S3 T. F 203 S3 opy 1 .. STUDY OF FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION ELMER SETH SAVAGE THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy REPRINT OF BULLETIN 323 OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station A STUDY OF FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION ELMER SETH SAVAGE THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy REPRINT OF BULLETIN 323 OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station s .91 CORNELL UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Experimenting Staff LIBERTY H. BAILEY. M.S.. LL.D, Director ALBERT R. MANN. B.S.A.. Secretary and Editor. JOHN H. COMSTOCK. B.S., Entomology. HENRY H. WINO. M.S. in Agr., Animal Husbandry. T. LYTTLETOX LYON. Ph.D., Soil Technology. HERBERT J. WEBBER. M.A.. Ph.D , Plant-Breeding. JOHN L. STONE. B. Agr , Farm Practice and Farm Crops. JAMES E. RICE. B.S.A.. Poultry Husbandry. GEORGE W. CAVANAUGH. B.S.. Chemistry. HERBERT H. WHETZEL. A.B.. M.A.. Plant Pathology. ELMER O. FIPPIN. B.S.A., Soil Technology. GEORGE F. WARREN. Ph.D., Farm Management. WILLIAM A. STOCKING. Jr.. M.S.A.. Dairy Industry. CHARLES S. WILSON. A.B..M.S.A., Pomology. WILFORD M. WILSON, M.D., Meteorology. WALTER MULFORD, B. S. A., F.E.. Forestry. HARRY H. LOVE, Ph.D., Plant-Breeding Investigation!. ARTHUR W. GILBERT. Ph.D., Plant-Breeding. DONALD REDDICK. A.B.. Ph.D.. Plant Pathology. EDWARD G. MONTGOMERY. M.A., Farm Crops. WILLIAM A. RILEY, Ph.D.. Entomology. MERRITT W. HARPER. M.S., Animal Husbandry. J. A. BIZZELL, Ph.D., Soil Technology. CLARENCE A. ROGERS, M.S.A.. Poultry Husbandry. GLENN W. IIERRICK, B.S.A., Economic Entomology. HOWARD W. RILEY. M.E., Farm Mechanics. CYRUS R. C;R0SBY. A.B.. Entomological Investigations. HAROLD E. ROSS, M.S.A.. Dairy Industry. ELMER S. SAVAGE. M.S.A., Ph.D.. Animal Husbandry. LEWIS KNUDSON. B.S.A., Ph.D.. Plant Physiology. KENNETH C. LIVERMORE. B.vS.in Agr.. Farm Management. ALVIN C. BEAL. Ph.D., Floriculture. MORTIER F. BARRUS, A.B., Plant Pathology. GEORGE W. TAILBY. Jr., B.S.A., Superintendent of Live-Stoclc. EDWARD S. GUTHRIE, M.S. in Agr., Dairy Industry. PAUL WORK, B.S., A.B.. Olericulture. EDWARD R. MINNS, B.S.A.. Farm Practice and Farm Crops. JOHN BENTLEY. Jr., B.S., M.F., Forestry. HARVEY L. AYRES. Superintendent of Dairy Manufactures. EMMONS W. LELAND, B.S.A., Soil Technology. CHA«1,ES T. GREGORY. B.S. in Agr.. Plant Pathology. \ijt'ljte VV. FISK. B.S. in Agr.. Dairy Industry. ^^V-W^THOyiY. B.S., B.S. in Agr.. Pomology. The regular bulletins of the Statij),it are sent free to persons r.'siding in New York State who request them. ' ' ' #' ^^ ei6l EHVW A STUDY OF FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION* E. S. Savage What may be called the science of animal nutrition began with six experiments conducted by two German scientists, Henneberg and Stoh- man, the results of which were published about i860. Since that time man^/ scientists, notably in Germany and also in America since the found- ing of the American experiment stations, have interested themselves in trying to calculate the definite food requirements of certain groups of animals used for such purposes as labor, meat, wool, and milk production. These food requirem.ents have been tabulated and designated " feeding standards." Perhaps these standards have been of greater interest to teachers and investigators than to practical stock-feeders. To the practical feeder, feeding is an art; to the investigator, feeding is an exact science. Yet the teachings of science cannot be disregarded by the practical man, and he should ha\^e an adequate knowledge of the physiological make-up of his animals, of the different constituents of feeding-stuffs, and of the various uses to which those constituents are put in order to meet the physiolog- ical requirements of the body as to growth, health, and product. In like manner the investigator must not lose sight of the fact that in the words of the old Gemian adage, qvioted by Henry, " The eye of the master fattens his cattle." There are two distinct uses of feeding standards which cannot be denied. These uses are very important. One is as a basis from which to teach the elementary facts of animal nutrition to students in the colleges. The other is as a basis for use in economical feeding operations. In both cases, after the feeding standards are thoroughly understood they may be de- parted from so far as the experience of the indi\4dual may show it to be advisable. With the purpose of learning something of the ai:)plicatio:i of two of the more recent feeding standards — that of Haecker and that, of Amisby — the present work was instituted at the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station in the winter of 1909-1910. Haecker's standard has to do with feeding dairy cows exclusively; and only that part of Annsby's standard which has to do with dairy production is considered in this paper. *Also presented liefnrc the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University, June, 191 1, as a major thesis in parli.il fulfillment of the requirements for the ,d3gree of Doctor of Philosophy. 59 ' ■ ' * •:-;;;w«r..; 6o Bulletin 323 HISTORY OF FEEDING STANDARDS ^ The three volumes containing the data of Henneberg and Stohman were known as the Weende Reports. They were published between i860 and 1870 and were the foundation of the study of feeding standards. To the authors of these reports, more than to any other persons, belongs the credit for having started the study of animal-feeding from a scientific point of view. The name of Justus von Liebig is also prominent in these early studies; while the Munich scientists, Bischoff and Voit, have contributed much to the laws of nutrition in their work, " On the Laws of the Nutrition of Car- nivora." Boussingault, the French chemist and farmer, deserves mention in this connection. His experience dates from 1836. In England, Lawes and Gilbert of the Rothamsted Station contributed very largely to the early knowledge of nutrition. Hay values Thaer seems to have been the first to inaugurate a systematic scheme for feeding. He worked out the r3lative values of different feeding-stuffs in terms of " good " meadow hay, the value of the hay for feeding purposes being the standard unit. These hay values 'were in use for some time previous to 1858. They were modified by other agricultural writers and teachers, but were not changed in principle until 1858. Grouven's feeding standards In 1858 Grouven proposed to formulate into standards the food com- ponents as required by diflerent animals according to their live weight. Eight standards were given for dairy cows, according to their weight from 772 to 1,543 pounds. For cows weighing about 1,000 pounds Grouven proposed the following standard, the constituents being crude protein, crude fat, and crude carbohydrates: dry matter 28.7 pounds, protein 2.76 pounds, fat .86 pound, and carbohydrates 14.55 pounds. The nutritive ratio was about i: 6.1. The components were not varied at all in the standards for production, being based entirely on live weight. Wolffs feeding standards The next standards proposed were those of Emil von Wolfif in 1864. Digestion experiments had been conducted to some extent at this time and Wolff recognized the value of a standard in terms of digestible constituents. The Wolff standard for milch cows was as follows: for a cow weighing 1,000 pounds, organic matter 24 pounds, digestible protein 2.5 pounds, digestible carbohydrates 12. 5 pounds, and digestible fat .40 pound. > F. W. WoU. " On the Relation of Food to the Production of Milk and Butter Fat by Dairy Cows." Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. ii6. Feeding Standards for Milk Production 6i This standard of Wolff's was published in the Annual Aj^ricultural Cal- endar of Mentzcl and von Lengerke^ and thus became widely known and practiced by Gennan farmers. Julius Kuhn^ criticises this standard of Wolff's very severely in that the standard was supposed to apply to all cases. Kuhn would have a basal ration for maintenance and then add supplementar}^ amounts for production. He would vary the amounts fed from 20 to 23.5 pounds of dry matter, from 1.5 to 2.4 pounds of digestible albuminoids (he separates the digestible amides from the rest of the protein, saying that the digestible amides have the same effect as the carbohydrates) , and from 12 to 14 pounds of diges- tible amides, crude fiber, and nitrogen-free extract, with a nutritive ratio of 1:5.5 to 1:8 according to the production of the cow being fed. Wolff-Lehmann feeding standard Next in line comes the Lehmann modification of the Wolff standard. This was published, after the death of Wolff, in the Annual Agricultural Calendar of Mentzel and von Lengerke^ for 1897, page 107. This standard took into account the objections of Kuhn, and the Wolff standard was m.odified to meet the supposed requirements of cows giving different quan- tities of milk. They were based on 1,000 pounds live weight and were as follows: TABLE I When yielding daily Dry matter (pounds) Digestible nutrients Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) Nutritive ratid 1 1 pounds milk . . . . .■ 25 27 29 32 1.6 2.0 2.5 3-3 10 II 13 13 ■3 •4 •5 .8 1:6.7 1:6.0 1:5.7 1:4-5 16.6 pounds milk 22 . pounds milk 27 . 5 pounds milk Since their first appearance these German standards, as they have been called, have been widely published both in Europe and in America. The}' form the basis for the computation of rations in nearly all the works on feeding. Wolff's standards are found as the basis in Armsby's " Manual of Cattle Feeding." However, Doctor Armsby has changed his basis entirely since the last edition of this book, as will be seen later. W. A. ' F. W. Won. "On the Relation of Food lo the Production of Milk and Butter Fat bv Dai'-y Cows." Wis. Airr. E-.p. Sta. Bui. iio. * Julius Kuhn. "' Feeding Standards for Domestic Animals." E.\p. Sta. Record 4: 6. 62 Bulletin 323 Henry ^ used the Wolff-Lehmann standards as the basis of his rations. W. H. Jordan-' also used the Wolff- Lchmann standard in his work. Besides these works, which are probably the most popular and widely read works on feeding in America, the Wolff-Lehmann standards have been published in a large number of pamphlets and bulletins of the experiment stations of the various countries. In addition to the standards noted above, three other German investi- gators have published standards of more or less value: Maerkcr,^ Pott,' and Kellner.^ One Swedish investigator, N. Hansson,® has also published a set of " feeding tables." FEEDING STANDARDS IN AMERICA The feeding standards that have been in common use in this country up to within the last }^ear or two, and are in use to a great extent e\^cn now, are the Wolff- Lchmann standards. In 1894 F. W. Woll' published a standard ration which was the average of about one hundred rations in the United States and Canada. The average ration was: dry matter 24.51 pounds, digestible protein 2.15 pounds, digestible carbohydrates and fat 14.51 pounds, nutritive ratio i:6.c;. Woll gives this as evi- dence that, in the experience of American farmers who are practical feeders, less protein is needed than is recomm.ended by the Wolff-Lehmann standards. Also, the rations can have a wider nutritive ratio. Woll called his standard the "American practical feeding ration " and recom- mended its use by farmers in place of the Gennan standard. At the Connecticut (Storrs) station Atwater and Phelps ** formulated a standard from their experience along the same lines as those followed by Woll, with a little difference in the requirements of the different con- stituents. In the last two or three years a feeding standard proposed by T. L. Haecker," of Minnesota, has received much attention from dairymen and has been adopted in many cases as a guide for feeding dairy cows, notably by H. R. Smith'" and C. B. Lane," and by " Hoard's Dairyman." In January, 1909, H. P. Armsby'"^ published a set of feeding standards based on the production values of feeding-stuffs as determined by Kellner at the Moeckern Experiment Station in Germany. ' W. A. Henry. " Feeds and Feeding." '' W. H. Jordan. " Feuding Farm Animals." ' F. W. Woll. " On the Relation of Food to the Production of Milk an! Butter Fat bv Dairy Cows." W's. A r. Exp. Sta. Bui. ii6. * Exp. Sta. Record 22: 375. 'O. Kellner. " The Scientific Feeding of Animals." Translation by William Goodwin. • N. Hansson. Exp. Sta. Record 20: 475. ' F. W. Woll. " One Hundred American Rations for Dairy Cows." Wis. A':;r. Exp. Sta. Bui. 38. « W. O. Atwater and C. S. Phelps." " N'itroRonous Feadin-? Stuffs and Feeding Formulas for Dairy Cows." loth Ann. Rept. Conn. (Storrs) Agr. Exp. Sta., p. 67. » T. L. Haecker. " Investigation in Milk Production." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 7q. '» H. R. Smith. " Profitable Stock Feeding." " C. B. Lane. " The Business of Dairying." >■■' H. P. Armsby. " The Computation of Rations for Farm Animals by the Use of Energy Values." U. S. Dept. Agr., Farmers' Bui. 346. Feedino Standards for Milk Production 63 The study of these last two feeding standards will now be taken up in detail, since they form the basis of the experiment herein reported. haecker's feeding standard for dairy production In 1892 T. L. Haccker took up his investigations at the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. He began his work by keeping careful herd records of production and the cost of feeding. For several years he published the " Dairy Herd-Records " in the several reports and bulletins of the station.^ There is nothing that needs consideration in the earlier reports except to mention that during the winter of 1893-1894 experi- ments were conducted comparing the feeding value of timothy and prairie hay, and during the winter of 1894-1895 experiments were conducted comparing the feeding value of wheat, barley, and corn. These experiments are mentioned because Haecker used the data from them in later discussions in regard to his feeding standard. In all the feeding work at Minnesota, Haecker reports the cows to have had all the feed that they would eat up clean. They were fed in as nearly a common-sense, practical way as possible. When a cow has shown a desire for more food and has shown that she would give a good return for it, it has been given to her. The aim has been to keep the cows in good working condition without any appreciable gain or loss in body weight after the first eleven weeks from calving. During the first eleven weeks it has been expected that a cow would lose in body weight, particularly if she was in good flesh at the time of calving. More will be said of this later. The work that fonned the basis of the Haecker standard was pub- lished by Haecker in bulletins 71 and 79 of the Minnesota station. All the data in these bulletins w^cre taken from the herd records, considering mature cows in what Professor Haecker calls " good normal working condition." The results in Bulletin 71 wiU be taken up first. Data in Bulletin 71 oj the Minnesota station I. Protein requirements. — In the Wolff-Lehmann standard, Doctor Lehmann calculated that.. 7 pound protein w^as required for maintenance per 1,000 pounds live weight and that .081 pound was required for the production of i pound of milk. These requirements were the same whether the cow was giving 1 1 pounds or 2 2 pounds of milk daily. Haecker noticed ' T. L. Haecker: ■' Dairy Herd-Record for 1892." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Rept. 1893: 313-324. " Dairy Herd-Record for 1893; Cost of Butter Production in Winter; Comparing Prairie with Tim- othy Hay; Rearing Dairy Calves; Cooperative Creameries; Experiments in Sweet-curd Cheese." Minn. Agr. E.xp. Sta. Bui. 35. " Investigation in Milk Production." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 67. " Investigation in Milk Production; Protein Requirements." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 71. " Investigation in Milk Production." Minn. A'.jr. E^p. Sta. Bui. 79. " The Relation of Nutriment to Product." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 106. 64 Bulletin 323 that in the experiment in comparing timothy hay with prairie hay, less protein seemed to be required than the Wolff-Lehmann standard called for. There were twelve cows in the experiment. The average daily pro- duction was 25.81 pounds of milk testing 4.06 per cent fat, on 24.38 pounds of dry iTiatter containing 1.99 pound digestible protein, 12.82 pounds diges- tible carbohydrates, and .59 pound fat. The Wolff- Lehmann standard gi\-es 2.5 pounds digestible protein as the amount required for 22 pounds of milk daily. The average weight of the cows during the trial was 950 pounds, and allowing them daily for maintenance .7 pound of protein per 1,000 pounds live weight there remains 1.33 pound protein daily for milk production. Since the cows gave 25.81 pounds of milk daily, they re- turned I pound of milk for .051 pound of protein, instead of for .081 pound according to the Lehmann standard. Singling out the mature cows, which made little if any gain in weight, nine remain. Using the factor .7 pound protein for maintenance and determining the amount available for product, the following average results are obtained: average weight 991 pounds, protein daily 2.09 pounds, protein for maintenance .69 pound, protein for product 1.40 pound, milk daily 29.06 pounds testing 3.9 per cent fat. From these averages, we have .0481 pound of protein required for i pound of milk. The amount of protein required varied all the way from .035 pound in the case of one cow giving 43.50 pounds of milk testing 2.5 per cent fat, to .057 pound as required by cows giving 25.80 and 25.99 pounds of milk containing 5.3 per cent fat. The value of the data given above is lessened when the length of the experiment is considered, since the time was only fourteen days. However, data from the wheat, barley, and corn experiment are avail- able on the same question. Two periods — one of eighty-four days and the other of seventy days — are considered here, so that the data have more value. The rations varied from 20.08 pounds to 31.49 pounds dry matter, and averaged 24.30 pounds dry matter containing 2.01 pounds protein, 12.03 pounds carbohydrates, and 1.53 pound fat. (In all cases in this paper the tcnns protein, carbohydrates, and fat have reference to the digestible constituents alone. If the crude amounts are meant, it will be so stated.) The average daily yield was 26.96 pounds millv, testing 4.01 per cent fat. The average weight of the cows was 954 pounds. Allowing .66 pound protein for maintenance, we have 1.35 pound protein for product, or .05 pound protein for i pound milk testing 4.01 per cent fat. These fig- ures are the average for twelve cows for eighty-four days. One cow had aborted and another was neAr the close of her lactation period . Taking these out, the average requirement was .046 pound protein for i pound milk testing 3.9 per cent fat. During the next seventy days, twelve cows were in an Feeding Standards for Milk Production 6S experiment tnat j^ves results on the same question. The average weight of the cows was 958 pounds. They received daily 2 pounds of protein, of which 1.33 pound was for product. The yield was 25.23 pounds milk testing 4.07 per cent fat, or .053 pound protein for i pound milk. Conclusions as to protein requirements. — From the results of the two experiments reviewed above, .046 pound of protein available for product is suggested as sufficient to produce i pound of milk and to maintain the flow. By increasing or diminishing this allowance by .004 pound for each .5 per cent increase or decrease in the percentage of fat in the milk, Haecker estimated that the ration would be adjusted to the needs of the cows giving various grades of milk. Milk testing 3.85 per cent fat is fixed as the standard average, and a cow giving that grade of millc should receive .046 pound of protein to each pound of milk produced. 2. Experiment in feeding dairy cows with rations containing varying amounts of protein and having various nutritive ratios. — In this experiment it was planned to divide the herd into six groups of five cows each, to be fed during the winter on rations containing protein and having nutritive ratios as follows: TABLE 2 Group Protein (pounds) Nutritive ratio I 2.42 2.15 1.86 1. 61 1-47 1:5.3 2 1:6.4 ■J 1:72 A 1:83 C. . 1:9-3 (Data for group 6 not given in bulletin cited.) These plans were not held to exactly, since the roughage was not analyzed by the Station Chemist until later and in planning the experiment the average composition of American feeding-stuffs was used. A number of cows aborted during the winter and the records are very much disturbed because of this. In the -final conclusions of the experiment, as shown by Table 6 on page 67, no results are given for groups 3 and 6. The other groups are said to be made up of four cows each. Why groups 3 and 6 were dropped and why one cow was dropped from each of the other groups is not explained. The experiment ran through three periods. During the first period all the cows were fed the same ration, it being mixed as follows during the time noted : 66 Bl'lletin 32,^ TABLE 3. Rations in Period i (in Pounds) Dec. 31- I Jan. 7-20 ' Jan. 21-27 Jan. 6 1 Bran Corn Gluten meal Mangels. . . . Fodder corn Silage During period 2, the eight weeks from January 28 to March 24, the rations for the various groups were mixed as follows: TABLE 4. Rations in Period 2 (i.\ Pounds) (January' 28 to March 24) Group I Group 2 Group 4 Group 5 Bran 5 5 25 25 2 12 36 8 2 2 12 36 Oats 4 4 4 Corn Barley 25 25 2 12 36 Gluten meal Fodder corn 12 Silage 36 Group 3 received the same ration as did group 4, except that bran was substituted for oats. Grou]) 6 received the same ration as did group 5, except that bran was substituted for oats. During jseriod 3 all the cows were fed the following ration : TABLE 5. Rations in Period 3 Pounds Bran Corn Gluten meal . Prairie hay . Silage 5 5 2 12 36 The cows were fed at all tiines as much as they seemed to need and all that they could use to good advantage, in the judgment of the feeder. Feeding vStandards for AIilk Prodic-tion 67 The results of the experiment are given in the following table: TABLE 6 Period i Group Average weight (pounds) Protein Total for protein ! main- (poundsj tenance (pounds) Protein for product (pounds) Pounds Per- milk I centage I fat Pounds protein to I pound milk 1 769 2 ' 725 4 881 5 ! 669 Average, period i . . 761 1-774 1.605 1-845 1-594 ■538 -507 .617 .468 1.704 -533 1.236 1 .098 1.228 1 . 126 16.86 14.86 16.75 17-51 5-53 5-17 4.70 4.78 -0733 -0739 -0733 .0643 1 . 171 16.49 5-04 .0710 Period 2 I 2 4 5 Average, period 2 794 746 902 681 2.037 1. 811 1-739 1. 491 781 1.769 -556 .522 .631 -477 •547 1. 481 1.289 1. 108 1 .014 15-82 15-18 16.27 17.66 564 5-15 4-63 4 56 .0936 .0849 .0681 -0574 1 .222 16.23 •0753 Period 3 I 2 4 5 812 778 938 744 1.844 1.694 1-937 1.802 .568 •545 -657 •521 1 .276 1. 149 1.280 1. 281 15.18 14.29 15 96 17.07 5-72 5.02 4.61 4.66 .0840 .0804 .0802 .0750 Average, period 3 . . 818 1. 819 -573 1 .246 15.62 4-99 .0798 Conclusions from Bvdletin Ji. — Haecker's conclusions from the data given in Bulletin 7 1 of the Minnesota station are as follows : " I . Cows giving ordinary yields of milk and of butter-fat do not require the amount of protein called for in the standard rations. "2. The amount of milk that a cow gives daily, and its fat content, measure the amount of protein which the animal requires over and above that needed for maintenance. "3. There is a limit to the milk- and fat-producing power of a cow at any given time. Feeding more protein than she needs for this production and for her own support is of no advantage. "4. The excess of protein, with the corresponding excess of other nutrients, will tend to cause a cow to la}^ on flesh and thereby to shrink in inilk flow. "5. Grains ordinarily grown on the farni, fed in conjunction with such roughage as fodder corn, corn silage, timothy, and prairie hay, prox'ide ample protein for cows doing ordinary dairy work." 68 Bulletin 323 Data in Bulletin jg oj the Minnesota station The investigations in regard to milk production are reported in this bulletin under four headings: 1. Maintenance requirements. 2. Nutrient requirements. 3. Protein requirements. 4. Influence of stage of lactation on nutrient requirements. These topics will be discussed in order and the conclusions of Haccker in regard to each will be shown. /. Maintenance requirements. — Wolff's maintenance ration for 1,000 pounds live weight is: dry matter 18 pounds, protein .7 pound, carbohy- drates 8 pounds, ether extract .1 pound. In order to test the accuracy of this standard, Haecker conducted three experiments with barren cows. As a result of the first experiment, made with two barren cows for a period of eighty-one days on a ration of 8 pounds of timothy hay and 3 pounds of barley, the cows gained an average of .36 pound daily on a ration containing daily .004 pound more protein and .209 pound less carbohydrates. Therefore the ration was in excess of the amount actually needed for maintenance. The second experiment was conducted with two barren cows during the winter of 1896-189 7 and covered a period of one hundred days. One cow received daily 18 pounds and the other 14 pounds of corn fodder. The following table shows the average weight of the cows and the nutrients consumed by them daily: TABLE 7 Cow Average weight (pounds) Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) Alice Belle 808 1 ,010 8.98 923 .297 .277 5-45 5 08 •38 •37 Average 9. 10 .287 ■;.27 • "^/S The cows maintained their weights during the ex])criment except that during the month of February Belle was down to 987 loounds; she regained her weight, however, to an average of 1,010 pounds. Yet the physical appearance of the cows showed that they had not been sufficiently nourished even though they had maintained their live weights. During the winter of 1897-1898, in the third experiment, three cows were fed on maintenance rations of fodder corn, beets, and oil meal. The data cover the period from December 30 to April 11. Combining the results with two of these cows (the record of the third was thrown out Feeding Standards for Milk Production 69 because it was found that she had been suffering with a broken tooth) with data obtained from feeding one cow on a maintenance ration in 189 8- 1899, we have the following results: material consumed per 1,000 pounds live weight, dry matter 11.38 poimds, protein .63 pound, carbohydrates 5.75 pounds, and fat .12 pound. Conclusions in regard to maintenance requirements. — Haecker concludes from the results of the above experiments that with cows at rest in stall in comfortable quarters, a ration of 11.5 pounds of dry matter containing .06 pound protein, .6 pound carbohydrates, and .01 pound ether extract per 100 pounds live weight is ample for a maintenance ration. However, he questions whether these amounts would be sufficient for cows receiving ordinary treatment in herds if the cows are allowed a certain amount of exercise each day. Pending further in^•estigation on the maintenance requirements of dairy cows, Haecker suggests the following for the maintenance allowance for producing animals: 12.5 pounds dry matter, containing .7 pound protein, 7 pounds carbohydrates, and .1 pound ether extract, for each 1,000 pounds live weight. 2. Nutrient requirements . — In making a study of the nutrient require- ments for milk production, Haecker discusses the following questions: A. Are the Lehmann factors approximately correct? B. Are they applicable to any and all grades or qualities of milk yielded? C. Will they be sufficient for heifers in milk? The results from questions A and B, only, will be discussed here, since they apply to the results of our own trial. Question A. The herd records and records of experiments conducted in 1894-1895 are cited to throw light on this question. The records cover a period of one hundred and fifty-four days. The cows were given a fixed ration. A full flow of milk and yield was obtained without gain or loss in body weight. The following table shows the nutrients used in the pro- duction of I pound of milk : TABLE 8 Live weight (pounds) Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) Milk produced (pounds) Daily average Daily average for mainte- 956 2.000 .670 I 330 •051 .081 12.46 6.69 5-77 .221 .220 .560 •095 .460 .018 .018 26.09 Daily average for milk . ... Nutrients to i pound milk . . Lehmann for i pound milk (when yield is 22 pounds 70 Bulletin 323 The results as shown in the table above are not materially different from Lehmann's standard except in amount of protein. The follomng winter, 1895-1896, the herd was composed of practically the same animals receiving on an average a daily allowance of 2.59 pounds of protein. Compared with 1894-189 5 the performance is as follows: TABLE 9 Year Live weight (pounds) 1 Protein ST^?' ^^^ (P°-^^)ttnd?),^P°""^^) Milk produced (pounds) Percent- age of fat in milk Pounds of fat in milkj 1894-1895 1895-1896 956 980 2.00 2.59 12.46 .56 12.24 .68 26.09 25.71 4. 