Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1881-02-25
Which, Large or Small Cows.

A CLOSE scrutiny of all the circum-
stances attending a business and minute
calculation of the expenses, will very
often change the result from the credit
to the debtor side of the ledger. 1t may
never have occurred to many men en-
gagged in dairying, or in many other
kinds of business, that they count the
GROSS results as profits, never having
figured closely the expenditures. A
COW, for instance, produces three hun
dred and twenty-five pounds of butter
year, and her owner is tempted to
Jump to the conclusion that she is
more profitable animal for the dairy
than his neighbours COW, which pro-
duces only two hundred and twenty
five pounds of butter year. If his eX-
perience in such matters is limited, he
will almost certainly do this, Should
he, however, take the trouble to thor
oughly observe all the circumstances
that bear uporf the two cases, and to
calculate the outgoes necessary to pro-
duce the results which are compared,
he will very often find that there is less
profit in his three hundred and twenty
five pounds of butter than there is in
his neighbor's two hundred and twenty
five pounds. His cow may be so much
larger than his neighbours cow that the
extra food necessary to sustain the ex-
ira weight will make very large hole
in the profits. Up to the point at which
profits in dairy point of view, are
equal, it seems that it would be rea-
sonable to prefer large animal, and
our own preferences have always been
in that direction. But there can be no
shadow of doubt that there is a limit,
and that when that is passed the large
COW ceases to possess any advantage
over small one. .r.a.
Two or three years ago Professor B.
Arnold had an article in the New York
Tribune, on this subject and his calcu-
lations are interesting. or course he
was writing more particularly for pro-
fessional dairymen, who bend their en-
ergies to the production of the dairy
articles, and bestow little thought upon
the question of beef. 1t matters not
whether such course is the part of
wisdom or not, it is fact that men are
apt to entertain but single purpose in
any undertaking, and they push for
ward to the accomplishment of that to
the neglect of other things which are
properly part of their business. The
question of beef enters into the calcu-
lation in some degree, even in the reg
ular dairy, but with the farmer it enters
very largely into it. However, let us
see what Professor Arnold has to say.
He takes two cows, one weighing 1,200
pounds and the other weighing 800
pounds, live weight, and being fed on
the same kind of food and giving milk
of the same quantity and quality. Start
ing now with the rule that it requires
one pound of hay a day for every fifty
pounds of live weight, rs the necessary
amount to keep the animal in uniform
condition, he of course reaches the re-
suit at the expiration of ten years
average period of usefulness of dairy
cows-that it has taken LAG tons of hay
to maintain 400 pounds of live weight
which was not necessary for the pro-
duction of milk. Then counting the
hay at seven dollars ton the cost of
sustaining this weight is ten dollars and
twenty-five cents year, or SlO2.2O for
the ten years. " If this valuation is
not satisfactory" says Professor Arnold,
:" the reader may figure for himself and
see how long he can maintain extra live
weight before it will eat up its value in
the cost of maintainance and bring it
self into debt" The time he thinks
would not extend much beyond one year.
This is probably rs fair presentation
| of the matter as could be made, and yet
for the general farmer, size or beef, we
repeat, is something of an object, and
to certain limit may enter into the
question of milk. butter and cheese
without damaee e. Western Rural. ''