462 EXl^ERIMENT STATION RECORD. 



"During second period hotb groups shrunk in their milk :is compared with the first 

 period Dry weather, conseciuently poor pasture, was the cause. 



" During the week when both groups received practically the same teed, group 2 

 produced 158 lbs. more milk than grou]) 1. During the first period of the experi- 

 ment, when group 2 received meal in a<lditiou to pasture and group 1 had only 

 pasture, group 2 gave 541 lbs. inore milk than group 1. This 38.) 11 is. is probably 

 the extra milk produced from the meal fed. The extra meal fed these cows for a 

 week would cost about $2.25, or the extra milk was- made at a cost of about 58 cts. 

 per 100 lbs." 



Effect on the per cent of fat Tvhen co"ws are fed slop, H. H. 

 Dean {Ontario A<il. CoJ. <i)ul Exptl. Farm Rpt. lsf)S, pp. ino^ 151).— K 

 study of the effect of mixing the grain witli water, using O cows, o of 

 which had been in milk 7 mouths or more. Previous to the trial the 

 grain (not stated) was fed dry. The first week (Nov. 12-19) the slop 

 was made of bran and cold water; the second week of bran, wheat, 

 and cold water; and the third week of bran, wheat, and scalding water, 

 feeding while warm. During the whole time about G lbs. of hay and 

 40 to 50 lbs. of silage per day was fed in addition. The results of com- 

 l^osite tests of the milk of each cow are given. 



"If we take the 6 cows as a group, their milk tested an average of 4.29 for the 

 week previous to the experiment, 4.15 the first week after receiving slop, 4,33 the 

 second week, and 4.46 the last or third week during which they were 'slopped.' 



"The week previous to the experiment these 6 cows gave 829 lbs. of milk, the first 

 week after they shrank to 755, the second week they gave 635, aud the last week 615 

 lbs. of milk. We would uaturally expect these cows to shrink in their flow of milk. 

 . . . They shrank more, however, after slopping commenced than before. . . . 



"This experiment would indicate that 'slopping' is an expensive way to feed cows, 

 and there need bo little wonder, when the physiology of a cow is considered. By 

 feeding wet food it passes more or less directly to the third and fourth stomachs 

 without being remasticated, as is done when the food is given dry. More experi- 

 ments are needed to settle the question." 



Ground wheat as a food factor for milch cows, 0. A. Zavitz 

 {Ontario Agl. Col. and E.vptl. Farm Rpt. ISO:;, pp. 123-12r>).—T\nQ is a 

 comparison of wheat with an equal amount of a grain mixture of 2 

 parts of oats, 1 of peas, and 1 of barley, all ground. Four grade 

 cows fresh in milk were divided into 2 lots and fed for 2 periods of 

 60 days each — February 23 to June 22. Hay, straw, and silage were fed 

 with the grain. In the first period lot 1 was fed the mixed grain and 

 lot 2 the wheat, and in the second- period the lots were reversed. 



No analyses are given of the milk, but the total yields are given as 

 follows : 



I'ounds of milk. 



Group I. — Eirst 60 days mixed-meal ration 3,555^ 



Group II. — Second 60 days mixed-meal ration 2, 865J 



Group II. — Eirst 60 days ground-wheat ration 2, 890^ 



Group I. — Second 60 days ground-wheat ration 2, 892 



"This seems to indicate that the mixed-meal ration kept up the tlow of milk bet- 

 ter than the ration of ground wheat." 



The oats were valued at 24.5 cts., peas at 57 cts., barley at 38 cts., 

 aud wheat at 60 cts. per bushel, aud hay at $6, straw at $2, and silage 



