WHAT TO FEED
=Chemical Analysis.= The chemical analysis of feed does not by any
means tell the whole story. Wheat straw, for instance shows up very
well in chemical analysis but experiments have shown that it takes
more energy to digest it than it produces. Even when we figure only
the digestible nutrients, the nutrients which by chemical analysis are
found to be digested by animals, we do not by any means have the whole
story. For instance, in human food we find that the protein in milk is
about four times as valuable as the protein in the bean. In the results
of a feeding experiment reported in Dr. McCollum’s “Newer Knowledge of
Nutrition” on page 75, it was found that when the source of protein
was the bean, four times as much was required for maintaining the body
weight of the animal as when the source of protein was milk. We used
to figure protein as protein and carbohydrates as carbohydrates but
now we discriminate. We must learn to figure them in the results they
produce. This is extremely difficult to do scientifically. When an
animal must have a variety of feeds who can tell just what proportion
of her production is due to certain foods eaten?
We can get at these things in a general way, however, by experience.
Feeding has long been known as an art. Some day it may be entirely a
science. But that can not be said at the present time. We must vary
the feeds used and learn by experience and observation what gets the
best results. A chemical analysis of tender grass will not show it to
contain more digestive nutrients than the old tough grass that the cows
will hardly eat, but it requires much less energy to convert it into
milk.
One year I listed some squaw corn about the tenth of July in a wheat
stubble. By frost this corn was beginning to come into roasting ears.
But most of the ears had not developed kernels. I filled the silo from
this field and got, as nearly as I could ascertain, just as much milk
from my herd by feeding that silage as by feeding silage made from
mature corn containing considerable grain. The same amount of dry
grains were fed in both cases. According to analysis this result could
not possibly be obtained.
Experiments have been tried in which the whole wheat plant, grain,
straw and all, also the oat plant and the corn plant were fed
separately to young heifers. The heifers fed the corn plant grew to
maturity and bore young normally. The heifers fed wheat and oats did
poorly, produced their young prematurely, all but one of which died
soon after birth. This does not indicate that oat or wheat feeds are
not good for cattle, but in themselves they are not sufficient. I do
not think this deficiency can be shown in the chemical analysis but
some of the food elements are hard to get. I think if this wheat and
oat plant had been young and tender as a growing grass instead of a
mature grain the heifers would have done well. Ground oats is one of
the best dairy feeds I ever tried.
=Balanced Rations.= I do not know just to what extent a cow requires
a balanced ration. Since some feeds have values over others that the
chemical analysis does not show, I think the balanced ration figures
and tables have been overworked. They are not entirely valueless,
however. Some will be placed in this book. Everyone knows that a cow
should not be fed one kind of feed only. We should give as great a
variety of feeds as possible and the cow’s likes and dislikes, together
with the results in the milk pail, give about all the information
concerning a balanced feed that the writer has ever used. We do not
need to worry about the supply of protein here because we use so much
alfalfa, or about the carbohydrates when we are feeding the product of
the corn plant.
A variation from a balanced ration does not immediately affect the
cow and usually one change offsets another. Experienced feeders of
record-making cattle make use of the chemical analysis of feeds in
their intense effort to have the cow digest a very large amount of
food, yield a large amount of milk, and still keep her bodily weight
about normal. But for farm conditions we should know that too great an
amount of alfalfa, bran, and like feeds usually results in sleek, fat
cattle and that cows fed principally corn and carbohydrates, if they
are milking well, will look rather rough and get too thin. The writer
at one time had alfalfa in such abundance that he let the milk herd
run out in the field and eat all they wanted from the stack. They had
silage and other feeds about as usual, but they did not eat as much
silage as they should have. The result was that the herd looked fine
and thrifty but produced less milk.
Many people think that a cow is either lean or fat and if she fills out
in her body she is always taking on fat, but the amount of lean meat
on the body also varies. Protein feeds are muscle builders. They make
animals grow. Carbohydrates supply fat and energy which is a separate
thing from muscle. Many times if cows become overweight we reduce the
total amount of feed consumed and get a large yield in the milk pail.
“The eye of the feeder fattens his cattle.” It also fills the milk
pail. Scientific knowledge can help a good feeder but I doubt very much
if it alone can make one. Rules and system can not be made to take the
place of interest and attention.
