fi'

OBSERVATEONS 0N SELF-FEEDENG
ROUGHAGES TO DMRY COWS
IN LOOSE-HOUSING

Thesis for N10 Dawn of M. S.
MICHiGAN STATE COLLEGE
James Walker-Love

1954

(M‘r'SlE

0169

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Observations on Self—Feeding Roughages to Dairy
Cows in Loose-Housing

presented by

James Walker-Love

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

\ ., 0
Master degree in I la :1er

Major professor

Date Lia; 14, 19:4

 

“f4 _ J

OBSERVATIONS ON SELF-FEEDING ROUCHAGES TO DAIRY

COWS IN LOOSE-HOUSING

By

JAMES WALKER-LOVE

\——.

A. THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Dairy

1954

THESIS

 

ACKNOW LE DG MEN TS

The author wishes to express his sincere thanks and appre-
ciation to Dr. Earl Weaver, Head of the Dairy Department, for making
this work possible, and to Dr. Robert C. Lewis for directing this in-
vestigation and for his guidance and constructive criticism in the
preparation of this manuscript.

Thanks are also due and readily given to Dr. A. M. Trout,
Mr. J. Jensen, Dr. E. J. Benne, and Dr. C. K. Smith for their
willing and invaluable assistance with particular sections and to
E. S. Smiley, dairy herdsman, and Robert Slee, loose-housing herds-
man, for their continued wholehearted cooperation.

It would seem opportune and appropriate to also put on record
gratitude and thanks to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Were it not
for their fellowship granted the author, he would not have experienced
the pleasure or derived the great benefit of studying under and work-
ing with those already mentioned and the many others who must re-

main unmentioned he re .

331%92

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Feeding Dairy Cows in Loose-Housing . . . . . . .......
Feeding Roughages and Relationship to Concentrates
Roughage. Storage Losses ....... . ........ . . . . '. .
Silage Flavor in Milk . . . . . . . ................. . .
FeedingBehavior.. ....... ............ .......
EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS AND METHODS .........

Materials ........ . . . ......... . ............

Roughage Consumption . ............... . .........

Behavior of Cows ................... . ........

iii

I

Eating silage ...... ' .......................

Loite ring

in yard ..........................

Loitering in lounge . . .................... . . .

Re sting in lounge ..........................

Milk Flavor

Silage Feeding Losses . . . . . . . . . . ..............
Concentrate Feeding in Relation to Roughages ........
Body Weight .................... . . . . . .....
SUMMARY ...... ............. ................
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......... . . . . . ........... . . . . .

APPENDIX .

iv

44

45

46

46

47

51

53

64

66

69

74

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

I. Relative Efficiency of Cows on Limited
Concentrate Ration when Kept in Pen and
Stanchion Barns . . ............... . ...... 8

II. Average Daily Consumption per Cow of
Roughages in Different Combinations ........ . 13

III. Division, Birth Date, Last Calving Dates,

and Stage of Lactation of Experimental Animals . 22
IV. Analysis of Roughages at Storage . . ......... . 24
V. Concentrate Feeding Rates . .......... . . . . . . 26

VI. Group I. Concentrate Feeding Rates for Fifteen-
Day Periods Between December 2, 1953, and
March 16, 1954 ................... . . . . . 27

VII. Group II. Concentrate Feeding Rates for Fifteen-
Day Periods Between December 2, 1953, and '
Marchl6,1954................. ....... 28

VIII. Hay Consumption of Group I During Four
Feeding Periods in November, December, and
January .. ............. ..... .. ..... 32

IX. Silage and Hay Consumption of Group II During
Six Feeding Periods in November, December,
January, And February . . . . ...... . . . ...... 34

X. Analysis and Total Digestible Nutrient Content
ofRoughages.......... ....... 36

TABLE- Page

XI. Pounds of Total Digestible Materials per Cow
Daily Supplied by Roughages ............... 38

XII. Average Time Spent by Group I Animals Eating,

Loitering, and Resting for Three Twenty-Four

Hour Observation Periods . ...... . . ....... . 39
XIII. Average Time Spent by Group II Animals

Eating, Loitering, and Resting for Three

Twenty-Four Hour Observation Periods . ..... 40
XIV. Weather Data for Days of Cow Activity Studies . 43

XV. Flavor Scores and Defects of Individual
MilkSamples ....... .. 48

XVI. Standard Plate Counts of Milk Samples
Collected at the Steel Pen Barn . . . . . . . ..... 50

XVII. Experimental Animals, Concentrate Feeding

Rate, and Period . ............. . . . . . . . . 56

XVIII. Milk Scoring Guide . .................... 75
XIX. HerdActivityData ..... .. 77
XX. Herd Activity Data ......... . . . . ........ 87
XXI. Herd Activity Data . . ..... . .............. 97
XXII. Cow Days Eating Hay and Silage and Hay . . . . . 107
XXIII. Pounds of Silage Hauled from Silo . . . ....... 108

XXIV. Pounds of Milk Produced by Three Day
Averages . ..... ......... ..... . ....... 110

XXV. Pounds of Milk Produced by Fifteen Day
Averages.. ....... ..... 114

vi

TABLE
XXVL
xxvn.
xxan
xxnc
xxx.
XXXL
xxxn.
xxan

XXXIV .

Body
Body
Body
Body
Body
Body
Body
Body

Body

Weights
Weights
Weights
Weights
Weights
Weights
Weights
Weights

Weights

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

Expe rimental
Experimental
Expe rimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental

Experimental

vii

Animals .

Anim a1 5

Animals

Animals

Animals

Animals

Animal 5

Animal s .

......

Page
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123

124

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Scale diagram of the steel, quonset-type loose-
housing barn and its feeding area on the
Michigan State College dairy farm at East

Lansing........ ...... ...... 20
2. Hourly distribution of time at various

activities by animalsingroupI............. 41
3. Hourly distribution of time at various

activities by animals in group II . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4. Effect on milk production of alternating group

I animals between concentrate rates 3 and 4 . . . . 58
5. Effect on milk production of alternating group‘

II animals between concentrate rates 1, 2, and 3 . .60
6. Effect on milk production of changing from

hay alone to hay and silage and vice versa

with concentrate rate constant . . . . . ......... 63
7. Average body weight of experimental animals

in each group ............. . . . . ........ 65

viii

IN TR ODUC TION

The trend in milk production is, at the present time, toward
a gradual increase in costs of production without a corresponding
increase in milk return. If the present conditions persist, it would
seem that the major hope of the milk producer for maintaining a
reasonable margin of profit is to increase the efficiency of his oper—
ation.

It is well known that the two major items in milk production
are labor and feeding costs. New labor-saving methods, such as the
barn cleaner, the milking parlor, and self-feeding, in recent years,
have been developed and brought into use on many farms. Labor-
saving is one of the main reasons for the increaSed popularity of the
loose-housing system, which incorporates many work simplification
ideas.

As far as feeding is concerned, the importance of including
good quality roughage in the ration of the dairy cow is now realized.
A recent investigation by the Department of Agricultural Economics,
Michigan State College (36), indicates that feed costs are lower and
returns above feed costs higher on those farms where there is a

l

2
liberal use of good quality roughage and a lower concentrate feeding
rate. Many Michigan dairy farmers are now producing and storing
good quality roughages.

The old idea that the acids in more than 35 pounds of silage
daily per cow were harmful now has been proven wrong by the exper—
ience 'of many farmers and by most Agricultural Experiment Stations
(13). The Washington Experiment Station (2) has reported that one of
their herds consumed an average of 91 pounds of silage per cow daily.
It seems logical to consider that with higher silage feeding levels, it
should be possible to reduce concentrate feeding rates, and to thus
reduce production costs.

This study is directed towards this and other aspects of self-
feeding roughages under loose-housing conditions, the objectives being:

1. To study the self-feeding of dairy cows in loose‘housing
with particular reference to the effect on hay consumption when silage
is included in the ration.

2. To study the effect of type of roughage provided upon con-
centrate requirements ..

3. To assess 'the roughage feeding losses involved under the
loose-housing system when self-feeding is practiced.

4. To study the flavor of the milk produced.

5. To study the feeding habits of the cows when on different

r oughage ration s .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

As this research seeks to explore more than one facet of
feeding dairy cows in loose-housing, it is proposed, for simplicity and
convenience, to discuss the literature under the following headings:

(l) feeding of dairy cows in loose-housing; (2) feeding roughages and
their relationship to concentrate requirements; (3) roughage losses
during storage; (4) silage flavor in milk; and (5) cattle feeding behav-
ior. However, it will be readily appreciated that it is impossible to

make a complete separation between these sections.
Feeding Dairy Cows in Loose-Housing

In what appears to be the first mention of loose—housing of
dairy cattle in the literature, Fraser (8), in 1905, reported a survey
made of eighteen farms using this sytem. It is stated that satisfac-
tion was obtained when the cows were fed roughage liberally and
grain according to the milk production. The unspecified amount of
roughage usually was fed from a large manger in the center of the

shed.

Reporting on a 3—year experiment with closed versus open
stabling of dairy cows in 1913, Buckley and Lamson (3) indicated that
the cost of producing milk was slightly less in the open shed than in
the closed stable. By monthly weighings it was shown that the cows
in the open shed made an average gain in body weight of 4.6 percent,
while those in the closed stable lost 5.6 percent in body weight during
the experimental period. The kinds and amounts of roughages and
concentrates fed were the same for both groups. The concentrate
feeding rate was not reported.

Davis (4), in 1914, recorded that cows kept in an open shed
had keener appetites and consumed more roughage than those kept in
a stanchion barn. -

An investigation on loose-housing was carried out under the
auspices of the United States Department of Agriculture and reported
by Woodward, Turner, Hale, and McNulty (38) in 1918. It was shown
that the cows in the open shed consumed somewhat more feed and
produced slightly more milkOthan those kept in the closed barn..
However, the increase in production, under prices then ruling, was
not sufficient to offset the extra feed costs. The cows were fed all

the silage and hay they would consume without waste. Body weights

we re not recorded.

The first detailed feeding records appear in 1935 under the
authorship of Dice (5). This work showed that cows housed in the
stanchion barn used 16.03 pounds of total digestible nutrients for 1
pound of butter-fat, and 0.629 pounds of total digestible nutrients for
each pound of milk produced. C\ows housed in an open shed con-
sumed 14.02 pounds of total digestible nutrients per pound of butter-
fat, and 0.635 pounds of total digestible nutrients for each pound of
milk produced. During the 5-month trial the group in the stanchion
barn each gained, on an average, 68 pounds in body weight, and the
herd in the open shed, 88 pounds. The cows in the open shed were
said to be more persistent producers.

By 1945, interest in loose-housing had greatly increased as,
by this time, the possible Savings in labor and costs were more
widely recognized. Jefferson and Weaver (15) reported on a number
of the advantages and disadvantages based on the experience of
Seventy-eight Michigan farmers. The self-feeding hay rack was par-
ticularly favored, but no indication was given of the roughage quantities
used.

The work of Graves, Dawson, and Kopland (ll) of the United
States Department of Agriculture Experiment Station at Huntley showed

that cows produced more milk and butter-fat when kept under the

loose-housing system. While on trial, the animals were permitted to
feed on alfalfa hay and corn silage at will. Cows on a concentrate
ration of 1 pound of concentrates to 3 pounds of milk produced approx-
imately 19 percent more milk in the pen barn while consuming 7,296
pounds of total digestible nutrients plus pasture, as compared with
6,950 pounds of total digestible nutrients plus pasture when in the
stanchion barn.. The average gain in body weight was 176 pounds in
the pen barn compared with 135 pounds. in the stanchion barn. Cows
on a concentrate ratio of 1 pound to 9 pounds of milk produced ap-
proximately 7 percent more milk in the pen barn while consuming
9,253 pounds of total digestible nutrients, compared with 7,805 pounds
in the stanchion barn. The average gain in body weight was 119
pounds in the pen barn, as compared with 41 pounds in the stanchion
barn. As the cows on the limited concentrate ration did not have ac-
cess to pasture, it was possible to compare their relative efficiency
of concentrate utilization (Table I).

It is apparent from this study that the cows in the pen barn
ate more, produced more, and gained more body weight than the cows
in the stanchion barn.

Further investigations by Dice (6), reported in 1947, allowed

him to postulate that apparently milk cows on full feed when in cold

TABLE I

RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF COWS ON LIMITED CONCENTRATE
RATION WHEN KEPT IN PEN AND STANCHION BARNS

 

 

 

Item Pen Barn Stanchion Barn
Total digestible nutrients ....... 9,253 7,805
Pounds of milk produced ........ 14,319 13,363

Pounds of TDN required per
pound of milk produced . . . . ..... 0.6462 0.5840

 

 

open housing produce adequate surplus heat over usual maintenance
requirements to maintain body temperatures without using additional
nutrients for that purpose. Accordingly, no higher requirements
need to be allowed for under the loose-housing systemI Smith,

Shaw, Gilden, and Nichols (30) found that severe cold weather did not
deter the cow from feeding at outside racks; however, it was empha-

Sized that the feeding area should have no cross drafts.
Feeding Roughages and Relationship to Concentrates

Self-feeding of dairycows was first mentioned in the litera-
ture by Hunt in the 1918 annual report of the Virginia Agricultural

Experiment Station (14). This study covered the self-feeding of

 

 

5..»

 

roughages and concentrates. It was found that the cows consumed
feed in quantities which were very much in excess of what was really
required for maintenance and milk production. On the average,

41.83 pounds of corn silage and 17.3 pounds of concentrates were
consumed per cow daily. The average daily milk yield was 25.6 pounds
per cow. Therefore, 1 pound of concentrates was consumed for every
1.47 pounds of milk produced. No sickness was encountered and, as
was to be expected, the general condition of the cows improved during
the trial.

Work of a similar nature was reported by Nevans (24) in 1918
which confirmed that when all feed was self-fed, most of the cows
consumed from 50 to 100 percent more net energy than the estimated
requirements. From the standpoint of digestible protein, the amounts
consumed were quite uneconomical.

For the remainder of the 1920's, self—feeding references are
Confined to swine. However, Fraser (9), in 1939, recommended self-
feeding roughages to dairy cows and indicated that many farmers had
already successfully adopted this system.

In 1950, Stewart (32), in a field study of practices in loose-
housing, found that many milk producers did not know what their

roughage consumption was. Out of thirty-six farms visited, only

10
three practiced self-feeding; the remainder fed roughage from man-
gers in the lounging area. The amount of concentrate consumed
varied widely, but no attempt was made to correlate it with pro-
duction.

In 1940, a lO—year Wisconsin dairy barn research project was
set in motion and was reported by Witzel, Heizer, and co-workers in
1951 (37). This project was established to compare the loose-housing
of dairy cattle with conventional stanchion barns. The objectives
were comprehensive, studying such aspects as minimum requirements
for proper housing, efficient management, quality and quantity of milk,
health, feed requirements, bedding, and temperatures. Roughages
were hand-fed ad libitum. The loose-housing herd cleaned up slightly
more roughage and gained more body weight than the herd housed in
the stanchion barn. A 9-year average of 20.4 pounds of hay and 35.8
pounds of silage, providing 16.89 pounds of total digestible nutrients,
were consumed daily by the loose-housing herd. No concentrate feed-
ing rate was stated, but, according to the total consumption, 0.86
Pounds of total digestible nutrients were required per pound of 4
percent fat corrected milk. The milk produced by the herd in loose-
housing consistently was found to be of high quality, and odor and

flavor tests, with few exceptions, were satisfactory.

11

Yeck and Cleaver (41) outlined many of the modern concepts
of loose-housing. Feeding requirements for 1,000—pound cows were
discussed in some detail. It was suggested that where silage is fed
ad libitum along with some good quality hay, 60 pounds of silage and
10 pounds of hay will be required daily for each animal. A concen-
trate feeding rate of 1 pound to 3 to 4 pounds of milk was coupled
with this recommendation.

