ey
BEEBE REE Hf
BEE es 2 oe

7 tmnt nme meHmeHmeneRenesaEiHnh

-

 
 

 
 

 

AN

ra
** THESIS ##

- FORM AND PERFORMANCE OF THE DAIRY COW —

by

_—

4 wo

oe
Ne

ao 6
Vi'M. Shoesmith and of W. Kaylor.
2° oe

—

CLASS ‘Ol.

Michigan Agricultural College

1901.
~~ fo
\ lo

S554
Form and Performance of the Dairy Cow.

KK Oa

Much has been said and written upon the form of the dairy
cow, as indicating her production of milk and butter fat. Just
how much this form has to do with her production, or just what
this fori should be are still disputed questions. The most
generally accepted theory is that the form does have consider-
able to do with the performance and tunat the form should cor-
respond closely to that indicated by the score card generally
used for dairy cows. Many opinions, however, are held in regard
fo this matter. Amonz these are many ludicrous ones such as
the belief that because a cow iias a long tail or a broad, silky
eccutcheon that she must necessarily be 2 heavy producer, or
that because she ias a soft, pliable skin and good quality she
is a rich milker. Even among the best informed and most success-—
ful dairymen we find a ereat difference of opinion. Some say
that the udder is by far the most important organ of the dairy
cow, and would seemingly overlook considerable deficiency in
other parts if this organ was well developed. Others would put
more dependence upon tue size of tne belly as iiidicating tue
capacity for food and would overlook the udder, providing it

was not seriously deficient. Again, others would look first to

FOWCRR«*
Re
constitution, others to quality. Some would prefer the thinly
fleshed animal of the so-called milk type and make no discount
on the sway back and the high pelvic arch, while others would
have a larver animal with more pleasing form and a stronzer
constitution.

Althougzh muc:. has been said upon this subject hoth in
farmer's and dairymen's meetinzs and in live stock journals,
but little accurate investigation has been made. It is natural
to conclude that because the milk is secreted by the mammary
Slands that in order to have the larzest production we must
have these orzans well developed; or, that in order to convert
a lar <e amount of food into milk, we must nave well developed
digestive organs. Ali this is undoubtedly true, yet most of
such conclusions are theoretical and the theory is apt to be
carried too far. What man works out by theory does not always
accord with nature. A natural law is not established by theory
but by use of belated facts and inductive reasoninz. Again,
wroig conclusions are often drawn from observations. A farmer
or dairyman may have a number of cows, a large portion of whicn
are perhaps related and have a similar form. If for instance,
this strain of cows are 700d producers and have good udders or
some other zood feature, the owner is apt to conclude that the
udder or the other excellent quality is what causes the hich
productim, and overlooks other points of equal importance.

Practically nothing has been done to investigate this
subject . It is surprising indeed that a subject should be so
3.
much talked about ard be so prominently before the public,
and yet receive so little scientific investigation.

The object tnen whicn the authors of this thesis nad
in mind, aside from the practice gained in judging cows and
planning an investigation, was to make a thorough study of
this subject,- to compare the form of the dairy cow with her
performance, — to ascertain if possible how much dependence
may be put upon her form as an indication of ner milk and
butter production, — and to determine a: closely as possible
the relative importance of tne different qualities which
influence the production of the cow.

Many difficulties always attend such an investiagtion,
which, if not eliminated with tiie utmost care, so change the
results that it is impossible tc make any satisfactory con-
Clusions. First among these is the difficulty of securing
suitable herds to work upon. <Accurate records of milk pro-
duction with frequent butter fat tests must be had. The cows
must be placed under exactly the same conditions as to care,
food and shelter. The different breeds of a herd also cause
adifficulty, as the individuals of the breed for instance may
be larger and consume more food and fzive a larger production
tian those of another breed, while the form may score nearly
the same. Another factor which may change the results is the
lensth of the period of lactation. This surely has much to do
with the yearly productionof a cow, hut it is impossible to

show how much it is indicated in the form. Again, we may
4.
study the form of a cow and compare it with her production,
While some ill health, some internal deranzement, has vastly
altered the results indicated by tnat form. Further than this
some temporary deranzenent of the animal may cause incorrect
scoring. If tne sKin is tizgut and the coat rough and harsh
the judge is apt to discredit the quality, while the whole
trouble may be a temporary one caused, for instance, by indi-
gestion. The flesh of the cow, too, may cause a slight
deficiency in scoring while the stage of lactation at time of
scoring often has considerable effect upon the score of the
udder and milk veins. As to the condition of the three herds
studied, it might be said that they were as favorable, if not
the best obtainable without an immense outlay of capital. The
grade herd at the College was not of uniform breeding, yet
as they were all grades and with two exceptions all crade short-—
norns, this feature was not particularly objectinnable. Their
conditions as to care, food and shelter were exactly the same.
All the conditions with the rezistered College herd were
favorable, except tnat it contained four breeds which so
divided it that it was impossible to secure the most satisfactorg
results from the comparatively small number of each breed.
Tne récords of both these herds were accurately taken and
carefully recorded. The individuals of the Welch herd, of
which twenty-five were studded, were placed under the same
conditions as to care, food and shelter. The cows, woich were
mostly grades, were somewhat divided as to breeds. The weights

of milk were sufficiently accurate but the butter fat tests
De

were not numerous enouzn to insure the ereatest accuracg in
the average percent for the year, and less reliance shouid
be placed upon the butter ccmparisons of this herd as compared
with tne others. ( It must be remembered tnat comparisons
cannot be made between animals of different herds as their
conditions were different. )

Tne methods employed in this work may be described
as follows: In studying the form of the cov, use was made
of the ordinary score card for dairy cows which is here

presented.
'Students'!
Scale of Points. 'Perfect 'Estimate!:cor'd!

t t

 

f
GENERAL APPRARANCES '
Age, estimate--—-; corrected
Weigat, estimated----lbs; corracted—-—--- lbs.!
Form, wedge-shaped, viewed from front, side '

t

 

and above-- ee

 

?

q

q

q

t
Quality, hair fine; skin soft; mediun thick's'! '
bone clean -- ! t
Temperament, rnervous — | '
HEAD: t 50!
g

t

t

?

q

?

t

t

 

Pp XY

 

 

Muzzle, clean cut; mouth larze;nostrils lar7e;
face lean, long and disnins —__————!
Eyes, full, mild, brisznt— —_—!
Forehead, broad— _!
8
q

 

 

 

