¢ _ ’ A _ -PHO§TO'I‘TF.IGE:. ‘ ’ 1 , ‘OQLILiEGE ‘(STATAIONQBRALZOS 00., TEXAS. y, 1,. itepotijé fionithib StaLtion aré sent free to farmérs ofthe Stgtg on application to ‘ ‘ A ‘ ' 1 J. H. CONN ELL, Dmmdmon, ‘P. ‘(Lfllollege Stinion, Texas. ‘ \ . BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. BULLETIN N O. 4'7. THE EFFEOT OF FOOD ON EOONOMIO DAIRY PRODUCTION. POSTOFFICE: COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS 00., TEXAS. Reports from this Station are sent; free to farmers of the State on application to J. H. CONNELL, DIRECTOR, P. O. College Station, Texas. _ AUSTIN: BENIC. JONES s: 00., PRINTERS. 1898 H0311 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. OFFICERS. GOVERNING BOARD . (BOARD OF DIRECTORS A. a M. COLLEGE.) HON. F. A. REIOHARDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ . . . . ..Houston. HON. W. R. CAvrrT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . ..Bryan. HON. F. P. HOLLAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Da11as. HON. CHAs. ROGAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Brownwood. HON. J EFF. JOHNSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Austin. HON. MARION SANsOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A1varado. STATION STAFF. THE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE. J. H. CONNELL, M. SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director. H. H. HARRINGTON, M. SO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemist. M. FRANOIs, D. V. M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Veterinarian. R. H. PRICE, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horticulturist. B. C. PITTUCK, B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agricu1turist. *A. M. SOULE, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant Agriculturist. P. S. TILsON, M. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associate Chemist. H. NEss, B. s ......................... .. ........ .. Assistant Horticulturist. C. C. TODD, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant Chemist. H. C. KYLE, B. S. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Foreman of Farm. J. G. HARRISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bookkeeper. SUPERINTENDENT OF BEEVILLE STATION. S. A. MCHENRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beeville, Bee Co. NOTE.- The main station is located on the grounds of the Agricultural and Mechanical College in Brazos County. The postojfice address is COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS. Reports from this station are sent free to farmers of the State upon application to the Director. *Assigned t0 College Work Only, July, 1897. ' [ 1032] Figure 1. No. 220. A typical dairy coW—No. 220—Group IV. First in yield and profit from milk. First in yield of butter but third in profit. For records see Tables X. and XII. For measurements see Table XXV. DESCRIPTION. Large, finely formed cow, with Well-developed wedges; deep, Wide chest; large digestive capacity, and well- developed udder; not beefy but Well fleshed. p. p. . 1067 1. 11 read Group III for Group IV. p. p. p . p p. ERRATA BULLETIN 4.7. 1041 1. 36 read desideratum for (lisideratunl. 1050 1. 1 read ratios for rations. 1075 l, 1 1 read butter for better. I078 extreme right hand column of table read — .003 for -|- .003 —|- _032 for -- .032 —l— .013 for .013 1088 1. 8 read 13 pounds for 1300 pounds. 1088 table at bottom of page columns 12 and 13 read lmtritive I _ utritive milk J f“ ilk 1090 column 5 of table read protein, lbs for THE EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. _£O C7! f! BY A. M. SOULE. SUMMARY OF RESULTS. Grades from crosses of high-class Jersey and Holstein sires on the native cows furnish cheap and excellent foundation stocks for dairy production. (pp. 1041-1044, 1100-1102.) Individu-ality is of prime importance in the cow. It is an inherent ability resident in every animal and not confined to any particu- lar breed. It influences the entire organization of the cow, af- fecting the di position of the food consumed (i. e., whether it shall be used in yielding milk and butter or increase in live weight), and hence the cost of keep and the economy of dairy production. Food has little effect on hereditary tendencies. (pp. 1041-1044, 1051-1052, 1061-1077, 1100-1102, 1105.) A combination of meals proved more effective than the use of a single meal, and with two meals a more satisfactory distribution of the nutrients was secured. (pp. 1073, 1104.) A record must be kept of each cow, so that the unprofitable ones may be eliminated and the specific value (whether for milk or butter) determined. (pp. 1044, 1105.) “Narrow rations” proved the most valuable in milk and butter production, though good results were obtained when the ratios varied from 1:4 to 1:8 for milk and 1:4 to 1:6 to 7 for butter. The best returns were secured when the ratios ranged between 1:5 and 1:6. Owing to the high per cent of protein contained in cotton seed meal, a needless waste of this element occurred whenever that meal was used alone as grain (the ratios were very narrow; see Group III.). When other grains were added, this needless waste of protein was remedied and most excellent yields maintained. (pp. 1069, 1075, 1089, 1090.) The fertilizing elements of the food passing into the excrements are of suflicient value to cover the cost of caring for the cows, milking, and handling the products, if properly preserved and returned to the farm. (pp. 1045-1046, 1095-1097.)‘ The following rations proved most valuable from the standpoint of economic production: L 1033 1 1034 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 1. The best rations as fed per Group. Rating for Profit Profit. milk and for for butter. milk. butter. Group I.. 6 Tbs. C.S.M.;25 Tbs. Equa1..... $16 0O $5 41 Group II.. 7Tbs.C.S.T\T.;T6Tbs.C.S.H.;28Tbs.S. Equal..... 16 39 5 77 Group III.. 6 Tbs. O.S.M. ; 18 Tbs. C.S.H.;35 Tbs.S. Equal... .. 21 63 7 29 4 Tbs. C.S.M.;6 Tbs. B.;18 Tbs.O.S.H.; Milk . . . . .. 2O 08 Group IV. 35 Tbs. S. 7 Tbs.C.S.M.:,16 Tbs.O.S.H.;28Tbs.S. Butter . . . . . .. 6 08 Group V.. 4 Tbs. (J.S.M.; 6 Tbs. O.M.; 18 Tbs. Equal..... 20 64 5 26 C.S.H.; s5 Tbs. s. 4 Tbs. U.S.1TI.;6 Tbs.O.;18 Tbs.C.S.H.; Milk . . . . .. 20 T5 35 Tbs. S. GYWP V11 eii.s,o.s.1\1.;4 Tbs. o.;1e Tbs.G.S.H.; Butter . . . . . . . .. 7 o2 33 Tbs. S. 2. The five best rations, irrespective of Groups. Profit Profit for for milk. butter. 1 6 Tbs C.S.M.; T8 Tbs. C.S.H.; 35 Tbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3521 63 S157 '29 2 6Tbs.C.‘.l\I.;4Tbs.O.;16Tbs.(J.S.H.;33TbS.S . . . . . . . . .. 20 12 7 02 3 4 Tbs. (35.31; 6 Tbs. 0.; 18 Tbs. O.S.H.; 35 Tbs. b‘ . . . . . . . . .. 20 T5 6 77 4 8 Tbs. 0.511.; T8 Tbs. C.S.H.;35 Tbs. S . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 20 64- 6 45 5 7 Tbs. C.S.M.; 1S Tbs. O.S.H.;28 Tbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2O 2-1 6 39 N. B.—C.S.M.—Cot-ton Seed Meal. C.S.H.—Cotton Seed Hulls. S.~Silage (corn). B.—Bran (wheat). C.M.—Corn Meal. O.-—Oat.s. (pp. 1065, 1012-1073.) S.H.—S0rghum Hay. 8. Cows have a maximum capacity for milk and butter yields. Some cows can digest and assimilate more food than they can render into milk and lJutter. The surplus may be used in forming flesh, and not impair the usefulness of the cow for dairy purposes. _ (p. 1053.) _ ~ Variations in the yields of milk and butter fat from day to day may cause the loss of 33 cents Worth of milk and 15 cents worth of ‘butter per cowper day. Suitable foods, comfortable surround- ings, and the removal of annoyances, aid in retarding these un- desirable variations. (pp. 1067, 1075.) A rapid increase in live Weight, Whether due to predisposing causes or ‘the nature of the food, is detrimental to the ‘high-est dairy yields. (p. 1053.) The cost of keeping a cow depends on the use she makes of the food. (i. e., for milk and butter or for flesh and fat formation). Temperament, digestive and assimilative capacity, the period of lactation, etc., have an important bearing on this question. No apparent ratio existed between the consumption of meal-s and coarse foods. (pp. 1061-1062.) The nature and character of the food materially influences the cost of milk and butter. For example, Group II. compared favor- ably with t~he other Groups in yields during Period 1., -When all Groups received the same ration. In Periods II., IIL, and IV., 10. 1]. 12. EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1035 when receiving sorghum hay, this Group made a very poor show- ing, from the standpoint of profit. (pp. 1062-1063, 1070-1073.) 14. Sudden changes in temperature (falling from 49° to 19° F. in 24 hours) materially reduced the yields of milk and butter fat for several days. (p. 1067, Charts A, B, C.) 15. Cotton seed meal failed to increase the fat of milk, as compared ‘with mixtures of cotton seed meal and bran, corn meal and oats, respectively. (pp. 1073, 1104.) 16. A consideration of the profits derived from milk and butter pro- -duction reveals a decided advantage in favor of milk selling. (pp. 1063, 1074.) 17. Cows are not necessarily equally valuable for milk and butter dairy- ing. In ‘making selections this point must be kept in view, or the losses incurred may prove serious. (pp. 1041-1043, 1083, 1105.) 18. ‘The average cost of 100 pounds of milk and one pound of butter, was as follows, at prices given on page 1048: Cost of 100 lbs. o1’ milk. Cost ofl 1b. of butter. Group I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.5 cents . . . . . . . . 12.1 cents. Group II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.2 cents . . . . . .. l 14.1 cents. Group III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. 50.4 cents . . . . . .. 10.9 cents. Group IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.5 cents . . . . . . .. 12.6 cents. Group V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51.2 cents . . ... .. 12.5 cents. Group VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.5 cents . . . . . . .. 11.2 cents. 19. The influence of the source and proportion of the digestible nutri- ents on dairy yield, may be summarized thus: 1. The periods when the largest quantities of protein and fat ' were consumed in the meals were not those of highest production or profit. 2. When the proportions of protein and fats furnished in the meals was least, and the carbohydrates greatest, the yields and profits were the highest. 3. As a rule, profits increased when the proportion of dry mat- ter and organic matter furnished in the meals were lowest. 4. When one-third of the total dige-stible nutrients consumed per day was furnished by the meals, the best financial results were observed. (pp. 1086-1087, 1088-1089.) 20. Results secured in this experiment indicate that rations decidedly at variance with the so-called standard rations, gave excellent re- turns—-financial yields. (pp. 1084-1087, 1092-1093, 1098-1099.) 21. When Jersey and Holstein grades were compared, the former were superior for butter purposes, and the latter as milk manufac- turers. 22. Rations having the same nutritive ratios, but containing different amounts of the several nutrients, and derived from entirely dif- ferent combinations of food-stuffs, often occur. The cost, suita- bility for agiven purpose, and yields derived from these rations, vary as widely as the sources from which they may be derived. Further, these rations will exert a separate influence on each in- 1036 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. dividua-l. Thus many feeders have been disappointed by suppos- ing that a certain nutritive ratio would prove satisfactory under all conditions. (pp. 1098-1099.) 23. Cows will eat more tood than they can profitably manufacture into dairy products. They may also sutler from lack of a suflicient supply of certain food ingredients. (pp. 1086, 1098.) 24-. What may be termed a dry ration (G.S.M. and C.‘S.II.; C.S.M., S., I-I.—see Groups I. and II.) proved inferior to a partly succulent ration (GSM. and other meals, and C.‘S.H. and S.——see Groups III, IV., V., and VI.) for economic milk and butter production. (pp. 10.33, 100v, 109s, 1103.) 25. From an inspection of the data presented, it is apparent that changes in the rations influenced the cost of the food, the yields of milk and butter, and the profits derived. ‘Tlhese points are of vital importance, and must be constantly kept in view in preparing rations. (pp. 1067, 1072, 1098, 1103; Charts A, B, C.) 26. The amounts of food consumed in the production of 100 pounds of milk and one pound of butter, varied with its nature ‘and char- acter, and the proportions in which the digestible nutrients were blended. The cheapest 100 pounds of milk and one pound of butter was yielded by Group III., with an iaverage daily consump- tion of Dry Organic - Carbohy- “it?” mitts» P???“ flats’ ‘i???’ hliflz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107.1 55.4 11.5 38.4 5.4 ]8utter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.2 12.0 2.5 8.3 1.2 (p. 1093.) 27. An ideal ration must be palatable, adapted to the object in feeding, ‘be in accord with the weight and present yields of the cow, and suited to the peculiarities of individual demands. Note the fol- lowing illustration: Dry Organic Carbohy- No. of group. Weight. mpgger. mpgger, Prgtsin’ drizgtées. I . . . . . . . . . . .. 956.5 80.54 37.83 8.42 25.48 3.93 Ill . . . . . . . . . . .. 933.5 79.34 40.76 8.50 28.24 4.01 ‘fl . . . . . . . . . . .. 848.3 75.39 38.95 5.99 29.77 3.19 28. In economy of milk production, cows 220, 406, and 4.05 led, as named, while Groups III., VI., IV., V., I., and II. ranged in the order given. The Groups receiving the greatest variety in their rations and partly succulent food, made the best financial returns. ‘The profit secured by the Groups, as named above, was $82.11, $77.8], $77.29, $76.37, $60.67, and $60.62. (pp. 1061-1064.) 29. In economy of butter production, the cows ranging 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, were 406, 4.05, and 220. The Groups arranged according to profit, occupied the following positions: EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1037 Group III. . Yield 190.03 lbs... Profit $26 50] Group Vl.. Yield 187.68 lbs. .. Profit 25 o9 ' Group 1V. . Yield 183.57 lbs. . . Profit 22 6S " Group v.. Yield 160.00 lbs... Profit 20 03 J Group I.. Yield 140.20 lbs... Profit 1S 15 1 Group II.. Yield 152.96 lbs... Profit 16 9U f " Greater variety in the ra- tion, and partly succu- lent in nature. Dry foods. no variety. (p. 1071.) 30. Conformation is of importance in the dairy cow. Attention is called to the illustrations bearing on this point. (See engravings of 22-0, 406, 405, Gracie, 347, and 442, and p. 1106.) 31. Eight graphic charts are included in this report, demonstrating the following points: 1. Variations in the yields of milk and butter with the whole herd, and per Group, as affected by food, temperature, etc. (See Charts A, B, C.) - 2. The influence of proportion and amounts of dry matter and ' organic matter and protein and carbohydrates, on the yields of milk and butter. (‘See Charts D and 3. The influence of nutritive ratios on the yields of milk and butter. (See Chart F.) 4. The cost per Group of 100 pounds of milk and one pound of butter, and the d-aily profit per Group per period on milk and “butter. (See Charts G and H.) The use of 6 pounds of cotton seed meal (when the only meal fed) gave a larger profit, and proved more effective than the use of '7, 8, or 10 pounds. ~ When 4 to 6 pounds of cotton seed meal were combine-d with 6 or 4 pounds of bran, corn imeal, or oats, the best yields of milk and butter were secured. (pp. 1073, 1104.) N. li-The cost of the milk and butter, as shown. in this report, does not include the care, feeding, and managemen-t of the cows, nor the manu- facture of the butter. The value of the fertilizing constituents of the food, as previously indicated, would be ample to cover these expenses; so that, we have regarded the one as offset by the other. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION . INTRODUCTION. The experiments presented in this Bulletin were undertaken for the purpose of studying some of the principles involved in the feeding of dairy cows. These trials were of necessity preliminary in nature, and: future investigations may modify the conclusions reached in this resume of the work. It is a notorious fact that this department of our agricultural inter- ests has been either disregarded or grossly mismanaged. This is proven by the statement that, o-f the 17,000,000 milch cows in the United States, the average annual yield of butter does not exceeed 125 pounds per cow.* The magnitude of our dairy interests demands the most thorough and searching experimental investigation of the feeding question, for" by that means alone may be discovered and disseminated the truths un- derlying successful practice. It is necessary in any progressive business enterprise to secure the best ‘machinery adapted to the cheap and easy production of the finished article. In dairying, a good cow constitutes the best machine, and forms the first requisite. Then suitable and cheap foods properly commingled must next be secured, and in the happy combination of these prime necessities, namely, (1) the cow, (2) the food, may be sought “economy in the produc- tion of milk and butter.” a y g As yet only a superficial examination has been made of the chief feed- ing stuffs of the Southwest. Therefore i-t is desirable to test the rations most commonly fed, and ascertain their value, or rectify the error com- mitted by their use. When the maximum -and minimum quantity of grain that may be fed with safety and profit, for a specific purpose, has been approximately determined, scientific feeding will be greatly simplified. This work has been commenced in these experiments, and the incorpor- ated results will be of interest to those engaged in dairy husbandry. In view of the following reasons, the problem of scientific feeding is worthy of careful consideration: 1. The profit secured depends largely on the cost of production. 2. It is feasible to lessen the cost of production, though it may be im- possible to control market prices. 3. Ignorance of the character and “nutritive effect” of the food-stuffs used makes “feeding” an uncertain industry. 4. A knowledge of the composition, effect on the nutrition of various animals, and how to best combine food factors, to secure the maximum production at the minimum expenditure, is essential. As all foods vary in composition, they do not have the same value as productive factors, nor do they exert a uniform effect on the nutrition of the several species of domesticated animals. For example, cotton seed meal is fatal to hogs, but when used in moderation, it is an excellent food *Bu1letin No. 11, U. S. Dept. Agr., Dairy Division. Figure 2. GRACIII. A fair type of dairy cow—Gracie——Group III. Fifth in yield of milk but fourth in profit. Fifth in yield of butter but sixth in profit. For records see Tables X. and XII. For measurements see Table XXV. DESCRIPTION. Medium sized cow, lacking indepth through body; bony a11d angular, with some good wedges; temperament even; digestion good; udder capacious; too leggy. BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1039 for dairy cows. If fed in excess it may have an injurious effect 0n the digestive and assimilative organs of the cows, causing organic derange- ment of their several functions, as shown ‘by the relaxed condition of the system. This undesirable condition is indicated by loss of lust-re and constant watering of the eye, harsh, dry hair, a thickened hide, a “hide-bound” tendency, and a somewhat feverish condition of the sys- tem. Corn meal, eminently useful in fattening of all classes o-f live stock, when fed in limited quantities, forms a valuable adjunct for milk pro- duction. Oats, owing to their bulky nature, are especially useful in horse, cattle, and sheep feeding. Bran, considering its light, “fluffy” and filling tendency, is especially adapted f-or cows, and in a le-ss degree for sheep. While, on account of the limited digestive tract of the hog, as compared with some other species, the bulky nature 0-f bran and oats renders them unsuitable floods for that animal. The general practice of feeding dairy cows on cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls, is not a‘ suitable method, as such a ration induces a rapid formation of fat. (See Table VIL, Period I.) It is possible that the above combination furnishes the cheapest ration at the command of some feeders, but it is self-evident that it is unsuited to high dairy pro- duction, as it fails to provide sufficient variety to stimulate the animal appetite, and it also fails to furnish in proper proportion the digestible constituents required by the cow for milk production. Experiments seem to indicate that a protein or narroio ration is better for milk production than a wide or non-nitrogenous ration. This is reasonable, as milk is rich in “protein,” and a tendency to lay on “fat” may be detrimental to the highest dairy production, though a “fleshy” eow may be an excellent dairy animal. As the milk is manufactured directly and indirectly from the fo-od consumed, and as a continued flow of normal milk may be maintained for an indefinite period by a cow _when fed on‘ foods from which the fats have been artificially ex- tracted, it further emphasizes the necessity for a liberal protein supply in the ration, owing—- ~ *1. To its stimulative effect, While being metabolized in the an- 2. To its constructive function, i imal body. The so-called German standard ration has long been our feeders’ guide, but it does not seem to be in accord with American investigations, as indicated in the following table: i t i Dtgesttble constituents required per 1000 pounds live "weight per day. . Digestible matter. m C h a Nutritive 3, I‘. . - ' Pas?“ is; Tar? German standard . . . . . . . . .. 24 2.50 12.50 .40 15.40 1:5.4 American standard . . . . . . . . 24.31 2.15 13.27 .74 16.16 1i:6.9 *Bu11etin 132, N. Y. Agr. Expt. Station. ]_ t) TEXAS AC RICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. If the above, or any other “standard,” could be adopted, and prove entirely satisfactory, the feeding problem would be easily solved; but right here comes up the question of “animal individuality,” and truly, this forms the feeders’ stumbling block. Any proposed standard can never be more than a guide to the feeder, because of the many conflicting conditions to be satisfied by a single ration. In support of this state- ment, these arguments are advanced: 1. The amount and character of a ration will be influenced by the period of lactation. In the first part of the lactation period, when the draught on the system is most severe, the consumption of dry matter, protein, ete., will be greatest, and will decrease as lactation advances. The demands of the system must, therefore, be judged by appetite and pro- duction. The food consumed in proportion to the milk and fat yielded is less during the earlier months of lactation. 2. ’l.‘he capacity of the cow must "always be considered. Cows of the same age, Weight, and breed, differ in their ability to assimilate and profitably utilize various food factors. 3. Adaptability of the ration for the purpose fed. Theoretically, a ration may contain a suflicient proportion -of the desired digestible nu- trients, and still be illy adapted. for cheap milk and butter production. (See pp. 1098-1099.) 4. The size of the cow should be considered. Large cows require more food than small cows; though relatively and absolutely, in actual pro- duction, they do not consume so much as smaller cows. (See p. 1053.) 5. The physiological functions demand attention. For example, a certain amount of protein in the food is necessary to carry on animal metabolism. 6. Temperament and the cravings of animal appetite are worthy of study. The efiects of the weather on consumption of food should be noted. ‘The palatability, fertilizing constituents, and adaptation of the ration to the section where it is to be fed, all command attention. Successful feeding depends largely on the exercise of reason and good judgment, and may be briefly summed up in the appended maxims: 1. Select animals of desirable inviduality and adapted to your purpose, Whether for milk or butter. 2. Study animal character and find out the needs of the system. 3. Carefully consider the food factors at your command, and com- bine them suitably for your purpose in production. 4. See that the food is palatable and abundant. 5. Keep the animals in pleasant environments. 6. Supply water and salt ad Zibitum. OBJECTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS. These experiments were undertaken for the purpose of solving the’ following important questions, in so far as that couldibe accomplished by a single trial: 1. A variety of rations were fed. For example, different propor- tions of cotton seed hulls. and cotton seed meal, and sorghum hay, with cotton seed meal as a grain adjunct, were fed against several combina- EFFECYI‘ or FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1041 tions of silage and cotton seed hulls, with cotton seed meal and bran, corn meal and oats, as grain adjuncts. What ration produced mills and but- ter most economically? (See Tables X. and XII.) 2. When changes were made in the amounts of the digestible nutrients in the daily ration, and in the source from which tltey were derived, was the “yield,” “cost,” 0r “nutrition” of the animal materially influenced? (See pp. 1053, 1067, 1075, 1098-1099, 1103.) 3. Does a single meal, or a combination of meals, gioe the best results, and in ivhat yn'oja~o'rti'on, and at rtihat rate per day, can they be fed with the greatest gyro/it? (See pp. 1073, 1104.) 4. Is it true that cotton seed meal increases the fat of mills, as alleged by some urriters? (See pp. 1073, 1104-.) 5. How do grade Jerseys (ind H olsteins compare in economic dairy pro- duction? (See Table XXII.) (3. Incidentally, ‘variations in the yields of mills and butter fat, the con- formation of dairy cows and artimal individuality, were all considered. (See Tables X. and XII.) It was the intention to study the effects of feeding cotton seed meal and hulls on the centrifugal separation of milk, the solids of milk, the churnability of the cream, and the flavor, quality, consistency, and keep- ing properties of the resulting butter. Owing to the great volume of Work, this last and very important phase of the experiments had to be abandoned for the time being. 1 PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENTS. The experiments were divided into four periods of fourteen days dura- tion, commencing January 9th, and ending March 5th, inclusive, 1897, a period of fifty-six consecutive d-ays. For the purpose of these experiments eighteen grade cows were selected and divided into six groups with three animals in each group. The ani- mals used were either Jersey or Holstein grades. The first two groups contained two Holstein and one Jersey grade, and the last four two Jer- sey and one Holstein grade. This method of treatment enabled the accurate study of the effects on production of the changed rations. It is evident that from results ob- tained in this way, it would be quickly apparent when further changes umuld or would not be a disideratum. In grouping the animals the en- deavor was made to place those of about the same weight, length of time since calving, etc., together. As the pure-bred Holstein and Jersey breeds both do remarkably well in Texas, the progressive dairyman can secure excellent foundation stock for his herd. The College possesses many superior animals of these breeds, and, in one sense, it is a regrettable fact that they were not available for this test, but, in this connection, the importance of the grade animal should not be overlooked. Where the major portion of the cattle that must form the future basis of our dairy herds are grades, it is interesting to know what results (in actual practice) may be expected when the pure- bred. sire is used on our native stocks. A large per cent of the College herd has been built up in the last few years by this process. The animals used in these experiments were bred in this way, and while many of TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. them are still below the ideal standard for a dairy cow, the improvement accomplished is very gratifying, the more so when it is remembered that many of the native cows furnished barely enough milk for the nutrition of their offspring. Neither have these cows been forced for milk pro- duction through an entire lactation period. Some interesting data con- cerning the experimental cows’ previous history and performance will be found on referring to Table I. It is there apparent that the work of grades at the College has been satisfactory. Therefore, to the man of limited capital, the surest and best way to build up a dairy herd, is by the use of a pure-bred sire of the dairy breeds on the best native co-ws he can secure, land follow this up by a rigorous selection and exclusion of all those animals that are not in accord with his ideal. In reviewing the records displayed in Table 1., the great individuality of the cow becomes apparent. For example, 317, a Holstein grade, weigh- ing 903.5 pounds, produced 7007‘pounds of milk, worth $175.17 at 2g cents per pound, or 327 pounds of butter, worth $81.75 at 25 cents per pound, in one lactation period of 273 days; while 405, a Jersey grade, under similar conditions as to food. and treatment, and weighing 857.7 pounds, made 7764 pounds of milk, worth $194.10, or 371.4 pounds of butter, worth $92.85, a difference of $18.93 for milk, and $11.10 for but- ter, in favor of the latter cow. Again, 115, a Jersey grade, weighing 718.5 pounds, in a lactation period of 196 days, produced 3257 pounds of milk, equal to 16.6 pounds a day for the period, and containing 4.1 per cent of butter fat, and worth $81.42, if sold at 2%; cents per pound. This cow’s milk made 155.8 pounds- of butter, worth $38.95 at 25 cents per pound. On the other hand, 347, a Holstein grade, weighing 901 pounds, and milking 195 days, yielded 3344 pounds of milk, equal to 17.1 pounds a day for the lactation period, and containing only 3 per cent of fat. The value of this milk at 2?,- cents per pound was $83.60, and it yielded 117 pounds of butter, worth $29.25, at 25 cents per pound. These cows ran parallel in production until the butter was considered, when a difference of $9.47 is apparent in favor of 115. These results emphasize the fact, that while a cow may be profitable for milk production, she may not be so from the standpoint of the but- ter maker, and vice versa. Accordingly, cows should be selected adapted to the special line of dairying one wishes to carry on. In the cases of 545 and 438, the former gave milk worth $108.42, and butter valued at $56.92; the latter. milk worth $141.60, and butter valued at $54.52; while 115 and 323 yielded milk worth $81.42 and $81.85, and butter valued at $38.95 and $52.52, respectively. lt will be found interesting to further study the variations exhibited in Table I. The lactation periods ranged between 195 and 427 days; the average daily milk yield from 10.4 to 26 pounds, the per cent of fat in the milk from 3 to 5.5 per cent, the butter yield from 117 to 371.4 pounds, and the average daily yield of butter from .51 to 1.24 pounds. The dif- ferences between the maximum and minimum yield per cow, were in the case of milk 4762 pounds, or a money value of $119.05. When butter is considered, the difference is seen to be 254.4 pounds, representing a money value of $63.60. EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. Q S ww :w “w. do: Q... ww: Eww m2. ww wwlvfi 92w mmwwwhw =§2¢m . mmwww ww wv 2. S: w... www: Z. wi wwe. www w 5-7: wwww Qwwb... $22. Cw ....w2. ww S. 2. ww ww. wgw: S. f: wqw 2w w: www§|w: wwww ......wwfiw .392. ma. 2 ww ow ww Ow. ca: cw fi: lww Q: w: wwwwwlw: 93w ....2=....:w =§w.:o: ....:.w ww ww Q. :w 2. wan: I. ww: B3 2: ww wwwwlw: ww; ......2:.:w 2.22. .> 2.5.: 2.. B E w: S. w. 5w i. ww: 5:. Q2 w 2.9-7: we: ......2.€w $22. ..:5w S 2.. S :2 8.: wia ww 3a 2w... 2a .2 wwflwTfi wwwi ....2§w HQBwBm .58“ wiww 3 2 ww. www: we ww: 22w 2a 2. wwwwwl: 05.3. ......2=fiu $.22. p: zéw: 2 s. w“ 2. 3. www: 1.. :2: 25 3w ww wwli: 9:2 ......%w.:w .922. .52“ ow m.“ ow E 5. www: vw ww: 23 wow 2 wwlwwfi wwww wwfiw H2329: $2.6 ww ww w... w: 2. wwé 2. “w: $3. w? w: wwll: ow...“ ......2::w 2.52. 2: ....www ww S w: I: 2...: w. 5w :4. 9w“ :2... wwm w: wwlwlw: 225w .....2§w 222% 1.2a S w... m: E ww. ma: ww v.2 wwww m2 w 3.1T: wwww :....Q_.Ew .822. zzwww Nw E ww z; B. fiwa ww Ww: Eww .5. ww wwwmTw: 92;. ....2.2w 5:22am .: zzwwv 2. ww 8 2. 2. 2:2 w; 9E 2?. 8w w: wwlalw Qfiw ....2:.:u 522w: m 2 3. ww 3 w». ww: :4. w.2 23w www “w: wwfiwwww mi: wwwkw $22. zrz: 3 é Q. wi ww. “SN we .2: “w? we. w: ww.|:|w wwww ....2:..E... E820: 2 ....$w B. 5w S wtw 3.: wsww we was BE w: ww: wwwwww wwww ....2::u £322: ....:w u.w%%m umwfiwn Fmwwwgag cmflfihflw. m Fmwpw>ag nwvwwwmflmw mmwmw: mwwfi .%_ % dmv % mamas mm gnaw fim @202? owobmH: m.0 5% omO vfw : éfizzwmo 2.5mm». 1 om. w n 1 Qwfism ~52 m m. 2.5.5: B: awn? m a w .895 ma m wwwommfimwmwgmwfiww hwfiwmwwwhwuaom w. wwomwmwom 25S 5 E5 w . m m. u i390 ~Szwfiwéé~a§ 2% .8 wwfixvwmw mfifir$w§b swcm~|é mania 1044 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT srarron. The foregoing statement demonstrates why a record of the dairy herd is an essential. The cvluiality’ and quantity of milk from different co-ws varies greatly as do the ease and cheapness with which it is manufactured. An account of the assets and liabilities of each cow must, therefore, be kept, in order that the unprofitable ones may be eliminated before they leavcn the whole lump. The ideal cow should milk about eleven months, and yield 5000 pounds of milk, or equivalent to 250 to 300 pounds of butter per annum, when not costing more than $35.00 or $40.00 for keep. RECORDS. Records of the daily yields of milk were kept, together with all neces- sary data pertaining to the health, influence of weather and food on the animals’ condition. An aliquot sample of the night’s and morning’s milk was taken after thorough mixing and preserved in pint bottles with corrosive sublimate. These samples were analyzed by means of the Bab- coek test for butter fat. The butter fat was converted into butter by increasing it by one-sixth. The cows were not stabled during the day except while eating. The periods allowed for feeding were from 4 a.m. to '7 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. This allowance proved ample for the purpose. During the remainder of the day and at night, except in stormy weather, the cows were allowed the freedom of a large paddock. They also had free access to water and salt at all times. All rations were fed per 1000 pounds live weight, and were readjusted after each weighing. The rations were halved and fed morning and evening. The cows were milked at 5 a.m. an.d 4L p.m. by two experienced milkers. They were weighed on Thurs- day, Eriday, and Saturday of each week just before receiving the evening ration. ' METHODS IN FEEDING. Dnsonrrrrorxr or‘ Foon S'TUFFS.