Blosser and his associates (2) conducted a trial in 1952 to find
out the production of dairy cows when they were allowed to consume
large quantities of alfalfa-grass silage and this was compared with
results obtained when a very small quantity of hay plus ad libitum
alfalfa-grass silage was fed. Average daily roughage consumption per
cow was 100.6 pounds when cows received silage alone, and 91.0
pounds when they were also fed 5 pounds of hay daily. Concentrates
were fed at the rate of 1 pound to 4 pounds of 4 percent fat corrected
milk. The hay and silage group produced slightly more milk than
when hay was omitted.

Porter (26), at Iowa, carried out a number of self-feeding ob—
Se rvations with dry milk cows. Under loose-housing conditions they
had access to good alfalfa hay,,‘corn silage, and grass silage. In

order to check amounts taken, at intervals the hay keeper and silo

12

were fenced off and weighed amounts of the roughages offered ad
libitum for 24-hour periods. Table II summarizes average con—
sumption per cow for these different roughage combinations.

On studying these data, it would appear that it might be pos-
sible to economize on the amount of concentrates fed, under some
conditions, as combination 3, for example supplied about 17.9 pounds
of total digestible nutrients while combination 1 furnished only 15.8
pounds.

The scale of such an economy will depend on the quality of
theroughage. Moore (22) has represented the "values” found in
good quality roughage as being a better source of vitamins and min-
erals, increased digestibility, and the greater consumption that can
be obtained.

Dickson and Kopland (7) tried to determine to what extent a
limited feed of grain with roughage and a ration consisting of roughage
alone affected'the quantity of milk from Holstein cows which were
Capable of good production. It was found that feeding grain at the
rate of 1 pound for each 3 pounds of milk produced was wasteful.
The authors stated that, under their conditions, 1 pound of grain fed
for 6 pounds of milk produced proved adequate when fed with all the

roughage the cows could consume. Cows fed thus produced 94 percent

13

TABLE 11

AVERAGE DAILY CONSUMPTION PER COW OF ROUGHAGES
IN DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS

 

 

 

Item Hay Corn Silage Grass Silage
(pounds) (pounds) (pounds)
Combination l. . . . . . . . 15 41.7
Combination 2. . . . . . . . 7.6 33 19
Combination 3. . . . . . . . 13 57
Combination 4. . . . . . . . 50 23

 

fr
‘4

as much milk as did cows fed twice as much grain. It was also
shown that feeding grain at 1 poundto 6 pounds of milk increased
production by .22 percent over cows‘fed only roughage.

In 1946 Monroe and Livezey (21) reported on a two-level
grain feeding trial carried out under farm conditions over a 3-year
period. In this case, the moderate grain group which was fed at
the rate of 1 pound for every 6.5 pounds of milk produced, resulted
in 97 percent as much milk as did cows fed slightly more than
twice as much grain. The curves of lactation for the two groups

were approximately similar, thus indicating that the persistency of

C” h
\_....I
.-
.._...

 

Cs
~\_

14
,the moderate grain group had not been adversely affected. This was

in agreement with work done by Wylie and Neal (40).
Roughage Storage Losses

The losses in weight and dry matter during the storage of
chopped alfalfa hay was studied by Woodward and Shepherd (39). On
comparing the weights and the dry matter of the hay at the time of
storage, with the weights at the time of feeding, it was found that
there had been a loss of 21.5 percent in weight and 3.2 percent in
dry matter during storage. Analysis showed the moisture had dropped
from 25.31 percent to 7.93 percent, and that by far the greatest part,
of the dry matter loss was in the nitrogen—free extract. Data pre-
sented did not include losses between time of mowing and storage.

King (18), at the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station in
1 895, was one of the pioneers in determining losses during silage

formation. It was reported that in one silo, 63.4 tons of corn was
filled and 57.2 tons of good silage removed, representing a 10 percent
10 ss in weight. The loss in dry matter was 8.1 percent. About the
S arne time, similar losses were obtained at other stations, and
J Ordan (17) proved by feeding trials that silage formation caused a

loss of nutritive value.

15

In 1924, the work of Ragsdale and Turner (27) demonstrated
that there was an unavoidable loss of dry matter during the ensiling
process averaging 7.5 percent for fifty-four silos when surface spoil-
age was taken into account.

Watson (35) considered losses involved in making silage in
three categories: (1) drainage loss; (2) losses due to respiration and
subsequent bacterial fermentation; and (3) loss due to waste resultant
from such causes as molds. It was considered that (2) was unavoid-
able but where practices were sound, the losses under (1) and (3)
were usually negliglble. Watson achieved greater accuracy in his
.determination by employing a correction to allow for the loss of
volatile substances per 100 pounds of dry matter out of the silo. He
considered that at no time more than one-quarter of the fresh crop
nutrients should be lost in silage—making. As far as (1) is con-
cerned, Archibald and Gumiess (1) showed, from a 7-year study, that
the seepage losses in silage were not serious; good management
reduced it to an insignificant figure.

In 1941 a detailed silage investigation was reported from
Beltsville (29) covering several seasons of making and- feeding silage.
For this work eight silos were used. All the corn was weighed as it

was hauled to the ensilage cutter, and again as removed from the

16

silo 100 or more days later. Averaging the figures given for the six
silos filled with well—eared corn silage showed that there was a 14.5
percent loss in dry matter. This included top spoilage, which varied

from 8 to 18 inches in depth.
Silage Flavor in Milk

Ever since silage came into use as a feed for dairy cattle,
its effect on the flavor and odor of the milk produced has been a
controversial issue. Gamble and Kelly (10), as a result of their ob-
servations, stated that the flavor of silage is mainly imparted to the
milk through the body of the cow. They found that when silage was
fed; 1 hour prior to milking, the flavor was very quickly absorbed,
resulting in a pronounced milk taint. Leitch (19) reported that
milk tainted by silage was caused by feeding silage just before milk-
ing or at any time when the silage was in a decomposed or moldy
state.

Trout (33) recorded a particular case where a distinct
"silage" flavor was found in milk which had been rejected repeatedly.
This milk was traced to cows that had been fed silage just previous
to milking. The herd owner reported that this flavor was eliminated

when the feeding routine was changed.

17
The effect of feeding corn silage on milk flavor was studied
by Roadhouse and Henderson (28), who offered 5 to 12 pounds of
good quality corn silage to cows 1 to 2 hours before milking. It was
found that there was a distinct feed flavor when 10 pounds of silage
were fed 1 hour before milking, but none when 5 pounds were fed
under similar circumstances. From these data, it can be concluded

that silage feed flavor in milk definitely exists.
Feeding Behavior

Work has been done by Harshbarger (12) to determine the
average rate at which dairy cows consume grain, silage, and hay.
The rate of eating was highest for Holsteins and lowest for Jerseys,
with other breeds intermediate. The average rates of feeding were
found to range from 2 to 3 minutes per pound of grain, 1.75 to
2.75 minutes per pound of silage, and 7.16 minutes per pound of
hay.

Johnson (16) studied individual cow activities under loose-
housing conditions. Hay and silage eating time showed a range of
295 to 399 minutes with an average of 339 minutes per cow daily.
Three-quarters of this total roughage eating time was spent eating

silage. During the last three months of the winter in which the

18
observations were made, silage was not available; consequently the
hay—eating time for this period was greater, ranging from 284 to
324 minutes, with an average of 304 minutes per cow per day. Eating
. was fairly well distributed throughout the day, but slight preference
was shown to the the hours of 8 to 12 a.m.

Simultaneously with the above work, Porter, at Iowa (26), made
some limited observations to find out how dairy cows would select
roughage when offered a variety to choose from. The herd had
direct access to hay and to above-ground stack silage. The average
time daily per cow was 184 minutes eating silage and 39 minutes
eating hay. During a 24-hour feeding period, it was found that each

cow consumed, on an average, 57 pounds of corn silage and 13

pounds of hay.

EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials

Barn and feed lot areas. The steel quonset-type loose-

 

housing barn which is part of the Dairy Cattle Housing Research
Project at Michigan State College, was used for this study. The unit
includes two barns. One provides storage for cut straw at one end,
lounge area in the center, and at the other end, calf and maternity
pens, milking parlor, and milk room. The lounge area is open on
the south side and faces on to a paved barn yard. The other barn
is situated on the west of the paved yard and provides storage for
chopped hay. As hay self-feeding was desired, a movable feeder
was erected along the paved yard side of the hay barn through which
the cows could feed. This fence was moved back into the barn as
' the hay was consumed. A self-feeding verticle silo was located at
the south end of the paved yard area. Ample feeding space was
provided at'the self—feeders.

For the purpose of this work, it was necessary to divide the
herd into two groups in order to place the cows on two different
roughage rations. Figure 1 shows the buildings and silo lay—out and

19

20

 

P MU - z'- a“ ‘ '

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

‘ I
3 5mm 5 Box STALLS
'6 :
.° ! .
3 ; ct.
STORAGE ' MILKING
E mama MILK
I
.11— }

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0
% [ - 36-?" J
7 M an fl
I . . ' i o
24 -o 4 “
I u
l g u . 0
:g 5 HAY PAVEU YARD '0
g A O
-_' 3 STORAGE in
O ‘ 1 h
K
B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40172:
7
os‘- 0' ' ' ‘

Figure 1. Scale diagram of the steel, quonset-type loose-housing
barn and its feeding area on the Michigan State College

dairy farm at East Lansing.

21
illustrates the division of the lounge and yard areas. Area A con-
tained 1,336 square feet in area, being made up by 520 square feet
inthe lounge and 816 square feet in the paved yard. This provided
58 and 91 square feet per cow, respectively. Area B was 3,556
square feet in area, being made up of 919 square feet in the lounge
and 2,637 square feet in the paved yard, which represented 65 and

186 square feet per cow, respectively.

Cows used. Twelve Brown Swiss and eleven Holstein cows

 

were used for this study. All the Brown Swiss, with the exception of
Number 322, had spent the winter of 1952-53 in the loose-housing
barn. The Holsteins, on October 7, 1953, occupied this type of
housing for the first time. At the start of the study period in No-
vember, all the cows appeared to have normal udders and good ap—
petites. Herd number, birth dates, date of last calving, and month
of lactation of the experimental animals as of November 15, 1953.

are shown in Table 111.

Management practices. The herd was milked twice daily, at

 

5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., receiving concentrates while in the milking
parlor. It was possible to maintain the same concentrate mixture of

1,100 pounds of ground shelled corn, 400 pounds of oats, 200 pounds

TABLE III

22

DIVISION, BIRTH DATE, LAST CALVING 'DATES, AND STAGE

OF LACTATION OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

 

 

 

Calved
Exper- Herd Date of Date Of Month During
imental Breed , Last of Lac- _
No. Birth , , Experi-
Group Calv1ng tation
ment
I 322 Brown 1/22/41 11/19/52 11
Swiss
350 ” 8/23/45 9/11/53 2
365 '1 8/7/47 4/3/53 7
367 '1 10/13/47 7/20/53 4
369 ” 3/13/48 1/12/53 dry 1/6/54
490 Holstein 2/2/46 11/4/53 1
503 ” 1/1/47 8/29/53 3
521 " 2/17/48 1/7/53 dry 2/2/54
531 ” 3/8/49 2/17/53 9 2/2/54
‘11 335 Brown 3/3/43 4/23/52 dry 11/21/53
Swiss
360 ” 4/11/47 9/7/53 2
371 ” 11/3/48 2/24/53 10
372 1‘ 11/3/48 1/18/53 11
377 " 4/25/49 12/8/52 12
379 " 11/7/49 6/25/53 5
389 ’1 9/10/50 12/6/52 12 2/3/54
466 Holstein 6/27/44 5/28/53 6
496 " 5/10/46 11/29/52 dry 12/24/53
517 " 11/19/47 4/8/53 7
520 ” 1/23/48 10/4/53 2
523 ” 3/9/48 3/22/53 8
525 ” 4/10/48 1/5/53 10 1/23/54
533 ” 5/21/49 1/31/53 10 1/31/54

 

 

 

—;'
I

23
of rye and 300 pounds of soybean oil meal throughout the experimental
period. Except during milking, the cows were free toimove at will
between the lounge and yard in their respective areas.

The roughage used was medium quality alfalfa-brome hay and
corn silage. It was recorded at filling time that 58.63 tons of chopped
hay were put in the barn, and 118.5 tons of corn silage were put into
the silo. The chemical analysis at the time of filling is given in
Table IV.

Fresh hay was moved to the self-feeders after each milking,
and the personnel of the Department of Agricultural Engineering con—
trolled the fall of silage in the self-feeding silo so as to insure. a
constant supply.

The lounge area was bedded with chopped straw just before
the evening milking, and the yard area was scraped weekly when

weather permitted.
Methods

Each animal was weighed on November 15, 16, and 17, 1953,
at the beginning of the trial. All the cows were weighed on three
consecutive days; the average of these three weights was taken as
the weight of the cow. This 3-day weighing was carried out approxi—

mately every 2 weeks throughout the test period.

24

TABLE IV

ANALYSIS OF ROUGHAGES AT STORAGE

 

 

—_i—:

 

 

Percentage

1.... 1333133331011
Hay Silage
Water ...... . . . ............... . . . . . . 31.89 67.37
N-Free Extract .................... . . . 28.60 19.37
Crude Fibre . . . . . . . ...... . . ....... . . . 27.16 8.53
Protein ............ ................. 7.00 2.44
Ash. ........... . 4.05 1.60
Ether Extract . . . . ....... . ....... . . . . . 1.30 0.69

 

 

The herd was divided between areas A. and B (Figure 1) on
November 6, 1953, as shown in Table III. Prior to this date, all
cows received concentrates at approximately 1 pound for each 2.7
pounds of milk produced and ad libitum hay and corn silage.

The two groups, although confined to their respective areas,
were subjected to the same conditions with the exception of the
feeding. Group I, in. area A, had access to alfalfa-brome hay ad
libitum. Group II, in area B, had access to ad libitum alfalfa-brome

hay and corn silage. Although both roughages were self-fed, regular

25
watch was kept, especially during cold weather, to insure that a sup-
ply was readily available.

In order to obtain an indication of the amounts of silage
eaten, on four periods throughout the trial, covering 10 days (24
hours), additional bunks were brought into the lot and the self-feeding
silo (was fenced off. All silage offered was weighed, and what was
not consumed was weighed back after each 24 hours. The amount of
hay consume-d was Similarly measured on five occasions covering a
total of eleven days.

For the first 15 days of the experiment, November 15-30,
1953, all cows were fed concentrates at 1 pound for every 3.5 pounds
of milk produced, but this rate was varied slightly depending on
stage of lactation and general condition. The daily milk weight was
recorded in the course of usual routine.

Starting on December 2, 1953, the concentrate feeding rates
indicated in Table V were adopted. Table VI shows how Group I
was subdivided into lots A and B and the concentrate rate of feeding
for, the seven lS-day periods ending December 16, December 31,
January 15, January 30, February 14, March 1, and March 16, 1954.
Table VII shows similar information in relation to Group II, but in

this group, three lots, A, B, and C, were used.

26

TABLE V

CONCENTRA TE FEEDING RATES

J A
—j—

 

 

Daily Rate
Milk (pounds of concentrate fed daily)l
Yield
(lbs.) 1 2 3 4 1t‘"
0 0 0 O 2 '.
5 0 0 0 4 k
10 0 0 2 6
15 0 0 4 8
20 0 2 6 10
25 0 4 8 12
30 2 6 10 14
. 35 4 8. 12 16
4O 6 10 14 18
45 8 12 16 20
50 10 14 18 22
55 12 16 20 24
60 14 18 22 26
65 16 20 24 28
7O 18 22 26 30

 

 

At high levels no more concentrates were fed than the cow
clean up readily.

