The Open shed compared with the closed barn for dairy cows

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices

.

ie
Bee

Ve Gy, i

os

BS LT A

ce

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

A=
\) 4, WS
Contribution from the Bureau of Animal Industry Si A)
JOHN R. MOHLER, Chie?

Washington, D. C. Y November 15, 1918

THE OPEN SHED COMPARED WITH THE CLOSED
BARN FOR DAIRY COWS.

By T. E. Woopwarp, W. F. Turner, W. R. Hats, and J. B. McNuury, of the
Dairy Division.

4

CONTENTS.
Page. Page.
Present dairy practice regarding open and Wa bormneduined = week oeee ce eee ee ee eee 10
ClosedWbarnseaez. cases fl eS: 1 Preparing cows for milking.............. 10
Review of previous work...............-...- 2 Removing manure and flushing out milk
mhe~experimentall work. .-.--.----22e-4e25e- 3 TOOT Seen ie Stee eee ee Ene 11
Description of the open shed .--......... 3 Bedding—time required, pounds needed,
EBhexclosedybarmiccs ie ae oy ce pees 4 HOS PORE AD 2 Sala NINERS MTom Water a aE 11
ABNGVS) (LONG SE 5 CI ge as NR 4 | Health and contentment of the cows. -.....--- 12
Eroduction records +t ye. 2 Ske Teo 4 | Manure—preservation, handling, etc........- 13
INSECURE COLGS ces tbe Yee <p d eres = ae ity sys os NG) MSbecheme AVE oe Eon Cpe e a? tee aan GEL 13
PISCUSSION Of FESUIES 2-222 .2=-422hene2 2-5 22% 5

PRESENT DAIRY PRACTICE REGARDING OPEN AND CLOSED BARNS.

In order that milk and butterfat may be produced economically,
it is necessary to provide shelter of some kind for dairy cattle during
the cold, stormy seasons of the year. While the length of the stabling

period varies in different sections of the United States, most dairy
cows are now housed for at least five months, from November to
_ March, inclusive.

An open-shed barn is usually partly or entirely closed on three
sides, leaving one side, usually the south or east, open. The shed is
large enough to allow each animal sufficient room for comfort and
_ exercise, the space allowed varying from 35 to 150 square feet for
_ each cow. The animals are allowed the freedom of the shed except.
_ at milking time. Usually there is a separate room into which the
' cows are driven for milking. This room may accommodate all or
only a part of them. In the latter case they are milked in groups.
| In the milking room the cows are groomed, milked, and fed grain,
| after which they are driven out and another group takes their place.
_ Roughage is fed in racks and troughs provided for that purpose in
_ the open shed.

4 74848°—18—Bull. 736

2 BULLETIN 736, U. S. DEPARTMENT. OF AGRICULTURE.

The closed barn consists of a barn entirely inclosed with stall
room enough to accommodate the entire herd. The animals are
kept in the barn during most of the late fall and winter, and in some
dairies the entire year.

It is almost the universal practice of dairymen to keep their cows
in a closed barn of some type, although in recent years some have
used the open shed. Advocates of the latter have maintained that
the manure is handled more easily and is better preserved and that
the cows yield more milk and butterfat and are healthier, cleaner
and more comfortable than when confined in a closed barn. Dairy-
men who have had experience in stabling cows both in closed barns
and in open sheds disagree as to the merits of the two. In order to
obtain definite and reliable information on the problem the experi-
mental work hereinafter described was carried on at the Dairy Di-
vision Experiment Farm, Beltsville, Md., near Washington, D. C.
The results should be applicable to other parts of the country in a sim-
ilar latitude.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK.

Fraser! of the University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, investigated the open-shed system of housing dairy cattle by
sending outa list of 21 questions to dairymen in Illinois who used
the open shed. The answers of the 18 dairymen who replied indi-
cated that the milking barn was kept cleaner when the open shed
was used, and that the cows and the milk were cleaner. In almost
every case more bedding was required, and the cows showed no
tendency to injure one another. In the latter connection 1¢ must be ©
remembered that in the opinion of the Illinois dairymen mentioned
above dehorning was believed to be necessary to the success of the
open shed. All who replied to Prof. Fraser’s inquiry had either
dehorned or polled cattle. In answer to the question “ What do you
consider the chief advantage of keeping cows in this way over ordi-
nary stabling?” no one fact was so generally emphasized as the labor-
saving feature of the open shed.

‘In an investigation at the Maryland Agricultural Experiment —
Station conducted by Buckley and Lamson? the open stable was
compared with the closed stable. The following is a brief summary
of the conclusions drawn from the experiment:

The cost of construction for the open shed is smaller than for the closed barn. The
cost of labor and the cost of milk, based on quality of feed consumed, is slightly less

in the open shed than in the closed barn. In the open shed, manure is better pre-
served and cows are kept cleaner. The supply of fresh air and light is also better.

1 Fraser, W.J. ‘‘Should Dairy Cows be Confined to Stalls?”’ Tllinois Circular 93, 1904.
2 Buckley, S. S., and Lamson, R. W. Open Shed Versus Closed Stable for Dairy Cows. Maryland
Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 177.

a rn

OPEN SHED COMPARED WITH BARN FOR DAIRY COWS. 3

The effects of extremely low temperatures are practically negative in reducing the
flow of milk. No bad results were experienced from cows horning or butting one
another when allowed the freedom of the open shed.

Davis,! at the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station,
conducted an experiment in which the effect of open-shed housing
for dairy cows was compared with the closed stable. He concludes
as follows:

It appears that the cows kept under the open shed have keener appetites and con-
sume more roughage than those kept in stables. Sufficient protein was consumed
under both systems to meet the requirements of milk and maintenance. The milk
yield of the outside group decreased more rapidly each winter than that of the inside
group. Sudden drops in atmospheric temperature caused decreases in milk yield
for both groups, the outside group having slightly greater decrease. More bedding

was required outside, but less labor was necessary to keep the cows clean. Both
groups finished each winter trial in good health.

THE EXPERIMENTAL WORK.

The following details of three years’ experiments carried on at
the Dairy Division Experiment Farm at Beltsville, Md., show the
conditions under which the work was done.

DESCRIPTION OF THE OPEN SHED.