10 3-93 1 .069 I. on This table gives strong evidence that the amount of protein prescribed in the Lehmann standard is largely in excess of the amount needed for production. The cows yielded more milk and butter-fat during the \vinter that they recei\'ed 2 pounds of protein than they did the following winter on an allowance of 2.59 pounds of protein. Question B. In order to answer this question, Haecker has compiled a table from the records of mature cows whose productive powers had been developed to their fullest capacity by careful feeding and handling for several vears: TABLE 10 Percentage of fat Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Ether Total extract nutrients (pounds) (pounds) Countess. . . Lou Topsy Olive Sweet Briar Houston . . . .036 .040 .042 .044 .052 •057 .012 .014 .014 .016 .018 .019 .208 254 .256 .280 .310 336 The figures in this table represent the average of one hundred and fifty- four consecutive days work for each cow. The table clearly indicates: first, that the amount of nutrients to i pound of milk increases with the improvement in quality of the milk but not in the same proportion; second, that, other things being equal, the richer the milk the more economical is the production of butter-fat. In order to show the rate of increase in nutrients required for the production of i pound of milk of different quaUties, the records of Houston and Countess are employed : Feeding Standards for Milk Production 71 TABLE II T-, , n <^ • Carbo- Ether Percentage Protein hydrates extract of fat (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) Houston Countess Difference Difference for .1 per cent fat. 5-5 2.5 30 •057 .036 .021 .0007 .26 .16 . 10 ■0033 .019 .012 .007 . 00023 Taking the nutrients required for i pound of niilk containing 2.5 per cent fat as a basis and the nutrients required in addition for each .1 per cent fat increase, we can derive a feeding table. Such a table is given in the bulletin under review, but it is not deemed necessary to reproduce it here since the one in use by Haecker at the present time is slightly different and represents his latest ideas for this standard. This table is closely in accord with the nutrients used by mature cows in the herd not gaining nor losing in body weight, except that it provides rather more than was used by cows whose mills: tested between 3.5 and 4.5 per cent. From the study of question B it seems that the quality of milk is quite as important a factor in formulating a feeding standard or guide to feeding practice, as is quantity of milk yielded. Question C. It is not deemed necessary to report here the findings in regard to question C, inasmuch as they have no bearing on the experiment in hand. It is sufficient to say that in Haecker's opinion, borne out by his own experience, heifers in milk require more nutriment per pound of milk produced than do mature cows. This is a natural consequence because heifers must provide for growth of body. J. Protein requirements. — The third part of Bulletin 79 may now be studied. In the winter of 1901-1902, the feeding of the dairy herd was planned with the purpose of obtaining more data on protein requirements. The cows in the stable were naturally arranged in groups by partitions. The tables given are made up from the records produced by mature cows doing normal work. It was intended to maintain a fixed ratio between grain and roughage, but -in some cases a slight deviation had to be made so as to feed each cow to her full limit. This ratio as planned was five times as much corn silage as grain and half as much hay as grain. The grain ratios were : Group 1. Equal parts of corn, bran, and gluten meal. Group 2. Corn and bran four parts each, gluten meal one part. Group 3. Equal parts of corn, barley, and oats, except for one cow which received bran instead of oats. 72 Bulletin 323 The composition of the rations as fed was as follows : TABLE 12 Ration Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Ether extract (pounds) Nutritive ratio I 2 2.04 1.68 1.32 11.79 II 75 II .76 •53 •57 -50 I :6.3 I : 7.6 3 I 19.7 The feeding began November 11, 1901, and continued without change until the morning of February 17, 1902, when a new supply of grain was fed and corn fodder was substituted for silage. With the exception of two cows whose records are considered for one or two weeks longer, the data given refer to this period between November 11, 1901, and February 16, 1902, inclusive. When fed as above, the yield of the three groups was as follows in tenns of pounds of milk, percentage of fat, pounds of butter-fat, and pounds of total solids : TABLE 13 Group Ration Milk (pounds) Percentage Pounds ' Total of fat of fat solids in milk in milk (pounds) I 2 3 I 2 3 27-77 30.60 26.84 4-54 3.80 4.40 1 .260 1 . 164 1. 182 3-737 3 719 3-524 Judging from yields of butter-fat and of milk, ration 3 was practically as potent as the other rations in that the product yielded bears a closer relation to total nutrients than to protein. In order to make a better comparison, if we multiply the fat in the food by 2.4 and add the protein and carbohydrates and call this amount the total nutriment, then multiply the butter-fat by 2.5 and add the solids- not-fat and call this amount the total product, we shall have a basis on which to compare the total nutriment and the total product yielded in the three groups. Such a comparison is as follows: TABLE 14 Group Total nutriment daily (pounds) Total product daily (pounds) Net nutriment to I pound of product (pounds) I 16.88 16.28 16.88 6.208 6. on 6.260 I 46 2 I .41 •I 1 .45 Feeding Standards for Milk Production 73 By this arrangement it is clearly shown that the three groups yielded dairy products in proportion to the nutriment available for product, and not according to the protein supply; and that the amount of nutriment required for a pound of total product depended on the ratio of butter-fat to solids-not-fat. Comparing the rations used in studying the protein requirements for three winters (1895-1896, 1894-1895, and 1901-1902) with the Wolff- Lehmann standard, the following table is derived: TABLE 15 Net nutrients I 895-1 896 (pounds) I 894-1 895 (pounds) 1901-1902 (pounds) Standard factors (pounds) Protein daily 2.63 •0755 .2082 .0224 .3061 2.09 .0510 .2211 .0177 .2898 1.90 •0375 .1969 .0156 .2500 2.50 0818 Protein to i pound milk Carbohydrates to i pound milk Ether extract to i pound milk Total net nutrients to i pound milk . . . .2400 .0180 •3398 The Wolff-Lehmann factors seem particularly faulty in the assumption that it requires .081 pound of net protein to i pound of milk produced, and they do not recognize the fact that the nutrient requirements vary with the quality of the milk yielded. Reviewing the results obtained from section 3 of this bulletin, it appears : 1. That the rations having a nutritive ratio of i : 7.6 and i :9.7, respec- tively, were as effective in the production of milk, butter-fat, and milk solids as was the ration having a nutritive ratio of i : 6.3. 2 . That the protein required in milk production depends on the quantity and quality of the milk yield. 3. That in the production of butter-fat, actually more but relatively less protein and other nutrients were required to a pound of butter-fat with cows giving milk containing a low percentage of fat. 4. That in the production of milk solids, less nutrients were required to a pound with cows having a low percentage of butter-fat in their milk than with cows giving milk having a high percentage of butter-fat. 4. Influence of stage of lactation on nutrient requirements. — It wdll be sufficient to give the summary under this heading, which also includes Pro- fessor Haecker's opinions up to the publication of this work: 1. During the early stages of lactation, cows lose rapidly in body weight; of fifteen cows the average decrease per cow the first week was 49 pounds, and during fifty-six days there was a daily average loss of 2 pounds. 2. During the time that the decrease in body weight takes place, cows yield dairy products in excess of the amount provided for by the food con- 74 Bulletin 323 sumed. The excess yield depends on the rate of loss in weight of body; in some instances it is more than twice the amount provided for by the avail- able nutriment. 3. The excess yield of dairy products decreases gradually until about the eleventh week, when an equilibrium generally obtains between the nutriment consumed and the dairy products yielded, although in this respect cows differ: those of a pronounced dairy temperament taking less time, while those not strong in dairy temperament decrease more slowly in weight and require more time in which to reach normal work in milk production. Before such equilibrium is reached, the body fat, and pos- sibly other substances, contribute directly or indirectly to product. 4. The normal net nutriment required for a pound of butter-fat is approx- imately 6.25 pounds, with a slight increase for cows yielding milk con- taining a low percentage of butter-fat and less for cows giving milk con- taining a high percentage of butter-fat. 5. The normal net nutriment required to a pound of milk solids yielded is approximately 2.4 pounds, with a slight increase for cows yielding milk rich in butter-fat and less for cows giving milk containing a low percentage of butter-fat. 6. When the nutriment available . daily for products and the products yielded daily are reduced to an approximate common value of energy, it is found that there is required about 1.75 pound of available nutriment to I pound of product; that is, of the available nutriment 43 per cent is expended in energy and 57 per cent is retained in the milk solids. 7. The daily yield of butter-fat in excess of the nutriment supply, by virtue of an average daily loss per cow of 2 pounds in body weight, was .283 pound, being a sacrifice of 7 pounds in body weight to i pound of butter-fat yielded in excess of that provided for in the ration. 8. When the normal working condition of body weight is reached, the nutriment required to a pound of butter-fat and to a pound of milk solids remains fairly constant for an indefinite time under proper management. The above conclusions finish Haecker's published work up to date, except for deductions from the results of the breed test at St. Louis in 1904. Haecker sums up these results and applies his standard to them, and by allowing 3.2 pounds net nutriment per pound of gain in weight he accounts for the expenditure of the excess nutriment. It is not thought necessary to report this bulletin in the present paper. Some unpiiblisked data on Haecker's standard The feeding table, or standard, now in use by Haecker was seen by the author of this bulletin at the Graduate School of Agriculture held at Cornell University in 1908. Professor Haecker kindly gave a copy to the Feeding Standards for Milk Production 75 author. When this was compared with the standard as given on page 104 of Bulletin 79 of the Minnesota station, it was noticed that the require- ments were slightly higher for milk low in percentage of butter-fat and slightly lower for milk ranging high in butter-fat. When a letter was sent to Professor Haecker asking the reason for this change, he kindly sent to the author the two tables given below, A and B, together \\4th a very careful letter of explanation from which the following notes are taken : In Table A is given the average daily summary for the Minnesota sta- tion herd for eight winters, " reduced to a daily average of dry matter con- sumed and digestible nutrients consumed, the total nutriment reduced to a starch equivalent, the nutriment calculated for maintenance, allowing .792 pound digestible starch equivalent for 100 pounds live weight, the amount left for product, the product yielded being the sum of the fat mul- tiplied by 2.2 and the solids-not-fat, and the net nutriment consumed to a unit of product yielded. "In the blank spaces following there is a double dash indicating that during the winter there was an equilibrium in the weight of the herd. If there is a plus, there is a gain; a minus sign indicates a loss. Taking an av- erage of the eight winters work it appears that there was required i .8 1 pound of net nutriment reduced to starch equivalent to produce one of product. TABLE A (16). Average Daily Summary of the Herd FOR Eight Winters Xutriment Nutri- ment Net Carbo- daily For For product B. F. X 2.2 -1- S. N. F. nutri- Dry Pro- hy- Ether (Pro. + Product ment matter tein drates extract C. H. + [fat X tenance .792 per 100 lbs. yielded daily to I pound 2.2]) product .07-.7--OI 1894-5 245 2.00 12.46 .56 1569 7-57 *8.o8 4-59 1.74 = 1895-6 23.9 2.59 12.24 .67 16.30 1 7.76 8 54 4 36 95 + 1902-3 21.8 1.92 11.86 .48 14.83 6.96 7 87 4 53 73 1903-4 20.6 1.97 10.99 .36 13.74 7.19 6 55 4 29 5^ -f- Fed roots 1904-5 22.0 1 .92 11.96 ■ 50 14.98 7.09 7 89 4 3» I 79 = 190S-6 21.9 i.6s 12.57 .50 IS. 32 6.90 8 42 4 34 04 + 1906-7 23 1-74 13-14 .63 16.27 7.40 8 87 4 56 04 + 1907-8 23-7 1 .69 12.15 .60 15.16 6.85 8 31 4 59 81 = Average 22.7 1.93 12.17 • 54 15.286 7.21S 8.071 4-455 I.Si *This is probably 8.12, but is 8.08 in the original. " Table B gives first the organic composition of milk from the number of milkings indicated in the first column, the milkings ranging from 3 to 7 per cent fat. In securing the average composition of any grade of milk, we only count .25 per cent above and no more than .25 per cent below the average; that is, the average of 3-per-cent milk was obtained from 658 different milkings, none of which went b^low 2.75 or above 3.25. 76 Bulletin 323 " Reducing the butter-fat to an equivalent of nitrogenous solids-not-fat and adding the product to the solids-not-fat, we have the following columns giving the components in one pound of milk ranging from .027 to .042 pound of protein and .112 to .202 pound of non-nitrogenous compounds. TABLE B (17). Gravimetric Analysis Num- ber of milk- ings Organic composition of milk Components in i pound milk Feeding standard. Net nutriment to I pound milk Milk fat Protein, casein, and al- bumen Lactose Nitrog- enous Non- nitrog- enous Protein in milk + SO per cent Carbo- hydrates in milk -1- 70 per cent 13 per cent of carbo- hydrates as ether e.\tract 658 770 840 1,638 1,442 1,246 546 336 182 3.0% 3 5 4.0 45 S-O 55 6.0 6.5 7.0 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 7 8 I 3 4 6 8 I 2 4.60 4-75 4-85 4-97 4.98 4.92 4.91 4.90 4.84 .027 .028 .031 ■ 033 ■ 034 .036 .038 .041 .042 . 112 .124 .136 .149 .160 .170 .181 .192 .202 .04 .042 .047 .049 .051 .054 .057 .061 .063 .19 .21 .23 .25 ■ 27 .29 .31 ■ 33 •34 .014 .016 .018 .019 .021 .022 .023 .025 .026 1 .426 .310 .464 1.736 Standard provides. Amount required. . 