SF 203

—

7

het =

ae

ins

“£

“+

*

F 203 $3 opy 1

.. STUDY OF FEEDING STANDARDS

FOR

MILK PRODUCTION ELMER SETH SAVAGE

THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

“« REPRINT. OF BULLETIN 323.O0F CORNELL UNIVERSITY

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

PALLY he J

bh

A STUDY OF FEEDING STANDARDS

FOR

MILK PRODUCTION |

ELMER SETH SAVAGE r,

TELESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

REPRINT OF BULLETIN 323 OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

\A\3.

CORNELL UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

EXPERIMENTING STAFF

LIBERTY H. BAILEY, M.S., LL.D., Director

ALBERT R. MANN, B:S.A., Secretary and Editor.

JOHN H. COMSTOCK, B.S., Entomology.

HENRY H. WING, MS. in Agr., Animal Husbandry.

T. LYTTLETON LYON, Ph.D., Soil Technology. HERBERT J. WEBBER, M.A., Ph.D., Plant-Breeding. JOHN L. STONE, B. Agr., Farm Practice and Farm Crops. JAMES E. RICE, B.S.A., Poultry Husbandry.

GEORGE W. CAVANAUGH, B.S., Chemistry.

HERBERT H. WHETZEL, A.B., M.A., Plant Pathology. ELMER O. FIPPIN, B.S.A., Soil Technology.

GEORGE F. WARREN, Ph.D., Farm Management. WILLIAM A. STOCKING, Jr., M.S.A., Dairy Industry. CHARLES S. WILSON, A.B., M.S.A., Pomology.

WILFORD M. WILSON, M.D., Meteorology.

WALTER MULFORD, B.S.A., F.E., Forestry.

HARRY H. LOVE, Ph.D., Plant-Breeding Investigations. ARTHUR W. GILBERT, Ph.D., Plant-Breeding.

DONALD REDDICK, A.B., Ph.D., Plant Pathology. EDWARD G. MONTGOMERY, M.A., Farm Crops. WILLIAM A. RILEY, Ph.D., Entomology.

MERRITT W. HARPER, M.S., Animal Husbandry.

J. A. BIZZELL, Ph.D., Soil Technology.

CLARENCE A. ROGERS, M.S.A., Poultry Husbandry. GLENN W. HERRICK, B.S.A., Economic Entomology. HOWARD W. RILEY, M.E., Farm Mechanics.

CYRUS R. CROSBY, A.B.. Entomological Investigations. HAROLD E. ROSS, M.S.A., Dairy Industry.

ELMER S. SAVAGE, M.S.A., Ph.D., Animal Husbandry. LEWIS KNUDSON, B.S.A., Ph.D., Plant Physiology. KENNETH C. LIVERMORE, B.S.in Agr., Farm Management. ALVIN C. BEAL, Ph.D., Floriculture.

MORTIER F. BARRUS, A.B., Plant Pathology.

GEORGE W. TAILBY, Jr., B.S.A., Superintendent of Live-Stock. EDWARD S. GUTHRIE, M.S. in Agr., Dairy Industry. PAUL WORK, B.S., A.B., Olericulture.

EDWARD R. MINNS, B.S.A., Farm Practice and Farm Crops. JOHN BENTLEY, Jr., B.S., M.F., Forestry.

HARVEY L. AYRES, Superintendent of Dairy Manufactures. EMMONS W. LELAND, B.S.A., Soil Technology.

ES T. GREGORY, B.S. in Agr., Plant Pathology. ‘W. FISK, B.S. in Agr., Dairy Industry. ' YTHONY, B.S., B.S. in Agr., Pomology.

. t

The regular bulletins of the Statiort are sent free to persons residing in New

York State who request them. ‘

z.

js e161 g HVA

Savearl ‘ata, {leuzog a@eeqore uy

)

A STUDY OF FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION*

Ess) SAVAGE

What may be called the science of animal nutrition began with six experiments conducted by two German scientists, Henneberg and Stoh- man, the results of which were published about 1860. Since that time many scientists, notably in Germany and also in America since the found- ing of the American experiment stations, have interested themselves in trying to calculate the definite food requirements of certain groups of animals used for such purposes as labor, meat, wool, and milk production. These food requirements have been tabulated and designated “ feeding standards.”

Perhaps these standards have been of greater interest to teachers and investigators than to practical stock-feeders. To the practical feeder, feeding is an art; to the investigator, feeding is an exact science. Yet the teachings of science cannot be disregarded by the practical man, and he should have an adequate knowledge of the physiological make-up of his animals, of the different constituents of feeding-stuffs, and of the various uses to which those constituents are put in order to meet the physiolog- ical requirements of the body as to growth, health, and product. In like manner the investigator must not lose sight of the fact that in the words of the old German adage, quoted by Henry, “ The eye of the master fattens his cattle.”’

There are two distinct uses of feeding standards which cannot be denied. These uses are very important. One is as a basis from which to teach the elementary facts of animal nutrition to students in the colleges. The other is as a basis for use in economical feeding operations. In both cases, after the feeding standards are thoroughly understood they may be de- parted from so far as the experience of the individual may show it to be advisable.

With the purpose of learning something of the application of two of the more recent feeding standards — that of Haecker and that. of Armsby — the present work was instituted at the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station in the winter of 1909-1910. Haecker’s standard has to do with feeding dairy cows exclusively; and only that part of Armsby’s standard which has to do with dairy production is considered in this paper.

*Also presented before the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University, June, 1911, as a major thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 59 .*

60 BULLETIN 323

HISTORY OF FEEDING STANDARDS !

The three volumes containing the data of Henneberg and Stohman were known as the Weende Reports. They were published between 1860 and 1870 and were the foundation of the study of feeding standards. To the authors of these reports, more than to any other persons, belongs the credit for having started the study of animal-feeding from a scientific point of view.

The name of Justus von Liebig is also prominent in these early studies; while the Munich scientists, Bischoff and Voit, have contributed much to the laws of nutrition in their work, ‘‘ On the Laws of the Nutrition of Car- nivora.”’ Boussingault, the French chemist and farmer, deserves mention in this connection. His experience dates from 1836. In England, Lawes and Gilbert of the Rothamsted Station contributed very largely to the early knowledge of nutrition.

Hay values

Thaer seems to have been the first to inaugurate a systematic scheme for feeding. He worked out the relative values of different feeding-stufis in terms of “‘ good ”’ meadow hay, the value of the hay for feeding purposes being the standard unit. These hay values’ were in use for some time previous to 1858. They were modified by other agricultural writers and teachers, but were not changed in principle until 1858.

Grouven’s feeding standards

In 1858 Grouven proposed to formulate into standards the food com- ponents as required by different animals according to their live weight. Eight standards were given for dairy cows, according to their weight from 772 to 1,543 pounds. For cows weighing about 1,000 pounds Grouven proposed the following standard, the constituents being crude protein, crude fat, and crude carbohydrates: dry matter 28.7 pounds, protein 2.76 pounds, fat .86 pound, and carbohydrates 14.55 pounds. The nutritive ratio was about 1:6.1. The components were not varied at all in the standards for production, being based entirely on live weight.

Wolff's feeding standards The next standards proposed were those of Emil von Wolff in 1864. Digestion experiments had been conducted to some extent at this time and Wolff recognized the value of a standard in terms of digestible constituents. The Wolff standard for milch cows was as follows: for a cow weighing 1,000 pounds, organic matter 24 pounds, digestible protein 2.5 pounds, digestible carbohydrates 12:5 pounds, and digestible fat .40 pound.

1F, W. Woll. “On the Relation of Food to the Production of Milk and Butter Fat by Dairy Cows.” Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 116.

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 61

This standard of Wolff's was published in the Annual Agricultural Cal- endar of Mentzel and von Lengerke! and thus became widely known and practiced by German farmers.

Julius Kuhn? criticises this standard of Wolff’s very severely in that the standard was supposed to apply toallcases. Kuhn would havea basal ration for maintenance and then add supplementary amounts for production. He would vary the amounts fed from 20 to 23.5 pounds of dry matter, from 1.5 to 2.4 pounds of digestible albuminoids (he separates the digestible amides from the rest of the protein, saying that the digestible amides have the same effect as the carbohydrates), and from 12 to 14 pounds of diges- tible amides, crude fiber, and nitrogen-free extract, with a nutritive ratio of 1:5.5 to 1:8 according to the production of the cow being fed.

Wolff-Lehmann feeding standard

Next in line comes the Lehmann modification of the Wolff standard. This was published, after the death of Wolff, in the Annual Agricultural Calendar of Mentzel and von Lengerke' for 1897, page 107. This standard took into account the objections of Kuhn, and the Wolff standard was modified to meet the supposed requirements of cows giving different quan- tities of milk. They were based on 1,000 pounds live weight and were as follows:

TABLE: t Digestible nutrients Dry When yielding daily matter (pounds) | Protein Carbo- | Fat Nutritive _ (pounds) hydrates (pounds) ratio Pp é (pounds) iB : MMO pounds mille. oe). 2 1.6 10 13 1:6.7 boso pounds milk a. 2 2.0 II 4 1/650 Pero pounds milk= -....... 29 DOS 13 5 We Se7) 27.5 pounds milk......... 32 Boe 13 8 1:4.5

Since their first appearance these German standards, as they have been called, have been widely published both in Europe and in America. They form the basis for the computation of rations in nearly all the works on feeding. Wolfi’s standards are found as the basis in Armsby’s ‘‘ Manual of Cattle Feeding.’’ However, Doctor Armsby has changed his basis entirely since the last edition of this book, as will be seen later. W. A.

1F. W. Woll. ‘‘On the Relation of Food to the Production of Milk and Butter Fat by Dairy Cows.” Wis. Ager. Exp. Sta. Bul. 116. 2 Julius Kuhn. ‘ Feeding Standards for Domestic Animals.’’ Exp. Sta. Record 4: 6.

62 BULLETIN 323

Henry! used the Wolff-Lehmann standards as the basis of his rations. W. H. Jordan? also used the Wolff-Lehmann standard inhis work. Besides these works, which are probably the most popular and widely read works on feeding in America, the Wolff-Lehmann standards have been published in a large number of pamphlets and bulletins of the experiment stations of the various countries.

In addition to the standards noted above, three other German investi- gators have published standards of more or less value: Maerker,’ Pott,’ and Kellner.® One Swedish investigator, N. Hansson,° has also published a set of ‘‘ feeding tables.”

FEEDING STANDARDS IN AMERICA

The feeding standards that have been in common use in this country up to within the last year or two, and are in use to a great extent even now, are the Wolff-Lehmann standards. In 1894 F. W. Woll’ published a standard ration which was the average of about one hundred rations in the United States and Canada. The average ration was: dry matter 24.51 pounds, digestible protein 2.15 pounds, digestible carbohydrates and fat 14.51 pounds, nutritive ratio 1:6.9. Woll gives this as evi- dence that, in the experience of American farmers who are practical feeders, less protein is needed than is recommended by the Wolff-Lehmann standards. Also, the rations can have a wider nutritive ratio. Woll called his standard the ‘“‘American practical feeding ration ’’ and recom- mended its use by farmers in place of the German standard.

At the Connecticut (Storrs) station Atwater and Phelps* formulated a standard from their experience along the same lines as those followed by Woll, with a little difference in the requirements of the different con- stituents. j

In the last two or three years a feeding standard proposed by T. L. Haecker,’ of Minnesota, has received much attention from dairymen and has been adopted in many cases as a guide for feeding dairy cows, notably by H. R. Smith! and C. B. Lane," and by ‘“‘ Hoard’s Dairyman.”

In January, 1909, H. P. Armsby ™ published a set of feeding standards based on the production values of feeding-stuffs as determined by Kellner at the Moeckern Experiment Station in Germany.

1W.A. Henry. ‘ Feeds and Feeding.”

2W.H. Jordan. ‘ Feeding Farm Animals.”

3F.W.Woll. ‘On the Relation of Food to the Production of Milk and Butter Fat by Dairy Cows.” W's. Acr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 116.

4 Exp. Sta. Record 22: 375. ;

5O. Kellner. ‘‘ The Scientific Feeding of Animals.’’ Translation by William Goodwin.

6 N. Hansson. Exp. Sta. Record 20: 475. :

7F. W. Woll. ‘‘ One Hundred American Rations for Dairy Cows.’ Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 38.

8W. O. Atwater and C. S. Phelps. ‘‘ Nitrogenous Feeding Stuffs and Feeding Formulas for Dairy Cows.”’ t1oth Ann. Rept. Conn. Sor Agr. Exp. Sta., p. 67.

9T. L. Haecker. “ Investigation in Milk Production."’ Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 79.

10H. R. Smith. ‘“ Profitable Stock Feeding.”

uC, B. Lane. ‘' The Business of Dairying."

12H. P. Armsby. ‘‘ The Computation of Rations for Farm Animals by the Use of Energy Values.” U. S. Dept. Agr., Farmers’ Bul. 346.

rc er —<“<C;7; } e.L.

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 63

The study of these last two feeding standards will now be taken up in detail, since they form the basis of the experiment herein reported.

HAECKER’S FEEDING STANDARD FOR DAIRY PRODUCTION

In 1892 T. L. Haecker took up his investigations at the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. He began his work by keeping careful herd records of production and the cost of feeding. For several years he published the “* Dairy Herd-Records ” in the several reports and bulletins of the station.1 There is nothing that needs consideration in the earlier reports except to mention that during the winter of 1893-1894 experi- ments were conducted comparing the feeding value of timothy and prairie hay, and during the winter of 1894-1895 experiments were conducted comparing the feeding value of wheat, barley, and corn. These experiments are mentioned because Haecker used the data from them in later discussions in regard to his feeding standard.

In all the feeding work at Minnesota, Haecker reports the cows to have had all the feed that they would eat up clean. They were fed in as nearly a common-sense, practical way as possible. When a cow has shown a desire for more food and has shown that she would give a good return for it, it has been given to her. The aim has been to keep the cows in good working condition without any appreciable gain or loss in body weight after the first eleven weeks from calving. During the first eleven weeks it has been expected that a cow would lose in body weight, particularly if she was in good flesh at the time of calving. More will be said of this later.

The work that formed the basis of the Haecker standard was pub- lished by Haecker in bulletins 71 and 79 of the Minnesota station. All the data in these bulletins were taken from the herd records, considering mature cows in what Professor Haecker calls ‘‘ good normal working condition.”’ ‘The results in Bulletin 71 will be taken up first.

Data in Bulletin 71 of the Minnesota station

1. Protein requirements—In the Wolff-Lehmann standard, Doctor Lehmann calculated that..7 pound protein was required for maintenance per 1,000 pounds live weight and that .o81 pound was required for the production of 1 pound of milk. These requirements were the same whether the cow was giving 11 pounds or 22 pounds of milk daily. Haecker noticed

1 A Te L. Haecker:

“* Dairy Herd-Record for 1892." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Rept. 1893: 313-324.

‘Dairy Herd-Record for 1893; Cost of Butter Production in Winter; Comparing Prairie with Tim- es Hay; Rearing Dairy Calves; Cooperative Creameries; Experiments in Sweet-curd Cheese.’’ Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 35.

‘ Investigation in Milk Production.’’ Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 67.

““ Investigation in Milk Production; Protein Requirements." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 71.

‘“ Investigation in Milk Production.” Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 79.

“The Relation of Nutriment to Product."’ Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 106.

64 BULLETIN 323

that in the experiment in comparing timothy hay with prairie hay, less protein seemed to be required than the Wolff-Lehmann standard called for.

There were twelve cows in the experiment. The average daily pro- duction was 25.81 pounds of milk testing 4.06 per cent fat, on 24.38 pounds of dry matter containing 1.99 pound digestible protein, 12.82 pounds diges- tible carbohydrates, and .59 pound fat. The Wolff-Lehmann standard gives 2.5 pounds digestible protein as the amount required for 22 pounds of milk daily. The average weight of the cows during the trial was 950 pounds, and allowing them daily for maintenance .7 pound of protein per 1,000 pounds live weight there remains 1.33 pound protein daily for milk production. Since the cows gave 25.81 pounds of milk daily, they re- turned 1 pound of milk for .o51 pound of protein, instead of for .o81 pound according to the Lehmann standard. Singling out the mature cows, which made little if any gain in weight, nine remain. Using the factor .7 pound protein for maintenance and determining the amount available for product, the following average results are obtained: average weight 991 pounds, protein daily 2.09 pounds, protein for maintenance .69 pound, protein for product 1.40 pound, milk daily 29.06 pounds testing 3.9 per cent fat. From these averages, we have .o481 pound of protein required for 1 pound of milk. The amount of protein required varied all the way from .035 pound in the case of one cow giving 43.50 pounds of milk testing 2.5 per cent fat, to .o57 pound as required by cows giving 25.80 and 25.99 pounds of milk containing 5.3 per cent fat. The value of the data given above is lessened when the length of the experiment is considered, since the time was only fourteen days.

However, data from the wheat, barley, and corn experiment are avail- able on the same question. Two periods — one of eighty-four days and the other of seventy days — are considered here, so that the data have more value. The rations varied from 20.08 pounds to 31.49 pounds dry matter, and averaged 24.30 pounds dry matter containing 2.01 pounds protein, 12.03 pounds carbohydrates, and 1.53 pound fat. (In all cases in this paper the terms protein, carbohydrates, and fat have reference to the digestible constituents alone. Ifthe crude amounts are meant, it will be so stated.) The average daily yield was 26.96 pounds milk, testing 4.01 per cent fat. The average weight of the cows was 954 pounds. Allowing .66 pound protein for maintenance, we have 1.35 pound protein for product, or .o5 pound protein for 1 pound milk testing 4.01 per cent fat. These fig- ures are the average for twelve cows for eighty-four days. One cow had aborted and another was near the close of her lactation period. Taking these out, the average requirement was .o46 pound protein for 1 pound milk testing 3-9 per cent fat. During the next seventy days, twelve cows were in an

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 65

experiment that gives results on the same question. The average weight of the cows was 958 pounds. They received daily 2 pounds of protein, of which 1.33 pound was for product. The yield was 25.23 pounds milk testing 4.07 per cent fat, or .o53 pound protein for 1 pound milk.

Conclusions as to protein requirements.—— From the results of the two experiments reviewed above, .o46 pound of protein available for product is suggested as sufficient to produce 1 pound of milk and to maintain the flow. By increasing or diminishing this allowance by .oo4 pound for each .5 per cent increase or decrease in the percentage of fat in the milk, Haecker estimated that the ration would be adjusted to the needs of the cows giving various grades of milk. Milk testing 3.85 per cent fat is fixed as the standard average, and a cow giving that grade of milk should receive .046 pound of protein to each pound of milk produced.

2. Experiment in feeding dairy cows with rations containing varying amounts of protein and having various nutritive ratios — In this experiment it was planned to divide the herd into six groups of five cows each, to be fed during the winter on rations containing protein and having nutritive ratios as follows:

TABLE 2 co | Protein | Nutritive Group (pounds) ratio (Ta ese o cetek, 2 RI RAS He JO ciksatt gia gin Ba mae dhs 2a42 15-3 PT raat rerche eee dare ettctotg hc. ster auch cvs ays oe 2 ewan am eevee oper 2.15 Ow! re eect ee dona: aise yy aida Mein 3, 1.86 | Le 7-2 7s uek oe ne) a A Se eg PARR FON a 1.61 | 158.3 Pe a tar Oars, ON er ey oe Sage Spends Vahey Steger te dua ath F.47 1-93

(Data for group 6 not given in bulletin cited.)

These plans were not held to exactly, since the roughage was not analyzed by the Station Chemist until later and in planning the experiment the average composition of American feeding-stuffs was used. A number of cows aborted during the winter and the records are very much disturbed because of this. In the final conclusions of the experiment, as shown by Table 6 on page 67, no results are given for groups 3 and 6. The other groups are said to be made up of four cows each. Why groups 3 and 6 were dropped and why one cow was dropped from each of the other groups is not explained.

The experiment ran through three periods. During the first period all the cows were fed the same ration, it being mixed as follows during the time noted:

66 BULLETIN 323

TABLE 3. RATIONS IN PERIOD I (IN POUNDs)

| Dec. 31- | Jan. 7-20 | Jan. 21-27

Jan. 6 RAM ie 5 a's. oa enw ph a cabs Be eee re ne et Saco Ce ee 5 5 5 Gorn s i cS5 oe oe tie RARE ee Cee ee 5 | 5 5 Glutent meal’... <2). dele: ois ae Cee | 2) 2 2 Mianigels ss Risuk ss 7 eae aap Reece reel eee ane 12 12 12 Hodder corn... oe soy yeas er ee, Saeed Oil) Sapp eee 6 SVE Vek eae Een cial Mien i Maer beeemo ee Lk ea tau ar eae 36 | 36 36

During period 2, the eight weeks from January 28 to March 24, the rations for the various groups were mixed as follows:

TABLE 4. RATIONS IN PERIOD 2 (IN PouUNDs) (January 28 to March 24)

Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Wt) IBraties.o tense Oe eres eee eee a (eae oi |as i cued: steel ee a a ee Oats ante en erect ie ants ee eee 5 8 4 COM one ge onc eek chee ee 25 25 2 4 Barley... Sp ersaann ee tec eet ae eee 2 25 2 4 Glutenameal oe. (aan cee eee nee 2 71 eC e |i e., « Fodder come 54+ - Be iasirt yee ng ee 12 12 12 12 Silage aie. okt er ee ea 36 36 36 36

Group 3 received the same ration as did group 4, except that bran was substituted for oats. Group 6 received the same ration as did group 5, except that bran was substituted for oats.

