The Globe-republican., 1897-07-08

low 1001vb00011Bvs
At our experiment station, during
the past four or i've years, 1 have de-
voted nearly all Of my time to one sub
1ect, and that Is cost Of production.
l started out in this work in a sort of
general way, thinking perhaps We
could get some information that would
show the farmer what it would cost to
make a pound Of butter. Fortunately,
We had a very mixed herd at st. An
thOny Park. It was composed Of vari-
Gus breeds of cattle and various types.
The work was carried on for one year.
weighing every ration before it was
given to the COW. and then making a
record Of that ration. When the COW
was MIXED. the milk was weighed and
tested for fat, which you see involved a
great deal of work. After tits work
had been carried ON for one year, some
very curious facts began to make their
appearance. We compared the HOl-
stems with the Jerseys, the Short
horns with the Guernseys and the ma
tives. and tried in that way to get
some results as to what was the best
breed; and what was the result? Sim
ply this: The figures show that certain
cows of any one breed would produce
much better results than others of the
same breed under exactly the same
conditions; so nothing satisfactory re-
suited from this comparison. After the
years work was completed, and
noted this peculiar variation between
the different cows, the question arose.
why does this COW produce butter for
8 cents while that one charges us lS
cents? Why does this Holstein pro-
duce butter for 8 cents. while the other
Holstein charges us 17s cents? Why
does this Short-horn produce butter
for 12.2 cents. while another Short
horn charges US 1872 cents? Instead OF
pursuing this course further, We adopt
ed another plan, making two divisions
OF the herd, putting the cows that
charged the most for butter on one
side, and those that charged least for
butter on the other. On the one side
were Short-horns, Jerseys, Guernseys.
Holsteins and natives; and The same
was the case on the other side. We
found that the cows that had ten
dency to lay on flesh, gave on an
average 267 pounds of butter fat per
annum at cost of 1873 cents per
pound, while the spare cows in the
other group gave ON an average 1857
pounds of butter fat at a cost of 11.6
cents per pound. l also observed that
some in the group of spare COWS did
not do as we'll as others as to the
amount of both butter yield and the
cost OF production. Examining the
beefy group, | noticed similar varia-
tons. and, after carefully comparing
the record of each animal in the herd
with the annual yield ard cost Of feed,
| noticed that the greater the inclina-
ton TO lay on flesh, the greater was the
cost of butter production. To further
carry on investigation in this line and
have it cover period when an exact
record could be kept of all feed coz.
sumed by each COW, an accurate zee
ord was kept during the winte: Of the
amount and kind OF food consumed by
each COW and the amount of milk ard
butter fat produced. In summing up
the winters work, variations similar
to those observed in the yearly rec
ord were noticed; this is, that as 4 gen.
eral result, the COW with beefy ten
dency was shown to be less protta Die
than the spare COW, but there were
variations in each group, and the next
point to be solved was why this varia-
ton. l found that the dairy value OF
COW was not in every instance meas
ured by her tendency, or lack of ten
dency, TO lay on flesh, but that there
were other conditions bearing On the
problem. By this time We had lost all
interest in breeds and breed tests, for
we began to see the question OF eco
butter production involved
principles underlying and
governing animal nutrition.-Prof. I.
L. Hacker.