54 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



rather than on her back, by the thinness of the ham and the prominent 

 lean spine. 



No matter how thoronglilj versed in "signs" a man may be, he will not 

 know to a certainty until he has taken her home and tried her, whether 

 lie has a good cow" or not. 



If time permitted it would pay to weigh and test the milk for two or 

 three milkings at least, though but little dependence could be placed on 

 the results of a short test as an indication of the staying qualities of the 

 cow. 



The best even an expert dairyman can do is to judge how nearly the 

 animal offered to him comes to the mental picture he has of an ideal dairy 

 cow and if she conforms thereto buy her and take the consequences. 



FEEDING AND CAEE OF A SMALL DAIRY HERD. 



COLON C. LILLTE, COOPERSVILI.E, OTTAWA COUNTY. 



The feeding and care of a herd of dairy cows ai'e of much more impor- 

 tance than the average dairyman seems to appreciate. The common, 

 much abused, "scrub" cow if properly fed and cared for will usually give 

 profitable results. Indeed with a little care in their selection one can 

 jiick up a herd of common cows that will bring good returns for food 

 and labor bestowed upon them. 



These statements are warranted by two recent experiments, one at 

 Kansas Experiment Station and one at our own Michigan Station, In 

 l)oth instances common cows, 20 in number, were selected and purchased 

 —in Michigan by Prof. C. D. Smith himself, but in Kansas by a farmer 

 who was not a dairyman. Both herds were in quality below the average 

 cows of the states. The average cost of the Michigan cows was |39.00; 

 of the Kansas, i$84.00. Both herds were fed and cared for according to 

 modern ideas of dairying. Both made good profits. The Kansas herd 

 produced on the average 5,707 pounds of milk, testing 4,17 per cent; which 

 eiiuals 238.1 pounds of butter fat, that sold for |87.75 at the average price 

 of 15.9 cents per pound, the price paid at Manhattan Creamery for 1898. 

 Each cow^ was credited with her skim milk at 15 cents per 100 pounds, or 

 $7.69, making a total of |45.44 per cow. The average cost of feed was 

 !it;29.20. This would leave an average net profit of |1G.25. The best cow 

 made a profit of |40.37, while the poorest showed a loss of |0.43. The 

 cost of feed per 100 pounds charged to the cows was: Corn meal, 55c; 

 Kaffir corn meal. 55c; oil meal, |1.25; soy bean meal, fl.OO; cottonseed 

 meal, fl.OO; bran, 55c; Alfalfa, $4.00 per ton; ensilage, |1.00 per ton; 

 l>asture, 75c per month.* 



Records were collected from 82 herds owned by creamery patrons in 

 one of the leading dairy sections of Kansas, which showed that the aver- 

 age yield of milk per cow was 3,441 pounds, butter fat 104.5 pounds, value 

 of butter fat, |19.79. Now, the value of butter fat from the College herd, 

 figured at same price, was |37.75. 



WHAT CAUSED THIS GREAT DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF RETURNS? 



Scientific, if you please, or common sense feeding and care. Hence we 

 say the feeding and care of the dairy herd is of great importance. 



^•'For result of Michigan herd, see Station Bulletin No. 166. 