During period 3 all the cows were fed the following ration:

TABLE 5. RATIONS IN PERIOD 3

Pounds BGA esis es 6 sepals ig ged Sunsesns ete var ondtat Ee deo Yat sty Ot pte ee eae Ne ora ete era 5 OEM ino ies Shea te oad Spt MER RAT IMS cE Sip AS Be ee oe treek oe eee eee a A Se 5 Gluten: meal... jos. cal woo Rees Misyellee cage tepeterero. osu ac gi ee eee tr 2 Pratrie Hay sc yc cssse ste bs slasses go 2) ala cue ebay sas enene ies s EDS Rete RPM G Ng eleey ctr. fees 12 Ns LEY (eo RE Dh ot Be oe te Mey a Sree eed 36

The cows were fed at all times as much as they seemed to need and all that they could use to good advantage, in the judgment of the feeder.

_

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 67

The results of the experiment are given in the following table:

TABLE 6 Period I | Protein | Protein | Pounds Average| Total for | for Pounds | Per- protein Group weight | protein main- product milk | centage to! I (pounds) (pounds) tenance Leen fat pound | (pounds) milk Dicey sa yop tl csecenehe open 769 | 1.774 .538 | 1.236 16.86 5.53 .0733 PO A RR ae eR | 725 1.605 .507 | 1.098 FAY S61" 5.17, .0739 Amare catalan eh 881 1.845 | xOl7, |) R228 16.75 4.70 .0733 ee Sees area 669 1.594 | .468 | 1.126 UG feist 4.78 .0643 Average, period I.. 761 1.704 533 I.171 16.49 | 5.04 .O710 | Period 2 Tene 794 | 2.037 556 | 1.481 | 15.82 5.64 | .0936 Orme Se actiene | 740) || LI 8EE $5225) ele 2son | 15 08 Se Se | .0849 (es ot Eee GN CRS CREE SOREL go2 | 12739 631 1.108 16.27 4.63 | 0681 Re hy alana Shae eae eae 681 | 1.491 477 I.O14 17.66 4.56 .0574 Average, period 2 781 | 1.769 547 | i222 16.23 4.98 | .0753 Period 3 | nas eee ee 812 | 1.844 AS68)\| e276 | 95. 8 5.72 | 0840 BURP Soh s Ba bors aha: 778) || T.694) 545 1.149 | 14.29 5.02 | .0804 AMR Rents cpeh eshte: < foe 928 | 1.937 .657 1.280 15.96 4.61 .0802 Coie eerie 744 | 1.802 521 1.281 17.07 4.66 | .0750 a Average, period 3. .| 818 | 1.819 25/5 1.246 15.62 4.99 | .0798

Conclusions from Bulletin 71.— Haecker’s conclusions from the data given in Bulletin 71 of the Minnesota station are as follows:

1. Cows giving ordinary yields of milk and of butter-fat do not require the amount of protein called for in the standard rations.

“9. The amount of milk that a cow gives daily, and its fat content, measure the amount of protein which the animal requires over and above that needed for maintenance.

“3. There is a limit to the milk- and fat-producing power of a cow at any given time. Feeding more protein than she needs for this production and for her own support is of no advantage.

“4. The excess of protein, with the corresponding excess of other nutrients, will tend to cause a cow to lay on flesh and thereby to shrink in milk flow.

“5. Grains ordinarily grown on the farm, fed in conjunction with such

roughage as fodder corn, corn silage, timothy, and prairie hay, provide ample protein for cows doing ordinary dairy work.”

68 BULLETIN 323

Data in Bulletin 79 of the Minnesota station

The investigations in regard to milk production are reported in this bulletin under four headings:

1. Maintenance requirements.

2. Nutrient requirements.

3. Protein requirements.

4. Influence of stage of lactation on nutrient requirements.

These topics will be discussed in order and the conclusions of Haecker in regard to each will be shown.

1. Maintenance requirements.— Wolff’s maintenance ration for 1,000 pounds live weight is: dry matter 18 pounds, protein .7 pound, carbohy- drates 8 pounds, ether extract .1 pound. In order to test the accuracy of this standard, Haecker conducted three experiments with barren cows.

As a result of the first experiment, made with two barren cows for a period of eighty-one days on a ration of 8 pounds of timothy hay and 3 pounds of barley, the cows gained an average of .36 pound daily on a ration containing daily .oo4 pound more protein and .2z09 pound less carbohydrates. Therefore the ration was in excess of the amount actually needed for maintenance.

The second experiment was conducted with two barren cows during the winter of 1896-1897 and covered a period of one hundred days. One cow received daily 18 pounds and the other 14 pounds of corn fodder. The following table shows the average weight of the cows and the nutrients consumed by them daily:

TABLE 7 Average Day. 4 ae Carbo- Cow weight matter | Eee | hydrates ( Rinne (pounds) | (pounds) | I | (pounds) P TAN STCYo V0 ley Oe ee A 808 8.98 .297 5.45 .38 loti a aoe ee pete 4 1,010 9.23 7/7) 5.08 i377 PAVETA COE ccc cs ane. J eterell) aeheneeeee tie 9-10 | . 287 | 5.27 375

The cows maintained their weights during the experiment except that during the month of February Belle was down to 987 pounds; she regained her weight, however, to an average of 1,o10 pounds. Yet the physical appearance of the cows showed that they had not been sufficiently nourished even though they had maintained their live weights.

During the winter of 1897-1898, in the third experiment, three cows were fed on maintenance rations of fodder corn, beets, and oil meal. The data cover the period from December 30 to April 11. Combining the results with two of these cows (the record of the third was thrown out

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 69 because it was found that she had been suffering with a broken tooth) with data obtained from feeding one cow on a maintenance ration in 1898-1899, we have the following results: material consumed per 1,000 pounds live weight, dry matter 11.38 pounds, protein .63 pound, carbohydrates 5.75 pounds, and fat .12 pound.

Conclusions tn regard to maintenance requirements.— Haecker concludes from the results of the above experiments that with cows at rest in stall in comfortable quarters, a ration of 11.5 pounds of dry matter containing .o6 pound protein, .6 pound carbohydrates, and .or pound ether extract per roo pounds live weight is ample for a maintenance ration. However, he questions whether these amounts would be sufficient for cows receiving ordinary treatment in herds if the cows are allowed a certain amount of exercise each day.

Pending further investigation on the maintenance requirements of dairy cows, Haecker suggests the following for the maintenance allowance for producing animals: 12.5 pounds dry matter, containing .7 pound protein, 7 pounds carbohydrates, and .1 pound ether extract, for each 1,000 pounds live weight.

2. Nutrient requirements.— In making a study of the nutrient require- ments for milk production, Haecker discusses the following questions:

A. Are the Lehmann factors approximately correct?

B. Are they applicable to any and all grades or qualities of milk yielded ?

C. Will they be sufficient for heifers in milk? ;

The results from questions A and B, only, will be discussed here, since they apply to the results of our own trial.

Question A. The herd records and records of experiments conducted in 1894 -1895 are cited to throw light on this question. The records cover a period of one hundred and fifty-four days. The cows were given a fixed ration. A full flow of milk and yield was obtained without gain or loss in body weight. The following table shows the nutrients used in the pro- duction of 1 pound of milk:

70 BULLETIN 323

The results as shown in the table above are not materially different from Lehmann’s standard except in amount of protein.

The following winter, 1895-18096, the herd was composed of practically the same animals receiving on an average a daily allowance of 2.59 pounds of protein. Compared with 1894-1895 the performance is as follows:

This table gives strong evidence that the amount of protein prescribed in the Lehmann standard is largely in excess of the amount needed for production. The cows yielded more milk and butter-fat during the winter that they received 2 pounds of protein than they did the following winter on an allowance of 2.59 pounds of protein.

Question B. In order to answer this question, Haecker has compiled a table from the records of mature cows whose productive powers had been developed to their fullest capacity by careful feeding and handling for

several years: TABLE 10

Carbo- Ether Total hydrates extract | nutrients (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds)

Percentage Protein offat (pounds)

Pe Sh A .036 .16 .O12 .208

OUNbESS ie er h-nens Gere toe De

Lia {hie a, A ners ceepean Aires hae ae 3.7 .040 | .20 O14 .254 PROPS Yee hers o eeee ets Beret .042 | .20 O14 | .256 Oliver tama. ce tent pee 4.0 | 044 22 O16 | .280 Sweet Briar.............. SO 052 | 24 018 .310 ELOUSUOM es outers ae eee 5.5 .057 .26 O19 .336

The figures in this table represent the average of one hundred and fifty- four consecutive days work for each cow. The table clearly indicates: first, that the amount of nutrients to 1 pound of milk increases with the improvement in quality of the milk but not in the same proportion; second, that, other things being equal, the richer the milk the more economical is the production of butter-fat. In order to show the rate of increase in nutrients required for the production of 1 pound of milk of different qualities, the records of Houston and Countess are employed:

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION Gf

TABLE 11

| : Carbo- Ether

| Bec HaeS eae hydrates extract

of tat (pounds) (pounds) | (pounds)

|

Houston ts wn ene tee 55 | .057 526) =| op te)

Countessss: es Sc ee eee 2.5 036 | 16 | .O12

Differences 4 Gs Ghee eres ee 3E0 20214 LO =| .007 Difference for .1 per cent fat.....| ........ -0007 | 0033 | 00023

Taking the nutrients required for 1 pound of miilk containing 2.5 per cent fat as a basis and the nutrients required in addition for each .1 per cent fat increase, we can derive a feeding table. Such a table is given in the bulletin under review, but it is not deemed necessary to reproduce it here since the one in use by Haecker at the present time is slightly different and represents his latest ideas for this standard. This table is closely in accord with the nutrients used by mature cows in the herd not gaining nor losing in body weight, except that it provides rather more than was used by cows whose milk tested between 3.5 and 4.5 per cent. From the study of question B it seems that the quality of milk is quite as important a factor in formulating a feeding standard or guide to feeding practice, as is quantity of milk yielded.

Question C. It is not deemed necessary to report here the findings in regard to question C, inasmuch as they have no bearing on the experiment in hand. It is sufficient to say that in Haecker’s opinion, borne out by his own experience, heifers in milk require more nutriment per pound of milk produced than do mature cows. This is a natural consequence because heifers must provide for growth of body.

3. Protein requirements.— The third part of Bulletin 79 may now be studied. In the winter of 1901-1902, the feeding of the dairy herd was planned with the purpose of obtaining more data on protein requirements. The cows in the stable were naturally arranged in groups by partitions. The tables given are made up from the records produced by mature cows doing normal work. It was intended to maintain a fixed ratio between grain and roughage, but-in some cases a slight deviation had to be made so as to feed each cow to her full limit. This ratio as planned was five times as much corn silage as grain and half as much hay as grain. The grain ratios were:

Group 1. Equal parts of corn, bran, and gluten meal.

Group 2. Corn and bran four parts each, gluten meal one part.

Group 3. Equal parts of corn, barley, and oats, except for one cow which received bran instead of oats.

72 BULLETIN 323

The composition of the rations as fed was as follows:

TABLE 12 Carbo- Ether me Ration Protein | hydrates | extract | Nutritive (pounds) (pounds) | (pounds) Tatio Dees cyte cits acre si Aevsrcie cee eRe one ore 2.04 11.79 53 D023 ETE PRT See Ie rk > caus hoe Eo 1.68 DoS 57 Tie 70 Bi corks ss he Seas Bai orekege haa cate RePEc Iae caucus [32 IL.76 50 LES 7/

The feeding began November 11, 1901, and continued without change until the morning of February 17, 1902, when a new supply of grain was fed and corn fodder was substituted for silage. With the exception of two cows whose records are considered for one or two weeks longer, the data given refer to this period between November 11, 1901, and February 16, 1902, inclusive. When fed as above, the yield of the three groups was as follows in terms of pounds of milk, percentage of fat, pounds of butter-fat, and pounds of total solids:

Judging from yields of butter-fat and of milk, ration 3 was practically as potent as the other rations in that the product yielded bears a closer relation to total nutrients than to protein.

In order to make a better comparison, if we multiply the fat in the food by 2.4 and add the protein and carbohydrates and call this amount the total nutriment, then multiply the butter-fat by 2.5 and add the solids- not-fat and call this amount the total product, we shall have a basis on which to compare the total nutriment and the total product yielded in the three groups. Such a comparison is as follows:

TABLE 14

; eA id Net _ Total Total nutriment

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION rit

By this arrangement it is clearly shown that the three groups yielded dairy products in proportion to the nutriment available for product, and not according to the protein supply; and that the amount of nutriment required for a pound of total product depended on the ratio of butter-fat to solids-not-fat.

Comparing the rations used in studying the protein requirements for three winters (1895-1896, 1894-1895, and 1901-1902) with the Wolff- Lehmann standard, the following table is derived:

TABLE 15 1895-1896 | 1894-1895 | 1901-1902 | Standard Net nutrients (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds) factors (pounds) Brotemmdalyee «eae eekiwkrs sates: 2.63 2.09 1.90 2.50 Protein to 1 pound milk. : aeiaiee .0755 .O510 .0375 .0818 Carbohydrates to 1 pound milk....... . 2082 ~2200 . 1969 .2400 Ether extract-to 1 pound milk........ .0224 .0177 .O156 .0180 Total net nutrients to 1 pound milk... . 3061 . 2898 . 2500 3398

The Wolff-Lehmann factors seem particularly faulty in the assumption that it requires .o81 pound of net protein to 1 pound of milk produced, and they do not recognize the fact that the nutrient requirements vary with the quality of the milk yielded.

Reviewing the results obtained from section 3 of this bulletin, it appears:

1. That the rations having a nutritive ratio of 1:7.6 and 1:9.7, respec- tively, were as effective in the production of milk, butter-fat, and milk solids as was the ration having a nutritive ratio of 1:6.3.

2. That the protein required in milk production depends on the quantity and quality of the milk yield.

3. That in the production of butter-fat, actually more but relatively less protein and other nutrients were required to a pound of butter-fat with cows giving milk containing a low percentage of fat.

4. That in the production of milk solids, less nutrients were required to a pound with cows having a low percentage of butter-fat in their milk than with cows giving milk having a high percentage of butter-fat.

4. Influence of stage of lactation on nutrient requirements.— It will be sufficient to give the summary under this heading, which also includes Pro- fessor Haecker’s opinions up to the publication of this work:

1. During the early stages of lactation, cows lose rapidly in body weight; of fifteen cows the average decrease per cow the first week was 49 pounds, and during fifty-six days there was a daily average loss of 2 pounds.

2. During the time that the decrease in body weight takes place, cows yield dairy products in excess of the amount provided for by the food con-

74 BULLETIN 323

sumed. The excess yield depends on the rate of loss in weight of body; in some instances it is more than twice the amount provided for by the avail- able nutriment.

3. The excess yield of dairy products decreases gradually until about the eleventh week, when an equilibrium generally obtains between the nutriment consumed and the dairy products yielded, although in this respect cows differ: those of a pronounced dairy temperament taking less time, while those not strong in dairy temperament decrease more slowly in weight and require more time in which to reach normal work in milk production. Before such equilibrium is reached, the body fat, and pos- sibly other substances, contribute directly or indirectly to product.

4. The normal net nutriment required for a pound of butter-fat is approx- imately 6.25 pounds, with a slight increase for cows yielding milk con- taining a low percentage of butter-fat and less for cows giving milk con- taining a high percentage of butter-fat.

5. The normal net nutriment required to a pound of milk solids yielded is approximately 2.4 pounds, with a slight increase for cows yielding milk rich in butter-fat and less for cows giving milk containing a low percentage of butter-fat.

6. When the nutriment available.daily for products and the products yielded daily are reduced to an approximate common value of energy, it is found that there is required about 1.75 pound of available nutriment to 1 pound of product; that is, of the available nutriment 43 per cent is expended in energy and 57 per cent is retained in the milk solids.

7. The daily yield of butter-fat in excess of the nutriment supply, by virtue of an average daily loss per cow of 2 pounds in body weight, was .283 pound, being a sacrifice of 7 pounds in body weight to 1 pound of butter-fat yielded in excess of that provided for in the ration.

8. When the normal working condition of body weight is reached, the nutriment required to a pound of butter-fat and to a pound of milk solids remains fairly constant for an indefinite time under proper management.

The above conclusions finish Haecker’s published work up to date, except for deductions from the results of the breed test at St. Lowis in 1904. Haecker sums up these results and applies his standard to them, and by allowing 3.2 pounds net nutriment per pound of gain in weight he accounts for the expenditure of the excess nutriment. It is not thought necessary to report this bulletin in the present paper.

Some unpublished data on Haecker’s standard

The feeding table, or standard, now in use by Haecker was seen by the author of this bulletin at the Graduate School of Agriculture held at Cornell University. in 1908. Professor Haecker kindly gave a copy to the

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 75

author. When this was compared with the standard as given on page 104 of Bulletin 79 of the Minnesota station, it was noticed that the require- ments were slightly higher for milk low in percentage of butter-fat and slightly lower for milk ranging high in butter-fat. When a letter was sent to Professor Haecker asking the reason for this change, he kindly sent to the author the two tables given below, A and B, together with a very careful letter of explanation from which the following notes are taken:

In Table A is given the average daily summary for the Minnesota sta- tion herd for eight winters, ‘“‘reduced to a daily average of dry matter con- sumed and digestible nutrients consumed, the total nutriment reduced to a starch equivalent, the nutriment calculated for maintenance, allowing .792 pound digestible starch equivalent for too pounds live weight, the amount left for product, the product yielded being the sum of the fat mul- tiplied by 2.2 and the solids-not-fat, and the net nutriment consumed to a unit of product yielded.

“Tn the blank spaces following there is a double dash indicating that during the winter there was an equilibrium in the weight of the herd. If there is a plus, there is a gain; a minus sign indicates a loss. Taking an av- erage of the eight winters work it appears that there was required 1.81 pound of net nutriment reduced to starch equivalent to produce one of product.

TABLE A (16). AVERAGE DAILy SUMMARY OF THE HERD FOR E1GHT WINTERS

| ; Nutriment | Nutri- | ment | Net Carbo- daily | F F nutri- Dry Pro- hy- Ether (Eres | aoe product Product | ment matter| tein drates | extract | C. H. + Henanoal IBHTSZ.| yielded | tor A ae Z | et |.792 per| 2.2 + | dary. | peta liiscase) | Pixoo dbshi Seine we. | PREC | |-07--7-.01 | 1894-5 24.5 2.00 | 12.46 | .56 15.69 Tesh 8.08 | 4.59 | a 1895-6 a 2.59 ee et ee ee oA 4.36 1.905 + 1902-3 ar. I.92 ah -48 | 14.83 AG 7.87 4.53 | 1.73 | = 1903-4 20.6 I.97 | 10.99 307) (23.740 = i LOnan 6.55 4.29 | 1.53 + Fed roots 1904-5 220 I.92 II.96 | .50 | 14.98 | 7.09 | 7.89 4.38 | rE 7or |= 1905-6 oh ta(6| 1.65 L205 4 250) |) ) 51-32 1) On00) || 8.42 4.34 | 1.94 + 1906-7 23.0 gigi al ues fou ea 63 | 16.2 | 7.40 8.87 4.50 | 1.94 | + 1907-8 23.7 T.00) |) 12.05 .60 15.00 | 6.85 8.31 4.59 | 1.81 = 4 | = Average| 22.7 TOR) | Dent Se | 15 sid 7205 8 o71| 4.455 | 1.81 |

* This is probably 8.12, but is 8.08 in the original.

“Table B gives first the organic composition of milk from the number of milkings indicated in the first column, the milkings ranging from 3 to 7 per cent fat. In securing the average composition of any grade of milk, we only count .25 per cent above and no more than .25 per cent below the average; that is, the average of 3-per-cent milk was obtained from 658 different milkings, none of which went below 2.75 or above 3.25.

76 BULLETIN 323

“ Reducing the butter-fat to an equivalent of nitrogenous solids-not-fat and adding the product to the solids-not-fat, we have the following columns giving the components in one pound of milk ranging from .027 to .o42 pound of protein and .112 to .202 pound of non-nitrogenous compounds.

TABLE B (17). Gravimetric ANALYSIS

Organic composition of Components in 1 Feeding standard. Net nutriment milk pound milk to 1 pound milk Nex ao ber of | milk- Protein, | Protein Carbo- 13 per cent ings Milk casein, i Nitrog- Non- in milk hydrates of carbo- fat Aelia actose enous nitrog- | + so per in milk hydrates | bumen | enous | cent + 70 per as ether | cent extract 658 3.0% tT, 4.60 3027) | Be O04 .19 O14 770 5: 2.8 4.75 -028 | .124 .042 pepe -O16 840 4.0 yon! 4.85 . 031 .136 | -047 523 018 1,638 4.5 3.3 4.97 -033 -149 -049 -25 -O19 1,442 5.0 3-4 | 4.98 034 . 160 O51 577) 021 1,246 SiS 3.6 4.92 . 036 .170 -054 .29 .022 546 6.0 3.8 4.91 .038 .181 057 ot 023 336 6.5 Art 4.90 O41 .192 O61 -33 025 182 730 4.2 4.84 .042 .202 -063 .34 .026 .310 1.426 - 464 2.42 .184 X2.2—=.405 .310 -404 -405 1.736 3.2890 Standard provides........ 1.89 Amount required......... 1.81 IX COSS2 tas eerayerneateras .08

‘“‘ Now, we have in Table A that it requires 1.81 pound of net nutriment to produce one of product. Such being the case, it follows that .81 is expended in the energy required for the production of milk solids. This energy can be supplied by carbohydrates so it is not necessary to provide more protein over and above that required for the product than will pro- vide all contingencies in waste in the process of digestion and transloca- tion, fetal growth, and variations in the composition of both feed and milk, and increase the carbohydrates in the ration proportionately to make the total nutriment provide practically what is required in Table A.”

