UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA THE DAIRY COWS RECORD AND THE STABLE By LEROY ANDERSON BULLETIN No. 204 Berkeley, Cal., December, 1909 BERKELEY THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1909 Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Ph.D., LL.D, President of the University. EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF. E. J. WlCKSON, M.A., Director and Horticulturist. E. W. Hilgard, Ph.D., LL.D., Chemist, W. A. Setchell, Ph.D., Botanist, Ei. wood Mead, M.S., C.E., Irrigation Engineer. (Absent on leave.) Lerov Anderson, Ph.D., Dairy Industry and Superintendent University Farm Schools. M. E. Jaffa, M.S., Nutrition Expert, in charge of the Poultry Station. R. H. Loughridge, Ph.D., Soil Chemist and Physicist. C. W. Woodworth, M.S., Entomologist, G. W. Shaw, M.A., Ph.D., Experimental Agronomist and Agricultural Technologist, in charge of Cereal Stations. George E. Colby, M.S., Chemist (Fruits, Waters and Insecticides), in charge of Chem. Lab. Ralph E. Smith, B.S., Plant Pathologist and Superintendent of Southern California Patho- logical Laboratory and Experiment Station. F. T. Bioletti, B.S., Viticulturist. A. R. Ward, B.S.A., D.V.M., Veterinarian and Bacteriologist. E. W. Major, B.Agr., Animal Industry, Farm Manager, University Farm, Davis. W. T. Clarke, B.S., Assistant Horticulturist and Superintendent of University Extension in Agriculture. H. M. Hall. Ph.D., Assistant Botanist, H. J. Quaylb, A.B., Assistant Entomologist, Plant Disease Laboratory, Whittier. S. Burd, B.S., Chemist, in charge of Fertilizer Control. Haring, D.V.M., Assistant Veterinarian and Bacteriologist, . Herms, M.A., Assistant Entomologist. Hopper, M.S. A., Dairy Industry, University Farm, Davis. Babcock, B.S., Assistant Agricultural Education. . Horne, B.S., Assistant Plant Pathologist. Norton, M.S., Assistant Chemist, in charge of Citrus Experiment Station, Riverside. Coit, Ph.D., Assistant Pomologist, Plant Disease Laboratory, Whittier. Mansell, Assistant in Horticulture, in iMrge of Central Station grounds. H Benton, B.S., B.L., Assistant in Entomology. Hoagland, A.B., Assistant in Agricultural Chemical Laboratory. LlPMAN, M.A., Assistant in Soil Bacteriology. Hunt, B.S., Assistant Horticulturist. Smith, M.S., Assistant Plant Pathologist, Plant Disease Laboratory, Whittier. Smith, M.S., Assistant Plant Pathologist. Hagemann, Assistant in Dairying, Davis. Hans C. Holm, B.S., Assistant in Zymology. R. M. Roberts, B.S.A., Field Assistant in Viticulture, University Farm, Davis. BOSCOE Farrar, B.S., Assistant in Soils and Farm Crops, University Farm, Davis. B. S. Brown, B.S.A., Assistant in Horticulture, University Farm, Davis. Howard Phillips, B.S., Assistant in Animal Industry, University Farm, Davis. L. M. Davis, B.S., Assistant in Dairy Husbandry, University Fai*m, Davis. F. L. Ye aw, B.S., Assistant Plant Pathologist, University Farm, Davis. F. D. Hawk, B.S.A., Assistant in Animal Industry. A. J. Gaumnitz, M.S., Assistant in Cereal Investigations, University Farm, Davis. S. S. ROGERS, Assistant Plant Pathologist, Plant Disease Laboratory, Whittier. P. L. McCreary, B.S., Laboratory Assistant in Fertilizer Control. P. E. JOHNSON, B.S., Assistant in Soil Laboratory. M. E. Stover, B.S., Assistant in Agricultural Chemical Laboratory. CHARLES PuCHS, Curator Entomological Museum. I\ L. Hibbard, B.S., Assistant Fertilizer Control Laboratory. X. D. [NGHAM, Assistant in Sylviculture, Santa Monica. .1. I). Rose, B.S., Assistant in Cereal Laboratory. L. BONNET, Assistant in Viticulture. Mrs. ]>. L. BUNNELL, Clerk to the Director. W. H. VOLG'K, Field Assistant in Entomology, Watsonville. IS. L. Morris, B.S., Field Assistant in Entomology, San .lose J. S. Hunteb, Field Assistant in Entomology, San Mateo. John Tuohy, Patron, ") John T. Bbabss, Foreman, } ™* Te Sub-station, rulare. •' r *°™> Patron - I University Forestry station, Chico. E. C. Mii.i.f.r. Foreman, f John C. M. w . B. H. A. E. B. w . T. J. H. J. E. R. E. D. LLP R. C. B. T. F. C. 0. E. H. E. H. / THE DAIRY COW'S RECORD 1 By LEROY ANDERSON. In response to an urgent request from the leading dairy interests in Southern California for assistance in improving the city milk supply, the writer made an inspection of the conditions, and in con- sultation with the dairymen decided upon a general policy of educa- tion, of which this Bulletin is the first public evidence. The writer is of the opinion that the reform of many conditions, now undesirable in the methods of producing milk, can be better reached through the commercial aspect of the business and through education of the pro- ducer and the consumer than through drastic and radical legislation. The conditions under which milk is produced about Los Angeles are not materially different from conditions in other populous centers, except that nature is possibly more kind in granting more sunshine and less rain and a more porous soil, all of which tend toward an easier cleanliness. What we may have to offer, therefore, of advice or counsel, or of instruction, is applicable to all of California. We hope especially that the man who is producing and selling directly to con- sumers in the smaller towns and cities, whether he has one cow or forty, may receive an incentive to have better cows and to keep them in a clean and healthy condition. In cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where large wholesalers act as distributing