• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 Objects of the study
 Methods of study
 Method of collecting the data
 History and education of opera...
 Age and tenure of operators
 The farm business study
 Variations in labor income
 Items furnished by the farm
 The dairy enterprise study
 Some factors affecting labor income...
 Summary
 Appendix














Group Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Title: An economic study of 249 dairy farms in Florida
CITATION DOWNLOADS THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026826/00001
 Material Information
Title: An economic study of 249 dairy farms in Florida
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 119 p. : map ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: McKinley, Bruce
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1932
Copyright Date: 1932
 Subjects
Subject: Dairy farms -- Economic aspects -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Bruce McKinley.
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026826
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - AEN4704
oclc - 18204610
alephbibnum - 000924100

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

00000 ( PDF )

00001 ( PDF )

00002 ( PDF )

00003 ( PDF )

00004 ( PDF )

00005 ( PDF )

00006 ( PDF )

00007 ( PDF )

00008 ( PDF )

00009 ( PDF )

00010 ( PDF )

00011 ( PDF )

00012 ( PDF )

00013 ( PDF )

00014 ( PDF )

00015 ( PDF )

00016 ( PDF )

00017 ( PDF )

00018 ( PDF )

00019 ( PDF )

00020 ( PDF )

00021 ( PDF )

00022 ( PDF )

00023 ( PDF )

00024 ( PDF )

00025 ( PDF )

00026 ( PDF )

00027 ( PDF )

00028 ( PDF )

00029 ( PDF )

00030 ( PDF )

00031 ( PDF )

00032 ( PDF )

00033 ( PDF )

00034 ( PDF )

00035 ( PDF )

00036 ( PDF )

00037 ( PDF )

00038 ( PDF )

00039 ( PDF )

00040 ( PDF )

00041 ( PDF )

00042 ( PDF )

00043 ( PDF )

00044 ( PDF )

00045 ( PDF )

00046 ( PDF )

00047 ( PDF )

00048 ( PDF )

00049 ( PDF )

00050 ( PDF )

00051 ( PDF )

00052 ( PDF )

00053 ( PDF )

00054 ( PDF )

00055 ( PDF )

00056 ( PDF )

00057 ( PDF )

00058 ( PDF )

00059 ( PDF )

00060 ( PDF )

00061 ( PDF )

00062 ( PDF )

00063 ( PDF )

00064 ( PDF )

00065 ( PDF )

00066 ( PDF )

00067 ( PDF )

00068 ( PDF )

00069 ( PDF )

00070 ( PDF )

00071 ( PDF )

00072 ( PDF )

00073 ( PDF )

00074 ( PDF )

00075 ( PDF )

00076 ( PDF )

00077 ( PDF )

00078 ( PDF )

00079 ( PDF )

00080 ( PDF )

00081 ( PDF )

00082 ( PDF )

00083 ( PDF )

00084 ( PDF )

00085 ( PDF )

00086 ( PDF )

00087 ( PDF )

00088 ( PDF )

00089 ( PDF )

00090 ( PDF )

00091 ( PDF )

00092 ( PDF )

00093 ( PDF )

00094 ( PDF )

00095 ( PDF )

00096 ( PDF )

00097 ( PDF )

00098 ( PDF )

00099 ( PDF )

00100 ( PDF )

00101 ( PDF )

00102 ( PDF )

00103 ( PDF )

00104 ( PDF )

00105 ( PDF )

00106 ( PDF )

00107 ( PDF )

00108 ( PDF )

00109 ( PDF )

00110 ( PDF )

00111 ( PDF )

00112 ( PDF )

00113 ( PDF )

00114 ( PDF )

00115 ( PDF )

00116 ( PDF )

00117 ( PDF )

00118 ( PDF )

00119 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Front Matter
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Objects of the study
        Page 5
    Methods of study
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Method of collecting the data
        Page 6
    History and education of operators
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Age and tenure of operators
        Page 8
        Page 9
    The farm business study
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    Variations in labor income
        Page 57
    Items furnished by the farm
        Page 58
    The dairy enterprise study
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
    Some factors affecting labor income and cost of milk production
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
    Summary
        Page 114
        Page 115
    Appendix
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
Full Text

w/-

Bulletin 246 May, 1932

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
Wilmon Newell, Director








AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF 249

DAIRY FARMS IN FLORIDA

By BRUCE MCKINLEY




















Bulletins will be sent free upon application to th
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION,
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA.











EXECUTIVE STAFF BOARD OF CONTROL
John J. Tigert, M.A., LL.D., President of the P. K. Yonge, Chairman, Pensacola
University A. H. Blanding, Bartow
Wilmon Newell, D.Sc., Director Raymer F. Maguire, Orlando
H. Harold Hume, M.S., Asst. Dir., Research Frank J. Wideman, West Palm Beach
Sam T. Fleming, A.B., Asst.Dir., Administration Geo. H. Baldwin, Jacksonville
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee
R. M. Fulghum, B.S.A., Assistant Editor
Ida Keeling Cresap. Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Secretary
K. H. Graham, Business Manager B STAT
Rachel MeQuarrie, Accountant BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Associate Plant Pathologist
in Charge.
AGRONOMY R. R. Kincaid, M.S., Asst. Plant Pathologist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Asso. Cotton Specialist
W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist R. M. Crown, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist, Cotton
W. A. Leukel, Ph.D., Associate Jesse Reeves, Farm Superintendent
G. E. Ritchey, M.S.A., Assistant*
Fred H. Hull, M.S., Assistant
J. D. Warner, M.S., Assistant CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
John P. Camp, M.S., Assistant John H. Jefferies, Superintendent
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Pathologist
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY W. A. Kuntz, A.M., Asst. Plant Pathologist
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., Veterinarian in Charge B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Assistant Chemist
E. F. Thomas, D.V.M., Assistant Veterinarian W. L. Thompson, Assistant Entomologist
W. W. Henley, B.S.A., Assistant Veterinarian
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Associate in Dairy Inves- EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
tigations R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Soils Specialist in Charge
W. M. Neal, Ph.D., Asst. in Animal Nutrition R. W. Kidder, B.S., Farm Foreman
P. T. Dix Arnold, B.S.A., Assistant in Dairy In- R. N. Lobdell, M.S., Associate Entomologist
vestigations F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist
H. H. Wedgeworth, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
B. A. Bourne, M.S., Associate Sugarcane Physi-
CHEMISTRY ologist
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Associate Biochemist
R. M. Barnette, Ph.D., Associate A. Daane, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist
C. E. Bell, M.S., Assistant M. R. Bedsole, M.S.A., Assistant Chemist
J. M. Coleman, B.S., Assistant
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
H. W. Jones MS., Assistant H. S. Wolfe, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist in Chg.
Stacy O. Hawkins, M.A., Assistant Plant
ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL Pathologist
C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agricultural Economist
Bruce McKinley, A.B., B.S.A., Associate
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Associate
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Assistant

ECONOMICS, HOME FIELD STATIONS
Ouida Davis Abbott, Ph.D., Head
L. W. Gaddum, Ph.D., Biochemist Leesburg
C. F. Ahmann, Ph.D., Physiologist M. N. Walker, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
W. B. Shippy, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Pathologist
ENTOMOLOGY IK. W. Loucks, M.S., Asst. Plant Pathologist
C. C. Goff, M.S., Assistant Entomologist
J. R. Watson, A.M., Entomologist J. W. Wilson, Ph.D., Assistant Entomologist
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Assistant
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant Plant City
E. F. Grossman, M.A., Asso., Cotton Insects
P. W. Calhoun, Assistant, Cotton Insects A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
R. E. Nolen, M.S.A., Lab. Asst. in Plant Path.
HORTICULTURE Cocoa
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Horticulturist A. S. Rhoads, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
Harold Mowry, B.S.A., Associate
M. R. Ensign, M.S., Associate Hastings
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D., Assistant
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Pecan Culturist A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
C. B. Van Cleef, M.S.A., Greenhouse Foreman West Palm Beach

PLANT PATHOLOGY 1. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Associate Veterinarian
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist Monticello
Gorge F. Weber. Ph.D., Associate Fred W. Walker, Assistant Entomologist
I. K. Voorhees, M.S., Assistant
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist Bradenton
*In cooperation with U.S.D.A. David G. Kelbert. Asst. Plant Pathologist










CONTENTS

PAGE
OBJECTS OF THE STUDY ..................... ............ ............ 5
METHODS OF STUDY ................ .... .......... ................. 5
METHOD OF COLLECTING THE DATA .................................... 6
HISTORY AND EDUCATION OF OPERATORS .............................. 6
AGE AND TENURE OF OPERATORS ............ ... .................... 8
THE FARM BUSINESS STUDY ........................................ 10
Utilization of farm land ...................................... 10
Utilization of crop land ...................................... 10
Crop yields ................................................. 12
Use of fertilizer ......................... .................. 12
Cost of operating trucks ...................................... 12
Cost of operating automobiles ................................. 14

Cost of operating tractors .................................... 15
Animal units ................................................ 15
Summary of the farm business ............................... 16
Capital ................................................. 18
Distribution of real estate capital on owner farms....... 20
Distribution of value of buildings on owner farms ....... 20
Silos .............................................. 22
Farm receipts ........................................... 22
Receipts from livestock sales .......................... 24
M miscellaneous receipts .............................. 24
Farm expenses .......................................... 29
Concentrates ....................................... 30
R oughage .......................................... 38
Hay ............................................ 42
Other roughage ................................. 42
Silage and soiling crops .......................... 46
Pasture costs ............................ ........... 48
Labor in different districts ........................... 50
Rates of labor ....................................... 54
Value of operator's labor and management .............. 56
Variations in labor income ................................... 57
Items furnished by the farm ................ ........... ....... 58








CONTENTS-Concluded
PAGE
THE DAIRY ENTERPRISE STUDY ....... ....... . .................. 58
Breed of cows and herd bulls .................................. 58
Calves born ................................................. 62
Percent of cows freshening and disposal of calves ................ 62
Percent of cows calving each month ............................ 62
Cost of raising heifers ....................................... 63
Age and value of heifers freshening ........................... 65
Age of cows ..................... ..................... ... 66
Sales and death rate of cows and replacement .................... 66
Value of cows, heifers and herd bulls ........................... 68
Appreciation and depreciation of cattle ......................... 68
Direct man labor on cows ..................................... 81
Man labor in retail and wholesale dairies .................... 83
Use of pasture ... ............ ........................... 83
Cost of m ilk production ...................................... 83
Milk hauling ............................................ 86
Extra cost of retailing ................................... 88
Buildings used for cows .................................. 89
Use of dairy equipment ................................... 90
Bull service ............................................. 90
Returns from milk .......................................... 92
Milk production and sales per farm ........................ 97
Milk and its products used on the farm.................... .100
Use of manure .............................................. 100
Quantities of feed and hours of labor .......................... 103
Variations in cost of producing milk .......................... 103

SOME FACTORS AFFECTING LABOR INCOME AND COST OF MILK PRODUCTION.. 104
Relation of education of operator to labor income................ 104
Relation of size of herd to cost of milk and labor income.......... 106
Relation of production per cow to cost of milk and labor income. . 107
Relation of human labor to cost of milk and other factors........ 109
Labor efficiency ................. .......................... 110
Relation of labor efficiency to certain factors .............. 112
Relation of feed costs per cow to cost of milk and other factors. .... 113
Relation of feed costs per hundredweight of milk to labor income
and other factors ................... ..................... 113

SUMMARY ...................................................... 114

APPENDIX ............................................... 116
Application of data to current prices ........................... 116











An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms in Florida

By BRUCE MCKINLEY

Statistics of dairying in Florida are confusing. Federal Census
data as to the number of milk cows in the state show unreasonable
variations from one census period to another. Perhaps the prin-
cipal explanation of these wide variations is the difficulty of deter-
mining just what constitutes a dairy cow in this state. Many of
the cattle on the open range are milked occasionally for the home
supply of dairy products. It takes considerable imagination, how-
ever, to classify these animals as dairy cows.
The best available estimate as to the extent of commercial dairy-
ing in Florida comes from the State Milk Inspection Division. Soon
after its creation on October 1, 1929, this Division made a survey
of the state to ascertain the extent of commercial dairying. This
survey revealed nearly 1,200 commercial dairies with a total of
approximately 35,000 cows. In addition to the commercial dairies,
it is estimated that from 45,000 to 50,000 cows are kept on farms
to supply dairy products for farm family needs.'

OBJECTS OF THE STUDY
The objectives at which this study were aimed can be summar-
ized as follows:
1. The labor incomes of Florida dairy farmers.
2. The costs of and returns from milk production in Florida.
3. The principal factors affecting the labor incomes and the
costs of milk production in Florida.

METHODS OF STUDY
Six of the leading commercial dairy districts of Florida were
selected and lists of the commercial dairy farms in these areas
were secured through the courtesy of the Department of Health,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The writer wishes to acknowledge his indebted-
ness to Dr. C. V. Noble for valuable suggestions concerning the conduct of the
work, for criticisms and changes made in the manuscript and for careful gen-
eral supervision.
Acknowledgment is made to Mr. J. W. Lindsay and Mr. Frank W. Brumley
for assistance in collecting the field data upon which this study is based, to
the farmers who cooperated, and to all others who assisted in the work in
any way.
iThe Florida Dairy News: Vol. 2, No. 11, Sept. 1, 1931.











An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms in Florida

By BRUCE MCKINLEY

Statistics of dairying in Florida are confusing. Federal Census
data as to the number of milk cows in the state show unreasonable
variations from one census period to another. Perhaps the prin-
cipal explanation of these wide variations is the difficulty of deter-
mining just what constitutes a dairy cow in this state. Many of
the cattle on the open range are milked occasionally for the home
supply of dairy products. It takes considerable imagination, how-
ever, to classify these animals as dairy cows.
The best available estimate as to the extent of commercial dairy-
ing in Florida comes from the State Milk Inspection Division. Soon
after its creation on October 1, 1929, this Division made a survey
of the state to ascertain the extent of commercial dairying. This
survey revealed nearly 1,200 commercial dairies with a total of
approximately 35,000 cows. In addition to the commercial dairies,
it is estimated that from 45,000 to 50,000 cows are kept on farms
to supply dairy products for farm family needs.'

OBJECTS OF THE STUDY
The objectives at which this study were aimed can be summar-
ized as follows:
1. The labor incomes of Florida dairy farmers.
2. The costs of and returns from milk production in Florida.
3. The principal factors affecting the labor incomes and the
costs of milk production in Florida.

METHODS OF STUDY
Six of the leading commercial dairy districts of Florida were
selected and lists of the commercial dairy farms in these areas
were secured through the courtesy of the Department of Health,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The writer wishes to acknowledge his indebted-
ness to Dr. C. V. Noble for valuable suggestions concerning the conduct of the
work, for criticisms and changes made in the manuscript and for careful gen-
eral supervision.
Acknowledgment is made to Mr. J. W. Lindsay and Mr. Frank W. Brumley
for assistance in collecting the field data upon which this study is based, to
the farmers who cooperated, and to all others who assisted in the work in
any way.
iThe Florida Dairy News: Vol. 2, No. 11, Sept. 1, 1931.







6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

except in the Ocala district where the list was obtained through
the cooperation of the County Agent and Chamber of Commerce.
These dairy centers are located as follows: the district adjacent
to Jacksonville, Duval County, in the northeastern part of the
state; the districts adjacent to Orlando, Orange County, and to
Ocala, Marion County, in north central Florida; the districts
marketing milk at Tampa, Hillsborough County, and at St. Peters-
burg, Pinellas County, on Florida West Coast; and the district
adjacent to Miami, Dade County, in southeast Florida.
In each of these districts strictly dairy farmers were selected
except around Ocala, where more general farming was practiced
and small herds were kept to supplement the other sources of
farm income. In this district the farms are not altogether com-
parable with those in the other districts where dairying is prac-
tically the only enterprise.

METHOD OF COLLECTING THE DATA
Each farmer was visited and a detailed record of the farm and
dairy business for the year ending December 1, 1927, was obtained.
What information was available from books was secured, and
other questions were answered by the farm operators according
to their best judgment.
The only selection made was that farms with fewer than six
cows were not used, but all other dairy farms, regardless of the
size of the herd, were included where the information could be
secured. The number of usable farms in the Jacksonville district
was 64, in the Miami district 36, in the Tampa district 58, in the
St. Petersburg district 24, in the Orlando district 38, and in the
Ocala district 29, making a total of 249 farms (Fig. 1).

HISTORY AND EDUCATION OF OPERATORS
About 74 percent of the operators were owners. Over 9 per-
cent of these had been tenants on the farms they now own and
the same percentage had been tenants on other farms (Table I).
About 17 percent of the owners and 12 percent of the tenants
had been hired men at home and 12 percent of the owners and 17
percent of the tenants had been hired men away from home.
Less than one-third of the operators had always been farmers.
In the Ocala district 48 percent, in the Tampa district 17 percent,
and in the other districts from 33 to 38 percent had always farmed.
Nine percent of the operators had finished or attended college;







6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

except in the Ocala district where the list was obtained through
the cooperation of the County Agent and Chamber of Commerce.
These dairy centers are located as follows: the district adjacent
to Jacksonville, Duval County, in the northeastern part of the
state; the districts adjacent to Orlando, Orange County, and to
Ocala, Marion County, in north central Florida; the districts
marketing milk at Tampa, Hillsborough County, and at St. Peters-
burg, Pinellas County, on Florida West Coast; and the district
adjacent to Miami, Dade County, in southeast Florida.
In each of these districts strictly dairy farmers were selected
except around Ocala, where more general farming was practiced
and small herds were kept to supplement the other sources of
farm income. In this district the farms are not altogether com-
parable with those in the other districts where dairying is prac-
tically the only enterprise.

METHOD OF COLLECTING THE DATA
Each farmer was visited and a detailed record of the farm and
dairy business for the year ending December 1, 1927, was obtained.
What information was available from books was secured, and
other questions were answered by the farm operators according
to their best judgment.
The only selection made was that farms with fewer than six
cows were not used, but all other dairy farms, regardless of the
size of the herd, were included where the information could be
secured. The number of usable farms in the Jacksonville district
was 64, in the Miami district 36, in the Tampa district 58, in the
St. Petersburg district 24, in the Orlando district 38, and in the
Ocala district 29, making a total of 249 farms (Fig. 1).

HISTORY AND EDUCATION OF OPERATORS
About 74 percent of the operators were owners. Over 9 per-
cent of these had been tenants on the farms they now own and
the same percentage had been tenants on other farms (Table I).
About 17 percent of the owners and 12 percent of the tenants
had been hired men at home and 12 percent of the owners and 17
percent of the tenants had been hired men away from home.
Less than one-third of the operators had always been farmers.
In the Ocala district 48 percent, in the Tampa district 17 percent,
and in the other districts from 33 to 38 percent had always farmed.
Nine percent of the operators had finished or attended college;







6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

except in the Ocala district where the list was obtained through
the cooperation of the County Agent and Chamber of Commerce.
These dairy centers are located as follows: the district adjacent
to Jacksonville, Duval County, in the northeastern part of the
state; the districts adjacent to Orlando, Orange County, and to
Ocala, Marion County, in north central Florida; the districts
marketing milk at Tampa, Hillsborough County, and at St. Peters-
burg, Pinellas County, on Florida West Coast; and the district
adjacent to Miami, Dade County, in southeast Florida.
In each of these districts strictly dairy farmers were selected
except around Ocala, where more general farming was practiced
and small herds were kept to supplement the other sources of
farm income. In this district the farms are not altogether com-
parable with those in the other districts where dairying is prac-
tically the only enterprise.

METHOD OF COLLECTING THE DATA
Each farmer was visited and a detailed record of the farm and
dairy business for the year ending December 1, 1927, was obtained.
What information was available from books was secured, and
other questions were answered by the farm operators according
to their best judgment.
The only selection made was that farms with fewer than six
cows were not used, but all other dairy farms, regardless of the
size of the herd, were included where the information could be
secured. The number of usable farms in the Jacksonville district
was 64, in the Miami district 36, in the Tampa district 58, in the
St. Petersburg district 24, in the Orlando district 38, and in the
Ocala district 29, making a total of 249 farms (Fig. 1).

HISTORY AND EDUCATION OF OPERATORS
About 74 percent of the operators were owners. Over 9 per-
cent of these had been tenants on the farms they now own and
the same percentage had been tenants on other farms (Table I).
About 17 percent of the owners and 12 percent of the tenants
had been hired men at home and 12 percent of the owners and 17
percent of the tenants had been hired men away from home.
Less than one-third of the operators had always been farmers.
In the Ocala district 48 percent, in the Tampa district 17 percent,
and in the other districts from 33 to 38 percent had always farmed.
Nine percent of the operators had finished or attended college;







Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 7


2 percent attended business college; 15 percent finished or at-
tended high school; 31 percent finished eighth grade; 41 percent
attended school but did not finish eighth grade, and 2 percent had
no schooling.

TABLE I.-EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AND EDUCATION OF OPERATORS ON 245
FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

64 24
Jack- St.
son- 33 58 Peters- 37 29
ville Miami Tampa burg Orlando Ocala
farms farms farms farms farms farms
Owners

Number Number Number Number Number Number
-. .- -.. --. Y -
On these farms.............. 53 17 32 19 33 27
Previous occupations:
Owned other farms. ....... 16 10 14 10 13 10
Tenants on present farm... 2 2 4 1 5 3
Manager on present farm... .. . .. 1
Tenants on other farms.... 9 . 2 3 1 2
Hired man at home........ 8 3 6 3 4 6
Hired man away from home 6 1 2 3 6 3
Other occupations ......... 35 12 27 12 21 14
Education:
Finished college........... 1 2
Attended but did not finish
college ................. 3 1 .. 3 6 3
Attended business college... 2 1 .. 2
Finished high school ....... . 1 1 2 1 2 1
Attended but did not finish
high school ............. 4 2 5 3 4 4
Finished eighth grade ...... 19 5 12 9 5 10
Did not finish eighth grade. 24 5 12 3 14 9
No schooling .............. 1
Tenants
On these farms.............. 11 16 26 5 4 2
Previous occupations:
Owned present farms..... .. . .
Owned other farms........ 2 6 3 2 2 1
Tenants on other farms... 3 8 10 4 2 1
Hired man at home....... 1 4 2 .. 1
Hired man away from home 3 1 6 .. ..
Other occupations ........... 7 10 21 3 3 1
Education:
Finished college............ 1
Attended but did not finish
college ................. .. .. 1
Attended business college...
Finished high school....... 1 1
Attended but did not finish
high school ............. .. 2 2 2
Finished eighth grade ...... 4 6 4 1 1 1
Did not finish eighth grade 6 7 17 2 1 1
No schooling............. .. 3







8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station





7- f ( ) '.IJacksonville



Fig 1. Location of areas studied
with the approximate location *
of each of the 249 dairy farms.
Key to counties in which farms
were located: J
1. Baker B o r
2. Broward 12
3. Dade \
4. Duval
5. Hernando st. tsr eu'rs'd.5_
6. Hillsborough
7. Jefferson
9. Nassau
10. Orange
11. Osceola
12. Pasco
13. Pinellas 2.
14. Seminole
St. Petersburg handled milk from two farms in
Pasco County and one farm in Jefferson County. 3 *
Tampa handled milk from two farms in Her-
nando County and one farm in Pasco County.




AGE AND TENURE OF OPERATORS

In the different districts the percentages of owner operators
were as follows: Jacksonville 83, Miami 52, Tampa 55, St. Peters-
burg 79, Orlando 89 and Ocala 93 (Table II).2
The percentages of operators who were under 50 years of age
in the different districts were as follows: Jacksonville 72, Miami
73, Tampa 62, St. Petersburg 83, Orlando 68, and Ocala 45.
There was a greater number of operators in the combined dis-
tricts engaged in the dairy business between 40 and 49 years of
age than in any other age group. The next largest group was
between 30 and 39 years of age.
The smallest numbers were in the groups below 30 years of age,
and over 60. Nearly 57 percent of the operators were between
30 and 49 years of age.

"2Four farms are not included because data were incomplete.







Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 9

TABLE II.-AGE AND TENURE OF OPERATORS ON 245 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS.
1927.

64 24
Jack- St.
son- 33 58 Peters- 37 29
Age Tenure ville Miami Tampa burg Orlando Ocala
opera- opera- opera- opera- opera- opera-
tors tors tors tors tors tors

Number Number Number Number Number Number

Under 30 years... owners.. 9 1 1 1 4 1
tenants.. 2 3 2 1

30 to 39 years .... owners.. 17 6 8 8 8 4
tenants.. 1 4 7 1 1 1

40 to 49 years.... owners.. 13 7 7 6 10 7
tenants.. 4 3 11 3 2

50 to 59 years.... owners.. 11 3 13 3 7 4
tenants.. 2 4 6 .. 1

60 years and over. owners. 3 . 3 1 4 11
tenants.. 2 2 .. 1


TABLE III.-USES OF LAND IN THE JACKSONVILLE, MIAMI, TAMPA, ST.
PETERSBURG, ORLANDO AND OCALA DISTRICTS, 1927.

Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29 249

Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala All
ville burg Farms
Average per farm

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

Crop land ................ 8.7 6.0 4.4 14.5 9.2 48.6 12.6
Crop land rented out....... ..... 1.3 ..... ......... 2.6 .5
Tillable land idle........... .9 ..... ..... ..... .1 17.1 2.2
Rotated pasture........... .5 .... 2.7 .2 1.9 11.3 2.4
Permanent pasture tillable.. 12.6 56.8 20.0 16.4 15.1 31.4 23.7
Open pasture not tillable.... 11.6 22.4 10.7 1.1 4.7 ..... 9.5
Woods pastured........... 29.7 12.9 17.8 18.4 21.1 27.5 21.8
Woods not pastured........ 2.2 1.3 .1 .4 2.5 33.1 5.0
Farmsteads, roads and waste 1.6 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9
Otherland................ .1 1.1 .9 7.5 3.7 ..... 1.7

Total................ 67.9 104.4 58.4 60.1 -60.1 173.5 81.3

Rented out................ ..... 1.3 ..... ..... .... 2.6 .5
Operated ................. 67.9 103.1 58.4 60.1 60.1 170.9 80.8
Owned ................... 49.9 64.2 27.3 45.0 47.1 141.9 56.5
Cash rented............... 18.0 40.2 31.1 15.1 11.3 28.9 24.2
Share rented................... ..... ..... ..... 1.1 ..... .2
Free........................... ..... .... .... .6 2.7 .4

Total................ 67.9 104.4 58.4 60.1 60.1 173.5 81.3







10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

THE FARM BUSINESS STUDY
The farms included in this study were primarily dairy farms,
but on some of them other farm enterprises were conducted. The
farm business in its entirety was considered, and the details of
the dairy enterprise were given special consideration.