For those who care to go thoroughly into the subject of feeding I
recommend “How to Feed the Dairy Cow,” by Hugh Van Pelt, Editor of
Kimball’s Dairy Farmer, Waterloo, Iowa.
I have referred those who wish to go deeply into the subject of feeds
to more eminent authorities because I have never raced cows in a record
contest and am not an authority on the subject. The reason I have for
writing is that I have viewed the subject from the standpoint of profit
making rather than that of high production. Feeding for profit has been
too little considered.
=Pastures.= The way that pastures are generally used is, in my opinion,
the greatest mistake in the milk business. Certainly we can make two
blades of grass grow where one blade of grass and one weed grew before.
Most of the pastures that we see are either bare like a desert or weedy
enough to hide a calf three months old. A cow can not get enough feed
in the average pasture, no matter how many acres she mows over. There
is no need to estimate how many acres of poor pasture a cow requires,
but one acre of well-cared for pasture per cow is all the writer has
ever had to use. While I have fed a small amount of alfalfa in the
summer, I think it is safe to say that our cows had more grass per head
than almost any cows in the county. Next year I expect to pasture fifty
cows on thirty acres, feeding what is necessary in addition. I expect
to get nearly enough grass in a reasonably good year for that number of
cows.
The secret of the system lies in the fact that I have the pasture
divided into four parts and pasture one part at a time, then use a
mowing machine to clip off all weeds or remaining grass close to the
ground. Before turning the cattle into one of these pastures, I wait
until the grass has had about four weeks to grow. If the grass gives
out, the cow is given enough feed to make up the difference. I do not
let the grass stay short, for if it stays short, the roots will also be
short and in that condition it can not withstand drought. Any kind of
grass will yield two or three times as much feed per acre, if allowed
to grow a month at a time as it will if pastured off short all of the
time. I let the cattle eat the grass off the pasture about as often as
alfalfa is cut. Everyone knows that if they would cut their alfalfa
every three days they would have hardly a hat full of hay at the end
of the season. I aim to mow the pasture about the time that the cattle
are taken out, for I do not want any old, tough grass for the next time
that the cattle are turned into it.
Much of our pasture is a mixture of blue grass, timothy and sweet
clover with the sweet clover predominating. I do not want to place too
much reliance on shallow rooting grasses, such as white clover and
blue grass, although I have some pasture of that kind. I like to have
about five acres of sorghum or Sudan grass to pasture once about the
first of August and then again about the second week in September.
Sweet clover will root about four feet deep. Alfalfa will root much
deeper but is not practical as a pasture. Blue grass and white clover,
especially where cropped off short, root very shallow. Sudan grass will
draw moisture three or four feet deep. Sudan grass is like sorghum and
may at some time turn poison late in the fall, as far as I know, but
I know people who use it regularly for pasture and have never had any
such trouble. I have never pastured Sudan grass but have used sorghum,
and have had no bad results. To get the most out of pasture we must
have all the surface available for use and we must give the plant an
opportunity to breathe in order that it may root as deep as possible,
and then we should use deep rooting grasses such as sweet clover and
Sudan grass or sorghum.
In getting at the value of pastures be sure to remember that the
cow goes out to harvest the crop. I do not think that pasture is an
expensive feed. It is probably the cheapest feed we can get all things
considered, when properly managed.
=Hay.= Four tons of alfalfa hay contain more nutrients than ten tons
of silage, and hay is cheaper to raise and cheaper to harvest. The
intensive dairy farmer makes alfalfa hay form as large a part of his
ration as practical, for a certain variety is needed. However, figuring
alfalfa as against corn fodder, the fodder is the cheaper under average
conditions. The by-product farmer will do well to use as little alfalfa
as he can and still get good results.
The principal value in alfalfa hay for cattle feeding is in the leaves
and the results obtained are so dependent upon the kind of hay we get
that we consider that part of the secret of feeding lies in putting up
the hay. It has been demonstrated by Headdon of the Colorado Experiment
Station that where alfalfa is put up by the most careful method, three
hundred and fifty pounds of leaves are lost for every ton of hay put
up. Where alfalfa is carelessly handled and most of the leaves fall
off, we lose as much as three thousand pounds of leaves for every ton
of hay put up, and the hay that remains is of very little value so far
as milk cows are concerned. Not only do we lose the leaves of alfalfa
but we can lose the food value out of the leaf very easily. The alfalfa
leaf is very easily digested and the nutrients so easily digested are
leached out by rain. They even leave the plant when it is bleached in
the sun. The stem of the alfalfa has some value, however, if it is
cut young enough to be tender. Old, woody stems will show well in a
chemical test but will show poorly in a profit test on a dairy farm.