1.42 .464 .405 ,184 X2.2=.40j 3.289 Excess . " Now, we have in Table A that it requires 1.81 pound of net nutriment to produce one of product. Such being the case, it follows that .81 is expended in the energy required for the production of milk solids. This energy can be supplied by carbohydrates so it is not necessary to provide more protein over and above that required for the product than wall pro- vide all contingencies in waste in the process of digestion and transloca- tion, fetal growth, and variations in the composition of both feed and milk, and increase the carbohydrates in the ration proportionately to make the total nutriment provide practically what is required in Table A." Professor Haecker then says in his letter: "I am satisfied that any surplus ranging from 30 to 50 per cent over and above what appears in the milk will answer for ordinary milk production. This I have found by actual experiment. (See earlier results as given in this paper on pages 69 to 71. — Author.) I desire to make sure there is enough protein, so I provide protein for maintenance and protein for milk plus 50 j^cr cent protein in the milk. Then I add enough to carbohydrates to make the amount required for milk production, seeing that the ration of carbo- hydrates to ether extract is about what is found in our American Feeding Feeding Standards for Milk Production 77 Stufifs used for milk production. Adding together the total non-nitro- genous components and the various nutrients in the milk, we find there is 1.736 pound. Doing the same with the nutrients in the feeding standard, having reduced the ether extract to an equivalent of carbohydrates, we find that there are 3.289 pounds, and that the standard provides 1.89 unit to a unit of product in milk solids, while the amount used by the herd as shown by Table A is 1.81, the standard being in excess about .08 of nutriment to each pound of product." If we refer back to the method of building the feeding tables on page 7 1 , taken from Bulletin 79, and compare results for any one set of conditions, we will find " that the uniformity in the two methods as to results," using Haecker's words again, " are truly wonderful." Haecker calculated the new tables of requirements to meet the objec- tions of many investigators to the first tables on the ground that his data for the tables in Bulletin 79 were very meager. Having now covered all the ground that serves as a basis for Haecker's arguments, his opinions and conclusions may be best summed up by giving in full his table of feeding standards as he uses them in his classroom : TABLE 18. Haecker's Standard for Milk Production Ca Protein ^^^ rbo- rates .0700 700 .0390 168 .0396 172 .0402 176 .0408 180 .0414 i«5 .0420 189 .0426 193 .0432 197 .0438 202 .0444 206 .0450 211 .0456 215 .0462 220 .0468 224 •0474 228 .0480 233 .0486 237 .0492 241 .0498 245 .0504 249 .0510 253 .0516 257 .0522 260 Fat For maintenance, per 100 lbs. For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I pound m pound m pound m: pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2-9 3-0 3-1 3-2 3-3 34 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4-3 4.4 4-5 4.6 4-7 per cent fat. per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . .0100 .0120 .0121 .0124 .0127 .0130 •0133 .0136 .0139 .0142 .0146 .0149 .0152 •0155 .0158 .0161 .0164 .0167 .0170 .0173 .0176 .0179 .0181 .0184 78 Bulletin 323 TABLE 18 (continued) Protein ^a rbo- rates .0700 700 .0528 264 ■0534 267 .0540 271 .0546 275 ■0552 278 ■0558 282 .0564 285 .0570 289 .0576 292 .0582 296 .0588 300 •0594 303 .0600 307 .0606 310 .0612 314 .0618 317 .0624 322 .0630 325 .0636 328 .0642 331 .0648 335 .0654 339 .0660 341 Fat For maintenance, per 100 lbs . For I For I For I For I For I For For For For For For For For For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk; pound milk, pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk- pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk pound milk 4.8 4-9 50 51 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.0 per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . per cent fat . .0100 .0186 .0189 .0191 .0194 .0196 .0199 .0201 .0204 .0206 .0209 .0211 .0214 .0216 .0219 .0222 .0224 .0227 .0229 .0232 .0234 .0237 .0239 .0242 H. P. armsby's feeding standard Dr. H. P. Armsby has done much to further the work on animal nutrition in America, and to-day he is perhaps better known than any other nutrition expert in the country. He has become thus well known through two textbooks on animal nutrition,^ the first a general textbook and the second a scientific treatise on the subject. Besides these two text- books he has published a number of bulletins- from the Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station, where he began work as Director of the station in 1892. Since the building of the respiration calorimeter at the Pennsylvania station, the animal nutrition work has been in cooperation with the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture. It will not be necessary to review > H. P. Armsby. " Manual of Cattle Feeding ' ' and " Pinciples of Animal Nutrition." 2H. P. Armsby: " Relative Values of Feeding Stuffs." Penn. State College Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 71. " Feed as a Source of Energy." Penn. State College Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 84. " Feeding for Meat Production." U, S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bui. io8. H. P. Armsby and T. Augustus Fries: "The Available Energy of Timothy Hay." U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bui. 51. " Energy Values of Red Clover Hay and Maize Meal." U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bui. 74- " The Available Energy of Red Clover Hay." U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bui. loi. Feeding Standards for Milk Production 79 hero all the bulletins that are cited in the footnote on the preceding page. In bulletins 71 and 84 of the Pennsylvania station and in Farmers' Bul- letin 346 of the United States Department of Agriculture is contained subject-matter of interest in this connection. In these bulletins Armsby's attitude toward the subject of feeding as it stands to-day is explained. The results in bulletins 71 and 84 of the Pennsylvania station and in Farmers' Bulletin 346 can now be discussed. The computation of rations, up to the work of Armsby in this country and of Kellner in Germany, has always been placed on the amount of digestible nutrients in the given fodders, as has been clearly shown in these pages. Now Armsby shows in the bulletins cited that this view is inaccurate and he proceeds to show the reasons for his opinion, taking as a basis the results on the maintenance value of red-clover hay, timothy hay, and maize meal as shown by work on these feeds with the respiration calorimeter. He wishes to place the relative value of the feeding-stuffs on the production values of the different foods. First, before comparing the different foods, we must explain what is meant by the " production value " of a food. When a foodstuff is birrned, it yields a certain amount of heat or chem- ical energy usually measured in calories,* or in units of 1,000 Calories called therms by Armsby. Necessarily a large part of this energy, when the foodstuff is burned in the animal, is lost in the feces and urine and in the combustible gases from the intestinal tract. When this lost energy is subtracted from the chemical energy the resulting energy is called the " fuel value " of the food. Many writers have used the fuel values of foodstuffs in showing their relative values, but since these fuel values are determined in almost exactly the same way as are the digestible nutrients they have no greater value than have the amounts of digestible nutrients in a food to show its value in nutrition. Armsby goes a step further and defines the term " production value of a food," showing that only a part of the fuel value of a given foodstiiff can go for production. He defines the " production value " of a food as that part which can really go toward the production of meat in mature fattening animals, for the production of milk, and for growth in growing animals. He shows that these production values are not in the same relation in timothy hay, clover hay, and corn meal as the fuel values and, therefore, the digestible nutrients. Then we find also another term, namely, "maintenance value." Armsby finds that more energy can be derived from the fuel value of a food merely in maintaining the animal than in the production and storing of the energy as product ; therefore the maintenance value of a food is greater * A calorie (abbreviation small " c") is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of I gram of distilled water i degree Centigrade. 1,000 calories = I Caloric (abbreviation capital " C"). 1,000 Calories^ i therm (abbreviation " T."). 8o Bulletin 323 than its production value but less than its fuel value. This is obvious, since extra energy would be required to store food as extra weight over that required merely to replace some body material or merely to be burned in the body in order to maintain the body without gain in weight. Tables ig and 20, giving the comparative values of timothy hay and corn meal, will show clearly what is intended by the above explanation : TABLE 19. Digestible Nutrients, Computed Values iJ'uEL Values, and Actual Fuel Nutrients per 100 pounds (pounds) Computed fuel value (therms) Actual fuel value (therms) Absolute values Timothy hay 47-1 81.9 1 .00 1-74 87-5 152-5 1 .00 1-74 77.7 Corn meal 130.8 1 .00 Relative values Timothy hay Corn meal 1.68 The above table shows that the computed fuel values and actual fuel values are not different from each other to any extent. The next table will show the relative values as to maintenance and production in 100 pounds of timothy hay and corn meal: TABLE 20. Actual Fuel Values, Maintenance Values, and Production Values per 100 Pounds Actual fuel values (therms) Mainte- nance values (therms) Produc- tion values (therms) Absolute values Timothy hay Corn meal Relative values Timothy hay Corn meal 77-7 130.8 1 .00 1.68 48.9 loi .6 1 .00 "2.11 25 9 6y 7 I 00 2.69 * From the values above, this value would be 2.08. The original reference gives it as 2.11. From this table we see that com meal has relativcl}^ a much greater value, both for maintenance and production, than is shown by the actual fuel value (or digestible nutrients). Not many of the production values of American feeding-stufls have been computed, because of the amount of labor connected with Feeding Standards for Milk Production 8i such a calculation with the respiration calorimeter. In Farmers' Bulletin 346 appears a table worked out by Armsby from data secured from Kellner at the Moeckern Experiment Station in Germany. In Armsby's opinion these production values of Kellner 's, while not absolutely correct, are more nearly correct than our ordinary tables of digestible nutrients. The table is given on page 15, Farmers' Bulletin 346. As for protein requirements, in Armsby's opinion, so far as mainte- nance is concerned, the total amount required is so small relatively that it is only when feeds very poor in protein are used that there is danger of its falling short. A proper supply of protein is, of course, indispensable and enough in excess of maintenance must be furnished to provide for the product when productive animals are under consideration. The amounts necessary for given purposes will be shown in the discussion of Armsby's standard (page 119). The feeding standard for milk In Table 21 are given Armsby's maintenance requirements for cattle, which apply to milch cows as well as to other mature cattle : TABLE 21. Maintenance Requirements for Cattle Live weight (pounds) Energy (therms) 150 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 70 40 80 95 00 00 90 These apply, for the given live weight, for one animal one day. Strict accuracy is not claimed for these figures by Armsby, but he thinks them substantially correct. Under the requirements for milk production, it is thought that .3 therm of production value in the feed is ample for i pound of average milk containing about 13 per cent total solids and 4 per cent butter-fat. In regard to the protein requirements, it seems, in Annsby's opinion, that milk production can be kept up, for a time at least, on an amount of protein very slightly exceeding that found in the milk produced, added to the maintenance requirement. In the case of average milk this would 82 Bulletin 323 call for about .032 pound dijjjcstiblc protein for each pound of milk pro- duced. For the production of a liberal supply of milk, a little more protein than this would seem advantageous. Therefore Armsby recommends .05 pound of digestible protein for each pound of milk. Amisby suggests that the requirements of .3 therm of production value and .05 pound of digestible protein for i pound of milk might be increased for richer milk or decreased for poorer milk to advantage; but he does not attempt any systematic arrangement to meet the requirements for different grades of milk. With this explanation of the standards that have been published on milk production, we may now consider the application of the two last named in the experiments at this station. DATA OF CORNELL EXPERIMENTS. WINTERS OF 1909-I9IO AND igiO-IQII The experiments in question were planned with the purpose of applying Haecker's feeding standard to milch cows. However, the data are in such form that some knowledge of the application of Armsby's standard can be gained. Data of the winter of igog-igio Twelve cows were used. They were divided into three groups of four cows each, the groups being so arranged that cows of different breeds, quality of milk, and quantity of milk would be in the same group. In Table 2 2 is given a tabular statement of data regarding the cows in each group : TABLE 22. Cows in Experiment of 1909-19 10 Breed Age (years) Last calf (1909) Average live weight (pounds) Group A Cornelia Marvclla Garnet Delta Gipsy Glista Eta Group B Glista Omicron Glista Sigma Hector's Berta Lady Clay Group C Glista Chi Glista Omega Susanna Taflfy's Anna . J J Gr. H H H H J S H H J J 5 5 10 5 Oct. 6 Sept. 19 Sept. 19 Oct. 17 Nov. 9 Sept. 13 Oct. 22 Sept. 20 Sept. 2 Sept. 4 Sept. 19 Sept. 23 860 925 985 1. 1 75 1,150 1 ,090 815 1,050 1-035 I ,050 910 940 Feeding Standards for Milk Production 83 The cows were fed a ration of mixed hay (one half clover and one half mixed grasses), corn silage, mangels, and grain mixtiires composed of distillers' dried grains (Ajax flakes), hominy chop, old-process linseed meal, and wheat bran. The digestible composition of the fodders, as given in Table 23, was determined from actual analysis by the application of the digestion coefficients from Experiment Station Bulletin 11 of the United States Department of Agriculture, and from " Feeds and Feeding " by W. A. Henry: TABLE 23. Composition of Fodders per 100 Pounds. 1909-1910 Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds^ Fiber (poundS; Nitro- gen- free extract (pounds) Fat (pounds) Therms Value per 100 pounds Mixed hay Corn silage Mangels Distillers' dried grains Hominy Oil meal Wheat bran 4.62 1 .90 1.32 19-47 7.60 32 32 12.49 16.86 3 04 0.55 6.32 3 46 4-49 2.13 28.62 II . II 10.63 39.61 53 00 28.91 38.37 1 .11 0.62 0.03 9-94 6.82 4. II 3A2 34 50 16.56 4.62 79 23 *88 . 