The shed used was of frame construction, 58 feet in length and
35 feet in width, inside measurements. On the north end a space
of 18 feet was partitioned off and inclosed for a milking room with
stalls for 8 cows. It had a concrete platform, gutter, and alleyway.
The cows were allowed the freedom of the shed except at milking
time. The north end of the shed and the east and west sides up
to within 18 inches of the plate were kept closed, while the south
end, except for a fence to keep the cows inside when desired, was
entirely open. On the south was a small dry paddock where the
cows were permitted to exercise. The space available for the cows
within the open shed, excluding the space of the feeding troughs,
was a little more than 1,200 square feet, which allowed each of the

‘16 cows housed in the shed approximately 75 square feet of floor

space. Two doors opened into the milking room from the shed,
one through which the cows were driven in to be milked and the
other through which they were driven out after milking.

This was the type of shed used during the first year of the experi-
ment. For the last two years a new shed, entirely open on the
south side, replaced the old one. The north side and both ends had
large doors which swung from the top. In summer the doors were

raised to permit a better circulation of air, but in the winter months,

1 Davis, H. P. The Effect of Open-Shed Housing as Compared with Closed Stable for Milch Cows,”
Separate No. 14 (pp. 183-226), Annual Report, 1913-14, Pennsylvania State College. 1916.

a BULLETIN 136, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

while the experiment was in progress, the doors were lowered. For —
the purpose of the experiment there was no difference in the two
structures. The new shed was built only a short distance from the
main milking barn, so it was convenient to drive the cows from the
open shed into the main barn to be milked; consequently both
groups of cows were milked in the same pealerars during the —
two years of the experiment.

THE CLOSED BARN.

The closed barn was of concrete construction, 36 feet by 59% feet,
with stall room for 26 cows, and was equipped with concrete floors,
mangers, and gutters. The cows faced the outside walls, and the
alleyway behind them was 8 feet wide. The feed alleys in front
of the cows were 4 feet wide, and there was a 5-foot alleyway at each
end of the barn. The 17 windows, 7 on each side, 1 on the north end,
and 2 on the south end, provided 176 square feet of lighting space.
A modification of the King system of ventilation was used.

The concrete floors on one side of the barn were covered with
various kinds of insulators, such as cork brick, creosoted blocks, and
planks. One-half of the cows used in the experiment stood on the
floors and the other half on the concrete.

THE COWS.

The herd throughout the entire investigation consisted of 1 pure-
bred Guernsey, 2 pure-bred Holsteins, 10 grade Jerseys, and 8 cows
of miscellaneous breeding. The records of all the animals stabled
under the two systems could not be used, on account of the irregu-
larity of calving, ete.

PRODUCTION RECORDS.

The herd was divided into two groups. During the first year
one group was kept in the open shed and the other in the closed
barn. The second year the groups were reversed. The third year
the groups were again reversed, which gave three years’ records for
comparison. Owing to the irregularity in calving, all the cows have
not three years’ records which are comparable. Four cows had two
years’ records in the open shed, an average of which was taken and
compared with their one year in the closed barn. Seven cows had
two years’ records in the closed barn, an average of which was
compared with their one year’s record in the open shed.

Since the results of the housing are determined quite largely, if
not entirely, upon the stabling period—November to March, in-
clusive—only the records obtained for the five months were studied.
These records do not in any case cover the entire period of five
months, owing to the irregularity of some of the cows in calving,

OPEN SHED COMPARED WITH BARN FOR DAIRY COWS. D

though all records come within the five months mentioned. Only
comparable records have been included. By way of illustration:
Cow 201 calved October 26, 1914, while in the open shed. In 1915
she calved September 26, while in the closed barn. Therefore, in
order that there should be no difference in the records due to time
of freshening, records for December, 1914, and January, February,
and March, 1915, in the open shed, were compared with the records
for November and December, 1915, and January and February, 1916,
in the closed barn. In a similar way other production records
covering the same length of time in the two barns and taken the
same time after calving have been compared.

The weight of each milking was recorded, and composite samples
for two days were taken in the middle of the month and tested for
butterfat. The butterfat test of the composite samples taken during
the two days was used to calculate the total butterfat production for

the month.
FEED RECORDS.

The grain mixture used throughout the experiment was the same
for both groups of cows, and usually consisted of 2 parts corn meal,
2 parts wheat bran, and 1 part cottonseed meal. In some instances
the mixture was varied slightly in the case of individual cows. The
roughage consisted of silage and of such hay as was available on the
farm—cowpea, crimson clover, and red clover.

All grain fed was accurately weighed out for each animal, and
records were kept during the periods covered by the production
record. The hay, silage, and other roughage fed to the cows in the
open shed the first year were weighed out in quantities sufficient for
the entire lot, and it was assumed that equal quantities were con-
sumed by the various individuals. During the last two years of the
experiment the roughage was weighed out to each animal. The
quantity of grain fed was determined largely by the production of
the individual cow, but consideration was given also to her physical
condition. It was desired to keep all cows in good condition and to
maintain each individual at a uniform weight. They were fed all the
silage and hay they would consume without waste.

The cows in the open shed were bedded often enough to keep the
inclosure clean, which was almost every day. In the closed barn the
cows were bedded daily, and bedding enough was used to make them
comfortable and to absorb the liquid manure. For the five months
of the year during which data were taken wheat straw was used with
both groups.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.

The milk and butterfat production records made under both the
open-shed and closed-barn conditions are shown in Table 1

BULLETIN 736, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

6

Tr LEP 1

PL OS

60 “OTT
LV 19

69 0S

61 ‘07
c0 8S
GG EL
66 “69
18 06

9F "99
09 Tg
PP OL
oP 8h

GL °L9
88 OP
6P “99
69 “6S
19°98
SE “68
10°86

GL VE
“spunog

"ye}
-10))0g

T°209 ‘T

6269 ‘8
6 LIFT
9 “$03 ‘T
Z 6F9

GC F68 ‘T
V2 ‘T
8 898 ‘T
0968 ‘T
0709 ‘T
€ $00 ‘T
Z 698 ‘T
o PPP T
@ see ‘T
F666,
¢ 896 ‘T
9 988 ‘T
G 620 ‘Z
Z P66 ‘T
£-Sc8 ‘t
G GPL,
“Spunod

