• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Main














Title: Use of labor and labor management practices on Florida dairy farms
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074558/00001
 Material Information
Title: Use of labor and labor management practices on Florida dairy farms
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Anderson, Charles L.,
Publisher: Department of Agricultural Economics, Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00074558
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 123903254

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
Full Text




//-~1 n1969


Agricultural Economics
Mimeo Report EC 69-12


USE OF LABOR AND LABOR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

ON FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS















Charles L. Anderson and R. E. L. Greene












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












TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . ... . . 1

METHOD AND PROCEDURE . . . . ........ 1

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FARMS STUDIED . . . ... 2

Estimated Wage Paid per Week . . .... .. .. 2
Hours Worked per Week . . . .. . 3
Hourly Wage Scale . . . . . 3
Bonuses Paid to Employees . . . . 3
Number of Cows per Worker . . . ..... 4
Number of Cows per Dairy . . 4
Average Number of Cows and Cows per Worker on Small, Medium and
Large Dairy Farms . . . . . 5
Length of Employment of Dairy Farm Employees . . 6
Description of the Dairy Farm Operators . . . 6
Land Use Practices . . . . . 8
Daily Milk Production . . . . . 10
Cattle Inventory . . . . . 11

MILKING FACILITIES . . . . . 14

FEEDING FACILITIES . . .... . 16

LABOR FORCE AND ORGANIZATION . . .... . 18

SALARY INCREASES AND OTHER FRINGE BENEFITS .... ...... 21

LABOR RECRUITMENT . . . .... . . 26

MISCELLANEOUS . . . .... . . 28

HIRED WORKER DATA . . . .... . 30

FRINGE BENEFITS . . . . .. . . 32

COMPARISON OF VARIOUS FACTORS OF PRODUCTION WITH EFFICIENCY 33

Small Dairy Farms . . . . . 34
Medium-Size Dairy Farms .. . . . . 36
Large Dairy Farms . . . . . 39
All Dairy Farms . . . . . . 40








TABLE OF CONTENTS "CONTINUED"


Page

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................... ..... 242

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . ... 43

APPENDIX TABLES . . .. . .. ....* 44








USE OF LABOR AND LABOR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
ON FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS




INTRODUCTION


The objectives of this study were: (1) to describe the labor force
and organization on Florida dairy farms, (2) to determine management
practices with respect to recruitment, training, supervision, payment of
fringe benefits and other incentives, and (3) to relate organization and
management practices to labor efficiency.

Dairy products produced in Florida during 1965 had a value of over
$86 million.!/ This, coupled with the fact that there were 586 dairies
in the state with an estimated annual payroll of over $16 million,
points out that the dairy industry is of substantial importance to the
economy of the state. With the increase in farm wage rates and decrease
in supply of farm labor, it appears that labor is one of their greatest
problems.

If extension and other educational agencies are to be of assistance
in solving labor management problems, it is imperative that the existing
situation be known. The data collected in this survey should give a
better basis for planning for the future.



METHOD AND PROCEDURE


Of the 441 dairy farms in the area of Florida south and east of
the Suwannee River, referred to in this report as Peninsular Florida,
121 were deleted before a sample was drawn.-' These dairy farms had less
than 125 cows per farm; and, since the intent of this survey was to study
labor and labor problems, dairy farms with only one hired man or less
should not contribute materially to the study. Most dairy farms with
less than 125 cows have no more than one hired worker. 3 Before a sample
was drawn, the remaining dairy farms were divided into major marketing
areas. These areas were Northeast Florida, Central Florida, Tampa Bay
and Southeast Florida. The areas are referred to as 1, 2, 3 and 4,
respectively, throughout this report and are outlined in Table 1. After
dividing the dairy farms into areas, they were arranged in anascending


-The Farm Income Situation, United States Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service, August, 1965.
2/
- From list of dairy farms compiled by Florida Department of Agriculture.
3/ness Analyses by Clifford Alston.
~ Dairy Business Analyses by Clifford Alston.









Table 1. Counties included in the survey, by areas


Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4

Alachua Brevard Charlotte Broward
Baker Citrus De Soto Dade
Bradford Flagler Hardee Glades
Clay Lake Hernando Hendry
Columbia Marion Highlands Indian River
Duval Orange Hillsborough Martin

Gilchrist Osceola Lee Okeechobee
Levy Seminole Manatee Palm Beach
Nassau Sumter Pasco Saint Lucie
Putnam Volusia Pinellas
Saint Johns Polk
Union Sarasota



order by size and alphabetically by county. This amounted to a stratified
arrangement which would assure the drawing of dairy farms over the entire
area and also assure that farms of all sizes would be drawn. Next, four
numbers were placed in a hat (1, 2, 3 and 4). It happened that No. 1 was
drawn, so the first dairy farm in each area was drawn and every fourth
farm thereafter. This established a stratified random sample of the pop-
ulation in each area. Alternates were selected in a like manner; however,
a sincere effort was made to collect data from the original sample drawn.

Data were collected by personal visit, tabulated by areas and are
reported in the same manner.



GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FARMS STUDIED


In the spring of 1967, there were,62 dairies in Area 1 with 125 or
more cows, 45 dairies in Area 2, 117 in Area 3 and 96 in Area 4.

Estimated Wage Paid per Week

The first item many think of when discussing management practices
of labor is the weekly wage scale (Table 2). The data in Table 2 reflect
only cash wages paid. They do not take into account fringe benefits such
as milk furnished, utilities paid, housing furnished, etc. These were
all additions to labor revenue and will be considered later in this
report.










Table 2. Existing wage paid by dairymen per week, to all
hired workers, by areas, Florida 1967


Item Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4
1/
Minimum- $ 35 $ 25 $ 38 $ 30
Maximum 130 150 172 170
Average, all farms 77 86 96 89

1/
Includes wages paid for some part-time help.


Hours Worked per Week

The wage scales (Table 2) are more meaningful when considered
together with hours worked per week (Table 3). Table 3 shows that
hired labor, on the average, worked the same number of hours per week
in Areas 1 and 3, but that the hours worked per week in Area 2 was
greater than this average and less in Area 4.


Table 3. Hours worked per week by hired
by areas, Florida 1967


labor on dairy farms,


Item Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4

1/
Minimum- 24 28 36 18
Maximum 77 84 77 84
Average, all farms 55 58 55 48


1/
-Includes part-time help.


Hourly Wage Scale

The data in Tables 2 and 3 must be combined to get the picture of
hourly wage scales in the four areas. Dividing the average weekly pay
scale by the average number of hours worked gives the hourly scale by
areas: Area 1, $1.40/hour; Area 2, $1.48/hour; Area 3, $1.75/hour; and
Area 4, $1.85/hour.


Bonuses Paid to Employees


Some dairymen in all areas paid bonuses to their employees
(Table 4). Here again, no fringe benefits were taken into consideration.
Table 4 reports only cash bonuses paid. Some of these were paid weekly,
some annually, but in order to compare bonuses paid, all bonuses were









Table 4. Annual bonuses paid per hired worker by dairymen,
by areas, Florida 1967


Item Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4

Minimum $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Maximum 757 1,000 1,000 260
Average, all farms 135 157 161 183



computed to an annual value per worker. The higher figures, reported
as maximum bonuses paid in Table 4, were bonuses paid to hired manage-
ment. All bonuses paid on all dairies were calculated, including
dairies that paid no bonus, to arrive at the average bonus paid per
hired worker by areas.

Number of Cows per Worker

Nothing has been said about efficiency of labor or the basis for
paying bonuses as yet. One measure of efficiency on dairy farms is the
number of cows maintained per worker (Table 5). In preparing Table 5


Table 5. Number of co 2 on dairy farms per worker, by areas,
Florida 1967-1


Item Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4

Minimum 37.6 29.8 26.0 38.0
Maximum 71.0 73.0 93.8 88.1
Average, all farms 47.2 43.1 56.6 60.9


-/These data include management also.


no consideration was given to the number of acres of forage maintained
or the number of replacement heifers raised on the various dairies. This
influenced the number of cows per worker and will be considered in the
final analysis of labor practices.

Number of Cows per Dairy

Rate of pay is certainly not the only factor influencing labor
efficiency. The size of dairies, as measured by the number of cows
maintained, varied considerably over the four areas (Table 6).










Table 6. Average number of cows per dairy,
Florida 1967


by areas,


Item Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4

Minimum 188 162 137 211
Maximum 1,151 1,331 1,345 1,750
Average, all farms 420 503 450 763



Average Number of Cows and Cows per Worker
on Small, Medium and Large Dairy Farms

It might be well at this point to give more consideration to size
of dairy and labor efficiency before going into more detail on labor
practices (Table 7). The dairies were divided into size groups as


Table 7. Distribution of small, medium and large dairies,
average number of cows and cows per worker, by
areas, Florida 1967


Number Average number Cows per
Size of farms of cows worker

Area 1

Small 8 274 50
Medium 3 568 52
Large 1 1,151 38

Area 2

Small 6 232 48
Medium 0 0 0
Large 3 1,045 41

Area 3

Small 18 363 39
Medium 2 702 61
Large 3 1,026 63

Area 4

Small 4 370 57
Medium 7 620 57
Large 6 1,191 64








follows: Small, 125 to 499 cows; medium, 500 to 749 cows; and large,
750 or more cows.

These data indicate that there is a difference in the effect of
size on labor efficiency. Generally, in both Areas 1 and 2 after a
dairy became larger than "medium size," labor efficiency suffered.
There was a valid reason for this, not attributable as much to labor
management, pay scale or skill of worker as to efficiency of plant.
Efficiency of plant is defined as physical design of barn and equipment,
which was engineered to handle more cows faster in the newer barns. On
the average, in both Areas 3 and 4 dairy barns were newer. There has
been quite a large out migration of dairy farmers from the urbanized
sections in both Areas 3 and 4. Here, the owners had operated older
dairy barns at one location and, over time, had seen changes which
could increase milking efficiency. When high land prices forced the
sale of the older locations, they moved and were able to incorporate
these changes in barns built at new locations.

On the other hand, many barns in the other two areas were designed
for a specific number of cows and were being used for a much larger
herd. In other words, dairymen in Areas 1 and 2 were milking in older
barns, for the most part, which were designed to efficiently handle
fewer cows than were being milked in them at the time of the survey.

