FEED REQUEREMENTS AND RETURNS ON MICHlGAN FARMS Thesis 'LFar the 3391'“ cf M. 5. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Lowaii Andrew Aiien 1950 This is to certify that the thesis entitled " ‘eec‘ IEF-ogu’rements and "et‘rns on I'icbinan Farms" presented by Lowell in Ire": Allen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. 3. degree mmal Economics Wig,“ Major professor Date June 1, 1950 0.169 ,,+A‘. er a fi'. h-_.._ ' 4 ‘ " '_: ~ II». .I ‘I . .. ‘ - l . , . . . . 4 £32 a; . nu “i d. ' a ‘ 4 ' I. W, '. {3. u‘ "' .,‘. w' w' u . - .- . . _ _‘ .‘ -\.._£'JI;I'IW:“'Z? «:ififi " I t ,' ' . . f' . 1- ’1‘.‘ -' . r . ‘ . ’I ,- - I . " . ‘ 'l - . u‘ ‘ _ . l "I » " t t: , . . 'i . \\ .1‘. d. n' ‘1‘ .u. ~ I t .4 l l u" 3' II; . . d“ ‘ v. . -. ‘ , . f . 1 . ' I. at. :4, ~ ' v.‘ ‘ E, 'gabf'l‘ '3 "’n ‘f w 31 .J ' d .‘k’ ”, ' 1" I ' . , ‘ I . ' ' - ~ ‘ | ‘. - ' fl .. . ‘ . n ‘ '1 i. J _ 0 . . ' -. II > . .‘ . . _- '~ ’ . l" IEM , .| . 1‘“ J 1 . ‘; - Jfi‘ ’ ',‘. u 1' . ' - - . a " a .‘ ' ’ v .‘ r ‘ , * . " v ‘ . a t . , 1‘ If . ‘ ‘ . ‘ , 4 I 3 . ..‘ . I I '4 - '-r - 'n ‘ ' ., I. :“J- Lt - ‘5“ t )4.“ -‘.‘ .- _\ '5 .. .. ~ . ‘ - . -- . t ! ..;. ~ ,7 , v” a". ,4 '.w‘,‘ .' f D ' ."f‘. .6 ' ~rg'r“ '3“ ‘3 '. ,~ . . ‘ ' ' :‘ ' ‘ > "d V ‘ I 5 / ‘ 5 t ' ‘ A ”4 w‘t ‘"V"'"““ v bx; Q inur’ ‘ X": = ~. ~" ' . h- .. - ‘ . ' v ' | -> I . - I . . ‘ “ A ' i ‘ I ‘ ‘ .V“ x.-. .. ' ‘ ‘ | A, ‘ .fi / ‘ - . ”.7", ,.' n ' g1.,':;"~'-**g'<- w ‘ V ’5»; _| ‘l \ 0 ‘Q I I ’.' '3' l FEED REQUIRELENTS ARL RETL'ES ON MICHIGAN bARkS By LOWELL ANDREN‘ ALLEN A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Agricultural Economics 1950 THESiS ACKNOWIEDGMENT The author is indebted to Dr. Lauren H. Brown for assistance in conducting this study, and in giving advice and counsel in the preparation of this manuscript. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Karl T. Wright, Everett Peterson, John C. Doneth, Everett M. Elwood, Warren H. Vincent, Eugene H. Carter, and other members of the Agricultural Economics Department whose cooperation made this study possible. Appreciation is also expressed to Max Terry, who assisted in the statistical work for this study, and to the staff of the Agricultural Economics Statistical Laboratory for use of the calculating machines. VITA Iowell Andrew Allen PERSONAL Age: 27 years Height: 6 ft. Birth Place: Livingston Co., Lichigan'Weight: 180 lbs. Religion: Methodist Nationality: American Karital Status: Narried Health: Excellent EDUCATION High School, Fowlerville, Michigan, graduated 1959, Post—graduate course l939~40. College, Michigan State College, 1940-1942, 1948-1949, Graduated June 1949, School of Agriculture, Bachelor of Science, Major: Dairy COLLEGE ALEILIATIONS Farm House rraternity, Alpha Zeta Honorary, Men's Glee Club, Agricultural Economics Club, Dairy Club. PRACTICAL TRAINING are EXPERIENCE Born and raised on a 206 acre dairy farm in Livingston County, Lichigan. Summers of 1940, 41, 42 worked at home on my father's dairy farm. September 1941 to June 1942, September 1942 to December 1942 worked at the M.S.C. Dairy barn. January 1945 to January 1948 was in partnership with my father on his 286 acre dairy farm. January to June 1948 worked part-time in M.S.C. Creamery. June to August 1948 worked at Lansing Dairy Company, Butter and Milk Processing work. August and September 1948, Michigan State Fair, Dairy Cattle entry clerk. September 1948 to June 1949, Part-time research and general office work in M.S.C. Dairy Department. September 1949 to June 1950, Half-time teaching assis- tantship in Agricultural Economics Department, kichigan State College. CON TENTS Chapter I INTRODUCTION Need for the Study and Purposes O O O 0 Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROCEDURE Review of Literature. . . . . . . . . . Source of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . The sailiple o o o o e o o e o o o e o o e Nethods Used in Research. . . . . . . . iethods of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . DETERMINING THE QUANTITY OF FEED thllRED OR Thn.AhCUhT or LIVESTOCK TO KEEP . . . . . LIMITATIOLS OP FEED REQLIRELENT DATA Variation in Quality of Feed. . . . . . Variation in Quality of Livestock . . . Variation in the Human Factor . . . . . PRODVCTIVITY DIrrEnhNCES . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter II COKPARISON CF TIE ALOUNT OF FEED LED TO THE .ALOUNT‘WHICH'HOLLD FAVE BELN FEB USING PERU TABLE REQUIREJLITS. . . . . . . . . . . TEE ALCUET OE Ehflfi FED ON 100 EARkS. . . . . . ALOUNT OF FEED LED CN 50 DAIRY EARLS General Basis of Feeding. . . . . . . . Low Efficiency Dairy herds. . . . . . . High Efficiency Dairy Eerds . . . . . . Thh AMOUNT OD EEED BED CN 50 DAIRY AND GENERAL LIVESTOCK EARLS IJOW EijCiency FaI’TCS. o e o e o e o o 0 medium Efficiency Farms . . . . . . . . High Efficiency Farms . . . . . . . . . ALOURT OE BEED ELL 0N GEfiLfiAL LIVESTOCK EARLS. 16 17 17 18 19 2O 22 25 26 28 29 29 30 32 34 Chapter III LIVESTOCK ErEICIEICY General 0 I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Dairy Earms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dairy and General Livestock Farms . . . . . . General farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dairy Sales Per Cow on Lairy and Ge eral Livestock Perms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dairy Sales Per Cow on Dairy Farms. . . . . . RELATION OE ALOUNT OE BLED ILL TO LAIRY SALLS PLH OOH. Dairy Sales Per Cow . . . . . . . . . . . . . cone 111310113 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O RETURNS PER ICLLAR PELD COST IN THE PUTERE . . . . . Chapter IV KAY AND TILLABLL PASTURE PRODUCTION AND RLQDIRLLLITS Forage Required Per Hay Consuming Animal Unit Proportion of Land in Forage. . . . . . . . . Kind of Livestock and Income. . . . . . . . . Relation of Amount of Porage to Labor Income. Forage Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUle‘iaPy o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Chapter V Slflv ILARYO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 APPENDIX Explanation of Pactors Used . . . . . . . . . Computation of Livestock Factors. . . . . . . BI JBLIOGRAPI‘IY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O D O O 0 O Page 57 58 38 41 41 45 44 44 44 47 57 15 LIST GE TABLES Table Page Chapter I I TRR RYIATICY (E III AICUIT OE ERIC REQLIRSD SY LAIRY‘CCRS IN LITTSKSET STATES . . . . . . 6-7 II GEfiEfiALIZhD BELL REQUIKELLNIS BOB DAIRY COLS. . 8-9 IIT RELATIQN CE LAIRY bEmL COST TO OTfiER IAUTORS OD] 42 bARIuS IN 1946 O C O O O O O I O O O O 0 10 IV 335D RETURRS 1954-46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 V TIE AROUNT Ub Bbfib bLD PAR 00% ON 83 EARLS IN IMIChldAI‘J, 1948. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 10 VI BASIS FOR PASTURE RATING USED IN THIS ST’DY . . 15 VII PASIURE CHARGES EUR CEO SEASON, 1949, S C’L:’11II_‘1:II‘I IV]: C III GAL? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o l 5 Chapter II VIII ALL PARIS FEED BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 IX RELATION CF TF3 AHCUNT OP IEbD FED PER ANIMAL BRIT CONPAREL HITH EEED TASLE REQUIRERbITS ON 100 PARIS IN AREAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 OF BICI‘LIGAI‘I, 1949 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 24 x RELATION CF TEE AICUNT CR IEEL ISL To THE AICURT SLICK ICCID RAVE BRIT PEL ACCORDING To TILL TAB RSQUIRLQESTS CN 50 DAIRY PARIS IN ARIAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 OB IICRICAN, 1949 . . . . . . . . . . . 27 XI RSLATICR CI TRS AMOUNT OF RSID ELL TC THE AMOUNT WFICH xCUIL RAVE BibN LSD ON 50 DAIRY AND GnunfiaL IRRIS IN ARSAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 Oh LICLIGAN, 1949. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 XII SOURCE OF GROSS INCCIR CN 50 IAIRY AND CYRRRAL IARRS IN ARIAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 CE MICHIGAN, 1949. O O O O O O O O O O O O C O I O O O O O 51 XIII RQLATION CF TEE ALCTNT CF FEID BED COIPARED TO HEAT JCKIL RAVE Bth BED ACCCRBING TO EhED TABLL REQUIRELLHTS ON 20 GanRAL EARLS IN AREAS l, 2, 5, and 6 OP NICEIGAN, 1949. . . . 55 Table XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII Page SOURCE Ob GROSS INCOME ON 20 GRNLRAL IARNS N ARLAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 Oh LIORICAN, 1949. . . 55 Chapter III RELATION SLINLLN IALLINC ELEICIEECY AND IAROR ILCOLE AIL ;ILIR LACTORS ON 50 DAIRY IARNS IN ARRAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 CL NICRISAN, 1949 . . . . 59 RELATION RRIILLN BILLING EIEICIENCY ANL LABOR INCOJE AND bThIH :ACTQhS CN 50 LAIhY AND GEALRAL EARLS IN ARLAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 OF [LICIIUAN’ 1949 o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o 0 4O RELATION OF RETURNS PER LOLLAR BIRD ILD TO EARN LARNINCS AND OTLLR LACIORS ON 20 CRNRRAL IARLS IN ARLAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 Oh MIChIGAN, 1949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 HLLATION OE LAIfiY,SALfiS PER COM TO ALL IACTORS CN 30 DAIRY EARLS IN ARLAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 Ob J‘VILUIGAN, 194:9. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 45 RLIAITUN Of TILLABLE ACRES CE HAY AND PASTDHE PER HAY COHSURING ANIRAL UNIT TO Thh PERCENTAGE OI“ THIS EARL-'1 IN FORAGE AM) CTI‘ILR BACTC‘RS ON 98 EARLS IN ARRAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 OI NICRIOAN, 1949 . . o o . . . o o . . . o . . . o . . o . 49 FACTORS FOR GORPUTING PRODUCTIVE ANINAL UNITS. . 5 FEED REQEIREEENTS AKD RETURNS CE MICHIGAN FARMS Chapter I INTRODUCTION Need for the Study and Purposes: In organizing a farm as an efficient unit, one of the prime essentials is to have an adequate size and volume of business. Farms in central Michigan, to have an adequate size of business, should have 275 to 550 productive man work units per man.1 To build up sufficient business to meet this requirement for man labor efficiency, farms can be successfully organized with from three to five productive man work units per till- able acre.2 Approximately one-fourth to one-third of the productive work can be made up from growing crops. Live- stock must be kept to make up the difference. In organizing the livestock program, it is necessary to know the approximate amount of feed the various classes of livestock require per year. For this purpose, feed requirement tables have been set up by colleges and action agencies, such as the Soil Conservation Service, for the use of farm planners, students, and farmers. It has been observed that farms often will not carry as much livestock, year in and year out, as the feed tables will indicate. One of the primary purposes of this study is to compare the 1Hill, E. B. and Brown, L. H., PRINCIPLES OF EARN NANAGENENT. Edwards Brothers, Inc., Ann Arbor. 