UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA HEAVY vs. LIGHT GRAIN FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS BY F. W. WOLL, E. C. VOORHIES and C. V. CASTLE BULLETIN No. 323 July, 1920 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY 1920 David P. Barrows, President of the University. EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF Heads of Divisions Thomas Forsyth Hunt, Dean. Edward J. Wickson, Horticulture (Emeritus). Walter Mulford, Forestry, Director of Resident Instruction. CM. Haring, Veterinary Science, Director Agricultural Experiment Station. B. H. Crocheron, Director of Agricultural Extension. Hubert E. Van Norman, Vice-Director; Dairy Management. James T. Barrett, Acting Director of Citrus Experiment Station; Plant Pathology. William A. Setchell, Botany. Myer E. Jaffa, Nutrition. Ralph E. Smith, Plant Pathology. J. Eliot Coit, Citriculture. John W. Gilmore, Agronomy. Charles F. Shaw, Soil Technology. John W. Gregg, Landscape Gardening and Floriculture. Frederic T. Bioletti, Viticulture and Fruit Products. Warren T. Clarke, Agricultural Extension. John S. Burd, Agricultural Chemistry. Charles B . Lipman, Soil Chemistry and Bacteriology. Ernest B. Babcock, Genetics. Gordon H. True, Animal Husbandry. Fritz W. Woll, Animal Nutrition. W. P. Kelley, Agricultural Chemistry. H. J. Quayle, Entomology. Elwood Mead, Rural Institutions. H. S. Reed, Plant Physiology. L. D. Batchelor, Orchard Management. J. C. Whitten, Pomology. fFRANK Adams, Irrigation Investigations. C. L. Roadhouse, Dairy Industry. R. L. Adams, Farm Management, F. L. Griffin, Agricultural Education. John E. Dougherty, Poultry Husbandry. William B. Herms, Entomology and Parasitology L. J. Fletcher, Agricultural Engineering. Edwin C. Voorhies, Assistant to the Dean. fin co-operation with office of Public Roads and Rural Engineering, U. S. Department of Agriculture. HEAVY vs. LIGHT GRAIN FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS 1 By F. W. WOLL, E. C. VOORHIES and C. V. CASTLE 2 The system of feeding dairy cows practiced by the dairy farmers of the state varies widely, both as regards kinds and amounts of feeds sup- plied. In the interior valleys where climatic and soil conditions are most favorable to the growing of alfalfa, this is the main forage crop grown and, as a general rule, forms the exclusive feed of the cows. It is either pastured or fed green during the growing season, generally supplemented with cured hay, and the balance of the year the cows receive nothing but alfalfa hay. In the central and southern coast sections, on the other hand, the cows are largely limited to the feed furnished by the hill pastures and their lactation periods correspond, broadly speaking, to the period when green feed is available. In the northern coast section we find a third distinct system of dairy feeding; owing to the abundant rainfall of this section, luxurious pastures, especially rye grass and clover, form the basis of the feed for the cows, and root crops are generally grown and fed. Here more or less intensive feeding of grain feeds (" concentrates") is also practiced, which until recently was done only occasionally by leading dairymen in the alfalfa districts or the other dairy sections of the state. The large majority of the dairy farmers in the state at the present time do not feed concentrates to their cows along with the hay or pasture crops; the silo has been adopted to a considerable extent of late years in practically all parts of the state where dairying is an important industry and furnishes valuable silage from crops like Indian Corn, grain or saccharine sorghums, alfalfa or cereal crops. In many cases these also supply a certain amount of grain, and both on this account and because of the fact that they place a variety of feed at the disposal of the dairy- men, the system of feeding silage with dry roughage has a decided ad- vantage over the one-crop feeding method, and yields larger and more economical returns from the dairy. The modern dairy cow is a heavy- producing animal, and in fact, a good dairy cow produces in a year as much edible food materials in her milk as half a dozen steers will pro- duce in the form of meat, and she requires, therefore, a large supply of digestible nutrients in her daily ration, some of which must be in con- centrated form for best results, so as to furnish as much net nutrients 1 This publication is not intended for use as a feeding guide. For a general dis- cussion of the subject the reader should consult circular 215 California Experiment Station, Feeding Dairy Cows in California, by F. W. Woll. 2 The first of the experiments reported in this bulletin was conducted by Messrs. Woll and Voorhies and the last two by Messrs. Woll and Castle. 