84 78.92 48.23 $0.60 0.1125 0.20 1.50 1. 125 1-75 1-25 ♦ The therms energy in hominy is not given by Armsby in Farmers' Bulletin 346. in corn is used instead. The therms energy The grain mixtures used in 1909-19 lo were as follows: Mixture i Feeds Constituents in mixture i 600 lbs. hominy chop 200 lbs. wheat bran 100 lbs. distillers' dried grains 100 lbs. oil meal 92 . 50 per cent dry matter 12.24 per cent digestible protein 3 . 59 per cent digestible fiber 46 . 32 per cent digestible nitrogen-free extract 6.17 per cent digestible fat 78 . 77 therms energy The cost of 100 pounds of mixture i was $1.25. Mixture 2 Feeds Constituents in mixture 2 200 lbs. hominy chop 200 lbs. wheat bran 500 lbs. distillers' dried grains 100 lbs. oil meal 92 . 80 per cent dry matter 16.99 per cent digestible protein 4.73 per cent digestible fiber 40.97 per cent digestible nitrogen-free extract 7 . 42 per cent digestible fat 74.92 therms energy The cost of 100 pounds of mixture 2 was Si -40. 84 Bulletin 323 The rations were so constructed that the nutritive ratio would be between 1 : 6 and i : 7 except when group B was fed mixture 2 . Group A was fed mixture i all through the experiment according to the general plan of feeding practiced at the experiment station, that is, all that each individual cow would take care of and eat up clean each day. Group B was fed mixture i during the first and second periods, and mix- tiu"e 2 during the third period. During the second period, however, it was endeavored so to arrange the feeding of group B that each cow would be fed the exact amount of nutriment called for by Haecker's standard according to her production. During the third period, group B was to be fed the same total nutriment as in the second period, but the ration was to have a narrower nutritive ratio, hence the change to mixture 2 . Group C was fed mixture i in all three periods; but in the first period group C was to be fed nutriment in accordance with Haecker's standard, in the second period as much as each cow would eat up clean with good appe- tite, and in the third period all that the individual cows could possibly take without " going off feed." Each period was six weeks in length and each followed directly after the preceding. The data from only the last five weeks of each period are taken into account, since it took the first week of each period for the cows to become adjusted to whatever change .may have been made in their ration.* The quantity of food consumed by each animal during each period is shown in tables 24, 25, and 26, one table being given to each group : TABLE 24. Feed Record of Group A. 1909-1910 Cow Period Hay (pounds) Silage (pounds Mangels (pounds) Grain (pounds) Cornelia . Garnet Delta. Gipsy. Eta. 316 350 350 229 280 280 316 350 350 316 350 350 775 710 700 700 700 700 1,050 1,050 1,050 1 ,070 1,125 875 600 700 550 700 700 570 700 700 700 700 700 580 303 265 276 315 315 315 385 385 385 420 420 378 Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture I Mixture i Mixture I Mixture i Mixture I Mixture i Mixture I * These plans did not materialize, however, since the check analysis of the feeding-stuffs when the results came from the chemist showed that the silage and tlie mangels contained much more digestible matter than was planned for, the plans being based on the average American composition tables given in Henry's " Feeds and Feeding." Therefore, groups B and C, when they were supposed to be receiving Haecker's standard, were actually getting amounts 5 to is per cent in excess of that standard. Feeding Standards for Milk Production 85 TABLE 25. Feed Record of Group B. 1909-1910 Cow Hay Silage (pounds) (pounds) Mangels (pounds) Grain (pounds) 700 700 590 420 455 319 700 700 700 420 420 385 700 700 660 350 326 264 700 700 700 385 350 315 Omicron . Sigma . Hector's Berta . Lady Clay. 316 350 350 316 350 350 316 350 350 229 280 280 1,225 1,225 840 1,225 1,225 1,225 875 875 875 875 875 875 Mixture I Mixture I Mixture 2 Mixture i Mixture i Mixture 2 Mixture i Mixture i Mixture 2 Mixture i Mixture I Mixture 2 TABLE 26. Feed Record of Group C. 1909-1910 Cow Period Hay (pounds) Silage (pounds) Mangels (pounds) Grain (pounds) 1,225 1,225 1,245 700 700 700 280 350 368 1,225 1,225 1,060 700 700 550 315 305 332 865 635 875 700 640 700 385 298 315 875 875 1,050 700 700 700 420 385 384 Chi. Omega . Susanna. Taffy's Anna . 316 350 350 316 350 350 229 280 280 229 280 280 Mixture i Mixture I Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i The constituents in the food consumed by the cows are given in tables 27, 27a, 28, 28a, 29, and 29a; two tables to each group. Here also are shown the amounts of the different constituents provided by Haecker's and Armsby's standards in contrast with the amounts of the different constituents actually consumed by the animals. The data given in the column headed " Total nutriment " are obtained by multiplying the fat by 2 J and adding the carbohydrates and protein. In determining the amount of constituents required for product in Haecker's standard, the nearest .05 per cent of fat is used (Table 18); that is, 5.37 per cent fat is used as 5.35 per cent, 5.24 per cent as 5.25 per cent. 86 Bulletin 323 In determining the requirements for maintenance according to Armsby's standard (Table 21), the Hve weight is used as the nearest 25, 50, 75, or 100 pounds, and for each 25 pounds above the amount given in the table .01 pound protein and . i therm per day and per head is added until the actual live weight coincides with the next amount given in the table. TABLE 27. Constituents Fed Group A, 1909-1910, and Requirements According to Standards Amount fed. Dry I Protein matter | (pounds) (pounds) Required — For maintenance: 849 lbs. weight For product: 849.3 lbs. milk, 5.37 per cent fat Total . 876.47 Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) Total nutri- ment (pounds) Cornelia, Period r 74-34 1 471 .69 20.80 47.6s 68.4s 27 . 20 I 607 . 23 by Haecker 208.01 241 .20 2.97 16.99 19.96 235 49 327.08 Protein (pounds) S62.S7 Therms 74 34 I S04 03 by Armsby 15.75 42 -47 58.22 196.00 254 79 450.79 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 868 lbs. weight For product : 756.9 lbs. milk, 5.24 per cent fat Total . 872.83 Cornelia, Period 2 71.34 I 470.16 42.01 63.28 34 85 by Haecker 424.59 597.41 240.77 287.67 18.03 528.44 7134 I 479 63 by Armsby 15-75 37.85 196 00 227.07 53.60 423.07 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 879 lbs. weight For product: 724.1 lbs. milk, 5.31 per cent fat Total . 85s 38 Cornelia, Period 3 70.51 40.40 61.94 457. SI I 25.43 I 585.24 by Haecker 215.36 3 08 243.83 204. 20 419 56 14.41 277 .02 520.85 70.51 I 479 74 by Armsby 15-75 I 196.00 36.21 SI. 96 217.23 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 913 lbs. weight For product: 630.6 lbs. milk, 6.19 per cent fat Total . 803.61 Garnet Delta, Period i 71.68 I 438.58 I 26.53 I 569.95 by Haecker 3 20 22.37 38.59 60.96 223.69 198.01 421.70 14.00 253 26 268.10 521.36 71. 63 I 475 63 by Armsby 15 75 196.00 31-53 47.28 189 18 385.18 Feeding Standards for Milk Production TABLE 27 {continued) 87 Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) Total nutri- ment (pounds) Protein (pounds) Therms Amount fed. Required — - For maintenance: 930 lbs. weight For product : 628.8 lbs. milk, 6.48 per cent fat Total . 851.18 Garnet Delta, Period 2 74 04 I 461.78 I 27.10 I 596.79 by Haecker 3-29 23 01 39.61 62.62 230.06 204.36 434 42 14.40 17.69 260.47 276.37 536.84 74-04 I 493 •'■' by Armsby 210.00 17.50 31-44 48-94 188.64 398.64 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 954 lbs. weight For product : 647.8 lbs. milk, 6.54 per cent fat Total . 829.50 Garnet Delta, Period 3 72.32 I 447.25 I 27.06 by Haecker 33-37 41 .01 64.38 233.73 211.83 445.56 3-34 14.96 18.30 580.45 264.62 286.50 551.12 72.32 I 487 24 by Armsby 17.50 210.00 32.39 49.89 194-34 Amount fed i , 040 . 44 Required — For maintenance: 964 lbs. weight For product: 1.235-3 lbs. milk, 3.8 per cent fat Total . Gipsy, Period i 90.91 562.71 33.98 1 by Haecker 23.62 236.18 3-37 57.81 276.71 19-52 81.43 512.89 22.89 730.07 267.38 378.44 645.82 90.91 I 618.90 by Armsby 210.00 17.50 61.77 79-27 370-39 580.59 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 977 lbs. weight For product: 1,289.2 lbs. milk, 3.98 per cent fat Total . 1,072 16 Gipsy, Period 2 92.48 I 578.17 I 3436 I 747.96 by Haecker 23-94 61.88 85.82 239 37 300.38 3-42 21 . 14 24.56 409.82 680.83 92.48 I 630.63 by Armsby 210.00 17.50 64.46 81.96 386.76 596.76 Amount fed '' i .o'J2 . 16 Required — For maintenance: 1,001 lbs. weight For product: 1,252.9 lbs. milk. 4.12 per cent fat Total . Gipsy, Period 3 92.48 I 578.17 I 3436 I 747.96 by Haecker 24.52 ( 245.2s 60.89 85-41 296.94 S42 - 19 3 50 24.42 277-65 404 . 90 682. 55 92.48 I 630.63 by Armsby 210.00 17.50 62.65 80.15 375-87 585-87 Amount fed. Bulletin 323 TABLE 27 {concluded) Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) Total nutri- ment (pounds) Protein (pounds) Therms Required — For maintenance: i,i6.j lbs. weight For product: 1,320.1 lbs. milk, 3.2 per cent fat Total . 1,078.01 Eta, Period i 95.58 I 583.02 I 36.26 I 760.19 ( 95.58 I 649.80 28.49 57.03 85.52 by Haecker 4.07 284.94 260.06 545-00 322.59 358.38 680.97 by Armsby 227.50 19-25 66.01 85.26 396.03 623 . 53 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 1,193 lbs. weight For product: 1 ,264.8 lbs. milk, 3.32 per cent fat Tot^. I, 124.02 Eta, Period 2 98.20 I 606.25 I 36.99 I 787.68 by Haecker 29.23 55.40 292.29 I 4.17 255-49 17.96 84.63 547.78 22.13 682.20 330.90 351.30 98.20 I 670.66 by Armsby 21.00 I 245.00 63-24 379.44 .24 624.44 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 1,202 lbs. weight For product: 1,210.2 lbs. milk, 3.4 per cent fat Total . Eta, Period 3 86.73 I 536.49 I 32.81 I 697.04 by Haecker 29.45 294-49 4-21 333 41 53-73 83.18 249.30 543 ■ 79 17.67 342.79 676.20 86.73 I 590.54 by Armsby 60.51 81.51 245.00 363 • 06 608 . 06 TABLE 27a. Average Constituents Fed Group A, 1909-1910, and Require- ments According to Standards Protein (pounds) Total nutri- ment (pounds) Nutritive ratio Percent- age of total nu- triment above standard Protein (pounds) Therms Percent- age of I therms above standard Period I Amount fed Required by Haecker Period 2 Amount fed Required by Haecker Period 3 Amount fed Required by Haecker 83.13 74 09 84.01 74 09 80.51 73.73 666.86 602.68 682.46 607.08 : 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.2 10.6 12.4 652.67 i 1:7.1 607 .68 1:7.2 7.4 by Armsby by Armsby by Armsby 83.13 67.51 84.01 67.18 80.51 65.88 562 . 09 510.02 568.54 510.73 H7.04 502 . 88 Feeding Standards for Milk Production 89 TABLE 28. Constituents Fed Group B, 1909-1910, and Requirements According to Standards Amount fed. Dry matter (pounds) Required — For maintenance: 1,117 lbs. weight For product: 1,593-4 lbs. milk, 3.35 per cent fat Total . 1,178.28 Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) 70.27 97 64 273 67 325.05 598.72 22.94 Total nutri- ment (pounds) Protein (pounds) Omicron. Period i 98.53 I 604.94 I 37.23 I 787.24 by Haecker 26.8s 309.84 446.93 756.77 Therms 98.53 I 675.53 by Armsby 227.50 19.25 79.67 98.92 478.02 705.52 Amount fed. 1,182.38 Required — For maintenance: 1,167 lbs. weight For product: 1,497-7 lbs. milk, 3.65 per cent fat Total . Omicron, Period 2 104.38 1 637.87 I 39.77 by Haecker 4.08 28.59 68.74 285.92 326.50 97-33 612.42 23.06 831.73 323 69 447.13 770.82 104.38 I 714.84 by Armsby 74.89 94.14 449.31 676.81 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 1,178 lbs. weight For product: 1,215.1 lbs. milk, 3.84 per cent fat Total . Omicron, Period 3 94.12 I 489.79 1 32.95 I 658.05 by Haecker 28.86 57.23 288.61 274.61 86.09 563.22 326.74 19.44 i 375.58 23 56 I 702.32 94.12 I 526.26 by Armsby 21.00 I 245.00 60.76 364 . S3 81.76 609.53 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 1,048 lbs. weight For product : 1.393-7 lbs. milk, 3.74 per cent fat Total . 1,118.28 Sigma, Period r 98.53 1 604.94 i 37.23 I 787.24 by Haecker 25.68 64.81 90.49 256.76 309.40 566.16 3.67 290.70 714.14 )8.53 1 675.53 by Armsby 69.69 87.19 628.11 Amount fed . Required — For maintenance: 1,091 lbs. weight For product : 1,344.5 lbs. milk, 3.93 per cent fat Total . Sigma, Period 2 100.10 I 620.40 I 37-6i I 805.1 by Haecker 3.82 26.73 64.13 90.86 267.30 310.58 577.88 21 .92 25-74 302 . 63 424.03 ■726.66 100.10 I 687.26 by Armsby 67 .23 84.73 403 - 35 613-35 go Bulletin 323 TABLE 28 (continued) Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) Total nutri- ment (pounds) Protein (pounds) Therms Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 1,110 lbs. weight For product: 1,270.5 lbs. milk, 4.09 per cent fat Total . 1,118.78 Sigma, Period 3 114.10 I 586.72 I 40.27 I 791-43 by Haecker 61.75 88.95 271.9s 301. II 573.06 307.88 410.61 114. 10 I 644.67 by Armsby 227.50 19.25 63.53 718.49 82.78 .381.15 608.65 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 807 lbs. weight For product : 1.058.3 lbs. milk, 5.46 per cent fat Total . Hector's Berta, Period i 962.60 83.31 19.77 60.01 520.48 I 30.75 i 672.98 by Haecker 303.73 21.48 223.84 412.07 79.78 501.4s 24.30 635.91 83.31 I 562.37 by Armsby 14.00 173 as 52.92 66.92 3 1 7 49 490 . 74 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 818 lbs. weight For product: 965.2 lbs. milk, 5.71 per cent fat Total . Hector's Berta, Period 2 81.94 20.04 56.17 76.21 523.95 I 29.64 by Haecker 200.41 285.70 486.11 672.58 226.89 387.25 614.14 81.94 I S5S.09 by Armsby 173 25 14.00 48.26 62.26 289.56 462.81 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 812 lbs. weight For product: 936.9 lbs. milk, 5-43 per cent fat Total . 908 . 89 Hector's Berta, Period 3 86.36 I 477.43 1 29.11 I 629.29 by Haecker 19.89 S3. 12 198.94 268 . 89 467.83 2.84 19. 02 225.22 364.81 I . 86 590 . 03 Amount fed Required — For maintenance: 1 ,004 lbs. weight For product : 965.9 lbs. milk. 3.81 per cent fat Total 913.83 Lady Clay, Period i 83.57 I 498.37 I 31.93 I 653.78 by Haecker 24.60 45-20 69.80 245.98 216.36 462 . 34 3. SI IS. 26 278.48 295.90 574.38 86.36 I 494 10 by Armsby 173.25 14.00 46.85 60.85 281 .07 454.32 83.57 I 559.84 by Armsby 48.30 65.80 289.77 Feeding Standards for Milk Production TABLE 28 (concluded) 91 Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) Total nutri- ment (pounds) 1 Lady Clay, Period 2 81.6s I S04.11 I 30.35 I 6S4-OS by Haecker 362 Protein (pounds) Therms Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 1,03s lbs. weight. For product: 899.S lbs. milk, cent fat Total . 2S.36 43.18 253 58 209. s8 54 463 . 16 I4-7S 287.08 28s. 95 18.37 573-03 81 -65 I 549-8S by Armsby 210.00 17.50 44.98 62.48 269.8s 479.8s Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 1,080 lbs. weight . For product: 852.1 lbs. milk, cent fat Total . 