The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1898-12-13
CONCLUDED FROM PAGE 1

q variety of grains were ted-WheSt
and bran, barley and bran, barley,
peas and bran, corn and bran, ard
corn. No particu az difference was
noted in the efficiency of either. The
calves Usually started to eaF a little
grain when from 8 TO 5 weeks Of age.
If when first given to them they did
not eat the grain up clean, it was al
ways renewed in two or three days.
The COWS or hogs never refused what
the calves left.
After the calves were 2 or 3 e
old a little hay, as a rule lucerne, was
kept before them and renewed tre-
uuently, they soon learned to eat it.
By following the method above out
lined, feeding the milk warm, and not
in too large quantities, and making all
changes of food gradually, we have
managed to keep the calves in good
health, and have been troubled but
little with scours, which result from
indigestion. The few cases that we
have had yielded readily to treatment.
A small handful of -four stirred in the
milk we have found excellent as a cor
receive, or, better still, a couple OF tea
spoonfuIs of rennet extract In the milk
for a few days. If neglected indiges-
ton may work permanent injury TO
the calf.
The above method of feeding had
two objects in view; first, to raise the
calves cheaper than on the whole milk,
and second, to better develop the heiter
calves into good dairy COWS.
For the latter purpose it is better
to give bulky foods that will develop
the digestive organs and at the same
time keep the calf growing. In this
particular the experiments were re-
markably successful. The thrifty ap
pearance of these heifers was always
remarked by visitors.
The calves were weighed once a week,
and the feed given and that left I'm
eaten were weighed as each feeding
and all recorded.
The daily gains we're rather remark
able, considering the sizes OF the AMI
mals-14 to nearly 24 pounds per day
but the small amount Of digestible
nutriment required to make a pound
of gain was still more remarkable
from II to 1t pounds of digestible dry
matter in the food producing one pound
Of gain.
1t took 81 pounds of whole milk to
make one pound of gain, and II pounds
of the mixed milk C84 pounds sktmmilk
and 81 pounds Of whole milk) to make
one pound of gain. In either csse 1t
would seem that the milk was com
pletely digested and about all of it's
nutriments used by the body.
When the calves sold at 3 &c 4 cents
per pound, live weight, the whole milk
fed to them brought 31B to Az cents
per 100 pounds, and the skImmItk
brought II to 20 cents per 100 pounds.
Bat the butter in the whole milk used
BY each calf was worth, at 16 cents per
pound. 81 90. This would make q loss
of 81 80 GO 50 Is on eacn calf fed whole
milk, as compared with ekimmiik.
Prot. Linfield says: Our expert
ments in feeding whey to calves were
limited. We found, however, that
after the calf was three months old e
large proportion of the skimmilk could
be replaced by fresh whey with appar
emily NJ difference in the growth Of
the calf. We are planning to DO more
work in this line"
Following are Prof. Liufield's COR
illusions from these calf feeding tests:
l Calves may be raised very profit
ably on skimmijk when it is properly
fed.
2. From the standpoint OF gain in
live weight and quality of meat, whole
milk ia the best food for calves, but it
makes too expensive a ration to be
~prohtably fed. Butter fat has been
worth 16 cents a pound. The gain / n
live weight of these calves at 4 cents
per pound returns but 10 z Genus per
pound for the butter fat fed and eg 3
Genus per pound for the gain but 8
cents per pound.
8. The calves whose rations we're
composed largely of skimmilk, while
they gained one half pound less per
day, yet required practically the same
amount of dry matter to each pound
of gain as did those fed on whole milk;
they made just as good use of the food.
4. The calves fed whole milk alone
gave a greater proportion of dressed
meat to live weight than did those fed
on skimmilk, and also gave more fat
on the carcass.