20 



prodncts, composition of the whole milk, skim milk, bntterniilk, and 

 cream, cost of food per pound of milk, food materials retained in the 

 waste products of the dairy, and the loss of fat in the skim milk and 

 buttermilk. The age, live weight, cost of food per year " reckoned at 

 what are assumed to be average market values," average production 

 of milk and butter, etc., are given for each animal as follows : 



Eecord of indiridual coic8. 



Breed. 



Holfltein : 



No. 1. 



No. 2* 

 Ayrshire: 



No. 1 . 



No. 2. 

 Jersey : 



No. 1. 



No. 2. 



<1 



a'C 



•f, Mb 



*a a 



Lb». 

 1,275 

 1,175 



1, 050 

 1,020 



870 

 920 



Averages of the two years. 



336 

 293 



a^^ 



SO) 



HS 



Lh$. Lht. 

 9,176 1135 

 7,562 893 



287 0, 120 

 291 7, 105 



318 

 330 



6,540 

 4,381 



Lht 

 310 

 2.1 1 



214 

 253 



314 

 250 



•5o< 

 o 



Lt». 

 317 

 224 



199 



107 



374 

 235 





Lbt. 

 28. 96 

 33.79 



30.67 

 3«. 02 



17.40 

 17.30 



y 



CenU. 

 '22 63 

 31.44 



30. 95 

 32.06 



15.96 

 23.08 



* Test lasted only one yoar. 



It is to 1)0 notict'd that tlif oxpenso of foodiiifj n Ilol.stoin aiiim.il avorajjinjj 1,200 

 pounds in wci^lit is only §11 \to.r yi\ir moro than tlio cost of feeding a .Jersey animal 

 averaging in weight only about 000 pounds ; or in other words, the expense of food- 

 ing the heavier animals has heen only about IS per cent more than that of maint.ain- 

 iug the lighter .'iiiimals, wher(>.is Ihe Ilolstoins exceed the .Terseys in weight about '.itl 

 per cent. This is e((ui v:ilent to saying that the quantity of food has not been in pro- 

 portion to the weight of the animals, and • • • it is a well-recognized fact th.it 

 the food of .an .inimal dot>s not increji.se in proportion to the increase in weight, orin 

 other words, a small cow rc(|nires a larger maintenance ration in jiroportion to her 

 weight than a large cow. 



[The figures show further] that the Ilolstoins have produced milk solirls considerably 

 in excess of the other two breeds, and that the Ayrshircs and .Jerseys have dilVered 

 v«!ry little in this respect. • » • When, h(»w<'ver, we come to the consideration 

 of the yield of fat we liud th.vt the .Jerseys excel and that the Ayrshircs stand lowest 

 in the scale. » • *• 'p]„. food value of a <|hart of Jersey milk, such as th.at pro- 

 duced by the staticni animals, is worth 25 per cent moie for purposes of nutrition 

 than is the Molstein milk. While it ni.ay not be possible to grade the retail price of 

 milk according to its quality, it would be entirely just for the milkman who is sell- 

 ing the product of a Jer.sey herd to receive a Larger price than th.at which is paid for 

 Holstein or Ayrshire milk. » • * The above table makes it very clear that cream 

 is not of uniform value, and that the individuality of animals has a very marked 

 influence upon the cream that is ]»roduced. Taking the average of a 2 years' record 

 we s<'e that the amount of cream required for a ixniud of butter has varied from .^.2 

 pounds in the case of the Ayrshire [No. 1] to 3.05 pounds in the cose of the Jersey 

 [No. 2]. The custom so far in Maine has heen to pay the same price for equal vol- 

 umes of cream, without regard to its source. This m.ay bo r.aiik injustice, .as the facts 

 show. 



In calculating the cost of the milk and butter produced per pound 

 the lirst cost of the food ahmo i.s considered, no allowance being made 



