ECONOMIC USE OF FORAGES IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION 43 
pounds of grain and 500 more pounds of hay. At that level of forage 
feeding, each additional pound of hay replaces 1.13 pounds of grain. 
Each additional 500 pounds of hay replaces fewer pounds of grain 
until as the quantity of hay is increased from 10,500 to 11,000 pouncs, 
for example, the quantity of grain required is reduced only 188 
pounds—or, a pound of hay replaces only 0.28 pound of grain at that 
level of forage in the ration. 
Similar relationships were found for other classes of livestock. 
The replacement value of a pound of forage in feeding hogs was 
found to be about 0.5 pound of grain when the hog ration contained 
no forage; when the ration contained about 14-percent forage a 
pound of forage replaced about 0.12 pound of grain. In producing 
choice beef on yearling steers, a pound of forage was found to have 
a feeding value equal to about 0.4 pound of grain when the ration 
contained about 35-percent forage; when the forage amounted to 
about 85 percent of the ration a pound of forage replaced only 0.24 
pound of grain. Analysis of lamb-feeding experiments showed that 
when the ration contained only 26-percent forage, 1 pound of forage 
replaced about 0.6 pound of grain, and when the ration contained 
64-percent forage, a pound of forage replaced only 0.1 pound of grain. 
CAPITAL AND LAagor REQUIREMENTS OF FEED-UTILIZATION SYSTEMS 
The substitution relationships between forage and grain in the rota- 
tion and in the livestock ration may indicate that it would pay to 
increase production and utilization of forage. But some farmers 
lack sufficient capital or borrowing power to expand their invest- 
ments in roughage-consuming livestock. In allocating their limited 
capital among alternative enterprises, these farmers are concerned 
with getting a high return from a small investment. If they invest 
their capital in the livestock enterprises that yield the highest re- 
turns per dollar of investment they may not have the kind and number 
of livestock needed to consume a large quantity of forage. In such 
cases it will not pay to expand forage acreage beyond the extent to 
which it becomes competitive with grain in the crop rotation. 
The analysis shows that, from 1917 to 1948, hogs consistently yielded 
higher returns per dollar of investment than other classes of live- 
stock that have greater capacity to consume forage. For example, on 
the basis of 194448 price relationships, hogs fed on a relatively high- 
forage ration returned an annual net income of $66 per $100 invested. 
In contrast, a similar investment in good dairy cows fed a high-forage 
ration returned only $7 net income annually. On the basis of 1944-48 
prices, an initial investment of $17,868 would be required to establish 
a hog enterprise that would utilize 100 tons of forage, whereas an 
investment of only $6,642 would be required to establish a dairy en- 
terprise to consume that quantity of forage. 
The amount of labor required for alternative feed-utilization sys- 
tems and its distribution throughout the year must also be considered 
in selecting the feed-utilization system for an individual farm. In 
general, feed combinations that contain a high proportion of forage 
take somewhat more time to produce a given output of livestock than 
do high-grain rations. In some cases this results in greater labor 
requirements per unit of livestock product produced. However, labor 
