200 



SCIENTIFIC AGRICTII-TURR 



May, 1921. 



diversity index of 100 would indicate a farm wherr 

 nil recoipts came from dairy cattle. A diversity index 

 of r)0 would indicate a farm where only 50 per cent 

 of receipts came from milk and milk products, the 

 other 50 per cent coming from other sources. 



Tillahlc Area. — As rough pasture land and other 

 untillahle land adds to the feeding capacity of the 

 farm, they must be considered in the total tillable 

 area. To reduce tjie whole farm to a tillable area 

 basis, it is estimated that 3 acres of rough land and 

 10 acres of pastured woods produce feed equal to one 

 acre of tillable land. Thus to the tillable area of a 

 farm is added one-third of the roug^h land and one- 

 tenth of the pastured woods. The total is known 

 as the tillable area of the farm. 



THE EFFECT OF GOOD CROPS AND GOOD LIVE STOCK 

 ON LABOR INCOME. 

 Table No. 1. 



Groups 



T^oor 

 Crops 



Rood 

 Crops 



Poor 

 Live Stock 



(1> 



13 I''a rm s 

 Minus $313.43 



(2) 



10 Karms 

 $230.87 



Good 

 Live Stock 



(3) 



19 l'''arnis 

 $333.06 



(4) 



fi Farms 

 $1,207.65 



The farmers of group No. 1 grew poor crops and 

 fed tiie crops to poor live stock with the result that 

 the returns from the farms neither paid wages or 

 interest on investment. 



Group No. 2 grew good crops and fed the crops 

 to poor live stock and made a gain over group No. 1 

 of over $500 per farm, thus showing the great effect 

 of good crop yields even when fed to poor live stock. 



Group No. 3 grew poor crops, but fed this to good 

 live stock and made over $600 gain over (ironp No. 1. 

 ft should also be noted that Group No. 3 surpassed 



Group No. 2 by over $100, thus showing that on 

 daily farms where tlie great percentage of receipts 

 come from the cowS' it is even more important to 

 have good live stock than to have good crops. 



The farmers of group No. 4 have grown good crops 

 and have kept good live stock and their return is 

 over $1,200 net. This is a gain of over $700 over 

 Group No. 2 and $600 over Group No. 3. 



Tjic table shows that to get a fair return from tin- 

 farm, good live stock and good crops are essential 

 factors. 



THE LABOR INCOME AS IT IS AFFECTED BY THE 



PURE BRED SIRE. 



Table No. 2. 



Average 



Kind of Sire and No. of No. of No. Years P.B. Labor 



Years in Use on Farm Farms Sire in Use Income 



Grade Sire 11 Minus $ 41.95 



Pure Bred Sire 1 — 5 years .... 20 3.2 $216.04 



Pure Bred Sire 6 — 10 years ... 11 7.6 $495.85 



Pure Bred Sire 11 years & over 6 16.5 $650.36 



This table needs but little explanation. As soon as 

 the dairyman can begin the improvement of his herd 

 by the use of good pure bred sires his labor income 

 begins to increase. The extent of this increase is 

 brought out very clearly in the labor income column 

 of the table. It is not a case then of — "Can 1 

 afford a good sire?" but "Can I afford to be without 

 a good pure bred sire from which to raise my heifers ? ' ' 



THE INFLUENCE OF THE PURE BRED SIRE ON THE 

 AMOUNT AND COST OF BUTTER FAT. 

 Table No. 3. 

 Kind of Sire and Average No. Average Cost of 



No. Years in Use Lbs. Butter fat producing 100 



on Farm 



Grade Sire 



Pure Bred Sire 1 — 5 years . . . . 

 Pure Bred Sire 6 — 10 years . . . . 

 Pure Bred Sire 11 years and over 



A very striking case is here presented in favor of 

 the pure bred sire and against the grade sire. It 

 will be noticed that the number of pounds of butter 

 fat per cow increases with the number of years the 

 pure bred sire has been used on the farm. TJie sire's 

 influence is .shown very clearly as well, in the cost of 

 production of the butter fat. Again — "Can I a.s 

 a dairyman afford to be without the use of a good 

 pure bred sire?" 



A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FEEDING PRACTICES 



WITH GOOD AND POOR LIVE STOCK. 



Table No. 4. 



Poor 



Live Stock 



Good 

 Live Stock 



Cost of feed per cow 



Total digestible nutrients 



per cow 



Pounds bntter fat per i-ow 

 Labor Income .. .. Minus 



Cost of Feed per cow 



Total digestiljle nutrients 



per cow 



Pounds butter fat per cow 



I.>ab,or Income $679.63 



This table shows that medium feeding of poor live 

 stock resulted in a loss to, the farmers. They wore not 

 even able to j)ay interest on investment. Good 

 feeding of the same cla.ss of stock was more remunera- 

 tive, .however, there being a gain of about $300 per 

 farm over the group of farmers who were medium 

 feeders. This .shows that by judicious use of feeds 

 poor cows respond to a considei-able extent. Gimd 

 live stock, however, gives a much greater Laboi- Income. 

 The medium feeders with good live stock fed over 

 $35 worth less of feed than the good feeders with 

 poor live stock, but tjie good cows responded in 

 much heavier butter fat production. They also re- 

 turned a much larger Labor Income in spite of the 

 fact that they were fed less. The high feeders of 

 good live stock secured a greater butter fat production 

 per cow, but they fed too heavily for the most profit- 

 able immediate returns. This last group, however, 

 may finally come out ahead, as the,y will secure good 

 advertising through their jhigh producing cows and no 

 doubt will sell some breeding stock at fairly high 

 figures. It is quite possible then that their Labor 

 Incomes will be somewhat higher in future years. 



In studying the above table it will be seen that the 

 owners keep more live stock per acre which in turn 

 would tend to keep the land more productive by pro- 

 viding more barnyard manure. The owners have less 

 acreage per man and per .iiorse. indicating that they 

 cultivate thp soil more intensively. This is also borne 

 out by the owner's crop index. The renter's crop 

 index is only 77 as compared to 100 in the case of the 

 owners. The difference in quality of live stock is not 

 sufficient to commenti upon, both owners and renters 

 having live stock about average for the survey. 