897.59 Lady Clay, Period 3 92.31 I 47338 I 26.46 41.67 68.13 32.02 by Haecker 264.60 3.78 203.6s 468.25 14 . 40 637.74 92.31 I 509-99 by Armsby 2IO.O0 17.50 42.61 60. 11 255.63 465.63 TABLE 28a. Average Constituents Fed Group B, 1909-1910, and Requirements According to Standards Protein (pounds) Total nutri- ment (pounds) Nutritive ratio Percent- age of total nu- triment above standard Protein (pounds) Therms Percent- age of therms above standard Period i Amount fed Required by Haecker Period 2 Amount fed Required by Haecker Period 3 Amount fed Required by Haecker 90.98 84-43 92.02 83.24 96.72 79.04 725-31 670.30 740.87 671.16 679.13 647.03 1:7.0 1:6.9 I : 7-0 1:7.1 1:6.0 1:7.2 I by Armsby [by Armsby by Armsby 90.98 79.71 92 .02 75-90 96.72 71-37 618.29 581.04 626.76 558.21 543.75 534. S3 6.4 TABLE 29. Constituents Fed Group C, 1909-19 10, and Requirements According to Standards Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) Total nutri- ment (pounds) Protein (pounds) Therms Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 1,025 lbs. weight For product : 1,160.7 lbs. milk, 3.37 per cent fat Total . 988.78 Chi, Period i 5I-3I I 535-07 I 28.60 2S-II 51. 18 76.29 by Haecker 251.12 236.78 487.90 3-59 16.71 20.30 680.73 284.31 325.56 609.87 I. 31 1 562.21 by Armsby 210.00 17.50 58.04 75-54 348.21 558-21 92 Bulletin 323 TABLE 29 {continued) Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Total Fat nutri- (pounds) ment (pounds) Protein (pounds) Therms Amount fed . Required — For maintenance: 1 ,0 jo lbs. weight For product: 1,167.6 lbs. milk, 3.35 per cent fat Total . 1,085.25 Chi, Period 2 91. S3 I 585.47 I 33-30 I 751.93 by Haecker 25.24 SI. 49 252.3s 238.19 3.61 16.81 285.71 327.50 76.73 490.54 20.42 613.21 75.88 560.28 91 .53 I 632.10 by Armsby 17.50 58.38 350.28 Amount fed . Required — For maintenance: 1,050 lbs. weight For product: 1,089.8 lbs. milk, 3.54 per cent fat Total. Chi, Period 3 93 73 I 594-45 1 34-41 I 76560 by Haecker 25 ■ 73 257.25 232.13 489.38 3.68 16.46 20. 14 29 I . 26 318.54 609.80 93-73 I 649.60 by Armsby 54 49 326.94 71.99 I 536-94 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 1,050 lbs. weight For product: 1,141.5 lbs. milk. 3.63 per cent fat Total . 1,021 .16 Omega, Period i 85.68 I 552.44 1 30.76 I 707.33 by Haecker 25. 73 52.39 78.12 257.25 248.8s 506. 10 3.68 17.58 21.26 291 . 26 340.79 632.05 85-68 1 592.79 by Armsby 17.50 I 210.00 57.08 342.4s 74 58 552.45 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 1,050 lbs. weight For product: 1,097.1 lbs. milk, 3.75 per cent fat Total . 1.043.63 Omega, Period 2 86.02 I 563.01 I 30.52 I 717.70 by Haecker 25. 73 51.02 257.25 243.56 3.68 17.22 76.75 500. 81 20.90 624.59 291 .26 333.33 86.02 I 596.64 by Armsby 17.50 54.86 72.36 Amount fed Required — For maintenance: 1,061 lbs. weight For product : 1,026.6 lbs. milk. 3.87 per cent fat Total . Omega, Period 3 84.21 I 536.37 I 31. II I 690.58 by Haecker 25. 99 48.35 74-34 259.95 232.01 491.96 3.71 16.43 20.14 294.29 317.33 611.62 84.21 1 583 63 by Armsby 51.33 68.83 307 98 S17.98 Feeding Standards for Milk Production 93 TABLE 29 (continued) Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Pat (pounds) Total nutri- I Protein ment | (pounds) (pounds) Therms Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 900 lbs. weight. . For product : 785.8 lbs. milk, cent fat Total . Susanna. Period i 83.38 I 496.96 I 31.86 I 652.02 by Haecker 22.05 42.90 220.50 216.09 3 IS 15.25 249 • 64 293 • 30 64-95 436.59 18.40 542.94 55.04 431-74 83.38 1 538.1 by Armsby IS. 75 39.29 196.00 235-74 Amount fed. Required — ■ For maintenance: 909 lbs. weight For product: 649.9 lbs. milk, 5.41 per cent fat Total . 808.55 Susanna. Period 2 69.94 I 437.48 I 25.63 I 565.09 by Haecker 3. If 22.27 36.65 222.71 185.22 58.92 407.93 13.06 16. 24 252.13 251.26 503.39 69-94 1 466-27 by Armsby 15-75 32.50 196.00 194-97 48-25 390.97 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 919 lbs. weight For product: 627.3 lbs. milk, 5.3s per cent fat Total . 896 . 6s Susanna. Period 3 77.37 I 486.54 I 28.19 by Haecker 3 22 22.52 35.19 S7.7I 225. 16 178.15 12.55 403.31 627.34 25492 241.58 496 . 50 77.37 I 522.27 by Armsby IS 75 196.00 31.37 47.12 188.19 384.19 Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 898 lbs. weight For product: 878.6 lbs. milk, 6.07 per cent fat Total . 946 . 20 Taffy's Anna, Period i 87.86 I 515.84 I 34.09 I 680.40 by Haecker 22.00 52.98 271.49 74.98 491.50 3.14 19.15 249.08 367 . S6 22.29 616.64 87.86 I 587.42 by Armsby 15. 75 196.00 43.93 59.68 263.58 459.58 Taffy's Anna, Period 2 Amount fed Required — For maintenance: 927 lbs. weight For product: 828.2 lbs. milk, 6.37 per cent fat Total . 961 .40 8593 74.14 521.57 I 32.50 I 680.63 by Haecker 227. 12 265.02 492 . 14 3 24 18.72 21.96 257.12 358.57 61S.69 85-93 I 577-43 by Armsby 15.75 196.00 41.41 57-16 248 . 46 444.46 94 Bulletin 323 TABLE 29 (concluded) Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds) Carbo- hydrates (pounds) Fat (pounds) Total nutri- ment (pounds) Protein (pounds) Therms Amount fed. Required — For maintenance: 960 lbs. weight For product: 804.2 lbs. milk, 6.61 per cent fat Total. Taffy's Anna, Period 3 89-13 I 545-85 I 33. 52 i 710.40 by Haecker 23.74 51.15 237.41 263.78 74.89 SOI. 19 3 39 18.66 268 . 78 356.91 22.0s 623.69 89. 13 1 605.69 by Armsby 241 .26 4SI-26 TABLE 29a. Average Constituents Fed Group C, 1909-1910, and Require- ments According to Standards Period i Amount fed Required by Haecker Period 2 Amount fed Required by Haecker Period 3 Amount fed Required by Haecker Protein (pounds) 84.56 73-59 83-35 71.63 86.11 70.51 Total nutri- ment (pounds) 680.14 600.37 678.84 589.22 698.48 585.90 Nutritive ratio 7.0 7.2 7.1 7-2 7.1 7-3 Percent- age of total nu- triment above standard by Armsby by Armsby by Armsby, Protein (pounds) 84.56 66.21 83.35 63.41 86.11 61.41 Therms 575.15 500.49 568 . 1 1 483.71 590.30 472.59 Percent- age of therms above standard The records of production in 1909-1910 used in the study of the appH- cation of Haccker's standard are ^iven in tables 30, 31, and 32. For the study of the ai)pHcation of Armsby's standard, tables 33, 34, and 35 are drawn from tables 30, 31, and 32. In tables 30, 31, and 32, the data in the column headed " Pounds total product " are derived by multiplying the butter- fat by 2^ and addin<; the solids-not-fat. TABI>E T,<). Record of Production. Group A, 1909-1910 Cow 1 Period Pounds milk Percent- age fat Pounds fat Percent- age solids- not-fat Pounds solids- not-fat Pounds total product I 2 3 I 2 3 849.3 756.9 724.1 630.6 628.8 647.8 5.37 S.24 5.31 6.19 6.48 6.54 45-647 39-692 38-456 39028 40 - 769 42-353 9-37 9-21 9-31 9-93 9-87 9.82 79.625 69.741 67.408 62.611 62.082 63.601 182.331 159.048 I S3. 934 150.424 153.812 158.89s Garnet Delta Feeding Standards for Milk Production TABLE 30 {concluded) 95 Cow Period Pounds milk Percent- age fat Pounds fat Percent- age solids- not^fat Pounds solids- not-fat Pounds total product I 2 3 I 2 3 I 2 3 1.235-3 1,289.2 1,252.9 1,320.1 I , 264 . 8 1,210.2 1,008.8 984-9 958.7 3.80 3-98 4.12 3-20 3-32 3-40 4-31 4.41 4-53 46.918 51-351 51.653 42 . 203 42.014 41.128 43 - 449 43-436 43-397 8.93 8.92 903 8.77 8.91 8.91 110.331 114-971 113.115 115-770 112.746 107.783 215.897 Eta 230.511 229.334 210.727 Average, group A . . . 207.278 200.321 189-845 187-662 185.621 TABLE 31. Record of Production. Group B, 1909-1910 Cow Period Pounds i Percent- milk age fat Pounds fat Percent- age solids- not-fat Pounds solids- not-fat Pounds total product Omicron Sigma Hector's Berta Lady Clay Average, group B 1,593.4 1,497-7 1,215.1 1,393.7 1,344-5 1,270.5 1,058.3 965.2 936.9 965.9 899-5 852.1 1,252.8 1,176.7 1 , 068 . 7 3-35 3-65 3-84 3-74 3-93 4-09 S.46 5.71 5. 43 3.81 4.01 4.13 3-99 4.22 4-32 53-403 54-645 46 . 669 52.127 52.822 51-969 57.791 55-126 50.849 36.840 36.054 35.172 50 . 040 49 . 662 46.165 8.72 8.71 8.70 8.95 8.99 9.01 9-34 9-27 9-41 9.01 9.06 9.10 138.910 130.382 105.746 124.677 120.874 II4.4S6 98.888 89.518 88.174 87-032 81.512 77.571 259.067 253-333 210.751 241.963 239.724 231.416 228.918 213.552 202.584 169.922 162.634 156.708 224.967 217.311 200.36s TABLE 32. Record of Production. Group C, 1909-1910 Cow Period Pounds milk Percent- age fat Pounds fat Percent- age solids- not-fat Pounds solids- not-fat Pounds total product Chi I 2 3 I 2 3 I 2 3 I 2 3 I 2 3 1,160.7 1,167.6 1,089.8 1,141-5 1,097-1 1,026.6 785.8 649-9 627.3 878.6 828.2 804.2 991-7 935-7 887.0 3-37 3-35 3-54 3-63 3-75 3-87 5-11 5-41 5-35 6.07 6.37 6.61 4-39 4-49 4-65 39-117 39 - 093 38-590 41.401 41.130 39-742 40. 191 35.168 33-576 53.330 52.749 53-133 43-510 42-035 41.260 8.95 8.90 8.82 9.12 8.95 8.99 9-50 9.00 9.09 9.83 9-77 9.81 103.845 103-930 96.168 104.093 98.229 92.276 74-684 58. 46 I 57-017 86.362 80.955 78.931 191 .858 191.889 182.996 197 .24s 190.772 181.696 165. 114 137.589 133-563 206.355 Average, group C . . . 199 ■ 640 198.480 190.138 179-972 173-934 96 Bulletin. 323 The factors 4.218 therms per pound of butter-fat and i.86o therm per pound of ash-free soHds-not-fat are used in computing the energy value of the product in tables 33, 34, and 35.^ In determining the ash, .7 per cent was used as the average percentage of ash in milk. TABLE 33. Energy Value of Product. Group A, 1909-19 10 Cow Period Pounds solids- not-fat —.7 per cent ash Therms in fat Therms in ash-free solids-not- fat Total therms Cornelia . Garnet Delta. Gipsy . Eta. Average, group A. 73 • 680 64.443 62.339 58.197 57.680 59.066 loi .684 105.947 104-345 106.529 103 . 892 99.312 192.539 167.421 162.207 164.620 171.964 178.645 197.900 216.599 217.872 178.012 177.215 173.478 137 119 115 108 107 109 189 197 194 198 193 184 045 864 951 246 285 863 132 061 082 144 239 720 329.584 287.285 278.158 272.866 279.249 288 . 508 387.032 413.660 411-954 376.156 370.454 358.198 341.409 337.662 334 204 TABLE 34. Energy Value of Product. Group B. 1909-1910 Cow Period Pounds solids- not-fat —.7 per cent ash Therms in fat Therms in ash-free solids-not- fat Total therms Omicron . Sigma. Hector's Berta . Lady Clay. Average, group B . 127.756 119.898 97.240 114. 921 III. 462 105 592 91 .480 82.762 81.616 80.271 75.215 7 1 . 606 225.254 230.493 196.850 219.872 222 . 803 219.205 243 . 762 232.521 214.481 155 391 152.076 148 -355 237.626 223.010 180.866 213 -753 207.319 196.401 170.153 155.937 151 .806 149.304 139.900 133 187 462 453 377 433 430 415 413 386 366 304 291 281 403 390 880 503 716 625 122 606 915 458 287 695 976 542 779 515 360.288 ' H. P. Armsby. " Principles of Animal Nutrition," p.iRC 279. Feeding Standards for Milk Production 97 TABLE 35. Energy Value of Product. Group C, 1909-1910 Cow Chi Omega Susanna Taffy's Anna Average, group C Period Pounds solids- not-fat —.7 per cent ash 95 720 95 757 88 539 96 102 90 549 «5 090 69 183 53 912 52 626 80 212 75 158 73 302 Therms in fat 164 164 162 174 173 167 169 148 141 224 222 224 996 894 773 629 486 632 526 339 624 946 495 115 Therms in ash-free soHds-not- fat 178 178 164 178 168 158 128 100 97 149 139 136 039 108 683 750 421 267 680 276 884 194 794 342 Total therms 343 035 343.002 327 456 353.379 341-907 325-899 298.206 248.615 239 . 508 374-140 362.289 360.457 342.190 323 -953 313330 TABLE 36. Record of Live Weight (in Pounds). Group A, 1909-1910' Average at _ beginning Average at end Gain -f Loss — Average for period Period i 858 887 934 1,138 861 925 974 1,199 891 962 995 1,205 840 940 994 1,187 876 953 980 1,188 868 947 1 ,007 1,199 —18 + 53 +60 +49 + 15 +28 + 6 — II —23 —15 + 12 — 6 849 Garnet Delta 913 964 Eta 1,163 Period 2 868 riqrnpt Dolta 939 977 Eta 1. 193 Period 3 ' 879 Gnrnpt Delta 954 1 ,001 Eta 1 ,202 Average for group A, period i 2 3 972 994 1 ,009 * The method of computing tables 36, 37, and 38 is given on paga 98. gS BrLLETIM 323 TABLE 37. Record of Live Weight (in Pounds). Group B, 1909-1910 Average at _ beginning Average at end Gain + Loss — Average for period Period I Omicron Sigma Hector's Berta. Lady Clay . . . . Period 2 Omicron Sigma Hector's Berta. Lady Clay. . . . Omicron Sigma Hector's Berta. Lady Clay . . . . Period 3 Average for group B, period i 2 . 3 1-093 1 ,029 793 987 1,152 1.077 816 1 ,016 1,184 1 , 109 828 1 ,067 1 ,142 1 ,067 821 1,021 1,183 1 ,106 821 1,053 1,171 1 ,111 796 1.093 +49 +3« +28 +34 +31 +29 + 5 +37 —13 + 2 —32 +26 1,117 X ,048 807 1 ,004 1 ,167 1 ,091 818 1 .035 1,178 1 ,110 812 1 ,080 994 1,028 1,045 TABLE 38. Record of Live Weight (in Pounds). Group C, 1909-1910 Average at beginning Average at end Gain + Loss — Average for period Period i Chi Omega Susanna Taffy's Anna . Period 2 Chi Omega Susanna Taffy's Anna . Chi. Period 3 Omega Susanna Taffy's Anna . Average for group C, period i . 2. 3- 1,003 1,049 881 881 1,018 1,050 908 912 1 ,040 1 ,061 913 960 1 ,046 1,051 919 914 1 ,042 1 , 050 910 941 1 .061 1 .062 926 977 +43 + 2 +38 +33 +24 + 2 +29 +21 + I + 13 + 17 1,025 1 , 050 900 898 1 , 030 1 , 050 909 927 1 , 050 1 ,061 919 969 968 979 1 ,000 The record of the live weight of the cows in 1909-1910 is given in tables 36, 37, and 38. The cows were weighed for three successive mornings at Feeding vStandards for Milk Production 99 the beginning and the end of each period. The average of these three weights is taken as the weight at the beginning and at the end of each period, in determining the loss or gain during the period. The average of all six weights is given in the fifth column of these tables. This average weight is the weight used to determine the requirement for main- tenance for each period. Data of the winter of igio-igii It was considered best to give the detailed records for igio-igii in the same way and to draw conclusions from the data of both years considered together. In igio-igii the experiment was started with twelve cows. They were divided into groups A, B, and C, four cows to a group. At about the middle of the experiment, a cow in group B died from a cause that could not be determined by a thorough post-mortem examination. Therefore group B is shown to be made up of three cows. The data regarding the cows are given in Table 3g: TABLE 39. Cows in Experiment of 1910-1911 Breed Age (years) G 4 J 7 H 10 H 6 H 7 H 7 Gr.H 4 H 6 H 5 Gr.G 4 H 4 Last calf (1910) Average live weight (pounds) Group A Glenwood Queen Cornelia Marvella Glista Eta Glista Tau Group B Glista Omicron Glista Sigma Charity Group C Glista Chi Glista Psi Effie Glista Cailotta Nov. 16 Sept. 16 Oct. 2 Sept. 12 Oct. 5 Oct. 3 Oct. 9 Sept. 13 July 21 Sept. 29 Oct. 17 1 ,072 865 1,184 1. 341 1.239 1.053 990 1.073 1. 179 846 1.253 In igio-igii the cows were fed a ration of clover hay, corn silage, mangels, and grain mixtures composed of hominy chop, wheat bran, gluten feed, and distillers' dried grains (Ajax flakes). The composition of the fodders, as given in Table 40, was determined from actual chemi- cal analysis by the use of the digestible coefficients given in the tenth edition of " Feeds and Feeding " by W. A. Henry: lOO Bulletin 323 T AI'I.i: 40, Composition of Fodders per 100 Pounds. 