PROTECTING COWS FROM FLIES. I29 
Tables 53 and 54 show that Group I. gave .45 pounds more 
butter fat when not sprayed, and Group II. .13 pound more 
when sprayed. | 
TABLE 55. 
Weekly Milk Shrinkage of Groups [. and II. 190}. 












Group I. Group II. 
° WM . Ww) 
eee mo Sia oriole 
a SiS = S>D 
4 Uo wvVO 
= eI ag TREATMENT. TREATMENT. _ | ab 
Sans oP pete gh te chen 
ee ee 
Lbs. Lbs. pal Ds: Lbs. 
1st Period, - |999.8| — | Sprayed, =i Not sprayed, | 973.24. — 
2nd Period, - |904.1| 95.7 | Not Sprayed, || Sprayed, - |874.6| 98.6 
3rd Period, - | 824.1/ 80.0 | Sprayed, =| NOt oprayed, 828.9 45.7 

Table 55 shows that Group I. made a shrinkage of 95.7 
pounds when not sprayed and 80. when sprayed, and that 
Group II. made a shrinkage of 98.6 when sprayed and 45.7 
when not sprayed. 
Our experience during the past two years would indicate that 
the annoyance to dairy cows by flies has been over-estimated, 
and that the benefits from the use of proprietary fly removers 
have been exaggerated. 
This conclusion isin harmony with an experiment of Carlyle 
of Wisconsin Station, in which one-half of the herd was pro- 
tected from the annoyance of flies by stabling during the day 
time. ‘Ihe remainder of the herd was confined in a paddock 
during theday. ‘The trial lasted four weeks with the following 
results: 








TABLE 56. 
Cows Cows 
IN STABLE. | IN PADDOCK. 
Pounds of green feed eaten in four weeks, - ; 574.7 4912 
Average decrease in live weight, - - - - 30 i 
Decrease in milk flow of seven cows in two weeks, - 56.7 40.4 
Decrease in butter fat production of seven cows in two 
weeks, - s - = . = - - - LO Ce 2atO 

