422 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



What are these worth (showing second series of pictures). What am 

 I offered for this cow (pointing to another), a better looking critter 

 than the other one? Maybe you think she is not worth thirty cents. This 

 is the same cow as you saw before one year after she had been to 

 the college. It cost the college $15 to keep her; I mean they lost $15 

 on that cow (showing the first cow), and they made $45 on this one 

 (showing the second cow) the same critters as the others one year 

 later. This simply proves my statement that it is not the cow so 

 much as the man back of it. There has been a man back of this breed- 

 ing and back of the feeding. This cow (the first one) went to col- 

 lege and had all the opportunities, but she lacked one thing, that is 

 breeding. They were both common cows, but the man is responsible 

 for the results in both cases. This cow (the second one shown) went 

 to college good for nothing, would not give $5.00 for her, and yet after 

 she had been in college a year she picked up and became a splendid 

 milker, gave $45 net, $85 worth of butter and skimmed milk, but $45.00 

 clear. 



In order to show you that it is not in the cow. I have taken the 

 statistics of Hoard's Dairyman, taken from all those creamery patrons, 

 investigated and picked out the Jersey critters, that is the Jerseys, 

 thoroughbreds and grades. There is not a herd in that bunch of any 

 other breed except Jerseys. I take these, not as a slam against the 

 Jerseys, but simply because they are known as a better cow, and these 

 Investigations prove that some of these herds make a profit and some 

 do not. It is not the cow, it is the man back of it. 



Here is a man that had five cows and lost $7.50 on each one;- 

 another had six and has a profit of $7.72; here is a profit of $15.17 

 per cow, here is a loss of $2.59, a loss of $11.65, a loss of $6.05 and 

 a gain of $10.88 and so on. Do not understand that these are 

 positive facts. There is a relative difference between fact and figure, 

 but they are all treated alike; if one is a liar they are all liars, because 

 the same man took them all. In Connecticut there were 21 of these 

 Jersey herds, including 127 cows; 57 per cent of those made a profit, 

 43 per cent made a loss. In Pennsylvania there were fourteen herds, 

 T12 cows; 57 per cent profit. 43 per cent loss. Vermont had 37 herds; 

 32 per cent profit, 68 per cent loss, and that is the way it goes from 

 side to side (illustrating en chart). Now you cannot condemn the 

 feed. There is not a man that dares get up here and say it is the 

 fault of the cow in any of these cases; it is simply the fault of the man 

 that gives the feed. 



I have heard it said that it is quoted frequently by one of our 

 dairy authorities that no man would go hunting with a bull dog, but I 

 say a good hunter can go out with a bulldog and kill more ducks than 

 I could with the finest hunting dog on earth. It is simply the man, 

 not the dog. It is the man that has the advantage, that gets the gain. 

 I say it is the man back of the cow rather than the cow. It is the 

 man back of the dog, rather than the dog. 



The feed comes into play. I will not take time to point this out. 

 Here is the cost of feed of these different cows, per cow, and you can 