Length of Employment of Dairy Farm Employees

One important measure of satisfaction in employer-employee rela-
tions is the length of service of employees (Table 8). In no area


Table 8. Length of employment of dairy farm employees, by
areas, Florida 1967


Item Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4

years years years years
Minimum .02 .02 .02 .02
Maximum 15 20 40 29
Average, all farms 2.8 4.9 5.0 4.1



did the average length of employment exceed 5 years. In most cases,
there had been new employees hired during the week prior to the day on
which the survey was made. Generally, the worker hired had been employed
on another dairy farm in the same area--sometimes next door.


Description of the Dairy Farm Operators

Continuing the description of the dairy industry in Peninsular
Florida, certain factors relating to the age, education, experience,
etc., of the operators should be delineated. Table 9 gives these data
by areas.










Table 9. A description of the operators of dairy farms, by areas,
Florida 1967


Item Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4

Percent living on farm
(average) 67 56 68 53

Percent operator's time on
dairy (average) 98 89 83 62

Age (years)
Minimum 27 32 32 37
Maximum 61 72 70 58
Average, all farms 45 47 44 41

Education (years)
Minimum 7 7 5 10
Maximum 19 16 18 16
Average, all farms 12 11.6 11.4 11

Personnel management training
(percent) None 44 12 12

Operated present dairy (years)
Minimum 5 2 1.5 3
Maximum 42 25 31 21
Average, all farms 15.7 9.9 12.2 12

Operated other dairy (years)
Minimum 0 0 0 2
Maximum 23 25 40 34
Average, all farms 4.3 13.8 20 19.9



Data in Table 9 point out the fact that dairy operators in Area 1
are almost all full-time dairymen. In only one case did an operator
report not spending 100 percent of his time on the dairy. In the other
areas, the time spent managing the dairy farm became less as one moved
through Areas 2, 3 and 4, respectively. This denotes that dairy farm
operators in the other areas had interests other than the dairy. This
was especially true in Areas 2 and 3; however, the factor which causes
the percentage to be lower in Area 4 is that one operator of the sample
dairy farm operated more than one dairy. All of his time was spent in
dairy management, but it was divided among the different dairies under
his management.

Another point which the data in Table 9 make is that the ages of
the operators in Areas 1 through 3 are quite widespread. Even though










the average ages of operators in all areas are not so different, the
minimum and maximum ages found among operators in Area 4 show that
operators in this area are closer to the same age. The difference
between minimum and maximum ages in Area 1 is 34 years, in Area 2,
40 years, 38 years in Area 3 and only 21 years in Area 4.

Data in Table 9 depict this same discrepancy in years of education,
but a frequency distribution for years of education in the four areas
would show that the years of education occurring most frequently are
8 and 16 years in Area 1, giving a bimodal distribution; 14 years, or
2 years college, in Area 2; 12 years in Area 3; and 12 years in Area 4.

Area 2 is the only area in which there was a significant amount of
formal personnel management training reported, 44 percent. This training
varied from a four year degree to various short-courses in management.
While Area 1 operators reported no formal training in personnel manage-
ment, in both Areas 3 and 4 only 12 percent of the dairy farm operators
reported management training.


Table 9 also bears out an earlier statement made with
efficiency of plant. Here, in both Areas 3 and 4 there is
number of years more experience in another location before
the present dairy farm.


reference to
shown a
operating


Land Use Practices

Tables 10 through 13 give data on the land use pattern in the four
areas. Only one dairy farm in Area 1 reported no improved pasture of


Table 10. Land use practices on Florida dairy farms in Area 1, 1967


Acres
Average Percent
per farm farms
reporting reporting
Item Minimum Maximum Average in category in category

Grass 0 660 223 243 92
1/
Clover 0 500- 162 216 75
1/
Grass hay 0 200- 38 76 50
1/
Green chop 0 11O- 55 110 8
Temporary grazing 0 225- 48 96 50
Silage 0 75-/ 10 68 17
1/
Unimproved pasture 35 239- 129 129 100
Total acres 45 860 394 394 100


1/May be included
basis.


in other acreage since most were planted on double-crop










any type. This was the only dairy simply using a small portion of land
as a holding pen or exercise lot for milk cows and supplying all of their
energy requirements with purchased feeds. By the same token, only one
farm reported any use of green chop, while two farms reported making
silage. With no exceptions, dairy farms reported some use of unimproved
pasture.


Only one dairy farm in Area 2 reported no grazing (Table
farm had five acres of grass pasture as a holding lot and the
acreage devoted to production of green chop, hay and silage.


11). This
balance of
Likewise,


Table 11. Land use practices on Florida dairy farms in Area 2, 1967


Acres
Average Percent
per farm farms
reporting reporting
Item Minimum Maximum Average in category in category

Grass 5 1,850 433 433 100
Clover 0 1,5881/ 176 1,588 11
Grass hay 0 100-1 17 50 33
Green chop 0 7501/ 119 214 56
Temporary grazing 0 1,850/- 433 1,850 11
Silage 0 100-/ 11 100 11
Unimproved pasture 0 210- 76 80 89
Total acres 160 2,010 806 806 100


/ May be included in
basis.


other acreage since most were planted on double-crop


only one farm reported any use of clover.
262 of his total acres to clover, and the
seeded to rye in the fall. Only one farm


This operator planted all but
entire 1,850 acres were over-
reported any silage production,


and the one operator reporting a temporary grazing crop was the farmer
who over-seeded the entire grass pasture to rye.

Dairy farms reporting land use in Area 3 (Table 12) exhibit much
more variability as to range of pasture management practices than do
dairy farms in any of the other three areas. The dairy farms in Area 3
having straight grass pastures are a lower percent of the total than in
any other area; however, in Area 1 dairy farms, even though they reported
100 percent as having straight grass pastures, reported a much higher
percent (75) (Table 10) of clover used. Dairy farms in Area 3 reported
a higher percent of hay making (Table 12).










Table 12. Land use practices on Florida dairy farms in Area 3, 1967


Acres
Average Percent
per farm farms
reporting reporting
Item Minimum Maximum Average in category in category
Grass 0 6001/ 155 258 64
Clover 0 6401/ 62 309 52
Grass hay 0 4001/ 67 139 48
Green chop 0 3351/ 39 164 24
Temporary grazing 0 125/ 15 75 20
Silage 0. 2401/ 19 121 16
Unimproved pasture 0 7021/ 122 162 68
Total acres 02/ 1,280 479 499 96


1/May also be included in some Other category.
2/
2/No acreage data available on one dairy farm. This means that 499
acres reported under "Average per farm reporting in category" would
be closer to true average acreage.


Dairies in Area 4 use a moderate amount of green chop and hay;
however, they make extensive use of both grass pasture and unimproved
pasture (Table 13). There is very little temporary grazing planted,
and the same can be said for the use of silage. One could deduct from
these data (Table 13) that dairy farms in this area take advantage of
the slightly warmer climate which may afford a somewhat longer grazing
period on perennial grasses.


Daily Milk Production

When the survey was made of the sample dairies, each operator was
asked to report the gallons of milk produced on the preceding day.
These data are presented in Table 14 as they were reported. No attempt
has been made at this time to expand this to an annual production;
however, in the final analysis presented in this report, these data
will be expanded with the use of data collected and reported by earlier
research (Appendix Tables 1, 2 and 3).










Table 13. Land use practices on Florida dairy farms in Area 4, 1967


Acres
Average Percent
per.farm farms
reporting ., reporting
Item Minimum Maximum Average in category in category

Grass 145 3,000- 810 810 100
Clover 0 1,0001/ 95 322 29
Grass hay 0 200-/ 22 125 18
Green chop 0 350-/ 53 179 29
Temporary grazing 0 1101/ 6 110 6
Silage 0 3501/ 21 350 6
Unimproved pasture 0 900- 147 311 47
Total acres 212 4,000 1,078 1,078 100


-May be included in
double-cropping is


Table 14. Aver.
Flor


some other category, also,
widespread.


since the practice of


age daily milk production reported in
ida dairy farms, by areas, 1967


gallons on


Item Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4

gallons per day

Minimum 415 455 340 557
Maximum 2,980 4,400 3,550 5,200
Average, all farms 1,236 1,483 1,392 2,313



Cattle Inventory

The average dairy farm in Area 1 in 1967 had a cattle inventory
consisting of 421 cows, 127 heifers of all ages and 5 bulls (Table 15).
Seventy-five percent of these dairies were using artificial insemina-
tion exclusively on their milking herd, and 90 percent of the total
animals bred were bred artificially. One-third of the dairy farms
reported no bulls in inventory and were breeding all animals
artificially.

Of the sample dairies in Area 1, only one reported no heifers in
inventory. Of the total dairies in the sample (including dairy with no










Cattle inventory
Area 1, 1967


reported on Florida dairy farms in


Heifers
Under 6 6-18 Over 18 Total
Item months months months heifers Cows Bulls

Minimum 0 0 0 0 160 0
Maximum 150 250 128 528 1,151 23
Average, all farms 39 54 34 127 421 5
Average reporting
in category 39 54 34 127 421 5



heifers), 52 percent of the replacements were raised. Deleting the one
dairy with no heifers, other dairies were raising an average of slightly
over 62 percent of their replacements. One dairy of the 12 surveyed
reported raising 100 percent of its replacements.

In Area 2 the average dairy possessed 503 cows and 225 heifers
(Table 16). Slightly over 44 percent of the Area 2 dairy farms were
using artificial breeding exclusively, while 85 percent of the females
were reported as bred artificially over the entire area. Only one
dairy farm operator reported no use of artificial insemination.


Cattle inventory
Area 2, 1967


reported on Florida dairy farms in


Heifers
Under 6 6-18 Over 18 Total
Item months months months heifers Cows Bulls

Minimum 0 0 0 0 162 0
Maximum 377 434 254 1,065 1,331 13
Average, all farms 86 80 59 225 503 3
Average reporting
in category 110 116 107 333 503 5



Two of the dairy farms in Area 2 reported no heifers in inventory.
These operators purchased 100 percent of their replacements. Slightly
over 44 percent of the operators reported raising 100 percent of their
replacements. The smallest dairy farm in the area reported raising
100 percent of its replacements; and two, of the remaining three raising
all of their replacements, were the largest dairies in the sample. The
measure of size related to here was the number of cows in inventory on
the day the record was taken.