Professor Haecker then says in his letter: ‘‘ I am satisfied that any surplus ranging from 30 to 50 per cent over and above what appears in the milk will answer for ordinary milk production. This I have found by actual experiment. (See earlier results as given in this paper on pages 69 to 71.—Author.) I desire to make sure there is enough protein, so I provide protein for maintenance and protein for milk plus 50 per cent protein in the milk. Then I add enough to carbohydrates to make the amount required for milk production, seeing that the ration of carbo- hydrates to ether extract is about what is found in our American Feeding

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 77

Stuffs used for milk production. Adding together the total non-nitro- genous components and the various nutrients in the milk, we find there is 1.736 pound. Doing the same with the nutrients in the feeding standard, having reduced the ether extract to an equivalent of carbohydrates, we find that there are 3.289 pounds, and that the standard provides 1.89 unit to a unit of product in milk solids, while the amount used by the herd as shown by Table A is 1.81, the standard being in excess about .o8 of nutriment to each pound of product.’’

If we refer back to the method of building the feeding tables on page 71, taken from Bulletin 79, and compare results for any one set of conditions, we will find “‘ that the uniformity in the two methods as to results,” using

Haecker’s words again, “‘ are

truly wonderful.”

Haecker calculated the new tables of requirements to meet the objec- tions of many investigators to the first tables on the ground that his data for the tables in Bulletin 79 were very meager.

Having now covered all the ground that serves as a basis for Haecker’s arguments, his opinions and conclusions may be best summed up by giving in full his table of feeding standards as he uses them in his

classroom: TABLE 18. HAECKER’sS STANDARD FOR MILK PRODUCTION . Carbo- Protein hydrates Fat Ronsunimpenance, per TOO IDS. 2.6... 6. sets swine ss Syeee os 0700 .700 .O100 Homn pound mille, 2.5 per cert fat..jh2 2 acs iccs jan daleliccs 0390 . 168 .0120 Bort pound mili. 2:6 percent fates. ..65.).0. 00 geen es. 0396 172 -O122 For apound milk, 2-7 percent fat. .... 6.5.8.2... 2 2... 0402 .176 .O124 Remi pound milks 2.8 per cent fat....2.5. 6. sh odie we .0408 180 .O127 Port poundinilk: 2:9 percent fat... . os. cs dete ec ee .O414 -185 .0130 Port pound mili<,3°0 per cent fat... 602.0). 05.00.85. 0420 .189 .0133 Homrepound milk. 3.1 percent fat... as)... 2. osele soe. .0426 .193 .0136 Horm pound milk, 3.2 per cent fat... 0.6... dees aee .0432 .197 .0139 Porr pound milk, 3.3 percent fat.....-.2. 00 bv k 0438 .202 .O142 Bonreponund milk, 2.4 per cent fat... ..0.6.6.. 0b des sess .0444 206 .O146 Homa pound milk, 3.5 per cent fat... . 2.06... . swe .0450 211 .O149 Romupound milk, 3:6-per cent fat... 0.0.05 50.6 bens es .0456 215 .O152 ibees pound mill,.3.7 per cent fat.....0.. voce ees wee a .0462 220 .O155 Hemmpound mili, 3.8 per cent fats... 000. cee ee nan .0468 22 .O158 Bem tepound mille, 3.9 per cent fat: ......0.. 2. eee lee .0474 228 .O161 Hogspound milk; 4.0 percent fate. 6)... 56.5 ose ace dee .0480 Bee .O164 Hounippouna mile A:t per cent fat. -......56...s cai e cs 0486 237 .O167 Homsepound millc,.42 per cent fate. .ci. 5. vjonse be kbs coe .0492 241 .O170 Pormpound milk, 4.3)per cent fabs..o,. 006 coe. eee des 0498 -245 .0173 Bor tepound milk, 4.4 per cent fat......6.0....0cunese: 0504 .249 .O176 Hormpoeand mili, 45 per cent fat. ....)...<4.2. sa aeaien O510 P2S3 .O179 Mont pound sulk, 4.6 percent fat. i... ec. ead ds oe eel 0516 257 .O18I Pont pound milky ae7-per cent fat. 0s 56.000. ee ee .0522 260 .O184

78 BULLETIN 323

TABLE 18 (continued

i, | Carbo- : Protein hydrates Fat Formaintenance; per 100 Ibs5 3 se oe in ee ae wis .0700 -700 -O100 For 1 pound milk, 4-8: pertcemtliat.a.c.cnc,s wears cts 5 .0528 . 264 .0186 Bor 1pound mull Ao) per centiaater... crc kei eters = .0534 .267 .0189 For 1 pound'mulle, 5\o-percent fat)... ssi see es .0540 271 .O19I Hom pound mull 35.1 percent tat ane ese i yee ee .0546 -275 .O194 Fora pound milk, 5:2 percent fats wischr. in Sic .0552 .278 .O196 Bora pound milk: 5:4 pericent fat. 22.0 sn. s situs oe ee .0558 .282 .0199 Homi pound mille is Alper cent fate. use eee tere .0564 .285 .0201 Hor tpound! mille, 515) per cent tate. .acentmens s mec: .0570 .289 .0204 Bor © pound milkx,.'5:6 per cent fat... 2.2426: dass k «© .057 .292 .0206 Ror 1 pound mule, 5.7 per cent iiat. aoe tek hh cee ok .0582 .296 .0209 Fort pound! milk, 5.8.percentfat 22 5 fc ares 3) wits ctee .0588 . 300 .O211 Hor ne poundeniilik sio) per cent tata. ss. te ie sole on .0594 - 303 .0214 For 1 pound/milk, 6.0 per centifat. wate. 225 nto wk re .0600 B07, .0216 Hor i pound mulk, 6:1 pericenttatys sn. tee aes sees ieee .0606 .310 .0219 Bor TP pound mille, 6:2 per cent tat... spas weak alante ners « .0612 .314 .0222 Por ft pouricumilk, 6:3 percent tate 2 <e cyt eee ius .0618 erg .0224 Bor 1 pound milk, 6:4 per icentiiat. -:. / 4.000 eae}. .0624 {322 .0227 Bor i pound nmi, 6:5 sper icentiata i ye... ges os @ ye 8 .0630 £325 .0229 For 1 pound! mull; 6/6ypericent fat. <2 faa. cncss.cee es: oc .0636 .328 .0232 Por 2 pound milk 6:7 per cent fat..7.0- 75.2 te. ees .0642 -3e1 .0234 Ror i pound milk, (6:8) percent fae .ciasncct ac = once cee .0648 -335 .0237 For 1 pound milk, 6:9 pericent fatic.cocncicn% sey .< a eee .0654 -339 .0239 Hor 1 poundsmillk, 7.0) per centfat.ac. ee. sss cee eer e .0660 341 .0242

H. P. ARMSBY’S FEEDING STANDARD

Dr. H. P. Armsby has done much to further the work on animal nutrition in America, and to-day he is perhaps better known than any other nutrition expert in the country. He has become thus well known through two textbooks on animal nutrition,' the first a general textbook and the second a scientific treatise on the subject. Besides these two text- books he has published a number of bulletins’ from the Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station, where he began work as Director of the station in 1892. Since the building of the respiration calorimeter at the Pennsylvania station, the animal nutrition work has been in cooperation with the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture. It will not be necessary to review

1H. P.Armsby. ‘ Manual of Cattle Feeding’’ and ‘‘ Pinciples of Animal Nutrition.”

2H. P. Armsby:

‘Relative Values of Feeding Stuffs.’’ Penn. State College Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 71.

“Feed as a Source of Energy."" Penn. State College Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 84.

“‘ Feeding for Meat Production.” U, S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bul. 108.

H. P. Armsby and T. Augustus Fries:

‘The Available Energy of Timothy Hay.” U.S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bul. 51. “Energy Values of Red Clover Hay and Maize Meal.” U.S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bul. 74. “The Available Energy of Red Clover Hay.” U.S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bul. ror.

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 79

here all the bulletins that are cited in the footnote on the preceding page. In bulletins 71 and 84 of the Pennsylvania station and in Farmers’ Bul- letin 346 of the United States Department of Agriculture is contained subject-matter of interest in this connection. In these bulletins Armsby’s attitude toward the subject of feeding as it stands to-day is explained.

The results in bulletins 71 and 84 of the Pennsylvania station and in Farmers’ Bulletin 346 can now be discussed. The computation of rations, up to the work of Armsby in this country and of Kellner in Germany, has always been placed on the amount of digestible nutrients in the given fodders, as has been clearly shown in these pages. Now Armsby shows in the bulletins cited that this view is inaccurate and he proceeds to show the reasons for his opinion, taking as a basis the results on the maintenance value of red-clover hay, timothy hay, and maize meal as shown by work on these feeds with the respiration calorimeter. He wishes to place the relative value of the feeding-stuffs on the production values of the different foods. First, before comparing the different foods, we must explain what is meant by the “ production value ”’ of a food.

When a foodstuff is burned, it yields a certain amount of heat or chem- ical energy usually measured in calories,* or in units of 1,000 Calories ° called therms by Armsby. Necessarily a large part of this energy, when the foodstuff is burned in the animal, is lost in the feces and urine and in the combustible gases from the intestinal tract. When this lost energy is subtracted from the chemical energy the resulting energy is called the “fuel value’”’ of the food. Many writers have used the fuel values of foodstuffs in showing their relative values, but since these fuel values are determined in almost exactly the same way as are the digestible nutrients they have no greater value than have the amounts of digestible nutrients in a food to show its value in nutrition.

Armsby goes a step further and defines the term ‘‘ production value of a food,” showing that only a part of the fuel value of a given foodstuff can go for production. He defines the “‘ production value ”’ of a food as that part which can really go toward the production of meat in mature fattening animals, for the production of milk, and for growth in growing animals. He shows that these production values are not in the same relation in timothy hay, clover hay, and corn meal as the fuel values and, therefore, the digestible nutrients.

Then we find also another term, namely, ‘‘ maintenance value.’”?’ Armsby finds that more energy can be derived from the fuel value of a food merely in maintaining the animal than in the production and storing of the energy as product; therefore the maintenance value of a food is greater

* A calorie (abbreviation small ‘‘c.’’) is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of I gram of distilled water 1 degree Centigrade. 1,000 calories = 1 Calorie (abbreviation capital *C."). 1,000 Calories = 1 therm (abbreviation ** T.’’).

80 BULLETIN 323

than its production value but less than its fuel value. This is obvious, since extra energy would be required to store food as extra weight over that required merely to replace some body material or merely to be burned in the body in order to maintain the body without gain in weight. Tables 19 and 20, giving the comparative values of timothy hay and corn meal, will show clearly what is intended by the above explanation:

TABLE 19. DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS, COMPUTED FUEL VALUES, AND ACTUAL FUEL

VALUES Nutrients | Computed} Actual per 100 fuel fuel pounds value value (pounds) | (therms) | (therms) Absolute values RimothyeOAvens: < 5. cecum: acer ree ete eee: A721 375 TE RAT C@ormumealin ct... vs cpeeeeeniee hee a coe oie IR pee cee 81.9 152.5 130.8 Relative values dihoolo|doy gilol:ti yankee pea in penn reas cd oiats Bisa cir | 1.00 1.00 1.00 CGormpmedlecne ace erase ior Ae a eos See 1.74 Melt 1.68

The above table shows that the computed fuel values and actual fuel values are not different from each other to any extent. The next table will show the relative values as to maintenance and production in 100 pounds of timothy hay and corn meal:

TABLE 20. ActuaL FuEL VALUES, MAINTENANCE VALUES, AND PRODUCTION VALUES PER 100 POUNDS

Actual Mainte- Produc- fuel nance tion values values values (therms) | (therms) | (therms)

Absolute values

MsmOthy: Ways... cienc 25-5 cleo e Nee eens eae eee TTP 48.9 25.9

Corm: mica ae-cascs «is. ap tne) daneebeeenn clone Gea Ie 130.8 101.6 69.7 Relative values

imothy. hay 2: sale. oc ott a ee 1.00 1.00 1.00

Gorm meal.) 25 ee tt fads Shee ee 1.68 peed Oa 2.69

* From the absolute values above, this value would be 2.08.

The original reference gives it as 2.11.

From this table we see that corn meal has relatively a much greater value, both for maintenance and production, than is shown by the actual fuel value (or digestible nutrients).

Not many of the production values of American feeding-stuffs have been computed, because of the amount of labor connected with

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION Sr

such a calculation with the respiration calorimeter. In Farmers’ Bulletin 346 appears a table worked out by Armsby from data secured from Kellner at the Moeckern Experiment Station in Germany. In Armsby’s opinion these production values of Kellner’s, while not absolutely correct, are more nearly correct than our ordinary tables of digestible nutrients. The table is given on page 15, Farmers’ Bulletin 346.

As for protein requirements, in Armsby’s opinion, so far as mainte- nance is concerned, the total amount required is so small relatively that it is only when feeds very poor in protein are used that there is danger of its falling short. A proper supply of protein is, of course, indispensable and enough in excess of maintenance must be furnished to provide for the product when productive animals are under consideration. The amounts necessary for given purposes will be shown in the discussion of Armsby’s standard (page 11g).

The feeding standard for milk

In Table 21 are given Armsby’s maintenance requirements for cattle, which apply to milch cows as well as to other mature cattle:

TABLE 21. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CATTLE

Digestible E :

Live weight (pounds) protein ( re apine )

(pounds) NermMs IS OEMS ere ane Avs cies sisiaiier susie fa 2 Manatee ei ineeeee 0.15 1.70 PIO 6 oo GrOmeve CERT CASIO OSL aOR CREOSOTE ee te iar 0.20 2.40 OO E Ege de eet febet en iasleusi eure sia b nettles wehbe clas slardbeparh ately spams 0.30 3.80 F3O)+0.5 5 le eS Oe OS 0 See Se eee Ee © yee eee 0.40 4.95 HAD), 6 6 cleric DOGS 0/6 1G EAhOne CEI Eee en en are teers 0.50 6.00 2 SOM ra esse ecie ae oe eb wibis soe a apehatemican «ae areeeret 0.60 7.00 PS OOM R eae coc enee ee aie (chacce, SAC eure Sante oh Siac nus op SPian ne Wraweeentelicieils ge 0.65 7.90

These apply, for the given live weight, for one animal one day. Strict accuracy is not claimed for these figures by Armsby, but he thinks them substantially correct. Under the requirements for milk production, it is thought that .3 therm of production value in the feed is ample for 1 pound of average milk containing about 13 per cent total solids and 4 per cent butter-fat.

In regard to the protein requirements, it seems, in Armsby’s opinion, that milk production can be kept up, fora time at least, onan amount of protein very slightly exceeding that found in the milk produced, added to the maintenance requirement. In the case of average milk this would

82 BULLETIN 323

call for about .o32 pound digestible protein for each pound of milk pro- duced. For the production of a liberal supply of milk, a little more protein than this would seem advantageous. Therefore Armsby recommends .os pound of digestible protein for each pound of milk.

Armsby suggests that the requirements of .3 therm of production value and .os pound of digestible protein for 1 pound of milk might be increased for richer milk or decreased for poorer milk to advantage; but he does not attempt any systematic arrangement to meet the requirements for different grades of milk.

With this explanation of the standards that have been published on milk production, we may now consider the application of the two last named in the experiments at this station.

DATA OF CORNELL EXPERIMENTS. WINTERS OF 1909-1910 AND IQIO~-IQII

The experiments in question were planned with the purpose of applying Haecker’s feeding standard to milch cows. However, the data are in such form that some knowledge of the application of Armsby’s standard can be gained.

Data of the winter of 1909-1910

Twelve cows were used. They were divided into three groups of four cows each, the groups being so arranged that cows of different breeds, quality of milk, and quantity of milk would be in the same group. In Table 22 is given a tabular statement of data regarding the cows in each group:

TABLE 22. Cows IN EXPERIMENT OF I909-I9I0

Nee Last Average Breed ( ae f) calf live weight ea (1909) | (pounds) Group A | @ormella, Marvella. 223-2 eee oe ee jj G4) OGteaGo 860 Garnet Deltas. % <5. ager. ora ee I 6 Sept. 19 925 Gipsy eis oe se Fee Gee Gr. H 5 | Sept. 19 985 GIIStASEACAR + oo: ccs eee omer ara eee H 9 Octs 17 Ts Group B GlistaiOmileron. 0 soe ta eee H 6 Nov. 9 1,150 Glistarsiomas?. ese. Sa ae e eee ee H 6| Sept. 13 | 1,090 Hector's Berta. 6. .e)Hsreo hs rss oe eee J a Oct 225) 815 MAA YALA cs Sey. A ann te.s Meera S 4 | Sept. 20 | 1,050 Group C : Glista: Chi i..¢4 ns 20 ten Apes ae H 5:\ Sept--.2 1,035 Glista‘Omegacnc woe ois see ee Sern H 5 | Sept. 4 1,050 SCE) 100 ee ton ts ie Mr aA ato | J 10 | Sept. 19 | gio RAS WARSI EI ised cag ope ed aaa peCanaee | J | 5 |. Sept. 23 940

FEEDING STANDARDS -FOR MILk PropucrTioNn 83

The cows were fed a ration of mixed hay (one half clover and one half mixed grasses), corn silage, mangels, and grain mixtures composed of distillers’ dried grains (Ajax flakes), hominy chop, old-process linseed meal, and wheat bran. The digestible composition of the fodders, as given in Table 23, was determined from actual analysis by the application of the digestion coefficients from Experiment Station Bulletin 11 of the United States Department of Agriculture, and from “ Feeds and Feeding’”’ by W. A. Henry:

TABLE 23. COMPOSITION OF FODDERS PER 100 POUNDS. 1909-1910

B Nitro- Ty . . gen- Value matter oe Pano free ( ae ) Therms | per 100 (pounds)) ‘P Pp extract | \P pounds (pounds)

Mixed hay........ 93.28 4.62 16.86 2862) \F iy srT 34.50 | $0.60 Cornisilages <5... - 251,98" * 1-90 32.04 Diy UT 0.62 16.56 | O-1125 Miamcelseeeiect -)<- 16.68 132 0.55 10.63 0.03 4.62 | 0.20 Distillers’ dried) .

graims.......... 93.59 19.47 6.32 39.61 9.94) 79-23 1.50 Omimyy seals. 92.91 7.60 346) |) £53800 ©; 82) |) 788284)" “nar25 OilbmMeale |G cists. «2 © QI.00 | 32.32 4-49 28.91 As tar 78.92 T75 Wheat bran....... QI .67 12.49 2 38.37 eniegall ish 736) 1.25

* The therms energy in hominy is not given by Armsby in Farmers’ Bulletin 346. The therms energy in corn is used instead. ‘

The grain mixtures used in 1909-1910 were as follows:

Mixture 1 Feeds Constituents in mixture I 600 lbs. hominy chop g2.50 per cent dry matter 200 lbs. wheat bran 12.24 per cent digestible protein 100 lbs. distillers’ dried grains 3.59 per cent digestible fiber 100 lbs. oil meal 46.32 per cent digestible nitrogen-free extract 6.17 per cent digestible fat 78.77 therms energy

The cost of 100 pounds of mixture 1 was $1.2 Ee

Mixture 2 Feeds Constituents in mixture 2 200 lbs. hominy chop 92.80 per cent dry matter 200 lbs. wheat bran 16.99 per cent digestible protein 500 lbs. distillers’ dried grains 4.73 per cent digestible fiber 100 lbs. oil meal 40.97 per cent digestible nitrogen-free extract

7.42 per cent digestible fat 74.92 therms energy

84 BULLETIN 323

The rations were so constructed that the nutritive ratio would be between 1:6 and 1:7 except when group B was fed mixture 2.

Group A was fed mixture 1 all through the experiment according to the general plan of feeding practiced at the experiment station, that is, all that each individual cow would take care of and eat up clean each day. Group B was fed mixture 1 during the first and second periods, and mix- ture 2 during the third period. During the second period, however, it was endeavored so to arrange the feeding of group B that each cow would be fed the exact amount of nutriment called for by Haecker’s standard according to her production. During the third period, group B was to be fed the same total nutriment as in the second period, but the ration was to have a narrower nutritive ratio, hence the change to mixture 2. Group C was fed mixture 1 in all three periods; but in the first period group C was to be fed nutriment in accordance with Haecker’s standard, in the second period as much as each cow would eat up clean with good appe- tite, and in the third period all that the individual cows could possibly take without ‘ going off feed.”

Each period was six weeks in length and each followed directly after the preceding. The data from only the last five weeks of each period are taken into account, since it took the first week of each period for the cows to become adjusted to whatever change may have been made in their ration.* The quantity of food consumed by each animal during each period is shown in tables 24, 25, and 26, one table being given to each group:

TABLE 24. FEED RECORD oF Group A. 1909-1910

* These plans did not materialize, however, since the check analysis of the feeding-stuffs when the results came from the chemist showed that the silage and the mangels contained much more digestible matter than was planned for, the plans being based on the average American composition tables given in Henry's ‘‘ Feeds and Feéding."’ Therefore, groups B and C, when they were supposed to be receiving Haecker’s standard, were actually getting amounts 5 to 15 per cent in excess of that standard.

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 85

TABLE 25. FEED RECORD oF Group B. 1909-1910

@micronm: 5.22525. I 316 T5225) | 700 420 | Mixture I 2 350 1,225 700 455 | Mixture 1

3 350 840 590 319 | Mixture 2

roi (e161 ene I 316 1225 700 420 | Mixture 1 2 350 225 700 420 | Mixture 1

3 350 1,225) 700 385 | Mixture 2

Hector’s Berta..... I 316 875 700 350 | Mixture 1 2 350 875 700 326 | Mixture 1

3 350 875 660 264 | Mixture 2 ILavehyy QUEL ce sooo I 229 875 700 385 | Mixture 1 2 280 875 700 350 | Mixture 1

3 280 875 700 315 | Mixture 2

TABLE 26. FEED RECORD oF GrRouP C. 1909-1910

: Hay Silage | Mangels} Grain Cow Period (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds) (Clete ee eee I 316 1,225 700 280 | Mixture 1 2 350 1,225 700 350 | Mixture I 3 350 1,245 700 368 | Mixture 1 Omepaere ccc sis os: I 316 1,225 700 315 | Mixture 1 2 350 Th 225 700 305 | Mixture 1 3 350 1,060 550 332 | Mixture 1 Slisamimaservis oe eres I 229 865 700 | * 385 | Mixture 1 2 280 635 640 298 | Mixture 1 a 280 875 700 315 | Mixture 1 ahathyissAnnal : 2) ..- I 229 875 700 420 | Mixture 1 2 280 875 700 385 | Mixture 1 3 280 1,050 700 384 | Mixture 1

The constituents in the food consumed by the cows are given in tables 27, 27a, 28, 28a, 29, and 29a; two tables to each group. Here also are shown the amounts of the different constituents provided by Haecker’s and Armsby’s standards in contrast with the amounts of the different constituents actually consumed by the animals. The data given in the column headed ‘“‘ Total nutriment ” are obtained by multiplying the fat by 24 and adding the carbohydrates and protein.

