reported yields for alfalfa hay and for clover and timothy hay were 2.0 

 tons and 1.45 tons per acre, respectively. These yields were considerably 

 smaller than those possible under good growth conditions. The higher yields 

 shown in Table 12, which were obtained under experimental conditions, 

 indicate more nearly the possibilities for production of forage with good 

 management and proper fertilization. 



A study of the farm records for the sample of 62 farms visited re* 

 vealed that differences in yields among farms were closely associated with 

 management ability and the pressure of livestock on feed supplies. Yields 

 of hay averaged 1.8 tons per acre on the farms whose operators bought 

 no replacements and 1.5 tons per acre on farms whose operators bought 

 replacements. Average yields of hay equivalent for all harvested forage 

 crops, including corn silage, was 2.1 tons per acre on farms where no re- 

 placements were bought and 1.8 tons per acre on farms where replace- 

 ments were bought. A total of 121 tons of hay equivalent was harvested 

 on farms where no replacements were bought. This compared with 95 tons 

 of hay equivalent harvested on farms whose operators bought replacements. 



The farms with no purchased replacements averaged 25 cows and 24 

 head of young stock. Farms with purchased replacements averaged 25.6 

 cows and 17.3 head of young stock. The chief difference in total livestock 

 numbers was due to the greater number of replacement young stock car- 

 ried on the farms with no purchased replacements. Seventy percent of both 

 types of farms did not keep a bull. 



Production of harvested forage per cow was 3.1 tons of hay equivalent 

 on the farms where replacements were raised and 2.6 tons on farms where 

 replacements were bought (Table 13). Operators of farms of both types 

 sold or bought hay equivalent. On the average, both types of farms were 

 deficient in hay equivalent and some hay was purchased. Farmers with no 

 purchased replacements bought 6.9 tons of hay equivalent while farmers 

 who bought replacements bought 22.6 tons of hay equivalent. The purchases 

 of harvested forage raised the supplies of hay equivalent available per 

 animal unit to 3.2 tons on farms with no purchased animals and to 3.1 

 tons per animal unit on farms with some purchased arymals.^-^ 



An attempt was made to judge pasture yields. Pastures were appraised 

 on the basis of their relationship to typical seasonal yields.-*^ The monthly 

 carrying capacities of the pasture program were related to the monthly live- 

 stock feed requirements on each farm. 



Improved pasture occupied 47 percent of the acreage of pasture on 

 farms with no purchased cows and 57 percent on farms with some pur- 

 chased animals. Improved pasture was differentiated from unimproved 

 pasture on the basis of type of stand and level of yield. In terms of total 

 annual pasture production, both groups of farms had almost enough to 

 meet the needs for feed. Farms on which all replacements were raised had 

 95 percent of their pasture feed requirements while farms on which cows 

 were bought had 99 percent of their requirements. But all of this pasture 

 feed was not consumed because of the highly seasonal production of pasture 

 forage. Balancing monthly growth of pasture forage and monthly livestock 



25 It is apparent that many dairy farmers in the State buy winter forage, which 

 is generally obtained from nearby fields on idle farms. For further information see 

 W. K. Burkett, New Hampshire s Idle Farm Land, N. H. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 399, 1953. 



26 See Appendix Tables 10 and 9 for the pasture questionnaire and the estimated 

 seasonal pasture production yields used as judging standards in this study. 



29 



