• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Farm organization, receipts, expenses...
 Comparison of averages for all...
 Factors that appeared to have contributed...
 Summary
 Acknowledgement
 Appendix






Group Title: Agricultural economics mimeo report - Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Florida - EC 67-6
Title: An Economic description of 27 Florida dairy farms operated by the same operators, 1960-1964
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071970/00001
 Material Information
Title: An Economic description of 27 Florida dairy farms operated by the same operators, 1960-1964
Physical Description: 76 l. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: University of Florida -- Agricultural Experiment Station
Green, R. E. L
Cribbett, A. F
Alston, Clifford, 1910-
Publisher: Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1967
 Subjects
Subject: Dairying -- Economic aspects -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by R. E. L. Greene, A. F. Cribbett and Clifford Alston.
Funding: Agricultural economics mimeo report - Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Florida - EC 67-6
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00071970
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 64020121

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Agricultural extension's dairy farm management program
            Page 1
            Page 2
        Purposes of study
            Page 3
        Method of study and presentation of data
            Page 3
    Farm organization, receipts, expenses and returns, 1960 to 1964
        Page 4
        Acres operated and use of land
            Page 4
            Page 5
        Number and rate of turnover of cows in milking herd and heifers raised
            Page 4
        Amount and distribution of capital
            Page 6
        Amount of milk sold
            Page 7
        Receipts
            Page 7
            Page 8
            Page 9
        Expenses
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
        Returns
            Page 16
            Page 17
        Trends in man equivalent of labor and efficiency in the use of labor and capital
            Page 18
            Page 19
        Summary of changes in selected characteristics, 1960 to 1964
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
    Comparison of averages for all farms with those for the seven low and seven high cost farms
        Page 23
        Size of farm
            Page 24
        Acres operated and use of land
            Page 25
        Number and rate of turnover of cows in the milking herd and number of calves raised
            Page 26
        Amount and distribution of capital
            Page 27
        Amount of mild sold and selected factors
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
        Receipts
            Page 30
        Expenses
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
            Page 37
        Returns
            Page 38
            Page 39
        Man equivalents of labor and efficiency in the use of labor and capital
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
    Factors that appeared to have contributed to or limited adjustments
        Page 44
        Farm A
            Page 45
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
        Farm B
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
        Farm C
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
        Farm D
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
        Farm E
            Page 62
            Page 63
            Page 64
            Page 65
        Farm F
            Page 66
            Page 67
            Page 68
            Page 69
            Page 70
        General summary for small medium and large farms showing limited or good progress
            Page 71
    Summary
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
    Acknowledgement
        Page 74
    Appendix
        Page 75
        Page 76
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida




IUJ 19

Febar 7; 7


Agricultural Economics
Mimeo Report EC 67-0


AN ECONOMIC DESCRIPTION OF

27 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS

OPERATED BY THE

SAME OPERATORS,

1960-1964





R. E. L. Greene, A. F. Cribbett and Clifford Alston
Agricultural Economist, Assistant to the Provost
of Agriculture and Extension Economist Farm
Management, Respectively


Department of Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville









TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


INTRODUCTION . . . .. . . .

Agricultural Extension's Dairy Farm Management Program .
Purposes of Study . . . . ..
Method of Study and Presentation of Data . .

FARM ORGANIZATION, RECEIPTS, EXPENSES AND RETURNS, 1960 to 1964


Acres Operated and Use of Land . . .
Number and Rate of Turnover of Cows in
Milking Herd and Heifers Raised . .
Amount and Distribution of Capital . .
Amount of Milk Sold . . ....
Receipts .. . . . ..
Expenses . . . . .
Returns . . . .
Trends in Man Equivalent of Labor and Efficiency
in the Use of Labor and Capital. . .
Summary of Changes in Selected Characteristics,
1960 to 1964 . . . . .

COMPARISON OF AVERAGES FOR ALL FARMS WITH THOSE FOR THE


SEVEN LOW AND SEVEN HIGH COST FARMS . . . .


Size of Farm . . . .
Acres Operated and Use of Land . .
Number and Rate of Turnover of Cows in the
Milking Herd and Number of Calves Raised .
Amount and Distribution of Capital . .
Amount of Milk Sold and Selected Factors. .
Receipts . . . . .
Expenses . . . .
Returns .... .. .
Man Equivalents of Labor and Efficiency in the
Use of Labor and Capital . . .

FACTORS THAT APPEARED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO OR
LIMITED ADJUSTMENTS. . . . .

Farm A. .. . . . ..
Farm B. . . . . .


. . 45
. . 49


,










Page

Farm C. ...... . 53
57
62
Farm E. . . . ....... 62
Farm E. . . . * * 66
F a r m F . . 0 * * '
General Summary for Small, Medium and Large Farms
Showing Limited and Good Progress. . . 71

SUR3 ARY ... .. . . . . . 71

ACITNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . * 74

APPENDIX. .. . . .. ........... 75










AN ECONOMIC DESCRIPTION OF 27 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS OPERATED BY
THE SAME OPERATORS, 1960--1964

INTRODUCTION

Since the early 1940's Florida's agriculture has been in a constant
state of change. For many types of farms, the most pronounced characteristic
of this change has been fewer but larger farms. The Florida dairy industry
has experienced rapid change and re-adjustment, especially since 1954. In
1954, there were 174,000 milk cows on 1,1752 commercial dairy farms. The
number of dairy farms had decreased to 604 by 1964 but milk cow numbers had
increased to 178,0003, Milk production per cow increased from an average
of 4,600 pounds in 1954 to 7,580 pounds in 1964.


Agricultural Extension's Dairy
Farm Management Program

Prior to 1958, the Agricultural Extension Service offered the more
traditional programs of educational assistance for dairymen. These programs
included schools, shortcourses, field days, tours and individual consultation
with primary emphasis on dairy and forage production technology. However,
it became increasingly apparent that traditional programs were not fulfilling
the educational assistance needs of many commercial dairy farm operators and
managers. Realizing the increasing necessity of these people to recognize
more rapidly the characteristics of their farms which require adjustments, the
Agricultural Extension Service inaugurated a pilot dairy farm business analysis
program in Manatee and Polk Counties in 1959.


1Florida Agricultural Statistics Dairy Summary 1963 Issue, Florida
Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, Florida, page 7.

Office Records, Division of Dairy Industry, Florida Department of
Agriculture, Tallahassee, Florida.

3Florida Agricultural Statistics Dairy Summary 1964 Issue, Florida
Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, Florida, page 3.

Under the leadership of Clifford Alston, Extension Economist, Farm
Management, and through the cooperation of county agents and dairymen in
Manatee and Polk Counties, 17 dairy farm business records encompassing the
1958 business year were collected and summarized. These results were
published as the Manatee County Dairy Farm Business Summary for 1958,Manatee
County Extension Service, and the Polk County Dairy Farm Business Summary
for 1958, Polk County Extension Service.










AN ECONOMIC DESCRIPTION OF 27 FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS OPERATED BY
THE SAME OPERATORS, 1960--1964

INTRODUCTION

Since the early 1940's Florida's agriculture has been in a constant
state of change. For many types of farms, the most pronounced characteristic
of this change has been fewer but larger farms. The Florida dairy industry
has experienced rapid change and re-adjustment, especially since 1954. In
1954, there were 174,000 milk cows on 1,1752 commercial dairy farms. The
number of dairy farms had decreased to 604 by 1964 but milk cow numbers had
increased to 178,0003, Milk production per cow increased from an average
of 4,600 pounds in 1954 to 7,580 pounds in 1964.


Agricultural Extension's Dairy
Farm Management Program

Prior to 1958, the Agricultural Extension Service offered the more
traditional programs of educational assistance for dairymen. These programs
included schools, shortcourses, field days, tours and individual consultation
with primary emphasis on dairy and forage production technology. However,
it became increasingly apparent that traditional programs were not fulfilling
the educational assistance needs of many commercial dairy farm operators and
managers. Realizing the increasing necessity of these people to recognize
more rapidly the characteristics of their farms which require adjustments, the
Agricultural Extension Service inaugurated a pilot dairy farm business analysis
program in Manatee and Polk Counties in 1959.


1Florida Agricultural Statistics Dairy Summary 1963 Issue, Florida
Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, Florida, page 7.

Office Records, Division of Dairy Industry, Florida Department of
Agriculture, Tallahassee, Florida.

3Florida Agricultural Statistics Dairy Summary 1964 Issue, Florida
Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, Florida, page 3.

Under the leadership of Clifford Alston, Extension Economist, Farm
Management, and through the cooperation of county agents and dairymen in
Manatee and Polk Counties, 17 dairy farm business records encompassing the
1958 business year were collected and summarized. These results were
published as the Manatee County Dairy Farm Business Summary for 1958,Manatee
County Extension Service, and the Polk County Dairy Farm Business Summary
for 1958, Polk County Extension Service.











In the business analysis program, county agents, through personal
interviews with farm operators or managers, collect information relative to
the business organization and operation of individual farms (for the previous
fiscal year). These data provide a basis for calculating the efficiency
with which resources were used as well as costs and returns for the dairy
enterprise. After the records are summarized and analyzed, each cooperator
receives a summary for his individual operation together with comparable
average figures for all farms in his area and the state. The summary includes
data on size of farm, land utilization, number of milk cows and heifers, rate
of production, labor efficiency, use of capital, receipts, expenses and an
income summary.

The dairy business analysis program is aimed at providing a tool to
help dairymen identify weak spots in their business operations. The summary
is designed to eouip farm operators with a better basis for considering the
desirability of alternate courses of action.

The distribution of the first published dairy business summaries
spurred interest among dairy farm operators and county agents in several
areas of the state. Records were obtained from 63 operators in 14 counties
for 1960. Participation in the program has grown steadily. For the 1965
fiscal year operators of 83 farms from 20 counties participated in the program.


Table l.--Number of
Extension
to 1965.


Farms and Counties Included in the Florida Agricultural
Service Dairy Farm Business Analysis Program, 1959


Year Numberr Number
of farms-b / of counties

1959 17 2
1960 63 14
1961 76 18
1962 66 17

1963 75 22
1964 72 18
1965 83 20

1/Data for farms are for the previous fiscal year.











Purposes of Study

Of the 83 farms enrolled in the business analysis program in 1965,
27 operators had supplied data for their operations each year for the five
fiscal years 1960 through 1964. Individual operating units were not the
same in most cases for the five years because of increases in size of farms
or shifts in location.

The records for these farms were summarized and analyzed to:
(1) Show year to year changes from 1960 to 1964 that occurred on these 27
dairy farms whose operators had received more than average educational
assistance; (2) Compare averages for the 27 farms for the five-year period with
those for the one-fourth of the farms with the lowest and the one-fourth with
the highest average net costs per hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M.1 milk
sold; (3) Attempt to identify factors that appeared to have contributed to or
limited adjustments based on a study of selected case farms which had shown
good or little progress.

Method of Study and Presentation of Data

Annual averages were calculated for the 27 farms for each of the
five years 1960 to 1964, The data for individual years are presented to show
trends and year-to-year changes for the five-year period.

A five-year average for all data was calculated for each farm. The
farms were then arrayed from high to low on the basis of average net cost per
hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold (Appendix A, Table 1). Averages
per farm were then calculated for all farms and the seven low and seven high
cost farms. These data are presented to compare averages and show differences
for these three groups of farms.

Selection and analysis of case-study farms.--Six case-study farms
were selected for intensive analysis in an attempt to identify factors that
appeared to have contributed to or limited adjustments over the study period.
In selecting case farms, all farms were grouped according to size based on the
amount of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold per farm annually during the period
1960-64. Small farms were those that sold less than 800,000 pounds, medium
800,000 to 1,999,999 pounds, and large 2,000,000 pounds or over. Average


IFour percent fat corrected milk was calculated as follows:
(.4 x pounds of milk) plus (15 x pounds of butterfat) equals pounds of 4
percent F.C.M. milk. If on Farm A and B, the average production per cow was
9,500 pounds per year and the average butterfat 4.3 and 3.8 percent respectively,
the production per cow in terms of 4 percent fat corrected milk would be
9,920 pounds on Farm A and 9,215 pounds on Farm B.











Purposes of Study

Of the 83 farms enrolled in the business analysis program in 1965,
27 operators had supplied data for their operations each year for the five
fiscal years 1960 through 1964. Individual operating units were not the
same in most cases for the five years because of increases in size of farms
or shifts in location.

The records for these farms were summarized and analyzed to:
(1) Show year to year changes from 1960 to 1964 that occurred on these 27
dairy farms whose operators had received more than average educational
assistance; (2) Compare averages for the 27 farms for the five-year period with
those for the one-fourth of the farms with the lowest and the one-fourth with
the highest average net costs per hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M.1 milk
sold; (3) Attempt to identify factors that appeared to have contributed to or
limited adjustments based on a study of selected case farms which had shown
good or little progress.

Method of Study and Presentation of Data

Annual averages were calculated for the 27 farms for each of the
five years 1960 to 1964, The data for individual years are presented to show
trends and year-to-year changes for the five-year period.

A five-year average for all data was calculated for each farm. The
farms were then arrayed from high to low on the basis of average net cost per
hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold (Appendix A, Table 1). Averages
per farm were then calculated for all farms and the seven low and seven high
cost farms. These data are presented to compare averages and show differences
for these three groups of farms.

Selection and analysis of case-study farms.--Six case-study farms
were selected for intensive analysis in an attempt to identify factors that
appeared to have contributed to or limited adjustments over the study period.
In selecting case farms, all farms were grouped according to size based on the
amount of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold per farm annually during the period
1960-64. Small farms were those that sold less than 800,000 pounds, medium
800,000 to 1,999,999 pounds, and large 2,000,000 pounds or over. Average


IFour percent fat corrected milk was calculated as follows:
(.4 x pounds of milk) plus (15 x pounds of butterfat) equals pounds of 4
percent F.C.M. milk. If on Farm A and B, the average production per cow was
9,500 pounds per year and the average butterfat 4.3 and 3.8 percent respectively,
the production per cow in terms of 4 percent fat corrected milk would be
9,920 pounds on Farm A and 9,215 pounds on Farm B.







labor income per cow was calculated for each farm for the two-year periods
1960 and 1961 and 1963 and 1964. The amount of change in labor income per
cow between 1960-61 and 1963-64 was used as the standard for measuring the
most or least progress (Appendix A, Table 2). One farm showing good and one
showing little or no progress were selected from each size group. A ruestion-
naire was constructed and the operator of each of the farms interviewed to
obtain desired supplemental information.



FARM ORGANIZATION, RECEIPTS, EXPENSES AND RETURNS,
1960 to 1964

To show trends and year-to-year changes that occurred, annual averages
are presented for selected items for the 27 farms. Included are data on use
of various farm resources, receipts, expenses and returns. Data are also
presented on various efficiency factors affecting the operation of a dairy
farm. Changes in selected characteristics are discussed.

Acres Operated and Use of Land

Acres of land per farm and per cow in various uses are shown in
Table 2. Forage crops acreage per farm did not vary appreciably from year to
year, but acres of forage crops double cropped changed considerably. Acres
in improved pasture per farm were about the same each year, except in 1964,
when there was an increase of 44 acres. Total acres operated per farm
increased by 62 between 1963 and 1964 but only minor changes occurred in other
years.

Acres devoted to forage crops per cow were about the same each year
but there was considerable variation in acres of forage crops per cow including
land double-cropped. Acres of improved pasture averaged about one acre per
cow but fluctuated from year to year due to changes in number of cows and
total acres in improved posture. Total acres operated per cow fluctuated from
1.95 in 1960 to 1.64 in 1963.

Number and Rate of Turnover of Cows in the Milking
Herr and Heifers Raised

Table 3 shows the number of milk cows on hand at the beginning and
end of the year, additions and subtractions during the year, years in the
milking herd, replacements raised and average number of cows for the year.
Number of cows per farm increased each year with the largest increases
occurring in 1963 and 1964, Number of cows per farm increased by 51 or 24
percent from 1960 to 1964. Years cows remained in the milking herd increased
from 3.05 in 1960 to 3.34 years in 1964.

Heifers per farm and number of additions to the herd that were raised
increased steadily during the study period. However, the percent of total
replacements raised fluctuated due to variations in number of cows entering
the herd.







labor income per cow was calculated for each farm for the two-year periods
1960 and 1961 and 1963 and 1964. The amount of change in labor income per
cow between 1960-61 and 1963-64 was used as the standard for measuring the
most or least progress (Appendix A, Table 2). One farm showing good and one
showing little or no progress were selected from each size group. A ruestion-
naire was constructed and the operator of each of the farms interviewed to
obtain desired supplemental information.



FARM ORGANIZATION, RECEIPTS, EXPENSES AND RETURNS,
1960 to 1964

To show trends and year-to-year changes that occurred, annual averages
are presented for selected items for the 27 farms. Included are data on use
of various farm resources, receipts, expenses and returns. Data are also
presented on various efficiency factors affecting the operation of a dairy
farm. Changes in selected characteristics are discussed.

Acres Operated and Use of Land

Acres of land per farm and per cow in various uses are shown in
Table 2. Forage crops acreage per farm did not vary appreciably from year to
year, but acres of forage crops double cropped changed considerably. Acres
in improved pasture per farm were about the same each year, except in 1964,
when there was an increase of 44 acres. Total acres operated per farm
increased by 62 between 1963 and 1964 but only minor changes occurred in other
years.

Acres devoted to forage crops per cow were about the same each year
but there was considerable variation in acres of forage crops per cow including
land double-cropped. Acres of improved pasture averaged about one acre per
cow but fluctuated from year to year due to changes in number of cows and
total acres in improved posture. Total acres operated per cow fluctuated from
1.95 in 1960 to 1.64 in 1963.

Number and Rate of Turnover of Cows in the Milking
Herr and Heifers Raised

Table 3 shows the number of milk cows on hand at the beginning and
end of the year, additions and subtractions during the year, years in the
milking herd, replacements raised and average number of cows for the year.
Number of cows per farm increased each year with the largest increases
occurring in 1963 and 1964, Number of cows per farm increased by 51 or 24
percent from 1960 to 1964. Years cows remained in the milking herd increased
from 3.05 in 1960 to 3.34 years in 1964.

Heifers per farm and number of additions to the herd that were raised
increased steadily during the study period. However, the percent of total
replacements raised fluctuated due to variations in number of cows entering
the herd.





5




Table 2.--Acres of Land per Farm and per Cow in Various Uses, 27 Florida
Dairy Farms, 1960 to 1964.


Item : 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964
:


Forage crops
Less acres double-cropped
Total forage crop land

Improved pasture
Less acres double-cropped
Total improved pasture land

Unimproved pasture
Other land
Total acres operated


Forage crops
Less acres double-cropped
Total forage crop land

Improved pasture
Less acres double-cropped
Total improved pasture land

Unimproved pasture
Other land
Total acres operated


45
18
27

291
65
226

75
90
418


.21
.09
.12

1.36
.30
1,06

.35
1.95
1.95


Acres per farm
86 71 57
59 47 27
27 24 30


285 285
50 52
235 233


52
101
415


53
81
391


293
54
239

55
87
411


Acres per cow
.38 .32 .23
.26 .21 .11
.12 .11 .12


1.31
.23
1.08

.24
.47
1.91


1.28
.23
1.05

.24
.36
1.76


1.18
.22
.96

.22
_34
1.64


61
29
32

348
65
283

67
91
473


.23
.11
.12

1.31
.24
1.07

.25
.34
1.78







labor income per cow was calculated for each farm for the two-year periods
1960 and 1961 and 1963 and 1964. The amount of change in labor income per
cow between 1960-61 and 1963-64 was used as the standard for measuring the
most or least progress (Appendix A, Table 2). One farm showing good and one
showing little or no progress were selected from each size group. A ruestion-
naire was constructed and the operator of each of the farms interviewed to
obtain desired supplemental information.



FARM ORGANIZATION, RECEIPTS, EXPENSES AND RETURNS,
1960 to 1964

To show trends and year-to-year changes that occurred, annual averages
are presented for selected items for the 27 farms. Included are data on use
of various farm resources, receipts, expenses and returns. Data are also
presented on various efficiency factors affecting the operation of a dairy
farm. Changes in selected characteristics are discussed.

Acres Operated and Use of Land

Acres of land per farm and per cow in various uses are shown in
Table 2. Forage crops acreage per farm did not vary appreciably from year to
year, but acres of forage crops double cropped changed considerably. Acres
in improved pasture per farm were about the same each year, except in 1964,
when there was an increase of 44 acres. Total acres operated per farm
increased by 62 between 1963 and 1964 but only minor changes occurred in other
years.

