change in returns one obtains the change in net income. For this particular 

 situation net income is decreased by $66 if the response is 0.5 ton per acre 

 and increased by $893 if the response is 1.0 ton per acre. 



An estimate of the profitability of adding an irrigation system to expand 

 the dairy farm has now been established. It appears that irrigation must 

 increase yields by more than 0.5 ton per acre in order to be profitable. If 

 this particular farmer can be reasonably confident of increasing his yields 

 1.0 ton per acre by irrigation, then it looks like a good production adjust- 

 ment for him. 



However, he has one other important question to answer before he makes 

 a decision. Are there other feasible adjustments that are more profitable 

 than irrigation and its accompanying changes in farm organization? In 

 subsequent sections several alternative adjustments will be budgeted to 

 illustrate how to find answers to this latter question. 



Budgeting Other Alternatives for a Particular Farm 



It has been shown for this particular farm situation that possibly seven 

 cows could be added and farm profits could be increased by irrigating 

 forage crops if yield response is 1.0 ton per acre. Irrigation can help the 

 farmer increase size. But so can any other practice that increases the pro- 

 duction of forages, or otherwise enables the dairy farmer to increase his 

 output of milk. 



Feeding Green-Chop (Also Known as Soilage or Zero-Grazing) 



By feeding the cows green-chop, rather than following conventional 

 pasture methods, less land is needed for summer feeding of the milking 

 herd. By keeping the cows off the land it is possible to feed the same num- 

 ber of cows on twenty-five to thirty percent less acreage. In the present sit- 

 uation two additional cows can be summer-fed on six acres less. This makes 

 it possible to shift six acres into hay production for winter forage for 

 the additional cows.^ This of course involves additional expenses. The 

 farmer following green-chop practices must own a field chopper. This 

 farmer does not; hence, it has to be bought. Once purchased, operating 

 expenses have to be paid and depreciation and interest charged. This also 

 means that it is no longer necessary for the farmer to custom hire the silage 

 operation on his oats field, so he saves a certain amount of money here. 

 The two additional cows will raise his expenses for housing and caring for 

 the cows on a proportionate basis. Table 8 shows the changes that one 

 might expect in this base situation if a farmer introduced green-chop feed- 

 ing of the cows in the summertime and expanded his herd by two cows. The 

 net increase in returns to labor and management is $52. 



If the farmer had enough time to follow a green-chop program without 

 hiring extra labor, the increase would be $315 greater. If he already owned 

 the chopper, it would be still greater. Individual situations will dictate the 

 specific changes in income possible from such a technique. 



1 For this case it is assumed that 24 acres of the alfalfa-orchard grass is being pastured 

 at present. In the change to green-chop, 18 acres will be pastured and the other six 

 will be harvested as hay. 



11 



