River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1925-02-12
FALSE ECONOMY IN
RATIONS FOR COWS

Il is common practice among many
farmers who feed dairy cows to feed
literally Of ear corn or plain mixture
of corn and cobmeal and ground oats,
thinking thai If they feed enough of 1t
there will be no necessity OF buying So
called expensive protein feeds. These
practices are seldom given much at
tention until they come into the range
of contrasting associations.
When such men do become members
Of some cow-testing association, 1t Is
often difficult to induce them to de-
crease the total amount of grain fed
and add high protein feed to their
present ration, says writer In the
Successful Farming. Their argument
Is usually that the feed will cost too
much. The following Illustration was
used by the writer quite recently to
prove that such Is not the case:
A member Of the Jefferson county,
Iowa, cow-testing association was feed
Ing his cows a ration of 800 pounds OF
corn and cobmeal, and 200 pounds OF
ground oats. The average monthly
production Of his herd was 470 pounds
of milk and "a pounds of butterfat.
His ration was costing him $1.04 per
100 pounds. To 10 cows ne was feed
ing 1900 pounds of grain during the
month at cost of $74.88.
A suggested ration Of 400 pounds of
corn and cobmeal, 300 pounds OF ground
oats, 300 pounds Of bran, 100 pounds OF
! eottonseed meal and 200 pounds of oil
meal would cost him S1.73 per 100
| pounds. This ration is considerably
more expensive per 100 pounds but at
the rate his cows were producing, $500
pounds Of the suggested ration would
have been sufficient to keep up the
cows production during that month.
However, $3.50 pounds were suggested
to allow for putting some of the cows
In a little better condition. This
amount of grain would cost $60.39.
Here is saving Of $14.49 for the
month
| Apart from this saving, the fact
should not be overlooked that the sug-
| gested ration contains more protein,
consequently an increase in production
can reasonably be expected The own
er's ration contains only about z per
| cent protein, which Is altogether too
| little for large and economical produc-
tion. The suggested ration will con-
| tain about 1928 per cent protein. The
| pasture which these cows were getting
was not abundant and little supple
mentary .roughage would have Inn
| proved conditions considerably.
/ Another member was feeding along
! with fair pasture, Is pounds of ear
corn to cows quite recently fresh. At
| 90 cents per bushel this feed would cost
| him $3.S7 for each COW per month.
| Ear corn Is not an economical feed at
any time because of the quite large
! percentage that is not digested. Seven
pounds of the same ration, as was adj
vIsed in the previous case, would cost
1888 for each COW per month. This
would be a saving of "a cents on each
cow Apparently this is only small
saving but the higher protein content
Of the suggested ration would, no
doubt, bring about an advance in pro-
duction which would indirectly be a
/ further saving.
It should be easy to see from these
Illustrations that what appears to be a
saving in refusing to feed high pro-
tein ratIons is simply false economy
In many cases less pounds of grain in
a balanced ration will bring more
economical results than a liberal
amount OF feeds deficient III that abso-
lutely necessary milk-making food, pro-
tein
IL the conditions in that first illustra-
ton had been the same for the entire
year, a saving of $173.SS could have
been effected and it costs only about
$40 to be member of cow-testing
association for a year.