Table 15.


Table 16.










Even though dairies with a reported cow inventory of less than 125
cows were deleted from the total dairies before drawing a sample, the
sample drawn in Area 3 included two dairies with less than this number
on hand the day the survey was made. One of these dairies reported
only 78 cows, and the other reported 120 cows. The data from these two
dairy farms have been included in all tables describing the dairy indus-
try of Florida but will be omitted from tables which will follow in the
analysis section of this paper. Consequently, in Table 17 there will
occur this discrepancy; that is, data from both dairy farms will appear.
Table 17 will show the smallest dairy farm (when size is measured by
number of cows) to be a 78-cow dairy farm, the largest dairy farm to
have 1,345 cows and the average number of cows per dairy farm in Area 3
to be 409. If the two smaller dairies were deleted, the smallest farm
remaining would have 137 cows; the largest would have 1,345 cows; and
the average of the remaining farms would have 437 cows;


Table 17. Cattle inventory reported on Florida dairy farms in Area 3,
1967 (includes one 78-cow dairy and one 120-cow dairy)


Heifers
Under 6 6-18 Over 18 Total
Item months months months heifers Cows Bulls

Minimum 0 0 0 0 78 0
Maximum 300 150 196 646 1,345 24
Average, all farms 55 35 32 122 409 3
Average reporting
in category 77 63 57 197 409 6



Twenty-one percent of the dairy farm operators in Area 3 reported
no use of artificial insemination, whereas, slightly over 62 percent
reported that their cows were bred exclusively by artificial means.
In Area 3, 58 percent of the dairy farms reported the purchase of all
replacements with only two dairy farms, or slightly over 8 percent,
reporting the raising of 100 percent of their replacements. One dairy
farm reported heifers in inventory but was raising only 5 percent of
the replacements needed, the rest being purchased.

The average dairy farm in Area 4 had 762 cows and 243 heifers in
1967. Included in this average were two dairy farms which reported no
heifers in inventory but were actually supplied with 100 percent of the
needed replacements by an organization within their organization. In
other words, this group of dairies pooled their heifers on one farm
where all replacements were raised. This being the case, the figures
in Table 18 on heifers opposite "Average reporting in category" should
be the more meaningful figures to use as average numbers of heifers on
dairy farms in Area 4. This would show the average dairy farm in
Area 4 as a dairy with 762 cows and 489 heifers.










Table 18. Cattle inventory reported on Florida dairy farms in
Area 4, 1967


Heifers
Under 6 6-18 Over 18 Total
Item months months months heifers Cows Bulls

Minimum 0 0 0 0 211 0
Maximum 237 900 500 1,637 1,750 30
Average, all farms 54 103 86 243 762 6
Average reporting
in category 76 251 162 489 762 9



Sixty percent of the females (both herd cows and heifers) were
bred artificially in Area 4 in 1967. There were eight dairy farms
(47 percent of the sample) that reported exclusive use of artificial
breeding, while five farms, or 29 percent of the sample, reported no
artificial breeding.



MILKING FACILITIES


In Area 1, 83 percent of the dairy farms reported the use of
stanchion barns with the oldest being built in 1931 and the newest in
1963. The average age of stanchion barns was 23 years. However, two of
the oldest barns had been renovated as recently as 1965. The average
stanchion barn in Area 1 had 38 stalls and 6 milking units were used.

Only two dairies in Area 1 reported milking parlors. However, one
dairy farm operator advised that he planned to build a parlor in the near
future. The average time spent in milking was 4.6 hours per shift or
9.2 hours per day with a minimum time required of 6.2 hours per day and
a maximum of 12 hours per day. In 75 percent of the cases, the milking
was done in a split-shift. That is, the same crew milked at both the
morning and afternoon milking. One dairy farm in Area 1 had a morning
and an afternoon crew. Still another dairy farm in this area had a
situation where a man milked two shifts and was off one. If a man
milked in the morning, he would milk again in the evening and then be
off until the next evening.

The two dairy farms having parlors had different types of parlors.
One had a 12-stall walk-through-type parlor and the other had an 8-stall
herringbone or diagonal-stall parlor.

The one dairy operator, mentioned above, who had plans for building
a parlor gave as his reason for doing so the possibility of using older
employees. He felt that generally the older help was not only more










experienced, but also more reliable. When milking in a parlor, much of
the stooping labor is eliminated, thus, making the milking easier than
stanchion barn milking for older personnel.

There is one other consideration which should be brought out before
leaving the description of the milking facilities presently being used
in Area 1. That is, the dairy farm milking in the herringbone parlor,
even though it possessed only slightly more cows than were present on
the average dairy farm in the area, had the longest milking period--
6 hours morning and evening or 12 hours daily. The dairy farm with the
walk-through parlor had 50 percent more stalls, 30 more cows and only
4 milking units compared with 8 milking units in the herringbone parlor,
but it required only 4.5 hours per milking or 9 hours per day.

The average age of the stanchion barns in Area 2, of the 56 percent
of the sample which were using this type.facility, was 19 years. The
oldest barn in use was built in 1915; however, this facility was reno-
vated as late as 1965. The remainder of the dairy farms in the sample
were equally divided with one-half having walk-through and one-half
milking in herringbone parlors. The average number of stalls in the
stanchion barns was 58 with a maximum of 96. The oldest dairy barn in
the area was the barn with 96 stanchions. This barn accordingly had
the largest number of milking units of the stanchion barns in use.
There were 10 milking units in use in this barn. The average number of
milking units in the stanchion barns was 6 or 9.33 stanchions per milk-
ing unit. Eighty percent of the parlors were pit-type as compared with
ground level, and the average number of stalls was 9 with an average of
5 milking units.

The average dairy farm in Area 2 that was milking in a stanchion
barn needed 5 hours per milking or 10 hours daily to milk. The average
time required per milking on the dairy farms with parlors was 6.7 hours
per milking.

Sixty-seven percent of the dairy farms in Area 2 were milking in a
split-shift situation. The same crew milked morning and night. The
two systems (split-shift and separate crews) were almost equally divided
between the stanchion barns and the parlors. There were no more split-
shift crews associated with stanchion barns than with parlors.

In Area 3, 76 percent of the dairy farm operators were using stan-
chion barns. The oldest stanchion barn in the area was 42 years old,
while the newest was constructed in 1963. The average age of the stan-
chion barns was 16 years. Of the remaining 24 percent of the dairy
farms in Area 3 (those which had milking parlors), the oldest was
constructed in 1957, while the newest was only 1 year old--constructed
in 1966.

The largest stanchion barn in use in Area 3, at the time of the
survey, had 100 stanchions. The average number of stanchions in all
stanchion barns was 52. The range was from 20 to 100. The types of
milking parlors varied, and there was at least one of the following
types being used: side-opening, herringbone, walk-through and gate
stalls. The average number of stalls was 10 with a range of 8 to 20.










The average stanchion barn in Area 3 was utilizing 7 milking units,
but the range was from 3 to 14. This compares with an average number
of 8 milking units being used in the milking parlors. The range in
number of milking units in use in milking parlors in Area 3 was from
6 to 12.

The average length of time to milk in Area 3 was 6 hours per milk-
ing. The range in milking time per shift was from 3 to 9 hours.
Sixty-eight percent of the dairy farm operators in Area 3 were using the
split-shift crew organization.

In Area 4, 88 percent of the dairy farms milked in stanchion barns.
The oldest barn was constructed in 1940. The newest stanchion barn in
Area 4 was constructed in 1963, and the average age of all stanchion
barns in use was 11 years. The smallest stanchion barn was a 30-stall
barn, while the largest was constructed with 130 stalls. The average
stanchion barn in Area 4 contained 87 stalls and 9 milking units. The
range in milking units in the stanchion barns was from 5 to 16.

Only two of the dairy farms, in the sample surveyed, in Area 4
had parlors. One of these was built in 1960 and had 8 stalls and
4 milking units. This was a walk-through parlor constructed around a
pit. The other parlor, also a pit-type, was a herringbone milking
parlor with 16 stalls and 16 milking units. There were four operators
who indicated that they planned the construction of a milking parlor
in the future. These dairy farm operators gave the same reason as
those in other areas for either building or contemplating the building
of a parlor. That is, they were of the opinion that they could make
use of older, more settled dairy help in a parlor than they could if
they continued to operate in a stanchion barn.

In Area 4, 59 percent of the dairy farm operators reported their
crews were organized in a split-shift. All of the remaining 41 percent
reported the use of a morning crew and an evening crew. The range in
time per milking on Area 4 dairy farms was from 4 hours to 9 hours.
The average time per milking in the area was 7 hours.



FEEDING FACILITIES


In Area 1, 92 percent of the cows were fed during milking only.
Seventy-five percent of the cows were fed with a feed cart as opposed
to an overhead mechanical conveyor. There were also 75 percent of the
dairy farm operators who reported feeding according to production.
Fifty-eight percent of the operators advised that they were feeding
cows individually according to production as compared to feeding by
groups. In other words, some dairy farm operators had divided their
milking herd into groups by production and were feeding on this
basis.









The dairy farm operators in Area 1 were equally divided on the
question of method of feeding concentrate and roughage. Half of them
were using a single mix, which contained both concentrate and roughage,
while the other half were using two mixes--one concentrate and one
roughage. There were three other categories on which these operators
were divided equally. Fifty percent of these dairy farm operators
reported purchasing feed in bags, mixing feed on the farm and having
mechanical mixers on the farm. The operators buying feed in bags were
not necessarily the same ones reporting mixing feed on the farm, nor
were they necessarily the same group reporting use of a mechanical
mixer.

The range in size of mechanical mixers on dairy farms in Area 1
was from 2 tons to 10 tons with an average of 3.83 tons. The average
age of the mechanical mixers on these same dairy farms was 7.8 years
with a range of from 3 years to 10 years. These same dairy farms
reported mixing slightly less than 3 batches of feed daily at an aver-
age time of 1 hour and 40 minutes per batch. The average dairy that
was using a mechanical mixer in Area 1 was spending nearly 5 hours
daily mixing feed.