Acres devoted to forage crops per cow were about the same each year
but there was considerable variation in acres of forage crops per cow including
land double-cropped. Acres of improved pasture averaged about one acre per
cow but fluctuated from year to year due to changes in number of cows and
total acres in improved posture. Total acres operated per cow fluctuated from
1.95 in 1960 to 1.64 in 1963.

Number and Rate of Turnover of Cows in the Milking
Herr and Heifers Raised

Table 3 shows the number of milk cows on hand at the beginning and
end of the year, additions and subtractions during the year, years in the
milking herd, replacements raised and average number of cows for the year.
Number of cows per farm increased each year with the largest increases
occurring in 1963 and 1964, Number of cows per farm increased by 51 or 24
percent from 1960 to 1964. Years cows remained in the milking herd increased
from 3.05 in 1960 to 3.34 years in 1964.

Heifers per farm and number of additions to the herd that were raised
increased steadily during the study period. However, the percent of total
replacements raised fluctuated due to variations in number of cows entering
the herd.










Table 3.--Average Number of Cows in the Herds at the Beginning and
End of the Year, Number of Additions and Subtractions,
Yecrs in Milking Herd, Replacements Raised, and Average
Number of Cows for the Year, 27 Florida Dairy Farms,
1960 to 1964.


Item : 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964

Number of cows at the
beginning of the year 207 222 218 242 270

Additions:
Purchased 49 29 48 57 41
Replacements raised 36 37 46 47 49
Total additions 85 66 94 104 90

Subtractions:
Sold 64 66 64 71 75
Died 6 4 6 5 4
Total subtractions 70 70 70 76 79

Number of cows at end of year 222 218 242 270 281

Years in milking herd 3.05 3.11 3.19 3.28 3.34

Average number of heifers:
Per farm 93 101 115 122 135
Per 10 cows 4.35 4.66 5.19 4.88 5.10

Percent of replacements raised 42.2 57.2 49.1 45.1 54.1

Average number of cows for the
year/ 214 218 222 250 265

--"13-montf'inventory average.


Amount and Distribution of Capital


Estimates were furnished by operators as to the value of
various capital assets owned or rented used in the dairy operation.
Real estate was valued at the level the farm operator considered it
to be worth for dairy purposes. Other assets were valued at their
market value or at cost less accrued depreciation.







Capital owned.--Amount of capital furnished by the operator
increased each year with the largest increases occurring between
1962 and 1963, and 1963 and 1964 (Table 4). The increase in operator's
capital was due mainly to a greater investment in livestock. The
value per cow of owned capital in real estate and machinery and
equipment decreased from 1960 to 1964. The investment per cow in
livestock increased from $366 in 1960 to $401 in 1964, due in part
to an increase in number of heifers per 10 cows. The average invest-
ment of owned capital per cow was $916 in 1960 and $858 in 1964.

Capital managed.--The major difference in amount of capital
managed and capital owned was due to the difference in the value of
land (Table 5). The yearly differences between capital managed and
capital owned in land (not shown in Table 5) fluctuated between
$16,150 in 1961 and $19,640 in 1963. The value per cow of real estate
capital managed decreased from $553 in 1960 to $456 in 1964. The
percent of tot.-,! capital managed in land and improvements decreased
from 1960 to 1954, while the percent for livestock increased.


Amount of Milk Sold

Amount of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold per farm increased
from 1,626,013 pounds in 1960 to 2,355,313 pounds in 1964 or 45
percent (Table 6). Pounds of milk sold per cow per year increased
1,270 pounds during the study period. This was an increase of 254
pounds per year or 17 percent during the five years. This compares
with an average increase of 8501 pounds per cow for all dairy cows
in the state during the same period.


Receipts

Milk receipts per farm increased each year from 1960 to
1964 (Table 7), The amount of increase was $43,536 or 39 percent.
Milk receipts per cow increased sharply from 1960 to 1962, but re-
mained at about the 1962 level in 1963 and 1964 even though produc-
tion per cow increased about 1.2 percent per year from 1962 to 1964.
Average price received per hundredweight for milk declined 17 cents
in 1961, increased 10 cents in 1962, one cent in 1963, and declined
22 cents in 1964, Price in 1964 was 28 cents per hundredweight lower
than the price in 1960.

Total receipts per cow increased each year except in 1963.
Total receipts per hundredweight of milk sold fluctuated from year
to year mainly as price received fluctuated.


1Florida Agricultural Statistics Dairy Summary 1964 Issue,
Florida Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, Florida, page 7.







Capital owned.--Amount of capital furnished by the operator
increased each year with the largest increases occurring between
1962 and 1963, and 1963 and 1964 (Table 4). The increase in operator's
capital was due mainly to a greater investment in livestock. The
value per cow of owned capital in real estate and machinery and
equipment decreased from 1960 to 1964. The investment per cow in
livestock increased from $366 in 1960 to $401 in 1964, due in part
to an increase in number of heifers per 10 cows. The average invest-
ment of owned capital per cow was $916 in 1960 and $858 in 1964.

Capital managed.--The major difference in amount of capital
managed and capital owned was due to the difference in the value of
land (Table 5). The yearly differences between capital managed and
capital owned in land (not shown in Table 5) fluctuated between
$16,150 in 1961 and $19,640 in 1963. The value per cow of real estate
capital managed decreased from $553 in 1960 to $456 in 1964. The
percent of tot.-,! capital managed in land and improvements decreased
from 1960 to 1954, while the percent for livestock increased.


Amount of Milk Sold

Amount of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold per farm increased
from 1,626,013 pounds in 1960 to 2,355,313 pounds in 1964 or 45
percent (Table 6). Pounds of milk sold per cow per year increased
1,270 pounds during the study period. This was an increase of 254
pounds per year or 17 percent during the five years. This compares
with an average increase of 8501 pounds per cow for all dairy cows
in the state during the same period.


Receipts

Milk receipts per farm increased each year from 1960 to
1964 (Table 7), The amount of increase was $43,536 or 39 percent.
Milk receipts per cow increased sharply from 1960 to 1962, but re-
mained at about the 1962 level in 1963 and 1964 even though produc-
tion per cow increased about 1.2 percent per year from 1962 to 1964.
Average price received per hundredweight for milk declined 17 cents
in 1961, increased 10 cents in 1962, one cent in 1963, and declined
22 cents in 1964, Price in 1964 was 28 cents per hundredweight lower
than the price in 1960.

Total receipts per cow increased each year except in 1963.
Total receipts per hundredweight of milk sold fluctuated from year
to year mainly as price received fluctuated.


1Florida Agricultural Statistics Dairy Summary 1964 Issue,
Florida Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, Florida, page 7.










Table 4.--Amount and Distribution of Operator's Capital (Capital Owned)
27 Florida Dairy Farms, 1960 to 1964.


Item 1960 : 1961 : 1962 1963 1964


Land and improvements
Buildings, fences, etc.
Total real estate
Livestock
Machinery and equipment
Feed
Supplies and other
Total


Land and improvements
Buildings, fences, etc.
Total real estate
Livestock
Machinery and equipment
Feed
Supplies and other
Total


$ 77,087
21,322
$ 98,409
78,285
16,242
2,901
104
$195,941



$ 360
100
$ 460
366
76
14
2/
$ 916


Average amount per farm

$ 78,108 $ 70,892 $ 69,898
21,714 23,086 23,194
$ 99,822 $ 93,978 $ 93,092
81,746 88,139 97,459
15,883 16,940 17,328
2,866 3,022 3,283
112 31 14
$200,429 $202,110 $211,176

Average amount per cow-


$ 358
100
$ 458
375
73
13
1
$ 920


$ 319
104
$ 423
397
76
14
2/
$ 910


$ 279
93
$ 372
390
69
13
2/
$ 844


Percent of total


Land and improvements
Buildings, fences, etc.
Total real estate
Livestock
Machinery and equipment
Feed
Supplies and other
Total


39.3
10.9
50.2
39.9
8.3
1.5
.1
100.0


39.0
10.8
49.8
40,8
7.9
1.4
.1
100.0


1/
- Based on a'13-month"inventory average.
2/
-Less than 50 cents.
3/ than .05 percent.
-Less than .05 percent.


$ 75,895
24,181
$100,076
106,194
17,453
3,565
27
$227,315


$ 286
91
$ 377
401
66
14
2/
$ 858


35.1
11.4
46.5
43.6
8.4
1.5
3/
100.0


33.1
11.0
44.1
46.1
8.2
1.6
3/
100.0


33.4
10.6
44.0
46.7
7.7
1.6
3/
100,0











Table 5.--Amount and Distribution of Capital Managed, 27 Florida
Dairy Farms, 1960 to 1964.


Item 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

Average amount per farm

Land and improvements $ 95,475 $ 94,263 $ 88,414 $ 89,541 $ 95,149
Buildings, fences, etc. 22,970 23,436 25415 26.657 25,644
Total real estate 118,445 117,699 113,829 116,198 120,793
Livestock 78,435 81,893 88,278 97,645 106,313
Machinery and equipment 16,242 15,883 17,018 17,402 18,006
Feed 2,901 2,866 3,022 3,283 3,565
Supplies and other 104 112 31 14 27
Total $216,127 $218,453 $222,178 $234,542 $248,704
1/
Average amount per cow-

Land and improvements $ 446 $ 432 $ 398 $ 358 $ 359
Buildings, fences, etc. 107 108 115 107 97
Total real estate $ 553 $ 540 $ 513 $ 465 $ 456
Livestock 367 375 397 390 401
Machinery and equipment 76 73 77 70 68
Feed 14 13 14 13 13
Supplies and others 2/ 1 2/ 2/ 2/
Total $ 1,010 $ 1,002 $ 1,001 $ 938 $ 938
Percent of total

Land and improvements 44.2 43.2 39.8 38.2 38.3
Buildings, fences, etc. 10.6 10.7 11.4 11.4 10.3
Total real estate 54.8 53.9 51.2 49.6 48.6
Livestock 36.3 37.5 39.7 41.6 42.8
Machinery and equipment 7.5 7.3 7.7 7.4 7.2
Feed 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4
Supplies and others 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

!/Based on a "13-month" inventory average.
2/
/-Less than 50 cents,
/Less than .05 percent.









Table 6,--Annual Milk Sales Per Farm and Per Cow, 27 Florida Dairy
Farms, 1960 to 1964.


Pounds of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold

Year Per farm Per cow

Per year Per day Per year Per day

1960 1,626,013 4,455 7,603 20.83
1961 1,768,232 4,844 8,129 22.27
1962 1,900,210 5,206 8,558 23.45
1963 2,152,426 5,897 8,625 23.63
1964 2,355,313 6,453 8,873 24.31


Expenses


A summary of expenses is presented on the
per farm, per cow, per hundredweight of 4 percent
percent of total (Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11).


basis of dollars
F.C.M. milk sold and


Cash expenses,--Total cash expenses per farm before depre-
ciation, interest and charge for operator's labor and management
increased $38,671 from 1960 to 1964. Cost of purchased feed and hired
labor increased $23,934 and $4,557, respectively, during this period.
Total cash expenses per cow were $61.55 more in 1964 than in 1960,
Purchased feed cost per cow increased $46.21, Total cash expenses
per hundredweight of milk sold were 14 cents lower in 1964 than in
1960. Purchased feed cost per hundredweight decreased 23 cents from
1960 to 1962 but increased 31 cents from 1962 to 1963. There was a
net increase of 10 cents per hundredweight in purchased feed cost from
1960 to 1964.

Gross expenses.--Total gross costs per farm increased $42,688
from 1960 to 1964. This amount was $4,017 more than the increase in
cash expenses. The increase in noncash cost reflected an increase in
depreciation due to increased investment in buildings, an increase in

1Value of unpaid family labor included in cash expenses.










Table 7.--Summary of Receipts per Farm, per Cow, per Hundredweight of
4 Percent F.C.M. Milk Sold and Percent of Total Receipts
27 Florida Dairy Farms, 1960 to 1964.


Item 1960 1961 1962 )963 1964
:


Milk sold
Other income:
Net appreciation
on livestock-'
Miscellaneous
Total
Total receipts


Milk sold
Other income:
Net appreciation
on livestock-
Miscellaneous
Total
Total receipts


Average per farm

$111,660 $118,540 $129,253 $146,670 $155,196


2,905 3,583 3,676 2,495 4,324
2,383 2.049 2.205 2 471 4,523
$ 5,288 $ 5,632 $ 5,881 $ 4,966 $ 8,847
$116,948 $124,172 $135,134 $151,636 $164,043

Average per cow

$ 522.13 $ 544.97 $ 582.12 $ 587.72 $ 584.66


13.58
11.14
24.72
546.85


16.48
9.42
25.90 $
570.87 $


16.55
9.94
26.49
608.61


1G.00
9.90
19.90 $
607.62 $


16.29
17.04
33.33
617.99


Average per hundredweight of 4 percent
F.C.M. milk sold


Milk sold
Other income:
Net appreciation
on livestockil
Miscellaneous
Total
Total receipts


$ 6.87 $ 6.70 $


.17
.15
.32 $
7.19 $


.21
.11
.32
7.02


6.80 $ 6.81 $


.20
.11
.31 $
7.11 $


.13
.11
.24
7.05


Percent of total receipts


Milk sold
Other income:
Net appreciate In
on livestock-
Miscellaneous
Total
Total receipts


6.59


.18
.19
.37
6.96


95.5


2.5
2.0
4.5
100.0


95.5


2.9
1.6
4.5
100.0


95.7


2.7
1.6
4.3
100.0


96.7


1.7
1.6
3.3
100.0


94.6


2.6
2.8
5.4
100.0


1/
- The net increase in value of any class of assets was considered
an income. Only in the case of livestock was the amount of the
net increase a positive figure.









Table 8.--Average Expense per Farm, 27 Florida
1964.


Dairy Frms, 1960 to


Item :1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
: : s


Labor:
Hired
Unpaid family
Feed purchased
Fertilizer and lime
Seeds and plants
Machinery and equipment
Supplies
Veterinary and medicines
Transporting milk
Breeding fees
Utilities
Taxes
Insurance
Rent
Repairs, buildings and
fences
Miscellaneous cash
expenses
Total expenses before
depreciation, inter-
est and operator's
labor
Depreciation:
Machinery and equip-
ment
Building and fences
Total depreciation
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent
Operator's labor and
supervision
Total gross costs
Less value of minor
products
Net cost of milk sold


$ 17,759
595
48,365
4,563
588
4,663
2,389
1,082
2,284
1,142
2,056
1,521
954
1,449

1,471


$ 17,890
479
50,804
4,701
558
5,034
2,475
856
1,962
1,201
2,189
1,939
1,189
1,587

1,514


$ 92,574 $ 96,253


4,622
1,744
$ 6,366


4,506
1,727
$ 6,233'


$ 19,207
655
52,053
4,985
530
5,053
2,638
1,064
2,7C8
1,291
2,454
2,140
1,346
1,631:


$ 21,559
539
65,577
4,959
614
4,989
2,747
1,533
3,213
1,520
2,756
2,230
1,484
2,361


$ 22,316
363
72,299
5,717
1,054
5,471
3,264
1,251
3,605
1,650
2,905
2,380
2,079
2,507


1,762 1,730 1,709

2,535 2,544 2,675



$102,052 $120,4C5 $131,245


4,624
2 132
$ -6,756


4,988
2,132
$ 7,120


11,756 12,026 12,127 12,671


5,151
2 120
$ 7,271

13,639


6,197 6,287 6,463 6.893 7 426
$116,893 $120,799 $127,398 $147,089 $159,581


5,288 5,632
$111,605 $115,167


5,881 4,966 8.,847
$121,517 $142,123 $150,734


--











Table 9.--Average Expenses per Cow, 27 Florida Dairy Farms, 1960 to 1964.


Item 1960 :1961 1962 1963 1964
: : : :


Labor:
Hired
Unpaid family
Feed purchased
Fertilizer and lime
Seeds and plants
Machinery and equipment
Supplies
Veterinary and medicines
Transporting milk
Breeding fees
Utilities
Taxes
Insurance
Rent
Repairs, buildings and
fences
Miscellaneous cash
expenses
Total expenses before
depreciation, inter-
est and operator's
labor
Depreciation:
Machinery and equip-
ment
Building and fences
Total depreciation
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent
Operator's labor and
supervision
Total gross costs
Less value of minor
products
Net cost of milk sold


$ 83.04 $ 82.25
2.78 2.20
226.16 233.56
21.34 21.61
2.75 2.56
21.80 23.14
11.17 11.38
5.06 3.93
10.68 9.02
5.34 5.52
9.62 10.06
7.11 8.92
4.46 5.47
6.77 7.30


6.88


6.96


$ 86.50
2.95
234.43
22.45
2.39
22.76
11.88
4.79
12.20
5.82
11.05
9.64
6.06
7.35

7.93


$ 86.39
2.16
262.77
19.87
2.46
19.99
11.01
6.14
12.88
6.09
11,04
8.93
5.95
9.46

7.13


$ 84.07
1.36
272.37
21.54
3.97
20.61
12.29
4.71
13.58
6.21
10.95
8,96
7 ,83
9.45

6.44


7.92 8.63 11.42 10.20 10.09



$432.88 $442.51 $459.62 $482.47 $494.43


21.61
8.16
$ 29.77


20.71
7.94
$ 28.65


20.83
9.60
$ 30.43


19.99
8.54
$ 28.53


19.41
7.99
$ 27.40


54.97 55.17 54.63 50.68 51.47

28.98 28.90 29.11 27.62 27.97
$546.60 $555.23 $573.79 $589.30 $601.27

24.72 25.90 26.49 19.90 33.33
$521.88 $529.33 $547.30 $569.40 $567.94












Table 10.--Average Expenses per Hundredweight of 4
Milk Sold, 27 Florida Dairy Farms, 1960


Percent F.C.M
to 1964.


Item : 1960 1961 ; 1962 1963 1964


Labor:
Hired
Unpaid family
Feed purchased
Fertilizer and lime
Seeds and plants
Machinery and equipment
Supplies
Veterinary and medicines
Transporting milk
Breeding fees
Utilities
Taxes
Insurance
Rent
Repairs, buildings and
fences
Miscellaneous cash
expenses
Total expenses before
depreciation, inter-
est and operator's
labor
Depreciation:
Machinery and equip-
ment
Buildings and fences
Total depreciation
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent
Operator's labor and
supervision
Total gross costs
Less value of minor
products
Net cost of milk sold


$1.09
.04
2.97
.28
.04
.29
.15
.07
.14
.07
.13
.09
.06
.09

.09

.10


$1.01
.03
2.87
.27
.03
.28
.14
.05
.11
.07
.12
.11
.07
.09

.09

.11


$1.01
.03
2.74
.26
.03
.27
.14
.06
.14
.07
.13
.11
.07
.09

.09

.13


$1.00
.03
3.05
.23
.03
.23
.13
.07
.15
.07
.13
.10
.07
.11

.08


$ .95
.02
3.07
.24
.04
.23
.14
.05
.15
.07
.12
.10
.09
.11

.07


.12 .11


$5.70 $5.45 $5.37 $5.60 $5.56


.28
.11
$ .39

.72


.25
.10
$ .35

.68


.24
.11
$ .35

.65


.23
.10
$ .33

.59


.22
.09
$ .31

.58


.38 .36 .34 .32 .32
$7.19 $6.84 $6.71 $6.84 $6.77

.32 .32 .31 .24 .37
$6.87 $6.52 $6.40 $6.60 $6.40












Table 11.--Percent Various Items of Total Gross Costs, 27 Florida
Dairy Farms, 1960 to 1964.


