten months in the China, Burma, India theater. Divisional Superintendent with the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company in Liberia, West Africa, on a rubber plantation; August l9h6 to October l9h8. Instructor in Farm Management, Michigan State College Extension Service, December l9h8 to June l9h9. Assisted in the Farm Account Project; assisted in project deter- mining prevailing custom rates for farm work in Michi- gan; assisted in Dairy Cost Study of 130 dairy farms in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, on which study this thesis is based. ii 244581 AC KN OTJ'vIEDGEl/ENTS The author wishes to express his profound appre- ciation to two members of the Agricultural Economics Department, Dr. Karl T. wright and Professor C. R. Hoglund, for their very generous counsel and sugges- tions during the writing of this thesis. Their assis- tance was invaluable. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. STATELENT OF TIE-E PRC‘BLEVI o o o a o o o o o o 1 II. OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESES, AND PROCEDURE . . . 3 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ECONOMY, AGRICULTURE AND THE DAIRY ENTERPRISE IN MICHIGAN'S UPPER PEIJINSDM O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 IV. ANALYSIS OF PRACTICES ON HIGH FARMS AND LOW FARKS IN LABOR AND MANAGEMENT RETURN PER COW 21 V. SIZE OF ENTERPRISE AND ITS EFFECT ON NET RJB'I'UIJLIIS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 31+ A. Size of Herd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BA B 0 8128 Of Farm 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 [+0 C. Effect of Size of Farm on Amount of Feed Purchased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3 D. Effect of Intensity of the Dairy Enter- prise on Dairy Returns . . . . . . . . . L7 VI. EFFECT OF PRODUCTION PER COW ON DAIRY RETURNS 50 VII. EFFECTS OF CERTAIN FEEDING PRACTICES ON DAIRY RETUIZNS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 55 A. Overfeeding of Concentrates . . . . . . 60 B. Underfeeding of Concentrates . . . . . . 63 VIII. THE EFFECT OF MARKET OUTLET ON DAIRY EARNINGS 69 IX. EFFECT OF FALL-FRESHENING ON DAIRY RETURNS . 76 X. UPPER PENINSULA DAIRYHEN CAN IMPROVE RETURNS BY BETTER CROP MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . 85 XI. BREEDING METHODS CURRENTLY USED IN THE UPPER PENINSULA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont'd. Ede-1TB. PAGE XII. smmaav AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY................115 APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Table l. Tabulation of land area, land in farms, crop acres, crop acres in hay and pasture, number of farms, and population, by county in the Upper Peninsula, in 19h5.ll8 Table 2. Percentage of farms in three areas of the Upper Peninsula growing alfalfa, and clover and timothy, for hay, and the percentage of tillable acres in each . . 119 Table 3. Tabulation of number of farms, average size of farm, and percentage of tillable acres in hay and pasture, by area . . . . . . . . . . -.~ . . . . . . 120 APPENDIX B Comparison of crop yields in the Upper Peninsula with crop yields for DuIiChigan as a T“111018 o o o o o o o o o 0 12]. APPENDIX C Tabulation of average prices of concentrates, silage, and hay in the Up- per Peninsula by area, for 19A8 survey sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 APPENDIX D Cost of feed nutrients derived from various feeds . . . . . . . . . . . 122 APPENDIX E Availability of space for more cows 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 122 APPENDIX F Use of rye, oats, and for hay, pasture, and silage on 130 farms in the Upper Peninsula in 1948 . . . . . . . . 123 APPENDIX C Summary of herd improvement prac— tices by area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 APPENDIX H Value of dairy products sold as percentage of all farm products sold in 1945 and 1940 compared to l948_sample . 123 V TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont'd. APPENDIX K Calculation of the most profit- able Level of Grain Feeding . . . . . . 124 APPENDIX L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Exhibit 1. Primary data form . . . . . . 125 Exhibit 2. Tabulation form . . . . . . . 126 Exhibit 3. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 127 Exhibit 4. Tabulation form . . . . . . . 129 vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE NUMBER PAGE 1. Distribution of herds by area and by size . . 5 2. Distribution of herds by production of but- terfat per cow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Distribution of sample herds by market outlet 6 4. Trend of the non—agricultural labor force in the Upper Peninsula since 1940 . . . . . . . 9 5. Average production per cow in three areas of the Upper Peninsula in 1945 compared to aver- age production per cow in our 1948 sample . . l2 6. Cow numbers, 1940 to 1950, by area, on Jan- uary 1, each year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 7. Average size of farm in three areas of the Up- per Peninsula, compared to the Michigan aver- age and to our 1948 sample averages for each area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4 8. Percentage of tillable acres in hay, and per- centage of tillable acres in pasture in 1945 15 9. Dairying as a source of farm income in the Upper Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Comparison of practices on high farms and low farms in labor and management return per cow, with price per pound butterfat constant . . . 24 ll. Averages of significant items for the farms in eaCh area 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 31 vii TABLE LIST OF TABLE? - Cont'd. N UIvIBE R 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18a. 18b. 19. 21. Size of herd and its effect on net returns in three areas of the Upper Peninsula . . . . . Size of farm measured by tillable acres per farm and its effect on net returns . . . . . Percentage of feed purchased on small farms and large farms in Area 2 . . . . . . . . . . Effect of size of farm on earnings when size of herd is kept constant . . . . . . . . . . Production per cow and its effect on dairy returns with price received per pound butter- fat held constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of ratio of concentrates fed to 4 per- cent milk produced on returns . . . . . . . . Effects of overfeeding of concentrates on dairy earnings in Area 3. . . . . . . . . . . Effects of underfeeding of concentrates on dairy earnings in area 3 . . . . . . . . . . Effect of market outlet on dairy earnings . . Effect of fall-freshening on herd income . . Dairy returns on farms where fertilizer was used compared to returns where fertilizer was not used in rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . viii PAGE 35 41 44 48 51 56 61 6h 70 79 88 LIST OF TABLES - Cont'd. TABLE PAGE NUMBER 22. Comparison of dairy returns between farms using all wild pasture and farms using all rotation pasture in Area 2. . . . . . . . . . 94 23. Number of dairymen putting up hay by the three different methods, and number now using hay silage or intending to use hay silage . . 99 24. Tabulation of breeding methods . . . . . . . 104 ix FIGURE NUMBER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Average prices received in each area for milk (on a butterfat basis), by farmers in this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Chart of butterfat prices paid in the Upper Peninsula from October 1942 to June 1950 com- pared to Michigan average butterfat prices . 19 Distribution of herds by labor and management return per cow from entire herd . . . . . . 22 Average prices for all farm products received by Michigan farmers during the period of this study, May 1948 to April 1949 . . . . . . . . 77 Graph of butterfat prices paid in the Upper Peninsula by months from 1940 to 1950 . . . . 83 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This is a study of the dairy enterprise on farms in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It is known that effi- ciency in dairy farming varies greatly in the Upper Penin- sula the same as it does in other dairy areas of the state. However, there is a general feeling that Upper Peninsula dairymen have been slow in adopting improved production practices. A recent dairy cost and returns study in the Upper Peninsula showed that some dairymen had a labor and management return per cow Of over $200 while other dairy- men failed to even pay for feed, labor, and other costs.l/ This study was initiated to determine the effect of the application of certain dairy management practices on costs and returns on dairy farms in»three areas of the Upper Peninsula, and to discover possible practices which might l/ n. an, 0. SR7 .Hoglund, K. T. wright, and 3.11. Elwood, c igan State College, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, Agricultural Economics Report #55, October, 1949. contribute to increased profits from dairying. CHAPTER II OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESES, AND PROCEDURE The objectives of this study were three in number: (1) to determine the relation between certain practices followed and the resulting costs and returns, (2) to sug- gest practices which.might lead to better returns from dairying in the Upper Peninsula, and (3) to ascertain the effect of market outlet on costs and returns. Hypotheses 1. That size of herd, size of farm, and production per cow were the primary factors determining gross and net farm income from the dairy enterprise. 2. That high, efficient production per cow was one of the most important single factors affecting the residual left for the operator's labor and management per cow. 3. That small farms can, if intensively organized and ef- ficiently Operated, produce an adequate net income. 4. That many dairymen in the Upper Peninsula fed concen- trates at uneconomically high levels. 5. That a high price for milk tended to cause dairymen to feed their cattle larger quantities of feed than did a low price. 6. That poor quality hay and inadequate quantity of hay and pasture were vital factors causing low returns on many dairy farms. 7. That increasing the percentage of cows freshening in the fall months can increase net returns. Procedure The study was begun May 1, 1948, by the Farm Manage- ment Department at Michigan State College and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture, with the County Agricultural Agents help- ing to start and to collect monthly records. Three areas were selected for the study. Area 1 comprised Chippewa, Luce, and Mackinac counties in the eastern end of the pen- insula. Area 2 comprised Baraga, Houghton, and Ontonagon counties in the northwestern part of the peninsula. Area 3 comprised Delta, Dickinson, and Menominee counties in the southwestern part of the peninsula. It was felt that these counties were representative counties for the three differ- ent type-of—farming areas in the Upper Peninsula. In obtaining the sample, it was desired to get herds ranging from small to large, with the bulk of the herds being of medium size. The accomplished distribution, in- sofar as size of herd is concerned, for the three areas is shown in Table 1. It also was desired to get a normal distribution of productiveness per cow in the various herds selected, ranging from low to high. Low producing herds were to be those producing under 200 pounds butterfat per cow; medium producing herds were to be those producing between 200 and 250 pounds butterfat per cow; high producing herds were Table 1. Distribution of herds by area and by size. Accomplished Average“ distribution size percentage . Area 1 5 - 9 cows 31.6 12.2 cows 15.1 and over 31.6 Area 2 5 - 8 cows 15.2 13.0 cows 8.1 - 15 cows 58.7 15.1 and over 26.1 Area 3 8 - 10 cows 13.0 16.2 cows 20.1 and over 19.6 to be those producing above 250 pounds butterfat per cow. The actual distribution of herds by production per cow is shown in Table 2. In each area, a majority of the herds are in the "high" group, signifying that either the herds selected were better than desired, or that the limits of each group were set too low. The writer believes that the latter was the case in this instance. Market outlet was not thought so important, although it was desired to get a fair sample of cream producers in Area 1, comprising Chippewa, Luce and Mackinac counties. Table 2. Distribution of herds by production of butterfat— 4per cow. Low Medium High Average#_ ‘Under 200 200:250’ '250 pounds per cow gpounds pounds and over percent percent“ percent pounds Area 1 18.4 26.3 55.3 252 Area 2 6.5 10.9 82.6 289 Area 3 0 15.2 84.4 318 6 Table 3.5 Distribution of sample herds by market outlet. Pluid Condensarz. ‘Cheese ‘Cream No. x No. i No. 5 No. S Area 1 22 137.9 -- ---- 5* 123.2 11 28'? Area 2 13 23.3 -- ---- 32 63.6 1 2.1 Area 3 13 28.3 17 37.0 16 3 .7 -- ---- The distribution of the sample by market outlet is shown in Table 3. It is felt by the writer that more attention should have been given to securing a better distribution among the various market outlets, to allow more accurate comparisons between the areas, and to enable the sample to more closely approach the random. It is recognized that the farms to be studied were to be dairy farms, and thus a large part of their income would be from the dairy enterprise. Dairy farms are more likely to have higher producing cows and to have better market outlets than are farms on which the dairy enter- prise is minor. Complete records were obtained from 38 herds in Area 1, from #6 herds in Area 2, and from M6 herds in Area 3 for a total of 130. CHAPTER III DESCRIPTION OF THE ECONOMY, AGRICULTURE AND THE DAIRY ENTERPRISE IN MICHIGAN'S UPPER PENINSULA The Upper Peninsula of Michigan comprises 29 per- cent of the land area of Michigan. It had 7.6 percent of the farms in Michigan in 1945, 8.3 percent of the land in farms, and 5.0 percent of the tillable acres in Michigan.* The average size of farm in the Upper Penin- sula was 115 acres, compared to 105 acres for the state as a whole in 1945. However, a much larger proportion was in non-tillable land in the Upper Peninsula than in the State. Average tillable acreage per farm.in the Up- per Peninsula was 43, compared to 64 for Michigan. .Also, in the Upper Peninsula, a much larger proportion of till- able acreage was in hay and pasture crops than was true for the state. In.Michigan, 43 Percent of the tillable acreage was in hay and pasture crops in 1945. while in.the Upper Peninsula 73 Percent of the tillable acreage was in hay and pasture, almost twice as much, proportionately. The population in the Upper Peninsula in 1940 was 323,544, or 6.2 percent of Michigan's total. By 1950 the population had decreased to 300,407, a drop of 7.2 percent. During the same period, Michigan's total population in- creased 20 percent so that at the present time, the Upper Peninsula population comprises onl7 4.7 percent of Michi- * The breakdown of land area, number of gan's total.* *Appendix A, Table 1. **Appendix A, Table 1. 8 farms, land in farms, crop acres, crop acres in hay and pasture, and population by counties in the Upper Penin- sula is given in Appendix A. This population decrease means that Upper Peninsula dairy farmers cannot expect an increase in the consump- tion of fluid milk and cream, unless the per capita con- Sumption increases. This seems unlikely in view of the steady decline in per capita conswmption of fluid milk and cream from.432 pounds in 1945 to 387 pounds in l948.g/ The non-agricultural labor force in the Upper Penin- sula has declined since 1940, from 111,400 to 88,000 in 1950 (Table 4). Significantly, unemployment has decreased since 1940 an amount practically equal to the drop in the labor force. The unemployed workers must have found em- ployment outside the Upper Peninsula, which accounts for at least some of the population decrease. Unemployment seems to be a chronic condition in the Upper Peninsula. During the war, in march,l944, unemploy- ment was at a minimum, but by March, 1946 unemployment had . reached 23,000. This probably was partly a result of re- turning servicemen who could not find jobs, and partly because of the decline in the number of jobs available. This condition of large-scale unemployment outside agri- culture hurts the agriculture of the Upper Peninsula be- cause unemployed workers are not good consumers of locally produced farm products. 3/ Agricultural Statistics, 1949, United States Department 0 AgricuIture. Table 4. Trend of the non-agricultural labor force in the Upper Peninsula since 1940.3/ March march. march. march. March. march&/ 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 Non-agricul- tural labor force 111,400 102,500 87,700 94,900 82,460 88,000 Employed 71,400 67,600 84,400 71,900 68,940 71,800 Unemployed 40,000 34,900 3,300 23,000 13,520 16,200 'i The growing season in the Upper Peninsula is short. Crops must be selected which are adapted to the short season, and to the particular soil types found in the Up- per Peninsula. Soil acidity varies from very acid (pH 4.0) on.Munising sandy loam, to alkaline (pH 8.0) on Chatham stony loam, Berglund loam, Berglund clay, and on the Ruse loam soils. There are heavy clay soils in Chippewa, Luce, Mackinac, and Ontonagon counties. There are sandy loams in many areas, along with some silt loam and clay loam soils. Quack grass is a very real problem in many sections, but especially in the eastern area. It must be kept in check either by the use of cultivated crops in the rota- tion, or by summer fallow. In the eastern area, summer fallow is largely resorted to because there are virtually no row crops which do well on the heavy clay and clay 2/ "Employment Patterns of Michigan's Upper Peninsula," by Michigan Department of Economic Development, Lansing, Michigan. 5/ Labor Market Letter ma 1 O, by Michigan Unemploy- men Compensation Commission.. 10 loam soils which are poorly drained. The acid soils must be heavily limed in order to grow alfalfa, sweet clover, and barley. If white-skinned potatoes are grown as a cash crop, liming the soil proves detrimental because the white-skinned varieties of potatoes are susceptible to scab injury, which the limed soil facilitates. Crops successfully grown in the Upper Peninsula in- clude alfalfa; red, white, and sweet clover; timothy; bar- ley; rye; oats; peas; spring wheat; potatoes; rutabagas; early maturing corn for silage (for grain in the southern part of the Upper Peninsula); flax; berries; and vegetables.2/ Since hay and some small grains can be grown success— fully, it is perhaps natural that dairying has become an important industry in the Upper Peninsula, and the.most important source of farm income in most of the Upper Pen- insula. Hay and pasture crops accounted for 77.2 percent of all the tillable land in the Upper Peninsula in 1945, and most of the balance was in small grains. It is self-evident that, since hay and pasture crops, along with small grains, are of prime importance to the agriculture of the Upper Peninsula, particular attention should be given them to assure good quality and good yields. A study of hay and grain yields over the past three years, however, indicates that yields of hay and 2/ Much of this information was taken from "Soil Manage- ment in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan," Special Bul- letin 345, Michigan State College Agricultural Experi- ment station, January, 1948. . 11 grain are below the state averages. Appendix B contains a tabulation of hay, corn, oats, barley, and wheat yields for 1947, 1948, and 1949 for each area in this study, for the Upper Peninsula, and for Michigan. Yields of all these crops for each of these years is lower on the average in the Upper Penin- sula than in the whole of the State. Hay, particularly, gives on the average much lower yields in the Upper Pen- insula than in the State as a whole. Hay is the Upper Peninsula's most important crop from an acreage stand- point, but yields are very low; Much could be done to improve hay and pasture yields. ,The summer of 1948 was very dry in the Upper Peninsula, which accounts for the extraordinarily low yields of hay that year, .85 tons per acre, compared to the State average of 1.37 tons per acre. A.major problem in the Upper Peninsula is that of provid- ing supplementary hay and pasture in extraordinarily dry seasons. The non-fluid market in Area 1 is much.more limited and much less important than in the other two areas. Av- erage production per cow is very low in Area 1. Two of the eleven cream producers shipped their cream to St. Paul some 400 miles away. A third sent cream to Nanistique, 45 miles away. There are only three cream outlets in Area 1, one at Pickford, one at Rudyard, and one at Sault Ste. Narie. There are also two cheese factories, both at Engadine. 12 In contrast to this, Area 2 has seven cheese fac- tories and creameries, all of which purchase whole milk. , The single cream producer in Area 2 ships his product to Hurley, Wisconsin. Area 3 has a prime non-fluid market in the condensary, located at Stephenson, in menominee County. In addition to this there are eleven cheese fac- tories and creameries in Area 3. The condensary collects whole milk from a wide area in.Menominee, Delta, and Dick- inson Counties. Suppliers as far away as 60 miles in Dickinson County, and 65 miles in Delta County were found who shipped their milk to this condensary. That the dairy farmers in this sample achieved better than average production per cow is shown in Table 5. The average milk production per cow on the 130 farms in this study was 7,610 pounds. The Michigan average in 1945 was Table 5. Average production per cow in three areas of the Upper Peninsula in 1945 compared to average pro- duction per cow in our 1948 sample. Production per gow Production per cow by 1945 census_/ by our 1948 sample pounds pounds Area 1 4,237 6,939 Area 2 5.214 6.795 Area 3 5:613 8,722 Combined 5,250 7,610 Upper Peninsula 5,190 Michigan 5,257 é] Epited States Census of Agriculture, 1245, United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. This is an average of cows on all farms, commercial, part-time, and subsistence, whereas our sample is from full-time dairy farms. 13 Table 6. Cow numbers, 1940 to 1950, by area, on January 1, each year. 1940 1945 1947 1948 1949 1950 Area 1 9,898 9,838 10,300 10,500 10,000 10,200 Area 2 17,428 21,593 21,700 22,000 15,400 14,600 Area_3 24,502 29,713 29,800 30,900 29,300 27,200 5,257 pounds, and the Upper Peninsula average in the same year was 5,190 pounds. Upper Peninsula cows, on the aver- age, are not significantly less produbtive than the State's. It is clear that Area 3 is a good dairy area. The 1945 Census shows milk production per cow in that Area to be 400 pounds above the State average. Milk cow nwmbers seem to change quite quickly in re- sponse to price changes and the availability of feed. Table 6 shows very clearly how cow numbers changaiwith the years. Area 1 cow numbers do not seem.to change very much, Area 3 a little more, and Area 2 considerably more. On January 1, 1948, 22,000 cows were estimated in production in Area 2. A year later, on January 1, 1949, only 15,400 cows were estimated in production, a drop of about one- third. Of course, these figures are estimated, and are based on a small quite so curate. shortage of feed sample, but it is felt that they are The writer believes that the extreme in the Upper Peninsula, particularly in 2/ ing S Annua17Cro S ervice, Lan and Livestock Re orts for Michigag, 1945, I947. I943 I959. and 5955 d , Fe eral-State Crop Report- sing , Michigan. 