—J1ll16 meal portion of the daily rations consisted of varying quantities of cotton seed meal, bran, corn meal, and ground oats, fed either singly or in combination. These were all in ex- cellent mechanical condition except the oats, which were light and poorly filled. The cotton seed meal was fresh from ‘the mill, and “therefore pure and wholesome. It will be observed that the composition of these foods compared very favorablywith the analyses of others of a similar nature. We are greatly indebted to Prof. H. H. Harrington, of the Chemical De- partment. under whose direction the examinations indicated in Table H. were made. TABLE IL-Omnposition of Food Factors used in Experiment. Cotton C Cotton Sor- C Food analyses. Bran- mggf} Oats. 535%. elglym 5,1321‘, Moisture at 100° c ........... .. 6.54 9.50 10.95 8.51 8.56 9.4a 74.64 Dry matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93.46 91.22 89.30 91.49 91.44 90.51 25.36 I EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. TABLE II-eontinued-Analysis of Dry Matter. Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.87 5.07 1.25 3.68 2.60 6.81 1.86 Crude fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.52 13.62 3.00 16.11 69.75 43.01 9.46 Fat or ether extracts. . . . . . . . . .. 13.81 5.40 3.60 6.89 2.25 5.26 1.69 Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.50 19.06 9.87 10.56 4.18 4.69‘ 2.09 Nitrogenfreeextract...... . . . . 19.76’ 47.07 71.58 54.25 12.66 30.77‘ 10.50 The coarse food stuffs consisted of silage, sorghum, hay, and cotton seed hulls. The silage was uniform in quality, though lower than usual in moisture and grain content, owing doubtless to the effects of the severe drought which prevailed over this portion of the State during the sum- mer of 1896. This did not injure its palatability, as it was greedily eaten by all the cows receiving it. The cotton seed hulls were for the most part fresh and of excellent quality. The sorghum hay was rather coarse, but the analyses show that it compares favorably with the other foods used, and the cows relished it very much, as shown by their continued con- sumption of 30 pounds per day for forty-two days in succession. VALUE OF THiE FERTILIZING ELEMENTS. *TABLE IIL-Fertiliztng Constituents 0f Food Stuffs per 100 lbs. and Valuation per Ton. Cotton O Cotton g C Fertilizing Constituents. gig? mgziill, figs‘; borglllg? hay’ silggré, lbs. i lbs‘ lbs. lbs‘ Nitrogen . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 6.64] 2.67 1.58 2.06 0.75 Not 0.28 Phosphoric acid . . 2.68 2.89 0.63 0.82 0.18 obtainable, 0.11 Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.79 1.61 0.40 0.62 1.08 estimated. 0.37 Valuation per ton. . . . . .. $19 87 $10 33 $4 7O $6 22 $3 02 $4 00 351 13 Too often. the fertilizing value of the foods consumed on the farms is not taken into consideration, and this evidently works an injustice to the cow. About 20 per cent of the essential manurial elements of the food consumed, namely, nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, are retained by the cow to aid in supplying the needs of her body and in the elabo- ration of milk. The remaining 80 per cent passes out with the excreta, and if this is properly cared for, the larger part can be returned to the farm. A ton of whole milk removes from the farm manurial elements to the value of $1.60; a ton of skim milk, $1.69; a ton of buttermilk, $1.45; a ton of cream, $1.21, and a ton of butter only 36 cents worth. Thus, if butter is sold and the skim milk fed on the farm, very little fertility is lost. The above being true, the actual or net cost of maintenance and pro- duction of a cow is not represented by the market cost of the food mate- rials consumed, but by the market cost minus the manurial value obtain- *The average fertilizing constituents of the ditferent substances, together with their manurial value per ton. were taken from the Report of the Pennsyl- vania Experiment Station for 1896. 1046 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. able. This is clearly shown in Table VI. This statement further illus- trates how dairying properly conducted conserves the fertility of the farm, and demonstrates the necessity of preserving and returning animal excrements to the soil.* The valuation placed upon the fertilizing con- stituents in the foregoing table is, nitrogen, 12 cents; phosphoric acid, 4 cents; and potash, 5 cents per pound. r DIGESTIBILITY OF THE FOODS OONSUMED. TABLE IV.—DigesttbZe Nutrients Contained tn Food Factors Fed. Digestible matter. . Dry Name of substance. Matter. Tot . Carbty al. Protein. hydrateg Fat. Cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 .80 66.11 37.01 16.52 12.58 Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.50 56.11 12.01 41.23 2.87 Corn meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.00 75.46 7.01 65.20 3 25 Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 489.00 61.77 9.25 48.34 4.18 Cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.90 33.06 0.42 30.95 1.69 {Sorghum hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.54 53.15 2.46 47.15 3.54 Silage (corn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.90 13.00 0.56 11.79 0.65 This table exhibits the digestibility of the foods fed during the experi- ment. These coefficients represent the average of many determinations in both the Old and New World, and are therefore approximately cor- rect for our purpose. Possessed of a knowledge of the composition and digestibility of the several substances used in feeding, we are enabled to compound rations adequate for various objects in production and to study more exhaustively the effects of varying the amount and character of the nutritive elements on the economy of animal production. Milk is practically stable in composition, except for the variations in the fat. One hundred pounds would ordinarily contain the following ingredients, namely: i .1 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 .50 per cent. Total solids . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . 12.50 per cent. Fats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .60 per cent. Solids, not fat . . . . . .‘. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.90 per cent. Casein and albumen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .40 per cent. Milk sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.75 per cent. Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C .75 per cent. * See‘ Table XX., pp. —. ‘tNOTE.—-— As no digestion coefficients were available for sorghum hay, they have been estimated in this instance as nearly as possible by comparison with other foods similar in composition. It is regrettable that the digestibility of a food so well known and extensively used as sorghum hay has not been carefully examined and reported before this late day. The digestion coefhcients used in the table were taken from the year-book of the United States Department of Agriculture for 1895. IOhemistry of Dairying, p. 6. _, , -IVQ§‘v1 Figure 3. N0. 347. T00 beefy—-No. 347—-Group V. Fourth in yield of milk but sixth in profit. Fourth in yield of butter but thirteenth in profit. For records see Tables X. and XII. For measurements see Table XXV. DESCRIPTION. A large cow, inclined to lay on flesh readily; a beefy tendency. Too square and blocky; appetite and digestion vigorous; dispo- sition quiet; udder undersized. A fair yielder but too expensive to maintain. BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. A cow yielding one hundred pounds per day (and there are a number which have eclipsed that figure in the United States, and notably among these Yentje Netherland, owned and bred by the Texas A. 8t M. College,) would be required to manufacture the given substances in the amounts indicated. When it is remembered th-at milk must be made from the food consumed, the necessity for liberal. and careful feeding may be more readily appreciated. Tihink for a moment of the enormous task imposed on a cow when manufacturing 12.50 pounds of the most com- plex solids in a day and adjusted in such nice proportions as to furnish man the most complete and nourishing food at his command. It takes a strong and vigorous constitution to perform such severe and continued labor. The greater reason then why her efiorts should be supplemented with suitable foods. What processes the food goes through during its elaboration into milk in the animal body are as yet largely a mystery, but it is a recognized fact that a cow requires a certain amount of pro- tein in her food or she can not maintain her maximum yields; and the same may be said of the other essential food ingredients. If the animal be overfed or underfed, the first observable effect will be on the milk, which will either increase or decrease according to the complexion of the food offered. Next, the weight will increase or decrease, and if an unsuit- able ration be continued long enough, the health of the animal will ulti- mately be injured. What the exact amount of the essential nutrients, - namely, protein, carbohydrates, and fat, should be, is still an unsolved problem. Approximately they are known as previously indicated, and it does not require any very persuasive arguments to convince the intelli- gent farmer of the importance attaching to this question. As there is one BEST WAY to perform any work, so some rations are better adapted for feeding milch cows than others. Every feeder must strive to secure the cheapest, most palatable, and productive ration for his purpose. Skill in the combination and adjustment of a ration from the foods on hand, and at the same time satisfying animal inviduality, means suc- ceases. The mastery of this problem underlies successful feeding, and forms the fundamental principles on which all desirable practice must be based. COST OF THE FOOD PRODUCTS. *In estimating the cost of production and profit per cow, the following prices were assigned, these being approximately the average market prices during the experimental period. As will be noted, the prices were all reasonable, though they may be somewhat at variance wi-th present mar- ket quotations. i‘ r The price of a food factor depends primarily on— 1. Supply and demand. 2. Its nutritive value. 3. Its fertilizing substance. In pur-chasing adjunct foods these point-s should be borne in mind. *As the cost of food factors varies, the data presented in the following tables would not hold good for a new set of conditions. This fact must borne in mind; otherwise, it might prove misleading. 2-Bu1.47 \ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE V.— 00st of Food Products. Cost of _ - - e _Ferti1iz-, fertiliz- Net cost Net cost Name p513??? ‘2222222 2222222 2222222 per . ODS. Ot-S- CUS- Cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . .. $15 00 .750 *$19 87 .993 *$4 87 *.245 Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 ()0 .750 10 33 .516 4 67 .234 Corn meal . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 0O .700 4 70 .235 9 30 .465 Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 00 .750 6 22 .311 8 78 .439 Cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . 3 50 .175 3 02 .151 48 .024 Sorghum hay . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 00 .400 1'4 00 .200 4 00 .200 Silage (corn) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 00 .150 1 13 .056 1 90 .094 THE Barrens FED. From Table VI. it is apparent tl1at nineteen rations were fed t0 the six groups of cows during the four experimental periods. The periods were divided as follows: I. Period January 9th to 23d, inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 days II. Period January 23d to February 5th, inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 days Ill. Period February 6th to February 19th, inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 days 1V. Period February 20th to March 5th, inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l4 days This table illustrates the character and co-mposition of the rations con- sumed per 1000 pounds live Weight per cow per day. It further shows their cost, manurial value, and compute-d digestibility. It will be observed that a narrow ration was fed during the first period. Generally speaking, the rations of the second period were narrow, and gradually widened in the case of every group throughout the third and fourth periods, some of those used in the fourth period being especially wide. A discussion of the effect of these several rations will be found further on. At no time was the quantity of meal consumed per day in excess of 10 pounds, “and the coarse portion of the ration was solely limite-d by the animals’ appetite. A moderate ration of cotton seed meal and hulls and silage constituted the ration during period one. The next step was to sub- stitute a portion of the grain, or coarse substance of the primary ration, for another food material, and note the changes wrought by this differ- entiation. Further, the endeavor was to determine the maximum quantity of food the animal would consume, and whether it would not eat far in excess of what it could profitably assimilate and manufacture into dairy products. If the point where sufficient food of suitable constitution to fulfill all the demands of the bodily functions can be ascertained, the saving accruing to the feeder possessed of that knowledge would be enormous. In Period I. all the Groups fared alike. In Period II. Groups I. and II. received cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls and cotton seed meal and sorghum hay. Group III. was fed an increased amount of cotton seed meal and similar amounts of cotton seed hulls and silage, as given in *N0TE.—According to this statement the fertilizing constituents of cotton seed meal exceed its market value by $4 87. TEstimated. TABLE VI.-- Computed Digestible Nutrients in the Daily Rations zoith Cost and zllanurial Value. ,L .16 uS v1 v1 L5 5 ‘:21 =1 1 __= s? 1 Period. 1i Daily rations fed per 1000 pounds live weight. ‘*3 '3 a . ‘S :1 ‘S71 w ‘S {-3 7 ‘.3 I w 1= ‘E o "‘ . ' 3 "‘ . g S .5918 5'5 v1.03 $1.. S?) E O2 Jghm Qlfiln 1-1 ' vi 8'14 += °’ “ d _ - 71*‘ ‘MES ~38 c: E2 g5: fig £35 g" 55 g 31‘? | $131 I. I?” I Jan" 9th 1° 7 lb o s M '161b o s H -281b s 28 502 2 81"5 9 4098 1 8890 28 80> 4 5 12 95 <7- 11- Jan. 22nd S. . . ., S. . . ., S. .. . . l . . - . 1.. 1. . ...- 10.0.5 . .1 inclusive. m a II. l. 10 lbs. C.S.M.; 20 lbs. C.S.H . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.960 3.7850 7.8420 1.5960 28 301 1:3.12 11.0(1 12.1150 95 2. 10 lbs. C.S.M.; 20 lbs. S.H.* . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.288 4.1930 11.11821) 1.9600 302923 1:381 15.50 3.930 .1‘ January 23d 3. 10 lbs. C.S.M.; 16 lbs. C.S.H.; 33 lbs. S.. 30.301 3.953010 4947 1 .7421) 34.2.7 1:3.75 15.25 14.194 .()56 t0 4. 6 lbs. O.S.M.; 4 lbs. B.; l6 lbs. C.S.H.: 30.169 2.955411.4831 1.3545 22.567 1:503 15.25 12.280 .964 February 33 lbs. S. 5th 5 6 lbs. (J.S.M g 4 lbs. C.M.;l6 lbs. C.S.H.; 30.029 7554124419 .3697 30.425 111.78 15.05 11.102 '- .888 inclusive. 33 lbs. S. 6 lbs. C.S.M.; 4 lbs. 0.; 16 lbs. C.S.H.; 30.189 .855011.7675 1.4069 33.111 0.35 15.25 11.460 .784 33 lbs. S. III. 1. 8 lbs. C.S.M.; 25 lbs. C.S.H . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.569 3.0058 9.0591 1.3289 28.582 1:4 .07 10.37 11.719 1.349 2. 8 lbs. C.S.M.; 30 lbs. S.H.* . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.506 3.698815.4000 1.9684 48.332 115.51 18.00 13.944 4.056 Februar 3. 8lbs.C.S.M.;l8lbs.C.S.H.:35 lbs.S.. 29.601 3.2b2411.6191 1.4181 32.998 1:4.00 14.40 12.622 1.778 6th toy 4. 4lbs. C.S.1I.; 6lbs.B.; 18 lbs. C.S.H.; 31.299 24726134321 1.1871 33.500 1:6.03 15.90 11.746 4.154 35 lbs. S. ‘ February 5 41b 08111-815 CM- 1 - - ' ' * 7 ' - 19th . s. . . ., s. . ., 18 bs.C.S.H., 31.089 2.1726 14.6703 .2099 35.174 :8.14 10.60 10.060 .540 . . 35 lbs. S. ‘ncluslve- 8. 4 lbs. C.S.M.; 6 lbs. 0.; 181bs. C.S.H.; 31.829 23070198580 .0257 34.877 .788 15.90 10.518 .884 35 lbs. S. 1V_ 1. 6 lbs. C.S.M. ; 25 lbs. C.S.H . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.733 .3280 8.7287 .1773 25.529 1:5.05 08.87 9.7321 10.863 2. 6lbs.().S.M.; 30 lbs. 32.670 .961015.1302 .8108 45.2711 1:664 16.50 11.958 4.542 3. 6lbs. C.S.M.; l8lbs.C.S.H.;35 lbs.S.. 27.825 .491011.2887 .2005 29.945 1:575‘ 12.90 10.630 2.264 February 4. 2 lbs. C.S.M.; 8 lbs. B.; l8 lbs. C.S.H.; 29.403 .7324 13.1017 .9355 3 .507 1:8.90 15.90 10.792 5.108 20th to 35 lbs. S. March 5th, 5. 2 lbs. C.S.M. ; 8 lbs. C.M.; 18 lbs.C.S.H.; 30.953 572615.843!) .0233 35.681 :11.7 15.50 8.544 6.956 _ _ 35 lbs. S. mcluslve- 6. 2 lbs. C.S.M.; 8 lbs. 0.; 18 lbs. C.S.H.; 31.273 .7518 14.1512 .1037 33.820 :9.86 15.90 9.152 6.748 35 lbs. S. German standard ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.00 2.50 12.50 .40 29.000 1:5.4 For comparison. Wisconsin standard ration . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.50 2.15 13.27 .74 31 .250 1 :0.9 Connecticut standard ration . . . . . . . . . .. 25.00 2.50 13 to 12 . 5'18 31.000 1 :5.6 *Estimated. iFertilizing constituents of C.S.M. exceed the food cost of daily ration. BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT‘ or FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1049 Period 1. Groups IV., V. and V1. were fed the same amounts of cotton seed meal and hulls as Group 111., but, instead of receiving 10 pounds of cotton seed meal, 4 pounds of bran, corn meal and oats were substituted for a simil-ar amount of cotton seed meal in each instance. 1n Period 111., Groups 1. and 11. received 8 pounds of cotton seed meal and an in- creased amount of cotton seed hulls and sorghum hay, in all, 25 and 30 pounds, respectively. 1n Group 111. the cotton seed meal was decreased 2 pounds, and the cotton seed hulls and silage each increased by 2 pounds. 1n Groups IV., V. and V1., 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls and 35 pounds of silage formed the coarse portion of the ration, while the cotton seed meal was nowreduced to 4 pounds, and an addition of six pounds of bran, corn meal, and oats completed the rations. i 1n Period IV., Groups 1., 11., and 111. received 6 pounds of cotton seed meal, and the same amount of coarse materials as in Period 111. Groups IV., V., and V1. received the same amount of cotton seed hulls and silage as in the previous period, but the cotton seed meal was reduced to the minimum, viz.: 2 pounds, and 6 pounds of bran, corn meal, and oats, re- spectively, added. Commercially, -at prices here assumed, the most expensive ration fed was composed of 8 pounds -of cotton seed meal and 30 pounds o-f sorghum hay, costing 18 cents per day. » The cheapest ration was 6 pounds of cotton seed meal and 25 pounds of cotton seed hulls, costing 8.8’? cents per day. These were not neces- sarily the cheapest rations from the standpoint of production, as will be explained hereafter. When the manurial value is considered, the most desirable ration in this respect was 10 pounds of cotton seed meal, 16 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 33 pounds of silage; and the least desirable one was, 2 pounds cotton seed meal, 8 pounds of corn meal, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage. The manurial elements of the former aggregated 14.194, and the latter 8.544 cents. Regarding the net cost of the rations, 6 pounds of cotton seed meal and 25 pounds of cotton seed hulls, was the cheapest, the fertilizing elements being worth 0.863 cents more than the food cost, owing to the high per cent of fertilizing constituents contained in the cotton seed meal. The dearest net ration was 2 pounds of cotton seed meal, 8 pounds of corn meal, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage, costing 6.956 cents. Thus it is apparent that the farmer often sells cotton seed for less than. its fertilizing value per ton, not to mention the profit he should make by feeding it at home. A word concerning the rations. They were, in many instances, at variance with any preconceived, or computed standards. 1t was not the intention in the begining to feed a so-called standard ration, and hence the variety here displayed should make the results doubly interesting. With cotton seed meal and bran, rich in protein, and sorghum hay, corn meal, oats, and cotton seed meal, rich in fats, and oats, corn meal, bran, sorghum hay, and cotton seed hulls, rich in carbo-hydrates, it would be a difficult matter, with the limited number of foods in hand, to blend them satisfactorily into so-called standard rations. 1t will be noticed that some of the rations are high in dry matter, pro- tein, carbo-hydrates and fats, as the case may be, when compared with the so-called standard rations attached to the table; though some of the nu- 1050 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. tritive rations practically coincide with the latter. It is, therefore, evi- dent, that while a ration may have a given nutritive ratio, the essential digestible material composing it may be entirely at variance, both in proportion and quantity, with any so-called standard. The feeder may be . easily misled by this condition, should it arise, and the nutritive effect of divergent rations, with similar ratios, will form an interesting problem for discussion at the proper juncture. The desideratum expressed by the German standard ration was nearest approached by the ration fed Group III., in Period IV. It consisted of 27.825 pounds of dry matter, 15.05 pounds of digestible organic matter, 2.4946 pounds of digestible protein, 11.2887 pounds of digestible carbo- hydrates, 1.2665 pounds of digestible fat, with a fuel value of 29.945 calories, and a nutritive ratio of 1:5.'78. Probably Group V., in Period IV., received the ration diverging most from the German standard. The ration approaching most nearly to the Wisconsin standard, was fed to Group IV., in Period III. Group V., in Period II., received the ration most nearly fulfilling the requirements of the Connecticut standard. VARIATIONS IN LIVE-WEIGHT. Considering the initial and final weights presented in Table VII., it is apparent that liberal gains were made by all the animals except 653, who lost 32.5 pounds. The greatest gain for the entire experiment was made by 323, with 187 .5 pounds. Gains ranging from 109 to 185 pounds were made by 545, 356, Gracie, 220 and 347. These were all Holstein grades with the exception of 356, thus showing the tendency of this breed to lay on flesh readily. The smallest increase in weight was made by B., with 2O pounds. Group III. made the greatest gain during the 56 days, with 352 pounds. Groups IV., V., “I., VI., and II. followed in the order named, the latter only increasing 72.5 pounds in the whole experimental period. The increase displayed by all the groups during Period I., when a ra- tion of 7 pounds cotton seed meal, 16 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 28 pounds of silage, with a nutritive ratio of 1:4.5 was fed, were much greater than at any other time. The largest gain was shown by 323, with 123.5 pounds, the smallest by 406, with 1.5 pounds increase to her credit. Group III. gained the most, with‘226 pounds, -and Group VI. the least, with 159 pounds. The increase in weight in Period I. may be partly at- tributed to the beefy tendency of several cows, but more especially to the fattening propensities of the ration fed. While it has a narrow nutri- tive ratio, experiments conducted with steers show that rations of some- what similar composition and proportion give most excellent results in beef production. The above ration is one freely used in the Southwest, and we wish to especially emphasize its objectionable character when fed in the amount shown here. This makes it plain that a narrow nutri- tive ratio is not always desirable for milk production. The component parts of a ration call for attention. In this instance the very high pro- tein and fat content of the cotton seed meal and the fattening nature of cotton seed hulls, were probably responsible for the results indicated. EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1051 1n Period 11., with the rations difierentiated, the increase in live- weight was much smaller. The largest increase was shown by Groups V., 1., and V1., with 113.5, 93.5, and 91.5 pounds respectively. The rations fed were 6 pounds cotton seed meal, 4 pounds corn meal, 16 pounds cot- ton seed hulls, and 33 pounds of silage, with a nutritive ratio of 1:578; and 10 pounds of cotton seed meal and 20 pounds of cotton seed hulls, with a nutritive ratio of 1:312; and 6 pounds of cotton seed meal, 4 pounds of oats, 16 pounds of‘cotton'seed hulls, and 33 pounds of silage, with a nutritive ratio of 125.35. Group 11., fed on a ration of 10 pounds of cotton seed meal and 20 pounds of sorghum hay, lost 30.5 pounds. 1n Period 111. Group V1. lost 16.5 pounds, Group 11. 14 pounds, and Group V. 1 pound in weight, while the highest gain made by Group 1V. was only 38.5 pounds. Group V. received 4 pounds of cotton seed meal, 6 pounds corn meal, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage, with a nutritive ratio of 128.4. Group 1V. was fed 4 pounds of cotton seed meal, 6 pounds of bran, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage, with a nutritive ratio of 1:663. 1n Period 1V. the gains in weight were smallest, Groups 1V., V., and 111. showing an increase of 7.5, 7.5, and 15 pounds respectively. Group V1. gained the most, namely, 51.5 pounds. 1n this period the ration giving the largest increase in weight was 2 pounds of cotton seed meal, 8 pounds of oats, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage, with a nutritive ratio of 1:9.68. The least gain resulted when 6 pounds of cotton seed meal and 30 pounds of sorghum hay, with a nutritive ratio» of 1:6.64, constituted the ration. Apparently the weather had little influence -on the loss or gain in weight: Average daily temperature for 14 days. In Period I. the total gain by all Groups was 1131.0 pounds ....55.2° F. In Period II. the total gain by all Groups was 440.5 pounds. ...36.3 F. In Period III. the total gain by all Groups was 64.0 pounds .54.40 F. In Period IV. the t0ta1 gain by all Groups was 20.0 pounds... . .60.2 F. It is interesting to note the effect of the various rations on the dif- 4 ferent individuals. For example, 210 and 220 of Group 1V., and B. and 438 of Group 11., when receiving the same rations per 1000 pounds live weight, showed the following marked divergence in gains and losses of weight by periods: ’ » Period I. Period II. Period III. Period IV. 210 +200 +000 1; 0.0 + 5.0 Gmup 11" 220i +900 +555 +22.0 +1745 B. +060 -19.0 - 2.0 -25.0 GIMP H- 43st +825 + 0.0 + 8.5 -15.o For the sake of comparing the influence of gain or loss of weight on the cost and amount of milk and butter made, the following items have been incorporated in this table: TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. QMH QEI “H Ca3+ H mmdm .>~ 31$ @H omémw QVH ofimmi .H 0O v QKH S w Q»? Q: 0Q. 1| .H OJINIT Q $4.5 .>~ 5.3 H 3.5m .H- $.22 .H g m KWH 3 m .>. QWH rib |T .H o.5m+ Q $466 {WM mow“ H 5M2“ AZ $.53 Q 3 w ..>.~ mm w .>H RPM .H OQNNWT Q 3.? Q: 3x3 Q 3 o3 Q5 @533 Q R w. .HH~ m». m QHHH .>~ odml Q 052+ .>~ mmRm QM 8am .H 2.2% Q- omemw RH vw m QM 8 w QH .>H Q21 .H QmE+ Q wmam QHH 3.?“ QM 033mb fPw #3 QVH mm m, .H 3 é Q . i: . .9: . .2: . . .9: . i: . i: . . m uofiofi .E5Q§QE>H ooiom .B5_H~Ufim2 woiwm AfiQHEZZ uoflkoh -fiv~nflmwnm coiom .EEEE2 woimm gdsmfimsg 63.5% mvwfiwflfi doiom W émwfia 5 5E0 .3225 i. 22w sin B Q65 g8 Ho $80 . TABLE VIL-Initial and Final Weights, and the Loss 01' Gain in Weight by Periods. Em m Initial Final 302231111055 Avygirg-atlgte ' I d’ 1 000 1b l- . ht Nutritive Oggsgd Production per Period Gain 01. loss in weight by Periods. {needing Avcllztgc (wily tmnpcruturc N0. g Group “$1511”, Wfgghl’ 56 clays, P-Tfoup in per group, Penodg Ramon fed per ‘Ly per ’ 8' We welg ' ratio. per of mil of butter Period Period Period m“ Period (Jupzwiuy. per week 51111 p01‘ period. b5‘ b‘ lbs- ‘fififgllys’ lbs- gm“? lbs. lbs. ’ I. 11. 111. 1v. 317.. . .. 903.5 994.5 + 91.0 I. 7 lbs. C.S.M.; 16 lbs. O.S.H.; 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 4.5 3'54 43 780.20 32.38 + 74.0 + 37 0 +10.5 —-30.5 111011111111. .. .1a11.9_1;015.. 6(1.91‘;‘1<‘. 545.. . .. I. 888.5 997.5 a +0098 +285.0 861.5 égtlbskfléSlifl. ;220Hl)bs.(/CSSI._%I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll i i- i 0 Xeryugogd .l:u1.15t0 2.1. 411.5 . 1*. 191..... 792.5 877.5 85. . ‘ s. 1. . .; 5 s. l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 5. 21. — .>. kmiceewxessv. 1v. 6 lbs. O.S.M.; 25 lbs. C.S.H .......... .......... .. 1 5.05 3 s5 794.00 37.06 + 17.1 0 + .15 5 +5115" JET» Average for Period 1.,55.2°.1<‘. B . . . . .. 815.0 8215.0 + + 20.0 I. 7 lbs. C.S.M.; 16 lbs. O.S.H.; 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:4.5 $3 84 809.15 38.44 + 66.0 —— 19.0 — 2.0 ~25.0 P001‘ . . . . .. Jan. 23 t0 29. 29.400 F. 438... .. II 760.0 845.0 + + 72.5 736.0 1SOHIJbsCCSSWEW. iggqllbssSqflH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i + + $111-$092... Jan. 29 to p51). 5, 44,50 l.» 6:'3..... 6215.1) 602.5 — 32. . s. .‘.1 s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :5. 5 . . 5. 1.5 — .1 —‘_ .5 —— . arm» ) IV. 6 lbs. C.S.M.7; 3O lbs. Si, H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:15.64 5 68 816.65 37.39 +167 0 —- 30.5 -14.0 —50.0 Average for Period .11., 36.300 F. 405.. . .. 857.5 930.0 + 72.5 I. 7 lbs. C.S.‘M; 16 lbs. C.‘S.‘H.; 281bs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:4.5_ i154 980.50 42.66 + 53.5 + 24 5 — 5.5 + 0 Excellent. Feb. 6 t012.)49(.Il0°ol<‘.‘ 356. III. 766.0 837.5 + 352.0 816.1 éqllbsbOsblklgl.HLGIIDbsGCQSEI.;333lé2s.SS . . . . . . . . . . . 5 i i 0 i $01.? £3011 l< e1). 13 t0 lb, 5.1.30 1<. Gracie. 825.0 9 3.0 i . s. . . ’ s. . . .' 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. : . o 5 .55 ..' '.._ _____ 1 '5_._fi .. ar :1 IV. 6 lbs. C.S.l\/I.; 18 lbs. C.S.H.,; 35 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . .. 1:5.78 5 30 1076.85 50.41 +226.0 + 84 0 +26 5 +15 5 Average for Period 111., 54.40° F. 210... .. 761.0 825.0 + 64.0 I. 7 lbs. C.S.M.; 16 lbs. C.S.H.; 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . 1 v1.5 3B4 45 968.15 42.13 + 29.0 + 30.0 + 0 + 5.0 Very good Feb. 19 to 26. 58.500 F. 182.. . .. IV. 766.0 852.5 i +3355 864.0 12s. 15.; 11b): . .. i i lceb. 27 to Mare-h 5, 61.900 F. 220..... 1065.0 1250.0 15. . s. ‘. . .' s. .; . . . .; a . z). ' 5 . . . . _* 5L_ ___+W_ "(.7 “Jwiw .140’ 11.. IV. 2 lbs. C.S.M.; 8 lbs. B.; 18 lbs. C.S.H.; 35 lbs. S. . . .. 1:8.90 6 63 1014.65 47.00 +201.0 + 88 5 +38 5 + 7.5 Average for Period 1V. 60.20° F. 691... .. I 610.0 u 667.5 + 57.5 + 1. 7 lbs. C.S.M.; 16 lbs.fiO.S.I-I.; 28 lbs. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 $13 92 887.50 36.58 + + 40.0 —15.0 +250 lvledium. .. 115... . V. 718.5 | 800.0] ’ +298.0 i 743.1 glgs. g i i —1(71.0 lfjxesllerlg. 347_____ 901,0 1060.1 M . I s. .. .; s. . .; s. . . .; . :. . . '. M . 5 .. .- — .5 axe’ e11# IV. 2 lbs. C.S.M.; 8 lbs. C.M.; 18 lbs. C.S.H.; 35 lbs. S.. . 1:1l.7 5 66 1010.95 41.08 +214.0 +113 5 — 1 0 + 7.5 442..... 560.0 i 615.0 l + 55.0 l ‘ I. 7lbs. ; 16 lbs. C.S.I“.I.; 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:4.5_ $4 O0 877.20 39.33 + 25.0 + 23.0 — 5.5 +125 Excellent . 406... .. VI. 866.0 I 900.8 ‘ +276.5 | 756.1 figs. 8.; 5 $121.2 i +138 Igxeellbeint . 323..... 842.5 1030. ‘.5 . s. .. .; s. .; s. .. .; . :. 5 . . -. — . .5 arm e... IV". 2 lbs. C.S.M.; 8 lbs. 0.; 18 lbs. C.S.H.; 35 lbs. S... .. 129.86 6 27 1035.10 49.41 +150.0 + 91.5 —16.5 +51.5 1 l 1 | BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1053 The yields of milk and butter were apparently influenced very consid- erably by the rapid gain in weight b-y all the groups in Period I. Dur- ing the III. and IV. Periods, when the increase in weight was least, the maximum yields of milk and butter were attained. Careful study of the cost and nature of the foods producing these results will prove in- teresting to every feeder. As there is a maximum ability in every cow for digestion and assimi- lation, so there is a maximum capacity in milk and butter fat production. A cow fed up to the maximum can not be forced beyond that point, yet it is quite possible that a cow may possess assimilative powers greater than her maximum milk and butter capacity, so that anysurplus con- sumed may be converted into body fat or flesh and still not impair her yields of milk and butter. a The necessity for a strong constitution and good digestive powers in the cow are self-evident. A lack of uniformity in the regular consump- tion of the daily ration reduces the value of such cows as B. and 438 very much and enhances that of 220 in a similar degree. Even tem- perment is also essential so that the “machine” may run on smoothly without any useless waste of fuel and nervous energy. 1054 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. m2. @222 ......m.@ $25223 NwQmEZI 52.2222. 25mm... 222E .258 2o @2522 2.2.2 E 2E8 d .8 .3. a 222s ... .... .. . . . £222.22 26$ moppou 2o 265522 n62: 2.25 622.2%. 8w was?» .2252 % .. mom ao oo s 22 . . wfiswnoo . 2225.2 . 2.6 n2 1. . . . - 2. 3 202E o mafia 2 w >22. m wm2 .. 222$ e55 aw 2:32.22 3 2 2. m?” mm m2: 2E 2.2 .2 $2 2.2. 22.8% .258 w. 2:522 2.22 2E E .8 AR. a M5225 .2225 2.3m aoaaoo 2o @3522 w.voo2 52g wdflwoo .2288 26$ nofiou 2o 2.56.2 95m cwfiswmoo .2 2:926 r222 2.2.2.82 =2 3 5.2m . . . . . . .. 2 2W 2.32 2 2 2.2.22. .. .. .2.2o.2. m“ H 100a 0000. II 01.8000 Q->-H . $2 2.52% mm 2282.222 . .2122 wmflwoo .253 2o wwmzsm Q22 225:2 .8 2 22... 2 ... .. ... .. .. . .. mm 2x22 g 2.22.2 .22 .3222 222.22,? .2225 26mm noppoo 2:522 $.22 . @222 52o? 2.38 S 2 Q... wmmm . . .. . . .. w... 2.8m 3 Q2 .2 3m 26$ qoupoo 2o @3522 2.5mm ww>2wuw2 .2 2:926 .22 2.22.292 n2 m a us pmoo .253 2o @2525 $22.92....“ .. . . . . .. 2 N22 25$ S 2 Q22. .. . .2392. . . 21.2 2 .52? 2ASQABWAVQ 22.6% 622E 2.. 255E :2 Ea mmc; 2 2 2 O22 E. Q2 .>2 mfipmoo 222:2 26mm mofioo 2o 252522 2.2a 222$ mmflwoo 2.38. 2.. 2 3 22,2... Aw @522 .222 25$ mom-poo 2o @2555 Wm? 2.225222. .2 2225.222. .2 2.2.2.292 n2 2E 2 . .. . 3 2.2m S 2 we»: .22 21m 2% EASE... .. w £224.52. é 22.2w .2 2m m... m m... m m m m. m .... m. m... n a 1 .1 n .1 w. 1 um. .1 m m. m. 1 2.229% .222 2.2225229. 268 Qmwmw .m2%uafiww2.w pogbspwno 22% 22222034 wow. m.%. wmmw %% .0. AW mm. 1%. m. Wm WW m Wm _ s s épiwnw 222$ $2 229$ .222. was S25 .222 226.2% 289W 2% Ra 23b 28E 2892x2226 2E6 22525221.. 2 22 > 2.222252. Figure 4. No. 4:42. Undersize—No. 442—-Group VI. Tenth in yield of milk but eighth in profit. Tenth in yield of butter but fourth in profit. For records see Tables X. and XII. For measurements see Table XXV. DESCRIPTION. Undersized; plenty of nervous energy; good digestion; Well- formed Wedges and udder, but owing to her small size she is not able to manufacture enough food into milk and butter to make her a highly profitable cow. BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. $9.»