1910-1911 Dry matter (pounds) Protein (pounds) Fiber (pounds) Nitro- gen- free extract (pounds) Fat (pounds) Therms Value per 100 pounds Clover hay Corn silage Mangels Distillers' dried grains Hominy Gluten feed Wheat bran 86.85 31.09 12.26 95.08 90.68 90.78 92.68 5-35 1.42 1 .09 23 -54 6.74 21 .46 11.97 16.31 415 .29 9.08 2-35 4-94 3-79 24.44 13 38 8.41 30.94 57 90 46.87 40-45 II .09 .84 .06 12. II 8.23 I 93 2.84 34-74 16.56 4.62 79-23 *88 . 84 79 32 48.23 $0.60 O.I125 0.20 1.50 1. 125 125 1-25 *The therms energy in hominy is not given by Armsby in Farmers' Bulletin 346. in corn is used instead. The grain mixtures used in igio-igii were as follows: The therms energy Mixture Feeds Constituents in mixture i 200 lbs. hominy chop 92 . 02 per cent dry matter 200 lbs. wheat bran 12.94 per cent digestible protein 75 lbs. gluten feed 4.15 per cent digestible fiber 75 lbs. distillers' dried grains 46.37 per cent digestible nitrogen-free extract 5 . 94 per cent digestible fat 71 .46 therms energy The cost of 100 pounds of mixture i was $1,239, Mixture 2 Feeds Constituents in mixture 2 50 lbs. hominy chop 92 . 53 per cent dry matter 75 lbs. wheat bran 17.65 per cent digestible protein 100 lbs. gluten feed 5 . 55 per cent digestible fiber 100 lbs. distillers' dried grains 42 . 18 i^er cent digestible nitrogen-free extract 6 . 24 per cent digestible fat 73 . 58 therms energy The cost of 100 pounds of mixture 2 was $1,308. The rations were so constructed that the nutritive ratio would be about 1 : 7 except when groups B and C were fed mixture 2 . The grou])s were fed practically the same as in 1909-19 10. Group A received mixture i all through the experiment, getting about all the roughage and grain that the cows would eat up clean each day. Group B was fed mixture i during the first and second periods, and mixture 2 during the third period. During the second period, however, it was Feeding Standards for Milk Production ioi intended that group B be fed the exact amounts of nutriment called for by Haecker's standard according to its production. During the third period, group B was fed the same amount of total nutriment as in the second period, but the relative amount of protein was increased so that the nutri- tive ratio was 1:6.3. Group C was fed mixture i during the first and second periods. It was intended that this group be fed according to Haecker's standard in the first period, all that they would eat up clean during the second period, and in the third period all that they would eat of mixture 2, so that the nutritive ratio of their ration in period 3 was i :6.2. As in 1 909-1 9 10, each period was six weeks in length, the data from only the last five weeks of each period being considered. The detailed records of quantity of food consumed are given in tables 41, 42, and 43 : TABLE 41. Feed Record of Group A. 1910-1911 Cow Period Hay (pounds) Silage (pounds) Mangels (pounds) Grain (pounds) I 2 3 280 224 272 1,050 1,050 1,050 700 700 700 318 350 350 I 2 3 280 224 268 970 875 970 650 700 535 318 316 312 I 2 3 350 350 350 1,400 1 ,400 1,380 700 700 700 420 420 420 I 2 3 350 350 350 1,225 1. 195 1,165 700 690 685 420 361 338 Glenwood . Cornelia . Eta. Tau. Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture i Mixture I TABLE 42. Feed Record of Group B. 1910-1911 Cow Period Hay Silage Mangels Grain (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) I 350 1 ,400 700 420 2 350 1 ,400 700 385 3 350 1,375 700 372 I 350 1,225 700 420 2 350 1,225 700 385 3 350 1,225 700 375 I 350 1,150 700 385 2 342 1 , 050 700 350 3 350 1,050 700 340.5 Omicron . Sigma. Charity . Mixture i Mixture i Mixture 2 Mixture I Mixture I Mixture 2 Mixture i Mixture i Mixture 2 Bulletin 323 TABLE 43. Feed Record of Group C. ^ 1910-1911 Cow Period Hay (pounds) Silage (pounds) Mangels (pounds) Grain (pounds) Chi I 2 3 I 2 3 I 2 3 I 2 3 350 350 350 350 350 350 280 224 268 350 350 350 1-225 1.225 1.225 1.225 1 ,400 1 ,400 875 930 875 1.225 1 ,400 1 ,400 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 560 210 700 700 700 245 309 350 298 365 399 228 273 280 400 420 Psi Mixture i Mixture 2 Effie Mixture i Mixture 2 Mixture I Carlotta Mixture i Mixture 2 Mixture i Mixture 2 The constituents in the food arc tabulated as in the records for 1909- 1910, as described on pa cents per pound, or a total of $1,398. Thus the average amount realized per cow for group B was 27.7 cents less in period 3 than in period 2. A study of these data indicates that the increased amount of protein did no good. However, the value of the data is much lessened by two facts: that the cows were reduced in the amount of their ration, and that the cow Omicron was " off feed " in this period. The amount of total nutriment allowed by Haecker for group B in period 2, 1909-1910, averaged 671.16 pounds per cow, or 10.4 per cent below the amount fed. In period 3 the amount allowed averaged 647.03 pounds, or 5 per cent below the amount fed. While the amount of fat yielded was greater in period 2 than in period 3 , it may have been that the cows were fed too highlj-, causing one to go " off feed " and making it advisable to reduce somewhat the feed of the others. The amount of fat produced by check group A was slightly less in period 3 than in period 2. The amount of total product also was a little less. The feed of the check group was reduced from 12.4 per cent above the standard to 7.4 per cent above the standard. The nutritive ratio of the ration fed the check group was practically identical with that of the standard. 2. Group B, 1910-1911. In periods 2 and 3, group B offers in this year a much better set of data from which to judge of the value of more protein than is allowed by Haecker's standard. All the cows seemed to be normal during both these periods ini9io-i9ii. In period 2 , group B averaged 91.92 pounds of protein and 780.24 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of i : 7.5 ; in period 3, 107.62 pounds of protein and 780.89 pounds of total nutriment, nutritive ratio 1 16.3. (Table 45a.) In period 2, group B produced 1,405.4 pounds of milk, 53.932 pounds of fat (3.84 per cent), and 249.261 pounds of total product; in period 3, group B produced 1,372.4 pounds of milk, 54.458 pounds of fat (3.97 per cent), and 249.591 pounds of total product. (Table 48.) Since there was an increase of but .65 pound of total nutriment fed per cow, whatever gain there was in product must have been due to the increase of 15.70 pounds of protein per cow. Calculating the average per- cow from tables 42 and 40, it is found that the average amount of feed cost 13.5 cents less per cow in period 3 than in period 2. If the value of the increase of fat is added, .526 pound at 40 cents, the total gain pei- cow in period 3 over period 2 was 34.5 cents. The amount of total nutriment in period 2 was 6.2 per cent above Haecker's standard, while in period 3 it v>as 5.4 per cent above the standard. Because the amount of total nutriment was practically the same in both periods, the gain shown by group B would indicate that ii6 Bulletin 323 the nutritive ratio of i : 6.3 was more advantaj^cous. The average amount per cow of total nutriment fed check group A in period 3 was 4. 11 pounds more than in period 2. (Table 44a.) The fat produced was 1.799 pounds less per cow in jjcriod 3 . Calculating the gain or loss as for group h above, the total loss for group A in period 3 was 65.8 cents per cow. 3. Group C, 1910-1911. In period 2, group C averaged 85.46 pounds of protein and 737.52 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:7.6 ; in period 3, group C averaged 105.26 pounds of protein and 760.31 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:6.2. (Table 46a.) In period 2, the average ])roduction of group C was 1,227.4 pounds of milk, 44.399 pounds of fat (3.62 per cent), and 211. 610 pounds of total product; in period 3, the average production of group C was 1,203.2 pounds of milk, 44.888 pounds of fat (3.73 percent), and 211.707 pounds of total product. (Table 49.) There was fed to group C, then, in period 3, 22.79 pounds more total nutriment and 19.80 pounds more protein than in period 2. The increase in fat production was .489 pound of fat, worth 40 cents per pound, or 19.6 cents. The increased nutriment cost 20.9 cents, showing an average loss of 1.3 cent in period 3 over period 2. In period 2, the ration fed group C was 11 per cent above Haecker's stand- ard; in period 3 i't was 14 per cent above Haecker's standard. This comparison would tend to show that, while it may have been well to increase the protein, 14 per cent of total nutriment above the standard was not economical. Total nutriment requirements. — The data of 1909-19 10 give no con- clusions as to the amount of total nutriment required except in a general w^ay, which will be discussed later. In 1910-1911, the data admit of two direct comparisons in periods i and 2 ; group B was fed nearer Haecker's standard in period 2 than in period i, and group C was fed nearer the standard in period i than in period 2. I. Group B, 1910-1911. In period i, group B was fed an average of 97.07 x^ounds of protein and 815.38 pounds of total nutriment, nutritive ratio 1:7.4 ; in period 2, group B averaged 91.92 pounds of protein and 780.24 pounds of total nutriment, nutritive ratio 1:7.5. The amount of total nutriment was 7.5 per cent above Haecker's allowance in period i and 6.2 per cent above Haecker's standard in period 2. (Table 45a.) In period i, group B produced an average of 1,490.3 pounds of milk, 56.749 pounds of fat (3.81 per cent), and 263.196 pounds of total product; in period 2, group B produced 1,405.4 pounds of milk, 53.932 pounds of fat (3.84 per cent), and 249.261 pounds of total product. (Table 48.) There was, then, 35.14 pounds less total nutriment fed in period 2 than in period i. This was an average saving of 48.8 cents per cow. The amount of fat produced per cow was 2.817 po.unds less in period 2, worth $1,126 Feeding Standards for Milk Production 117 at 40 cents per pound. Giving the cow credit for the saving of feed, the loss would still be 63.8 cents per cow. This would indicate that the feed should not have been reduced. No definite comparison can be made with the check group A in this case, because one cow, Glenwood, was fed much less than Haecker's standard in period i, since, in the oi^inion of the herdsman, she would not consume feed equal in quantity to that recommended by Haecker. (Table 44.) Another cow, Cornelia, was fed practically the standard require- ment in period i and somewhat below the standard in period 2. A study of the feeding of these cows (Table 44) and of their production (Table 47) will show that they produced relatively much less in period 2 than in period i, while a very small loss was shown by the cow Eta and a slight gain by the cow Tau in this check group A. Eta was fed exactly the same in both periods ; Tau was fed a little less in period 2 , but nevertheless she kept up her production. 2. Group C, igio-1911. Group C was fed nearer to Haecker's stand- ard during period i and then allowed more food during period 2. In period i, group C averaged 77.26 pounds of protein and 679.83 pounds of total nutriment, nutritive ratio i : 7.7; in period 2, group C averaged 85.46 pounds of protein and 737.52 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:7.6. (Table 46a.) The average production in period i was 1,196.3 pounds of milk, 42.431 pounds of fat (3.55 per cent), and 203.405 pounds of total product; in period 2, the production was 1,227.4 pounds of milk, 44.399 pounds of fat (3.62 per cent), and 21 1.6 10 pounds of total product. (Table 49.) The increase in food in period 2 was 57.69 pounds of total nutriment per cow, costing 71.6 cents. The increase in fat production averaged 1.968 pounds, worth 78.7 cents at 40 cents per pound. Therefore the increase in food up to 11 per cent above the standard was more economical than feeding at 5 per cent above the standard as in period i . (Table 46a.) In 1909-1910, group A for all three periods, group B for periods i and 2, and group C for all three periods were fed a ration with a nutritive ratio close to that recommended by Haecker and were fed all that they would eat up clean. The same is true of group A for all three periods in 1910- 191 1, group B for period "i, and group C for period 2. Therefore, if the amount of protein and total nutriment be averaged for these periods, and the amounts allowed by Haecker for the same periods, an idea may be derived as to the amount of nutriment that a cow will use for product if her appetite is given free range, and a comparison may be made \vith the nutriment that Haecker recommends. (Tables 27a, 28a, 29a, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37' 3^; 44a, 45a, 46a, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55-) From these averages it is seen that .0558 pound of net ] protein was used per pound of milk containing 4.26 per cent fat. Haecker's standard ii8 Bulletin 323 provides .0496 pound of net protein for 1 pound of milk containing 4.26 per cent fat. For i pound of this same quality of milk an average of .388 pound of net nutriment was used, while the standard provides .329 pound of net nutriment, or 15 per cent less. (Table 56.) From this it would seem that, if the cows were allowed to satisfy their appetites in a normal way, Haecker's standard would not provide sufficient nutriment. Furthennore, wherever comparisons have been possible, it has been shown that the greater amount of nutriment was the more economical. TABLE 56. AvER.\GE Food Consumed Compared with (In Pounds) Haecker's Standard Period Fed Haecker Product Group Protein Total nutri- ment Protein Total nutri- ment Milk Fat Total product Live weight 1909-1910 A A I 2 3 I 2 . I ' 2 3 I 2 3 I 2 83-13 84.01 80.51 90.98 92.02 84.56 83.35 86.11 88.59 85.82 85.87 97.07 85.46 666.86 682.46 652.67 725.31 740.87 680.14 678.84 698 . 48 746 . 69 721.99 726. 10 815.38 737.52 74-09 74 09 73.73 84.43 83.24 73 . 59 71.63 70.51 88.38 84.06 81.24 95.47 82.76 602.68 607 . 08 607.68 670.30 671 .16 600.37 589.22 585.90 716.17 687.34 673.92 758.79 664 . 26 1,008.8 984-9 958.7 1,252.8 1,176.7 991 -7 935-7 887.0 1,218.8 1,124.6 1,030.1 1,490.3 1,227-4 43.449 43.456 43.397 50.040 49 ■ 662 43.510 42-035 41 .260 53.223 49.944 48.145 56.749 44 . 399 189.84s 187.662 185.621 224.967 217. 311 190. 138 179-972 173-934 231.871 216.438 205.058 263.196 211. 610 972 994 A B 1,009 994 B C 1,028 968 C C 1910-1911 A A A B 979 1,000 1,108 1,112 1,127 1,085 C 1,087 Total 1,127.48 86.73 25.38 9,273.31 713.33 287.36 1,038.22 79.86 25-38 8,434.87 648 . 84 287.36 14,287.5 1 , 099 . 609 . 