AN ECONOMIC SURVEY OF DAIRY-FARM GROUPS IN NORTH AUCKLAND, SEASON 1927-28.

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume XL, Issue 4, 22 April 1930, Page 241

AN ECONOMIC SURVEY OF DAIRY-FARM GROUPS IN NORTH AUCKLAND, SEASON 1927-28.

E. J. Fawcett,

M.A. (Cambridge),. Farm Economist, Department of Agriculture.

Introduction.

It is intended in two articles to give a short analysis of data from two groups of dairy farms in the North Auckland Land District. The present article deals with sixty-nine farms at Ruawai, in Otamatea County; the second will deal with a group of one hundred and eleven near Dargaville, in Hobson County, which adjoins Otamatea.

In order to facilitate comparisons, the system of analysis employed has been kept uniform with that used in the Department's Bulletin No. .138, “ Dairy-farm Management,” dealing with Waikato and Taranaki dairy-farms. Figures relative to per-acre production, cows milked per hundred acres, production per cow, area, &c., are tabulated from different angles, each factor being taken as a basis of grouping in turn to show its relative importance compared with other broad management practices. All subsequent tabulations dealing with finance, &c., are shown from one angle onlynamely, by grouping data according to butterfat production per acre of productive land. In practically every instance a comparable table will be found for the Waikato and Taranaki farms in Bulletin 138 (which may be obtained free of charge on application to the Department).

The field-work in conjunction with this survey was done by Mr. O. C. Ormerod, of the Department of Agriculture. The manner in which farmers co-operated with him in supplying the necessary data is greatly appreciated by the writer.

General Conditions pertaining to Dairy-farming in the Districts surveyed.

Before going into the detailed analysis of figures it is essential to review some of the main features met with in the area under discussion. The same observations may be taken to apply to both the Ruawai and the Dargaville farms.

The development of dairy-farming on modern lines in North Auckland is a comparatively recent movement, and it cannot be expected that the average position should be strictly comparable with that of old-established dairying centres. The difficulties met with are great and varied, and in some instances are peculiar to this district. For many years development was slow, owing mainly to the system of land-settlement pertaining in districts where kauri-gum has been the main source of income. Improved transport facilities, combined with the demand for land following the war, and, consequent upon priceinflation, the necessity for better exploitation of land, has rapidly altered the position in the last few years.

Land Formation. — Practically all the farms surveyed consist of marine or alluvial deposits with a certain amount of clay and loam, and can be described as all flat country. Drainage is difficult owing to tidal water, and subsidiary drainage is lacking, due mainly to

initial cost. Consequently the land is waterlogged in the winter and early spring, giving a comparatively late spring growth and necessitating the wintering-off of cows in most instances.

Pasture Types and Management. — Conditions are very suitable for the establishment of high-grade pastures under careful' management, paspalum, rye-grass, cocksfoot, crested dogstail, white clover, and lotus major being present in most swards. Top-dressing is not so prevalent as could be wished, but is steadily increasing. ’ There 'is a great amount of speculation as to the advantages of different types of manures, and to the use of fertilizers generally. ’ Subdivision 'of paddocks and rotational grazing is being recognized as an advantage in pasture and weed control. On strong land of this type, especially where one of the main grasses is paspalum, small paddocks are a necessity if pastures are to be controlled. The movement in topdressing is probably disturbed owing to abortive results being obtained on many areas badly drained and carrying rank grass-growth. Rushes and pennyroyal are prevalent, and are a cause of restricted production or recurring expense. Tall fescue is a constant menace on many farms, and is responsible for a considerable loss of cattle. It is particularly difficult to eradicate on swamp-land infested with logs and stumps. The Ruawai farms are fairly well provided with shelter-belts, but those of the Dargaville group are lacking in this respect.

Cow Types and Disease.- Dairy stock-has been built up to a large extent on a foundation of Shorthorn cattle. At the present time Jersey, Shorthorn, Friesian, and Ayrshire strains are prominent, with a tendency to a predominance of the Jersey. The average cow production is comparatively low throughout the North, doubtless as a result of the foundation stock - used. This is gradually being overcome by the introduction of purebred bulls and in some cases heifers or cows of proved production strain, but the movement is retarded owing to the apparent prevalence of' disease. It is thought that high-production animals are more susceptible than the hardier heavy types. An outstanding characteristic of the whole of the farms surveyed is the large number of medium-quality cows milked per given area, the underlying principle being that high production may be achieved -by heavy carrying, and that if the necessity for culling for disease arises the loss in stock is not so serious as if only high-grade animals were depended upon. It is difficult to compare the incidence of cow-diseases with any other district, but undoubtedly the net replacement factor is of greater moment in Ruawai and Dargaville than is the case in the Waikato.