“THA

1 °868 ‘T

{

“WoATs sI uoronpoid ,sived Z oy} JO eSeIOA OY} ‘petqUIOd ov sreak 7 O10 M— ALON

ze ieisicl= = 9Tel ‘Areniqeq ‘Arenuer ‘e[6T ‘1equieoeq
roseocasesccaun02 PIGL ‘Gorey ‘Areniqey ‘Arenues
“OT6I
‘Arieniqa, ‘Arenuer ‘cet ‘1aquie0eg ‘IaqmMoAON
SES ESE QT6L ‘Areniqeq ‘Arenuee ‘GET ‘1equIeceq
crc e eee ee tee ee FIGE ‘Gorey ‘Areniqeg ‘Arenueys
woe e eee eee eee eee ners eens “OT6T ‘Morey ‘Areniqo.yT
woe teeter eee eee eee “PI6L ‘Areniqe, ‘Arenuer

OS OO ie oS OT6T ‘youeyy ‘Areniqoy

“PI6L ‘Arenaiqe, ‘Arenuesr
gee ness OT6L ‘Arenuve ‘GT6T ‘1EquIEDeC ‘19qQWIOAON
es ee © FIGL ‘Yoreyy ‘Arenigey ‘Arenues
de he ee ae GI6L ‘Wore ‘Areniqag ‘Arenuve
eee: OT6L ‘Arenuer ‘TET ‘req uLe0eq] ‘10Q UI8AON
SO ee ea FIGL ‘Gorey ‘Areniqeg ‘Arenues

Se ee eee CI6L ‘WoIewW ‘AIeNIGOT ‘Arenue C
oe OI eg - GT6T ‘Areniqoy ‘Arenuer

eerie s Se ggicie ori GT6T ‘yore ‘Areniqe, ‘Arenuer
i ere OI6T ‘Yorepy ‘Areniqey ‘Arenuee
SOS Ss ad FIGL ‘YorewM ‘Areniqo,y ‘Arenuve

page teebee le pian sissies. “7-7 - e767 ‘Areniqey ‘Arenuer
Srare ans ress steric see CL6L ‘Goreypy ‘Areniqe 7 ‘Arenuer
Spi iseee TSS sich = eee seiner CT6L ‘Areniqe, ‘Arenues

tote eer eee eee eee GI6T ‘Wore, ‘ATENIC OT ‘Arenue le
eooos 36m GT6L ‘Areniqeg ‘Arenuee ‘PTET ‘toquie.eq

Siete Sic aires “""" -CT6L ‘yoreyy ‘Areniqey ‘Arenuer

*poried SUNT

"ULB PIsoTO

CI6I ‘T 8h

S161 ‘L “220

ST6T ‘9¢ “3deg
eter IZ “100
¢ e O
SI6I ‘8 “300
E16 ‘st “3deg
GI6I ‘ZZ *400
S161 ‘AT “3des
SI6T (08 eal
GT6l 2 ave
E161 ¢ *390
zt eae
S161 ‘G “40
O

PIGL ‘T “oO
PI6I‘§ “4deg

PI6I ‘81 “ydog
GT6I ‘8% “shy
SI6l ‘IZ “Ssny
PIG ‘IZ

FIGI ‘SZ
FIGI ‘SZ
FIGL ‘S
FI6I ‘%
FIGI ‘T
FI6I ‘8

PI6I ‘61

——

*poareo o1eq

GT Ses ‘T | 6089 ‘FE

GZ ‘08 DE GSCE Ge |e ee ess GI6T ‘Youeyy ‘Areniqeg ‘Arenuer
LE°CEL | O'L6L‘E | ST6T “Yoreyy ‘Areniqay ‘Arenuee ‘FTE, ‘1equieoeq
62 ‘OF GS TL6y aa |e eee SI6I ‘Youeyy ‘Areniqey ‘Arenuer
16 ‘8¢ GONG fiak hand Sea ee CI6L ‘Youeyy ‘Areniqo,
TL eS GEST R ee ES age SEES ae CT6r ‘Areniqey ‘Arenuer
89 F9 PE GOD" Ves| See ee Seg ee REE AS CI6L ‘yore ‘ArenaqeyT
€9 “SL ayy he ies mews CT6I ‘Areniqey ‘Arenuee “PTET “Tequieoeq
20°67 92696: S32 | ee ee PI6L ‘yoreyy ‘Areniqe,7 ‘Arenues
09 ‘TFT CeCe | ae CT6r “Aieniqey ‘Arenuee “PTET “Tequreceg

c Pyne Popa | ees eee eee OT6T ‘Wore ‘Areniqe, ‘Arenuer
LV 67 vSeT T { ee Ce eee oe PIGL “Woreyl ‘ATENIGOT ‘Arenues
GP €9 PcG za ay Sa Sa PIGL ‘yore ‘Areniqo,7
68°L TRE T { Boe Sees OT6l ‘Arenaiqe”d ‘Arenuer *CT6T ‘19qum1000q

eee ee ome PIGL ‘Yorvyy ‘Arenige, ‘Arenues

Lg°S8 SSQ90 = |S te ee eee = GT6T ‘yoreyy ‘Areniqe,7 ‘Arenuer

: : ‘Seg Say Seasons GIGI ‘1oque0eq ‘IOqUIOAON
LETS Q°T2r'T { ree oe ears cue ee ae vI6I ‘ATCNIGOT ‘Arenues
19.°9@ EOS9= |: 2 ee SS Se FI6L ‘Worley ‘ArenIqgo 7
88°18 T9206 Gey | SS eS PI6L ‘ole ‘ArenIGog ‘Arenuer
91 “G9 G Ts a Sn Se ere ae ee PIGL ‘Wore ‘Areniqoq
66 “€6 BERO GEC ae ara sees es ES Ei ea le ee OD
6& 66 CLG EE. Cee he eee See eee ope
68 “POT Os/Si: Ces ee eae PIGL ‘Yorem “Areniqay “Arenue f

: 55 [Sa ee e OI6L ‘yore ‘Areniqoey ‘Arenuer
£2 VE iZtcllc SES omen ooe soto. ce FIG ‘yore, ‘Areniqoy ‘Arenuee
‘spunod | ‘spunog
= feng “AL ‘poled SULIT

*poys uedg

“woTjONp

-o1d

FIGT ‘9%

FI6I ‘9%
VI6T ‘2

PIGL ‘2

PI6L ‘ZT
PIG ‘FI
FIG ‘OT
€I6T ‘61
PIGT ‘ST

SI6I ‘LT
SI6L FG
S161 6%
GI6I‘G
€I6I ‘9

PIGL ‘ES

CI6L (91
SI6I ‘2L
SIGI ‘81
SI6L %
PIGL ‘OT
SII ‘8S
SI6I ‘9
E161 ‘6
CI6I ‘8
S161 ‘F

[270.L

"ydeag

“190
"AON
“200
*ydag
20
*ydag
“ydag
"adog
“490
ae
"ydag
pie
*ydog
“ydag

"AON
*ydog
“AON
‘uer
200
“00d
“sny
Ayn tt
“SLY.

