96 



N. II. Agr. Experimext Station' 



[Bulletin 260 



No striking contrasts were evident in tlie two groups of records 

 when arranged according to the November-June ratio of milk produc- 

 tion. A less proportionate number of the Grade A farms fell in the low- 

 ratio group, and a somewhat larger proportion in the high-ratio group. 

 For both groups, labor incomes Avere best Avitli the November-June 

 ratio near 100. Labor incomes were decidedly better when the produc- 

 tion ratio Avas near 150 tlian when it was only 50. The greater change 

 in price of milk came between the low and medium ratio groups. Costs 

 of production were considerably higher for the groups with a low No- 

 vember-June ratio. 



Grain Feed per Cow. 



In the adjustment of feed to milk production, consideration must be 

 given to the inherent productive capacity of the coavs and the relative 

 prices of milk and concentrates. In Table 86, the farms Avere arranged 

 according to the amounts of grain fed per coav. There Avas considerable 

 variation among the farms from the average of 1,522 pounds of grain 

 per COAV. The coavs in one group of 29 farms received an average of 

 only 521 pounds of grain per head, Avhile at the other extreme Avere 38 

 farms on Avhich they received 2,689. 



For COAVS of a given capacity and with given prices of grain and 

 milk, there must be a reasonably definite amount of concentrates most 

 economical to feed. Among these farms, there Avas a consistent in- 

 crease in ]iroduction per coav Avith each additional increment of grain. 

 That is the reason for feeding grain — to get a response in milk floAV. 

 The price of milk per hundredAveight increased also in the same direc- 

 tion, and for no better reason than because it is the most important 

 factor in conditioning the .nmount of u'rain to be fcnl. For most farm- 