51 pp. 2Ibid. p. 51 2 amount of feed actually fed on a sample of farms with the amount which would have been required if the feed tables were used as a guide. 'With this information, it should be possible to make feed requirement tables more accurate. It is known there is considerable farm-to-farm variation in the efficiency with which feed is used. This could account for the fact that farms often carry less livestock than feed table requirements show. Therefore, a second purpose of this study is to determine the variation in feeding efficiency as measured by returns per dollar feed fed. There is need for information on variation in carrying capacity of grass when used for hay and pasture and the extent to which a shift toward more grass will affect the organi- zation of the livestock program. Also, information is needed on the affect of increasing the prOportion of the crop land in grass on total feed production. The aim of a cropping program is assumed to be to maximize total farm income and maintain soil productivity. A third purpose of the study, therefore, is to determine, within the limits of the data available, the affect that varying proportions of the farm in grass has on farm earnings. The data is inadequate for accurately determining the affect of the cropping programs on soil productivity. The assump- tion is that if crop yields on a farm are above average, the soil is being adequately maintained. Objectives of the Study: (1) To determine the kind and amount of feed fed on farms under different feeding conditions. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 3 To compare the variation between farms in pounds of feed fed. To determine the variation in returns per dollar's worth of feed fed. To determine the kind and amount of livestock kept on the farms. To determine the kind and amount of tillable pasture used on the farms by livestock. To compute the quantity and kind of feed which would have been fed to the livestock according to feed table requirements. To determine the relation between the amount of feed fed and the amount which would have been fed according to feed table requirements. To determine the returns per dollar feed fed on the following classes of livestock farms: (a) Farms with 90 per cent or more productive livestock income from dairy cattle. (b) Farms with 50 to 90 per cent of productive livestock income from dairy cattle. The balance of the productive livestock income made up by any single enterprise or combina- tion of enterprises. (c) General livestock farms; 0 to 50 per cent of productive livestock income from dairy cattle; O to 100 per cent of income from any single or combination of enterprises. (9) To determine the variation in the amount of forage available per hay consuming animal unit under actual farm conditions. Hypothesis: (1) The amount of feed fed to farm animals shows a great deal of variation under farm feeding conditions. (2) The returns per dollar's worth of feed fed varies considerably between farms. (3) Farms actually will not carry as much livestock as shown by estimates based on available feed budget information. Assumptions: (l) The amount of feed used on the farms was assumed to be the difference between beginning inventory plus crop production, plus feed purchases, less crop sales, seed used, if any, and ending inventory. (2) The inventories and data given are assumed to be fairly accurate,and any differences may be balanced out by the number of farms. (5) The amount of seed used from the crop inventory to be fairly constant from year to year, and that the ending inventory has taken into consideration shrinkage of the grain.with any differences balanced out among the farms. PROCEDURE Review of Literature: Feed tables show varying amounts of feed required. As dairying is one of the important enter- prises on Kichigan farms, feed requirements of cows in other states are presented (Table I). In the state of Illinois, more concentrates and less roughage are fed because grain is cheaper. Indiana feeds about the same amount of roughage but has a larger range in the amount of concentrates fed. Generally, the recommenda- tions call for feeding the feed which is most plentiful in the area. In the corn belt states, more grain is fed, while in the northern regions of the United States more roughages and somewhat less grain are recommended. Sitterly of Ohio5 presents the approximate amount of concentrates required annually per cow (Table II). Howell of Iowa points out that returns per dollar of feed fed are closely related to profit from livestock enter- prises.4 Records kept by farmers in Illinois indicated that many dairymen had cows that might have made their owners more money if they had received more feed. It was also pointed out that many cows may have been fed too heavy in relation to their ability to produce. Dairymen who fed the heaviest did not make the highest return per dollar of feed fed5 (Table III). 3Sitterly, J. H., RATES OF FEED CONSUMPTION OF LIVESTOCK. Ohio Agr. Ext. Service Bul. 308. 9 pp. 4 1- ‘ "rm “)Tir‘1 1v - ' " howell, H. 8., Then RAIURNS - KLY To LIVnSTOCK PROFITS, Iowa Agr. Exp. Farm Science, 8 pp. 0:47 5Ibid. p. 8 PROCEDURE Review of Literature: Feed tables show varying amounts of feed required. As dairying is one of the important enter- prises on Kichigan farms, feed requirements of cows in other states are presented (Table I). In the state of Illinois, more concentrates and less roughage are fed because grain is cheaper. Indiana feeds about the same amount of roughage but has a larger range in the amount of concentrates fed. Generally, the recommenda- tions call for feeding the feed which is most plentiful in the area. In the corn belt states, more grain is fed, while in the northern regions of the United States more roughages and somewhat less grain are recommended. Sitterly of Ohio5 presents the approximate amount of concentrates required annually per cow (Table II). Howell of Iowa points out that returns per dollar of feed fed are closely related to profit from livestock enter- prises.4 Records kept by farmers in Illinois indicated that many dairymen had cows that might have made their owners more money if they had received more feed. It was also pointed out that many cows may have been fed too heavy in relation to their ability to produce. Dairymen who fed the heaviest did not make the highest return per dollar of feed fed5 (Table III). 3Sitterly, J. H., RATES OF FEED CONSUMPTION OF LIVESTOCK. Ohio Agr. Ext. Service Bul. 308. 9 pp. 4 i.i I, Howell, H. 8., NERD RETURNS - KEY TO LIVhSTOCK PROFITS, Iowa Agr. Exp. Farm Science, 8 pp. 0:47 5Ibid. p. 8 .mm ma .pdofiewscwz anm was moaSocoom HeadeSOfipmm we pdeppmmom .mmoaaoo mpspm mauomsnommmma .mcfieamm poocMme .n .d SH .C0H0H>HQ Coflmcbpxm Headpadofiamd .spomoncfia Mo mpfimao>finb .mmodwmsm Spam 0:» wcfiqcsam .m .09 mm .00H>a0m aofimnepxm .mfionHHHH M0 mpfimpo>fisb .mmmcfimsm £90m emu waaacwam .H mMozmmemm .sasam was opmaunoodoo Gampopm endaocfi moasmaw opwppCooC0o Had 000.S 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 a0>o 000 000.0H 000.» 00S.m 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 = m000.0H-000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 = #000.0 -000.0 000.0 000.H 000.0 NHS.m = m000.0 -000.S 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.H 000.0 000.0 = m000.S -000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 000.0 00H.m sans m000.0 000:0 swagmdom mmmflwdom mmmmmsom ham opsnpcoonoo ham opmapqooqoo hag epmaucmonoo zoo hafimm nmaemmpmosmmea mseommzzaa amHoquuH .mme¢8m BzmrflmaHQ 2H mgoo MmHa0m nofimcbpxm amaSpH50Ham4 .hpfimaebfinb cabana .mmocfimdm Spam amp mcfimcwam .¢ memmmmmmm .damam 0:0 onwapCeocoo nfimpoam endaocH moasmfim opsapCoonoo Ham 00H.S 000.0 0SN.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 . 000.0 000.0 mos.m 9 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.H 00s.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 HS0.H 000.0 000.0 000.H 000.0 000.0 smm.a omsnmsom ommnm50m mmwnm50m Amwafim hag opsapaooaoo emmafiw ham opsapdeocoo omwaflm ham sumapcoocoo 0E3 $30 00 20 0.00 338.04 033.8% 03235 000000 azmmflmaHQ 2H @200 Mmeg Mm QmmHDdflm ammm mo BZFde MMB mo 20H94Hmm HEB I A.U.pfloov H panda 8 Table II - GCNLRALIZRD ELED REQUIRE LETS ECR DAIRY COWS. The approximate amount of concentrate required annually per cow is: (a) When average to good alfalfa or good to very good mixed alfalfa clover timothy hay is fed Annual milk Corn and Groun Wheat Soybean Total con- production cob meal Oats Bran oilmeal or centratesw per cow equivalent bu. bu. cwt. cwt. lbs. Under 5,500# of 4.5% or under 7,000# of 5.5% 14 15 1.8 1.6 1,706 5,500 to 7,000# of 4.5% or 7,000 to 9,000# of 5.5% 18 16 2.5 2.2 2,205 7,000 to 8,500# of 4.5% or 9,000 to 11,000# of 5.5% 21 21 5.2 2.8 2,700 8,500 and up of 4.5% or 11,000 and up of 5.5% 25 25 5.7 5.5 5,200 *Total protein content approximately 153‘ (b) When fair mixed alfalfa, clover, timothy, or average to good clover timothy hay is fed Annual milk Corn and Ground Wheat Soybean Total con- production cob meal Oats1 Bran oilmeal or centratesw per cow equivalent bu. bu. cwt. cwt. lbs. Under 5 ,5007’,‘ of 4.5% or under 7,000# of 5.5% 12 12 2.0 5.0 1,700 5,500 to 7,000# of 4.5% or 7,000 to 9,000# of 5.5% 16 15 2.5 5.9 2,208 7,000 to 8,500# of 4.5% or 9,000 to 11,000# of 5.5% 19 20 5.0 4.7 2,702 8,500# and up of 4.5% or 11,000# and up of 5. % 25 25 5.5 5.5 5,200 *Total protein content approximately 16%— On farms where oats are limited or not available they may be replaced by wheat, bran, and corn-and-cob meal in the ratio of 1 pound of each for each 2 pounds of oats. 9 Table II (Cont'd.) - GETERALIZED FELL REQ.IRLLE3TS TOR DAIRY CCfS (c) When good timothy with light mixture of legumes or fair mixed clover and timothy hay is fed Annual milk Corn and Ground Wheat Soybean Total con- production cob meal Oatsl Bran oilmeal or centratesw per cow quivalent bu. bu. cwt. cwt. lbs. Under 5,500# of 4.5% or under 7,000# of 5.5% 10 15 2.1 4.0 1,706 5,500 to 7,000# of 4.5% or 7,000 to 9,000# of 5.5% 15 17 2.7 5.1 2,208 7,000 to 8,500# of 4.5% or 3000 to ll,000# of 5.5% 16 21 5.2 6.2 2,700 *Total protein content approximately 18.5% 1On farms where oats are limited or not available they may be replaced by wheat, bran, and corn-and-cob meal in the ratio of 1 pound of each for each 2 pounds of oats. (d) The approximate amount of roughage required per cow for cows 0 different weight during a 200-day winter feeding period Bed both hay and Fed both hay and silage (All hay she silage (Hay fed mod- Weight Fed hay will clean up. Silage erately. All silage of cow only fed moderately.) she will clean up.) Hay Silage Hay Silagp lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. 