INTENSIVE GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT 47 



be divided into two groups, fewer plots used in the rotation, and meadowland 

 from which the first crop had been harvested used to supply the necessary 

 late summer supplementary feed. Provision of course must be made to supply 

 the roughage necessary for winter feed. 



All the plots which received the complete fertilizer showed a notable in- 

 crease in returns per acre as compared with 1928. Plots VII, VIII and IX 

 in particular showed greatly increased returns per acre in 1929 due to a 

 larger yield of hay as a result of more favorable haying weather and almost 

 complete recovery of the turf which had been badly damaged the previous 

 wet season. Plot IV, although showing a slightly increased carrying capacity, 

 gave lower returns per acre because of the lower milk production in 1929, 

 while Plot VI also showed decreased returns over feed, fertilizer, field and 

 land costs in 1929. 



Table 2 presents a summary and comparison for the two years of all ex- 

 penditures, covering feed, fertilizer, field costs and land rental, and all credits 

 for pasturage of young stock and yields of hay, but does not include bam 

 labor. All feed was figured at the following prices per ton: Grain, $48; beet 

 pulp, $5.5; silage, $8; and hay, $18. The retail price delivered was used in 

 calculating fertilizer costs, both Nitrophoska and Calurea being figured at 

 $100 per ton, M-hile superphosphate was charged at $23 and muriate of potash 

 at $53 per ton. Pasturage of young stock was credited at the rate of 7^2 

 cents per animal per day, and hay at $18 per ton. From these data the cost 

 per hundred pounds of milk and the returns per acre over the above costs 

 were calculated and are presented in the table. 



In 1928 the unfertilized plot naturally produced a unit of milk most cheaply, 

 with the grazed plots ranking second; but due to the greater quantity of milk 

 produced on the latter, the returns per acre were two apd. one-half times more O -- 

 on these fertilizer plots, being $22.2i> for Plot IV and ^sl.W for the average ^ 

 of Plots I, II, III, V. Similarly in 1929 the cost per unit of milk was slightly'fepl( 

 lower on Plot VI than on those receiving a complete fertilizer (grazed plots), ,*,p^ 

 but the latter showed double the returns per acre, yielding .$84.09 as com- i '1 

 pared with .$38.29 on Plot VI. The return of $38.29 in 1929 on Plot VI C'^^'^ 

 as compared with $45.80 in 1928 appears somewhat inconsistent. Based on the 

 experience of 1928, however, the expense of additional barn feeding was great- 

 ly reduced on all plots in 1929, thus favoring this plot as compared with the 

 previous year; and unquestionably it benefited by the application of a com- 

 plete fertilizer in 1928. The higher cost on Plot IV in 1929 is explained by 

 the low milk production on that plot in relation to the value of the land and 

 the cost of field operations. 



The returns per acre above feed, fertilizer, field and land costs, then, are 

 the significant figures in the accompanying table, since naturally an unfertil- 

 ized plot will produce a unit of milk most cheaply and the addition of each 

 succeeding fertilizer element raises this figure slightly. It is a question not of 

 producing one unit most cheaply, but of producing milk during the pasture 

 season most economically, that is, of making the greatest net returns. 



WieiffJits of the Anvmals 



All the animals in the experiment were weighed in order to make sure that 

 the young stock made gains consistent with good live stock management, and 

 that the cows maintained their condition throughout the season. The average 

 figures are shown in Table 3. 



