the livestock to make economical use of the feed was a great factor towards 

 increasing the labour income. 



The farmers of Group No. 4 had both good crops and good livestock and 

 show an increase of about $1,000.00 over th farmers of Group No. 1, who had 

 poor crops and poor livestock. When labour incomes are calculated with interest 

 on capital at 3%%, they appear much more attractive than when interest is 

 allowed at 1%. The conclusions one would gather from a study of Table No. 12 

 would be that good livestock and good crops contribute a great deal towards 

 successful dairy farming. Of the two factors, good livestock appears to have 

 had the greater effect. 



THE EFFECT OF THE PURE-BRED SIRE ON THE PRODUCTION 



OF THE HERD. 



Table No. 13. 



Table No. 13 points out the effect of the pure-bred sire as a means of increas- 

 ing the amount of butter-fat per cow. The longer the pure-bred sire had been 

 used on the farm, the greater was the average amount of butter-fat sold per cow. 

 In addition to the increased production, Table No. 13 shows that, with the excep- 

 tion of the last group of the table, the efficiency of the cows increased with the 

 length of time the pure-bred sire had been used. In other words, less feed was 

 used to produce a pound of butter-fat. The feeding in the case of the last 

 group was not as economical as in the case of the other groups. The amount of 

 butter-fat sold per cow, however, was the greatest of any of the groups. The 

 uneconomical use of feed in the last group may be justified by the higher pro- 

 duction of the cows, and by the consideration that the farmers may sell their 

 young stock at higher prices than farmers of the other groups on account of the 

 higher production of their herds. 



THE COMPARATIVE EFFECT OF BREEDING VERSUS FEEDING, 

 AS SHOWN BY LABOUR INCOME. 



Table No. 14 compares different methods of feeding poor and good livestock, 

 expressing the results in terms of labour income. It should be noted that there 

 are no farms in Groups 3 and 4. The farmers with good livestock fed more 

 heavily than did the farmers who had poor livestock. No doubt this accounts 

 in some measure for the higher grading of the livestock on the farms which had 

 the better class of farm animals. 



By a comparison of the labour incomes when 7% interest was allowed on 

 investment, Table No. 13 shows that Group No. 5 was the only group that received 

 a plus labour income. Group No. 2 increased its labour income by about $500.00, 

 as compared with Group No. 1, by heavier feeding. Groups 1 and 2 both had 

 poor livestock. This fact shows that good feeding was a factor which increased 

 labour incomes on farms which kept poor livestock. Group No. 5 increased its 

 labour income over Group No. 2 by about $500.00. This gain is not due to amount 

 of feed used, since a smaller amount of feed was consumed by each animal on 

 the farm than was the case in Group No. 2. The gain was due to the fact that a 

 superior class of livestock was kept. The superior livestock resulted from better 

 breeding, as is shown by the fact that 47 % of the farmers of this group had kept a 

 pure-bred sire five years and over as compared with 31% in Group No. 2. 



10 



