826 
‘Ike RURAL NEW-YORKER 
May 10, 1010 
0 &* YOU ^ 
can’t afford to use a 
second or third grade 
CREAM SEPARATOR 
Many users make the mistake of “saving” $10 or $15 in 
the first cost of a cream separator. More of them continue 
the use of ap inferior or half-worn-out machine simply because 
it still separates. 
These users fail to consider what it means if the separa¬ 
tion is not complete; if the capacity of their separator is so 
small that it needs to be run longer; if it is out of order a 
good part of the time, or if the quality of the product is not 
the very best it could be. 
They fail to realize what a very little difference means in 
the use of a cream separator twice a day every day in the 
year, and what a difference it makes in first cost whether a 
machine lasts three years or fifteen years. 
All these differences led to the great majority of experi¬ 
enced users buying De Laval machines when butter was worth 
20c. a pound, and they mean just three times as much when 
it is worth 60c. a pound and when every minute of time saved 
is worth so much more than it was a few years ago. 
De Laval superiority over other cream separators is no un¬ 
certain quantity that cannot be seen or measured. On the 
contrary, it is capable of demonstration to every separator user, 
and every De Laval agent is anxious for the opportunity to 
demonstrate it. 
If you don’t know the local De Laval agent, write to the nearest 
De Laval office as below and we shall be glad to put him into 
prompt communication with you. 
THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY 
165 Broadway, New York 29 E. Madison St., Chicago 
OVER 2,325,000 DE LAVALS IN DAILY USE 
The Cow and Her Care 
Importance of Milk-testing Association 
Would si milk-testing association be a 
benefit to a tenant farmer with from eight 
to 10 cows? N. D. H. 
Pennsylvania. 
If a cow-testing association is being or¬ 
ganized in your community by all means 
become a member and test all your cows. 
The size of the herd does not matter, since 
the owner pays so much per cow per year. 
Necessity of Keeping Records.—A 
better price for milk is certainly no ex¬ 
cuse for keeping poor cows. Good cows 
always mean more profit than do poor 
ones. It has been proved time and again 
that the only way to weed out these un¬ 
profitable cows is by a systematic keepiug 
of records. In order to tell which cows 
produce milk and butterfat economically 
it is necessary to know how much milk 
and butterfat each individual in the herd 
produces, and the amount and cost of the 
feed fed the cows. It is a common belief 
among dairymen that they can tell their 
best and poorest cows. That this idea 
is wrong has been shown many times. 
Cases are on record in a dairy where a 
certain cow judged by the owner to be his 
best actually turned out to be the poorest. 
The cow that gives a large flow of milk 
when fresh always makes an everlasting 
impression on the owner, even though she 
may dry up at the end of six mouths, 
while the cow that gives a smaller amount 
when fresh, but produces consistently 
throughout her lactation period scarcely 
attracts bis attention. It is even more 
impossible to judge the amount of butter¬ 
fat produced by a cow in a year and 
guess correctly at the amount of feed 
consumed. While the farmer can afford 
to keep these records of his own accord, 
they make an extra chore. Many farmers 
start to keep records in good faith and 
fall by the wayside. It remains for the 
cow-testing association to set them on 
their feet. 
Cow-testing Results. —In no way 
can the real value of the cow-testing asso¬ 
ciation be better shown than by giving 
some results brought about by associations 
that have completed at least one year’s 
work. The following figures give the re¬ 
sults of five years’ testing in 10 herds of 
the Cedar Valley (Iowa) Association: 
Average Annual Yield 
r -Per Cow--v 
Milk 
Butterfat 
Year. 
Lbs. 
Lbs. 
1911. 
. 0.483 
240 
1912. 
. 7.049 
277 
1913. 
. 8,738 
2S5 
1914. 
. 8.048 
312 
1915. 
. 9,228 
319.6 
r-Avernge 
Annual— 
Feed Cost 
Profit 
Year 
Per Cow 
Per Cow 
1911. 