Item 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964


Labor:
Hired
Unpaid family
Feed purchased
Fertilizer and lime
Seeds and plants
Machinery and equipment
Supplies
Veterinary and medicines
Transporting milk
Breeding fees
Utilities
Taxes
Insurance
Rent
Repairs, buildings and
fences
Miscellaneous cash
expenses
Total expenses before
depreciation, inter-
est and operator's
labor
Depreciation:
Machinery and equip-
ment
Buildings and fences
Total depreciation
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent
Operator's labor and
supervision
Total gross costs


15.2
.5
41.4
3.9
.5
4.0
2.0
.9
2.0
1.0
1.8
1.3
.8
1.2

1.3

1.4



79.2


4.0
1.5
5.5

10.0


14.8
.4
42.1
3.9
.5
4.2
2.0
.7
1.6
1.0
1.8
1.6
1,0
1.3

1.2

1.6



79.7


3.7
1.4
5.1

10.0


15.1
.5
40.9
3.9
.4
4.0
2.1
.8
2.1
1.0
1.9
1.7
1.0
1.3

1.4

2.0



80.1


3.6
1.7
5.3

9.5


14.7
.4
44.6
3.4
.4
3.4
1.9
1.0
2.2
1.0
1.9
1.5
1.0
1.6

1.2

1.7



81.9


3.4
1.4
4.8

8.6


5.3 5.2 5.1 4.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


14.0
.2
45.3
3.6
.7
3.4
2.0
.8
2.3
1.0
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.6

1.1

1.7



82.3


3.2
1.3
4.5

8.5

4.7
100.0










the charge for interest resulting from the increased capital investment
of the operator, and an increase in the charge for operator's labor and
supervision. However, as a percent of total gross costs, depreciation,
interest on capital invested and charges for operator's labor and
supervision declined slightly from 1960 to 1964.

Net cost.--The net cost per farm of milk sold increased from
$111,605 in 1960 to $150,735 in 1964 or $39,129. Net cost increased
$20,606 from 1962 to 1963 and $8,611 from 1963 to 1964. Cost of feed
purchased increased $13,524 from 1962 to 1963 and $6,722 from 1963 to
1964. Net cost per cow of milk sold increased $46.06 from 1960 to
1964. However, the increase in total cash expenses was $61.55 per cow
and cost of purchased feeds $46.21.

Net cost per hundredweight of milk sold decreased 35 cents
from 1960 to 1961 and 12 cents from 1961 to 1962; increased 20 cents
from 1962 to 1963; but decreased 20 cents from 1963 to 1964. Cost
of purchased feeds per hundredweight of milk sold increased 31 cents
from 1962 to 1963 but only two cents from 1963 to 1964.

In studying the data on receipts and costs, it should be noted
that over the five-year period the amount of milk sold per farm
increased 45 percent and the value of milk sold 39 percent. On the
other hand, the amount of milk sold per cow increased only 17 percent
and the value of milk sold 12 percent.


Returns

Various measures of returns are shown in Table 12. Receipts
are the total of all receipts shown in Table 7. Expenses are the
amounts shown as total gross costs in Tables 8, 9, and 10 minus
charges for interest on operator's investment and the charge for
operator's labor and supervision.

Farm income.--Farm income is the return to the operator for
all capital owned and for labor and supervision. Farm income was
calculated by subtracting expenses as indicated above from receipts.
Farm income reached a peak in 1962; declined $2,215 from 1962 to
1963; but increased $1,416 from 1963 to 1964 (Table 12). Farm
income per cow and per hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold
followed the same general trend as farm income per farm except amount
per cow was about the same in 1963 as in 1964 and the amount per
hundredweight decreased slightly from 1963 to 1964.

Net returns.--Net returns are the returns above all costs.
Net return was obtained by subtracting from farm income the charges









Table 12.--Summary of Returns per Farm, per Cow and per Hundredweight
of 4 Percent F.C.M. Milk Sold, 27 Florida Dairy Farms,
1960 to 1964.

Item 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

Average per farm


Receipts
Expenses
Farm income
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent
Charge for operator's
labor and supervision
Net returns
Returns to the operator
for:
Labor and supervision
Average capital
invested
Percent return on
investment


Receipts
Expenses
Farm income
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent
Charge for operator's
labor and supervision
Net returns
Returns to the operator
for:
Labor and supervision
Average capital
invested


$116,948
98,940
$ 18,008


$124,172
102,486
$ 21,686


$135,134
108,808
$ 26,326


$151,636
127 525
$24,111


11,756 12,026 12,127 12,671


6,197
$ 55


6,252


6,287 6 463
$ 3,373 $ 7,736


6,893
$ 4,547


9,660 14,199 11,440


11,811 15,399 19,863 17,218


6.03


$ 546.85
462.65
$ 84.20

54.97


7.68


9.82


8.15


Average per cow
$ 570.87 $ 608.61 $ 607.62
471.16 490.05 511.00
$ 99.71 $ 118.56 $ 96.62


55.17


54.63


28.98 28.90 29.11
$ .25 $ 15.64 $ 34.82


29.23

55.22


44.54

70.81


63.93

89.45


50.68


$164,043
138.516
$ 25,527

13,639

7,426
$ 4,462


11,888

18,101

7.96


$ 617.99
521.83
$ 96.16

51.47


27.62 27.97
$ 18.32 $ 16.72


45.94

69.00


44.69

68.19


Receipts
Expenses
Farm income
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent
Charge for operator's
labor and supervision
Net returns
Returns to the operator
for:
Labor and supervision
Average capital
invested


$ 7.
6.
$ 1.


Average per hundredweight
F.C.M. milk sold
19 $ 7.02 $ 7.11 $
09 5.80 5.72
,10 $ 1.22 $ 1.39 $

,72 .68 .65


.38 .36 .34
$ y .18 $ .40


of 4 percent


7.05
5.93
1.12

.59


$ 6.96
5.87
$ 1.09

.58


.32 .32
$ .21 $ .19


.74

1.05


Y/Less than .005 cent,











for interest and operator's labor and management. The average net
returns per farm was $55 in 1960 and $4,462 in 1964. However, net
returns in 1964 was $3,274 below the amount in 1962. The ret returns
per cow and per hundredweight of milk sold followed the same general
pattern as net returns per farm.

Returns to operator for labor and supervision.--This is the
amount available to the operator for his labor and supervision and
conduct of the dairy enterprise after covering all expenses, including
a charge of 6 percent on the value of capital of the operator invested
in the business. This figure was obtained by subtracting the interest
charge from farm income. Returns to the operator for labor and super-
vision increased from $6,252 in 1960 to $14,199 in 1962 but decreased
to slightly less than $12,000 in 1964. Labor income per cow increased
from $29 in 1960 to $64 in 1962 and averaged about $45 in 1963 and
1964. Labor income per hundredweight of milk showed a similar
fluctuation.

Returns on capital invested.--This is the return to the
operator for his capital invested in the business after paying all
expenses including an allowance for his labor, supervision and
management. This amount is not a return in addition to the return to
the operator for labor and supervision but is a different way of
expressing returns. Return on average investment was obtained by
subtracting the charge for operator's labor and supervision from farm
income.

The return to capital increased from $11,811 in 1960 to
$19,863 in 1962 but dropped to $17,218 in 1963 and $18,101 in 1964.
On a per cow basis, return to capital was the highest in 1963 and
lowest in 1961. Returns in 1963 and 1964 were only slightly less than
the return in 1962. When expressed on a percentage basis, the percent
return to capital was 6.03 in 1960, 7.68 in 1961, 9.82 in 1962, 8.15
in 1963 and 7.96 in 1964.

Trends in Man Equivalents of Labor and Efficiency in the
Use'of Labor and Capital

Man equivalents of labor represent the average number of full
time men working on the farm for the year, including the operator,
hired labor and family labor. The average man equivalents of labor
was 5.88 in 1960 and increased to 6.60 in 1964 (Table 13).

Labor efficiency.--Various measures of labor efficiency
indicate the effectiveness of the labor force in accomplishing the
different tasks on the farm. Cows cared for per man were 36.4 in
1960 and 40.2 in 1964. The number of heifers per man increased from
15.8 in 1960 to 20.5 in 1964. Pounds of milk sold per man showed











Table 13.--Man Equivalents of Labor and Labor Efficiency for Selected
Factors, 27 Florida Dairy Farms, 1960 to 1964.


Item 1960 1961 1962 : 1963 1964

Man equivalents
of labor 5.88 5.92 6.37 6.57 6.60
Average per man:
Number of cows 36.4 36.8 34.9 37.1 40.2
Number of heifers 15,8 17.1 18.1 18.5 20.5
Pounds of 4 percent
F.C.M. milk sold 276,725 298,875 298,341 327,633 356,806
Acres operated 71.0 70.5 61.3 62.5 71.7
Acres of forage crops- 7.7 14.4 11.2 8.8 9.3
Acres of improved
pasture- 40.5 48.2 44.7 44.6 52.7

Includes acres double-cropped.




substantial increases each year except in 1962, This was due mainly
to the decrease in number of cows per man in 1962. The pounds of
milk sold per man was 29 percent higher in 1964 than in 1960. Acres
operated per man was approximately 71 in 1960, 1961, and 1964, but
about 10 acres less in 1962 and 1963. Acres of forage crops and
improved pasture per man varied considerably from year to year.
Acres of improved pasture per man was 12.2 acres more in 1964 than
in 1960, or a 30 percent increase.

Use of capital.--Interest on capital owned accounts for about
10 percent of the gross cost of producing milk. Percent capital
turnover for owned and managed capital increased each year from
1960 to 1963, with a slight decrease occurring in 1964 (Table 14).
The capital turnover for capital owned was 57 percent in 1960 and
68 percent in 1964. This means for each dollar of operator's capital
in 1964, 68 cents worth of milk was sold compared to only 57 cents
in 1960. Capital managed per man was $894 higher in 1964 than in
1960 or an increase of about two percent. The value of capital
managed in livestock per man increased from $13,348 in 1960 to
$16,105 in 1964 but the value of capital managed in land decreased
from $16,248'in 1960-to $14,414 in 1964. The value of capital
managed per man in machinery and equipment and buildings and fences
showed little change over the five-year period.










Table 14.--Use of Capital, 27 Florida Dairy Farms, 1960 to 1964.


Item 1960 1961 : 1962 1963 1964

Percent capital
turnover:
Owned 57 59 64 69 68
Managed 52 54 58 63 62

Capital invested per
man (managed):
Total $36,782 $36,924 $34,883 $35,701 $37,676
Livestock 13,348 13,842 13,860 14,863 16,105
Land 16,248 15,933 13,881 13,629 14,414
Machinery and
equipment 2,764 2,685 2,672 2,649 2,728
Buildings and fences 3,909 3,961 3,990 4,058 3,885


Selected direct and indirect items of cost of feed.--The costs
for purchased feeds or production of feed for dairy cattle represent
a major share of the gross costs of producing milk. Total feed costs
represent both cost of purchased feeds and inputs costs (land rent,
interest on land owned in pasture and crops, land taxes, fertilizer
and lime, seeds, and plant material and machinery and labor costs)
for the production of pasture and forage crops (Table 15). Machinery
costs include operation costs, depreciation and interest on equipment
used mainly in the production of forage and pasture.

Total feed costs per cow excluding labor increased 13 percent
for these farms during the five-year period. However, cost per
hundredweight of milk sold was $4.14 in 1964 compared to $4.29 in
1960. This was a decrease of 3.5 percent.


Summary of Changes in Selected Characteristics,
1960 to 1964

Significant adjustments occurred on the 27 farms over the
five-year period (Table 16). There was an increase of 51 in the
average number of cows, the value of capital supplied by the operator
increased a little over $31,000 or 16 percent, and milk sold per
cow increased 1,270 pounds or about 250 pounds per year. Milk sold










Table 15.--Selected Direct and Indirect Items of Cost cf Feed,
27 Florida Dairy Farms, 1960 to 1964.


1960


1961


1962


1963 1964


Average per cow


Purchased feeds
Land and materials:
Rent
Interest
Fertilizer and lime
Seeds and plants
Total1/

Machinery costs:
Operation
Depreciation
Interest
Total

Total costs


Purchased feeds
Land and materials:
Rent
Interest
Fertilizer and lime
Seeds and plants
Total '

Machinery costs:
Operation
Depreciation
Interest
Total

Total costs


$226.16 $233.56 $234.43 $262.77 $272.37


6.77
21.63
21.34
2.75
$ 52.49


$ 21.80
21.61
4.56
$ 47.97


7.30
21.55
21.61
2.56
$ 53.02


$ 23.14
20.71
4.38
$ 48.23


7.35
19.16
22.45
2.39
$ 51.35


$ 22.76
20.83
4.58
$ 48.17


9.46

1 ,87
4 46
$ 48.50


$ 19.99
19.99
4.17
$ 44..15


9.45
17.16
21.45
3.97
$ 52.03


$ 20.61
19.41
3.94
$ 43.96


$326.62 $334.81 $333.95 $355.52 $368.36

Average per hundredweight of 4 percent
F.C.M. milk sold

$ 2.97 $ 2,87 $ 2.74 $ 3.05 $ 3.07


.09
.28
.28
.04
$ .69


$ .29
.28
.06
$ .63


.09
.27
.27
.03
$ .66


$ .28
.25
.05
$ .58


.09
.22
.26
.03
$ .60


$ .27
.24
.05
$ .56


.11
.19
.23
.03
$ .56


$ .23
.23
.05
$ .51


.11
.19
.24
.04
$ .58


$ .23
.22
.04
$ .49


$ 4.29 $ 4.11 $ 3.90 $ 4.12 $ 4.14


Item


1/
-The cost of land taxes was omitted, because there was no way
of allocating the share to total taxes attributed directly
to land.


- --- ------- ---










Table 16.--Summary of Changes in Selected Characteristics,
27 Florida Dairy Farms, 1960 to 1964.


Item 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
*. *


1. Number of cows

2. Acres operated per
cow

3. Value of capital
investment:
Owned
Managed

4. Pounds of 4 percent
F.C.M. milk sold:
Per farm
Per cow

5. Labor efficiency:
Cows per man
Pounds of milk
sold per man

6. Milk receipts:
Per farm
Per cow
Per hundredweight
of milk sold

7. Net cost of milk
sold:
Per farm
Per cow
Per hundredweight
of milk sold


214


1.95


218


1.91


222


1.76


1.64


1.78


$195,941 $200,429 $202,110 $211,176 $227,315
216,127 218,453 222,178 234,542 248,704


1,626,013
7,603


1,768,232
8,129


1,900,210
8,558


2,152,426 2,355,313
8,625 8,873


276,725 298,875 298,341 327,633 356,806


$111,660 $118,540 $129,253 $146,740 $155,196
522 545 582 587 585


6.87


6.70


6.80


6.81


6.59


$111,605 $115,167 $121,517 $142,123 $150,754
552 529 547 569 568


6.87


6.52


6.40


6.60


6.40


8. Returns per farm:
Farm income
Return to operator
for:
Labor and
supervision
Average capital
owned
Net returns


$ 18,008 $ 21,686 $ 26,326 $ 24,111 $ 25,527


6,252

11,811
55


9,660 14,199 11,440 11,888


15,399
3,373


19,863
7,736


17,218
4,547


18,101
4,462











per farm increased 729,300 pounds or 45 percent. The increase in
pounds of milk sold per farm reflected both the 24 percent increase
in average number of cows and the 17 percent increase in the amount
of milk sold per cow.

The number of cows per man varied from 35 to 37 from 1960 to
1963 but averaged 40 in 1964. The pounds of milk sold per man
increased 29 percent from 1960 to 1964 but averaged only 356,806
pounds in 1964. The pounds of milk sold per man in 1964 was below the
amount needed for Florida dairies to be competitive.

Milk receipts per farm were 39 percent higher in 1964 than
in 1960. The net cost per farm for producing milk was up 35 percent.
Price received per hundredweight for 4 percent F.C.M. milk was $6.87
in 1960 and $6.59 in 1964 or a decline of 4 percent.

The greatest adjustment in net cost per hundredweight of
milk sold occurred from 1960 to 1962, with the largest single
adjustment occurring between 1960 and 1961. Net cost increased in
1963 but was at its lowest level in 1964. The peak net return per
hundredweight of milk sold was 40 cents in 1962 but dropped to 19 cents
in 1964.

The average operator showed a positive net return each year.
This means that receipts from the dairy operation were sufficient to
cover all expenses including a charge for operator's labor and
management and also a 6 percent interest charge on the capital
furnished by the operator.

The average farm income increased from $18,008 in 1960 to
$26,326 in 1962. Farm income dropped to $24,111 in 1963 and increased
to $25,527 in 1964. Changes in labor income and return to capital
followed similar patterns. In 1964 compared to 1960, price received
per hundredweight for milk was down 28 cents but net cost of producing
milk was down 47 cents. Farmers showed substantial increases in
various measures of income from 1960 to 1962. Various measures of
income declined from the 1962 level in 1963 and 1964 but still were
substantially above the level in 1961.


COMPARISON OF AVERAGES FOR ALL FARMS WITH THOSE FOR
THE SEVEN LOW AND SEVEN HIGH COST FARMS

In order to compare averages for all farms with those for
the seven low and seven high cost farms, a five-year average cost
per hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold was calculated for











each farm for the period, 1960 to 1964. The farms were then arrayed
from high to low on the basis of net cost per hundredweight of milk
sold. The data for the three groups were then summarized to obtain
averages for all farms in each group. This section includes a
comparison of these groups showing the distribution and use of
various farm resources, receipts, expenses, returns, and various
efficiency and cost factors that affect the operation of a dairy
farm.


Size of Farm

A comparison of six measures of size of farms is shown in
Table 17. Low cost farms were considerably larger than all farms
or high cost farms. On the average, all farms were about twice as
large as high cost farms.


All Far


SCJecLCU CAdOULCO a, Mesue v &- WJi
Farms and High Cost Farms, 27 Florida Dairy
for Five Years, 1960 to 1964.


ms, Low Cost
Farms, Average


:I A : 7 low cost :7 high cost
: Afarms : farms

Capital owned $ 207,395 $ 365,501 $ 97,529
Capital managed 228,001 389,930 102,927
Number of cows 234 417 124
Pounds of 4 percent
F.C.M. milk sold 1,960,439 3,358,212 964,258
Man equivalents of labor 6.27 10.27 3.58
Acres operated 422 765 202


Amount of milk sold on low cost farms was 71 percent more than
on all farms and 248 percent more than on high cost farms. Capital
supplied by the operator averaged $365,501 on low cost farms, $207,395
on all farms and $97,529 on high cost farms. For each measure of
size, except man equivalent of labor, the average low cost farm was
over three times that of the average high cost farm.


~l~~r ~~ _~Elllrcr~ Mlln~~r ~C CIIln ~F Form~


la uLC X-











Acres Operated and Use of Land

On low cost farms, 343 more acres were operated than on all
farms, while on all farms, 220 more acres were operated than on high
cost farms (Table 18). Acres per cow in harvested forage crops was
.15 more on low cost farms than on all farms and .21 acre more than
on high cost farms. On all farms and on high cost farms, total acres
of land per cow devoted to improved permanent pasture were more than
on low cost farms. However, total acres of land per cow on low cost
and all farms were more than on high cost farms.


Table 18.--Acres of Land per Farm and per Cow in Various Uses, All
Farms, Low Cost Farms and High Cost Farms, 27 Florida
Dairy Farms, Average for Five Years, 1960 to 1964.


Item All farms : 7 low cost :7 high cost
: farms farms

Acres per farm

Forage crops 64 174 26
Less acres double-cropped 36 108 12
Total forage cropland 28 66 14

Improved pasture 300 420 153
Less acres double-cropped 57 46 31
Total improved pasture-
land 243 374 122

Unimproved pasture 61 157 19
Other land 90 168 47
Total acres operated 422 765 202
Acres per cow

Forage crops .27 .42 .21
Less acres double-cropped .15 .26 .10
Total forage cropland .12 .16 .11

Improved pasture 1.28 1.01 1.23
Less acres double-cropped .24 .11 .25
Total improved pasture-
land 1.04 .90 .98

Unimproved pasture .26 .38 .15
Other land .38 .40 .38
Total acres operated 1.80 1.84 1.62










Number and Rate of Turnover of Cows in
Milking Herd and Heifers Raised

The number of cows on low cost farms was 183 more than on
all farms and 293 more than on high cost farms (Table 19). Cows
on high cost farms remained in the herds only 2.57 years, compared
to 3.54 years on low cost farms and 3.20 years on all farms. Heifers
per 10 cows were .34 more on low cost than on all farms and 1.92 more
than on high cost farms. About 50 percent of the herd replacements
were raised on all farms and low cost farms compared to only one third
on high cost farms.


Table 19.--Average Number of Cows in the Herds at the Beginning and
End of the Year, Number of Additions and Subtractions,
Years in Milking Herd, Replacements Raised and Average
Number of Cows for the Year, All Farms, Low Cost Farms
and High Cost Farms, 27 Florida Dairy Farms, Average for
Five Years, 1960 to 1964.

