34 MISC. PUBLICATION 7 02, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 



mented with purchased corn. A different relationship between prices 

 of hay, corn, and calves could make the feeding of calves the more 

 profitable. This might be the situation in years of large hay produc- 

 tion in the community. 



Some farmers do not like to have hired workers the year around as 

 would be necessary under plan 2. Others do not wish to be tied to 

 fairly rigid work schedules such as those required in dairy farming. 

 Plan 3, table 8, represents an exploration into the problem of using 

 large quantities of forage, and at the same time holding down the 

 labor load. The same cropping system would be followed under 

 plan 3 as under plan 2. However, less than a third of the 64 acres in 

 the bromegrass-alfalfa mixture would be used for hay. Forty-five 

 acres would be used for pasture. The dairy herd would be displaced 

 by a beef-feeding operation in which 42 feeder calves would be finished 

 each year. The calves would be handled in the same way as those 

 involved under plan 2 for the 160-aere cash-grain farm already dis- 

 cussed, page 27. 



Handling beef calves instead of dairying would require much less 

 labor on this 225-acre farm. The farmer would need to work only a 

 feAv more hours a year than he is now working and only a few days of 

 hired labor would be necessary during the year. Plan 3, too, would 

 be possible without so great an investment in buildings and without 

 any investment in dairy equipment. On the other hand, net cash farm 

 income would be far below that of plan 2 and even below that of the 

 present plan. Compared with the present production plan, however, 

 the program of feeding out beef calves would assure a continuing higher 

 level of crop yields. 



Because of the low level of net cash farm income indicated for plan 

 3 when feeder calves are bought and finished out, largely on purchased 

 corn, a question arises regarding the kind of results that might be 

 obtained if some dairying and beef feeding were combined. One 

 combination of these two enterprises is provided for in plan 4 of table 8. 

 Again, the cropping system is the same as under the 25-cow dairy set- 

 up, except that less hay is harvested. Acreage not needed for hay is 

 used as pasture. Milk from 12 cows would be sold as whole milk. 

 These cows, of a heavy dairy breed, would be bred to a beef bull and 

 the calves added to those raised by a herd of 10 beef cows for feeding 

 out. The same number of market hogs would be raised as under plan 2. 



Investments required to establish plan 4 would be $850 less than 

 under plan 2. This difference would arise because fewer dairy cows 

 would have to be acquired. The beef cows needed could be bought 

 for less per head than dairy cows. 



Although net cash farm income under plan 4 would be greater than 

 that of the present plan, it would not equal that from plan 2. At the 

 same time the farmer would be working about 30 percent more hours 

 than when handling the 25-cow dairy enterprise with the help of 1 

 hired man. 



Some of the forage on this farm might be handled as silage rather 

 than as hay. Intensive experiments have been conducted at the Agri- 

 cultural Research Center of the United States Department of Agricul- 

 ture on the comparative efficiency of ensiling, barn-curing, and field- 

 curing forage crops. Published data covering the first year's results 

 (IS) show that for the first two cuttings of alfalfa made in 1945 an 



