
STANDARD RATIONS FOR DAIRY COWS. Ey 
analyzed and the digestibility was calculated from average 
digestion coefficients. The rations as actually fed varied con- 
siderably. This variation is noticeable with the same cow at 
corresponding periods of lactation in the two separate winters. 
No comparison was made of the results obtained with the dif- 
ferent and distinct rations. The author of the Bulletin points 
out some of the limitations of feeding standards in the follow- 
ing language: 
‘A study of the tables of rations and yields of milk and butter-fat shows con- 
clusively that an expert feeder varies the size of the ration, not according to the 
_ weight of the cow alone, or primarily, but according to her capacity to receive, 
and her ability to yield, and that, with the same cow, the ration is modified as 
the period of lactation advances, to conform to the requirements of the system. 
“‘ What is true of the dry matter is true of the digestible protein. Where a 
cow is secreting a large amount of milk * * * her food must be relatively 
richer in protein than when she has not this demand upon her system to supply. 
The food requirements of the system to sustain the vital functions remain com- 
paratively constant. To these requirements is superadded, in the periods of 
greatest milk yields, the demand for the butter and cheese in the milk. Protein 
is required not only to supply the casein of the milk, but to insure that active 
vitality which is involved in butter production.” 
The discussion is aptly summarized by saying that skilled 
feeding must take into consideration the productiveness of the 
cows, their variations in live weight, the effects of the various 
feeding stuffs upon the quality of the butter and upon health 
of the cow, the money values of the feeding stuffs, and, finally, 
the net profit obtained from their use. 
In previous reports of this Station a formula for daily rations 
for milch cows has been given.* ‘This, like other proposed 
formulas, was simply a suggestion based upon experiment and 
observation. It was similar to Wolff’s German standard, but 
provided a larger proportion of digestible carbohydrates and 
had, consequently, a larger total amount of nutrients than 
Wolff's. Stress was laid upon the fact that it was tentative 
and subject to such alteration as further experience might call 
for. In the discussion of the subject the principle was repeat- 
edly urged that either a physiological standard or a formula 
for profit to feed all cases is not only irrational, but impossible. 
The use of the word standard as applied to formulas for 
_ feeding may be of questionable advisability. A standard, when 
used in the sense of the best practice, may be defined as ‘‘ that 

* See Report of Storrs Station for 1896, p. 71. 
9 