UTILIZATION OF FARM LAND
The total acres per farm in the Jacksonville, Tampa, St. Peters-
burg and Orlando districts were between 58 and 68, approximately
104 in the Miami district and 174 in the Ocala district (Table III).
Approximately 71 percent of the land in these dairy farms was
used for pasture purposes and 15 percent for crop production.
The proportion used for crop production in the Ocala district,
however, where dairying supplemented general crop farming, was
about 29 percent.
UTILIZATION OF CROP LAND
Corn for grain was grown in all the districts except Miami, but
this crop was of little importance except in the Ocala district.
Each district except Miami harvested a small amount for human
consumption. In all districts some corn was grown for silage
and in all but St. Petersburg some was grown as a soiling crop
(Table IV).
The combined acreage per farm of all corn was 4.7 in the Jack-
sonville district, 2.1 in the Miami district, 1 in the Tampa district,
5.6 in the St. Petersburg district, 4.3 in the Orlando district, and
19.8 acres in the Ocala district. The Ocala acreage exceeded the
combined acreage per farm of the other districts.
Cowpeas were most commonly used as a hay crop, but the com-
bined hay crop was negligible. In none of the districts was there
as much as 4 acres in hay per farm except Ocala, where the aver-
age was 7.4 acres. The following crops were used for hay: cow-
peas, cowpeas mixed with soybeans or oats, soybeans, crabgrass,
crabgrass and beggarweed, rice, kudzu, oats, carpet grass, Natal
grass, wild and swamp grass.
Silage crops other than corn alone included corn and velvet
beans, corn and cowpeas, soybeans and sorghum.
Soiling crops other than corn alone included corn and cowpeas,
cowpeas, millet, sorghum, Cayana cane, Napier grass, Sudan grass
and angelss3
3Soiling crops are those that are harvested and fed green.








Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 11

TABLE IV.-DISTRIBUTION OF ACRES IN CROPS IN THE JACKSONVILLE, MIAMI,
TAMPA, ST. PETERSBURG, ORLANDO, AND OCALA DISTRICTS, 1927.


Jack- St. All
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala Farms
ville burg

Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29 249

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres
per per per per per per per
Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm
Crop acres ................ 8.7 6.0 4.4 14.5 9.2 48.6 12.6
Acres re-cropped ........... 1.0 ..... .3 4.4 3.3 14.3 2.9

Total acres in crops .... 9.7 6.0 4.7 18.9 12.5 62.9 15.5

Seed crops:
Corn for grain........... .5 ..... .7 2.8 1.1 18.1 2.8
Corn, bogged........... ... .. . 1 .. . . .. . *
Corn, green............. .4 ..... .1 .1 .1
All other................ .. . ..... 1........ 3.4 .6
Hay:
Cowpea ................. .1 ... .1 3.0 .4 5.9 1.1
All other................. .7 .... .7 .7 2.1 1.5 .9
Silage crops:
Corn................... 2.9 1.3 .1 2.7 1.7 .7 1.6
All other................. .1 2.0 ..... .8 ..... .3 .4
Soiling crops:
Corn ................... .9 .8 .1 ..... 1.5 .9 .7
All other ................ .5 1.4 .5 .6 .2 .2 .6
Pasture crops:
Cowpeas ................ .7 ..... .3 ..... ..... 1.7 .4
Oats .................. 1.6 ..... .3 ..... .3 7.1 1.4
Velvet beans and corn.... .2 ..... 3 .1 ..... 8.8 1.2
Allother............... .4 ..... .2 4.8 .9 9.8 1.9
All truck crops............ .5 .5 .4 .3 .9 3.6 .9
Garden.................... .2 ..... .1 .2 .1 .4 .1
Citrusfruits............. ..... ..... .8 1.1 3.2 .2 .8
Nursery .................. ..... .... ..... .. ... .... ..... .2 *
Pecans................... .. ...... .. ..... ..... .1 . *
Grapes................... ............ ... ..... *

*Less than .1 acre.

Under the heading of pasture crops is given the comparative
acreages of cowpeas, oats, velvet beans and corn. Included in
other pasture crops are: velvet beans, millet, rye, rye and oats,
peanuts, Napier grass, millet and Bermuda, oats and barley, oats,
rye and barley, corn and peas, and mixed grasses.
All truck crops includes Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes, sugar-
cane, peppers, muskmelons, cantaloupes, tomatoes, beans, water-
melons, squash, strawberries, cucumbers, cabbage, sweet corn,
English peas and onions. In the first four districts shown in
Table IV not over .5 of an acre of these crops was grown per farm.







12 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

In the Orlando district less than 1 acre and in the Ocala district
3.6 acres per farm were grown.
No gardens were found in the Miami district and they were
very small in all other districts.
Citrus fruits were of most importance in the St. Petersburg
and Orlando districts.
More land was cropped in the Ocala district than in all the other
districts combined.

CROP YIELDS
There was little uniformity in crop yields in the different dis-
tricts. The small acreages in crops in some areas and the abund-
ance of manure resulted in abnormally high yields of some crops
(Table V).

TABLE V.-CROP YIELDS IN THE JACKSONVILLE, MIAMI, TAMPA, ST. PETERS-
BURG, ORLANDO AND OCALA DISTRICTS, 1927.

Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala All
ville burg Farms
Yield Yield Yield Yield Yield Yield Yield
Crops per per per per per per per
Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre
Corn for grain, bushels ..... 35.5 ..... 36.0 12.0 10.9 12.4 14.7
Hay crops:
Cowpeas...........tons .4 ..... 1.0 1.0 1.7 .6 .8
All other........... tons 1.0 ..... .7 .8 .6 1.0 .8
Silage crops:
Corn.............. tons 6.0 5.1 12.1 4.8 2.3 4.6 5.1
Allother........... tons 10.0 7.0 ..... 4.4 ..... 6.2 6.7
Soiling crops:
Corn..............tons 5.6 2.1 6.5 ..... 2.7 2.5 3.7
All other.......... tons 5.4 17.0 12.2 2.0 7.6 6.6 10.8


Since the crops were so scattered and in such small acreages, it
was not practicable to show the yields for truck crops and citrus
fruits.

USE OF FERTILIZER
The number of different farms using commercial fertilizer is
shown in Table VI. Relatively small acreages were fertilized and
costs varied according to the kind used.

COST OF OPERATING TRUCKS
The total cost of operating trucks is shown in Table VII. The
percentages of total costs applying to the farm business for the








Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 13

TABLE VI.-UsE OF FERTILIZER ON FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


Acres fertilized Per farm using
Number ---
District of farms Per Total
using Total farm pounds Cost
using used
Jacksonville. .............. 10 153.4 15.3 5,750 $ 78
Miami.................... 5 187.0 37.4 16,200 344
Tampa. .................. 8 35.0 4.4 2,254 57
St. Petersburg. ............. 4 109.0 27.2 8,862 156
Orlando................... 14 156.0 11.1 9,292 206
Ocala ..................... 12 85.0 7.1 4,412 75


different districts were as follows: Miami 100, St. Petersburg 99,
Jacksonville 98, Orlando 97, Tampa 96 and Ocala 94.
The depreciation charge in percentages of the total cost were
as follows: Jacksonville 37, Tampa 34, St. Petersburg and Ocala
31, Orlando 29 and Miami 27.

TABLE VII.-CosT OF OPERATING 255 TRUCKS ON FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS,
1927.

Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg
Number of trucks. .......... 72 45 59 28 36 15
Average ton capacity........ .85 1.15 .75 .76 .78 .67
Average cost per truck
Costs:
Repairs, tires and tubes... 229 $ 447 $ 226 $ 234 $ 155 $ 94
Insurance................ 12 20 6 11 6 2
License................... 23 34 18 22 17 15
Gas, oil and grease ........ 279 369 291 273 227 151
Interest at 7 percent....... 40 48 31 26 21 15
Depreciation.............. 343 335 301 252 172 123
Total. ................. $ 926 $1,253 $ 873 $ 818 $ 598 $ 400
Cost per ton capacity. ....... $1,089 $1,090 $1,164 $1,076 $ 767 $ 597
Cost per mile for milk hauling. .08 .09 .06 .06 .05 .07


Gas, oil and grease in three districts were the largest item of
cost. This represented 38 percent of the cost in the Orlando and
Ocala districts, 33 percent in the Tampa and St. Petersburg dis-
tricts and about 30 percent in the other two districts.
The cost of repairs, tires and tubes in percentages of the total







14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

cost were as follows: Miami 36, St. Petersburg 29 and from 24 to
26 percent in the other districts.
The truck capacity ranged from .67 tons in the Ocala district
to 1.15 tons in the Miami district. The costs per truck appear
to be out of proportion, but when the size of truck is shown the
cost per ton capacity is close in four districts.
The amount charged to the farm was used as a basis in deter-
mining the cost per mile for milk hauling. Since the entire farm
use was not for this purpose alone, the cost figure approximately
represents the actual cost.

COST OF OPERATING AUTOMOBILES

Not all the automobiles found on the farms included in this
study were used for farm purposes. Only those that were used
wholly or partial for farm business are represented in Table VIII.
The percentages of the farms having automobiles that were used
for farm business were: Miami 92, Orlando 68, Ocala 55,
Jacksonville 50, St. Petersburg 42 and Tampa 40. In the different
districts the percentages of the total costs of operations automo-
biles charged against the farms were as follows: Miami 63, Ocala
52, Jacksonville 51, St. Petersburg 48, Orlando 46, and Tampa 43.

TABLE VIII.-CosT OF OPERATING 140 AUTOMOBILES ON FLORIDA DAIRY
FARMS, 1927.

Jack- St.
District son Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg
Number of automobiles...... 32 33 23 10 26 16
Average cost per automobile
Repairs, tires and tubes ...... $ 98 $ 133 $ 76 $ 183 $ 68 $ 41
Insurance................... 5 18 9 12 2 .
License. .................... 13 15 12 15 12 10
Gas, oil and grease .......... 140 183 137 202 100 86
Interest at 7 percent......... 38 57 42 42 24 20
Depreciation................ 308 308 285 300 145 107
Total .............. $ 602 $ 714 $ 561 $ 754 $ 351 $ 264


Depreciation was the item of greatest expense in all districts.
It represented from 40 to 51 percent of the total cost.
Gas, oil and grease ranged from 23 percent in the Jacksonville
district to 33 percent of the total cost in the Ocala district.







Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 15

The combined cost of repairs, tires and tubes ranged from 14
percent in the Tampa district to 24 percent in the St. Petersburg
district.
Not all owners carried insurance, which accounts for the vari-
ation in this figure, and the license cost varied according to the
size and make of car.

COST OF OPERATING TRACTORS

The percentage of farms having tractors in the Orlando district
was 29, in the Jacksonville and Miami districts 11, and a much
lower percentage in the other districts. The reason for more
tractors being used in the Orlando district was for citrus grove
work. Only 11 percent of all farms used tractors.
In the Tampa district repairs represented 41 percent of the
total costs.
Gas, kerosene, oil and grease costs were one-fourth of the total
costs in the Jacksonville, one-third in the St. Petersburg and one-
half in the Miami and Ocala districts (Table IX).
TABLE IX.-CosT OF OPERATING 27 TRACTORS ON FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS,
1927.

Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg
Number of tractors .......... .. 7 4 2 2 11 1
Average cost per tractor
Repairs ................. 22 $ 52 71 $ 38 4 20
Insurance ........ .... .. .... 5
Gas, kerosene, oil and grease.. 60 239 32 140 63 140
Interest at 7 percent.. .... ... 30 22 8 30 23 18
Depreciation................ 132 169 62 214 69 100
Total....... ....... 244 482 $ 173 $ 422 $ 164 278

The percentages of the total costs in the different districts for
depreciation were as follows: Jacksonville 54, St. Petersburg 51,
Orlando 42. Tampa and Ocala 36 and Miami 35.

ANIMAL UNITS

More than 95 percent of the total animal units in the Jackson-
ville, Miami, Tampa, and St. Petersburg districts and 92 percent
in the Orlando district were cattle.







16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

The number of animal units of horses, mules, ponies ,and colts
combined was less than 1.5 in the Tampa and Orlando districts,
and between 1.6 and 1.8 in all other districts except Ocala, where
there were 2.2 animal units per farm.
The farm flock of chickens ranged from .3 animal unit in the
Tampa district to 1.1 in the Ocala district (Table X).

TABLE X.-AVERAGE NUMBER OF ANIMAL UNITS1 PER FARM IN THE JACK-
SONVILLE, MIAMI, TAMPA, ST. PETERSBURG, ORLANDO, AND OCALA DISTRICTS
AND FOR THE 249 DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala All
ville burg Farms
Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29 249
Cows, grade............... 44.5 88.5 57.5 46.2 24.1 14.5 47.5
Cows, purebred............ 1.4 7.3 .. 1.0 1.7 .2 1.8
Heifers, year and over, grade 3.0 4.6 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.7
Heifers, 1 year and over, pure-
bred...... .............. .3 1.1 ..... .1 .1 .. .2
Heifers, under 1 year, grade. 1.9 2.8 2.3 2.6 1.1 1.7 2.0
Heifers, underlyear,purebred .1 .8 ..... .1 ..... .2
Herd bulls, grade.......... .8 .8 1.2 .9 .7 .4 .8
Herd bulls, purebred....... .7 1.4 .5 .6 .5 .4 .7
Range cattle............... .1 ..... ..... ..... .4 .8 .2

All cattle ............. 52.8 107.3 64.1 53.3 30.3 19.7 56.1

H orses.................... 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 .9 1.3 1.1
M ules.................. .6 .4 .2 .5 .3 .9 .5
C olts..................... .. .
Ponies.................... .1 .1 ..... ..... .....
Sheep.................... 1 ....... *
Lam bs .................... .. ..... . .. .. *
Goats.................... .. .... ... .....
Brood sows............... .1 .1 ..... 1 .4 .1
Boars.............. .. *
Other hogs ................ .1 .1 1.7 .2
Pigs....... ............... .2 ..... .2 .5 .4 .2
Chickens.................. .7 .9 .3 .5 .6 1.1 .7
All other poultry........... *

Total................ 55.5 110.0 66.0 55.6 32.8 25.5 58.9


*Less than .1 animal unit.
1An animal unit is a mature cow or horse, or as many other animals as
consume an equivalent amount of feed. Two young or range cattle, 5 hogs,
10 pigs, 7 sheep or 100 poultry are estimated to constitute an animal unit.

SUMMARY OF THE FARM BUSINESS

The farms in the Ocala district were 1.7 times as large in area
as the Miami farms, 2.5 times as large as the Jacksonville farms,








Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 17

TABLE XI.-SUMMARY OF THE FARM BUSINESS PER FARM IN Six DAIRY
DISTRICTS IN FLORIDA, 1927.

Jack- St.
Item son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala All
ville burg farms
Number of farms........ 64 36 58 24 38 I 29 249
Farm area, acres......... 67.9 104.4 58.4 60.1 60.1 173.5 81.3
Crop acres.............. 8.7 6.0 4.4 14.5 9.2 48.6 12.6
Acres in crops*.......... 9.7 6.0 4.7 18.9 12.5 62.9 15.5
Number of work stock.... 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.2 2.3 1.5
Total capital............ $13,210 $28,775$12,962 $17,169 $20,185$13,490$16,881
Farm receipts........... 14,678 29,192 13,968 18,266 8,747i 4,227 14,834
Farm expenses........... 12,525 25,685 13,530 14,137 6,915i 2,748 12,822
Farm income............ 2,153 3,507 438 4,129 1,832 1,479 2,012
Interest on investment at
7percent.............. 925 2,01 908 1,202 1,413 945 1,182
Labor income ........... 1,228 1,493 -470 2,927 419 534 830
Value of operator's labor.. 8 1,359$ 1,53 1,288$ 1,396$ 1,075$ 614$ 1,242
Percent return on invest-
ment................. 6.0 6.8 -6.6 15.9 3.8 6.4 4.6
Value of unpaid family
labor (except operator's) $ 425$ 507 757$ 987$ 554$ 238$ 567
Family income......... 2,57 4,014 1,195 5,116 2,386 1,717 2,579

*Difference between crop acres and acres in crops equals the acres re-
cropped.

2.9 times as large as the St. Petersburg and Orlando farms, and
3 times as large as the Tampa farms (Table XI).
The area of the farm, however, bears no relation to the size of
the dairy business. For example, one farm in the Ocala district
with 436 acres had less than 12 cows, while one in the Miami dis-
trict with 21/2 acres had 72 cows.
The crop acres represents the land planted to crops while the
acres in crops shows that part of the crop acres were planted to
more than one crop. Except in the Ocala district, little land was
re-cropped.
In no other district than Ocala was there an average of as many
as 2 head of work stock per farm.4
There was little difference in the total capital in the Tampa,
Jacksonville, and Ocala districts. In the Miami district where
the herds were much larger, the capital was more than twice as
large (Table XI). In the Tampa district the expenses were 96.9

41t is necessary to define certain terms in order that the reader may follow
the discussions in this bulletin.
Farm Capital:-The average value at the beginning and end of the year,
of real estate, livestock, machinery and equipment, and feed and supplies







18 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

percent of the receipts; in the Miami district 88 percent; in the
Jacksonville district 85.3 percent; in the Orlando district 79.1
percent; in the St. Petersburg district 77.4 percent and in the
Ocala district 65 percent.
The average farm income ranged from $438 in the Tampa dis-
trict to $4,129 in the St. Petersburg district. The labor income
was lowest and highest in the same respective districts.
The average estimates of the value of operator's labor were
$614 in the Ocala district, $1,075 in the Orlando district, while
in all other districts the range was from about $1,300 to $1,500
per year.
The value of family labor was $238 per farm in the Ocala dis-
trict and in the other districts the range was from $425 in the
Jacksonville district to $987 in the St. Petersburg district.

CAPITAL
The range in real estate capital was from $6,205 in the Tampa
district to $16,468 per farm in the Orlando district. In the Tampa
and Miami districts real estate value was less than 50 percent of
the total capital, while in the Orlando and Ocala districts, it was
above 80 percent (Table XII).

necessary to operate the farm business. It includes the value of the farm
dwellings, but not the household furnishings.
Receipts:-The farm receipts include the amount received from all sales
of crops, livestock, milk and its products sold, miscellaneous receipts, which
include receipts from outside labor, machine work, rent from buildings,
pasture or crop land, from turpentine, lumber, wood, eggs, feed bags, milk
hauling, manure and other receipts. If the total capital at the end of the
year is greater than at the beginning of the year, the difference is considered
a receipt.
Expenses:-These are the cash expenditures made during the year to con-
duct the farm business and include the value of unpaid family labor (except
operator's). If the total capital was less at the end of the year than at the
beginning, it is considered an expense.
Farm Income:-The difference between receipts and expenses.
Labor Income:--The amount left for the farmer for his labor and manage-
ment after 7 percent interest on the average farm capital has been deducted
from the farm income. In addition to labor income the farmer has a house
to live on, wood from the farm, garden products, milk, eggs, etc.
Unpaid Family Labor:-Work done by members of the family excepting
the operator. Its value is determined on the basis of what it would have
cost if the farm work performed .by members of the family had been hired
at the prevailing rate of wages.
Family Income:-The sum of farm income and value of unpaid family
labor (except operator's labor) or the amount available for family living if
there is no interest to pay.
Percent Return on Capital:-This is found by deducting the estimated
value of the operator's labor and management from the farm income and
dividing the remainder by the total capital.





TABLE XII.-AVERAGE CAPITAL FOR 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.
District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala

Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29
Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent
per of per of per of per of per of per of tz
farm total farm total farm total farm total farm total farm total

Real estate ..................S 7,557 57.2 $ 13,607 47.3 $ 6,205 47.9 $ 10,425 60.7 S 16,468 81.6 $11,214 83.1
Livestock...................... 4,941 37.4 13,288 46.2 5,915 45.6 5,678 33.1 3,194 15.8 1,651 12.3 ;
Machinery and equipment....... 635 4.8 1,831 6.3 834 6.4 969 5.6 475 2.4 355 2.6 -
Feed and supplies .............. 77 .6 49 .2 8 .1 97 .6 48 .2 270 2.0

Total............ ...... 13,210 100.0 $ 28,775 100.0 $ 12,962 100.0 $ 17.169 100.0 $ 20,185 100.0 $ 13,490 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- tn
TABLE XIII.-DISTRIBUTION OF REAL ESTATE CAP ITAL ON 190 OWNER FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala

Number of farms 53 19 37 19 35 27
---------------------- ---- ----_____ ________ ---- ---- ----,---______ ___ Ci
Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent 4
per of per of per of per of per of per of S
farm total farm total farm total farm total farm total farm total P.

Dwellings...................$ 1,883 20.7 6 2,982 11.6 1,613 16.6 $ 2,285 17.4 $ 2,318 13.0 $ 2,085 17.3
Tenant houses ................. 294 3.2 1,505 5.8 626 6.4 902 6.9 409 2.3 72 .6 t
Cow barns ..................... 996 10.9 3,272 12.7 1,494 15.3 807 6.1 477 2.6 534 4.4 -
Milk houses ................... 258 2.8 961 3.7 289 3.0 265 2.0 182 1.0 77 .6
Silos.......................... 126 1.4 125 .5 171 1.8 72 .5 83 .5 23 .2 f
Lightplants................. 37 .4 247 1.0 27 .3 135 1.0 53 .3 24 .2 .
Other buildings ................ 166 1.8 508 1.9 154 1.6 194 1.5 155 .9 574 4.8 .2

Total buildings. ......... 3,760 41.2 $ 9,600 37.2 8 4,374 45.0 3$ 4,660 35.4 $ 3,677 20.6 8 3,389 28.1 1

Pasture except open range.......$ 3,540 38.8 $ 12,794 49.6 4,181 43.0 $ 4,231 32.1 $ 7,906 44.2 $ 4,233 35.2 Z
All other land ................. 1,825 20.0 3,388 13.2 1,173 12.0 4,277 32.5 6,296 35.2 4,423 36.7

Totalland............... $ 5,365 58.8 $ 16,182 62.8 S 5354 55.0 8,508 64.6 $ 14,202 79.4 $ 8,656 71.9

Total value of farm land
and buildings......... .[ 9,125100.0 $ 25,78 100.0 9,728 100.0 $ 13,168 100.0 $ 17,879 100.0 8 12,045 100.0








20 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

In the Miami and Tampa districts the livestock investment al-
most equaled that of the real estate. In the St. Petersburg dis-
trict the investment in livestock was more than half that of real
estate, while in the Orlando district it was less than one-fifth and
in the Ocala district about one-seventh. The larger the average
size of herd per farm the more nearly the value of livestock ap-
proximated the value of real estate. The only exception was that
the herds were slightly smaller in the Jacksonville district than
in the St. Petersburg district.
The value of machinery and equipment represented a relatively
small percentage of the total capital, ranging from 2.4 to 6.4 per-
cent in the six districts.
In the Ocala district where general farming is more commonly
practiced, the carry-over of feed and supplies amounted to 2 per-
cent of the total capital, while in the other districts the range was
from .1 to .6 of 1 percent.
DISTRIBUTION OF REAL ESTATE CAPITAL ON OWNER FARMS
The distribution of farm capital is shown only for owner farms
in Table XIII. The percentages of rented farms in the several
districts were as follows: Miami 47, Tampa 36, St. Petersburg 21,
Jacksonville 17, Orlando 8, and Ocala 7.
On a percentage basis the value of all buildings in relation to
value of total real estate was highest in the Tampa district and
lowest in the Orlando district.
A comparison of the value of pasture with all other land showed
that in the St. Petersburg and Ocala districts there was little dif-
ference, but the value of pasture land was considerably higher
than other land in all other districts.
The value of land represented from 55 to 79 percent of the total
value of real estate in the different districts.
DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE OF BUILDINGS ON OWNER FARMS
Since all owned farms did not have each type of improvement,
the number having and their value is shown in Table XIV.
There were dwellings on all the owned farms in the Ocala and
St. Petersburg districts and in the other districts the percentages
of farms having dwellings were as follows: Miami 95, Orlando 94,
Jacksonville 91 and Tampa 89. The dwellings of highest value
were in the Miami district, and of the lowest value in the Tampa
district. In the other districts values ranged approximately
between $2,000 and $2,500.













TABLE XIV.-DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE OF BUILDINGS PER FARM HAVING EACH TYPE OF BUILDING, 190 OWNER DAIRY FARMS,
1927.


District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala

Number of farms 53 19 37 19 35 27
Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value 5
of per of per of per of per of per of per o
farms farm farms farm farms farm farms farm farms farm farms farm
having having having having having having having having having having having having '

Dwellings ..................... 48 2,079 18 $ 3,148 33 $ 1,809 19 $ 2,285 33 2,459 27 2,084 -
Tenant houses ................. 16 974 12 2,383 19 1,219 8 2,143 18 796 3 650
Cow barns .................... 53 996 19 3,272 37 1,494 19 807 35 477 17 849 ^
Milk houses. .................. 53 258 19 961 37 289 19 265 34 188 8259
Silos ......................... 7 951 2 1,188 2 500 3 453 4 726 3 208
Light plants .................. 5 397 5 940 9 701 5 514 1 1.85 1 650 4.
Other buildings ................ 31 284 13 743 18 316 19 194 21 258 27 574 'Z


.-t







22 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

The percentages of tenant houses on owned farms were as fol-
lows: Miami 63, Tampa and Orlando 51, St. Petersburg 42, Jack-
sonville 30 and Ocala 11. The lowest investment per tenant house
was found in the Ocala district and the highest in the Miami
district.
All owned farms had cow barns except in the Ocala district.
In the Orlando district this type of building was cheapest while
in the Miami district the investment was relatively high.
In the Ocala district only 30 percent of the owned farms had
milk houses; on all farms in the other districts, except one in the
Orlando district, this type of building was found. The value of
milk houses was low except in the Miami district.
The value of light plants ranged from $397 to $1,850.

SILOS
Silos were found on 30 different farms. Seven farms had two
silos each. In the St. Petersburg district there was one trench
and one pit, and in the Ocala district one pit silo. This partly
accounts for their lower average values. The capacity of all silos
ranged from 32 to 200 tons (Table XV).

TABLE XV.-NUMBER, VALUE, CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF SILOS, 249 FLOR-
IDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Construction Number
District Number Average
value Wood Metal Other' Filled Partly Not
filled used
Jacksonville. 17 $480 15 2 14 1 2
Miami...... 3 792 .. 3 .. 3
Tampa...... 5 350 4 .. 1 1 .. 4
St. Petersburg 5 272 3 2 5
Orlando..... 5 581 2 1 2 .. 4 1
Ocala....... 3 208 1 1 1 3 .

'Under this heading were 1 trench, 5 concrete and 2 pit silos.

FARM RECEIPTS
When all farms in a district had a total farm capital at the end
of the year larger than at the beginning of the year, the item was
considered a receipt under the heading "Net Increase in Capital."
There was a net increase in capital in all districts except Miami,
ranging from .2 of 1 percent of the total farm receipts in the St.
Petersburg district to 5.2 percent in the Jacksonville district
(Table XVI).













