The Columbus journal., 1898-10-12

When all factors are taken into ae.
count. It can easily be seen that a
possible effect Of the food en ihs milk
must be reduced to 4 very small pro-
portion indeed, writes P. Mcconnell in
Agricultural Gazette. England. It Is
OF course acknowledged that the
amount of food. and the richness of
the same, influence the quantity Of the
milk, and that this influence is imme.
diate, and it has been shewn that the
nature Of the feed has q very great
influence on the percentage OF cream
which eAn be taken on milk By the
old dat pan system, or the proportion
OF butter which caH be made out OF
given quantity Of milk. by even the
most modern appliances; but this in
huence operates actually, without in
fluencing the Ansfysis OF the milk it.
self. The amount of cream thrown up
6n milk is such misleading guide
that 1t has long ago been given up in
the milking tests Of the British Bair.
Farmers Association, and ws now de-
pend Oh An analysis alone. while
:Ames1cSh experiments have shown
that in the amount Of butter which can
be recovered from a given quantity Of
milk there may be variation ct as
much as so per cent, depending on the
nature Of the food given, while all the
while the analyses Of two differing
milks may be approximately alike; In
other words, as have often explained
before, the "risibility" OF the cream
ami the "churnability" Of the same
are largely influenced by the nature OF
the food. while the chemical analysis
Of the milk Is not Influenced at all. or
only to q slight degree. or temporarily.
The whole question, to my mind,
harrows itself down to one point: CIV
en- that the proper average food for
cow weighing 1000 pounds is 70
pounds OF dry matter. having an albu-
minoid ratio OF 1:5.5, can whilst
still maintaining the 25 pounds OF total
solids-by alternating the albuminoid
ratio also alter the proportion of fat
In the milk? That is to say. II feed
a COW in the proportion OF 1:6. as
against Ia, do make corresponding
difference in the percentage Of butter
fat in the milk yielded? say no. My
opponents say yes. In reply I ask for
evidence that my statement is wrong,
and, hitherto. none has been forthcom-
ing. The only experiments carried out
in this country bearing on this partic-
ular point that are of any importance,
% far a. I know, are these OF Mr..
Spier, az detailed ih the Transactions
Of the Highland and Agricultural So
ciety OF Scotland, and they decidedly
bear out my contention. On the other
hand, hundreds, perhaps may say
thousands, Of experiments have been
carried out In America by many agri-
cultural colleges and experimental sta
tions, and Professor Henry, in his re-
cent work. sums UP the results in IA
vor Of my contention. The Vernon
experiments, carried out by Mr.. Lloyd
some ten years ago. did not bear on
this point at oil, and, indeed, were
carried out for another purpose alto
gether. but, incidentally, prove my
theory. Further, this theory was enun-
ciated by Kuhn, in Germany, more
than five and twenty years ago. while
it is now eight years since I first got
my faith shaken in the old belief, and
had to reconstruct my creed in the
matter. I am open to accept evidence
on the point. when such il forthcom-
ing, but all the evidence known to me
ON this point of any value bears out
my theory. The point is OF great prac-
tical importance, because it is known
and acknowledged that the altuminoid
r.aterial In the food goes directly to
the production Of fat in the milk, and,
as albuminoid material is the dearest
kind Of food that We can buy in the
market, II We can reduce the amount
necessary to keep cow In full bearing
condition, we are reducing the cost of
her feeding; as when We substitute
such cheaper foods as maize meal, mid
dlings and 60 on.
Some one may suggest that, If an an
final getting food in the proportion Of
1:6 Is doing well enough, why not re-
duce 1t to ITO or more. or, II the ami
NAL yields richer milk by getting Ia,
why not increase it by 1:2. The reply
is, that when you depart, either up
or down, too far away from the aver
age standard, you introduce new fac
tor. namely. the health of the animal;
and this, itself. will have a great in
fuence on the quality as we'll as the
quantity of milk. II the food is ex-
cessfveiy rich. or excessively poor, the
digestive organs of the COW will be
upset, and dietetic diseases CT various
sorts. such as indigestion, bile, and
even hunger, show themselves. and
these directly affect the milk yield.
One does not break with the beliefs
OF his youth very easily, and l have
been hard to convince, myself, that
the quality of the milk did not directly
depend on the quality Of the food: but
when all the experiments that have
actually been tried on the point bear
out the new theory, and when all the
ordinary beliefs of the practical man
can be explained away under one or
ether Of the above influences, and
when no experiments are forthcoming
which actually do prove this alleged
influence on the milk. then l am bound
to come to the conclusion that the
quality Of the food, by itself alone, has
little or nothing to do with the quail
ity Of the milk.
Dorking and Indian Game Cross,
do not think 1t matters in the least
what hens are selected from the Dor
kins for breeding table fowls SO long
as they are Of good shape and are n