STOCK AND STALKS

                     _A Book for the Dairy Farmer_

                                   BY
                             J. R. ROBERTS
                    President Roberts Sanitary Dairy
                         Lincoln and Sioux City

            Henry Westfall, Sales Agent, 126 So. 11th Street
                    Midwest Bldg., Lincoln, Nebraska

                         (All Rights Reserved)




                            Copyright, 1921
                                   BY
                             J. R. ROBERTS




                           STOCK AND STALKS




                               CONTENTS


  CHAPTER I

  INTENSIVE VERSUS BY-PRODUCT DAIRYING                                 1


  CHAPTER II

  THE DAIRY TYPE                                                      17

  CAPACITY
  TENDENCIES
  PHYSICAL DEFECTS
  DISEASES


  CHAPTER III

  THE PURE BRED SIRE                                                  23


  CHAPTER IV

  WHAT TO FEED                                                        26

  CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
  BALANCED RATIONS
  PASTURES
  HAY
  CORN FODDER
  SILAGE WITHOUT CORN
  SILAGE
  GRAIN FEED
  PREPARED FEEDS


  CHAPTER V

  HOW TO FEED                                                         44

  BALANCED RATIONS
  WATER
  CALF AND HEIFER FEEDING
  CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
  RATIONS FOR THE DAIRY COW


  CHAPTER VI

  VARIATIONS IN MILK TESTS                                            56


  CHAPTER VII

  SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTING A BARN                                 61


  CHAPTER VIII

  MILKING                                                             63


  CHAPTER IX

  MILK PRODUCTS                                                       66

  BUTTER
  CHEESE
  COTTAGE CHEESE
  CREAM
  SKIM MILK
  WHEY


  CHAPTER X

  MARKET MILK                                                         74

  WEIGHT OF MILK
  LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
  CLEANLINESS
  SANITATION
  COOLING MILK


  CHAPTER XI

  EXPERIMENTS BEING TRIED OUT ON OUR DAIRY
  FARM                                                                83


  CHAPTER XII

  DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW                                            92




                             INTRODUCTION


In writing this booklet I hope to put into it information valuable to
the average farmer who keeps cows. I make no claim for this little
book as an addition to dairy science. It is rather a subtraction.
I mean that I have been careful to include only the most essential
information. Where a great mass of scientific data is gathered, it
takes discrimination to distinguish between matters of great and
less importance. To do this discriminating and to point out the most
essential things, as I see them, is the purpose of this undertaking.

Those who wish more detailed information can easily find it prepared
by those who have studied this matter in detail. I have not. In my
experience in the dairy business I have tried to use to the best and
most practical advantage the scientific knowledge that I could acquire
from others. My experience has all been an effort to apply science to
business. It has been a business experience, not one of research and
investigation. There is much that I have found to be of no particular
use to me, but there are many things that I have found to be of great
importance.

Science digs out facts, figures, data, knowledge, or whatever it may be
called. To take facts of science and make use of them in business is
one thing which Webster’s dictionary calls an art. This booklet, then,
may not be classed as science for the writer is not so very scientific;
it is not in itself a work of art for the writer is not strong on
artistic ability; but is written on the art of keeping cows and paying
the feed bills.




                           Stock and Stalks




                               CHAPTER I

                 INTENSIVE VERSUS BY-PRODUCT DAIRYING


Agriculture as a science is comparatively new. It is not like civil
engineering, for instance, which is taught about alike in all places,
and much of it the same as was taught a generation ago. Since I can
remember most of what is now known about dairy science has been
discovered. It is not surprising, therefore, that as the various
ideas and doctrines come out they have both adherents and opponents.
It takes time to clarify a situation and to prove what is the right
conclusion. Some blame our agricultural colleges for not knowing more
and knowing it sooner, and for spreading what we now know to have been
in some cases misinformation. But the course taken was really the only
one possible. Experiment stations have to try out a lot of theories
in order to find which are wrong and which are right. At present
there are many things still unknown and much difference of opinion.
If the discussion which follows seems to differ in some respects with
recognized authorities, I still think that I may be right; and if
wrong, I claim as good a right as any one else to make mistakes.

Here are some things to think about. At one time there were more real
dairy cattle in Lancaster county than there are at present. There were
fairly large herds of grade Holsteins producing milk where now there
are scarcely any cattle at all. Intensive dairying at one time had
a fine start in Lancaster county, but now there is not a herd large
enough to be called a dairy, except those owned by purebred breeders.
The city milk supply comes from a large number of farmers who produce
milk as a side issue. The methods of feeding and caring for cattle
on these farms is in the main contrary to the instructions given by
the dairy department at the State Farm. The men who made dairying a
business here were learning and following agricultural college methods.
They had good grade dairy cattle and produced fully twice as much per
cow as do the farmers now in the business. They all quit because it did
not pay.

It so happens that I was one of the men thus engaged. I had a fine
herd of fifty high-grade Holsteins that were producing as much milk as
is now being produced by thirty of our average dairy farmers. My herd
was sold after losing money for two years. We were in a cow-testing
association at the time and the fine records made by these cows helped
to sell them at a public sale. Right in sight of the agricultural
college all that had been accomplished seemed to fade away, and the old
red cow, which dairy science has tried for a generation to kill, came
back to the very skirts of the city. Just now if every dairy cow in
Nebraska would be slaughtered, their milk would hardly be missed but if
the old red cow would go on a strike, not a wheel in any creamery of
the state would be turning next week.

Why this remarkable turn of events? Well, there are two theories.
One of these lets the agricultural college and all of us out without
disgrace and is something of a slam on the farmer. The other gives the
farmer credit for having more sense than we had. Certain it is that the
farmer milking his beef cow produced milk for less than we Holstein
men could do it. The first theory is that the farmer did not know
his costs and therefore kept right on while the deficiency came out
of his hide. The second is that the farmer had us beat on the cost of
production. Is one or the other of these theories correct? It must be.
It would be like taking the hot end of a poker for me to argue that the
farmer is a fool and to have one of his number remark that, even though
he was, I went out of business against his competition. Some one else
will have to argue that side. I have a different explanation.

In my judgment the difference came about in the general rise in price
of labor, grain, and alfalfa. The milk that we produced was like a
garment cut out of new cloth--it all cost real money. The farmer’s
milk was largely produced from corn stalks, wheat pasture, stubble
fields, and draws pastured--material that must either be turned into
milk or wasted. It had scarcely any market value. Our methods and our
cattle were superior to his in many ways, but not enough to make up the
difference in the cost of feed. The common method on the farm is to
pasture corn stalks during the winter. It is a very wasteful method of
feeding but it requires no labor. The cows gather the corn that was
missed in the field and eat the leaves and husks. Few cows may be kept
on a farm where such methods are in use, but figuring the stalk of no
value, such methods produce the cheapest butter fat in the world. The
farmer had us beat on the cost of production. He did not feed grain and
forget to figure its value. He fed the grain that the huskers left in
the field. It had no value except as it came to the milk pail.

           [Illustration: When the Dairy Cow Needs a Friend]

At one time I worked on a ranch in western Colorado where a large
number of range cattle were wintered. Alfalfa in that community was
selling for three dollars a ton, but we fed it to the weaker cattle
only. The strong ones could live on sage brush which cost nothing.
Sage brush was not a better feed. It was not nearly so good, but the
advantages offset the disadvantages. So it was with us. The advantages
of the two systems were weighed and ours found wanting.

The average farmer’s cow is a “scrub.” She usually goes dry for three
or four months of the year and, even when fresh, gives about half
what a developed dairy animal should give. Why do farmers persist in
milking “scrubs,” then? Have we not all told them better? I’ll say so!
Holsteins and Jerseys are not so rare that farmers do not know what
they are. Most farmers have owned a few but have gone back to the old
red stand-by. Why? Are we wrong again?

In Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and all over the east the red
cow is disappearing. People there do a great deal more of dairying
than we do. Who knows the business better, they who do dairying as a
business or we who do not? But arguments are of no use when they go
against known facts. The color of the cow is the result of a condition.
The red cow has been better suited to a farmer’s conditions and
requirements. Dairy cattle can not rough it like beef or dual-purpose
cattle. Where the custom is to stable feed and give good care to
cattle, dairy breeds naturally take the lead. Where the dairy business
is a side issue, and besides giving milk a cow is expected to face cold
winds and to withstand periods of semi-starvation, the dairy type is
not in it.

 [Illustration: The strong, lean, well-developed dairy cows that have
              never been weakened by starvation or cold.]

To understand the cattle business we must understand the fundamental
principles upon which the various kinds of cattle are built. Hereford
cattle, for instance, are a pure beef type. The beef animal is trained
and perfected in the tendency to save everything to itself and to
load up with fat and muscle. Some Hereford cows can hardly raise
their calves because of the tendency of the mother to save all her
nourishment for her own strength and protection. The cow boys on
the range rarely think of milking a cow that has lost her calf. The
typical beef animals give so little milk that they can go dry at any
time even on good grass with little or no injury to themselves. Some
dairy cows would die even though sucked by a big husky calf if they
were not milked, because they give so much more than the calf could
take. The dairy cow is bred and trained for generations to digest all
she can and to give it all away, keeping nothing with which to protect
herself against hard times. She builds no big muscles with which to
climb mountains, or wade through mud and snow drifts. The beef animal
if treated like a dairy cow simply gets fat and is finally turned to
the butcher. The dairy cow treated like a beef cow is a tragedy to
behold. I have seen both Holstein and Jersey steers out on the range
where Hereford cattle stay fat and strong and I have heard the cow
boys cuss about letting them live, for they were more of a ghost than
a reality. Cussed they were by men and God-forsaken, so it would seem.
Since even the steers can not protect themselves to live where the
Herefords will thrive, what can we ever expect of a producing cow? When
she has given all away then goes up against the period of short pasture
or semi-starvation, she begins immediately to readjust to meet the new
conditions. But the work of generations can not be undone in a life
time and she fails to meet the emergency and loses the vitality she
naturally possesses.

The red farmer’s cow is often called the dual-purpose animal. She is
about half way between the beef and the dairy. She protects herself
well but not to the limit as does the Hereford. She produces milk well
but not nearly so well as do the highly-bred and highly-developed
strictly dairy types. Not one of these three types of cows will do to
substitute for any other. Each has a place to fill and each is the best
animal in her place. There is nothing more foolish than to substitute
the dairy breeds for common cattle before we substitute the dairy man
for the farmer or else convert the farmer to the dairyman’s methods
in feeding. The corn stalks and waste feed make the cheapest milk and
the red cow is the most economical means of converting such feeds into
milk, provided we want only a small production with the least possible
effort. It takes more labor to prepare feed for animals and feed it to
them than it does to let the animals range around over the field and do
the best they can. If farm dairying is to be carried on in the future
just as it has been in the past, the red cow is the farmer’s best
friend and he is not a fool for recognizing her as such.

