UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN ACES NOT/CE: Return or renew all Library Material,. The Minimum Fee for each Lost Book is $50.00. The person charging this material is responsible for Is remrn to the .LaYy from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. io renvw woi i^if" UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS L.BRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPA.GN ACES JUN 1 6 2005 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS. Agricultural Experiment Station. URBANA, JUNE, 1903. BULLETIN No. 85. RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS ON DAIRY FARMS. BY ARTHUR J. GLOVER, B. AGR., CHIEF ASSISTANT IN DAIRY HUSBANDRY, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. SUMMARY. Eight herds are reported in this bulletin, containing 144 cows that have completed a year's work. The eight dairies had 176 cows at the beginning of the test, but 32 of them were sold before the end of the year. Some of the herds returned their owners a good profit, others a small profit, and one herd was kept at a loss. Six herds out of the eight contained cows that did not pay for the feed they consumed. In estimating the profit or loss on a cow it was counted that the calf paid for her keep while dry and the skim milk paid for labor. The cow that yielded the most product gave 8,949 pounds of milk, and made 472 pounds of butter. The poorest cow produced 1,482 pounds of milk, 68 pounds of butter, and the average production for all the herds, except Curler's (D), was 4,721 pounds of milk, 3.67 percent fat, 173 pounds of butter fat, and 202 pounds of butter. l 2 BULLETIN NO. 85. It would not give the average production of the ordinary cows in Illinois if Curler's herd were included, for he has been applying the scales and test for a number of years, hence his improved dairy. It should also be considered that the men who took up this work had been interested in improving their dairies, and undoubtedly have better cows than the average. The most profitable cow gave a net profit of $57.22 and the poorest cow was kept at an actual loss of $17.83. The average net profit was $9.96 per cow. The above facts show clearly that the average production of the Illinois dairy cow can be doubled and the profit increased fourfold. This can be done with little expense to the farmer. It will require better care and better feed for his stock, and the application of the scales and the Babcock test so that he can select and breed his animals more intelligently. The results in this bulletin indicate that good care and good feed with judicious selection are the prime factors necessary for profitable milk and butter production. For over a year the Department of Dairy Husbandry of the Univer- sity of Illinois has been conducting field work among the dairymen of the state. A number of them were persuaded to weigh and sample each mess of milk a sufficient number of times during the year so that the performance of each cow could be estimated with a considerable degree of accuracy. It has been demonstrated by a number of our experiment stations that many cows are kept in the dairy at a very small profit and some at an actual loss. In order to determine the facts and to lead the dairymen to realize their full force and meaning a man was sent into the field to persuade a number of them to keep a record of every cow in their herds. While this bulletin gives no facts new to science, yet it presents a line of work on which we have but little data and it brings the farmers face to face with facts that exist upon their own farms. It shows them that some herds are kept at a good profit, some at a small profit, and others at an actual loss. How THE FARM TEST WAS MADE. The farmers who took up this work were required to weigh and sample the milk from each cow in the herd every seventh week for four- teen consecutive milkings. After each cow was milked the milk was poured into a weighing pail, weighed, and the weight recorded on a milk sheet directly under the cow's name. A small sample of milk was then taken with a sample dipper or a milk thief and put into the sample bottles. Corrosive sublimate tablets were used to preserve the samples of milk. Instructions were given to each man to shake the 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. composite samples each day so as to mix the fresh samples with the rest of the milk and keep the cream from becoming dry or hard on the sides of the bottle. The jars that were used for keeping the composite samples were one pint, tin top, covered bottles. When the period of weighing and sampling was completed the samples were tested either on the farm or at the creamery. APPARATUS. The things necessary for carrying on the work were: A spring scale for weighing the milk; a small dipper or milk thief for taking the samples; bottles for holding the composite samples; corrosive sublimate for preserving them; and milk sheets. All these were furnished by the Experiment Station. Each cow was given a name or number which was placed at the top of the milk sheet so that the weights of milk could be put directly under her name or number. Cut No. 1 shows all the necessary apparatus for carrying on the work, and Table I is a sample of a farmer's milk record. TABLE I. SAMPLE OF FARMER'S MILK RECORD FOR ONE WEEK, FROM JULY 30, p. M., TO AUGUST 6, A. M. MILK POUNDS. i^i ^i-J *- *d oi & g| to o CXoJ a 1*1 & 3 6 ffljz; 3;! -t- o B s 31 3J 1 CE c3 O K fi l 20.5 14.1 11.3 15.0 15.4 10.9 6.9 7.4 7.5 5.5 15.1 2 13.5 6.8 6.5 10.2 13.2 8.3 5.2 3.9 5.1 3.9 10.3 3 22.2 16.8 11.7 15.0 17.0 11.0 6.7 7.9 7.7 5.2 15.8 4 14.2 5.2 8.2 10.7 14.2 8.5 5.2 4.9 4.6 3.9 10.9 5 20.3 15.7 6.0 13.7 16.3 10.7 6.8 6.5 7.3 4.9 15.7 6 16.7 7.0 9.2 11.9 15.6 9.5 5.1 5.1 6.1 4.6 12.2 7 18.5 15.5 4.7 14.1 16.7 9.6 7.0 6.0 6.6 5.0 14.5 8 16.0 7.8 7.3 11.2 14.4 8.7 5.0 4.9 6.2 3.9 14.7 9 ! 22.0 14.5 13.5 16.4 18.5 10.7 6.9 7.2 6.9 5.3 15.8 10 14.0 9.5 6.9 10.5 15.0 8.3 4.8 4.6 5.3 3.6 11.4 11 19.9 9.8 4.0 12.9 17.5 11.0 6.7 6.1 7.0 5.2 14.9 12 14.5 13.0 6.8 11.5 14.5 8.1 4.4 4.6 5.8 3.9 11.3 13 22.6 13.2 6.7 16.1 18.4 11.6 8.6 7.4 7.3 7.8 16.1 14 15.4 7.1 8.8 11.3 14.7 8.6 4.3 5.2 5.9 4.2 11.7 Total.. 250.3 156.0 111.6 180.5 221.4 135.5 83.6 81.7 89.3 66.9 190.4 Fat, % 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.2 3.4 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.4 3.0 Fat,lb. 8.00 4.36 3.57 6.31 7.08 4.60 3.84 3.26 4.10 2.94 5.71 ARRANGING APPARATUS. A considerable amount of time can be saved by arranging scales, sample bottles, and milk sheet in such a way that the weighing, record- ing the weight, and sampling the milk can be done with as few steps BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, CUT 1. SCALE FOR WEIGHING MILK. RECORD SHEET AND COMPOSITE SAMPLES. and motions as possible. After the most desirable place in the barn has been chosen for weighing and sampling, the scales can be suspended from the ceiling so as to hang near the milk sheet which can be tacked to a board and hung on the wall, or fixed on an inclined shelf projecting from the w r all. After the milk from each cow is weighed, a sample should be taken and placed in the jar bearing the cow's name or number. The sample bottles can be arranged on either side of the milk sheet, or if convenient, above it. If there are two or more milkers, the sample bottles can be arranged so that each milker will have his bottles together and arranged in the same order in which the cows are milked. This method saves time in finding the right sample bottle. TIME CONSUMED IN WEIGHING AND SAMPLING. The length of time required to weigh and sample the milk depends entirely upon the quickness of the man who is doing it. Some men will say that it takes but little time to weigh and sample each cow's milk, while others complain of the length of time necessary to do the work. It will take, on an average, about one minute to each cow, or two minutes a day. This indicates, for the seven weeks that it is done during the year, 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 5 about one hour and thirty-eight minutes for each cow tested. With this amount of time expended, the farmer can have a complete record of every cow in his herd. From this, with a knowledge of what he is feeding, he will know at the end of the year whether she has been a source of profit or loss to him; and furthermore, he will know from which cows to select heifers for his dairy. Considering the time that is con- sumed in doing this work, it seems strange that more dairymen do not have their herds tested. Many of them can weigh and sample each cow's milk every seventh week, and then have the buttermaker test the samples for them at the creamery. With the percent of fat and the weights of milk they can estimate for themselves the performance of every cow in their herds. The importance of doing this work will be shown further on in this bulletin. CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF MILK AND BUTTER FAT. The milk was weighed and sampled during the fourth week of the seven-week periods. From the total amount of milk that each cow gave during this time, and the percent of fat, was calculated the amount