agencies between the producer and consumer and pasteurize all the milk, some of the dangers that might result from disease of the cow and uncleanli- ness are obviated. It does not have a pretty sound to say that lack of care on the part of the producers is partly the reason for the expensive pasteurization which the wholesalers now give to milk. Pasteurization, however, is one of the advance steps toward a healthier race and some day this will give way to such clean methods of pro- ducing milk that it will not be necessary. That is the goal toward which we are all striving. Just how to produce a perfectly clean milk and of what it consists is not the purpose of this Bulletin. That will come in later publica- tions. It is sufficient to say that it costs money to produce such milk, which cost must be met by a higher selling price or by more profitable * This Bulletin was prepared in the summer of 1908, but could not then be printed because of lack of funds. 66 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. cows, or both. The cow is especially in our mind just now and we call the reader's attention to records of cows taken from different sources to show by actual figures how cows vary in return to their owners from similar outlay for food and care. BLACK AND IMP. The first two pictures are of cows owned by the California Poly- technic School at San Luis Obispo. Black is a grade cow and now seven years old, while Imp is an Ayrshire of the same age. Black is of good dairy type and a cow of much vigor and of much persistence as a milker. She does not pose well for the photographer. Imp shows good vigor but not a good dairy type. At the School the milk is weighed from each cow at every milking and is tested at frequent intervals. Here are their records for two years : Lbs. Milk. Lbs. Fat. Total Fat, 2 yrs. Black 1906 7,672.5 361.37 1907 6,120.4 286.27 647.64 Imp 1906 6,349.6 260.33 1907 6,586.9 270.06 530.39 Difference, 117.25 Value of Black's product over Imp's at 30 cts. per lb., $35.17 Suppose the herd were half * ' Blacks ' ' and half ' ' Imps, ' ' — ten each — the "Blacks" would return $351.75 more per year than the "Imps." Or if the herd were all "Blacks" the return would be $703.50 more per year than if they were all "Imps." The students in Agriculture at the Polytechnic School keep a record of the food consumed by the dairy herd, and their figures show the average amount and cost of food per cow per year to be: . 2y 2 tons corn silage at $2.50 $ 6.25 1 ton alfalfa hay 12.00 Vj ton oat hay at $10.00 5.00 1 ton wheat bran 25.00 Six months' pasture at 50 cents 3.00 Total cost of food ' $51.25 The relative profit of Black and Imp over the cost of food for two years is therefore : Value at 30 cts. Cost of Profit over Lbs. Fat per lb. Food. Food alone. Black 647.64 204.29 102.50 $101.79 Imp 530.39 159.12 102.50 56.62 Black has aboul twice as much Left ;is [mp 1<> pay for food and care, besides undoubtedly returning a more valuable calf. Bulletin 204. THE DAIRY COW'S RECORD. 67 Fig. 1. Black. Fig. 2. Imp. 68 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. FOUR NINETEEN-WEEK RECORDS. We are giving below the records of four cows tested by this Station and first published in Bulletin No. 132. These show a weekly composite test of the milk for nineteen weeks and illustrate the relative produc- tion of cows consuming the same amounts of feed. JERSEY. KEOHAN. High Grade Jersey Grade Shorthorx Age 10 years. Age 8 vears. No. of Milk, Fat, Fat, Milk Fat, Fat. Weeks. Pounds. Per cent. Pounds. Pounds. Per cent. Pounds. 1 121.1 6.0 7.27 127.4 4.4 5.60 2 120.7 5.6 6.76 112.8 4.6 5.19 3 125.8 5.1 6.42 121.3 3.6 4.37 4 119.6 5.6 6.70 102.0 4.2 * 4.28 5 118.9 5.6 6.66 103.8 4.5 4.67 6 123.4 5.6 6.91 107.7 4.7 5.06 7 129.1 5.8 7.49 115.0 4.3 4.95 8 108.7 6.0 6.52 110.6 4.4 4.87 9 114.6 5.5 6.30 115.3 4.4 5.07 10 110.2 5.5 6.06 112.3 3.9 4.3S 11 117.1 5.5 6.44 101.8 4.5 4.58 12 109.2 4.8 5.24 95.6 4.5 4.30 13 104.0 5.2 5.41 96.3 4.6 4.43 14 98.6 5.6 5.52 111.4 3.9 4.34 15 105.2 5.5 5.79 109.1 3.7 4.04 16 89.9 5.8 5.21 95.3 3.9 3.72 17 90.9 6.0 5.45 80.7 4.8 3.87 18 89.9 6.5 5.84 80.9 5.0 4.05 19 84.6 6.4 5.64 5.41 81.3 4.8 4.32 3.90 rotal 2,081.5 117.40 1,980.6 85.67 LINE BACK. STRUBE. Ayrshire — Shorthorn. Jersey — Shorthor: s". Age 5 years. Age 6 years. Xo. of Milk, Fat, Fat, Milk Fat, Fat, Weeks. Pounds. Per cent. Pounds. Pounds. Per cent. Pounds. 1 174.9 3.4 5.95 176.5 3.7 6.63 2 183.4 3.3 6.05 177.4 3.6 6.39 3 185.4 3.5 6.49 175.7 3.4 5.97 4 182.3 3.4 6.30 162.0 4.2 6.80 5 172.1 3.6 6.20 144.4 3.8 5.49 6 165.5 3.6 5.96 131.1 4.3 5.64 7 171.7 4.2 7.21 141.7 3.9 5.53 8 169.6 3.6 6.11 140.0 4.0 5.60 9 174.7 3.7 6.46 144.9 3.9 5.65 10 185.1" 3.7 6.85 140.4 3.4 4.77 11 189.1 3.8 7.19 156.3 4.1 6.41 12 170.2 4.1 6.98 145.4 4.1 5.96 13 183.4 3.9 7.15 142.4 4.1 6.84 14 163.5 3.8 6.21 1 25.9 4.6 5.79 15 175.0 3.7 6.48 128.9 4.1 5.28 16 173.8 3.8 6.60 129.9 3.9 5.07 17 166.1 4.1 6.81 123.2 4.3 5.30 18 167.9 4.1 6.88 117.0 4.3 5.03 19 156.3 4.1 6.41 111.9 4.1 4.59 Total 10.0 ,74 llM.29 2,715.0 4.0 los. 71 Bulletin 204. THE DAIRY COWS RECORD. 