UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA SERIES ON CALIFORNIA CROPS AND PRICES DAIRY PRODUCTS EDWIN C. VOORHIES BULLETIN 514 OCTOBER, 1931 CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA CONTENTS PAGE Foreword 3 Summary 4 Development of the dairy industry 11 Geographic distribution of dairy cows 19 Recent trends in number of dairy cattle and heifers 21 Purebred dairy cattle 27 Importance of the dairy industry 30 Dairy feed conditions in California 36 Productivity per cow 37 Utilization of milk 42 Production of dairy products 44 Consumption of dairy products... 69 Prices and purchasing power of products of the dairy industry 78 Cost factors m the production of milk 122 Storage and holdings of dairy products 130 Domestic trade in products of the dairy industry 137 Foreign trade in dairy products 150 The international trade in dairy products 163 The foreign dairy situation 169 Oleomargarine 175 Disease in dairy cattle 182 Freight and express rates 185 Sources of current information on the dairy industry 186 Acknowledgments 188 DAIRY PRODUCTS 1 EDWIN C. V00RIIIES2 FOREWORD The subject matter and the method of presentation in this bulletin have been chosen in response to the numerous inquiries relating to the dairy industry, which have been received since the supply of a previous publication 3 became exhausted. Formal requests for this publication have been made by the California Farm Bureau Federa- tion, California Dairy Council, and by a meeting of the state's dairy interests, held under the auspices of the Agricultural Extension Service of the College of Agriculture of the University of California. The primary object has been to analyze the chief available statis- tical data relative to the industry and to revise such data appearing in the publication mentioned above as have been of assistance to dairymen. Sources of information have been rather explicitly given because it is hoped that students of the industry may, from time to time, add to the tables and charts, which are published in this bulletin. Those interested in specific products of the dairy industry are asked to consult the table of contents (p. 2). The material has been so arranged that data on the production of various dairy products will be found in one section of the publication, while those on con- sumption will be found in another, etc. For those who wish to obtain quickly the conclusions set forth in the body of the publication, the summary found in the first few pages will be helpful. i Paper No. 23, The Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. 2 Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station, and Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation. 3 Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437:1-192. figs. 1-44. 1927. University of California — Experiment Station SUMMARY California cannot be detached from the United States in any con- sideration of the dairy industry. In turn, a view of the world situation must be obtained in order to understand present domestic condi- tions and to formulate future policies. This state produces somewhat less than 4 per cent of the total milk supply of the United States with less than 3 per cent of all the cows kept for milk purposes. This publication is concerned mainly with the long-time develop- ments rather than with the short-time developments in the markets for dairy products. The dairy industry is difficult to analyze as an entity, for the statistics are not very satisfactory, and the many varied products of the industry present analytical difficulties. Although in the long run there is a tendency for various dairy products to be at equal advantage with each other and for the proportions between their production and their relative prices to be so adjusted as to keep them at equal advantage, in some countries and sections readjust- ments between the production of these is necessarily slow. During and since the World War, a number of important changes have taken place in the dairy industry. These changes are summarized in the following discussion under (1) The World Situation, (2) The United States, and (3) the Western States, including California. 1. The World Situation. — Butter, cheese, and concentrated milk are the three dominant dairy products on the world markets. Although the first two have long been important articles of commerce, the latter has only recently come into especial prominence. One of the pro- nounced changes in the world dairy trade began before the World War with the development of the industry in the southern hemis- phere, particularly in New Zealand, Argentina, and Australia. The maladjustments in Europe's agriculture at the close of the World War afforded these countries an excellent market for butter and cheese. Shortly afterwards efforts were made by European nations to win back their former trade with Great Britain and Germany — the two leading importers of butter and cheese. The results of these efforts, coupled with the increases in the southern hemisphere, have so augmented international trade in butter, cheese, and concentrated milk that it is far larger today than before the World War. For- tunately for this situation, Germany in 1924 began to import greatly Bul, 514] Dairy Products 5 increased amounts of butter and cheese and this condition afforded an additional outlet. From then on until the last months of 1929, relatively favorable prices prevailed on the international butter markets. With the decline in the wholesale price levels in both the United States and Europe came a lowering of world butter prices. As in this country, wholesale butter prices suffered a greater decline than general wholesale prices. In 1930 and 1931, Copenhagen export prices of butter were lower than they had been at any time since 1915. World prices on cheese and concentrated milk were also lowered. The growth of manufacture of concentrated milk has been so marked during the past thirty years that it is now, from the stand- point of value, one of the most important manufactured foods of the world. The United States became the leading exporter of concentrated milk during the War, the larger part of the demand being brought about by army requirements and relief operations. At the close of the War, European countries began to build up their dairy industries and subsequently their condensaries. The result was that exports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand declined while those from European countries, notably The Netherlands (Holland), increased. While over 50 per cent of the world imports of concentrated milk have been taken by Europe, the present out- standing feature in the trade is the increasing imports into Asia, notably British Malaya, the Dutch East Indies, the Philippine Islands, and British India. On account of smaller volume, shifts in the international cheese trade do not affect the dairy industry so much as those in the butter trade. Since the War the outstanding changes in the world cheese trade have been the regaining of the dominant position in the export trade by The Netherlands, coincident with a decline in Canadian exports. Along with these two pronounced trends has come a steady increase in amounts originating in New Zealand. 2. The United States. — The total output of the United States in terms of fluid milk is delicately adjusted to the domestic consumption. The foreign market is and will probably continue to be unprofitable as a means of disposing of any considerable surplus. Declining for- eign demand would tend to make foreign butter prices lower, and lower prices in foreign markets would eventually be reflected in lower prices in the United States. So well has the industry been adjusted to supplying the domestic market during the past few years that it seems wise to continue this policy. 6 University of California — Experiment Station Nation-wide prices of dairy products are difficult if not impossible to obtain. Data of the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics indicate that the ratio of butter prices to the prices of all commodities from 1923 to 1929 was approxi- mately the same as the pre-war ratio. Almost simultaneous with the decline in wholesale prices, which started during the last months of 1929, a drop in the butter prices in the country occurred at a time of the year when the butter output is seasonably low. Although the per-capita consumption of butter and other dairy products was high during 1929, production was such that storage supplies broke all existing records. While the effects of the business depression tend to obscure the underlying condition of the dairy business, it must be recognized that production of butter, cheese, and concentrated milk had increased more rapidly than the demand for them during 1929, 1930, and 1931. The business depression undoubtedly caused a decline in the consump- tion of market milk in many cities and this in turn made for additions to the already large supplies of manufactured dairy products. Increased consumption can be encouraged by dairymen's collec- tively improving quality and increasing their efficiency, thereby keeping their products within reach of consumers. Unquestionably improved industrial conditions will assist in the consumption of dairy products. With the increased pressure of all types of food upon population, which has come about during the past few years in this country, it is of vital importance that quality wherever possible be not only maintained but actually improved. Dairy-cattle prices are apparently determined by beef prices and milk fat prices. During 1928 and 1929, dairy-cattle prices were carried relatively higher than those of milk fat. These years appar- ently marked the high years of the price cycle of beef cattle. During 1930 and 1931 two factors, lowered beef-cattle and lowered milk fat prices were operating to bring dairy-cattle prices to lower levels. With the present tariff on dairy products there seems to be little likelihood of increased quantities of dairy products entering the country. With the exception of cheese, imports are now of small magnitude. Average net imports of cheese for the five years 1926-1930 were approximately 75,000,000 pounds. Exports of concentrated milk have shown no pronounced trend during late years. There has been a tendency for a shift from the east to the west coast, due no doubt to the relatively larger amounts exported to Asia, The export of butter is infinitesimal compared Bui* 514] Dairy Products 7 with total production in this country. Small amounts are sent out in response to a demand for a high-quality product and it is unlikely that this can be greatly increased. Cheese exports are of minor im- portance. Questions about Far Eastern trade possibilities in dairy products have been raised repeatedly on the Pacific Coast. While this trade may develop, it will be necessary to first conduct considerable pioneer work and even if trade were increased, competition would be exceedingly keen. 3. The Western States, Including California. — The western area has grown relatively more rapidly in population than any other sec- tion, and its dairying has increased in a like manner. Butter and cheese production in the last ten years have forged ahead more rapidly in the sections of this area, outside of California. This state, for some time deficient in butter and cheese production, has relied on increasing amounts shipped in from other states and foreign countries. On the other hand, the state is an exporter and shipper of concentrated milk. Several factors have made for the relatively larger increase in butter and cheese production in the other western states. Alfalfa hay and certain concentrates have been cheaper in many of the other dairy sections of the West, especially in Idaho and Montana. Difficul- ties in shipping alfalfa have forced a utilization of it near production centers. During the post-war depression, prices of dairy products did not drop relatively so low as those of many other staple agricul- tural products, and since California grows more specialty crops this factor has been more effective in the other western states than in California. Until 1930, fluctuations from year to year had been less than for many agricultural products. Whether milk fat can be produced more advantageously in this state than in the other western states is problematical. California has an advantage in transportation costs compared with most sections of the western area producing for California markets. This, together with other factors, has made for a higher price of milk fat in this state than in the surplus sections. In general, cows in California are higher producers than elsewhere, and there is less seasonal fluctuation in this state than in other western states which gives California an advantage in the production of such products as concentrated milk. The present and the immediate future is not a time to advocate increases in the numbers of cows. If California continues to increase its population in the future as it has in the past, additional milk fat will be needed and a steady, conservative growth in dairying can be contemplated. The growth in the numbers of cows might proceed 8 University of California — Experiment Station more slowly than that of population or milk fat in order that the needed supplies may be forthcoming. If the state is to continue to produce large amounts of milk fat for other than market-milk pur- poses it must do so on the basis of cows of higher producing ability. Prices for dairy products in California lagged behind general commodity prices during the War. Compared with general commodity prices, those of the major dairy products moved upward over the period 1917-1929. Through this period there seemed to be a tendency for the ratio of butter prices to the prices of all commodities to reach that which prevailed during 1910-1914. With the break in the nation's prices of the semiperishable dairy products in the latter part of 1929, came a similar reaction in the prices of those same products in this state, followed later by reductions in the prices received by producers for market milk. Since surpluses go mostly into butter, the restriction in demand fell heavily upon the butter market. As usual in such periods, butter prices fell most, but cheese prices and concentrated and fluid milk prices were reduced also. One of the most hopeful signs in the development of California dairying during the past decade has been the increasingly larger pro- portion of the milk production of the state which has been utilized for market milk and cream. The more milk fat which is utilized in the production of these higher-priced products, the more favorable will be the position of the dairy industry, although there will continue to be danger of augmenting the supplies of market milk too rapidly. Especial caution must be exercised in regulating numbers of animals supplying market-milk needs ; artificial stimulation should be avoided. Agencies interested in supplying dairy cattle would be benefited by keeping informed on economic conditions in the industry. It must be realized that the dairy industry like most other industries has its periods of prosperity and depression. An expansion beyond the demands for market milk not only lowers the price for this product but adds to the supplies of the semiperishable products of the industry. Attention must be given by producers and distributors alike to the prices paid for market milk. While it is highly desirable to have as high a price level as possible, the prices of other dairy products cannot be lost from view in setting those for market milk. Many sections of the state will continue to require additional dairy cattle. On account of the peculiarities surrounding the production of milk for the metropolitan area of Los Angeles, large replacements are needed annually. These animals might be produced from disease- Bul. 514] Dairy Products 9 free, high-producing" cows in the state. With one or two possible exceptions the average production per cow in California is higher than in any other state and to bring in lower-producing cows from other states would lower this average. There are areas within the state in which feed is relatively cheap where this replacement need might be filled. During the past two decades the relation between feed and milk fat prices has been increasingly favorable to the latter product. On the other hand, wages rose relatively more than milk fat prices. Not only did wages rise higher but during the depression of prices in the indus- try (since December, 1929) neither general farm wages nor milkers' wages have shown as marked a drop as have the wholesale prices of dairy products. No general conclusions can be drawn from these state- ments, for these two important items of cost affect various producers differently. To generalize with reference to land values in a state such as Cali- fornia might prove misleading. Although records indicate a substan- tial decline in land values in agricultural sections, in all probability land values have remained on higher levels here during the past few years than they have in the other western states. On account of the great variety of crops, competition between them has been keener in this state. Comparisons must always be made not only between the dairy industry in California and other states but also between the dairy industry and other industries in this state. If the urban population of California continues to increase, it is highly probable that the production of market milk and cream will occupy an increasingly important place. With this production may come the choice of area for it. There is little doubt that dairying for other purposes will always be important in both the north and south coast sections from Del Norte to San Luis Obispo counties and indi- cations point to an increase in the mountain counties. However, it should be emphasized that the production of milk fat for utilization in butter and cheese can be expected to decrease in relative and perhaps in absolute importance — to the advantage of the state. Southern California, with the exception of Imperial Valley, will no doubt continue to be an area for market-milk production. Especial care should be taken to correlate production with demands in this section. Increases in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Imperial valleys will depend on general conditions surrounding the industry. Increasingly large amounts of the milk fat produced in the southern San Joaquin especially, have been utilized in sweet cream. 10 University of California — Experiment Station CO o CM CO o Ol or oc OS w CO or «* co Ol O N O) Ol OO H m mm— i in co oi — i i* o t~- s •* N ^ lO 00 00 ~H i-l CM CN IN U) O CM* — ' o" CO — < CM n tO T(l CO H N M COOCOOlOlcNHNeOinN in ■* ■* CO rt « N ococomcocoi^i-icDOin Ol co i— ' co r- oo co i-i i-i i-l N CM lO N M rt » « H m -« CO O O —I OOiOiONOOCNSCOOOrtN o N * t^ CO to Tf CM— I CO Ol CO CO CO — iCOOOO CM to n to m a m —i—i—i cm — i m o> M H ts M H * X 03 lO CO r- O O CM rCOOOOCNCOeOiJICO^CN d s N h O h Ol O COSCNH^CNtOHinijiOO H O lO M< « H N W rt" 00 » H "43 1-1 o 01 a * H T3 Cj ■ O Ol — 1 f^~ t-~ -H oococom— i oi co t-~ co co t^- N M rt if) N tC NOOW'l'iOCNNrtOONcO < n to r)l OC h OO n O CO i-l O CO i-l CD CM i-l ^ co co co O oi r^ in©r^-ooc©-*fn cn •n co — i cm in co oo co cm" i-T i-T —i" 5 m 3 C *" h cu ecJ oJ pj cl t! T3 5 e 4i S<<00 c u - J3 -C JS J3 a mill 5 £ co £ cc p on 5 cc 6 " 5 c c c c, p 1 1 1 c z c > c c 6 _CJ s s is * OJ Z z < 3 u 0< s o * s ►? «- £ c 6 1 — g p £ 2.6 a . a > cn O oo 3 -> 3 m £ oo § > 3 o rt ^ ■fl 55 -I? -d-3 ^ S4| OJ 3«l erf 0J CO OJO ^ n°2 oot3 cc S a o ej O c3 >> CD OJ t, 22 >> o3 cS -a '- aj-O O C-" moo o 22 cjJJ • oo cy S b o t5 5S Bul. 514] Dairy Products 11 Indications are that, as in the nation, the per-capita consumption of all dairy products combined increased through 1928. A decrease was noticeable in 1929 and 1930. The per-capita consumption of dairy products in California is higher than in the nation and every effort should be made to encourage the production of quality products to maintain this high level. Furthermore, it is on the basis of quality that California dairy products have been able to compete with products from other states. Dairymen should realize that competition from butter substitutes, which has become increasingly intense in California and the rest of the nation, will probably continue. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DAIRY INDUSTRY United States. — Until comparatively recent times cattle of the dairy breeds were not clearly differentiated from those of the beef breeds, and thousands of the latter are still used as milk cows. When beef-cattle prices are relatively high, many farmers cease milking cows, while on the other hand, relatively low beef -cattle prices often result in more cows being used as milk stock. The level of prices for dairy products is another factor determining the number of cows milked. Even if comparisons between numbers of dairy cattle could be made accurately, differences in production would have to> be taken into account, e.g., it is common knowledge that better feeding methods are followed when prices of products are relatively high and vice versa. Further complications arise since neither the dates of the census enumerations nor the classifications of census data are the same for each census year. In addition, the dairy cow of today is far more highly developed than formerly. For various reasons, then, com- parisons between the numbers of dairy cows for different census years are not satisfactory except as such information may serve to indicate very general changes, including the relative distribution of animals (table 2). Cattle were first brought to the New World by the Spanish in the sixteenth century and by the settlers on the eastern shores of the present United States in the seventeenth. These early cattle not only provided milk, meat, butter, and cheese for the settler, but served as draft animals. Since colonial days there has been an increasing differentiation between the functions performed by cattle, which can be noted in a study of the history of the industry in a state such as California. 12 University of California — Experiment Station With the growth of urban centers along" the eastern seaboard, and the development of commerce and shipping, dairying began to develop. The export statistics of 1790 indicate that appreciable amounts of butter and cheese were produced above home require- ments, the average exports of the three years 1790-1792 being 948,000 pounds of butter and 133,000 pounds of cheese. 4 TABLE 2 Percentage Distribution of Dairy Cows on F^rms, United States, 1880-1930 Division and state 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1925 1930 100.0 25.6 10 3 43.4 17.3 3 4 100.0 20 3 8.3 49 9 17.1 4.4 100.0 20.4 8.1 49.5 16.9 5 1 100.0 16.7 8.8 49.2 18.8 6.5 100.0 17 8.5 48.6 18 1 7.8 100 17.8 7.6 49.4 16.0 9.2 100 13.3 South Atlantic 7.3 51.7 18.9 8.8 Western states: 1 1 2 0.1 1 3 1 0.2 5 17 1 0.2 0.1 5 1 3 0.1 0.4 0.7 19 3 3 1 6 1 1 4 0.1 0.6 0.7 18 4 4 0.2 0.7 2 1 4 0.1 0.9 8 2 3 6 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.2 2 3 0.1 1.2 0.9 2.6 6 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.5 12 3 2 0.7 0.8 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.2 Utah 5 0.1 1.2 1.0 2.8 Source of data: Calculations by author based upon table 1. With the growth of such centers as New York, Boston, and Phila- delphia, and the advances made by manufacturing after the War of 1812, a supply of market milk for the North Atlantic states became a necessity; butter and cheese-making early began to move to the back country. This movement has taken place on a large scale in the nation and on a smaller scale in certain specific sections of the country, e.g., California, and has continued to the present. There is the tendency for butter, cheese, and concentrated milk production to push out from centers of population, and a trend of dairy cows toward areas with a high density of population because of the present necessity of producing larger amounts of market milk close by. * Larson, C. W. The dairy industry. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 192,2:302. 1923. Bul. 514 Dairy Products 13 While a westward movement of the dairy industry has been in progress during the past hundred and fifty years, the rate of the movement has been slower than has been the case with beef cattle, sheep, and swine. The topography and climatic conditions of the area, north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi served to develop dairying-, and the large and growing population of the urban centers has created a demand for market milk, which until the present time at least has been filled in those areas. This same movement, on a smaller scale, has been taking place in California. Thousands of cou/s □ January /920 January /9JO M 4\ M>r//i Atlantic I North Centra/ South A/ /an He South Central Western Fig. 1. — Milk cows in the United States, January, 1920, and January, 1930. The north central states contain over 50 per cent of the milk cows in the United States. California is included in the western states and contains about 31 per cent of the milk cows in this group. Numbers have increased only in the north central and western groups from 1920 to 1930. (Data from table 5.) Since 1890 the shifts in relative numbers (table 2) have been minor. The number of cows has become relatively larger in the moun- tain and Pacific states (tables 1 and 2) while numbers along- the Atlantic Coast have declined relatively. There has occurred simul- taneously a relative increase in the east north central states. California. — The census of 1860 reported a small number of dairy cattle in the Pacific states, especially in California and Oregon (table 1). Many of these cattle were native, milked because demands for dairy products resulted from the influx of settlers. The census of 1860 indicated that there were two principal dairy cattle sections in California: (1) The San Francisco Bay area, and (2) the Sacra- mento Valley (tables 3, 4). The bay counties (Marin, Sonoma, Napa, 14 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 3 Dairy Cows on Farms, California, 1860-1930 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) California Geographic divisions: North coast counties. South coast counties. Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Valley Southern California... Mountain counties North coast counties: Del Norte* Humboldt Klamath*. Trinity Mendocino Lake* Sonoma Napa* Marin Indian Reservations.. South coast counties: San Francisco Alameda San Mateo Contra Costa Santa Clara Santa Cruz San Benito* Monterey* Sao Luis Obispo Sacramento Valley: Shasta Tehama Glenn* Butte Yuba Colusa* Sutter Nevada Placer Sacramento Yolo Solano El Dorado Amador San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin Calaveras Stanislaus Tuolumne Merced Mariposa Madera* Fresno* Tulare*. Kings*. Kern 205 42 46 62 39 1870 164 47 41 40 18 7 11 1 6 210 66 55 37 21 1890 317 1900 307 1910 382 74 72 54 109 57 17 3 18 1 5 1 20 5 20 1920 502 92 80 62 173 77 18 1925 557 95 84 60 188 112 17 5 26 1930 572 83 61 204 113 22 4 25 1 6 2 25 4 22 Bul. 514] Dairy Products 15 TABLE 3— (Concluded) Dairy Cows on Farms, California, 1860-1930 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Southern California: Santa Barbara* Ventura*. Los Angeles* San Bernardino*. Orange* Riverside* San Diego* Imperial* Northern and eastern mountain counties: Siskiyou*. Modoc* Lassen Plumas Sierra Alpine Mono Inyo 1870 1890 1900 1910 1920 1925 1930 * For boundary changes, see: Voorhies, E. C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437: 21, table 4. 1927. Sources of data : 1860: U. S. Dept. Interior, Census Office. Eighth census of the U. S., Agriculture, p. 10. 1864. 1870: U. S. Dept. Interior, Census Office. Ninth census of the U. S., Statistics of agriculture, p. 105. 1880: U. S. Dent. Interior, Census Office. Tenth census of the U. S., Statistics of agriculture, p. 144- 1883. 1890: U. S. Dept. Interior, Census Office. Eleventh census of the U. S., Report on the statistics of agriculture, p. 278. 1895. 1900: U. S. Dept. Interior, Census Office. Twelfth census of the U. S., 5:420-422. 1902. 1910: Calculations by author based upon census returns in U. S. Depts. Commerce and Labor Bur. Census. Thirteenth census of the U. S. Abstract, with supplement for California, p. 688-648. 1913. The 1910 statistics represent 81.83 per cent of the actual number recorded. Those recorded were animals born before January 1, 1909. The calculations represent estimates of those two years old or over. 1920: U. S. Dept. Commerce, Bur. Census. Fourteenth census of the U. S., State compendium, California, p. 80. 1924. 1925: U. S. Dept. Commerce, Bur. Census. U. S. census of agriculture: 1925. California, p. 26-88. 1926. 1930: Dept. Commerce, Bur. Census. Preliminary reports on 1930 Census. TABLE 4 Percentage Distribution of Dairy Cattle on Farms in California, 1860-1930 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1925 1930 100.0 20 5 22 2 30 2 19 3 9 4 3 100.0 28.8 25.1 24 2 11 2 6 7 4 100 31 6 26.1 17.7 10 7.2 7.4 100.0 26 5 28 4 16.7 11.3 5 4 11.7 100.0 28 3 20 6 14.3 15 6 6.2 15.0 100.0 19 4 18.8 14 1 28 3 4 5 14 9 100.0 18 3 15 9 12 4 34 5 3.6 15 3 100.0 17.1 15 1 10.8 33 8 3.1 20 1 100 Geographic Divisions: North coast counties South coast counties 15.5 14.6 10 7 San Joaquin Valley Mountain counties Southern California 35 7 3.8 19 7^ Source of data: All computations by the author based upon data in table 3. See notes at foot of table 3. 16 University of California — Experiment Station Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco) contained 36 per cent of the dairy cows, while the Sacra- mento Valley accounted for 30 per cent, and the San Joaquin Valley for 19 per cent. Outside of these three sections dairying was of minor importance. During the period 1860-1880 the north and south coast sections (tables 3, 4) witnessed the greatest growth both numerically and relatively, while the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys actually lost in numbers. The expansion of the dairy-cattle population in California has been, omitting the period 1890-1900, far more rapid since 1880 (table 2) than that in the United States. This may be explained by the rela- tively greater growth of human population in the West. The increase in the estimated milk production in this state has been both relatively larger and more pronounced than the increase in the number of milk cows, indicating a marked improvement in the production per cow since 1889. A general shift of the dairy-cow population of the state began in the decade 1880-1890. The coastal sections, although maintaining approx- imately the same number of dairy cattle, began to lose their relative positions. Containing almost 58 per cent of the dairy cattle in 1880, these two geographic divisions in 1930 claimed approximately 30 per cent of the total number (table 4). The Sacramento Valley, although gaining in absolute numbers of dairy cattle since 1880, has lost in relative importance compared with either the San Joaquin Valley or southern California (figs. 2 and 3). The San Joaquin Valley has been the most rapidly growing dairy section of the state during the past fifty years. In 1880 the San Joaquin Valley counties contained approximately 10 per cent of the state's dairy animals, increasing to almost 36 per cent of the total in 1930. Since 1925, census data indicate that over 50 per cent of the increase in numbers in the state have been in these counties. This growth is the result of several factors, among the more impor- tant being the development of irrigation and the subsequent growing of alfalfa and the location — between the largest population centers of the state. Between 1870 and 1880 the southern California dairy-cow popu- lation began to grow rapidly. In the five-year period 1920-1925, numbers increased by 34,755 in the eight southern counties of the state. In relative importance this section has since 1925 ranked next to the San Joaquin Valley. Expansion in the southern section was occasioned mainly by the phenomenal growth in human population and the subsequent demand for market milk. Bui* 514] Dairy Products 17 each Dot - 1000 Cows Fig. 2. — Dairy cattle on farms, California, 1890. Until the great expansion in the irrigated areas of the state, the dairy industry was largely confined to the coast sections. The beginnings of the industry in the San Joaquin Valley can be detected. Relatively the Sacramento Valley was a more important dairy section in 1890 than in 1930. One dot = 1,000 cows. (Data from table 3.) 18 University op California — Experiment Station Increase in the northern and eastern mountain counties has been somewhat slow, although since 1920 there has been a marked develop- ment in some of these counties in dairying- for butter and cheese production (see figs. 2 and 3 for changes between 1890 and 1930). >:tf ./A' sfc \ > • •■ m J( '.VJ : \*t •2.V. \ x* ■ 1 • S v* • • • s. • • • • bl^ • • • Or?e c/of * /£W C ■* CM oo co O *-i r-- r~- ©lOOi- <£ 0) CO o u a .. (1) o £> * CO Buk 514] Dairy Products 21 Scattered over the arid western section of the United States are relatively large numbers of dairy cattle in the irrigation centers and a considerable concentration in the more humid section of the north Pacific Coast (%. 4). The aggregate number of dairy cows in the western section (Pacific Coast states and mountain states) is small in comparison with the United States as a whole (1,812,000, or 8.8 per cent). California. — On April 1, 1930, the San Joaquin Valley contained approximately 36 per cent of the dairy cattle in the state, and the southern California counties 20 per cent. The combined north and south coast counties accounted for 30 per cent of the state's total — 15 per cent in each section. The Sacramento Valley and the mountain counties trail far behind in numbers, containing only 11 and 4 per cent respectively. RECENT TRENDS IN NUMBER OF DAIRY CATTLE AND HEIFERS Number of Dairy Cows and Heifers, Two Years Old or Over. — It is impossible to obtain from census data information relative to the most recent trends in numbers. Since 1920 the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture has made estimates (based upon census data) of year-to-year changes in numbers. These indicate that from 1920 to 1931 there was a gradual increase of slightly more than 7 per cent in the number of milk cows and heifers over two years old, kept for milk purposes (table 5). The human population has probably in- creased between two and three times as fast. With the growth of cow-testing associations and the resultant higher production per cow, the actual gain in milk production has been greater than the mere comparison between the numbers of milk cows would indicate (tables 15 and 16). The increase in milk production has until recently balanced the actual requirements of the country, as can be seen in parte by noting the foreign-trade balance in dairy products (fig. 34, p. 152). According to the estimates made by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, in the past eleven years (1920-1931) the western and north central states have made actual gains in the milk-cow popula- tion, while the other sections have kept numbers somewhat stationary or experienced decreases (table 5). 22 University of California — Experiment Station o CO |s OS H I— 1 1 'O GQ o CI W OS hJ ^ PQ H rH < W >H H « « «sj fc r> «l fc gg 1-3 o (J o os co os ia i-i o CO t^ ~h t— o> © ©'©^ooo'o^h—icni O o o oo m N <*? eo t>. -h t^- o> ©©'©^©©©©i-h-hcn O O ID N U) M O M N H N a 000rt0000^-i-h o .-I IO i-H oooJmhwh^hcoooo ©'©©i-H©©OOi-i.-icM © CM CD OO t^ t~ O •* N N tO CO 05t»eoOeO'-t>*i-ieMO ©©©—•©©©©-H—i O M N N N tO OOt~-COOCOCMT*(i-l(MOcO ©'©©^©©©©i-H—ilM O M< t- —I t- oococo©co^-#— < © © © © -h — i CN) O CM O 00 t~- CO O i-i t^cOCOOOOCMTtli-lcMOJCO OOO^hOOOOi-hOCN o Tf< •-! io o o NtO»»MINMHINO>iO OOOOOOOOi-ioCN O C-- CM ~H i-H o> © i/i 00 © OO r^ r^cDCOOSCOi— iCOi— I M Ol it) OOOOOOOOi-hOCN O t>. r-< OS IO 00 o »o oo oa oo r-- NtOCOOMNMH oooooooo a> _o3 •2 < < o v £ ™ A A A A V ililll a «* d 2 J d * g OS S o Bul. 514] Dairy Products 23 During and immediately after the World War, prices of dairy products did not rise as rapidly as those of several of the other chief farm products (table 42). Prices for dairy products fell along with those for general commodities in 1920 and 1921 but the diminution was less than for cereals and meat animals. There was not a pro- nounced movement into the dairy business as there was into many other lines of agricultural endeavor, partly because of the moderate price, and partly because of the difficulties involved in expanding the dairy output greatly. Increased dairy production calls for a propor- tional increase in labor requirements and considerable time. Further- more, new dairy farms call for initial investments of considerable capital. Various states and municipalities have vigorously prosecuted tuberculosis-eradication work, which perhaps has made for a slower increase. Therefore the reasons for the precipitous drop in prices during the latter part of 1929 cannot be attributed to any sudden or unwarranted increase in the production of dairy cattle. Numbers of dairy cattle in the western group of states have in- creased far more rapidly during the last two decades, 1910-1930, than have numbers in the country as a whole or any of its other subdivisions (tables 1, 2, 5, 6). Each of the eleven western states has reported a substantial increase, especially Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana, In the immediate past (since January 1, 1929) there apparently has been a greater increase in sections other than the western states. Estimates made January 1, 1931, indicate that the number of cows and heifers kept for milk in California, was 19 per cent larger than on January 1, 1920. Estimates based on careful analyses of the data on hand (table 16, p. 39) indicate that the actual milk fat pro- duction in the state has increased between 50 and 60 per cent during the same period. Exact comparison is impossible because of differ- ences between calendar and fiscal-year statistics. The growth of the human population during this period was close to 65 per cent. It is of more than ordinary interest to note that during 1930 there was an estimated loss in numbers in the state (table 5), although an increase of 2.4 per cent was noted in the nation. The response of the industry in the state to the repeated warnings given by the leaders of the industry itself has kept the industry in line with economic conditions. 24 University of California — Experiment Station * 00 N Ol H N M * e s CO » N N n N t— CO'JHt-iUS^h CM CO 10 CO OJ CD 1(5 CO ■* 0O ■* Tf CM © US CO CM C» CM OS NKJUJiHitiNTlltO^OlN co N CO ih tN *l CM r^ CO M CO IM O 0O COO-<*<00-*Or-HCOcO'*CM CM >o rt< r- •<* 1- CM CO ■* 1- T* H rt O) us •* -**< 05 O ■* N -1 N ■* Tf CM* to CO O CM OS CO OJ mOOiONMWHCOiOitlS CM eq «n 1^- O »- » W rt^ rt CM USTjiCO OS O) ■* tN >-i N ■* CO CM us K5 ^ CO O) O) N COOOifOOrtOHCON^tN CM 02 us co r- 1- eo co h i< h h cn m * co CT5 H •* CO CM N ■* ■* CM CM t- 00 to a ■* UScOCOCMO-hCOUSOUSi— 1 02 eo co co 1- < O ■- CO CO rt >* i- 1 1-1 .-1 US-rttuS »H H ^1 M rt 00 ^ i-H -* cm" CO N CO rt CO CO CO OhcohiOO>COt)Ihcoki CM -* © co us t— r~- co co h ^ h r-i m ■* cm »h uj eo i-t t» c T»" CM CO Tt< 00 CO CM CO O-Hrt^OONcOTjl-HTjlO CN CO -1 t|< CO t» CO CO H ^1 H ,-1 uscoo 05 O ■* CO »H N CO •* CM us us us © r-^ or CONnOOlOCO^COCOCON CM lO CO CO N N CO CO N rt CO H t-i USCOO Oi 1—1 us co -h r^ co i-h ■"St" CM O 00 CM CO O US 0C 0000-»fCMCO.UScOCOO-^ CM 1— 1 H lO 1(1 lO IO CO CN H T(l H 1-1 US-"*"- 1 CD TJ CD CO CM 0O CO 1-+ t»T cm" W f-J 1— '0; '5 2 »! (5 "> CO rt CO

