UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Dairy farm organization in British Columbia 1932

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1932_A4_F6_D2.pdf
UBC_1932_A4_F6_D2.pdf
UBC_1932_A4_F6_D2.pdf [ 7.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0105288.json
JSON-LD: 1.0105288+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0105288.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0105288+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0105288+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0105288+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0105288.ris

Full Text

U.B.CUBRARY CAT NO. \X±^3}±MSk^ ACC. NO. DAIRY FARM ORGANIZATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by Rolfe Maurice Forsyth A Thesis submitted f o r the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE i n AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1932. TABLE Off CONTENTS Part I INTRODUCTORY Page AclcnowlecLgraent 1 Introduction.. .. 3 Explanation of terms used 6 The d i s t r i c t s from which the data was obtained 12 Part I I THE DAIRY fARMING BUSINESS IN GENERAL An analysis of the acreage SO fa) The d i s p o s i t i o n of the acreage on a l l farms20 (b ) Total acreage ..£0 fo) T i l l a b l e acres 21 fd) Crop acres.... 21 fe) T i l l a b l e area of pasture 21 f f ) Unproductive land 24 (g) Crop acres per man 24 fh) Crop acres per horse 27 C a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the dairy farms (a) Average make-up of c a p i t a l for a l l farms..SO (To) Total c a p i t a l 30 fc) C a p i t a l i n land 32 fd) C a p i t a l i n house......... 32 fe) C a p i t a l i n farm buildings 35 f f ) C apital In machinery 35 fg) C a p i t a l i n l i v e s t o c k . . 39 fh) Peed and supplies 39 ( i ) Total c a p i t a l per t i l l a b l e acre 39 Receipts fa) Sources of receipts on a l l farms 44 (b) Total receipts.. 44 fo) Receipts from dairy.. 44 fd) Receipts from crops.. 47 Page Receipts fe) Receipts from hogs 47 f f ) Receipts from poultry 47 (g) Miscellaneous receipts 51 fh) P e r q u i s i t e s . . . . . . . 51 f i ) Gross receipts per t i l l a b l e acre......... 54 Expenses fa) Analysis of expenses on a l l farms 57 f b) Total expenses 57 (o ) Family and hired labor 59 ( a ) Feed bought 59 fe) Depreciation on buildings and machinery.. 62 f f ) Miscellaneous expense. 62 fg) Total expenses per t i l l a b l e acre. 65 E f f i c i e n c y factors fa ) Crop index 67 (b ) Livestock index 69 ( e ) Total animal units 69 (d) Number of t i l l a b l e acres per animal u n i t . 72 fe) Gross receipts per animal unit 72 f f ) Number of cows 75 fg) Pounds of butterfat per cow 75 fh) P r i c e received per pound bu t t e r f a t 80 f i ) Beceipts per cow milk products.... 80 f C o s t of production per pound b u t t e r f a t . . . 80 Fi n a n c i a l summary of the farm business fa) The farm net revenue 86 f b j Interest on the c a p i t a l at 7 per cent.... 88 (c) Operator income..... 90 Returns per pound butterfat and operator income... 93 How the best farmers made money 99 Part I I I Summary 103 Part 17 Appendix. 110 ACOOWLEDGMEITT The w r i t e r takes pleasure i n acknowledging the valuable assistance given by Miss H. Ross, and by his brother, Mr. Owen S. Forsyth i n compiling the data used i n t h i s t h e s i s . The w r i t e r would also l i k e to take t h i s opportunity of expressing his indebtedness to Mr. H.R.Hare, Professor of Animal Husbandry, and to Mr. F.M.Clement, Dean of the Faculty of A g r i c u l t u r e , for t h e i r k i n d l y suggestions and advice. 1. Part l« IlgROPTJCfOBY 0. (1) IETCE0DUCTI0N On May 1st, 1920, the Department of Animal Husbandry of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia commenced i t s f i r s t survey, of dairy farms i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Bvery year since that date the work of collecting data from the dairy farmers of this province has been carried on. There were d i f f i c u l t i e s at f i r s t . The farmers did not understand the nature of the survey; the records which the farmers kept of their trans- actions were very incomplete; and there was some trouble i n organizing the vast amount of detail which was accumulated. But yea? by year the reeords have become more complete and more accurate and consequently more valuable. From time to time reports have been published on the results obtained through the compilation of this data. Mow, at the end of ten years, i t was thought f i t t i n g that a study be made of the organization of the dairy farms which have been included i n the survey. When the Survey was f i r s t started the Department of Animal Husbandry had several objects i n view. It was thought that the information obtained would give a true picture of the actual conditions of the dairy farming business. It would enable the Department to determine what factors i n dairy farm organization, and what methods used by the farmers were responsible fox* the success or the failure which the dairy- men achieved. Moreover, i t was thought that the records gained i n t h i s manner would prove Invaluable i n the teaching work at the u n i v e r s i t y . <2Q secure representative data, a group of farms was selected from each of the main dairying areas of the Province. In each d i s t r i c t farms were chosen which varied i n size and i n prosperity. In t h i s way a f a i r l y r e l i a b l e cross-seetion of the dairy-farming business of the Province was obtained. For the purpose of t h i s t h e s i s , 1745 farm records were used. This i n - dicates that there has been an average of 174.5 farms included i n the Survey each year. From tim* to time some farms have drop- ped out of the Survey and have been replaced by others. I t i s reasonable to assume, therefore, that the large number of farms used warrants confidence i n the r e s u l t s of t h i s summary. The actual work of obtaining and compiling the data may be descr- ibed as follows: Fieldmen are sent out by the U n i v e r s i t y on the f i r s t of May each year. These men v i s i t each of the farmers on the Sur- vey and obtain from them complete information regarding the farm transactions during the crop year which has just ended. Besides t h i s record of receipts and expenditures, notes are mate of any change i n the c a p i t a l i z a t i o n or inventories of the farm since the beginning of the l a s t crop year. Certain pers- onal information i s also s o l i c i t e d . The data c o l l e c t e d i s ent- ered i n blank f i e l d forms by the fieldmen. To f a c i l i t a t e the compilation of the required information, the farmer i s encour- aged to keep accurate records of a l l h i s transactions by means of farm account books which are sent to him, free of charge, by the University. When the fieldmen return to the University the information which they have obtained from the farmers i s trans- ferred to office sheets. These sheets are so arranged as to show a complete financial summary of the farm business, and the effieienoy of the different factors of production. When the office sheets have a l l been completed, each farmer i s sent a detailed financial report of his business along with corresp- onding figures for the average of a l l farms i n his acreage gro- up, and data from a typically successful farm of a similar size. It can be said, therefore, that the farmer i s well repaid for his cooperation with the University. (2) EXPLANATION' OF TERMS USED * Prop area: 'This i s the acreage under cultivated erops. It does not include pasture acreage. Total acres: 'This i s the sum of the actual acres i n the unit under consideration, he i t farm or group. T i l l a b l e area: 'As rough pasture and other untillable land add to the feeding capacity of a dairy-farm, they are considered i n the t i l l a b l e area. It i s estimated that & acres of rough land, or 10 acres of pastured woods, would produce feed equal to one acre of arable land. To the arable land of the farm, therefore, i s added one-third of the rough land and one-tenth of the area of pastured woods. The total is known as the t i l l a b l e area. Project: ^Each different souree of income i s called a project when the receipts from such souree amount to 5 per cent, of the gross farm income. Unit of man-labour: 'One man employed on the farm for twelve months i s termed a unit of man-labour. Unit of horse-labour: ''One horse kept on the farm for twelve months. # "Dairy-farming i n B r i t i s h Columbia" - Hare, H.R. Bulletin 103, Department of Agriculture, Victoria, B.C. 1. "'Diversity index; This expresses the percentage of total farm receipts that are made up from one project. ^Aaiaal units A mature horse or cow kept on the farm for one year i s recognized as an animal unit. A l l l i v e stock kept on the farm i s reduced to an animal unit basis by comparing the amount of feed that the different classes of animals consume with that consumed by a mature cow. For example, 100 hens, 7 sheep, 4 calves under one year of age, or 2 over 1 year, are treated as an animal unit when kept the whole year through. A brood sow is calculated as 0.5 units and growing pigs on the basis of increase of weight. A farm having 30 animal units would be one on whieh a l l the l i v e stock would consume feed equal to the average consumption of 30 mature cows. ^Live-stock index: This i s the measure of the eff|cency of l i v e stock based on the gross receipts per animal unit. The average gross receipt per animal unit i s set at 100. A farm having a l i v e - stock index of 120 would be one where the receipts per animal unit were 20 per cent, above the avergge and a l i v e stock index below 100 would represent l i v e stock that gave a gross return per animal unit that was below thw average. Crop index; By this index crop yields per acre are expressed* It i s a means of comparing efficiency in the use of land devoted to crops. Average crop yields are set at 100. A farm having a crop index of 100 has crop yiftftds that are equal to the average. Higher or lower crop indices would represent yields that are above or below the average. vvffarm credits or perquisites; Each dairyman uses in the household a certain amount of the products produced on his own farm. Such commodities are here credited to the farm and are recoraAA as farm sales. Mi lie so used and credited to the farm was valued at 6 cents per quart, butter at 40 cents per pound, beef and pork at current wholesale prices, eggs at 25 cents per dozen, and wood at $2.50 per" cord. Estimates were placed on the value of f r u i t and vegetables used i n the house by the operator i n consultation with the f i e l d enumerator at the time of his v i s i t . The rental value of the farmer's dwelling was included asa receipt to the farm at the rate of 10 per cent, of the house valuation. ^Operator: The person who operates the farm. He may own or lease the land which he operates. u . ^Landlord; The person who owns the farm but who has leased the property to another. °Farm net revenue; The farm net revenue i s the balance of gross farm rec- eip t s a f t e r deducting a l l expense i n connection with the op- eration of the farm, fhe gross receipts include receipts from the sale of a l l farm products, any increase of inventory values and farm c r e d i t s , as explained ab^ve. The gross expense includes a l l actual cash expense excepting c a p i t a l outlay; that i s , expense i n connection with new buildings or machinery.In addition to cash outlay, depreciation on buildings or machin- ery, and decrease i n inventory values, along with a sum rep- resenting the value of the labor provided by members of the operator's family, are charged as expense. Ho wage to the operator i s allowed i n expense. In the case of partnership, the farm has been placed on a one-operator basis by including i n expense the sum of^720 per year as the partner's wage. ''Operator income; The operator income i s derived by deducting from the farm net revenue a sum to meet the in t e r e s t charges on the operator's c a p i t a l involved i n the business. A l l calculations of t h i s i n t e r e s t charge, except where noted, have been made \ o. at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum. In slich cases as where in t e r e s t on c a p i t a l amounts to a greater sum than