800 5,600 2,700 2,600 2,000 4,600 1,000 4,500 5,400 5,200 2,500 5,700 1,200 5,400 4,000 5,800 5,000 6,800 1,400 6,500 4.700 4.500 5,500 8,000 l of the roughage increases. on average to good quality hay. The actual quantity consumed will increase as the quality The above quantities are based 10 Table III - RnLATION OF LAIRY PERI COST TO OTHER FACTORS ON 42 IARIS IN 1946.6 Number Feed Dairy Dairy Feed Dairy Per cent Number of Cost Income Income Units Income feed units of farms per over feed per per roughage cows cow cost cow feed unit 11 5191 8525 4154 196.5 51.66 54.4 14.6 10 142 501 159 166.1 1.81 64.9 17.0 10 119 279 160 155.7 2.06 68.5 15.9 11 95 255 142 150.2 1.80 68.0 16.8 The returns per dollar feed fed for different classes of livestock in Illinois are shown in Table IV. Table IV - FEED RETURNS 1954-46.7 Income per Poultry Dairy Hogs Beef Beef Dollar Feed Fed Feeder Raiser 15 Yr. Average 81.74 51.62 81.60 41.26 51.25 The amount of feed fed per cow in the Detroit milk shed is slightly above feed table requirements (Table V). Table v - THE AROUNT 0F FEED FED PIR 00w ON 85 PARIS IN NICRICAN, 1948.8 Fed in Feed Feed fed per cow in year _Detroit Table Milk Shed Requirements Concentrates (lbs) 2,754 2,268 Hay " 4,174 4,000 Silage " 5,500 5,000 Other roughage " 255 1,000 Pasture (days) 160 160 Butterfat (lbs) 299 500 6Ibid. p.8 71bid. p.9 8Hodge, Timothy, DAIRY COSTS AND RETURNS, Rich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeo. A.E. 454, July 1949, 5 pp. 11 Source of Data: The data for this study were taken from farm account books of 100 farm account cooperators throughout type of farming areas 1, 2, 5, and 6 of Michigan, who kept records in 1949. Primary data secured from the farm account books were: (1) Beginning inventories of feed, (2) Itemized feed purchases, (5) CrOp production, (4) Crop sales, (5) Ending inventory, (6) Average number of each kind of livestock, and (7) a complete financial summary. hail questionnaires were used where any information was lacking in the farm account books. Secondary data were secured from feed budget estimate tables as found in Hill and Brown, "Principles of Farm Management". The Sample: A sample of 100 farm records was selected from approximately 600 farm account books. There was no attempt made to randomize the sample, as it was not necessary for the type of information desired. The farms were better than average farms. The sample of 100 farms were stratified according to source of productive livestock income, type of livestock organization, and divided into three groups, as follows: (1) One group of 50 farms were called dglgy farms because more than 90 per cent of the productive livestock income was from.dairy. The balance of the productive livestock income was from other enter- prises, such as poultry, hogs, sheep, or beef. 12 (2) Fifty farms were classed as daipy and livestock farms. On these farms, 50 to 90 per cent of the productive livestock income was from the dairy enter- prise. The balance of the income was made up of another single enterprise or combination of enter- prises. The other enterprises, mainly poultry, hogs, beef, and sheep, made up from 10 to 50 per cent of the productive livestock income. (5) The other 20 farms were called general livestock farms. The productive livestock income ranged from Olto 50 per cent from dairy, and from O to 100 per cent from any single livestock enterprise or combination of enterprises. One farm had sheep as its sole source of livestock income. Two farms received all their livestock income from the poultry enterprise. The balance of the farms had a combination of livestock enterprises. Methods Used in Research: Records selected for the sample furnished accurate and complete information on feed purchases and amount of feed consumed on the farms. The itemized feed purchases were taken from the farm account books. The amount of feed consumed on each farm was computed from the data. Feed consumed was the beginning inventory, plus crOp production during year, and feed purchases, less crop sales of feedstuffs, grain used for seed, and the ending inventory. Returns per dollar feed fed was computed by l5 dividing productive livestock income on each farm by total feed value, which included a charge for pasture. As there is no definite price established for an acre of pasture, the Michigan State College Farm Crops Department published figures on the cost of establishing an acre of various kinds of pasture. Using this as a ref- erence, a standard was set up to rate the pasture on these farms (Table VI). Table VI - BASIS FOR PASTURE RATING USED IN THIS STUDY Pasture Acres per hay consuming animal unit Good up to 1 acre Hedium 1 to 2 acres Poor 2 acres and over Table VII shows the charges used in computing the value of pasture. Table VII - PASTURE CEARGES FOR CROP SEASON, 1949, SOUTHERN MICHIGAN (PER ACRE) Grade Kinds of Pasture Poor Medium Good Non-tillable 51.00 52.00 55.00 Tillable - June grass 5.00 4.50 6.00 Timothy 4.00 6.00 8.00 Rye 5.00 7.50 10.00 Mixed Legume 6.00 9.00 12.00 Clover - Sweet and Red 7.00 10.50 14.00 Reed Canary 8.00 11.00 15.00 Alfalfa - Brome 9.00 12.00 16.00 Sudan Grass 10.00 14.00 18.00 14 In planning the livestock and feed program for any farm, accuracy in determining the feed supply is as important as the feed requirement data used in calculating the number of livestock that can be carried. The feed used on each farm in this study was computed on forms shown in the appen- dix. The inventories of feed were estimates by each farmer as to the amount of feed on hand. It is believed that any over or under estimation on the part of one farmer would be balanced out by the 100 farmers. The value of the feed produced was computed several ways. The beginning and ending inventory price was used as shown in the farm account book. The ending inventory price was used in computing the value of crops produced, and feed purchases were included at the purchase price. This gave a value of feed which took into consideration variations -in both location and quality of feed. Methods of Analysis: Analysis of the records was made by a simple sorting procedure. The different strati- fication of records were sorted by returns per dollars worth of feed fed, dairy sales per cow, and acres of hay and tillable pasture per hay consuming animal unit. These causal factors were related to farm earnings, and other factors known to be related to farm earnings. The number of records available did not allow sub- sorting to the extent that this procedure would be desirable. The original stratification of records by source of income left only 20 to 50 records in a group, to be sorted by 15 returns per dollars worth of feed fed or dairy sales per cow. It would have been desirable to have sorted by size of business, for example, had a sufficient number of records been available for this more minute breakdown. 16 DETERMINING THE QUANTITY OF FEED REQDIRED OR THE AM UNT 0F LIVESTOCK TO KEEP Usually, it is not desirable to stock a farm to the limit of the feed. This particularly true in the case of roughages and pasture. When a scarcity arises, as it some- times does, it is generally the result of unfavorable weather not restricted to one farm but to large farming areas. When such an emergency develops, as in 1954 and 1956, additional feed is usually not available locally, or if available, only at high prices. Most experienced operators plan to keep slightly less livestock than their normal feed supply will carry, particularly their roughage and pasture. Conse- quently, farmers have some leeway in feeding and may feed heavier, carry livestock longer, feed to heavier weights, sell surplus feed, or hold feed until another season. Many experienced and successful feeders, especially in a feed deficit area like much of Michigan, make a prac- tice of carrying more livestock than the normal feed crop production their own farm.will support. Where such a pro- cedure is followed, less risk is involved if the quantity of feed needed is fairly accurately known in advance and plans made for the purchase. 17 LIEITATIONS OF EEED REgLIREhENT DATA Variation in Quality of Feed: One of the most signi- ficant limitations of feed requirement data is that the quality of feed grains, roughages, and pastures varies from year to year. During the same year, there will be variations between farms and areas. It is well known to livestock men that in some years a bushel of corn will produce more gain than in others. Similarly, a given quantity of leafy green hay will produce better results than hay that has been out too late, rained on too much, or foul with weeds. In wet seasons, both pasture and hay usually contain less feed value per unit of weight than in dry seasons. Corn silage varies in its feeding value as the quantity of grain and stover varies and with the stage of maturity when placed in the 8110. Variation in Quality of Livestock: A second limitation of data on the quantity of feed required by livestock is the variation in the livestock being fed. Diseased and parasite ridden livestock make slower gains, are subject to more death loss, and in general will require more feed for a given production than healthy animals. Stunted animals, like diseased animals, are handicapped. Poorly bred animals frequently make slow and costly gains. In the case of the dairy cow, or hen, the production of milk and eggs is limited by the individual inherent capacity to produce. In other words, the same quantity and quality of feed and care given to some animals will produce prepor- tionately more than the same feed and care given to others. 18 Variation in the Human Factor: A third limitation is the human factor. One man can take a given quantity of feed and livestock, and due to his skill, produce more than his neighbor. The much quoted statement, "The eye of the master fattens his cattle" is significant. The owner's interest and skill does influence the rate of gain and the quantity of feed required for a given amount of gaing. QSitterly, J. 3., RATLS or FEED CONSUI-JPTICN. BY LIVESTOCK. Agr. Ext. Serv. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Bul. 308, 5 pp. l9 PROLUCTIVI”Y LIEbLRhNCES Above reference has been made to differences in the productivity of animals from the same quantity of feed. Output per unit of input is one measure of productivity. The term efficiency is now commonly used for this measurelo. It is apparent that some cows can use more feed and other input factors to better advantage than others,,and this also contributes to productivity. To measure this term capacity is now commonly applied. Efficiency and capacity, in fact, are referred to as the two dimensions of productivity, capacity being measured at the point of highest profit combinationll. This is the point where the last or marginal unit of feed fed just pays for itself. That is, price equals marginal cost. The capacities, efficiencies, and productivities are, in the end, economic. They vary with prices, which in turn vary with the supplies of the input factors available and the demand for the product. How much of any input factor is used, or how much it is economized, depends on its pricelz. lOBlack, J. D., et a1, EARu BANAGEKLNT, NET YORK: KACKILLAN COMPANY, 1947. 