10 N. H. AGR. EXPERIMENT STATION. [Bulletin 182 



Grain for Beef Production in New Hampshire. 



As the West produces most of the beef and most of the grain 

 it is on a basis of western production of both that the price of 

 beef and grain is estabhshed. The New England farmer who 

 buys grain is, therefore, at a special handicap with the western 

 farmer who grows it because he has to add transportation charges 

 plus several middlemen's profits who handle it to his price of 

 grain. When one considers the additional fact that grain will 

 give less returns in pounds of finished or fat beef than in pork, 

 lamb, milk, or eggs, it is obvious that there must be special econ- 

 omies along other lines that make the use of grain profitable 

 for beef production here. When one further considers that 

 perishable products like milk must be produced relatively near 

 the center of consumption or, in other words, that New England 

 farmers have no western competition in producing milk for the 

 market it becomes clear why dairying is and will be the backbone 

 of the live stock industry in New England. Excepting pure 

 bred, registered beef cattle stock whose offspring has exceptional 

 value, a dairy cow, a laying hen, or a work horse are about the 

 only mature animals for which a New England farmer can afford 

 to buy grain. If they are not high producers in their respective 

 lines of utility, he cannot afford it even for these. With a grow- 

 ing animal the problem is somewhat different than with a mature 

 animal because while it grows it gives better returns for the feed 

 than when mature. In case of beef cattle there must be, even 

 with growing animals, some special compensation for the higher 

 value of grain on eastern farms. In this experiment cheap hay 

 and a low labor charge more than offset the high price of grain. 

 Even though the amount of grain used was only sufficient to 

 balance the hay ration for normal growth, it was the largest 

 single item of expense, grain being 62 per cent of the feed cost 

 and hay only 38 per cent. Had we used clover hay in sufficient 

 quantity to obtain the same amount of growth the cost would 

 have been about the same which shows that the grain was a 

 good investment. Had we used grain of low protein content 

 the cost would have been higher as with a similar amount of low 

 protein grain we could not have balanced the ration for normal 

 growth. In other words, a poor choice of grain would have 