... wfiaso .552 E $5.3 wflmfi a. 5.3.5 w S $.25... mnfiwoo 22 5:93am 5o $525 m. E3 mow. $5 sane? .5538 55am novsoo 5o 2.55m 95m wwaswnoo .5 Q5916 r>5 5.35am :5 awn...“ “.52.... 6G8 .6 @2525 5.22 E... 5 .8 5.3.5 555.5? $925 5555555M50m 5o @5555 advm 5.5:“ 6a. 5% sic? .558 wwwm mofioo 5o @5525 Qmwm 558539. .5 Qsobw .55 woiwm :5 23 a. 5.25? .562 3 $525 <22. 2 :28 a .6 .8455 @525 05.25 Essmpow 5o @5525 n55 55w dmdmw mfiuwoo 52.8 56$ nonrou 5o @5555 wdmm cwfiwomg .5 @5556 r5 woiwm a5 6w. ma pa. 565E, .563 5o £525 5.9.65 5o 53o; a .8 mwmfiw sic? dwamm 5o @5525 5. 5w wmscwo aw n98? .2555 55mm nofioo 5o @5555 93.... Sb. 2w 558.3% .235 woww nofioo 5o 2:525 Tmmm 535 ma? .5 55:36 r5 woimm :5 .5 wm @455. ms mfixz. hm g2 3 Nmwmawm .w5a.._o.5. ..-.. .-.$%..% -¢ n-aaa. ->.% @mlw% ¢-¢.-»-.@@% u. qn-uo. -¢-...-.@$ .-»-.-¢¢nn. m5 5 mm 3am E 5&2 om waw .5 ma. 2.. Q5» mo $Z....N2 5m 5.3.5 E. mmwwgwm .w5apc.5. 8N I735 5.8m . .. 1.5% 9w» >5 2; .. ...wm5 55.3% C. 5.12 .55 V? x ... .»»- -¢- 000000 mm 5 m... :8 5m 5.6.55 5m w? .5 w? 3 wamm w... %m.w....2 5 Q55 mm $23.5 $555505. 55 m . . . S 5 5.55% an 9Q. Q5 .- - --.@$ .1 at: 1on0.- R5. 11mm awmwmm ......$ M5955 3 ém5%w.@@~...... 5m .25 8 592w .5 m 1056 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 63% wcfimoo J53 Mo mwczom mm mwwwwfi an £3.25 . Qmfi? .235. mddvw 2w 513 Jfiwmw i“ 12:?» amfia Ho £325 $233 ma.“ . . . . . “mm. 5w 5.3? .215 woflwm cofioo “o Bison h?“ whwméuwfizuwoo iwwfi % . .. .. .. .. woww nofioo we $.55 3m cwfismsoo HE 20.50 >~ woiwm 2H mm ~ aw “dew um wdom S w.mm_ AH w: 3 Th9... mm. QmZ.@w_ 3 m? A ésfiw 52$ mfipfia 62¢ Ho meiam mag Ga 5 .5 m1... i“ i“ ~63?» dmwzw “o $5.0m mdmfi can w mm. 5 :95? _ izsn woow cofioo we wwqsom v42. mfiwmw mcSwoo Jami comm 1 . . . J . . . nouuoo “o wwcsom m6?“ wmfioowp A: 2:916 JD woiwm 2H E g2 $3 i a; Ev fi. gm Sm 2x35 m1 3 3N3. I. .98“ mm is .>H . m»: an :2 wm Twd f7. w» 9M5 AD 69$ i». wwfiflk» £03 “o QEEQQ mafia “a Hi 5 ~ an ma?” mm 7v? . ... .. aw ~52 .5. 58d .65“; @982 6min 8 $5.0m v.5: Eamwo. é 52E 3 H t. Q5 Q 205i: E 9E A fim i=2: cwww moppoo mo £55m m.mmw "wwdmw ufipwoo Awwi wwww uovfioo “o wccsoa wQwm cwflzwcoo AC Qsofiw r3 coiwm 5 3 Nfafizow QWQNE S M342. $130M. . .%..v% nuke? :53 Ho 2335a . “at: 2a 5 .5 xx; nice awazw Mo $5.5m w? Eaafiso 2. E H E H6? 3 mzomw é mam .>H n95? £25m wwwm sofioo wwcson wdum 5m; 5H0? £65 cwwm cm fi mm v52 Q fiafia . . .. ow v.2: AI coupon Mo 2:52 93$ Eaifiau AZ 52w .4 2.6m 5 8 m S #2:" 3. mag 8 ~ Qmfi .5 m.“ $3 omfiwmmm “a 5,22 am aria. A m3 m % m m m w m m w m w w. o i, m w. w. w. m w. u u. H. 602mm noaw E flaw... Wm W m&.m W aw 950mm Em nwfiswnoo coo“ m5 “o Qwoo Ufld Qwpowfimno was Anson?‘ M m . hm %%w s flm m wfi _ %P %n. . mam . ‘ éwsfignoulvowék is» 5 §9$ ER was 30D .$& zfiemw NSPW 2% .8 “$0 was gfiweaeab was wzzezfiwlhiUw wumfib EFFLQT 0F F001) ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1057 _ mess.” mssmoe .eeew S summmeem me memmmsswwm Nmmfim mm mmmmmm msses. we messes wémnm we e33 e se m Sew Mswsmee emezm we messes s memes ese 35% stea ..m:s: eeem sefiee we messes mmmw mm m. wm mmB mm came Z s QQEE eem .5 same s... eese? 5W5 we messes mmm wmwsee E 5.63 ieess eeem m... m E. mmmm E mmem E. mes: S. m? s5 sefiee we messes mmm ee>weees .>H ssesw :5 eewsem 5 me m w» sass‘ em _e.mm~. mm v.3. E mmm .5 mw s 5 mmev mm emmm .223. YZZA 3m sexes s... sees?» .eeew we messes mewwm 2e sw se mmmsmw asses dumswm we i Mswewssomoswwsmswws wwk awseemswfisswmwwswwemmemowmwwwm me mmmmmms mslm sEm mm smmzmmm we s mass. msses. eeem. sewwee we messes 5s eesssmsee Q: sseswrwsw eewsem sw E s mm wiwem Se odmm w. 9m? 3 9mm .>w .>w sms mm seem mm 82m E. v.5 em ems. s: dim sfioa a _ F. “Us: e was s... ems. e E s .eeew we messes edema we e38. e so mmwsw msswmee wemeswm we em w '3 H new em v e5 we w E. w www messes Wmsfi ese H? é "we eesee> .m:ss eeem sefiee we messes emmm wise mswsmee 52s we messes mems 1B sm sséa Aeess eeem sewsee we messes Vmmm ee>weees yrs sseswb r5 eewses sw mm mmsmmimm seems. we smmssm wmsmeese messes éviw usswmee .eeew we messes wsmms we 58 mm H f: em? mm mmsm Q. 93 ms Q3 .3 e se sass s... eesee> emmsm we messes msmes esimese m5 mm s 6 wmes. mm meem E eme mm ms; s: Lwmee msss eeem sefiee we messes meme wmmsm sears seems eeem F s E mmwm 5 TE; mm Qwwéw mm mam .2 sefiee we messes mmme eesssmssee .5 ssfie rs. eeses E 5 s es. emeém em ommmws mm ems}; A 2m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 69g i... v2.5.9.8 Ao mAEA-om wavfi AG E .5 52% wmfiwoo duamw Ao .2553 mdwAA A25... "om. 5 “E A6533 JAAEA woww mofioo Ao mwnsom wfimww Amfimw 5.3? AAWQAAA 95o Ac 25:3 mom mficwo E 5.5? A58 cumm s8. boo Ao wAEsoAA E. AEEQQQA .> @236 .AA coiwm AAA . 92% sic? A63 Ao 2559A mdAAw AA“ 5 .5 fiwAmw wsflwoo 3.2:. A0 wwcsom aéAAA A25 mafia” as main.» .225 A63 nofioo Ao mwmsom mdvw $.38 mv. Aw mnfiwou £22m FAoo A0 £525 wdAm 59% 8E0? .135 A63 mofioo Ao mwnsom v.AvA Aéfiswcoo .> nsobw AAA GOTAQM 2A . .32 é A651? A58 Ao EEEQA v.5: A? 5 .8 A95 mic? 5x22 Ao wAEsom wdAbA we“ J5EE vw Aw mafia.» .215 woww uofioo Ao mwmson Ammmm mwuqoo mm MmSwoo .188 98o Ao mcusom wdmA £92.” sic? .335 A63 mofioo Ac 3559A Adam wofioowk .> Q2930 .AA woEPA AA .2 é @539. ewa B mEEQQ mama; A? E S .3. 5. a... A53? §w2w Ao wwcsoa m. mg UAAAW Aficoo ww @5280 £55 A63 uofioo Ao @353 when AwwAw 5.6% Jami comm nofioo Ao mcusoa vzmmm wofismaoo r> Q5910 rA woiom nA 6022A neg 5 965 5m uoflsmnoo A63 3AA Ao Amoo Aim iwgowflmno Jason?» Ma m Qmwt m» A méa AwA W53 mm A Tifla . APA. Av a S. 9N5 5 3am . aw msfivm 9E .>A AA m m... Adnv S. aim 1:3 vhw mv v.5 AAA 2; mm. 35$. Av Qmmmli. 22mm 9E 3 A? AA A5 A E mzmmm mm ~.:S~....: 3 2a A.. iimvm vm A Aéfiwm; v.0? u. A wdamm A uéom is a. .> v: 5 vAvm w». mat“... 21$ 9% wA ova .>A AA. A S Afimm F. vAAwZI. zrmv o6» mm N? AAA Q A mv Q3” mm. @6312 Am wvv mv m3 AA SA vv 12a 2.“ @5523 3AA. A .. AA mm 5922 8 5:5... mm §_,.~...mA_A 5 émvt aASoF SA av mag 5 06E . 3 92. mA m}: .>A s. A mv 04mg on A32 . av vAm mm ma... .AAA Am A vv 52m om wdAAIZ mm £73 Av 9% .AA 2 $2. ofwhwm mm $52.3. $9M“. A A2. n. .1 w, Hm. .1 s .1 .1 m. I . 1 d 1...... m“ W. Wm m“ m. A. \ 1W’ . o... S9 Mb . B I9 N d0 Qqw _9 .l _9 mp _ MD. _ MD .0 m .. . Axzzfiunoo lweAkPw e23 5 AFEB éa. age 59D ARA 239w weerm 2AA .8 “web $.86 sfiwstzAD NE: EAAQEWIAAAP AAAAAFA. EFF PCT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. . e swweeenwwwzwéoow we 2555 wage é Q Newfii S. $2.25 3 wewsm em wewwew ewsoe ES w: 58>» e 2a 82.55 e3: E; wmwww . , . . . . .2; we; wé goes w. 25.5 i. we; es? Mm WW we MM Meme H we e we e .23 we 252E Nam .35.“. S eewoa Ema e2; =8 2 N é i? we ma; a. YE a Q5 .w.w leoe we wwemsenw mw. weefieeew .w> e55 .>w weewwenw ew we w F meme we eeew we new .w 2.5mm 4.3% e558 6C2 we 2:53 3&8 we weeee e we .me.w@ 5.5? ewewwe we wwewwzen mewow wece 23% Ewe? .225 weeew eeeeoe we mweeeeww owe mew. we "we weer?» “Bee we wweeeeww eéom wmiwe neweB JGOE weeem zeeeee we em m waofi www meme 8 m 2am E. w meme .223. wwéeee N52 eeawanoe .w> eize www wszenw 5 . we m we we? Q 92w 3 :2 em QR .>w eeee w> we m we we? we was me Q3 . .5 9% www e526 600w we wemseww wwwew we weeew e we wwbwe we w B fiwwm we emmm: we wnfi Hww Ewe? dmewwe we £555 eewew wee.» wmeeee we Mcwewee S. w ee m owe we e e3 me v we w eoe fiwweww weeem eefiee we $525 meee wmmwe we wees?» ieee we @325 eemw "ewtwe wwewe? 43E weeem eeeeee . . e e wSeww e. om weeieeew .w> @526 .ww weowwenw ew w w. w_ e me w oéeew em w meme 5 w edew Q w weew 559w. .23 w. we weeswe> .38 we mweeeeww oeeew wwe E we 52w e5 ee w 3 e2“ ee eaew. me ea... mw Q3 .>w -58 swim 2:53 ~35 5E8 we Ewe? .225 weeem we w Q N55 2.. edew 2. wioe em eee www eefiee wwEEa eeme 15$ 5.8? e88 8% eeeeee me w Q Z5 em Q2; 2.. egm .213. mam .2 we @325 meme eeaefioo .5 maze .w weewwenw 5 ee w 5 eéwwm em eemw . i. ewe .w zrfie 1060 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. THE FOOD CONSTITUENTS GONSUMED. Table VIII. shows the amount, character, and cost of the food eaten per cow and group in each period. It will be noted that the cost of the food was less for all groups except I. in the First Period than at any other time. As might be expected, great variations in the cost of keeping different cows are apparent. For example, 442 consumed food worth $1.06, while the cost of keeping 220 was $1.79, a difference of 73 cents in favor of 442. These two cows represent the extremes in weight and cost of keep in Period I. 220 weighed a little over twice as much as 442, but it is evident that the c.ost of feeding 442 was not in proportion to her weight when compared with 220. As a rule, small cows eat more con- sidering their size than large cows. The cheapest fed group in Period I. was II., charged up with $3.84, while Group IV. proved the most expen- sive, with $4.45 standing against it. In Period II. the value of the food consumed was much greater than in Period I. The least and most expensive cows to feed were 691 and 220, receiving food valued at $1.31 and $2.43 respectively, the difference in cost of keep between these “extremes” being in this instance $1.12. The food consumed by Group.I. cost $4.45; by Group II., $6.00. These were the least and most expensive groups fed in Period II. In Period III. the minimum cost of keeping a single cow was $1.25, and the maximum $2.58, while Group I. with $4.16 and Group IV. with $6.22 charged against them were respectively the cheapest and dearest groups to feed in this Period. In Period IV. 317 proved herself the easiest kept cow, consuming food valued at $1.18, and 220 again proved the most expensive, eating mate- rials worth $2.83. Group IV., with a total food cost of $6.63 for the Period was the most expensive, and Group I., with $3.85, the least ex- pensive. After a careful consideration of this table, it is very certain that the cost of keeping an individual animal or a group of animals largely de- pends on amount, character, and combination of the substances used as food. For instance, the cost of the food consumed by 220 varied from a minimum of $1.79 to a maximum of $2.83 between the first and fourth experimental periods. Likewise the cost of maintaining the different groups ran from $3.84 on the one hand, to $6.63 on the other. Of course the several individuals can not be fed singly or in groups on one food material at the same cost at all times, much less on a variety of foods (provided the market price of that particular food remain stationary). Larger quantities of food will be eaten during the earlier stages of lac- tation, and the cost will fluctuate accordingly; but the question of cost must be carefully scrutinized at all times to prevent a useless waste of money and a misdirection of animalenergy. If a cow can be fed for fourteen days on a ration costing $1.79 and yield as freely as one costing $2.83, the differences in the profits obtained from the two rations is ob- vious; but if the ration costing $2.83 be one better suited to the needs and appetite of the cow, and will produce enough more milk and butter to excel the difference in cost between it and the cheaper ration and leave a greater profit than the latter, then it should be fed and the TABLE IEL-Suamnary 0] Food Ingredients Consumed During Experinzevztal Period. . . ' "‘ "1 s4. ‘H ‘s; w‘? v . .5 , Us 1': I ‘ 559' 389. Z83 é 3i w‘ g _.,; $1 "c: _ ER 5E1‘ $85138 @332‘; ~58 'l‘ot11.l pounds of food 00111311111011 by 011011 m, _ wra £3 mg a mg E2 5g g g3 “MT ° 1mm, g1‘- group 1n the expcrlmentnl pcrlod. 11nd the 1s n. Q °” I 50-1 | Q s 5-—~ ”'—' °> >4 o ‘l’ 1:1 121.5 c115 °"-- cost of the same. 1» g o5 g q on f0 g n-(QJQ - Zfq>~q ‘,- guwg 5": 5 3E s. 3 i? 3 3 s $95 3 355g’ 3 385g 35 H r5 o n11 o o o m o 2E 1:. o o M” o 91”“ 111g ‘ H i O W7 6 i; _ _ Q g W (i g o _) 7_ _ Q7 (11-01/111 I. Cums-11111m1 211 L858 ' ' ' ' " l")- ' ' ' ' " 1.4116 428." $1 ‘I’ 1351' '"' 35f’ .3 Z- b 1218.3 pounds of mtton seed 1110111; 040 I. 410.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1210.1 . . . . .. 33.1.7 416.0 312 1048.8 2 (12 .1 14 4 3,.“ 5 l‘ f _ Lt \ H H _ I 191. 373.5 . . . . . . . . . .. 1101.3 .... .. 301.3 373.5 2 s0 1403.1 2 3s 10 1 9g}, ('1pléffflflfo?Qiflwtf“f$§1t3§l‘.;“;.‘,"“ l s l l l. h 1n ’ 1 I u‘ I | , I I 1.11-1.11,» (III. 61011311111011 377.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 179.81058.3 299.8 377.9 2 83 1537.9 4 99 7 S2 l5 1029.7 pounds 0f cotton seed 1110111; 438 II. 367.6 . . . . . . . . . . . 179.71023.7 301.3 367.6 2 76 1504.7 4 85 7 61 14 511.6 pounds 0f cotton seed 1111113: 6:1‘ t. 4.‘ . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.1.1 66. *5 .) 28 .2 14 116 .1 3 l 5 85 5 .1 11.6 1011111 s 0 sorv 111111 111v 11111 '3 >82 2 7 6 201 ‘4 2 8" 7 " 288'] 1f b1 l_, 1 851.1 pOlllldS of silage. (‘ost 1521.28. : Groujffldf.‘ Oognrfinyerl I A 405 401.6 . . . . . . . . .. 912.0 . . . . .. 1657.7 401.6 3 01 2569.7 4 09 7 10 11 s 1184.2 pounds 0f cotton seed 1110111; 356.... III. 369.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 821.6 . . . . .. 1475.0 369.3 2 77 2296.6 3 64 6 41 8 1 2641.5 pounds 0f cotton seed 1111113, Gracie. 413.3 907.9 . . . . .. 1688.3 413.3 3 10 2596.2 4 l2 7 22 12 1 and 4821.0 pounds of silage. (‘ost l ‘ I 51520.72}. Group IV. 05115111115715” d.“ 210 210 0210.9 772.9 . . . . .. 1493.1 420.9 3 14 2266.0 3 60 6 74 9 732.1 pounds of cotton seed meal; 182.. .. 1V. 222.3 222.5 . . . . . . . . .. 814.1 . . . . .. 1358.9 444.8 3 36 2173.0 3 46 6 82 10 745.0 p011nds 0f bran; 2745.8 pounds 220 299.8 312.2 . . . . . . . . .. 1158.8 . . . . .. 2009.8 612.0 4 59 3168.6 5 04 9 63 18 l 0f cotton seed l1111ls,and ~1861.0p011nds of silage. Cost 3523.19. Group V. Consumed d‘ 691.. . 174.9 .. 173.3 lxail 590.7 . . . . .. 1216.6 348.2 2 53 1807.3 2 85 5 38 2 641.9 poundsof ‘cotton seed mea1;651 .6 115 . . V. 207.2 .. .. 210.8 .. . .. 790.4 . . . . .. 1295.1 418.0 3 02 2685.5 3 32 6 3-1 7 pounds of cor11 meal: 2367.3 pounds of 347.. .. 259.8 . 267.5 .. .. 986.2 . . . . .. 1783.5 527.3 3 82 2769.7 4 41 8 23 17 cotton seed 11111ls. 31111429532 pounds of silage. Cost 35.9.95. 442.... 163.1 . . . . .. 1521.6 699.3 . . . . .. 1084.0 315.7 2 59 1781.3 2 86 5 45 3 Group VI. Consumed 406.... VI. 233.2 . . . . . . . . .. 228.3 850.3 . . . . .. 1502.8 461.5 3 80 2353.1 3 74 7 54 13 >__ ,_ _ 323 201.7 . . . . . . . . .. 251.3 900.3 .... .. 1012.3 513.0 4 22 2513.1 3 99 s 21 10 1198-0 pounds 0f cottonseed 11199119311 . - pounds of oats; 2449.9 pounds of cot- ? ton seedphulls, and 4199.6 pounds of Totals 5404.2 745.0 051.0 032.2 14300.0 2343.0 20009.3 7493.09.50 s2 3115351100 42 3123 24 811a“- “S” $211“ BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. other discarded. The question of productive capacity and profit secured from the ration fed does not receive the attention its importance merits, and the value of the facts shown in this table can only be appre-ciated by those who study it thoroughly. In conclusion, the cost of keeping a cow depends on her inherent tendencies-the temperament, etc.—and the disposition she makes of her food. The cow eating the most or making the most milk and butter is not always the cheapest or best cow. In reviewing Table IX, 220 is seen to have been the most expensive cow to “keep.” She consumed 299.8 pounds of cotton seed meal, 312.2 pounds of bran, 1158.8 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 2009.8 pounds of silage, in all valued at $9.63. The cow next dearest to “keep” was 347, who received 259.8 pounds of cotton seed meal, 267.5 pounds of corn meal, 986.2 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 1783.5 pounds of silage, in all worth $8.23. The cow costing least to “keep” was 191, of Group I. She ate 373.5 pounds of cotton seed meal, 1101.8 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 301.3 pounds of corn silage, valued. at $5.18. She was followed closely by691 and 442, with a food cost of $5.38 and $5.45 respectively. Interesting comparisons may be drawn from the cost of feeding cows in the same Group. Tlhe data following will serve for illustration: Coarse fod- Cost of Mellblsallten’ derafsten’ food. s91 g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 343.2 1307.3 35 3s Gm” V" 347} ............................. .. 527.3 2769.7 s 23 442 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 315.7 1133.3 5.45 Gmupvl 323i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 513.0 2513.1 3.21 According to the rating, as to cost of keep, 691 and 442 stood 2 and 3,. while 347 -and 323 stood 16 and 17. Irrespective of the much smaller amounts of meal and coarse fodders eaten by the two former cows, as compared with the latter, a balance of $2.85 and $2.76 is found in favor of 691 and 442. Now, the question arises as to whether 347 and 323 so far excelled their rivals in production as to justify the extra cost of feeding them, and it is only by comparisons of this nature that we can determine the relative value of our dairy cows. A consideration of the relation existing between the consumption of me-als and coarse fodders will be of interest lat this point. Ratio of _ Total meal Lbs. Total coarse Lbs eaten meal to ofligw ezlmggirl, Cost. peéalitggy‘ foodlsbgaten, Cost. per day cpcagge eaten. 220... 612.0 $4 59 10.9 3168.0 $5 04 56.6 . 1:5.2 347... 527.3 3 82 9.4 2769.7 4 41 49.5 1 5.3 356... 369.3 2 77 6.6 2296.6 3 64, 41.0 1 6.2 653... 284.2 2 14 5.6 1168.7 3 71 20.8 14.2 442... 315.17 2 59 5.6 1783.3 . 2 86 31.8 1:5.7 438... 367.6 2 76 6.6 1504.7 4 85 26.9 1.4.1 1062 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. No apparent ratio existed between the meal and coarse food eaten. Each individual seems to have been a law unto herself. As an average of the entire experimental period of 56 days, 220 is seen to have disposed of 10.9 pounds of meal and 56.6 pounds of “roughage,” or a ratio of 1 pound of meal to 5.2 pounds of coarse materials. On the other "hand, 356, con- suming 6.6 pounds of meal and 41 pounds of “roughage,” shows a ratio of 1 pound of meal to 6.2 pounds of coarser substances. In the case of 442, the ratio narrows down to 124.2, and with 438, to 1:4.1. A summary of the cost and amounts of the food constituents eaten by ea ch Group, is attached to this table. Group I. was the che-apest fed dur- ing the experiment, with a total cost of $16.89. Groups V., III., VI., II., and IV. costing $19.95, $20.73, $21.20, $21.28, and $23.19, following in the order named. The amount and character of the substances constitut- ing the food of each Group can be readily ascertained by reference to the table. The differences in cost of food consumed between—- Groups I. and V. was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353 06 Groups I. and III. was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 84 Groups I. and VI. was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 31 Groups I. and II. was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 39 Groups I. and IV. was . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 30 MILK PRODUCTION. The principal data relating to milk production is included in Table X. The value attached to the milk is 2% cents per pound. To some the value given may appear too high, but as it is the actual price obtained for the milk, we do not think the use improper on this occasion. The cost of delivery was insignificant. In Period I. the largest yield of milk was made by 220, with 469.65 pounds. The cost was $1.79, and the net profit derived $9.95. B. stood lowest in milk yield, with 213.25 pounds t-o her credit. It cost $1.36 to produce, and ‘the net pro-fit was $3.97. The easiest kept cow was 442. She made 242.95 pounds of milk, costing $1.06, and leaving a ne-t profit of ‘$5.01. Thus it appears that 220 produced more milk, and made a greater profit than B. and 442 combined. In Period II., 220 produced the most milk, namely, 498.75 pounds; the -cost was $2.43, and the profit secured $10.04. The lowest yield was made by 595, with 212 pounds, costing $1.51, and leaving -a margin of $3.79 as profit. The cheapest fed cow was 691. She made 274.55 pounds of milk, costing $1.31, and leaving a profit of $5.55. In Period III., 220 led again in miLk yield. She gave 518.33 pounds, at a cost of $2.58, and the profit secured was $10.38. 595 again brought up the rear, with 201.75 pounds of milk, costing $1.42, and yielding a profit of $3.62. 191 cost least for food, namely, $1.25; she yielded 241.50 pounds of milk, and the profit remaining was $4.79. In Period IV., 220 maintained her record as an economical milk manu- facturer. She made in this period 519.45 pounds of milk, art an outlay of $2.83, and the profit derived was $10.16. B. stood at the foot of the ladder. Her record was 234.30 pounds of milk, costing $2.11, and leav- i l- 71.s 1 ' Tutu Z dag,‘ ?. % udrifz tiorzs éahvgen MUM 5'0"‘,- fn Me fatal /~M\/\/{]¢Wl¢(#fmllf/" A H ’ ' _ A I fiétjleids Jmvrnn5u/\/ hi“, y‘! ‘(dsfpam d“! f.“ k _ A.‘ n ' fWflm [Xcowm .» - - ~ dud 71- Af$ 131g‘: ' dd / a ' » Wkyamdfi tmwwwxrd the left. TABLE IL-Milk Produced, 00st of Food, and Value Derivedfrom 1177716111166‘ ULLLLLLLL 16-106 L6EL~L0~LLLL6L +6616‘ .PLL§-:LL6LLLLLLL6L. ' ' .. --~ ... 2 ‘ '2 .9 .9 6 ~ 1' ..... .61 <61 6L 6.9 " ... b s ' ‘L’ 9* ‘ ‘.9 9L1 L“ . ‘a 5 56 s j . 9 f5 5 g6 s m s '66 6 6 6 69 559 g??? ass 5'6 6 6 9L 3 u; s s" .. '5 s2 .27 s s .. '6 s9 .9 '- =6 19L s1 .9 9 1'61 '69 . U 8.2 Ls 4s . L» a; 8s L L». .735 s ss “L? 61 s == 32 Q =~\ =~ s o ‘=6 4 I. s L4 6 LL 1 =6 L~=L ism" 0.6 s96 L “f”: 6 s. w “s” 6w 1°“ l a QB Q a9) rd + Q b‘ o a CQ ‘w $11k“ Q LE‘ 7.761 r41 ,.. TU- m .6111,“ LUL ‘m Q Q 5D t: ‘J ‘ +3 L4 O 9:6 Q4 p, a d.) L4 M g 60.1.1100; fed. ps0: L000 pounds live weight per day. ’- '3 |_ ‘H ,_. g _ ¢,__-, EU ‘H ._~. g6; 6V1 ‘$3.6 ‘H 1 L... Q1 U1 1.91:6. m; ""12 ' .6; ‘law =-+ ‘gm c, "m Lg L: 9 x 6.2 33m :11 33 m 3g "a g“ L: Q m-L _ w cs ;_,1-4 F-w-L 60¢ _ 4-1 c3 HM M“ 00¢, _ 4-» 62L Lbs-LL fl-LL-L 106mm. ,,. i “f1 0.1L» 1:." 3 m H s-L ‘M... w Lin?‘ "5 fi 51> F" o Q’ S ‘M L's. L“ a Lg. m] _ ‘ W; 9w: “SP0 QC, £3 ‘Hrs “w: ST.‘ “Sr: OT, ,5 ""4: “Pd L59 76% ‘Ujwwtg; '*""-L~.:LL @075] ;L'~;5;;"L=7.i $631.16 l3 9E 0g 6 Rags Dun m, E 60g. Q E u) or: g 6.066 i? 9‘ .9 ‘E s"? 4-1 g ‘é 82 6-5 2% m ‘i. 2%’ 6 62L 6-5 9'6 L... “d. 1... s 6 169111 6L ,,L.»¢L:1 1.» 6L 191617.‘ L600 ‘i-IL i": s E E'- El I? “sh? .2 "as .. 5.3; "s 5.9 6 8'33 6 E .9161 g g; g gs gss gs. g2 §s gs gas gs 6s +1 l; gas sass. gs g gss 53.4 sss 6 1' If . L ' LL I L l 7H1 I ‘ L '1? ' v’ L -~_--- <----—---L-— ---—--— ' ' """""""" "‘ 1 617 . l 7111s. 11.8.6111» :1 16 lbs. 0.8.1110. 28 lbs. . . . . . . . .. 1:4.5 308 7n $1 54 3S7 72 S156 18 318 70 9 9'3 $1 56 $7 97 $6 41 324.60 + 5 90 $1 ‘.96 l2 66L I6L9L9L.LLZLLLTL' + 16.96.51.111 flllil 161161 16661 1261.115 $5 976F113» 03 515136 06 (i 730.20 5164 43 3N9 50116 111L171 ‘ilfllfl . ll .1 l0 lbs. {LS 66.; 2-0 lbs.~C.S.H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:13.12 233.35 1 62 5 83 4 £1 212 00 ~21 35 1 51 5 30 .5 79 201.75 ---1() .25 1 ~42 6 L661 LL66 16111116066161 LL i219 6L ILLLLLLL L917 L664 .60 5L 76 L64 16 80 l7 71:30.20 4 45 l9 01‘ l4 66L; 6752111. l9]. .l l1. 8 lbs. 13.8.66; 26 lbs. 01.8.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:407 238.10 1.37 5.9.3 4 58 229 50 — 8.60 1 38 5 74 4 36 241.50 +1200 1 126 LZLL-LL 6 79L :216L6L...6Lll: 9L .66L lL 116i 6 6L6 6L '61:» 9691.60 5» l6 '26 99- 118 81 14 767.85 4 l6 l9 20 l6 04 I. ‘L? - ltlS. LUJZLDFI. a C.S.H - . | ' - . . . . . . . . . . - . - - - - - o - 1 ¢ - . ¢ - - . Q n a Q - . ~ ¢ o n - - ¢ a a c . . . . - ¢ - - . Q - ¢ - - Q - . . Q Q q ¢ q q q a u u g q Q o o | » o Q a . ¢ Q ¢ . . - . . . Q . . q u. m n m .1 m w m m LuL ‘IL Lm Lm IIL L» L L» w w ~. --L LIL -- Lw w» L» m 1w w WW LIL LIL IILL L» LwLLuL w LIL ML b ‘MILIILLIILLIIILLIHHIIL 1w w L- n n c ~ u 0 I I I LIL u u I IL w w u IL I I "IL ~ ~ v - ~00 3 WU ‘fill l 31702.25 10 s9 77 s0 LLLL L67‘ 17". i L ‘ 1 L 1 L ll i 7 lbs. LU...S.lLL[.; l6 lbs. 0.811.; 28 lbs. . . . . . . .. 1:45 213.25 L 36 5 3.1 3 97 255 95 +42 70 2 27 6 4O 4 13 240.70 --15.25 L06 6 60L 6L 6'41 S2L9L6ML9LL6L -—~ L606LLLLLL 12 LLLlL .6» 6L6 11L 944.20 7 62‘ 261 6l l6 79 1.8 809 .15 3 8-1 20 26 1L6 99 l l6 4:18 I] .7 .ll. 1L0 lbs 13.5. L; 2L1 lbs. S.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151.81 288.2?» 1 33 7 2L 5 88 2304.20 +1595 2 14 7 G0 5 46 328.90 +217 0 2 09 61 6 ‘LL16; + ‘M‘...'lll'iili7LL; 6: I66» -'L i616 L6 ‘l249.60 7 6L 6L1 24 26 66 7 8L4.u0lL 6 00L 20 96 14 .96 666 ll l". 8 lbls. 0.866-; 3L0 lbs. SH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:5.5L 307.05 1 l") 7 69 6 54 253 85 —53 8O 1 59 6 35 4.76 266.90 +1305 l 69 6 6 L661 ‘l6 »—-LIlILf.‘6..6L6L lL 6121 6 I6LLLL 113162.60 6 86 27 0L6 521 2L ll 81~LL~L6LL 5 76 20 91 1L6 l6 277 ‘LL’. 6 lbs. -0.8.ll.; 3-0 lbs. 8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:15.64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , . _ . . . . . _ . . . , . . . , , , _ , _ , .1 .. ,. . 1.. .1, .1 ,. .1 .1 .... __ 1915,1515 5 0s 20 4L, 7s + L 3270 1L0. 21 2s 01 L900 L00 “lllj P L ‘ l ‘ 405 l. 7 lbs. 10.5.1111; l61bs. C.S.H.; 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . lz-Iffi 387 50 1 43 9 6‘) 8 26 398.75 11.25 2 00 9 97 7 97 449.95 +5920 l i911 ll 19L 4- 7..6LLLQLLL l. WM lLlL L66‘ 9L ‘.2116 111719.55 7 1L0 41 97 67 9 L 980.160 4 27 124 67L 20 24 4L 3.576 1.1;]. ll. L0 lbs. 1118661.; l6 lbs. (J.S.H.: 33 lbs. S. . . . . . . . . . .. 1:375 238.90 1 36 5 97 4 6L 239.25 + 0.35 +1 73 5 9.‘ 4 25 248.85 + 9.60 1 69L 6 22L 16.2216 0L L619L 6L LL16 994.0111 6 4L 24- 67 l9 L16» l6 9186.00 5 L66 2.4L 66 l9 06 4+ 9 Gracie. Jlll. 6 lbs. 88.91.; l8 lbs. C.S.H.; 35 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:466 354.10 1 48 8 85 7 37 348.00 —- 6 10 1 93 8 7O 6 77 370.75 +2275 1 91 9 27 l-lL6¢7..L6LLILlLL -—< 1L 9L6 9 166a 19:6 11.41.919.86 7 22 916 66 .218 76 5 TLLLLLL9L6EL» 6 5L 26 7L4 2L '24 2+ 2L ‘Hr L- U 1b..‘ ‘I hi: ; C.S.H. ; S . Q Q u Q Q . - Q - ¢ - q . I .78 . - ¢ - > - . . Q u o u - e u o o ~ . Q Q Q n - . Q o - . - - - u o n ~ u Q - u Q o Q o | ¢ Q Q 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 Q 0 ~ - a o - n o - - u o o \ 0 v c u I I IL I LIL -L w Ln Ln- m m w Ln Lm LIL m1 u ‘IL Lm m L». -~L LIL m L» ~- m IIL IIL m w» IIL ‘w mLlL um Ill! IIL w 0.6L IILL m» ‘IIL w‘ IIL LILL LIIL LIL Lm - ~-L Ln» LIL Lw w I m m1! m Lu Ln‘ I ‘w Ll I =I IL w .- Lm LIL ‘II u» m - 5 6&0 m 1 4112.90 >10 791L012 sL s0 ll. l L A l l‘ _ ' ; + 2170 I 7 Ilbs... LUKSJLLLL; l6 lbs. O.S.H.; 28 lbs. S . . . . . .. .. 1:4 5 229.55 1 3L 5 74 4 41L 224.40 -- 5.15 1 71' 5 61 3 90 223.25 —- 1.15 1 89 6L6 91 121291.91 -+~.Ll.6L..LLlII6L lL 66L .616 6L 6L1 1L .66 614741 2121 7'7 L6 01211 l6 966.116 4 44 24 26 l9 7'6 7 16.2. ll’. ll 6 lbs. (l 8.611.; 4 lbs. 1%.; l6 lbs. G.S.H.; 33 lbs. S... 1:503 268.9?» 1 34 6 72 5 88 261.03 — 7.90 1 76 6 53 4 77 310.30 +4925 1 8L 7 176 1961 9166 ---~-:-LL6L..9LLTL= l. 16-1112 6 L621 111610110 6 62 64L? 20 7'2 l2» 198-1 .20 90 L6Ll 1.6 41111 122111 ll ll 4 lbs. 08.66.; 6 lbs. B ; L8 lbs. (J.S.H.; 35 lbs. S... 1:6.6.'l 469.67» 1 79 ll 74 9 95 498.75 +28.10 2 43 12 47 10 04 518.33 +19.58 2 58 l2 96L 116 +7 2L 6L6; 1L6 ILLLLLL 916111154118 9 166i 60L 16L ~16 62 1 16611.89 6 22 26 66 '26 L116 l; 7 11L s lbs... 0.561;, s lbs. 13.; 18lbs. c. 5.11.; s5 lbs. s.. v8.90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. .1. 1. 1.... . 1. 11114.66 0 6L 2.5.617 116774 LlyLLLLL l ' lLLLsss. 2s l9 L00 ls 77 iLiLLLYg. L . + +1 j : ; L691 f l. 7 lbs. .; l6 lbs. 01.8.11: 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:4.5 246.35 1 09 6 1h 5 0» 274.5?» +2920 1 31 6' 86 5 65 317 7L +43 16 1 4L7 7 6 29L7§66L ----L66L..4LLLLL l. 6J1 16161 6L l.'l66.6LLLq 6 616 41L? '29 6L2 9 9617 .1116 9i 921 1L6 1L6 26L 9116: 11.1 l“. Ill.‘ 6L lbs. 11.16.91. 1; 4 lbs. 13.61.; 16 lbs. (3.S.H.:, 33 lbs. S. 1:576 276.10 1 2T 6 9H 5 61L 275.25 --~ 0.85 1 62 6 88 5'» 26 319 80 +4465 1 71 7 199 6 2L6 JLLLLLLLTLLJFLLLLL ~-- l. 74L 7 L619 I6 l1li6I6L..~L~6 6 614 66 .2112 6 9LL6QILLFLL. 62 6L6 l7 66 61117 fllll. 4 lbs LU .8164. ; 6 lbs. LIlL/L; 18 lbs. (LSlL; 35 lbs. S.. 1:8.L4 364.60 1 56 9 12 7 56 365 55 + 0.85 2 09 9 14 7 05 402.25 +361’ 2 l7. l6 6L6 -—L 616-6 Lllfl 166 .641 'l.6=6L6L..'66* 6 72.91 2L6»; S901 L16 4 11-6319 '26 9L9. 11.6 6.1L. 1L 9i 11L"). ‘all lTbs. 8 lbs. 6.61.; l8 lbs. O.S.H.; 35 lbs. S .. 1:11 .7 . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .1 .1. . ... .. .1. .... . . .... 1.. ... 1... . 111116.951» 6 L66 216 l9 61L '2; 6 7 i L 11166111 l L L 0 0s LJLLL" . ‘ L LL 1 L " f 1 1 g L 44-2 A l. 1 7 lbs. :; l lbs. (15.11; 28 lbs. S... 114.5 242.95 l 06 6 07 5 0L 280.05 +£77.10 1 355 7 00 6 65 293.80 +1375 l 36 7 64L 6 9L6 121.191.6116 1+ 6L l. L611 7 916 11116 6L 4L6 '27 7.‘ 2121 621 L0 L677.2LLLL 4 6L0 ‘Llll 16167 l7 ll 4766 Vll .1} ll. 6L lbs. lbs. 01.; l6 lbs. (7.8 H.; 33 lbs. S. . .. 1:565 376.00 1 47 9 40 7 99 441.55 +£56.66 1 64 ll 04 9 20 463.81 +2226 2 [ll 11L 66L --~ 161L111 91 ll '9! 'lfi7'~il;6L.. ll 7 491 L66 196 1017' 1. ~66 6 LLILLLL 2L6 2: 6 .6129 l l] l .1; 4 lbs. lbs... 0.; l8 lbs. C.S.H.: 35 lbs. S. . . 1:768 258.25 1 47 6 46 4.99 296.05 +3760 2 13:1 7 40 0 27 979.66 M2390 2 22 6 6-2 4 66 f2162066 9L.L6_6L ill. .9116 7 LLlLLLLLL 6 L67 1111.619: 6L 12L 74 l9 6L6 l6 L ‘10161111416 6L 216 7L6 66L LL6- LQL 6L ll-KL 1216s. 'U.L8..ilLl.; 61101601.; l8 lbs. C.S.H.; 35 lbs. S.. .. 1:996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .1... L .... ... .. 1 .1. . A 'lll'."vl-lL-.'lll; 6 27 6-6 1L6 61. 6i 6 V L ‘L 1 ..LL LL l. 00L. LLLL 6L1 LLL TABLE X.—Mz'llc Produced, Cost of Food, and Value Derived from Milk per 00w and Group psr Period. W =1 - '0 -- == 3 - '0 .2 .2 3- ' '0 .2 .2 3 - '0 3 "92 -... ""13 4 0 a- ~ 9 . 5 51% 3. . ‘if; 5 313 3 .641 '35. 0 3;‘; 3 W; '0‘ 5» 5143 .3 55 35% a? $53 3;; g 8 .91 s4 0 3: .4 '3 03 .2 1_ 0 .3 s '3‘ 05’ 11.‘.- s .3. 4 ‘é 02 .2 - 0 3s "é ‘E2- 082 39s 3.6 E31 011°?» 32.9 w; s 1Q 4a Q Q ---4\ -—l Q .,..-1\ I Q .,_;.4\ > Q .,..1-1 49f!) Q L4 I|—i'QN Q4 3 w OOQ-I .,.. 3.; - 0 . . . =0 “H 9 as’ 5| .011 o a" 314 Pi 9 a" 5- é‘ '- .594 <> 0°“ s- “02 9W a’; ‘=3 9 “s.” 03 0% -s s g Rauonfedper10O0poundsl1vewe1ght7perday. f; "g1; ‘H ‘Hg g?‘ 2a 55g =~ ‘Hg a: are; 2-1 Mg SE 2E a?) 2-1 “,3 a: ‘H32 wag fig g $3.3 @851 “if: a? "55, s 1; ‘as Z22 :0 “is “as 33.4 :0 “*0 00 <10 .133 :0 “is s0 “as Zss ifs 20s s03 Z333 :12 2 E02 s 22.5% s; . s0 s s. '0 S s? E32 "50 is 02 ‘i? 33$ 23$ 02 ‘s? £31? ‘$0 02 ‘s? 53$ 5s 3303301. 013 "~33 055 00; 33% “E85 '0'? m i a.‘ Z 2Q 8U) >'UQ4 mg! 294 qn-G CODE/J >UQ4 D-‘Qa 2Q! Qnd COJCIJ >UQ1 mp4 2Q Qw-a DU) >UQ4 Q-‘Qa EQQI. OM49 >'UQ4 90-1 m EQ-HH BQIH‘ >'U+J 0401-149 -D‘:€U 317 1. 710s. 0.0.111; 1010s. 0.011.; 2010s. s ............ .. 1=4.3 300.711 111 .14 117 72 011 1s 310 70 + 9.91 111 30 s7 97 110 41 324 110 3 90 111 49 0s 12 00 01 329 00 + 4 40 111 30 111 23 00 s3 1201.03 113 97111212 113111-20 00 11 7011.211 114 4131119 3111113 07 21s 343 1. 11. 1010s. 0.0 M.; ~20 1031.00.11. .................... .. 1;3.12 233.33 1 02 3 s3 4 :11 212.1111 +2133 1 :11 3 10 3 79 201.73 -10.23 1 42 3 04 3 112 214 30 +12.73 1 29 1 :10 7 001.00 3 74 21 34 13 00 17 700.20 4 43 19 01 14 30 421 191 111. 010s. 0.0.111; 2310s. 0.0.11 ....................... .. 1;4.07 230.10 1.37 3.9:. 4 3s 229 30 - 0 00 1 30 3 74 4 30 241.30 +12.00 1 23 0 04 4 79 230.311 + 9.00 1 10 0 20 3 0s 939.00 3 1s 2:1 99 10 01 14 707.03 4 10 19 20 13 04 319 1v. 61bs. 0.0.111; 2310s. 0.0.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1;3.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........................ .. 794.00 3 03 19 03 10 00 110 7 3102.23 10 s9 77 30 00 07 V 11 1. 7 ]bs. 0.0.11; 10 10s. 0.011.; 2010s. ...... .. 1;4.3 213.23 1 :10 3 31 3 97 233 91 +42 711 2 27 0 40 413 240 70 -13 2-1 2 0s 0 02 3 94 234 30 - 0 40 211 3 00 3 73 944.20 7 s~2 23 01 13 79 10 009.13 3 04 20 2:1 10 39 113 4.10 11. 11. 1010s (..‘S.M.; 211103011 ........................ .. 131.01 200.21 1 31 7 21 3 00 304 20 +13 93 2 14 7 011 3 40 32s 911 +24 70 2 09 s 22 0 11 32s 23 + 0 01 2 03 0 20 0 13 1249.011 7 01 31 24 23 0:1 7 014.011 0 00 20 33 14 33 422 000 111. s 10s. 00.14.; 3010s. 0.11 ........................ .. 113.31 307.113 1 13 7 09 0 34 233 s3 -33 s0 1 39 0 3.1 4 70 200 90 +13 03 1 39 0 07 3 0s 234 10 -1~2 so 1 32 0 33 4 03 1002.30 3 s3 ~27 00 21 21 11 0311.311 3 70 20 91 13 13 217 1v. 61b0.0.b‘.M.; 3010s. ........................ .. 1;0.04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... .. 010.03 3 00 ~20 41 14 73 320 3270 30 21 ~20 01 90 00 02 v1 403 1. 710s. 0.0.11.1 1010s. 00.11.; 20 lbs. 0 ........... .. 1=4j3 :107 311 1 43 9 09 0 20 390 73 +11 23 2 00 9 91 7 97 449 91 +3920 1 90 11 23 9 33 442.33 - 7.00 1 77 11 00 9 29 11170.33 7 111 41 7 34 07 3 900.30 4 27 24 31 20 24 3 4 330 111. 11. 10 lbs. 11.02111; 10 lbs. 0.011.133 lbs. 0‘. ......... .. 133.73 2:10.911 1 30 3 97 4 01 2:19.23 + 0 33 1 73 3 9s 4 23 240 01 + 9.00 1 09 0 22 4 33 207.30 +1003 1 0:1 0 09 3 00 994.311 0 41 24 s7 1s 40 13 9011.011 3 00 24 00 19 00 4 9 013010. 111. 010s. 0.0.M.; 1010s. 0.0.11; 3310s. 0 ..... ..... .. 1;4.00 334.10 1 4s 0 s3 7 37 340.00 - 0.10 1 9:1 0 70 0 77 370 73 +2273 1 91 9 27 7 30 307 00 - 3 73 1 90 9 1s 7 2s 1439.03 7 22 30 00 20 7o 3 111119.33 3 31 20 74 ~21 24 2 2 1v. 0100002111.; 101030.011; 33 10s.0 ....... 113.70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 1070.03 3 30 20 93 21 03 1 1 4112.911 20 73102 04 0211 1. | . 210 1. 71bs. 0.0.111; 10 1110.00.11; 2010s. .. 1=4 3 229.33 1 31 3 74 4 4.1 224.40 - 11.13 1 71' 3 01 3 90 223.23 - 1.13 1 03 3 30 3 73 233 03 +1000 1 09 3 s3 3 90 911 o3 074 22 77 10 0:1 10 900.13 4 44 24 20 19 70 2 7 102 1v. 11. 0 lbs. 0 0.111.; 4 10s. 11.; 10 lbs. 0.011.; 3310s. 0... 1;3.0;1 200.93 1 :14 0 72 3 :10 201.071 - 7.90 1 711 0 3:1 4 77 310.30 +49.23 1 01 7 70 3 93 201.33 -40.93 1 91 0 3:1 4 02 1101.03 0 s2 27 34 20 72 12 904.20 3 911 24 01 10 71 411 220 111. 4 10s. 00.11.; 0 10s. 12 ; 10 lbs. 0.011.; 3310s. 0... 100:1 409 01 1 79 11 74 9 93 49s 73 +20 10 2 43 12 47 10 04 310 3.1 +19 3s 2 30 12 90 10 3s 319 43 + 1 12 2 0:1 12 99 10 111 2000 10 9 0:1 30 13 40 32 1 1031.00 0 22 20:10 ~20 00 1 7 1v. 2 lbs. 0.0.111; 010s. 11.; 1010s. 0. 0.11.; 3310s. 0.. 1 0.90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1014.03 0 0:1 23 37 1074 .110 41110.00 2:1 19100 40 77 29 111. 091 1. 7 10s. 00.11.; 1010s. 0.0.111; 2010s. 0 ........... .. 1;4.3 240.33 1 119 0 111 3 0. 274 3-1 +29 20 1 31 0 00 3 33 317 71 43.10 1 47 7 94 0 47 297 23 -20 411 1 31 7 41 3 92 1133 011 3 10 20 411 23 02 9 007.113 3 92 22 10 1s 211 312 113 v. 11. 010s. 0.011.; 4 10s. 0.111.; 1010s. 0.0.11; :1:110s.0. 1;3.7.~ 270 111 1 27 0 911 3 111 273 23 - 0 03 1 02 0 00 3 20 319 00 44.33 1 71 7 99 0 20 313 30 - 4.30 1 74 7 09 11 13 11001.3 0 34 29 00 23 12 s 913.33 3 02 ~22 00 17 00 414 347 111. 410s 0.014.; 010s. 11111.; 10 lbs.C.S.H.; 33 10s. 0 1;0.14 304 110 1 30 9 12 7 30 303 3:1 + 0 03 2 119 9 14 7 03 402 23 +30.70 217 10 00 7 09 390 20 - 4.03 2 41 9 9.1 7 34 1330 00 0 23 30 20 .10 11.1 4 10:19.70 3 23 99 20 04 1 3 1v. 210300.111; 0103011.; 1010300111.; 3310s. 0 1;11.7 . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 1010.93 3 00 23 ~27 19 01 2 0 303:1 11 19 9:1 90 32 70 37 1v. 442 1. 7 10s. 0.0.14.0; 10 lbs. 00.11.; =20 10s. 0.. 1;4.3_ 242 93 1 01_1 0 07 3 01 200 03 +1710 1 33 7 00 3 03 293.00 +13 73 1 30 7 34 3 90 293 03 + 0.03 1 00 7 33 3 09 1110.03 3 43 ~27 77 22:12 10 077.211 4 011 21 93 17 93 413 400 v1. 