The Kendrick gazette. [volume] (Kendrick, Idaho) 1892-1968, 1917-11-30

prepared by the United States Depart
ment of Agriculture0
The percentage Of butter fat in milk
cannot be determined from the appear
ance of the COW and it cannot be
changed greatly by care or feeding.
Good care and feeding increase the
quantity of milk given by the COW,
hence the total butter fat produced is
increased. The percentage Of butter
fat, however, remains fairly constant
for each individual, except that varia-
tons may occur with the period of lac
tation, the first and last parts of the
milking, and the age of the COW.
Calculation Of Records.
The daily weights of milk produced
by each COW are added and the total
for the month multiplied by the per-
centage of butter fat in the milk to
obtain the amount of butter fat pro-
duced during the month. For exam
pie, the COW Fannie gave 1,105.6
pounds of milk in January. 1915, and
it tested 40 per cent. Then 1,105.6 x
40 per cent =54.17 pounds of butter
fat.
The next step is the calculation of
the value of the butter fat which in
this case was 35 cents per pound. Thus
Fannie produced 54.17 pounds of but
ter fat, worth $1S96. Similar calcu-
lations are made for the other cows
and entered on the milk sheet.
The value of the skim milk is deter
mi, co1a :, fh< y;
30 per cent of the whole milk and Civ
ing it a value of 25 cents per 100
pounds. Thus, Fannie is credited with
eS4 pounds of skim milk, which is so
per cent of 1,1O5.6, worth 1921.
The value of the skim milk is added
to the value of the butter fat, and the
total cost of the feed consumed is
deducted to obtain the profit over the
cost of the feed. Thus Fannie's but
ter fat vas worth $1S96, and the skim
milk, 1921, total of SPLIT. Deduct
ing the cost of her feed, 1873, leaves
1884 profit in January. This COW has
a good dairy conformation, we'll
shaped udder, and good barrel capac-
lty, indicating that she can turn large
quantities of roughage into milk.
Diamond, No. 81, shows a profit of
1924 or only about half as much as
Fannie. We must, take into consid-
Grafton, however, the fact. that Fannie
had but recently freshened. while Did-
mond was well along in her lactation
period.
Diana, No. 81, shows a much
smaller profit, namely. $3.O1, although
she produced within pounds of the
quantity of milk produced by Diamond.
This is due to the fact that her milk
tested IA per cent less, which made a
difference of Z pounds Of butter fat
for the month, and that she consumed
more feed than Diamond.
Pet, No. 81, produced only 451 pounds
Of milk. but it tested Sc per cent, max
ing 25.2S pounds of butter fat. She
ate less, so that her feed cost was
1913 as compared with $40 for
Diana. With high percentage of but
ter fat in her milk, and a smaller
quantity of feed consumed, her profit
was $4.61 for the month.
Myrtle was near the end of her lac
tation period, so that her feed cost
milk produced. She has poor dairy
conformation and judged only by her
January record might have been elm
mated from the herd. It must be
noted, however, that she was nearly
dry. During the year she never pro-
1ncca g very large Quantity of milk at
milking, but she was a persistent
mixer, so that in profit over cost Of
feed she stood second in the herd.
Ellen was dried off early in the
month, and although the cost of her
feed was only S2.72, her loss for the
month was $1.41. She is more of a
beef than dairy type. and her record
four months and produced only 1886
pounds Of butter fat.
Blanche freshened the latter part of
the month and showed loss of u
cents. Fer profit for the year was
only $19.45, owing to her low produc-
don and to the large quantity of feed
she consumed.
These records clearly show that one
months record is not sufficient evil
dence to condemn COW, for the low
production may be due to advanced
lactation (the COW may be nearly dry,
illness, lack Of proper feed (the pas
ture may have dried up), etc. Too Of.
ten the results shown on the record
sheet fail to confirm the judgment OF
the owner.
Yearly Records.
Every month throughout the year