In determining the amount of constituents required for product in Haecker’s standard, the nearest .o5 per cent of fat is used (Table 18); that is, 5.37 per cent fat is used as 5.35 per cent, 5.24 per cent as 5.25 per cent.

86

BULLETIN 323

In determining the requirements for maintenance according to Armsby’s standard (Table 21), the live weight is used as the nearest 25, 50, 75, Or 100 pounds, and for each 25 pounds above the amount given in the table .or pound protein and .1 therm per day and per head is added until the actual live weight coincides with the next amount given in the table.

TABLE 27. ConstiTuENts FED Group A, 1909-1910, AND REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS ; SS SSS SS Total : Dry Protein Carbo- Fat nutri- Protein matter (pounds) | hydrates | (pounds) ment (pounds) | Therms (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) Cornella, Period 1 Amiountfedves sre eee 876.47 74.34 | 471.69 | 27.20)| 607223 74.34 | 504.03 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: S49ubsiiwelghte.t. «casei! ceca aoe 20.80 208.01 2.97 235.49 15.75 196.00 For product: 849.3 lbs. milk, 5.37 per Cent ati. eer cree eal acetal a 47.65 241.20 16.99 327.08 42.47 254.79 Totalisasc.<t6o%e eva ecru ee 68.45 449.21 19.96 562.57 | 58.22 450.79 Cornella, Period 2 Amount feds. s..<0 csecs ve 872.83 71.34 | 470.16 | 24.85 | 597.41 71.34 | 479.63 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: 868 Ibs: swerghts s/o sax ci ete cine eee 21.27 212.66 3.04 240.77 Py.75 196.00 For product: _ | 750.9 lbs. milk, 5.24 per | Cenbitatis: ce kee cee beeen 42.01 211.93 | 14.99 287.67 | 37.85 227.07 PL Otal ss newyartctve Seine eecaes eae 63.28 424.59 | 18.03 528.44 | 53.60 423.07 Cornella, Period 3 PMO bed ener as oie sree 855.38 7OLST i aS 7e Sha 25.43 | 585.24 70.51 | 479.74 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: S7Orlbs- weight, 5-.. 2. ate ei eee 21.54 215.36 3.08 243.83 LS As 196.00 For product: 724.1 lbs. milk, 5.31 per Cent fate. ns c.c ell eee 40.40 204.20 14.41 277.02 36.21 217.23 otal s,s <2 Reese ees 61.94 419.56 17.49 520.85 BL 9671? 413-23 Garnet Delta, Period 1 Honountiteds...26se see. 803.61 71.68 | 438.58 | 26.53 | 569.95 71.68 | 475.63 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: Org bs: hweight ices oo sae mes 22.37 223.60 3.20 253.26 15.75 196.00 For product: 630.6 lbs. milk, 6.19 per Bentitaton Necture) (Un aaa 38.50 198.01 14.00 268.10 Bies3 189.18 “LOCAL tec tiles «tteieithel| otole la eheers 60.96 421.70 17.20 521.36 47.28 | 385.18

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 87

TABLE 27 (continued)

Total : Carbo- : : Protein Fat nutri- Protein hydrates Therms (pounds) (pounds) @aounds) (pounds) anes (pounds) Garnet Delta, Period 2 Amountifed = cceaaoecenn os 851.18 74.04 | 461.78 | 27.10 596.79 74.04 | 493.22 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: OBoulbstweiphtetee.-sa|) sessions: 23.01 230.06 3.29 260.47 17.50 210.00 For product: _ : 628.8 lbs. milk, 6.48 per : Cent Ave cece ce cloeisiavccl|\ doce 39.61 204.36 14.40 276.37 31.44 188.64 SPO tal Meek cosh casi) et kucegehers 62.62 434.42 17.69 536.84 48.94 398 .64 Garnet Delta, Period 3 Amount feds cigs ss cies sce: 829.50 72a Z AA TE 2S 2700 580.45 72.32 | 487.24 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: Ose lDStewelehtis. <5 5c cres||| satetestes « 23537 233.73 3.34 264.62 17.50 210.00 For product: 647.8 lbs. milk, 6.54 per GElibia beers tees art were ye artist ogi 4I.O1 211.83 14.06 286.50 32.39 194.34 Otel Foie pt Pinter sl || Bit emeeed aoctts 64.38 445.56 18.30 551.12 49.89 404.34 Gipsy, Period 1 Amount fed. ..:. 0. <s6 2 ees 1,040.44 90.91 | 562.71 | 33.98 730.07 90.91 | 618.90 Required — . by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: Qormlbssweight.. co... etki! cea can 23.62 236.18 See Y/ 267.38 17.50 210.00 For product: 1,235.3 Ibs. milk, 3.8 per GeItiphehunsersiereta,: tao c ei ciele |Pipaad ace vereie 57.81 276.71 19.52 378.44 61.77 370.59 ROtalee sce IP aie ee ot 81.43 512.890 22.890 645.82 79.27 580.59 Gipsy, Period 2 Amount fedt.< sascaseso-s > 1,072.16 92.48 | 578.17 | 34.36 747.96 92.48 | 630.63 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: Of (7) MOSS \aGhed hides Gerber |e 23.94 239.37 3.42 271.01 17.50 210.00 For product: 1,289.2 lbs. milk, 3.98 per Cenitptateraae ee ackit sect wb Ge kee 61.88 300.38 21.14 409.82 64.46 386.76 Moualeeperee ce ery al) mice ae. 85.82 539.75 24.56 | 680.83 81.96 596.76 Gipsy, Period 3 ATNOUNE TER! ac.04 2 sere oo f 1.072.16 92.48 | 578.17 | 34.36 747.96 92.48 | 630.63 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: MOOT OSE WEILL... 6 cis a|) co Cases 24.52 | 245.25 3.50 277.65 17.50 210.00 For product: 1,252.9 lbs. milk, 4.12 per Cenbiidte 602... adc. 60.890 296.94 20.92 404.99 62.65 375.87 NOU eee valeeeeae ccatall| Caton eecens 42 682.55 80.15 585.87

85.41 | 542.19 24.

88 BULLETIN 323

TABLE 27 (concluded)

Total Dry : Carbo- : : Protein Fat nutri- Protein matter hydrates Therms (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) Gunna (pounds) Eta, Period 1 Amount ted’ =. 4. oe see 1,078.01 95.58 | 583.02 | 36.26 | 760.19 95.58 | 649.80 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TWTOS MDS. weight .1o ses) Save ee ore 28.49 284.94 4.07 322.59 19.25 227.50 For product: ; 1,320.1 lbs. milk, 3.2 per Centitaterr+< een ck ty en| oasis ees 57.03 260.06 18.35 358.38 66.01 396.03 Total eqs Mewes el yeni ae 85.52 545.00 22.42 680.97 85.26 623.53 Eta, Period 2 Amount fed............... 1,124.02 98.20 | 606.25] 36.99] 787.68 98.20 | 670.66 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: Te TOSS Wele livin. deren Wetensts ee ee 29.23 292.29 Ast] 330.90 21.00 245.00 For product: : 1,254.8 lbs. milk, 3.32 per | Centiiath sac con ot fae eee lie eee 55.40 255.49 17.96 351.30 63.24 | 379.44 TGtae asters eo ee ee 84.63 | 547.78 22.13 | 682.20 | 84.24 624.44 Eta, Period 3 Amountited ae. 2 sss +e 1,000.20 86.73 | 536.49] 32.81 | 697.04 86.73 | 590.54 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: Teoo2sbs welehitacc mrcesvaclluech eters. 290.45 294.49 4.20 333-41 21.00 245.00 For product: 1,210.2 lbs. milk, 3.4 per Cermustat. eru.y 0s Pera valiaritont ak 53-73 249.30 17.67 342.79 60.51 363.06 MOtalere 21. vgateregteere les Me aera 83.18 543.79 21.88 676.20 81.51 608.06

TABLE 27a. AVERAGE CONSTITUENTS FED Group A, 1909-1910, AND REQUIRE- MENTS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS

Percent-

Total age of phates Protein nutri- | Nutritive} total nu- Protein Therns ii fe y (pounds) ment ratio triment (pounds) bi Es (pounds) above ‘es 3 a standard eens Period 1 Amount fed........ 83.13 666.86 Tie7 20 10.6 3.13 |562.09 10.2 Required by Haecker 74.09 | 602.68 sR fin? el Nene ey by Armsby 67.52 |5IO.020)) Mise siete Period 2 Amount fed......... 84.01 682.46 T1720 12.4 84.01 [568.54 TIS Required by Haecker 74.09 | 607.08 babes eda large ae by Armsby 67.18 }5 10.7301 -wietncrenens " Period 3 } | Amount fed......... 80.51 652.07, | ole ie0 fer | 80.51 |347.04 3.8 Required by Haecker OE eB 607.68 Baad als ANC Tal Wehr elo oe [by Armsby 65'88 1502.88) |o. ceca

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION

TABLE 28.

CONSTITUENTS FED Group B,

89

1909-1910, AND REQUIREMENTS

ACCORDING TO STANDARDS Dry P : Carbo- Total . rotein Fat nutri- Protein matter hydrates Therms (pounds) (pounds) ment (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) ga a a we cad © a a a | eT | i] Omicron, Period 1 AMOUNGITCd. © oe. ck yd ewes 1,178.28 98-53 | (604204 | 37.23 | 787o2d | (o8ssau|l (675.53 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: Tenia Se nWelgeitbray cis snl etary o cite 27.37; 273.67 3.91 309.84 19.25 227.50 For product: _ 1,593.4 lbs. milk, 3.35 per Cenltiebatmreer. sais sice eel fot ho 70.217, 325.05 22.94 446.93 79.67 478.02 Motaleryss-6 esr) iawn 97.64 598.72 26.85 750.77 98 .92 705.52 Omicron, Period 2 Amountitede. 2... 4s. +--+) 1,182.38) tog. 38) || 637287) ||) 30-77 [83ra7s) |) 104-38 | 5 714-84 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: | TPUGHeLOSssWwelesats, 5 cle a al!) neces a 28.59 285.92 4.08 323.69 19.25 227.50 For product: A 1,497.7 lbs. milk, 3.65 per, empha tien arte ele crs eho alll era caceucdals 68.74 326.50 23.06 447.13 74.89 440.31 ROG et ey a cyto es scar lh Meese) ae 97-33 612.42 27.14 770.82 94.14 676.81 Omicron, Period 3 Amotint fediss 2... s 8. 939.15 94.12 | 489.79 | 32.95 | 658.05 94.12) 526.26 Required — by Haecker by Armsby or maintenance: Delo bs weight. cis,cha-.c|' sake od. os 28.86 288.61 4.12 326.74 21.00 245.00 For product: 1,215.1 lbs. milk, 3.84 per Centers tere jets wotisieniat sleet. note S723) 274.61 19.44 375.58 60.76 | 364.53 otal ys sc pee ee cll rks 86.09 563.22 23.56 | 702.32 81.76 | 609.53 Sigma, Period 1 Amotint fed. aie, s1s «)ars Saree I, 118.28 98.53 | 604.94 | 37.23 | 787.24 98.53) || —O75253 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TOMS UDS WEIGH E.c ce. i] eee eters's 25.68 256.76 3.67 290.70 17.50 210.00 For product: 1,393.7 lbs. milk, 3.74 per Ger beraterer vel ceiie ie sa4 | hsiseterqa’es 64.81 309.40 21.88 423.44 69.69 418.11 otal epee. terererere tell ose sreyete se 90.49 566.16 25.55 714.14 87.19 628.11 Sigma, Period 2 MANTIOUT GCC: Lincs ches seuslers.0-« 1,150.00 100.10 | 620.40] 37.61 | 805.12 100.10 | 687.26 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TOotMbs: weight. oc. ce) sas cae. 26.73 267.30 3.82 302.63 L250 210.00 For product: 1,344.5 lbs. milk, 3.03 per GETIE el takes sree scars ater stalled iow ora nS 64.13 310.58 21.92 424.03 67.23 403.35 TOt ale pacorcke’ ate aeievs cell Revera re gastare 90.86 577-88 25.74 726.66 84.73 613.35

90 BULLETIN 323 TABLE 28 (continued) Dry | phe Carbo- F | Total Pete Patten rotein hydrates at nutri- rotein hecroe (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pena) (pounds) Sigma, Period 3 Amoatint fedsnsns «s/s sel sic 1,118.78 114.10 | 586.72 | 40.27 | ‘79r.43 114.10 | 644.67 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: ; 2 TeTCOMDSS Wels Ot ares oe cyolll a ciaters isi 27.20 271.95 3.88 307.88 19.25 227.50 For product: 1,270.5 lbs. milk, 4.09 per GENE Patines. com> ce eeiee.e |. © eis sieve iste 61.75 Bote. 21.22 410.61 63.53 381.15 Motaleecr og ee wee reli cceeok G 88.905 573.06 25.10 718.49 | 82.78 608.65 Hector’s Berta, Period 1 Amotintited ace. 5s. cies 962.60 83.31 | 520.48 | 30.75 | 672.08 83.31 | 562.27 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: So7 Ibs Welehte.:. -1./c/ecretelieretsinl ate re 19.77 197.72 2.82 223.84 14.00 173.25 For product: 1,058.3 lbs. milk, 5.46 per Cent dtattcmemen LRateer| Usetacees 60.01 303.73 21.48 412.07 52.92 317.49 Miotaleparcterer eeececr eet iro « 79.78 501.45 | 24.30 | 635.91 66.92 490.74 Hector’s Berta, Period 2 (Arniounteted cies siecle cee 972.12 81.94 |' 523.95 | . 29.64] 672.58 81.94 | 555.09 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: RrS loss wemghte.. 2. o sewil wee enrol 20.04 200.41 2.86 226.890 14.00 173.25 For product: _ 965.2 lbs. milk, 5.71 per GENGMALs oe ce nici ectal © ctis bre 56.17 285.70 20.17 387.25 48.26 289.56 PO ball ete ete ayo ere) tn elll Paveere de ciatc 76.21 486.11 23.03 614.14 62.26 462.81 Hector’s Berta, Period 3 PASAGIIT et eCke acter) avers 9 atelo eatt 908 .89 86.36 | 477.43 | 29.11 | 629.29 86.36 | 494.10 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: BT? TDS WEIGH E 4 ces en nie sail) Parrots eoneterts 19.89 198.94 2.84 Za5ead I4.00 173% 25 For product: | 936.9 lbs. milk, 5.43 per COTE LAG. eae ewe Noe. | | eer Soke 268.890 19.02 364.81 46.85 281.07 WOtAal +. Ree bereaved || Metetere sete 73.01 467 .83 21.86 590.03 60.85 454.32 Lady Clay, Period 1 Amount fed).c. 00.0% «2 eccier 913.83 83.57 | 498.37] 31.93] 653.78 83.57 lip ssonga Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: T-GOAMDS: WEIR DE rss tec se 4|) Stes eters 24.60 245.98 3.50 278.48 17.50 210.00 For product: 965.9 lbs. milk, 3.81 per Cont fat.4.o. iii cc All ena al siete <745,.20 216.36 15.26 2905.90 48.30 289.77 4 Wo) | Lae ae eI [ee Py 69.80 462.34 18.77 574.38 65.80 499.77

—————

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION gI

TABLE 28 (concluded)

Dry P : Carbo- Total . rotein F : Protein Cat) (pounds) eden} (pounds) cms (pounds) Therms (pounds) Lady Clay, Period 2 /Weclolkesin claganoeet o> oooeOE 929.02 81.65 | So“.ar |) 30:35) |) [654s05 81.65] 549.85 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: THOR SDSS WelgDba as ciel ence aes 25.36 253.58 3.62 287.08 17.50 210.00 For product: 890.5 lbs. milk, 4.01 per Ceniihabmeess gesrerce. estar all, (erronet paces 43.18 209.58 14.75 285.95 44.98 260.85 MOUaIME N.S all eee 68.54 | 463.16 18. 37, 573-03 62.48 479.85 : Lady Clay, Period 3 PITIOUI Le O oe 45.0 oc oe ain: 897.59 02.33). 473-38) 32/02 O37 74. 92.31 | 509.99 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TOR OM Sac welphit.c,. cree cillf eis tessieie 26.46 264.60 shag hs 209.57 17.50 210.00 For product: | 852.1 lbs. milk, 4.13 per CEmUpiG Meh lsise serosal aati. cek- 41.67 203.65 14.40 Pr ig ae 42.61 255.63 MR Ota Aes aerars cot crete ea ectes eve 68.13 468.25 18.18 577.29 60.11 465.63

TABLE 28a. AVERAGE CONSTITUENTS FED Group B, 1909-1910, AND REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS

Percent- Total age of Percent Protein nutri- | Nutritive| total nu- Protein Th ewe (pounds) | ment ratio triment (pounds) cums eee (pounds) above a = 4 standard standar Period 1 Amount fed.........} 90.98 725.31 1 27/50 8.2 90.98 618.29 6.4 Required by Haecker|] 84.43 670.30 Te VOLO Mes eae by Armsby FOLTL SOLO |\eas setae Period 2 Amount fed.........| ‘92.02 740.87 Tes 7 40 10.4 92.02 |626.76 12.3 Required by Haecker| 83.24 671.16 Te 75s lids troehn by Armsby 75 SOO) ISS See Lal, eee Period 3 Amount fed.........] 96.72 679.13 I :6.0 5.0 ‘ 96.72 |543.75 7 Required by Haecker| 79.04 647.03 es Goo aoe eee iby Armsby LSS (SA DO era rere tee

TABLE 29. CoNSTITUENTS FED Group C, 1909-1910, AND REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS

-

Dry

: Carbo- Total : matter Garey hydrates ( Hee ) nutri- Geen Therms (pounds) ene (pounds) jelg\ebetels ment iis\eheles (pounds) Chi, Period 1 PAIONTIURL EO steele civ wieleye is © 988.78 81.31 | 535.07 | 28.60| 680.73 | 8r.3r | 562.ar Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: THOZSG WIS. IWEIGHES of 6 cee cf) sve see rare 25501 251.12 3.59 284.31 17.50 210.00 For product: 1,160.7 lbs. milk, 3.37 per Ceriterctiena a che cbernettotel |) deuce ares s 51.18 236.78 16.71 325.56 58.04 348.21 FANGS rf EE ee eas ciel 76.20 | 487.99 20.30 609.87 75.54 558.21 |

92 BULLETIN 323

TABLE 29 (continued)

Total Dry . Carbo- : : Protein Fat nutri- Protein matter hydrates Therms (pounds) (pounds) ment (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) Chi, Period 2 moiin by tedueee heer 1,085.25 Ors) S8se475l. 3a230 [9 755.93 91.53 | 632.10 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: T030\ lbs welghty...lacieree sii oc isisss 25.24 252.35 3.61 285.71 17.50 210.00 For product: 1,167.6 lbs. milk, 3.35 per Cent fates. concealer oc ele 51.49 238.19 16.81 327.50 58.38 350.28 RGtal sie imc el eee] eee ee ee 76.73 490.54 20.42 613.21 75.88 560.28 Chi, Period 3 Amount fede sees see. sr 1,101.90 93.73 | 594.45 | 34.41 |] 765.60 93.73 | 649.60 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: 1,050 lbs. weight........ Ae See : 25-73 2572 5e 3.68 291.26 17.50 210.00 For product: | 1,089.8 lbs. milk, 3.54 per Cent fatten. eccte= 2 Oey ee = atone 49.37 232.13 | 16.46 318.54 54.49 326.94 Rotalespracs te sce Weeeede hee snte ave 75.10 489.38 | 20.14 609.80 71.99 530.94 | | Omega, Period 1 Amount Ledeen ee ies eee a O2E 10. 85.68] 552.44 |) -30276 |= 7o7233 85.68 | 502.79 Required — : by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: Toso lbsaweightinasc co.) meesetees 25073: 257.25 3.68 2901.26 17.50 210.00 For product: 1,141.5 lbs. milk, 3.63 per CREME AG. (2%. oaiciese eiareys aceil| verses soya 52.39 248.85 17.58 340.79 57.08 342.45 Totaly cn cirerecce el) Bese easier 78.12 506.10 21.26 632.05 74.58 | 552.45 Omega, Period 2 I SaralaiSteyqoice la ape OO ORS LOO 1,043.63 86:02) 563-0r | 30.52) |! 717-70 86.02 |] 506.64 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TO501DSs WEIGNt. 2. oc ces |) ee caie ene baal is 257025 3.68 291.26 I7.50 210.00 For product: 1,097.1 lbs. milk, 3.75 per Cerbifatae ace citel torah ene ifs 51.02 243.56 17.422 333-33 54.86 329.13 Eotaliers crceiel. cea lt eee eee 76.75 500.81 20.90 624.59 72:30 539.13 t Omega, Period 3 ATnOUn GEC aan eet e tees 1,000.71 84.21 | 536.37] 31.11 | 690.58 84.21 | 583.63 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: 4 TOOL IDS! WEIRNE. a. sure s|0 se wisis ete 25.99 259.95 3.71 294.29 17.50 210.00 For product: : 1,026.6 lbs. milk, 3.87 per| CONCHAL SC. cca es aec sl uae ate _ 48.35 232.01 16.43 317.33 51.33 307.08