11. 010s. 0.011.; 41b0. 0.; 111 lbs. 0.011.333 10s. 1041.311 3.0.1111 1 41 9 411 7 9:1 441.03 +0333 1 04 11 04 9 20 403.01 +~22.20 2 01 11 00 9 39 430.73 - 3.00 2 22 11 47 9 ~23 1740.11 7 34 43 30 33 90 2 1017.113 3 :12 23 44 2012 -2 0 .123 111. 4 10s. 0.0.111; 0 lbs. 0.; 1010s. 0.0.11.1 .13 10s. 0... 1;7..1s 230.23 1 41 0 40 4.99 290.03 +37.0o 213 7 40 3 27 272.03 -23 90 2 22 0 02 4 00 202 30 + 9.03 2 39 7 00 4 07 1109 03 0 21 27 74 19 3:1 13 10311.40 3 01 ~23 70 2013 1 3 1v. 210s. 0.0.111; 0 lbs. 0.; 1010s. 0.0.11; 3310s. 0.... 1;9.911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 1033.111 0 27 23 00 19 01 3 0 3900.41 2120 99111 77 01 11. BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL ‘ EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. ing a profit of $3.75. 191 proved the easiest keeper, with $1.18 charged against her. She gave 250.50 pounds of milk, and left $5.08 as a profit. Further valuable information might be gleaned from this portion of the table, but that already presented sufficiently proves the influence of indi- viduality in the cow-—on capacity to yield a large quantity of milk at a moderate cost. It is true that the cost of feeding 220 was greater in every perio-d than in the case of any other cow, but the yields were also so much larger that the profit derived was in many instances in excess of that obtained from two other cows. Such cows as 220 are essential in the milk industry, and ‘the man in possession of them ought to assuredly succeed. It is interesting to note the large profits accruing in the milk business. (See table above.) No other branch of dairy husbandry offers such re- munerative returns, when properly managed. Of course, some fertility is remove-d from the farm, but it is comparatively small, and can be easily replaced. The most serious objections are the loss of the skim milk, so valuable in feeding growing live stock, and the labor and drudgery entailed in delivering the milk. The part the important factor, food, plays in the cost of milk production may be studied with profit in the case of 220. Period. Mmfbgeld’ Lggjncfr Cost. Profit. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469.65 . . . . . . . . . . .. $1 79 $9 95 II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 498.75 +2810 2 43 10 04 III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 518.33 +1958 2 58 10 38 IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 519.45 + 1.12 2 83 10 16 It is obvious that the ration fed in Period II., though costing so much more, had a decided advantage over that fed in Period I. That fed in Period III. proved slightly superior to that fed in Period II., and the one in Period IV., owing to its increased cost, was not as valuable as that used in Period III. This matter calls for nice distinctions, and the sum of 34 cents, gained by using III., instead of II., when a year is considered, means the difference between failure and success. The cost and pro- ductivity 0f rations must be constantly studied if success is achieved in dairy enterprises. The profit obtained from mil-k production during the experiment, and the rating of cows, will be found in the table, if any reader desires to further investigate this question. A consideration of the yields of milk by Groups per Period, now follows. In Period I., Group III. led in milk production, with 980.50 pounds, costing $4.27, and yielding a profit of $20.24. Group IV. was second, with 968.15 pounds of milk, costing $4.44, and giving $19.76 profit. The minimum yield was made by Group I., with 780.20 pounds, costing $4.43, and making a profit of $15.07. The ration was the same for all Groups, namely, 7 pounds of cotton seed meal, 16 pounds of cotton seed hulls, 28 pounds of silage. In Period II., Group VI. produced the most milk, namely, 1017.65 pounds, costing $5.32, and leaving a profit of $20.12. The ration fed was 3~—Bu1.47 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 6 pounds of cotton seed meal, 4 pounds 10f oats,.16 pounds of cotton seed‘ hulls, 33 pounds of silage, With a nutritive ratio of 1:5.35. ' Group III. was next, with 986 pounds of milk, costing $5.66, and giv- ing as profit $19;00. This group received a ration of 10 pounds of cotton seed meal, 16 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 33 pounds of silage, with a nutritive ratio of 113.75. The lowest yield of milk was by Group I., with 760.20 pounds, costing $4.45, and yielding a profit of $14.56. The ration eaten Was 10 pounds of cotton seed meal, 20 pounds of cotton seed hulls, with a nutritive ratio of 113.12. In Period III., Group III. came first in milk yield with 1069.55 pounds. The cost was $5.50 and the profit derived $21.24. Eight pounds of cotton seed meal, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage, with a nutritive ratio of 1:466, formed the ration. Group V. came next in larofit, but third in milk yield, as follows: 1039.76 pounds of milk, costing $5.35, with a profit $20.64. The ration used was 4 pounds of cotton seed meal, 6 pounds of corn meal, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage. Groups IV., VI., II., and I. fol- lowed in the order named. In Period IV., Group III. again led in milk production, with 1076.85- pounds, at a cost of $5.30, and leaving a profit of $21.63. The only change in the ration ivas to reduce the cotton seed meal by 2 pounds. This made the nutritive ratio 1:5.78. Group VI. stood second in milk flow, with 1035.10 pounds. The cost of producing it was $6.27 and the pro"; derived $19.61. The ration consisted of 2 pounds of cotton seed meal, 8 pounds of oats, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds. of silage’, and the nutritive ratio was 129.96. Groups IV., V., II., and I. occupied third, fourth, fifth, and last places respectively. Considering the four experimental periods, Group III. led in milk production, with a total yield of 4112.90 pounds. The entire cost was $20.73, and the profit secured $82.11. The ration consisted of different proportions of cotton seed meal and hulls and silage combined. The nutritive ratio varied between. 1:4.5 and 115.7 8, and was therefore narrow. Group IV. stood second in milk production and third in profit. The yield of milk was 4018.88 pounds, at a cost of $23.19, and with a profit of $77.29. The coarse foods of the ration were similar to those fed Group III., and the meals used were cotton seed meal and bran. The nutritive ratios varied from 1:4.5 to 1:8.90, or from a narrow to a wide ratio. Group VI. was third in milk production, but second in profit. 3960.41 pounds of milk WEIS the yield; the cost was $21.30, and the profit derived $77.81. The meal portion of the ration consisted of cotton seed meal and oats, and the coarse materials were similar to those fed Group III. The nutritive ratios ran from 1:4.5 to 1:9.96, or from narrow to wide ratio. Group V. was fourth in milk production and profit. The milk yielded xvas 3853.11 pounds, at a cost of $19.95, and with $76.37 as a margin "of profit. Tlhe same coarse materials were used as in the previous groups, and the meals were a mixture of cotton seed meal and corn meal. The nutritive ratios were from 1 :4.5 to 1 :11.7, or from narrow to very wide. GroupsVI. and I. divided honors for the last place. Group II. stood sixth in profit and fifth in milk yield, while Group I. occupied the re- verse position. Group II. made 3276.30 pounds of milk, costing $21.28, EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. and leaving a profit of $60.62. The rations fed consisted of cotton seed meal and sorghum hay. The ratios varied from 124.5 to 1:664, or narrow in nature. Group I. produced 3102.25 pounds of milk, at a cost of $16.89, and yielding a profit of $60.67. The rations “were made up of cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls, for the most part, and the ratios were from 1:45 to 115.05, or narrow. By reference to the table, the rating of the rations with regard to the economic production of milk by groups and according to the productive ability of all the rations fed, will be found. A discussion of these results will not be attempted, but a "few of the more important rations will be considered briefly. ' 1. The Most Efiective Rations Fed per Group in any Period. Group I. Period IV. 6 lbs. C.S.l\[.; 25 lbs. (J.S.H. Group II. Period I. 7 lbs. CS.M.; l6 lbs. C.S.II.; 28 lbs. S. Group III. Period IV. 6 lbs. C.S.M.; l8 lbs. C.S.II.; 35 lbs. S. Group IV. Period III. 4 lbs. C.S.M.; 6 lbs. 8.; l8 lbs. (ILSH. ; 35 lbs. S. Group V. Period llI. -l lbs. C.S.l\I.; 6 lbs. (,1.l\I.; l8 lbs. (J.S.II.;3='> lbs. S. Group VI. Period III. 4 lbs. C.S.M.; 6 lbs. 0.; l8 lbs. C.S.H.; 35 lbs. S. In only one instance (Group II.) did the preliminary ration lead in efiectivoness as a milk producer. When either bran, corn meal or oats were combined. with cotton seed meal, the combination suggested as most proficient in these experiments is 1% pounds of the former to 1 pound of the latter, when combined with 16 pounds of cotton seed hulls and 35 pounds of silage. - According to the rating of the entire set of rations fed (when judged by the margin of profit secured) the following proved most desirable: Profit secured per group. . .- .;18lbs.C.S.H.; 35lbs.S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $21 63 l. 6 lbs. C S M 2. 8 lbs.C.S.M.; l8 lbs. C.S.H.; 35 lbs. S . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2l 23 3. 4 lbs. C.S.M.; 6 lbs. O.M.; 18 lbs. O.S.H. ; 35 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2O 64 4. 7 lbs. C.S.M.; l6 lbs. C.S.H.; 28 lbs. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 24 5. 4 lbs. C.S.1VI.; 6 lbs. 0.; l8 lbs. C.S.ll.; 35 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 l5 6. 6 lbs. C.S.M.; 4 lbs. 0.; l6 lbs. C.S.H.; 33 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 l2 7. 4 lbs. C.S.M.; 6 lbs. B.; l8 lbs. C.S.H. ; 35 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2O 08 The influence of the nutritive ratio on milk production is a problem Worthy of examination. 1066 'r1<:x.~\s AGRHJULTURAIJ EXPERIMENT STATION. I mwm-v-MN fiugqnfl, f """ "’.‘ "Iii! wn-roo 5:5 fa-rl-Zi M" cw: . . . A E .++| ;”" K702277171?‘ - |o1~-—¢ t, . . -,_ Q D r-4|—Ir'4r—4 o L: 1D I Hugqwzfl! " "" "flriioi/ér» L‘ _ .q4r—'iS‘ x , . . . °;,_. coma WW” -Q1F1 (I) 111C508 '”' o . Q a .+++ “TFQT: ,_; manna , . . . . ’ rn-smq? g r-1r—4I—4v-i o 3-4 Loss or gmn 1n mllk + + + Group III. i0 1 0 1 ive ratio 1 . ive ratio 1 Nutri ive rat Nutritive rati Nutrit Nutrit Per1od I. II.- III. IV. 13 l7 3.49 —.05 I 3.93 -.311 8.84 -.091 5 am _36 an -J0 am +58 55 5o .53 .55 5 @3033. .3 5.35505 +49 +58 _ 204 114 1.75 5B3 Ho @535; 1 1 1 1 8 -24 mp5- .HT2 5G @255 wmio M10 Hwl 210 23505953 5 530.555 .3 5555.55 _ Q6 r :5 \/.-4 d. Y. H052 Mm.» =13_.m m H. 434 54.3 443 8 D. 1 9i .0 O00 0 78R» a .HH@oEw5.5o>o 0.U.0. 123 10L n. 5555055955555 .. m. 535.6250 553.655 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ p . M . mww www www mum I v | o n n - a u a a - n H 344 434 3400 443 n m 6 m A 505.55 .53 5. m. H M D . + + g .5 I 8 v A +54 +. +40 1% -50 sm -15 4m1+51 4w-+08 +.. 4.04 4.30 +26 4.161—.14 4.37 3.5 4.0 6 10 .3 +21 mm +14 | 0 4.05 +55 4.00 —.05 3.70 —-.30 3 4.20 -1—.17 -4.29 +.09 O47! . 433.,“ 4251 01 . 007. 37 I . .. I 453 43 S59 1028 0S6 750 563 492 I 434 343 433 1104 u. Q44. .55:o5oo . 5.7.2 50¢ .55 555555 55 555 21). 112 112 -555 mookfiwn 3596555 655.5555 ma...» .53 H 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 .55 555555 5053 5529M 1 1 .5505! ma? .553 1 H V. 1 H V H H H V H .55 555555 555.5 505.5% 1 1 1 1 1 11 A 36S 0S4 40h, 655.53 322 332 332 g5 .50 .53 .55 5.3.55: r L 484 0.09 . 0000 W 423 342 . 442 - -_ . . m f 300 . 4S8 . 46S . 0 H 333 . 332 . 332 . 5d. I . . ww CH 7S7 . 4.0000 . 670 . up L 323 . 342 . 333 . p rl u - - 4h w 06S . 034 . 0000 . W L 4.29.“ 0032“ 9032“ L 4.22 .I 55.6 . 0S0. .©®Qfina€w .0450 . 1154. . 504.0 . 55 Ho .53 .55 5355i . . r 4.4.00 . .024 . SS4 e . .. . . . . . . .. . P V 534 H 454 . 444 5 I m f. 262 . 031 . 0S0 0. _ 535 . 454 . 445 Md ,1 . .1. cam. W L S62 . .055 . 034 m ._ L 435 . 454 . 544 P .. I _ . . 5... 1 :11 .| m _ 42.0. 544 . 080 W5 i1“ 545 . 454 . 544 H 114i 5. S 0 5856 57%? 5mm... .oSa.5@>G.+.555Z 43.05 4345 45600 11111 0600 . 700 . 330 . 168 4003 . 07.0 . 323 n 546m 81100. .. - 446. . .1000 . 44.0 - .5.4.4.n 1111 TABLE XI.— Variations in Pew Cent. of Fat with Average Per Cents. 0f F45 1713716 1111576152! P6711148- a . . . . d I I l q r u. p“ H e n I l n p . . . U“ m S.Hn 5.“ w. a . .. ..H. 6 b . . . m . . - W 1 . u . 1 . . . € 8 u . 8 . . - v 2 . .. . .1. . . 2 . . - m ...H UH 31H“ H d J1 . . . . . m lSfiS w. l . . W 5888 5.55 w .m.. 55.. m m1mm m1mm 1 e 0%55 MWOO p 1.722 1.70090 d .1 ..7.7 .1... 6 .1 . . 1.1 . . f. 1.011 .01 m 5.35.1 MSJM . 1. w w. - . M C .06 C .00 R .1“ - . \ SS m1mm M15» 0 10] 7186 7186 TULL. LLL . 52.55 IHW IHW .5505 . 5 n _ _ | I 1 00>) . 9 - 559555. .15 .215 A 1 B Q :05 _ H H. “Hun “SSS “Hun H H ws5@ Hmmm “S55 H H“ HQMSS N111 HQMSS U H“ WWW Znmwm H Hm %%% H545 h%%% SS . . 1.11....» S511 .SS S... S... .. 5m.& 5HHH 5553 5HHH m1mm bSSS bGUC WSSS 0001 1Fu.\J.1 1 . . . C1 535% %.<1 5555 5.50 1.23 - ssqws r111 .1555 HHRH Lmmm ummw ummm .31 1.688 In}..- .688 S2 S S111 SIIL S111 S .0006 Q..?.3.. 0.1.1.1. u..3.1.. . . BBB GCC OOO S . - u . . MWSM $55.. 0133 5111 6 1 6111 1.1.1.1 1408 146$ 1408 .L4A »GJG .TYY» JJ;; 15. . .1- - . . 5455 MMM m1mM MMMM fimfifi SSSS S335 SSSS U ZUC UCCC UCCC UOCC .S . . . . . . . . . Qybss SSSQ; Smbss Ssss blbl b 1O1h lmmm mmmm mmmm _l180 70112 7044.2 764).- LLLV LLLV LLL. 1L1 IUI 1H1 IHW 1H1 L . L l 1 V 1 1 V 50 020 1.57 253 mm mwm mum 5.3 Gracie Dza rczmafzc C/zarl‘ Show!‘ 771E Dali Ie/ds and Mzrzkzfzbrzs ln/‘li/kfiow due fa 13041, 12m afure and [ndzuduali rGrou EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. There was an increase in milk when the ration was widened for Groups 1V., V1., and V., and narrowed for Group 111., in Period 11. 1n Period 111., the widening of the ration was attended with a decided increase in milk yields for all the groups. With the rations still further widened in Period 1V., Groups 1V. and V. showed a decided loss in milk yield, and Groups 111. and V1. a slight increase. In Groups 1V., V1., and V., the best results were secured when the ratios varied from 1:5.0 to 1:8.0, or from moderately narrow to moderately wide ratios. In Group 111., there was an increase in milk with a very narrow ration. An increase was also shown in Periods I11. and 1V., and in all instances the ratios were nar- row. The narrowness of the rations fed Group IV. was due to the rich- ness of cotton seed meal in protein, and due allowance must be made for that fact. The rating of the rations refers to the net profit produced. VARIATIONS 1N FAT. There was a wide range of variations between the highest and lowest per cents of fat in the several periods, as indicated in Table X1. The most remarkable variation shown was by 323. Here a difference of 3.3 per cent of fat between her maximum and minimum yields of the same in Periods 1V. and 1. is apparent. As this cow was of an irritable dis- position, this may in part account for this wide variation. 1t is plain that the fat in the milk from all the cows was subject to very considerable fluctuation. No well defined reasons have yet been advanced to explain this phenomena. Any annoying circumstances, changes in diet, ex- posure, sickness, etc., will increase these variations, and the practical les- son this teaches the dairyman is to avoid all these annoying circum- stances, giving the cow only pleasant environments. The temperament of the cow seriously affects fat production, hence those of mild and even disposition should be sought. Cows may be divided into two classes in feeding, namely, “even” and “uneven feeders.” The latter class are ob- jectionable because of the variations in per cent of fat to which their milk is subject. Referring again to the table, it is seen that 653 and 220 showed a variation of 2.4 per cent of fat, and stood next to 323 in this respect. The least variation was shown by 115, the remaining cows ranging be- _ tween 1.6 and 2.0 per cent. The importance of controlling this variation by every means possible can best be shown by an illustration. Name of cow. Date. Milk, lbs. - Pegafifnt’ Butltgéifat’ Loss or gain. Gracie . . . . . . . . . .. January 17 31.25 3 0 .9375 . . . . . . . . . . .. Gracie. . . . . . . . .. January 18 29.75 2.4 . .7140 —.2235 Gracie . . . . . . . . . .. January 19 25.50 3.3 .8415 +.1275 Gracie. . . .. . .. January 20 27.50 4 3 1.1825 +.3410 A difference of .5685 of a pound of butter fat exists between the total fat yielded on January 18 and ~20. This equals over one-half pound of gutter, or a loss of nearly 15 cents as between the. production of the two ays. 1068 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. The action of the rations on the formation of fat in the milk is pre- sented in this table. It will be observed that the rations fed in Period II. gave an increase in average fat yield over that secured in Period I. in every instance except B. and 438 of Group II. In Period III. there was a decrease in the fat in all cases except one, and in Period IV. an increase is again shown in the majority of cases. It is a noteworthy fact that the largest amounts of fat were not obtained when the milk yield was small- est, and vice versa, as is sometimes held to be the case. The individual rations producing the several results indicated above can be readily ascer- tained by reference to the table, and owing to the space required it will be impossible to further discuss them at this juncture. , Does temperature influeme the yield of butter fat? During the experi- mental period a very severe norther prevailed, and though the cows were stabled, they were inadequately protected, owing to the high winds pre- The influence of this sudden change and rapid fall in tempera- Vailing. ture niav therefore throw some light on the subect. 5 o J Q‘ 11- . . P .' _. - 125; 94w- “1020 0405i 0000.00.00: 1317 Jan.23.... 49.5010 20.50 3.0 .953 .............. .. 1. 545 .14111.23....49.50E.... 10.75 3.0 .075 .............. ..2.705 l191 .1511. 23.... 49.5010... 17.25 4.0 .090 .............. .. 0 1317 .1511. 25.... 190E .... .. 23.50 3.9 .910 —.030* 1. .1511.25.... 190E .... .. 10.00 4.4 .792 _+.117 +.120 2.052 l131 Jan.25....~ 190E .... .. 10.75 4.4 .737 +.047 - y 17317 .1"5n.27.... 200E .... .. 15.70 3.9 .012 -.304 1. 545 .155. 27.... 200E .... .. 14.35 4.4 .031 -.101 -.5202.233 i191 Jan.27.... 2()°F .... .. 15.25 4.4 .071 -.000 i $1117 Jan.2S.... 20.50E.... 10.50 3.9 .921 +.309 1. 545 .1511.2s.... 205010.... 14.75 4.4 .049 +.010 +.2012.301 i191 .1511. 20.... 20.50E.... 13.75 .4 .005 -.000 +317 Jan. 31.... 300E .... .. 25.00 4.0 1.000 +.079a 1. 545 Jan.3l.... 300E .... .. 13.25 5.1 .075 +020 +.2072.779 l191 Jan.31.... 300E .... .. 17.25 4.1 .707 +4028 ~ The per cent. of fat was but slightly influenced, and increased rather than diminished. A very considerable loss of butter, however, is ap- parent, and this is explained by the shrinkage in milk attributable to the weather conditions. The milk yield was 62.50 pounds on the 23rd; 58.25 pounds on the 25th; 45.30 pounds on the 27th; 47.00 on the 28th; and 55.50 on the 31st. The first effect of the cold was to in-crease the butter yielded on the 25th somewhat. As it continued through several days, the decrease in milk was marked, until a loss of 17.20 pounds was indi- cated on the 27th as compared with the 23rd, and this reduction in the milk flow resulted in a loss of .619 of a pound of butter on the same date. The milk and butter yield did not become normal again until the 31st, so that the evil influences of three days of cold weather affected the pro- __ ..., ...-_ .... .- »¢_w - 2-" -:-—-~'"- “PK “L u, __ ‘mw-m, ..‘- .._... . wan :-:1'1- =-v-- ---1-'- 1 3 _ _ ’ _ _ > ____ _____ __, H _ , ,____> _,___ T. - ~ _ - ----=~ -- ‘.:':‘-~~-~....->' __._..__ ,_.- H _ _-_-..-. .-~' - ‘.- éru-zzz‘. .2." a-wa- w 71w ll 1Z2‘ I, j s‘ L' ‘M_4 .511‘. ‘I A u: 4e ‘u 91' 7' / . 296110 1 % jet/null * ’ % ikgzgég % _ Pegoalfl’ l“ [ ‘ . h ‘I V _ I . I-- lmgfilgé§f FNMA-Y % 4211510115 - To“! 52:?“ I jl/ Qvrobghs‘ received V /d#6.'5./§i,- 20""6",£,Z ' * y-qfwgjy; g 3541:1541 ‘ é?£6‘,,§p/.; ,2{#6f$‘,g( y“: Q,~,\,P[ ton _/fl*"6'..$‘. 4L; ii#5./L fflragfl); f.‘ 34 #5f//_ _ éflis”. zgféfl ' ;_l__ r" i ngmelv /9*C'.S.JJ.IIP/L_£C$IQ 3315. 910.54 , /j#5t,st,9’..3‘1‘#5_ .L .¢#a.s.,;1,', Ywaés/f. ~2_cr'.'s:_.. MAMA I! I . IL D43 77IQQ.4,'.ZIO#6‘.Sj/;J9§ ‘*6’. . , . 1’ , "¢..s‘,/{ - 13mg ,’;/#@__g_ #3,, i515; j/l, gyrg % ' 0557,4723 . gwtjg-Z. J4 "' v5. Mia F” é“6'5'/)/ Vfldfl jéW$Ii ‘Qiwi 6v 4 /g#gc§/z/ ‘go/nag? #03” gxg ' L"‘/j#g5lfi/ affgg ~ ,'- ‘g4 - ' - -. .' .v -. .- .. .- - 1-1% y m“ “"~5"L.~//”v- /锢f£//-;~1ves was. .4#a,, 71w; fiifi-i in“; ..-'/*a/"{' w‘ Afi-ififi 1°“ J §Uo 1/ ll/ZA/f/{fl '7 13/7 0 léifiii Iéalélfi! _3v~9lg'1&»3 ¢ é’ ~71: Z 1o 11 g1: 11/ Af/L/ If 202/22 J2 giants? S’ a; 3 1/ f v ' A é’ % % / *\ \_ i ~< \, / / \ \ 1 / F // \ A j ' . , f \ & i /7\\ 7/ X \ 8/ I / L \ 1 § x _ \% 1/ -:\ /// 7 \ 1E \,g f \ _ , _ r I ' , ' . 3;’ 4 '1 . . ‘ .“ . g v . ' a v ' ' ‘ ‘ ' . '- . ' ’ _ ' 4 ~ "/ ‘ A " % - I » ‘ a n" I; - _ ' b + ain't?’ N “fig?! ‘M, é ‘l; 45’ A”; 5-4,, 9124,37; 3.; 51$; 33¢, 4,, /f_@2;>3_9g¢:3w|3(,j38.o|31a {£6 nil/go 5i0fl5 534’ 9-5 V35’??? "$5 M? 3A3£.a'-Y@.5§1v54f5$u ‘$151M: 4611.5 Z L_0A53,0'{$o;.&'¥;if#éo JzoJ-{J Z15 $5.5 M0 H! h.‘ ‘ 77w Craupsarefl zsfmg u ¢s£e<=id1i5l 10 "'8 l ~ ' L389)! Group!’ croufl /\/\ ctroufm’ ‘ayguffl /\/:;\ ;6',-_¢;_5z_ ' 1+ r71? *Reads toward the left. ...--.-_ .-w_.>4-~1 . ", f . . .'_ _ ' y _ _ . . _ _. ..,_ .. -_ __.__ * ‘_ f" > " . . '---'.~ --~~ _ . _ ‘....>.,,y V, -~>q'g7-.1-:~“‘~> 'V‘ --» -» ¢».-- -_ , _ ‘ v _ _ . .... ._ . _ _ -..¢_.._.'. Y, ,.-;._. “m- ..,.__.._,P .__»-. , _. -._7.~ "4 , .'-. ‘ 7n,- ~,n1_q>v,'3','~ 4w: ,.- an‘! .. -. , , . _.. _ ,. -.. . . -.- - 4 . -_ .~ .. » . ' - EFFECT‘ OF, FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. i iduction ‘through a week. The loss of milk and butter was very consider- able, and with a large herd would prove serious. This data sufliciently in- idicates the value of protection for cows in stormy weather. Generally speaking, a change in the rations caused the per cent of fat to increase in Period 11., decrease in Period 111., and increase in" Period IV. The variations in the fat yield seldom exceeded one-half of one per cent per cow per day, but, when it is remembered that this is the average for 14 days, the gain or loss in fat incurred by the changed rations has .an important bearing on the yields and profits derived. This influence is more clearly shown when the Groups and the Whole herd are consid- ered. (See Charts A, B and C.) Chart A shows the total yields of milk to decrease with the whole herd during Periods III. and 1V., and that the variations between the total daily yields, and the morning’s and night’s milk, from day to day, were also least in Periods III. and 1V. This does not necessarily mean that the total yields of milk were least in these Periods. In Chart B, where the Groups are considered, we find the milk in- creasing through Period 1., and starting to increase in Period 11. (de- crease dueto temperature), while the highest average milk yield per Group was shown in Period 111., decreasing but slightly during Period IV. In Chart C, the butter yields by Groups will be found. The butter in- creased to Period 11., and maintained a high average through Periods 11., 111., and 1V., decreasing slightly in Period 1V. The sudden fall in tem- perature in these Periods did not affect the butter yields materially. From a review of these charts, it is plain that every change in the ra- -tions influenced the yields of milk and butter, and the differences dis- played in effectiveness show how carefully the relative value of rations must be studied, or else large losses will be the result. The changed rations exerted a greater influence on the milk yields than on the butter fat in the experiments. Further, -a slight decrease in the yields of milk and butter is shown as the rations widen, thus indi- cating the value of narrow nutritive rations for dairy production. While variations in milk yields, when Groups, and especially the herd, is con- sidered, are very marked, the variations in fat are not so great as we would anticipate, thus showing that the fat may be diluted in a larger or smaller quantity ot’ milk (i120), depending on the cow, period of lactation, and the nature of the food provided. BUTTER PRODUCTION. By reference to Table X11., the facts and figures pertaining to butter production may be ascertained. The butter was sold at 25 cents per pound, and that factor was used in making the calculations shown in this discussion. In Period 1., 220 made 17.6 pounds of butter. The outlay entailed was ‘$1.79, and the profit secured $2.67. 653 was second in profit. She made 14.61 pounds of butter, at a cost of $1.15, and the profit accruing was $2.50. 442 was the easiest fed cow. She cost $1.06 for food, made 11.45 pounds of butter, and furnished a profit of $1.80. 545 yielded the least butter, namely, 10.27 p0unds,'at a cost of $1.52, and leaving as profit $1.05. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. In Period II., “220 gave 21.58 pounds of butter; the co-st was $2.43, and the profit derived $2.96. She was firstin yield and second in profit. 406 produced 20.86 pounds of butter; the cost was $1.84, and the profit remaining $3.37. This cow Was first in profit and secon-d in yield. 438 was the last in profit, with 88 cents to her credit. In Period I1I., 406 led in production and profit. Slhe made 21.64 pounds of butter, at a cost of $2.01, and leaving as profit $3.40. 220' was next in yield, but third in profit. Slhe gave 21.52 pounds of butter, ~ at a cost of $2.58, and a profit of $2.80. 405 was third in yield and sec- She produced 19.42 pounds of butter, at a food cost of 0nd in profit. 438 again brought up the rear, with $1.90, and a ne-t profit of $2.95. $1.00 as profit. In Period IV., 220 came first in yield, but "third in profit. Her ac- count was 21.44 pounds of butter, costing $2.83, and leaving as profit $2.53. 406 was second in yield and profit. She gave 19,80 pounds of buttei, -at a food cost of $2.22, and with a net profit of $2.73. 405 pro- duced 19.77 pounds of butter, at a cost of $1.77, and le-aving as profit $3.17. ‘This cow was third in yield, but first in profit. As usual, 438 brought up the rear. She made 11.80 pounds of butter, at a cost of $2.05, and a net profit of 90 cents. The standing of the several individuals for the entire experiment was as follows: 220 was first in production, with 82.4 pounds of butter, and showing a profit of $10.96. 406 was first in profit and second in yield. She made 78 pounds of butter, and the profit derived was $11.96. 405 came second in profit, but sto-o-d third in production. IIer record was 73.8 pounds of butter, and a net profit of $11.34. 438 was lowest in profit. She made 48.1 pounds of butter, and a profit of $4.42. 545 made» the least butter, namely, 41.3 pounds, and a net profit of $4.57. Cows are not necessarily equally valuable for milk and butter making.. It is true that 220 led in production for both purposes, but when the cost of keep and the profit derived is taken into account, she stood third as a bultter cow. Again, we find 317 and 438 standing 6 and 7 in milk yield, but 9and 18 when butter is considered. It is true, this rating de- pends on the net profit derived from each cow, but this is the only just and legitimate means of judging a cow. It may be argued that the cost and character of the foods are responsible in a great measure for the- results presented. Food certainly plays an important part. It is this» problem we are striving to solve, and granting the above contention as a correct premises, it simply emphasizes the necessity of redoubled efforts to solve the problem. 220. 405. 406. , 438. "d - .8 But- Cost But- Cost But- Cost But- Cost, q, ter, of Profit. ter, of Profit. tery, of Profit ter, of Profit» :1, lbs. food. lbs. food. lbs. food. lbs. food. ‘ I. 17.86 351 79 352 67 15.82 $1 43 $2 52 15.75351 47352 46 12.05351.333B1.66 II. 21.58 2 43 2 96 18.79 2 O0 2 70 20.81; 184 3 37 12.07 214 88 - I1I. 21.52 2 5S 2 8H 19.42 190 2 95 21.64 2 01 3 4612.39 2 09 1 00 IV. 21.44 2 83 2 53 19.77 l 77 317 19.80 3 22 2 73 11.80 2 05 9O '22". U! Figure m». 40s] A superior type of dairy animal-No. 406—Group VI. Second in yield and profit from milk. Second in yield of butter but first in profit. For records see Tables X. and XII. For measurements see Table XXV. DESCRIPTION. Medium in size; clean cut contour and carrying no surplus flesh—though not bony. Vigorous digestion; abundant nervous energy and finely developed udder and milk veins. BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL _TABLE XIL-Oost 0/ Butter Production per 00w and per Group per Period. Period I. Period II. Period III. Period IV. _ Totals p01- oow for the entire experimenm. Tmglllalpeegfgggitgngonlkfzhe a g .91 _ 1 ‘,_ w A _ =9 E 7. Rations fed per 1,000 pounds live Weight per day. <11 (,5 - E O 7°53 ** (,5 - 5 .2 3 53 - 53 3 5.2 3'3 v3 ..~: 51 =3 :13 3 i 5 =19. Z15? S ‘*7 f. <3 w f5 >19 q so . > n E - ‘H “Sm (S. s: ‘E1’ - c171 c. n ‘S » o7! Q Q :1 -~ - o" s: Q - 01-“ Q1 O » o Q1 p“ '7‘ 817.... I. 7111s.0.8.1\1.; 161118. 0.8.11.1 28 lbs. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114.5 1111;175:1111 11 75 81 5182 9181 411 118 7017511 9181 56 88 4181 92 824.11118.1;61:~1.81:81 49 8:1 46 81 97 129 0111 7514 4081 88 88 6082 ~22 1281.115 551.985 97 818 47 87 '11 9 :12 :18 84 48 88 111 88117 1 515 l I1. 111111s.0.8.1\1.1 20 111s. 0.8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118.12 2:18.858." 10 27 1"2 2 57 105 212 0114 1811171 1:1 2 68 17 201754.17 9.81 112 2 1'1 0.1 211 1114.18 10 111 129 2 61 1:-1-_> 81111111 41.1 5 71 10 :12 157 17 85.65 1 15 8 91 1 16 8 191.... 5' 111. 8111s. 0.8.11.1 25 111s. 0.8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114.0 2:1810;1.7810"16 187 2 59 1 2222115111111100 1 88 2 1'1 187 241.501.0611.41 125 2 86 161210 504.1712 20 118 8 05 18 919.60 15 0 518 11 2.5 1117 11 215.11 4111 8 77 4 61 2 1v. 6 lbs. 0.8.11.1 ~25 lbs. 0.8.11 ...................... ..115.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.06 8 85 9 211 5 41 1 14020816 89 8:15 0181815 V 2 1 1 11 * I I 1 ‘ dddd t 1.!7111s.0.8.11.;16111s.0.8.11.;281bs.8 ............ .. 111.5 .1218 254 7811 89 1 811 2 97 1 61 255.954.1811:1.87‘2 27 :1 81 1 07§‘@210.711;4.:18112.80 2 08‘8118‘1 00¥€281.80|!1.74‘i12.91s! 211! 8 21 1 1:1; 911.20 50.5 7 82 12112 4 80 16 88.44 8 81 9 61 577‘ 1 4:18....l 11. 11. 111111s.1;.8.1\1.; 211 111s. 8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118.81 28.1.21 1 r15 11 <14 88 2 99 1 66 801.211:1.11112.011 2 14 8112 88118-28 911::1.20112.:18 2119 :1 09, 1 1111H:128.251:1.118111.801 2 0.11 2 9.11 9111 1249.110 48.1 7 111 12 1_1.1 4 42 18 89.1111 6011 9 76 8 711 2 618 ~ 111. 8 lbs. 138.11.; :10 111s. 8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 115.51118071.11'11.07 14 61 1 15 8 65 2 511 218.85 1.61118 62 1 59 8 10 1 8111266 911;4.:10118.:19 1 59 8 85 1 761,251.1111.2612.6:1 1 5218161 1 6411082501518 5 85 18 57 7 72 6 88.117 5 16 9112 876 2 I 1V. 1i lbs. C.S.M.; 30 lbs. $.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l:1i.04l'} . . . . . . . . ..1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.39 5 6b‘ 9 3117 3 152.96 821 2888821816 911 V1. 1 I 405.. a 1. 7111s.0.8.M.;16111s.0.8.11.; 28111.18 . . . . . . . . . . . . #1115 %.187.511|:1.51115.82 1 48 8 95 2 52 198.754.011.879 2 110 1 711 2 701149 95611701912 1 90 4 8512 95 *442.:15[8.8:1z19.77 1 '77 4 8 17 1678.55 78.8 710 18 45 1181 2 12.66 427 10116 6:19 :1 5 85-1 .. 111. 11. 111 111s. 118.11.; 1610s. 0.8.11.1 :1:1111s.8 .... 118.7.1.2:18.9111.62 12.18 1 :16 :12.» 186 219.25 .1.0214.01 1 7:1 :1 511 1111218.8.11.6618.5:1 1 69 8 881 1 691267.5111.9.1,15.4=1 1 118 .1 8111 2 2.1 991.1111 55.8 1111 1.195 1 51 8 18.11 5 611 12 0.1 681 4 6 01-4515 111 8111s 08 1\l-18l11s 08 11» :15 lbs 8 . . . . . 1;4.1111.;151.10:1.:18 18.96 148 .149 2 01 8481111117811 81 1 :1 "181 1 9111;170.758.1414.87 1 91‘ 8 72 1 81.811100015111519 1 911 .1 19 1 891189.811 59.8 1 22 14 88 7 61 7 47.82 5 50 11 95 11 4.1 2 4 ‘ ' 1v. 6111s. 11.8.11} 1816s. 08111.“; 8516s.8......'.. .... .. 11.1.78i .... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.41 5 80 12 59 7 ~29 1 1 I I 1 ‘ 190.03 51520 73.51517 23 $26 50 I. ’ ‘ 7 a ~ 1 210.... 1 1| 7111s. 0.s.1\1.;111111s.0.8.11.128111s8, . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘111.5 2295.14.40 11.78 1:11‘ 2 91 1 11:1 2241014811781 1 7112 9811 22 2212514811128 18:1 2 81 98 28:1 851.5212 8 189 8 08 119 91105 47.0 614 1175 510 15 42.13 1144 10 n? 6 0:“ 1 182.... 1V. 11. 6111s.0.8.1\1.;1111s.11.116111s.0.8.11.;:1:1111s.8 ....,115.08 268.1151:1.9812.49 1 841812 1 78 261 1151 81118.10 1 7618 2711 51:1111.8114.~2215.28 1 81 .1 82 2 01 f261..1514.:141.1.2:1 1 91 8 81 110 1101.65 51.1 1182 1.152 11 70 10 411.41 ~1 911 11 5-1 5 0-1 220.. 111. 1 111s. 0.8.11.1 6 111s. 11.; 18 111s. 1J.8.11.185 lbs. 116.118 169651126 17.86 1 7914 46 2 67198 75 8 7121.5 2 5 89; 2 961518188856 21.521 2 58 5 88 2 8111519.158.51121.44 2 88 5 :16 2 58 2006.18 82.4 9 68 20 60 10 96 8 4§-05 622 12 Q1 519 2 1v. 2111s.U.S.1\I.;81bs.B.;18]bsC.S.II.;351b8.S.....,l 8.911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.110 1111611111 512 4 183.57 91523 19 $45 87 3522 68 III. ' 1 11 1 1191 \ 1. 7111s.0.s.1\1".1 111 lbs. 0.s.11.;28111s. 8 . . . . . . . ......114.5 216.:1r14.11811.7:1 1119 291 1 81 274551211858 1:11 121912 08.1"117.71:1.9:114.57 117 8 64 217~277.25:1.8418.:12 1 51 .1 :1 1 82 1185 86 51.2 5 :18 18 80 7 89 5 86.58 8 92 914 5 22 2 115.... V. 11. 6111s.0.8..\1.11111s.1‘.11.116111s.1;.8.11.1:18111s.8..115.78 27111.1111.1r111.11 127 2 78 151 27525111111252 162 :1 1:11 1 "11;;119.81_1:1.541:1.22 171 :1 <11_ 1 1_10;1:115.5118.1912.8r1"174 21 147 11811115 19.7 1181 12 4:_1 609 12 89.87 5 02 9 96 491 8 847.... l111.l1111s.1:.8.11.16111s.11.11.118111s.11.8.11.;8:1111s.8..118.1 .164.611.1.28 1:11.71 1 56 8 48 1 87 165.55.1.-2:118.77 2 09 '1 44 1 5,1112.21.1.1.114.69 211 .1 61 1 5111.1198.211.1.2114.91 2 41 5 1. 1 82 15.1 1111 171 8 2.1 14 21 (1 01 18 42.11 5 8.1 10 61 5 211 1 l1v. 2111s. 11.8.11.;8111s.0.11.118111s.0.8.11.;88111s.8..1111.7 .... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.08 5 66 10 ~27 4 61 4 160.00 51519 95 $39 9S $20 O3 IV. — - 1 . 1 1 142.... I. 7111s.0.8.11.;111111s. 0.8.11.128111s. 8 ............ .. 111.5 212954.04 11.15 1 01: 2 81: 1811l1280.1154.81111.01 1 ‘111 8 51 2 11al;29r1.s014.11114.25 1 88 8 .56 218 298.851 8714.98 1 66 8 71 2 08‘ 1110.65 54.7 5 45 18 68 8 22 4 89.88 4 00 9 82 5 82 4 9 106 V1. 11. 11 111s. 1‘.8.1\1.;1 111s. 0.; 16 111s. 0.8.11.;:18111s. 8 115.85 .1711.1111:1.59 15.75 1 17 898 2 46 1111.55 4.115 20.86 1 81 5 21 8 8711118.81‘1.01121.61 2 01 5 41 .1 411 458.751 711 19.811 2 22. 4 952 7:1 1710.11 78.0 7 51 19 511 1196 1 49.10 5 :12 12 :14 7 02 1 2 828.... 