Seventy-eight percent of the dairy farms in Area 2 reported
feeding cows during milking. Some of these dairies also reported
some feeding other than in the barn. In fact, 56 percent of the total
dairies in the sample reported feeding other than during milking.
Again, many dairies reported the use of a feed cart in barn feeding.
To be exact, 67 percent of the dairy farms reported cart hauling of
feed to the stanchions.

Eighty-nine percent of the Area 2 sample dairies reported feeding
according to production. Of this 89 percent, 88 percent reported feed-
ing individual cows according to production. This would amount to
78 percent of the total dairy farms surveyed.

In Area 2, 89 percent of the dairy farm operators reported the
use of a two-mix feeding program. Fifty-six percent of the dairy
farms were purchasing feed in bulk, and 33 percent were mixing feed on
the farm. One-hundred percent of those reporting farm mixing of feed
were using mechanical mixers. The newest mechanical mixer presently
in use was 18 months old, and the oldest mixer in use was 6 years old.
The average capacity per batch for these mechanical mixers was 2.1 tons,
and the machine required an average of 28 minutes to mix 1 batch.

The average number of batches of feed required to mix enough feed
for 1 day's feeding on the dairy farms in Area 2 was 3. Coupling this
with the average mixing time per batch of 28 minutes, it is obvious
that the dairy farms mixing their own feed were spending an average of
1 hour and 8 minutes mixing feed.

In Area 3, 92 percent of the dairy farms were feeding during milk-
ing. Seventy-four percent of the farms were using feed carts to
distribute the feed. Of the dairy farms surveyed in Area 3, 75 percent
reported the feeding was done according to production, and half of this
group reported feeding individual cows by production.









Sixty-four percent of the dairy farm operators had a two-mix
feeding program. They were feeding grain according to production and
feeding roughage separately on a free-choice basis. The dairy farms
in this area were rather equally divided on method of purchasing feed.
Thirty-eight percent purchased feed exclusively in bags, 28 percent ex-
clusively bulk, and the remaining 34 percent purchased in both bulk and
bags.

In Area 3, 80 percent of the operators advised that they did some
mixing of feed on the farm. Of those mixing on the farm, 74 percent
reported the use of mechanical mixers. The oldest mechanical mixer
reported was 6 years in use, while the newest was 1 year old. The aver-
age mixer in use was 5 years old and was a 3-ton mixer. This average
mixer took 1 hour to mix 1 batch. The average dairy farm which mixed
its own feed used 3 batches of feed daily and required 3 hours to mix
this amount of feed.

Ninety-four percent of the dairy farms surveyed in Area 4 re-
ported feeding during milking. Eighty-eight percent of the dairy farms
reported using a cart for conveying and distributing feed through the
milking facility. Seventy-five percent of the operators in Area 4 re-
ported feeding according to production, while 58 percent said this was
done on a group basis rather than individually.

The dairy operators surveyed in Area 4 reported the use of a two-
mix feeding program on 53 percent of the dairy farms. They also re-
ported purchasing feed in both bags and bulk on 59 percent of the farms
surveyed. One-hundred percent of the dairy farms in Area 4 reported
farm mixing of feed. Of these, 81 percent reported the use of a mechan-
ical mixing device.

The average mechanicall mixer present on the dairy farms in Area 4
was 5.9 years ol( and was a 4.3-ton mixer. The average dairy farm in
this area, that ,ued a mechanical mixer, required 2.8 batches daily to
meet the requirenints of the cows on the farm. Since the average mixing
time per bat ch wa,; 48 minutes, these dairy farms spent an average of
2 hours and 14 minutes per day mixing feed.



LABOR FORCE AND ORGANIZATION


Two of the dairy farms surveyed in Area 1 reported more than one
operator. The rest of the dairy farms were all single-operator orga-
nizations. Only one dairy farm showed the use of as much as 12 months
of unpaid family labor.

The average dairy farm in Area 1 had 8.75 hired employees. The
range was from 3 to 30. Fifty percent of the dairy farms had hired
supervisors, and one-half of these had two hired supervisors. On the
dairy farms without hired supervision, the operator supervised all
operations.










The dairy farm operator in Area 1 with 30 employees would not take
the time to enumerate each employee's job; but other than this one farm,
all but one of the other dairy farms reported a division of labor be-
tween milkers, feeders, clean-up crew, heifer crew, etc. Of course, on
the dairy farms with fewer employees, each employee had more than one
task. However, the employee knew what task he was to perform daily.
Generally, the person doing the actual operation of handling the milking
machines did not have another job other than possibly feeding.

On the dairy farms reporting division of labor, which was 83 per-
cent of the farms surveyed, the average dairy farm had slightly under
three milkers per farm. The range in number of milkers on farms report-
ing was from 1 to 5. Seventy-five percent of the dairy farms surveyed
reported specially designated feeders, while only 42 percent had duties
of wash and clean-up specifically assigned. Only one dairy in Area 1
had an employee who did nothing but care for the replacement heifer
herd. Forty-two percent of the dairy farms reported field hands. The
number of field hands ranged from 1 to 5 and were in direct proportion
to the amount of home-grown feed produced.

In Area 2, 67 percent of the dairy farms were single-operator orga-
nizations--the remainder had two operators each. Only one dairy farm
reported any unpaid family labor, and this was only for an equivalent
of 6 months per year. The number of hired employees on dairy farms in
Area 2 varied from 3 to 35 with an average of 11. Forty-four percent
of the dairy farm operators reported they had hired supervisors. The
range in number of hired supervisors on these dairy farms was from
1 to 3.

One dairy farm in Area 2 did not report a specific breakdown of
different jobs to specific personnel; however, disregarding this one
farm, the average dairy farm in Area 2 employed four milkers. The
smallest number of milkers was 1 and the largest number was 9. Of the
farms reporting a specific job of feeder (89 percent), the average
number of feeders was 1.4 with a range of from 1 to 3. There were four
of the sample dairy farms in Area 2 which reported personnel specifi-
cally assigned to the heifer crew. The average number assigned to this
task was 1.7. There were also four dairy farms which reported field
hands, ranging in number from 1 to 10. Again, as in Area 1, the number
of field hands was in direct proportion to the size of dairy and the
amount of home-grown feed produced. The average dairy farm in Area 2
stated that the number of employees reported on the day of the survey
compared closely to the yearly average.

In Area 3, two dairy farms reported two operators; one dairy farm
operator reported spending only two-thirds of his time on the dairy;
and the rest of the 23 sample dairies were all single-operator situations.

The majority of the dairy farms in Area 3 made no use of unpaid
family labor. However, two farms each reported the use of two members
of the family as hired workers in the dairy operation, and one dairy
farm reported four hired family members, in addition to the operator,









as spending full-time on the dairy. This particular dairy farm showed
the use of only one part-time employee. The average dairy farm in
Area 3 had 7 hired employees and 1.4 hired supervisors. The range of
hired employees on dairy farms in Area 3 was from 1 part-time to 14
full-time.

There was an average of 3 milkers, 1.6 feeders, and 1 clean-up
employee on the sample dairies in Area 3. Only one dairy farm reported
any personnel assigned to raising heifers and only 28 percent listed
field hands. Of course, these field hands were associated with the
production of home-grown forage and varied accordingly from a minimum
of 1 on dairy farms reporting in this category to a maximum of 4.

Two of the dairy farms surveyed in Area 4 were owned by the same
corporation, and the operators' time was divided among six dairy farms.
Consequently, the minimum operators' time per dairy in this area was
1/6. The maximum operators per dairy was 2; however, the average dairy
farm in Area 4 had 1.13 operators. There was no use of unpaid family
labor on any dairy farm surveyed.

The average dairy farm in Area 4 had 12.25 hired employees, in
addition to the operator, of which 1.7 were hired supervisors. There
were only two dairy farms with no hired supervision and one farm re-
ported four hired supervisors. The largest number of hired employees
on any dairy farm in Area 4 was 35, and the smallest number of hired
employees was 3.5. The minimum number of employees designated as
milkers was 2, while the maximum was 10. The average dairy farm in
Area 4 reported six milkers.

Seven of the 17 sample dairy farms in Area 4 reported no designated
feeders, while the maximum number of feeders assigned on any farm in
the area was 4. The average number of feeders, considering all dairy
farms, was 1.2; however, when the average was calculated for dairy farms
reporting employees specifically assigned to feeding, the figure rose
from 1.2 to 2.

In addition to the 1.13 operators, the 1.7 hired supervisors,
6 milkers, and 2 feeders, the average dairy farm in Area 4 reported a
clean-up crew of 1.7, heifer crew of 1.5, milk hauling of .9, 2.9 field,
hands and 2.4 miscellaneous labor.

Eighty-seven percent of the dairy farms in Area 4 reported that the
number of employees on the day of the survey was comparable to the num-
ber employed for the past year. One dairy reported that there had been
an increase of three men in the past year. This was the dairy farm
employing the greatest number of employees, and this operator advised
that his employee number fluctuated between 34 and 38 year-round.










SALARY INCREASES AND OTHER FRINGE BENEFITS


Fifty percent of the sample dairy farm operators in Area 1
reported that their employees' raises were based on length of employ-
ment and efficiency. Even on these farms, there was really no set
procedure for these raises. Thirty-three percent of the dairymen re-
ported raises were based on both of the above criteria--length of em-
ployment and efficiency--while 17 percent reported raises were based
solely on length of employment and one operator based raises on the
single factor of efficiency.

All dairy farm operators in Area 1 were asked the following
question: Are there opportunities for advancement on your dairy?
Eighty-three percent answered, yes. Twenty-five percent reported that
supervisors were promoted from the ranks and 58 percent said that the
chance of a member of the clean-up crew becoming a supervisor was
almost nil.

Of the dairy farms surveyed in Area 1, 83 percent reported paying
bonuses. There were almost as many methods of paying bonuses as there
were dairy farms. These methods varied so greatly that the authors
made the decision to simply list the variations.

Description of Bonus Arrangement

1. Based on production plus 5 percent of annual salary.
2. Bonus paid weekly and based on 8 cents per gallon on all
gallons over 600 gallons per week. This is divided equally
among the employees.
3. Bonus based on production and earnings.
4. Bonus is an extra week's pay after 1 year of employment.
5. Bonus paid on bacteria count (two dairy farms).
6. Ten dollars a week plus 50 dollars every 6 months when mastitis
infection is held below the 10 percent level.
7. Christmas bonus based on dairy income.
8. Christmas bonus based on length of employment.
9. When the number of cows exceeds 180 per milker, the milkers
only are paid a bonus.