407 pp. llIbid. 407 pp. lgIbid. 407 pp. 20 Chapter II COKPARISON 0E TEE ATOUNT 0F FEED FED TO THE AMOUNT WHICH WOUID HAVE BEEN FED USING FEED TABLE REQUIRELENTS. One of the principal objectives of this study was to determine the accuracy of the feed budget data commonly used in farm planning. The original hypothesis was that farms will not carry as much livestock under actual farm conditions as would be indicated by application of feed budget data to the amount of feed and livestock actually on the farm. \ It is recognized that errors can arise in planning a farm business by either overestimating crop yields or underestimating feed requirements. The matter of overesti- mating crop yields has been eliminated in this study. In each of the following tables the total feed fed is based on actual farm disappearance. The "amount required according to feed tables" is computed by applying feed budget data to the amount of livestock actually kept. The 100 farms were divided into three groups on the basis of the organization of livestock program. This was done to determine whether feed requirement data was more accurate on some types of farms than on others. Each of these groups of similar type farms was sorted according to returns per dollar feed fed. The reason for this breakdown was to determine whether feed table require- ments were more accurate at one level of feeding efficiency than at another. 21 It is recognized that there is actually considerable variation in the amount of feed fed to a given amount of livestock from one farm to another. A part of this variation results from the human factor as pointed out in Chapter I (p. 18). An additional source of variation arises from differences in the economic conditions found on different farms in the same locality. These include differences in capacity of cows and differences in the relative amount of fixed costs between farms. A third source of variation in level of feeding arises from relative differences between the price of feed and the price of milk. Such a variation could arise between two neighboring farms with different proportions of milk being sold as base. Also, it could result from difference in location with reference to feed supply and market. In analyzing the data in this chapter an attempt has been made to test the hypothesis outlined above for the aggregate of the entire sample, for different types of farms, and for different levels of feeding efficiency. 22 THE AROUNT OP FEED PdD ON 100 FARIS In the aggregate, approximately 56 per cent more grain and protein, 1 per cent more hay,and 14 per cent more silage was fed than feed budget data would indicate for the amount of livestock on these farms (Table VIII). The 20 general farms showed the greatest variation (approximately 41%) between the amount of grain and concentrates actually fed and the amount required according to feed tables. The 50 dairy and general livestock farms showed the least vari- ation between the amount of feed actually fed and the amount required according to feed tables. Considering the grain and concentrate per productive animal unit on all farms, 1036 pounds more were fed than feed tables indicate (Table IX). The amount of dry roughage fed was practically the same; however, 660 pounds more silage was fed per hay consuming animal unit. Farmers probably fed grain to their livestock more heavily during 1949 than ordinarily as most feed-price ratios were favorable. This may have accounted for the fact that farmers fed more than feed budget data would indicate. It may also be significant that 1949 was a better than average cr0p year, especially for the corn crop. 25 .pceEoHQQSm Camponm oEom opsaoca hwz*, .hmn Mo osHm> esp Mamnnmco um powdaocfi ucoawbfisvo omwmwSQH pmnpo $ amen boom been wam.emm.fl emn.o smm.mm smm.mm com m>m§ padonm proe mama mnwm moan omo.©no ommwm‘ Hsmqam Hmm.om magma Hwnmqmw ecu anamo om mom mom saw moo.sfln nmm.H mmo.o nso.mn magma Hapmnoo om mama Hoom **eoom moo.osm Hoe eon.mm mne.ma magma spawn on magmaa mama om maHnmoooe mmmeymm 92:024 moon nmeo ammo HHo.noo.H msm.mon www.4mm www.ma 0mm.flm www.mHH can come Hence mama meme mama mmmqflmm mnoqnwfl sso.nom mmmwm mmmqae mosqmm magma Hwnoemm we“ spawn on man mam mom enfl.mmn oes.oofl mom.mmH one.n moH.mH mom.wn matey Hanoeoo om emm menu mmam mms.ooH ome.nn omn.mmm mma.m nm¢.mm non.mm magma shame on endowed Gamam oHanHHB owmafim has epoch HHHE henna camponm neon; mpwo upon mEamm momo¢ mace mace .mnu .mnu .mou .5m .5m .5m . . . .meofl .nmenOHz mo 0 one m m H mwom¢ Ga manmm OOH do mpdmfioafidvom oHQwB poem on wcfionooom pom Coon o>w£ pane? seam; undead emu op com poem mo undoE< mummoawmd emu no Coapwamm eeeoam mama mamem age . HHH> magma 24 Table IX - REIATION OF THE AHOUNT OF FEED FED PER ANIKAL UNIT COkPARbL MIT: FEED TABLE REQUIREHBNTS ON 100 FARnS 1N AREAS 1, 2, 5, and 6 OF MICHIGAN, 1949 Feed Actually Fed Feed Table Requirements Grain and protein concentrate per productive animal unit 5921 pounds 2885 pounds Hay per hay consuming - animal unit 4880 pounds 4840 pounds* Silage per hay consuming . animal unit 5420 pounds 4760 pounds *Approximately 1000 pounds other roughage included at one- half value of hay or about 500 pounds of hay added to hay requirement to give total number of pounds. 25 AMOUNT OF FEED FED ON 50 DAIRY FARMS General Basis of Feeding: The results of feeding a dairy cow are measured in terms of production of milk and butterfat. The output varies with the quantity of feed consumed by the cow, quality of the feed, care given the cow, and the inherited ability of the cow to convert the feed consumed into milk. host experienced dairymen provide their cows with all the roughage and pasture they will consume regardless of the milk production. The quantity of roughage and pasture consumed by a cow depends a large extent on the size of the cow and the quality and palatability of the roughage and pasture offered. Consequently, in determining the quantity of these two feeds required, the size of the animals must be taken into consideration as well as the quality of feed. Concentrates, on the other hand, are usually fed in proportion to the quantity of milk produced. These are fed in varying ratios with some differentiation made on the basis of the fat content of the milk. For instance, one pound of concentrate to each three pounds of 4.5 per cent milk for the Jersey and Guernsey breed, and one pound of concentrate to each four pounds of 5.5 per cent milk for the Holstein breed. These should be only used as a standard when high quality hay and silage are provided liberally. The protein content of a ration is adjusted to the quality of the hay and pasture available. When the palatability 26 and protein content of roughages are law, a concentrate ration containing more protein, around 14 to 20 per cent, is required if milk production is to be maintained. If good quality roughage is fed, a protein content of 10 to 14 per cent is required in the ration. kany farmers do not follow any definite schedule of feeding grain to cows. Some feed the same amount to all cows in the herd, regardless of size, stage of lactation, or condition. This may be one of the reasons for ineffi- cient use of feed on some farms. The 50 dairy farms were divided into two groups on the basis of returns per dollar feed fed on the assumption that this factor is a measure of feeding efficiency. This procedure was followed to determine whether the feed budget data gives more accurate estimates on farms where feeding efficiency is high or where feeding efficiency is low. Grain consumption was computed per productive animal unit and roughage per hay consuming animal unit. lbw Efficiency Dairy Herds: The low efficiency farms fed 1000 pounds more grain, mill feed, and protein supplement per productive animal unit than would have been fed using feed table computations (Table X). Also, 1500 pounds more dry roughage was fed per hay consuming animal unit. The cows on these farms may have been low producing cows and fed more than necessary according to their producing ability. 27 .hhfimm anw meooafi zoopmo>aa o>apod©opm go hm>o use name Mom 00* mm m we Comm Doom mmmm non rm.mm ma.©m mEth Haw Co Umk pooh addpod mm m Nb Owwo Oman mmom mvm wm.mm Hm.nm Umh 000% Hw5p04 Omom Obbw bmam Han Hm.©m bo.va pompsm been Aoe.mm mmma®>a emu emoe waHHoe awe measpmmv wozmHOHamm mgHm em n as ooem omao mmmn New mn.sm HH.mm emu emmu nuance oeme came eemm nmn em.mm ma.ma pomesm eoma Amm.am mmmpm>m com econ uwHHoe pea measpmmv woaeHonam ash mmmpo m Moopmm>HH ommafim has :Hoponm m cfiopomg macho nompo hpflma .mnq .mQM Gawam .mnn .mnq .53 mpmo .59 ano mfioocfi mmoam pacb HwEfiC¢ soapmpdmfioo mo mafiadmcoo mo monpmz psoo pom hem pom pHQD Hweflcd o>fiposmoam pom .memH .zeeHneHa a8 0 one .m .m .H magma 2H *mlmea meeo on 20 maze mzHeymm mange mama ea waHamoooe mam sham m>am nuaoz.mone Bazaaa Mme as new mama mo Baboon ewe ac onaeamm u x magma 28 The budget figures computed were based on the actual production of the dairy herds to be comparable. That is, the feed table requirements were computed at the actual production level of the herds. High Efficiency Dairy_Herds: The feed budget estimates agreed more closely with actual feed fed on this group of farms than on the low efficiency farms. These farmers fed only 500 pounds more grain, mill feed, and protein supple- ment per productive animal unit and about the same amount of roughage as would have been fed using feed table require- ments (Table X). This group of farms made more efficient use of the feed fed than the low efficiency group. The farms might have had better dairy cows with higher productive capacity. Milk production may have been higher on these farms in the fall of the year when the price of milk is higher and more sold at the base price. In this group of farmers there may have been some pure bred breeders who sold youngstock and cows at a premium price which would raise the returns per dollar feed fed because of a higher productive livestock income. A greater percentage of the gross income was derived from the crop income on these farms. The high return herds averaged approximately 20 pounds more butterfat per herd than the low return dairy herds indicating their higher producing capacity. 