Item : All farms :7 low cost :7 high cost
: farms farms

Number of cows at the beginning
of the year 231 404 129
Additions:
Purchased 45 75 32
Replacements raised 43 75 16
Total additions 88 150 48
Subtractions:
Sold 68 110 45
Died 5 8 3
Total subtractions 73 118 48
Number of cows at the end of
the year 246 436 129
Years in milking herd 3.20 3.54 2.57
Average number of heifers:
Per farm 113 216 40
Per 10 cows 4.85 5.19 3.27
Percent replacements raised 49.1 49.7 33.0
Average number of cows for the
year!- 234 417 124

/ "13-month" inventory.







Amount and Distribution of Capital

Capital owned.--Operators of low cost farms employed 76 percent
more owned capital than those of all farms and 275 percent more than
operators on high cost farms (Table 20). The value of capital per
cow in real estate was lower on high and low cost farms than on all
farms. The value per cow of owned capital in livestock on low cost
farms was more than on all farms or high cost farms. Operators of
all farms averaged more owned capital in livestock per cow than those
on high cost farms, partly reflecting the smaller percent of replacements
raised on high cost farms. Capital investment in machinery and equip-
ment per cow averaged $72 on all farms, $63 on low cost farms and $68
on high cost farms. The total operator's investment per cow on all
farms was $11 more than on low cost farms. However, the operator's
investment per cow on low cost farms was $90 more than on high cost
farms.

Percent of total investment in various groups of capital was
not greatly different for the three groups of farms. Operators of
low cost farms averaged slightly more owned capital in land and
livestock and less in building, fences, etc., and machinery and equip-
ment than those on all farms or on high cost farms.

Capital managed.--The major differences between the groups of
farms in the amount of capital managed and owned was reflected in the
value of real estate, mainly in the value of land and improvements
(Table 20). The value of capital managed in land and improvements
was $92,568 on all farms, $153,862 on low cost farms but only $40,000
on high cost farms. Operators of all farms rented 24 percent of the
capital managed in land and improvements while operators of low and
high cost farms rented just slightly more than 15 percent of the
capital managed in land. The total value of capital managed per cow
was $974 on all farms, $935 on low cost farms, and $830 on high cost
farms.


Amount of Milk Sold and Selected Factors

The amount of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold per farm per year
on low cost farms was 71 percent more than that on all farms and 3.5
times the amount sold on high cost farms (Table 21). On a daily
basis the average delivery of milk was 9,201 pounds on low cost farms,
5,351 pounds on all farms and 2,642 pounds on high cost farms.

Amount of milk sold per cow per year averaged 8,048 pounds on
low cost farms, 8,389 on all farms and 7,781 on high cost farms. It
is significant to note that on low cost farms, .93 pound less milk was







Amount and Distribution of Capital

Capital owned.--Operators of low cost farms employed 76 percent
more owned capital than those of all farms and 275 percent more than
operators on high cost farms (Table 20). The value of capital per
cow in real estate was lower on high and low cost farms than on all
farms. The value per cow of owned capital in livestock on low cost
farms was more than on all farms or high cost farms. Operators of
all farms averaged more owned capital in livestock per cow than those
on high cost farms, partly reflecting the smaller percent of replacements
raised on high cost farms. Capital investment in machinery and equip-
ment per cow averaged $72 on all farms, $63 on low cost farms and $68
on high cost farms. The total operator's investment per cow on all
farms was $11 more than on low cost farms. However, the operator's
investment per cow on low cost farms was $90 more than on high cost
farms.

Percent of total investment in various groups of capital was
not greatly different for the three groups of farms. Operators of
low cost farms averaged slightly more owned capital in land and
livestock and less in building, fences, etc., and machinery and equip-
ment than those on all farms or on high cost farms.

Capital managed.--The major differences between the groups of
farms in the amount of capital managed and owned was reflected in the
value of real estate, mainly in the value of land and improvements
(Table 20). The value of capital managed in land and improvements
was $92,568 on all farms, $153,862 on low cost farms but only $40,000
on high cost farms. Operators of all farms rented 24 percent of the
capital managed in land and improvements while operators of low and
high cost farms rented just slightly more than 15 percent of the
capital managed in land. The total value of capital managed per cow
was $974 on all farms, $935 on low cost farms, and $830 on high cost
farms.


Amount of Milk Sold and Selected Factors

The amount of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold per farm per year
on low cost farms was 71 percent more than that on all farms and 3.5
times the amount sold on high cost farms (Table 21). On a daily
basis the average delivery of milk was 9,201 pounds on low cost farms,
5,351 pounds on all farms and 2,642 pounds on high cost farms.

Amount of milk sold per cow per year averaged 8,048 pounds on
low cost farms, 8,389 on all farms and 7,781 on high cost farms. It
is significant to note that on low cost farms, .93 pound less milk was






Table 20.--Amount and Distribution of Operator's Capital (Capital Owned) and Capital Managed, All Farms,
Low Cost Farms and High Cost Farms, 27 Florida Dairy Farms, Average for Five Years, 1960 to 1964,


Capital owned Capital managed
Item
All farms 7 low cost : 7 high cost: All farms 7 low cost 7 high cost
S farms farms farms farms


Average amount per farm


Land and improvements
Building, fences, etc.
Total real estate
Livestock,
Machinery and equipment
Feed
Supplies and other
Total


Land and improvements
Building, fences, etc.
Total real estate
Livestock
Machinery and equipment
Feed
Supplies
Total


Land and improvements
Building, fences, etc.
Total real estate
Livestock
Machinery and equipment
Feed
Supplies and other
Total


$ 74,376
22,700
$ 97,076
90,364
16,769
3,128
57
$207,394


$ 318
97
$ 415
386
72
13
1/
$ 886


35.9
10.9
' 46.8
43.6
8.1
1.5
_2/7
100.0
2/Less


$133,589
34,558
$168,147
166,349
26,185
4,759
62
$365,502


$ 320
83
$ 403
399
63
11
I8
$ 876


36.6
9.4
46.0
45.5
7.2
1.3
100.0


$34,603
11,823
$46,426
42,048
8,439
579
36
$97,528


$ 92,568
24,825
$117,393
90,512
16,911
3,128
57
$228,001


Average amount per cow


$ 279
95
$ 374
339
68
5
1/
$ 786


$ 396
106
$ 502
387
72
13
1/
$ 974


Percent of total
35.5 40.6
12.1 10.9
~7777. ;51.5
43.1 39.7
8.7 7.4
.6 I.4
2, 100.0
100.0 100.0


1/Less than 50 cents


$153,862
38,557
$192,419
166,349
26,331
4,759
62
$389,920


$ 369
92
$ 461
399
63
12
1/
$ 935


39.4
9.9
49.3
42.7
6.8
1.

100.0


$ 40,000
11,823
$ 51,823
42,048
8,439
579
36
$102,925


$ 323
95
$ 418
339
68
3
5
$ 830


38.9
11.5
S50.4
40.8
8.2
00.0

100.0


than .005 percent.









Table 21.--Annual Milk Sales per Farm and per Cow and Other Selected
Factors, All Farms, Low Cost Farms and High Cost Farms,
27 Florida Dairy Farms, Average for Five Years, 1960 to 1964.


Item : All farms : 7 low cost 7 high cost
:' farms farms

Pounds of 4 percent F.C.M.
milk sold:
Per farm:
Per year 1,960,439 3,358,212 964,258
Per day 5,351 9,201 2,642
Per cow:
Per year 8,389 8,048 7,781
Per day 22.98 22.05 21.32
Percent of/milk in various
classes--
Class I 95.7 94.7 95.5
Class II 3.5 4.1 3.3
Other .8 1.2 1.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100,0
Percent butterfat 4.15 4.10 4.02
Blend price received for
4 percent F.C.M. milk per
hundredweight $6.75 $6.65 $6.81

-/Some farms were excluded in some years when a breakdown on the
class utilization was not available. This accounts for apparent
inconsistencies between percent of milk in various classes and
average blend price.



sold per cow per day than on all farms, but .73 more pound than on
high cost farms. Subsequent figures indicate that operators of low
cost farms had the largest number of cows per man equivalent. This
together with economical feeding rates resulted in much greater profits.

On all farms, 95.7 percent of the milk sales was in Class I,
94.7 percent on low cost farms, and 95.5 percent on high cost farms.
On each of the three classes of farms, a little over 3 percent of the
total milk was in Class II sales. Percent butterfat averaged slightly
over 4 percent for all three groups of farms.










Receipts

Data on receipts are presented as averages per farm, per cow,
per hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold and percent of total
(Table 22). Average annual income from the sale of milk was $223,364
on low cost farms, $132,264 on all farms and $65,651 on high cost
farms. On low cost farms, income from the sale of milk accounted
for a smaller percentage of total receipts than on all farms or on
high cost farms. Or stated another way, low cost farms had a large
proportion of their income from inventory increases, partly reflecting
the fact that they raised more heifers per 10 cows.

The value of milk sold per cow was $29.59 more on all farms
than low cost farms and $35.79 more than sales on high cost farms.
Sales of milk per cow on low cost farms was $6.20 more than the value
of sales on high cost farms. The blend price of milk per hundredweight
was lower on low cost farms than on either all farms or high cost
farms. Operators of high cost farms received the highest blend price
per hundredweight of milk sold; six cents more than on all farms and
16 cents more than on low cost farms. However, total receipts per
hundredweight of milk sold were six cents higher on low cost farms
than on all farms and 17 cents higher than on high cost farms.


Expenses

Summaries of expenses are shown on the basis of dollars per
farm, per cow, per hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold and
percent of total expenses (Tables 23, 24, 25 and 26). Although a
detailed listing of expenses is shown, only those which represented
the largest proportion of total costs are discussed.

Hired labor.--Hired labor amounted to 14.7 percent of total
gross cost of producing milk on all farms, 15.9 percent on low cost
farms and 11.8 percent on high cost farms. Cost of hired labor per
cow averaged about the same on all farms and on low cost farms.
However, hired labor cost per cow was $14.98 less on high cost farms
than on all farms and $15.19 less than on low cost farms. High cost
farms being smaller, the operators accounted for a larger proportion
of the total labor supply. The value of operator's labor and
supervision was $41.75 per cow on high cost farms, $22.99 on low
cost farms and $28.47 on all farms. Cost of hired labor per hundred-
weight of milk sold averaged four cents less on all farms than on
low cost farms, but 12 cents more than on high cost farms.










Receipts

Data on receipts are presented as averages per farm, per cow,
per hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold and percent of total
(Table 22). Average annual income from the sale of milk was $223,364
on low cost farms, $132,264 on all farms and $65,651 on high cost
farms. On low cost farms, income from the sale of milk accounted
for a smaller percentage of total receipts than on all farms or on
high cost farms. Or stated another way, low cost farms had a large
proportion of their income from inventory increases, partly reflecting
the fact that they raised more heifers per 10 cows.

The value of milk sold per cow was $29.59 more on all farms
than low cost farms and $35.79 more than sales on high cost farms.
Sales of milk per cow on low cost farms was $6.20 more than the value
of sales on high cost farms. The blend price of milk per hundredweight
was lower on low cost farms than on either all farms or high cost
farms. Operators of high cost farms received the highest blend price
per hundredweight of milk sold; six cents more than on all farms and
16 cents more than on low cost farms. However, total receipts per
hundredweight of milk sold were six cents higher on low cost farms
than on all farms and 17 cents higher than on high cost farms.


Expenses

Summaries of expenses are shown on the basis of dollars per
farm, per cow, per hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold and
percent of total expenses (Tables 23, 24, 25 and 26). Although a
detailed listing of expenses is shown, only those which represented
the largest proportion of total costs are discussed.

Hired labor.--Hired labor amounted to 14.7 percent of total
gross cost of producing milk on all farms, 15.9 percent on low cost
farms and 11.8 percent on high cost farms. Cost of hired labor per
cow averaged about the same on all farms and on low cost farms.
However, hired labor cost per cow was $14.98 less on high cost farms
than on all farms and $15.19 less than on low cost farms. High cost
farms being smaller, the operators accounted for a larger proportion
of the total labor supply. The value of operator's labor and
supervision was $41.75 per cow on high cost farms, $22.99 on low
cost farms and $28.47 on all farms. Cost of hired labor per hundred-
weight of milk sold averaged four cents less on all farms than on
low cost farms, but 12 cents more than on high cost farms.









Table 22.--Summary of Receipts per Farm, per Cow, per Hundredweight of
4 Percent F.C.M. Milk Sold and Percent of Total Receipts,
All Farms, Low Cost Farms and High Cost Farms, 27 Dairy
Farms, Average for Five Years, 1960 to 1964.

Item :All farms 7 low cost 7 high cost
: farms farms
Average per farm


Milk sold
Other income:
Net appreciation on
livestock2-
Miscellaneous
Total
Total receipts


Milk sold
Other income:
Net appreciation on
livestock!/
Miscellaneous
Total
Total receipts


$132,264


3,396
2.726
$ 6,122
$138,386


$ 565.23


14.51
11.65
$ 26.16
$ 591.39


$223,364


10,527
5.436
$ 15,963
$239,327


Average per cow
$ 535.64


25.24
13.04
$ 38.28
$ 573.92


$65,651


--
1.373
$ 1,373
$67,024


$529.45



11.07
$ 11.07
$540.32


Average per hundredweight of 4 percent
FC.M. milk sold


Milk sold
Other income:
Net appreciation on
livestock-
Miscellaneous
Total
Total receipts


Milk sold
Other income:
Net appreciation on
livestock/
Miscellaneous
Total
Total receipts


$ 6.75


.17
.14
$ .31
$ 7.06


$ 6.65


.31
.16
$ .47
$ 7.12


$ 6.81

--
.14
$ .14
$ 6.95


Percent of total receipts


95.6


2.5
1.9
4.4
100.0


93.3


4.4
2.3
6.7
100.0


98.0



2.0
2.0
100.0


/ The net increase in value of any asset was considered as
income. Only in the case of livestock on all farms and low
cost farms were the amounts of the net increases a positive
figure.










Table 23.--Average Expenses per Farm, All Farms, Low Cost Farms and
High Cost Farms, 27 Florida Dairy Farms, Average for Five
Years, 1960 to 1964.

Item All farms 7 low cost 7 high cost
S" farms farms

Labor:
Hired $ 19,746 $ 35,348 $ 8,615
Unpaid family 526 774 736
Feed purchased 57,819 99,414 31,765
Fertilizer and lime 4,985 9,251 1,495
Seeds and plants 669 1,593 368
Machinery and equipment 5,042 6,326 3,147
Supplies 2,702 3,738 1,688
Veterinary and medicines 1,157 1,720 630
Transporting milk 2,755 3,346 2,096
Breeding fees 1,361 2,385 633
Utilities 2,472 3,420 1,560
Taxes 2,042 2,733 1,043
Insurance 1,410 2,767 630
Rent 1,907 1,988 507
Repairs, buildings and
fences 1,647 2,372 550
Miscellaneous cash
expenses 2,265 3.503 1,005
Total expenses before
depreciation, inter-
est and operator's
labor $108,505 $180,678 $56,468
Depreciation: 1
Livestock (net)- 2,028
Machinery and equipment 4,778 7,291 2,301
Buildings and fences 1.971 2.917 1,113
Total depreciation $ 6,749 $ 10,208 $ 5,442
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent 12,444 21,930 5,852
Operator's labor and
supervision 6,653 9.595 5.174
Total gross costs $134,351 $222,411 $72,936
Less value of minor
products 6,122 15,963 1,373
Net cost of milk sold $128,229 $206,448 $71,563
1/
-The net decrease in value of an asset was considered an expense.
Only in the case of livestock on the high cost farms was there
a net decrease in value of livestock.








Table 24.--Average Expenses per Cow, All Farms, Low Cost Farms and High
Cost Farms, 27 Florida Dairy Farms, Average for Five Years,
1960 to 1964.

Item All farms 7 low cost 7 high cost
farms farms

Labor:
Hired $ 84.50 $ 84.71 $ 69.52
Unpaid family 2.25 1.86 5.94
Feed purchased 247.43 238.26 256.35
Fertilizer and lime 21.33 22.17 12.06
Seeds and plants 2.86 3.82 2.97
Machinery and equipment 21.57 15.16 25.39
Supplies 11.57 8.96 13.62
Veterinary and medicines 4.95 4.12 5.09
Transporting milk 11.79 8.02 16.91
Breeding fees 5.82 5.72 5.11
Utilities 10.58 8,20 12.59
Taxes 8.74 6.55 8.42
Insurance 6,04 6.63 5,09
Rent 8.16 4.76 4.09
Repairs, buildings and
fences 7.05 5.69 4.44
Miscellaneous cash expenses
expenses 9.69 8.39 8.12
Total expenses before
depreciation, inter-
est and operator's
labor $464.33 $433.02 $455.71
Depreciation: 1/
Livestock (net) 16.35
Machinery and equipment 20.45 17.47 18.57
Buildings and fences 8.43 6.99 8.98
Total depreciation $ 28.88 $ 24.46 $ 43.90
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent 53.25 52.56 47.23
Operator's labor and
supervision 28.47 22.99 41.75
Total gross costs $574.93 $533.03 $588.59
Less value of minor
products 26.16 38.28 11.07
Net cost of milk sold $548.77 $494.75 $577.52

-/The net decrease in the value of an asset was considered an
expense. Only in the case of livestock on the high cost farms
was there a net decrease in value of livestock,









Table 25.--Average Expenses per Hundredweight of 4 Percent F.C.M. Milk
Sold, All Farms, Low Cost Farms and High Cost Farms, 27
Central Florida Dairy Farms, Average for Five Years,
1960 to 1964.

: : 7 low cost 7 high cost
Item : All farms : farms : farms


Labor:
Hired $1.01 $1.05 $ .89
Unpaid family .03 .02 .08
Feed purchased 2.95 2.96 3.29
Fertilizer and lime .25 .27 .15
Seeds and plants .03 .05 .04
Machinery and equipment .26 .19 .33
Supplies .14 .11 .17
Veterinary and medicines .06 .05 .07
Transporting milk .14 .10 .22
Breeding fees .07 .07 .07
Utilities .13 .10 .16
Taxes .10 .08 .11
Insurance .07 .08 .07
Rent .10 .06 .05
Repairs, buildings and
fences .08 .07 .06
Miscellaneous cash
expenses .12 .12 .10
Total expenses before
depreciation, interest
and operator's labor $5.54 $5.38 $5.86
Depreciation:
Livestock (net)/ -. -- .21
Machinery and equipment .24 .22 .24
Buildings and fences .10 .09 .11
Total depreciation $ .34 $ .31 $ .56
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent .63 .65 .61
Operator's labor and
supervision .34 .29 .54
Total gross costs $6.85 $6.63 $7.57
Less value of minor
products .31 .47 .14
Net cost of milk sold $6.54 $6.16 $7.43

/-The net decrease in value of any asset was considered an
expense. Only in the case of livestock on the high cost farms
was there a net decrease in value of livestock.









Table 26.--Percent Various Items of Total Gross Costs, All Farms,
Low Cost Farms and High Cost Farms, 27 Florida Dairy
Farms, Average for Five Years, 1960 to 1964.

Items All farms 7 low cost 7 high cost
farms farms


Labor:
Hired 14.7 15.9 11.8
Unpaid family .4 .3 1.0
Feed purchased 43.0 44.7 43.6
Fertilizer and lime 3.7 4.2 2.0
Seeds and plants .5 .7 .5
Machinery and equipment 3.8 2.8 4.3
Supplies 2.0 1.7 2.3
Veterinary and medicines .9 .8 .9
Transporting milk 2.1 1.5 2.9
Breeding fees 1.0 1.1 .9
Utilities 1.8 1.5 2.1
Taxes 1.5 1.2 1.4
Insurance 1.0 1.2 .9
Rent 1.4 .9 .7
Repairs, buildings and
fences 1.2 1.1 .7
Miscellaneous cash
expenses 1.7 1.6 1.4
Total expenses before
depreciation, interest
and operator's labor 80.7 81.2 77.4
Depreciation:
Livestock (net)' 2.8
Machinery and equipment 3.5 3.3 3.2
Buildings and fences 1.5 1.3 1.5
Total depreciation 5.0 4.6 7.5
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent 9.3 9.9 8.0
Operator's labor and
supervision 5.0 4.3 7.1
Total gross costs 100.0 100.0 100.0

1/The net decrease in the value of an asset was considered an
expense. Only in the case of livestock on the high cost farms
was there a net decrease in value of livestock.










