72 



ILLINOIS STATE DAIRYMEN'S ASSOCIATION. 



lias first realized a good profit in growing the feeds. So the dairy farmer 

 who raises his own feed® obtains two profits instead of one. 



With all the above facts and figures belfore us can anyone, doubt the 

 necessity of studying individuality of cows, and yet there are men who 

 say that a cow is a cow wherever sLe is found, and will pay little attention 

 to weeding out and grading up a herd. What stronger evidence does a 

 anan need to show him one of the greatest leaksi in the profits of the dairy 

 l)usiness. No mechanic w®uld continue to use an engine that would con- 

 sume more fuel than the value of the product it turned out. How much 

 less should! the dairy farmer continue to use an unprofitable cow ma- 

 chine. Both are not only useless, but they are eating up the profits made 

 l)y the profitable machines. 



Improvement. The history o c this scrub herd is not all told in the 

 ^rst year record. Ten of these c dws have commenced on their second 

 fear record and the following table gives the length of time milked in the 

 second year, the yield of butter fat for this period, and the yield of butter 

 fat for the corresponding period of last year: 



PROGRESS REPORT ON SECOND YEAR'S RECORD. 



Number of Cows 



Period 



Butter fat lbs 



1898 



Butter fat lbs 

 1899 



Percent.Increase 



28 



7 Months 



. 83.0 



164.5 



98 



5 



6 



85.1 



140.8 



65 



11 



7 " 



114.7 



186.7 



62 



33 



6 



129.4 



180.9 



39 



9 



2 " 



48.7 



60.5 



24 



.20 



4 



131.6 



163.4 



24 



7 





194.7 



216.8 



11 



24 



6 



155.0 



162.6 



5 



6 



6 



142.0 



139.6 



1 



. 30 



5 " 



35.3 



80.9 



5 



Averag-e 









32 



From this record we see that cow No. 28 became ashamed of her record 

 ^s given in the first table andi started out for the second year at the rate of 

 '^8 per cent increase. Nos. 5 and 11 follow with 65 per cent and 62 per cent 

 increase respectfully. There are two cows, Nos. 6 and 30, that have fal- 

 len below their first year's record. On the average these cows have im- 

 '^roved at the rate of 32 per cent. . The greatest improvement seems to be 