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION as possible in a small bulk. The digestive apparatus of the cow is able to utilize bulky feed to a large extent, but the net nutritive effect of such feed is relatively low and maximum returns in production of milk and milk solids can only be secured by supplementing the coarse feed with certain amounts of concentrates. Carefully conducted experi- ments and practical feeding experience have fully established this fact during the past decade or two; the dairymen who are heavy feeders and supply grain feeds for their cows, along with hay and succulent feeds, are the ones that are able to obtain the largest yields and the greatest profits from their dairies, without regard to the section of the state in which they reside. Experiments conducted at the University Farm by the writer and associates during the past six years have shown that an average direct increase of about 15% in milk flow or production of butterfat may be confidently expected with good dairy cows when alfalfa is supplemented with limited grain feeding 3 ; this does not take into account the more lasting effect of the heavier feeding on the milk yield during the entire balance of the lactation period or the advantages of having cows in a good body condition. Cows in our dairy herd that have been supplied a mixed ration of alfalfa hay, silage and concentrates have produced, on the average for a series of lactation periods, about 25% more milk and butterfat per head during the lactation than cows of a similar breed and type whose rations were composed solely of alfalfa. 4 It is of interest in this connection to note the results of a field survey recently conducted by Mr. Ralph L. Phelps in behalf of the Sperry Flour Company. It was found among the dairy herds in Stanislaus County that in those fed alfalfa only, making up 75% of the total number, the cows produced one-half to two gallons, or an average of 1.8 gallons of milk per head daily; herds fed alfalfa and silage, making up 20% of the total number, produced between two and one-half and three gallons of milk on the average, and the last group of herds receiving mixed rations of alfalfa, silage and grain feeds, making up 5% of the total number, produced between four and five gallons of milk per head daily. It cannot be assumed that this difference is due entirely to the system of feeding adopted by these dairymen ; on the contrary, we know it is not, because the kind of cows kept by the three classes of dairymen differ greatly, but there can be no question but that the feed was a most important factor in bringing about the larger returns from the herds fed rations composed of both roughage and concentrates. 3 Bulletin 256, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of California, The Value of Barley for Cows Fed Alfalfa, by Gordon H. True, F. W. Woll and E. C. Voorhies, Berkeley, Calif., June, 1915. 4 Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. I, pp. 447-461 : Alfalfa as a Sole Feed for Dairy Cows, by F. W. Woll. Bulletin 323 GRAIN FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS 5 Where grain feeds form an important part of the rations fed to the cows by dairy farmers in this state, the amounts supplied range from a couple of pounds to ten pounds or more per head daily. This is a very wide range and one can hardly believe that the practices of grain feeding indicated by these extremes are equally sound. There is, how- ever, no definite experimental evidence available on which to form an opinion as to the amount of grain that can be economically fed to California dairy cows of different productive capacities, and practical opinion among dairymen in regard to the matter varies greatly even with the same kinds of rough feeds as the basis of the rations fed. In view of this situation and of the importance of the subject to our dairy farmers and the feed trade it was decided to take up the question for study with cows in the University dairy herd and to continue the in- vestigation if possible, until we would be in a position to draw definite conclusions and to furnish reliable information as to the extent to which grain and other concentrates may be safely fed to dairy cows under the conditions present in this state. Three experiments have accordingly been conducted in the study of this subject, and believing that the goal set has been reached, the present bulletin is published, giving an account of the work done and the main results secured in the investigations. PLAN OF FEEDING GRAIN TO DAIRY COWS According to the plan of feeding dairy cows adopted by many leading dairymen in the state, the cows are fed a certain amount of " grain" (a term which according to common dairy usage is synonymous with grain feeds, concentrated feeds, or "concentrates") per pound of milk produced, generally one pound for every four or five pounds of milk, but sometimes as much as a pound for every three pounds of milk is fed and recommended. It is evident that this way of gauging the amount of grain to be fed is open to criticism, from the fact that the quality of the milk produced is not considered, and a cow yielding, say 30 lbs., of milk would be entitled to six to ten pounds of grain, if this is fed in pro- portion of 1:5 or 1:3, respectively, whether