22 N. H. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 275 



average cost of grain for young stock on a per cow basis was $4.32, 

 $3.04 and $1.15, respectively, for the three groups. Deducting both 

 grain and roughage consumed by young cattle, it is estimated that 

 between groups 1 and 2 there would be a difference of approximately 

 $18.50 per cow in receipts from sales of livestock. 



Differences in the retuiTis from livestock are largely due to four 

 factors: organization of farm, health of the herd, quality of the stock 

 and the skill of the operator. They are illustrated in a comparison 

 of two farms. 



Farm A had 29 cows and 31 heifers. During the year 10 cows were 

 sold as discards for a total of $200. The net increase from livestock 

 for the farm was $131 or $2.77 per cow. 



Fann B had 38 cows and 38 heifers, and during the year sold nine 

 sound cows for $746 and three discards were sold for $50. The net 

 increase from livestock totaled $988, or $25 per cow. Thus one man 

 uses up his cows and the other sells sound cows. 



It is difficult to measure the costs entering into the production of 

 the cows on these farms because, for a part of the time, the feed is 

 both producing milk and developing the cow. However, after allow- 

 ing for the value of grain and roughage consumed by youngstock, there 

 still remains a difference of $18 per cow between the two farms in 

 income from livestock. The operator of Fann B is a heavier feeder 

 Of grain to both youngstock and cows, and has better stock to begin 

 with. He watches pasture conditions more carefully. He puts more 

 into the cows, but they are large and in better condition when sold 

 and also produce more milk. 



Farm Organization 



The problem of definitely plamiing the organization of the farm to 

 sell considerable livestock as well as milk depends in no small mea- 

 sure on the nature of the farm. Under normal conditions in the 

 Grafton County area milk production up to the capacity of the avail- 

 ble labor has probably paid better than growing stock. However, the 

 same labor can grow young stock in addition to caring for cows since 

 there is ample time between milkings to feed and care for heifers. 

 The only added labor cost is in the small amount of extra hired help 

 to har^^est the additional hay and roughage. 



On one farm the available labor under existing conditions could 

 take care of 38 cows, but this amount of stock would consume only 

 about two-thirds of the roughage harvested and would not use all the 

 feed in the back pastures. If the fanner had added more cows to 

 use up the roughage and make use of the pastures, an extra man would 

 have been needed. However, it was possible to cany about 35 to 40 

 head of young stock without hiring additional help. From the point 

 of view of the farm organization, the young stock has been produced 

 for a little more than the value of the feed used. That is, the pro- 

 duction of these heifers did not require additional out-of-pocket ex- 

 penses for labor, pasture and buildings. The 38 cows more than sup- 

 ply his present rating. The product from additional cows would only 

 bring surplus prices. The net increase of livestock was $988 and the 

 feed consumed by young stock was worth approximately $800. Thus, 



