90 PRIMARY RESULTS 



made that the cost of the aftermath grass is one-third of the 

 whole cost of the field, excluding hay-making costs (see 

 p. 86). Thus, the hay crop is not charged with this portion 

 of the cost, and it is now brought into the grazing account. 

 Perhaps a better way of dealing with this item would be by 

 comparing its stock-carrying capacity with that of the 

 pasture fields, or by a comparison of the feeding value of 

 the grass and of the aftermath. 



Having now arrived at the total cost of grazing, both 

 seeds and grass, pastures and aftermath, it becomes neces- 

 sary to devise a means of distributing it among the various 

 classes of live stock. It will happen only rarely that one 

 class of live stock alone is met with on the farm ; in certain 

 forms of sheep -farming, or where dairying is practised, it 

 may be possible, sometimes, to charge the whole cost of the 

 grazing to sheep or to cows ; but in the great majority of 

 cases the grazing will have been enjoyed by horses, cattle, 

 and sheep indiscriminately. A system has been adopted, 

 therefore, by which all classes of stock are converted into 

 their equivalents as sheep. In the Table of Grazing Costs 

 given below (No. XXIV) the following conversion scale has 

 been used : 



1 horse equivalent to 7 sheep 



1 cow or bullock ,, ,, 7 ,, 



1 yearling beast ,, 3-5 ,, 



It is obvious that no scale can have a general application, 1 

 and a better way of arranging the figures would be by 

 a comparison of weights if such were possible. When a basis 

 has been settled the live stock are reduced to their sheep- 

 unit equivalents, the cost per unit is calculated, and the 



1 In the first edition of this book the following scale for the conversion of 

 different classes of stock into units comparable for grazing-cost distribution was 



1 horse equivalent to 8 sheep 



1 cow or bullock 6 

 1 yearling beast 4 

 Experience has indicated that this scale was too high in the generality of 



