Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1889-01-02
Warming Water for Feed.

cultural press and in the bulletins ofthe
experiment stations. The American
Rural Home has given the arguments in
favor of heating. They are these: the
normal vital temperature of animals is
about SO degrees Fahr.-WhiIe in cold
weather In winter the temperature OF
water is but just above the freezing
| point. Here is a difference of about
SO degrees. TO maintain the normal
temperature alter the introduction into
the stomach of several gallons of ice
cold water heavy draft is made upon
the vital heat of the system, and to re-
store the loss additional carbohydrates
and fats must be consumed.
Now 1T Is more economical to supply
the heat required to raise the temper
AZURE of the water to the temperature
OF the animal from coal worth FIVE or six
dollars ton, or from hay or cornmeal,
or oats. or bran, worth from SIS to $25 q
ton Reason would not hesitate to an
swer, from the cheaper fuel. But nu-
merous experiments have been institute
ed to test, practically, the correctness
OF the theory, and the results of these
experiments are not quite go decided
in favor of the coal as theory would
seem to indicate.
Last winter a test was made in the ex-
pertinent station Of the Agricultural
College of Michigan, conducted by Prof.
Samuel Johnson. and reported in BulIe-
tin No Al, for October The direct OBJ
ject Of the test was to determine how
milk and butter would be affected by
warm and cold water. The Holstein
cow, Mae, was chosen and the test be-
gan January 10Th, 1888.
For the first month the cow was fed
bran, ensilage and cornstalks. Half
the amount Of bran and ensilage, fed
daily, was given in the morning and the
remainder at night. The stalks were
fed at noon.
The second Mae WIS fed ensilage,
bran corn meal and ground oats, mixed
the daily ration was divided into two
feeds, while hay was fed at noon.
The first week and every alternate
week during the test, water warmed
go degrees Fair. was given to the cow
to drink. On the second week and al
ternating weeks Of cold water was given
her.
Mae was watered at 7 A. NJ. and 5 P.
NJ. every day during the test.
The temperature WAS taken each dav
at 5 A. NJ.
During the first week Mae was given
water at so degrees temperature and
consumed a daily average of 5 pounds
Of bran, 81 pounds of ensilage, ~
pounds of cornstalks, and drank an
average of rs At pounds of water. She
gave daily average of 43 pounds of
milk and made an aggregate of 10
pounds 5 ounces of butter For
three days of the week the temperature
ranged from 10 degrees to 20 degrees
below zero and four days it ranged from
zero to II degrees above.
On the second week she drank cold
water and consumed daily average of
pounds of bran, so pounds ensilage. 9
Al pounds cornstalks, 56 Al pounds of
cold water; gave IL 3-14 pounds of milk
and aggregated for the milk 9 pounds
Is ounces of butter. One day the tenn
perature was Is degrees below zero, the
other six days it ranged from degrees
to 20 degrees above zero. Here there
was little less consumption of stalks
and tride falling off in milk and but
ter, and very material rise in the ex-
ternal temperature. Probably much
less of the food was consumed in sus-
tanning the cows temperature than dur
ing the first week. Had the temper
ature the two weeks been equal the ex-
pertinent would have been more salts
factory.
The third week she consumed an av-
erage of pounds of bran, As 81 pounds
of ensilage, 10 81 pounds of cornstalks,
drank 81 At pounds of warm water and
gave 1867 pounds of milk and an ag-
gregate of 8 pounds IA ounces of butter.
The temperature ranged from degrees
to "a degrees above zero.
On the fourth week she consumed 5
pounds of bran, 40 AZ pounds OF ensi-
lage, 10 2-7 pounds of cornstalks, drank
81 pounds OF cold water, gave 80 1914
pounds of milk and aggregated Z
pounds II ounces of butter. The tenn
perature for five days ranged from 10
degrees to 20 degrees below zero and
for two days "a degrees and 80 degrees
above. These four weeks OF trial GER
tainly do not show saving enough in
feed or gain enough In milk or butter,
to compensate for trouble and expense
of warming the water. Nor does the
trial for the next four weeks give any
more satisfactory results. We append
Prof. Johnson's summary:
A study of the tables shows that the
milk and butter product was but little
affected by the temperature of the water
drank.
In the two last weeks of the test the
balanceis in favor of cold water. The
amount of butter made the last week on
than the preceding week when warm
water was given the cow.
This holds true in no other case,
there being slight balance in favor of
warm water during the entire period.
The week when more butter was pro-
duced was the use of cold water, 163
pounds less of milk was given than DUR
ing the previous week when warm wa
ter was drank.
In the total results there is a balance
in favor of warm water, there having
been As 1-2 pounds more of milk pro-
dr. ced during the entire period when
warm water was given than during the
period cold water was drank.
The balance in favor of warm water,
in tutter product, is 10 ounces.
This would indicate a greater rela-
tive gain in milk by the use of warm
water, than in butter.
Mae drank 534 pounds more of warm
water than of cold. IT, as is usually
conceded. the amount of water drank
increases the flow of milk, the last fig
ures favor warm water.
The results are not as pronounced in