> cc! -ess ej T3 CO" «*h -co ■a Op.. ^ CJ g *CD p 1-1 Bul. 514] Dairy Products 25 Taking" the eleven western states as a unit there is not a shortage of dairy products. While records of receipts at only a few of the markets in the United States are available, indications are that the shipments from the western states (in milk equivalents) are greater than the shipments into them from other parts of the nation. The area apparently has a surplus of butter and concentrated milk and a deficiency of cheese. The percentage of milk cows of the United States in the eleven western states is somewhat less than the percentage of the country's human population living in this area. On account of the larger pro- duction of milk per cow in this area, the percentage of milk produced in 1924 exceeded the percentage of milk cows reported on January 1, 1925. During 1924 the western states produced 10.7 per cent of the milk with approximately 8.5 per cent of the milk cows. California's percentages were 3.7 and 2.6 respectively. It is of passing interest to note that California's estimated population on April 1, 1930 made up approximately 4.6 per cent of the total of the continental United States. Complete census returns are available and show that Cali- fornia possessed less than 2.8 per cent of the total milk cows in the United States on the same date. It is also highly probable that approximately 4 per cent of the total milk produced in the United States was yielded by these cows. Ratio of Dairy Heifers to Dairy Cows. — Since 1920 the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has made estimates of the number of heifers between one and two years of age being kept for milk pur- poses on January 1 of each year (table 7). In table 8 will be found the number of dairy heifers per dairy cow. The latter data are useful in gauging the future number of dairy cows. There were in California on January 1, 1931 (preliminary esti- mates), twenty-six heifers (one to two years old) for every one hun- dred cows kept for milk, compared with twenty-one per hundred for the United States. The other western states also have, during the past decade, maintained a larger number of heifers per mature cow than has the nation or its other subdivisions, indicating that the western states, including California, have been adding to numbers of dairy cows more rapidly than have other sections. There has been an increase in the estimated number of heifers kept over the past five years in the United States. Relatively favor- able prices for dairy p rod nets encouraged dairymen, principally in the eastern states, to raise more heifers than were needed for replace- ment and for the normal increase in demand. The hi O (M CO N H H N in M o o o o o o »C!j -^< t^ o> -h rH-^t< ooooooooooo DO M » » » N _, — ^H rH rH M d d d d d o 00CC(M— lOlC-flOOrHco HMNNNNINWNWIN doodddddddd O o o o o o ooooooooooo o o o o o o OCA!003«3rHeOOOOO-HlO O rH rt rH rH ^H (N rHO>Or- llOOf^OO rH(Mr-(MCq(M(M(M(MrH^ OOOOOOOOOOO oi co os o o o H H H N N IN di d> d> d> d 05 05*0 05 OOOOOOOOOOO O O O o o o ooooooooooo » o — i -J 03 -a •S ■§ .2 g ?J s -H b, -H (0 «3 £ ££ o o M rO C . oo 2HJ o o 3 s ° I i s -j hS >> -r? s -1 ° 55 S 2 8!? 41 7= ft S Buu 514] Dairy Products 27 heifers being raised in California are needed to maintain the present number of dairy cows, provided the state furnishes its own replace- ments, since in the market-milk areas relatively heavy replacements are necessary. Lower producing- dairy cattle have been imported into the largest milk center in the state in the vicinity of Los Angeles. 5 Warning should be given against raising all heifers. Only those from disease-free, high-producing cows should be saved. In view of present economic conditions in the dairy industry the number of heifers being raised is too large, both in the state and in the nation. Since 1924 similar estimates have been made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the number of heifer calves under 1 year being kept for milk cows. These data furnish additional aids in gauging the future number of dairy cows. Estimates for the United States and California (in thousands of animals) from 1925 through 1931 are as follows : 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931* United States .. 4,722 4,655 4,491 4,646 4,875 5,042 4,639 California 125 ]25 130 137 134 136 120 Preliminary. PUREBRED DAIRY CATTLE Number of Purebred s. — The 1920 census showed that approxi- mately 2.9 per cent of the dairy cattle of the United States were purebred, while California returns indicated a corresponding figure of 2.5 per cent (fig. 5). Most of the purebred cattle in 1920 were in the northeastern states. Of the registered dairy cattle in 1920 about 58 per cent were Holstein-Friesian, 25 per cent Jerseys, 9 per cent Guernseys, 3 per cent Ayrshires, and 1 per cent Brown Swiss. Unfor- tunately, data were not available from the 1925 farm census nor are the returns from the 1930 census available at present. Taking the yearly registrations (furnished by the herd record associations) from 1915 to 1929, the increase in the registrations for the four most numerous breeds were as follows: Guernsey 303.2 per cent; Ayrshire 118.6; Jersey, 117.2; and Holstein-Friesian, 64.2 per cent. 5 "Generally speaking-, the cattle imported this year were not up to the standard of those available two years ago. As a result, a great many of our dairymen are making arrangements to raise heifers. It is therefore possible that in two or three years from now we will be importing a smaller percentag-e of our dairy stock. ' ' Letter from Dr. L. M. Hurt, Los Angeles County Live Stock Inspector, to Edwin C. Voorhies, Feb. 15, 1930. 28 University of California — Experiment Station Fig. 5. — Purebred dairy cattle in the United States, 1920. Purebred dairy cattle are widely distributed over the United States, the greatest number being found in the northeastern and Great Lakes states. In number per state, New York was first in 1920, Wisconsin second, California twelfth, Oregon seven- teenth, and Washington eighteenth. (Figure furnished by courtesy of the U. S. Dept. Agr. Data from 1920 census.) STATE PERCENT STATE PERCENT Arizona 918 Rhode Is/ana 429 Massachusetts 57.3 Wisconsin 42.8 Maine 5S.3 New York 4Z6 New Hampshire 541 UTah 423 Vermont Si.9 Other 196 Connecticut 46.6 United States 254 Fig. 6. — Percentages of purebred bulls in the United States, 1920. In Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Arizona more than 50 per cent of the dairy bulls were purebred. For the most part those states with the largest percentage of their dairy cattle purebred have the largest per- centages of purebred bulls, and also have the largest average production of milk per cow. (Compare with fig. 8, p. 41.) (Figure by courtesy of the U.S. Dept. Agr. Data from 1920 census.) Bul. 514] Dairy Products 29 Information with reference to the trend in the number of pure- bred animals within the state is very meager. Officials of the Ilolstein- Friesian Association have expressed the opinion that the number of Holsteins in each state is closely correlated with the membership of the Holstein-Friesian Association in that state. If this be true Cali- fornia contained approximately 2.2 per cent of the purebred Holsteins in the United States in 1929. This state has experienced a more rapid growth than the nation as a whole, the increase in membership in this state from 1915 to 1929 being 272 per cent while the increase in the entire country was 247 per cent. Registrations of Guernsey cattle within the state since 1919 point to an upward trend more rapid than that of the Holsteins during the same period. Comparable data for Jerseys and Ayrshires are not obtainable. In the number of purebred dairy bulls the northwestern and west- ern states rank high (fig. 6). The effects of this can be seen in the production per cow in these sections (fig. 8). Owing to the dairy improvement work of the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of California, there has been a pronounced increase in the percentage of purebred bulls in California. TABLE 9 Number of Breeders of Purebred Dairy Cattle in California by Sections, 1929 Section Hoist ein Jersey Guernsey Ayrshire Shorthorn Brown Swiss Total 7 20 14 100 56 7 204 31 13 23 35 28 2 132 6 7 5 8 18 2 46 5 5 2 1 4 3 20 7 1 5 5 1 3 22 2 2 58 46 49 San Joaquin Valley Southern California 149 107 17 Total 426 Source of data: Division of Animal Husbandry, College of Agriculture, University of Californi Location of Purebred Breeders in California. — The Animal Hus- bandry Division of the College of Agriculture of the University of California has compiled a list of the breeders of purebred dairy cattle which shows that the largest number are found in the San Joaquin Valley. Southern California follows, while numbers in the north coast, south coast, and the Sacramento Valley counties are about equally divided. Relatively speaking, Holstein breeders are more numerous in the San Joaquin Valley and in southern California (table 9); Jersey breeders are fairly evenly distributed; Guernsey 30 University of California — Experiment Station breeders are found mainly in southern California; Ayrshire breeders are most numerous in the coast and mountain sections while milking Shorthorn breeders are more likely to be found in the northern half of the state. IMPORTANCE OF THE DAIRY INDUSTRY United States. — According- to the census of 1910 cows were kept on 80.8 per cent of the farms of the country. In 1920, dairy cows two years old or over were kept on 69.2 per cent of the farms. The agricultural census of 1925 reported that cows were milked on 4,988,493 farms, or 78.3 per cent of the total number in the United States (table 13). The percentages for the three years are not strictly comparable, although indications are that the percentage keeping dairy cows was not materially different in 1925 than in 1910. In addition to cows on farms, there were a considerable number within the limits of towns and villages. In 1920 the number over two years old thus enumerated was 1,220,564, or 6.2 per cent of the number on farms (19,675,297). Unfortunately, similar data from the 1925 census are not available. A larger percentage of the farmers of the country milked cows than kept swine, beef cattle, or sheep. According to the census of 1930, 4,452,411 of the 6,288,648 farms in the United States (70.8 per cent) on April 1, 1930 reported cows and heifers born before 1928, kept mainly for milk production. Direct comparison of the 1930 census data cannot be made with that of previous census years. Indications reveal the fact that there were relatively fewer farmers in the Atlantic Coast section keeping dairy cattle in 1930, when this area is compared with other sections of the nation. On the basis of farm value, dairy products ranked first among the farm products of the United States in 1929, exceeding the value of corn, cotton, hay and forage, and total vegetables produced. The gross farm income (cash income plus the value of the products con- sumed in the farm household on the farm where the commodities were produced) from crops was estimated at $4,226,000,000 in 1930, while that from livestock and livestock products was $5,208,000,000 (table 10). Three major divisions comprised the animal-products groups: (1) dairy products, accounting for 35 per cent of the animal products' total; (2) animals raised, 44; (3) poultry products, 20. Wool, together with minor products, made up the remaining one per cent. If the dairy animals slaughtered were included under the first group the dairy industry would make up an even larger percentage of the gross income from farm production. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 31 The production of meat, although secondary to milk production, is nevertheless an important factor in the dairy business. The United States Department of Agriculture has estimated 6 that more than 23 per cent of the total carcass beef in 1920 was produced from dairy cattle and that probably 80 per cent of all the calves slaughtered were of dairy breeding. Trends in the numbers of dairy cattle and in the numbers of cattle other than dairy cows would indicate that the former have been increasing more rapidly than the latter since 1920. 7 TABLE 10 Estimated Gross Income* from Farm Production - , United States, 1924-1930 (In millions of dollars, i.e. ,000,000 omitted) Crops Livestock and livestock products Total crops and livestock Dairy- prod ucts Per cent dairy products are of Year Total live- stock and livestock products Total crops and livestock 1924 6,170 6,147 5,468 5,817 5,675 5,603 4,226 5,167 5,820 6,012 5,799 6,066 6,249 5,208 11,337 11,968 11,480 11,616 11,741 11,851 9,434 1,678 1,759 1,805 1,911 1,994 2,045 1,810 32.5 30.2 30.0 33.0 32.9 32.7 34.8 14.8 1925 14.7 1926 15.7 1927 16.5 1928 17.0 1929 17.3 1930 19.2 * Gross income relates to cash income plus the value of the products consumed in the farm household on the farm where the commodities were produced. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Gross income from farm production by groups of commodities. U. S. Dept. A gr Yearbook, 1931:979. 1931. It is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the material contribu- tions which dairy cattle make to soil fertility. This factor is often lost from view. Comparison of the total values of milk cows and heifers two years old and over with those of certain other classes of livestock in the United States (table 11), indicates that there has been a tendency for dairy cattle to be relatively more important. In addition to the dairy cows two years old and over there are large numbers of heifers less than two years old and bulls in herds, which if added to the above classification, would make the percentage values of dairy animals loom larger than they do in table 11. 6 Larson, C. W. The dairy industry. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1922: 338. 1923. 7 Voorhies, Edwin C, and A. B. Koughan. Economic aspects of the beef cattle industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 461:1-128. 1928. 32 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 11 Total Value of Certain Classes of Livestock* and Value of Dairy Cows, United States and California, January 1, 1920-1931 United States California Year All livestock, thousands of dollars Milk cows and heifers All livestock, thousands of dollars Milk cows and heifers Thousands of dollars Per cent of value of all livestock Thousands of dollars Per cent of value of all livestock 1 2 3 4 5 6 1920 7,989,775 5,950,904 4,683,689 4,994,239 4,681,505 4,616,436 4,943,096 5,033,321 5,514,426 6,006,066 5,887,964 4,366,447 1,746,412 1,309,892 1,060,574 1,073,880 1,111,510 1,088,597 1,220,764 1,299,004 1,613,639 1,855,080 1,872,358 1,322,666 21 9 22.0 22.6 21.5 23.7 23.6 24 7 25.8 29.3 30 9 31.8 30 3 222,436 190,216 152,396 160,707 164,109 146,528 161,466 162,664 181,254 210,872 182,640 146,141 47,895 48,230 40,150 42,340 43,435 40,530 45,892 45,150 49,120 58,844 58,844 48,427 21 5 1921 1922 25.4 26 3 1923 26 3 1924 26 5 1925 27 7 1926 28 4 1927 27 8 1928 27 1 1929 27 9 1930 32 2 1931f 33 1 * Classes included are (1) horses and colts, (2) mules and mule colts, (3) milk cows — two years old and over, (4) all other cattle, (5) sheep and lambs, (6) swine — including pigs, f Preliminary. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. February issues of Crops and Markets. California. — Generally speaking, the value of milk cows in the state relative to total livestock values seems to be approximately the same as that for the nation. Comparisons between the value of dairy products and other farm products in this state are difficult to make. The California State Department of Agriculture reports that the farm value of the milk fat sold in 1930 was $82,690,000. The whole- sale value of the dairy products during the same year amounted to $140,650,035. These items do not include the butter and cheese made TABLE 12 Value of Livestock Production, California, 1926-1930 (Thousands of dollars, i.e., 000 omitted) 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 29,237 21,034 17,901 72,383 46,497 31,998 20,804 15,404 84,956 43,749 39,690 25,089 15,808 88,810 45,948 36,198 25,552 13,612 90,345 53,812 32,364 2. Sheep, lambs and wool 3. Hogs 17,927 11,833 4. Milk fat sold from farms 82,690 Sources of data: 1, 2 and 3. California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service. 4. California State Dept. Agr. Statistical Reports of California Dairy Products, annual issues. 5. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farm value, gross income and cash income from farm production. Bur. Agr. Econ. Preliminary reports, (mimeo). Bul. 514] Dairy Products 33 in small amounts on farms. If, to the value of the milk fat produced, were added the value of animals sold for slaughter, manure produced, etc., the dairy industry would appear to be by far the ranking agri- cultural industry in the state from the standpoint of the aggregate value of the products produced. Annual estimates of the value of the production of sheep, cattle, and hogs in the state are now made. These estimates, representing the gross farm value of stock sold off farms and ranges, together with the value of milk fat sold, are shown in table 12 for the years 1926-1930. The estimates of the value of production of meat animals represent the gross value of livestock sold for slaughter and slaughtered on farms and ranges during the year, less the value of stocks and feeder animals brought on to farms from outside sources. A comparison between the productions of the plant and animal industries is still more difficult to make. The estimated farm values of the leading crops in 1929 and 1930 were : 8 Thousands of dollars Thousands of dollars Oranges .. 1929 1930 $94,400 72,160 Lemons 1929 1930 $21,830 21,060 Hay (tame and wild) .. 1929 1930 86,657 63,973 Barley. 1929 1930 20.554 17,002 Grapes (raisins, table, and wine) 1929 .. 1930 43,390 31,316 Prunes 1929 1930 15,965 12,375 Beans .. 1929 1930 28,552 20,442 Peaches 1929 1930 18,108 14,282 Cotton and cottonseed... .. 1929 25,605 Wheat 1929 14,688 1930 15,309 1930 11,067 The dairy industry in this state is more specialized than in the United States as a whole, as is shown by the 1925 farm census. Cows milked in California in 1924 were kept on only 48.1 per cent of the farms, while the corresponding percentage for the United States was 78.3 (table 13). The average number of cows milked per farm for the United States was approximately 3.0 against 3.9 for California. When the number of cows milked per farm reporting dairy cattle is considered, California shows an average of 8.2 cows, the United States 4.2. The average number of cows and heifers over two years old for farms reporting such animals in 1930 was 4.6 for the United States compared with 11.2 for California. Indications point to a slight tendency toward larger and relatively fewer herds of dairy cattle in California if statistics of 1910, 1920 and 1925 are compared. In 1910 the percentage reporting dairy cows was 69.3. In 1920 approximately 54.1 per cent of the farms of the s Mimeographed reports, California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service, issued Dec. 27, 1929, Dec. 29, 1930, and Jan. 6, 1931. 34 University of California — Experiment Station state reported dairy cattle, while in 1924 the percentage reporting cows milked and dairy cattle were 48.1 and 43.3 respectively. In the latest census, taken on April 1, 1930, the number of farms keeping cows and heifers, born previous to 1928 and kept mainly for milk production was reported together with the number of heifers born in 1928, kept mainly for milk production. A larger percentage of the farmers in the mountain counties kept cows and heifers than in any other section of the state. The north coast, Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, south coast and southern California counties follow in the order named (table 14). TABLE 13 Total Farms in the United States, 1925 and Cows Milked 1924 Total farms Farms reporting cows milked Cows milked Division and state Number Per cent of total farms Total number Number per farm reporting United States 6,371,640 578,357 1,108,061 2,162,886 2,023,357 498,979 4,988,493 563,491 764,894 1,925,535 1,500,959 333,614 78 3 80 1 69 89 74.2 66 9 20,899,647 3,106,522 1,655,652 10,838,013 3,473,471 1,825,989 4.2 6 7 2 2 North Central 5 6 South Central Western 2 3 5 5 Western states: Montana 46,904 40,592 15,512 58,020 31,687 10,802 25,992 3,883 73,267 55,911 136,409 34,381 31,931 11,427 45,771 16,443 6,438 20,854 2,515 54,879 43,345 65,630 73 3 78.7 73.7 78.9 51 9 59.6 80.2 64.8 74 9 77.5 48 1 167,967 151,722 57,849 229,700 60,594 33,317 82,898 18,768 276,010 206,869 540,295 4.9 4.8 5 1 Colorado 5.0 3 7 5.2 Utah 4.0 7 5 5 Oregon 4.8 8 2 Source of data: Computation by author on the basis of the 1925 Farm Census. There is a noticeable difference between southern California and other sections in the number of farms keeping heifers born in 1928 and those born previous to 1928. Relatively fewer farms kept young animals in the southern California area than in the other sections of the state, while the farms of the mountain counties give evidence of the reverse situation. The southern California counties and those of the south coast reported the largest number of cows and heifers born previous to 1928 per farm. The Sacramento Valley was far below the average of the state. Bui>. 514] Dairy Products 35 m n «'— 2. ~ ° CL •c a to ■a 5 E • 13 P ?P 3 S. 5 g 03 03 CO O ^- w o g- Ch to 3 p 3 3 I S 3£ 03 Z 2 o o 2 Iff to co co © oo oo en e s "^ CO OJ OJ H Oi H- CO tO O CO —1 co 00 Cn -J O) CO tn CD M OO 00 © 00 CO Oi -j tr> a> © CO ^J ^1 CD Cn CO (O *• O M * M S !B O In 0O O CO Oi © © CO *. h * 4k Ol Oi CD CO h- tO H- 4* i— >*•• O CO O >*>• Cn CO o CO (fi 00 (O Oi O M 32 £~8£ o"^^ -a S3 pI sill So g ^w S^2_ ^ o ~5 g o -3 5 £ a-p to CL 1 " 1 g ^j rt> l — ' •g - o ^ § £ £>ffi CO M as? ,-crP s a <°o o o SB p m3 r» ,.q oo„ g ; g po K?a 3 'II Si 2. « p 3 "TO » w 36 University of California — Experiment Station DAIRY-FEED CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA Coast Counties. — Dairying is carried on. in almost all parts of California, under widely different conditions. Production in the coast counties is influenced more by climatic conditions, especially rainfall, than in most other sections of the state. Seasonal variation in production is pronounced. Indices of seasonal variation calculated from receipts at a number of dairy plants in Humboldt County indi- cate that on the basis of 100 as a normal the production for the various months is as follows : 9 January 37 July 144 February 25 August 125 March 69 September 107 April 139 October 97 May 167 November 76 June 156 December 58 In the Humboldt-Del Norte area the use of pasture crops, usually clover and rye grass, is an outstanding practice. Soiling crops and roots supplement the pasture, and considerable use is made of con- centrates. South of the Humboldt area the months of low production usually occur in the fall, September to November, varying with the year. The peak months, on the other hand, usually occur during March to May. In the Marin-Sonoma area, pasture is commonly utilized during the months of April, May, June, and July. During the remainder of the year cows are fed hay and concentrates with some succulent feeds such as silage, carrots, potatoes, and pumpkins. Oat hay is the prin- cipal roughage, although some alfalfa is imported from other sections. Many of the dairies in the Monterey-San Benito-Santa Cruz area operate with irrigated alfalfa and other field crops. Pasture, either natural or alfalfa or grain stubble, is common practice. Alfalfa hay is usually fed either alone or as a supplement to the pasture. Various succulent feeds such as silage, sugar-beet tops, green alfalfa, green barley, green grass, potatoes, sugar-beet roots, and carrots are often utilized. Dairying is a major and important enterprise in the San Luis Obispo section, being conducted on the rolling hills and small valleys with much of the land in pasture. Pasture is more or less available the year round ; although best from April to October. Oat hay is the fl Calculations based upon Persons ' method of link relatives. Bul.514] Dairy Products 37 common roughage, and is utilized with roots, squashes, and concen- trates during the remainder of the year, in amounts depending on the carrying capacity of the pasture. Sacramento and Sam Joaquin Valleys. — In the interior valley from Red Bluff to Bakersfield and from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the Coast Range, intensive dairying is practiced. Land values are relatively high in a large part of this area, and the dairyman must purchase or rent land on the basis of the returns from fruit growing, truck gardening, and other intensive farming enterprises. In this basin, with its long warm summers, seasonal variation in production is not great. The main feedstuff used for dairy cattle in this section is alfalfa, and the expansion of the industry is dependent to a large degree upon the alfalfa acreage. There is a high degree of correlation between the actual number of dairy cattle over two years old and the alfalfa acreage. Mountain Counties. — In the northern interior counties of Shasta and Siskiyou, and in counties along the eastern boundary of the state are found numerous valleys varying in size from a few thousand acres to many square miles where irrigation is possible and in many in- stances already practiced. Although mountain range is convenient and cheap, alfalfa, is grown to a considerable extent in certain of the valleys. Both pasture and alfalfa hay are utilized. This area, has been extending its dairy operations during the past few years. Southern California. — In that part of the state south of Kern and San Luis Obispo counties, the two principal sections are in Los Angeles and Imperial counties. In the former county dairy farms usually consist of a few acres, on which little or no feed is grown. Few calves are raised, replacements usually being made from outside the area (see p. 140). Heavy concentrate feeding is practiced in this area, although the basic feed is alfalfa, much of which must be shipped into the area. Dairying for market-milk purposes is carried on in other sections of the southern portion of the state. Imperial Valley with its water supply and warm, long growing season, can produce a large amount of feed per acre. Seasonal variation is not largo in the southern areas. Dairying, however, must meet competition with canta- loupe, cotton, lettuce, and early vegetable crops. PRODUCTIVITY PER COW United States and California. — California ranks high in the aver- age production of milk and milk fat per cow. In 1919 the estimated production of milk per cow in the United States was 366 gallons (2,947.6 pounds) ; the corresponding figure for California, was 536 38 University of California — Experiment Station gallons (4,609.6 pounds). 10 This latter figure was exceeded by only two states — Washington with 571 gallons (4,910.6 pounds) and Rhode Island with 550 gallons (4,830.0 pounds) (table 15). The figures quoted included only milk reported from farms reporting dairy cows, estimates being omitted. The average milk production per cow milked in the United States during 1924 was 440 gallons (3,784.0 pounds), while for California it was 630 gallons (5,418.0 pounds). 11 California's record was exceeded only by that of New Jersey with 651 gallons (5,599.0 pounds) 12 (fig. 8). The 1924 data includes estimates. The same general conclusions with reference to California's high average milk production will be reached if instead of computing the milk production per cow milked the average production of milk cows on farms is computed. 13 While statistics for 1924 are not comparable with those for 1919, indications are that there has been a decided increase in the production of milk per cow. In making comparisons of the farm value, gross income, and cash income from farm production during the period 1924-1928 the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics has had occasion to estimate the milk production per cow during these five years. Rhode Island, Washington, and New Jersey are the only states which were estimated in the latter year to have had a higher milk production per cow than California. 14 In making comparisons between states the fact that different breeds are more largely represented in certain states, thus making for a decided difference in milk flow, should not be overlooked. Several states report comparatively large numbers of cows of the beef breeds milked, the result being that the production per cow in those states is low. In 1924 California reported only 20,685 cows of beef breeds being milked out of a total of 540,295 cows used for milk purposes. 15 Although no accurate statistics of milk fat production for the country have been issued, estimates can be made of milk fat production per cow in California during the years 1920, 1925 and 1930 (table 16). io U. S. Dept. Commerce, Fourteenth census of the U. S., 1920, 5: p. 654, 657. 1922. ii U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau Census. U. S. Census of Agriculture 1925, California, p. 26. 1926. 12 U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau Census. U. S. Census of Agriculture 1925, New Jersey, p. 15. 1926. 13 The 1925 Farm Census reported the number of cows actually milked. The United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics has made an estimate of the number of cows kept for milk purposes. 14 U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. Farm value, gross income and cash income from farm production. Part 1, Section 2 of a mimeographed preliminary report issued in March, 1930. 1 5 U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau Census. U. S. Census of Agriculture 1925, California, p. 26. 1926. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 39 TABLE 15 Milk Produced on Farms by Divisions and States and Average Milk Production Per Cow Division and Milk produced, in millions of gallons (including estimates) Average production per cow,* in gallons state 1889 1899 1909 1919 1924 1909 1919 1924 United States North Atlantic. Middle Atlantic East North Central West North Central South Atlantic. East South Central West South Central 5,210 339 1,097 1,423 1,296 333 332 187 46 156 20 25 111 7,266 490 1,338 1,928 1,682 492 500 474 110 252 50 49 154 7,466 401 1,273 1,980 1,731 518 469 522 174 392 92 72 229 7,805 386 1,248 2,246 1,718 518 458 459 260 510 141 93 276 9,198 403 1,264 2,615 2,275 568 500 588 362 622 170 112 340 362 476 490 410 325 286 288 232 339 475 495 417 491 366 449 490 423 312 291 255 208 362 536 571 489 536 440 524 541 497 408 343 312 314 452 Pacific Washington Oregon 608 615 542 630 * Averages are not comparable — 1909 and 1919 averages are per dairy cow on farms with report of milk produced and the amount of milk reported produced. 1924=average per cow milked in 1924. The 1924 data includes estimates. Source of data : 1889, 1899, 1909 milk production and average production per cow. U. S. Dept. Commerce, Bur. Census Milk produced on farms by divisions and states: 1889-1919. Fourteenth Census 5:658. 1924 milk production and average production per cow — computations by author on basis of 1925 Farm Census. TABLE 16 Estimated Average Milk Fat Production of Milk Cows, Two Years Old and Over in California 1920, 1925, 1930. Milk Fat Production 1919-1930 Year Milk cows, number Total milk fat production, pounds Average milk fat production per milk cow, pounds 1 2 3 4 1919-20 502,415 91,533,839 99,663,270 105,446,108 120,056,672 125,274,369 125,043,036 129,085,384 143,636,030 146,018,904 148,307.747 151,939,520 182 2 1920-21 1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 1925 557,268 224 4 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 571,952 265 6 Sources of data: Col. 2: Census returns for 1920, 1925 and 1930. Col. 3 : California State Dept. Agr. Statistical Reports of California Dairy Products, annual issues. Col. 4: Items in col. 3 divided by items for corresponding years in col. 2 40 University of California — Experiment Station Over £50 pounds of m//A fa/ per cow. 20/ - 250 pounds /5/ - 200 O - /SO Fig. 7. — Production of milk fat per cow in California, 1930. In general, the highest production per cow is in the San Joaquin Valley and southern Cali- fornia counties, while in the mountain counties and the Sacramento Valley the average production per cow is lower. (Data computed by the author on the basis of preliminary reports on milk-fat production issued by the California State Dept. Agr. Bur. Dairy Control and preliminary reports of the U. S. Census Bur. on the number of dairy cattle in the counties of California.) Bul. 514] Dairy Products 41 42 University of California — Experiment Station If data an the actual number of cows milked during each year were available the average per cow would be slightly higher, e.g., on Jan- uary 1, 1925, the census reports indicated that there were 557,268 dairy cows in the state. During the previous year (1924) there were 540,295 cows milked of which 519,610 were dairy cows and 20,685 were beef cows. It is highly probable that the numbers reported for 1920 and 1930 were higher than the number of animals milked. Furthermore, the amount of butter made on the farm for domestic purposes and the milk used on farms is not included in the statistics of milk fat production; this would serve to increase the average amount of milk fat per cow. It is estimated that the amount of milk fat fed to calves or consumed by humans and not accounted for in the statistics of the Bureau of Dairy Control is approximately 20 pounds per cow per annum. If the estimates on the number of milk cows in the state (table 5) are utilized in obtaining the average production per cow, the same upward tendency in production is indicated. For purposes of com- parison the census data is more accurate. There were several causes contributing to the marked increase in efficiency of California dairy cattle during the 1920-1930 period. During the last quarter of a century there has been a continuous flow of the blood of the dairy breeds into this state — a fact that should serve to keep production on the upward trend. Cow-testing associa- tions have been fostered in this state to a marked degree, 16 and in the wake of this movement have come better sires, improved feeding practices, and advanced methods of management. In figure 7 an attempt has been made to show the areas of high production per cow. The southern counties stand out as those of highest production per cow, with the San Joaquin Valley counties following. The average production in other sections of the state is somewhat spotted — especially in the coast and mountain counties. UTILIZATION OF MILK Utilization of Milk in the United States. — From estimates made by the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricul- 16 On January 1, 1931, there were 79,302 cows in the cow-testing associations of California, or 12.9 per cent of the total number of cows in the state. This is the largest actual number and the highest relative percentage of cows under test in any state in the United States. This information was furnished by G. E. Gordon, Specialist in Agricultural Extension (Dairying) to the author, April 10, 1931. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 43 tural Economics 17 almost one-half of the milk produced in the United States was utilized in the form of market milk and cream. In consider- ing the possibilities of expanding the demand for dairy products, it tural Economics, 17 almost one-half of the milk produced in the United States. The approximate percentage of total milk utilized in various products is as follows : Market milk and cream 47.8 Creamery butter manufacture 25.4 Farm usage, including butter and waste 16.4 Factory cheese 3.5 Concentrated milk 3.4 Ice cream 3.4 Powdered milk 0.1 Total 100.0 Milk Fat Utilization in California. — Changes in the utilization of milk fat produced in California since 1920 have been significant (table 17). Especially marked has been the increase in the relative amounts utilized for market milk, market cream, ice cream, and evaporated milk. In a general way this trend corresponds to that in the nation, except that the production of the last-named product has increased relatively more rapidly in California. All of the prod- ucts mentioned usually bring a higher absolute price for the milk fat which they contain than do butter and cheese, and with the exception of evaporated milk are usually produced at a shorter dis- tance from the centers of consumption. The products which are increasing in relative importance in this state are those in which the solids not fat are either completely or partially utilized. If the human population of California continues to increase rapidly and if the present trends in production continue, it seems reasonable to expect that the movement which is discernible in table 17 will con- tinue, especially with respect to market milk, market cream, and ice cream. TABLE 17 Percentage Utilization - of Milk Fat Produced in California, 1920-1930 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 Butter 60 20.0 63 6 7 4 3 59 19.6 8 7 5 3 7 3.8 57.0 22.5 7.5 6.7 3 3+ 54 22 + 6+ 7.0 3 4+ 52 24+ 8 7 2 4+ 48+ 26+ 9 8 1.9 5 46.1 27 6 11.6 8 3 16 4.7 43 4 28.8 9.2 9.4 1.9 4.7 2.7 42 3 29.6 9.6 8 5 2.0 4 9 3.2 39 5 29 9 10 4 9.1 19 5.1 4.1 39 2 29 1 10 6 9.6 1.9 4.7 4 9 Evaporated milk Cheese Source of data: California State Dept. A^r. Statistical Reports of California Dairy Products, annual issues. 17 U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. The outlook for the dairy industry and essentials of a national dairy program. Mimeographed publication, March, 1931. 44 University of California — Experiment Station PRODUCTION OF DAIRY PRODUCTS Milk Fat Production, California. — Detailed statistics on milk fat production by area and county are enumerated in table 18, while the percentage distribution is shown in table 19. Although every section has shown an actual gain over the past ten years the southern California and San Joaquin Valley have outstripped the other sections (table 19). The increase in the former section has been most largely utilized in market milk production. Manufacturing and Distributing Plants in California. — While creameries are generally scattered throughout the eleven western states, this is not so true of other types of dairy plants (fig. 9). Cali- fornia has a large number of plants of almost all descriptions dis- tributed through the dairy districts, for production is generally more concentrated than in the other western states. From one standpoint this is a desirable condition, insuring competition between the various branches of the dairy industry for the farmer's raw material. On the other hand, it is likely that too large a number of plants will entail a heavy overhead charge, especially when there are insufficient sup- plies of raw material. Between the years 1919-1920 (fiscal year ending June 30) and 1930 the number of creameries and cheese factories in the state decreased. Especially is this true if Los Angeles County is omitted from the enum- eration and only those sections engaged primarily in the production of butter and cheese are considered. A large number of the creameries listed by the California State Department of Agriculture for Los Angeles County have utilized the surplus market milk in the manu- facture of other dairy products. Although many of the city plants are operated on a large scale, a considerable number are for the especial purpose of utilizing surplus milk, manufacturing cottage cheese, etc. While the manufacture of ice cream in California has increased at a rapid rate, the number of plants has increased still more rapidly. Consolidations have occurred, but there have been ever increasing numbers of concerns manufacturing relatively few gallons of the product during the warm weather season and little or none during other times of the year. The number of market-milk distributors has likewise increased more rapidly than the amount of milk distributed. This expansion has also been general in the state, with the exception of San Francisco Bul. 514 Dairy Products 45 County. In the latter county there were 120 distributors in 1906 and in 1930 but 18. 18 The growth in other sections can perhaps be ex- plained by the agricultural surroundings of the cities and towns, for in most sections milk-distributing plants may be established with far more ease than in a city such as San Francisco. LOCATION OF creameries Cheese factories milk condensers butter and cheese factories factories manufacturing condensed or evaporated milk and either butter or cheese Factories manufacturing Butter and Cheese Each dot represents one toctoru factories manufacturing condensed or Evaporated Milk and either Butter or Cheese 'represents one racforu ^^ Fig. 9. — Much of the dairy farming is done in the vicinity of the manufac- turing plants. Although cream may be shipped a considerable distance, the milk received by cheese factories and condenseries is generally produced within a few miles of the manufacturing plants. (The data for California were compiled from: Frey, J. J. Statistical report of California dairy products, 1925. California State Dept. Agr. Special Publication 62:18-37. 1926. Data for the other ten states are of 1926 and were furnished by the U. S. Dept. Agr., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Dairy and Poultry Products Division.) (Figure used by courtesy of Byron Hunter, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ.) is Letter from Wm. E. Moore, Milk Dealers' Association of San Francisco, to the author, March 4, 1930. 46 University of California — Experiment Station -tO)NXNT|(tDI-COrtO)OCCO ONJSMNWOlrt tD N M "3 O 05 N N !D I O K5 OO M lO Kl tO rH to CM CM ^ rtCC iCCO I Ol NN^OOOlNOMNOllNtOON lOiOOiO^WMlNMtONtOMrt CM »-< ^ .-Tr-T,.!' 00NTlNtOtO ■ MtONin-nOlNtO I JKJMiOOOOOtOMi^ I ooooo>OTiii^nto | •«t"O*-* I lO ■* N -h lO US M M 1^ >-i O CM r-H .-CCO U3 CO iO-*iCN'*t^tOINNWtO'<)"«l^ OOc lOtONXN ONOOtOM Nrt^co ONrfOMtDtOONWtOlOOtB 0)tOt0^rtO)tOO>NXMNMO CO «0 -*< CO •* co o i-^ ^ cm cm 'HCOa500MC0O)'-lrt CO -«3^OJCO<"~CT><-c MtortiouirtOoon CM00-<}«t^-«*tcO00CMlO HOlflOOM I t^ ■* OO t^ CO »o °£-5£° z *S$£x v ft 3 3-2 o3 O a3 ~ ti 03-5 ««r9 o3 c3 c«£ o3 2. da Buu 514] Dairy Products 47 0-OnNO>_. lO OS rt -- SSSS I N^NNWO t^ -^ O OMNI i-h .-i cmioos- I N 1C 00 N O N U5 iOO)050)t1INM(D MO)X0OOirtiOO> o> c© r^ co cm i-h WaOJNO 1^ Oi Tf< "*> CO cm oo -h —i cooocoooo O0 ©" 0~ « IOCS »o i-h i KN-HNlCMNOS | -(NMOOOPJN I loni^o^oo I OO00CCN rt o" i-TcOOO*«5 i-h llfliOCONNN >— l . i-h -H o> •<*< uo >o -*t< l*NU5NO» CO i-h «5 CM CN . HfliONCONOHO i t^ CO CM CM i-h CONN^CiCCOOOiOON r^coi^ooifs -h i$< o> co «o CM OS CM CO OS CM 1^ CM CM CM i-h -H rt < OOO'fCNCOlOMO t-w t^ CO CM CO i-h TjiiJicOMN i "O O0 t^ lO CM CO CO ■ CM OS Oi CM O CO < O CM ' .00 CO ©00 CM I CM CM -h CO "O CO CD O CM CO N -h CO N CO iH lO ■**< T*l I-H I— I I CO CO CO -h t~- H«, (NMCO!ON«5CJN«NCN COCONlO'^'HNOltiCOO t^ ,-H i-H ■ OON«Ol ■*COOCO«5 CO CM CO i-h —I rji OS lO co co oo in "3 ■ OJ ^CM t- CM OJ lO —< "0 CM "0 •& I CO O CO 00 i-i CO © < f CM CO CO "5 CO i-h < CM CM CM COCO ■ > a c'3 I* CO p-j 3 so : g ; 45-5 £-d o S d oj .2 So - - D OJ ."3 « 3 J) oi oj J 3.g g O c3 ! 4) q . CO a 3 ' 'S S ri 3 J « : 48 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 19 Percentage Distribution of Milk Fat Production in California, 1919-1930 Section 1919-20 1920-21 1921-22 1922-23 1923 24 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 18.9 16.4 11.0 34.9 16.0 2.8 18 4 16.9 10.1 35.3 17 5 1.8 17.4 176 9.6 35.4 17.6 2.4 16.6 17.4 10 2 35.8 17.5 2.5 16.4 15.1 9.5 37.5 19 2 5 15.9 14.9 9.4 36.2 21 1 2.5 14.9 14.1 8.9 37.4 21.7 3 13.8 14.3 9.3 370 22.8 2.8 13 6 14 1 8.7 36.5 24.1 30 13 4 13.0 9.1 37.6 24.0 2.9 13 4 12.8 Sacramento Valley.. San Joaq ui n Valley . Southern California 8.7 37.1 25.1 2.9 Source of data: Computations by author based upon table 18. Butter Production United States. — The large volume of butter manufactured upon farms prevents statistics on the total butter production from being- entirely satisfactory. Revolutionary changes have taken place in manufacture. Until 1917 farm-butter production exceeded that of the creamery product (table 20). Since 1879 the latter product has made a relatively rapid growth, while the former has been declining, the peak having been reached about 1899. Whether or not butter production over the last several decades has been gaining more or less rapidly than population is a matter of con- jecture, as comparisons based upon the data of the single census years are almost certain to be erroneous. The figures obtained by improved technique in collecting data on butter production since 1917 indicate that the production of creamery butter has gained more rapidly than has the human population. This may not hold if total production is considered. During 1930 a drop in production from the high point in 1929 is to be noticed (table 20). Seasonal Variation in Butter Production, United States. — As is evident from table 21 the seasonal variation in the production of creamery butter has been changing during the past nine or ten years, hence a single number representing the index for seasonal variation during a given month would not be accurate. With the exception of the month of May, there has been a distinct trend toward more equal monthly production throughout the year. This tendency might have the effect of lessening the proportion of butter placed in cold storage in the country as a whole. The months of November, December, Janu- ary, and February, are still considerably below the average in pro- duction, while May, June, July and August are above (table 21 and fig. 10). Bui.. 514] Dairy Products 49 TABLE 20 Butter Production in the United States and in California, 1849-1930 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) United States California Year Creamery Farm Total Creamery Farm Total / 2 3 4 5 6 1849 313,345 459,681 514,093 777,250 1,024,223 1,071,626 994,651 1 3,095 7,970 14,084 26,777 20,853 15,302 14,348 13,394 12,439 11,485 10,530 9,576 8,622 7,668 6,113 5,758 5,375 4,992 4,609 4,226 3,844 3,461! 3,078! 2,695! 2,312! 1,929! 1,566! 1859 1869 16,471 181,285 420,127 624,765 1879 1889 793,721 1,205,508 1,491,753 1,619,415* 2,074 272 13,147 37,283 45,989 50,381 54,941 55,543 59,286 67,522 70,030 68,373 60,485 61,140 68,127 72,254 74,010 76,976 78,562 73,600 74,118 77,325 76,786 72,806 73,972 16,159 27,048 1899 34,000 1909 52,585 1910 60,337 1911 63,775 1912 67,380 1913 . 67,028 1914 786,003 69,816 1915 77,098 1916 760,031 759,511 793,285 920,550 863,577 1,055,938 1,153,515 1,252,214 1,356,080 1,361,526 1,345,389 1,496,495 1,487,049 1,597,027 1,594,826 78,652 1917 908,000 710,000 707,666 675,000 650,000 625,000 610,000 600,000 590,000 580,000 600,000 590,000 580,000 570,000! 