INFLUENCE OF FOOD ON MILK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3003, 4 October 1911, Page 16

INFLUENCE OF FOOD ON MILK.

INTERESTING EXPERIMENTS. This is a well-worn theme (says the Scottish Farmer), and apology is almost neoassary when attention is onoe more centred upon it. The occasion of this reference is, the publication by Messrs J. Bibby and. Sons, feeding experts, Liverpool, of a brochure on the subject. It i 3 compiled by their laboratory manager, Mr John Hanley, F.1.C., F. 0.5., and is quite excessive value at 4d. The summing up of the whole matter is expressed' in the terse rubric: - “Food affects quantity, but quality very little.” The novelty of the compilation is the process by which this rosu'lt has been arrived at. Cornell University set out to improve the quality of milk in a selected lot of 10 dairy cows, and failed. Its method was ingenious. The 10 cows were, after a period of close observation, selected out of a herd of 21. The experiment was carried on for four years. Luring the first and; fourth, the cows were kegt on the farm and fed in the normal fashion peculiar to advanced dairy management. During the second and third seasons they were placed under control of the University. In the second season they were at first fed on silage and hay ad lib., and a moderate grain ration of about 6lb each daily. This resulted in an average gain of weight per cow of 451 b front'"the close of the first lactation period to the beginning of the second lactation period. As soon as they ••“freahened” in March or April the grain ration was increased, and this recklessly liberal feeding was continued till the flow of milk diminished at the close of the lactation period. The amount of grain was about 121 b. per day, although one cow got 141 b of grain per day for three months. The idea was to give the cows during this second lactation .period all they would readily eat of nutritious, easily-digestible food, containing an abundance of protein. During the third lactation period the -feeding was practically the same so far as combination of foods was concerned, but the quantity of girain was reduced arid principles of economy -were regarded. Consequently 81b per day was the- maximum for all the cows but one. She got 10lb grain per day for over one month. During the fourth lactation period ; the cows were again on the farm, and the rations of the first lactation period were reverted to. Before the test was completed three of the cows had from * one cause or another fallen out of the ranks, eo that the tests overhead) affect seven cows only. The figures- set forth in the tables of the brochure: are significant. The average gain in fat for the seven while under •liberal feed was 0.25 per cent. Of- the seven cows the highest increase was 0.41 per cent., and the lowest 0.10 per cent. Between these extremes the figures are 0.13, 0.21, 0.23, 0.33, 0.34, giving an average, as has been said, of 0.25. The answer to the question, therefore, is that liberal feeding of a herd of cows which ha,ve previously -only, been poorly fed will increase the fat in the milk of the herd to only an infinitesimal extent, if milk were sold by quality, the increase would never pay the increased cost of production. A notable fact in the experiment was that the gain was largely secured in the comparison between the first lactation period and, the second, when the 10 cows were under observation, and that then it was practically all secured from five of the cows. The average increase of all the TO was 0.27, the average increase cf the five giving the greatest increase was 0.52, and the average increase of the five showing least gain was 0.01 per cent. 1 Naturally the next question that suggested itself was. Could any’advantage bo gained in quantity by Tncreased-rations? Arid the answer her© is emphatic enough. The average, increase, per'cow ,of the 10 in the second over the, first lactation period was 46 per cent. ‘ That is to say, liberal feeding of cows, previously, poorly fed , results in the yield of milk being increased, by nearly one-half., When this result has been arrived at, the next question is, Does it pay ?; Taking the seven cows which survived the ordeal of the whole experiment, it appears that the cost of producing 1001 b of milk during the first lactation period. was 2s 2jd; during the second, 2s Bgd; and during the third, Is The cost of fat per lb during the first was 6dq during the second, 7d; and during the third, sd. To gain an increase of about one-half the quantity an additional cost of 6d per 1001 b .of milk was entailed.. The broad lesson is that the substantially enhanced quantity and the nominally enhanced quality of milk were on the basis of - this -lest economically secured, so far as the food bill was concerned. Tho Maryland Experiment Station coi> ducted another novel* experiment belonging to the same category. The commonly-ex-pressed advice to those who 'have cows that give unprofitable milk yields is to weed them out. Maryland set itself, to

