772 EXPERIMENT STATION" EECORD. 



In 1912 the value of pasture land on farms 1 mile or less from the milk 

 station averaged $25 per acre ; on farms over 1 mile and not more than 3 miles 

 from market, $20 per acre ; on farms from 3 to not more than 4 miles from 

 market, $18 per acre ; aad on farms over 4 miles from market, $1G per acre. 

 The cost of hauling milk on farms 1 mile or less from market was $4 per cow, 

 or 8.7 cts. per 100 lbs. of milk sold. When the distance hauled was more than 

 4 miles the cost of marketing was $7 per cow, or 15.3 cts. per 100 lbs. of milk 

 sold. The production of milk, the cost of feed, and the cost of production 

 did not differ greatly with the distance from market. 



Cows that were given $41 worth of feed in addition to pasture produced milk 

 for 1.47 cts. per pound and made an average profit of $13. This profit was 

 made on a production of 4,100 lbs., which is 3G3 lbs. below the average for the 

 State. When the value of the grain, hay, and silage was increased by $28 

 the milk production was increased by 791 lbs. and* the profits were decreased 

 by $22. After this point each additional increase of barn feed resulted in 

 increased production, but the milk cost more and the loss per cow was increaseil. 

 One-half of the dairymen who \ised $55 or less of winter feed per cow produced 

 milk for 2 cts. per pound or less, but those who gave more winter feed lessened 

 their chances of producing milk cheaply. The cows that received on an average 

 only 2,077 feed units produced 3,925 lbs. of milk which cost l.SO cts. per pound. 

 Cows that received an increase of 917 feed units produced an increase of 229 

 lbs. of milk. Increa.ses in feed in the next two groups resulted in increased 

 production but the cost iK?r pound of milk remained much the same. Wlien the 

 cows were fed more than 5,421 feed units the production continued to increase, 

 but the increased value of the feed necessary to make this change was out of 

 proportion to tlie value of the milk. 



Silos were found in the larger dairies, and more intensive methods of feeding 

 are being followed on the farms that have silos. The value of the feed used 

 per cow and accompanying stock on the farms with silos was $86 in 1912 and 

 $80 in 1913, and on farms without silos $79 and $71. The average production 

 of milk per cow in the herds where silage was fed was 4,791 lbs. in 1912 and 

 4,778 lbs. in 1913, and in the herds not fed silage 4.516 lbs. in 1912 and 4,624 

 lbs. in 1913. The cost of production per pound of milk where silage was used 

 was 2.32 cts. in 1912 and 2.08 cts. in 1913, and where silage was not used 2.3S 

 cts. and 1.99 cts. 



A larger expenditure for feed and more feed units were xised in the herds of 

 higher value. The amount of labor spent per ci>w in the different groups was 

 fairly constant. The production per cow was higher in the herds of high value. 

 Intensive feeding of the average cow did not pay. but the group containing 

 cows valued at $55 or more was able to use as much as $94 worth of feed and 

 show a profit. 



The milk from the Holstein group tested the lowest in fat, averaging 4.1 

 per cent in 1912 and 4.2 per cent in 1913. The Tersey group tested the highest, 

 with an average test of 4.8 per cent in 1912 and 4.7 per cent in 1913. Not 

 counting pasture the Holsteins consumed more feed than did the other groups 

 but were closely followed by the Jerseys. The Jerseys used more expensive 

 feed, so that their ration cost a little more than the Holstein ration. In 1913 

 the average profit per cow among the 542 Holstein cows was $3, while the 3.026 

 Jersey cows showed an average loss of $15, and the cows of mixed breed a 

 loss of $19 per cow. The Holstein herds, however, were mainly on the valley 

 farms, where natural conditions for economical milk production were better, 

 and this may help to account for the better showing made by the Holstein 

 group. 