Seventy-five percent of the dairy farms in Area 1 reported no
insurance was provided for employees other than workman's compensation.
Dairy farm employees were given a vacation with pay on 92 percent of the
farms in the area. Sixty-seven percent of the dairy farm operators
gave their employees 1 week of vacation after a year's employment.
One dairy farm gave 1 week after 2 years, 2 weeks after 3 years and










3 weeks after 5 years. Still, another dairy farm operator in the area
gave 1 day off for every 2 months employment up to a maximum of 2 weeks.

Sick-leave was allowed on 42 percent of the dairy farms in Area 1,
and one-half of those allowing sick-leave stated there was no limit as
to the amount of sick-leave as long as there was a legitimate reason
for taking such leave.

In Area 1, 75 percent of the dairy farm operators furnished hous-
ing and maintained same. By the same token, 75 percent did not pay or
furnish utilities; 83 percent did not furnish uniforms; 58 percent did
furnish milk, and 9 percent furnished some meat.

There were no retirement plans other than social security, and
there were no stock-sharing plans. Fifty-eight percent of the operators
in Area 1 related that they did sign notes for their employees as a
necessity. Those indicating that they made cash loans to employees
said that the percentage of employees with outstanding loans on the
day of the survey was 33.5, but most agreed that this was a variable
figure and would range throughout the year from 0 to 100 percent.

Seventy-eight percent of the dairy farm operators surveyed in
Area 2 advised that raises to their employees were based on length of
employment; also, 78 percent reported raises were based on efficiency.
Sixty-seven percent of the dairy farm operators used both criteria
for awarding raises.

Again, 78 percent of the dairy farm operators advised that there
were opportunities for advancement, although only 56 percent reported
supervisors were promoted from the ranks; and a like proportion stated
that an employee, who began on the clean-up crew, could become a
supervisor.

Sixty-seven percent of the dairy farms in Area 2 paid bonuses;
and again, the bases for payment of bonuses were so varied that for
any interpretation to be made, they must be listed.

Description of Bonus Arrangement

1. Pay 100 dollars after each 6-month period of continuous
employment.
2. Christmas bonus paid on basis of length of employment.
3. Pay 5 cents per gallon for increased production.
4. Bonus paid on basis of length of employment and amount of
salary.
5. Pay 50 cents per head for all over 145 head in barn.
6. Pay 100 dollars to each employee at Christmas.










Sixty-seven percent of the sample dairy farms in Area 2 carried
some type of insurance on employees other than workman's compensation.
Most of these dairy farms insured their employees with hospitalization,
accident and sick pay plus life insurance policies.

Vacations were allowed on 100 percent of the dairy farms in Area 2;
however, only 89 percent allowed vacations with pay. The vacation al-
lowances varied considerably, and the different methods are outlined
below:


Description of Vacation Arrangement

1. One week allowed after first year; 2 weeks are allowed each
year thereafter.
2. One week after first year (three dairies).
3. Two weeks after 1 year (two dairies).
4. Length of employment (two dairies).
5. One week after 1 year, 2 weeks after 5 years and 3 weeks
after 10 years.

Fifty-six percent of the dairy farms allowed sick-leave.

In Area 2, 78 percent of the dairy farms provided housing for
their employees. Those furnishing housing did all of the maintenance
to the house.

Thirty-three percent of the dairy farm operators reported fur-
nishing utilities and uniforms, while 67 percent furnished milk.
Meat was furnished occasionally by one dairy farm.

One dairy farm in Area 2 had a retirement plan other than social
security for employees; however, there were no stock-sharing plans in
the area.

Sixty-seven percent of the dairy farm operators in Area 2 re-
ported signing notes for employees, and 45 percent said they made cash
loans. At the time of the survey, the average dairy farm operator had
outstanding cash loans to 23 percent of his employees.

Of the 23 sample dairy farms in Area 3, 64 percent based raises on
length of employment and efficiency. There were listed in this area
some other criteria for awarding raises.










Description of Bases for Raises

1. Honesty, sobriety, dependability and attitude toward
operator.
2. Attitude.
3. Dependability.
4. What ever is necessary to keep help.
5. Usually don't stay long enough to receive raise.
6. General attitude.

Eighty-six percent of the dairy farm operators in Area 3 reported
that there were chances for advancement on their dairy farms; however,
one of these operators said that the advancement was limited, and
another said the only advancement possible would be money-wise. There
were 78 percent of the dairy farms that reported supervisors were pro-
moted from the ranks.

Forty-eight percent of the dairymen reported the payment of
bonuses. The methods of arriving at a bonus payment were quite varied
as indicated in the listing below:

Description of Bonus Arrangement

1. Herd health, production and punctuality.
2. For foreman only--based on profit.
3. Length of service.
4. Length of employment and efficiency.
5. Christmas--based on length of employment.
6. Paid on basis of milk production.
7. If crew milks over 400 cows, a bonus is paid to each member
in the amount of 3 cents per cow.
8. Christmas and production goals per man.
9. Christmas bonuses for all who have been employed for at
least 1 year.
10. Ten cents per cow per day for all over 574 cows.
11. Bonus paid for milking over 700 cows plus a Christmas bonus.

Insurance, other than workman's compensation, was carried on
36 percent of the dairy farms in Area 3. These policies included life,
accident to compensate for salary loss, hospitalization, etc.

Ninety-six percent of the dairy farms in Area 3 reported the
awarding of paid vacations. All were awarded on length of employment.
However, sick-leave was provided on only 48 percent of the farms.











In Area 3, 83 percent of the dairy farms provided housing for
employees, and 95 percent of those who furnished housing maintained
the buildings. The other 5 percent required the employee to do the
maintenance work on the housing.

Thirty-six percent of the dairy farm operators stated that paid
utilities were provided for employees, while only 16 percent furnished
uniforms and milk. Twenty percent furnished some meat.

No dairy farm operator in Area 3 reported either a retirement
plan or a stock-sharing plan for employees; however, 32 percent advised
that they did sign notes for employees.

The average dairy farm operator in Area 3 reported he made cash
loans to 76 percent of his employees during the year and that 45 per-
cent of his employees owed him cash at the time of the survey.

In Area 4, 29 percent of the 17 sample dairy farms reported
raises based on length of employment, while only 12 percent used effi-
ciency as a criteria for giving raises. One dairy in the area re-
ported raises were given at anytime that there was an increase in the
price of milk. Two dairy farms reported raises were based on the
maintenance of a low bacteria count.

When asked the question: Are there opportunities for advancement
on your dairy?, 86 percent answered, yes. Eighty-eight percent said
that supervisors were promoted from the ranks, and 81 percent reported
that it was possible for an employee starting on the clean-up crew to
become a supervisor.

Fifty-nine percent reported having a bonus system; and again,
they were almost as varied as the number of dairy farms paying bonuses.

Description of Bonus Arrangement

1. First year, 5 dollars per month of employment; second year,
50 dollars; third year, 5 percent of salary.
2. Five percent of annual wage.
3. Ten dollars per month of employment paid annually.
4. Christmas (three dairy farms).
5. Five dollars per month of employment per year, up to a
maximum of 60 dollars per month.
6. Two percent of gross wage.
7. One-hundred dollars plus 25 dollars per year of service.
8. A 20-year-pay life insurance policy for a retirement program.

Fifty-eight percent of the dairy farm operators in Area 4 reported
providing insurance in the form of hospitalization.










All dairy farms in Area 4 awarded vacations with pay, and length
of vacation was dependent on length of employment. There was no set
policy as to sick-leave on any of the dairy farms in Area 4, and
53 percent of the operators reported that they did not pay for sick-leave.

One-hundred percent of the dairy farms in Area 4 reported that
housing was furnished for their employees. Only one dairy reported that
the employee was expected to maintain the house he was furnished. In
all other cases, housing was both furnished and maintained by the
employer.

Utilities were furnished in whole or in part by all but four of
the dairy farms surveyed in Area 4. Only five operators reported fur-
nishing uniforms, while seven dairy farms reported furnishing 50 percent
of the uniform cost. There were also five dairies where no uniform
allowance was given.

Seventy-six percent of the dairy farms in Area 4 reported either
furnishing milk or giving a cash milk allowance, while only 12 percent
reported any meat furnished. One dairy in Area 4 reported furnishing
cars for supervisors.

Ninety-four percent of the dairy farms in the area had no retire-
ment plan other than social security, and there were no stock-sharing
plans in effect at the time of the survey.

Only 27 percent of the dairy farm operators in Area 4 stated
that they signed notes at the bank for their employees. The average
dairy farm operator reporting cash loans to employees made these to
29 percent of his employees during the year and had loans outstanding
with 28 percent of the employees at the time of the survey.



LABOR RECRUITMENT


Dairy farm operators in the four areas under survey were asked
several questions relating to the qualifications they looked for in
hiring new employees, how they recruited and about their training
programs'for new employees. Seventy-five percent of the operators of
sample dairy farms in Area 1 replied with a yes when asked if they
preferred previous dairy experience in a new employee. One operator
gave a qualified yes, and two said they definitely preferred that a
new employee had no previous dairy experience. However, 91 percent of
the dairy farm operators in this area said that they preferred some
previous farm experience.

Fifty-eight percent replied with a "no preference" when they were
asked about level of education preferred in an employee. Forty-two
percent of the operators reported no preference as to age of employees;
however, the majority of operators said they preferred men between the










ages of 30 and 40. Eighty-three percent preferred married men, and
the requirements of being sober and dependable showed most frequently
when operators were asked about the personal characteristics preferred.

Nearly 100 percent of the operators interviewed in Area 1 advised
that almost all of their new employees were hired through personal
contact. One dairyman reported the use of out-of-state newspapers,
and two said they used the local newspaper.

All dairy farm operators reported a training period for new em-
ployees; however, only one reported a formal trainee program for new
employees. The rest simply said they had on-the-job training.

In Area 2, all dairy farm operators stated that they definitely
preferred a new employee with previous dairy experience; and if he did
not have this, they wanted him to at least have had farm experience.
Dairy farm operators were about equally divided on the question of
education; some preferred high school at least; some preferred more;
some preferred only elementary; one said it depended on the job; and
still others had no preference.