. $20.40 
$32.42 
1912. 
. 52.31 
39.20 
3913. 
52.95 
1914. 
. 48.12 
00.02 
1915. 
70.10 
The increase in milk and butterfat pro¬ 
duction and in net profit in these 30 herds 
after five years is remarkable, and is a 
result of weeding out the poor cows, the 
use of the purebred sire and giving the 
good cows a little better feed and care. 
An association in New Hampshire re¬ 
vealed. among other things, whfjt it was 
costing to produce milk under New Hamp¬ 
shire conditions. The revelation was pub¬ 
lished in Extension Bulletin No. 2. The 
association started with H2G cows. The 
weeding-out process started quickly, and 
Another thing worthy of note in this 
table is the fact that there were both 
good and poor cows in the association. 
Here the association shows its value in 
that the percentage of poor cows is much 
less than it would have been had not 300 
or more cows been sold during the year. 
It was found in every herd that there were 
some good cows and some poor ones, and 
it was most interesting to note that the 
herd having the highest producing cow in 
the association also had the lowest pro¬ 
ducer and least profitable cow. The fol¬ 
lowing table shows the highest and lowest 
producers in three different herds: 
Cow 
Lbs. Lbs. 
Feed 
Herd 
No. 
Milji Fat 
Cost 
Profit 
A_ 
1 
32.275 403.5 
100.80 
119 
o 
1.540 60.4 
44.73 
—15.38 
B.... 
T 
9,773 351.3 
90.21 
70.88 
*> 
3.824 155.3 
09.2 s 
—5.15 
C. ... 
i 
8.410 307.3 
83318 
05.11 
o 
4,845 227.3 
73.83 
10.44 
Returns 
Cow 
Cost 100 C. 
>st Ter 
tor 
Herd 
No. 
Lbs. Milk L 
b. Fat 
$1.00 
A.... 
1 
>7 
.23 
2.12 
o 
2.90 
.74 
.00 
B.. . . 
T 
.98 
.27 
1.80 
*> 
1.81 
.45 
.92 
C.... 
1 
.99 
.27 
1.78 
2 
1.52 
.32 
1.22 
It will Im seen that cow No. 1 equals 
seven like No. 6, not in milk production, 
but in profit, and that cow No. 5 equals 
four like No. 0 in profit. The chief rea¬ 
son why cows Nos. 2, 4 and 0 did not 
produce economically was because they 
did not have the capacity to convert a 
large amount of food into milk. This 
fact is shown plainly by the comparatively 
low feed cost for the three cows men¬ 
tioned. A cow of the type of No. 2 is not 
the greatest danger to the dairy industry, 
since the observing dairyman will dispose 
of her. Cows Nos. 4 and <» are the cows 
that the farmer who does not keep records 
is very likely to think are good enough 
to keep, therefore these cows are a great 
menace to the dairy industry. 
The cow-testing association also helps 
the members to co-operate in the purchas¬ 
ing of necessary feeds in carload lots. By 
so doing the members can easily save 
themselves the cost of conducting the as¬ 
sociation. 
The cow-testing association leads to 
better breeding. By all means use a 
purebred bull of one of the dairy breeds. 
On many farms little attention is paid to 
the kind of a bull used. The bull is half 
the herd and then some. Even though a 
purebred bull is used in grading up a 
herd, improvement is not rapid unless lie 
is used on the best cows. It is here that 
the cow-testing association plays its role 
in telling the best cows to use for breed¬ 
ing purposes. 
Other benefits of the cow-testing asso¬ 
ciation are that the dairyman's interest 
in his cows will result in their getting bet¬ 
ter care. Meetings of the association are 
held occasionally and the members come 
together and discuss their records and 
meet socially and discuss other items of 
interest. 
If it is necessary to raise good heifer 
calves' to build up the dairy industry it is 
much more necessary to raise up good 
boys and girls to stay ou the farm and 
take care of them. The cow-testing as¬ 
sociation operates to this end. 