14 Area 2, accounted for most of the drop in 1948. Area 2 farms are small, and in a dry year there is often a ser- ious lack of roughage. The summer of 1948 was very dry, pastures were poor as a general rule, and hay yields were extremely poor (Appendix B). Table 7 is a comparison of the average size of farm in each area as reported in the 1945 census with the av- erage size of farm in our 1948 sample. Farms were small in Area 2 in 1945, averaging only 38.3 crop acres per farm, six acres smaller than in Area 3, and 33 acres smaller than in Area 1. In the 1948 sample, on which this study is based, the average acreage was larger in each area than was the average acreage of all Table 7. Average size of farm in three areas of the Up- per Peninsula, compared to the Michigan average and to our 1948 sample averages for each area (Appendix A, Table 3). Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Michigan Percent of land in ' farms . . . . . . . . 12.7 15.6 30.9 50.4 Average size, 1945, acres . . . . . . . . 131 100 143 105 Average size, 1940, acres . . . . . . . . 124 80 117 96 Number of farms, 1945 . 2,190 3,259 4,114 175,268 Number of farms, 1940 . 2,284 3,733 4,051 187,589 Tillable acres per farm 1945 census . . . . . 71 38 44 64 1948 sample . . . . . 151 83 102 --- 15 Table 8. Percentage of tillable acres in hay, and per- centage of tillable acres in pasture in 1945 (Appendix A, Table 3). Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Michigan .Alfalfa cut for hay (acres) . . . . . - 3.375 1.544 26.147 1.179.987 Clover and timothy cut for hay (acres) . . . 73,328 78,007 55,333 1,342,226 Percent of tillable acres in hay (not in- cluding wild hay) . . 51 67 55 27 Percent of tillable acres in pasture* . . 20 9 15 16 Percent of tillable . acres in hay and pas- , ture . . . . . . . . 71 76 7O 43 Percent of tillable ac- res in hay and pasture, 1948 sample (Appendix A, Table 2) c c c o c 0 60 7h 61 "" farms, according to the 1945 census but they were larger in about the same proportion in each area. The number of farms is seen.to be declining in each area, and the aver- age size of farm is increasing in each area. No compari- son between tillable or crop acres in 1940 and tillable or crop acres in 1945 is possible, because the data ob- tained is not comparable in the two census enumerations. In Area 2 the farms are smaller, and the percentage of the tillable acres in hay is much larger than in the other two areas. In Area 2 forage was more of a limiting factor con- trolling size of herd than were concentrates. Concentrates * Land plowed sometime in the last 7 years. 16 can be and were purchased readily, but forage was much more difficult to purchase. It is logical that a larger proportion of their smaller farms would be devoted to hay crops, and a smaller proportion to pasture and grain than in the other two areas. 0 Dairy products accounted for about 50 percent of all the farm.income in the Upper Peninsula in 1945, while for the State as a whole, dairy products accounted for but 33 percent of all farm income. In all but two counties in the Upper Peninsula, dairying was the most important single source of farm income. In two counties, Chippewa and Luce, crop income was slightly higher than dairy income. Also, as is shown in Table 9, dairying was a.more important source of farm income on the 130 farms in this sample than it was on all farms according to the 1945 census. Dairying was more important to farm income in Area 2 than it was in the other two areas, both in 1945 and in Table 9. Dairying as a source of farm income in the Upper Peninsula, (Appendix H). Percentage dairy products are of value of all farm products sold 1945 Census 1940 Census 1948 Sample Area 1 31.0 31.4 73.4 Area 2 62.8 57.4 76.4 Area 3 55-3 52.6 76.4 Michigan 33.2 29.0 I ---- 17 1940. Also, between 1940 and 1945 dairying gained much in importance in Area 2, while in the other two areas it remained practically stationary. In.this study it is apparent that in the matter of price received for milk, Area 1 had a big advantage over the other two areas. The average price per pound of but- terfat in.Area l was $1.10, compared to $0.95 in Area 2 and $1.03 in Area 3. These average prices are averages of prices received by producers of fluid.milk, milk for condensary and cheese factories, and far butterfat, all combined into one average. Since 58 percent of the dairy- men in this study in Area 1 produce for the fluid market, and only 28 percent of those in Areas 2 and 3 produce for the fluid market, the average price quoted above for 'Area 1 is heavily weighted by the high prices received by the fluid producers. Another important contributing reason for the aver- age price in Area 1 being greater than the average prices. in the other two areas is shown in Figure l. In.Area 2 and Area 3 all prices declined steadily from.Ju1y, 1948 through April, 1949 while in Area 1 the decline was al- most imperceptible. The reason was that, while prices paid for butterfat by the butter makers did decline, prices paid for fluid milk did not decline. Since the sample is heavily weighted with fluid producers the av- erage of all the producers declined but little. The average prices here stated should not be construed 1.30 E 1.20 o P-l 1.10 E3 €31.00 E351 g: .90 H SE 35S .80 mm g .70 E 4 .60 MAY J J A s o N D JAN. 1‘ M A 1948 1949 Figure 1. Average prices received in each area for milk (on a butterfat basis), by farmers in this study. as representing the average price for each area for the period of the study. They are merely averages for the pr_oducers_u_§ed in this study. Figure 1 shows the trend of prices received by dairymen in this study during the course of the study but does not show the real average price for all Upper Peninsula milk for each month. Figure 2 shows average prices paid for butterfat, by months, in the Upper Peninsula from 1942 through 1949, compared to the average prices paid for butterfat in the whole of Michigan. As can be seen, the two follow each other closely. Unfortunately, no comparison is possible 19 .338: .2554 .888“ mag .38 gm n §.aa :22 4.3. as; 533. 353 non-nun nag 38 B43 than. .gu .au: .33 £8“. a» ugaggg 683%- 8a guano. 4411"”) A... :nlm. 8 8 «mug ch on §>< gang g I. O 30% ch on $4 3802 .l a . > 222% \ 8 .3 <5}!.\.|/ \a/(\ (\n O a . 1 m 8 m m a m a I a; K if e11 a on “manna «Home: aébm fi§>< 305.03 2.. gang gdgagd aggcfi ob Ema—5.3m ”Howe flan—homage .N 23w 33.83888 20 between wholesale milk prices in the Upper Peninsula and in Michigan as a whole. 21 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF PRACTICES 0N HIGH FARMS AND LOW'FARMS IN LABOR AND MANAGEMENT RETURN PER COW Figure 3 on the following page shows the distribu- tion of the herds in each area by labor and management return per cow from the entire herd. Net returns from the youngstock herd (a negative quantity in a large ma- Jority of the herds) were added to net returns from the milking herd, and the total for each herd was divided by the average number of cows in the herd to determine labor and management return per cow from the herd. Since the youngstock enterprise was an integral part of the whole dairy enterprise on most dairy farms it was thought that youngstock costs and returns should be included in any determination of net returns from the herd. In cases where the farmer was trying to enlarge his herd by rais- ing extraordinarily large numbers of heifers, of course, the costs of the youngstock enterprise were abnormally large. Breeding costs in all cases were prorated to the milking herds and to the youngstock herds on the basis of average numbers of cows and average numbers of heifers over 1 year of age. Net returns per cow (as.measured by labor and.manage- .ment return per cow from the entire herd) in Area 1 cov- ered a wider range than in Areas 2 or 3. More herds in .Area 1 were found low on the scale but more were also very high on the scale in Area 1 compared to the other areas. 22 N 0 Area 1 Number of herds *5 t—i U‘L O Labor and management return per cow (dollars), Area 1. 20 Area 2 Number of herds Labor and management return per cow (dollars), Area 2. 20 Area 3 Number of herds Labor and management return per cow (dollars), Area 3. Figure 3. Distribution of herds by labor and management return per cow from entire herd (cows, youngstock, and bulls). 23 In Areas 2 and 3 no herds had net returns of over $175 per cow while in Area 1 £313 herds had over $175 net re- turns per cow, the highest averaging $301 per cow. This extremely high net return was made possible largely by the extremely high price of $1.52 received per pound of butterfat. The average price for the three areas combined was $1.03 per pound of butterfat. In an attempt to determine the most important factors affecting net returns all the records for each area were sorted by labor and.management return per cow, with price received per pound butterfat held constant.* In most of the analyses in this study labor and management return was used as the measure of net returns. Labor and manage- ment return represents total returns minus total costs ex- cept labor costs. It was thought advisable not to include labor as a cost because of the difficulty of placing a value on the farm operator's own labor. Labor and manage- ment return is thus a net return to the operator for his own labor and management, his family's labor, and hired labor. It was desired to hold price constant because the market and price which a dairymen obtains is largely be- yond his control and thus should not be permitted to af- fect the results of the tabulation in Table 10. * In this study the method of holding a factor constant was that called "pairing." In this tabulation, all the records for each area were first sorted by the constant factor, price per pound of butterfat. Each consecutive three records were then placed in separate groups, low, medium, and high, according to labor and management re- turn per cow. This had the effect of giving each group an average price. The same technique has been used in subsequent tabulations with other factors held constant. 24 Table 10. Comparison of practices on high farms and low farms in labor and management return per cow, with price per pound butterfat constant. Low High 1/3 of farms 1/3 of farms in each area in each area Size of Enterprise and Production Number of farms . . . . . . . 43 43 Number of cows per farm . . . 13.6 14.0 Tillable acres per farm . . . 113 115 Percentage of tillable acres in hay and pasture . . . . . 61 60 Pounds butterfat per cow . . 266 318 Pounds milk per cow . . . . . 7,018 8,270 Returns Returns from dairy product sales, per cow . . . . . . 272.00 $336.00 per pound butterfat . . . 1.02 1.05 Other returns per cow*. . . . 21.00 24.00 Returns from youngstock per cow** . . . . . . . . . . . 68.00 81.00 Total returns per cow . . . . 361.00 441.00 Costs Feed costs per cow . . . $162.00 $147.00 Other costs per cow***(except labor) . . . . . . . . 72.00 63.00 Youngstock costs per cow****. 98.00 87.00 Total costs per cow (except labor) . . . . . . . . . . . $332.00 $297.00 Net Returns Labor and management returns per cow . . . . . . . . . . g 29.00 $144.00 per herd . . . . . . . . . . 480.00 $1,876.00 Feed Fed the Herds Pounds concentrates fed cows per cow . . . . . . . . . . 2,160 2,086 Pounds hay fed cows per cow . 5,600 4,902 Pounds silage and roots fed cows per cow . . . . . . . . 2,075 2,051 Pounds concentrates fed young- stock per head . . . . 388 288 Pounds hay fed youngstock per head . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,213 1,680 (Table 10 continued on next page) 25 Table 10, continued. Low High 1/3 of farms 1/3 of farms in each area in each area Related Factors Hours labor on cows per cow 127 116 Ratio of concentrates fed to milk produced . . . . . . 1-3.2 l-4.0 Head of youngstock per cow . .80 .78 Percent of farms using artifi— cial breeding. . . . . . . . 58.0 62.0 Percent of farms in D.H.I.A. 35.0 49.0 Other income, farm and off- farm . . . . . . . . . . $1,470 $1,842 Number of farms using fertil- izer in rotation . . . . . 17 34 Number of farms with purebred or high grade herds . . . . 29 30 * Includes credit for manure of $9 per head, apprecia- tion in cow value if any, and value of calves at 5 days of age. ** Includes credit for manure at $4 per head and appre— ciation in value from value at which youngstock were brought into youngstock herd to the value at which they were sold or transferred to the milking herd upon freshening. *** Includes breeding costs, building costs, cow depre- ciation, interest on cows, electricity, equipment use, veterinary and medicine costs, bedding and overhead. **** Includes calf value at 5 days of age, interest, building use, equipment use, breeding cost, other miscellaneous costs, and overhead. 26 Since size of herd was practically the same in the two groups in Table 10,* that factor cannot be said to be responsible for any differences in labor and manage- ment returns per cow. This does not mean that size of herd was not important, however. From the standpoint of total herd income, size of herd was obviously of very great importance. This tabulation was mainly used to ‘ find factors that affected net returns per cow. Size of herd did not appear to be a factor. Neither did size of farm appear to be a factor. Tillable acreage in the two groups was the same, as was the percentage of tillable acres devoted to hay and pasture crops. There was a very great difference in production per cow between the two groups. The high one-third in labor and management return per cow included cows which pro- duced an average of 52 pounds more of butterfat and 1,252 pounds more of milk than the cows in the low one-third of the herds. Production per cow was obviously of very great importance in determining net income per cow. Because of this higher production the high one-third of the herds had considerably greater returns from dairy product sales than did the low one-third. Youngstock contributed more to total returns for the high one-third than for the low one-third. This means that either the youngstock in the high one-third of the * The middle one-third was omitted from Table 10 for the sake of clarity. 27 herds sold for more than the youngstock in the low one- third of the herds when they were sold or that the young- stock were valued at a higher price when brought into the milking herd upon freshening for the first time. Costs per cow were considerably lower in the high group than in the low group, signifying that low costs contributed a great deal to high net return. Feed costs were particularly important both for the cows and the youngstock. The difference of $11 per cow in youngstock costs ($98 for the low one-third and $87 for the high one- third) was accounted for mostly by a difference in feed costs. The youngstock in the high one—third of the herds were fed less concentrates and hay than were the young- stock in the low one-third of the herds. This may have been due to a difference in the time the calves were born. The writer believes that fall calves are cheaper to pro- duce than winter or spring calves. f The cows in the high group likewise enjoyed lower feed costs than the cows in the low group. This points out the superior inheritance of those cows in the high group. They produced more on less than did the cows in the low one-third of the herds. Inheritance, or the abil- ity to produce efficiently large amounts of milk and but- terfat was a very important factor determining net returns per cow. That inheritance and breeding are not the same things is shown in the last item in Table 10. There it is seen that there were as many high grade and purebred herds among the low one-third of the herds in labor and 28 management returns per cow as among the high one-third. It should be pointed out however, that each dairymen in the study used his judgment as to whether his herd was purebred or high grade or Just ordinary grade. It is probable that some of these dairymen had a tendency to overrate the breeding of their herds. Thus, it should not be concluded that breeding to proven purebred sires is not important. It can be seen that the operators of the high one- third of the herds were not only more successful than the operators of the low one-third of the herds in the matter of dairy income but they were also more successful in the matter of other farm and off-farm income. Perhaps they were just better all-around managers than.the operators of the low one-third of the herds. In the use of fertil- izer it is seen that twice as many of those in the high group used fertilizer in their rotations as did those in the low group. While there is no direct relationship be- tween the use of fertilizer and net dairy returns per cow, there is an indirect relationship. It is logical to exr pect that a dairymen who is a good enough manager to at— tain a high net return from his dairy herd would also be a good enough manager to see the value in the use of fer- tilizer. Unfortunately, no information was obtained on kinds or quantities of fertilizer used in the past. The ratio of the price of milk to the price of 29 concentrates (price of 100 pounds of concentrates divided by the price of 100 pounds of milk) averaged about .83 for all farms for the entire year of this study (Appen- dix C). This means that, on the average for the entire year, 83 pounds of milk were equal in value to 100 pounds of concentrates. It would have paid to feed concentrates, then, up to the point where an added 100 pounds of concen- trates would have produced an added 83 pounds of milk. With heavy breed cows of low inherent productivity it is estimated that this point would have been reached at an input of approximately 900 pounds of concentrates (Appendix K). The cows in the low one—third of the herds in Table 10 were deemed to be of low inherent productivity as that term is defined in Appendix K. Assuming 900 pounds to be the most profitable level of concentrate feeding for the cows in the low group it would seem that these cows were ac- tually overfed concentrates. It would have been more profitable for the operators of these herds to have fed considerably less concentrates and more roughage. The cows in the high group were about midway between low and medium in inherent productivity as that term is de- fined in Appendix K. The most profitable level of concen- trate feeding for cows of heavy breed and of that inher- ent productivity is estimated to be at about 1,500 pounds when.the cost-price ratio is .83 (Appendix K). This indi- cates that the cows in the high one-third of the herds in 3O labor and management returns per cow were also fed con- centrates at too high a rate for the most economical pro- duction. The fact that not all the cows in this study were of heavy breed was neglected in the above analysis. The re- sults would be altered somewhat on this account, but prob- ably not very much. It seems apparent to the writer that many dairymen in the Upper Peninsula fed concentrates at an uneconomically high level during the period of this study. Substituting low cost but high quality roughages for high priced concentrates would result in higher net returns on many farms. The problem of how to get high quality roughage is a basic problem for agriculture in the Upper Peninsula. It is easy to say that less concen- trates should be fed and more high quality hay or other roughage should be fed. Telling the farmer exactly how to produce that high quality roughage is another matter. Differences in costs, returns, production and feed- ing practices between areas are made very noticeable in Table 11. Area 3 herds were larger and milk production greater than herd size and production in the other two areas. Area 3 herds were fed more concentrates, less hay, and more silage than the herds in Areas 1 and 2. This was due primarily to the better farming conditions in Area 3 compared to the other two areas. Area 3 operators appear to have been more efficient in the use of labor than the Oper- ators of dairy herds in Areas 1 and 2. Some of this greater 31 Table 11. Averages of si nificant items for the farms in;each area. Item Area 1 Area 2 .Area 3 38 46 46 12.2 13.0 16.1 6.939 6.795 3.722 252 289 320 117 134 106 Number of farms . . . . . . . Number of cows per farm . . . Milk production per cow . . . Butterfat production per cow Heurs labor per cow . . . . . Feed per cow (in pounds) Concentrates . . . . Bay 0 O O O O 0 1,825 1,941 2.391 5.716 5.338 4,740 8118.86 0 c o c o c o c 39 60 6,055 Root crops . . . . 116 54 323 Costs per cow Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . $133 $149 $180 Cow depreciatio . . . . . . . 6 7 16 Interest on cows . . . . . . . 9 13 Building use . . . . . . . . . 6 11 Equipment use . . . . . . . . . 6 6 Breeding costs . . . . . . . . 5 8 Electricity . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Veterinary and medicine . . . . l 2 Bedding 0 c o o c c c o c o o o 3 5 Miscellaneous cash expenses . . - 1 Overhead* . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Total costs except labor Income per cow Dairy products sold and used . $279 $331 Value of calves at 5 days . . . 13 18 Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 Total returns . . . . . . . 3301 4 $289 8358 EL I—J U1 ea (0 N Q :L not cammwkqufio L. 'fi N Dairy product sales per pound . butterfat . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.10 3 0.95 $ 1.03 Labor and management return from cows, per cow . . . . . . . . . 3115.00 80.00 §LES.OO per herd . . . . . . . . . . .81 407.00 ,O40.00 25.CD per hour labor . . . . . . . . a 0.98 0.60 0.89 Tillable acres per farm . . . . .I 151 83 102 ,é/ Dairy Costs and Returns in Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 5y 0. R. Hoglund, K. T. Wright and E. M. Elwoodf Ag- ricultural Economics Department, Michigan State Col- 1ege, in cooperation with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economics Bulletin 455. October, 1949, p0 [+0 , * This is an estimated share of such general expenses as auto, telephone, taxes, etc. that can be charged to the dairy enterprise. 32 labor efficiency in Area 3 was due undoubtedly to the large herds found in that area. Costs per cow were con- siderably greater in Area 3 than in the other areas but so were returns per cow greater. In labor and management return per cow, Area 1 herds showed up well primarily be- cause of the high average price received for milk and butterfat in that area. As stated previously, this high average price in Area 1 was due to the comparatively large number of fluid milk producers in the sample from that area. It may be confusing to note that while milk produc- tion per cow was slightly greater in Area 1 than in Area 2, butterfat production was considerably less, 252 pounds in Area 1 compared to 289 pounds in Area 2. Obviously, the butterfat test must have been higher in Area 2 milk than in Area 1 milk. Light breeds, Jersey and Guernsey, predom- inated in Area 2 while Holsteins and Holstein mixtures were predominate in Area 1. Heavy breeds were likewise predom- inate in Area 3. It is noticeable that value of calves at 5 days of age was very low in Area 2. This was due to the practice of killing bull calves when they were born. There was appar- ently no market for veal calves in Area 2 probably because veal calves of Jersey and Guernsey stock are undesirable. Cow depreciation and interest was high in Area 3 compared to that in the other areas. This was due primarily to the high value placed on cows in Area 3. It is also believed that culling of low producing cows was practiced to a greater 33 extent there than elsewhere in the Upper Peninsula. High production per cow in Area 3 attests to that. 34 CHAPTER V SIZE OF ENTERPRISE AND ITS EFFECT ON NET RETURNS Size of enterprise is always regarded as a vital factor in determining net income, in studies such as this. In this analysis of the Upper Peninsula dairy en- terprise, the records of each area have been kept separ- ate, primarily because prices received varied consider- ably from area to area, and also because Area 1 herds were so heavily weighted with fluid milk producers. In analyzing the effect of size of enterprise on earnings, it was thought best to divide each area into three groups, first on the basis of size of herd into small, medium, and large herds, and secondly on the basis of tillable acres per farm into small, medium, and large farms. A. Size of Herd In Area 1, large herds (18.7 cows) had slightly larger production than small herds, 254 pounds butterfat per cow against 234 pounds butterfat per cow for the small herds. This would have been expected to yield the larger herds about $20 more per cow in income, but due to a $023 per pound advantage, the larger herds actually re- ceived $77 more per cow in gross income. Feed costs were higher on the large herds, and the keeping of youngstock cost more on a per cow basis on the large farms than on the small farms. The total of "other costs " was practi- cally the same on small farms as on large farms. 