Wintering-off. — The wet nature of the country makes the wintering of cattle on higher land most desirable, and this practice is common throughout the swamp areas. Partially developed gum-land and hill country adjoin the flats, and this close proximity of the two types of land facilitates the movement of cows. The usual practice is to remove all or part of the herd for a period of eight to ten weeks, the cost varying from is. 6d. to 2S. 6d. per head, per week. „ By adopting this method a certain amount of poaching of the ground is avoided and pastures are allowed to come. away without interruption, thus ensuring feed for .early calvers, and the apparent carrying-capacity of

the farm is high. If it were not possible to winter at least a part of the herd off the farm, production from many swamp holdings would be materially ' reduced. ' Unproductive Land. — A number of the farms have varying areas of unproductive land, but this is not so prevalent in Ruawai as in Dargaville. The average for Ruawai is approximately 4-4 per cent, of the total area occupied. This unproductive area consists mainly of undrained swamp or tall fescue, and affects seventeen farms in the Ruawai group. The area affected has been carefully assessed and has been excluded from all tabulations.

The Climatic Bearing.

As a general rule, the rainfall of the North Auckland Land District is adequate and ideally distributed for the maintenance of permanent pastures in a high state of production at all times of the year. The volcanic land, particularly in Whangarei County, demands constant rain if production is to be maintained, but the swamp type on the West Coast can withstand partial drought conditions without such serious injury. Unfortunately the season under review was a bad one from the distribution . viewpoint, although total precipitation was good; in fact, adjacent recording stations - showed a total precipitation above the average, although Dargaville, the nearest station to the Ruawai area, shows a slightly subnormal total. Abnormally dry conditions were experienced during November, December, January, and March in Dargaville. With the exception of February, precipitation below the average was experienced from October, 1927, to April, 1928, inclusive. Although it is impossible to gauge the effect of this dry period on the season’s production, it is . safe to assume that butterfatyields on all farms were below the average, and this must be kept in mind when studying subsequent tables of results.

The following notes on the climate of North Auckland are supplied by Mr. C. J. Hamblyn, Instructor in Agriculture, Whangarei:— A study of the figures giving the average rainfall for the months of December, January, February, and March, for Whangarei, Dargaville, and Kaitaia, over a period of ten years, would indicate that the total fall for each of these months should be adequate for the maintenance of good pasture-growth. The efficiency of this rainfall depends, however, more on the number of days on which rain falls and the distribution of the wet days. A closer study of the rainfall in North Auckland will show that, though the average fall per month during the summer is much the same as that for South Auckland, there are occasional seasons of very little summer rainfall; but the main point is the fact that the average number of days on which rain falls is about half the number given for South Auckland, and, moreover, the maximum fall for one day is generally much greater. Also, the summer rainfall is made up generally of short spells of heavy rain with long spells of much more intensive heat than elsewhere, so that the rain on a dry soil is not effective, though the total for the month may appear to be so. This applies to the soils of the Northern Wairoa basin, where, in addition, the summer rainfall is on the average a good deal’ less than that for Whangarei, where thunderstorms are much more prevalent. These points, I think, have a direct bearing on the known fact that were farmers dependent on English pastures and without paspalum there would be generally a very distinct period of summer shortage of pasturegrowth. It is through the use of paspalum, and not on account of the favourable summer rainfall, that pasture-growth is maintained during the summer. With paspalum, in spite of an adequate rainfall, there is a distinct early-spring shortage, but this is overcome on a great many farms by wintering-off and commencing the milking season later than would be the case were rye-grass dominant in the pastures.

