1906.] RATIONS FOR BEEF BREEDING Cows. 335 



age-fed) did not give as much milk as the cows in lot 2 (shock corn- 

 fed) it was because of a non-milking tendency in the silage-fed cows 

 for which the ration was in no way responsible. 



The feed of each cow, as soon as she calved, was increased a 

 third from what had been found approximately a maintenance 

 ration when she was dry. This amount, however, was inadequate 

 to maintain the cow while suckling a calf. The amount was there- 

 fore quite rapidly increased until the shock corn-fed cows received 

 twenty pounds shock corn and five pounds clover hay, and the sil- 

 age-fed cows received a daily allowance of thirty-eight pounds of 

 silage and five pounds of clover hay. This amount seemed about 

 right to keep the cows from shrinking in weight while nursing their 

 calves and was approximately twice the amount necessary to main- 

 tain the same cows while dry. It might be added that none of these 

 cows were heavy milkers. 



The cost of feed for the shock corn-fed cows was not as great at, 

 for the silage-fed cows. Reference to the table will show that cost 

 of gains on calves was also computed. The high priced gains on 

 the calf of cow number 471 were apparently due to the fact that 

 this cow was a poor milker, apparently never giving milk enough 

 for the calf. 



It has been stated elsewhere that there was but little difference 

 in the thrift of the cows in lots i and 2 before calving. A few days 

 after calving, however, it was manifest that there was a marked 

 difference between the cows wintered on silage and those wintered 

 on shock-corn. The former ration was clearly superior. 



The data derived from this experiment are of value also in add- 

 ing weight to the evidence which has been accumulating the last 

 few years, that the German maintenance standard should be revised. 



The table shows that in no case was the amount of protein fed 

 as large as the German standard calls for to maintain a one thou- 

 sand pound animal, but as far as the general appearance of the 

 cows in lots i and 2 were concerned no one would doubt that they 

 were sufficiently supplied with all the nutrients. It is again inter- 

 esting to note in this connection that, although lot i received a 

 smaller ration per cow throughout the test, they made larger aver- 

 age daily gains than did the animals in lot 2. The different results 

 which these two rations produced can be ascribed only to some in- 

 definite property which one contained that the other did not; we 

 might call this the difference in palatability of the two feeds. The 

 silage-fed lot received feed which was more palatable than that 

 given to lot 2, which had shock corn. 