the milk contained 3% butterfat or 6%. Milk of a high fat content has a high per cent, of total solids as well and more food energy is required for the elaboration of such milk than for milk of low contents of fat and total solids. Evi- dently, therefore, if a ratio of a pound of grain to say five pounds of milk is a correct one for milk containing a low percentage of fat, it will be too low for a high percentage milk and vice versa. A common method of designating the amount of concentrates to be fed dairy cows adopted by dairymen in eastern and central states is to feed as many pounds of grain a day as the cows will yield butterfat in a week, or seven times the amount of butterfat produced in a day. It would b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION seem that this method furnishes a more satisfactory standard for feeding grain to dairy cows than the rule commonly used by our farmers based on the amount of milk produced, although it is not quite as easily applied and calls for determination of the fat content of the milk or a more or less definite knowledge of the same. In two of the experiments reported and discussed in this bulletin the ratio of grain allowance to amount of milk was used, while in the third experiment the grain feeding was based on the amount of butterfat produced by the cows. GENERAL PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENTS The general plan of the experiments was similar in nearly every way and provided for placing on the experiment as many cows in the University dairy herd as were ava lable for the purpose at the time. Cows which were in normal lactation and not too near freshening nor too close to drying up were used, so that any change occurring in the production not caused by possible accidents or unforseen circumstances might be safely considered a direct result of the special system of feeding practiced. The cows were separated into two lots, each made as even as possible as to average production of milk and butterfat, days in milk, nearness to next freshening or drying up, body weights and breeds represented. The accounts of previous experiments with cows in the University dairy herd given in our bulletins will suggest that the ideal aimed at was only approximated in these as in early experiments with the dairy herd, but it is believed that any irregularities that may have crept in have been of minor importance and that the conclusions drawn from the results obtained are fully warranted and may be safely accepted. The experiments were divided into two periods of five or six weeks each, a week's preliminary feeding being introduced prior to each period in order to accustom the cows to the rations to be fed the subsequent periods. The lot was fed one of the two grain ratios experimented with during the first period, and the ratios were reversed the second period so as to place all the cows on the experiment on both ratios and allow a direct comparison of their effects on the production and body weights of the cows. Designating the lots A and B, we thus have, e.g., that the cows in Lot A were fed a ratio of 1 pound of grain to 5 pounds milk during Period I, and one of 1 :3 during Period II, the ratios fed to Lot B being 1:3 during Period I, and 1:5 during Period II. The amount of grain fed was adjusted each week according to the milk flow of the cows during the preceding week. In addition, the lot received similar amounts of alfalfa hay and sweet sorghum or Indian corn silage. The same care and general management was given all cows on each experiment. The milk from each individual cow was weighed and sampled each milking and composite weekly tests were Bulletin 323 GRAIN FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS 7 made for solids and butterfat by the lactometer method and Babcock test, respectively, in the milk from each cow. The cows were weighed on three consecutive days at the beginning and the close of the experi- ments and regularly once a week during their progress. The grain mixtures fed during the three experiments differed somewhat in their component parts as will be seen below. GRAIN MIXTURES FED ON THE EXPERIMENTS I II in Wheat bran 400 320 300 Rolled barley 200 260 200 Cocoanut meal 100 200 200 Beet pulp 200 200 Cottonseed meal 50 100 Owing to the limited number of cows available for experimental purposes, it was necessary to start each experiment with a smaller number than is considered desirable for best results, and cows that freshened later on were paired off and added to the separate lots so that these retained, so far as possible, their similarity with regard to important factors that directly influence production. The cows placed on these experiments and those subsequently added are given under each experiment with information as to their history, production, etc. EXPERIMENT I, FEBRUARY 13 TO MAY 15, 1919 The experiment was commenced February 13, 1919, with the six- teen cows included in the following list. Eight additional cows were included later on during the first period