1. Ruawai GroupOtamatea County.

Bounded by the Kaipara Harbour on one side, Otamatea County runs across the island to the east coast, and is joined by Rodney County on the southern and by Whangarei and Hobson Counties on the northern boundaries. The greater portion is undulating to hilly, the main dairying districts being on the low country adjoining Kaipara Harbour. Much of the undeveloped country is of the familiar gum-land type. The farms dealt with in this section of the survey are all in the Ruawai district, and represent perhaps the best of the dairying farms in the county. The total occupied area of Otamatea County in 1928 was 237,615 acres, of which a comparatively small percentage was used exclusively for ‘dairying. Of the area occupied, 159,244 acres were improved, consisting of 155,540 acres in grass, of which 433 acres were cut for hay or ensilage in the season under discussion. Some 2,611 acres were under the plough for cropping purposes, mainly preparatory to establishment of permanent pastures. The remainder represented orchards, plantations, &c. Stock in the county consisted of the following: Horses, 2,339 ; dairy cows in milk or dry, 18,141 ; other cattle and young stock, 24,156 ; sheep wintered, 1928, 74,144 ; pigs, 8,083. On a sheep-unit basis dairy cows represented 36-88 per cent, of the total stock carried. . The sixty-nine farms comprised in this analysis milked 3,102 cows for the 1927-28 season, or 17-1 per cent, of the total dairy . cows in the

county. Each farm was visited for the collection of data, and records have been checked in every possible way. A number of records have been discarded owing to incomplete details.

Butterfat Production and Size of Farm.

The following four tables group the sixty-nine farms and present resultant data under the specified headings. It should be noted that all figures within groups have been computed on the unweighted average, and therefore may or may not cross-check.

. . The outstanding feature of the preceding tables is the apparent capability of milking a large number of cows on a given area. The two factors contributing to this are (1) the practice of wintering cows off the farm, and (2) any errors which may have been made in computing the area of land classed as unproductive, an underestimate tending to increase the capacity of productive land. The former reason is the major one, the practice undoubtedly contributing greatly to the success of dairying on swamp flats. Without' facilities for wintering-off, this class of land would not be so valuable as at present is the case. Apart from this feature, the tables bear out previous studies and support the contentions made in Bulletin No. 138 relative to the importance of the capacity to milk a larger number of cows on any given area in procuring heavy per-acre production. The area of farms is not apparently correlated with production in this group, this • again probably being affected by wintering-off, thus allowing equal per-acre milking-capacity on all sizes of farms under comparable conditions.

Top-dressing and Labour.

The practice of heavy and systematic top-dressing has not yet become general in the Ruawai district. Many farms were not manured at all during the season under review, while many others top-dressed small areas only. Table 5 shows a very different position from that pertaining to the Waikato farms surveyed. Although more manure is used per acre on the heavier-producing farms, it is apparent that there has not been sufficient applied to greatly influence milking-capacity.- The quantity used per cow tends to fall, and any trend in manure used per pound of butterfat produced cannot be regarded as significant. Due to the presence of paspalum in the pasture sward and to the practice of wintering-off, milking-capacity does not show such a wide range of fluctuation, as is found on the rye-grass farms of the Waikato and Taranaki districts, where all stock is maintained on the same area all the year. Top-dressing will therefore not show to full advantage in Ruawai till pastures are fully ' exploited, which should result in a

still heavier carrying-capacity and higher herd-averages. An advance in top-dressing will in all probability synchronize with subdivision and with herd-improvement.

The labour position illustrates to. a great extent the stage of development arrived at on North Auckland dairy farms. A unit of labour represents one person, whether male or female, or children shown as employed whole or part time on the farm. The density of labour is much higher than on farms in a more advanced stage as found in the Waikato or. Taranaki. This is. due (1) to the heavy carrying-capacity of milking-cows owing to the wintering-off factor previously discussed, and (2) to a wider application of hand milking. The latter condition is being rapidly altered, which will bring the number of cows milked per unit more into line with the figure given in the discussion of Waikato and Taranaki farms. Although the number of cows milked and butterfat produced per unit of labour is at present low, the fact remains that the higher density of labour on high-production groups is utilized to greater advantage than is the case with low-production groups.

Gross Returns.

The gross returns from farms follow very closely [the returns from farms of similar production-capacity in other districts, minor fluctuations being caused through profits from pig or cattle accounts.

There is a considerable amount of buying for cow-replacement owing to a heavy wastage from disease, and this has resulted in debit balances in many stock accounts. The total returns are as follow :

It will be seen that, although total returns are satisfactory, the result has been achieved by milking a greater number of lower-quality cows. This has been made possible by the density of available labour.

