118 HOLSTEIN-FRIESIAN CATTLE. 



The Cornell Station herd for the year 1892 (Bulletin 52) contained nine 

 grade (f to |f blood) and two pure-bred Hplstein cows. Of these at least two 

 were under specially unfavorable conditions and some were very poor cows. 

 The entire eleven averaged 273 Ibs. butter fat. The best six averaged 324 Ibs., 

 and the best produced 418 Ibs. fat. The seven Jerseys (one pure-bred) averaged 

 270 Ibs. fat, and the best produced 392 Ibs. The cost of one pound of fat pro- 

 duced by the Jerseys was fifteen cents, and by the Holsteins seventeen cents, 

 value of manure and of milk solids, not fat, being ignored. It is of some inter- 

 est that the three pure -bred cows ranked very low. 



To hundreds of your readers it is a matter of personal knowledge that the 

 instances I have cited from the Vermont, Minnesota and Cornell Station herds, 

 much as they surpass the animals in the Geneva herd, utterly fail to indicate 

 the butter producing capacity of the best type of the Holstein cow. To such it 

 may seem strange that lhave collated none of the well authenticated instances, 

 both public and private, of large records. In reply, I merely say that I hold no 

 brief for the Holstein cow. My purpose is simply to show the unrepresentative 

 character of the Geneva herd. That purpose I believe is best served by com- 

 paring it with other station herds. The herds referred to were selected simply 

 because they were the ones, and the only ones, containing cows of the Holstein 

 breed, to the records of which I have access. 



Much the same could be said of the selection of Ayrshire, cows as of the 

 Holsteins, at Geneva. Suffice it to say, in general, of this matter of the 

 selection of the representative cows for this test, if they are fairly selected it is 

 a waste of time and money to test most of the breeds further. Let the matter 

 as to these breeds be summed up and ended by saying : "No Holstein-Friesian, 

 Shorthorn or American Holderness cow is worth barn-room for dairy purposes. 

 The chance of securing an Ayrshire cow valuable for the dairy is not worth 

 the effort." If these conclusions are unwarranted, most of the inferences 

 sought to be drawn from the results of this test are equally unwarranted. 



Of the second and third of the above criticisms, it is hardly necessary to 

 speak. The unfairness of comparing the cost of butter production by a cow 

 that has been continuously milked 761 days with its cost when produced by a 

 cow milked eighty-two days in full flow seems clear. The attempt to change 

 the time of calving of many of the cows from spring to fall, is largely respon- 

 sible for the difference in the length of the periods of lactation. While perhaps 

 desirable in itself, it was utterly inadvisable during the continuance of a scien- 

 tific experiment. The use of periods of lactation as the unit of time has pro- 

 duced further confusion in that, even in the same volume, we have different 

 sets of figures given as to the cost of fat production in the first period by the 

 several breeds. If all the cows are to be included, we shall have still another 

 set of figures hereafter for this same period. The figures for the second and 

 subsequent periods will also have to be changed from time to time ; so that it 

 is difficult to see when a final result can be reached by this method. 



As to the fourth criticism : What a dairyman wants is the cow that will, 

 in a given time, put the most dollars in his pocket. That is not necessarily the 

 cow which produces fat at the lowest cost per pound. For example, in the 

 tables already referred to, the Devon cow, Genevie's Gift, makes a showing 

 much better than the average, producing butter fat during the first period at 

 19.4 cents per pound and during the second period at 16.5 cents, the average of 

 all the cows being 22.5 and 21.5 for the two periods. Her total production, 

 however, is so small that the net profit would also be comparatively small. No 

 one would for a moment deny that a cow producing 400 pounds of butter at a 

 cost of 15 cents per pound is a better cow than one producing 300 pounds at a 

 cost of 14 cents per pound, butter selling at fair average prices. Yet by the 

 methods of comparison used at the Geneva station, and other stations as well, 

 the reverse would appear to be the case. 



On the fifth point comment is needless. As to the sixth, the items omitted 

 are, the manurial value of the excrement, the value of the milk solids not fat, 

 and, I judge, the cost of maintenance of the cows while dry. This last item 

 should certainly be included in the final accounting, but it could not be included 

 in the tables without adding greatly to the unfairness of comparing finished 

 with unfinished periods of lactation. That the manurial value of the excrement 

 is altogether too important an item to be fairly omitted we need not go outside 

 of the present report to learn. We are told " that milch cows gave back in the 

 liquid and solid manure a value in fertilizing constituents, nitrogen, potash and 