35 .mm omen .oa canoe wnAhdmmaooom moponpoou com * m.© m.n 0.0 H.n 0.0H o.oa . . . . . . . . 03oe Hem memos canwaaaa a.a 4.4 e.H m.H s.a H.H . . . . . . . . _anee nee ace no heaaez bu. am. on. mm. as. no. . . . . . zoo Hem Moovmwddoh no Henssz 5.5H a.m m.sa m.o m.ea 0.6 . . . . . . . ease nee sooeawaeoa Haves m.m 4.4 m.o 4.N m.b h.m . . . new» a Hobo Moonmwdsoh no 909852 m.b m.4 o.m 4.4 «.5 m.m . . . use» A node: xoOpmwnsoz mo nonadz mHOPooh Honpo sm.aa mum som.aa awe moa.ma mom . . . . . . . . . ewes hoe .eaee acne mm as mm M am NHH Om . . . . . . . . . . 300 Reg .eaon song OOH ON. 5“ 5” ”NH 00 c c c o c c c c c o c c o o c 300 pHmQ. msoo Bonn monopon pdoaommama mom Honda) menspmm poz Ham mew mew mad sma and . . . . . inched peeoaev meaoe fleece on am an as ea an . . . . . . . . .4366 see memos neapo . maa moa ama oma and oma . . . . . . . . . . Boo Hon mpmoe coon mpmoo Hum arm mmm mmm. mam 8mm . . . . . . . soc hem mandate Haves om om ea 0H mm mm . . . . . . . . .*300 Hem mundpon Honpo so.a mo.a no. No. mH.H mm. . . . . . . . . . vagueness canon Hem mama mama mama ecu» mama mama . . . . . aoo nee .aeaam poaeeae semen mnadaom sea on maa mm mod om . . . . . . . . . anon Hog memos caneaaaa em ama one 84H Hoa ama . . . . . . see nee .asoe no Henna harem mum Hon com 0mm smm smm . . . . . . . . 300 non pounoppdn meadow chN Aflconfi Naomnfi New Fem-H New 0 c c c o o o c 0 EU“ H0“ @300 “0 H0352 ma ma ca ma ma ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . wagon no Acnasz m H m a a m H a m a owmoq Hamsw ammo“ HH,aw ammo Hawam m dead ([chcnd Hrcmn< .oHSmanom Momma one no moons cone» ea mauspon was no poouuc mpg was when no cuam .NA OHQUB 36 Ordinarily, it would seem that there should be considerable economies on a per cow basis on the large herd farms. Such was not the case in Area 1. In.Area 1, large herds had a labor and management return of $112 per cow and $2,105 per herd, while the small herds had a labor and management return of only $50 per cow and $309 per herd. In Area 1, the large herds were on larger farms, on the average, than were the small herds. Large herds were on farms averaging 198 tillable acres while the small herds were on farms averaging only 99 tillable acres, Just half as many. Since the large herds were three times as large as the small herds, the intensity, as measured by tillable acres per cow, was greater on the large-herd farms (10.6 tillable acres per cow) than on the small— herd farms in Area 1 (l6 tillable acres per cow). The operators of large herds in Area 1 enjoyed a higher degree of labor efficiency in the care of their cows than did the operators of the small herds. Hours labor per cow was 101 on the large-herd farms and 134 per cow on the small-herd farms. This means that one man on a farm with the better labor efficiency could care for one-third more cows in the same time required by one man on a farm with the poorer labor efficiency. Where labor is a scarce factor, labor efficiency is a very important factor in determining herd income. If the man with high labor efficiency can keep a herd one-third larger than the man with the low labor efficiency he can logically expect 37 an income one-third larger than the income enjoyed by the man with the poor labor efficiency. On small farms, how- ever, it is usually land which is the scarce factor rather than labor (Table 13). Area 2 did not follow quite the same pattern as Area 1 insofar as the effects of size of herd is concerned. In Area 2, the large herds did not have the price advantage over the small herds which was enjoyed by the large herds in Area 1. In effect then, in Area 2, price per pound of butterfat was held constant, and was not a factor which affected the labor and management returns. Production of butterfat per cow was slightly higher in the large-herd group, but the difference (10 pounds) was not believed to be significant. Feed costs were higher per cow by $18 in the large-herd group, so that return over feed costs was 812 higher per cow in the small herds than in the large herds. Labor and management return was $16 per cow higher in the small herds than in the large herds, so it cannot be said that the large herds enjoyed greater efficiency per cow in Area 2, except in the matter of labor efficiency. As in Area 1, the farms in Area 2 with the large herds tended to be on large farms; also the intensity of the dairy enterprise, as measured by tillable acres per cow, was greater on the large-herd farms than on the small-herd farms. Large-herd farms also tended to be more efficient in the use of labor than were the small-herd farms. On the 38 large herds, 129 hours of labor were spent on each cow, while on the small herds 146 hours of labor were spent on each cow. This difference was not as pronounced in Area 2 as it was in Area 1. Small-herd operators are much less likely to have labor saving devices than are the large- herd operators. There are also economies in labor to be derived on large-herd farms due purely to the large scale. It takes about as long to set up a milking machine and to wash equipment for a small herd as for a large herd. Area 3 was more nearly comparable to Area 2 than was either Area 2 or Area 3 with Area 1. In both Area 2 and Area 3 dairying was by far the most important source of farm income while in Area 1 it was not (Appendix H). The farms were relatively small in both.Areas 2 and 3 but were smallest in Area 2. Herds were larger in both Areas 2 and 3 than they are in Area 1, but were considerably the largest in Area 3, 16.2 cows per farm in Area 3 compared to 13.0 cows per farm in Area 2 and 12.2 in Area 1. Price per pound of butterfat averaged 8¢ higher in Area 3 than in Area 2, even though the percentage of herds producing for the fluid market was the same in both areas. This price advantage seemed to be offset in part by feed costs per cow, $28 higher in Area 3 than in Area 2. However, production of butterfat per cow was 29 pounds higher on the average in Area 3. In other words, high feed costs were offset by high production. Area 2 had an advantage over Area 3 in "other costs" which averaged 823 per cow 39 higher in Area 3 than in Area 2. An analysis of Table 11 shows that heavier cow depreciation, heavier interest charges and higher building use charges in Area 3 ac- counted for most of the difference between Area 3 and Area 2 in the matter of "other costs." In Area 3, the large herds outproduced the small herds, 329 pounds per cow to 301 pounds per cow. Most of this higher production was eaten up in higher feed costs, however, so that in terms of return over feed, the large herds had $150 per cow and the small herds $147 per cow. The large herds had a big advantage in other costs, amount- ing to $15 per cow. This indicates to the writer that in a good, specialized, dairy area there are very real econo- mies to be had in large scale operations. The cost of raising youngstock on the large-herd farms very nearly eliminated this advantage, so that in.terms of labor and management return to the herd the large-herd group aver- aged $82 per cow and $1,877 per herd, while the small-herd group averaged $79 per cow and $825 per herd. In the matter of labor efficiency, the large-herd farms in Area 3 were much.more efficient than the small farms. The small-herd operators used 50 percent more 1a- bor per cow than did the large-herd operators. The econo- mies of large scale operations were very apparent when put in terms of hours labor per cow. In each area large herds were productive of much higher returns, as measured by labor and management return 40 than were small herds. On a per cow basis too, the large herds had an advantage in labor and management return, except in Area 2 where the small herds had the advantage. It was noticeable that in each area the large herds averaged higher production per cow than the small herds, and that high feed costs in the large group went a long way toward eliminating the production advantage. It was also apparent that the small herds tended to be found on small farms. It is the writer's belief that the operators of small herds, because they were on small farms, tended to be more efficient users of feed, especially of concen-I trates, which were purchased to a greater extent on the small-herd farms than on the large-herd farms. Two fac- tors probably operated here. A dairymen purchasing feed is more conscious of feed costs, and there is a tendency on the part of farmers to feed what is grown and when that is gone to wait till the next harvest. B. Size of Farm When the records for each area were sorted on the basis of tillable acres per farm, it was found that while small herds did tend to be found on small farms, the in- tensity as measured by tillable acres per cow was much greater on the small farms than on the large farms. Also, the operators of herds on the small farms tended to feed less concentrates per cow than did the operators of herds on large farms. The production per cow was greater on the large farms in each area, but the difference was not 41 modem poseomm unwed one caoona snmunhmo was seen .mnon Mom Hmnpo no prou 8 ma maooefi mmonm Hmpoe * s.a m a 0.6 0.6 «.6H m.OH . . . . . . . . . see the match maneaaae O+~+~a+~ HOOAM HONQMW HowaNfi. mONnd mHmoN . . c a . . . . c a e e o . . “MS. .HOQ smm.o. mme.e 666.m m66.mw was.6 6Ho.m . . . . . . anew nae *esoeaa macaw Hepoe mmo.m mmw Nom.a omH.H. sem.a nae . ease nee esooaa seen ago see same shape oa.m om.H .om.a mm.a 06.H om.H . . . . . . . . . . . .Hapoe N“. CH. 0.40 +~Oo “Ho .40. o c o e o c o c o e a o c .0th mm.a om.a o:.a Hm.H m¢.H 0N.H . . . . . adage“ .8989 mom sea mo Homsdz mnopomh “capo QHHaN MOHafl mJMaH. oww HomaN. j” o o o o o o a o o c c o o o c UHOQ .HQQ. HOH NL& 05 New QMH mo 0 a o o o c o o o o o o o o o 300 .HOQ. .maoo Song dampen enmacmmqma was Honda 6maa Neda mmaa swam Hear mmaa . . . . . see nee memoo eeee peso anemem mandpom poz ooafi beam maafi mmaw seam nmaw . . . . . . . . . . . soc Hog mpmoo each mpmoo Hem.a sam.me 666.6 646.ma cam.“ H6o.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ante tea 64ml seam mam ~6am mam 66m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea has mo.a- No.H, 68.0 no.0. Hm.af so.H . paaaepeea eaaoe nee awash poeeoae aawap mqhdpom me add add sma Add maH . . . . . . . . . . . . soc nee gonad maaom amm mom emm mam 06m arm . . . . . . . . . see nee sweetness menace 06H mm 6nd Ha 6mm N6 . . . . . . . . . . ease nee aeaee easeaaae 8.0m s.ma H.5H «.0H 6.6H 8.5 . . . . . . . . . . away nee 6:66 no neaaaz 6H ad ad ma NH ma . . . . . . . . . . . . maaae no neaesz m\w m\m, m\a m\H m\H m\a swung Hamam owned HHMHM, cwawg HHmam m‘aeae a gene H hone in: .mehspon pm: Go poouhc mpfi omw new“ hmm(mcnoc o Haeaafip sh eeammmes seen He exam .ma oases 42 believed significant except in Area 3 where the small herds produced 302 pounds butterfat per cow and the large herds produced 329 pounds butterfat per cow. Labor was used more efficiently on the herds on the large farms than on the herds on the small farms in each area. Mostly be- cause of the higher rate of concentrate feeding on the large farms, feed costs were higher on those farms than on small farms. In each area, the large farms were approximately three times larger than the small farms. Herds, however, were not proportionately larger on the large farms, in- dicating a higher intensity on the small farms compared to that on the large farms. Except in Area 2, herds on the large farms were between one and one-half and two times larger on the large farms than on the small farms. In Area 1, the large farms received an average of l7¢more per pound for their butterfat than did the small farms. A larger proportion of the large farm operators were successful in obtaining fluid outlets for their milk. In the other two areas, the operators of the large farms did not achieve this same result, so it is felt by the writer that size of farm alone is not an important factor in determining the kind of market outlet obtained. A large proportion of the operators of the small farms in Area 1 were veterans of World war II, just getting started in the business of farming, and for that reason the sample may have been slanted somewhat in favor of the large farms. 43 Gross income per man was considerably larger on the large farms than on the small farms. The gross income figure shown in Table 12 consists of cash income from the dairy enterprise plus the value of home used dairy pro- ducts, cash income from off-farm work, and gross income from other farm enterprises. No consideration is given to costs of production in this statistic, or to inventory gains and losses. That information was not made available in this study. Gross income per farm and per man is an indication, nothing more, of the extent to which large farms in this sample have an income advantage over the small farms. C. Effect of Size of Farm on Amount of Feed Purchased Small size of farm has been one of the main obstacles to increased farm earnings in a large part of the Upper Peninsula. This has been especially true in Areas 2 and 3 where the smallest one-third of the dairy farms in this study averages 41 and 53 tillable acres respectively. There was not a great deal of difference in the amount of family labor available between the small farms and the large farms in.those areas. Land is the scarce factor and it has proved very difficult for farmers with small acreages to intensify enough to make up for the limited acreage available to them. That the small farms were op- erated much more intensively than the large farms in Areas 2 and 3 is shown in Table 13. Tillable acres per cow on the small one-third of the farms was approximately 44 Table 14. Percentage of feed purchased on small farms and large farms in Area 2. Small Large 1/3 1/ 3 Number of farms .9. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 15 Number of cows per farm . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 17.1 Number of animal units per farm . . . . . . 13.1 24.0 Acreage Tillable acres per farm . . . . . . . . 41 136 Tillable acres in feed crops per farm . . 37 125 per cow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 7. 3 per animal unit . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 5.2 Production . Pounds butterfat per cow . . . . . . . . 277 284 Pounds milk per cow . . . . . . . . . . . 6,371 6,834 Concentrates fed per cow in pounds . . . 1,759 2,061 Ratio of milk produced to concentrates fed 0 c e c c c c o c c c c o o o c o c 306.]. 303‘]. Cost of Feed Fed and Purchased Feed cost per cow . . . . . . . . . . . . 9138 "148 Feed purchased per cow . . . < 48 34 Feed purchased per herd (includes young- StOCK) c c o c c o c c c c c c c c c c 0 $606 @8014 Value of feed purchased as a percentage of value of all feed fed . . . . . . . . 35 24 Value of concentrates purchased as a per- centage of value of all concentrated fed 83 57 Value of concentrates purchased as a per- centage of all feed purchased . . . . . 97 89 Average number of cows, May to September . 10.8 17.0 Average number of cows, October to April . 9.8 17.2 half of that on the large one-third of the farms. In spite of this the gross income on the small farms was probably inadequate in a majority of cases to maintain an adequate level of family living. In Area 2 in the year of this study the Operators of the small one-third of the farms purchased $48 worth 45 of feed per cow. Of this total, 97 percent was in the form of concentrates, indicating either an inability or an unwillingness to purchase roughages. 0n the small farms, 83 percent of the value of all concentrates fed the herds was purchased indicating that a very small pro- portion of concentrates needed was raised on the home farm. This percentage was 57 for the large one-third of the farms. The chief limiting factor on small farms then seemed to be land for the growing of roughages. That the small farm operators were more easily persuaded to sell some of their herd rather than purchase forage is shown by the figures in Table 14. The average number of cows on the small farms declined from an average of 10.8 cows during the May to September period to 9.8 cows during the following October to April period. There was an average loss in cow numbers of slightly more than one cow per herd. 0n the large farms, however, this was not the case. In- stead of cow numbers declining between.those two periods, they actually increased an average of .2 cows per farm. If the small farm operators actually do combat feed shortages by deliberately reducing the size of their herds, it is believed by the writer to be a grave and costly mistake on their part. It is very difficult and costly to build up a herd after its size is reduced. Selling cows, especially in circumstances of drought, for what they will bring in the open market is, generally speaking, not profitable. It is very often possible to 46 augment short forage supplies by added grain in the ra- tion. That the small farm operators fed on the average less concentrates per cow than the large farm operators is shown in both Tables 13 and 14. The cows in the herds on small farms received an average of 1,759 pounds of con- centrates, while the cows on large farms received 2,061 pounds. The average feed cost per cow on the small farms was $138 and on the large farms, $148. The cash cost of feed purchased, however, was $14 greater per cow on the small farms than on the large farms. On a per herd basis, the cash cost of feed purchased on the small farms was $606, and on the large farms, $804. The herds on the large farms averaged 68 percent larger in size than the herds on the small farms yet the cash cost of feed purchased was only 33 percent greater on the large farms. The cost of raising feed on the farm cannot be de- termined from this study. It would be very interesting to know how much cheaper, if any, feed grains can be raised on the farm than they can be purchased. If the difference is considerable, then of course, the large farm operators have a definite advantage over small farm operators. Because feed was entered at its market value in this cost study and not at its production cost, the precise advantage enjoyed by the large farms over small farms could not be determined. 47 D. Effect of*Intensity of the Dairy Enterprise on Dairy Returns . It was felt by the writer that intensity of operation might be a factor affecting dairy farm earnings. Since medium and large sized herds are frequently found on large farms, it was decided to sort the records on size of farm, as measured by the number of tillable acres, keeping 2323‘ age number of cows_per farm constant. Size of herd would be eliminated as a factor determining earnings in such a procedure. The results are tabulated in Table 15. In Areas 2 and 3, the small farm group with their high intensity showed higher returns than the large farm group when the measure of returns was labor and manage- ment return per cow. The same would have been true in Area 1 if price had not favored the large farm group to the extent of'10¢ per pound of butterfat. In Areas 2 and 3 labor and management return was $13 greater per cow in the small farm (high intensity) group than in the large farm (low intensity) group. When other income and number of men are taken into consideration, it is seen that there was very little dif- ference between the large farms and the small farms. To- tal gross income per man was practically the same on large farms and on small farms in all areas. The conclusion to be drawn is that small farms in- tensively operated were just as productive of gross income as the large farms less intensively on a per man basis. Whether feed can be purchased as cheaply as it can be 48 .unmn Mom mmme mpodconm hhflwv was oaoodfl Samuummo use Sham Wonpo mo Wwpou 0 mW oaoan mmonm Wwpoe ** .mn chonm WW deep mmma mW umpwpm mama mnstm on» hapseswomcoo uuwusaoqa pom mm; msoam mfinp :W Shem one no WWch WWmeW w Sonw maoosa one * mmo.ee mWo.W «WW m Wmm WW moo.m oom WW . . . . . . . . . qua non WWW.WW mWW.o WNW m. WWW. e «WW.W 0W0 W . . . . . . spam Wmm**msoan mmonm Wapoe WWW.N NWW.W WWW WW moo WW *mmW.W mam WW . anew Won msoan away “We use snap Woapo W.W m.W W. W W.W o.W W. W . . . . . . . . away Hog ems mo Womasz mHOpowm scape Wom.W WWW.W Wmo moo.WW me.WW 0mm WW . . . . . . . . . ease gem 0W 4 om 0W , mm W WNW W OWW W . . . . . . . . . zoo Wag .maoo scam unseen pnoaomwcma one Wonmq «WW W 04W W WWW W WNW W WWW W WWW W . . . . . zoo Hog mpmoo game Wo>o anamom mnhdpwm v02 mwa W 00H & WWH a Jma a WWW # mma % . . . . . . . . . Boo Mom mpmoo doom mpmoo mmW.m me.W mm¢.m oem.me oWw.me me.mW . . . . . . . . . . upon mom WNW Won mom WWN W WOW W WWW W . . . . . . . . . 300 WWW 40.H No.H oo.o mm.o mH.W 4 mo.H . pwunoppsn venom Hem modem podcoam hymen mnnspcm WWW oom me com com 4mm . . . . . . . . . 3oo Won pagnmppsn mausom NMW mW WWW Wm WWW OWW . . . . . . . . . . snag Hog memo“ mWnWWWWa W.WW N.WW m.mW m.~W W.~W W.NW . . . . . . . . . . sash Won msoo We nonasz 0W WW mW mW NW ma . . . . . . . . . mason no Wenadz m\W m\W m\W m\W mum, n\W mmWwH Hawamv omawq HHmam mwnwg memml n «0H4 m smnw W ooaw .pdwpmnoo umox mW When mo oNWm dons m Wanna do anew no oNWm no pomhmm .mH magma 1+9 raised is, of course, another question. Also, nothing is known regarding the quality of the land on the farms in the small farm and large farm groups. 50 CHAPTER VI EFFECT OF PRODUCTION PER COW ON DAIRY RETURNS In any study such as this, it is soon perceived that about the most important factor affecting returns is pro- duction per cow, or the production efficiency of the cows. High production at low cost is greatly to be desired in any dairy herd. The generally accepted meaning of effi— ciency is the ratio of output to input. Oftentimes high output is achieved at a high cost in terms of input. That is not efficiency. In all areas it was very obvious that on the average the high producing herds had a tremendous advantage over the low producing herds in the.matter of labor and man- agement return to the herd. This does not mean that there were not some high producing herds, which, because of high costs were low in labor and management returns. On the contrary, there were some very glaring examples of farms where the return was low in spite of high producing cows. Several of these will be cited later. Labor and management returns per cow in the high groups of Area 2 and Area 3 are about equal, $95 in Area 2 and $96 in Area 3. Because of the larger herds in Area 3, however, labor and management returns per herd were larg- est in Area 3. The high producing herds were on the av- erage, fed more efficiently than the low producing herds. Their higher production much.more than made up for their l 5 canon Hog cobaooon madam up“; maHSpoH hnfido do vacuum mud and Boo .mm owdm .oa canoe wqahdwmaooom encapoon com mpmoo Hoapo can mandpon nonpo Ho downwaauoc mom * WW WW MW WW W W . . . . . . . . maze waWWuWne WWW; nopasz NH m NH W a o . . . . pmwn a“ no son .4.H.m.n ad Honadz WW m OW W WW W . . . . . . . . . . masonnWWa WWW; nonasz WWW Wm mm NW NWW WWW . . . . . . . . . sum“ non menus oWnaHWWe mHOpowm uopwaom WOW.W OWW.m oWN.W WWW me o . . . . . . . goo WWW mpoon cam ommWWm OWN.W NWm.W me.m WWm.m WNW.W oom.