of butter fat produced in the week. From these results were estimated the amount of milk and butter fat each cow produced during the three weeks before, and the three weeks following the test. The cow's yearly record was made up from these tests, and in this way the total amount of milk and butter fat that she produced during the entire year was determined. It may be objected to that this method did not secure results absolutely correct. On this it may be said that the chief object was to secure data from which cows could be compared with each other and that this object was fully attained even though the totals may have been either slightly too large or too small. Check methods show however, that the data are very close to the actual amounts produced. In many cases the dairymen also kept an approximate account of the grain and roughage that each cow consumed during the year. Where this was done the records are of exceptionally high value, for they clearly show the profit or loss of every cow kept in the dairy. THE DIFFERENT METHODS THAT MAY BE USED IN WEIGHING AND SAM- PLING. There are several ways that records from each cow in the dairy can be obtained. The method used in obtaining the records given in this bulletin was as follows: The farmer, every seventh week, weighed and sampled each cow's milk for fourteen consecutive milkings. The amounts of milk yielded each day were added and from the percent of butter fat which the milk contained, was determined the amount of butter fat each cow produced during the week. From these results 6 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, were estimated the amount of milk and butter fat each cow produced the three weeks before and the three weeks following the test. The Dairy Department of the Wisconsin Experiment Station had its patrons weigh and sample one day each week for the whole year. From the different weights and tests the amount of milk and butter fat that each cow produced in the entire year was estimated. The testing of the milk each week is too much for the average farmer to do, but taking composite samples of milk of several milkings gives a very good average of the per cent of fat contained in the milk, and can be done by any one if he chooses. Fairly accurate results can be obtained by weighing and sampling the milk every thirteenth week and calculating the results the same way as when the weighing and sampling were done every seventh week. The method of weighing and sampling each cow's milk every seventh week for several consecutive milkings, or three and one-half days, gives very good results. The results can be multiplied by two which would equal the amount of milk and butter fat produced for one week, then estimated the same as if the weighing and sampling were done the entire week. The composite samples that are but three and one-half days old, are in better condition for testing than samples that are a week old. The farmers will take more pains with the work if it does not become tedious to them. The accuracy of records obtained by weighing and sampling each cow's milk at regular times during the year is often doubted. As a check a comparison was made between the amount of milk and butter fat sold from two farms to a creamery and the amount of milk and butter fat as determined from weighing and sampling each cow's milk every seventh week for fourteen consecutive milkings during the year. In one case there was found a difference of 2.2 percent of butter fat, and .0015 percent in milk, making a difference of 4.67 pounds of butter fat and 8.09 pounds of milk per cow; in the other case a difference of .038 per- cent fat, and 1.98 percent in milk, or .27 pounds of butter fat and 120.3 pounds of milk per cow. From these results it is seen that by carefully weighing and sampling each cow's milk every seventh week during her period of lactation records can be secured which are substantially cor- rect. OBJECT OF THE WORK. There is no better way of finding out the merits of a dairy animal when giving milk than to use the scales and the Babcock test. With the weights of milk produced, the percent of butter fat and the length of her milking season, together with the feed consumed, the value of a cow for the dairy can be determined. The object of getting dairymen to do this work is to determine which of the individual cows in their herds are the most profitable, so that the owners may cull out the poor 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 7 cows and keep the profitable ones ; to show them the importance of better feeding and caring for their stock; and the importance of selecting better sires for their herds. A dairy animal should be selected for the amount of milk and butter fat which she yields during the year rather than on points of fancy or form. It is a reasonably safe rule in selecting dairy cows to go upon the results obtained from the scales and the Babcock test. If she is a good breeder, that also should be taken into considera- tion. If the performance of each cow in the herd is known, the heifers can be selected from the best cows and when these heifers become fresh the test should be applied to them and the inferior ones culled out. This can only be done when we have an intelligent understanding of each cow and her capability of producing milk and butter fat. ELEMENTS OF DANGER IN THE USE OF SCALES AND BABCOCK TEST. While the scales and Babcock test can be of great service in the selec- tion of our dairy animals, they must, however, be used with judgment. Dairy cows have their " off years, " and this must be considered when the herd is being culled. If we do not bear this fact in mind, we are apt to sell some of the best cows from our herds. The writer has in mind the cow Sweet Briar, of the Minnesota Experiment Station, that pro- duced , /or ten years an average of 358.07 pounds'of butter a year, while in 1898 she produced only 206.62 pounds of butter, but in 1899 she made 306.53 pounds, and in 1901 370.53 pounds. If the merits of Sweet Briar had been wholly based on the work she did in 1898 she would have been classed as a very ordinary cow, and perhaps sold. The great value of scales and Babcock test lies in their continued use in the dairy herd and not in one year's test. Good heifers usually come from the best dairy cows, but it sometimes happens that a promising heifer may do very poorly the first year. In such cases the heifer's individuality together with her breeding should be considered before she is sold. The testing of cows should, however, be carried on in every dairy if a systematic selection is to be made. A good cow seldom has two " off years " in succession. THE VARIATION IN FLOW AND PERCENT OF FAT IN MILK. It has often been asked why it is necessary to weigh and sample each milking for a week. By weighing and testing each milking separately we usually find considerable variation in milk yield and fat content. The following tables show to what extent a cow will vary in quantity of milk and percent of fat from one milking to another. These tables are taken from records of cows that were tested for the Holstein-Friesian Advanced Registry. BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, TABLE 2. SHOWING THE YIELD OP MILK AND PERCENT BUTTER FAT OF EACH MILKING FOR ONE WEEK. ECHO BETTINA HERBERT'S RECORD. 1902. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Total milk, Ib. Total fat, Ib. March 10, Morning 12.3 9.0 10.1 14.2 10.0 11.0 15.6 11.0 10.9 17.6 12.2 12.0 16.5 12.2 11.7 18.0 12.6 12.3 17.2 13.0 12.8 4.60 3.80 3.30 3.10 3.20 3.00 3.70 4.20 3.80 3.30 4.05 3.30 3.10 3.70 3.35 3.50 4.20 4.10 3.50 4.20 3.60 .5658 .3420 .3333 .4402 .3200 .3300 .5772 .4620 .4142 .5808 .4941 .3960 .5115 .4514 .39195 .6300 .5292 .5043 .6020 .5460 .4608 31.4 35.2 38.5 41.8 40.4 42.9 43.0 1.2411 1.0902 1.4532 1.4709 1.35485 1.6635 1.6088 Noon Evening March 11, Morning Noon . Evening March 12, Morning Noon . . . Evening March 13, Morning Noon Evening March 14, Morning . . . Noon . . Evening March 15, Morning Noon Evening . March 16, Morning Noon Eveninc . MAID CLOVERDALE'S RECORD. Sept. 23, Morning 18 1 2 80 506 Noon . 11 5 3 00 345 Evening 15 7 3.00 .471 45.3 1.322 Sept. 24, Morning 18 4 4 20 772 Noon 13 3 10 403 Evening 15.6 2.60 .405 47.0 1.580 Sept. 25, Morning . 16 7 2 00 .334 Noon 16 4 3 30 541 Evening 13 4 2 80 375 46 5 1 250 Sept. 26, Morning 17 3 2 60 449 Noon . 18 4 50 810 Evening 11 9 2 40 285 47 2 1 544 Sept. 27, Morning 20 4 2 70 550 Noon 14 5 2 90 420 Evening 15.2 2.80 .425 50 1 1.395 Sept. 28, Morning 18 5 3.80 .703 Noon 14 5 2 80 .406 Evening 14 5 2 30 333 47 5 1 442 Sept. 29, Morning . . 20 9 3 20 668 Noon . . . 