We can judge the feeding value of alfalfa by its color. Well-cured hay
should be pea-green, without must and not dusty. We get more alfalfa
by raking it soon after it is mowed, and by curing it in windrows or
in shocks, than if we let it remain spread out to bleach in the sun.
Besides curing hay in the shock, I have seen another method used and
good results obtained where the barn was very large in proportion to
the amount of hay put in it. Hay was hauled in from the field very
green and dumped by slings along the center of the barn without being
tramped. After several days it is spread. The heated hay, when lifted
up in the air and piled up loose, cools off rapidly, the heat helping
greatly to dry off the moisture. Such hay will not heat again and it
retains its color.
I do not think there is any other grass so valuable for hay as is
alfalfa. Before we had alfalfa we used cane and millet. Sweet clover is
favored by some. It is about the same as alfalfa chemically, and I do
not doubt that it makes a good hay if not allowed to get woody. I have
never used sweet clover as hay. Sudan grass is a sorghum and has come
into some favor. It has about the same food value, however, as the corn
stalk which the farmer already has available.
=Corn Fodder.= There are thousands of acres of corn stalks being
pastured in Nebraska and Iowa that have not much more value as they
stand in the field than the dead grass by the roadside. Saved and
utilized they are the great source of wealth that as yet is almost
untouched. Their yield is like a low-grade ore found in abundance.
Dry fodder containing no grain is worth at least half as much per ton
as alfalfa and the yield is approximately two tons per acre. I say it
is worth half as much but I have to guess at it. It contains just as
many pounds of digestible nutrients per ton as alfalfa and more than
prairie hay. How much it is worth depends largely upon the conditions
under which it is fed. It costs no more to cut and shock fodder than to
husk a field of corn. Cutting up the fodder and husking out the ears
by machine is not an expensive operation. Remember that hay must be
brought in from the field. The entire cost of cut fodder for feeding
can fairly be figured as about the cost of operating the machine that
does the cutting and husking. It is the cheapest feed that we can get.
Many years ago there were several large corn shredding machines sold
throughout this territory. They husked the corn and shredded the fodder
but they did not prove a success because fodder, unless unusually dry,
gets musty if cut up fine with an ensilage cutter and piled up. The new
and really successful way of handling fodder is with a small machine
that runs with a small gasoline engine. A supply of fodder should be
cut up every ten days or two weeks until a time comes when the fodder
is real dry--not earlier than December. Then the job may be finished
and the feed will last indefinitely.
=Silage Without Corn.= Some feeders put this cut-up fodder in a silo as
soon as the corn is dry enough to keep in the crib. They run water in
with it and all reports seem to agree that it makes a good silage. I
have not tried this, but I hope the scheme has in it the final solution
of the problem. Silo agents have been in the habit of arguing that
you can afford to feed silage, corn and all, to all of the stock on
the place and let the corn stalks that are not put into the silo go
to waste. I do not agree with them. Instead of putting fifteen acres
of corn in the silo where much of it is to be fed to young stock and
horses, use twenty or even twenty-five acres of stalks alone and you
will get just about as good results. But think of the saving. The corn
stalks are a by-product. You had to farm so many acres to get them. A
part of your business is raising corn and the stalks are paid for by
the grain.
Suppose then you feed grain grown on five acres of land. You are using
just one-third of the acres to feed your cattle that would be used if
you had put in fifteen acres of corn and fed it, corn and all. This
shows the advantages of the by-product producer. It fills in the big
gap that has been forgotten. It is figuring on a cost basis rather than
that of yield or speed in production.
Last winter a feeding experiment was tried at the Wisconsin Experiment
Station in which corn silage with grain in was tested against silage
from which the corn had been picked. The result showed that the cows
ate slightly more silage when it contained the grain and yielded on
an average three pounds more milk. The cost of the milk produced with
and without the grain in the silage was exactly the same. Silage was
figured at $6.50 per ton, corn and all, and without grain at $4.00.
Since the average farmer has cornstalks to waste and only has to figure
the cost of saving them, they should not be figured at nearly two
thirds of the corn crop, even after they have been made into silage.