This is not a pet theory of mine. It is a conclusion that I have had to
swallow against my will. The situation has nothing of promise for the
future. If we become a dairy state, we will have to put more labor and
effort into milk production and do more like they do in other states.
The stalks left standing in the field, feeding but a few thick-skinned
cattle make the cheapest milk, only in case we figure the by-product
feeds as of no value. We could produce a great deal more cattle for
beef and for dairy purposes if we utilized what we now waste. If all
the corn in our state was shocked this year, think how much good feed
would remain after the grain is husked out. Think how many cattle might
be wintered. The stalks from one acre of average corn if properly
conserved yield nearly enough rough feed for one cow during the entire
winter. Fifty acres yield fully enough for forty head of cattle. Of
course we should use alfalfa for part of the ration but alfalfa is our
cheapest feed that is not a by-product. Grain will be required for
cattle that milk, but raising calves and keeping dry stock is as much
a part of milk production as anything else. All such cattle can be
well-nourished and developed without grain. It will not pay to refine
them to such an extent that they can not live on rough feed.

But conditions are changing again. Labor, grain, and alfalfa are all
coming down and land is high in price. We will not long be taking only
what we can get the easiest. The time is at hand when we are going
to imitate the packer who saves all but the squeal. The conditions
existing in the eastern states will be found here. I do not know how
soon but they are coming. It will be a long time before the specialized
producer can compete with the by-product feeder, but the latter is
going to save more of what he has and use it to better advantage as
soon as he can get labor. Dairy products are going to be in great
enough demand to pay the extra labor costs. I do not look for all
of the system to be reversed. The farmer’s idea of feeding cattle
what could be used for nothing else has been and will still be his
salvation. Those of us who produced nothing but milk were wrong, from
the standpoint of economy, in my opinion. What I look for now is a
combination between the two systems. Cows will be taken care of as
well as we cared for our high producers, there will be a change in the
methods of caring for feed, but a large part of the feed will be the
by-products of other farming operations. What is the use of feeding all
green-backs when we can make use of feed that costs nothing? We could
produce more milk by using specialized methods altogether but we can
make enough without, and it will be cheaper.

But the standard methods, that always have been and still are taught,
are altogether intensive. Every one talks of high records. There is not
enough talk of low-cost records.

A few years ago there was published in the Nebraska Farmer the
cow-testing association records of herds in Lancaster county. Some of
these herds yielded a large production and others yielded much less.
But the herds that produced less yielded at a higher rate of profit.
The difference was in the amount of grain and expensive foods consumed
in proportion to the production. During the last few years those who
have fed grain and alfalfa as we used to feed, have found it difficult
to meet expenses. We used to be taught that, since a cow required so
much to maintain her body whether she produced milk or not and only
the amount she consumed above that amount could be available for milk
production, it was well to feed as much grain as possible without
injuring the cow or reducing her flow. But the price of feed must
be reckoned, as all admit now. And if grain is too high the larger
proportion of our milk must come from the cheaper feeds. At present
the grain market looks very bad and intensive dairying would be more
profitable now than it has been for a long time.

But the combination, which I think is ideal, will be the best
proposition all of the time. In all further discussions in this booklet
I refer to dairy breeds exclusively for I believe that the tide is
turning and if the red cow and the old methods are still to take the
lead, it is a waste of time to study dairying. If farmers wish to
increase their milk production and find their way clear to devote more
time to their cattle, this discussion may be of some assistance.

Dairy cows have certain definite requirements. One of the most
important of these is that they go through no periods in which they do
not have all they want to eat of at least good grass or good hay or
roughage. If the grass begins to get a little short in the summer, we
must not neglect to feed. Another important requirement of the dairy
cow is that she be not exposed to hardships such as cold winds and
rains. Starvation and storms, these two things above all--we must guard
the dairy cow against.

I will describe how I think dairying should be conducted for the most
profit on the farm so that the by-products may be utilized to the
fullest extent practicable and at the same time the dairy type cattle
may be kept producing to good advantage. I am not inventing this
system, for I am describing the common practice of the people in the
dairy states. In Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota cattle are kept
largely on by-products. In the cheap feed lies the profits.

Elsewhere I have described my own methods of handling pasture, the idea
of which came from Europe. But as to winter feeding, the whole eastern
part of the United States sets a good example. I would want one or two
silos, small in diameter but tall. I would want one acre of alfalfa and
one acre of pasture for every cow that I expected to keep. If we have
a large number of young stock, the pasture would need to be increased.
I would fill these silos with corn, grain and all, and use the silage
to feed only the cows giving milk. I would use a Smalley feed cutter
with snapping attachments and use cut-up dry fodder containing no grain
as the principal feed for the dry cows and all young stock on the
place. The farmer usually milks only one-half as many cows as he has
cattle all together. By using “Flink’s Perfect Silo Seal” to protect
the silage it may be fed all summer whenever needed without waste.
What stalks remain to be pastured may be pastured by the milk cows
and so may wheat be pastured during good weather. I would depend upon
by-product feed for dry cattle and for part of the milk cow’s ration.
The amount of grain that is in corn silage is never too much for any
cow that is giving milk, but silage, corn and all, is too expensive for
cattle that are not milking.

By such methods the eastern farmer easily keeps at least twice the
number of cattle that the average farmer here is now keeping, and
still he takes but little more of his land away from other farming
operations. The intensive dairyman uses all that he raises for his
cows and usually buys some besides. The by-product farmer in Nebraska
has been in the habit of setting aside hardly any acreage for the use
of his cattle. But the combination is positively a success and would
have long ago been more in use in Nebraska had not the labor situation
presented difficulties almost impossible to overcome. My farm is small
and borders on the very edge of the city. Intensive dairying is the
only thing practical for me even though I can not expect to produce as
cheaply as farmers differently situated. I am re-stocking the farm this
year.




                              CHAPTER II

                            THE DAIRY TYPE


=Capacity.= The first thing that we look for in a dairy cow is
capacity--capacity to digest feed and to turn that feed into milk. The
digestive and mammary systems of the cow should be strongly developed.
On account of the location of these organs the dairy type of cow is
wedge-shaped, being wider and deeper at the rear. Her wedge-shaped
body, however, should be fairly wide over her heart and lung section,
for she is required to breathe a great deal of air and to have great
blood circulation. Her udder and milk veins should be well-developed.
The four quarters of the udder should be fairly uniform in size. Her
milk veins are more likely to indicate her history than her capacity,
for no cow has very large veins until they have been developed by
heavy milk production. Still in all good dairy heifers you will find
well-established milk veins carried fairly well forward. These things
indicate the capacity of the animal.

=Tendencies.= We must now determine her tendencies. She must not
convert her food into beef nor must she destroy her energy by
nervousness and a tendency to too great physical activity. The head of
the cow should be clean-cut and lean, the neck long and lean, and the
shoulders narrow at the top. The joints should be open so that a man’s
fist could be thrust between the cow’s front leg and her body. The cow
should not be beefy at the rear. Even though she be fat she should not
be of a square beef type. The udder should be attached high behind
and the thighs should be narrow. In fact, we want a cow that is not
an “easy keeper” but that will milk out clean. The cow should be soft
skinned and fine haired. Beware of the wild-eyed, nervous, quick-moving
cow for she wastes her energy. Beware of the sluggish cow for she will
be sluggish in appetite and will convert her feed into fat instead of
milk. Perhaps the best way to describe the disposition of a good dairy
cow would be to say that she is alert and intelligent but calm and
sensible.

=Physical Defects.= If you find that you have a cow with the capacity
and the tendency to produce, it is time to look for the physical
defects in the animal. Probably more men fail to notice physical
defects than any other thing, when buying cattle. Begin by examining
the mouth of the cow. The age of the cow can be approximately told by
looking at the front teeth. If the cow is young, her teeth are square,
flat, and close together. When the cow gets older, they are round and
wedge-shaped and tend to separate. At about twelve years the cow begins
to lose some of her front teeth. In judging a cow’s development and
possibilities her age must always be taken into consideration.

The eye must look bright. A sick cow usually shows it in her face and
in the way she holds her head with her nose sticking a little too far
forward. She has lost her spirit. If the skin is rough, it is likely to
indicate in some cases poor digestion and in other cases coarseness.
In either case we do not want the cow. The thin form of the good milk
cow without an ounce of surplus flesh must not give the impression of
debility, but of efficiency and strength. The cow having digestive
trouble is usually shrunken in the paunch and has the appearance of her
skin being drawn tightly around her body in front of the udder. She
should not be constipated, nor should she have scours.

The udder should not be meaty. After a cow is milked, her udder should
be nearly like an empty sack. Each teat should be milked to see that
it contains no evidence of garget. Each quarter of the udder should
be felt to see that it contains no portion slightly more solid than
the others. The teats should be examined for slight lumps which have
usually been caused by rough milking and which may make a lot of
trouble.

=Diseases.= Tuberculosis in cattle is a disease that is more contagious
among barn-fed cattle than among those kept more in the open. In fact,
I have never heard of range cattle being tubercular. Nevertheless,
under conditions that exist on the average farm, the tuberculosis germ
will thrive and cause havoc. It pays to be careful not to introduce
such a disease into the herd. Often the fattest, sleekest cattle
are affected and while they do not die from it quickly, yet as it
progresses in a herd an animal will now and then die from the disease.
Hogs and even chickens running with the cattle become affected and much
loss results.

The accuracy of the tuberclin test in the main has been established
beyond doubt. Laws now require that cattle which are shipped from
one state to another be tested, and the infected cattle can not be
legally shipped except to a slaughter house subject to inspection.
However, many cattle are shipped under false certificates sworn to by
unscrupulous veterinaries. The only thing that we can do about it is
to be careful in buying, deal with responsible men and buy the cattle
guaranteed.

The number of cattle infected in Nebraska is probably about two per
cent in the average farming districts and a much higher per centage
among the strictly dairy herds of some sections. While we do not feel
that we are ready for a law compelling all cattle to be tested, we do
feel that each individual should protect himself and keep his herd
free from infection. Bovine tuberculosis is not so contagious among
human beings as it was once thought to be. But it is enough so that no
further argument should be necessary to an owner of stock than that his
own family or some one else may be infected with the disease from the
milk.

Next to tuberculosis, contagious abortion is probably the milk
producer’s worst enemy. I do not know of any way for a farmer to detect
this disease from an animal’s appearance. I usually look for evidence,
not in the cattle themselves, but on the farm premises of the man who
has cattle for sale. Be suspicious of any cow that does not readily get
pregnant. When buying fresh cows always endeavor to see the cow’s calf.
This is not a doctor book. I need not discuss the symptoms nor the
cure. I only wish to warn the buyer to be on the lookout.




                              CHAPTER III

                          THE PURE BRED SIRE


There is one law of breeding that does not seem to be recognized by
people generally and in our judgment it is of greatest importance. This
law is that the influence of the parent animals are not equal upon
the offspring. This has been noticed in human experiences. No child
is exactly one-half like his father and one-half like his mother, but
is likely to be much like either one or the other. He is likely to
be nine-tenths like one parent and one-tenth like the other. It is
the same in grading live stock and this trait in breeding is of the
greatest advantage to the breeder of grade stock. If the calf takes
after the sire and the sire is a pure bred of strong type, the calf may
be nearly as strong in producing ability as the pure bred ancestors.
On the other hand, even pure bred cattle may breed back at times, and
their offspring resemble some distant scrub member in the ancestry.
Breeders are well aware of this fact and try very hard to keep all
inferior cattle entirely eliminated from their line of breeding. It
is important that they should for their line should breed as true as
possible, and really poor calves with them are rare.

The pure bred bull of a long established type is more likely to
mark his offspring than is the scrub cow. A fairly large per cent,
considerably more than half, of the heifers will be good and some of
them nearly as good in milk production as the pure breds themselves.
Grade cows are very valuable as milk producers, but grade bulls should
not be used as sires because they do not have the ability to breed true
like the pure bred.