Feed.--Purchased feed cost represented about the same percentage
of total costs for each of the three groups of farms. However, pur-
chased feed cost per cow was $9.17 less on low cost farms than on all
farms and $18.09 less than on high cost farms. Operators of low cost
farms appeared to have been more careful in feeding their cows in
relation to their potential production than was true of operators of
high cost farms.

Fertilizer and lime.--On a per cow basis, cost for fertilizer
and lime averaged about the same on all farms and low cost farms.
Cost of fertilizer and lime per cow on high cost farms was $9.27 less
than on all farms and $10.11 less than on low cost farms. The expen-
diture for fertilizer and lime per hundredweight of milk sold was
two cents more 6n-low cost farms than on all farms, but 12 cents more
than on high cost farms.

Machinery and equipment.--Machinery and equipment operation
cost per cow averaged $21.57 on all farms, $15.16 on low cost farms
and $25.39 on high cost farms. On the basis of hundredweights of
milk sold, seven cents less was spent for machinery and equipment
operation on low cost farms than on all farms and 14 cents less than
on high cost farms.

Supplies.--Cost of supplies averaged $11.57 per cow on all
farms, $8.96 on low cost farms, and $13.62 on high cost farms. On
all farms, three cents more was spent per hundredweight of milk sold
for supplies than on low cost farms; the expenditure on high cost
farms was six cents more than on low cost farms.

Utilities.--Cost of utilities per cow averaged $10.58 on all
farms, $8.20 on low cost farms, and $12.59 on high cost farms.
Utilities cost per hundredweight of milk sold was three cents more
on all farms than on low cost farms. However, on high cost farms,
the cost was six cents more per hundredweight of milk sold than on
low cost farms and three cents more than on all farms.

Taxes.--Taxes averaged $8.74 per cow on all farms, $6.55 on
low cost farms and $8.42 on high cost farms. Taxes were 1.5 percent
of total gross cost on all farms, 1.2 percent on low cost farms, and
1.4 percent on high cost farms.

Total expenses before depreciation and operator's labor.--Total
cash expensesY- per cow and per hundredweight of milk sold were less
on low cost farms than on all farms or on high cost farms. On a
per cow basis, total cash costs were $433 on low cost farms, $464 on


-/Includes cost of unpaid family labor.








all farms, and $456 for high cost farms. Total cash costs per hundred-
weight of milk sold were $5.38 on low cost farms, $5.54 on all farms
and $5.86 on high cost farms.

Depreciation.--This item of expense on low cost farms per
cow and per hundredweight of milk sold was less than on all farms
or on high cost farms. Net livestock depreciation on high cost farms
was $16.35 per cow or 21 cents per hundredweight of milk sold. There
was a net appreciation of livestock on all farms and on low cost farms.
The higher rate of depreciation on high cost farms resulted from a
higher rate of turnover of cows in the herd and a smaller percentage
of replacements raised. Machinery and equipment depreciation averaged
$20.45 per cow on all farms, $17.47 on low cost farms, and $18.57 on
high cost farms. Total depreciation per hundredweight of milk sold
averaged about 65 percent more on high cost farms than on all farms
and 80 percent more than on low cost farms because of the higher net
depreciation on livestock.

Interest on investment.--On a per cow basis, the interest
charge on capital invested by the operator averaged $53.25 on all farms,
$52.56 on low cost farms and $47.23 on high cost farms. Interest cost
per hundredweight of milk sold was 63 cents on all farms, 65 cents on
low cost farms, and 61 cents on high cost farms. Since the charge
for interest was calculated at 6 percent this was a charge of about 10
cents per 100 pounds of milk sold per each one percent of interest.

Operator's labor.--The charge for operator's labor and super-
vision averaged $6,653 on all farms, $9,595 on low cost farms and
$5,174 on high cost farms. However, on a per cow basis, cost of
operator's labor and supervision was $13.28 more on high cost farms
than on all farms and $18.76 more than on low cost farms. The charge
on high cost farms was 20 cents more per hundredweight of milk sold
than on all farms and 25 cents more than on low cost farms. Even
though the operators of high cost farms placed a lower value on their
labor and supervision than operators of all farms or low cost farms,
the smaller number of cows per farms and lower sales of milk per cow
resulted in a higher cost per hundredweight of milk sold.

Total gross cost.--Total gross cost per hundredweight of milk
sold averaged $6.85 on all farms, $6.63 on low cost farms and $7.57 on
high cost farms. The major differences in total gross cost per hundred-
weight of milk sold between all farms and low cost farms were due to
differences in total cash expenses, total depreciation, and cost of
operator's labor and supervision. Total gross cost per hundredweight
of milk sold on high cost farms exceeded that on all farms and on
low cost farms primarily because of higher purchased feed costs,
higher livestock depreciation, and higher cost for operator's labor
and supervision.

Net cost of milk sold.--The net cost of milk sold per cow was









$548.77 on all farms, $494.75 on low cost farms and $577.52 on high
cost farms. Net cost of milk sold per hundredweight averaged $6.54
on all farms, $6.16 on low cost farms, and $7.43 on high cost farms.
Net cost of milk sold per cow and per hundredweight was less on low
cost farms than on all farms or on high cost farms, because both cash
and noncash costs were lower and value of minor products was higher.


Returns

Various measures of returns are shown in Table 27. Receipts
are totals of receipts as shown in Table 22. Expenses are the amounts
shown as total gross costs in Tables 23, 24 and 25, minus charges
for interest on operator's investment and charges for operator's
labor and supervision.

Farm income.--Farm income averaged $23,132 on all farms,
$48,441 on low cost farms but only $5,114 on high cost (Table 27).
This was an average of $98.18 per cow on all farms, $116.44 on low cost
farms and $40.91 on high cost farms. Farm income per hundredweight of
milk sold averaged 65 cents more on all farms than on high cost farms,
while farm income on low cost farms averaged 90 cents more than on
high cost farms.

Net returns.--On a per cow basis, net returns averaged $16.46
on all farms, $40.89 on low cost farms, and minus $48.07 on high cost
farms. Net returns per hundredweight of milk sold averaged 21 cents
on all farms, 49 cents on low cost farms and minus 62 cents on high
cost farms.

Returns for operator's labor and supervision.--Returns for
operator's labor and supervision averaged $10,688 on all farms, $26,511
on low cost farms and a minus $738 on high cost farms. On low cost
farms, returns per cow for operator's labor and supervision was $18.95
more than on all farms and $70.20 more than on high cost farms. Returns
per hundredweight of milk sold were 78 cents on low cost farms and minus
eight cents on high cost farms.

Returns to operator for average capital invested.--Returns to
the operator for average capital invested were $16,479 on all farms,
$38,846 on low cost farms and minus $60 on high cost farms. The
percent return was 7.95, 10.63 and minus .06 for the three groups of
farms. Returns for average capital were $23.74 more per cow on low
cost farms than on all farms, and $94.29 more than on high cost farms.
The returns for average capital invested by the operator were 84 cents
per hundredweight of milk sold on all farms, $1.14 on -cw cost farms,
and a loss of one cent on high cost farms.








Table 27.--Summary of Returns, per Farm, per Cow and per Hundredweight
of 4 Percent F.C.M. Milk Sold, All Farms, Low Cost Farms
and High Cost Farms, Average for Five Years, 1960 to 1964.

: : 7 low cost 7 high cost
Item- : All farms : : farms
farms farms


Receipts
Expenses
Farm income
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent
Charge for operator's
labor and supervision
Net returns
Returns to operator for:
Labor and supervision
Average capital invested
Percent return on
investment


Receipts
Expenses
Farm income
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent
Charge for operator's
labor and supervision
Net returns
Returns to operator for:
Labor and supervision
Average capital invested


$138,386
115,254
$ 23,132

12,444

6,653
$ 4,035

10,688
16,479

7.95


$ 591.39
493.21
$ 98.18

53.25

28.47
$ 16.46

44.93
69.71


Average per farm
$239,327
190.886
$ 48,441

21,930

9,595
$ 16,916

26,511
38,846

10.63
Average per cow
$ 573.92
457.48
$ 116.44

52.56

22.99
$ 40.89

63.88
93.45


Average per hundredweight of 4 percent
F.C.M. milk sold


Receipts
Expenses
Farm income
Interest on operator's
capital at 6 percent
Charge for operator's
labor and supervision
Net returns
Returns to operator for:
Labor and supervision
Average capital invested


$ 7.06
5.88
$ 1.18

.63

.34
$ '.21

.55
.84


$67,024
61,910
$ 5,114

5,852

5,174
$-5,912

738
60

-0.06


$540.52
499.61
$ 40.91

47.23

41.75
$-48.07

-6.32
.84


$ 7.12
5.69
$ 1.43

.65

.29
$ .49

.78
1.14


$ 6.95
6.42
$ .53

.61

.54
$ -.62
-.08
-.01










Man Equivalents of Labor and Efficiency in the Use of
Labor and Capital


Man equivalents of labor averaged 10.27 on low cost farms,
6.27 on all farms and 3.58 on high cost farms (Table 28). The average
wage rate per hired worker was about the same for the three groups
of farms. The rate per week averaged $74 on all farms, $77 on low
cost farms and $69 on high cost farms.

Labor efficiency.--Labor efficiency for selected factors for
the three groups of farms are shown in Table 28. With the exception of
acres in improved pasture, the accomplishment per man was greater on
low cost farms than on all farms or high cost farms. The number of
cows cared for per man on low cost farms was 3.3 more than on all farms
and 6.0 more than on high cost farms; the difference in the number of
heifers was 3.0 and 9.8 for the two groups. Pounds of milk sold per
man on low cost farms was 4.5 percent greater than on all farms and
21.4 percent more than on high cost farms. However, the average
amount of milk sold per man on low cost farms was only 326,843 pounds.
This figure is low compared with standards in important dairy states.
Florida dairymen need to give more attention to organizing their
dairy operations so as to increase the amount of milk sold per man.

On low cost farms, 6.68 more acres of forage crops were
handled per man than on all farms and 9.74 more than on high cost farms.
Acres of improved pasture per man, averaged 47.92 acres on all farms,
40.89 acres on low cost farms, and 42.53 acres on high cost farms.

Total machinery and equipment costs per man, including
operation, depreciation, and interest averaged $1,728 on all farms,
$1,478 on low cost farms and $1,662 on high cost farms. Machinery
and equipment costs should be indicative of the amount of labor replaced
by machinery and equipment to perform the various operational tasks
on a dairy farm. However, despite the fact that low cost farm
operators averaged more cows, heifers, milk, and acres of forage crops
per man than those on all farms or high cost farms, their machinery
and equipment cost per man was 17 percent lower than on all farms and
12 percent lower than on high cost farms. This means operators of
low cost farms did a better job of balancing the amount of their
machinery and equipment against their needs for machinery and
equipment in operating the dairy business.

Use of capital.--Table 29 shows the use of capital for the
three groups of farms. Low cost farm operators averaged a lower
percent capital turnover for both owned and managed capital than those
on all farms or on high cost farms. This means that operators of
high cost farms and all farms sold more dollars worth of milk for each
$100.00 of total capital invested and/or rented than did low cost
farm operators.









Table 28.--Man Equivalents of Labor, Wage Rate per Hired Worker and
Labor Efficiency for Selected Factors, All Farms, Low
Cost Farms and High Cost Farms, 27 Florida Dairy Farms,
Average for Five Years, 1960 to 1964.

Item All farms :7 low cost :7 high cost
farms farms

1. Man equivalent of labor 6.27 10.27 3.58
2. Wage rate per hired worker/
Per week $ 74 $ 77 $ 69
Per month 322 335 301
3. Average per man equivalent:
Number of cows 37.3 40.6 34.6
Number of heifers 18.1 21.1 11.3
Pounds of 4 percent
F.C.M. milk sold 2/ 312,847 326,843 269,135
Acres of forage crops- 10.24 16.92 7.18
Acres of2/mproved
pasture- 47.92 40.89 42.53
Machinery and equipment
costs:
Operation $ 805 $ 615 $ 878
Depreciation 762 710 643
Interest 161 153 141
Total $1,728 $1,478 $1,662

1/Represents the amount of cash payment to dairy help. Allowances
for privileges such as a house to live in, electricity or milk
furnished are in addition to cash costs. The cost of privileges
is included in other items of expenses such as taxes, repairs
and depreciation on buildings.
2/s acres double-cropped.
Includes acres double-cropped.


Capital employed per man was slightly more on low cost farms
than on all farms and considerably more than on high cost farms. The
major difference in the amount of capital managed per man was primarily
due to value of livestock managed per man. On low cost farms, $1,746
more capital was managed per man in livestock than on'all farms and
$4,454 more than on high cost farms.

Selected direct and indirect items of cost of feed.--Cost of
purchased feeds and the cost of various items to produce forage for
dairy cows represent very important costs in producing milk. A com-










Table 29.--Use of Capital, All Farms, Low
Farms, 27 Florida Dairy Farms,
1960 to 1964.


Cost Farms and High Cost
Average for Fi"e Year


Item : All farms :7 low cost : 7 high cost
: farms farms
___ ^

Percent capital turnover:
Owned 64 61 67
Managed 58 57 64

Capital managed per man:
Total $36,385 $37,950 $28,728
Livestock 14,444 16,190 11,736
Land 14,772 14,975 11,164
Machinery and equipment 2,699 2,563 2,355
Buildings and fences 3,962 3,753 3,300


prison of the cost of purchased feeds and costs of various items for
the production of forage and pasture for the three farm groups is
shown in Table 30. It was previously noted that on high cost farms
considerably more was spent for purchased feeds than on all farms or
low cost farms. On the basis of per hundredweight of milk sold, cost
of purchased feeds averaged about the same on all farms and on low
cost farms but high cost farms were about 33 cents higher.

Machinery costs per cow averaged $46.33 on all farms, $36.40
on low cost farms, and $48.05 on high cost farms. Machinery costs
per hundredweight of milk sold varied similarly to machinery cost
per cow. Total cost of direct and indirect items of feed and machinery
costs averaged more per cow on all farms than on low cost or high cost
farms. However, on the basis of hundredweights of milk sold, cost
on low cost farms was seven cents less than on all farms and 33 cents
less than on high cost farms.

Selected costs per acre of improved pasture and forage crops.--
A comparison of selected costs per acre of improved pasture and forage
crops is shown in Table 31. These costs include all actual cash out-
lays applied directly to the land in one form or another. They do
not include land taxes or any machinery and equipment costs that might
have been used on the land. The cost of rented land averaged more on
all farms than on low cost or high cost farms. Total costs per acre
of improved pasture and forage crops averaged $32.98 on all farms,











Table 30.--Selected Direct and Indirect Items of Cost of Feed, All
Farms, Low Cost Farms and High Cost Farms, 27 Florida
Dairy Farms, Average for Five Years, 1960 to 1964


S l f s 7 low cost 7 high cost
Item : All farms : :
farms farms


Average per cow


Purchased feeds
Land:
Rent
Interest
Fertilizer and lime
Seeds and1plants
Total;-
Machinery costs:
Operation
Depreciation
Interest
Total
Total costs


$247.43

8.16
19.10
21.33
2.86
$ 51.45

$ 21.57
20.45
4.31
$ 46.33
$345.21


$238.26

4.76
19.22
22.17
3.82
$ 49.97

$ 15.16
17.47
3.77
$ 36.40
$324.63


$256.35

4.09
16.76
12.06
2.97
$ 35.88

$ 25.39
18.57
4.09
$ 48.05
$340.28


Average per hundredweight of 4 percent
F.C.M. milk sold


Purchased feeds
Land:
Rent
Interest
Fertilizer and lime
Seeds and plants
Total-'
Machinery costs:
Operation
Depreciation
Interest
Total
Total costs


$ 2.95

.10
.23
.25
.03
$ .61

$ .26
.24
.05
$ .55
$ 4.11


$ 2.96

.06
.24
.27
.05
$ .62

$ .19
.22
.05
$ .46
$ 4.04


$ 3.29

.05
.22
.15
.04
$ .46

$ .33
.24
.05
$ .62
$ 4.37


- The cost of land taxes was omitted because there was no way
of allocating that share of total taxes attributed directly
to land.











Table 31.--Selected Costs per Acre of Improved Pasture and
Crops, All Farms, Low Cost Farms, and High Cost
27 Florida Dairy Farms, Average for Five Years,
to 1964.


Forage
Farms,
1960


: 7 low cost 7 high cost
Items : All farms: farms farms
farms farms


Costs per acre of improved1/
pasture and forage crops:-
Land:
Rent $ 5.23 $ 3.35 $ 2.85
Interest 12.24 13.50 11.66
Fertilizer and lime 13.68 15.57 8.39
Seeds an plants 1.83 2.68 2.07
Total-' $32.98 $35.10 $24.97

Includes acres double-cropped.
2/The cost of land taxes was omitted because there was no way
of allocating the share of total taxes attributed directly
to land. Machinery and equipment costs were omitted because
sufficient information was not available to allocate the
proportion of these costs to improve pasture and forage crops.


$35.10
of low
plants


on low cost farms and $24.97 on high cost farms. Operators
cost farms spent more on fertilizer and lime and seeds and
than those on all farms or on high cost farms.


FACTORS THAT APPEARED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED
TO OR LIMITED ADJUSTMENTS


Today, adjustments in dairy farming means many things to
different people. To one person, adjustments might mean the overall
growth in the size of the farm. To another, it might signify a
larger gain in total receipts relative to the increase in total
costs. And to a third, adjustment might denote a combination of
both growth in farm size and the larger increase in farm income.











From the data presented in Table 16, one can visualize the
dramatic average changes that took place on the 27 farms studied
from 1960 to 1964. For example, on an average farm basis, number
of cows increased 24 percent, value of operator's capital 16 percent,
pounds of milk sold per farm 45 percent, milk sold per cow 17 percent,
total farm receipts 40 percent, and farm income 42 percent. To make
these changes on the average farm required many adjustments in factors
that were highly interrelated in their effect on the results achieved.
Yet, there is no doubt that some factors played more important
contributing or limiting roles than others.

Although average adjustments on the 27 farms were considerable,
the situation varied on individual farms. Therefore, six case farms
were selected for intensive analysis in an attempt to identify those
factors that appeared to have contributed to or limited adjustments
on individual farms. The six case farms represented those that had
the smallest and largest changes in labor income per cow between
averages for the two years 1960-61 and 1963-64.

In the main, farms recording the most progress began the
study period at a relatively lower level of labor income per cow, while
those recording the least progress started at a relatively higher
level.

This presentation will be limited to an introductory statement.
A summary of changes in selected characteristics will then be given.
Data will be presented on receipts, expenses and returns per cow and
per hundredweight of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold. Major contributing
or limiting factors to adjustments will be pointed out in a summary
statement. To protect the identity of the individual farm operators,
data that reflect aggregate totals or indicate the size of the farm
are presented in the form of indexes. The 1960 year was used as the
base period in calculating each index.

Each case farm is discussed separately. Data for those farms
recording the least progress are presented first, beginning with the
small size farm, Farm A, medium farm, Farm B, and large farm, Farm C.
It should be noted that with the exception of case Farm A, the farms
did not show a lack of progress. The amount of progress on Farm B
and C was largely affected by extenuating factors which are pointed
out in the discussions. Farm D, E and F are those showing the most
progress and represent the small, medium and large farms for this
group.

Farm A

Operator A is a native Floridian who is 36 years old, has
been a dairy farm operator for 15 years and has been located at the








same farm site during this period, Operator A did not complete his
secondary education. He grew up and worked on a dairy farm prior to
becoming a farm operator. He has attended many county extension
dairy educational activities through the years, an artificial breeding
school and many dairy industry meetings to gain new technical knowl-
edge and management information. Operator A and his wife share in all
major decisions relative to the farm business. After a technological
or capital change had been made, the evaluation of the change is based
on the new output achieved and the quality of the output.

Summary of changes in selected characteristics, 1960 to 1964.--
The farm of Operator A was a leased site with reasonable terms. Acres
operated did not change during the study period (Table 32). A straight
grass pasture rotation system, with hay harvested from the farm serving
as the source of storage roughage, was the main forage and pasture
production program. All pastures were irrigated by seepage irrigation.
Total acres operated per cow declined gradually from 1960 to 1962 at
which time the number of cows reached a peak. After 1962, herd size
diminished and acres operated per cow increased.