“poeareo o78q

60Z
102

"spLooat yofiaqjng puv yy —'T AIAVL,

U4
is

OPEN SHED COMPARED WITH BARN FOR DAIRY COWS.

TABLE 2.—Fced consumed.

OPEN SHED.

7

Cotton-| Red- | Crim- | Cow-
Cow No. Corn | Wheat| seed |} clover | son- pea Corn Miscellaneous.
meal. | bran. | meal. | hay. | clover | hay. | silage.
hay.
Pounds. Pounds.| Pounds.|Pounds.' Pounds.| Pounds.| Pounds.
1] 2S See NULLAM 196 158 79 CPP Ne aa ae 405 | 2,970 | Corn stover, 155.
Pie dey CR ae MANU abate 443 296 148 HAAN eae 445 | 3,210 2
ZU SGN SA a ofA JIN De 462 308 153 TAME WA 445 | 3,210
ES EE RA he ES 460 306 | 153 gL Yea eaten 445 3, 210
CS): ala ada Br panes a 299 200 99 AAT eee 208 | 2,032
EV Ny Sa ash an Nate ll 446 297 148 J pat ete 445 | 3,210
OP SE OEE pee 181 12] 60 WAAL Ne ive 208 | 2,032
UALS, cece ahaa 206 166 CSPZA Seca Sn 1 363 | 2,114 | Corn stover, 81.
TEC ELS LOONIE 276 276 138 134 295 rile ad 3, 150
Tg as Mi hg 342 265 132 Tap Da ease MU 423 | 3,198 | Corn stover, 115.
TICS us eA LE AVS Rt 295 196 99 PA Ae eae. Pye 208 1,770
PAD) sp AOR aD dae a 263 263 132 Cs ea 405 |! 2,948 | Corn stover, 155.
Dilpeererwen ain an Sete 487 361 148 112 225 75 | 3,090 | Fish meal, 63.
DAD ESSN Lie a NE obese na 448 300 149 AAS etek ee 445 3,210
DS SANS SSG 392 280 112 112 225 75 | 3,045 | Fish meal, 56.
He Oa ee pe ees 378 126 126 DOA | (Artest hail een hi 5 wih 1, 870
RRM yuE eats NLT 188 188 94 4A XG (el hue 1,910
Dees An Mees we i 0) 354 118 118 8} Gyr KNGhe BP allel (La LA 1, 870
MOO inarsrtrhl outey i drab 276 276 138 134 PENS | isa edt 2,995
OLE OD a 654 654 326 144 424 96 | 6,050
DVD aieiiedeaneny Ray Lake ON I er) 432 432 215 144 SA OMe ne 4,325
Motalauseuee 7,478 | 5,587 | 2,849 | 2, 620 | 2,085 | 4,691 | 61,419
CLOSED BARN.
IU) 5 eI AES 164 164 82 134 PASS he Sever tl 2, 700
PDE SCARS OES ey one 360 360 SOAs oe 337 75 | 3,010
HEL AS ES OS 362 362 232 15 PTA |i eeete ress 2, 805 porbonseed hulls, 138.
Sottonseed hulls, 138.
FRE oC) SK APN 297 297 190 15 Niall a ave 2, 805 Bone meal, 31. ’
Bia ap ONE ARS A 206 206 LOSE es IRD AAAS asso 1,770
Oe Niet ee Seu veteue taste 276 276 138 124 DO yes a eee 2, 540
HD eM ea 213 213 IGS \eeeboe se 20 ia eeeaceee 1,770
TU Se ae em ie 236 236 13 1 ea PBS) dase 1,770
Cottonseed hulls, 45.
TG ee rs ener et 343 267 145 72 1212 259 | 2,013 |{Stover, 115.
Bone meal, 9.
| PIS A WO ee el Beh ck 264 264 132 134 PAP AN fe See 1,715 | Dried-beet pulp, 410.
ING) i A rae ee 214 214 NOV ARs ie ee AS Fe Lae AY 2,065
HOS EN EN ao TE A 252 252 126 124 PASE sp tine 3, 150 iB i
e ottonseed hulls, 276.
eed enna 976 | 298) tal Fs Wee ua 197 | 3,108 Bone Pe orate
i SEIN ET SSA ee Senna 263 263 132 124 PAS P A Wa eet ra 1,470 | Beet pulp, 410.
Cottonseed hulls, 276.
RN NBCU BON SE 317 262 205 26 257 417 | 1,455 | Bone meal, 15.
Turnips, 2,655
DA rev ercvspaves oral tara sre tieds 265 177 Shot SSMS OS Al eee een (A078 Snares Turnips, 2,700
4 PASS 1A Re Mle Ba Re ae 174 137 O9F ee ees 1 228 192 885 Ove, 102.
urnips, 1,325.
a eel sae A SS aa al A 204 163 BO eras alse ee ls 478 909 |) 64 over, 11 Z
SOQ air ie CRN 358 297 149 73 182 240 | 2,917
PRO eae DiS Ma 533 5383 QO NE en 1361 349 | 2,475 | Stover, 474.
One. a! 319 253 128 BOM pcan a 432 | 3,708 | Stover, 115.
Mota sae oe 5,896 | 5,419] 2,950 964 | 3,520} 3,351 | 45,031
i 1 Alfalfa hay. 2 Timothy hay.

In the data of Table 1 it will be noted that of the 21 cows kept
under the two systems 15 produced more milk and butterfat when
kept in the open shed, while 6 showed a higher production when
kept in the closed barn. The total production while in the open
shed was 34,630.9 pounds of milk, containing 1,535.15 pounds of
butterfat, and that in the closed barn was 31,898.7 pounds of milk,

8 BULLETIN 736, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

containing 1,437.41 pounds of butterfat. Accordingly, under the
open-shed system there was a total increase for the period considered,
about 2.71 months, of 2,732.2 pounds of milk and 97.74 pounds of
butterfat, or an average for each cow of 130.1 pounds of milk and
4.6 pounds of butterfat. The total number of months compared
under each system was 57. Calculations from these figures indicate
that there was an average monthly increase of 48 pounds of milk
and 1.7 pounds of butterfat for each cow while stabled in the open
shed.

