— ioo — 



but the relative amount consumed by the two lots changed 

 greatly. In the first two weeks the cows that had nothing but 

 grass ate, on an average, 158 pounds per week, or about 7^ 

 pounds per cow per day more grass than the grain fed lot, 

 while in the three following weeks the amount consumed was 

 exactly equal in the two lots. Now turning to the table of pro- 

 duction it will be seen that in the first period the cows that had 

 no grain (Lot III) just about maintained an even milk and but- 

 ter production, while the grain-fed cows (Lot IV) gained slightly, 

 and consumed considerably less grass. In the last three weeks 

 the cows that had no grain fell away rapidly in milk and butter 

 yield, while the cows that had grain very nearly maintained 

 their milk and butter yield, both lots consuming exactlv the 

 same amount of grass. In other words, when the grass was so 

 succulent that the cows having no grain would eat more of it 

 than those having grain, the milk and butter yield remained con- 

 stant in both lots. When the grass became so hard that those 

 having no grain would eat no more than the ones having grain, 

 the grain fed lot forged ahead in milk and butter production. 

 But in neither case was the grain fed at a profit, for in the first 

 case a feed of nine pounds of an expensive grain mixture only 

 resulted in a saving of 7^ pounds of fresh grass. And in the 

 whole period Lot IV (grain fed) produced 47.68 pounds of butter 

 per cow, as against 32.05 pounds for Lot III, during which time 

 they consumed 963 pounds of grain. That is, there was received 

 in the whole period not quite 47 pounds of butter fat to show for 

 a consumption of 963 pounds of grain ; but the grain fed lot 

 were giving a little more than a pound of butter fat per cow per 

 week at the beginning, which alone in the five weeks would ac- 

 count for 15 pounds of this difference. Perhaps the most marked 

 effect in this trial was the way in which the grain fed cows (Lot 

 IV) maintained their flow of milk, as the grass grew harder. 

 This is the more noticeable from the fact that all the cows were 

 far advanced in calf and close upon the time when the}- might be 

 expected to rapidly decrease in milk yield. 



CONCLUSION. — In two trials in two seasons we have 

 received no return in milk and butter from feeding a grain 

 ration to cows on good pasture. 



In one trial with cows soiled on fresh grass we have re- 

 ceived in increased milk and butter production and in sav- 

 ing of grass consumed, barely enough to pay for the cost of 

 the grain ration added. 



In neither case has any allowance been made for in- 

 creased value of manure -when grain is fed, which would be 

 considerable in amount but exceedingly difficult to esti- 

 mate with exactness. 



We are still of opinion that several repetitions of this ex- 

 periment will be needed before the matter can be consid- 

 ered conclusively settled. I. P. ROBERTS. 



HENRY H. WING. 