the farm net revenue, the "operator income" i s represented as a minus (-) amount. In p r a c t i c e , i t i s quite possible f o r a farm business to y i e l d a minus "operator i n - come" and yet provide such a return that the operator may a c t u a l l y save money during the year. Expenses include items that may not a c t u a l l y have been paid . The operator, too, may own the c a p i t a l which he uses, or a large portion of i t , and need not pay i n t e r e s t on c a p i t a l valuations. One should not condemn a dairy-farm business on account of a minus "operator income" f o r one year. I f , however, the business continues over a period of years to produce such an "operator Income" i t must be classed as a business f a i l u r e . The "operator income" i s here used as a measuring-rod i n comparing the e f f i c i e n c y i n management of one farm busin- ess with that of another. I t represents wages to the operator f o r h i s e f f o r t s i n labour and management. Variations i n "op- erator income" are due i n many cases to unavoidable circum- stances, but, over a period of years, they may be high or low, du© to factors that come more or less under the farmer's con- t r o l . *Real income: This represents the sum of money which the farm operator can extract from the business during any one year f o r l i v i n g or other expenses without increasing h i s indebtedness to i n - dividuals outside h i s own family. In order that f a i r compar- ison be made i n determining management e f f i c i e n c y , i t has been necessary to place under "expense" several items that on some farms are not payed each year. Such items as family labour, board of labor, depreciation on buildings and equipment, and i n t e r e s t on operator's own c a p i t a l f a l l into t h i s group. By adding to the "operator income" the amount of these items we determine the possible r e a l income f o r any year.* (3) THE DISTRICTS FROM WHICH THE DATA WAS OBTAINED # The topography of B r i t i s h Columbia i s of such nature as to create a wide range of conditions of s o i l , elimate, and mar- ket i n the various a g r i c u l t u r a l areas of the Province. The d i s - t r i c t s that have made great progress i n t h e i r dairy development have been confined, up to t h i s time, to the Coast and southern sections. This region includes the southern p o r t i o n of Vancouver Island bordering on the S t r a i t of Georgia, the adjacent i s l a n d s , the lower Fraser Yallejr extending from Hope to the Uoast, the Okanagan V a l l e y , and the v a l l e y s extending along the lakes and r i v e r s of the Kootenay d i s t r i c t . In t h i s survey, groups of farms were selected from the following d i s t d c t s w i t h i n the Province: Courtenay, Ladner, Chilliwack, the Okanagan V a l l e y , Salmon Arm, and the Arrow Lakes. The c l i m a t i c and s o i l conditions which p r e v a i l i n the v i c i n i t y of Courtenay are t y p i c a l of conditions i n the dairying d i s t r i c t s on Vancouver Island and on the Gulf Islands. S o i l s vafcy from a sedimentary deposit of the v a l l e y s to a gravelly g l a c i a l - d r i f t type of s 4 i l of the uplands. # "Dairy Farming i n B r i t i s h Columbia" - Hare, H.R., B u l l e t i n 103, Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , V i c t o r i a , B.C. \ 1. The annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n fluctuates around 40 inches; the great- est amount> occuring i n December, averages IS inches. This r a i n - f a l l exceeds s l i g h t l y that of the southern p o r t i o n of Vancouver Island, l i k e most dairying d i s t r i c t s of B r i t i s h Columbia, the summer r a i n f a l l i s l i g h t , but i s ample for good crop produc- t i o n when proper t i l l a g e i s practised. * ̂ f o r the purpose of t h i s study, the Courtenay d i s t r i c t includes a €ew farms on Denraan Island and farms w i t h i n a radius of 6 miles of Courtenay i t s e l f . ^A market for the milk produced i n t h i s area i s provided by the Comox Creamery. This i s a farmers 1 co-operative organ- i z a t i o n which makes butter and i c e cream, handles a c e r t a i n amount of whole milk, has a strong farmjproduce merchandizing organization which gives s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n to the marketing of eggs and potatoes, processes a c e r t a i n amount of f r u i t , and retains a consumers1 co-operative department which deals i n machinery, feed, sugar, and f l o u r . *The Ladner d i s t r i c t , as here interpreted, includes farms located i n the v i c i n i t y of the town of Ladnar, incorpor- a t i n g the D e l t a , L u l u and Sea Islands, and the Mud Bay area. *The s o i l of t h i s d i s t r i c t i s of a s i l t and clay nature, having been b u i l t up by sedimentary deposit at the mouth of the 3?raser River.The whole of t h i s area i s f l a t and i s protec- ted by dykes from the sea and r i v e r overflow. The s o i l i s r i c h and admirably suited to the production of most farm crops. * The Chi111waok d i s t r i c t , f o r the purposes of t h i s thesis, includes that area i n the upper part of what i s knovaa as the lower Fraser Valley. It incorporates that area in xta which i s oarried on dairying of a somwwhat similar nature to that practised i n the region ofthe City of Chilliwack. fhe d i s t r i c t extends from Cloverdale to Rosedale. Dairying i n this area i s of a more intensive nature than that practised i n the Ladner d i s t r i c t . *The s o i l of the Chilliwack area i s of older origin than that of Ladner. fhe low land i s of a s i l t and clay nature, hut, due to changes i n the old river-bed, is streaked with gravel, fhe upland, of which there i s considerable, i s of g l a c i a l - d r i f t origin and tends towards a gravelly loam. Most of the farms included i n this survey are located on the lower land, which, on account of the abundant grass, i s more suited to dairy-farming than the uplands. *The climate of the Courtenay, Ladner, and Chilliwack d i s t r i c t s i s very similar, being relatively mild throughout the year. Frosts, sufficient to stop ploughing operations, occur most years for a period of one or two weeks, fhe winter rains, however, interfere with work on the land at this seas- on i n a l l d i s t r i c t s . ^Vancouver City provides a market for most farm products grown i n the Ladner and Chilliwack d i s t r i c t s , fhe farmers i n - cluded i n this investigation were largely those who sold their dairy products through the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association, fhis organization is a farmers' co-Qperative \ 6. company whieh has done much to "build up the dairying business of these d i s t r i c t s . ''The Okanagan d i s t r i c t includes farms in this valley extending from Kelowna at the south to Grindrod at the north and extending east from Vernon to Lumby. The s o i l varies from a haavy clay i n the v i c i n i t y of Armstrong and north to a sandy s i l t and gravelly loam at Vernon and Kelowna. In the Lumby area a splendid s i l t - c l a y type of s o i l prevails on the bottom land, on which most of the dairy farms are located. ''The precipitation varies; i t i s heavier at Armstrong and Lumby than at Kelowna and Vernon. Kelowna has an average annual precipitation of about 12 inches, while at Vernon the r a i n f a l l i s 2 inches greater. Irrigation i s used for f i e l d crops to a considerable extent at Kelowna and to some extent at Vernon. Armstrong and Lumby appear to secure sufficient moisture without an a r t i f i c i a l supply of water, but conser- vation of moisture i s necessary for crop production. v,The seasons of the year are more clearly defined i n the Okanagan than i n the Praser Valley. The summer is warmer and the winter colder i n the interior d i s t r i c t . Extreme cold, howver, i s unusual. Autumn frost prevents t i l l a g e of land u n t i l early spring. uThe market for the dairy products of the d i s t r i c t s i s largely provided by creameries. A certain amount of milk and cream i s used i n urban consumption. The creameries are located at Inderby, Armstrong, Vernon, and Kelowna. With the except- ion of the Enderby plant, a l l i e n are operated on a eo-operatiye basis. nfhe Salmon Arm d i s t r i c t extends approximately 9 miles up the valley from Salmon Arm. For the most part i t i s a sediment- ary bottom land capable of producing excellent crops. "fhe precipitation averages 19 inches and i s quite well distributed throughout the year. Such precipitation i s s u f f i c - ient for crop production, though good cultivation must be prac- tised i n order to conserve the moisture. w f h e Salmon Arm Co-operative Creamery provides a market for the crewa produced. "In the Arrow Lakes d i s t r i c t the area included i n this study extends northwards along the narrow Arrow Lake Valley From Bobson, at the south, to Nakusp. fhe s o i l varies from a sandy nature to clays and sedimentary bottom land. Most of the last-mentioned s o i l i s found i n the v i c i n i t y of Bdgewood. " fhe winter climate of this d i s t r i c t i s colder than i n any other d i s t r i c t studied, fhe summers are generally warm. "fhe outlet for dairy products i s provided by the Curlew Creamery at lelson and also by a Swiss-cheese factory recently started at Edgewood. "A certain amount of raw milk i s sold for town and v i l l - age consumption, fhe egg market i s important, as the nearby active mining towns of f r a i l and Bossland have created a mar- ket <or this product, which has greatly stimulated ifee poultry industry of this d i s t r i c t during the past five years." Part I I THE DAIRY FARMIIS BUSINESS I I GENERAL AVERAGE DISPOSITION OF ACREAGE OH ALL FARMS, 1921-30. (From Table l o . 2, Appendix.) \ <\ F i g * 2. AVERAGE ACTUAL ACRES, 1921-30. 0 60 120 180 240 300 Up to 30 Aores 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Acres. (From Table l o . 1, Appendix.) l b (4) AS ANALYSIS OF TEE ACREAGE (a) fhe d i s p o s i t i o n of the acreage on a l l farms. fhe average s i z e of a l l farms included i n the Survey was 139.66 acres. Of t h i s t o t a l acreage, however, only 52.73 per eent. was productive, fhe remainder of the land was made up of woods, lanes, yards, marshes, and other unproductive land, fhe high percentage of t h i s unproductive land i s prob- ably due to the fact that many of the farms i n the i n t e r i o r of the Province have large areas of wooded land on them, fhe farms of the Fraser Valley have a r e l a t i v e l y high percentage of t i l l - able land to the t o t a l acreage, fhe t o t a l area was made up of 38.53 per cent, i n crops and 14.20 per cent, i n pasture, as weal as the unproductive land. fb) Total acreage. As indicated i n F i g . 2, the actual number of acres i n the farms of each acreage group was much larger than the num- ber of t i l l a b l e acres i n that group. In the case of each acreage group the actual acres i n the farms of that group were p r a c t i c a l l y double the number of t i l l a b l e acres. I t should be noted that the average size of farms i n the group, 101 acres and over, was 287.97 acres. This large increase over the aver- age size of the farms i n the other groups w i l l undonbtably tend to emphasize the trends which are shown i n thw following charts and tables. fc) T i l l a b l e acres. Of a l l the acreage groups, the one including farms from compared 46 to 70 acres had the lowest per cent, of t i l l a b l e land,to total acreage. The two smaller groups were also low. II? was rather surprising to see that the largest-sized group had also the highest proportion of t i l l a b l e acres. (d) Crop acres. The farms i n the f i r s t three acreage groups had about the same proportion of land i n crops, that i s , from 53.92 to 34.69 per oent, fhe two larger groups, however, show a marked increase i n the percentage of land devoted to crops. As the size of the farms increased more attention was paid to crops and less to livestock production, due to the necessity of adapting the labour supply to the slize of the farm. This w i l l be further il l u s t r a t e d when the number of ItiiliaViiH animal units per t i l l - able acre w i l l be considered. (9) T i l l a b l e area of pasture. fhe trend of area of land devoted to pasture was much similar to the trend for crops except that the two extreme size groups devote practically the same proportion of their land to pasture, that i s , 14.32 and 15.47 per cent» while the center group was the low group i n that i t gave only 11.78 per cent, of F i g . 8. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE Og TOTAL ACRES IE CROPS. 1921 - 1930. 0 10 20 30 40 50 Up to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms per Cent. (From Table Ho. £» Appendix.) g i g . 4. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE Off TILLABLE AREA Iff PASTURE. 1921 - 50. 10 15 £0 £5 Up to SO Aeres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Aeres and oyer A l l farms Per Cent. (From Table No. 2, Appendix.) i t s land to pasture, fhe similarity between the largest and smallest groups in this respect was probably due to the fact that there i s a larger livestock population on the small farms, per acre, which tends to balance the more extensive use of the land for crops and pasture on the larger farms, fhe farms with 46 to 70 t i l l a b l e acres appear to be an awkward size to handle. These farms cannot be ef f i c i e n t l y devoted to either intensive livestock production or crop production. (*) Unproductive land. fhe above conclusion i s strengthened when we find that the farms of from 46 to 70 t i l l a b l e acres had the largest pro- portion o i unproductive land, fhe smaller farms were only three or four per cent, better i n this respect. It is the largest farms which can boast of the lowest proportion of unproductive land. (g) Prop acres per man, fhe number of crop aeres per man i s an indication of the degree of intensity with which labour i s applied on the farms, ffig. 6 indicates clearly that as farms become larger, the am- ount of labour applied per acre diminishes. In other words, as the size of the farms increases, the type of agriculture prac- tised becomes more extensive i n nature. F i g * 5. AVERAGE PBRCENTAGE Qg TJNPHODTJOTIYE LAUD 1921 - 1930. 20 40 Up to 30 Aeres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Aeres 101 Acres and over A l l farms 60 80 100 Per Cent. fgrom fable Ho. £, Appendix.) g i g . 6. AVERAGE ACTUAL CROP ACRES PER MAN, 1921-30. (From Table Jfo. 1, Appendix. ) XI, (h) Crop acrea per horse The same p r i n c i p l e as above applies i n the case of horse Ubo**- but not to so great an extent, A horse i§ a rather large and unwieldy unit of production, and, consequently, the optimftm number of horses f o r each size of farm i s not easy to estimate. There i s usually an excess or deficiency of horse labour ok any given farm. Table l o . 1 shows that there was,on the average, about twice as many crop acres per man than there were crop aeres per horse. Iff. g i g . 7. AVERAGE ACTUAL CHOP ACRES PER HORSE, 1921-50. 10 15 £0 £5 Up to SO Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Acres. (From Table No. 1, Appendix.) F i g . 8. AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL» 1921-30. (From Table No. 4, Appendix. ) 3 o (5) CAPITALIZATION OF THE DAIRY FARMS (a) Average make-up of c a p i t a l f or a l l farms. In t h i s study of the c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of dairy farms, only the operators' c a p i t a l i s considered. I t i s recognized that the omission of the landlords' share i n the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i - on causes the average figures for the c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , deter- mined i n t h i s summary, to be less than the figures f o r the actual c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the farms under consideration. The o&imr of importance of a l l the items making up the t o t a l cap- i t a l i z a t i o n i s : land, l i v e s t o c k , farm b u i l d i n g s , house, mach- inery, and, feed and supplies. Land took the l i o n ' s share of the operators' c a p i t a l with 59.61 per cent. Feed and supplies were of n e g l i g i b l e importance. The others ranged from 15.04 per cent, for l i v e s t o c k to 7.62 per cent, f o r machinery. fb) Total c a p i t a l . As would be expected, the larger the farms, the greater the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n . In Table Ho. 5 we f i n d that the t o t a l c a p i t a l started at $ 7,569.87 for the smallest group, and i n - creased about | 4,000 for each group u n t i l the l a s t group was reached, when the c a p i t a l shot up to # 52,016.60. This sudden increase of c a p i t a l i n the l a s t group can r e a d i l y be explained when we r e c a l l that the average size of the farms i n the l a s t 1\. F i g . 9% AYBRAGE TOTAL CAPITAL. 1921 - 1230. 0 10000 BOOOO 30000 40000 50000 Up to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Do l l a r s . (From Table UO* 3, Appendix.) "3^ group was much larger than that of the next smallest group,and, since land i s such a large f a c t o r i n the t o t a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , the farms with over 101 t i l l a b l e acres require much more cap- i t a l . (o) C a p i t a l i n land. from the preceding paragraph i t may be gathered that, the l a r g e r the farm, the more important land becomes as a fac- t o r i n the c a p i t a l i z a t i o n . This i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g . 10, where i t i s shown that the percentage of the t o t a l c a p i t a l dev- oted to land increased from 50.03 per cent, i n the case of the smallest group to 65.81 per cent, for the farms over 100 t i l l - able acres. Because of t h i s f a c t , the larger farms have a con- siderable advantage over the smaller farms, since land i s more d i r e c t l y productive than most of the other items i n the c a p i t a l make-up. (d) C a p i t a l i n house. F i g . 11 shows a uniform decrease i n the proportion of the c a p i t a l invested i n the farm house from 14.86 per cent, f or the smallest group to 5.52 per cent, for the largest group. So f a r as the actual value of the houses are concerned, there i s not much difference between the figures for the acreage groups. The 1 to 30 t i l l a b l e acres group invested f 1,131.03 imsstsA t h e i r home, on the average, while the largest group could a f f - ord homes worth | 1,754.56. g i g . 10* AYERASB PEBCEITA&E Qg CAPITAL I I MUD. 1921-50. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Up to 30 Acres 51-45 Acres 46*70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and oyer A l l farms Per Cent. (from Table No. 4, Appendix.) F i g . 11. AYERAGE PERCEISTTAGE OF CAPITAL IS HOUSE» 1921-20. 0 Up to SO Acres 31-45 Acres 46*70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms 10 15 20 25 Per Cent. (From Table No. 4, Appendix.) (e) C a p i t a l i n farm buildings. Except f o r the second group, the trend for the percent- age of c a p i t a l invested i n farm buildings was s i m i l a r to that f o r the c a p i t a l invested i n the farm house. The owners of farms of from 31 to 45 t i l l a b l e acres f e l t that they could afford to place 12.59 per cent, of t h e i r c a p i t a l i n the farm buildings, while the others were content to invest from 8.70 per cent, to 11.92 per cent, i n t h i s item. The actual value of the farm buildings increased markedly as the farms became la r g e r . The average of a l l farms for c a p i t a l invested i n farm buildings was | 1,627,00. (f) Cap i t a l i n machinery. The percentage of c a p i t a l invested i n machinery was greatest i n the middle-sized groups', with a peak figure of 8.29 per cent, being reached for the 46 to 70 t i l l a b l e acres group. I s was suggested before, t h i s appears appears to be an o f f - s i z e d group. I t i s possible that the operators of farms of thi s size buy more machinery than they can handle e f f i c i e n t l y . As. would be expected, the larger the farm, the greater the ac- t u a l amosnt of money invested i n machinery. This t r e a t i s e on c a p i t a l i z a t i o n i s based on figures found i n Tables Ho. 3 and 4. On the whole, the r e f o r e , i t may be concluded that the small farms have a larger proportion of t h e i r c a p i t a l apportioned to house, farm bui l d i n g s , and machinery, than the larger farms. Of course t h i s means that the smaller farms have a greater over- *5 F i g . 12. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF CAPITAL IN FARM BUILDINGS, 1921-80. O S 6 9 12 15 Up to SO Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Cent. (From Table No. 4, Appendix.) l>7 g i g * lg« AVERAGE PERCENTAGE Of CAPITAL I I LIVESTOCK 1921-1930. 0 5 10 15 20 25 tip to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Aores 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Cent. (From T§ble No. 4, Appendix.) "3 g- F i g * 14. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE Off CAPITAL IN MACHINERY 1921 - 1930* 4 10 Up to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Aeres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Cent. (From fable No. 4, Appendix. ) head expense, proportionately, than the larger farms. Since these items are only i n d i r e c t l y productive, the smaller farms are at a d i s t i n c t disadvantage i n t h i s respect. fg) C a p i t a l i n l i v e s t o c k . On the other hand, the small and middle-sized farms have a larger proportion of t h e i r c a p i t a l invested i n livest o c k than the farms of over 101 t i l l a b l e acres. This tends to compensate the j small-farm owners for t h e i r high overhead and r e l a t i v e l y low proportion of land to t o t a l c a p i t a l . A c t u a l l y the largest grpup invested about f £,500 more i n l i v e s t o c k than the 1 to 30 t i l l a b l e acre group. fJh.) Feed and supplies. Feed and supplies i s a widely f l u c t u a t i n g item. In the f a l l i t a t t a i n s considerable importance due to the newly-harve- sted crop< being on hand. In the early summer, at the time of the c o l l e c t i o n of data for the Survey, however, feed and supp- l i e s are at a minimum. For a l l farms t h i s item only made up 1.34 per cent of the t o t a l c a p i t a l , which represented $£19.82 i n actual money. f i ) Total c a p i t a l per t i l l a b l f c acre. This i s a very s i g n i f i c a n t item since i t shows the d i s - advantage under which the small-farm owners labour due to t h e i r high 4verhead. The t o t a l c a p i t a l per t i l l a b l e acre took a sharp F i g . 16. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE Off CAPITAL I I FEED AND SUPPLIES, 1921-80. Up to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Cent. (From Table No. 4, Appendix.) g i g . 16. AVERAGE TOTAL CAPITAL PER TILLABLE ACRE 19E1 - 1930. £00 £S0 E40 £60 £80 300 Tip to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Dol l a r s . (From Table Ho* 5, Appendix.) H-2 . drop from $ 556.08 f o r Group 1 to $ 848.55 for Group 5 and then r i s e s s l i g h t l y u n t i l i t was at $ 256,54 for the farms over 101 t i l l a b l e acres. The trend i s w e l l brought out i n P i g . 16. The apparent advantage of the middle group is. probably due to the fac t that i t has a smaller percentage of t i l l a b l e land to actual acreage than the other groups. *ig« 17. AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RECEIPTS, 1921-gQ, (Fram Table Ho. 6, Appendix.) (6) RECEIPTS. (a) Sources of receipts on a l l farms, The average of the t o t a l receipts for a l l farms was $ 3,875,56. Half of t h i s amount was obtained from the dairy xxx and one quarter from crops. Miscellaneous souces provided 11.46 per cent.Then came hogs with 5.35 per cent. The Returns from sheep were so small as not to warrant i n c l u s i o n . Only the l a r g - er farms carried sheep to any extent, and the average returns from t h i s source r a r e l y exceeded $ 100.00. Increase i n feed and supplies was also too small to include i n t h i s analysis. fb ) Total r e c e i p t s. The t o t a l receipts from the smallest group averaged f> 2,236.38. As the farms became larger,the t o t a l receipts i n - creased by about $ 1,000 for each acreage group, u n t i l the l a s t group was reached, when the increase was about $ 5,000. This difference i s again due to the high average number of t i l l a b l e acres i n t h i s group. fc) Receipts from dairy. In a l l the groups, the dairying enterprise contributed the greatest amount of the farm revenue. Aa i s shown i n Table No.'6, the farmers with from 51 to 45 t i l l a b l e acres devoted most of th e i r attention to dairying. As the farms grew larger, l l g . 