Maintenance Expenses.

Expenses of maintenance include two items not experienced in previous surveys—namely, drainage rates and winter grazing. It will be seen that even including these items the total cost per 100 acres or per cow are considerably lower than is the case for farms of similar production in the Waikato and Taranaki districts. This is accounted for by lower expenditure on manures and all the other items except rates. Farms in the Ruawai district are undoubtedly run as economically as possible, but it is questionable whether it would not eventually pay to spend more on the working of the farms if a long view is taken of the position.

Distribution of Gross Returns.

In Table 9 gross returns are broken up into maintenance expenses, labour reward, and interest surplus. Labour has been charged at £7 per cow milked, in order to effect uniformity with previous analyses. ■Owing to the heavy milking-capacity of farms in the higher groups particularly, the resultant labour figure appears very high. It must be remembered, however, that milking operations are heavy labourdemanders, and, even though it may be for a part of the year only, adequate help must be available when required if production is to be maintained.

This table stresses the fact that it does not pay to run a lowproduction farm unless production is incidental to the stage of development of the land and shows a progressive increase. Low production and high capitalization are a fatal combination, and even if such farms are not highly capitalized considerable reserve capital is essential for development if the state of production is to be altered in a reasonable period of time.

Interest Surplus.

Accepting the foregoing break-up of income as reasonable, the interest surplus can be converted into capita] as a guide to the pro-duction-value of land under the conditions experienced in this district.

Gross capital covers land and improvements,, stock and plant Therefore if the value of stock and land is subtracted one arrives at a figure on which the average farm in this district earns 7 per cent, interest after paying maintenance expenses and a labour reward on the basis of £7 per cow milked.

Those groups of farms having a high average production are earning on a per-acre capital basis quite comparable with that of farms in olderestablished districts, but they are doing so by milking a large number of cows, which reduces the capital value per cow milked. The fallingoff is very rapid, in low-production groups. It is of interest to compare the capital value, as assessed above, with Government valuations. As is to be expected, these valuations are below the apparent earning-value on high-production farms, but on farms producing below 120 lb. of butterfat per acre they are considerably above. The variations in management efficiency and in farm improvements make it very difficult to assess a fair ' valuation for taxation purposes.

Summary.

Dairying in the Ruawai district has developed along lines suited to conditions prevailing locally. Owing to the swampy nature of the country and availability of hill country adjoining, wintering-off occupies an important place in herd and pasture management. Owing to the

type of foundation stock used, and to the prevalence of disease, the average production per herd is not high, but is steadily improving. Wintering-off has enabled farmers to practise a heavy density of cows during the lactation period, and this system of management has resulted in heavy per-acre production on the more highly improved farms. Total returns are comparable with old-established farms in other districts ; but this has been attained at the expense of labour. In other words, more labour is required to achieve the same capital result than is the case in Taranaki and the Waikato, where, owing to a higher production per cow, a lesser number gives the same butterfat total. ; The fact that so many of the farms show a sound financial position is evidence that those at .present • below the average can be looked upon as potentially sound. Lack of capital is undoubtedly the major retarding factor, although misfortune has played its part on many holdings. Again, it must be remembered that the district suffered from a dry summer during the season under review.

(To be continued.)

* Eight farms. f Twelve farms.

Month. Dargaville, Whangarei. Auckland. Total Fall. Number Average Total of Wet Fall. Number of Wet Days. Days. Average Average Rainfall. Rainfall. Total Total Fall.. Fall. Number Number of Wet of Wet Days. Days. Average Average Rainfall. Rainfall. Total Fall. Number of Wet Days. Days. Average Rainfall. Rainfall. I927Inches. Inches. Inches. Inches. Inches. Inches. July .. 5-91 24 5-12 9’73 21 7’53 8’47 29 4-98 August ■ .. 5-65 24 4'34 6-23 24 6-8 5 6-96 26 *19 September .. 4-63 18 3’74 . 5’97 . 18 5-03 4-31 21 3-65 October 2-78 ' 8 3-76 3-62 7 4-64 . 2-66. 12 3-64 November 1-06 12 3'72 1-30 8 3-00 1-63 13 3-26 December .. 1-05 . IO 2-92 i-34 14 2’49 1-42 12 2-84 1928. January 0-07 5 2-97 1-52 9 4-08 0-20 3 2-66 February 3-46 3 2’99 3-18 6 4-46 l.-6i 5 3-06 March .. 1-65 9 2-31 6-i8 10 4-52 3-45 11 3-03 April . . 2-65 10 4-04 7-3 13 4’45 4-90 21 3-46 May . . . . 8-oo 23 6-42 n-73 .21 7-84 10-42; 30 4-50 June .. 6-93 21 5-n 12-67 19 6-22 5-84. ' 22 4-9i Total ■ 43-84 167 47’44 71-30 170 6i-ii 51-87 205 44-18