 

27
TABLE VI

GROUP 1. CONCENTRATE FEEDING RATES FOR FIFTEEN-DAY
PERIODS BETWEEN DECEMBER 2, 1953, AND MARCH 16, 1954

 

 

Feeding Period

 

 

 

H . .
Lot bird Dec. Dec. Jan. Jan. J??? Flesb Mar.
0' 2-16 17-31 1-15 16-30 2-16
1 Feb. 14 Mar. 1
(rate) (rate) (rate) (rate) (rate)
(rate) (rate)
A 350 3 4 3 4 4 3 3+
silage
367 3 4 3 4 4 -b .-
a ,
490 4 4 3 4 4 3 3
322 dry2 dry dry dry dry dry dry
531 dry dry dry dry dry 4a 4
B 503 4 , 3 4 3 3+ 3 3
silage
365 4 3 4 3 3+ dry dry
silage
369 dry dry 43L 4 4 3 3
5 Z 1 dry dry dry dry 4a 4 4

 

 

 

 

Using Table V, read off pounds of concentrates per day
against milk yield.

Dry cows received 4 pounds of concentrate per day.
High rate till past lactation peak.
Cow withdrawn from herd.

TABLE

VII

28

GROUP 11. CONCENTRATE FEEDING RATES FOR FIFTEEN-DAY
PERIODS BETWEEN DECEMBER 2, 1953, AND MARCH 16, 1954

 

 

Feeding Period

 

 

 

Lot Ilieord Dec. Dec. Jan. Jan. J51: F1653: Mar.
' 2-16 17-31 1-15 16—30 2-16
(rate) (rate) (rate) (rate) Feb. 14 Mar 1 (rate)
, (rate) (rate)
7- a
A 525 dry dry dry dry 3 3 3
335 3a 3 3 1 1 3 3
372 1 2 3 1 1 3+ hay 3
517 l 2 3 l l 3 3+hay
533 1 dry dry dry 3 3 3
B 520 2 -b - - - - -
496 dry dry 3a 3 2 2 3
466 2 3 -b - - -
379 2 3 1 3 3 3 3
377 2 3 l 3 3 3 3
C 523 3 1 2 dry dry dry dry
371 3 l 2 3 3 3 3
360 3 1 2 3 3 3 3+hay
389 3 1 dry dry dry —b -

 

 

Using Table V, read off pounds of concentrate per day

against milk yield.

Dry cows received no concentrates.

a

High rate till past lactation peak.

Cows withdrawn from herd.

29

Unfortunately, cows 466 and 520 had to be removed from the
herd and the experiment during December, 1953, 367 and 389 in
February, 1954, and 523 died as a result of milk fever in March.

Number 466 continually came in heat with resultant abnormal produc—
tion, and the other three cows developed acute mastitis. Cows 369, .
490, 496, and 503 also developed mastitis during the experimental
period, and consequently their production records could not be used.

Individual milk samples were taken at the evening milking on
December 21, 1953, February 9 and 23, 1954, and at the morning
milking on December 22, 1953, February 10 and 24, 1954. A composite
nilk sample was also drawn from the bulk tank at the steel barn on
December, 22, 1953. All these samples were examined and judged for
nilk flavor using the score guide shown in Appendix Table XVIII. .
)uring December, January, and February, the milk was examined
acteriologically at intervals.

As careful a record as possible was kept of any silage which
as removed from the self-feeding silo from time to time, either
r other stock or because unfit for stock due to spoilage.

An analysis was made of three hay and silage samples taken

January, February, and March, 1954, respectively.

 

 

30

Cow activity studies were carried out as a 24—hour observa-

tion for a total of three days during the experimental period. Every

10 minutes during the studies the number of cows (1) eating silage,

(2) eating hay, (3) loitering in the yard, (4) loitering in the lounge or

being milked, and (5) resting in the lounge were recorded. In order

to avoid all possible disturbance of the cows during the hours of

darkness, a hand flashlight was used to check the cows instead of

using the barn lights. These activity studies were carried out on the

following dates:
1. December 22, 12:00 to 8:00 a.m.; December 26, 8:00 to

2:00 p.m.; December 22, 2:00 to 12:00 p.m.

2. January 2, 12:00 to 12:00 a.m.; January 3, 12:00 to 12:00

3. February 5, 6:00 p.m. to February 6, 6:00 p.m.

By way of a summary of methods, the records kept during this in-

vestigation were:
1. Cow body weights.

2. Daily consumption of roughages on specified days.
3. Milk production.

4. Milk flavor and bacteria count.

5. Silage waste or silage removed.

6. Cow activities during 24 hours.

v—— ._.- .—

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

While the five management studies carried out, namely
roughage consumption, behavior of cows, silage feeding losses, milk
flavor and roughage effect on concentrate requirement, are all inti-

mately associated, the results are presented and discussed under

these respective headings.

Roughage Consumption

Determinations were made of the amount of hay consumed
daily by animals in group I receiving hay as their only roughage and
also the amount of hay and silage consumed daily by animals in group
II.

The hay consumption for group I animals is shown in Table
VIII ‘based on data obtained from four feeding periods made up of a
3- and a 2—day period in November, a 2-day period in December, and
a 3—day period in January, making a total of 10 days. During the

first feeding period in November the hay was weighed and moved to

the self—feeders every 24 hours. Observations suggested that the

amount of hay consumed under these conditions was not reflecting a

31

TABLE VIII

32

HAY CONSUMPTION OF GROUP I DURING FOUR FEEDING
PERIODS IN NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, AND JANUARY

 

 

Pounds of Hay Eaten

 

 

No No. of _________________ __
Feeding Date of Cow
Da 5 Da 5 Total Avg' per
Y Y Cow Daily
Nov. 16-19, 1953 3 27 455 16.9a
Nov. 22-24, 1953 2 16 317 19.8
Dec. 26-28,1953 2 18 409 22.7
Jan. 28-31, 1954 3 25 575 23.0
Total 7 86 1,756 22.0

 

 

Omitted when computing over-all average.

true day-by- day picture .

Accordingly, for the second and subsequent

feeding periods, the hay was weighed and moved to the self-feeders

every 12 hours, resulting in a 17.2 percent increase in consumption

vhich was more than maintained in the remaining two feeding periods.

7he amount consumed was found to vary between the feeding periods

r'om 16.9 pounds per cow daily in November to 23 pounds per cow

aily in January. In computing the over-all average of 22 pounds per

 

_4 --0fi

 

33
cow daily, it was felt that the reason given above justified omitting
the 16.9 pounds consumption obtained in the first feeding period.

Table IX shows the silage and hay consumption of group 11
experimental animals when these roughages were hand fed. The
silage was offered to the cows ad libitum in bunks which were
brought into the lot especially for the purpose on 5 days in November,
2 days iniDecember, and 3 days in January, making a total of 10
days. The average consumption of silage per cow daily ranged, be-
tween the feeding periods, from 53.3 pounds to 60.2 pounds. The low
consumption was again obtained in the first feeding period when more
than a 3-day supply was offered at once. During the first day of
the period the cows demonstrated normal feeding habits, but by the
third day, the silage had started to heat badly with the top surface
well "picked-over" resulting in an obvious lack of interest in the
silage on the part of the cows. As a result of this experience, in
subsequent silage feeding periods, a quantity of fresh silage was
weighed out every 12 hours, thus coming more in line with the feed—
ing conditions which existed when cows fed directly from the self-
feeding silo. The result obtained in the first silage feeding period
was not taken’into account when calculating the over-all silage con—

sumption of 58.6 pounds per cow daily. The hay consumption of

TABLE IX

34

SILAGE AND HAY CONSUMPTION OF GROUP 11 DURING 51x
FEEDING PERIODS IN NOVEMBER, DECEMBER,
JANUARY, AND FEBRUARY

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pounds of Pounds of
Silage Eaten Hay Eaten
No. No. of
Feeding Date of Cow Avg. Avg.
D
ays Days Total per Total per
Cow Cow
Daily Daily
Nov. 16-19, 1953 3 42 2,238 53.3a 293 7.0
Nov. 22—24, 1953 2 28 1,630 58.2 174 6.2
Dec. .26—28, 1953 ' 2 22 , 1,250 56.8 169 7.7
Jan. 22-25, 1954 3 32 1,926 60.2 --- ---
Jan. 28-31, 1954 2 24 ----- -——- 173 7.2
Feb. 25-27, 1954 2 21 ----- --—— 153 7.3
Total Silage 7 82 4,806 58.6 --— --—
Total Hay 11 137 ----- ---— 962 7.0

 

 

 

L

a . .
Omitted when computing Silage over-all average.

35

group 11 animals was obtained for 11 days, embracing 5 feeding per-

iods during November, December, January, and February. The con-

sumption did not vary much between the feeding periods and the
average amount of hay consumed by these animals was found to
average 7.0 pounds per cow daily.

No rain or snow was experienced during any of the feeding
periods reported, and therefore, the weighing back of the roughages

at the termination of the feeding periods was possible without requir—

ing consideration of changes in moisture content. Two other points

observed throughout the entire experimental period are related to the

silage—fed group 11 animals. They obviously tended to be far more

"choosey" as to the quality of hay which they would eat; this was
especially apparent when the self—feeders were being cleared as the

hay removed from group II feeders was always superior to that re—

moved from group I feeders. The feces from group 11 animals were

consistently slightly softer than those from group I.

The hay and silage was sampled and analyzed on January 1,
February 1, and March 1, 1954. Table X shows the analyses of the
hay used by group I and hay and silage used by group II. In the same

table the average analysis is shown and also the total digestible

ANALYSIS AND TOTAL DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENT
CONTENT OF ROUGHAGES

TABLE X

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silage

Jan. Feb. Mar. Avg. T.D.N.
Water 69.44 67.83 65.83 67.70 -----
N.F.E. 18.02 19.45 20.49 19.32 13.33
Fibre 7.51 7.27 8.31 7.69 5.13
Protein 2.59 2.69 2.85 2.71 1.43
Ash 1.55 1.69 1.62 1.62 -----
Ether extract 0.89 1.07 0.90 0.93 1.55

Hay Group I
Water 9.37 9.10 9.33 9.27 -----
N.F.E. 39.18 38.84 38.53 38.85 27.19
Fibre 35.63 33.11 35.98 34.91 15.36
Protein 9.25 11.13 9.44 9.94 7.06
Ash 4.98 5.97 5.22 5.39 -----
Ether extract 1.59 1.85 1.50 1.65 1.19
Hay Group 11

Water 10.31 9.69 9.46 9.82 -----
N.F.E. 40.28 37.82 39.24 '39.11 27.38
Fibre 34.74 37.00 37.19 36.31 15.98
Protein 8.19 9.06 8.31 8.52 6.05
Ash 4.66 4.99 4.35 4.66 -----
Ether extract 1.82 1.44 1.45 1.57 __l___1_3

 

 

 

37
nutrient values calculated by using the digestion coefficients given by
Morrison (23).

On January 19, 1954, a composite hay sample was drawn
frOm both sections of the hay barn and graded according to US.
standards. It was found to be of Number 2 US. grade in color and
leaf. The sample was made up of Timothy (bud and early bloom) 75
percent, Alfalfa (bloom) 15 percent, Brome (early bloom)5 percent,
and a trace of Kentucky blue grass, Quack, and foreign matter.

Table XI shows the total digestible nutrients supplied by the
roughages to the two. groups. Using Morrison's feeding standards
for a 1,400-pound dairy cow of 10.0 pounds of T.D.N. for maintenance
and 0.32 pounds of T.D.N. per pound of milk, it can be calculated
that group I cows should have produced 3.65 pounds of milk as well
as provided for body maintenance from hay alone. Similarly, group

11 cows should have produced 19.03 pounds of milk, as well as pro-

vided for body maintenance from their roughage.
Behavior of Cows

By way of a follow—up on the cow activity studies carried out
by Johnson (16) and Lewis and Johnson (20), cow activities were re-

corded during three 24—hour observation periods in late December,

38
TABLE XI

POUNDS OF TOTAL DIGESTIBLE MATERIALS PER COW
DAILY SUPPLIED BY ROUGHAGES

 

 

 

 

Avg. P und

Grou Rou ha e Percent Pounds TOD N5
p g g T.D.N. per Cow Da'l °
Daily 1 Y

I Hay x 50.90 22.0 11.17'

11 Hay 50.41 7.0 3.53
Silage 20.84 58.6 12.56

 

 

 

early January and early February. As in the previous study, the
cows were free to come and go at will between the lounge and the
paved yard. However, as the cows were in two groups, as already
described, it was possible to study the habits of the cows feeding
on hay alone simultaneously with the cows in the group feeding on
silage and hay.

Data on cow activities at 10—minute intervals during the three
24-hour periods are shown in Tables XIX, XX, and XXI in the
Appendix. The main interest this year was in the hay and silage
eating time; nevertheless loitering and resting observations were

again made. Table XII shows the average time spent by group I

39

TABLE XII

AVERAGE TIME SPENT BY GROUP 1 "ANIMALS EATING,
LOITERING, AND RESTING FOR THREE TWENTY-FOUR
HOUR OBSERVATION PERIODS

 

 

Obse rvation Dates

 

Activity Dec. 22, 26 Jan. 2, 3 Feb. 5, 6 Average

__-—n— ————————

 

 

 

Min. Pct. Min. Pct. Min. Pct. Min. Pct.

 

Eating hay 326 22.6 342 23.7 320 22.2 329 22.9

Loitering in
yard 162 11.2 151 10.5 100 7.0 138 9.5

Loitering in
lounge 344 24.0 346 24.0 465 32.3 385 26.7

Resting in
lounge 608 42.2 601 41.8 555 38.5 588 40.9

 

 

animals eating, loitering, and resting for the three 24—hour observa-
tion periods expressed in minutes and percentages. Table XIII
records similar information for group 11 animals. The percentage
of each hour devoted by the animals to the various activities is il-
lustrated diagrammatically in Figures 2 and 3; these percentages
being the average of the three 24-hour periods.

The weather data for days of cow activity studies were ob-

tained from the 1.1.5. Weather Bureau of East Lansing. Table XIV

40
TABLE XIII
AVERAGE TIME SPENT BY GROUP 11 ANIMALS EATING,

LOITERING, AND, RESTING FOR THREE TWENTY—FOUR
HOUR OBSERVATION PERIODS

 

 

Ob se rvation Date 5

 

Activity Dec. 22, 26 Jan. 2, 3 Feb. 5, 6 Average

 

 

Min. Pct. Min. Pct. Min. Pct. Min. Pct.

 

Eating silage 246 17.0 273 19.0 166 11.5 228 15.8
Eating hay 87 6.0 63 4.4 53 3.7 68 4.8

Loitering in
yard 152 10.6 276 19.1 215 14.8 214 14.8

Loitering in
lounge 278 19.3 195 ' 13.5 462 32.2 312 21.7

Resting in
lounge 677 47.1 633 44.0 544 37.8 618 42.9

 

 

shows for each day the maximum, minimum, and average tempera—
-ture, precipitation, and speed and direction of wind. It was con-
sidered that the weather did not influence the eating habits on the

days the observations were made.

Eating hay. Group I animals, all of which were on hay alone,

spent an average of 329 minutes, or 22.9 percent, of each 24-hour

Figure 2 .

"tenure“ 0' it...

 

EATING HA7 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3—
[0111.an m YAQO
So-
; Lri-l—
1.0111.an N to“...
«a mums
1!-
Fr
50-
It

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RI "me N Leon“.

II.II"I_ IIIIIII

s1oq-ountzse— or Snug
M

 

 

   

 

 

 

HOUROVW

Hourly distribution of time at various activities by
animals in group I.

41

EATmo $11.“;

 

 

61111 no HAY

 

Lou'rtamo m Yugo

”m

 

unsung:

l-G'TIQNG N LOUNGE
MID flux-nag

 

 

RESTING 1M Louugg

1— ”fl—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

111231.3670‘101'11113$3676qnnuz
“N- Hooteriny

Figure 3. Hourly distribution _of time at various activities by
animals in group II.

TABLE XIV

43

WEATHER DATA FOR DAYS OF COW ACTIVITY STUDIES

 

 

W e athe r Data

Ob se rvation Date 5

 

 

 

 

Dec. 22 Dec. 26 Jan. 2 Jan. 3 Feb. 5
Temperature (°F.)
Maximum 39 36 46 36 34
Minimum 19 27 32 22 22
Average 29 32 39 29 28
Precipitation (in.)
Total 0.24 0.08 0 trace 0.01
Snow on ground (in.) 3.7 0.8 0 0 trace
Wind (mph)
Average speed 16.0 17.4 15.9 13.8 13.8
Fastest speed 25 29 22 26 27
Direction NNW WNW SSW NW WNW

 

 

period eating hay.

