20—Lancaster Farming. Saturday, October 6, 1973
A Registered Holstein cow owned by Ernest J. Sauder, 924 Silver
Spring Road, Lancaster, completed the highest 305 day lactation.
Rema produced 21,877 pounds of milk, 955 pounds of butterfat with a
4.4 percent test. Second high lactation was completed by a
Registered Holstein cow owned by Allan R. Shoemaker, Kirkwood
RDI. Princess produced 20,834 pounds of milk, 942 pounds of but
terfat with a 4.5 percent test in 305 days.
The herd of J. Z. Nolt, Leola RDI, had the highest daily butterfat
average. This herd of 34.5 Registered Holstem cows averaged 50.7
pounds of milk, 1.85 pounds of butterfat with a 3.6 percent test. The
herd of Hiram S. Aungst, Elizabethtown RDI, placed second. This
herd of 43.8 Registered Holstein cows averaged 45.8 pounds of milk,
1.76 pounds of butterfat with a 3.8 percent test.
FIRST 305 DAYS OF LACTATION
WITH 670 OR MORE POUNDS OF BUTTERFAT
Owner - Name Breed Age
Ernest J. Sander
Rema
Allan R Shoemaker
Princess
Pat
Maud
John N. Shirk
Lass
Trissy
Agnes
Paul B. Zimmerman
Rosane
Pride
Irma
Darnel M. Stoltzfus
Pioneer
Martha
John P. Lapp
Penny
Bucky
John P. Lapp
Eldora
Elmer E. Kauffman
Roxanne
Manda
Thomas C. Lapp
Banostn
J. Mowery Frey Jr
Rachel
Carmela
Teresa
Hiram S Aungst
Joan
7 Up
Curtis E. Akers
Trixie RH
Sarah RH
Pauline RH
Anita RH
J. Harold Musser & Son
41 GrH
30 GrH
James G Kreider
PriUy 32
54
143
Reuben Z. Smoker
Bonme
Reba
Robert Kauffman Jr,
Ada
Valerie
Ellis D. Kreider
Marge
48
Nathan E Stoltzfus
Kathy
Edgefield Farms
Sharon
Sally
R Edwin Harmsh
Tinkles
Mary
Patches
Ivan S Stoltzfus
Days Milk
305
RH
305
301
305
RH
RH
RH
6-10
305
305
290
5-
6-
7-8
RH
RH
RH
305
305
305
6-0
5-10
RH
RH
RH
305
305
RH
GrH
305
296
GrH
RH
305
RH
305
305
RH
RH
305
RH
305
282
305
RH
RH
RH
305
305
4-10
4-3
RH
RH
305
288
276
305
5-0
4-0
4-
5-
305
3Q5
305
305
305
9-1
8-0
8-0
RH
GrH
GrH
305
305
RH 7-5
GrH 5-11
305
305
RH
GrH
305
305
GrH
GrH
305
RH
305
305
RH
GrH
305
305
305
RH
RH
GrH
3-11
LANCASTER
COUNTY
DHIA
MONTHLY
REPORT
Test Fat
21,877
4.5
3.9
3.6
20,834
17,292
18,602
4.1
3.5
3.9
22,604
22,302
20,021
4.6
3.8
3.6
20,100
21,283
20,448
20,368
16,827
23,095
17,924
17,531
21,829
16,489
21,110
4.1
4.3
4.3
21,134
18,808
15,559
19,795
18,059
862
738
732
731
3.8
4.4
3.9
4.8
22,951
16,919
18,576
15,085
839
715
19,630
18,433
811
692
679
3.8
3.9
4.2
21,137
17,663
16,035
806
724
19,459
16,729
803
693
17,195
14,928
791
713
20,042
15,720
783
19,937
783
18,743
17,911
723
782
702
675
42
4 5
39
18,611
15,673
17,144
Debra
Robert L. Shelly
Princes
Bubbles
John S. Yost
Donna
Paul E. Martin
Pet
Etta
Paul S. Horning
Bernice
Charm
Jay E. Landis
Kingpin
Arlene S. Longenecker
Janice
Ivan Z. Martin
Sandy
Samuel I. Esh
Doris
Jennie
Donna
Lloyd Wolf
Flossie
Lonnie
Clyde W. Martin
Anita
Dixie
Beauty
Babe
Donna
J. Z. Nolt
Lou
John C. Metzler
955
Bonita
Deborah
Jesse G. Balmer
942
676
672
Cocoa
Stephen J. Stoltzfus
Gal
936
789
781
Dale E. Hiestand
Orna RH
Gail RH
Susie RH
Robert F. & Joan B. Book
924
806
726
Madge
John B. Groff
RH
RH
GrH
Raymond W. Burkholder
73 GrH
Jule
Donna
81
899
731
896
756
C. Witmer Sherer
Jill
Ivy
Lester M. Weaver
107
102
768
103
92A
894
793
894
865
813
676
Lester J. Wiker
Maggie
Aaron K. Stoltzfus
Daisy
Henry E. Kettering
Eileen
Topper
Elmer S. Myers
Sopha 98
GertB6
Parke H. Ranck
865
729
Pamela
Christ R. Beiler
Beulah
John M. Smucker
Honey RH
Red Rose Research Center
Leah
Jane
Harry S. Mumma
Kit
Leon S. Lapp
May GrH 5-11
Quarryville Presbyterian Home & Vernon Weaver
196
William F. Guhl
6711
David L. Landis
Cindy
Glenn C Hershey
Elaine
Amos & Eleanor Hershey
Ada
Beauty
Debbie
305
GrH
305
305
5-
6-
RH
RH
275
RH
305
305
RH
RH
300
305
GrH
305
6-11
RH
305
RH
305
RH
305
305
305
RH
RH
RH
5-8
8-6
5-8
305
305
GrH
RH
WJ
3-8
5-10
3-8
3-5
294
RH
11-2
305
305
RH
RH
10-8
305
RG
305
RH
305
305
305
14-1
