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:
TABLE 8
Live Carbo- 7 | Milk
weight | Rash hydrates nae ds) | produced
(pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds)
Daily average........ oe 956 | 2.000 12.46 | . 560 26.09
Daily average for mainte- |
AIMEE MRS Es cae ec: cd oneal! n byots ereves .670 6.69 FOOH aI er nk che exe
Daily average for milk. ...| ........ | 1.330 5-77 PAGO: |e 3 ccterere
Nutrients to1 pound milk..| ........ O51 .221 cc ul eae A ED
Lehmann for 1 pound milk |
(when yield is 22 pounds | |
SG wcll) 1) ee ia O81 220 o18 | ined Per ua
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:
TABLE 9
Live | Protein | Carbo- | Fat Milk | Percent- Pounds
Year weight (pounds) hydrates (pounds) produced age of fat) of fat
(pounds), ; | (pounds) (pounds)! in milk | in milk]
1894-1895........- 9560 200))|, t2246 56 26.09 4.10 1.069
1895-1896. ......:| g80 259) T2024 .68 25 a7 3.93 LsOLE
| |
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:
TABLE 13
Milk Percentage) Pounds | Total
Group Ration ilk of fat | of fat solids
| (pounds) | in milk | in milk | (pounds)
1 Be ARSON Leer EE RoE N, G I 27.77 4.54 1.260 BC Br.
Bris sun cee ca Seetage Sette 2 30.60 3.80 1.164 3.719
Bc EMIT crise oes oe eras 3 26.84 4.40 1.182 3.524
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
Gro nutriment | product to I
~ | daily | daily pound of
Cee a (pounds) roduct
| bounds). ounds)
Nic 8k Lise. -« kin ea ogee + ext Pea ee 16.88 | 6.208 ae
ED Bien [eS aw ksiges s,s Rotana ge a ats fee Ae ae ee a ee 16.28 | 6.011 | 1.41
Bisse ve tapat ho 8 ne vasacptusehseP one eis nck ae ty ae ee ee eee 16.88 6.260 | 1.45
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
: Hay Silage | Mangels | Grain
Cow Period (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds)
Gornellarn nc. see I 316 775 600 303 | Mixture 1
2 350 710 700 265 | Mixture 1
3 350 700 550 276 | Mixture 1
Garnet Delta...... I 229 700 700 315 | Mixture I
2 280 700 700 315 | Mixture 1
3 280 700 570 315 | Mixture 1
GADSYir tee <aeiats cane I 316 1,050 700 385 | Mixture 1
2 350 1,050 700 385 | Mixture 1
3 350 1,050 700 385 | Mixture I
NBGA jase si asae 8 ot.'9/0i% I 316 1,070 700 420 | Mixture 1
2 350 1,125 700 420 | Mixture I
2) 350 875 580 378 | Mixture 1
* 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
: : Hay | Silage | Mangels| Grain
Cow Period (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds)
@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
: Hay Silage | Mangels | Grain
Cow Period (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds)
Glenwood Sia2)..-:.14.--- I 280 1,050 700 318 | Mixture 1
2 224 1,050 700 350 | Mixture 1
3 272 1,050 700 350 | Mixture 1
Cormellar ye 2 e655 I 280 970 650 318 | Mixture 1
2 224 875 700 316 | Mixture 1
3 268 970 535 312 | Mixture 1
BeGaletreccsraeper crest cis.c 3,3 I 350 1,400 700 420 | Mixture I
2 350 1,400 700 420 | Mixture 1
3 350 1,380 700 420 | Mixture 1
APE bles en oe ea I 350 1225 700 420 | Mixture 1
2 350 1,195 690 361 | Mixture 1
3 350 1,165 685 338 | Mixture 1
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
: Hay Silage | Mangels | Grain
Cow Period (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds) | (pounds)
|
( Gi nb leg dane ye Aecrr ree tet I 350 1,225 700 245 | Mixture 1
2 350 1225 700 309 | Mixture 1
3 350 1,225 700 350 | Mixture 2
PSU ce wire ioe oe I 350 1,225 700 298 | Mixture 1
2 350 I, 400 700 365 | Mixture 1
3 350 1,400 700 399 | Mixture 2
Te ee ekctics alee «is I 280 875 700 228 | Mixture 1
2 224 930 560 273 | Mixture 1
3 268 875 210 280 | Mixture 2
Carlotigwe ras see I 350 16225 700 332 | Mixture 1
Bs 350 1,400 700 400 | Mixture I
3 350 1,400 700 420 | Mixture 2
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
oa)
meeiil\ se 2 braeear | Percent-
Protein nutri- Nutri- total nu- Protein ace of
(pounds) | ment tive - | triment ( ds) Therms | therms
(pounds) ratio above | ae above
| standard | standard
Period 1
Amount fed........ 88.59 | 746.69 Tey: 4.3 88.59 | 597.18 b reg
Required by Haecker 88.38 | 716.17 2 LY (ie Soll leeeoecs eee by Armsby 79203) 1) SOOnSOu ia eee
Period 2 :
Amount fed: 2. -.. . - 85.82 | 721.99 Dyed: 5.0 85.82 | 577.56 2.9
Required by Haecker 84:06 | 687.34 LQ Ss ceca by Armsby 75 LZ SOL SO tesa se
Period 3
Amount fed. 79: ..: 85.87 | 726.10 TRS vy 85.87 | 580.63 8.2
Required by Haecker 81.24 | 673.92 TARY (oe Sl PPR Roto | by Armsby JO TOU 5SOr 54 ell eerie
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-
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)
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11