Most farmers have been in the habit of using a bull a couple of
years and then selling him to the butcher before his real worth was
discovered. A bull’s ability to produce heifers that make good cows
can only be definitely told after his heifers have freshened and made
records. Some of the best pure bred breeders in the United States will
not use a bull on their best cows until one hundred of his daughters
are in the Advanced Registry which means that beginning at the age of
two years they must produce 250.5 pounds of butter fat annually and
must increase the production to 360 pounds of butter fat at the age of
five years. In this way the best bulls are ascertained and are used to
the best advantage. But there is also a way for the average farmer to
receive the benefits of a good tested-out breeding stock at low cost.
I refer to the co-operative bull associations and quote from Kimball’s
Dairy Farmer concerning them:

“A co-operative bull association is a farmer’s organization whose
purpose is the joint ownership, use, and exchange of three or more
high-class pure bred bulls. The territory covered by the association
is divided into three or more breeding blocks and a bull is stationed
in each block for the service of the fifty or sixty cows in the block.
Every two years the bulls are interchanged. Thus, at a small cost, a
bull for every sixty cows is provided for six or more years. The cost
of bull service is greatly reduced, the best bulls obtained, and the
bulls of outstanding merit are preserved for their entire period of
usefulness.”




                              CHAPTER IV.

                             WHAT TO FEED


=Chemical Analysis.= The chemical analysis of feed does not by any
means tell the whole story. Wheat straw, for instance shows up very
well in chemical analysis but experiments have shown that it takes
more energy to digest it than it produces. Even when we figure only
the digestible nutrients, the nutrients which by chemical analysis are
found to be digested by animals, we do not by any means have the whole
story. For instance, in human food we find that the protein in milk is
about four times as valuable as the protein in the bean. In the results
of a feeding experiment reported in Dr. McCollum’s “Newer Knowledge of
Nutrition” on page 75, it was found that when the source of protein
was the bean, four times as much was required for maintaining the body
weight of the animal as when the source of protein was milk. We used
to figure protein as protein and carbohydrates as carbohydrates but
now we discriminate. We must learn to figure them in the results they
produce. This is extremely difficult to do scientifically. When an
animal must have a variety of feeds who can tell just what proportion
of her production is due to certain foods eaten?

We can get at these things in a general way, however, by experience.
Feeding has long been known as an art. Some day it may be entirely a
science. But that can not be said at the present time. We must vary
the feeds used and learn by experience and observation what gets the
best results. A chemical analysis of tender grass will not show it to
contain more digestive nutrients than the old tough grass that the cows
will hardly eat, but it requires much less energy to convert it into
milk.

One year I listed some squaw corn about the tenth of July in a wheat
stubble. By frost this corn was beginning to come into roasting ears.
But most of the ears had not developed kernels. I filled the silo from
this field and got, as nearly as I could ascertain, just as much milk
from my herd by feeding that silage as by feeding silage made from
mature corn containing considerable grain. The same amount of dry
grains were fed in both cases. According to analysis this result could
not possibly be obtained.

Experiments have been tried in which the whole wheat plant, grain,
straw and all, also the oat plant and the corn plant were fed
separately to young heifers. The heifers fed the corn plant grew to
maturity and bore young normally. The heifers fed wheat and oats did
poorly, produced their young prematurely, all but one of which died
soon after birth. This does not indicate that oat or wheat feeds are
not good for cattle, but in themselves they are not sufficient. I do
not think this deficiency can be shown in the chemical analysis but
some of the food elements are hard to get. I think if this wheat and
oat plant had been young and tender as a growing grass instead of a
mature grain the heifers would have done well. Ground oats is one of
the best dairy feeds I ever tried.

=Balanced Rations.= I do not know just to what extent a cow requires
a balanced ration. Since some feeds have values over others that the
chemical analysis does not show, I think the balanced ration figures
and tables have been overworked. They are not entirely valueless,
however. Some will be placed in this book. Everyone knows that a cow
should not be fed one kind of feed only. We should give as great a
variety of feeds as possible and the cow’s likes and dislikes, together
with the results in the milk pail, give about all the information
concerning a balanced feed that the writer has ever used. We do not
need to worry about the supply of protein here because we use so much
alfalfa, or about the carbohydrates when we are feeding the product of
the corn plant.

A variation from a balanced ration does not immediately affect the
cow and usually one change offsets another. Experienced feeders of
record-making cattle make use of the chemical analysis of feeds in
their intense effort to have the cow digest a very large amount of
food, yield a large amount of milk, and still keep her bodily weight
about normal. But for farm conditions we should know that too great an
amount of alfalfa, bran, and like feeds usually results in sleek, fat
cattle and that cows fed principally corn and carbohydrates, if they
are milking well, will look rather rough and get too thin. The writer
at one time had alfalfa in such abundance that he let the milk herd
run out in the field and eat all they wanted from the stack. They had
silage and other feeds about as usual, but they did not eat as much
silage as they should have. The result was that the herd looked fine
and thrifty but produced less milk.

Many people think that a cow is either lean or fat and if she fills out
in her body she is always taking on fat, but the amount of lean meat
on the body also varies. Protein feeds are muscle builders. They make
animals grow. Carbohydrates supply fat and energy which is a separate
thing from muscle. Many times if cows become overweight we reduce the
total amount of feed consumed and get a large yield in the milk pail.
“The eye of the feeder fattens his cattle.” It also fills the milk
pail. Scientific knowledge can help a good feeder but I doubt very much
if it alone can make one. Rules and system can not be made to take the
place of interest and attention.

For those who care to go thoroughly into the subject of feeding I
recommend “How to Feed the Dairy Cow,” by Hugh Van Pelt, Editor of
Kimball’s Dairy Farmer, Waterloo, Iowa.

I have referred those who wish to go deeply into the subject of feeds
to more eminent authorities because I have never raced cows in a record
contest and am not an authority on the subject. The reason I have for
writing is that I have viewed the subject from the standpoint of profit
making rather than that of high production. Feeding for profit has been
too little considered.

=Pastures.= The way that pastures are generally used is, in my opinion,
the greatest mistake in the milk business. Certainly we can make two
blades of grass grow where one blade of grass and one weed grew before.
Most of the pastures that we see are either bare like a desert or weedy
enough to hide a calf three months old. A cow can not get enough feed
in the average pasture, no matter how many acres she mows over. There
is no need to estimate how many acres of poor pasture a cow requires,
but one acre of well-cared for pasture per cow is all the writer has
ever had to use. While I have fed a small amount of alfalfa in the
summer, I think it is safe to say that our cows had more grass per head
than almost any cows in the county. Next year I expect to pasture fifty
cows on thirty acres, feeding what is necessary in addition. I expect
to get nearly enough grass in a reasonably good year for that number of
cows.

The secret of the system lies in the fact that I have the pasture
divided into four parts and pasture one part at a time, then use a
mowing machine to clip off all weeds or remaining grass close to the
ground. Before turning the cattle into one of these pastures, I wait
until the grass has had about four weeks to grow. If the grass gives
out, the cow is given enough feed to make up the difference. I do not
let the grass stay short, for if it stays short, the roots will also be
short and in that condition it can not withstand drought. Any kind of
grass will yield two or three times as much feed per acre, if allowed
to grow a month at a time as it will if pastured off short all of the
time. I let the cattle eat the grass off the pasture about as often as
alfalfa is cut. Everyone knows that if they would cut their alfalfa
every three days they would have hardly a hat full of hay at the end
of the season. I aim to mow the pasture about the time that the cattle
are taken out, for I do not want any old, tough grass for the next time
that the cattle are turned into it.

Much of our pasture is a mixture of blue grass, timothy and sweet
clover with the sweet clover predominating. I do not want to place too
much reliance on shallow rooting grasses, such as white clover and
blue grass, although I have some pasture of that kind. I like to have
about five acres of sorghum or Sudan grass to pasture once about the
first of August and then again about the second week in September.

Sweet clover will root about four feet deep. Alfalfa will root much
deeper but is not practical as a pasture. Blue grass and white clover,
especially where cropped off short, root very shallow. Sudan grass will
draw moisture three or four feet deep. Sudan grass is like sorghum and
may at some time turn poison late in the fall, as far as I know, but
I know people who use it regularly for pasture and have never had any
such trouble. I have never pastured Sudan grass but have used sorghum,
and have had no bad results. To get the most out of pasture we must
have all the surface available for use and we must give the plant an
opportunity to breathe in order that it may root as deep as possible,
and then we should use deep rooting grasses such as sweet clover and
Sudan grass or sorghum.

In getting at the value of pastures be sure to remember that the
cow goes out to harvest the crop. I do not think that pasture is an
expensive feed. It is probably the cheapest feed we can get all things
considered, when properly managed.

=Hay.= Four tons of alfalfa hay contain more nutrients than ten tons
of silage, and hay is cheaper to raise and cheaper to harvest. The
intensive dairy farmer makes alfalfa hay form as large a part of his
ration as practical, for a certain variety is needed. However, figuring
alfalfa as against corn fodder, the fodder is the cheaper under average
conditions. The by-product farmer will do well to use as little alfalfa
as he can and still get good results.

The principal value in alfalfa hay for cattle feeding is in the leaves
and the results obtained are so dependent upon the kind of hay we get
that we consider that part of the secret of feeding lies in putting up
the hay. It has been demonstrated by Headdon of the Colorado Experiment
Station that where alfalfa is put up by the most careful method, three
hundred and fifty pounds of leaves are lost for every ton of hay put
up. Where alfalfa is carelessly handled and most of the leaves fall
off, we lose as much as three thousand pounds of leaves for every ton
of hay put up, and the hay that remains is of very little value so far
as milk cows are concerned. Not only do we lose the leaves of alfalfa
but we can lose the food value out of the leaf very easily. The alfalfa
leaf is very easily digested and the nutrients so easily digested are
leached out by rain. They even leave the plant when it is bleached in
the sun. The stem of the alfalfa has some value, however, if it is
cut young enough to be tender. Old, woody stems will show well in a
chemical test but will show poorly in a profit test on a dairy farm.

We can judge the feeding value of alfalfa by its color. Well-cured hay
should be pea-green, without must and not dusty. We get more alfalfa
by raking it soon after it is mowed, and by curing it in windrows or
in shocks, than if we let it remain spread out to bleach in the sun.
Besides curing hay in the shock, I have seen another method used and
good results obtained where the barn was very large in proportion to
the amount of hay put in it. Hay was hauled in from the field very
green and dumped by slings along the center of the barn without being
tramped. After several days it is spread. The heated hay, when lifted
up in the air and piled up loose, cools off rapidly, the heat helping
greatly to dry off the moisture. Such hay will not heat again and it
retains its color.

I do not think there is any other grass so valuable for hay as is
alfalfa. Before we had alfalfa we used cane and millet. Sweet clover is
favored by some. It is about the same as alfalfa chemically, and I do
not doubt that it makes a good hay if not allowed to get woody. I have
never used sweet clover as hay. Sudan grass is a sorghum and has come
into some favor. It has about the same food value, however, as the corn
stalk which the farmer already has available.