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zoo gem Wmm Wmo.m WNW.W WWW.N WmW.W Wmo.N WWW._ . . . . . . . . . goo Ham mmpwnpammaoo Awuddom at 9500 do.“ dmmh mmo.W WWW WWW.W mom mNm.W WNW . . . . . . . . cams nag .cnmn song ea 04 mm and mm . . . . . . . . . goo Hon .unon Sony .JHH 4w Rafi-H OOH n. MN. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 300 HO“ .maoo Sony mandpon pnoaomoqwa mum 909mm unhapom poz mom MNN WWN W omW WON WWW . . . . . . . . . . :00 Won mpmoo Wapoe WW om We W Wm mm . mm . . . . . . . . . .*zoo non upmoo nonpo NWN WWW NWW W WWW WWW WNW . . . . . . . . . . zoo Hog mpmoo eoom mpmoo WWW WmN W mmm WmN OWW W WWN . . . . . . . . . zoo Hog magnum“ Wupoe Nm WN WW NW WN NN . . . . . . . . .*soo non manspmn nonpo Wmm moN WWW WNN WWW WNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zoo nag No.W Wo.W Wm.o. oo. o WW.W mo.W pmgnoppsn cuzom Hem monm poseonq anap mnhspom WWm NmN Wmm WmN oom WON . . . . . . . . . soc Ham pmnnonpap meqsom o.WW W.WW m. MW W.NW W.NW m.NW . . . . . . . . . . snag non «soc no “$9352 0.” “H “H. “H NH MH 0 o o c o o o o o o o o 0 “Ed“ “0 H0352 n\W m\1 mm? m\W n W m\W [mme, son 30W! a Wm :09, .IIIMan4 N Mama< W «0H4 lt= .pnwpmuoo uaon pwunopaan you aoaponuoum .oa manna 52 higher feed costs. Other costs are higher in all areas in the high groups than in the low groups. These higher costs are partly made up by higher other returns. In Area 3, the dairymen with high producing herds had a higher proportion of barns equipped with drinking cups than did the dairymen with low producing herds. In Area 2 and Area 3 there was no difference between the two groups in this item. Unheated tanks outside were found more frequently in the low groups, especially in Area 1, where three herds in the low group had unheated water tanks outside, and no herds in the high group had unheated tanks outside. More herds in the high groups had the bene- fit of D.H.I.A. assistance. This is particularly true in Area 3 where 12 herds in the high group were in the D.H.I.A. and only 3 herds in the low group were in the D.H.I.A. In Area 1, the difference between the two groups,insofar as membership in D.H.I.A. is concerned,was not considered significant since only one dairyman in this area was a member. Milkhouses were more frequently found on dairy farms with high producing herds than on farms with low producing herds. This was true in each area to about the same extent but may have been due to differences in herd size rather than to herd productivity.- Tillable acreage was found to be somewhat higher on the farms with the high producing herds than on the other farms in Areas 1 and 3. In Area 2 there was no difference. 53 The reason for the high feed costs in the high pro- duction group was fOund to be simply that more feed was fed particularly concentrates. For Area 3 it was found that the low group received an average of only 1,421 pounds of concentrates per cow, h,372 pounds of hay per cow and 3,910 pounds of silage per cow, while the high group received 3,081 pounds of concentrates, 5,290 pounds of hay, and 7,107 pounds of silage per cow. This differ- ence in quantity of feed fed per cow accounted for the difference of $69 in feed costs per cow. There was a difference of $124 per cow in returns from dairy product sales, however. With inferior cows, it is doubtful if the extra cost of heavy feeding would pay. In fact, if this high production group in Area 3 were to be further analyzed it would no doubt be found that some of the herds were fed concentrates too heavily, that more profit could have been made by feeding less concentrates and more roughage. It should be noted that price was Egg held completely constant. In Area 1 the high one-third still had a 5¢ per pound price advantage over the low one-third. With price held completely constant, it is probable that the high group would still have received approximately 2% times more labor and management return per cow and per herd than the low group. This was a tremendous advantage, and makes one wonder whether the owner of a low producing herd might not better have spent his time in some other occupation. It was found that on the average (at 117 hours per cow) the 51+ Operators of the low producing herds in Area 1 received 50¢ per hour for their labor and.management, and for their familykalabor and for any labor hired. Milk used in the household and fed to the farm livestock was counted as income in this computation. 55 CHAPTER VII EFFECTS OF CERTAIN FEEDING PRACTICES ON DAIRY RETURNS As stated before, efficiency in milk production is what is to be desired in a cow. High output per unit of input is the criterion of efficiency. Cows of high ef- ficiency are generally cows with good breeding. They are cows that produce well at any level of feeding, and that are capable of responding to good feeding and good treatment. Whether they are fed well or not so well 10- gically should depend on the existing cost-price relation- ship. When prices are high and feed costs are low, more feed can be fed profitably than when milk prices are low and feed costs are high. In between these two extremes there is an infinite number of other combinations of costs and returns. An efficient cow will respond more satisfac- torily to heavier feeding than will an inefficient cow at any level of feeding. To study the effects of feeding practices on returns, knowledge of the effects of various rates of feeding concentrates on returns was desired. It was thought by the writer that many dairy opera- tors fed too much concentrates, that under normal cost- price relationships they could earn a greater return by feeding less concentrates and.more high quality roughages. The ratio of milk produced to concentrates fed is one of the measures used to guide farmers in the best rates to feed concentrates to their cows. The best rate will, of course, depend on feed prices, the cost of hay and silage 56 W N W m m m OW W m . . . . . . . . . poMHWa WWsz ans Wanna mo Wmnadz NWW WOW Wm OW Wm WW NWW WWW . WWW . anon Won WWWoW WWWWWWWB WWW W WWW W WWW W WOW W WNW W WWW W WWW W WWW W WWW . . . . zoo WWW .pmoo down Hobo monzpom WON WWW WWW WWW WWW WWW 7 WWW OmW WOW . . . Boo Won mpmoo comm WO.W WO.W mO.W WW. O WW.O Wm.o WW.W WW.W WO.W . . .pmnnoppsn canon Mom WWW WWW w NWN me Wmm WWN WI me WWW OWN . . . . . zoo I mom WWWWW posWon WWWWQ W.muW W.WuW W.WuW m.NuW W.WuW W.WnW m.NuW W.WnW W.WnW . . . . . . . cocoa noun MWWa_vnooWom W op com mopWanooqoo no onwm WWW.W WNW.N WWN.W WWW.N WWO.N WWW.W WWW.N WWW.W WWO.W . . . . . . soc WWW can mopwnpnoonoo muqsom WWW.W WWW.W WWN.W WWW.W WWW.W OWW.W WWW.W WWW.W NON.W . . . . . . . . . :00 Won MWWE puoonom W madzom mmm mmm mmm WWN Wom WWN WWN WWN OWN 300 WWW pwmnmppdn meadow W.WW W.WW W.WW W.WW «.mW W.NW m.OW W.WW W.WW . . . . . . . snap Mom Waco mo Wonado owwno>¢ WW WW WW WW WW WW WW NW mW . . . . Wagon no Woosdz WWWm .Woa 30W WWWm .Woa 30W WWWm .Woa soW m Won< N Wand W mead op con mononpaoonoo no on H ho poomhm WW WWQUE 57 compared to the cost of concentrates, the extent to which hay and silage can be substituted for concentrates, and vice-versa, and the price received for milk sold." The records for each area were sorted into three groups, low ratio (small quantity of concentrates per unit of milk produced), medium ratio, and high.ratio (large quantity of concentrates per unit of milk produced). The results are tabulated in Table lfL The tabulation shows that in Areas 1 and 3 a medium rate was the.most profitable, and that in.Area 2 a low rate of feeding concentrates was most profitable. Here we run up against the problem of differ- ences in the inherent productivity between cows and groups of cows. In Area 3, the medium ratio group, 1 pound of concentrates fed for each 3.6 pounds of 4 percent milk produced, included cows which averaged 333 pounds of but- terfat. The high.ratio group were fed concentrates at an average rate of one pound to each 2.6 pounds of 4 percent milk produced, but these cows also averaged 333 pounds of butterfat per cow. Clearly, the medium ratio group of cows were producing milk more cheaply than the high ratio group; they produced the same quantity of product with considerably less input of concentrates. But, it is im- possible to measure accurately the profitability of the different rates of feeding concentrates. In both.Area l and Area 2 the same situation holds, only it is more evi- dent. In both areas, the medium ratio groups averaged higher production per cow than the high ratio groups in 58 spite of the fact that they were fed considerably less. It cannot be claimed that differences in prices account for the differences in rates fed because, in each area, the average prices received in the medium and high groups were very similar . It is felt that this procedure was not conclusive in determining the most profitable level of feeding because of the impossibility of keeping the inherent productivity of the various groups constant. It is felt, however, that in each area, the high.ratio group of cows were being overfed, and that the feed price-milk price relationship would have had to be much.more favorable than it was dur- ing the time of this study before feeding even 2,400 pounds of concentrates would have been profitable. Of course, one still has to make the allowance for the dry 1948 sea- son, and admit that perhaps some of the overfeeding of concentrates was due to necessity and not to choice, be- cause of a shortage of hay. With low producing cows of heavy breed such as com- posed the high group in Area 1, it has been estimated the most efficient level of concentrate feeding would be at approximately 900 pounds * per cow, assuming a ratio of concentrates price to milk price of .77 (Appendix C). The high group was actually fed an average of 2,738 pounds of concentrates per cow. This figure of 900 pounds of concentrates assumes also feeding around 5,600 pounds of hay and 6,600 pounds * Appendix K. 59 of corn silage. In the absence of the corn silage, of course, more hay would have to be fed, or more concen- trates. In Area 3, the severe effects of the overfeeding of concentrates were not so noticeable because of the gen- erally higher producing cows on that area compared to Areas 1 and 2. The cows in the medium and high ratio groups were classified as about midway between low pro- ducing and medium producing cows. With a ratio of con- centrate price to milk price of .87 (Appendix C), it has been estimated the most efficient level of concentrates to feed would have been around 1,500 pounds per cow.* It would seem that both the medium ratio and high ratio groups were considerably overfed in Area 3. It was considered noteworthy that in both Area 2 and Area 3 the farmers who fed the most concentrates were the ones who had the largest farms. This same conclusion was reached from studying Table 13. There, the largest farms were found to have the highest feed costs. Mere fluid producers were found in the high ratio group in each area than in either the low or medium ratio groups. It is en- tirely possible that the mere possession of a good market outlet induces some dairymen to feed concentrates too heavily. * Appendix K. 60 A. Overfeeding of Concentrates. That some dairymen did feed concentrates extremely liberally and that the result was a sacrifice in earnings is shown in Table lBawhere three Area 3herds are analyzed as to feeding practices. Farm 56 is the most glaring example of overfeeding and apparent mismanagement of resources. The operator received only $1.25 in return for every $1 in feed fed his cows. Feed costs represented 81 percent of his re- ceipts from dairy products and this in spite of the fact that he had a good fluid market, and received on the aver- age $l.06 per pound of butterfat. His ratio of concen- trates to milk was 1 to 1.55, an extremely high ratio. Of course, we must keep in mind that he might have been experiencing an acute shortage of hay, and was possibly intentionally overfeeding concentrates to make up for the hay shortage. However, in his farm organization he had allotted only 38 percent of his 47 tillable acres to hay, a very low percentage for that area. Twenty of his A7 acres he had in oats, and 9 acres was in corn for silage. His yields of both were fair, but it seems to the writer that his farm organization was at fault in not allotting more of his acreage to hay and less to oats. It is much cheaper, normally, to feed nutrients in hay than in oats. It seems that even in a good year for hay crops, this op- erator would stfiu. be short of adequate hay for his l8-cow herd. That he had only $58 per cow left after paying all 61 mH o4 swam use 4 Same mH 5H oHnae cH om sham .oHOHwHw coeds m>onw mnp qH m Swab .4 oHnwe .moo .g ommH .sz 94 .02 mm .Ho> chwHHsm MHHmprSG GOprpm paoEHHmmxm HmmdesoHde cmenOHE ..4. Q. m. D .moHaoqoom HandedoHHw¢ no swoasm wow mmoHHoo mpwpw cmenoHE pumaphwmom mOHaoqoom HonspHSOHde .qupmHHao .a .m use ecsHmom .m .0 an ompmoo oodcom coashHwQ demnHQom Hommb dwo 30m \I mm mm 00 . . . . . . . . zoo Hom‘Hoan masom mm» mmw mm.” o o o o o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o¢oHomofiH “O .Hmpammé ohdpmmm H 40H 8 oasqoa mchH oQHome ”man .90 4 om do NHINHum can om ON 0 Ho ocoz ¢\. mnH 00H odoz . . . . . . . ondpmwm wow has no Hwoh man com: HoNHHHpHom 8 mm 0H 9 mo 0H 9 0H m . . . . . . . . . . . chow Hon onH» and mwwHHm unoo mohow .dp 0m 0H .59 04 0m .59 04 ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . chow mom uHon wow mpwo monow Bounce Ho>OHo 4m uHo 40H 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . sum“ mom ondpmwm oHanHHp nH monow a H a «H a HH .HHd mom .HH¢ om .de wH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oHom Ham oHoH» ccw awn uH moH04 Nm OWN Nnd o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o mggo U®®% QH WQHOQ QHQGHHHB OJN @ mMH # mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 300 Hmm 000% Hmbo dhdpmm mm.m OM. He AHN.H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cow acme noHHoe ham unspmm mm . M 40H y . . . . . . . :00 9mm vomwnomdm mmpwhpcooooo mo pmoo ammo mmH W #MN dmN m . o . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . 300 Hag mpmoo 600% OOoH CO. Hm. OOoH o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o PGHHQPPSQ wagon. onQ. 444 x 004% mom w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . goo Hog monm poswonm HHHwQ om.muH 0m.mu mm.Hu . . . vooswoam MHHB pamohmm 4 0» wow mopwnpqoocoo Ho 0Hpom mdoah momam mom. .0 o o o o o o . o.o . o o o o o o 300 HOQ wwwHHm WUQdOm MN‘dam 0N5.“ HHO o+w o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 300 “mg. cm“ khan mgqsom 4cm.H omo.m mum. N . . . . . . . . . zoo pom domwnohdq mmpwhpqoocoo Ho mcnsom mHm.m mom.4 4mm 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boo Hog cow mopwnpaooqoo qusom omm.HH mmb.OH MHb.o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boo Hog MHHE psoonoq 4 meadow H+N+~ OH+~ CNN 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 300 onnH PGHHm‘PPSQ MUGSOAH GHQPmnfiom qHQPmHom hmmchmdw o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o UmoaHm wn—H dN m.” o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o msoo .HO “09.8.52” NWom Guam \Mo4 snow om anwm .m Goad nH mmanHwo AHku no mopwnpuoonoo mo quuomHHobo no mpoowmm..mma oHnwe 62 his feed expenses is adequate proof that he cannot have much left as a return to his labor and management. Farm A6 is an excellent example of a farmer with large acreage, with a large herd, and who uses generally good practices, but who achieves high production at the expense of exceedingly high feed costs. His primary goal would seem to be high production rather than economic production. His cows returned him $1.50 for every $1 of feed fed. Feed costs represented 67 percent of his re- ceipts. His ratio of concentrates fed to milk produced was 1 to 2.66, far too high to be economic. He is still much better off than the previous farmer in that he had $133 per cow left after paying all feed costs, compared to $58 for the operator of Farm 56. It is estimated* that this farmer could have increased his returns by $AO per cow, at least, by feeding 2,000 less pounds of concentrates per cow. It is estimated that this reduction in feed would have reduced butterfat production by only 30 pounds or $30 per cow while feed costs would have been reduced by $70. Also, this oper- ator had space in his barn for 37 head of cattle but he was keeping only an average of 24.1. He could have had his barn full of cows without the addition of any.more feed except the required protein supplement. The author esti- mates that overfeeding his cows cost this Operator a sum of approximately $960. He could have sold the excess * Appendix x. 63 concentrates fed for $1,680 while at the same time, he would have taken a reduction in receipts of only $720. This operator, perhaps because of misplaced emphasis on high production, in magazine articles and by educa- tional institutions, achieved the desired high production but it proved to be an extremely uneconomical achievement. In justice to the operator of Farm 46 it should be stated that some of his large acreage was devoted to the production of feed for a large herd of youngstock. He was obviously in the process of enlarging his herd, with 10 heifers over one year and 11 heifers under one year of age. This fact does not cloud the issue of his overfeed- ing concentrates to his cows, however. Farm 36 is an excellent example of cows efficiently fed. Admittedly, they were cows of high producing abil- ity. They outproduced the cows on Farm 46 with consider- ably smaller quantities of feed, particularly concentrates. The cows on Farm 36 attained high production economically, in contrast to those on Farm A6. Each cow on Farm 36 earned $2A9 over the cost of its feed, whereas each cow on Farm 46 earned only $135 over the cost of its feed. Available resources were used to much better advantages on Farm 36 than on Farm 46. B. Underfeeding of Concentrates. Underfeeding of concentrates is probably practiced as frequently as overfeeding. From the results in Table 18b however, it would seem that underfeeding of concentrates, 6# no 40 mHH . . . . . . . . . . . . . soc Hog Hoan mnsom mmw “so WPWOB m0» 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o oioHomoQ .Ho “@pamfim hon ¢ 0 no mcoz ouomuo no «\iOOm oqoz . manpmwm can man do Hook man com: HoNHHHpHmm a 5 4H 9 OH .b B b m . . . when Hon oHoH» can mmeHm choc nH mmpo< .59 mm mH .39 mm wH .59 04 m . . . . . . . once mom UHlo was mpmo dH mmpo< hmfi :H can 4H o wHmeHd b m . . . . . . anon Ham onspmwm oHanHHp nH mono4 a H mm a H mm 9 MH HmH . . . . . . . whom Hem eHmHs Ham awn aH monoa om wuo HHm . . . . snow Hog macho comm dH monow oHanHHB HmH @ QmH o4m w . . . . . . . . Boo Mom pmoo vomw Hobo chdpmm mm.mw mm.HW om.m. . . . . . . . . . . com coma HwHHoc Hog dyspom 0 0H mm m . Boo Hog Ummwnoadm mopwHHQoocoo Ho pmoo mmwo NOH a mmH m omH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zoo nod mpmoo Home MOOH OOonmw QHOH o o o o o c o o o o o I pdhhmppdfl. Ugog .HQQ. mmm : mom w cum 4 . . . . . . . . . 300 Mon .monm podconm hnme NLOoHHI-H “OOwIH OOOFUH o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o U®OSUOHAH MHHa pcoonom 4 on 66% mopwnpqooqoo Ho 0prm 4Ho.m 4mo.m 0m4.m . . . . . . . . . . goo mom emu mmmHHm meadow aHm.m HHo.4 HHn.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 can own man messed 0 44m own . . . . zoo pom cmmwnonsm mopwnpumoaoo mumsom mHm com w4m . . . . . . . Boo Hon do“ mopwnpaooqoo moadom 4no.m oHo.m m4m.h . . . . . . . . soc Hog MHHE paoonmm 4 monsom mam mom 4mm . . . . . . . . . . . :00 Mom pwmnmppsn meadow opMHomloanOdU ”Hopmnfiom hmmqumdw o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o UWOHm Mama” CON...” HoOH o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o @300 pHO H0952 om anwh Hm swam HH Shah «W.won4 dH mwchHwo hHch no mmpwnpaoouoo no mevmcHnoUQd Ho mpoopum .an oHnoB 65 as a practice, was less uneconomical than overfeeding. Farm 11 is an excellent example of an operator with cows of fairly high producing ability losing money by un- derfeeding. That the cows were of fairly high producing ability is evidenced by the 325 pounds of butterfat per cow average despite the low concentrate feeding. High quality cows respond much better to increased feeding than do low quality cows. A combination of high quality cows and a relatively high price for milk would have made heavier feeding of concentrates profitable. If this dairy operator would have fed twice as much concentrates, or more, if he had fed 2,500 pounds instead of 9A8 pounds per cow, it is estimated that he could have increased his butterfat production per cow by close to 70 pounds;$2/ or from 324 pounds to from 390 pounds to 400 pounds. At an average of $1.16 per pound butterfat this would have in- creased his returns by $80 per cow, while his feed costs would have risen probably no more than $50 per cow. In- stead of a return over feed costs of $2h6 per cow, he could have obtained a return over feed of around $275 per .cow. Even if the operator of Farm 11 had had to buy the extra amount of concentrates, and he likely would have had to with a tillable acreage of only 31% acres, he could still have made the extra return. With feed price- milk price relationships existing at the time of this 10/ Input-Output Relationships in Milk Production, Einar Jensen, et a1. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 815, May, 1942, p. 27. 66 study, he could theoretically have fed concentrates prof- itably up to the point where an additional 100 pounds of concentrates produced only 61 pounds additional milk.i$/ It must be conceded that even feeding at the low rate of 1 pound of concentrates to each 7.96 pounds of 4 percent milk, this dairy operator made an exceptionally high return over feed. It is apparent, however, that with the good fluid market that he had, he could have in- creased his returns considerably by heavier feeding. Farm 51 is another example of a good herd being un- derfed concentrates to the detriment of net income. The concentrates price-milk price ratio at the time of this study for this dairyman averaged .93, i.e. 100 pounds of concentrates were equal in value to 93 pounds of milk. It would have been profitable for this dairyman to have fed concentrates up to the point where an increment of 100 pounds of concentrates resulted in only an increment of 93 Pounds of milk. It is believed that at a concen- trates price-milk price ratio of .93, the most profitable level of feeding for a cow of medium producing ability is in the neighborhood of 1,750 pounds of concentrates.* If this dairyman would have fed at the rate of 1 pound of concentrates to every 5 pounds of.milk instead of 1 pound of concentrates to every 8 pounds of milk as he did he would have had to feed in the neighborhood of 11/ Ibid., p. 60. * Appendix K. 67 1,750 pounds of concentrates per cow, at an increased cost in feed of $25 (at an average concentrates cost in Area 3 of $3.30 per cwt.).