CIHM ICIMH Microfiche Collection de Series microfiches (IMonograplis) (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microraproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et blbllographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best originai copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming are checked below. n D D n n Coloured covers / Couverture de couleur Covers damaged / Couverture endommagte Covers restored and/or laminated / Couverture restaur^ et/ou peiiicuide Cover title missing / Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps / Cartes g^raphiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black) / Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations / Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material / Reli6 avec d'autres documents Only edition available / Seule Edition disponibie y I Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin / La reliure serrte peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge int^rieure. D D Blank leaves added during restorations may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming / II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6X6 f ilm^s. Additional comments / Commentaires suppi^mentaires: This Kam Is f ilnwd at the raduction ratio ehackad balow / Ca documant ast film* au taux da rMuction indiqu* ci• sacond plat, salon la cas. Tous las autras axampiairas originaux sont fllm*s an eommancant par la prami*ra paga qui eomporto uno amprainta d'impraasion ou d'illustration at tn tarminant par la darni«ra paga qui eomporto uno talia amprainta. Un das symbolaa suivants apparaitra sur la darni«ra Imaga da chaqua microfiche, salon la cas: la symbolo — .ignifio "A SUIVRE". la symbolo V signifio "FIN". Las cartaa. planchas. tablaau*. ate. pauvant atra film«s k das taux da reduction diff«rants. Lorsquo la document oat trop grand pour atra raproo'uit on un soul clich*. il ast film* A part.r do langlo sup«riour gaucha. da gaucha * droiia. •t da haut an bas. an pranant la nombra d'imagaa nOcassaira. Las diagrammas suivants lllustrant la mOtfiodo. Miaocorv rbouition tbt chart (ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) 1.0 I.I ■ 49 us |U IIS 1^ Hi 1 2.2 1X2 ■ 4.0 A APPLIED IN/HGE Inc ^^ 1653 East Uoin Stmt S'JS Roctiester. New York U609 USA ^B (716) 482 - OMO - Phone ^B (71 S) 288- 5989 -Fox DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DAIRY AND COLD STORAGE COMMISSIONER'S BRANCH OTTAWA. CANADA The Progress of Cow Testing By A. H. WHITE Senior Dairy Promoter BULLETIN No. 58 DAIRY AND COLD STORAGE SERIES Published by direction of the Hon. S. F. TOLMIE, Minister of Agriculture Ottawa, Ontario MAY. 1920 the that Rivii whi( keei THE PROGRESS 0»? COW TESTING BY A. H. WtllTE. Senior Dairy Promoter. Details or Orqanization. Since.May, 1918, the cow testing work has been carried on under a different plan than formerly. Previous to that year, the Dairy Branch had established thirty-five dairy record centres situated in six provinces with most of the work done in Ontario and Quebec. But there were so many insistent r quests for assistance from outside points, that a change had to be made to meet these demands. The present plan was adopted to give help to every farmer no matter where he is situated, and the work has spread through all the Prairie Provinces and in sections of the other provinces which were not touched by the dairy record centres. Under the new organization the Dairy Branch employs a trained dairy expert to supervise the work in each province, except British Columbia. The duties of the supervisors condist in organizing cow-testing