14 3 2 40 343 Evening 15 9 3 00 .477 51 1 1 488 The above table readily shows the importance of weighing and sampling the milk for more than one milking, if the average test of the 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 9 cow is to be obtained. Maid of Cloverdale, for example, tested on the morning of September 25, two percent, and at noon, September 26, 4.50 percent. Had either been taken as her actual test it would have been very misleading, for her average test for that particular week was 2.99 percent. THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE PROFIT OR Loss OF THE Cow is COMPUTED. It is very difficult to express the true value of the dairy cow in dollars and cents. But since the profit or loss of most of the cows tested has been given, it is perhaps well to state the basis upon which the profit or loss was calculated. The value of the product that the cow yielded was based upon the amount of butter fat that she made, and the market price of butter fat at the time. The value of the skim milk, the value of the calf, and the value of the manure produced by the cow were not credited to her, while on the other hand the cow was not debited with the amount of labor expended in her care nor the amount of feed she consumed when dry. The cow was simply credited with the amount of butter fat she produced, and charged for feed consumed when she was giving milk. The calf will usually pay for the cow's board when dry and the skim milk for the labor it takes to care for her. This method of calculation is, perhaps, a little unjust to some cows, for it is possible to have two cows yield the same amount of butter fat and one give a profit and the other a loss. If, for example, one milks ten months and the other but six months in the year to yield equal amounts of butter fat, which sometimes happens, one cow is charged with ten month's feed and the other with only six month's. Red Bird in herd "B" and Duchess in herd "C" are examples of this kind. Red Bird milked ten months and charged $1.28 cents for her board, and Duchess milked six months and gave a profit of $9.16, and each yielded the same amount of butter fat. The rations for the cows were not weighed each day. A number of dishes of meal was weighed in order to get the average amount of feed that the measure held and the number of dishes that each cow received a day was recorded. Cut and shreded corn stover and ensilage were estimated in the same manner. The hay was also weighed at different times. REPORT OF HERD "A." Herd "A" was composed of natives, grade Shorthorns, grade Jer- seys, and grade Holsteins. The average weight of each cow was 1,000 pounds. The herd was not bred for dairy purposes. Moreover, they 10 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, CUT 2. Cow No. 6, HERD A, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 1,838 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 4.43%; 95 LB. BUTTER. neither showed dairy form nor capabilities of giving large flows of milk, nor producing large amounts of butter fat. Nearly every cow showed some signs of disorder. They were not in a thrifty condition. A num- ber of them aborted during the year, while others failed to get with calf and were sold. Some of them were disposed of so early in the test that their records are not calculated with the rest of the herd. There were ten cows kept in this herd whose milk was not weighed or tested. It is unfortunate that the owner could not see the importance of weighing and testing each one of these cows, but the average amount of milk and butter fat that each of the untested cows produced for the year will be given, for a record of the amount of milk and butter fat that was sold from all the cows was kept. The herd did not yield the amount of milk and butter fat that it should for the amount of grain consumed. While the owner did not keep an accurate enough account of the grain and roughage each cow ate to be reported upon, he fed a ration to his cows that was largely made up of corn and other foods rich in carbohydrates and containing a small per cent of protein. The cows received a small allowance of bran with the corn meal from October 1 to January 1. During the months of January and February., to the-cows giving the largest flows of milk, was given the following : 1903.] RECORDS OP INDIVIDUAL COWS. 11 RATION 1. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Corn meal 10 8.91 .790 6.670 .430 lOc Silage 35 7.31 .315 3.955 .245 3.5c Timothy hay 10 8.68 .280 4.34 .140 5c Total nutrients . . 24.90 1.385 14.965 .815 18. 5c This ration was altogether too rich in carbohydrates and contained a very low per cent of protein. If this farmer had sold more of his corn and bought some mill feed he would, with less expense, have im- proved the ration. For example, a ton of corn meal would at this time have paid for more than a ton of grano-gluten. If a ration were made from five pounds of grano-gluten and three pounds of corn meal with the same amount and kind of roughage as contained in the above, the ration would be far better and cheaper. Such a ration would contain the following nutrients : RATION 2. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Grano-gluten 5 4.71 1.335 1.94 .620 4.5c Corn meal 3 2 67 237 2 001 .129 3c % Silage 35 7 31 315 3 955 245 3.5c Timothy hay 10 8.68 .280 4.340 .140 5c Total nutrients . . 23.38 2.167 12.236 1.134 16. Oc A number of the cows' udders became feverish and hard during the time that they were being fed so much corn. Four of them were giving milk from only three teats. It seems that excessive corn feeding must have had something to do with the general unsatisfactory condition of the herd, especially in the months of January and February, and per- haps the cause of four of them losing the use of one-quarter of their udders. The rye and corn meal were mixed equal parts by weight, and about eight pounds of the mixture, together with timothy hay and corn silage, was the ration they received until May 1, when ground oats was substituted in the place of rye. The cows were turned out to pasture about May 25, but were given a small allowance of silage to July 1. From this time on to the completion of the year's work they received nothing but grass. The ration which the cows received from March 1 to May 1 was somewhat better than the ration fed in January and February, but it could have been much im- proved with mill feed. The ration for fresh cows was about as follows ; 12 BULLETIN NO. 85. CUT 3. Cow No. 10, HERD A, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 3,833 LB. MILK ; AVERAGE TEST, 3.37%; 150 LB. BUTTER. RATION 3. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Rye 4 3.54 .396 2.704 .044 4.0c Crushed corn and cob meal 4 3.40 .176 2.400 .116 4.0c Silage 35 7.31 .315 3.955 .245 3.5c Timothy hay 7 6.08 .196 3.038 .098 3.5c Total nutrients . . 20.33 1.083 12.097 .503 15. Oc It will be noticed that this ration which contains but 1.083 pounds of protein costs nearly as much as Ration 2, which contains 2.167 pounds of protein. It readily shows that by exchanging some of the home- grown grain for mill stuff the ration could not only have been made better but actually cheaper. It can be said that the cows in this herd did a very ordinary year's work, but considering the individuality of each animal in the herd, the general condition of their health, together with unskillful feeding, it is not at all surprising that the results are no better. 1903.] RECORDS OP INDIVIDUAL COWS. 13 Cur 4. Cow No. 15, HERD A, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 6,145 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 3.63%; 260 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $18.40. YEARLY RECORD OF BEST AND POOREST Cow IN HERD " A, " AND AVERAGE FOR ENTIRE HERD. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Butter, Ib. Best cow, No. 15 6,145 3.63 223 260 Poorest cow, No. 37 1,482 3.97 58 68 Average record of cows tested Average record of entire herd 3,970 3,361 3.55 3.55 141 119 164 139 It was found that the average cow must produce about 140 pounds of butter fat last year to pay for her board, since the average price for butter fat, when sold to the creameries, was twenty-two cents. Calcu- lating the results upon that basis, the cows that were tested yielded a profit of twenty-three cents. To ascertain the amount of product yielded by each of the untested cows in the herd for the year, it was necessary to subtract the amount of milk and butter fat yielded by the eighteen cows that were tested from the total amount of milk and butter fat that was sold from this dairy. In this calculation a liberal amount of milk was estimated for house use and for feeding of calves. Total amount of milk sold from Farm " A" 97,720 Ib. yielded by tested cows 76,060 " " the ten untested cows, 21,660 14 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, The average amount of milk yielded by each untested cow .... 2,166 Ib. " total amount of butter fat sold from Farm " A " 3,554 " yielded by tested cows 2,751 " ten untested cows 803 " " average amount of butter fat yielded by each cow un- tested 80 " Calculating for the whole herd, and estimating that it takes 140 pounds of butter fat to pay for a cow's board, there is a loss of $4.54 a cow, or each cow should have produced 20.64 pounds more butter fat to have paid for her keep. The best cow in this herd gave a profit of $18.40, while the poorest was kept at an actual loss of $17.83. TABLE 3. RECORD OP EACH Cow IN HERD "A" FOR ONE YEAR. GROUP 1. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 100 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. 6 o jT O &i Breed. Date of calving. Milk, Ib. Fat, per- cent. Fat, Ib. o a/ 4> ^"3 .2 $ 37 12 Grade Jersey 11- 8-01 1482* 3.97 58 68 147 6 3 Native 5-29-02 1838 4.43 81 95 210 8 Native . . 