of the experiment, as noted below. As in the other experiments, the cows were fed hay in racks in the corrals, the total amounts placed before them being weighed out; silage and grain rations were weighed out and fed twice a day in the manger in the milking barn. The cows were never pastured and received no other feed than was given, except in a couple of cases as noted below. Corral feeding means more or less waste of feed and, in the rainy season, unfavorable conditions from muddy corrals in most dairies in the interior valleys; hence a decrease in production. All the cows in the herd were, however, on an equal footing in these respects. The production of the cows on the experiment for each grain ratio may be seen from Table II. It will be noted that on the ratio of 1 : 5 the cows produced in all 22,933.9 lbs. milk containing 2743.6 lbs. solids and 835.69 lbs. butterfat, and on the ratio of 1:3, 22,704.5 lbs. milk, 2786.8 lbs. solids and 831.73 lbs. butterfat. So far as is known it took very nearly similar amounts of hay and silage with both ratios, but on the ratio of 1:3, 7658 lbs. of grain were fed, against 4662 lbs. on the ratio of 1:5, an excess of close to one and one-half ton of grain from which no return in production was received, except that the cows put on some extra weight. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION ts m "*ONOCOCDOOO fe ~ »o 05 1> CO 00 CO "^ l> OC0C0051005OO g CO 00 t* CO rt< <- CONNU3QHNH 0505000^05050 g r -1 r* ?" ^ rT" 1 r 1 ^ g! r3 NiOOOMONOO I tH &C CO - MH ,-h ^h CO fig -H-H CO<^ t^COCOOO^CNKM^tH ^00tOO5COCOCOO5 lO i— irtHiOCOCOCOiO lOOO^HCOrHCOOt^ OOiOOOKNOCO 00O5rHO5O500rH00 HNr- li— li— It- ti— (i— I 00OiCO^(M»OO OOOCiOOON^iC CO-^rHrHQOCOOCO OOCOCOrH(Nr^O(N 5cOi-liO00COO5CO 2^ « § * * &-s (MTtiTtHiOcOCOCO(N O5rHlO-*t^00O5CO i— I i-i i— i OOCOrtt C 00 • 7~J rH U 5; OOrH CO W KW WWW g ?H • Sh frH* >> Sh" J-," f-4* WW . WW OOOMOObM _ WWW £ oooo www ^' Sh' ^h C8 *h 1 1-S-i s 2-q o {» bC <«^ C o8 fl c8 OJ oj £ ^ W P Ph < W O W Ph c8 o 08 • S ^ F I o'-P hC' 02^2 08 O o3 O -O . (-1 "H -+J OPh T3 d , -> G 08 O » J r« Bulletin 323 GRAIN FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS CO 00 i-4 l> b- 00 © iH O (M O b- "«# io co oo h a s 0D > O 22 . C5 *# H ^ b0»! oo CN w > * i— < OS O * • O CO ^J O CO CO CO OS "* OS CO CO o oo oo r- b- 00 CO CO CO t^ CXI O lO r^ CO CO LO OS i—l iO t^ OS oo CO 1—1 i— i i—i CO T* -* oo M • OS Th t>- CO i—i iO S3 O 73 « O IO H <3 10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The results from the individual cows during similar periods when they were fed each grair ratio have been analyzed, with the results shown in Table III. It will be noted that there is a general decrease in production and an increase in weight of the cows both going from light to heavy grain feeding and from heavy to light grain. Only in two instances was an increase in production observed in the former case, and not in any in the latter case. The average daily production for these cows came at 24.9 lbs. of milk and .914 lbs. butterfat (average per cent. 3.67) on grain ratio 1:5, with an average body weight of 1175 lbs. and average amount of grain fed 5.1 lbs., against an average production of 25.1 lbs. milk and .930 lbs. butterfat (average percent. 3.70) on the heavier grain feeding, with an average body weight 11 88 lbs. and average amount of grain fed 8.5 lbs., an insignificant gain in production of about one per cent, with an in- crease of forty percent, in the amount of grain fed. The fat content of the milk was evidently not affected by the intensity of the grain feeding. EXPERIMENT II, MAY 29 TO SEPTEMBER 3, 1919 At the conclusion of the experiment described above, another ex- periment along the same line with a different grain mixture was com- menced (see p. 7) ; most of the cows on this experiment were also on the first one, but the alignment in the lots differed considerably. Only twelve cows were available for the experiment at its beginning, two cows being added at the close of the fourth week. The description of the cows will be seen from Table IV. The summary figures obtained with these cows for the two systems of grain feeding are shown in Table V. 11,936.7 lbs. milk and 483,92 lbs. butterfat were produced on 2492 lbs. of grain, and 12,620.7 lbs. milk and 516.21 lbs. butterfat on 4239 lbs. grain, with approximately the same amounts of hay and silage being eaten in both cases so far as we could judge. The increase in production of butterfat on the heavier grain feeding amounted to about 32 lbs., or 6%, and it took 1747 lbs. of grain (70% more) to produce this increase, which, however, was secured at the expense of some body weight of the cows, since these averaged ten pounds lighter during the periods of heavy grain feeding than they did on light grain feeding. The effect of the two systems of feeding on the production of the individual cows on the experiment will be seen in Table VI. Here again it appears that nearly all the cows yielded less milk and butterfat going from light to heavy grain feeding, and all yielded more going the other way. The average daily production of these cows came at 21.8 lbs. milk and .875 lbs. butterfat (4.02%) on the ratio of 1:5, and 22. 