cows varying was not different than when cow numbers were stipulated 

 (Table 7). Income increased considerably when date of cut was moved 

 from June 1 to June 15. Moving from June 15 to June 30, while more 

 profitable than June 1, was less profitable than June 15 by almost 

 $1,200. 



Number of Cows Varying and the Crushed, Baled and Barn Dried 

 Without Heat Hay Harvesting System 



Table 7 illustrates the variation of net incomes by date of harvest. 

 Relative to the other machinery systems there is very little difference in 

 income distribution. June 15 is again the optimum economic date of 

 harvest and is much more profitable than either June 1 or June 30. 



Most Profitable Hay Harvest Date of Cut and System 



Of the 6 possible comparisons of date of cut shown in Table 8, 

 June 15 was superior to June 30 for each harvest system and each herd 

 size option. Since only 3 dates of starting were tested, it was impossible to 

 select the precise optimum date of cut. June 30 is definitely inferior. 

 However, based on the results, the optimum economic harvest beginning 

 date falls after June 1 and before June 30. Selecting the harvest starting 

 date to maximize net income seems to be an adjustment which farmers 

 should easily be able to make. The only conflicting goal which might 

 arise is one of competition for the use of productive resources during 

 the harvest season. Labor may be needed to plant corn, and its return 

 may be considerably greater in this use than in adhering to a strict time 

 sequence for forage harvesting. 



Differences associated with shifting through the 3 dates of cut 

 were not found to be large. Year-to-year differences in the weather 

 pattern had a marked influence, particularly with the system using 

 natural field curing. However, farmers committed to a machinery har- 

 vest system can select the approximate starting date to obtain the 

 greatest net income. 



The second problem tested in this study was one of appraising 

 several machinery systems for harvesting forage. These were reduced 

 to the 2 representative systems in Table 9; 1 system represented field 

 drying; the other represented the more intensive single-day artificial 

 drying system. The use of the hay-in-a-day system resulted in a marked 

 drop in year-to-year variation in income variability (Tables 6, 7). As 

 shown in Table 9, the artificial (without heat) drying method resulted 

 in higher net farm income when all other factors were held constant. 

 This indicated that some farm income advantage can be obtained using 

 a harvest system that shortens the time between cut and storage. The 

 system tested in this study involved considerable additional investment 

 compared with field drying, and the problem of capital accumulation 

 was not studied. For the same beginning date of harvest, net farm in- 

 come could be increased by amounts varying from over $1,200 to under 

 $3,000 (Table 9) . These are magnitudes that warrant the consideration 

 of dairy farmers in economic planning. 