MOtal ccf onniee | S88 Sachs 74.34 491.96 20.14 611.62 68.83 517.98

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 93

TABLE 29 (continued)

Total Dry . Carbo- F F Protein Fat nutri- Protein matter hydrates Therms (pounds) y (pounds) ment (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) Susanna, Period 1 Inmount Lede, 1c 5 crete heist OII. 23 83.38 | 496.906 | 31.86 | 652.02 83.38] 558.18 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: OOO bse weightrrs a, 2% 0 data|| casters ress 22.05 220.50 3.15 249.64 15.75 196.00 For product: | 785.8 lbs. milk, 5.11 per ; CEMA Mele ale mays ciel! ee ale hae 42.90 216.09 15.25 293.30 39.29 235.74 ARG Galeaees 258 sees PoP list lets sa eels 64.95 430.59 18.40 542.94 55.04 431.74 Susanna, Period 2 ATAG HM TreC ae cise. < eric esc 808.55 69.94 | 437.48 | 25.63 | 565.00 69.94 | 466.27 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: QUGOM bseweight es ci... cuss kail) care clo ee 22027 222 71 3.18 252 Is Ie 75 196.00 For product: _ 649.9 Ibs. milk, 5.41 per CETTE LAGI ets oc sete SMe Ne Aste eieep ere 36.65 185.22 13.06 251.26 32.50 194.97 ghataleerre cya cst || ff tenaheree 58.92 407.93 16.24 503.39 48.25 390.97 Susanna, Period 3 Aoliettiredinns @ . ciccae ee 806.65 77.37 | 486.54] ‘28:19 || 627.34 Ties ll Gerla Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TOMS WEIGHLe 50 occ 2b science ate 22.52 225.16 S22 254.92 15.75 196.00 For product: | 627.3 lbs. milk, 5.35 per GET tee by Pe he Ue he pedis, Se 35.19 178.15 12.55 241.58 B20. 37, 188.19 NG) Gills A eres eer ERAGE Ip ch, MIR ENE 57-71 403.31 te fe 496.50 Ng hos 384.19 Taffy’s Anna, Period 1 Armount feds ce os-2/eeciecls ts 946.20 87.86 | 515.84 | 34.09 | 680.40 87.86 | 587.42 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: BOSMDS WEI... o2cicc0c|| «vic vines 22.00 220.01 3.14 249.08 TS75 196.00 For product: | 878.6 lbs. milk, 6.07 per GONG Labeemis Close ststeas alll eva edeen 52.98 271.49 19.15 367.56 43.93 263.58 Gtelll eve retere: sien = ayes 74.98 AQI.50 22,20 616.64 59.68 459.58 Taffy’s Anna, Period 2 PUTING EG ccc. c oysieiet ee auc 961.40 85.93 | 521.57 | 32.50] 680.63 85.93 | 577.43 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: OA PUOSWEIZHE. |. cei e.s'| stave sais es CD Fa 2217212 3.24 257.12 15.75 196.00 For product: _ 828.2 lbs. milk, 6.37 per Ceritetate ese aC tei. riers |) Basie vetere’e S043 265.02 18.72 358.57 41.41 248.46 SIGE eal tae epete cer (std xi pre ee 74.14 492.14 21.96 615.69 57.16 444.46

04 BULLETIN 323

TABLE 29 (concluded)

| | ge | Total Dry - | Carbo- : : Protein Fat nutri- Protein matter hydrates d Therms t d (pounds) (pounds) founds) (pounds) Boone (pounds) Taffy'’s Anna, Period 3 Amotint rede meses eine seis 1,005.93 Solr3 || 545-85) ~sgu52il yma:4o 89.13 |] 605.60 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: OOOMDSa welehte )<ot eime neil) certs «ce 23.74 237 Ak 3.39 268.78 17.50 210.00 For product: _ 804.2 Ibs. milk, 6.61 per Centitaten cn cr coerce meee 5roxS 263.78 18.66 356.91 40.21 241.26 PROtali er Screen ae Seen 74.89 501.19 22.05 625.69 57.71 451.26

TABLE 29a. AVERAGE CONSTITUENTS FED Group C, 1909-1910, AND REQUIRE- MENTS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS

\ Percent- - Total e age of S gee rotein nutri- utritive| total nu- rotein (pounds) | ment ratio triment (pounds) Therms therm (pounds) ees Seantiand standar Period 1 Amotint fe0..0,. 5... 84.56 680.14 Tie7RO) 13.3 84.56 575.15 14.9 Required by Haecker 73.59 600.37 Geen hae ol he oe by Armsby] 66.21 500.49) |\hacenieteee Period 2 Amount fed yo... «6. 83.35 678.84 Uh Sar fas E52 83.35 568.11 17.4 Required by Haecker 71.63 589.22 Te s7 al eee eee by Armsby} 63.41 483 372 4) Snaeer ee Period 3 Amount fedan.2..... 86.11 608.48 5 Gada fat 19.2 86.11 590.30 24.9 Required by Haecker 70.51 585.90 RU AE el (aa a! by oe 61.41 472Z''SO |aeianclaan

The records of production in 1909-1910 used in the study of the appli- cation of Haecker’s standard are given in tables 30, 31, and 32. For the study of the application of Armsby’s standard, tables 33, 34, and 35 are drawn from tables 30, 31, and 32. In tables 30, 31, and 32, the data in the column headed “‘ Pounds total product” are derived by multiplying the butter-fat by 2} and adding the solids-not-fat.

TABLE 30. ReEcoRD OF PrRopuUCTION. Group A, 1909-1910

Percent- Pounds Pounds Cow Period P eee Pore Bee es age solids- solids- total

agi not-fat not-fat product Gortiellan: 22.605 oes I 840.3 527 45.647 9.37 79.625 182.331 2 756.9 5.24 39.602 9.21 69.741 159.048 3 724.1 5-30 38.456 9.31 67.408 153.934 Garnet. Delta. 2s. ss I 630.6 6.190 39.028 9.93 62.611 150.424 2 628.8 6.48 40.769 9.87 62.082 153.812 3 647.8 6.54 42.353 9.82 63.601 158.895

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MiLK PRODUCTION 95 TABLE 30 (concluded) Percent- Pounds Pounds Cow Period ele Pec, Roads age solids-| solids- total aa 8 notfat not-fat product Gipson + ghee eee I 1,235.3 3.80 46.918 8.93 110.331 215.897 2 1,289.2 3.98 Pisa be 6 8.92 II4.971 230.511 3 T2520 4.12 51.653 9.03 LIZ elL5 229.334 Bates sense cuarsnesisiers-aagetaes I 1,320.1 3.20 42.203 8.77 II5.770 210.727 2 1,264.8 3.32 42.014 8.91 112.746 207.278 3 Paros 3.40 41.128 8.91 107.783 200.321 Average, group A... I 1,008.8 4.31 ASA AOD || Mecotere tioyshenal = ctevetare aiate 189.845 2 984.9 4.41 AST ASOy. |yotrmabscierse | Phe crescents 187.662 3 958.7 4.53 AZESOT | iciderare soa | uerecotebeenars 185.621 TABLE 31. RECORD OF PRODUCTION. Group B, 1909-1910 | | 12 Pound: P d | } | ercent- ounds ounds Cow Period Pauads - ee | Fane: | age solids- solids- total | 3 not-fat not-fat product MMICrOM er acietsjs a's 1c 4.0: 5:ai0:0 I 1,593.4 BESS 53.403 8.72 138.910 259.067 2 1,407.7 3.05 54.045 8.71 130.382 253-333 3 De 2r5ed 3.84 46.669 8.70 105.746 210.751 Sigrmaer tia sicss sieicsesislelarsis I 0,303.7. 3-74 52127 8.905 124.677 241.963 2 1,344.5 3.93 52.822 8.99 120.874 239.724 3 £,270.5) 4.09 51.960 9.01 114.486 231.416 Hector's Berta......... I 1,058.3 5.46 57.791 9.34 08.888 228.918 2 965.2 Cyai7/1s 55.126 0.27 89.518 213.552 3 936.9 5.43 50.849 9.41 88.174 202.584 WadyaGlavaccte<s.0<2 0s: - I 965.9 3.81 36.840 9.01 87.032 169.922 2 899.5 4.01 36.054 9.06 81.512 162.634 33 852.1 4.13 S5uL7Z2 9.10 917.571 156.708 Average, group B... I 1,252.8 3.99 BO MOAON| | cselel ciate aieinietsta 224.967 2 TaLyOn 7 4.22 AGHOO2 Sc eree sieve eererelerele 207. SuL Bl) 1. '068)..7, 4.32 CNSR Np epaceae. Nl | aaa oc 200.365 TABLE 32. RECORD OF PRODUCTION. GrouP C, 1909-1910 Percent- Pounds Pounds Cow Period Bounds Percent | peas age solids- solids- total & not-fat not-fat product (Ch0ge SAR ace Bee Cares I I,160.7 es On Liy 8.95 103.845 IOr.858 2 1,167.6 3.35 39.093 8.90 103.930 191.889 3 1,089.8 3-54 38.590 8.82 96.168 182.996 Oe A eretate aNele 6.0) s1sieveiels:s I I,I41I.5 3.63 41.401 9.12 104.093 197.245 2 1,097.1 Sori 41.130 8.95 98.22 190.772 3 1,026.6 3.87 39.742 8.99 92.276 181.606 DONSAIMIAS sale sicicte ec crarey « I 785.8 igure 40.101 9.50 74.684 165.114 2 649.9 5.41 35.168 9.00 58.461 137.589 3 627.3 5.35 33.576 9.09 57-017 132.563 ay TS ATT Aicrs.c5/cets deers I 878.6 6.07 53.330 9.83 86.362 206.355 2 828.2 6.37 2.749 9.77 80.955 199.640 3 804.2 6.61 53.235 9.81 78.931 198.480 Average, group C... I 991.7 4.39 ABESTON |S ciareteea.ce.|| Steereeee 190.138 2 935-7 4.49 ABROBS Ale larste ernie; || Maeteidie eres 179.972 = 887.0 4.65 ATraOOU Wicials eines: er || |S: olen cuter No 173.934

96 BULLETIN. 323

The factors 4.218 therms per pound of butter-fat and 1.860 therm per pound of ash-free solids-not-fat are used in computing the energy value of the product in tables 33, 34, and 35.1. In determining the ash, .7 per cent was used as the average percentage of ash in milk.

TABLE 33. ENERGY VALUE OF Propuct. Group A, 1909-1910

oes Therms

solids- Therms in

Cow Period | not-fat in ash-free oe —.7 per fat solids-not- eens cent ash fat

Corellars woe eee oe

GarnetiDeltas.. 22s cement

GADSY aeons seein sigs ele tok viens I 101.684 | 197.900 | 189.132 387 .032 2 105.947 216.599 197.061 413.660 3 | 104.345 | 217.872 | 194.082 411.954 SG Aiak 2. osc erase sa eis Whorstotocere.e 4 106.529 | 178.012 198.144 376.156

Average, group A........ 1 ed Ne Ren od Deno aan Pe AC NG 8 341.409 Dei] eek cones «siete apie Memetey ee pope nel yobabafer sucepers 337 .662 re Tey Se eee a et Aer 334.204 TABLE 34. ENerGy VALUE oF Propuct. Group B, 1909-1910 Pounds a Therms solids- herms in Cow Period | not-fat in ash-free Paes —.7 per fat solids-not- cent ash fat Omicron. se oes cee ce eet I 127.756 || 225.254. || 237,626 462.880 2 119.898 230.493 223.010 453-503 3 97.240 196.850 180.866 3775710 SiQTH a «.« veweralereree' oheteyetapeiatas ene Fr 114.921 219.872 213.753 433.625 2 II1.462 222.803 207.319 430.122 3 105.592 219.205 196. 401 415.606 Hlectors: Berta...) chia eeiee I 91.480 | 243.762 170.153 413.915 2 82.762 292,521 153-937 386.458 3 81.616 214.481 151.806 366.287 Macy lay ys: tc, slveretahe oles I 80.271 155.391 149.304 304.695 2 75.215 152.076 139.900 291.976 3 71.606 148.355 133.187 281.542 Average, group B........ . TP htt eectapeSiate Bioal| lotote gue Reoteas| We reaenedens 403.779 Bi Mi AP Blac ee alae We taca eee a |) -\goor5is

eB teed Areas te Ut ecictisa se efecto '|| saree tari 360. 288

1H. P. Armsby. “ Principles of Animal Nutrition,’ page 279.

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 97 TABLE 35. ENERGY VALUE OF Propuct. Group C, 1909-1910 Pounds Therms solids- Therms in Cow Period | not-fat in ash-free le —.7 per fat solids-not- cent ash fat (COE HS RAPES ene es Cee REE I 95.720 164.996 178.039 343 .035 2 95-757 164.894 178.108 343 .002 3 88.539 162.773 164.683 327.456 SOIME RAs Seb. Ajcis'e beets Sess 4 I 96.102 174.629 178.750 353-379 2 90.549 173.486 168.421 341.907 3) 85.090 167 .632 158.267 325.899 QUREITTIE | lon Roi eal apne I 69.183 169.526 128.680 298 .206 2 53.912 148.339 100.276 248.615 3 52.626 141.624 97 .884 239.508 Bley ES UAT: joi /as 5) 2 ss Heros aids I 80.212 224.946 149.194 374.140 2 75.158 222.495 139.794 362.289 3 73.302 224.115 136.342 360.457 Average, group C........ Bil ote serie gotta Wiesner are 342.190 7 lee raemear re 1 Meee tg at toull |e rani cic 323.953 Biv We oles so Shee Senet Okey Wee en ataay 313.330 TABLE 36. Recorp or LivE WEIGHT (IN Pounps). Group A, 1909-1910 * Average | Average : Average at. at ees a for beginning end period Period 1 . (Corn, . aes noses cpio eae treae.o 6 craton 858 840 —18 849 Garnet Delta. ..........-...-2- eee eres 887 940 58 913 CEST 25 a AEROS. Geren SRE age eiee erie D 934 994 +60 964 Sy te eee ele as ants iets Grater 1,138 Di LS7, +49 1,163 Period 2 (Caring... oo 5 ogre eae Ee bir nee eee croc 861 876 +15 868 Garnet Delta............0s essere eee eee g2 953 +28 939 (GUND cic 5. dle ales eS ONS eo eR eae cee oO 974 980 ar © 977 IBYB\ acs o.¢ oo fe EE EIR EEEC GSS Oa Ire. 1,199 1,188 —II 1,193 Period 3 ~ (Clomminiilllay;,) 4 ct of erete SMA IEC: © CIO REEaenicnoe espace 891 868 —23 879 (Glaynaeie IDES 8 5) ieee ener MRO MGR ees iniec Siete 962 947 —I5 954 “ESSE CSE eC OCS eae a 995 I ,007 +12 1,001 Li EI STN spt. Sorsvcba eos Ryebaer@ann ae aarsians 1,205 1,199 — 6 1,202 Average for group A, period 1... 1.2.2.2) - esse eee | ceeeee | crete 97 By Ma cer aN Vee eeeeenabeo Nihar etal cs of a |i etc: otc 994 ROE eg epg to ce eee cen I ,009

* The method of computing tables 36, 37, and 38 is given on page 98.

98

BULLETIN 323

TABLE 37. ReEcorD oF LIVE WEIGHT (IN PouNDs). Group B, 1909-1910

enetaee Average Gait eee beginning end Loss) = period Period 1 (Ovaai erent Aly Ay epee een RIS Rien. SEER Pre 1,093 1,142 +49 1, UL7 SUI Se A Tonnes Satay wear erses acta yes eee 1,029 1,067 +38 1,048 VE SHO SUB erbalen Saistys cate cto ei so is wis oh ceee ee 793 821 +28 807 PSOE PAN Re iM M ae Sie sake ose p> wee oe Me 987 1,021 +34 1,004 Period 2 Osnobei go ol Geet petaesss Sick su eee ener pam a eco 1,152 1/183 +31 1,167 SVS CEE SSR oth ae ae ea Poa RE ST Se Pe 1,077 1,106 +29 1,091 EVE CEOS US Chbae = Ciettirs iio esarthaeyen's @ Seay Seer 816 821 +5 818 IEA gS RANG en cca ee GAGs dak wi = oe Wie acc pe Se eavepaniee 1,016 1,053 +37 1,035 Period 3 @microneye hc is oe en ea ak DES eee 1,184 1,071 —I3 1,178 Sn esc - Sac ae i wath Shs inpeee 1,109 HpaI + 2 am Bae) PiectarSubetiaey. os, Sess sas > sie eee 828 796)|/ 7) ——32 8i2 js bgt ©) eas ae a eee, ST I ,067 1,093 +26 1,080 Average for group. B; period 34 6... ci GGl Ee me eee ee ae ee 994 Doe cae ce care || MRt eeee cree eee 1,028 5 a oe eee Er ulec iile et | 1,045 TABLE 38. Recorp oF LIVE WEIGHT (IN PounDs). Group C, 1909-1910 posh eee Gaines Av eisee beginning | end Com period Period 1 Ciibhee on cee ee eee Oe 1,003 1,046 +43 1,025 imeem aren: eco ne ere seis Ae io sue 1,049 1,051 an 1,050 SSE Seiten a ie eet Ne Caterer ee 7 ries 881 919 +38 goo Gate SoA S jis 2.5 ees ceece & cle ewe ntvicyeeece «Sree 881 gI4 +33 898 Period 2 LO) ny ate 6 Ciena Net, ee ee ates Sean Aa od Aa cend eS 1,018 1,042 +24 1,030 merase Fee ee ree tears ane ie aa Persea rae one 1,050 TO5ON| ae ee 1,050 SOLISATEM le cee torts ec ements chee oa went rae go08 gio + 2 909 BU AthyESRATIM Aiea, mecnb ins Fe cuaiie sieus sv cy tome Erni ae gI2 941 +29 927 Period 3 G) chte eee eee Oe eee” rapes 5 Se RRM ee TY ea 1,040 1,061 +21 1,050 (OTIC DO Aegeee a conve Ais cete sae ee to road a Teds se cle Premeeeh 1,061 I ,062 ap Ou 1,061 IUGR DATO Aes Stes unts RP e crave oY nts oars Sisee we Pad nea 913 926 1-03 919 ARV ASRATITIA y Meuse tices Rona ate vce chee eye ete 960 977 7, 969 Average for group C; period: 1. 45 <<a 4l?s 4 oe eI ee 968 Bie ier hee HOE Z| hae, Oe Oe ee en 979 Bia se Malel aoe el eee Wee 1,000

The record of the live weight of the cows in 1909-1910 is given in tables

36, 37, and 38.

The cows were weighed for three successive mornings at

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 99

the beginning and the end of each period. The average of these three weights is taken as the weight at the beginning and at the end of each period, in determining the loss or gain during the period. The average of all six weights is given in the fifth column of these tables. This average weight is the weight used to determine the requirement for main- tenance for each period.

Data of the winter of 1910-1911

It was considered best to give the detailed records for r910-1911 in the same way and to draw conclusions from the data of both years considered together.

In 1910-1911 the experiment was started with twelve cows. They were divided into groups A, B, and C, four cows toa group. At about the middle of the experiment, a cow in group B died from a cause that could not be determined by a thorough post-mortem examination. Therefore group B is shown to be made up of three cows. The data regarding the cows are given in Table 39:

TABLE 39. Cows IN EXPERIMENT OF IQIO-IQII

| Last Avera ge Breed ( a 2 calf live weight a | (1910) (pounds) Group A Glenwoodt@ ween s55e.icete ie es lec ee G 4 Nov. 16 1,072 @ornella Manvella,, cece te. < oc sce esas oes J 7 | Sept. 16 865 (Ginetta, 1BIRaY, sie'S 3s. Seen ats aoe eee H 10 Oct. 2 1,184 (Cireiay ILENE Seas Been ade e eel oe ten H 6] Sept. 12 1,341 Group B Gita Omi Crome ps ales soysissrcyer ous sete cysce = H Fl NOCH 955 1,239 (Gilisivay, Siesnskee 5 Bae dmece Sete Oe Deena H 7 Oct 3 1,053 GIBE TING © 6 io, Bu Gtner one Ee oro ee oe a (Gimp lal Aa | OCtan© 990 Group C (Giisia, Cath, | sede eee Ces BE UME rae mera H 6 Sept. 13 1,073 (CUNGiEW IRS. 2c 6-6 teGrencihe er ere ee eae ae H 5 | July 21 1,179 IDB. oo ad cb g cl ABE COLE ee eee Gr.G 4 Sept. 29 846 Gilisias, (CEyDICLZ Ia 6 oss ee ee ee ee eee H Aa Oct a7 1,253

In r910-1911 the cows were fed a ration of clover hay, corn silage, mangels, and grain mixtures composed of hominy chop, wheat bran, gluten feed, and distillers’ dried grains (Ajax flakes). The composition of the fodders, as given in Table 40, was determined from actual chemi- cal analysis by the use of the digestible coefficients. given in the tenth edition of ‘‘ Feeds and Feeding ”’ by W. A. Henry:

100 BULLETIN 323

TABLE 40. ComposiITION OF FODDERS PER 100 POUNDS. I9IO-IQII

Nitro-

Dry ; ; gen- Value Protein | Fiber Fat matter : free Therms | per 100 (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) extract (pounds) pounds (pounds) Clover hay ....... 86.85 5.3 16.31 24.44 II.09 34.74 | $0.60 os rome et ee xy Le42 4.15 ree = 7: oe 0.1125 MS gel Ss ratio ace: 1232 1.09 .29 41 0 4.62 0.20 Distillers’ dried BUSSE in ain pee 95.08 23.54 9.08 30.94 T2;1% 419-23 1.50 Hominy See ot eee 90.68 6.74 2.25 57.90 8823) 88.84 D125 Gluten feed........}| 90.78 21.46 4.94 | 46.87 1.93 79.32 Lies Wheat bran....... 2.68 11.97 3.79 40.45 2.84 48.23 125

*The therms energy in hominy is not given by Armsby in Farmers’ Bulletin 346. The therms energy in corn is used instead.