2-13-02 2470 3.87 95 111 210 GROUP 2. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 140 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. 1 4 Grade Shorthorn 10-25-02 3176 3.45 109 128 196 31 10 Grade Shorthorn 1-17-02 3535 3.18 11? 131 245 8 3 Native 9- 6-01 2740 4.16 114 133 259 10 4 Native . . 3- 5-02 3833 3.37 m 150 245 34 46 10 3 Grade Shorthorn, Abr Native 12- 5-01 1- 8-02 4474 3766 2.97 3.67 133 138 155 161 294 259 GROUP 3. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 175 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. 33 10 Grade Holstein . 4- 9-02 3550 3.94 140 163 210 30 9 XT x- ( Abr. . 9-29-02 Native j Cly 12-18-01 4306 3.55 153 178 299 29 Native, Abr. . 3-21-02 3916 4.00 156 183 210 4 3 Native 4-13-02 3651 4.31 157 183 365 44 4 Native . 11-16-01 5082 3 15 160 186 294 GROUP 4. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 225 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. 13 4 Grade Holstein . 2-25-02 4895 3.87 189 221 290 \?, 4 Grade Holstein 10-30-01 6824 2.80 191 223 308 16 9 Grade Holstein 1- 4-01 5776 3.33 192 224 308 15 9 Grade P. S. H. . H_ 4_oi 6145 3.63 m 260 294 * The tenth's place in the " milk " column and the tenth's and hundredth's places in the "butter fat" and "butter "columns have been eliminated for the con- venience of the reader. The average "percent fat," the average production, and the profit or loss of the herd, however, were figured before the elimination. This method not only applies to herd " A, " but to all the herds tested. 1903.1 RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 15 THE REPORT OF HERD " B. " This herd was composed largely of common native and grade Hoi- stein cows. There were a number of fairly good dairy cows in the herd and a number of promising heifers. The cows weighed an average, about 1,050 pounds. The general health of the herd was good. A few of the cows aborted during the year and some of them had caked udders. A few of them were sold on this account. A number of them were dis- posed of so early in the test that their records are not calculated with the rest of the herd but are given separately. On the whole it can be said that the cows received good care and were fairly well fed throughout the year. The cows were fed from October 1 to November 1, some ear corn and stalks and pasture. During the months of November and Decem- ber, the cows received the following : RATION 4. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Bran 6 5.31 .774 2.406 .204 5.4c Corn meal 6 5.35 .474 4.002 .258 6.0c Millet hay 8 7.04 .256 3.880 .080 4.0c Corn stover 10 5.95 .170 3.240 .070 2.0c Total nutrients. . . 23.65 1.674 13.528 .612 17. 4c This ration would have been considerably better if two pounds of oil meal or gluten meal had been substituted for three pounds of corn meal and would have cost no more. During the months of January and February the fresh cows received seven pounds of bran, four pounds of corn meal, oat straw, and corn stover ad libitum. In March and April they received a ration about as follows : RATION 5. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Bran 6 5 31 .774 2.406 .204 5.4c Gluten feed 3 2 70 699 1.521 .081 3.3c Clover hay 5 4.23 .340 1.790 .085 2.5c Corn stover 8 4.76 .136 2.592 .056 1.6c Total nutrients 17.00 1.949 8.309 .426 12. 8c Oat straw, ad libitum. 16 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, This is a balanced ration and contains enough nutrients for cows giving large flows of milk. If some succulent food, such as roots or silage, had been added, it would have been still better. In May, the fresh cows or the ones giving the most milk, received the following : RATION 6. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Shorts 7 6.17 .854 3.50 .266 6.3c Gluten feed 3 2.70 .699 1.521 .081 3.3c Clover hay 5 4.23 .340 1 790 .085 2.5c Millet hay 8 7 04 256 3 880 .080 4.0c Total nutrients . . 20.14 2.14? 10.691 .512 16. Ic This is another very good ration as it supplies enough nutriment for a cow producing 350 pounds of butter fat a year. Each cow in the herd during the rest of the year received two pounds of shorts a day, besides plenty of blue grass pasture. YEARLY RECORD OF BEST AND POOREST Cow IN HERD " B, " AND AVERAGE FOR ENTIRE HERD. Milk, lb. Fat, % . Fat, lb. Butter, lb. Best cow, Hartwell No. 2 6,197 3.99 247 288 Poorest cow, Brindle No. 1 3,731 2.88 107 125 Average record of entire herd . 5.360 3.52 1SS 220 Spotty No. 1 charged to produce 100 pounds of milk, 40.7 cents and 12.6 cents for one pound of butter fat. Red Bird charged to produce 100 pounds of milk, 70.9 cents, and 23.2 cents for one pound of butter fat. The average cost of this herd to produce 100 pounds of milk was 57.0 cents and 16.1 cents to make one pound of butter fat. Spotty No. 1 gave a profit of $25.32 and Red Bird charged $1.28 for her board. The average profit of each cow was $12.12. The average price of grain and roughage from September 1, 1901, to September 1, 1902, was about as follows: Bran $18.00 per ton. Oil meal $28.00 per ton. Shorts 18.00 Corn meal 20.00 Corn cob meal ... 20 . 00 Grano-gluten 18.00 Gluten meal 28.00 Gluten feed . .22.00 Clover hay 10.00 Timothy hay 10.00 MiUethay 10.00 Corn stover 4.00 Corn silage 2.00 Pasture $1 . 00 per month. 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 17 CUT 5. SPOTTY No. 1, HERD B, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 7,711 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 3.20%; 288 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $25.32. CUT 6. RED BIRD, HERD B, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 4,974 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 3.04%; 176 LB. BUTTER; NET Loss, $1.28. 18 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, The price of Jgrain is based upon purchase price in the city market and the price of roughage is based upon the purchase price at the farm. When the cow is charged the above prices for farm products the farmer receives a profit on his land and the profit which the cow gives him is over and above what he could have received for his products if he had sold them upon the market, and moreover, the cows are often fed that which is not marketable. Take corn stover for example, what would it be worth if it was not for the live stock kept upon the farms? The average prices of butter fat when sold to the creameries for the different months, were as follows : September, 1901 19c October, 1901 19c November, 1901 20c December, 1901 22c January, 1902 24c February, 1902 28c March, 1902 28c April, 1902 26c May, 1902 22c June, 1902 21c July, 1902 20. 5c August, 1902 19c September, 1902 20. 5c October, 1902 23c TABLE 4. SHOWING PROFIT OR Loss FOR EACH Cow IN HERD " B " FOR ONE YEAR. GROUP 1. KEPT AT A Loss. Name of cow. Milk. Ib. Fat, % Fat, ib. Lb. but- ter. Gross returns. Cost of feed. Profit or loss. Red Bird. 4,974 3 04 151 176 $33.99 $35 . 27 $1.28 Belle . 4,412 3 38 149 174 33 26 34 30 1.04 Brindle No. 1 . 3.731 2.88 107 125 25.41 26.41 1.00 GROUP 2. KEPT AT A SMALL PROFIT. Alice . 4231 3 97 168 196 $38 61 $34 30 $4 31 Little Lamie 3,956 3 05 120 140 27.32 21.95 5.37 Harry Cow. 4,891 3 14 153 179 35 00 27.93 7.07 Sleepy Eve . 4,190 4.20 176 205 40.53 31.67 8.86 GROUP 3. KEPT AT A FAIR PROFIT. Black No. 2 . . 5,474 3 53 193 225 $44 28 $32.91 $11.37 Spotty No. 2 6,720 3 34 224 262 50.85 38.51 12.34 Roaney 5,705 3 94 225 262 52.43 39.46 12.97 Dora 4,989 3 70 184 215 39.51 26.40 13.11 Black No. 1 . 6,179 3 05 188 220 44 36 30.71 13.65 GROUP 4. KEPT AT A GOOD PROFIT. Hart well No. 2 . . . 6,197 3 99 247 288 $55.47 $30.49 $24.98 Spotty No. 1 . 7,711 3 20 247 288 56 73 31.41 25 32 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 19 TABLE 4 Continued. GROUP 5. KEPT AT A VERY FAIR PROFIT. Name of cow. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. but- ter. Gross returns. Cost of feed. Profit or loss. Bottle 5,450 3.66 199 232 $42.79 $27.37 $15.42 Beauty 6,402 3.82 245 285 53.62 36.79 16.83 Hartwell No. 1 4,421 4.20 186 217 38.24 21.10 17.14 Brindle No. 2 4,683 3.43 161 187 38.52 20.85 17.67 Clara 6,101 3.89 237 277 54.85 35.95 18.90 Pet 6,793 3.10 211 246 48.60 28.18 20.42 TABLE 5. RECORD OF EACH Cow IN HERD " B" FOR ONE YEAR. GROUP 1. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 160 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. Name of cow. Age, yr. Breed. Date of calving. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. but- ter. Days in milk. Brindle, No. 1 .... Little Lamie . 15 8 Native . . . 2- 2-02 3- 1-02 3,731 3,956 2.88 3 05 107 120 125 140 203 275 Belle 3 Gr. Hoist. 11-10-01 4,412 3.38 149 174 290 Red Bird . . . 6 9-30-01 4,974 3.04 151 176 300 Harry Cow. 10 2- 3-02 4,891 3.14 153 179 240 GROUP 2. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 200 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. Brindle No. 2 4 Native . . . 4,683 3.43 161 187 210 Alice 3 Gr.Holst. 11-13-01 4,231 3.97 168 196 287 Sleepy Eye 5 Native . . 12-25-01 4,190 4.20 176 205 320 Dora 6 Gr. Hoist. 3-21-02 4,989 3.70 184 215 310 Hartwell No. 1 .... Black No. 1 8 8 Native . . . Gr.Holst. 