=Corn Fodder.= There are thousands of acres of corn stalks being
pastured in Nebraska and Iowa that have not much more value as they
stand in the field than the dead grass by the roadside. Saved and
utilized they are the great source of wealth that as yet is almost
untouched. Their yield is like a low-grade ore found in abundance.
Dry fodder containing no grain is worth at least half as much per ton
as alfalfa and the yield is approximately two tons per acre. I say it
is worth half as much but I have to guess at it. It contains just as
many pounds of digestible nutrients per ton as alfalfa and more than
prairie hay. How much it is worth depends largely upon the conditions
under which it is fed. It costs no more to cut and shock fodder than to
husk a field of corn. Cutting up the fodder and husking out the ears
by machine is not an expensive operation. Remember that hay must be
brought in from the field. The entire cost of cut fodder for feeding
can fairly be figured as about the cost of operating the machine that
does the cutting and husking. It is the cheapest feed that we can get.

Many years ago there were several large corn shredding machines sold
throughout this territory. They husked the corn and shredded the fodder
but they did not prove a success because fodder, unless unusually dry,
gets musty if cut up fine with an ensilage cutter and piled up. The new
and really successful way of handling fodder is with a small machine
that runs with a small gasoline engine. A supply of fodder should be
cut up every ten days or two weeks until a time comes when the fodder
is real dry--not earlier than December. Then the job may be finished
and the feed will last indefinitely.

=Silage Without Corn.= Some feeders put this cut-up fodder in a silo as
soon as the corn is dry enough to keep in the crib. They run water in
with it and all reports seem to agree that it makes a good silage. I
have not tried this, but I hope the scheme has in it the final solution
of the problem. Silo agents have been in the habit of arguing that
you can afford to feed silage, corn and all, to all of the stock on
the place and let the corn stalks that are not put into the silo go
to waste. I do not agree with them. Instead of putting fifteen acres
of corn in the silo where much of it is to be fed to young stock and
horses, use twenty or even twenty-five acres of stalks alone and you
will get just about as good results. But think of the saving. The corn
stalks are a by-product. You had to farm so many acres to get them. A
part of your business is raising corn and the stalks are paid for by
the grain.

Suppose then you feed grain grown on five acres of land. You are using
just one-third of the acres to feed your cattle that would be used if
you had put in fifteen acres of corn and fed it, corn and all. This
shows the advantages of the by-product producer. It fills in the big
gap that has been forgotten. It is figuring on a cost basis rather than
that of yield or speed in production.

Last winter a feeding experiment was tried at the Wisconsin Experiment
Station in which corn silage with grain in was tested against silage
from which the corn had been picked. The result showed that the cows
ate slightly more silage when it contained the grain and yielded on
an average three pounds more milk. The cost of the milk produced with
and without the grain in the silage was exactly the same. Silage was
figured at $6.50 per ton, corn and all, and without grain at $4.00.
Since the average farmer has cornstalks to waste and only has to figure
the cost of saving them, they should not be figured at nearly two
thirds of the corn crop, even after they have been made into silage.

However, it usually pays to feed grain to cows that are milking. The
main saving in the use of husked fodder lies in getting cheaper feed
for growing young stock and feeding dry cows.

I recommend a system of feeding silage, corn and all, to producing
cows only. If you do not have cows enough to prepare to feed them
separately, it will pay better to use no silos that have grain in them
at all. Feed the grain to those cows only that are giving milk and will
pay for it, or the cattle that you are fattening. Hold the rest of the
grain for high prices. It will pay better.

=Silage.= The important thing about a silo is to make it tall enough
and small enough around. The following dimensions are approximately
correct:

  For 12 to 15 cows, silo should be 10 feet in diameter
  For 20 to 30 cows, silo should be 12 feet in diameter
  For 30 to 40 cows, silo should be 14 feet in diameter
  For 40 to 60 cows, silo should be 16 feet in diameter

Silage will spoil on top unless at least two inches are fed off each
day. It usually pays to have several small silos rather than one big
one because during the summer months you may want to feed only a part
of a ration. The figures given are for full rations. Have the silo air
tight. Cut the corn fine and put lots of effort on tamping it. The
“Flink’s Perfect Silo Seal” is a canvas that is treated with some kind
of tar preparation. It spreads out over the top of the silo and is
filled more than a foot deep with water. This weighs down the silage
and makes a good air tight cover. Very little silage decays under it.
With such a cover you can feed periodically and still lose hardly a
day’s feeding of silage.

=Grain Feed.= Grain should be fed mixed with other feeds. I have often
been told how foolish was the old idea of the cow losing her cud.
But a cow can hardly re-gurgitate and re-chew grain by itself, and
all food eaten by a cow should be re-chewed. If food passes into the
intestines without being chewed a second time, it is likely to sour
and cause scouring and loss of appetite or even death, when a large
amount of grain has been consumed. We usually feed grains with silage
or fine-cut alfalfa. Alfalfa run through an ensilage cutter without any
re-cutting attachment, is said to make cows’ mouths sore, but I would
much prefer to feed it that way and risk sore mouths than to risk the
grain by itself. Some farmers feed corn and cob-meal. The cob is of no
value except to lighten the ration, but if there is nothing else to
dilute the grain with, by all means use the cob. Oats, corn, hominy
feed, which is a by-product in the manufacturing of corn meal, bran,
which is not very valuable where plenty of alfalfa is fed, and oil meal
form our principal feeds for dairy cows. Some get very good results by
feeding ground speltz and barley, others by feeding ground rye. Corn,
oats, wheat feeds and oil meal will generally form the main part of our
ration. The average farmer is hardly warranted in looking farther for
grains to feed. Oil meal helps as a conditioner and is fed in small
amounts only. Cottonseed meal may be of value but has never proven so
in the writer’s personal experience.

Grain should be ground so that all of the nutriments may be absorbed.
The amount of grain to be fed varies with the amount of milk that the
cow is producing. One pound of grain to every five pounds of milk is
a fairly good rule to follow. If more grain is fed there should be
another reason for it, and that is that the cow readily responds to
more feeding and makes sufficient profit to pay for the extra grain.
The old rule, in the main, is true that it takes a certain amount to
maintain bodily weight of the animal, and that the more feed above the
maintenance ration that she can consume and turn into milk, the more
the profit. But even that rule should not be taken too literally. If
the extra feed is all grain, it may be too expensive.

=Prepared Feeds.= There are many kinds of prepared feeds on the market
and I have no right either to knock or to boost them, because I know
practically nothing about them. Where there are combination feeds,
intended to make a balanced ration, I think the farmer would very
likely be paying a good deal for the combining. Where a mill man
buys grain from farmers and from those grains prepares feeds that are
not by-products of other milling operations, I think the price would
be high. I have known farmers to sell alfalfa hay and buy alfalfa
meal, but I do not think it pays to do those things. All I would say
concerning prepared feeds would be to experiment carefully and to buy
them, not on their guaranteed chemical analysis, but on what results
they actually show in the milk pail. Some prepared feeds contain oat
hulls which are about like wheat straw to digest. Dried sugar beet pulp
is a by-product feed containing mostly carbohydrates, and seems to have
some benefit as an appetizer. Cattle like it for a change. Where it is
not too high and carbohydrate rough feeds are to be purchased, it might
be profitable to try it.




                              CHAPTER V.

                              HOW TO FEED


=Balanced Ration.= Cattle like variety in their feed. Not all cattle
have the same tastes and desires. When one cow refuses to eat her
grain, it is well to try her on some other mixture. A good feeder
usually has several grain feeds on hand at a time and is continually
changing and trying out rations. By checking his results at the pail,
he acquires knowledge that is more practical than any chemist can
impart. We know that a cow’s food must contain the necessary elements
needed for her bodily maintenance and the production of milk. We must
supply the substances needed. Rules for figuring values of feeds and
examples of balanced rations are given below, but we also let the cow
in on the discussion. We should not follow rules so closely that we
ignore her likes and dislikes or overlook the results that she puts in
the milk pail and the pocket book. There is probably no living creature
that has for its natural diet a balanced ration, unless it be a
carnivorous animal that eats its prey whole--feathers and all.

A poorly balanced diet may be fed for several months before any
results begin to show. Cattle do fairly well on the corn plant (mainly
carbohydrates), and they also do well on pure alfalfa (a protein feed).
They do better on a combination of the two, but the combination does
not have to be in just the right proportion. In deciding what to feed a
cow the good feeder uses his eyes more than his pencil. If the muscle
and body of the animal needs building up, he uses protein feeds in
large proportions. Cattle inclined to be too sleek and fat often milk
better if fed more carbohydrates in proportion. But we should never
pass up one or the other completely. Notice that I speak of only two
substances in food--protein and carbohydrates. There are others, but we
need not be concerned about them. All we want to know from the chemist
is approximately the amount of these two elements the feed contains.
Fat is considered the same as a carbohydrate but has more than two
times the value of carbohydrates.

Dairy cows should be kept sleek and thrifty, but lean while they
are producing milk. The dry cow should be allowed to get as fat as
possible, for the fatter and more thrifty she is the more milk she will
give, after freshening. To maintain the cow in the right condition, we
consider both the kind and the amount of feed. Many times we decrease
the grain ration to keep a cow from getting fat and going dry too soon.
Too much grain fed is a great waste. The right amount to be fed can not
be figured so much by the size of the cow as by what she does with it.
The milk pail contains the answer to most feeding problems. Increase
the feed slightly and if no more milk is produced, begin to decrease
and watch what happens. We have to do this for each cow just as we have
to adjust the carburetor on a Ford.

Elsewhere in this book, I discuss pastures and how to make the most of
them. I get grass that is tall enough for the cattle to eat to the best
advantage and I keep it from getting old and tough by using the system
of divided pastures described there. But in doing this, the grass must
be pastured off fairly close before turning the cattle into the next
pasture. If care is not taken, the cattle are having alternately a
feast and a famine by the change. To offset this, I usually feed as
much good alfalfa as the cows will eat all of the time. It does not
require much hay but it makes up for the variation in pasture. Even
when on fine pasture, cows like a little hay and should have it. I
usually pasture cows at night as well as during the day. By all means
feed cows at night if they are required to stay in the lot.

Where the heaviest records are made in milk production, they are nearly
all made at prohibitive costs so far as the value of the product is
concerned. This is because too large a proportion of the feed consumed
is high priced. We must take into consideration the price of grain,
the price of rough feed, and the price of milk products, before we can
determine the proportion of grain and other feed that should be given
to the dairy cow.

We can make milk out of rough feed without any grain under the proper
conditions. When grain is too much out of proportion in price, we can
safely do without it, if our rough feed happens to be good pasture or
good alfalfa hay and silage. If our roughage is too poor, it rarely
pays to compel good dairy cows to live on it alone, for their future
usefulness will be impaired by starvation. A drought in summer with the
resulting short pasture often knocks down the milk flow for all of the
next winter and makes all that year’s production more expensive. Starve
a good cow and she soon becomes a poor one, for she must adjust herself
to the new condition. The new condition she adopts is the same as that
of the scrub. The scrub is a product of starvation. She has been bred
to withstand hardships instead of using all efforts to produce milk.
Never let a good cow go hungry for pasture or hay.

=Water.= A milk cow requires about twelve and one-half gallons of pure
water per day. In summer it should be fresh and cool water. In winter
it should be fairly warm. The water should be as accessible as possible
at all times. Twice a day is not often enough for milk cows. Especially
when cattle are on dry feed, the more water they can be induced to
consume, the more butter fat and milk solids it will put into the pail.
In the winter we usually water cows three times a day in the barn with
water no colder than comes from the well, and slightly salt their feed
so that they will drink water in abundance. I do not know just what
effect stagnant, dirty water has on a milk cow, but do not think I
would want to drink the milk that is made up largely of such water.
Also if cattle wade in infected water and get their udders and teats in
it, the milk will to a certain extent be infected as is the water.