5 lbs. milk and .904 lb. butterfat (4.02%) on the ratio of 1 : 3, the Bulletin 323 GRAIN FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS 11 £,: GO j§£ £ o U c « n Ej3 fe o- m h-l 5 H r<3 CO W> m i 73 5= rP o3 « M *fcfS H a, H W £ • H GO 1 a* 1 6 fe ps, < s|jS o ^" H "g (h ^ IX "o3 S ffl > ^H > - iO Tti lO i-H i-H OsOs^rHl>CNosT-iT)Hcooo CDOCOCONOCOCONN N©N©00OrH03^CDi0 lOOOOOMOOlNCONCOCO NCDCOCOiHrHiOOUCCOCO ^f-H^i-HeNKNlNt-ICOi-lrH ^(MO^tlCQOOCOCO^OOCO (NCOiCCDOO>OCD(MONCD ^MCOMhOiOOOKNh^ Oii— lOOCOOCO^'sH'-Hlr^O t^I>rHO0COCO'-H>— ICOCOCO OiOCOC^H^LOiOOCOM cocooooooio^o OS ^ i© CO tO <* O CO 00 rH 00 CO CO 00 »OHH(MNcDOOOOcOO tO0'-iCOCC©HNH005 05 COt^OSCO000000 -^NCD003 05NOOcO© IXNOStNOOi-HTjHOSOSOS i-HOStOOOOtOOOOtO 00 tO I— II— I -d-d o o CD 0) PhPm 00 CO ^ i— i CX) h h ooo 6 6 < £ £ ■* ph j* o h3 S s .a H *-• d CO OJ C)iO (N O H ff)H COIN O) N lO O © N »C b- 00 co Ifl -* »h CO o r> 01 (N Ol O co rH CO TtH CO on Oi io 00 iH i— l 01 i—i rH '""' rH (N CO O "* N O ^ CO 00 h h ® O) IN N OJ O (N tjh iO OS OS t^ CM (N CO M N (M N ^ • Sh* l-H f-3 M OMOOOO 03 pq CM CM 03 £&5'3 1 S Ph «< << o Ol CO N "* N oo oo o o a co co ■* to N iO O o Ol O iO iO (N CO Ol CO CO 00 CO CO CO r-l i-l O © CO 00 CO OS rH i-l CM o 00 CO CO , ; .M r 3 in 9 >s 7 co CO CM CM d d 3 9 y-i »-? CO ^ oj m to CO Ph^ Oi cd Ol CM ■X . r~J to CO l^ 25 oo cm ^~ ,-1 rH ^ . CO CO . m O CO O o o o ro o CM 01 Ol 01 fN CM ^3 *■ ** « 00 lO co Ol rA TfH § CM 01 1— 1 Qs u d 5^,0,0,0 Ph 03 03 03 <] fe f^ fe S © CO to r^ OS >o (N r^ CO ■*S CM OS tO 1—1 CO to CO "*3 i-H 1 — 1 rH T-H i—i 1—1 ^ 4J g >> ft < o i jp o **> a J- Bulletin 323 GRAIN FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS 13 OS 00 CO o r- oo OS TjH CO o b- 00 S. os b- 3i % B £ — to b- co .co ^H CM O CO i-i o o b- 1— I ^ CO el 00 tP b- CD ^h O CM CM •^ Mm 00 i-H O i-H Tf< OS 00 OS o o ^ (Sh X w 02 g 3 00 00 OS 1> 2=2 00 §i •3 8 CO CO ^ 1 OS n 3 6 as CM CM H o3 o3 CO i-H CO CM OS PQ ^ o o vA vA o CO 14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION I & ■s E-2 O 1fc' £* TtH CO O Ci CM to CO IO i-l H t-H r-t i-H CO + + + + + + + I I I + + H N ION © » H OJ H CD »0 CO IO H O IN O iO rh IN CM i-H COH I I I I I I I o o o o o o o o o U3 CM r^ r^ r- (N CM CO r^ »* »o io CD ic »0 i—i 00 CI Ol CO Ol CO Ol t-H o cm oo to CM O CO 00 CO OS to Ol ^ 02 CM CO CO CO CM i-i O O O t-H CO O 00 CO N O H ffl CO OS 00 00 CO to CO o OS 00 © CO OS N i-H co co co -^ ^ to OS CM i-H 00 CO CM © CO N 00 H H H i-i OS CM t* I- 1> O 00N 00O) x* N N CM TjH O00ONC0 CO os tO o x# CM to to o o o o o o o o CO on 00 r^ CO "tf on o 00 -h CO CO o t^ o o CM CO ,_| o r^ T* co tH oo OS CO co Ol -t-1 co Ol o CM 00 01 oo 00 co 1—1 o i-H 00 CO CM CO 4 Eh O CD CD CO CO O CM CO O i-i CO CO CO CM CO CO CO +++++++ CO N M« 00 N N O OS to 00 to OS o (N ^HCOHIN + i i i i 7 + CO CO OS 00 OS to CO H N CO 00 CO CO N CX) H rt* CO CO H CO CM ,-1 ,-H tHH I I I I o o o o o o o o Ol Ol iO o CO o 01 to N -f Of) o -V o >o CO CM 1—1 0) Ol Ol 00 CO 00 00 to to rJH OO Co IO N O CO CO O Ol 00 OS i-H CO i-i b- CM rtl 00 © CM tO i-H »o CO CM tO CM O iN CO Ol CO' O OS t^ t-H CM 00 CO CO "* CM CM CO -cH t-H OS CM IO 00 tO CO Ol 01 1—1 t-H T-H i-H r^ -f 1—1 00 tO 00 N o Ol OS r}H -+ OS CO N X* fN OS <* CO OS 05 - T-H CO to o o © o o o o o Ol r^ CO <* 00 o on ^ -^ on co CO OS to »o ^H Of) N co 01 01 co co LO CM CM 1> 00 CO OS to CO to to CM IO CO CO o O CM 00 OS O CO t-h rjn IN CO ^ CO O OS t-H O to CM OS CO OS 00 rt< CO CM xHH ,-H CO CO HH CO tO T-H tO T-H CM CM 00 T-H — I i— ( rH i—l i— I £ OOOOOOOO P-2 050(MffiCOlN05H O 1— I rH t-H i— I i-H oo > oooooooopo NOSCON^MOO 05 H(M05NCOIOO(N H HOO^ON^iOM O OO OO ^ooSsoo Tt fe ~ - CO CO lO COO' O O iO M . . -b-co S m >J2 b- CO ,0,Q ,D 2 ^O +3 +3 • +3 3 O O O o o P^ tH ": CO : coco O s TO I M M w ^ ^ o *o io^ co P ^H i-H lOOO S ,-H COH i-t a OO^ON O ONONN *.£ H-^NNiO o T-H T— I 1— I O d CO 1> 00 OOi-H COrHCOrHCO © P ,.-'d p P 03 ^ 03 03 o uCt t-i u u p £,0^ -+J o += *s 4-3 « O 03 -+J H_ «4-H I be o jtf _ £ SS a ^ : CO ,_, CO o CD iO 1> 00 >£ -h e3 O o eo co CO CO O t^- 1> 1^ t+i IO CO iO 1> CO «C ^ cc ^> i » CC £ c CO t^ c • CC OC CO c t> e e '3 '5 Eh '5 & 3 bJ 3 b 3 faj 3 ) bJ > > 3 S ■» bfl K H "S c3 5n w « F S o3 +3 cu •+j 0) < pq c > pq <1 c < -M 4^ -^ +3 O o o o ^ h-5. h^ £ Bulletin 323 GRAIN FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS 17 CO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I Jl s - 5 o •a ■^ K -|M O CO R ■g h-1 CL M to S* I I I thcOcOCOOOcOOOiO HHCOONOiOO b- 00 <CD 00 iCO^^ti'^i-HiMTtiCO TJH CO CONN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OC^KN-^TtHTjHOiOOOcD^ O 00 HNMtDHioOHiCNH CDCOOiM^lONr-lO^N i-l t-1 t-H t-I rH t-I COM O CD LO HOHlOHNlCOOCOJ •^OHNIMCOOOCOOOCO osi-Hoaoioqcii-icocooioi «OMHcD003HNh»0© NHNOOO^C0 05 00CO C0 05^CD02N05MNCDO NHNHHCq CO i—l rH NC0 05C0»OOHC0 00»O05 C b- rH O CO CM oo O CO tH 00 N(N^©0!iHCO©^000 O