centres or associations, keeping in touch with the men who do the testing, speaking at meetings on any subject related to dairying, and to generally spread propaganda about cow testinjg and better methods of dairying. Furthermore, the Dairy Branch supplies all blank record forms, preservative tablets and sulphuric acid free of cost and pays ten cents per sample to any cheese or buttermaker, or any one else who is willing and qualified to do the testing for the farmers in their locality. The farmers provide their own sample bottles, scales and dii!>per. They weigh and sample the milk of each cow twice a day on three days a month, and forward the composite samples promptly to the testing point at the end of each month. After the testing is done, the record forms of each farmer are sent to the Dairy Commissioner's office at Ottawa by the tester, where the figures are extended, showing calculated monthly production of milk and fat for each cow. The original sheets are then returned direct to the farmer, so that within a few days of the last weighing, the owner of each herd knows what each cow has produced for the previous month. This scheme requires full co-operation on the part of the tester and the farmer. Each must do his share of the work carefully and promptly to keep up the interest so that the greatest good can be obtained. Where both tester and farmer are interested a great deal of good can be accomplished in the locality. OBJECT OF cow TESTING. The object of the work is to give the dairyman accurate knowledge as to the production of milk and fat of each cow in the herd. It is readily admitted that the average dairy cow does not produce as much milk as she is capable of giving and it is an admitted fact that many dairymen keep one or more cows which do not even pay for their keep. Cow testing shows what cows are worth keeping in the herd and shows which ones should be eliminated at the first 4222— U 3 poMible opportunity. Many farmers relv on gUMswork to pick out their beat oowi from which to save heifer calves for the future herd, but many timet* they are not correct, and cows which have good conformation are not always the best producers in the herd. Dairy records will do awtr with an^ guess- work and the farmer can select with reliability his best cowfe tor breedmg pur- poses. Thus will herd improvement be brought about, which is the aim in all cow-testing work. Dairy records will give the dairyman knowledge which will lead to better feeding methods. Every cow has a distinct individuality. Some cows will respond to better feeding much more readily than will others. With the records of each cow at hand, the herdsman can pick out .he likely cows. He is abh; to feed with more diHcrimination, apportioning the grain ration according to the production of milk and fat. The cows that will reHpund to liberal feeding will pay handsome profits for the extra feed given. Cow testing will show these facts to the observant dairyman. Cow testing will also show that it pays to take good care of the milch cows. Plenty of good clean water, abundance of light and fresh air and com- fortable, sanitary quarters are all conducive to the highest production. Oni- farmer in Alberta increased his producium thirty per cent in one month by Erotecting the cows from extremely cold weather by watering them in the am. Where records of each cow are regularly kept, these things will be brought to notice. BOMB RESULTS. Wherever cow testing has been followed for a few years, there will be founp a decided increase in the average production of each cow. Farmers realize the value of better and a