878 EXPERIMENT STATION RECORD. [Vol.40 



The influence of barley on the milk secretion of cows, F. W. Woll and 

 E. C. Voouhies (California Sta. Bui. 305 (1919), pp. S25-384 ) .—This bulletin 

 furnishes complete records of amounts and kind of feeds consumed by, the 

 body weights of, and the quantity of milk and butter fat produced by (1) a 

 grade Holsteln cow during three lactations in which the only grain fed was 

 barley, and two in which mixed grains were fed; (2) a pure-bred Jersey during 

 four lactations, in one of which barley was the sole grain; and (3) another 

 pure-bred Jersey during two lactations In which mixed grain and one in which 

 barley was fed. It also compares the production records of 15 other cuws, 

 mostly used previously in a similar study (E. S. R., 33, p. 575), during short 

 periods (generally 5 weeks) of barley feeding with their records during the 

 intervening periods of mixed grain feeding. 



An increased milk flow generally accompanied barley feeding, but this is not 

 attributed to the barley as such but to the accident that a larger quantity of 

 grain was frequently fed. These are admittedly not critical experiments, and 

 are only cited by the authors to show that barley feeding has no deleterious 

 effect on milk .seeretion, and to disprove the contention of some dairymen that 

 barley tends to dry up milch cows. 



Heat period and milk production, J. J. Hoopeb and P. EL Bacon (Urt< d< r's 

 Gaz., 75 (1919), No. 15, pp. 844, 8+5). — It Is slated that many dairymen believe 

 that cows in ndlk Increase their butter fat yield during periods of heat, but the 

 records of 29 Jerseys at the Kentucky Experiment Station are cited in which 

 there was an average decline of 0.1 lb. of fat and 1.5 lbs. of ndlk on the day of 

 most evident heat. 



The cost of milk production computed on the year basis, F. A. I'karson 

 (Illinois Sta. Bui. J/6" (t$19), pp. 8',3-J6' f I .— These studies were undertaken to 

 derive workable formulas that would express the cost of producing iluid milk 

 for the Chicago market in terms of amounts of feed and labor used, and not of 

 the monetary value of the expenses Incurred. 



A study of the herd cost is based upon the records during the fiscal years 

 1914-15 and 1915-16 of 36 farms on which there were >^73 milch cows, 225 

 calves (and heifers not in milk), and 35 bulls, and where o.r.ll lbs. of milk 

 and 295 lbs. of butter fat were sold per cow during the period. Production in 

 the six winter months was 56 per cent of the yearly total. The gross cost of 

 producing 100 lbs. of milk was found to average $2.25, the percentage of the 

 several items being: Feed other than pasture 60.7, pasture 5.3, man labor 17, 

 horse labor 3.4, interest on herd 4.9, building charges 3.6, equipment 1.3, and 

 miscellaneous 3.8. A managerial charge was not included. The cost other than 

 for feed (excluding pasture) and man labor totaled 50.16 cts. which almost 

 exactly balanced the 48.69 cts. credit from appreciation of stock, manure, hides, 

 beef, and other miscellaneous returns. The production cost on these farms can 

 thus be expressed in terms of feed and labor. The amounts per 100 lbs. of milk 

 were approximately 44 lbs. of grain, 18S lbs. of silage, and other succulent feed, 

 50 lbs. of hay, 39 lbs. of other roughage and bedding, and 2.42 hours of man 

 labor. This is the formula for "year cost." To correct for seasonal variations 

 In cost of production it is suggested that the price for any month be that per- 

 centage of the year cost which represents the average variation of that month 

 from the average year price during the years 1907 to 191(i. A table showing 

 these monthly percentages is given. It is noted that only 61.8 per cent of the 

 grain fed was purchased, whereas in farms providing milk for New York city 

 (E. S. R., 34, p. 771) the purchased grain was about 98 per cent of the total. 

 In 16 of the above farms, embracing 428 cows, the records permitted the 

 separation of the cost of rearing young stock fi-om the herd cost, the difference 