18, AYERAGE TOTAL RECEIPTS, 1921 - 50. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Up to SO Aeres 51-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Aeres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Dol l a r s . (from Table Ho. 5, Appendix.) g i g . 19. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE Og TOTAL RECEIPTS gROE DAIRY, 1921-30. 20 40 60 80 100 Up to 30 Acres 31-45 Aeres 41-70 Aeres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Cent. (Prom Table No. 6, Appendix.) there was a tendency f o r less importance to he attached to the dairy. The farms of 101 t i l l a b l e acres and over obtained only 44.75 per cent, of t h e i r receipts from t h i s source. fd) Receipts from crops. F i g . 20 shows how uniformly the percentage of receipts from crops increases as the number of t i l l a b l e acres increases. This i s only n a t u r a l , since on the larger farms, more attention must be given to the crops and less to l i v e s t o c k , due to the lower labour supply per acre. Group No.l obtained 10.29 per cent, of i t s r e c e i p t s , or $ 230.05, from crops, as contrasted with 34.50 per cent., or # 2,367.47, i n the case of farms hav- ing more than 100 t i l l a b l e acres, ( e) Receipts from hogs. The medium-sized farms are most p a r t i a l to hog produc- t i o n . The 46 to 70 acres group obtained 7.42 per cent, of i t s returns from t h i s source. F i g . 21 indicates the lesser impor- tance swine-raising plays on the other farms groups. The small- sized farms are too intensive, and the large-sized farms are too extensive, i n t h e i r organization to give much time to t h i s enterprise. (f) Receipts from poultry. The 1 to 30 t i l l a b l e acre group appear to have devel- oped poultry production to a greater extent than any of the Fig, 20. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM CROPS, 1921 - 80. 0 Up to 80 Acres 31-45 Aeres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over 10 20 30 40 50 Per Cent. (From Table 10. 6, Appendix.) F i g * 21. AVERAGE PERCEHTAGE OF TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM HOGS. 1921 - 20. 0 2 4 6 8 10 Up to SO Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Cent. (From Table Uo. 6, Appendix.) tro. g i g * 22. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE Qg TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM POULTRY. 1921 - 1980. Up to 50 Acres 51-45 Acres 46-70 Aeres 71-100 Acres 101 Aeres and over A l l farms Per Cent. fgrom Table Ho. 6, Appendix.) others, fhe smaller-sized farms, with t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y ample labour supply, are p a r t i c u l a r l y adapted to producing poultry as a s i d e l i n e . However, although the f i r s t group obtained 15.4 per cent, of i t s receipts from poultry as contrasted with 7.03 per cent, for Group 5, the l a t t e r received about | 90 more i n aetual returns from t h i s enterprise than did the smaller farms. (g) Miscellaneous r e c e i p t s, fhe smaller farms again lead when i t comes to the pro- portion of receipts from miscellaneous sources, fhere i s a gradual decrease i n the percentages of the receipts from t h i s source as the farms increase i n s i z e , with the exception that the second and t h i r d groups are p r a c t i c a l l y the same, fhe average receipts from miscellaneous sources for a l l farms was $ 430.92. fhese miscellaneous receipts are made up of: inepme from work done o f f the farm, wood sold, the rent of machinery, the rent credited to the operator f o r the use of his house, and many minor items, fhe rate of the rate of the rent credited to the miscellaneous receipts i s 10 per cent, of the house value. (h) P e r q u i s i t e s . f h i s item, which includes the milk, eggs, f r u i t , veg- etables, etc., "sold" by the farm to the operator's house, was not included i n the t o t a l r e c e i p t s , but i t i s , nevertheless, a t h e o r e t i c a l r e c e i p t , fhere was l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n i n the value of 5?. f i g . 23. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE Qg TOTAL RECEIPTS PROM MISCEHANEOUS SOURCES, 1921-gQ. 8 12 16 20 Up to SO Acres 21-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Cent, (gJ"rom Table No, 6, Appendix.) Wig* 25. AVERAGE VALUE Off PERQUISITES. 1921-80. 350 400 450 560 550 600 Up to 30 Acres || 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Dollars (From Table No. 5, Appendix.) perquisites between aereage groups, Fig. 25 indicates that there was a gradual increase from f 350.59 to f 554.40 as the farms increased i n size. f i ) Gross receipts per t i l l a b l e acre. Another very significant item i s the gross receipts per t i l l a b l e acre. Fig. 24 shows the decided decrease i n receipts per t i l l a b l e acre as the size of the farm i s increased, fhere was a range of from $ 95.04 per acre for the f i r s t group to | 41.68 per acre for the largest-sized farms. It was because of the farmers* higher receipts per t i l l a b l e acre that the small-farm owner to compete successfully with the more highly capitalized owner of the larger farms. It was the reward of the intensity of production practised on the small farms, fhe large-farm owner, unless he i s an exceptionally good manager, must content himself with following a less exacting type of agriculture. It should be the aim of a l l dairymen to build up a large-sized business on the acreage they have at their dis- posal. *6: f i e . £4. AVERAGE GROSS RECEIPTS PER f A C R E 1921 - 1030. 0 £0 40 60 80 100 Up to 30 Aeres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Aeres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Dollars. (from Table No. 5, Appendix.) (from table l o . 8, Appendix.) 6" 7, (7) EXPENSES. (a) Analysis of expenses on a l l farms . From Table No. 7 we learn that the average of the t o t a l expenses on a l l farms was $2,275,60. Of t h i s amount, 56.75 per eent. came from miscellaneous sources which we are not i n t e r - ested i n at t h i s time. The biggest single item was family and hired labour, which caused 52.64 per eent. of the t o t a l expenses on a l l farms. The next factor of importance was the feed b i l l , which made up 17.85 per cent, of the expenses. F i n a l l y , there was 12,85 per cent, which was set aside to provide f o r deprec- i a t i o n on buildings and machinery. I t may be noted that the average of the expenses for a l l farms was just a l i t t l e l e s s than t h r e e - f i f t h s of the average of the t o t a l receipts, (b) Total expenses. Like the t o t a l r e c e i p t s , the t o t a l expenses increase as the farms grow larg e r . However, the increase i s by no means as uniform as i n the case of receipts. F i g . 27 indicates that the smallest farms had an expense b i l l of $1,106.94. The next two groups d i f f e r e d very l i t t l e i n t h e i r t o t a l e^p-nses. There was a marked increase i n expenses, however, i n the fourth group when the t o t a l expenses reached $2,452.94, and a s t i l l greater increase i n the group with over 100 t i l l a b l e acres. f i g . 27. AVERAGE TOTAL EXPENSES, 1921 -20. 0 1000 2000 2000 4000 5000 Up to 20 Acres 21-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Dollars. (Prom fable 10. 7, Appendix.) ( 0) Family and hired labour. I t can be seen at a glance from F i g . 28 that the percent- age of the expenses due to family and hired labour increases as the s i z e of the farms increases. The actual figures shown an even more marked increase. The group with from 1 to 30 t i l l a b l e acres paid only $235.75 for labour, while the farms of over 100 t i l l a b l e acres were charged $1,609.43 for t h i s item. The smaller farms tend to organize t h e i r business so that the fam- i l y can handle most of the work. This keeps t h e i r labour b i l l at a minimum fi g u r e . The larger farms, however, are forced to employ more outside labour due to'the necessity of handling a large area of land i n a short time. The labour expenses of t h i s group are, therefore, higher. I t has been observed that the hired labour on the larger farms command a greater wage than the labour on the smaller farms. This may be due to the great- er s k i l l required to handle the larger units on the big farms or to the fact that the labour i s not so e a s i l y supervised on farms of over 100 t i l l a b l e acres. fd) Feed bought. The actual outlay of money f o r feed purposes did not vary greatly between acreage groups. The average for a l l farms was $405.47, and the expenses from t h i s source increased from $399.13 for Group 1, to $559.27 for Group 5. The tuend, how- ever, was by no means uniform. When we consider the percentage r e l a t i o n s of feed bought to t o t a l expenses on the different FIG. 28. AVERAGE PERCENTAGES OF EXPENSES FROM FAMILY AND HIRED LABOl, 1921-50. 0 10 20 SO 40 50 Up to 31 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Gent. (From Table No. 8, Appendix.) FIG. 29. AVERAGE PERCENTAGES PROM FEED BOUGHT 1921 - 30. 0 10 20 gO 40 50 Up to 31 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and oyer A l l farms Per Cent. (From Table No. 8, Appendix.) 11. farms, we f i n d that there was a very decided increase i n the proportion of the expenses caused by t h i s factor as the farms decreased i n s i z e . I t ranged from 36.05 per cent, to 12.37 per cent, as i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g . 29. This was undoubtedly due to the fact that the smaller farms have the highest l i v e s t o c k population per acre, and the smallest amount of t i l l a b l e land fo r growing t h e i r own feed. fe) Depreciation on buildings and machinery. Because of the higher c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the larger farms i t i s reasonable to expect that they would have to pap more i n actual d o l l a r s for depreciation. Table No. 7 shows a gradual increase from |166.28 to |499.22 as the farms became larger. From F i g . 30, however, we learn that as the farms increased i n s i z e , the percentage of expenses due to depreciation decreased. I t was not u n t i l the farms became larger than 70 t i l l a b l e acres that the proportion of depreciation decreased markedly. This trend i s caused by the higher c a p i t a l i z a t i o n per acre of the smaller-sized farms. (f ) Miscellaneous expense. This group contains a large number of items which i t did not seem advisable to study separately at t h i s time. It includes: machine work hire d , threshing, s i l o - f i l l i n g , r epairs, seeds, f e r t i l i z e r s , car-operfcting expense, water-rates, t e l e - FIG. 30. AVERAGE PERCENTAGES OF EXPENSES FROM DEPRECIATION ON BUILDINGS AND MACHINERY, 1921 - gQ. 0 10 20 30 40 50 Up to 31 Acres 31-45 Aeres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Cent. (From Table No. 8, Appendix.) 14-. FIG* 5&. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF EXPENSES FROM MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES. 1921 - 50. 0 10 20 30 40 50 Up to 51 Acres 51-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Cent. (From Table No. 8, Appendix.) 1ST. phone, insurance, cash rent, e l e c t r i c i t y , taxes, and many other current expenses. Table Ho. 7 indicates that the farms with over 100 t i l l a b l e acres had a p a r t i c u l a r l y large b i l l due to these miscellaneous expenses, and paid $1,850.19 for these items. With a decrease i n the size of the farms, the cost of the miscellaneous expenses decresed u n t i l i t reached a figure i of $205.78 for farms under 30 t i l l a b l e acres. The percentages i l l u s t r a t e d i n P i g . 