RELATION OF PRODUCTION" TO INCOME FROM COWS. 



11 



for each successive large group. As production increased from 109 

 pounds in the third group to 396 pounds in the ninth group, the re- 

 turns for $1 expended for feed increased from $1.35 to $2.52, or 

 almost doubled. In Group 3 the returns were only 35 cents above the 

 cost of the feed, while in Group 9 the returns were $1.52 above the 

 cost of the feed, or more than four times as much. It is also worthy 

 of note that the feed cost per pound of butterf at was almost twice as 

 high in Group 3 as in Group 9. 



Figure 5 shows graphically for the larger groups the relation of 

 butterfat production to returns for $1 expended for feed as given in 

 Table 4. 



FIG. •;. — One of the highest-producing herds in the Carroll County (Md.) cow-testing 



association. 



The curve shows that the returns for $1 expended for feed in- 

 creased at a very rapid rate as production of butterfat increased. 

 The larger returns for feed in the groups having high average pro- 

 duction were due to better cows and better feeding. The relative 

 influence of these two factors can not be determined because the 

 groups whose average production was high were always fed more 

 liberally thnn fliose whose average production was lower. 



Figure 7 '-hows graphically lor the larger groups the relation be- 

 buiterfat production and feed cost per pound of butterfat as 

 given in T:il>le 4. 



The curve shows a very rapid decrease in feed cost per pound of 



butterfat as production increased from 58 pounds to 396 pounds. 

 From that point on the feed cost per pound of butterfat decreased 

 more slowly. The figures indicate that from the standpoint of feed 

 ceet alone the dairyman should give dose attention to the improve- 