Tables 2 and 3 show, respectively, the feed and digestible nutrients
in the feed consumed by the two groups covering the same period of
time as the production shown in Table 1. Where the figures in
Table 1 are an average of two years the feeds in Tables 2 and 3 are
also an average of two years.

TaBLE 3.—Digestible nutrients in feed consumed.

Open-shed group. Closed-barn group.
Feeds. e |
. Carbohy- , . Carbohy-
Protein. | Grates: Fat. Protein. FES Fat.
Concentrates: Pounds.| Pounds. | Pounds. | Pounds. | Pounds. | Pounds.
Connmnea las 2as. s5 Se toc as c ee ae ceaees 515. 98 | 5,159. 82 261. 73 406.82 | 4,068. 24 206. 36
iWiheatibrant2s 50) pee ee ee eee 698. 37 | 2,324.19 167.61 677.37 | 2,254.30 162. 57
Cottonseedaneals- 25 26s eee: 951. 57 692. 31 225. 07 985. 30 716. 85 233. 05
ishimealbeadetsnss aes Bee Seo A4 OSH. acess 132803]. 20s oS bseS sensor ee eee
Mried=bee typulp sts. tei. osoe ec soc cose clbec ee tal O- cod ees Lc eae 37. 72 534. 64 6. 56
otal a seee Seo ee Pas ae eee cee 2,210.90} 8,176.32 668.21 | 2,107.21 | 7,574.03 608. 54
Roughage: |
Ml faltaihayso-ho he 2b oss. 5 ees oo: |e a eee ee 84. 91 312.39 7.21
Cowpea dayne oes a2 Se Js sesse sae 614.52 | 1,580.87 46. 91 438.98 | 1,129. 29 33. 51
Crimson-cloverihay = = Se S sees ee 202. 24 767. 28 20. 85 345. 61 | 1,295. 36 35. 20
Red=cloyveriwnyseeee sc 2 522 Jos ee oe 199.12 | 1,029.66 | . 47.16 73. 26 378. 85 17.35
Timothy hay, Bees! - 2Ee bo. ate ke ee an oh eee 1.71 24. 40 . 68
Corm!StOVetssse45>- 2 Son Ne teen ce 10. 63 214. 54 3. 54 19. 34 390. 50 6. 45
Cottonseed hulls..2.252 404. S242. 2.2.42 | a eae. SE 2. 62 290. 71 13.09
Motalss. Sener eek Ge SYS od os 1,026. 51 | 3,592.35 118. 46 966. 43 | 3,821.50 113. 49
Silage and roots:
Cormstlagesare-ceae +2 ee 25 Beale or: 675.61 | 9,212. 85 429. 93 495.34 | 6,754. 65 315. 22
‘TUT IPSte eee sire ee oocysts ras ho te we ce ee Shee | ee cae 6. 68 400. 80 13. 36
otal Acres yee ee 675.61 | 9,212.85 429. 93 502. 02 7,155. 45 328. 58
Grand tobal spite ee = ee 3, 913. 02 |20, 981.52 | 1,216.60 | 3,575.66 |18,550.98 | 1,050.61
Pounds digestible nutrients required to
produce 1 poundiobiate ee 26 sss5- 2. 55 13. 67 79 2. 49 12. 91 AYE:

It may be noted in Table 3 that when the cows were kept in the
open shed they required more digestible nutrients. However, the
quantities of digestible nutrients required to produce one pound of
fat in each of the two stables did not vary appreciably.

2

OPEN SHED COMPARED WITH BARN FOR DAIRY COWS.

TABLE 4.—Analyses used in calculating digestible nutrients. *

Crude | Carbo- : Crude | Carbo-
Feed rotein |hydrates et woe Reed rotein |hydrates Ha ADEE
eee per 100] (per 100} ounds) er 100| (per 100}, ands)
pounds).|pounds).| P . pounds).|pounds).|? :
‘Cormmeailiy 22.3252 6.9 69. 0 3.5 || Crimson clover...-.-.- 9.7 36.8 1.0
Wheat bran (all anal- Red clover (all anal-
SCS) eis tata Bole 12.5 41.6 3.0 SES) ose a eae qoaiae 7.6 39.3 1.8
‘Cottonseed me a 1 Corn stover (medium
@prinie) 2 eee eee 33.4 24.3 7.9 IMUWAteT) Sse es as bees OE 42. 4 we
Beet pulp (dried). ..-- 4.6 65. 2 .8 |} Cottonseed hulls.....-- 5 33.3 15
Fish meal (highinfat).} . 37.8 |....----- 11.6 |} Corn silage (well ma-
Alfalfa (all analyses). . 10.6 39.0 9 Gund) Res ea ace ileal 15.0 5U
‘Cowpea (allanalyses).. 13.1 33. 7 TO) | Murmip shee emeeeeee 1.0 6.0 2
1 From ‘‘Feeds and Feeding,’’? by Henry and Morrison.
TaBLE 5.—Feed cost of milk and butterfat.
Open-shed group. Closed-barn group.
Gon Ne Feed | Feed Feed | Feed
iN Oe Cost of | Cost of | Total | cost of jcost of 1) Got of | Cost of | Total | cost of | cost of 1
ei rough- | cost of | 100 | pound nail rough-;|cost of} 100 | pound
8 age. feed. | pounds} butter- 8 "| age. feed. | pounds| butter-
milk, fat. mi fat.
1 LON A roel MOY el ea $6. 58 | $13.42 | $20.00 | $2.47 | $0.58 | $6.19 | $11.67 | $17.86 | $2.40 $0. 52
kee hes © Ree 13. 6 14.49 | 28.09 1. 28 SPA 13. 59 IPERS i) Pay Oy 1.39 . 26
JUL y ee ts Sees tae 14. 14 14.49 | 28.63 1, 28 . 29 14. 51 11.39 | 25.90 1.30 . 29
Yee 2 2 Henares SEER Ee 14. 09 14.49 | 28.58 US Pal . 30 11. 89 1523) | e2oe le 1.14 aed
CSN Para ee me eo Oe, a 9.16 9. 06 18. 22 1.17 - 28 7. 78 7. 20 14. 98 1.08 By 45)
Oot a lt Re as Beran 13. 66 14.49 | 28.15 1.39 any 10. 42 10.88 } 21.30 1.36 .o2
PAE Ie a 8 See abe ais O200 9. 06 14. 61 2.25 300 8. 03 7.45 15. 48 1.55 . 36
AE ca a TOL We ee 6. 91 9.56 | 16.47 1. 47 Bay} 8.91 7. 20 16. 11 1. 20 . 24
UE hes, MUS eo UU ae eee 10. 42 13.02 | 23.44 1.41 BHA 11. 52 11.94 | 23.46 P62 . 30
AE Seay era SA 11. 26 14.08 | 25.34 1. 89 yoo 16. 12 8. 69 24. 81 1.81 any}
TY Je hae OER NI A aR Si 9.05 8. 27 17. 32 1. 46 SPU 8.08 8. 55 16. 63 1. 66 apy,
OU eT AD Oe apes 9. 94 13.35 | 23.29 2.05 47 9. 52 12571 22. 23 1. 48 -3o
PAYA ab INR AAG AY EL 16. 27 12.68 | 28.95 1.07 - 20 10. 27 12.66 | 22.93 1.44 5745
PA eR Mere Nie a asa 13.75 14.49 | 28.24 2.91 - 58 16. 09 7. 87 23. 96 175 . 34
PEA A GP ee ey Bel ala 12. 94 12.54 | 25.48 1.35 sey 12. 02 17.56 | 29.58 Lai - 40
DHT See Ue aera eae 9. 96 7.73 17. 69 1. 20 Sou 8.12 13.80 | 21.92 1. 57 -38
DAG) A oh een 1 Pe 7. 09 7. 87 14. 96 1. 70 - 28 5.79 7. 34 13. 13 2. 02 Soy
Ff eh sa sy shea ea ae 9. 32 dats 17.05 1, 20 . 29 6. 84 10. 95 17.79 1.48 300
FICO 0 esr Ut See ee a 10.42 | 12.55 | 22.97 2. 36 - 56 1223 12.79 | 25.02 1.76 BOY)
POR eps yee ees cl) 24.67 | 23.61] 48.28 1.27 OI) Ne PAD Hala} 16.44 | 36.57 . 99 -ou
a Sk 2 es 16. 30 17.10 | 33.40 1. 49 -42 10. 66 15.49 | 26,15 1. 63 . 50
TICTET Eg wep ae 245.08 | 264. 08 | 509. 16 | ia7 tees | 228, 71 | 236. 14 | 464.85] 1.46 32