Ears, medium size, fine texture _
Horn, Small at base
FOhEQUARTERS : |
Neck, thin, medium lenzth ——!
Witners, lean sharp------— '
Shoulders light oblique '
Lezs, snort, straignt, cleaned boned-—--~—-—-—--- '

 

 

 

 

 

 

- =e. @. ri ws 2B we = @® oe wei s2 Ss se 2s *&* wo wo @
ee ee ee ee re ee ee ee ee ee, ee ee

roy hFRERPR

 

\
‘

BODY :
Brisket, thin, sharp- —!
Chest, deep through lungs, girth larze---ft-+-:
--— inches—---—-—-- -—- - —— 3
Ribs, well sprunz, broad, far apart-------- ——!
Belly, large, roomy - ’
Chine, larze, prominent open _!
pack, high, lean -~— _!
Loin, broad ——!

g
t
t

 

 

oo 2. aS 2

 

 

 

 

 

Flank, deep, thin
Navel, large ___

 

YY NER AWNO OH

 

 

 

QS
Oy

HINDQUARTERS:
Hips, Wide apart-
Rump, long and high-- _..
Pin Bones or Thurls, high wide apart---~----- _
Thigh, thin, ineurving---
Tail, fine, reaching hock-— _-
Escutcheon, sppead's ani high--
Vader, lon2z, not fleshy, attached high; quar.!
even rod
Teats, larze, evenly placed ~ '
Milk veins, la~ve tortuous, branchinz——--~-— '
Milk wells, larze '
Lets, short, clein boned, far apart '

 

 

 

 

oe se= we BS ww wow

 

 

 

 

Mich OY Mim ®e ON

 

 

41

 

Total ' 300 +!

 
7 e

(In scoring polled or dehorne2l cows the credit usually given the
horns was added to quality under general appearance as the horns
are usually considered to be an indication of quality). The judges
each scored the cows separateby, and while still befare the cow,
carefully compared nobes. If they agreed upon the individual
scores these were placed in the corrected column at once but if
there was a difference in the scores on tne same point, that
quality was carefully examined asain, and the proper mark decided
upon. If each judge continued to think that his first mark was

correct, the difference between the two marks was divided and

the result placed in tne corrected column as the proper score. It
might be said that a well fixed standard of scoring was establisine}
which was quite uniformly held throughout the time of judgin:.
The cows might have been scored a trifle too high or too low, but
that makes no material difference so long as a uniform basis was
employed. Ihe accurate weights of all the cows were taken with
the exception of a few from the herd of A. M. Welch of Ionia, of
Which the approximate weichts were obtained. Measurements were
taken of the cows according to the system employed by tie American
Holstein-Friesian Association and described in tne "Outlines of
the Advanced Registry System" as follows: "The two items of
height are taken perpendicularly fran the ground to the top of
the animal, the one immediately over the knee and center of the
shoulder and tne other over the hook bone to the center of the
back; the length of the bod$ is taken from the extreme front of
the shoulder point to the extreme rear and hishest point of the
rump, diagonally in a straight line; the lensth of the rump,

from tie extreme front side of the hook bone to the extreme o*
8B.

the rump as described above; the width of hips from the outside

of one hook bone to the uutside of tie other in a straicht line;
the width of the thurl from the outside of one thrul bone to

the outside of tne other, also ina straight line; the girta

by a tape closely fitting the smallest circumference of the
chest". Althourch the authors of this work were unable to use
these measurements, they have been inserted in the tables with tine
hopes that they may prove valuable to those wishin’ to make a
further study of thé subject.

The milk and butter production of each cow for one year

was next obtained and compared with the corresponding total scores,
also with certain individual scores which were regaried as bein”
most important.In order to make this work more conclusive, tnree
bases of coinparisons were adopted,-those of the butter production,
milk production and total score. To explain more fully each herd
was arranzed in order according to butter production that is
upon a butter basis, the highest producer being placed first; then
the herd was divided into halves and the production of the separate
nalves compared with the scores of those respective divisions.
(The M.A.C. grade herd was also divided into thirds). Fach herd
was then arranged in order according to total scores and the above
comparisons made. The milk production was also compared with tne
scores both upon a milk and total score basis.

Comparisona off scores anil butter records upon a butter basis.

Table 1.
| .. Total scores Averaze scores. Total butter Avr. But.
ist half 1094.7 81. 5019.8 # 371.8#

3nd half 1065.7 78.8 4003.2 # 296.57
COLLEGE GRADE HERD.

 

een Gan cee oe om me —— -

 

 

