
A STUDY OF RATIONS FED TO MILCH COWS. 105 
Ration No. 1, as fed, was fairly well balanced. ‘The fuel value 
was perhaps somewhat larger than necessary. Nearly all the 
cows of this herd were young, all except five being three years or 
under. It is likely that animals at this stage of growth, especi- 
ally when in milk flow, would need more protein than mature 
animals would. ‘The chief criticism to be made in this case is 
the same as can be made of the majority of rations fed upon 
New England farms. It contains too much of first quality hay. 
Taking the hay at its market value, such a ration is more expen- 
sive than one which uses more of the cheaper coarse feeds and 
less of good hay. Each of the suggested rations (B and C) con- 
tains less hay than the one actually fed. The coarse feed of 
ration C is almost wholly ensilage. Each of the suggested 
rations contains the same amounts of digestible protein as the 
ration which was actually fed. The fuel value is about 2,000 
calories less in the suggested rations than in the one actually fed, 
and the nutritive ratio is smaller in consequence. Ration B 
costs three cents less, and ration C five cents less than A. 
Daily Ration per 1000 Pounds Live Weight Actually Fed to Hera 
Wo. 2, and Suggested Rations. 







As FED. SUGGESTED CHANGES. 
RATION NO. 2. 
A. B. Cs 
Wheat middlings, : - | 4.7 pounds. | 5.0 pounds.} 6.0 pounds. 
Chicago gluten meal, - - | 3.7 pounds. | 5.0 pounds. | 4.0 pounds. 
Pp Ground oats, - I.o pounds. — I.O0 pounds. 
rovender, C 
orn meal, - 2.0 pounds. I.o pounds. | 2.0 pounds. 
Good hay, - - - - 7.2 pounds. — 7.0 pounds. 
Poor hay, - - - = 2.2 pounds. | 3.0 pounds. — 
Ensilage,_ - - - - | 55.3 pounds. | 50.0 pounds. | 25.0 pounds. 
Digestible protein, - - | 2.80 pounds. | 2.50 pounds.| 2.50 pounds. 
Fuel value, - - - - | 37,000 calories.| 31,450 calories.| 30,650 calories. 
Nutritive ratio, I: - - 6.1 5.8 5.5 
Cost of ration, - - - eT CEUs: 2079 ecents. 22.3 .cents, 


Ration No. 2, as fed, was large in protein and fuel value, but 
was fairly balanced. If about one-ninth less of each of the in- 
gredients had been used, it would have come very closely in its 
protein and fuel value to the tentatively suggested standard 
ration of page 100. A grain mixture of one part oats and two 
parts corn, such as used here (frequently called provender), 
seems to be quite a common grain feed in Connecticut. There 
are some reasons to doubt the economy of using oats as a feed 
