492 
THE 
JULY 28 
BREED OR FEED? 
in. 
Are You Feeding Good Food to 
Poor Cows ? 
Do You Feed a Second-class 
Ration to a First-class Cow? 
THE COW IS A MACHINE. 
One Machine may he better 
than another. 
THE KERNEL OF THE DISCUSSION. 
l ‘A cow which naturally gives rich milk will 
still continue to do so even on poor food , 
though in much smaller quantity ; while 
a cow that naturally gives poor milk could 
not he improved , even by the addition of 
rich food.'' 1 —Dr. H. P. Armsby, 11. N.-Y ,., 
page 322. 
aiJESTIONS. 
1. Is quality of milk more dependent apon 
breed or feed? 
2. By feeding rich foods can we increase 
the proportion of cream in milk? 
3. Are the standard rations given for the 
production of butter of their full value 
without a knowledge of the breed of 
cow to which they are to be fed? 
4. Can we change the ratio of butter fat 
to caseine in the milk from a given cow 
by systematic feeding? 
ANSWERS. 
COMPOSITION OF THE MIT.K OF 
Sp.Grav Water S’l’ds Fat C’s’ne Sug Salt 
FEEDING OF DAIRY COWS FOR 
BUTTER. 
HENRY STEWART. 
Woman, per ct. 1,032.6 
It is a common remark that cows are 
machines which manufacture milk or butter 
from the materials and the food supplied to 
them. This comparison is to a great extent 
a just and true one, and just as a grist-mill 
turns out more or less of flour or meal 
of different kinds as the supply of grain may 
vary, so the cow gives us, to some extent, a 
vaiied supply of milk, differing in quality as 
the food may differ. This belief prevails 
among dairymen who have been careful to 
observe the results of the feeding of their 
cows as a matter of business eariied on for 
profit. But as machines vary in ability to 
serve their purposes, so cows vary in their 
natural ability, and between the variations in 
the cows, and the differences in feeding sub¬ 
stances, the dairyman finds several rather 
intricate problems arising. For instance, the 
following questions occur with much force 
in this regard, viz., 1st: Is quality of milk 
more dependent upon breed or feed ? 2d: Can 
the proportion of butter-fat in the milk be 
increased by the use of foods rich in fat¬ 
making elements? 3d: Are the standard 
rations for feeding cows for the production of 
butter fully trustworthy, without regard to 
the breed of the cows? 4th: Is the ratio of 
the butter-fat to that of the caseine constant 
and can it be changed in any cow by system¬ 
atic feeding ? 
Cows differ very much in their natural 
constitutional ability to yield milk rich in 
solids, especially caseine and fat. Various 
races of animals also differ in this respect, as 
the following tables will show : 
Cow, 
Goat, 
Sheep, 
Camel, 
Mare, 
Ass, 
Sow, 
Dog, 
1,033.4 
1,033.5 
1,040.9 
1,033.1 
1,034.8 
1,041.6 
889 
86.4 
84.5 
83.2 
90.4 
89.0 
85.5 
17.2 
11 09 
ia 6 
15. 5 
16. 7 
13. 4 
9.57 
10 98 
14.51 
22 79 
2.66 
3.61 
5.68 
5.13 
3.60 
2.43 
1 85 
1 95 
3.92 
5.51 
5.51 
6.97 
4.00 
3.33 
3.56 
8 45 
8.19 11.68 
4.36 
3.80 
3.69 
3.94 
5.80 
3.27 
5.04 
3.03 
1.52 
0.13 
0.66 
0.61 
0.71 
0.52 
0.52 
1C9 
.78 
This table, by Veriois & Becquerel, is given 
in Dr. Fleming’s Veterinary Obstetrics, as is 
also the following by Doy&re: 
Water Fat C’s’ne Ab’m'n Sug Salts 
Woman, per ct. 87 38 3 80 
Cow, “ 87.60 2.20 
Goat. “ 87.30 4.40 
Sheep, “ 81.60 7.50 
Llama, “ 86.60 3.10 
Ass, “ 89.63 1.50 
Mare, “ 91.37 0.55 
0.84 
3.0 
3.5 
4.0 
30 
0.6 
0.78 
ISO 
1.20 
1.35 
1.70 
0.90 
1.35 
1.40 
10 
4.70 
3.10 
4.30 
5.60 
6.40 
550 
0.18 
0 70 
0X5 
0.9 
0.8 
0.3 
0.4 
Animals also differ in the quality of the 
milk in regard to time after lactation. Thus 
it has been found that 
EWES MILK CONTAINS 
Three weeks after Six weeks after 
lambing. lambing. 