‘lbs. ' lbs. ‘Total'Gen'l.' ‘Fore’! moo
Name'Breed'% Fat'Milk ‘Butter 'Score'app _'Head'quar'Body' Chest'Ribs' Belly
8 § 9 o 8 F . f 0 9 9 §
18 'G.S. '3.96 '8357 '449.9 ‘'80.8 '17.6 * 4.1'5.6 '20.3'7.6 ' 2.4'5.5'
|—~87 'G. H.'3.6 = «'10706'449.6 '79.6 '17.1 ' 4.7'5.7 '21.4'7.5 ' 3.4'5.6!
92 'G S.'3.7 '94352'418.3 '78.2 ‘17.2 ‘' 4. '5.38 '21.9'7.8 * 2.5'5.8'
139 'G. S.'3.9 ‘'8869 '403.5 182.8 ‘16.6 ' 4.4'5.6 '22.3'7.7 ‘' 2.6'6.6!
98 'G. S.'4. "8356 '389.9 '87. ‘19.5 ' 4.7'6.6 '22.8'7.8 ' 2.8'6.2'
103 'G. S.'4.3 $7795 $381.9 '79.7 '17.3 ' 4.5'4.9 '21. '7.8 ' 2.5'°6.2'
142 'G@. S.'3.8 ‘'9015 '357.6 $79.2 ‘17.53 * 4.3'6.6 '18.9'5.7 ' 2.3'4.4'
86 'G. J-'4.3 '7109 '348.3 '83.6 '18.4 ' 4.4°6.1 '21.4'7.7 * 2.3°5.4'
89 'G. S.'3.8 '7744 '3433 "88.1 ‘19.1 ‘' 4.5'5.6 '21.6'7.5 ' 2.5'6.1'
39 'G. S.'3.7 '7758 '335. "77.6 15.8 ' 3.6'5.5 '19.8'7.7 ' 2. '5.2
143 'G. S.'3.6 ‘7286 331.2 "83.6 "16.5 $ 4.5'6.3 '21.5'7.7 ‘ 2.-8'5.8!
95 'G. 8.'3.8 '7438 '329.7 '80.5 '15.8 ' 4.2'6. '20.4'6.7 * 2.4'6. '!
109 'G. §.'3.6 ‘7963 '325.1 '74.2 '17.8 ' 4.2°5.7 "'19.2'S.6 * 2.3'5.6'
90 'G. S.*3.2 '8706 '325. "79.6 '16.7 '* 4.2'5.2 '20.8'7.7 * 1.9'5.7'
140 'G. S.'4. "7044 '§'320.5 '80.1 '17!2 ' 4.1'6. '20.4'7.8 '* 2.5'5.6'!
97 'G. §.'3.9 '7009 §318.9 '82.3 '17.7 ' 4.5'5.9 '21.7'7. * 2.6'5.7' |
141 'G. S.'3.8 *7026 '311.5 '72.5 '15. ' 3.8'5.2 ‘18. ‘6.4 ' 2.2'4.8' |
106 'G. S.'3.2 '8291 '306.8 '78.9 '15.6 ' 3.4'5.6 '21.2'7.5 ' 2.7'5 ''
94 'G. S.'3.9 ‘6586 '304.5 '68.9 '16.5 ' 4.2'5.1 '§'20.5°'7.7 ' 3.5'5.7' |
96 'G. S.'4.2 '6193 '303.4 ‘88. 16.2 ' 4.6'6.1 !23.8°7.7 ' 2.9°6. '
108 'G. S.'3.7 '7008 '302.5 '79.6 '18.5 ' 4. '5.9 '22.4'7.7 '* 3.9'6.6'
93 'G. S.'3.8 '6735 '298.6 '75.1 '15.5 ‘' 3.6°'4.9 §20.8'7.7 * 2.1'5.5'.
107 'G. S.'3.6 '6886 '288.9 "79.2 '17 ' 4.8'6.1 '19.4'6.5 '1.9'4.5' |
88 'G. S.'3.8 '6442 '285.6 '76.8 '17.4 ' 4.1'5.8 '20.9'6.7 ' 2.5'5.6'.
110 'G. §.'3.5 ‘6752 '279.7 '75. '17.8 * 3.7'5.9 $20.6'7.6 * 1.7'4.7'|
138 'G. S.'3.4 ‘'6448 '263.68 ‘'89.3 '18.9 ‘'‘ 4.6'5.7 '22.8'7. ' 2.6'6.8'|
105 'G. S.'3. '7120 '256.3 '80.4 '1"”. ' 4.4'5.8 '22.4'7.8 ' 2.8'6.3'

 
COLLEGE GRADE HERD.

 

 

 

® ' 8 8 8 § § ’ Height ’ ‘ ' §
nd° ‘ ‘Milk ‘Milk ‘Wt. ' 'Leth.'Shou-'Hips'Wid. of' ‘Thi. !
ar'Udder'Tésts' ‘veins'wells' lbs.’ Girth! body iiders’ ‘Hips ' Rump’ Bones '
t 8 ’
SS 4.8 3. 4 TLOaVTSCLIgT ETA a 4-2 $ 1-8 ‘1-8 ‘1-1!
7) Vi. ' 4. ' 2.6 ' 2.8 '1124'6-2 '5~34 14-24% '4-34' 1-112 '1-10'1- |
-8' 11.5! 4.3 ' 2.7 ' 2.4 '1208'6-5 '5-4 '4-5 '4-6 ' 2-104 '1-10'1-1!
. § 14.5' 4.7 ' 3.5 ' 2.2 '1145'6— "5-1 '4-13 '4- $4' 1-8 '1-8 '1-3 '
-5' 13. ' 4.6 ' 3. ' 3. * 945'S11 '4-113'4-2 '4-2 ' 1-8 rege
- 9 18.5' 3.6 ' 3.5 ' 2.7 '1343'6-8 '§ 1 '4-4 '4-4 ' 1-11 '2-95'1-1 |
'1' 12. ' 4.3 ' 2.9 * 8.8 ' 947'5-93 '5-3 '4-4 '4-5 ' 1-8 '1-10'2-2 '
.3' 13. ' 4.5 ' 2.8 ' 2.4 ' 895'5-8 'S- '4-293 '4-2 ' 1-84 '1-87'1-3 | '
‘63! 16.3' 4.9 ' 3.5 ' 2.8 '1033'6-3 '5-4 '4-4 '4~-34' 1-10} 1-7: "1-1y
9! 13. ' 4.6 * 3.2 ' 2.6 ' 960'6- 15-1} 14-3 4-2 ' 1-94 ‘']-84' -1%
-o7' L3-< ¢ 4.5 o $-8 ' 2.7 wv 942'5-—10 152 14—4 $43 ' 1-8 '1-9 t1—1
.2' 15.5' 4.7 ' 2.8 ' 1.8 ' 1107-4 '5-1 '4-4 '4-4$' 1-10 "12-1011
'.47 10. ' 2.8'1.6' 3.5 ' 982'6— '5-3 '3-11 '4- '! 1-94 e924)!
1.79 15.6? 4.6 ' 3.4 ' 2.4 '1083'6-1 '5-14 '4-3 '4-3$' 1-75 ‘1-8 '1 |!
oa? 1205! 4.8 ' 2.5 ' 2.8 11104'6-3 '5-2 14-4 14-5 11-8 '1-10'1 |
.5' 12.4' 4. * 2.9 ' 2.8 ' 985'6—- "5-2 '4-2 '4-2 ' 1-10 '1-83'1-1 !
.3' 12.5' 4.3.3. ' 8. ' 996'5-9 ‘5-4 4-13 "4-2 ' 1-84 '1-7411-4 |
roa? 14. 8 4.4 ’ 2.6 $ 1.9 '1098'6—] 15-34 (4-3 '4-] ' 1-104 12-1041] '
6" 8.8 ' 2.5 ' 2. ' le 1983 '5-10 '4-11 "4-2 '4-14' 1-73 (]-B3! 111
'.4° 14.5' 4.8 ' 3.5 ' 3' ' 886'5-103'4-94 '4— ‘'4-1 ' 1-9 '1-8 ‘1-1!
8° 10. ' 3.7 ' 2. ' 8.8 '1247'6-5 '5-5 '4-4$ '4-3 ' 1-10 1-9 ‘2-1!
3! 11.7' 3.8 ' 3. * 2.5 '1181'6-7 '5-4 '4-44 "4-7 ' 1-11 '1-10$'1-2
4° 13.6 8 4. @ 8.5 ? 2.5 11052! ? g 8 g 8 0 t
'6' 10. !§' 3.9 § 2.4 ' 2.7 '1017'5-11 "5K '4-9 '4-] ' 1-8 ty-9t 17-5
'.' 20. ° 3. ' 8. ' 2.2 '1075'6-1 '5-4 '4-9) 14-341 1-10 ‘1-94 *)-1!'
'.3’ 15.1' 4.8 ' 3.6 ' 2.8 '1202'6-3 '5-3 4-3 '4-4 ' 10104 '1-10 '1-3:
.8' 11. ' 4.5 ' 2.5 ' 2. '1159'6-5 '5-6 1'4-2 '4-1 ' 2- ' 1-10 "1-1

 

Note — All measurements for this and following tables are

given in feet and inches.
-9-o
Table 3.