30 agree with t h i s trend. Water rates, taxes, insurance, f e r t i l i z e r , and machine operating expense, probably account for the r e l a t i v e l y greater current expenses on the larger farms. (g) Total expenses per t i l l a b l e acre. The trend for t o t a l expenses per t i l l a b l e acre i s much si m i l a r to that for receipts per t i l l a b l e acre. With an i n - crease i n the size of farms the expenses per acre decrease. The decrease was most marked between the f i r s t three groups. The range was from $50.78 per acre for farms under 30 t i l l a b l e acres, to $30.84 f o r Group 5. The greater r e l a t i v e overhead and feed expense on the small farms tends to counterbalance they have due to t h e i r greater returns per acre. I t may also be said that the large farms can make more e f f i c i e n t use of machinery and labour and can grow more of t h e i r own feed, than the small- er farms. In t h i s way they can lower t h e i r expenses per acre. u . JIG. 32. TOTAL EXPENSES PER TILLABLE ACHBft 1921 - 30. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Up to 31 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Per Cent, (from Table No. 7, Appendix.) 17. (Q) EFFICIENCY FACTORS fa) Crop Index. F i g . 33 indicates that there i s no trend i n crop i n - dices between acreage groups. Farms haying from 31 to 45 t i l l a b l e acres had the most e f f i c i e n t crop production and obtained a crop index of 105.36. The next largest group, how- ever, had the smallest crop index, 99,13. The average for a l l farms was 102.96. The advantage to the groups with the high- est crop index i s obvious. Such farms ean reduce t h e i r costs by producing more of t h e i r own feed. Moreover, farms with a high crop index can support more li v e s t o c k per t i l l a b l e acre than can farms with a low crop index. Referring back to Table No. 2, we f i n d that the group with", the lowest crop index had also the highest percentage of unproductive land. Although the c o r r e l a t i o n for a l l the groups was not very great i n t h i s respect, the figures bear out the theory that a high cfcop index and a high percentage of t i l l a b l e land go together. The farmer with the larger percentage of crop land tends to farm more in t e n s i v e l y than the man with an excess of unproductive land. Another i n t e r e s t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n i s that between crop index and butterfat production per cow, as i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g . 43. I t i s seen that the farms with from 31 to 45 t i l l a b l e acres, which had the highest crop index, also secured the greatest number of pounds of butterfat per cow. FIG. 55. AVERAGE CROP INDEX,, 1921 - 30. 96 98 100 102 104 106 Up to 31 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms (From fable NO. 9, Appendix.) (b) Livestock index. The common b e l i e f that good crops are always associated with good l i v e s t o c k i s not substantiated by a study of F i g . 34. This chart shows that the smallest acreage group was by far the most e f f i c i e n t i n l i v e s t o c k production, and attained the high index of 124.97. Group 2 was the only other group with an av- erage l i v e s t o c k index over 100. The remaining three groups were p r a c t i c a l l y equal i n e f f i c i e n c y of li v e s t o c k production, and averaged about 95. On the whole, the dairy-farmers are better animal ra i s e r s than they are crop producers, as i s shown by a comparison of the averages of a l l farms i n Table Ho. 9. fe) Total animal u n i t s . A glance at F i g . 35 w i l l show that the t o t a l animal units per farm increased uniformly with an increase i n the size of farms. I t w i l l be remembered that an animal unit i s the equivalent of one mature horse or cow, fed on the farm for one year. A l l the other classes of l i v e s t o c k are reduced to t h i s basis to make up the t o t a l animal un i t s . The f i r s t group had an average of 14.6 animal u n i t s , while the largest group had an average of 27.10 animal units. From Department of Agric- ulture B u l l e t i n Ho. 103, by H.R. Hare, whieh gave the results of the f i r s t f i v e years of the Farm Survey, i t was learned that c a t t l e and work horses make most of the animal units. Swine come t h i r d , and poultry l a s t , i n importance. Sheep were om- i t t e d altogether, as t h e i r numbers are very low on dairy farms. FIG. 84. Average Livestock Index. 19£1 - 80. 80 90 100 110 120 ISO Up to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms (From Table No. 9, Appendix.) f i g . 55. AVERAGE TOTAL ANIMAL UNITS. 1921-30. 0 10 20 30 40 50 Up to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Aeres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms (From Table No. 9, Appendix.) Another i n t e r e s t i n g fact gleaned from t h i s b u l l e t i n i s that the larger farms carried a greater number, and also a greater percentage, of young stock i n proportion to the number of milk- cows than did the smaller farms. Where skim milk was available the r a i s i n g of hogs assumed some importance. The medium-sized farms had the largest number of animal units i n hogs. fd) lumber, of t i l l a b l e acres per animal u n i t . Like the t o t a l animal u n i t * , the average number of t i l l - able acres per animal unit increased as the size of the farm increased. In other words, the number of animal units per t i l l a b l e acre i s l e s s on the larger farms than i t i s on the smaller farms. Bach animal unit had only 1.49 acres on the farms under 30 t i l l a b l e acres, while group No. 5 allowed 3.64 acres for each animal u n i t . Concentration of live s t o c k i s possible on the smaller farms due to the r e l a t i v e l y ample supply of labour. (e) Gross receipts per anmmal unit^ F i g . 41 shows an i n t e r e s t i n g trend i n the returns which l i v e s t o c k y i e l d on the various-sized farms. Group 3, 46 to 70 t i l l a b l e acres, which we have described before as being o f f - si z e d , secured only $127.97 per animal u n i t . Tha groups on either side did a l i t t l e b etter, and obtained about $140 per animal u n i t . The two extremes i n s i z e , however, ran a close race f o r the highest returns on t h i s basis. Both Groups 1 and 5 g i g . 40. AVERAGE NUMBER Of TILLABLE ACRES Per ANIMAL UNIT, 1921-50. 0 1 2 5 4 5 Up to 50 Acres 51-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Acres. (Prom Table No. 9» Appendix. ) I I S . 41, AVERAGE GROSS RECEIPTS PER ANIMAL UNIT. 1921-30. 100 120 140 160 180 200 TJp to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms D o l l a r s , (Prom Table 9, Appendix.) n b", obtained $155 per animal u n i t . (f) Number of cows* The reason why the large farms received as high a gross return per animal unit as the smallest farms, when the l a t t e r s p e c i a l i z e s to a greater extent i n l i v e s t o c k production, may be found from a study of F i g . 42. In t h i s chart i s shown that the average number of cows increased from 7,35 for Group 1 to 20.65 for farms with over 100 t i l l a b l e acres. The average f o r a l l farms was 12.65 cows. This advantage i n the number of cows whieh i s possessed by Group 5 allows favorable comparison of i t s gross receipts per animal unit with those of Group 1. The farms under 30 t i l l a b l e acres had the greatest percentage of poultry and other l i v e s t o c k i n t h e i r animal unit make-up. Since these l i v e s t o c k enterprises are not so p r o f i t a b l e on the dairy- farms as the dairying enterprise i t s e l f , the gross receipts per animal unit f o r the f i r s t group are not so large as might be expected. (g) Pounds of butterfat per cow. Outside of management, there i s probably no other factor which influences the f i n a n c i a l returns of the dairy-farmer to such an extent as the butterfat production per cow. There are few periods of depression which the dairy farmer cannot weather i f h i s milk production per cow i s s u f f i c i e n t l y high. The av- erage production for a l l farms was 252.15 pounds, and the av- 1 FIG. 42. AVERAGE MJMBBR OF COWS, 1Q21-30. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Up to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms (From Table Ho. 9, Appendix.) ^1. g i g . 45. Average Humber of Pounds of Butterfat Per Cow Per Year. 1921 - 1930. 200 220 4 240 260 280 300 Up to 30 Aeres 51-45 Aeres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Aeres 101 Aeres and over A l l farms Pounds. (grom Table l o . 9, Appendix.)  -1 c\. KB erage production for the d i f f e r e n t acreage groups did not vary greatly from t h i s f i g u r e . Farms of from 31 to 45 t i l l - able acres had the top figure of 262.92 pounds, while the lowest production of 238.68 pounds was found i n the 71 tp 100 t i l l a b l e acre group, These figures are altogether too low. I would suggest that an average production of 300 pounds of butterfat i s the minimum which dairy-farmers should maintain i f they are to earn s a t i s f a c t o r y dividends on t h e i r investment. I f time had permitted, the w r i t e r could have compiled tables from the records of the Farm Survey o f f i c e to show that there i s a very close c o r r e l a t i o n between operator income and butter- f a t production. Those farms with a high milk record per cow have almost i n v a r i a b l y a high operator income. However, there has been a steady improvement i n the butterfat production per cow since the time when the Survey was f i r s t started. F i g . 44 shows the gradual upward trend from 1921, when the average f o r a l l farms was 237 pounds, to 1930, when the production reached an average of 278 pounds. The increase has been most marked i n the l a s t three years. I t i s to be hoped that the dairymen w i l l maintain, and even accelerate, t h i s increase. I t i s more e s s e n t i a l than ever, now that the price of butterfat has dropped so r a d i c a l l y , for the farmers to have a maximum output f o r every unit of production which they maintain. ¥ 0. (k) P r i c e received per pound b a t t e r f a t . Table Uo. 9 gives the average price per pound butterfat for a l l farms as being 52 cents. The price received by the farmers on the various acreage groups did not vary appreciably from t h i s f i g u r e . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note, however, that the medium sized farms received the leas t for t h e i r milk, while the smallest and the largest farms got the best p r i c e . Group 1 obtained the top price of 55 cents per pound but t e r f a t . This trend i s brought out very c l e a r l y i n P i g . 50. ( i ) Receipts per eow milk products. The figures given i n Table l o . 9 for t h i s item are prob- ks ably influenced greatly by the butterfat production per cow on the d i f f e r e n t sized farms. I t i s true at l e a s t , as can be seen by comparing Pigs. 43 and 52, that the two groups with the largest production per cow had also the highest average receipts per cow milk products. Group 2 had by far the greatest returns per cow, and obtained |90 more per cow than the average figure of$151.10 for Group 1. The three larger groups did not d i f f e r g r e a t l y i n t h i s respect, and averaged about $125 per eow. On the average, i t i s evident that the owners of farms of from 31 to 45 t i l l a b l e acres are the best herd managers. («J) Cost of production per pound butter f a t . There i s a sharp contrast between the trend of cost of FIG. 50. AVERAGE PRICE PEE POUND BUTTERFAT. 1921-30. 46 48 50 52 54 56 Up to 30 Aores 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Cents. (From Table No. 9, Appendix.) ?IG. 52. AVERAGE RECEIPTS PER OQW MILK PRODUCTS. 1921-30 50 100 150 200 250 Up to 50 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Aeres and over A l l farms 300 Do l l a r s . (From Table l o • 9, Appendix.) production of butterfat during the l a s t 10 years and the price which the dairymen hare received for t h i s product, but t h i s w i l l be discussed l a t e r . What s t r i k e s the attention f i r s t , o n comparing the two i n fable Ho. 9, i s that the average for a l l farms gives the eost of butterfat per pound as being IS cents higher than the s e l l i n g p r i c e . How then, has the dairy farm- er been able to carry on f o r the l a s t ten years? fhe answer l i e s i n an explanation of the method of determining the cost of production of b u t t e r f a t . B r i e f l y , the r e s i d u a l method i s used i n t h i s determin- a t i o n . In the f i r s t place, only farms are used which obtain over 50 per cent, of t h e i r t o t a l farm receipts from dairy catt- l e . On these farms i t i s assumed that the variaas s i d e l i n e s contribute to the economy of the dairying enterprises. Con- sequently the net returna from the sid e l i n e s are credited to the cows, fhen the t o t a l farm expense i s calculated. This includes current expenses, wages to the operator, and interest on the t o t a l farm c a p i t a l . From the t o t a l expenses, the rev- enue from s i d e l i n e s i s subtracted. This leaves the gross cost of producing butterfat on the farm. The f i n a l step i s to div- ide t h i s figure by the number of pounds of butterfat sold dur- ing the year, to get the cost of production per pounfl butter- f a t . I t w i l l be remembered from the explanation.