Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1915-10-12
A Poor Choice.

A Poor Choice.
A ueighbor of mine was once looking
over my cows with the idea Of buyinl
one or two of them. My dairy wa.
made up Of grade Jerseys, but l happen
ed 10 have two or three Durham cows al
that time. made butter and my neigh
Dor sent his milk to creamery so thai
we both were keeping cows with the
some object iu view-butterfat produc-
tion. Sometimes we bought from and
sold cows to each other and We often
cOmPared notes.
My neighbor liked to have nice look,
ing cows in his dairy and do too, but
think more of utility than l do of fine,
physical appearance. Well, as l was 60
ing to say, We we're looking the cows
over and he was getting prices on each
one. We came to one of the Durhams
which seemed to please him. The COW
was in good condition, her bones didn't
show and she would not have looked
bad to cattle feeder. made a price
of SIS on this COW and We went on to
the next.
"what will you take for that skinny
thing?" be asked as he pointed to a
grade Jersey which looked better to me
| than 1t did to him.
told him it would take S175 to buy
that COW. She never had been fat and
could not get her so. Her hip bones
stuck out and 1 would have to admit
that she was an ungainly looking ami
NAL to cay the least. l told him the
COW bad a record Of slightly over four
hundred pounds of butter year while
the other cow only had record of about
$50 pounds.
NV friend was not so much interested
in the records as he should have been
and when he drove home that afternoon,
he led the Durham COW home, Civ
ing me his note for SIS. he seemed
well satisfied in being able to get so
mising a looking cow for so reason
able price. l was just as we'll salts
fed too, because l knew he had made a
poor choice.
That night / was looking over the re-
cords and found that il had cost me
about Sl2 more money for grain for the
cow had asked Sl75 for than for the
one bad sold my neighbor for hun
dred dollars less money. figured both
had eaten about the same amount OF hay
and siage, that it was about as much
work to feed and care for and milk the
one as the other, and that there was not
really much difference in the expense of
keeping the two cows.
What looked good to me in the grade
Jersey was her record of Ais pounds of
butter and the profitable daughters she
had in the dairy.
was getting 35 cents pound for
butter the year around from my city GUS
TONERS. The COW he bought would re-
turn about S79 in year. 1t took about
s72 of this for feed according to my
cards, leaving 81 for clear profit. The
other cow made me approximately Sl45
worth of butter year and the feed bill
was SS4. From this COW my profit was
s6l as compared with 81 from the COW
he chose. 10 other words, the COW ne
left was nearly niue times as profitable
as the one he Io0k. 1t would take his
cow about ten years to pay for herself in
butter alone, although she only cost S75.
The other cow at the same rate would
have paid for herself in butter in less
than three years, although she cost Sl75.
The COW he chose gave large flow of
milk when she was fresh, but my records
| showed that she had short milking
period. In six or seven months her
yields began to shrink and in about the
eighth month she would be dry. The
Jersey COW did not give so much at first
but she kept up her milk flow and would
continue to yield until calving time ii l
would let her. Her milking period was
between ten and eleven months and her
milk had higher test. She put her
feed into the milk pail and dollars into
the bank account. In buying COWS it is
an excellent idea not to make poor
choice like my neighbor did.-W. j.
Lawrence, Iowa, in Hoard's Dairyman.