The progressive farmer., 1901-11-26
NEWS OF THE FARMING WORLD.

For some time, the Department of
Agriculture has been conducting an
exhaustive series of experiments,
both in the laboratory and on the
farm into
THE QUESTION OF FEEDING STOCK.
1t has now reached pretty def
mite conclusion on most of the points
involved and is preparing bull etin
which will be issued in a few weeks,
setting forth the results in detail.
The IDEA in every case has been to
decide which foods give the best re
suits at the lowest cost, the problem
of course being varied as the animals
vary, what is best for one kind of
stock not being best for another, and
what Is best for an animal when
young differing from what is best
when full grown, and this differing
again from what it should have
when giving milk, for instance, or
sucking it's young. There are also
differences due TO season and climate.
To supply food in the right proper
tiOn to meet the various require
ments of the animal, without waste
of food nutrients, constitutes scien-
titic feeding. 1t is by carefully study
ing the composition of feeding stuff4,
the proportions in which they are
digested by different animals and
under different conditions, and the
requirements of anima's for the
various food nutrients when at rest,
at work, giving milk, producing
wool, mutton, beef, pork, etc., that
the principles of feeding have been
worked out. The body of an animal
is made up of water, minerals, fat,
nitrogen in varying proportions.
Food stuffs also contain these four
substances, also in varying proper
tiOns. The problem is 80 supply an
animal with food from which it can
obtain by digestion these four things
in the exact proportions which should
exist in it's own body under the par.
ticular circumstances under which
it is then living. From which it
can obtain these proportions, not
(which contain these proportions,
for many foods rich in essential mat
ters are less dig gestlble than others
which are poorer 1t is not what is
eaten but what is dlgested that
counts. Then, too, the amount of
heaB or energy produced by each
food must be taken into considera
ton.
The problem is thus one of infinite
detail that cannot be gone into in let-
ter. One illustration, however, may
be quoted from the bulletin as fol
lows: cat the Kansas Experiment.
Station herd of 20 common scrub
COWS, which we're below the average
COWS of the State, we're tested to see
what could be made of them by
proper feeding and handling. The
average annual yield of milk per COW
under such conditions was 5,707
pounds, the poorest COW giving 1858
pounds, and the averOge yield of
butter fat was 238 pounds, the poor
est COW giving 135 pounds. The
yield of the butter fat was 238
pounds, the poorest COW giving 1876 z
pounds. The value of the butter fat
aged $3775 per GOV. To com
pare this with the conditions in the
State, the records we're collected of
81 herds in one of the leading dairy
sections. Tne average annual yield
was found 80 be 3, AL pounds of
milk per COW, and 1O4 5 pounds Of
butter fat, the value of which was
$I9. we attribute the greater yield
secured from the common scrub herd
to three causes: First, at all times
their rations we're either balanced or
contained an excess Of protein
material which builds blood and
miIk-while the Kansas cow usually, |
when on dry feed, has only half
enough protein. Second, kindness
and shelter. Our scrub COWS we're |
petted, oUmforta oily sheltered, never
driven faster than u SLOW walk, and
never spoken 80 in an unkind tone.
Third, d full milk yield was secured
through she summer drought by
giving extra feed -
Again: 'Tne average gross return
for ali common COWS as the Minnesota
Station, which are no better than
the average cow for Minnesota, was
valued at $44.53 per cOw. The aver
spe gross return to farmers of the !