69 COMPARATIVE VALUE OF PRODUCT. Lbs. Fat. Value at 30c. per lb Jersey 117.40 $35.22 Keohan 85.67 25.70 Line Back 124.29 37.29 St rube 108.74 32.62 A STANISLAUS COUNTY COW. Fig. 3. Jewel. Mr. Frank Hewit of Ceres published in the Pacific Dairy Review in April, 1908, the record of one of his cows for the year ending February 29, 1908. He presents the weights and tests of the cream from her milk made at the Ceres creamery as his report of her year's perform- ance. This is his best cow and he has no record of the other and poorer cows of his herd. It is a matter of interest to note how many dairymen can tell the yield from the best cows which undoubtedly return a profit, but there is no record kept of the poor cows, many of which give a red ink balance on the ledger. Lbs. Average Price 1907. Butter Fat. cts. March 60.04 .37 April 55.45 .27V> Mav 56.62 .251/, June 54.87 .28V, July 57.87 .30 August 53.45 .34 September 48.52 .35 October 48.39 .38 November 41.50 .35% December 36.74 .38 January, 1908 31.11 .37 February 32.32 .331/3 Totals 576.88 $189.41 70 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. We are glad to quote the report of Mr. Hewit's cow Jewel as an example of what many an ordinary cow can do. Her feed for the year was alfalfa, both green and in hay, with a liberal ration of mill feed and rolled corn during the first three months. SOME GRADE SHORTHORNS OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY. Mr. Fred H. Harvey of Gait is one of the very few dairymen in the State who are testing their cows regularly and thus keeping a systematic record of their production. His tests are made once per month and each for two milkings covering a period of twenty-four hours. The method does not give an accurate measure of »what the cow is doing, but gives a close approximation, which is exceedingly valuable to the owner. We are the more pleased to use Mr. Harvey's records, because he has a large herd of two hundred or more cows and we are being continually told that it is all right for a man with a few cows to test them, but when one has fifty or more it is too expensive. But Mr. Harvey not only does not find it too expensive, but finds it very profitable, for the evident reason that he knows which cows are profit- able and which unprofitable. The bookkeeper of his ranch of three thousand acres does the testing and keeps the records. The year 1907-8 was an unfavorable one at the Harvey ranch for the dairy herd. The usual feed is pasturage during the spring and early summer months on such natural upland grasses as foxtail, alfileria and bur clover; later upon alfalfa and plenty of alfalfa hay during rainy weather. No grain is fed. The high water of March, 1907, killed all of the alfalfa and thus the mainstay of the ration was lost for the year and the cows suffered accordingly. Mr. Harvey says the yield would have been about fifty per cent, higher with proper food, i.e., a cow producing 200 pounds of fat the past year would produce 300 under the usual conditions. He writes, "This is proven by my general record of the dairy and also from the net income derived, which last year was about $20.00 per head and for several years previous was about $30.00 per head. ' ' Records of ten of the cows are given. The date indicates the day of the month the milk was weighed and tested, which date was about the 20th. The fat produced on this day is multiplied by the number of days intervening since the last preceding test and this result taken as the yield of butter fat for the month. The date of beginning the record is from one to two weeks after the cow drops her calf and in each case we have thought best to give both dates. The record, for the first period is. therefore, often for only a few days, which fact Bulletin 204. THE DAIRY COWS RECORD. 71 must be taken into consideration when comparing the cows. The number of the cow is some indication of her age; as the younger the cow the higher her number, showing that she came later into the herd. No. 143. Calved 'Aug. 20, 190 Record began August 24. Total No. 171. Calved April 24, 190; Record began May Date of Test. Sept. 20 Oct. 21 Nov. 19 Dec 18 L908. Jan. 21 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Lbs. Milk. 27 21 16 15 15 16 27.3 30.4 22.6 12.2 9.6 Per cent. Fat. 3.2 3.5 3.5 9 fi 3.5 3.3 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.5 lbs. Fat lor Day. .864' .735 .560 .420 .525 .528 .764 .973 .723 .342 .336 Total 11 months Total lbs. Fat to Date. 24.19 22.78 16.24 12.18 17.85 15.84 22.94 29.19 21.69 10.26 10.75 Date of Test. May June July Aug. Sept, Oct. Nov. Dec. 1908. Jan. 21 Feb. 20 Mar. 21 Lbs. Milk. 31 24 21 20 14 16 17 13 Per cent. Fat. 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.6 3.7 4.1 4.3 3.0 Total lbs. Fat for Day. 1.116 .840 .798 .780 .644 .592 .697 .559 .494 .260 .534 Total lbs. Fat to Date. 12.28 26.88 27.93 22.62 19.32 18.35 20.91 15.65 16.80 7.80 16.02 203.91 204.56 Apr. 20 12.5 3.2 .400 12.00 May 21 12.3 3.3 .406 12.59 June 19 10.1 3.8 .384 11.14 July 22 9.2 3.9 .359 11.85 Dry August 16, 1908. Total for lactation period, 15 months 252.04 Dry August 16, 1908. No. 337. Calved Feb. 24, 1907. Record began March 4. No. 355. Calved Mar. 27, 1907. Record began April 11. Date of Test. Lbs. Milk. Per cent. Fat. Total lbs. Fat for Day. Total lbs. Fat to Date. Date of Test. Lbs. Milk. Per cent. Fat. Total lbs. Fat for Day. Total lbs. Fat to Date. Mar. 1 6 25 3.0 .750 9.75 Apr. 16 39 3.3 1.287* 7.72 Apr. 1 6 26 3.2 .832 25.79 May 18 37 3.7 1.369 43.81 May 17 28 3.4 .952 29.51 June 18 29 3.4 .986 30.57 June 19 20 3.2 .640 21.12 July 22 25 3.2 .800 27.20 July 22 15 3.3 .495 16.33 Aug. 21 23 3.3 .759 22.77 Aug. 21 14 3.1 .434 13.02 Sept. 19 20 3.6 .720 20.88 Sept. 20 12 3.6 .432 12.96 Oct. 20 19 3.5 .665 20.61 Oct. 20 10 3.3 .330 9.90 Nov. 19 17 3.3 .561 16.83 Nov. 19 9 4.5 .405 12.15 Dec. 19 14 3.4 .476 14.28 Dec. 18 / 3.8 .266 7.71 1908. 