TABLE XVI.-AVERAGE FARM RECEIPTS FOR 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala
Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29

Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent o
per of per of per of per of per of per of
farm total farm total farm total farm total farm total farm total
Net increase in capital. ......... 763 5.2 .... ....... $ 386 2.8 $ 41 0.2 $ 215 2.5 $ 180 4.3
Cropssold .................... 75 0.5 9 105 .8 184 1.0 362 4.2 391 9.3
Livestock sold ................. 224 1.5 924 3.2 436 3.1 525 2.9 335 3.8 356 8.4
Milk and its products sold....... 13,218 90.1 27,064 92.7 12,671 90.7 16,771 91.8 7,587 86.7 2,982 70.5
Miscellaneous .................. 398 2.7 1,195 4.1 370 2.6 745 4.1 248 2.8 318 7.5

Total .................. 14,678 100.0 $ 29,192 100.0 $ 13,968 100.0 18,266 100.0 8,747 100.0 4,227 100.0

*Less than .1 of 1 percent.







24 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

Crops sold did not amount to more than 1 percent of the total
receipts, except in the Orlando and Ocala districts; in the latter
they amounted to approximately 9 percent of the total. In this
district 73 percent of the crop receipts were from truck crops, of
which beans and watermelons were of most importance. Citrus,
corn and peanuts were next in importance to truck crops.
Miscellaneous receipts ranged from 2.6 to 7.5 percent of the
total receipts.
Since the farms studied were primarily dairy farms, milk and
its products naturally were the outstanding sources of income.
In four districts, more than 90 percent of the total farm receipts
were from these sources.

RECEIPTS FROM LIVESTOCK SALES
On dairy farms included in this study, with the exception of
the Ocala district, the receipt from the sale of cows represented
a higher percentage of total livestock receipts than any other
class. The herd is generally maintained at about the same size,
by heifers freshening and the purchase of cows to replace the
ones that become too old, that fail to breed, that become injured
and for various reasons are no longer profitable (Table XVII).
TABLE XVII.-DISTRIBUTION OF RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF LIVESTOCK, 249
FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Horses
Cows Veals Other Hogs Poultry and Total
District Cattle Mules
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Jacksonville ............ 66 3 10 5 16 . 100
M iami ................. 92 1 2 .. 5 .. 100
Tampa ................ 83 10 1 2 4 .. 100
St. Petersburg .......... 80 4 6 4 6 100
Orlando................ 53 1 15 16 13 2 100
Ocala................... 22 4 7 49 17 1 100

MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS
Items included in miscellaneous receipts are shown in Table
XVIII.
In the Jacksonville district 88 percent of the total miscellaneuos
receipts were made up as follows: from eggs 31, manure 22, feed
bags 20 and profit on milk bought 15 percent.
In the Miami district 91 percent of the miscellaneous receipts
were as follows: from profit on milk bought 53, manure 26 and
feed bags 12 percent.








Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 25

TABLE XVIII.-MIscELLANEOUS RECEIPTS FOR 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS,
1927.

Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg
Number of farms............ 64 36 58 24 38 29
Value Value Value Value Value Value
per farm per farm per farmer farm per farm per farm
Eggs...................... 122.488 52.86$ 36.10$ 113.21$ 106.58 $ 235.28
Manure ................. 89.55 310.17 143.60 219.92 59.29 2.07
Feed bags .................. 80.48 146.11 99.35 85.00 30.92 5.14
Man labor off the farm....... 17.74........ 15.52 16.67 ........ .......
Milk hauling .............. 15.16........ 22.97 ........ 32.37 57.38
Profit on milk bought........ 61.53 63539 44.05 7.25 ..............
Profit on cream bought.............. 18.33........ 240.96 ..............
Profit on buttermilk bought... ................ .. .... .. 51.71 ...............
Turpentine, lumber and wood. 1.42........ 2.22 2.00 12.74 3.76
Hides...................... . ....... .05 2.87 .92 .03
Breedingfees................ .02 1.72 6.19 5.83 4.32 6.24
Rent of crop land........... ....... 16.25 ...... .. ....... ........ 7.24
Pasture.................... .3 ............... .................
Wool...................... .45......... ........... .... .....
Premiums.................. ....... 13.89..........................
P icking peas ............... ....... ....... ......... ........ ....... 1.03
Use of machinery............ ........ .. ......... ............ 31 .......
M achinery sold............. ............. ........ .......... .31 .......
H oney ................... .......... ..... .. ... ..... ...... .. ... ...... .07
Miscellaneous ............... 8. 28 ...................................
Total .................. 397.97$1,194.72 370.05$ 745.42$ 247.76 $ 318.24


In the Tampa district 88 percent of the miscellaneous receipts
were as follows: from manure 39, feed bags 27, profit on milk
bought 12 and egg sales 10 percent.
In the St. Petersburg district 87 percent of the miscellaneous
receipts were as follows: from profit on cream bought 32, manure
29, eggs 15 and feed bags 11 percent.
In the Orlando and Ocala districts 92 percent of the miscel-
laneous receipts were as follows: in the Orlando district from
eggs 43, manure 24, milk hauling 13, and feed bags 12; in the
Ocala district from eggs 74, and milk hauling 18 percent.
The average price received for feed bags was 4 cents in the
Miami district and 3 cents in the other districts.
Eggs, an important item of receipts, sold for an average price
per dozen in the various districts as follows: Miami 59 cents,
Orlando 41 cents, St. Petersburg 40 cents, Jacksonville and Tampa
36 cents and Ocala 33 cents.






TABLE XIX.-FARM EXPENSES ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala t0

Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29

Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent
per farm per farm per farm per farm per farm per farm
Laborhired.............$. 2,147.50 17.1 8 5,195.75 20.2 $ 1,496.83 11.1 $ 2,149.29 15.2 $ 858.87 12.4 $ 284.90 10.4 -j
Labor unpaid............ 425.41 3.4 506.53 2.0 757.36 5.6 987.04 7.0 554.87 8.0 238.35 8.7 .
Board of hired labor...... 427.59 3.4 717.75 2.8 247.93 1.8 423.00 3.0 97.42 1.4 64.48 2.4 3.
Improvements:
Real estate............ 382.20 3.1 474.58 1.9 490.64 3.6 114.21 .8 196.05 2.8 48.28 1.8
Machinery ........... 15.08 .1 30.58 .1 22.67 .2 201.88 1.4 7.92 .1 2.59 .1 O
Repairs:
Dwellings............ 2.34 6.06 3.45 10.21 .1 12.37 .2 3.69 .1 3.
Tenant houses......... .......... ...83 .78 .42 2.37 ....
Other buildings....... 4.88 6.78 3.19 4.87 4.05 .1 2.86 .1
Fences.............. 23.95 .2 33.75 .1 33.19 .2 29.42 .2 22.53 .3 30.48 1.1
Drains................ 7.91 .1 4.17 *2.33 10.00 .1 4.61 .1 .
Machinery and equip-
ment .............. 21.22 .2 68.64 .3 26.26 .2 68.04 .5 7.13 .1 8.97 .3
Depreciation:
Dwellings............. 83.33 .7 101.28 .4 125.62 .9 99.62 .7 92.65 1.3 79.17 2.9
Tenanthouses ......... 13.69 .1 64.25 .3 29.57 .2 35.25 .3 21.18 .3 2.86 .1
Other buildings ........ 87.62 .7 203.56 .8 72.36 .5 66.71 .5 63.21 .9 52.38 1.9
Light plants........... 3.75 *21.67 .1 8.60 .1 14.37 .1 3.82 .1 2.24 .1
Machinery and equip-
ment............... 118.45 .9 285.19 1.1 154.81 1.1 196.29 1.4 74.26 1.1 53.03 1.9
Graini .................. 5,744.31 45.9 11,132.89 43.3 6,821.50 50.4 6,042.62 42.7 2,974.97 43.0 957.79 34.9 o
Roughage ............... 135.62 1.1 162.03 .6 30.31 .2 206.58 1.5 143.55 2.1 37.62 1.4
Powdered milk........................... 34.47 .1 .................. 4.67 ......... ... ... .....
Skim milk ................... .... ..... .... .......... ....... ................. 1.58 .....
Milk bought to replace bad
m ilk .................. 7 .8 1 .1 ..... .... ..... ........ .
Pasture hired............ 9.06 .1 5.61 32.48 .2 17.71 .1 5.39 .1 11.76 .4
Refrigerator rent. ......... ........ ....... ......... ....... 8.28 .1 .
Cash rent-land.......... 76.52 .6 364.70 1.4 257.02 1.9 82.83 .6 6.58 .1 25.93 .9
Cash rent- cows......... .......... ......... ...... ........ .... ................ ................. 7.55 .3
Milk hauling. ............ 12.97 .1 209.61 .8 22.33 .2 111.50 .8 ........ ..... ... 118.48 4.3
M ixing feed .............. 7.72 1 ........ ... .. ....... .......... ..... ....... . .
Silo filling............. 20.75 .2 34.72 .1 1.72 8.75 .1 4.47 .1 3.21 .1





TABLE XIX.-FARM EXPENSES ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.-Continued.

District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala

Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29

Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent t
per farm per farm per farm per farm per farm per farm

Threshing peanuts........ .......... ...... .............. ... .. . ......... ...... $ 2.72 .1
Baling hay .............. .......... ..................................03 *
Sterilizing cans.................. ....... ................. .31 *.........
Other machine work.............................. ........ 2.16 $ .83 ..05 3.66 .1
Feed grinding............ .......... ... ... ............. .. ....... ....... ........ ..... . ...... .... 8.45 .3
Hauling feed............. ................ .... .... ... ....... ... ...... .......... ....... 1.42 ...
Horse hire............... ................ .............. ... ....... ........ .76
Seeds, plants, trees ....... 23.47 .2 $ 14.00 .1 7.10 .1 33.25 .2 23.55 .3 46.17 1.7
Salt .................... 16.28 .1 25.08 .1 13.48 .1 9.17 .1 7.40 .1 3.93 .1
Spray material and dust... 19.81 .2 55.92 .2 22.88 .2 21.33 .1 14.32 .2 4.38 .2
Veterinary and medicine... 20.84 .2 61.28 .3 28.78 .2 16.62 .1 27.66 .4 6.38 .2
Fertilizer ................ 12.19 .1 47.83 .2 7.91 .1 25.96 .2 76.05 1.1 26.48 1.0
Disinfectants ............ .28 ......... .. ..... .... .... ........ . .. 4.10 .2
Charcoal............... .......... .... .......... ................. .. .... ... ............. .... ....... ...... .17 *
Barrels, hampers, etc...... 3.52 ....... ....... .05 ...... ..... .32 12.10 .4
Fueland oil............. 129.53 1.0 337.64 1.3 129.91 1.0 135.79 1.0 60.71 .9 17.55 .6 P,
Auto farm use........... 152,83 1.2 410,89 1.6 95.79 .7 151.25 1.1 109.32 1.6 82.83 3.0
Truck................... 1,024.25 8.2 1,566.03 6.1 848.91 6.3 945.08 6.7 550.34 8.0 187.24 6.8
Tractor................. 26.64 .2 53.61 .2 5.96 35.17 .2 47.58 .7 9.59 .4
Electric lights............ 20.91 .2 103.58 .4 33.52 .3 82.75 .6 60.32 .9 6.90 .3
C arbide................. .70 .......... .. .. . .. .
Telephone............... 13.73 .1 ................. 6.36 16.29 .1 3.79 .1 2.31 .1 t
Ice .................... 440.53 3.5 847.86 3.3 428.86 3.2 451.17 3.2 195.50 2.8 54.41 2.0 .
W water rent........ ....... .27 ....... . .62 4.17 ...............
Horseshoeing............. 1.75 11.28 .1 1.36 .33 *
Cow testing ............. .......... ................ ..... 32.31 .2 15.92 .1
Advertising ......... .... 2.94 ................
Breeding fees.............. .. . .......... ..... ...... ...... ........ ....... .. .......... .......... ... .. .04 *
Registration fees......... .06 2.36 ... ......... .67 .42 *
Insurance............... 15.52 .1 64.86 .3 3.88 31.25 .2 22.21 .3 .59 *
Taxes................... 47.75 .4 207.08 .8 80.28 .6 136.17 1.0 81.11 1.2 132.90 4.8
Freight on feed........... ........... ...... ......... .... .. .... ..... ..58 .........
D ipping costs............ ......... ............... ....... 35.09 .3 32.83 .2 1.92 1.04 *
Milk bottles and caps.... 240.30 1.9 337.2 1.3 146.38 1.1 171.67 1.2 65.74 .9 15.45 .6








TABLE XIX.-FARM EXPENSES ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.-Concluded.


District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala

Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29
Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent
per farm per farm per farm per farm per farm per farm
Baddebts............... 102.20 .8 $ 161.25 .6 178.16 1.3 $ 165.46 1.2 5 43.66 .6 $ 11.72 .4
Other retail costs......... 10.69 .1 37.92 .2 11.78 .1 50.96 .4 4.39 .1 .34 *
Other farm expenses...... 65.36 .5 137.69 .5 33.48 .3 76.92 .5 14.29 .2 1.971 .1

Total current expenses$12,172.03 97.2 $24,148.78 94.0 $12,804.55 94.6 $13,497.12 95.5 $ 6,571.92 95.0 $ 2,681.83 97.6
Livestock purchased...... 352.53 2.8 800.44 3.1 725.65 5.4 640.25 4.5 343.39 5.0 66.28 2.4
Net decrease in capital.... ...... ....... 735.53 2.9 ......... ....... .......... .... ... . .

Total............. $12,524.56100.0 $25.684.75100.0 $13,530.20100.0 14,137.37100.0 $6,915.31100.0 2,748.11100.0

*Less than .1 of one percent.
1Includes beet pulp, apple pulp, Bulky Lass, cottonseed hulls and mineral.








Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 29

In all districts except Ocala the sale of manure was an item of
importance. In that district most of it was used on the farm.
The average prices per ton received for manure sold in the several
districts were: Tampa $2.07, St. Petersburg $2.90, Jacksonville
$2.94, Miami $3.25, Orlando $4.27 and Ocala $4.80.

FARM EXPENSES
The current operating expenses per farm in the different dis-
tricts ranged from $2,681.83 in the Ocala district to $24,148.78
in the Miami district.
In the Ocala district, grain made up 35 percent of the current
operating expenses, while in all other districts the range was from
43 to 50 percent of the total. Labor costs ranged from 18 to 25
percent of the total operating expenses, and truck costs made up
from 6 to 8 percent of this figure.
All other expenses which are shown in detail in Table XIX made
up about one-fourth of the total current operating expenses in all
districts except Ocala, where they amounted to 37 percent.

TABLE XX.--HOME-GROWN FEED FOR COWS ON 249 FLORIDA
DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg
Number of farms............ 64 36 58 24 38 29
Grain

Number farms growing....... 10 ... 2 3 5 19
Number farms feeding to cows 2 .... 1 2 3 15
Percent fed to cows.......... 9.7 ... 47.6 48.4 73.4 34.4
Silage

Number farms growing....... 10 2 1 2 2 3
Number farms feeding to cows 10 2 1 2 2 3
Percentfedtocows.......... 94.8 82.8 88.0 98.1 100.0 100.0
Soiling Crops
Number farms growing....... 19 2 5 1 9 6
Number farms feeding to cows 19 2 5 1 9 6
Percent fed to cows.......... 98.2 99.6 96.0 100.0 91.7 82.0
Dry Roughage
Number farms growing....... 9 .... 4 2 9 19
Number farms feeding to cows 7 ... 2 2 9 18
Percent fed to cows......... 40.8 .... 42.7 100.0 84.7 52.4







30 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

CONCENTRATES
Only 16 percent of the total number of operators grew grain.
Corn was grown in all districts where any grain was grown. In
addition, velvet beans were grown in the Ocala and St. Peters-
burg districts, and rice in the Tampa district. In the Jackson-
ville district corn for grain was grown on 16 percent of the farms
and less than 10 percent of it was fed to cows. In the Ocala
district corn was grown on 66 percent of the farms and more
than one-third of it was fed to cows (Table XX).
Many dairies were evidently located with reference to nearness
to market rather than with the idea of producing feed for the
herd. In fact "dairy farms" is a misnomer in a great many
instances for a number of the dairies are "plants" where pur-
chased feed is converted into milk with land area limited to ex-
ercise lots for the dairy herd.
Dairy feeds, the names of which were not given, and those with
special trade names were classed as "commercial mixed feeds."
The average value of home-grown corn was $35.71 per ton in
the Jacksonville district and the amount was less than 1 percent
of the total concentrates used. The average value of purchased
corn was $43.24 per ton (Table XXI). In this district commer-
cial mixed feeds, including 17 special dairy feeds with different
trade names, represented 32 percent of the purchased concen-
trates and the average price paid for them was $50.85 per ton.
On the farms in the Miami district the average cost of pur-
chased concentrates was $52.92 per ton. No grains were produced
on these farms. In this district commercial mixed feeds, includ-
ing 22 special dairy feeds with different trade names, represented
about 75 percent of the purchased concentrates. These were
bought at an average price of $54.60 per ton (Table XXII).
The average value of home-grown corn in the Tampa district
was $44.64 per ton. Less than 1 percent of the concentrates used
were home-grown. The average cost of all corn bought was
$47.05 per ton (Table XXIII). In this district commercial mixed
feeds, including 17 different kinds of dairy feed under special
trade names, represented 34 percent of the total concentrates pur-
chased and the average price paid was $52.46 per ton.
The average value of home-grown corn in the St. Petersburg
district was $35.55 per ton and this with home-grown velvet beans
made up 1.3 percent of the total concentrates used. The average
cost of purchased corn was $39.03 per ton (Table XXIV). In





TABLE XXI.-CONCENTRATES USED BY 2,937 Cows, 671 HEIFERS, 97 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 64 JACKSON-
VILLE FARMS, 1927.
Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock

Kinds of feed Average
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt )

Home-grown corn for grain..... 548.81 35.71 980 53.2 $ 95 ....................... ...... 495.6 $ 885

Total home-grown .. 548.8$ 35.71 $ 980 53.2 $ 95...... ..................... 495.6 885

Purchased:
Primarily for cattle:
Wheat bran.............. 21,565.25$ 42.12 45,416 20,509.22$ 43,202 588.06$ 1,235 411.26$ 862 56.71$ 117
Cottonseed meal.......... 13,538.12 42.67 28,886 12,547.47 26,820 547.48 1,147 419.73 868 23.44 51
Gluten.................. 7,755.62 48.26 18,713 7,386.12 17,83 197.66 470 152.86 362 18.98 45
INheat middlings.......... 6,488.12 45.13 14,639 6,232.6 14,068 142.8 319 94.78 212 17.94 40
Corn .................... 5,215.0 43.24 11,276 4,582.88 9,847 130.17 262 116.95 253 385.0 914
Alfalfa meal.............. 4,541.0 39.43 8,952 4,147.52 8,184 226.12 444 133.13 255 34.23 69
Corn and cob meal........ 4,513.12 40.69 9,182 3,686.92 7,53 522.48 1,046 262.55 519 41.17 83
Linseed meal............. 3,018.06 60.22 9,088 2,830.4 8,52 121.75 366 59.49 179 6.42 18
Brewers' grain............ 2,641.0 47.19 6,231 2,543.94 6,004 42.79 100 54.27 127 .............
Oats.................... 1,358.0 48.14 3,269 307.75 714 107.28 278 61.97 150 881.0 2,127 %
Alfalfa and molasses....... 1,098.0 43.61 2,394 1,005.5 2,184 66.25 150 26.25 60................
Snapcorn................ 952.0 40.38 1,922 918.07 1,855 8.0 16 25.93 51 ....... ...... .
Peanutmeal.............. 803.0 39.90 1,602 765.23 1,528 13.58 27 19.07 37 5.12 10
Ground oats and molasses.. 624.0 32.66 1,019 610.97 997 5.07 8 7.96 14 ............
Molasses ................. 110.4 32.61 180 110.4 180........ ............. ........................
Skimmilk ................ 41.28 34.88 72 ......... ....... 41.28 72 .............................. ..
Velvet bean meal......... 36.0 40.00 72 35.3 71 .65 1 ................ ........ ........
Skimmilk flakes........... 2.0 30.00 3 .......... ........ 2.0 3 .............................
Calf m eal ................ 1.0 80 .00 4 ......... ....... 1.0 4 ........ ........ ........ .....
Commercial mixed feeds... 37,545.0 50.85 95,463 35,344.4 90,0791,390.7 3,336 643.91, 1,618 165.9 430 n
Primarily for other livestock:
Horse feed............... 1,989.5 49.26 4,900.......... ........ 208.0 520 ............ 1,781.5 4,380
Mixed poultry feed........ 1,836.2 56.95 5,229.......... ...... ..... ....... ........ ........ 1,836.2 5,229
Poultry mash.... ......... 924.2 63.47 2,933 .................. ............... ....... ....... 924.2 2,933
H og feed ................. 120.0 20.00 120 .......... ........ ................ ....... ....... 120.0 120 co

Total purchased. ....... 116,715.87$ 46.53|$271,565 103,564.83$239.6284,363.12$ 9,8042.490.11 $ 5,567!6,297.81!$ 16,566









TABLE XXII.-CONCENTRATES USED BY 3,449 Cows, 671 HEIFERS, 79 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 36 MIAMI
FARMS, 1927.

Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock 1
Kinds of feed Average 2.
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value P-
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)
Purchased:
Primarily for cattle:
Alfalfa meal.............. 9,304.0 40.52 18,852 8,556.4 17,340 410.6 $ 806 306.0 $ 631 31.0 $ 75
Wheatbran .............. 3,228.0 46.69 7,535 1,719.84 3,999 1,319.0 3,099 137.0 319 52.16 118
Corn ................... 2,930.0 49.82 7,298 1,452.05 3,5781,345.5 3,358 127.2 348 5.25 14
Cottonseed meal.......... 2,484.5 46.02 5,717 2,411.7 5,560 39.5 8 28.4 66 4.9 11
Oats...................... 2,446.0 49.35 6,035 1,598.88 3,910 628.5 1,589 86.25 204 132.37 332
Ricebran................ 1,726.0 38.53 3,325 781.0 1,562 855.0 1,583 90.0 180..............
Corn and cob meal........ 1,095.0 42.34 2,318 665.0 1,435 410.0 836 20.0 47 .............
Linseed meal............. 1,080.0 65.6 3,546 940.65 3,088 107.5 354 30.45 9 1.4 5
Molasses................. 345.74 52.18 902 345.74 902......... .. ......... ................
Gluten................... 195.0 49.33 481 193.0 477 ........ ........ 2.0 4......
Alfalfa and molasses....... 90.0 42.00 189 80.0 168 10.0 21 ............ .............. c
Milk powder............. 61.57 40.31 1,241.......... ....... 61.57 1,241. ....... .. ......... ....
Calf meal................ 20.8 119.23 124 ................ 20.8 124........ .... .. .... .. ...
Commercial mixed feeds .. 84,505.0 54.60 230,705 81,083.56 221,4171,617.38 4,208 937.9 2,522 866.16 2,558 C
Primarily for other livestock:
Horse feed............... 2,025.0 54.50 5,518... .... ... 365.0 1,004 ............ 1,660.0 4,514
Mixed poultry feed........ 1,235.0 68.97 4,259 ................. ....... .... .....1,235.0 4,259
Poultry mash............. 644.0 63.57 2,047 ............... ... ..... ...... .... .... .. 644.0 2,047
Total purchased....... 113,415.61 52.92$300,092 99,827.82$263,436 7,190.35$ 18,303 1,765.2 4,420 4,632.24 13,933
I I






TABLE XXIII.-CONCENTRATES USED BY 3,336 Cows, 571 HEIFERS, 96 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 58 TAMPA
FARMS, 1927.


Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock

Kinds of feed Average
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)

Home grown:
Corn forgrain............. 582.4 $ 44.64 1,300 280.0 $ 625 56 $ 125................ 246.4 $ 550 t
Rice....................... 6.0 33.33 10 ........................ ............... ......... 6.0 10

Total home grown........ 588.4 $ 44.53$ 1,310 280.0 $ 625 56 8 125........ ....... 252.4 $ 560

Purchased:
Primarily for cattle:
Wheat middlings.......... 17,633.0 $ 47.35$ 41,748 16,593.94$ 39,269 412.46$ 993 476.92$ 1,137 149.68$ 349
Corn .................. 16,943.0 47 05 39,855 15,584.81 36,672 379.58 895 616.42 1,459 362.19 829
Alfalfa meal.............. 16,695.5 38.28 31,958 15,635.78 29,923 444.07 848 465.79 897 149.86 290
Cottonseed meal.......... 12,723.5 42.75 27,196 12,143.26 25,930 229.45 502 278.34 611 72.45 153
Wheat bran.............. 11,447.5 41.20 23,584 10,985.62 22,637 192.54 401 209.05 428 60.29 118 0
Oats..................... 5,913.0 48.78 14,423 5,489.42 13,399 81.9 204 120.13 291 221.55 529
Corn and cob meal........ 3,097.0 37.82 5,857 2,922.2 5,525 89.2 166 70.6 138 15.0 28
Gluten................... 2,796.5 48.68 6,806 2,607.85 6,336 101.58 257 65.3 159 21.77 54 o
Snap corn ................ 634.0 37.00 1,173 579.25 1,072 42.75 79 12.0 22..............
Linseed meal............. 549.0 63.02 1,730 523.38 1,649 8.02 26 15.95 50 1.65 5 ^
Calf m eal................ 17.5 99.43 87 ........... ....... 17.5 87 ............... ... .. ..... -
Commercial mixed feeds.. 46,886.0 52.46 122,987 44,631.52 116,908 991.32 2,7291,022.89 2,717 240.27 633 ^
Primarily for other livestock:
Horse feed............... 1,250.0 48.58 3,036 ............................................... 1,250.0 3,036 P
M ixed poultry feed........ 969.24 56.97 2,761 .................. ................ ............... 969.24 2,761
Poultry mash............. 72.0 67.78 244 .......................... ....... ......... ..... 72.0 244

Total purchased ........ 137,626.74 $ 47.00$323.445 127,697.03$299,320 2,990.371$ 7,18713,353.39 $ 7,909 3,585.95$ 9,029
---------------------------------------------------------------D






TABLE XXIV.-CONCENTRATES USED BY 1,132 Cows, 219 HEIFERS, 35 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 24 ST.
PETERSBURG FARMS, 1927. C

Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock
Kinds of feed Average
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)
Home grown:
Corn ...................... 371.28$ 35.55 660 56.0 $ 125 ........ ....... ......... ........ 315.28$ 535
Velvet beans ............... 240.0 50.00 600 240.0 600 .............. ... ........ ........ ........