1,667,511 1,503,285 1,628,217* 1,538,677 1,704,938 1,778,515 1,862,214 1,956,180 1,951,526! 1,925,389! 2,096,495! 2,077,049! 2,177,027! 2,164,826! 76,041 1918 66,598 1919 66,898 1920 73,502 1921 77,246 1922 78,619 1923 81,202 1924 1925 82,406 75,687! 1926 77,196! 1927 80,020t 1928 79,098! 1929 74,825! 1930 75,538! * The figures for 1909 and 1919 are exclusive of butter made as an incidental product in establishments engaged primarily in the manufacture of products other than butter, cheese, or condensed milk. This amounted to 2,381,212 pounds in 1909 and 17,955,316 pounds in 1919. t Subject to revision. Sources of data : Cols. 1 and 2, 1879, 1889, 1899, 1909, 1919, U. S. Dept. Commerce Bur. Census. Fourteenth Census of the U. S. 5: 660-661. 1914, 1916, 1917-1929 furnished to author by U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. 1930 estimates by author based upon data published by U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Col. 3 = sum of items in cols. 1 and 2. Col. 4 furnished author by Calif. State Dept. Agr. Bur. Dairy Control, Sacramento, California. Col. 5, estimates by author based upon census data. Col. 6, sum of items in cols. 4 and 5. 50 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 21 Monthly Production of Creamery Butter Expressed as Percentages of Total Annual Production, United States, 1917-1929 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 1917 5.8 5.6 6.2 5.7 5 6 64 6.7 6 5 6.4 6.7 6 5 6.8 6.8 5.1 5 3 5.2 5.4 5 4 5.8 5.9 64 5.9 6 5 6 4 6.7 6.5 6.2 6.2 6.5 6 5 6 4 6.9 7.1 7.1 6.8 7.7 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.1 7.2 7.9 7.0 7.8 7.5 8.0 7.8 7.9 8 3 8.4 8 8.4 9 9 10 8 12 2 10.1 11 3 11.5 10 7 10 3 10 7 10 7 11.3 10 5 10.8 13 13 2 14.0 13 3 12.4 13 12.6 12 12 12 3 12 6 12 2 12 12 4 12 3 12.3 12.8 10 6 11.7 11.8 12 1 11 .6 11.0 11.4 11 3 11 4 11.1 10.7 9.9 10 5 10 6 9 9 9.7 10 .2 10.0 9 2 9.8 9 8 9.5 10.1 9.1 8.1 8 9 8.5 8 8.2 8 5 8 8 7.6 8.0 7.8 7.4 8.1 6.9 7.5 8 7.2 7.1 74 7.7 7.1 6.8 7.1 7.2 5.6 5.8 5.3 6.2 6.6 6.0 6 5 7 6 3 6 2 5 8 5.9 6.0 6 3 5.7 5.5 6.1 6 8 6.1 62 5.1 67 6.3 6 6 2 6.2 100.0 1918 100.0 1919 100.0 1920 100.0 1921 100.0 1922 100.0 1923 „ 1924.. 100.0 100 1925... . 100.0 1926.. . . 100.0 1927 100.8 1928 100.0 1929 100.0 Sources of data: Computations by author based upon the monthly production of creamery butter. U. S. Dept. Agr., Creamery butter production, United States, 1917-1924. U. S. Dept. Agr., Yearbook, 1924:881. 1925. 1925-1929, U. S. Dept. Agr., Crops and Markets, monthly issues. Per- cent - - / - \ - '923 -J * v ^ x ^\ /92Q^7, ^ ■/9/a \ \ - - Jan feb. Apr. May Ju/ ■* \J \/ " \> / \ / \> * \j- j yr \f \j V V !\ A 1 \ ;\ i\ so » \ \ i \ i \ ,' N \ f \ I \ * \ I \ y \ +> - / V -v / w '•• zo Form butter production- United States i s 3 ' Fig. 11. — Production of creamery butter in the United States and California 1922-1930, and farm butter in the United States 1925-1930. There is con- siderable difference between the highest monthly production during the flush season and the lowest monthly production during the slack season. Indications are that there is a greater relative fluctuation between the high and low months of farm butter production. Note that the California flush season comes previous to that in the nation and that fluctuations between the high and low points are less. (Data from monthly issues of U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets.) O / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /O // IZ /3 /4 15 /6 // /6 /9 20 Thousand Per- pounds cent Minnesota 265,078 78.3 too/a 174,620 /2J Wisconsin /53,033 /0.6 Nebraska 91,572 6.3 Ohio 78,059 5.4 California 72,8*7 5.0 Michigan 69,485 4.6 Missouri 63,641 4.4 ///inois 60,539 4.2 indiana 58,700 4.1 /Kansas 5/,297 3.5 /Wo. Dakota 32ft37 2.2 So. Dakota 3/676 22 Washington 28,477 2.0 Oregon 2/,985 7.5 Other States / 9 4,5 68 /3.4 — i > — I — ■ — 1 — — 1 — 111111111 iminii Hill ■7 Fig. 12. — Relative importance of the chief states producing creamery butter for the period 1924-1928. California ranked sixth among the states in creamery- butter production. If statistics on farm-butter production were available, other states would be listed in advance of California. (Data computed by author from summaries of butter production in August issues of U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets.) 54 University of California — Experiment Station I £ CO CO t^ O ^ ■«»< oo O co cd oo h a oo s OS © CM t^ CO © 1C CM © OS CM t— r— -*t< in •& OS O ■* O N ■* N OO to M .-i CM >-< oo 10 o 00 00 •* O 00 o tO 00 N lO O0 "5 CO - O II H O X oJ 1*3 !! CUTS as a O OQ os a if 2 a> o 3 6 o 'w ^ I ■gj-sl 5 • © Q-S « » p ■ t, ^ 0> O >> CO Bul. 514] Dairy Products 55 While there have been local changes in the San Joaquin Valley in the amount of butter manufactured, the changes in the location of creameries might readily explain this. The southern California area produces less than 10 per cent of the butter of the state and of this amount Imperial County accounts for two-thirds. The remaining amounts manufactured come largely from surplus milk. Outside of Imperial County few, if any, of the dairies in the southern section of the state produce milk for other purposes than for human consumption. Data on areas of butter production within the state should be used with great care and only to show changes in manufacturing — not to depict changes in milk fat production for purposes of butter manufacture. Cheese Production, United States. — The transition from the pro- duction of farm to factor cheese occurred about the time of the Civil War, and today the production of the former product is almost negligible. Yearly estimates of production became available in 1914 (table 23). They give evidence of considerable fluctuation, especially when they are compared with corresponding data on the production of creamery butter (table 20). There has been, however, a distinct upward trend in production since 1914 (table 23). Production in 1930 broke all previous records. Approximately 80 per cent of the cheese produced is of the American type, although since 1923 there has been a rapid increase in the amounts of cottage, pot, and bakers' cheese manufactured. Wisconsin produces approximately 67 per cent of the American Cheddar cheese manufactured in the United States. The remaining production is scattered with a tendency for some concentration in New York and Oregon. The latter ranks third among the states as a producer of cheese. Production is largely confined to the northern part of the United States. On account of the yearly fluctuations in the volume produced, definite trends are difficult to detect except in the western states. The mountain states, especially Idaho, have experienced a rapid relative growth in production during the past decade. The Pacific Coast states of Oregon and Washington also have shown increased production. In the production of Swiss, Brick, Munster, and Limburger cheese there is a decided concentration in Wisconsin. There is a tendency for the softer cheeses, such as cream cheese, to be produced close to centers of population — New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Penn- sylvania — being the leading states. New York and California stand 56 University of California — Experiment Station out among the other states in the production of the Italian varieties of cheese and especially in cottage-cheese output. Seasonal Variation in Cheese Production, United States. — During the years 1917-1929 between 70 and 80 per cent of the American cheese has been made during the six months beginning in May. Swiss cheese production gives evidence of a greater seasonal variation than does American cheese, almost 90 per cent being manufactured in the six months beginning in May. These also are the months of the greatest volume of butter output. Owing to the fact that the milk production of the country is greatest during these months, it is feasible to utilize the product in the manufacture of the semiperishable prod- ucts of the dairy industry. California Cheese Production. — Yearly data on cheese production are available only for the past twelve years, 1919-1930. If the first five years, 1919-1923, are compared with the last five, 1926-1930, a drop of considerable magnitude can be discerned (table 24). How- ever, during this latter period an upward trend in production is clearly discernible. The north and south coast counties lead the state in the production of cheese, accounting for somewhat over 50 per cent of the total. The San Joaquin Valley produces appreciable amounts during some years, averaging between 20 and 25 per cent of the total. The manufacture of cheese adapts itself to coast regions because of climatic conditions, greater seasonal variation in milk production, and to some extent, the factor of transportation. As pointed out in an earlier paper 20 these same conditions may in the future lead to a larger production in the* mountainous regions in the eastern and northern counties of the state. During the past few years Siskiyou County in the latter group has emerged as one of the leading counties in state cheese production. Cottage-cheese production is not included in table 24. A phe- nomenal increase in the manufacture of this product has come about since the fiscal year 1922-23 as the data in table 25 clearly show, although during 1929 there was a slight slowing up. This increase has been the result of new and better methods of manufacture and distribution. In 1928, for the first time in history, the wholesale value of cottage cheese exceeded that of other types of cheese pro- duced within the state. 20 Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437:54. 1927. Bul. 514 Dairy Products 57 TABLE 23 Cheese Production in the United States and California, 1849-1930 Exclusive of Cottage, Pot, and Bakers' Cheese (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) United States California Year Factory Farm Total Factory Farm Total / * 3 4 5 6 1849 105,536 103,664 53,492 27,272 18,727 16,372 9,406 105,536 103,664 162,927 243,157 256,762 299,006 320,582 1859 1,344 3,395 2,567(7) 3,872 4,250 1,344 1889 109,435 215,885 238,035 282,634 317,145 311,176 377,513 314,717 372,540 352,622 379,320 362,431 355,838 369,980 394,697 413,940 453,514 427,416 406,686 437,519 483,933 512,319 1879 1,154 1,091 2,676 1,568 3,721 1889 ... 4,963 1899 1904 6,926 1909 2,778 4,346 1914.. . 1916 1917 1918 1919 9,709 2,346 12,055 1920 6,000 5,000 4,250 4,000 4,000 13,018* 1921 361,838 374,980 398,947 417,940 447,514 11,714* 1922 8,575* 1923 7,888* 1924 7,948* 1925 7,408 1926 8,119 1927 8,959 1928 9,604 1929 9,229 1930 9,813 * Year ending June 30. Sources of data: Col. 1: 1849-1926, furnished to author through courtesy of T. R. Pirtle, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., Washington, D. C. 1927-1928, U. S. Dept. Agr. Dairy products manufactured. Crops and Markets 5:307, 1928; 6:313, 1929. 1929, 7:409, 1930. Col. 2: Data furnished to author through courtesy of T. R. Pirtle, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Washington, D. C. Col. 4: Bur. Census Livestock products. Fourteenth Census of the U. S. 5:664. Col. 5: 1859-1869, U. S. Census Office. Dairy products of farms and ranges. Twelfth Census of the U. S. 5:711, 1879-1919 Bur. Census. Livestock products. Fourteenth Census of the U. S. 5:664. Col. 6: 1859, U. S. Census Office. Dairy products of farms and ranges. Twelfth Census of the U. S. 5:71 1,1879-1919 Bur. Census. Livestock products. Fourteenth Census of the U. S. 5:664. 1920- 1930, Calif. State Dept. Agr. Statistical Reports of California Dairy Products, annual issues. 58 University of California — Experiment Station 2,414 2,022 827 2,849 749 952 CO oo OS 2,561 1,901 690 2,309 765 1,003 9,229 OO OO CN CO © O 1 •>* OS (M lO ■** 00 O 1 O X ■* ■* N "O O 1 CO CS s o i i > & a '5 a a o »-a c et QC £ c 1 c i- a ~c s o c '5 c c o co CO •** o t^- <* 6 OO CI N IC © CO OS N M N * OS CO © y-> OS »C © © CM © t- 00 ■* o in n » os © © -h os ® lO N O Tj< OO OS •«*<©' OS CO CM CO CO ^H *< CO OS > S3 - o .5 A to oo -w ~ w § § § & a .5 w 8 £ § o3 5 •5-5 3^-5 a »- s fc a 3 2 ° O 03 c3 O ,° £ CQ (B GO GO S J s ?c3 Bul. 514] Dairy Products 59 TABLE 25 Cottage Cheese Production in California, 1919-1930 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Fiscal year Amount Calendar year _ — L ^_ r Amount 1919-20 1,280 1,968 2,665 1,512 3,233 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 10,052 1920-21 11,073 1921-22 1922-23 13,504 18,673 1923-24 17,718 17,958 Source of data : California State Dept. Agr. Statistical Reports of Cali- fornia Dairy Products, annual issues. Condensed and Evaporated Milk Production, United States and California. — The concentrated-milk process, invented just before the Civil War, has been responsible for a rapidly expanding branch of the dairy industry. The product is now one of the most important manufactured foods of the world. In this bulletin concentrated milk means all kinds of concentrated sweetened and unsweetened milk, powdered milk being excluded. The production of concentrated milk was greatly stimulated by the World War and the subsequent relief work abroad until the peak was reached in 1919. This condition was followed by a decrease from 1920 to 1922. The recovery of the indus- try abroad, the stimulation of the industry at home, and the resultant low wholesale prices in this country, kept production stationary during the four years 1923-1926. During the latter year demand went ahead of production with a resultant depletion of stocks on hand. As a result there was a considerable extension of production in 1927, which continued through 1929, the largest production year on record (table 26). Returns for 1930 show an appreciably lower production than in 1929. Approximately 80 per cent of the production is centered in the states of Wisconsin, New York, California, Michigan, Illinois, Penn- sylvania, Ohio, and Washington. During the past twenty-five years, a steady increase in both the actual and relative amounts produced is evident in Wisconsin where about 30 per cent of the production occurs. Marked production changes in many of the other sections occur from year to year and during" the past five years there has been an apparent widening of the production area. In addition to Cali- fornia and Washington in the western group of states considerable amounts are produced in Utah, Colorado and Idaho. 60 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 26 Production of Condensed and Evaporated Milk in the United States and California, 1899, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1916-1930 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year United States California 1899 186,922 308,485 494,797 873,410 997,835 1,353,606 1,674,898 2,030,958 1,578,015 1,464,163 1,431,349 1,774,881 1,700,548 1,757,858 1,733,504 1,855,722 1,918,427 2,206,648 2,114,448 4,314 1904 1909 16,983 1914 1916 18,610 1917 1918 1919 46,600 1920 84,926 1921 67,195 1922 98,050 1923 114,651 1924 120,311 1925 138,991 1926 150,063 1927 183,946 1928 175,386 1929 189,062 1930 200,240 Sources of data : United States 1899-1914 Bur. Census. Butter, cheese and condensed milk. Census of manufactures, 1914 (2) : 353-354. 1916-1924, U. S. Dept. Agr. Production of condensed and evaporated milk. Yearbook 1925:1076. 1925-1928, Dairy products manufactured. August issues of Crops and Mar- kets, 1929, Dairy products manufactured. Crops and Mar- kets 7:409, 1930. California. 1899-1914, Bur. Census. Butter, cheese and condensed milk. Census of manufactures, 1914 (2): 353-354. 1916 (year ending Sept. 30) California State Dairy Bureau, Report 1915-1916:43. 1919-1924 (years ending June 30), 1925- 1930 (calendar years), California State Dept. Agr. Statistical Reports of California Dairy Products, annual issues. Note— Data for 1919, 1921, and 1923 reported by the Dept. Commerce for the United States are 2,150,182,000, 1,758,451,000, and 1,821,143,315 pounds respectively. Production is highly seasonal, the major part usually occurring during five months, April to August inclusive. California production has shown a marked upward trend (table 26). Certain advantages are generally found; a more constant supply of milk can be obtained than in many other sections of the country and in addition milk production is somewhat concentrated. There has also been a steady increase in the export trade from California, The bulk of manufacture takes place in the San Joaquin and Salinas valleys, while lesser amounts originate in the north coast and Sacra- mento Valley counties. Bul. 514 Dairy Products 61 Ice Cream Production, United States and California. — Since ice cream is usually not made for long- periods in advance of consump- tion, production has very closely followed demand. The increase in the United States production of commercial ice cream during the period 1918-1928 was over 86 per cent; population increase during the same period has been estimated at 14.8 per cent. It should be recognized that commercial production in table 27 does not take account of ice cream made in the home. TABLE 27 Production of Ice Cream, United States, 1917-1930 Year Commercial production; thousands of gallons (i.e., 000 omitted) Total production, including estimates; thousands of gallons (i.e., 000 omitted) Year Commercial production; thousands of gallons (i.e., 000 omitted) Total production, including estimates ; thousands of gallons (i.e., 000 omitted) 1917 210,000 1924 181,546 285,550 1918 125,642 220,000 1925 214,382 322,729 1919 133,056 230,000 1926 215,248 324,665 1920 148,298 260,000 1927 226,756 335,704 1921 147,949 244,000 1928 232,185 348,046 1922 161,609 263,520 1929 254,618 365,448 1923 183,412 294,900 1930 240,750 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., Washington, D. C. TABLE 28 Amount and Percentage Distribution of Ice Cream Manufacture, California, 1919-1930 Section 1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 Thousands of gallons, i.e., 000 omitted North coast South coast Sacramento Valley... San Joaquin Valley. Southern California Mountain Totals North coast South coast Sacramento Valley. . San Joaquin Valley. Southern California Mountain 161 108 152 186 217 191 207 233 1,518 1,966 3,101 3,624 3,458 3,739 4,337 4,444 573 531 684 732 745 744 862 883 946 1,394 1,104 1,211 1,227 1,047 1,177 1,206 3,916 4,111 3,975 5,658 6,399 7,288 7,397 8,531 25 56 43 45 51 69 77 81 7,139 8,166 9,059 11,456 12,097 13,078 14,057 15,378 256 4,199 7,874 62 14,278 Percentage distribution 2.2 13 17 16 18 1.5 15 1.5 21.3 24 1 34 2 31 6 28.6 28.6 30 9 28.9 8.0 6 5 7.6 6.4 6.2 5 7 6 1 5 7 13 3 17 1 12 2 10 6 10 1 8 8.4 7.8 54 8 50 3 43 8 49.4 52 9 55.7 52.6 55 6 4 7 5 4 4 5 0.5 5 1.8 29.4 5.7 7 5 55 2 4 Source of data: Computations by author on the basis of: California State Dept. Agr. Statistical Reports of Cali- fornia Dairy Products, annual issues. 62' University of California — Experiment Station Ice cream production has been extended more rapidly in California since 1919 than it has in the nation (table 28). In 1930 (calendar year) it was over 100 per cent greater than that in the year 1919-20 (fiscal year). As in the nation, the increased production has found an outlet not only in the increased population but in an increased per- capita consumption (table 35). During the past decade commercial ice cream in California has outstripped all other dairy products in production growth. Manufacture has become largely concentrated in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas, over 80 per cent of the production being in the southern California and south coast sections (table 28). While the former area has shown the greatest actual increase, the relative increase in the latter has been greater. Ice cream production is generally highly seasonable; there are appreciable differences in the seasonal variation of different sections of the state. Production in the San Francisco Bay region is more evenly distributed throughout the year than that of any other section. The southern California, area is next. The variation in the Sacra- mento and San Joaquin valleys is large, the ratio between months of low and high production being in some instances as high as 1 :15 with individual firms. This variation might be expected in view of the seasonal temperature changes in these sections. Distribution of Market Milk in California. — The distribution of market milk is reported by the California State Department of Agriculture Bureau of Dairy Control. Production statistics are not reported. Considerable amounts of milk are produced as 'market milk' but are used in other products. The dairyman and the public at large should realize this when comparing producers' prices with retail prices. During the years 1921-22 (fiscal year) to 1929, a large expansion has been necessary to supply the demand in southern Cali- fornia and in the San Francisco Bay region. Since 1921 an annual increase of approximately 6 million gallons of milk has been required to fill the demands of the eight southern counties, and increases of slightly over a million gallons annually have been required in the San Francisco Bay region. For the entire state the demands for market milk have increased at a rate of approximately 9 million gallons yearly (table 29). The phenomenal increase in southern Cali- fornia has steadily absorbed an increasing part of the total market milk distributed (table 29). Even allowing for possible errors in the data available, the increase in the state has been far more rapid than growth in human population. This increased per-capita consumption Bui,. 514] Dairy Products 63 has undoubtedly been caused by improved quality and sanitation, relative cheapness, and perhaps in part by prohibition. There has been but little difficulty in meeting' these added needs, as the number of cows has increased even too rapidly at times in certain market milk districts. Owing- to the somewhat inflexible methods prevailing in the payment for market milk, difficulties arise especially when milk fat prices are relatively low. Indications point to a reduction in per- capita distribution in 1930 as compared with 1929. TABLE 29 Amount and Percentage Distribution of Market Milk, California, 1919-1930 Section 1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 Thousands of gallons, i.e., 000 omitted North coast South coast Sacramento Valley.. Saa Joaquin Valley. Southern California Mountain Totals North coast South coast Sacramento Valley. .. San Joaquin Valley. Southern California. Mountain 3,973 4,612 4,889 3,323 4,184 4,306 5,867 5,124 26,213 26,439 29,328 33,889 35,543 37,618 38,253 37,117 8,035 7,018 7,160 7,799 7,474 7,656 7,711 7,399 6,531 7,834 9,348 8,870 8,629 9,943 10,723 11,280 26,600 34,079 39,982 46,754 51,855 62,965 65,215 69,593 1,200 1,824 1,763 1,071 678 689 1,058 1,487 72,552 81,806 92,470 101,706 108,363 123,177 128,827 132,000 5,033 37,197 7,599 10,943 69,748 1,254 131,774 Percentage distribution 5 5 5.6 5 3 3.3 3.9 3 5 4 5 3.9 36 1 32 3 31 8 33 3 32 8 30.5 29 8 28.1 11 1 8 6 7.7 7.7 6 9 6 2 6 5.6 9.0 9.6 10 1 8.6 8 8 1 8 3 8.5 36 7 41.7 43.2 46 47.8 51.1 50.6 52.8 16 2.2 1.9 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.1 3.8 28.2 5.8 8 3 52.9 1.0 Source of data: Computations by author on the basis of: California State Dept. Agr. Statistical Reports of Cali- fornia Dairy Products, annual issues. Distribution of Market Cream, California. — Coupled with the in- crease in market-milk distribution there has come an increase in the amount of market cream distributed (table 30). Production statistics are not strictly comparable, as they do not distinguish between the several different types of cream. The decrease in 1921-22 is in part accounted for by the business depression at that time, for it is probable that consumption is influ- enced to a considerable degree by general business conditions. 64 University of California — Experiment Station It is to the interest of the dairy industry to have as much as possible of the state's milk fat production sold in the form of market milk and cream. The price per pound of milk fat in these latter products and ice cream is normally high compared with that for some of the other products of the industry. TABLE 30 Distribution of Market Cream, California, 1920-1930 Year (fiscal) Thousands of gallons (i.e., 000 omitted) Year Thousands of gallons (i.e., 000 omitted) 1919-20 3,116 1925 5,766 1920-21 4,411 1926 5,905 1921-22 3,964 1927 6,128 1922-23 2,768 1928 6,525 1923-24 3,992 1929 7,075 1930 7,389 Source of data: California State Dept. Agr. Statistical Reports of Californi Products, annual issues. Dairy Sources of Los Angeles Milk and Cream Supply. — Owing to the continued expansion of the city of Los Angeles, both in population and area, exact comparisons between the volume of milk and cream required and their sources over considerable periods of time are unre- liable. A widening area seemingly was required for a time to furnish the perishable products of the industry. This has contracted. With the exception of Imperial Valley, the entire southern California area can be considered as a market milk and cream area and except perhaps for isolated sections, there is little opportunity for increases in other fields of dairy production in this section. A survey of the sources of supply for Los Angeles County in May, 1930, is given in table 31. On account of inspection regulations and the desire of many distributors to keep as close watch on the supply as possible, there seems to have been a concentration of market-milk supplies in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties. There has been some increase in the number of dairies in Kern County supplying Los Angeles with milk. For a period of time a number of dairies in the coast counties of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo were shipping milk into Los Angeles. Although it seems reasonable to expect that the coast counties, the lower San Joaquin Valley, and the Im- perial Valley might become important factors in the milk supply of Los Angeles, this has not been the case in the past except for one or two short intervals. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 65 Compared with the dairies supplying the San Francisco Bay area, those supplying Los Angeles are smaller. Indications point to an increase in the size of the dairies in both areas since 1926. Recent information 21 points rather conclusively to the larger size of the market milk dairies in both the southern and northern California areas. Since April, 1929, milk dealers' average daily purchases per producer in the United States and in its market milk areas have been issued. A range of from 145 to 203 pounds of milk purchased per producer in the United States is shown for the period April 1929- April 1931. The corresponding range for southern California is 725 to 1,235 while for northern California it was from 1,535 to 2,195. TABLE 31 Sources of the Milk Supply of Los Angeles County May 19, 1930 Type of herd or dairy County Dairies Cows Supplying milk to wholesale distributors Los Angeles San Bernardino Orange Riverside Kern Ventura Total 837 193 100 86 60 1 44,213 10,345 5,059 5,056 2,492 114 1,277 67,279 Retailers Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Not enumerated Grand Total 214 5 1 10 1,507 7,704 Certified dairies 2,932 Accredited dairies 338 Tubercular herds* 685 78,938 * Milk used for manufacturing purposes only. Source of data: L. M. Hurt, Los Angeles, County Livestock Inspector. The question of the future of dairies operating in Los Angeles and elsewhere upon a limited area is constantly raised by producers and others interested in the industry. Many such dairies or factories grow little or no feed, being milk manufactories in the real sense of the word. Prices of milk fat in potential market milk areas, prices of feeds, competition with other crops and industries, values of lands used for other than agricultural purposes, freight and express rates, climatic conditions, etc., will have a bearing upon this problem. 22 21 U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Fluid Milk Market Report for the United States, monthly issues. 22 For a comprehensive discussion of this problem see: Spencer, Leland. An economic survey of the Los Angeles milk market. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 513:1-106. 1931. 66 University of California — Experiment Station Sweet cream is furnished chiefly by the lower San Joaquin Valley counties of Kings, Tulare, Fresno, and Kern, and the coast county of Santa Barbara. Estimates (1929) place the number of cows produc- ing cream for the Los Angeles market at 45,378, located in 1,041 dairies with a daily production of 8,000 gallons, of which approxi- mately 4,000 gallons are used as table cream, the balance being used in the manufacture of ice cream'. About 500 gallons of cream were brought in daily from Los Banos in Merced County for the latter purpose. When necessary the cream supply of the city can be ex- panded in the south coast counties, and the San Joaquin and Imperial valleys. TABLE 32 Sources of the Milk Supply of San - Francisco and the East Bat Cities of Alameda County, June 1, 1931 San Francisco East Bay cities County Dairies Cows Dairies Cows Alameda 15 1 41 27 5 7 18 11 61 2 2 4 1 194 1,906 100 4,545 1,930 388 1,288 1,409 1,830 4,596 254 505 669 110 19,420 56 20 1 8 1 68 18 13 2 1 1 189 5,701 Contra Costa 2,628 Marin Monterey 472 Napa 485 Sacramento 280 6,414 1,510 Solano 1,690 250 150 Yolo 75 Total 19,655 Sources of data: San Francisco Board of Health; Oakland Board of Health; Department of Health of Hay ward. Sources of San Francisco Milk and Cream Supply. — Practically all of the milk for San Francisco is produced within a radius of 75 miles of the city with one exception, Monterey County (table 32). While it is probable that the dairies in close proximity to San Fran- cisco may be forced into other localities, the abundance of land suit- able for dairying in several of the surrounding counties (table 32) makes the problem of the future milk supply, in relation to location, a simple one. The dairies supplying San Francisco are large, averag- ing approximately 100 cows. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 67 Sweet cream for San Francisco is produced largely in Merced County in the vicinity of Los Banos and Gustine. Sources of Milk and Cream Supply of the East Bay Cities of Alameda County. — In 1915 the cities of Alameda County were obtain- ing a market milk supply from three counties — Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara, 23 with small quantities of milk originating in Solano County. In 1930, eleven different counties — San Joaquin, Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Solano, Monterey, Stanislaus, Napa, Sonoma, Sacramento, and Yolo — were supplying these same cities, the greatest concentration being in the vicinity of Tracy, San Joaquin County. Sources of the Milk and Cream Supply of Other Cities of Cali- fornia. — Market milk for the city of San Diego is produced in San Diego County and market cream is shipped from Imperial Valley. The milk supply of Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno, and Bakersfield is produced in the immediate vicinity of those cities. Problems in Production and Distribution of Market Milk. — With the rapid growth of the cities of this state little evidence has been shown until recently of a carefully thought-out plan for supplying market-milk needs. In comparison with the costs of producing other dairy products, market milk is expensive. It is therefore necessary, by careful planning, to reduce periods of overproduction and insuffi- ciency to a minimum. This can only be effectively brought about by keeping accurate records of the demands of the consumer and the supplies of producers over a period of years. While such data will not solve these problems, they will give the dairyman a firmer basis upon which to plan. With the improvement being made in the statis- tical services, future total needs for the various cities may be obtained with a greater degree of accuracy than at present. One of the problems which looms uppermost at present is the so- called 'surplus.' A 'surplus' is a necessity in the market-milk field because of the varying and sudden demands of consumers, but at times the difference between the amount of milk demanded by the trade and the production by farmers becomes too large. There are apparently considerable differences in demand caused by the type of business carried on, the season, and the local conditions surrounding a city. The latter two are of especial interest to pro- ducers. It is generally conceded that the concern with a. wholesale business (supplying milk for hotels, restaurants, stores, etc.) has a 23 Interview with Dr. William Wing, Oakland Board of Health, April, 1927. 68 University of California — Experiment Station far greater fluctuation from day to day than a concern engaged primarily in the retail business (household deliveries). A problem which should be understood by the consumer as well as by those con- cerned with the production and distribution of milk is that caused by the daily fluctuation in demand, particularly the decrease in demand over week-end periods. While such surplus is not wasted the product manufactured from it has a far lower value per pound of milk fat than has market milk. Those interested in the financing of new enterprises should inform themselves of economic conditions in the industry before proceeding to encourage new set-ups, so as not to increase the supplies of a section too rapidly. An examination of the sales of three San Francisco concerns for a few years only would lead to the conclusion that the demand during July is distinctly lower than that of other months, which might be explained by the fact that large numbers of San Francisco people spend their vacations away from the city, and furthermore that the month of July is relatively cool. An examination of the books of several concerns in the East Bay cities for 1929 clearly indicates the same condition. The drawing of conclusions from one year's data is apt to be somewhat erroneous, e.g., during the last months of 1929 milk con- sumption dropped. This was partially the result of unemployment. Before sweeping statements are made with reference to seasonal variations in demand it would be well to have several years' data upon which to rely. Although the calculation of seasonal demand for the large centers might prove to be profitable, considerable care would have to be exercised in drawing conclusions from computations made for smaller centers. Data, for example, are available for San Diego, but on account of fleet visits, race-track meets at Tia Juana, conventions, etc., the results give little or no promise of presenting helpful suggestions to investigators. Production of Other Dairy Products . — California is among the leading states in the manufacture of products from that portion of the milk containing the solids not fat. Of these the most important is powdered skim milk ; this state produced approximately 25 per cent of the country's output in 1929 (table 33). Production has increased at a phenomenal rate in both the state and nation — 1929 production in both instances being over 100 per cent greater than that of 1926. Over 40 per cent of the concentrated skim milk used for animal Bui,. 514] Dairy Products 69 feeding, 25 per cent of the casein, and 20 per cent of the milk sugar, was produced within the state in 1929. Evidence points to relatively greater increase in the manufacture of these products in states other than California during the past year. TABLE 33 Production of Dry Milk in the United States, 1914 and 1916-1930 and in California, 1918, 1921-1930* (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) United States California Yearf Dry whole milk Dry skim milk Total Dry whole milk Dry skim milk Total 1914 20,988 18,587 25,763 30,357 43,606 52,227 42,788 46,216 68,811 77,106 82,248 102,486 129,587 157,601 220,781 275,431 1916 2,123 3,139 4,154 8,661 10,334 4,242 5,599 6,560 7,887 8,931 10,768 11,464 9,605 13,202 15,440 16,464 22,624 26,203 34,945 41,893 38,546 40,617 62,251 69,219 73,317 91,718 118,123 147,996 207,579 259,991 1917 1918 2,928 1919 1920 5,260 5,852 8,026 11,643 14,605 17,901 23,096 25,240 36,553 51,137 32,600 5,260 1921 1922 1923 1924 49 8 160 315 768 405 219 357 395 407 5,901 8,034 11,803 14,920 1925 1926 1927 1298 18,669 23,501 25,459 36,910 1929 1930 51,532 30,307 * Does not include dried skim milk and buttermilk used for poultry and stock food, t United States, calendar years. California 1918 and 1921-1924 fiscal years; 1925-1929 calendar years. Sources of data: United States, 1916-1924, U. S. Dept. Agr. Production of dry milk. U. S. Dept. Agr., Yearbook, 1925:1082. 1926; 1925-1930 data furnished author by Bur. Agr. Econ. California, 1918, State Dairy Bur. Twelfth biennial report of the State Dairy Bur., 1917-1918:18. 1920-1929, California State Dept. Agr. Statistical Reports of California Dairy Products, annual issues. CONSUMPTION OF DAIRY PRODUCTS United States. — In studies made during the War period, Pearl 24 estimated that from 1911-12 to 1917-18 (fiscal years) dairy products contributed 18.53 per cent of the protein, 24.89 per cent of the fat, 5.65 per cent of the carbohydrates, and 14.71 per cent of the total energy (in calories) in the average annual production of all food- stuffs available for humans. Data on the foodstuffs consumed indicate that in the six years 1911-12 to 1916-17, 20.38 per cent of the 24 Pearl, Raymond. The nation's food. 274 p. W. B. Saunders Co., Phila- delphia. 1920. 70 University of California — Experiment Station protein, 27.49 per cent of the fat, 5.48 per cent of the carbohydrates, and 15.26 per cent of the total energy were contained in dairy prod- ucts. Pearl's data substantiate the conclusions made with reference to an increase in the per-capita consumption of dairy products toward the end of this period. TABLE 34 Annual Per-Capita Consumption of Dairy Products in the United States, 1849-1930 Year Butter Cheese Condensed and evaporated milk Ice cream 1849 pounds 13.90 15.10 13.70 15.80 19.50 19.90 18.00 17.00 15.40 14.60 14.00 14.80 14.70 16.10 16.50 17.00 17.38 17.39 17 82 17.62 17.34 17.61 17.75 pounds 4.00 3.20 3 30 2.10 2.90 3.70 3.85* 4.60* 3.04 2.89 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.70 3 90 4.20 4 26 4.36 4.14 411 4.62 4.71 pounds 10.49 12.50 12.30 10.17 11.40 12.69 13 25 14.00 14.87 14.32 14.23 15.02 16.58 16 61 gallons 1859 1869 1879 1889 1899 1909 1.04t 1914 1.68 1916 2.08 1917 2 07 1918 2.14 1919 1920 2.49 2.46 1921 2 28 1922 2 43 1923 2.68 1924 2.50 1925 1926 2 80 2.77 1927 2.85 1928 2.90 1929 3.00 1930 2.82 * Including cottage cheese, not included for other years, t For the year 1910. Source of data: Furnished by T. R. Pirtle, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. It is only since 1917 (table 34) that fairly complete estimates of the consumption of dairy products in the United States have been made. Since this date there has been a steady upward trend in con- sumption in all the major dairy products (fig'. 13) and in total products expressed in milk equivalents. This was striking in view of the indication that the total apparent per-capita consumption of food (expressed in terms of calories) in the United States was declining. 25 25 Lecture by Alonzo Taylor, Food Eesearch Institute, Leland Stanford Jr. University given at the University of California, March 26, 1927. Bui,. 514 Dairy Products 71 CD 1 **■ <* « P O 6 M C(K5 B o-S • P. B fi CO 81 P o> CD p i? P O ^ £p jo % H ^ 3 » £ <=> 2" " £ B o^ P 7 fV) 0) rv> o f\) ro ■DCD OC CH 5! to Z 3 o w CD r\j o r\> .— ^ DO OI cm Z H ro 00 ro o o rvi r\) O — 2 ° 812 8 ro m o> rv) OD o rvi o ■ ■ ' fO rv) ■ >m J! r Ox rvi zm o> 0)> fvf -2 1 72 University of California — Experiment Station Estimates of the per-capita consumption of milk and cream are not available for a continuous period. It is believed that the trend has been upward. Per-capita. rural consumption is undoubtedly larger than that for urban areas, but reliable estimates on either are not available. A careful perusal of table 34 might lead one to believe that a long-time trend of butter consumption would fail to show a pro- nounced upward tendency, in view of the high apparent per-capita consumption in 1889, 1899, and 1909. With the improvement in reporting statistics there seems to be but little doubt of an increase since 1916. Since the latter date yearly estimates on consumption have been made (table 34). Per-capita cheese consumption has tended upward since the begin- ning of the War. From all indications 1930 showed the largest per- capita consumption in history. Little doubt can exist with reference to the continuous upward trend in concentrated-milk and ice-cream consumption. Per-capita consumption of the latter product has increased almost 200 per cent during the past thirty years, while the former product gives evidence of an increase of almost 60 per cent in the per-capita consumption in the thirteen years 1917-1929. There are no grounds, however, for believing that the upward trend in the consumption of dairy products will continue. Habits of diet have changed rapidly and some of the changes have an effect on the consumption of certain dairy products. Bread consumption has been decreasing and butter is a complementary product. Oleomar- garine has been used in place of butter (p. 176). Mayonnaise and various sandwich spreads on the market displace considerable volumes of butter. Cheese consumption during the decade prior to 1927 in- creased more rapidly than that of any of the other dairy products. This may have offset the decreasing consumption of meat during the period. With the decreasing per-capita consumption of food every increase in dairy products means a decrease in some other product or products. It can be seen how increasingly difficult it may be to continue the upward trend of per-capita consumption. It may make it difficult for dairy products to hold the present level of consumption without extensive propaganda. Improvement in the quality of milk, butter, and cheese was a factor in increasing the consumption of these products, while educa- te ra in the use of milk played a considerable part. Indications point to the influence of prosperity on the consumption of dairy products and the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has perhaps caused Bui,. 514] Dairy Products 73 an additional supply to be consumed. If dairy products continue on a high level of consumption or raise this level, it will be because of the high quality and comparatively moderate price. Compared with the retail prices of other foods, those for most dairy products have shown less of a tendency to advance since pre-war years (p. 180 and tables 99 and 100, pp. 182 and 184). This undoubtedly has had some influ- ence in holding" consumption up and probably has been one of the factors that has increased consumption. Seasonal Variation in Consumption, United States. — Butter con- sumption varies inversely with the price, April through August inclusive being the months of high butter consumption and relatively low price. Cheese does not give evidence of a well-defined seasonal variation in consumption. Although the seasonal variation in the consumption of concentrated milk is not as regular as that for butter, consumption is high during the late spring and the summer months and relatively low during the winter months. Estimates are not available for the consumption of other dairy products. TABLE 35 Apparent Per-Capita Consumption of Certain Dairy Products, California, 1920-1930 Year Butter Cheese Cottage Cheese Ice cream Market milk Market cream Fiscal years: 1919-20 pounds 21 4 21.4 21.2 19.6 18 4 18.1 pounds 6 4 6 2 6.1 6.1 5.9 5 4 pounds 4 6 7 4 0.8 2 3 2 4 2.7 3 6 3 2 3.1 gallons 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.5 gallons 17.4 17.0 19.5 21 22.6 23 1 23.9 25.7 25.4 24 1 22.7 gallons .9 1920-21 1.2 1921-22 1 1 1922-23 0.7 1923-24 1 Calendar years: 1925 1.3 1926 13 1927 1.3 1928. 