300 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Ofif. Doc. 



seemed to j)rove to these dairymen that Iheir net profits were 

 larger when they fed only such grain and coarse fodder as they 

 could grow on the farm. 



The above experiences oiler strong presumptive evidence, that 

 (leaving out of account the question of price) a ration rich in pro- 

 tein is better adapted for milk production, than one poorer in this 

 element. 



In most of the states east of the plains, protein is expensive, 

 and in all my earlier feeding of dairy cows, the important question 

 was, how little protein can a cow use and still do her best. Then 

 T went to Colorado and fed dairy cows on the basis of |2.50 per 

 ton for the best alfalfa hay, |0.0U per ton for wheat bran, and |22.00 

 a ton for corn. The protein problem was entirely reversed. Pro- 

 tein was about the cheapest food ingredient, and the question be- 

 came, not how little must a cow have, but how much can she con- 

 sume without injury. For a whole winter I fed ten cows on a ration 

 consisting of four pounds of bran, four pounds of linseed meal 

 and all the first class alfalfa hay they would eat. Each of these 

 feeds is rich in protein and the total ration contained much more 

 than the real needs of the cow. These cows were somewhat above 

 the average in size and probably ate about twenty-five pounds of 

 alfalfa hay per day per head. A ration of four pounds of bran, 

 four pounds of linseed meal and twenty-five pounds of alfalfa hay 

 would contain 4.(J pounds of protein as compared with the 2.5 

 pounds daily in the richest German ration. These cows averaged 

 about twenty pounds of milk per day, which would take out 0.8 

 pounds of protein, leaving 3.8 pounds of protein for the use of the 

 body of the cow as com]>ared with the 1.7 pounds in the German 

 standard and with the only 0.5 pounds of protein that seems to be 

 required to renew the actual daily breaking down of the tissues of 

 the body. It is evident that these cows received much more protein 

 than they needed, yet this extra protein produced no bad effect, the 

 cows kept in excellent health, they seemed to produce the milk more 

 easily and held out in milk fiow better than under the previous feed- 

 ing with a ration richer in carbohydrates. 



English steer feeders found out long ago that their animals made 

 faster gains when they were fed an excess of protein and it is cus- 

 tomary in England to feed steers nearly twice as much protein as 

 they really need. The excess of burned up in the body and has the 

 same use and food value as an equal weight of carbohydrates. 



Taking it for granted then that a liberal amount of protein is 

 advantageous to the dairy cow, the practical question is, can the 

 dairyman at present prices of feed and products afford to furnish 

 his cows an excess of protein. No single answer can be giren 

 that will apply to all farms in Pennsylvania, but some facts will 

 be presented that seem to indicate that many Pennsylvania dairy- 

 men would receive an increased profit by using more protein than 

 is called for in the richest standard ration. During the last few 

 years the i)rices of grains and mill products have increased enor- 

 mously, but the increase has not been proportional to the protein 

 content and at the present time the market price of a dairy food 

 bears little or no relation to the per cent, of protein it contains. 

 Corn and bran have been the standard grain feed of the dairyman. 

 Let us see how these compare in their composition and price with 

 some other dairy foods. 