lO NC0H00MOC0 00 10HO5 OiCO'OrHNONCOiCNiO co^o^o-rticDTtHoat^iOi— ii— i CD 00 b- T-H T)*C0HC0NffiOHNO5 00 OOrHiOOiOOOOt^CDCOiOiO "H'lococoiocqcd ' 0 03Hffi05iOOQ (NcO'HHCOCO^t^00COCO co CD 00 (NHCXlOJOOHOit^O:i—i>OLO^C500 NINHH rHrH rH oonoocono^ooiooo O0 O CD CO lO CO Ol •* CO H CO NON(MCO»CHCD^(X)N t^OOOiOOCNOOOiCOCDiO OOrHCO'OOO-HHrH^HHlOCNrH 2 J & W O^O^PhWQPWOO lO *0 O CO 3U OS "3 1— I CO O l> N^N^NOCOiOiOOrH CO oo HHCOO-HiONCOiMOHM COOOOilOCN^frHOOOCNrH ^-lOCOCO-HHTHlOrHCDCOCNJ b- b- O rH 0> CD 18 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-— EXPERIMENT STATION average body weight being five pounds lighter in the latter case than in the former. The increase in the amount of grain eaten by these cows was 67%. As in Experiment I, the average percent, of fat in the milk remained unchanged by the method of feeding followed. EXPERIMENT III, JANUARY 21 TO APRIL 8, 1920 This experiment was commenced on January 21st with sixteen cows, ten more being added later on. It was continued for eleven weeks after the close of the preliminary week. The description of the cows included on the experiment is given in Table VII and the summary results for the two systems of grain feeding (1 lb. per 3J^ and 7 lbs. of butterfat produced per week) will be seen in Table VIII. Table IX presents the results obtained with the individual cows included on the experiment on going from heavy to light grain feeding, and vice versa. The results obtained in this experiment go in the same direction as those of the preceding ones, but the advantage from the heavy over the light grain feeding is more marked than in these, viz., an increase of 14% in the production of milk and 9% in the production of butterfat as a result of feeding a little over a ton more grain, with possible minor changes in the amounts of roughage eaten by the cows. The possible causes of this more pronounced reaction than that obtained in either of the previous experiments cannot be fully discussed here, but it may be suggested that it may be due to the relatively larger amount of grain fed on this experiment or a somewhat poorer quality of roughage fed to the cows, especially silage. It is plain that even in this case the cost of the extra grain fed is greater than what the increase in butterfat would bring even at retail prices, so that the result of this experiment alone furnishes no argument in favor of a heavy system of grain feeding. SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTS I TO III The total amounts of milk, solids and butterfat produced under the two systems of feeding grain studied in these experiments have been compiled and are presented in Table X. Table X. — Summary Results, Experiments I to III Light Heavy grain grain feeding feeding Increase Total Amt. of milk produced, lbs. 46,664 48,805 5% Total solids, lbs 5,872 6,201 5 Butterfat, lbs 1,839.5 1,915.2 4 Ave. weight of cows, lbs 1,158 1,157 Total amt. of grain fed, lbs 7,076 15,992 79 Bulletin 323 GRAIN FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS 19 The general conclusion to be drawn from this is evidently that only a slight improvement in production can be expected by feeding a large amount of grain to ordinary good dairy cows receiving a liberal basal ration of alfalfa hay and silage. The cows on these experiments re- ceived, on the average, 4.2 lbs. of grain on light feeding and 7.5 lbs. per head daily on heavy grain feeding. The first experiments, which in- cluded a larger number of cows than the other two, failed to show any improvement in production at all as a result of more intensive grain feeding, while in the two other experiments an increase of 6% and 9% were secured. We conclude, therefore, that under conditions similar to those that obtained in these experiments, heavy grain feeding does not give marked returns and does not pay. This result is corroborated by the findings of the Vermont 5 and Wisconsin 6 stations among others, both of which showed conclusively "the folly of heavy grain feeding" for common dairy herds. The con- clusion does not exclude the possibility of heavy grain feeding being advisable in individual cases, for heavy-producing animals, especially growing heifers, or where cows are fed for production records where the economy of feeding is of only minor importance. Examples from among the cows included in the preceding experiments can no doubt be found where the result of increasing the grain allowance was followed by an improvement in production that fully covered the increased cost of the ration, but as a general proposition, in feeding even a good dairy herd averaging toward a pound of butterfat a day per head, the economic limit of grain feeding is considerably below a ratio of a pound of grain per three pounds of milk, or seven pounds of grain per pound of butter- fat when ample amounts of roughage of at least fair quality are supplied. If such is not the case, as, for instance, in periods of short hay crops and abnormally high hay prices, heavy grain feeding may be advisable; relative