Total scores. Avr. scores Total butter. Avr. butter.

ist. div. 754. 81.5 3542.3 lbs. 393.6 1bs
and. * 709.1 78.8 2903.7 * $22.6 *
Srd. * 7123.5 7941 2583. # 287. "

In the first table we notice that the half having the
highest butter record also has the highest scores, while in

Table 3 the scores of the third division are a triWle higher
than those of the second. | The general tendency in this com
parison is for the best scores 60 correspond to the best butter
production, although the latter table may be regarded as an
exception to the "dairy farm" theory.
Comparison of scores and butter records upon a score basis.
Table 3.

fot. scores. Avr. scores Tot. butter. Avr. butter.

ist. half? 1126. 83.4 4582.3 lbs. 339.4 lbs
and. half 1034.4 76.6 4437.8 * 328.7 *®
Table 4.

Fot. scores. Avr. scores. Tot. butter. Avr. butter

ist. div. 765.5 85.1 3152.3 lbs. 350.2 lbs.
and. * 717.9 79.7 $012.2 * 334.7 *
Srda. " 677.1 75.2 2868.1 e $18.3 8

Here we find tuat tue niginest scores in either table cor-
respond with the best butter production, a drop of 6.8 points

in the first table being equivalent to 10.7 lbs. of butter.
10.
The decrease in Table 4, though very perceptible, is not so
marked as in Table 3.

Comparison of scores and milk records upon a milK basis.
Table 5.
Totl. milk Avr. milk Tot'l. scores Av. scores.

lst. half 114076 lbs. 8450 lbs. 1093.4 80.9
2nd. half 92000 * 6815 *# 1073.8 79.4
Table 6.

Tot. milk Avr. milk fot'i scores. Av1r. scores.

lst. div. 79530 lbs 8836.6 lbs. 931.2 81.2
2nd. * 66488 * 7387.5 & 730.8 80.1
33d. * 60058 * Seuss. e 714.3 79.35

In each of the above tables it should be noticed that the
results confirm the theory that the best formed animals are the
best producers.

Comparison of scores and milk records upon a score basis.

Table 7.
fot. sc. Avr. sc. Tot. milk Avr. milk

ist. half 1126. 83.4 100473 lbs. 744.83 lbs.
2nd. half 1034.2 77.4 105904 * 784.4 "*
Table 8.

Fot. sc. Avr. 8C. Tot. milk Avr. milk

1st. div. 765.5 85.1 67571 lbs. 7508 lbs

and. div 9197,9 79.7 71818 * 7979 *

Srd. div. 676.8 75.2 66987 « 74435 «
il.

In this comparison the results are just the reverse of
those in the two previous tables. In table 7 we find a difference
of 402 lbs of milk in favor of the lower average score, but in
table 8, the production of the first division is only slightly
in advance of the third; while the second division shows a
mach larger production tian either of the other two.

As considerable attention is usually given to the udder
and milk veins in judging dairy cows, it was thougit best to
prepare the following tables to show the comparison between
these points and the milk and butter production. (The score
used is the combined score of udder and milk veins. )

Comparison of udder and milk vein score with butter records
upon a score basis.

fable 9.

Tot. sc. Avr. score Tot. butter Avr. butter.

ist. half 230-% 17. 4655.8 lbs. 344.8 lbs
2nd. half 182.2 13.5 4372.6 *% 323.1 *
Table 10.

Tot. sc. Avr. score Tot. bktter. Avr. butter

ist. div. 159.4 17.7 2941.4 lbs. 326.8 lbs.
and. div 139.12 15.4 $155.9 * 550.6 *
Sed. div. 114.6 12.7 2933.1 * 325. 8 *

In fable 9, a difference of 3.5 in the average scores of
the two halves of the herd corresponds to an increased pro-
duction of 21.7 lbs. of butter itt favor of the first half. In
Hable 10, however, there is only the slight difference of .9 lbs

of putter between tne first and third divisions as corresvondine
~12.
to a difference of 5 between the average scores, while the second
division shows an approximate butter production of 24 lbs. more
than either of the others.
Comparison of udder and milk Bein score with butter records
upon a butter basis.
Table ll.

rot. butter. avr. butter Total sc. Avr. score.

lst. half §085.8 lbs 3783.2 lbs 215.” 15.9
and. half 4002.7 *»* 296,5 8 197.4 14.6
Table 12.
Tot. butter avr. butter fotal sc. Avr. score.
ist. div. 3542.3 lbs 393.6 lbs. 144.3 16.
and. * 2903.2 8 $22.6 * 141.3 15.7
3rd. * 25883. ® 287. a 127. 14.2

In both of the above tables the "dairy farm*theory holds
good. In Table 11 a difference of 1.3 between the average scores
corresponds to a difference of 75.7 lbs of butter in favor of
the better form. In Table 12, a difference of .3 between the
averaze scores of the first and second divisionseorresponds to
a difference of 71. lbs in favor of the first, while a difference
of 1.5 between the average scores of the second and third div-
isions corresponds to a difference of 35.6 lbs in favor of the
second.

Comparison of udder and milk vein scores with milk records
on a score basis.

Table 13.
13.
Tot. sc. Avr. sc. Tot. milk Avr. milk

ist. half 230.9 17. 103693 lbs. 7681. lbs

2nd. half 182.2 13.5 1022835 * 7576 &
Table 14.

lst. div. 159.4 17.7 68733 " 7637 «

and. div. 139.1 15.4 68306 * 7589 =*

Srd. dive. 114.6 12.7 69037 a 7671. *

In Table 13, a difference of 3.5 between the average scores,
corresponds to a difference of 165 lbs of milk in favor of the
higher soore, while in Table 14 the results are reversed, the
production of the third division being greater than either of
the others.