Table XII shows no great variation between the

three periods. As it has been shown that each cow in this group

consumed an average 22 pounds of hay daily, it was calculated that

under these conditions a cow required 14.9 minutes to eat one pound

44
of hay. This is rather slower than the rate indicated by Harshbarger
(12) in his work with similar cows. Group 11 animals each spent an
average of 68 minutes or 4.8 percent of each 24—hour period eating
hay. As this group consumed an average of 7 pounds per cow daily,
this represents a slightly faster rate of eating hay, consuming 1
pound in 9.7 minutes.

Figures 2 and 3 show that hay eating occurred during all
hours of the day and night. In group II, the animals' eating time
was fairly evenly distributed with a slight preference for hours of
daylight. On the other hand, group I animals showed a definite eating
peak from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and again from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m.
These peaks coincided with the'hours immediately following fresh

hay being moved to the self-feeders at 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

Eating silage_[ An average of 228 minutes or 15.8 percent of

 

each 24-hour period was devoted to eating silage by the group 11
animals. More than three—quarters of the roughage eating time of
this group was spent eating silage. It was also found that, generally,
the sum of the hay and silage eating time of group 11 did not exceed
the hay eating time of group 1 animals. Silage eating was done
during the night, but, as shown in Figure 3, a definite preference

was shown for the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and to a

45
lesser extent between 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. As these cows were
consuming approximately 58 pounds of silage per day, it would indi-
cate that they were eating one pound of silage in 3.9 minutes. This
rate which is slower than that found by Harshbarger, probably is
characteristic of self—feeding. It was because of the high silage con-
sumption and the observation that silage eating occurred, under these
self-feeding conditions, in the hours immediately before milking that

the decision was made to include a milk flavor study.

Loitering in yard. The time spent loitering in the paved yard

 

was quite different between the two groups. Group I animals loitered
for an average of 138 minutes of 9.5 percent of each 24-hour period,
whereas group 11 animals spent an average of 214 minutes of 14.8
percent in loitering. Two factors are considered to give reasonable
explanation for this dissimilarity. Firstly, as has been reported
already, group I animals tended to spend a longer time eating, and
this would appear to have an inverse relationship with yard loitering
time. Secondly, the necessary management practice of confining
group 11 animals to the paved yard while the other group was being
milked was inclined to inflate yard loitering time. The difference in
the paved yard area per‘animal was regarded to have no influence on

the loitering time. Most of the yard loitering was done during the

46
day, as would be expected; group I being at its highest level from
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and group II from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
No animal was observed to rest in the yard during the three study

periods or at any other time during the experimental period until

March 18.

Loitering in loungg. Group 1 animals spent 385 minutes, or

 

26.7 percent, of each 24—hour period loitering in the lounge, whereas
group II spent 312 minutes, or 21.7 percent, at that activity. Time
spent loitering in the lounge was fairly evenly distributed throughout
the day and night, with the exception of 5:00 to 6:00 a.m. and 4:00
to 5:00 p.m. in group I. These two peaks can be explained by the
routine at milking. For this study the time spent by the animals in
the milking parlor was included with loitering in the lounge, and con-

sequently eXpressed in the one set of figures.

Resting in loungg. The average time spent by the two groups

 

resting in the lounge were very similar. Group I averaged 588 min—
utes, or 40.9 percent, of the 24-hour period, and group II averaged
618 minutes, or 42.9 percent. However, the latter group of animals
showed a greater variation between the three 24-hour periods ranging

from a high of 677 minutes on December 22 to a low of 544 minutes

47
on February 5 and 6. The chronological day—by-day record shows
that on February 6 one animal in group 11 came in "heat" and was
put in the maternity pen at 9:00 a.m. This fact would appear to ade—
quately explain why the resting time was low and time loitering in
lounge high on this occasion as the presence of the cow in ”heat"
during the hours immediately prior to its confinement would be un—

settling to the other animals.
Milk Flavor

Individual milk samples were taken at the evening milking on
December 21, 1953, February 9 and 23, 1954, and at the morning
milking on December 22, 1953, February 10 and 24,11954. The eve-
ning samples were held in cold storage overnight and examined with
the next morning's samples. The milk scoring guide shown in Table
XVIII of the Appendix was used, and the sample numbers were coded
in order that the examiner could remain completely unbiased.

Table XV shows the results obtained on examining the three
sets of evening and morning milk samples. The report on the
December evening and morning samples suggests an obvious differ-
ence between the two groups, as 70 percent of the evening and morn-

ing milk samples taken from the cows on silage and hay were found

TABLE XV

48

FLAVOR SCORES AND DEFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL MILK SAMPLES

 

 

Date 5 of Sampling

 

 

 

 

H_-—_———-—_-—I——_—q-__—*

 

 

 

Herd Dec. 21-22 Feb. 9-10 Feb. 23—24
Group 1 _
No. .. *‘-—- -- —— ‘“- ———————————— *-
Eve- Morn— Eve- Morn- Eve- Morn-
ning ing ning ing ning ing
I 350 40 39 salt 32 salt 34 salt 35 feed 40
(hay) 365 40 40 - - - -
367 40 40 - - 38 feed 40
369 - - 36 feed 34 flat 38 feed 40
372 - - - - 4O 38 salt
490 40 40 37 feed 34 salt 39 feed 38 salt
503 40 40 - - 35 feed 40
521 - - 36 feed 33 salt 40 40
531 - - 35 feed 35 35 feed 35 feed
11 335 36 feed 40 37 feed 34 rancid 36 feed 40
(silage 360 37 feed 40 38 feed 40 38 feed 40
8: hay) 365 - - 36 feed 38 salt - -
371 37 feed 37 feed 32 rancid 39 flat 40 39 flat
372 36 feed 38 salt 34 feed 37 salt - —
377 35 feed 40 35 salt 39 salt 38 feed 38 salt
379 35 feed 40 37 feed 39 feed 40 40
389 36 feed 35 feed - — - —
466 40 38 feed - - - -
496 - - 37 feed 38 salt 35 feed 37 feed
503 — - 35 feed 40 rancid - -
517 35 feed 35 feed 34 feed 37 salt 36 feed 38 salt
523 35 feed 35 feed - - - -
525 - - 37 feed 40 35 feed 40
533 - - 4O 37 feed 35 feed 40
1Nos. 365, 372, and 503 were in both roughage groups.

49
to have a feed flavor whereas the milk from the group on hay only,
without exception, was found to be free of feed flavor. However, no
conclusion can be made as this finding was not repeated in either
of the other samples in February; their examination showed 41 and
39 percent feed flavor in the silage-hay group, as against 40 and 38
percent feed flavor in the group on hay alone. The silage being fed
during December was fresher and appeared to have a stronger
"silage" aroma than that fed during February.. At no time on or
near the milk sampling periods was moldy silage accessible to the
cows.

The milk consistently exhibited a higher incidence of feed
flavor in the evening milking sample. An average of all samples
showed 79 percent of the feed flavors occurred in the evening samples
and only 21 percent in morning samples. This finding is related to
the activity study in that more roughages were consumed before the
evening milking than before the morning-milking,

Standard bacterial plate counts were carried out on composite
milk samples from the steel barn bulk milk tank during December,
January, February, and March, the results of which are shown in
Table XVI. While these counts were not as low as normally desirable,

they were far short of counts liable to influence milk flavor.

STANDARD PLATE COUNTS OF MILK SAMPLES COLLECTED

TABLE XVI

AT THE STEEL PEN BARN

50

 

 

Date

 

12/18/53
12/23/53
12/28/53
12/30/53
1/4/54
1/6/54
1/8/54
1/11/54
1/18/54
1/20/54
2/1/54
2/3/54
2/5/54
2/26/54

3/10/54

Bacte ria/ml .

 

66,000
12,000
45,000

3,000
51,000
18,000
38,000
63,000
40,000
66,000
27,000
16,000
31,000
26,000

84,000

 

 

51

Silage Feeding Losse s

The silo was filled with 118.5 tons of corn silage on Septem-
ber 16, 17, and 18, 1953. From work done by the U.S.D.A. Dairy
Husbandry Research Branch at Beltsville (29), it can be assumed
that a loss of approximately 10 percent of the dry matter results from
respiration, fermentation, and seepage which occurs during storage in
the normal types of silo. There is some question as to whether this
percentage loss is applicable for the self—feeding silo used in this trial
as in this type there is so much surface exposure.

Table XXII in the Appendix gives a record of the cow days
eating silage and hay. Taking the silage consumption during the ex-
perimental period as 58.6 pounds per cow daily, 56.43 tons were eaten
by March 16. From the. seventeenth of March until the silo was
emptied onApril l, the quality of the silage was inferior, having a
high percentage of mold. Because of this the silage consumption dur—
ing this final period was found, by an extra 2-day feeding trial on
March 25 and126, to be reduced to 39.7 pounds per cow daily,
thus accounting for an, additional 2.98 tons. The summation of these
two periods allows it to be assumed that 59.41 tons of silage were
consumed by the cows from October 23 when the silo was opened

until. it was empty on April 1.

52

One load of spoiled silage had to be removed when the silo
was opened in October, and four loads when the edible silage was
finished on April 1. At intervals throughout the winter, loads of
spoiled silage had to be removed. This was usually the result of
excess silage coming down off the ”roof" resulting in heating and
molding before the silage could be eaten. Spoiled silage thus re-
moved could generally be considered only as manure, although the
heifers were allowed to "pick-over” the best of it. Appendix Table
XXIII shows the date and weight of each load of spoiled silage re-
moved, totaling 30.02 tons. The same table also records an addi-
tional 2.68 tons of edible silage removed from the silo for other
stock.

From these records, 92.11 tons of 118.5 tons of the silage
filled can be accounted for. The balance of 26.39 tons was lost due
to respiration, fermentation, and seepage, and also to the spillage of
silage on to the paved yard, especially at times when too much silage
was before the cows. Feces contamination prevented the weighing of
this spilled silage. In trying to explain this 26.39 ton balance, con—
sideration was given also to the possibility that, despite the numerous
feeding trials, the average silage consumption used in the calculations

may be low by virtue of the fact that the cows were taking more

53
when feeding direct from the self-feeding silo. However, this does
not seem to have much foundation as even after a restricted silage
supply on January 21, the cows averaged only 60 pounds daily for
the next 3 days.

Summarizing, of the 118.5 tons of corn silage placed into the
silo, 62.09 tons, or 52.4 percent, was fed, 30.02 tons, or 25.3 percent
was weighed as spoiled, and 26.39 tons, or 22.3 percent--the balance-—
unaccounted for. As there was a slight difference between percent dry
matter at filling and feeding, those percentages when put on a dry
matter basis read as 50.5, 24.4, and 25.1 percent respectively. No
matter how these figures are studied, they represent excessive storage
and/or feeding losses, indicating an urgent need for further modifica-
tions in this self-feeding silo before it can be considered seriously

for general farm use.
Concentrate Feeding in Relation to Roughages

The results in this section are most inconclusive. This was,
in the main, due to the fact that out of the twenty—three milk cows,
because of stage of lactation and health, only ten cows were con-
sidered suitable for study during the first five of the lS-day con-

centrate feeding periods which started on December 2, December 17,

54

January 1, January 16, and January, 31, respectively. Four of these
cows, 350, 367, 503, and 365, were in group.1 on hay alone; the re-
maining six, 372, 517, 377 379', 360, and 371, were in group II on
silage and hay. For the last two 15-day concentrate feeding periods
starting February 15 and March 2, owing to two further cases of
mastitis and one cow going dry, the experimental animals in the
concentrate study were reduced to seven; two on hay alone, and five
on silage and hay.

These cows received their daily concentrate ration in the
milking parlor at each milking by way of an automatic feeder. While
every care possible was taken to measure out the concentrates accur-
ately to prescribed levels, it was found that with three of the four
feeders, the cows were able to ”tongue" out extra feed. Close watch
was carried out to prevent this practice, nevertheless no guarantee
can be given that certain cows did not receive extra concentrates on
occasion. Because of this factor, and also the one of few numbers of
experimental animals, no attempt has been made to draw any general
conclusions from the work involved in this section. Where thought
permissable, one or havo indications have been made which may

prove helpful pointers should this study be continued.

55

Table XVII shows the grouping of the experimental animals
used and the concentrate rate of feeding given during each of the
seven 15-day periods. For simplicity, the first five of these periods
are discussed as one phase and the remaining two periods as another
phase. Tables XXIV and XXV in the Appendix tabulate individual
milk production records based on 3- and 15—day averages, respec-
tively.

In group I, cow numbers 350 and 367 were put on concentrate
rate 3 starting December 2, and cow numbers 365 and 503 were, at
the same time, put on rate 4. At the end of the first 15 days the
rates. were reversed and this, change-over was repeated after the
second and third 153-day periods. Figure 4 shows that the milk
production was consistently stimulated when the respective cows
went back on to rate 4. Cows transferred from rate 4 to rate 3
showed an 8.8 percent drop in production, whereas cows transferred
from rate 3 to rate 4 only showed a drop in production of 3.4 per-
cent. Correlating this with the work done by Turner (34), it would i
seem to indicate that a concentrate rate in the neighborhood of 4,
under these conditions, would be necessary to maintain a normal
production curve. At the end of the fourth period the concentrates

given to cow numbers 365 and 503 were not changed from rate 3,

 

1E3
, 1...? .

 

56
TABLE XVII

EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS, CONCENTRATE FEEDING RATE,1 1
AND PERIOD

 

 

 

Feeding Periods l

 

First Phase ‘

 

 

 

 

 

Herd
Group Lot N
0' Dec. Dec. Jan. Jan. 1
2—16 17-31 1-15 16-30
(rate) (rate) (rate) (rate)
I A 350 3 4 3 4
367 3 4 3 4
B 365 4 3 4 3
503 4 3 4 3
II A . 372 l 2 3 1
517 1 2 3 ~ 1
B 377 2 3 1 3 3
379 2 3 1 3
C 360 3 1 2 3
371 3 1 2 3
1 Using Table V, read off pounds of concentrate per day 1
against milk yield. . l

 

   

57

TABLE XVII- - Continued

 

 

Feeding Periods

 

— —— _ —._.—_

Second Phase

 

 

Jan. 31- . Feb. 15— Mar.
Herd

Feb. 14 Group Lot Mar. 1 2-16
No.

(rate) (rate) (rate)

3 I - 350 3+hay 3+si1age

3 372 3+hay 3+silage

3+si1age

3+si1age

1 II A 360 3+si1age 3+hay

l 517 3+si1age 3+hay

3 B 335 3+si1age 3+silage

3 371 3+si1age 3+si1age

3 379 3+si1age 3+si1age

 

 

58

COflCEUTRRTE Liven. Auo Femoo

sass. l-“3 ---+ ---3 ---.,
—-to-

—3 —-L,. —3 —3¢

   
    

 

 

 

 

peggeu'mge Mug Women) OF ease. PERIOD,

 

- - - 350 m 367'.
75‘ -— 365 no 503.
kl _
9L I
m i ‘25 3: I5
W‘ 3'9 TM. 30 v25

Figure 4. Effect on milk production of alternating group I animals
between concentrate rates 3 and 4.. Periods were of

15-day duration.

59
but the cows were given ad libitum access to the corn silage. Fig-
ure 4 shows, as a result, a leveling off of production almost identical
to that experienced by these cows previously when changed from
rate 3 to 4. This suggests that the ration of silage plus hay and
concentrates at rate 3 was at least equal to a ration of hay and If“
concentrates at rate 4.