The average age preferred by dairy farm operators in Area 2 was
30 years with a range of 21 to 45 with only one stating no preference.
Married men were preferred by all operators; and again, soberness and
dependability were the predominant personal characteristics looked
for in a new employee. Personal contact was again the most frequent
method of recruitment. All dairy farm operators in Area 2 reported an
informal on-the-job training program.

The dairy farm operators in Area 3 all preferred previous dairy
experience when hiring a new employee, and 63 percent of them had no
preference as to amount of education. However, 33 percent of the
operators preferred high school graduates. Eighty-seven percent of
the operators preferred married men with an average age of 31.

The following personal traits looked for when hiring a new em-
ployee are listed in order of frequency of appearance in the data:
(1) soberness, (2) dependability, (3) cleanliness, (4) interest in
work and (5) promptness. There were many others listed but they
appeared only occasionally.

Again, as in other areas, personal contact was by far the most
used method of recruitment in Area 3.

Sixty-four percent of the operators of dairy farms in Area 3
reported informal on-the-job training. Several reported sending em-
ployees to university short courses, and one reported sending men to
the Graham Scientific Breeding School.

In Area 4, 94 percent of the dairy farm operators reported that
they preferred previous dairy experience in new employees, and
100 percent preferred at least previous farm experience.










Eighty-one percent had no preference as to educational level,
but the same percentage definitely preferred married men. Fifty-three
percent said that they had no age preference.

Here again, the dairy farm operators stressed the attempt to hire
non-drinkers, and they reported that recruitment was done entirely by
personal contact.

In Area 4, 65 percent of the dairy farms reported an informal
on-the-job training program.



MISCELLANEOUS


Seventy-five percent of the dairy farms in Area 1 reported an
increase in the size of herds over the last 5 years, and only
58 percent reported an increase in number of employees.

Rapid turnover was the most frequently listed problem with labor,
with undependability, lack of interest and inefficiency, following in
that order. Only one dairy farm operator said he had no labor prob-
lems of any consequence, and his outlook on the labor situation was
for an improvement.

Three dairy farm operators in Area 1 reported they had made
changes in an effort to alleviate their labor problems. One reported
changing from split-shifts to morning and evening crews; one stated he
had made a definite effort to hire the right man to begin with, and
the other had made a distinct effort to hire non-drinkers. All three
advised that these changes had increased efficiency.

Eighty-three percent of the dairymen reported they felt that many
of the government programs had effected the labor situation negatively,
by making "not working" as profitable as working, and by causing people
to expect to be cared for whether they worked or not. In other words,
they stated that many of the government welfare programs had tended to
remove the incentive to work. The wage and hour law was cited as an
example, even though dairy farms were paying above the minimum wage.
They said that one effect of the wage and hour law had been to increase
costs by necessitating, in some situations, the hiring of a secretary
to keep the required records.

Dairy farm operators in Area 1 reported that research needed was
in the area of more automated equipment, more disease research--partic-
ularly from a diagnostic standpoint--and more research in feeding and
management. They thought the Agricultural Extension Service could be
of assistance in making research information available more quickly,
having schools for operators on personnel management and co-op purchas-
ing, holding schools for labor training and using 4-H dairy programs
to try to change the image of dairy work. They reported that dairy










work wasn't the easiest work available; but the image most had of this
work was from 30 years ago, and there had been substantial changes
since that time.

Sixty-seven percent of the dairy farm operators in Area 2 reported
an increase in size of herd and crew in the last 5 years. When asked
to check different labor problems which they considered worst, 67 per-
cent complained of the fact that labor was not dependable. Forty-four
percent stated each of the following as of equal importance: rapid
turnover, lack of interest and inefficiency.

Of the 67 percent that said they had made an effort to correct
their problems by giving bonuses, changing from split-shift crews to
morning and afternoon crews, paying more, etc.; only one-third re-
ported that their efforts had increased efficiency.

Seventy-eight percent of the dairy farm operators expressed a
view that labor conditions would become worse in the future and listed
the following reasons: (1) not enough people interested in dairy work,
(2) competition from new industry and (3) government "give-a-way"
programs.

Dairy farm operators in Area 2 expressed the same needs for re-
search and extension programs as those in Area 1.

In Area 3, 75 percent of the dairy farms reported increasing size
of herd, while 60 percent reported increasing the size of the crew.

In listing labor problems reported in Area 3 as to frequency of
occurrence on data sheets, the list would be: (1) undependability,
(2) lack of interest, (3) rapid turnover and (4) inefficiency. One
dairyman in Area 3 listed a comment under the column for "other" labor
problems which should be quoted here. "I have no complaints as to
labor problems; we make most of our own problems." The individual
quoted here shall remain anonymous; however, his dairy is one of the
more efficient operations in the state.

Forty percent of the dairy farm operators in Area 3 reported
they had initiated changes; such as, increased pay, screening new ap-
plicants, increased use of machinery, shorter weeks, etc., in an effort
to remedy labor problems which existed. One-half of these operators
reported success; 20 percent said that success was questionable, and
the remaining 30 percent reported no change in efficiency.

Of the dairy farms surveyed in Area 3, 72 percent reported that
their outlook for labor in the future was worse than at present. They
gave as reasons for this outlook the fact that people were not inter-
ested in dairy work, competition from other industries and the "Great
Society" programs.

Dairy farm operators in Area 3 reported the need for research in
time and motion studies of different dairy installations, more automated









equipment and many others; also, a broader scope for extension in farm
management plus holding labor management schools for supervisors and
technical schools for dairy help.

In Area 4, dairy farms.reported-increases-in herd size on 53 per-
cent of the farms with an equal percentage showing increase in number
of employees over the last 5 years. Fifty-three percent of the dairy
farm operators listed the "lack of interest in the job" as the greatest
labor problem they faced. Undependable character of most dairy labor
was the second most frequently mentioned complaint. One dairy farm
operator advised that for every seven or eight new employees hired,
he usually got one dependable employee, whom he kept.

There were 52 percent of the dairy farm operators who reported
they had initiated changes in an effort to improve labor efficiency
and to alleviate some of their labor problems. They reported giving
raises, better training for new employees, more fringe benefits, etc.;
however, only 56 percent of this group thought that these changes had
increased efficiency or decreased labor problems.

Dairy farm operators in Area 4 were almost equally divided as to
their outlook for labor in the future. Fifty-three percent expected
the situation to become worse. With the exception of one operator,
the remaining expected no change.




HIRED WORKER DATA


Unlike much of the foregoing data, the data on individual workers
are best presented in table form; and for the sake of brevity, figures
for all four areas are shown in the same table (Table 19).








Table 19. Certain characteristics of dairy labor existing in all areas
of Peninsular Florida 1967


Item Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4

Age (years)
Minimum 17 17 16 16
Maximum 72 65 65 67
Average 38 34 36 34
Average reporting 38 36 36 37
Number of children
Minimum 0 0 0 0
Maximum 9 8 10 9
Average 2 2 2 3
Average reporting 3 3 3 3
Education (years)
Minimum 0 0 0 0
Maximum 12 18 13 16
Average 6 8.1 8 6
Average reporting 8 8.3 9 9
How long on this farm (years)
Minimum .02 .04 .02 .02
Maximum 15 20 40 29
Average 3 4.6 5 3.7
Average reporting 3 4.9 5 3.8
Attitude (points)/
Average 3.08 3.24 3.14 2.85
Hours worked per day
Minimum 3.5 4 6 3
Maximum 11.0 14 12 12
Average 9.2 9.2 9 7.3
Average reporting 9.2 9.73 9 8.8
Days worked per week
Minimum 4.5 5 5 2.46
Maximum 7.0 7 7.0 7.0
Average 6.09 5.6 5.9 5.75
Average reporting 6.09 5.9 5.9 5.68
Basic weekly pay (dollars)
Minimum 35 25 38 30
Maximum 130 150 172 170
Average 76 81 90 81
Average reporting 77 86 96 88

SOperators were asked to score the attitude of each individual worker as
excellent, good, fair or poor. These scores were assigned a numerical
value of 4, 3, 2 or 1, respectively. The scores were then added and a
simple average obtained.









FRINGE BENEFITS


The final data to be reported
dairy workers in the four areas of
These are presented as information
made.


are the fringe benefits allowed
Peninsular Florida (Table 20).
only and no comparisons will be


There are certain other fringe benefits awarded dairy farm workers
in all areas of Florida on which it was difficult if not impossible to
place a dollar value; such as, insurance paid by employee, sick-leave,
occasional use of vehicles, cash loans with no interest, co-signing of
notes, etc. There will be no effort made to report these, for it is
believed that people with any knowledge of the operation of a farm or,
in particular, a dairy farm, will be familiar with the situation with
regard to these fringe benefits.


Certain fringe benefits awarded employees
Peninsular Florida 1967


on dairy farms in


Item Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4

Bonus (annual)
Minimum $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Maximum 757 1,000 1,000 260
Average 51 91 85 67
Average reporting 158 157 161 177

Value of milk per day
Minimum $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Maximum .65 1.10 .67 .68
Average .20 .37 .29 .28
Average reporting .41 .64 .38 .60

Monthly rental value of
furnished housing
Minimum $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Maximum 90 200 90 100
Average 25 36 17 32
Average reporting 43 55 57 68


Table 20.










COMPARISON OF VARIOUS FACTORS OF
PRODUCTION WITH EFFICIENCY


Throughout this report, the four areas under study have been
described separately; and even though data from these areas have, in
several cases, been presented in the same table, no comparison between
areas has been made. It was thought, at the start of this survey, that
the four areas were definitely different. An analysis of variance was
made using cow numbers to test this hypothesis.-

This analysis certainly bears out the fact that in size, as mea-
sured by number of cows, there was a significant difference among the
areas. Since there was no research on production over time and by
months in Area 4, there was no factor which could be developed directly
from the literature to expand daily milk production to annual produc-
tion; therefore, it was necessary to find some measurement of produc-
tion in which there was no significant difference between the areas.

