Burlington Vermont. Agricultural experiment station.

Annual report online

. (page 12 of 25)
Online LibraryBurlington Vermont. Agricultural experiment stationAnnual report → online text (page 12 of 25)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


+0.02


-0.1





+0.06

















+ 1





»





— 1



8.94

4.10

-1-0.16

+ 4



Total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing ingredients;
low ration (I) $10.00, low ration (II) $10.17.

Difference in favor of II ration, $0.17.

Gain ($0.17), less extra cost ($0.02), gives net gain $0.15, daily net gain
0.33 cents.

69 DAYS ON MEDIUM EATION VS. 69 DAYS ON SAME (NO. 1 BRAN, COTTONSEED AND

LINSEED MEALS)



Total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing ingredients;
medium ration (I) $26.08, medium ration (II) $26.11.

Difference in favor of II ration, $0.03.

Gain ($0.03), less extra cost ($0.09), gives net loss $0.06, daily net loss
0.09 cents. »

The following deductions seem warranted by the data in the fore-
going tables:*

1. Very low and low grain feeding. — ^When the two rations used in
this experiment were fed with hay and silage at the rate of 4 pounds
instead of 2 pounds daily, 6 percent more milk and 4 percent more
butter were made. The cost for making this extra product was 19
percent greater on the better ration. It cost 12 percent more to make



1 Neither in these comparisons nor in those of a similar nature following in
this article are the costs of the manufacture of the product, of marketing it, of
caring for the cows, etc., considered. These charges would be essentially the
same on both sides. To admit them would only serve to obscure the one im-
portant point, namely, the comparison of the feeding values of the rations. The
figures arrived at have no absolute values, but are serviceable solely for com-
parative purposes.



Digitized by



Google



482 t)AiBT Feedino

a quait of milk and 14 percent more to make a pound of butter on the
4 pound than on the 2 pound ration. There was, of course, more skim-
milk made on the former ration, and it contained 21 percent more fer-
tilizing ingredients.

The 2 pounds extra grain fed daily for 161 days cost $4.02. The
increase in butter yield, however, was worth only $1.28. The extra
grain ration made only 135 pounds more skimmilk, worth 27 cents; and
the added manurial constituents were worth $2.66. It the former is
reckoned at 20 cents a hundred, and two-thirds of the latter are in-
cluded, at the prices stated in the footnote on page 477 ,the total gain
as an ofTset against the $4.02 extra cost is $3.33. The .final result of
feeding 4 pounds of grain daily instead of 2 pounds is, then, a net loss
■ of $0.69, or a daily net loss of 0.43 cents for each cow. It should be
remarked, however, that the loss is entirely resident in the feeding of
the No. 6 ration. When the No. 1 ration was fed, the outcome was
exactly even, there being neither money gain nor loss.

2. Very low and medium grain feeding, — ^When the two rations
used in these feeding trials were fed with hay and silage at the rate
of 8 pounds daily instead of 2 pounds daily, 17 percent more milk and
15 percent more butter were made on the richer ration. The better
ration cost, however, 54 percent more than did its competitor. Hence,
it cost ^1 percent more to make a quart of milk and 32 percent more
to make a pound of butter on the 8 pound than on the 2 pound ration.
The daily feeding of the 6 pounds extra grain for 115 days cost $7.57
more, and it only made $3.02 worth more butter, while the increase in
skimmilk and in manurial values, reckoned as before, are calculated at
$4.07, a total of $7.09. The net loss, then, is 48 cents, and the daily net
loss for each cow is 0.42 cents, as a result of feeding 8 pounds of grain
daily instead of 2 pounds. Here again the larger part of the loss is
found when the No. 6 ration is used.

