Putnam patriot., 1919-12-05
COUNTY AGRICULTURAL AND
 FARM BUREAU NEWS

chester of the Connecticut Agricul- tural College in securing cost of milk
 production figures. The following ar- ticle by Mr Manchester discussing comparative feed costs, should be of inte est to dairymen.
 Some farm figures were recently secured in eastern Connecticut for Massachusetts commission which ques- toned whether the price of milk was net too high. The commission was sat isfied that the price gave the farmers no more than a fair return. The men who secured the figures ran across some contrasts that seemed to them significant.
 One of the most striking facts brought out was that among the dairy men of Holland and Windham coun- ties there is great difference in the amount of grain fed to cows. A state ment of the practice in three herds of Ayrshire cows of similar quality will serve to illustrate this:
 The columns of figures are: Herd, Lbs grain per COW, value, milk per COW, and value:
 No. l 1850 s19s 3O99 ats. $216.93 No. 2809 91 2758 ats. 192 99 ND. D 1000 A ZO4 [ QIS. lo.Z1
 In herd No. 1 the average amount of grain fed each COW during the year is 1850 lbs. in herd No. 2 it is 2809 lbs. ,and in herd No. 3 it is 1886 lbs. At present prices the difference in grain costs between herds l and 3 is S94 per cow-no small matter to the owner of fifteen or twenty cows.
 The heavily grained herd produced 552 quarts more milk per COW. At last years average price of about sev- en cents per quart, the additional milk was worth S38.64 If the additional receipts from milk sold are set off against the additional grain bought, the heavy feeding would show a loss of S57.90 per COW.
 Of course, this does not tell the whole truth. It is beyond question that the owner of herd No. 8 must have fed more hay or silage or for ages of some sort than did the owner of herd No. 1. The value of these forages would reduce the apparent differences somewhat. There is little possibility that it could have any where near capitalized the two, how ever.
 It must be admitted that herd No. 1 | is an extreme case--this was the heav- | jest grain feeding found on any farm ! from which the figures were secured. | The entire explanation for such heavy 1, feeding is hard to find Two reasons l were evident, however One was re- | vealed by remark of the owner that l his hay would have to last through the l winter. The cows are scrimpe1 lit tie on roughages instead of being fed | all they can use to advantage. It | takes extra grain to make up for the | missing hay.
 The second reason is that practical | ly as much grain is fed through the | summer as in the winter. Brushy, in- | sufficient pasture accounts Tn part for | the costly summer feeding. Substi- tuting grain for pasture is today the | costliest substitution in the dairy busi ness. Even at present wages, a few | tons of $65 grain will pay for lot of brush cutting and pasture renovation.
 But No. is an extreme case. How about farm that is very near the av- craze of all the farms studied, No. 2? Here were fed 1437 pounds more | grain, costing $47.13, to get 210 quarts of milk worth $14.70. Again | the heavy grain feeder loses heavily. |
 The explanation in this case is sim liar to the other. Insufficient or poor | roughages, especially pasture, neces- sitated very great grain expense. The | owner of herd No. is not securing | heavy milk production, but he is pro ducing milk at low cost and produc- | ing it very largely from his own farm. He can utilize the major part of his | milk check to run the farm and use l for the family instead of turning 1t | over to the grain dealer.
 A few years ago it was good busi- ness to feed lots of grain; today. the | dairyman who is making the profits IS | substituting heavy feeding with high | quality roughages, pasture included, for the costly grain.
 GERMAN MILITARISM DEAD