In group II, three pairs of cows, 372 and 517, 377 and 379,
and 360 and 371, were alternated between concentrate rates 1, 2, and
3 for three periods commencing December 2. For the fourth and
fifth periods, commencing January 16 and January 31, respectively,
372 and 517 were kept on rate 1 and the other four cows were given
rate 3. When cowswere changed on to rate 3, there was in most
cases a definite leveling off of the production graph, as shown in
Figure 5. Cows going from rate 1 to rate 3 did not drop in produc-
tion; cows going from rate 2 to rate 3 showed an average drop in
production of 3.3 percent, and those going from rate 3 to rate 1
showed a drop of 12.1 percent. The same graph shows that cows
372 and 517 which were on rate 1 for both the fourth and fifth period
tended to check their decline in milk production during the fifth
period. It leaves an open question as to an explanation. Did the

cows learn to adapt themselves to the low rate of concentrates by

Consuming uvu Auo Pf-Rloo

Basel“.-. ---; ---3 ---I ---.
4 a ........ 3 ....... n 3 ...... 3
3 -—'| —2 —3 _3

 

 

 

 

 

 

PERCENTAQL MILK PRoDucTIoN or BASIL PEQIoo

I
<—
O
I
I
I
_4_
I ‘
I
I
O

 

- - — ”2 ‘” 5‘7, \\
.......... 377.... 37g. \\
— 360 m 37:, \\
Jr .
“°"- . “Dec. 3' '5 30 “q-

Effect on milk production of alternating group II animals
between concentrate rates 1, 2, and 3. Periods were of

IS-day duration.

Figure 5 .

 

 

61
making more use of the silage? Or was the 15—day period too short
a time to give a good indication of what the cows would do? Accord—
ing to these results, it would seem that the cows in group II on silage
and hay and rate 3 were, generally, more than able to maintain the

normal lactation curve as illustrated by Turner (34) and Petersen

(25).

‘—"— T-C‘F
‘1

No direct multicow comparison can be drawn from the first
phase of five feeding periods between the hay group and the hay and
silage group. While recognizing that it is dangerous, unreliable, and
of little practical value to compare two cows, it is done in this case
for lack of better. Cow number 350 in group I and cow number 360
in group II were as closely paired as could be hoped for. They both
freshened in September, 1953, were served and settled within three
weeks of each other", and at the beginning of the concentrate feeding
study, 350 was producing 45.9 pounds of milk and 360 was producing
48.4 pounds of milk. The production of 350, after being on concen—
trate rates 3 and 4 for 60 days was 34.9 pounds, representing 76.0
percent of initial production. On the other hand, the production of
360 after the same length of time was 34.7 pounds, or 75.3 percent
of initial production after being a, quarter of the time on rate 2 and

another quarter on rate 1.

62
The second phase, or the last two of the sevenperiods, was
devoted to trying to get a comparison between the two groups. Fig-
ure 6 shows this graphically. Cow numbers 350 and 372 started the
sixth period on hay and were transferred to silage and hay on the

seventh period; cows 360 and 517 started on silage and hay and

were changed to hay only; the remaining three cows, numbers 335,
371, and 379, were given silage and hay during both the periods. The
concentrates were kept constant at rate 3 for the two periods. Figure
6 shows the production of 350 and 372 dropped by 9.8 percent when on
hay, and then increased 0.4 percent when they were transferred on to
silage and hay. When cows 360 and 517 went from silage and hay to
hay, no difference was observed ‘in the milk production trend from that
of the contrals, numbers 335, 371, and 379, which remained on silage
and hay.

From this work there is some indication that group I animals
on hay alone required concentrate rate 4, which was approximately 1
pound for each 2 pounds of milk produced, to maintain a normal
production curve. The production performance of group II animals
on silage and hay showed that a similar production curve could be
maintained on rate 3 or 1 pound for each 3 pounds of milk produced

and, on occasion, there was a faint suggestion that probably 1 pound

Figure 6.

  

 

   

Root. HAG: AND Peanoo.

- - - HAY+SILAG£ . - - - HAY.
BASE. —_Hay. sues. — M7+SILAQE.
.... Hay. ----- M7+Sunqa.

 
  

 

8

  
 

_ 335, 37! an 37‘
------- 350m 372.

    
 

PERCENTAGE. Mum. moucnou or: Base. Pemoo

FEB. MAR.

63

Effect on milk production of changing from hay alone to
hay and silage and vice versa with concentrate rate con-

stant. Periods were of lS—day' duration.

 

64

for each 3.5 pounds was adequate. The T.D.N. intake from roughages
for the silage—hay group would suggest that production should have
been maintained on concentrate rate 2; however, this was not sub-

stantiate d.
B ody Weight

Appendix Tables XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI,
XXXH, XXXIII, and XXXIV record the individual cow body weights for
3 consecutive days at approximately 2-week intervals throughout
November, December, January, February, and March. In comparing
the trends in body weights between the two groups, it was found that
only two cows could be considered in group I and six cows in group
II. The periods of comparison used were'December, January, and
February. The other cows were not included as they either had
shown, during these three months, symptoms of acute mastitis or
were four months or less from their next freshening date. Figure
7 compares graphically the group average body weights. No obvious

difference was found.

_. --. ... ...-nag
L.

a

I

Geoup AVERAGE Bony WEIGHT.

Figure 7.

65

 

5‘

 

---- 6MP];

 

am
hi —-- Gan»? E
0
I6
Nov. .

Average body weight of experimental animals in each
group. Only body weights of apparently healthy animus
which were 4 months or more away from their next

calving date were used.

_LLfl4

SUMMARY

By various feeding trials throughout the entire experimental
period it was found that group I cows consumed an average of 22
pounds of alfalfa-brome hay per cow daily. Group II cows con-
sumed per cow daily, an average of 58.6 pounds of corn silage and :5
7.0 pounds of alfalfa-brome hay. Theoretically, these two roughage
rations should produce 3.65 and 19.03 pounds of milk respectively,
as well as. provide for body maintenance.

Group I animals, all of which were on hay alone, spent an
average of 329 minutes, or 22.9 percent, of each 24-hour period
eating hay showinga definite eating peak from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
and again from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. Group II animds spent, of each
24-hour period, an average of 68 minutes, or 4.8 percent, eating hay
and 228 minutes, or 15.8 percent, eating silage. The hay eating time
in this group was evenly distributed, but a definite preference was
shown for eating silage between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and to a
lesser extent, between 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.

The time spent loitering in the paved yard showed quite a

difference between the two groups. Group I animals spent an average

66

67

of 138 minutes, or 9.5 percent, of each 24-hour period, whereas
group II animals spent an average of 214 minutes, or 14.8 percent.
Time spent eating and necessary management practice at milking
are considered to account for the difference. The 5 percent dif-
ference in time spent by the groups loitering in the lounge can also
be explained by the management routine at milking. The average
time spent by the two groups resting in the lounge was similar.

It was not possible to differentiate between silage storage and
feeding losses as previous work on storage losses give no guide as
to the amount to allow for the self-feeding type silo used in this
study. Of‘the 118.5 tons of crop silage filled, only 62.09 tons, or
52.4 percent, was calculated .as having been fed; 30.02 tons, or 25.3
percent, was weighed as spoiled, and 26.39 tons, or 22.3 percent, un-
accounted for.

Feed flavors were found to occur in the milk from the group
on hay alone as well as from the group on silage and hay. Feed
flavor occurred. in 79 percent of the evening samples and in 21 per—
cent of the morning samples.

This study indicates that economies can be made in feeding
concentrates to animals on a silage-hay roughage ration as compared

to animals on hay alone. Under the conditions of this experiment,

 

68

the animals on hay alone required concentrates at approximately 1
pound for each 2 pounds of milk produced to maintain a satisfactory
lactation curve; the animals on silage and hay at no time required a
ratio of more than approximately 1 pound for each 3 pounds of milk
produced and performance, on occasion, faintly suggested that 1
pound for each 3.5 pounds of milk probably was sufficient.

No obvious difference between the groups was found on com-
paring the body weights of apparently healthy cows at least four

months from next freshening.

BIB LIOG RAP HY

Archibald, J. C., and Gunness, C. I.
1945. Seepage losses from a silo. J. Dairy Sci., 28:321-
324.

Blosser, T. H., Porter, G. W., Lintatt, R. E., Shaw, A. 0., and

Ashworth, U. S.
1952. The use of large amounts of silage in the dairy ration.
Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir., 202.

Buckley, 5. 5.. and Lamson, R. W.
1913. Open stables vs. closed stables for dairy animals.
Md. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 177.

Davis. H. P.
1913. The effect of open-shed housing as compared with the
closed stable for milch cows. Pa. St. Col. Ann. Rep.,
183-226.
Dice, J. R.

1935. Nutrients required by dairy cows kept in an open shed
vs. cows kept in a dairy barn. J. Dairy Sci., 18:
447e448.

1947. Some effects of types of shelter upon dairy cattle.
N.D. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 344..

Dickson, W. F.. and Kopland, D. V.
1934. Feeding dairy cows with and without grain. Mont.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bu1., 293.

Fraser, W. J.

1905. Should dairy cows be confined in stalls. Ill. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Cir., 93.

69

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

70

 

*1939. Stabling cows loose. Hoard's Dairyman, 84222249.

Gamble, J. A., and Kelly, E.
1922. The effect of silage on the flavor and odor of milk.
U.S.D.A. Bul., 1097.

Graves, R. R., Dawson, J. R.. and Kopland, D. V.
1947. Relative milk production of cows in pen barns and i'
stanchion barns. U.S.D.A. Cir., 763. l

Harshbarger, K. E. . l
1949. Observations on time required for dairy cows to eat |
grain, silage and hay. J. Dairy Sci., 32: 716-717.

Hodgson, R. E.
1951. Our cows could use more good roughage. B.D.I. Inf.
Cir., 115, p. 5.

Hunt, R. E.
1918. Self feeders in dairy cows. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. 25th
Ann. Rep., 50. '

Jefferson, C. H., and Weaver, Earl.
1945. The pen barn and milking room in Michigan. Mich.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. Bul., 195.

Johnson, J. D.

l7.

18.

1953. Observations of dairy cow habits and certain physiologi-
cal activities in loose housing during the winter. Thesis
for degree of M.S., Michigan State College.

Jordon, W. H.
1893. Corn as a silage crop. Me. St. Col. Ann. Rep., Part

2: 57-63.
King, F. H.
1893. The necessary loss of dry matter in corn silage.

Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta..Ann. Rep., 273.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Leitch, R. H.
Foods and flavor of milk. The West of Scotland Agr.

1932.

Lewis , R .

1954.

Col. Bul., 126: 169-177.

.C., and Johnson, J. D.

71

Observations of dairy cow activities in loose-housing.

J. Dairy Sci., 37: 269-275.

Monroe, C..F., and Livezey, W.
Milk production part 11. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul.,

1946.

662.

Moore, L. A.
New values in good hay and silage for dairy cows.

1951.

U.S.D.A. B.D.I. Inf. Bul., 117.

Morrison, F. B.
Feeds and feeding, ed. 21, The Morrison Publishing

1948.

Co., New York, p. 1083-1190.

Nevans, W. B. »
Experiments in self feeding of dairy cows. Ill. Agr.

1918.

Exp. Sta. Bul., 289.

Petersen, W. E.
Dairy Science its principles and practice, ed. 2,

1950.

Lippincott Co., New York, p. 337.

Porter, A. R.
Dairy cows vary in roughage preferences. Iowa Farm

1953.

Sci., 7:2:9-10.

Ragsdale, A. C., and Turner, C. W.
Silage investigations. Loss of nutrients in the silo

1924.

and during the field curing of corn.

Bul., 65: 5—6.

Roadhouse, C. L., and Henderson, J. L.

1935.

Flavors and milk and their control.
Sta. Bul., 595: 13.

Mo. Agr. Exp.

Calif. Agr. Exp.

r1

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

72

Shepherd, J. B., and Woodward, T. E.
1941. Estimating the quantity of settled corn silage in a
silo. U.S.D.A. Cir., 603.

Smith, L. J., Shaw, R. O., Gliden, R. O., and Nichols, M. B.
1948. Loose housing and feeding of dairy herds. Wash..
Agr. Exp. Sta. Pop. Bul., 190.

Stadler, L. J., Jones, M. M., Turner, C. W., and Bernard, P. M.
1924.. Production and feeding of silage. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul., 226: 19.

 

Stewart, R. E.
1950. A field study of practice in loose housing of dairy
cattle in Missouri. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul., 468.

Trout, G. M.
1932. Sources of some abnormal flavors in milk. Mich.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul., 141-142.

Turner, C. W.
1926. A quantitative form of expressing persistency of milk
or fat secretion. J. Dairy Sci., 9: 203—214. '

Watson, S. J.
1939. Losses involved in making silage. The Science and
Practice of Conservation. Vol. 1. Clunbury Press.
London.

Wilt, H. S., and Hoglund, C. R.
1952. Reducing dairy feed costs. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Spec. Bul., 383.

Witzel, S. A., and Heizer, E. E.
1951. Dairy barn research project. Ten year report 1941-
1951. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta.

Woodward, T. E., Turner, W. E., Hale, W. R. and McNulty, J. B.
1918. The open shed compared with the closed barn for
dairy cows. U. S ..D A. Bul., 736.

39.

40.

41.

73

Woodward, T. E., and Shepherd, J. B.

1936. An experiment in chopping alfalfa hay at the time of

storage. J.- Dairy Sci., 19: 697—706.

Wylie, C. E., and Neel, L. R.

1937. Limited grain feeding of dairy cattle, J. Dairy Sci.,

20: 418—419.

Yeck, R. P., and Cleaver, T.

1953. Loose housing for dairy cattle. U.S.D.A. Agr. Inf.
Leaflet 98.

- . -..-.— -.--In

‘-

APPENDIX

74

TABLE XVIII

MILK SCORING G UIDE

75

 

 

Gene ral Rating

 

Excellent 40- 45

 

 

Good 37- 40
Fair 34- 37
Poor 25- 34
Defect Score Defect Score
Flat Malty
Slight 39.5 Slight 36
Distinct 38 Distinct 34
Strong 37 Strong 32
Cooked Cowy
Slight 39 Slight 36
Distinct 38 Distinct 34
Strong 37 Strong 32
Feed Bitter
Slight 39 Slight 36
Distinct 38 Distinct 34
Strong 35 Strong 32
Salty Oxidized
Slight 38 Slight 35
Distinct 36 Distinct 3 3
Strong 34 Strong 30
Metallic Wee dy
Slight 36 Slight 35
Distinct 34 Distinct 33
Strong 32 Strong 30

 

TABLE XVIII- — Continued

 

 

76

Defect Score Defect Score

Musty High Acid

Slight 35 Slight 35

Distinct 33 Distinct 33

Strong 30 Strong 30
Unclean Garlic-Onion

Slight 35 Slight 35

Distinct 33 Distinct 33

Strong 30 Strong 30
Disinfe ctant Rancid

Slight 35 Slight 34

Distinct 33 Distinct 32

Strong 30 Strong 30

 

 

 

 

 

77

HERD ACTIVITY DA TA

TABLE XIX

l

 

 

Time
of
Day

Group I (9 head)

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

Eating
Hay

Loite ring

 

Yard

Lounge

Resfing

 

Yard

Lounge

 

12:10
12:20
12:30
12:40
12:50
:00
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50
:00
:10
'20
:30
:40
:50
:00
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50
:00
'10
'20
-30

p...