1 3 1929 13 1930 1.3 Sources of data: Compilations by author based upon California State Dept. Agr. Statistical Reports of California Dairy Products, annual issues, and on population estimates furnished by David Weeks, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station, and Associate Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation, University of California. California's Consumption of Dairy Products. — Although statistics on production for all of California's dairy products are relatively complete, those on consumption are not so readily available. Prior to 1925 interstate shipments of butter, cheese, and concentrated milk 74 University of California — Experiment Station interfered with the possibility of obtaining reliable information on consumption. The data in table 35 represent the market milk and cream distributed, divided by the estimated population of the state. This information reflects the trend in the per-capita market milk consumption. It is undoubtedly lower than the actual consumption because of the fact that families keeping milk cows are not included in the computations. Approximately 104,727,104 pounds of butter were consumed in California in 1930, making a per capita consumption of 18.1 pounds (table 35). Per capita consumption declined during the five years, 1926-1930. For the three years, 1925-1927 the per capita consump- tion remained at high levels. Per capita consumption of butter in California for the six years, 1925-1930 averaged approximately 2% pounds more (or 14 per cent) than in the country. During this same period of time slightly over 75 per cent of the butter consumed in the state was manufactured within its boundaries. The per-capita consumption of cheese (other than cottage and full skim) in California for the six years, 1925-1930 was 6.0 pounds, while the corresponding figure for the United States for the same period was 4.4 pounds, a difference of over iy 2 pounds or 35 per cent. During the four years 1925-1928, the per-capita consumption of cheese held at relatively high levels, but in 1929 and 1930 a slight drop occurred. From 1925 through 1929 over 70 per cent of the cheese consumed in the state was manufactured in other states and in foreign countries. An almost phenomenal increase in the production (table 25) and consumption (table 35) of cottage cheese has taken place during the past ten years. Immediately after the War the per-capita consump- tion was less than 0.5 pounds, in 1928 it was 3.6 pounds. A slight drop occurred in 1929 and 1930. This increased consumption can be accounted for largely by improved technique in manufacture. Ice cream consumption has accelerated during the past ten years. During late years it has come to be regarded by many as a common article of diet rather than as a luxury. The apparent per-capita con- sumption in 1929 was 2.8 gallons, an increase of almost 50 per cent in ten years. 1930 consumption decreased materially. Market milk distributed per capita was 17.4 gallons (150 pounds) in 1919 while in 1930 it was 22.7 gallons (195 pounds). A consider- able drop occurred during the period 1927-1930 — the first since the collection of accurate statistics on distribution was started. Market milk in this study does not include milk consumed by farm families nor is account taken of cream production. Buk514] Dairy Products 75 An accurate comparison between California and the United States as a whole cannot be made. Indications based upon reports to the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics from municipal departments of health are that the per capita consumption of milk in various California, cities is low, when compared with cities outside the state. Based upon data reported to the State Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Dairy Control in 1930, the following were the estimates of the daily per-capita con- sumption of milk in pints in certain counties: Alameda, 0.57; Fresno, 0.49 ; Los Angeles, 0.53 ; Sacramento, 0.58 ; San Diego, 0.53 ; and San Francisco, 0.56. Estimates for the per-capita consumption of milk for Chicago (1928) and St. Louis (1928) were 0.80, and 0.67 pints respec- tively. 26 During the first eight months of 1930 receipts of milk at the New York freight terminals were equivalent to 0.83 pint daily, for each person living in the metropolitan area. Since at least 90 per cent of the milk shipped to New York is consumed as fresh milk, the actual per-capita consumption was 0.75 pint a day or higher. 27 An increased amount of market cream has been distributed within the state, although care should be exercised in making comparisons between the per-capita consumption of different years, for cream may be high or low in its milk fat content, From all indications the con- sumption of cream has remained comparatively stationary during the six years, 1925-1930 (table 35). Evidence points, however, to a decided increase over the five years 1920-1924 (fiscal years). Yearly statistics of the consumption of condensed and evaporated milk and other dairy products are not available because of the fact that data on interstate shipments are not available. An estimate 28 of a state per-capita consumption of 26.34 pounds for 1926 indicates a high consumption compared with the nation (see table 34). That the per-capita consumption of dairy products is high in the western states compared with other sections of the country is borne out by the studies of the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, conducted several years ago (table 36). 26 Brown, C. A. Costs and margins and other related factors in the distribution of fluid milk in four Illinois market areas. Illinois Agr. Ex. Sta. Bui. 318:211. 1928. 27 Spencer, Leland. An economic survey of the Los Angeles milk market. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 513:1-106. 1931. 28 Estimate based upon calculations made by J. J. Frey, Chief of the Bureau of Dairy Control of the California State Department of Agriculture (resigned), and the author. 76 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 36 Estimates of Family Consumption of Dairy Products and Oleomargarine, United States, 1918 Article and unit United States North Atlantic South Atlantic North Central South Central Western 337 77 66 12 16 6 412 95 75 12 8 4 155 73 56 13 9 5 364 48 53 12 30 11 177 85 60 11 16 3 377 92 89 15 8 2 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Labor. Retail prices, 1890 to 1925. U. S. Dept. Labor. Bur. Labor Statis. Bui. 418:4. 1926. Consumption of Dairy Products in Various Countries. — In table 37 a comparison of the consumption of milk, butter, and cheese is given for the countries for which such information is available. This country ranks high in milk consumption in comparison with the consumption of either butter or cheese. The consumption figures for all three products show wide variations caused by the relative price of the product and competing products, the dietary habits of the people, prosperity, etc. The consumption of the product is generally high where the per-capita production is high, e.g., New Zealand in butter consumption. There are exceptions, however. Denmark has the highest per capita production of butter in the world, yet consumption is relatively low. The butter produced is shipped out largely and its place taken by oleomargarine, the per-capita consumption of the latter being approximately 50 pounds in 1929. 29 Compared with most of the European countries, the per-capita consumption of cheese in the United States is low. While food habits are changing rapidly, the factors causing either an increased or a decreased consumption in other countries do not necessarily prevail in the United States. The argument that the people of this country should consume as much cheese per capita as those of Switzerland or an amount of butter equal to that consumed per capita in Canada is not sound unless it is founded on more than mere comparisons of consumption. 29 Det statistiske Departement. Statskontrollerede Productioner in 1929 [State controlled production in 1929]. Statistiske Efterretninger (Copenhagen, Denmark) 22:90. 1930. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 77 CL o • a -I 3 Co a P 3 g 5 co I 5 Norway United States. Canada Czechoslavaki Austria Netherlands. .. New Zealand.. Australia Great Britain Germany France Denmark 73 3 CO En 9 3 3 o o c 3 : p £ •< 3 @. ?r Kl CO CD CO CO CO CO CD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO tOtOtOtOtOtOISStOWlN5tOtOtOtOtN3~lNatO P OlNOlSOOQOMOlN^ffiOONOlS^NOO ■— ro to to co co co *u ** 4^ o> o> oi o: - 1 oo o ONtOMOi^ONNMOiOlMtnOOOM >*».tsSOOOOCOCOl->>*».^100COC0 0^1>*^«© 3 ^^^a^^QcJQ^GpQcjgpQ^O^^ ^ s> c c 2 o «; a (t M i s n «■ g e » 3 3' e -t- 0) a GO CO D 8, SI O O P 5" B M 3 p 3* 5" 3 8- 2 M o- — to „ a i CO »• 2. & 3 g ■D 3 3 p 3 <5 B 8 a, 8 2 £■ p 3 O o c 3 'a p D* > ■5 2. o V a 3 CO |_il-.^H->-il~i|-iH-«l— ^l-il-'>-il->>-il->^-K-tO CD P ►1 CO CD CO CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CO CO OS tocototototototototototocotototototo 1 ^aoooooco^ioo^i^i-^joo^ioosoo^jooooto oo a Cfff MMhlH MkSM6! o tOtOWO»OOCOCDlN3tOtOCOas^JOOCOOCOco>f». 3 00OC0rf»-tn05CDOIs3O3OO^>03^4^JC000i— ' 3 D9 g: 3 £ § g g B. 5, 2glsSSlSE.&S. » j a ig o" < 9 3 D S.g> — • o w 5" S» CO P, O J- B 2' 3 3 R s a i i i. < o O r (t ri. 3 3 a » P* !> <<: 3! Q r o tr n a> CD ? COCDCOCOcDCDCOCDOiCOcDcOCOCOCOCOCDcOcO tOOJtOtOtOtOtOCOi MkJMMbOMMNlKsS NO^MOOOONOMOlfflSSUOOMOOWlXI 1 1 2 HWMCiJMC>!**0iO100OOOOOm5I2 g I ootototocnc^o^>-jH-cooooia>^i>-iino §■ CD 78 University of California — Experiment Station PRICES AND PURCHASING POWERao OF PRODUCTS OF THE DAIRY INDUSTRY Milk Cows. — The value per head of milk cows sold for milking purposes varies not only with condition, quality, age, size, and weight, but also with actual or estimated production. The farm prices (tables 38 and 39) are more variable than those of beef cattle or veal calves per 100 pounds live weight. 31 The changes in actual prices received for milk cows both in the United States and California are shown in figure 14. A general cor- relation between the two sets of prices is evident, although prices in this state vary less than they do in the country as a whole, and are consistently higher. Higher prices are realized in California and in the New England and Middle Atlantic states. These are the result of the proportionately large amount of milk used for direct consumption and the higher average production per cow. No pronounced seasonal variation in prices is evident in this state. Indications do not point to a direct relation between the prices of butter and those for alfalfa hay or barley (fig. 15). It is highly probable that the price of milk cows is affected by a number of different factors such as prices of feeds, 30 Meaning of Purchasing Power. — The fluctuations in prices shown in column 3 in table 40 and under the term 'price' in many of the tables and figures of this paper represent price changes that have been due to two sets of causes: one, the changing value of the dollar; the other, changes in the supply of, and the demand for, the particular product under consideration in the United States. It has been possible during the years 1927-1931 for the people of the United States to purchase more units of goods in general for a dollar than they could during the year 1926. The supply of money and credit from 1914 to 1920 increased faster than the trade demands for it and, chiefly as a result of this fact, the value of money, or its purchasing power, fell. As a result of this decline in the value of money, at least two dollars were necessary in 1918, 1919, and 1920 to buy goods in general which could have been bought for one dollar in 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, and 1915. This being the case, the dollars which the dairy-cow raiser received in the years 1918-1920 were worth in general purchasing power less than half as much as those which they received and spent during the latter years. In order to compute purchasing power, changes in the value of the dollar have been eliminated by the following method. The data in the last column of tables 38 and 39 show the estimated actual prices received for dairy cows. Columns 4 and 6 in table 40 show these same prices after they have been con- verted to purchasing power, that is, expressed in terms of the average value or purchasing power during the year 1926. In most of the previous bulletins of the series on ll California Crops and Prices" and in places in this publication prices have been expressed in terms of the average value or purchasing power during the period 1910--1914. 3i Sarle, Charles F. Reliability and adequacy of farm-price data. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 1480:1-65. 1927. Bui,. 514] Dairy Products 79 TABLE 38 Milk Cows: Farm Price in Dollars Per Head on the Fifteenth of the Month in the United States, 1910-1931 Year 1910 1911. 1912 1913 1914 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919 1920 1921. 1924. 1925. 1926. 1927. 1928. 1929. 1931 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. $41 $40 $42 $42 $42 St I $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 45 44 45 45 45 44 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 44 45 46 46 45 46 47 47 47 49 50 51 54 55 55 55 55 55 56 56 58 57 58 59 59 60 60 60 60 61 60 60 59 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 60 58 58 59 57 57 58 58 60 61 61 62 62 61 61 62 63 63 64 66 68 72 73 73 73 73 74 76 75 76 77 78 81 82 84 85 85 84 85 85 85 86 86 86 88 91 93 94 95 95 93 93 93 96 94 95 95 95 95 95 91 91 89 86 78 70 67 63 65 64 63 60 57 56 54 53 53 53 53 54 55 54 55 55 54 53 53 53 52 53 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 55 56 56 55 55 56 55 56 56 57 56 55 56 56 54 55 54 55 55 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 61 60 62 63 63 66 67 67 67 65 66 66 67 67 67 68 70 72 72 74 74 74 76 79 81 82 83 86 88 89 89 90 90 90 93 93 93 93 92 92 93 94 95 95 96 95 96 95 94 93 89 85 81 81 80 78 72 66 $66 $66 $65 $62 $60 $57 $56 $57 $54 $52 $49 $48 .... ..- 1 Average $42 44 46 55 59 58 61 72 83 92 90 59 54 55 55 58 66 74 90 94 $74 Source of data: 1910-1925: U. producers. U. S 1926-1931: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Milk cows: Estimated price per head received by Dept. Agr., Yearbook, 1925:1051, 1926. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. TABLE 39 Milk Cows: Farm Prices in Dollars Per Head on the Fifteenth of the Month in California, 1910-1931 Year Jan. 1910 $35 1911 56 1912 52 1913 59 1914 65 1915 76 1916 68 1917 70 1918 76 1919 86 1920 106 1921 97 1922 78 1923 75 1924 80 1925 72 1926 80 1927 87 1928 93 1929 106 1930 104 1931 $84 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Average $37 56 67 66 68 70 70 87 107 77 82 74 86 85 95 109 101 $77 $44 54 55 62 65 75 71 73 78 93 107 95 85 80 85 76 84 90 93 109 101 $77 $40 50 57 63 67 73 68 74 77 92 104 77 85 81 82 92 96 107 101 $71 $44 53 70 74 69 75 80 94 107 79 84 81 85 89 96 109 99 $67 $50 57 55 59 75 72 67 73 80 99 109 90 80 78 82 74 90 87 98 109 97 $61 $46 56 59 56 77 67 70 73 77 100 102 87 80 79 80 78 85 10!) 93 158 $45 55 57 60 70 71 69 70 83 102 101 85 80 80 76 78 82 87 98 109 93 $58 $47 51 60 64 73 69 67 72 78 98 102 79 70 78 80 87 Kil 107 $47 56 102 102 85 80 83 67 85 83 90 97 107 $88 $56 54 60 64 74 70 70 78 81 102 102 85 72 80 86 89 102 106 $88 $53 55 62 66 74 70 63 75 85 114 100 85 75 83 70 77 87 91 107 106 $87 $45 54 58 . 61 71 71 68 73 79 97 104 90 81 89 98 108 $95 Sources of data: 1910-1925: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Prices of farm products received by producers: 4, Mountain and Pacific states. U. S. Dept. Agr. Statis. Bui. 17:144, 1927. 1926-1931: U. S. Dept. Agr., Crops and Markets, monthly issues. 80 University of California — Experiment Station prevalence of disease, prices of dairy products (including milk fat, market milk, etc.), prices of veal and beef, together with the outlook for the changes in the future and the general price level. Milk-cow prices are not subject to so great a degree of fluctuation as the prices for alfalfa hay, because the latter and other crops are influenced more by variations in climatic conditions, over which man has little control. 79/0 77 7Z 73 74 75 76 77 73 79 'ZO 27 ZZ 23 'Z+ 25 26 27 ZQ '29^30 Fig. 14. — Farm prices for milk cows in the United States and California, 1910-1930. Milk-cow prices are largely influenced by the prices of beef cattle (see fig. 24) and those of dairy products. Largely on account of the higher production per cow and a higher price per pound of milk fat, California milk- cow prices are above those prevailing in the nation. (Data from tables 39 and 40.) The influence of the prices of beef cattle on those of milk cows can be seen by comparing figures 14 and 24. From 1926 until 1929 there was a consistent upward trend in the prices paid for milk cows. Dairy products (see butter prices, tables 45 and 49) did not make a corresponding advance, but beef-cattle prices did. The influence of the prices of dairy products can be seen by the manner in which milk- cow prices held above those for beef cattle during the depressed con- Buu 514] Dairy Products 81 ditions of the beef-cattle industry, 1920-1926. 32 In 1929 beef cattle were either at or near the peak of the cycle in beef-cattle values. During- the next few years beef-cattle values will depend to a Large extent on the increases in beef production in the country. Compared with either the prices of beef cattle or dairy products milk-cow prices descended at a much slower pace in 1930 (table 40). Compared with 1926 they were high in purchasing power during 1930. In terms of both alfalfa hay (table 41) and barley, milk-cow values were high in 1930. Dairy Products, United States. — The United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, has constructed an index of prices for dairy products, made up of (1) prices of milk sold by farmers and (2) prices of butter which are given a weight to represent milk fat and cream sold by farmers (table 42). Throughout the War period, 1914-1918, and until 1921 the relative prices of dairy products lagged behind general farm and all-commodity prices. From 1921 until the present (June, 1931) the tendency was for the relative prices of dairy products to remain above those of general farm prices (table 42), although below the wholesale level of prices (table 40). Even with the severe drop in the prices of various dairy products during the latter part of 1929 and during 1930 the above relation between the prices of dairy products and general farm products held. This relation may partially account for the fact that over the past few years there has been a tendency to turn to dairying. The question of alternative enterprises is one on which considerable study should be made. Table 42 is a composite index for the United States. It is probable that such an index for California would be higher. Milk Fat, California, — From the standpoint of value in exchange, milk fat is the important constituent in milk. Through the cooperation of creameries in the state it has been possible to construct a series of prices paid to producers of milk fat for churning purposes (table 43). There was a tendency for the prices of wholesale commodities to rise more rapidly than milk fat prices during the years 1914-1917. From 1917 until December, 1929, the tendency in California was for milk-fat prices to gain on general wholesale prices. In the latter month prices dropped precipitously and relatively more than wholesale prices. The purchasing power in terms of all commodities during the three years 1927-1929 was rela- tivelv high. •"- Yoorhies, Edwin C, and A. B. Koughan. Economic aspects of the beef- cattle industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 461:1-128. 1928. 82' University of California — Experiment Station Bul, 514 Dairy Products 83 TABLE 40 Kelative Prices and Purchasing Power of Milk Cows, United States and California, 1910-1931 All commodities 1926 = 100 California United States Year Relative price 1926 = 100 Relative purchasing power 1926 = 100 Relative price 1926 = 100 Relative purchasing power 1926 = 100 / 2 3 4 5 6 1910 70 4 64.9 69 1 69 8 68.1 69 5 85.5 117.5 131.3 138.6 154.4 97.6 96.7 100 6 98.1 103.5 100 95.4 97.7 96 5 86.3 77.0 75.5 74.5 73.3 71.3 70.0 70.0 53.7 64 5 68.4 72.6 84.2 84.2 81.0 87.0 93.5 115.6 123.6 106.4 95.4 94.1 92 3 92 4 100 105.2 116.0 127.9 112.8 99.7 91.7 91.7 84.5 79.8 72.6 69.0 76 99 99 104 124 121 95 74 71 83 80 109 99 94 94 89 100 110 119 133 131 129 122 123 115 112 104 99 64.8 66.5 69.8 83.6 90 6 88.9 93.0 109.7 126.8 140.4 136.6 90 2 81.8 84.6 84.7 88.3 100.0 113.3 137.0 143.8 113 2 91.6 86.8 86.0 86.8 82.4 78.8 74.2 92 1911 102 1912 101 1913 120 1914 133 1915 128 1916 109 1917. . 93 1918 97 1919 1920 101 88 1921 92 1922 85 1923 1924 84 86 1925 85 1926 100 1927 119 1928 140 1929 149 1930 131 1931: 119 115 115 118 116 June July 113 106 Sources of data: Col. 2: U. S. Dept. Labor Bur. Labor Statis. Mo. Labor Rev., monthly issues. Col. 3: Relatives of average prices in table 39; 1926 = 100. Col. 4: Items in col. 3 divided by items in col. 2. Col. 5: Relatives of average prices in table 38; 1926 = 100. Col. 6: Items in col. 5 divided by items in col. 2. 84 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 41 Tons of Alfalfa Hay Kequired to Purchase Dairy Cow in California, 1914-1931 Year 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. 1923. 1924. 1925. 1926. 1927. 1928. 1929. 1930. 1931. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 10.0 13.3 13 3 11.3 11.0 10.7 9.4 7.7 9 3 7.7 8 3 8.7 8.8 10 3 9.6 8.8 8.7 8.5 7.0 6 3 66 6.4 6.3 6 8 8 4 64 6 4 6.0 5.8 6.2 5.8 5.2 5.4 4.6 4.2 3 7 5.4 5.2 4 7 4.7 4.7 4 6 4.5 3.7 3.5 2.8 3.4 3.8 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.5 4 4.4 4 6 4.9 5.7 4.6 5 3 6.1 6 4 6.4 6.5 6 5 3 5.7 5.2 5 5 4.2 4.0 3.5 4 5.1 5 4.3 4.8 5 1 5.1 5 1 5 3 5.7 73 7.3 10.6 10 10 9.7 9.4 9.6 9.4 8 5 6.8 6 5.7 6.1 5 4 67 8.0 8.0 8 7.3 6 2 5.3 5 4.9 4.6 5.0 5 1 5 3 5.6 6.0 6.7 5.4 5.9 5 8 5 4 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.6 4 5 4.6 5.0 4 39 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.2 4 2 5.4 5.4 6.0 6.9 6.9 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.1 5.8 5.9 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.5 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.5 6 4 6.2 6.2 6.8 7.4 7 6 7.7 7.0 6.6 6.9 6.1 5.7 5.9 6.1 5.2 5.8 6.0 7.2 7.0 7 7.2 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.1 5.7 5 5 5.1 5.7 6.5 7.2 7.0 6.7 6 3 6.2 5.6 5.2 53 5.6 6.1 6.8 8.1 8.3 8.7 7.8 7.5 7 2 7.1 7.1 6.5 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.2 6.2 6.3 Average 8.49 6.36 4.62 4.11 5.73 4.62 8.69 6.47 5.46 4.23 5.07 648 6.72 6.42 6.12 6.99 Source of data: Computations by author based upon prices reported for alfalfa hay and dairy cattle in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets. TABLE 42 Belative Farm Prices of Dairy Products and General Farm Products in the United States, 1910-1931 (On 5-year base, August, 1909-July, 1914 = 100) Relatives Year and month Relatives Year Dairy products General farm products Dairy products General farm products 1910 1911 100 97 103 100 100 98 102 125 152 173 188 148 134 103 95 99 100 102 100 117 176 200 209 205 116 124 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 148 134 137 136 138 140 140 123 107 101 101 99 91 86 135 134 1912 147 1913 1914 136 131 1915 1916 1928 1929 1930 1931: January February March April 139 138 1917 117 1918 1919 94 1920 90 1921 91 1922 91 86 80 Sources of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. General trend of prices and purchasing power tural Situation 15 (2): 17. 1931. Situation. The Agricul- Current data in both" Crops and Markets and The Agricultural Bul,. 514 Dairy Products 85 Comparisons of Milk-Fat Prices. The United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, publishes an esti- mated price received by producers for milk fat, 33 Comparisons made since September, 1927, indicate that California prices have averaged higher than those of the other western states (fig. 16). The latter states as a group have ranked next to the North Atlantic states, in which the highest price has been received. Milk-fat production in the latter group of states is utilized in market milk, which is con- sumed close to the centers of consumption. Ce/r f-S per p ound A- •California /A /'Uo > J s //yO V \ * J V# ^^ >■*>-' A. i -*•'% (J K West V er/7 States y L ■Um'ted States ^r/\ Fig. 16. — Prices received for milk fat utilized for butter and cheese by farmers in California, the western states, and the United States, 1924-1930. Compared with the United States, California enjoys a high average price per pound of milk fat. This comes about through the necessity of shipping butter and cheese into the state during most of the year and also because of the high quality of butter produced in California. (Data from table 44.) This relatively favorable position of California has been brought about by a local market for a large proportion of the dairy products, the increasing proportion of the milk production that is being utilized for high-priced products, together with the facilities for the manu- facture of various by-products. During the spring months, March, April and May, the differential between United States prices and those in California are less as a rule, because of the larger production in California during these months (see fig. 18). 33 The data in tables 43 and 44 were computed by different methods. In table 43 through 1929 the prices are those paid f.o.b. butter factory. In table 44 the prices paid to producers on the farm for milk fat in milk used by both butter and cheese factories are given. 86 University of California — Experiment Station 00000020001COOOOCOCO»OCOiO'*i->*!»0»Ot-i O5050ocoo50»-ir^ Ol iO Ol N O N OO "O •* m in OS CO OS t-H O OS m os tOiOCO>0 0.l00500Oc0OOOO-^OO^tit^eor^ 3COTticocococoinot^coinm in-cKcoT^inmiOTfi m m t- m in o co coooscMOinomocor-^o Tf(Mino-*ico'cH05 cor^t^inminrfm m in m co co o m m co o os co o o co O t- © CM O CO o o eo i-i ao oo m m co * m ■^ -if CO CM coooooosoinint-^omcooo© noNtoNNn^'jie inmcMinooococo ■n ■*•*■*■*■* io in m os o o oo in in co oj in as co CNNIM03NNCO^'*!0!OneO')l 00 CO .-h in co 0 mrtiincNiniiiinin** in in en co o CM -h © OS 1^ in in in co cm o i-i cm co ■»*< in -l -H CM CM CM CM CTj OS OS OS &) OS OS os cm co -*< in co CM CM CM CM -d O <*H O0 o - 1" "1 < II 3 b£ O T3 c3 & fe T3 a > ID « °s > 3 T3 73 +- ■a ^ u a-s .2 A 0) P C J3 o « a +* M o << c3 "43 > & d 3 -fl pq 03 g a l: S? 8 '42 a a •** a 3 "3 a 01 cu •" ro s p o -a, ^ o P 3 8 3 -H rH CM H^ o 09 Q CJ g O Biil. 514 Dairy Products 87 TABLE 44 Estimated Prices in Cents per Pound Received by Producers for Milk Fat in the United States and in California, 1924-1931 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- age* 1924 United States.. California 1925 United States.. California 1926 United States.. California 1927 United States.. California 1928 United States.. California 1929 United States.. California 1930 United States- California 1931 United States.. California 40 6 48.0 45.2 53 46.9 51.0 48 5 51.0 47 6 51.0 36.7 40 26 2 27 37.9 47.0 43.1 48.0 50.0 46 49.0 47.8 51.0 35 4 41.0 25.0 28.0 41 5 46.0 42 9 49.0 48.0 51.0 46.5 48 48.3 51.0 34.9 41.0 27.5 30 40 5 45.0 40 4 44.0 47.1 46.0 45.4 45.0 46.5 48 37.3 42 26.4 26.0 40 3 45.0 39.1 43 43.6 46.0 44.4 45 45.4 48.0 36.5 40.0 21.2 26.0 39.9 46.0 39.3 47.0 40 8 45.0 43.5 45.0 43 6 50.0 31.6 37 20.5 25.0 40 5 51.0 38.6 45.0 40 3 45.0 43 3 46.0 43 4 49.0 31.6 37.0 24.7 25.0 41 3 53.0 38.6 45 39.4 45 44.3 49.0 43 3 51.0 35.2 38.0 23.9 28.0 36.6 44 42.6 56 40.5 47.0 41.6 48 46 5 53 44 .6 52 37.7 39.0 36.6 43.0 47.1 59 42.4 49 44.4 50 47.0 54.0 45.6 53.0 37.0 41.0 37.0 43.0 47.8 64.0 44.8 46 45.8 51.0 47.6 54 43.5 50 35 3 38.0 49.2 54 41.9 50 30.6 36.0 42 3 51.6 41.9 46.8 44.4 48 3 46 49.4 45.1 50.3 35.0 39.2 * Unweighted average Source of data: Data obtained from U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. Farm Butter Prices. — Prices received by producers for butter constitute one of the few series of butter prices for the entire country. The quantity of farm butter has been decreasing' steadily, as creamery butter has increased, and the quality has materially improved. A much larger proportion of farm butter is sold at the retail-price level than was the case ten or fifteen years ago. 34 On this account com- parisons between either the actual or the relative prices of creamery butter in certain sections may lead to erroneous conclusions. A comparison of these prices with those of the all-commodity wholesale price index will be of interest although no definite conclusions should be drawn. Table 45 brings out the fact that from 1910 through 1929 there have been no violent year-to-year fluctuations in the value of butter. Although butter is only one product of the dairy industry, it undoubtedly gives a better picture of general price trends than some of the other dairy products such as market milk and market cream, which are greatly influenced by local conditions. 34 Sarle, Charles F. Reliability and adequacy of farm-price data. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 1480:1-65. 1927. 88 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 45 Kelative Prices and Purchasing Power of Farm Butter, United States and California, 1910-1931 All commodi- ties 1926 = 100 Calif crnia United States Year Actual price, cents per pound Relative price 1926=100 Relative purchasing power 1926 = 100 Actual price, cents per pound Relative price 1926 = 100 Relative purchasing power 1926 = 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1910 70 4 64 9 691 69.8 68 1 69 5 85.5 117.5 131.3 138.6 154.4 97.6 96.7 100 6 98.1 103.5 100.0 95.4 97.7 96.5 86.3 77.0 75 5 74.5 73.3 71.3 70.0 70.0 31 1 29.2 32.3 32.8 29.5 28.7 30 2 40 2 50.7 58.2 62.1 44.4 43 46 8 46.7 51 1 46.2 47.1 47.7 48.4 39.5 31 29.0 30 28.0 28.0 26 27.0 67.3 63.2 69.9 71.0 63 9 62.1 65.4 87.0 109.7 126.0 134 4 96.1 93 1 101 3 101 1 110 6 100 1019 103 2 104.8 85.5 67 1 62.8 64.9 60.6 60 6 56.3 58.4 96 97 101 102 94 89 76 74 84 91 87 98 96 101 103 107 100 107 106 109 99 87 83 87 83 85 80 84 25.5 22 9 25.7 26.7 25.1 25.7 28 35.9 42.7 50 3 54 3 37 35 3 40 4 39 4 40 7 41.1 42 3 43.7 43.8 36.8 31 28.1 29.4 29.2 25 9 24 4 24.7 62.0 55.7 62.5 65.0 61.1 62.5 68.1 87.4 103.9 122.4 132.1 90 85.9 98.3 95.9 99 100 102 9 106.3 105 6 89.5 75.4 68.4 71.5 71.0 63.0 59.4 60.1 88 1911 1912 86 90 1913 93 1914 90 1915 1916 1917 90 80 74 1918 . 79 1919 88 1920 86 1921 92 1922 89 1923 98 1924 98 1925 96 1926 . 100 1927 . 108 1928 . . 109 1929... 109 1930 104 1931 January February March 98 91 96 97 88 85 July 86 Sources of data : Col. 2: U. S. Dept. Labor Bur. Labor Statis. Data published in Mo. Labor Rev. Col. 3: Computations by author based upon monthly prices paid to producers as shown in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. The following weights were used: Jan., 8; Feb., 8; Mar., 10; Apr., 11; May, 10; June, 9; July, 8; Aug., 8; Sept., 7; Oct., 7; Nov., 7; Dec, 7. Col. 4: Relatives of data in col. 3; 1926 = 100. Col. 5: Items in col. 4 divided by items in col. 2. Col. 6: Computations by author based upon monthly prices to producers as shown in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. The following weights were used: Jan., 6; Feb., 7; Mar., 7; Apr., 7; May, 11; June, 13; July, 12; Aug., 10; Sept., 8; Oct., 7; Nov., 6; Dec, 6. Col. 7: Relatives of data in col. 6; 1926 = 100. Col. 8: Items in col. 7 divided by items in col. 2. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 89 Farm butter is unimportant in California, but since the only price quoted over a long- series of years for the entire country is on farm butter, prices obtainable in this state may be of interest and value. It seems reasonable to assume that the seasonal production might follow creamery butter in this state, and the weighted average price per year is based upon this assumption (table 45). During the period 1910-1931 the actual prices received for farm butter in Cali- fornia have been higher than those obtained in the United States, although during the early part of this period the margin between the two sets of prices was relatively greater than it has been during late years. It is probable that there has been less change in the method of disposing of farm butter in California than in other parts of the United States. If so, that might account for the decrease in margin. Comparisons between the prices received for farm butter in various sections are of somewhat doubtful value, owing to wide vari- ations in quality. Wholesale Butter Quotations, Los Angeles and San Francisco. — Wholesale butter prices have been quoted in San Francisco since 1860, and a summary of the average yearly prices is given in table 46 (fig. 17). The purchasing power of butter is perhaps of more general significance to both the producer and consumer than is the mere money price. The wholesale price for butter is more closely correlated to the milk-fat price paid to the producers and the price for butter paid by the consumers than are the wholesale prices of most other commodities to their respective buying prices and retail prices; hence wholesale butter prices are more significant. The trend of prices from 1865 to 1895 was downward, yet at the same time the purchasing power (based upon the years 1910-1914 as 100) was, with the exception of five years, above 100 per cent. By this is meant that while the general price level fell, butter prices did not fall as rapidly. At the beginning of the World War butter prices took an upward turn, yet the increase did not keep pace with general com- modity prices. From 1918 to 1929 wholesale butter prices in San Francisco have continued to show a steady rise when compared with general commodity prices. Los Angeles prices since 1910 show the same general movement as those at San Francisco (tables 47, 48, 49; see also fig. 19). The fall in the purchasing power of butter manifested itself in other markets during the winter of 1929-30. 90 University of California — Experiment Station - § fa a'T o 3 2 2 o OS O O i— 1 © Oi OS O O O Oi Oi O 0> O O Oi © © Cfc 00 r— l^- 00 OS 00 © © O Oi O © © O © © is 11? 3 S OS r-l»00rte«-HCOt^N00OiOINOlC<3U3'HlM0i(NU5NN(Ni0M'-iNe«>HCOO5CC'HtO N!DaOO)OOOOlNI-OlO«'t'*'*'*iO'*M'*Tl(IN o o > »l « © 00 fflNNNNNt^OOOlOOMKOOlOOOOOOJOOaccoaiOOMMlOMlOiliClOiOlM tOtO'*a)m^NCOeCMi-lN(0 0)OrHMmNrtiONM'*<00®Or-lNrHrHN<0010>(»*C050S'*01*m'0!OiOCO to iO(ONM050-H(NCC'*iOtDr»(»0>OrHfQ«)'*intCNOOO!0'H(NCO , *>0(OM»a>0 OiaiOOJOlOOOOOOOOOOHHHrtHrtHHHHNNNNNNNNNNn 00C50^0iO030505 O % 2 | h ii 02 c NiO00NO)0!tDiOO>INO00iHinr-i00'^rHT(.00'HMOrttD'*t0"5inN'*00!0NM NOmH0100iaONHOHHHHHMINHONNHr<«OHBOOHrtWH £ § s§2 - 0>OK5NO!«Ot«5«lS^'H«IINM«l>nO!0'OlC'*STtiOOCC(NT|(*i!'NN(DOOO WCnOMtOClNin^CONNININrtiHOOlOJWOlOlOJOSOOOOOOWOOQOOOMNNN s 00 cooocort*<»cioi^O'--it^O'-icoooc^i>Jictr>- a ») NCq*OrHXOO M MOi»05WMO)NOO®MCO'0'*NrH-*rHX001MM®CCW«5 '.'5'*ffltOON«cO*01^«OrtOOG)iOOOCCO(»'*'*'HOtlOi001M' 3 a c?£ 3 J^ oo a Is 0Q _£ a; XI S 0) rt ,0 03 00 ■a* o as "^ Ph a fa Irt. <=> a.S. o a :. ^ *« gfl, ^^ O U - J?oOJggi Hoo 0) Bul, 514] Dairy Products 91 TABLE 47 Wholesale Prices in Cents per Pound of Butter in Los Angeles, 1910-1931 Year 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927. 1928 1929 1930 1931 Jan. 38.2 34.6 37.2 36.5 290 27.5 29.1 37.2 508 57.2 60.7 44.9 37.6 48.7 48.9 46.0 44.5 48.2 47 8 46.3 37.2 27.0 Feb. 36 9 33 37.0 35 7 26.5 27.0 32.1 38.7 48.5 53 3 61 9 47.8 43 2 46.1 473 46.3 46.5 48.5 45.5 47.8 38.8 29.6 Mar. 31.5 26.5 31.6 36.5 21.7 23 2 27.7 33.8 45.5 57.5 57 2 38.9 34.6 42.9 45.5 45.9 43.5 45.7 44.1 45.2 38.8 29.6 Apr. 27 20 2(1 28 23 22 27 36.2 38.5 53.8 52.3 35.7 33.2 42.8 38.0 42.7 42 43 5 40.8 43.5 39 8 25 4 May 20 23 25 27 24 23 25.2 35.2 39.6 56 8 50.3 33 8 35.8 44 37.8 42 8 41 8 42.0 42.6 45.6 37.6 25.7 June 30 22.8 27.7 28.4 25.0 24.7 26.3 37.5 42 6 55 6 54.0 35.1 39.5 44.9 42.0 46.5 42.0 42 43.4 45.8 34.0 25.0 July 31 22 2!) 30 24 20 26 39 49.0 50.5 58 3 41.8 41.3 42.8 41.2 48.7 41 5 42.8 46.4 46.0 34.1 26.4 Aug. 33.5 25.5 31.4 31.7 25.9 26.0 27.8 42.8 49.8 50 4 600 44.1 41.7 46.6 42.8 40.0 43.5 44.2 48.5 47.4 37 6 29.8 Sept 33.3 26.5 33.9 35.0 27.7 26.0 32.0 42.9 53.3 56.0 65.6 45.1 47 3 48.7 42.3 51.3 46.0 47 3 51.5 49.7 40.0 Oct. 3 5 4 4 5 3 46.2 59.8 58.6 590 47.8 49.6 49.1 41.6 56 2 460 48.8 51.7 49.6 37.9 Nov. 35 2 32.4 36.0 33.5 33.5 27.0 35.2 42.4 58.1 59.6 55.7 47 46 3 49.3 41 5 56.5 45.5 49.0 50.4 48.7 35.6 Dec. 35 9 33.5 35.0 30 3 29.6 27.6 35.3 46.5 61.5 59.8 51.1 43.1 49.6 48.9 44 50.4 48 4 49 51 42 6 33.2 Average 33 27.6 32 2 32.2 26.8 25.5 29 8 39.9 49.8 55.8 57.2 42.1 41.6 46.2 42.7 47.8 44 3 45.9 47.0 46.5 37.1 Sources of data: 1910-1925. Monthly quotations computed by author on the basis of the average of Wednesday quotations for each month. For the period June 9, 1920-April 29, 1924, all quotations were discounted before being averaged. 1926-1931. Average of daily quotations published by the U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., Market News Service, San Francisco, Calif. 92 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 48 Net Monthly Wholesale Prices of Butter in San Francisco, 1910-1931 (Cents per pounds) Year 1910. 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923. 1924, 1925 1926 1927 1928. 1929 1930 1931. Jan. 35 9 32.1 35.0 35.0 29.8 27.8 27.8 35.9 48.5 55.4 61 42 2 35.7 47.5 47.5 43.7 43.8 47.5 46.4 45.9 36.5 26.2 Feb. 33.5 29.9 34 34 27. 28 31 38 47. 50 3 60.8 45.4 40.3 45 2 45.1 42 3 45.8 47.7 45.2 47.5 37 6 28 5 Mar. 29.4 26.7 31.9 35.5 22.8 24.0 27.7 35.7 44 3 54.8 58.4 37.1 32.8 41.4 44 2 42 5 42.4 45.4 43.4 44.6 37.7 Apr. 26.3 21.8 26.2 28.3 23 2 23 26.5 37.8 36.5 53.6 55.3 33.7 31.4 40 5 36.4 39.9 40.4 42.2 39.9 43.1 38.8 24.3 May 296 22.8 25.6 27.2 24.0 23.4 24.8 35 6 38.8 56 51 7 30.6 33.3 41 9 35 4 39.9 40.1 41.2 41.7 45.0 36.7 25.3 June 28.2 21.8 27.6 27.8 24.0 24.8 24.9 35.8 42.4 52.5 53 7 33 3 35.8 43.8 378 44.0 40.5 41.8 43.0 44.8 34 25.0 July 29.5 23 3 27.6 28.6 24.4 26.5 26.0 38.8 47.0 53.7 56 4 38.2 38.1 41 5 37 3 48 3 40 .7 41.6 45.6 45.0 33.9 26.2 Aug. 32 25.7 31.4 32 5 28.0 27.4 27.3 42.4 48 3 53.6 58.3 41 4 38.8 45 1 39.0 50.0 43 6 44.1 47.6 46.1 37.2 29.6 Sept 32.2 26.8 33 4 34.9 30.5 27.0 30 6 43 9 53.6 59.6 63.8 43 2 45.2 47 6 37.0 51.7 44.3 46.7 50.3 48.7 39.0 Oct. 34 2 30.8 34.1 32 5 30.5 27.0 33 45.5 59.3 62.3 567 45 9 48.9 47.2 37.1 54 44.5 48.4 50.9 48.3 37.1 Nov. 35.5 31.4 33.1 33.0 31 5 28 34 6 42 6 57.1 63.4 53 6 46 2 44.3 47.4 37.8 54.3 45.2 48.9 49.2 48.0 38.1 Dec. 35.3 33.8 34.0 31 1 29.9 27.5 34 5 47.1 60.8 63 6 47.6 40.3 47.4 47.7 41.3 48.7 47.7 48.5 49.7 41.7 33.1 Average 31.8 27.2 31.2 31.7 27.1 26.2 29.1 39.9 48.6 56.6 56.4 39.8 39.3 44.7 39.7 46.6 43 3 45.3 46.1 45.7 Sources of data: 1910-1925. Monthly quotations computed by author on the basis of the average of Thursday quotations for each month. For the years 1918-1925 all quotations were discounted before being averaged. 1926-1931. Average of daily quotations published by the U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr.Econ., Market News Service (San Francisco office). Prices quoted by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics during a portion of the 1918-1925 period indicate that the exchange quotations were slightly low. The Bureau quotations were: Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Average 1918 59 58 62 1919 56 49 56 56 56 54 54 55 60 63 64 65 57 1920 62 62 59 56 53 54 57 59 64 58 53 48 57 1921 42 46 38 34 31 34 39 42 44 46 46 41 40 1922 36 40 33 32 35 38 39 39 46 49 45 47 40 1923 48 46 42 41 42 44 42 45 48 47 48 48 45 1924 47 46 44 38 37 40 39 40 39 39 39 43 41 1925 44 42 43 40 40 44 47 49 52 54 54 49 47 Bui>. 514] Dairy Products 93 Purchasing pouter Fig. 17. — Wholesale prices and purchasing power of butter in San Francisco, 1860-1930. Actual wholesale prices of butter at San Francisco give evidence of two long-time swings, 1865-1895 and 1895-1929. In terms of 1910-1914 dollars, butter showed a generally favorable purchasing power until 1913. From 1917 until 1929 there was an increase in the amount of commodities which a pound of butter would purchase. Although butter prices in 1930 were low, purchasing power was more favorable than during the War period. (Data from table 46.) 94 University of California — Experiment Station During 1930 and 1931 the purchasing power of butter at Los Angeles and San Francisco was below 100 per cent when either the year 1926 (table 49) or the pre-war period 1910-1914 is used as a base. If 1926 is used the purchasing power appears higher than if the 1910-1914 base is used, because butter prices were relatively low in 1926. TABLE 49 Eelative Wholesale Prices and Purchasing Power of Butter, Los Angeles and San Francisco, 1910-1931 Los Angeles San Francisco Year Relative price 1926 = 100 Purchasing power 1926 = 100 Relative price 1926 = 100 Purchasing power 1926 = 100 / 2 3 4 5 1910 74.5 62.3 72.7 72.7 60 5 57.6 67.0 90.1 112 4 126 129 1 95 93 9 104 3 96 4 107.9 100 103 .6 106 1 105.2 838 60 9 66.8 66.8 57 3 58.0 56.4 59.6 106 96 105 104 89 83 78 77 86 91 84 97 97 103 98 106 100 109 109 109 97 79 88 90 78 81 81 85 73 6 63 72.2 73 4 62.7 60 6 67.4 92.4 112.5 131 130 6 92.2 91.0 103.5 91.9 107 9 100 105 1 106.7 105.8 84 ■ 60 7 66.0 65.3 56 3 58 4 57.7 60.5 105 1911 1912 97 105 1913 105 1914 1915 92 87 1916 79 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 79 86 95 85 94 94 103 94 1925 1926 1927 1928 104 100 110 109 1929 1930 110 97 1931 January February 79 87 88 April 77 82 June July.. .. 83 86 Sources of data: Col. 2: Relatives of averages in table 47. Col. 3 : Items in col. 2 divided by items in col. 2, table 45. Col. 4: Relatives of averages in table 48. Col. 5: Items in col. 4 divided by items in col. 2, table 45. Bui,. 514] Dairy Products 95 CENTS PER POUND ss so 45 40 35 SS SO 45 40 35 ■••■«•< 1 1 r/Wew YorA - 3k. San froncisco -s ^"' — 4 Chtcoqo y \ . .. .Lt . J„ -- /924 "A-\ L, L I , -J Son rronc iscoi ^. *»•- mm*wm\ V ^•— ^ *-* - "" S^' 1^ ir*~ ^ *>1^^ srsr ^Cnicogo A9«2.f .5*0 ^ 1 1 \ ^ S yK^. # _ ^•~ «•■»• y^ /*T *S i»C! jco - i^ ^ ^^" 1 — —^ **» s 1 CV*/ cooo rr-- lJ_ /S^9 fr^nc/sca ^/Ve* YorA t//*A/. /\£"fl. MAR /A/V?. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. Fig. 18. — Prices of 92-score butter at New York, Chicago, and San Fran- cisco, 1924-1930. During March and April San Francisco prices are usually below those of Chicago and New York. When the flush season of production comes on in the dairy belt, Chicago and New York prices usually drop below the San Francisco prices, although this was not the case in 1930. (Data calculated by author from price quotations of the U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ.) 