* It is estimated that this increase in concentrates fed would have resulted in an increase in butterfat production of about 30 pounds per cow which, at $1.00 per pound would leave a net increase in per cow income of roughly $5.00. For the herd, this increase in net income would amount to roughly $85. Farm 20 is an example of extremely low rations fed to low producing cows. This operator fed no concentrates at all during the pasture season; in fact, no concentrates were fed until December. Silage was fed liberally in October, and hay and silage together in November. From December through April, about 3 pounds of ground oats and protein supplement were fed per cow per day. On this ra- tion, his cows averaged about 19 pounds of milk daily for the year. They slumped badly starting in the latter part of July, due to poor pasture and no supplementary feed. It is believed that the cows in this herd were not as poor in producing ability as the low butterfat production made them seem. Poor pasture and generally poormfigg‘jgggg them appear much less productive than they really were. The principle employed in the above analysis is the principle that cows should be fed up to the point of dimin- ishing returns, i.e. to the point where a given increment * Appendix C. 68 in feed costs produces a similar increase in milk receipts, but no more or no less. In the lingo of economic theory it is the point where marginal costs equal marginal re- turns. That is the point of maximum net returns. Rough- age costs should be included for high accuracy but are ignored here since this is not meant to be a perfectly precise calculation. 69 CHAPTER VIII THE EFFECT OF MARKET OUTLET ON DAIRY EARNINGS Market outlet was an important factor determining the return from the dairy herd. It is generally conceded that the fluid market offers the best opportunity for high returns. Prices are generally considerably higher for fluid milk than they are for the other classes. Of course, costs are higher too, due to state and local health regulations which require certain standards of cleanliness to be maintained on farms where milk is pro- duced for the fluid market. It is apparent that during the period of this study (May, 1948 to April, l9h9) the fluid producers in Area 1 had a tremendous advantage in price over the cheese and cream producers in that area. Furthermore, the suppliers of the cheese factories in Area 1 had a considerable price advantage over the cream suppliers. The fluid milk suppliers in Area 1 hada 21¢ per pound butterfat price advantage over the cheese suppliers during the period of this study. As would be expected, the producers of fluid milk in Area 1 had somewhat higher feed costs. They fed concentrates to their cows at an average rate of 2,0hh pounds per cow, a ratio of 1 pound of concentrates to every 3.h pounds of A percent milk produced. Their average production of.milk and butterfat was likewise considerably higher than was the average .0wonno>o 0:0 .qucvmn .mpmoo osHOHcma 0mm anaqHHmpm> .om: pqoamHsvm .HpHOHHpomHm .0300 no pmmmopuH .aOprHoonmoc 300 .09000 wchHHsn .mpmoo qucmoHn macsHoQH ** .0800 m #0 mowao MN we ousb 0am .hnw HH .ousb 300 :H QOHpmHomnmmw .300 Mom 80 we assume you pHcoHo mocsHosH * AmoH 00H 08 3,88 00H quoH 08H 08H . . . . . au00 008‘00000 0H00HHH8 o.muH 8.muH muH m.muH mnH m.mnH muH 4.mnH . . . . . . . wooscohm MHHa_psmo spam 4 op 009 mogmnpqooaoo oprm 000.8 808.0 088.4 . . . . . . . zoo Hog 00H mpoon and owwHHm mudsom 8H4.4 080.4 000. 8 080.0 H40.8 000.8 H00.8 080.8 . . . 300 008 000 800 000008 0H0.~ 000.0 800. m 000.H 480.0 084.H 800.H 440.0 300 008 000 00w00000oaoo 000008 So Mom maoo com comm 88. 00 00. 00 80. 00 80.00 04.0 Hm.0m 00. 00 80. H0 . . . . . . . ~000H 8000 H08 «00. H0 «48. H0 808. H0 00H .H0 080 08 0 08 0 00H 0 80 0 80 04H 0 04H 0 80H 0 HHH 0 0HH 08H 0 :00 H08 00000 0000 0000 000000 mahspmm 902 W moo. HQ MHO. N” o o o o o o o o o o .UHQHH “mg 0 0 0 840 880 880 400 800 W 80H m 88H m 08H . . . . . . 300 008 00000 H0008 08 # 04H 0 . . . . . Boo Mom .maoo scum anspmm pacsmmwnos 0am gonna wHH Hm on om mm mm mm mm . . . . . **Boo mom mpmoo nmnpo 00H 8 omH . 80H 04H omH mHH mmH . . . . . . 300 Man mpmoo awaken pm mmm . . . . . Boo Mom manspmu H0909 mm . . . . .*soo Ham mnnspmn Hmnpo O‘Hm o o o o o o o o o :00 HQ“ mmm mmm 4m 4m mmH HmN 888 848 H00 H80 08m 00 80 80 4H 8H HHm 008 080 88m 88m 00.H, H0.H 0H.H 48.0 88.0 80.0 08.0. 8H.H . . . . . . . . . 000000000 venom Mom monm panache hnHmn mandamm 4o . 40H HmH 4MH 4mH OmH mHH 00H . . . . . . . 300 you noan mnsom 808 8 008.0 804.0 800.8 888.0 8H8.8 080.0 880.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 008 wooduonm MHHE pdoonom 4 mundom OHM on mmm com o8m mam 0mm How . . . . Soc Hog puunoppsn mcsdom omuc omnm 4Ha4 cmuw 8min .aumn Mom 0300 Ho 9038:: nH cmdmm 8.0H 8.mH 0.8 0.4H 4.4H . . . . . EH00 n08 0200 Ho n0nasz mm mH HH m mm . . . . . . . . manna no 909352 000000 0H0Hm 90000 000000 0H0Hm m wom¢r. H amnd .nMqunwo hMHuc no poHpbo pounds Ho poouhu .oH oHnue mmlm omum «mun N. mH H.5H n.0H 8H 0H mH .ddoo omoono vHfiHh 71 production of the herds producing for the cheese outlet. Production was far from being good, the high price not- withstanding. A cow producing 261 pounds of butterfat (the average among the cows producing milk for the fluid market in Area 1) is certainly not a high producing cow. In.this sample of Area 1 herds, there were only three herds producing over 300 pounds butterfat per cow, one averaged 308 pounds, another averaged 380 pounds, and the third averaged 432 pounds per cow. Adl.three pro- duced for the fluid market. With their high price and relatively high producing cows, the producers for the fluid market received $172 per cow in return over feed, while the producers for the cheese market received only $116 and the producers for the butter market only $75 per cow. The producers of cream for the butter market in Area were in a very unhappy position during the course of this study; The price was low, averaging only' 87¢ per pound of butterfat, their herds were small, averaging only 7.2 cows per herd, and production per cow was very low at 228 pounds butterfat. The suppliers of cream for the butter manufacturers in Area 1 had also the lowest labor effi- ciency of any of the three outlets. They spent an aver- age of 150 hours labor per cow, while those supplying the cheese factories spent an average of only 118 hours per cow, and the fluid milk suppliers, the most efficient of all, spent 108 hours per cow. The cream producers were 72 at the bottom in everything which.measures efficiency. In terms of labor and management return per hour, the cream producers received only 31¢. That was an extremely low wage. Unless those dairymen put a very high premium on farming as a way of life they would most certainly have been better off, and the community would have been better off, if they had been engaged in almost any other activity than dairying. In Area 3, the situation was quite comparable to that in Area 1 except that the price premium to the fluid milk producers was less in Area 3. The fluid milk suppliers received an average of $1.10 per pound of butterfat, while the cheese suppliers received an average of $1.01 per pound, and the condensary suppliers $1.00 per pound of butterfat. Thus, there was only a 9¢ spread between the average fluid price and the average price paid by the other users of milk. Producers for the fluid market fed their oows somewhat better, and thereby achieved a slightly higher production per cow than the other two groups of producers. They fed an average of 2,805 pounds of con- centrates per cow, and their ratio of concentrates fed to A percent milk produced was 1 to 3. The other two groups fed approximately 2,200 pounds of concentrates per cow, for a ratio of 1 to 3.6 and 1 to 3.7. It is believed by the writer that, as a general rule, and for the quality of cows represented in this sample, each group fed concentrates at an unprofitably high level. 73 However, it must be recognized that the year of this study was a poor one for the production of roughage. It is entirely possible that in a normal year these dairymen feed less nutrients in the form of concentrates and more in the form of roughages and silage. The fluid milk producers in Area 3 as a group, fared considerably better in terms of return over feed and labor and management return than did the other producers. This, in spite of somewhat higher feed costs and higher "other costs." In labor efficiency the fluid milk producers were the least efficient of the three groups, spending an aver- age of 121 hours per cow, whereas the cheese suppliers and the condensary suppliers spent 104 hours and 94 hours respectively per cow. This result is to be expected but is contrary to that obtained in Area 1, where just the traverse was true. This result in Area 1 is probably due to the fact that the fluid producers had herds twice as large as those of the cream producers. It is also true that in Area 3 the producing ability of cows owned by the fluid producers was not superior to that of the cows owned by the producers for the other outlets. This too, is contrary to the results in Area 1. It must be concluded that, as a group, the fluid producers are not in any way the most efficient producers. They are fortunate in having the best outlet, but that good fortune does not stem from superior efficiency or produc- tivity. 7h In Area 2 the situation was somewhat different. There was very little difference between the price paid for fluid milk and for cheese. The difference of 5¢ per pound butterfat is not considered significant and is believed to be due entirely to the sample. The high feed costs, high "other costs," and low production per cow of the fluid group were significant contributing factors in the low labor and management return of the cows in that group. The cows in the fluid group averaged 276 pounds of butterfat per cow, while the cows in the cheese group averaged 296 pounds per cow. The labor efficiency in the two groups was the same; each averaged 134 hours per cow. This represents extremely low labor efficiency when com- pared to the other two areas. In return over feed costs per cow the cheese group in Area 2 had $131, and the fluid group had only $116. Because the fluid producers had higher "other costs," the difference in labor and management return between the two groups was even greater in favor of the cheese pro- ducers. Labor and management return per cow for the cheese group was $87 and for the fluid group, $65. It is evident that cows of high producing ability can easily make up for a low quality market. It would seem that in any area and with any kind of a market outlet it pays to have cows of high producing ability. It is not necessary to despair just because it is impossible to find a fluid outlet for milk. Plenty of 75 profit can be made and is made where the outlet is not a fluid outlet. It is interesting to note that in both Area 1 and Area 2 the farms with a fluid milk market were, on the average, the largest farms. The herds were not signifi- cantly larger but the farms, as measured by tillable ac- res, were significantly larger than the farms where the market was other than a fluid milk market. In Area 3 this relationship did not hold. There was no significant difference in the size of farm between any two of the three market outlet groups in Area 3. 76 CHAPTER IX EFFECT OF FALL-FRESHENING ON DAIRY RETURNS Sixty-eight percent of the dairymen in this study indicated that they liked to have their cows freshen in the fall months. The reasons generally given for this preference were four: the first reason was that fall- freshening helped promote high production at two differ- ent times, in the fall as the cows freshened, and in the spring when they were turned out to pasture; the second reason was that fall-freshening enabled them to achieve a higher base when they were on the base—surplus plan; a third reason sometimes given was that fall-freshening enabled them to better utilize their labor supply. The cows would then be dry during part of the harvesting sea— son, and the.months of heavy production would occur when other demands for their labor was lowest. The fourth reason, given by 19 of the 88 dairymen desiring fall- freshening, was that prices were better in the fall months. Presumably, the 11 dairymen who Operated under the base— surplus plan also had price in mind because fall-freshen- ing would give them a better average price for their milk for the entire year. The main motivating forces behind a desire for fall-freshening then were better production, better price, and better labor distribution. Ibis a generally accepted fact that both.milk and but- terfat prices do average higher in the fall months than in 77 the summer months.l2/ This is because the supply is higher during the summer months. It is also known that in years of generally falling farm prices, milk prices fall from September through December. Butterfat prices, in years of falling farm prices, while they do not tend to fall from September to December, they do tend to stay rather steady.lg/ Consequently, in a year of generally falling farm prices, one would not expect there to be the price advantage accruing from fall-freshening which there would be in a year of steady or rising farm prices. The year chosen for this study happened to be a year when farm prices were generally falling, as shown in Figure A. 320i~ . . '. .* - .w—erW i i.7 i ' ' V f ‘ L 9 310‘ . 2 ‘ z , ‘ r ' ' 3003 ' 3 290, . w . -..~ « I K ‘ ‘ . 1 $ 1..”- l . O ' l , 1 y, ‘ . ' ' I . : ‘ 0‘ I V . . . . _ I 1 , a. . -._ --~w .- 280 1 ~ . '. . . ' ' i '- s :- . U l 2‘. 1' i 2 6O "' ' ; '- ‘ . . ‘ . . . ,0, _ , . . _ , ; .1. , ._,.',_ __ , 1L”..- .......~..-...-.-.'___.-.=...—.. MAY J J A s o N '.D JAN. F m1 A 1908 1949 . Figure 4. Average prices for all farm products re- ceived by Michigan farmers during the per-1 iod of this study, May 1948 to April 1919._2/ PRICES RECEIVED BY MICHIGAN FARMERS, 1910-14 - 100 12/ "Seasonal Price Changes of MajorjMichigan Farm Pro- ducts," L. L. Boger, Michigan State College, Agricul- tural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 355, Jan- uary, l9h9. 13/ "Prices Received by Michigan Farmers," Michigan Farm Economics, Michigan State College Extension Service, Department of Agricultural Economics, May 1908. 78 Prices received by Michigan farmers fell approxi- mately 17 percent from July, l9h8 to April, 1949. Prices received for butterfat fell 26 percent during this same period, and the prices received for milk fell 24 percent (Figure 1). Average prices for milk and butterfat, on a butterfat basis, in our sample of Area 2 and Area 3 dairymen fell from July, 19h8‘to May, 19h9 36 percent in Area 2 and 31 percent in.Area 3 (Figure 1). Instead of fall-freshening being an advantage to them, it was a disadvantage. This was an extraordinary year, however, and it is believed that normally prices are higher during the six-month per- iod, September to February, than during any other six- month period in the year. Fall-freshening is designed to obtain the highest production during this period. A sort was made by percentage of cows freshening during the five-month period, August to December inclu- sive. It was wondered whether fall-freshening during this particular year produced better results than non- fall-freshening. Several of the records were discarded because the information was not available. The results are tabulated in Table 20. It is apparent that those dairymen with a high per- centage of fall freshening generally achieved better re- sults from their herds than did the dairymen with a low percentage of fall freshening, despite the disadvantage of falling milk and butterfat prices in Area 2 and Area 3. 79 00 0 88 0 m8 0 00H0 m0 0 08 0 am 0 08 0 HNH 0 88H . . . 300 008 000000 pdoSomoeoa 020 Honda 00H 0 88H 0 80H 0 H8H0 8~H0 HMHn m8 0 00H 0 88H 0 000 . . . . . . :00 n08 pmoo coon Hobo endpom 40H 80H 40H 08H 08H 80H 08H 00H 80H 00H . :00 008 00000 0000 H0.H 00. H 80.H 0H.H s8. 08. 08. H0.H 0H.H mm.H _ .000000000 00:08 008 00m 000 800 00m 00m 080 000 00m 00m 840 . . . 300 008 moaom posoonm hnHwa e00 Hem 8H0 H00 N00 080 000 400 H40 000 . . . . . . . goo mom. poynmppon moddom 00 00 00 00 8H 00 H0 0: 0H 84 . . 00H [nonmona Henson prop no pqooHom mo .Hon uaooomupmowom .wndqo . unmohu 0300 Ho nonssz 4.0H 0.0H H.0H 0.8H 0.0H 0.HH 8.0H 0.0H 0.0H 8.0H 300 go n0nssa 0000080 0H 8H 8 . 0 0H 8H 8 0 0H 0H . . . 00000 no nonssz u 26H mama 1% 33 033m 08 30H #3008 w 33 08an00 m 33 8%? CH CH 8: CH CH Q0 CH CH poapfio Hmnpo poapdo UHde pmapdo Hmnpo m,00n4 m 00H« _ .0SoooH anon no onnonmonu HH0H no poogmfi .ON magma 80 Those with a high percentage of fall-freshening cows had greater production per cow, larger herds, greater return over feed costs, and greater labor and management returns than those with a low percentage of fall-freshening cows. It must not be presumed however, that all the difference shown in this tabulation was due to the difference in per- centage of fall-freshening cows. Rather, it shows that those dairymen practicing fall-freshening on the largest scale were also high in other efficiency factors. They tended to have cows of better inherent productivity; they probably had better feed; they had slightly larger herds and could thus be more efficient in the care of the cows; they may, as a group, have taken better care of calves and other youngstock to assure good cows when they en- tered the producing herd. There are many possible con- tributing factors which might tend to produce the re— sults shown in Table 20. In a year of rising instead of falling prices it is believed the results would have been even more in favor of the group with the high percentage of fall-freshening. Approximately 60 percent of the dairymen in this sample were using or had used artificial insemination. Many of them had used it less than a year, and were hav- ing considerable troubleusettling'cows. Slightly over 00 percent of those using artificial insemination indi- cated that it was less satisfactory than was natural ser- vice. Of course, that was a matter of opinion on their 81 part and statistical methods might prove to some of them that, from the standpoint of success in settling cows, artificial was no less satisfactory than natural breed- ing. However, it is believed that many of the dairymen experiencing difficulty in the settling of the cows really were having more trouble than they usually had. This up- set their freshening schedule so that a smaller percentage of their cows freshened in the fall than they intended to have. Not all the dairymen believed in the fall-freshening principle. In Area 3, 28 percent of the dairymen in our sample desired their cows to freshen evenly throughout the year, and in Area 1, 13 percent indicated this prefer- ence. The reason usually given for this preference was that an even milk flow throughout the year was liked. It is significant that no economic reason was given for this preference. One man wanted his cows to freshen after December so that they would be dry during deer hunt- ing season. A large proportion of Upper Peninsula dairymen be— lieved in the efficacy of fall-freshening as a management principle. A considerably smaller proportion achieved the desired level of fall-freshening in the year of this study. Studies in other states indicate that fall-freshen- ing of cows is an important factor in obtaining high pro- . 14 duction. A study made in New York state in 1939 and l940-/ 14/ "Factors That Affect Costs and Returns in Producing Milk," Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, Bulletin 804, March, 1944, p. 23. 82 indicated that fall—freshening cows, other things being equal, usually had a higher total production of milk than spring-freshening cows. Also, because of the sea- sonal increase in milk prices during the fall and early winter, the margin between milk cost and feed prices was more favorable for the herds practicing fall-freshening. A study made in Minnesota continuously between 1928 and 1937 showed a similar result.i2/ In addition to the pro- duction and price advantages resulting from fall-fresh- ening, the Minnesota study listed a further beneficial result - that accruing from a higher return over feed from cattle other than cows. The raising of fall calves proves more profitable than the raising of spring calves, according to the Minnesota study. In Figure 5 is shown a graph of butterfat prices in the Upper Peninsula by months for each of the years 1940 to 1950. In those 10 years, butterfat prices were higher during the last four months of the year in six of those years; they were lower in two of the years, the last two; and there was very little change in two of the years. Of course, it can be argued that.those years certainly were not normal years, that prices in the whole economy were rising during that period. Nevertheless, it is a valu- able indication and, along with other information already 15/ ”Managing the Dairy Herd for Greater Returns," Uni- versity of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 378, June, 1944, p. 14. 83 1%? if a a“ / \ \ 7 f '. \ / \ h” \>\//\/\/Tsw 1% 199:6 / \ _ ’- / J“ g / g5 \-// \ —~ / \n 7______ / n ,/ ' *1/\———41w / / —__.../__- 55515§§§§§ contowpomflotWhtthncM \ / 37]? /\ h M Figure 5. Graph of butterfat prices paid in the Upper Peninsula by months from 1940 to 19503“ * Unpublished data from Federal-State Crop Reporting Service . Lanai ng. Mic higan. 81. cited, shows that one can usually expect a price advan- tage to accrue from a fall-freshening program. 85 CHAPTER x UPPER PENINSULA DAIRYMEN CAN IMPROVE RETURNS BY BETTER CROP MANAGEMENT Good quality hay and pasture is very scarce in the Upper Peninsula, despite the importance of these crops in the agricultural economy of the region. As shown in Table 8, between 70 percent and 80 percent of the till- able land in the Upper Peninsula is devoted to hay and tillable pasture. Although alfalfa is probably the most productive of hay crops, very little is grown in the Up- per Peninsula. In Area 1, in 1945* only 30 percent of the tillable acreage in hay and pasture was alfalfa or alfalfa mixture hay. In Area 2 the percentage was only 1.6 percent. Area 3 grew the largest amount of alfalfa, 20.6 percent of the tillable hay and pasture acreage be— ing of that kind. The balance of the hay and tillable pasture acreage was in clover or timothy, or combina- tions of the two, and june grass in 1945. Yields of tim- othy are very low, considering the fact that it is the major crop from the standpoint of acreage, on a great many farms in the Upper Peninsula. In many rotations it is the fourth or fifth crop which depletes the nitrogen supply. Average yields are between three-fourths and l * Appendix A, Table 3. 86 ton per acre.16 Average hay yields (all kinds) are very low in the Upper Peninsula, 1.2 tons per acre in 1947, .85 tons per acre in 1948, and 1.1 tons per acre in 1949 being reported by the Michigan Crop Reporting Service (Appendix B). The need for considerable quantities of lime to raise the pH of the soils to 6.5 or higher is, of course, one of the reasons why more alfalfa is not grown. An- other important reason is that the liming of the soil interferes with the growing of the white-skinned varie- ties of potatoes. This latter reason should not affect the application of fertilizer, however. Fertilizer in adequate amounts will vastly improve the yields of any hay, timothy in particular. Average timothy yields of 3 to 4 tons per acre were achieved in experiments run in the Upper Penin- sula between 1938 and 1946.lzy In the same experiment, yields of alfalfa were increased two-thirds ton per acre by the application of 400 pounds of 0-14-6 fertilizer per acre. This application would, of course, also in- crease the production of other crops in the rotation. It should be noted that an additional reason why alfalfa is not grown on a larger scale in Area 1 is that poor lé/ "Soil Management in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan," James Tyson, Michigan State College, Agricultural Ex- periment Station, Department of Soil Science, Special Bulletin 345, January 1948, p. 26. 17/ Ibid., Tables 7 and 14, Appendix A. 87 natural drainage of the clay soils causes the winter killing of alfalfa. Alsike-timothy mixtures are recom- mended for those soils.