Water, per cent. 75-00 86.70 
Fat, 12-80 3.67 
Caseine, 6-58 4 - 44 
Sugar, 4.66 4-00 
Ash. -»8 M3 
As races of animals are thus shown to differ 
in the character of the milk, we may naturally 
expect that the different varieties or breeds of 
any race will vary to a considerable extent as 
their natural characters differ, and at the 
same time we may expect that individuals 
themselves will differ in this respect. A very 
large mass of testimony exists in regard to 
this difference between breeds and individuals, 
from w’hich I select the following: 
First as regards breeds :—At the Dairy 
Exhibition at London, England, in 1883, the 
following tests were made for the champion¬ 
ship : 
COMPOSITION OF MILK. 
Breeds, 
Short-liorn, 
Shoi t-hcrn and Dutch, 
Guernsey, 
Jersey, 
Devon, 
Ayrshire 
Solids, 
12.96 
14.20 
12.12 
14.25 
14 21 
14.75 
14.18 
Fat, 
3.85 per cent. 
4.71 
2.86 
5.54 
5.14 
5.28 
5.12 
The report of United States Counsul, S. B. 
Packard, upon the special breeds of Dairy 
Cattle in Great Britain, made for the U. S. 
Department of State, gives the following 
statement in regard to the differences of 
breeds. 
Breeds, Quantity of Milk to a 
pound of Butter. 
Short-horn, 
40 
Hereford, 
30 
Red Polled, 
35 
Aberdeen or Aligns, 
27 
Welsh, 
18 
Jersey, 
20 
Ayrshire, 
35 
In my own dairy I have carefully observed 
have kept during more than 30 years past, 
and I have noted that while breeds vary con¬ 
siderably, yet there is equal variance in 
individuals, although this latter variance is 
not so much marked as that of the breeds. For 
instance, a herd of Jersey or Guernsey cows 
will undoubtedly yield a larger quantity of 
butter in proportion to the milk given than 
any other cows, Devon cows coming next in 
this respect, Ayrshire next. Angus next, and 
Hereford, Short-horn and Dutch following, 
the common average native varying, as might 
be expected from her varying character and 
very much mixed lineage. 
2d. As regards individuals:—While the dis¬ 
position by breed will preponderate, yet there 
is a remarkable variation between individual 
cow's, both in regard to the character of the 
milk and in the ability to change food into 
milk and butter. This is shown in the table 
above given with regard to the two Short¬ 
horn cows, A typical instance is afforded by 
the well-known difference in Jersey cows, of 
w bich there are probably more than 50,000 in 
existence in America, and of these less than 200 
(? .Eds.) yield over 14 pounds of butter weekly, 
and of these some have yielded 25 pounds up 
to a claimed product of 49 pounds in seven 
days. 
The majority of Jersey cows will not yield 
more than five pounds weekly as an average 
of the milking season; and thus, perhaps, 
there is a greater variation in regard to the 
individual in this breed than in any other 
race of cows. 
In regard to this question at issue, it should 
be decided what is implied by this term 
“ breed,” and how it is to be distinguished 
from feeding. Clearly the breeding of any 
special race of cows for their improvement is 
based on selection and feeding, and possibly it 
might be put as feeding and selection, placing 
feeding first, so that really there is very little ( 
in this distinction,because, after all, the breed¬ 
ing is only the result of a long course of train¬ 
ing to secure an aptitude to eat and digest 
food and turn it into milk, and especially fat; 
and then by selection to make this aptitude 
constitutional. And in every special dairy 
breed which has been reared from its origin 
up to its perfection, it will be found that each 
special breed exhibits the special character for 
which it has been designed, and each one 
might be turned in time, and by a suitable 
process, from its specialty towards quite a 
different one. The Short-horn one hundred 
years ago was the best milking-and-butter- 
making race in existence; but it has been 
turned to beef-making, and is no longer a 
typical dairy animal. No doubt in course of 
time the Jersey could be made as useful a draft 
and beef race as the Devon has become by its 
course of breeding; so that at the present 
time I think it may be said that as the breed¬ 
ing is nothing more than a result of special 
education for a distinct purpose, which has 
been reached, it is unwise to slight the feed¬ 
ing as less effective than the breeding, because 
this is only a result of that, and that it is 
wise to consider the feeding as the first 
element in the making of milk rich in butter. 