Herd size on this farm was 20 percent more in 1964 than in
1960 but reached a peak 39 percent higher in 1962. The percent of
replacements raised fluctuated considerably from year to year. The
number of years a cow remained in the herd increased rapidly until
1962 but declined sharply in 1963 and 1964 because of heavy culling
of cows acutely infected with mastitis due to an improperly installed
and operated milking system.

Pounds of milk sold per farm reached a peak in 1962 but milk
sold per cow reached a peak in 1961. Amount of milk sold per farm
declined in 1963 and 1964 as number and production per cow declined.

Man equivalents of labor were 27 percent more in 1964 than in
1960. The efficiency of labor in terms of number of cows and milk sold
per man was affected by the change in size of herd and amount of milk
sold per cow.

The amount of capital owned and managed did not change a great
deal over the study period. The percent capital turnover reflected the
increase and decrease in pounds of milk sold. The amount of capital
managed per cow and per man changed almost proportionally to the
change in number of cows and number of men since there was only a
small fluctuation in capital managed.

Receipts, expenses and returns.--A summary of the receipts,
expenses and returns per cow and per hundredweight of milk sold are
shown in Table 33. The higher total receipts per cow in 1964 than in
1960 was due partly to a small increase in the price received for
milk, but mainly to an increase in amount of milk sold per cow and
an increase in miscellaneous receipts. Hired labor cost per cow was
$22, or 26 cents per hundredweight higher in 1964 than in 1960.
Purchased feed cost per cow was $180 in 1960 and $219 in 1964, while








Table 32.--Summary of Changes in Selected
1960 to 1964.


Characteristics, Farm A,


Item : 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964
. __ ___ _____ ** ____________1 /.


1. Index of acres operated-/
2. Acres operated per cow
3. Index of number of cows-
4. Percent of replacements raised
5. Years in milking herd
6. Amount of 4 percent
F.C.M. milk sold:
Index of pounds per farm
Pounds per cow
7. Index of man equivalents
of labor
8. Labor efficiency:
Cows per man
Pounds of milk sold
per man
Acres operated per man
Acres of improved pasture
per man-
9. Use of capital:
Index of capital owned
Index of capital managed
Percent capital turnovers:
Owned
Managed
10. Capital managed:
Per cow
Per man


100
1.75
100
32
2.58


100
7,490

100


100
1.54
114
45
5.65


128
8,444

120


100
1.26
139
73
6.94


154
8,293

120


100
1.40
125
18
2.00


135
8,101

120


100
1.46
120
98
1.66


125
7,788

127


32 30 37 33 30

239,670 256,127 306,850 270,022 235,837
56 47 47 47 44

62 52 62 65 55


100
100

80
41


104
102

99
51


113
106

110
59


111
105

103
55


105
102

96
50


$ 1,273 $ 1,141 $ 977 $ 1,073 $ 1,086
40,731 34,606 36,148 35,772 32,902


/ 1960 base year for all indexes.
- Includes land double-cropped.






Table 33.--Receipts, Expenses and Returns Per Cow and Per Hundredweight of 4 Percent F.C.M. Milk Sold,
Farm A, 1960 to 1964.

SAverage per hundredweight
Item : Average per cow : of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold
: 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964


Receipts:
Milk sold
Miscellaneous
Total receipts
Expenses:
Hired labor
Feed purchased
Fertilizer and lime
Machinery and equipment
Supplies
Transporting milk
Utilities
Other cash expenses
Total cash expenses
Total noncash expenses
Total gross expenses
Less value of minor products
Net cost of milk sold
Returns:
Net returns
Returns to the operator for:
Labor and supervision
Average capital owned
Percent returns on
investment


$521
7
$528

$ 45
180
17
21
11
18
13
86

169
$560
7
$553


$587
28
$615

$ 67
177
12
22
7
16
10
67

138
$516
28
$488


$577
31
$608

$ 65
159
3
25
6
17
9
67
$351
118
$469
31
$438


$590
7
$597

$ 72
226
8
31
19
18
12
73
$459
214
$673
7
$666


$544
23
$567

$ 67
219
9
28
21
14
14
57
$429
152
$581
23
$558


$6.95
.10
$7.05

$ .60
2.40
.23
.28
.14
.25
.17
1.14
$5.21
2.26
$7.47
.10
$7.37


$6.95
.33
$7.28

$ .80
2.08
.14
.27
.09
.19
.11
.80
$4.48
1.63
$6.11
.33
$5.78


$6.96
.37
$7.33

$ .79
1.93
.03
.30
.07
.21
.11
.78
$4.22
1.43
$5.65
.37
$5.28


$7.28
.09
$7.37

$ .89
2.78
.09
.39
.23
.21
.15
.92
$5.66
2.65
$8.31
.09
$8.22


$-32 $ 99 $139 $-76 $-14 $-.42 $1.17 $1.68 $-.94 $-.18


159 189
134 171


1.1 22.7 32.4


-21
-42

-7.3


.50 1.89 2.28 -.26
.10 1.59 2.06 -.52


3.5


$6.99
.29
$7.28

$ .86
2.81
.12
.36
.28
.17
.19
.71
$5.50
1.96
$7.46
.29
$7.17










this cost per hundredweight was $2.40 in 1960 and $2.81 in 1964.
Total cash and gross expenses per cow were about 10 and 4 percent,
respectively, higher in 1964 than in 1960. Net cost of milk sold
per cow in 1964 was only slightly above the 1960 level but $120
above the level in 1962, Operator A's peak production year. Although
total cash expenses per hundredweight of milk sold in 1964 were
higher than in 1960, both total gross expenses and net cost of
milk sold were below the 1960 levels. Operator A received higher
net returns, labor income and returns to capital per cow and per
hundredweight of milk sold in 1964 than were received in 1960.
However, returns in 1964 were considerably below the 1962 level.

Summary.--Operator A realized he had a critical mastitis
problem resulting from the continued use of an improperly installed
and operated milking system. Corrective measures were not taken,
however, because he was not aggressive enough in reaching a solution.
As a result, losses suffered in sale of livestock and decreased
milk sales apparently were larger than the loss that would have
occurred if the milking system had been scrapped the day it was
purchased. Operator A had a dominating desire not to face uncertainty
and become heavily indebted in order to recover more rapidly or to
expand. In addition, the adoption of changes that were not fully
explored by him or for which he was not prepared to make additional
cash expense outlays in order to achieve expected or reasonable
returns, further decreased the effectiveness of his efforts to
progress. His favorable breed milk market and reasonable land lease
were helpful to him as he faced adversities during the period under
study.


Farm B

The 40 year old operator of Farm B has been a dairy farmer
for 13 years. He grew up and worked on a dairy farm prior to
becoming a farm operator. Operator B, a high school graduate,has
attended many county extension dairy training offerings and two
breeding and dairy cattle husbandry schools. He said his main sources
of new technology were Agricultural Extension, salesmen, magazines
and periodicals and other dairy farmers.

Operator B said he often used partial budgeting and other
management techniques, with the assistance of Extension personnel,
to arrive at a decision to make a change in his farm operation.
When considering a change, he first identified the need and then
assembled the necessary data to make calculations to see if increased
returns would be sufficient to justify the change. In making changes
in capital structure, Operator B said he considered the cost involved,
the increase in net returns that might be expected, and the probable










length of time required to pay off any acquired indebtedness. Operator
B said he and his wife shared in all major farm business decisions.

Summary of changes in selected characteristics. 1960 to 1964.--
Operator B was located on the same farm site throughout, the study
period. Acres operated per cow fluctuated with the change in number
of cows (Table 34). A strict grass-legume rotation system, coupled
with grass-legume silage serving as the main source of farm stored
roughage, was the basic forage production program. Limited green-
chopped grass and home-produced hay were utilized in some years.
Forage production was expanded over the study period because the
necessary land was available. Roughage was needed to provide for
larger roughage capacity cows and the need to reduce feed cost.

Herd size on Farm B was 76 percent higher in 1964 than in
1960 with the main increases occurring in 1963 and 1964. All herd
replacements were raised in 1960 but the percent decreased as
number of cows increased. The number of years a cow was in the herd
was 4.41 in 1960 but only 2.61 in 1964.

Receipts, expenses and returns.--A summary of receipts, expenses
and returns per cow and per hundredweight of milk sold are shown in
Table 35. Total receipts per cow increased from 1960 to 1962, de-
creased in 1963 and increased again in 1964. From 1960 to 1964,
there was a 26 percent increase in amount of milk sold per cow--but
price received per hundredweight declined 16 cents. Total receipts
per hundredweight declined 89 cents due partly to the decrease in
price received for milk but mainly to a decrease in miscellaneous
receipts. In 1960 and 1961, a large share of the miscellaneous receipts
per cow and per hundredweight resulted from appreciation due to capital
improvements made on land and/or an appreciation in livestock.

Total cash expenses per cow was $127 higher in 1964 than in
1960. Purchased feed cost increased 58 percent per cow and 24 percent
per hundredweight of milk sold. Total gross expenses and net cost
of milk sold per cow increased steadily over the study period. However,
total gross expenses and net cost per hundredweight of milk sold
fluctuated considerably from one year to the next.

Net returns per cow and per hundredweight of milk sold peaked
in 1961. From 1961 to 1964, net returns per cow declined $58 and
81 cents per hundredweight. Much of the decline resulted from the
decrease in miscellaneous receipts.

Summary.--Factors that appeared to have caused the decline in
the increasing rate of progress on Farm B were an increasing rate of
turnover in the cow herd and a decline in price received per hundred-
weight for milk both coupled with the fact that Operator B did not










Table 34.--Summary of Changes in Selected Characteristics, Farm B,
1960 to 1964.


Item :1960 :1961 :1962 :1963 : 1964
: : :


1. Index of acres operated/

2. Acres operated per cow
3. Index of number of cows
4. Percent of replacements
raised
5. Years in milking herd
6. Amount of 4 percent F.C.M.
milk sold:
Index of pounds per farm
Pounds per cow
7. Index of man equivalents
of labor
8. Labor efficiency:
Cows per man
Pounds of milk sold
per man
Acres operated per man
Acres of improved pasture
per manW2
9. Use of capital: 3/
Index of capital managed-
Percent capital turnover
3/
10. Capital managed:-
Per cow
Per man


100
3.78
100

100
4.41



100
7,492

100


100
3.63
104

62
3.00


106
7,670

102


100
3.27
115

68
4.04


136
8,796

119


100
2.55
148

39
2.78



164
8,305

153


100
2.15
176

37
2.61


222
9,467

170


35 36 34 34 36


262,219
132


274,802
130


297,620
111


280,442
86


342,987
78


68 87 81 69 69


107
33


$ 1,543 $ 1,590 $ 1,568 $ 1,369 $ 1,237
54,005 56,964 53,070 46,241 44,808


/1960 base year for all indexes.
2/
- Includes land double-cropped.
3/
- There was no capital rented by the operator.







Table 35.--Receipts, Expenses and Returns Per Cow and Per Hundredweight of 4 Percent F.C.M. Milk Sold,
Farm B, 1960 to 1964.

Average per hundredweight
Item Average per cow of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold
: 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964


Receipts:
Milk sold
Miscellaneous
Total receipts
Expenses:
Hired labor
Feed purchased
Fertilizer and lime
Machinery and equipment
Supplies
Transporting milk
Utilities
Other cash expenses
Total cash expenses
Total noncash expenses
Total gross expenses
Less value of minor products
Net cost of milk sold
Returns:
Net returns
Returns to the operator for:
Labor and supervision
Average capital owned
Percent return on
investment


$498
86
$584

$ 72
176
26
34
6
19
8
38
$379
157
$536
86
$450


$522
130
$652

$ 73
188
26
28
7
18
10
46
$396
175
$571
130
$441


$608
53
$661

$ 80
226
22
31
7
21
10
46
$443
152
$595
53
$542


$574
56
$630

$ 88
242
30
24
7
19
11
45
$466
139
$605
56
$549


$615
39
$654

$ 82
278
18
18
22
19
15
54
$506
125
$631
39
$592


$6.65
1.14
$7.79

$ .97
2.36
.35
.45
.08
.25
.11
.48
$5.05
2.10
$7.15
1.14
$6.01


$ 48 $ 81 $ 66 $ 25 $ 23 $ .64 $1.05 $ .76 $ .29 $ .24


96
161


52
106


1.10 1.48 1.10
1.84 2.29 1.83


9.11 11.1 10.2 7.8


$6.81
1.69
$8.50

$ .95
2.45
.34
.37
.09
.23
.13
.60
$5.16
2.29
$7.45
1.69
$5.76


$6.92
.60
$7.52

$ .91
2.56
.25
.35
.08
.24
.12
.53
$5.04
1.72
$6.76
.60
$6.16


$6.91
.67
$7.58

$1.05
2.92
.36
.30
.08
.23
.13
.54
$5.61
1.68
$7.29
.67
$6.62


$6.49
.41
$6.90

$ .87
2.93
.19
.19
.23
.20
.16
.57
$5.34
1,32
$6,66
.41
$6.25


.63
1.28


.49
1.02


- ~---- ----~








want his farm to become extremely large. In addition, Operator B's
high labor income position per cow in 1960 and 1961 was influenced
strongly by land and livestock appreciation. In 1962, 1963, and 1964
land and livestock appreciation was much less of a factor in labor
income per cow. This adjustment resulted in the returns for labor and
supervision per cow and per hundredweight of milk sold declining
appreciably in 1963 and 1964.

It should be recognized, however, that Operator B made a
tremendous transition during the study period as evidenced by an
increase in herd size of 76 percent, heifer numbers 78 percent, pounds
of milk sold 122 percent, and capital invested in the business 41 per-
cent. His excellent ability to recognize and evaluate important needs,
his increased use of excessive land resources, his use of readily
available sources of borrowed capital to make water control improvements
on his land, his increase in herd size,mechanizing many steps in the
production process and sharing in an expanding market, played key
roles in the growth of his farm.



Farm C

Operator C has been a dairy operator for about 25 years and
was raised on a general farm in another state. Prior to becoming a
dairy farm operator, he worked on a dairy farm. Operator C graduated
from high school. He has participated in many county extension and
university dairy education activities. He has also attended an
artificial breeding school and received some vocational school
training. Operator C said he had gained much of his new production
technology and management information from magazines and periodicals,
Agricultural Extension and Experiment Station publications and
personnel and other dairy farmers.

Farm C was operated by Operator C and two relatives under the
framework of a family corporation. Both of the relatives shared in
the management responsibilities. Before adopting new technology,
Operator C preferred to visit someone who had already adopted the
practice to receive their evaluation. He was constantly in search of
innovations and sought to determine if they had application to his
farm. Operator C often used partial budgeting techniques to determine
the possible profitability of a change in technology or the farm
capital structure. When considering a new capital outlay, he looked
for reduction in net costs and how long it would take for increased
earnings to pay for the outlay.

Extension personnel and Operator C's bankers gave him
considerable assistance in calculating partial budgets and exploring
the alternatives involving major changes. Decision to make a change
was arrived at jointly by the family. The wife of Operator C played
a leading role as the corporation's bookkeeper. Changes were evaluated
through the study of DHIA, production records, cost records and by









observing the amount of time and labor saved.

Summary of changes in selected characteristics, 1960 to 1964.--
Operator C had been on his present site for 10 years. The location
of the farm was a major deterrent to expansion (Table 36). Acres
operated per cow increased slightly because there was a small decline
in number of cows. Operator C endeavored to move to a maximum utili-
zation of his land resources. In addition to grazing seepage irri-
gated grass-clover pastures, greenchop, hay and silage were also
harvested for the herd from the pastures. A limited amount of oats
and rye were grown for winter greenchop purposes.

The number of cows was seven percent less in 1964 than in
1960. The percent of replacements raised fluctuated over the period.
The same was true for years in the herd, which ranged from a low of
1.92 years in 1963 to a high of 5.78 years in 1962.

The pounds of milk sold per farm showed little variation
except in 1961 when 25 percent more pounds were sold than in 1960.
The increased production of milk per cow slightly more than offset the
decrease in number of cows. Pounds of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold per
cow increased from 8,775 in 1960 to 9,941 in 1964.

Man equivalents of labor increased in 1961 and 1962 but were
the same in 1964 as in 1960. The efficiency of labor declined in
terms of cows per man since the number of cows was less in 1964 than
in 1960. The amount of milk sold per man declined from 1960 to 1961
but was 22,561 pounds more in 1964 than in 1960. Total acres operated
per man fluctuated with the change in number of men. Acres in improved
pasture per man declined in 1961 and 1962 but was 138 acres in 1964
compared to 107 in 1960.

The amount of capital managed fluctuated slightly over the
study period due to changing value of assets. The percent of capital
turnover was approximately 50 for each of the years. The amount
capital managed per cow and per man changed in about the same relation
as number of cows and number of men. Capital managed per cow and per
man was relatively high on this farm.

Receipts, expenses and returns.--A summary of Operator C's
receipts, expenses and returns per cow and per hundredweight of milk
sold are presented in Table 37. Total receipts per cow increased
from 1960 to 1964 because of an increase in amount of milk sold per
cow. Receipts per hundredweight of milk sold fluctuated from 1960 to
1963, but declined 37 cents per hundredweight between 1963 and 1964.
Total cash expenses per cow increased 25 percent from 1960 to 1964.
However, hired labor cost increased 31 percent, purchased feed cost
24 percent and machinery operational costs 71 percent. Total cash










Table 36.--Summary of Changes
1960 to 1964.


in Selected Characteristics, Farm C,


Item :1960 :1961 :1962 : 1.963 : 1964
*


1. Index of acres operated-/
2. Acres operated per cow
3. Index of number of cows
4. Percent of replacements
raised
5. Years in milking herd
6. Amount of 4 percent F.C.M.
milk sold:
Index of pounds per farm
Pounds per cow
7. Index of man equivalents
of labor
8. Labor efficiency:
Cows per man
Pounds of milk sold
per man
Acres operated per man
Acres of improved pasture
per man./
9. Use of capital: 3/
Index of capital managed-
Percent of capital
turnover
10. Capital managed:
Per cow
Per man


100
1.54
100


71
2.82


100
8,775

100


100
1.50
102

90
4.93


125
9,527

114


100
1.64
93

45
5.78


101
9,456

107


44 39 38

381,696 371,037 359,382
67 58 62


107

100


92 101


106


50 51 47

$ 1,225 $ 1,269 $ 1,415
53,304 49,432 53,787


100
1.67
92

34
1.92


103
9,851

101


100
1.64
93

65
3.05


106
9,941

100


40 41

388,838 404,257
66 67


109

105


50 50

$ 1,402 $ 1,327
55,347 53,968


-11960 base year for all indexes.
2/
/Includes land double-cropped.
3/There was no capital rented by the operator.
- There was no capital rented by the operator.






Table 37.--Receipts, Expenses and Returns Per Cow and Per Hundredweight of 4 Percent F.C.M. Milk Sold,
Farm C, 1960 to 1964.

Average per hundredweight
Item : Average per cow : of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold
: 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964


Receipts:
Milk sold
Miscellaneous
Total receipts
Expenses:
Hired labor
Feed purchased
Fertilizer and lime
Machinery and equipment
Supplies
Transporting milk
Utilities
Other cash expenses
Total cash expenses
Total noncash expenses
Total gross ezpanses
Less value of minor products
Net cost of milk sold
Returns:
Net returns
Returns to the operator for:
Labor and-supervision
Average capital owned
Percent return on
investment


$609
25
$634

$ 58
243
28
14
10
25
10
51
$439
143
$582
25
$557


$648
46
$694

$ 68
273
13
26
19
19
13
52
$483
146
$629
46
$583


$667
43
$710

$ 81
280
20
21
12
27
23
56
$520
151
$671
43
$628


$698
30
$728

$ 80
273
19
21
14
22
20
57
$506
157
$663
30
$633


$668
30
$698

$ 76
302
33
24
16
19
16
63
$549
169
$718
30
$688


$6.94
.29
$7.23

$ .66
2.77
.32
.16
.11
.29
.12
.57
$5.00
1.64
$6.64
.29
$6.35


$6.81
.48
$7.29

$ .72
2.86
.14
.27
.19
.20
.14
.55
$5.07
1.54
$6.61
.48
$6.13


$7.05
.41
$7.46

$ .86
2.98
.21
.22
.12
.28
.24
.59
$5.50
1.60
$7.10
.46
$6.64


$7.09
.31
$7.40

$ .81
2.79
.19
.21
.14
.22
.21
.58
$5.15
1.59
$6.74
.31
$6.43


$6.72
.30
$7.02

$ .76
3.03
.33
.24
.16
.19
.16
.64
$5.51
1.72
$7.23
.30
$6.93


$ 52 $ 65 $ 39 $ 65 $-20 $ .59 $ .68 $ .36 $ .66 $-.21


.90
1.43


.96
1.48


.56
1.31


.84
1.51


-.04
.59


10.2 11.1 8.8 10.6 4.5










expenses per hundredweight of milk sold was 51 cents higher in 1964
than in 1960. Hired labor cost was up 10 cents, purchased feed
26 cents, and machinery operational costs eight cents. Total gross
expenses and net cost of milk sold per cow increased at about the
same relative rate from 1960 to 1964. The same trend was true for
total gross expenses and net cost of milk sold per hundredweight.
However, net returns in 1964 were considerably below the 1960 level
because price received per hundredweight for milk decreased and net
cost of milk sold increased sharply in 1964. Although Operater C
had a good home grown roughage program, cost of purchased feed in-
creased 24 cents per hundredweight and fertilizer and lime 14 cents
between 1963 and 1964. Milk sold per cow increased only 90 pounds.

