136 Thirty-Sixth Annual Report of the 



REASONS 1-OR SUCCESS. 



On farms wliere profit was made with the dairy as compared mith those 

 where loss ensued : 



•;,^Silos were 5 limes as frequent. 

 ;j£^ Concentrates rich in protein were used half again as frequent. 



Clorer liay was fed S times as often. 



TJie care of the manure ivas half again as good. 



Agricultural papers were twice as common and apparently several times 

 as good. 



Dairy papers were taken on a fifth of tlie farms in one case and on NONE 

 in tlie other. 



Improved blood was a third more common in tlie one case than in the 

 otlier. 



Good barns were twice as common'in thelone case as'jn the other. 



It is interesting to note Mr. Lyon's running commentaries 

 touching the several herds. A typical one on a farm where 

 "progress" was not the watchword reads "No silo, no dairy 

 papers, no attention to farm management and no profit. The 

 farm is for sale." A typical one where the outcome is satis- 

 factory reads, — "The cost of keeping is reduced by the silage, 

 stable is hardly modern but fairly well lighted and reasonably 

 clean. There is a manure cellar. Good care is given the cows 

 and they respond quite well. Some of the best farm papers are 

 taken and read." 



It is of interest to note the relationship which seems to exist 

 between trained intelligence and expert supervision on the one 

 hand and their relative lack on the other. The proportion of the 

 total number of herds in each county which returned a profit over 

 and above the cost of the feed were as follows : 

 Orleans County, 27 percent. 

 Franklin County, 32 percent. 

 Rutland County, 57 percent. 



Roughly speaking, one herd in four in Orleans County paid 

 its feed bill ; one herd in three in Franklin County and one herd 

 in two in Rutland County. What is the reason for the difl^er- 

 ences? It is well expressed in Mr. Lyon's own words. Refer- 

 ring to the 14 Rutland herds, he says, "The larger number are 

 under the oversight of one thorough going superintendent, an 

 agricultural college graduate of practical ideas and of force, 

 though of quiet demeanor. The results show quite a variation, 

 more so than I know how to explain. Feeds are practically the 

 same and different breeds would not explain the variation. * * * 

 Doubtless there are factors that enter into the problem, but I 

 doubt whether it can be fully answered without taking into ac- 

 count the factor of the personal equation of the caretaker of the 