The following table gives the total rainfall and its distribution at Dargaville, Whangarei, and Auckland for the year 1927-28.

Butterfat per Acre—Range. Number of Farms in Group. Butterfat per Acre. Butterfat per Cow. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Number of Cows milked per Farm. Productive Area. Non-pro-ductive Area. Total . Area. lb. lb. lb. Acres. Acres. Acres. 160-179-9 5 lb. 167-2 lb. 241-1 69-7 54-o Acres. 76-8 Acres. Acres. 76-8 140-159-9 8 147-7 225-3 67-1 5o-o 76-5 8-0 84-5 120-139-9 IO 129-3 224-5 58-1 50-5 87-4 2-4 89-8 100-119-9 14 108-0 207-4 53-o 48-4 91’3 2-0 93-3 80- 99-9 15 88-3 199-5 44'8 43-i 96-4 . 3-0 99’4 60- 79-9 9 73'7 184-2 40-6 3i-9 75-i 2-1 ■ 77'2 40- 59-9 8 49’3 I54-I 33-o 39-8 i3i-3 6-o 137-3

Table 1. —Farms grouped according to Butterfat-production per Acre (Productive Area).

Number of Cows milked per 100 —'Range. Number of Farms in Group. Number of Cows per 100Acres— Average. Butterfat per Acre. Butterfat per Cow. Number of Cows milked per Farm. Productive Area. Unproductive Area. Total Area. lb. lb. Acres. Acres. Acres. 80-89-9 2 83-4 lb. 159-5 lb. 192-6 53-o Acres. 65-0 Acres. 18-5 Acres. 83-5 70-79-9 14 71-9 146-6 204-0 51'3 71-2 5-3 76-5 60-69-9 13 63-9 I38-4 216-6 50-3 78-3 2-7 81-o 50-59-9 16 53-5 114-9 214-9 58-4 110-4 2-0 112-4 40-49-9 20 . 44-5 87-7 192-2 35’6 79-6 1-9 81-5 30-39'9 IO 37-o 71-6 193’4 3i-3 84-9 i-9 86-8 20-29-9 4 27-1 47'9 176-7 44-8 170-0 12-0 182-0

Table 2.-Farms grouped according to Cows milked per 100 Acres (Productive).

Butterfat per Cow —Range. Number of Farms in Group. Butterfat per Cow —■ Average. Butterfat per Acre (Productive). Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres , (Productive). Number of Cows milked per : Farm. Productive Area. Unproductive Area. Total Area. lb. 275-299-9 I lb. 277-8 lb. 142-0 5i-i 45-o Acres. 88-0 Acres. 12-0 Acres. ioo-o 25O-274-9 5 256-3 136-6 53-i 43-8 88-6 88-6 225-249-9 14 236-5 129-2 54’7 44’4 80-9 9-o 8i-8 200-224-9 19 211-8 114'7 54-o 52-1 95-5 2-1 97’6 I75-I99-9 16 188-0 77-6 41-2 42-2 108-3 4-8 113-1 I5O-I74-9 8 166-3 . 99'2 59'7 36-6 64-1 9-8 73-9 125-149-9 6 134-5 59'4 44-1 43-2 98-9 2-0 100-9

Table 3. —Farms grouped according to Butterfat-production per Cow.