Total home grown........ 611.28$ 41.22$ 1,260 296.0 $ 725 ........ .. .............. ....... 315.28 535

Purchased:
Primarily for cattle:
Alfalfameal.............. 6,152.0 $ 38.52 11,849 5,703.48 10,974 255.49 498 154.28$ 301 38.75$ 76
wheatbran.............. 4,310.2 44.10 9,504 4,038.15 8,907 93.54 203 117.8 261 60.75 133
Corn................... 3,539.15 39.03 6,907 3,282.81 6,393 95.92 172 110.42 212 50.01 130
Oats................ ..3,321.5 48.77 8,099 2,720.23 6,757 400.24 877 87.58 212 113.45 253
Molasses feed............. 2,267.5 46.88 5,315 1,874.8 4,368 49.9 118 57.6 137 285.2 692
Cottonseed meal........... 1,435.35 41.63 2,988 1,348.71 2,811 28.3 54 56.47 118 1.87 5 l
Gluten.................. 1,078.35 49.06 2,645 1,009.86 2,476 17.95 45 48.67 120 1.87 4 2.
Wheat middlings.......... 730.0 45.48 1,660 646.55 1,466 38.95 92 32.0 72 12.5 30
Corn and cob meal........ 547.5 36.35 995 500.1 908 17.1 32 27.6 50 2.7 5 m
Snapcorn............... 547.5 40.00 1,095 526.0 1,052 10.5 21 5.5 11 5.5 11
Velvet beans (unshelled)... 151.33 19.96 151 145.37 145 3.96 4 2.0 2..............
Linseed meal............. 93.92 61.54 289 88.32 271 .6 2 5.0 16 ........ .....
Alfalfa and molasses....... 84.0 37.86 159 74.5 141 3.5 7 6.0 11.............
Calf meal ................ 3.25 129.23 21 ........... ........ 3.25 21 ........................ ........ g-
Commercial mixed feeds... 20,691.0 51.02 52,784 19,627.98 50,114 524.99 1,312 413.53 1,0 124.5 326 S
Primarily for other livestock:
M ixed poultry feed........ 662.2 63.97 2,118 .......... ........ ...... ........ ........ .... ... 662.2 2,118
Horse feed ............... 526.0 50.15 1,319................ 117.6 294 38.0 95 370.4 930
Poultry mash............. 457.2 75.85 1,734 ...... .. ... ... .. ......... ... ........... 457.2 1,734

Total purchased........ 46,597.95$ 47.05 109,632 41,586.86$ 96,783 1,661.75$ 3,7521,162.453 2,6502,186.898 6,447







Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 35

this district commercial mixed feeds, including 14 special dairy
feeds with different trade names, represented over 44 percent of
the purchased concentrates. The average cost was $51.02 per ton.
The average value of home-grown corn in the Orlando district
was $35.71 per ton. The amount of home-grown grain was less
than 1 percent of the total concentrates used. The average cost
of purchased corn was $41.80 per ton (Table XXV). In this
district commercial mixed feeds, including 18 different dairy feeds
with special trade names, made up more than 67 percent of the
purchased concentrates and the average price paid was $53.88
per ton.
In the Ocala district the average value of home-grown corn was
$35.61 per ton. Home-grown corn made up about 22 percent of
the total concentrates used. The average price of purchased corn
was $38.78 per ton (Table XXVI). In this district commercial
mixed feeds, including 8 special dairy feeds with different trade
names represented 42 percent of the total concentrates purchased
and the average price paid was $55.30 per ton.
Cows in the Jacksonville, Tampa and St. Petersburg districts
were fed over 3.500 pounds of concentrates per head and in the
Miami and Ocala districts less than 3,000 pounds per head for the
year (Table XXVII). The quantities of concentrates fed heifers
and herd bulls in the different districts for the year are also given
in this table. It should be borne in mind that the figures shown
for feed given to heifers and herd bulls are for all farms regardless
of whether all such livestock received these special feeds or not.
When all farms were combined it was found that about 69 per-
cent of the farmers included in the study used dairy feeds with
special trade names.
Frequency Table XXVIII shows the kinds of feed and the num-
ber of farmers in the various districts purchasing same. In this
table dairy feeds with trade names were not included and only
the more important other feeds are listed.
Beet pulp was generally used except in the Ocala district.
Eighty percent of all farmers used this feed.
Corn held a prominent place in the feeding ration in the Jack-
sonville and Tampa districts. Forty-five percent of all farmers
used this feed.
In all districts some farmers bought oats, but only 14 percent
of the total number included this grain in their ration.
A larger percentage of the Jacksonville farmers used wheat
bran than in the other districts, about half of the St. Petersburg







TABLE XXV.-CONCENTRATES USED BY 980 COWS, 221 HEIFERS, 45 HERD BULLS, AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 38 ORLANDO C
FARMS, 1927.

Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock

Kinds of feed Average
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)
--t..
Home grown:
Corn for grain .............. 263.2 $ 35.71$ 470 193.2 $ 345................ 42.0 $ 75 28.0 $ 50
Total home grown........ 263.2 $ 35.71$ 470 193.2 $ 345................ 42.0 $ 75 28.0 $ 50

Purchased:
Primarily for cattle:
Wheatbran.............. 2,201.25$ 43.43$ 4,780 1,937.05$ 4,197 49.4 $ 110 59.558 133 155.25$ 340
Oats.................... 1,949.25 54.08 5,271 1,678.75 4,597 9.0 23 21.25 54 240.25 597
Alfalfa meal.............. 1,296.00 43.63 2,827 1,226.02 2,672 44.46 97 25.52 58 ...............
Corn and cob meal........ 1,171.00 39.54 2,315 976.45 1,944 129.3 245 65.25 126 ................
Cottonseed meal.......... 1,096.81 44.64 2,448 1,046.21 2,336 25.7 55 24.9 57 .....
Corn.................... 945.0 41.80 1,975 755.0 1,510 10.0 20 15.0 31 165.0 414
Snap corn................ 789.0 40.05 1,580 748.6 1,491 2.0 10 36.4 75 2.0 4
Wheat middlings ......... 659.0 49.23 1,622 607.19 1,493 10.75 27 7.06 17 34.0 85
Ground oats and alfalfa.... 216.0 47.59 514 206.0 490 10.0 24 ....... ......................
Calf meal ................ 10.0 100.0" 50 .......... ....... 10.0 50 ........ ................. .....
Linseed meal............. 5.0 56.00 14 5.0 14........... ..... .............
Commercial mixed feeds... 25,042.57 53.88 67,464 24,154.77 65,106 492.2 1,300 390.6 1,043 5.0 15 5
Primarily for other livestock:
M ixed poultry feed........ 1,062.59 67.89 3,607 .................................. ........ ..... 1,062.59 3,607
Horse feed............... 592.0 54.53 1,614 .................. ....... .. ...... ........... 592.0 1,614 2
Hog feed.................. 150.0 22.00 165 ........................ ........ ........ ........ 150.0 165
Corn and oats............ 26.0 56.15 73......................... ...... .. ....... ........ 26.0 73
Poultry mash............ 8.5 82.35 35 .......... .............. ........ ... ..... ....... 8.5 35

Total purchased........ 37,219.97$ 51.78$ 96,354 33,341.04$ 85,850 792.81 $ 1,961 645.53$ 1,594 2,440.59$1 6,949







TABLE XXVI.-CONCENTRATES USED BY 425 Cows, 196 HEIFERS, 22 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 29 OCALA
FARMS, 1927.

Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock
Kinds of feed Average
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)

Home grown:
Corn for grain.............. 2,887.36S 35.61$ 5,141 938.0 $ 1,674 51.52$ 92 ........ ....... 1,897.84 3,375
Velvet beans ............... 97.0 35.46 172 90.0 158 5.0 10 2.0 $ 4...........

Total home grown. ....... 2,984.36$ 35.61$ 5,313 1,028.0 $ 1,832 56.52$ 102 2.0 $ 41,897.84$ 3,375

Purchased:
Primarily for cattle:
Cottonseed meal.......... 1,447.17$ 40.30$ 2,916 1,401.69$ 2,823 28.03$ 60 17.45$ 33..........
Corn................... 1,209.23 38.78 2,345 1,055.75 2,031 23.56 47 10.5 22 119.42 245
Wheatbran.............. 1,065.4 35.05 1,867 1,019.69 1,777 34.71 69 11.0 21..... .....
Wheat middlings.......... 613.25 46.67 1,431 503.85 1,181 68.0 149 11.4 26 30.0 75
Alfalfa meal.............. 121.43 41.01 249 119 93 246 1.5 3 .............. .............
Linseed meal............. 65.56 60.71 199 64.21 195 1.35 4 ........ .............. .......
Snap corn ................ 57.45 39.69 114 9.6 19 ................ 18.65 37 29.2 58
Gluten.................. 52.0 51.92 135 52.0 135 ....... ..... . .... ........ ........ ..
Ground oats.............. 52.0 56.92 148 52.0 148 ............... ............... .............
Calf meal ................ 10.0 50.00 25 .......... ........ 10.00 25 ....... ............. .. ......
Velvet beans............. 7.0 40.00 14 7.0 14.............. ................ ...............
Commercial mixed feeds... 4,336.83 55.30 11,992 4,184.32 11,592 120.51 319 32.0 81........ ......
Primarily for other livestock:
M ixed poultry feed........ 1,119.0 61.07 3,417 .......... .... ... .............. .... .... 1,119.0 3,417
Poultry mash............. 142.0 72.68 516 .................. ................ .............. 142.0 516
H orse feed............... 54.0 47.78 129 .................. ......... ...... ............. 54.0 129

Totalpurchased........ 10,352.32$ 49.26$ 25,497 8,470.04$ 20,161 287.66$ 676 101.00$ 2201,493.62$ 4,440
~_____ I,________________








38 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE XXVII.-CONCENTRATES USED BY 12,259 Cows, 2,549 HEIFERS AND
374 HERD BULLS ON 249 DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


Per Cow Per Heifer Per Herd Bull
District --
Percent Percent Percent
Pounds Value bought Pounds Value bought Pounds Value bought
Jacksonville ......... 3,528 $81.62 99.9 650 $14.61 100.0 2,567 $57.39 100.0
Miami.............. 2,894 76.38 100.0 1,072 27.28 100.0 2,234 55.95 100.0
Tampa. ........... 3,836 89.91 99.8 534 12.81 98.2 3,493 82.39 100.0
St. Petersburg....... 3,700 86.14 99.3 759 17.13 100.0 3,321 75.71 100.0
Orlando............ 3,422 87.95 99.4 359 8.87 100.0 1,528 37.09 93.9
Ocala.............. 2,235 51.75 89.2 176 3.97 83.6 468 10.18 98.1
All farms......... 3,396 $82.29 99.6 683 $16.44 99.4 2,557 $60.00 99.5


and Ocala farmers used this feed, and 47 percent of the total
number used it.
Gluten and brewers' grains were used on more farms in the
Jacksonville district than in all others combined.
Alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal, and oil meal were used in all
districts. Forty-three percent of all farmers used alfalfa meal,
46 percent used cottonseed meal, and 16 percent used oil meal.
Hay was not purchased for cows by many farmers in any dis-
trict, and only on 14 percent of the total number of farms.

ROUGHAGE
No dry roughage was grown in the Miami district. The per-
centages of farms growing this class of feed in the different dis-
tricts were as follows: Tampa 7, St. Petersburg 8, Jacksonville 14,

TABLE XXVIII.-NUMBER OF FARMS PURCHASING SPECIFIED FEEDS FOR
Cows, 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg
Number of farms............ 64 36 58 24 38 29

Beet pulp .................. 57 36 53 23 29 2
Corn ....................... 34 6 41 9 12 11
Oats....................... 7 5 9 8 4 1
Wheat bran................. 48 7 22 12 14 14
Wheat middlings or shorts.... 19 .. 29 2 4 7
Gluten................... 33 2 11 4 .. 1
Brewers' grains. ........... 13 .. .. .. .
Alfalfa meal ................ 22 17 39 13 10 6
Cottonseed meal ............ 46 7 29 5 9 19
Oil meal .................... 26 5 3 2 1 2
Hay. ..................... 8 4 4 7 9 4





TABLE XXIX.-ROUGHAGE USED BY 2,937 Cows, 671 HEIFERS, 97 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 64 JACKSONVILLE
FARMS, 1927.

Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock

Kinds of feed Average t7
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value _
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)

Home-grown: S
Dry roughage: t>
Cowpea.................. 30 $ 25.33$ 38 .......... ...... 10 13........ ........ 20 $ 25
Cowpea and oat.......... 160 25.00 200 106.67$ 133 .......... ..... ............ 53.33 67
Crab grass............... 160 17.50 140 80 65 ........ ...... .......... ..... 80 75
Cowpea and soybean...... 200 30.00 300 .............. ................. ................ 200 300
Corn fodder............... 88.9 23.62 105 73.9 95 ...................... ........ 15 10 t?

Total................. 638.9 ........ 783 260.57$ 293 10 $ 13........ ........368.33$ 477
Succulent feed: o
Corn silage............... 17,240 8 9.448 8,134 16,385 S 7,739 640 $ 309 215 $ 86 ........ .......
Sorghum silage........... 600 10.00 300 536 268 48 24 16 8...... ....
Soiling crops:
Corn................... 6,640 7.62 2,530 6,600 2,510 20 10 18 9 2 1
Corn and cowpeas ........ 2,250 10.00 1,125 2,130 1,065 60 30 60 30..............
Cowpeas................. 55 10.18 28 55 28 ........ ........ ........ ....... ....... .... ...
Millet ................... 360 10.00 180 360 180 ............... ............ ........ ....
Sorghum................. 600 8.67 260 580 250 10 5 9 4 1 1

Total................. 27,745 ........ $ 12,557 26,646 $ 12,040 778 $ 378 318 S 137 3 $ 2
Purchased:
Hay:
Alfalfa.................. 2,706 $ 36.118 4,886 2,410 $ 4,359 115 $ 205 181 $ 322....
Mixed ................... 1,528.1 34.98 2,673 424 824 249.16 424 190.16 325 664.78 1,100 :
Timothy............... 826.0 27.14 1,121 40 56 70.00 98 96.00 144 620 823

Total.................. 5,060.1 ........ $ 8,680 2,874 5,239 434.16 727 467.16$ 7911,284.78$ 1,923
Other roughage: co
Beet pulp ............... 39,096.25$ 45.72$ 89,386 37,658.51 86,071 896.52$ 2.070 491.71$ 1,129 49.51$ 116
Bulkv Lass............... 1,576.00 46.24 3,644 1,441.0 3,325 109.00 259 26.00 60..
Cottonseed hulls.......... 3,264.00 18.52 3,023 2,251.11 1,890 529.40 735 457.66 375 25.83 23

Total................... 43,936.25 ........ 96,053 41,350.62 91,2861,534.92 3,064 975.37 1,564 75.34$ 139
Mineral supplement .. ..... .. 16.001$ 22.508 1i 16.00$1 18 ... . .......... .. .










TABLE XXX.-ROUGHAGE USED BY 3,449 Cows, 671 HEIFERS, 79 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 36 MIAMI FARMS,
1927.


Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock
Kinds of feed Average
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)
Home grown:
Succulent feed:
Corn silage ............... 5,680$ 10.00$ 2,840 4,089.6 $ 2,0451,306.4 $ 653 284 $ 142........ .... .
Sorghum silage........... 7,320 10.00 3,660 6,670.4 3,335 533.6 267 116 58...............
Soiling crops:
Corn .................... 1,240 10.00 620 1,228 614 10 5 2 1...............
Sorghum ................. 17,000 10.00 8,500 16,940 8,470 40 20 20 10 ....... .....

Total... .............. 31,240 ........ $ 15,620 28,928 $ 14,4641,890 $ 945 422 $ 211 ......
Purchased:
Hay:
Alfalfa.................. 2,600$ 43.54$ 5,660 2,281 $ 5,002 200 $ 408 99 $ 210 20 $ 40
Sweet clover............ 72 48.06 173 36 86 36 87 ........ ............... ......

Total................ 2,672........ $ 5,833 2,317 $ 5,088 236 $ 495 99 $ 210 20 $ 40
Other roughage:
Beet pulp. .............. 41,212$ 48.26$ 99,437 40,178.65 96,928 177.35$ 429 815 $ 1,978 41 $ 102 .
Apple pulp............... 1,070 41.05 2,196 1,070.00 2,196......... ........ ............... ... .. ..... .

Total................ 42,282........ $101,633 41,248.65 99,124 177.35$ 429 815 $ 1,978 41 $102
Mineral supplement............. 30$ 20.00$ 300 29.7$ 297 ....... ..... .3 8 3 ..........





TABLE XXXI.-ROUGHAGE USED BY 3,336 Cows, 571 HEIFERS, 96 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 58 TAMPA FARMS,
1927.


Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock
Kinds of feed Average b
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)

Home grown:
Dry roughage:
Carpet grass.............. 300 $ 10.00$ 150 182 $ 91 90 $ 45 10 5 18 $ 9
Cowpea................... 80 25.00 100 ................ ....... .. .. ..... ......... 80 100
Rice ..................... 40 10.00 20 40 20 ........ ..................... .... ...
W ild .................... 100 8.00 40 .......... ....... 40 16 ...... ........ 60 .24

Total.................. 520 ........ 310 222 111 130 S 61 10 5 5 158 8 133
Succulent feed:
Corn silage ............... 500 $ 10.00 250 440 $ 220 40 $ 20 20 $ 10.................
Soiling crops:
Corn.................... 1,040 11.85 616 997 590 27.4 17 15.6 9............
Corn and cowpeas......... 320 8.00 128 320 128 ........ ..... .... ....... ................
Napiergrass.............. 2,100 12.00 1,260 2,006.5 1,204 59.5 36 34 20....... ...
Millet. .................. 40 10.00 20 40 20...................... ........... ........
Sorghum ................. 400 15.00 300 400 300 ........ ........ ..... ........... .......
Cayana cane............. 4,000 12.00 2,400 3,822 2,293 113 68 65 39................
Total................. 8,400 ....... $ 4,974 8,025.5 $ 4,755 239.9 $ 141 134.6 $ 78................
Purchased:
Hay:
Alfalfa................... 500 $ 39.76$ 994 480 $ 960 20 $ 34.. .......... .
Timothy................. 262 32.29 423 120 210........ ........ 30 5 45 112 $ 168
Crah grass ............... 40 20.00 40 40 40 ........ ........ ........ ....... ...
Mixed................... 135 44.59 301 4 6 ........ ....... ........ ....... . 131 295

Total .................. 937 ........ .$ 1,758 644 $ 1,216 20 8 34 30 $ 45 243 $ 463
Other roughage:
Beet pulp................ 31,031.8 $ 45.72$ 70,931 29,750.458 68,008 642.141 1,459 557.1 $ 1,275 82.11$ 189
Bulky Lass.......... .... 414.0 46.09 954 306.05 702 77.00 181 27.3 63 3.65 8
Cottonseed hulls.......... 52.0 18.85 49.......... ....... 32.00 30 20.0 19....... ...

Total................. 31,497.8 ........ $71,934 30,056.5 $ 68,710 751.14$ 1,670 604.4 $ 1,357 85.765 197
Mineral supplement ........... 44.25 $ 12.11 $ 268 42.6 8 258 .905 5 .755 5 .......







42 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

Orlando 24 and Ocala 66 percent. When the number growing
silage and soiling crops was combined it was found that the per-
centages growing these crops were as follows: Tampa 10, Miami
11, St. Petersburg 12, Orlando 29, Ocala 31 and Jacksonville 45
(Table XX).
The hay purchased in the Jacksonville district was principally
alfalfa. The amount of all hay purchased was 98 pounds per cow
(Table XXIX).
The average price per ton of purchased hay in the Miami district
was $43.66. This was nearly all alfalfa hay. Only 67 pounds
of hay was purchased per cow in this district (Table XXX).
In the Tampa district the average value of home-grown rough-
age was $11.92 per ton. Only 19 pounds of hay per head was
purchased for cows (Table XXXI).
Alfalfa was the principal hay used in the St. Petersburg dis-
trict. There was an average of 233 pounds of hay purchased per
head for cows (Table XXXII).
In the Orlando district 245 pounds of hay was purchased per
head for cows. This was about half alfalfa, and half mixed hay
(Table XXXIII).
In the Ocala district 258 pounds of hay was purchased per cow
and 347 pounds was home-grown (Table XXXIV).
Hay:-Hay, both home-grown and purchased, fed to the dairy
herd in Florida is a small item (Table XXXV). In Florida beet
pulp is used more as a roughage.
In the Ocala district two-thirds of the farmers saved dry
roughage. Excluding this district, less than 11 percent of all
other farmers saved this class of feed.
While the total amount of hay fed was small, in the Miami dis-
trict it was all purchased. On the Ocala farms only a little more
than one-fourth of the hay used was purchased, while 64 percent
in the Tampa district, 69 percent in the Orlando district, 85 per-
cent in the St. Petersburg district and 89 percent of the hay fed
in the Jacksonville district was purchased.
Other Roughage:-To one unacquainted with the Florida prac-
tice of feeding dairy cows, the amount of hay fed seems very low
while the amount of beet pulp, Bulky Lass, and cottonseed hulls
seems unusually high.
On the Ocala farms where cows were fed the most hay, only a
small amount of other roughage was used. From about 1,200 to







TABLE XXXII.-ROUGHAGE USED BY 1,132 COWS, 219 HEIFERS, 35 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 24 ST.
PETERSBURG FARMS. 1927.

Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock t
--- ---- ---- --- --- --- -- --- --- -- ---
Kinds of feed Average
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value .
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)

Home grown:
Dry roughage:
Crab grass .............. 440 $ 15.00$ 330 330.5 $ 248 73 $ 55 36.5 $ 27...............
Fodder............... . 100 13.00 65 100 65 ............... ............... ....... .....

Total..... ........... 540 ........ $ 395 430.5 $ 313 73 $ 55 36.5 $ 27...............
Succulent feed:
Corn silage....... ........ 800 $ 10.00$ 400 785 $ 392 ................ 15 $ 8........ .... ...
Corn and soybean silage... 1,600 12.00 960 1,570 942 10 $ 6 10 6 10 $ 6
Soiling crops:
Cowpeas ................ 600 6.00 180 600 180 ................................. ............

Total................. 3,000 ........ $ 1,540 2,955 $ 1.514 10 $ 6 25 $ 14 10 $ 6
Purchased:
Hay:
Alfalfa.................. 1,310 $ 36.67$ 2,402 1,277.5 $ 2,341 5 8 10 25 $ 47 2.5 $ 4
Timothy....... : ......... 100 34.80 174 .. ...... 30 60 70 114
Clover................... 360 36.00 648 318.5 573 5 9. 36.5 66 .... ......
Clover and timothy........ 480 27.00 648 363 490 ................ 44 59 73 99 t
Lespedeza................ 176 23.98 211 163.5 196 5 6 5 6 2.5 3 .
Mixed ................... 547 31.99 875 515 824 16 26 16 25...............

Total................ 2,973 ........$ 4,958 2,637.5 $ 4.424 31 51 156.5 263 148 220
Other roughage:
Beet pulp................ 15,152.01$ 46.45 35,191 14,640.21$ 34,008 278.5 $ 653 168.8 $ 387 64.5 $ 143
Cottonseed hulls. ......... 182 21.98 200 169 186 2.5 3 3.5 4 7 7

Total................. 15,334.01........ 35,391$14,809.21 34,194 281 $ 656 172.3 391 71.5 $ 150






TABLE XXXIII.-ROUGHAGE USED BY 980 Cows, 221 HEIFERS, 45 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 38 ORLANDO
FARMS, 1927.

Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock
Kinds of feed Average
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)
Home grown: o
Dry roughage:
Oat ................. 100 $ 17.00$ 85 60 55........ ....... 20 $ 15 20 $ 15
N atal ................... 50 15.20 38 50 38 ......... . ........ .. ... .....
Cowpea.................. 540 28.70 775 522 745 10 $ 17 8 13 . .... ..
Crab grass ............... 540 28.81 778 440 648 15 25 15 25 70 80
Crab grass and beggar weed 60 20 60 20 20 5 5 5 5 30 30

Total................. 1,290 ........$ 1,736 1,092 $ 1,506 30 3 47 48 $ 58 120 $ 125
Succulent feed: 4
Corn silage............... 1,600 $ 10.00 800 1,600 800 ....................... ........ .......
Soiling crops:
Corn................... 3,010 10.64 1,601 2,804 1,493 51 27 80 43 75 38 t
Soudan grass............. 80 10.00 40 80 40.................
Napier grass.............. 1,000 10.00 500 860 430....... ........ 40 20 100 50
Sorghum ................ 40 10.00 20 40 20 ...... .......... ........ . .... ..
Millet .................. 180 9.11 82 167 75 4 2 4 2 5 3

Total .................. 5,910 ........ 3,043 5,551 $ 2,858 55 $ 29 124 $ 65 180 $ 91 ;.
Purchased:
Hay:
Alfalfa .................. 1,376 $ 40.00$ 2,752 1,218.4 $ 2,437 83.5 $ 167 29.1 $ 58 45 3 90
Mixed.................. 1,477.15 36.60 2,703 1,185.55 2,147 32 53 38 68 221.6 435

Total................. 2,853.15........$ 5,455 2,403.95$ 4,584 115.5 $ 220 67.1 $ 126 266.6 $ 525
Other roughage:
Beet pulp................ 6,447.74$ 49.17$ 15,853 6,189.82$ 15,196 100.6 $ 255 157.32$ 402...............
Bulky Lass............... 197 51.98 512 152.58 397 27.1 70 17.32 45........ ...
Cottonseed hulls.......... 325 19.69 320 303.5 287 18.5 30 3 3....... .....

Total.................. 6,969.74 ........ 16,685 6.645.90$ 15,880 146.2 $ 355 177.64$ 450.........
Mineral supplement ........... 5 40.00$ 101 4 $ 88 1 8 2........ ..................





TABLE XXXIV.-ROUGHAGE USED BY 425 Cows, 196 HEIFERS, 22 HERD BULLS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK ON 29 OCALA
FARMS, 1927.
Total Cows Heifers Herd Bulls Other Livestock

Kinds of feed Average
Amount price Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value
(cwt.) per ton (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.)

Home grown:
Dry roughage-
Cowpea................. 1,580 $ 22.16$ 1,751 805 $ 863 50 $ 48 20 $ 20 705$ 820
Crab grass ........ ...... 20 15.00 15 10 7 ........................ ........ 10 8
Cowpea and crab grass.... 375 25.71 482 240 300 20 30 ................ 115 152
Crab grass and beggar wee 120 15.00 90 60 45 15 11 5 4 40 30
Natal ................. 180 10.00 90........ ........ ........ ........ ...... 180 90
Beggar weed ............. 40 20.00 40 38 38 ................ 2 2..........
Cowpea and millet..... .. 300 20.00 300 220 220 ....... ......................80 80
Peanut.................. 210 18.10 190.......... ... ........ ........................ 210 190
Wild.................... 300 25.00 375 100 125...... .......................... 200 250
Corn fodder. ............. 30 30.00 45 .................................................. 30 45 0

Total................. 3,155 ........$ 3,378 1,473 $ 1,598 85 $ 89 27 $ 26 1,570$1,665
Succulent feed:
Corn silage.............. 1,500 $ 5.93$ 445 1,500 $ 445 ........ ........ ......... ..
Corn and velvet bean silage 600 800 240 600 240 ...... .. . ....
Corn and pea silage....... 600 8.00 240 600 240 . . .... .
Soiling crops:
M angels............ ..... 40 10.00 20 40 20 ................. .. .
Corn.................... 1,300 7.17 46 1,000 366 200 $ 66 40 $ 16 60$ 18 -
Sorghum............. .... 880 9.45 416 780 366 80 40 20 10 ...... ....