96 University of California — Experiment Station The average wholesale prices used are unweighted unit prices and should not be used as a criterion of the returns to producers. In the first place they do not represent prices paid producers and secondly no account is taken either of the total volume of production or of the seasonal variation in production. Used correctly this information will give an excellent idea of general trends and fluctuations in butter prices. Prices for the same grade of product in different sections move with considerable similarity, as for example, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco markets (fig. 19 and table 50). There is a tendency for relatively lower prices to prevail at California markets during November to April inclusive, on account of the earlier season. At times considerable amounts of butter are shipped out. With the above-normal production in the Middle West during the summer, prices in the other sections of the country sag below those in Cali- fornia. With the increasing demands of the state and a consequent dependence on outside supplies, wholesale prices within the state will be perhaps higher than in sections producing a surplus. With the dairy development in the other western states there may be even more uniformity between California and the Middle West, owing to the ease with which many of the western states can place their products in either California or the middle western states. One of the problems in the past and at present is the obtaining of actual wholesale prices at which butter is sold. In the earlier periods of the San Francisco butter market a group of wholesalers met to establish prices. This system gave way to regularly organized exchanges. In San Francisco the United States Department of Agri- culture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, with the aid of the ex- change and street sales, reports daily what is believed to be an average of transactions for the day, in the judgment of its representatives. The Los Angeles price is set daily by the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles. The quotations listed in tables 48 and 49 represent the approximate prices at which butter was exchanged. Returns by creameries are still based upon these quotations in the western part of the United States. The basis for the publication of a daily quota- tion is becoming increasingly difficult because of the relatively small amounts of butter being exchanged in a wholesale way. The indices of seasonal variation of the wholesale prices of butter (fig. 19) should prove to be of especial interest not only to the pro- ducer of milk fat but also to the manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer of dairy products, and to the ultimate consumer, because a most significant change has come about in butter prices since 1901. An Bul. 514] Dairy Products 97 examination of the quotations from 1901 to 1929 indicates that during the first few years of the period the relative range was wide between the high price in January and the low price in April or May. This difference has been gradually narrowing, and should assist in making the industry more stable. The prices now during January, February, September, October, November, and December are relatively lower, and those during March, April, May, June, and July are relatively higher. The relative price during the month of August has not changed, as this month has been comparatively normal throughout the period. Seasonal variations as computed for the past do not always hold for the future. This point should be emphasized. While the differences between the various months of the year have been lessening, no statement is made to the effect that this trend will continue. It should be realized that a large number of factors may operate to upset the seasonal variations in price. However, with a more even price throughout the year and a lessening tendency toward seasonal fluctuations, the producer is assured a steadier income and improved financial situation. According to data for the past few years the largest amounts of butter are produced in the months of relative price increases. A rise in price of one cent during months of heavy production means more than a rise of one cent during months of relatively light production. The wholesaler can plan farther ahead with a greater degree of certainty than formerly in matters such as cold-storage contracts, etc. The retailer should also be interested; since there is a close correlation between the retail and wholesale price of butter he can thus sell butter at a more uniform price; the ultimate consumer is prone to become accustomed to a constant price, and consequently is less liable to find fault than when prices fluctuate greatly. Several reasons combined have made a more even price throughout the year. Perhaps first and most important has been the development of winter dairying. Development in the manufacturing of other dairy products of a less perishable nature such as condensed and evaporated milk, milk powder, canned butter, etc., has in all probability brought about a more equable distribution of butter manufacture, and im- provement in cold storage facilities is important. Competition of manufacturers of ice cream for sweet cream has also had its effect. The influence of the growth of urban centers has perhaps been felt as a large supply of market milk has been demanded. The develop- ment of dairying in the southern hemisphere has unquestionably exerted an influence in keeping world butter prices at a lower level, especially during the winter months. 98 University of California — Experiment Station indexes of E> w pq W H « co 2 % & CO < W EH hH O O P M o*^ w J 3 co M J O W £ o u CO U fe « £ £ «4 en o OS N 0O «5 OS - O0 U0 OS Oj Oj Oj Oj Oj Oj Oj Oj Oj Oj 00 Oj o OS o 1—1 co tj* 00 CO CO »- CO CO rt O co i— i os OS NMtONCClOniO OS OS OS OS OS OS OS cs ifl O N O OS OS oo OS o OS t^-OcOOOSOSOOCD Tf< O CO t^ S N N OO O CD in IO iO tO (N Ttl OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS CS OS o 1—1 CO •*(O!OiO'*'*00l» Td O N O OS oo r^ r-- t-^ oo •«* co OS OS OS OS Oj Oj Oj OS os os os os O OS CStCOOSOSOSOOSt-- ■* 03 N IN r^i^r^r^r^r^-^co *l OS 00 oo oo to CO co -^ r^ os OS OS OS OS OS OS OS o OS O) IQ <- O 1 cr tN O) lO N H N 0O 5 O r^ OO •<*< 0> as o- cr OS o 1-1 CO co -h cs c\ t- t^ OO 00 t-i O CO OS OS c as o- — — CO CM >fl N tD ■* O ^1 ■* H r^ e O OS o- o- cr OS OS OS os as os os «j OS o CO ,_, cs — ( 1— oc >fl ma-* l> Os CT os o- o- ~ OS OS OS os : os o en Cs] CS >o oc oo o o lO OS OO "0 1^ CO CO CS] CO <» o- as a- o- a OS Oj Oj OS CS t^ CO o co oo : ■*}< Cs] OS o OS l» ifl * »o co OS o OS a- .— 5 c a > > s c D 1. a c. E E X '1 1 'E a < 1 B : o? c c o o t o 5? S 3 Q Bul. 514] Dairy Products 101 During 1 the depression in the butter market in the latter part of 1929 and in 1930 cheese prices dropped. They did not fall as much relatively as did butter prices during the first few months of 1930, but from May on the purchasing power of butter and cheese were closer together. There is a tendency for the prices of all dairy products to move in the same general direction. This can be expected in a state such as California with its facilities for making many types of products, its rapidly improving transportation facilities, etc. TABLE 52 Cheese Quotations in Cents Per Pound — California Flats — in San Francisco, 1910-1931 Year Jan Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept Oct. Nov. Dec. Average* 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 18.0 16 3 16 3 15.4 17.8 13.3 16.5 17.9 25.5 30 9 31.0 25.0 24.4 22.0 24.7 18 8 23.7 24.8 23.9 22.4 21.2 146 19.3 15.8 16.4 16.5 18.8 13 9 17.1 19 9 25.5 28.9 30 1 25.0 24.9 23.2 24.8 20.6 25.3 23.2 23 1 22.8 21.0 15.5 16.9 12.7 18.8 15.3 16.0 11.8 17.1 20.7 25.6 31.8 31.5 23.9 22.1 24.6 25.0 19 5 22.6 22.6 22.2 22.8 21.0 15.9 13.9 12.4 16.3 13.1 14.9 11.5 14 9 20.7 26 6 31.0 27.4 19.1 22.4 22.0 22 20.9 21.8 22.9 21 4 22.6 20.7 13 3 13.8 12 5 13.6 14 2 13.6 11 12.8 21.8 22.1 31.2 26.5 15.0 17.8 22 22.3 20.6 21.0 20.4 20.7 22.1 18.8 12 4 14.0 12 3 13 5 14 8 12.9 10.8 14.6 21 2 24.4 29.5 30.4 18.0 19.1 26.0 22.3 22.2 20.5 20 20.5 22.7 17 12.0 14.5 13.1 14.1 15.7 13.5 11.9 14.0 19.8 26.3 33.0 33.2 23 3 21.4 25.9 21.8 22.6 20.3 20.3 21.7 22.1 16.1 12.3 15.5 14.1 14.1 17.1 14 12.5 14.3 22 3 29.0 35.8 31.5 21.9 22.3 28.4 20 8 23.9 21.0 21.0 22.9 22 16.3 13.8 15.7 14.3 14.8 16.8 14.1 13.0 14.8 22.7 30.9 36.5 34.9 22 6 25.8 29.5 20.4 25.2 22.6 22.4 23 22 8 16.9 14.4 17.3 17.0 14.5 16.4 16.4 22 3 31.3 34 28.9 25 3 20 29 21 25 23 23 23 23 16 5 16.5 16.4 17.9 18.4 15.3 16.4 16 9 23.0 32.8 34,8 25.9 32 1 23.2 28.9 21.9 27.6 24.6 25 24.0 23.0 16.7 15.6 15.5 17.7 13.1 15 17 23 35 32 29 22 24.8 25.3 21.6 24.1 25 24.5 23.2 22.7 16.3 16.0 14.1 15.7 16.0 14.9 13 2 15.5 21 3 27.9 32.5 30 22.8 22 9 25.6 22.4 22.7 22.6 22.5 22.5 22.6 18.2 * Unweighted. Sources of data: 1910-1925. Monthly quotations computed by author on the basis of Wednesday quotations. For the years 1918-1925 all quotations were discounted before being averaged, since the published quotations did not represent actual wholesale prices. 1926-1931. Average of daily quotations published by U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. (San Francisco office). Seasonal variation in the San Francisco quotations is slight (table 54). The first six months of the year, especially April, May, and June have tended to show lower prices (fig. 20). The remaining months have tended to be either normal or above. Since cheese is usually stored, advantage is taken of the lower prices of milk during the spring months to manufacture cheese at that time. ""% 34 fl /P it" / /77C «w?j i" ee i i. '/ f h >»^ v^^T/ ■v-^^r "^r^ \y r 7> Pac ific se ztion- /•• 1.50 orTTTTTTTTrrrrrmTTTTTnriTTTTTTTrrrT^^ 1919 J920 /92/ 1922 1923 /924 1925 /926 1927 /928 1929 1930 Fig. 21, — Prices paid producers at country points for standard milk. Pre- vious to 1925 prices in the Pacific section usually averaged higher than in the country as a whole. Since the latter date prices in the Pacific section have fallen below the averages for the country, owing in no small degree to the large surplus of milk in many of the milk sheds of the Pacific Coast. The depression in the prices of other dairy products in 1930 is reflected in those for milk. (Data from table 55.) Market-Milk Prices, United States. — Since market milk is a perish- able commodity, it is natural to expect that the local conditions sur- rounding a market would largely determine prices. The United States Department of Agriculture has attempted to obtain the prices paid producers at country points 37 for standard milk (3.5 per cent milk fat) in various sections of the United States (table 55). While the range of prices quoted is necessarily large, the average gives an indi- cation of price trends in the country and its various sections. Comparable prices are available only since 1919 (fig. 21). As with concentrated-milk prices, prices for standard milk did not reach their 37 The prices at country points apply to milk delivered direct by farmers in their own cans to local milk-shippping stations and nearby city milk plants. These prices differ from dealers' buying prices (tables 57-60) by the costs of transportation applicable to different shipping points). 104 University of California — Experiment Station lowest levels until 1922, although recovery in 1923 was rapid. A slight depression occurred in 1924, but through 1925 the tendency was for an upward trend in prices with a resulting increase in pur- chasing power, and since the latter year prices have held to relatively high levels. It is to be noted that the effect of the lower prices for milk fat during the last month of 1929 and the early part of 1930 was not immediately reflected in market-milk prices (table 55). These prices have been far more regular than prices paid by con- densaries for milk, although there is a tendency for a considerable seasonal variation, the low points usually occurring in the spring and summer with the high points in the fall and winter. TABLE 55 Prices* in Dollars Per 100 Pounds Paid to Producers at Country Points for Standard Milk (3.5 Per Cent Milk Fat), in the United States and the Pacific Section, 1919-1931 United States Month January February... March April May June July August September October .... November. December.. 1919 3 3.68 3.77 3.77 1920 3.82 3.70 3.58 3.27 3 17 3.21 3 33 3.64 3.77 3.80 3.72 341 1921 58 2.54 2.56 1922 2.48 2 38 2 21 2.16 2.10 2.08 2.19 2.25 2.28 2 39 2.48 2.69 1923 2.72 2.69 2.67 2.62 2 54 2 54 2.56 2.68 2.80 2.80 2.90 2.89 1924 54 45 2 47 2.50 2.65 2.67 2.73 2.70 1925 2.68 2.71 2.65 2.63 2.59 2.52 2.53 2.66 2.67 2.81 2.81 2.87 1926 2.66 2.70 2 72 2.76 2.79 2.85 1927 2.86 2.79 2.73 2.71 1928 1929 2.89 2.89 2.84 2.78 2.76 2.70 2.77 2.78 2.84 2.85 2.88 2.88 1930 2.81 2.78 2.77 2.72 2.65 2.61 2.60 2.63 2.71 2.70 2.68 2.62 1931 2.47 2.37 2 33 2.25 2 16 2.15 2.14 2.18 2.16 Pacific section January February. March April May June July August September . October November- December... 3 53 366 3 37 2.45 2 82 2.92 2.59 2.72 2.72 2.68 2.49 2.40 3.53 3 62 3 09 2.51 2 SO 2.89 2.73 2.70 2 65 2.63 2 45 2.48 3.45 3.47 2.99 2.42 2 69 2.80 2.73 2.86 2 55 2.66 2.56 2.50 3.41 3 40 3.02 2.34 2 75 2.93 2.74 2.69 2.54 2.62 2.58 2 46 3 23 343 2.82 2 04 2 69 2.58 2.77 2 59 2.52 2.48 2.39 2.26 3.18 3.42 2.12 2 40 2 67 2 48 2 57 2.67 2.47 2.38 2.47 2.24 3.10 3.59 2.74 2.24 2 65 2 59 2.51 2.68 2.49 2.37 2.57 2.46 3 23 3.62 2.72 2 27 2 79 2.63 2.69 2.69 2.63 2.38 2 50 2.48 3.34 3 79 2 88 2.41 2 79 2.75 2.74 2.63 2.65 2.50 2.63 2.48 3.38 3.88 2.60 2 51 2 81 2.55 2.79 2.55 2.70 2.52 2.65 2 40 3.39 3.81 2.62 2.60 2 75 2.55 2.76 2.67 2.61 2.52 2.55 2.33 3.51 3.76 2.57 2.75 2 90 2.60 2.91 2.66 2.70 2.50 2.56 2.26 2.08 2 11 2.08 2.05 2.03 2.05 2.09 2.20 2.18 * Prices include "basic" prices where a surplus plan or pooling plan is in effect. Ci1 are based upon current butter quotations are not included. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. where prices Bul. 514] Dairy Products 105 The failure of market-milk prices to respond to the changes in the prices of other dairy products, notably butter, has been com- mented upon by students of the industry. If the situation is analyzed carefully it can be seen why the action of market-milk prices is more sluggish than those, for example, milk fat. Contracts between dairy- men and distributors, health regulations, at times geographical loca- tion, and other factors combine to prevent prompt changes in the prices of market milk. It is claimed that market milk does not bear its share of the burden of the industry when conditions are generally unsatisfactory. With a drop in the retail price of butter, that of milk in many localities remains on the same level, as was the case in 1929-1930. If prices of market milk had been reduced proportion- ately, increased consumption might have resulted and additions to the already large supplies of other products on the markets might have been forestalled. Little work has been done on the analysis of milk prices. When a large supply of butter is offered relative to the demand for it, conditions are made even worse by the fact that in many market-milk areas the supplies of butter are increased by additional amounts of milk being converted into butter and other products of the industry. Prices paid to producers in the Pacific section (California, Wash- ington, and Oregon) since 1926 have been slightly under those paid in the United States, although considering California alone the producers' prices were undoubtedly higher than the average for the country. As pointed out in a previous paper 38 the supply in the Pacific area is ample. Market-Milk Prices, California. — Prices actually paid to producers supplying California cities with milk are not readily available. Often prices quoted fail to take into account premiums accruing to milk of exceptionally low bacterial count, high quality, etc., and lower prices occasioned by the so-called * surplus'. In some instances, therefore, two producers may be found on adjacent farms, producing apparently the same grade of milk and yet receiving varying prices. Wholesalers and distributors find it difficult to estimate prices, largely because there are no well-defined market places or exchanges where various forces of supply and demand can register at frequent intervals. Often price adjustments made in advance by contract further complicate the situation. 38 Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437:100. 1927. 106 University of California — Experiment Station Dealers' buying prices for milk have been obtained for Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Diego. These prices are not strictly comparable, serving only in a general way to indicate prices paid to producers. The producer must take into account trans- portation costs, which vary. Dealers' buying prices are usually 'delivered prices', and generally represent prices paid for a definite quantity of a required standard. Because of differences in standards, transportation costs, etc., comparisons between two different cities often lead to erroneous conclusions. In the same city comparisons are often made between the producer's price per quart and the retail price for delivery on routes. Much of the milk is marketed through other channels. There is necessarily some 'surplus', that is, an amount above the actual requirements of a distributor, in order to supply fluctuations in the daily demand. In some localities an unusually large 'surplus' is converted into dairy products of less value than market milk, or sold to hotels, restaurants, and retail stores at a lower price. The wholesale price which is commonly used in the parlance of milk distributors is the price at which milk is delivered to retail stores, hotels, restaurants, and other large purchasers. The retail price used in this discussion is that paid for standard milk on routes. This is fairly uniform in the various cities for the same grade of milk. While these prices to consumers are perhaps representative, nevertheless a comparison between such prices over a series of years may be misleading. It is acknowledged by producer, distributor, and consumer that the milk generally distributed today is superior to that sold before the War. Strictly speaking, the retail prices even within the same city are not comparable. Large amounts of milk are sold at retail through stores. Often the price per quart has been 2 cents lower than that prevailing on routes. The retail price of quarts was kept low even during the peak years of prices. In some cities the increase has come in the prices paid for pints and prices paid by the wholesale trade (hotels and restaurants), while in others the comparatively low price has been maintained in part through the consolidation of milk distributors. Certain similarities exist in the price movements of the California cities studied. All give evidence of a steady retail price until 1930 and 1931. Dealers' buying prices did not rise as rapidly as general com- modity prices during the War, but in turn they failed to fall as low in 1921 or 1922. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 107 TABLE 56 Market Milk Prices in Los Angeles, California, 1910-1931 Year Cents per pound milk fat to producers — f.o.b. Los Angeles Relatives of prices in col. 2 1926 = 100 Retail price on routes Cents per quart Relatives of prices in col. 4 1926 = 100 Cents per pint Relatives of prices in col. 6 1926 = 100 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Jan... Feb.. Mar.. Apr.. May June July. Aug. 51.2 54.6 68.2 97.0 103 122 98.0 92.0 98.0 100.0 92.0 93 89 86.0 89.0 81 4 71 67.0 66.0 65.0 62.0 68.0 68.0 60.5 55 59 73 104 111 131 105 99 105 100 9.0 9.1 10 10 10.0 8.6 9 10 3 13.8 14 3 17 15.2 14.2 15 15. 14 15 15 15. 15.0 14 5 95 113 101 95 100 103 99 100 100 100 100 97 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 5.5 5.0 5.5 9.0 9 3 9.0 9 9 9.0 9 8 5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8 8.0 8 7.0 61 56 61 61 61 53 56 67 87 91 106 96 91 100 103 100 100 100 100 100 94 89 89 Sources of data: Col. 2: 1915 through 1929 represents prices paid to a large group of producers for milk. The prices are comparable except for 1927 when the price represented that paid for a stipulated average amount of milk. 1930 and 1931 prices were obtained from the Cooperative Dairy Products Assn. Ltd., Los Angeles, and represent prices paid for a stipulated amount of miik. Col. 3: Calculations by author, 1926 = 100. Cols. 4 and 6: Data furnished by Clarence V. Castle, Specialist in Agricultural Extension, Los Angeles County and Martin Blank, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. Cols. 5 and 7: Calculations by author, 1926 = 100. 1.08 University of California — Experiment Station Los Angeles Milk Prices. — The rapid changes which have taken place in Los Angeles and vicinity make it extremely difficult to collect comparable data over a long series of years, although prices have been on a milk fat basis for several years. An attempt has been made in table 56 to give a series of prices which will depict the trends in dealers' and retail prices. In many instances both actual and basic prices are given. The former is based upon the latter and often new- comers and others may be deceived by the term 'basic price'. The latter price is that which the producer receives for a specified daily quantity of milk. Any excess over this basic quantity was formerly paid for at a price based usually upon butter quotations. The actual prices are in most cases lower than the basic price. In order to dispose of this milk advantageously a Surplus Plant was established by the producers and distributors of Los Angeles on January 1, 1930, which has revealed information on the exact amount of surplus milk being received, thereby making it possible to handle and perhaps control supplies. Since the plant has been in operation the price for surplus has been the base buying price minus the deduc- tion on surplus milk made for the support of the Surplus Plant. There is some correlation between the dealers' buying prices of milk and those of butter. Under conditions prevailing in Los Angeles County the two sets of prices at times have been somewhat out of line with each other, although there is some tendency for the prices to parallel each other. Although the wholesale price of milk at Los Angeles showed a rela- tively high level through 1929, it would be higher if it were not for the 'surplus', upon which it had been impossible until very recently to obtain accurate information. On the other hand it has been the high level of prices which is partly responsible for the surplus. A certain 'surplus' of milk is necessary in any large city owing to the sudden and unexpected demands which the public make. It appears that the necessary 'surplus' in the general wholesale and retail business in Los Angeles is approximately 20 per cent. In a strictly retail business the necessary surplus is much less. Milk producers and distributors feel that an even production of milk throughout the year would help to bring about a more satisfactory solution of the surplus problem. From the standpoint of the dairyman now in business in Los Angeles County, the wholesale price of milk produced in the vicinity of the city must be such that it will not encourage large shipments of milk to enter the city from more distant points. Bul. 514 Dairy Products 109 TABLE 57 Market Milk Prices in San Francisco, California, 1910-1931 Dealers' buying price Year Dollars per 100 lbs. 3.6 percent milk Relatives; 1926 = 100 Retail prices Cents per quart Relatives of data in col. 4; 1926 = 100 Cents per pint Relatives of items ir col. 6; 1926 = 100 1910.. 1911.. 1912.. 1913 1914.. 1915.. 1916.. 1917.. 1918.. 1919.. 1920. 1921.. 1922.. 1923.. 1924.. 1925.. 1926. 1927. 1928. 1929. 1931* Jan Feb... Mar... Apr... May.. June. July.. Aug.. 1.986 1.995 1.944 1.921 2 302 3.228 3.628 242 433 140 140 140 140 130 140 298 140 140 2.800 2.700 2.700 2.700 2.700 2.700 2 700 63 64 62 61 74 103 116 136 110 100 100 100 100 100 100 105 100 100 86 10.0 10 10.0 10 10 10 10 10 7 12.7 14 2 16.4 14 13 13 2 14 14 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 10.0 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 76 91 101 117 100 93 94 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 93 93 93 93 93 93 71 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.0 5 5 5 5 9 7.3 8.3 9.7 8.6 8.0 8.2 9 9 9 90 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8 8 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 64 64 64 56 56 56 56 66 81 92 108 96 89 91 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 85) * The U. S. Dept. Agr. Bureau of Agricultural Economics reports the following prices for a part of the supply for 1931: Jan., $2.95; Feb., $2,417; Mar., $2,417; Apr., $2,417; May, $2,417; June, $2,417; July, $2,417. Sources of data: Col. 2: U. S. Dept. Labor Bur. Labor Statistics. Wholesale prices, monthly issues. Col. 3: Calculations by author; 1926 = 100. Cols. 4 and 6: Furnished by San Francisco Milk Dealers' Association. Cols. 5 and 7: Calculations by author; 1926 = 100. 110 University of California — Experiment Station There has been a considerable degree of correlation between the retail and wholesale buying prices of milk in Los Angeles, except that the former prices have fluctuated far less than the latter. It should be noted (table 56) that during the six years of rising prices, 1915-1920, retail prices rose less rapidly than buying prices. Since 1926 there has been a weakening of buying prices, especially in 1930 and 1931. San Francisco Milk Prices. — Data on dealers' buying prices for milk delivered at San Francisco, have been furnished by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics since 1913 (table 57). Comparisons between these prices and actual prices paid to farmers by individual concerns check closely through 1929. During seasons of considerable surplus the buying price would be considerably less than that enum- erated in column 2, table 57. During 1931 the actual price was far lower than that quoted. The San Francisco buying prices until 1930, were characterized by their regularity ; this is an excellent condition provided they bring the necessary additions to the supply and do not bring forth a surplus. Retail prices of quarts have not shown as great an actual or relative advance as have the prices of quarts in Los Angeles. The retail prices of pints at San Francisco have advanced relatively higher than those of quarts. As in Los Angeles, milk is sold for a lower retail price at stores. Prices of Market Milk in Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda. — Wholesale prices have been furnished by several sources, including those kept on file by the Alameda County Milk Distributors' Associa- tion (table 58). Until 1917 the buying prices were fairly uniform. From the latter date until 1927, an average buying price was obtained by selecting the median of the average monthly prices paid by the various concerns. Since 1927 it has been possible to obtain a uniform buying price from the Alameda County Milk Distributors' Associa- tion. The same general trend in wholesale prices is shown as has prevailed in San Francisco. Although the data given in table 58 are calculated upon a gallonage basis, payment is based upon milk of a standard milk-fat content. From an examination of the prices received by farmers there is evidence that a slightly lower price has prevailed during April, May, June, and July than during the remain- ing months of the year. Bin,. 514] Dairy Products 111 TABLE 58 Market Milk Prices in the East Bay Cities of Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda, California, 1910-1931 Dealers' buying price f.o.b. city, cents per gallon 3.6 percent milk Relatives of items in col. 2 1926 = 100 Retail prices on routes Year Cents per quart Relatives of items in col. 4 1926 = 100 Cents per pint Relatives of items in col. 6 1926 = 100 1 i S 4 6 6 7 1910 16 16 16 16 4 16.4 164 16 3 20.3 27.6 31 3 36.7 28.8 24 5 27.3 25 9 23.0 24 5 25 5 27.0 27 23 9 18.6 22. 6f 22. 6t 22. 6t 22 6f 22. 6f 21.1 65 65 65 67 67 67 67 83 113 128 150 118 100 111 106 94 100 104 110 110 98 76 92 92 92 92 92 90 9.2 9 2 9.2 9.2 9 2 9 2 9.4 10 5 11.8 14 15.0 13 3 11 3 10.5 12.8 12 12 13.1 14 14 13.3 11 4 13 13 13 13 13 13.0 77 77 77 77 77 77 78 88 98 117 125 111 94 88 107 100 100 109 117 117 111 95 108 108 108 108 108 108 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5 8 5.8 5.9 6.1 6.5 8.0 9.0 9 7.7 7 3 8 4 8 8 8.9 9 9.0 8.9 7 8 8 8 8 8 8.0 73 1911 73 1912 73 1913 73 1914 73 1915 73 1916 74 1917 76 1918 81 1919 100 1920 113 1921 113 1922 96 1923 91 1924 105 1925 100 1928 100 1927 111 1928 113 1929 113 1930 111 1931 88 Feb 100 100 100 100 100 July 100 * During 1930-1931, most of the bottled milk sold on retail routes contained 4 per cent milk fat. Records for previous years are not available, t Based upon milk fat at $.73 per pound. Sources of data: Col. 2: 1910-1926. Average of prices furnished author by distributors of Oakland and Berkeley, California. 1926-1929. Alameda County Milk Dealers' Association. 1930-1931. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Fluid milk market report for the United States (mimeographed), monthly issues. Col. 3: Calculations by author; 1926 = 100. Cols. 4 and 6: Alameda County Milk Dealers' Association. Cols. 5 and 7: Calculations by author; 1926 = 100. 112' University of California — Experiment Station San Diego Milk Prices. — Table 59 offers an indication of the rela- tive prices paid at San Diego. The relative increase in dealers' buying prices has partially come about through the intense competition which other lines of endeavor have offered in San Diego County. The prices in column 2 of table 59 include payments for surplus milk. TABLE 59 Market Milk Prices in San - Diego, California, 1912-1930 Price in dollars per 100 pounds 4 per cent milk, delivered at San Diego ir ft Relatives i of data in ' col. 2 % 1926 = 100 ! Retail price Year Quarts, cents Relatives of data in col. 4 1926 = 100 Pints, cents Relatives of data in col. 6 1926 = 100 1 2 S 4 5 6 7 1912 2 05 2 17 2 36 2 55 2 60 2.97 360 3.93 4.65 4 20 4 00 3 55 3.72 4.07 4.08 4 09 4.13 4 15 4.09 3 55 3.81 3.84 3 82 3.80 3.81 3 65 50 53 58 63 64 73 88 96 114 103 98 87 91 100 100 100 101 102 100 87 93 94 94 93 93 89 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 13.0 14 3 16 .0 17.7 16.1 15.1 14.7 14 8 14 8 15.0 15 15 15 15 14 14.0 13.7 13 13 13.0 13.0 67 73 80 87 87 95 107 118 107 101 98 99 99 100 100 100 100 100 93 93 91 87 87 87 87 5 6 6 7 7.0 8.1 9.0 9.3 9 1 9.1 9.0 8 7 8.8 9.0 9.0 9 9 9 8 8.0 7.7 7.0 7 7.0 7.0 1913 56 1914 67 1915 67 1916 78 1917 78 1918 90 1919 100 1920 103 1921 101 1922 101 1923 100 1924 97 1925 98 1926 100 1927 100 1928 100 1929 100 1930 100 1931: 89 Feb 89 86 78 78 78 July 78 Sources of data: Col. 2: 1912-1926, actual prices paid producers f.o.b. San Diego by certain milk distributors. 1927-1931, prices paid members by Milk Producers' Association of San Diego County. Cols. 4 and 6: Data furnished by Golden F. Fine, Assistant Farm Advisor for San Diego County and L. A. Manly of the Qualitee Dairy Products Co., San Diego, Calif. Prices of Milk in Other Cities. — The wholesale price paid for milk in other cities of the state, especially those in close proximity to important milk fat districts, is apparently more closely correlated with the price of butter than is the case in the larger cities. When milk fat prices are low such a condition often causes considerable difficulty. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 113 Sweet-Cream Prices. — Lack of uniformity in both the product and manner of payment makes studies relative to sweet-cream prices extremely difficult. Since it may be used for direct consumption, ice cream manufacture, etc., prices in many sections are based upon quality, milk fat content, and other considerations. Payments of hauling charges, rebates for skim milk, etc., together with changes in all of these, make comparisons of prices in most instances worthless. Cents per Pound iv^m^i&tk^k^kUkik^u* % ^ §sl; /922 /92S /924 1925 /926 1927 /928 /929 1930 Fig. 22. — Prices paid for sweet milk, sweet cream, and churning cream in Tulare County, 1922-1930. The diagram shows the premium obtained by sweet cream over sour cream, varying during this period from 2 to 9 cents per pound of milk fat. Sweet milk during the same period has brought from 6 to V6y<2, cents per pound milk fat over sour cream. (Original data, furnished by M. A. Lindsay, Assistant Farm Advisor, Visalia, Tulare County, California.) 114 University of California — Experiment Station Prices for milk fat in sweet cream are closely correlated with the wholesale quotations for butter on the Los Angeles and San Francisco markets. Through the courtesy of creameries in the lower San Joaquin Valley, delivered prices have been obtained for milk fat in churning (sour) cream, sweet cream, and sweet milk since 1922 (fig. 22). During this period the premium paid for sweet cream has ranged from 2 to 9 cents over sour cream, while that for sweet milk has ranged from 6 to 13% cents per pound of milk fat. The higher premiums usually have been paid during the five months beginning in May. Seasonal variation in the amount of the premium paid is not regular, e.g., the highest premium paid for sweet cream in 1929 was in March. At times a surplus of milk in the market-milk areas cuts the premium appreciably. Spencer 39 reports that the amounts by which the cream prices exceeded the butter quotations at Los Angeles from 1921 through 1930 were from 18 to 20 cents per pound milk fat. These premiums were for inspected cream, uninspected cream running from 2.25 to 3.4 cents lower per pound of milk fat. Beginning with January 1, 1931, all cream for distribution in the communities under Los Angeles County inspection must come from herds that are free from tuberculosis. This has resulted in increasing the premium to 25 cents a pound over butter quotations. Retail Prices of Batter, Cheese and Market Milk. — The United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics issues a monthly index number of the retail prices of the principal articles of food in the United States and in the larger cities (table 100, p. 184). Indications are that if any of the pre-war years be taken as a base, the retail prices of dairy products as a whole were relatively low from 1920 to 1930 when compared with the prices of other foods. Taking dairy products individually, butter was relatively low, cheese relatively high and milk prices occupied a place between the two. During 1931 the tendency was for the retail price of foods in general, including butter and cheese to fall more rapidly than milk. In few commodities is the retail price so closely correlated with the wholesale price as in the case of butter. In all of the large cities a change in the wholesale price is usually reflected immediately in the retail price. Milk Prices at Condensaries. — The United States Department of Agriculture publishes monthly prices to producers at condenseries for 3.5 per cent milk (table 60). The prices do not include those paid by factories which base prices in part on current wholesale butter- 39 Spencer, Leland. An economic survey of the Los Angeles milk market. California Agr. Exp. Stat. Bui. 513:1-106. 1931. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 115 market quotations. Factory prices are available since 1919, while wholesale prices of canned milk are available since 1913. There is close correlation between the producers' and wholesalers' prices. Con- densed and evaporated-milk prices reached their high points in 1920, although the wholesale prices were far below the general commodity level of prices. The drop in prices from 1920 to 1922 was perhaps more severe than was the case with other dairy products. Production had been stimulated (table 26, p. 60), export demand fell (table 90, p. 162), and stocks on hand remained high during the spring of 1922. TABLE 60 Prices* in Dollars Per 100 Pounds Paid to Producers at Condensaries for 3.5 Per Cent Milk, United States and Western Section (Southern) 1920-1931 United States Month January February March April May June July August September October November December 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 359 2 13 1.70 2 40 2.18 1.92 2 17 2.28 2.27 2 23 1.87 3.48 2.07 1 53 2 37 2 13 1.93 2.06 2.28 2 22 2 18 1.71 3.17 2.11 1 50 2 31 2 09 1 93 2 03 2 20 2.08 2.14 1.69 2.82 2 23 1 48 2 22 1.93 1.93 1.93 2 14 2.05 2 07 1 68 2.77 1.96 1 45 2 04 1.72 1.88 1.81 2.00 1.97 1 99 1 66 2.80 1.61 1 45 2.02 1 64 1.82 1.79 1.91 1 92 1.92 1.58 2.98 1 59 1 no 2 12 1 66 1 91 1.79 1.91 1.96 1.91 1.54 3.22 1 87 1 71 2 16 1 66 1 98 1.84 2 00 2 07 1.96 1 61 3 31 1.89 1 75 2.18 1.66 2 01 1 95 2 07 2.16 1.97 1 72 2.88 1.87 1 80 2 23 1.70 2.09 2.00 2 15 2.19 2 04 1.75 2.61 1.94 2 08 2 21 1.71 2.15 2 09 2.20 2 21 2.07 1.67 2 44 1 85 2 31 2.21 1.85 2.15 2.22 2 25 2.28 2 02 1.56 1931 1 42 1 35 1 27 1.21 1.12 1.04 1.02 1.03 Western section (southern) Month January February March April May June July August September October November December 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 3.11 3.22 2.76 2.59 2.54 2 45 2.87 2.71 2 83 2.56 2 43 2 27 1.91 2.09 2 00 1.93 1.75 1.54 1.49 1.61 1 75 1.73 1.85 1 69 2.24 2 19 2.11 2.03 1.86 1.84 1.93 2 02 2.05 2.13 2.09 2 11 2.06 2 05 1.99 1.85 1.71 1.66 1.60 1.60 1.62 1.65 1.64 1.70 1.79 1.78 1.76 1.76 1.67 1.66 1.78 1.88 1 97 2 02 2.09 2 10 2.10 2 00 2.02 1.81 1.72 1.67 1.67 1.72 1.81 1.83 1.86 2.01 2.09 2.10 2 02 1.98 1.90 1.84 1.81 1.89 1.88 1.94 1.99 2 05 2 03 1.91 1.88 1.86 1.70 1.79 1.85 1.97 2 04 2.06 2.17 00 1.79 1.67 1.66 1.64 1.69 1.61 1.50 1.49 1.76 1.63 1.54 1.59 1.48 1.23 1.27 1.27 1.10 1.12 .98 .90 * Prices do not include those paid by factories which base prices in part on current wholesale butter, market quotations or which for other reasons could not report prices at the time reports were made. Sources of data: 1919-1920, furnished to author by L. M. Davis, U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., Washington, 1921: U. S. Dept. Agr. Market Reporter. 1922-1923: U. S. Dept. Agr. Weather, Crops, and Markets, monthly issues. 1924-1931: U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. 116 University op California — Experiment Station An improvement in both producers' and wholesalers' prices came about in 1923. Stocks were accumulating and low prices prevailed in 1924. During- the next two years prices strengthened and remained steady until the fall of 1929, when stocks of concentrated milk began to accumulate (p. 136) and prices failed to make the usual seasonal advances. Prices during 1931 were the lowest on record since data have been collected. Price statistics in table 60 are quoted by sections rather than by states, California being in the western section (southern) which in- cludes also Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. Wholesale prices and prices paid producers in this section have been generally slightly lower than those for the United States, although the difference is considerably less now than in the period during and immediately following the War. This price improvement in the western section may have been brought about in part by the increasing export from the Pacific coast. Most of the condensaries in California pay their patrons on a milk fat basis. From an examination of prices paid at condensaries in the San Joaquin Valley from January, 1925, through April, 1931, it was found that the premium paid over butter prices at San Francisco ranged from 9 to 17 cents — with an average of approximately 13.3 cents. There is a tendency for both sets of prices to move in the same direction. TABLE 61 Average Wholesale Selling Prices in Cents Per Pound of Powdered Skim Milk in the United States, 1922-1931 Month January February March April May June July August September . October November... December Average 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 9.1 9.4 10 10.8 11.7 12.8 12.7 10.1 11.9 9.0 95 93 9.7 9.9 10 4 10.7 11 3 11.4 11.5 11 3 11 5 10.5 11.9 11.9 11.6 11.2 11.2 10.8 10.8 10.6 10.1 10.4 10 6.9 6.8 6.6 6 6.7 Sources of data: 1922-August, 1925: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Summary of powdered milk statistics (mimeographed report), p. 1, 1925. September, 1925-1930: U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 117 Powdered Skim Milk. — The reporting of skim-milk prices has been difficult owing to the absence in the past of uniform grades or stand- ards. Consequently prices given in table 61 are an average of a wide range and give merely an indication of the general trend. From August, 1926, through 1931 there was a downward trend in price, brought about largely by a greatly increased production (table 33). An examination of stocks on hand and wholesale prices shows that there is an inverse relation between the two. Dollars per cuit. /3.00 IZ.OO 11.00 7O.00 9.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 /.00 /9/0 // 12 13 74 IS 76 77 73 79 20 '21 '22 '23 24 25 26 27 28 '29 30 Fig. 23. — Prices received for veal calves by producers in the United States and California, 1910-1930. Except for the five years 1916-1920, prices received by producers in the United States and in California have been similar. During the drop in prices in 1921-1922, California prices remained higher. This was repeated in 1930. Veal-calf prices are closely correlated with those of beef cattle (see fig. 24). (Data from tables 62 and 63.) Veal. — The farm price of veal calves as reported in tables 62 and 63 is fairly dependable. 40 From 1917 until 1925 prices for veal calves were relatively low; there was a pronounced advance during 1925- 1929. Since veal-calf prices are, in general, closely correlated with those for beef cattle, it is reasonable to suppose that prices during the two years 1928-1929 were at or near the peak of the cycle for 40 Sarle, Charles F. Reliability and adequacy of farm-price data. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bul. 1840:1-66. 1927." - •A A. - / I I 1 i ' l %r United States p 1 v \ V - / i *' / i /,'vJ n V 1 \ 'Ca/ifornia (ft V V C 1 I * yv . T^ - ...1. ..!.,, iiiImiImi .1.1.1.1... ,,..[, ..!,., in Itnl m lllllllllll ...i.....i...i 118 University op California — Experiment Station £ Ch 00 T3» 4fl M > N'*lflMCOOTlO<- < to o - 00 CO CM »<5 — to o> OS CO >■ •a* ^tO^^GOcocQirjcnt^at: > 00 to CO •- 1 OO CO r- t— y- 1 oo o .SPfe (OlOsONNNOOOt- CM *■ NNNMOOCtOf CM OS 5? g C3 aT o O o OO HO OO * H i- o» 00 «- NNKIO0U5r)"N*- CM OS OO .. a> MO)00N«eNO>MtDM'- t>- t~- OO y- * N M tO <* CO Q «o»o«oi^t^i^o6ot^t^t^i^c»o50'- 00 •-I o CO >■ o 0)ON000010lD*UJNONiOO)CO*NO>0* CO MHNNNOtOsOffltONNaiOOOOi- io to o OO OO r fe (DOWNNNOOO'- CM©l^.t^t-^(--.OSC0©»- CO Oil 3 o> -H lO O CM t-» »- * H O) N G> ff co © ics r^ ■*< — NNNNO^NtOO ^ o io — cooototOr-teoeN«5C- eo "3 O (OffltBNNNW>- -> ID i 00 N 00 i- CM CO i- r-ooooooosooeoes CO O - >> c3 bb Ol M IN M M if CO tC cm co >* i- NOTdO^NNOlOOif 3 CMCOcOlOOt>.lOU- OlOtO^WNOOC M'ftOWtOOOlOOlOeOWWN^ N(<)rtNNOON(»0>ONNod> r- •<*< eo to o r- ■^< r- »5»T(IN©OOOlONt« mM^coifiOato^ot t- O OS ec CO 3 eo f^ eo ■»*< oo oc «5 t-> « ^ rt te t© ui eo t>^ t^ r^ oo e N eo »- NNOONWCUO)-- cm co ec h ♦ 0) ►"3 t~- cm eo eo os c a> c eo tc oo O oo er StOHCOlOtOtOtOW r io t^ eo io eo u- 00«tOi»tOc001" CO ^* io e 00 oc J3 (O ifl (O N N N oo c CM r- NNNNOoej»H«01te fS i>r r >> OOOWNO) 15 00 oc CM — CT 113 M O ijl If 01 b» 00 y- 00 ifl 3 S3 03 co to cm i-H io c«: o ^ tO T~ CO «5 CM CO ft CO CT e'- rt CO y- t-B S eo "5 to l> **• t» oo c CM r- N N N 00 OC oc er N CS N a h 3 s rS ^ .r^r^.cMr-.cooo'5i- cm O r^ >> c3 « >> XI 0) u o> oo ih a n c W 1(5 « »5 io c •^. — ■>* CC A io t(i h <# d ic a co to o> c x n ■* eo tv CO iO CM CC *• CO (O © N N N oo o- NNONOOOOOJOlC CM i-i ^ M 3 3 a 1 CO 00 !