=Calf and Heifer Feeding.= In raising calves by hand there is more
danger of overfeeding than of underfeeding. There is also danger in
feeding milk that is too cold. In feeding an average young calf we
usually take about two quarts of the first milk that is drawn from the
cow, which is low in butter fat, and feed the milk fresh and warm with
the animal heat in it. After three weeks, skim milk may be substituted
especially if it is warm and fresh. If the milk is artificially
warmed it should be fed at a temperature of at least eighty degrees.
Do not dilute milk with water. Let the calf have what water it wants
separately. A calf should have milk until at least three months old
but at the end of a week it will eat shelled corn and oats. These
grains should be fed liberally to calves that do not have enough milk
for a complete ration. After a calf is one month old it may be raised
on milk made from dried buttermilk or condensed buttermilk or on skim
milk of any kind, provided it is not fed too much at a time nor fed
milk that is too cold. No changes such as from sweet milk to sour
milk should be made suddenly. If feeding condensed buttermilk the milk
after being diluted should be tested for solids with a lactometer. Some
manufacturers of such products give directions for reducing it with
water to such an extent that it would look like ordinary skim milk
but have only half its value. This may make it appear that the feeder
is getting a lot for his money, but he will not long be fooled by
directions of that kind if he is watching the cost of his feed and the
growth of his calves and knows what results he should expect for his
money.

People sometimes tell of stunted calves that turned out to be good
cows but I do not think that a calf can be stunted a minute without
being affected. If a stunted calf makes a good cow, which seldom ever
happens, certain it is that if the calf had been well nourished the cow
would have been even greater. Animals do not grow all of their lives.
They grow while they are young. Every minute of that youth period that
we lose for growth is lost forever. Growth is the natural development
of bone, muscle, nervous system, circulation, etc., that the animal
needs for hard work when mature. Breeders of pure bred cattle, who
expect to make records with their young stock, feed them grain every
day. I do not think this is necessary or practical for the farmer to
do, but certain it is, that no promising heifer should ever be allowed
to get thin. She should have good pasture during all of the summer and
should have plenty of well-cured feed, corn fodder or corn silage, and
a fair amount of alfalfa every day during the winter.

=Chemical Analysis.= A chemical analysis of some of the most commonly
used feeds for dairy cows follows:

                      Total Dry     Digestive Nutrients in 100 lbs.
  FEEDING STUFF       Matter in    Crude   Carbohydrates
                       100 lbs.   Protein                Fat   Total

  Alfalfa Hay           91.4       10.6       39.0       0.9   51.6
  Timothy Hay           88.4        3.0       42.8       1.2   48.5
  Prairie Hay (Western) 93.5        4.0       41.4       1.1   47.9
  Clover, Sweet, White  91.4       10.9       38.2       0.7   50.7
  Sorghum Fodder, Dry   90.3        2.8       44.8       2.0   52.1
  Corn Silage           26.3        1.1       15.0       0.7   17.7

  Corn and Its Products

  Corn, Dent            89.5        7.5       67.8       4.6   85.7
  Gluten feed           91.3       21.6       51.9       3.2   80.7
  Hominy                89.9        7.0       61.2       7.3   84.6

  Wheat and Its Products

  Wheat                 89.8        9.2       67.5       1.5   80.1
  Bran                  89.9       12.5       41.6       3.0   60.9
  Wheat Feed (Shorts
  and Bran)             89.9       12.9       45.1       4.0   67.0

  Rye and Its Products

  Rye                   90.6        9.9       68.4       1.2   81.0
  Rye feed (Shorts and
  Bran)                 88.5       12.2       55.8       2.9   74.5

  Oats and Its Products

  Oats                  90.8        9.7       52.1       3.8   70.4
  Oat Hulls             93.2        2.0       45.2       1.3   50.1
  Emmer (Spelt)         91.3        9.5       63.2       1.7   76.5
  Linseed Meal          90.4       31.7       37.9       2.8   75.9
  Cotton Seed Meal      92.5       37.0       21.8       8.6   78.2

=Rations for the Dairy Cow.= Haecker’s standard for the feeding of
dairy cows is as follows:

                      DAILY ALLOWANCE

                                        Crude
                                        Prot.    Carbo.    Fat
                                         lbs.     lbs.     lbs.

  For Maintenance of 1000 lb. cow        0.7      7.0      0.1
  For each pound of 3% milk              0.047    0.2      0.017
  For each pound of 3.5% milk            0.049    0.22     0.019
  For each pound of 4% milk              0.054    0.24     0.021

To illustrate the table there follows the allowance for a 1000 pound
cow producing 25 pounds of 4% milk daily:

                                        Crude
                                        Prot.    Carbo.    Fat
                                         lbs.     lbs.     lbs.

  For Maintenance                        0.70     7.0      0.10
  For 25 pounds of 4% milk               1.35     6.0      0.52
                                         ----    ----      ----
      Total                              2.05    13.0      0.62

Below are given some balanced rations commonly fed to dairy cows:

                                                             Total
                        Dry     Digestible  Carbohydrates  Digestible
                       Matter    Protein       and fats    Nutrients

               lbs.     lbs.       lbs.          lbs.          lbs.

  No. 1

  Corn         10      8.95        .75           7.24          8.57
  Corn Stover  10      8.10        .21           4.31          4.61
  Alfalfa Hay  12     10.97       1.27           4.78          6.19

  No. 2

  Corn Silage  40     10.52        .44           6.28          7.08
  Alfalfa Hay  10      9.14       1.06           3.99          5.16
  Wheat Bran    2      1.79        .25            .89          1.21
  Corn Meal     6      5.32        .41           4.35          5.08

  No. 3

  Corn Silage  35      9.20        .38           5.49          6.19
  Alfalfa Hay  10      9.14       1.06           3.99          5.16
  Ground Corn   5      4.43        .34           3.62          4.19
  Wheat Bran    5      4.49        .62           2.23          3.04
  Linseed Meal  1¹⁄₂  1.35        .47            .61          1.13

At the Nebraska State Fair in 1920 there was in the Dairy building a
large Holstein cow designated as the champion cow of Nebraska for 1919.
She is owned by Chris Stryker of Red Cloud. I copied from the records
the amount of feed she consumed in a year and the amount of her
production. They are as follows:

                   Feed                      Returns
                lbs.                lbs.              lbs.
  Corn          1790  Beets         9645  Milk      26,721.5
  Oil Meal      1352  Dried beet          Butter     1,066
  Barley         463     pulp       1254
  Bran          2312  Hay           4068
  Oats           498  Silage        4680
                ----              ------
    Total       6452    Total     19,647

It will be noticed that she consumed a little less than 18 pounds
of grain per day on an average throughout the year, that the grain
consisted of five varieties, and that the rough feed was of a high
order, which makes it more expensive than most of us can afford to use
as a regular feed. Beets are chemically about equal to corn silage, but
in actual results in feeding they are considerably superior. I have not
fed dried beet pulp, but I have fed it fresh and it is a very good milk
producer. Cows milk down thin on it. If we would increase the figures
on the dried beet pulp to what it would be if the pulp were fed fresh,
it would bring the beet ration up to at least three times the amount of
the silage ration.




                              CHAPTER VI.

                        VARIATION IN MILK TESTS


G. W. Shaw in Hoard’s Dairyman of March 10, 1916 says:

“It is a well-known fact that the percentage of butter fat in the
milk of cows increases very materially toward the end of a period of
lactation. There are also other slight changes in that period. During
the first month the fat generally averages higher than during the
second month. Under normal conditions of feed, etc., the fat increases
from the third or fourth month to the end of lactation.

“Although it is a fact that cows cannot be fed to give beyond a certain
percentage of butterfat, yet it has been proven many times that if
poorly fed for a considerable length of time, the average test will
decrease. This is especially true if cows become thin and poor in
flesh. Many times this will account for a farmer’s average herd test
dropping from one period to the next. It is also noticeable that the
quantity of water taken, whether as water or succulent feed, affects
the herd. This is particularly noticeable when cows are changed from a
diet of dry hay to green feed or vice versa.

“It has been noted that the change of weather affects the test. A
sudden cold period coming will usually decrease the quantity of milk,
but increase the percentage of fat. If the cold period continues,
this change will tend to right itself. It would seem that there is a
connection between the question of heat and cold and the amount of
water taken.

“It is a well-known fact that the first milk drawn from a cow’s udder
is very low in butterfat, not over 1%, whereas the last drawn is quite
high, sometimes reaching 10%. The importance of exhaustive milking is
evident. By carefully milking to the fullest extent each time, the test
will undoubtedly be higher than if milking were not exhaustive. This,
continued over a period of time, would have its effect on the 15-day
test.

“Another very important point we wish to make is this, unless a man who
does his testing at home understands how to do it thoroughly and is
very careful in taking his sample, he will not check with the factory
test. There are several reasons for differences between tests made
on samples taken at the farm and those made on samples taken at the
factory.

“Many farmers have a habit of taking a little cream or top milk for
family use, and think that it will not materially affect the average
test. As a matter of fact it will affect materially. For instance, if a
farmer were producing 100 pounds of milk testing 3.5% and he used one
quart of top milk, testing 10%, his average test would be reduced .2 of
1%; that is, instead of delivering milk testing 3.5% it would actually
test 3.3%.

“Some farmers adopt another method; they use, for family purposes the
milk from a cow which gives the richest milk, so that the result is
always the same, the average test being lower.

“Another cause of difference in tests, and we think this is a very
important one, is found in the condition of the milk when received
at the factory. Some farmer’s milk, when brought in, is smooth and
homogeneous; some bring in milk which is slightly churned; that is,
there are small particles of butter, which is separated butterfat
floating on the surface. This latter milk is very hard to sample; the
sampler is plunged into the milk and is likely to miss a due proportion
of these floating particles. In addition, some of the separated
butterfat is sure to be left behind, both on the sides of can and on
the cover. Butterfat adheres to any surface much more rapidly than
any other of the milk solids. It is quite evident that milk which is
partially churned will get a lower test at the factory than it did at
the farm before it became churned.

“In order to prevent this churning, it is most important that the milk
be quickly and thoroughly cooled after milking. If milk is poured into
cans and stirred and handled in a half warm condition, it is sure to
separate to some extent. While the particles of butterfat are not large
enough to be particularly noticeable, they are there and adhere to the
surfaces as described.

“Another condition which causes trouble in sampling, is found where
some of the cream is firm and floats around in hard lumps but is not
churned. This kind of cream is also hard to sample and these lumps are
liable to be left behind on the sides of the can and cover. We believe
this condition is caused by allowing milk to cool spontaneously. That
is, instead of cooling quickly, the farmer fills up his milk can and
lets it stand to cool slowly. This is liable to give a hard cream on
the surface which does not break up readily. The farmer, therefore,
will get a better test by =cooling his milk quickly and thoroughly and
refraining from using the top milk for family use=.