£§/ The records for each area were separated into two groups, those that never used commercial fertilizer on their hay and pasture crops, and those that used some commercial fertilizer sometime in the rotation. The re- sults were surprising. Among these supposedly better- than-average farmers in Area 1, 55 percent of the dairy- men used no fertilizer anywhere in the rotation in which hay and pasture was included. In Area 2 the percentage using no fertilizer was 48 percent, and in Area 3 the per- centage was 26 percent using no fertilizer in the rota- tion. Area 3 dairymen used fertilizer to a larger ex- tent than did the dairymen in the other two areas. It is significant that feed crop yields are consistently greater in Area 3 than in the other two areas (Appendix B). In each area the labor and management return per cow on the farms where fertilizer was used in the rotation, was in the neighborhood of double the labor and manage- ment return per cow on the farms where fertilizer was not used in the rotation. Production per cow was between 20 percent and 25 percent higher on those farms that used fertilizer than on those which used no fertilizer. Size of farm and size of herd were generally greatest on those 112/ Ibid., p. 17. 88 . . . . . . . omoon MHfia.an3 paooHom 0 O O O O O O o 0 ago pmmp 0“? H0 000% HH Ho :00 .4.H.m.n 0H nemoHom Boo Hoe oHspmmm 800 moHo onooom moHo< . . . soc Hoe oHspmwm 00H0000H moHod o o o o o o o o o o o mngpmwQ. oHnmaHHp 0H mmHoo oaanHHp Ho pdmoHom . . mod 00 meoo oHnoaHHp Ho pnoOHmm EH00 Hoe mmoHo 0000 0H 00H00 0H00HHHB . . . Boo Hoe 000 mmpoH0qmoooo meadow . . o . . . . . . . . . . . Uhmfl H09 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 300 .ng .0000 soHH dHo0oH pomsowmaws 000 HonoH . . soc Hog mpmoo 0000 Hobo qHspom . . . . . . . . zoo Hog mpmoo 000m . . . . . . . . pmHHoppdn 0050a H0H . . . . . goo Hog 00H00 poseon HHme . . . . . . Boo Hem poHHoppsp monoom . . . . . . . SHmH H0H 0300 Ho Hopssz o o o o o o o o o o o mam“ 0H0 .Hmpgz 00 on 00 0m 00 00 mm mm mm H0 mm 00 00.0 0H.0 H8.H 00.0 00.H 00. 80.H 00. 00 0H 00 HH :4 00 00 80 00H 00 08 08 00H mHH 000.0 0HH.H 800. 0 008.H 880.00 008 W 800. H0 800 H00. H0 808 08 0 H0 08 0 0m 80H 0 00 00H 0 00H 0 00H H0H H0H HHH 80H W 80H HMH 00H 00H 00H 00.H. 00.H 08. 0H.H 00.H 000 0 H00 . 8800 800. H00 800 mmm 800 mHm 800 080 800 8.0H H.0H 0.0H 8.0H 4.0H 0.HH Hm 0H 40 00 8H H0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 00. 02 oz 0 0000 0 0000 H 0000 .HOHpopoH a0 000: 000 mm; HoNHHHp nHoH oHoHs.maHdpmH op oonmsoo flow: 003 HoNHHHpHoH mHons.maHoH do moHopoH hHflmm .HN manna 89 farms where fertilizer was used, although in Area 2 this was not the case. It should not be claimed that this dif- ference in production in favor of those dairymen using fertilizer on their crops was due only to the fact that they did use fertilizer. Rather, that they use ferti- lizer is in the nature of a contributing factor. It can be seen that in Areas 2 and 3 those dairymen using fer- tilizer devoted a smaller proportion of their acreage to hay crops and a larger proportion to tillable rotation pasture. It is logical to assume that in Area 2 at least, the use of fertilizer permitted larger yields of hay, and the larger yields in turn permitted more acreage to be used for rotation pasture. An adequate acreage of good quality pasture reduces considerably the amount of concentrates required to keep up production during the summer. It is also.much cheaper feed than is grain because the cattle do their own har- vesting (Appendix D). Top dressings of commercial fer- tilizer do much to preserve legume crops the second year, and the application of 200-300 pounds per acre is a highly recommended practice,£2/ yet in Areas 1 and 2 only 15 percent of the dairymen made use of this recommenda- tion, and in Area 3, 37 percent. l2/ "Fertilizers for Legumes," R. L. Cook and C. E. Millar, Michigan State College, Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, Department of Soil Science, Special Bulletin 328, April, 1940, p. l. 90 Good rotation pasture can, of course, be the most productive pasture, but Upper Peninsula dairymen should not overlook the possibilities of increasing their pas- ture yields by renovating old bluegrass pastures which are too hilly or too stony for normal cultivation. Many dairy farms, particularly in Areas 2 and 3 are so small that an adequate acreage of rotation pasture is not pos- sible. However, on those farms it is often noted that a considerable acreage of wild, brush covered pasture is available. It is on these farms that the renovation of permanent pasture would be very profitable. In Richland county, Wisconsin, during a 5-year period, 1941-1945, renovated pasture produced an average of 1,800 more dry weight pounds per acre than the untreated pasture, at a gg/ cost of only $3.75 per ton. In this experiment, the renovated pastures were seeded to a mixture of sweet clover and medium red clover. The production was doubled, besides which more feed was available for grazing each year in July and August. In the same experiment it was found that woodland pastures produced only 276 pounds of dry matter per acre per year, and that untreated open pastures produced 5.3 times more forage per acre than the woodland pasture. Also, during the same period, the renovated pasture 20/ "Wisconsin Needs Better Pastures," F. V. Burcalow, L. F. Graber, and H. L. Ahlgren, University of Wis- consin Extension Service, Circular 373, January, l9h7. 91 described above produced 11.6 times more pasturage per acre than the woodland pasture. In Ionia county, in 1949, it was found that renova- tion costs per acre on two farms where the soil had not been worked for 10 to 15 years was in the neighborhood of $40. This included seed and fertilizer costs. Trac- tion type power had to be used for the most part.g;/ Assuming the yields in the Wisconsin experiment, the cost per ton of dry weight feed would still be only $9.50 approximately, when the cost is spread over a period of 5 years. That would still be very cheap feed, and ex- tremely valuable feed on small farms where the supply of forage is the chief limiting factor. In the Upper Peninsula excellent yields can be ob- tained from wild white clover mixed with native grasses when 300 pounds of appropriate fertilizer is broadcast as early as possible in the spring. Where renovation is possible, and where sufficient lime has been added to the soil, alfalfa-brome grass, or alfalfa-timothy mix- tures do very well.22 On low, poorly drained areas, reed canary grass can be, and was during the period of this study, used success- fully for permanent pasture. Very few dairymen have made use of this high yielding pasture in the Upper Peninsula 21/ Unpublished data from Greener Pastures Contest, Ionia county, H. S. Wilt, Michigan State College and Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1949. 22/"Soil Management in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan," p. 41. 92 but there is no reason why it cannot be used successfully all over the Upper Peninsula on poorly drained land. 0f the dairymen in this study, only 4 made use of reed canary grass, all 4 being in Menominee county. In a study made in Ionia county in 1949 it was found that, although rotation pasture can yield better returns than renovated pasture, on the average good lowland reno- vated pasture (mostly reed canary grass) gave better av- erage results in terms of cow credit over feed cost than did the rotation pasture.g2/ Although the fertilization of permanent pasture does produce good results, very few of the dairymen inter- viewed in this study practiced it. In Area 1 only one man used fertilizer on his permanent pasture, in Area 2 two men used fertilizer, and in Area 3 two men fertilized their permanent pastures. asture renovation was not re- ported by any of the dairymen in this study. 0n the whole, Upper Peninsula dairymen do not prac- tice good pasture management. Their problems are some- what greater than the problems faced by dairymen in the Lower Peninsula, but they are not insurmountable. Much could be done which is not done to insure good hay and good pasture. In Area 2, 28 percent of the dairymen in this study depended entirely on wild and woods pasture 32/ Greener Pastures Contest, H. S. Wilt, Michigan State College and Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 93 for their summer pasture. Another 42 percent depended on a combination of wild pasture and second crop hay pas- ture. Pasture consisting entirely of rotation pasture or a combination of wild pasture and rotation pasture was found to be the practice on 30 percent of the farms in Area 2. Sixty percent of those who used a combination of wild and rotation pasture applied fertilizer either as a top-dressing or sometime in the rotation. Only 30 percent of fliose using all wild pasture or a combination of wild and second crop hay pasture used fertilizer in their ro- tations. A comparison between those farms using all wild pasture with those using all rotation pasture is shown in Table 22. Higher returns over feed costs were attained on those farms using all rotation pasture than on those us- ing all wild pasture in Area 2. The size of farm and the average number of cows per herd were larger on the farms using all rotation pasture than on the other farms. The intensity, as measured by tillable acres in feed cost per cow was practically the same for the two groups. It would seem that devoting a portion of the tillable acreage to rotation pasture was a profitable maneuver. Those that used all rotation pasture had a return over feed $25 per cow greater than those using all wild pasture; they also purchased a smaller proportion of concentrates. The use of fertilizer undoubtedly permitted those farmers using all rotation pasture to obtain higher yields of feed crops. 9h Table 22. Comparison of dairy returns between farms us- ing all wild pasture and farms using all ro- tation pasture in Area 2. Rotation Wild (pasture «pasture Number of farms . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 Number of cows per farm . . . . . . 18.1 11.3 Pounds butterfat per cow . . . . . 300 267 Dairy product sales per cow . . . . 0 290 § 257 per pound butterfat . . . . . . . “.966 .962 Feed costs per cow . . . . . . . . g 152 in 144 Return over feed per cow . . . . . - 138 113 Tillable acres in feed crops per farm 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O 116 Tillable acres in feed crops per cow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 6.3 Acres rotation pasture per cow . . 2.6* --- Acres wild pasture per cow . . . . --- ~ 4.8 Pounds concentrates fed per cow . . 2,157 1,683 Pounds hay fed per cow . . . . . 5,360 5,094 Percent of concentrates fed herd that were purchased . . . . . . . 45 56 Percent using fertilizer in rota- tion on hay . . . . . . . . . . . 87 2O It can be seen that, after the acreage used for ro- tation pasture is deducted on those farms using all ro- tation pasture, their remaining acreage in other feed crops is less than that on those farms using all wild pasture, despite their 60 percent larger average herds. It seems that the general productivity of those farms using all rotation pasture was greater than that on the other farms. The writer does not mean to suggest that all dairy- men should use all rotation pasture. The men with.the * Does not include second crop hay used for pasture. One and one-half acres per cow of this kind of pas- ture was also used on these farms. 95 large herds on the small farms will have to use differ- ent management practices than the men with the large herds on the large farms. ,The most will have to be derived from the facilities at hand on small farms. That is what is not being done at the present time in the Upper Peninsula. Emergency pasture crops in the Upper Peninsula pre- sent more of a problem than in the Lower Peninsula. The preferred kinds such as soybeans and sudan grass are not adaptable to Upper Peninsula growing conditions, except for a small area along Lake Michigan in Menominee county. Rye planted in August is probably the most suitable for pasture. .It can sometimes be pastured in October, and furnishes good early spring pasture until July. Oats and barley planted in the early spring cansmpply good pas- ture in part of June and part of July.2&/ One-half acre of rye, barley or cats per cow, if properly handled, 22/ should be sufficient. One source says that with nor- mal fertility and rainfall, Balbo rye can carry 6 head 26 per acre for a period in June and July. Of the dairymen in this study in Area 1, none of the 38 used any of the above emergency or supplementary pas- tures; in Area 2, two of the 46 used oats for spring Efi/ "Well-managed Pastures," University of Minnesota Extension Bulletin 241, April, 1945, p. 5. _2_§/ Ibid., p. 5. 26/ "Grasses and Legumes on Michigan Farms," p. 38. 96 pasture; and in Area 3, one used oats, one used rye for spring pasture before planting to potatoes, one used rye for fall pasture, and one used sudan grass (Appendix F). These annual pastures, of course, are somewhat more costly than the perennial grasses and legumes to estab- lish. Oats has been estimated to cost 22.3 cents per cow per day of pasture, compared to 12.5 cents for al- falfa-brome, and 4.9 cents for reed-canary grass.21/ This included all costs relative to fitting the land, seed, fertilizer at 200 pounds per acre, and lime. The cost of even the most expensive kind of pasture certainly is not excessive. There is another supplementary benefit from the use of these annual grains for spring and fall pasture: seed- ing perennial legumes and grass-legume mixtures in rye, oats or barley is much safer when the grain is pastured than when it is harvested as grain.g§/ There is no doubt that much could be done in the Up- per Peninsula to insure good all summer pasture. On the farms which are large enough to permit an adequate acre- age of rotation pasture, yields of pasture could gener- ally be greatly increased. On the smaller farms where there is at present an inadequate amount of rotation pasture, much could be done to increase hay yields so 27/ "Grasses and Legumes on Michigan Farms," p. 17. 28/ "Hay and Pasture Crops for Emergency Use," Michigan State College COOperative Extension Service, Ex- tension Folder F-151, May, 1950, p. 5. 97 that more rotation pasture could be utilized thus re- ducing feed costs. A great many of the dairymen could increase their yields of small grains to make room for good pasture. Yields of all crops could generally be greatly improved through the use of lime, fertilizer, and better rotation practices. Better yields will per- mit larger herds, and larger herds will permit larger incomes. Space in barns is already available for larger herds on a great many Upper Peninsula farms. In Area 1, 53 percent of the dairymen reported space available for at least 3 more cows; in Area 2, 59 Percent reported similarly; and in Area 3, 72 percent reported space avail- able for at least 3 more cows (Appendix E). That crop yields are an important factor in deter- mining 1abor incomes is shown in the Farm Business Anal- ysis of 1948 for type-of-farming areas 15, 16, and 17 The farms with the high labor incomes were also the farms with above average crop yields, and the farms with the low labor incomes were farms with below average crop yields.32/ Good quality hay is oftentimes very difficult to harvest in the Upper Peninsula even when good quality is grown. The frequency of rains at the time when the hay is at its best stage of maturity make field curing 29/ "Farm Business Analysis," Areas 15, 16, and 17, Michigan State College Cooperative Extension Ser- vice, May, 1949, p. 10. 98 very hazardous. As a consequence, a great deal of hay is harvested in July and some not until August. When the hay is cut at the proper stage of maturity the chances are great that the cuality will be reduced by rain. The answer to poor quality hay seems to lie at pres- ent in barn-dried hay and hay silage. Both systems have been used with notable success in the Upper Peninsulazlg/ The dilemma is in getting a large enough business to justify purchasing the expensive equipment needed to har- vest and cure forage in the above-mentioned ways. As would be expected, most of the dairymen put up their hay loose, with a rake and hay loader. Two of the dairymen raked the hay and cocked it immediately, which probably insured good quality but at a high labor cost. Many of those putting up their hay loose were un— satisfied, however, and had plans to change their method. Most of the unsatisfied ones in Areas 1 and 2 were think- ing in terms of a baler in the future. In Area 3 most were thinking in terms of a field chopper. Area 3 also had the highest number of dairymen already using balers and field choppers, 9 using a baler, and 9 using a field chopper. Several of these had the work custom hired, and one owned his chopper in partnership with a neighbor. 29/ "Seasonal Adaptation of Three Methods of Curing and Storing Grass and Legume Forage as Reflected in the Milk Production of Dairy Cows," Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan State College, Agricultural EXperiment Sta- tion, Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 231. 99 Table 23. Number of dairymen putting up hay by the three different methods, and number now using hay silage or intending to use hay silage. Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Number of farms . . . . . . . . 38 46 46 Number using loose hay . . . . 34 38 28 Percent satisfied . . . . . . . 44 58 46 Number using baled hay . . . . 3 6 9 Percent satisfied . . . . . . . 100 100 100 Number using field chopper . . l 2 9 Percent satisfied . . . . . . . 100 100 100 Number with hay drier . . . . . O 2 2 Number using grass silage . . . 1 O 2 Number wanting baler . . . . . 8 7 6 Number wanting field chopper . 4 3 8 Number wanting hay drier . . . 3 2 6 Number wanting to use hay silage 2 l 1 Number with field chopper who want drier . . . . . . . . . . O O 3 Number with silo . . . . . . . 2 4 36 Another, who intended using a chopper in the future, in- tended buying the equipment in partnership with two neigh- bors. This partnership buying was not contemplated by any of the dairymen in Areas 1 and 2, although it would seem to be one answer to the problem of high cost equip- ment, eSpecially in Area 2 where the farms are small. In Area 2, two of the men in this study owned field choppers, and these same two men had mow driers in their barns. They had farms of 89 and 150 tillable acres, with herds of 19 and 12 cows respectively. The one man in Area 1 who used chopped hay did not have a mow drier and did not contemplate the purchase of mow drying equipment. It is significant that all three of these dairymen were in the process of expanding their herds, each having a 100 large number of heifers over 1 year old. In Area 3, two of the nine men using chopped hay al- ready had drying equipment and three more intended in- stalling drying equipment. Of the 8 men who contemplated using chopped hay in the future, 3 also wanted the hay drying equipment. These two who already had chopping and drying equipment had herds of 17 and 24 cows. Those who used chopped hay but did not have the drying equipment had herds ranging from 8 to 32 cows, with most being above average in size of herd. All the dairymen who were presently using balers to put up their hay were apparently satisfied, and all those using field choppers were satisfied with their method. One of the reasons often stated for preferring baled hay was that it conserved space; another reason given was that baled hay was better if it was to be sold. A study made in Central Michigan in 1946 shows that, from a labor efficiency standpoint, baling hay was less efficient than either putting it up loose with a loader or buck rake or putting it up with a field chopper and blower.2£/ Another study made in South-Central Michigan in 1949 showed that the cost per ton of harvesting hay was greater with both 3-man and l-man balers than with either hay loader and slings or field chopper.23/ There are other factors to 21/ "Haymaking Job Analysis," B. R. Bookhout, Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXIX, No. 3, pp. 761-67. 32/ "Grasses and Legumes on Michigan Farms," p. 35. lOl consider besides labor efficiency per ton and cost per ton when choosing a method, however. The best method will depend also on other factors such as available la- bor supply, use to which the hay is to be put, alterna- tive uses for the expensive equipment, possibility of doing custom work, barn space, size of herd, and distance the hay must be hauled, among others. Very few dairymen were using grass silage at the time this study was made; one in Chippewa county made 60 tons of grass silage, and two men in Menominee made grass silage, one from oats. Also, very few indicated a desire to use grass silage. Probably a factor discouraging the use or contemplated use of grass silage is the lack of silos, particularly in Areas 1 and 2. In Area 3, 80 percent of the farms in this study had silos and were already feeding corn silage, whereas in Area 2 only 9 percent had silos, and in Area 1 only A percent had silos. It is evident that those dairymen in Areas 1 and 2, before they can put up grass silage, will first have to have silos. That fact may have influenced their decisions to not want to use grass silage in the future. In Area 3 the lack of preference for hay silage was very likely due to the present general use of corn silage. It is ironical that the area best equipped already to use impnoved meth- ods of forage production is the area with the least need for the better methods. Good vuality forage can reduce the amount of con- 102 centrates needed in the dairy ration a great deal. In order to get good quality forage in the Upper Peninsula it is believed that these impnaved methods are going to have to be utilized. The dairymen who first proceed to adOpt them will be the ones to get the most advantage from the reduced costs gained from their use. The initial cost is a prohibiting factor for most of those who want to use the improved methods. Expanding the size of busi- ness would seem to be the best way to make this initial cost less prohibitive. Also, it is believed that more dairymen should explore the possibilities of purchasing some of the eXpensive equipment in partnership with others, even though partnerships sometimes lead to trouble. With complete understanding of the difficulties which might be encountered in such partnerships, there is no reason why two or three operators cannot own expensive machinery jointly and make the arrangement work. It is being done successfully in many places at present. 103 CHAPTER XI BREEDING METHODS CURRENTLY USED IN THE UPPER PENINSULA Table 24 shows the methods of breeding used in the three areas. No attempt was made to determine differences in income resulting from the different breeding methods. Positive effects of a good breeding program requires a number of years. Since no information was acquired on past breeding practices, it was not thought desirable to make tabulations showing financial results of breeding practices. It can readily be seen that in Area 1, a larger per- centage of dairymen were still using grade bulls for breeding than was true in the other areas. One-fourth of those using grade bulls were using young bulls loaned by cattle buyers, the rent being the feed and care given the animal. That is a particularly bad practice from a breeding standpoint. Also, of the 53 percent using arti- ficial breeding in Area 1, almost half had used it less than one year. Any good effects of the artif'cial breed- ing in area 1 would probably not have been noticeable at the time the survey was made in June, 1949. It is sig- nificant that in Area 3, where the breeding program ap- pears to have been the best, production per cow was also the highest of any of the three areas (Table 5). In Area 1, where the breeding program appears to have been the Table 24. Tabulation of breeding methods. 