29 



probable that the cost of production will be less and the profits therefor 

 greater where cows yielding milk with a rather high percentage of fat 

 are kept. Such cows produce relatively less of the milk solids not fat, 

 and hence turn a larger proportion of their food and energy into the 

 particular product desired, than those 3'ielding a large quantity of milk 

 poor in fat. This accounts for the general popularity of Jersey and 

 Guernsey blood for butter-producing herds. Again, on a rugged New 

 England pasture, where feed does not grow luxuriantly, large areas 

 must be traversed and industrious efforts expended to secure the 

 necessary food. A big, coarse, slow-moving cow would be at a disad- 

 vantage, while a small, close-built, active animal would be in its 

 element. On the other hand, in rich meadows and in stables under 

 high pressure the tables would be turned. This suggests where the 

 Ayrshire and the Holstein types may be placed to the best advantage. 

 But, after all, mistakes in these particulars are less common than mis- 

 takes in selecting good individuals. 



Some very interesting results have been obtained in a canvass of 

 certain creamery districts in the State of Vermont, and published as a 

 cow census of that State. These results have been very ably discussed 

 in recent pubhcations of the Vermont Experiment Station, and show 

 not only the wide difference in product between different herds, but 

 also some of the causes contributing to the variation. I have not the 

 figures before me as I write; but my memory tells me that the poorest 

 herds averaged about 80 pounds of butter fat per cow per year, worth 

 $20. The best herd averaged in the same time nearly 300 pounds of 

 fat, worth S75, nearly four times the product of the poorest cows. It 

 is easy to believe that cream production was more profitable to the 

 owner of the best herd. 



Bulletin No. 20 of the Storrs Experiment Station illustrates the 

 principle and brings the truth home in a very convincing manner. 

 Twenty-five cows were observed for one year, the food consumed and 

 the products noted. The cost of feed varied between $32.36 and $48.80, 

 or one cow ate two-thirds as much as the other. The butter product 

 varied between 165 pounds and 509 pounds. It so happened that the 

 cow consuming the least food produced the smallest (juantity of butter. 

 If the smallest butteix product paid for the food consumed, the con- 

 sumption of $16.44 worth of additional food produced 344 pounds of 

 butter, which would make the cost per pound of the additional amount 

 4J cents. If the first cow paid for her keep the other yielded a profit 

 of $55. A herd of 20 cows like the latter would pay for all the farm 

 products and food consumed, and yield an ainiual profit of more than 

 $1,000. While it is the cows that eat the most, as a rule, that produce 

 the largest products and greatest profits, the difference in consumption 

 is much less than in production. Among this same herd of 25 cows 

 the third cow in butter product, with 3()0 pounds, consumed $40.60 

 worth of feed, and the twenty-third in butter product, with 276 pounds, 

 consumed $46.21 in feed, almost as much as the best butter producer. 