And yet,as we have at hand the results of cen¬ 
turies of feeding and selection (called breeding) 
we cannot ignore this in choosing cows for a 
butter dairy, because all the work is done for 
us, which would occupy centuries to come if 
we should do it for ourselves. 
Just now I have a cow in my dairy,a common 
native, which cost me $19, and when I bought 
her she had never made more than three or 
four pounds of butter in a week. She is of 
Dutch lineage, undoubtedly, but her Dutch 
markings are the result of atavism or breeding 
back, beyond question. In the course of two 
years’ feeding I have brought this cow up to a 
product of nine pounds of butter a week. I 
think this is a clear case of the result of feed¬ 
ing rather than the influence of breed. 
As regards the second question, it might be 
said that if the use of foods rich in fat or fat- 
producing elements cannot increase the pro¬ 
portion of butter fat in the milk, then the ab¬ 
sence of these foods cannot decrease the 
proportion of butter, and, further, that rich 
foods have no influence upon the product of 
fat in the animal. Such a statement would be 
contrary to all experience and to all the 
known laws of animal nutrition. Something 
more upon this will be said further on; I will 
only mention wbat is known in regard to the 
assimilation of fats in the arimal system. 
This is—to make it short—in effect, that the 
fat in the food is first partly emulsified in the 
mastication with the saliva, and is finally 
completely emulsified with the pancreatic 
fluids in the intestines ; that this emulsion 
containing minute globules of fat, is absorbed 
by the lacteal vessels, and is passed without 
digestion into the blood, by which it is dif¬ 
fused through the tissues and into the milk 
glands and is there deposited. Such a dispo¬ 
sition of as much fat in the food as can be 
taken up by these fluids could not take place 
unless the milk should acquire its share of it, 
and in cows “to the manner born ” and with 
constitutional capacity for disposing of 
fatty food, Dearly all this assimilated fat goes 
to the milk glands and into the milk. 
The next question proposed is answered by 
what has been already said. As the food is 
indispensable for the production of rich milk, 
there only remains to adjust the ration to the 
ability of the cow to digest it and turn it to 
profit. This ability varies with the cow and 
must be learned by the owner. No standard 
ration has an iron-clad limit; it is a standard 
to be used as a starting point; to be lessened 
or mcreased as each case may warrant. This 
point should be understood very clearly by all 
feeders of cows, and when thus considered the 
standard rations are to be taken as entirely 
worthy of confidence, being based upon 
physiological laws and experimental practice. 
The last question is the most important; 
because it is creating much interest at present 
and has been prominently brought into notice. 
It has given rise to considerable difference of 
opinion, but 1 think without sufficient warrant. 
It is by no means new, but has been brought 
up recently out of the dust of years ago. A 
Dr. Kulm (a German authority) is the author 
of this theory, that feeding has no effect 
upon the quality of milk. This is not a matter 
to be discussed theoretically, but is to be de¬ 
cided by practical knowledge. Then let us 
consider the facts. It is said—to bring it down 
to a fine point—that the proportion of butter 
in the solids of the milk will not be varied by 
any change in the feeding. Then, as before 
remarked, if this is so, no change in the feed¬ 
ing will either increase the proportion of fat 
or diminish it, in comparison with the other 
solids ; so there is no use in feeding carbon¬ 
aceous or fatty food with the purpose of in¬ 
creasing the proportion of butter. I have 
some proofs that this belief is wholly mistaken 
and that the proportion of butter fat does 
change at times naturally, and at other times 
by change of feeding. 
In a very careful test made for competition 
at the London Dairy exhibition in 1883, the 
analyses of the milk of ten Short-hom cows fed 
and kept as a herd for the purpose of showing 
the effect of feeding, w-ere as follows : 
Date. 
Total solids. 
Fat. 
Other solids. 
June 2, 
13.46 
4.37 
9.09 
June 29. 
13.67 
4.36 
9.31 
August 4, 
14.33 
5.21 
9 12 
These figures prove that fat decreases and 
increases, and that other solids do the same 
under varying circumstances. 
In the fourth annual report of the Massa¬ 
chusetts Agricultural Experiment Station the 
following analyses of the milk of two cows are 
given: 
DAISY, 
MOLLIE, 
Water, 
Solids, 
Fat, 
Water, 
Solids, 
Fat. 