By comparing the data in Table 5 it may be noted that when the
cows were kept in the open shed they consumed more feed and pro-
duced slightly more milk. The slight increase in production did
not, however, entirely offset the extra cost of the larger quantity
of feed consumed. On the average the cows when in the closed
barn produced milk at a feed cost of 1 cent less per 100 pounds than
when kept in the open shed; fat likewise was produced 1 cent per
pound more cheaply.

It was observed, however, that one or two cows in each group
were “‘boss cows” when kept in the open shed, and were inclined to
intimidate the weaker and less aggressive animals, especially at
feeding time. Cows Nos. 14 and 20 were timid individuals, and,
unlike the large majority, produced decidedly less when in the open

shed than when in the closed barn. No doubt this tendency of the

10 BULLETIN 736, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

4 .
stronger to boss and torment the weaker cows can be remedied, to a.

certain degree at least, by using some sort of tie on the cows when
they are feeding. All cows used in the experiment were without
horns; it is not practicable to attempt to keep horned cattle in an
open shed.

The elimination of cows Nos. 14 and 20 from the data in Table 5 -

would change the results so that the feed cost of producing 100
pounds of milk in the open barn is reduced to $1.45 while that in the
closed barn is increased to $1.47. As regards the butterfat, the cost.
of producing 1 pound becomes the same in both cases—32.73 cents.

The following prices of feeds have been used in calculating the
foregoing tables. They represent a fair average of the market prices.
for this section during the time the investigation was in progress.

Prices of feeds.

Per ton
Ge Cig (05S | Pe eine iam Pf: SA | 5 ON Sia, ot aber a Pokieemt eS $33
Whew: bran ses: wpe LS Reem © Gee Ne pee ee eee eee 26
Uolieuseed mest. oto. 2 Sb cme - oe ee Oe ae 33
[OSLO ((e;: REE ct oe Free Seema MUTT e MERE Ml aati ee eee aor eo 35
AWaliashiaye 93.) 5s 3:21 cy ap -b oe Set eet oe tee | Bates 3 eee Se 24
Compes hayses ease} BR ERR Ee 8 Oe ee ee ee ee 16
Red*cloverthay : <2 155 C1: LU de Lee ee ee ene bs ee 18
Grraspn-clover hays pe)! 3 he = tee aac ee ae + See fe wente es . Se
Carl sto ver 680-. 2 LS MEE Ren OP Yee ee ee 8
Cormnilaperss: 30 33! | ik | Re he ee Ee ea eee 6
Bech pulp << (4). 2) 325. | ep. -' se. ae eee ee! ee ee ee 30
Tarnrps. : > 63 2) Stk Bo et ee bh Pee eee 6
Coitensced tills 2... Ob at i 88.) Je Bf ep e.g Be per ee ee §

LABOR REQUIRED.

The labor required, aside from milking and feeding, is shown im
Table 6. The figures in this table were peepee from accurate time
records kept for each operation.

TasLe 6.—Labor required (aside from milking and feeding)-

|

| Average per Cow per

Gay.
Labor operations (based on a herd of 16 cows).
Closed Open
barn. shed
Min. Sec.| Min. Sec
Preparm> cows jor milking-t <¢. sss ene et ee § Ply peeee Se 3 36
Removins manure and cleaning miiking harm ._.__....._..._...-.--..--.4----_- 4 2 3 ll
MEA RETA pc i i SS LS ORS ge ee ee ee Oe Se Eo sone Agia 1 1
Total (aside from milking and feedimg)—.-.._. +... 2.2 g222esec2222L-- +22. 9. 2 li 14.

PREPARING COWS FOR MILKING.

In the open shed preparing the cows for milking included driving
them into the milking room, putting them into the stanchions, brush-
ing them, washing udders, fianks, and bellies, milking out the firstiew

ee ne oe

OPEN SHED COMPARED WITH BARN FOR DAIRY COWS. 11

streams of milk to lower the bacterial count, and driving the cows out.

again. The time of milking was not taken into consideration, as the
operation consumed practically the same time under each system. In

_ the closed barn the time required to perform the same sanitary duties

described above was considerably less because the cows were already
stabled and the time of driving in and out was saved.

REMOVING MANURE AND FLUSHING OUT MILKING ROOM.

