16—Lancaster Farming, Saturday, February 24, 1973
A Registered cow owned by Pau. B. Zimmerman, Ephrata RDI,
completed the highest 305 day lacation. Fern produced 25,997 pounds
of milk, 1,061 pounds of butterfat with a 4.1 percent test. Second high
lactation was completed by a Registered Holstein cow owned by
Calvin D Beiler, Paradise. Pinny produced 27,434 pounds of milk,
1.006 pounds of butterfat with a 3.7 percent test in 305 days.
The herd of John N Shirk, Leola RDI, had the highest daily but
terfat average This herd of 30.5 Registered and Grade Holstein cows
produced 57.6 pounds of milk, 2.18 pounds of butterfat with a 3.8
percent test. The herd of Elmer E. Kauffman Christiana RDI, placed
second This herd of 31.1 Registered and Grade Holstein cows
averaged 53.9 pounds of milk, 2.11 pounds of butterfat with a 3.9
percent test.
FIRST 305 DAYS OF LACTATION WITH 640 OR MORE LBS.
Owner • Name Breed Age
Paul B Zimmerman
Fern
Hope
Calvin D. Beiler
Pinny
Kelly
David K Stoltzfus
Robin RH
Red Rose Research Center
Lassie RH
J Z Nolt
Abbie
Galen W Crouse
Supnse
Jan
Dale E Heistand
Micky
S R Shellenberger
Wanda
Donsde
Nixie
Mime
David L Landis
Clarbel
Daisy
Donald S Eby
Vichi
Jill
Herbert & Rhelda Royer
Jerry RH 6-6
Princess RH 6-8
Lancaster Mennomte Hospital Farm
Linda RH 6-6
R Mudy RH -4-4
Recharge RH 4-6
Fran RH 7-2
Nellie RH 8-6
Furry H Frey
Betsy
Dean
Lester M Weaver
70A
56C
J Mowery Frey Jr,
Pattie
Nathan G Stoltzfus
Kitty
Rut
Ruth
James D Shertzer
Fran
H Landis Weaver
Pat
Harry G Kreider
Abby
S Flake
Anna
Mark P Stoltzfus
Abby
B F & Mary Eshelman
21 Selen RH
42 Sheri RH
Clyde W Martin
Windy RH
OF BUTTERFAT.
Days Milk
305
305
RH
RH
6-6
5-10
305
305
RH
RH
305
305
RH
RH
RH
305
305
305
RH
6-11
RH
RH
GrH
RH
305
305
305
305
9-3
2-5
2-4
GrH
RH
305
305
9-3
6-10
305
305
RH
RH
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
RH
RH
5-10
3-11
GrH
RH
305
305
12-4
RH
305
RH
RH
RH
305
305
305
4-10
RH
305
RH
305
6-7
4-
5-
RH
RH
GrH
305
305
305
RH
305
305
305
305
LANCASTER
COUNTY
DHIA
MONTHLY
REPORT
Teat Fat
1,061
652
25,997
18,897
1,006
704
27,434
17,118
22,543
20,543
24,708
22,892
16,567
20,747
846
741
667
659
3.4
4.1
4.5
4.0
24,736
17.861
14.861
16,483
844
658
23,625
16,887
831
745
19,515
16,627
820
697
23,218
17,716
820
781
22,125
18,503
18,908
19,961
19,779
3.7
3.3
3.3
703
660
660
818
715
19,369
17,557
811
674
20,397
17,208
3.*
22,252
40
4.4
3.7
20,050
16,469
18,305
19,089
21,547
4.1
4.6
4.3
18,675
15,678
15,349
18,017
17,728
17,964
761
20,362
Moses N. Good
Delores
Duke
Paul V. Nissley
Dawn
Tammy
Aaron E. Beiler
Pauline
Polly
RH
RH
Raymond & Louise Witmer
Kebbie RG
Lorna RG
Penny RG
Kelly RG
William H. Douts
Anna
Robert H. Kauffman
Brenda RH
James W. Bowman
Heidi
K. D. & Else Linde
Dora
Robert Kauffman Jr
Molly
J Kenneth Hershey
Karen
Norma
Christ E. Stoltzfus
Mary
Ida
Parke H Ranck
May
Rose
Glenn E, Burkholder
Verna
Wilmef G. Kraybill
Foy RH
Harold L 5’ Don Risser
Pepper RH
Ben S. Stoltzfus
Vickie
John T Byers
3 No 2
Edgefield Farms
Alma
Cora
Cookie
858
641
Jonathan B. Lantz
Magic
856
John E. Kreider
Crystal
Ellis D. Kreider
Marlene
John M. Hamish
Sharon 2
John S. Wenger
Marj 23
Prize 12
Paul N. Brubaker
45
Lloyd Wolf
Louise RH
Doreen RH
Princess RH
Robert F & Joan B. Book
Ruby RH
Marvin S. Nolt
Tensen
John P. Lapp
Citaton
Ivan M Hursh
Doll
Crystal
Aaron M Fisher
Lucy RH
J Harold Musser & Son
43 GrH
Leßoy S. Smucker
Blacky
796
729
667
Mervin Nissley
Elmer H Weber
Betty H
Charles Tindall
Pet
779
774
Alvin K. Bollinger
Linda
764
725
655
Earl S Weaver
RH
Roy H. & Ruth H. Book
