No. 7. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 441 



stock production, namely, dairy farming. The keeping of cows 

 is universal throughout the State, from the resident of the city or 

 town who keeps one or "two cows, to the larger commercial dairies 

 A\ here milk, cream or butter is produced for the market. 



^Vhile prices of dairy products have ranged even higher this past 

 yeai than in 1905, much dairy stock has been sold and taken out of 

 the northwestern part of the State. There are two reasons for this: 

 (1) Coarse feeds are short in quantity owing to the mid-summer 

 drouth, and mill feeds are high in price. (2) Help on the farms is 

 scarce and hard, to secure. These two conditions make it necessary 

 for the farmer in some sections to reduce his live stock to such pro- 

 portions as he can handle himself. 



The averagf yield of butter fat per cow per year in Pennsylvania 

 is i)laccd at 160 pounds. Recently I had the privilege of inspecting 

 a herd where the average yield for the past six years has been 260 

 pounds of butter fat per cow. This difference was brought about 

 ly the process of weeding out the unprofitable cows. This process 

 simply calls for tlie daily weighing of each cow's milk and Ihe 

 monthly testing of that milk by the Babcock test and close atten- 

 tion to fcediug and management of the herd. From my own ex- 

 perience I am satisfied that if every farmer would only daily weigh 

 eacli cow's milk and throw out the lowest producers in his herd, he 

 would reap a benefit sufficient to pay him for his outlay and trouble. 

 With the cost of keeping cows in Pennsylvania at from .|2S to |32 

 per year, the margin of profit on some cows is not very large, and 

 we, as business farmers, must apply the common business rule of 

 eliminating the unprofitable elements. Just in this connection, Prof, 

 n. E. Van Norman has been making some investigations in Central 

 Pejinsylvania ns to the relations existing on some farms between the 

 cost of feed given to the cows and the returns in butter fat. On 

 one farm the farmer was getting ninety-nine cents worth of butter 

 fat for every dollar's worth of feed given to the cow^s, while on 

 another farm, not tAvo miles distant, the farmer received $1.79 worth 

 of^butter fat for every dollar's worth of feed given. At the college 

 creamery five of the college cov/s returned as much to their owners 

 as nin-; of the patrons' cows. These facts only further illustrate the 

 necessity of dairy farmers to pursue their business with strict bus- 

 iness-like methods. 



In preparing this report, I sent out a list of questions to fourteen 

 m(>mbers of the Board in different parts of the State. Twelve of 

 -these sent replies. Of these twelve, seven report that the keeping 

 of dairy cows is on the increase, while the other five are from the 

 northern and western parts of the State, where dairying has been 

 pushed hard for sometime so that the farms are already well stocked. 

 All report a favora"ble and profitable season. More than half of 

 the reports state that the dairymen are inclined to take their milk 

 to the creamery or factory. One-half of the reports state that the 

 consumers of butter prefer dairy butter to the creamery product. 



To me, the answers to the last two questions, namely: "Are 

 farmers inclined to manufacture their dairy products at home or 

 send the milk to the factory?" and "Does the consumer prefer home- 

 made butter to creamery butter?" point out some needed reforms 

 in dairy husbandry. The dairyman will take his milk to the factory 

 where an honeet efficient factoryman is in charge and where all 



2a 