In making a further study of the individual scores of
this herd in order to determine the relative importance of
each in the judging of dairy cows, the following plan was
adopted. She cows were firsk arranged according to a milk or
butter basis as before, the herd divided into three equal parts,
and those points of the score card seledted which were regarded
as most important. The scores of each division were then
averaged and figured in percents, tne perfect mark of each point
on the score card being sonsidered as 100% These percents
were then compared with each other and with the milk and butter
production.

Comparison of leading points upon a butter basis.
14.
Table 15.

‘avr. tol. ' Genl' ‘Fore! ' ‘Hind! t'mk mk
'butter'scores' app 'H'd'quar'b'd'ch't'rbs'bly'quar'Udr'tts'vs'w
yy

 

1st div!s93.6¢' 83% ' 84% '884'826 '81%'93,0 '8345'82%'80% '76%'88'76' 8%
end @iv'332.6f' 79 ' 82 '81 '82 '78 '90 '79 178 '%, '75 '86'72'80
Srd div’'287. ' 79 ' 82 '83 '81 '82 '92 '80 '88 '75 ‘68 '81'65'82

 

Average '334.4£' 80 "82.6 '84 '81.6'80.3'91.6'80.6'80.6'77'6'73'385' 81l89.:

Here we note considerable variation in the relation of
scores to butter production. Although the percents in the
second dividion do not complete an even gradation from the first
to the third, and in some points are even lower than tne third;
yet in nearly every case we find that the percents of the first
division, are greater than those of the third, especially those
of the head, hind quarters, udder, teats, milk veins, and milk
wells. As the head is of minor importance so far as the pro-
duction of butter is concerned, and the high percent of the hind
quarters is due largely to the development of the mammary organs;
we conclude that the latter have the most marked influence on
the butter production, while the percents for the chest, ribs
and bebly in their respective divisions were more nearly equal.

Comparison of leading points upon a milk basis.
Table 16.
15.
"Avr. 'T'tli ‘'Genl' ‘'Fore' ' ' : 'Hind' ' *M1lK'M1k!
"Milk''gcore'app ‘Hd'quar'Body'cht'Rbs'Bly 'quar'Udr'Tts'vns'wls'
§ 0 9 e 9 9 t 0 e ? $ 8 Q ? t
g £ a f p. q 2 S 2. S 2 a a

div' 8836 .6'81% ' a2%'85' 81%' 81%'936'82%'81%'796 '756'87%6'75%'846"
div'7387.5'80% ' 8146'83' 83%' 79%'91%'81%'80%'79% '76%'87%'71%' 80%!
div'6673. '79% ' 82%'83' 81%' 826'91@'806'81%'75% '69%'76%'66%'B5S!

 

' '7632.5'80% ' 81.5'83.6'81.6'80.6'91.6'81'80.6'77 .6'73.5'83.3'70.6'83!

In this table the results compare very favorably with
those of the previous table, in that the udder,teats and milk
veins are most indicative of the milk and butter production.
The percents of the chest and ribs also compare verv satisfact—
opily.
WELCH HERD.

 

 

t % ¢:lbs.! lbs. *¥otal' Gen ‘i! ‘Pore! ¢ ‘ ‘
Name 'Breed'S$rat'Mi1k Butter ‘score’app ‘Head "quar ' Body 'Chest' Ribs 'Belly'
g tT 3 ¥ 9 q 7 v e 9 vo f.
Srockle 'G.S. '3.75'13607 551.5 '84.3 ' 16.8'4.8 '5.7 '83.1' 7.8 '8.8 '8S.8
Red Nell'G.S. '4.6 ' 9927'§32.7 384.3 ' 18.7'4. '5.8 '20.6' 6.6 '3.4 '6.6
Giraffe'G.J. '5.75' 7872'487.8 '75.1 ' 16. '3.5 '5.8 ‘80. ' 7.8 'B.1 '8.5'
Sleepy 'G. S.'4.17!' 9538'464. '84.8 ' 16.3'4.2 '6.1 '33.1' 7.8 '8.6 '6.1
Straddle'G.S. '4. '11880'454.4 '84.5 ' 18.7'3.9 '6.8 '22.28' 7.8 'B. '6.
Taylor 'G.J. 'S.79' 6746'454.1 '71. ' 16.9'4.5 '5.7 '20.8' 7.3 '28.4 '5.6
Michiran’'G.S. '%.78'10267'445.58183.7 ' 15.9'5.1 '5.7 §'231.5' 6.8 '2.5 '6.4
Straight 9 0 g e t 8 0 9 0 e t
horn ' J. ‘'5.2 ' 7371'441.1 ‘85. ‘* 17.8°4.5 '6.5 '830.7' 6.8 '2.6 '5.6
Shorty 'G.S. '3.45'10841'436.3 '87.7 ' 18.2'4. ‘'5.9 '282.2' 6.8 '2.7 '6.8
Hayes 'G.J. "5S. °° 7823'421.3 '84.7 ' 18.6'4.23 '5.3 '20.4* 6.8 '3.4 '6.5
WWolvert!G.S. '3.7 * 9710'419.14'82.8 ' 17.9'S.8 ‘6.1 ‘22. ' 7.8 '3.5 '6. !
Cornell ' Je '5.17' 6911'416.83'78.1 * 16. 4.65 '5. 231.35 7.3 '8.1 '5.8
Madison 'G.S. '3S.95* 8783'400.24'87.2 ' 18.9'4.3 '6. ‘'21.1' 6.5 '8.5 '5.7
Sprague'G.H. '3.87' 8709'393.28 ‘88.9 ' 18.2'4.28 '6.3 '81.6' 7.38 ‘3.3 '6.5
P.Lassid J. '3:45' 6171'392.4 '84.2 ' 17.694.6 "6.8 '20.7' 6. .8.8 '6.38
Old Nel? J. '4.6 ' 7305'392.03'88.1 ' 18.6'4.8 "6. ‘'28.1' 7.85 "2.5 '6.7
Cutter 'G.J. '4. ' 8028'374.6 '85.4 ' 18.7'4.1 "5. '88.3' 7. '2.5 '6.7
Piercy 'G.J. '5.37' 5681'355.9 '76.9 ' 13.5'5.3 '6.1 '30.6' 7.8 '2.2 '5.2
Zoe ' G@ 'S5.28 * 5833'S53.8 '78.9 ' 16.7'4.2 '6.4 '20.3' 7. '8.6 '5.4
High - ! ¢ 8 8 9 ’ 8 ¢ 0 e 0 ¢
blood ' J' 3.4 ' 87723'347.9 ‘81.4 ' 17.8'4.4 '5.3 '21.6' 7.3 '8.6 '6.6
Spot 'G.S. '4.28' 6958'342.55'80.5 ' 16.7' 4.1°4.9 '20.4' 7.5 '8.5 '6. '
Rosy ‘' J. '4.628' 6322'340.7 ‘80.2 ' 18.4'4.4 '5.3 '21.9' 7.4 '3-8 '6.5
Slivers' G@. '4.33' 6692'337.31'85.2 * 17.9'4.2 '6.5 '81.1' 7.8 '8.3 '5.8!
Coltrin' G@. ‘'4.9 ' 3888'222.3 '78.9 ' 16.1'4.28 "6.2 '80.1' 6.8 .2.28 '5.6
Cherry ‘G'S. '4.8 ' 4200'205.8 '75.1 ' 18.21'4. '5.6 '19.9' 6.2 '2.7 ‘6.