111. 4 111s. 08.11.16 111s. 0.118 lbs. 13.8.11.1:15111s. 117.88 >58 254 0.1 12.1:1 1 47 8 08 1 5612116.054.2014.511 2 1:1 .162 1 11127211592918.1171 2 22 .1 41 119 282.504 4.1 14.68 2 898 66 1 27 1109.65 54.9 8 21 18 72 5 51 14 19.54 5 61 12 88 6 77 2 8 1V. 2111s.0.8.1\1.;8111s.O.118111s.0.8.11.;:15111s.8....119.86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.41 627 12 85 608 8 8 187.68 31321 20 11346 89 $25 69 II. BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. Evidently, 438 suffered by a costly and unsuitable ration, but in every other case, when Periods 11., 111., and 1V. are considered, it is dif- ficult to see where any great injustice was done the cows by reason of the rations fed. 1n fact, it is doubtful if a more suitable or economic dis- position could be made of the foods used. 1f 220, 405, and 406 had been fed at the cheapest food cost sho-wn in the last three periods, the addition to their net profit for that time would have been 55, 36, and 55 cents, re- spectively. The net profits, as they stand for the last three periods, were for 220, $8.29; for 405, $8.82; for 406, $9.50. By the above proposed change, they would read: $8.84, $9.18, and $10.05. Thus it is demon- strated that it is not the food cost, but the inherent ability to convert food units into butter units, that determined the relative rating of these cows in butter production. COST OF BUTTER PRODUCTION BY GROUPS. In Period 1., Group 111. made 42.66 pounds of butter at an outlay of $4.27 for food and a net profit of $6.39. This group led in yield and profit in this period. Group 1V. came next in amount and profit, mak- ing 42.13 pounds of butter at a cost of $4.44, and leaving as profit $6.08. Group 1. was last in production and profit, with 32.28 pounds of butter, costing $4.43, and leaving as profit $3.67. In Period 11., Group V1. stood first in yield and net returns, with 49.40 pounds of butter, costing $5.32, and leaving as profit $7.02. Group 111. was second in both these respects. 1t made 48.14 pounds of butter at an outlay for food of $5.66, and secured a net return of $6.37. Group 1. was lowest in yield with 35.65 pounds of butter, costing $4.45 and giv- ing a profit of $4.46, while Group 11. made the least profit, with a pro- duction of 39.06 pounds of butter at a cost of $6.00 and a net return of $3.76. In Period 111., Group V1. still maintained the lead in production and profit. Its record was 49.54 pounds of butter, made at a cost of $5.61 for food, and leaving $6.77 as a margin of profit. Group 1V. came next in production, but Was third in profit. 1t yielded 48.03 pounds of butter at a cost of $6.22, and left as profit $5.79. Group 1113s position was the reverse of Group 1V. 1t made $47.82 pounds of butter at a cost of $5.50 and gave as profit $6.45. Group 11. stood lowest in profit with a produc- tion of 38.07 pounds of butter at a cost of $5.76 and a net profit of $3.76. In Period 1V., Group 111. occupied first place with regard to yield and profit. 1t made 50.41 pounds of butter at a cost of $5.30 for food and with a net return of $7.29. Group V1. came second in both respects, producing 49.41 pounds of butter at a cost of $6.27 and a net profit of $6.08. Group 1V. stood third in yield and fourth in profit, with 47.00 pounds of butter made at a cost of $6.63 and leaving $5.12 as profit. Group 1. made the least butter, namely, 37.06 pounds. The profit de- rived was $5.41, and in this respect it beat Group 11., which made 37.39 pounds of butter, but owing to differences in cost and suitability of the foods consumed only made a net profit of $3.67. When the entire experiment is considered it will be found that Group 111. led in production and profit. 1ts record was 190.03 pounds of but- ter, costing $20.73 and leaving a net profit of $26.50. The rations con- TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. sisted of several proportions of cotton seed meal, cotton seed hulls and silage. The nutritive ratios varied from 1:4.5 to 1:5.'78, and might be termednarrow. Grpup VI. came second in production and profit, with 187.68 pounds of butter costing $21.20 and leaving as profit $26.69. The rations primarily consisted of cotton seed meal a11d oats and cotton seed hulls and silage. The ratios were from 124.5 to 1:986, or from narrow to wide. Group IV. occupied the third place. It yielded 183.57 pounds of butter at a cost of $23.19 and with a net profit of $22.69. The rations fed were composed of cotton seed meal and bran and cotton seed hulls and silage. The nutritive ratios ran from 1:4.5 to 1:8.90, or from a narrow to a wide effect. The fourth position fell to Group V., whose record was 160.00 pounds of butter, costing $19.95, and leaving a margin ' of $20.03 profit. The rations used were mixtures of cotton seed meal and corn meal and cotton seed hulls and silage. The ratios ranged from 1:45 to 1:11.7, i. e., from narrow to very wide. ' Group II. was fifth in the production and sixth in profit. It made 152.96 pounds of butter at a cost of $21.28 and secured a profit oi $16.96. The essential rations were compounded from mixtures of cot- ton seed meal and sorghum hay. The ratios varied between 1:4.5 and 1:664, or from very narrow to 1noderately' narrow ratios. Group I. occupied a position exactly the reverse of Group II. _ It yielded 140.20 pounds of butter at an outlay for food of $16.98, and thus made a profit of $18.15. The rations fed were mixtures of cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls. The ratios were all narrow and ran from 1:45 to 1:505. Judged by the profit derived, the folloiving rations proved the most desirable from the standpoint of tlhe butter maker: 1. As Fed by Groups per Period. Group. Period. Rations. Profit. I. IV. 6 lbs. (l.S.l\I.; 25 lbs. C.S.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $5 41 II. I. 7 lbs. C.S.M.; 16 lbs. (1.‘.S.ll.; 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 Ill . IV. 6 lbs. (‘1.S.l\[.; l8 lbs. GhHII. : lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 29 IV. I. 7 lbs. (7.S.l\I.; l6 lbs. 0.8.11. :28 lbs. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 08 V. r III. 4 lbs. C.S.M.; 6 lbs. 0.3L: 1s lbs. C.S.H.; 35 lbs. S. . . 5 26 VI. II. 6 lbs. (LS.M.; 4 lbs. 0.; 16 lbs. ().S.II.; 33 lbs. 7 02 The rations consumed by Groups I., II., III., and V. were identical i with those most useful in milk production, while those consumed by Groups IV. and VI. were 11ot. 'l.‘hus rations are not equally useful in both systems of dairying, so that in determining the foods to be used the object of the business must be kept in view. For instance, if the rations most suitable for milk and butter production were interchanged for Groups IV. and VI., there would have been a loss of 33 and- 3 cents on milk and 29 and 25 cents on butter, respectively. Trifiing as‘ these amounts may seem. when the loss incurred in a single lactation period is computed, it Will be seen to seriously impair What should have provided a handsome revenue. cm-labliléh‘ EZFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 2. As considered for the Entire Experimental Period. . 6 lbs. 0.811.; l8 lbs. G.S.H. ; lbs. b‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Profit $7 29 . 6 lbs. ().b‘..\I.; 4 lbs. 0.; l6 lbs. U.S.lI.; 33 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . .Profit 7 02 . 4 lbs. C.S..\[.; 6 lbs. 0.; l8 lbs. 0.511.; 35 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pr0fit 6 77 . 8 lbs. (LS.M.; l8 lbs. 0.811.: 35 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . "Profit 6 45 . 7 lbs. (LSJL; 1-5‘ lbs. U.b‘.H.; 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Profit 6 39 Does cotton seed meal affect bratter production favorably? 1n answering this question it will be necessary to examine the results attained when the rations were differentiated for Groups 111., 1V., V., and V1. When 7, ll), 8, and 6 pounds of cotton seed meal were fed in conjunction with cotton seed hulls and silage to Group 111., the best results were derived from the use of 6 pounds of meal. With Group 1V., when '7 pounds of cotton seed meal, 6 pounds of cotton seed meal and 1 pounds of bran, 4 pounds of cotton seed meal ‘and 6 pounds of bran, and 2 pounds of cotton seed meal and 8 pounds of bran, were fed with cotton seed hulls and silage, the third mixture proved tihe best for butter production, but the first one was the most profitable, owing to the difference in food cost. 'l_'his does not detract from the superiority of the former ration, because if equal amounts of meal had been used in both instances the cost would have been the same. When Group V. is considered, the same amount and character of foods constituted the ration for Group 1V., except that corn meal was substituted for bran. Again, the use of at pounds of cotton seed meal with 6 pounds of corn meal proved most effective, and for the reasons expressed under Group 1V. the use of '7 pounds of cotton seed meal yielded the greatest profit. The same proportions and combinations of foods were used with Group V1. as with Groups 1V. and V., except the substitution of oats for corn meal or bran. Six pounds of cotton seed meal and ~l pounds of oats gave the greatest profit, and 4 of cotton seed meal and ,6 pounds of oats the largest yield of butter. Irrespective of cost. it is apparent that in every instance the substitu- tion of a portion of the cotton seed meal for bran, corn meal, and oats decidedly increased the actual yield of butter. Further, the. use of 6 pounds of cotton seed meal was more effective than the use of 10 pounds. This demonstrates that cotton seed meal has no undue influence as a factor in butter production. With these facts before us we are led to believe that the substitution of suitable mixtures of bran, corn meal, and oats, or oats alone, pound for pound for cotton seed meal, will not impair the effectiveness of a ration, and when the price is equal and the factor of animal individuality eliminated, the difference, if any, will be further reduced. (See p. Further, we wish to call especial attention to the fact that the feeding of more or less meal does not affect the yield materially (ivithin the limits here stated), while it may very seriously react on the cost of the ration and the profit derived. A careful study of the results, presented in Table X11.. will reveal many instances of that nature. When 10 pounds of meal were used with Group 111. the profit secured was $6.37; when 6 pounds was used it rose to $7.29. or a difference of .92 cents. When '7 pounds of meal were used with Group V1., as compared with 10 1074 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. pounds of a mixture, the profits were $5.82 and $7.02, respectively, and the difference apparent $1.20. _ A comparison of the profits derivedfrom milk and butter Wlll prove of interest. 442. 406. 323. Period. Profit on Profit on Profit on Milk Butter Milk Butter Milk Butter I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $501 $5180 515792135246 3549935156 II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 565 216 920 337 527 149 III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 596 218 959 340 460119 IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 569 208 925 "273 467 127 Fertility sold from farm . . . . . ... . . . .. —1 78 . . . . .. -—2 78 . . . . .. -1 78 . . . . .. Value of skimmed milk at 25 cents per . . . . .. +2 50 +3 90 . . . . .. +1 78 100 pounds. Cost of milking at 14 cent per pound. —2 78 -2 78 -4 35 —4 35 -2 77 —2 77 (‘ost of delivery at % cent per pound. . —8 34 .. . .. -13 05 . . . . .. —8 31 . . . . .. Fertility added to farm from foods +1 82 +1 82 +2 51 +2 5‘. +2 74 +2 74 consumed. Cost of manufacturing butter at 2% -—1 37 . . . . .. -1 95 . . . . .. —1 38 cents per pound. Net profit on milk and butter . . . . . . .. $16 69 $8 39 $25 83 $12 O7 $17 62 $6 08 Difference in favor of milk selling.... $8 3O $13 76 $11 54 . . . . . .. In the above summary the fertilizing constituents carried from the farm in a ton of wholemilk were valued at $1.60 per ton, and one-third of the entire cost of the food was regarded as returned to the farm in the eXcrements. This estimate is certainly not too high where the manure is properly protected. Allowing that one man, at $1.00 a day, shall care for and milk 15 cows per day. the cost of milking would easily come within one quarter of a cent per pound, and the above is below, rather than above, the work a good milker should accomplish. We regard three- quarters of a cent, or slightly over one and one-half cents per quart, as amply sufficient to cover the expenses of delivery, and two and one-half cents should cover the cost of manufacturing a pound of butter where improved machinery is in use and a liberal supply of milk is handled. As experiments indicate that skimmilk has a feeding value of 25 cents per 100 pounds, we regard the above estimates as liberal and just when applied to the case of the above three cows. Manifestly the selling of milk is the more desirable practice in this instance, as the profit from milk is twice that derived from butter-making. The case of 323 illus- trates very nicely a point already considered; namely, the varying value of a cow for different purposes. The influence of the nutritive ratio on butter production is shown by the appended data: Figure 6. No. 405. A desirable cow for dairy production——N . 405-—Group III. Third in yield and profit from milk. Third in yield for butter but second in profit. For records see Tables X. and XII. For measurements see Table XXV. DESCRIPTION. A medium sized cow, comfortably fleshed though not beefy, and presenting good wedges. Temperament even, appetite keen; udder showing fine development. BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL TABLE XIIL-Variafions in Jfil/z per C020 and per Group per Period. . ' P -' d 'h ' ' ' - . <5 g: Highest; numberof pounds of milk produced j Lowest number 0f pounds of milk produced ‘ xnsensfiblgilesllteiilfceern Average number 0f pounds of milk Agfirag?"fleugfogg§angyaggg 118mm g per (lily per period. ‘ per day per period. ‘ and minimum produced per day per period. _ whole egpgrimeaiitl perim‘ g' 2 Ration fed per 1000 pounds live weight. per day. g ' ‘ <1 g) 5 _ . _ ‘ . 9m”. Yield, “a $5‘ ,5 o g .5 I. II. III. IV. Avelage. ‘ I. II. III. IV. Avelage. ‘ Maximum. ‘ CE 8111586. ‘ I. II. III. IV. lbs_ Cost. Value. £8 m2 m 5 o. z ‘ E ' "l _ ___ ii ____ ___ __ l_____ __ _. _ _ l ____ _ _ l ‘ ‘ “ . 317.... I. 7 lbs. C.S.M.;16lbs. C S H , 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . .. 1:4.5 25.50 26.50 24.50 22.75 ‘ 24.81 18.50 15.70 21.35 ‘ 20.50 19.01 f‘ II. II. 10.80 22.05 22.75 23.19 23.50 22.87 $0.107 $0.572 6 545.... I. II. 10 lbs. C.S.M.; 20 lbs. C.S.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:3.12 18.75 18.15 15.25 15.00 ‘ 16.94 13.75 13.00 12.25 ‘ 13.50 13 12 ‘ I. and II. II. 6.50 16.67 15.14 14.41 15.32 15.38 .102 .384 18 VI. 191.... III. 8 lbs. C.S.M.; 25 lbs. C.S.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:4.07 19.25 18.50 18.75 18.00 l 18.62 14.25 13.75 14.50 ‘ 15.25 14.44 j I. II. 5.80 17.01 16.39 17.25 17.89 17.13 .092 .428 15 IV._ 6lbs. C,S.M.; 25 lbs. C.S H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:5.05 63.50 63.75 58.50 55.75‘ . . . . . . ..‘ 46.50 42.45 48.10 I 49.25 . . . . . . ..‘ II. II. 21.50 55.73 54.28 54.85 56.71 55.38 .301 1.384 l l l l I l 5 I B I. 7 lbs. C.S.M., 16 lbs C S.H , 28 lbs S . . . . . . . . . .. 1:4.5 17.25 19.25 19.25 17.00! 18.18 “ 12.50 14.20 14.50 13.75 13.74 ‘ I. I. 6.75 15.23 18.28 17.19 16.73 16.86 .139 .421 16 438.... II. II. 10 lbs. C.S.M., 20 lbs S.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:3.8 23.00 24.35 25.00 23.25 ‘ 23.90 18.25 19.50 22.75‘ 20.75 20.31 ‘ III. I. 6.7 20.59 21.73 23.49 23.44 22.31 .136 .558 7 V. 653.... III. 8 lbs. C.S.M., 30 lbs. S.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:5.51 25.75 21.00 21.00 19.25 21.75 19.50 15.75 16.50 15.25 16.75 l I. IV. 10.50 21.97 18.13 19.06 18.15 19.33 .104 .483 13 IV. 6lbs. C.S.M., 30 lbs. S.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1:6.64 66.00 64.60 65.25 59.50 . . . . . . .. 50.25 49.45 53.75 49.75 . . . . . . ..§ I. II. 16.55 57.79 58.14 59.74 58.32 58.50 .379 1.462 l l l ii m___ iii ‘ i . é 1 405.... I. 7 lbs. C.S.M.;16lbs. C.S.H., 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . .. 1 4.5 31.25 31.50 34.00 33.00 32.44 22.25 I 23.75 30.50 28 50 ‘ 26.25 . III.‘ I. 11.75 ‘ 27.68 28.48 32.14 31.59 29.97 .127 .750 3 356.... III. II. l0 lbs. C.S.M.; 16 lbs. C.S.H., 33 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . .. 1 3.75 18.50 19.50 19.00 18.50 18.87 15.25 14.50 14 25 16.50 15.12 II. III. 5.25 § 17.06‘ 17.09 l 17.77 19.11 17.76 .114 .444 14 I. Gracie III. 8 lbs. C.S.M.; 18 lbs C.S.H., 35 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . .. 124.66 36.25 32 00 28.00 25.00 30.31 25.50 23.00 24.75 24.00 24.31 I. II. 13.25 l 25.29 ‘ 24.86 l 26.49 26.21 25.71 .129 .643 5 IV. 6 lbs. C.S.M.; 18 lbs C.S.H.; 35 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . .. 1:5.78 86.00 83.00 81.00 76.50 . . . . . . .. 63.00 61.25 69.50 69.00 T . . . . . . .. I. II. 24.75‘ 70.03‘ 70.43‘ 76.40 76.91 73.44 .372 1.837 . ’ l l ' i 210.... I. 7 lbs. C.S.M.; 16 lbs. C.S.H.; 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . .. 1:4.5 18.50 18.25 17.75 17.00 17.87 14.55 12.50 14.00 14.50 13.89 ‘ I.l lI. 6.00‘ 16.39 16.03 15.93 16.70 16.27 .120 .407 17 182.... IV. II. 6 lbs. C.S.M.; 4 lbs. B.; 16 lbs. C.S.H.; 33 lbs. S. 1:5.03 22.25 22.75 21.75 20.50 21.81 15.75 14.85 20.00 13.25 15.96 ‘ II.‘IV. _ 9.50 19.21 _18.64 22.16 18.67 19.67 .122 .492 12 II. 220.... III 4 lbs. C.S.M.; 6 lbs. B.; 18 lbs. C S.H.; 35 lbs. S. 1:6.63 38.85 40.75 39.00 37.50 39.02 28.25 31.75 34.00 31.00 31.25 II.‘ I. 16.50 33.54 35.62 37.02 3 .10 35.82 .172 .895 1 ' IV. 2 lbs. C.S.M.; 8111s. B.; 18lbs. C.S.H.; 35 lbs. S. 1:8.90 79.60 81.75 78.50 75.00 . . . . . . .. 58.55 59.10 68.00 58.75 . . . . . . .. II.‘ I. 23.20 ‘ 69.14 70.29 75.11 72.47 ‘ 71.76 .414 1.794 . l l ll 691.... I. 7lbs.C.S.M.;16lbs. C.S.H.; 28'lbs. S . . . . . . . . . .. 1:4.5 24.50 24.25 25.00 22.75 24.12 15.25 16.50 19.41 17.50 17.16 ‘l III.‘ I.‘ 9.75‘ 17.59‘ 19.61 ‘ 22.69 21.23 ‘ 20.28 .096 .507 9 115.... V. II. 6lbs.C.S.M.;4lbs.C.M.;16lbs.C.S.H.;33lbs.S. 1:5.78 24.00 24.25 24.25 22.75 23.81 19.25 17.75 ; 21.10’ 18.75 19.21 j II. and III. II.‘ 6.50‘ 19.72 19.66‘ 22.84 22. 3 21.19 .113 .530 8 IV. 347.... III. 4 lbs. C.S.M.;6lbs.C.M.;18lbs.C.S.H.;35lbs.S. 118.1 32.45 32.00 29.90 28.00 30 59 25.00 23.00 27.25 24.60 24.96 I.‘ lI.‘ 9.45 “ 26 04 ‘ 26.11 7 28.73 28.44 ! 27.33 .147 .683 4 IV. 21bs. C.S.M.;8lbs.C.M.;18lbs.C.S.H.;351bs.S. 1:11.7 80.95 80.50 79.15 73.50 . . . . . . ..l 59.50 7.25 f 67.76 60.85 . . . . . . I.‘ II.‘ 23.70 63.35‘ 65.38‘ 74.26 72.20 1 68.80 .356‘ 1.720 l l l . l ll I 442.... I. 71bs.C.S.M.;16lbs. C.S.H.;281bs. S . . . . . . . . . .. 1:4.5 22.00 22.75 22.00 21.00 21.94 19.00 17.05 19.00 17.25 18.07 II.‘ Il.‘ 5.70 17.35 ‘ 20.00 20.98 20.99 19.83 .097 .496 11 406.... VI. II. 6 lbs. C.S.M.; 4 lbs. 0.; 16 lbs. C.S.H.; 33 lbs S. 1:5.35 34.65 36.05 36.50 34.50 35.42 26.75 27.50 30.50 24.25 ‘ 27.25 III. IV. 12.25 ‘ 26.86 ‘ 31.54 ‘ 33.13 32.77 31.07 ' .135 .777 2 III. 323.... III.. 4 lbs. C.S.M.; 6 lbs. 0.; 18 lhs. C.S.H.; 35lbs. S. 1:7.38 20.25 20.75 20 75 20.00 20.44 14.75 16.75 17.50 17.75 ‘ 16.69 “II. and III.‘ I. 6.00 I 18.44‘ 21.14 ‘ 19.49 20.18 . 19.81 .147 .495 10 IV. 2 lbs. C.S.M.; 8 lbs. 0.; 18 lbs. C.S. H. 35 lbs. S 1:9.86 76.90 79.55 79.25 75.50 . . . . . . 60.50 61.30 67.00 59.25 . . . . . II.‘ I. 19.05 “ 62.65 ‘ 72.68‘ 73.60 73.94‘ 70.71 .379 1.768 I ‘ ll I BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. .8 .5 .5‘ .8 c103 nu‘: caui nvi >- - H- Period. Group III. “l, l-l kl a, ,L .‘> pl on: Q ow g, om Q, o0 e as’ e a? s a5 S” £5 S” 6 5*‘ £5 5° I. Nutritive ratio 1:4.5 l:4.5 .. .. l:4.5 . . . . .. :4.5 II. Nutritive ratio l:3.75 +5.45 l:5.05—}—4.2b l:5.78+3.69 l:5.35+1.07 Ill. Nutritive ratio lz-LGU — .32 lzlixiéi-l-LUZ l:8.l +2.61 l:7.3>'+ .14 IV. Nutritive ratio 125.78 +2.59 l:8.9U—-l.0;$ 1:11 7—1.40 l:9.S6— .16 It is plain that every change in the nutritive ratio marked an increase or diminution in the butter yielded. Whether this was due t0 the change in the nature or character of the food it is impossible to deter- mine with the data at hand. The results are very contradictory in nature, but it is seen that in every instance save one a narrow ration gave a de- cided increase, while a corresponding decrease is shown when the ration became wide. As has been remarked previously, the ration used in Period. I. was very fattening, while that fed in Period II. did not show that tendency, and that probably accounts in part for the larger yields of butter obtained in the latter period. We think that we are justified by this data in recommending a ratio of from 125.0, to 1:6, or '7, for bet- ter yields. If narrower or wider than this their usefulness is likely to be impaired. .-.\s in the case of fat, so there are sudden and marked variations in the daily yields of milk, the causes in both instances being similar. The condition and nature of the food directly act on the quality and quan- tity of milk yielded. It is generally conceded that succulent foods in- crease the volume of milk because of their stimulative action on the circulatory and resorptive organs, and the liver, kidneys, etc., while dry and less palatable food exert a contrary influence. An equal amount of dry matter in either case will exert practically the same potency on the elaboration of milk, hence in the former instance a much greater bulk of food will have to be eaten to secure the requisite amount of dry mat- tor. Thus, while equal volumes of solids in the milk may be produced by equal quantities of digested dry matter, w iether from succulent or cured food, the aggregate pounds of milk secured from the former will excel the latter because the solids, and especially the fat, will be diluted in a greater volume of water. An illustration bearing on this point is incorporated here: Pounds of milk yielded by Period. Group II. Group III. Group VI. II. Partly succulent 809.15 980.50 877 .20 . 814.00 996.00 10l7.65 III. Dgtrldsglrglfum’ hay’ 836.50 Partly succulent. . 1069.55 1030.46 1v. a‘ 810.05 1076.85 1035.10 1076 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. The advantage of the succulent food and its effect on the yields as al- ready stated, is self-evident. “Phe greatest difference between maximum and minimum yields of milk ir. the course of the experiments was shown by 220 with 16.50 pounds variation between Periods Il. and I. Gracie came next, with 13».25 pounds, between Periods I. and II. The least variation was shown by 356, with a difference of 5.25 pounds between Periods II. and III. If the niilk is valued at 2 cents per pound the loss entailed becomes seri- ous, as with 220 it would amount to 33 cents a day, and with Gracie, cents per-day. Group III. showed the greatest variation, namely, 24.75 pounds between the First and Second Periods. Group V. followed with a difference of 23.70 pounds bet-ween Periods I. and II., while Group II., with a difference of 16.55 pounds between Periods I. and II., pre- sented the least variation. In Period I. the greatest difference between maximum and minimum yields of milk was 10.60 pounds by 220, and the least by 13., with 4.75 pounds; in Period II., 9 pounds by 220, and 5.75 pounds by 210; in Pe- riod III., 6.50 pounds by 406, and 3.00 pounds by 545; and in Period IV., 10.25 pounds by 406, and 1.50 pounds by 545. With regard to the average pounds of milk yielded per cow and Group per day’ for the whole experimental period, 220 led with an average pro- duction of 35.82 pounds, followed closely by 406 with 31.07, while 545, with 15.38 pounds, was last. Group III. was first in average yield, with 73.44 pounds; Group IV. was second, with 71.76; and Group I. was sixth, with £35.38 pounds per day. Groups III. and IV. led in the value of the milk yielded, while Groups IV., VI., and II., III. were the most expen- sive to feed, in the order named. When the average number of pounds of milk produced per day per cow andi per Group per Period is compared with the average for the whole experiment, the following results are noted: Groups I. and II. show scarcely any variation, hence all the rations fed exerted a uniform influence. Group III. exhibits little change in Periods I. and II., but in III. and IV., differences of as much as three pounds per day are evi- (lent, due probably to the increase of silage in the ration in the last two Periods. Group IV. remained. quite uniform during the first two Pe- riods, but in the last two, variations of 5 pounds are witnessed. Group V. showsno change of any moment until the Third and Fourth Periods are reached, when as great differences as are presented by Group VI. are observed. In the case of Group VI. there was a decided increase in Periods II., III., and IV., amounting to as much as 6 pounds per cow and 8 pounds per (‘rroup per day. ’.l‘hus a difference in the milk-producing ability of the rations fed Groups III., IV., V., and VI., is shown to exist, and we believe it is largely due to the liberal use of silage in the rations given these cows in Periods II., III., and IV., where the greatest increase is observed. _ Two very interesting facts are brought out by the data presented in Table XIV., namely, the important bearing of the daily food cost on the profit derived, and the great differences existing between individual ani- mals, with regard to the cost of the food eaten, and the profit secured. TABLE X1V.—Average Yield, Cost, and Value of Milk Produced per 00w and per Group per Period. Period I. Period II. Period III. Period IV. A d f 3L; s- ... . . . s. . . f 4-. . . . ... . . . gigigsevgiglgnvgéas g5 Q Q>> >1 >1 >a 0% B, V» >1 0% >1 >> % Q>> >> >1 >1 211D C0811 QC!‘ 11y a s s g8 s s as s s 13s s g3 s '38 s Q1911: show 55 s gs s ss s gs s ss s gs s as s gs s ss s 1mm“ gs m) _ mm Q1 H91 D1 ma. Q1 HQ: n. ma. Q4 HQ: Q mm D- “01 n. a f} Q ax q) O u d3 o O a r334 Q) O a 03g cu O a ,___ a“ *9 5 F‘: 5 a ~51 P: a a 11:1 Pg E a U g u "C1 _ =13:- s 3 is s s E is s é E is s é J5 2s s E M1152 “we Co“ Es’ m . 317.... 22.05 3.5513110 $.44] 22.75 355698.111 8.458 23.19 3.5803106 8.474 23.50 355878.098 35.489 22.87 E15.57221£.1()7 £15 465 545 1.16.67 .416 .108 .308 15.14 .378 .108 .270 14.41 .360 .101 .259 15.32 .383 .092 .291 15.38 .384 .102 .282 191... ' 17.01 .425 .098 .327 16.39 .410 .099 .311 17.25 .431 .089 .342 17.89 .447 .084 .363 17.13 .428 .092 .336 55.73 1.392 .316 1.076 54.28 1.357 .318 1.039 54.85 1.371 .296 1.075 56.71 1.417 .274 1.143 55.38 1.384 .301 1.083 ' ‘ 11 I 1‘ 15.23 .381 .098 .283 18.28 .457 .162 .295 17.19 .430 .149 .281116.73 .418 .150 .268 16.86 .421 .1391 .282 438.. 11.20.59 .515 .095 4-20 21.73 .543 .153 .390 23.49 .587 .150 .437123.44 .586 .146 .440 22.31 .558 .1361 .422 1 1 1 653. 21.97 .549 .082 .467118.13 .453 .114 .339 19.06 .476 .114 362118.15 .454 .109 .345; 19.33 .483 .104 .379 57.79 1.445 .275 1.170158.14 1.453 .429 1.025 .59.74 1.493 .413 1.080" 58.32 1.458 .405 1.053‘ 58.50 1.462, .379. 1.083 1 1 11 1 1 405.... 27.68 .692 .102 .590 28.48 .712 .143 .569 32.14 .803 .1361 .667 31.59 .790 .126 664729.97 .750 .1271 .623 35t1....11I.17.06 .426 .098 .328 17.09 .427 .124 .303 17.77 .444 .120 .324 19.11 .478 .116 .362 17.76 .444 .114 .330 Gracie 25.29 .632 .106 .526 24.86 .621 .138 .483 26.49 .662 .136 .526 26.21 .655 .136 .519 35.71 .643 .129 .514 70.03 1.750 .306 1.444 70.43 1.761 .405 1.355 176.40 1.909 .392 1.517176.91 1.923 .378 1.545 73.44 1.437 .3701 1.467 1 1 1 1 11 1 210.... 10.39 .410 .094 310116.03 .401 .122 .279115.93 .398 .131 .207 19.70 .417 .135 .2s21110.27 .407 .1201 .287 182.... IV. 19.21 .480 .096 .384118.64 .466 .126 340122.16 .554 .130 .424 18.67 .467 .136 331111967 .492 .1221 .370 220.. .. 33.54 .838 .128 710135.62 .890 .173 717137.02 .925 .184 .741 37.10 .927 .202 .725,135.82 .895 .172; .723 69.14 1.728 .318 1.410170.29' 1.757 .421 1.336175.11 1.877 .445 1.432 72.47 1.811 .473 1.3381171.76 1.794 .4141‘ 1.380 . 1 11 1 i . 1 1 1 691.... 17.59 .440 .078 .362 19.61; .490 .093 .397 22.69 .567 .105 .462 21.23 .531 .108 .423 20.28 .507 .096 .411 115. .. V. 19.72 .493 .090 .403 19.661 .491 .116 .375 22.84 .571 .122 .449 22.53 .563 .124 .439 21.19 .530 .113 .417 1 347.... 26.04 .651 .111 .540 26.111 .6531 .149 .504 28.73 .718 .155 .563 28.44 .711 .172 .539 27.33 .683 .147 .536 63.35 1.584 .279 1.305 65.381 1.6341 .358 1.276 74.26 1.856 .382 1.474 72.20 1.805 .404 1.401168.80 1.720 .356 1.364 I 1 442.... 17.35 .434 .075 .359 20.00 .500 .096 .404 20.98 .524 .099 .425 20.99 .525 .119 .406 19.83 .496 .097 .399 406.... VI. 26.86 .671 .105 .566 31.54 .788 .131 .657 33.13 .828 .144 .684 32.77 .819 .159 660131.07 .777 .135, .642 323.... 18.44 .461 .105 .356 21.14 .528 .152 .376 19.49 .487 .159 .328 20.18 .504 .170 334119.81 .495 .1471 .348 62.65 1.566 .285 1.281 72.68 1.816 .399 1.437 73.60 1.839 .402 1.437 73.94 1.849 .448 1.400170.71 1.768 .3791 1.389 BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT‘ OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. In Period I., 220 led in milk yield, ivith 33.54 pounds "per day. The cost of her ‘food was 12.8 cents, leaving as profit 71.0 cents. 405 occu- pied second place. Her record was 27.68 po-unds of milk, costing 10.2 cents, and yielding a daily profit oi 59.0 cen-ts. B. came last in milk yield, with 15.23 pounds, made at a food cost of 9.8 cents, and returning a daily profit of 28.3 cents. In Period II., 220 again led, with the following record, 35.62 pounds of milk, costing for food 17.3 cents, and yielding a daily profit of 7.17 cents. 406 was second, with a. production of 31.54 pounds, made at a cost of 13.1 cents for food, and yielding a daily profit of 65.7 cents. 405 fell to third place, with 28.48 pounds of milk, costing 14.3 cents, and giving a net profit of 56.9 cents. 545 brought up the rear, with a daily yield of 1.5.14 pounds of milk, at a food cost of 10.8 cents, and a profit of 27.0 cents. In Period III., 220 still retained first place in yield and profit. She gave 37.02 pounds of milk, at a cost of 18.4 cents, and leaving as profit 74.1 cents. 406 was second, with a daily yield of 33.13 pounds of milk, at a cost of 14.4 cents, and with ‘a profit of 68.4 cents per day. 405 was third, with a daily return of 32.14 pounds of milk, made at a food cost of 13.6 cents, and yielding a profit of 66.7 cents. 545 again brought up the rear, with a daily production of 14.41 pounds of milk, costing 10.1 cents, and leaving as profit 25.9 cents. In Period IV., 220 still retained first place. She gave 37.10 pounds of milk per day, costing 20.2 cenlts, and giving a profit of 72.5 cents. 405 came third in yield and second in profit. Her record was 31.59 pounds of milk per day, costing 12.6, and leaving as profit 66.4 cents. 406 came second in yield, but third in profit. She made 32.77 pounds of milk per day. at a food cost of 15.9 cents, and a profit of 66.0 cents. B. was last in profit, but next to last in produc-tion. She gave 16.73 pounds of milk daily, at a cost of 15.0 cents for food, and leaving a profit of 26.8 cents. 545 was last in mill; yield, but third from lowest in profit, as follows: 15.32 _ponnds of milk per day’, costing 9.2 cents, and giving as profit 29.1 cents. In average production for the entire experiment, the standing was as given below: N0. of cow. E Rating. Daily yield‘ Daily cost of food. Daily profit. 220 i . 1 35.82 $0.172 | $0.723 406 2 31.07 .135 .642 405 3 29.99 . .127 .623 210 Next t0 lowest. 16.27 .120 .287 545 Last. 15 .38 .102 .282 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. m8. mam. o2. E23 I?! 5m. 2.... 3.5 29+ mam. m3. mm? ma. is. was; M N”?! 2a. 2o. $22 S¢.| fim. SW 3.3 mgl Ea. m3. 1.2 .8»... m2. $4: B...“ 59+ aw“. $2. 3.3 ~._o.| .3. SQ. .33 $0.] Em. N2. 8...: .3»: 26. ma: 2m mcofT 25. 3F. Q95 1.5+ “P? m2. I. w. Eo.| $5. m2. wvwm 2m. m2. ma? m2. 0.2.... 8w. a2. 5.3 Rc.+ wms. 3;. £3 59+ 5w. 5H. 3.3 $3.. m3. wwam N9. wS.| mfi. 2a. 3.5." 5.5T N3. $7 25m 25+ .5». m2. m3... 2.... m2. E? 8m dwmm dQnmO @250 dQA dEw .3500 .3680 .wnQ dEw @230 mfiSO and dfim @250 $250 .wnq .3 duobm 60o“ 63?». .5 452% doc“ 6E1» .5 dmopnH 603 dirt» no 4.50pm doc“ 63E mmofl Ho $00 ~52 mmofl Ho $00 5S2 wwoQ .6 .500 v52 mwofl Ho .600 ~52 .02 ma... 3Q EEQ|.>H wotwm Ewmfllqi wozwm EGWQ IAH woiwm >55 IA gzwm .§Q.$Q§@Q&m 50kg wfifikk .80 $2.6 QmQQ QQORmSRO mu§m3g§ méh EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. The slanting numbers indicate the periods when the greatest profit was derived from each cow. The increase or decrease in profit in the several periods is indicated by plus or minus, and is seen to vary greatly. As already shown, these cows were selected from all those under test, be- cause they either excelled or were deficient milk producers, and the value of the comparison is in nowise injured by this treatment, as the remain- ing cows, treated in the above manner, would exhibit similar contrasts. It appears that the cost of the food was out of all proportion to the profit re- turned on some occasions. B’s food cost 9.8 cents per day, in Period I., and 16.2 cents in Period II. The gain over Period I. was only 1.2 cents. 405’s food cost 10.2 cents per day in Period I., and in Period II. 14.3, or 4.1 cents more per day than in Period I. The increase in milk yield in Period II. was trifling, hence there was a loss of 2.1 cents per day, as a result of feeding the latter rations. Therefore, the cost of the food has a vital bearing on the value of a cow. The similarity of cows from the standpoint of pro-fits is nicely brought out by comparing the maximum yields of 220, 406, and 405, in Period III., when the net profit returned per cow was 74.1, 68.4, and 66.7 cents, respectively. The milk yields were 37.02, 33.13, 32.14 pounds, and the cost of the food 18.4, 14.4, and 13.6 cents per day, respectively. These are seen to be in the right relative proportion. When the food cost was higher, the yields of milk were not sufficiently increased "to make it profitable; when the food cost was low- ered, the maximum production of milk was 11ot altered- The extremes inyields and profits were 220 and B, in Periods III. and II. 220 made 37.02 pounds of milk, at a food cost of 18.4 cents, and a profit of 74.1 cents, while B made 18.28 pounds of milk, at a food cost of 16.2 cents, and a profit of 29.5 cents. It appears that while the difference in food cost amounted to 2.2 cents, the difference in profits aggregated 44.6 cents. This marks the profitable and undesirable cows. The positions occupied by the several Groups in the different Periods is shown in the appended summaries: Period I. Group. Rating. Daily yield of milk, lbs. Cost of food per day, cts. Profit per day III. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70 03 3 $1.444 IV. '2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.14 31.8 1.410 I. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.73 31.6 1.076 O Oi 4 —- B111. 47 1080 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Period II. VI. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.68 39.9 1.437 III. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.43 40.5 1.355 IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.29 42.1 1.336 IL 5% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. g 58ml 4&9 L025. § in yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1' 615m in profit ........ ........ .. 5 54-28 31-8 1-039 Period III. III. I 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.40 I 39.2 1.517 IV. 2-—4th in profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.11 44.5 1.432 V. 3-21111 in profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.26 38.2 1.474 VI. 4—3rd in profit . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .. 73.60 40.2 1.437 I. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.85 29.6 1.075 Period IV. III. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76.91 37.8 1.545 VI. 2—3rd in profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.94 44.8 1.400 IV. _ 3—-4th in profit _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.47 47.3 1.338 V. 4—-2nd in profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.20 40.4 1.401 II. 5—6th in profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.32 40.5 1.053 Averages for the Entire Experiment. III. 73.44 37.0 1.467 IV. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.76 41.4 1.380 VI. 3—2nd in profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.77 37.9 1.389 V. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.80 35.6 1.364 II. 5-—6th in profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.50 37.9 1.083 I. 6——5th in profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.38 30.1 1.083 BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL Q N.“ N~W 0 1~AXQ>YXQ~§QNSS$~ $3 J as, xi wig y“; w; $2 \,%:\ 3% Y: a»; I flt/érgg e;of.-z/ a’ QwQZQQNmJXQEQYW Xxx Qxnkx. \2r»omu<.§\ N? Gfofy/(QIN ‘flfou/“J/V GTO EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 103]; ma: 3m 5.8 waol 83 v.4...» 3R BB3 B»; m? 8.? 92+ Bvm i». wwfi. ~mw~ P? BBQ A> . 3 _ 3 2 v sh? 9Q 3w... Sal s? *9. 32. 32+ EN? 2% “mi Q8] Rwm ma.” mag 8mm BAN $9.8 .> - .3 . v a? Y; 2...: v.21 1m? w? 2.2. w€+ w“? mi. ii P8! Bmwm 73. max: 2mm 32% 3% .5 . 3 3 m m . 5%? Q2 2am. Tel wvmww Q5 5R ETT fimm 2m 3.3. mist Bmm v9» m3; 2w; 99w 3R .5 mwm; 3m Qmwm “.8! as; m? 24% m...5+ &s.~ #2. fiaw mil BNWK QB‘ 2a.... oi? wk KRQB i C w w mwwxxw gm wmdm QS+ Qwwmm xk 1.3 wéjr whom; 9% mwa... YB! 933$ Q5 .33 “$.33; 9;. ES A a3 - a3 a3 a m d3 d3 .20 .95 .30 .39 d5 BB w .33 Q5 .83.. BB2 .34 daw 6B8 Q5 dfim 6B8 Q5 6B8 2A m 592m B .22». B 32m B BEE B imam B BB3 B JBE B .22» 32m B .22» u $00 xSE mwoQ 30D x22 wwofl uwoO x12 mwofl pwoO ~52 .600 xii .225 .:€ml.>~ Botwm xfimlxi BBBm mimlfi BBBm DEQIA worsm duoiwm 2m Ho om§o>< ..w§e.$¢ E zetfissifi fi§~ 39$ “WEIR 2% co 36b weak .3 wuzwzfizw 2PM TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. The positions occupied by the several Groups in the diflierent Periods are shown by the small bracketed figures. tllhe slanting numbers rep- r-esent the highest and lowest milk yield, food cost, and profit secured by each Group. It will be observed that the milk yields of Groups 1. and 11., in all the Periods, when compared with the average results, showed very little variation. These Groups received a non-succulent ra- tion. 1n Period 1. when all Group-s received the same raftion the profit derived d-iepended on the cost of the food consumed, and the pounds of milk yielded per day, and while this statement is practically true of all the Periods, the difference in the nature of the rations in other instances doubtless lead an influence on the yield and profit. Table XV. presents the airerage consumption of meal and coarse foods (i. e., the ratio of meal and coarse substances to each other) in the daily ration, arranged in such a manner as to show the effects of these several ratios on- the cost and amount of milk a.nd butter produced per cow and per Group per Period. 1n Period 1., 220 ate 7 pounds of meal and 46.3 pounds of coarse foods, leading in this respect. 545, Gracie, and 347 consumed 6.3 pounds of meal and over 36.4 pounds of coarse foods. 'I‘l1e smallest amount of meal zind rough foods was eaten by 442, with 4.2 and 27.4 pounds, re- spectively. 220 excelled in butter yield, with 1.275 pounds per day, fol- lowed closely by 405, 406, and 653, with 1.130, 1.121, and 1.043 pounds. 545 was last in production, with .733 pounds of butter per day. With regard to profit 220 led with 19.1 cents per day, 405 was second, with 18 cents, and 406 third, with 17.5 cents. 191 and 545 made the smallest profit, with 8.7 and 7.5 cents per day. In Period 11., 220 consumed 11.4 pounds of meal and 55.3 pounds of rough substances per day. 347 and 323 ate over 9.7 pounds of meal and 46.6 pounds of coarse material, while 442 and 691, representing the minimum consumption, ate 6.1 and 6.5 pounds of meal and 29.7 and 28.9 pounds of roughage, respectively. 1n this Period seven cows yielded over one pound of butter per day, the maximum being attained by 220, with 1.543 pounds per day; 191 and 545 ‘showed the minimum yields with .786 and .764 pounds per day. In net profit 406 was first with a credit of 24.2 cents. 220 was next ivith 21.3 cents, and 4.05 third with 19.3 cents. The smallest returns were made by 438 and B with 6.3 and 7.6 cents per day. In Period 111., as would be expected from her weight and size, 220 again was first in gross consumption per day, with 12 pounds of meal and 59.5 pounds of coarse foods. 115 disposed of 8.3, 323 of 10.6, and 347 of 10.2 pounds of me-al per day, and 347 of 51.2, Gracie 49.6, 405 of 49.5 pounds of roughage per day. 1n gross butter yield 220 was first with 1.537 p-ound.s. She was folloxved by 406 and 405 with 1.546 and 1.387 pounds, respectively. The lowest yields were made by 191 and 545 with .817 and .700 pounds. In profit per day 406 was first with a credit of 24.2 cents; 405 was next, with 21.2 cents, and 220 third with 20.0 cents. B and 438 made the smallest gain over cost with 7.1 and 7 cents each. In Period IV., 220 consumed 13.1 pounds of meal and 65.2 pounds of coarse foods per day. This was the maximum consumption reached by any cow during the experiment. The opposite extreme was represented TABLE XV.— Meal and Coarse Foods Consumed per Day,’ Milk and Butter Produced per Day with Profit 0n Same per 00w and per Group. Period I., 14 days. Period II.,14days. Period III., 14 days. l Period IV. Averages for entire experimental period. Rating. g .1 32¢ I: "a 5? s .1 L’ Z: e 51s s a 34 2 e B? 5 .1 3w I: "a 3a‘ a: 4 311 Z: =1 B? s: E1 3 g2 g S 2:13 8 e g w: g S 35g 8 e 3g "g5 c: 33 g e 3 ~32 g 33 816 3 e g g5 =11 5 811s ‘g e _ 5 52 Qs =~ 2 '5 ‘B; E 514 3 =~ °‘ =1 ‘Es E S"; Os; 2 °‘ 3 "5; a? ‘i=4 Os =— 7 3 "51s $5 514 o» 3 °‘ “E “Bu. E - 3‘ m: . _. ‘He: => “~33 =s o. ,2 ““ a: ~23 1e o. :9. “c: w 1H3 c3 o. ‘*2 “*5 w , H” c3 p. f. “H: u: -3 ,5 o, B a 5 p‘ _” 03,6 Q 5-1 OF ow Law _._ Q) Q, s Or org Hm ‘h 323,5 Q F-I O, 0,6 pg; > 03,3 Q4 a O8: {DU Am h“ 0rd Q F-4 O‘ 03,1: kw Q L, P‘ s‘ a ' :1 P‘ a v w ' 42>: :1 P‘ a v a - -' :- v a - '-< a. a - ‘Z g d!» m» L‘ 3w 42>» Ha 65>. m ._. u”, Ha d!» :4 ,_.. 2m ah 3:. 3'6 5Q w» ._. 0m 51>. 5:4 dim ma. m gm u!» 3s- 3E 2 b” 6.3 22.05 11.0 20.9 09.9 9.6 22.75 .995 11.1 24.8 .7 8.1 25.6 23.19 10.6 24.8 14.2 6.6 .6 23.50 1.028 0.98 25.7 15.9 7.7 28. 22.87 10.7 24.0 13.3 9 6.3 16. 10.8 18.3 07.5 9.4 15.14 .764 10.8 19.1 .3 7.8 24.5 14.41 10.1 17.5 07.4 6.2 .0 ..32 .748 0.92 18.7 09.5 7.4 27. ".38 10.2 18.4 08.2 16 V. 5.7 17. 0 . 18.5 08.7 8.5 16.39 .786 09.9 19.6 ..7 6.8 21.6 17.25 08.9 20.4 11.5 5.7 ‘.8 .89 . 71 0.84 21.8 13.4 6.7 25. .13 09.2 20.1 10.9 11 18.3 55. ‘ 3 . 57.7 26.1 27.5 54.28 2.545 31.8 63.5 .7 22.7 71.7 54.85 29.6 62.7 33.1 - 18.5 .4 .71 2.647 2.74 66.2 38.8 21.8 81 .38 30.1 62.5 32.4 . _ I l. 5.7 .3 15. . 2 11.4‘ 8.8 18 .954 16. 23.8 .6 6.9 17.19: .9 ".0 07. f 5.6 .1 .73 .928 23.2 08.2 6.7 .5 86 13.9 22. 1 08.6 15 5.4 20. .3 11.8 8.4 21 .862 15.‘ 21.6 .3 6.8 ' 23.49: .0 ".0 07. 5.6 .1 .44 .843 21.1 06.5 6.6‘ .9 .31 13.6 21. 07.9 17 VI. 4.8 .7 21. .1 17.91 6.5 .. 18 .973 11. 24.3 .9 5.1 19.06} .4 .9 11.‘ 4.0 .8 .15 .902 22.6 11.7 5.1, .9 .33 10.4 24. 13.9 5 5.9 .3 57. 6 41.1 3.7 .' 58. 2.799 42. 69.7 .8 18.8 59.741 .3 .9 25. 15.2 ‘.0 .32 2.673 66.91 26.4 18.4 .3 .50 ' 37.9 68.. 30.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5.6 1. ) 27. 2 18.0 9. 1.7 '28. 1.343 14.3 33.6 .3 32.14 .6 .6 21.2 5.9 .8 I 59 1.412‘ 35.3 22. 7.‘ 7.9 .97 . 12.7 33.0 20. 2 5.4 . 17. .0 13.2 8. .9 17. 1.000 12.4 2'.0 .6 17."7 .0 .1 12.." '.(‘ .1 .11 1.1001 27.? 15. . 6. .0 .76 . 11.4 24.9 13. 8 1 6.3 . 25. .9 14.3 9. .6 24. ' 1.093 13.8 27.3 .5 26.49 .6 6 13.6 .5 ‘ .21 1.0851 27.1) 13. f 7. .4 .71 1. 12.9 26.5 13.‘ 7 7.3 ' 70. .1] 45.5 7. .2 70. 3.436 40.5 85.9 .4 76.40 .2 .3 46.7 7.8 .4 ‘.91 3.5971 89.9 52. 1." .3 ‘.44 3. 37.0 84.4 47. 1 I -1- I _ 5.3 16.. .1 11. .9 .5 16. .836 12.2 20.9 .7 .-.6 15.93 .1 .0 06.9 .7 .4 .70 .880 22.0 08.5 .7 ‘.27 12.0 21.0 09. 14 5.6 1.2 19. . ' .3 12. .5 .2 18. ' .936 12.‘ 23.4 .8 .8 22.16 .0 .3 14.3 . .2 .9 .69 .945 23.6 10.0 .9 . .67 12.2 24.2 12. 10 III. 7.2 '8 E33.’ 1. .9 19. .4 .33 25.1"). 1.543 17.? 38.6 .3 .5 87.02 .. .4 .4 20.0 .-.1 ..2 - .10 1.531 38.3 18.1 .9 7.82 17.2 36.8 19.‘ 3 8.1 8 ('9. 1 3. 7.3 43.; .8 .0 70. 33.315 42. 82.9 .6 .9 75.11 - .5 1.7 41.2 .0 .5 p.47 3.356 83.9 36.6 76 I 41.4 82.0 40.‘ 4.5 .3 17. .0 13.2 6. .9 19.‘ .971 09.3 24.3 .'.6 22.69 .5 26.0 15.5 .3 .23 .950 23.7 12.9 6.2 .3 2 28 . 09.6 23.4 13.8 6 5.1 8 19. L. 8 10.8 7. ‘.9 19. .893 11.6 .8 22.84 .2 23.6 11.4 .9 .53 .918 23.0 10.6 7.5 .2 21 19 . 11.3 22.2 10.9 11 IV. 6.3 4 26. .5 13.4 9. .9 26. .984 14.9 24.6 .2 28.73 ._5 26.2 10.7 .2 .44 1.065 26.6 09.4 9.4 .5 ‘K33 1. 14.7 25.5 10.8 12 5.9 0 63..." 5.3 .'7.4 24. .7 65 2.848 35.8 71.2 .6 74.26 - .2 75.8 37.6 .4 ‘.20 2.933 73.8 32.9 23.1 .0 68.80 2. 35.6 7 .1 35.5 4.2 17. : 07.5 4 13.1 6.1 .7 20. 1.000 09.6 25.0 1.4 .4 20.98 .9 ' 4 15.5 6.3 .8 .99 1.070 26‘. 14.9 5.6 .8 19.83 09.7 24.4 14. 4 6.0 26. 10.5 .0 17.5 8.7 .3 31. 1.490 13.1 37.3 .2 1.5 33.13 14.4 6 24.2 9.5 .7 .77 1.414 35. 19.4 8.2 .0 31.07 131.5 34.8 21. 1 II. 5.9 18.44 10.5 .7 11.0 9.7 .6 21. 1.036 15.2 25.9 .7 1.2 19.49 15.9 3 08.4 0.4 .6 .18 1.043 26. 09.1 9.2 .9 19.81 14.7 24.5 09. 13 6.1 ‘ 62.65 28.5 .1 41.6 26.5 .6 72.68 3.526 37.9 88.2 . .1 73.60 2 . 48.1 26.2 .1 73.94 3.527 88.2 43.4 23.0 . 70.71 37.9 83.7 45.8 BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. by 653, who ate 4 pounds of meal and 19.8 poundsof rough-age. In but- ter yield 220, 406, and 405 all made over 1.414 pounds per day, and 191 and 545 made the least butter with .871 and .748 pounds apiece per day. Considering the question of profit, 405 came first with 22.7 cents, 406 next with 19.4 cents, 220 third with 18.1 cents and 438 last with 6.5 cents per day. In average butter yield and profit for the Whole experiment the rating is as follows: Ear tag number. Butter, lbs. Rating. Ear tag number. Ear tag number. Profit. Ear tag number. NH ‘Rating. l0 a Rating. 2O 1.471 4 Gracie 1.059 406 1.393 Next to last 191 .803 3 405 1.318 Last 545 .737 Next to last 191 220 19.6 i406 21 .3 405 20.3 Last 54.5 ‘The ratios existing between the consumption of meals and coarse foods per day per Groups will now be briefly considered. In Period I., Group .I. consumed the most meal per day with 18.3 pounds, Group IV. was next with 18.1 pounds, Group III. third with 17.3 pounds, and Groups II. and V. last with 15.9 pounds. In the mat- ter of coarse materials Group IV. led with 114.8 pounds per day, fol- lowed closely by Groups III. and. VI., with .109.6 and 103.0 pounds, re- spectively. "The least food of this nature was eaten by Group V. with 102 pounds. In butter yields Groups III., IV. and VI. averaged 3.047, 3.011 and 2.804 pounds per day, Group I. making the smallest return with 2.309 pounds per day. In net profit Groups III., and IV., and VI. led with 45.5, 45.5 and 41.6 cents per day, while Group I. was last, with 26.1 cents per day. In Period II., Groups I. and III. and IV. ate over 27 pounds of meal per day, while Groups II. an-d V. disposed of over 23 pounds. Groups IV. and lII. ate 133 and 126.2 pounds of coarse foods, and Group II. 62.6 pounds of the same per day. In butter production Groups VI., III., and IV. led, with 3.526, 3.436, and 3.315 pounds per day. Group I. stood last in this respect, with 2.545 pounds per day. In profits the extremes‘ are represented by Groups VI., III., and IV., with 50.3, 45.4, and 40.6 cents, and Group II. with 26.8 cents per day. In Period III., Group IV. disposed of 28.7 pounds of meal and 143.9 pounds of coarse foods daily, while Group V. only received 25.3 pounds of meal and 125.6 pounds of roughage. The smallest consumption of meal and coarse foods was shown by Group II. with 18.8 and 67.8 pounds, respectively. In butter production Groups VI., IV., and III. made 3.535, 3.430, and 3.415 pounds per day, and Group I. 2.507 pounds. In daily net profit Groups VI., III., and IV. excelled, with 48.1, 46.7, and 41.2 cents, Group II. making the smallest return with 25.7 cents. In Period IV. the extremes in meal and coarse substance eaten were represented by Groups IV. and II., with 31 and 15.2 pounds of the for- mer, and 151.5 and 73 of the latter. In butter yields Groups III., VI., and IV. followed in the order named with a profit of 52.1, 43.4, and 36.6 cents, respectively. Group I. was last in yield with 2.647 pounds, and Group II. last in profit, with 26.4 cents. 1 TEXAS AGRIC ULT URAL EXPERIMENT STATION. In average production and profit from butter during the whole ex- periment the following rating prevailed: . Rating, Group. Buttelrglsaer day, Proficteplrtagvday, 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III. 3.373 47.4 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VI. 3.348 45.8 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IV. 3.276 40.6 4-lu\vcsl. of all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. 2.502 32.4 In any successful business enterprise it is necessary to know the cost of turning out the finished article, and as milk and butter are generally sold on the basis of 100 pounds and 1 pound, the data concerning the several cows and Groups has been arrangd in Table XVL, so» as to show the estimated cost of the above mentioned quantities in this experiment. In Period I., 405 made the cheapest 100 pounds of milk, at an out- lay of 36.9 cents. In the case of 653, 220, and 406 it cost 37.3, 38.1, and 39.1 cents per 100 pounds. The greatest outlay required for 100 pounds of milk was with B and 545, with 63.8 and 65.1 cents, respec- tively. 6:723 made a pound of butter at a food cost of 7.8 cents, and 405, 691, 442, 406, and 220 for 9, 9.2, 9.3, 9.3, and 10 cents, in the order named. The dearest pound of butter was made by 545 and 191, for 14.7 and 13.2 cents. In Period II., 406, 691, 442, and 220, all made 100 pounds of milk for less than 49 cents, while the maximum expenditure for 100 pounds ranged between 72 and 89 cents. The dearest and cheapest pound of butter was yielded by 438 and 406, at a respective outlay of 17.7 and 8.8 cents. In Period III., 405, 406, 317, and 691 made 100 pounds of milk at a cost of 42.2, 43.3, 45.9, and 46.2 cents, respectively. The highest co-st of 100 pounds of milk is shown by B and 210, namely, 84.6 and 81.3 cents. A pound of butter from 406, 442, 405, cost 9.3, 9.7, and 9.8 cents, while the cost of a pound of butter from 438 and 323 was 17 and 16.2 cents. In Period IV., the lowest cost ‘of 100 pounds of milk was 40.0, 41.9, 47.1, and 48.4 cents, for 405, 317, 191, and 406, while the dearest 100 pounds was produced by B and 323, at a cost of 90.9 and 84.6 cents. Regarding the cost of one pound of butter, 405, 317, and 191 proved the most economical in this respect, while the opposite extreme was represented by 438 and B. In the first instance the butter cost 8 to l0 cents per pound, in the latter 16 to 17 cents per pound. In average minimum cost of 100 pounds of milk, for the entire ex- perimental period, 405 led, with 42.3 cents, followed by 406, with 43.3 cents, and 317, with 46.6 cents. In average maximum cost, B, 210, and 323 followed in the order named, with 82.8, 74.0, and 73.9 cents outlay per 100 pounds of milk yielded. The minimum cost of making a pound of butter, as the average of the. four periods, is Sl10W11 in the eases of 405, 442, 406, and 691, to have been 9.6, 9.7, and 10.1 cents, respectively. i The maximum cost under similar conditions is seen in the cases o-f 438, B, and 323, with 15.8, 15.5, and 14.9 cents per pound, respectively. TABLE XVI.——00.vi of 100 Pozmuls of flfillc and of 1 Pound of Butter per 00w and per Group per Period. Period I. Period n. Period 111. Period 1v. QVXeI§§Q§D°B°IfQ i?‘ Rating. _ ‘ d‘ g ‘a g‘ ‘a d‘ ‘C? d‘ g 3 h‘ Per * w Q 3 Eé o m “ >' g g F‘. 2 2 2 "22 2. 2-. g 22 2. 22 a 2. ; .. 2 2 .. 2 2 s 2 2%‘ 22 2 2.2 2 2 2e a»: 2 g3 2 £32 i=5 2:. 2 2 =~ 2 2 2 2 2 a 2 o n. z a“ o“ n. 2r a. z n” o“ n. o" 2. z“ ow 0* n. o" c2. 2 o > n. m o > n. 1 7 lbS. C.S.M.; 16 lbS. (18.11; 28 lbS. S . . . . . . . . . . 1:4.5 973.70 495.14 102 68 343 76 48 70 0.8.114. 234 82 169.11 94.67 42 26 32.18 C.S.H.+S. 738 88 326 03 8 01 301.50 16 52 780 20 $4 43 $19 50 $15 07 32.38 $4 43 $8 l0 $3 67 2 7 lbS. C.S.M.; 161135. C.S.H., 28 lbS. S . . . . . . . . . . 124.5 836 85 449.73 112.57 295.00 42 16' 0.8.114. 204.16 147.03 82.31 36.7 27.981 C.S.H.+S. 632 69 302 70 30.26 258 26 14.18 809 l5 3 84 20 23 16 39 38 44 3 84 9 61 5 77 3 7 lbS. C.S.M.; 16 lbS. C.S.H., 28 lbS. S . . . . . . . . .. 114.5 926 19 472.81 97 59 328.87 46.35 0.5M. 222.71 160 39 89 79 40.08 30 52 C.S.H.+S. 703 48 312 42 7.80 288 79 15.83 980 50 4 27 24 51 20 24 42 66 4 27 l0 66 6 39 4 7 lbS. C.S.M.; 16 lbS. 0.8.1.4., 28 lbS. S . . . . . . . . . . 124.5 967.71 494.29 101.90 343 98 48.41 0.82M. 232.44 167.39 93.71 41.83 31.85 C.S.H.+S. 735 27 325.90 8 19 302.15 16 56 968 15 4 44 24 20 l9 76 42.13 4 44 10 52 6 08 5 7 lbS. C.S.M.; 16 lbS. (28.11, 28 lbs. S . . . . . . . . . . 124.5 846.65 434.12 89.60 302.05 42.52 6.8.111. 204.16 147 03 82.31 36.74 27.98 C.S.H.+S. 541 49 287.09 7.29 265 31 14.54 887 05 3 92 22 l8 l8 2P 36.50 3 92 9 14 5 22 6 7 lbS. 018.111.; 16 lbS. 0.811., 28 lbS. S . . . . . . . . . . 124.5 869.08 442.89 90.69 308.. 7 43.23 0.8.111. 206.73 148.88 83.35 37.20 28.33 C.S.H.—|— S. 662.35 294.01 7.34 271.77 14.90 877 20 4 00 21 93 17 93 39.33 4 00 9 82 5 82 l 10 lbS. 0.854.; 20 lbS. (18.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.12 1149.10 550 55 146.40 340.55 63.60 0.8.111. 353.80 254.79 142.64 63 67 48.48 0.8.121. 795.30 295.76 3.76 276 88 15.12 760 20 4 45 19 01 l4 56 35.65 4 45 8 91 4 46 2 10 lbS. C.S.M.; 20 lbS. 8.1-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123.8 1099.78 686.28 144.69 468.69 72.90 0.8.111. 305.33 219.89 123.10 54.95 41.84 S. H. 794.45 466 39 21.59 413.74. 31.06 814.00 6 00 20 35 l4 35 39 06 6 00 9 76 3 76 3 10 lb-S. C.S.1\I.; 16 lbS. (18.11; 33 lbS. S . . . . . . . . . . 123.75 1143.57 607.00 150.22 390.79 65.99 0.8.111. 350.49 252.30 141.20 63.07 48.03 C.S.l'l.+S 793 08 316.52 9 02 327.72 17.96 986 00 5 66 24 66 19 00 48 14 5 66 l2 03 6 37 4 6 lbS. C.S.l14.; 4 lbS. 13.; 16 lbS. C.S.H.; 33 lbS. S. 125.03 1183.28 614.17 114.37 447.19 52.61 C.S.l1l.+ B. 352.13 241.62 104.84 103 04 33.74 C.S.H.+S 831.15 372.55 9.53 344 15 18.87 984.20 5 90 24 61 18 71 46 41 5 90 11 59 5 69 5 6 lbS. 0.8.111; 41138. 0.114.; 16 lbs. 0.8.111; 33 lbS. S. 125.78 1007.07 517.03 99.74 371.82 45.47 G.S.l\l.+ 0.111 306.63 210.47 91.48 89.54 29.45 G.S.l:l.+ S 700 44 306 56 8.26 282.28 16 02 915 35 5 02 22 88 l7 86 39.87 5 02 9 96 4 94 6 6 lbs. C.S.11Z[.; 4 lbB. 0.; 16 lbS. 0.8.11; 33 lbS S. 125.35 1027.61 515.01 97.57 396.39 48.05 C.S.l11.+(). 111.25 221.01 89.37 99.85 31.79 C.S.H.+S 716.36 294.00 8.20 296.54 16.26 1017.65 5 32 25 44 20 l2 49.40 5 32 l2 34 7 02 l 8 lbS. C.S.M.; 2511B. (18.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 124 .07 1185.17 542.25 121.76 363.56 56.93 6.8.111. 291.55 209.95 117.54 52.46 39 95 (18.11. 893 62 332.30 4.22 311 10 16.98 767.85 4 16 19 20 15 04 35.11 4 16 8 77 4 61 2 8 lbS. 0.8.111; 30 lbS. SH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 .51 1109.70 684.18 121.02 496.07 67.09 0.8.114. 241.61 174.00 97.41 43.48 33.11 SH. 868 09 510 18 23.61 452 59 33 98 836 50 5 76 20 91 15 15 38.07 5 76 9 50 3 74 3 8 lbS. C.S.M.; 18 lbS. C.S.H.; 35 lbS. 8 . . . . . . . . . . 1Z4 .66 1180.19 606.06 125.20 421.48 59.38 0.3M. 285.31 195 45 115.02 51.34 39.09 C.S.H.+ S. 894 88 400 61 10 18 370 14 20.29 1069.55 5 50 26 74 21 24 47.82 5 50 11 95 6 45 4 41118. C.S.l14.; 6 lbS. B.; 18 lbS. C.S.H.; 35 lbS. S. 1Z6 .63 1275.49 648.99 98.75 502.45 47.79 O.8.111.+B. 360.89 241.53 88.50 125.87 27.16 C.S.H.+S. 914 60 407.46 l0 25 376.58 20.63 1051.88 6 22 26 30 20 08 48.03 6 22 l2 01 5 79 5 4 lbS. 58.11.; 6 lbS. 6.114.; 181138. (1.811; 35 lbS. S. 1Z8 .1 1113.45 610.97 76.18 492.03 42.76 C.S.M.+ 0.11 310.68 254.02 67.24 162.09 24.69 C.S.H.+ S. 802.7’ 356 95 8 94 329 94 18 07 1039.76 5 35 25 99 20 64 42 47 5 35 10 61 5 26 6 4 lbS. C.S.M.; 6 lbS. 0.; 18 lbs. C.S.H.; 35 lbS. S. 1111.7 1069.8 561.85 83.00 433.44 45.41 C.S.l.11.+(). 319.97 225.65 74.50 123.71 27.44 C.S.H.+ S. 749.87 336.20 8.50 309.73 17.97 1030.46 5 61 25 76 20 15 49.54 5 61 l2 38 6 77 - | 1 6 lbS. 0.8.5.1.; 25 lbS. 0.8.111 . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. 115.05 1202.34 530.56 100.59 379.01 50.96 0.8.114. 238.22 172.04 96.04 43.36 326410.814. I 964 12 358.52 4.55 335.65 18.32 794.00 3 85 19 85 16 00 37.06 3 85 9 26 5 41 2 6 lbS. 0.816.; 301133. SH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126.64 1118.74 682.56 103.39 516.42 62.75 6.8.171. 194.15 139.80 78.27 34.93 26.60 SH. 924.59 542 76 25.12 481.49 36.15 816.65 5 68 20 41 14 73 37.39 5 68 9 35 3 67 3 6 lbS. 0.8.114; 18 lbS. 0.8.11.2 35 lbS. S . . . .. . . 125.78 1193.00 596.78 103.19 440.41 53.18 0.8.114. 228.58 164.58 92.15 41.13 31.30 C.S.H.—|— S 964.42 432 20 11.04 399.28 21.88 1076.85 5 30 26 93 21 63 50.41 5 30 12 59 7 29 4 2 lbS. 0.8.1113; 8 lbS. 13.; 18 lbS. 0.811.; 35 lbS. S. 1Z8 90 1451.35 716.68 84.63 587.69 44.36 C.S.l11.+ B. 386.57 251.77 73.43 157.60 20.74 C.S.H.+ S 1064.78 464 91 11.20 430.09 23 62 1014 65 6 63 25 37 l8 74 47.00 6 63 11 75 5 12 5 2 lbS. O.S.1VI.; 8 lbS. 0.111. ; 18 lbS. 0.811.; 351133. S. 117.38 1182.90 658.50 58.48 561.49 38.53 C.S.l11.+ 0.54 326.40 278.20 48.99 209 94 19.27 C.S.H.+ S 856 50 380 30 9.49 351.55 19 26 1010 95 5 66 25 27 19 61 41.08 5 66 10 27 4 61 6 2 lbS. C.S.M.; 8 lbS. 0.; 18 lbS. 0.8.11.2 35 lbS. S. 129.86 1255.81 635.59 63.51‘ 528.8“ 42.21 ‘C.S.114.+ Q. 328.73 229.94 54.76 153.54 2164' C.S.H.+ S 927.08 405.65 9.75 375.33 20.57 1035.10 6 27 25 88 19 61 49.41 6 27 l2 35 6 08 BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. A consideration of the cost 0f 100 pounds 0f milk and one pound 0f but- ter, by Ciroups per Period, now follows: In Period I., Group V. yielded the cheapest 100 pounds of milk, at a cost of 44.4 cents. It was followed closely by Groups III. and VI., who produced a similar amount, at an outlay of 45.2 and 46.5 cents. The dearest 100 pounds of milk cost 58.2 cents, and was yielded by Group I. In economy of butter production, Groups II. and III. tied, with 10.1 cents per pound, while with Groups VI. and IV. the cost was 10.2 and 10.6 cents. The dearest pound of butter was made by Group I., costing 13.6 cents. In Perio-d II., the average cost of 100 pounds of milk was 53.9 cents, in the case of Group VI. Groups V. and III. came next in order, with 54.5 and 59.3 cents, While Group II. represented the highest cost of 100 pounds of milk in this period, with 73.7 cents. Groups VI., III.," and IV. yielded a pound of butter for 11.0, 11.8, and 12.6 cents, respectively, while Group II. represented the dearest pound of butter, at an outlay of 15.4 cents per pound. In Period III., Groups V., III., I., and VI. produced 100 pounds of milk at an average cost of 51.2, 53.8, 56.0, and 57.2 cents. Group II. averaged 69.8 cents per 100 pounds of milk, and also represented the highest cost of the same in this period. In butter yield, Groups I., III., and VI. exhibited the minimum cost per pound, with 11.0 and 11.7 cents, while Group II. again presented the maximum cost in this period for a pound of butter, namely, 15.2 cents. In Period IV., Group I. led in economy of milk production, with 49.7 cents per 100 pounds. Groups III. and V. followed, with 51.0 and 55.4 cents, respectively. The dearest cost of 100 pounds of milk was shown by Group II., namely, 70.8 cents. With regard to butter yield, Group I. made a pound at an average of 10.5 cents in this period; and Groups III. and VI. at 10.6 and 12.8 cents, respectively. The highest average cost of a pound of butter was in the case of Group II., namely, 15.2 cents. ' In the general averages for the four periods combined, Group V. led in economy of milk production, with an outlay of 51.5 cents per 100 pounds, followed closely by Groups III. and VI., with 52.6 and 55.4 cents, for a similaramount. The cost of . 100 pounds in the case of Groups IV. and II. was 61.3 and 65.9 cents. In minimum cost of production per one pound of butter, Group III. led, with 10.9 cents, Group VI. and I. followed, with 11.4 and 12.1 cents, while Groups IV. and II. represented the maximum cost per pound, namely, 12.4 and 14.0 cents. A perusal of Table XVII. will reveal tihe computed digestible nutri- ents disposed of per group per period, and also the proportion furnished by the meals and roughage. It further displays the yields of milk and butter, and the profit derived from the same per group per period. Thus a clear idea of the influence of varying the amounts of dry matter and the several digestible nutrients on the economy of mil-k and butter pro- duction, may also be gained from ‘this table; ‘ " ' ' i ' It willbe notedthat the smallest amounts of drymatter, organic mat- ter, carbohydrates, and fats were consumed in Period I. Very consid- erable variations were apparent in the consumption of these several con- stituents during the remaining periods. The largest quantities of dry 1086 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. matter and organic matter were eaten by all the Groups in Periods III. and IV. The pro-tein consumption reache-d its maximum in PeriodII, - and its minimum i11 Period IV.; the fat in Period II. decreasing to Period IV., while the carbohydrates were most freely fed in Periods III. and IV. a The yields of milk Were smallest in Period I. for all the Groups ex- cept I. and II. The maximum production of milk was reached in Periods III. and IV., lhonors being pretty evenly divided between these two Periods. The least profit was secured in Period I., and the greatest in Periods III. and IV. The production of butter Was least in Period I., and greatest in Periods III. and IV. The profits were least in Period I., and largest in Periods III. and IV. As the yields of milk and butter and the profits derived from the same were least in Period I. and greatest in Periods III. and IV., and the con- sumption of dry matter, organic matter, and carbohydrates was greatest, and of protein and fat smallest in these periods, it is evident that the increase in the former and the decrease in the latter, was necessary to increased yields. It is also manifest, "that the periods in which the pro- tein (Periods I. and II.) and the fat (Period II.) consumption were very high, were not those of premium yields. This shows that a preponder- ance of certain ingredients in ‘the ration will not take the place of a lib- eral supply of dry and organic matter, and that large quantities of food elements essential in metabolism and assimilation may be wasted, as the following example will testify: - - Profiton Profiton _ - Dry matter, Protein, Milk per - Butter per . . Gmup‘ Perwd lbs. lbs. period, lbs. Ilgégiolffr period, lbs. ngégioeiér In the case of Group I., the yields of milk and the profits derived were greatest in Periods I. and IV, and the same is true of the butter in Period IV. This shows that 100 pounds of digestible protein was as efficient as a larger amount; hence, in Periods II. and III ., 46 and 21 pounds of protein might have been saved. The increase of the dry mat- ter was also out of proportion to the results obtained. It will be noted that with Group VI. the largest milk yield, and practically as large a yield of butter as is shown at any time, was obtained from the use of 64.51 pounds of protein. as co-mpare-dwith 97.57 pounds of protein for a smaller milk yield and an equal yield of butter. It is plain that the increase in dry matter beyond 1027.61 pounds was no-t profitable. This serves to illustrate how large percentages of certain food elements may be wasted. I. 973.70 102.68 780.20 $15.07 32.38 $3.67 p I II. 1149.10 146.40 760.20 14.56 3565 4.46 III. 1185.17 121.76 767.85 15.04 35.11 4.61 IV. 1202.34 100.59 794.00 16.00 37.06 5.41 f I . 869.08 90. 69 877. 20 17 . 93 39 . 33 5 .82 VI , II. 1027.61 97.57 1017.65 20.12 49.40 7.02 ' III. 1069.80 83 00 1030.46 20.15 49.54 6.77 I IV. 1225.81 63.51 1035.10 19.61 49.41 6.08 The character and quantities of the substances fed exerted an impor- t tant bearing on the distribution of the several digestible materials in the Legemqf fl-"J. mafia: (‘onsumecijaerddy/verfia-ou/e 1k r dQ-z/cfvmd/{Cf consumed 6rd: $163011 0 BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL TABLE XVlllr-Amou-‘nt 0f 0077229765661 Digestible 1Matte¢ C’o'n.s~u1¢2-ed per- 67111.0 peer Day (and gaer G-raup in 56' 19292236011251.7512 Dcbys. g1 é; Digestible matter consumed’ g2 E; Digest-ibis meggeréaggessumed per day Dry matter Lggrégléfiaéed per day in Axserages per lgiélgrpgfigo anti groups Atrereges- perpggggézblox-ss- 9.1101 group. 2E =38 -- 4 ‘3 $11 - '. " O L; ,2 .9 ' s} Substances eaten per group in the four periods. g g ,3; .2: 5 g‘ g 3. ,0 g S: .5: S‘ .2 as; 5 e B; . 8..., s’? s 2,: . ‘e3 S. s 2,5 . s; ..- is’ e s. s i.’ 8 3 S3 is: E.” 2 ‘S 3 9 d E35 i“ E 2 8 i? 2 i” 2 ‘é 8 Y1? 8 2 “'51 3i ‘Pa! ‘E e n1 m“ o m o e1 i=1 8*“ Q ‘l’ 0- 0-1 o i=1 :1 "* G 8-1 o B1 2 0 > .1. 11111 0- i> m. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lzss. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs Lbs. Lbs Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. % Cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1218.8 1118.40 . . . . . . . . .. 450.89 201.20 158.26 . . .. . . . 19.96 . . . . . . . .05 8.59 2.74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.87 80.14217 $0.465 0.962 80.107 I. All four. Cotton seed. hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3584.5 8186.68 . . . . . . . . .. 15.05 1109.40 60.58 . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 ..90 27 19.81 1.080 15.8.8 ' .102 .884 .282 . 787 Silage . 980.6 204.95 . . . . . . . . .. 5.49 115.61 0.87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.66 . . . . . . .. 098 2.06 .112 17.18 .092 .428 .886 .808- .109 1'1 ’I‘ota.ls for days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 4509.98 2117.98 471.44 1426 . 28 220 . 21 Group 19 .96 14 8 .05 8.59 2 . 74 28 .44 .878 21 .87 1 . 192i. 55- . 88 .801 1.1184 1.088 2 .. 1 1 AwLerage consumption. for 56 days. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 80.58 87.82 8.42 25.47.? 1.981 Cow’ . . .i _ ($.65 4379 2 .68 1 .19 .91 20.18 7.81 .126 7.39 .8977; 18.46 .100 .4111 .801 .884 .100 .208 .108 E E1 - é A 3 i | {s s.‘ 1 1 gotten seed fines} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081.1 945.25 .. . . . . 881.09’ 170.101 1.12-9.79; . . . . . . .1 16.88 . . . . . . 6.81 8.04 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.86; .189! .421; 282 .9100 .189 2-25 .086 II. *A1l four. otton. seed 111s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511.6 454.81 .. . . . . 21 49 1;';\8.2’4-‘ 8.13.5? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12 . . . . . . . A .88 1 '28? .154 2.2.80 .1811 .5138 86141 .186 215 .79 f - So-rghum. hey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2848.6 2587.18 . . . 70 1847.82 1110.841.’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411.19 . . . . . . 1 2.501 24.07 1 .8107 19.88‘ .1114 .488 .879 104-. 248 }Sila.ge . . . . . . . .. 851.1 1'1"7.ss...... 8.77 99.921 5.523..-. .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.1"; . . . . . ..1 .151; 1.71s .099a....... .... .. ............ .' I ‘ . Totals for 56 dasys . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4165.07’ 2502.66 481 .67 1770.18 244.81 (111.1111). . . 16 .88 12.17 6.81 8.04 2 .82 57.48 82.519 1 786 28.68 2 .0580‘; 58.50 8'79. 1.41112 .088- 2 .780 .879 i 11 1 1 ‘.1 1 . 1 ‘ . Awferzmge consumption for 56 days. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.87 44 .. 69 8.00 231.72 4.87’ (111441. . . . . 4.00 1.01 .77 19.16 10.84% 595 8.96 68-4 i 19.151111: 126i} .472 .861 .9101 .228 v l Co-tton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1180.2 1087.09 .. . . . .. 488.16 194.97 1.1-8.4’? . . . . . . . . . . 19.41 7.02- 848 2.65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .1277‘ _ .7151} 1.818 .127 208 III. All four. Cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2641 . 5 2848.28 . . . . . . . . . . 11.09 817 .54 ~14.64- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ‘Z187 . . . . . . . . .198 14.59 .7. =71 .1141. .444 .9911- . .185 . Silage» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48211.7 1007.58 ........... .. 27.08 568.418 211.84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I 17 99 . . . . . . . .482 10.15 .560 25.71 .129; .048 1.059 .21115 .1811 1 1 1 i 1 Totals for days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 4442.95 13281.64 476.20 1580.99 224 .45 Group. . . 19.4] 18 .9.) 7.82 8 .48- 2 . :59.92 26 78 .680 24.71 1 .8571. 723.44 857110 1.887 1 .4017 8.878 .87 .844- 1 1 Aster-age consumption for 56 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.84 ~1().74 8.50 4.01 (Jon-n 6.47 4.65 2 .61 1 .16 .88 19.97 8 .98 227 8.25 452 214.48 .612 1.124. .281 .158 1 Cotton seed meal . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 782.1 (772.06 . . . . . . .. 27 .95 1.20.98 92.119 ..... .. 12.00 . . . . .. 4.84 2.16 1.64 .. . . . .. ....... .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 27 .120 .407 .217 .889 .1180‘ IV. All four. Bren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745.6 659.87 .. . . . . 89.55 821 67 21 .40 . . . . . . . . 11.78 . . . . . . . . 1.59 5.74 .88 . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.1117 12-12 .870 .966 .122 248‘ . Cotton seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2745.8 2529.70 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.50 90 48.08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.17 . . . . . . . .205 18 .41 858- 85.82 172 ..8-95 .728 .471 I “ "" Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4861.8 1.0l6-.10......... 27.28 6817.81 8 .60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.14 .486 12.28 504 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E _ Totzfls for 56 days. ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14877.78 2478.78 899.26 1881 .81 198.17 Group 28.78 16.81 6.48 7.90 2.02 68.61 27.80 .691 0 25.69 1 71.16 .414 1.794 1.8811 .414 880i t . I . 1 1 I Average consumption for 56 clays. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.10 44.18‘ 7.18 88.591 8.4157 Cow 7.98 5.45 2.14 2 68 .67 21 10 9.26 280 8.56 .4714 .188; 1.092; 188‘ 2-78. I ' 1 1 i 1 1 s I 1 I T {Bottom seed meal .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589.26 . .. . 287.56 106,08 . . . . . . . . . . 10.52 . . . . . . . . 4.24 1 1 .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . ...... .. .. . . . . . . .. 211.281 .096l‘ 50*‘? .411 .9511 091611 2841: 188 71111101112 ‘om meal _. . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651.6 558.61 .. . . -. . .. 8112.28 . . . . . . . . . .. 0.97 . . . . . . .. .98 7.00 .88 . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . 1.; .118 .1)801 .4 7 .888 113.1 222' 10g 1 Ce-tton seed 111x115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2867.31 21.04.51 . . . . . . . . . . 10.11 $22.68 9L0 l. . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . . . . . . . . 87.58 . .180 12.91 . 118' 3 s‘ .881 '11 .6881 .586 ' 1 .019 1471 255, .108- WS-llege . . . . . . . . . . 4295.2 897.69 . . . . . . . . .. 24.05 506.40 27.92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16-.08......... .480 9.04 .498 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1 __.. ' 1 1 Totals. for 56- days‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4150 .07 2221 .48- 824.18 1727 89 169 . 86 Group 20 .49 15 .88 5. 17 8 .89 1.82 58 .61 28.7 . 610 21 .95 1 .2164 68.80 .856 1 . 720 1 .864 2.857; 856i 7114 .855 . ', 3 . ‘1 l ' I . Average consumption for" 561 days. . .. . . . . . .- .- .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. 74.10 89.66 5.78 80.85 8.08 Cow 6.88 5.28 1 .72 2.96 .61 17.87’ 7 .98 .208 7 .82 .405‘ 2.2.98. .119 .578 287 . I l é Cotton se~eid meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658.0 604.04 . . . . . . . . . 108.70 82.78 . . . . . . . . . .. 10.78 . . . . . . . . 4.81")’ 1 .94 1.48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 19.88 .097 .496 .977 .244 VI. 111110114. ' Oats .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 632.2 562.66 .. . . . . . . . . 58.48 8055.61 26.48 . . . . . . . . . . 10.05 . . . . . . .. 1.05 5.45 .47 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31.07 .185 .777 .1142: 1.81.18 .848 I Cotton. seed hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2449 .9 21.77 .96 . . . . . . . . . . 10.29 758.24 41.40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.89 . . . . . . . .188 1.8 .54 . 7411 19 .81 .147 .495 .848 .978 . 245 Silage: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4189.5 875.61 . . . . . . . . .. 28.46 498.94 727.233 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 .64 . . . . . . .. .419 8.82 .486 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . I 1 . l ; Totals for 56 days . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4222.27 2182.09 885 . 76 1.666 .49 177 .84. (i-roup 20.88 14 . 7s 5 40 7. 89 1.95 54 58 24 .19 . 602 2L .86 '1 . 22-6 '10 "ill 315741 1 .768 1.889 8 .848 .887 1 I Awwerege consumption for 56 days .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.89 88.95 5.99’ 29.70 8.18 Cow 6.94 4.91 1.80 2.46 .65 18.18 8.06 .201 7.45 .409“ 28.57 .1210 .589 .468 1.116 .8791 J m BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRYPPRODUOTION. i meals and roughage. When cotton seed meal formed the sole meal po-r- tion of the ration for Groups I., II., and III. in all the periods and for Groups IV., V. and VI. in Period I., the protein was chiefly supplied in the meal. When cotton seed meal, bran, corn meal and oats in different combinations formed the rations of meal in Periods II., III. and IV. for Groups IV., V., and VI., with the bran, acorn meal and oats increasing and the cotton seed meal decreasing, the protein is seen to diminish in quantity_ and the proportion furnished by the roughage to increase. Similarly the fat decreased as the cotton seed meal decreased, while the carbohydrates increased in the meal portion of the ration as the amounts of bran, corn meal, and oats increased. While the dry matter and organic matter furnished by the meals is seen to be as high on several occasions when cotton seed meal alone formed the meal portion of the ration, this apparent anomaly is due to the high per cent of protein furnished by this meal. The quantity of dry matter and organic matter furnished by the bran, corn meal, and oats, was brought up by the high per cent. of carbohydrates contained in these meals. . Naturally, the greater portion of dry matter, organic matter, and carbohydrates was furnished by the roughage, and the rise or fall in consumption of these ingredients was due to the fluctuation in the amounts fed and the caprices of animal individuality. - It Will be observed that the largest and least quantities of dry matter and organic matter were consumed in the meals in Periods II. and I. and in roughage in IV. and I., respectively. The largest and least amounts of protein were consumed in mealsrin Periods II. and IV., and in rough- age in Periods III. and IV. The carbohydrates furnished by the meals "were most freely eaten in Period IV. and least so in Period ‘I. and in the coarse foods in Periods III. or IV. The fats furnished by the meals were most freely eaten in Period II. and least so in Period IV., and in the coarse foods in Periods I. and IV. For the production of milk and butter, profits, etc., refer to the previous portion of this discussion. IN CONCLUSION. I. The ‘Periods in which large quantities of protein and fat were consumed from themeals were not those of highest production or profit. II. When the proportion of the protein and fats furnished in the meals was least and the proportion of carbohydrates greatest the yields and profits derived werethe largest. a III. As a rule the yields and profits increased when the proportions of dry matter and organic matter furnished in the meals were lowest. Under this table is incorporated the __ total amounts and source of supply of the computed digestible nutrients consumed during the entire experimental period of" 56 days, together with the average consumption of the same per Group‘ per Period. The distribution of the several‘ in- gredients in meals and fodders and the average consumption per day per Group and per cow for the whole experiment is also shown. In order that a comparison of the influence of variations in the quantity and con- stitution of the daily rations on the daily yields of milk and butter and the profits derived from the same might be conveniently made, this data is found attached to the table: TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Rating of Digestible matter eaten per day. _ groups ll]. Group. p milk and Largest amount, Least amount, butter pro- lbs. ' lbs. duction. i IV. Dry matter .......... .. 87.10 ...... . ._ ..... .. - 111. V. Dry matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 74.10 IV. II. Organic matter . . . . . . . . 44.69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. I. Organic matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.82 V. II. Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. V. Protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 5.78 IV. IV. Carbohydrates. . . . . . . 33.59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. I. Carbohydrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.47 ' V. II. Fat . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . .. 4.37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' VI. V. Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.03 IV. As may be gathered from this table, the quantity of protein, dry mat- ter, organic matter, etc, did not furnish any standard by which the relative value of a ration could be judged. . Group III. leading in milk and butter yields, received 8.50 pounds oi protein in its daily ration; Group VI, a very strong rival, used only 5.99 pounds, and further, Groups I. and II., rated V. and VI., received 8.42 and 8.60 pounds oi’ protein per day in their rations. A difference of 1300 pounds of dry matter existed between the quantities eaten per day by Groups TV. and Y}, and yet they were rated III. and IV., while Gro-ups II. and VI._, receiving 74.37 and 75.39 pounds of dry matter in their re- spective daily rations, ivere rated V I. and II. for milk and butter produc- tion. “That is true of the dry matter applies equally to the organic mat- ter, carbohydrates and fill}. Thus no definite conclusion can be re-ached re- garding the relative influence of increase or decrease of the various nu- trients on the cost of production. The character and amount of the "food, individuality, and the weight and age of the animals, are factors bearing on this question. Oonsur/zption and Production per 00w per Group per Day. Q Digestible matter fl Digestible matter . u} 2 vi "" furnished in meals. "" in roughage. _ E ‘S -—-_ ‘3 s . . 21s . .. . I: e a s; s s s :21 s s s ‘i == g "3 ~= ~2EI.~.-—.e%i.B1-".=»Esgs d ssss s s0 s as as s as s E s e .. e essszssssssstssszssess £555$£8s§n363153-5"=§”"££E 1.0.054.702.081.10 0120.18 7811207203071;8.518.40,80.1 8341018 11. 5.034.002 271.01 .77 10.1010.84 .5058.00 .084 1;4.810.5080.0 01010.1 111. 0.474.052.011.10 8810.07 8.08.2278.25.4521=4.424.4748.01.12415.8 1v. 7.035.452.142.08 .07 21.10 0.20 .2308.50 .474 1=5.028.0240.01.00213.5 v.0.885.281.722.00 .01 17.87 74182037824051;0.722.0345.5 .05211.8 v1.0.044.011.812.40 .0518.18 8.00 .2017.45.400 1;0.828.5740.81.11015.3 nrrncr OF noon ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1089 Showing the Total Digestibte Nutrients Consumed per 00w per Day and the Propor- i tion Farnishett by Meals andlRougltage. _ _ - 21>. gr» _ _ 55 m U; Digestible matter. .0 a d g g T; g a. .5 u", u; :3 :3 E é S 3 1i 35v; i=3 3 a 3 ..~ Si‘. 27.3, Z '3 é‘ a '5’ "a? t, a .22 s H»; e ass s22 E s. F» E F» as‘ a E s" s 2g t; "we "w; "s ~ i‘ s 5 s; 5-1 a 7-1 Q1 L4 *3 I m 4Q a égssésassisaissssséag 1%. 20.8312.002.800 8.481.107 38.0 02.0 113.5 18.40 10.0 .834 10.0 V . 24.79 l4.902.805 9.971.454 27.2 72.8 114.8 19.50 12.0 .910 12.0 V 111. 20.4413.582.837 9.411.332 34.2 05.8 114.4 24.48 12.31.124 12.3 1%. 29.03 l4.7l2.370 11.191.144 30.9 03.1 115.9 23.92 13.8l.092 13.8 111. . 24.70 13.211.923 10.281.015 40.0 00.0 110.7 22.93 11.9 .952 11.9 1V. V1. 25.1212.972.001 9.911.059 37.9 £021 120.3 23.57 12.01.1l0 12.0 11. The above tables present a concise summary of the average propor- tions of dry matter and digestible nutrients consumed in meals and roughage per cow per day for the entire experiment, as well as the total digestible silbstances eaten per cow per day, with the percentages of or- ganic matter furnished by the meals and roughage. The nutritive ratio, the average production of milk and butter, and the average cost and profit per cow per day, together with the rating of the Groups in econ- omy of production, is also shoxvn. According to the so-called standard ‘rations (page 1049), Groups 1., 111., 1V., and V1. were high in dry mat- ter, all the Groups were low in organic matter, V. and V1. were low in protein and the others high, while all were low in carbohydrates, and high in fats. Further none of the ratios could be classed as wide. The digestible nutrients present above represent the amounts actually used (average of 3) per cow per Group, and not according to the 1000 pounds of live weight. (See Table XVIII.) As all the groups averaged considera- bly under 1000 pounds, it is plain that the rations used were ample, and when fed at the rate of 1000 pounds of live weight they would be still more at variance with the so-called standard rations. The percentage of the organic matter furnished by the meals varied from 27.2 with Group IV. to 40.0 with Group V. ‘These Groups were rated V1. and 1V. in yields, while Group 111., who led in economy of yields, received 34.2 per cent of its ration from the meals. The per cent of organic matter secured in the roughage ran fro-m 60.0 with Group 1V. to 72.8 with Group 11. Group 111. and V1. standing first and sec- on.d in economic yields of milk and buttentreceived 65.8 and 62.1 per cent. of their rations from the roughage. While the percentage of or- ganic matter received from the meals and from the roughage shows no positive influence on economy of yields, yet the most favorable results were apparent when about one-third of the rations was supplied by the former and two-thirds by the latter, and in practice we believe this di- vision will prove satisfactory. With regard to the nutritive ratios Group 1. received a very narrow one, or about 1:3.5, and Group V., representing the other extreme, a. moderately wide one, or 1:6.'7. These Groups were V. and 1V. in eco- nomi-c yields, while the ratios of Groups 111., V1., and 11., who were 1090 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. rated I., II., and VI., were 1:44, 1:62, and 1:48, respectively. Thus, so far as we can judge from these experiments, the narrow rations exerted the most favorable influence on economic production. The absence of certain nutrients in a ration (see p. 1047) will ‘adversely influence the physiological functions of the body, but if. they are supplied in reasonable quantities together with succulent forms of food, the cost of the food, individuality of the cows, palatability and combination of the foods will have as important a bearing on the economy of milk and butter yields as the use of a sol-called standard ration. EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1091 é_ "s19 v—4@@C9Q'|YF g§ weunq 10 mwommfi gig wluuoasoo '-*'-**-*~'-*'-* g 8g cowozooc: 6 $13 "sql ‘styeg v-l r-l r-I r-l v-i 5 s §¢ ‘g a: ‘ mwcomvv who sqt X89131!’ @v—4CD@@<7J "<51 ' QQQ-IVO r-n—¢ v-(v-i “a £~~ Q 3g oer-women g i}? 'sq[ ‘ugaqoad co m ca co o: .-¢ § 3“ Q‘ <35 Sqlum '“.°"°.°."i°?"f "1 10mm 1m Q 3?» mam 011111310 .-< .~ .-< i .-¢ III Q ‘*4 mmmmar: “Q ‘sqrleaww K-Ict d mmmmmm § é Q mo §@@@@# § ‘"‘_ ‘YIIIUIIO-‘SQI 1o gomgflr: “s O01 JQ qgQO IOQIOOLOIO Q an?‘ l’: R =51 "i"f"fw."fx ‘l; g5 "sqfqng vvm-w-ww l’ 8a} g $2 .5“ .8941“, ¢°.°‘."T°°.°°.°’. ,0 ' .lO'1'".7J©"FO1 E g2 flilloq-WO 1r 1o a‘: -:< w w $1 5E,” OI$ICCD$<~§3 .2 Q ozozcvozozoz g E4 Q oovlomr-v S _ . Q9???“ w; 50-1 duo-ls armour-om l Jed pamnsuoo >4 191M201 Klp .> qqvfifiqv, g HLIFAF-di-IH 83:83? H ‘SQOIJGJ “CS-Haw q Iiiiividié? li1l—fll'_ll—lil—flf'l S <<<<<< AQA;;A 'dno.v,=) “EH P 1092 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. An interesting study of the quantities of dry matter and organic matter and the relation of the several digestible nutrients to each other in the production and cost of 100 pounds of milk and one pound of but- ter may be made by means of the data presented in Table XIX. The character of the foods constituting the several rations fed and the ever present influence of animal individuality, no doubt exerted some effect on the results indicated, as even a. casual glance at the table reveals some remarkable differences in the amount and constitution of the digestible nutrients eaten in the manufacture of 100 pounds of milk or one pound of butter by the several groups under test. In these experiments the dry matter consumed in the production of 100 pounds of milk varied from 106.6 to 145.3 pounds, in the cases of Groups VI. and I. Group V. led in economy of manufacturing 100 pounds of milk, at a cost of 51.5 cents, and consuming 107.7 pounds of dry matter, while Group II., disposing of 127.1 pounds of dry matter, proved the most expensive, the cost of 100 pounds of milk being 65.8 cents. The former group ate 20.00 pounds less food and yielded 100 pounds of milk for 14.3 cents less than Group II.; while Group I., con- suming 37.1 pounds more food than V., manufactured 100 pounds of milk for 55.7 cents or 4.2 cents more than Group V. Group II. ate the most organic matter, namely 76.4 pounds, while Group VI. ate the least, or 55.1 pounds, in the productio-n of 100 pounds of milk. Groups II. and VI. stood sixth (last) and third in economy of production, while Groups V. and III., standing first and second in this respect, disposed of 58.1 and 55.4 pounds of organic matter in the manufacture of 100 pounds of milk. Again, wide discrepancies are ap- parent between the quantity of organic matter eaten by the several groups. We attribute these results to one of three things. 1. Unsuit- able nature of the foo-d. 2. The influence of individuality. 3. The cost of the food, of which the first and third seems to be at fault in the case of Group VI. The protein consumption varied between 8.5 and 15.2 pounds in the production of 100 pounds of milk in the cases of Groups VI. and I., which stood third and fourth in economy of production, while Groups V. and III., standing first and second, used 8.4 and 11.5 pounds. It is apparent that either large quantities of protein were wasted or else its presence aided in the performance of certain essential physiological ef- fects in the animal body, but of this more will be said at another time. The carbohydrates eaten in the manufacture of 100 pounds of milk ranged from 38.4 to 54.2 pounds in the cases of Groups III. and II., re- spectively. These Groups were also I.- and II. in economy of produc- tion. Groups V. and VI., which stood third and fourth in production, disposed of 44.9 and 42.2 pounds of carbohydrates per 100 pounds of milk yielded. With regard to the consumption of fat per 100 pounds of milk, Group V., which stood first in cheapness of production, used the least, namely, 4.4 pounds, and Group II., the most, namely, 7.4 pounds. Groups VI. . and .[II. used 4.5 and 5.4 pounds of fat and occupied second and third places in economy of yields. From the remaining portion of the table the pounds of the several digestible nutrients used in the manufacture of 1 pound of butter may be ascertained. * *' * * * h~\§.~% W» “k .3. N? TE? BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1093 The pounds of dry matter used varied from 22.5 in Group VI. to 32.2 pounds in Group I., and were 23.2 pounds in Group III. These Groups were II., V. and I., in economic yields of butter. The organic matter ranged between 11.1 pounds in the case of Group VI. and 16.3 pounds in the case of Group II. Group III. used 12 pounds, and the ‘above group-s occupied II., VI., and I. places, respe-c- tively, viewed from the standpoint of economic yields. Regarding the quantity of protein used in making one pound of but- ter, Groups VI. required the least, namely, 1.2 pounds, Group V. followed with 2 pounds, and Group I. used the most, or 3.3 pounds. The rating of these groups was II., IV., and VI., in cost of production. In the case of the carbohydrates, Group III. used the least, with 8.3 pounds, and Group II. the most, or 11.6 pounds, while Groups II. and VI. consumed 10.7 and 8.7 pounds. The rating of these four groups in the order named was I., VI., III., and IV. When the fat is considered it is seen that Group VI. used the least, or .9 of a pound, and Groups I. and II. the most, or 1.6 pounds. Groups III. and IV. disposed of 1.2 and 1 pound each, and when ranged in order of cheapness of production, they oc-cupy II., V., and VI., and I. and IV. places, respectively. By means of the appended summary a better idea may be gathered regarding the influence of combining the several digestible nutrients in different proportions on the cost of producing milk and butter. Milk. Dry Organic _ Carbo- Fat Cost of Group. matter, matter, Protein, hydrates, lbs‘ Rating. 100 lbs, lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. ' cts. I. 145.3 68.3 15.2 45.9) 7.1 IV 55.7 II. 127.1 76.4 14.6 54.2 7.4 VI 65.8 III. 107.1 55.4 11.5 38.4 5.4 II 52.6 VI. 106.6 55.1 8.5 42.2 4.5 III 55.4 - Butter I. 32.2 15.1 3.3 10.2 1.6 III. 12.1 II. 27.2 16.3 3.1 11.6 1.6 VI. 14.0 III. 23.2 12.0 2.5 8.3 1.2 I. 10.9 VI. 22.5 11.1 1.2 8.7 .9 II. 11.4 Fro-m these tables it is apparent that while great variations in the amounts of dry matter consumed in the production of 100 pounds of milk and 1 pound of butter were present, the influence on the cost was not so marked as is seen in the case-s of Groups I., III., and VI., when milk is considered, and in Groups III. and VI., when butter is consid- ered. This shows that no certain combination of the digestible nutrients is essential l0 successful dairy practice, and that the combination and proportions used will vary with the nature of the foods composing the ration. It also seems plain that the amounts required were considerably higher when the ration was dry or not succulent, and lower when the reverse was true (note the cases of Groups I. and II. and III. and IV., and compare the rations fed), and, of course, this influenced the cost of production. Furthermore, the_cost of a flood determines whether we 1094 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERHWENT STATION. can afford to feed more of a certain nutrient than is apparently neces- sary, for this experiment indicartes that either a large amount of the several nutrients were wasted (as in the case of portein used by Groups l. and. VI., for both milk and butter), or else through destructive metabolism, or some other physiological function of the animal body, it was converted into useful and constructive compounds, that took the place of some other substance essential, but deficient, in the ration fed. 'l‘he source of supply influences the amount of a nutrient that may be fed. For example, protein is so abundant and cheap, in cotton seed meal, that we can afford ‘to feed an excess over that required in pro- duction. EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1095 2 .3 3 mm; 8 2a 2 8a Hwmmxss osawmswswm Hm S? Asia mm S? oomi mm smwwefim g 5N mmw mm mfwfis mm 50.5. .. . 5130B ma.“ om Hm 3 HH 3E 2%? ...........mmm Q23 Em Qmiw mmw owmw g H$.N$.::...............:§=<.H> m; 2 2 oH HH mm mH o8? ...........Hs~ mags Em mswmm fig 33 . . . . . . . . aims .5o.HHH< > oww 2mm mm E 2 S mHmwQQ Hmmmmmfim my“? 2s wfism s: fig mm.HmmmmfiwwmssnmnunHumssofiwsfi Sm $8 £3 .212 Nésww . 8 “w Almws 2m 23m HFHH mwwzz: ..........5oHHH<.HHH E N. mm Hm 3 mH NH 2 o 3% gmw ms flaw g o w HHm mm 2 N. $2 . .53 :4 .HH isms a2; @0325; vmwsm . . mm f? 21% 3% oH fiwmsfifz:..........w......:......$.53; mum 3% mmmw Am mu M mw u m m uw w mw m m w“ m m m m m 0H0. MUM sflmsu WW 0m J Sm 1 n M. m}; J a1 1 w» 1 e 1 a J 0 P4 pal 11.89 m1 p1 w. q w. w n ma w. .w1 w - w .u m. u m m m”; we ans . m. ma m. n m. A m. rw m. 1o m. m m m m. m w . mwo uwm wls u um s. m s. m s. m s‘ ms s. s s. s s. w . mqw. mqw Rum. H mu A A s A . s A . s A A A .14 w w i, m mw w q w w s w s w w w w. w; m» Wm.“ m. w» m A m. m w w m.“ m s awxiwk $09K 2% E 55$ icmww § H005 Pszusfiw Hééw S Eaaswwob xzwfivwsfiwab ufismwwssswlumvm mag-E 5 -Bu1. 47 l TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. p The fertilizing constituents contained in the several foods are ex- hibited in this table. Of the meals used, cotton seed meal was incom— _parably the most valuable in this respect, when similar quantities of the other meals fed are considered. For example, 651.6 pounds of corn meal contained fertilizing ele- ments worth $1.53, while 641.9 pounds of cotton seed meal showed a. value of $6.37 for this purpose, a difference of $4.84 in its favor. The fertility contained in 74.5.6 pounds of bran aggregated $3.85, whereas 732.1 pounds of cotton seed meal is seen to be worth $7.27. A difference of $3.42 is here apparent, in favor of the latter meal. Again, 632.2 pounds of oats ivere worth $1.97, from the standpoint of the fertility they contained, when 658.0 pounds of cotton seed meal was valued at $6.53‘ for a similar purpose. Thus when similaramounts of cotton seed meal and oats are compared the former is seen to have two and one half times the fertilizing value of the latter. While the meals that may be fed are by far the richest in fertilizing materials, owing to the much larger quantities of coarse foods disposed of in the daily ration, the value of this portion of the food has a greater significance than may at first be supposed. If we consider the total amount of the several foo-d stuffs consumed during the experiment, it will be observed that— 7,493.6 pounds of meals had a fertilizing value of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $61 6O 14,3000 pounds of cotton seed hulls-haul a fertilizing value of . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 59 20,009.23 pounds of silage had a fertilizing value of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 21 2,848.6 pounds of sorghum hay had a fertilizing value of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7O Thus the quantities of cotton seed hulls, silage and sorghum hay con- sumed aggregated 37,1585 pounds, and had a fertilizing value of $38.50, while the 7493.6 pounds of meals were worth $61.60, or a difference of $23.10 in favor of the latter. It is worthy of note that none of the coarse foods used were rich in fertilizing elements, when compared, for ex-. ample, with clover, hays, etc. A great difference in the respective fer- tilizing values of the several coarse foods is also apparent. For instance, while 5709.3 pounds more of silage were fed than cotton seed hulls, the latter were worth $10.38 more than the former, from the standpoint of fertility; and if a quantity of sorghum 'hay, equalling in amount the quantities of cotton seed hulls and silage actually fed, be considered, the difference between it and the former would be, in round numbers, $19.01, and between it and the latter $28.91, when the fertilizing ele- ments are alone kept in view. Therefore, in farming, where the purchase of food may be necessary, the above facts should be carefully considered. For, if foods have to be bought, the farmer should secure the fo-od best adapted to his pur- pose in feeding and furnishing the highest percentage of valuable fer- tilizing materials at the same time. By this means the fertility of the farm may be properly conserved and enlarged. The figures presented in this table show the total cash outlay for the food fed to amount to $123.24, and the fertilizing value of this same food is seen to be $100.10: so that the net cash outlay in this instance is represented by $23.14. This is the most formidable argument that can be advanced to sh-ow the necessity of preserving the dejecta from the live stock fed on the farm. Of course, all the fertilizing material of the food T4215 KX1“.--90mm0»rg 07' i 1g 13120291010 1111;511:192 20815131111100 per 0511 é 4g f; fig mg. M; . 1 ~ i‘ ‘ . ‘ 1-.~ ";""“. m‘ -1 c5‘ g“ ‘ "9" C; E § 5 31 T3. 2'3 15 g0 i3 a 5.5 .21 i 9 5 . ~ 2 9 9% 4 ~ 29 9... "6 F1 0-; Ration fed per 1000 puunds live weight per day. i? fig ‘g “gig: g g "g g‘ g é g‘ "g g g. g1? g Z 33 '3 i? £1 m4 5 5; . u; "T. 51 . 8 '3 ‘g E .115; S; 1... E3 5‘ g; 3; w. * "+1 i‘; S3 $4.; @553 153;; F5 ,2 m 11-1 ** #1 4-1 O9) 1 an‘ 4.... 9-1 ‘H E 1:1. ‘g ,__; i 45.0 ET‘ g5"- 33 13-3-3 E o g Q1 o 0o a 10g. a a E 21 0 9-1 z 91 2* 0 - m of“; 9-1 0.5 1:1 o >1 M 2 o :> m 2*’ 0 1:9 1:4 1119.... I; 910.4. 110.111.; 10104.1:.0.11.; 20 1114. 2 .......... .. 151.5 994.5 225.0; 1501.2 09.55 25.29] 9.22 24.55 2.40 04 42 900.20 55.92 20.5119 019 50 02 10 00.129 915 09 02 09 1. .11. 10 111.4. 0.0.111. ; s10 154. 0.0.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 112.12 9119.5 205.41 094.0 02 00 29 22* 10.40 24.22 4.54 4 45 900.20 54.20 .505 19 01 2 91 14 50 4 40 191.... 111. 0 1114.. 01.0.1.1. ; 25 1114. 0.2.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.09 29925 219.11 1005.2 04 05 22 9 1 2.90 25.99 4.091 4 10 909.25 54 05 .542 1.1120 25.11 0 99 .110 15 04 4 01 1v. 0 105. 0.0.111. ; 25 105. 0.0.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1505 . . . . . .. 259.5 1004.5 05 20 29 901 9.10; 29.09 204E 2 05 994.00 50.91 .405 19 ‘900 9 20 .104. 10 00 5 41 1 1195559145 Der 010119 ..................................... . ...... .. 9150.5 299:1! 1141.49 00.541 29.021 0.4.2 25. . 40 2.92M 4 22 995.50 55.20 .545 19 29 25.05 2 90 .121 15 19 4 54 '0 1 1 1 ‘ 1 " 11. . 1.; 91110. 0.0.111; 1111115. 0.211.; 20 . . . . . 114.5 025 0 1202.91 1:19.901 22.12! 2.04 21.091 2.01 -2 041 009.15 59.99 .494 20 22. 20.44 9 01 .099 10 29 5 99 420.... 10 10.4. 0.0.111; 20 1119. 0.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1191.2 04.5.11 222.11; '1050* 41102 10.22 22.40 5.21 0 001 214.00 50.14 .949 20 29.00 9 90 .100 14 :15 2 90 1152.... 01119. 023111.; 20 1114. 0.1-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115.51 11112.5 2110.21 11511.11; 9920i 40 91 0.04 2 15 .42 4.99 5 90; 220.50 59.9" .000 20 91 20.09 9 .152 15 15 2 90 . 0 104. 0.0.11.1 00 105. 0.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110.01 . . . . . . .. 2111.5»? 1021.2] 99.911 40.95; 9.2. 20.09 4.40 5 00; 010.05 50.2 .0415 20 41 09 29 9 25 .152 14 9‘ 2 09 1 . . 1141514544 111131‘ 01010;; ....................................... . 1100.0 259.4} 10:15 21 94 29 44 09 2.59 21 92. 4 29h 5 22 019.09 50.511 .052 20 49 20.24 9 50 .141 _ 15 15 4 24 5405 91119. 01241111.; 101112- 6511,; 28 152. 0. . 151..."; 9111.11 :14<2.0§ 1.5;1.1.2 1111.10 22.99 20.49 2.21‘ 4 29 90.02 .4441 51 42.011 10 00 .100 20 029 1150 111.; 11. 10 11;15.11.2.111.; 11111;5.0.2.11.; 1115. 2 . . . . . . . . .. 1 ;:1..19.1 119111.11.>9 412.211 10. 29.91 4.191 0 5 00 92110.00 911.42 .5911 00 42.14 1202 .1119 19 00 0291 121141015. i. 11.1.1. 2 11:14. 0.0.111; .12 11.19. (fJ.S.IFii.; 1119. . . . . .. 114.011 11110.11 1110.0‘ 11111111.": 0-14-1111 4.0.211 0.94 911.11 4. 5 50 111111955 1911.411 20194 49.02 1195 .115" 21 111450 111*.’ 100. 0.211.; 1211:115.11:.0.:1a1i.; 1114. . 1=5 '90; 2-1411) 211111.11 2.15.21 9.29 21.40 2.00 5 20 1090.00 90.91 .492 2092 50.111 12 59 .105 21 9 29 41101-5299 901- 011-01111 ....................................... ......... .. 11021.5 21111.1 10115.0 *99.24 40.911 0.50 28.24} 4.01‘ 5512 1020.22 92.44 .504 25.91 49.51 11 21 .109 2052 002 . 1 1 ' 1 210 .. 1. 91115. 1i1.0.114.; 10105. 0.0.111; 20105. 0; ......... .. 1;4..5 025.11 252.2 1000 5 0: .12 25.21 9.20 21.519 2.40 4 44 900.15 09.14 _.459 20 42.12 10 52 .100 19 90 0 00 102 111.1 11. 11104. 0.0.111. ; 4 105. 11.; 10 1115. 0.0.11; 22 105. 0. 115.02 2152.5 10112.2; 04.52 42.09 0.19 21.94 2 90 5 90, 924.20 90.29 .590 24 01 40.41 11 59 .129 10 9 5 09 220 111. 4 105. 110.111. ; 0 1.115. .12.; 10 100. 110.11.; 25 105. 0- 110.011 12511.0 4111.2 11194.9‘ 91.11 40.20 9.05 2.41 0 1115100; 95.11 .591 20 20 40.112 12 01 .129 .20 02 5 99 1v. 2 1115. 1.1.0.111. ; 0 1115. ; 10 105. 110.11.; 25 1115. 2. 00.90 . 422.15 22:21.1 1112.09 51.111 0.05 421.90 2.19 0 1014.05i 92 49 .052 25 29 49x00 11 95 .141 12 94 5 12 i 111151-5999 11111-010111» ............................... ....... 1195.0 209.4 1921.9 09.10 44.10 *9.14 22.59 2.45 5 40" 1004.92 91.90 .595 25 12 45 09 11 49 1 .120 19 22 5 09 . ; g 091 ; z 1. 9105. 00.11.; 101115. 0.0.11; 20 105. . . . . 1=4.5- 0049.15 1420 1 00.49 21.01 0.40 21 59 2.04 2 92 009.05 02 25 .442 22 12 211.50 9 14! .112 10 20 5 22 115...- 1i; 11. 0 1115. 41114. 0.111.; 101115. 0.0.1.1.; 221115. s. 115.90 0110.0 220.9 11100 5 91.90 20.92 9.1.2 50 2.25 02 915.25 .542 00 29 29 9 90‘ .125 19 00 4 94 1149 .. 1 111. 41111;. 0.0.111; 010.4. 0.11.; 10 1115. 0.0.11; 95104. 0. 110.1 1000.11 254.2 19.50 1 99.511 4.21.114 5.441 2514 2 00 5 25 1029.90 94.20 .514 99 42 49 10 01 .125 2004 5 20 I t 115. 2109. 0.2.1.0.; 010140.111; 101155. 0.0.11; 251115. 0. 1=4.9 ..... .. 292.0 1009.0 24.49 49.04 . 4.12; 40.10 2.95 5 00 1010.95 92.20 .559 25:19 41 00 10 ~9 .129 19 01 4 01 114015209 9111-0101111 ............ .............. . . ........ .... . .. 042.5 222.4 1005.0 94.10 29.00 5.92 20.05 2.02 4 99 902.20 00.00 .515 24 02 40 00 9 99 .125 1909‘ 5 01 442,. 0 1. 91119. 112.111.; 101114.131.0.11".; 20 105. 2. . . . 1114.191 015 0 22512 0 0200 21.50 0 40 22.1151 2.09 4 00 099.211 021.05 .450 21 92 2920 9 02 .102 191120 22 10;,g_, 111. 11- 01115. 0.0.1111; 41114.11; 10 104.0.0.1~1.;2211040. 11.5.25 91111.0 11422 111114.11 =9240 22.91 0.99 20s-s1 2.42 5112; 1011911151 295.441 491111 12 24 .100 2012 9. 0.21 922 .. 111. 1111115. 0.0.1511; 01112. 0.;1 2 11_19. 0.0.11 ..;;95.11;5.1 0 . 11.9.20 1020 0 1154.21 1022.9 90.41. 40.12 5.90 20 90 01 1020,4101 9110111 .544 91s 4954 120212 .1111 20152 0719 1v. 21115. 11.21.110.251 1115. 0.; 12 109. 0.0.;11 .;1 25111212.. 1:900 . . . . . .. 1409.0; 111:1:-1 .0 1 29.90 45.40 4. 29.90 2.0.2 0 2x11102510 92.94 .0011 2522 49 41 12 .129 1901 002 Averages p01 01-11115 . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 040.5 522.51 :1009.4 ?5.29 20.95 5.99 29x19 2.19 5 20 99010 90.99 24 40.92 11 92 .1112! 192145 42 *f’.I.‘§h0Fa-.ve’r0g0'ciosti-of- 10091101111110.1201.’ 1111114211111111001101111011of?’ 1151111110111agsfligiiv-er1ii11111112" 55011151515. 1d002"110t#0101fr02p011_d5exac-tlji-‘Witli1511501119011 ‘i131 “At 11111019the;"diff011fA0'1:10§00*?=0;1'0slighfizatid-i 011111121111325011001121910112110?’ i2’ 0Xp1ain20d~~b3fth012.00 111211-111 011011120101110 51101-51190 01101; 1251111920110001911111101111-1301?00W; 2periépg2rii00l111111111~p10rYgr1J11pAbyfthev1addzitiorifofi 012100011100 ‘11101111-‘00110bt11i11-0d;>~ 11111111011111.1101 T001101‘? 1115551100;1.011100001011100;00111900119015.0010 51100119. BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. does not pass through the alimentary canal into the excrements; some is retained to aid in the formation offlesh, bone and milk. In thecasc of average milk cows t-hisis estimated at 20 per cent. Allowing for this loss the fertilizing value of the foods used in this experiment is still $80.08, making the netrfood cost $43.16. If the excrements from the cows are carefully preserved, so as not to be readily fermented by undue exposure to the air, or leaching by heavy‘ rains, by far the largest per cent of the fertilizing constituents can be successfully returned to the soil. a a . » Supposing, however, that only 50 per cent is returned to the farm, we still have a fertilizing value in these foods of $50.05, and then the net cash outlay for the foods consumed would only rise to $73.19. Thus, in determining the cost of milk and butter production, the fertilizing u value of the food stuffs must be carefully considered. By many it is held that the fertilizing material secured to the farm through stock hus- bandry covers the cost of care and feeding, whether beef or milk forms the object. a r With the above data before us, this proposition, seems fair and rea- sonable, and certainly points out the fact that this feature, so long neg-f lected in our domestic economy, should receive careful attention. y On the other hand we must not lose .sight of the fact that a high fer- tilizing value, or vice versa, may or may not be combined in the same meal with high productivity. Further, a meal or fodder may be poor in fertilizing elements and still so excel in ability as a productive factor as to make the former consideration insignificant. The appended data will aid in a better understanding regarding this matter. Total food Total (less 20 ggtgglggsglfif bgitlflost 3f Group‘ - p conlsglstned’ gieif7(i3ggtagtig' ter p_roduc- buttergrfo- ' ‘ _ - ' tion. duction. 