The grain mixtures used in 1910-1911 were as follows:

Mixture 1 Feeds Constituents in mixture I 200 lbs. hominy chop g2.02 per cent dry matter 200 lbs. wheat bran 12.94 per cent digestible protein 75 lbs. gluten feed _ ; 4.15 per cent digestible fiber 75 lbs. distillers’ dried grains 46.37 per cent digestible nitrogen-free extract

5.94 per cent digestible fat 71.46 therms energy

The cost of 100 pounds of mixture 1 was $1.239.

Mixture 2

Feeds Constituents in mixture 2 50 ibs. hominy chop 92.53 per cent dry matter 75 lbs. wheat bran 17.65 per cent digestible protein 100 lbs. gluten feed 5.55 per cent digestible fiber 100 lbs. distillers’ dried grains 42.18 per cent digestible nitrogen-free extract

6.24 per cent digestible fat 73.58 therms energy

The cost of 100 pounds of mixture 2 was $1.308.

The rations were so constructed that the nutritive ratio would be about 1:7 except when groups B and C were fed mixture 2.

The groups were fed practically the same as in 1909-1910. Group A received mixture 1 all through the experiment, getting about all the roughage and grain that the cows would eat up clean each day. Group B was fed mixture 1 during the first and second periods, and mixture 2 during the third period. During the second period, however, it was

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION IOI

intended that group B be fed the exact amounts of nutriment called for by Haecker’s standard according to its production. During the third period, group B was fed the same amount of total nutriment as in the second period, but the relative amount of protein was increased so that the nutri- tive ratio was 1:6.3. Group C was fed mixture 1 during the first and second periods. It was intended that this group be fed according to Haecker’s standard in the first period, all that they would eat up clean during the second period, and in the third period all that they would eat of mixture 2, so that the nutritive ratio of their ration in period 3 was 1:6.2.

As in 1909—1910, each period was six weeks in length, the data from only the last five weeks of each period being considered. The detailed records of quantity of food consumed are given in tables 41, 42, and 43:

TABLE 41. FEED RECORD OF Group A. IQIO-IQII

TABLE 42. FEED RECORD OF GRouP B. IQIO-I9QII

: Hay Silage | Mangels | Grain

Cow Period Ged (aan) (pounds) | (pounds)

OMICrON.$: 0550... I 350 1,400 700 420 Mixture 1 2 350 1,400 700 385 Mixture I 3 350 1375 700 B72 Mixture 2 oh I 350 15225 700 420 Mixture 1 2 350 1.225 700 385 Mixture I 3 350 1,225 700 375 Mixture 2 (Cla Sah nea o Hole peer eotee | I 350 1,150 700 385 Mixture 1 2 342 1,050 700 350 Mixture 1 3 350 1,050 700 340.5 | Mixture 2

102 BULLETIN 323

TABLE 43. FEED RECORD oF Group C. - I9g10-I9II

The constituents in the food are tabulated as in the records for 1909— 1910, as described on page 85. This tabulation makes up tables 44, 44a, 45, 45a, 46, and 46a. These are followed by tables 47, 48, and 49, giving the record of production of each group in 1910-1911. The energy value of the product is given in tables 50, 51, and 52. The record of live weight in Ig10—Ig11 is given in tables 53, 54, and ss.

TABLE 44. CoNsTITUENTS FED Group A, I9I10-I91I, AND REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS

= Total Dry : Carbo- F : Protein Fat nutri- Protein matter hydrates Therms 2 = d (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) Gans (pounds) Glenwood, Period 1 AMOtnG TEOs oye ae: clas cree 948.07 78.07 |) “580.73. | 31.18 | 668.55 7867. ||) aSa0eWs Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: T,0S55 lbS= weight. < 2«.<2an| cee aiectt 25.85 { 258.48 3.69 292.63 18.20 217.00 For product: | | 1,118 lbs. milk, 5.33 per | Centitabinwe sc se eal eee der 62.73 Bly esi 22.36 430.55 55.90 335.40 BOS 1 LOS Fo leo aR: 88.58 575.99 26.05 723.18 74.10 552.40 Glenwood, Period 2 Amount fed cn os..< kere). ese { 928.88 | 79.81 [| 513.08 | °32.47] 665.95 79.81 | 534.15 Required — | by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TOOS ABS. WEIENG «0. cee oil ales sie es : 26.17 261.66 3.74 296.25 18.20 217.00 For product: 886.7 lbs. milk, 5.66 per COM Labs acne cin, Scot Pacts Sich tes | 51.34 260.69 18.44 353.52 44.34 266.01

SOUAL Sete, Clete, eed «oto Ih | 7h eh! 522.35 | 22.18 649.77 62.54 483.01

ie, ee i

>” ve." 2" wa PO UE

="

—_—_ Te

—_

a ae

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION

193 fe 44 (Eee Dry Carbo- Total : Protein Fat nutri- | Protein matter hydrates | Therms (pounds) | P°4RdS) | (pounds) | (Pounds) ae | (pounds) | a | ee rR (Sa Gieanodd, Period 3 AION LEC cise istics sic we clere > 979.57 82.38 | 532.64 | 32.90 | 680.25 82.38 | 550.82 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TOOStIDS WEIZDE. aisles © cell) crac) siete se 26.78 267.79 3.83 303.19 18.90 224.00 For product: 777 Ibs. milk, 5.82 per cent 12 CORN, Ute ea OPiS aes | | SE 45.69 233.10 16.39 315.67 38.85 233.10 ARG) TAS hs ead (et oe Eee 72.47 500.89 20.22 618.86 57.75 457.10 Cornella, Period 1 Amount: £6: cfec rahe sce ae 917.06 76.99 | 501.37 | 30.48 | 646.94 76.9090 [| SIs. 27 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: . SAWS ewelg it sccccl nc /<iI\ flsicte ciersre's 21.41 214.13 3.06 242.42 Tors 192.50 For product: 1,074.9 lbs. milk, 5.15 per Cent rater biets ccc stall Me cranes 59.01 297.75 20.96 403.92 53.75 322.47 OLA ea Cie AEM COM dione Se a 80.42 511.88 24.02 646.34 69.50 | 514.97 Cornella, Period 2 AMOUNt fd soe fee cen 843.18 72.93 | 465.21 | 28.98 | 603.35 | 72.93 | 480.87 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: BStlSs Welpliten 4 cer.c%0.5|| esi. osc 21.00 209.97 B00! | 23'7)..72 15.40 | 189.00 For product: | 1,011.8 lbs. milk, 5.22 per COMA yates recs oe ||| ayckete A ovets 55.85 281.28 19.83 383.75 50.59 303.54 PRO tA lew Aare ate asgell| Saferae ta 76.85 | 491.25 | 22.83 | 619.47 65.99 | 492.54 Cornella, Period 3 ATIOMING Ed 5. occ os ew 887.02 74.31 | 483.42 | 29.92 | 625.05 | 74.30 |) © S0L.40 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: BOAMbSeWwelpht. css cscs ell sce a cine Cais te] 211.68 3.02 239.64 I5.40 189.00 For product: _ 952.1 lbs. milk, 5.46 per CENistauper setae ae tae | as vetoes 53.98 273.25 19.23 370.50 47.61 285.63 Otel een Mevctare eta Grell atavers) evans e (abs 484.93 227.25 610.14 63.01 474.63 Eta, Period 1 PSTAGUEICHLER. -Sl.c ce acters cee s I, 211.54 100.59 | 661.13 | 40.95 | 853.86 100.59 | 685.90 Required — by Haecker by Armsby ‘or maintenance: | TH LOUPSs WEIRNG, . sc cicte |) see. 0s 0 28.81 | 288.12 4.12 326.20 | 19.95 234.50 For product: 1,584.6 lbs. milk, 3.46 Es, | . eeiunratae els ee) eel Saas sinc 70.83 331.18 | 23.45 454.77 | 79.23 475.38 PROtAN GY ele wiccte e el noe ae eee 99.64 619.30 27.57 780.97 99.18 709.88

104 BULLETIN 323 TABLE 44 (concluded) Total oe < Pasha rs ee ( pat) nutri- aes Theenwm pounds pounds ment pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) Eta, Period 2 Amount feds acs cen cle se 1,211.54] 100.59] 661.13] 40.05 | 853.86 { 100.59] 685.90 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: PATOSHDSs WEIRNG aire cose ol] tists 29.03 290.33 4.15 328.70 19.95 234.50 For product: 1,559.8 lbs. milk, 3.42 per Gast iis Bopbone oAUOnUN) octom oae 69.26 321.32 22.77 441.81 77.99 467.94 Awe Cie encce SaaRe | SAaROOdS 98.29 | 611.65 26.92 | 770.51 | 97.94 | 702.44 Eta, Period 3 Amount fed....0.02.00.<0:: 1,205.32 | 100.31 | 657.62] 40.78 | 849.68 | 100.31] 682.59 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TET QQ DSsswelghits co, ccse cell! vais ol> ieichsc 29.20 | 292.04 | 4.17 330.62 20.30 238.00 For product: | 1,423.8 lbs. milk, 3.79 per Cent fatit.tentarsrcjers oo eeeealeetans erate 66.63 318.93 22.50 436.19 71.19 427.14 Potala. ye.c suelo ce al es oie 95.83 610.97 26.67 766.81 91.49 665.14 ! | Tau, Period 1 Amount fed src. ai. oc se sie Dee Cis fo ee 98.11 | 630.46 | 39.48] 817.40 98.11] 656.92 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: S27 IDSs Welght.. erste tall ctats! ouesrs sc 32.51 325.12 4.64 | 368.07 22.05 255.50 For product: 1,097.5 lbs. milk, 3.93 per | Centlate cae cise eter ere tease ieee 52.35 253.52 17.89 346.12 £4.88 329.25 LOGAN ine See eee lem ene 84.86 578.64 22.53 | 714.19 | 76.93 584.75 | Tau, Period 2 ibmiount feds... sl. ss ose 1,092.29 89.93 | 504.92] 35.71 | 765.20 89.93 | 609.33 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: : T3390 IDSeeWEIGNE « sic css wietelll ete oie eaeene 22.738 | R27 ge 4.68 370.58 22.05 255.50 For product: | 1,040.2 lbs. milk, 4.17 per| Cent fatin. cor. crt.den is ate | ike Wavateres 50.87 248.61 | 17.58 339.04 52.01 312.06 otal'e..cricccntersia lees oat 83.60 575.93 | 22.26 709.62 74.06 567.56 Tau, Period 3 Amount tedce cease acer: cel 1,061.09 86.48 || 577.22). 34.10 | 740.43 86.48 | 587.69 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: ete Ouse Weleelte > cera wiers'|| Gtvia waters 33.30 332.96 4.76 376.97 22.40 259.00 For product: _ 967.6 Ibs. milk, 4.29 per COnt Fabre secirain ots ete |) cette wre 48.19 237.06 16.74 322.02 48.38 290.28 PLURAL catercts cetetorecor alt dosti eo “abate ce 81.49 570.02 21.50 699.890 70.78 549.28

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 105

TABLE 44a. AVERAGE CONSTITUENTS FED Group A, 1910-1911, AND REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS

TABLE 45. CONSTITUENTS FED Group B, IgIO-I9II, AND REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS

Total Dry . Carbo- : P Protein Fat nutri- Protein Gb hydrat ound | C@ounds) | euase | (Pounds) | ment | (pounds) | Therms ee ee Omicron, Period 1 PASO EET ER Narcieieysjoleia viene, os Te2TLesA 160.59 | 661.13 | 40.95 | 853.86 100.59 | 685.90 Required — - by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TeeeAwDS WEIS «ci. ccs al) sera ov0 eos 29.99 299.88 4.28 339.50 20.65 241.50 For product: | 1,500 lbs. milk, 3.79 per CONE Patin crete ric icreueertiai|| eida sys ares 70.20 | 336.00 23.70 459.53 75.00. 450.00 ROGAN pee. adevatpoveleilly | ats. Susie) Su 100.19 | 635.88 27.98 799.03 95.65 691.50 | Omicron, Period 2 PASO HEU com clas oaicveen ss 1,179.34 96.06 | 643.45 | 38.87 | 826.97 96.06 | 660.89 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: Mes OulSe wel Git Gis. c1 ce cesehall| et ores och 30.28 302.82 4.33 342.84 20.65 241.50 For product: 1,405.4 lbs. milk, 3.91 per emtehatimmnens ameter cll, ates etebale ns 66.62 320.43 22.63 437.97 70.27 421.62 ligt alee erate | esis ems 96.90 623.25 26.06 780.81 90.92 663.12 Omicron, Period 3 AGUNG fd coc cee ees 1,161.50 ELTES5) || 622.3°| | W3otcor|) 7821243 | 111.55 | 655.35 Required — by Haecker | by Armsby For maintenance: | eens: WEIENE. «25 2 cc] sce ees 30.82 308.21 4.40 | 348.93 21.00 245.00 For product: ; 1,377-5 lbs. milk, 4 per Certavatpecie sc wit ersten | kien ba eye 66.12 320.96 22.50 437-91 | 68.88 | 413.25

mlncstetl ease tc bere Visit idee wich 96.94 629.17 | 26.99 | 786.84 89.88 658.25

106 BULLETIN 323 TABLE 45 (continued) Dry ‘ Carbo- Total . Protein at nutri- Protein matter hydrates Therms (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) ae 2 (pounds) Sigma, Period 1 Arnountitedsemmcr at adce ene I,1S7-13 98.11 | 630.46] 39.48| 817.40 98.11 | 656.92 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TOAS IDSs WEIGD tact cdea!) mci we 25.55 255.54 3.65 289.30 18.20 217.00 For product: _ 1,518.9 lbs. milk, 3.83 per emtratemernrvac ace! aie \|ipensun costa cr 71.54 343.27 24.30 469.49 75.95 455.67 pROtale Raa qc ctarestl|| ete aie 97.09 598.81 27.95 758.79 04.15 672.67 Sigma, Period 2 Amountiedaa. eh os cee 1,124.93 93.58 | 612.78 | 37.40] 790.51 93.58 ] » 63tvox Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TOSS) 1bSeaweignt... . coe) sie ees 25.80 257.99 3.69 292.09 18.20 | 217.00 For product: 1,500.6 lbs. milk, 3.87 per Renbylatren oie Veiner | erect: 70.68 339.14 24.01 463.84 75.03 450.18 ML otaleter a> eaerren | ee cicreae 96.48 507.13 27.70 755.93 Osn28 667.18 Sigma, Period 3 Amountiled sc cirec sci lente (eneTT764! 109.95 |_ 597.27 | 37.93] 792.56 109.95 | 632.72 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TOO4) IDs WEIGHE a. 6 «nies vat-tevevetorns 26.07 260.68 31.72 295.12 18.20 217.00 For product: : 1,492.6 lbs. milk, 4.1 per } CENb fab cae od crevereierel nrestces chars 72.54 353-75 24.93 482.38 74.63 447.78 Total stare eal eee ee 98.61 | 614.43 | 28.65 | 777.50 92.83 664.78 Charity, Period 1 Amountited= cer ic. is 1,001.62 92.50 |} 590.637] 36.77 |e 774.87 { 92.5t] 619.49 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: | : 987 Ibs. weight........... [ee aeners oe 24.18 241.82 3-45 273.76 17.50 210.00 For product: ‘ 1,451.9 lbs. milk, 3.8 per) Cent faterasciic serene | apeeeareterale 67.95 B25 25 22.94 444.79 72.60 435.57 sTRotalisnecnk Moen | Pee A. 92.13 567.05 26.39 | 718.55 90.10 645.57 Charity, Period 2 (ASNOUNt TEA. ss sfc) ss)s ate 2 b55 1,031.37 86.13]. 562,160] 9193.76.) 723.25 86.13 |. 9 s75eret Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: OS yale, Weleubs. ch. 4 veel) mosis alee 24.18 241.82 | 3.45 273.76 | 17.50 210.00 For product: _ | 1,310.3 lbs. milk, 3.72 per ert ie 2:1 OAT oa Mec cree 60.54 288.27 20.31 394.51 65.52 393.09 Otel gir aks evan We] st setene es - 84.72 530.00 23.76 668.27 83.02 603.09

l=

> were

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 107 TABLE 45 (concluded) | Total Dry P : Carbo- : : Ber ie rotein hvdeates Fat nutri- Protein Thesus | (pounds) > (pounds) ment (pounds) (pounds) | (pounds) | (uodads) | Charity, Period 3 Ammon feG- = 21. seek ee oss 1,031.31 TOL 37 |) 1550 e02 | 9 34-32 | 1728.09 LOVES 7 | a S7oes5 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: OOS Ibsz weight. occ ss. cs olssee ae: 24.38 243.78 | 3.48 275.99 E7250. 210.00 For product: 1,247.2 lbs. milk, 3.78 per | COnitial ease eis eee ee iss 2 a)8 as 58.37 279.37 | 19.71 382.09 | 62.36 374.16 Xi Dro cf 1 oral ieee ESA iecl ch Cl hua Gace voia 82.75 523.05 | bag Vans) 658.08 79.86 584.16

TABLE 45a. AVERAGE CONSTITUENTS FED GrouP B, 1910-1911, AND REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS

Protein (pounds) Period 1 ] Amountifed...2.... 97. * Required by Haecker) 96. Period 2 ; Amount fed........ Or. Required by Haecke: 92.70 Period 3 Amountiedi: (2... ... 107

Required by Haecker 92.

Total nutri- ment

(sounds)

Percent-

Nutri- age of : age of

tive i es ieee, Therms | therms

ratio Peers Pp above standard standard 27.4 7.5 | 097.07 | 654.10 eA GAOHON ne cates by Armsby 03230 |660200 |. eee

|

7p 6.2 QI.92 | 622.65 —3.4 TOMO ia stent by Armsby 89406: |O44=46 Wile ee TOl3 oe. § 107.62 | 622.14 —2.1 TANS a peta by Armsby 87.52 | 635.73 [oceteeee

TABLE 46.

CONSTITUENTS FED Group C,

ACCORDING TO STANDARDS

IQIO-IQIT,

AND REQUIREMENTS

Total | Dry | P : Carbo- | : aa rotein Fat nutri- Protein matter | hydrates | Therms | (pounds) (pounds) | ment (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds) ae ae ae i] Chi, Period 1 y-\woatose bay fad lo in ee 996.10 75.46 | 542.06 | 29.08 | 682.95 | 75.46 | 531.87 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TROOW DS. WEINE. pcs sa) ardanctae 26 26.14 261.42 | e738) 295.95 18.20 | 217.00 For product: I,172.1 lbs. milk, 3.47 per | Ene ENR eee ei ae | eee 52.39 244.97 | 17.35 336.40 58.61 | 351.63 “UNGY IE) led ole NS. Coc eRe] Ceice RERER ares 78.53 506.39 | 21.08 632.35 76.81 568 .63 Chi, Period 2 | Scala s\ip 1-16 Gee ee eee 1,054.99 83.74 | s7a038) |} 4 g2.88) | 732010 83.74 | 577-60 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TROT OSMAWCIREIT «cha sters Shalt aia edie © 26.29 262.89 3.76 297.04 18.55 220.50 For product: 1,177.6 lbs. milk, 3.38 per ; GON tab sticls sles Sen el atetes See © 52.29 242.59 17.19 333.56 | 58.88 353.28 BROLGIG Geamielecitelsa ||. tetas xe s 78.5 631.20 | 77.43 573.78

505.48 20.95

108

|

Aamount Ted ae ecises esa ae |

Required — For maintenance: 1,080 lbs. weight........ For product: 1,136.3 lbs. milk, 3.46 per Centilaten<c...2 tie ont

BULLETIN 323

Amotint fedeceniierc cn acres

Required — For maintenance:

1,181 lbs. weight........ | For product:

1,404.8 lbs. milk, 3.37 per)

Gent tater eee | |

TABLE 46 (continued)

Protein Carbo-

(pounds) (pounds)

Chi, Period 3

105.54 | 585.34 | 36.

by Haecker

26.46 264.60 3.

50.79 237.49 16. 725 502.09 20.

t Protein hydrates (p bes ds)

io% ~

(pounds) Therms 105.54 | 614.32 by Armsby 18.55 220.50 56.82 340.89 135-37 561.39

Psi, Period 1

82.32 |, 568-83 ] 32.

by Haecker

28.03 [ 289.35 4.

82.32 | s60%

by Armsby

19.95 234.

Amotintwede-se erste een )

Required — For maintenance: | 1,0 7Salbs, weight... .. 0.5 For product: 1,458.2 lbs. milk, 3.43 per CONG TAG. Seals ne sitsene. |

Psi, Period 2

93.47 | 633.35 | 37.

by Haecker

28.79 287.88 4.

65.18 304.76 oh i 93.97 592.64 25.

74

60

50

46

.96

AmriOUnG hed eee icve <1 ale lreion

Required — For maintenance: 1,180 lbs. weight........ For product: 1,419.4 lbs. milk, 3.58 per COntiaus Gee. 7 eee

Assiount fe scence: ac eras se

Required — For maintenance:

842 lbs. weight......... For product:

840.3 lbs. milk, 4.24 Pe)

fol cit ha: Pa fe eae tees ae

Psi, Period 3

116.66 | 639.39 | 40.

by Haecker 28.91 289.10 | |

64.72 305.17 21

93.63 504.27 25).

4.

93.47 | 646. by Armsby 19.95 234. 72.901 437- 92.86 671 116.66 | 679. by Armsby

19.95 234.