The second operation shown in Table 6 in the case of the open barn
consisted in removing the small quantity of manure dropped by the
cows while in the milking room and washing the floors, platform, and
gutter of the milking room once daily. While the manure from the
open shed was not removed daily, an allowance of time required to
remove it has been included under this operation. It was assumed
that the same quantity of manure was produced daily by the cows in
the open shed as by the same number of cows in the closed barn.

_ The time required to remove the manure from the open shed has been

added to the time required to clean and flush out the milking room.

The operation in the closed barn included the time required to
load the manure on a wagon and to remove it from the barn; also the
time to wash up the floors, platforms, and gutters and to put the
barn in the same sanitary condition as the milking room in the open
shed.

With reference to the time required to keep both milking rooms
clean, it may be noted (Table 6) that considerably less was needed
for the small barn used in connection with the open-shed group.
Doubtless the saving of time would have been even more marked had
more cows been used. The figures were compiled for a herd of 16,
handled in two shifts of 8 cows each. With a very little extra time

_ for cleaning out, a much larger herd could have been milked in the

small barn. Itshould be noted also that the figures are based on the
assumption that the manure from the closed barn is to be hauled
directly to the field. If it is necessary either on account of the small

_ quantity or because of bad weather or soft fields to store the manure

and haul it out later, about 14 minutes should be added to the figures
for the closed-barn cows, which would make the labor required, aside

from milking and feeding, 10 minutes and 32 seconds, as against 11

minutes and 14 seconds for the open-shed cows.
BEDDING—TIME REQUIRED, POUNDS NEEDED, ETC.

By referring to Table 6 it may be noted that the time required to
bed the cows did not vary widely in the two stables. A few seconds
more for each cow were required in the open shed. It was observed

throughout the trial, however, that the cows in the open shed kept.

themselves cleaner than those in the stalls.

£2 BULLETIN 736, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The weights of the bedding used in each stable were recorded daily
for 3 months during the trial, and the average was taken as the basis
of comparison. The data thus obtained showed that the cows in the
open shed required a daily average of 8.3 pounds, as compared with
4.94 pounds for the cows kept in the closed barn, or an increase of
68 per cent. Cornstalks, which at times were used for bedding the
stock in the open shed, were so nearly decomposed when the manure
was hauled to the field that they gave no trouble in loading on the
spreader or in being evenly distributed on the land. No doubt other
kinds of coarse bedding can be used with better results in open sheds
than in closed barns, which is one advantage that tends to offset the
extra cost of bedding in the open shed when only straw is used. On
damp, rainy days more bedding was needed than in dry weather.
Regardless of climatic conditions, however, the more space allowed
each cow the less bedding will be required.

Good drainage is necessary for success with any open shed. With-
out it the quantity of bedding required is certain to be increased and
the comfort of the cows seriously lessened. Water from the sur-
rounding ground must flow away from, not toward, the shed. Eave
spouts to carry the water from the roof of the shed to a place where
it will readily flow away are provided for most sheds.

HEALTH AND CONTENTMENT OF THE COWS.

There seemed to be little, if any, difference in the amount of actual
sickness observed under either open-shed or closed-barn conditions.
In the closed barn the animals sometimes would get ‘‘big knees”’ from
kneeling or falling on the concrete platform. This trouble was not
observed when the open shed was used. Of the 21 cows used during
the 3 years of the investigation two had their hips “‘knocked down’”’
while in the open shed. Very probably the injuries were the result
of being knocked against the side of the shed or the feed rack by
stronger, more greedy, and aggressive cows.

In general, little difference could be noted in the contentment of the
cows under either open-shed or closed-barn conditions. Some of the
animals appeared to be more contented in the barn stalls; others
appeared to be more at ease in the open shed, while still others seemed
to have no preference. Under open-shed conditions the cows had
more freedom. They could le down and get up with ease, and could
pick a clean place on which to lie whenever they chose. For them
fresh air was abundant. Inasmuch as the closed barn used in the
investigation was a modern, well-ventilated structure, no observa-
tions were needed on the subject of ventilation. In many of our
poorly ventilated dairy barns, however, the impure air would doubt-
less be an important factor in determining the comparative merits of
the two systems.

OPEN SHED COMPARED WITH BARN FOR DAIRY COWS. 13
MANURE—PRESERVATION, HANDLING, ETC.

Under the open-shed system the manure was kept in an excellent
state of preservation until it was hauled to the land, and it also was
handled more economically. These are important considerations to
the farmer who hauls manure direct from the barn to the field. Fre-
quently the fields are too soft to be driven over and at certain seasons
the growing of the crops prevents hauling the manure to the land.
On this particular farm it was altogether impracticable, during most
of the winter, to attempt to haul manure to the fields. Manure can
be preserved until it is convenient to haul it to the fields by storing it
in a manure pit. The walls and bottom of the pit are usually made
of concrete and it is covered with a roof, so that it has the appearance
of a small shed. When compared with the open-shed system of
handling manure the manure pit has two disadvantages: First, it calls
for an increased expenditure of money, and second, it necessitates
handling the manure twice.

SUMMARY.

The cows consumed somewhat more feed and produced slightly
more milk when kept in the open shed than when kept in the closed
barn. The increase in production was not quite large enough to
offset the extra feed cost.

When kept in the open shed there was a tendency for ‘‘boss cows”’
to deprive weaker individuals of their feed and of the normal ad-
vantages of the shed, which resulted in lower milk yields from the

‘weaker and more timid cows.

All operations considered, milking and feeding excluded, slightly
more labor was required to care for the cows when kept in the open
shed. |

The manure was apparently well preserved, until it could be hauled
to the land, under the open-shed system. It was also handled more
economically than in the closed barn. Cornstalks in the manure were
sufficiently decomposed to be handled successfully with the manure
spreader.

Under the open-shed system 68 per cent more bedding was required
for each cow, but the cows were cleaner and more comfortable.
There was little difference in the time required to bed them under the
two systems. It is possible to use cornstalks or other coarse material
for bedding in the open shed.

