Carroll County democrat. (Huntingdon, Tenn.) 188?-1971, 1919-01-31

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 for
cows under the open-shed system Of
management, while there was 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 1t could be hauled to the
land, under the open-shed system and
1t was handled more economically
than in the closed barn. Furthermore,
cornstalks In the manure were sufi-
GENTLY decompoSed to be handled sue
cesSfully with the manure spreader.
Under the Open-shed system, So 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 experi-
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 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-
Elrable as a source Of COW comfort.
Data collected by the department
of agriculture shows that in the In
stance Of 81 cows which were kept
under the two systems, 10 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 $4,000 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.
1874 pounds of butterfat. Accord
ingly, under the open-shed system,
there was total increase for the
period considered, about eighty days,
of 2,732.2 pounds Of milk and 97.74
pounds Of butterfat, or an average for
each COW of 1901 pounds of milk and
4.65 pounds Of butterfat. The total
number Of months compared under
each system was 81, and the average
time was about eighty days. Calcutta
lions from these figures indicate that
there was an average monthly In
crease Of 48 pounds of milk and IT
pounds Of butterfat for each cow
while stabbed in the open shed.
1t is largely a matter of personal
preference for the farmer to deter
mine under which system, open shed
or closed dairy barn. 1t is most prof
liable for him to maintain his dairy