more liberal food supply, and build silos; they realize the value of better care and management and Luild sanitary, well lighted and well ventilated barns; and they have the value of the pure-bred dairy sire so forcibly pointed out to them, that the increase in the use of pure-bred bulls is very noticeable in districts where cow testing is followed regularly. Many farmers have increased the production of their herds from thirty to seventy-five per cent and some have even doublet' 'he herd average in ;i few years. Many letters are received in this office froi. fanners saying they cannot afford to be without dairy records. One farmer on the prairies said he was able to build a seven thousand dollar dairy barn through cow testing and the results obtained from the work. Better methods of feeding and breeding, more interest in the work of tho farm to all concerned, and increased production wif^ resulting increases in value of the stock, are all due in a large measure to cow testing. The following tables will show what has been done by the Dairy Branch in cow testing during the year of 1919. These figures, however, only partially represent the farmers who are testing their cows, for the branch supplies free, many record forms to farmers who do their own testing and thus no record of these herds are received at the office. But it is encouraging to know that farmers generally are becoming interested in this work, and are realizing that to obtain the best results from their herds, whether they be pure-bred, grade or scrub, they must have accurate information as to the production of earh cow, which can only be obtained by regular and consistent use of the scales and Babcock test. TABLE No. I. ToTAt NtiMMR or Hiu». Cowa. Tmtimo Cutnnm ans BAKoni Tim* mabi ar PmovmnM, ItM. Proviaea. AlbarU Britlah Columbia Maaitoba N«w Brunswick. NovAl^rutia Oatario Prinra Edward ) tai.d Ouebec eaakatchewaa ToUl> Teatiiw flamptea Hard*. C'ow». Centrra. Taatod. «4 830 26 3,S39 34 215 5 1,23S 83 1,005 33 3.7U 250 1,065 18 8.144 207 2,714 37 I3.833 417 4,. '14 70 18.304 241 1,307 17 S,M7 1,046 10.374 137 43.43t 74 773 IS 2,»I3 2,416 23,517 348 M.SSS It is very gratifying to note that in the prairie provinces the total number of cows recorded in 1919 was nearly twice as many as were recorded in 1918. TABLE No. IL Total Nvmbiii or Cown ik bai-h PaoviNca am> Total Ni'Maaa or Cowa RaroaDao. Province. Tout Cows. Number of Cows Recorded. Percentaffe of Cows Recorded. Alberta 336.506 51,504 227.872 153.058 16.'. 230 1,140,016 45,662 1,056,347 374,062 820 215 1,035 1.065 2.714 4,214 1,307 10,374 773 034 040 0-45 0« too 0-37 2W o« 0-31 Rritial. Columbia Manitoba - New Brunswick Nova Scotia Ontcrio I'll Edward Island r 1 ', itclwwan .Total 3.547,4.37 22,517 0-63 This table does not show all the testirg that is done, but only the records received by the Dairy Branch. There ar many men who keep records of individual cows but do not send the records to this office. But it shows also what a very small percentage of the total cows are tested regularly. However, the practice is growing every year because the farmers are seeins; results from the work which has been undertaken in their locality. It ' .11 be noticed that Nova Scotia has the second highest percentage of cowE under test. This will explain to a great extent why that province stands so low ' \ the general average table. The greater the percentage of cows under test, the greater will be the percentage of poorer herds recorded. Nomsa or Hbw« , TABLE No. III. Cows AND Aviuol PaoBtfnoM worn Tvu. L*CT*Tiotr PBftinBii ar Pmovimi'i ProviM*. Albma British C'olambfai