298
RH
305
302
298
3-
5-6
4-
305
305
305
RH
RH
4-11
6-7
GrH
RH
RH
RH
RH
305
GrH
5-11
305
5-11
RH
305
305
RH
RH
305
305
GrH
RH
305
RH
305
5-10
GrH
305
305
305
RH
RH
301
GrH 4-11
305
305
RH
GrH 5-0 305 21,237
RH 5-6 305 18,109
305
RH
305
258
305
RH
RH
RH
(Continued On Page 21)
782
16,927
778
758
22,179
18,175
778
15,627
775
678
17,463
15,854
772
683
20,788
18,730
772
19,319
768
16,789
766
20,540
766
671
671
17,723
17,990
17,039
763
719
18,847
17,468
21,777
17,411
22,164
17,821
17,665
757
20,234
757
726
16,303
18,534
754
14,377
753
18,295
752
707
676
3.8
4.4
3.9
19,614
16,194
17,358
752
16,949
752
744
686
4.4
4.1
4.1
16,939
18,080
16,833
749
17,062
745
705
19,046
16,997
20,057
16,597
20,086
16,257
19,380
744
17,776
741
20,379
741
730
17,379
19,193
739
699
16,865
16,429
736
16,489
735
17,927
734
16,851
724
677
18,848
17,101
19,310
722
721
17,052
719
15,089
717
717
715
20,394
714
15,240
15,068
16,310
707
674
Facts
for
Dairymen
N. Alan Bair
Assistant
County
Agriculture
Agent
From Nutrition to Economics-
0 how I wish I had a good
simple answer to the question of
how to adequately and
economically feed our friend the
dairy cow in the coming months.
Feeding the dairy cow has never
been simple, but with the current
high production we expect, and
the off-beat (all corn silage for
instance) feeding programs we
work with, and the high value of
feed ingredients, formulating
workable reations now become a
nightmare.
No matter what the cir
cumstance, there are three basic
considerations in feeding the
cow: (1) nutritional or chemical
needs, (2) physical needs, and (3)
economics. If you plan to stay in
the dairy business, you better pay
attention to all three areas when
it comes to feeding.
The nutritional or chemical
needs of the cow are well known
and have been documented for
many years. To balance a ration,
it’s simply a matter of putting
together a combination of feed
ingredients to come up with the
total requirements. Sounds
simple enough, but it is a big
enough job to give even a com
puter a struggle
The physical needs of a cow
were automatically taken care of
before man, with his great
wisdom, started feeding a lot of
high powered and now high
priced grain. To keep the rumen
working properly we must fur
nish 60-80 percent of the total dry
matter intake as forage. With low
forage and fiber intake, that
great muscle we call the rumen,
gets very lazy and we have a cow
that is not normal inside. Believe
me, we don’t have to be inside the
cow to witness the retults!
Our third consideration,
economics, has been discussed at
great lengths these past few
months because of a change from
our past prices. But with all the
talking, have you taken the time
to critically look at your
tradition-based dairy ration to
see if it could be made more
economical and still meet the
other two considerations?
Few persons feeding cows daily
have the patience, background or
time to calculate a feeding
program that will meet all three
considerations, but these same
persons should be sure that the
job gets done and done properly.
You can’t afford not to. You can
and must evaluate your assets
such as available forages and
possibly grains and then consider
some professional help in
assessing your particular
situation.
It all boils down to testing your
forages and assessing the ad
ditional feeds available to come
up with a least cost ration for
your cows. You just can’t afford
to be wrong! Even a single
mistake such as feeding a 16
percent ration when you only
need a 12 percent ration can cost
you 50 cents per cow per day.
Think about that for a short time
and the few dollars it takes to test
your forages will seem like a
sound investment.
Getting Fat?
You say you’re not getting fat
but at the end of every sum
mer it’s frightening how that
hammock seems to sag a little
more.