An analysis of variance of daily milk production per cow2/shows
no significant difference in daily production per cow among the dif-
ferent areas; consequently, the factor employed to develop the annual
production in Area 4 was developed by averaging the factors used in
Areas 1, 2 and 3. (See Appendix Tables 1-3). This can be defended by
the reasoning that production per cow influences annual production
more than any other factor except the time of year. Actually, the time
of year, breeding season, etc., all influence the production per cow.
Of course, no one would argue that the number of cows did not influence
total production, but this is not the consideration when trying to ex-
pand daily production to annual production, provided cow numbers do
not vary. Nearly all farm operators in the survey reported that cow
numbers were reasonably stable throughout the year.

Having, thus, established that production per cow was not signifi-
cantly different between areas or size of dairies a comparison of various
factors of production was made by combining all small dairy farms in the
areas studied, all medium dairy farms and all large dairy farms. Here,
size was determined as previously, by number of cows. Dairy farms which
had 125 to 499 cows, were considered small; farms with 500 to 749 cows,
were designated as medium, and large farms were those which had 750 or
more cows.




Masters Thesis, "Use of Labor and Labor Management Practices on
Florida Dairy Farms," C. L. Anderson, University of Florida, 1969
2/
- Ibid.









Small Dairy Farms


When separating the 34 small dairy farms surveyed into three
groups according to efficiency of production, there were six high
efficiency farms, 14 of medium efficiency and 14 farms in the low
efficiency group. Efficiency, in this case, was measured by pounds
of milk produced per worker per year.

Table 21 presents selected production factors which existed on
the three groups of small dairy farms. It is quite evident that there
was a large difference in the milk produced per worker from one group
to another. The cow numbers between the high and medium groups did
not vary considerably; however, the low efficiency group did average
considerably fewer cows than the other two. Average daily production
per cow varied directly with efficiency in all groups, as did the num-
ber of cows per worker. At the same time, the number of heifers per
worker varied inversely with efficiency. A smaller proportion of the
six farms in the high efficiency group was mixing feed than was the
case on the 28 farms in the other group; however, the percentage of
those that reported mixing, which were using mechanical rather than
hand mixing, was just as expected--the six high efficiency, small
dairies reported 100 percent of home-mixed feed was mixed mechanically.

Table 21. Selected production factors on the average small- dairy
farm when divided into groups of high, medium and low
efficiency,Z/ 34 sample dairy farms, Florida 1967


3/
Item- High Medium Low
Number of dairy farms 6 14 14
Pounds of milk produced per worker 794,864 562,716 378,039
Number of cows 386 338 246
Daily production per cow (gallons) 3.75 3.48 2.9
Number of workers 5.3 6.2 5.6
Number of cows per worker 72.4 54.3 43.9
Number of heifers per worker 11.2 16.4 18.5
Percent mixing feed on farm 50 78.6 60.0
Percent using mechanical mixer 100 63.6 67.0
Acres 376 411 291
Acres per cow .97 1.2 1.2
Age of dairy barn (years) 12 17 16
Percent farms reporting use of parlor 33 17 20

/125 to 499 cows.
2/
-/Efficiency measured by pounds of milk produced per worker.
3/All items are averages of the different groups except where expressed
as percentages.










Acres used per cow showed no significant difference among the
34 small dairy farms; however, age of dairy barns and use of parlors
were quite different between the six high efficiency dairy farms and
the other small dairies in the sample. Barns were newer in the high
efficiency group, and the percentage using parlors was higher in this
group, also.

Table 22 reports selected average characteristics of the operators
and hired workers, by efficiency groups, on the 34 small dairy farms
surveyed. The operators on the six high efficiency dairy farms were
slightly younger than the operators of the remaining 28 sample dairies.


Table 22.


Certain characteristics of the operator and hired workers on
the average small-ldairy farm, when divided into groups of
high, medium and low efficiency,27 34 sample dairy farms,
Florida 1967


Item/ High Medium Low
Number of dairy farms 6 14 14
Age of operator (years) 38 45 46
Education of operator (years) 12 11 11
Percent of operators having personnel
management training 0 17 14
Percent operators paying bonus 50 50 46
Percent operators reporting workers
had opportunity for advancement 100 67 77
Age of worker (years) 34 35 37
Education of worker (years) 10.8 8.7 7.8
Length of employment (years) 2.15 3.07 3.05
General attitude of worker (points) 3.3 3.18 2.99
Hours worked per day 10.5 9.2 9.1
Days worked per week 5.75 5.95 6.0
Hourly wage (dollars) 1.55 1.62 1.39
Percent receiving paid vacations 88 100 86
Weekly wage (dollars) 94 89 76


/125 to 499 cows.
/Efficiency measured by pounds of milk


produced per worker.


21All items are averages of the different groups
as percentages.


except where expressed


-Attitude scores of 1, 2, 3 and 4 were given for poor, fair, good and
excellent, respectively. These scores were then averaged.










There were no significant differences in education of operators;
however, the operators of the six high efficiency farms reported "no
personnel management training," while the operators of the 14 medium
and 14 low efficiency small dairy farms surveyed reported personnel
management training on 17 percent and 20 percent of the farms, respec-
tively. Probably some of them felt a definite need for such training,
and their lower efficiency rate could have been the reason.

There was no significant difference in percentage of operators pay-
ing bonuses between the three groups of small dairy farms; however, the
percentage which reported an opportunity for advancement was 100 percent
on the six high efficiency dairies compared with 67 percent and 77 per-
cent on the medium and low groups, respectively.

Age of hired workers showed only slight differences, but the
workers on the six high efficiency sample dairies had approximately
2 years more education than workers on the rest of the 34 farms. The
hired workers on the six high efficiency dairies had worked for a
shorter period of time, but were rated higher on general attitude than
those on the 28 dairy farms in the other two efficiency groups. They
also worked more hours per day, but they averaged slightly less days
per week than workers on the 14 medium and 14 low efficiency dairy farms.

The average weekly wages paid seemed to be a significant factor
associated with efficiency as indicated by the fact that these wages
received by hired workers were $94, $89 and $76, respectively, on the
high, medium and low efficiency dairy farms surveyed. This agreed
with a statement made to one of the authors by one of the operators
at the time of the survey. This operator stated that, "he had had
workers leave him for a 10 dollar a week raise on another dairy, which
he knew worked its employees much longer hours." This operator had
almost come to the conclusion that weekly pay was more important to
many dairy workers than hourly rate.

There was no significant difference between farms in the three
efficiency groups in the percentage of workers who were receiving paid
vacations.

Medium-Size Dairy Farms

There were 12 dairy farms, of the 59 farms surveyed in Peninsular
Florida, that had 500 to 749 cows. It should be remembered that two of
the original 61 farms surveyed were below the minimum size of 125 cows,
and they have been deleted from the latter part of this report.

The two high efficiency dairy farms in this size group had a pro-
duction per worker which was significantly greater than the production
on either the six medium or four low efficiency dairies (Table 23).

Cow numbers per farm decreased as efficiency decreased. Daily
production per cow and cows per worker did likewise, which was expected.










Table 23.


Certain production factors which existed on the average
medium-sizel/ dairy farm, when divided into groups of high,
medium and low efficiency,2/ 12 sample dairy farms, Florida
1967


Item3/ High Medium Low

Number of dairy farms 2 6 4
Pounds of milk per worker 792,752 566,895 400,402
Number of cows 694 614 594
Daily production per cow (gallons) 3.68 2.88 2.87
Number of workers 9.5 10 14
Number of cows per worker 73.0 62.4 44
Number of heifers per worker 14.6 20.9 29.8
Percent mixing feed on farm 50 83 100
Percent using mechanical mixer 100 100 75
Acres 500 715 610
Age of dairy barn (years) 14 13 18
Percent reporting use of parlor 0 33 0

1/500 to 749 cows.
500 to 749 cows.


2/
- Efficiency measured by pounds
3/
- All items are averages of the
as percentages.


of milk produced per worker.
different groups except where expressed


Percent of medium-size dairy farms mixing feed was inverse to the
efficiency rating. Also, the more efficient farms sampled had newer
dairy barns. On the 12 medium-size dairies, both the two high effi-
ciency farms and the four low efficiency farms milked cows in stanchion
barns. Of the six medium efficiency farms, 33 percent milked in parlors.
So there was no connection between type of barn and efficiency for the
medium-size dairies.

There were no significant differences among operators of the
three efficiency categories in the 12 medium-size dairies (Table 24).
Their average ages were only slightly different, as were their years
of education. None of these operators had had any personnel manage-
ment training.

The highest proportion of operators who paid bonuses to their
labor was in the high efficiency and low efficiency groups. A much
lower proportion of the medium efficiency group paid bonuses. The
same situation existed with percent of operators who reported that











Table 24. Certain characteristics of the operator and hired workers
on the average medium-size- dairy farm, wh n divided into
groups of high, medium and low efficiency, 12 sample
dairy farms, Florida 1967


3/
Itemnr- High Medium Low

Number of dairy farms 2 6 4
Age of operator (years) 51 47 51
Education of operator (years) 13.7 13.2 13.7
Percent of operators having personnel
management training 0 0 0
Percent operators paying bonus 50 33 75
Percent operators reporting workers
had opportunity for advancement 100 83 100
Age of worker (years) 33 38 38
Education of worker (years) 6.9 8.2 7.8
Length of employment (years) 3.15 5.01 3.85
General attitude of worker (points) 2.7 3.0 2.74
Hours worked per day 8.4 8.5 8.4
Days worked per week 5.87 6.1 6.02
Hourly wage (dollars) 1.91 1.78 1.59
Percent receiving paid vacations 50 95 97
Weekly wage (dollars) 94 92 83


/500 to 749 cows.
2/
- Efficiency measured by pounds of milk produced per worker.
3/
-All items are averages of the different groups except where expressed
as percentages.
4/
Attitude scores of 1, 2, 3 and 4 were given for poor, fair, good and
excellent, respectively. These scores were then averaged.


workers had an opportunity for advancement. So there was no apparent
association between these two factors and efficiency for the medium-
size dairies.

The average age of employees on the two high efficiency dairy
farms was 5 years younger than the average age of employees on the
other two groups of farms; however, they had slightly less education.