The salient points of the tables on pages 478-481, and of the discus-
sion are shown herewith. The tables gives the days of feeding on each
ration, the added cost for feed of the higher grade ration, the gain in
proceeds from butter sales, the net loss when these alone are consid-
ered as an asset, the value of the skimmilk and of two-thirds of the
manurial ingredients, the gain in proceeds from butter, skimmilk and
manure, and the net loss from feeding one cow for one day on the
better rations



Digitized by



Google



' ' Feeding Trials with Cows 483

Very low Very low

better thau better than

low medium

Days of feeding on each ration 161 115

Cost of added grain feed $4.02 $7.57

Gain from butter sales at 20 cents $1.28 $3.02

Net loss, i. e. cost of additional grain less value

of butter $2.74 $4.55

Value of skimmilk and of two-thirds of the manur-

ial ingredients $2.05 $4.07

Proceeds from butter, skimmilk and manure $3.33 $7.09

Net loss from one day's feeding of one cow 0.43 cts. 0.42 cts.

3. Uniform feeding. — In three cases out of five when unchanged
rations were fed the results, as might have been expected, were fairly
uniform. The amounts of milk and butter made, the money values of
the food eaten and the costs of food for making milk and butter varied
but little. Yet when these relatively small differences were translated
into terms of dollars and cents some differences occur. There is only
one very large discrepancy occurring when No. 6 was fed in very low
amounts. This is caused by Lady Perusia's milk yield in the first
period.

4. Does it pay to feed as little as 2 pounds daily? — Let us first
exclude all items except cost of grain and butter yield. When 2 pounds
of grain were fed instead of 4, $4.02 were saved on grain bills and $1.28
lost in butter not made because of scanty grain feed.

When 2 pounds of grain were fed instead of 8, $7.57 were saved on
grain bills and $3.02 lost in butter not made because of the stinted
grain ration.

When skimmilk and manurfal values are also included we have
the following showing: Saving when very low ration is substituted for
the low ration, in grain $4.02, extra butter and byproducts $3.33; sav-
ing in grain when very low ration replaces medium ration $7.57, extra
butter and byproducts $7.09. In other words, in this year's trial with
expensive grain feeds, bran at $19.25, cottonseed, linseed and gluten
meals at $28 to $29, no adequate return was obtained for a usage of
grain in excess of 2 pounds daily, either in butter, or in butter, skim-
milk and manure combined.

It must be confessed that this issue seems to uphold the conten-
tion of those who argue for a restricted grain ration. It is diamet-
rically opposed to the result attained the preceding year when using
cheaper feeds, bran and brewers' grains each selling at less than $20
and distillers' grain at $28. Last year "the extra cost of grain was
more than paid for in increased income from butter alone when the
grain ration was doubled, and three-fourths of its extra cost was thus



Digitized by



Google



484 Daiby Feeding

met when the grain ration was quadrupled"; and extra skimmilk and
manurial values were so much added gain.

This year's outdome seems due more particularly to two causes:

1. The high priced concentrates used.

2. The relatively small shrinkage on a restricted ration.
What is the writer's judgment in this matter? It is true that in

five week periods some degree of success seems in this year's trials to
have followed restricted grain feeding. It is further true that the
testimony afiForded by the continuously low fed cows has not been
unfavorable this year to the very low ration. Yet, notwithstanding, it
is the writer's judgment that the continued, month after month, year
after year, stinted grain ration will not in the long run prove as
profitable with the better grade of cows as will a more liberal one. Its
effect on live weight, and on the persistency of the milking habit needs
must be unfortunate. One has but to scan the records of these cows
who have continuously been thus lightly fed during the past two win-
ters, to note the general shrinkage in live weight and to see their rela-
tively gaunt condition to feel at least doubtful of the wisdom of feeding
such very low grain rations to good dairy cows.

III. THE FEEDING VALUE OF DRIED MOLASSES BEET PULP
It seems unlikely that the beet sugar industry will become estab-
lished in New England, but it is conceivable that its byproducts may
be used here. Indeed, dried molasses beet pulp is offered to some ex-
tent, and inquiries concerning it are occasionally received. It seemed
worth while, therefore, to look into its merits as a feeding stuff for
cows. The process of manufacture is thus described by the company
which makes it:

"The beets are thoroughly washed, then shredded and placed in
large cylinders. Pure water is admitted and the sugar soaked out by
the diffusion process. This liquor is drawn off and the pulp, contain-
ing 92 percent moisture and one-quarter percent sugar, is conveyed at
once to the drier, where it is first run through presses reducing the
moisture to 82 percent. Residuum molasses from the sugar factory
containing 50 percent sugar is next mixed with the pressed pulp.
This mixture is then put into the kilns, where it is thoroughly dried
by direct heat. The drying process lasts 35 minutes. Immediately
upon coming from the kilns the pulp is sacked and is ready for ship-
ment. The drying follows the use of the water so quickly that there is
no opportunity for fermentation. One hour from the time the sugar
is extracted from the beets the dried molasses beet pulp is in sacks
ready for use,"



Digitized by



Google



BREEDING TbIALS WITH COWS 485

Dried beet pulp, whether molasses is added to it or not, is hardly
in the same class as other concentrates. Its origin and method of
manufacture are so unlike them that we may expect to find its chemi-
cal composition and adaptations unusual. Such is found to be the
case. Its protein content is lower than that of any ordinary concen-
trate except com meal; its nitrogen-free extract and ether extract con-
tents are low and their composition relatively poor and lacking in
true starch and fat; and its crude fiber percentage is high. It cannot
serve to narrow a ration since its nutritive ratio is wide. Theoretic-
ally it would seem better adapted to fattening than to milk making;
but as a matter of fact it was found satisfactory in these trials.

This material was fed experimentally to ten cows. They all ate it
readily and without ill effects.* Occasionally a cow showed some loose-
ness of the bowels, due apparently to the feed; but nothing serious was
noted.

Comparisons of this feed were made with wheat bran and with
silage, with the results shown in the context.

1. Ck)MPABED WITH WHEAT BRAN

Six cows were used in these trials. Three of these animals were
fresh and three well along in milk, five mature and one heifer. Three
were fed in alternation mixed feed 1 and 7, two continously on No. 7 and
one on No. 1. No. 1 carried four parts of wheat bran and one part of
cottonseed and linseed meals, while No. 7 contained two parts of the
pulp in place of two of the bran. Two and two-thirds i)ounds of pulp
was fed daily. '

COMPARISON WITH STANDARDS

Wolff. — ^Atalanta ate more than standard amounts of the sundry
nutrients; Elizabeth ate an excess of digestible protein. Otherwise the
cows ate less than the standard prescribes.

Wolff 'Lehmann. — Elizabeth, Santa Clara and Orpha ate enough
digestible protein; Mona and Orpha enough digestible carbohydrates;
otherwise consumption was scanty as compared with standard. Eliza-
beth and Orpha were the only cows which ate their full quota of food.

The outcome of the trials appears to be accurately shown by the
data in Table VII, appendix.'^ These indicate that when grain feeds
Nos. 1 and 7 were fed, each for 184 days, with hay and silage as rough-
ages, there were:



1 Acme, an aged Ayrshire, ate three and one-third pounds daily and lost 100
pounds in live weight. These were not cause and effect, however, for her teetb
failed her during the winter and she left much hay and silage,

»See footnote next page.



Digitized by



Google



486



Daibt Feeding



Percentage gain

No. 1 No. 7 or loss when

ration ration No. 7 was fed *

Pounds of dry matter eaten 4,065 4,081

Pounds <rf milk made 3,777 3,909 +4

Percent total solids 14.24 14.26

Percent fat 4.99 4.91 — 2

Pounds of total solids made 529.3 547.3 +3

Pounds of fat made 182.4 184.6 -fl

and that there were made to the 100 pounds of dry matter eaten:

Percentage gain

No. 1 No. 7 or loss when

ration ration No. 7 was fed *

Pounds of milk 92.7 95.1 +3

Pounds of total solids 13.1 13.5 +3

Pounds of fat 4.57 4.61 +1

Ratio of fat to sol ids-not-fat ; 1 : 1.85 1.90 +3

It is clear from the above that when for two and two-thirds pounds
of wheat bran in an 8 pound grain ration of bran five and one-third
pounds, cottonseed meal one and one-third pounds, linseed meal one
and one-third pounds (No. 1), there was substituted an equal weight
(two and two-thirds pounds) of dried molasses beet pulp, there were
made:

1. Four percent more milk and 1 percent more fat

2. Three percent more milk and 1 percent more fat per unit of
dry matter eaten.

When the No. 1 ration was used, 1,238 pounds of hay and 398
pounds of oat hay were fed; when the No. 7 ration was used, 1,093 and
564 pounds respectively were eaten. The oat hay carried on a dry
basis 11.44 percent total protein, the other hay 9.22 percent. The pro-
tein content of the hay eaten when No. 7 was fed was about 5 pounds



^COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCE FIGURES (SEE NOTE TO TABLfi VH APPENDIX,
AS WELL AS TEXT AND FOOTNOTE, PAGES 472-473)



o






3 "^



to



Products per 100
pounds of dry matter



In
entire
ration



In experi-
mental
feed



OQ






QQ


•o






•o


















o






O


OQ






QQ


"3




M


"S










&


2


;^


&



—2 -f3 -fl -f3 -f3 -fl +2 -f2

—2 -f3 -fl +3 +3 -hi -f2 -f2



Table VII, -f 1 -f 4

Altern., +1 +1 +4
Contln.-

Altem., -f2 +2 -f3 +1



-1 -f4 -f2 -f5 -f6 -f4 H-2 -f4



Digitized by



Google



tiWoiNG Trials with Cows 467

more than when No. 1 was used, and its carbohydrate content was low-
ered. The digestible protein content was probably about 2.5 pounds
greater. Whether or not these were factors in the result cannot be
told; but at best they can hardly have accounted for more than the
observed gains. If this assumption be made it may be said that in
these trials the pulp seemed as effective as was wheat bran.

FINANCIAL CONSIDEBATIONS

The tabular statement shown on page 490 is quite in favor of beet
pulp at ?12 a ton. Not only were there 132 pounds more milk and 2.5
pounds more butter made when 535 pounds pulp replaced 539 pounds
wheat bran, but the ration cost $1.71 less though carrying $1.33 less of
fertilizing ingredients. The total value of butter, skimmilk and two-
thirds of the fertilizing ingredients were in the two cases $64.51 and
$64.30, or $0.21 in favor of the No. 1 ration. Its extra cost, however,
so handicapped it that the daily net loss when No. 1 was fed was 0.82
cents.

It should be remarked, however, that this outcome Is predicated on
a $12 rate for pulp, the price at which it was sold at the factory. It
was offered in Vermont in the fall of 1904 for $20. If this figure be
used the result is very different. The 535 pounds of pulp would cost
$2.14 more. The No. 1 ration would have cost 45 cents less than its
competitor and would have shown a net daily gain of 0.35 cents. Twenty
dollars is a high figure to ask for this material in Vermont at ruling
prices for other concentrates.

2. Compared with Silage

Five cows were used in this trial, none of them being fresh;
yet all were in milk throughout the trials, and gave from 14 to 16
pounds a day at its close. Three were fed alternately pulp and silage
and two continuously on pulp. Too little silage was fed and much more
dry matter was consumed on the beet pulp rations than when the dilute
silage was fed.

COMPARISON WITH STANDARDS

The cows continuously fed pulp ate largely in excess of needs as
judged by either standard, as did also the cows fed in alternation, while
on that feed. There was a constant shortage of food, however, when
silage was fed. The trials were misplanned at the outset, the very
poor quality of the silage not being appreciated; but being thus started
it was thought better to continue than to remodel them.



Digitized by



Google



488



Daibt FeedH^A



The data in Table VII seem fairly safe to use.^ These indicate the
following results when the beet pulp and corn silage were fed each for
207 days, with hay as roughage and No. 1 as concentrate:



Pounds of dry matter eaten

Pounds of milk made

Percent of total solids

Percent of fat

Pounds of total solids made

Pounds of fat made


Silage
ration

4,271

2,853

14.58

5.26

405.5

142.2


Pulp
ration

4,949

3,277

14.31

5.01

463.4

159.5


Percentage gain
or loss when
pulp was fed

+16

— 6

+ 14
+12


and that there were made to the 100 pounds of dry matter eaten:


Pounds of milk


Silage
ration

66.3
9.5
3.36
1.77


Pulp
ration

66.2
9.4
3.25
1.86


Percentage gain
or loss when
pulp was fed




Pounds of total solids

Pounds of fat

Ratio of fat to solids-not-fat ; 1 :


—1
—3

+6



The cows, when given silage, ate an average of 24.4 pounds daily,
and when on pulp an average of 9.8 pounds daily, 25 and 10 pounds
respectively being fed. It is clear from the figures just given that
when 10 pounds pulp replaced 25 pounds silage:



'CX)MPARI80N OF DIFFERENCE FIGURES (SEE NOTE TO TABL& VII APPENDIX,
AS WELL AS TEXT AND FOOTNOTE, PAGES 472-473)



Products per 100
pounds dry matter



u














«


a a
























■M


B


gg








00


a


s


as

Is


VI

O

a

11




•1^

d

1


.m2

1}

Z St

go


1




Q


Cf


EH


Sl,


cy


a



In .entire
ration



In experi-
mental ration



Table VII, +16 +56 +15 —2 —5 +14 +12 —1 —3 —27 —28 —31

Alterna-
tion, + 15 +45 +13 —2 —5 +13 +11 +1 +1 — 4 —31 —34 —38

Con tin. -

altem., +14 +10 +11 —1 —3 +11 +10 —3 —2 — 4 — 43 — 43 — 45

1 There is not as close an agreement in the results attained by the three
methods of calculation in this case as could be wished. The "difference figures"
given in the text for milk yield, fat percentage and total solid yield are per-
haps a little high of truth : but there is so much doubt as to the value of the
data secured in this case by the combined method (see article relating there-
unto further on In this report) that they may well be ignored. The agreement
between the other two sets of figures is good except for the experimental feed
data.



Digitized by



Google



I^^EacDiNG Tkials whth Cows 489

1. Sixteen percent more dry matter was eaten;

2. Fifteen percent more milk was yielded;

3. Five percent poorer milk was made;

4. Twelve percent more butter fat was made; but that

5. There were equal amounts of milk made proportionate to dry
matter consumption and 3 percent less fat when the pulp was fed.

This trial is a good illustration of the relation of food to milk?.
What would have been the outcome had enough silage been fed to have
caused equivalent consumption of dry matter can only be conjectured;
but the close figures obtained when the data are brought upon the same
dry matter basis are indicative of a probable close similarity in feeding
value for com silage and dried molasses beet pulp, pound for pound of
dry matter.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The tabular statement shown on page 490 is strongly in favor of
the pulp ration. There were 424 pounds more milk, 202 pounds more
butter and $3.32 worth more plant food to its credit than to that of the
silage ration. It cost |4.51 more, but the value of the extra butter and
skimmilk more than offset this, leaving the manurial ingredients
brought onto the farm as so much clear gain. The total values of but-
ter, skimmilk and two-thirds of the fertilizing ingredients were for the
silage ration |54.33, and the pulp ration $61.32, a gain of $6.99. If
from this figure the extra cost of the latter, $4.51, be deducted, a gain
of $2.48, or 1.2 cents daily is found in favor of the pulp ration.

It has already been noted that the pulp was figured at $12, its
factory cost, and that it was offered in Vermont in the fall of 1904 at
$20. If this price be used the outcome is reversed. The extra cost of
the pulp ration becomes $12.60 instead of $4.51; there is a loss instead
of a gain amounting to $5.61 or a net loss of 2.71 cents a day.

It would seem that dried molasses beet pulp proved itself in these
trials a good feed for cows, a fair equivalent pound for pound of wheat
bran, and, less certainly, a fair equivalent, about pound for pound of
dry matter, of immature corn silage. At $12, for which sum it has
been sold in the beet sugar districts, it would seem well worth buying;
but at $20 it is not as good a purchase as bran, even at ruling high
prices for that concentrate; nor is it likely to prove a wise purchase
even at a much lower figure to use in lieu of mature corn silage.



Digitized by



Google



490



Daibt Fekdikg



COMPARATIVE VALUES OF VARIOUS RATIONS FROM THE FINANCIAL

STANDPOINT



RATIONS



lbs

































^"3








•oS






«


^B


1


1


heat bri

cottons
linseed


O


3Q


^


SS



lbs lbs lbs lbs lbs lbs



lbs



?