AAFBFBU’WWWWWNNNNNNHHHHD—I

y—u p—np—AHHg—IHHNHNN

D-d

D—III—‘D-‘b—l

HNNHNNN

t—oi—INw

«l-«Jomoooxlqooxoxooooooooooooomoooo-qmmo~u1u1m

 

 

 

 

78

TABLE XIX- - Continued

 

 

Group II (11 head)

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

 

 

 

 

Eating Loite ring Re sting In

' Milking

Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room
2 l 8
2 1 8
1 3 1 6
l 3 7
l 3 7
1 3 7
l 2 8
2 l 8
1 10
2 9
1 10
4 7
l l 2 7
2 1 1 7
1 1 l 2 6
1 2 8
1 2 8
1 l 2 7
1 1 l 8
l 2. 8
1 Z 8
2 2 7
l 1 9
l 10
1 10
11

m~‘ _

 

79

TABLE XIX - - Continued

 

 

Group I (9 head)

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

Loite ring Resting In
Milking
Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

 

 

:40
:50
'00
:10
:20
'30
:40
:50
:00
:10
:20
30
'40
:50
:00
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50
8:00
8:10
8:20
8:30
8:40
8:50
9:00
9:10
9:20
9:30

«JflslxleO‘O‘O‘OO‘U‘U‘U‘U‘mmrbfi-‘e

q

[—0
pap—u
«J

.3th

p—a
WWWWU‘UTWU'I

 

Hi—aNl—o I—ID—‘t—II—IND-‘NUOUJNNr—I
WHslmrhvhrAWn-hw r-I
NNNwaNwww
HHHHNNNNNNNwmm'm-JNO‘O‘WAAA

AWNIB
WOOD-fit»

 

 

TABLE XIX- — Continued

80

 

 

Group II (11 head)

 

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eating Loite ring Resting In
-— Milking
Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room
11
1 10
11
11
1 9
1 9
2 9
1 6 4
1 6 4
l 1 5 4
2 1 4 4
l 3 5 2
l 2 2 6
l 2 1 3 4
2 2 l 6
2 1 3 5
1 1 3 6
l 1 9
2 2 7
2 l 1 7
3 3 5
2 4 3 2
l 5 3 2
2 4 3 2
4 2 3 2
4 1 4 2
4 2 5
1 4 1 5
2 3 l 5
l 5 1 4

 

 

 

81

TABLE XIX- — Continued

 

 

Time

Group I (9 head)

_____—

 

Nunibe r of Cows

 

 

of ‘-

Da
Y Eating

Hay

Loite ring Resting

 

Yard Lounge Yard

 

Lounge

In
Milking
Room

 

9:40
9:50
10:00
10:10
10:20
10:30
10:40
10:50
11:00
11:10
11:20
11:30
11:40
11:50
12:00
12:10
12:20
12:30
12:40
12:50
:00
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50
:00
:10
:20
:30

H
WWIAWWAANNHrbt-‘WUJWU‘IU‘IANNpr-wrfiwwmrbhbm

NNNND—‘D—‘D—Ih—‘t—l

H

NHNwri—d
Nr-‘t-‘AAWUJAUO

p—ar—at—U‘lp-BN

NNLfii-‘wv—n

D—‘I—I
uhO‘U'INNl—INNHH

Nr—I

F—‘rv

wwwerhbhrbUllAwwmwNI—[vv—r—IHH

 

 

82

TABLE XIX- - Continued

 

 

Group II (11 head)

 

 

 

Numbe r of Cows

——_-———.——‘——_—_

In
Milking

Re sting

 

 

 

Loite ring

 

Eating

 

Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

Hay

 

4.75154.443333211222455544333222

122 .1222

255664.62

2

2

5

24.343

211.111

3

1

5

IO

83

TABLE XIX- - Continued

 

 

Group I (9 head)

 

Time Number of Cows

 

 

 

 

Day Loite ring Resting In
Milking
Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

 

 

r—r—NN

UT
0
NNNNNNND—‘HNl—lr—IN
WAmm0n-brhrkrbwrhpkmmxlxl
NHNNUJUJUJUON

mmmmmnannnnwwwwwwmm
‘H "
O
Whlhlh

U1

U1

0
HWWUTN

6:00
6:10
6:20
6:30
6:40
:50
:00
:10
:20
:30

\lxlslxlO‘
NNmeNnnn-moxcrinuawp—

N
v—NHNNwwmmw
ommwwNN

 

 

84

TABLE XIX- - Continued

 

 

Group II (11 head)

Numbe r of Cows

 

Eating Loite ring Resting In
‘— “ “" Milking
Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

—_

 

 

 

 

 

l—th—‘NUON

l—nI-‘HI—a
UIUWO\U1NNwUJrAU1U1U1l-&
wwwoomnmmnwwww

HHD—Ih—wN
NwO\U1o—-

wannnwr—Hp-mwmxowwwmwwmwr—NH
wan-Aw-

O‘C‘le—a

HI—IHNl—I
p—a
HriAwrhn-thmmw

10
11
11

85

TABLE XIX- - Continued

 

 

Group 1 (9 head)

_‘

__——__.—_ ‘ _— _ .-

Time Number of Cows

 

Day Loite ring Resting In
Milking
Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

 

 

7:40
7:50
8:00
8:10
8:20
8:30
8:40
8:50
9:00
9:10
9:20
9:30
9:40
9:50
10:00
10:10
10:20
10:30
10:40
10:50
11:00
11:10
11:20
11:30
11:40
11:50
12:00

 

 

l—It—Ib—IN
N

l-INNUJNL»
mm“:mwnnnwnowmnnnooooooommoo

wNwHwHHwHHHNNNmN

HNHuHNmp-AAH
v-‘NNNr—It—op—a

 

 

12:00 to 8:00 a.m., Dec. 22; 8:00 to 2:00 p.m., Dec. 26.
and 2:00 to 12:00 p.m., Dec. 22, 1953.

 

 

86

TABLE XIX- - Continued

 

 

Group II (11 head)

———__——___—.—_ —— —_ —_————.——_————

 

 

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

 

 

 

 

Eating Loite ring Resting In

‘— Milking

Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room
11
11
ll
11
11
11
10
2 8
1 10
1 10
Z 9
2 1 8
1 2 2 6
2 2 1 6
1 1 2 7
1 1 9
- l l 9
- l l 9
l 1 9
1 2 2 6
1 1 4 5
l 2 2 6
1 2 2 2 4
1 . 2 2 6
2 7
2 8
2 8

87
TABLE XX

HERD ACTIVITY DA TAl

 

 

Group I (8 head)

 

 

Time Number of Cows

 

 

of ““““““““
Day . Loitering Resting In
E
atmg Milking
Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

 

Hay

 

12:10
12:20
12:30
12:40
12:50
:00
:10 1 1
:20
:30
:40
:50
:00
:10 1
:20 1

:30 1
:40
:50
'00
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50
4:00
4:10
4:20
4:30

P—ir—INNb—Jt—I

H

D—‘I—‘t—lI—IH

WWWWWNNNNNNI—dr—Ir—ar—op—a

U)
U1U101U1U1U1U1Avhwva-AO‘O‘KJKIKINNONO‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘

NNNHHHHNNAAAwl—ar—a

v—It—ID—ONNNNNNHH

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE XX—-Continuedg

88

 

 

Group II (11 head)

 

__——__-.——— —_—_——

 

Numbe r of Cows

——-————_.—_

 

 

 

 

 

——. -- —

 

Eating Loitering Resting In
- ““ “ ““‘ ““““““““““ “ Milking
Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room
1 2 1 7
l 1 1 8
2 9
2 8
1 9
1 1 9
l 10
l l 9
l 10
l 1 9
1 2 8
1 9
1 10
1 10
11
11
6 5
1 1 9
1 1 9
1 1 9
1 1 9
1 1 9
2 1 8
Z 9
1 ' 1 9
1 10
1 10

...—“‘—

89

TABLE XX- ‘CUHlITlLli'd

 

 

Group I (8 head)

—_-__—__-_._—— —-—~_—————_———

 

 

 

 

Time Number of Cows
of
Day Eating Loite ring Resting .In .
Ha Milking
y Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

:40 1
:50 1
:00 l
'10
:20

A

..D.

'40
:50
:00
:10
:20
:30
40
:50
00
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50
'00
:10
8:20
8:30
8:40
8:50
9:00
9:10
9:20
9:30

L»
O
N
WWO‘O‘Wvva-WWW
W

.UJKJ'KIKJKIKJ'K'JO‘C‘O‘O‘O‘O‘U‘U‘U‘U‘UTWQA
NWNWO—‘Nl—I

a)

WWNHHNNNrifi-wNNNNNNwwle—N
t—It—IND—It—‘O—lh—‘NO—it—iD-‘NH

wwNNNNWNNNwNNNNUlphU‘mUlNN

NNWQWWNWNN

 

 

 

90

TABLE XX— — Continued

 

 

Group II (11 head)

—-———_——~——.——————— —— —-——-_— _-——

 

 

Numbe r of Cows

_— —— — -—_—__-‘

 

 

 

 

 

Eating Loite ring Resting In
"‘ “ Milking
Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room
1 10
9
l 10
2 9
1 2 8
I 2 8
l 1 9
2 l 2 2 4
2 3 2 4
1 2 3 l 4
3 6 2
1 2 6 2
2 6 3
3 5 3
4 4 1 2
1 3 3 3 l
l 3 3 3 1
l 4 2 1 3
5 1 2 3
1 4 2 4
3 3 1 4
3 2 2 4
4 3 4
1 3 3 4
1 4 2 4
1 3 3 4
2 4 5
1 4 6
1 2 8
2 2 7

91

TABLE XX- —Continued

 

 

Group I (8 head)

 

 

Time Number of Cows
of
Day , Loite ring Resting In
Eating Milking
H
ay Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

 

 

 

9:40
9:50
10:00
10:10
10:20
10:30
10:40
10:50
11:00
11:10
11:20
11:30
11:40
11:50
12:00
12:10
12:20
12:30
12:40
12:50
1:00
1:10
1:20
1:30
1:40
1:50
2:00
2:10
2:20
2:30

 

p—a
NHHNNWWNNAQQNNNNH

r—nNr—nN
l—OHNv—INN

NNNNND-‘Ni-‘NH
UlrblbbbrO-lbthHHHHNNwAWLHNNNNNNNrD-lbvbww

 

 

 

TABLE XX— — Continued

 

 

Group II (11 head)

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

—-—.-_——.—.——.

 

In
Milking

Loite ring Resting

Eating

 

 

Yard

-. —-——_————_— ——.—

Room

Lounge

Yard

Lounge

Silage

Hay

 

77544333433312564555555411

12223

22332

3

2333

2112

4.4.33

2 11231

2324523355

2322122224.

1

4.

5

1

93

TABLE XX— -Continu<'d

 

 

Group I (8 head)

 

 

_—— —-—_—_

Time Number of Cows

 

 

of “
Loite ring Resting In

“ Milking
Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

Day Eating

Hay

 

 

 

:40
:50
:00 1
'10
'20
'30
:40
:50
:00
:10
:20
'30
:40
:50
:00
:10
:20
:30
:40
'50
00
10
'20
:30
:40
:50
00
10
20
:30

HoxmoU'ler-BUJNNWUJ
r—ar—IwN
H'Hr—l—I Ammm

HWrfi-fi

qq-qqoxosoxoxoxoxmmkfimmmArle-lhlhlb-wwwwwwNN
HHNwwmwNWrfi-AANANHHOHH

Nl—Il—ar—IHNNNNwNNNAwNwwv—AI—ar—waww
p—n

0‘0‘0merNNNNNHHH

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE XX- - Continued

94

 

 

 

Group II (11 head)

 

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

 

 

 

 

Eating Loite ring Re sting In
“" ' Milking
Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room
2 7 1 1
3 6 1 1
2 7 2
2 6 l 2
3 6 2
2 7 1
1 1 7 1
1 2 7 1
1 2 7 1
1 2 8
1 3 7
6 5
1 7 3
1 7 3
2 3 6
1 4 6
3 4 4
3 4 4
3 4 4
3 1 3 4
1 5 2 3
4 4 2 1
4 4 2 1
1 5 3 1 l
3 2 5 1
5" 4 2
4 2 3 2
2 8
2 8
3 8

 

95

TABLE XX- —Continued

 

 

Group I (8 head)

Time Number of Cows
of "“
Day , Loite ring Resting In
Egmg Milking
ay Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

 

 

 

 

:40
:50
:00
'10
:20
:30
:40
'50 1
'00 1
:10

:20

:30

:40

9:50

10:00
10:10
10:20
10:30
10:40
10:50
11:00
11:10
11:20
11:30
11:40
11:50
12:00

OQOQQWmmmmN-xl
NNNNNNN
wwNN

\0
w

 

HNl-kUlUJNI-It—i l—
C‘O‘U‘lANHNWWUJAQWWNU‘NNU‘U‘C‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘C‘

Hb—Il—IHl—IHNNwLfiWWWWNWWN

t—IHl—Ip—nr—Iv—Au—Ir—av—Ir—Iv—al—ob—or—an—I

 

 

 

1 12:00 to 12 a.m., Jan. 2; and 12:00 to 12 p.m., Jan. 3,

- J

1954.

 

96

TABLE XX- - Continued

 

 

Group II (11 head)

 

Number of Cows

 

 

 

 

Eating Loite ring Resting In
“ Milking
Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

N
\O

11

11

11

11

l l 9
1 1 9
1 1 9
1 l l 8
1 2 2 6
2 2 1 6

3 1 7

1 2 8

l 1 l 8

l 1 1 8

2 5 4

1 3 6

2 1 7

2 8

l 3 2 5

1 4 1 5

1 l 3 2 4
2 1 3 1 4
1 2 3 2 3
3 l 2 5

4 3 4

l 2 l 1 6

 

 

97
TABLE XXI

HERD ACTIVITY DATAl

 

Group I (4 head)

_—_—_—_ —_.

 

Time Number of Cows

 

of
Day , Loite ring Resting In
Eating — Milking
Hay
Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

 

 

6:10 1
6:20
6:30
6:40

 

40‘
U?! CoNl—IOU'I
0 00000
HHl—r-n F-‘NI—‘t—l

wNv— A
000 O
I—ll-‘r—‘i-‘D—It—ID—‘t—iD—‘I—‘NN

U1“:- O
OO O

\O\O

D—‘O

OO
HI—‘t—‘I—fib—IHHNNNNNNNNNNNHH

9:20
9:30
9:40
9:50
10:00
10:10
10:20
10:30 1
10:40 1

 

wLpAAAAAAwwwwNNNHh-H

 

 

 

TABLE XXI- - Continued

98

 

 

Group II (13 head)?“

 

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

 

 

 

 

Eating Loite ring Resting In
. Milking
Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

4 3 5 1
1 3 3 4 2
3 4 3 3
1 5 4 3
1 4 l 7
4 1 7
5 8
5 8
4 9
4 9
3 10
3 10
4 9
1 12
2 11
1 12
1' 12
l 12
1 12
2 ll
1 12
13
4 9
l 4 8
2 3 8
1 1 3 8
2 4 7
2 5 6

 

99

TABLE XXl-—ContinUed

 

 

Group I (4 head)

Time Number of Cows

of
Day Eating Loitering Resting In .

° Milking

Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

 

 

Hay

 

10:50

J( 11:10
, 11:20
11:30
11:40
11:50
12:00
12:10
12:20
12:30
12:40
12:50
:00
:10
'20
:30
:40

l—nl—ar—nr—nNN

l—‘t—ONNNNNNNND—‘l—o

H

:00
'10
:20
:30
:40
:50
:00
:10
'20
'30
:40

wwwwwNNNNNNl—dl—IHHH
HNNHHHWWrfiArfiWrfiWWLfiLfiNNNNNv—Il—HH

HHHNNNV-‘H

NHD-‘D-lh-‘l—l

 

 

 

100

TABLE XXI- — Continued

 

 

Group II (13 head)‘Z

Numbe r of Cows

 

 

 

 

 

Eating Loite ring Resting In
“ Milking
Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room
3 5 3
3 8 1
Z 9 1
2 3 8
1 2 7 2
1 2 7 2
1 9 3
1 8 4
1 8 4
l 2 6 4
2 1 6 4
2 1 5 5
3 5 5
2 3 5 3
3 2 3 5
2 2 4 5
2 2 4 5
l 2 3 7
1 1 4 7
1 6 6 -
7 6
6 7
l 4 8
2 5 6
l 1 6 5
2 4 7
1 4 8
1 4 8
l 4 8
5 8

 

101

TABLE XXI— — Continued

 

 

Group I (4 head)

_____ a.._.___._ _. _..__.___.___

 

 

Time Number of Cows

 

Day Loite ring Resting In
Milking
Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

 

 

3:50
4:00
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50
'00
'10
:20
:30
:40
:50
'00
:10
:20
6:30
6:40
6:50
7:00
7:10
7:20
7:30
7:40
7:50
8:00
8:10
8:20
8:30
8:40

A
r—Il—no—IN
p—a

C‘O‘U‘UTU'IU'lUlU'lrhl-fivhvfi-
NNWWNNo—Ir—n

Hp—ay—p—n

0‘
HNNNNNNwwAH-HNNHHHHHl—I

NwwrfirhrhrRWNNNNr—IH

,pthI—‘t—‘H

 

 

 

 

102

TABLE XXI— - Continued

 

 

Group II (13 head)2

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

 

 

 

Eating Loite ring Re sting In
* Milking
Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room
1 4 8
1 5 7
1 4 8
1 4 8
1 12
l 12
5 8
6 7
1 12
11
l 8 4
8 4
9 . 4
l 8 4
3 6 4
2 3 5 3
2 5 4 l
2 5 3 2
2 6 3 2
2 5 2 3
l 5 3 4
3 4 6
3 2 8
1 5 7
2 4 7
2 4 7
2 l 9 l
4 8
3 7
1 7

I
l
,.