104 1%, Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Number of farms I 38 46 46 Number in Ar- tificial Breed- ing Association 20 29 28 9 used A.B. 12 used A.B. 6 used A.B. less than less than 1 less than 1 year year 1 year ’Number using purebred bull 10 l5 l4 3 used A.B. 3 used A.B. 1 used A.B. concurrently concurrently concurrently 3 rent ed from rental service 1 rented from rental service Number using grade bull 12 1 used A.B. concurrently I rented from neighbor 3 rented from a cattle buyer 7 2 used A.B. concurrently 5 l rented from neighbor least adequate, production per cow was the lowest. 105 CHAPTERIXII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS It is obvious that there are many independent fac- tors which affect net returns from the dairy herd. Among them are the noticeable ones like size of herd, market outlet, producing ability of cows, and size of fann. Then there are some less obvious ones like relationship between milk prices and feed prices, number of youngstock kept, crop yields, quality of forage produced, feeding practices, care of cows and youngstock, amount of family labor available, availability of capital for new equip- ment and improvements, quantity and quality of summer pas- ture, percentage of cows freshening in the fall months, labor efficrancy, and extent of use of manure and commer- cial fertilizer. There are undoubtedly other factors. Some of the last-named factors are not direct in their in- fluence on net returns, but affect returns indirectly. For example, the use of fertilizer has no direct bearing on production per cow, but it does permit higher yields of feed crops and thus has a bearing on the size of herd that can be carried. Labor efficiency influences net re- turns inva similar way, that is, through the number of cows that can be cared for with the existing labor supply. some of these factors have been examined in the fore- going analysis. Others were outside the province of the - study. The exact order of importance of the above factors 106 could not be determined by the statistical method used by the writer. However, an examination of the data showed that of all the factors the two most important in their effect on net income were size of enterprise and produc- tion per cow. On a per cow basis the operators of large herds were not conclusively shown to be more efficient than the operators of small herds. Table 12 shows this. In Area 2, the small herds produced more in labor and manage- ment return per cow than did the large herds. In Area 1 the large herds had a larger return per cow primarily be- cause of their large prig§_advantage for.milk sold. In Area 3 there was very little difference on a per cow basis between large herds and the small herds in labor and man- agement return. Size of farm was found to be an tnportant factor influencing size of herd in all areas, although the correlation was not perfect. Total gross income per man was found to be consider- ably higher on large farms than on small farms, indicating greater efficiency of labor on large farms. In all areas the operators of large farms were more liberal in feeding concentrates to their cows than were the operators of small farms. Also, less feed was purchased per cow on the large farms compared to the small farms in Area 2. In Area 2 the average number of cows declined during the last half of the year on the small one-third of the farms reflecting the shortage of feed following the pasture sea- son. The larger farms apparently were able to withstand the situation. 107 When size of herd was kept constant, the operators of the small one-third of the farms seemed to be more ef- ficient producers than the operators of the large one- third of the farms (Table 13). Of course, other farm and off-farm income was greater on the large farms than on the small farms, but on a per man basis, total gross in- come was practically equal on small farms and on large farms in all areas when size of herd was kept constant. Small farms, if organized intensively and operated effi- ciently, can be made as productive of gross income per man as large farms organized extensively. In labor efficiency, the operators of large herds were found to far excel the Operators of small herds. It is difficult to know whether one of the reasons they had large herds was their superior labor efficiency or whether they had high labor efficiency because their herds were large. There is probably a little bit of both in- volved. It is evident that where labor is a scarce fac- tor high labor efficiency will permit a larger herd than low labor efficiency, and thus will permit of a greater net income. Table 16 shows that production per cow was of very great importance in determining labor and management re- turn from the herd. In each area the one-third of the herds with the highest production per cow had much greater net returns per cow and per herd than the lowest one-third of the herds. Part of the high production was achieved 108 by heavier feeding, and certain cases were cited where high production was achieved at a great sacrifice in net returns shnply by overfeeding concentrates. It is safe to say, however, that as a general rule the cows with high production were cows of high inherent productivity. They would have outproduced the low producing cows even if fed the same rations. It was found that the operators of high producing herds were slightly more likely to have their barns equipped with drinking cups, that more of their herds were D.H.I.A. tested, and that a higher proportion of them had milkhouses than was true of the operators of the low producing herds. Market outlet was found to be a potent factor affect- ing rates of feeding. In all areas those dairymen with the best market fed considerably larger amounts of concen- trates, on the average, than did those dairymen with a lower class market (Table 19). There was some evidence to support the belief that in some instances the mere pos- session of a fluid outlet induced feeding concentrates at high levels although the price differential did not war- rant it. In Area 2, those dairymen with a fluid market averaged less net return per cow and per herd than those with a cheese market. This was due mostly to low aver- age production per cow in the herds producing for the fluid market. Size of farm and the availability of home-grown feed also affected rates of feeding. Table 14 shows that the 109 operators of the largest farms in each area fed their cows from 300 to 400 pounds more concentrates per cow than the Operators of the small farms fed their cows. In Area 1 this heavier feeding by the large-farm opera- tors was partly justified by their good market. Those dairymen who fed the largest amounts of con- centrates to their cows were not proven to have the great- est returns. The impossibility of keeping inherent pro- ductivity in the various groups constant makes the evalua- tion of the data very difficult, however, and one cannot make any hard and fast rules as to the correct rate of feeding based on this study. The results do show that many dairymen fed more grain and grain supplement than was economical, assuming they had adequate amounts of forage. The results also show that in Area 2, where price received for milk was lower than in the other two areas, the most profitable level of feeding concentrates was at a lower level than in the other two areas. This gives credence to the argument that when feed costs are high relative to milk prices less feed should be fed. It is very difficult to judge feeding practices in an abnormally dry year. Dairymen react differently to the prospect of a poor hay crop. Some will purchase hay or grain or both to make up for their short supply of home-grown hay, others will deliberately underfeed, and others will reduce the size of their herds. In talks with Upper Peninsula agriculturists the writer found that in 110 the summer of 1948 and in the following fall and winter it was very hard to find hay to buy. Assuming this to be true it is understandable that some dairymen would seem to have been overfeeding concentrates even when they were not,given the supply of forage available to them. The writer considers it very unfortunate that the year chosen for this study happened to be an extremely dry year. It is also unfortunate that no information.was ob- tained on quality and feeding value of hay fed, or on quality and carrying capacity of summer pasture. There was found to be a close relationship between the extent of fall-freshening in the herd and net returns. Those herds with the highest percentage of fall-freshen- ing cows had the highest labor and management returns per cow. It cannot be claimed that this was due to a higher average price for milk sold, however, because milk prices fell gradually from July 1948 to the end of the study in April 1949, except to the fluid producers in Area 1. The year chosen for the study was extraordinary in this re- spect also. Ordinarily, milk and butterfat prices rise during the latter part of the year, and decline during the spring months to a low in June. In view of this it must be assumed that those dairymen with the highest proportion of fall-freshening cows must also have been higher in other important efficiency factors than those with the lowest proportion of fall-freshening cows. Those dairymen using fertilizer in their rotations 111 were found to have much higher average net returns per cow than those not using fertilizer. The writer believes it is reasonable to assume that those dairymen on small acreage farms could effectively increase their size of business and thereby their net returns simply by using fertilizer as recommended by the Michigan State College Department of Soil Science. A defect of this study is that a past record of fertilization was not obtained. It is probable that, even on many of those farms where fer- tilizer was reported used, recommended tuantities and kinds were not used. Much of the fertilizer used was phosphate which was paid for partly by the government as part of the soil conservation program. Very little renovation of permanent pasture has been accmnplished in the Upper Peninsula. Also, very few dairy- men use commercial fertilizer or manure on their wild, permanent pasture. It seems evident to the writer that on the small dairy farms of the Upper Peninsula much could be done to improve the pasture yields of permanent pasture. There is a large acreage of cleared land in the Upper Pen- insula which has grown up to wild pasture grasses which could be easily renovated and made productive of higher pasture yields. In Area 2 where the tillable acreage of the dairy farms in this study averaged 83, 57 percent of the farmers relied on wild pasture and second crop hay for pasture 112 entirely, and 40 percent of this number depended entirely on wild pasture. In Area 3, 35 percent of the dairymen depended entirely on wild pasture and a combination of wild pasture and second crop hay pasture. In a dry season the amount of pasture offered by the second cr0p of hay is small unless it is pastured dangerously late in the fall. Neither wild pasture nor second crop hay pasture offer pasture when it is needed the most, in late July and August. Very little use was made of emergency pasture and hay crops like cats, barley, and rye in the Upper Penin- sula. Extension Service advisers are presently encour- aging farmers to grow Balbo rye in the Upper Peninsula for pasture in June and July. Crops like these can in- crease the total productivity of a farm and thus permit an increase in size of herd, providing adequate use is made of commercial fertilizer. Answers to the problem of poor quality hay in the Upper Peninsula seem to lie, at present, in the extended use of hay silage and mow driers. In June 1949, more of the dairymen in the sample were thinking in terms of hay balers than were thinking in terms of field choppers for future use, except in Area 3. ikewise, very few appeared interested in hay-drying equipment or in the use of hay silage. Prime deterrents were of course the high cost of equipment and the absence of silos in Areas 1 and 2. Lack of barn space has been cited as a reason why 113 farmers do not expand their herds. As shown in Appendix E availability of additional barn space was not the limit- ing factor on most of the dairy farms in this study. Improving the inheritance and producing ability of a herd can increase net returns as effectively as in- creasing the size of herd. It is a slow process, how- ever. Fifty-nine percent of the dairymen in this study were members of an Artificial Breeding Association. A considerable number kept purebred bulls because they thought it cheaper or better than using artificial breed- ing. The writer believes that a majority of Upper Penin- sula dairymen are cognizant of the importance of good breeding. However, between 27 percent in Area 1 and 11 percent in Area 3 of the dairymen in this study were still using grade bulls. Much still remains to be done in edu— cating farmers as to the need for good breeding, particu- larly in Area 1. Farming conditions are admittedly more difficult in the Upper Peninsula than elsewhere in the state, chiefly because of the short growing season. Dairying is the most important single source of farm income in most of the Up- per Peninsula, and hay crops are the most important crops from an acreage standpoint in the Upper Peninsula. It seems logical, then, that a great deal of attention should be paid to improving hay yields and hay huality, both of which are far below what is possible of achievement with present techniques. The crop varieties and the techniques 114 are known which could vastly improve hay yields and hay quality. It is an old economic doctrine that says with any new INNOVATION, after it is proven and found sound, the first farmers to adopt it will benefit from the re- duced costs; later on, as more and more adopt it, prices will fall and this advantage will be nullified. It is the "early bird," the first to adopt the new technique, who benefits the most from it. Dairymen in the Upper Peninsula must compete for markets with dairymen in Wisconsin and the lower penin- sula of Michigan. It appears to the writer that in or- der to continue competing with these other areas and at the same time, maintain and improve their living standards, Upper Peninsula dairymen are going to have to lower their unit costs, and to do this they are going to have to adopt the best methods known to exist. 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bachtell, M. A., Willard, C. J. and Livezey, W. 1946 Dairy Farming Based on the Liberal Use of Mea- dow Crops, Bulletin 662, Ohio Agricultural Ex- periment Station. Bierly, Ivan R. 1944 Factors That Affect Costs and Returns in Pro- ducihg Kilk, Bulletin 80h, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, New York. B%wr,L.L. l9h9 Seasonal Price Changes of Major Michigan Farm Products, Special Bulletin 355} MiChigan Agrl- cultural EXperiment Station, East Lansing, Mich- igan. Bookhout, B. R. 1947 "Haymaking Job Analysis," Journal of Farm Eco- nomics, Vol. XXIX, No. 3, pp. 761-67. Burcalow, F. V., Graber, L. F. and Ahlgren, H. L. 1947 Wisconsin Needs Better Pastures, Circular 373, University of’Wisconsin ExtenEIOn Service. Cook, R. L. and Millar, C. E. lth Fertilizers for Legumes, Special Bulletin 328, MiChigan Agricultural'Experiment Station, East Lansing,jMichigan. Crim, Ralph F. and Burson, Paul M. 19h5 Well-Managed Pastures, Extension Bulletin 241, Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service, St. Paul 1 , Minnesota . Doneth, J., Elwood, E., Carter, E. and Vincent, W. 19h9 Farm Business Analysis,_Areas 15, 16, and 17, A. E. L69, Michigan State College Cooperative Extension Service, 16 pp. Hill, E. 8., Harrison, C. M. and Hays, J. G. 1950 Grasses and Legumes on Michigan Farms, Circular Bulletin 217, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan. Hcglund, C. R. and Wright, K. T. 1950 Cost Reduction Opportunities in Dairying in Southeastern Michigan, unpublished progress re- port, B.A.E., U.S.D.A. in cooperation with the Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan 116 Hoglund, C. R., wright K. T. and Elwood, E. M. l9h9 Dairy Costs and Returns in Upper Peninsula of Michigan, A. E. Bulletin 455. Michigan State College, Department of Agricultural Economics, and Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. Hoglund, C. R. and Christian, R. W. 1950 "How Can Upper Peninsula Dairymen Reduce Costs?" Qparterly Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. A, pp. 598-605, Mithigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East lensing, Michigan. Jensen, Einar, et. a1. 1942 Input-Output Relationships in Milk Production, Technical Bulletin 815, United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. Lutz, W. B. and Wolcott, A. R. 1950 "Seasonal Adaptation of Three Methods of Curing and Storing Grass and Legume Forage as Reflected in the Milk Production of Dairy Cows," Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 231- 39, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Department of Economic Development l9h9 Employment Patterns of Michigan's Upper Penin- sula, A pp., Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State College 19A8 Michigan Farm Economics,Department of Agricultural Economics in cooperation with U.S.D.A. Extension Service, May, 19h8. Michigan State College Cooperative Extension Service 1950 Bay and Pasture Crops for Emergency Use, Exten- sion Folder Felsl, Farm Crops Department. Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission 1950 Labor Market Letter, A pp, Lansing, Michigan, May,‘1950. Nodland, T. R. and Pond, G. A. l9hh Managing the Dairy Herd for Greater Returns, ' Bulletin 378, Minnesota AgriculturallEXperiment Station, St. Paul 1, Minnesota. Tyson, James 1948 Soil Management in the Upper Peninsula of Mich- igan, Special Bulletin 345, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan. 117 U. S. Dept. of Agriculture l9h5 Crop Report for Michigan, Annual Crop and Live- l9h7 stock Summary, Bureau 6? Agricultural Economics, l9h8 WaShington, D. C. in cooperation with Michigan 1949 Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural 1950 Industry, Lansing, Michigan. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture 1950 Agricultural Statistics, 19h9, U. S. Government Printing Office, WaShington, D. C. U. S. Dept. of Commerce 19A2 Sixteenth Census of the United States, Bureau oflthe Census, U1 S.‘Governmenthrihting Office, Washington, D. C. U. S. Dept. of Commerce 1946 United states Census of Agriculture, 1945,_Mich- igan, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Wilt, H. S. 1950 Greener Pastures Contest, mimeographed publica- tion, 8 pp., Michigan State College, Department of Agricultural Economics and Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 118 , .Omoa .4N nonempmow mo mmonm comm paoapom map ca mmmnm uopwaoommw on» an cmpnomon mm padoo hnmaaaaamam *** .mdeoo map Ho smmnsm .monosaoo Mo pamapummom .m .D .nwwanoas .OJQH no mamaoo .m .D ** .msmqmo on» no damnam .oonmasoo «o .pme 4%D ..QOH2 .mama .mndpasoanw4 no mdmnoo .m .D * «.5 - sos.oom 4am.mmm mao.soa 5:5.mem sm4.4mm.a ma~.ma amm.oa adamaaqmm . Momma dance m.ma - mam.o~ sms.am oas.ma Hao.ma mms.¢a was mas oanmmoa m.a - mam.oa mmm.aa mms.mm o~0.0m oom.ooa Mao.a mam mommaoaqo m.ma - mmo.na ma~.om sm¢.sa moa.mm sss.mw mmo was aonH n.4H . aao.m «mm.o mma.oa mas.om cam.oo «me man magnum o.aa - mum.om Hmo.as maa.oa Hmo.mo sem.mma amm.a one nopamsom m.sm . Hoa.m 400.4 «mo.a omm.a moo.o mm mam saamosmg N.H + mma.mm nmm.a~ mam.ao moo.so HmH.00m aao.m coo moaaaoqms m.eH - omo.4~ Hms.mm mam.sa mom.om smo.aw mam ems acmeagoan a. + ma¢.sa asa.ae soa.ma Haa.mm mmo.sa com msa.a oppoaeums o.m - mms.mm smo.am asa.ms sam.ao and.mom maa.a was magma m.m - mam.m soa.oa mam.ma Hoe.oa mam.am Nam 4mm wowaa 4.: . moa.o 4mm.a mma.oa mam.oa omm.o¢ was sou pawnoaoonom m.a + moa.m mma.s Hom.s mam.ma www.mm mom mam mesa a.m . maa.o mm4.o oa«.oa moa.mm Haw.mm was was engages: H.4 + omm.m~ som.sm mem.mm mme.mHa mam.waa m¢¢.a ago.a «soaaaao 0.0m + eaa.mom.o ooa.omm.m aHH.me.¢ mmo.mom.aa www.mam.ma www.msa ems.em damaged: Locos f mmHow mmhow owawno .lflhflomma **o¢oa ondpmmm monoa mono manna mans“ no moan pdoonom qoapwasmom was has ca nonadz dawn ad cued memos mono A *.m¢ma ma Awadmnaamm Hommm on» qH huqsoo Hm «weapwaammm‘unm .manwn no Hop nasq .onspmmm and San :H monom mono .mmnow nose .msnmu ma enwa .wmnm unwa no doupwadnwa .H magma ¢ MHQZHmm< 119 .msmaoo map mo swmasm .moaoaaou mo pcoapnmmom .m .D .qmmHQOHE .m4ma .onspHBOHmwd mo msmcoo .m .D * m.om p.40 m.4H H.om go on m mama m.mo n.0m m.H m.m 45 on m wopg m.o4 o.ws m.m a.s 00 as H mesa o.m4 5.44 m.oa H4 m4 sewaaoaa monow canwaafip mauwm mo mmaow mammaafip magma go no peoonm paoonmm Mo pqmoamm pcmonom mamamm wdma *msmaoo m4ma 1.! Hamelmmwlamol l.l I l.l I medlnmwlnmvldMHmMfldl I.lawsmwmmldmdlhmnldm.muMH llllll hmpoafip was Hm>oao manwaaap mo mwwpdoonom .nowo CH memos mammaafip mo owdpcoothIanp cum .mwn Hog .Snpoeap was Ho>oao was .mhawwam deBOHw madmuHQom swamp map go mamas moanp ma mans“ no omwpcmonmm .N oanwa 120 Table 3. Tabulation of number of farms, average size of farm, and per- centage of tillable acres in hay and pasture, by area. Average ac- Tillable reage per acres per Alfalfa and ______ Mpmber_o£ farms _ fagm _‘_ __fa£m grass mixture* 1945* 1940* 1945* 1940* 1943‘“ “N5. ______ 1945* sample farms Acres Michigan 175,268 187,589 104.9 96.2 64.0 ---- 72,007 1,179,987 Area 1 Chippewa 1,445 1,584 137.4 127.1 82.1 ---- 80 1,043 Luce 297 189 113.4 131.7 41.3 ---- 32 715 Mackinac 448 511 120.2 112.1 56.7 ---- 57 1,617 Total 2,190 2,284 131.0 124.0 71.4 151.0 169 2,375 Area 2 Baraga 692 850 87.2 69.0 30.0 ---- 22 176 Houghton 1,554 1,644 100.1 85.0 41.9 ---- 26 262 Ontonagon 1,013 1,239 107.9 81.8 38.5 ---- 61 1,106 Total 3,259 3,733 100.0 80.0 38.3 83.0 109 1,544 Area 3 Delta 1,472 1,426 139.4 111.8 43.6 —--— 240 3,343 Dickinson 593 623 138.2 98.1 35.4 ---- 297 5,941 Menominee 2,049 2,002 146.5 126.5 47.4 ---- 949 16,863 Total 4,114 4,051 143.0 117.0 44.3 102.0 1,486 26,147 Tillable Clover and Tillable acres in hay timothy* pasture** and pasture* ______ ““““““ N8 ""‘ “‘ ““‘“ "" “%“or'* '" %‘bf farms Acres Acres T A. Acres T.A. Michigan 78,327 1,342,226 1,785 16 4,813,114 43 Area 1 Chippewa 1,195 55,705 24,594 -- 83,502 -- Luce 167 3,502 3,040 -- 7,861 -- Mackinac 360 14,121 3,090 -- 19,510 -- Total 1,722 73,328 30,724 20 110,873 71 Area 2 Baraga 637 14,285 1,768 -- 16,459 -- Houghton 1,360 36,333 5,197 -- 46,118 -- Ontonagon 928 27,389 3,796 -- 32,722 -— Total 2,925 78,007 10,761 9 95,299 76 Area 3 Delta 1,181 28,018 11,830 -- 45,177 -- Dickinson 278 4,550 1,851 -- 14,545 —- Menominee 1,201 22,765 14,415 -- 67,393 '- Total 2,660 55,333 28,096 15 127,115 70 * U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1945, Michigan, U. S. Bureau of the Census. ** Land plowed sometime during the last seven years. merce, Department of Com- u I a c . o n o a - 0 Q o n a o I u u u o . I ._ .j‘lll.’l4r|¢fl|il,li .rt, a 121 .qwm4no42 .md4mqw4 .oo4bamw 0d4paom nom @040 mumpmu4maowom .0004 .0404 .0404 .5408300 400pm0>44 flaw moao 4mscdw ”:004QO4E How paommm mono :1 .qsoo 00000: was .00040 450 .00044m .04040 How uaoo mmas4qu l 0.mm 5.40 0.40 5.0m N.mm n.4m 0.44 0.0m 4.0m m.mm 4.4m n.0m 5m.4 50.4 mm.4 omwao>a 0.4m 5.4m 0.4m 0.4m 0.mm 0.0m 0.04 m.©4 0.mm 0.0m 0.50 5.04 50.4 00.4 04.4 omQHanmg 0.00 0.mw 0.0m 0.0m 0.0m m.4m 0.00 4.4m 0.0m 0.00 0.mm m.0m NN.4 m5. 5m.4 domc4404m 0.0m 5.40 0.40 0.0m 0.0m 4.0m 0.m4 0.04 0.00 0.mm 0.00 0.mm mm.4 44.4 0m.4 wM4oQ 0044 m.m4 0.04 0.m4 0.4m 0.4m 0.00 5.5m 0.5m 0.0m 0.00 4.0m 0.0m 40.4 N5. m4.4 ommho>4 4.04 0.04 0.44 0.54 0.54 m.54 0.00 0.00 0.0m 0.40 0.00 0.40 00. 05. 04.4 ComeOpao 5.04 0.04 0.04 0.40 0.mm 0.0m 0.mm 0.mm 5.04 0.4m 0.4m .m.om mm. 05. 54.4 nopswdom 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.40 4.40 0.40 0.00 0.0m 0.50 0.50 0.5m 4.0m 04.4 05. 