“We have come to this conclusion, namely, that certain conditions
affect cows and their work, the same as that of human beings. As
someone has said: ‘Put yourself in a cow’s place and try to get
her point of view. Could you do good work if a swarm of flies were
bothering you all the time? What effect does an extremely warm day or
two have on your capacity for work? If you were out in a cold, rain,
and wind storm, how would it affect your work? Suppose you were thirsty
and had to wait two or three hours before you could get a drink and
then got foul and stagnant water? Or, suppose that someone stronger
than yourself would chase you away from the shade or sheltered spot or
forced you to move when you were resting or eating? Suppose you were
forced to eat food that you did not like or enjoy? How long would it be
before these things would show in your work? Any or all of them would
impair your efficiency and lessen your ability.’”




                             CHAPTER VII.

                 SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTING A BARN.


Since there is so much information available concerning construction
of barns, it is not necessary for me to discuss it here except to
criticize the standard forms. On most farms at hay-making time there
is no time to haul hay to the dairy barn so it is stacked in the field
and hauled in during the winter. Many large dairy barn hay mows are
constructed at a great deal of expense and stand empty most of the time
in this climate. Before building large, expensive barns it might be
well to consult those who have built to see how they are getting along.
On an average farm I would suggest a one story shed for the cows built
as a lean-to or butting up against a hay shed. This hay shed need not
be very large.

In most expensive barns there is installed a litter-carrier that runs
on a track. If I were going to use a litter-carrier at all I would have
the thing so that it could be let down below the level of the gutter
and shove the manure down the gutter into it. This means would save
all the liquid manure which is more valuable and would save the effort
required to lift the manure with a shovel. When full the carrier could
be hoisted, run on the track, and dumped into the wagon or wherever
desired. But why use a carrier? Why not have the gutters run through
the side of the barn and a wagon or manure spreader standing beneath?
It is very easy to push the manure from ten cows down the gutter. Two
gutters could run into one wagon which would be left standing outside
of the barn on lower ground. The barn could either stand on a side hill
or a place could be dug to run the wagon into. If hogs are to work over
the manure, a concrete basin should be constructed to hold it.

The feed trough should be so made that it may be used to water the cows
during cold weather.




                             CHAPTER VIII.

                                MILKING


The cow’s milk is partly manufactured in the udder at the time it is
being drawn. The process is like digestion and is interfered with by
any nervous tension or shock. The prick of a pin that will make a
cow jump at the time of milking has been known to greatly reduce the
butterfat of the milk given and at the same time to reduce the supply.
Shepherd dogs that go after cows are likely to perform their labor at
a very high cost in milk. A milk stool used as a weapon knocks a lot
of money out of the farmer’s pocket. A rough milker who irritates a
cow causes much trouble also. If I were to judge a dairyman by just
one thing I could tell most about him by noticing how well the cows
liked to have him milk them. Where a cow has to dance to the jerking of
rough hands and listen to profanity of the milker, that is plenty of
information to decide that on that farm dairying does not pay. There
are few cows that will treat a milker any better than he treats them.

For sanitary reasons I do not believe in milking with wet hands, but
if a cow’s udder is caked, the best cure that I know is to draw the
milk into the hands very slowly and rub it into the caked udder until
it is absorbed through the skin. I do not know or care why, but there
is something about a cow’s milk that is good for her caked udder when
applied to the outside. One treatment of an hour’s duration, milking
the milk a stream at a time and working it into the caked udder, is
often sufficient to cure even bad cases. Cow’s teats should never be
allowed to get sore, for clean milk can not be produced from sore,
bleeding teats. It may be necessary to apply antiseptic medicines when
they are sore, but a good way to keep the teats soft and pliable so the
cow will not be irritated by milking is to take the last streams or two
in the udder, milk it into the hand and use it to rub into the teat.
The solids in the last streams of milk are about one-half butterfat and
this greases the teat with the best kind of grease that I know.

Having employed a great many men on the farm I have found from
experience that two out of three do not know how to milk. Of these,
some can be taught but many are not worth bothering with. Many are too
rough and many do not seem to be able to get all the milk from the
udder. To get all the milk from one quarter of the udder the milker
should use both hands, using one hand above the teat to squeeze the
milk into the teat and with the other hand milk it into the pail.




                              CHAPTER IX.

                             MILK PRODUCTS


Every milk producer should make some study of the principal products
that are made from milk, for such information may help to market it to
a better advantage.

=Butter.= The law requires that butter contain 80% butter-fat and that
it shall contain less than 16% moisture. In 100 pounds of creamery
butter there is usually about 3 pounds of salt, 1 pound of casein and
between 15 and 16 pounds of water.

Figuring that butter contains 80% fat for the minimum which allows for
the maximum amount of water, the following amount may be obtained from
100 pounds of milk:

  100 lbs. of 3% milk will produce 3³⁄₄  lbs. of butter.
  100 lbs. of 4% milk will produce 5     lbs. of butter.
  100 lbs. of 5% milk will produce 6¹⁄₄  lbs. of butter.

=Cheese.= It usually takes about 10 pounds of 4% milk to make 1 pound
of cheddar cheese, which is the common cheese usually sold at the
stores. This cheese will test out about 36.8% fat, 25.5% protein, 6%
sugar, ash, etc., and 31.7% water.

=Cottage Cheese.= Cottage cheese is usually made from skim milk. 100
pounds of average skim milk will make from 12 to 15 pounds of cottage
cheese, such as is usually sold on the city market. Where it is creamed
the cream is put in after the cheese is made.

=Cream.= 100 pounds of 4% milk will produce: 20 pounds of 20% cream
and 80 pounds of skim remaining, 13¹⁄₃ pounds of 30% cream and 86²⁄₃
lbs. of skim remaining, or 10 pounds of 40% cream and 90 pounds of skim
remaining.

The average cream sold tests about 30% butter-fat, so on the average
the farmer has left about 86 pounds or a ten-gallon can of skim milk
for every 100 pounds of 4% milk.

=Skim Milk.= The value of skim milk on the farm as feed is an important
one for the farmer. The price of whole milk in the city is not always
high enough so that it pays the farmer to sell his skim rather than to
use it for feeding. During the flush season in the spring when milk
dealers are all burdened with a surplus of milk, it would be a great
advantage if more farmers would separate and feed the skim milk to
hogs. I will endeavor to give here as accurately as possible what real
information I can gather from Experiment Station reports concerning the
feeding value of skim milk. At the outset it might be well to state
that on this question I have never known any two agricultural experts
to agree and experiments need to be carefully analyzed before they
yield true information.

I can prove to you from experiments published in Henry & Morrison’s
“Feeds and Feeding” that skim milk is worth only $.08 a hundred pounds
when corn meal is worth $1.00 a hundred, and I can prove that skim milk
is worth $.31 a hundred pounds when corn meal is worth $1.00 a hundred.
In fact when an experimenter undertakes to prove a thing he has very
easy sailing if he can line up conditions to suit the proposition he
intends to prove. The trouble with most experiments on this subject
has been that they are apparently planned to be used as arguments for
the purpose of increasing the feeding of skim milk and they do not
undertake to solve the real question involved.

Every one knows that corn alone is too unbalanced a ration to feed to
hogs profitably. Where it is endeavored to show that skim milk has a
very high value, one bunch of hogs is fed corn alone, and to compare
with it another bunch is fed corn and a small amount of skim milk. Let
those who are satisfied with the information that can be obtained by
such an experiment use it and I will have no dispute with them. But for
most of us the question is whether we should feed alfalfa to the cow
and the cow’s milk to the pig or let the pig eat his own alfalfa. A
hog’s ration may be balanced with alfalfa hay or with alfalfa or rape
pasture. The question is whether milk and corn makes as cheap a gain
as alfalfa and corn. It is very difficult to find experiments that
answer this question and it is the most practical one in the world. If
it is good sense to use the cost of producing pork on dry corn alone
as the basis of getting at the value of milk, it is also good sense to
use skim milk alone as the basis of figuring the value of grain. In an
experiment published by Henry & Morrison on page 597, where little pigs
weighing only twenty-five pounds were used and which are capable of
making cheaper gains on milk than older hogs because they have smaller
bodies to maintain, it took 2,739 pounds of skim milk to make one
hundred pounds of gain. But where 233 pounds of grain were fed with
935 pounds of skim milk there was also a gain of one hundred pounds.
Figuring now as they do who would set the value of milk by the cost
of feeding dry grain, we will use skim milk as a basis of figuring.
If skim milk is worth $.30 a hundred, corn is worth $2.32 a hundred.
This is the same line of reasoning as is used when in an experiment
reported on page 598, if corn is worth $.01 a pound we find that skim
milk is worth $.30 a hundred. All they prove is that a hog must have
something besides corn or milk. Corn is the cheapest hog feed but it is
too unbalanced a diet to get the best results when fed alone. A small
amount of skim milk or something else will balance the diet. According
to reports published by Henry & Morrison on page 598 it will be noticed
that 585 pounds of skim milk reduced the amount of grain required to
produce 100 lb. growth by 179 pounds. If corn is worth $.01 a pound and
we figure on that basis, skim milk is worth $.31 a hundred pounds. But
notice what happens when the amount of skim milk is increased beyond
what is needed to supply the elements which corn lacks. When the amount
of skim milk is increased by 463 pounds more, the amount of corn meal
eaten was only reduced by 56 pounds, so that for the first 585 pounds
the farmer was getting $.31 but for the next 463 pounds he was getting
only $.12 a hundred pounds, and when the skim milk was again increased
by 849 pounds the amount of corn meal required was only reduced 71
pounds and this figures down the last batch of skim to only about $.08
per hundred pounds. These experiments prove that we must keep somewhere
near a balanced ration but do not prove anything regarding a definite
value of skim as a feed.

What your skim milk is worth on the farm depends altogether on how
much it is needed to balance the diet in hog feeding operations. It is
of much more value for little pigs than for larger hogs that are more
capable of digesting grasses. Professor Henry says, “Pigs fed skim
milk and grain gained nothing from pasture. Grazing stimulates the
appetites of pigs getting grain but no milk and they eat more grain
and make larger and more economical gains.” So we see that pigs will
pass up pasture for milk and that when milk is fed to pigs on pasture
it replaces the use of pasture so that it does not do much good to
pasture hogs that are fed milk. Experiments reported on page 614 show
that pigs on alfalfa pasture require 344 pounds of grain to gain one
hundred pounds and that on rape pasture only 340 pounds are required.

Different experiments always vary slightly as to the amount of grain
required to make a certain growth. But taking the most advantageous
ration that we can prepare with milk and corn as shown by these
experiments, we may conclude that something like 300 pounds of grain
and 500 pounds of milk will make one hundred pounds of growth on one
hundred pound hogs, and that about 350 pounds of grain fed to hogs on
pasture will make the same amount of growth. Let each farmer figure out
what pasture and grain cost him and he can get approximately the real
value of skim milk. For large hogs milk will be worth less than here
shown. For smaller hogs it will be worth more.

It may be interesting to know the cost per pound of skim milk solids
figured at different prices, but the chemical analysis we are not
considering. One hundred pounds of milk usually contains about 9.25
pounds of solids. If 100 pounds of skim milk is worth $.20, one pound
of dry matter would be worth $.0216 and a ton would be worth $43.20. At
$.40 a hundred, one pound of dry matter would be worth $.0432 and a ton
would be worth $86.40. At $.50 a hundred, one pound of dry matter would
cost $.0540 and one ton cost $108.00.