103

TABLE XXI- - Continued

 

 

Group I (4 head)

__————.—_—_—~——..——-_ —--—— ‘-

 

 

Time Number of Cows

 

of ‘ ‘
Day Eating Loitering Resting .In .
*“““‘"““"‘ - Mllkmg
Hay

 

Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

 

8:50

9:00

9:10

9:20

9:30

9:40

9:50

10:00
10:10
10:20
10:30
10:40
10:50
11:00
11:10
11:20
11:30
11:40
11:50
12:00
12:10
12:20 3
12:30 3

12:40 3

12:50 2
1:00

1:10

1:20

1:30

1:40

HWUJWWUJWNNNNNNNNNNNNQ.»
HHHt—INNNNNNNNNNt—IH

ea
Nl—aNt—Ir—l—Ir—ab—nt—ov—ol—nt—nv—I

NwNwwH

 

 

,._.._,_. z -_

_...—_

 

 

 

104

TABLE XXI- - Continued

 

 

Group II (13 head)2

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

Loite ring Re sting

Eating

Milking

 

 

 

Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

Hay

 

35667888998763222222233222224.

53.4.53223223343433322211123332

1111112112265566644412

Z 1.11122 44444122111127.3092

105

TABLE XXI- -Continued

 

 

Group I (4 head)

__..____-____‘____-,-—__—_._-____-._ ———-_—--—-——-

 

Time Number of Cows

 

Of - ———————————————————————— —...—
Day Loitering Resting In
“"———“‘—““--"‘ — Milking
Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room

 

:50
:00
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50
:00 1
:10 1

:20 1
:30

:40

:50

:00 1
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50
:00
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50

WrbrbwwNNHl—IHHHHHHNN
NNNNNwwwwWNN

mmmmmmmnnnnanwwwwwwwmmNNNH
...:
DJ

D—Ot—‘r—Ib-‘b-‘Nuol—I
NNNNI—‘l—li—i
I—It—iv—It—IN

 

 

1
6:00 p.m.,) Feb. 5, to 6:00 p.m., Feb. 6, 1954.

Cow in heat. Put in Box Stall at 9:00 a.m.

 

TABLE XXI— - Continued

106

 

 

Group II (13 head)2

———-—

 

Numbe r of Cows

 

 

 

 

 

Eating Loite ring Re 5 ting In
"" r * Milking
Hay Silage Yard Lounge Yard Lounge Room
2 2 2 2 4
2 4 2 4
3 1 2 6
3 1 2 6
2 1 3 6
2 2 3 5
2 1 3 5
2 l 4 4
3 l 3 4
3 1 4 4
3 1 5 3
I 4 2 2 3
5 l 3 3
1 3 4 .2 2
l 3 8
1 3 8
3 9
3 2 7
1 5 6
8 4
8 4
1 5 2 4
3 3 2 4
4 5 3
3 7 2
1 1 7 3

 

 

107

TABLE XXII

COW DAYS EATING HAY AND SILAGE AND HAY

 

 

 

 

 

Group I ‘ Group II
No ———————————— — ——-———--—-————
Date 1):; No. of Ncoévff No. of Ngéwd
Cows Days Cows Days
Oct. 23-31, 1953 9 — — 23 207
Nov. 1-5, 1953 5 - - 23 115
Nov. 6-30, 1953 25 9 225 14 350
Dec. 1—5, 1953 5 9 45 14 70
Dec. 6-12, 1953 7 9 63 13 91
Dec. 13-20, 1953 8 9 72 12 96
Dec. 21-29, 1953 9 9 81 11 99
Dec. 30, 1953-Jan. 2, 1954 4 9 36 10 40
Jan. 3-5, 1954 3 9 27 11 33
Jan. 6-22, 1954 17 9 153 12 204
Jan. 23-30, 1954 8 9 72 12 96
Jan. 31-Feb.. 5, 1954 6 7 42 14 84
Feb. 6-10, 1954 5 6 30 13 65
Feb. 11-14, 1954 4 7 28 13 52
Feb. lS-Mar. 10, 1954 24 ' 9 216 11 264
Mar. 11-16, 1954 6 9 _______5_4_ 10 60
1,144 1,926
Mar. 17-22, 1954 6 9 54 10 60
Mar- 23-Apr. 1, 1954 10 9 90 9 90
144 150
TOTAL 1,288 2,076

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iii,
.1. in). .\II
)J. I: .Il’dlll‘

0c it'll-I", iii
. .
i‘fl‘

TABLE XXIII

POUNDS OF SILAGE HAULED FROM SILO

108

 

 

 

Pounds Pounds
Date Reason for Removal Spoiled Edible
Silage Silage
10/23/53 Opening silo - spoiled 1,775 -
11/4/53 Opening silo ~ spoiled 2,150 -
11/12/53 Excess - fed toother cattle - 2,800
11/16/53 Residue from feeding trial - fed to
other stock - 520
11/22/53 Residue from feeding trial - fed to
other stock - 150
12/14/53 Moldy and spoiled 1,000 -
12/18/53 Moldy and spoiled 1,250 -
12/18/53 Residue from abandoned feeding trial -
fed to other stock - 120
12/28/53 Residue from feeding trial - fed to
other stock - 260
1/4/54 Moldy and spoiled l 750 -
1/2. 3/54 Residue from feeding trial - fed to
other stock - 409
1/24/54 Residue from feeding trial - fed to
other stock - 285
1/29/54 Moldy and frozen 2,250 -
2/14/54 Moldy and frozen 4,600 -
2RBI/54 Moldy and frozen 4,526 -
3/8/54 Moldy and spoiled 5,850 -
3/22/54 Moldy and spoiled 2,825 -
3/22/54 Moldy and spoiled 3,975 -
3/22/54 Moldy and spoiled 3,390 -
3/24/54 Moldy and spoiled 3,050 -
3/24/54 Moldy and spoiled 3,000 -
3/25/54 Residue from feeding trial - fed to
other stock - 402
3/25/54 Residue from feeding trial - fed to
other stock — 415

109

TABLE XXIII-- Continue (1

 

 

Pounds Pounds

Date Reason for Removal Spoiled Edible
Silage Silage

4/1/54 Emptying of silo - spoiled 3,550 -
4/1/54 Emptying of silo - spoiled 4,750 -
4/1/54 Emptying of silo — spoiled 5,050 -
4/1/54 Emptying of silo - spoiled 5,300 -

 

 

TOTALS 60,041 5,361

110

TABLE XXI ’v'

POUNDS OF MILK PRODUCED BY

THREE DAY AVERAGES

 

 

Herd Numbe r

 

 

Date "“‘—

322 335 350 360 365

1.9.5.:

2 Oct. 29.1 Dry 49.9 52.9 34.8
5 Oct. 31.7 48.4 54.3 34.2
8 Oct. 28.9 49.0 52.9 31.5
11 Oct. 29.6 54.9 54.3 33.2
14 Oct. 31.2 53.3 57.9 34.5
17 Oct. 28.6 52.9 58.6 35.2
20 Oct. 27.1 49.1 53.6 34.3
23 Oct. 24.2 52.1 50.3 33.0
26 Oct. 26.1 52.7 50.5 34.0
29 Oct. 24.5 50.4 53.6 33.0
1 Nov. 23.9 44.9 47.8 32.7
4 Nov. 21.8 49.8 52.9 29.9
7 NOV. 17.5 47.2 53.7 30.5
10 Nov. 20.6' 48.4 52.8 27.5
13 Nov. 19.9 49.9 53.3 28.8
16 Nov. 16.5 50.7 53.7 27.4
19 Nov. 12.2 46.0 47.0 26.2
22 Nov. 7.5 43.9 43.8 26.2
25 Nov. 6.1 49.1 50.9 23.2
28 Nov. Dry 54.4 45.5 53.2 24.5
1 Dec. 57.2 45.3 47.1 23.6
4 Dec. 59.2 45.9 44.8 24.7
7 Dec. 61.7 46.7 42.3 24.9
10 Dec. 63.7 43.8 42.9 24.1
13 Dec. 65.9 44.0 43.8 23.4
16 Dec. 63.3 40.5 41.7 23.7
19 Dec. 62.8 42.2 42.3 21.6
22 Dec. 62.1 41.3 42.7 21.4
25 Dec. 63.7 40.3 42.0 19.9
28 Dec. 64.6 41.2 41.2 20.1
31 Dec. 59.0 39.9 38.6 18.9

 

367 369 371 372 377 379
53.3 3.3 33.2 24.5 19.9 41.6
53.0 Dry 28.4 20.3 19.8 42.6
51.6 23.2 18.9 17.6 40.0
52.6 26.5 21.6 19.3 40.7
53.8 30.9 22.6 19.9 41.3
54.6 28.8 22.0 20.5 41.8
55.5 27.6 20.8 18.6 39.8
53.9 27.1 21.2 18.1 39.6
56.9 25.5 21.6 19.1 39.9
51.5 26.1 20.3 19.4 39.6
50.6 25.9 20.3 19.3 38.3
47.7 23.9 17.8 16.5 37.6
44.6 24.2 17.3 16.3 38.3
44.1 23.7 17.1 16.2 37.9
46.5 22.6 17.9 14.7 38.0
44.7 21.1 16.4 14.4 35.1
42.9 16.5 15.0 12.9 34.7
43.0 18.3 15.6 13.2 36.3
41.3 17.5 15.3 13.4 35.3'
43.5 17.1 15.3 14.2 33.3
45.0 17.0 14.8 12.9 36.0
43.7 18.3 15.3 12.4 36.9
44.3 17.4 15.3 11.9 34.9
43.3 17.8 15.4 11.8 33.5
40.8 17.5 14.7 13.0 33.1
39.5 15.8 12.1 8.2 31.4
41.4 15.6 12.1 9.5 31.9
42.4 13.3 7.7 8.6 31.4
42.3 15.9 12.4 10.2 32.1
42.9 15.9 11.6 10.3 31.5
41.6 14.6 12.9 9.9 31.5

 

TABLE XXIV — — Continued

111

 

 

He rd Numbe r

A

 

 

 

389 466 490 496 503 517 520 521 523 525 531 533
1 53

27.6 64.9 Dry Dry 72.5 56.3 Dry 14.2 50.1 32.1 24.9 25.0
25.7 62.2 74.3 51.8 11.5 52.4 31.4 22.2 31-4
25.0 55.8 65.8 45.5 40.0 8.9 43.9 31.9 16.0 29.1
25.0 59.6 63.3 48.3 40.0 10.2 46.2 29.3 20.3 31.9
24.6 62.2 62.8 49.3 45.8 7.9 51.5 31.1 20.8 32.7
28.6 62.1 70.9 49.8 48.3 Dry 48.5 34.2 22.1 31.3
23.4 59.2 71.6 48.6 42.5 48.8 32.2 20.3 31.8
22.2 59.8 69.9 47.3 50.8 50.2 30.3 20.4 30.9
23.5 61.1 72.1 46.0 53.9 50.9 30.8 19.8 28.0
22.6 62.4 73.9 48.4 52.5 50.7 30.2 20.7 31.5
20.4 60.6 67.8 46.4 50.0 50.6 28.5 20.9 30.5
18.5 61.9 66.1 44.6 38.6 46.5 27.7 21.2 26.3
18.0 62.2 67.0 43.3 48.2 46.3 26.0 18.3 28.3
16.8 58.7 50.7 63.2 43.5 48.3 40.5 27.2 16.8 28.0
16.0 54.6 48.1 61.7 43.9 50.1 46.2 27.8 17.7 25.1
14.1 53.3 55.5 63.1 42.9 47.3 44.9 25.8 16.3 24.8
11.9 51.3 58.7 63.2 42.8 45.5 42.0 22.9 12.1 24.1
10.9 58.6 60.9 64.3 42.7 47.0 47.0 21.7 12.6 21.9
10.4 56.4 59.0 61.7 40.4 47.0 43.9 14.0 11.8 19.7
9.3 55.1 62.0 62.1 40.5 38.7 42.3 4.0 12.3 19.2
9.1 58.3 67.1 61.3 40.9 41.7 41.6 Dry 12.2 18.5
8.8 59.9 69.5 59.6 40.8 40.7 38.2 10.9 17.8
8.3 53.6 67.9 62.9 39.9 20.2 37.6 Dry 15.1
7.4 53.4 68.4 64.5 38.2 11.2 41.7 , 16.9
7.9 53.3 66.9 64.4 36.8 4.8 38.9 13.3
4.4 49.7 59.2 61.8 31.4 * 35.6 Dry
5.0 46.9 54.0 57.5 31.0 31.1

5.4 44.3 48.3 60.2 34.8 29.9

4.3 46.1 56.4 58.4 33.0 28.4

3.4 45.8 52.1 56.9 30.9 26.7

Dry 49.4 46.7 47.1 60.7 30.7 24.8

1i

112

TAB] .E XXIV - - Continued

 

 

He rd Number

 

 

Date
322 335 350 360 365 367 369 371 372 377 379
12:21

3 Jan. 63.0 39.5 33.3 18.9 40.6 13.8 12.8 9.5 28.8
6 Jan. 62.3 37.3 34.9 19.6 41.6 13.7 11.5 10.1 27.0
9 Jan. 62.1 37.2 35.5 19.3 41.1 13.5 12.1 9.7 26.2
12 Jan. 61.7 37.4 33.8 17.8 37.5 57.8 13.0 9.7 7.5 25.0
15 Jan. 58.7 33.1 34.8 16.2 38.1 58.6 13.8 10.5 7.5 25.0
18 Jan. 56.0 35.1 33.2 14.2 40.9 58.6 13.0 10.0 7.3 25.6
21 Jan. 57.7 35.8 34.7 14.8 41.2 56.1 13.6 10.8 7.3 27.3
24 Jan. 55.2 35.3 35.2 15.0 41.5 56.7 13.8 9.7 8.1 29.3
27 Jan. 58.9 34.6 35.4 12.1 40.8 63.1 13.5 10.2 7.7 28.2
30 Jan. 56.3 33.8 35.1 11.1 36.4 61.9 12.8 10.3 6.9 28.5
2 Feb. 56.5 34.5 34.9 9.8 17.1 54.9 12.5 10.5 6.1 29.2
5 Feb. 55.5 34.9 34.9 11.7 59.3 13.0 9.5 6.5 29.9
8 Feb. 54.6 33.1 34.4 12.8 59.9 12.5 9.9 8.0 28.5
11 Feb. 55.7 31.1 34.2 11.1 26.1 57.1 10.8 9.9 6.3 28.3
14 Feb. 55.2 31.8 33.9 9.8 31.6 59.9 11.4 9.4 5.9 30.7
17 Feb. 55.1 31.4 34.2, Dry 33.8 61.7 12.1 9.1 5.9 29.5
20 Feb. 57.0 31.5 34.9 34.8 60.6 10.9 8.4 6.6 28.2
23 Feb. 57.7 30.6 34.8 32.6 51.7 12.0 8.2 5.8 28.2
26 Feb. 55.9 30.8 32.3 31.4 52.3 12.3 7.2 5.4 27.6
1 Mar. 51.7 30.0 32.9 33.4 44.5 12.5 6.6 5.6 28.9
4 Mar. 53.4 29.5 31.7 33.5 46.6 12.1 8.1 6.9 29.4
7 Mar. 42.5 54.5 31.1 32.5 32.4 47.4 11.9 8.3 6.6 27.5
10 Mar. 46.3 53.9 30.0 32.1 32.9 44.9 11.8 9.7 6.9 26.7
13 Mar.’44.4 51.8 31.9 33.4 36.0 49.0 10.6 7.8 5.4 27.0
16 Mar. 44.5 53.1 32.0 32.5 32.9 47.1 10.9 6.2 5.8 28.5
19 Mar. 48.4 52.1 31.1 33.7 32.1 42.1 11.6 7.6 5.6 30.1

 

 

* Removed from herd and experiment.

