INFLUENCE OF THE PLANE OF NUTRITION UPON MILK 65 
TABLE III 
EFFECT OF UNDERFEEDING—ADVANCED LACTATION 
Jersey Cow No. 62 
Date Per cent Pounds Live Energy Energy 
of fat of milk weight supplied required 
Therms herms 
4.6 ; 16.9 930 10.00 11.80 
4.5 16.3 930 10.00 11.58 
4.9 15.6 915 7.00 11.24 
4.8 14.6 910 7.00 10.85 
5.5 14.8 900 7.00 10.86 
5.7 15.1 890 7.00 10.91 
5.5 14.6 870 4.66 10.60 
5.9 14.8 865 4.66 | 10.43 
6.1 13.6 865 4.66 10.21 
5.6 12.9 855 4.66 9.88 
6.0 13.5. 855 4.66 10.11 
6.5 13.1 845 4.66 9.91 
5.7 12.9 835 4.66 9.71 
6.2 12.9 835 4.66 9.77 
5.6 12.9 840 4.66 9.81 
5.8 13.3 830 4.66 9.89 
5.2 12.8 850 4.66 9.83 
5.4 12.0 830 4.66 9.42 
5.7 12.8 815 10.00 9.62 
4.3 13.1 845 10.00 9.91 
4.8 14.5 855 10.00 10.47 
4.3 15.2 855 10.00 10.73 
4.1 15.3 830 10.00 10.92 
4.5 16.1 880 10.00 11.21 
Table IV gives similar data for Jersey Cow 2, beginning 
100 days after parturition. It will be seen that the results 
are the same as for Cow 62. When the ration was dropped 
suddenly on the fifth day there was an immediate rise in the 
fat content followed by a decline when the ration was again 
raised. 
Outside the publications of the author, and his co-worker, 
Dr. L. S. Palmer, the only reference to be found in the litera- 
ture regarding the relation of underfeeding to the fat content 
of milk is by Lusk who conducted a brief experiment with 
a goat. He reports that the fat content of the milk was in- 
creased during two days when the goat received no feed. 
In explanation, Lusk advances the theory that when suf- 
5 