 
 

 

 

WELCH HERD

? ° e ’ 2 $ 9 t Height ’ ’ ’ f
int’ ' ‘Milk 'Milk ' wt. ° ‘igth.' Shou-' ‘wd. oft "Thi. !
lar 'Udder '¥eats'veins'wells'lbs. ‘Girth'body ‘lders'Hips' Hips ‘Rump 'Bones*

1 TT ; t a ) ’ ‘ ? ’ : “—t |
5415. ' 4. ' 3.5 '9.5 $1168 ‘ed '8-2 ‘4-3 "4-8 91-8 '1-G '1-i
18:15. ' 4.6 * 3. '2.8 ‘1100 ‘60 ' 4-3) '40F 1-9. '1-7 '1-
1.411265 ' 4.5 '2.5 '1.6 "1050 '5-9 ‘5-3 '4-5$ '4-53'1-97 '1-8$'1-14
3.1'15.5 ' 4.4 °° 3.7 '2.7 '12682 "6-2 '6-3 ‘'4-4 '4-4 '1-8— '1-8 '1-2
165'183.7 ' 3.5 *' 82.8 '8. '1250 '6—- 'S-2 '4—4 14-2h01-11 *1~94'1-2
51'18504 ' 4.5 ' 2.5 '8.3 11015 ‘5-11 '5-2 '4-2% '4-2 '1-8 '1-9 ‘1-1
15913. §' 4.6 ' 3.5 '2.9 "1620 'S-9 ‘5-8 '4-6 '4-7 ‘1-11 '1-9 ‘1-3
65'14.4 ' 4.7 ' 3.4 2.6 * 820 '5-5 '4-10$'4~1 4—¢ '1-7 "1-8, '1-
'.4916.7 ' 4.7 ' 3.6 '2.6 '1185 '5-11 '5-4 '4-1 ahs 11-83t1-
'e2'16.2 ' 4.8 ' 3.4 '2.7 1050 '5-10 14-9} "S21 "4-4 1-8 8 =0'1-7 1114
7 (14. ' 3.5 * 3. 8.9 1080 '6-1 '5—-1 '4-4 '4-3$'1-9 1-94 1-1/2
.3'12.5 ' 4.4 ' 3. "2.4 '1050 '5-10 '5-4 '4-1 '4- '1-8 '1-7 11-4
'69'15.6 ' 4.9 ' 3.4 '8.6 '1300 '6—- ‘'5-5 '4-5 '4-5 '1-10 '1-8 '1-1
.5'18.8 ' 4.8 ' 3.8 '2.9 '1200 '6-2 '4-10 '4-1 '4-2 '1-8 ‘1-7 "1-1
is "14.2 ' 4.3 § 3.9 '23.9 * 790 'S-4 4-94 "5-9 '3-10$1-5 ‘1-7 '113
6116.4 ' 4.6 ' 3.1 '8.6 ' 931 'S~10 '4—-7 '3-11 '3-9$'1-73 11-8. '11
03'15.5 ' 4.5 § 3.1 '2.7 '1150 '6-1 'S— '4-3 '4-3 1-84 '1-84°114
-4'13.8 ' 3.53 ' 2.5 '2.5 '1025 '5-9 '5-3$ '4-24 '4-4 '1-74 '1-9 .1-1
-3912.2 ' 3.9 ' 3. '2.8 ' 9285 'S-7 'S-1 ‘4— '4-3 '1-76 91-7 '1-
3413. *' 3. ' 3.6 '2.8 "1150 "6—- 'S-3 '4-1 4-1 '1-9 '1-9}'1-14
4914.9 ' 4.7 ' 3.7 '2.8 '1180 ‘6-3 '5-2 '4-3 '4-3 '1-8 '1-8 '1-1
-2912* * 3-2 ' 2.9 '2.1 ' 875 ‘5-8 ‘4-9 '3-10 '3-11'1-7 ‘1-7 ‘11
5415. ' 4.2 ' 3.5 '2.8 ' 805 'S-6 ‘5-1 ‘4-1 '4-$ '1-6 '1-7 '1-4
04°14. § 4.3 ' 2.7 '2. ' 750 "5-8 44-10 '4-3 '4-4 91-7 41-8 '1)
o2'10.5' 4.7 ' 1.6 '2.7 '1250 '6-3 '5- 4-2 '4-2 11-94 '1-94']-1

 
16.

Comparison of total scores with butter records upon a butter

basis.
Table 1.
Tot. bhrtter. Av. butter. Tot. sc. Avr. Score.
lst half 5724.7# 457.9% 1028.6 82.2
mand half 4258.4 340 .6f 1027.3 82.2

From this table the development of form shows no relation
to butter production, the average scores of each half being
equal.

Comparison of total scores with butter records upon a score
basis.

Table 2.
Tot. sc. Avr. 8C. Total butter. Avr. butter
ist half 1074.2 85.9 5304 .6# 431 .5§
2nd half 982.7 78.6 4588 .5¢ 367. ¢ °

In this table we obtain a difference of 64.5 in the
average butter production corresponding to a difference of
7.5 between the average scores, in favor of the higher peo
duction.

Comparison of total scores and milk records upon a milk basis.

Table 3.
17.

fot. milk Avr. milk Tot. score Avr. score.
Ist half 1200037 9600 ¥ 1059.6 84.7

2nd half 7753l1¢ 6202 996.2 79.7

Comparison of total scores and milk records upon a score

basis.
Table 4.
Tot. sc. Avr. sc Total milk Avr. milk
lst half 1073.2 85.7 111889¢ 9591 £
2nd half 983.7 78.7 85344# 6827 £

In both of the above tables the better developed dairy
forms are indicative of the higher milk production.

