Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1919-02-12

the dairy fraternity for many years
and the data offered by the federal
department is illuminative in clearing
up the problems. From present knowl-
edge, the open shed is not thought TO
be adapted TO regions of extreme cold.
deep SHOWS or high wind.
Considering all operations, other
than milking and feeding, slightly
more labor was required to care fol
cows under the open-shed system of
management, while there was Il ten
dency for boss" cows to deprive the
weaker animals of feed, and the nor
NAL advantages of the shed which re-
suited in decreased production on the
part of the more timid cows The
manure was apparently we'll pre-
served, until it could be hauled to the
land under the open-shed system and
/ it was handled more economically
than in the closed barn. Furthermore,
cornstalks in the manure were suffi-
ciently decomposed to be handled sue
cessfully with the manure spreader.
Under the open-shed system, 6S per
cent more bedding was required for
each COW, but the cows were cleaner
and more comfortable. There was
little difference in the time required
to bed the animals under the two sys-
tens, but the rapid rotting of the corn
stalks or other coarse material I'M
| der the open-shed method makes their
use for litter in the open shed prac-
| teal. Despite other results to the
contrary, the results of this expert
ment showed that there was little if
any difference in the frequency of in
| juries to COWS under either open-shed
or closed-barn conditions.
| In general, little difference could be
| noted in the contentment of the cows
under open-shed or closed-barn con-
| ditions. Some of the animals APP
| peared to be more contented in barn
stalls; others more at ease in the
open shed, while still others appar-
emily had no preference. However,
under open-shed conditions the cows
had more freedom. as they could lie
down and get up with ease and could
select a clean place on which to lie
whenever they chose. Furthermore,
they had access to an abundant sup
ply of fresh air. In many poorly ven
tilated dairy barns the air supply
doubtless would be an important fac
tor in making the open shed more de-
Sir ahin a G "a Of
Data collected by the department
of agriculture shows that in the in.
stance of 81 cows which were kept
under the two systems, Is animals pro-
duced more milk and butterfat when
kept in the open shed, while six cows
showed a higher production when
maintained in the closed barn. The
total production while in the open
shed was 34,630.9 pounds of milk con
tanning 1,535.15 pounds of butterfat
and that in the closed barn was 81,
1857 pounds of milk containing L,
437.41 pounds of butterfat. Accord
ingly, under the open-shed system
there was a total increase for tht
period considered. about eighty days
of 2,732.2 pounds of milk and 97.7.
pounds of butterfat, or an average fol
each cow of 1901 pounds of milk anC
465 pounds of butterfat. The tota
number of months compared unde
each system was 81, and the averag'
time was about eighty days. Calcula
tons from these figures indicate tina
there was an average monthly in
crease of AS pounds of milk and L.
pounds of butterfat for each GOV
while stabbed in the open shed.
1t is largely matter of persona
preference for the farmer to deter
mine under which system, open shet
or closed dairy barn, it is most prof
J liable for him to maintain his dair,
aONUc