29 THE AMOUNT OF FEED FLD ON 50 DAIRY AND GANLRAL LIVESTOCK FARMS The 50 dairy and general livestock and 20 general farms were divided into groups on the basis of returns per dollar feed fed. The groups being various levels of feeding efficiency and returns per dollar feed fed a measure of efficiency. These groups of farms were taken separately and the amount of feed was computed which the livestock would have required on each farm using feed budget estimates. These were then totaled for each group andcpmpared with feed actually fed on the farns. Low Efficiency Farms: The farms with low returns per dollar feed fed used 1200 pounds more grain, protein, and mill feed per productive animal unit than would have been fed according to feed table requirements (Table XI). Also, more hay and silage were fed per hay consuming animal unit than according to feed table requirement. It is interesting to note that more high price wheat was fed per animal unit in this group. The ration would have been cheaper if corn could have been substituted for wheat to reduce the value of feed fed and raised returns per dollar feed fed. This group of farms fed more grain and concen- trate per productive animal unit than the higher efficiency farms indicating less efficient use of feed. iedium Efficiency Farms: On this group of farms, there was not as great a difference between the amount of 30 feed actually fed and feed table estimates (Table XI) as there was on the low efficiency farms. Approximately 700 pounds more grain and concentrates and slightly more rough- age were actually fed per animal unit than the estimates indicated. High Efficiency Farms: The high efficiency farms fed 800 pounds more grain and protein concentrate per productive animal unit than would have been fed using feed table requirements (Table XI). The amount of feed fed was approxi- mately the same per productive animal unit as the previous group. The amount of corn fed compared very favorably per productive animal unit on this group. However, this was the only group in which the amount of hay fed was under the feed table requirements. Where dairy cattle predominate, less feed is required per productive animal unit than where other classes of livestock make up the larger percentage of the productive livestock income. The low efficiency group had a smaller percentage of gross income from cattle and a greater percentage from hogs and poultry (Table XII). The high efficiency group had a larger percentage of the gross income from dairy than the other two groups. Crop yield index, and labor income increased as returns per dollar feed fed indicating the Operators were better managers all around (Table XII). 31 oaa.ew Hod mm m m H m an swam mas.ma mm mm a HH m OH on anaema mmn.aa em mm NH oH we sQH chocH Noch nompo moomm wanst homm mmom cappwo hhflmm aonmg eaoaw a macho emu emma pwHHoe memo oEoocH macaw we ammo pom pom mammaom .mema .zmemoHa mo 0 paw .m .m .H m¢mm¢ 2H mamdm qmmmzflo mzd.me¢Q on go mgoozH mmomw mo wompom I HHx oHQmB .mcmfiadampmo mo sompmcHQEoo ac mac haw Eopm mEoocH xoopmo>HH o>auodpoam mmp no coamawp amp .hpfimo Scam mEoocH zoopmcpfia obapofipoam on» Mo 9200 mom apocfic on hpmfim$* .oumapcoodoo Gaopopm paw pooh Hafie wchSaocH* ombm oemw whom mam mew mv.n mm.bm om.am Hw590< mm.am mm.mwsnb.afi core once mrwm man mn.m mH.om mm.on pompsm swam bH . z omme ompw mama men ohm mn.¢ mm.om mn.mm Hm5p0¢ mm.aw H>.H@Im¢.afi omme omne mflmm woe am.m ms.ma m>.Hn powesm .eoa ad . _ omoo comm mmaw 0mm wan mm.m nm.mm om.m¢ Heepom om.Hw ow.awumw. w came came mamm mow os.m mn.afl wfl.mm somesm 39H ma poem mmwaam ham *Gampc HHHH afiopoam .59 .59 .d9 meamw .mnu .mpu .mnH .mhu .mnq among mpwo Chou pom xcwm 909852 mmmpo>4 omcmm pans HwEficd mcHEdmcoo pan: Hmefica c>Huodpopm pom pom pom“ amaaop mmm pom pom megapom AM 20 33m Zuflm m>¢fl Q9204 EQHmn immoafl W39 5% .memH .zemHaoaa mo 0 new .m .m .H memme 2H wamamaa ummazmu 924 Named mum mama mo ezesae age he cheaqmm . Ha mapwa ALOUNT Ob FEED BED ON GEELRAL LIVLSTOCK EARHS There was a greater diversification of livestock on this group of farms than on the previous two (Table XIV). Dairy cattle income made up a smaller percentage of the gross income while hogs, beef, and poultry made up a larger percentage. tore grain was fed per animal unit to these classes of livestock organization than where cattle predominate. This is shown by 69 bushels of corn being fed per productive animal unit as compared with 25 to 40 bushels on the two previous groups (Table XIII). Approximately 5000 pounds more grain, mill feed, and protein supplement were fed per productive animal unit than would have been required using feed table requirements. This is the greatest variation in feed fed found so far. Also more hay and less silage were fed per hay consuming animal unit than according to feed table requirements. It should be pointed out that a hay consuming animal unit on these farms required less than half as much roughage as on the other two groups. 55 e oaooqfi acgpo b oEoonH hompo mm oEooda @090 pa oEoocH @090 w cacoca moomm m csooca momma ma oEooca hnpadom om oEoocH hnpadom OH osoocfi momm Ha oEoocH Hoom mm chocH wom >9 oEoqu mom ma oEoocH hpfiwn ma chonH hhawm mEoocH maawm oEoocH madam mmomw andpom swam mmoaw magpom BQH mo pace Mom mo pcmo hem .mema .zesHmoHa mo m Ucm «m .N «H m¢mm4 ZH m£mHK manwe .pooh HHHE paw Campoam wGfiUSaocH* comm omom home mom om.nm oo.om OH com @009 Hmsuoa ooem omwa Hmmn ewe oo.oH oe.¢m oH nemesm Ame.aw mmwumsev mam mama maqqoa mam mammaam amHm omoa comm home mmH an.mn em.mo oH emu come Hmspoa oemm coma moan emm ee.oa ms.ee OH pmmesm Amo.aw omwao>¢v mam game madden mam mzmpeam sad mwwaam has *QHmam campoam .mnn .m9q .m9q .mnn .59 mpwo .59 Chou pHCD HmEHc¢ maamm coapmpsmfioo mcaEScho pHcD HwEHc< o>fipospoam pom amnesz mo 003902 ham pom .memH .zeeamoHa mo 0 one .m .m «H mdflm4 ZH m4m4m Adfiflzflw ON 20 mBzflammHQVHm flqm¢e QmmA OH $ZHQmooo< QMm ZMflfi fl>4m QHDOfi B4m3 OB Aflmdmfioo awn QMMm ho BZDOA¢ nae LO ZOHB¢Aflm I HHHK OHQME 34 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOKMENDATIONS The data presented in this chapter would indicate farmers fed 55 to 41 per cent more grain and concentrates per productive animal unit than feed budget estimates indi- cate. This does not necessarily mean that feed tables are this inaccurate, and should be increased by 30 to 40 per cent, but gives an approximate indication of the amount of feed actually fed. In another study carried on by the Department of Agricultural Economics in coOperation with the Michigan hilk Producers Association in the Detroit Milk Shed Study, farmers fed 20 to 25 per cent more grain per cow than the feed budget estimates indicate at the same production levella. The average farmer fed 20 to 40 per cent more grain and concentrates per animal unit than feed budget estimates indicate. The quantity of grain fed showed the greatest variation from farm to farm. The quantity of hay fed was about the same while 14 per cent more silage was fed per hay consuming animal unit than feed budget estimates would indicate. This would indi- cate the roughage estimates are much more accurate than the grain portion of the feed recommendations. The quantity of roughage fed per hay consuming animal unit compares favorably with roughage consumption in other studies. Since feed-price ratios were favorable in 1949, farmers fed grain and roughage heavily to take advantage of lsHodge, Timothy, DAIRY COSTS AND RETURNS, Agr. Exp. Station, Ag. Econ. 454, p. 3. 55 the favorable feed-price ratio, and was one of the reasons why more feed was fed than feed budget estimates would indicate. It would be desirable to make a study of this kind another year when the feed-price ratios were not as favorable. The low efficiency farms fed the greatest amount of grain and concentrates per productive animal unit. The feed budget estimates compare much better with the high efficiency farms. This would indicate the feed budget estimates are too conservative for the average farmer. For example, the dairy section of the feed budget estimates was based upon Dairy Herd Improvement Association records, which were probably on cows of above average producing ability and farmers who were efficient feeders. Maybe the feed tables are a bit optimistic on what the average farmer can do with a certain quantity of grain. As a recommendation, the feed budget tables should be increased with the amount an average farmer would feed. The grain portion of the feed tables shows the greatest variation. The figures found in this study indicated farmers fed 36 per cent more grain and protein supplement per animal unit than the feed budget estimates indicated. However, this figure includes all grain shrinkage totals since there was no accurate method of determining the amount of shrinkage of grain in this study. Loss of grain from rats and mice is also included in the feed consumed figure. In addition to the favorable feed price ratio 36 during 1949, there was a large supply of feed on hand per animal unit. In years when the feed supply is plentiful per animal unit, there is a faster feed disappearance on farms than normal. Nost small grain yields were fairly accurate but the corn yields on some farms may have been optimistic. In view of these limitations of the data, the grain portion of the feed tables should be increased 15 to 25 per cent. As silage can be partially substituted for hay, the quantity of roughage in the feed budget estimates is satis- factory for all practical purposes. If the feed budget tables were increased, they would be more in line with the feeding efficiency on the average farm. As stated before, in using the present feed budget estimates in farm planning, more livestock is put on the farms than they will carry under actual feeding conditions. In having the extra livestock load, a farmer might run short on feed and have to buy a considerable amount of feed. This could disrupt a farners plans if he had to buy a large quantity of feed not previously planned on. Buying feed is advisable to enlarge the size of business on a small farm for a more efficient unit. If the grain portion of the present feed tables were increased, there would be less chance of overestimating the amount of livestock a farm will carry. The fichigan feed budget table gives feed requirements for each 50 pound butterfat interval from 200 to 350 pounds 56a of butterfat production per cow. It would be helpful if another interval was added for feed requirements on cows producing 400 pounds of butterfat. Several commercial herds included in this study were in this high producing class. The high efficiency farmers have received the most attention in the past. The data in this study indicates some effort is needed both in research and extension work on the low efficiency group of farms to improve the efficiency with which feed is used on these farms. 