prices of coarse and concentrated feeds must determine whether the amount of the former had better be reduced and concentrates cor- respondingly increased, or vice versa. At the average market prices during the last year or two, the cost of the two classes of feeds has very closely approximated their relative feeding value. The average retail price of four leading kinds of hay on the San Francisco market during the past season has thus been $26.50, and that of fifteen standard concentrates (grain, mill feeds and other concentrates of similar nutritive value), $63.77. This is a ratio of 1 : 2.4 or close to the unit value of hay according to the feed unit system. When concentrates, therefore, cost more than 2.4 or 2.5 times as much as average hay, they are relatively expensive and should be used sparing- 5 Report 15 (1902) page 284. 6 Report 16 (1899) page 52. 20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION AVERAGE PROWCTW QFX/LKAND BUTTERFAT — PER COhT DAILY Light Grain Feedihg HmvyGMMFEEnm EXPERIMENT I m MILK BUTTERFAT KllK AUZMQE PRODUCTION 26.2 lbs. ■ 25.9 « .- 213 " 22.5 " ..-. 16.7 " 19.1 " BUTTERFAT .955 lbs. .951 « .864 " 922 " 735 - .802 « pmm foralitrials 21.8lbs. 22.8 « .859 " .894 « ly. If less than two and one-half times the price of hay, they are relative- ly cheap even though their price is three times that which they com- manded a few years ago. The general practice of dairy farmers is, however, to feed their cows all the hay and other roughage that they will clean up with a relish and to feed concentrates in proportion to the production of the cows. The experiments here reported are directly applicable to this practice and their teachings may be accepted as sound in view of the evidence pre- sented. The subject of dairy economics is a very complex one and there are many factors having a bearing on the question of the best system of feeding to be adopted, like kind of cows kept, returns received Bulletin 323 GRAIN FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS 21 for the dairy products, sources of feeding supplies, distance from markets overhead expenses, etc. The feed is the largest single item in the cost of producing milk, making up from 50% to 75% of the total cost, and a careful consideration of ways and means of keeping down the feed cost is therefore a most important factor in successful dairying, especially under present-day prices of feed, labor and supplies. It is hoped that the study of the relative economy of heavy and light grain feeding furnished by the experiments reported in this bulletin will aid dairy farmers in deciding upon a practice of feeding their cows that will avoid unnecessary waste and thus aid in increasing the profits from the dairy. CONCLUSION In the three experiments with cows in the University dairy herd reported in this bulletin, the method of feeding grain in the ratio of one pound per every five pounds of milk, or three and one-half times as much as the amount of butterfat produced by the cows, yielded within 5% as good results, on the average, as a ratio of one pound of grain per three pounds of milk, or seven pounds of grain per pound of butterfat, re- spectively. This result is in accord with similar experiments conducted elsewhere, and suggests that home-grown coarse feeds should form the basis for economical dairy rations and that when supplied in ample amounts and of at least fair quality, they need only be supplemented by medium amounts of grain feeds such as supplied in the proportion of one pound per five pounds of milk, or one-half as much grain per day as the cows produce butterfat in a week. STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION No. 168. 169. 185. 208. 250. 251. 252. 253. 257. 261. 262. 263. 266. 267. 268. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 282. 283. Observations on Some Vine Diseases in Sonoma County. Tolerance of the Sugar Beet for Alkali. Report of Progress in Cereal Investiga- tions. The Late Blight of Celery. The Loquat. Utilization of the Nitrogen and Organic Matter in Septic and Imhoff Tank Sludges. Deterioration of Lumber. Irrigation and Soil Conditions in the Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. New Dosage Tables. Melaxuma of the Walnut, " Juglans regia." Citrus Diseases of Florida and Cuba Compared with Those of California. Size Grades for Ripe Olives. A Spotting of Citrus Fruits Due to the Action of Oil Liberated from the Rind. Experiments with Stocks for Citrus. Growing and Grafting Olive Seedlings. A Comparison of Annual Cropping, Bi- ennial Cropping, and Green Manures on the Yield of Wheat. Feeding Dairy Calves in California. Commercial Fertilizers. Preliminary Report on Kearney Vine- yard Experimental Drain. The Common Honey Bee as an Agent in Prune Polination. The Cultivation of Belladonna in Cali- ornia. The Pomegranate. Sudan Grass. Grain Sorghums. Irrigation of Rice in California. Irrigation of Alfalfa in the Sacramento Valley. Trials with California Silage Crops for Dairy Cows. The Olive Insects of California. BULLETINS No. 285. 