35

Effie, Period 1

64.54 | 443.57] 24.

by Haecker

20.63 206.29 ais

62.22 410.48 tive

.09

64.54 | 437. by Armsby 15.40 189. 42.02 252 57.42 441

.09

—-

le ae

) FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION 109 : s | TABLE 46 (concluded) | . | : Total aa, : Dry : Carbo- | eee ; Protein | Fat nutri- Protein matter hydrates | Therms ) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) | Ges | (pounds) | 4 | j ee eee on Sa ale Ce dl @ Effie, Period 2 | Amnountited. ...ccsc acres 803.55 66.62 | 440.95 | 26.81 | 567.89 66.62 | 452.79 , Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: § enAcibss weight... 62. 4.1| bode eee 6 20.68 206.78 | 2.95 234.10 I5.40 189.00 For product: | | 781.1 lbs. milk, 4.71 per | Genbetaties cemstres. ostc cae Meters sas 40.77 203.09 14.37 276.19 39.06 234.33 Rotaltyeyras.c vccsarct eerat en 61.45 409.87 Wiese 510.29 54.46 423.33 | | Effie, Period 3 . FATMOUN ELEM ee oes ar. oe ss 5 789.63 WSnAS) |e Arde st, | 27287) [1555.70 78.48 | 453.72 . Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: } SSenlbsemwvete hire. c.. occ ill eee e 20.87 208.74 2.98 236.32 15.40 | 189.00 , For product: | | | 719.5 lbs. milk, 5.02 per ’ ETA A 221) He eles a LE a 38.85 194.98 E3274. 264.74 35.98 | 215.85 SHotaleasesc ssc © eta eae ed 59.72 403.72 TOR 2 501.06 51.38 404.85 Carlotta, Period 1 Amount fed ads ae. nsec. 1,076.16 86.72 |! 586.01 | 34.25) 749.79 86.72 | 594.04 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: M2esnlDSe Welt ... 5. jell ss tens els 30.01 300.13 4.29 339.79 20.65 241.50 For product: 1,368.1 lbs. milk, 3.37 per Cemiahathier ore tlt fe al) oo cigreisy scans | 60.33 279.09 19.70 383.75 68.41 410.43 JOG) 20) | A eee ak el hie eae | 90.34 | 579.22 23.99 723.54 89.06 651.93 | Carlotta, Period 2 Arnountifed: sce ese: Ty LOSaLA. 98.00 | 651.03 | 39.76 | 838.49 98.00 | 671.61 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: E250 lose welentity. . sc.) oceiee se « 30.77 307.72 4.40 348.39 21.00 245.00 For product: 1,492.5 lbs. milk, 3.42 per Genttab ome ties socio UP eh ae kh ee 66.27 307.46 27.70 422.76 74.63 447.75 MOG Aer res ot causal ee ee ate a 97.04 615.18 26.19 VE LS 95.63 | 692.75 Carlotta, Period 3 Amount fed. 6.4 65.2.0 oe I,213.69 120.37 | 649.42 | 42.21 | 864.76 120.37 | 6094.81 Required — by Haecker by Armsby For maintenance: TQS RIDSs WIIG. hee. ofetel|! cons ole ote 3t232 big tae 4.47 354.48 20.35) (248.50 For product: 1,537-6 lbs. milk, 3.46 per Cemintaeee tec me aaa seh dc cic vs te | 68.73 321.36 22.76 441.30 76.88 | 461.28 | SS ee MIRO UAE Weneetutratays tials %'|() a0 warts, « | 100.04 634.47 27 .23 795.78 98.23 709.78

110 BULLETIN 323 TABLE 46a. AVERAGE CONSTITUENTS FED GrouP C, 1910-1911, AND REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS Percent- ° Total Nutri- age of : a ore Protein nutri- fies total nu- Protein Tees fee (pounds) | ment Sako triment (pounds) atone (pounds) above standard standard Period 1 Amount fed........ 77.26 | 679.83 ae At 5.0 477°. 20)\|| 539627 —8.0 Required by Haecker 80.49 | 647.34 Te O4|eekepree by Armsby 78'.37 || 570240 Niece cee Period 2 Amount fed... >. 85.46 | 737.52 b Git ex) II.0 85.46 | 587.15 —o.6 Required by Haecker 82.76 | 664.26 BRN PK oad Mee eae pedir by Armsby 80).10; | 500.46) )) 25 csr Period 3 Amount fed........ 105.26 | 760.31 16% 14.0 105.26 | 610.55 4.5 Required by Haecker 82.66 | 667.06 TOF ee ie by Armsby 78:08 || 584.090 |||... «aoe TABLE 47. RECORD oF PRODUCTION. GrRouP A, I9IO-IQII Percent- Pounds Pounds Cow | Period mounds y ene si a age solids-| _ solids- total facta a not-fat not-fat product —— Glenwood)... mm... sae r I,118.0 5.33 59.606 9.28 103.767 237.881 2 886.7 5.66 50.204 | 9.34 82.785 | 195.744 3 777.0 5.82 45 . 203 9.49 73.734 | 175-441 Cornellay. 2 3ericecasne I 1,074.9 5.15 55.325 9.35 100.519 | 225.000 2 I,O011.8 5.22 52.780 9.30 94.134 | 212.889 31 | 952.1 | 5.46 51.903 | 9.48 | 90.250 | 207 .234 Bite ate cee sarees I 1,584.6 3.46 54.776 | 8.99 | 142.397 265.643 2 1,559.8 3.42 53-415 | 9.08 | I41.573 261.757 3 1,423.8 | 3-79 53-911 9.19 | 130.851 252.151 | BAe tetera acc cee vetie rs ene I 1,007.5 3.93 43.186 9.27.) 101.789 198.958 2 1,040.2 Ay 43-375 9.40 97.766 195.360 <i 967.6 4.29 41.473 9.52 92.091 185.405 Average, group A... t || 2,278.8 4.37 Sgr 22grl oy. aanee alae | 231.871 2 1,124.6 4.44 | 40: /OAA | athe hile eee 216.438 3 1,030.1 4.67 | ASSTAS | (<<. aeee oli oer 205.058 TABLE 48. ReEcoRD oF PRopDUCTION. GRouP B, I9IO-IQII r { F area 3 | oan Percent- Pounds ounds - Cow Period | er ag P ee gor age solids-| _ solids- total ae ee a not-fat not-fat product [Ohsstfodopel ahaihamo seo Wee I 1,500.0 3.79 56.887 9.06 135.880 263.876 2 1,405.4 3.91 54.948 9.04 127.045 250.678 3 Dec ta [i Al 4.00 55.025 9.19 126.552 250.358 SIRNA ett echt tee Sos I 1,518.9 3.83 58.202 8.91 135.378 266 . 333 2] 1,500.6 3.87 58.072 8.908 134.789 265.451 3 1,492.6 4.10 61.148 9.21 137.539 275.122 (Ohi A RG Sear Ose I 1,451.9 3.80 | 55.158 | 9.32 135.273 259.378 2 L, 310.3 3-72 48.775 | 9.30 | 121.909 231.653 3° > D242 31:78"), © A7eeoe 9.39 | 117.087 223.292 Average, group B... I I ,490.3 3.81 BO FAO N|| Gerevevectecrriel Wer tea tees 263.196 | 2 1,405.4 3.84 BOSD i ahve aus ac crsrel| Maateseeenere ate 249.261 3 1,372.4 3.97 SHAS | co aste wip aie ap oles exes 249.591

— es a ee ee

ie ae

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION

EDT TABLE 49. REcorRD oF PRODUCTION. Group C, IgI10-I9II ———<—=——— = | Percent- Pounds | Pounds : Pounds | Percent- | Pounds ead 5 Cow Period : age solids-| solids- | total mille age fat | fat | not-fat | not-fat product 2 | (ORG osha se a aan Gee ene | Lia h, 72. Xi 3-47 40.648 8.92 104.540 195.998 2h L770 3.38 39.817 8.95 105.356 194.944 3 1,136.3 3.406 | 39.310 9.09 103.254 | 191.701 | [PGI as ote ces aun tee g I 1,404.8 3.37 47.342 8.92 | 125.348 | 231.867 2 1,458.2 3-43 49.959 9.04 | 131.819 244.227 3 1,419.4 3.58 | 50.843 9.13 129.526 243 .923 IGG R es Fate ott, Bare un I 840.3 4.24 35.618 9.46 79.521 159.662 2 781.1 4.71 36.792 9.50 74.200 156.982 3 719.5 5.02 36.123 9.67 69.561 150.838 Carlottace cen < sate ase 0 I 1,368.1 3.37. 46.114 8.94 122.338 226.004 | 2 1,492.5 3.42 51.027 9.08 135-474 250.285 3) 53720 3.46 53.276 9.14 140.493 260.364 Average, group C... I 1,196.3 3.55 AQGABT AN 25,9 aasteesulheeeveyare to < 203.405 2 T2224: 3.62 | AASSOOM IN oa eet tae WN eteieeeete re 211.610 a e203 52) || 3.735 BA TSBS NY ye defn kis, | 2 se siete > « 211.707 TABLE 50. ENERGY VALUE OF PropuctT. Group A, IQIO-IQII Pounds Therms solids- Therms in Total Cow Period | not-fat in ash-free ieee —.7 per fat solids-not- cent ash fat Glenwood: G5-2 205200 aces I 95.941 251.418 178.450 429.868 2 76.778 211.760 142.807 354.5607 2) 68.295 190.666 127.029 317.695 Sornetlaen ret ports tres cesT I 92.995 2237261 172.971 406 . 332 2 87.051 222.626 161.915 384.541 3) 83.585 219.306 155-468 374-774 PRU Seale ha hva lo Wie talv’ers, ceiatohe wt I 131.305 231.045 244.227 | 475.272 2 130.654 225.304 243.016 | 468.320 3 120.884 227,207 224.844 452.241 SIAR MS ee teleciccelstettn ereks, tees © ais : I 94.107 182.159 75.039 357.198 2 90.485 182.956 168 . 302 351.258 3 85.318 | 174.933 58.691 333 . 62. Average, group A........ Tip eee os ancora | tis hens 417.168 Drapes 69.5 (ieee dene opeeee <llimecre cue <tlerinn 389.672 Bia Mavs 3s tap 242) | \eaeeNens on eyere Perce eee 369.584

II2

BULLETIN 323

TABLE 51. ENERGY VALUE OF PRopuctT. Group B, I9I10-19I1!

Cow

Period

Pounds solids-

not-fat

—.7 per

cent ash

125, LE7 .gI0

116

124. 124.

127

380 |

207

746

285 | .O9gI

Therms Therms in in ash-free fat solids-not- fat

239.949 233 .207 231770 218.005

Total therms

TABLE 52. ENERGY VALUE OF Propuct. Group C, I9I10-19II

|

Cow

Period

Pounds

solids-

not-fat —.7 per cent ash

SVevw Wa love UI) mee) by ete el oie Nie stacker

Therms Therms in in ash-free fat solids-not- fat

Total therms

350.636 348.578 343.068

414.712 436.925 436.893

287.206 283.031 272.384

404.244 447 .782 466.016

364.200 379.979

379-599

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRopUCTION

E13

TABLE 53. Recorp oF LivE WEIGHT (IN PouNDs). Group A, 1910-1911

Average | Average at Average at at eae oh for beginning end : period Period 1 REUSE OO Ele ea 5 eye ae sce Mere ea hss 1,052 I ,057 + 5 1,055 Bernclla... 3 2 Same rhe a deen ch tists bes 894 854 —40 874 12 eae RP PR fe ARIS bee H,L72 1,180 ar fe! 1,176 nA ey Ne aie ae OE eR cA Ser townie a ts E32e I ,326 Se 0327 Period 2 len WOOGHE pric, + see tad hiss hehe eats 1,057 1,079 +22 1,068 Corelle ye peel stant ae Meee ots 854 859 ae & 857 MEPs sae: (oh seeker d pe ieyehel dah Sraatins 1,180 1,190 +10 1,185 “TREAD o's Uae epee ee Pe Rae at 1,320 1,345 +19 1,336 Period 3 GrlemmOOGmyee eh ss tas bo ee ee Sipas 1,079 1,106 +27 I ,093 (Chora iE i oe ee RC Ue 859 868 + 9 864 ID 3 Sean an Fe ee ne eee 1,190 1,194 + 4 1,192 TE ZNG to Sta tll a en Ro ous ee 1,345 1373 +28 1,359 Verse tor croUupPAy MeErMOd: fo 0..) Gack. cs |) Ate adged |b ages Bele 1,108 PGA Deere is eae || Chee Ee £ Cll emer, Were 1, be? Breasts eens TMs tates tonto k, va laok coke i, 127 TABLE 54. ReEcorpD oF LIVE WEIGHT (IN PouNDs). Group B, 1910-1911 Average | Average ue Average at at ee as for beginning end ; period Period 1 CORTE 00102 ee Ra a 1,224 | O82), al Ne 1,227 STLEv0 12) SE aii ne ee ae aA 1,038 I ,047 +9 1,043 (CHIC i\\ole Pteas o eek Ay ee 991 984 —7 987 Period 2 CAGE R25 3 a ADR ay a a 1,224 1,248 +2 1,236 SEE) a eng a 1,047 1,059 +12 1,053 (NBIC A te aia eke Pg aia ie i a 984 990 + 6 987 Period 3 rien eee ee te ee et bl 1,248 1,268 +20 1,258 slain, AE Se ee: 1,059 I ,069 +10 1,064 OSSD 2, Oe en re re | 990 I ,000 +10 995 Pes retorerotp Pernod TJs yull Fo iu is calualee seta « lee dade 1,085 PY aN, 24 Oe aC aR| Th Ve SO, RE OPE ae ies I ,092 Biemmactalll ae eucasteoeyey OY lk memem sh aerator Naemey sons. «tame 1,106

114 BULLETIN 323

TABLE 55. Recorp oF LivE WEIGHT (IN PouNDs). Group C, I910-I9II

| - ferage {| AV : : é Average | Average | eerste Average

at_ at Deseee for | beginning end pata period Period 1 | BERN tee etre eee oe ea te Setitan | 1,066 1,068 + 2 1,067 SIR ene Te tabae east ER ras ek asd 1,184 7 —7 1,181 Leics ae ote Meroe le tals, ieidterseceaie aie ee aN 839 844 + 5 842 Ganlottareensnn te reristas bcos nk heen Be 1,208 | 1,242 +34 1,225 Period 2 Ghee 4 Bete cay acnds SO Oe, ee 1,068 15077. +9 1,073 EES eh rents tedeaae sets vied gh SEE | Wy 197 73 — 4 Lju75 BiG yeaa ase atid oni Hebe es Geen 844 843 oil | 844 Carlotta. 2.5... Ui Rha orc xea en ee | ¥,242 1,269 +27 1,256 Period 3 | (OG seis tio oe Re RE a IE eee ee! TOV 7, 1,083 + 6 | 1,080 ESM ROp ERR ore. 8s sels eee Rac ele Sinn ee 173 1,186 | qi sel 1,180 IG Bente cet ara’ «<4 pct oer yer Peay dca, 932s ee 843 860 +-17 852 Carlotta cy. :.0.. 5 catheter Ree 1,269 I , 287 | Tow 1,278 Average for group Gy period Boa) aeaae ee nl ened eae 1,079 PRA roe CRO PR gS || Lisi: Sst 1,087 Rona Wes eu es | se fstins ar Fel eee eee 1,098

DISCUSSION OF DATA

The correctness of the application of Haecker’s standard

In the discussion of the data as to the correctness of Haecker’s standard as a guide in the practice of feeding dairy cows, the two questions to be considered are:

1. Does this feeding standard furnish sufficient protein?

2. Does this feeding standard furnish sufficient total nutriment?

Protein requirements.— In answer to question 1, the feeding and pro- duction records for periods 2 and 3 of group B in both 1909-1910 and Igto-1g11, and of group C in 1910-1911, may be studied.

1. Group B, 1909-1910. In period 2 of this year, the average ration fed group B contained 92.02 pounds of protein and 740.87 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:7 ; in period 3 of the same year, the average ration of group B contained 96.72 pounds of protein and 679.13 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:6. (Table 28a.) In period 2, group B produced an average of 1,176.7 pounds of milk, con- taining 49.662 pounds of fat (4.22 per cent) and 217.311 pounds of total product; in period 3, group B produced 1,068.7 pounds of milk, containing 46.165 pounds of fat (4.32. per cent) and 200.365 pounds of total product. (Table 31.) In period 3, then, group B received 4.70 pounds more protein per cow and 61.74 pounds less total nutriment. From tables 25 and 23,

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION TI's

the computed cost of the ration for each cow is found to have been $1.121 less in period 3 than in period 2. The production of fat for each cow was 3.497 pounds less in period 3 than in period 2. This fat was worth 4b cents per pound, or a total of $1.398. Thus the average amount realized per cow for group B was 27.7 cents less in period 3 than in period 2. A study of these data indicates that the increased amount of protein did no good. However, the value of the data is much lessened by two facts: that the cows were reduced in the amount of their ration, and that the cow Omicron was “ off feed’’ in this period.

The amount of total nutriment allowed by Haecker for group B in period 2, 1909-1910, averaged 671.16 pounds per cow, or 10.4 per cent below the amount fed. In period 3 the amount allowed averaged 647.03 pounds, or 5 per cent below the amount fed. While the amount of fat yielded was greater in period 2 than in period 3, it may have been that the cows were fed too highly, causing one to go “ off feed’’ and making it advisable to reduce somewhat the feed of the others. The amount of fat produced by check group A was slightly less in period 3 than in period 2. The amount of total product also was a little less. The feed of the check group was reduced from 12.4 per cent above the standard to 7.4 per cent above the standard. The nutritive ratio of the ration fed the check group was practically identical with that of the standard.

2. Group B, 1910-1911. In periods 2 and 3, group B offers in this year a much better set of data from which to judge of the value of more protein than is allowed by Haecker’s standard. All the cows seemed to be normal during both these periods in rg10-1911. In period 2, group B averaged 91.92 pounds of protein and 780.24 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:7.5 ; in period 3, 107.62 pounds of protein and 780.89 pounds of total nutriment, nutritive ratio1:6.3. (Table 45a.) In period 2, group B produced 1,405.4 pounds of milk, 53.932 pounds of fat (3.84 per cent), and 249.261 pounds of total product; in period 3, group B produced 1,372.4 pounds of milk, 54.458 pounds of fat (3.97 per cent), and 249.591 pounds of total product. (Table 48.) Since there was an increase of but .65 pound of total nutriment fed per cow, whatever gain there was in product must have been due to the increase of 15.70 pounds of protein per cow. Calculating the average per-cow from tables 42 and 4o, it is found that the average amount of feed cost 13.5 cents less per cow in period 3 than in period 2. If the value of the increase of fat is added, .526 pound at 4o cents, the total gain per cow in period 3 over period 2 was 34.5 cents. The amount of total nutriment in period 2 was 6.2 per cent above Haecker’s standard, while in period 3 it was 5.4 per cent above the standard. Because the amount of total nutriment was practically the same in both periods, the gain shown by group B would indicate that

116 BULLETIN 323

the nutritive ratio of 1:6.3 was more advantageous. The average amount per cow of total nutriment fed check group A in period 3 was 4.11 pounds more than in period 2. (Table 44a.) The fat produced was 1.799 pounds less per cow in period 3. Calculating the gain or loss as for group B above, the total loss for group A in period 3 was 65.8 cents per cow.

3. Group C, 1910-1911. In period 2, group C averaged 85.46 pounds of protein and 737.52 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:7.6; in period 3, group C averaged 105.26 pounds of protein and 760.31 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:6.2. (Table 46a.) In period 2, the average production of group C was 1,227.4 pounds of milk, 44.399 pounds of fat (3.62 per cent), and 211.610 pounds of total product; in period 3, the average production of group C was 1,203.2 pounds of milk, 44.888 pounds of fat (3.73 percent), and 211.707 pounds of total product. (Table 49.) There was fed to group C, then, in period 3, 22.79 pounds more total nutriment and 19.80 pounds more protein than in period 2. The increase in fat production was .489 pound of fat, worth 40 cents per pound, or 19.6 cents. The increased nutriment cost 20.9 cents, showing an average loss of 1.3 cent in period 3 over period 2. In period 2, the ration fed group C was 11 per cent above Haecker’s stand- - ard; in period 3 it was 14 per cent above Haecker’s staridard.

This comparison would tend to show that, while it may have been well to increase the protein, 14 per cent of total nutriment above the standard was not economical.

Total nutriment requirements —— The data of 1909-1910 give no con- clusions as to the amount of total nutriment required except in a general way, which will be discussed later. In 1910-1911, the data admit of two direct comparisons in periods 1 and 2; group B was fed nearer Haecker’s standard in period 2 than in period 1, and group C was fed nearer the standard in period 1 than in period 2.

1. Group B, ro10-1911. In period 1, group B was fed an average of 97.07 pounds of protein and 815.38 pounds of total nutriment, nutritive ratio 1:7.4; in period 2, group B averaged 91.92 pounds of protein and 780.24 pounds of total nutriment, nutritive ratio 1:7.5. The amount of total nutriment was 7.5 per cent above Haecker’s allowance in period 1 and 6.2 per cent above Haecker’s standard in period 2. (Table 45a.) In period 1, group B produced an average of 1,490.3 pounds of milk, 56.749 pounds of fat (3.81 per cent), and 263.196 pounds of total product; in period 2, group B produced 1,405.4 pounds of milk, 53.932 pounds of fat (3.84 per cent), and 249.261 pounds of total product. (Table 48.) There was, then, 35.14 pounds less total nutriment fed in period 2 than in period 1. This was an average saving of 48.8 cents per cow. The amount of fat produced per cow was 2.817 pounds less in period 2, worth $1.126

J ; y

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION E17

at 40 cents per pound. Giving the cow credit for the saving of feed, the

loss would still be 63.8 cents per cow. This would indicate that the feed should not have been reduced.