MMiloba New Bnwawiek Nova Sootia. OiiUrio Prims* Edwurd lalaad 9«eb«o Mtluitohtwaa Total* and avwagM, Nambvr of Herd*. Nambw ol fowl. Av«ra«B Produptina. Milk. Tmi. 12 » II S5 I 83 t7 : Ml US I 8 307 8.1 54 M 154 416 535 300 1,048 44 i,73J Lb. 0,600 6.177 ft.8.'i7 4,063 6,725 6.586 4.70H 4.044 5,523 30 30 3-4 40 3 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-0 3 7 Fat. Lb. 100 7 M3 i 183 I 335'n 105 .5 343U 243 4 182 H 102 '• 207 A» in previous years, there were a great many farmera who only kept records for a few months of the year. This was especially noticeable where the testing was done at factories which wore only open for the nummor seaHon. Records for only two or three months will not give a very good buHirt from which to calculate the production of a cow. In order to know, records should be kept for the full lactation period and from one year to another. TABLE No. IV. CoMrAKMoN or AviaAoa Prodviiion it Provincm for YiAaa 1015, 1010 and 1019. Average Prudurtiun. Province. 1015. 1010. 1010. Milk. ) Kut. Milk. I Fat. Milk. Fat. Alberta Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. 5.198 6.660 .M77 5.857 4.062 6.725 6.586 4.7ftS 4,944 Lb. 190 7 British Columbia 2fi' w Manitoba 18^! '4 New Brunawick 4.5.'» 4.000 0,204 5-235 4.472 4,302 183-3 200-7 2174 108-8 1720 160-2 4.486 5,083 6,061 5,616 4,856 4.818 181-8 2080 212-3 214 1 1880 100 1 •>;),", li Nova Scotia 19.i ■) Ontario Prin -e Edward Island 24:; 1) 24.1 4 Quebec Baakatchewan 1H:> s 19:' 9 General averages 5,285 106-5 6,417 200-7 5,522 207 9 The test ir- l&i» .vas 3-69 while in 1919 it was 3'7 a very slight increase. This table show^s that from one year to another, there is a gradual increase in the production of the cows recorded. Quite a few of the herds are the same for a number of years, but there are also a great many new herds and aft.^r a few years the cows will be practically all different. This means an increase in production from one generation to another and is due to better breeding and feeding. If these figures can be taken as an indication that the production of the dairy cow is being increased from one year to another, anH I think they can, it means that the value of dairy products is being added to yearly to quite an appreciable extent. For example: if every one of the 3,500,000 dairy cows in Canada had given 237 pounds more milk in 1919 than in 1915, the increase in milk production would have been over 829 million pounds, valued at over 21 million dollars. The consistent um of tho «calM and Babcock tent tu get aerurittp krv< v>ed out thp poorer animah and to uae better feeding methods, will sure^ pay real money by tho increased production of the herd. TABLE No. V. AviRAQi PHoormniir or t*ow» Rkv>rdii> roR im Frtt Pimon or T.actathin w »mii TMvtmo Cr ro* IV HmtuiM C'oLiMait. I>Utri- vinre Tntinr ''ontn. .Vakuip Salmon Arm. Ketowna Ciancoi Xumbi-r i>r Herd*. 13 Number ul ( 'OWK. II 33 6 14 54 Avenutp I^rDilurtion Milk. Lb. 4 S.OAU Tm(. 30 40 3(1 4 4 30 Fat. Lb. 397-S 351-3 201-4 354-0 303-8 TABL.. So. VX. AviRAoa PRooumoN or Cowa Rrtorixo nm tm« Fuu, Pbbiod <>r Lactation I!« nam TmmnQ r^irrsi I.V AUBMTA. District. Strathrona Medirino Hat. R«l Deer Mndirine Hat Red Deer Re.1 Deer CalKsry Tenting ( 'entre. Ledup (.'alcndula. . . nef Hurdi). Xuinber ot Cowi, 12 7 7 18 20 13 8.3 .Xverago Production. MUk. Test. Lb. ■ 2.999 5,469 3,604 0,129 0,237 3,759 4,341 5,19S 3-7 3-8 41 3-3 3-7 30 3-8 3-6 Fat. Lb. 113-8 207-1 148 304-8 333-7 135-0 102-7 190-7 TABLE No. VIL AvERAOt Production or Cows Rwordbd roR the I ill rinioD or Lactation in bach Testino Centrb i.v .Saskatchewan. District. I^rince Albert. Humboldt. . . . Battleford Testing Centn-. Birch Hills. Humboldt.. Lnahburn.. . Totals and General Averij^. for Province. Number of Herd.s. Numlwr of Cows. 12 16 16 Average prow> roRTRi Futi, Pcriod or Lactation iw .acr T.