Size of Farm• Range. Number of Farms in Group. Productive AreaAverage. Butterfat per Acre. Butterfat per Cow. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Number of Cows milked per Farm. Unproductive Area. Total Area. ■ Butterfat per Cow. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres.' Number of Cows milked per Farm. Unproductive Area. Total Area. ' Acres. .30-39-9 2 Acres. 34'0 lb. 120-7 lb. 187-8 67-1 22-0 Acres. 18-5 Acres.' 52-5 40-49-9 5 45-o 76-9 181-3 42-7 19-0 4'6 49’6 50-59-9 . •• 13 53’8 110'2 210-8 51-7 27'7 53-8 60-69-9 . . . 4 64-6 II 4 -7 207-3 54'6 35’3 5’3 69-9 70-79-9 13 73'7 IO7-4 213-3 50'4 37-i 2-8 76-5 80-89-9 6 84-8 94’7 ■ 198-1 47'6 40-3 6-2 91-0 90-99’9 2 94'0 113-6 196-5 57’6 53’5 i-o 95-o . 100-109-9 • • ii 101-4 115-6 204-9 ' 55’4 56-1 0-5 101-9 110-139-9 ■ .. ' 5 124-6 104-1 194-6 5i-4 63-4 4-o 128-6 140-199-9 4 160-3 97’7 203-8 48-8 77-5 2-0 162-3 200-299-9 . . 4 258-8 78-3 198-6 38-4 96-8 io-o 268-8

Table 4.—Farms grouped according to Size of Farm (Productive Area).

Amount of Manure. Lime per Acre Number of t ' Butterfat ; per Acre —Range. Amount of Manure. Lime per Acre (not included in Manure). Number of t Farms in Group. Per Acre. Per Cow. Per Pound of Butterfat. lb. ■ Cwt.- ■■ Cwt. • lb. Cwt. Cwt. 160-179-9 . . 5 160-179-9 . . 1-6 1:6 2-4 2-4 I-I o-i 5 140-159-9 . . 1-7 2-5 i-3 0-2 8 120-139-9 . . 1’4 2-4 2-4 1-2 ■ 1-2 0-2 ’ 0-2 10 o-6 10 100-199-9 . . 0-9 2-0 o-9 o-6 14 T 4 80- 99-9 . . i-o 2-4 1-4 • T 5 60- 79-9 .. 0 9 2-2 1’3 9 40- 59’9 ■ • 09 o-6 2-2 2-0 i-3 i-4 9 8

Table 5. —Manure used for Top-dressing : Farms grouped according to Butterfatproduction per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per Acre—’Range. Labour Units per 100 Acres. Number of Cows milked per Labour Unit. . Butterfat produced per Labour Unit. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Number of , Farms in Group. lb. if SI lb. 160-179-9.. .. 5-i 1.5-4 lb. 3,681 69-7 5 140-159-9.. 4’8 17-2 . 2,912 67-1 8 120-139-9.. 4’4 15'5 3.479 . 58-1 10 100-119-9.. 4’5 . 13-2 2,673 53'0 14.. 80- 99-9. . 4' 1 12-5 - 2,497.. ' 44'8 ■ 15 60- 79-9 . . 4-2 n-3 2,003 , 40-6 9 40- 59’9 • • 3'4 n-5 . 1,756 33'0 8 a

Table 6.—Labour : Farms grouped according to Butterfat - production per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per AcreRange. Gross Returns per - 100 Acres. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Gross Returns per Cow. lb. lb. £ 160-179-9 1,215 697 17-43 140-159-9 1,163 67-1 17-33 120-139-9 981 58-1 16-88 100-119-9 804 53’0 15-17 80- 99-9 684 44-8 15-27 60- 79-9 501 40-6 12-34 40- 59-9 377 33’0 11-42