=Whey.= The average composition of whey is about as follows: water
93.12%, and total solids 6.88%. Of the total solids there are about
.27% fat, .81% nitrogenous substances and 5.80% sugar, ash, etc. For
pigs whey has a feeding value about half that of skim milk.




                              CHAPTER X.

                              MARKET MILK


=Weight of Milk.= The weight of milk varies slightly with the
temperature and also because of the difference in the amount of solids
it contains. An average gallon of milk at 60 degrees weighs 8.6 pounds.
A ten-gallon can filled to the lid should weigh 86 pounds.

A can large enough to hold 100 pounds of water would hold 103.2 pounds
of average milk at 60 degrees, 103.6 pounds of skim milk, or 90 pounds
of pure butterfat. Cream weighs less than water. The butterfat in milk
is in the form of little particles or globules, which float around in
the milk. In Holstein milk they are small, in Jersey milk they are
larger. Cream is simply milk containing a large number of particles of
fat.

=Legal Requirements.= The law requires market milk to test not less
than 3% butterfat. Milk containing 3% butterfat but less than 11¹⁄₂%
total solids is usually considered watered milk. We determine fat
content by Babcock test and the solids-not-fat by an instrument called
the lactometer, which is simply an accurate means of determining the
weight of milk.

Milk from cows known to be diseased, or from cows fifteen days before
coming fresh can not legally be sold. After freshening, milk can be
sold as soon as it attains a normal condition. It is illegal to sell
milk to which water or any other substance has been added, or milk
which has been exposed to disease-producing bacteria, or milk that has
been stored, handled or transported in an unclean or unsanitary manner.

=Cleanliness.= The greatest handicap in the milk business is the
difficulty of getting milk that is as clean as other food which people
eat. It is not impossible to do, but it is rarely done. In most all
cities of the United States milk that meets the highest requirements
as to cleanliness and sanitation is being sold for from 20 to 35 cents
a quart. Such milk is guaranteed to be pure by a medical board and is
labeled certified milk. There are various requirements in producing
certified milk that need not all be explained here. But to the average
consumer the main difference is that the producer of certified milk is
as careful concerning cleanliness in milking and caring for the milk
as a clean, respectable housekeeper is in making bread. In regular
market milk we do not require cleanliness up to the standard for
certified milk, but all producers and dealers in milk should recognize
and admit the truth that common milk is not nearly as clean as it
should be.

The public is well aware of this fact, and the demand for dairy
products would be immeasurably increased if thousands of people did not
feel an aversion to drinking milk because as they say, “It’s so dirty.”
We can not go to the public and ask all we would like to have unless
we, in turn, give them just what they want. The public wants clean milk
and I believe that if milk improves in quality the public will use more
of it. No person with dirty hands should ever milk a cow and use the
milk for human food. A cow’s udder should be washed. The hair on the
udder and flanks should be clipped short, and to prevent dust and hair
from getting into the milk, her flanks and udder should be slightly
dampened before milking. A gunnysack cut up in pieces about 14 inches
square makes a very good towel on which to dry the udder and the
milker’s hands. A clean towel should be used for each milking.

The cleanliness of milk is usually judged by filtering a small amount
through a disc of cotton. This is called the sediment test. This
test, in a measure determines the amount of filth and foreign matter
which milk contains. Sufficient straining will make most any milk so
that it will show a clean record on the sediment test. But remember
that a strainer acts as a sort of pulverizer. Milk running through a
strainer gradually dissolves and washes away the particles until they
are so thoroughly in solution that we can not get them in a clarifying
machine. We would prefer milk strained through a metal strainer
only, but in many localities health departments require that it be
filtered through cloth or cotton. Where this is required we oppose no
objections. The greatest difficulty with cloth strainers is that they
do not get washed clean enough. A farmer usually rinses out his cloth
in cold water and hangs it up to dry. Sour strainers are about the
first thing we look for on a farm where the people have been having
trouble keeping milk sweet.

Absorbent cotton is all right, providing no cloth is used with it,
but that it be held between metal straining discs, or that the cloth
be thrown away each time with the cotton. Since to throw away cotton
strainers each time is expensive, I do not think the system is
practical for general use. It is easier and far better to keep dirt
from getting into the milk than to let everything go in and then try to
get it all out again.

=Sanitation.= Sanitation means “pertaining to health.” Clean milk might
be unsanitary for it might contain injurious bacteria. Bacteria are
plants. To avoid infecting milk with bacteria which cause souring and
decay we can not depend upon cleanliness alone. The first few streams
of milk from each teat of the cow will be found already infected to a
considerable extent. In certified dairies the first streams of milk
are never used. When cows are not milked dry at each milking there is
a considerable development of bacteria that takes place in the teats
and udder. Careless milkers have their trouble starting before the
milk leaves the udder. Various diseases infect the milk of the cow.
Milk from cows with garget or diseased udders causes sore throats in
children and should never be used as food. Dirt that gets into milk is
of itself objectionable, but it is also one of the greatest sources of
infection.

Milk utensils should be sterilized. This may be done by the use of
a chlorine solution called Bacilli-Kill, by boiling water, or by
the direct rays of the sun. Most sterilization is not perfect and
even the dust particles in the air contain enough bacteria to, in a
measure, re-seed any surface. Bacteria can not grow without moisture.
If utensils are not washed perfectly and food particles are left for
bacteria to grow on, there will immediately start a new development
from the re-seeding that will take place after the sterilization. Tin
cans can not be washed well enough to make them perfectly free from
foodstuffs on which bacteria may live. When milk dealers put cream in
cold storage, expecting to hold it sweet for as long as two months
they use cans that have never been used before. A metal surface is
rough and I know of no way to wash a milk can as perfectly as a milk
bottle. The milk utensils should be thoroughly cleaned with washing
powder, rinsed thoroughly with boiling water, then carefully dried.
In the operation of cleaning cans the most difficult thing to do in a
factory is to get the can properly dried. When it cools down there is
likely to be a certain amount of moisture deposited on the inside of
the can and there is always enough food left on which bacteria may grow
if the can is moist. In milk plants we sterilize all equipment just
before using. Cans washed and sterilized at the plant and used on the
farm twenty-four or thirty-six hours later become rancid because of
being shut with moist air in them. It is our ambition to sometime be
able to send cans to the farmers that will remain perfectly sweet, dry
and sterile, even if they are kept closed for a week. But now we must
confess to imperfection, and cans that get stale before being used are
perhaps the greatest menace to our milk supply. If a farmer can set
these cans in the sun with the lid off, it will help greatly. If he can
scald them with boiling water just before he uses them, it will help
even more.

Some farmers have great difficulty in delivering milk once a day and
having it sweet when it arrives at the plant. We have kept a bottle of
certified milk for more than three weeks in a refrigerator where the
temperature is above forty degrees and at the end of that time it had
not turned sour. Such results can be only obtained by experts, but it
is not difficult to become expert enough to always be able to sell milk
that is in a good marketable condition, delivered once a day.

=Cooling Milk.= The growth of bacteria in milk depends a great deal
upon its cooling. Milk has a great tendency to take up bad odors, and
its tendency to do this depends upon its temperature. Milk should be
cooled within thirty minutes after it is drawn from the cow. If cooled
below seventy degrees immediately and kept at that temperature or
below, there will be very little difficulty of milk souring, provided
due care has been taken regarding sanitation and cleanliness.

Well water temperature in this climate is usually fifty-four degrees.
By pumping fresh water through a tank, having it overflow so that
the warm water will flow off, it is easy in a short time to get milk
as low as sixty-five degrees. When running water is not available,
it is better to stir the milk until it is as cold as it will get in
such water as you have, then set the cans in a small tank of fresh
water that can be pumped by hand if necessary. Many farmers use the
stock tank to cool the milk in first, then use some half barrels cut
off at a height so that the water can not overflow into the milk but
that it will stand slightly higher than the milk in the cans. Use one
half-barrel for each can of night’s milk. In the morning cool the milk
in the tank only. However, the most satisfactory arrangement would be
to have a small engine with which fresh water may be pumped at milking
time, and let the milk tank overflow into the stock tank until the milk
is cooled and the tank is full of cold water. A tank should be divided
by partitions made of slats running up and down so that a can partly
filled may float without tipping over. It is not absolutely necessary
that milk be uncovered while it is being cooled, but the cover prevents
the milk from cooling as rapidly. Remember that warm water always
rises. The cold water will be at the bottom of the tank. Some farmers
divide their milk so that the cans will all float. The milk warms the
water and the warm water rises above the level of the milk in the cans.
Milk should always be covered when left sitting by the road waiting for
the hauler, and should always be covered in the wagon or truck. Wet the
blanket or canvas that covers the milk. This helps to keep it cool.




                              CHAPTER XI.

            EXPERIMENTS BEING TRIED OUT ON OUR DAIRY FARM.


On our farm we are equipping to produce certified milk. This will be
a new business for us. When we have had more experience along this
line we may write up the results for publication. However, none of our
experiments are far enough along now for us to be justified in giving
the results as final.

Those things which would probably be of greatest interest to farmers
are our small grain elevator, the layout of machinery to shell corn,
grind feed, cut and re-cut alfalfa and our facilities for handling
manure. We use electric power which, so far as we know, is the most
satisfactory power where it is available. The motor requires no firing
up as does a steam engine, and no tinkering such as goes with the use
of gasoline. The motors generally run when you want them to and as long
as you want them to and give very little trouble.

[Illustration: Showing arrangement of machinery. The conveyor to the
silage blower is just below the floor. Silage or cut hay drops from the
ensilage cutter to this conveyor. Opposite the ensilage cutter is the
feed grinder into which runs the grain spout from the corn sheller. The
ground feed also flows to the conveyor and by shifting the spout of the
corn sheller the shelled corn will go to the conveyor without being
ground.]

[Illustration: Rear view of the barn showing the arrangement of silos.
The blower pipe for the ensilage cutter will extend through the barn
and with a long arch swing around from one silo to another.]

Our ensilage cutter is permanently installed at one side of a driveway
in the barn. It will fill three silos without re-setting. By the use of
a re-cutting attachment with the ensilage cutter we make finely-chopped
alfalfa of all the stems that the cows will not eat. Cattle will eat
these stems after they are cut up fine and they make excellent feed
for our delivery horses. The blower (made by the American Harvester
Company of Minneapolis) which we use for elevating is separate from the
cutter. It is also used to elevate shelled corn, oats and ground feeds
to bins overhead. The conveyor to this blower is slightly below the
floor level so that ground feed will run from the feed grinder to the
conveyor, so also will our shelled corn, or oats that we are unloading
from wagons, and the re-cut alfalfa. Everything goes to the blower and
is distributed to different bins by turning the spout. An ordinary
ensilage cutter can be used as an elevator for grain just as well as
the separate blower that we use.

Our system of hauling manure is probably more original than our
arrangement for handling feed. We do not shovel the manure out of
this barn, neither do we push it out. We wash it out with a two-inch
stream of water. The gutters slope from the ends of the barn toward
the center, being two feet deep at the center of the barn and one
foot deep at the ends. Over these gutters we have cast-iron grates to
prevent a cow from slipping down. A ten-inch tile leads from the gutter
to a large cess-pool outside of the barn and from this cess-pool we
pump the sewerage along a ridge to the highest ground of the farm and
irrigate it down over the fields. We have an abundant water supply
available, cheap power, and hope this plan will prove a practical means
of handling manure. So far it has been a very easy matter to flush the
manure from the gutters and our sewerage pump throws 200 gallons per
minute through a four-inch pipe up the hill as far as we want to go. We
use cut straw for bedding and run plenty of water in with the manure
so the pump will not clog. The picture of the pump shown is taken from
the catalogue of the American Well Works and does not represent our
cess-pool but is similar to the outfit we use.

