12 CIRCULAR NO, 128, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY. 



The statement of farm No. 2 illustrates a successful market-milk 

 farm in the Suncook Valley. The crop yields are above the average, 

 as are the receipts per cow from milk sales. The cash receipts from 

 other sources than live stock were over $450, and this farmer's total 

 inventory had also increased $655 during the year, adding that 

 amount to the real income of the farm. Of that increase only $115 

 was in the form of live stock, the remamder being in improved land 

 and buildmgs, more machinery and tools, and more feed on hand. 



This farm is very closely representative of the average of the better 

 100 farms in total and tillable acreage, but has about $900 more total 

 investment and a much larger labor income than that 100. A shorter 

 rotation would evidently have given larger yields of hay and forage 

 crops and so would allow somewhat more of the acreage to be used 

 for crops to sell. 



It will be well to compare these two farms. Farm No. 1 has a 

 larger mvestment than farm No. 2 by $1,650, but a smaller labor 

 mcome by almost $500. Farm No. 1 has $663 more receipts, but 

 $1,077 more cash expenses. The greater receipts of farm No. 1 are 

 primarily from sales of hogs and milk, the milk going to the creamery. 

 The greater expenses are primarily in the items of hired labor and of 

 purchased feeds. These extra feeds were used in part by more cows 

 and still further by the large number of hogs. Evidently the sale of 

 hogs did not pay a very wide margin above the cost of the grain pur- 

 chased for them. The cows on farm No. 1 produced more value in 

 milk per head than those on farm No. 2, but were not themselves 

 valued so highly by their owner. This is very probably due to the 

 fact that Jerseys (kept on farm No. 1) are not in such demand to ship 

 out of the State as are Holstems (kept on farm No. 2). 



The difference in labor between these two farms brings out a point 

 of much value. Farm No. 2, with an average of 16 cows on hand 

 during the year, was operated by the owner with the aid of onl}" $50 

 worth of hhed labor. He did not receive quite so large yields of 

 his crops as were attamed on farm No. 1, but he was able to grow 

 more crops and at the same time take care of about all the cows the 

 average man is willing to milk regularly. Of the 16 cows, presumably 

 not all were in nulk at any one time, or at least not for long. On the 

 other hand, the farmer on No. 1 kept at least one hired man all the 

 year and used much extra labor during the busy periods. 



The one extra man would be required in. most cases to help milk 

 and care for the live stock on farm No. 1, where there are 20 cows 

 and also a few more young cattle and many more hogs than on farm 

 No. 2. At the same tune this labor did not raise ])roportionately 

 more croi)s either to feed or to sell than did the owner alone on farm 

 No. 2. 



[Cir. 128] 