57 Chapter III LIVESTOCK EEEICIENCY General: In planning farms, the first steps are to plan the cropping program and fit the livestock to the feed and labor available. The next step is to estimate gross income. Such an estimate can be made with a reasonable ' degree of accuracy by multiplying the value of feed by the returns per dollar feed fed, as an estimate of livestock income. Crop incone is added to the productive livestock income to give an estimate of gross income. Since live- stock programs vary it is desirable to have a standard for returns per dollar feed fed for different classes of live- stock programs. One of the purposes of this study was to determine the returns per dollar feed fed by different classes of livestock organization. These were dairy farms, dairy and general livestock farms, and general livestock farms. The average return per dollar feed fed on these farms could be used as a standard to estimate gross income. Known variations in feeding efficiency (returns per dollar feed fed) on certain types of farms would give the approximate range in the gross which could be expected. The three classes of farms were divided into groups by returns per dollar feed fed as a measure of feeding efficiency. Labor income and farm analysis factors were computed for each of these sub-groups to determine the relation to labor income. The average returns per dollar feed fed (feeding 58 efficiency) on these sub-groups could be used as a standard to show the approximate variation in estimate of gross inc0me. What would be the relation of feeding efficiency (returns per dollar feed fed) to labor income and other farm analysis factors? ’ Livestock efficiency used in this chapter is measured by the ratio of output (dollar return) to value of input (dollar's worth of feed). In other words, returns per dollar feed fed (feeding efficiency) is to be a measure of livestock efficiency in this chapter. Dairy Farms: The high efficiency farms returned $2.40 in productive livestock income for every dollar feed fed compared with fl.52 per dollar feed fed on the low efficiency farms (Table XV). It is interesting to note the crop yield index was the same on both groups of farms. In spite of the fact the low efficiency group had a larger size of business, the high efficiency group with high returns per dollar feed fed and higher sales per cow had the largest labor income. Dairy and General Livestock Farms: The low efficiency farms had the most tillable acres but lowest crop yield index, lowest productive livestock income, smallest size of business, and lowest labor income (Table XVI). Apparently, on farms where there is low livestock efficiency, other farm analysis factors also seem to be low. Even though the medium efficiency group had the largest size business and productive livestock income, the returns per dollar feed fed, crop yield index, and labor 59 Table xv - REIATION BE”LEEN EEEDING EitICIENCY AND LABOR IwchE AID o EEK PACT’RS 0N so DAIRY taxis IN AREAS 1, 2, 5, and e or MICHIGAN, 1949. Item Returns Per Dollar Feed Fed 9:57-§1.55 21.95-§5.5e All farms Number of farms 15 15 50 Returns Per Dollar Peed Fed (ave) 9 1.52 9 2.40 9 1.88 Tillable Acres 164 158 161 Productive Nan Work Units 602 549 595 Crop Yield Index 101 101 101 Productive Livestock Income 3 7,596 5 8,248 9 7,922 Gross Income 9 9,955 5 11,194 a 10,564 Number of Cows 19.4 18.7 19.0 Dairy Sales Per Cow $ 518 2 548 5 552 Productive Man Work Units Per Man 557 515 526 Pounds of Grain Per Productive Animal Unit 5252 2695 2996 labor Income 9 1,598 a 4,056 a 2,927 Per cent of Gross Income From Dairy 75 72 72 Crops 18 22 20 Other 9 6 8 4O m s 6H e 90250 ON Hm ma mm macho OH 5 an we aneflaoa 6H m OH OH nmom mm en an we ended «Scam oEoocH mo pdoo pom see.me oaa.ee nss.ma mmn.aw osoeeH nosed ecm.n moo.n mao.n mmH.e page assess o>apodponm and madam mo mUCSQm Hnn mam sen omn sea ace mean: sac; sea oeaaoaeoam soma omen sane mmma goo too modem spasm m.eH e.mH e.ea m.HH neon no nooasz Ham.sa som.ma mme.mm nnm.na oaooaH aeoeaopaq o>aaoaeoaa om HoH no em sooeH eaoaw none can awn moo V mom means sacs one caaaooooam nao.oam ono.aaa moH.mHe oee.aa esoecH emcee eoa _ ena Hen sea notes oaoeafiaa .oo.aw mm.aw mn.aa om.aa A.o>ev com econ pmaaom pom deSpom on be an 6H mason do aoaaoz manna Hae mm.me-me.am as.Ha-ae.Ha we.amume.m anH pom poem anaaom som.md95pom .aean .aeea;oaa go 5 one .n .m .H memes 2H mamas newness nae meem on 20 women and mommaoasam ezanmaa name an nHmmaoHeeunm . st edema 41 income were about average which shows a high relationship between returns per dollar feed fed and labor income. Again, the high efficiency group which averaged $1.99 return per dollar feed fed had the highest labor income, which was three times as large as the low efficiency group. The high labor income was due to a combination of factors, namely high returns per dollar feed fed, high productive livestock income, high crop income, and high crop yields. General Farms: The labor income of the high efficiency farms was 32,594 more than the low efficiency group (Table XVII). The primary factors which helped to make a high labor income were higher returns per dollar feed fed, larger size of business, and higher crop yield index. These general farms returned 51.25 for each dollar feed cost, while the dairy and general farms returned $1.60, and dairy farms $1.88 per dollar feed cost. Daipy Sales Per Cow on Daipy and General Livestock Eggggz Dairy sales per cow increase as returns per dollar feed fed increase (Table XVI). High dairy sales combined with large size of business and crop yield index apparently maximize labor income. The low returns per dollar feed fed are closely associated with low dairy sales per cow. The low dairy sales per cow, small dairy herds, low crop yield index, and small size of business on the low efficiency farms were the major causes of the low labor income. The dairy sales per cow on the high efficiency farms were 9106 more than on the low efficiency farms. 42 mas.am on own mnH was om mm.aa magma has mam.ma oHH om» mmfi ems swam OH m¢.H% mm.am-fln.aa mam @ mm mam m¢a mm¢ BQH OH ©0.H# >N.Hanbm. a Nopcfi mpacs owmpmpd owcwm mEoocH @Hmfim moans Hwefizw moped #90; cos mafia“ monqu mono o>Hu05©oam oHQwHHHB mbfiposoohm xcwm popsoz pmoo coow pmHHop hog mdhdpmm .mwma .zaeH:OHa mo 0 was .m .m .H m4mm¢ 2H mamaa 70 mmorw 9w a. maze. a Azd mSZHzmfi Lymde 0%. 2am Qafim mfiéog mam fidmmzflw ON mszwmr mo ZOHEdaHmm I HH>X 0.”nt 43 The high dairy sales per cow, igh returns per dollar feed fed, high crop yields, and high crop income were the major factors accounting for the high labor income on the high efficiency farms. Dairy Sales Per Cow On Dairy Farms: On farms where the dairy herd is the main livestock enterprise, the returns per dollar feed fed also have an effect on dairy sales per cow (Table XV). The 15 high efficiency farms averaged $ .88 more returns per dollar feed fed than the low farms. High returns per dollar feed fed, high dairy sales per cow, and higher crop income were the major factors which accounted for the higher labor income. A high labor income seems to be associated with high returns per dollar feed fed, high dairy sales per cow, high crop yields, and large size of business. It should be pointed out that dairy sales per cow increase as returns per dollar feed fed. It would be diffi- cult to say which was cause and effect. Each factor is closely associated with the other, and where returns per dollar feed fed are high, dairy sales per cow are high, or vice versa. 44 REIATION Ob AkOUNT OP FEED BED TO DAIRY SALES PER COW Farmers with high production and sales per cow feed their cattle well (Table XVIII). The three average dairy sales per cow figures represent approximately the average butterfat production per cow because fat sold roughly for one dollar per pound as fluid milk during 1949. Dairy Sales Per Cow: High dairy sales per cow are related to high labor income (Table XVIII). Many factors seem to follow along in about the same proportion as the increased sales per cow indicating that a good dairyman also is a good manager with reference to other aspects of his business. Productive livestock income increased with total feed cost. Labor income increased with dairy cattle income, which increased with number of cows. The farms with high sales per cow had large size of business from large herds, high crop yield index, high return per dollar feed fed, and $1000 above average labor income of all farms. The farms with lowest dairy sales had fewer cows, lowest crop yield index, and smallest size of business, which is reflected in the lower labor income. Farms with high returns per dollar feed fed have the highest labor income even though size of business is smaller than on the other groups. When cr0p yield, size of business, dairy sales per cow, and returns per dollar feed fed are all high, the labor income is usually high also. Conclusions: Livestock efficiency, which is measured in returns per dollar feed fed, and on farms with high .haHmp Eopm Uo>Hmop oEoocH moopmo>fia opHp05popd Mo ao>o pow puma pom muocfiz* oo. smm ms oo.osm.n a 00. cos ms oo.mmH.ma msoocH momma 00. now a: oo.omm.lo 00. men he oo.Hom.ea maoosH oprac aaHmn so. m m¢.m so. e Hm.o qus Hschs msHposeohg pom amass oHpmHHHe mm.H a HH.m w Hp. H a as. H r pmoo gosh stHoe pom mapspmm oo.oem.ea oo.an.m a 00. cos ea 00. now mu pmoo comm Hausa mo.mH s.Hm .mH m. mH mace ho pmnssz ms.H _ o.m o.H o.H cos ho amassz oo.soH.ma oo.Hmn.m m oo.o¢s.Hw oo.one.mw msoosH goso HoH mHH mm mm xoecH oHoHa mono >.n 0.0 o.¢ m.n whom oHpmHHHp pom mac; mzwp 0>H905©oam HoH nsH me me mmwom mewHHHe oo.mmm.sa oo.H©w.cHa oo.mnm.sv oo.nsm.em assoc“ soopmm>HH m>Hposeopm osm ewe on was mpHcs apos_sms mpHposeopm omoo omHs ooom oose = = mmeHm .mpq oon omen oeem ommn pHus Hssficw msHssmcoo as; pom has .mpu ommm msmw omen mmmm : = = mopwnpzoocQo Ham .mpq mom was omm mmH pHc: HmsHsm msHposeopm pad em“ cHoposd .mnq omH mam mom mm pHcs stHcs msHposeopg neg ooh comm HHHs .maH sm.m HH.mm Hm.mm so.mm pHss Hmchm o>Hposeopm had 80% mpwo .sm mH.©m oe.om mm.mm mm.wm pHcs HmsHss m>Hposeopg 9mg 8mg choc .sm mm.mmm 00.0mm e©.mon mn.nmm mswmh HHs . mpHcs Hsngw mpHposeohm oo.onm mm.HHn om.mmm me.©mm mags“ HHm - mpHss Hsqum msHssmsoo fish on ; OH OH OH maaww we pmnfisz oo.mnn a oo.moe « 00.0mm m 00.0mm m loo 9mg monm asHso mmmamsa mega“ Had wmwauamnw owmmnommw mmmwuoon sou hog mmew thwQ mEopH .mwma wzN oanwe 46 returns per dollar feed fed, large size of business, high crop yields, and high dairy sales per cow are associated with high labor income. Where farms are grouped by returns per dollar feed fed, crOp yield index, dairy sales per cow, and labor income all increase as returns per dollar feed fed increase. A farm operator who has high returns per dollar feed fed (live- stock efficiency), generally has high efficiency in all other factors, or phases of his business. The dairy farms in this study returned $1.88 for each dollar feed fed, while dairy and general livestock farms returned 81.60, and general farms #1.25 for each dollar feed fed. In farm planning these figures can be used as a standard in esti ating the gross income on a farm when the value of crops is known. An approximate variation of $1.52 to f2.40 times the feed value on a dairy farm plus crop sales would give the estimated variation in gross income. 