7 4 f Aas Vises | SA Oe a ee Waal 1 aaa’ Ve. Cot TE re UT a on re “oes 
PAG MEN ie RIN Cy dN Ha yf 4 De ER i 
‘ + ARTI a as sae D Pues ey tages) 7a 9 ‘ eee?) Bey a 
aie a aie ty ; ae F is Pais | Saad Cae sgh ; 
‘* VW AL A eps ee a! tage! 
e by i od , ‘ yi 

New York AGRICULTURAL ExpERIMENT STATION. lll 
By reference to the table (page 110) which gives the relative cost 
of production of milk and of milk fat (which is practically the 
same relation for production of butter) of the several animals and 
breeds, it is obvious that the dairyman should first decide 
whether he desires to produce milk or butter from his herd since, 
as will be seen from the tables, these cows, cared for alike and fed 
the same foods, differed widely in relative value for production of 
milk and milk fat, the relative cost in production of milk varying 
in individuals from 100 to 167 and in breeds from 100 to 141; 
while in the production of milk fat they varied in individuals from 
100 to 199, and in breeds from 100 to 160. 
It will be seen also that in individual cases we find certain cows 
standing high in the list for the economical production of both 
milk and butter, while there are also certain ones which are 
relatively poor for both milk and butter, but these are exceptional 
cases, since as a rule the Guernseys and Jerseys aré noticeable 
for their low cost in butter production, while the Holstein- 
Friesians, Ayrshires and Guernseys are characterized by their 
relatively low cost of milk production. The Devons and American 
Holderness stand more nearly midway between these other breeds. 
The dairyman needs therefore to select the breed best suited to 
his purpose, and also to thoroughly test the relative value of the 
individuals in his herd of whatever breed or grade. These two 
points may be regarded as of prime importance. 
In the table (page 109) which gives the daily cost of the food 
fed these animals there has been no allowance made for the 
fertilizing value of the manure secured, which if carefully 
husbanded would equal fully seventy per cent of the market value 
of the food, and thus reducing this daily ration, the market value 
of which averaged, as will be seen, 13 49 cents to only 4.05 cents 
per animal per day. 
It will be seen from the table (page 40) that ies animals 
received as a part of their ration grain every day, and while the cost 
of food was low the animals have thrived and been maintained in 
good condition, their average weight having increased, as is seen 
in table on page 107, from 850 pounds to 893 pounds in twelve 
months. 
