The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1897-06-16
The Effect of Ensilage on the Flavor
of MILK. --.Some other Things
Also Considered.

Ddtrymdn TWO questions in particular,
which somehow seem to have gotten
very strong hold in the average dairy
mans mind. These are: "Will the
feeding of eusiage produce bad fla
vor in the butter2" End: "The Bah
cock test at our creamery shows con-
siderable variation from day to day in
the per cent of fat in my milk. / feed
my cows just the same one day with
another, and this variation looks to me
as if the creamery operator was dis
honest, or else the test is not reliable.
What is the truth about this?"
These questions we have repeatedly
answered TO the effect that ensilage
was Just as safe to feed, so far as its
effects on the butter was concerned, as
any other feed, and also that it was q
constitutional matter with the COW day |
after day to vary in the fat content of |
her milk, and no one has yet been able |
to say why.
Speaking of this question, Prof. j.
W. Robertson, of Canada, we'll says:
eff COW is getting food which is
insufficient for nourshing her body, her
body will find for itself first, and use
the surplus only for the production of
milk. The COW is not constituted 80
that she can transfer wholly to another
what she needs for herself, although
cow motherhood can go long way in
that direction.
"Corn ensilage and hay are both an
incomplete ration for milking cows.
They will live on it, but will not be
thoroughly nourished In all parts, and
the milk from such foods is not the
milk of normal strength. If you add
wheat bran or cottonseed meal or oil
cake to the corn ensilage, you can get
as perfect food, and well-havored milk
as any person can desire. The i'm
provement is not by leaving the ensil-
age out, but adding something to it to
make a complete ration.
If the feeding of ensilage made bad
milk, the milk from three thousand
silos in the country would be bad.
(There is estimated to be double that
number of silos in Wisconsin alone
ED. DAIRYMAN.)
The fact that unsatisfactory milk
from ensilage-fed cows is the exception,
proves that the ensilage is not the
cause. If you change the food of q
cow quickly, you interfere with the
action of the organs that make the
milk; but it does not necessarily follow
that by changing the composition of
the cows feed, you make the milk
richer or poorer.
1--WE have COWS, which by actual
test have given milk testing 3 per cent
of fat at one time, and within twenty
four hours have given milk testing 4.75
per cent fat. By some means the action
of the organs that make the milk had
become affected. We put twenty-five
cows into three rows as nearly equal as
possible as to breed, time of calving
and weight. All got the same bulky
fodder ration.
"We gave the COWS of one row four
pounds of mixed meal per head per day.
The cows of the next row got the same
bulky-fodder ration and seven pounds Of
meal per head per day. The third row
of COWS received the same bulky-fodder
ration as the others and four pounds of
meal per head per day, for the first
fortnight, five pounds of meal per day
for the next fortnight, six the next,
seven the next, eight the next, nine
the next, ten the next, eleven the next,
and twelve the next, or an increase of
one pound of meal per head per day
every two weeks. With the last row of
cows you would expect the milk to be
richer, because the quality of the food
was progressively richer. AS matter
of fact, if we judge by one weeks test,
the milk may be richer from the in
crease of meal, but taking the results
for five months, the milk of these cows
which received the richer ration was
not richer than the milk of the other
cows. 1t increased in quantity, but the
composition had not been changed APP
preciably in five months by richer feed.
We took up the test the next year and
after making some twenty thousand
tests of milk, came to this conclusion,
that the composition of feed as to rich
ness in meal does not alter the percen-
tage of the constituents of the milk.
If a COW does not receive enough feed
to keep her in good health, she will
drop off in yield of milk, but the quail
ity of the milk depends on the nature
of the COW, and the quantity of the
milk upon how she is fed"
Now, let us ask few questions of
those who say they believe differently
from the foregoing.
Has any man among them ever taken
careful and systematic course to find
out the truth of these matters?
Has any one OF these skeptics made
10000 tests, or divided twenty-five cows
into separate rows, and for weeks and
months fed them so as to know where
of he believes and speaks?
Is it not about time that the great
body of farmers who keep cows of all
sorts, good, bad and Indifferent, and
that, too, with all kinds of COW ideas,
feeding ideas, and stable ideas, we
SAYS it not about time that they paid
some respect to the patient, pains-tak-
ing work of long time experimenters,
like Prof. Robertson?
But there are lot OF men, who are
keeping cows, who have never spent
an hour in all their lives in an attempt
to know for themselves the truth of
one theory or another. These men are
the hardest to convince concerning en-
silage, the value of dairy breeding, and
the science of feeding. They don't be-
lieve this and they don't believe that
And why should theyp They have not
enterprise enough to experiment and