0n dairy and general livestock farms a variation of $1.20 to 32.00 times the feed value plus crOp sales would give the estimated variation in gross incone on these farms. A variation on general livestock farms of $1.06 to $1.49 times the feed value plus cr0p sales would give the estimated variation in gross income. The figures in the above paragraph were the 1949 returns per dollar feed fed. The figures may vary in years when the feed-price ratios are not as favorable, and there is a more limited supply of feed per animal unit. 47 RETURHS P;R DOLLAR FEED COST IN TFE FUTUR“ What will happen to returns per dollar feed fed under changing prices? In 1949, most feed price ratios were gen- erally favorable. Farmers apparently fed their livestock well to take advantage of the favorable ratios. Feed was relatively cheap in comparison with the price of livestock and livestock products. With government price support programs coming in more and more, alcng with crop quotas and increasing livestock numbers, feed prices will probably remain at their present level or move higher in the future. Livestock prices and products, including dairy probably will drop lower in the years ahead. Kith feed prices remaining relatively high and productive livestock income falling off from its 1949 level, high feeding efficiency will become increasingly important. Returns per dollar feed cost will probably be lower as productive livestock income goes down with feed prices remaining fairly high. 48 Chapter IV HAY'ANL TILLABLE PASTURE PRODUCTION AND REQUIREVENTS In foregoing chapters, an analysis has been made of variations in pounds of grain and roughage, and variations in returns per dollar of feed fed. In this chapter, an attempt is made to analyze the variations and causes for variations in the number of acres devoted to the production of hay and pasture. Only 98 of the 100 farms were included in this portion of the study because two farms were devoted entirely to poultry production and had no hay consuming livestock. These 98 farms were sorted into six groups according to the number of acres in hay and pasture per hay consuming animal unit. Pertinent factors assumed to be associated with the profitableness of farmtperation were averaged for each group (Table XIX). Forage Required Per Hay Consuming Animal Unit: The farms required an average of 2.7 acres of hay and tillable pasture to feed a hay consuming animal unit during 1949 (Table XIX). The averages of the six groups of farms ranged from 1.4 acres of hay and tillable pasture per hay consuming livestock on the high yield group to 4.8 acres on the low yield group. ’here was an extreme range from .4 of an acre on the low farm to 7.6 acres per hay consuming animal unit on the high farm. On the farms with high acreages of forage per hay consuming unit, the farms did not carry as much livestock per tillable acre because the yields of hay and 49 am 0.0v O.N b.m m.H ¢.H mod wm.an m.onfi.n m.omn.m w.¢m mm 0H O.b¢ m.¢ m.m ¢.N owa om.mm m.mm¢ ¢.mbm N.©H ha mm m.¢¢ mm >.©n om ¢.mn m. @.H m.H O.H mma mm.on o.eme m.moe ©.®N 0H on macho Boa ca pama oHQmHHHp pdoo pom n.0m endpmwm £ has moped oHanHHp #200 mom m”. OHHQ¢ mpfics HwEHdw .poam ommpo>¢ .D.¢.m amnesz .b.¢.o.m Mo ponfisz m.bm .D.¢.o.m Mo .oc ommpo>¢ pH magma popfidz mw.¢m m.mmm m.b©¢ mfifiwrw H Hd. @.DIHO.¢ mm.m|w.n n.nlb.m ©.mun.m pad: Hmefic4 mGHESmCQo hmm pom cadummm oHQmHHHB paw ham Mo moao¢ m.mlb.a .mema .zaeamoaa go 0 one .m .m .H madam 2H mamaa mm 20 mmoaoea memao nae maemoa 2H maxed as amaezaomam may 09 BHZD Q<£HZ¢ SZHADmZOQ Nam ham mraamfim 924 N4: mo mmmo¢ figmdquB mo onafiqmm I XHN OHQwB 5O 00.000.m 0 00.000.00 00.0mm.0 0 00.000.0 0 00.000.0 0 00.000.0 0 00.00H.0 0 0000 0000 ho>o oEooQH moopmo>fia .poam 00.000.0 0 00. 000 00 00.0HH.0 0 00. 000. 0 0 00. 000 0 0 00.000.0 0 00.000.0 0000» 0000 00.000.0 0 00. 0am 00.000.0 0 00. 000 000 00. 000. 0 0 00.00H.0 0 00.000.0 0 E000 000 oEooCH x0000 l®>HH . Cohm 00.000.000 00.000.00 00.000.0 0 00.000.000 00.000.000 00.000.000 00.000.05000000 00000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00a 000502 000 . 000 7 H00 - 000 a 000 000 7 000 . .p+a.2.0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.00 0 00.00 0 = 00000 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000.H 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 = 0000000 00.000 0 - _ 00.00 0 00.000 0 00.00 0 00.00 0 00.000 E00000 0000 00. H00 3 00. 00H 00 00. 000.0 a 00.000.H a 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 0Eooca 000 00. 000 0 m 00. 000 00 00. 000. 0 0 00.000.0 0 00.00H.0 0 00.000.0 0 00.000.0 0 000000 cappmo hafimm H00 000 000 H00 000 000 000 000000 mpmaasm 0 mums 909852 0.0 0. H.H 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 000000 000 0300 @009 909652 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .000 000 on pomfiwa 0mwm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0300 .0d mmmam>< 0.0a 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 000202 0.0a 0.0H 0.HH o.mH 0.0a H.0H 0.0H 0300 00000 .od mwmam>0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00000 Hamem CH waa 00000000 0000 000 05000 000 0.0-00.0 00.0-0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0-0. pHcD H0£Hd¢ mafiadmdoo ham hem magpmwm oaflmaaaB 0:0 ham mo moaod mfimpH .0000 .20000002 00 0 000 .0 .0 .0 00000 2H mar00 00 20 0000000 00000 000 000000 20 00000 00 0000200000 000 00 0020 000000 020,000); 000 000 00000 00 020 000 00 00000 00000000 00 20000000 - “.0.00000 000 00000 51 00.000.00 00.000.00 00.000.00 00.000.0 0 00.000.0 0 00.000.0 0 00.000.00000000 00000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000 00000000 009 00099 0903 902 0>0pos©ohm 00.0 .00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .0.0.0 000 00000 00900009 00.000.00 00.000.00 00.000.00 00.000.0 0 00.000.0 0 00.000.0 0 00.000.0 0000000 0000 000 00 00 00 00 000 000 00000 . . 00000 @000 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 00.000 0 300 000 . . - . 00000 00009 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0. 0000 0000 000000 neg mandamm 00000 000 0.0-00.0 00.0-0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0-0. 9099 008094 MEHE00200 hwm 90m opsumwm 00900005 090 00m mo 00000 maopH .0000 .00000000 00 0 000 .0 .0 .0 00000 20 00000 00 00 0000000 00000 000 000000 00 00000 00 0000000000 000 00 0000 H<€Hz¢ UZHADWZOQ V. F 8 8 £83.. 8 .3852: xxxxxxxxnxuflx, .32.... cal... 12...... .598. .583... e... 5.:- z .58. .35.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E8. .82... «8.. 9.8.... .a S 08.... E 98...... 3 II!!!) 3.5. e. e... is... 32...... 3:23.15— 8.3 . .2... 8. .2. 3.3. E... 3...: — sen 5...... 3... I. 2.8... 8: e2.5 8.... 8.. 15.2. 185. t... — 28¢ 3.... u a "32:... e8... — £8 doc: E. .82... 8:8 e88. 38......38- 2:8... £3 :8 I. .2... e... .3... E. .8... 5...... 388.. a... .23.. a... 8.3 £8 .52.. :2... e... :8... .383... .8. 85.... E... 8.3 £8 5.... :8. 3 3:... sec .210... I! 3.... F {as .832. . 35:3: 865... was; .9. was. .2. 31>. 6.. 3.2.. 6.. levee. lee-.8»... £3. 5 .3 .3 .. .a .e .3 nun... _ b: 8.... 32:8... 2.35.1. 6:... E 13.. noes...- l... = 2.5-.333... iii...— ) is... __ e1. .38.... I. ... 1, _ .3... __ 5...... a. E. . a. - .... 8...... 9,. .18 Is! "a In mm In!” 'wu‘l‘ I .I INN." “1 1 o-‘m-u III“. M. -- 0.. . -n _- .. ... . .., r; a . .. . . --l. . 7 \. 41.9.1.1 . r.. L- 4.... .19 a . are. a .59.. ...n.............l.u...§ u E... . .93. 32...}. a all .333... a... .1... a . a... 03.3. 3.. . £5.02! 3.... 2.33.... o :8... F p... is... . 9.3.3.. 3... v8.3..... a £93. .5. 9.9:... . x... E. as... ..... o of... >5. 3:32.. :8. .. 2...... as... 183...... = a... In 9.... 9... 3838.2... 3 4.3-. 2.... 0...... <8. a 33.23.... .333... >20 23 .2392... 9...... among. a... «a... .. oat... — «a... 9...... v3. 3 :8... _ 9.3.2.15... 3.2.1.3. :2... a .3. 38.8.... a .9... 4.... xxxxxxxxx. .9 a... 0...... — .. 8.. u. .63.. is». .. 5. 533.33% r 3 09.29.... S 9.3 mu... m... 3.... 3.18.... a 9...... 32.8.... a 2.... 9 >883. a 3 :8. Ito-.3334. vein... 2:. =33 .lvagnlnaqu 8 2.... .2. £8. .22.. 3...... «an <9... 2.5.2... 5.523.... 1| «2...... 0.5.4.2.. 2 v8.3. >2: <9: .33.... 8.... me. o... «a. n2... 2. «a. 3.69.... .9..an 3 mar... 42... 8 039.8}??332958. >5. ». 5.29.1.3 33.5.... . 4.8.... 8 2.8.... 13...... 333.... . no 3.82.38... 3.3.5.... >= 382:3 5.. 8:53.... us 3823 5.. 1.3. .3232... 1...... .§<.3.:.. no 98...... 58.. .u... 4...? 03.8.... no 4...». 2.1 38:53 32.1.. . 8 Hutu—3mm MXtMZunu >20 25. 03.3)me a)“: nxvnzwnu a. 03.12. a» 1.3. .3358... 8 3.2535353. :12... no 983359.: Iii-O—H804 1.0.10.0 1:20 broilers to 3 months :m hey my be 32.1 91.113qu for 85. 5:? dairy cat tie. C2223 galbm of led 2111K 111233 13.58 at be sub-st ‘. ; . . . I"; I.I‘-.‘...7t;.."~2‘.2; 5 l _ , . mote-12'2" Other 911.122.2212 31-35 of livestock Cora Oats 'haat Burp. Hay" Silage' roughage Pasture bu. bu. bu. lbs. toils tons tons acres . - I .. 22.5523: _ - _ :_ I‘o:l< hart-39 (2 yrs. and over; .10 4Q, - _ w- - 3;,"5, __._ -, _L‘Qr 2 _ths mint 2 yrs. (averages 5 J6 _-__ ______- “.12-: - .5 ;___ 323123: ' _ fairy cov foo 12.. 22 F ....122...--.ao...._.- ............J,§9.._.-...2-.Q- ...2_-.5 .«2.5___+£___ :22: cm 9:0 1223. 31.2”]. L 25 - I_-tvg§g.__§;g_.;g_4__3;.5 .5 —2 "II? can 300 lbs. B. F. ”.1221... .3282... - _ 3290...... 2.«».O.......§g.§__ ._ 5,..___ 1-2 1‘. .21.? cow ".250 1‘99. 3.1!". “1*ng $§Q ,}.§.e..-...L.._;§__ .5 -2 :siav heifer. 2nd. yr. __ 22 .— L;,__,,,, .WEIQ....J..1...Q._. l-.5 .5 21-1 w 12:22? 1221-3-32. lst. yr. 5 10 L — _mlggmmhqw .5 - - ___ 2'11 Igwmrnm- Jmmasomi_O—ra “Zn—Avow— ‘5 - 2:24: cow i- - 1 1 - SQWLJ,_.,§LH_1-5;. 1.0 1-2 '.~.~f r. 11.». 2:21.51. 5 a I. - m, - .......fi.. 1-5. -5 3.2-1 :W ‘23: taxi-era 12' 't. yr. m-Addmé—v: arm." Inn-car“ *5 . tan—4 - '- 4r. cattla (100 lbs. to gain) _mi .. m... I , __ L“ " Fm'a& M'Vflm ‘m! .bfiwrz '75. umlIALli"nl"2 r - - W "222.212.23- M I - .- I 99; .1- - -22 - -- Im-year-ozd 42...}..- - -190 .2- - .52 - -.- ._. I_.I: :5“? and lnlfi’ff“3r to weaning ”ZQW._§.I.W. mgfifim ..." - - - 42 k SI? and EI-liuters to Mann“ 25 _u___E;.__,I_ , N _2 - _ ;-' - .2 "'1"- 3"? mag War—4580M:- - “1 35 ~— .. ~ -—.— .._ - . 2 fl 2233;: nip (KL-2'20!) lbs.) _I .. .3,” . 5g 1 .1; - - -1 51; l pig (31%3‘1) 1:.)3‘) “iguamlm'firtj -‘ “1 :15 -_.:::1 ‘ - - - W .22. pig (100 to 2.20 lbs.) Ffiflng, on pz-Istum 7“_ __- .--"' ;_ §Q , :._. _; _ - .1...“ 133.9%: 2922:1225; _;a_ _-___ I _-__;_L 45......J -- - - - 252;: Tim or Rm: 1 L ___J_.__ - 2 _ - “.12”; _ g__ .1. .2 ._ , Ailing 1231??) to 00 lbs. ”W‘i-I ,p‘lml-w;~q-ttng-Qimfldqu- “‘ - - ALI- ;I;Jjer 1‘34 “Sb (fa-{5 . P'al‘i 0d) ‘ipnjy... “Lg-MLELW Mi ”dug-Q: Hun-2% - .- 111%:3': 3 I153; to 5 60 2.5-..»..:>.9 MQvaa... - - -5 1'3” L' 9‘53 months 0 410 -1 -_,_ _Q - ._ - - -5 —~ ~ 9‘2; ~28. — I ~ ~ ~ 7 '3- FCC? T911133! rear. 211m: an incmme 121 pm $23.21 aw; :- Emmi. I following number of UL...I'!3 of d...2c*:“fl. £22521 6' :: Ia are 5%“) r'vI-u . .. I... 1 1'.) 