Cost of
food for



S5
as

*3s



2-






cts



184 DAYS ON NO. 1 RATION VS. 184 DATS ON NO. 7 BATION



No. 1

No.7

No.7±l

Percentage differ-
ences ,



1288


898 6484


1074


687




8777


1006


5d4i6428


685


685


686


8909














+ 182














+ 8



212.8, 84.10
216.8; 82.19
-f 2.61-1.71


90.2

82.8

- 7.9


16.0

14.9

- 11


42.60
48.06
+0.50


+ 1-6


- 9


- 7


+ 1



28.96
21.68
-1.88



— 6



Total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing Ingredients;
No. 1 ration |64.51, No. 7 ration |64.30.

Dilference in favor of No. 1 ration, $0.21.

Gain ($0.21), less extra cost ($1.71), gives net loss $1.50, daily net loss
U.82 cents.

69 DATS ON NO. 1 BATION VS. 69 DATS ON SAME



No.l I

No.lU

II ± I

Percentage differ-
ences



811
892


216
126


1880
1878


866
866


188
181




979

910

- 69


68.1

66.6

- 1.6


10.79
10.66
-0.18


11.0

11.7

fO.7


16.8

16.0

+ 0.2


18.62
18.80
-0.82














- 7


— 2


— 1


+ 6


+ 1


- 2



7.49

7.80

—0.19



Total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing ingredients;
No. 1 ration (I) $20.33, No. 1 ration (II) $19.76.

Difference In favor of I ration, $0.57.

Gain ($0.57), less extra cost ($0.13), gives net gain $0.44, daily net gain
0.64 cents.

92 DATS ON NO. 7 HATION vs. 92 DATS ON SAME



No.7 I

No.7 II

II ± I

Percentage differ-
ences ,



580
586


888
226


2118
2181


286
286


286
286


286
286


1886

1877

— 9


76.8

76.8

+ 0.6


16.96

16.69

-0.26


84.6

88.7

- 0.9


21.0

20.6

- 0.4


15.16
15.26
+0.10

















+ 1


- 2


— 1


- 2


+ 1



10.96

10.68

-0.80



- 8



Total value of butter, skimmilk and two-thirds of fertilizing ingredients;
No. 7 ration (I) $25.79, No. 7 ration (II) $25.68.

Difference in favor of I ration, $0.11.

Gain ($0.11), less extra cost ($0.26), gives net loss $0.15, dally net loss
0.16 cents.



Digitized by



Google



Pekding Trials with C3ows



491



RATIONS



















1


Cost of


^










1








food for






1

1


&

^
S


1

Si


11


1

1


1


■M


"S

!

1


u

-M


a

1

©

o


If

Is


lbs


lb8


lbs


lbs


lb?


lbs


lbs


lbs


1


cts


Cts


$






207 DAYS ON SILAGE VS. 207 DAYS ON MOLASSES BEET PULP



Silage

Pulp

Fulp ± silage. . . .

Percentage differ-
ences



1412
1488


815
247


5064


1187 604
1184: 508


2022


2853
82T7
f 424


165.0
186.1
+20.2


85.88 125.8
40.80 128.8
+4.51 — 2.5


21.6

21.7

+ 0.1


88.18
87.22
+4.04












+ 15


+ 12


+ 18-2

1





+ 12



24.25

27.57

1+8.82



+ 14



Total value of butter, sklmmilk and two-tliirds oi' fertiliziug iugreUieutb ;
silage ration |54.33, beet pulp ration $61.32.

Difference in favor of beet pulp ration, $6.99.

Gain ($6.99), Jess extra cost ($4.51), gives net gain $2.48, dally net gain
1.20 cents.

138 DAYS ON MOLASSES BEET PULP VS. 138 DAYS ON SAME



Beet pulp I

Beet pulp II

II ± I

Percentage differ-


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Online LibraryBurlington Vermont. Agricultural experiment stationAnnual report → online text (page 12 of 25)