5-27-02 1-28-02 4,421 6,179 4.20 3.05 186 188 217 220 270 275 " 2 4 2-21-02 5,474 3.52 193 225 340 Bottle 5 ' 4-11-02 5,450 3.66 199 232 300 GROUP 3. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 250 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. Pet 5 Gr.Holst. 2-12-02 6,793 3.10 211 246 260 Spotty No. 2 Roaney. 8 7 Native . . . 9-24-01 H_ 7_()i 6,720 5,705 3.34 3.94 224 225 262 262 300 305 Clara 5 Gr. Hoist. 10- 1-01 6,101 3.89 237 277 300 Beauty 4 Native . . . 10- 5-01 6,402 3.82 245 285 305 Spotty No. 1 Hartwell No. 2 12 12 u u 7-31-02 2-21-02 3- 1-02 7,711 6,197 3.20 3.99 247 247 288 288 280 267 REPORT OF HERD " C. " This herd was composed of natives, grade Shorthorns, grade Hoi- steins, one Red Poll and two grade Jerseys. The average weight of the cows was about 1,050 pounds and they were in good health during the whole year. There were no abortions or caked udders during the time the test was made. A number of the cows were sold early in the test because of their rapid falling off in milk flow when about three 20 BULLETIN NO. 85. months along in the period of lactation. This is a very common fault with a great many cows kept in the dairy, and it is not noticed by the owners so much as it should be. They remember the cow when she gave a full pail of milk. The herd received good care during the year and was kept in a warm barn during the winter where it received a fairly good ration. The fresh cows in October to November were fed daily about three pounds of bran, shock corn, and pasture. From No- vember 15 to January 1, the ration consisted of the following feeds: Bran, five pounds; corn meal, three pounds; corn stover, ad libitum. If the farmer could have given his cows ten pounds of alfalfa or clover hay and less corn stover it would have been a considerably better ration. In January and February a little better ration was fed. It was about as follows : RATION 7. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Bran 5 4.42 .645 2.005 .170 4.5c Corn meal . . 5 4 45 395 3 335 215 5 Oc Gluten feed 1 90 .233 .507 .027 l.lc Timothy hay . . 5 4 34 140 2.170 .070 2.5c Corn stover . 12 7 14 204 3 888 .084 2.4c Total nutrients. . 21.25 1.617 11.905 .566 15. 5c CUT 7. CRAZY, HERD C, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 6,945 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 4.23%; 343 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $31.55. 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 21 Cur 8. DUCHESS, HERD C, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 4,229 LB. MILK-; AVERAGE TEST, 3.59%; 177 LB. BUTTER: NET PROFIT, $9.16: CUT 9. JERSEY, HERD C, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 5,498 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 4.48%; 287 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $34.77. 22 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, This ration would have been still better if the corn meal had been reduced two pounds and gluten feed increased to four pounds. During the months of March, April, and May, to the cows giving the largest flow of milk were given the following: RATION 8. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Bran 5 4.42 .645 2.005 .170 4.5c Gluten feed 2 1.80 .466 1.014 .054 2.2c Oil meal 1 .91 .293 .327 .078 1.4c Timothy hay 15 13.02 .420 6.510 .210 7.5c Total nutrients 20.15 1.824 9.856 .512 15. 6c The cows were turned out to pasture about May 20, and as soon as grass was plentiful they received no grain during the rest of the test. They, however, received some forage in connection with the pasture. Green peas and oats were fed in July, and in August green sorghum. It can be said that the herd was well cared for the whole year, and moreover, every cow was fed as near as possible according to the amount of milk and butter fat that she was yielding. It must be borne in mind that the rations given above were fed to cows that were produ- cing the most milk and butter fat and not to the strippers. YEARLY RECORD OF BEST AND POOREST Cow IN HERD " C, " AND AVERAGE FOR ENTIRE HERD. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Butter, Ib. Best cow, Crazy 6,945 4 23 294 343 Poorest cow, Harrison 2,721 3 96 108 126 Average vield of entire herd. 4,942 3 90 192 224 Jersey produced butter fat the cheapest. She charged 29.7 cents to produce 100 pounds of milk, and 6.6 cents to make one pound of butter fat. Harrison charged 97.7 cents to make 100 pounds of milk, and 24.6 cents to make one pound of butter fat. The average cost of this herd to produce 100 pounds of milk was 55.5 cents, and 14.2 cents to produce one pound of butter fat. Jersey gave a profit of $34.77, and Harrison charged SI. 27 for her keeping. The average profit for each cow in the herd was $16.22. 1903.1 RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 23 TABLE 6. SHOWING PROFIT OR Loss FOR EACH Cow IN HERD " C" FOR ONE YEAR. GROUP 1. KEPT AT A Loss. Name of cow. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. but- ter. Gross returns Cost of feed. Profit or loss. Harrison 2721 3.96 108 126 $25.34 $26.61 $1.27 Ella . . 3.519 3.64 128 149 29.12 30.98 1.86 GROUP 2. KEPT AT A SMALL PROFIT. White Face. 3,865 4,118 4,229 3.56 3.83 3.59 137 157 151 160 ! $31.69 184 i 36.68 177 37.47 $31.30 28.29 28.31 $ .39 8.39 9.16 Millie Duchess. . . .... GROUP 3. KEPT AT A FAIR PROFIT. Victoria 2,979 4.34 129 151 $26.28 $15.81 $10.47 Little Brownie 5,121 3 75 192 224 45.18 32 60 12.58 Lady . . 5,015 3 94 197 230 42 71 27 72 14.99 GROUP 4. KEPT AT A VERY FAIR PROFIT. Pet 5,590 3 43 191 223 $45 15 $25 66 $19.49 Old Line Back 5,926 3 55 210 245 50 34 28 47 21.87 Queen ; 4,857 3.73 181 211 38.90 21.61 17.29 Black Hawk 6,500 3 99 259 303 58 52 34.88 23.64 Babe ... 5,186 4 68 242 283 54 78 33 60 21.18 GROUP 5. KEPT AT A GOOD PROFIT. Stubbornness 5,924 3.50 207 242 $45.19 $20.39 $24.80 Roaney 6,013 3.97 238 278 57.46 29.00 28.46 Crazy . 6,945 4 23 294 343 66 77 35.22 31.55 Jersey . 5,498 4 48 246 287 51 15 16 38 34.77 TABLE 7. RECORD OF EACH Cow IN HERD "C" FOR ONE YEAR. GROUP 1. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 160 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. Name of cow. Age, yrs. Breed. Date of calving. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. of butter Days in milk. Harrison ? Gr. Hoist. 7- 6-01 2 721 3 96 108 126 246 Ella 9 9-25-01 3 519 3 64 128 149 295 Victoria . 4 u 6- 5-02 2 979 4 34 129 151 214 White Face .... Duchess 2 8 Native . 9-15-01 1- 2-02 3,865 4229 3.56 3 59 137 151 160 177 290 197 GROUP 2. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 200 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. Millie ?, Gr. Hoist. 10-20-01 4 118 3 83 157 184 330 Queen 4 Gr. S. H. . 3-28-02 4 857 3 73 181 211 260 Pet Gr. Hoist. 11-26-01 5 590 3 43 191 223 305 Little Brownie. . Lady . 8 9 Native . . . Gr. S. H. . 10- 3-01 3-28-02 5,121 5015 3.75 3 94 192 197 224 230 245 303 24 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, TABLE 7 Continued. GROUP 3. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 300 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. Name of cow. Age, yrs. Breed. Date of calving. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. of butter. Days in milk. Stubbornness . . Old Line Back . Roaney 9 12 Gr. Hoist. Native . . . Gr. S. H. 3--29-02 12-20-02 1_ 5_02 5,924 5,926 6,013 3.50 3.55 3.97 207 210 238 242 245 278 246 250 245 Jersey q Gr. Jer. . 1- 3-02 5,498 4 48 246 287 275 Babe 6 10- 3-01 5,186 4.68 242 283 365 Black Hawk . . . Crazy 4 10 Gr. Hoist. Gr.RedP. 9-26-01 10- 4-01 6,500 6,945 3.99 4.23 259 294 303 343 335 335 REPORT OF HERD " D. " The cows in this herd consisted of full blood Jerseys, grade Jerseys, full blood Holsteins, grade Holsteins, natives, and grade Shorthorns. There were sixty cows in the herd when the test began and forty-seven of them remained through the year. Thirteen of the cows were sold during the time the test was being inade for they were found to be infe- rior and unprofitable animals. The herd contained a great many very fine dairy cows and they made some very good records. The cows were in a good condition during the whole year and were kept in a scrupu- lously clean and well-ventilated barn which was scrubbed once a day and white washed twice a year. The sanitary condition was nearly per- fect. The cows were not only well cared for, but they received well balanced rations during the entire year. The results of this herd readily show the importance of taking good care of dairy cows and of feeding them well. Some of the rations that the herd received at different times during the year show clearly how well these cows were fed. From September 1 to the middle of October, to the cows giving the largest flow of milk, the rations consisted of six pounds of grano- gluten and all the green corn that they would eat up clean. From October 15 to December 7, the ration to the best milkers was about as follows: RATION 9. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Grano-gluten . 5 4 71 1 335 1 940 .62 4.5c Corn meal 3 2 67 237 2 001 .129 3.0c Corn silage 45 9 40 405 5 085 .315 4.5c Timothy hay 5 4 34 .140 2.170 .070 2.5c Total nutrients 21.12 2.117 11.196 1.134 14. 