1.21:“: " <.:~ g I v- 1. J W .2 s o. .. -o ‘l 1' . ’ '. . 9 .“’.’1I a} " . _ 2 , 2 .. ~2de 9'49? ”2.1? Cd . .‘utsd. for 1 pozmd of pmtein 3.210;) E .- E‘JEZ-n EA'EWTELLE' “3.2.29.2; 3353?” 3. a "'3' m “LEE—M .. ""5"? M23151 :Ix‘smmmmmrkm “the rate of 1 tax: for each 8 tens of 1511369 lama qua]. in $539323 value: 2], “1.“. '313 CL 49* 21. g :}u'~f '3‘. “1:88 E“: at for hogs. Michigan sfiéte College 10 Farm Crops PASTURE COSTS COWbdayS of pasture per acre O O O C '. . . .Pay .Jtne .July . Aug..Sept.. Oct.. Total 9999.99999. €9999:9999999992..........§.99L§.99..§.....2.....§..9..§..9..£...99.. 9999999999999.€9999999:3.999:2 ...... .9.991§.99..§..99.£..99.§.....ETTSTTQ..999.. 999799;..99999.999Y99.€99999992. .....§.99.§.99..2..99.§..99.§.....§.....2...99.. 999:99:..999. 999999r9999999. <99999992-. .99 ..... 30..§..99.§..99.§.99..§.....§...99.. 999999999:99999.999999. <9999999992.....99L.... .2..99.§..99.;.99..2..9 .2...99.. 9999.999999.99999.<9999999-99.999:2..§.%9.§.99..§..99.§..99.;.99..}.99..2..999.. 99999.99999.€99999992.............;..§....§.....§..99.§..99.§.99..§.99..:..999.. 9999.999999992. ... ................ ...;....§.99..§..99.§ ..... 2.....Q.....;....... Costs per acre per year Int. & Fert.&'Seed-bed° 'Maint-' Cost/ ‘Taxes Lime ' Freear.'Seed‘enan09119tal'“”“35 Junegrass (good-permagen?) . . 1.25; 1.00 ; --— I - ;l.OO ; 3.29' 6.59 ?%€9¥§§7P??T§.g§Y§??$?T§.YT§.3 ......... €259...ng..:..l:59..:1:§5: O .50. .M;Q:?Q 8 .79 999.99:.. 99999.999999.€99999992......:.9.99. ..9=99.I..1:99.. 9 .79 9 99.. 99:99 19. 99 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO J99999999:99999.999999. {9999999992...:.9:99.§.9:99.I...99...;.::.§9:99.......9 5 v9 9999. 9.9999.99999.€9999999:99.999.2..;.9.99.'.9.99....2:95...9.95.9.00 .I.?.95 3: F9 §??%9, greee. {eyerag.2 .......... ......;.?:59.;.7:99.;..5:F9..; 3: 75 “9:59.. l?:?5:l§:7£ 9999.999999992. ...................... §.9.99...9.99....9299...9.99.9.99...99.99.99:~# Prepared by: C. ". Harrison September, 19h? R. W. Bell ANIMAL FEED REQUIREMENTS 11‘ Number Grain C°rn ‘ Other Pro. Till. Class of livestock 0f Corn Oats Wheat equiva- Silage Hay rhge. Supp. Past. animals bu. bu. bu. lgat tons tons tons lbs. acres Cattle: ‘ y-“ _w_._ '*. Dairy cow (200 lbs.B.F.) Dairy cow (250 lbs.B.F.) Dairy cow (300 lbs.B.F.) Dairy cow (35o lbs.B.F.)_.. Dairy heifer, 2nd yr. . Dairy heifer, lst yr. . Bull . . . Beef cow . Beef heifer. 2nd yr. . Beef heifer, lst yr. . Fdr.cattle(100 lbs.gain) Calf . . . . . . . . Yearling . . . . . TWO"year Old- . o o o Hogs: Sow and l-litter to weaning Sow and 2—litters to weaning Boar . . . Spring pig(30—200 lbs.) Ball pig (30—200 lbs. ) 2dr. pig (100—200 lbs.) Feeding on pasture . Winter feeding . . . Sheep: Ewe or ram Suckling lamb to 90 lbs. Feeder lamb(fdg.period) Poultry: loo hens O O O O O O 100 pullets to 6 months 100 broilers to 3 mos. Horses: Work horse (2 yrs. & over) [10‘]?ka REQUIIXEMENT S o o o Summary of Feed Requirements and Production v H'_-,-_.. Feed requirements . . . . Other requirements . . . Total requirements . . . Total produced . . . . To be purchased . . . . For sale (or carry over). Tillable pasture . . . Alfalfa~brome . . . . . Clover . . . . . . . . June grass . . A». Acre .IIII.|||.'| I'Il'lt'Iatu‘l . 'llil' .lfi". DIIII . vans Mdawdm obfipondoum\.wpn .dm . . afidfi Hosfind obfipozvonm meow wand Hmawnm wqwsfiwaoo hom\.mpq \ 5m \maoe pand dosage wdwEdmaoo mom . . . . . . dossmcoo Hopes . . . . Mom doudfioooa Hence o a o a o o o “flognmbdfifi wflfiflvflnm o o o o o o o o o o o ”MGM: “Ham . . anew mama so doom pom womb . . . . . . . use» wdfiund dHom . . . . . pom pswoooo 0» Hence . . . . . .,. . demononsn cosh . . . use» mafiadfi woodwohm . . . . . . boasgfi mangamom .285. 33> 3534???» 0.855. 03a» page: 33 3o 32S M 33 m 58 . i. m 91?. 234.8 Iiili.don< apdfioo Itiszilii.Hopasz Bush I. :ieoadz BI BLI OGRAPHY (l) (2) (5) (4) (5) (6) 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REBERENCES CITED Agricultural Economics, Department of -~-—. BALANCED FARMING. Mass. State College, Agr. Ext. Service, 54 pp. Agricultural Economics, Department of . PLANNING TEE PARM BUSINESS, Univ. of Ninn., Agr. Ext. Service, 58 pp. Agricultural Economics, Department of 1948. PLANNING TEE EARN BUSINESS, Purdue Univ., Agr. Ext. Service, 40 pp. Black, John D., Clawson, Marion, Sayre, Charles E., Wilcox, Walter 1947. FARM MANASEHENT. The KacMillan Co., New York. 1073 pp. Cunningham, J. E., Johnson, P. E., Kosher, M. L. 1959. PIANPING THE FARM BUSINESS, Univ. of 111., Agr. Ext. Service, 28 pp. Hill, Elton B. and Brown, L. H. 1947. PRINCIPLES OP FARM NANAGEKENT. Edwards Brothers, Inc., Ann Arbor. LithOprinted, 201 pp. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (10) (ll) (12) 14 BIBLIOGRAPHY CF REEERENCES NOT CITED Agricultural Economics, Department of ---—. ANALYZING AND PLANNING THE FARM BUSINESS. Univ. of Wisconsin. Agr. Ext. Service, 36 pp. Agricultural Economics, Department of -—--. BAIANCED EARNING WORKBOOK, Univ. of bass. and U. S. Dept. of Agr., Agr. Ext. Service, 27 pp. Frank and Waller, Allen 8. EARN ECONOMICS. J. P. Lippincott Co., New York, 700 pp. Boss, A., Pond, G. A. 1947. MODERN EARN NANAGEEENT. St. Paul, 494 pp. Webb Publishing Co., Boulding, Kenneth E. 1948. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. Harper and Bros., New York, 884 pp. Forster, Garnet Wolsey 1940. PARK ORGANIZATION AND EANAGEEENT. Prentice- Hall, Inc., New York, 445 pp. Hart, V. B., Bond, N. C., Cunningham, L. C. 1942. P Rm NANAGENLNT AND RARAETING. John Wiley & Sons, 647 pp. Herkrson, H. 0., Larson, C. E., Putney, F. S. 1938. DAIRY CATTLE FEEDING AND NANAGEEENT. John Wiley & Sons, 557 pp. HOpkins, John A. 1947. ELEMENTS OP BARN MANAGEMENT. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 524 pp. Hill, E. B. 1939. KINDS AND AMOUNTS OF PEEL FED TO DAIRY CONS. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Special Bul.. 250. Hudeleson, Robert R. 1939. FARM NANAGEEENT. 348 pp. NacNillan Co., New York, Lindgren, O. 1944. IEED REQUIRENENTS AND VALUES FOR LIVESTOCK: SUGGESTIONS EUR VARIOUS CLASSES IN OREGON. Ore. Agr. Ext. Bul. 639. 15 (13) Naynard, Leonard 1947. ANILAL NUTRITION. MCGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 494 pp. (14) Norrison, F. B. 1946. FEEDS AND FEEDING. The Norrison Publishing Co., Ithaca, 1050 pp. BY LIPPERENT KINDS OF LIVESTOCK CH PARK BUREAU PARK LAEAGEKLNT PARKS. I11. Agr. Ext. Farm Economics. 441-9 pp. (15) Mosher, N. L. 1946. AROUNTS OP FEED USED (16) Harrison, 0. M., Bell, R. W. PASTLRE COSTS. Mich. State College Farm 1947. CI’OPS Depto, NimeOO Pub. 1 pp. (17) Robertson, L. and Woods, R. 1946. FARM BUSINESS RANAGLMENT. J. P. Lippincott Co., New York, 212 pp. ROOMUSE ONLY ' 7‘ 9.00M USE ONLY i / ‘ , J. . , . . “—7— . . - l a _ 1 ' m ‘\ ' - ~ ‘ V l . 'v ’ '3"! I . : "' ~' ' \ ‘~ 1 " . ‘.. ‘ {a} i P n ‘ z? ’ . ‘ . ‘ . ‘ i' . - r 4- '. "I V "I; , ‘ t I, - ' t .1 .I '.., ' \\ ~‘ I 3'. . ‘ .‘sj .. o v I . . . v ",3 4. x o . . ‘ -. I 0.... ‘0‘) ' V O 8. ‘ -‘ . t ‘ , , , .‘ '. Ha". .. . m, \ ¢ 1 n 'I It 5'". L I J n- \ ‘.."‘ A f : I I 'J ‘ ‘ ‘1 &: ‘1-).-'$ ' ,\ 9 ' ' v . . s"‘ ' “V 4 ' 9" ‘J' c u ‘ g. a... 4; F a / z 1' .‘.' ’0 ' I . {zygn “2;. ' I I ,2) t w .. _. _ x x“ ‘ ' EV‘T:.'L '- ‘1: \ " ’ u . ‘ - I 'vilhl'fi'f". 1“. .I I ' ‘ ' J" ,. - )‘x ‘| f.|. ' H ’ 3 -',' )‘N It 1 &r~ l“t“.§‘-“ " ‘ ‘l b > ) “Pf? (“J1 t- ‘ .r 'v ' . ' . K " (3-1» "m“ ‘ 3?. “5.. ‘. : 'J "A I . n ,l ‘ , r I. "‘1‘Nv . '_ ', ’5 I‘\ J 1“ ’l or & ,. ', ‘ 4 ‘ . ,. 4' , ‘ ~ ‘ —- . V ‘ 'M' . J . I r ’2“ .‘ rl_‘ ,. .‘ 1‘ I“, ’ 'd' ‘A - f. v 1' ' ‘ A “4... . l, . ‘. y . ' ‘ ' J .1 I I I I V . ' . ‘ >. . ' é ._‘ ’0 . ’l 3 I“ p. I" -‘ on ' 5' ‘ Al ' 1 I {s .' . ' . I'.‘ o ( - ‘ - x...‘ * "... ‘.,"\. I: . ' .' I - A.‘ . . . ‘4 ~‘ :‘3 . ‘ '\. . r I" (A ‘ n ‘- J , _ . . arr ‘I ‘ ' 2 . ‘.l* q. d 4 J. ‘ . '. ‘_ 1:. - a ' 4 {i i v . 5‘ l' 1 “ "'1' A 4 4;, 3.5.; - " f: .‘. ,'*.‘r t. ‘ . L. ‘ ’ ' fif.’ ,’ ' ' ..35'. :4 ‘ . . ' "u‘-1"/‘,, ; 1 y A - a ; WI.1 ' . ' . ‘. 0 5 I _ . I" V I ' 'r 1.4.31 ' , ’ i .> _."‘ ‘. ~ 1 .-.'."q:.<‘ ’ 1 ' '4" '2' \ us I. . ‘§ c \ A . gr" \“ .' ' )5"; - '- ;l I. A v \ - S: ’13 . u I . ‘ (.32" ' . c r ‘ 4 .s’f . '4‘ "‘ v; ‘ I {.1'.l.,’ 1”). _ ‘ | . t' ' 11'3“ ‘ " ‘ I' ' 1 l g 0 a . ‘ . S. _ “4 Q ' s u 3‘ ‘ ‘ ' ' - . s . ‘. '. ’ “a ‘ 4 ‘ I I 't . I' 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ _‘w3 ' '.' \- ' . . ‘ v ~ R! '.- ‘ ‘ . . e g '\ g in ‘ I . ‘ \ il- 5 “V 7’ ‘ ' ', l ‘ ’ . ; - q a l ‘- .17g-1Y“. 1 y"'\ I ‘ u - '- ‘ ' . ' . ‘ 1 ' ’ .‘7 . .1. ‘ - I 1*) .L’ ‘ I 1 y i ‘34.. . 3‘, . ' k t'_ . .. ' . . «H..'..~’, ‘ .’ ‘ . ’ r . t IN a y <- ’ {an '29.; ’ ' r4517" ‘ 7 5 '. K ‘II— I {‘3 “ 2+4 ~ '- (’3‘ ‘5‘! ‘ I" u. ‘ f \h I K n 'u. ’ ‘ , x 1 ~ ‘ .. — . ‘ ' . ‘ 'v j". . ‘ .I ‘ ' ' ‘-,.Q. ., I ,r . 4 ' 9 I ‘ ' 'v ’ ’ r n I v k ’1!" "'-u..‘ ' ’ ‘ .1" ' ’I . \. 4 ' .. .‘ .,.,.-\,t-.' 2 _nl.. . 'k ‘ Pfi'xz' .' ‘ 1,- 5; ['1 ‘L .1 T '1‘, ‘. . a! . ’. . I‘ \ o , $ ' \J. .‘ J' 1‘). ' Q ~ b‘.’ .‘l fa ' »‘- ...-t.» v . ,' ‘ ' - s g ' ~ I p '-- . "f } ' . .. ‘ \ A I ‘ .-’ f ' ‘1 1 o ‘ ~ ‘ ‘ \‘ ' I N O ' ' l‘~" 1-‘IO 1“ - .. ‘ I ‘ ' 7 V " ' ‘ I 2 u 1' ' ‘ ‘P I . n .. I v ‘ k ‘ ' I 1 k ‘ an} I ' ’ . ._ \ ' \ '7‘ g ' ‘, . ‘ ' . ...J‘ V _ ' ‘ a _a' . . ¢ ‘ -. ‘ . ‘J ‘ ‘ k —\ 5 ' ’t I 'r ‘ . t .1 l 7 , 0 ' ‘ _ . t. . .5. “ . . d‘d - .‘ .’.. t I .‘l f r. . . n i -0 '.- - . ‘ I‘ ' v . v - .- ‘37'8 4 \ r- 1' " \ ' ”w 1 Z ‘ ” I, I a n . ' r _ . - ~. ‘ a u.‘ ‘ .‘ . y ‘ 0 ‘ 1 c ‘l. k. I ‘ I I. . \ L ’ . ‘. - --. T Q . 'I .W 1 . ‘ n .i‘ “4‘ ~ .od 0 '(V Ii , 7.. -‘f, . L , . . . \- ‘ . 9' .' . . .. : 2:1,. mm. m ,. A - - ' :r’: kl.“..¢' "\ I .- ‘ ‘ , H I. ‘ . h 'ff ‘ 5‘ . "O 1’ \fl.’ .1 ‘ . J v , . ‘ f - . I) _ x _3‘0 ‘73; .. ,' . . ' ‘ . .3 . {3" f ‘I ‘3 \ ’- s ._l . "2 ‘ ptl. . “ ." v. ‘U ' ‘ 1' “J. " 1!!” ‘l j ‘v‘ ' ' r. ' . c‘ k I " \ .\ v ';*.,\‘t ‘ ' EL" . 'V i .‘ - ,‘1I - u w .\ _fi- . ~ {_~ . . f- 1 ‘3. ' ,v v - , . - . . ‘ 'k I‘ g t 4| ‘ I '1 l k A‘- ' s“ . t ‘1 " f v ‘9 I x ~ 5 ‘ ~‘\-.'.." ‘3‘ > ‘ I .,,~v ‘_) . I '1‘ ‘ 1 1h‘ ' .. 1‘. V" k . n ‘ “ . I . v . _* ~ ~ 9 2 - . . 3 I. ‘.,. . ¢ \ .v. r V x. ‘ p ‘ \ 3.1th ...“. I... . . ,, ‘ ’ .1 ‘:, _ J" . .. r c ‘v‘ié‘ 1 . ‘ ' 0 O I ‘ u g I vs I I ‘ . ,c 1 y - . . \ l ' :% . ‘ ”‘2’. . -' ' \ - .‘ ‘ '. V n’ ‘ l'f ‘ ‘ I . , 4 . \ 4 -, . . ' .1 s} :rs'.‘(\. .~. , 1"." v E" -“. ‘ N \P’ ‘ '. 3;. ‘ l d ' ,_ ’ I K. I. ',’ Q. X, .‘ ' A 4' ' , _.*'; ' . ' ' l ' \ ‘ ' A ‘ '0 ~’ '7 . l . -‘ '. t " . - , 1 {H 'J, , 'i‘g -' ' ‘4"Ia~' " .‘I ’ ~i‘l' q‘ ‘s" ' ' v '\u ‘ ‘ I 1' A )‘r‘ .. . . . . , - . . ‘ t .. '2 O 1.1mw2ojanunfifiw, .4 .fiw a :¢“V-“N.nlwbv"1“p‘.*m . w“, an 7 ‘ °‘ .~ "" ' r. .1. 9‘“? .2" '. ". ‘. ' a" . ' - ' ' ' ' . . I ‘ ' - '- _ I, ' . ' ' ' ' . ‘ 1 .. I ' I .' . .. 1 ' . . . . . n . . _ l . t I p _ ‘- _" R m L Y. H s R E w N U E T A" Ti S 1 N 3 (IlllHHllllll