The Carlisle independent., 1919-06-19

Barn.
 the dairy fraternity for many years and the data offered by the federal department is illuminatiye in clearing up the problems. From present knowl- edge. the open shed is not thought to be adapted to regions of extreme cold, deep snows or high wind.
 Considering all operations, other than milking and feeding, slightly more labor was required to .care for cows under the open-shed system of mane cement, while there was d 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 well 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, 68 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 un- der the open-shed method makes their use for litter in the open shed prac- tical. Despite other results to the contrary, the results of this expert 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- 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
 
 select clean place on which to lie whenever they chose. Furthermore, they had access to an abundant sup l ply of fresh air. In many poorly ven 1 tilated dairy barns the air supply doubtless would be an important fac tor in making the open shed more de- sirable as source of COW comfort. 1 Data collected by the department 1 of agriculture shows that in the in l stance of 21 cows which were kept 1 under the two systems, 15 animals pro- 1 duced more milk and butterfat when kept in the open shed, while six cows l showed a higher production when 1 maintained in the closed barn. The l total production while in the open shed was 34630.9 pounds of milk con- taining 1,535.15 pounds of butterfat 1 and that in the closed barn was 31,- l S9S7 pounds of milk containing l. i 43741 pounds of butterfat. Accord i ingly, under the open-shed system, l there was a total increase for the 1 period considered about eighty days, ! of 2,7322 pounds of milk and 97.74 pounds of butterfat, or an average for each COW of 1901 pounds of milk and 465 pounds of butterfat The total I number of months compared under each system was 57, and the average time was about eighty days. Galeula- tions from these figures indicate that there was an average monthly in crease sof 4S pounds of milk and IT l pounds of butterfat for each COW while stabbed in the open shed.
 It is largely matter of personal preference. for the farmer to deter mine under which system, open shed l or closed dairy barn, it is most prof itabIe for him to maintain his dairy cows,