Total................. 4,920 ......... $ 1,827 4,520 $ 1,677 280 $ 106 60 $ 26 60$ 18 .
Purchased:
Hay:
Peanut .................. 300 $ 15.00 225 300 $ 225 ........ ........ ....... .... . .. ....
Mixed .................. 865.25 20.02 866 795.25 799 ................ 40 40 4 30$ 27

Total.................. 1,165.25 ........ 1,091 1,095.25$ 1,024 .............. . 40 $ 40 30$ 27
Other roughage:
Beet pulp................ 75 50.13$ 188 75 $ 188 ........ ................ ........ ........
Bulky Lass.............. 846 47.99 2,030 846 2,030 ................ ...... ..
Cottonseed hulls.......... 76.6 15.93 61 63.46 51 8.64$ 7 4.5 3

Total................ 997.6 ........ 2,279 984.46$ 2,269 8.64$ 7 4.5$ 3 .. .








46 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE XXXV.-HAY USED BY 12,259 Cows, 2,549 HEIFERS AND 374 HERD
BULLS ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


Per Cow Per Heifer Per Herd Bull Percent-
_----- ----- age of
District Percent Percent Percent all hay
Pounds Value bought Pounds Value bought Pounds Value bought bought
Jacksonville...... 107 $1.88 91.7 66 $1.10 97.7 482 $8.15 100.0 88.8
Miami........... 67 1.48 100.0 35 .74 100.0 125 2.66 100.0 100.0
Tampa........... 26 .40 74.4 26 .17 13.3 42 .52 75.0 64.3
St. Petersburg.... 271 4.18 86.0 47 .48 29.8 551 8.29 81.1 84.6
Orlando.......... 357 6.21 68.8 66 1.21 79.4 256 4.09 58.3 68.9
Ocala............ 604 6.17 42.6 43 .45 ..... 305 3.00 59.7 27.0
Allfarms..... 118 $2.07 77.5 46 $ .70 71.8 262 $4.25 87.6 71.8


1,400 pounds of other roughage were fed per cow in the Miami,
St. Petersburg and Jacksonville districts; in the Tampa district
901 pounds and in the Orlando district 678 pounds (Table
XXXVI).
Silage and Soiling Crops:-The silage and soiling crops are
shown separately in Table XXXVII. There was a larger tonnage
of silage than soiling crops in the Jacksonville, Ocala and St.
Petersburg districts, while the reverse was true for the other
districts.

TABLE XXXVI.-OTHER ROUGHAGE FOR 12,259 Cows, 2,549 HEIFERS AND 374
HERD BULLS ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Percent
of farms Per cow Per heifer Per herd bull
District and kinds of feed using
beet --- --
pulp Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value
Jacksonville:
Beet pulp, Bulky Lass
and cottonseed hulls.. 89.0 1,408 $31.08 229 $ 4.57 1,006 $16.12
Miami:
Beetpulp and applepulp 97.5 1,196 28.74 26 .64 1,032 25.04
Tampa:
Beet pulp, Bulky Lass
and cottonseed hulls. 98.5 901 20.60 132 2.92 630 14.14
St. Petersburg:
Beet pulp and cotton-
seed hulls .......... 98.8 1,308 30.21 128 3.00 492 11.17
Orlando:
Beet pulp, Bulky Lass
and cottonseed hulls.. 92.5 678 16.20 66 1.61 395 10.00
Ocala:
Beet pulp, Bulky Lass
and cottonseed hulls.. 7.5 232 5.34 4 .04 20 .14
Allfarms............. 94.3 1,103 $25.41 114 $ 2.42 736 $15.41








Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 47

In the Tampa and Orlando districts corn was the crop harvested
as silage. In the Miami and Jacksonville districts both corn and
sorghum were put up as silage. In the St. Petersburg district
corn, corn and soybeans, and in the Ocala district corn, corn
and velvet beans, and corn and peas were the silage crops. Half
of the farms on which silage was grown were in the Jacksonville
district. Silage was fed principally to cows, but only about 8
percent of all operators grew it.
The soiling crops in the Jacksonville district were corn, corn
and cowpeas, cowpeas, millet and sorghum; in the Miami district
corn and sorghum; in the Tampa district corn, corn and cowpeas,
Napier grass, millet, sorghum and Cayana cane; in the St. Peters-
burg district cowpeas; in the Orlando district corn, Sudan grass,
Napier grass, sorghum and millet; and in the Ocala district,
angels, corn and sorghum. Soiling crops were grown by about
30 percent of the operators in the Jacksonville district, by 24
percent in the Orlando district and by 17 percent of the total
number. They were fed principally to cows (Table XX).
In Table XXXVII the average quantity and value of silage and
soiling crops per animal were obtained by including the total num-
ber of each class of livestock found on these farms regardless of
whether the farms produced this class of feed or not.

TABLE XXXVII.-SILAGE AND SOILING CROPS USED BY 12,259 Cows, 2,549
HEIFERS, AND 374 HERD BULLS ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Per cow Per heifer Per herd bull
Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value
Jacksonville:
Silage.................... 576 $ 2.73 103 $ .50 238 $ .97
Soiling crops.............. 331 1.37 13 .07 90 .44
Miami:
Silage ................... 312 1.56 274 1.37 506 2.53
Soiling crops.............. 527 2.63 7 .04 28 .14
Tampa:
Silage.................... 13 .06 7 .04 21 .10
Soiling crops.............. 227 1.36 35 .21 119 .71
St. Petersburg:
Silage.................... 208 1.18 5 .03 71 .40
Soiling crops.............. 53 .16 .
Orlando:
Silage. ................... 163 .82 .
Soiling crops.............. 403 2.10 25 .13 276 1.44
Ocala:
Silage................. .. 635 2.18 ..
Soiling crops.............. 428 1.77 143 .54 273 1.18
All farms:
Silage.................... 284 $ 1.36 101 5 .50 181 $ .85
Soiling crops.............. 341 1.68 26 .13 109 .57







48 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

The average amount of silage and soiling crops combined, fed
on farms where these crops were produced, was 2,453 pounds per
cow, but only 25 percent of the total number of cows were given
this class of feed.
PASTURE COSTS
The dairy farms considered in this study probably show a
greater variation in the item of pasture cost than in any other
item of cost. A few of the dairy farms, on account of their prox-
imity to town, were given a valuation greater than their worth
as dairy farms. On a farm of this type often the greater part
of the acreage is used for pasture. One item of the pasture cost
is interest on the valuation of land used for that purpose, and
this in itself makes the pasture charge very high in comparison
to that of other dairymen who own or rent a small tract of land
on which the buildings are located and who use the open range
for pasture.
Three general classes of pasture were found in these districts:
pasture except open range, open range, and annual crops. One
farmer might have pasture except open range; that is, his pasture
acreage was all on the farm he operated. He might at the same
time use the open range partly, and raise pasture crops. On the
other hand a farmer might herd his cattle and use open range
entirely. Various combinations were found on the farms studied.
The charges for pasture on the farms operated were interest
on the valuation of the land used for pasture, taxes, annual fence
costs, reseeding, fertilizing and manuring costs, or the cash rent
paid, if rented. The charge for open range was a flat rate per head
for the year (Table XXXVIII).
In the Orlando, Miami and Tampa districts from 94 to 98 per-
cent of the total pasture costs for cows were on the farms oper-
ated, and in the Jacksonville, St. Petersburg and Ocala districts
the percentages for this class of pasture were 86, 84 and 68,
respectively. The percentage of total costs for open range pas-
ture was negligible in the Orlando and Ocala districts, while in
the other districts the range was from 3 to 6 percent. The per-
centage of total pasture costs in annual crops was less than 2 per-
cent in the Orlando and Tampa districts. 7 percent in the Jack-
sonville district, 13 percent in the St. Petersburg district and 31
percent in the Ocala district.
The percentage pasture costs for heifers on the farms operated
were more than 90 percent in all districts except St. Petersburg








Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 49

TABLE XXXVIII.-DISTRIBUTION OF PASTURE COSTS ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY
FARMS, 1927.

Pasture Costs
Total --n
animal Cost per
Kinds of livestock units n farms Open Annual animal
pastured operated range crops Total unit
pastured

64 Jacksonville farms

Cows...................... 2,672.02 15,238$ 1,149$ 1,3118 17,698$ 6.62
Heifers................ .. ... 315.69 2,103 210 11 2,324 7.36
Herd bulls ................. 55.33 290 23 8 321 5.80
All other stock.............. 102.95 209 8 ........ 217 2.11

Total.................... 3,145.99$ 17,8405 1,390$ 1,330$ 20,560$ 6.54

36 Miami farms

Cows................. ... 3,293.80 24,963 1,12 ....... $ 26,089$ 7.92
Heifers ..................... 272 42 3,127 137 ........ 3,264 11.98
Herd bulls.............. .. 56.56 498 20 ...... 518 9.16
All other stock............. 59.92 208................ 208 3.47

Total ......... ........ 3,682.70 28,796 1,28 ........ 30,079$ 8.17

58 Tampa farms
Cows............. ........ 3,260 20$ 19,764$ 973$ 300$ 21,037$ 6.45
Heifers..................... 283.06 2,071 181 ........ 2,252 7.96
Herd bulls.................. 27.58 198 10 ........ 208 7.54
All other stock.............. 76.50 182 ................ 182 2.38

Total ................... 3,647.34$ 22,215$ 1,164$ 300 23,679$ 6.49

24 St. Petersburg farms

Cows..................... 1,076.30$ 7,586 2611 1,133$ 8,980$ 8.34
Heifers..................... 105.83 892 45 94 1,031 9.74
Herd bulls.................. 10.67 63 3 ........ 66 6.19
All other stock ............ 40.08 116................ 116 2.89

Total................... 1,232.88$ 8,657$ 309$ 1,227$ 10,193$ 8.27

38 Orlando farms

Cows....................... 979.73 18,893$ 49$ 300$ 19,242$ 19.64
H eifers..................... 110.21 2,111 8 ........ 2,119 19.23
Herd bulls .................. 41.58 813 3 ........ 816 19.62
All other stock.............. 46.70 291 ................ 291 6.23

Total .................. 1,178.22$ 22,108$ 60$ 300$ 22,468 19.07

29 Ocala farms

Cows...................... 425.24$ 7,907$ 10$ 3,622$ 11,539 27.14
Heifers..................... 93.45 1,887 2 521 2,410 25.79
Herd bulls.................. 19.93 334 ...... 79 413 20.72
All other'stock.............. 65.42 374 ... 3 404 6.18

Total.................... 604 04 10,502$ 12 4,252$ 14.766 24.45







50 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

and Ocala, where they were 86 and 78 percent, respectively.
Annual crops pastured represented less than 1 percent in the
Jacksonville district, 9 percent in the St. Petersburg district and
22 percent in the Ocala district, while the remainder was open
range pasture.
The percentage of total costs of pasturing herd bulls on the
farms operated was from 81 to 100. Ocala did not use open range
for this class of livestock, Orlando used it but little and in the
other districts the range in costs was from 4 to 7 percent. Less
than 3 percent of the costs in the Jacksonville district and 19
percent in the Ocala district were for annual crops.

LABOR IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS
In a discussion of the labor used in the various districts, it must
be borne in mind that the Ocala district and, to a lesser extent,
the Orlando and the St. Petersburg districts had considerably
more employment for their labor on enterprises other than cattle
than did the other districts (Table IV and X). For this reason,
the number of cows cared for per man in the different districts
is not strictly comparable.
In the Jacksonville district the value of all unpaid family labor
was estimated as being worth $72 per month, with an additional
charge of $9 for farm products and $6 for house use, making a
total of $87 per month. Assistance in dairy work was rendered
by wives on 34 percent, by sons on 23 percent, by daughters on
11 percent and by other members of the family on 5 percent of
the total number of farms (Table XXXIX).
The value per month for regular hired help was $71 cash, board
$14, farm products $6 and house use $3, making a total average
value of nearly $95 per month.
The value of operator's labor, including farm products and
house use, was $134 per month. Based on the total number of
farms there were about 6 months of family labor and 30 months
of hired help per farm in addition to a full 12 months' work for
the operator. In other words, the total labor was equivalent to
over four men for the year.
The average number of cows on these farms was 45.9 per farm,
so each man cared for an average of 11.5 cows.
In the Miami district the value of all unpaid family labor was
$92 per month. In addition the value of farm products was $7
and house use $3, making a total labor value of $102 per month.
On one-sixth of the farms the wives and sons assisted with the





TABLE XXXIX.-AMOUNT AND VALUE OF UNPAID AND PAID LABOR ON 64 JACKSONVILLE DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Months Value of Value of farm Value of
Number worked unpaid labor products house use Cash Board Total wages
of I- -- ---
farms Average Average Average average Average Average
using Total Per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per t
farm month month month month month month
Unpaid:
Operator's wife. ...... 22 137 6.2 $ 9,047$ 66.04$ 1,309$ 9.55$ 705$ 5.15............................. 11,061$ 80.74 t
Operator's sons....... 15 149 9.9 10,663 71.57 1,231 8.26 1,049 7.04 ............................. 12,943 86.87 .
Operator's daughters.. 7 56 8.0 2,916 52.07 525 9.38 241 4.30 .................... ....... 3,682 65.75 '
Other family labor.. 3 36 12.0 4,600 127.78 302 8.39 282 7.83 ............................. 5,184 144.00

Total unpaid........ ....... 378 ....... $27,226$ 72.03 3,367 8.91 2,277 6.02...................... .... 32,870 86.96
Paid: t0
Men ............... 54 1,915 35.5 ............... $11,734$ 6.13$ 6,541$ 3.41 $136,437 71.25$27,096$ 14.15$181,808$ 94.94
Other hired help...... 10 26.6 2.7 .............. 99 3.72 12 .45 1,003 37.71 270 10.15 1,384 52.03 ;

Operator ............. 64 768 12.0 $86,981$113.26$ 8,901 11.59$ 7,2311$ 9.41 ....... ..... $103,113 $134.26
I . . . . ..I _.
TABLE XL.-AMOUNT AND VALUE OF UNPAID AND PAID LABOR ON 36 MIAMI DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Months Value of Value of farm Value of
Number worked unpaid labor products house use Cash Board Total wages
of I---- -- --- --
farms Average Avera Average Averag Average Average average
using Total Per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per
farm month month month month month month
--- --------- ----~~ --- ---- ---------- --
Unpaid:
Operator's wife....... 6 46 7.7 $ 3,755$ 81.63$ 351$ 7.63$ 159$ 3.46 ........................... $ 4,265 $ 92.72
Operator's sons,...... 6 54 9.0 4,250 78.70 338 6.26 232 4.30........ .............. ....... 4,820 89.26
Operator's daughters.. 2 16 8.0 1,080 67.50 102 6.38 39 2.44 .......................... 1,221 76.32
Other family labor.... 7 82.5 11.8 9,150 110.91 560 6.79 184 2.23 ............................. 9,894 119.93

Total unpaid............. 198.5 ....... $18,235$ 91.86$ 1,351$ 6.81 614$ 3.09 ........ ............. ..... 20,200 $101.76
Paid:
Men ............... 35 1,905.9 54.5 ....... ....... $ 9,984$ 5.24$ 8,407$ 4.41 $176,287$ 92.49$25,839$ 13.56 $220,517 $115.70 2
Other hired help...... 8 84.1 10.5 .............. 463 5.51 259 3.08 10,760 127.94 .............. 11,482 136.53

Operator.............. 36 421 11.7 $55,405$131.60 $ 3,206$ 7.62$ 4,831$ 11.47 ...... .................. 63,442$150.69






52 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

dairy work; on less than 6 percent the daughters and on 19 per-
cent other members of the household assisted (Table XL).
Regular hired men were kept on all the Miami farms except
one and 22 percent of the farms used other hired help.
There was an average of 51/2 months per farm of family labor
and 55 months of hired help besides the time of the operator
which was valued at $151 per month, including value of house
use and products furnished by the farm. The total labor was
equivalent to a six-man business. One operator considered that
he used only one month of his time on the farm.
On these farms there was an average of 95.8 cows per farm
and the average number cared for per man was 16.
In the Tampa district the value of all unpaid labor was over
$77 per month. In addition, the value of farm products was over
$7, and the value of house use $4, or a total of $89 per month.
On 17 percent of the farms the wives assisted with the dairy work;
on 34 percent the sons, on 9 percent the daughters and on 10 per-
cent other members of the family assisted. On 91 percent of the
farms regular hired men were kept, and on eight farms other
hired help was used (Table XLI). The rate paid for hired men
per month was $65 in cash, $6 in farm products, $6 for house use,
$11 for board, or a total of over $88 per month. There was an
average of 9.8 months of family labor and 23 months of hired
help on these farms in addition to 12 months for the operator.
The labor on these farms was equivalent to 3.8 men full time
and the average number of cows was 57.5 per farm, or 15 cows
per man.
In the St. Petersburg district the value of unpaid family labor
was $89, value of farm products $12 and value of house use $7,
or a total value of $108 per month for this class of labor (Table
XLII). On 29 percent of the farms the wives assisted with the
dairy work, the sons on 46 percent, the daughters on 8 percent
and other unpaid family members on one-third of the farms. The
wages of hired men were $115 per month, including value of farm
products, use of house and board furnished.
There was an average per farm of 11 months of family labor
and 27 months of hired help, besides the 12 months of the operator.
The man labor on these farms was equivalent to 4.2 men. The
average number of cows was 47.2 per farm, or an average of 11
cows per man.
In the Orlando district the value of unpaid family labor was
$73 per month, use of farm products $13 and value of house use





TABLE XLI.-AMOUNT AND VALUE OF UNPAID AND PAID LABOK ON 58 TAMPA DAIRY FARMS. 1927.

Months Value of Value of farm Value of
Number worked unpaid labor products house use Cash Board Total wages
of ----- -- -- ---- -
farms Average Average Average Average Average Average
using Total Per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per
farm month month month month month month

Unpaid:
Operator's wife....... 10 85 8.5 $ 6,559$ 77.16$ 631$ 7.42$ 309$ 3.64................... ... ...... 7,499$ 88.22
Operator's sons....... 20 363 18.2 27,646 76.16 2,607 7.18 1,125 3.10....... ........... .... 31,378 86.44
Operator's daughters.. 5 35 7.0 1,942 55.49 284 8.11 222 6.34 ............................. 2,448 69.94 .
Other family labor.... 6 84 14.0 7,780 92.62 687 8.18 788 9.38 ................... ........ 9.255 110.18

Total unpaid... .......567....... $43,927$ 77.47$ 4,209$ 7.43$ 2,444$ 4.31 ..... .. .. 50,580$ 89.21
Paid:
"Men................ 53 1,301.5 24.6 ........... $ 8,409 6.46$ 7,457$ 5.73$ 84,859 65.20 $13,844 10.64$114,569 88.03
Other hired help.. 8 52.8 6.6 .............. 219 4.15 650 12.31 1,957 37.06 536 10.15 3,362 63.67

Operator.............. 58 696 12.0 $74,709$107.34$ 7,6411 10.98$ 6,874$ 9.88. ........................ $89,224 $128.20

TABLE XLII.-AMOUNT AND VALUE OF UNPAID AND PAID LABOR ON 24 ST. PETERSBURG DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Months Value of Value of farm Value of
Number worked unpaid labor products house use Cash Board Total wages
of -T - -. ----. .
farms Average Average Average Average Average Average
using Total Per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per
farm month month month month month month

Unpaid:
Operator's wife....... 7 52.4 7.5 $ 3,690$ 70.42$ 509$ 9.71$ 523$ 9.98 ..........................$ 4,722$ 90.11
Operator's sons....... 11 118.8 10.8 9,950 83.75 1,311 11.04 708 5.96 ............... ... ....... 11,969 100.75
Operator's daughters.. 2 24 12.0 1,830 76.25 385 16.04 37 1.54 ............... ............. 2,252 93.83
Other family labor.... 8 70 8.8 8,219 117.41 920 13.14 678 9.69 ....... ........ ............ 9,817 140.24 -

Total unpaid..... ....... 265. ....... 23,68 $ 89.33 3,125$ 11.78$ 1,946$ 7.34 ........ ..................... 28,760 $108.45
Paid:
Men................ 17 588. 34.6 ....... ....... $ 3,795$ 6.45$ 4,344 7.39$ 49,142$ 83.57 10,152 17.27 67,433$114.68
Other hired help...... 6 55.4 9.2 .......................... .............. 2,441 44.06.............. 2,441 44.06

Operator .............. 24 288.0 12.0 33,496 $116.31 3,996$ 13.87$ 2,788$ 9.68 .. ................... 40,280$139.86







54 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

$10 or a total unpaid labor value of $96 per month. On 45 per-
cent of these farms the wives assisted with the dairy work, on
24 percent the sons, on 11 percent the daughters and on 13 per-
cent other family members (Table XLIII).
On 82 percent of the farms regular hired labor and on 29 per-
cent other hired help was used. The value of regular man labor
was $71 per month besides $5 per month for farm products, $7
for house use and $8 for board, making a total of over $91 per
month.
There were nearly 8 months of family labor used per farm, and
13 months of hired help besides that of the operator. One oper-
ator estimated that he put in one month per year on the farm and
another was actively engaged in the dairy business only eleven
months.
These farms used 2.7 men per farm. The average number of
cows was 25.8 per farm, or less than 10 cows per man.
In the Ocala district the value of unpaid family labor was $34,
farm products $14, house use $10 or a total value of $58 per
month. On 38 percent of the farms the wives assisted with the
dairy work; on 34 percent the sons, on 17 percent the daughters
and on 10 percent other family members assisted (Table XLIV).
Regular hired help was used on 38 percent of the farms and
other hired labor on .34 percent. The average cost of regular
hired labor per month was $57 in cash and farm privileges.
On this group of farms, 7 months of family and almost 7 months
of hired help were used per farm, in addition to the operator for
the year.
The labor was equivalent to 2.1 men full time. The average
number of cows per farm was 14.7, or 7 cows per man. In this
district much other farm work was done in addition to the dairy
labor.
RATES OF LABOR
There was a wide range in the rates per hour for the different
classes of labor. The average rate per hour in all districts for
operator's labor was 49 cents, for family labor 35 cents and for
hired labor 34 cents (Table XLV).
From an analysis of the individual farms, however, it was
found that a rate of from 25 to 49 cents per hour applied to
operators on 57 percent of the farms, to family labor on 66 per-
cent of the farms using family labor and to hired labor on 80
percent of the farms using this class of labor.





TABLE XLII1.-AMOUNT AND VALUE OF UNPAID AND PAID LAROR ON 38 ORLANDO DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Months Value of Value of farm Value of
Number worked unpaid labor products house use Cash Board Total wages
farms ----- ..------- -
using Average Average Average Average Average Average
Total Per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per
farm month month month month month month
Unpaid:
Operator's wife...... 17 81 4.8 $ 7,294$ 90.05 1,134$ 14.00$ 807$ 9.96 ............... .... ....... 8 9,2351114.01 '
Operator's sons....... 9 156 17.3 9,822 62.96 1,629 10.44 1,623 10.41 .............. ............. 13,074 83.81 S
Operator's daughters.. 4 9.2 2.3 420 45.65 132 14.35 75 8.15 ............... .......... 627 68.15
Other family labor.... 5 43.8 8.8 3,549 81.03 809 18.47 461 10.52 ............... ............ 4,819 110.02 -

Total unpaid..... ........ 290.0 ....... $21,085$ 72.71$ 3,704$ 12.77$ 2,966$ 10.23....... ..... ........ ......$ 27,755$ 95.71
Paid:
Men............... 31 407.2 13.1 ....... ....... 2,104$ 5.17$ 2,959$ 7.27$ 29,047$ 71.33$ 3,152$ 7.74$ 37,262$ 91.51
Other hiredhelp...... 11 86.5 7.9 .............. 877 10.14 552 6.38 3,590 41.50 550 6.36 5,56 64.38

Operator ............. 38 444 11.7 $40,868$ 92.04 $ 6,926$ 15.60$ 5,861$ 13.20 ........ ................... $ 53,655$120.84

TABLE XLIV.-AMOUNT AND VALUE OF UNPAID AND PAID LABOR ON 29 OCALA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Months Value of Value of farm Value of
Number worked unpaid labor products house use Cash Board Total wages
of ------- -- ------ ---- ----- --- -------
farms Average Average Average Average Average Average
using Total Per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per Total per
farm month month month month month month
Unpaid:
Operator's wife....... 11 48.9 4.4 $ 1,604$ 32.80$ 613 12.54$ 640$ 13.09 ................... ....... $ 2,8578 58.43
Operator's sons....... 10 100 10.0 3,393 33.93 1,589 15.89 972 9.72 ....... ....... .............. 5,954 59.54
Operator's daughters.. 5 25 5.0 960 38.40 394 15.76 268 10.72 ............... ............. 1,622 64.88
Other family labor.... 3 27 9.0 955 35.37 301 11.15 40 1.48 ............................. 1,296 48.00

Total unpaid............ 200.9 ....... $6,912$ 34.40$ 2,897$ 14.42$ 1,920$ 9.56 ........ ....... ....... .... 11,729$ 58.38
Paid:
Men................ 11 156 14.2 .............. $ 256$ 1.64$ 96$ .618 6,605 $ 42.34$ 1,870$ 11.99$ 8,827$ 56.58 -
Other hired help...... 10 40.5 4.0 .............. 203 5.01 245 6.05 1,657 40.91 ............. .2105 51.97

Operator.............. 29 348 12.0 17,810 51.181 6.950$ 19.978 4,794$ 13.78........ .... ... .... ....... 29,554$ 84.93







56 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE XLV.-SUMMARY OF RATES OF LABOR PER HOUR, 249 FLORIDA DAIRY
FARMS, 1927.

Operator Family Labor Hired Help All Labor
District Range Average Range Average Range Average Range Average
in cents in cents in cents incetsin cents in cents in cents in cents in cents
Jacksonville ........... 10 to 164 52 13 to 63 33 12 to 54 34 23 to 60 39
Miami ................ 21 to 191 58 21 to 61 39 24 to 60 41 26 to 73 44
Tampa................ 18 to 115 49 12 to 63 34 10 to 58 33 18 to 78 40
St. Petersburg.......... 14 to 112 54 25 to 72 43 18 to 53 41 35 to 57 45
Orlando ............... 9 to 88 45 19 to 65 39 5 to 46 31 21 to 66 41
Ocala.................. 14 to 77 33 11 to 52 25 12 to 26 17 16 to 53 28
All farms.......... 9 to 191 49 11 to 72 35 5 to 60 34 16 to 78 39

Rates for hired labor from 25 to 49 cents per hour applied to
only 10 percent of the farms in the Ocala district where labor
costs were lowest. In all other districts this range in rates in-
cluded from 71 percent of the farms in the St. Petersburg district
to 89 percent in the Jacksonville district. With all districts in-
cluded, 15 percent of the farms paid less than 25 cents per hour
and 5 percent paid 50 cents or more.