An interesting comparison was made between the milk
and butter production of the Grade Shorthorns, the fhorougibred
end Grade Jerseys, and the Guernseys.

fable 5.

No. of'Tot ' Avr' Tot. og' Avr * Avr '
Breed ‘cows ‘milk'milk' butter ‘butter’ scores!

ain en it

Shorthorns §' 10 '94711 '9481'4253.1 #' 425.2' 83.4
Jerseys ' 11 *77702 '7063'4224.6 €' 329.5' 80.9
Guernseys ' 3 '16412 '5470! 913.4 ¥' 304.4' 81.

In this table only a small number of cows were considered.
The results in this case, however, show that the milk and butter
production of the Grade Shorthorn is greater in proportion to

4otal scores than either the Jerrever er Guaermsave. which we
18.

conclude to be a point in favor of the general purpose Short-—
horn.

Another interesting conclusion drawn from this table shows
that for every pound of weight the Shorthorns gave .34f of
butter per year, the Guernseys .36 and the Jerseys .4f. Also
that for every pound of weight the Shorthorns gave 7.0¥f of
milk per year, the Jerseys 7. $ and the Quernseys 6.6¢

Another comparison was made by taking the Grade Shorthorns
of the herd, ten in mumber, arranging them in order according
to milk or butter production and dividing them into lots of
five each. The leading scores of each half were averaged
and reduced to percents.

Comparison of scores and butter records upon a butter
basis.

Table 6.

AV? "Tot. ‘genl' * Fore 8 8 8 tHind' g Mk ME
butter'scors'app ‘hd'quar'bdy ‘cht 'Sbs'bly 'quar'Udr'tts 'vns‘*wils'

lst nalf'448.9' 84% ‘868 $71'84% 184%'886' 704" 886' B84 '856'84%'836' 84%
and half '360.5' 83% '87% '67'81% .81%'866'866'87%'846' 846'90%'71%'89%

 

 

Average ‘'404.7'83'5 '86.5'69'82.5'82.5!187'82.5'87.5'84.5'84.5°87'77 '865
19.
Table 7.

Comparison of scores and milK records upon a milk basis.
Avr. ‘Tot. ‘'Genl! 'Fore' ' f ' ‘Hind’ ' ‘mk tik
'putter'scores'app ‘hd ‘quar'bdy'cht'rbs'biy'qhkar'Udr'tts'vns'! wl

 

1st half'11104 ' 86.1 ' 88:5'715184% 184%1874979%'90%'85:4 '86%'85%' 82%! 83
and half! 7839 ' 80. ' 85 '68 182 81 '87 185 '88 '83 '83 ,89 '72 '80
Average ' 9472 ' 83 '83.5'69.5'83 '82.5'87'82 '89 '84 '84:35'87'77' 86.5

In tne above tables we conclude that there is a tendency
for the body, chest, belly, udder and milk veins to be best
developed in those cows which excel in milk and butter pro-
duction.

A similar comparison was made with the Guernseys, ,Grade
Jerseys and Jerseys, fourteen in number.

Comparison of scores and butter records upon a butter

be3is.
Table 8.
‘Avr. ‘Tot. ‘'Genl’ ‘Fore? ' ' ‘Hind! ' 'mk ‘nk
'butter'scopes'ap, ‘id 'quar'bdy'c.t'rbs'biy' quar .Udr'tts'vns wb
Ist half’ 429.3,81% "87% 1730'824 181%'86%'81%'86%'82% '844'914'78' 81

end half! 333.1'81 "85 '73 '83 '82 190 982 '86 ,80 ,80' 75 '76'81

 

Averaze ' 378.5'81 186 '73 '823.5'81.5'88'81.5'86'81 '82° 83'77'81

Comparison of scores and milk records upon a milk basis.

Vable 9.
Avr 'Tot.'Genl '
milk'sers'app ' hd

7540 '83% '88% '71%
2nd half'5904 '79 '84 '75
t

lst half’

Average '6722 ‘81 '86 '73

In this comparison

scores correspond to the

20.

‘Fore! ' ‘ ' ‘Hind? ’ 'mk 'nk
‘quar! Bdy cht 'rbs 'bly' quar 'uqr'tts 'vns' wis!

'78% '82%:886! 80%'89%'83% '84%'87%'80%' 83%
'87 '80 '88 '82 '82 '80 '80 '79 '75 '80

2 ccepeseen wae ~

 

'g2$ '81 '88 '81 '85¢'81}$ '88 '83 '774'814

with but few exceptions, the highest
higher production.
COLLEGE REGISTERED HERD.

 

' ‘los. ‘lbs. 'Total'Genl! ‘Fore! ' t '
Name 'Brd! drat ‘Milk ‘Butter ‘score'app 'Head'quar'Body.Chst'Ribs'B'

 

8 $ 8 et ¢ f oe 9 t a) 3 q

- Bell Sarcastic’ H '3.17'23149'839.3 '83.2 '18.9' 4.7' 5.7'23.3'7.5 '2.4 '6.!
Col. Rosa

Bonheur * H '3.25'13962'529.9 '86.7 '17.5' 3.9' 6. '22.4'7.8 98.5 '6.
Becky 'B.S'3.56'10148'422.6 ‘'85.3 ‘17. ' 4.9' 5.9'22.8'7.4 '2.8 ‘6.
Col. Pauline

Wayne ' H §3.2 '11090'415.6 '90. '19.1'4.9 * 5.7'22.3'7.3 '2.3 '6.

Pogis IV iJ
Col. Houwtje

waLd 'H *3.43' 7282'299.6 '83.4 ‘17.5'3.8 *' 5§.4'230.2'7. '1.9 '6.
Pogis III ' J '4.5 * §326'283.7 '88.6 '19.1'4.8 § 6.1'33.5'7.5 '2.6 ‘6.
Col. Belle 'H *3.2 ' 7489'279.7 '83.1 '16.6'3.9 *§ §.1'21.6'7.7 '2.3 '5.