Table 7. — Gross Returns: Farms grouped according to Butterfat - production per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per Acre — Range. Manure. Rates. Fences. Cultivation. Power. Winter Grazing. Depreciation. Sundries. ■ ' Total. Cost per Cow milked. dual Cost. lb. £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ '£ £ 160-179-9 47'2 53’1 9'3 4’5 26-2 31-6 24-9 23'7 220-5 3-16 140-159-9 48-4 57-i 12-5 13’8 28-5 46-8 28-9 26-4 262-4 3’91 120-139-9 41-6 52-5 9-0 18-3 ' 17-6 30-6 17’9 14-6 202-1 3-48 100-119-9 32-4 47-8 13-9 8-8 17-3 33'6 18-2 16-2 188-2 3-55 80- 99-9 30-3 48-6 7'3 16-5 18-1 23-6 19'5 15-8 179-7 4-01 60- 79-9 24-2 5i'3 15'0 10-7 17-8 24-6 19-8 16-1 179-5 4-42 40- 59-9 18-2 41-4 o’ 2 15-9 io-6 12-3 14-6 xi-8 130-0 3’91 lb. Percentage of Total. 160-179-9 21-4 24-1 4’2 2-0 ix-9 14-3 u-3 xo-8 100 140-159-9 18-4 21-8 4-8 5'2 10-9 17-8 ii-o io-i 100 120-139-9 20-6 26-0 4'4 9-1 8-7 i5'i 8-9 7-2 100 100-119-9 17-2 25'4 - 7'4 . 4’7 9-2 17-8 97 8-6 100 80- 99-9 16-9 27-0 4'i 9-2 xo-i 13-1 xo-8 ' 8-8 100 60- 79-9 13-5 28-6 8-3 6-o 9'9 13-7 ii-o 9-0 100 40- 59-9 14-0 31-8 4-0 12-2 8-2 9'5 11-2 9'1 100

Table 8.-Expenses: Farms grouped according to Butterfat - production per Acre (Productive). (All Figures per 100 Acres.)

Butterfat per Acre Range. Number of ' Farms in Group. Maintenance. Labour. Interest. Total. Per 100 Acres. Percentage of Total. Per 100 Acres. Percentage of Total. Per too Acres. Percent- ' age of Total. Per too Acres. Percentage. lb. £ £ • •- £ £ 160-179-9 5 220 18-1 488 40-2 507 41-7 1,215 IOO 140-159-9 8 263 22-6 49 4°'3 431 37-i 1,163 TOO 120-139-9 IO 202 20-6 407 41’5 37 37’9 981 IOO 100-119-9 14 188 23’4 37.1 46-1 245 30’5 804 IOO 80-99-9 15 180 26-3 314 45’9 190 27-8 684 IOO 60-79-9 9 180 35'9 284 567 - 37 ■ ■ 7'4 501 IOO 40-59-9 8 130 34’5 231 61-3 16 .4-2 377 IOO

Table 9. — Distribution of Gross Returns: Farms grouped according to Butterfatproduction per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per Acre Range. Number of Farms in Group. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Interest Surplus per 100 Acres. Gross Capital represented at 7 per Cent. lb. £ £ 160-179-9 5 69-7 £ • 507 £ 7,240 140-159-9 8 67-1 431 164 120-139-9 IO 58-1 372 5-319 100-119-9 14 53-o 245 3.493 80- 99-9 15 44’8 . 190 2,719 60- 79-9 . 9 40-6 37 535 40- 59’9 8 33’0 16 223

Table 10.—Interest Surplus and Capital: Farms arranged according to Butterfatproduction per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per'. Acre —Range. Number of Farms in Group. Number of Cows milked per 100 Acres. Gross Capital. Valuation of Stock and Plant. Net Capital— Land and ' Improvements. Value of Land ■ and . ■ - Improvements per Cow milked. lb. £ £ £ £ 160-179-9 69-7 ”"£ ' '" £ ■ £ 5 6,062 £ 69-7 86-97 5 7,240 7,240 1, 178 1,178 6,062 86-97 140-159-9 8 . 67-1 6,164 ,220 4,944 73'68 120-139-9 IO 58-1 5,319 945 ■ 4,374 75-28 100-119-9 14 ' 53-o 3-493 901 2,592 48-91 - 80- 99-9 15 44-8 2,719 830 889 42-17 60- 79-9 9 40-6 535 806 — 271 40- 59-9 8 33'0 ♦ 223 629 — 406

Table 11. —Capital Position : Farms grouped according to Butterfat-production per Acre (Productive).

Butterfat per Acre— Range. Number of Farms in Group. Value of Land and Improvements per 100 Acres. Government Valuation per 100 Acres. lb. 160-179-9 5 - £ 6,062 £ 3,826 140-159-9 • 8 4.944 4,263 120-139-9 IO 4-374 3.752* 100-119-9 - . . 14 2,592 3.493t 80- 99-9 15 . 1,889 ■ 3.459 60- 79-9 9 — 271 3.419 40- 59-9 8 — 406 2,960

Table 12.- Valuations : Farms grouped according to Butterfat-production per Acre (Productive).