There appeared to be little if any difference in the frequency of
injuries to cows under either open-shed or closed-barn conditions.

ay a PRA 204 ie soi all ij

vie veniam Or tA Vani ;
A a LES A Pare aaa Pre ty HS Vee land

trallaci tie mt ge rea omens galt cantare diodenaede: elt, ahathe
- onlin had lich onde ot bolitacl sermnh {iday. pohkaeenige lo meee a
een He TEALON, Latent LOCO OTe ee i ng beokoyonee: ATONE bolbugas., :
7 ca kal ait odd cs.criad One| cenit snatEh, PTUGHAL, lark d otiee? es tga q
paRtoe ieee tA RAG IAF. Tay had. Ott toe ens ate ab atouk: . inna 4

ppl atiied cacao pad wethnse alastery equ, sl ge gab omg ad
moist, pldeonds Ca E: “diag ihe ant it pana +L Rt Keg cit a

Pe eS qn why! haf ails dnt SOUGHT Laaail dnb shepeutenk ag: all
Si OTe ech) ations ailiiued it dued. of Jraiasy eo, ue lotecay or red 4
book. scleyen, 118 tig ork lo ogden dae alia vnadT: slit, RB yet: 4
Leg tNL RAGE. OF) EBL et jailt.ce360'Re. Wier as La RRL AL i lara ka
eae aeitenre bs dean popes arhd., tive. OTE NTQD GSH. Wis bade, Meat, Bis $e
ai Biba Seta oh: OFT syed OWS eel. he STU (Fit orld oT) 08 R gee ELE:
eeiidiaanat, Jf..Os105 a bik SEBEL 10, aie balsK Aa bogeaan eth ‘eh abs
| it anche Beha, he alte eh

ria wei ty &t : OES
t ‘ .e t aero int A :

riforle Baaiboid Kise baat 4 TON da if ako? “hoavene: ¥ Ne
4 Bory Gilt At aan A parla rad be Mae FEOELO, CS ty gi tap ‘noite Jfina srome
ol Gaon) exial atiup tom saw fie oidoshorg fi it G¥RSTO AL pak |
) M2 | * See Heal vaio: Bar: Saute
jmead:> te } verisbas 1 BKK OG mh ferda Haga: ail tk at tgp .

; 1 aah. Wigs Peete Belen, yon. 4
Pepe SEVIS, LS RO), LES boats Lh, Dae BURY) 14 reat ri9 ¥ GABA VE

TH it | |
rc 1*5 er ME ae at 2
heise jhabiinsy gk prays nett Alsire dpighlenoe Hite
; = Ai;
Ae Hee KEE CLOW. NA, OT aK ited etal O's “98 POD, ae

belsaied bios tt ass ay oer (i ov lie STA 16 ag ee
ir nop Holhasd t ozla paw. dt ADAIAYS batlectt 70 130 oy er f
a aha i uci i, Evens cea hy it) $d t hagol- : reais .
c Hivaty, 6 site toe vilutees'y yy ise bak Saye red ad i, bag z
a, et Rana
panel paw BORDA ad, aTNe : Anes 9. 2 mae i Pelin |
boleoy ATOQMT bets ngnyaghy. OTN) EAD ods
erat wp ite § todd bed. oF te AiOF apa ail feemy, nek
BIA ANT AaE« 36. 4pAto 10 pila teceny: belt oF alliaeag i 3
| pe at , bade, IGE 9 |
4 " Wart 73 arth Pye ite LE ott Mem 40 ae oii oe ¥

Cidiba i aiade! seals. 40 bede-caco, ratio aah

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION.

‘Handling and Feeding of Silage. (Farmers’ Bulletin 578.)

Economical Cattle Feeding in the Corn Belt. (Farmers’ Bulletin 588.)

‘Clean Milk Production and Handling. (Farmers’ Bulletin 602.)

Ice Houses and Use of Ice on Dairy Farm. (Farmers’ Bulletin 623.)

Cottonseed Meal for Feeding Beef Cattle. (Farmers’ Bulletin 655.)

Plan for a Small Dairy House. (Farmers’ Bulletin 689.)

Feeding of Grain Sorghums to Live Stock. (Farmers’ Bulletin 724.)

The Feeding of Dairy Cows. (Farmers’ Bulletin 743.)

Feeding and Management of Dairy Calves and Young Dairy Stock. (Farmers’
Bulletin 777.)

Contagious Abortion of Cattle. (Farmers’ Bulletin 790.)

Production of Baby Beef. (Farmers’ Bulletin 811.)

Pit Silos. (Farmers’ Bulletin 825.)

Breeds of Dairy Cattle. (Farmers’ Bulletin 893.)

Business of 10 Dairy Farms in Bluegrass Region of Kentucky. (Department Bul-
letin 548.) :

The Economical Winter Feeding of Beef Cows in the Corn Belt. (Department
Bulletin 615.)

The Open Shed Compared with the Closed Barn for Dairy Cows. (Department
Bulletin 736.)

Advantages of Dairying in the South. (Secretary’s Special.)

Conveniences for Handling the Farm Cow and Her Products. (Secretary’s Special.)

Do You Keepa Cow? (Secretary’s Special.)

Feeding the Farm Cow in the South. (Secretary’s Special.)

Shall Southern Farmers Build Creameries? (Secretary’s Special.)

The Feeding and Care of Dairy Calves. (Secretary’s Special.)

The Production and Care of Milk and Cream. (Secretary’s Special.)

PUBLICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RELAT-
ING TO THE CARE OF CATTLE.

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Feeding Farm Animals. (Farmers’ Bulletin 22.) Price, 5 cents.

Dairy Herd, Its Formation and Management. (Farmers’ Bulletin 55.) Price, 5 cents.

_ Breeds of Dairy Cattle. (Farmers’ Bulletin 106.) Price, 5 cents.

Computation of Rations for Farm Animals by Use of Energy Values. (Farmers’
Bulletin 346.) Price, 5 cents.

Dairy Industry in the South. (Farmers’ Bulletin 349.) Price, 5 cents.

A Successful Poultry and Dairy Farm. (Farmers’ Bulletin 355.) Price, 5 cents.

Homemade Silos. (Farmers’ Bulletin 589.) Price, 5 cents.

Cost of Raising a Dairy Cow. (Department Bulletin 49.) Price, 5 cents.

Use of Energy Values in Computation of Rations for Farm Animals. (Department
Bulletin 459.) Price, 5 cents.

The Influence of Type and Age upon Utilization of Feed by Cattle. (Bureau of
Animal Industry Bulletin 128.) Price, 30 cents.

Nutritive Value of Non-Protein of Feeding Stuffs. (Bureau of Animal Industry
Bulletin 139.) Price, 10 cents. : i

Maintenance Rations of Farm Animals. (Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 143.)
Price, 15 cents.

Designs for Dairy Buildings. (Bureau of Animal Industry Circular131.) Price, 5 cents.

Plan for Small Dairy House. (Bureau of Animal Industry Circular 195.) Price, 5
cents.

15

WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1918