478 ANNUAL. REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



To illustrate, take the matter of summer feed. If we allow, as 

 we often do, the cow to run down in flesh during the summer, she 

 will never do as well again until she builds ufj her system onee 

 more. 



Then, do you believe in adding grain to the pasture? Now, my 

 position on that point is this: I am fully satisfied in my own mind 

 that if we can add our forage crop to the pasture so as to keep her 

 up in flesh and milk, we do not need to feed the grain. But even if 

 in supplementing the' j)asture we keep up the milk flow, but lose 

 flesh, it is better to feed grain, even if we do not get profit on our 

 grain for the time being. 



To illustrate — I speak of m^- own work, because I am more familiar 

 with it than anyone else's — last year we did not feed grain during 

 the summer, and along about September I noticed that my cows 

 had lost flesh. There was no question about that; then I began to 

 feed grain, and, friends, before the pasture of the next year, I know 

 that I fed twofold more grain than I would have done if I had fed a 

 little grain during the summer. 



The next proposition I make is this, that there is a difference be- 

 tween feeding cattle for profit , and feeding them for production. 

 ''What," you say, ''when you feed for profit, don't 3'ou feed for pro- 

 duction?" Why, certainly not. Take, for instance, the Pan-Ameri- 

 can Dairy Tests. The people who had charge of the Holsteins and 

 Ayrshires fed them from sixteen to eighteen pounds of grain every 

 day, in addition to plenty of good silage, and then they pointed with 

 pride to the record of their cows, but at the end of the week, w-hen 

 the cost of their feed was tak( u from the value of this production, 

 instead of standing at the head, they v-ont down fourth or fifth, and 

 the second weeic was a repetitiois of ihe first. Then they saw they 

 had to do something, so they grjulunlly reduced the grain rations 

 to ten or twelve pounds, and at the end of the third week, they had 

 more profit on less milk and less feed. 



I don't know how it is in Pennsylvania, but in New York, since 

 the doctrine of protein has been prear-hed, our folks find that they 

 get more milk for the same amount of feed. In many cases the ques- 

 tion with the farmer has onlv been, ''iTow many cans of milk can T 

 carry away today?" They do not stop to think that they are carry- 

 ing away the milk and carrying home the feed. When their checl< 

 comes, the most of it has gone to pay the feed dealer and little left 

 to pay the interest on the mortgage or buy shoes for the babes. 

 They are feeding for production and not for profit. 



Now, as to the character of the feed for our animals. Let us then 

 proceed to the subject of the chart: 



First, the green feeds, because they are the best with pasture, 

 at the head. 



Next, the dry fodders, feeds that are grown on the farms. Tt 

 seems to me that one of the objects in keeping a dairy cow is to 

 turn some of the raw, crude, cheap material, through the medium 

 of the dairy cow, into the finished product, and for that purpose it 

 seems to me that we should use as much of our home product as 

 possible. 



Every farmer knows that the best feed to give his cows to make 

 them produce milk, is pasture grass, and, if you will notice, pasture 

 grass is 80 per cent, water. Now, of you will put that cow into the 