286. 288. 290. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 308. I 309. I 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. The Milch Goat in California. Commercial Fertilizers. Potash from Tule and the Fertilizer Value of Certain Marsh Plants. The June Drop of Washington Navel Oranges. The Almond in California. Seedless Raisin Grapes. The Use of Lumber on California Farms. Commercial Fertilizers. California State Dairy Cow Competition, 1916-18. Control of Ground Squirrels by the Fumigation Method. Grape Syrup. A Study on the Effects of Freezes on Citrus in California. Fumigation with Liquid Hydrocianic Acid. II. Physical and Chemical Pro- perties of Liquid Hydrocianic Acid. The Carob in California. II. Nutri- tive Value of the Carob Bean. Plum Pollination. Investigations with Milking Machines. Mariout Barley. Pruning Yound Deciduous Fruit Trees. Cow-Testing Associations in California. The Kaki or Oriental Persimmon. Selections of Stocks in Citrus Propagation. The Effects of Alkali on Citrus Trees. Caprifigs and Caprification. Control of the Coyote in California. Commercial Production of Grape Syrup. The Evaporation of Grapes. Heavy vs. Light Grain Feeding for Dairy Cows. Storage of Perishable Fruit at Freezing Temperatures. Rice Irrigation Measurements and Ex- periments in Sacramento Valley, 1914- 1919. CIRCULARS No. 65. The California Insecticide Law. 70. Observations on the Status of Corn Growing in California. 76. Hot Room Callusing. 82. The Common Ground Squirrels of California. 87. Alfalfa. 109. Community or Local Extension Work by the High School Agricultural Depart- ment. 111. The use of Lime and Gypsum on California Soils. 113. Correspondence Courses in Agriculture. 114. Increasing the Duty of Water. 115. Grafting Vinifera Vineyards. 117. The Selection and Cost of a Small Pump- ing Plant. 124. Alfalfa Silage for Fattening Steers. 126. Spraying for the Grape Leaf Hopper. 127. House Fumigation. 128. Insecticide Formulas. 129. The Control of Citrus Insects. 130. Cabbage Growing in California. 131. Spraying for Control of Walnut Aphis. 133. County Farm Adviser. No. 135. Official Tests of Dairy Cows. 136. Melilotus Indica. 137. Wood Decay in Orchard Trees. 138. The S'lo in California Agriculture. 139. The Generation of Hydrocyanic Acid Gas in Fumigation by Portable Machines. No. 140. 143. 144. 147. 148. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 164. 165. 167. 168. 170. 172. 173. 174. The Practical Application of Improved Methods of Fermentation in California Wineries during 1913 and 1914. Control of Grasshoppers in Imperial Valley. Oidium or Powdery Mildew of the Vine. Tomato Growing in California. "Lungworms". Some Observations on the Bulk Handling of Grain in California. Announcement of the California State Dairy Cow Competition, 1916-18. Irrigation Practice in Growing Small Fruits in California. Bovine Tuberculosis. How to Operate an Incubator. Control of the Pear Scab. Home and Farm Canning. Agriculture in the Imperial yalley. Lettuce Growing in California. Small Fruit Culture in California. Fundamentals of Sugar Beet Culture under California Conditions. Feeding Stuffs of Minor Importance. Spraying for the Control of Wild Morning- Glory within the Fog Belt. The 1918 Grain Crop. Fertilizing California Soils for the 1918 Crop. Wheat Culture. The Construction of the Wood-Hoop Silo. Farm Drainage Methods. CIRCULARS — Continued No. 175. Progress Report on the Marketing and Distribution of Milk. 176. Hog Cholera Prevention and the Serum Treatment. 177. Grain Sorghums. 178. The Packing of Apples in California. 179. Factors of Importance in Producing Milk of Low Bacterial Count. 181. Control of the California Ground Squirrel. 182. Extending the Area of Irrigated Wheat in California for 1918. 183. Infectious Abortion in Cows. 184. A Flock of Sheep on the Farm. 185. Beekeeping for the Fruit-grower and Small Rancher or Amateur. 187. Utilizing the Sorghums. 188. Lambing Sheds. 189. Winter Forage Crops. 190. Agriculture Clubs in California. 191. Pruning the Seedless Grapes. 1 93. A Study of Farm Labor in California. 195. Revised Compatibility Chart of Insecti- cides and Fungicides. 197. Suggestions for Increasing Egg Produc- tion in a Time of High-Feed Prices. 198. Syrup from Sweet Sorghum. No. 201. Helpful Hints to Hog Raisers. 202. County Organization for Rural Fire Control. 203. Peat as a Manure Substitute. 204. Handbook of Plant Diseases and Pest Control. 205. Blackleg. 206. Jack Cheese. 207. Neufchatel Cheese. 208. Summary of the Annual Reports of the Farm Advisors of California. 210. Suggestions to the Settler in California. 213. Evaporators for Prune Drying. 214. Seed Treatment for the Prevention of Cereal Smuts. 215. Feeding Dairy Cows in California. 216. Winter Injury or Die-Back of the Walnut. 217. Methods for Marketing Vegetables in California. 218. Advanced Registry Testing of Dairy Cows. 219. The Present Status of Alkali. 220. Unfermented Fruit Juices. 221. How California is Helping People Own Farms and Rural Homes.