Mountain Home Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1915-1946, 1917-10-27

ment of Agriculture)
The percentage of butter fat In mill
cannot be determined from the appear
changed greatly by care or feeding
Good care and feeding increase thu
quantity of milk given by the COW
hence the total butter fat produced ii
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 ths
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
1t 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 $18.96. Similar calcu-
lations are made for the other cows
and entered on the milk sheet.
The value of the skim milk is deter
mined by calculating the skim milk as
30 per cent of the whole milk and CIV
ing 1t a value of Is cents per 100
pounds. Thus, Fannie Is credited with
384 pounds of skim milk, which is so
per cent Of 1866, 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 was worth $780, and the skim
milk, 1921, total of SPLIT. Deduct
Ing the cost of her feed, 1888, leaves
$13.34 profit in January. This COW has
a good dairy conformation, we'll
shaped udder, and good barrel capac-
ity, indicating that she can turn large
quantities Of roughage into milk.
Diamond, No. 81, shows 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 Dia-
mond was well along In her lactation
period.
Diana, No. 81, shows much
smaller profit, namely, $301 although
she produced within pounds of the
quantity of milk produced by Diamond.
This Is due to the fact that her milk
tested ID per cent less, which made
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 1t tested Sc per cent, max
ing 1928 pounds of butter fat. She
ate less, so that her feed cost was
$5.13 as compared with $7.40 for
Diana. With a high percentage of but
ter fat in her milk, and q 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
was $1.55 more than the value of the
milk produced. She has poor dairy
conformation and judged only by her
January record might have been elm
mated from the herd. 1t must be
noted, however, that she was nearly
dry. During the year she never pro-
duced very large quantity Of milk at
a milking, but she was 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 $2.72, her loss for the
was $1.41. She is more of a
beef than dairy type, and her record
for the year shows that she was dry
four months and produced only 1886 |
pounds Of butter fat.
Blanche fresheped the latter part Of |
the month and showed a loss Of 70 |
cents. Her profit for the year was
only $19.45 owing to her low produc-
ton and to the large quantity Of feed
she consumed.
These records clearly show that one
record is not sufficient evil
1ence to condemn COW, for the low
production may be due to advanced
Iactation (the COW may be nearly dry),
Illness, lack Of proper feed (the pas
+ure may have dried up), etc. Too Of
Ten the results shown on the record
sheet fail to confirm the judgment OF
he owner.
Yearly Records.
Every month throughout the year