«i«o Cintki •N Nova Scotia. County. 'iV'Bting Centre. Colchester... Cumberland. Colchester. . . Annapolis. . . . Piotou Antigoniahe. . Anti^nishe.. Inverness Halifax Pictou Pictou Colchester. . . Hants Cumberland.. Cum))erland.. Cumberland.. Yamouth Victoria. Great Village Wentworth Brookfield Lawrencetown Stcllurton Lower South River. AntiKonishc Marsaree PVrks Windsor Junction River John Scotsbum Earltown Stirling Brook Amherst River Herbert Shinimicas Pembroke Shore Baddeck Bridge Number of Herds. Number of Cows. Lunenburg JBarrs' Comers Totals and general average for province. 83 25 3 51 U 24 26 32 12 6 24 63 27 34 9 8 27 11 7 9 Average Production. Milk. 416 Lb. 6,101 2,943 5.479 5,223 4.937 5,447 5,657 4,098 5,156 3,737 4,877 3,062 5.140 4,366 3,442 5.600 4,487 2,794 5,172 Test. 4,962 Fat 3-9 Lb. 218-4 1241 208-4 180 -S 220-3 105-6 214-8 162-7 189-9 162-3 210-4 158-4 193-8 176-4 122-7 204-4 217-9 103-8 324-3 195.5 TABLE No. XIII. AvBRAoi Production of Cows Ricordid for th«1Fuli. Pkriod of Lactation in bach Trstino Cintre IN Pri.vcb Edwabb Island. County. Kintts.. Prince.. Prince.. Queens. Queens. Queens. Queens. Testing Centre. Montague Central Bedequc. North Tryon Crapaud Stanley Bridge. . . New Glasgow Milton Totals and general average for province Number of Herds. 4 1 15 11 1 2 29 63 Number of Cows. 14 7 85 46 4 8 136 300 Average Production. Milk. Lb. 4,876 4,092 7.326 7,727 7,244 7,238 5,985 Test. 6,586 3-7 Fat. Lb. 176 9 180 2 247 7 274 r47-2 241 -.5 239-9 243-4 A Study of the preceding tables will show what a great difference there is in the average production of the cows in different districts, e.g., 45 cows at Northfield Station averaged 5,420 pounds milk and 199-6 pounds fat while 37 cows at Woodstock averaged 8,046 pounds milk and 265-3 pounds 'fat, a difference of 2,626 pounds milk per cow. But it is when the totals of the milk produced are compared that real dif- ferences become evident, which might not be so noticeable when comparing averages. The 37 cows at Woodstock produced 53,803 pounds more milk than the 45 cows at Northfield Station. Or if the 24 cows at Domville centre had averaged as much as the 61 cows at Colborne they would have produced 3,006-2 pounds more fat than they did. These instances can be multiplied many times from the other provinces where cow testing centres are established. u The following two tables will show what some of the best cows and best herds have produced during the past year: — TABLE No. XIV. PBODDCnON OF A PbW OF THE Bl«T HcROS RlTOIIDED, J919. Province and Anociation. Alberta— Didabury Sibbald Britiah Columbia — Nakusp Canoe Salmon Arm Manitoba — Russell New Brutuwick — Hanesvillc Central Greenwich Kingston JVoKo Scotia — Brookfield Brookfield Lower South River Scotsbum Ontario — Colborne Colbome Listowel Atwood Woodstock Woodstock Prince Edward Island— Victoria Tryon Milton Milton Milton Q'jdiec — St. Thomas d'Aquin , La Trappe Notre Dame de Stanbridge . Notre Dame de Stanbridge. La Trappe Satkatchewan — Lashbum Number Cows. 16 4 2 8 3 8 6 i 7 13 3 6 14 10 13 7 20 12 10 3 4 2 6 6 44 8 3 15 Average Production. Milk. Test. Lb. 7,201 6.121 0,666 6,817 8,155 10,227 6,831 I 6,053 I 6,117 ' 6,51.'