1908. Jan. 22 Feb. 20 Mar. 21 7 7 10.4 Total 3.6 .252 3.8 • .266 3.4 .353 13 months 8.82 7.71 10.60 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 21 21 20 21 13 14 18.4 26.4 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.7 .442 .518 .644 .977 14.59 16.06 18.03 31.26 185.37 284.61 May 20 12.5 4.1 .512 14.85 June 20 6.6 4.1 Total for .271 lactation 8.40 period, 1 5 months 307.86 The cow sold. Dry July 19, 1908. 72 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. No. 452. Calved '. May 15, 1907. No. 48 7. Calved May 25, 1907. Eecord began June 19. • Eecord began June 4. Date of Test. Lbs. Milk. Per cent. Fat. Total lbs. Fat for Day. Total lbs. Fat to Date. Date of Test. Lbs. Milk. Per cent. Fat, Total lbs. Fat for Day. Total lbs. Fat to Date. July 22 22 3.0 .660 22.44 June 18 25 3.9 .975 14.62 Aug. 21 14 3.5 .490 14.70 July 22 24 3.2 .768 26.11 Sept, 19 14 2.8 .392 11.37 Aug. 21 21 3.0 .630 18.90 Oct. 21 10 2.2 .220 7.04 Sept. 20 20 3.3 .660 19.80 Nov. 20 9 3.6 .324 9.72 Oct. 20 17 3.4 .578 17.34 Dec. 18 10 3.5 .350 9.80 Nov. 19 17 3.4 .578 17.34 1908. Dec. 19 13 3.3 .429 12.87 Jan. 22 6 2.6 .156 5.46 1908. Feb. 21 9.5 3.4 .323 9.69 Jan. 21 13 3.0 .390 12.87 Mar. 21 9.9 2.7 .267 7.74 Feb. 21 14.5 3.0 .435 13.48 Apr. 21 10.2 3.0 .306 9.49 Mar. 20 19.4 2.7 .524 14.67 May 21 5.6 3.5 .196 5.88 Apr. 20 22.8 3.5 .798 24.74 June 19 2.4 Total 4.5 .108 . 12 months 3.13 May 20 17.8 4.2 .748 22.44 116.46 214.18 June 20 11.7 3.9 .456 14.14 July 21 7.6 Total 3.5 for 266 lactation 8.25 period, 14 months 236.57 Dry July 7, 1908. Dry August 1, , 1908 No. 470. Calved Aug. 19, 1907. Eecord began Aug. 28. Date of Test. Sept. 20 Oct. 20 Nov. 20 Dec. 18 1908. Jan. 22 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 21 21 20 21 19 Lbs. Milk. 27 24 17 11 11 12.5 17.3 16.5 11.6 1.5 Per cent. Fat. 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 Total Total lbs. Fat lbs. Fat for Day. to Date. .756 .720 .510 .275 .308 .350 .415 .412 .302 .042 Total 10 months 18.14 21.60 15.81 7.70 10.78 10.50 12.04 12.36 9.36 1.22 119.51 No. 472. Calved Aug. 22, 1907. Eecord began September Date of Test. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 20 21 19 18 1908. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July 20 21 21 21 19 Lbs. Milk. 23 20 20 12 18 20 24.1 24.3 20.4 12.4 Per cent. Fat. 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.7 3.0 2.8 5.1 4.2 Total lbs. Fat for Day. .736 .560 .600 .384 .594 .660 .771 .656 .612 .347 .214 o. Total lbs. Fat to Date. 11.77 17.36 17.40 11.14 20.79 19.14 23.13 20.34 18.36 10.06 169.49 6.85 Dry .July 7, 1908. Total for lactation period, 11 months 176.34 Dry August 16, 1908. Bulletin 204. THE DAIRY COW'S RECORD. 73 No. 505. Cal ved Feb. 10, 1907. No. 504. Calved Feb. 7, 1907. Eecord began February 24. Record began Feb. 19. Date of Test. Lbs. Milk. Per cent. Fat. Total lbs. Fat for Day Total lbs. Fat . to Date. Date of Test. Lbs. Milk. Per cent. Fat. Total lbs. Fat for Day. Total lbs. Fat to Date. Mar. 16 15 2.8 .420 8.82 Mar. 16 19 3.3 .627 16.30 Apr. 1 7 15 3.1 .465 14.88 Apr. 17 20 3.3 .660 21.12 May 18 21 2.9 .609 18.88 May 18 21 3.4 .714 22.13 June 19 12 3.1 .372 11.90 June 18 15 3.3 .495 15.34 July 22 10 3.9 .390 12.87 July 23 14 3.1 .434 15.19 Aug. 21 8 3.4 .272 8.16 Aug. 21 13 3.5 .455 13.19 Sept, 20 7 3.6 .252 7.56 Sept. 19 11 3.6 .396 11.48 Oct. 20 10 3.6 .360 10.80 Oct. 21 10 3.8 .380 12.16 Nov. 19 4 3.8 .152 4.56 Nov. 20 9 3.8 .342 10.26 Dec. 19 4 3.5 .140 4.20 Dec. 18 10 3.8 .380 10.64 1908. 1908. Jan. 22 5 3.0 .150 5.10 Jan. 22 9 3.8 .342 11.97 Feb. 20 5.5 3.3 .182 5.28 Feb. 21 12 3.4 .408 12.24 Mar. 21 8.9 3.2 .285 8.55 Mar. 20 16.7 3.2 .534 14.95 Apr. 21 9.6 3.2 .307 9.53 Apr. 20 20.3 3.2 .650 20.15 May 20 5.7 Total 3.8 .217 15 months 6.28 May 21 16.t> 3.3 .548 16.98 137.38 224.11 June 20 10.6 3.9 .413 12.39 July 22 8.9 4.2 .374 11.97 Aug. 20 6.0 4.4 .264 7.66 Dry June 14, 1908. Total 18 months 256.13 COMPARATIVE RECORD OF TEN HARVEY COWS. Value at 30c.perlb. Number of Cow. Months in Lacta- tion Period. Lbs. of Fat. 143 11 203.91 171 15 252.04 337 13 185.37 355 15 307.86 452 12 116.46 487 14 236.57 470 10 119.51 472 11 176.34 505 15 137.38 504 18 256.13 561.17 75.61 55.61 92.36 34.94 70.97 35.85 52.90 41.21 76.84 Average per Month. $5.56 5.04 4.28 6.16 2.92 5.07 3.58 4.81 2.75 4.27 A comparison of the records shows a variation in the average monthly revenue from $2.75 to $6.16. It would not be just to compare No. 505 with No. 355 because the former is a young heifer and the latter a full aged cow. If the records are compared in pairs as given in the tables, cows of similar ages will be considered. Numbers 143 and 171, two old cows, give very nearly the same returns; numbers 337 and 355 show a difference of $1.88 per month; numbers 452 and 487 74 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. show a difference of $2.15 per month ; numbers 470 and 472 show a difference of $1.23 per month ; and numbers 505 and 504 show a difference of $1.52 per month. AN ALL AROUND IMPROVEMENT. Regularly testing the dairy herd is only the beginning of the improvement that will surely follow a persistence in the practice of testing. The first important thing to know is which are the best cows. This knowledge is the foundation upon which all future development and progress