To summarize briefly, the cow-testing 
association is the most efficient and eco¬ 
nomical method of detecting loafers in the 
herd. It puts dairying on a business basis, 
arouses the interest of the owner, his 
boys and hired man iu the* cows, stirs up 
local pride by bringing the people of the 
community together to talk over their 
business, and helps to make farm work 
enjoyable and interesting. 
It. F. JUDKINS. 
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES OF 203 TOWS. 
* 
o 
© 
«w 
o 
u 
© 
1 
A 
6 
rz 
O © 
© 
(A JZ 
06 > 
- 
SS p 
U Zm 
V- 
> ° 
u ■_ 
c c: 
u u 
© & 
•— 3 
> w w 
o Sr 
4-» r£ 
£ s 
u 
£ P 
© § 
© X 
u'ej 
© 
r- - X 
= &§ 
tul 
© © 
• t- 
22 © 
u a 
c > 
U £ 
«H © 
Ur. Z. . 
c U 
w © 53 
bl © 
c s >» 
E 
2 © 
u 
U 
«— © 
- {f 
« c 
c © 
© - 
<* 
<v “ 
c § 
sr* 
• s a 
< 
© © 
c © 
C E 
V- * 
O . 
- tfi-*- 
. © r. 
> *-* V* 
— %-* 
© O . 
L X 
up 3 
= S x 
x z 
A U - 
© £• *r 
!«« 
8 
10,000-over . 
10.875 
880.87 
$88.59 
$100.82 
$37.83 
$51.20 
$0.81 
$0.2328 
$2.21 
14 
9.000-10.000 ... 
9.396 
343.43 
88.25 
79.18 
38.23 
60.02 
.93 
.2592 
1.90 
215 
8.000-9.000 _ 
8.434 
301.3 
88.40 
03.80 
38.29 
45.17 
.98 
.2729 
1.77 
41 
7,000-8,000 _ 
7.3S1 
277.10 
71.18 
52.11 
38.47 
42.72 
1.10 
.2929 
1.04 
40 
6,000*7,000 _ 
0.499 
239.0 
73.59 
43.05 
37.50 
30.09 
1.13 
.3071 
1.59 
89 
5,000-0,000 _ 
5.540 
209.37 
05.91 
84.56 
33.7t» 
32.14 
1.19 
.3147 
1.52 
25 
4.000-5,000 _ 
4.005 
170.0 
56.01 
27.20 
29.58 
27.02 
1.23 
.3216 
1.4H 
10] less than 4,000.. 
3.001 
117.4 
67.22 
—4.25 
80.02 
20.01 
1.80 
.4874 
.93 
208| Av. per cow.... 
0.710 
248.14 
$73.02 
$40.80 
$30.11 
$37.51 
$1.09 
$0.2907 
$1.04 
before the year was over 303 of the cows 
were sold. For various other reasons but 
203 out of the 320 cows bad complete 
records for the year. The above table 
is a summary of the averages of the 203 
cows to complete a year’s record. 
The best eight cows producing 30.000 
lbs. milk or over, produced milk at a cost 
of 81c per cwt., giving a net return of 
$2.21 for each dollar expended for feed, 
while the 10 poorest cows, producing less 
than 4,000 lbs., produced milk at a cost of 
$1.86 per cwt., allowing a return of only 
93c for every dollar expended for feed, 
even though it cost $88.F>0 to feed the 
10,000-lb. cow as against only $57.22 for 
the cow producing less than 4,000 lbs. 
Hard Churning 
To those who have trouble in getting 
the butter in churning, try heating the 
cream to 00 degrees, and after churning 
till the butter should come add a heaping 
teaspoonful of soda. It has always 
brought the butter for me. Maine. 
A little soda added to cream doubtless 
sets up some foaming and it is probable 
that the alkali acts in some way ou the 
casein, so that the fat particles are re¬ 
leased and can come together in the form 
of butter more easily. This method 
should seldom be necessary if other oper¬ 
ations have been properly carried out. 
II. F. J. 