>■ CO O C * y- a a) >-3 CO »- Heooototioeou; 1^ 00 l cr CM CM cn t^ oo oo oc CT CT O CN -« oc <» 1-1 £ -2 XI M 1 u 3 '? M a 9 i ^ g XI • 6 i-i « m <* ■« cc 1- oc CT e 5 n co * «: CN) CM CM CN CN CM 5 CT CN O »-c CO CO « o cr CT a CT e s CT CT cr CC CT CT 9 CT CT CT CT OS CT) f . 3 oo o S 6 ej a o o Q Q cc co' 'si 1 S ISS Q eg Bui,. 514] Dairy Products 119 £ P - ti> a i r^ CO © d O ■* •**< © co uo "o co c cc as te rt NOC >c CO oc -* ffl N t» N N » C a or oo oo t^ c rr c o < CO C © © © © O © <= Ol O H Tf N O K s o c o 4) M i - © Oi U0 CT ■t ■c os u: Q to CO * N M N » O) C r^ co i. t- or o- OS o o O O O © O O © H o or oo oo n cr o- o a> ^ Ml 3 s o © © © c O CO »o u- OS Oi N N N lO U) tO N e- -t K as O0 to rt O •4 es a O" o t- >> o o © © © © © © © o Q e o o o e o o 3 ^H lO H tO W "O "fl T(l ifl cr a io o» CO ■*»< •** lio U0 "t Tl< CO CO iO tO tO S N N M O) c or CM — o CO ~ 0) 3 8§ o o o o o o a m » oo io m >o o C c © C © o o © a O •— i ui uo t^ a o C CO «: o o •if o» i-- co tO N N N N OO O e O" 00 O0 t^» OS O" a O to ~ >> o o o o o o o o o N N •* U3 tO •<)( o CO e e © © © e e © a © o o a] CO CO ■t UO CO o •>*< ^ tO N N N N 00 O ss o- oo oo oo a c © e> T-l 00 o oc o o o o o o o CO © CO r« lO CO O © B c o © o c © © © S3 CM to ■* OO f) •r: cc B CO —l CO CO tO N N N N 00 O 64 C T a O CN *-< o> " -O o o o o o o o o o co O co r- -^i t^ ic a e g o o o c © CO CO CB 'C W "O Tjl 1£ or- •f CO £ «o CO tO N N N N X « e c 00 oo 00 oc en al et »-l OJ ctj ooooooooc -hoooscoojcoou: © SS o o o c OO >H lO (<■ e e © e o o CO o> U0 t~- tO to N N N » OC e a t- 00 00 oc o: o- p 03 0> r" c -t "" CC or a c y- CN ■t ■c r^ o a cr a- a laiiii 13 3-S 120 University of California — Experiment Station beef-cattle values. 41 Prices to producers in California have shown the same general movement as those in the nation, although the drop in prices in 1930 was not as severe in California (fig. 23). The increasd demand for young animals is shown by the fact that purchasing power has remained high (table 64) regardless of whether the pre- war years or the single year 1926 is used as a base. A study of veal prices does not disclose a well-defined seasonal variation. Do//ars percu/t I9IO II 12 73 14 75 16 77 IS 79 ZO Zl ZZ 23 24 '25 '26 27 26 29 30 Fig. 24. — Prices of beef cattle in the United States and California, 1910- 1930. Prices received for discarded milk cows follow those for beef cattle. Appearances point to a downward movement in cattle values for the next few years. (Data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets.) Discarded Milk Cows. — On account of the variation in the quality (from the beef standpoint) it is difficult to give any one series of data which will accurately depict the trend in either the price or value of discarded milk cows. From all indications, prices of all grades of cattle move together. Information on prices paid for beef cattle is available in figure 24. A knowledge of the movements of beef -cattle values should prove to be of economic import to the producer of milk and milk fat, and equally important from the standpoint of the purchase of milk cows. If past history is repeated, values for dis- carded milk cows may fall somewhat below 1930 levels for a few years. At the same time the dairyman who must purchase replace- ments will probably obtain them at relatively lower prices than prevailed in 1930. 4i Voorhies, Edwin C, and A. B. Koughan. Economic aspects of the beef cattle industry. Calif omia Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 461:20-21. 1928. Bul. 514 Dairy Products 121 TABLE 64 Relative Prices and Purchasing Power of Veal Calves on the Farm, United States and California, 1910-1931 California United States Year Relative price 1926 = 100 Relative purchasing power 1926 = 100 Relative price 1926 = 100 Relative purchasing power 1926 = 100 1 2 3 4 6 1910 . 63.5 67 .7 67.4 73.6 80.3 78.7 79.3 90.0 103.6 118.4 114.7 90.6 85.3 86.5 82.9 94 7 100.0 104 6 121.5 123.3 109.0 103.4 97.2 95 1 87.8 80.5 72 1 71.1 90 104 98 105 118 113 93 77 79 85 74 93 88 86 85 91 100 110 124 128 126 134 129 128 120 113 103 102 66.8 62.9 67.1 77.8 81.5 79.4 86.9 109.4 123.9 132.8 122.8 81.3 79.9 83.1 84 5 92.1 100 105.7 122.7 126.8 102 3 89.6 85.3 79.7 76.8 74.4 70 9 69.3 95 1911 97 1912. 97 1913 111 1914 120 1915 114 1916 102 1917 93 1918 94 1919 96 1920 80 1921 83 1922 83 1923 83 1924 . 86 1925 ... 89 1926 . 100 • 1927 111 1928 126 1929 131 1930 . . 119 1931 116 Feb. .. 113 107 105 104 June July 101 99 Sources of data: Col. 2: Relatives of averages in table 63; note that averages in table 63 are unweighted. Col. 3: Items in col. 2 divided by all-commodity index of wholesale prices, 1926 = 100. Col. 4: Relatives of averages in table 62; averages in table 62 are unweighetd. Col. 5: Items in col. 4 divided by all-commodity index of wholesale prices, 1926 = 100. 122 University of California — Experiment Station COST FACTORS IN THE PRODUCTION OF MILK General Considerations. — Prices of dairy products alone may- give a one-sided view of the economic conditions in the industry. Dairymen are not only interested in the prices received for products but since the ultimate or primary objective is maximum total profits or maximum increase in the net worth of the business from a long- time point of view, costs enter into the consideration. High prices for milk, milk fat, or butter do not necessarily mean prosperity, nor low prices unprofitableness for the dairymen. If the prices received for milk fat are high compared to his costs, the dairyman is pros- perous; if they are low compared with his costs, he is not pros- perous. Of the many factors entering into the cost of producing whole milk the two outstanding items are labor and feed. Studies made by Adams 42 indicated that the combined labor and feed items accounted for from 74 to 86 per cent of the total cost of producing milk; labor 21 to 37 per cent, and feed 42 to 56 per cent. Studies made under the direction of Fluharty and Wilcox 43 from 1925 to 1928 indicate that the combined labor and feed items accounted for from 65 to 86 per cent of the total cost of producing a pound of milk fat. Feed Costs, Alfalfa and Barley. — As it is difficult to determine the costs of feed to the dairymen in California, the most valuable information available is found in a comparison between certain of the more important feeds and dairy products. Alfalfa is the most im- portant single feed used for dairy cattle and a comparison has been made between the prices of milk fat and alfalfa. A distinct seasonal variation may be discerned with the prices obtained for milk fat. Alfalfa hay prices tend to have a distinct seasonal movement. Usually prices tend to rise materially from August to January and fall from February to July. Although there is considerable variation in the quantity of alfalfa hay required to purchase a pound of milk fat, as will be seen from table 65 and figure 25, a pronounced seasonal varia- tion is evident. The amount of alfalfa hay usually increases from March to September or October and then decreases util March or April. There is not a distinct trend in the relation between milk-fat prices and alfalfa-hay prices (fig. 25). From 1926 to 1930 alfalfa hay became 42 Adams, E. L. The cost of producing market milk and milk fat on 246 California dairies. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 372:150-151. 1923. 4 3 Fluharty, L. W., and F. E. Wilcox. Enterprise efficiency studies on Cali- fornia farms. California Agr. Ext. Cir. 24:66-78. 1930. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 123 relatively higher priced than milk fat. Those dairymen who were forced to purchase large amounts of alfalfa hay during 1929 and 1930 labored under difficulties. Caution should be used in drawing sweeping conclusions. Often the dairyman is a purchaser of alfalfa hay when prices are high and a seller when prices are low. Compara- tively few dairymen are able to furnish the feed requirements of their dairy animals to a degree approaching exactness. TABLE 65 Pounds of Alfalfa Hay Eequired to Purchase One Pound of Milk Fat in California, 1914-1931 Year 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Jan. 77.6 633 65.7 51 8 87.7 57.6 58 9 64.6 74.9 69 3 49 69.0 77.8 65.6 58.2 39.6 45.4 Feb. 736 65.7 57.3 44 5 64.0 538 83.1 64.3 64.2 60.8 48.1 60.7 76.4 63 1 54.9 43.5 47.1 Mar. 46 5 44.8 76.3 45.9 665 54.9 62.5 57.8 45 4 65.8 69.0 52.7 49.4 45.6 52.6 Apr. 62.7 61 6 42.1 42 9 839 50 2 86.9 45.6 65.2 45 1 47.0 67.1 707 52.9 45.2 50.9 49.5 May 80 64.5 70 5 59.4 55 6 89.5 58.8 79.8 66.7 67.3 43 8 48.9 77.3 77.5 58 2 52 6 55.2 51.0 June 82.9 54.7 60.1 57.0 85.9 58 85.8 87.0 75.7 49.4 74.6 73.0 83.5 69.6 59.6 61.7 50.5 July 95.8 85.7 54.9 58.8 63 6 83.1 59 101.1 94.0 75.8 49.7 75.0 79.5 83 5 737 66 4 66.1 57.5 Aug. 102.6 77.5 54.2 67.3 61.9 77.8 67.3 109.6 92 90 48.1 87.0 87.6 76.5 75.7 65.8 71.0 Sept. 103.1 75.6 61.9 66.4 66.6 77.4 75.9 111.6 98.2 76.9 48 9 105.3 81 78 2 79.6 676 69.0 Oct. 99.7 75.6 70.4 64 77.2 82.2 67.5 118.9 88.0 81.4 47.2 102.4 79 82.6 77.5 63.2 69.5 Nov. 96 2 64.0 67.2 56 6 75.8 76.6 63.5 108.0 72.0 81.1 45.1 91.4 73.0 74 1 70.5 62.2 61.8 Dec. 79 3 57 3 62 8 54 1 81.6 73 4 61.1 76 8 74.7 73 6 46.8 80 6 76 7 66.5 67.4 48.3 59.0 Average 75 2 74 1 51.0 71 2 74.1 76.4 67.2 57.8 57.7 Source of data: Computations by author based upon table 43, p. 86, and the monthly prices for alfalfa hay (to producers in Califoraia) from: 1914-1926, U. S. Dept. Agr. Monthly Supplements to Crops and Markets. 1927-1931, U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. No concentrate is universally used by dairymen in California, That barley is an excellent feed for dairy cattle has been demonstrated by practice and in experiments 44 at the University Farm, Davis. Barley prices have been used to compare with those of milk fat because of their continuity and also because of barley's general availability. In the milk fat-barley price ratio (table 66), the prices used have been those received by producers for both milk fat and barley. The relation between milk fat and barley takes into consider- ation the entire state rather than specific sections. Since the War 44 Woll, F. W., and E. C. Voorhies. The value of barley for cows fed alfalfa. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 256:1-26. 1914. 124 University of California — Experiment Station r- tj o mo CO _Q .go § OS « E - Ph o w> Bul. 514] Dairy Products 127 The general wage level as indicated by the weekly earnings of New York factory workers increased steadily from 1914 to 1929 with the exception of the break in 1921-1922. During the latter part of 1929 earnings began to fall and through 1930 and 1931 they showed a steady decline. Farm wages in the United States tended to weaken during 1930 but in California they apparently held to the higher levels. In neither case was the drop relatively as great as that in dairy products or other farm products. Warren 45 points out that the wages of farm labor are a compromise between the prices of farm products and wages in other industries. TABLE 67 General Trend of Wages, United States and California, 1910-1931 (Relatives of wages 1910-1914 = 100) Year General wage level* Farm wage Year and month General wage level* Farm wage and month United Statesf Calif orniat United Statesf California! 1910 97 99 1921 207 150 175 1911 97 102 1922 202 146 174 1912 101 102 1923 220 166 214 1913 104 99 1924 223 166 165 1914 101 101 99 1925 228 168 185 1915 104 102 106 1926 234 171 182 1916 116 112 108 1927 236 170 185 1917 132 140 140 1928 237 169 179 1918 164 176 179 1929 242 170 179 1919 190 206 205 1930 232 152 179 1920 227 239 247 1931, July 207 123 134 Sources of data: * Weekly earnings of New York factory workers. Weekly earnings in 1914 are considered as 101. New York State Col. Agr. Farm Economics, published monthly. t Index numbers of farm wages based upon weighted average rate per month. Published at intervals in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. t Relative figures are based upon wages of farm labor per day with board. From 1923-1931 the data are based upon July 1 wages. California differs from most of the other western states in that on many of the dairy farms special workers (' milkers') are employed for the milking of cows. In the other states of the West which com- pete either directly or indirectly with California in milk production this condition is not common ; the milking is done by the regular farm help or by the dairyman's family. This latter condition also prevails on many of the farms of this state. « Warren, G. F. Wages of farm and city labor. Farm Economics 1:99-100. 1923. 128 University op California — Experiment Station Milkers are employed to milk ' strings ' of cows on the larger dairy farms, a 'string' varying from 20 to 33 cows. In some cases where the number of cows is larger, milking machines are used. Milkers' wages listed in table 68 are in addition to board and keep. During the War period these wages increased relatively faster than the prices received for dairy products and for general farm wages. The peak occurred in 1921, the reaction not being felt until 1922. Wages increased in 1923 and 1924 and until 1927 held steady. During the five years, 1927-1931, there has been a tendency for milkers' wages to sink to slightly lower levels, while dairy products until the latter part of 1929 held firm. With the fall in commodity prices there was a gen- eral tendency for wages to weaken. Milkers' wages held at higher levels than those for general farm labor. For the person or family engaged in milking cows the labor income undoubtedly has been larger on this account. There has not been an oversupply of milkers, since the professional milker in this state possesses a skill which the usual farm laborer does not have. The restriction of immigration may cause a further scarcity, for in many sections of the state a large percentage of the milkers have been of foreign origin. Another reason why milkers' wages have kept to relatively higher levels than those for general farm hands has been the fact that milkers have generally been employed near the larger industrial centers and hence their wages have a tendency to approach industrial wages. Farther from such centers milkers' wages and especially farm wages have a tendency to be lower. Dairy farmers have been greatly interested in cutting down labor expense since it constitutes one of the largest cost items. The dairy industry, in general, has not adopted machinery extensively as other agricultural industries have, because milk production has to do primarily with the relation between human beings and lower animals. However, data from milking-machine firms operating in California indicate that there has been a steady trend toward the adoption of mechanical milkers in certain sections. The cream separator, probably the most important invention in the dairy business, revolutionized the skimming of milk at the farm as well as in the large centralized skimming stations and factories. Although the steam boiler, gasoline engine, electric motor, sterilizer, ice-refrigeration plants, silo, feed cutter, and many other machines are standard equipment on the dairy farm, human labor will prob- ably always loom large. Bui,. 514] Dairy Products 129 TABLE 68 Maximum, Minimum, and Average Monthly Wages Paid to Milkers in California, 1906-1931 Year Low, dollars per month Relatives 1910-1914 = 100 High, dollars per month Relatives 1910-1914 = 100 Average dollars per month Relatives 1910-1914 = 100 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931: Jan Feb March April... May June... July Aug.... $30 00 30 00 35.00 35 00 35 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oo oo 00 00 50.00 50 00 85.7 85.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 11-1 111 128 171 228 257 257.1 200.0 214 3 228.6 228.6 228.6 214.3 214 3 214.3 200 171.4 171.4 142.9 142.9 142.9 142.9 142.9 142.9 $40.00 40 00 40 00 40 00 40 00 40.00 40 00 45.00 45.00 50 00 50 00 55.00 77.50 100 00 100.00 110.00 90 00 95.00 100 00 100.00 100.00 95.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2 95.2 107.1 107.1 119.0 119.0 131.0 185.0 238.1 238.1 261.9 214.3 226.2 238.1 238.1 238.1 226.2 214.3 214 3 214.3 190.5 190.5 190.5 190.5 190.5 190 5 190 5 190.5 $35.00 35 00 37.50 37.50 37.50 37.50 37.50 40 00 40 00 45.00 45.00 50 00 68.75 90.00 95.00 100 00 80.00 85.00 90 00 90.00 90 00 82 50 82.50 82.50 80.00 70 00 70.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 90.9 90.9 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 104 104.0 116.9 116.9 129.9 178.6 2238 246.8 259.7 207.8 220.8 233.8 233.8 233.8 214.3 214.3 214.3 207.8 81.8 81.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 Source of data: Murray and Ready, employment agents operating at San Francisco, Stockton, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. Board and room are in addition to the above. 130 University of California — Experiment Station STORAGE AND HOLDINGS OF DAIRY PRODUCTS Butter. — Such factors as price, current production and consump- tion, estimates of future production, etc., determine the amount of butter placed in storage. During the fourteen years 1917-1930, butter in storage at the peak of the storage season in the United States has constituted from 8.8 to 15.5 per cent of the creamery-butter pro- duction of the given years and from 5.5 to 8.4 per cent of the total butter production, (table 69). The indexes of seasonal variation in creamery-butter holdings for the United States for the period 1917-1925 are as follows : January 1 89 July 1 105 February 1 61 August 1 176 March 1 38 September 1 197 April 1 18 October 1 188 May 1 11 November 1 164 June 1 23 December 1 : 130 Cold storage holdings are at a low point in the United States about May 1 (fig. 27 and above table), and although they increase some during May the bulk of the movement into storage takes place during the months of high production — June and July. With the lower production in August the into-storage movement slows up appreciably. August is a month with an above-normal butter production. From September (peak of holdings) to May, during eight months of the year, the out-of-storage movement is in progress since during these months there is a below-normal production of creamery butter. The role of storage in equalizing the supplies of creamery butter can thus be readily seen by comparing production (table 21, p. 50) with seasonal indexes of storage holdings in the United States. Unfortuately stocks of butter in storage in the United States were the largest in history when the market broke in 1929 (table 70). Between November 1 and December 1, 1929, stocks in storage failed to recede with normal rapidity. On the latter date, for the second time in history, over a hundred million pounds of butter were in storage. During the first four months of 1930 supplies in storage were not exhausted, and this added to the other difficulties which butter prices met. In the latter part of 1930, however, storage stocks were materially lower than during 1929. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 131 /nc/f'c&s erf Season- al Vari- a+jon /eo /40 /ZO /oo SO (30 40 ZO n Jan J Mar./ May/ July I Sep-/:/ Nov./ Fig. 27. — Seasonal variation in cold storage of butter in the United States. (The average amount of butter in storage on the first of each month=100.) The cold-storage season for butter in the United States usually begins about May 1, although the earliness or lateness of the season and the subsequent amount of production, together with the price, determine the exact time. June and July are the months of heaviest storage receipts. The into-storage movement usually culminates about September 1, butter moving out of storage from October to April. (Data from page 130.) TABLE 69 Relation Between Peak of Cold Storage Holdings and Butter Production, United States, 1917-1930 Cold-storage holdings as a percentage of Year Cold-storage holdings as a percentage of Year Creamery- butter production Total butter production Creamery- butter production Total butter production 1917.. . 14 3 12.5 15 4 13 4 8.7 9.7 8.2 6 5 6 6 8.4 7.5 5 4 6 3 5.5 1924 1925 1926 11 5 9 4 10.3 11.0 9.1 10.6 9.4 8 1918 . 6 6 1919 7 2 1920 1927 1928 1929 1930 7.8 1921 1922 6.5 7.8 1923 6.9 Source of data: Computations by author based upon tables 20 and 70 132' University of California — Experiment Station On account of the greater production during" the winter months, California is less dependent on storage supplies than other sections. With the earlier season and the subsequent greater production, the low point in storage is reached about April 1 (in 1926 and 1927, March 1), and the high point occurs earlier — August 1 (fig. 28). While Los Angeles data are not available over a long period, indica- tions point to a movement similar to that at San Francisco. TABLE 70 Cold-Storage Holdings of Creamery Butter in the United States, 1915-1931 (Millions of pounds, i.e., 000,000 omitted) Year Jan. 1 Feb. 1 Mar. 1 Apr. 1 May 1 June 1 Julyl Aug. 1 Sept. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 1915 69 102 99 93 72 1916 49 31 15 3 1 7 54 103 106 101 85 67 1917 46 30 17 7 4 10 50 89 108 109 100 80 1918 51 27 19 15 10 13 49 88 99 88 81 65 1919 44 37 24 12 10 29 90 124 131 122 100 74 1920 54 38 23 13 8 13 53 101 116 113 102 80 1921 59 41 27 15 8 22 62 83 92 90 78 65 1922 48 35 23 9 4 13 67 103 112 97 74 48 1923 27 16 9 5 3 10 63 102 103 96 76 52 1924 30 15 10 8 9 22 74 134 156 153 135 101 1925 66 46 29 11 4 13 64 109 128 114 95 75 1926 53 39 26 17 18 31 87 131 138 125 101 64 1927 34 18 8 3 3 25 90 145 164 147 119 83 1928 46 28 14 6 5 16 70 120 136 128 106 71 1929 44 25 12 6 6 28 92 152 169 159 138 112 1930 82 60 47 31 23 50 107 145 143 131 110 88 1931 63 47 31 18 17 35 89 115 105 Source of data: 1915-1926, U. S. Dept. Agr. Dairy statistics. Statis. Bui. 25: 93. 1929. Subsequent data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. TABLE 71 Cold Storage Holdings of Butter, Los Angeles, 1923-193T (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Jan. 1 Feb. 1 Mar. 1 Apr. 1 May 1 June 1 Julyl Aug. 1 Sept. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 1923 157 272 55 60 279 766 2,283 2,624 2,549 1,875 1,326 932 1924 389 140 85 206 1,012 1,342 2,514 3,235 3,189 2,424 1,872 1,238 1925 693 366 304 55 284 673 1,815 2,533 2,623 1,939 1,622 1,346 1926 898 652 277 251 607 1,436 2,873 3,322 3,127 2,676 2,253 1,678 1927 754 411 96 150 492 846 2,119 2,708 2,564 2,244 1,612 1,224 1928 505 324 23 6 153 476 977 1,653 1,857 1,795 1,371 889 1929 636 493 131 8 253 381 1,467 2,505 2,228 1,862 1,330 957 1930 715 424 181 53 286 973 1,733 2,483 2,459 2,067 1,763 1,177 1931 974 524 124 58 27 320 850 1,227 1,296 * Data published every Monday for holdings of preceding Friday. Figures taken on date nearest to the first of the month. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr.Econ. (San Francisco office). Butter, cheese, eggs, and dressed poultry. (Mimeographed daily one-page market reports.) Bul. 514] Dairy Products 133 TABLE 72 Cold-Storage Holdings of Butter at San Francisco, 1918-1931* (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Jan. 1 Feb. 1 Mar.l Apr. 1 May 1 June 1 Julyl Aug. 1 Sept. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 1918 1,393 1,343 963 784 538 1919 262 77 31 6 194 1,035 1,682 2,005 1,947 1,588 1,351 912 1920 475 233 312 220 264 1,025 1,402 1,559 1,087 914 809 672 1921 683 616 389 212 282 866 1,288 1,361 1,059 867 424 414 1922 497 400 62 39 396 1,056 1,469 1,522 1,408 946 702 351 1923 115 175 118 5 380 881 1,451 2,015 2,042 1,630 1,156 687 1924 340 157 24 4 604 1,975 2,646 3,075 3,006 2,557 1,707 936 1925 346 356 160 83 42 522 732 1,026 1,299 1,172 808 653 1926 814 609 251 362 724 1,068 1,836 2,223 2,175 1,852 1,476 987 1927 427 222 80 90 215 860 1,607 2,393 2,712 2,493 2,060 1,428 1928 858 605 330 267 391 707 988 1,202 1,105 946 620 294 1929 212 100 58 12 150 1,320 1,989 2,528 2,325 1,976 1,334 837 1930 478 229 173 99 488 1,750 2,497 3,174 2,990 2,450 1,936 1,523 1931 1,095 673 157 94 549 1,152 1,989 2,144 1,986 Data are for either the fir3t of the month or in cases where the first of the month falls on a Sunday or a holiday for that day next after the first for which records are available. Sources of data: , TT „ ^ ™ a t-. August 1, 1918, to December 1, 1930, information to author from U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Urcon. (San Francisco office). . . January 1, 1931-September 1, 1931; U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. (San Francisco office). Butter, cheese, eggs, and dressed poultry. (Mimeographed daily one-page market reports.) Thousands of pounds 3200 JOOO 2800 2600 2400 2200 200C /SOO /600 /400 /200 /OOO 800 600 4CO 200 / / I \ / •/92Q \ \ /S>30 W L \ \ \ \ \ / Nf I!/ /^Avera ff e /92S-/929 \ :V ^*"^bLZ Cold-storage holdings of butter at San Francisco. Compare with Fig. 28 figure 27, noting the earlier season in California. During the 1930-1931 seasons, stocks in the coolers at San Francisco were abnormally large. (Data from table 72.) 134 University of California — Experiment Station During the 1929-30 storage season supplies at both San Francisco (fig. 28) and Los Angeles were normal, while during the 1930-31 season they were higher. On account of the importance of the storage movements to the industry several series of data are given (tables 69 to 72) and it is hoped that the dairyman and the student of the industry will study current data and compare them with those which have been published. TABLE 73 Cold-Storage Holdings of American Cheese, United States, 1915-1931 (Millions of pounds, i.e., 000,000 omitted) Year Jan. 1 Feb. 1 Mar.l Apr.l May 1 June 1 Julyl Aug. 1 Sept. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 1915 29 24 32 31 1916 29 19 13 8 7 7 16 32 47 50 46 37 1917 32 22 16 10 8 12 34 68 92 91 78 75 1918 67 56 38 28 18 20 30 49 56 42 33 26 1919 20 15 10 7 6 12 38 63 77 81 73 63 1920 53 44 34 23 17 14 30 52 60 55 49 40 1921 34 25 17 14 13 ' 18 35 41 47 45 43 34 1922 28 21 15 11 11 15 33 47 54 49 41 37 1923 34 27 21 14 14 18 37 56 64 62 58 55 1924 50 41 35 28 26 27 45 66 76 73 68 59 1925 49 42 35 28 26 30 46 67 77 79 72 66 1926 58 50 43 38 36 39 54 74 81 78 72 64 1927 55 46 39 35 32 36 50 67 70 65 59 53 1928 48 42 37 32 30 37 54 73 84 82 82 74 1929 68 58 50 45 42 48 63 78 87 85 78 71 1930 63 54 48 42 39 49 70 89 87 85 79 71 1931 63 54 48 42 41 42 58 69 69 Sources of data: 1915-1927, U. S. Dept. Agr. Cold storage holdings. U. S. Dept. Agr. Statis. Bui. 26: 9, 1928. 1928-1930, U. S. Dept. Agr. Storage holdings. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. Cheese. — Storage holdings of American cheese in the United States differ from those of butter in that there is far less range between the high and low points, which is partially explained by the ripening process through which cheese goes. The into-storage movement usually begins in May when production is increasing and continues until the peak is reached on September 1. Beginning in October, the production declines rapidly and the out-of-storage movement begins. Holdings exhibit considerable regularity seasonally throughout the year (table 73). There was nothing to indicate an abnormal situation during the three years 1928, 1929, and 1930 except for the fact that during the spring of the two former years, coolers were not emptied to the extent that they had been previously. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 135 TABLE 74 Indexes of Seasonal Variation in Cold-Storage Holdings of American Cheese, United States Jan. 1 103 May 1 40 Sept. 1 163 Feb. 1 82 June 1 48 Oct. 1 158 March 1 60 Julyl 97 Nov. 1 141 April 1 44 Aug. 1 143 Dec. 1 121 Source of data: Calculations by author based upon data in table 73. TABLE 75 Cold-Storage Holdings of Cheese, Los Angeles, 1923-1931* (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Jan. 1 Feb. 1 Mar.l Apr. 1 May 1 June 1 Julyl Aug. 1 Sept. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 1923 1,328 1,555 1,206 865 669 477 888 1,241 1,770 2,103 2,062 1,884 1924 1,421 1,222 1,049 605 389 596 1,501 1,851 2,097 2,092 2,015 1,998 1925 1,732 1,362 1,077 745 763 810 1,143 1,109 1,307 1,051 1,016 940 1926 786 577 384 303 262 640 1,112 1,622 1,828 2,014 2,242 2,275 1927 2,031 1,707 1,366 1,171 872 755 1,037 1,343 1,556 1,557 1,539 1,568 1928 1,533 1,063 747 471 334 568 698 1,107 1,857 1,795 1,302 1,330 1929 1,119 960 612 488 347 418 660 1,095 1,314 1,597 1,724 1,590 1930 1,350 1,118 851 606 662 1,028 1,500 1,813 2,038 2,202 2,207 2,239 1931 2,043 1,491 1,110 870 765 1,051 1,760 1,972 1,950 * Data published every Monday for holdings of preceding Friday, to the first of the month. Source of data: Figures taken on date nearest U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. (San Francisco office). Butter, cheese, eggs, and dressed poultry. (Mimeographed daily one-page market reports.) TABLE 76 Cold-Storage Holdings of Cheese, San Francisco, 1923-1931 Year Jan. 1 Feb.l Mar.l Apr. 1 May 1 June 1 Julyl Aug. 1 Sept. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 1923 724 562 436 337 387 525 748 1,006 1,060 858 1,156 716 1924 841 619 503 416 278 315 688 1,233 1,475 1,534 1,730 1,419 1925 1,240 998 905 687 455 416 444 979 1,279 1,297 1,202 1,089 1926 877 794 563 394 376 334 449 808 904 1,005 933 905 1927 833 607 492 398 295 471 535 737 998 924 919 778 1928 564 538 443 412 275 195 260 454 593 618 518 481 1929 432 307 257 255 240 239 330 484 546 573 578 590 1930 592 418 359 316 360 366 564 1,038 967 923 879 821 1931 744 542 338 167 210 452 583 722 626 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. (San Francisco office), poultry. (Mimeographed daily one-page market reports.) Butter, cheese, eggs, and dressed 136 University of California — Experiment Station As California produces only a small percentage of its necessary cheese supplies, the storage situation is perhaps influenced more by out-of-state than by local production (tables 73 and 74). Holdings at San Francisco and Los Angeles lag behind the country as a whole, the low point (first of month considered) usually being June 1 and the high point usually October 1. The largest out-of-storage move- ment occurs from February to April before the flush of the milk season in the country. Higher prices generally prevail for milk destined for cheese factories when stocks are low and vice versa. Stocks in the coolers at Lcs Angeles (table 75) were high throughout 1930 while those in San Francisco were greater than during the pre- vious three years (table 76). Concentrated Milk. — Table 77 and figure 29 show clearly the situa- tion during the latter part of 1929 with respect to holdings of con- centrated milk. Both production and consumption of concentrated milk increased during 1929 but the former showed a greater increase than the latter with the result that stocks on hand increased to record proportions. Millions of pounds 360 260 Z40 220 200 /eo /60 MO /ZO too BO 60 40 /. // \ \ \ I9Z 4 / f/ ,/" ■■"■■ — \ \ / / f // .' * > *»«.^^ \. X ^* / 4 tU Avt rage / 925- 19k ? 9 \ s 7 \ .--' * $ Fig. 29. — Stocks of concentrated milk in storage, United States. Note the large supplies in storage during 1930 and 1931 when compared with the average for the five years 1925-1929. (Data from table 77.) Bul. 514] Dairy Products 137 TABLE 77 Total Manufacturers' Stocks of Condensed and Evaporated Milk in the United States, 1920-1931 (Millions of pounds, i.e., 000,000 omitted) Year Jan. 1 Feb. 1 Mar. 1 Apr. 1 May 1 June 1 Julyl Aug. 1 Sept. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 1920 123 107 137 237 226 218 244 246 275 315 303 275 1921 239 181 136 104 118 178 233 235 174 178 172 189 1922 189 176 156 142 146 174 188 162 158 123 87 69 1923 68 80 84 101 127 171 190 194 228 226 211 191 1924 191 155 138 127 143 200 288 282 243 203 180 160 1925 123 91 91 111 141 193 188 195 213 207 186 166 1926 156 136 118 115 128 154 228 242 242 207 175 138 1927 101 80 70 67 83 149 230 277 301 281 257 208 1928 174 148 119 100 125 159 244 232 212 212 204 192 1929 176 154 132 127 151 201 281 347 335 310 301 284 1930 261 221 192 185 203 255 291 323 302 270 271 253 1931 239 190 166 180 206 270 318 316 Sources of data : 1920-1925: U. S. Dept. Agr. Total manufacturers' stocks of condensed and evaporated milk in the United States on the first of each month. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925: 1077. 1926. 1926-1931: Dairy and poultry products. U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. DOMESTIC TRADE IN PRODUCTS OF THE DAIRY INDUSTRY Dairy Cattle. — While the exchange of dairy products is obvious, there are perhaps few who appreciate the magnitude of the dairy- cattle trade in this state. Until comparatively recent years shipments of dairy cattle into California have been more or less limited to pure- bred animals, which have contributed largely to the producing abili- ties of the grade animals in the state. With the increase of California's population, together with the difficulties and expenses involved in raising calves on dairy farms supplying market milk, has come an importation of both grades and purebreds from other states. Records of shipment kept for the five years, 1926-1930 (table 78), show the following numbers sent in from other states: 1926, 16,822; 1927, 21,047; 1928, 25,300; 1929, 26,426; 1930, 22,706. The shipments have originated in from twenty-two to twenty-seven other states and during three of the five years cattle were sent in from Canada (table 78). Oregon, Idaho, Utah, and Ari- zona have contributed the largest numbers. Dairy cattle from the first-named state have been distributed over a comparatively wide area in California; this also holds true of cattle shipped in from Nevada. 138 University of California — Experiment Station H o co o m co c© ■* -H i-H CN — ( CO i-i OS t- t^ rtOeo-Hcoocoo T3 cc) a> « s c «! «3 O O O _Q O J2 = WS 73 3 S 8 H .3 .8 .1 s s a s s a c3 oj ^3 "-H »-s J*! r 1 J Ocjcdcucdcdcjo o o Bui,. 514] Dairy Products 139 C* -H O rt lO © t- OS O (N CO^fOOO^HfOC^I'-l'O ^3 © © o 00 © © CO 05 © 0<-iOOOOOcO>0 CO o o o .3 -2 Sf 5 5 a R -3 g § g 8 5 t-, « o « a) *- .5 a; ►* ^ ►r> 140 University of California — Experiment Station The majority have been shipped to southern California, counties. In this market-milk-producing section, calf raising' is costly, and re- placements are made from sections where feed is cheaper. Approxi- mately two-thirds of the animals shipped in from outside the state were required for replacements and additions to the herds of Los Ang*eles County (table 79). A situation such as exists in this county is not unique to California; similar conditions on a smaller scale have been observed in populous areas of other states and Europe. 46 TABLE 79 Origin of Interstate Shipments of Dairy Cattle into Los Angeles County, 1925-1930 State Number of animals originating in states 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 Total for six-year period Arizona Colorado Idaho Iowa Illinois Kansas Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri Montana Nevada New Mexico Oklahoma Oregoa Texas Utah Washington. ... Wisconsin Wyoming Totals 3,673 572 1,387 1 40 26 227 1,384 49 77 217 7,653 3,063 1,953 2,317 35 259 24 20 1,301 132 1,113 1,135 338 70 11,760 791 2,435 4,403 19 60 47 289 52 1,587 78 2,554 598 487 13,454 2,515 1,627 4,493 126 41 164 531 356 336 1,481 156 3,522 573 262 24 16,207 3,390 2,844 5,429 9 974 340 677 250 111 1,441 91 4,532 761 232 21,081 973 2,336 3,924 597 480 362 338 175 26 29 1,213 102 4,932 1,445 264 17,196 14,405 11,767 21,953 10 19 1,697 40 616 913 2,094 857 408 140 7,250 559 18 ,037 4,561 1,660 365 87,351 Source of data: L. M. Hurt, D. V. M., Los Angeles County Livestock Inspector. Idaho, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington in the order named have most largely contributed to the needs of the Los Angeles dairymen for additions and replacements. Data in tables 78 and 79 do not check exactly for Los Angeles shipments because of the fact that the data cover periods which are not exactly comparable. Large numbers of cattle are also sent into Los Angeles County from other California counties (table 80). Out of approximately 46 Laur, Ernst. Die Betriebsformen der Landwirtscliaft. [Types of farm management.] xii + 287 p. Verlagsbuchhandlung Paul Parey, Berlin. 1920. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 141 117,000 dairy cattle shipped into this county during the six years 1925-1930, over one-fourth, or 30,000, had their origin in California. The San Joaquin Valley counties have delivered the largest numbers for this trade (table 80). TABLE 80 Intrastate Shipments of Dairy Cattle into Los Angeles County, 1925-1930 Number of animals originating in counties County 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 Total for six-year period Alameda 103 25 427 60 256 391 23 57 185 357 452 391 175 141 11 4 306 50 854 15 4,283 59 314 93 89 461 278 765 27 112 319 229 815 225 202 259 55 78 402 948 340 6,070 6 127 55 23 21 214 23 54 374 26 410 134 1,373 581 81 122 44 208 19 200 1,171 8 5,274 2 31 226 100 28 267 13 56 516 31 30 19 12 413 350 996 669 405 93 42 91 31 276 67 44 847 5,655 49 142 47 620 157 169 583 58 10 23 463 246 49 491 328 26 62 25 244 49 13 820 72 4,746 236 20 33 354 203 51 560 6 718 201 955 245 15 35 42 77 226 2 21 4,000 6 Butte 49 Colusa 188 Contra Costa 31 Fresno 1,076 Glenn 308 Humboldt Imperial 171 2,343 Inyo 456 Kern 864 Kings 3,189 Madera 145 225 Merced 29 Modoc 12 Monterey 23 Orange 2,508 Riverside 1,517 Sacramento San Bernardino 3,685 3,312 1,436 522 229 San Mateo 15 Santa Barbara 139 Santa Clara 91 25 Siskiyou 279 533 206 952 Sutter 50 90 Tulare 4,866 437 Yolo 21 Totals 30,028 Source of data: L. M. Hurt, D. V. M., Los Angeles County Livestock Inspector. It would perhaps be mutually advantageous if dairymen in regions of plentiful feed realized the needs of the market-milk producers in feed-deficient areas. Health regulations are becoming increasingly 142 University of California — Experiment Station important throughout the state. Los Angeles County has recently passed an ordinance requiring that all cattle shipped in (except for slaughter) be free from tuberculosis and originate in herds with less than 10 per cent reactors. Stringent regulations have been passed with reference to tuberculosis within Los Angeles County; on Feb- ruary 21, 1930, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance pro- hibiting the production or sale of milk for human consumption from cows reacting to the tuberculin test within the confines of the county. This latter ordinance became effective April 1, 1930. An ordinance effective January 1, 1931, required that market cream be produced from cows free from tuberculosis. One of the limiting factors in supplying the requisite number of animals from within the state has been the prevalence of tuberculosis in many sections (see fig. 38, p. 183). In addition to being free from tuberculosis and other diseases, animals destined for market-milk pro- duction in the more populous centers should possess a high potential producing ability. In view of the fact that California cows generally do possess a greater ability to produce, the dairy industry would profit by pur- chasing cows from within the state; also other gains, such as savings in transportation, would usually result. Several counties in the state are making efforts to stamp out the disease completely, and it is probable that in the future more of the dairy-cow replacements may be purchased in California. Butter. — The distribution of human and dairy-cattle population is such that the semiperishable and canned products of the dairy industry (butter, cheese, and concentrated milk) loom large in trade channels. These can be produced in the localities possessing the greatest possible advantages (or the least possible disadvantages) for the product in question. While California and the other western states place butter on middle western and eastern markets, for all practical purposes the eleven western states can be considered an entity. In the eleven western states, California with its large urban population is the dominant factor affecting demand. There is a deficiency of butter and cheese and a surplus of concentrated milk in this state. Complete statistics on interstate movements of butter from and to California are not available over long periods. References in the press and comments of long-established wholesalers imply that such shipments have occurred since the fifties. That shipments of butter from eastern points before the War at times played a considerable Bul. 514] Dairy Products 143 role on California markets can be readily seen by observing the press quotations on eastern butter. Since butter from outside the state is sent largely to either the Los Angeles or the San Francisco markets, statistics on shipments into the state are readily obtained at present (tables 81, 82). There is but little doubt that during the period for which such data are obtainable the state has become increasingly dependent upon outside supplies, approximately one-third of the butter consumed in California being shipped in from other states. During the five years 1928-1930, however, changes have been slight. TABLE 81 Domestic Receipts of Butter at Los Akgeles by States of Origin, 1925-1930 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) State of origin California Colorado Idaho Illinois Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada New York Oregon Utah Washington Wisconsin Other states Totals Per cent from states other than California 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 23,422 22,011 20,692 22,659 17,069 875 749 603 748 936 8,555 13,101 13,224 12,946 15,335 144 21 104 410 26 1,541 1,935 1,048 1,280 1,405 115 16 27 550 589 499 280 202 236 6 1 1,196 1,922 805 497 1,263 1,219 1,952 3,513 3,799 4,928 1,157 1,620 1,229 1,096 813 294 45 9 24 210 87 133 141 218 42,350 39,924 44,033 41,768 43,455 41.3 50 50.5 47.9 59.7 1930 16,155 1,057 16,678 48 1,618 54 2,468 4,509 1,272 156 44,015 63 3 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, Calif. The largest amounts of outside receipts generally occurred during the months of the national surplus production of creamery butter — May, June, July, and August. The smallest amounts arrive during the first four months of the year, when, in comparison with monthly total receipts, California offerings form by far the largest percentages of the totals. March and April are sub-normal months for butter production in the country as a whole and are the last months of the out-of-storage movement. On account of the early season, a con- siderable volume of butter is placed in storage in California during May, while in the United States in its entirety the storage movement is just starting. 