are builded. Into man's hands has been placed the power of improving all domestic animals. It is a power, which when wisely used, brings increased revenue and a joy and satisfaction in having added something substantial to the world's progress. To the lover of nature nothing can appeal more strongly than the possession of the ability to improve upon the animals or plants with which our lot happens to be cast. Every dairyman may be a real breeder if he so desires and so wills and follows the laws laid down by nature. In addition to selection for breeding purposes the other chief influences for the improvement of animals are food, climate, and heredity. The soil is concerned in this improvement in so far as it affects the character and quantity of food produced. It is interesting to note the influence of these forces working under comparatively natural conditions as we see them in the development of some of our famous dairy breeds. That the different breeds of cattle sprang from one source is believed to be one of the established facts in the evolution of animal life. "The systematic naturalist, who generally knows nothing of the art of breeding, who does not pretend to know how and when the several domestic races were formed, who cannot have seen the intermediate gradations, for they do not now exist, nevertheless feels no doubt that these races are sprung from a single source."* We have but to notice the changes made in animal form, or in the production of meat and milk during the past half century, to make it readily conceivable that the antipodes of breed characteristics could have developed from one parent stock during the ages which cattle have undoubtedly been upon the earth. The most noted and remark- able differences are found between the cattle whose whole tendency is to produce meat and those whose tendency is to produce milk. But it is more to our point to consider the latter only and amongst these varieties are found breeds which show marked characteristics. No better illustration of opposites in development in dairy cattle could Darwin, Animals and Plants under Domestication, Vol. IT, p. 233. Bulletin 204. THE DA i R y cow's record. 75 be imagined than is afforded by the Jersey cattle on the one hand and the Holstein-Friesian on the other. Their differences are indi- cated in form, size, and quantity and quality of milk. The history of Holstein-Friesian cattle is known, in legend at least, for more than two thousand years, and the important part in their history is a study of the soil, climate, and food which made up the formative portion of their environment during this long period. The native home of these cattle is that portion of The Netherlands lying contiguous to the North Sea where the climate is cool and moist, both by reason of much fog and a high degree of precipitation. The soil is of that dense, clayey nature which, with the large amount of moisture prevailing induces luxuriant growth of grass. This combina- tion also produces a pasturage which carries a high percentage of water and a correspondingly low content of dry or nutrient substance. Holland dairy practice has been, for the most part, to have the cows calve during the spring months so as to have them in the flush of milking when turned from winter stable to pasture. The cows, then, during their heaviest milking period and during the time when they were obliged to consume the most food in order to produce milk as well as to maintain life and growth, were forced to obtain the needed sustenance from the prevailing luxuriant but watery grass. In order to secure sufficient nourishment, the cow must take into her body large amounts of this succulent food, and the natural result of such feeding was to develop a large abdomen with a correspondingly large digestive capacity. The correlative effect upon the size was to make it larger and upon the bony structure to make it somewhat coarse and angular. But what is more to our present purpose is the effect of these large quantities of watery food upon milk production. The natural result has been to induce a flow of milk which is not equaled in quantity by any other breed of cattle and which carries a lower percentage of butter fat and other solids than the milk of any other of the improved dairy breeds. Quite opposite to the above conditions were those under which the Jersey cattle have been developed. Their native Isle in the English Channel possesses a climate made mild and equable by the Gulf Stream, and one much dryer than the climate of North Holland and Friesland. The soil is a light loam, carrying in connection with the relatively light precipitation, an herbage which is not abundant, but is compara- tively high in nutritive substance and low in water content. Whether the Jersey cow were at pasture or whether stall fed, at no time was she obliged to consume large quantities of succulent food in order to 76 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. provide the nourishment that her system required. Her digestive organs Avere not, therefore, unduly distended and the correlative effect of her food conditions were such as to develop a moderately sized body and a rather fine bony structure. In the production of milk, the result of her environment and food has been to produce a moderate amount which is richer in fat and other solids than the milk of any other breed of cattle. That the wide variations found between the