ations 
cai 3 
Da ae. 
No. 33. ] 115 
butter yield of the milk, however, we discover that the fodder ration 
employed has a large influence, and this influence not so much depend- 
ent upon the nutritive property of the food as upon the character of 
the food used. 
We will now return to our column of differences between the total 
fat and the total butter of the milk in ounces. We first note that 
Period III, the hay and gluten feeding, shows a great waste in butter; 
that Period V, the transition period, when the ration was insufficient, 
also a large waste; that Period IV, the hay and meal feeding, also 
shows waste to a large extent; that Period If, the hay and bran feed- 
ing, far less waste; Period VI, ensilage feeding, still less waste; and 
Periods I and VII, hay, bran and meal feeding, scarcely any. We can 
see then that when meal is added to the ration, Periods I, IV and 
VII, the waste averaged 2.16 ounces ; where bran was added to the 
ration, Periods I, II and VII, the waste averaged but 1.22 ounces. In 
the case of hay and meal, Period IV, 4.97 ounces; in the case of hay 
and bran, Period II, 2 1.17 ounces. We must thus believe that the 
adding of bran to the meal feeding was advantageous to butter recov- 
ery from the milk, and that bran is more economical for butter recov- 
ery than meal. And this conclusion becomes evident, however the 
figures may be investigated. Hxamination of the tables representing 
the actual fat and butter recovered under the milk calculated to uni- 
form water content shows that gluten meal and meal fed alone with 
hay was unfavorable toward butter recovery, and that the adding of 
bran to the ration was advantageous. Perhaps we shall be justified in 
repeating ourselves somewhat by again showing this fact by a table. 
Milk calculated to a constant water 
content of 86 percent. —° 
Diff. in, per cent be- Per cent of 
tween per ct. actual butter made to 
PERIOD. fat and per ct. but- per cent of fat 
ter made. present. 
ierkray, meal, Prans....7..5 6. 8. .08 98.40 
hee Leys DLA 2. wge:.tc's:- sath a aAahaiede ¢ 23 95.66 
Hit,” Hay, gluten meal. .0........ PEG 74.73 
Ova plays Mmoal. 2). sol iie oo oe ata 57 87.63 
_YV. Transition, per meal ensilage .. £15 17.26 
EIPUSLIA LO ho ureiy’siie <alsie ces ole sie © 12 97.54 
frit Hay; meal, “bran. ....%.4). 0s. 15 96.90 
We have as the basis for this table an artificially produced uniformity 
for the purposes of comparison, and in the table the variations which 
are produced by the character — not the composition — of the food 
used. In Periods I and VII, the same food being offered, the varia- 
tions between the butter records give us 98.40 per cent — 96.90 per 
cent = 1.50 per cent as the limit of error, and this is 1.53 per cent 
variation from the average for the periods. Assuming then that under 
hay, meal and bran feeding (6.96 pounds albuminoid), the recovery 
of butter from the fat was 97.65 per cent we note that when hay and 
bran was fed (9.41 pounds albuminoid), 95.66 per cent of the fat ap- 
peared as butter ; where bay and meal was fed (5.76 per cent of albu- 
minoid), but 87.63 per cent in the butter column, etc. Thus, re-ar- 
ranging our figures: | 