** terms that the t o t a l expenses include several items which the ind i v i d u a l farmer may not pay. These include wages to the family, and "ST H-: depreciation. Moreover, the farmer may be s a t i s f i e d with a lower return on h i s investment than the ? per cent, charged against the c a p i t a l for the purpose of t h i s sirVey, Consequent- l y , the average production of butterfat i s a c t u a l l y lower, and the farmer's income higher, than the figures given i n Table Ho. 9 would i n d i c a t e . This explains how the dairy-farmer has managed to subsist i n spite of the s t a t i s t i c a l evidence that he i s continually s e l l i n g below cost. Coming back to the comparison of the acreage groups, we f i n d that the f i r s t group had much the highest costs, aver- aging 69 cents per pound bu t t e r f a t . The statement that the ownersax of farms of from 31 to 45 t i l l a b l e aeres were the best herd managers i s further substantiated by the fact that they had the lowest cost of production f o r b u t t e r f a t , as well as the highest receipts per cow milk products. FIG. 55. AVERAGE COST QF PRODUCTION PER POUFD BUTTERFAT. 1921 - 50. 60 62 64 66 68 70 Up to 50 Acres 51-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Cents. (From Table No. 9, Appendix.) (9) FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF THE FARM BUSINESS* And now we com* to the most in t e r e s t i n g part of t h i s study — the part that indicates the number of do l l a r s and cents that the dairy farmer made, or l o s t , during the l a s t ten years. The t o t a l receipts and the t o t a l expenses hare already been analysed. The difference between these two i s found i n order to get the farm net revenue. (a) The farm net revenue. To my mind the farm net revenue i s the truest yardstick fo r measuring the profitableness of d i f f e r e n t - s i z e d farms. I t may be assumed that the proportion of borrowed c a p i t a l does not vary appreciably between acreage groups. Consequently, the larger the average farm net revenue of a group, the better pos- i t i o n that group i s i n . From t h i s viewpoint, a glance at F i g . 55 w i l l indicate that, on the average, the larger the farm a man has, the more money he can make. The farm net revenue for farms under 30 t i l l a b l e acres was $1129.63, while the largest group had a revenue of $2,543.01. The average for a l l farms was $1,601.63. The conclusion t h i s leads one to i s that the more c a p i t a l a man has, the better advised he i s to buy a large farm. This assumes, of course, that the man has at least aver- age managerial a b i l i t y . %1. FIG. 55. AVERAGE FARM NET REVENUE. 1921 - 50j 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Up to 30 Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Dollars (From Table No. 11, Appendix.) (b) Interest on the c a p i t a l at 7 per cent. As f a r as the interest payments are concerned, the smaller farms have a very obvious advantage which i s wel l i l l - ustrated i n F i g . 66. Interest payments only cost Group 1 $534.33, while the farms of over 100 t i l l a b l e acres were ass- essed $2,378.17 for t h i s item. There was an average interest charge of $1,165.34 f o r a l l farms. I would l i k e to point out, however, that i f the farm operator owns his own c a p i t a l , t h i s i n t e r e s t which has been charged against the farm, goes into h is own pocket. The large-farm operator, therefore, does not have to worry very much about the size of hi s operator income, as long as i t i s a"plus"figure, since the interest which he ob- tains i s s u f f i c i e n t to give him a very comfortable l i v i n g . The c r i t i c s of t h i s idea w i l l probably point out that the farmer would do f a r better to invest his c a p i t a l i n stocks or bonds and obtain his in t e r e s t with no e f f o r t whatever, i f he cannot get a good operator income as well for his 365 days work per year. This i s undoubtably true. However, there are many sat- i s f a c t i o n s i n farm l i f e which might influence a man ton stay on the land, operator income or no operator income. And, as far as investments are concerned, i t may be well to remind the reader thaf'easy come easy go"! To get back to facts and f i g - ures again, we may observe that the payment of interest on cap- i t a l at 7 per cent, reverses the trend of advantage between acreage groups which was shown i n the char® representing farm net revenue* 8^. FIG. 56. AVERAGE INTEREST 01 OPERATOR'S CAPITAL AT 1$>% 1921 - 1920. 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2000 Up to 20 Acres j| 21-45 Acres 46-70 Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Aeres and over A l l farms Dol l a r s . (From Table No. 11, Appendix.) °\ 0. (c) Operator income. As a measure of the e f f i c i e n c y of the farm manager, the operator income i s i d e a l . On farms of s i m i l a r size and c a p i t a l - i z a t i o n , the amount of the operator income i s unexcelled for comparing the a b i l i t y of the operators. When comparing farms of d i f f e r e n t sizes and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , however, a new element enters. This element i s the fact that i t takes a better man- ager to secure a given operator income on a large farm, where there i s a multitude of units to handle, than i t does on a small farm where the organization i s r e l a t i v e l y simple. With t h i s i n mind we may analyse the average operator income for the d i f f e r - ent acreage groups. The ten year average f o r a l l farms places the operator income at $451.58, not a very large figure when one considers the long hard hours a farmer puts i n . Group 1 l e d i n operator income with a figure of f>600.®2. With an increase i n the siz e of the farms, the income decreased u n t i l i t was $235.94 f o r the farms of over 100 t i l l a b l e acres. This i s just a drop of about $170, and i s not appreciable when one considers the difference i n interest on c a p i t a l between the two groups. I t does bring out the f a c t , however, that the man of average man- ag e r i a l a b i l i t y and c a p i t a l w i l l do best to be content with op- erating a small farm. I t i s a l o t safer i n the long run. The large farms may y i e l d very high returns under good management, but, on the other hand, the losses may be excessive i f the op- erator i s i n e f f i c i e n t . With an average operator income of $600.62 plus the other factors which make up the " r e a l income',1 the FIG. 57. AVERAGE OPERATOR LABOR INCOME, 1921-30. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Up to SO Acres 31-45 Acres 46-70,Acres 71-100 Acres 101 Acres and over A l l farms Do l l a r s . (From fable No. 11, Appendix.) owner of the small-sized farms may he sure, at l e a t t , of a good l i v i n g f o r himself and his family. ( (10) RETURNS PER POULT) BUTTERFAT AND OPERATOR INCOME. To show the r e l a t i o n between cost and s e l l i n g price of b u t t e r f a t and operator income, graphs were drawn. These are presented i n Figs. 54, 51, and 58 respectively. The most s t r i k i n g fact which one observes when comparing these charts i s the wide f l u c t u a t i o n i n the cost of production of butterfat as compared to the r e l a t i v e l y constant s e l l i n g p r i c e of t h i s commodity during the l a s t ten years. The cost of production per pound butterfat dropped from 91 cents i n 1921 to 65 cgnts i n 1924, a change of 26 cents i n three years. The cost remained r e l a t i v e l y constant for the next three years, and theh started downward again, to reach the lowest figure of the decade i n 1929, 50 cents. I t w i l l be noticed that 1929 i s the only year i n the period of the Survey when the s e l l i n g price for bu t t e r f a t exceeded the cost p r i c e . The most spectacular f l u c - tuation i n the cost of production of butterfat took place bet- ween 1929 and 1950, when the cost jumped up from 50 cents to 80 cents. On the other hand, the s e l l i n g price of butterfat has remained r e l a t i v e l y constant. F i g . 61 shows a net increase, during the ten years, of only four cents. The low price was given i n 1925, 49 cents, and the high price i n 1928, fi? cents. The average for the whole period was 52 cents. This constancy o£ s e l l i n g price has probably been due to two main factors.  F i r s t * the greatest proportion of the milk i s handled by large scale co-operative organizations. The Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association i s the outstanding example of such con- cerns. These associations hare undoubtably played a b i g part i n s t a b i l i z i n g the p r i c e of b u t t e r f a t . The other factor i s the importation of butter from outside sources, especially New Zealand and Alberta. This also tends to keep the price unif- orm, since i t causes a constant supply to be maintained. The second outstanding thing which one notices on com- paring these three graphs i s that the operator income and the cost of production are p r a c t i c a l l y reciprocals of each other. The highest cost of 91 cents i n 1921 i s associated with the lowest operator income of -$208.00 (Table No.10). As the cost decreases, the operator income increases. When the cost s t a r t - ed to go up i n 1924, the income went down. Then, when the cost started decreasing again, to reach a low of 50 cents i n 1929, we f i n d i t correlated with the high operator income for the period, $1,109.00. The c o r r e l a t i o n i s further shown by the bi g increase i n cost associated with the f a l l of the operator income between 1929 and 1930. These two charts, i n a way, are a splendid t r i b u t e to the courage and a b i l i t y of B r i t i s h Col- umbia dairy-men. F*ced i n 1921 with high costs due to war time prices and interest rates, and with a minus income due to the sudden f a l l i n prices from 76 cents per pound butterfat i n 1919 to 50 cents i n 1921, the dairy farmer resolutely set 'Mo. to fe (-3 r4 o EH EH g fe O fe o M EH O Q o « CM fe O E-l 03 O O 60 fe o O N i H OJ O N rH O O N O N OJ O N H oo <M O N H • K fr- •H og O N H CD ft Pf N O OJ * O N o H H • O <A fe OJ O N © rH H .Q (S EH 0 OJ O N O H fe OJ O N OJ OJ O N H OJ ON o o H o O N o oo o o N O o out to reduce costs. The success of his e f f o r t i s indicated by the f a l l i n costs of 26 cents per pound b u t t e r f a t , with a coarr- esponding increase i n income. The farmers have persisted i n t h i s s t r i v i n g for greater e f f i c i e n c y , and, u n t i l just t h i s l a s t year, the costs have continued to go down. I t may be observed, how- ever, that there tends to be a s l i g h t lag between a change i n the operator income and a corresponding change i n the cost of production. ThAs i s best i l l u s t r a t e d by the r e l a t i v e l y slower decrease i n cost of production of butterfat between 1925 and 1928 when compared to the increase i n operator income for the same period. I t takes time for the farmer to adjust himself to new conditions.  (11) HOW THE BEST FARMERS MADE MONEY. I t i s easy to generalize and say that such and such fac- tors make for success i n daity farming. But the farmer i s not always very much impressed by theory. He wants to see just how he can gain i n d o l l a r s and cents by adopting new methods and p o l i c i e s . For that reason the writer has compiled data from the f i f t y most successful farms on the Survey during the l a s t ten years. One farm was chosen from each acreage group for each year, so that i n a l l , there were ten farms selected from each acreage group. In studying the d i f f e r e n t successful farms i t was found that there were many items such as the use of the t o t a l c a p i t a l fo r land, b u i l d i n g s , etc., and the source of the receipts, which varied widely from one farm to another. At the same time, i t was seen that there were c e r t a i n fundamental factors i n which the f i f t y farms were very s i m i l a r . Accordingly, the figures representing these factors on each of the f i f t y farms were xsx? averaged, and the averages compared with the averages for a l l farms i n the Survey f o r corresponding items. The comparison i s shown i n Table No. 14. The difference between the two averages for the same factors i s so obvious and s i g n i f i c a n t as to rquire l i t t l e explanation. However, a b r i e f resumee of the tabae may be made. In the f i r s t place, the best farms were considerably \ o o smaller, but more highly c a p i t a l i z e d per t i l l a b l e acre than the average farms. Probably two of the most impressive items are the crop index and the li v e s t o c k index. The best farms had ami average crop index of 131.96 as compared with 102.96 for a l l farms, and a li v e s t o c k index of 142.97 as compared with 103.75 f o r the av- erage farms. High-producing l i v e s t o c k and high-yielding cropa are two tf(f the essentials of a good dairy farm. This may be further i l l u s t r a t e d by the fact that the average cow on the best farms produced about 75 pounds of butterfiat more per year than the average cow on the ordinary farms. Not only were the li v e s t o c k more e f f i c i e n t on the best farms, but the t o t a l num- ber of li v e s t o c k was greater, as indicated by the fact that the best farms had an average of 36.19 animal units as compared with 27.10 for a l l the farms. In the matter of s e l l i n g p r i c e there was l i t t l e difference between the two averages. The best farms had an advantage of four cents per pound butterfat. The cost of production figures, however, show a b i g spread. Whereas the average farms produced but t e r f a t at a loss o f l 3 cents per pound, the best farms made a p r o f i t of 17 cents on every pound of butterfat that they sold. Economy of production, associated with high production, are ce r t a i n l y important fa c t o r s . I do not believe that the percentage of receipts from the dairying enterprise i s very s i g n i f i c a n t . There was a wide s a l t tfgry divergence i n t h i s respect between the d i f f e r e n t best farms. However, i t may be noted that the best farms received an aver- age of 61.41 per cent, of t h e i r returns from dair y i n g , while the ordinary farms obtained an average of 50.26 per cent, from t h i s source. The average gross receipts per t i l l a b l e acre, and the average t o t a l expensespn: per t i l l a b l e acre are interesting f i g u r e s . Both were higher i n the case of the best farms. The good farmers spend more i n order to make more. However, the spread between expenses and receipts was greater on the f i f t y successful farms. The reward for intensive production, for higher produc- t i o n , and f o r more economical production i s very c l e a r l y i n - dicated by the farm net revenue. The average of a l l farms shows a farm net revenue of $3, 658,47 - just f2,056.84.more than the ordinary farmers get on the average. Surely these figures are eloquent i n themselves. Physical labour i s not a f a c t o r . The average farmer works just as hard, or harder, than the most successful farmer. The difference l i e s i n the type of organization , the e f f i c i e n c y of production, and that rather i n d e f i n i t e factor c a l l e d managerial a b i l i t y , which cannot be expressed i n figures. The only other item of importance isthe operator labour income. Since the c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the best farms i s greater than that of the average farms, the interest charges are corres- pondingly greater. This causes the operator income on the best farms to he le s s i n r e l a t i o n to the operator income on the average farms than the farm net revenue would suggest. There i s just one important point to he brought out by a comparison of the operator incomes. In Table No. 13, where the average figures f or the ten best farms i n each acreage group are given, i t i s seen that the operator income increased from $1,701.44, f o r farms with less than 30 t i l l a b l e acres, to $3,168.22 for farms with more than XKHX 100 t i l l a b l e acres. I t w i l l be remembered that the operator income on the average farms decreased with an increase i n the size of farms. The two trends are exactly opposite. This j u s t i f i e s the conclusion made on page 10 that, i f a farmer has more than average a b i l i t y he can secure the greatest returns by operating a large farm; while the average farmer w i l l do best to devote his ef f o r t s to man- aging a small farm. Part I I I SUMMARY ) Summary 1745 farm records were used i n t h i s study On the average, only 52% of the acreage was made up of productive land. The productive land was made up of; crops S8$, pasture 14$. Farms of 46-70 t i l l a b l e acres had the lowest per cent of t i l l a b l e land to t o t a l acreage. The larger the farm the more attention i s devoted to crop production. Uledium sized farms did not use as much pasture prop- or t i o n a t e l y , as did the very small or very large farms. As the size of the farms increased, the amount of labor applied per t i l l a b l e acre decreased. About twice as many crop acres were associated with one man than were associated with one horse. Most of the c a p i t a l was invested i n land, l i v e s t o c k , farm buildings, house, and machinery were next i n importance. 1 0 5 . (10) The larger the farms became, the more important was land as a factor i n c a p i t a l i z a t i o n . The trend was just opposite f o r c a p i t a l i n house, farm buildings, and l i v e s t o c k . The medium-sized farms had the greatest proportion of c a p i t a l i n machinery of a l l farms. (11) Half of the t o t a l receipts on a l l the farms were obtained from the dairying enterprise, and one quarter from crops. Miscellaneous sources supplied about one- tenth of the t o t a l receipts. Sheep were not raised to any extent on the dairy farms i n B r i t i s h Columbia. (IE) Farms of 31 - 45 t i l l a b l e acres gave the most attention to the dairying enterprise. (13) The percentage of receipts from crops increases as the number of t i l l a b l e i» acres increases. (14) Farms of 46 - 70 t i l l a b l e acres gave the most attention to hog r a i s i n g . (15) With an increase i n the size of farms the percentage of receipts from poultry and "miscellaneous" decrease. (16) Perquisites contributed .^429.00 on the average, to the farm income. (17) There was a decrease i n the receipts per t i l l a b l e acre as the size of the farms increased. (18) The dairy-farmer should aim to b u i l d up a large volume of business on the acreage he has at his disposal. (19) The expenses were just a l i t t l e l ess than t h r e e - f i f t h s of the receipts on the average. (20) The larger farms require more outside labour proportion a t e l y than the smaller farms. (21) The r e l a t i v e amount of feed bought decreased with an increase i n the size of farms. (22) Total expenses per t i l l a b l e acre decreased with an increase i n the s i z e of the farms. (23) Farms having 31 - 45 t i l l a b l e acres had the most e f f i c - ient crop production. Group (3) had the lowest crop index. (24) The smallest farms were the most e f f i c i e n t livestock r a i s e r s . (25) The t o t a l animal units per farm increased with an increase i n the size of the farms. However, the (£5) number of animal units per t i l l a b l e acre was greatest on the smallest farms. (£6) The largest and the smallest sized groups received the highest gross return per animal unit. (£7) There was an increase i n the number of cows per farm as the size of the farms increased. (£8) farms of 31 - 45 t i l l a b l e acres had the highest average butterfat production per cow. (29 ) The average butterfat production per cow for a l l farms i s too low, but i s improving stea d i l y . 300 pounds per cow per year should be the minimum. (30) The average price received per pound butterfat was 52^. It did not fluctuate very much from year to year. (31) Owners of farms with 31 - 45 t i l l a b l e acres received the greatest receipts per cow for milk products, and at the same time had the lowest cost of production per eew pound of butterfat. (3£) The cost of production of butterfat fluctuated widely during the l a s t ten years. I t averages 65^ per pound \ o r , (32) — 1 3 ^ higher than the average s e l l i n g p r i c e . (33) From the standpoint of farm net revenue, the larger farms have an advantage, ifhen interest i s deducted from the farm net revenue, the operator income obtained decreases with an increase i n the size of farms. f34) The average operator income for a l l farms i s too low to provide an adequate return f or the farmers e f f o r t s . (35) Cost of production and operator income are reciprocals of each other, with a s l i g h t lag between changes i n the former behind changes i n the operator income. (36) ' The best farms were smaller but more highly c a p i t a l i z e d per t i l l a b l e acre than the average farms. (37) The crop index and the livest o c k index on the best farms were much higher than on the average farms. (38) The best farms had a higher production of butterfat per cow, and a lower cost of production per pound butterfat than the average farms. Both reoeipts and expenses per t i l l a b l e acre were higher on the best farms than on the ordinary farms. (40) As a r e s u l t of these factors, the best farms had an average operator income of over four times the operator income on the average farms. (41) On the best farms, the average operator income increased as the farms increased i n s i z e . The reverse was true i n the case of the ordinary farms. The average farmer can do best by operating a small farm, while the farmer with better than average a b i l i t y can make more money by operating a large farm. Wo. Part IY APPENDIX o rH 08 E H OS S u vO H O O NY O rH ! as N O c— O O C O O O O N j «H • • • • • • v O •A O N O N rH ><* KN C — H CM iH rH c - rH rH ft tr- O O c-- rH H NN. O N A U N . O • • • • • • O rH <A H O r<\ O O N O CM *̂ CM rH N"\ CM H rH O o N O res K \ oo O N C O , H N O CM o N O N N . • • • • • • 1 SJ3 CM O NA v O N O O O N O CM CM r-l r-4 i*N rH o KN IA tA C O O O rH r - O • • • • • • i O A CM O O Cvi i A H CM rH : N O K \ H " t <A O N H N O H O N N O O O O H A • • • • • • | O J O O N O H N O O CM rH 1—1 H H K \ O K \ O O O " N , rH K\ C O rH • • • • * « 1 H K \ H N O H C O K\ CM H rH H K \ CO SH Pi +» sa CO a) 03 ft U : O ^ ! 