Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1877-07-11
WOODSTOCK, yIRGaldciency of this

wv
VIRGdfficiency OF this
->not well be over-estimated.
Practical Dairy Husbandry
says forcibly on this subject, that every
practical dairyman must have observed
how rapidly COWS shrink of their milk
in hot, dry weather, when water is
scarce and the animals do not get their
usual supply. But although in such
cases the cause Of milk falling OF is
traced to its true, source, many forget to
take hint from such observation in
their management Of mich stock dur
ing the summer and fall. Cows, Of
course, will live where the daily supply
of water is limited. and by yielding a
less quantity of milk, they adapt them
selves to the circumstances under which
they are placed. And if water is not
abundant, or is situated in out-of-the-
way places, where it is not easy of
access, the ANIMALS soon educate them
selves to get along with a much less
quantity than they would were it plac-
ed before them in abundance. Up to a
certain point, the animal will accommo.
date herself without complaint to the
conditions, and it often happens that
because COWS show no very marked
uneasiness or falling off in flesh, it is
supposed they get all the water they
require, when, in point Of fact, they are
taking only a limited supply. Herds
thus situated do not yield large returns.
The fault is not in the cows, but in their
management. Now, mich COWS should
rather be induced to take all the water
they will, and at no time should they
be allowed to suffer for thirst. A cow
that gives large quantity Of milk,
must of necessity require more water,
other things being equal, than the cow
that gives only small quantity of
milk; for we must remember that of
the constituents Of milk, eighty-seven
parts Or there-about are water.
To what extent the quantity of milk
can be increased and at the same time
a good quality be secured, by inducing
the animal to take an abundant quanti-
ty Of liquid, is still question undeter-
mined, but that milk of good quality
can in this manner be increased and
without injury to the animal, there is |
not the slightest doubt. Upon this
point we have some interesting
experiments by N. Dancel, as COM
municated to the French Academy oil
Sciences. He found that by melting
COWS to drink large quantities of water, |
the quantity of milk yielded by them
can be increased several quarts per day
without materially injuring its quality. |
The amount of milk obtained, he says.
IS approximately proportionated to the
quantity OF water drank. Cows, which, |
when Stalled with dry fodder, gave
only from nine to twelve quarts of milk
per day, at once produced from twelve
to fourteen quarts daily, when their
food was moistened by mixing with it !
from eighteen to twenty-three quarts Of
water per day. Besides this water
taken with the food, the animals were
allowed to drink at the same intervals
as before, and their thirst was excit-
ed by adding to their fodder small
quantity of salt. The milk produced
under the water regimen, after having
been carefully analysed as to its chemi-
cal.and physical properties, was adiudg-
ed to be of good quality, and excellent
butter was obtained from it.
The precise proportion of water which
can thus be given to cows with advan-
tage, he says, is point not readily
deter;ninable, since the appetite for
drink differs very considerably in differ
ent animals. But by observing the
degrees of the appetite for drink in a
number of COWS, by taking note of the
quantity ofwater habitually consumed
by each OF the animals in the course of
twenty-four hours, and contrasting this
quantity with that ofthe milk produced,
Mr.. Dancel asserts that any one can
see that the yield of milk is directly
proportionate to the quantity of water
absorbed. He asserts, moreover, that
COW that does not habitually drink as
much as twenty-seven quarts of water
per day-and he has met with such-is
actually and necessarily a poor mixer.
She will give only from FIVE and a half
to seven quarts ofmilk per day. But
all the cows he has seen which drank
as much as fifty quarts of water daily,
were excellent mixers, yielding from
nineteen to twenty-three quarts of
milk. In his opinion the quantity of
drink consumed by COW is valuable
test of her worth as milk producer.
Now, whether the differences drawn
by Dancel from his experiments be
strictly true in any particular or ap-
plicable in all cases, need not be dis
cussed for the present, but they illus
trate in some degree, at least, facts
familiar to practical men. The most
common observer must have taken
note that in the human family the
mother sucking her infant requires
and consumes more liquids than she
did before Or after her period of nursing.
And the practical dairyman must have
been dull indeed if he has not observed
the difference in the appetite of COWS
for water before and after they have
begun to give milk. The lesson which
practical dairyman should learn from