discover whether the same end oouid not be attained by feeding far quantity, audi so enhancing the milk yields of the unsatisfactory milkers. The observations extended over four years—lß96-1900,—and the results are quoted as follows: —During the first lactation period the average number of pounds of milk obtained from the dairy experimented on was 4570; during the second it was 5075; during the third it was 5167; end during the fourth 5869. The argument based on these figures 13 that there is a speedier way of improving the .milk yield of vour herd than by weeding out the bad milkers. The speedier way is to systematically and liberally feed the cows one already has. This is a line of reasoning that will bear further investigation. THE STANDARD RATION. We are still a long way from finality in our knowledge of how to feed a milk cow economically, but (says the N.B.- Agriculturist) we have made immense strides in •that same knowledge within - the last 10 years. In former times there seemed to be no rules or regulations in the matter at all, and every farmer eeemed to be groping in the dark, each in his own case. The matter was first set agoing by the late Mr Speir in connection with the milkinff teats of Ayrshires, conducted under the auspices of the Highland and Agricultural Soc.ety. These teste were primardy to find' out which were the ■ best milk cows as regards quantity and quality of yield, but incidentally an inquiry was also made regarding the food given to the animals by different farmers, when the astonishing fact was discovered that some farmers were producing their milk at a cost for food —leaving other items of outlay out of account—of one-half the money of some of their neighbours, when worked out on the basis of outlay per gallon of milk produced. It seemed, indeed, as if high-pressure feeding was followed by a reduced yield, but certainly not by a proportionate nee in the output.

The -example set by Mr Speir has been followed by many others, and one of _the most important of recent investigations into the matter has been conducted by Wye College in Kent. Circulars were sent out to a great many dairy farmers in that district asking them, to tabulate the scale of feeding each was in the hab-t of following with their milk cows. These were collated, and the items worked out on a scale of prices fixed by a committee, and then compared with the milk yield, when it was found that some farmers were producing their milk for 3.83 d for food alone, while with others the outlay ran up to 10.54 d per gallon. In the latter case the food cost more than was obtained for .the milki without any allowance for labour, depreciation, and a score of other items involved in running a herd of cows. This is . sufficiently startling, butt it as still more surprising to find that some of the more expensive rations were made up with the foods grown on the farm. One would naturally expect to find that cake and meal would quickly raise the cost, but in reality excess of mangolds came out much more expensively, and a moderate amount of "ooßCentrates" gave the best results. It was found that about a stone (141 b) of hay and £cwt of roots was the limit ofi these foods for a cow in milk in winter, and anything over this - must be, in some other form. It is onoeivable, of course, that the herd producing milk at the. lowest cost per gallon might be losing in other ways. Thus in the new milk trade, •to produce 100 gallons daily would require, say, 50 cows in milk. If these were fed on . a low soale-r-that is a oheap scalehowever, it might take 60 cows to produce the milk required, so that a cheaper food ratio would mean a higher expenditure in other directions. This, however, is a point not yet investigated, and we cannot speak with certainty on it. Another matter that has come to the front recently is the proportion of nitrogenous to non-nitrogenous ingredients in tbo fcod necessary, which will give the_ best results —the "albuminoid ratio," as it is called. German authorities have always given this at'.! to 5.6 or thereabouts, but more recent experiments in America have shown that 1. to 7 or 8 will do very well. As the nitrogenous part of a food is always the dearest, it follows that reducing the proportion will reduce the cost of the food, and thus the cost-per gallon of milk will also be We are a long way yet, apparently, from evolving an ideal or even a standard "ration", for a milk cow; much depends on individual circumstance, on the foods most easily procurable on the farm, and on the specifio quality of each. We have learned, however, that moderate feeding will give the best returns, and that it is very easy to with roots and hay. When we look back, however, we cannot help thinking of the frightful amount of money that must have been wasted in the lest two generations or so by unskilful feeding, and resolving to do better in future—North British Agriculturist.