? I 7,780 7,153 6,287 9,871 9,696 9,787 9,961 8,421 8,559 9,684 8,428 8,696 11,366 6,567 6,045 6.682 5,004 6.778 6,004 5.749 3-8 3-9 3-5 4-5 41 3-2 3-9 4-1 4-5 Fat. Lb. 275-3 241-3 344-8 321-3 335-8 3241 269S 2470 283-0 3-7 244-7 4-3 332-7 3-6 262-7 4-7 2971 3-4 353-0 3-6 358-4 30 301 ■» 2-9 295-2 3-2 277-1 31 272-8 3-3 325-3 3-9 333-4 3-9 341-1 3-6 409-6 4-4 294-0 3-9 2360 3-8 254-2 5-9 296-9 3-6 246-3 3-4 224-9 4-7 251-7 The herd averages instanced in the table above show what can be accom- plished by progressive dairymen in building up a good herd when aided by individual records of each cow. These herd records should be an incentive to other farmers to keep dairy records and to use them as a guide in herd improve- ment. 12 TABLE No. XV. PmoDvcBoir or a fbw or n» nar Indivdval Cows IUoobbbd in 191S. Province and AMociation. Alberto— Didsbury Didabury Didabury Britiik Columbia— Nakusp Salmon Arm Canoe Uanitoba — Ruaaell Rouell Ruaaell New Brutuwiek— Haneaville Haneaville Kingston Kingston Kingston Nova Seotio— Alma Bootabum Sootabum Scotsbum Williams Point Lower bouth River. Ontario — Northfield Sution.. South wold Station.. Southwold Station. . Woodstock Woodatock Woodstock Colbome Colbome Colbome Colbome Colbome Colbome Prince Edward Island— Bedeque Bedeque Southport Marshfield Victoria Victoria Winsloe Quebec — St. Sophie La Trappe LaTrappe La Trappe Famham Cow. 8 10 12 5 6 U Number Months Milking. 12 11 12 11 11 13 10 10 12 12 12 9 11 12 10 11 11 11 10 10 10 12 11 11 8 9 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 8 10 12 12 7 10 11 10 11 11 ToUl ProduetioB. Milk. Teat. Lb. 9,890 8,048 8,711 11,516 10,<^9 9,040 12,342 14,399 11,825 9,0M 8,294 7,624 7,755 7,270 0,804 8,065 9,060 8,090 9,665 10,060 12,086 10,710 10,040 11,558 12,442 11,399 13, 152 12,270 12,^.40 13,358 12,718 12.032 10,950 9,170 10.801 14,260 13,036 11,087 7,880 7,161 9.027 9.470 9,694 9,250 3-70 4-81 3-78 4-43 405 4-39 3-51 2-90 3-26 3-68 3-86 3-71 308 3-80 302 3-40 3-48 312 3-37 3-49 3-56 3-74 3-97 4-77 411 3-90 3-51 3-29 3-27 4-97 5-54 3-83 3-73 3 95 3 55 Fat. Lb. 366-3 387-3 339-6 5100 429-6 423-8 432-7 415-4 384-8 355-8 348-1 336-7 351-3 341-9 303 1 448-7 S54-7 3590 373-2 371-5 4093 3308 3850 347-9 422-8 3935 4097 411-4 433-6 474-4 475-4 476-9 5205 377-3 4229 509-1 42S-6 389-8 390-9 397-2 356-0 355 1 383-7 328-4 Individual records of 14,399 pounds milk and 415-4 pounds fat: 11,515 pounds milk and 510-9 pounds fat, and others mentioned in the preceding table are great tributes to the men handling grade herds and show what can be done when proper breeding and feeding methods are used. Since the new plan of cow testing has been in practice, it has been impossible to obtain feed accounts of different herds. Therefore, there are no tables com- piled giving actual figures of feed costs for different herds or showing profits above the cost of feed made by individual cows. However, the following tables will plainly show how much more economical are the cows which give large yields of milk and fat compared with the cows wnich are small producers: — 13 TABLE No. XVI. Co»T«*i«, «,w„^ Fou« or TH. B..T AM, For. or «. Poo.« H«ds mco,o„ .k Ok,a«o. roUR BUT HMU>a. II«rd Number. Number Cow«. Milk per('ow. Rat per Cow. Retuma per Cow at •3.49 per 100 lb. EHtimated Average uuatoffeed per Cow. Proetper row above Feed Co«t. A 14 10 7 13 Lb. 9,871 9,696 9,961 9,787 Lb. 353 358-4 29^ 2 301 -V t CtH 245-78 241 43 248-02 t CtH. 86-00 86-00 86 00 8C00 $ ct«. B 150-78 c 155-43 D ::;:;:::;::: 162-02 Total and averace 157 60 4i 9,831 329-9 244-53 86-00 158-53 rorn POORER HKRUH. B. Total and averoKe. 15 9 8 41 4,090 4,931 5,526 5,060 1501 177-9 174-4 189 I 4,902 173- 1 101-84 122-78 1.37 -.W 125-99 122 06 71-00 71-00 71 00 7! 