VALUE OF OPERATOR'S LABOR AND MANAGEMENT
There was considerable variation in the estimate placed on the
value of operator's labor and management. A successful dairy
business demands skilful supervision, and with few exceptions
this is performed by the operator. The operator looks after the
hired labor, marketing, buying feed, planning the ration, and
various details of the business.
In the Ocala district 41 percent of the farmers valued their labor
at less than $500 per year, while but 8 percent of all farmers
valued their labor that low.
The estimated value of operator's labor between $500 and $999
included 48 percent in the Ocala district, 26 percent in the Orlando
district, 17 percent in the Tampa district and nearly 16 percent
in the Jacksonville district. Thus nearly 21 percent of all farmers
valued their labor within this range (Table XLVI).
In five districts approximately one-half of the operators valued
their labor between $1,000 and $1,499. In the Miami and St.
Petersburg districts one-fourth estimated their labor between
$1,500 and $1,999. Of the total number, 12 percent fell in this
group and about 10 percent estimated their labor as being worth
$2,000 or more.








Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 57

TABLE XLVI.-VARIATIONS IN ESTIMATES PLACED BY 249 FLORIDA DAIRY
FARM OPERATORS ON THE VALUE OF THEIR TIME, 1927.


Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg

Number of farms............ 64 36 58 24 38 29

Value of operator's labor Number Number Number Number Number Number

$ 499 and under............ 3 1 .. 1 4 12
500 to $ 999 ............ 10 4 10 3 10 14
1,000 to 1,499 ............ 34 16 38 11 18 3
1,500 to 1,999 ............ 7 9 5 6 4
2,000 and over............. 10 6 5 3 2


VARIATIONS IN LABOR INCOME

When a statement is made as to the average labor income for
a group of farms, it must be remembered that some may have
made much higher labor incomes than the given figure, while
others failed to receive any pay for their labor, and still others
were not able to meet all expenses aside from their own labor.
In the Jacksonville and Miami districts, only 56 percent of the
farmers included in this study made a labor income; in the Tampa
district 55 percent; in the St. Petersburg district 71 percent; in

TABLE XLVII.-VARIATIONS IN LABOR INCOMES ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY
FARMS, 1927.


Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg

Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29

Labor income groups Number Number Number Number Number Number

Over $4,000............ 11 9 3 7 2 1
$3,C01 to 4,000............ 5 .. 3 2 4
2,001 to 3,000............ 9 4 4 1 5 2
1,501 to 2,000............ 2 2 6 2 6 1
1,001 to 1,500............ 4 3 3 2 3 5
501 to 1,000............ 4 .. 7 2 3 6
1 to 500............ 1 2 6 1 1 8

Oto -500............ 8 2 2 1 2 2
-501 to-1,000 ............ 2 2 4 1 3 2
-1,001 to-1,500............. 4 2 4 .. 3 1
-1,501 to-2,000............. 3 1 2
-2,001 to-3,000............ 3 1 5 1 2
-3,001 to ,000............ 6 1 1 1
More than -4,000........... 2 7 8 3 4 1







58 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

the Orlando district 63 percent; and in the Ocala district 79 per-
cent (Table XLVII). In this table, the figures below the line,
preceded by the minus sign, show the number of dairymen who
were receiving no return for their labor and to what extent they
were unable to meet their other expenses.

ITEMS FURNISHED BY THE FARM
When the incomes of farmers are compared with the incomes
of others where a straight dollar salary is received, they often
seem far out of proportion. The facts are that the income of a
member of the latter class is what he has for his labor and from
which he must provide fruit, vegetables, milk and its products,
meat, eggs, wood, and a house in which to live, as well as all other
expenses. Many of these items are furnished by the farm and
are not included in the labor income of the farmer.
In the Miami district, but little wood was taken from the farm,
but in other districts the range in value was from $14 to $24 per
farm (Table XLVIII).
The value of house use ranged from $151 in the Jacksonville
district to $232 in the Orlando and Ocala districts.
Milk and its products represented nearly 62 percent of the value
of all food furnished by all farms. This was the most important
item furnished, slightly exceeding in value the use of the house.
Poultry and eggs were also important on most farms.

THE DAIRY ENTERPRISE STUDY
As has been previously stated, the dairy enterprise constituted
most of the business on the farms studied in all districts except
Ocala. It is important, therefore, to analyze the dairy enterprise
in order to arrive at the reasons for success or failure on these
farms.
BREED OF COWS AND HERD BULLS
Only one farm had an entire purebred herd, and this was of the
Jersey breed. Seven farms had some purebred Jerseys mixed in
with grades of different breeds. Fifty-seven percent of all the
farms had nothing but grade Jerseys and an additional 37 percent
had grade Jerseys with grades of other breeds. It is readily seen
from Table XLIX that the Jersey breed predominates on the
Florida dairy farm.
Since there are but few of the larger breeds of dairy cows on







58 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

the Orlando district 63 percent; and in the Ocala district 79 per-
cent (Table XLVII). In this table, the figures below the line,
preceded by the minus sign, show the number of dairymen who
were receiving no return for their labor and to what extent they
were unable to meet their other expenses.

ITEMS FURNISHED BY THE FARM
When the incomes of farmers are compared with the incomes
of others where a straight dollar salary is received, they often
seem far out of proportion. The facts are that the income of a
member of the latter class is what he has for his labor and from
which he must provide fruit, vegetables, milk and its products,
meat, eggs, wood, and a house in which to live, as well as all other
expenses. Many of these items are furnished by the farm and
are not included in the labor income of the farmer.
In the Miami district, but little wood was taken from the farm,
but in other districts the range in value was from $14 to $24 per
farm (Table XLVIII).
The value of house use ranged from $151 in the Jacksonville
district to $232 in the Orlando and Ocala districts.
Milk and its products represented nearly 62 percent of the value
of all food furnished by all farms. This was the most important
item furnished, slightly exceeding in value the use of the house.
Poultry and eggs were also important on most farms.

THE DAIRY ENTERPRISE STUDY
As has been previously stated, the dairy enterprise constituted
most of the business on the farms studied in all districts except
Ocala. It is important, therefore, to analyze the dairy enterprise
in order to arrive at the reasons for success or failure on these
farms.
BREED OF COWS AND HERD BULLS
Only one farm had an entire purebred herd, and this was of the
Jersey breed. Seven farms had some purebred Jerseys mixed in
with grades of different breeds. Fifty-seven percent of all the
farms had nothing but grade Jerseys and an additional 37 percent
had grade Jerseys with grades of other breeds. It is readily seen
from Table XLIX that the Jersey breed predominates on the
Florida dairy farm.
Since there are but few of the larger breeds of dairy cows on














TABLE XLVIII.-VALUE OF ITEMS FURNISHED FOR HOME USE ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Value per farm

Fruit,
Number Vege- Milk Total Use
District of tables and its Pork Beef Veal Mutton Poultry Eggs Honey Wood food and of Total
farms and other products wood house
crops

Jacksonville. .......... 63 $35 $195 $ 4 ...... ...... $33 $59 ........ $20 $346 $151 $497
Miami............... 35 7 277 ............ $6 ... 49 ... ........ 1 388 156 544
Tampa............... 58 14 201 4 ...... 2 ........ 22 41 ........ 14 298 161 459
St. Petersburg ........ 24 30 277 2 $1 1 34 61 .... 19 425 197 622
Orlando. .............. 38 54 174 7 ...... 6 ........ 38 42 24 345 232 577
Ocala................. 29 45 135 60 ........... 19 60 ........ 18 337 232 569

*Less than $1.





TABLE XLIX.-NUMBER OF FARMS HAVING DIFFERENT BREEDS OF COWS
AND HERD BULLS, 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

District

Breed Jack- St.
son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg

Cows

Purebred Jersey... ......... . . . 1
Purebred and grade Jersey... .. 2 .. 1 2
Purebred Jersey; Jersey and
Holstein grades........... 1 .... .
Purebred Jersey; Jersey, Hol-
stein and Guernsey grades. . 1 .
Purebred and grade Ayrshire.. .. . . . 1
Purebred and grade Guernsey. 1 . . . 1
Grade Jersey............... 26 20 41 12 20 23
Grade Jersey and Guernsey. 1 2 1 2 1
Grade Jersey and Holstein.... 29 5 13 8 10 1
Grade Jersey, Ayrshire and
Holstein................. . .
Grade Jersey, Guernsey, and
H olstein .................. 4 6 1 .. 1
Grade Jersey, Holstein, Ayr-
shire and Guernsey. ....... 1 .. . 1
Grade Jersey and mixed ..... .. 1 2
Grade Ayrshire. ............. . 1
Grade Guernsey............. . 1 1
Grade Guernsey and Holstein. . 1 ..
N ative .................. . . .. .. .. .. 1

Total.................. 64 36 58 24 38 29

Herd bulls
---- -- ----
Purebred Jersey............. 5 5 8 1 6 11
Purebred Jersey and Holstein 3 1 1 ..
Purebred Jersey and Guernsey 1 ..
Purebred Jersey and grade
Guernsey.................. 1 ..
Purebred Jersey; Guernsey,
and Holstein grades....... 1 .
Purebred Jersey and grade
H olstein .................. 1
Purebred Ayrshire........... . . 1
Purebred Ayrshire and Hol-
stein ..................... 1
Purebred Guernsey.......... 1 1 1 . 1
Purebred Guernsey and grade
H olstein.................. 1 .. .. 1
Purebred Holstein ........... 5 2 1 .. 1
Purebred Holstein and grade
Holstein.................. 1 .. .
Purebred Holstein and grade
Jersey .................... 2 ... .
Purebred Dutch Belted . 1
Grade Jersey................. 23 15 21 12 22 14
Grade Jersey and Guernsey.. 1 .. 1 .. 1
Grade Jersey and Holstein.... 5 4 11 2 3
Grade Jersey, Guernsey and
Holstein................... 1 1 ..
Grade Jersey, Ayrshire, Guern-
sey and Holstein..... . .
Grade Ayrshire ............. 1 1 . 1
Grade Guernsey............ .. 2 2 2
Grade Guernsey and Holstein. . .. 1
Grade Holstein............... 12 .. 7 6 1
Native.. ............... 1 3 . 1 3

Total ................. 64 36 58 24 38 29













TABLE L.-CALVES BORN DURING THE YEAR AND THEIR DISPOSAL ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.
*t


District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala

Value Value Value Value Value Value
Number per calf Number per calf Number per calf Number per calf Number per calf Number per calf
at birth at birth at birth at birth at birth at birth

Heifers to raise (grade).......... 394$ 2.60 321$ 3.34 339$ 3.15 186$ 5.17 1388 3.49 1778 3.78
Heifers to raise (purebred) ...... 17 24.12 62 8.68 ........ ........ 8 4.75 9 8.22 ........ ..
Bulls to raise (grade)........... 4 3.50 ........ ........ 3 3.67 4 5.25 7 1.86 1 1.00
Bulls to raise (purebred)....... ..... ............ 10.00 ........ .... .................... 2 30.00 ...
Bulls died ..................... ............... ................ .............
Veals ........................ 156 1.46 69 1.45 1,132 1.79 77 1.97 84 1.23 64 1.23
Destroyed or given away........ 2,021 ........ 2,382 ........ 1,136 ........ 691 ..... 566 ...... 184 .
Born dead..................... 156 ........ 57 ........ 17 ........ 55 ........ 75 ...... 16 ........

Total................... 2,7481 ........ 2,897 ........ 2,791 ....... 1,021. ....... 881....... 382 ........


--------------------------------------------------------------___ 1







62 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

the Florida farms the average estimated weight of cows ranged
from 697 pounds per cow in the Ocala district to 768 pounds in
the St. Petersburg district, and the average weight for all dis-
tricts was 736 pounds.
The percentages of farms in the several districts on which pure-
bred bulls were used follow: Ocala 38, Miami 28, Orlando 24,
Jacksonville 23, Tampa 21 and St. Petersburg 8. The Jersey
breed was of first importance. Both purebred and grade bulls
were kept on 8 percent of the Jacksonville farms, 6 percent of the
Miami farms and 3 percent of the Ocala farms. Grade or native
bulls were used on all other farms, ranging from 59 percent in
the Ocala district to 92 percent in the St. Petersburg district.
Purebred bulls were used on 24 percent of all farms, both pure-
bred and grades on 3 percent, and grades and native on 73 percent.

CALVES BORN
The value of grade heifers at birth ranged from $2.60 in the
Jacksonville district to $5.17 per head in the St. Petersburg
district (Table L).
Purebred heifers were given a much higher value in the Jack-
sonville district than elsewhere, while purebred bulls were valued
at one-third as high a figure in the Miami district as in the
Orlando district.
In most dairy sections the income from veals is considerable,
but in Florida it will be noted the only district where this figure
was of importance was Tampa. Owing to the high price of milk
in 1927 few veals were marketed and most of these were sold as
soon as the market would take them. For the same reason, 65
percent of the calves born were destroyed or given away.

PERCENT OF COWS FRESHENING AND DISPOSAL OF CALVES
The percentage of cows freshening is based on the average
number of cows for the year (Table LI).
The Ocala district raised the highest percentage of heifers.
The Tampa district vealed about as many calves as were given
away or destroyed, while in all other districts a large percentage
of calves born were disposed of by the latter method.

PERCENT OF COWS CALVING EACH MONTH
Of the total number of cows that freshened during the year,
the following percentages freshened during the 6-months period
September to February, inclusive: Jacksonville 56.9, Tampa 57,







Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 63

TABLE LI.-PERCENT OF COWS FRESHENING AND DISPOSAL OF CALVES ON
249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Calves born
Cows Heifers Bulls Given
District fresh- to to Bulls Veals away or Born
ened raise raise died destroyed dead
(percent) (percent)(percnt) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Jacksonville...... 93.6 15.0 .1 .... 5.7 73.5 5.7
Miami........... 84.0 13.2 .2 .... 2.4 82.2 2.0
Tampa.......... 83.7 12.1 .1 .1 40.6 40.7 6.4
St. Petersburg... 90.2 19.0 .4 .... 7.5 67.7 5.4
Orlando......... 89.9 16.7 1.0 .... 9.5 64.3 8.5
Ocala............ 90.5 30.6 .2 .... 16.8 48.2 4.2


Ocala 60.2, Orlando 62.2, Miami 67.6, and St. Petersburg 68.7.
The highest percentage of cows in the Ocala district freshened
in December and February, in the Tampa district in September
and October, and in all other districts in October and November
(Table LII).

COST OF RAISING HEIFERS

The costs and returns for heifers of different ages were not
kept separately, so the figures include heifers of all ages for the
year.
The costs and returns for the different districts are shown in
Table LIII.
Feed costs including grain, roughage, milk and its products
fed, and pasture represented 78 percent of the total costs for all
districts with a range of from 71 percent in the Orlando district
to 80 percent in the Jacksonville and Tampa districts.
Human labor costs represented 15 percent of the total costs for
all districts, with a range of from 13 percent in the Tampa district
to 22 percent in the Orlando district.
The costs per heifer for the year were from $6.06 in the Orlando
district to $25.00 in the St. Petersburg district and for all districts
about $13.75 above their market value at the end of the year.
Most farmers seemed to be of the opinion that the cost of raising
heifers was greater than their market value. The principal rea-
son for raising them was that cows of proven merit tend to trans-
mit their good qualities to their offspring, and heifer calves from
such cows are generally selected for future replacements in the
herd.





TABLE LII.-PERCENT OF COWS CALVING BY MONTHS ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


District January Febru- March April May June July August Septem- October Novem- Decem-
ary ber ber her
Jacksonville................... 8.8 8.0 8.0 7.4 6.7 6.5 7.0 7.5 9.5 9.9 11.0 9.7
Miami ....................... 9.0 8.3 7.2 5.5 4.7 4.7 4.9 5.4 9.9 13.8 13.7 12.9
Tampa ....................... 8.4 8.2 7.7 7.3 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.8 10.9 10.2 9.6 9.7
St. Petersburg................. 9.5 7.4 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.2 6.1 7.4 11.4 14.1 13.9 12.4
Orlando....................... 8.9 7.4 7.0 6.2 5.9 5.2 6.0 7.5 9.0 11.9 13.2 11.8 .
Ocala ......................... 11.3 12.0 10.7 8.6 5.2 3.7 4.5 7.1 8.1 8.9 8.4 11.5 S

All farms ................. 8.9 8.2 7.4 6.5 5.8 5.6 6.1 7.0 10.1 11.6 11.7 11.1


TABLE LIII.-AVERAGE COSTS AND RETURNS FOR 2,549 HEIFERS ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala

Item Per Percent Per Percent Per Percent Per Percent Per Percent Per Percent
heifer heifer heifer heifer heifer heifer
Costs:
Feed........................ $20.85 38.1 $30.06 47.9 $16.15 33.7 $20.64 36.1 11.83 24.9 $ 5.00 12.9 2.
Milk anditsproductsfed...... 19.65 35.9 13.85 22.0 18.39 38.4 18.35 32.1 12.22 25.8 12.67 32.6
Pasture..................... 3.46 6.3 4.86 7.7 3.94 8.3 4.71 8.2 9.59 20.2 12.29 31.6
Human labor ................ 7.83 14.3 9.57 15.2 6.23 13.0 9.97 17.5 10.65 22.4 5.58 14.4
Use of buildings....................... ... ..................... ........................ ............... 79 2.0
Interest .................... 2.72 5.0 4.31 6.9 2.41 5.0 2.46 4.3 2.59 5.5 1.96 5.0
Miscellaneous............... .23 .4 .17 .3 .76 1.6 1.02 1.8 .58 1.2 .56 1.5 g

Total costs.............. $54.74 100.0 $62.82 100.0 $47.88 100.0 $57.15 100.0 $47.46 100.0 $38.85 100.0 ;
Returns:
M anure.................... 1.32 ........ $ .54 ........ $ .56 ........ $ 1.11 ........ $ .48 ........ $ .74 .......
N et appreciation............. 41.04 ........ 48.49 ........ 33.40 ........ 31.04 ........ 40 92 ........ 24.17 .......

Total returns............ $42.36 ........ $49.03 ........ $33.96 ........ $32.15 ........$41.40 ........ $24.91 ........

Loss per year................ 12.38 ........ $13.79 ........ $13.92 ........ $25.00 ......... 6.06 ........ $13.94 .......







Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 65

AGE AND VALUE OF HEIFERS FRESHENING
The percentages of heifers freshening at various ages follows:
under 24 months 11.9, 24 to 30 months 41.4, 30 months and over
46.7.
The average value per head of all heifers at the time of fresh-
ening in the several districts was: Ocala $53.09, Jacksonville
$85.50, Tampa $89.35, St. Petersburg $96.36, Orlando $97.19, and
Miami $115.66, and for all farms $92.19.
The average value of cows seemed to have a direct relationship
to the value of heifers at the time of freshening, since the higher
the average value of cows, the higher was the average value of

TABLE LIV.-AGE AND VALUE PER HEAD OF HEIFERS AT FRESHENING TIME
ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Grades
and
Grades Purebreds Pure-
Age in Months breds
at Freshening Time breds
Number Percent Average Nmnber Percent Average Average
"value I value value
Jacksonville
Under 24 months........ 16 8 $ 77.50 .. $.... 77.50
24 to 30 months......... 34 16 72.50 5 2 138.00 80.90
30 months and over...... 157 74 87.45 .. ...... 87.45
Miami
Under 24 months ........ 12 7 $123.25 9 5 156.22$137.38
24 to 30 months......... 87 50 86.44 44 25 175.00 116.18
30 months and over...... 22 13 91.82 .. ..... 91.82
Tampa
Under 24 months........ 13 6 $ 80.77
24 to 30 months......... 90 45 102.00
30 months and over ...... 98 49 78.88
St. Petersburg
Under 24 months ........ 1" $I5 ...135.00
24 to 30 months......... 27 46 922 4 7 70.75 90.32
30 months and over...... 27 46 10185 .. ..... 101.85
Orlando
Under24 months........ 9 14 $ 88.89 .. .. $...... 88.89
24 to 30 months.......... 14 22 86.43 .. .... 86.43
30 months and over ...... 40 62 102.75 1 2 100.00 102.68
Ocala
Under 24 months........ 33 49 53.64 .. .... .
24 to30 months......... 17 25 62.35 ....
30 months and over...... 18 26 43.3 .. .. ...







66 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

heifers. There was one exception to this rule: the average value
of cows was $3.79 more in the St. Petersburg district than in the
Orlando district, while the average value of heifers was 83 cents
less.
The percentage value of heifers at the time of freshening, com-
pared to the value of cows, was: Ocala 81, St. Petersburg 92, Jack-
sonville 94, Tampa and Orlando 96, and Miami 97.
Obviously the age at which heifers freshen has no direct re-
lationship to their value at the time of freshening (Table LIV).

AGE OF COWS

When a farmer raises his own cows, he can give their ages
very accurately. On farms where cows were bought, the ages
were given according to the best information of the owners of
the herd.
The ages shown in Table LV are divided into 10 groups. The
percentages between 3 and 8 years of age for the various districts
follow: Ocala 55, Orlando 69, Jacksonville 74, Tampa 75, St.
Petersburg 77, and Miami 81. For all districts about one-half of
the cows were between 4 and 7 years of age.
For various reasons cows that fail to breed are found on dairy
farms. This class of cows represented 1.1 percent of the total
on these farms. It was also found that 2.7 percent of the cows
had unsound udders.

SALES AND DEATH RATE OF COWS AND REPLACEMENT

The percentage figures representing the sales rate and death
rate of cows are based on the inventory at the beginning of the
year (Table LVI).
The highest percentage of sales was found in the Miami district
and the lowest in the Jacksonville district. Nearly 16 percent of
the total number of cows in all districts were sold.
The death rate in the Orlando district was much higher than in
other districts, largely due to the death of 25 cows on one farm.
The death rate for all districts was less than 5 percent.
The methods of maintaining the dairy herds are shown in Table
LVI. Approximately three fifths of the cows in all districts were
replaced by purchase and two-fifths by heifers freshening. The
greatest variation from this proportion was in the Ocala district
where only one-seventh of the replacements were by purchase.
As has been pointed out, the Ocala district is a general farming














TABLE LV.-AGE OF Cows AT END OF YEAR FOR 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala Total
Age (years) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent c
2-3......... 212 7.2 153 4.8 200 6.1 59 5.5 59 6.1 62 14.7 745 6.3
3-4......... 348 11.7 501 15.6 369 11.3 132 12.2 155 16.1 51 12.1 1,556 13.1
4-5......... 525 17.7 575 17.9 583 17.9 179 16.6 153 15.9 40 9.5 2,055 17.3
5-6......... 530 17.9 666 20.8 560 17.2 186 17.3 173 17.9 52 12.3 2,167 18.2
6-7......... 439 14.8 495 15.4 516 15.9 193 17.9 105 10.9 52 12.3 1,800 15.1 X-
7-8......... 342 11.5 351 11.0 408 12.5 139 12.9 79 8.2 36 8.5 1,355 11.4
8-9......... 190 6.4 215 6.7 250 7.7 90 8.3 58 6.0 29 6.8 832 7.0
9-10........ 146 4.9 122 3.8 175 5.4 62 5.8 45 4.7 26 6.1 576 4.8
Over 10...... 176 5.9 89 2.8 181 5.6 30 2.8 113 11.7 75 17.7 664 5.6 '
Unknown..... 60 2.0 38 1.2 13 .4 8 .7 24 2.5 ................ 143 1.2
Total.... 2,968 100.0 3,205 100.0 3,255 100.0 1,078 100.0 964 100.0 423 100.0 11,893 100.0
7 -8........ 342
8-9....... 90 64 25 6. 25 7.7 90 .3 5 6. 29 .8 32 70 .

9-10...... 46 .9 12 38 17 5. 62 .8 5 4. 26 6.1 76 .8







68 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE LVI.-SALES RATE, DEATH RATE AND METHOD OF REPLENISHMENT
OF DAIRY COWS ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

Replenishment
Sales Death
District rate rate Cows Heifers
percent percent purchased freshened
percent percent
Jacksonville.......................... 10.0 3.8 55.0 45.0
M iami.............................. 19.7 4.0 54.0 46.0
Tampa............................. 15.6 5.2 67.0 33.0
St. Petersburg................... .... 17.9 4.8 63.0 37.0
Orlando............................. 15.5 7.0 63.0 37.0
Ocala............................... 13.0 3.4 14.0 86.0
Total .......................... 15.7 4.6 58.0 42.0 .


area with the dairies as a side-line. Cheap home-produced feed
and pasture made the raising of heifer calves relatively less ex-
pensive in this district than in the specialized dairy districts, con-
sequently, there was but a small number of cows purchased.

VALUE OF COWS, HEIFERS AND HERD BULLS

The value of cows was highest in the Miami and lowest in the
Ocala districts (Table LVII).
The rate of depreciation for the year on cows in the various
districts was as follows: Miami 18.8 percent, St. Petersburg 15.6
percent, Orlando 15.2 percent, Tampa 14.9 percent, Jacksonville
7.7 percent and Ocala 5.1 percent.
The value of heifers was highest in the Miami and lowest in
the Ocala districts. The rate of appreciation in the respective
districts was as follows: Orlando 113.1 percent, Jacksonville 106.1
percent, Tampa 96.9 percent, St. Petersburg 88.6 percent, Ocala
86.6 percent and Miami 78.7 percent.
Herd bulls depreciated $13.87 per bull in the St. Petersburg
district, while there was a slight appreciation in the other dis-
tricts.
APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE

In Tables LVIII to LXIII, inclusive, the appreciation and depre-
ciation figures for grade and purebred cattle were combined into
one figure for each class.
In the case of cows, the total value on hand December 1, 1926,
value of cows purchased during the year and value of heifers
that became cows during the year were added. If this total figure














TABLE LVII.-NUMBER, VALUE, INTEREST, APPRECIATION, AND DEPRECIATION ON 12,229 Cows, 2,553 HEIFERS AND 373
HERD BULLS, 1927.


Average Average Net Average Average Net Average Average Net Net
number value Interest depre- number value Interest appre- number value Interest appre- depre- I
District of per per ciation of per per citation of per per ciation ciation o
cows head head per head heifers head head per head bulls head head per head per head

Jacksonville..... 2,936 $ 90.52 $ 6.34 8 7.01 679 $ 38.44 $ 2.69 $ 40.79 93 $ 89.09 $ 6.24 $ 2.60 ........
Miami. ........ 3,450 119.23 8.35 22.40 676 61.15 4.28 48.13 78 191.71 13.42 .83 .......
Tampa......... 3,305 92.63 6.48 13.84 566 34.76 2.43 33.69 96 95.49 6.68 1.17 ......
St. Petersburg... 1,140 104.69 7.33 16.28 215 35.86 2.51 31.76 38 109.03 7.63 .......$ 13.87
Orlando......... 976 100.90 7.06 15.37 218 37.49 2.62 42.40 48 119.27 8.35 .85 ......
Ocala .......... 422 65.57 4.59 3.34 199 27.49 1.92 23.81 20 96.20 6.73 2.75 .......

Total number.. 12,229 ....................... 2,553 ........ ........ ........ 373 ........... . .

Ce
0g.









TABLE LVIII.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 64 JACK SONVILLE DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


Cows Heifers

Grade Purebred
Grade Purebred
One year or over Under one year One year or over Under one year
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value
farms cows farms cows farms heifers farms heifers farms heifers farms heifers

OnhandDecemberl,1926 64 2,809$241,849 7 90 $19,475 50 430 $14,395 23 112 $2,332 5 37 $3,675 3 3 $ 150
Purchased during year ... 24 263 20,820 .. ..... 1 3 100
Born during year........ .. ........... ...... . ... 53 394 1,026 .. ...... 4 17 410
Heifers that became cows. 41 207 17,435 3 5 690 ....... ... .. .. ... .