5c 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 25 The ration fed from December 7 to February 1 was as follows: RATION 10. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Shorts . . . 3 2.65 .366 1.50 114 2 7c Corn meal . ?, 1 78 158 1 334 086 2 Oc Gluten meal 3 2.64 .963 1.236 .075 4.2e Corn silage 45 9.40 .405 5.085 .315 4.5c Hay . . 5 4.34 .140 2.170 .070 2.5c Total nutrients. . 20.81 2.032 11.325 .660 15. 9c The cows seemed to do better when fed grano-gluten and corn meal than when they were fed shorts, corn meal, and gluten meal. The ration from February 1 to March 15 was five pounds of grano- gluten, three pounds of corn meal, and fifty pounds of silage and timothy hay. From this time on until the cows were turned out to grass, they received about the following : RATION 11. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Grano-gluten 7 6.60 1.869 2.716 .868 6.3c Corn meal . 3 2.67 .237 2.001 .129 3 Oc Silage 60 12.54 .540 6.780 .420 6.0c Total nutrients . . . . : 21.81 2.646 11.497 1.417 15 3c It will be noticed that this ration contains no hay, corn silage being the only roughage that the cows received. The cows did very well on this ration and when they were turned out to pasture, which was about June 1, they were in good condition. In June the cows received about four pounds of grano-gluten a day, besides a grass pasture. In July and August they received nothing but pasture grass. The above rations apply more to the general feeding of the best milkers in the herd, the strippers and poor milkers getting according to the amount of milk they were producing. It should be observed that the rations given to the cows during the year did not contain a large amount of grain, but each one contained a liberal amount of nutrients for cows that were giving a large flow of milk and yielding large amounts of butter fat. It will also be noticed that each ration contained over two pounds of protein. This can be accounted for when grano-gluten is compared with bran or oats, for it contains twice as much digestible protein. Therefore, it is not necessary to feed so many pounds of the grano-gluten as we would have to feed of bran or oats to get the same amount of digestible protein. 26 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, The above facts are mentioned so that the reader will not be misled when he compares the total amount of grain that each cow in this herd consumed with the total amount of grain consumed by each cow in some other herd. When the cows in this herd were not receiving grano-gluten they were receiving gluten meal which is a by-product of glucose refining companies. This feed is also very rich in protein. It contains about thirty-two per cent of digestible protein. These facts demonstrate very clearly that it often pays farmers to sell some of their oats or corn and buy some such by-products as gluten meal, gluten feed, grano- gluten, oil meal, or dried brewer's grains, etc. YEAKLY RECORD OF BEST AND POOREST Cow IN HERD " D, " AND AVERAGE FOR ENTIRE HERD. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Butter, Ib. Best cow, No. 129 8,949 4.52 404 472 Poorest cow, No. 324. 3364 4 06 136 159 Average record of entire herd ..... 5,911 4.45 263 306 Cow No. 147 made butter fat the cheapest. She charged 7.5 cents to produce one pound of butter fat and 35.5 cents to produce 100 pounds of milk. CUT 10. Cow No. 283, HERD D, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 10,151 Ln. MILK ; AVERAGE TEST, 3.68%; 436 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $45.36. 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 27 CUT 11. Cow No. 317, HERD D, GAVE IN ONE YEAK 10,059 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 3.79%; 445 LB. BUTTER;' NET PROFIT, $48.94. CUT 12. Cow No. 147, HERD D, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 7,890 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 4.70%; 432 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $57.22. 28 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, CUT 13. Cow No. 199, HERD D, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 6,132 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST. 4.75%; 340 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $31.54. CUT 14. Cow No. 44, HERD D, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 3,399 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 4.58%; 181 LB. BUTTER; NET Loss, 18 CENTS. 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 29 CUT 15. Cow No. 184, HERD D, WITH Two QUARTERS OF HER UDDER GONE, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 7,997 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 4.77%; 445 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $49.42. CUT 16. Cow No. 95, HERD D, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 7,615 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 4.85%: 430 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $42.85. 30 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, CUT 17. Cow No. 337, HERD D, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 3,443 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 4.46%; 179 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $2.52. CUT 18. Cow No. 263, HERD D, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 4,887 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 4.04%; 230 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $18.99. 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 31 CTJT 19. Cow No. 40, HERD D, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 6,575 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 3.23%; 248 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $17.09. Cow No. 44 charged the most to make butter fat. She charged 22.4 cents to make one pound of butter fat and $1.03 to make 100 pounds of milk. The average cost to produce one pound of butter fat was 12.3 cents and 54.9 cents to produce 100 pounds of milk. Cow No. 147 gave a profit of $57.22 and cow No. 44 charged 18 cents for her board. \ The average profit of each cow in the herd was $26.64. While the average profit is very good, it would, perhaps, have been better if the owner could have personally looked after his cows. The cows were cared for entirely by hired help. TABLE 8. SHOWING PROFIT OR Loss FOR EACH Cow IN HERD " D " FOR ONE YEAR. GROUP 1. KEPT AT A Loss. Lb. No. of cow. Milk, Ib. Fat, Fat, Ib. of but- Gross returns. Cost of feed. Profit or loss. ter. 44 3,399 4.58 155 181 $34.85 $35 03 $0.18 32 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, TABLE 8 Continued. GROUP 2. KEPT AT A SMALL PROFIT. Lb. No. of cow. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. of but- Gross returns. Cost of feed. Profit or loss. ter. 337 .... 3,443 4 46 153 179 $35 29 $32 77 $2 52 324 3,364 4.06 136 159 33.15 29.12 4.03 308 4,617 3.83 177 206 40.17 33.80 6 37 323 4,069 4.15 169 197 40.67 33.92 6.75 GROUP 3. KEPT AT A FAIR PROFIT. 22 . 3,187 4,389 5,266 3,777 4,823 4,700 4.35 4.40 3.61 4.99 4.07 4.72 138 193 190 188 196 222 161 225 222 220 229 259 $29.46 40.47 44.30 41.86 46.03 46.76 $19.07 29.22 32.67 30.00 33.50 32.16 $10.39 11.25 11.63 11.86 12.53 14.60 227 272 310 .. .. 264 99 GROUP 4. KEPT AT A VERY FAIR PROFIT. 138 . 5,449 6,575 5,257 5,446 4,887 4,796 4,958 4,462 5,505 5,285 5,414 3.99 3.23 4.05 4.30 4.04 5.00 4.51 5.26 4.19 4.79 4.36 217 212 213 234 197 239 223 235 230 253 236 253 248 248 273 230 279 261 274 269 295 275 $49.41 45.83 50.07 52.73 41.90 54.11 51.70 55.03 50.14 57.64 56.54 $34.09 28.74 32.09 33.94 22.91 34.88 32.13 33.88 28.53 34.07 32.70 $15.32 17.09 17.98 18.79 18.99 19.23 19.57 21.15 21.61 23.57 23.84 40 240 325 263 336 20 13 180 326 335 GROUP 5. KEPT AT A GOOD PROFIT. 161 5,731 7,979 5,481 6,732 5,477 5,201 6,407 7,199 6,132 5,551 5,500 4.70 3.75 4.57 4.34 5.60 5.07 4.00 4.36 4.75 5.14 4.85 269 299 250 292 306 263 256 313 291 285 266 314 349 292 341 357 307 299 366 340 332 311 $57.00 67.06 54.63 63.83 69.31 61.90 59.74 69.15 64.04 65.86 59.40 $31.65 41.59 27.62 35.95 39.44 32.03 29.02 37.61 32.50 33.94 27.27 $25.35 25.47 27.01 27.88 29.87 29.87 30.72 31.54 31.54 31.92 32.13 309 112 70 190 v 210 114 38 199 80 87 GROUP 6. KEPT AT A VERY GOOD PROFIT. 113 . 5,577 6,286 6,549 6,581 7,615 6,811 4.99 4.46 4.62 4.76 4.85 4.79 278 280 302 313 369 326 324 327 353 366 430 380 $58.01 61.19 71.29 69.10 79.30 74.20 $24.80 25.23 35.07 31.68 36.45 29.27 $33.21 35.96 36.22 37.42 42.85 44.93 109 46 247 95 249 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 33 TABLE 8 Continued. GROUP 7. KEPT AT AN EXCELLENT PROFIT. No. of cow. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. of but- ter. Gross returns. Cost of feed. Profit or loss. 283 10,151 3 68 374 436 $87.13 $41.77 $45.36 129 8,949 4 52 404 472 87.33 40.44 46.89 206 7,130 4.71 336 392 78.30 31.27 47.03 262 9,272 4.01 372 434 84.78 37.74 47.04 102 6,501 5.46 355 414 82.20 34.88 47.32 317 10,059 3 79 381 445 86 95 38.01 48.94 184 7,997 4.77 382 445 83.77 34.35 49.42 147 7,890 4.70 371 432 85.24 28.02 57.22 TABLE 9. RECORD OP EACH Cow IN HERD " D " FOR ONE YEAR. GROUP 1 . Cows PRODUCING LESS THAN 200 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. No. of cow. Age, y. Breed. Date of calving. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. of but- ter. Days in milk. 324 . 10-15-01 3,364 4 06 136 159 230 22 10 Native . . . 3- 7-02 3,187 4.35 138 161 225 337 3 11- 1-01 3,443 4 46 153 179 304 44 . 8 Gr. Jersey 3- 1-01 3,399 4 58 155 181 365 323 10-29-01 4,069 4.15 169 197 245 308 8-15-01 4,617 3.83 177 206 320 310 4 Native . . . 7-21-02 3,777 4 99 188 220 330 272 . 8-11-02 4,389 3 61 190 222 350 227 7 Gr. Hoist. 5-28-02 5,266 4.40 193 225 274 264 7 Native . . . 10- 6-01 4,823 4 07 196 229 303 263 . 7 Gr. Hoist. 4-13-02 4,887 4 04 197 230 218 GROUP 2. Cows PRODUCING LESS THAN 225 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. 40 ... q Native . . . 3-23-02 6,575 3.23 212 248 274 240 . 5 Gr. Hoist. 12- 1-01 5,257 4 05 213 248 323 138 . 6 Gr. S. H. 8-24-01 5,449 3 99 217 253 275 99 . 7 Native . 5- 1-02 4,700 4 72 222 259 304 20 . 5 Gr. S. H. 11-15-01 4,958 4 51 223 261 270 GROUP 3. Cows PRODUCING LESS THAN 275 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. 180 3-16-02 5,505 4.19 230 269 267 325 . . 5 Native . 4-13-02 5,446 4 30 234 273 300 13 q Jersey. . . . 12- 1-01 4,462 5.26 235 274 302 335 . 8 Native . 10-27-02 5414 4 36 236 275 305 336 11- 1-01 4,796 5 00 239 279 340 112 . 10 Gr. Jersey 3_23-02 5,481 4 57 250 292 262 326 . 7 Native . 10- 6-01 5,285 4 79 253 295 335 114 10 u 1- 5-02 6,407 4.00 256 299 275 210 10 a 12- 8-01 5,201 5.07 263 307 305 87 . q u 2-23-02 5,500 4 85 266 311 253 161 . 7 Gr. Jersey 4-13-02 5,731 4 70 269 314 300 34 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, TABLE 9 Continued. GROUP 4. Cows PRODUCING LESS THAN 325 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. No. of cow. Age, yr. Breed. Date of calving. Milk, ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb.of but- ter. Days in milk. 113 . 9 Native.. 3-23-02 5 577 4 99 278 324 295 109 . 9 3-23-02 6286 4 46 280 327 260 80 H_24-01 5,551 5 14 285 332 309 199 8 Gr. Jersey 3-13-02 6,132 4 75 291 340 309 70 11 Native... . 6- 2-02 6732 4 34 292 341 330 309 7-21-01 7,979 3 75 299 349 365 46 11 Native . . . 11- 3-01 6,549 4 62 302 353 302 190 11 Gr. Jersey 6-20-01 5,477 5 60 306 357 365 247 10 Native . . . 3_25_02 6581 4 76 313 366 274 38 10 Gr. Jersey 8- 4-02 7,199 4 36 313 366 265 GROUP 5. Cows PRODUCING LESS THAN 405 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. 249 . g Native . 1_19_02 6 811 4 79 326 380 211 206 . q 10-20-01 7 130 4 71 336 392 350 102 . 7 Gr. Jersey 11-17-01 6 501 5 46 355 414 300 95 . 6 Native . 6-12-01 7 615 4 85 369 430 300 147 8 a 12- 1-01 7,890 4 70 371 432 275 262 8 it 10- 6-01 9,272 4 01 372 434 330 283 8 Gr. Hoist. 12- 1-01 10,151 3 68 374 436 316 317 . 5 Holstein 9-22-01 10059 3 79 381 445 365 184 10 Gr. Jersey 3_ 9_02 7,997 4 77 382 445 335 129 10 Gr. Hoist. 11-15-02 8,949 4 52 404 472 325 REPORT OF HERD " E. " This was a small dairy of seven cows, but each one proved herself to be a profitable animal. The herd consisted of grade Ayrshires, natives, and one grade Jersey; the average weight was 950 pounds. The cows were well fed and cared for during the test, and at the end of the year they were in good healthy condition. No caked udders, abortions, or other mis- haps came to this herd during the year and no cows were sold, for every one in the herd gave the owner a good profit. Nearly all the cows came fresh the last of September and the first of October, and went dry in August. It was a winter dairy. In October and November the cows received five pounds of bran, five pounds of corn meal, corn stover, and some pasture. In December and to January 15 they received the following: 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 35 CUT 20. JENNIE, HERD E, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 4,449 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 5.01%; 260 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $35.17. RATION 12. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Grano-gluten 2 5 2 35 667 .970 .305 2.2c Bran 6.0 5.31 .774 2.406 .204 5.4c Corn and cob meal . 4 3 40 176 2 400 116 4 Oc MiUet 5 4.40 160 2.425 .050 2.5c Stover . . . 10 5 95 170 3 240 070 2.0c Total nutrients . 21 41 1 947 11 441 745 16 Ic This is not only a balanced ration but it contains a variety of food stuffs and is palatable. Palatability should always be considered in making up a ration for a dairy cow. From January 15 to March 1 the cows received the following ration: Six pounds of bran, three pounds of grano-gluten, five pounds of timothy hay, and all the corn stover they would eat up clean. In March and to April the 10th, they received 2.5 pounds of bran, 2.5 pounds of grano-gluten, five pounds timothy hay, and corn stover ad libitum. The first part of April the cows were turned out to rye pasture, and about the 15th of May were turned to blue-grass pasture. The herd was given no grain from April 10 to the completion of the year's work. It might be said that the rye pasture was plowed up and 36 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, CUT 21. PET HERD E, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 7,488 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 4.56%; 398 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $48.07. planted to corn in other words, this farmer had a good pasture for a month by simply sowing his intended corn ground to rye in the fall. The cows liked the rye pasture so well that they cared nothing for grain when they were grazing in this field. YEARLY RECORD OF BEST AND POOREST Cow IN HERD " E, " AND AVERAGE FOR ENTIRE HERD. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Butter, Ib. Best cow, Brindle. 7,828 4 41 345 403 Poorest cow, Star 5,398 3.89 210 245 Average record of entire herd 6,474 4.19 271 317 Brindle charged 39.1 cents to make 100 pounds of milk, and 8.8 cents to make one pound of butter fat. Star charged 54.4 cents to make 100 pounds of milk, and 13.9 cents to make one pound of butter fat. The average cost of production was 43.8 cents to make 100 pounds of milk, and 10.4 cents to make one pound of butter fat. Brindle gave the largest profit, which was $49.97, and Star the least, which was $20.54. The average profit for each cow in the dairy was $35.80. There were no unprofitable cows in this herd, for the owner has always given considerable attention to the selection of his dairy animals. 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 37 TABLE 10. SHOWING PROFIT FOR EACH Cow IN HERD " E " FOR ONE YEAR. Name of cow. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat. Ib. Butter, Ib. Gross returns . Cost of feed. Net profit. Star 5,398.4 3.89 210.42 245.49 $49.91 $29.37 $20.54 Red Ellis 5,707.3 4 09 233.89 272.87 55.23 28.48 26.75 Line Back 6,552.9 4 08 267.50 312.08 65.54 30.66 34 88 Jennie 4,449.9 5 01 223 30 260 51 54 66 19 49 35 17 Blacky. 7,896.7 3 55 280 44 327.18 65 94 30 69 35 25 Pet 7,488.9 4.56 341.95 398.94 77.44 29.37 48.07 Brindle . . 7.828.7 4.41 345.73 403.35 80.63 30.66 49.97 TABLE 11. RECORD OF EACH Cow IN HERD "E" FOR ONE YEAR. Name of cow. Age, yr- Breed. Date of calving. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. of but- ter. Days in milk. Star. 3.5 H. & J 10-15-02 5398 3 89 210 245 320 Jennie 6 Jersey. . . . 1_ 8-02 4,449 5 01 223 260 245 Red Ellis . . . Line Back . . Blacky Pet 6 5 4 8 J. &S.H... Native Gr. Ayrshire . 9-20-01 9-20-01 9-15-01 9-25-01 5,707 6,552 7,896 7,488 4.09 4.08 3.55 4.56 233 267 280 341 272 312 327 398 315 275 280 330 Brindle .... 9 ii u 9-28-01 7,828 4.41 345 403 327 REPORT OF HERD " F. " There were fourteen full-blood Holstein cows in this herd that were tested; their average weight was about 1,050 pounds. A few of the cows that did not enter the test were disposed of before the end of the year for they had already proved themselves to be inferior and unprof- itable animals. Less than half the dairy was matured cows. The herd was well cared for, but they did not receive a very large grain ration during the year, for the owner thought it would be more profitable to make less milk and butter fat than it would be to buy feed for his cows ; the price of all kinds of grain being so very high last year. The herd was kept in comfortable quarters, was in healthy condition during the test, and did a good year's work considering the grain that was given them. The first period of the test the cows received a good ration which contained the following food stuffs : 38 BULLETIN NO. 85. [Junr, CUT 22. CHECK, HERD F, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 6,812 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 3.16%; 251 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $19.30. RATION 13. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Bran 4 3 54 516 1.604 .136 3.6c Oats . 4 3 56 368 1 892 168 4 4c Clover hay 5 4.23 .340 1.790 .085 2.5c Stover. 10 5 95 170 3 240 070 2 Oc Silage 35 7 31 315 3.955 245 3.5c Total nutrients. . 