1 ................... A 5783.4 $14.45 $16 so $2 44 II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5241.0 13 74 21 28 7 54 III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8646.7 14 76 20 73 597 IV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9085.3 a 14 39 ' 23 19 8 80 V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. a 7956.0 11- 10 19 95 8 85 VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7939.7 y, 11 64 y , 21 20 9 56 This shows that the quantities of food consumed in Groups III., IV., V., and VI._, were much the largest, but notwithstanding the great dis- crepancy in the amounts of food consumed by the several groups the fertilizing value was practically equal for Groups I.,.II., III., and IV., while a considerable decrease was shown by Groups V. and VI. It is plain that the first cost of the foods had a very decided influence on the net cost, as the character of the food had on the fertilizing value. IThis table contains a summary of the performance of the several, Groups by feeding periods, and also the average results shown by each Group for the entire experimental period. It is noteworthy that the quantity of dry matter and organic matter was low in the ration fed to all the Groups in Period I. The only instance when this ration proved the most profitable one fed was with Group II., and then it was only due to the added cost of the rations fed in the remaining Periods. In 1098 TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. nearly every other Period and Group the increase in the consumption of dry matter resulted in a material gain of milk, and in a number of cases of butter also. With Groups 111., 1V., V., and VI. the largest milk and butter yields were obtained, when 85.21, 91.11, 79.53, and 76.41 pounds of dry matter were disposed of per day. When 103.67 pounds of dry matter was used by Group 1V. per day and 84.49 pounds with Group V., there was a decrease in the milk yield of 37.23 and 28.81 pounds for the periods when these amounts of dry matter were used. Thus an increase of 12.56 and 4.96 pounds of dry matter per day in the food of Groups 1V. and V. was attended with a considerable loss in milk yields. This does not mean that the larger amount of dry matter eaten exerted any detrimental influence on the milk fio-w but that the optimum pro- duc-tion was secured with smaller amounts and therefore the above food was wasted. This goes to show that cows will consume far more food than they can use advantageously in milk yields, and this refers us to a previous statement made concerning this matter, and the important bearing it has on profitable dairy yields (see p. 1086). Similarly it may be shown that large quantities of other food materials were wasted. An examination of the table will reveal the fact that decidedly larger yields of butter were secured with Groups 111., 1V., V., and V1. in Period 11., as compared with Period 1. 1t will also be observed that the quantity of dry matter and organic matter eaten in Period 11. was largely in ex- cess of that received in Period 1. For example: Dry matter, Butter, i Dry matter, - Butter. Group. Period L, Period I., Period II., Period II., lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.16 42.66 81.68 48.14 IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.12 42 13 84.52 46.41 V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.47 36.58 71 93 39.87 VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.08 39.33 73.40 49.40 This data goes to prove that great injustice may be donethe cows by a failure to give a liberal and properly constituted ration; and further, that much food may be wasted when no adequate returns in milk and butter are secured. This is one of the most important problems for consider- ation in the feeding of dairy cows, and, as is very evident, is one requiring most careful study so that a proper adjustment may be had, or the dif- ference between profit and loss will be increased or decreased accord- ingly. The dairy man must therefore acquaint himself thoroughly with his cows and study their individual peculiarities, next investigate the character and composition of the food stuffs at his command and then by the use of a number of trial rations ascertain when a proper adjust- ment of the ration has been gained, so that he may obtain the optimum yields of milk and butter at the least cost. This reduce-s the hap-hazard method of feeding now practiced to something of a certainty, and places the dairy industry on a substantial business basis--the only possible basis for success. Attention is here called to the fact that there were increased milk and butter yields obtained as the amount of cotton seed meal was reduced in the case of Groups 1. and 111., while with Groups 1V., V., and V1., a reduction of the cotton seed meal to 4 pounds and the addition of 6 EFFECT 0F FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. i 1099 pounds of bran, corn meal, and oats, generally speaking, resulted in an increased yield of milk and butter. From this as well as the table it is evident that the production and cost of milk and butter was not more favorably affected by cotton seed meal than the other »mixtures fed. DEE?) g g g i L? "‘ "6 - -i’~..8.§ ‘é s ==” f? 2 ° E E» s is... E s. s. 1 s. :3". 55 3 E 5;’ E IV. I. 1:5.05 85.88 37.90 7.18 27.07 3.64 794.00 37.06, III. II. 1:551 79.26 48.87 8.64 35.43 4.79 836.50 38.07 II IV. 1:43.03 84.52 43.87 8.17 31.94 3.76 984.20 46.41 II VI. 1-535 7 .40 38.71 6.97 28.31 3.43 1017.65 49.40 The ab-ove table represents the digestible nutrients eaten by Groups 1., 11., 1V. and V1, in Periods 1V., 111., 11., and the yields of milk and butter secured from the same. The nutritive ratios of these four very divergent rations are practically the same. While it is true that these four rations were fed to separate groups of cows, it goes to show how ea- sily the feeder may be misled by the use of a so-called standard ration, or one having a certain nutritive ratio. Here are four rations having similar ratios, but they differ materially as to the amounts of theseveral digestible nutrients they contain as Widely as they differed in their productive capacities when fed to the four Groups shown aibove. These rations were compoun ded from different food stuffs, and the point is this: The average feeder has been led to believe that all that is needed is a cer- , tain ratio, whereas an indefinite number of rations may be secured having similar ratios, but as they come fro-m different foods and are fed to dif- ferent cows the results do not turn out as expected in actual practice, for the reasons shown above. 6—Bul. 47 ' TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. .... NN NN NN NHN. NN NN NN NNN NHH.NN NH NHN N.NN NN NNN NNN.N NN.HN HH.NNHH NN NN N.NNN ..NNNNNNNNN H N NN N NN NH NN HH NN NN NNN. NN NH N.NN NN NN NNN. NN HN HH.NNNH NN N N.NNN ........NNN N NH NN N HN HH NN N NN NN NNN. NN NH N.NN NN NN NNN. NN.NH NN.NHHH NN N N.NHN ........NNN NH N NN N NN HH NN N NN NN NNH. NN NH N.NN NN NN NNN. NH.HN NN.NNHH NN N N.NNN ...... ..NHH N N NN N NN HH NN N NN NN HNH. NN NH N.NN NN NN NNN. NN.NN NN.NNHH NN N N.NNN ........HNN NH NH NN N HN N NN N NN NN ..@mN. NN NH H.NN NN NN NHN. NN.NH NN.HNHH NN N N.NNN ........NNH NH NH NN N NN N NH N NN NH NNH. NN HH N.NN NN NN NNN. NN.NH NN.HHN NN N N.NNN ........NHN N NH NN N HN N Nm\N NN NH HHH. NN NH N.NN NN NN NNN. NN.NH NN.NNN HN N N.NNN ...... ..NNN W NH ww W mm WN NM MH NM NN WMN. NW NN m.Nm Nw MW MNW. mm.NN NN.NNNH NH N N.NNN ........NNN - N HN H. N N .N N NL. .NH NN.NNNH NN N N.NNN ........NNN HH NH NN N HN N NH N HN NH NHH. NN HH N.NN NN NN NNN. NH.NH NN.NNN NH N N.NNN . ..... ..HNH dQQQMHG Wmfimmifi . . .NN N NN HH NN N NN NN NNH. NN NH N.NN NN NN NNN. NN.NN NN.NNNH NN NN N.NNNH ..NNwNNN>NN NH NH NN N NN N .Nm N NN NH NNH. NN NH N.NN NN NN NNN. HN.NH NN.NNHH HN N N.NNNH ........NNN NH N HN N NN NH NN N NN NN NNH. NN NH H.NN NN NN NNNU NN.NN NN.NNNH NN N N.NNNH ........NNN N H NN N NN NN NN NH NN NN NHHH NN NN N_mw NH NN NNN. NN NN NH NNNN NN N N.NNNH ........NNN N N NN N NN NH HN N NN NN HNH. NN NH N.NN NN NN HNN. HN.NN NN.NNNH NN N N.NNN ... NNNNNNN NH N NN N NH HH NN N NN NN wmN.. NN NH H.NN NN HN NNN. HN.NN NN.NNNH HN N N.NNN ........wmN, NH NH NN H NN N NN N NN NH NNH NN NH N NN HN NN NNN. NN NH NN NNN NN N N.NNN .........NH NH NH NN N NN N NN N NN NH NNH. NN NH N.HN NN HN NNN NN.NH NN.HNN NN N N.NNN ........NNN N N HN NN NN NHN HN NN NN NNN HHH.NN NN NHN N.NN NN NNN NNN.NN NN.NN NN.HNNH NN NN N.NNN ........NHN .ww mm NNN dam» mu mm ow NNM am NNM ow mm mm w N N N. NNN NNN 3N NN MN NNN“ NNN NNN N.NN NN NN N N N NN.NN TmL-Qn SS1 mwa mm...» W99 QM W09 U0 N m. m.» M0 W0 Mwm. mwm Mm mm W9 . mm. 8d . mm. M M I. m. Nm m; J wmm nam mm . w Na wq m mm m 1 w w W n .N N NNN MN .N N N Mm N am m N. M N w m N. N NNN.. NN. fl ..u m. mm N Nw N. m .p m N. Nmmdmw ZHEBQHOW .§Q@Q§@QNNR. QQNQQFNQ bNNFNNN. 32x6 §umwm~bm KW §QMNN§QAN§NQNO nmflm-HNE r 2a rd afb-Cfiarf." J4 -$ Ll . Leg en Co5fofn1l.Z&710€J"¢2dJ/1o_¢} Qyoup Cos? fiuzfter era/d crQJ-au H132 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. In profit from milk production, the Holsteins led. They averaged $25.62 per cow, while the Jerseys made $23.47’ per cow, or $1.55 per head less than the Holsteins. In profit from selling butter, the advan- tage again reverted. to the Jerseys, the individual profit derived in their case being $'"t’.87, awhile the Holsteins showed $6.43, or $1.44 per head less than the Jerseys. Again is the importance of food cost displayed on the rating of cola-is whose productive capacities are similar, as in some instances observed in this table. If the fertiliaing value of the foods eaten had been disregarded, and the mill: sold at 1%,? cents per pound (i. e., allowing a cent per pound for the cost of millzing and delivery). and the butter at 20 cents per pound (allowing 5 cents for the cost of manufacturing and delivery), the rela- tive positions of the Holsteins and Jerseys Would have been seriously affected, though the profit secured Would still have proved gratifying, especially when we remember that this is the result of two months’ feed- ing, and an average lactation period of 1OEmonths would enable the results obtained to be multiplied by five. Supposing the prices indi- bated above to have been attached to the pound of milk and butter, the Holsteins would have yielded an average profit of $10.46 per head for mill»: and $3.66 for butter, while the Jerseys would show $11.57 for the former sand $5.03 for the latter. This would have thrown the Jerseys into first place for both purposes, with an average advantage per head of $1.11 for mill: and $1.3?‘ for butter, and after all it is the respective food roost that virould be responsible for these results. Generally' speaking, the data presented warrants the statement that for mill»: production the dairy farmer should choose Holstein grades (quality of the mill: not considered), and Jersey grades where butter making is the object sought. We do not favor any particular breed. Equally good aimals may be secured for dairy purposes among herds of mixed breeding and from any one of half a dozen pure breeds. We do advocate the use of the best sires obtainable for any specific pur- pose in breeding, but pedigree and performance must go hand in hand. In any form of comparison of different breeds, or their grades, there are some apparent"ivealtnesses always present, so that the results attained can only serve as guides in a general way. Individuality and food cost play a very important part in such tests, as well as the breeding. For instance, the sires of the several cows used in the test differed materially in essential characteristics and predisposing tendencies; furthermore, the purity’ of the blood of the several cows varied, they being in some instances the result of a first cross or of a third or fourth cross upon the native stock; so that these, and many other factors, have a decided influence in determilnilng the value of a cow, and make a fair comparison p of this nature difficult. In order that a clearer comparison might be made of the results ob- tained from feeding rations of cotton seed meal and cotton seed hulls and cotton seed meal and sorghum hay against different proportions of cotton seed meal and bran, cotton seed meal and corn meal, and cotton seed meal and oats, with cotton seed hulls and silage, the first period when all groups were fed the same ration has been omitted, and the last three periods aver- aged together. Groups I. and II. were always behind, though by ref- TABLE XXIIL-Sanzmary of the Results 0f Feeding Uoarse Foods and Cotton Seed Meal A gainst Silage, Gotten Seed Halls, and a Variety of Meals. ,3 . p“ w U; - * D' Ifbl - tt ‘ d d . " 7 U; += ' ' h H '6 _; _; g g a 5 U; g g g5 lees 1 e ma. er consur-ne per ay - g 5 2 2% E g a g é gr a i? '5 52 88 =~ g; s 8 s. "8 s 8 "g ‘i 2 .8 8 8.“. E a ..- g Ration fed per 1000 pounds live weight per day. “Q 7 §m~ <91; 8°‘ a U, H. Q‘: - 3 3 1g “b; “.2 p‘ . "5 g “i3 2% 28 8’ g. g‘ .. g 2g 13g ~22 1% 88 é? 8 ‘*1 x “$5 8s 3Q; ‘s; figs g8 '"* ‘* ‘s H -> a3 u} '3 4. ‘° Q i’ .8 f’ —*'—‘ <15 v3 t? .4 .. 13 ~ ...' . e é Z3 53 E 598 E98 8s E 85 s. 8 98 99 815 s8 8?» 88s 8'8 £54 E77‘? 317. . . . 11'. 10 lbs. 8.8.M.; 20 lbs. 8.8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113.12 994.5 385.4 894.6 82.08 39.32 10.46 24.32 4.54 $4 45 760.20 54.28 $0.585 $19 01 35.65 $8 91 $0.125 $14 56 $4 46 545. . . . 1. 111. 8 lbs. 8.8.M.; 25 lbs. 8.8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114.07 997.5 317.6 1005.2 84.65 38.73 8.70 25.97 4.07 '4 16 767.85 54.85 .543 19 20 35.11 8 78 .118 15 04 4 61 191. . . . 1V. 6 lbs. 8.8.M.; 25 lbs. 8.8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 115.051 877.5 259.5 1084.5 85.88 39.70 7.18 27.07 3.64 3 85 794.00 56.71 .485 19 85 37.06 9 26 .104 16 00 5 41 Totals for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2869 ' 962 . 2984.3 252.61 117.75 26.34 77 36 12.25 12 46 2322 05 165.84 1.613 58 16 107.82 26 95 .347 45 60 14 48 Averages for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950.5 820.8 994.8 84.20 89.25 8.78 25.78 4.08 415 774.02 55.28 .588 19 88 85.94 8 98 .115 15 20 4 88 i 1 B .. . . . 11. 10 lbs 8.8.M.; 20 lbs. 8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113.8 835.01 332.6 877.51 78.56 49.02 10.33 33,48 5.21 6 001 814.00 58.14 .7491 20 35 39.06 9 76 .160 14 35 3 76 438. 11.1 111. 8 lbs. 8.8.51; 30 lbs. 8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 115.51 845.0. 263.2 959.9, 79.26 48.87 8.64 35.43 4.79 5 76‘ 836.50 59.74 .688, 20 91 38 07 9 52 .152 15 15 3 76 » 653. 1 1V. 6 lbs. 8.854.; 30 lbs. 8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116.64 602.5? 211.5 1021.21 79.91 48.75 7.38 36.89 4.48 5 681 81.6.65 58.32 .695 20 41 37.39 9 35 .152 14 73 3 67 Totals for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2282.51" 807.3 2858.6 237.73 146.64 26.35 105.80 l 14.48 17 44» 2467.15 176.20 2.132 61 67 114.52 28 63 .464 44 23 11 19 1 . Averages for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760.81 269.1 952.8 79.24 48.88 8.78 35.26 4.83 5 81 822.38 58.73 .711 20 56 38.17 9 54 .155 14 74 3 73 405. . .. 11. 10 lbs. 8.8.31; 16 lbs. 8.8.11; 33 lbs. 8 . . . . . . . . .. 113.75 930 0 381.8 1766.7 81.68 43.36 10.73 27.91 4.71 5 66 _986.00 70.43 .573 24 66 48.14 12 03 .117 19 00 6 37 356. . . . 111.1 111. 8 lbs. 8.8.111; 18 lbs. 88.11.; 35 lbs. 8 . . . . . . . . .. 114.66 877.5 310 8 1999.7 84.30 43 29 8.94 30.11 4.24 5 50 1069.55 76 40 - .515 26 74 47 82 11 95 .115 21 24 6 45 Gracie 1 1V. 6 lbs. C.S.M.; 18 lbs. 8.8.11; 35 lbs. 8 . . . . . . . . .. 1:45.78 993.0 249.0 2161.3 85.21 42.63 7.37 31.46 3.80 5 30 1076.85 76.91 .493 26 93 50.41 12 59 .105 21 63 7 29 Totals for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2800.51 941.6 5925.7 A 251.19 129.28 27.04 89.48 12.75 16 46 3132.40 223.74 1.581 78 33 146.37 36 57 .337 61 87 20 11 Averages for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933.5 313.8 1975.2 83.73 43.09 9.01 29.83 4.25 5 49 1044 13 74.58 .527 26 11 48.79 12 719. .112 20 62 6 70 i . 210. . . 11. 6 lbs. 8.8.171; 4 lbs. 13.; 16 lbs. 8.811.; 33 lbs. 8. 115.03 825.0 389.2 1863.3 84.52 43.87 8.17 31.94 3.76 5 90 984.20 70.29 .598 24 61 46.41 11 59 .127 18 71 5 69 182. . . . 1V 111. 4 lbs. 8.811.; 6 lbs. 13.; 18 lbs. 8.811.; 35 lbs. 8. 116.63 852.5 401.8 1994.7 91.11 46 36 7.05 35 89 3.41“ 6 22 1051.88 75.11 .591 26 30 48.03 12 01 .129 20 08 5 7 220. . . . 1V. 2 lbs. 8.8.M.; 8 lbs. 13.; 18 lbs. 8.8.11; 35 lbs. 8. 118.90 1250.0 433.5 2221.1 103.67 51.19 6.05 41.98 3.17 6 63 1014.65 72.47 .653 25 37 47.00 11 75 .141 18 74 5 12 Totals for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2927.5 1224.5 6079.1 279.30 141.42 21.27 109.81 10.34 18 75 3050.73 217.87 1.842 76 28 141.44 35 35 .397 57 53 16 60 Averages for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975.8 408.2 2026.3 93.10 47.14 7.09 36.60 3.45 6 25 1016.91 72.62 .614 25 43 47.15 11 78 .132 19 18 5 53 691. . . . 11. 6 lbs. 8.8.171; 4 lbs. 8.171.; 16 lbs. 8.8.11; 33 lbs. 8. 1Z5 .78 667.5 338.9 1608.5 71.93 36.93 7.12 26.56 3.25 5 02 915.35 65.38 .548 22 88 39.87 9 96 .125 17 86 4 94 115. . . . V. 111. 4 lbs. 8.8.M.; 6 lbs. 8.51.; 18 lbs. 8.8.11; 35 lbs. 8. 1:8 .1 800.0 354.2 1758.1 79.53 43.64 5.44 35 14 3.05 5 35 1039.76 74.26 .514 25 99 42.47 10 61 .125 20 64 5 26 347. . . . 1V. 2 lbs. 8.8.M.; 8 lbs. 8.11.; 18 lbs. 8.8.11; 35 lbs. 8. 1111.7 1060.0 378.0 1867.8 84.49 47.04 4.18 40.10 2.75 5 66 1010.95 72.20 .559 25 27 l 41.08 10 27 .1-37 19.61 4 61 Totals for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2527.5 1071.1 5234.4 245.95 127.61 16.74 101 .80 9.05 16 03 2966.06 211.84 1.621 74 14 123.42 30 84 .387 58.11 14.81 Averages for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 842.5 357.0 1744.8 81.98 42.53 5.58 33.93 3.02 5 34 988.69 70.61 .540 24 '71 41.14 10 28 1291' 19 3'71 4.93 l 442. . . . 11.1 6 lbs. 8.8.M.; 4 lbs. 8.; 16 lbs. 8.8.11; 33 lbs. 8. 125.35 615.0 343.2 1604.6 73.40 38.71 6.97 28.31 3.43 5 32 1017.65 72.68 .522 25 44 49.40 12 35 .1081 20 12 7 02 406. . . . V1. 111. 4 lbs. 8.8.M.; 6 lbs. 8.; 18 lbs. 8.8.11; 35 lbs. 8. 117.38 900.0 354.8 1688.3 76.41 40.13 0.93 30.96 3.24 5 61 1030.46 73.60 .544 25 76 49.50 12 38 .113 20 l5 6 77~ 323 1V. 2 lbs. 8.8.M.; 8 lbs. 8.; 18 lbs. 8.8.1.1.; 35 lbs. 8. 129.86 1030.0 367.0 1933.8 89.70 45.40 4.53 37.76 3.02 6 27 1035.10 73.94 .605 25 88 49.41 12 35 .127 19 61 6 08 Totals for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2545.0 1065.0 5226.7 239.51 124.24 17.43 97.03 9.69 17 20 3083 21 220.22 1.671 77 08 148.28 37 08 .348 59 88 19 87 Averages for three Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848.3 355.0 1742.2 79 .84 41 .41 5.81 32.34 3.23 5 73 1027.74 73.41 .557 25 69 49.43 12 36 .116 19 96 6 62 BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT OF FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. erence t0 Period I. in Table XVII. it will be seen that they compared very favorably with the other groups in milk and butter production, and especially will this be found true when the cases of Groups II., V., and VI. are compared. While it is true that Groups I. and II. made some increased yields of milk and butter in Periods II., III., and IV., they were insignificant and not at all in accord with what would be ex- pected from their favorable comparison with the other groups in Period I. Evidently, then, their failure to give increased yields must be at- tributed to some other cause than lack of productive capacity, and it would seem that that other factor must be the nature of the food, and this is borne out by the fact that in the case of Groups I. and II. the ration might be termed a dry ration, and in the case of the remaining group ‘a succulent one. A glance at the averages and the differences represented by them between the several groups will aid in giving a clearer idea concerning this matter. =; r15 3 E’ g 2 3,, 8 a s EB “t ‘i. I “w” a Group. ‘5 $2 ‘5; .11 a S:- a8 >n >5 >g >3 4" <1 <1 <fi I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.28 53.8 35.94 11.5 II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.73 71.1 38.17 15.5 III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.58 52.7 48.79 11.2 IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.62 61.4 47.15 13.2 V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 .61 54.0 41.14 12.9 VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.41 55.7 49.43 11.6 The digestible nutrients fed the different Groups compared very favorably. Groups I. and II. received the most protein and fat, though somewhat less oi’ carbohydrates and organic and dry matter than some of the groups. Thus, so ifai‘ as the amounts are concerned, there was little cause for complaint, especially as Groups I. and II. had an abun- dant supply of protein, so long considered a desideratum; but in the matter of variety the last four Groups had decidedly the advantage. The best results were obtained when the digestible nutrients were supplied from several sources, and this was probably due to the well known favor- able action of the constituents of one food on that of another, and also to the increased palatability thus secured. Three different rations were fed each Group is as many Periods, and the influence of these on the milk and butter yields and economy of production will, therefore, be studied with interest. With Group I. little gain was secured from the changed rations. The one giving the largest increase, and making the cheapest milk and butter, was 6 pounds of cotton seed meal and 25 pounds of cotton seed hulls. Thus, 6 pounds of cotton seed meal proved more effective than 10 pounds. With Group II., 8 pounds of cotton seed meal and 30 pounds of sorghum hay proved more effective than 1O pounds of cotton seed meal and 2O pounds of TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. sorghum hay, and as effective as 6 pounds of cotton seed meal and 30 pounds of sorghum hay. In Group 111., 6 pounds of cotton seed meal, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage was the cheapest and most effective ration used. When more than 6 pounds of cotton seed meal was used, it not only made the ration too expensive, but failed to yield large enough returns to make its use permissible. With Group 1V, the highest milk and butter yield and the cheapest milk was made when 4 pounds of cotton seed meal, 6 pounds of bran, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage constituted the ration. 1n the case of Group V., 4 pounds of cotton seed meal, 6 pounds of bran, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage produced the cheapest milk and butter. With Group V1, the most effective ration, from the standpoint of economic yields, was 4 pounds of cotton seed meal, 6 pounds of oats, 18 pounds of cotton seed hulls, and 35 pounds of silage. 1t thus appears that in the mixed meal rations the use of 4 or 6 pounds of cotton seed meal, combined with 6 or 4 pounds of bran, corn meal, and oats, respectively, yielded the best returns. In practice, we would recommend the use of 4 pounds of cotton seed meal and 6 pounds of the others mentioned for cows in full flow. Less than four pounds of cotton seed meal does not seem. effective. By means of the appended data the influence of cotton seed meal, as compared with other meals in combination with it, on the increase of butter fat, may be obtained: Group I. Group II. Group III. Group V. GTOUPVI- Butter, lbs. Butter, lbs. Butter, lbs. Butter, lbs. Butter’ lbS. I1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.65 39.06 48.14 39.87 49.40 Period 111...... . 35.11 38.07 47.82 42.47 49.50 1V...... 37.06 37.39 50.41 41.08 49.41 In Periods 11., 111., and 1V., when 10, 8, and 6 pounds of cotton seed meal constituted that portion of the ration for Groups ‘1., 11., and 111., no increased yields of butter beyond slight variations were observed, and just as great variations were observed with Groups V. and V-1., who received a mixed me-al ration. From this data we must conclude, there- fore, that cotton seed meal has no ability to increase the yield of butter fat above that of other meals used. BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL EFFECT 0F FOOD ON ECONOMIC DAIRY PRODUCTION. 1105 TABLE XXIV.—Rating of the 0020s and Groups. s es o u-l g o l-i g o. g E. E 2 ~13 E. E 2 z ~ 8 8 ~ 1.. 8 8 s 5 ‘.5 ‘g 5 E '5 ‘i? 5° 5 a s s ~= s s. a s s. ~ s a 317 . . . . . . . 6 11 6 9 545 . . . . . . . 18 18 17 17 I. ‘VI. VI V. V 191 . . . . . . . 15 17 14 11 B . . . . . . . . 16 13 18 16 438 . . . . . . . 7 15 7 18 II. V. V. VI. VI. 653 . . . . . . . 13 9 11 6 405 . . . . . . . 3 3 3 2 356 . . . . . . . 14 6 15 8 III. I. I. I. I. Gracie 5 4 5 7 210 . . . . . . . 17 16 16 15 182 . . . . . . . 12 10 12 1O IV. II. III. III. III. 220 . . . . . . . 1 1 1 3 691 . . . . . . . 9 12 9 5 115 . . . . . . . 8 14 8 12 V. IV. IV. IV. IV. 347 . . . . . . 4 5 4 13 442 . . . . . . . 10 8 10 4 406 . . . . . . . 2 2 2 - 1 VI. III. II. II. II. 323 . . . . . . . 11 7 13 14 This table contains the rating of the cows and groups according to the quantity of milk and butter produced and the respective profits de- rived from the same. No better proof of the individuality of the cow is needed than is here aiforded. Further, it clearly demonstrates: 1. The different values a cow may have for special lines of dairy husbandry. p 2. The influence of cost of food and character of the food on the cost of production. 3. It aids in the detection of the cows of little or small value. 220 stood first in three instances, but the cost of the food forced her into third place for profit under butter, while it raised 406 to first place and 405 to second place in this particular. 317, 545, 191, B, 438, and 653 were either poor cows or the character of the food was at fault. In the case of these two groups, the food was doubtless to blame. While every other group contained one cow makin a poor showing (note 356, 210, 182, 691, 115, and 323), it will be seen by reference to previous tables (XXL), that in Period I., when all cows received the same character of ration, these particular Groups made a much better showing than they ultimately possessed at the eon- clusion of the experiment. The variability of some cows is strikingly developed in this table. As an example, take the case of 323, who occupied the 11th, 7th, 13th, and 14th positions respectively, while 191 occupied the 15th, 17th, 14th, and 1106 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 11th, and 356, the 14th, 6th, 15th, and 8th. An example of the value of cows for milk and butter dairying is shown by 356, whose rating was 14.- and 15 in milk values and 6 and 8 for butter. With regard to the Groups, the rating being similar to that for indi- vidual performance, the positions held were rendered more uniform from the fact that good and bad cows were blended in the several Groups so as to give a fairly uniform average. The Groups receiving the great- est variety in the ration (both of meals and roughage), when the rough- age consisted partly of silage, easily led. The position of Group III. was maintained because of the cheapness of its ration, and while Group IV. nearly equalled Group III. in production, the greater cost of its ration forced it down, and the same is-true of Group V. and Group VI. It is apparent from the data presented in this table that individual ability is of as much importance as good measurements. It will be noted that as a rule the cows possessed of large development in the respiratory, digestive, and pelvic regions were the best producers. Owing to the limited number of measurements presented here, no very definite con- clusions can be drawn. Much has been said and written regarding the conformation of the dairy cow. To us the following requisites appear desirable, in harmony with natural laws, and in accord with the best results secured in practice. Cows should be sought weighing more or less than 1000 pounds, pos- sessed of well developed wedges and indications of great nervous energy. A clean cut contour, with a well fleshed body-mot fat,not skin and bones. A wide, deep chest, and narrow withers, with great breadth and depth through the pelvic region. Tremendous digestive and udder capacity, and every indication of a great circulation of blood, as shown by external ap- pearances, as the skin and milk veins, etc. Individual performance and hereditary influences are of more importance than any certain type in conformation. It is unreasonable to expect a mass of skin and bones to yield unlimited supplies of milk and butter. Such emaciation as has been advocated as essential in the conformation of the dairy cow may be disproved by the citation of dozens of instances when well fleshed cows were record coves in the dairy world. A sleek. smooth. well rounded out cow will give just as much, if not more, milk and butter. as a mass of skin and bones. Such a cow will be more vigorous, less subject to diseases and abortion. an.d retain her productive powers unimpaired for a longer time. tor the reason that her stamina is better. The extreme of the skin and bone theory has been reached. and we firmly believe it has been detrimental. in many instances. to the ivelfare of‘ dairy herds. ft 1's t/nzc to?’ oIreoct/mz, not to w/s/z to t/ze o7575osfte extreme, ln/t conzsfst/ng‘ of a tract/cc based on t/ze usc of foods t/zat will increase lIOl/Z t/zc quantity and circulation of the blood, nzafntain t/ze animal system in a state of cz/zzlflzforfztnz, and keep it in a lzealt/zy and vzgorous condition at all tinees. TABLE XXV.-~.M6Cl-3U7‘6m1671.t8 of tlte 0010s in Feet and Inches. I E a _ g . . . . . . . '6 -~ '~ .8 "’ f5 6 ’“ “ K d . 3 . I i l: gi - i {,3 a g '5 g 82:’ é 3 2 5. ..- 5 ‘f; *5; g 7;; _ E‘. d c a E :4 n. p‘ :1 f, c. ° c, 3” c: g :3 -'_ '0 a ~ c, a 2 i e => s5 ".5 =1‘ ,8 8 5 2 g "‘ *’ g3 2 e S. '== 3 a i3 z z "ii l l6 8, a ,9 S. g .5 == =~ g; .3. g 3; .58 e 8 5e 5 3 REMARKS ON APPEARANCE. O w w w 1 MM 1 "*- ‘2 ¢3 H u H T; E) >1 s-i u ‘ 8 ~ E .3 E 1 e 8. 2 g z .1 2 .1" - .5 :11 s. . . e, - -- '* "* .5; => :1 *’ -_= ~= 6 2 w m c1 5i 3 fr’: 8 B 5 55 r3 =5 3 B 2 5 65 d? 317- - '7 ill fil- 3 6 ‘ft. ‘i’ in. 7 ft 3 11 in 1 ft. 5 in 7 ft. 0 in. 1 ft. 8 in. 1 ft. 1 in. 4 ft. 2 4 ft. 2 in 1 ft. 7 3 ft. 3 1n 1 ft 10 994.5 1281.05 53.9 6 11 Only fair wedge, rather beefy, udder well formed, letl1argic. 545- - 611 111 Q [if 111.- ft. 5 111. 6 ft. 7 1n., 13 1n 1 ft. 5 in fl“... 3 in 1 ft. 6 in. 1 ft. 1 in. 4 ft. 3 1n. 4 ft. 0 111. 1 ft. o1} 1n. 2 ft. 10 1n 1 ft 9 1n. 997.5 861.60 41 .3 18 18 Beefy type, nervous, udder well formed, l1ead, neck, and shoulders coarse. 191. . 8 111 n 1ft. 6 "1n.. 6 1ft. 4 1n. 7 ft. 0 1n. 1 ft 2 1n 1 ft. 6 in. 6 11111.10 in 1 ft. 4 11 1n. 4 ft. 0 1n. 4 ft. 1 1n. 1 ft. 8 1n 2 ft. 9 1n 1 1t 9 1n. 877.5 959.60 45.0 15 17 Fair wedges, head and tail coarse,'udder funnel shaped. _ _ 13.. 74 1n 5 ft. 1 1n. 6 ft. 0 1n. 6 ft. l0 111 1 ft 2 1n 1 ft. 54; 111 6 ft. ll in. 1 ft. 4 1n. 10% 1n. 4 ft. 3 1n. 4 ft. 1 111 1 ft. 1n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 835.0 944.20 49 0 16 14 Falr wedges, poorly formed udder, good barrel, quiet disposition. 433- 61 1n 5 it. 111111.. 611.. 1 m. e rt. 11 m 1 1t. 2 1n 1 r1. 4. in t 11.. 2 in. 1 a. 0 in. 1 1t. 0 in 4. a. 8 1n. 8 11.. 10 1n. 1 11.. e 1n. ...................... .. 815.0 12.19.00 4.8.2 "r 15 Fair Wedges, excitable, well formed udder. 653. . 6 1n. .2 1n. n ft. 7 111. 5 fit. 9 1n 1 ft 11} in 1 ft. 1 in 6111.3 in. l ft. 3 in. 10 in 4 ft. 0 3 ft. l0 1n. 1 ft. 6 1n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602 5 1082 50 54.3 13 9 Good Wedges, clean out features, gentle disposition, well formed udder. 405. . .. Z1; 1n. n "ft. 11 1n. 6 ft. 4 1n. 7 1 1n 11 in 1 ft. 41 in. 61111.4 in. 1 ft. 6 in. 11 in. 4 ft. 0 1n. 4 ft. 0 1n. 1 ft. 5 1n. 3 ft. 7 1n 2 ft. O 1n 930.0 1678 55 73 8 3 3 Good dairy form, active but gentle, finely formed udder. 306- 1 1111- ft. 11 in ft. 3 1n. 7 ft. 0 1n. 11 in 1 ft. 4 in. 6 ft.l in. 1 ft. 5 in. 11 in 4 ft. 0 in 3 ft. ll 1n. 1 ft. 6 1n. 2 ft. 9 1n. 1 ft. 8 1n 877.5 944.50 55 8 14 5 Beefy type, poorly shaped udder, coarse head and shoulders. Gracie 7 1n.. n 1ft. 11. 1n. 6 ft. 8 7 ft. 1 1n. 1 ft. 4 in. 1 ft. 6 in. 611.9 in. 1 ft. 7 in. 1 ft. 0 in. 4 ft. 5 1n 4 ft. 4 1n. 1 ft. 8 1n 3 ft. 5 1n 2 ft. 0 1n 993.0 1439.85 59.3 5 4 Bony, angular type of cow, large but poorly shaped udder, quiet disposition. 210.... 6 1n.. 5 1ft. l0 1n. 6 ft». 3 1n.. 7 ft. 1 1n. 1 ft. 1 in. 1 ft. 4 in. 5 it. l0 in. 1 ft. 3 in. 10 in. 4 ft. 0 in. 3 ft. 11 1n. 1 ft. 8 1n. 3 ft. 1 1n. 1 ft. 8 1n 825.0 911.05 47.0 17 16 Bright, active animal, good dairy type, udder evenly quartered. 182.. .. 6 1n. 5 ft. 9 1n. 6 2 111. 6 ft. 11 1n. 1 ft. 4 in. 1 ft. 6 in. 6 ft.3 in. 1 ft. 5 in. 11 in. 4 ft. 1 in. 4 ft. 0 1n. 1 ft. 7 1n. 2 ft. 11 1n 2 ft. 4 1n 852.5 1101.65 54.1 12 10 Nervous cow, udder funnel shaped, Wedges only fair. . .. 7 1n. ft. 111.. 7 it. n 1n. 7 ft. 10 1n. 1 ft. 1 in. . 1 ft. 6 7ft.1 1 ft. 7 in 1 ft. 2 4 ft. 4 4 ft. 4 1n. 1 ft. 8 1n. 3 ft. 4 2 ft. 3 1n 1250.0 2006.18 82.4 1 1 Well developed udder, fine dairy type, strong, active, plenty of nervous energy. .. .. 6 in... 5 1ft». 1n. it. 6 111. 6 ft. F! 1n- 1 ft. 1n. 1 ft. n 1n. 6 111153 1n. l ft. 3 1n. 9 1n. 3 ft. 9 1n. 3 ft. 7 1n. 1 ft. 5 1n. 1 ft. 7 1n. 3 ft. 0 1n 667.0 1130.86 53.2 9 12 Conforms to da1ry type, udder development good, irritable d1spos1t1on. - 115.... 61} 1n. ft. 1n. 6 4 111. 71ft. 1n.. 1 ft. 5 1n. 1 ft. 8 in. 6111.2 in. 1 ft. 6 in 11 1n. 4 ft. 1 1n. 3 ft. 11 1n 1 ft. 6 1n. 2 ft. 6 1n. 1 ft. 11 1n 800.0 1186.65 49.7 8 13 Fair dairy type, poorly formed udder, gentle in temperament. 347.... 7 1n. 6 ft. 1 1n.. 6 ft. 8 1n. 7 ft. o 1n. 1 ft. 1 in. 1 ft. 7 in- 6111.6 in. 1 ft. 7 in. 1 ft. 0 in. 4 ft. 2 in. 4 ft. 2 1n. 1 ft. 7 1n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1060.0 1530.60 55.7 4 6 Large and beefy in type, fairly formed udder, very quiet. 442.... 1n. 0- ft. 2 1n. 5 ft. 6 "1n- 6 ft. 2 1n 1 ft. 1 in. 1 ft. 4 in. 5 ft. ll in. 1 ft. 4 in. 10 in. 4 ft. 0 in. 3 ft. 8 in. 1 ft. 5 1n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615.0 1110.65 54.7 10 8 Under sized cow, good dairy form, Well developed udder. 406- - -- b1 111- 111-111-101 611211.815. E11. n 111. 1 rt. 1 in. 1 r1. a 111. _ 1111.1 in. 1 11.1 in. 11 in. 4 1'1. 0 in. 4 a. 5 in. 1 11,8 1n 811 5m 2 11. 51n 900 0 1710.11 v8.0 2 2 Ifine dairy type, plenty of nervous energy,_udder funnel shaped. 323. . . . 6a} 1n. 6 it. 0 1n. 6 ft. .1 1n. 11 ft. 5 1n. 1 ft. 2 1n. 1 ft. 5 1n. 6611.7 in. 1 ft. 6 1n. 11 1n. 4 ft. 3 1n. 4 ft. 2 1n. 1 ft. 8 1n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030.0 1109.60 54.8 11 7 bomewhat beefy, poorly formed udder, 1rr1table d1spos1t1on. For the sake of comlparisnn, the measurements of the famous “record” cow Yentje Netherland is here attached. Y. N. . 12 i111. “it 1ft... 111.1 61ft. i111... ‘61111511... in‘ 1 ft. 7 in. 1 ft. 7 in. 7 i111. 8 in. 2 ft. 5, in. 1 ft. 10 in. 4 ft. 11 in. 5 ft. 0 in 2 ft. 3 in. 6 ft. 3 in . . . . . . . . . . . . 1650.0 20,232 625.5