Summary.--The fact that costs, particularly purchased feeds,
increased while price per hundredweight of milk was declining, was
an overriding factor in the reduced returns on Farm A. It appears
that Operator C became too concerned with pushing for higher production
per cow as he added Holsteins without giving enough attention to cost
per unit of product. Other factors that tended to limit more favorable
changes were restricted acreage and age of the operator. The limitation
of the latter factor will decrease as younger members of the family
mature enough to share more of the managerial and supervisory
responsibilities.

To Operator C's credit, he increased utilization of existing
resources by getting higher producing cows and mechanizing many of the
farm operations. Such changes aided in holding net cost per hundred-
weight near the 1960 level until they were increased in attempts to
get higher rates of production.



Farm D

A native Floridian, Operator D is 42 years old and has been
a dairy farm operator for seven years. He lived on a dairy farm
during his early childhood but gained only a limited amount of farm
experience before becoming a farm operator. However, Operator D is
an agricultural college graduate with considerable experience in
personnel management and the cooperative marketing of milk. He
has participated in many agricultural extension and university
dairy education activities, attended an artificial breeding school,
visited many farming operations and reads extensively. Operator D
said he had gained much of his new technical production information
from Extension and Experiment Station publications and personnel,
magazines, periodicals and journals, other dairy farmers and from
salesmen. Much of his business management information was obtained
from his accountant, Doanes' Agricultural Service, some magazines
and journals and Agricultural Extension personnel.











Operator D said he visited successful dairy farms to observe
the technology being used and to evaluate its application to his
operation. Before making a change in the capital structure of his
business, Operator D said he endeavored to project and analyze cost
figures to determine if the proposed outlay would result in a net
increase in farm returns. In evaluating a capital adjustment, he
appraised it as to its effectiveness in creating additional net worth
through a study of his yearly operating statements, balance sheets
and various farm records. Operator D said he usually consulted his
CPA, attorney, farmers, close friends and associates, estate planners
and professional people in many fields before making major capital
adjustments.

Operator D's wife has played no role in the management or
operation of the farm. However, she has aided greatly in the
establishment of the business and its capital build up through
financial contributions from her professional endeavors.

Summary of changes in selected characteristics.--At the
beginning of the study period, Operator D said his land site was too
small and oddly arranged. He added another increment of land and
rearranged the layout to make it more efficient. The location caused
him to study carefully additional changes because of nonagricultural
opportunities with high income potentials. He said he did not sell
the site and develop a farm at a new location because he could not
find one suitable for his purpose. He sold a part of the farm and
invested the capital in other ways (Table 38). Additional acres were
added in 1964.

The number of cows was increased each year from 1960 to 1964
with the largest increase in 1964 when more land was added. The number
of cows in 1964 was about three times the number in 1960. Because
of the increase in number of cows and heifers, Operator D said he
had to intensify land use and forage production. This was accomplished
by grazing the herd in the early morning and late evening hours and
providing it with greenchop grass at night. Renovating and developing
a given amount of old and new land each year was a major factor
contributing to increased forage production. As the herd increased
in size, more machinery, labor and fertilizer were used to increase
forage production. Shortage of capital at times, sandy, overly
drained soil and no irrigation facilities were limiting factors in
the amount of increase in forage produced.

As number of cows increased, the percent of replacements
raised decreased. The change in size of herd was accomplished by
raising all heifers possible and purchasing small out-of-state herds
when large numbers were added as in 1963 and 1964. With the expansion
taking place, years cows remained in the herd was very high, except
in 1963 when there was a large out-movement of older cows.









Table 38.--Summary of Changes in Selected Characteristics, Farm D
1960 to 1964.


Item 1960 : 1961 : 1962 1963 1964
: : : :


1. Index of acres operated-
2. Acres operated per cow
3. Index of number of cows
4. Percent of replacements
raised
5. Years in milking herd
6. Amount of 4 percent F.C.M.
milk sold:
Index of pounds per farm
Pounds per cow
7. Index of man equivalents
of labor
8. Labor efficiency:
Cows per man
Pounds of milk sold per man
Acres operated per man
Acres of^improved pasture
per man-/
9. Use of capital:
Index of capital owned
Index of capital managed
Percent capital turnover:
Owned
Managed
10. Capital managed:
Per cow
Per man


100 94 94 94 168
2.84 2.52 1.84 1.24 1.57


100


106


304


57 73 27 24 29


6.5 11.2


100
7,976


108
8,165


8.6 2.97


164
9,025


258
9,562


88 100


18
143,737
51


22
176,362
54


26 31
244,748 300,532
51 39


7.0


340
8,929


141

39
345,993
61


60 68 60 49 70


100
100

39
37


104
104

40
37


159
203


117
110

46
46


$ 1,428 $ 1,398 $ 1,084 $ 855 $ 956
25,738 30,194 28,338 26,881 37,036


/ 1960 base year for all indexes.
- includes land double-cropped.









The pounds of milk sold from the farm was 240 percent higher
in 1964 than in 1960. The pounds of milk sold per cow was 7,976 pounds
in 1960 and 8,929 pounds in 1964. The 1964 sales per cow was 633
pounds lower than the 1963 sales. To gain a larger share of the
market, Operator D had to purchase additional base. About 20 percent
more of his milk was in Class II in 1962 than in other years because
of a concessional sales condition in transferring base from one
owner to another.

Despite the large increase in number of cows, man equivalents
of labor were only 41 percent more in 1964 than in 1960. The number
of cows per man increased from a low of 18 in 1960 to 39 in 1964.
Pounds of milk produced per man was 345,993 pounds in 1964 compared
to only 143,737 pounds in 1960. Acres operated and also acres of
improved pasture per man were about 20 percent higher in 1964 than in
1960.

The value of capital owned by the operator was 59 percent higher
and the value of capital managed 103 percent higher in 1964 than in
1960. The percent capital turnover of owned and managed capital
increased consistently from 1960 to 1964. The amount of capital
managed per cow decreased from $1,428 in 1960 to $855 in 1963 and
$956 in 1964 as the size of herd increased. The capital managed per
man increased mainly because of the increased investment in livestock
and land.

Receipts, expenses and returns.--Total receipts per cow
fluctuated but were $32 higher in 1964 than in 1960 (Table 39). Price
per hundredweight received for milk was higher in 1960 and 1964 than
in 1961, 1962 or 1963. The lower prices in 1962 and 1963 reflected
a higher percentage of milk sales in Class II as the operator was
increasing the size of his herd and also building milk base.

Total cash expenses, gross expenses and net cost of milk sold
per cow and per hundredweight all decreased by significant amounts
from 1960 to 1964 as herd size and production per cow increased. On
a per hundredweight basis, the largest decreases in cash expenses
were in hired labor, cost of purchased feeds and other cash expenses.
The item of expenses that showed the largest decrease was noncash
expenses as the amount of milk sold increased and thus noncash expenses
were spread over a larger number of product units.

Returns per cow to the operator for labor and management was
minus $74 in 1960 and $68 in 1964. During the study period, Operator D
made changes that resulted in the farm moving from a very inefficient
to a very efficient operating unit.

Summary.--The progress achieved on Farm D was the result of
changes made by the operator to better organize his entire dairy






Table 39.--Receipts, Expenses and Returns per Cow and Per Hundredweight of 4 Percent F.C.M. Milk Sold,
Farm D, 1960 to 1964.
---- ------- c
Average per hundredweight
Item : Average per cow : of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold
: 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964


Receipts:
Milk sold
Miscellaneous
Total receipts
Expenses:
Hired labor
Feed purchased
Fertilizer and lime
Machinery and equipment
Supplies
Transporting milk
Utilities
Other cash expenses
Total cash expenses
Total noncash expenses
Total gross expenses
Less value of minor products
Net cost of milk sold
Returns:
Net returns
Returns to the operator for:
Labor and management
Average capital owned
Percent return on
investment


$ 528
44
$ 572

$ 100
267
17
15
8
24
13
78
$ 522
206
$ 728
44
$ 684


$520
39
$ 559

$ 77
302
6
51
7
27
16
59
$.545
207
$ 752
39
$ 713


$499
14
$513

$ 82
220
11
12
10
21
11
78
$445
162
$607
14
$593


$602
20
$622

$ 91
254
12
16
21
17
14
59
$484
121
$605
20
$585


$575
29
$604

$ 98
250
9
34
8
13
8
49
$469
106
$575
29
$546


$.6.62
.55
$'7.17

$ 1.25
3.36
.21
.18
.10
.30
.16
.98
$ 6.54
2.59
$ 9.13
.55
$ 8.58


$-156 $-193 $-94 $ 17 $ 29 $-1.96


- 74 -115
- 76 -114


-38
-29


- .93
-..97


$6.37
.48
$6.85

$ .94
3.70
.08
.63
.08
.33
.20
.72
$6.68
2.53
$9.21
.48
$8.73


$ 5.53
.15
$5.68

$ .90
2.45
.13
.13
.11
.23
.12
.87
$ 4.94
1.79
$:6.73
.15
$'6.58


$-2.36 $-1.05

-1.41 .43
-1.39 .33


$6.29
.21
$6.50

$ .95
2.66
.12
.17
.22
.19
.14
.60
$5,05
1.28
$6.33
.21
$6.12


$6.44
.33
$6.77

$1.10
2.80
.09
.39
.09
.15
.09
.55
$5.26
1.19
$6.':5
.33
$6.12


$ .17 $ .32


-5.6 -8.6 -2.7


8.0 10.1









operation. By increasing the number of cows, he was able to signifi-
cantly decrease the noncash costs per cow and increase the amount of
milk sold on the farm. Increased amount of milk sold per cow was
also a factor in reducing costs per unit of product. Operator D
took advantage of available opportunities and made sound decisions
based on relevant facts. He shared in an expanding market and also
had the opportunity to buy additional base.

Operator D took advantage of available sources of short term
capital when it was really needed, bought as well as produced good
cows, hired quality farm labor and was married to a very helpful,
working wife. He did an overall skillful job of manipulating
available farm resources and taking advantages of tax and other
benefits. All of these were factors that aided him in his effort to
achieve a better organized farm business. The nonavailability
of long-term capital in many instances when needed, an infertile and
dry land site and inexperience in the beginning, were the major
deterrents to faster or further progress.



Farm E

Operator E, who originally came from an important dairy state,
has been a dairy operator for about 16 years. He is an agricultural
college graduate and had gained considerable D.H.I.A. and dairy
farm experience prior to becoming a farm operator. Operator E, has
participated in many agricultural extension and university dairy
activities. He said he had gained most of his new technical
information from magazines and periodicals, Agricultural Extension
and Experiment Station publications and personnel, other farmers
and salesmen. Business management information was obtained from
Agricultural Extension publications and personnel and other dairy
farmers.

An informal verbal partnership agreement existed between
Operator E and his brother. Although the two discussed major changes,
the ultimate decisions rested with Operator E. His wife plays no
role in the management or the operation of the farm.

In arriving at a decision to adopt new technology, Operator E
said he evaluated available research findings, discussed the prospective
change with other dairymen and endeavored to determine how the change
would apply to or affect his operation. In considering a change in
the farm capital structure, he said he attempted to identify the
need clearly and evaluate the costs and benefits that might be
expected from the change. He said he also consulted Extension
personnel and salesmen about capital adjustment. After a change was
made, Operator E said he reviewed his D.H.I.A. production records,
costs of production and other farm records in an attempt to evaluate
the benefits derived.










Summary of changes in selected characteristics.--Operator E
has operated his dairy at its present location for about 13 years.
Its small size caused him to rent additional land and operate more
intensively (Table 40). He said he had not moved to a new location
because of his age and the lack of available long-term capital to
purchase a new site.

Operator E moved completely to a drylot type of dairy operation
to derive the most forage possible from his limited land resources.
Acres operated per cow declined slightly during the study period as
the number of cows increased. In addition to sorghum, sudex, millet
and oats, silage and greenchop produced on the farm, Operator E fed
green vegetable refuse from area vegetable growers.

The number of cows was increased each year from 1960 to 1964.
A high percentage of the herd replacements was raised, except in 1962
and 1964. The increase in herd size was accomplished by raising all
of the artificially sired calves possible and purchasing additional
springing heifers from reputable dealers. The years cows remained in
the herd were consistently high each year except in 1963. Pounds of
milk sold on Farm E increased 46 percent from 1960 to 1964. Amount
of milk sold per cow increased from 8,277 pounds in 1960 to 9,008
pounds in 1964.

Prior to 1963, Operator E was a producer-distributor. Even
though number of cows were increased, man equivalents of labor were
down 17 percent in 1961 and 1962 and 10 percent in 1963 from 1960 and
only 6 percent higher in 1964 than in 1960. The number of cows per
man was 30 in 1960 and 39 in 1964. Pounds of milk sold per man
increased from 252,803 in 1960 to 349,146 in 1964. Acres of improved
pasture per man almost doubled during the study period.

The value of capital owned by the operator was 22 percent
higher in 1964 than in 1960. The value of capital managed was up
32 percent. It is significant to note the high percent capital
turnover on Farm E and the increase during the study period. In 1964
for every dollar of capital owned $1.73 worth of milk was sold; for
every dollar of capital managed $1.13 worth of milk was sold. In
general, the amount of capital managed per cow changed very little
over the five-year period but the amount of capital managed per man
increased about 25 percent. The amount of capital managed per cow
on this farm was about 40 percent less than the amount on the average
dairy farm.

Receipts, expenses and returns.--A summary of receipts, ex-
penses and returns per cow and per hundredweight of milk sold are
shown in Table 41. In general total receipts per cow fluctuated
from 1960 to 1964 while total receipts per hundredweight of milk
sold declined as the price received for milk declined. Total cash
expenses per cow decreased from 1960 to 1962 but increased in 1963










Table 40.--Summary of Changes in Selected Characteristics, Farm E,
1960 to 1964.


Item 1960 : 1961 1962 1963 1964
il


1. Index of acres operated-
2. Acres operated per cow
3. Index of number of cows
4. Percent of replacements
raised
5. Years in the milking herd
6. Amount of 4 percent F.C.M.
milk sold:
Index of pounds per farm
Pounds per cow
7. Index of man equivalents
of labor
8. Labor efficiency:
Cows per man
Pounds of milk sold
per man
Acres operated per man
Acres of improved pasture
per man2/
9. Use of capital:
Index of capital owned
Index of capital managed
Percent capital turnover:
Owned
Managed
10. Capital managed:
Per cow
Per man


100
.55
100

100


107
.55
107


107
.51
116


93 120


.42
122


.49
134


96 54 i00


5.56 4.77 4.60 3.37 5.17


100
8,277

100


111
8,532


113
8,129


129
8,750


146
9,008


83 83 90 106


30 40 42 41 39

252,803 377,033 345,521 360,927 349,146
17 22 22 18 19

15 27 17 24 28


100
100

148
104

$ 533
16,270


109
119

153
99

$ 584
23,082


112
121

148
97

$ 557
23,671


115
119

162
111

$ 519
21,391


122
132

173
113

$ 525
20,360


/ 1960 base year for all indexes.
2/Includes acres double-cropped.






Table 41,--Receipts, Expenses and Returns Per Cow and Per Hundredweight
Farm E, 1960 to 1964.


of 4 Percent F.CC, .1ilk Sold,


Average per cow


Average per hundredweight
: of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sol'


: 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963


Receipts:
Milk sold
Miscellaneous
Total receipts
Expenses:
Hired labor
Feed purchased
Fertilizers and lime
Machinery and equipment
Supplies
Transporting milk
Utilities
Other cash expenses
Total cash expenses
Total noncash expenses
Total gross expenses
Less value of minor products
Net cost of milk sold
Returns:
Net returns
Returns to the operator for:
Labor and management
Average capital owned
Percent return on
investment


$555
42
$597

$149
283
9
33
28

8
99
$609
71
$680
42
$638


$578
41
$619

$109
244
8
19
25

11
90
$506
69
$575
41
$534


$538
41
$579

$ 98
259
8
20
22

12
86
$505
63
$568
41
$527


$575
18
$593

$ 93
280
8
21
20
4
15
93
$534
92
$626
18
$608


$592
42
$634

$ 78
305
15
33
13
17
16
83
$560
95
$655
42
$613


$ 6.70
.51
$ 7.21

$ 1.80
3.43
.12
.39
.34

.10
1.18
$ 7.36
.85
$ 8.21
.51
$ 7.70


$-83 $ 44 $ 11 $-33 $-21 $-1.00 $ .52 $ .14 $-.38 $-,23


-64
-60


-15.9 17.6


- 1
-12


30 .78
1/ .73


9.1 -3.2


1/Less than 50 cents.
2/Lz.a5 than .005 cent.


Itne


$6.78
.48
$7.26

$1.28
2.86
.10
.22
.28

.13
1.06
$5.93
.81
$6.74
.48
$6.26


$6.62
.50
$7.12

$1.20
3.18
.09
.25
.27

.15
1.06
$6.20
.78
$6.98
.50
$6.48


1964


$6.57
.47
$7 .04

$ .87
3.39
.17
.36
.15
.19
.13
.92
$6.23
1.04
$7.27
.47
$6,80


$6.57
.21
$6.78

$1.06
3.19
.09
.25
.23
.04
.17
1.08
$6.11
1.05
$7.16
.21
$6.95


.01
-,13


_ ___ ~


_ ___ _I__ I









and 1964. Although purchased feed cost per cow was 8 percent more
in 1964 than in 1960, hired labor cost per cow was down 48 percent.

Purchased feed cost, hired labor and total cash expenses per
hundredweight of milk sold were less in 1964 than in 1960 but fluctuated
considerably over the period. Total gross expenses and net cost of
milk sold per cow and per hundredweight of milk sold was down
considerably in 1964 over 1960. However, these figures were at their
lowest levels in 1961 and 1962. Returns per cow to the operator for
labor and management was minus $64 in 1960, $65 in 1961, $31 in 1962,
minus $1 in 1963 and $30 in 1964. The most significant reduction in
cost on this farm over the study period was in the cost of hired labor.

Summary.--The factors that appeared to have contributed to
the progress made by Operator E were obtaining more Class I base
which allowed him to increase herd size and increase the amount of
milk marketed, increased milk production per cow mainly as a result
of changing to heavier producing breeds, intensifying and increasing
forage production, using available sources of short term capital,
skillful manipulation and utilization of existing resources by the
owner and only minor problems with labor.

Factors that apparently limited additional progress on Farm E
were limited land resources, insufficient capital for short-and long-
term capital purchases, the age of the operator and his unwillingness
to move to a new location or establish a new operation.


Farm F

The operator of Farm F is a native Floridian. He has been
a dairy operator for over 40 years. Although Operator F did not
finish secondary school, he has taken advantage of many continuing
education opportunities through the years offered by the University
of Florida, the Agricultural Extension Service and various industry
groups to gain new technical knowledge and management information.
He has gained a considerable share of his new production technology
through reading magazines and other popular periodicals, journals,
Extension and Experiment Station publications and visiting other
dairy farmers.

Operator F's farm is organized as a corporation. He utilizes
a well trained and widely experienced management team. These
personnel keep abreast of newly developed technology in a manner
similar to that described for the operator above.