  [Illustration: Showing the gutter behind the cows with some of the
 grates removed. The gutter is being filled with water. When full the
 cover to the opening to a 10-inch tile is removed and the rush of the
                      water carries all with it.]

[Illustration: Electric-driven sump pump with 3-inch intake and 2-inch
 discharge which pumps manure and water at the rate of 200 gallons per
                               minute.]

[Illustration: Interior of the barn showing large ventilating flues. At
              the side of the room are the air-intakes.]

Our water pump requires a ten horse-power motor and will throw 150
gallons per minute. Besides a means of getting manure hauled out, we
expect to do some irrigating in dry weather. While running both the
pump at the well and the sewerage pump we require about ten kilowatts
of current per hour. This costs us about five cents per kilowatt.

We have installed the King ventilating system. Where a large herd of
cows are kept in a barn such a ventilating system is a great help. Our
barn is warm and comfortable but not steamy and close.

These systems cost a good deal of money and may not all prove
practical. We are not urging that our example be followed but will be
glad to give any of our readers such data as we may have concerning
the success of these operations. At our barn we prepare the feed for
all of our delivery horses and we expect to keep sixty cows. The method
of handling manure will eliminate most of the breeding places of flies.
Since this milk will be used raw and is produced for babies especially,
extra precautions are necessary in our case. These things we have taken
into consideration when planning so expensive a layout. In a few
months we will know more about these systems and in a few years we will
have a conclusive test made. Those who wish to drop in occasionally to
see how we are getting along will be welcome.

 [Illustration: Interior view of milk house showing sterilizing oven,
            cooler, bottle filler and conveyor for cases.]




                             CHAPTER XII.

                       DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW


Even though I have a farm that at one time I went in debt for and which
I paid for by milking cows, and even though I have spent more of my
working years on a farm than in an office, I can not always pass as a
farmer. At one time I attended a farmers’ meeting where the city man
was up for discussion and a fellow nudged me and said, “Old man, how
do you like it? Haven’t we got you city guys figured out about right?”
I answered, “City people are just like country people in at least one
respect. They are just as much inclined to think their own troubles are
greater than any one else’s.”

Farmers sometimes speak of themselves as the producers, and so, too,
do the labor union men. Even the business men at their meetings are
inclined to pat themselves on the back and to take credit for a very
liberal share in production. We all look at things from our own point
of view. We have gone through certain experiences and have not
experienced others. We can not all expect to be of the same opinion.

But we all have the ability to understand each other when we are given
the chance to see things as other people see them, and it is this
understanding which I hope to promote as I write this brief chapter. I
write this not as a farmer but as a city man giving opinions gradually
formed in several years as a city milk distributor.

To me all are producers alike. The man who sews the shoe for the miner
who digs the ore that makes the plow that plows the field that raises
the wheat that makes the bread that the grocer distributes, does what
is just as important but no more so than any other man or woman in the
long line which production takes. If one may insist that his task forms
the foundation, another man may claim that his forms the roof. But what
is the difference? Without whom can we well get along?

We hear much about the “middle man” who is considered a luxury or
rather an extravagance that ought not to be permitted. Well, I am
one of those middle men and the thing does not look that way at all
to me. I think that all we do for the people--all the service we
render, is worth what we get for it. We middlemen have our troubles
and call ourselves producers and are not in any way conscious of being
“parasites.”

What economic laws apply particularly to one set of people but do not
apply to others down the line? What makes one man’s lot harder than
that of another, and who really has the hardest row to hoe? What shall
we do to the other fellow to keep him from crime and have justice?
These are questions answered in as many different ways as there are
people with different viewpoints. Do we doubt the patriotism of the
club women in cities who decided to boycott eggs and milk to bring
down the price just at the time when these commodities were very hard
to produce and the price already too low for the cost? If we do, it
is because we do not understand their viewpoint and their lack of
information on which to form different conclusions.

A few years ago I often used a certain argument which now I do not use
any more because now I am over on the other side, as they say. From the
other side of the fence the proposition does not look at all the same.
The argument is that the farmer sells his produce in town at the price
the city man is willing to pay and then must buy at the price that the
city man will sell for. Since the city man does all the price fixing
the farmer gets the worst end of the bargain all of the time.

I have no doubt that various markets are juggled by speculators of
various kinds and that there are many exploiters in cities who have
their knives whetted for any one’s meat they can get. The world has not
yet worked out its complete salvation. We all have a few suggestions
that we would not mind making to the party in power. But of this I
feel sure, the majority of business men make their living by rendering
service the same as do farmers. They are up against propositions that
are a good deal alike. I have not noticed much difference. I have to
pay my farmers a good or better bargain than they can get any where
else. In the same way I must compete for labor. I must render the
best service the customer can get for the money. After I do all of
these things, if there is anything left I may have it, and my luck at
different times is good, bad, and all shades between good and bad. All
of us city business men would make more if we could. You can at least
credit us with being ambitious, but more of us fail than do business
men in the country.

At this time probably half of the factories in the United States are
closed down, banks are practically all in a critical condition, stores
are advertising merchandise at half price and yet no one seems to buy
and the farmers’ troubles need no description. What shall we do? Well,
I know some things we should not do that I can illustrate with a story.

A man in Arizona looked down over a ledge of rocks on a cliff and saw
several rattle snakes sunning themselves on a ledge thirty feet below.
Having a small pistol he shot a bullet down among them. Immediately
there started a battle at the end of which all the rattlesnakes were
bitten. In a few minutes they were all dead. An examination showed that
the bullet had apparently not hit any snake. The snakes had all lost
their lives as a result of a misunderstanding.

I heard Major General Wood make a speech in favor of universal
military training but his argument had a different meaning for me
than he intended it should have. He argued that there will be war
as long as people have honest differences of opinion--therefore
always be prepared for war. To me it seems that since no amount of
preparation and war equipment can insure peace we must prevent that
honest difference of opinion. We must keep with all people a better
understanding. Wars are misunderstandings and well meaning people
murder each other because the misunderstandings are kept up with
censorship and propaganda. People are armed with poisons more deadly
than the rattlesnake and all will fight at the drop of the hat if they
feel that they are wronged. What then brings any hope of things better?
It is the spirit that says “Come let us reason together” that points
the way to “Peace on earth, good will toward men.”

There is one thing that all should remember and that is that we are
all of us the public. There is no corporation “without a heart and
without a soul” more heartless than the public. All men strive to do
the thing the public wants most to have done for only those who please
the public’s fancy get paid for their efforts. The public pays no
one interest on investment. It pays no one for time or effort spent.
It pays for the service it wants at the time it wants it and all who
misjudge the public demand may get nothing. Any new process or new
invention puts many people out of business for the public turns coldly
from the old to the new service which it more desires. If we produce
too much of anything the price always goes below cost. Where there is
an undersupply of any thing, there is the best market and the more
profitable business. So it is that by paying or withholding the price
this great Dame Public keeps all courting her favor and doing the
things she wants most to have done. She wins with every winner and then
taxes his income, and lets the loser lose alone.

But although we are all up against the same general laws that govern
business there is a difference between farming and most other business.
A contractor will build a building for us if we agree to pay a price
that he figures will pay his cost plus a profit. Otherwise he will
not do the work. Contracting is supposed to be a somewhat hazardous
business but it is not so risky as farming for the builder knows before
he starts what price he is to get. A farmer can not tell until he is
ready to market his crop what the market will be. The farmer must pay
the cost, hoping. Weather has a great deal to do with results in
farming operations and that makes the business more risky.

Business men in cities as a rule can work much closer to their pay
checks. This makes it possible for them to come much nearer a system of
always getting cost plus a profit. Manufacturers usually aim to take
orders ahead of their output so that knowing their cost and having
their goods already sold at a profit leaves them comparatively clear
sailing. How the farmer can get on the same basis I do not know.

But city business is not all a round of pleasure, for city competition
is keen. If one farmer raises forty bushels of corn per acre and
another can raise sixty, each receives compensation in proportion
to his crop. But if one merchant had that much advantage over his
competitor the unfortunate one would be put clear out of business.
Customers to a merchant are as valuable as pigs are to a farmer and
it is perfectly legal to get the other fellow’s customers in broad
daylight. So we in competitive business keep busier than some people
think.

I have often been asked what I think of farmers’ organizations. Well,
most business men in other lines of business have associations. They
usually result in some good. It is those who expect too much that are
disappointed. So simple a thing as an organization can not cure all
of the difficulties in farming. Some farmers in Kentucky organized to
boost the tobacco market by agreeing among themselves to plant fewer
acres. After the agreement many expected a high price for tobacco and
planted more acres. This is about the kind of co-operation we all have
learned to expect in associations where money interests are involved.
These farmers were right, however, in realizing that in order to boost
the market they had to limit the supply of the product. The law of
supply and demand always works. It works to the advantage of him who
can limit the supply or can increase the demand.

Let me tell you how a trust operates. There is an agreement to fix
prices and production is limited to what will sell at the fixed price.
Then there are fights made against any one outside of the combination
who undertakes to produce that line of goods. The trust magnate knows
well that to control a market he must limit the amount of goods for
sale by combining to fight competition. Without that feature trusts
would be harmless. A trust is a “combination in restraint of trade”--a
fighting organization. Common business men are not afraid to compete
with trusts. It is always the trust that is afraid. To compete means to
race. Trusts always want to hamstring the fellows against whom they are
racing.

To go back to farmers’ organizations, on account of the nature of
their business farmers can never successfully organize to fight down
competition of other farmers and prevent them from producing. They can
not then create an artificial market. Others can sometimes combine
to take advantage of farmers. Farmers can never “get even.” But here
is a truth that many do not realize and it is that although some may
have a less difficult business than farming, not one person out of a
thousand can avoid competition or has any unfair advantage over other
people. Those who would differ from this statement could only change
the figures in the proportion. Change them as you like, and yet we must
agree that it is a good thing that a majority must earn a living in
which there is no graft for they will stand for truth and fairness in
the land. We want freedom in the country and there cannot be freedom
without fair competition--equal opportunities for all as nearly as the
law can insure them.

Where co-operation among farmers can increase efficiency they should
co-operate. The same is true of any other business. For any one to
co-operate in a legitimate way for legitimate purpose is always a
legitimate thing to do. Co-operation need not interfere with free
competition or fair play. I have no word of warning to give to farmers’
organizations that I would not apply as well to others. But I have a
warning that I would like to sound to all the world. Beware of him
who accuses all others of guilt. Beware of him who sees only bad in
the world. There are those “reformers,” they may be called, who would
poison us against our fellows. Watch closely the suggestions of such.
Test their advice by the golden rule. A propaganda of hate is never
needed in a good cause. Peace on earth can only come by fairness and
good will. We need each other’s point of view.




                          Transcriber’s Notes

Page 20: “Ofter the fattest,” changed to “Often the fattest,”

Page 46: “what hapepns” changed to “what happens”

Page 56:  “the fact increases” changed to “the fat increases”

Page 93: “an extravangance” changed to “an extravagance”

Page 99: “corn per ace” changed to “corn per acre”