No definite comparison can be made with the check group A in this case, because one cow, Glenwood, was fed much less than Haecker’s standard in period 1, since, in the opinion of the herdsman, she would not consume feed equal in quantity to that recommended by Haecker. (Table 44.) Another cow, Cornella, was fed practically the standard require- ment in period rt and somewhat below the standard in period 2. A study of the feeding of these cows (Table 44) and of their production (Table 47) will show that they produced relatively much less in period 2 than in period 1, while a very small loss was shown by the cow Eta and a slight gain by the cow Tau in this check group A. Eta was fed exactly the same in both periods; Tau was fed a little less in period 2, but nevertheless she kept up her production.

2. Group C, 1910-1911. Group C was fed nearer to Haecker’s stand- ard during period 1 and then allowed more food during period 2. In period 1, group C averaged 77.26 pounds of protein and 679.83 pounds of total nutriment, nutritive ratio 1:7.7; in period 2, group C averaged 85.46 pounds of protein and 737.52 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:7.6. (Table 46a.) The average production in period 1 was 1,196.3 pounds of milk, 42.431 pounds of fat (3.55 per cent), and 203.405 pounds of total product; in period 2, the production was 1,227.4 pounds of milk, 44.399 pounds of fat (3.62 per cent), and 211.610 pounds of total product. (Table 40.)

The increase in food in period 2 was 57.69 pounds of total nutriment per cow, costing 71.6 cents. The increase in fat production averaged 1.968 pounds, worth 78.7 cents at 40 cents per pound. Therefore the increase in food up to 11 per cent above the standard was more economical than feeding at 5 per cent above the standard as in period 1. (Table 46a.)

In 1909-1910, group A for all three periods, group B for periods 1 and 2, and group C for all three periods were fed a ration with a nutritive ratio close to that recommended by Haecker and were fed all that they would eat up clean. The same is true of group A for all three periods in 1910— 1g11, group B for period 1, and group C for period 2. Therefore, if the amount of protein and total nutriment be averaged for these periods, and the amounts allowed by Haecker for the same periods, an idea may be derived as to the amount of nutriment that a cow will use for product if her appetite is given free range, and a comparison may be made with the nutriment that Haecker recommends. (Tables 27a, 28a, 29a, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38; 44a, 45a, 46a, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55.)

From these averages it is seen that .o558 pound of net protein was used per pound of milk containing 4.26 per cent fat. | Haecker’s standard

118 BULLETIN 323

provides .o496 pound of net protein for 1 pound of milk containing 4.26 per cent fat. For 1 pound of this same quality of milk an average of .388 pound of net nutriment was used, while the standard provides .329 pound of net nutriment, or 15 per cent less. (Table 56.) From this it would seem that, if the cows were allowed to satisfy their appetites in a normal way, Haecker’s standard would not provide sufficient nutriment. Furthermore, wherever comparisons have been possible, it has been shown that the greater amount of nutriment was the more economical.

TABLE 56. AvERAGE Foop CoNSUMED COMPARED WITH HAECKER'’S STANDARD (IN PouNnDs)

Fed | Haecker | Product Group Period | Bes | Total Total | Total & Protein | nutri- | Protein | nutri- Milk Fat ae t ment ment 12ele she 1909-1910 / Nat PES oe I 83.13] 666.86 74.09} 602.68] 1,008.8] 43.449 189.845 972 BY. 2 84.01] 682.46 74.09) 607.08 984.9} 43.456 187.662 9004 jp 3 80.51| 652.67 73.73) 607.68 958.7) 43.397 185.621 1,009 Bere cl veto ee | I 90.98] 725.31 84.43] 670.30) 1,252.8] 50.040 224.967 9904 Bie 2 2.02| 740.87 83.2 671.16] 1,176.7] 49.662 20763 Ls 1,028 Cre oe 84.56] 680.14 73.59} 600.37 991.7] 43.510 190.138 968 [Ose 2 83.35| 678.84 71.63] 589.22 935-7 2.035 179.972 979 Coe. Bees: 3 86.1r] 698.48 70.51; 585.90 887.0] 41.260 173-934 1,000 IQIO-IQII ARS, I 88.50) 746.69 88.38] 716.17) 1,218.8] 53.223 231.871 I,1r08 AG ten 2 85.82] 721.99 84.06] 687.34] 1,124.6] 49.944 216.438 Ir, ore A... 3 85.87| 726.10 81.24| 673.92] 1,030.1] 48.145 205.058 Ts 027, Biter I 97.07| 815.38 96.47| 758.79] 1,490.3] 56.749 263.196 1,085 Cie 2 85.46] 737.52 82.76] 664.26] 1,227.4] 44.399 211.610 1,087 bo) 2: | Neer ee 1,127.4819,273.31\1,038.22|8,434.87|14,287.5| 609.269} 2,677.623} 13,463 IM CTAG Ose 25... «sri craleohove.s: © 86°73) 723233 79.86| 648.84] 1,099.0| 46.867 205.971 1,036 For maintenance........ 25.38] 287.36 25 38)" (267 536). oc asl|> onset lee ee Pee ee ee Net for product......... 61.35} 425.97 $4. AS! 360. 48)e -c.c A ecu. coll ote ate 3 ere teen Nutritive ratio.......... Baya Tiegd Ss cee ee nls ee oe ee eee

Average percentage of fat in milk, 4.26.

Average net protein fed for 1 pound milk = .0558 pound; standard — .0496 pound. Average net protein fed for 1 pound product = .298 pound; standard == .264_. pound. Average net nutriment fed for r pound milk = .388 pound; standard = .329 pound. Average net nutriment fed for 1 pound product = 2.068 pounds; standard = 1.755 pound.

The writer is fully aware of the limitations of the data submitted. However, questions 1 and 2 on page 114 are answered in some degree as follows:

1. The data indicate that a nutritive ratio of 1:6 will stimulate a greater production of butter-fat than will wider nutritive ratios as proposed in Haecker’s standard.

2. The data indicate that an increase of at least 10 per cent in the amount of total nutriment above that allowed by Haecker, would stimu- late butter-fat production to an extent great enough to pay for the increased feed.

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRopDUCTION 119

The correctness of the application of Armsby's standard

Essentially the same questions may be asked in regard to Armsby’s feeding standard as were asked concerning Haecker’s standard:

1. Does this feeding standard furnish sufficient protein?

2. Does this standard furnish sufficient energy for milk production?

Protein requirements.— For a study of the question whether sufficient protein and energy is provided by Armsby’s standard, Table 57, similar to Table 56, has been prepared. Armsby’s standard, page 82, provides .o5 pound of digestible protein per pound of milk. In Table 56 it was shown that the rations there averaged had a nutritive ratio of r:7.2. In Table 57, after the amount of protein considered by Armsby to be sufficient for maintenance has been subtracted, the protein left for product provides .0623 pound of protein for 1 pound of milk containing 4.26 per cent fat. The data indicate that when the rations were narrowed, more butter-fat was secreted by group B, 1g1o-1911, in period 3 as compared with period

.2 even though no more nutriment was provided (page 115). The

average protein fed during period 3 to group B, after deducting protein for maintenance, was 89.07 pounds. Dividing by the average amount of milk produced by group B during this period, 1,372.4 pounds, it is found that .o65 pound of protein was used per pound of milk. This milk tested 3.97 per cent fat. In Table 57 the amount of protein fed per pound of milk is .0623 pound, instead of .o558 pound, as shown in Table 56, because Armsby provides .50 pound of protein to maintain a 1,000-pound animal while Haecker provides .7o0 pound of protein.

TABLE 57. AVERAGE Foop CONSUMED COMPARED WITH ARMSBY’sS STANDARD

Fed Armsby Product

Pounds Group Period 2 5 Sere = = live ounds | ounds ounds ounds { Therms in| weight protein Therms protein Therms milk fat product I909-IQIO | PAA eee Re PS, 54,5 | I 83.13) 562.09 67.51} 510.02) 1,008.8] 43.4490 341.409 972 JN ea Bie ner | 2 84.01} 568.54 O7TSi pS LOn7s 984.9] 43.456 337.662 994 LNG Pe eRe, AR ee | 3 80.51} 547.04 65.88] 502.88) 958.7| 43.397 334.204] I,009 BY: | I 90.98} 618.20 79.71] 581.04) 1,252.8] 50.040 403.779} 904 ete erAG fatale: 2 92.02! 626.76 75.90) 558.21] 1,176.7] 49.662 390.515 1,028 a ents I 84.56} 575.15 66.21} 500.49 9901.7} 43.510 342.190 068 Cre Sy. a a 2 83.35) 568.11 63.41 483.71) 935.7) 2.035 323.953 979 Ci ee 3 86.11) 590.30 61.41] 472.59 887.0} 41.260) 313.330 I,000 I9IO-IQII : |

U Nocera ee it 88.590| 5097.18 79.93) 590.5c| 1,218.8} 53.223 417.168) 1,108 1 N63 ae eee 2 85.82) 577.56 75.13) 5OI.39] 1,124.6) 49.0944 389.672!) Line ARae ARS ho ac 3 85.87) 580.63 70.76] 536.54) 1,030.1] 48.145 360.584) t, 127 Bee I 97.07 654.10 93.30 669.91, 1,490.3 56.749 472.014 1,085 (Ce UNA 2 85.46, 587.15} 80.10] 590.46] 1,227.4] 44.390] 379.079 1,087

UGE ee Seen Bie I,127.48/7,052.90} 946.43/7,068.47|14, 287.5] 609.269] 4,814.559) 13,463 LAGE SS eS a eee 86.73) 588.68 72.80} 543.73} 1,009.0| 46.867 370.350 1,036 For maintenance........ 18.20} 217.00 GOR 2O | e207 JOO neers ore |las scare eileen Heh ef BA he - Net for product......... 68.53} 371 -68| BAG O0 es 2 Olea nent ere =| tire ee Ae cillsrele s-dssy vt le cae eee

} I |

Average percentage of fat in milk, 4.26. Average net protein fed for 1 pound af milk = .0623 pound; standard =.05 pound.

Average net therms fed for r pound of milk = .338; standard —. 3.

120 BULLETIN 323

Therefore, if only .50 pound of protein is to be provided for the main- tenance of a 1,000-pound animal, it would seem clear that more than .o5 pound of protein must be provided for the production of 1 pound of 4-per-cent milk. In the discussion of Haecker’s standard, it will be re- membered that the data give a basis for the assumption that a nutritive ratio of 1:6 is probably better than a wider nutritive ratio. An allowance of .os pound of protein per pound of 4-per-cent milk, with .50 pound of protein for the maintenance of a 1,o00-pound animal, will provide a ration much wider than 1:6. .

Total energy requirements.— It is not possible to make direct comparisons in studying the data on this point. It is seen in Table 57 that, when allowed, the cows would average for 1 pound of 4.26-per-cent milk .338 therm energy. The standard provides .3 therm for 1 pound of 4-per-cent milk. If Tables 27a, 28a, and 29a are examined, it is found that in tge9— tg10 the energy consumed by the cows was in excess of that provided by the standard. However, it will also be found that the milk averaged somewhat higher than 4 per cent fat. (Tables 30, 31, and 32.) In Table 44a it is shown that in 1910-1911 group A was fed a little higher than is provided by the standard. In Tables 45a and 46a it is seen that the cows were fed practically the same as called for by the standard. Group A produced milk averaging somewhat above 4 per cent fat, while groups B and C produced milk averaging lower than 4 per cent fat, in all periods.

In Table 57 it is seen that in the standard there is left for product 326.73 therms after the energy for maintenance is deducted. There was an average of 370.350 therms in the product as calculated by the method described on page 96. ‘Therefore, for this amount and quality of product, the standard of .3 therm per pound of milk appears to be too low. In the light of the data submitted, the following seems to be indicated:

1. An allowance of at least .o6 pound of protein for 1 pound of 4-per- cent milk will probably lead to a greater production of butter-fat than will .o5 pound of protein if only .50 pound of protein is allowed daily for the maintenance of a 1,o00-pound animal.

2, While .3 therm energy seems to be sufficient for 1 pound of 4-per- cent milk, more than that must be allowed for better grades of milk.

3. While the production values suggested by Armsby from his own and Kellner’s work are probably nearer the true relative values of different feeding-stuffs, it does not seem to the writer that they represent enough difference in practice to recommend a change to this system at present, particularly in teaching a‘feeding standard for milk. Furthermore, the standard does not make arty definite recommendations for varying the amount of nutriment for cows giving milk of different percentages of fat.

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRopDUCTION I2I

SUMMARY

The principal need for a feeding standard is for teaching purposes. Any standard can be used only as a guide and must be departed from at times to suit the individuality of different animals or to meet existing conditions such as would preclude the use of high-protein foods — for example, when the cost of such foods is too high.

In New York State, where the prices of such protein foods as gluten feed and distillers’ dried grains are relatively no higher than many carbo- hydrate foods, the question of the cost of protein is not so important as in States farther west. Therefore, rations with nutritive ratios not wider than 1:6 are recommended in New York and in the Eastern States in general.

Good feeders who have had long experience make a practice of start- ing their animals on large rations soon after calving. They say that as long as they can keep their cows and heifers in good flesh, the production of butter-fat will hold up longer. Animals in good flesh and perhaps gaining slightly in weight will grow stronger calves and will be in better condition for the next lactation if in good flesh at the end of the present lactation. By consulting tables 36, 37, 38, 53, 54, and 55, it is seen that under the system of feeding practiced in tg09g-1910 and i1g1o-1gr1r the cows averaged a slight gain in live weight from period to period, but not again that caused any animal to appear too fat for economical production at any time.

Therefore, from what has been learned from practical experience together with the results of the two years investigation summed up in the foregoing pages, the writer would suggest the standard for milk production given in Table 58. This standard is a modification of Haecker’s standard, pages 77-78. The amounts of nutriment and protein for maintenance recom- mended by Haecker have been left the same. The protein for product has been increased 35 per cent. This amount has been added in order that a cow weighing 1,000 pounds and giving about 30 pounds of milk testing either 3,4, or 5 per cent fat, shall have a ration with a nutritive ratio of approx- imately 1:6. The amount of total nutriment for product has been increased ro per cent. The standard has been given in terms of digestible protein and total nutriment instead of in terms of digestible protein, digestible carbohydrates, and digestible fat, because with varying feeds in the ration it is impossible to construct rations from different sorts of feeds and meet these three different requirements of protein, carbohydrates, and fat, while it is perfectly feasible to meet a requirement of digestible protein and total digestible nutriment.

122 BULLETIN 323

TABLE 58. SuGGEsSTED MODIFICATION OF HAECKER'S FEEDING STANDARD FOR MiLk PRODUCTION

| |

| Protein Total nutriment |

Horinaintenance,) per TO0 lbs! 2 «24.2.5... aes Pie asx eee e .0700 | -7925 Ror 1 pound milk, 9°.5 per cent fate, ccmive Joe eet .0527 | .2574 Hort pound mule 2s6yper cent fat... uae teem {eee ee ees .0535 .2629 Hor ti pound mille *2 7 per centifat. uo iva ede ema. peer le .0543 . 2685 Bor rpound «mulk,, 2°38) per cent/fat. <n. 4 se ee .0551 .2743 Horm, pound mull; “29\ per centillatirs oct ean a eee .0559 .2812 Bor mpound mill” 2.0 per cent fate. ayes hee sen eee .0567 .2870 Hor i pound milk, 3..1 per cent fat. cca eN hs Si eee .0575 .2928 Born poundimuilk;) 302 per centtat. ire sme ee ree .0583 .2987 Harmpound milk, 3 -a:per cent. fatic.. ss. s0: tee eee .0591 -3055 Bor ipound milk,” 34 per centifat 1. 2s a tee ee .0599 -3115 Homiapoundemullk: 2 85inericent, fatin. + cee ete eee .0608 -3185 Hor x-pound milk, 26.per-cent fat. ..2 08 s1..enernens .0616 2243 Por s)pound milk, 3.7 per cent. fat. 6.2.07 3) ee eee ee .0624 Gale Hora pound) mull 93-8 percent fat... . occ, enone ee ee .0632 -3369 Ror i pound milk, 3.9 per cent fat... cue tes sc. oe .0640 .3428 Hor 1 poundimilk, 4.0 per centalatew.4 2-5 440 -< ere eee .0648 .3497 Bor L-poundimill, a er per cent. fat <<. os2.2..); « meaeeae teres .0656 -3555 For'1 pound milk, :4.2 per cent. fats 025.0. ots eee ene .0664 .3612 Ror i pound! mull, 4.3 pericentifat. 100. | fae eee ee .0672 .3671 Hort pound, milk, 4.4" per cent, fat: 27 .de.n., Sc eee ee .0680 -3729 Hort pound mul: qe5 pericent fat. | 1: sje eee eee .0689 -3787 For 1 pound milk, 4.6 per cent fat. . 7... .-. cep eee eee .0697 . 3842 Fora pound mille, 4-7 "per cent fat: +. - 2.4 oaaeeaene, ee .0705 .3890 For pound milk, 48*per-cent.fat..... i». <2 aes eee ae .0713 -3945 Bor 1 pound milk, 4.9 per cent fat. 1. :2Feer eee ee ae .0721 -3992 Bor i.pound mull, 5)-oxper centfat... 1.20 sae eee .0729 .4048 Ror pound mull, 51 percent fat... 2. nae eine 10737 .4105 Bort pound milk, 5.2 per cent. fat...) Jee ere .0745 .4150 Fors pound milk, 5°3 per cent fat... ds Sonne ees .0753 .4209 For © pound milk, 5.4 per cent fat: 22 ee eee .O761 -4253 Bor o pound mule, “5.5: per cent fat... 52.6 ee ene ne .0770 .4311 Bors pound milk, 5.6 :per cent fat J a/-7 2s ..ces sn eee «ene .0778 -4355 For i pound milk, 5.7 percent fat-....<. eeneae ee e .0786 4413 Font pound milk; -5\8 per centsfat...2 25.005 seer eee .O794 .4469 Bor rT pound milk; 5.9 per:cent: fat../3,.0/9. wes «pa teeeeer: .0802 .4517 For 1 pound milk, 6:0 per cent. fat........ 72h Aes .O810 -4572 For 1 pound milk, 6: 1 percent fat\\S;. cin. eee ee .0818 - 4619 For 1 pound milk, 6.2 percent fat. <1. cutee ete ae | .0826 . 4076 For 1 pound milk, 6.3 per cent fat... ..2.nkwceore ae a .0834 -4721 For tpound milk,.6.4 per cent fat. 2°. a. facie ee eee .0842 -4791 Bora pound milk, 6.5 per cent fat .... 2. 4. ee eee ene .O851 .4835 Fora pound milk, 6.6 per cent fat... oc . 2). 4.0, te Sees .0859 . 4882 Bora) potnd milk, 6.7 pericent fat sss ee ee ee .0867 . 4926 Kor 1 pound milk, 6.8 percent faticn\... asset eee eee .0875 . 4984 Hort pound milk, 6.0) pen cent fats... suck eee .0883 . 5040 Ronni pownd milk, -7'10\ percent fat... Waa. dine ee ee O81 -5075

The writer would further-recommend that a cow be fed according to this standard when her condition has become normal after calving. Then the grain ration should be increased 1 pound per day and the cow watched

FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION ro

closely for one week, a careful record being kept of her milk and fat pro- duction. If at the end of the week the cow’s health is good and she has increased in fat or milk production sufficiently to pay for the increase in feed, another pound per day should be added to the grain ration as before; and so on until the cow is getting all the feed that she will eat up clean, if she shows in her product that she will pay for the increase each time. In case the cows are not valuable and in case the amount of money received for product is small, this standard as recommended may be too high to be economical; but it is doubtful whether any plan of dairy husbandry that would not permit feeding cows as high as recom- mended would be a profitable business. In pure-bred herds, particu- larly, yearly records of which are of much importance, it is thought that the above system of feeding can be used to the greatest advantage.

CORNELL UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

THE FOLLOWING BULLETINS AND CIRCULARS ARE AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THosrE RESIDENTS OF NEw YorRK STATE WHO May DEsIRE THEM

BULLETINS Diseases of ginseng 303 Apple orchard survey of Niagara county 305 On certain seed-infesting chalcis-flies 307 The black rot of the grape and its control 309 Fire blight of pears, apples, quinces, etc. 310 The effect of fertilizers applied to timothy | 311 on the corn crop following it 312 The control of insect pests and plant diseases The cause of ‘‘ apoplexy ”’ in winter-fed lambs | 313 The snow-white linden moth Lime-sulfur as a summer spray 314 The apple red-bugs 316 Cauliflower and brussels sprouts on Long | 317 Island The black rot disease of grapes 318 An agricultural survey of Tompkins county | 320 Studies of variation in plants The packing of apples in boxes 325 Notes from the agricultural survey in Tomp- | 322 kins county CIRCULARS Testing the germination of seed corn 12 Some essentials in cheese-making 13 Soil drainage and fertility The relation of lime to soil improvement 14

The elm leaf-beetle ; Orange hawkweed or paint-brush Helps for the dairy butter-maker

Address

The cell content of milk

The cause of ‘‘ apoplexy "’ in winter-fed lambs

An apple orchard survey of Ontario county

The production of ‘‘ hothouse ’’ lambs

Soy beans as a supplementary silage crop

The fruit-tree leaf-roller

Germination of seed as affected by sulfuric acid treatment

The production of new and improved vari- eties of timothy

Cooperative tests of corn varieties

Frosts in New York

Further experiments on the economic value of root crops for New York

Constitutional vigor in poultry

Sweet pea studies—III. Culture of the sweet pea

Computing rations for farm animals

The larch case-bearer

The chemical analysis of soil

Propagation of starter for butter-making and cheese-making

Working plans of Cornell poultry houses

(Department of Animal Husbandry circular) The formation of cow-testing associations

MAILING ROOM

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

124

ITHACA, N.Y:

: } me Aisiss

HL

\ \| 4)