However, it usually pays to feed grain to cows that are milking. The
main saving in the use of husked fodder lies in getting cheaper feed
for growing young stock and feeding dry cows.
I recommend a system of feeding silage, corn and all, to producing
cows only. If you do not have cows enough to prepare to feed them
separately, it will pay better to use no silos that have grain in them
at all. Feed the grain to those cows only that are giving milk and will
pay for it, or the cattle that you are fattening. Hold the rest of the
grain for high prices. It will pay better.
=Silage.= The important thing about a silo is to make it tall enough
and small enough around. The following dimensions are approximately
correct:
For 12 to 15 cows, silo should be 10 feet in diameter
For 20 to 30 cows, silo should be 12 feet in diameter
For 30 to 40 cows, silo should be 14 feet in diameter
For 40 to 60 cows, silo should be 16 feet in diameter
Silage will spoil on top unless at least two inches are fed off each
day. It usually pays to have several small silos rather than one big
one because during the summer months you may want to feed only a part
of a ration. The figures given are for full rations. Have the silo air
tight. Cut the corn fine and put lots of effort on tamping it. The
“Flink’s Perfect Silo Seal” is a canvas that is treated with some kind
of tar preparation. It spreads out over the top of the silo and is
filled more than a foot deep with water. This weighs down the silage
and makes a good air tight cover. Very little silage decays under it.
With such a cover you can feed periodically and still lose hardly a
day’s feeding of silage.
=Grain Feed.= Grain should be fed mixed with other feeds. I have often
been told how foolish was the old idea of the cow losing her cud.
But a cow can hardly re-gurgitate and re-chew grain by itself, and
all food eaten by a cow should be re-chewed. If food passes into the
intestines without being chewed a second time, it is likely to sour
and cause scouring and loss of appetite or even death, when a large
amount of grain has been consumed. We usually feed grains with silage
or fine-cut alfalfa. Alfalfa run through an ensilage cutter without any
re-cutting attachment, is said to make cows’ mouths sore, but I would
much prefer to feed it that way and risk sore mouths than to risk the
grain by itself. Some farmers feed corn and cob-meal. The cob is of no
value except to lighten the ration, but if there is nothing else to
dilute the grain with, by all means use the cob. Oats, corn, hominy
feed, which is a by-product in the manufacturing of corn meal, bran,
which is not very valuable where plenty of alfalfa is fed, and oil meal
form our principal feeds for dairy cows. Some get very good results by
feeding ground speltz and barley, others by feeding ground rye. Corn,
oats, wheat feeds and oil meal will generally form the main part of our
ration. The average farmer is hardly warranted in looking farther for
grains to feed. Oil meal helps as a conditioner and is fed in small
amounts only. Cottonseed meal may be of value but has never proven so
in the writer’s personal experience.
Grain should be ground so that all of the nutriments may be absorbed.
The amount of grain to be fed varies with the amount of milk that the
cow is producing. One pound of grain to every five pounds of milk is
a fairly good rule to follow. If more grain is fed there should be
another reason for it, and that is that the cow readily responds to
more feeding and makes sufficient profit to pay for the extra grain.
The old rule, in the main, is true that it takes a certain amount to
maintain bodily weight of the animal, and that the more feed above the
maintenance ration that she can consume and turn into milk, the more
the profit. But even that rule should not be taken too literally. If
the extra feed is all grain, it may be too expensive.
=Prepared Feeds.= There are many kinds of prepared feeds on the market
and I have no right either to knock or to boost them, because I know
practically nothing about them. Where there are combination feeds,
intended to make a balanced ration, I think the farmer would very
likely be paying a good deal for the combining. Where a mill man
buys grain from farmers and from those grains prepares feeds that are
not by-products of other milling operations, I think the price would
be high. I have known farmers to sell alfalfa hay and buy alfalfa
meal, but I do not think it pays to do those things. All I would say
concerning prepared feeds would be to experiment carefully and to buy
them, not on their guaranteed chemical analysis, but on what results
they actually show in the milk pail. Some prepared feeds contain oat
hulls which are about like wheat straw to digest. Dried sugar beet pulp
is a by-product feed containing mostly carbohydrates, and seems to have
some benefit as an appetizer. Cattle like it for a change. Where it is
not too high and carbohydrate rough feeds are to be purchased, it might
be profitable to try it.