09 o B 02 ft <D CO © Pi S3 03 f-t CO ft ft o «H O U est GO 03 ra CO w • <H o <D <D © o O a3 CO U a? M H O rH O o ttO U H 03 . a 09 a? a3 ft aj ft © rH ft H ft m o s +» rH O H O o o o • H • H JH m EH O G-i o \ \ X CM I o fe rH & 03 EH fe 8 C O C O m « Ci3 o i-cj EH fe O C O M C O H i fe <4 fe O O S I H CM OS H 03 fe o m PH 92 s SH CO o CM o & «H CM CM o • • • EN 6 iH H rH Pt CO o CO o rH • • rH b O •<t rH o rH O O CM ON l A o rH O rH vO <o i ; • • • <* OO o rH rH o o ; OO (A o c-» ON o , | « « rH • o rA rH »A o j •A C M NO O o =̂t ; ON ON CM o • • m 1 j CM o f A rH tA o rH ! K N ! O ON CM rA o rA vO CO o • • • 1 o o rA rH ir\ o rH rH CD +» CQ <tf 0) fl Pi la  Pt 03 CO i=f CO CD 60 O JH > 09 U m 0) •H CD 60 © 4* !H u <D O O CD a rH fi 03 60 ca & e? o rH « p« rH f-i 0) u o H P» +» o h •H fl O <4 O EH EH IA CP rH ja aJ EH O f A OS H s CM ON o rH CM OO CM OO «A o CM CO CO oo 03 • • • • • • 0 9 • <M rH oo O N ON IA C— oo CM IA rH c~- c~-1—1 C~- IA NO CM rH CM CM CM ! H O N rH H H CM NO I—I tA N 0 OO CM NO CM o *<* •A rA O O ; vo rA • • • • • • • • pi rH OO rA o CO NO NO CM >A NO c— H rH «A oo IA IA O CM H • * • * • * o rH rH CM IA CM CM H CM rA CM OO OO ON H NO CM NO O IA o o • ON ON NO o • • • rH • • • • H CM NO oo CO IA ON o O O N rA CM CM 1 CO CM NO CM OO CM •> • » * c-~ H o H rH CM rH rH c— H o o i A O CM OO CM CO IA c - rH CM CM O rA O rH •A • • • • • • • • 1 rH CM rH rA •A CM NO CO CM rH NO rH C O CM IA N O rA IA ON e rH CM CM "=t rH rH rH H rA rH i A O O N O N O CM O NO rA O IA CO ON CO CM • • • • * • * • 1 OO NO ON o o rH NO rH ON H NO CM rH rH rH r - IA i A CO rH H rA K \ L T \ rH H H rH H vO O O rA CO NO c - oo O rH ON C - O O N rH CO o f A • • * • • • • • CM rH ON tA ON NO| eo CM O rA c - N O : •A c— rH O N rH l A w\ IA rH rA rH rH c-~ ra CD •H m rH <D 60 Pi iH fl Pi O •H Pi o3 ti m rH M <D •rl o u <ti rH fi o fl & += fl 03 & © ra •H rH ta s *S rH fl pS u O <D •H Pi 3 o o3 iH m H 43 P* rH A «H rH I <H as O 4* *4 U a fl fl fl fl fl •H & © 60 •H •H •H «rl -H •H Pi « H rH H rH H rH o H 60 & <* 03 m 03 0} 03 03 4= +» -p 4^ +» rH +=> 9 •iH «H •H •H •H •H 03 •H to Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi 4» Pt O 03 03 03 63 03 03 O 03 O o O O o O EH O: o rH .a a] EH or a u OS «H i—I H P4 0 o I—I o o I—I H o N O A ( A O ft pi O M &D © 60 03 (D o <4 H O J O J "* O N O O N o N O [ A O • • • • • • • O N O O O N I A H o A rH o H O J o rH N O O OO c - O N O O • • • • • • • A A O O H C - o N O H o rH O N •st- N O O N A O A CM all O N A o • • • • • • • O O N IA H N O rH o o rH t — O N OO A ON CM O O O N CM CM O N o • • • • • • « NO O N O O O o A rH rH o H -<* OO O N O N CM C O o CM A A O N H o • • • • • • • rH (A CM tA C- H o A rH H rH o rH I A N O CM A o o O CO O N O N N O N O o * • • • • • • o rH o A rH H rH o rH 0* 03 to « •H rH •H 03 0 pi U O 0} « fl •H "H H H H cfl a) KJ +» +» 4» ft cd o ft a! O ft 03 O 03 © tH rH ft ft 03 !>» o •d o © Pi +» 03 •H © rC! *> O © •H 05 © rH rH S er -R fl fl •H •H •rl •H ft 69 rH H rH O a! C9 Of + 3 +» 4» rH •H •rl •H 0} ft ft ft -P 09 m G9 O o o O EH o © l-t as EH O ro I rH O J O N rH C O m o o CO EH ft M o w ft o o CO a u H N O O N C M N O CM as rH C M CM CM O N IA N O «M • • • • • • • • rH O O rH rH O A C M O N rH O X ** O O N •A C - N O C M H G O O N C M C M oo •«* «j} rH fA Pi A C - O N C - O O O C O o IA C M CM N O Pi • • • • » • • • O N IA N O N O H H rH C O N O C O C M N O A O o IA C M A o A rH fA CM c— O O rA H IA O N rH o O rH N O C M rH C O C O •A A • • • « • • • • 1 O N O O O N O O N O N rH rH H rH O N N O fA rA rH rH rH CM H IA rH -=t O J rH O CM IA ^ O CM O o CM c— N O C O C M A C O O N O N rH • • • • • • • # I O o fA O O C M CM Nf rH O N rH IA IA rH A C M N O A N O CM C M rH H IA IA c— N O C - GO O O O •<t IA A N O v O - O N N O • • • » • • • 1 N O A rH OO O O C O C M A A O O C M O N O N rH A '* H C M ^ O O IA N\ rH CM O IA c— A O O C M O O O N N O O N O O IA o A 1 • • • • • • • • o O O N H N O A O rH "* IA O iA rH IA O N A H C M H IA -* C M IA r i C M © u o ca © rH rQ 03 rH 03 rH -R i~i U ft +» 03 +» •H n ft 03 rH © U •<H O SO Pi O © o3 Q O © ft •zl o r3 ft n 03 03 ft S a a S 03 -r» +» Pi o o o o Pi ft ft O u o •rl •H 03 u «H «H <M © © © © so PJ o O +» m 03 03 03 oJ © © • H © •¥> 4s 4= +> rH W m 03 ft •H ft ft ft rH •H 03 •rl •rl •rl © rH 03 Pi © © © © © O 0} 03 cy m o 03 +» O o © © « ad O JH w EH CU CM CO EH PH M « O 60 CO O PS E H fe O CO fe o « PH CO so CO H P4 CO EH PH M M O fe O CO m o « & o C O o O N H <3> m 0 3M «S N O o IA tA o «H OJ CM fA o • • • • • • rH o •A «A c - rH o H IA CM H o «aj rH Pi P* A O rH f A rH O IA O O c— o • • • • • • rH •A CO o O IA o rH rH O O rH ON CM OS Os rH O 1 CM CM OJ A OO O • • • • # • H sO tA ON O rH IA CM o e» I rH L C—- IA IA CM Os fA O N O tA ON O 1 • • • - • • 4 O OS o N O tA H H o rH CO tA r~- CM OO O c— CO c-» OO O 1 • • • • • IA tA tA O N o rH tA H rH o fA rH O i A Os CO O NO O f A O OJ OO IA O 1 • • • • • • rH i-H o IA CO o IA H rH H o rH 03 r% •R >> U Pi 09 «H rl Pi 03 rH CD •H o 60 pi O 8j r l o o CD •d O • f l Pt r l m Pt a 0 0 S 03 Pf o o o o pi Pt O u r l u u O •H u <H «H «H <H CD CD 60 fl O S3 SO 03 CQ CD CD CD -H> +» +» rH P4 60 Pi Pi Pi Pi rH 0} •ri •H •H iH CD H CD CD CD CD CD O 0) rl O O O O 03 +» o CD CD CD CD o <«S P4 P4 P3 P4 N EH o o EH EM W O fe o EH fe E> Q PH CO CO fe CO o PS I o I A O N t rH C M O N 8 o O CO EH fe fe fe M PH o fel GO CM c-» fA CO o e O N O N O OO r l • • • • • • 03 CM tA rH IA o « H O O N f A fA CM CO CM H CM H «4 IA c— CM N O O N £ CM CM rH O O N • • • • • • O N O N O N O CO N O H o IA O N «A rH CM O N O tA OO tA H H H O OO H rH N O O o N O I—1 O N IA rH • • • • • • N O o H tA CM O N 1 tA rH tA CM CO f A IA O N rH CM c— rA CM •<* f A O o tA IA v O c- CM O • • • • • • A O rH CM H 1 c~ tA OO tA fA »A fA CM e— NO rH N O tA OO N O IA rH A f A H rH rH CO "S" • • • • • • CM (A OO tA o CM 1 tA O f A rH rH -* CM •A N O rH rH rA tA fA CO C O OO O H CM O N IA • • • • • • tA O N N O tA N O o 1 f A O N N O o o tA CM fA 1—1 fA H rH H SH u CD O fl JO •H a .fl U CD CD f* rH O o3 T J CD S Pi o eg r l -d 03 03 9 r H fl fl ed 03 Pi CD 03 CD CD CO rH o o O fl fl & r l T j .fl •H 03 <D CD co o3 t)0 Pi 60 +» 60 fl P« P*H 03 p* CtJ fl OJ H CD O T H -H H CO iH 60 t»» O rH -P 0} rH CD rH CD rH rH CD * H -H O cd o3 CD Pt P$ 03 +» o CO CD pq M i O o <4 fe fe M i EH EH \ 8". CO o CO H , 0 01 EH xa & u & fA fA fA o « H v O OO O O o • • • • • H CM C M N O o rH ^A rH rH fA o rH pi C M C"» A N O O N O fA O O N O H • « • • * O A C M rH o o rH fA rH H o rH O O O N O O •sj- O H O N CO A O • • • • • 1 fA C M OO O fA H rH fA o H rH C— o CM fA H O rr~ C O A C M O • • • • • i C M O N fA o fA H rH fA o N O rH A OO A CO O N O o rH c— O N o ! • • • • • OO A rH o rH C M C M rH fA o fA H O O A C M fA o fA fA O O N O o • • • • « 1 rH N O A C - o C M fA H C M o rH H U © pi o -H /a oJ O H ma  PJ © •d 01 03 ® pi Pi P* 03 o -R O 03 O Pi 14 .d •H 60 © 60 PI 60 *» Pi PI 03 pi Qj «H m H CO o •H rrj H © 60 >> O H rH OJ 1—I © *H © H 0 •d * PS O 03 J* a PMPQ 03 +» o a) © © N « ^ O «0 ft ft m EH • a O N o EH • O o <j ft <D H o & ni wj E H o o r O t< H OJ <H H O «| ftl ra m « 8 rH ft ft o 03 6 to N O A O C M O A A C M N O A 05 O N H o N O rH A N O «H • • • • • • • • • ft O J IA C M IA CM CM o rH o O CM rH A IA H H rH rH CM rH & rH C- H rH A f A f A O O A pi O N C M O N N O C O N O rH A C M N O • •• • • • • « • • ft H N O A IA IA o O H O O N A CM A IA O rH rH C M H H O O C O C M N O O N IA O O rH rH H A A CM O N A N O A O N N O • • • • • • • • • ft 1 O J A o C M N O x * C O IA O O N IA fA rH f A CM rH H H CM rH C- O f A N O N O O c - ' t A O f A N O c— rH *<* tA "A O N O fA tA O N O • • • • • • * • • • 1 O N A C M rH O fA O N O N CM C M rH A C M N O rH C M H •=* tr\ N O C M A ** H CM C M H »t IA "si- C O O O O N A C M N O • • ft • • • • • • ft 1 A O C O o o CM H rH "=t O N C M N O rH rH rH H rH CM C M IA O C~ O N co IA C ~ A O O N IA O N N O "St" rH f A rH A H N O • ft • • • • • • • ft 1 C M O C M H H IA A O N O rH A H rH H rH CM •ft* rH • • 03 © £ • at  34 O © < H O - R e> rH rH Pi to Of «H •H o © 03 PI to to f4 0 - R - R © pi © © © 60-R •H rH Pl+» •rH P 4 Pi Pi Pi © P) • ° H O •H ^3 pi al of 03 Pi 03 • R o O P. rH 0 - R pj 03 © 03 pi " M Pi P) rH rH T 4 Pi O <H rH - R rrj O O •H •H p) •H H o J H T H © O o to t*S fi • R 03 © Ej © © Pi pi to r d to CO •H O 0 • R t» Pi Pi Pi • to © -H O +» © D O , 0 a o aJ O © H PS Pi to += to «H O to • H - R P ! Pi m to Pi Pi O Pi 03 03 rH m © © •H m Pi © a) • m • a © - R u O - R « o 0 09 iH O 03 o «M •H o > *-* pi .O « O <*t O EH «4 r i f-3 P H O 4» O 03 -H «tt += £ r4 o o c— O N O N C O I A O N O C O C O CM <D pi O r A K \ r A "=* A N O N O c— L A +» fd O J O J O J O J CM CM O J CM CM O J CM += O ^ pi © PQ PH PH r i O m -P S C O O C O I A A O I—I L A O N CM rH 03 O o N O C— H r H C O A I A O C~- L A ?H O O J H I A • A N O C O r H rH *sf © rt rH I I I o 0} 03 • O .0 H o H I A O N O J o f A L A N O f A rH" r3 I A O J r H H H rH O O CM H • # • • • • • » • • • r l IH O © _ P4 Pt I I I I I I ! I I I I •H 03 e -• +» 03 o r H rH O J O N L A cr- A CM T H • L A i A I A A L A L A L A A L A r i PH © • + » CO +=» pj PQ +=> 03 r H r H O J A C O N O A O O O L A < H . O N C O tr- N O N O N O N O N O L A C O N O $4 Q-t © • + » O +» PQ © c3 r l r H O J r A I A N O e- C O O N o r l 03 O J O J O J CM CM O J CM CM CM I A © © O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N > r H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH H rH <4 o fe CO H .Q 01 E H to CO CO pq fe w EH fe O CO M o fe fe fe o IA ON rH O J o> rH 03 a N O O rA C O o3 IA N O N O rA rA <H • • • • • LA rA rH tA rH H c- O N O LA rH oo O J N O rH «U rA O J rH rH S* C O N O rH tA O J o O rH O N • • « • • H oo rA C O rA rH N O rH c~ rA O o tA tA rA O J rH e- O J O J O O H O J rA C O rH oo O N tA rH " f A • • • « • t O N O J N O O N C O rA tA O O rA H rH «* N O O J c~ O J rH rH o O rA O O f A tA o- O N O J tA N O N O • • • • • 1 O J O J O N O N O A O N O J N O N O rH c- rA O N rA H rH O i A rA rH -<t N O O O N O O J • • • • • 1 C O O fA O N rH O O c- rH rH oo N O O J E— <A IA O J rH rH oo rA rA O J O rA O N N O rA O IA « • • * • N O N O O N O 1 rA o O J BR* o O J rH rH LA N O H O J rH rH © r- a o +» o 03 fl © • Pi P i rl 03 03 fl 03 P i += © © O O pi P i 03 o fl © fl 03 r l © © r l o IH O © H +» r l © u © © 03 o to fl © 03 H i—t r l 03 © ei 03 £f © r i r l +» +=> +=> © O o o 03 fl Pi <«! E H E H fe l-H O ta O O O O O O o O O C O O O S O O O O O O O O " A f A • • • • » • • • • • • 0} co O C O f A A O rH A O N C M rH «N o N O c- H rH C O A f A O C — A CvJ H Nt- f A A N O O O rH rH rH 1 1 rH H < q P4 o O O N O O C O rH O C-i "=t N O o O O O CM A O N P" « • • • • * • • • • • CM C M N O A O N rH O f A rH O f A N O "* rH o fA H O O O C M C M C M C M C O N O • A C M O rH rH rH I 1 I 1 1 o o C\J o O O f A o C O O N O f A • H NN o O N O o C~~ C M rH O O C O o * • • • • • • • « • • f A 1 C O A C O C O o rH A O N O N C O 1 i * \ f A f A O N O N f A O O C M O f A H H K \ 'Si- rH A N O N O rH rH CvJ C— 1 H O N H • « O J o OO A O C D O «* O O O N C M C O A H «=« c ~ O J C M O O o O O "* C M N O O • • • • • • • • • « • « O 1 f A O N A f A rH f A O O O N O N O o : 535 N O O rH O H O o A C O N O H N O A H C M f A N O c— O O O N •<* M 1 ' H O ^3 M EH WJ EH A rH C M C— O O A o -=f O N o H f A N O O o o rH C M N O N O PH • • • • • • • • • • • 1 C M N O o rH O O rH C M A c - "* N O o N O N O rH C O C O O C O rH H rH 1 C M f A A N O O N C O A A f A 1 • > O ^ A O N O O rH f A A o C O CM I A O N N O N O O O rH N O H f A N O • • • • • • • • • • * i C — O O rH C M C M N O O f A O N o C O O N CM O c - N O A N O O N C M o rH H rH A N O C ~ C — C O c - N O P-l O !4 60 ffi 09 60 60 c3 CO 0) H C M f A A N O C ~ O O O N o * H fH C M C M C M C M C M C M C M CM CM f A CD O O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N t> «i rH rH rH rH rH H rH rH rH rH i ^l>, T a b k Ho. H>. AVERAGE OF TEN BEST FARMS IN EACH ACREAGE GROUP. Item 1 - 5 0 LSI - 45 46 - 70 71 - 100 101- up T i l l a b l e acres Total c a p . / t i l l , acre Crop index Livestock index Total animal units Lbs. of b.f. per cow S e l l i n g p r i c e / l b . b.f.| Cost p r i c e / l b . b.f. Dairy d i v e r s i t y index Gross r e c . / t i l l . acre Total expenses Total e x p . / t i l l . acre Farm net revenue Interest at 7$ Operator income 23.9C |429.41 116.00 176.40 21.02 327.00 70.2$ 54.11 63.67^ &21.13 41.48 53.82 374.03 386.58 129.90 135.40 134.22 152.90 30.67 32.46 349.50 350.60 52.44| 53,24 34.55 34.51 % 66.40 67.20 111.821 100.42 612214.3112180.IS 53.38 40.51 p.754.9 73.43 52425.29 \ 723.74 51701.440,902.2812059.02 12753.663340.73 851.381366.51 1 87.80 335.78 136.40 124.65 35.90 310.50 53.10 43.50 53,85 77,90 3375.33 38.44 3622.96 1436.63 2220.33 198.70 275.03 142.10 126.70 60.91 303.90 52,10 30.55 55.93 61.27 5658.34 28.48 6149873 2974.50 3168.22 i i ^ - Table ITo. 14. COMPARISON OF 50 BEST FARMS WITH THE AVERAGE. Average of A l l farms jA^ersp'e of 5G Best farms : 159.66 81.14 , | 277.72 $ 359.77 I 102.96 131.96 103.75 142.97 27.10 36.19 252.15 328.26 .52 .56 .65 .09 50.26$ 61.41$j | 62.77 | 94.50 | $ 30.84 $ 46.85 |1601.63 |3658.47 j $1165.34 $1470.55 $ 451.38 $2210.26 Item T i l l a b l e acres Total c a p i t a l per t i l l a b l e acre Crop index Livestock index Total animal units Pounds of butterfat per cow S e l l i n g price per l b . B.F. Cost price per l b . B.F. Dairy d i v e r s i t y index Gross receipts per t i l l a b l e acre Total expenses per t i l l a b l e acre Farm net revenuw Interest on c a p i t a l at 7$ Operator labour income

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 5 2
France 1 0
Russia 1 0
China 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 3 2
Ashburn 3 0
Redmond 1 1
Beijing 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items