24.59 1.709 12.481 .704 16. Oc This is a very good ration for it contains a variety of feeds and enough nutrients for cows giving good flows of milk. The dry grains and dry roughage are mixed and in about the right proportion to the amount of corn silage. It is, perhaps, a little deficient in protein for heavy milking cows. The second period of the test the cows received no grain. The ration consisted of thirty-five pounds of corn silage, five pounds clover hay, and all the corn stover they would eat. Each cow shrank considerably in milk flow, and the average percent of fat was less during this period. The cows received the following ration from the first of February until they were turned out to grass : 1903.1 RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 39 CUT 23. MAID, HERD F, GAVE IN ONE YEAR 5,979 LB. MILK; AVERAGE TEST, 3.34%; 233 LB. BUTTER; NET PROFIT, $17.95. RATION 14. Food stuffs. Lb. Dry matter. Pro- tein. Carbohy- drates. Fat. Cost. Grano-gluten ? 1 88 .534 .776 248 1 8c Silage 35 7 31 315 3 955 245 3 5c Clover hay 5 4 23 340 1 790 085 2 5c Corn stover . 10 5 95 170 3 240 070 2 Oc Total nutrients 19.37 1.359 9.761 648 9.8c Oat straw, ad libitum. This is a better ration than the one that was fed during the second period of the test, and there was an increase in milk flow and an increase in percent of fat. The cows were turned out to pasture about June 19. The owner did not have enough pasturage to feed his herd entirely so the ration was supplemented with thirty pounds of corn silage a day. This ration was continued to the completion of the test. Tt is the belief of the owner that the cows would have given a larger profit if he had fed them more grain. While the above facts do not demonstrate that the herd would have been more profitable with better feeding, yet, judging by the individuality of each of the cows, better results might have been expected if more grain had been fed. The cows were certainly capable 40 BULLETIN NO. 85. [June, of giving more milk and butter fat than the records show, if they had received a better ration. YEARLY RECORD OF BEST AND POOREST Cow IN HERD "F, " AND AVERAGE FOR ENTIRE HERD. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Butter, Ib. Best cow, Princess 7,817 3 35 262 305 Poorest cow, Mittie 3,461 3.19 110 128 Average record of entire herd . 5 846 3 32 194 227 Princess, the best cow, charged 33.5 cents to produce 100 pounds of milk, and 10 cents to make one pound of butter fat; and Mittie charged 62.3 cents to produce 100 pounds of milk, and 19.5 cents to make one pound of butter fat. The average cost of production was 42.9 cents to yield 100 pounds of milk, and 12.9 cents to make one pound of butter fat. Princess gave a profit of $32.63 and Mittie a profit of $2.75. The average profit for each cow in the dairy was $18.58. TABLE 12. SHOWING PROFIT FOR EACH Cow IN HERD "F" FOR ONE YEAR. GROUP 1. KEPT AT A PROFIT. Name of cow. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. of Gross butter, returns . Cost of feed. Net profit. Mittie . 3,461 8 3 19 110 54 128 96 $24 33 $21 58 $2.75 Ladv . 4,386 4 3 39 149 05 173 89 34 41 22 66 11 75 Joe's Bride . . 5,136.7 3 00 154 32 180 04 32.31 20.47 11.84 Loma 5,677 1 3 14 178 44 208 18 40 96 27.85 13.11 Bell . 5,050 2 3 61 182 56 212 98 38 89 23 94 14.95 Maid . 5979 1 3 34 200 12 233 47 44 22 26 27 17 95 GROUP 2. KEPT AT A FAIR PROFIT. Mutual . 5,586 5 3 25 181 82 212 12 i $41 07 $22.11 $18.96 Check . 6812 6 3 16 215 79 251 75 50 22 30 92 19 30 Maud 5,426 9 3 39 184 36 215.08 i 42.54 22.66 19.88 Zipsv 6,219 2 3 53 219 73 256.35 49.03 26.57 22.46 Echo . 6,039 6 3 66 221 16 258 02 50 03 27.52 22.51 1 GROUP 3. KEPT AT A GOOD PROFIT. Zur. 6,610 3 29 218 01 254 34 $49.58 $25.55 $24.03 Alfrida. 7,641 5 3 22 246 10 287 11 55 55 27.52 28.03 Princess. . . 7.817.4 3.35 262.28 305.99 58.88 26.25 32.63 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 41 TABLE 13. RECORD OF EACH Cow IN HERD " F" FOR ONE YEAR. GROUP 1. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 180 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. Name of cow. Age, Breed. Date of calving. Milk. Ib. ' Fat, Fat, Ib. Lb. of but- ter. Days in milk. Mittie 3 Holstein . 7-17-02 3,461 3.19 110 128 260 Lady 4 12- 1-01 4,386 3.39 149 173 300 Joe's Bride q 4- 5-02 5,136 3.00 154 180 275 Loma 1?! u 2-13-02 5,677 3.14 178 208 235 GROUP 2. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 205 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. Mutual ?, Holstein 11-18-01 j 5,586 3 25 181 212 315 Belle 3 5-28-02 5,050 3.61 182 212 302 Maud 3 12- 1-01 5,426 3 39 184 215 300 Maid .... 3 10- 9-01 5,979 3 34 200 233 330 GROUP 3. Cows YIELDING LESS THAN 275 LB. OF BUTTER FAT. Check 15 Holstein 1-23-02 6,812 3 16 215 251 252 Zur ?, a 1-31-01 6,610 3 29 218 254 305 Ziosv . 3 u 10-13-01 6,219 3 53 219 256 335 Echo ; . 4 u 10-11-01 6,039 3.66 221 258 334 Alfrida . 7 u 10-14-01 7641 3 22 246 287 336 Princess . 4 u 8-26-01 7,817 3 35 262 305 330 REPORT OF HERD " G. " There were only five cows in this herd at the beginning of the test and two of them were sold three months after the work began. The strange thing about the selling of these animals was that they were good cows, for they had averaged 1\ pounds of butter fat a week up to the time that they were disposed of. The herd was not well fed or cared for, but did a very fair year's work, notwithstanding. The cows were not kept in a comfortable barn, or one that was well cleaned. The dairy with this man was, so to speak, a sort of necessary evil. The amount of grain and roughage that each cow consumed during the year was not kept, so there is no feed account reported. TABLE 14. RECORD OF EACH Cow IN HERD " G" FOR ONE YEAR. Name of cow. Breed. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. of butter. Days in milk. Jersey Gr. Jersey 3 644 3 96 144 168 275 Mollie Native 3,930 3 94 155 180 210 Lucv . 7.021 3.94 277 323 280 42 BULLETIN XO. 85. [June. REPORT OF HERD "H." This herd consisted of eight native cows whose average weight was about 1,000 pounds. The cows were very ordinary animals and they did a very ordinary year's work. The most of them calved in March., and were dry by the first of November, the owner not trying to make milk in winter. The barn in which these cows were kept was very poor, being cold and poorly cared for. The stock was often exposed to cold, rain, and snowstorms, and the frozen snow and ice was often removed with brooms from the animals' backs. In March and April the cows received a small amount of bran and corn meal and about one pound of oil meal a day, with clover hay and corn stover. By May 15 the cows were turned into a pasture which was not very good, the greater portion of it being woods. They received in connection with pasturage about two pounds of bran a day, but this was not enough grain when the kind of pasture is considered. The latter part of July the cows were changed to a good clover pasture. TABLE 15. SHOWING RECORD OF Two Cows EVERY SEVENTH WEEK DURING THEIR PERIOD OF LACTATION. FANNY. Week ending. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Butter, Ib. March 31 192.4 3.2 6.16 7.18 May 19 142 4 4.3 6.12 7.14 July 7 84 3 4 3 37 3.93 August 25 7.0 6.9 .48 .56 LILY. May 19 171 3.9 6.67 7.78 Julv 17 99 3.5 3.47 4.04 August 25 123 9 3 6 4 46 5.20 October 27 . 75.2 4.1 3.08 3.59 These tables are good examples of the milk and butter fat yield of all the cows at different times during the test. They clearly show that the cows were not persistent milkers. The individuality of the cows, the poor care, and the poor feeding which they received, un- doubtedly caused the rapid decline in milk and butter fat production from one period to the next and their short period of lactation. The cows gave more milk and butter fat in the August test than they did in July. This was probably due to the fact that the cows were taken from a poor wood pasture the last of July and put into a good clover pasture. 1903.] RECORDS OF INDIVIDUAL COWS. 43 YEARLY RECORD OF BEST AND POOREST Cow IN HERD " H, " AND AVERAGE FOR ENTIRE HERD. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Butter, Ib. Best cow, Jessie 5,420 4.08 221 258 Poorest cow, Fanny 2,398 3.92 94 109 Average record of entire herd 3,852 4.02 155 180 TABLE 16. RECORD OF EACH Cow IN HERD " H" FOR ONE YEAR. Name of cow. Age, yr. Breed. Date of calving. Milk, Ib. Fat, % Fat, Ib. Lb. of but- ter. Days in milk. Fannv Native . . . 3-20-02 2,398 3.92 94 109 195 Lucv . ?, u 3-31-02 2,843 4.31 122 143 230 Bess . 4 u 2-20-02 3,895 3 70 144 168 240 Lily . ? u 3-25-02 3,937 3.80 149 174 225 Liza . 5 u 3-13-02 3,980 4 07 162 189 230 Reddie . 6 II l_2l_02 3 848 4 23 163 190 235 Belle 7 u 3_23_02 4,498 4 07 183 213 215 Jessie . . 8 It 3-22-02 5.420 4.08 221 258 216 It is perhaps well to compare the performance of eight of the poorest cows as well as eight of the best cows kept in different herds, and also compare the average production and profit of each herd tested. This is done to show the great differences, even among the poorest and best cows, and also the difference in production and profit between herds of cows kept upon the farms of Illinois. TABLE 17. COMPARING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE POOREST Cows KEPT IN DIFFERENT HERDS. Cow. Herd. Milk, Ib. Fat. % Lb. of butter. Net profit or loss. Cost of 100 Jb. of milk. Cost of 1 Ib. of fat. No. 37 'A" 1,482 3.97 68 $-*17.83 $2.07 52. 2c Harrison 'C" 2,721 3 96 126 - 1.27 .97 24. 6c Red Bird. 'B" 4 974 3 04 176 - 1 28 70 23 2c No. 44 D" 3,399 4 58 181 18 1 03 22 4c Mittie . .