134 



Thirty-Sixth Annual Rkport of the 



way. Largest returns $1.67; smallest forty-six cents per dollar 

 spent for feed. 



Pennsylvania, fifty herds, 12 did not pay for their keep. Re- 

 turns ranged from $1.84 to fifty cents per dollar invested in 

 feed. Only four out of fifty patrons failed to buy and use some 

 proteinous feed. 



Iowa, 1900, 100 herds, 38 failed to pay their way. The 

 largest return per dollar of feed was $2.64; the smallest 42 cents. 



Wisconsin, 1899, 100 herds. Ninety-eight paid their way, 

 two did not, — an exceptional record. Cost of feeding was ex- 

 tremely low. Largest returns for one dollar of feed, $2.08 ; 



smallest 96 cents. 



The comparison between States is meaningless because of 

 differences in conditions. Variations in prices paid for feeds and 

 obtained for products in particular are important factors. For 

 example, in a census now being reported for Minnesota, hay is 

 rated at $5. It is rated at $12 here. The Wisconsin 1899 census 

 in which but two herds failed to pay their way, w^as taken when 

 feed was cheap and at a point close to centers of feed production. 

 The Vermont census of 1905 was taken when feed ruled high and 

 a thousand miles from Minneapolis, Chicago, Peoria and 

 Memphis. In New York, Connecticut, Vermont and Pennsyl- 

 vania, where apparently the cows are poorer than those in the 

 West, much of this apparent inferiority is due to the high price 

 at which hay is valued, a commercial consideration. I have not 

 had time to go into this matter fully, but venture to predict that, 

 barring the Wisconsin 1899 census, the production record of 

 the Vermont census will compare fairly well with that of the 

 other States. And finally there is the personal equation to be 

 reckoned with. Had Mr. Goodrich who took the Wisconsin 

 census taken that of Vermont and had Mr. Lyon who studied 

 the Vermont herds taken the Wisconsin census the results would 