144 University of California — Experiment Station Actual statistics on the origin of butter supplies on the San Fran- cisco (table 82) market are available since 1921, while similar mate- rial for Los Angeles (table 81) is complete since 1925. The largest part of the out-of-state butter on the combined San Francisco and Los Angeles markets originates in the states west of the 100th meridian — Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Montana, Colorado, and Washington being the largest shippers. TABLE 82 Domestic Receipts of Butter, at San Francisco by States of Origin, 1922-1930 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) State of origin California Colorado Idaho Illinois Iowa Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada Oregon Utah Washington Other states Canada Totals Per cent from states other than California 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 23,352 21,805 22,984 21,587 20,701 18,976 17,732 19,070 120 30 21 545 192 406 260 159 402 502 490 1,043 1,191 1,722 1,255 1,361 118 1 204 51 24 237 74 172 268 339 441 165 155 361 700 1,895 2,331 2,173 2,150 1,222 46 25 47 349 55 77 33 81 388 293 258 252 63 113 74 42 585 1,177 948 1,195 2,306 2,253 1,796 2,748 136 179 158 98 95 223 384 134 332 682 606 469 327 300 182 231 157 117 26 284 4 25 1 107 316 326 25,916 25,511 26,411 28,752 27,604 26,709 24,032 25,155 9.9 14.5 13 24.9 25.0 29.0 26.2 24.2 1930 18,110 93 1,223 2,018 87 184 2,489 35 495 5 24,739 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, Calif. The origins of butter supplies on the Los Angeles market are of interest because of the great amount originating outside the state and the large number of states contributing. There have been two decided trends in the origin of supplies received — shipments from the outside have increased, California shipments have become less. Less than 50 per cent of the Los Angeles butter supplies now originate within the state (fig. 30). Two states, Idaho and Utah, furnish the bulk of the butter originating outside the state. San Francisco, being closer to the centers of butter production in the state, receives a smaller proportion of butter from outside states than does Los Angeles. Approximately 75 per cent of the shipments to San Francisco have their origin within the state ; during the nine years 1922-1930 this has declined slightly (fig. 31). In the But,. 514] Dairy Products 145 Thousands of pounds ■eooo /929 /950 Fig. 30. — Butter receipts at Los Angeles, 1925-1930. Evidence points to a steady upward trend in the quantities of butter received from outside of California for this period, with a decrease of that originating within the state. Note the tendency for the receipts originating in California to arrive in the early spring. Out-of-state receipts are heaviest during the summer months. (Data from table 81.) Fig. 31. — Butter receipts at San Francisco, 1922-1930. From 1922 to 1927 there was evidence of an upward trend in butter receipts originating outside the state. Since the latter date there has not been a pronounced trend. A pro- nounced trend in California receipts is not discernible. Note the seasonal fluctua- tions in both California and out-of-state receipts. (Data from table 82.) 146 University of California — Experiment Station first part of this period, through 1927, there was a relative increase in the amount of offerings from the outside, but in the three years 1928-1930 the tendency was checked. An average of between two and three million pounds of butter on the average have been shipped out of the state for the past few years, through 1930, a large part of which is exported to foreign countries on a quality basis. Often small shipments find their way to the Chicago', New York, and Philadelphia markets. During the late winter and early spring California production is relatively larger and the differential in price between California and eastern markets causes shipments to be made. This was the case in the winter of 1930-31. Total receipts at San Francisco have shown only a slight upward trend since 1910, because large amounts of butter have been manufac- tured within the city. In addition it is probable that supplies destined for the East Bay cities of Alameda County were formerly routed through San Francisco more frequently than at present, Records at Los Angeles would undoubtedly show a phenomenal upward trend since 1910, though since 1925 there have been no pronounced increases in the amounts of butter received (table 81). It is probable that data for Los Angeles are not complete, owing to the difficulties involved in obtaining information on truck shipments. Above-normal receipts on the San Francisco market now occur during the five months April-August inclusive. In studies made by the author 47 it was shown that the receipts have been changing season- ally; the greatest changes have occurred during March, April, June, July, August, and September. In general the tendency has been to reduce the relative receipts during the first four months of the year with the exception of February, and to increase them from June to December, excepting the two months of August and November. From the evidence at hand it would appear that the tendency for June and July to show higher percentages is due to the fact that larger amounts of butter enter the state during these months. At Los Angeles the same tendency with reference to receipts is apparent (fig. 30). Cheese. — The concentration of cheese production throughout the country makes for a trade of considerable magnitude. A study of the receipts of the larger markets, together with the production statistics of the country, reveals the fact that Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent New York, dominate the cheese trade of the country. While the 47 Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437-39. 1927. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 147 eleven western states are practically self-sufficient in butter produc- tion, evidence based on data for the five years 1925-1929 indicates that large amounts of cheese are shipped into the area from middle western and eastern states, and in addition considerable amounts have been imported through Pacific ports from foreign countries. Thousands or pounds 2000 /eoo /600 MOO /zoo /ooo eoo 600 1 3 S'J a' ,, CO CD o *7i on O « H> H 2SSw PS- 00 CD pi • JLg S W « < p p g *3 r+ O S CO ►> co o ^T "* H- BJ jr M P P d ^ Wo rt> i-j 09 ^ *d o o ►>* £© =T a?P *^ | cd 5 s 8 2-1 •"O 1^ ^ P" CD CO p {2 CD p 3 v~>q ro p Z* »- 8 -* m O W(t! P H( p M 3 r-t- 35 Kj K <*i cm ^ 4^ <*, 156 University of California — Experiment Station Foreign price movements exert an influence on the market for milk and its products, because this country has been dependent for some time upon foreign markets for the disposal of a part of the concentrated-milk output, and at the same time butter, cheese, and fresh milk and cream usually have been imported. Production and consumption of dairy products within the United States are so closely balanced that a delicate adjustment tends to prevail between domestic and foreign prices, and developments in world prices de- termine the limits within which domestic prices may advance or decline. These influences can be readily seen by a study of figure 35. In the years following the War, dairy production was recovering throughout Europe and increasing in the newer countries, e.g., New Zealand, Australia, etc., where it had been greatly stimulated. In 1922, butter prices had become relatively so low in European mar- kets that butter was imported into this country after paying an 8-cent import duty. Germany, after the stabilization of her currency in 1923, began to absorb imports equal to the pre-war volume. This influence had a marked effect on the butter prices in Europe, wiping out the differential in favor of New York, and substituting for a time one in favor of Europe. Certain developments in the importing markets caused the differential again to change and widen, espe- cially during 1926. Until the first months of 1930 this wide differential in price in favor of the United States continued. The weakness of prices abroad during this latter period was due to several factors: first, increased production of butter in the exporting countries; second, increased supplies forced into consumption at a lower price, which was brought about in part by the prolonged labor troubles in Great Britain; and third, larger domestic supplies in some of the butter-importing countries, notably Germany. Prices in the United States broke precipitously during December, 1929, and beginning in January, 1930, the differential between world prices and domestic prices was less than it had been since 1925. At the same time butter prices abroad weakened materially. If the present relative position of prices is maintained it will perhaps mean a cessation of butter imports into this country and a greater opportunity for exports. Central America and the West Indies constitute the major markets for cheese from this country (table 89). During the past few years the small exports to South America have dwindled to an insignificant amount. The Far East has never been a market of any considerable magnitude for cheese because the demand comes largely from for- eigners and those who have lived abroad. The idea has been advanced that there might be a market in the Orient for cheese, especially in Bul. 514] Dairy Products 157 China, by educating the native population to eat it. The exports of cheese from the United States to the Far East have decreased consid- erably since 1926. In view of the higher price of dairy products in the United States this movement could be expected. The United States, Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, France, and Italy supply the Chinese market with cheese, the United States furnishing the larger amounts. Japan manufactures some small amounts of cheese and imports from the United States have been decreasing. TABLE 87 United States Foreign Trade in Cheese, 1922-1930 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 Imports Denmark Finland France Greece Italy Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom Canada Argentina New Zealand Other countries... Total 93 210 379 270 265 479 655 795 435 112 516 1,324 411 400 3,259 5,121 4,444 5,567 5,424 4,678 6,663 5,948 782 1,456 1,817 1,491 2,570 2,334 2,788 2,071 16,628 28,034 31,256 33,829 35,026 31,938 38,008 32,602 2,254 2,498 2,899 2,937 3,471 3,696 3,712 3,196 12,011 16,982 13,632 15,993 16,736 19,066 18,564 18,839 268 797 319 288 258 455 145 140 6,351 3,105 984 209 11,835 13,268 7,488 8,279 3,913 4,343 1,048 89 232 595 140 165 4 1 445 320 33 339 687 1,010 1,873 1,518 1,297 2,054 1,963 2,490 81,403 3,260 46,573 64,420 59,176 62,402 78,420 79,796 76,382 742 408 4,983 1,830 33,258 2,541 17,947 382 3,143 190 68,311 Exports Canada 321 332 1,294 1,345 25 188 95 1,407 757 349 920 1,474 75 134 98 4,524 173 359 872 1,146 116 122 100 1,411 1,301 420 1,001 1,057 148 246 112 4,914 248 441 797 850 130 187 115 1,135 424 429 613 648 64 246 118 868 155 402 522 365 60 138 148 810 172 502 576 295 79 115 ' 122 785 2,646 197 Panama 449 Mexico 325 Cuba 122 Peru 51 China 31 Philippines 134 Other countries 656 Total 5,007 8,331 4,299 9,199 3,903 3,410 2,600 1 964 Sources of data: 1922-1924: Wulfert, M. A. International trade in butter and cheese. U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. Foreign and Dom. Com. Trade Promotion Series, Bui. 31: 21-22. 1926. 1925-1927: Wulfert, M. A. United States foreign trade in dairy products for 1928. U. S. Dept. Com. Rpts. 1929: 351-352. 1928-1929: Wulfert, M. A. The foreign trade of the United States in dairy products. U. S. Dept. Com. Rpts. 1930: 706-707. 1930 data furnished to author by M. A. Wulfert, U. S. Dept. Com., Washington. D. C. 158 University of California — Experiment Station The bulk of the cheese imported into the Philippines has its origin in the United States and the Netherlands with smaller quantities coming- from Switzerland and Australia. Approximately 125,000 pounds annually are imported from the United States. The bulk of the United States' exports in the Pacific area goes to the Hawaiian Islands, and they account for a fourth or a fifth of the imports. The Islands consume over 2 million pounds annually. The imports of cheese constitute the most important single item in the foreign trade of the United States in dairy products. Cheese imports have been large since the War, amounting to over eighty million pounds in 1928 (table 87). Italy some years supplies nearly one-half of these, and Switzerland, Canada, France, the Netherlands and Greece also furnish appreciable amounts. The most important item among the dairy products exports from the United States is concentrated milk. The United Kingdom and the Philippines mainly, with Cuba, Mexico and Central America, China, Japan and Malaya are the importers (table 88). TABLE 88 United States Exports of Concentrated Milk. 1922-1930 (Millions of pounds, i.e., 000,000 omitted) 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 19 28 19 4 3 3 8 5 7 91 187 34 31 28 5 4 5 12 5 6 64 194 29 62 34 5 4 4 16 4 7 41 206 29 31 19 5 4 5 19 6 7 23 148 23 5 18 4 5 3 18 7 5 27 115 27 13 5 3 3 20 5 7 20 103 27 * 14 5 3 4 23 7 8 24 115 17 18 5 4 3 25 5 8 25 110 13 Cuba 10 5 3 Peru 3 25 3 8 21 Total 90 * Less than one million pounds, ource of data: U. S. Dept. Commerce U. S. Bur. Foreign and Domestic Commerce, information to the author. Exports of powdered milk have been erratic. They constitute but a small part of the country's production. During certain years, imports, originating chiefly in the Netherlands and Canada, exceeded exports so that the additional product was forced to find a domestic market. During the seven years 1924-1930 exports and imports have been as follows : Bul. 514] Dairy Products 159 Year Exports 1 (th ousand pounds) Imports (tin ousand pounds) 1924 5,529 1,870 1925 3,649 5,430 1926 2,661 5,224 1927 3,326 6,828 1928 4,016 3,895 1929 5,342 4,186 1930 6,223 2,603 The largest partakers of American exports are the West Indies, Central and South America and the Far East. The tariff (Hawley-Smoot Tariff) on various dairy products is shown in table 91. It will benefit the dairymen only if domestic demand is equal to, or in excess of production. A tariff under ordinary circumstances is of little benefit if the country is on an exporting- basis. The differential existing between American and European butter prices until the early part of 1930 was due in no small measure to the tariff on butter. California's Share in Foreign Trade. — The Pacific Coast produces a small fraction of the dairy products of the country, yet the exports for the five years 1925-1929 accounted for approximately one-third of the total value of exports of dairy products from the United States, California exports making up about one-fourth of the total. From the standpoint either of value or of milk equivalents, con- centrated milk constitutes the largest amount of exports both from the county and the Pacific Coast. Unlike the trend for the United States as a whole during the past few years, California ports have exported increasingly large amounts of these products (through 1929). With the exception of exports to Cuba this trade is largely with areas bordering the Pacific Ocean, especially the Philippine Islands, British Malaya, and China. With but few exceptions butter exports from California, have been larger than imports. This would be especially evident if the exports to Hawaii were added to the totals shown in table 89. About 50 per cent of the water shipments from San Francisco and Los Angeles during recent years have been consigned to Hawaii, where butter from the mainland competes directly with that from New Zealand. The latter country has an advantage in freight rates over Pacific Coast ports. Mexico, Central America, the west coast of South Amer- ican countries, and Japan also obtain considerable quantities of the product exported from California. Competition is upon the basis of quality on account of the higher prices of the California product. 160 University of California — Experiment Station O t3 O 0> 1 1 u 03 13 o> 0> T3 is o3 — '3 Irs ■*seo«ifliOrH»i(5m(N CNcocotot-oxmcooi'* CN cD>0"fl fl o o •n c 03 0> o ft o3 > fl O 973 2,067 2,427 1,487 1,116 6,231 4,125 3,625 2,777 2,244 8,308 6,768 17,026 16,643 18,564 25,967 30,904 29,827 26,616 32,147 35,190 28,500 c.5 I s ■5.2 fl;3 O 03 coo OS OOrtO* * 00 t^ CO CO 02 CO rtio-*-^io^'*o»0'-ic>qoooo O^tNCNrHOcNCOOJI^NCMcOiOTCOOOSOliH OOOONOCOiO'- lOr^—'— lOOCO COO^OiOiOCOCOCNlCNICNICNCNlcNCNlC^CslcOt^ l^U5lO»0-*lCOCOCO— ICN fl.S is "5.2 pa O o3 COQ to o^*-cooocDOH— -(— 0200COCO ionO'- n-om>Ht<:o)*oio ^H .-< t-h ,— I .-I ,— I CN CO "3 CO ■<* •* -^< CO >-i CM CO 0»0-*iCOCN "3 PQ 03 03 >-. 0<2 ~* 633 433 388 591 309 171 205 235 735 81 90 143 280 47 105 1,648 2,112 785 597 202 713 1,046 907 1,168 1,081 1,082 885 1,074 839 1,073 1,254 955 ■5.2 O 03 coo GO OONlOlOiOCO'"ll>OINCD>0>'JO>+ — 1— © CO CN CO OOiCOOOr-lNCO'SCoaiCOCOM ,-H HrfNO »-l CO CO fO ■*■*■* •"! CC CO N co o cj fl'o 03 fl CO o3 u ©» 625 426 383 586 304 165 201 220 73 76 85 139 272 47 105 1,638 2,099 763 292 194 698 1,016 869 1,167 1,044 1,033 840 1,031 820 1,036 1,189 833 CJD fl C <3 o> u fl oS'-s 5 - z c c c s s 3 c 1 - eg c 1- = 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 Calendar years 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 *5 IS I! *1 o fl S .« 03 fl ■— u o o § o O) c2 -fl £ +j o> m -A CO g § Si ,— I 02 > -' •• CN«*-i fl o3 o> O Bui*. 514] DAIRY PRODUCTS 161 A considerable part of the export butter is packed in tins, on account of the great distances of shipment and climatic changes. Since Cali- fornia butter with its superior quality has been able to compete with other butter (especially in South America) in spite of the differential between the world and domestic prices, it seems reasonable to expect a more favorable position for the California product should world prices improve. Imports of butter through California ports have fluctuated greatly, and since 1925 have been small (table 90). Cheese exports from the ports of the state have always been of minor importance. Hawaii receives the bulk of the exports, the larger part of the remainder goes to China, the Philippine Islands, Mexico, and Central America. Cheese imports through the state's ports, on the other hand, are of considerable magnitude. Before the War these had reached over 3 million pounds in one year. From 1919 to 1925 a steady increase occurred but since the latter year there has not been a noticeable trend in either direction. The imports originate in the main in Europe, particularly in Italy and France. Undoubtedly the foreign population of the larger centers contributes appreciably to this demand for foreign cheese. In view of the large amount of dried milk manufactured in Cali- fornia it is not surprising that during some years that has been a considerable export of this product. Shipments in the main go to Hawaii, the Philippines, China, and Japan, although in some years exports of an appreciable magnitude are cleared for Europe. The question of increasing the exports of dairy products to the Orient is one which apparently interests producers and manufacturers of the entire Pacific Coast. Thus far the condensed and evaporated milk trade has been augmented but that in butter and cheese remains small. Difficulty in obtaining supplies of fresh milk in the Orient unquestionably has been responsible for a large proportion of the former trade, and evidence points to the inclusion of canned milk in the diet of some of the peoples of the Orient. Experimental ship- ments of fresh milk and cream have not as yet demonstrated the feasibility of attempting to supplement the local supplies (in amounts of commercial significance) with shipments from the Pacific Coast. Ice cream is apparently gaining in favor but consumption is still almost negligible. Any increase in the exports of either butter or cheese to the Orient will materialize only through the medium of education as to the value of these products and the cultivation of a liking for them. In addition, prices cannot be prohibitive in the 162 University of California — Experiment Station countries to which they are sent, 49 If a trade should develop, the Pacific Coast states would have to meet severe competition from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in supplying these products. TABLE 90 General Imports of Butter and Butter Substitutes, Cheese and Cheese Substitutes, California Customs Districts, 1900-1930 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year ending June 30 Butter and butter substitutes Francisco Southern California Total* California Cheese and cheese substitutes San Francisco Southern California Total* California 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 Calendar years 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1 19 57 1,638 248 1,024 489 378 2,158 620 536 84 606 114 115 1 214 1 1 1 19 57 1,638 248 1,024 489 378 2,158 620 750 84 607 114 1 115 1 1 632 805 881 1,083 1,326 1,344 235 1,900 1,665 1,529 2,359 2,407 2,682 1,567 3,290 2,812 1,855 376 76 62 1 69 196 962 1,193 2,015 2,307 2,107 1,896 2.199 2,220 2,160 15 6 10 50 26 10 209 126 160 121 178 290 314 494 153 53 16 3 2 4 9 22 97 203 371 439 545 514 845 759 746 647 811 881 1,083 1,376 1,370 245 2,109 1,791 1,689 2,480 2,585 2,972 1,881 3,784 2,966 1,909 392 79 64 5 77 219 1,059 1,396 2,386 2,746 2.652 2,410 3,045 2,979 2,906 * Total California is the sum of amounts appearing under San Francisco and Southern California — columns 2 plus 3 and 5 plus 6. Sources of data: U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. Foreign and Dom. Com., Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900-1929. 1930 information furnished to the author by the Dept. of Commerce. 49 Crocheron, B. H., and W. J. Norton. Fruit markets in Eastern Asia. Cali- fornia Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 493:1-366. 1930. Buu 514 Dairy Products 163 THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN DAIRY PRODUCTS The types of dairy product originating in different countries and the demands for them are so dissimilar that it is necessary to discuss individually each of the three chief products entering into interna- TABLE 91 Tariff Bates on Dairy Products and Substitutes Products Tariff Act of 1922 Tariff Act of 1930 Whole milk, fresh or sour 2j^c per gal. (a) 20c per gal. (a) 23^c per gal. (a) lc per gal. (a) lc per gal. lc per lb.(c) l l Ac per lb.(c) \%c per lb. 3c per lb. 7c per lb. lj^c per lb. 1>2C per lb. 20 per cent ad valorem 12c per lb.(e) 8c per lb. 5c per lb.(/; but not less than 25 per cent ad valorem. 2 x Ac per lb. 63^c per gal.(fc) 56-6/10c per gal. (b) 2-1 /20c per gal. (b) 2-l/20c per gal.(b) 2-l/20c per gal. Milk, condensed or evaporated— in airtight containers: Unsweetened l-8/10cperlb. 2%c per lb. All other 2-53/ 100c per lb. Dried whole milk 6-l/12c per lb. 12-l/3cper lb. 3c per lb.(d) 3c per lb. (d) Malted milk, and compounds or mixtures of or sub- stitutes for milk and cream Butter 35 per cent ad valorem 14c per lb. 7c per lb. but not less than 35 per cent ad valorem. (a) Provided, That fresh or sour milk containing more than 7 per centum of butterf at shall be dutiable as cream, and cream containing more than 45 per centum of butterfat shall be dutiable as butter. (b) Provided, That fresh or sour milk containing more than b l A per centum of butterfat shall be dutiable as cream, and fresh or sour cream containing more than 45 per centum of butterfat shall be duti- able as butter, and skimmed milk containing more than 1 per centum of butterfat shall be dutiable as whole milk. (c) In hermetically sealed containers. (d) Provided, That dried skimmed milk containing more than 3 per centum of butterfat, and dried buttermilk containing more than 6 per centum of butterfat, shall be dutiable as dried whole milk; and dried whole milk containing more than 35 per centum of butterfat shall be dutiable as dried cream. (e) Original rate under Tariff Act of 1922, 8c per pound; increased to 12c per pound by proclamation of the President, March 6, 1926, effective April 5, 1926. (/) Rate on Swiss cheese increased to 7>^c per pound but not less than 37 l A per cent ad valorem by proclamation of the President, June 8, 1927, effective July 8, 1927. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. tional trade. The trade between producing and consuming countries experienced an upheaval during the World War, wdiich is still causing difficulties. Butter. — During the five years 1909-1913, an average of approxi- mately 700 million pounds of butter was annually placed upon the 164 University of California — Experiment Station world market. 50 The bulk of the international trade in butter in the year just before the War was between European countries, although Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina had become factors of some importance (table 92). During the World War yearly ship- ments dropped as low as 206 million pounds. The destruction of dairy cattle and the scarcity of feedstuff's throughout Europe caused dairy production to be curtailed. With the close of the War the world trade began to be resumed somewhat upon the old lines. European production gradually in- creased as feed became plentiful and cheap. Outside of Europe pro- duction had been stimulated, and in 1923 the butter entering into the international trade was equal to the pre-war amount. Since that time offerings in the interntional marts have risen appreciably, In 1927 over a billion pounds of butter were sent from the countries of manufacture. The United States, Germany, France, and Denmark are the world's largest producers of butter, although a study of the world trade reveals that these countries do not rank in this order in the export trade. The leading exporters are Denmark and New Zealand. The Netherlands, Russia, the Irish Free State, Argentina, Australia, and the Baltic republics of Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania constitute the other chief exporting areas. For a decade or more prior to 1923 the increase in butter supplies came largely from the Southern Hemisphere — New Zealand, Argentina, and Australia. Since the latter date the larger actual and relative amounts of butter placed in the export trade of the world have come from Europe (table 92). Den- mark and the Netherlands have again reached and exceeded the pre- war export levels. Russia did not reappear on the world markets until 1923 and exports are still relatively low, although there has been a marked increase since 1923. The former Baltic possessions of Russia — Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — together with Poland, have given evidence of a greatly increased butter export since the early part of the present decade. Of late Sweden has shown a tendency to approach in volume the exports of pre-war years while France has changed from a net import basis to a net export basis. Before the War, as well as at present, the United Kingdom was by far the world's largest market for butter, taking approximately 65 per cent of the world exports. After allowing for reexports, the amount of imports retained for consumption was approximately 700 million pounds in 1929 against 616 million pounds in 1925, 570 million in 1924, and 452 million in 1913. so Wulfert, M. A. International trade in butter and cheese. U. S. Dept. Commerce Trade Promotion Series 31:51. 1926. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 165 <*- S- cr c= 02 a _ ~ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 2 1 COtOtOtOtOtOtOtOtOtOtOt— ■— i— h-i—i— 11— i— >►— *- OIOOOMfllCnifctOMw01000M»Cn*t>!M>-0 p > TO OC04».4»-050i05CT50>Cn4».4».>*»-tO>— h- CD tON^N^tOCnM^vjOOCnMMUOOOOOOOUO) 3 5' p g tOCOi— '^JOOtCi— >OlOtOCOCO>*>.^I^Il— 0>"M(CttiWOOHifkNjooM!DMlOCn(»^01NOOQO p" CD B WUCOUtOMtOMMtd*-' mMMMMmmh -jtnro>-osNilki- >oo50oooooi— to *- o oo co c© CO O OS OS tO I— 'MOmWHihMOIh 4> O >— ' OO 00 Cn p ►1 K" £^£ 00^lCniCn>*».O5*->-> : g p 5. coocoocntoostorf*: : £■" p p s CD i-l Oi ct> 02 os o» 4> o* :::::::::::::: O « w oi O) tn m ; : ; : : : ; : : ; j : ; Cfico' sr c p M cd •a o 3 £ wwMWhsici-MMM to to to to to to 3] 00S.>*>.05 CnOOOOOOOOOfllH CD p a CO ts H-ooo>050iOO > *^4^tOOWeOi^tC*-*.»f».(*»-t*>.00(*k COCOtOC*5K-COtOOOi>-'C^icOOOC©0~-ICOtOt04>.0 CL g HilfflMOlOliIkH: *- I— i M » O M c CnO^JWcooicOn-: co co to ►— » co >**■ CO p' * cd 01 «(i CO rfi M IO « IO 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- Oincoi— oootocico: : ; ; is to to u h co oo a. CD 3 a cd to to to to to to ►- *- _. h- coco*^jc*3h-»--^— m : : : : : 1 oocaioeauoocoMiocoM: : : : : o co >*>. co p << o £g i ^MOisiaoiOiCniU'Ui-'MMtoto^i^i^^itkik ^l*-00CnCnO.C»S»*».cn.U0000 -vI-vlO5tOt0CT>tO>— QOUil-l^tOtJOJl 166 University of California — Experiment Station co P O M CO Oi H fe k1 « W < H M 1 "8*8 T-lcDr^C»TtlOO-* l 05C<)cDt^t^-»tl0J(M00OOcO00 'S =* *'<(<'*'t»lOnH HN-*O00O5t^00»OC t^coiOior^oascccocoO-Hos— i N ■* n co « m ■* NNMNNOJNMNNMMNWmeotOMMOSn M >> a OQ e3 s coor^oo : : : :h«5nwho)ios«) <-, •<* t* tjh io : : : : : : iioMOOTtiicM^M o a 0> S «> o c NoooNfflNtoNHieHino^oioii^tiHe 03 t-. ■*'*'*ifl'**fiHHHWw®inw'*n'*^iooiooioiNM'nro!ONincD(DNaiO N »3 T3 a o3 M ■* ^ «cooOT*ieor^O»CTt— i it" M N N t» - lO— <0 .a s (h fc O a x W '03 00-— iOO(MCOC005(M>-(CJ»OT*— i HHNnMmpjraitnira £ 03 73 c3 ^-cC^Ttl>OlO000i'-lO I* C CO M ■* ur. EC tv. or O" C * oo t ie «c t*«. 00 o- a -* — 1 a ac a at o- a o- OS cr OG cr CT ~ a 'O- a as cr cr cr cr 2 •§ 5 i <« o o o O Bul. 514] Dairy Products 167 Germany in pre-war years was second only to the United Kingdom as a butter-importing country, the imports amounting to an average of 111 million pounds annually during the five years 1909-1913. During the period from the close of the War until the summer of 1924 the imports of butter were small for economic reasons. With the stabilization of German currency in 1923 the imports reached the pre-war level in 1924, and during 1929 amounted to almost 300 million pounds, or 26.5 per cent of the world's exports. The United Kingdom and Germany combined accounted for almost 92.0 per cent of the world's exports of butter in 1929. A considerable amount of this increase has come about through the decrease in domestic pro- duction, which is lower than during pre-war years, The butter im- ports into other countries are comparatively small. Cheese. — The volume of world trade in cheese is not so large as that of butter (table 93). During the period 1909-1913, approxi- mately 530 million pounds represented the volume of the world trade. The pre-war level was reached in 1923 and a steady increase has taken place since that time, but not as great as that of butter. Pre- vious to the latter date increases were larger in New Zealand and Canada, Since the latter date the increases have come largely from the European countries. The largest cheese producing countries are Italy, the United States, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, and New Zealand. Previous to the World War, Canada was the greatest exporter ; this position has been taken by New Zealand, which is now (1930) followed by the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Switzerland and France. Concentrated Milk. — At the opening of the century the volume of international trade was relatively small. A gradual increase occurred from 1900 to 1913. Before the World War European countries were the chief exporters of concentrated miik. With the changed conditions during the War period the European exports declined and in turn the exports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand expanded to large proportions. Since the War the European countries have been rebuilding their dairy industries and subse- quently their condensaries and the international trade has tended to revert to the pre-war channels. The United Kingdom is by far the principal market for con- centrated milk but there is not a country in the world that does not consume concentrated milk in some form. Cuba, British Malaya, 168 University of California — Experiment Station Germany, the Dutch East Indies, France, South Africa, India, Peru, Japan, the Philippine Islands and China receive appreciable quantities. TABLE 94 Head of Cattle and the Number of Cows in Various Countries Country Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile Costa Rico Czechoslovakia Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Great Britain Greece Hungary India Irish Free State Ireland, northern Italy Japan Jugoslavia Latvia Lithuania Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway. Poland Roumania Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine Union of South Africa Union of Socialist Soviet Republics United States Uruguay Year 1922 1927 1923 1929 1920 1926 1930 1925 1927 1925 1930 1928 1928 1928 1929 1930 1928 1930 1927-28 1930 1930 1918 1927 1928 1923 1928 1926 1921 1930 1928 1929 1928 1924 1928 1926 1925 1921 1929 1931 SpeciOcation Milk cows Dairy cows Cows Milk cows Cows and heifers Milk cows Milk cows Cattle Cows Cows Cows Cows Cows Cows Milk cows Cows in milk, heifers in calf Cows Cows Cows Cows and heifers in calf Cows in milk, heifers in calf Milk cows Milk cows Cows and heifers Cows Cattle Cattle Cows in milk or in calf Dairy cows Milk cows Cows Cows in milk Dairy cows Cows Cows Cows Cows and heifers Cows Milk cows Cows and heifers Number of dairy cows, thousands 3,295 2,289 1,075 912 18,500 92 3,683 1,021* 137 2,332 1,633 404 1,301 8,118 7,019 3,123 303 908 37,911 1,312 256 3,071 71 1,641 580 1,086 1,440 799 5,348 1,551 612 1,865 876 3,800 2,264 30,341 22,975 4,356 Total cattle, thousands 37,065 11,617 2,162 1,738 34,271 1,817 8,937 1,918 478 4,691 3,101 651 1,916 15,005 18,008 7,079 910 1,778 120,379 4,038 673 6,240 1,474 3,654 891 1,199 5,585 2,063 3,766 221 057 436 420 587 000 202 68,069 58,955 8,432 Per cent of cows as com- pared with total cattle 19.7 49.7 52.5 54.0 5.1 41.2 53.2 28.7 49.7 52.7 62 1 67.9 54.1 39.0 44.1 33.3 50.9 31.5 32.5 38.0 49.2 4.8 44.9 65.1 52 6 38.2 65.4 59.0 35.0 17.9 64.4 55.2 47.5 36.5 44 6 39.0 51.7 * Cattle over three years. Sources of data : International Institute of Agriculture. International Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics, 1928-29, and International Institute of Agriculture. International Monthly Crop Report and Agricultural Statistics, monthly issues. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 169 THE FOREIGN DAIRY SITUATION Dairying is of importance in almost all of the occidental countries in both the northern and southern hemispheres (table 94) . The industry was one of the first in Europe to begin re-establishing itself after the close of the War in 1918. The trend of imports and exports in butter and cheese will be found in tables 92 and 93. The foreign dairy situation in the various countries concerned with international trade is briefly described in the following paragraphs. Every dairyman should realize that the production of dairy products is scattered around the world. In all probability, on account of foreign competi- tion the United States will never become important from the stand- point of markets abroad, except insofar as such markets may demand a high quality of product or absorb products from countries which send large amounts into international trade. In the United States tariff changes may upset the present balance and it is well for the farmer to know of the present and potential supplies of products. Argentina, — From the standpoint of climate, location, and other natural conditions Argentina is one of the potentially great dairy lands of the world. In spite of the inland transportation difficulties, Argentina, in common with the other nations exporting dairy prod- ucts, experienced the greatest growth in dairying during the War period. The reasons for the increase in dairying were the high prices received during the War years and the fact that wheat, corn, and meat prices fell shortly after the close of the War. The British gov- ernment purchased the available output of butter during the latter part of the War. Even though dairy conditions still are primitive, for several years dairying was more profitable than either grain growing or cattle raising. Exports of butter, which reached a peak in 1924, were approximately ten times greater than they were during the immediate pre-war period. Cheese manufacture, negligible before the War, rose rapidly during the War, exports of cheese reaching a total of almost 20 million pounds in 1919. The manufacture and exports of casein rose rapidly during the post-war period, Argentina being the world's largest exporter. The larger part of these casein supplies has been absorbed by the United States. From 1926 through 1929 there has been a steady decline in the butter exports. Exports of cheese have also declined ; during the past few years they have been exceeded by imports. 170 University of California — Experiment Station Argentina is an example of a country in which supplies of dairy products can be greatly increased, provided economic conditions are favorable. Milk is produced primarily from the beef breeds. When beef production is more profitable than dairying, fewer farmers milk cows, and vice versa. Australia. — Taken as a whole, Australia is not favored as a natural country for dairying, and dairy products constitute scarcely one-fifth of the total value of agricultural production. Along the east and south coasts there are large areas with suitable soil and climate for dairying. From the beginning of the century until the immediate post-war period numbers of dairy cattle increased over a million head, the production of butter and cheese doubled, and the pro- duction of concentrated milk and milk powder gave evidence of a decided swing upward. 51 Since 1921, there has not been a decided trend of butter exports in either direction, although there are large variations between years (table 92). In 1922 Australia furnished 20 per cent of the world's exports and during the very next year only 11 per cent, These variations in exports are caused largely by weather conditions, for even in the coast districts dry seasons occur. Cheese exports have never assumed great importance. Canada, — So vast are the resources for dairying in Canada that there is little apparent relation between the physical possibilities of expansion on the one hand and on the other the very moderate gradual increase now in progress in the volume of dairy production and an actually declining national surplus of dairy products. With a slightly greater total area than that of continental United States, Canada has developed a dairy industry only one-tenth as great as ours. 52 There is a tendency for Canadian farmers to utilize the agricultural resources of the country in the production of grain and meat, resorting to dairying only under economic pressure. From the standpoint of trade, cheese, fresh milk, and cream are of outstanding importance. At the close of the Civil War in the United States, Canada began to export cheese. These exports reached a peak in 1902-03 when 234 million pounds were exported. From 1901 until 1913 Canada was the world's largest exporter of cheese. Since the peak there has been a steady decline in exports, and at the present time Canada ranks below New Zealand and Holland. Exports to the United States have amounted to as much as one-sixth of the total imports into this country. The development of this cheese export si Sorensen, S. Mejeriburg paa den sydlige. Kalvkugle. [Dairying in the Southern Hemisphere.] 1-112 figs., 94 p. Copenhagen, Denmark, 1925. 52 Brookens, P. F. The competitive position of the dairy industry of Canada. 23 p. (mimeographed) U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. August, 1929. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 171 trade has been recent. The exports of dairy products from Canada into the United States have taken the form chiefly of fresh milk and cream. These are imported largely into the northeastern part of the United States. Brcokens states that in recent years these imports of cream and milk have together contained sufficient milk fat to have made approximately 20 million pounds of butter annually. Until 1925 Canada was a net exporter of butter. Since the latter year the export has given way to a net import, which in 1929 amounted to some 36 million pounds. One of the causes for this change has been the increased exports of fresh milk and cream to the United States. The latter have been materially decreased by the Tariff Act of 1930. The deficiency in butter in Canada has been made up largely by imports from New Zealand. The new import duties of the United States may again change the character of this trade by forcing fresh milk and cream to be used for manufactured products. The Canadian concentrated-milk industry increased its exports almost six fold from 1914 to 1920. Since the latter date there has been a gradual falling off in this trade. Denmark. — With an area less than one-tenth that of California, Denmark is by far the greatest butter-exporting country in the world, furnishing approximately one-third of the international exports. Comparing the number of cattle in Denmark with numbers in other countries it will be noted that the total in the small kingdom is not large (table 94). The country has a small human population com- pared to that of cattle, consequently a large surplus of dairy products is available. During the three years 1927-1929 over 89 per cent of the butter produced was exported. Contrary to popular opinion, the dairy industry of Denmark has loomed large only since the 1870 's, and the increase in the number of dairy cattle has been gradual. A large part of the increase in the total dairy production has come from the gain in the production per cow. 53 This augmentation in numbers and production would not be possi- ble if the kingdom were forced to depend upon locally grown supplies of feed. No inconsiderable amounts of oil cakes and grains must be imported to supply the necessary feeds for the dairy-cow population. The effect of the curtailment of these supplies of raw materials was shown at the time of the War when the production of milk fat was decreased matcriallv. 53 In 1928-29 over 34 per cent (34.4) of all of the cows in Denmark were in cow-testing associations. In the past twenty-five years the production per cow has Increased over 26 per cent. (Nielsen, M. Kontrolforcningcrne i Danmark. [Cowtesting associations in Denmark.] Ugeskrift for Landmaend. 75:305-307. Copenhagen, Denmark, 1930.) 172' University of California — Experiment Station Denmark has specialized in high-quality butter, and every effort has been made to maintain and even improve quality. Exports began to assume importance about fifty years ago and reached a high point before the War in 1915, when 224 million pounds were exported. The War, with its interference with commerce, cut down the flow of con- centrated feeding stuffs into Denmark and the exports of butter. At the close of the War exports began to accelerate and the 1915 record was surpassed in 1923 (table 92). In 1930 a total of 379 million pounds was exported. The reasons for the great increase in production and hence in exports are not difficult to discover. Until the early part of 1930 butter prices on the world markets were steady and relatively high compared with the prices of other agricultural products. As a result of the fall in price in 1930 it is doubtful whether the increase in production of the recent years will continue. Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. — Since 1922 the former Baltic provinces of Russia have added to butter exports at a phenomenal rate (table 92). On account of boundary changes, comparisons with pre-war periods are not possible with this group of countries. In the case of Latvia the average for the four years 1911-1914 was slightly over a million pounds while during 1929 the total was above 33 million pounds. Reports from American consular officials and personal observa- tions of the author indicate that in these largely agricultural lands, conditions are such that dairying is capable of expansion in the future provided economic conditions are suitable. Although butter is at present the main product, there are possibilities of making cheese and developing a fresh milk and cream trade. At present the larger part of the exports of these three countries enter Germany. Finland. — Prior to the War Finland exported butter in quantity, the peak of shipments being reached in 1905 with approximately 33 million pounds. The World War and civil war afterwards caused the exports to fall precipitously. After the cessation of hostilities butter exports began to climb, reaching a new peak in 1930. Unlike butter exports, those for cheese began to climb somewhat later, reaching the highest point in 1916. The post-war recovery was rapid, a high point of 6% million pounds occurring in 1926. The upward trend since the latter date has not been continued. France. — As with many other food products, France is almost self-sufficient in dairy products. While the production of milk, butter, and cheese looms large, the foreign trade is small. Slight export balances occur in milk and butter, which are partially offset by an import balance in cheese. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 173 Germany. — The reappearance of Germany on the world market afforded a much needed outlet for the increased supplies of butter and cheese originating in most parts of the world, especially in Europe. The increase in butter imports since 1923 has been rapid, and during the past five years the average was higher than it was before the War. Boundary changes have had some little influence in making for larger imports. The number of cattle in Germany show only slight changes from the pre-war levels. From 20 to 25 per cent of the world's cheese imports are taken by Germany. Although these imports are from two to three times larger than they were before the War, there has been little change in the total volume during the past five years. The bulk of the imports are supplied by the Netherlands, lesser amounts coming from Switzerland and Denmark. Germany does not loom large in the concentrated-milk trade of the world, although imports are now double what they were prior to the War. Irish Free State. — Since exports have been recorded separately from those of Great Britain, they have shown a tendency to increase, but at a lesser rate than those of many of the other European countries. Italy. — Italian cheese exports are of direct concern to the United States, as this country is now the chief market. The large number of Italians resident in the United States has had an influence on Italy's ex-ports. Exports amount to only a relatively small fraction of the total production, as domestic cheese consumption is high. Netherlands. — Dairying is one of the oldest and greatest of the Netherland industries. Over seventy-five years ago (1850) the exports of butter and cheese totaled 26 million and 49 million pounds respec- tively. As with the other countries of northwestern Europe, dairying has recovered from the effects of the War. The surplus of the last few years of both butter and cheese has exceeded any of the pre-war years. The concentrated-milk industry has shown a decidedly upward trend in production during the post-war period, the exports rapidly displacing those of the United States in the European market for concentrated milk. The increase in the four years 1925-1928 was approximately 50 per cent. Factory methods have been applied to (! airy-manufacturing activities, and as a result the Netherlands appear to be in a strongly intrenched position in dairy-industry markets. New Zealand. — The export trade in cheese has shown a rapid growth since 1910 (table 93), but the spurt in butter exports came at the close of the War. Prices were relatively high, European dairying 174 University of California — Experiment Station had been crippled temporarily, and New Zealand butter for a time made up the deficiency in the world supplies. Cheese production and exports increased more rapidly than those of butter prior to 1920. Since the latter date there has not been a marked trend in the produc- tion or exports of cheese, although the island commonwealth ranks next to the Netherlands in world shipments. Concentrated-milk pro- duction has never been large and it is doubtful whether New Zealand will become a serious competitor in this trade. Poland. — Prior to the War the development of the dairy industry in Poland depended largely on the economic policy pursued by the alien governments. At the present time efforts are being made to increase the output of dairy products. That this effort has been successful is shown by an increase in butter exports from slightly over a million pounds in 1926 to over 33 million pounds in 1929. Russia. — Prior to the war, Russia loomed large in the world dairy markets. The separation of Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland from the former empire makes comparisons over a series of years impossible. The section of present Russia which exports butter is Siberia, and although exports have had a tendency to increase since 1923, they were at least two-thirds larger just prior to the War, 54 showing that Siberia has potentialities for butter production. From the standpoints of flavor and texture Siberian butter has an excellent reputation in Europe. Sweden, — Sweden has changed its position from an exporter of butter to an importer and then back again to the role of an exporter. During and immediately after the War, on account of the decreased domestic supplies and increased per-capita consumption, butter was imported in no small amount. Supplies then began to increase rapidly, exports showing phenomenal increase since 1921 (table 92). Switzerland. — The mountain republic is both an exporter and an importer of dairy products; butter is imported, but the markets for cheese and concentrated milk are world-wide. Butter imports have been fairly steady since the War, being larger than before 1919. Exports of cheese have steadily increased since the latter date but as yet have failed to reach pre-war levels. The United States takes the larger share of Switzerland's cheese exports. Switzerland was one of the first countries in the export field for concentrated milk. The pre-war levels of shipments have not been reached. • r »4 Koefoed, C. A. Siberien som Smorproducent. [Siberia as a butter pro- ducer.] Landbrugsraadets Meddelelser 192:5:782-792. Copenhagen, Denmark. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 175 United Kingdom. — Tables 92 and 93 give some indication of the importance of the United Kingdom and Germany to the world 's dairy industry. Both nations have absorbed most of the increase in the world's exports of butter since 1923. The actual imports since 1924 are not as large as they appear to be in table 92 on account of the separate statistics now used for the Irish Free State. Even discount- ing this, however, the imports have been far larger during the past five years than they were during pre-war years. The United Kingdom is more dependent upon outside sources than before the War; at the present time only about 11 per cent of the butter sold is of domestic origin. The United Kingdom absorbs over 50 per cent of the international exports of cheese, by far the larger part originating in New Zealand and Canada. Only about 25 per cent of the cheese consumed is pro- duced at home. While the cheese imports have shown some tendency to increase, the rate has been far slower than that for butter, and during the seven years 1924-1930 there has been but little change. The United Kingdom is likewise the leading importer of concen- trated milk. During the six years 1924-1929 the net imports of con- centrated milk have been from three to four times as great as they were during the five-year period 1909-1913. OLEOMARGARINE Relation to Butter. — In the analysis of the dairy industry a con- sideration of animal and vegetable oils cannot be ignored. The rapid increase in the production of the latter has presented problems to the dairy and swine industries. Both classes of oils have been manu- factured into compounds generally referred to as oleomargarine. The product in its original form was produced as a substitute for butter, but by large sections of the population, especially in Europe, it is also used as a. lard substitute. The partial displacement of butter by oleomargarine is an estab- lished fact. 55 At the time of the taking of the census of 1890 oleomar- garine consumption was 3.1 per cent of that of butter consumption (1889), but in 1929 the percentage was 16.2. Production in the United States. — Since oleomargarine has been almost exclusively produced in factories bearing a federal tax, pro- duction data are accurate and readily available. During the War 55 Snodgrass, Katherine. Margarine as a butter substitute, p. 333. Stanford University Press, Stanford University, California, 1930. 176 University of California — Experiment Station and immediate post-war period production was greatly accelerated, between two and three times more being produced in 1920 than in 1916 (table 95). If the somewhat abnormal years 1917-1921 be omitted, it will be noted that there has been a steady and relatively rapid upward trend in production since 1904. There can be but little doubt that it has gained far more rapidly than has butter production. TABLE 95 Production of Oleomargarine in the United States, 1888-1930 (Millions of pounds, i.e., 000,000 omitted) Year* Production Year Production Year Production Year Production Year Production 1887-88 34 1897 46 1906 55 1915 146 1924 240 1888-89 36 1898 58 1907 71 1916 153 1925 215 1889-90 32 1899 83 1908 74 1917 233 1926 248 1890-91 44 1900 107 1909 92 1818 327 1927 257 1891-92 44 1901 105 1910 142 1919 359 1928 295 1892-93 67 1902 126 1911 121 1920 391 1929 333 1893-94 70 1903 73 1912 129 1921 281 1930 349 1894-95 57 1904 50 1913 145 1922 191 1895-96 51 1905 52 1914 144 1923 209 * Years end June 30. Sources of data: 1888-1923: U. S. Dept. Agr. Oleomargarine production and consumption in the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook. 1927. 1088, 1928. 1924-1928: U. S. Dept. Agr. Oleomargarine production and consumption in the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook. 1928: 999, 1929. 1929, 1930: data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Washington, D. C, to author. By far the largest part of oleomargarine in the United States is produced in Chicago and vicinity. In 1929 there was a considerable production in California, New Jersey, Ohio, and Kansas. Production in the first-named state has come about largely through the imports of coconut oil from the areas of the Pacific Ocean Basin. Vegetable oils from noncontinental United States have been rapidly displacing domestic animal fats in oleomargarine manufacture. In the year ending June 30, 1930, over 62 per cent of the fat was from vegetable oils originating elsewhere. Coconut oil is now the most largely used of such oils. Claims have been made that the change from an animal to a vegetable oil has been responsible in some degree for the increase in consumption. This statement lacks definite proof. Consumption in the United States. — Considering only the long- time trend, the per-capita consumption of oleomargarine has risen rapidly (fig. 36 and table 96). Although there was a decided falling off in the per-capita consumption during the period immediately Bul. 514] Dairy Products 177 following the War, since 1922 there has been a decided upturn (table 96). This increase has been relatively greater than any increase which can be claimed for per-capita butter consumption (table 34, p. 70). Parallel with the increase in the consumption of oleomargarine in the United States has come a wide use in northern Europe, particularly the Scandinavian nations, Germany, the Netherlands, arid the United Kingdom. TABLE 96 Per-Capita Consumption of Oleomargarine in the United States, 1887-1930 Year Pounds Year Pounds Year Pounds Year Pounds 1887 35 1898 73 1909 99 1920 3 49 1888 53 1899 1 04 1910 1 51 1921 2 58 1889 54 1900 1 36 1911 1 26 1922 1 73 1890 49 1901 1 30 1912 1 32 1923 1 85 1891 67 1902 1 54 1913 1 48 1924 2 11 1892 65 1903 81 1914 1 46 1925 1.87 1893 0.97 1904 54 1915 1 42 1926 2.12 1894 97 1905 53 1916 1 47 1927 2 17 1895 68 1906 51 1917 2 23 1928 2 46 1896 64 1907 0.76 1918 3 11 1929 2 74 1897 57 1908 81 1919 3.28 1930 2 84 Sources of data: 1887-1908: U. S. Dept. Agr. Oleomargarine production and consumption in the United States, U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook, 1924:892, 1925. 1909-1926: U. S. Dept. Agr. Oleomargarine production and consumption in the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook, 1926: 1087, 1927. 1926-1927: U. S. Dept. Agr. Oleomargarine production and consumption. U. S. Dept. Agr. Year- book, 1928:999, 1929. 1929-1930, information to author from U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., Washington, D. C. Consumption in California. — Since dealers in oleomargarine must be licensed and a federal tax is levied on the product sold, accurate information on consumption can be obtained for the state. Since 1919 there has been a steady increase in the amount of oleomargarine sold and in the apparent per-capita consumption in California (table 97). The per-capita consumption in this state is approximately double that of the nation ; between one-fourth and one-fifth as much oleomargarine as butter is consumed. Part of this increase in California has been realized through ex- tended advertising. The manufacturers in this state have utilized vegetable oils in the production of oleomargarine and so have not had to overcome the prejudice against a product made from animal oils. Monthly data for this state during the six years July 1924-June 1930 indicate that larger sales for oleomargarine are made during the months of relatively high prices for butter, and vice versa. 178 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 97 Total Sales and Per-Capita Consumption" of Oleomargarine in California, 1919-1931 Year ending June 30 Pounds of oleomargarine sold Population of California January 1 Apparent per-capita consumption, pounds 1 2 3 4 1919 6,945,467 10,538,639 13,633,522 10,938,234 12,481,326 16,034,620 14,611,538 19,561,087 17,922,107 21,251,622 24,496,192 27,126,799 23,730,164 3,310,000 3,430,000 3,570,000 3,720,000 3,900,000 4,100,000 4,300,000 4,530,000 4,800,000 5,070,000 5,360,000 5,650,000 5,937,000 2.10 1920 3.07 1921 382 1922 2.94 1923 320 1924 3 91 1925 3 40 1926 4 32 1927 373 1928 4.19 1929 4 57 1930 4.80 1931 4.00 Sources of data: Col. 2: Bur. of Dairy Control, Calif. Dept. Agr. Col. 3: Calculations by David Weeks, Division of Agricultural Eco- nomics, University of California. Col. 4: Items in col. 2 divided by items in col. 3. TABLE 98 Monthly Production of Oleomargarine Expressed as Percentages of Total Annual Production, United States, 1920-1929 Year 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926. 1927. 1928 1929. 1930 Jan. 10 11.0 8 8 9 2 10.7 8.2 9 3 8.2 8 3 8 3 10 Feb. 10.0 7.9 8.2 Mar. 10.2 10.9 8.6 9 3 9.7 8.2 9 2 9.2 8.6 9 8.0 Apr. May 9.7 6.5 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.5 7 3 7.6 7.5 8.6 7.6 June 6.7 4 1 6.7 6.3 6.6 6.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 8.5 6.7 July 5 1 6.6 5.8 6.6 68 6.8 6.2 6.8 8.7 6.4 Aug. 7.4 6.4 7.5 7.5 8.4 7.1 Sept. Oct. 8.5 9.9 9.7 9.9 8.7 11.0 8.9 9.4 9 6 7.1 Nov. 8.2 8.7 10 4 9.9 7.4 10 4 9.6 9.4 9.6 7.3 9.1 Dec. Total 100 100 100.0 100 100 100 100 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 Sources of data: Computations by author based upon data in following: 1920-1925, U. S. Dept. Agr. Oleomargarine manufactures by months. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1926:1088, 1927. 1926-1929, information from U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. to author. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 179 Price Relations Between Butter and Oleomargarine. — There is a high degree of correlation 56 between the wholesale prices of butter and oleomargarine. It is generally admitted that the price of the latter product is based upon that of the former. Relatively high butter prices seem to make for a. high production of oleomargarine and vice versa (table 99 and fig. 37). A mere inspection of the statistics of the per capita butter consumption (table 34) would indicate that the period 1917-1921 was below normal, while the money price was high. Figure 36 clearly indicates that during these same years there was an above normal consumption of oleomargarine. Pounds 5.0 /69Q /900 /9/0 J9ZO /9BO Fig. 36. — Apparent per-capita consumption of oleomargarine in the United States, 1888-1929 and in California, 1919-1929. The long-time trend in the apparent per-capita consumption has been upward. Since 1919 California has increased its per-capita consumption more rapidly than the United States. (Data from tables 96 and 97.) During the summer the prices of butter and oleomargarine tend to be closer together than during the winter. This is because oleomar- garine prices fluctuate less with the seasons than do butter prices. 56 Coefficient of correlation r = 0.843, based upon wholesale prices of 92-score butter, New York, and wholesale prices of oleomargarine, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data for period 1913-1924 was used. In calculating cycles of prices, three-year moving averages of both butter and oleomargarine were employed. The relation would remain intact had Chicago instead of New York prices been used. 180 University of California — Experiment Station A comparison between the retail prices of butter and oleomargarine in the United States and in Los Angeles and San Francisco (table 99) clearly indicates that the oleomargarine prices have declined relative to butter prices especially from 1926 through 1930. Snodgrass 55 states that this cheapening of oleomargarine has been going on since 1915. Per cent of yearly producr/on - - A - 1 \ /V" ■Suffer cOfe omarga ine \ A / ' * 1 \ h ' V \t ry- — - v hA \ 1 / \ V s^* % - - - i 1 i i 1 1 i /*f >/ J At /92T M J I9za M J 3 J929 Fig. 37. — Monthly production of creamery butter and oleomargarine in per- centages of total yearly production, 1927-1929. While the amounts of butter and oleomargarine vary from month to month and from year to year, the season for oleomargarine manufacture is generally the reverse of that for butter manu- facture. The largest amounts of oleomargarine are manufactured during the fall and winter months, but the largest production of butter occurs during spring and summer. Note that oleomargarine production shows less fluctua- tion than that of butter. (Data from tables 21 and 98.) In this fact undoubtedly lies the principal reason for its greater use now than formerly. A comparison between tables 99 and 100 indicates clearly that the retail price of butter declined to lower levels in 1931 than did the retail prices of foods in general. The same is true of oleomargarine. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 181 ^ s > g ^ CO OC ^1 OS Cn >*»■ CO s co (o ifr w s CO Cn OS OlOiMOOS^tOSl-OO^lSlfOOtO ^ >- M 10 M H M CO to CO ^1 -J to to CO CO to to Cn to ►*>■ CO 4^ -vl >*>. Cn to CO Cn 01 Cn Ci Cn cn CO N k3 ^1 M O M Cn Cn OO CO Cn CO CO CO I— » OS CO CD O CO OO totototococococococofit': to *»■ cn ^1 1— 1— to co >*•» 00 : Ol 00 CO bO CO S ^a^MSOisoiKitoooo): 3 5* o 3 5.? CO CO CO CO CO CO -J >*»• to Cn o O CO to to Cn cn O ffl * Ol M 3 So p' cOOOCOCOCOCOtOtO 00000 to o 00 CO CO O CO CO co to o Cn Ol O) C5 01 Cn to to CO *. h- CO oooooocoocoo>*»-co OOSOO^JCO-~4^4>— OO a os Si ae OS 02 00 so 10 aa OS os OS to ■VI v^< 00 4- Ol 10 a uo 00 uo 00 BC O0 0^ cn CO n B ,_, l— M So a> OS os OS 00 CO CO to CO n IO - 1 «►» ~J •v) a 10 --J to so >*>■ Cn 00 5 182* University of California — Experiment Station DISEASE IN DAIRY CATTLEs? No economic study of the dairy industry in California would be complete without some reference to disease which is of paramount importance. Tuberculosis and contagious abortion annually take a heavy toll from the monetary standpoint. Tuberculosis. — Dairy stock within the state of California have been found to be better producers than the majority of cattle which are shipped in from other states. For this reason and also because there would be a saving in time and freight charges, it would seem TABLE 100 Index Numbers Showing the Trend in the Eetail Cost of Food in the United States, 1913-1931 1913 = 100 Year Index number Year and month Index number 1913 100 102 101 114 146 168 186 203 153 142 146 146 157 1926 161 1914 1927 155 1915... 1928 154 1916 1929 157 1917. . 1930 .. 147 1918 1931 1919... 133 1920 127 1921 126 1922 124 1923 121 1924 118 1925.. . Source of data : 1913-1930: U. S. Dept. Labor. Index numbers showing the trend in the retail cost of food in the United States. Mo. Labor Rev. 32: 197. 1931. Current data in U. S. Dept. Labor — Prices, Wholesale and Retail, monthly issues. desirable that stock necessary for replacements and additions in various parts of the state be purchased within the state. Until recent years most of the dairy cows brought to southern California originated in the central and northern sections of the state. Estimates by the Federal and State Bureaus of Animal Industry indicate that the percentage of tuberculosis in cattle is relatively high in some sections of California (fig. 38). Splendid progress is being made in the work of Area Eradication of tuberculosis. To date the following counties have been declared Modified Accredited Areas : r >" This section on disease is based largely upon a paper furnished the author in January 1931 by Dr. J. P. Iverson, Dept. of Animal Industry, California State Dept. Agr. Bul. 514 Dairy Products 183 184 University of California — Experiment Station Modoc, Lassen, Tehama, Plumas, and Shasta, Area Eradication is also well under way in Siskiyou and Santa Cruz counties and results of tuberculin tests indicate they will soon be declared Modified Accredited Areas. 58 A number of counties have passed ordinances to prevent the intro- duction of tubercular cattle. In view of this, dairymen in badly infected areas will probably experience difficulty in disposing- of their cattle for dairy purposes. The progress made thus far in tuberculosis eradication under the county or area plan has been accomplished without the payment of indemnity to owners of tubercular cattle. In 1929, however, the legislature made a provision in the Bovine Tuberculosis Law for the payment of indemnity for cattle slaughtered under the area plan of eradication. This section of the law requires that all dairy cattle in such areas be tuberculin tested. Beef cattle are not included. Funds for the payment of indemnity were made available at the 1931 session of the legislature. The Pure Milk Law, which has been in operation since 1915, has very materially reduced the percentage of tuberculosis in dairy herds and has been the means of encouraging thousands of dairymen to own disease-free herds. This law prohibits the sale of unpasteurized dairy products in any form unless the same be produced by cows regularly tuberculin-tested. The statute not only includes cows main- tained on dairies; family cows are likewise tested if milk is sold or given away to neighbors. During the year 1929, 10,229 herds, totaling 213,749 dairy cattle, were given the regular annual or semiannual test under the Pure Milk Law, and 80.3 per cent of the herds were found entirely free from the infection. The law requires that a tuberculin test be applied to a herd semiannually if infection is found ; otherwise annually. Intended as a measure to protect consumers, it has served to practically eradi- cate tuberculosis in many counties. 59 Cooperative efforts for the establishment of accredited herds has also freed many herds of tuberculosis. However, since so many thousands of herds were already being accorded state supervision 58 The Area Eradication provision of the Bovine Tuberculosis Law provides that a county in which this plan is in operation is declared a. Modified Accredited Area when the percentage of infected cattle is reduced to 0.5 per cent or less. 59 As examples of the effectiveness of this law in the eradication of tuber- culosis, the following counties may be cited: San Diego has about 11,000 dairy cattle. All of them are tuberculin-tested under the provision of the Pure Milk Law. The percentage of infection has steadily decreased in these herds until it is now reduced to approximately 0.5 per cent. Ventura is another county where this law has eradicated tuberculosis from dairy herds. The percentage of infection there is less than in San Diego. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 185 under the Pure Milk Law, the growth of accredited herd work in California has been nominal. It is believed that this state includes among its accredited herds some of the largest in the country. At the present time there are 303 such herds under supervision. 'Other Diseases. — In a publication of this type only a passing reference can be made to the enormous losses resulting from con- tagious abortion and other diseases. Information with reference to assistance in such matters can be obtained from the local office of the Agricultural Extension Service in the counties of the state. TABLE 101 Freight Rates on Butter, and Cheese in Cents Per 100 Pounds, June, 1930 To Los Angeles, Calif. To San Francisco, Calif. To Chicago, Illinois From L.C.L4 C. L.J Min. weight, pounds^ L.C.L4 C. L.J Min. weight, poundsl L.C.L.J C. L4 Min. weight, pounds^ Portland, Ore 128 181|* 164|f 184 243 227 255 272 184| 252 140 98 118 125t 166 186J 153 186* 211* 137* 227* 113* 105f 79* 68| 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 24,900 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 58 im* 96 H 116 175 224 231 272 1841 252 72 138 54 107|* 96 it 106 142 | 153 186* 2111 137* 227* 45 121* 103t 20,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 20,000 20,000 443 443 443 443 356 353 339 335 402 300 300 300 300 290 261 250 225* 263f 290* 250f 24,000 24,000 Seattle, Wash 24,000 24,000 Twin Falls, Ida 24,000 24,000 24,000 Ogden, Utah 24,000 24,000 24,000 Eureka, Calif 24,000 El Centro, Calif 20,000 20,000 * Butter. t Ckeese. J L.C.L.=less than carlots. C.L. = carlots. 1 Minimum weight =the least amount accepted for a car in order to obtain carlot rates. Source of data: Computations furnished author by H. A. Hinshaw, General Freight Traffic Manager of Southern Pacific Company, San Francisco, Calif. FREIGHT AND EXPRESS RATES Western States. — In the discussion of the relative advantages of California and other western states for dairy-products manufacture, the subject of transportation usually occupies a prominent place. In butter and cheese production for California consumption, shipping points in this state have a considerable advantage (table 101). On the other hand, shipments of butter eastward from California must bear heavier charges than similar shipments from the western states other than those in the Pacific Coast tier. An examination of table 186 University of California — Experiment Station 101 indicates that from the standpoint of transportation the Pacific Coast markets offer adva.nta.ges to the California producer compared with those in the Middle West or in eastern sections of the country. In addition to freight charges, refrigeration costs from and to various points must be considered. Refrigeration charges on butter and cheese are now based on the actual cost of the ice and salt used. The cost of ice per ton of 2,000 pounds on shipments originating at the following points or in the following states is : Oregon $4.50 California Washington $4.50 Imperial Valley $5.50 Idaho $4.00 Coachella Valley $6.50 Montana $4.00 Other points $4.50 The cost of salt at all of the above points is $0.75 per 100 pounds. SOURCES OF CURRENT INFORMATION ON THE DAIRY INDUSTRY Developments in the dairy industry generally have been sane and conservative. It is felt that the widest possible knowledge of condi- tions will assist in future developments along the same lines. The attempt has been made in this publication to give in as complete a manner as possible sources of information. It is hoped that dairymen and students of the industry will endeavor to keep the data up-to-date. No attempt has been made in the following list to give even a partial bibliography of the industry. Only those publications have been listed which are readily obtainable. Crops and Markets, published monthly by the United States De- partment of Agriculture, contains current statistics covering all phases of the dairy industry. The information consists chiefly of data on production, receipts, storage, and price data. From time to time estimates of the dairy-cattle population in the various states and in the country are made. This publication should be in the hands of everyone interested in the industry. Crops and Markets is issued monthly and can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, at the subscription rate of 60 cents a year. The Agricultural Situation, issued monthly, contains a. concise statistical summary of the production and apparent consumption of the more important dairy products. A brief summary on the dairy situation in the country is published regularly. The subscription price is 25 cents a year. Applications should be made to the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Bul. 514] Dairy Products 187 The Domestic Dairy Markets Situation (mimeographed), pub- lished monthly by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, contains information on the do- mestic and foreign dairy situations. This can be obtained free from the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C. The Agricultural Outlook for California, published annually by the College of Agriculture of the University of California, contains a brief but fairly complete summarization of both the national and local conditions surrounding the industry. This publication can be obtained free by applying to the local farm advisor's office or to the College of Agriculture, Berkeley, California. Butter, Eggs, Cheese, and Dressed Poultry (mimeographed), issued daily by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics at San Francisco, contains wholesale prices of butter on the principal markets of the Pacific Coast, together with selected markets in other sections of the country. Cheese quotations are published for San Francisco and for the Wisconsin primary markets. Cold-storage statistics for the nation and the Pacific Coast are published regularly. These daily reports are distributed free upon request to the office of the Bureau in San Francisco. The Weekly Review of the Butter Market at San Francisco (mime- ographed), issued by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics at San Francisco contains infor- mation concerning the trend and tone of the butter market at San Francisco and at other points. This report has a more limited appeal than some of the others. It is distributed free upon request. The Statistical Report of California Dairy Products is issued yearly by the Bureau of Dairy Control, California State Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, California. The latest information on the production of dairy products in California, is given in this publi- cation. It usually appears in May and June. Single copies can be obtained from the above address for 5 cents. A number of mimeographed reports such as the Review of the American Cheese Markets, the Fluid Milk Market Report, the Monthly Condensed, and Evaporated Milk Report, Milk Production Trends, and the Dry Milk Market Report are published monthly by the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The substance of these reports appear later in Crops and Markets. Any of the mimeo- graphed reports listed above will be sent free on application to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C. 188 University of California — Experiment Station World Dairy Prospects (mimeographed), issued by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics is of especial interest to those concerned with developments in foreign fields. This mimeographed report issued monthly can be obtained free from the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C. Monthly Export and Import Reports (mimeographed), published by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricul- tural Economics, are of especial interest to exporters and importers. Data on the quantities and destinations of exports and imports of dairy products and oleomargarine are published monthly. These re- ports may be obtained free from the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C. Articles on phases of dairying abroad which are of interest to the student of the industry appear semi-monthly in a mimeographed pamphlet issued by the United States Department of Commerce, World Dairy and Poultry News. This is part of a series of mimeo- graphed publications entitled Foodstuffs 'Round the World. An- other of this series, Canned and Dried Foods, published weekly, con- tains articles of timely interest on the concentrated-milk markets abroad. Information on subscription rates can be obtained from the Foodstuffs Division, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following organizations and individuals have given the author generous assistance in the preparation of this bulletin : The Bureau of Dairy Control and the Division of Animal Industry of the California State Department of Agriculture, The California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service, the Federal-State (California) Market News Service, the Los Angeles County Livestock Department, the Health Departments of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland, the California Dairy Council, the Division of Dairy and Poultry Products of the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Invaluable assistance has been given by producers of milk and by the distributors of the products of the dairy industry. Assistance is also acknowledged from George H. Garner, Techni- cal Assistant in Agricultural Economics and Donald M. Rubel for assistance in making statistical computations. STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BULLETINS No. 253. Irrigation and Soil Conditions in the Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. 263. Si»e Grades for Ripe Olives. 277. Sudan Grass. 279. Irrigation of Rice in California. 283. The ©live Insects of California. 304. A Study of the Effects of Freezes on Citrus in California. 310. Plum Pollination. 331. Phylloxera-resistant Stocks. 335. Cocoanut Meal as a Feed for Dairy Cows and Other Livestock. 343. Cheese Pests and Their Control. 344. Cold Storage as an Aid to the Market- ing of Plums, a Progress Report. 347. The Control of Red Spiders in Decid- uous Orchards. 348. Pruning Young Olive Trees. 349. A Study of Sidedraft and Tractor Hitches. 357. A Self-Mixing Dusting Machine for Applying Dry Insecticides and Fun- gicides. 361. Preliminary Yield Tables for Second- Growth Redwood. 364. Fungicidal Dusts for the Control of Bunt. 366. Turkish Tobacco Culture, Curing, and Marketing. 368. Bacterial Decomposition of Olives During Pickling. 369. Comparison of Woods for Butter Boxes. 370. Factors Influencing the Development of Internal Browning of the Yellow Newtown Apple. 371. The Relative Cost of Yarding Small and Large Timber. 373. Pear Pollination. 374. A Survey of Orchard Practices in the Citrus Industry of Southern Cali- fornia. 379. Walnut Culture in California. 386. Pruning Bearing Deciduous Fruit Trees. 388. The Principles and Practice of Sun- Drying Fruit. 389. Berseem or Egyptian Clover. 392. Fruit Juice Concentrates. 393. Crop Sequences at Davis. 394. I. Cereal Hay Production in California. II. Feeding Trials with Cereal Hays. 396. The Mat Bean^ Phaseolus Aconitifolius. 404. The Dehydration of Prunes. 406. Stationary Spray Plants in California. 407. Yield, Stand, and Volume Tables for White Fir in the California Pine Region. 408. Alternaria Rot of Lemons. 409. The Digestibility of Certain Fruit By- products as Determined for Rumi- nants. Part I. Dried Orange Pulp and Raisin Pulp. 410. Factors Influencing the Quality of Fresh Asparagus After it is Harvested. 416. Culture of the Oriental Persimmon in California. 417. Poultry Feeding: Principles and Prac- tice. 418. A Study of Various Rations for Fin- ishing Range Calves as Baby Beeves. 419. Economic Aspects of the Cantaloupe Industry. 420. Rice and Rice By-Products as Feeds for Fattening Swine. 421. Beef Cattle Feeding Trials, 1921-24. 423. Apricots (Series on California Crops and Prices). No. 425. 426. 427. 428. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 439. 440. 446. 447. 448. 449. 4 50. 452. 454. 455. 456. 458. 459. 462. 464. 465. 466. 467. 468. 469, 470. 471. 472. 473, 474, 475. 476. 477, Apple Growing in California. Apple Pollination Studies in California. The Value of Orange Pulp for Milk Production. The Relation of Maturity of California Plums to Shipping and Dessert Quality. Raisin By-Products and Bean Screen- ings as Feeds for Fattening Lambs. Some Economic Problems Involved in the Pooling of Fruit. Power Requirements of Electrically Driven Dairy Manufacturing Equip ment. Investigations on the Use of Fruits in Ice Cream and Ices. The Problem of Securing Closer Rela tionship between Agricultural Devel- opment and Irrigation Construction. I. The Kadota Fig. II. The Kadota Fig Products. The Digestibility of Certain Fruit By- products as Determined for Rumi nants. Part II. Dried Pineapple Pulp, Dried Lemon Pulp, and Dried Olive Pulp. The Feeding Value of Raisins and Dairy By-Products for Growing and Fattening Swine. Economic Aspects of the Apple In- dustry. . The Asparagus Industry in California. A Method of Determining the Clean Weights of Individual Fleeces of Wool. Farmers' Purchase Agreement for Deep Well Pumps. Economic Aspects of the Watermelon Industry. Irrigation Investigations with 1'iela Crops at Davis, and at Delhi, Cali- fornia, 1909-1925. Economic Aspects of the Pear Industry. Rice Experiments in Sacramento Val- ley, 1922-1927. Reclamation of the Fresno Type of Black : Alkali Soil. Yield, Stand and Volume Tables for Red Fir in California. Factors Influencing Percentage Calf Crop in Range Herds. Economic Aspects of the Fresh Plum Industry. Prune Supply and Price Situation. Drainage in the Sacramento Valley Rice Fields. Curly Top Symptoms of the Suear Beet. The Continuous Can Washer for Dairy Plants. Oat Varieties in California. Sterilization of Dairy Utensils with Humidified Ho* Air. The Solar Heater. Maturitv Standards for Harvesting Bartlett Pears for Eastern Shipment. The Use of Sulfur Dioxide in Shipping Grapes. Adobe Construction. Economic Aspects of the Sheep In- dustry. Factors Affecting the Cost of Tractor Logging in the California Pine Region. Walnut Supply and Price Situation. Poultry Houses and Equipment. Improved Methods of Harvesting Grain Sorghum. BULLETINS— {Continued) No. 479. I. Irrigation Experiments with Peaches in California. II. Canning Quality of Irrigated Peaches. 480. The Use, Value, and Cost of Credit in Agriculture. 481. Utilization of Wild Oat Hay for Fat- tening Yearling Steers. 482. Substitutes for Wooden Breakpins. 483. Utilization of Surplus Prunes. 484. The Effects of Desiccating Winds on Citrus Trees. 485. Drying Cut Fruits. 486. Pullorura Disease (Bacillary White Diarrhea of Chickens). 487. Asparagus (Series on California Crops and Prices). 488. Cherries (Series on California Crops and Prices). 489. Irrigation Water Requirement Studies of Citrus and Avocado Trees in San Dieeo County, California, 1926 and 1927. 490. Olive Thinning and Other Means of Increasing Size of Olives. 491. Yield, Stand, and Volume Tables for Douglas Fir in California. 492. Berry Thinning of Grapes. 493. Fruit Markets in Eastern Asja. No. 494. 495. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. 501. 502. 503. 504. 505. 50<>. 507. 508. 509. Infectious Bronchitis in Fowls. Milk Cooling on California Dairy Farms. Precooling of Fresh Fruits and Tem- peratures of Refrigerator Cars and Warehouse Rooms. A Study of the Shipment of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables to the Far East. Pickling Green Olives. Air Cleaners for Motor Vehicles. Dehydration of Grapes. Marketing California Apples. Wheat (Series on California Crops and Prices). St. Johnswort on Range Lands of California. Economic Problems of California Agri- culture. (A Report to the Governor of California.) The Snowy Tree Cricket and Other Insects Injurious to Raspberries. Fruit Spoilage Disease of Figs. Cantaloupe Powdery Mildew in the Imperial Valley. The Swelling of Canned Prunes. The Biological Control of Mealybugs Attacking Citrus. CIRCULARS No. 115. 117. 127. 178. 212. 230. 232. 239. 241. 244. 245. 248. 249. 253. 257. 258. 259. 261. 262. 265. 266. 269. 270. 276. No. Grafting Vinifera Vineyards. 278. The Selection and Cost of a Small Pumping Plant. 279. House Fumigation. The Packing of Apples in California. 282. Salvaging Rain-Damaged Prunes. Testing Milk, Cream, and Skim Milk 288. for Butterfat. 290. Harvesting and Handling California 292. Cherries for Eastern Shipment. 294. Harvesting and Handling Apricots and 296. Plums for Eastern Shipment. Harvesting and Handling California 301. Pears for Eastern Shipment. 304. Harvesting and Handling California 305. Peaches for Eastern Shipment. 307. Central Wire Bracing for Fruit Trees. 308. Vine Pruning Systems. 310. Some Common Errors in Vine Pruning and Their Remedies. 311. Replacing Missing Vines. 312. Vineyard Plans. The Small-Seeded Horse Bean (Vicia faba var. minor). 316. Thinning Deciduous Fruits. Pear By-Products. 317. Sewing Grain Sacks. Cabbage Production in California. 318. Plant Disease and Pest Control. 319. Analyzing the Citrus Orchard by Means 320. of Simple Tree Records. An Orchard Brush Burner. 321. A Farm Septic Tank. Home Canning. Olive Pickling in Mediterranean Countries. The Preparation and Refining of Olive Oil in Southern Europe. Prevention of Insect Attack on Stored Grain. Phylloxera Resistant Vineyards. The Tangier Pea. Alkali Soils. Propagation of Deciduous Fruits. Control of the California Ground Squirrel. Buckeye Poisoning of the Honey Bee. Drainage on the Farm. Liming the Soil. American Foulbrood and Its Control. Cantaloupe Production in California. The Operation of the Bacteriological Laboratory for Dairy Plants. The Improvement of Quality in Figs. Principles Governing the Choice, Oper- ation, and Care of Small Irrigation Pumping Plants. Electrical Statistics for California Farms. Fertilizer Problems and Analysis of Soils in California. Termites and Termite Damage. Pasteurizing Milk for Calf Feeding. Preservation of Fruits and Vegetables by Freezing Storage. Treatment of Lime-induced Chlorosis with Iron Salts. 17»i-10,'31