ITTony RH
Anna
764
Elvin H. Hess
Carol
762
697
Jacob S. Stoltzfus
Reba
305
305
RH
RH
305
305
4-10
4-1
RH
RH
291
300
7-
8-
298
305
305
305
11-7
3-10
5-4
10-6
305
RH
305
8-11
305
RH
305
RG
GrH
305
305
GrH
RH
305
305
104
2-7
GrH
GrH
305
305
RH
RH
305
GrH
305
305
305
6-11
RH
305
RH
305
305
305
5-0
54
5-11
RH
RH
GrH
305
RH
305
RH
305
GrH
305
RH
305
305
RH
RH
305
RH
295
292
305
3-6
3-9
3-7
266
10-2
305
RH
6-4'
305
GrH
305
298
7-0
5-10
RH
RH
305
305
IRH
305
305
RH
305
RH
305
RH
298
RH
305
302
10-8
GrH
305
GrH
(Continued on Page 17)
756
640
20,914
15,457
750
677
20,377
18,531
750
672
19,506
17,600
750
712
687
667
5.0
4.8
4.7
5.0
15,082
14,988
14,679
13,438
747
18,734
746
16,869
746
16,622
744
15,390
734
16,448
731
730
20,749 3.5
21,883 *3.3
725
664
19,430
14,755
723
649
14,300
18,387
18,731
721
, 4.1
17,481
719
16,638
716
19,922
713
16,869
711
658
646
4.7
3.5
3.8
15,085
18,613
16,907
710
20,453
710
17,243
708
17,314
708
16,706
704
658
16,574
18,176
703
16,429
700
693
667
4.5
4.3
3.8
15,729
15,969
17,388
699
16,126
696
16,578
695
20,249
695
669
18,621
18,747
695
18,473
694
19,559
694
18,182
694
16,832
691
17,419
18,285
689
15,203
18,882
18,681
17,325
16,642
Focti
for
Doirym
V
N. Ain Bt
AwiitWi
County
A*ricultu:
Agent
Glass Vs. Stainless
Steel Pipelines
When you make that initial
decision to go to a pipeline
milking system, your “decision -
making” is only beginning. The
many choices of brands and
choices of equipment within any
one brand seem to be endless.
To add to your possible con
fusic* r ecent legislation permits
the > of either glass or stainless
stevi milk pipelines for milking
machines. In the past, stainless
steel has been restricted from
some milk marketing areas. The
choice of one or the other is now a
matter of personal preference or
economic considerations.
Glass pipelines permit
visability of cleanliness, milk
flow, and washing action. The
heat loss during the wash cycle is
slightly less than for stainless
steel.
The procedure of welding
stainless steel lines in place is
being rapidly adopted in the
eastern United States. In fact, a
number of new systems here in
Lancaster County have used this
method. This procedure has been
used for many years in milk
plants and on farms in the
western United States. This
means there could be a decided
cost advantage to stainless steel
in some installations.
Whatever material is chosen
for the pipeline, don’t mixihe two
together, except under special
conditions. For example, glass to
stainless connections should be
made in the vertical position, or
with special fittings. That’s
because stainless pipe is
measured at its outside diameter
and glass pipe dimensions are for
the inside. The two materials
installed together horizontally
may not drain properly.
Both materials are acceptable
for milk handling purposes. Now
it’s a question of economics and
personal preference.
Feeding Dairy Replacements
Future dairy herds must
depend on the present heifer
(Continued On Page 17)
A MILKMOVER
SYSTEM sets you out of I
the barn sooner-with more money
in your pocket! It saves your lugging
heavy pails of milk from bam to cooler.
• HAS MORE MILK CAPACITY
• PERMITS FASTER MILKING
• ELIMINATES EXTRA help
• PROTECTS MILK QUALITY
• IS 100% SELF-CLEANING
• HAS ELECTRIC CONTROLS
• FITS INTO ALL BARNS
• EASILY INSTALLED
Available- thru your local dairy
equipment dealer or call the factory
coUect to arrange for a free demon
| stration on your farm
Manufactured by
d/oug
m industries, inc.
faIOHNSON
p o sox aaa. clkton. md. h»»i
Phone 301-398-3451