87.56 
12.44 
3.28 
87.16 
12.84 
3.82 
87.65 
12.35 
3.56 
87.35 
12.65 
3.59 
88.08 
11.92 
2.29 
87.67 
12.38 
3,73 
86.18 
13.82 
4.58 
86.35 
13.65 
3.28 
86.62 
13.38 
4.30 
87.04 
12.96 
3 74 
86.78 
13.22 
4.30 
87.06 
13.94 
4.75 
85.81 
14.19 
4.54 
86.61 
13.39 
4.03 
85.97 
14.03 
4.93 
86.63 
18.67 
4,51 
87 02 
12.98 
4.62 
87.30 
12.70 
3.96 
87.10 
12.90 
4.20 
87.25 
12 75 
4-24 
86 75 
13.25 
4.62 
86.50 
13 50 
4.36 
67.59 
12 41 
4.79 
87.26 
12.74 
3.68 
It is easily seen that 
the milk 
of each cow 
that of other solids. 
Here are some others from the next year’s 
report of the same station, with three differ¬ 
ent cows: 
5 
Solids, 
11.90 
12.24 
11.74 
i 
Fat, 
3.79 
3.47 
8.45 
5 
Solids, 
11.63 
11.71 
12 20 
12.29 
( 
Fat, 
3.16 
2.98 
3.36 
3.69 
5 
Solids, 
12.25 
12 90 
13,16 
i 
Fat, 
3.69 
8,27 
3.77 
Dora, 
In the report of the New York Experiment 
Station (of. I think, 1885—1 have not the re. 
port at hand) an even more conspicuous va¬ 
riation in the ratio of fat and solids is shown 
in the case of some Jersey cows. A most 
careful and trustworthy authority on this 
matter, and one who is not given to accept 
statements at second hand, but who has act¬ 
ual records of his own to substantiate his 
statements—I refer to Prof. E. W. Stewart— 
says, in his valuable work on feeding cattle^ 
that Dr. Kulm’s experiments are not to be 
accepted as conclusive, and that by special 
feeding he (Prof. E. W. S.) was able to in¬ 
crease the butter in the milk as much as 18 
percent; and he states that special feeding 
may change the proportion of the solids of 
milk. He further mentions how Hon. Zadoc 
Pratt brought up his cows from a j ield of 2 
per cent, of butter in the milk, to nearly five 
per cent, by simple increase of butter alone, 
by special feeding continued for five consecu¬ 
tive years, and he concludes his remarks by 
saying that “the common belief that the qual¬ 
ity of milk as regards butter may be im¬ 
proved by intelligent feeding to that end 
has not been weakened by any just interpre¬ 
tation of scientific or other experiments.” 
I have left for the last my own experience 
in this respect, which, having been learned in 
the actual feeding of cows for butter product 
as a business, during several years, and in 
several hundreds of careful examinations of 
milk, are quite satisfactory to myself, and I 
think will bear somewhat upon this question, 
One cow bred and reared by me was kept 
specially for experiment for five years, and a 
careful record was made of her yield and 
feeding for that time, the cow being fed and 
milked by my own hands. In the latter part 
of 1882 this cow bad her third calf and was 
being fed upon a regular ration of two pounds 
of fine bran and three pounds of fine yellow 
corn-meal twice a day with pasture, and as 
much good clover hay as she would eat at 
night. The yield of butter averaged, from 
September to December, from 1.60 to 1.30 
pound daily, the average being made up 
monthly. On January 1, 1883, the cow was 
given five pounds of buckwheat bran in¬ 
stead of the wheat bran and corn-meal. 
The yield of butter fell off to .79 ’pound 
per day (average) in January; .76 pound 
per day in February and .76 pound in 
March; coming up to 1.23 pound in April 
and 1.33 pound in May when there was grass, 
and the bran and corn-meal were restored on 
April 1. By addiDg one pound of cotton seed 
meal twice daily to the above feeding for three 
months in the previous year the butter yield 
came up to two pounds daily, varying irregu¬ 
larly down to 1.62 pound at times when the 
udder became somewhat inflamed by the too 
heavy feeding. 
That special feeding is effective in increas¬ 
ing the fat quantity of butter in the milk is the 
common experience of dairyman and it can¬ 
not be disturbed by any experimenting in an 
experiment station lasting only 30 days, nor 
by any amount <jf talking, without actual 
proof in the dairy. With all the proof to the 
contrary, this is not likely ever to be given. 
FROM SMITHS, POWELL & LAMB. 
The quality of milk is most dependent on 
the breed. 