breeds under discus- sion are due in a large degree to different conditions of soil, climate, and food is believed to be quite true. What the original type of animal was in either case before coming under the influences where history records their beginning as distinct breeds, no one knows. What they are to-day and what has been their habitat for centuries is known to all readers of animal history. There can be but one con- clusion, viz., that the natural conditions and exigencies which go to make up the environment of the respective countries are responsible in the largest degree for the dissimilarity between the two breeds. The inheritance of the dairyman of the twentieth century is the power exerted by centuries of accumulated force generated by similar conditions of food, climate, and breeding, and increased in many herds by the best scientific thought and practice of the past generation. Shall we say that the dairyman of to-day cannot do as well as he of a century ago? Or may we say that he will take this inheritance and make more advancement in a generation than his predecessors did in a century ? It is within his power to do if he will. We do not need to make new breeds; there are so many now that one to meet every need may readily be selected. The thing essential is to observe nature 's laws and to aid nature in herd and breed improvement : to give the best of feed and care so that the individual may increase in strength and producing power in our hands, and then make use of modern methods of selecting the best producers, by testing, in order that the blood of the best may be transmitted to future generations. Bulletin 204. TH e DAIRY cow's RECORD. 77 WHAT IS A GOOD RECORD? By CHESTER W. RUBEL, Instructor in Animal and Dairy Industry, California Polytechnic School. San Luis Obispo. In connection with the discussion of the production of market milk and the comparison of dairy records it will be well to consider briefly what constitutes a good dairy record, or rather what a dairy cow should produce in a year, and also methods of raising the productivity of a herd. It will readily be understood that it is the production of a cow above a certain standard that constitutes a profit. The fact that a cow gives 5,000 pounds of milk in a year is no proof that she is five-sixths as good as a cow that gives 6,000 pounds a year, or five- eighths as good as a cow that gives 8,000 pounds a year. It requires a certain amount of feed and care for the cow, which we may call operating expenses. A certain amount of her product must go to pay these operating expenses, and whatever she yields above this amount is profit. If 5,000 pounds of milk be required to maintain a cow for one year, then cow No. 1, producing 5,000 pounds will just manage to pay expenses. Cow No. 2, yielding 6,000 pounds, will make 1,000 pounds profit, while cow No. 3, yielding 8,000 pounds, will make 3,000 pounds profit. This shows cow No. 1 to be worthless, cow No. 2 to be returning some profit, and cow No. 3 to be worth three cows of the kind of No. 2, while receiving the same room and care. Reducing this to figures and calculating the milk at four per cent, fat and fat at 30 cents per pound, No. 2 gives $12.00 profit and No. 3, $36.00 profit. If a dairyman has a herd made up of fifteen cows of the class of No. 1, fifteen of the class of No. 2 and fifteen of the class of No. 3, he receives an average milk yield of about 6,333 pounds and an average gross return of close to $76.00. This would yield an average profit of about $16.00 (using the same maintenance figures, 5,000 pounds of milk). Suppose the fifteen cows of Class I were detected and eliminated, then the average production of the herd would be 7,000 pounds of milk and the average profit $24.00, the entire profit being the same as before, with one-third less cows. Perhaps the cows of Class II might be eliminated, when the average milk production would be brought up to 8,000 pounds and the average profit to $36.00. Just what the cow should produce in order to yield a profit depends 78 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. upon her cost of maintenance, for cows can be maintained in some places cheaper than in others. The figures given in another part of this Bulletin regarding the cost of maintenance at the California Poly- technic School will apply to many other parts of California. It is conceded in many quarters, that in order to make much of a profit under most California conditions, a cow must yield close to 6,000 pounds of milk, containing four per cent, fat per year. Perhaps a smaller yield than this might give something of a profit, yet so small that it would take a large number of cows to furnish a small income. And we find the profit rapidly increasing with the increase in yield above this standard — a cow producing 7,000 pounds of the same fat content — yielding two or three times the profit of the cow giving 6,000 pounds. It may be that 6,000 pounds of four per cent, milk is not a very large yield. Almost any dairyman can point to many cows in his herd that he is sure yield above this amount ; yet when we come to the test it is surprising how many cows fall below this minimum. It is our inclination in possessing large numbers to keep track of the production of animals that are doing well and are likely to make large yields, while little attention is paid to ordinary cows and those making only small yields. Nevertheless, the