Total............ .. ...... $280,104 .. .. $20,165 .. ... $14,495 .. ... $3,358 .. .. $3,675 .. .. $ 560

Sold.................. 49 286$ 8,671 2 5 830 .. ... ....... 1 1 $ 15 .. ..
Died orkilledby accident 39 105 ........ 2 4 ....... 3 5 ....... 1 1 ...... 1 1. ....
H ides sold .............. 1 6 .. ....... .. .. . ... . .... . .. ...
Heifers that became cows. .. ................ . ..... 41 207 17,435 .. ... ..... 3 5 690
Used for food........... ........... . .. ....... .. ... ....... .. .. ..... .. .. ...... .. .
OnhandDecember l,1927 64 2,888 251,590 7 86 18,600 47 332 17,818 54 393 7,269 6 34 $5,235 4 17 $1,325

Total.................. ...... $260,267 ...... ..... $19,430 ..... ...... $35,253 ............ 7,284 ...... ... 5,925........... $1,325

Appreciation............ $27,699

Depreciation ............ $20,572









TABLE LVIII.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 64 JACKSONVILLE DAIRY FARMS, 1927.-Concluded.


Herd bulls
Range Cattle Veals
Grade Purebred

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value
farms bulls farms bulls farms cattle farms veals

On hand December 1, 1926................ 36 49 $ 2,905 28 43 $5,207 2 1001,100 .
Purchased during year ................... 3 3 125 4 5 270 .
Born duringyear ........................ 3 3 9 1 1 5 .. .. ...... 8 156 I 228
Heifers that became cows.................. .. .. ... .. .. ........ .... ... .....

Total.................. ......... .. .. $ 3,039 .. .. $5,482 .. ... $1,100 .. ... 228

Sold..................................... 5 5 $ 141 3 3 $ 165 2 100 $1,100 7 150 $ 464
D ied or killed by accident ................ .. ...... 2 2 ...... .. ... ...... ... ......
H ides Sold ............................. . .. .... .. .. ....... .. ..... .... ......
Heifers that became cows .................. ........ .. .
U sed for food ............................ ........ .. .. .. ..... 2 6 25 ..
On hand December 1, 1927................ 35 50 8 2,970 29 44 $5,487 .. .. .... .. ......

Total............................ . 3.. 3,111 .. .. $5,652 .. . $1,100 . $ 489

Appreciation ................. .. ........ $242 $ 261

D epreciation .............................



--I








TABLE LIX.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 36 MIAMI DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


Cows Heifers

Grade Purebred
Grade Purebred
One year or over Under one year One year or over Under one year

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value
farms cows farms cows farms heifers farms heifers farms heifers farms heifers

OnhandDecember l,1926 35 3,451 395,155 9 247 $47,535 20 311 $13,795 8 127 $7,766 3 76 $7,975 3 59 $4,800
Purchased during year. 12 207 24,907 .. ..... 1 2 50 .. .. ...... .. .....
Born during year........ ........ ........ ...... .. ......... 23 321 1,071 .. ..... 4 62 538
Heifers that became cows. 15 121 11,019 2 53 9,106 .. ... ........ .. ..

Total..................... $431,081............ $56,641 .......... $13,845........... 8,837........... $ 7,975...... ......$5,338

Sold .................. 33 710$ 29,547 1 20 $ 900 1 2 $ 50 1 2 20 ....
Died or killed by accident 23 144 ........ 1 4 ....... 1 1. ....
Hides sold.............. .. .. .. ... .. .. ....... .. ... .... .. ......... .. . .......
Heifers that became cows. .. ... ....... .... ... 15 121 11,019 .. ... ..... 2 53 9,106 .. ....
Used for food........... .. ..
OnhandDecemberl,1927 35 2,925326,625 9 276 53,385 19 314 24,310 23 321 9,050 4 82 10,575 4 62 $4,400

Total.......... ............ $356,172 ...... ..... $54,285............ $35,379 ............ $9,070.......... $19,681............ $4,400

Appreciation ......... .. $32,535

Depreciation ........... $77.265










TABLE LIX.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 36 MIAMI DAIRY FARMS, 1927.-Concluded.


Herd bulls
Veals
Grade Purebred

Number Number Number Number Number Number
of farms of bulls Value of farms of bulls Value of farms of veals Value

On hand December 1, 1926 .................... 18 28 $2,160 20 49 $12,620 ..
Purchased during year. ...................... 3 5 185 3 3 725 ...
Born during year ........................... ...... .2 6 60 7 69 $ 100 Q
Heifers that became cows ................... .. . ....... .. .. ........ .. ........

Total ............................... . $2,345 .. .. $13,405 .. $ 100

Sold ..................................... 1 3 $ 105 4 7 $ 585 4 48 $ 307
Died or killed by accident .................. .. 1 .1 ........ ..... .
H ides sold .................................. .. ..... ... ........ .......
Heifers that became cows.................... ... ...... ... ......... ......
Used for food .................. .......... .. .. ......... .. .. ........ 3 21 205
On hand December 1, 1927 .................... 18 29 1,975 19 51 13,150 .....

Total.................. .......... .. $2,080 ... .. $13,735 .. . $ 512

Appreciation. ........... ................ $65 $ 412

D epreciation............... ................


CO









TABLE LX.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 58 TAMPA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


Cows Heifers
_________ Herd bulls
Grade Veals
Grade
One year or over Under one year Grade Purebred
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value
farms cows farms heifers farms heifers farms bulls farms bulls farms veals

On hand December 1, 1926 58 3,352 310,295 41 302 $14,200 37 194 $3,727 39 68 $5,475 21 28 $3,605 .. ...... ....
Purchased during year.... 28 403 40,465 4 16 1,380 2 2 160 1 1 50 .. ...... .
Born during year....................... ..... 45 339 1,069 4 5 11 .. 48 1,132$2,028
Heifers that became cows. 41 201 17,960 ... . . .

Total............. .. .. $368,720 .. .. $15,580 .. .. $4,796 .. .. $5,646 .. .. 3,655 .. .. 2,028

Sold .................... 43 523 20,979 .. .. 2 4 62 4 4 125 1 1 $ 33 45 1,0782,446
Died or killed by accident. 37 175 ........ 2 5 .. 3 4 .... 1 2 .. .. .
H ides sold............... 1 1 3 .. .. .. .. .
Heifers that became cows.. .... . 41 201 $17,960 .
Used for food............ .. ........ .. . .. .. ... ...... 7 54 109
OnhandDecember 1, 1927 58 3,258 302,000 44 301 14,310 44 336 7,113 40 69 5,570 21 28 3,685 .. .

Total........ ... .. .. $322,982 .. $32,270 7,175 .. .. 5,695 .. .. $3,718 .. .. $2555

Appreciation ............ $19,069 $112 $ 527

Depreciation............. .. 45,738









TABLE LXI.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 24 ST. PETERSBURG DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


Cows Heifers
Grade Purebred
Grade Purebred N
One year or over Under one year One year or over Under one year

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value
farms cows farms cows farms heifers farms heifers farms heifers farms heifers

OnhandDecemberl,1926 24 1,1768120,570 6 20 $ 3,275 16 71 $ 4,702 15 81 $1,725 2 4 300 1 2 $ 25
Purchased during year... 12 80 7,847 2 21 6,200 1 2 50 ... .... .. ...
Born during year..... .. .. .... . .. ....... .. ....... 21 186 962 .. ...... 2 8 38
Heifers that became cows. 15 55 5,402 2 4 283 .. ..... . ....

Total........... .......... $133,819 .. .. 9,758 .. .. $ 4,752 .. .. $2,687 .. 300 63

Sold ................... 21 210$ 9,515 1 4 $ 600 1 2 70 2 19 180....
Died or killed by accident 15 55 ........ 1 2 .. .
H ides sold.............. 1 12 60 ... ..... .. ...... .
Heifers that becamecows. .. ............. ... .. ....... 15 55 5,402 .. 2 4 283
Used for food........... .. ...... ........ .. .. ....... .. ..... 1 2 30
OnhandDecemberl,1927 24 1,046 106,290 7 39 8550 17 97 4,700 21 165 3,825 1 2 60 2 8 $ 80

Total............ .. ...... $115,865 .. .. $ 9,150 .. $10,172 .. $4,035 .. .. $ 343 .. .. $ 80

Appreciation ............ $6,828

Depreciat'on........... $18,562








-i
TABLE LXI.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 24 ST. PETERSBURG DAIRY FARMS, 1927.-Concluded.


Herd bulls
Veals
Grade Purebred

Number Number V Number Number Value Number Number '
offarms of bulls e of farms of bulls of farms of veals value
On hand December 1, 1926 ................... 18 21 $1,595 8 17 $2,675 ....
Purchased during year ....................... .. .... 3 3 750
Born during year ............................ 4 4 21 ...... 10 77 152
Heifers that became cows................... ......... .. ......

Total ............................... .. .. $1,616 .. .. $3,425 .. .. $ 152

Sold .................................... 4 4 190 1 2 $ 300 9 76 $ 437
D ied or killed by accident ..................... ..1 2 ........ .. .....
Hides sold.......... ................. ........... 1 1 9 .. ...
Heifers that became e cows ..................... .. ........ ....... .....
U sed for food............................... .. ........ .. ...... 1 1 12
On hand December 1, 1927. ............... 16 21 1,490 9 16 2,525 .

Total.................... ........... $1,680 .. $2,834 .. 449

Appreciation .... ..... . ......... 297

Depreciation ................................ $527
o"-








TABLE LXII.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 38 ORLANDO DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


Cows Heifers

Grade Purebred
Grade Purebred
One year or over Under one year One year or over Under one year
No. N6. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value
farms cows farms cows farms heifers farms heifers farms heifers farms heifers
OnhandDecemberl,1926 38 940 $ 91,100 11 62 $10,070 31 132 $ 5,350 5 30 $ 372 4 7 $ 375 ..
Purchased during year... 17 108 10,196 1 1 50 4 18 610 1 3 20 ......
Born during year........ .. ........ .. .. ..... .. .. ....... 30 138 482 .. ... 4 9 $ 74
Heifers that became cows. 21 63 6,120 1 1 100 .. ........

Total........... .. .. $107,416 .. .. $10,220 .. .. $ 5,960 .. .. $ 874 .. .. $375 .. .. $ 74

Sold ................... 228 155 $ 6,819 .. ...... ........ 1 10 1 1 $ 50
Died or killed by accident 17 68 ........ 1" 2 ...... 2 4 ... 1 1 ..
H ides sold.............. 1 5 35 ......... ......
Heifers that became cows .. ......... .. ....... 21 63 $ 6,120 .. .. .. 1 1 $ 100
Used for food..... ............ .. .
OnhandDecemberl,1927 38 888 85,884 11 62 $ 9,900 27 113 5,800 30 139 3,452 3 6 700 3 8 295

Total........... .. .. $ 92,738 .. $ 9,900 .. ... $11,920 .. ... $3,462 .. .. $ 800 .. .. $ 345

Appreciation ............ $9,244

Depreciation ............ $14,998








--I
00

TABLE LXII.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 38 ORLANDO DAIRY FARMS, 1927.-Concluded.


Herd bulls
Range Cattle Veals 0
Grade Purebred

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value
farms bulls farms bulls farms cattle farms veals

On hand December 1, 1926................ 20 24 $ 1,835 17 19 $3,670 1 15 $1,125 1 1 $ 0
Purchased during year ................... 3 4 110 2 2 300 1 14 1,400 . .
Born during year .................. ...... 5 7 13 2 2 60 ...... 9 84 103
Heifers that became cows .................. .. .. .... .... .. ........ . ....... .. ......

Total.................... ...... .. .. $ 1,958 .. .. $4,030 .. .. $2,525 .. .. $ 103 tM

Sold ................................... 2 2 $ 35 1 1 $ 50 1 14 $1,750 7 56.5$ 148
Died or killed by accident ................. 1 1 .. ....
H ides sold ............ ............... . . ........ .. . .. .. .. ....... . . .....
Heifers that became cows ........................ ................. .........
Usedforfood............................ .. ... .......... . ... . . ..... 6 28.5 207
On hand December 1, 1927 ................ 22 32 1,899 18 22 4,045 1 15 1,125 ........

Total. ............................ .. .. 1,934 .. .. $4,095 .. .. $2,875 .. .. $ 355

Appreciation. ........................... $41 $ 350 $ 252

Depreciation. .........................









TABLE LXIII.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 29 OCALA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


Cows Heifers

Grade
Grade Purebred
One year or over Under one year

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value
farms cows farms cows farms heifers farms heifers

On hand December 1, 1926................ 29 411 $ 26,862 1 5 $ 500 23 93 $3,065 18 83 $1,620
Purchased during year .................... 5 11 730 ... .. .. .. .. ..
Born during year.......................... ......... .. ...... .. ...... 25 117 442 .
Heifers that became cows................. 22 68 3,610 ........... .. ......

Total ... ....... ...... .......... .. 31,202 .. .. $ 500 $3,065 .. .. $2,062

Sold.................. ................. 13 54 8 2,314 .. ...... .. ...... ......
Died or killed by accident ................ 7 14 ....... . .. . . . 2 3
H ides sold............................... .. .... ..... ...... .. .....
Heifers that became cows.................. ......... ..... 22 68 $3,610 ......-
U sed for food.............. ............. . ..... .. .. ...... .. .. ...... .. .. ......
On hand December 1, 1927............... 29 422 27,478 1 5 500 22 105 3,905 25 117 $2,350

Total............................ .. $ 29,792 .. .. $ 500 .. .. $7,515 .. .. $2,350

Appreciation ............................. $4,738

D depreciation .................. ........... $1,410

Cr,








00

TABLE LXIII.-APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION OF CATTLE ON 29 OCALA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.-Concluded.


Herd bulls
RHerd bullange Cattle Veals
Grade Purebred
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
of of Value of of Value of of Value of of Value
farms bulls farms bulls farms cattle farms veals
On hand December 1, 1926 ................ 6 8 $ 335 11 10.25*$1,415 2 60 $1,080 .. ......
Purchased during year .................... 2 2 50 3 2.33* 243 ... .
Born during year....................... 1 1 .. ...... ...... ......... 14 64 $ 79
Heifers that became cows................... .... ............... ... .....

Total............................ .. .. 386 .. ......$1,658 .. $1,080 .. .. 79
Sold................................... .. ....... .. ............ 2 35 $ 730 14 62 $ 389
Died or killed by accident. ................ 1 1 .... .. ........... ..... 1 2 .....
H ides sold............................... ....... .. .. .... 1 1 1 .
Heifers that became cows .................. . .. ........ .......... . .. ..
U sed for food ............................ .. ...... ....
On hand December 1, 1927 ................ 9 10 $ 395 14 12.58*$1,704 2 '32 $ 614 ..

Total ........... ............... .. .. $ 395 .. ......1,704 .. 1,344 .. .. $ 390
Appreciation ............................ $ 55 $ 264 $ 311

D epreciation............................

*Part owned.







Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 81

was larger than the sum obtained from the value of cows sold,
hides sold, cows used for food and the value of cows on hand
December 1, 1927, the resulting figure represented the deprecia-
tion. If the last total was larger than the first the resulting
figure represented the appreciation.
The same method was used in arriving at appreciation or depre-
ciation of heifers, except that the value of heifers born during
the year appears as a charge and the value of heifers that became
cows as a credit.
In the case of bulls, range cattle and veals, the value of those
born during the year was included the same as heifers.
Based on average inventories, the depreciation per cow for the
year in the various districts was as follows: Jacksonville $7.01,
Miami $22.40, Tampa $13.84, St. Petersburg $16.28, Orlando
$15.37, and Ocala $3.34.
Heifers appreciated in value in all districts and herd bulls in all
districts except St. Petersburg.

DIRECT MAN LABOR ON COWS
Direct labor on cows was classified under three heads: milking,
feeding and other labor (Table LXIV). Milking represented the
following percentages of the total labor on cows in the various
districts: St. Petersburg 51, Ocala 58, Jacksonville 59, Tampa 60,
Miami 63 and Orlando 69.
The percentages of total labor used in feeding were: Tampa 6.
Miami and St. Petersburg 7, Jacksonville 8, Orlando and Ocala 12.
Other labor on cows represented the following percentages of
the total labor on cows in the several districts: Orlando 19, Miami
and Ocala 30, Jacksonville 33, Tampa 34 and St. Petersburg 42.
The number of man hours used per cow ranged from 121 in
the Miami district to 172 in the Ocala district. It will be noted
that in the districts where the herds were larger, fewer hours per
cow were spent on their care. The only exception was that more
hours of labor were used per cow on the larger herds found in
the Jacksonville district than on the smaller herds found in the
Orlando district.
In addition to man labor on cows, the combined cost of horse
and truck labor for feeding was 7 cents per head and horse labor
used for other purposes in caring for cows amounted to $1.13 per
head in the Jacksonville district. The cost of horse labor used
in caring for cows in the Miami district was $1.65 per head; and








TABLE LXIV.-MAN HOURS AND COST OF DIRECT LABOR PER HEAD ON COWS, HEIFERS AND HERD BULLS ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY
FARMS, 1927.


Milking Feeding Other labor Total Total labor Total labor
Number Number Number
District of Man Man Man Man of Man of herd Man
cows hours Cost hours Cost hours Cost hours Cost heifers hours Cost bulls hours Cost
Jacksonville. .......... 2,937 95 $ 38 12 S 5 53 $ 21 160 $ 64 671 19 8 97 55 22
Miami................ 3,449 75 35 10 4 36 17 121 56 671 18 10 79 62 28
Tampa...... ........ 3,336 83 32 8 3 44 18 135 53 571 15 6 96 59 23
St. Petersburg ......... 1,132 78 35 11 5 61 29 150 69 219 22 10 35 66 30
Orlando. .............. 980 99 41 18 7 27 11 144 59 221 28 11 45 111 47 ?*
Ocala ................. 425 100 29 21 6 51 15 172 50 196 19 6 22 61 17





TABLE LXV.-COMPARISON OF MAN LABOR ON COWs, EXCLUDING MARKET-
ING, FOR 209 FLORIDA RETAIL AND WHOLESALE DAIRIES, 1927.


Hours man labor per cow Hours
Produc- man
Number Cows tion labor
of per per per 100
farms farm cow Milking Feeding Other Total pounds
(pounds) of milk
produced

Retail dairies.......... 84 51 4,395 87.0 12.1 47.8 146.9 3.3

Wholesale dairies....... 125 51 4.278 81.5 9.3 39.9 130.7 3.1







Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 83

the combined cost of horse labor and truck use for feeding was
23 cents and for other purposes 30 cents per head in the Orlando
district. The cost of horse labor used in feeding cows was 1 cent
per head in the Tampa and St. Petersburg districts and 7 cents
in the Ocala district; costs of horse labor used for other purposes
were 41 cents, $2.36, and 13 cents in the respective districts.

MAN LABOR IN RETAIL AND WHOLESALE DAIRIES
In making a comparison of the hours of labor on the retail and
wholesale dairies excluding bottling and marketing, it was found
that the retail dairies used 5.5 hours more for milking, 2.8 hours
more for feeding, and 7.9 hours more per cow for other labor than
did the wholesale dairies (Table LXV).

USE OF PASTURE
While pasture represented but a small proportion of the total
feed cost, only one farmer reported that no pasture was used. In
the several districts the percentages using native pastures fol-
lows: Jacksonville 84, Tampa 74, Miami 56, Orlando 63, St. Peters-
burg 46, and Ocala 34. Of the total number of farms, 65 percent
used this class of pasture. While this kind of pasture was most
prevalent, Table LXVI shows that in the opinion of the operators
it was considered as first choice by only seven in the Jacksonville,
one in the St. Petersburg, and two in the Orlando districts.
Nearly 85 percent of the farms on which other than native
mixed grasses were found had Bermuda or Bermuda mixed with
other kinds of grasses.

COST OF MILK PRODUCTION
Details of the cost of producing milk are shown in Table LXVII.
The returns are also shown in order to determine the profit or
loss from the dairy enterprise. The results show an average
profit of 33 cents per hundredweight of milk for the 249 farms
in all districts. The range was from a profit of $1.21 per hun-
dredweight in the St. Petersburg district to a loss of 38 cents per
hundredweight in the Tampa district. All farms in each district
are compared with the 10 most profitable farms in the group. The
two outstanding factors common to the most profitable farms are
high milk production per cow and a high value per hundred-
weight for milk produced.








TABLE LXVI.-KIND OF PASTURE USED AND OPERATOR'S OPINION AS TO THE BEST KIND TO USE, 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.


Jack- St. Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg ville burg
Kind of pasture used No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
using using using using using using ini
Bermuda ................. 2 11 8 8 6 10 Bermuda .................. 15 23 26 13 15 13
Bermuda and Carpet......... 2 .. 2 .. 3 3 Bermuda and Carpet......... 1 .. 1 1 3 1
Bermuda, Carpet and Lespedeza 1 .. .. 1 Bermuda, CarpetandLespedeza 1 .. .. 1 .
Bermuda, Carpet and Bahia.. .. 1 Bermuda and clover .......... 1 .
Bermuda and clover.......... .. .. .. Bermuda and Johnson........ .. .. .. .. 1
Bermuda and Natal .......... .. .. . .. 1 Bermuda and Natal.......... 1
Bermuda and native.......... 1 1 4 1 2 3 Bermuda and Para........... .. 2 .. .
Bermuda and Para........... .. 1 .. .. .. .. Bermuda, Para and crab...... .. 1 ..
Carpet. ...................... 2 .. .. 1 .. Bermuda and St. Augustine... .. .. 1 .
Carpet and Dallis............ 1 .. . Bahia. ........................... 1
Carpet, Dallis and Lespedeza.. 1 .. Carpet .................... 7 .. 3 2 2 4 rj
Carpet and Lespedeza......... .. .. 2 Carpet, Dallis and Lespedeza 2
Carpet and native............ 1 .. 1 1 1 Carpet and Dallis............ .. .. .. 1
Native mixed grasses......... 54 20 43 11 24 10 Carpet, corn and peanuts ..... 1 3.
St. Augustine. ............ 2 .. .. .. Carpet and marsh........... .. .
No grass.................. .. .. .. "1 .. Cat-tail millet............... 1 .. .
Cowpeas .................... 1 .. ... .
Crabgrass................... 1
Napier.................... . 1 .
Native mixed grasses......... 7 .. .. 1 2
Oats and rye................ .. .. .. 1 ..
Para ....................... .. 3 ..
Sudan and rape............... 1
St. Augustine. ............... ... 1
No opinion................. 27 4 27 6 10 9
Total ................ 64 36 58 24 38 29 64 36 58 24 38 29





TABLE AXVI.-AVERAGE LABOR INCOME, COSTS AND VALUE-OF ILK FO 249 FIlRIDA DAIRY FAIS COMPARED W H HE 10 MOST
'PROFITABLE FARMS IN EACH DISTRICT, 1927.
District Jacksonville lanmi 'lampa bt. Petersburg Orlando Ocala All

Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29 249

Average Average Average Average Average Average Average
10 most 10 most 10 most 10 most 10 most 10 most
All farms profitable All farms profitable All farms profitable All farms profitable All farms profitable All farms profitable
farms farfarms farms farms farms farms
Number of cows......... 4.. 45.9 51.0 95.8 134.2 57.5 50.5 47.2 51.7 25.8 27.7 14.7 17.5 49.2
Pounds of milk produced per
cow..................... 4,710 5,773 4,327.8 4,620 3,984 4,714 4,724.4 5,465.7 4,424 5,176 4,413 4,534 4,373
Total capital............... $13,210 $12,160 $28,775 $42,472 $12,962 $11,883 $17,169 $17,755 $20,185 $21,228 $13,490 $ 9,603 $16,881
Total farm receipts.......... 14,678 22,671 29,192 53,029 13,968 15,057 18,266 26,309 8,747 12,014 4,227 6,227 14,834
Total farm expenses......... 12,525 13,875 25,685 38,393 13,530 10,718 14,137 16,676 6,915 6,989 2,748 3,629 12,822
Farm income............... 2,153 8,796 3,507 14,636 438 4,339 4,129 9,633 1,832 5,025 1,479 2,598 2,012
Labor income.............. 1,228 7,945 1,493 11,662 -470 3,507 2,927 8,390 419 3,539 534 1,926 830
Percent return on capital..... 6 58.9 6.8 30 6.6 24.9 15.9 45.3 3.8 19.7 6.4 19.1 4.6
Cost per 100 pounds of milk:
Feed................... $2.52 $2.13 $2.56 $2.46 $2.82 $2.06 $2.58 $2.26 $2.56 $1.93 $1.52 $1.88 $2.58
Pasture.................. .13 .09 .18 .17 .16 .19 .17 .12 .44 .42 .61 .32 .20
Human labor............. 1.37 1.15 1.28 1.07 1.32 1.16 1.46 1 31 1.33 1.03 1.13 1.22 1.33
Truck use............... ... .. .01 ... *
Animal labor...............02 .01 .04 .02 .01 .01 .05 .03 .03
Milk hauling ............ .76 .65 .71 .79 .64 .71 .95 .88 .93 .79 .65 .83 .75
Retailing................. .34 .35 .24 .29 .22 .17 .41 .50 .25 .34 .15 .24 .27
Use of buildings.......... .09 .08 .12 .13 .09 .06 .07 .04 .10 .10 .12 .10 .10
Use of equipment......... .06 .04 .07 .08 .08 .05 .11 .09 .06 .05 .04 .05 .07
Depreciation on cows...... .17 .14 .52 .33 .35 .15 .35 .31 .36 .21 .10 .16 .34
Interest on cows.......... .13 .11 .19 .18 .16 .12 .16 .14 .16 .16 .10 .10 .16
Bull service.............. .08 .08 .07 .07 .09 .08 .10 .07 .13 .12 .05 .05 .08
Miscellaneous............ .32 .17 .43 .34 .33 .28 .35 .30 .32 .29 .20 .25 .35
Total costs........... $5.99 $5.00 $6.41 $5.93 $6.27 $5.04 $6.76 $6.05 $6.65 $5.44 $4.67 $5.20 $6.26
Returns except for milk and
its products .............. .. .1 .12 .15 .19 .16 .18 .21 .20 .22 .24 .18 .23 .18
Net cost per 100 pounds of
milkproduced............ $5.80 $4.88 $6.26 $5.74 $6.11 $4.86 $6.55 $5.85 $6.43 $5.20 $4.49 $4.97 $6.08
Value per 100 pounds of milk
produced................ 6.33 7.59 6.67 7.83 5.73 5.97 7.76 8.61 6.91 7.65 5.02 6.47 6.41
Profit per 100 pounds of milk
produced................$ .53 $2.71 $ .41 $2.09 $.... $1.11 $1.21 $2.76 $ .48 $2.45 $ .53 $1.50 $ .33
Loss per 100 pounds of milk
produced................ ..... .... ..... ..... . 38
*Less than $.01.