Col. Rosa

B. Queen *H '3.47' 6603'267.8 "81. '15.8'4.4 ' 6. '22.1'6.8 '3.6 '6.

Col. Becky 'B.S'3.47' 6231'252.2 '77.3 '16. '4.9 ' §.7'232.1'7.6 '2.2 '5.
\Col Pandora ‘' J '4.77!' 4449'247.6 '79.5 '15.3'S.6 * 6.4'230.3'7.3 '3.4@ '5.
9

'4428' 6294'314.3 '85.8 '17.9'5.5 * 6.6'22.9'7. '2.8 '65

col.Cara "R.P'4.2 ' §543'232.8 80.4 '17.8'4.1 ' 5.7'230.9'7.3 '2.6 '5,
Gol. content §' J '4.76' 3993'221.7 ‘83. '17.1'5.5 . 6.1'°281.3'6.9 '2.5 '5.
Cara "R.P'4.09' 4144'198.3 '75.4 '17.4'4.1 ' 6.1'20.4'7.83 '2.5 '5.

Houwtje III ‘ H *3.19' 5126'190.8 ‘'76.4 '15.3'5. ‘* 5.8'20.2'7. '23.3 '5.

 
 

COLLEGE REGISTERED HERD.

lind! ' ‘Milk ‘Milk ‘wt. ! ‘igth' Height ‘wdof? '‘Thl =!
juar'Udder'Teats'veins'wella:lbs' 'Girth'body'Shou' Hips'Hips'Rump'Bones'!

 

1.611.7 ' 3. ' 3.8 '&.9 '1593 '6-10 '5—~7 '4-4 ' 4-5 ']-1141-11'1-23'
6.9'25.2 9 4.7 8 3e7 ¢ 2.7 3413 'G6—9 15-631 4-9 e 4-8 #2~-1)4'1-11'1-4
5.2'15. ' 4.6 * 3.7 ' 3.3 11278 '6-2 '5-1 '4-4 ' 4-4 '1-94 '1-9 '1-3
7. °'16. #* 4.7 ' 8.9 ' 2.8 11444 '6-6 '5-4 '4-5 ' 4-5 ‘1-11 '1-9 '1-34
3.2!'14. ' 4. * 8.5 ' 2.6 ' 802 '5-4 '4~10'3-114'4-1 '1-6 '1-6 ' 11
6.5116. ' 4.7 ' 3. *' 2.2 '1934 '6— '§-3 '4-44 14~44 "1-10 '1-9 '1-3
5.1°25. ' 4.3 °' 8. ' 8.8 ' 880 '5-5 '4-11'4-14 '4— '1-8 '1-8 ']-.
5015. ' 4.7 ' 3.3 ' 82.7 '1504 6-10 '5-5 "4-6 '4-4 1-11 '1-104'1-3
28°14. ' 4.7 ' 3. ' 2.5 '1154 '5-11 '5-B4'4-44 '4-53 '1-8 ‘1-9 '1-3
8.7921.2 §' 3.1 ' 3. * Bf 11036 '5-9 '"S— '4-] '4-4 '1-7 '1-8 '1-~24
4. '14. ' 4.6 ' 2.6 * 2.7 ' 772 '5-84 '4-11'4-1 "4-1 '1-6 + 1-7.' 11
1.9°13 3.8 ' 3.5 ' 2.6 ' 945 '5-8 ‘'4-1l1'4-1 '4- ‘1-7 * 1-74$']-1
3. '14.5 ' 4.7! 2. '1.8 ' 700 '5-2 '4-84'3-9 *'3-10 1-8t t 1-64! 11
7.4°11.3' 2.2 ' 2.4 ' 2.6 ' 980 ,5-8 ‘5-1 '4-2 '4—- 11-74 ' 1-8 ']-
0.1913.5 ' 4. * 82.1 ' 1.5 '1222 '6- '5-1 '4-4 '4-5 ‘1-9 ' 1-9 '1-24

 
21.

This herd does not present the most favorable conditions
for study along this line, as it is so small and, so divided
into different breeds. The largest number in any one breed
is that of the Holsteins, and omof these, Belle Sarcastic,
would have to be thrown out, as her record was made under extra—
ordinary conditions quite unlike the others. fwo of the other
Holsteins are young heifers, and should not be campared with
the older cows. The number of cows in each of the other breeds
‘is still smaller, and no canparigons can be made between them.
For these reasons, and Wepause of the lack of time on the part
of the authors no study has been made of this herd. Hoping that
the records and measurements of this herd may prove of value to
other workers, the above table has been inserted.

In spmming up the results of this investigation the follow-—
ing conclusions were drawn. First, that no infallible rule can
be made concerning the relation of dairy form to milk and butter
production, and second, that there is a marked tendency for the
best developed cows to be the best producers. With regard to
the first, the authors are satisfied that no definite line can
be drawn between individual cows, for an inspection of the large
tables will convince anyone that striking differences in the
milk or butter production exist between cows having approximately
the same weight or the same total score. It is to be nadticed
also that a wide difference in production often exists between

cows having certain qualities equally well developed, or that
Boe’

cows Widely different in perhaps the same qualities are equally
productive. Owing to the variable results obtained from the
comparison, a definite statement rezarding the second con-
clusion is more diffidult to make. There is3 as the tables show
considerable evidence both for and against the "dairy form"
theory especially in the comparisons between total score, and
milk and butter production. In studying the comparisons of
individual scores with the production, however, the resuits

 

obtained show a marked tendency in favor of the above theory.
Although there is considerable variation even here ammg some
of the different points, yet, we find that the above statement
holds true in the majority of cases, and especially with the
mammary organs whose development we must conclude to be a
highly important.factor in the performance of the dairy cow.
This work has proven a very interesting study and the
investigatcrs realize more than ever the importance of the sub-
ject. The results ohtained though as good as could be expected
from existing conditions are not as satisfactory as might be
desired. In order to make this study more conclusive, more
favorable circumstances should be had. First of all an even
herd of 75 to 100 mature cows of one breed but of different
form is required. The conditions as to care, shelter and food
should be exactly the same, and the weight off each cows food
should be accurately determined and taken into account? in conm-

paring the form and performance. The investigation snould
PO

continue throughout a period of at least two years and pre—
ferably longer. The cows should be scored at least twice
each year and the results averaged for the final score.
These conditions together with accurate milk and butter
records would prove the foundation of an inportant and
conclusive investigation.

Doubtless the authors have derived much more from this
investization than it is possible for anyone else to obtain
by studying their work. It is, however, hoped that this thesis
may prove of some value to others if not from its own merits
at least as an inspiration to some student to continue the
same study, as it surely is an important one, and one upon
which the farmers and dairymen of our State should be
enlightened.
— ee ee

~

 
  
    
  

  

LIBRARY
BINDBEr:

S/N oe 1 oe
  
    
  

  

LIBRARY
BINDED:

oN oe \ &”
HMMA
3 1293 WH 9393