Major decisions to adopt new technology or to make changes
or adjustments in the farm business capital structure are arrived
at jointly between Operator F and his management personnel, although
the ultimate decision rests with him and his wife. The corporation's









accountant and attorney are consulted about major capital changes.
Before new production technology is fully adopted, the management
.insists that they see the new technology proven and applied on some
other farm. However, they conduct some applied research on the farm
such as variety plcts to study performance under the condition of
their location. Partial budgeting procedures are used by Operator F
to determine the potential profitability of a new capital outlay or
a major technical change. The results of such changes are evaluated
by the management through D.HIT.A. production records, savings in
amount and cost of labor, machinery and equipment operating expenses,
records of production costs and observations.

Sum;a7ry of chanre in selectPA characterjistigcs.--Operator F
has operated his iltry a; its ,present location for over 26 years.
Over the study period, the acres operated did not change but acres
per cow decreased as the number of cows increased (Table 42).
Operator F has consistently moved closer to a drylot-type of operation
in order to meet the "price-cost squeeze," or to increase production
per cow through cheaper home grown roughage. Acres of forage crops
per cow increased as more land was devoted to silage and greenchop
each year.

Operator F felt, by growing more silage and greenchop crops
such as corn, sorghums, oats and millet and less improved pasture for
grazing, he could provide a higher proportion of the total nutrients
for his dairy herd and a better quality roughage. He was of the
opinion that irrigation, improved crop varieties and higher and more
timely rates of fertilization contributed most to increased forage
production. Attempt was made to increase roughage quality through
better fertilization schedules, more timely harvesting and growing
corn varieties with heavier ears.

The number of cows was increased each year from 1960 to 1964
with the largest increase occurring in 1963. The change in herd
size was made to meet the increased market demands for milk. The
percent of replacements raised increased each year, with all replace-
ments raised increased each year, with all replacements being raised
in 1963 and 1964. Operator F said he could raise a better quality
replacement heifer at about the same price it cost to purchase
replacements. The number of years cows remained in the milking herd
increased consistently over the study period.

Pounds of milk sold on Farm F was 53 percent higher in 1964
than in 1960. Pounds of milk sold per cow was 8,208 in 1960 and
9,793 in 1964, but the highest sales per cow was 9,831 pounds in
1962.

Man equivalents of labor were 16 percent higher in 1964 than
in 1960. The number of cows per man varied from a low of 26 in
1962 to 33 in 1964. Pounds of milk sold per man were 246,515 in
1960 and 325,885 in 1964. Total acres operated per man decreased as









Table 42.--Summary of Changes in Selected Characteristics, Farm F,
1960 to 1964.


Item


S1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964


1. Index of acres operated-/
2. Acres operated per cow
3. Index of number of cows
4. Percent of replacements
raised
5. Years in the milking herd
6. Amount of 4 percent F.C.M.
milk sold:
Index of pounds per farm
Pounds per cow
7. Index of man equivalents
of labor
8. Labor efficiency:
Cows per man
Pounds of milk sold
per man
Acres operated per man
Acres in improved pasture
per man2/
9. Use of capital: 3/
Index of capital managed-
Percent capital turnover
10. Capital managed:
Per cow
Per man


100
2.23
100

43
3.51


100
8,208

100


100
2.15
104

82
3.56


112
8,898

110


100
2.11
105

60
3.83


126
9,831

124


100
1.85
120

100
4.33


136
9,326

114


100
1.73
129

100
5.17


153
9,793

116


30 28 26 32 33

246,515 251,560 251,885 296,096 325,885
67 61 54 59 58

20 24 22 20 17


100
48


101
53


107
57


116
62


$ 1,167 $ 1,132 $ 1,181 $ 1,104 $ 1,048
$35,040 32,004 30,258 35,057 34,865


- 1960 base year for all indexes.
2/
-Includes acres double cropped.
3/No capital was rented by the operator on this farm.










the number of men increased. Acres of improved pasture per man
fluctuated over the period but was at its lowest point in 1964.

The value of capital managed increased 16 percent from 1960
to 1964. Most of the increase in capital was due to the increased
value of livestock. The percent capital turnover increased each year
from 48 in 1960 to 62 in 1964. The amount of capital managed per
cow declined slightly. The amount of capital managed per man fluctuated
over the study period.

Receipts, expenses and returns.--A summary of receipts,
expenses and returns per cow and per hundredweight of milk sold are
shown in Table 43. Total receipts per cow and per hundredweight of
milk sold increased from 1960 to 1964 mainly because of the increase
in amount of milk sold per cow and the increase in livestock apprecia-
tion due to more heifers being raised. Cost of hired labor per cow
and per hundredweight of milk sold decreased during the study period.
Purchased feed costs and expenses for fertilizer and lime showed
sizable increases on a per cow basis but less on a per hundredweight
of milk sold because of the higher sales per cow.

Total cash expenses was almost $100 per cow higher in 1964
than in 1960. This was offset by a slight decrease in noncash cost
and a large increase in the value of minor products. As a result,
the net cost of milk sold per cow was only $9 higher in 1964 than in
1960. However, the 1964 cost was $74 per cow less than the net cost
in 1962.

Net returns, labor income and returns to capital per cow and
per hundredweight of milk sold all showed significant increase each
year with the exception of 1962. In this year, the operator had the
highest sales per cow but the smallest number of cows per man.
Although total receipts per cow was the highest of any year in the
study period, net cost per cow was also highest. Labor income per
cow increased from $23 in 1960 to $103 in 1964.

Summary.--The progress achieved on Farm F was largely the
result of a progressive operator and his management team working out
an effective organizational plan for the farm. Contributing factors
to the improvement in the efficiency of the operation of the farm were
an increasing market, a well-trained and vastly experienced management
team, available capital in large enough amounts when needed, selective
but increasing adoption of new technology, increased production and
utilization of forage, careful herd management and good planning and
budgeting. The present land site, milking facilities and a slower
increase in the effectiveness of labor appear to have been factors
that limited further progress during the 1960-64 period.






Table 43.--Receipts, Expenses and Returns per Cow and per Hundredweight of 4
Farm F, 1960 to 1964.


Percent of F.C.M. Milk Sold,


: Average per hundredweight
Item : Average per cow : of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold
: 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1960 : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964


Receipts:
Milk sold
Miscellaneous
Total receipts
Expenses:
Hired labor
Feed purchased
Fertilizer and lime
Machinery and equipment
Supplies
Transporting milk
Utilities
Other cash expenses
Total cash expenses
Total noncash expenses
Total gross expenses
Less value of minor
products
Net cost of milk sold
Returns:
Net returns
Net returns to the operator
for:
Labor and management
Average capital owned
Percent return on
investment


$559
36
$595

$131
220
27
20
12
3
8
38
$459
133
$592


$604
26
$630

$124
228
34
22
12
3
8
49
$480
123
$603


$677
24
$701

$138
242
42
28
12
6
8
57
$533
140
$673


36 26 24
$556 $577 $649


$648
50
$698

$129
248
36
24
10
7
8
59
$521
136
$657

50
$607


$651
92
$743

$116
266
44
20
12
6
9
67
$540
127
$667


$6.81
.44
$7.25

$1.59
2.68
.32
.24
.14
.04
.10
.46
$5.57
1.64
$7.21


92 .44
$575 $6.77


$ 3 $ 27 $ 28 $ 41 $ 76 $ .04


23
73

6.3


70
108


$6.79
.29
$7.08

$1.40
2.57
.38
.24
.13
.04
.09
.54
$5.39
1.39
$6.78


$6.88
.24
$7.12

$1.40
2.48
.43
.29
.13
.06
.07
.56
$5.42
1.41
$6.83


$6.95
.54
$7.49

$1.38
2.66
.39
.26
.10
.07
.09
.64
$5.59
1.45
$7.04


$6.64
.94
$7.58

$1.18
2.71
.45
.21
.12
.07
.09
.68
$5.51
1.30
$6.81


.29 .24 .54 .94
$6.49 $6.59 $6.50 $5.87

$ .30 $ .29 $ .45 $ .77


103 .29 .55
138 .90 1.06


.55
1.01


.75
1.16


1.05
1.42


9,7 13.2


-~-~-"----- 'I~ --~--










General Summary for Small, Medium and Large Farms
Showing Limited or Good Progress


In comparing the results of the intensive analysis made on the
six case farms, certain overriding factors appeared to have contributed
to or limited adjustment and progress on individual farms. On the
two small farms, A and D, it seems apparent that Operator A was
unwilling to face uncertainty and was not aggressive enough in
reaching a solution to several important problems. Thus, he hesitated
to acquire additional indebtedness to push for recovery or expansion.
On the other hand, Operator D appeared willing to take risks and had
the ability to skillfully manipulate short term capital to increase
the size and output of his business. As a result, he moved from a
very large loss in 1960 to a very good return in 1964.

The apparent decrease in the rate of progress on medium size
Farm B seemed to have been due to extenuating circumstances in his
returns picture. In 1960 and 1961, land and/or livestock appreciation
counted heavily in the high returns per cow. However, it appeared
that these values might have been out of line with capital expenditures.
In 1963 and 1964 they seem to have been brought more in line with
the true situation thus reducing returns per cow considerably below
the 1960 and 1961 levels.

On medium size Farm E, labor income per cow was a large loss
in 1960. Through Operator E's efforts to better organize his farm
business, expand his herd and total farm output and utilize more
efficiently his existing resources, labor income per cow was increased
to a positive figure in 1963 and 1964.

The results achieved by large farm Operators C and F present
a striking contrast in progress. As Operator C added more Holstein
cows, he seemed to have become more concerned with higher production
per cow than with cost per unit of product. As a result, his costs
increased, especially in 1964. He also was faced with a declining
product price. On the other hand, the business of Operator F, which
had a low labor income per cow in 1960, continued to grow at a
moderate rate throughout the study period. He organized and utilized
his total resources more effectively and thus achieved an excellent
increase in returns each year during the five-year period.



SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a study of farm business
records of 27 Florida dairy farms. Operators of these farms supplied
data for their operations to county agents as a part of the Florida
Agricultural Extension Service dairy business analysis program each










General Summary for Small, Medium and Large Farms
Showing Limited or Good Progress


In comparing the results of the intensive analysis made on the
six case farms, certain overriding factors appeared to have contributed
to or limited adjustment and progress on individual farms. On the
two small farms, A and D, it seems apparent that Operator A was
unwilling to face uncertainty and was not aggressive enough in
reaching a solution to several important problems. Thus, he hesitated
to acquire additional indebtedness to push for recovery or expansion.
On the other hand, Operator D appeared willing to take risks and had
the ability to skillfully manipulate short term capital to increase
the size and output of his business. As a result, he moved from a
very large loss in 1960 to a very good return in 1964.

The apparent decrease in the rate of progress on medium size
Farm B seemed to have been due to extenuating circumstances in his
returns picture. In 1960 and 1961, land and/or livestock appreciation
counted heavily in the high returns per cow. However, it appeared
that these values might have been out of line with capital expenditures.
In 1963 and 1964 they seem to have been brought more in line with
the true situation thus reducing returns per cow considerably below
the 1960 and 1961 levels.

On medium size Farm E, labor income per cow was a large loss
in 1960. Through Operator E's efforts to better organize his farm
business, expand his herd and total farm output and utilize more
efficiently his existing resources, labor income per cow was increased
to a positive figure in 1963 and 1964.

The results achieved by large farm Operators C and F present
a striking contrast in progress. As Operator C added more Holstein
cows, he seemed to have become more concerned with higher production
per cow than with cost per unit of product. As a result, his costs
increased, especially in 1964. He also was faced with a declining
product price. On the other hand, the business of Operator F, which
had a low labor income per cow in 1960, continued to grow at a
moderate rate throughout the study period. He organized and utilized
his total resources more effectively and thus achieved an excellent
increase in returns each year during the five-year period.



SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a study of farm business
records of 27 Florida dairy farms. Operators of these farms supplied
data for their operations to county agents as a part of the Florida
Agricultural Extension Service dairy business analysis program each









year for the five fiscal years 1960 through 1964. Major attention
is given to showing average year to year changes that occurred on
these farms and comparing averages for the five years for the seven
low cost and seven high cost farms with those of all farms. The
results of an intensive analysis of six sample farms are presented.
A special study was made of these farms in an attempt to identify
factors that appeared to have contributed to or limited adjustments.

Acres operated per farm increased slightly from 1960 to 1964.
Average number of cows per farm increased by 51 or 24 percent with the
largest increases occurring in 1963 and 1964. Heifers per farm in-
creased 45 percent from 1960 to 1964. The largest increases in the
amount of capital furnished by the operator occurred between 1962 and
1963, and 1963 and 1964. The amount of 4 percent F.C.M. milk sold
per farm increased 45 percent from 1960 to 1964 but pounds of milk
sold per cow per year increased only 17 percent.

Milk receipts per farm were 39 percent higher in 1964 than
in 1960. Milk receipts per cow increased sharply from 1960 to 1962
but remained near the 1962 level in 1963 and 1964. The small increase
in 1963 was due to a slight increase in the amount of milk sold per
cow. The large decrease in price received for milk in 1964 was not
totally offset by the increase in the amount of milk sold per cow.

Purchased feed cost per cow increased from $226 in 1960 to
$272 in 1964, or $46. Total cash expenses per hundredweight of milk
sold was $5.70 in 1960 and $5.56 in 1964. However, purchased feed
cost per hundredweight of milk sold increased from $2.97 in 1960 to
$3.07 in 1964. Total gross cost per hundredweight of milk sold was
$7.19 in 1960 and $6.77 in 1964. Net cost per hundredweight of milk
sold was $6.87 in 1960 and $6.40 in 1964.

Farm income and returns to operator for labor and supervision
reached a peak in 1962, declined from 1962 to 1963, but increased
slightly from 1963 to 1964. Average net returns per farm increased
from 1960 to 1964 but peaked in 1962 with the amount in 1964 being
slightly below the 1963 level. Farm income, net returns and returns
to the operator for labor and supervision per cow and per hundredweight
of milk sold all increased from 1960 to 1964 but peaked in 1962 with
1964 being slightly below the 1963 level.

Man equivalents of labor increased .72 per farm from 1960
to 1964. Cows per man increased from 36 to 40 end pounds of milk sold
from 276,727 to 356,806. Capital turnover for capital owned increased
from 57 percent in 1960 to 68 percent in 1964.

The analysis showed that average size of the 27 farms increased
considerably from 1960 to 1964. However, when the five-year averages
of all farms for six measures of size were compared to those of the
seven low and seven high cost farms, the low cost farms were signifi-
cantly larger than all farms and about three times larger than high









cost farms. The average low cost farm was 343 acres larger than the
average for all farms and 563 acres larger than the average high cost
farm. Operators of low cost farms employed 76 percent more capital
owned than those on all farms and 275 percent more than operators on
high cost farms.

The average number of cows was 417 on low cost farms, 234 on
all farms, and 124 on high cost farms. A higher rate of turnover of
cows occurred on high cost farms than on low cost farms or on all
farms. Low cost farm operators averaged more heifers per 10 cows
than those on all farms or on high cost farms. They sold 71 percent
more 4 percent F.C.M. milk than those on all farms and over three
times the amount of those on high cost farms. Pounds of milk sold
per cow averaged 8,389 pounds on all farms, 8,048 on low cost farms
and 7,781 on high cost farms. The number of cows cared for, pounds
of milk sold and acres operated per man were more on low ccut farms
than on all farms or on high cost farms.

Low cost farm operators received the lowest blend price per
hundredweight of milk sold, while those on high cost farms received
the highest. Total cash expenses per cow and per hundredweight of
milk sold were less on low cost farms than on all farms or on high
cost farms. Low cost farm operators spent less on purchased feeds
per cow than operators on all farms or on high cost farms. Total
cash expenses per hundredweight of milk sold averaged $5.38 on low
cost farms, $5.54 on all farms and $5.86 on high cost farms. Total
gross cost was $6.63 on low cost farms, $6.85 on all farms and $7.57
on high cost farms; and net cost averaged $6.16 on low cost farms,
$6.54 on all farms and $7.43 on high cost farms. Returns to the
operator for labor and supervision averaged $64 per cow on low cost
farms, $~5 on all farms and a loss of $6 on high cost farms. Low
cost farm operators averaged a lower percent capital turnover for
both owned and managed capital than those on all farms or on high
cost farms.

A comparison of the results of an intensive analysis of the
six case farms, indicated that certain overriding factors appeared
to have contributed to or limited adjustment and progress on individual
farms. In the main, farms recording the most progress began the
study period at a relatively lower level of labor income per cow
while those recording the least progress started at a relatively
higher level. Generally, with the exception of Operator B, it appeared
that operators of farms showing the least progress were not aggressive
managers or became concerned with things other than costs. Operators
of farms making good progress generally organized their businesses
better, utilized their existing resources more fully and were willing
to take more risks.






74

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Much of the data in this manuscript was originally in a
Master's Thesis presented by Albert F. Cribbett to the Graduate
Council of the University of Florida in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture.







APPENDIX

Table 1.--Annual and Five Year Average Net Cost Per Hundredweight of


4 Percent
to 1964.


F.C.M. Milk Sold, 27 Florida Dairy Farms, 1960


Farm
number : 1960 :1961 :1962 : 1963 : 1964 : Average
number
*


$8.85
8.60
7.22
7.22
7.42
7.30
6.25

6.85
6.74
7.70
6.49
8.58
6.56
7.02

7.37
6.70
7.74
6.49
6.35
6.99
6,77

6.40
6.01
7.05
6.83
6.56
6.31


$8.26
7.65
7.21
7.75
7.82
7.21
7.03

7.01
6.64
6.26
6.93
8.73
6.06
6.28

5.78
6.84
6.24
6.61
6.13
6.27
6.49

6.86
5.76
7.40
6.37
5.82
5.59


$8.13
6.95
6.91
7.30
8.02
6.77
6.80

7.41
6.97
6.48
6.99
6.58
7.00
6.63

5.28
6.22
6.59
6.74
6.64
5.93
6.59

5.38
6.16
5.03
5.02
5.22
5.72


$8.00
8.16
7.80
7.72
6.74
7.50
7.37

7.06
6.79
6.95
6.82
6.12
7.21
7.22

8.22
6.19
6.72
7.02
6.43
6.80
6.50

6.29
6.62
5.78
6.50
6.10
5.55


$6.65
7.98
7.19
6.55
7.36
6.88
7.22

6.28
7.05
6.80
6.52
6.12
6.56
6.39

7.17
7.30
6.29
5.70
6.93
6.19
5.87

6.40
6.25
5.37
6.04
6.44
5.85


$7.94
7.85
7.27
7.25
7.24
7.13
6.91

6.89
6.84
6.82
6.75
6.74
6.73
6.70

6.69
6.68
6.66
6.49
6.49
6.43
6.41

6.24
6.21
6.11
6.09
6.05
5.78











Table 2.--Average Labor Income Per Cow 1960-1961 and 1963-1964, Change
in Labor Income and Amount of 4 Percent F.C.M. Milk Sold Per
Farm Per Year for the Period 1960-1964, 27 Florida Dairy Farms.


Average labor Average pounds of 4
Farm income per cowChange in percent F.C.M. milk
number labor income sold annually per farm
: 1960-61 : 1963-64 : per year 1960 to 1964


Small
$158.98
79.64
35.64
20.92
19.59
12.21
5.64
-13.77
-35.73
-58.75
-87.22

Medium
$ 15.26
6.28
5.06
-19.17
-38.04
-48.66

Large
$ 50.32
24.83
14.67
10.46
-1.89
-4.01
-11.58
-36.58
-39.80
-44.80


790,274
585,912
682,908
680,765
638,446
582,707
632,365
591,639
578,607
A60,016
769,155


1,339,353
861,416
1,897,797
1,811,366
1,044,500
1,910,052


9,295,671
6,601,429
2,000,992
2,957,716
2,487,980
2,690,666
2,246,365
4,262,430
2,141,126
2,384,253


Farms selected for case study.
Farms selected for case study.


12a
24
5
4
1
11
17
18
3
7
15a


10a
25
6
2
13
23a


$-94.26
30.73
13.41
-9.66
-43.88
42.66
104,97
107.23
35.91
43.62
98.12


$ .25
66.23
-.85
-56.87
71 78
97.86


$ 36.06
43.29
34.30
60.41
27.18
37.61
59.94
30.23
54.02
84.69


$ 64.72
110.37
49.05
11.26
-24.29
54.87
110.61
93.46
.18
-15.13
10.90


$ 15.51
72.51
4.21
-76.04
33.74
49.20


$ 86.38
68.12
48.97
70.87
25.29
33.60
48.36
-6.35
14.22
39.89




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