DAIRY FARMING DAIRYING. 



823 



"A comparisou of the dilVorcMit rations led clearly shows that less (ligestil)le matter 

 was re(|iiire(l to produce 100 lbs. of milk and a pound of butter iu the ])eriodsof light 

 feeding than when larger (juautitics were fed. , . . 



"Charging the animals with the food consumed and crediting them with the butter 

 and 8i)lids-not-fat produced . . . shows that as the cost of the ration increases, due 

 to the increased amount consumed and the larger proportion of grain fed, the daily 

 net profit returned diminishes, although not in the same ratio. . . . 



"It api)ears that two factors were operating to cause a decrease iu the daily net 

 I)rofit returned as the amount of food consumed was increased, viz, a decreased rela- 

 tive C()nsum])tiou of the cheaper coarse fodders, uecessitating a largo increase both 

 relative and absolute iu grain consumed, and an increase in the food eaten above 

 the point at which the animals used in the experiment were able to produce the 

 greatest amount of milk and butter per pound of digestible matter consumed in the 

 food. 



"It might have been expected that the increase in the relative amount of grain in 

 the ration would serve to increase the efficiency of a unit of digestible material, but 

 it does not appear from the results that there was any material increase of this 

 sort. . . . 



"A striking lesson taught by the results of the experiment is the difference between 

 individual cows with respect to their ability to produce milk and butter cheaply. 

 The difference between the profits returm d by the best and poorest cows for the 150 

 days of the experiment was $33.10, as shown in the following statement: 



Profits from feeding the best and the poorest cows. 



Best cow 



Poorest cow 



Difference 



Cost of I Value of Net 

 food. products, profit. 



$26. 67 

 2J. 51 



$64. 32 

 28.06 



36.26 



$37. 65 

 4.55 



33.10 



"Other differences less striking are shown between other cows of the lot. 



"It was not found possible to trace any connection between these differences and 

 the type or conformation of the animal. Thus, 2 animals conforming equally to the 

 generally accepted dairy type exhibit a difference iu the net profit returned during 

 the l.")0 days of the experiment of $14.99. Between 2 others not sensibly different 

 in conformation a difference of $12.48 is noted." 



The feeding- of cotton-seed meal, up to 4.44 lbs. per day for 30 days, 

 was not attended by any apparent ill effect on tlie health of the animals, 

 either at the time or afterwards. 



Influence of nutritive ratio upon the economy of milk and but- 

 ter production, H. d. Watkks and E. H. Hess {renmylrania Stn. Rpt. 

 1895, pp. 56-7i).— Nine Guernsey and grade Guernsey cows, about 00 

 days from calving, were fed for 1 periods of 30 days each to test this point, 

 and incidentally to compare old-process linseed meal and cotton-seed 

 meal. Throughout the experiment from C to 7 lbs. of chopi)ed wheat 

 was fe<l, together with corn stover ad libitum. In the first and fourth 

 periods f) lbs. of liuflalo gluten meal was fed, which in the second perio 

 was replaced by 5.20 lbs. of cotton-seed meal, and in the third period by 

 5.90 lbs. of old-piocess linseed meal. The cows did not consume as 

 much corn stover as was exi)ected, so that the nutritive ratio in all the 

 periods was narrower than contemplated. 