00 71-00 30-84 51-78 66-50 M-99 51-06 IQIQK*'''^*"'^^^ price per 100 pounds milk was the average price paid during 1919 by Government Dairy Station at Finch. The feed costs are only estimated costs and may be somewhat low. ' esumaiea Drodurpr/^TL*/i'! wi".«how comparatively why it pays to keep the high S on^V . ^.f '''''^^ '^ *t^ H^^^ ^^'■^•^ produced more than twic^ as much milk and fat as 41 cows in the four poorer herds. The farmer' keemne.Door cows wastes a lot of good feed and energ>- every year caring for thej ?^ Ihe difference between the average production of the host herd and that .Lw t^rf? '' ^'^^^ P^"^' ""'^^ ^""^ 202-9 pounds fat. These figures go to tcL^of JiSranVfaT '" ^"' -I— nt in the matter of incfeasedV TABLE No. XVlI. 00NTR.«T8 m PRODCCnoX BETWEEN- IHE Be«T A^j P«>«««T CoWS ,N A TKW or TH, HerDS RBTORnED Herd Number, Yield of Milk per Cow . Yield o{ Fat per Cow. ). Best Cow I Poorest ( IJow /..'...... ' 2. Best Cow ■ . I Poorest Cow i 3. Best Cow I Poorest Cow - 12,086 3.059 10,710 5,052 12.442 5,370 409 1.30 330-8 li6-5 42.-? -8 172 3 Return per Cow t2-49 per 100 ib. $300-91 76-16 266 67 125 79 309 80 133 71 This table will show plainly the differe.n:e in the earning power between cows m the same herd. When it is considered that it costs nearly as much'to teed the poorer cow as it does for the high producer, one can readily see which row is the one to keep on the farm and from which to raise calves for the future ir 14 If the exact cost of feed were known and subtracted from the value of the milk, the profit above cost of feed for the best cow in any one of these herds would be many times that of the poorest cow. For example, in herd No. 1, if it cost $120 to feed the best cow, the profit above cost of feed would be $180.94, and if it cost 170 to feed the poorest cow, the profit above cost of feed would be $6.16. Thus the best cow would make over twenty-nine times as much profit over cost of feed as the poorest cow, or in other words, it would take twenty-nine cows like the poor one to make as much profit above cost of feed as the best cow. Using the same calculated feed costs, the best cow would produce 100 pounds milk for 99 cents, while the poorest cow would not produce 100 pounds milk for less than $2.29. This means that it costs the farmer $1.30 more to produce 100 pounds milk from the poor cow than it did from the good one, notwithstanding the fact that the feed costs for the good cow were nearly double those for the poor one. High producers will lessen the cost of production considerably. These facts are made known by keeping a record of each cow in the herd for the full lactation period. TABLE No. XVIII. Incrkabm in Pboduction or Milk Am> Fat iiadc it Hkbdb which rave bmn Rbcobdh). 1918. 1919. Herd Number. Number of .\verage Production. Number of COWB. Average Production. Cow». Milk. Fat. Milk. Fat. Miik. Fat. 1 38 10 10 13 21 Lb. 5,962 4,146 3,565 3,800 4,132 Lb. 219-3 165-5 125-5 139-3 169- 1 44 12 9 15 21 Lb. 6,682 5,173 4,893 4,922 5,484 Lb. 254-2 211-6 163 170- 1 2011 Lb. 720 1,027 1-328 1,122 1,352 Lb. 34-9 46-1 37-5 30-8 42-0 2 3 4 5 1915. 1919. Increase in fat per Cow. Number of Cows. Fat per Cow. Number of Cows. Fat per Cow. 1 9 10 6 5 6 7 Lb. 2150 159-4 98-5 197-9 138-3 323-8 7 10 7 5 6 8 Lb. 258-0 219-2 167-9 213-1 188-8 344-3 Lb. 4.1. n 2 SC 8 3 71-4 15-2 60 5 20-5 4 6 6 These figures show what has been accomplisheu in a very short time by careful study of herd records. Such marked increases are quite common wher- ever cow testing is followed consistently with the intention of herd improvement. In a creamery at Tryon, Prince Edward Island, thirteen patrons who have kept records for a number of years have all