DlTISIOy OF AX1^JAL Hi SB AX DRY 



333 



SESSIONAL PAPER No. 16 



Dairy Cow Feeding Experiment No. 3 B.^Ctntral Experimental Farm, Ottawa. 



Ohjeci cf L'.cperiment. — To compare CaW well's molasses meal with molasses. 



Rations. — Period 2: Meal mixture plus 25 per cent Caldwell's molasses meal. 

 Periods 1 and 3 : Meal mixture plus 20 per cent molasses. 



Value of feeds per ton. — Ilay, $7; straw, $4; turnips and ensilage, $2; molesses, 

 $23; Caldwell's molasses meal, $32; meal, 1^ cents per pound. 



Grain, Mixture of. — Bran 600 pounds; gluten meal, 300 pounds; cottonseed, 200 

 pounds; dried brewers' grains, 200 pounds. 



Number of cojvs in test 



Pounds of milk produced by 11 cows lb. 



Average milk i^i-r cow per day " 



Average per c( -.it fat in milk p.c. 



Total pounds fat produced by 11 cows lb. 



Average pounds fat per cow per day " 



Total meal consumed " 



Total molasses consumed " 



Mixture consumed per 100 pounds fat produced . . . . " 

 Mixture consumed per 100 pounds milk produced.. . " 



Findings from Experiment: — 



Cost of meal mixture fed S 



Value of roufxbage fed " 



Total cost of feed " 



Cost to prod'M e 100 pounds fat " 



Cost to produce 1 pound fat " 



Cost to produce 1 pound butter " 



Profit on one pound butter at -30 cents per pound.. " 



Cost to produce 100 pounds milk " 



Profit on 100 pounds milk at $1-70 per cwt " 



Here a comparison of the average of the two molasses feeding periods witli the 

 Caldwell's molasses meal period shows practically the same production in all three. 

 Consequently, the cost of production was less where the molasses constituent was used. 



In discussing the cost of production it must be remembered that the term, as here 

 used, refers only to the actual cost of the feeds themselves. It should be stated in fair- 

 ness to the molasses meals that, wdiile they form rather an expensive food, they present 

 molasses in a form where it may be fed as easily as any other meal. The farmer who 

 bas used feeding molassies, especially during the winter months, will realize thoroughly 

 its inconvenience and proverbial slowness. Roughly speaking there are three ways 

 in which mtolasses may be fed. The first, by simply pouring it, slightly \farmed. over 

 the feed; second, by diluting with warm water and mixing it with the roug"hage or meal, 

 using a watering can or other receptacle; third, by using a mechanical power-mixer — 

 consisting of a large hopper in which revolves a .specially constructed system of mixers, 

 operated from a horizontal s]iindle and driven by hand or preferably by power 

 through chain and sprocket. In this hopper may be placed tlic component parts of the 

 grain or meal mixture together with the proportion of molasses required. One or two 

 minutes' operation will so thoroughly incorporate a 20 to 30 per cent addition of molas- 

 ses that the presence of a liquid may scarcely be detected froTU the texture of the mix- 

 ture. Such an apparatus was used in the mixture of jnolasses food, and while proving 

 satisfactory as regards work done, it was mechanically weak, 'and with all its sim- 

 plicity, much too expensive for general adoption. However, the use of some such 

 contrivance was practically necessary where definite and dilTering percentages of mol- 

 asses were to be used. Such iteuis as the extra and not inconsiderable trouble of mix- 

 ing, the cost of power, interest on investment, etc.,wei-e not figured against molasses. 



Ottawa. 