54.4 000400 a m 0044 0.04 0.54 4.m4 0.40 0.40 5.40 0.00 0.0m 0.4m n.0m 0.0m m.5m mm. 45. 00. mwmam>w m.04 5.04 0.04 0.0m o.mm 0.5m 0.00 5.00 5.00 0.0m 0.0m 0.0m No.4 05. no.4 00044002 0.44 5.44 0.04 0.04 0.04 m.04 0.mm m.mm 4.00 0.40 0.mm 4.0m No.4 00. 40.4 00:4 m.m4 0.04 0.m4 0.00 0.4m 0.00 0.00 N.Nm 0.0m 0.0m 0.0m 4.5m 00. 05. m0. wsomm4n0 4 0044 0.5m 0.0m 0.0m 0.0m 0.mm 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.5m 0.0m 0.0m 0.mm mm.4 5m.4 Nm.4 c0042044 0.54 4.04 5.54 0.0m 0.0m 4.0m m.04 5.0m 4.4m 0.mm 0.4m 0.mm 4.4 00. 04.4 045mc4qmm Hogan 4.444 34.4 4.44.4 4.44.4 4364 4.4464 4.4464 @4464 4.4464 0404 04215421048410.4041304 ............ I I mumaIMMQImwamwmnl I.I.mamalnmw lllll *Hmmom.m6m I.I.mwoalammlw4onmmn muow pom mmop I. 1.1 :4 #0023 409:43 m4ondn a4 504409 mo 0040mm omamo>d mo m04m4h ommao>w 40 m04m45 mwmaobd m4onmsn :4 shoe Q4 0400 no m04m4> 0004m>4 a4 sea 446 4o memmz owwnmbw m NHQmem< *.m4on3 0 mm :0045042 40% m04045 @040 mp4; 045mu4com 409mb 024 G4 m04o4NImoao 0o com4nwmaoo .4 o4p_m A PPEN DIX C Table 1. Tabulation of average prices of concentrates, silage, and hay in the Upper Peninsula by area, for 1948 sur- vey sample. Area 1 Area 2 Area 3‘ Total pounds concentrates fed 846,949 1,189,566 1,774,658 Total value of concentrates . , fed . . . . . . . . . . . . $26,254 $41,179 $58,383 Average price per cwt. conc. $3.10 $3.40 33.30 Average price per cwt. milk .34fid 3.5% $4.06 4.2% $3.79 3.7% Ratio of price of concen- trates to the price of milk .77 .84 .87 Total pounds of hay fed . . .2,658,372 3,197,715 3,549,938 Total value of hay fed . . . $28,363 $39,512 $45,783 Average price of hay per ton $22 $24 $26 APPENDIX B Table 1. Cost of feed nutrients derived from various feeds.* Crop Yield TDN Cost per 100 ‘ per acre pounds lbs. 0f TDN tons Pastured ” Kentucky bluegrass . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1,469 8 .45 Sweet clover . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 2,448 .31 Alfalfa and bromegrass . . . . . . . . 2.3 2,815 .29 Harvested bushels Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2,212 .78 oats o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 50 1,].LI-I-L 1.38 Corn silage (tons) . . . . . . . . . . 8 2,784 .79 Alfalfa hay (tons) . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2,515 .64 APPENDIX E Table 1. Availability of space for more cows. Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 No data on 7 No data on 5 No data on out of the of the 46 1 of the 38 farms farms 46 farms Percent of farms with space for at least 3 more cows 64 65 72 Percent of farms with space for at least 5 more cows 55 54 50 Percent of farms with space for at least 8 more cows 26 34 33 * "Well Managed Pastures," University of Minnesota Extension Bulle— tin 241, April 1945. APPENDIX F 123 Use of rye, oats, and for hay, pasture, and silage on 130 farms in the Upper Peninsula in 1948. No. No. using rye No. using oats No. using No. using Table 1. farms for pasture for pasture oats for oats for hay silage Area 1 38 0 0 0 0 Area 2 46 0 2 3 0 Area 3 46 2 l 3 1 APPENDIX G Table 1. Summary of herd improvement_practices by area. Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Member of A.B.A. . . . . . . . . 55% 63% 63% Member of D.H.I.A. . . . . . . . 8 54 59 Never in D.H.I.A. . . . . . . . 92 36 39 Purebred herds . . . . . . . . . 8 11 20 High grade herds . . . . . . . . 37 52 74 APPENDIX H Table 1. Value of dairy products sold as percentage of all farm ,products sold in 1945 and 1940 compared to 1948 sample. Percent dairy sales Value all Value dairy of total farm _______ f 2.119 £3192 _ _ -523-ES- _. _ ._ _ __ £3192 _ _ __ _ _ _ ‘ 1948 1945* 1945* 1945 1940 samnle Michigan $366,270,712 $121,700,688 33.2 29.0 ---- Area 1 Chippewa 1,663,663 477,718 28.7 28.0 ---- Luce 419,439 101,345 24.2 33.3 ---- Mackinac 451,300 205,653 45.6 44.9 -—-- Total 2,534,402 784,716 31.0 31.4 73.4 Area 2 Baraga 811,428 590,495 72.8 65.0 ---- Houghton 2,563,929 1,487,466 58.0 56.1 ---- Ontonagon 1,157,613 769,970 66.5 55.6 ---- Total 4,532,970 2,847,931 62.8 57.4 76.4 Area 3 Delta 2,494,074 1,076,146 43.1 48-2 ---- Dickinson 964,807 550,392 57.0 61.7 -—-- Menominee 3,812,419 2,247,763 59.0 53.4 ---- Total 7,271,300 3,874,301 53.3 52.6 76.4 * U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1945, Michigan, U. S. Department Bureau of the Census. of Commerce, 124 mwn x uranium ms mar momma: mm. or (mm mm, m no: 2110000139 0053 (7000 lbs. or 3.5 x 0.11: at ratio at amino (.6 to an: produced at 1 c 4). m ma atom momczm can '10,000 1b.. a: 3.5% m1! at 1 a 4 ratio) 0 156113 a of zoo Ibo. I113) W33 .30 bot-Imam ? 3 00;”. J "$3” lotto at Moon 01' c 0&1“! 1h- 1000 ""1000"— W— W Gala consumption in peer“ u out Reduction Opportunities in Dairying in Swamwtcm E01135“ . ambushed postu- report by C. !. 3091:1216 and x. 1. Wright. Bum: fl Agricultural Boonuion of the U. 8. D. A. in cooperation 1:11:11 flu Antenna-t1 Economics: Dop'tu nougan State College, Iv 1950 Hichigan.8tate College Name 4- .. {Kilt-1J1; l Farm.Management Department DAIRY COSTS AND RETURNS For Mbnth of Number of cows at first of month COSTS Cattle Bogght Address Date Description A e Cows h vvvvvvvvv II ........ .omImoInnummuuuu- --: - ""|llllll|'|l'l .‘II-nihll oooooo =uuul nnnnnn OIIIIIII ----------------------- I IIIIIIIIIIII .-u unnol In run-”v9 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn I ,,,,, IIIIIII ............ l I‘llllIHIH-fi ‘."“‘ ‘ SO"'|III'IOIMI -| u. u“: n .I n IIIIIIIIIII h. .u 0H.H-II III-IIIIIIIIIHIII ................ IJ qunulnnuhluuun..n..-.. nun-IIIII-Iu- Iuluuuulu ||| IIID' l -' II'iUIIU'I llllllllllllll II lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII HI .................... l -- Heifers freshen. , ................... .u~-.In..qu-:. uuuuuuuuuu . ........... nIuII1I|:~.a . ........ In filo} l IIIII ’I ----- I ------- Feed Bopght for Cattle at end of month RETURNS County l". ‘I 5 J. 11h acts-412,5 Cattle Sold and Butchered 1 Date TV Description No. Age Receipt . .. CIQIWS m u I m uh uh . o I I . non-In . «mun-un- fin"... gluu Iauluunnn-n- “XngS-tock.umunmnmun-«umI ..... nu ma n Iu-c I ~ I - I ~ I I II bud IHIIIIIHInIIuIIIIIIIHHHIIIII-H:HI'HHIIIIII-HH II'vII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 IIIIIJHHHI'IIIH ....... 4 I III I I "I ‘lfimsl;‘llI.I."Cl'.II.I.I"""..'.‘I"'9' ||| |||| IOIII'I llllll U'I'IIIHI IIIIII CHIN IIIII I lllllllll B fees rec'd. ................. “Calfmvaluematmfidarmmmnwmmmwwmmmmmmm ‘Dairy Products Sold and Used te Kind Amount Cost 1138- N Da. Date Product Lbs. Test at. $ B.F. _Rece1pt IIIII I'IOHIHIHI IIIIIHHIHHHII.I.InIIuIHIIIII‘.Iv-u-I'oI-HI'HH IIIIIINIH-IIIIII'IIIIoH-I I "'1'“ U I ‘4 A I I H II II IIIIIIIIII I nnnnnnnn I IIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII p uuuuuuuuuuu III-I ----------------------- I uuuuuuuuuuuu . Milk 801 H $ " ‘ l I! I! I I I!" ‘ ' 0 HH' ................... I ..... .p ...................... n u II-HI'iHH'NHI'HNHHHHIIHHIHIIHHHNIHHIIHIIHIHIIIH Lul llllllll In III-n aaaaaa HHHOTIOH tttttttttttttt I IIIIII I O'HIHMIII'I II 5 I I I II“ I I I I In!!! I u uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu I-O-IHIHIIIIIIH OIM‘iIMIIIIuISe‘ qu I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII llllllllllllll \ HI I IIIII I Inn IcIIIquuHII-Inn-I -.- ”nu-H. III" ..... “mum-mun InMclHlkuIngne-udnu-III-.innuuu-u. nun-nun“. .uInnI-Iunmn nu u uln-I-unn- u- ......,,.....,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, u..... .......................... fi IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NIIIHI'UIIIHII llllll IIIHH IIIIII I-I vvvvvvvv I lllllll MIMI IIIIIII ”hung...“ IIIIII ulnuun, ........................... 4.... ......................................... l ---------------- 0 nu- ! ------------- HI IIIIIIIIII III -------- I CtlrtlelmIH§Q£Lulli I! II. ”nun-INN! """""""" I ''''' l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III .................................................................. In ”Inn-.uuuuu. .u... .uuuuunnmun-nun: II III-”Hunt.-Iuvgnh-Ielnalmfifi HHIHIHHIIIIIH ‘IHINHHIIH [III-HIIIHHIIIIII iII~H¢HIIIIIIIIIHIIIII'H """""" IIIHH uxmuuvu I nuuuuuuvu-.ou-un-u-uu-n.nu In I II "|III.O|IIIIIIII-Ill' In. I ”I. I I ISkMIImn‘KIIIHHHIIHHIIIH-IIIIIHNIIHII IIu-qunlunnn tu-IIH'HH-II an” no: Miscellaneous Expenses on Catt1e* Date Item QQLWF Bulls Pen. Ilse '''''' HI'III-Un y'niunu-U-nn-ulInqu-I-I-,uuuu-nu nu-uuuIII,”nun-unnu-uII-III-III IIIIIIIIIHIIIIHu-Iqunu-IIIIu-a-I'luuluInIIrFIsuuiIHHHIIIHIl-Ivouq I.I--‘-Illll-nnluv out: It Hill! I“! I I II IIl|'-HH--u-n-IHH N ‘‘‘‘ I ---------- .....- --------------- . ------- vllhu .............. . -------------- IlquInnn‘onu-o nnnnnn I uuuuuuuu l uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu l uuuuuuuuuuu nzun-Iund IIIIIIIIIIII qunul IIIIII ,4 IIIIII Inn“ IIIIIIIII I-uuu: ............................ ;'IIIIII‘I"'|'>‘|I --------- * Enter veterinary, breeding fees, testing dues, equipment repairs and supplies, and other items a may be such that‘g ainst cows, bulls, or youngstock insofar as possible. hey cannot be diV1ded, enter those in "General ”no" vuvv column Some items FEED FED DAIRY CATTLE (Both home-grown and purchased used in month) Average Cows 10 stock Bulls Kind price . E “ Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value "Igholuuxglnnuuu.n.,..u4,. ”I "tn-.IIunnuuuulLIuInI IlorIIIIIIIIIuI'IJImpIIuth-IhuIIII'III.unallIIIIIJ IIInuhclunuhnlbMuunuun ;-,, ': ' , qHunhunnuglhvuug."unnouuuunulqua-III! II-QfiltanuunnnlunIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIIHIIIIIInqu III-HI HIIIIIIIIHI"IIIIIIIIIIH‘I-IIIHIIHIII|IHIII!‘.: "‘ ' “ ' ".‘ .‘ :: ::'-.:::-“ ' :: ‘ ‘ ‘ “.‘: ' :.:‘ : ‘HIII ‘ ‘ f“ ‘ - -.g. ” ‘: III.ICQlIOlHHIIHIOINII“G IIIIII H ‘ Bax-ley‘fl‘n‘“'""h'" ”Inn-”.6" . - InIII-nunI-IuIIuInIu null HIyI'IlIIII'l-I'IIUI IoIHIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIII-IIIIIII-IIIIIII.III.III5I||I.'5=' ” ' . . .: .‘ 'fi‘ :‘ulqpouul Hilli'lI:I.||||u..‘.,.u,|- |‘|0.0I.I, II-uuou'u. n I IIIIOIIIIHIIHI II.>.,.».I,II,.. I:I, ‘ ' . .. IIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIth-III'II-H'IIIIIIHIII'IIIIHHIIIIIIIII I'quIII-IIIIII.”IIIIIIH1 .llplli'l'llfll"iIIII.'|'I. p. ....... q D“ "uuuau,u,..,.uuh ..... H,” ,,,,,, | ,,,,,,,,,,, .......-.,. Grindin " " -- .- qunquuu-I-u... I-IIII-.u,.¢ Ill-II’IHII‘UHIIHIHIIIIO IIIIIIIII .'l.l'|.|'|tlo‘ll':I""!I IIII-IIII-IIIIIIIII-IIIIIIH II-IIIIII uIIIHIIIHHIHIIIIIH--III Illll-H'IIIII'JII’II'I'H" """ -.oI'-II-IIII.n.nu-I nu..‘. --:'-IIIIII-nnnnv-Invli Fret S " u n H, o u .‘u. , . ‘“|..1.I|'I.!|Il. hu-qun IIIIIIII .IIIIIIIIIIIII-IIh-I"IIIII t IIIIIIiI‘IIID'lII'I-lll-‘I||"I"Olll |!01I"'lll'l‘lll.ll‘ll‘”I IIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIInIIII-IIIII.Hug-1“,:.III«hut;-qu-hnnuuIIIIIIIIIIIl-III-I' III: IIIII . II I! II ”I emu-.mnx'In-rI-uu IIII‘I‘M-DIONIIIIIIII-I'IIIIII "hum".unnullIIHaIu I.IIIIIIIIIIHHII'I“III-H ItvIIHI- ".IIIl‘l‘IHHIIIIIIOIIIH'T’IIlI'H'I‘IIUHII'H'N'" :H'I' IIIIIIIII I'I"!"|" IIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIII IIIi --------- 'II'IH- a 0 fl 4 er " n . II- I. n L z- I . -:I'.|IIIIIIU' ”unnuntnnuuu- In”... I.IIIIIII.-II-IuvHIIIIIIIIU “I. IIIIIIIIIIIII II'IIIIIIH 0"“ III- IIHHHIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIH iIIII-IIIHI-III ' -‘-“”: “NH-II . U“ ‘ Haul-Inn", Il'IHIIIIIIIIIHIIIHIHIII:' -------- IsmailLuna-nu....-.\uu.u..u4...u.II.I.-,-,,,uurI-IInII IIIIIIIIIIHIIIIII-IIIIIIIIII III.IHHIIIIII-IIIIIIII' ‘ ‘. ‘::: ' "HI”ll'llllIVIII'HIIIHHIIIIIIIIIIIHHIHIlulu!” . ...... ...:. ‘IHIHIII , .‘ ' “ ":‘:'-- ”II Nuth- """" WU" “""""-IH~HII"H' ““‘HIWH'HH‘W'J "NIH I-HIIHH-IHHLI“--: -- m ....:.... .I lIHHHIIIHUHIUINNH‘II”HIUHHUIHIHHU'll um“. . . . IIImmm-I-Iu«mm-H”mm: un- - Wolemllk 100‘ .m ...... " mm .. ...........m ,u... ,,,,,,, I , ,..-.., n-,.a,I.-IIh-Inn an “all“! untnull-nlu‘tuh-‘I'u u-II'II'IHI'IHIHI- Illli IIHIIIII 0 Slum milk m m " m ..... I .. I“ , .ol|'|llfl I-eIIII.,,..qu.. , , U, ,. n.ququ ll-QIIOII‘I.I|II 'HII m. III'I'IIIH‘IIII IIIIIIIIII .IMNIHIIunuIIIIInlllrunnluI-IIIIHIIII..-III‘ I H... . .. ,leMu-nulh : . . . . ‘ ' I--- -- I! I! llllllllll x... u--.....I,,.1......nuuuun” ”unnunuuuuuguuul n uuuunun«IIIHIIIIIIII:IIIHIInInl-II.IIII-Hn ‘: : ‘ . 3 .:...':. :.:. “:",‘ ‘ ' ”nu-11." .. . """ ‘IIHIHIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIII-IIIIHIHIIIIHIIIIHIIIIIII I-HII :- 1.1ng JIN'HH', lllll yuan”, ”Unuhunuuuflh Inn!" H, ',,..,,,,,,,.,,.,,._.,,, “.uuun,” ,,.,..,uu,u luau.“ IIIIIIIIIuuuHIInuI-Iro-IIIIIIIIIIun-nu; .: . .. . .‘ ‘ ‘ ,i.III'III'HIIII'III'IHII'IIIIHIHIIIHIII” IIIIIIII 5118. 6 " II " III-III-II. II I IIIIII II‘ IIIIIIIIII II 'I'Illoulc')!!!ll!0~l|l I .ulv III-nun".'I‘IIIIIHHIIH I‘UII'II'UIII'Il-l IIIIIIII-IH'II'I-I r~~IHIIHHIH-IIHu'I-II-o III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II,IIIII I IIIIIIII d IIHIIu-nl'u'uuIIIIIII- ”III-I IIIIIII ' IIIIIIIII H" ''''' . . '1 v . - IO-‘Ill‘uou. IHII\0I! IIIIII ‘ IIIIIIIIII In IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII {In IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4... ...II "In”..uvu II I ' . »I\]IEI:~9~Q-t-’-§quutnIII-\III‘IIII uuuhuuuqchnunun- .==. a «an: ' ' ' " ' ' da I da . \aStI‘mRm u'.:. . ‘ .. IIIIII =14. IIIuIIII‘unIIuI-IC IIIIuII-I-nInu-uuun. nu..." II-I IIIIIIII HHJI‘ fun-nun.nun-nonun- IIIIIIIII kIHIII'uUHII'I-H "I"I"""""'“U'”“" r'"““ -r0tatkn. " " . " TOTAL Bedding: - - l_ MAN LABOR ON DAIRY CATTLE Record in minutes for a a1 Operation .Milking ................... . .......... ..-m- ..... J‘s. - O - grain '|-,IIHIIION-I|.II‘QIIDIIIIIQ'III'l "'0"llI'IV’III'Ui-‘.!'a'Vv!"l|..'ll Cleanmgbsm .flashing-equipment.ma. .444". 4444 Other .II IIIIII I uuuuu I ....... 1Innu-nunHunnlnluunuu IIIOlij IIIIIIIII .Days in monthmmmmmmm. . . . . .44 ...... To Chargeperhourw .. .. .. .. . .......... Total char for mo * See instruction sheet for suggestions in.determining rate. Ihibit ANNUMI.DAIRY cosT SUMMARY 1,5 Name Milk: Av. B .F. test mfi Production per cow ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, County Butterfat: Total production Ml_.lm, per cow ................. COWS: Breed .Av. no. “WWW“, YOUNGSTOCKI Nb. under 1 yr.w over 1 yr.um cosrs Total Per cow COSTS Total Per sead’ ' Feed $ $ Feed $ ' $ Labor________ hrs . Labor_______ hrs . ' COV'depreciation Calf value Interest on invest. Interest on invest. Budlding use Building use .4. Equdpment use Equipment use Breeding cost .Breeding cost Misc. Electricity tMisc: Electricity vat. and.mod, 1 vat. and.Mod. Bedding Bedding Other Other Overhead (5%) Overhead (5%) Total $ $ Totall$ . $ INCOME INCOME .Milk sold ' 3 AppreciatIOn Milk used Manure credit Total , . Total $ $ Subsidy _ Net Return Calf value Return.per Hour Manure credit Cow appreciation - - B : Average no. Total $ $ Feed . $ $ Net Return ' Labor__________hrs. Return per hour . Bull depreciation ' Interest on bull Building use COSTS AND INCOME PER UNIT OF PRODUCT l _-.4.n.Equipment use Item. Milk, Butterfat (per cwt) (per 1b. ) Misc. Bedding Costs: Feed is $ Other Labor Overhead (5%) Other Total $ $ Total Manure credit Income: Milk Other income Other Total $ $ Total $ $ Net Cost forlear Net Return 7 Cost per Service _ FEED AND LABOR AMOUNTS AND VALUES COWS YOUNGSTOCK Amount For m inaaa Conc. mix. Total ‘ WI. Mun-.6- - - Value Amount Value Per Total 3‘??? Value , ._,,_ .- 4... uh- Other grain Hay Silage Other rough. 1 Pasture Milk to Y.S. Total 1: F‘"~ " LABOR Hired help Farmer may Total CATTLE Immomgsk gmcaasss, suns, AND APPRECIATION on DEPRECIATION Ending inventory no. $ no. R End“: Winv'ty. " 3 Sales k (Sales Total credits Heifers, Bullsfi Beginning inventory Total Cr . Purchases Beg. ianty. _ Heifers freshening Bulls kept Purchases ' Total debits g Total Dr. S Appreciation . Depreciation A Interest on av. investment at 5% $ $ $ BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMEM INVENTORES AND CHARGES ‘ Item (Barn ‘ Milkhouse w Equipment W Barn Usage? * _ I "" “ . " - " Beg. inv tyo $ 3 $ Cows __ J. $ End. inv'ty. Bulls [:3 $ Depreciation Y . S - _____._' T ___..$ Interest (5%) 2 { Barn use charge: A Taxes, ins. (2 a Cows $ . $______. Rep. and new Bulls $ $ Total cost ; .Y-S- $ $ m L Xi ‘ L, 1 , _ . ..—..'_' -. .. .. . Lfiiibit 3 , 1 _ ’ 5:2.“. 51...? 'r 3 Lo..... .3: 1.: .. .'- .3; 1-5.3.“; (2:3 .3“:._'.~.;1.:,.'-'1,':-.J can, .. . , q. 1-‘.I..- ,.. . '\.- ‘1 (,1 ;..'..'-.-‘ '.' "~"I'1 -. y ‘ 31.11:: Li:....:.!4'.1-.h.. I. 1:: . ...J..'.J.( 1.1.35, .. .19 12 7 Upper Peninsula Daily Study 3333” Some... Data 5 Ember of years fan-ring? On this from ........... __._ Farm account eucwratcr? i.313351- 801‘68 operated . 0.de 3811'5381‘1..-..._._.._ Acres tillable -.. . 3.5.331 OEGM‘IIZz'aTION ' 7 - . p . Ina? one? -19 “are ‘wrfxl“_ .41 9'. ...\ o in 4'- i I T‘ 'T' 1:: 1. 423121.. $122.14.. i223. 31:35:. I... 35:2... -31-tie... .....Q:. ‘52.... ..._:->3.._. Oats new :1": - nixed gr. __ _ __ 4“ Idlaandrauou......._........__._‘. A “ Totaltilleble ‘ O p I 0 v Q I ‘ b... Div-9“ Chicks started Beef cattle -mt’ters forromd Pigs raised Horses Comments : } 2 0 Rumor of other livestock: Hens . 2131.521101- heused in fall . Jun-e 1 r ! ZIRY 6.9.me EWING , 1.. Member of A.B.A.?mmn, No. of years-“ .5 Plan to continue in ABA 2. Do you have a particular season when you 3.27.31.) to 111:1 3 cm.“ .3 fees-nap? When? Wig"? —\,_ fl 3.. Has artificial breeding been more 83:313-. star 1. £113.11 natural service? If not, why: cost __ i11.. o1«::1~:.’-..e mmmummeizeziges freshexfing 8.1.ed-11‘ trouble settling cows“ 10m- .13.} 3... 21:1 3.13:1? bull calms . Inserflmtar LB 3 inexperiemed? -mm............. I..;:.*i:e? -...,... . Chi-16m; v“ I ”aim!” ha If not in ABA: Have bull on fer-e?” If 1:. 21-351 rental service - saw 9 OOm‘Im’lity bull If 0W3 b34119 I I ‘c 5.11.51 fj-Gi 11"(“13 pin-'18 bred breedalo mighborm cattle buy-1r S. If natural service unsatisfactorya ' ;a";,: Ice 00312.33 1...... mgercee difficult to control breeding of 11.1.1.3 -.,.,-.n...,_...,tatfims too much tit-ea others 6. Breeding of hard: Mixed breeding 112113111121 breeds High grades chiefly pmbreds 7. Member purebred cows in hard? P11Te}:»red heifers? _ _ 8a Meeker DIEM _ 11113239 er years testing? 128 PURE USE &.THEATJEHT r. Fl“ L. C’,‘ . 7.2-.8 S I? I I. ' Extend 113:6 h‘o‘n begimfimg portion of each mar th pasture used to end. .Ti 10D 0!" EATING Loose hay acres; chopped acres; baled acres; grass silage Satisfied present method? Changes planned? JILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT USED 0 Barn: Stanchion Pen space for Cows 1"s:;e in Out Single mr Commute on barn: Satisfactorq? 00.3.1313- .. Changes plsmed? 2.11.11: houses Diet cc to barn “I" 1:8 of 8".) 3:: time Vilma? tmter 81131214: Driz’fi-JJEg 013‘. _..,_.,,,,T.‘.’1.’=I:-s1‘t;1 m: 5.11 can” floated 331.113.3111. outside MUnheeted tank outeideWSp' '11; or or 331: m... ‘3.de additiomzl dairy 021111.; gent do you... “‘1?“ ch $011133: 11.2131. Kind Location Distance h“ Hauling: Self liircd : __ Commute: 5 um 51:31:11 .. EWIch‘tjr”: .d1=-“E.::::") ' "‘3'" 13.1114? :1 I w: , Age months stn Amount i worked on __ farm Operator Foam-1v 5 if H 11’. W Y . CI'OP r r V——‘ “aim-- Scn Forest "‘ . . . . .9 .. 1 —~ _ Work of. few 1 -- \ J ”*6 Y H “v rum help )(X 1 ’2 mm. - n. , - "‘ ‘1 «- ..... --- “WE-L1 1‘ 4 =42; -:::..'.:T.:;;:"“’-:;..::...:.';:..:’1;:ztgm' 25.25:.22522; JUL-:1 '1 _, w w— 3.. 1% '11 mnm g' .- ._. ‘ ‘ ~7WF ‘1‘." p‘ w- "l‘-‘ ll‘“AL1.--.~I»‘v .,‘.~ ”an... --< 1-‘J-uw . mus-"~41. '_-“Io r‘ j: Q ~ .\ ( M .—-.- -..-.. -—~-.~ ‘. '-‘.I Wm” e . - e. - . I11 .‘;W t ll -1.{..:..L 4.1. L+ 139 Name N0. ................. County Area mwmmmm Kind of Market Location Distancemmwwmjmlni. "."ZOJ , Total lbs. --------------------------- Milk B.F. Test .................. % Total lbs. of 1% Equivalent - Milk " Total lbs. from May-Sept. ------- .Milk . B.F. Test .................... % Total lbs. of h% equivalent -.Milk 7. lbs. B-F- fromumlwmlm”WW from.May-Sept. Oct.-Apr. Percentage of total production-M1 11: .... B.F . .....-...............-... produced from.May-Sept. . Average NO- cows, for year .............................. 10- Average NO- COWS: May-Sept.: ............................. - 10%. Average No. cows, Oct.-Apr.mmmummmm lbs. w¢ milk per cow, for year --------- 12. May-Sept. % .......... Lbs. B.F. per cow, for year -------------- 1h. May-Sept...........................-.. % ...... Total receipts for milk, for year ------ $ _ 16. May-SePt-$ .............................. .. 36...-.- Average price received per cwt. for yr.$ 18. May-Sept.$ (15 + h) x 100 (16 + 6) x 100 Average price received per lb. B.F., for yr. $mmm~mm 20. May-Sept.$ 15 + 3(B.F.) 16 + 5(B.F.) Receipts per cow for milk, for year $ 22. May Sept.$ 15 + 9 16 + 10 Total feed costs, for year ---------------- $ _ 2h. May-Sept.$ , Feed costs per lb. B.F., for year $ 26. May-Sept.$ 23 + 3(B.F.) - at e 5(B.F.) Feed costs per cow, for year ’ $ 28. MayeSept.$ £3 + 9 , 2h + 10 Return over feed, for year $ 30. May-Sept.$ 15 - 23 16 — 2h Return over feed per cow, for year $ 32. May-Sept.$ 29 + 9 30 + 10 Return per dollar feed fed, for year $ 3h. May-Sept.$ 15 + 23 16 + 2h Total labor costs, for year --------------- $ 36. Mathept.$ Labor costs per lb. B.F., for year $ 38. May-Sept.$ 35 + 3(B.F.) 36 +.5(B.F.) Labor costs per cow, for year $ ho. May-Sept.$ 35 '3' 9 36 + 10 Breeding cost, total for cows & Y.S; """ $_ per cow & heifer over 1 yr.$ Net return from.herd $ Labor & Mgt. return from cows $ from.Y.S. $ Labor & Mgt. return from.herd $ Per cow $ hh + 9 Hours labor on cows per cow Av. No. Heifers under 1 yr. ,,,,,,,,,,,, Hours labor on Y-S--lemmm.°n bU11mwwmmm AV- NO- Heifers over 1 Yr- ................. Hours labor on herd “ mnper cowm“ Av. N0. BullS-memmmwm AB. #9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 5b. 55. 57c 59. 60. 61. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. % T.A. in hay & pasture Concentrates fed, total lbs. per cow ratiofiw“ ..... H8 ........ Concentrates fed, May-Sept. lbs. _ _per cow ratioéummmmnw . + Ll9 Concentrates fed, Oct.-Apr. lbs. per cow ratio mwmmww“, (7 + 50) x 25 Hay fed to cows, total lbs. per cow Silage fed to cows, total lbs. per cow Potatoes fed to cows, total lbs. per cow Total acres operated ...................... Tillable ......................... Wild Pasture.1llmlm- yield . yield Acres small grain Acres alfalfa hay " corn silage " clover " " corn " timothy " " potatoes " mixed legume & gnass " flax " other crops " fallow " tillable -IODMD”I 0 a... oooooooooo Acres hay crops used for pasturenmmw “m .56. Days on rotation pasture “mm mnw_ Total days pasture ....................... 58. value placed on pasture $ .............................. per cow $_WWMM- Fertilizer used this year on hay & pasture? ............................. at time of seeding? kind?. - kind? rate? rate? NO- COWS freshening during year? .............................. % of AV- NO- ........................... .. No. cows freshening Aug.-Dec.,incl. .......................... % of total no freshening Member DHIA now?-WWMMl-previcusly? ............................ how long? Type barn? space for?mmmmwwm-satisfled? ........................ chances planned?m.l- Have milk house? .................. distance from barn? ..................... ft. Have drinking cups? .................... tank in bern?-meml-heeted tank cuteide?-mmwmmmw Months operator labor? mgmumonths family labor? ....................... months hired labor?wmmmmmmm Average No. men? ................................. Age of operater? ..................................... Poultry a. see income $ ..................................... other crop insane $ Potato inccme .wwmmlmmmm Forcet inceme Flex " .mmmmllmlm Work off farm Total Member ABA? ........................ Use AB entirely? ............................. Bull entirely? ............................. Both? .............................. Is AB satisfactory? ....................... If not, why not? ROOM USE ONLY w 9 er 1: 34 ‘ Vela, 1'. Fifi-m ‘ ” . ‘W vl Ial y. MICIITI'IWNTIWIW flWITITIWHYIWWs 3 1193 03046 3743