14 N. H. Agricultural Experiment Station [Bulletin 302 



skim milk to which no value was attached. Proportionately these are 

 about twice as many. 



Comparison of 10 Highest Feed Cost Farms ivith 10 Loivest. The 

 object of this comparison is not a matter of recommended practices but 

 rather to account for extreme variations in feed costs and how they were 

 brought about. Here again, differences in quality of feeds and quality 

 of heifers are not given due consideration. 



The average feed costs amounted to il>37.10 for the low cost farms and 

 $111.63 for the high cost farms, the latter amounting to approximately 

 300 per cent of the former. The high feed cost farms had proportion- 

 ately more tillage land and more crop land per acre of open pasture 

 equivalent. Pastures on the low cost farms were utilized approximate- 

 ly at their carrying capacity, whereas on the high cost farms the cattle 

 pastured amounted to 169 per cent of the carrying capacity. Calves 

 nursed more than twice as long on the high cost farms and averaged 

 three months older when turned out to pasture. Although heifers on 

 the low feed cost farms were on the average six months younger at the 

 time of first freshening, they availed themselves of a longer pasture sea- 

 son and spent fully as many total heifer days on pasture. The average 

 per cent of total heifer days on pasture was 40.3 for the low cost farms 

 and 32.5 per cent for the high cost farms. Thus the high feed cost 

 farms, on the average, barn fed their heifers for more than six months 

 longer than the low cost farms, and at least two months of this after they 

 were two years old when they would consume nearly as much as a ma- 

 ture cow. 



With the exception of fresh skim milk, which was only of nominal 

 value, the high feed cost farms fed each kind of feed over a longer pe- 

 riod, fed more per day and in the case of whole milk and dry roughage 

 they fed a higher valued product (Table 9). Average heifers on the 

 low cost farms were raised mainly on dry roughage feed which was val- 

 ued at 66 per cent of the total feed costs compared with only 44 per cent 

 for tlie liigh cost farms. Concentrates amounted to about 11 and 22 

 per cent respectively of the total feed costs. Whole milk and concen- 

 trates together amounted to 41 per cent of the average total feed costs 

 oil the high cost farms compared with 19 per cent on the low cost farms. 



Purchasing Cows 



It has been previously stated that one of the main reasons given by 

 farmers for raising replacements was that they knew what they were 

 getting. If farmers could purchase cows with some degree of surety 

 that such cows would not be misrepresented, to the end that a larger 

 percentage of their purchases would be satisfactory in their own esti- 

 mation, undoubtedly many could gain by buying replacements rather 

 than raising them. 



All farmers questioned were asked to give their estimate of how many 

 good cows they could expect to get from each 10 purchased and how 

 many from each 10 raised to date of freshening. No answer was ob- 

 tained from those who had not had adequate experience in either case 

 to express an opinion. A summary of these opinions indicates that 60 

 per cent of the cows bought and 71 per cent of those raised would be 