 

113

TABLE XXIV -- Continue (1

 

 

He rd Numbe r

 

 

389 466 490 496 503 517 520 521 523 525 531 533
1.2.5.4

* * 50.4 49.7 62.1 32.5 24.6
50.7 55.1 58.7 33.6 22.4
53.1 54.5 54.4 31.0 21.6
49.4 50.2 55.9 29.3 17.0
53.1 50.0 58.5 30.9 11.9
53.9 55.4 54.5 25.7 Dry
53.3 56.6 55.1 25.4
55.2 57.4 54.2 25.6
50.2 58.0 54.7 25.0 54.7
53.9 55.2 56.3 24.9 55.6
53.4 53.8 55.9 25.4 56.0
55.4 54.2 56.3 26.4 58.3 36.4
51.5 54.4 53.1 24.6 61.5 55.5 45.8
48.7 53.2 53.1 23.2 49.5 59.1 63.4 39.8
52.2 55.8 52.5 23.9 52.9 59.2 62.7 48.6
50.0 56.5 52.5 24.3 49.2 60.6 68.9 48.3
49.3 59.2 54.5 24.7 52.5 64.6 77.2 40.2
51.5 55.9 53.8 26.0 55.9 62.3 70.8 46.5
54.9 55.9 45.5 26.2 56.4 62.7 74.8 52.3
52.0 53.6 51.3 25.5 55.3 61.4 72.1 53.1
52.5 52.4 51.9 24.7 55.8 57.2 73.1 54.6
53.3 53.2 52.9 25.4 58.2 58.2 66.6 55.5
49.1 52.3 52.0 25.2 48.8 Died 59.9 72.9 57.8
50.5 51.2 51.7 23.6 41.6 - 54.3 73.8 52.6
51.7 51.6 51.5 22.9 47.5 - 57.2 66.9 55.2
47.6 49.3 52.9 24.6 47.1 - 60.7 71.6 56.8

114

POUNDS OF MILK PRODUCED BY FIFTEEN DAY AVERAGES

TAB LE XXV

 

 

He rd Numbe r

 

 

Date
322 335 350 360 365 367 369 371 372 377 379
1%.:
Nov. 1 25.2 49.8 51.1 33.4 53.7 26.4 20.8 18.9 39.4
Nov. 16 19.3 49.2 53.3 28.8 45.5 23.1 17.3 15.6 37.4
Dec. 1 8.5 45.9 48.4 24.7 43.1 17.3 15.2 13.3 35.1
Dec. 16 62.7 44.2 43.1 24.2 42.3 17.4 14.2 11.5 33.9
Dec. 31 62.4 40.9 41.4 20.4 42.1 15.1 11.3 9.7 31.7
12.5.4 .
Jan. 15 61.2 36.9 34.5 18.4 39.8 13.5 11.3 8.8 26.4
Jan. 30 56.8. 34.9 34.7 13.4 40.1 59.3 13.5 10.2 7.4 27.8
Feb. 14 55.5 33.1 34.5 11.0 Sick 58.2 12.0 9.8 6.5 29.3
Mar. 1 55.5 30.8 33.8 Dry 33.2 54.2 11.9 7.9 5.8 28.5
Mar.l6 44.4 53.3 30.9 33.9 47.0 11.5 8.0 6.3 27.8

A

32.4

* Removed from herd and experiment.

 

TABLE XXV - - Continued

115

 

 

Herd Numbe r

 

 

389 466 490 496 503 517 520 521 523 525 531 533
1953
22.4 60.6 71.0 47.3 49.9 50.2 30.4 20.4 30.5
16.7 58.2 64.2 43.6 46.5 44.9 26.9 18.1 26.5
10.3 55.9 61.5 62.5 41.5 43.9 43.3 15.8 12.2 20.7
7.4 53.9 66.3 62.2 37.8 19.2 38.4 10.9 15.8
4.5 46.5 51.5 58.7 32.1 * 28.2
1254
Dry * 51.3 51.9 57.9 31.4 19.5
53.3 56.5 54.9 25.3 55.2
52.2 54.3 54.2 24.7 58.8
* 51.5 56.2 51.5 25.3 53.8 62.3 72.7 48.1
51.4 52.1 52.0 24.3 50.4 57.4 70.7 55.1

 

 

116

TABLE XXVI

BODY WEIGHTS OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

 

 

 

 

Date Three Day
Group Herd _ Avera e
bhunber 11/15/53 11/16/53 11/17/53 g
Ust Ust abs) ubSJ
I. 322 1,413 1,450 1,456 1,439
350 1,518 1,494 1,494 1,502
365 1,494 1,524 1,514 1,511
367 1,442 1,448 1,476 1,455
369 1,604 1,602 1,604 1,603
490 1,498 1,492 1,484 1,491
503 1,374 1,384 1,384 1,381
521 1,415 1,415 1,408 1,413
531 1,414 1,396 1,402 1,404
11 335 1,804 1,804 1,786 1,798
360 1,410 1,398 1.408 1,405
371 1,622 1,666 1,636 1,641
372 1,656 1,672 1,658 1,662.
377 1,472 1,500 1,496 1,489
379 1,326 1,364 1,354 1,348
389 1,366 1,372 1,336 1,358
466 1,360 1,376 1,420 1,385
496 1,610 1,626 1,588 1,608
517 1,378 1,330 1,372 1,360
520 1,400 1,384 1,416 1,400
523 1,198 1,214 1,210 1,207
525 1,476 1,478 1,456 1,470
533 1,511 1.504 1,522 1,512

BODY WEIGHTS OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

TABLE XXVII

117

 

 

 

 

Herd Date Three Day
Group rmnnber 11/30/53 12/1/53 12/2/53 ‘Average

Ust ast Ust 0653

1 322 1,506 1,508 1,524 1,513
350 1,496 1,528 1,528 1,517

365 1,506 1,508 1,552 1,522

367 1,494 1,466 1,464 1,475

369 1,692 1,688 1,690 1,690

490 1,496 1,488 1,488 1,491

503 1,386 1,386 1,360 1,377

521 1,456 1,456 1,454 1,455

531 1,436 1,410 1,438 1,428

11 335 1,689 1,670 1,694 1,684
360 1,362 1,368 1,388 1,373

371 1,630 1,644 1,656 1,643

372 1,678 1,672 1,690 1,680

377 V 1,522 1,534 1,552 '1,536

379 1,348 1,308 1,328 1,328

389 1,399 1,388 1,370 1,386

466 1,416 1,366 1,366 1,383

496 1,638 1,680 1,652 1,657

517 1,334 1,364 1,376 1,358

520 1,376 1,394 1,376 1,382

523 1,236 1,258 1,212 1,235

525 1,482 1,514 1,516 1,504

533 1,526 1,556 1,562 1,548

 

 

BODY WEIGHTS OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

TABLE XXVIII

118

 

 

 

 

 

Date Three Day
Group Herd Average

Number 12/14/53 12/15/53 12/16/53 (lbs)
(1bs.) (1bs.) (1bs.) '
. I 322 1,508 1,538 1,532 1,526
350 1,542 1,532 1,532 1,535
365 1,536 1,548 1,558 1,547
367 1,496 1,466 1,458 1,473
369 1,684 1,682 1,690 1,685
490 1,464 1,466 1,468 1,466
503 1,368 1,380 1,376 1,375
521 1,454 1,468 1,472 1,465
531 1,458 1,446 1,428 1,444
II 335 1,626 1,634 1,638 1,633
360 1,370 1,388 1,378 1,378
371 1,686 1,698 1,650 1,678
372 1,702 1,690 1,698 1,697
377 1,572 1,562 1,562 1,565
379 1,338 1,348 1,332 1,339
389 1,412 1,404 1,432 1,416
466 1,412 1,358 1,384 1,385
496 1,642 1,652 1,630 1,641
517 1,438 1,410 1,406 1,418
523 1,272 1,264 1,242 1,259
525 1,578 1,570 1,542 1,563
533 1,606 1,580 1,588 1,591

 

 

119
TABLE XXIX

BODY WEIGHTS OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

 

 

Date

 

 

Three Day
Group Herd Average
Number 12/28/53 12/29/53 12/30/53 (lbs)
(1bs.) (1bs.) (1bs.) '

I 322 1,562 1,558 1,546 1,555
350 1,552 1,504 1,562 1,539

365 1,550 1,494 1,504 1,499

367 1,476 1,482 1,496 1,485

369 1,622 1,634 1,624 1,627

490 1,434 1,434 1,402 1,423

503 1,368 1,360 1,350 1,359

521 1,482 1,482 1 ,468 1 ,477

531 1,470 1,452 1,458 1,460

II 335 1,612 1,602 1,562 1,592
360 1,338 1,390 1,380 1,369

371 1,650 1,692 1,682 1,675

372 1,664 1,722 1,712 1,699

377 1,552 1,622 1,582 1,585

379 1,330 1,376 1,364 1,357

389 1,420 1,422 1,446 1,429

466 1,388 1,400 1,386 1,391

517 1,352 1,368 1,378 1,366

523 1,240 1,232 1,242 1,238

525 1,576 1,610 1,602 1,596

533 1,596 1,590 1,614 1,600

 

 

120

TABLE XXX

BODY WEIGHTS OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

 

 

Date

 

 

Three Day
Herd *

Gnu" Number 1/12/54 1/13/54 1/14/54 Average
(1bs.) (1bs.) (lbs.) (165.)

I 322 1,544 1,552 1,542 1,546
350 1,502 1,530 1,494 1,509

365 1,532 1,528 1,530 1,530

367 1,436 1,462 1,464 1,454

369 1,436 1,426 1,408 1,423

490 1,396 1,392 1,394 1,394

503 1,336 1,386 1,364 1,362

521 1,482 1,490 1,472 1,481

531 1,460 1,472 1,458 1,463

11 335 1,564 1,602 1,594 1,586
360 1,322 1,356 1,364 1,347

371 ' 1,652 1,694 1,668 1,671

372‘ 1,678 1,732 1,704 1,705

377 1,570 1,632 1,612 1,605

379 1,308 1,356 1,318 1,327

389 1,438 1,464 1,446 1,449

496 1,292 1,338 1,326 1,319

517 1,364 1,408 1,408 1,393

523 1,232 1,286 1,248 1,255

525 1,592 1,644 1,620 1,619

533 1,614 1,664 1,652 1,643

 

 

121

TABLE XXXI

BODY WEIGHTS OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

 

 

 

 

Date
He rd fi_ Three Day

Gmup Number 1/25/54 1/26/54 1/27/54 Average
(165.) (1bs.) (165.) (Ibs')

1 322 1,574 1,578 1,578 1,576
350 1,552 1,532 1,538 1,541

365 1,504 1,526 1,536 1,522

367 1,508 1,504 1,510 1,507

369 1,404 1,408 1,446 1,419

490 1,484 1,502 1,488 1,491

503 1,352 1,368 1,360 1,360

521 1,502 1,514 1,500 1.505

531 1,494 1,494 1.516 1,501

11 335 1,614 1,592 1,666 1,624
360 1,334 1,378 1,384 1,365

371 1,708 1,730 1,720 1,719

372 1,702 1,748 1,762 1,737

377 1,608 1,622 1,640 1,623

379 1,350 1,362 1,344 1,352

389 1,442 1,474 1,444 1,453

496 -1,330 1,332 1,316 1,326

517 1,428 1,402 1,430 1,420

523 1,268 1,312 1,308 1,296

525 1,490 1,482, 1,482 1,485

533 1,660 1,668 1,676 1,668

 

 

122

TABLE XXXII

BODY WEIGHTS OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

 

 

 

 

Date
Herd Three Day

Group Number 2/9/54 2/10/54 2/11/54 Average
Ost Obs) ast abs”

1 322 1,592 1,546 1,560 1,566
350 1,520 1,512 1,550 1,527

369 1,446 1,430 1,462 1,446

490 1,502 1,506 1,480 1,496

521 1,214 1,230 1,226 1,223

531 1,362 1,370 1,362 1,365

11 335 1,560 1,570 1,588 1,573
360 1,342 1,328 1,350 1,340

365 1,530 1,542 1,554 1,542

371 1,710 1,698 1,694 1,701

372 1,700 1,700 1,722 1,707

377 1,630 1,612 1,658 1,633

379 1,328 1,333 1,340 1,334

496 1,358 1,368 1,300 1,342

503 1,310 1,344 1,348 1,334

517 1,402 1,384 1,398 1,395

523 1,308 1,294 1,300 1,301

525 1,410 1,432 1,410 1,417

533 1,462 1,456 1,436 1,451

 

 

 

1954.

1

Numbers 365 and 503 transferred to Group II, January 30,

123

TABLE XXXIII

BODY WEIGHTS OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

 

 

 

 

Date Three Da
Group Herd 1 Average Y

Dhnnber 2/24/54 2/25/54 2/26/54 abs)
(1bs.) (1bs.) (1bs.) '

1 322 1,560 1,532 1,550 1,547
350 1,535 1,512 1,500 1,516

367 1,420 1,430 1,438 1,429

369 1,470 1,428 1,424 1,441

372 1,710 1,718 1,732 1,720

490 1,516 1,520 1,522 1,519

503 1,338 1,372 1,320 1,343

521 1,190 1,176 1,186 1,184

531 1,358 1,326 1,324 1,336

11 335 1,585 1,588 1,588 ‘ 1,587
360 1,360 1,364 1,362 1,362

365 1,610 1,600 1,598 1,603

371 1,780 1,762 1,742 1,761

377 1,660 1,670 1,680 1,670

379 1,360 1,342 1,360 1,354

496 1,400 1,430 1,412 1,414

517 1,430 1,432 1,430 1,431

523 1,340 1,360 1,348 1,349

525 1,415 1,425 1,410 1,416

533 1,410 1,445 1,420 1,425

4*
.:

Numbers 372 and 503 transferred to Group 1, February 14,
1954.

124

TABLE XXXIV

BODY WEIGHTS OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS

 

 

 

 

Date
Herd Three Day

Gr°up Iquuunn: 3/16/54 3/17/54 3/18/54. ‘Ayifage
ust ust Ust u S”
1 322 1,440 1,445 1,400 1,428
360 1,376 1,372 1,398 1,382
367 1,452 1,482 1,484 1,473
369 1,446 1,440 1,436 1,441
490 1,552 1,584 1,508 1,548
503 1,318 1,370 1,356 1,348
517 1,378 1,430 1,412 1,407
521 1,138 1,182 1,122 1,147
531 1,334 1,364 1,356 1,351
11 335 1,612 1,664 1,618 1,631
350 1,584 1,592 1,570 1,582
365 1,682 1,670 1,710 1,687
371 1,798 1,820 1,816 1,811
372 1,786 1,790 1,802 1,793
377 1,698. 1,704 1,698 1,700
379 1,358 1,368 1,360 1,362
496 1,450 1,458 1,434 1,447

523 - - - -
525 1,434 1,436 1,446 1,439
533 1,440 1,432 1,396 1,423

 

1 Numbers 350 and 372 transferred from Group I to II, and
Numbers 360 and 517 from Group II to I, on March 1, 1954.

1111111111mum