poorer animals are allowed to remain in the herd and receive practically the same care, attention and feed as those making the large returns. We even find in large herds, cows which do not even pay their board, — "boarders," we call them, — which eat up all their own yield and part of the profit of the better ones. A few of this kind can easily pull down the average of the herd to a large degree. The question becomes, then, one of finding the poor producers and getting rid of them. This is done by means of the scales and the Babcock test for fat. Scales alone will not do it, as milk of different cows varies in its fat content. Here is where the rub comes — many men claiming that they have no time or opportunity to weigh and test milk, or that this entails too much expense. This applies espe- cially to owners of large dairies where the trouble and time necessary to test would naturally be greatest. It is in these same large dairies, too, where the greatest loss occurring from low producing cows is generally found. The larger the herd the less opportunity the owner has to observe the individual work of the cows. He has a fairly good idea as to which are his best cows and which his poor ones, but as to the money those poor ones are making or losing he can give no figures. The question of finding out the individual work of the cows in the herd has been solved in some places by means of "testing associations." Bulletin 204. T jie dairy cow's record. 79 A number of dairymen club together, hire a man who is familiar with the work of testing and who tests each cow in the herd. As generally practiced, the tester visits a ranch once a month and tests every milking for two days. The milk is weighed by the milkers daily throughout the month, but is tested only during the visits of the tester. While two or three months record of this kind will give a man something of an idea of the work of his cows, it is when the entire twelve months are finished that real facts are brought out and con- clusions can be drawn as to what cows are fit to remain in the herd. This method of testing can be carried out at an expense of about $1.00 per head per year. However, it is not necessary for a man to join an association in order to have his cows tested. The Babcock test is not very difficult to operate and testing apparatus not expensive. A six bottle hand tester may be bought for $10.00, bottles for $2.50 per dozen, and pipettes and acid graduates for 20 cents each. Sulphuric acid costs about $1.50 per gallon, and spring balances for weighing the milk cost $5.00. With this apparatus a man with a moderate sized herd can conduct his own tests and be absolutely sure of what his cows are doing. AID FROM TESTING ASSOCIATIONS AND FROM THE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Cooperation among milk producers in testing their herds should be encouraged. The present method of cooperation is the formation of "testing associations" whereby the dairymen in a given community employ a competent man who visits each herd once a month and weighs and tests the milk from each cow for one or two days. Such an association was recently formed in Humboldt County with three thousand cows represented. The plan works best in such specialized dairy sections where the testers have short distances to travel and have large herds to handle. The Agricultural Experiment Station is prepared to assist in so far as possible in conducting yearly tests of individual cows in dairy herds. Tests are made for seven days every seven weeks with no expense to the owner except weighing and sampling the milk. The Station loans the balances for weighing and furnishes sample bottles, dipper, and printed blanks for keeping the milk record, with full instructions. The samples with the weeks record are shipped to the Station where they are tested and tjie result mailed to the owners. For full information address, Dairy Division, University of California, Davis, California. THE STABLE In this portion of the bulletin are shown illustrations of several corrals and milking stables reproduced from photographs taken by the writer in various parts of the State. They represent different types' of stables and corrals — some good and some bad and some not so bad if they were better cared for. The great thing to be desired in either is that there should be easy means of keeping clean and then keep them clean. This is the chief reason for using concrete in stable floors. It does not decay and cause foul odors, and it can be hosed down with water and swept in a few momenta so that no dirt remains. Some dairymen object to cows standing on concrete, but in California where the cows are in only for feeding and milking, they suffer no injury. Occasionally a very good stable is constructed with floors entirely of concrete, except where the cattle stand, which portion is made of plank. This works well from a sanitary point if the planks are water tight or are underlaid with a water tight substance so that the soil under the planks cannot become saturated. A milking stable is absolutely essential to the production of clean milk. Milking in the corral is an abomination, either winter or summer. In winter during' the rainy season it is not uncommon to see both cow and milker wading nearly to the knees in mud, when of necessity the milk must become the depository for some of the mud. In summer when the corral dust may be from one