made increases ranging from 4 to 74 per cent in the average butter fal production per cow. The average increase per cow in these herds from 1915 to 1919 was 33 • 1 pouuds fat, or the increased returns from each cow would be about $20 at prevailing prices for fat. The Supervisor in Nova Scotia reports that the patrons of factories who were cow testing produced about 80 per cent more fat than patrons who never kept records of individual cows. 16 Cow testing hM proved itself many times to be a sound business oolicv for any dairyman to adopt. But it will te«t the man as well u. t^J cXs 'K who are fully aware of the possibilities for improvement " JH UTh; recoSJ of their herds as a basis of selection for the gooiTcows and i Ipweed oS the poor cows But there are some who will make no improvement^nt^eir herds 13^ they do not use the information which has been given Thf.n by col „..,.^^^i5^*'"'"^j of each cow and then make the best possible use of them to ;7aiJ'g*'„Kr;rr ?'„:'' '"" "^ '*"•' -reeding KM.Tf^'dllir.n'S IN CONCLUSION. Mention should be made of the hearty co-operation on the oart „f fhp provincial authorities in promoting cow testing throughout Canada^ . > /^^ province of Quebec the Minister of Agriculture directed that the 7nt f ^'^ °^ t,'Svi^«t"^«t°i« should devote one month during the bew^nnn J of the seMon ot 1920 in an effort to bring the work to the attention of flarief number of farmers, and to induce them as far as f .ssible to take up the keepfni ir^Zt-f>^^^ results were very gratifying and there will be Vvery Cf increase in the number of cows tested in the province during the coming seaSn . In Manitoba an effort is being made on the part of the AgricuUural E^ten ' Hrl'nX %l°*"«?* ]H ^""y' «"^.«'^'« ^^^ ^^« niembeZJhe Boys' and" Girls C ubs. There is full co-operation between the off-cials who have this matter in hand and the Dominion Dairy Promoter for the province l-rizes are being offered for milk production in Prince Edwjirrl 'islon^ ««j the Department of Education in Nova Scotia is taking a very keen^nS and has been very helpful in prompting the work by interfsting thrsch^l teache^^^ The Royal Bank of Canada in Nova Scotia has also helped bVputtSuD ^ iff wlh ::^"n- 'T*^'^' ''^"'"« ^."^"**«" *« th« usefulness of cSw Sing'^ Although cow testing has been carrried on in Canada under federal ausnires there is a good deal to be said in favour of the view that it is m^e p^^^^^^^^ provincial function. At the conference of provincial Deputy MiSSers of Agriculture held at Ottawa March 17 to 19 1920 thp nlw rii^- • whh the authority of the Minister. annoVn^ei'thi^^^ were ready to take over this work that the Dominio- Department woddbeXd to transfer it to the Provincial Department of Agricu-.are. * OTHER PUBLICATIONS OF THE DAIRY BRANCH RELATING TO DAIRYING. IK.t« 1M9 *M 19M m Mil as 1911 M 1913 37 1914 41 191S 45 1915 1917 1917 1918 49 53 54 1939 1929 19M 55 54 ' '57 1914 1914 1915 19 13 •14 ; 1 1916 1916 1917 1917 1917 1918 1919 1919 1929 1907 1911 1918 BULLETINS. No. ntto. TiM Cooltat of Milk for nnMMn«lrln|. Goukmuiitar ChoMo, Soma Notw on it* Maaufoctura. Tho Oofanrlng Industry, aad Htotorlcal and DMcrlDtiv* Account. Grwun CnccM. (Second Edition.) Tho lalnnd of OriiMuu ChMM. ChMM Factory anu Oraancry Plana. Tha Taatlnt of Milk, Graam and Dairy Products by Msans of the Babcodc Tsst. Datarmination of tha Spaciflc Gravity of Milks tha Parcantata of Add and Casain in Milkt tlia Adidtaration of Milk by Skimming and Watarina; tha Parcantaga of Watar and Salt in Bttttar; the Parcentaga of Fat and Water in Chsaaa. Small Cold Storagaa and Dairy Buildings. Buttarmaking