The hours worked per day and the days worked per week were not
significantly different among the 12 dairies. The average hourly










wage and, consequently, the average weekly pay were lower on the six
medium efficiency farms than on the two high efficiency farms. The
average pay per week was $94, $92 and $83 on the high, medium and low
efficiency farms, respectively. The medium efficiency farms gave paid
vacations to nearly as high a proportion of their workers as did the
low efficiency farms. But both gave paid vacations to a much higher
proportion of their workers than did the high efficiency group. So
there was no apparent connection between this factor and efficiency for
medium-size dairies.


Large Dairy Farms

There were 13 large dairy farms surveyed. When divided into
groups according to efficiency, four farms were included in the high
efficiency group, three farms in the medium efficiency group and six
farms in the low efficiency group (Table 25).


Table 25.


Certain production factors which existed on the average
largely/ dairy farm, when divided into groups of high,
medium and low efficiency,2/ 13 sample dairy farms,
Florida 1967


Item- High Medium Low

Number of dairy farms 4 3 6
Pounds of milk produced per worker 717,121 533,855 390,235
Number of cows 1,023 1,012 1,230
Daily production per cow (gallons) 3.16 2.68 2.85
Number of workers 14 15.8 27.2
Number of cows per worker 73.1 63.9 45.3
Number of heifers per worker .05 21.6 24.7
Percent mixing feed on farm 100 100 33
Percent using mechanical mixer 100 100 100
Acres 1,490 1,029 1,617
Age of dairy barn (years) 10 7 24
Percent reporting use of parlor 0 0 50


-750 or more cows.
2/
- Efficiency measured by pounds
3/
/-All items are averages of the
as percentages.


of milk produced per worker.
different groups except where expressed









Cow numbers per farm were comparable for the high and medium
efficiency groups. The six low efficiency dairies averaged about 200
more cows per farm than those in the other two groups.

The four high efficiency dairies had a daily production per cow
much greater than the nine other dairy farms. The number of cows per
worker was 73.1, 63.9 and 45.3 for the high, medium and low efficiency
groups, respectively. The number of heifers per worker was in the oppo-
site relation. The more efficient the operation, with regard to pounds
of milk produced per worker, the less heifers were on hand per worker.

All of the high and medium efficiency dairies reported mixing
feed on the farm, while only 33 percent of the six low efficiency
dairies reported this enterprise. All 11 operators, who reported mix-
ing feed, also reported that they made use of a mechanical mixer.
Only three dairies reported the use of a milking parlor. All of these
dairies were among the low efficiency group.

The operators of the four high efficiency dairy farms were
younger but had 2 years less education, on the average, than the oper-
ators of the nine large size farms surveyed (Table 26). The percent
of operators having personnel management training was 0, 33 and 17 for
the four high, three medium and six low efficiency dairy farm operators,
respectively.

Seventy-five percent of the operators of high efficiency, large
dairies reported paying cash bonuses; 67 percent of the other nine
large dairies reported bonuses. However, all 13 operators reported an
opportunity for advancement for their employees.

The hired workers' average age on the four high efficiency dairies
was 7 years older than those on the three medium efficiency farms and
2 years younger than the six dairy farms in the low efficiency group.

There were only slight differences in hours worked per day and
days worked per week among the 13 large dairy farms; however, the aver-
age weekly wages received were $94, $99 and $84 on the high, medium
and low efficiency dairy farms, respectively. Operators in each of the
three groups reported that all employees were awarded paid vacations.

All Dairy Farms

When efficiency is measured by the annual pounds of milk produced
per worker, the data in the six tables above show that the six high
efficiency small dairies were the most efficient, while the two high
efficiency, medium-size dairy farms ran a close second. The four high
high efficiency, large dairy farms had substantially less production per
worker. This was apparently caused by the lower daily production per
cow, for the workers were handling nearly the same number of cows in
each of the three groups. Since there were no cost and return data col-
lected in this survey no conclusions can be drawn to efficiencies in an
economic sense.










Table 26.


Certain characteristics of the operator and hired workers
on the average largely/ dairy farm, when divided into groups
of high, medium and low efficiency,!/ 13 sample dairy farms,
Florida 1967


3/
Item- High Medium Low

Number of dairy farms 4 3 6
Age of operator (years) 41 43 45
Education of operator (years) 12 14 14
Percent of operators having personnel
management training 0 33 17
Percent operators paying bonus 75 67 67
Percent operators reporting workers
had opportunity for advancement 100 100 100
Age of worker (years) 38 31 40
Education of worker (years) 7.5 8.9 6.9
Length of employment (years) 2.81 2.74 8.16
4/
General attitude of worker (points)- 3.04 3.04 3.08
Hours worked per day 9.04 8.9 9.06
Days worked per week 5.5 6 5.97
Hourly wage (dollars) 1.76 1.86 1.56
Percent receiving paid vacations 100 100 100
Weekly wage (dollars) 94 99 84


- 750 or more cows.


2/
-Efficiency measured by pounds of milk produced per worker.
3/
-All items are averages of the different groups except where
as percentages.


expressed


4/
Attitude scores of 1, 2, 3 and 4 were given for poor, fair, good and
excellent, respectively. These scores were than averaged.


In looking at all of the data in Tables 21 through 26, one could
deduct that, in determining efficiency of dairies on milk production per
worker, the size of dairy--when measured by number of cows--was not as
important as quality of cows, efficiency of plant, purchasing of re-
placements and the natural ability of management possessed by some
operators. Efficiency of plant relates to an earlier statement with
reference to the out migration of dairies from urban areas and building
newer more efficient facilities.









These data also point to the fact that milking parlors were quite
efficient for small dairies; but the operators of large dairies, parti-
cularly, should take a close look at the efficiencies involved before
installing a parlor.

It seemed evident that weekly wages were more important than hours
worked per day or days worked per week; however, hourly wage was also
of some importance in explaining difference in efficiency. In each size
category, the low efficiency dairy farms were paying the lower hourly
wage. It appears that paid vacations might have influenced the length
of time that an employee remained with a dairy, but the length of employ-
ment of hired workers had no apparent effect on efficiency.



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


The objectives of this study were (1) to describe labor force
and organization on Florida dairy farms, (2) to determine management
practices with respect to recruiting, training, supervision, payment
of fringe benefits and other incentives, and (3) to relate organization
and management practices to labor efficiency.

This study was limited to dairy farms with 125 or more cows in
Northeast Florida, Central Florida, Tampa Bay area and Southeast Florida.
A stratified random sample was selected to represent dairy farms in
these areas. Data were obtained by personal interview. Data were
summarized to give a general description of the farms studied and to
describe milking facilities, feeding facilities, labor force and organi-
zation, salary increases and fringe benefits and labor recruitment
practices.

When the schedules of the individual dairies were studied, it was
evident that there were almost as many different labor management prac-
tices as there were dairies. Many of these were similar, but all varied
in one way or another. Salaries ranged from one dollar per hour to
slightly over two dollars per hour. Bonuses varied from none to a
thousand dollars per man per year. In most cases, the higher bonuses
were for hired management who shared in the profits of the dairy. In
other instances, there were dairymen who paid high bonuses to the entire
crew based on production, bacteria count, etc. Some dairymen based
salaries and bonuses not only on efficiency, but also on length of
employment. Some of the dairymen surveyed felt this had had some
effect on lowering the rate of turnover in crews. Most dairymen furnished
housing--either on or off the farm. The trend appeared to be towards
better housing. Better housing was being contemplated by many because
most of the operators felt it paid to put a little more into housing in
order that workers' families would be more satisfied. Vacation with
pay was increasing. The length of the vacation was normally tied to
length of employment.









Most of the dairymen interviewed felt that labor was going to
become more of a problem in the future, and most were consciously trying
to do something about it. While automation is not solving all of the
problems, capital invested in efficient machinery, which make the job
easier, tends to make labor more productive. However, this is not the
answer to all labor problems. Most dairymen felt that labor management
training for operators and supervisors would be of great assistance.
They also felt that labor should be trained to do a more efficient and
effective job.

Some dairymen had built milking parlors in order to extend the
useful life of milkers who had been with them for a long time and had
become too old to milk in a stanchion barn. All of this was in spite
of the fact revealed by this study that length of employment had nothing
to do with efficiency and that milking parlors were not as efficient
as stanchion barns.

The statements made by operators of dairy farms in all areas of
Peninsular Florida show that they are aware of the problem of labor
motivation. It is reasonable to conclude from this study that the
ability of the operator to lead or motivate people is the one factor
which influences efficiency of dairy workers more than any other.






ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The data in this manuscript were originally in a master's
thesis presented by Charles L. Anderson to the Graduate Council of
the University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree Master of Science in Agriculture.




























APPENDIX TABLES










Appendix Table 1. Seasonal distribution of milk production, by size of
farm, wholesale dairy farms, Northeast Florida, 1958


Size of farm

Your All
Month farm Small Medium Large farms


Average


January

February

March


April

May

June


July

August

September


October

November

December


Average


number of


153

144

150


161

160

147


137

165

153


150

147

154


152


gallons sold


353

342

328


336

344

338


319

313

339


349

358

360


340


Source: Agricultural Economics Mimeo. Report--60-5, October, 1959 by
R. E. L. Greene, John Warrington and D. L. Brooke.


per day


766

764

780


415

427

440


448

445

459


433


845

831

863


807










Appendix Table 2. Seasonal distribution of milk production, by size of
farm, wholesale dairy farms, Central Florida, 1958


Size of farm

Your All
Month farm Small Medium Large farms


number of gallons


328

336

341


sold per day


684

674

672


649

636

593


553

578

674


Source: Agricultural Economics Mimeo. Report--60-2, October, 1959 by
R. E. L. Greene, John Warrington and D. L. Brooke.


January

February

March


Average


126

126

124


April

May

June


309

310

311


304

294

281


July

August

September


October

November

December


Average


142

142

141


126


285

286

321


332

351

350










Appendix Table 3. Seasonal distribution of milk production, by size of
farm, wholesale dairy farms, Tampa Bay Area, Florida,
1959


Size of farm

Your All
Month farm Small Medium Large farms


Average


January

February

March


April

May

June


July

August

September


October

November

December


Average


number


143

156

150


164

162

155


137

130

147


189

190

189


of gallons sold per day


370 775

384 807

384 816


382

400

399


355

341

320


297

302

332


356

363

365


368


Source: Agricultural Economics Mimeo. Report--61-5, November, 1960 by
R. E. L. Greene, R. H. Walker and D. L. Brooke.




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