to four or five inches deep, the condition is even worse. The dust is raised with any slight breeze or with every movement of man or beast, and even more dirt may find its way into the milk than during the time of rain and mud. Thus the cows must be provided with some stable which is dry and clean and w r here they can be held for milking. The stable need not be expensive. On the contrary it may be very simple, and the less lumber in it the better, so long as the frame is sufficiently strong. It should permit the entrance of an abundance of direct sunlight and have enough openings to give constant ventilation. Large louvres in the roof are excellent for ventilation and also admit light, but not direct sunrays. The illustrations show so many kinds of stables that further comment at this point may not be necessary. Bulletin 204. THE DAIRY COW'S RECORD. 81 Fig. 4. Two types of dairy barns. Fig. 4 has the milking stables extend- ing at right angles to the storage section, a good arrangement easily carried out on level land. This is the barn on the University Farm, Davis. The milking stable is 41 feet wide and has two rows of cows with feed way between. In Fig. 5, the milking stable is continuous with the storage section. It accommodates four rows of cows as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The two silos are of concrete. The barn is located at Dixon and houses a certified dairy. Fig. 6 shows the center of stable where two rows of cows stand, tails together. Fig. 7 shows the feed way between two rows of cows on one half of stable shown in Fig. 5. The floors and feed troughs are Fig. 5. 82 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. Fig. 6. entirely of concrete. The shallow feed trough is especially convenient in feeding grain, silage or cut feed. With hay there is more or less work in sweeping it back after the cows throw it out. The bottom of the trough should not be on a lower level than the front feet of the cows. It had better be two or three inches higher. Note the open structure and abundance of light. The concrete silo is at the end of the feed way. Fig. 7. Bulletin 204. THE DAIRY COWS RECORD. 83 *, to ii 1 ■J * - ■ JMg. ». Figs. 8 and 9 show the feed way and gutter portion of the milking stable for two rows of cows in the University Barn at Berkeley. Note the vertical sides and fiat bottom of the gutter. The gutter is twelve inches wide but would be better if fourteen. The depth is eight inches at the ends and ten at the center. A depth of four and six inches instead would be sufficient. The distance from the stanchion to the edge of the gutter is four feet ten inches, which is ample for almost all cows. The floor and gutters are of concrete. Fig. 9. 84 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. Fig. 10. Fig. 10. The stable of a certified dairy near Pasadena. The floors are concrete throughout except where the cows stand, which are of plank. The stable is arranged for two rows of cows with feed way in the center. No feed is stored in the building. The open sides are protected from wind and dust by a heavy canvas curtain which is rolled up in good weather. Fig. 11. Fig. 11. Another stable near Pasadena. There are four rows of cows with an arrangement similar to that in Fig. 5. A large hay storage is over* the stable which makes it too dark and causes poor ventilation. The heavy timbering and stanchions also keep out the light. Compare this with Fig. 7. The floors and gutters are of wood. Bulletin 204. THE DAIRY COWS RECORD. 85 Fig. 12. Fig. 12. is the milking stable of the California Polytechnic School at San Luis Obispo. The school is awaiting another appropriation to erect a storage barn. The silo has a concrete foundation and the structure is of 2 X 4 studding lined with two thicknesses of one-half inch redwood boards with heavy building paper between. The illus- tration shows that a barn may be made attractive. This one is banked with red geraniums. Fig. 13. Fig. 13 shows the manger in the same barn. Note its simple structure, leaving the concrete floor easily cleaned. The inside of the manger is without partitions except in experimental feeding when the partitions seen on the under side, front, are slipped into place between each two cows. The manger is made of 1 x 6 T. & G. pine flooring. 86 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. Fig. 14. Pigs. 14 and 15 show the front and rear views of a milking stable and feed shed near Clearwater in Los Angeles County. It is rough and cheaply built but it furnishes protection from the sun and rain and provides a clean place for milking. From a sanitary point of view it gives little protection from dust when the wind is blowing. The plank walk behind the cows is too narrow but the gutter is of good width. The whole place has a neat appearance. Fig. 15. Bulletin 204. THE DAIRY COWS RECORD. 87 Fig. 16. Figs. 16 and 17 show the front and rear views of a milking stable and feed shed near El Monte. It is constructed on simple lines and doubtless with a view to economy of labor since it is on the bank of the Santa Ana River, into which the manure is shoved. The entire place presents an appearance of untidiness and should not have been permitted to exist. £M '.■** 1 f 1 lyHkfc*^«» m> -^ ^ffi: C£!E ll^S mfr wrtp t| fc|L -Vflg IHHE Sififc Tilx" mil Tl~^ ffJBBf £!WM /■ ■'' ■*■ ' Tc3$&fZ wimU-jMh^ Slafe^ , r - - ,. . j§ '■"'' ' ErSShHI -" 4 ' ' * '• T*. -. * *'5"i**