269 46.867 2,677.623 205.971 13.463 1,036 For maintenance 54 48 ^6r.48 I : 7-2 1:7.1 Average percentage of fat in milk, 4.26. Average net protein fed for i pound milk =^- .0558 pound; standard = .0496 pound. Average net protein fed for I pound product = .298 pound; standard = .264 pound. Average net nutriment fed for r pound milk = .388 pound; standard = .329 pound. Average net nutriment fed for i pound product = 2.068 pounds; standard = I.75S pound. The writer is fully aware of the limitations of the data submitted. However, questions i and 2 on page 114 are answered in some degree as follows : 1. The data indicate that a nutritive ratio of i : 6 will stimulate a greater production of butter-fat than will wider nutritive ratios as proposed in Haecker's standard. 2. The data indicate that an increase of at least 10 per cent in the amount of total nutriment above that allowed by Haecker, would stimu- late butter-fat production to an extent great enough to pay for the increased feed. Feeding Standards for AIilk Production 119 The correctness of the application of Armsby's standard Essentially the same questions may be asked in regard to Armsby's feeding standard as were asked concerning Haecker's standard: 1. Does tliis feeding standard furnish sufficient protein? 2. Does this standard furnish sufficient energy for milk production? Protein requirements. — For a study of the question whether sufficient protein and energy is provided by Armsby's standard, Table 57, similar to Table 56, has been prepared. Annsby's standard, page 82, provides .05 pound of digestible protein per pound of milk. In Table 56 it was shown that the rations there averaged had a nutritive ratio of 1:7.2. In Table 5 7 , after the amount of protein considered by Armsby to be sufficient for maintenance has been subtracted, the protein left for product provides .0623 pound of protein for i pound of milk containing 4.26 per cent fat. The data indicate that when the rations were narrowed, more butter-fat was secreted by group B, 19 10-19 11, in period 3 as compared with period .2 even though no more nutriment was provided (page 115). The average protein fed during period 3 to group B, after deducting protein for maintenance, was 89.07 pounds. Dividing by the average amount of milk produced b}^ group B during this period, 1,372.4 pounds, it is found that .065 pound of protein was used per pound of milk. This milk tested 3.97 per cent fat. In Table 57 the amount of protein fed per pound of milk is .0623 pound, instead of .0558 pound, as shown in Table 56, because Armsby provides .50 pound of protein to maintain a 1,000-pound animal while Haecker provides .70 pound of protein. TABLE 57. Average Food Consumed Compared with Armsby's Standard Group Period Fed Pounds protein Therms Armsbv Product Pounds protein Therms Pounds Pounds Therms in milk fat product Pounds live weight I909-I9IO A A 2 A B B 2 C C ... 2 C 3 I 1910-1911 A A . . A 3 B C Total For maintenance. Net for product. 83.13 84.01 80. SI 90.98 92.02 84.56 83.3s 86.11 562.09 568 . 54 547.04 618.29 626.76 57S.IS 568.11 590.30 SS.SQJ 597.18 85.821 577.56 85.87! 580. 63 97.07 654.10 85.46, 587. IS 67.51 67.18 65.88 79.71 75.90 66.21 63.41 61.41 79.93 75. 13 70.76 93.30 80. 10 510.02 510.73 502.88 58 1 . 04 558.21 500.49 483.71 472.59 I , 008 . 8 984.9 958.7 1,252.8 1,176.7 991.7 935.7 887.0 590. 5t 1,218.8 561.39! 1,124.6 536.54 1,030.1 669.91, 1,490.3 590.46, 1,227.4 43.449 43.456 43.397 SO . 040 49 . 662 43.S10 42.035 41 .260 53.223 49.944 48.14s 56 . 749 44.399 341.409 337.662 334 . 204 403 . 779 390.515 342.190 323.953 313.330 417.168 389.672 369.584 472.014 379.079 1,127.48 7,652.90 86 . 73 588 . 68 18.20 217.00 68.53 946.43 72.80 18.20 7,o68.47'l4,287.S 543.73 1,099.0 217.00 609 . 269 46 . 867 4,814.550 370.35c 371.68 54 . 60 326.73 Average percentage of fat in milk, 4.2/i. Average net protein fed for i pound elf milk Average net thirms fed for i pound of milk .0623 pound; standard ^.05 pound. 338; standard =.,v 972 994 1,009 994 1,028 968 979 1 ,000 1,108 1,112 1, 127 1,08s 1,087 13.463 1,036 I20 Bl'LLETIN 323 Therefore, if onh' .50 i^ound of protein is to be provided for the main- tenance of a i,ooo-]JOund animal, it would seem clear that more than .05 pound of protein must be provided for the j^roduction of i pound of 4-per-cent milk. In the discussion of Haecker's standard, it will be re- membered that the data give a basis for the assumption that a nutritive ratio of i : 6 is probably better than a wder nutritive ratio. An allowance of .05 pound of protein per pound of 4-per-cent milk, with .50 pound of protein for the maintenance of a i,ooo-]iound animal, will i^rovide a ration much ^vider than 1:6. Total energy requirements. — It is not possible to make direct comparisons in studying the data on this point. It is seen in Table 57 that, when allowed, the cows would average for i pound of 4.26-per-cent milk .338 thenn energy. The standard provides .3 thenn for i pound of 4-per-cent milk. If Tables 27a, 28a, and 29a are examined, it is found that in 1909- 19 10 the energy consumed by the cows was in excess of that provided by the standard. However, it will also be found that the milk averaged somewhat higher than 4 per cent fat. (Tables 30, 31, and 32.) In Table 44a it is shown that in 19 10-19 11 group A was fed a little higher than is provided b}^ the standard. In Tables 45a and 46a it is seen that the cows were fed practically the same as called for by the standard. Group A produced milk averaging somewhat above 4 per cent fat, while groups B and C produced milk averaging lower than 4 per cent fat, in all periods. In Table 57 it is seen that in the standard there is left for product 326.73 therms after the energy for maintenance is deducted. There was an average of 370.350 therms in the product as calculated by the method described on page 96. Therefore, for this amount and quality of product, the standard of .3 therm per pound of milk appears to be too low. In the light of the data submitted, the following seems to be indicated : 1. An allowance of at least .06 pound of protein for i pound of 4-per- cent milk will probably lead to a greater production of butter-fat than will .05 pound of protein if only .50 pound of protein is allowed daily for the maintenance of a 1,000-pound animal. 2. While .3 therm energy seems to be sufficient for i pound of 4-per- cent milk, more than that must be allowed for better grades of milk. 3 . While the production values suggested by Armsby from his own and Kellner's work are probably nearer the true relative values of different feeding-stuffs, it does not seem to the WTiter that they represent enough dilTerence in practice to recommend a change to this system at present, particularly in teaching a "feeding standard for milk. Furthermore, the standard does not make any definite recommendations for varying the amount of nutriment for cows giving milk of different percentages of fat. Feeding Standards for Milk Production 121 SUMMARY The principal need for a feeding standard is for teaching purposes. Any standard can be used only as a guide and must be departed from at times to suit the individuality of different animals or to meet existing conditions such as would preclude the use of high-protein foods — for example, when the cost of such foods is too high. In New York State, where the prices of such protein foods as gluten feed and distillers' dried grains are relatively no higher than many carbo- hydrate foods, the question of the cost of protein is not so important as in States farther west. Therefore, rations with nutritive ratios not wider than i : 6 are recommended in New York and in the Eastern States in general. Good feeders who have had long experience make a practice of start- ing their anim^als on large rations soon after calving. They say that as long as they can keep their cows and heifers in good flesh, the i:)roduction of butter-fat will hold up longer. Animals in good flesh and perhaps gaining slightly in weight will grow stronger calves and will be in better condition for the next lactation if in good flesh at the end of the present lactation. By consulting tables 36, 37, 38, 53, 54, and 55, it is seen that under the system of feeding practiced in 1909-19 10 and 19 10-19 11 the cows averaged a slight gain in live weight from period to period, but not a gain that caused any animal to appear too fat for economical production at any time. Therefore, from what has been learned from practical experience together with the results of the two years investigation summed up in the foregoing pages, the writer would suggest the standard for milk production given in Table 58. This standard is a modification of Haecker's standard, pages 77-78. The amounts of nutriment and protein for maintenance recom- mended by Haecker have been left the same. The protein for product has been increased 35 per cent. This amount has been added in order that a cow weighing i ,000 pounds and giving about 30 pounds of milk testing either 3,4, or 5 per cent fat, shall have a ration with a nutritive ratio of approx- imately 1:6. The amount of total nutriment for product has been increased 10 per cent. The standard has been given in tenns of digestible protein and total nutriment instead of in terms of digestible protein, digestible carbohydrates, and digestible fat, because with varying feeds in the ration it is impossible to construct rations from different sorts of feeds and meet these three different requirements of ])rotein, carbohydrates, and fat, while it is perfectly feasible to m.cct a requirement of digestible protein and total digestible nutriment. Bulletin 323 TABLE 58. SuGC.ESTED Modification of Haecker's Feeding Standard for Milk Production For maintenance, per 100 ll:>s. For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For For For For For For For For I For I For I For I For I For I For For For For For For For For For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For I For For For For For pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound rn pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound rn pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m pound m 2 . 5 per 2 . 6 per 2.7 per 2 . 8 per 2 . 9 per 3.0 per 3.1 per 3.2 per 3 . 3 per 3.4 per 3 • 5 per 3 . 6 per 3 . 7 per 3 . 8 per 3 . 9 per 4 . o per 4 . 1 per 4.2 per 4-3 per 4.4 per 4-5 per 4 . 6 per 4.7 per 4.8 per 4.9 per .0 per I per .2 per .3 per .4 per 5 • 5 per 5 . 6 per 5 • 7 per 5 • 8 per 5.9 per 6 . o per 6 . 1 per 6.2 per 6 . 3 per 6 . 4 per 6 . 5 per 6 . 6 per 6.7 per 6.8 per 6.9 per 7 . o per cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent fat. fat. fat. fat. f;i t . fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat . fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat . fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat . fat . fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. fat. Protein .0700 .0527 •0535 •0543 ■0551 ■0559 .0567 •0575 •0583 .0591 •0599 .0608 .0616 .0624 . 0632 . 0640 .0648 . 0656 .0664 .0672 .0680 .0689 .0697 .0705 •0713 .0721 .0729 •0737 •0745 •0753 .0761 .0770 .0778 .0786 .0794 .0802 .0810 .0818 .0826 .0834 .0842 .0851 .0859 .0867 .0875 .0883 .0891 Total nutriment •7925 2574 2629 2685 2743 2812 2870 2928 2987 3055 3115 3185 3243 3312 3369 3428 3497 3555 3612 3671 3729 3787 3842 3890 3945 3992 4048 4105 4150 4209 4253 4311 4355 4413 4469 4517 4572 4619 4676 4721 4791 4835 4882 4926 4984 5040 5075 The writer would further -recommend that a cow" be fed according; to this standard when her condition has become normal after calving. Then the grain ration should be increased t ]:!Ound ];cr day and tlic cow watched Feeding Standards for Milk Production 123 closely for one week, a careful record being kept of her milk and fat pro- duction. If at the end of the week the cow's health is good and she has increased in fat or milk production sufficiently to pay for the increase in feed, another pound per day should be added to the grain ration as before ; and so on until the cow is getting all the feed that she will eat up clean, if she shows in her product that she will pay for the increase each time. In case the cows are not valuable and in case the amount of money received for product is small, this standard as recommended may be too high to be economical ; but it is doubtful whether any plan of dairy husbandry that would not permit feeding cows as high as recom- mended would be a profitable business. In pure-bred herds, particu- larly, yearly records of which are of much importance, it is thought that the above system of feeding can be used to the greatest advantage. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ACxRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The Following Bulletins and Circulars are Available for Distribution to Those Residents of New York State Who May Desire Them 219 262 265 266 272 273 283 28s 286 289 291 292 293 295 297 298 302 BULLETINS Diseases of ginseng 3<^3 Apple orchard survey of Niagara county 30S On certain seed-infesting chalcis-flies 307 The black rot of the grape and its control 309 Fire blight of pears, apples, quinces, etc. 310 The effect of fertilizers applied to timothy 311 on the corn crop following it 312 The control of insect pests and plant diseases The cause of " apoplexy " in winter-fed lambs The snow-white linden moth Lime-sulfur as a summer spray The apple red-bugs Cauliflower and brussels sprouts on Long Island The black rot disease of grapes An agricultural survey of Tompkins county Studies of variation in plants The packing of apples in boxes Notes from the agricultural survey in Tomp- kins county CIRCULARS Testing the germination of seed corn Some essentials in cheese-making Soil drainage and fertility The relation of lime to soil improvement The elm leaf-beetle Orange hawkweed or paint-brush Helps for the dairy butter-maker 313 314 316 317 318 320 321 322 The cell content of milk The cause of " apoplexy " in winter-fed lambs An apple orchard survey of Ontario county The production of " hothouse " lambs Soy beans as a supplementary silage crop The fruit-tree leaf-roller Germination of seed as affected by sulfuric acid treatment The production of new and improved vari- eties of timothy Cooperative tests of com varieties Frosts in New York Further experiments on the economic value of root crops for New York Constitutional vigor in poultry Sweet pea studies — III. Culture of the sweet pea Computing rations for farm animals The larch case-bearer The chemical analysis of soil Propagation of starter for butter-making and cheese-making Working plans of Cornell poultry houses (Department of Animal Husbandry circular) The formation of cow-testing associations Address MAILING ROOM COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE ITHACA, N. Y. 124 002 821 967 2 4 A I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 002 821 967 2 Hollinger Corp. pH8.5