86 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

"Returns except for milk and its products," includes value of
calves born during the year, manure, appreciation on cows, gain
on herd bull and miscellaneous receipts.
The average number of cows kept ranged from about 15 in the
Ocala district to 96 in the Miami district, with an average of 49
(Table LXVII).
The average milk production was highest in the St. Petersburg
district followed by the Jacksonville district with 14 pounds less
per cow; the Orlando district was third, followed by Ocala with
11 pounds less per cow, while Tampa had the lowest production.
The average production for all districts was 4,373 pounds of milk
per cow.
The cost of feed was 33 percent of the total cost of milk pro-
duction in the Ocala district, 38 percent in the St. Petersburg and
Orlando districts, 40 percent in the Miami district and 42 and 45
percent, respectively, in the Jacksonville and Tampa districts.
The cost of human labor in the several districts represented the
following percentages of the total cost: Orlando and Miami 20,
Tampa 21, St. Petersburg 22, Jacksonville 23 and Ocala 24.
Milk hauling costs in percentages of the total costs were:
Tampa 10, Miami 11, Jacksonville 13 and St. Petersburg, Orlando
and Ocala each 14 percent.
The cost of feed for all farms was 41 percent, human labor 21
percent and milk hauling 12 percent. These three items repre-
sented 74 percent of the total costs.
The average test of milk for all districts was 4.3 percent but-
terfat.
On the 249 farms cows were dry for an average period of 7.8
weeks.
MILK HAULING
Milk hauling by horse-drawn vehicles is almost a thing of the
past on the dairy farms studied. In the Jacksonville district, 60
used autos or trucks regularly, two hired milk hauled, one used
auto or truck and hired part and one used horses (Table LXVIII).
In the Miami district eight hired all their milk hauled, two hired
part, and 26 used autos or trucks regularly.
In the Tampa district 50 used autos or trucks only, three part
time, two used horses only and two part time. Three hired milk
hauled regularly and one part time.
In the St. Petersburg district all the farmers used autos or
trucks at some time during the year, but three hired their milk
hauled part of the time.





TABLE LXVIII.-CosT OF MILK HAULING ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927 (INCLUDING MILK RETAILED).

Man Animal Auto or truck Cost
Number- -
of farms Number Total Total Total Total Total Total Man Animal Auto or Total
of trips hours miles hours miles hours miles truck
64 Jacksonville farms _
Horsetrips............... .. 1 730 2,007 6,570 2,007 6,570....... ....... 947 301......$ 1,248
Auto or truck trips............. 61 27,846 99,931 780,01 .... ....... 9 780, 780,014 40,663 ........ 61,934 102,597 S
Hired.......................... 3 ........................ .... ............. .... .................... ......... 830

Total ................... ........ ....... ......... ........... .... $.104.. 6........75
Costpercwt.ofmilkequivalentsold ........ .................. ................. ...... ........................... .$79
36 Miami farms
Auto or truck ................. 28 15,645 87,937 616,907 ............... 87,937 616,907$ 44,578 ........ $54,493 $ 99,071
Hired......................... 10 ............ ....... ........ ................... ....... ...... ........ 7,546
Total................... ........ ........ ........ .......................................................$106,617 8
Costpercwt. ofmilkequivalentsold ........ ....... .................... ........... ...73
58 Tampa farms-
Horse trips ................... 4 1,418 3,484 16,858 3,484 16,858 ........ ....... $ 1,120$ 522,$....... 1,642 .
Auto or truck trips ............. 53 24,879 87,482 778,493 ............... 87,482 778,493 34,131 ........ 48,492 82,623 C
H ired ......................... 4 ................ .... ... ... . ....... ... ... ........ .... ... ....... 1,295
Total .................. ................... . .. ....... .... ... ........ ..... .. .... ........ 85,560
Costpercwt.of m ilkequivalentsold .. .. ... ... ........ ..... ........ ..... . 67
24 St. Petersburg farms
Auto or truck trips............. 24 12,292 50,315 348,721........ ........ 50,315 348,721$ 24,146 ........ 24,118$ 48,264
Hired......................... 3 ........................... . ........ .......... ........ ................ 2,676
Total ................... ................ ... ............. ...... ..................................... $ 50,940
Costpercwt.ofmilkequivalentsold ................ ....... ............. ....... ........ ......... ....... ................ .99
38 Orlando farms !.-
Auto or truck trips............. 38 19,352 48,167 404,882 ............ ,167 404,882$ 19,27 ...... 21,493 40.763
Cost per cwt. of milkequivalent sold ... . ... . ....... ... .. l.. .. ... ........ .. .......... .. .99
29 Ocala farms
"Horse trips .................... 1 236 118 1 118 118 118 ......... .33. 18 .... ...$ 51
Auto or truck trips............ 12 5,47511,710.5 78,561...............11,710.5 78,561 3,827........ 4,846 8,673
Hired................. ..... 19 ...... .. ........ .......... ........ ....... ... .3,436

Costpercwt.ofmilkequivalentsoldl ........... ... ..... ........ ..... .72
.... ... ... ... .: :. : i..~ i ::. ::: .72







88 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

In the Ocala district 19 hired their milk hauled part or all of
the time, 12 used autos or trucks and one used horses.
The average number of miles covered per trip for those hauling
their own milk, including the additional distance covered by re-
tailers in the delivery of milk to their customers, for the various
districts was: Jacksonville 27.5, Miami 39.4, Tampa 30.2, St.
Petersburg 28.4, Orlando 20.9 and Ocala 13.8. One-third of all
dairymen retailed their own milk, and an additional 16 percent
retailed a part of their product. It was not feasible to separate
the extra mileage and time required for retailing from the total
milk hauling requirements.

EXTRA COST OF RETAILING
In addition to the required costs of preparing milk for wholesale
markets, the retailers had the labor of bottling and the cost of
bottles and caps. Unless great care is exercised, the loss of
bottles is an important item of cost. The cost of use of bottling
equipment depended largely upon the value of equipment used.
Many retailers bottled milk by hand, while others had expensive
equipment (Table LXIX).

TABLE LXIX.-EXTRA COST OF RETAILING MILK ON 124 FLORIDA DAIRY
FARMS, 1927.

Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg
Pounds retailed 6,663,965 4,320,631 3,260,140 3,225,244 2,106,743 521,521
Cost per Cost per Cost per Cost per Cost per Cost per
Item 100 100 100 100 100 100
pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds
Labor bottling............... .23 $ .25 $ .15 $ .32 $ .28 $ .24
Bottles...................... .16 .21 .22 .08 .08 .05
Caps. .......... .............. .07 .05 .04 .04 .04 .03
Use of bottling equipment ... .01 .06 .03 .01 .01 *
Ice ...... ... ............... .12 .11 .12 .08 .02 .13
Bad debts .................. .10 .11 .31 .12 .07 .07
Other retail costs........... .01 .03 .02 .04 .01 *
Total................... $ .70 $ .82 $ .89 $ .69 $ .51 $ .52

"*Less than 1 cent.

Ice, as it appears in this cost, was that required to keep the milk
cool while on the milk route.
The wholesaler had little trouble in collecting for his milk.
Many of the retailers, however, allowed accounts to run for long







Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 89

periods. Sometimes customers were unable to meet their obliga-
tions, others moved away and the result was that bills were un-
paid. These bills which were classed as bad debts, ranged from
7 to 31 cents per hundredweight for milk retailed in the different
districts.
BUILDINGS USED FOR COWS
Dairy barns in Florida are used primarily for milking and feed-
ing the herd, since the cows are out on pasture or in lots adjoining
the barn at most other times. The herd bull as a rule is on pasture
with the cows or in a separate lot, and heifers are usually on pas-
ture, so in all districts the total building cost was charged to cows,
except Ocala, where 8 percent of the building charge went to
other cattle.
The percentages of total building costs represented by interest
were as follows for the several districts: Ocala 56, Jacksonville
45, St. Petersburg and Orlando 44, Tampa 43, and Miami 37 per-
cent.
The depreciation charges in percentage of total building costs
were: Orlando 46, Jacksonville 44, Miami 43, St. Petersburg 42,
Ocala 35, and Tampa 33.
Cash rent of buildings in the Jacksonville district was 4 per-
cent, in the St. Petersburg district 5 percent, in the Miami district
6 percent, and in the Tampa district 17 percent of the total cost.
Total building cost per cow ranged from $3.38 in the Tampa
district to $5.26 in the Ocala district (Table LXX).
TABLE LXX.-CosT OF BUILDINGS USED FOR COWS ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY
FARMS, 1927.
Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg
Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
Item per per per per per per
farm farm farm farm farm farm
Interest at 7 percent........ $ 83.16 $175.75 $ 82.62 $ 70.88 $ 49.87 8 42.86
Insurance.................. 2.84 40.67 .14 3.50 3.58 ......
Taxes...................... 4.33 23.06 9.34 7.04 2.79 5.69
Depreciation................ 82.20 204.86 64.81 68.12 51.97 26.86
Repairs, materials. .......... 4.33 5.14 2.47 2.79 3.92 1.62
Repairs, hired labor.......... 1.95 ...... 1.21 2.08 ..
Cash rent .................. 7.74 27.44 33.55 7.92 .32 .11
Total cost ............. 186.55 $476.92 $194.14 $162.33 $112.45 8 77.14
Cost per cow................ 4.06 $ 4.98 $ 3.38 $ 3.44 $ 4.36 $ 5.26







90 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

USE OF DAIRY EQUIPMENT
Sterilizing and refrigerating equipment, milking machines,
separators, bottling equipment, milk and feed carts, coolers, cans,
pails, strainers, feed grinders, silage cutters, and dipping vats
were the principal items included in dairy equipment.
In the several districts the percentages of total equipment costs
represented by interest ranged from 33 at Ocala to 20 at St.
Petersburg.
The percentages of the total equipment costs for depreciation
in the different districts were: Orlando 70, Jacksonville 66, Tampa
64, Ocala 62 and Miami and St. Petersburg 60; while for repairs
and materials they were as follows: St. Petersburg 20, Jackson-
ville 13, Miami and Tampa 12, Ocala 5, and Orlando 2.
The cost of equipment per cow ranged from $1.80 in the Ocala
district to $5.17 in the St. Petersburg district (Table LXXI).

TABLE LXXI.-CosT OF EQUIPMENT USED FOR COWS ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY
FARMS, 1927.
Jack- St.
District son- Miami Tampa Peters- Orlando Ocala
ville burg
Number of farms 64 36 58 24 38 29
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
Item per per per per per per
farm farm farm farm farm farm
Interest at 7 percent......... $ 27.01 $ 79.00 $ 43.43 $ 49.25 $ 19.21 8.76
Depreciation............... 83.11 170.28 115.85 146.42 48.58 16.45
Repairs, materials........... 15.83 32.55 21.17 48.37 1.32 .76
Repairs, labor............... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... .48
Other costs ................. ...... ...... .21 .. ...... .....
Totalcost.............. $125.95 $281.83 $180.66 $244.04 $ 69.11 $ 26.45
Costpercow............... $ 2.74 $ 2.94 $ 3.14 $ 5.17 $ 2.68 $ 1.80


BULL SERVICE

The cost of bull service was made up from the net cost of keep-
ing herd bulls on the farms studied, plus any service hired.
The net cost ranged from $43.82 to $150.49 in the different dis-
tricts, and net cost per cow from $2.27 to $5.74 (Table LXXII).
Feed was the item of highest cost. The percentages of total
cost in feed for the different districts were: Tampa 74.6, Jackson-
ville 72.6, Miami 64.5, St. Petersburg 64.6, Orlando 43.3 and
Ocala 27.9 percent.






TABLE LXXII.-CosT oF BULL SERVICE ON 249 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS, 1927.

District Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Orlando Ocala
Number of bulls 97 79 96 35 45 22
Per bull Per bull Per bull Per bull Per bull Per bull
----- -- -m--- -- ---- ---- --- -^-- --- --- --- --
Item Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost z,
Costs:
Concentrates........... 3,572 lbs. 73.52 3,266 lbs. $ 81.02 4,123 Ibs. S 96.52 3,814 lbs. $ 86.89 1.922 lbs. $ 47.09 491 lbs. 10.32
Silage................. 238 lbs. .97 522 lbs. 2.67 21 lbs. .10 .......... ...... 276 lbs. 1.45........ .....
Other succulent feeds... 90 lbs. .44.......... ...... 120 lbs. .71 71 bs. .40 ................. 273 bs. 1.18
Hay.................. 4811bs. 8.15 125lbs. 2.66 42 Ibs. .52 5511bs. 8.29 256lbs. 4.09 305 bs. 3.00 c
Milk ................. 42 lbs. 1.76 25 lbs. 1.75 20 lbs. .99 166 lbs. 8.03 104 lbs. 5.04 68 lbs. 2.46 "
Pasture............... ......... 3.31.......... 6.56 .......... 2.17 .......... 1.88.......... 18.13 .......... 18.77 o
Labor ................ 55 brs. 21.74 66 hrs. 28.40 59 hrs. 22.97 66 hrs. 30.20 111 hrs. 46.56 61 hrs. 17.18
Interest ................ ......... 5.99 .......... 13.28 .......... 6.70 .......... 8.31 .......... 8.91.......... 6.27 "
Depreciation ..... ...... .......... . ........ .......... ............. .. .......... 14.77....... ....................
Use of buildings........ .......... .......... ............................................. ................. .......... 1.37
M ineral.............. ............. .... ...... .............. 05.........
Othercosts....................... .94 .......... .32 .......... 1.73 .......... 1.60 .......... 1.82 ... ... .. 18 Total ........... .......... $116.82.......... $136.66........... $132.46......... 160 37.......... $133 09.......... $ 60.73
Returns:
Appreciation........... ........ .74 .......... .82 .......... 1.21.......... ............... .91..........$ 2.50
Manure............... Iton 3.79 1.1tons 3.51 1.1tons 2.35 2.2tons 6.34 0.8 ton 3.40 0.5 ton 2.23 P
Service .............. ......... .01 ......... .78.......... 3.95 .......... 4.00 .......... 3.76......... 13.77 -
Total............. ........ 4.54 .......... $ 5.11.......... $ 7.51 .......... 10.34 .......... 8.07 .......... $ 18.50
Cost of keeping own herd
bulls... .... .................. ................. ......... .03..... ... 150........ ......... $ 42.23 c
Service hired............. .......... .... .............. .......................... .46.......... ................ 1.59
Net cost of bull service............ $112.28 .......... $131.55.........$124.95.......... 150.49. ....... $125.02 ..........4382
Net cost per cow......... ........ 3.71.......... 3.01.......... 3.60 .......... 4.65 .. ... 5.74.......... 2.27
1~~~''







92 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

The percentages of total cost in pasture were: Ocala 30.9, Or-
lando 13.6, Miami 4.8, Jacksonville 2.8, Tampa 1.6, and St. Peters-
burg 1.2 percent.
There was considerable variation in the cost of labor to take
care of bulls. The percentages of total cost for labor were as
follows: Orlando 35, Ocala 28.3, Miami 20.8, St. Petersburg 18.8,
Jacksonville 18.6, and Tampa 17.3 percent.

RETURNS FROM MILK
Milk is perishable, and more quickly in Florida than farther
north on account of climatic conditions. It necessarily must be
consumed near the point of production in order to avoid heavy
expense. A number of the Florida dairymen make two deliveries
per day, which increases the cost over that borne by dairymen
in other sections, where milk, a greater part of the year, is deliv-
ered but once a day.
There were no cheese factories, condenseries, or powdered milk
plants found in the districts studied. The bulk of the milk pro-
duced was sold retail or wholesale as whole milk. Some separat-
ing was done to obtain cream for the market and a small amount
of butter was sold.
In established dairy sections one will see platforms along the
roadside, on which the farmer puts his cans of milk, which are
taken by the milk truck driver and the empties are returned to
the platform daily. This is economical because it leaves a num-
ber of men free to do other work while their milk is being deliv-
ered. These routes are used where milk is sold wholesale to cheese
factories and milk plants or where cans of milk are shipped to
distant cities. In Florida this type of cooperation is developing
but slowly, principally because a large proportion of the farmers
are retailing their own milk.
Milk was sold direct from producer to consumer, or to milk
plants where it was put through necessary processes, then deliv-
ered by plants to the consumer. In some instances it was sold
direct to ice cream plants.
Farmers who sold milk retail, sometimes delivered small quan-
tities in bulk; but milk was generally bottled, and in most cases
delivered to the consumer over established milk routes.
In the Jacksonville district 52.6 percent of the gallons and 66.3
percent of the receipts from whole milk were from milk retailed
(Table LXXIII).








Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 93

TABLE LXXIII.-RETURNS FOR MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS BY MONTHS ON 64
DAIRY FARMS, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT, 1927.

Wholesale and Percent
Wholesale Retail retail of sales
Months by mos.
Gallons Value Gallons Value Pounds Value (pounds)
January ...... 57,644.9$ 24,795 65,646.0$ 45,737 1,060,302$ 70,532 8.4
February...... 52,894.5 22,536 59,762.1 41,626 968,847 64,162 7.6
March......... 60,398.0 25,162 66,365.5 46,043 1,090,166 71,205 8.6
April.......... 58,047.2 21,691 64,837.0 44,735 1,056,804 66,426 8.3
May.......... 60,141.0 21,595 67,862.8 46,548 1,100,833 68,143 8.7
June.......... 58,920.1 20,952 65,167.3 44,516 1,067,151 65,468 8.4
July............ 61,645,3 21,958 66,677.7 45,636 1,103,578 67,594 8.7
August ........ 59,623.1 21,354 65,627.0 45,213 1,077,151 66,567 8.5
September..... 57,818.0 21,457 62,504.0 43,268 1,034,769 64,725 8.2
October........ 59,391.2 23,409 64,622.1 44,997 1,066,514 68,406 8.4
November..... 56,522.2 23,267 61,288.6 42,693 1,013,173 65,960 8.0
December...... 56,157.0 24,264 64,519.6 44,934 1,037,819 69,198 8.2
Total whole
milk sold... 699,202.5 $272,440 774,879.7 $535,946 12,677,107 $808,386 100.0
Cream sold (pounds of milk equivalent)............... 424,942 20,757
Butter sold (pounds of milk equivalent) ................. 135,393 3,326
Buttermilk sold.... ........................... 13,143
Skimmilk sold ...................................... ......... 350
Total milk and products sold (pounds of milk
equivalent) ................................ 13,237,442 845,962
Milk and its products used on the farm (pounds of milk
equivalent)..................................... 596,637 29,322
Total milk produced ............................ 13,834,079 $875,284


The percentage value of retailed milk of all whole milk sold
was 65 in November, December, January, February and March,
66 in October, 67 in April and September, and 68 the other months.
The percent of whole milk sold each month ranged from 7.6
in February to 8.7 in July.
The value of cream, butter, buttermilk and skimmilk sold was
4.4 percent of the total value of all dairy products sold.
The value of milk and its products used on the farm was 3.3
percent of the value of milk produced.
In the Miami district 31.3 percent of the gallons and 48.4 per-
cent of the receipts from whole milk were from milk retailed
(Table LXXIV).
The percentage value of retailed milk of all whole milk sold
was 44 in May, 45 in January and March, 46 in April and Decem-
ber, 47 in February, 49 in June, and from 51 to 55 percent during
the other months.







94 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE LXXIV.-RETURNS FOR MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS BY MONTHS ON 36
DAIRY FARMS, MIAMI DISTRICT, 1927.

Wholesale Percent
Wholesale Retail and retail of sales
Months --- by months
Gallons Value Gallons Value Pounds Value (pounds)
January..... 105,411.9$ 54,896 47,012.71$ 44,349 1,310,852$ 99,245 9.5
February..... 91,601.9 45,369 42,773.5 40,392 1,155,628 85,761 8.4
March....... 100,154.2 46,581 41,890.8 38,614 1,221,587 85,195 8.9
April........ 94,375.4 41,976 38,849.8 35,544 1,145,737 77,520 8.3
May........ 101,800.2 43,095 38,313.5 34,087 1,204,978 77,182 8.7
June........ 88,781.8 33,107 36,452.2 32,439 1,077,012 65,546 7.8
July......... 86,025.0 30,692 39,378.0 31,947 1,078,466 62,639 7.8
August....... 84,633.5 31,004 39,205.0 32,110 1,065,011 63,114 7.7
September... 80,713.3 30,291 41,600.8 36,587 1,051,901 66,878 7.6
October...... 86,833.0 36,952 45,267.6 39,662 1,136,065 76,614 8.3
November.... 81,210.7 34,973 45,633.6 40,529 1,090,861 75,502 7.9
December.... 100,436.9 49,643 46,021.5 42,539 1,259,542 92,182 9.1
Total whole
milk sold... 1,101,977.8 $478,579 502,399.0 $448,799 13,797,640 $927,378 100.0
Whole milk given to neighbors........................ 2,666 .....
Cream sold (pounds of milk equivalent) ................ 615,462 26,425
Butter sold (pounds of milk equivalent) ................ 120,138 3,252
Buttermilk sold...................................... .......... 15,003
Skimmilk sold.................. ............................. 2,254
Total milk and its products sold (pounds of milk
equivalent) ................................... 14.535,906 $974,312
Milk and its products used on the farm (pounds of milk
equivalent) ..................................... 390,121 20,651
Total milk produced ......................... 14,926,027 $994,963


The percent of whole milk sold each month ranged from 7.6 in
September to 9.5 in January.
The value of cream, butter, buttermilk and skimmilk sold was
4.8 percent of the total value of dairy products sold.
The value of milk and its products used on the farm was 2.1
percent of the total value of all milk produced.
In the Tampa district 25.5 percent of the gallons and 34.5 per-
cent of the receipts from whole milk were from milk retailed
(Table LXXV).
The percentage value of retailed milk of all whole milk sold was
31 in December, January and February, 34 in March, 35 in Sep-
tember and October, 36 in April, July, August and November, and
37 in May and June.
The total value of cream, butter and buttermilk sold was only
$633.







Bulletin 246, An Economic Study of 249 Dairy Farms 95

Milk and its products used on the farm in this district made up
3.4 percent of the total value of milk produced.
In the St. Petersburg district the conditions found at Tampa
were reversed. In this district 78 percent of the value of whole
milk sales was from retail milk (Table LXXVI).

TABLE LXXV.-RETURNS FOR MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS BY MONTHS ON 58
DAIRY FARMS, TAMPA DISTRICT, 1927.

Wholesale Percent
Wholesale Retail and retail of sales
Months ----- by
Gallons Value Gallons Value, Pounds Value months
(pounds)
January..... 95,778.8S 45,311 30,287$ 20,321 1,084,166$ 65,632 8.5
February.... 87,069.5 39,336 26,936 17,932 980,447 57,268 7.7
March....... 97,261.7 40,895 31,192 20,790 1,104,702 61,685 8.7
April........ 91,153.7 38,307 31,800 21,269 1,057,402 59,576 8.3
May........ 92,279.3 38,567 33,852 22,670 1,084,729 61,237 8.5
June........ 89,211.5 37,027 32,940 22,108 1,050,503 59,135 8.2
July......... 92,113.3 38,362 32,581 21,696 1,072,371 60,058 8.4
August...... 90,961.6 38,526 31,961 21,304 1,057,134 59,830 8.3
September... 90,376.9 39,193 31,590 21,034 1,048,915 60,227 8.2
October...... 93,011.2 40,516 32,767 21,744 1,081,692 62,260 8.5
November.... 88,697.4 38,731 32,250 21,438 1,040,148 60,169 8.1
December.... 97,461.0 46,476 30,930 20,710 1,104,163 67,186 8.6
Total whole
milk sold. 1,105,375.9 $481,247 379,086 $253,016 12,766,372 $734,263 100.0
Cream sold (pounds of milk equivalent) ................ 819 $ 32
Butter sold (pounds of milk equivalent) ............... 2,024 55
Buttermilk sold .................................. . ..... 546
Total milk and its products sold (pounds of milk
equivalent) .................................... 12,769,2158734,896
Milk and its products used on the farm (pounds of milk
equivalent)..................................... 521,739 26,217
Total milk produced ........................... 13,290,954 $761,113


The percentage value of retailed milk to all whole milk sold was
74 in April, 76 in May and June, 77 in March and September, 78
in December, January, February and July, 80 in August and
November, and 81 in October.
The percent of whole milk sold each month ranged from 7.0 in
August to 9.8 in December.
The value of cream, butter and buttermilk sold was 3.9 percent
of the value of milk and its products sold.
The value of milk and its products used on the farm was 3.1
percent of the value of all milk produced.







96 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE LXXVI.-RETURNS FOR MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS BY MONTHS ON 24
DAIRY FARMS, ST. PETERSBURG DISTRICT, 1927.

Wholesale Percent
Wholesale Retail and retail of sales
Months by mos.
Gallons Value Gallons Value Pounds Value (pounds)
January..... 17,069.0$ 8,464 37,578.8$ 30,882 469,971$ 39,346 9:7
February..... 15,983.0 7,802 32,979.0 26,884 421,073 34,686 8.7
March....... 17,384.0 8,122 34,365.0 27,738 445,041 35,860 9.2
April........ 17,858.0 7,951 28,264.0 22,884 396,649 30,835 8.2
May........ 15,642.2 6,555 26,928.5 21,204 366,108 27,759 7.6
June........ 14,550.5 6,276 26,046.0 20,279 349,130 26,555 7.2
July......... 13,861.5 5,961 26,939.8 20,686 350,891 26,647 7.3
August....... 12,215.0 5,342 27,092.8 21,098 338,047 26,440 7.0
September.... 14,930.7 6,556 27,098.8 21,653 361,454 28,209 7.5
October...... 14,443.0 6,482 34,418.1 27,424 420,206 33,906 8.7
November.... 15,795.0 7,109 35,635.0 29,310 442,298 36,419 9.1
December.... 17,591.5 8,757 37,682.6 31,324 475,357 40,081 9.8
Total whole
milksold. 187,323.4$ 85,377 375,028.4 $301,366 4,836,225 $386,743 100.0
Cream sold (pounds of milk equivalent) ................ 280,405 11,832
Butter sold (pounds of milk equivalent)................ 31,291 677
Buttermilk sold .................................. .. ....... 3,145
Synthetic buttermilk sold (pounds of milk equivalent)... 1,462 102
Total milk and its products sold (pounds of milk
equivalent) ................................... 5,149,383 $402,499
Milk and its products used on the farm (pounds of milk
equivalent)...................................... 198,927 12,687
Total milk produced ........................... 5,348,310$415,186


In the Orlando district two-thirds of the value and 53.1 percent
of the gallons of whole milk sold were from milk retailed (Table
LXXVII).
The percentage value of retailed milk of all whole milk sold was
61 in January and February, 63 in December and March, 65 in
April, 66 in May, 68 in June, 69 in July and August, 73 in October
and November, and 74 in September.
The percent of whole milk sold each month ranged from 7.6 in
August and September to 9.1 in January.
The value of cream, butter, buttermilk and skimmilk sold was
2.7 percent of the total value of all dairy products sold.
The value of milk and its products used on the farm was 3.8
percent of the total value of milk produced.
In the Ocala district 32.1 percent of the gallons and 50.5 percent
of the receipts from whole milk were from milk retailed (Table
LXXVIII).





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs