Superior Germ Plasm in Dairy Herds

By R. R. Graves^ Principal Specialist in Dairy Cattle Breedings and M. H. Fohrman^ Senior Dairy Hushandman^^ Division of Dairy Cattle Breeding, Feedingj and Management^ Bureau of Dairy Industry

WITH more than 26 million dairy cows spread over the entire United States, a survey of herds for superior germ plasm is a tremendous undertaking. How the survey which is the subject of this article was conducted among agricultural experiment stations and the owners of more than a thousand commercial herds is described in later pages. It is sufficient at this point to say that no similar project on so large a scale had previously been attempted in this country. Hitherto the genetic study of dairy cattle has been restricted for the most part to analysis of the hereditary make-up of the individual sire or dam. Some attempts have been made in studies in the Bureau of Dairy Industry, and more recently by the Holstein-Friesian Association, to show the inheritance for production being built in some herds through the use of a number of sires. To analyze all the sires used in herds during the entire period of record keeping, however, and to show the female lines of descent and their relationship to the various sires in a large number of herds, is pioneer work in the field of animal breeding. In the present state of genetic knowledge relating to livestock, many might call it premature to attempt a survey of progress in breeding superior germ plasm in dairy-cattle herds in which records of production have been kept over a period of years. The effort is necessarily based on the generally accepted theory that butterfat and milk production are characters inherited through quantitative factors (genes) and that on the average sires proved for ability to increase daughters' records over dams' records carry superior germ plasm and should be used in herd improvement. Neither the actual genes nor their mode of inheritance is known, though presumably there are many of them and they interact with one another in an extremely complex way. It may be pointed out, however, that this 1 other members of this Division who have assisted with the preparation of the material are W. W. Swett, T. E. Woodward, J. R. Dawson, J. B. Shepherd, C. A. Matthews, and C J. Stauber. 997 basic assumption is not essentially different from that continually used in practical plant breeding. The wheat or the corn breeder knows neither the genes that influence production nor their mode of inheritance, but by assuming that they exist and that his general theory of their operation is not too far from the truth, he is able to get results of unquestionable value. The prematurity in this case, then, does not lie in the nature of the assumption, but in applying it to an animal organism and using it on a wide scale to draw practical conclusions as to intrinsic worth— that is, to compare and grade breeding merit on the basis of the three characteristics of primary economic importance in dairy cattle: milk production, butterfat production, and butterfat percentage. These quantitative elements can be measured for individual animals and entire herds, and a practical procedure has been in use long enough to yield many data useful in the selection of sires possessing superior inheritance for high levels of production. Nevertheless there are recognized shortcomings and difficulties in the methods employed. Material on type of animals was included in the survey for the benefit of those who lay stress on conformation, and who feel that this may have some connection with productive ability. This material is available to the breeders concerned and the present plan is to publish it elsewhere than in this Yearbook. It is recognized that by no means all of the superior germ plasm in dairy cattle in the United States is included in the present survey. There is undoubtedly a great deal of it in herds for which records of production have not been kept, as well as in those for which record keeping has been intermittent or selective. In fact many of the best known breeding herds fall in the latter class and were therefore not available for use in the survey. Moreover, in many States limitations of time and available funds did not permit the inclusion even of all the herds in which records had been kept for a considerable time. The present survey, then, cannot be considered as a completed structure. It is ground work for the building of a more enlightened and constructive breeding program. Organized record keeping for dairy cattle has never attained desirable momentum and volume, though it has been advocated for many years by educational organizations and institutions. Those who keep records have used them principally for culling their low- producing cows. It has been estimated that in our dairy herd- improvement associations only about one-third of the cows produce enough to be profitable to their owners, another third just about break even, and the last third are such low producers as to lose money each year for their owners. In considering this statement it should be remembered that less than 2 percent of the total dairy-cow population are being tested through herd-improvement associations and that this 2 percent, together with the cattle being tested through breed organizations, are in all probability considerably higher producing animals on the average than the remainder of the dairj^-cow population In the lack of a constructive breeding program that w^ill produce a general improvement in germ plasm for higher producing levels, dairy farmers will continue to be burdened with a large percentage of cows that lack the inherent ability to produce sufficient milk and butterfat to render them profitable. Culling out a few low-producing cows is not a corrective for this situation. The poor cows will always 998 be in the herds to cull unless the owners follow a breeding program that will eliminate the germ plasm responsible for low production. This survey, then, shows what has actually been happening under the present system of breeding in the better herds. It offers the first picture, though an incomplete one, of the results of the testing program. The picture is incomplete because only the best results are shown. Without doubt critical consideration will bring flaws to light in the present survey, and many improvements and refinements should be possible in the future. This criticism is invited and will be welcomed. It has not even been possible to develop all the conclusions that might be draw^n from the survey. The mere analysis of thousands of survey cards, the calculations involved, and the summarizing and boiling down of details took weeks of work on the part of a large staff. The development of additional material is a task that will take some time after the present Yearbook is published. In many States, those who have made the survey and obtained the data from the farms see so much value in this new field of work that they are asking how it can be continued; how it may be placed on a permanent basis.

The Origin and Bac\ground of the Present Breeds of Dairy Cattle

THE links that indicate the line of descent of our domestic cattle from their wild forebears are skeletons and parts of skeletons excavated from various geological strata, lake beds, and marshes where they resisted decay to be resurrected later for painstaking study by archeologists, paleontologists, and osteologists, who forged the bony chain of evolution. Their conclusions in turn w^ere strengthened by gleanings from the drawings left by primitive man. Disregarding some confusion in early terminology and some per- sisting disagreement, it is evident that our domesticated cattle came from the wild species of the genus Bos, which is the largest genus of the family Bovidae. The wild cattle are long since extinct, but the long- horned species, B, primigenius, survived in the wild state in Europe up to the beginning of the fifteenth century (;^).^ It is believed that this was probably a variety of B, namadicus, the Asiatic wild ox. Its place in the ancestry of domestic cattle appears to be well established. Some confusion persists regarding the origin of the short-horned breeds. A small wâld species called B. longifrons is suggested as the ancestor of these cattle, but according to one hypothesis, B. longifrons—also called B, brachyceros—was a stunted type of B, namadicus. If this is true it would indicate a common origin for all domestic European breeds, although most writers believe that they came from two or more sources. The controversy may be cleared up when more bones have been unearthed. In any event, there were wild cattle in abundance when primitive man decided to add herding to hunting in order to safeguard and supplement his food supply. Presumably domestication of cattle 8 Italic numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited, p. 1069.

999 started with the capture and taming of young animals. Historians beUeve the formation of domestic flocks and herds began about 10,000 years ago, perhaps in Asia. Migrations and conquests brought about a mixing and blending of these early stocks. Since there was much roaming about in search of new pastures and more or less constant warfare between neighboring tribes, it is safe to assume that no thought was given to improvement of flocks and herds during the ages preceding the dawn of civilization. Early historians recount the accomplishments of kings, emperors, and nobles in the field of animal husbandry, but many of these chroniclers ¡flattered their patrons. Livestock breeding for these men may have been more a vanity than a vocation. During the Middle Ages, war, the great ravisher and destroyer, held back progress. Men were needed to fight battles, and pastoral pursuits were often neglected. With greater security, however, improvement was possible. Envy may have been the first compelling motive in livestock improvement. It operated long before the lure of profit and the pressure of economic necessity began to stimu- late breed betterment. One of the early results of breeding under domestication was the appearance and fixing of variations, particularly in coat colors and also in size, shape of horns, and other easily identified characteristics. These early difierentiations, encouraged by selection, marked the beginning of the breaking up of the general domesticated stock into distinct breeds. Intermingling of these strains from time to time brought about new combinations and later additional segregations. Race consciousness and hostility often assisted in the establishment and fixing of breed characteristics. The liistory of the major dairy-cattle breeds should begin with their origin. By deduction it is fairly w^ell established that Holsteins sprang from Bos primigenius; Ayrshires from the same source, crossed with JB. longifrons; and Jerseys, Guernseys, and Brown Swiss cattle from B. longifrons. Following the origination of a breed there is a long period of unre- corded development until some of the breed characteristics are fixed and there are enough animals to attract attention and bring breed recognition. Recorded history, however, actually begins only with the opening of a studbook.

EARLY IMPORTATIONS AND THE FOUNDING OF BREED ASSOCIATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Cattle came to North America with the first settlers. They were maintained throughout the colonial period, but there is no record of the development of a distinct American dairy breed. Lack of a ready market or better opportunities in other fields may have retarded the development of the dairy industry. When conditions were more favorable, foreign dairy^ breeds were established and the logical procedure was to import animals of these breeds. In the meantime, livestock breeding in England had been stimulated by the work of Bake- well, the CoUings brothers, Bates, and other pioneers. The history of the development of breeds of^ cattle abroad differs from that in the United States. In most cases in other countries the herdbooks remained open for a time at least to all animals that met certain requirements as to breed characteristics. This tended to 1000 broaden the base of the breed by tlie admission of animals other than those already registered. It appears that the normal procedure in founding a herdbook here was to register all animals for which proof of importation could be presented, to admit theii known progeny to registry, and thereafter to limit entry to descendants of registered animals and those subsequently imported from the source of the breed. Early records show that Jerseys imported 15 years before the founding of the American Jersey Cattle Club were registered. After registration abroad was well established, then foreign registry was required for entry of imported cattle in the breed herdbooks here. Dates claimed for early importations lose significance because there was no authentic record that would even permit breed identification before the registration books were set up. The terms Alderney, Jersey, and Guernsey were more or less synonymous in the early cattle literature. Most of the first Channel Island cattle came to this country by way of England. In 1817, 1840, and 1850 Jersey cattle are said to have been imported to the United States. More came in 1868, the year in which the American Jersey Cattle Club was formed. From that,time on there has been a fairly steady flow of cattle from the island of Jersey, but the great increase in numbers is due to the expanding activities of American breeders. Mention is made by historians of large black and white cattle imported in 1795, and it is reasonable to assume that the^ Dutch settlers in New York would, from time to time, have brought in some of the dairy animals from their native land. Two registry associations were organized in 1871 and 1879, and these were consolidated in 1885 to form the Holstein-Friesian Association of America. The cattle eligible to registry were those of black and white color already registered in the Holstein, Dutch-Friesian, Holstein-Friesian, and Western Holstein-Friesian herdbooks, their direct descendants, and imported animals or their descendants registered in the Netherlands, Friesian, or North Holland herdbooks. Importations were numerous from 1875 to 1885 but only a few more came in early in the twentieth century. Then high registry fees and quarantine practically ended importations. Ayrshires gained recognition as a breed in the county of Ayr in Scotland. Scottish settlers brought them to Canada in the early nineteenth century, and 1822 and 1837 are mentioned as dates of early importations to Connecticut and Massachusetts. Animals have been brought in from Scotland at intervals up to the present, but quarantines have frequently interrupted the movement. The Ayr- shire Breeders' Association was organized in 1875 and the following year published the first volume of the Aryshire Record, which was a continuation of the American and Canadian Ayrshire Herd Record. This first volume carried the statement that every animal would be registered on the merits of its pedigree, without regard to any previous record. The animals recorded include those tracing directly to importation and others believed to be purebred. Registered Guernsey cattle in this country today are those imported in recent years or descendants of earlier importations from the islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, ^ and Herm, in the English Channel, where animals were recorded in the herdbook of the Royal Guernsey Agricultural Society, which began in 1879. Hill (3) gives 1830 or 1831 as the date of the first importation of Guernsey cattle to the United States. The descendants of these animals were later

38143°—36 64 1001 recorded in the herdbook of tlie American Guernsey Cattle Club, which was founded in 1877. Other importations are reported in 1840, 1858, and 1868. Guernsey cattle have continued to come into this country in varying numbers since the club was founded. Brown Swiss cattle, as the name indicates, originated in Switzer- land. They have been imported only in limited numbers, and the first importations date back to 1869 and 1882. In 1880 the Brown Swiss Breeders' Association was established, and registration and the issuance of herdbooks have been carried on by the organization since that date. Major breed associations have been in existence here for 50 year's or more, and the consequent development of a common interest has resulted in efforts to encourage breed promotion and expansion. Competitive showing was one of the first means of breed advertising and continues to be important. Disregarding the indifference of breeders toward the inclusion of production standards as a joint basis for awards in the show ring, dairy-cattle shows at least helped to acquaint the public with the external characteristics of the diff'erent breeds and afforded direct contact with prospective buyers. As time went on the showing of dairy cattle became professionalized, and the competition narrowed down to those herds whose owners were able to purchase prospective winners at long prices and hire skilled showmen to fit and pose their animals before the judges. Inability to match this type of showing has driven most of the smaller herd^ owners out of the field, and during recent years the general public has evinced a noticeably waning interest in cattle shows. This may help to bring about reforms designed to recapture interest.

FIRST RECORDS OF PRODUCTION AND THE BEGINNING OF OFFICIAL TESTING Fortunately, the commercial value of the dairy cow can be determined early in her productive life. Breeders individually initiated practices for measuring producing ability by weighing the milk and by churning the milk and weighing the butter for a given period. These early efforts were the beginnings of the present official tests, herd tests, and dairy herd-improvement tests. In 1884 a volume entitled '^Butter Tests of Jerseys" was published as a continuation of a previous list published in 1882 of all churn tests of registered Jerseys that had produced 14 or more pounds of churned butter in 7 consecutive days. About 450 records were listed. Some date back to 1879 and give evidence of an early interest in the ability of cows to produce. Determination of yearly production by the chum test was a tedious and expensive procedure, but in 1877 a record of 705 pounds of churned butter was reported for Jersey Belle of Scituate, and in the next dozen years several records made in this way exceeded that of Jersey Belle. The early importers and handlers of Holsteins were quick to realize the advantage their cattle bad in quantity production. The first full yearly record was reported in 1870 as 12,681 pounds, made by the cow Dowager. Five years later 16,274 pounds of milk was the top, and in another 5 years the record had reached 18,000. Records were broken in rapid succession until 30,318 pounds was reported for Pietertje 2d in 1888, In the eighties Holstein breeders began to make short-time butter records. In 1891 Pauline Paul completed

1002 a year's production with 1,154 pounds of butter. Most of the early public competitions in butter production were between Holsteins and Jerseys.

THE RIGHT KIND OF HERD PEDIGREE

SIRE j SIRE DAM 1 SIRE 4 SIRE 1 DAM DAM 1 DAUGHTERS OF SIRE 4 SIRE 1 SIRE 3 DAM 1 DAUGHTERS OF SIRE 3 SIRE 2 1 DAUGHTERS OF SIRE 2 DAUGHTERS SIRE I OF SIRE 1 FOUNDATION COWS THE producing ahility of the daughters of Sire 4, which may typify the last generation in any herd where 4 successive sires have heen used^ as illustrated in the above charts is determined for the most part b}/ the ífínd of germ plasm possessed b^i the sires that are numbered 4, 3, 2, and 1. The producing ability carried by the germ plasm of these sires can be measured by the performance of their offspring. If the germ plasm of each of these four sires was definitely superior as proved by adequate and unse^ lected data^ then the cows of the present generation will be superior. Each sire received a certain inheritance from his parents at the time of his conception. Toothing in his later life can change this inheritance. And his ancestors can be forgotten when he himself has been definitely proved by his progeny. The important thing with this last generation of cows is that each individual animal be bac\ed by a number of direct generations of breeding that has been proved superior^ namely^ the paternal sire^ and through the maternal side^ in each generation the superior germ plasm should come through the daughter of a sire that was proved superior.

In HilPs book (3) there is a list of 165 weekly butter records of 14 pounds of butter or more made by Guernsey cows. The author states that many of these were butterfat records with 20 percent 1003 added for overrun, and that they were made after 1870. A yearly milk record of 12,856 pounds was completed in 1889 by the Guernsey cow Lily Alexandre. ^ Several large Guernsey herd owners kept private yearly production records for their cows before the establishment of the Advanced Kegister. All of these early efforts indicate appreciation of the record of performance as a valuable means of breed promotion and advertising. As competition grew and more herd owners engaged in record keeping, there developed a need for providing unbiased supervision for the tests. Fortunately, Dr. Babcock had perfected his butterfat test in 1890, and repeated trials had proved it to be an ideal means for determining the butterfat content of milk. Its use, together with the weighing of the milk, made the determination of production a simpler procedure. The convenience of the Babcock test and the need for disinterested supervision led to the establishment of authen- ticated testing. _ The Advanced Registry of Holstein Cattle was established at the time of the consolidation of the two early breed associations in 1885. Under the guir^ance of Solomon Hoxie, an early breeder in New York State, it continued in a desultory way through an early period of adversity, trying to survive the incubus of a fee charged largely because accurate measurements and scoring were required in addition to milk and butter production. In 1892 the requirement for entry was based on the butterfat produced in 7 consecutive days as determined by the Babcock test. Prize money offered in 1894 stimulated production testing and was the beginning of an upward surge in the volume of test work. Several agricultural colleges and breeders were advocating yearly testing at the beginning of the century, but it was not until 1908 that the association gave official recognition to tliis type of record. The official butter test was inaugurated by the American Jersey Cattle Club in 1884, and the Babcock test made possible the start of the present Register of Merit in 1903. A limited number of short tests were accepted, but the yearly test soon caught the fancy of the breeders. Tliis and the 305-day test have become standard for the breed. The first yearly record in the Register of Merit is that of Figgis 2d for 6,387 pounds of milk and 322 pounds of butterfat at 2 years and 1 month of age. Guernsey breeders noted the interest manifested in records of cattle of other breeds, and in 1897 the American Guernsey Cattle Club offered cash prizes for yearly records made by individual cows and by groups. The results were sufficiently gratifying to justify a second contest, and in 1901 the Advanced Register of Guernsey Cattle was adopted. Provision was made for 7-day records, but this class was not popular. Glenwood Girl VI, with a record of 572 pounds of butterfat, is listed AR 1. The Ayrshire Breeders' Association in 1902 established the Ayrshire Advanced Registry to give official recognition to production performance. No. 1 in the Advanced Registry is Rena Myrtle with 12,172 pounds of milk and 546 pounds of butterfat. Brown Swiss breeders also set up an advanced registry for tested cows of that breed. In reviewing the writings of chroniclers of the dairy breeds, one gains the impression that the motive which inspired the inauguration of official testing was invariably breed promotion. Publication of 1004 records of production drew attention to record-making herds and animals. Any breed lacking tliis publicity soon felt the need of dem- onstrating the ability of its animals at the pail. One association felt that a temporary slump in the popularity of its cattle was due to the failure of its members to participate in a public production contest. Thus it appears that a desire to keep the breed constantly before the eyes of the public was a sufficient reason for testing. Breeders soon learned the individual advantage that came from the publicity attending record making. This also explains the selective testing which persisted for so long a time. Only high records drew the crowds. After a few years production records began to have an influence on individual values. The purchase of a high-record female or the son of a tested cow carried with it the advertising value of that record. Pedigrees began to take on increasing importance when production information was included. Then, of course, this novelty in sales- manship was fully exploited, and through popular misconception of inheritance many disappointments followed purchases based on pedigree values. Meanwhile, the leaders in dairy thought had realized the possibilities of applying the testing procedure in a broader way to commercial dairy herds. Breeders of registered cattle monopolized the official testing field, but by the use of the milk scales and Babcock test it was possible for the ordinary dairyman to assay his herd and find out which of his cows were profitable. Thus the first cow-testing association was organized in 1906. This movement to improve the earnings of dairy herds by culling unprofitable cows has spread throughout the country. Testing organizations of this type had also been established abroad in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth. The development of the movement throughout the world is summarized in table 1, which was published by the International Institute of Agriculture of Rome in 1935 (8).

TABLE 1.—Development of milk recording in various countries

Founda- Percent- tion year Milk- age of of first Years rceording Farms cows Country and milk-recording organiza- milk- to which practic- Cows tested to tions figures organiza- ing milk tested total recording refer tions (or recording number organi- recorders) of dairy zations cows

Number Number Number Percent Germany 3897 1934 3,001 75,665 1.135,870 11.2 Austria 19001 1933 881 2 9,000 47,449 3.5 Belgium 1919-20 1933 26,339 2.9 Denmark 1895 1933-34 1,588 49,993 701, 087 39.6 Danzig (1920) 1933-34 40 14,748 36.8 Spain 1933 Estonia 1909 1934 225 5,004 37,816 9.4 Irish Free State 1910 1934 205 4,186 49,052 4.0 Finland 1898 1931 927 20,456 239,069 18.4 France _ 1905 1934 61 1,650 20, 603 3.5 Great Britain: England and Wales 1914 1932-33 49 4,698 135,902 4.6 Scotland _ 1903 1933 39 741 32, 456 13.0 Northern Ireland (1921) 1934 73 2,544 15,060 6.0 Hungary. 1897 1932-33 53 608 20, 111 2.2 Iceland 1903 1933 89 2,128 5,418 26.0 Italy-„_ _ 1922 1935 995 8,274 47, 988 1.8 Latvia 1904 1934 846 14,033 118, 799 14.7 Lithuania 1923 1933-34 137 2,634 33,201 4.0 1 Approximately, Í Approximate figures. TABLE 1.—Development of milk recording in various countries—Continued

Founda- Percent- tion year Milk- age of of first Years recording Farms cows Country and milk-recording organiza- to which organiza- practic- Cows tested to milk- figures ing milk tested tions recording tions (or total organi- refer recorders) recording number zations of dairy cows

Number Number Number Percent Luxembourg _ -_ 1933 1934 72 Norway 1898 1933 624 9,104 97,767 12.0 Netherlands (official)._- 1899 1932 781 15,185 159,157 12.2 Poland .-- - -- 1904 1933-34 259 5,237 68,658 1.1 Rumania 1930 1934 12 1,213 1,966 1 Sweden _ . 1898 1932-33 931 17,803 300,855 14.7 Switzerland 1922 1932-33 628 3 5,000 8,136 9 Czechoslovakia-- 1903 1934 144 4,768 33,867 1.3 Total 2 3 12,000 250,000 3, 500,000

Argentina _ _ _ 1911 1934 4 33 2,389 , 1 Canada: Record of performance ._ 1911 1934 14, 883 Testing associations. _ - 1933 332 4,351 43,688 } 1-^ united States: Breed associations 1883 1934 1 9,600 Cow-testing associations _ _ 1900 1934 793 13,694 325,837 } .3 Total 3 . 1,160 20,000 400,000 Southern Rhodesia: OiBcial and semiofficial 1929-32 1933 2 42 ä 1, 600 Union of South Africa: Official 1917 1934 / 187 1,569 Semiofficial 1923 1934 } 32 t 387 9,074 Totals - - - 34 600 13, 000 Australia: New South Wales: Purebred scheme 1912 1932-33 5,214 Grade herd testing ___ __. 1912 1932-33 3 2,500 03,882 } C.8 Victoria: Purebred scheme 1912 1932-33 2,862 } 13.4 Grade herd testing _ 1921-22 1932-33 142 3,383 104,009 Queensland: Purebred scheme 1933 2 700 Grade herd testing... 1910 1933 2 1,000 312,000 South Australia: Purebred scheme,.. 1912 1933 Î650 Grade herd testing . 1920 1933 4 MOO 3 2,500 West Australia; Purebred scheme . 1918 Grade herd testing 1932 1933 a 4,000 Tasmania: Purebred scheme. - 1914 1932-33 263 Grade herd testing 1915 1932-33 28 5,623 } 7.2 New Zealand: Certificate of record test 1912 1932 3 400 1 Government official herd test.. _.. 1927 1932-33 ! 1, 525 Association tevSting... 1909 1932-33 78 1,242 23,163 !• 16.6 Group testing . 1923 1932-33 200 6,090 253,016 1 Totals 500 14,000 500,000 Grand total* 14,000 285,000 4, 500,000

2 Approximate figures. 3 Estimated totals, taking into consideration the countries where figures are lacking.

Inheritance Studies Stimulated by Production Records The accumulation of information in the official test files on producing ability finally tempted students to delve into this material. In some cases the records were published by assembling the tested daughters of each sire. This soon drew attention to certain sires with large numbers of tested daughters, and this number came into use in preparing pedigrees. Sires of large groups of tested daughters and 1006 those with high-producing individual progeny were extensively adver- tised. Because of previous emphasis on the importance of pedigree, many of these bulls were studied genealogically to determine, if possible, the source of their transmitting ability. Results of such studies were being published about 1915. Emphasis was laid on the appearance of certain ancestors in many of these pedigrees, but this began to wane when further study revealed the fact that because of the narrow foundation from which our breeds had sprung, animals selected at random were descended from about the same ancestry. Much of this genealogical material was of no value because absence of production records left it largely speculative.

WHAT counts in building up superior inheritance in dairy cows is the number of succès-- sive crosses of sires of proved merits uninterrupted by crosses with unproved or poor sires. In a herd with 12 sires there may be no female lines with more than four successive crosses of proved sires. Such a herd has made no greater progress in piling up superior inheritance than the herd that has only four proved sires^ but has used them in such a way that all of them appear in several female lines of descent, A simple way to chec\ the progress made in concentrating superior inheritance in any herd is to compare the number of successive crosses of proved sires in the female lines with the total number of sires of proved merit in the herd.

Correction Factors for Age It was realized at once that records made by cows of different ages were not comparable. This was recognized by the breed associations in establishing requirements for admission of cows to the advanced register. One of the first undertakings, therefore, was the study of the influence of age on production. Rough standards had been set up arbitrarily, but there was a need for more refinement. Two early publications of this nature were made bj^ Wing (10) of Cornell Uni- versity in 1899 and Kent (4) of Oregon in 1912. In both cases the factors were developed from records made by a limited number of cows in experiment station herds and they vary materially from later factors, most likely because of the small numbers. In 1917 Pearl and 1007 Patterson (7) determined the effect of age on the milk production of Jerseys, and subsequently correction factors based on the average production of tested cows began to appear frequently. Those determined most recently doubtless have the greatest accuracy because they are based on large numbers. The Bureau of Dairy Industry found that when correction for age was based on factors evolved only from initial test records, the reentry records showed a greater increase with advancing age than could be accounted for by age alone. This difference was attributed to development resulting from maximum production during the first test and appears to suggest that initial records only should be used in developing age correction factors. The reentry records tend to give a false picture so far as correction for age is concerned. The procedure of adjusting records for age may still be somewhat lacking in precision. In individual cases there may be wide dis- crepancies, but there is room for refinement of the factors, and this should be carried on, as record material is too valuable to be neglected in breeding studies. Faults in correction factors derived from official test averages are traceable in part to the grouping of records in classes which are not limited except for age. This has been remedied in part, but there is no good reason why all records should not be reported in classes which define at least the number of milkings per day, as well as whether the record is an initial or re test record; and the rules regarding gestation requirements could be made more useful. Since the growmg total of official records is the best material now available for the purpose, there seems no logical reason why its use'should not be continued, enlarged, and modified to serve as a continuous base for up-to-date age-correction factors. This suggestion was made by the Bureau of Dairy Industry in 1933 ^ and changes in classifications advised which would correct many of the present faults. The adoption and use of such derived factors would result in uniformity in age-correction procedure, which is now somewhat confused by the overabundance of factors. Factors derived from this source would facilitate interclass corrections as well.

The Herd Test—a Big Step in Advance Students of dairy-cattle breeding added much to their knowledge through the unfolding of the science of genetics. Many old theories were discarded and new methods evolved. It became apparent after a while that advanced registry records had at least two serious faults which interfered with their usefulness for genetic study: (1) Environ- mental conditions vary widely in different herds and are subject to abrupt and disturbing changes in the individual herd, and (2) breed- association rules complicated the situation, in some cases by establishing a large number of classifications and in others by not clearly defining the class limitations. In most herds testing was on a highly selective basis and until recent years the breed associations reported only the animals that met the minimum requirements for entry, preferring to ignore the failures. This shortcoming proved to be a severe limitation on the use of the records for breeding studies. If a half or a third of the progeny of a given sire appeared in the test lists, one could only

8 GRAVES, R. R., FOHRMAN, M. H., and SMITH, R. H. A STUDY OF AGE—CORRECTION FACTORS, A REPORT TO THE PRODUCTION SECTION OF THE AMERICAN DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION. 21 pp. Washington, D. C 1933. [Mimeographed.] 1008 speculate as to whether the others died, were sold, failed to meet the requirements, or did not have an opportunity to prove their ability. In most cases these groups were not random samples. This became more noticeable when progeny testing became established. It may have been the discussion of the inadequacy of selective official testing as a help to constructive breeding, or a desire to wâden the scope of testing, or both, which led to the adoption of the herd test by the Ayrshire Breeders^ Association in 1925. Other major breed associations have taken similar action. The herd test requires the testing of all animals in the herd and is a big step in advance. Its helpful possibilities would seem to justify a more enthusiastic and wider patronage on the part of breeders. Its usefulness will grow in proportion to the extent of its application in herd management. One weakness in herd testing as now conducted is the offer to cancel or conceal a low record if the animal is dropped from the breed register. This low record is part of the knowledge which testing is working to develop and to omit it is to distort what remains. What harm if the low record is published so that no one may be misled through its omission? The cancelation of the registry of the low-producing cow appears to pay for the suppression of the record. Why not brand her as a failure by publishing the record in order to protect others as well as the owner? Here is an instance of a well-conceived idea being shorn of part of its value through a desire to dodge the responsibility of telling the whole truth when it might offend. Present herd testing is a compromise. In this respect the herd test has the same weakness as the Advanced Kegister or Register of Merit test, w^herein the record that fell below the minimum requirement for admission to a class was not published by the breed association; or where the breeder is permitted to withdraw an animal from test if she is not producing up to his expectations or if he believes that her record mil not be a credit to her sire or dam, or on a par with records that her sisters have made. Some of the sponsors of the herd test believed that the breeders feared to face the consequences of nonselective testing, and so they offered a way out when animals failed to produce satisfactorily. The extent of this compromise measures the degree by which herd testing loses its value in supplying genetic information for the breeders. Surely those who have breed welfare at heart would wish sincerely to improve whatever is being done to assist them in breeding better cattle, and they should raise their voices in demanding that future herd testing be all-inclusive and that it be stripped of all hedges and compromises. If sires are to be proved through herd testing, how can this be fairly and equitably done if records on part of their progeny are withheld from the record because the registration papers are destroyed? What about the rights of the purchaser of an animal who judges him by what is left in the record of performance of a given sire or of the sires in his immediate ancestry? It is only by making herd testing nonselective that it will render full service to the breeders, and they have a right to demand this service through their associations. The Development of Bull Indexes Plant breeders were quick to adopt genetics in their efforts to improve plants. Since producing ability in dairy cattle is expressed

1009 by one sex only, the application of genetic principles to improve this ability did not impress cattle breeders at once. The progeny of the nonproducing sex was often numerous, but cows seldom had enough daughters to afford material for inheritance studies. Record making was sporadic, and few herds had a sufficiently comprehensive testing program to furnish complete data even on the progeny of their herd sires. Despite these handicaps, the idea grew that when the production of the daughters of a sire was compared with that of their dams, the result might indicate the ability inherited by these daughters from their sire. Thus the bull-index idea originated. One assumption used as the basis for a bull index was that the level of inheritance of a daughter is halfway between that of her sire and her dam. When the dam and daughter have been tested, two of the three quantities are known and the third, the sire's transmitting ability, may be calculated. Nils Hansson of Norway is credited with suggesting the formula, in 1913, as a method of rating sires for percentage of fat. This intermediate index is based on the well-known fact that the sire and dam contribute equally to the daughter's inheritance, but it must be kept in mind that the kind (quality) of inheritance received from each parent may not be equal. Woodward (11) lists the average butterfat records of the daughters of 108 Guernsey sires as well as the average of their dams and gives the transmitting ability of the sires as determined by the intermediate index. This is perhaps the first published account of the use of this index in this country. Several other writers, including Yapp of Illinois in 1925, have since suggested its use as a method for determining the transmitting ability of bulls. Several other bull indexes have been suggested. Pearl, Gowen, and Miner in 1919 (6) suggested that a sire's transmitting qualities could be measured by the difference between the yield of his daughter and her dam, but they added to it calculations based on quartile divisions of the curve of variability, and it failed in popular favor because of its complexity. In 1925 Turner (9) offered the following formula: Sire's potential transmitting ability equals (daughters' butter-fat production—0.15Xdams' butterfat production)-Í-0.85. It is based on the premise that the daughters' butterfat production equals 0.15 X dams' production+0.85 X sire's potential ability. This deviates from the assumption on which the intermediate index is based. LaMaster (5) suggested an index based on a comparison of all records of daughters and their dams to the breed average in the various age classes. Wright introduced the breed average and number of daughter-dam comparisons into index calculations. In 1927 Goodale took account of dominance in the Mount Hope index, which was later presented in modified or commercial form, the latter being the intermediate index previously mentioned. The Missouri Agri- cultural Experiment Station now prefers to use the average production of all of a sire's daughters as the index of his transmitting ability.

Proved Sires and Experimental Breeding All of these proposals were brought forward to assist breeders and students of breeding in evaluating the sire's potential ability. The need for this knowledge was based on a realization that progress in breeding depended on the use of sires that had been progeny tested, 1010 or in other words, proved bulls. Discussion of proved sires had pre- ceded and motivated the bull indexes, but records of breeding establishments show no evidence of any general adoption of a proved-sire program for herd improvement. This failure was often laid to the scarcity of proved sires, the difíiculties encountered in moving and handling them, their uncertainty as breeders, and many minor objections. Eckles at the University of Missouri used two sires which had daughters in other herds, but they were succeeded by untried bulls. Other breeders had occasionally bought sires proved or partly proved, or secured them by trading, but most of the leading breeding establishments preferred bulls of their own breeding or young bulls selected on their pedigree and the performance of their dams. In 1918 the Dairy Division of the Bureau of Animal Industry began a series of breeding experiments vnth Holstein-Friesian and Guernsey cattle at the station at Beltsville, Md. In these breeding projects there was contemplated the continuous use of proved sires to concentrate inheritance for high levels of milk and butterfat production in the herds. The continuous use of the proved sire as a means of breeding lines concentrated for high levels of production was predicated on the theory that the valuable sire for production was one that was relatively homozygous or ''pure'' for the hereditary factors controlling high levels of production. Furthermore, if these proved sires had the same factorial make-up, the factors for low production in the herd previously contributed from other sources would be gradually replaced by the continued use of such sires for a number of generations. The development of this theory wâs the result of statistical studies of Advanced Registry and Register of Merit records in the Dairy Division. Information on the relative merits of outbreeding, line-breeding, and inbreeding in furthering the end sought would develop as these projects advanced. Descriptions of the experiments were published in Hoard's Dairy- man in 1919 (i). In 1920 a Jersey herd was assembled to carry out part of the program. The establishment of this experimental breeding wôrk appears to be the first attempt to use proved sires continuousl}'' for the purpose of concentrating producing ability in dairy cattle. The collateral information on the efficiency of outbreeding, line- breeding, and inbreeding should be useful in settling some of the controversial questions that trouble breeders. These experiments have been carried on under controlled conditions designed to afford aU animals an equal opportunity to express their inherent ability, and no selection or culling has been tolerated. Recommendations for the use of proved sires for herd improvement are now general and the logic of the procedure seems irrefutable. In 1929 the Bureau of Dairy Industry demonstrated the possibility of creating interest in a difficult subject by using the herediscope to illustrate in a simplified way the theory behind the method of improving producing ability in dairy cattle through the use of proved sires. These demonstrations were called breeding schools and the idea was quickly adopted as part of the dairy-extension program in many States. They have been eflêctive in stimulating interest in better breeding. One specialist recently remarked that the breeders in his State speak a different language in discussing breeding than they used 10 years ago. Fruits of this enlightenment are bound to appear as time goes on. 1011 Actual breeding experiments wdth dairy cattle are of necessity long-time imdertakings beset ^vith hazards of interference from dis- ease. The reproductive rate is slow and only carefully planned and executed work will yield satisfactory results. Most of the early experimental breeding work with cattle was planned to start with crossing established breeds. Gowen, in 1918, describing the purposes of the cross-breeding project at the Maine Agricultural Experi- ment Station, said that the only method then known by which an adequate analysis of the laws of heredity could be made is by hybrid- ization experiments so carefully planned that the segregating factors may be analyzed separately. In this experiment Holstein-Friesian, Jersey, Guernsey, A^^rshire, and Aberdeen-Angus cattle were used. A cross-breeding experiment wth Guernsey and Holstein cattle was started by Bowlker at Framingham, Mass., in 1911. This herd was transferred to the University of Illinois in 1919, where studies were continued on the inheritance of the percentage of fat and other constituents of milk, as well as of coat color. In 1912 the University of Wisconsin initiated a cross-breeding experiment with Jersey, Holstein-Friesian, and Aberdeen-Angus cattle for the purpose of securing genetic information through the mating of animals showing marked differences. In all of this cross-breeding work it appears the fact was overlooked that for satisfactory results the parents of these hybrids should be as nearly homozygous for the characters studied as possible, and that careful planning should include preliminary proving of the parent stock within their respective breeds. Breeding work similar to that planned by the Bureau of Dairy Industry was begun at the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station and later transferred to the California Station, where it is still in progress. The New Jerse}'- Station more recently acquired a Hol- stein herd for the purpose of studying the inheritance of the percentage of fat in milk. Many other experiment stations have taken up the project of attempting to breed famihes characterized by high levels of production by the continued use of sires that have demonstrated their ability to transmit uniformly high production to their offspring. This is a brief summation of the major breeding projects with dairy cattle in this country. In 1931 the committee on animal breeding, division of biology and agriculture of the National Research Council, reported that there were 85 projects relating to dairy-cattle breeding in 34 States. Many of these did not include the use of animals in the herds on projects planned to improve production. The past two decades have witnessed a marked change in thought on the subject of cattle breeding. There is a growing appreciation of the important part genetic knowledge will play in future breeding operations as the application of this knowledge grows clearer. Dis- cussion of old theories and beliefs is now carried on mainly for its historic interest, and greater emphasis is being laid on the importance of increasing the volume of nonselective testing and the use of progeny- tested animals for herd improvement. Those who are interested in knowing what progress has been made toward improving the producing ability of dairy cattle will find in the appendix a list of the herds analyzed for this germ plasm survey and a brief summary of the progress made by a number of herds. The owners of the herds that have been studied will derive benefit from having had this opportunity to observe the results of their 1012 efforts so far, and the knowledge gained will be usefid for future planning. For this purpose, a complete summary showing the transmitting ability for production levels of the sires used, is being returned to the owners of all herds that have contributed data. It might be well to emphasize again that the conclusions drawn from the survey are based on the generally accepted theory that butterfat and milk production are characters inherited tln-ough quantitative factors; that, on the average, sires proved for ability to increase daughters' records over dams' carry superior germ plasm; and that where a number of such sires have been used successively in a herd, progress has been made in improving the germ plasm of the herd for higher levels of production.

The Procedure Used to Evctluctte Germ Plasm for Producing Ability

A PLAN of procedure was formulated for analyzing the material . from the herds surveyed in such a manner as to make it possible to derive a maximum of useful information from it. With full appreciation of the fact that so much of the breeding data came from herds whose owners had no advanced training in mathematics or genetics, the study and tabulation of results was planned so that it would be of real value to those cooperating as well as to the specialists who would use it in teaching and extension work. Complex mathematical analyses and abstruse terminology were avoided „ No herd is better than the sires that have been used in its development. With this thought in mind, the genetic make-up of a herd may be likened to an unfinished structure into w^hich certain materials have gone in varjâng quantities. The soundness or quality of the structure depends on the relative amounts of high-, medium-, and low-grade units that together make it a whole. Herd sires are the main contributors of the germ plasm that goes into the building of a herd of cattle, and w^hen production information is available on a sufficiently large number of a sire's daughters and their dams, then the quality of his germ plasm may be analyzed and recorded» When the sires have been assayed, the outline of the herd indicates what contribution each sire has made in building it. If all sires have a genetic make-up for transmitting high production, the result should be progress in bettering the germ plasm, and a series of poor sires, of course, would generally produce the opposite results. Some further advance may be traced to the influence of females that transmit good inheritance, and other limited modifications may come about through selection. Producing ability can be studied only where satisfactory records are available. ^ For the purposes of this survey the needed material could bo supplied solely by herd owners who had had a program of continuous testing sufficiently long to have proved at least two of the sires used. Sires were considered as proved if they had five or more tested daughters from tested dams without too much selection. This w^as established as the minimum requirement for herd analysis.

1013 The value of the results of the survey are contingent on the accuracy and reliability of the data submitted, which, in turn, depended upon the judgment of the field workers. Information was accepted and analyzed as submitted from the field. The first step in organizing the survey was the preparation of forms to be used for gathering the necessary information in the field so that it could be submitted for analysis. The method of study was designed to include all record material available in the herds from the time test work was started, so that a complete herd history could be reviewed and studied. This was to be primarily a herd analysis, and the forms were prepared with that object in mind. When the forms were ready the survey was begun by sending sets of forms with directions for their use to the State agriciütural colleges and experiment stations. These institutions had been testing their herds for production over a long period of years and in most cases the records were kept in such a manner as to make them readily available. The idea was to assemble data on as many of these station herds as possible in order to establish a procedure with the workers for securing the information needed for herd analysis. It was fully appreciated that the organization and training of a large field force to carry on the survey of the commercial herds would be a big undertaking. A book of instructions for securing and compiling field data was sent to the field workers. A set of sire cards showing the data from a commercial herd that had used three sires, each with a sufficient number of daughters to enable them to be analyzed as proved sires, is shown in the following pages. This herd is chosen for illustration here, not as the best herd but because no sires had been used that had too small a number of daughters to justify an analysis; because the number of sires involved was so small that the cards would take up only a few pages; and because the data indicate progress in improvement of the germ plasm for higher levels of production. The numbers in the left-hand column of the sire cards marked ''space number" are key numbers which can be used as a guide for keeping in proper alinement the descendants of the various foundation cows. The foundation cows are listed on the first or left-hand card of the series. As these cards are made up, on line 1 under Dam number is shown no. 107452, on line 4, no, 172535, on line 9 no. 148725, etc. These are the registration numbers or names of the foundation cows. On the same line with each number certain information is given for each of the foundation cows, which is as follows for no. 107452: Age tested—8 3^cars; days in milk—334; number of milkings—668; actual production, milk—6,943 pounds, butterfat— 348 pounds, percentage of butterfat—5.01 percent; calculated production milk—6,943 pounds, butterfat—348 pounds. Proceeding to the right on the next card (p. 1016), the daughters of sire no. 1, Maybelle's Crescent 78095, are listed. On line 1 under Dam number is no. 107452, the same as shown on line 1 of the preceding card. She is a foundation cow and is the dam of no. 248669, a daughter of Maybelle's Crescent, the sire whose name heads this card. Following her number 248669 is the information on her milk and butterfat, in the same order as given for her dam. In a like manner no. 272395, on line 4 of this card, is a daughter of Maybelle's Crescent out of the foundation cow no. 172535.

1014 Cooperative Survey of Plant and Animal Improvement DAIRY SIRE CARD (1) Card Immber 1. Breed, Guernsey. Herdc)wner Posto ffico address _ _ _-_ Name of sire, Foundation cows. Reg. number Years used in herd, 19 to 19 . Date data assembled, Oct. ' r, 1935.

Age Actual production Calculated tested production Space Num- Days Dam Daughter Days ber of car- num- in Type ber number number milk milk- ried But- But- But- Y. M. irigs calf Milk, ter ter Milk, ter lb. fat, fat, lb. fat, lb. pet. lb.

1 107452 8 — 334 608 242 6,943 348 5.01 6,943 348 2 107452 3 107452 4 172535 5 — 317 634 285 5,791 303 5.23 5,907 309 5 172535 G 172535 7 172535 --- 8_-__ 172535 9 148725 13 ... 329 658 9,548 404 4.23 9,548 404 10___. 148725 ll_-__ 148725 12 148725 13 Hite 8 262 524 6,9f)0 322 4.63 6,900 322 14 Hite 15 16 Dolly 7 — 365 730 199 7,371 328 4.45 7,371 328 17—. 18_._. Dolly 19 Dolly 20 21-- Red 4 ... 304 ()08 5,839 284 4.86 6,213 302 22___- _ 23 Wisconsin 5 -.- 320 640 228 10,458 548 5.24 10. 667 559 Hazel. 24_- Maryann 6 280 560 7,569 349 4.61 7,569 349 2o-__ Maryann... 26 Peggy I-._ 7 — 307 614 153 6,665 246 3.69 6,665 246 27 Peggy I 28 Almira - 4 365 730 213 9, 566 557 5.82 10,178 593 29 Lena-, __. Ö ___ 343 686 261 6,997 316 4.52 6,997 316 30- — Lena 31 Lena... _ _ 32-.. Cowasteri.- 33 Hazel 1 34— Lilli 3ñ 36 37 38- — ao 40....I

Average production of 11 tested dams, Foundation cows in - - _ _. 4.75 7,729 371 Averaare nroduetion of— dautrhters in this crfiTiftrat.inn ha vintr tested dams in Average production of their respective dam S in -__ __ Number of daughters excelling their dams i n Percentage increase or decrease of daughter sin _ _. .- _. .

iNo record. U.S. D.A.

L015 Cooperative Survey of Plant and Animal Improvement

DAIRY SIRE CARD (1)

Card number 2. Breed, Guernsey. Herd owner Post-oifice address Name of sire, Maybelle's Crescent. Reg. number 78095. Years used in herd. 1925 to 1928. Date data assembled, Oct. 7, 1935.

Age Actual production Calculated tested production Space Days Num- Days Dam Daughter ber of car- num- in Type ber number number milk mak- ried But- But- But- Y. M. ings calf Milk, ter ter Milk, ter lb. fat, fat, lb. fat, lb. pet. lb.

l..__ 107452 248669 8 — 323 646 263 8,826 442 5.01 8,826 442 2__.. 107452 248669 3.._. 107452 248669 4.... 172535 272395 3 ... 365 730 260 7,643 397 5.19 8,782 456 5.... 172535 272395 6..._ 172535 298192 3 365 730 190 8,470 428 6.05 9,732 492 7_._. 8.-_, 9--_. 148725 246442 5 ... 280 660 7,080 336 4.75 7,222 343 10„._ 148725 246443 2 327 654 275 6,887 335 4.86 8,912 433 11-._ 12_.__ 13_... Hite Cad 5 — 326 652 100 10,086 390 3.87 10,288 398 14._.. Hite Cad 15.... Cad.. Topsy 6 316 632 253 10, 278 413 4.02 10, 278 413 16.__. Dolly Eve. . 5 ... 273 546 253 7,140 325 4.55 7,283 331 17.... 18.-.. 19.... 20„._ 21-... Bed Red 2 4 ... 310 620 230 9,155 426 4.65 9,741 453 22.... 23,... 24__.. Maryann __ Daisy 3 — 343 686 261 9,215 378 4.10 10, 588 434 25..._ Maryann.-. Bonnie 3 339 678 316 6,556 270 4.86 6,384 310 26.„. Peggy I Spot 4 365 730 0 5,968 289 4.84 6,350 307 27_-.. 28-.-. 29_._. 30..-. 31.— 32..._ Co waster... Jesse 6 364 728 10,127 449 4.43 10,329 458 33_... Hazel Peggy 2 2 365 730 155 7.865 341 4.34 10,177 441 34.... Lili... Lili 2d 2 302 604 279 6,173 308 4.99 7,988 398 35..-. 36.... 37--._ !

38-... ■ 39-.-. 40 1 Average production of 15 tested daughters i Q . ___ . 4.63 8,859 407 Average production of 12 daughters in this gc neratiou having tested dams in..- 4.65 8,699 401 Average production of their respective dam. îin 4.55 7,541 339 Number of daughters excelling their dams i a_. _ 7 6 10 Percentage increase or decrease of daughters in 2.2 15.4 18.3

Ü. S. D. A.

1016 Cooperative Survey of Plant and Animal Improvement

DAIRY SIRE CARD (1)

Card I mmber 3. Breed, Guernsey. Herdi Post-0 ffice address • .. - Name of sire, Burrow's Farm Polly Knight, Keg. number 99307. Years used in herd, 1928 to 1931. Date data assembled Oct. 7,1935.

Age Calculated tested Actual production production Num- Days Space Days ber of car- Dam Daughter in Type num- number number milk- ried But- But- But- ber milk ings calf Milk, ter- ter- Milk, ter- Y. M. lb. fat, fat, lb. fat, lb. pet. lb.

1 248669 287108 3 332 664 244 9,128 500 5.48 10, 488 574 2-_- 248669 324985- -. 3 --- 340 680 240 6,958 350 5.03 7,995 402 3 4-— 272395 279273 5 — 323 646 245 8,755 473 Ö.40 8,930 482 5 6 7.— 172535 296517 4 — 310 620 275 7,450 416 5.58 7,927 443 S 9 10 11 148725 324986 _. 2 354 708 246 6,445 328 6.09 8,340 424 12.._. 148725 288170 4 ... 283 666 275 8,482 428 6.05 9,025 455 13-_._ Cad Cad's Lucy_. 2 335 670 252 8,241 436 6.29 10, 664 664 14._-. Cad .- Chloe 2 296 592 7,642 347 4.54 9,889 449 15 16..__ Eve — Ellen 3 314 628 218 8,372 418 4.99 9,619 377 17 18.-- Dolly Dolly Boss..- 4 365 730 192 10, 066 621 6.18 10, 710 . 654 19 Dolly Boss II1- - 20-.-. Boss II Dimple 2 337 674 263 10, 279 505 4.91 13, 301 653 21..- Red 2 Muley 3 326 652 30 8,820 414 4.69 10,134 476 22 23 Hazel. Bess 3 329 658 218 7,877 426 6.41 9,051 489 24 25 26 27..- Peggy I Peggy's Fay_. 5 ... 306 612 268 10,146 452 4.45 10,349 461 28-.-- Almira Alma 2 365 730 283 7,663 465 6.07 9,916 602 29 Lena Lela 3 323 646 217 8,163 423 6.18 9,379 486 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1 1 1 1 1 I

Average production of 16 tested daughters i n 5.15 9,732 493 Average production of 15 daughters in this g eneration ha^ 'ing tested danIS in.. 5.16 9,494 483 Average production of their respective dam sin 4.64 8,728 405 Number of daughters excelling their dams i n -_ - 15 9 13 Percentage increase or decrease of daughter sin 1L2 8.8 19.3

iNo record. U.S. D. A.

38143*'—3 8 65 X 1017 Cooperative Survey of Plant and Animal Improvement

DAIRY SIRE CARD (1)

Card Ilumber 4, Breed, Guernsey. Herdi)wner . Post-0 fí\o.e\ addrfis<5 Name of sire, Highland's Ajax, Reg. number 100112. Years used in herd, 1930 to 1932. Date data assembled, Oct. 7, 1935.

Age Actual production Calculated tested production Num- Days Space Days car- Dam Daughter in ber of num- number number -, milk- ried But- But- But- Type ber milk ings calf Milk, ter ter Milk, Y. M. ter lb. fat, fat, lb. fat, lb. pet. lb.

287108 35G497 2 ... 347 694 262 7,814 414 5.30 10, 111 536 2 3__.. 2486G9 340805 2 330 660 8,646 425 4.91 11,188 650 4.._-. 279273 366724 3 200 400 135 7,179 351 4.89 8,249 1403 5 272395 337020 2 — 204 408 3,320 184 5.54 4,296 1238 298192 371783 2 365 730 249 8,478 477 5.63 10,970 617 7- - 172535 344515 2 — 332 664 250 6,535 365 5. 58 8,456 472 9 10-.- 11 ]2 33 Cad's Lucy. Lou 2 — 335 670 249 6,904 357 5.17 8,934 462 14 15 ]6 17-- Eve Evelyn 2 -- 333 666 177 7,876 414 5.26 10,191 636 18- 19 20--- 21-- Muloy Molly 2 -" 324 648 214 9,918 489 4.93 12, 834 633 22-.. Muley Marvel 2 364 728 262 7,371 367 4.98 9,538 475 23- 24 25 - 26 27 28 29 30.— Lena Lotta 2 317 634 238 7,140 346 4.85 0,239 448 31-. Lena Letty 2 32 33 34---- Lilly 2d-... Lady _._ 2 3G2 724 290 8,210 424 5.16 10, 624 549 35.-._ 30 ! 37 - 38-_.- _-..! . ^ -- - 39 40 i ' ' 1 , 1 Average production of 12 tested dau ghters i n 5.18 9,553 493 Average production of 12 daughters in this generation ha ving tested dams In.. 5.18 9,553 493 Average production of their respect! ve dam sin ._ 5.01 8,822 443 Number of daughters excelling their dams 1 n 7 7 Percentage increase or decrease of da ugh ter Í in 3.4 8.3 n.3

onth record, U.S. D. A, 2 No complete reco rd. 1018 Cooperative Survey of Plant and Animal hnprovement

DAIRY SIRE CARD (2)

Untested daughters Card number 4.

SDace Daughter number number Tleasons for absence of record or disposal

This bull htis daughters in W. IE. !Meyer's herd, Arcadia, Ind.

Total number daughters old enough to ha\'e completed records at time of survey, 13. Percent of daughters with records, 300.

Environmental conditions

1. Ration fed: 400 gr. sc, 200 oats, 100 gr. soybeans. 2. Ratio of grain to milk produced; 1 to 3 or 3J^. 3. Quality and kind of roughage: Good corn silage, alfalfa hay. 4. Conditions of test: A. Stanchion: 6 months' pasture season, bluegrass, alfalfa B. Kindoftest:iD. H. I. A. O. Other conditions aflfecting producliou: None. 5. Health: Good. A. Tuberculosis: No. B. Abortion: No. C. Udder troubles: No. D. Miscellaneous: None.

Description of type of offspring of sire

1. Unusual color markings: No. 2. Malformed calves: No. 3. Comparison of daughters with dams in— A. Size (weight): Not quite as large, moro refined. B. Shape of udder: As good or better than dams. C. Top line: Slight improvement over dams. D. Other points: 2 Persistent milkers, slightly lowered test, good ability to consume roughage.

1 Advanced Register, herd test, or Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 2 A tendency to lay on fat, to lack persistency in yield, to be hard milkers, to be delicate feeders, or other items that affect so many daughters as to indicate an inherited trait, should be noted. U. S. D. A,

1019 The next card (p. 1017) lists the daughters of sire no. 2, Burrow's Farm Polly Knight 99307. On line 1 is found no. 287108, one of his daughters whose dam is no. 248669, a daughter of the preceding sire and the foundation cow no. 107452, all shown on line 1. Farther down the card in space 7 is another daughter of Burrow's Farm Polly Knight. She w^as no. 296517 and her dam is the foundation cow no. 172535, The fact that space 7 is blank on the second card indicates that daughter no. 296517 comes directly from the foundation cow. The fourth card (p. 1018) carries the daughters of the third sire, Highland's Ajax 100112. On line 1, his daughter no. 356497 is from cow no. 287108, a daughter of Burrow's Farm Polly Knight, and traces back to foundation cow no. 107452 through no. 248669. This is a straight female line. On line 8, daughter no. 344515 comes directly from the foundation cow no. 172535. All the production information is given as explained above. When these cards are spread side by side, they enable one to trace the descent of each female back through the various sires to the foundation cows. When these cards, filled out, were received in the Department, the first step in the analysis was to construct a cross chart or herd pedigree, showing the female line of descent horizontally and the descendants of the various sires in vertical columns. This was a check on the correct arrangement of individuals as given on the cards. Onlj^ the individual animal's number or name is given in the chart. The chart for the herd illustrated on the cards is shown in table 2.

TABLE 2.—Herd pedigree^ showing female line of descent and daughters of proved sires

Foundation cows Daughters of sire 1 Daughters of Daughters of sire 2 sire 3

107452 248669 28710S _ 356497. 107452 _. 248669 __ 324985 107452 248669 340805 172535 272395... 279273 366724 172535 272395 __ _ __ 337020 172535 298192 371783 172535 ._ _ 296517 172535._ 344515 148725 _ _ . 246442 Ï48725 246443 148725 32498f) 148725 ^ i 288170 Hite Cad __. Cad's Lucy Lou Hite Cad. .._.. Chole Jlite Cad~Topsyi_. .... Dolly Eve.- _ "Ëflên_'-"iy_""^~'"'7.""; Dolly Dolly Dolly Boss Dollv Boss II N. R Dolly . BossIIN.R.—Dimple 2... Red Red 2 . Muley Mollv Red- .. Red 2 Muley .._. Marvel Wisconsin Hazel __ _._ Bess Maryann ___ Daisy. _ Bubbles N.R Maryann _. ... Bonnie--. Peggy I ._ Spot. __- lêggy 1 --- Peggy's Fay Flip N. R. Almira Alma Lena __ Lela Lena Lotta. Lena __ _ Letty N. R. Cowaster N. R _ _ _ . Jesse Hazel N.R-.__ Peggy 2 LiUeN. R Lill2d - - --- Iâdy. 1 Total—foundation cows, 14; daughters of sire 1, 15; daughters of sire 2, IS; daughters of sire 3, 14. 1 Topsy is an inbred daughter of sire 1 out of his daughter Cad. 3 Dimple is an inbred daughter of sire 2 out of his daughter Boss IÍ. 1020 The letters N. R. following the name of an individual animal indicate that that animal did not have a record at the time of this survey. Note the arrangement for indicating inbred daughters. In the colunm under sire 1, Topsy is an inbred daughter of sire 1, out of his daughter Cad. In the column under sire 2, the cow Dimple is shown to be inbred and out of the cow Boss II. In the first line, cow^ no. 248669 is a daughter of the foundation cow, no. 107452, by sire 1; no. 287108 is a daughter of no. 248669 by sire 2; no. 356497 is a daughter of no. 287108 by sire 3. Where a line is thus completely filled out it indicates the continuous use of proved sires in regular order. Dotted lines across a vertical column that does not have numbers or names of females indicate the jumping or bridging of a sire generation on the chart. Cow no. 248669, a daughter of sire 1, is the dam of cow no. 340805, a daughter of sire 3. The absence of number or name on the line connecting cow no. 248669 and cow no. 340805 indicates that sire 2 does not enter into this line of descent. THE METHOD OF RATING SIRES The method of rating sires for the survey was so formulated as to consider their breeding value irrespective of the general type of management in different herds. It was also necessary to avoid discrimination in favor of herds in which the testing of cows has developed to a speciality, or against herds handled under everyday dairy farm conditions. Age correction factors were used so that records might be compared. Corrections for age and for other variables were given in a book of instructions. The correction factors were derived mostly from breed-association data, but the general suggestion was that where conditions of testing varied in the herd, all records were to be corrected to the basis of the class or type of record most commonly used in the herd. Unfortunately, in some cases this recommendation was overlooked or ignored and all records were raised to an artificial level not true for the herd as a whole. This, of course, did not affect the scoring of the various sires in relation to one another but merely raised all averages above the customary level, which may be flattering but is also confusing to the owner and his acquaintances. Time was too limited to recalculate all records and the data wêre used as submitted, except where errors of identification or calculation were obvious, or where adjustments were too much out of line. Correc- tions were made in such cases where possible; if not, the records were discarded. Short-time records were scanned closely, and if adjustments made them too far out of line they also wêre discarded. The three bases on which the worth of a sire was judged were (1) the improvement in production of his daughters over their dams, (2) the proportion of daughters equal to or better than their dams, and (3) the relation of the production of the dams to the herd average. The first two bases had been employed by this Bureau in previous studies of this nature. The first indication of merit in a sire is liis ability to beget daughters that produce more than their dams. Without this increase, there is no absolute assurance of progress in producing ability. The importance of an increase or decrease in production gives this measure first place in the rating of sires. To discount the variations in herd practices previously referred to, the difference between the average 1021 production of daughters and their dams was converted to a percentage jbasis. The second measure of a sire's value as a herd improver is the proportion of liis daughters that excel their dams as producers. There were many small groups in this study, and mth a minimum of five pairs, a single extremely high or extremely low record distorts the average in such groups. Consistency in improving a large proportion of the daughters was given additional credit, and this tended to counterbalance any abnormal rating caused by the undue influence of extreme individual records on the average of the group. The number of daughters excelhng their dams was expressed as a percentage so that groups of varying sizes might be compared. The third factor given above was used as a modifier, to make com- pensating adjustment between sires, necessitated by differences in the relative merit of their groups of mates. Breed averages are based on selected lots of animals and they usually represent a composite of various environmental conditions, whereas in most cases each herd has a distinctive environmental set-up. The average production of the individual herd was therefore selected as the standard by which the dam groups should be judged. ^ Adjustment in the sire's ratings was made according to the variation of the average production of his mates from the cumulative herd average, expressed as a percentage of the herd average. The cumulative herd average was started with the production of the foundation cows. To this was added the production of all daughters of the various sires used in the herd.. With each new proved sire, the average of all preceding production records in the herd was calculated, and this constituted the cumulative herd average. For each proved sire a new cumulative herd average was figured. The above three bases give consideration to the important factors that must be considered in determining what a sire has accomplished in herd improvement, and when they are expressed as percentages, the influence of the method of management on the level of production is disregarded and all sires are treated alike. The three points considered are not necessarily of equal weight or importance, but it is essential that they be built into a composite score. This was done by a system of plus and minus point scoring. The increase or decrease of the daughters' average production above or below that of their dams was scored by allowing 1 plus point for each 0.2 percent increase and 1 minus point for each 0.2 percent decrease. If 50 percent of a sire's daughters exceeded their dams, no points were scored, but 1 plus point was scored for each 1 percent or fraction thereof above 50 percent and 1 minus point for each 1 percent» or fraction thereof below 50 percent. When the dam of a sire's daughters averaged above the cumulative herd average, he received 1 plus point for each 0,5 percent above. One minus point was scored for each 0.5 percent by which the dams' average was below the herd average. The algebraic sum of these three partial scores is the total score for the bull. (See the chart on p. 1024.)

Broad Classification Better Than Hairsplitting Environment plays a prominent part in the maldng of production records, and the use of correction factors often makes the effect of environment even more confusing. With this in mind, it is easy to 1022 understand wliy analyzing a sire or herd is not a precise undertaldng. Efforts to assign definite mathematical values to the transmitting ability of dairy sires are apt to bog down in a morass of records made soggy by corrections for this, that, and the other. A man's height can be measured in inches and his weight in ounces, and this can be done immediately, but a cow's record, which is the expression of her inherited ability, is made over a period of time. Favorable environment helps her to make the best of her ability, but what about the unavoidable upsets such as careless feeding, a gouge from the horn of a stable mate, unseasonable weather, and a host of other disturbing influences? It is presumptuous to state a sire's ability in exact pounds of milk or fat when the estimate is based on a number of his daughters' records made under such varying conditions. If hairsplitting exactitude is set up merely as a means for deciding competitions between bull owners, then it is apt to prove detrimental to breed betterment because this competition offers a temptation to the overzealous. '^Cow jockeys" have often interrupted advances in dairy-cattle breeding. Broader classifications serve far better in rating bulls than the exact figures given to represent transmitting ability in pounds of milk and percentage of butterfat. Basically, sires are either good or poor transmitters. If they improve the herd, they are good, and if they pull it down, they are poor. A herd that has been bred up from a series of bulls all of which have been improvers is bound to be accumulating superior germ plasm. For convenience, some subdivision of the good bulls was deemed desirable and an empirical division was adopted. When the analyzing of the first 30 college herds was completed, 137 proved bulls had been scored. These were assembled according to scores and the limits of the subclasses were established. For percentage of fat, 77 sires had positive scores and 60 negative. Twelve bulls, or about 9 percent, scored 70 or more points; they were marked ''E", or excellent. Twen- ty-six, or 19 percent, scored 35 to 69 points and were called ^'G", or good; 39, or 28^ percent, scored 0 to 34 points and were rated "F", or fair; 16, or 11.7 percent, had 1 to 14 minus points and were so close to the border line that they were classed as '^U", or undeterminable. In most cases these undeterminable sires made no noticeable change in the germinal make-up of the herd. The remaining 44 sires scored 15 or more minus points and were marked 'T", or poor. For milk and butterfat there were 76 and 79 bulls, respectively, with positive and 61 and 58j respectively, with negative scores. The range of production was wider than for percentage of fat ; consequently, the scores were higher. In milk 22 and in butterfat 18 bulls scored 100 or more plus points and were called *'E." Twenty-seven scored 50 to 99 in both classes and were marked ''G", while 27 for milk and 34 for butterfat scored 0 to 49 and were called 'T." Those marked ''U" scored 1 to 14 minus points—there were 10 of these for milk and 15 for butterfat; and 51 and 43 scored 15 or more minus points for milk and butterfat, respectively, and were rated 'T." All sires with less than five daughters from tested dams were marked ''NP," or not proved. Of the five classes, the first three, ^^E", or excellent, '*G", or good, and 'T", or fair, all showed ability to improve the genetic make-up of the herds. The "U", or undeterminable, class made very little change, but the 'T", or poor, sires failed to measure up to their owners' hopes and lowered the quality of the germ plasm in the herds. 1023 When these designations are apphed to the sires in the herd pedigrees, the upward or downward trends can be closely followed, and the chart affords a good picture of the germinal constitution of the herd as far as the analysis is carried. The method of scoring sires is summarized briefly as follows: Method of scoring sires for inheritance for hutterfat percentage ^ level of inilh produc- tiony and level of hutterfat production A. Percentage increase or decrease of the daughters compared with dams. 1. 1 phis point for each 0.2 percent increase over the dams. 2. 1 minus point for each 0.2 percent decrease below the dams. B. Percentage of daughters better than dams. 1. 1 plus point for each 1 percent or fraction thereof above 50 percent. 2. 1 minus point for each 1 percent or fraction thereof below 50 percent. C. Percentage by which the average of the dams is above or below the herd average (correction for level of production). 1. 1 plus point for each 0.5 percent by which the average of the dams is above the herd average—or 2 points for each 1 percent above the herd average. 2. 1 minus point for each 0.5 percent by which the average of the dams is below the herd average. D. Rating of sires on basis of total number of points secured under A, B, and C. Butterfat percentage Milk and butterfat 1. E (excellent) +70 points or more_ +100 points or more. 2. G (good) +35 to +69 points- +50 to+99 points. 3. F (fair) 0 to +34 points._ 0 to+49 points. 4. U (undetermined) —1 to—14 points, _ — 1 to — 14 points. 5. P (poor) —15 points or more. —15 points or more. Herd summary forrriy showing the succession of sires used in this herd and their ability to transmit production, and indicating the various steps used in evaluation

Maybelle's Crescent— Burrow's Farm Polly Highland's Ajax— Name of sire 78095 Knight—99307 100112 No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 a. Number of tested pairs-. 12 15 12 Butter- Butter- Butter- Butter- Milk Milk Butter- Milk Butter- fat fat fat fat fat fat

Percent Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds Pounds b. Average of daughters 4.65 8,699 401 5.16 9,494 483 5.18 9,553 493 c. Average of their dams. _. 4.55 7,541 339 4.64 8,728 405 6.01 8,822 443 d. Increase (b—c) or decrease (c—b) +0.10 +1,158 +62 +0.52 +706 +78 +0.17 +731 +50 e. i^x 100 (percentage) +2.2 +15.4 +18.3 +11.2 +8.8 + 19.3 +3.4 +8.3 +11.3 /. Number of daughters equal to or better ihan dams 7 Ö 10 15 9 13 8 7 7 g. ^x 100 (percentage) 58. 3 50.0 83.3 JOO. 0 60.0 86.7 66. 7 58.3 58.3 h. Cumulative herd aver- ago -- 4.75 7,729 371 4.68 8,381 392 4.86 8,896 430 Í. ~ X100 (percentage) 95.8 97.6 91.4 99.1 104.1 103.3 103.1 99.2 103.0 j. Score of bull for € +11 +77 +92 +56 +44 +97 +17 +42 +57 k. Score of bull for ?- +9 0 +34 +50 +10 +37 +17 +9 +9 /. Score of bull for Í -8 -5 -17 -2 +8 +7 +6 -2 +6 m. Total of'/, Ä, and/ + 12 +72 +109 +104 +62 + 141 +40 +49 ^+72 n. Classification of bull F G E E G E G F 0. Notes on feeding and management, Dairy- Herd Improvement Association 2 milkings 2 milkings 2 milkings p. Total daughters sired that calved in this herd 15 18 13 g. Total daughters tested... 15 16 12 r. |x 100 (percentage) 100.0 88.9 92.3 s. Qualifying statements--- 1 short record not used 1 short record not used t. Average for all tested daughters 4.63 8,859 407 5.15 9,732 493

1024 EXPLANATION OF THE HERD SUMMARY A herd summary form is reproduced here which illustrates the scoring and rating system as applied to the various sires in this herd. Below the first sire's name on line a the number 12 is the number of his tested daughters from tested dams. Line h shows that these 12 daughters averaged 4.65 percent of fat, 8,699 pounds of milk, and 401 pounds of fat. The averages of the dams of these daughters, given on line c, were 4.55 percent of fat, 7,541 pounds of milk, and 339 pounds of fat. The average increases of daughters over dams are 0.10 percent of fat, 1,158 pounds of milk, and 62 pounds of fat as shown on Une d. On line e these amounts are expressed as percentages of the averages of the dams—2.2, 15.4, and 18.3 percent, respectively. Line / shows the number of daughters which were equal to or better than their dams—7 for fat percentage, 6 for milk, and 10 for fat production. These arc, respectively, 58.3, 50, and 83.3 percent of the total of 12 daughters, as given on line g. The cumulative herd average when this sire came into the herd w^as 4.75 percent of fat, 7,729 pounds of milk, and 371 pounds of fat (line A), and the average of the dams to which sire 1 was mated was 95.8, 97.6, and 91.4 percent of the cumulative herd average for percentage of fat, milk production, and fat production, respectively, as shown on line i. The information on lines a to g is drawn from the summary at the bottom of the original sire cards. Lines h and i are calculated from these same cards. The point scoring begins on line j. Five plus points are given here for each 1 percent increase shown on line e. For percentage of fat, 5 times 2.2 percent is 11 points; for milk production, 5 times 15.4 percent is 77 points; for fat production, 5 times 18.3 percent is 92 points. On line k, 1 point is given for each 1 percent or fraction thereof over 50 percent on line g. This figures out as 9 points for fat percentage, 0 for milk production, and 34 points for fat production. On line Z, 2 plus points are given for each 1 percent over 100 percent on line i, and 2 minus points for each 1 percent below 100 percent. For percentage of fat, 95.8 percent (line i) is 4.2 percent below 100 percent, and the score given is therefore 8 minus points. For milk production, 5 minus points are given because 97.6 percent is 2.4 percent below 100 percent.^ For fat production, 17 minus points are given since 91.4 percent is 8.6 percent below 100 percent. The scores on lines j^ k, and I are totaled on line w. In this example there are 12 plus points for percentage of fat, 72 plus points for milk production, and 109 plus points for fat production. The point score limits for final classification or designation of sires are given in a previous table. For percentage of fat a score of 12 plus points falls between 0 and 34, the limits of the F, or fair, class. For milk production, the score of 72 plus points falls between 50 and 99, the limits of the G, or good, class. For butterfat production, the score of 109 plus points exceeds 100, the lower limit of the E, or excellent class. These designations are given on line n. Line o carries notes on feeding and management, drawn from the original sire cards. Line p shows the total number of daughters that calved in the herd and line q the number tested. This is expressed on line r as the percentage of the total number that calved in the herd. Line s is for qualifying statements covering conditions bearing on the accTiracy of the data submitted. Line t was added to

1025 provide space for the average records of all daughters of each sire. This includes those listed on line b together with any additional daughters whose dams have no records. It should be borne in mind that the designations given on line n are based entirely on the performance of the sire's daughters in the herd under survey and under the conditions existing in the herd when the records were made. This study is an analysis of herds, and the individual sires are only parts of these herds. Whether or not a given sire would rate a similar designation in another herd under different conditions is purely speculative and not of importance for this survey. He has been rated here on what he has accomplished in improving the production of the herd studied. With this summary sheet before us, it might be well to review how well these designations define the performance of these three sires in this herd. Beginning with percentage of fat, the 12 daughters of sire 1 averaged 4.65 percent, an increase of 0.10 over their dams, and 7 of 12 equalled or excelled their dams. Even though the average of the dams was slightly below the herd average, this sire deserves a fair rating. Fifteen daughters of sire 2 averaged 5.16 percent, which is 0.52 better than their dams, and every daughter exceeded her dam. Such performance is excellent, as labeled. Sire 3 had 12 daughters averaging 5.18 percent from dams which averaged 5.01, and 8 of the 12 equalled or exceeded their dams, which deserves to be called good. Thus three daughter groups show consistent improvement for fat percentage. In milk production the 12 daughters of sire 1 averaged 8,699 pounds, averaging 1,158 pounds more than their dams. Six exceeded their dams and the average increase is sufficient to make tliis a good sire. The next sire's 15 daughters averaged 9,494 pounds of milk, an increase of 766 over their dams, and 9 of the 15 were better producers than their dams. The mates of this sire were 4 percent above the herd average, and his performance was good. Twelve daughters of sire 3 averaged 9,553 pounds, or 731 more than their dams. Seven of 12 were better than their dams, and the latter were about average for the herd. The substantial increase in production shown by the daughters and the fact that the majority of the daughters w^erc better than their dams earned this sire the designation of fair. Butterfat production shows these sires to the best advantage as they were consistently good in percentage of fat and milk production. Twelve daughters of sire 1 averaged 401 pounds of butterfat, or 62 more than their dams, with 10 of the 12 exceeding their dams. A rating of excellent is deserved. Sire 2 has 15 daughters with an average of 483 pounds of fat from dams averaging 405. The increase is 78 pounds of fat, with 13 of 15 daughters better than their dams. This again is excellent performance. Twelve daughters of sire 3 averaged 493 pounds of fat, an increase of 50 over their dams, and 7 of the 12 exceeded their dams. This sire is rated good. Such detailed analj^sis brings out the benefits wrought b}^ sires of this caliber. Limitations of space made it necessary to omit the detailed discussion and instead a condensed summary was prepared for each herd. These summaries are given in the appendix. The abbreviated information for the above herd is given here in condensed form as an illustration of what the summaries contain. 1026 Condensed summary form

Pairs Ratings of sires of dam Sire No. and Name of sire daughter Percent Milk Fat

] 12 F G E Maybelle's Crescent—78095. 2 _ _. 15 E G E Burrow's Farm Polly Knight— 99307. 3 _. ._ 12 G F G Highland's Ajax—100112. Total 39 Number of daughters better than 30 22 30 dams. Herd average _ 4.93 9,042 444 Based on records of 54 cows. Average of daughters of last sire_ 5.18 ^ 9. .»^ñS 49.^ Conditions __ . milkines

5 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 11 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. Tho proved sires in the herd are Usted vertically in their regular order. After each sire's number is shown the number of his tested daughters from tested dams. Then follow the sire ratings or designations for percentage of fat, pounds of milk, and pounds of butterfat. This gives at a glance the computed quality of the sires, their sequence in the herd, and the number of daughters. Names of the sires are listed in the last column. If one or more NP (not proved) sires were used in the herd, their numbers are assembled in a space below the number of the last proved sire, and the total of their paired tested daughters is also given. The total number of tested aaughters from tested dams is given opposite the word ''tota?', and below the ratings of sires is the total number of such daughters that exceeded their dams for percentage of fat, pounds of milk, and pounds of butterfat. Next comes the herd average based on all cows tested as reported in the survey, and then the average of the daughters of the last proved sire listed. Brief information on herd conditions is also shown. At the bottom of the table is a summary of the number of lines that carry two or more consecutive crosses of proved sires. In the herd shown there are 5 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires—^in this case, a cross of each of the proved sires used in the herd—and 11 lines with 2 crosses of proved sires. This number of female lines with successive crosses of proved sires is a check on the progress that has been made in the herd with proved-sire matings. In some herds where as many as 12 sires that had a sufficient number of daughter-dam pairs to be analyzed have been used, there were no female lines with more than four successive crosses of proved sires. Such herds have made no greater progress in piling up a superior inheritance through the continued use of proved sires for generation after generation than the herd that has used only four proved sires but used them in such a way that all of them appear in several female lines of descent. A comparison of the number of successive crosses of proved sires in the female lines of descent with the total number of proved sires is a good check on the progress made.

1027 Discussion and Arutlysis of the Data Developed from the Survey

THE marshaling of production information on such a vast array of animals provides material the analysis of which should reveal certain facts regarding the progress made in breeding for better production under the practices that have prevailed in the herds covered by the survey. Of the total of 1,097 herds listed, only 708 are included in this final summary. Some of the returns were received too late to be included; others were omitted because they showed no evidence of progress. The omission of the latter group tends to distort the data somewhat, but the time allotted for the completion of the task necessitated this action. Shortage of time further limited the scope of this final analysis, making it impossible to deal separately with the two measures of production, milk and percentage of fat. Butterfat production has long been accepted by breeders as a fair measure of producing ability, and it is a composite of mük production and percentage of butterfat. For this reason, the figures in this final summary deal only mth pounds of butterfat produced. ANALYSIS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE AVERAGE BUTTERFAT PRODUCTION These 708 herds are in 40 States, and seven breeds are represented. Records on 42,799 cows were submitted, which averaged 447 pounds of butterfat. Each herd averaged 60 records. Table 3 shows the distribution of these herds by breeds. TABLE 3.—Distrihution of herds by breeds

AveraRe Average Total luiniber of butterfat Breed. otates Herds records record per production herd per cow

Number Nujnber Number Number Pounds Ayrshire. - 10 27 2,355 87 369 Brown Swiss 3 5 163 33 395 Guernsey -. 28 121 5,839 48 442 Holstein-Friesian . _. - 37 366 23,624 65 462 Jersey 34 181 10,443 58 438 Red Polled 2 2 145 77 381 Shorthorn 2 6 230 38 349 708 42, 799 60 447

These records were all calculated to a mature-equivalent basis. The procedure in using other correction factors varied in different States. Some records were corrected for length of the lactation period, either to a full 365-day basis or to a 305-day basis; while in many cases no adjustment was made for this variable. In the routine analysis procedure short-time records were not considered. The number of milkings per day was standardized to a three-times- daily basis in some herds and to two milkings daily in others; although some herds reported records on cows milked two, three, and even 1028 four times daily with, no correction. The number of daily milkings seemed to depend largely on whether the testing was official testing or testing by a dairy herd-improvement association. Standard breed practice was also an influence. There was no way to determine accurately the length of time that had elapsed during the period covered by the records submitted from each herd. However, there is a wide difference in the time span from the foundation cows to the daughters of the last sire. In most cases, this represented the entire period of the continuous keeping of production records, but the variation in the length of this period is easily understood when one herd reports on 2 sires and another on 10 or more. To measure the progress made, the foundation cows were considered as the base. Seven hundred and eight herds reported records on an average of 15 foundation cows, averaging 436 pounds of butterfat. Forty-five other cows completed records during the period covered by the survey and averaged 451 pounds of butterfat. This made a cumulative herd average (previously defined) of 447 pounds of butterfat, just 11 pounds higher than the average of the foundation cows. These 45 records were made by daughters of the various herd sires used. It is a generally accepted fact that the introduction of regular testing into the herd management usually results in better general herd practices, such as feeding according to production, watering in the barn, supplementing pasture grass, etc. How much of this increase in herd average is due to better environmental conditions we are not prepared to say, but surely it has its influence. Table 4 sets forth the averages of foundation cows and animals bred in the herd, and the final cumulative herd average by breeds. TABLE 4.—Numbers and average butterfat production of foundation cowSy additions to the herd, and all tested cows

Increase I'oundation Additions to All tested cow's (+)or cows the herd decrease (-)in average Aver- Aver- Aver- butterfat Breed Herds age age age produc- butter- butter- butter- tion, Total fat Total fat Total fat founda- pro- pro- pro- tion duc- duc- duction tion tion to all tested cows

Number Number Pounds Number Pounds Number Pounds Pounds Ayrshire _ 27 518 357 1,837 372 2,355 369 +12 Brown Swiss 5 51 425 112 381 163 395 -30 Guernsey 121 1,799 425 4,040 450 5,839 442 +17 Holstein-Friesian _ 306 6,163 448 17,461 467 23, 624 462 + 14 Jersey 181 2,393 435 8,050 439 10,443 438 +3 Rod Polled 2 25 404 120 376 145 381 -23 Shorthorn 6 74 325 156 299 230 307 -18 Total 708 11,023 43(> 31,776 451 42, 799 447 + 11

The statistics on number of sires and their qualit}^ and distribution will be shown later. From the 708 herds summarized above, 157 were selected as having shown progress in improving producing abihty. These are designated as charted herds and the remaining 551 as uncharted herds. The satisfactory ratings of the sires used formed the basis on which the charted herds were selected; it is here that one would look to find the improvement that follows the use of good sires. The average number 1029 of foundation cows in the charted herds was 17, with an average production of 447 pounds of butterfat. The additions, 62 cows bred in the herd, averaged 498 pounds of butterfat and made the cumulative herd average 487 pounds of butterfat, which is 40 pounds higher than that of the foundation cows. In comparison with the whole group, these herds had 2 more foundation cows, 17 more additions, and a total of 19 more animals with records. The foundation cows averaged 11 pounds more butterfat and the additions 47 pounds more, and the increase in the cumulative herd average was 40 pounds. Thus the charted herds were larger, used better sires, and bred better cows from foundation stock with a higher record. Table 5 gives the details by breeds.

TABLE 5.—Numbers and average huUerfat production of foundation cows, additions to the herd, and all tested cows in the charted herds

Foundation Additions to All tested cows Increase cows the herd in average butterfat produc- Breed Herds Aver- Aver- Aver- tion, age but- age but- age but- founda- Total terfat Total terfat Total terfat tion cows produc- produc- produc- to all tion tion tion tested cows

Number Number Pounds Number Pounds Number Pounds PoundR Ayrshire 8 184 347 412 385 596 373 26 Guernsey 35 630 460 1,400 514 2,080 497 37 Holstein- Friesian 75 1,320 463 5,435 613 0, 755 503 40 Jersey- 39 521 426 2,490 475 3,011 466 40 Total or average. 157 2, 655 447 9, 787 12,442 487 40

The remaining 551 uncharted herds were made up of an average of 15 foundation cows that averaged 433 pounds of butterfat and 40 additions that averaged 431 pounds of fat, and the cumulative herd average was 431 pounds of butterfat. Averages by breeds are given in table 6.

TABLE 6.- -Numbers and average butterfat production of foundation cows, additions to the herd, and all tested cows in the uncharted herds

Foundation Additions to All tested cows In- cows the herd crease (-I-) or decrease (-) in average but- Breed Herds Aver- Aver- Aver- terfat age but- age but- age but- produc- Total terfat Total ter fot Total terfat tion, produc- produc- produc- founda- tion tion tion tion cows to all tested cows

Number Number Pounds Number Pounds-Number Pounds Pounds Ayrshire 19 334 363 1,425 369 1,759 368 +5 Brown Swiss 5 5Ï 425 112 381 163 395 -30 Guernsey 86 1,169 406 2,590 415 3,759 412 -f6 Holstein-Friesian 291 4,843 444 12, 026 446 16,869 445 +1 Jersey 142 1,872 438 5,560 424 7,432 427 -11 Red Polled 2 25 404 120 376 145 381 -23 Shorthorn 2 74 325 156 299 230 307 -18 Total or average 551 8,368 433 21, 989 431 30, 357 431 -2

1030 Here the effects of improved environment were apparently more than offset by the poor quality of the herd sires used, and a net loss of 2 pounds of butterfat resulted. It is striking that in the charted herds the average moved from 447 pounds for the foundation cows to 487 pounds, while in the uncharted herds it dropped from 433 pounds for the foundation cows to 431 pounds. Included in the uncharted group are the herds that had used only one proved bull, or the equivalent, and may have shown some progress from his use; yet 271 or approximately 50 percent of these herds had a cumulative herd average less than the average of the foundation cows. These figures illustrate most strikingly how essential good sires are for breed progress. That only about 22 percent of the herds surveyed were selected for the charted group brings out the need for more thoughtful planning in our breeding herds, as this survey in itself was somewhat selective. Sires in the Survey The story of progress or decline in breeding for milk and butterfat is found in the analyses of the herd sires used in the 708 herds. Infor- mation was submitted on 4,309 sires, of which 2,242, or 52 percent, were proved by having five or more tested daughters from tested dams. The method of classifying these sires and the meaning of the classification is given elsewhere. The distribution of sires by breeds is given in table 7.

TABLE 7.—Distribution of rated sires by breeds

Breed Herds Sires E F U P Total G proved NP

No. No. No. Pet. No. Pd. No. Pet. No. Pet. No. Pet. No. Pet. No. Pet. Ayrshire 27 207 13 6.3 21 10.1 20 9.7 11 5.3 48 23.2 113 54.6 94 45 4 Brown Swiss 5 21 1 4.8 1 4.8 0 0 9 42.8 11 52.4 10 47.6 Guernsey 121 614 59 9.6 58 9.4 70 "ÍL4 18 "2."9 109 17.8 314 51.1 300 48 9 Holstein-Friesian 366 2,268 185 8.2 191 8.4 257 11.3 80 3.5 499 22.0 1,212 53.4 1,056 46.6 Jersey.- _ - 181 1,160 87 7.5 89 7.7 106 9.1 41 3.5 243 21.0 566 48.8 594 61 2 Red Polled 2 10 1 10.0 0 0 0 8 80.0 9 90.0 1 10.0 Shorthorn _ 6 29 1 3.4 1 3 "ÏÔ.1 2 '¿.'9 10 34.5 17 58.6 12 41 4

Total 708 4,309 347 8.0 361 8.4 456 10. G 152 3.5 926 21.5 2,242 52.0 2,067 48 0

Percentage of proved sires-- 15. fi Ifi. 1 2fl S fi.S 41 a

It is not possible to say precisely what effect the inclusion of the other 389 herds would have had on this distribution of sires, but it is well to bear in mind that at least some of these herds were omitted because they failed to show evidence of breeding progress, which means, of course, that they listed more poor than good herd sires. As table 7 stands, slightly over half of all the sires were proved and 52 percent of these proved sires rated E, G, and F; 6.8 percent were undeterminable and 41.3 percent were poor. On their composite showing as a group, the NP sires have a score of —13 points, which rates them undeterminable and only 2 points above the poor class. Only 27 percent of the total number of 4,309 sires rated E, G, and F, while 25 percent rated U and P. ^ The figures in table 8 indicate that the average herd reported on six sires, half of which were proved and half not proved. The 3 1031 proved sires were mated to 33 dams that averaged 452 pounds of butterfat to get 33 daughters, which averaged 452 pounds of butterfat. The three NP sires were bred to six dams that averaged 452 pounds of butterfat, and their six daughters averaged 443 pounds of butterfat, a decrease of 9 pounds. The six sires had 39 daughters that averaged 451 pounds of butterfat from dams that averaged 452 pounds of butterfat. No gain here. The comparative performance of sires of all classes is shown in table 8.

TABLE 8.~( Comparative perf ormance of sires of all classes

Average butterfat Pairs of production Increase (+) or de- dams and crease (-) of Daughters, better Class dauirh- Sires dauiïhters over than dams dams ters Daugh- Dams ters

Number Number Pounds Pounds Pounds Percent Number Perceiit E 3,608 347 506 414 +92 +22.2 2,960 82.0 G... 4,171 361 487 445 +42 +9.4 2,761 66.2 F... 6,510 456 472 461 +11 +2.4 3,045 65.3 IT 1,980 152 449 459 -10 -2.2 931 47.0 V 10,086 926 409 463 -54 -11.7 2,984 29.6

Total proved.. 25, 395 2,422 452 452 0 0 12,681 49.9 NF 4,203 2,067 443 452 -9 -2.0 1,981 47.1 Total.- _. 29,598. 4,309 451 452 -1 -.2 14, 662 49.5

The average production of the daughters of each grade of sires declines as the rating declines. There is a difference in the quality of the dam groups, but that is to be expected where the size of increase enters into the rating. The amount of increase and the percentage of daughters better than their dams are the bases on which the classifications are made. The influence of the quality of sires on the selection of the 157 charted herds is best shown by the percentage of the total of each class which were used in these herds, as listed in table 9.

TABLE 9.- -Number of each class of sires in charted and uncharted herds

Sires in Í57 charted Sires in 551 un- Class Total herds charted herds

Number Number Percent Number Percent V". 347 182 52.4 165 47.6 Ö - - 361 166 46.0 195 64.0 F_ 456 172 37.7 284 62.3 U 152 30 19.7 122 80.3 P 926 88 9.6 838 90.5

Total proved _ 2,242 638 28.5 1,604 71.5 VP 2,067 459 22.2 1,608 77.8 Total 4,309 1,097 25.5 3,212 74.5

While 25.5 percent of all sires were used in these 157 herds, they included 52.4, 46.0, and 37.7 percent, respectively, of all E, G, and F bulls and only 9.5 percent of all P bulls. Nearly 45 percent of the better bulls and less than 10 percent of the poor bulls were in service in the 22 percent of the herds which make up the charted group. 1032 Dam and Daughter Comparisons Dam and daughter comparisons for the groups as a whole have been given in table 8. To emphasize further the difference between the charted and uncharted herds, the dam and daughter information is divided on that basis as well as by breeds in table 10.

TABLE 10.—Dam-daughter comparisons, by breeds, for charted and uncharted herds AYUSHIKE

Avera^^e hutterfat production of— Increase (+) or Daughters bet- Proved NP Herds Herds Pairs decrease (-) ter than their sires sires of daughters darns Daugh- Dams ters

Number Number Number Number Pounds Pounds Pounds Percent Number Percent Charted - 8 28 It) 875 383 3(53 +5.5 219 58.4 Uncharted 19 85 75 1, 300 368 385 -4.4 578 42. 5 Total or average 27 n;i 94 1, 735 371 380 -9 -2.4 797 45.9

(lUERXSKY

Charted 35 107 59 1, 342 513 478 +37 +7.7 842 62.7 Uncharted 86 207 241 2,457 418 420 -2 -0.5 1,183 48.1

Total or average 121 314 300 3, 799 451 440 11 2.5 2,025 53.3

HOLSTEIN—FRIESIAN

Charted- 75 336 242 4,798 518 492 +26 +5.3 2,831 59.0 Uncharted 291 876 814 11,494 445 458 -13 -2.8 5, 268 45.8 Total or average 366 1,212 1,056 16,292 467 468 -1 -0.2 8,099 49.7

JERSEY

Charted 39 167 139 2,213 478 450 +28 +6.2 1,325 59. 9 Uncharted 142 399 455 5,197 425 441 -16 -3.6 2,286 44.0 Total or average 181 566 594 7,410 441 444 -3 -0.7 3,611 48.7

ALL BREEDS

Charted 157 638 459 8,728 501 475 +26 +5.5 5,217 59.8 Uncharted--_ 551 1,604 1,608 20, 870 430 443 -13 -2.9 9, 445 45.3 Total or average 708 2,242 2, 067 29, 598 451 452 -1 -0.2 14, 662 49.5

It is in table 10 that evidence is found of improvement due to breeding, that is, the influence of good herd sires. The figures in the table represent progress in a single generation. The previously mentioned 11-pound increase from the foundation to the final herd average spreads over a number of generations and is partly accounted for by improved environment. In the analysis of a single generation in table 10, the environmental influence is not so apt to be a large factor. Here it is found that the 29,598 daughters averaged 1 pound less than their dams, and that less than half were equal to or better than their dams. It is possible that to some extent this

88143°—36- -GG 1033 result may be attributed to the practice in some herds of giving preference in replacements to daughters of dams with the higher records. To bring out the story of the influence of better sires, the figures in the table are divided so as to show the results in the charted and uncharted herds. Briefl}'', the sires in the charted herds had 8,728 daughters averaging 501 pounds of butterfat from dams averaging 475 pounds of butterfat, an increase of 26 pounds, and about 60 percent were better producers than their dams. This contrasts wâth a decrease of 13 pounds for the 20,870 daughters in the uncharted herds dropped by dams averaging 443 pounds of butterfat, and only about 45 percent of the daughters better than their dams. This becomes more significant when it is noted that the dams in the charted herds averaged 32 pounds more than the dams in the uncharted herds, and that the daughters in the charted herds averaged 71 pounds more butterfat than the daughters in the uncharted herds. The fact that the average sire's chances to increase production diminish as the average of the dams goes higher only adds to the proof that breeding is largely responsible for the showing made by the charted herds. If a single generation in the breeding of a herd means an average increase of 26 pounds of butterfat, with 12 daughters in 20 better than their dams, as contrasted wdth an average decrease of 13 pounds of butterfat, wdth 9 in 20 better, then it is well to give serious thought to the quality of herd sires used.

Sequence of Sires 'With so much emphasis on the importance of herd sires, it might be well to explore this mass of data further. The ideal, of course, is a continued sequence of good bulls to breed toward concentration of germ plasm for high production. Unfor- tunately, this ideal was seldom achieved in the herds under survey. Even some of the charted herds had set-backs from poor sires. Table 11 brings out the progress in the charted herds when arranged according to the number of proved sires used.

TABLE 11.—Charted herds arranged by number of proved sires used

Foundation Additions to All tested cows Increaiäe cows the herd in average butterfat produc- Aver- Aver- Aver- tion, Proved sires (number) Herds age age age founda- butter- butter- butter- tion Total fat Total fat Total fat cows pro- pro- to all duc- duc- duc- tested tion tion tion cows

Number Number Pounds Number Pounds Number Pounds Pounds 2 , 34 423 413 938 474 1,361 455 42 '6 49 726 440 2,085 485 2,811 473 33 4 .. 27 473 443 1,671 499 2,144 487 44 5 _ 17 260 451 1,358 509 1,618 600 49 fi 10 131 427 863 485 994 477 50 7 6 149 498 497 537 646 628 30 8 and over 14 493 478 2,375 508 2,868 503 25 Total or average 157 2,655 447 9,787 498 12, 442 487 40

1034 As the number of good sires increases, there is a steady building up of the cumulative herd average until the seven-sire group is reached. Here the number of herds is small and the percentage of U and P bulls is high enough to offset the expected advance. To have eliminated from the charted group all herds that had a P or U bull would have excluded most of the herds with long-established testing pro- grams. Figm-es will show that the probability of a poor sire appear- ing in the average herd increases as time goes on. Another reason for the smaller increases in the last two groups is the high level of the foundation cows from which the^^ come. The distribution and quality of the sires used in the herds in table 11 are shown in table 12.

TABLE 12.—Charted herds arranged hy nuinher and distribution of proved sires

Total V. 0 F I P Proved sires (number) JTerds sires

Kum- Per- Nuvi- Per- N'um- Per- Per- ^^n7n- Per- Num- Per- her cent btr cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent 2 34 08 29 42.7 24 35. 3 15 22.0 0 0 3 49 147 46 31. 3 43 29.3 44 29.9 8 "h'l' 0 4 27 108 37 34.3 25 23.1 29 20.9 4 3.7 13 12.0 5 17 85 29 34.1 21 24.7 18 21.2 6 7.1 11 12.9 (5 10 60 10 16.7 15 25.0 17 28.3 6 10.0 12 20.0 7 f) 42 9 21.4 7 10.7 18 42.8 Ï. 2.4 7 10.7 8 and over .._ _. . U 128 22 17.2 31 24.2 31 24.2 5 3.9 39 30. 5 Total 157 638 182 28. 5 160 20.0 172 27.0 30 4.7 88 13.8

An actuarial study of all the figures may help those engaged in the breeding of dairy cattle to get a picture of what actually happens, on the average, when they follow the breeding practices used in the 708 herds analyzed in this survey."^ What, on the average, are the chances of having a poor bull follow a good one, or vice versa? The figures show that if the last sire used was an E sire, there are about three chances in five the next one will be E, G, or F. If the last sire used was P, there is only one chance in three that the next one will be E, G, or F, and two chances in three that lie will be U or P. If two E, G, or F sires have been used, there are apparently three chances in five that the next one will be E, G, or F. If two P sires are used, the chances are two out of three that the next one will be a U or a P sire. These averages indicate primarily the great chances—two to one— against getting a good sire when one or two poor ones have been used in the herd.

* Disregarding tlie appearance of N P sires in the line-up of bulls in the 708 herds, the following sequences are noted. 9 herds used only E sires, 7 only G sires, 7 only F sires, and 1 only IT sires. Of these 24 herds, 21 were two-sire herds, 2 were three-sire herds, and the other was a four-sire herd. 90 herds had all P sires, 58 being two-sire herds; 23, three-sire herds; 5, four-siro herds; 3, five-siro herds; and 1, a six-sire herd. 28 herds used IC and G sires, 2S others E and F sires, and 25 F and G sires. Of these 81 herds, 40 were two- sire herds, 34 wore three-sire herds, 8 w^ere four-sire herds, 2 were five-siie herds, and 1 was a six-sire herd. 10 other herds had only E, G, and F sires. 7 were three-sire herds, 4 were four-sire herds, 3 were five-sire herds, and 2 were seven-sire herds. 85 herds had 1 E, G, or F sire and 1 P sire. 20 herds had only E, G, and F sires following the first P sire, and 31 other herds had only E, G, and F sires preceding the last P sire. In the various bull line-ups, there were 20 sequences of 3 E, G, and F sires; 0 of 4 E, G, and F sires; 3 of 5 E, G, and F sires; and 4 of 0 E, G, and F sires. There were also 18 se(iuenccs of 3, 7 of 4, 3 of 5, and 1 of 0 P sires in the strings of sires.

1035 In 36 herds the arrays of sh'cs were sequences of alternating good and poor bulls and in 24 others the sequences were 2 good followed by 2 poor sires or vice versa. To summarize this analysis and distribution of records in the 708 herds: The information developed emphasizes the important part that good sires play in herd improvement. The herds as a whole show improvement in cumulative herd average from foundation cows to the end of the survey period of only 11 pounds of butterfat. The charted herds show more than dji thnes as much improvement, or 40 pounds. Comparison of nearly 30,000 dam-and-daughter paii's reveals that the daughters averaged 1 pound of butterfat less than their dams, and that 49K percent were equal to or better than their dams as butterfat producers. Over 8,700 dam-and-daughter pairs in the lo7 charted herds show an increase of 26 pounds of butterfat by the daughters, with ncarl}^ 60 percent exceeding their dams as producers. The dam- and-daughter comparison in the remaining 551 herds shows the daughters producing 13 pounds less butterfat than their dams, with about 55 percent poorer producers. In this summary it is well to remind the reader that the herds surveyed average well above the production level of the dairy cow population, wliich is estimated to be 158 pounds of butterfat. Doubt- less the testing program and general management in these herds had lifted them to a position above the general level. This position was achieved in part by selection of better breeding stock, but in a large measure it was due to more intelligent feeding, care, and culling. Yet regardless of how they reached their present state, the figures show that during the period covered by the survey onl}^ a part of these herds have made progress due to breeding. Some have held a fairly even level, but others have declined in inherent ability to produce milk and butterfat. If this reflects the conditions in selected herds, surely there is much need for thought and planning to improve the cow^ population as a whole. The contrast between the charted and uncharted lierds indicates the part breeding pla^^s in raising producing ability.

AN EXAMPLE OF A HERD SUMMARY Both time and space prevented the making of as complete a herd summary as was desired. Two types of herd summary have been prepared and described. The more complete herd summary for production has been described and illustrated on page 1024. This is the summary that is being returned to each (îooperator. Had there been time for the greatly increased amount of work that would have been required for compilation, and had there been space for its publication for the herds showing progress, it w^ould have been desirable to issue for each herd the type of summary illustrated in table 13. This summary is presented in order to show its possibilities for students of dairy-cattle breeding.

1036 TABLE 13.—Detailed herd summary RECORD OF FOUNDATION COWS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS

Record of daughters of—

Foundation cows Second proved sire, Triple Hood Farm Third proved sire, Sophies Torono First proved sire, Majesty's Admiral, 172934 Torono, 270579 King George, 277122

Production of— Production of—■ Production of— Production of— Butter- Butter- Butter- Butter- Cow no. Cow no. Cow no. Cow no. fat fat fat fat Butter- Butter- Butter- Butter- Milk Milk Milk Milk fat fat fat fat

Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds Pounds Percent r744'")10 5.59 4,441 248 945217 5.67 8,430 477 1026593 0) 288753 4.47 4,915 219 5.16 6,938 358 f857873 5.31 8,166 434 979888 0.18 8,564 443 [751780 - 5.12 8,107 415 IvirginiaB. C 4.38 7,353 321 o Maj. Mary Sue_-- 4.40 7,834 344 00 5.50 9, 342 513 751779 5.63 4,657 262 (979887 781611 0.24 6, 592 345 ^979390 5.03 9,999 503 ll026590 5.26 9,490 499 857871 5.79 7,797 450 1026591 (}) 3.49 12,485 436 Kate, Jr— 4.29 9,834 422 fMazie 5.22 iÔ, 778 563 "IVTilpTipr 4.69 5,539 259 Milcher, Jr,_ 6.49 6,950 451 Mabel 5.31 9,054 481 \Matina 0) fBlackie I 4.30 9,374 404 Spot - 3.19 11,912 381 4.72 10,812 510 Í979886 5.34 7,599 405 576 Í744511 4.99 7,301 365 8430942 •j'979889 4.65 12, 398 [1026589 5.03 9,819 494 536532 - _ 5.19 4, 673 243 430 744513 4.04 7, 549 305 943160 4.86 8,854 522815 . 4.43 5,887 261 852872 4.68 7,199 337 9, 514 434 Zep 4.72 8,293 392 Ziechiel- 3.46 11,363 393 Ziechiel, Jr 4.57 fBlossom 4.3Ó 8,589 369 Rose -- 4.52 11,342 512 Armstrong-. 4.27 6,277 268 \Armstrong, Jr 0) 4.55 9,264 422 [857874 -- 4.60 7,774 358 979891 5.68 11,547 656 5.74 8,719 500 8,200 484 J934270 5.92 6,943 411 1026588 693267 5.90 1026601 5.66 9,639 545 1 N^o record 2 Cow 843094 was by an unproved sire. Her record was 4.56 percent of butterfat, 8,348 pounds of milk, 376 pounds of butterfat. TABLE 13.—Detailed herd summary—Continued

RECORD OF FOUNDATION COWS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS—Continued

- Record of daughters of—

Foundation cows Second proved sire. Triple Hood Farm Third proved sire, Sophies Torono First proved sire. Majesty's Admiral , 172934 Torono, 270579 King George, 277122

Production of— Production of— Production of— Production of— Butter- Butter- Butter- Cow no. Cow no. Butter- Cow no. fat Cow no. fat fat fat Butter- Butter- Milk Butter- Milk Butter- Milk Milk fat fat fat fat

Percent Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds Pounds Green _ . 4.92 6,880 339 Goldie 5.42 8,355 453 /Fannie 4,82 7,098 342 Faun 5.77 8,438 487 Hart — .5.29 7,353 389 IHelen . 4.81 7,745 373 o Pearl 4.81 6,353 306 Perry '""5.07' "'9,'556' 484 CO Nanny 4.09 7,656 313 Nancy 4.40 10,806 475 00 à 7.«.R 91ft Elmo.. . 4 59 F • 1 — Nillie- 5.53 5,322 294

Dauffhtftr-dam nairs n umber 11 11 11 14 14 14 17 17 17 Average of daughter s _ 5.04 7,452 369 4.93 8,292 407 5.21 9,541 495 Averaee of dams 4.59 6,262 269 5.12 7,596 376 4.92 7, 695 375 Increase __ __ p ercent . 9.8 19.0 37.2 -3.7 9.2 8.2 5.9 24.0 32.0 Daughters better ..do—- 63.6 72.7 100.0 57.1 64.3 64.3 64.7 88.2 88.2 Dam's record of herd averagíj do 100.2 85.2 82.8 107.6 102.3 109.3 . 102. 3 102.1 102. 5 Rating of sire. G G E F G G G E E Daughters tested._ —P ercent 91.7 91.7 91.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 Milkines n umber.. 2 2 2 J Remarks: Grain fed 1:4, clover hay, silage, and pasture. TABLE 13.—Detailed herd summary—Continued

4 FEMALE LINES WITH 3 SUCCESSIVE PROVED SIRE CROSSES

Buttcrfat production of-

Daughters Daugthcrs Daughters FouTi da- of first of second of third lion cows proved proved proved sire cross sire cross sire cross

Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 262 415 434 443 259 451 481 563 219 248 477 N. R. 259 451 481 N. R. 249. 7 391. 2 468. 2 503

12 FEMALE LINES WITH 2 SUCCESSIVE PROVED SIRE CROSSES

262 450 N. R. 262 415 321 262 345 513 262 345 503 262 345 499 243 305 430 393 434 392 268 369 512 2i)8 N. R. 422 484 358 656 484 411 500 389 342 487 310.8 374. 4 475. 9 i

DISTRIBUTION OF RECORDS OF BUTTERFAT PRODUCTION OF FOUNDATION COWS AND DAUGHTERS OF 3 PROVED SIRES

Si w 1^ 05 m OS w II ■S s o| ^1 II > o it 1 ^ O ft

Foundation cows 3 '1 3 3 1 1 318 Daughtersofsirel 1 1 2 3 2 1 1. 369 Daughters of sire 2 4 2 5 3 1 408 Dauglitersofsire3 1 3 () 4 2 1 495

The upper part of the summary brings together the data gathered on the large cards illustrated on pages 1015 to 1019. The records for the foundation cow^s and the daughters of the various sires are arranged in such a manner as to permit following the direct female line of descent from left to right. The second section of the summary, directly under the first section, shows the essential data used in the summaries for rating the sires, omitting the results of the calculations that were included in the summaries returned to the cooperators. Included in this summarization of the sires is the percentage of the daughters of each sire old enough to have completed records at the time of the survey and actually having^ records. This is for the purpose of showing the amount of selective testing that may have taken place. Selective testing, which means the omission of records of poor-producing animals, is likely to give an incorrect picture of any analysis of sire inheritance that may be made. Unfortunately this

1039 important information was omitted from many of the herd reports in this survey. In the herd shown in table 13, only one of all the daughters of these three sires that were old enough for records at the time of the survey did not have a record. The next division of the summary in table 13 shows the successive crosses of the sires used in the herd that had a sufficient number of daughter-dam pairs to be evaluated (proved), and the butterfat yield of each cow. These tabulations could be improved, when space permits, by entering the name or number of each cow beside her butterfat yield. For some studies it would be desirable to show the variables—percentage of butterfat and milk yield—for the cow^s in these direct female lines of descent. In the table showing the female lines for successive proved-sire crosses, the first sire cross may be composed of the daughters of sire 1 only, or it may include daughters of sires 2 and 3. In herds in which three or more proved sires have been used, the female lines showing only two proved-sire crosses may be represented by the daughters of more than one sire in the second sire cross. In the herd shown in table 13, all of the proved sires used were meritorious sires and in each case each generation b}^ a meritorious proved sire shows an increase in average yield. The last tabulation in the summary shows the distribution of the records of all the foundation cows and of all the daughters of each sire, according to size of the butterfat record as given for each group at the head of each column. This tabulation includes many animals that do not enter into the female lines showing successive crosses of proved sires, some of them representing only one proved-sire cross. It should be understood, too, that the daughters of sire 2 are not all out of daughters of sire 1, nor are the daughters of sire 3 all out of daughters of sire 2. In a general way this table shows the trend of the level of production in the herd and the range in production found in the foundation cows and in the daughters of the various sires. In this herd, the lower levels of production are being eliminated with each successive cross of a meritorious sire and the upper limits are being pushed up, as is to be expected when meritorious proved sires are continuously used, thereby concentrating the germ plasm for higher levels of production. This is further emphasized by the following calculation: The foundation cows in the herd shown in table 13 had an average of 318 pounds of butterfat and 33 percent of these cows had records of 350 pounds or more of butterfat. Sixty-four percent of the daughters of sire 1, 73 percent of the daughters of sire 2, and 100 percent of the daughters of sire 3 had records of 350 pounds or more.

TABLK 14.—Distribution chart of butterfat production for 3 and 2 successive proved-sire crosses 1^ II S a si CO " CO ^

4 lines with 3-sire crosses: Foundation cows.-- -__ 1 :i Daughters of sire 1 1 1 2 Daughters of sire 2 1 3 Daughters of sire 3 1 1 12 lines with 2-sire crosses: Foundation cows 1 7 2 ...... 2 Daughters of first cross 2 1 Daughters of second cross 1 1 2 2 '"4" 1

1040 Similar distribution charts can be arranged to show the raising of the level of production in those female lines having two and three successive crosses of proved sires. The distribution chart (table 14) is made for the female lines showing three and two successive proved-sire crosses in the herd shown in table 13. This shows even more strikingly the shift toward higher production levels with successive crosses. This is possibly duo to the continued injection into the herd of superior germ plasm which replaced the hereditary factors that necessitate low levels of production and brought about combinations of factors that make possible high levels of production. Such a picture can be clearly and correctly seen onlj in a herd for which the environmental conditions have remained fairly constant and are such as to permit the animal that received an inheritance for a high level of production to produce up to her hereditary capacity. INBREEDING Time did not permit an analysis of the relationship of the sires used in the herds included in this survey. Such an analysis for the herds that have made progress in breeding superior germ plasm and for the herds that have failed to make progress might possibly disclose interesting and valuable information. Students of dairy cattle-breeding will be interested in table 15, which gives a detailed herd summary of what is perhaps the most intensely inbred experimental dairy herd (12), The inbreeding has been for the most part to the first sire used, Johan Woodcrest Lad 11th. Fortunately for this experiment, this sire carried no factors for abnormal characters that would be intensified in his inbred progeny. Fortunately too, he possessed an inheritance for a high level of production. He was mated to grade Jersey, Guernsey, and Holstein cows, and was bred back to his own daughters. He was followed by his son, out of his own 75-percent inbred daughter. The granddam of this son was a grade cow. The son, 94-B, thus carries three direct crosses of Johan Woodcrest Lad 11th. As the table shows, he was mated to some of the foundation cows, to the outbred and to the inbred daughters of his sire, and also back to his own daughters. His 10 daughters out of foundation cows average 654 pounds of butterfat and their dams 591; his 4 daughters out of the outbred daughters of his sire average 658 pounds and their dams 636; the 6 daughters out of inbred daughters of his sire average 608 pounds of butterfat and their dams 616 pounds; and, as the table shows, his own 9 inbred daughters average 591 pounds butterfat as compared to 608 for their dams. Evidently 94-B possessed an inheritance for a level of production that was fully as high as that of his sire, if not higher. There is evidence also that in his more intensely inbred matings, such as those with the inbred daughters of his sire, and with his own daughters, there was a tendency toward depressing the level of production. 1041 TABLE 15.—Summary of an intensely inbred experimental herd of grade Holsteins of the Bureau of Dairy Industry^ Beltsville^ Md, RECORD OF FOUNDATION COWS AND THEIR FEMALE DESCENDANTS

94-B (87H percent son Johan Woodcrest Lad Johan Woodcrest Lad 94-B (87>^ percent son of nth 103987, inbred Johan Woodcrest Lad of Johan Woodcrest 26-B (75 percent son 40-B (75 percent son of Foundation cows nth 103987, first Lad nth), inbred of 94-B), not regis- 91-B), not registered, proved sire generation, second nth), third proved proved sire sire generation, fourth tered, fifth proved sixth proved sire proved sire sire

Production Production Production Production Production Production Production of- of— of— of— of- of- of— But- But- But- But- Cow Cow Cow Cow Cow But- Cow- But- But- ter- ter- ter- ter- ter- Cow no. no. no. no. no. no. ter- ter- fat But- fat But- fat But- fat But- fat But- fat But- no. fat But- Milk ter- Milk ter- Milk ter- Milk ter- Milk ter- Milk ter- Milk terfat fat fat fat fat fat fat

PcL Lbs. Lbs. PcL Lbs. Lbs. Pd. Lbs. Lbs. Pd. Lbs. Lbs. Pd. Lbs. Lbs. Pd. Lbs. Lbs. Pd. Lbs. Xft.9. A-20 3.51 14,551 511 f A-36 3.50 20,800 728 3.45 14,631 505 7 4.09 10,367 424 f 50 3.83 14,660 561 1 A-65 1 64 3.84 15,313 588 A-37 3.58 19,903 713 A-42 3.45 19,466 672 A-74 3.38 15,661 630 f 45 4.29 11,529 495 23 4.17 9,308 388 f A-21 3.18 [ 82 3.68 18,131 667 3.49 19,682 687 17,615 660 A-45 2.80 18, 307 612 I A-30 3.26 15,606 509 A-79 3.49 18, 255 638 25 4.40 9,821 432 67 3.83 1- 15,379 589 33 4.70 13,284 624 14 3.86 11, 733 453 A-64 3.93 19,894 782 34 4.76 7,036 335 88 4.30 16,728 719 20 4.23 6,350 269 63 3.24 11,213 363 r 94 3.17 19,930 632 A-28 3.57 15, 405 650 1 97 3.09 17,033 526 A-11 3.28 17, 423 571 A-62 3.15 17,860 563 18 5.36 8,919 478 46 4.46 10,196 455 79 4.44 9,691 430 29 4.18 17,416 728 51 3.78 19,072 721 f 87 3.66 17,325 634 \ A-3 3.61 17,106 618 A-26 3.36 25, 434 855 A-80 3.28 18, 243 598 f A-58 3.36 17,356 682 84 4.79 11,219 537 - A-39 3.61 16,818 607 ? Ä-72 3.62 17,035 600 A-83 3.54 17,198 608 A-44 3.43 21,424 735 • A-71 3.51 18,400 646 1 A-27 3.99 18,853 752 f A-43 3.58 20,928 750 A-66 3.41 18, 301 624 93 4.81 13,686 658 A-88 3.36 17.439 686 1 A-46 3.99 16,092 642 A-67 4.10 16,381 672 A-6 - 3.96 14,232 564 A-15 3.40 15,416 524 / A-50 3.61 12,881 466 1 A-51 3.36 17,378 585 A-7-.. 4.35 16,461 716 A-32 3.28 19,229 631 A-47 3.36 14,492 487 A-81 3.67 13, 075 480 A-29 4.23 12,602 516 f A-48 3.97 14,966 595 A-69 3. 35 15, 256 511 1 A-57 3.52 18,275 644 A-85 3.51 12, 644 444 3.88 21, 245 824 666 1 A-40 A-13 3.93 16, 934 {- A-84 3.46 18, 718 648 A-19 3.34 22,089 738 A-53 3.57 20, 072 717

Í A-52 21 4.56 1Ö, 647 714 91 3.91 19,926 779 3.52 15,241 A-38 3.23 13,906 449 3.52 15,113 568 ■ A-9 536 { A-25 3.38 21, 394 723 A-59 3.44 17,193 592 A-78 3.46 15, 223 527 A-Jíñ S 4S 7Sfi A-75 3.29 23, 343 768

D aughter-dam pairs number^ 11 11 11 8 8 8 20 20 20 9 9 9 10 10 10 8 8 8 Average of daughters 3.91 14,898 581 3.53 16,679 579 3.51 18, 252 641 3.42 17,178 591 3.51 17,932 629 3.47 16, 349 566 Average of dams 4.43 10, 711 473 3.65 15, 732 574 4.05 15, 320 607 3.44 17, 679 608 3.60 18,138 648 3.55 18, 476 655 Increase nernent -11.7 39.1 22.8 -3.3 6.0 0.9 -13.3 19.1 5.6 -0.6 -2.8 -2.8 -2.5 -1.1 -2.9 -2.3 -11.5 -13.6 Daughters better.d 0 9.1 90.9 72.7 12.5 50.0 50.0 5.0 75.0 55.0 44.4 55.6 22.2 40.0 60.0 30.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 Bams records of herd averaffft nerr eut 101.1 83.9 86.2 87.1 115. 4 102.1 100.2 106.9 107.2 89.4 112.2 102.5 95.0 113.5 109.3 94.7 113.9 109.5 "Rating P E E P G F P E F P F P P F P P P P Daughters tested percent-_ 100 100 100 100 100 100 ATilkinp-s TniTTihor 3 3 3 3 3 3

Remarks: Alfalfa hay and corn silage with grain enough to meet requirements of Savage standard.

O CO TABLE 15.—Summary of an intensely inbred experimental herd of grade Holsteins of the Bureau of Dairy Industry, Beltsville, Md.—Continued 7 FEMALE LINES WITH 4 SCTCCESSIVE CROSSES OF PROVED SIRES

Butterfat production of—

DauR:hters Daughters Daughters Daughters Foundation of first of second of third of fourth cows proved sire proved sire proved sire proved sire cross cross cross cross

Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pound»! 388 m 687 560 512 388 667 687 509 638 728 721 618 855 598 269 3Ç3 526 571 563 714 779 536 723 5G8 714 779 536 723 592 714 779 536 723 527 559 679 589 666 571

8 FEMALE LIKES WITH 3 SUCCESSIVE CROSSES OF PROVED SIRES

424 588 511 728 424 588 511 505 424 588 i 672 530 269 363 \ 632 550 658 752 750 624 716 631 487 480 714 779 738 717 714 779 536 449 543 f)33 005 573

13 FEMALE LINES WITH 2 SUCCESSIVE CROSSES OF PROVED SIRES

588 713 453 782 455 430 721 634 i 007 600 007 608 735 646 752 586 042 {)72 524 466 524 585 595 511 644 444 604 591

DISTRIBUTION OF BUTTERFAT RECORDS OF FOUNDATION COWS AND DAUGHTERS OF 6 PROVED SIRES

Ci 85.. Ci 1-'S äs 1- 3| o 3 C ß 11 5l_ c ^ o II o ft It sa ¡ï |ft sa II

Foundation cows 1 1 1 2 9 ^ ^ 9 4 519 Daughters of first proved sire—Johan : Woodcrest Lad 11th 1 2 ! . 0 i 1 2 1 ^>81 Daughters (inbred) of second proved i i sire—Johan Woodcrest Lad llth, .. . 9 i 1 i :A 1 579 Daughters of third proved sire—94-B i^lVi percent son of first proved sire). 3 4 4 1 1 1 ,■ 1 1 041 Daughters (inbred) of fourth proved sire—94-B 2 2 1 2 .___ f>91 Daughters of fifth proved siro (75 percent - — son of 94-B) 2 2 3 1 2 --.. 629 Daughters of sixth proved sire (75 percent son of 94-B) 1 2 3 ,._. 1 560

1044 Sire 94-B has been followed in the herd by two of his inbred sons. The inbred son 26-B appears to have an inheritance for a higher level of production than does the inbred son 40-B. This raises the interesting question whether the lowering of production of the daughters of sire 40-B is due to his having inherited a lower level of production, or to the depressing influence of close inbreeding. In the part of table 15 that shows the distribution of records of the foundation cows and of the daughters of six proved sires, it should be noted that where a sire was bred back to his own daughters this inbred generation is shown as another proved-sire generation. The table really shows the foundation cows; the outbred and the inbred daughters, separately, of Johan Woodcrest Lad 11th; the outbred and the inbred daughters, separately, of the sire 94-B; and the daughters of the two bulls 26-B and 4Ó-B, neither of which has been mated to the other's daughters. The foundation cows used in this experiment had an average butterfat yield of 549 pounds. The percentage of the foundation cows, and of the daughters of the various sires, that had records of 550 pounds of butterfat or above follows: Percent Foundation cows 60 Daughters of sire 1, outbred 63 Daughters of sire 1, inbred 68 Daughters of sire 94-B, outbred 80 Daughters of sire 94r-B, inbred 56 Daughters of sire 26-B 80 Daughters of sire 40-B 62 The terms outbred and inbred as used here simply differentiate between first-cross daughters and daughters bred back to the sire. As a matter of fact some of the daughters designated above as outbred daughters of 94-B were rather closely bred, being out of the outbred and inbred daughters of his sire, who was also, on the maternal side, his grandsire and great grandsire. This tabulation shows a consistent elimination of the lower level records as the experiment proceeded, with the exceptions of the daughters that were the result of mating 94-B's daughters back to him., and the daughters of his inbred son 40-B. On the whole the results of inbreeding in this experiment have been quite successful, owing largely to the fact that the first sire used, Johan Woodcrest Lad 11th, whose hereditary traits were concentrated in the succeeding generations, possessed excellent germ plasm for producing capacity and was free of factors for lethal traits, lack of fertihty, and other abnormal characters. A similar experiment, concentrating the inheritance of a sire possessing inferior germ plasm, would have very different and less favorable results.

SIRE WITH AN INHERITANCE FOR LEVEL OF PRO- DUCTION BELOW THAT OF THE HERD

What happens when a sire is mated to dams with a much higher level of production than that governed by his own inheritance? How much lower producers will his daughters be? The answer will be different for different sires and different dams. If the dams have a concentration of germ plasm for the level expressed by their records, it is not likely that one cross of a sire whose inheritance is considerably

1045 lower will send the production to very low levels. More than one cross of such sires would probably bring about a much lower level of production. If this poor sire is followed by a sire with an inheritance for a high level of production, the production may again approach its former level, though it will probably take more than one cross of such good sires to ehminate from the germ plasm any determiners for low levels of production that the poor sire injected. Table 16 shows a herd with a high level of production in which one sire was used that possessed an inheritance for a level of production considerably lower than the records of the dams with which he was mated. The table shows female unes by consecutive crosses of the sires used in the herd, each figure for butterfat yield indicating an individual female in the une of descent. The distribution of the records of the daughters of each sire is also shown.

TABLE 16.—Example of a herd with 1 sire possessing inheritance for lower butterfat production levels than the record of dams 6 FEMALE LINES WITH 3 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES

Butterfat production of—

Daughters Daughters Daughters Founda- of first of second of third tion cows sire cross sire cross sire cross

Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 729 11,116 I960 2 985 729 11,116 3 918 0) 778 11,028 3 1,091 2 966 778 11,028 2 905 2 929 778 1746 3 733 2 821 751 1952 3963 2 741 757 995 928 888

4 FEMALE LINES WITH 2 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES

1,214 3 791 2 1,001 1,214 3 791 2 967 1,214 3 791 (*) 729 1 1,116 3 918 1,093 872 962

DISTRIBUTION OF BUTTERFAT RECORDS OF FOUNDATION COWS AND DAUGHTERS OF 3 PROVED SIRES

OS 05 «3 2§ o o §ft >o ft il

Foundation cows... Daughters of sire 1- 962 Daughters of sire 2_ 878 Daughters of sire 3_ 918

1 By sire 1. 3 By sire 2. « By sire 3. * No record. The sire with the inheritance lower than that of the dams with which he was mated was the second of the three sires used in the herd. He was mated to extraordinarily high producing cows. In

1046 the distribution showing female lines with three and two crosses oí proved sires, sire 2 has six daughters out of daughters of sire 1, and one foundation cow. The six dams averaged 1,029 pounds of butterfat and the daughters 902, a decline of 12 percent. Two of the six daughters were better than their dams. Sire 3, rated a better sire than sire 2, has five daughters whose dams were daughters of sire 2. The daughters averaged 899 of butterfat and the dams 874, an increase of less than 3 percent. Three of the daughters of sire 3 were better than their dams and they were out of the lower producing daughters of sire 2. These five daughters of sire 3 that were out of daughters of sire 2 are lower producers on the average than the remainder of his daughters. To what extent is the high production of the daughters of sire 2 due to the inheritance they received from their dams? Only a breeding test of sire 2 on lower producing dams would definitely settle the question. Perhaps the effect of sire 2 is shown more clearly by showing the percentage of the foundation cows and of the daughters of each sire that had records of 800 pounds of butterfat or better. 20 percent of foundation cows. 62 percent of daughters of sire 2. 83 percent of daughters of sire 1. 89 percent of daughters of sire 3. Tables 17 and 18 show distributions for two herds where two good sires were used followed by a poor sire. The first two sires used in the herd for which data are shown in table 17 were rated F, E, E and F, G, G; the third sire was F, P, P. Note how the production increased ^vith each succeeding cross of the meritorious sires and dropped with the succeeding cross of the poor sire; and in the distribution table for all records of foundation cows, and the three sires, observe how the lower ranges of production were eliminated and the upper ranges raised with the first two sires, and how the lower ranges were returned in the progeny of the third sire. The same story is told in the herd for which data are shown in table 18,

TABLE 17,—Example of hutierfat production in a herd with 2 good sires follotoed by a poor sire 2 FEMALE LINES WITH 3 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES

Butterfat production of—

Founda- Daughters Daughters Daughters tion cows of sire 1 of sire 2 of sire 3

Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 244 415 501 0) 0) 378 507 (0 244 397 504 0)

8 FEATALE LINES WITH 2 SUCCESSIVE PEOVED-SIRE CROSSES

244 467 313 244 415 505 348 590 270 348 383 463 348 383 382 367 544 302 378 248 8 378 432 317 428 463 345

1 No record. 1047 TABLE 17.—Example of hutterjat production in a herd with 2 good sires followed by a poor sire—Continued DISTRIBUTIO^i^ OF BTJTTERFAT RECORDS OF FOUNDATION COWS AND DAUGHTERS OF 3 PROVED SIRES

500 10 200 to 250 to 3C0 to 350 to 400 to 450 to 550 to Average 249 299 349 399 449 499 549 599 pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds (pounds)

■

Foundation cows 1 2 1 -. 325 Daughters of sire 1 1 1 3 2" 408 Daughters of sire 2 _. _ 3 ] 1 3' 445 Daughters of sire 3 _. 2 1 2 1 2 1 361

TAELE 18.—Anotfier example of huiterfat production in a herd with ^ good sires followed by a poor sire

2 FEMALE LINES WITH 4 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIKE CROSSES

Butterfat production of—

Founda- Daughters Daughters Daughters Daughters tion cows of sire 1 of sire 2 of sire 1 of sire 3

Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 407 626 428 425 252 407 626 428 425 396

407 520 428 425 324

5 FEMALE LINES WITH 3 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES

244 325 393 (0 343 240 367 186 407 520 428 407 520 428 ------342 407 520 310 362 429 404 311 326

7 FEMALE LINES WITJF 2 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES

325 ■ 340 325 340 340 393 240 367 620 436 299 519 418 356

354 393

1 No record.

DISTRIBUTION OF BUTTERFAT RECORDS OF FOUNDATION COWS AND DAUGHTERS OF 3 PROVED SIRES

Less than 200 to 250 to 300 to 350 to 400 to 450 to 600 to 249 299 349 399 449 499 549 Average 200 (pounds) pounds pounds pounds pouniis pounds pounds pounds pounds

Foundation cows ^ 2 2 2 1 1 1 327 Daugh ters of sire 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 377 Daughters of sire 2 1 3 2 2 421 Daughters of sire 3-_ .. 2 4 346

1048 In these two herds, did tlie production drop back to lower levels because the dams to which the}^ were mated had not approached homozygosity for the factors determining the higher levels of production and therefore did not tend to hold up the production of the daughters, or because the poor sires possessed an inheritance for much lower levels of production? Perhaps it was both, for in the herd shown in table 17 the foundation cows had records averaging 325 pounds of butterfat and only 25 percent had records of 350 pounds or more, while 80 percent of the daughters of sire 1, 100 percent of the daughters of sire 2, and only 44 percent of the daughters of sire 3 had records of 350 pounds or more. In the herd shown in table 18, the foundation cows averaged 327 pounds of butterfat and 33 percent of them had records of 350 pounds or more, while 5S percent of the daughters of sire 1, 87 percent of the daughters of sire 2, and 57 percent of the daughters of sire 3 had records above that level. Apparently sire 3, rating P, P, P, in the herd shown in table 18 did not carry many factors for as low levels of production as did sire 3, rating F, P, P, in the herd shown in table 17, providing the daughters of both sires had the same opportunity to produce up to their inherent capacity—a proviso that of course holds for all cases.

MAINTAINING HIGH PRODUCTION BY KEEPING ONLY THE HIGHER RECORD COWS FOR BREEDERS

It is apparent in the data resulting from this survey that in many herds the cows with the best records in each generation are the brood cows of the next generation of females and the poorer producers are culled from the herd. Very often the sires used have daughters that are consistently lower producers than the dams to which they are mated, yet the level of production is maintained by using only the better producing cows as breeders. With such practices, how rapidly will it be possible to eliminate the germ plasm that is responsible for the continual appearance of low producers in succeeding generations? The following tables are shown for herds that appear to illustrate the practice described. In table 19 sire 2 has an inheritance for the highest level of production of the three sires. His daughters have the same average yield as those of sire 1, though he was mated to dams with much lower yields. It is apparent that sire 3 possessed an inheritance for a much lower level of production than either sire 1 or sire 2, though he was mated to cows with good yields. The dams to which sire 3 was mated have a higher average yield than do the daughters of sire 1 or sire 2, indicating that the higher producing cows had been kept for brood cows. The generations of females with successive crosses of these sires show a decline for each succeeding generation, with one exception wehere the numbers were limited. The distribution of the records of the daughters of the sires show^s a tendency toward an increase in the lower levels of production. 3814.8°—;?G G7 X 1049 TABLE 10.—Example of the use of selected cows for hreediiig

2 FEMALE LINES WITH 4 SirCCES.SIYE PR()VE.I)-SIRE CJiOSSES

Butter fat production of—

Daughters of sire 1 FOQIUliltiOIl Daughters Daugfhters cows of sire 2 of sire 3 Out bred Inbred

Pounds J^ounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 458 374 283 389 345 458 374 283 422 387

458 ! 374 283 405 3()G

5 FEMALE LINES WITH 3 SUCCESSIVE PKOVED-SIRE CROSSES

432 365 32L 229 393 393 430 196 393 393 430 340 292 386 323 335 458 374 283 389 394 382 283 379 275

8 FEMALE LINES WITH 2 SirCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES

383 421 336 393 329 317 393 329 386 292 386 (0 292 386 0) 458 374 345 458 374 278 458 390 298

391 374 278 346 298

1 No record.

DISTRIBUTION OF BUTTERFAT RECORDS OF FOUNDATION COWS AND DAUGHTERS OF 3 PROVED SIRES

Less than 200 to 249 250 to 299 300 to 349 350 to 399 400 to 449 Average 200 pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds (pounds)

Foundation cows 1 2 2 392 Daughters of sire 1 _. _._ 2 1 7 1 359 Daughters of sire 2 __ __ C 2 2 359 Daughters of sire 3 ._ 1 1 2 3 3 315

BUTTERFAT PRODUCTION DATA FOR THESE SIRES

Sire L 11 Sire 2, 10 Sire 3,10 daugliter- daughter- daughter- dam pairs dam pairs dam pairs

Average butterfat yield of daughters. _ _ pounds__ 359 359 315 Average butterfat yield of dams _ _do 407 362 391 Decrease _ _ percent.. 1L8 19.4 Daughters better than dams _ _ _._do 27.3 40.0 20.0 Rating _ _ P P

1050 In table 20 the daughters of sire 1 were better producers than then' dams, while the daughters of sires 2 and 3 were not so good as their dams. The daughters of sires 2 and 3, however, had higher yields on the average than did those of sire 1, the dams to which they were mated having higher levels of production. The dams to which sire 2 was mated had a higher yield than did either the daughters of sire 1 or the dams to which he was mated. The same thing may be said of the dams to which sire 3 was mated with, respect to either the daughters of sire 2 or sire 1, or the dams to which they were mated. The distribution section of the table shows that in this herd these higher producing dams must have had some influence in eliminating the lower levels of production, though this may be due in part to the inheritance possessed by sires 2 and 3. However, sire 1, a positively good sire, was more efficient in eliminating low production from the herd than either sire 2 or sire 3, though he was mated to dams whosie records on the average were only 57 percent as high as those to which sire 3 was mated. This is shown by the following figures: 45 percent of the foundation cows had records of 350 pounds of fat or better. 70 percent of the daughters of sire 1 had records of 350 pounds of fat or better. 54 percent of the daughters of sire 2 had records of 350 pounds of fat or better. 66 percent of the daughters of sire 3 had records of 350 pounds of fat or better.

TABLE 20.—Example of the use of selected cows for breeding

3 FEMALE LINES WITH 3 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIKE CROSSES

Butterfat production of—

Daughters of sire 2 Founda- Daughters Dauiîhters tion cows of sire Ï of sire 3 Outbred Inbred

Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 339 367 421 329 339 367 421 296 400 4Ö3 311 325 400 396 384 329

18 FEMALE LINES WITH 2 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES

276 461 (0 276 461 329 276 461 356 276 461 367 276 415 319 276 415 310 276 327 312 347 369 364 0) 432 320 296 400 453 296 400 377 296 297 388 414 335 313 414 416 402 414 416 428 (0 373 349 392 349 369 291 315 406 2 362 2 313 2 368

1 No record. « Average of second cross, 361 pounds.

1051 TABLE 20.—Examine of the use of selected cows for breeding—Continued DISTRIBUTION OF BUTTERFAT RECORDS OF FOUNDATION OOWS AND DAUGHTERS OF 3 PROVED SIRES

Id 11 o ö o fl ¿1 3§ ■8^ ¡1

Foundation cows 4 2 2 1 1 1 372 Daughters of sire 1 1 1 l 3 3 366 D au filters of sire 2 1 8 5 5 1 1 365 Tnl')red danffliters of sire 2 2 ...... 1 348 Daughters of sire 3 _ 4 3 1 374

BUTTERFAT PRODUCTION DATA FOR THESE SIRES

Sire 1, 7 daughter- dam pairs

Average butterfat yield of daughters pounds. Average butterfat yield of dams do__- Increase (+) or decrease (—) percent. Daughters better than dams do... Rating.

The herd for which data are shown in table 21 apparently is one in which the better producing cows were kept in the herd and the lower producers culled out. In this herd the sires appear to have possessed an inheritance for level of production that was a great deal lower than the level of production of the dams to which they were mated as expressed by the dams^ records. This is shown both in the female lines having two successive crosses of these sires and in the distribution of the records of the foundation cows and the daughters of the three sires, which shows a marked tendency for the production to shift to lower levels with each succeeding sire. This is further shown by the fact that 100 percent of the dams had records of 350 pounds of butterfat or better; 60 percent of the daughters of sire 1, 36 percent of the daughters of sire 2, and only 22 percent of the daughters of sire 3 had records of 350 pounds of butterfat or above.

TA«LE 21.—Example of the use of selected cows for breeding

7 FEMALE LINES WITH 2 SUCCESSIVE CROSSES OF PROVEÍ) SIRES

Butterfat production of—

Daughters Dausrhiers Founda- of first of second tion cows proved- proved- sire cross sire cross

Pounds Pounds Pounds 397 310 345 501 334 277 493 432 375 493 432 205 370 414 227 458 367 (0 360 (0 270 440 383 283

1 No record. 1052 TABLIJ 21.—Example of I he use of selected cows for breeding—Continued

DISTRIBUTION OF BUTTERFAT RECORDS 03? FOUNDATION COWS AND ALL TESTED DAUGHTERS OF 3 PROVED SIRES

200 to 200 to 300 to 350 to 400 to 450 to 500 to 249 299 349 399 449 499 549 Average pounds pounds pounds pounds pounhs pounds pounds (pounds)

Foundation cows _ _ . _ 4 3 4 1 435 Daughters of first proved sire 2 1 2 373 Daughters of second proved sire _ 2 7 5 336 Daughters of third proved sire. .. 3 2 2 1 1 291

BUTTK]{FA:I^ PRODUCTION DATA FOR THESE SIRES

Sire 1, Sire 2, Sire 3, 5 daughter- 13daughler- 9 daughter- dam pairs dain i)airs uam pairs

Average butterfat yield of daughters pounds.. 373 347 291 Average butterfat yield of dams do 435 409 409 Decrease percent.. 14.3 16.6 28.9 Daughters better than dams do 20.0 38,5 11.1 Rating

These illvistraiions indicate tliat even tliougli the production level is maintained, or nearly maintained, by the constant selection of tlie higher producing cows for brood cows and the culling of the poor producing cows from the herd, there will be but little diminution in the number of cows with poor germ plasm in the later generations, and there will be a continual need to cull these cows from the herd unless the sires used possess an inheritance for superior levels of production. If the sires used possess an inheritance for level of production that is markedly lower than the dams, the proportion of cows with poor germ plasm wall rapidly increase even wlven only the higher producers are kept for brood cows. As further evidence of this, note how c[uickly the superior producing ability of the granddams is leveled in the daughters and granddaughters by one or two crosses of sires with inferior germ plasm. RESULTS WITH GOOD SIRES AND NO SELECTION OF THE BROOD COWS In the experimental breeding herds of the Bureau of Dairy Industry it has been the practice to keep every cow in the herd till she has a heifer, if at all possible, and to test every cow under as nearly equal envû-onmental conditions as possible, regardless of her producing capacity. In the field-station herds all animals are given an opportunity to make a record as 2-year-olds, or with first calf, to be used in inheritance studies. During this lactation they are milked three times a day throughout the year; they are fed rations consisting of grain mixtures, alfalfa hay, and corn silage that are kept as uniform as possible year after year. Therefore these herds represent a minimum of selection on the female side. The only selection occurs when the herd gets too large, aiul then the oldest and most unsound cows are removed. There is some natural selection resulting from sterility or failure to produce heifer calves on the one hand, or from producing a.preponderance of heifer calves on the other hand. The figures on one of these field-station herds, at Huntley, Mont., are shown in table 22. This offers the best material available for answering the question, ^^What residts will follow when there is no selection in the females and good sires are used?'' 1053 TABLE 22.—Example of a herd in which no selection.is practiced

2 FEMALE LINES WITH 4 SUCCESSIVE PllOVEU-SIRE CEOSSES

But ter fat i)roductiou of—

Founda- Daufihters Daughters Daughters Daughters Daughters tion cows of sire 1 of sire 2 of sire 3 of sire 4 of sire 5

Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 372 645 6S4 517 638 444 618 658 707 624 408 632 671 612 631

9 FEMALE LINES WITH 3 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES

372 645 685 753 701 591 675 747 444 618 658 580 626 822 550 303 626 822 616 586 626 m'a 616 677 626 608 7Ô2""" ii 679 623 730 674 623 60i 544 585 705 648 610 631 639

10 FEMALE LINES WITH 2 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES

565 569 390 597 560 675 701 59 L 430 565 569 663 626 822 550 626 736 496 0) 626 736 496 0) 531 668 460 623 730 448 623 730 ! 715 608 671 455 529 695

^ No rcüord.

DISTRIBUTION OF BUTTERFAT RECORDS OF FOUNDATION COWS AND DAUGHTERS OF 5 PROVED SIRES

8^ 05 M ccd ceo If o Ö o S il II Sa sa |a is sa -Sa Foundation cows 1 1 2 4 3 1 2 1 598 Daughters of sire 1. . 4 4 7 2 1 Daughters of sirp 2 i 1 2 ..... 1 1 2 7 580 Daughters of sire 3. 1 2 2 3 1 ')95 Daughters of sire 4 . _ 1 -__.. 2 1 605 Daughters of sire 5_ 2 4 1 1 663 1 ;

SUMMARY OF BUTTERFAT PRODUCTION

Sire 1, Sire 2, Sire 3, Sire 4, Sire 5, 18 daughter- 14 daughter- 11 daughter- 4 daughter- 10 daughter- dam i)airs dam pairs dam pairs dam pairs dam pairs

Daughters pounds. 658 589 595 605 663 Dams do... 580 653 661 624 048 Increase (+) or decrease (—) percent. 4-13. 5 -9.8 -10.0 -3.0 +2.3 Daughters better than dams do... 83.5 57.1 45.5 25.0 50.0 Rating G P NP

1054 The first sire used in the herd at the Himtley Station was untried, but the records of his daughters in the herd indicated that he had an inheritance that appeared highly concentrated for a very high level of production. An interesting feature of this bull's proving is that after a large proportion of the Huntley Station herd was made up of Ids daughters, he was used for a time in a farmer's herd of grade cows (see the record of his transmitting ability in that herd in tables 26 and 28 under sire no. H104), and later he was moved to another station herd, where he continued in service to the age of 16 years. Thus he was used in three difl'erent herds, in each of which were females of entirely different lines of breeding. In each herd his daughters were much better producers than their dams. Sire 2 was bred in one of the Bureau of Dairy Industry herds and proved out in a farmer's herd, where his 15 daughters were uniformly better than their dams. (See the record of Al05 in table 26.) Sire 3 was purchased because of the very high yield of his daughters and because of the splendid increase in production of his daughters over their dams. He was used for a time in the Huntley Station herd and later in the experiment station herd at Beltsville, Md. In both of these herds he showed the same marked peculiarity in his transmitting ability for production. Approximately 75 percent of his daughters in these two herds were high-producing cows and the remaining 25 percent were very disappointing as producers. There was such a great difference between the producing capacity of his good daughters and that of his poor daughters that we were led to question whether the poor daughters were low because they had received an inheritance for low production from their parents or because of some physiological weakness that made it impossible for them to express what was believed to be their inherited capacity. E. I. Evans, of the Bureau of Dairy Industry, was then experi- menting \\ith the lactation-stimulating principle secured from the anterior pituitar}^ gland. Some of the extract was injected into the poor-producing daughters of this sire. Most of them responded with an increase of 25 to 50 percent in milk flow, though the increased flow was not maintained after the injections were discontinued. The liigher producing daughters did not respond with an increase in production. It thus appears that the poor-producing daughters of this particular sire are probably low producers because of a deficiency in the secretion of some necessary principle from the anterior pituitary. Daughters of these lower producing cows by other sires appear to be producing normally. In the female lines with three successive crosses of proved sires shown in table 23, the lowest producing daughter of sire 3 has a record of 303 pounds of butterfat. This cow has a daughter by sire 5 that is now on test as a 2-year-old and has produced 315 pounds of butterfat in 6 months. In the female lines with two successive crosses of proved sires, the daughter of sire 3 with a record of 496 pounds of butterfat has a daughter by sire 5 on test as a 2-year-old that has produced 534 pounds of butterfat in 345 days. When completed and corrected for difference in age, the records of both these heifers will greatly exceed those of their dams and wül be comparable to the records of other daughters of sire 5. Sire 4 was selected on the basis of the excellent production of his daughters and their superior producing abüity as compared to that of their dams in the herd in which he was used. Unfortunately lie

1055 was never a sure breeder in the station herd at Huntley and only a small number of daughters were secured. Sire 5 was also selected because of the superior producing ability of his daughters. The final record of the producing ability of this sire's daughters in four different herds, as shown at the time of these sur- veys, is given in table 27. Since not all of the daughters of either sire 4 or sire 5 are old enough to have completed records, the story is incomplete. There have been a few daughters of sires 2 and 3 in the lower groups, but in general the level o^: production has been upward. This is partly shown by the percentage of records of 600 pounds of butterfat or better for the various groups. These percentages are: Foundation cows, 46.3 percent; daughters of sire 1, 77.7 percent; daughters of sire 2, 64.3 percent; daughters of sire 3, 54.5 percent; daughters of sire 4, 75 percent; and daughters of sire 5, 80 percent. Only two of the five sires, when judged by the comparison of their daughters and dams in the Huntley Station herd, can be said positively to possess an inheritance for level of production as high as or higher than that of the dams to which tliey were mated. Sires 2 and 4 were quite adequately proved in other herds, though on cows with lower levels of production than the cows with which they were mated in the Huntley Station herd. Their transmitting abilities in these herds indicate that they did possess an inheritance for good levels of production, even though it was below that of the high record cows in the station herd. It appears from the records of tliis herd that progress can be made without culling in the female line if sires with the right kind of germ plasm are used.

WHAT ARE THE RESULTS WHEN POOR SIRES ARE USED AND THERE IS NO SELECTION IN THE BROOD COWS?

Examples have been discussed of the effects of mating sires to high- producing dams wehere the sire's inheritance for level of production was apparently below the levels of the dams; of the effects wiiere a series of poor sires are used in a herd but where apparently only the higher producing cows are kept for brood cows, the lower producing cows being culled from the herd; and of the effects where a series of good sires are used in a herd and no selection is made in the females to be used as brood cow^s. Another part of the picture is the result when a series of poor sires are used and no selection or culling takes place among the dams. It is difficult to know definitely from the data presented in this survej^ that there has not been selection practiced in choosing the higher producing cows for brood cows. The fact that 100 percent of the daughters of the sires that are old enough to have records actually have been tested does not necessarily prove that selection has not taken place in the brood cows. In fact it is necessary to have the records before selection can be made intelligently. The onljr guide, without the actual facts, is that the dams to which succeeding sires are mated fall somewhere witlfin the range of the dams and dauglitcrs of the sire used in the preceding generation. This measure appears to apply to the herd whose figures are shown in table 23, though tlie female lines with successive crosses indicate that some of these sires were used concurrently. 1056 TABLE 23.—Example of a herd in lohich no selection is yraciiced

2 FEMALE LINES WITH 3 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES

Butterfat production of—

Foundation Dauirbters Daughters Daup;hters Daufihters Daughters cows of sire I of sire 2 of siro 1 of sire 3 of siro 4

Poundji Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds V) 303 252 237 3fil 281 245 298

1 No record. 18 FEMALE LINES WITH 2 SUCCESSIVE PROVED-SIRE CROSSES 1 1 393 402 253 325 218 355 325 218 307 325 218 203 333 238 246 333 238 199 36! 281 273 301 281 i 309 2<>S 227 274 2

1 An inbred daufrliler of sire 2 out of llie cow above.

DISTRIBUTION OF BUTTERFAT RECORDS OF FOUNDATION COWS AND DAUGHTERS OF 4 PROVED SIRES

Less 200 250 300 350 400 450 than to to to to to to Averapfe 200 249 299 349 399 449 499 (pounds) pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds liounds pounds

Foundation co\vs_ 1 4 5 0 1 2 344 Dauirhtcrs of sire 1 2 1 1 1 309 Daughters of sire 2 3 4 4 4 1 253 Dautihters of sire 3- _ 1 0 8 3 262 Daughters of sire 4 __ 0 2 9 1 1 248

SUMMARY OF BUTTERFAT PRODUCTION FOR THESE SIRES

Sirel, Sire 2, Sire 3, Sire 4, 5 daughter- J3daughter- 10 daughter- lOdaughtcr- dairi pairs dain i)airs dam pairs dain T)airs

Dau^rliters pounds 309 255 257 248 I )ams do. _ 3(>7 342 311 274 Decrease percent 58 87 54 2G Dauirhters bettor than danis do__ 10.0 23.1 10.7 42.1 Rating

There are only two ieinale lines with as many as three successive crosses of the four sires analyzed. The numbers are too small to be significant, but the averages that follow do show a downw^ard trend— foundation cows, 361 pounds of butterfat, iirst-sire cross 292 pounds,

1057 second-sire cross 297 pounds, and third-sire cross 267 pounds. The 18 female lines with two successive crosses are more indicative of the trend because of the greater numbers, the averages being—foundation cows 307 pounds of butterfat, first-sire cross 253 pounds, and second- sire cross 250 pounds. Tlie first- and second-sire crosses leveled out when around the 250-pound mark. The distribution of records is interesting in that it shows the influence of the higher record dams to which sires 1 and 2 were mated. Sires 3 and 4 w^ere mated to lower record dams, particularly sire 4, and there w^as a marked tendency for all daughters to trend toward lower levels, as is shown by the following calculations:

Percentage of foundation cows and daughters of sires ivith records of 350 pounds of hutterfat or better Percera Foundation cows 47. 4 Daughters of sire 1 40. 0 Daughters of sire 2 6. 3 Daughters of sire 3 0. 0 Daughters of sire 4 5. 2

Percentage of foundation cows and daughters of sires with records of 250 pounds of butterfat or better Percent Foundation cows 94. 7 Daughters of sire 1 60. 0 Daughters of sire 2 56. 2 Daughters of sire 3 61. 1 Daughters of sire 4 57. 9

Percentage of foundation cows and daughters of sires with records of less than 200 pounds of butterfat Percent Foundation cows 0. 0 Daughters of sire 1 . 0 Daughters of sire 2 18. 7 Daughters of sire 3 5. 5 Daughters of sire 4 31. 6 If environmental conditions w^ere the same for the records of all of this group it is questionable wddch of these four sires possessed the better or the poorer inheritance. Sire 4 undoubtedly had the greater range. Some of his daughters gave over 350 pounds of butterfat, but there was very little difierence between the percentage of his daughters and the percentage of the daughters of sires 2 and 3 with records over 250 pounds. He had by far the largest percentage of daughters with records under 200 pounds of butterfat, but he was bred to dams averaging 25 percent lower than the dams to wdiich sire 1 w^as mated. It is apparent that where poor sires are used and there is no selection of the brood cows, the level of production will very rapidly sink to that governed by the inheritance possessed by the sires.

LIMITATIONS IN DETERMINATION OF HOW POOR A SIRE MAY BE

In the analysis of the survey of superior germ plasm, sires have been classed as poor wdien the average production of their daughters, in the herds in wdiich the sires W'cre used, was less than that of the dams by a considerable margin, and when less than half the daughters were 1058 better than their dams. This was subject to certain modifications if the dams to which the sires were mated showed higher production than the herd average. As a matter of fact some of the sires classed as poor may be bringing about an improvement in the herd by eliminating some of the factors for low levels of production in their offspring that existed in the immediate ancestry. Wliether or not this is the case depends on the hereditary make-up of the individual sire for the factors determining level of production. These poor sires may be divided into several groups for purposes of illustration. (1) The sire that has a considerable concentration of factors determining low levels of production will lower the level of production of dams of any reasonably high level. Used on a herd of cows with a considerable concentration of factors for high levels of production, be would inject the inheritance for low levels into all his offspring. The offspring would not only be lower producers than their good dams, But they would also transmit to a part of their progeny in turn the inheritance for low production received from their sire. (2) The sire that is heterozygous (mixed) in his inheritance for levels of production will transmit inheritance for high levels of production to some of his offspring and inheritance for low levels to others. Mated to poor cows, he may get some daughters that are considerably better than their dams and some that are no better or not so good. Mated to cows that were heterozygous in their inheritance for level of production, be may get some excellent offspring that approach homozygosity (purity) for high levels; some that are heterozygous in their inheritance for level of production and that are good or average producers; and some that are approaching homozygosity for the factors determining low levels of production. No consistent progress in improving the germ plasm will be made with such sires. Level of production will vary greatly, of course, with the same inheritance under different environmental conditions. Cows on a ration consisting entirely of roughage, for instance, will produce from 70 to 75 percent as much as they would on a full grain ration in addition to roughage of the same quality. The number of milkings, the time the calf is carried, and other environmental conditions affect level of production. (3) A sire carrying factors for intermediate levels of production might be mated to 600-pound dams, which may be considered a high level of production, and get daughters that would average only 500 pounds of butterfat. His inheritance might not enable him to transmit more than a 500-pound level, but it is also possible that it would not permit him to transmit less than a 350-pound level. In that case his 500-pound daughters might be more free of factors that would determine levels of production of less than 350 pounds of fat than were their 600-pound dams. Though such a sire would be rated as poor in a 600-pound herd, he might possibly improve the germ plasm of that herd by eliminating the downward variation to levels below 350 poimds. The sires that increase production by a wide margin are sires that can be determined positively to possess an inheritance for higher levels of production than the dams with which they were mated. Unfor- tunately it is impossible to determine, except by a breeding test, how good some of the negative (poor) bulls may be. It may be said that this has been worked out with some of the sire indices by the simple

1059 method of calculating tho daughters' mhcritance as being part way between that of the Bire and the dam. If sires and dains that were homozygous for definite levels of production were available, such a method might he sufficiently accurate. It appears, however, that the great majority of our good animals possess an inheritance for quite a range in level of production. A 600-pound cow may—if heterozygous for level of production—transmit to some of her oifspring hereditary factors for a production capacity of only 350 pounds of butterfat. Certain combinations of genetic factors might give results much higher or lower than the expected intermediate, particularly in crosses of unrelated lines that have been closely bred. In table 24 is the record of the Holsetin-Friesian bull Friend Ona Hartog Korndyke w^hen used in farmers' herds on the Kuntley project and when used later in the Huntley Experiment Station herd. Both daughters and dams in the farmers' herds where he was first used were milked twice a day and fed a limited amount of grain along with good alfalfa ha^y. In the summer they^ were on irrigated pasture. The records as given are corrected for differences in age only. In the station herd he was mated to cows that when milked three times a day and fed a full grain ration had records that were 66 percent higher than those of the cows to which he was mated in the farmers' herds. The diñ'erence in the producing capacity of the two groups of cows to which he was mated was not actual^ as great as 66 percent, however, because the cows in the farmers' herds were not tested under conditions as favorable for maximum production.

TABLE 24.—Transmitiing record for milk and hiitterfat productùm of the Holstein- Friesian hull Friend Ona Hartog Korndyke in two herds vhen mated to dams of different levels of production

Farmer's Experiment Items herd station herd

Daughter-dam pairs - -- number.. 15 11 Average butterfat of daughters ---... - - —percent-- 3.73 3.52 Averagebuttcrfatofdams do 3. 58 3.47 Increase of daughters do +4.2 +1-4 Average milk production of daughters -... .- pounds.. 11,489 If), 745 Average milk production of dams .. do— 10,775 18, S30 Increase (+) or decrease (—) of daughters percent... +6.9 -11.0 Average butterfat production of daughters pounds.. 429 589 Average butterfat production of dams do 386 653 Increase or decrease of daughters percent._ +11.1 -10.0

This appears to be an illustration of a sire that possesses an inheritance for a level of production above that of the cows to which he was mated in the farmers' herds and below that of the cows to which ho was mated in the experiment station herd. He is rated as poor in the station herd, but because of the evidence that he possesses an inheritance for a level of production above 350 pounds of butterfat under the feeding and environmental conditions existing in the farmers' herds, it is probable that he improved the germ plasm of the station herd by breeding out some of the downward variation even though he also lowered the upward variation. In the Washington State College herd and the Western Washington Experiment Station herd the Holstein-Friesian sire Piebe Hero had the transmitting record shown in table 25.

1060 TABLE 25.—TransmiUing record for milk and huiierfat production of the Holstein- Friesian bull Piehe Hero used in 2 experiment station herds

Western Washington Washington Item State College Experiment herd Station lierd

Daughter-dam pairs number__ 10 7 Average butterfat of daughters percent.. 3.48 3.U Average butterfat of dams do 3.46 3.25 Increase (+) or decrease (—) of daughters do +0.6 -5.1 Daughters better than dams do 70.0 28.6 liating of sire for percentage of butterfat F P Average milk production of daughters pounds__ 15,305 12, 506 Average milk production of dams do 38,559 11,113 Increase (+) or decrease (—) of daughters percent.. -17.5 +12.3 Daughters better than dams do 10.0 57.1 Rating of sire for milk production -.- P a Average butterfat production of daughters pounds.. 525 31)0 Averagebutterfat i)roductionof dams do 634 357 Increase (+) or decrease (-) of daughters percent.. -17.2 +9.2 Daughters better than dams do 10.0 71.3 Rating of sire for butterfat production P a

The records in the college herd were made on three and four niilk- ings a day, and in the Western Washington Experiment Station herd the records were made on tw^icc-a-day milking. Why the butterfat percentage should have been slightly increased in one herd and decreased in the other is not clear. Perhaps the dams in the station herd possessed factors for low butterfat percentage and in these matings transmitted a level lower than the percentage expressed in their records. In that case, the^ sire too must have possessed an inheritance for quite a range in butterfat percentage. What was said of the bull Friend Ona Hartog Korndyke relative to inheritance for level of production may be applied to this bull also. Further data showdng the transmitting performance of sires when used on dams of different levels of production—^partly due to differences in the environmental conditions under w^hich the records were made—is shown in table 26.

TAELE 26.—Comparison of transmitting ability of Holstein-Friesian sires when used in farm herds and experiment station herds with different environmental conditions i [All records calculated to a mature basis]

Records made under advanced Records made under farm condi- register conditions (3-times-a- tions (twice-a-day milking) day milking; higher record Sire dams)

Pairs Milk Butterfat Pairs Milk Butterfat

Maploside King Paul 181023 (11104) : Number Pounds Pounds Percent Numbtr Pounds Pounds Percent fl7, 727 624 3.52 Daughters (\ 1,453453 407 3.55 ] 38 Darns 2 \ 8 110,13C130 359 3. 54 U7,065 577 3.38 Friend Ona Hartog Korndyke 277648 (A1Ü5): ni,48< 429 3.73 fl6, 691 589 3. 53 Daughters 15 25 Dams 110, 77J 386 3.58 [18,381 637 3.46 Colonel Venus Pic be Paul 331222 a (H109): no, 319 378 3.66 /14,918 540 3.63 Daughters 13 Dams L 7,025 266 3.78 ll4, 058 507 3.61 King Paul Pontiac Rag Apple 331219 3 (Ulli): f 9,813 342 3.48 ill, 623 437 3. 69 Daughters 27 Dams I 9, 378 315 3.36 \17,495 554 3.16 1 Daughters and dams tested under sindlar conditions on farms and with the same opportunity in station herds. 2 Dams in respective groups unrelated and of diû'orcnt levels of production. 3 Sons of Mapleside King Paul. 1061 TAELE 26.—Comparison of transvditing ability of Holstein-Friesian sires ivhen used in farm herds and experiment siatiort herds with different environmental conditions—Continued

[All records calciilaiod to a iriaUire basis]

liecords made under advanced Jleconls made under fariti condi- register conditions (3-timcs-a- tions (( vvico-a-day inilkinti) day milking:; lii^^her record Sire dams)

Pairs Milk ]iutlerfal Pairs Milk Butter/at

King Paul Canary Orinsby 35609G (H114): Xnmber Pounds Pounds Percent \'iimber Pounds Pound fi Percent Daughters / a, 72972 336 3.84 ri9,498 687 3.53 Dams Ï 10 \7,8'i825 283 3. 61 Ï 9 118,326 593 3.24 King Paul Helena Walker 348317 (H112): Daughters 1 /12,189 444 3. G3 32 ^21,420 701 3.27 Dams / I 9,091 33f) 3.69 / .17.512 550 3.17 King Paul Lillian Walker 410809 s I CH120): Daughters 'l ill, 610 405 3.48 riO, 231 573 3.53 Dams... I 8, 437 304 3. 59 U7,79í¿ 633 3. 56 Korndyke Walker Pontiac Prince 243835 (n257): Daughters _ no, 042 350 3.48 Í19, 203 585 3.04 Dams I 8, 379 291 3.47 121,897 65f3 3.00 Pride of King Paul Uilkje 565312 (ni69): Daughters* riO, 347 376 3. 63 /18, 025 657 3.64 Dams^ J 111,223 381 3. 39 \13, 828 428 3.09 I

3 Sons of Mapleside King Paul. * Dams had better environmeatal and feeding conditions than daughters In farm herd.

All of these sires wêre used or bred in the Bureau of Dairy Industry herd at Huntley, Mont. They were loaned to farmers on the Huntley project, who mated them for the most part to grade cow^s. The daughters and their dams made their records on these farms, in most cases with little or no grain in their rations and on twice-a-day milking. On the strength of their showing in the farmers' herds these bulls were then used in the Bureau of Dairy Industry herds, or were loaned to State experiment stations. In the station herds they wêre mated to cows of higher levels of production, though the records were made under more favorable conditions, usually three milkings a day and on a full grain ration. On both the farms and in the stations, the daughters and c ams have for the most part had comparable opportunities to show their producing ability. No attempt has been made to use factors to correct for the differences in environmental conditions that existed on the farms and in the station herds. Corrections were made for age only. The record of the second sire, Friend On a Hartog Korndyke, has been discussed. With three of the sires the number of daughter-dam pairs tested under station conditions was too small to be significant. The results do help to show^, howêvêr, how great the difTerencc in the production level of the daughters may be wiien they are tested under very different environmental conditions and w-hen they are out of dams of different levels of production. How^ much of the difference is due to environment and how much is due to the inheritance for higher level of production possessed by the dams in the station herds it is impossible to say. 1062 Most types of bull indexes—the intermediate, the average production of daughters, or the Mount Hope—would have shown very different results for each of these sires when applied to the two sets of data. Because of the influence of the environmental conditions on the level of production and because of the influence of such factors as level of production and homozygosity or heterozygosity of the dams for factors determining level of production, it appears necessary to use all the data that bear on the problem if one is to gage accurately the inheritance for level of production possessed by a given sire. Even then, selection of the daughters tested and imequal opportunities of daughter and dam to express the maximum production that their inheritance makes possible may lead to an erroneous appraisal. It should be emphasized that it is easy to underestimate the real value of a sire that is mated to dams of a very high level of production when his daughters do not come up to that level, unless he has also been tried on dams of a lower level of production. The sire U. Neb. Klaver King 388329 is an interesting study because he was used to some extent in four different experiment station herds on dams that were uniformly high producers. Table 27 shows his breeding performance in these four herds.

TAKLK 27.—Transmitting record of the liolstein-Friesian sire IL N'eb. Klaver King 388329 in /^ herds

North Ncbraska Platte University lluntlcy Item School of Experi- of Kx péri- Agri- ment Nebraska ment culture Station Station

Milkiiigs por (lay ..number-. 1-1 14 14 3 Daughter-dam pairs do 4 2 11 10 Butterfat of daughters percent. . 3.84 3.81 3.79 3.50 Butterfatofdams- do 3.5G 3.73 3.70 3.62 Increase (+) or decrease (-) of butterfat of daughters percent-- -F.28 +.08 +.09 -.12 Milk production of daughters pounds.. 18,157 17, 752 17,313 18, 921 Milk production of dams ..-do 20,100 19,473 19, OIG 17,889 Increase or decrease of milk production of daughters pounds.- -1,043 -1,721 -1,703 +1, 032 Butterfat production of daughters do 697 678 056 {;03 Butterfat production of dams do 715 725 717 C48 Increase or decrease of butterfat production of daughters pounds.. +15

1 Corrected to 3. The dams to which he w^as mated in the Huntley Station herd were not related to the dams in the three Nebraska herds, though some relationship does exist among the dams in the three Nebraska herds. The dams in the Huntley herd had an average milk yield of a little more than 2,000 pounds less than the average of tho 17 dams in the Nebraska herds, and a somewhat lower percentage of fat. There are two possible explanations of why this sire's daughters are higher producers of milk than were their dams in the Huntley Station herd and poorer producers than their dams in the three Nebraska herds. The dams in the Nebraska herds probably had a higher level of production than his inheritance measured up to. Difference in environmental conditions under which the animals were tested in the Nebraska herds and in the Huntley Station herd may have influenced the results to some extent, but it is probable that the 1063 dams in the Nebraska herds were not homozygous for as higli a level of production as was indicated by their records and that on the average they transmitted in these matings a lower level of production than the average of their actual yields. The dams in the Huntley Station herd may have been fairly homozygous for the level of milk yield indicated by their records. The same reasoning can be applied to the results for percentage of fat, though in this case it would be the dams in the Nebraska herds that were more homozj^gous for the level of fat percentage expressed by their records whereas the Huntley dams must have transmitted lower levels for percentage of fat than were indicated by their records. The higher level of milk yield for the daughters in the Huntley Station herd may have had some depressing influence on the percentage of fat, though it does not seem probable that the differences in the level of milk yield between the daughters in the Huntley herd and those in the Nebraska herds is great enough to account for the marked differences in percentage of fat.

GREAT BREEDING DAMS The forms used for the germ plasm survey were so designed as to permit following the line of female descent from left to right. They were of heavy cardboard to permit tacking on a wídl. This enables the breeder to keep before him the entire picture of the breeding performance of his herd, so far US production is concerned, from the time he started keeping records. The records just being made of the daughters of a sire are entered on the correct space on the proper sire card when they are completed. By following along the same line on previous sire cards, the breeder has a comparison of the producing capacity of this newly tested daughter with that of her dam, granddam, great granddam, and so on; or he can compare her production with that of her paternal sisters by noting the production of the daughters of her sire that have already been entered on the same card. This system has been used for some time for the Depart- ment's field-station herds and has been found very helpful in following the progress of the herds. Interest has been expressed in an analysis of the superior breeding dams that might be made from the superior germ plasm data. Some of the States are already stressing the importance of determining the superior breeding dams in breeders' herds. There is every reason to believe that the inheritance governing level of production is received from both parents. If, however, one parent were pure in its inheritance for the factors that would determine a high level of production and the other parent were pure for the factors determining a low level of production, the parent with the high-level inheritance might appear to have more influence on the producing capacity of the daughter than the parent with the low-level inheritance. The germinal make-up of that daughter, however, would contain the inheritance received from both parents, and to a part of her progeny slie would probably transmit the inheritance she received from the low-level parent. If the theory holds true—that fair, good, or excellent sires within a breed have the ability to transmit higher levels of production than are expressed by their dams—then with each succeeding cross of such sires the females of the herd would carry in their inheritance more factors that deter-

1064 mine high levels of production. Therefore, although it is always desirable to know the good breeding dams, it would be more important to know them in a herd where only mediocre sires had been used than in a herd where a succession of good sires had been in service. To select a young bull that has the greatest probability of possessing an inheritance with a considerable concentration of factors that determine high levels of production, it would be essential that both his sire and his dam liave such a high concentration. It is possible, of course, on the law of chance^ to secure such a bull from two parents that were heterozygous for levels of production, but in that case the son must have been fortunate enough to have received the best inheritance that was in each parent. Whether he did secure only the best that was in each parent will be known only by his record as a sire. Superior breeding dams have left their maries on all of our breeds. Take a cross section of the Holstein-Friesian breed in the United States today and it will be found that the great majority trace to the cow DeKol 2d. In the Jersey breed in the United States most of the American-bred Jerseys will trace to the cow Coomassie, and in the Guernsey breed many of the animals will trace to May Rose II. These cows probably carried more factors for desirable characters than most of the animals of their day and therefore transmitted these superior qualities to their sons and daughters, who in turn w^ere outstanding and were widely used. Occasionally constitutional vigor or fertility enables a female to have a dominating influence on herds. In the Department of Agriculture herds, in which every female is raised, are examples of certain cows that because of the number of their own and their daughters^ female progeny have become the predominating influence in the herd in the female line. Other female lines have been sub- merged as a result of failure to produce female offspring. Greater emphasis lias been put on the proved sire in recent years because the inheritance he possesses can be determined by the breeding test at a much earlier stage of his breeding life than is the case with, the female, and also because his inheritance is passed along to perhaps all of the next generation of calves in a given herd, whereas the inheritance of a cow is passed on to only a few individuals. But when it comes to selecting an individual calf for its breeding value, it is just as important to know the germinal make-up of the dam as it is to know that of the sire, whether this be determined by her own breeding performance or by analysis of her pedigree based on the number of great breeding sires in her immediate ancestry. An examination of production records through the female lines of descent with two or more successive crosses of proved sires will show how quickly the identity of the foundation cow with a high butterfat yield is lost in her descendants under the leveling influence of the inheritance introduced through two or three sires. A foundation cow's record may rank toward the top, but the relative rank of her granddaughter in her generation may be entirely changed. The germ plasm of cows that are perhaps approaching homozygosity for very high levels of production may be very rapidly diluted and changed in later generations by successive matings to poor sires. This has been shown in the preceding discussions.

Íi8143°—30 03 1065 THE SELECTION OF SIRES WITH THE KIND OF GERM PLASM THAT WILL IMPROVE PRODUCING ABILITY To advise all those who are seeking sires that will improve the producing capacity of their herds to seek proved sires that have demonstrated their ability by the progeny test is rather futile, because there are so few meritorious proved sires available. It is undoubtedly true, as has often been stated, that if the amount of record keeping was increased, a great many more valuable transmitting sires would be found. But even if the number of cows tested was increased from less than 2 percent, as at present, to more than 50 percent, it is not probable that enough meritorious sires would be found to head a very large percentage of our herds. Then too, young bulls must be tested by being used if the supply of meritorious sires is to be kept up in the future. It has been the theory of the authors that if nothing but sires whose merit had been definitely j^roved were used in a given herd, that herd would finally carry many of the factors for determining high levels of production. Each succeeding cross of these sires of proved merit would help to ehminate the factors that make low" levels of production possible. The purification of the germ plasm would proceed in very much the same manner as grading up from scrub cattle with registered bulls of any given breed. The first-cross animals are likely to have some resemblance to the breed represented by the sires used. This resemblance increases with each succeeding cross imtil after several crosses of such registered sires the resulting females cannot be distinguished in appearance from the registered cows of the breed. • ^ The first question to be raised regarding the probabihty of success is whether or not meritorious sires that are unrelated or distantly related have the same genetic make-up. If the genetic make-up is different for each sire, then there is the possibility that mating the daughters of one sire to another sire will not result in increased homozygosity, although production might be increased. How long it would take to reach homozygosity by the continued use of sires of proved merit would depend on the degree of homozygosity of the foundation cows and the amount of error in gaging the inheritance of the sires used. This is a long-time method when one is working with something as complicated in inheritance as milk and butterfat production. The many limitations in hvestock reproduc- tion and in the attempt to bring about improvement through one sex only add to the time involved. While this question cannot be answered finally at this time, it does appear from experimental work and other evidence that meritorious sires within a breed have the same genetic make-up, and that if they are adequately and definitely proved, mating such sires to each other's daughters, even though the sires are unrelated, will be followed by good results. There is very often a question as to wdiether the proving has been sufficiently equitable and free from selection to permit an accurate appraisal of a sire's inheritance. It is often very difficult, too, to determine the relative level of production for which a sire may approach homozygosity. Granting that the meritorious sires within a breed do possess the same genetic make-up for a given level of production, then the solu- tion of the source of bulls for improvement of the mass of dairy cattle 1066 appears to lie in finding a suñicicnt number of breeders who are willing to go to the trouble and expense of discovering the sires of definitely proved merit and using them over a period of years. These herds would then become the source of seed stock that could be depended on to furnish young bulls that would improve the germ plasm of our herds for higher levels of production. The selection of the young bulls that could be depended upon with some certainty for the right kind of superior germ plasm would be based on the fact that they were sons of sires of definitely proved merit and that their dams, maternal granddams, maternal great- granddams, and so on were daughters of such meritorious sires. Evidence that sons of meritorious sires have a better-than-average chance of possessing superior germ plasm is in the data secured by the Bureau of Dairy Industry tln'ough taking sons of the proved sires used in the experimental breeding herds and placing them in farmers' herds to determine their transmittmg ability for production. Table 28 sho^vs the transmitting ability of bull calves, sons of proved sires, that have been proved in farmers^ herds in the vicinity of the Huntley, Mont., station.

TABLE 28.—The average production of the daughter-dam pairs of 49 sires

[These sires were bred by the U. S. Bureau of Dairy Industry and used in fanners' herds in thevicinty of the Uuntley Experiment Station, nuniley, Mont.; all records calculated to mature basis]

15 SIRES, SONS OF MAPLESIDE KING TAUL

Daugh- Increase (+) or decrease ter and Production of daughters Production of dams (—) in production of daughters over dams Sire no. dam com- isar i- sons Milk Butterfat Milk Butterfat Milk Butterfat

Number Pounds Percent Pounds l^ounds Percent Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds ni07 23 11, 380 3.82 434 9, 358 3.73 349 +2,022 +0. 09 +85 U109 13 10,319 3.66 378 7,025 3.78 266 +3, 294 -.12 +J12 Hill. 27 9.813 3.48 342 9,378 3. 36 315 +435 +.12 +27 H112 28 12,189 3.63 444 9,091 3.69 336 +3,098 -.06 + 108 11113 . 6 9, 618 3.51 338 9, 669 3.20 315 -51 +.25 +23 11114 10 8,729 3.84 336 7,825 3.61 283 +904 +.23 +53 ni]5 18 11,509 3.52 406 9, 320 3. 53 330 +2,189 -.01 +70 HilG- 10 12,203 3.56 435 9, 798 3. 06 358 +2, 405 -.10 +77 nii7 30 10, 330 3.68 380 10,749 3.58 385 -419 +.10 -5 nils 21 11,597 3.59 418 10, 290 3.57 367 +1, 307 +.02 +51 ni2o 11 11,610 3.48 405 8,437 3.59 304 +3,173 -.11 +101 H121 7 13, 034 3.57 466 11,937 3.62 433 + 1,097 -.05 +33 H123 11 9, 742 3.47 339 7,458 3.44 2o7 +2, 284 +.03 +82 H12G 33 13, 625 3.61 490 11, 712 3.58 419 +1,913 +.03 +71 U127 9 9,624 3.53 340 7,400 3.70 274 +2, 224 -.17 +66 Total 200 2,921, 334 105,479 2, 488, 751 89,161

Average 11,236 3.61 406 9, 572 3.58 343 +1,664 +.03 +63

18 SIRES, SONS OF FRIEND ONA HARTOG KORNDYKE

H130. 8 10,081 3.58 354 8,214 3.76 309 +1,867 -0.18 +45 UlSL. 8 9,439 3.91 369 7, 909 3.07 291 +1, 530 +.24 +78 H132. 14 11,654 3.08 428 9, 920 3.65 362 + 1, 734 +.03 +06 H135. 13 11, 064 3. 55 393 9,853 3. 51 346 +1,211 +.04 +47 H136. 3 9, 678 3.68 357 8,415 3.84 324 + 1,263 -.16 +33 II137. 3 11,084 3.84 426 8,245 4.51 373 +2, 839 +.67 +53 H139. 9 11,168 3.33 372 11, 269 3.44 388 -101 -.11 -10 IÍ141. 17 11,759 3.50 418 10,711 3.54 379 +1, 048 +.02 +39 H145. 7 11,434 3.91 447 9, 490 3.61 344 +1, 944 +.31 +103 11147. 7 9,134 3.64 332 8, 756 3.47 298 +378 +.17 +34 H148. 4 13,165 3.45 455 10,150 3.28 334 +3,015 +.17 +121 H151. 17 10, 906 3.48 380 9, 583 3.46 332 + 1,323 +.02 +48 H152. 3 10, 604 4.05 432 8,001 4.15 332 +2, 663 -.10 +100 Hlü4. 11 14, 437 3.55 512 10, 893 3.48 379 +3,544 +.07 +133 1067 TABLE 28.— The average production of the daughter-dam pairs of 49 sires—Coiitd.

[These sires were bred by the U. S. Bureau of Dairy Industry and used in farmers' herds in the vicinity of the Huntley Experiment Station, lluntley, Mont.; all records calculated to mature basis]

18 STBKS, SONS OF FRIEND ON A HARTO O KO RNDYKE—Continued

Daugli- Increase (+) or decrease ter and Production of daughters Production of dams (-) in production of daughters over dams Sire no. dam com- pari- - - sons Milk Ruttcrfat Milk Butterfat :Mnk R utter fat

Number Pounds Percent Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds Pounds Percent Pounds ni57 4 13, 235 3.47 459 12, 233 3.33 408 +1,002 +.14 +51 H158 5 15, 512 3.27 508 10, 107 3.37 341 +5,405 -.10 + 167 H161 15 12,581 3.32 417 11, 373 3.11 354 +1,208 +.21 +63 ni67 12 11, 393 3.70 421 11,292 3.68 412 + 101 +.02 +9 Totf'l 160 1,854,617 66,032 1,010,066 56, 622 Average 11,591 3.50 413 10, 063 3,52 354 +J, 528 +.04 +59

7 SIRES, SONS OF COLANTHA PONTIAC HERO

A107 17 9, 959 3.69 367 8,028 3.68 318 +1,331 +0.01 +49 A108 8 9,003 3.46 307 9, 068 3.28 298 -65 +.18 +9 A109_ 11 10,229 3.45 354 9,230 3.44 318 +999 +.01 +36 A119 0 10, 457 3.72 390 7,6U 3.45 263 +2,846 +.27 + 127 A120. 8 10, 030 3.59 361 8, 596 3.42 294 + 1,434 +.17 +67 A12I 14 10,452 3.56 373 9,915 3.55 352 +537 +.01 +21 A12G 4 12,082 3.63 438 10, 999 3.52 387 + 1,083 +.11 +51 Total f)8 691,484 24,791 617, 990 21,694 Average 10,169 3.59 365 9, 088 3.51 319 +1, 081 +.08 +46

3 SIRES, SONS OF PRIDE OF THE BESS BURKES

H169 3 18, 025 3.52 657 13,828 3.09 428 +4,197 +0.43 +229 m7Ü - 8 9, 790 3.89 382 10, 579 3. 69 390 -789 + 20 -8 H175 0 16,893 3.93 664 16,830 3.72 625 +63 +.21 +39

Total 17 233, 753 9,011 227,096 8,154 Average 13, 750 3.86 530 13, 359 3.59 480 +391 +.27 +50

6 SIRES , SONS OF MISCELLANEOUS SIRES

H104 1 8 11.453 3.55 407 10,130 3.54 359 +1, 323 +0.01 +48 H105 13 10,266 3.67 377 10, 030 3.64 365 +236 +.03 +12 H129 13 11; 434 3. 56 409 10, 110 3.52 356 + 1,324 +.04 --53 H257 21 10. 042 3.48 350 8,379 3.47 291 + 1,663 --.01 —59 A104 4 10;611 3.59 380 8,846 3.85 341 + 1,765 -.26 -39 A105 2 15 11,489 3.73 429 10, 775 3.58 386 +714 +. 15 +43 Total 74 799,385 ...... 28, 779 715,828 2.'), 510 Average 10,803 3.60 389 9, 673 3.57 345 +1,130 +.03 +44 579 6, 500,573 234,092 5,659, 731 201,141

Average 11,227 3.60 404 9,775 3.55 347 +1,452 +.05 +57

1 Mapleside King Paul (see above). 2 Friend Ona llartog Korndyke (see above).

The same information lias been developed for sons of proved sires—Holstein-Friesians and Jersey—used in the station herd at Beltsville when these sons were proved in farmers' herds in that vicinity. In table 28 it will be noted that under the conditions prevailing on the farms on which these sires were used, the 49 sires liad 579 daughters

1068 that produced an avei'age of 1,452 pounds more milk and 67 pounds more butterfat than did their dams. Only 3 of the 49 sires failed to increase the average yield of butterfat. In the Beltsvillo data referred to, the average increase in milk yield for 370 daughters of 25 Holstein-Friesian sires was 1, 201 pounds, and the average increase in butterfat yield for 253 daughters of 23 sires was 48 pounds. Only 3 of the 23 sires failed to bring about an increase in the average butterfat yield of their daughters. The yields of the 224 daughters of 27 Jersey sires showed an average increase of 46 pounds of butterfat over their dams. Four of the twenty-seven sires had daughters whose average butterfat yield was below that of their dams. This evidence indicates that these sons of sires of proved merit had the ability, in the great majority of cases, to increase the level of production in the herds in wldch they were used. How much higher this level of production might prove to be uiuier more favorable environmental conditions it is not possible to say.

LITERATURE CITED

(1) ANONYMOUS. 1919. »AIRY CATTLE BREEDiX(} EXPERIMENTA. Hoai'd^S DaîrVlïiaTl 57: 544-545, iUus. (2) ll^WART, J. C. 1925. THE ORIGIN OF CATTLE. Scottisll Brcedil\g Coilf. PrOC. ])]). 1-1 G> Ediiiburgli, (3) HILL, C. L. 1917. THE GUERNSEY BREED. 417 pp., illus. Watcrloo, lowa. (4) KENT, F. L. 1912. AGE AS A FACTOR IN MILK PRODUCTION. Orog. Couiltrviuau 4 (9): 18-20. (5) IJAMASTER, J. P. 1932. PRODUCTION FACTORS APPLIED TO JERSEYS. JcTSCV J^llll. ül: 763-7C4. (B) PEARL, K., GOWEN, J. W., and MINER, J. R. 1919. TRANSMITTING QUALITIES OF JERSEY SIRES FOR MJLK YIELD, BUTTER- FAT PERCENTAGE AND BUTTER-FAT. Maine Agí'. l^^Xpt. Sta. Bull. 281, pp. [S9]-l04, illus. (7) ajiti PATTERSON, S. W. 1917. THE CHANGItJ OF MILK FLOW WITH AGE, AS DETERMINED FROM THE THE SEVEN DAY RECORDS OF JERSEY COWS. MaillO Agi*. Kxpt. xSta. l^ull. 262, pp. [145J-152, illus.

(8) TAUSSIG, STEPHAN. 1935. DAIRY cow TESTING THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. Jntcrual. lusl. Agr., 168 pp. Rome. (9) TURNER, C. W. 1925. A COMPARISON OF GUERNSEY SIRES BASED ON THE AVERAîïE ''MA- TURE EQUIVALENT'* FAT PRODUCTION OF THE DAUGHTERS AND THEIR DAMS. Mo. Agr. I<]xpt, Sta. llcsearch BuJl. 79, [62] pp., illus. (10) \yiNG, II. H., and ANDERSON, L. 1899. STUDIES IN MILK SECRETION. N. Y. (Coriicll) Agi*. Kxpt. Sta. Bull. 169, pp. [519J-552, illus. (11) WOODWARD, T. E. 1922. MEASURING TRANSMITTING AJHLiTY. Gucrnsev Broodors' Jour. 21: 311-313. (12) and GRAVES, R. R. 1933. SOME RESULTS OF INBREEDING GRADE GUERNSEY AND GRADE IIOL- STEIN-FRIESIAN CATTLE. U. S. Dcpt. Agr. Tocli. Bull. 339, 31 pp, illus. 10G9 Appendix

Breeders y State Universities, Colleges, and Experiment Stations Cooperating in the Survey of Superior Geryn Plasm in Dairy Cattle

' Following is a list of the breeders of dairy cattle, the State universities, colleges, and experiment stations, and the Federal experiment stations that have cooper- ated in providing data on their herds for tliis survey of superior germ plasm in dairy cattle. The breeders are given alphabetically and by States. With each name is given the breed represented and information as to whether the animals are registered, grades, or both.i Appreciation is here expressed to J. B. Parker, W. E. Wintcrmeyer, A. B. Nystrom, and R. C. Jones, Extension Specialists of the Bureau of Dairy Industry, and to the men named below, appointed by their respective agricultural experiment stations and extension services, W'ho supervised the making of the survey in their respective States, and to their assistants, for their part in this work. Their cooperation and initiative makes possible this report. Alabama, F. AV. Burns; Arizona, C. F. Howe; Colorado, 0. A. Smith; Connec- ticut, A. I. Mann; Delaware, T. A. Baker; Georgia, Zcno A. Massey and F. W. Fitch; Idaho, D. Fourt; Illinois, C. S. Khode; Indiana, E. T. Wallace; Iowa, Floyd Johnson; Kansas, J. W. Linn; Kentucky, George M. Harris; Louisiana, R. iH. Lush; Massachusetts, C, J. Fawcett; Michigan, J. G. Hays; Minnesota, H. R. Searles; Mississippi, L. A. Higgins; Missouri, M. J. Regan; Montana, J. O. Tretsven; Nebraska, E. C. Scheidenhelm; New Hampshire, E. F. Eastman; New Jersey, E. J. Perry; New York, L. W. Lamb; North Carolina, C. D. Grin- nells; North Dakota, E. J. Haslerud; Ohio, Ivan McKellip; Oklahoma^ A. H, Kuhlman; Oregon, R. W. Morse; Pennsylvania, C. R. Gearhart; South Carolina, E. C. Elting and G. G. Cushman; South Dakota, R. A. Cave; Tenncvssee, C. A. Hutton; Texas, C. N. Shepardson; Utah, George Q. Bateman; Vermont, E. H. Loveland; Virginia, C. G. Connelly; Washington, O. J. Hill; Wisconsin, Gordon Dickerson; Wyoming, H. S, Willard. Commercial Herds ALABAMA Kilby Dairy Farm, Montgomery Guernsey, registered.

ARIZONA Chesncy Farm, Glendale Jersey, registered. Coman Holstein Farm, Route 5, Piioenix Holstein, registered. Ewing, J. W., Route 1, Box 134, Tucson Guernsey, grade. Fairview Dairy, Route 1, Box 354, Tucson...{Ho^^^'^reg^^^^^^^^^ Fletcher, Mrs. Marie, Route 5, Phoenix Jersey, registered. Mission Ranch, Route 8, Phoenix fllolstcin, registered and grade. ' ' I Guernsey, registered and grade. Painter, James, Route 1, Temy)e Holsteni, registered. Phoenix Indian School, Phoenix Holstein, registered and grade.

COLORADO Colorado School for Deaf and Blind, Colorado Holstein, registered. Springs. Colorado State Home for Dependent Ciiil- Do. dren, Denver. Henry, C. W\, Greeley Do. Holland Farm Dairy Co., Colorado Springs Holstein, registered and grade. Kirk, Chas. E., Monument Guernsey, registered. Loving, J. W., Pueblo Guernsey, registered and grade. Modern Woodmen of America Sanitarium, Holstein, registered. Colorado Springs. Myron Stratton Home, Colorado Springs Do. 1 Records of several herds were received from Maryland too late for analysis or inclusiou among cooperators. 1070 COLORADO—Continued Rocmer, Robt. and Catherine, Fort Collins Guernsey, registered. Sinton, George T., Colorado Springs Holstein, registered. Temple, Earl, Fort Collins Jersey, registered. Tienken, John, Colorado Springs Do. Turner, George S., Canon City Holstein, registered. CONNECTICUT Alsop, J. W., Avon_ Ayrshire, registered. Brock, G. W., Northforci---.- Do. Calhoun, Frank E., ComwalL Guernsey, registered. Child, Williame, Woodstock. Guernsey, registered and grade. Connecticut Reformatory, Cheshire Holstein, registered. Gold, T. S., West Cornwall Do. Grant, A. H., Melrose Ayrshire, registered. Grant, Mrs.. K. R., Melrose Shorthorn, registered. Hescock, Rpbt. E., North Stonington Guernsey, grade (2 or 3 registered). Holcomb, Tudor J., West Granby Guernsey, registered and grade. Kelsey, C. W. (estate), Middletown Holstein, registered. Long Lane Farm, Middletown Holstein, registered and grade. Mitchell, R. C. & Son, Southbury Do. Newton, C. R., Woodbridge 1 Holstein, registered. Riddle, Mrs. J. W., Farmington Guernsey, registered. Sanford, L. R., Litchfield Guernsey, registered and grade. Seiden Bros., Haddon Neck Guernsey, registered. Strickland, Harold, Rockfall Do. Thomsen, D. L., Brookfield Center Do. Webster, A. Benj., Litchfield Guernsey, registered (2 or 3 old cows were grades). Willard, Daniel, Salisbury Holstein, registered.

DELAWARE Haskell, H. G., Wilmington Guernsey, registered. Winterthur Farms (H. F. Dupont) Wilming- ton Holsteins, registered. GEORGIA Alienas Invalid Home, Milledgeville Jersey, registered. Georgia Baptist Orphans' Home, Hapeville.- Holstein, registered. Hardman, J. B., Commerce Jersey, registered. Hooks, J; H., Warthen Jersey, registered and grade. Pebble Hill Products Co., Thomas ville Jersey, registered. Wooldridge, J. C, Columbus Do. IDAHO Davis, R. T., Weiser Holstein, registered. Pritzl, Chas. J., New Plymouth Guernsey, registered. Shutwell, Roy, Boise Holstein, registered. Steele, H. F. & Son, Gooding Guernsey, registered. Tenckinck, L. J., Twin Falls Holstein, registered. ILLINOIS Beard, L. Russell, Hebron Holstein, registered. Bogardus, C. S., Clinton Guernsey, registered and grade. Bridge, Clay B., Orange ville Holstein, registered. Davis, F. M., Rockford Jersey, registered and grade. Eppel, H. T. & Son, Woodstock Holstein, registered. Folgate, Ray, Dakota Brown Swiss, registered. Gahlbeck & Lange, Woodstock Holstein, registeredí Gardner, W. H., Solon Mills Do. May wood Farms, Hebron Do. Phillips, H. M., Lena Holstein, registered and grade. Rock River Farm, Byron Holstein, registered. Raleigh, W. T., Freeport Do.

1071 ILLINOIS-Continued Rockyford Dairy, Amboy Holstein, registered. Sinissippi Farm, Oregon Do. Swanzey, J. H., Ridott Do. Turner & Winn, Richmond Do. Von Loh, Geo. & Sons, Bailey ville Holstein, registered and grade. Wood, Harry M., Delavan_ ^ Holstein, registered. Yordy, Chris, Morton Guernsey, registered and grades Zurbriggen, Herman, Scioto Mills Holstein, registered. INDIANA Arbogast, G. C., Selma Holstein, registered, Butler, S. S., Pleasant Lake Jersey, registered. Carter, H.A., Connersvillc Guernsey, registered. Chauncey Rose School, Terre Haute Holstein, registered. Dietrich & Thornton, Bremen Guernsey, registered. Eby, Mervin, Elkhart Do. Hershberger, C. C, Bremen Do. Hunter, E. E. & Son, Angola Jersey, registered. Jackson, Therl, Yorktown Holstein, registered. Kelsey, Lesh & Son, Huntington Guersey, registered. Mazelin, D, F., Berne Holstein, registered. Meeker, Ray & Son, Muncie . Do. Morgan, Glen, Westvllle Do; Mosser, Sol, Geneva Jersey, registered. Myers, W. H., Arcadia Guernsey, registered. Newman, John, Culver Holstein, registered. Rauth Bros., Boonville Guernsey (mostly registered); Reichard, O.E., Ke wanna Jersey, registered. Schwartz, D. D., Berne Holstein, registered. Schwartz, Jacob J., Berne Do. Schwartz, P. D., Berne Do. Sisters of Providence, St. Mary-of-the-Woods. Holstein, registered. Stanley, Orlo, Richmond Do. Steed, Oliver K., Portlan

IOWA Birkcr, Matt, Vinton Holstein, registered, Chester, F. A. & Sons, Plainfield Do. Clampitt, R. R., New Providence Milking Shorthorn, registered. Cline, Kirk, Vinton Jersey, registered and grade. Dengler, Walter, Davenport Guernsey, registered and grade. Dupont, P. L, Spechts Ferry Holstein, registered and grade. Eckles, Wm., Eldora Do. Eiten, Fred, Wellsburg Do. Emmert, C. T., Whitten Holstein, registered. Epperson, C. C, Vinton Jersey, registered and grade. Finster, Roy N., Eldora Holstein, registered. Fuehrer, Ed., Shellsburg Jersey, registered. Gillette, Wm. R. & Sons, Fostoria Holstein, registered. Haight, C. W., Winfield Do. Hamer, O. L., Waterloo Do. Hansen & Merner, Cedar Falls Do. Hastings, I. C, Garner Do. Heald, J. M., Nashua Do. Hemplcr, A. J., Garnavillo Guernsey, registered and grade. Hollingsworth, A.B., Mount Pleasant Do. Hoppe Bros., Gladbrook Holstein, registered and grade. lowana Farms, Davenport Holstein, registered. Jannings, Glenn, Donnellson Jersey, registered. Johnson, Harry, Newell Holstein, registered and grade. Kinsley, R. G., McGregor Jersey, registered. Klotz, W. H., Fredericksburg Holstein, registered. Krekel, A. G. & Son, Burlington Jersey, registered and grade.

1072 IOWA—(\jiit.inuefi Ladwig, G. A., Fredericksburg Milkiîig Shortliora, registcrod. Learn, R. F., Clermont Jersey, registered. Lcnth, L. C, Elkader Holstein, registered. Lynes, J. J. & Sons, Piainfield Ayrshire, registered and grade. Mark, C. A. & Son, Iowa Falls Holstein, registered. Martin, J. N., New Providence Jersey, registered. Meyer, Irwin F., McGregor Milking Shorthorn, registered. Miller, L. H., Waterloo Holstein, registered and grade. Miller, M. W., Wellman Guernsey, registered. Miller, J. Wilbert, Waterloo Holstein, registered and grade. Mitchell, E. M. & Sons, Reinbeck Milking Shorthorn, registered. Mitchell, W. D., Reinbeck Holstein, registered. Myers & Hickey, Adel Brown Swiss, registered. Mueller, Geo. & Son, Lone Tree Holstein, registered. Olmstead, D. N., McGregor Jersey, registered and grade. Pancratz, A. M., Jr., Dubuque Guernsey, registered and grade. Putnam, Mrs. B. W., Eldora Jersey, registered. Rehder Bros., Gladbrook Holstein, i-egistered. Reiss, Ezra C., Garrison Holstein, registered and grade. Reiss, J. F., Garrison Holstein, registered. Sanders, Claude, Eldora, Route ] Holstein, registered and grade. Scott, Leo, Mount Pleasant Jersey, registered. Shaulis & Swift, Waterloo Holstein, registered. Sherman, J. F., Edge wood Guernsey, registered and grade. Sherman, H. A., Iowa Falls Brown Swiss, registered. Smith, Roy J., Spirit Lake Jersey, registered and grade. Soldiers and Orphans Home, Davenport Holstein, registered. State Training School, Eldora Do. Stence, Mart, Elkader Do. Thompson, R. C., Vinton Do. Tieden, George & Son, Elkader Holstein, registered and grade. Tracy, E. E., Nashua Red Polled, registered. Tyler & McGovern, Central City Holstein, registered and grade. Van Nice, G. C, Vinton Holstein, registered. Von Glon, G. J., Breda Do. Wehrman, Harold, Luzerne Do. Warren, J. W. & Son, Iowa City Holstein, registered and grade. Wehling, Henrv J., Anamosa Holstein, registered. Wood, R. C, Traer Do.

KANSAS Ainsworth, W. C., Elmo Aj-rshire, registered. Allen County Farm, Carlyle Holstein, registered and grade. Bariow-Keas, EfRngham Ayrshire, registered. Cliacey, C. L., Leavenworth Jersey, registered and grade. Collins, Swell-Bechtelheimer, Sabetha Holstein, registered. Dunkin, James, Columbus Jersey, registered and grade. Duwe, Henry, Frceport Brown Swiss, registered. Dusenbury & Son, Anthony Ayrshire, registered. Evans, R. L., Hutchinson Holstein, registered. Ennefer, R. C., Prescott Do. Farley, Bruce, Atliol Do. Faulconer Bros., Eldorado Holstein, grade. Feess, Otto, Parsons Guernsey, registered and grade. Grauerholz, W. H., & Son, Kensington Jersey, registered. Hatesohl, Henry, Greenleaf Holstein, registered. Hoffman, Frank, Pretty Prairie Do. Hoiïman, H. H., Route 5, Abilene Ayrshire, registered. Hostetlcr, H. E., Harper Holstein, registered. Jamison, J. A., Leavenworth Do. Johnson, Paul R., Independence Guernsey, registered. McCormick, Carl, Cedar Holstein, registered. Meierkord, H. J., Linn Do. Miller, J. Fred, Earned Jersey, registered and grade. Osawatomie State Hospital, Osawatomie Holstein, registered. Porter, T. C, Overland Park Holstein, registered and grade.

1073 KAN S AS—OontiQued Reece, L. H., Earleton Jersey, registered. Regier, E. B., White Water Holstein, registered. Robinson, W. S., Nashville Ayrshire, registered. St. Josephs Orphans Home, Abilene Holstein, registered and grade. Shultz, M. A., Pretty Prairie Do. Smith, G. W., & Son, Highland Jersey, registered. Strahm, L, B., Sabetha Holstein, registered. State Hospital for Epilejitics, Parsons Do. Strickler, Fred, Hutchinson Ayrshire, registered. The Sun Farm, Inc., Parsons Guernsey, registered and grade. Windmoor Farm, Edna Jersey, registered. Wempe, F. B., Frankfort Do. Wheelock, D. L., Clay Center Do. Wonsetler, L., & Sons, Larueti Jersey, registered and grade. KENTUCKY Berea College, Berca Holstein, registered. Harrison, M. D., Farmington Jersey, registered. Walnut Hall Farm, Donerail Guernsey, registered and grade. Wcikel, Fred, St. Matthews Plolstein, registered. LOUISIANA Idlewild Dairy Farm, Patterson Jersey, registered and grade.

MASSACHUSETTS Ames, John S. (Langwater Farm), Easton Guernsey, registered, Barnard, D. & Son, Shelburne Falls Milking Shorthorn, registered. Bridgewater State Farm, Bridgewater Holstein, registered and grade. Cande, Donald (Flintstown Farm), Dalton_-_ Milking Shorthorn, registered. Carpenter, J. T., Shelburne Falls Jersey, registered. Castle Hill Farm, Whitinsville Ayrshire, registered. Chapin, A. M., Sheffield Holstein, registered. Cook, Joseph & Gordon, Amherst Do. Crocker, C. T., Princeton Milking Shorthorn, registered. Davenport, Charles, Ley den Guernsey, registered. Davenport, W. J., Shelburne Holstein', registered. Dewey, T. J., Westfield Jersey, registered. Ellis, John G., (Highfield Farm) Lee. Holstein, registered. Elm Hill Farm, Brookfieid Jersey, registered. Elm Tree Farm, Rehoboth Holstein, registered. Elmwood Farm, Uxbridge Brown Swiss, registered. Fernald, Walter E. (State School) Waverly___ Holstein, grade. Foxboro State Hospital, Foxboro Do. Galusha, Arthur, Williamstown Guernsey, registered. Galusha, D. J., Williamstown Do.^ Gardner State Colony, Gardner Holstein, grade. Grafton State Hospital, Grafton Do. Graves, Edw., Conway Jersey, registered. Hurlburt, Waiter, Ashley Falls Holstein, registered. Kelly, Shaun, Richmond Do. Kimball, Ivory, Rehoboth Ayrshire, registered. Lakeville State Sanitarium, Lakeville Holstein, grade. Loud, C. G., Northampton Holstein, registered. Massachusetts State Infirmary, Tewksbury Holstein, grade. Massachusetts State Prison, Norfolk Do. Medfield State Hospital, Medfield Do. Merrill, S. M., Ipswich Guernsey, registered» Monson State Hospital, Monson Holstein, grade. Mount Hermon School, Mount Hermon Holstein, registered. Mount Hope Farm (E. P. Prentice), Williams- Guernsey and mixed. town. Mudgett, Vernon (Deershorn Farm) Sterling. Guernsey, registered. Norfolk County Agricultural School, Walpole_ Guernsey, registered. Northampton State Hospital, Northampton__ Holstein, grade. Rutland State Sanitarium, Rutland Do.

1074 MASSACHUSETTS—Continuea Sabine, Stephen (Westfield Farm) Groton Guernsey, registered. Sibley, John R., Spencer Jersey, registered. Standish, PL Arthur, Middleboro Ayrshire, registered. Streeter, A. H., Cun'niiigton Milking Shorthorn, registered. Sweet, J. S., West Mansfield Jersey, registered. Taunton State Hospital, Taunton Holstein, grade. Timmons, George, Ware Guernsey, registered. Tufts, D. L. (Unkamet Farm) Coltsville, Pitts- Do." field. Wells, F. v., (Quonquont Farm) Whatley Holstein, registered. West, E. P. & Son, Hadlcy Do. West, Wm. R. (Est.) North Dartmouth Guernsey, registered. Westboro State Hospital, Westboro Holstein, grade. Wilde, H. George, (Ilighlawn Farm) Lenox___ Jersey, registered. Worcester State Hospital, Worcester Holstein, Grade. Wigglesworth, Ed. W., Topsfield Guernsey, registered. Wrentham State School, Wrentham Holstein, grade.

MICHIGAN Arnold, C. W. & Son, Perry Jersey, registered. Bourassa, Henrj-, Linwood Holstein, registered. Campbell, L. E., Charlotte Holstein, registered and grade. Carman Farms, Fennville Jersey, registered. Chorpening & Owens, Marshall : Guernsey, registered. Fisher, Walter, Crystal Falls Holstein, registered. Freshour & Son, Mason Do. Gleason, Harry & Son, Three Rivers Do. Hunt, L. C, Eaton Rapids Do Ionia State Hospital, Ionia Do. Johnson, Henry W., Fennville Jersey, registered. Jones, Arthur L., Three Rivers Holstein, registered. Kalamazoo State Hospital, Kalamazoo Do. Knott, Adolph, Niles Guernsey, registered Knott, Fred, Niles Do." Lakefield Farms, Clarkston Holstein, registered. Lapeer Home and Training School, Lapeer Do. Larro Research Farm, Redford Holstein, registered and grade. Marquette Prison, Marquette Holstein, registered. Michigan Reformatory, Ionia Do. Michigan State Sanatorium, Howe 11 Do. Miller, D. G. & Sons, Farm, Eaton Rapids Do. Newberry State Hospital, Newberry Do. Nitz, Adolph, Pigeon Brown Swiss, registered and grade. Olmstead, Howard, Bronson Holstein, registered and grade. Parsons, E. M. & Sons, Linwood Holstein, registered. Perrine, A. H., Rives Junction Do. Pontiac State Hospital, Pontiac Do. Ruehs, E. W., Caledonia Guernsey, registered. Ruehs, F. W. & Son, Caledonia Do. Sprague, W. W., Battle Creek Holstein, registered. Straub, Doan, Galien Do. Ternes, A. P. (Ternes Farms), Tecumseh Brown Swiss, registered. Vincent, Alfred, Durand Jersey, registered. Wardin, Albert P., Hemlock Holstein, registered and grade. Wayne County Training School, Northville___ Holstein, registered. Woodard, R. C. & Sons, î]lsie Do. Woodworth, H. & Sons, Potterville Do. MINNESOTA Astroth, Frank, St. Paul Jersey, registered. Brackett, C. R., Long Lake Do. Gluek Brewing Co., Minneapolis Guernsey, registered. Highcroft Farm, Wayzata Do. Nahrgang, John H., Lewiston Do. Pond, H. H., Shakopee Holstein, registered. Stevernagel, Otto & Son, Lewiston _ Do.

1075 MINNESOTA—Continued Thompkins, D. D., Byron Guernsey, registered. Tattle, Mr. and Mrs. Geo. T., Crystal Bay___ Jersey, registered, Wirt, E. J., Lcwiston Guernsey, registered. Woodend Farm, Mound Do, MISSISSIPPI Buntin, J. T. (Gayoso Farm), Horn Lake Guernsey, registered.

MISSOURI Adams, E. C., Blue Springs Holstein, registered and grade. Booth, H. R., Hamilton Guernsey, registered. Brown, Robert E., Ethlyn Holstein, registered. Carpenter, W. G., Greenwood Do. Chapman Dairy, Lees Summit Holstein, registered and grade. Cooper, B. Frank, Hannibal Jersey, registered and grade. Deters, H. T. & 8on, Bowling Green Holstein, registered. Doolej^ Garland, Eldon Jersey, registered. Finck, E. P., St. Charles Holstein, registered and grade. Finck, E. P., St. Charles Jerscj^, registered and grade. Gentemami, F. A., O'Fallon Guernsey, registered. Harlan, O. O., Marionvillc Jersey, registered. Head, S. R., Hannibal Do. Luke, A. W., Clarksvillc , Do. McDaniel, C. B. & Sons, Carthage ' Do. Missouri State Hospital no. 4, Farmington Holstein, registered. Missouri State Sanitarium, Mount Vernon Holstein, registered and grade. Moss, J. Sam, Columbia Jersey, registered. Palmer, Paul, Moscow Mills Do. Parminter, E. J. & Son, Lockwood Guernsey, registered. Pemi, Syd, Troy Jersey, registered. Stevenson, H. R., Shawneetown Do. Stout, C. C, Lees Summit Do. Stuart, E. V., Lees Summit Do. Switzer, Henry, Brunswick Holstein, registered. Vaughn, L. E!, Webb City Guernsey, registered. Walker & Weeks Eldon Jersey, registered. MONTANA Ayrshire Dairy (H. B. Mitchell), Great Falls- Ayrshire, registered and grade. Erickson, R. L., Great Falls Holstein, registered and grade. Fetsclier, Arthur, Stevens ville G uernsey, registered. Frost, C. P. and Daughter, Hamilton Jersey, registered. Lyman, E. F. & Sons, Great Falls Holstein, regiístercd and grade. ^fcKillip, Hugh, Hamilton Jersey, registered and grade. Shoemaker, F. M., Arlee Jersey, registered.

NEBRASKA Bloss, Burton & Sons, Pawnee City Jersey, registered. - Cummings, Mrs. Sam & Sons, Tccumseh Holstein, registered. Fairacres Farm, Winside Do. Haggart, Donald, Grand Island Do. Holling, Henry, Millard Do. Kearney, G. M. & Sons, Morrill Jersey, registered. Lohman, Wm., Jansen Holstein, registered. Mayer, J. A., Auburn Holstein, registered and grade. Moore, O. W., Gering Holstein, registered. Moyer, C. M., Ceresco Do. Norfolk State Hospital, Norfolk Do. Rabeler, Alex, Leigh Guernsey, registered. Ramsay, Roland & Sheh)y, Se ward Holstein, registered. Rediger, Joseph, MilfordJ Guernsey, registered. Rhodes, John, Beatrice Jersey, registered. Schumacher, Leo, Minatare Holstein, registered and grade. Severe, H. L., Palmyra Do. Shalla, Joseph, Odell Do.

1076 NEBRASKA—Continued Swarison, F. A., Stromsbiirg Holstein, registered and grade. Tliayer, D. D., Monroe Do, Walnut Springs Jersey Farm (ilcrsliner & Jersey, registered. Stinnette), Lincoln. Wittrock, H. C, Falls City Holstein, registered and grade.

NEW ]íAMPSniRE Benson, Maurice, Lebanon Ayrsliire, registered. Hunter, ^oy D., West Claremont Jersej^ registered. Smith, Homer & Son, Monroe Jersey, registered and grade. Stearns, N. F., Lebanon Do. Sullivan County Home, Unity_. Holstein, registered.

NEW JERSEY Atkinson, Thomas, Bridgeton Guernsey, registered and grade. Blau, August & Son, Hackettstown Holstein, registered. Blossom Hill Farm, J^ebanon Do. Borden, Herbert, Mickleton Guernsey, registered. Bordentown Industrial School, Bordentown.- Holstein, registered. Broadview Farms, Blawenburg Guernsey, registered and grade, Colson, Jessie, Daretown Guernsey, registered. Coombs, George A., Deerfield Holstein, grade. Cortwright, H. R., Port Jervis (N. Y.) Holstein, registered. Davis, C. V. N., Somcrville Holstein, registered and grade. Davis Bros., Sewell Holstein, grade. Dell arte, Sidney, Bcllemead Holstein, registered. Dufficld, Eobcri), MulUca Hill Holstein, registered and grade. EdAvards, Henry, Mullica Hill Holstein, registered. Essex County Hospital, Cedar Grove Do. Everitt, H. F., Flcmington Do. Featherer, J., Salem Guernsey, registered and grade. Forsgate Farm, Jamesburg Holstein, registered. Fu]ler, Mrs. Julia & Sons, Wall pack Holstein, registered and grade. Hamilton, William, Somerville Do. Harris, Lester, Hancocks Bridge Holstein, registered. Horner, A. & Son, Pemberton Guernsey, registered and grade. Jackson, A. R., Columbus Holstein, registered. Katzenstein, G., Ando ver Holstein, registered and grade. Katzenstein, J., Hamburg Do. Kincaid, Herbert, Jefferson Do. Kirby, Charles, Harrisonville Do. Leonard, H. C, Paulsboro Do. Locust^Lane Farm, Medford Guernsey, registered. Masonic Home, Burlington Holstein, grade. Morris County Wojfare Farms, Morristown___ Do. Pettit, Frank, Woodstown Holstein, registered. Phillips, Edward, Cape May Guernsey, registered and grade. Price, Lester, Lafayette Holstein, registered and grade. Renne, F., Bridgeton Do. Rogers, Joseph, Wrightstown Guernsey, registered and grade. Roberts, Stanley, Port Jervis (N. Y.) Holstein, registered. Royce, George, Columbus Jersey, registered and grade. Rush, Charles T., Phillipsburg Holstein, registered and grade. Schanzlin, Hans, Washington Holstein, registered. Schellenger, Newton, Green Creek Holstein, registered and grade Skinner, Russell, Mullica füll Holstein, registered. Spear, John, Rockaway Guernsey, grade. Stelle, W., Dutch Neck Holstein, registered and grade. Struble, H. & Son, Sussex Do, Ten Eyck, J. A., Pluckemin Do. Tranquility Farms, Tranquility Holstein, registered. Trenton State Hospital, Trenton Holstein, registered and grade- Van Nuys, P. P., Bcliemcad Holstein, registered, Vineland Training School, Vineland Holstein, registered and grade,

1077 NEW JERSEY—Conliiiuea Voegtlcn, W., Lebanon Holstein, registered. Waddington, Arthur, Woodstown Holstein, registered and grade. Willard, Gardiner, Mullica Hill Do. Willow Gate Farm, Princeton {jerse?,'';egistered and grade. Wolfe Bros., Hackettstown Holstein, registered and grade.

NEW YOKK

Andrews, G. S. V., LaGrangeville Registered Holstein. Beckwith, Earl A., Ludlowville Registered Jersey. Burdick, J. M., Little Valley Registered Holstein. Cowles, G, S. & Son, Ashville Do. Crocker, Earl D., Sennett Registered Guernsey. Cross, Roger H., Fayetteville Registered Holstein, Cuddy, M. J., Auburn Do. Cantine, Holly (Valley Farm), Saugerties Do. Fisher, A. & Sons, Canästota Do. Fisher, Carl, Cazcnovia Do. Fortune, W. W., Sussex, N. Y Do. Ham, John M., Millbrook Do. Ham, Eugene, Vcrbank Do- Hartshorn, Karl & Son, Lebanon Do. Heinaman, Edward, Bath Do. Homestead Farms, Inc., Storm ville Do. Hubbs, H., Kirkville Do. Johnson, Arthur, Caledonia Do, Kahler

NORTft CAROLINA Biltmore Farms, Riltmore Jersey, registered. GraTiada Farms, Granite Falls Do. Klondike Farms, Elkin Guernsey, registered. Mills Home, Thomasville Holstein, registered. Osborne Farms, Canton Guernsey, registered. Pinehurst Farms, Pinehurst Ayrshire, registered. Quail Roost Farms, Rougemont Guernsey, registered. Reynolds Lybrook Farms, Advance Red Polled, registered. Shuford, R, L., Newton Jersey, registered. 1078 XOKTH DAKOTA Christianson, John, Now Salom Holstein, registered. llollc, Fred C, New Salem Do. Holle, Henry W., Youngtown Do. Kinsman, Chas. A., New Salem Do. Kinsman, Henry, Yoiingtown Do. Kinsman, John, Yoiingtown Do. Kroeger, Fred, Youngtown Do. Micheals, Fred C, Yonngtown Do. Neas, Wm., New Salem Do. North Dakota Penitentiary, Bismarck Holstein, registered and grade. Schwarting, Henry, New Salem Do. Tellman, Edward, New Salem Do.

OHIO Aegeter, Bartley, Hanoverton Holstein, registered. Allwardt, Martin, Gibsonbarg Guernsey, registered. Aigler, R. J., Bellevuc Do. Alexander & Trout, Spring Valley Jersey, registered. Ar-pñ, Geo. W., Defiance Do. Ault, Joseph, Perrysburg Holstein, registered. Bailey, L. P., Co.,'^Tacoma Jersey, registered. Bandy, John W., Belle vue Guernsey, registered. Barr,*^W. B. & Son, R. R. 3, Canton Holstein, registered. Biddle, W. L., & Son, Wauseon Do. Bieger, Benj., Burton Jersey, registered. Black, F. B., Route 6, Mansfield Guernsey, registered, Brosius, Corwin, Route 2, Hamilton Holstein, registered and grade. Cavanaugh Bros., Burton Holstein, registered. Cockley, W. B., Route 2, Lexington Do.' Erf, Wm., Believue Guernsey, registered. Ernsthausen, C W., Elmore Holstein, registered. Eustis, Mrs. Geo. D., Madisonville Jersey, registered. Evans, Ellis, Newark Ayrshire, registered. Francisco, Ed., Atwater Holstein, registered. Gates, R. D., Chardon Guernsey, registered. Hartley, Alva B., Barnesville Jersey, registered. Heifner, C. B. & Son, Sullivan Guernsey, registered. Hinman, Ralph, Raveinia Jersey, registered. House, Carl, Camden Do. Howell, Folger B., Springfield Holstein, registered. Ingersoll, H. W,, Elyria Jersey, registered. Leas, Bert, Jr., Groveport Do. Lee, N. W. & Son, New London Holstein, registered. Llovd Bros., Lebanon Jersev, registered. McClellan, F. H. & Son, Wellington Do. McHenry, J. W., Grafton, Route 2 Do. Miller & Truman, Castalia Guernsey, registered. Murphy, J. O., Barnesville Jersey, registered. Nichols, A. J., Berlin Heights Do. Riehle, E. A., Edgerton Holstein, registered. Roland, Frank, New London Jersey, registered. Rose, S. B., Findlay, Route 3 Do. Rupert, Willis, New Waterford Do. Schaff Dairy, Columbus Holstein, registered. Schleppi, Floyd, Columbus Jersey, registered. Scudder, Mrs. Charles, Buena Vista Ayrshire, registered. Sellers, Russell, Mount Vernon Jersey, registered. Siddal, C. B., Atwater Holstein, registered. Treat, ilenry W., Tallmadgc Guernsey, registered. Van Schyck, Ray, Hilliards Holstein, registered. Van Winkle, R. E., Newton Falls Jersey, registered. Voeller, Earl H., Grove City A\Tshire, registered. Wein gart, Ben., Leetonia Jersey, registered. Wisler, A. E., Leetonia Guernsey, registered. Westrick, J. T., Defiance Holstein, registered. White, Fred, Galena Jersey, registered.

1079 OHIO—CoiUinnccî

Williams, IT. F., Moiirocville Guernsey, registered and grade. Wise, H. A., Versailles Guernsey, registered. Wood, Frank & Sons, Perry Jersey, registered. Yauger, A. W., Mount Vernon Do.

OKLAHOMA Griííith, C. E., Big Cabin Holstein, registered. Quinlan, C. P., Tulsa Jersey, registered.

oKEGON Aason, Olaf, Arago Jersey, registered. Dickson, J. M. & Son, Shedd Do. Fullenwider, Geo,, Garitón .._ Do. Geinger, John, Tillamook Guernsey, grade. Hagg Bros., Reedville Jersey, grade. Hampton, George, Arago __ Jersey, registered. Hense, Walter, Shedd Do. 11 iff, H arry, In dependence Do. Jose & Perrinc, Tillamook Guernsey, registered and grade. Kay, Alton, Coquille Jersey, registered and grade. Scherer, Earl, Shedd Jersey, registered. Tibbies, M. N., Independence Do. Tupper, Alan, Garitón Do. Williams, Tom, Forest Grove Do. Zwald, Alfred, Tillamook Do.

PENNSYLVANIA Allcbach, H. D., Trappe Holstein, registered. Allen, C. F., Dayton Jersey, registered and grade. Allen, Cordie, Nicholson Holstein, registered. Allen, Curtis, Nicholson Holstein, registered, grade, and mixed. Allegheny Work House, Blawnox Jersey, grade. Allegheny County Home, Woodville Holstein, registered. Allentown State Hospital, Allentown Do. Arnold Bros., Beaver Falls Guernsey, registered. Auker, T. R., Mifflintown Holstein, registered. Bagshaw, K. S., Hollidaysburg Brown Swiss, registered. Bagshaw, M. C., Hollidaysburg Do. Baily, A. L., Gladwyne . _. Jersey, registered. Baker, J. D., Grove City Do. Bamford, Robert, & Son, Midway Do. Barkle}^, W. T., Livermore Guernsey, grade. Bauer, John, Emporium Holstein, registered. Beaver, George B., Millerstown .. _ . Do. Bedford County Jersey Bull AssociatioTi, I^cd- Jersey, registered and grade, ford. Bellas, J. C, & Son, Harmony Holsteiti, registcired and grade. Bence, C. D., Marion Center _.. .__ Jersey, registered and grade. Benner, H. K., Vicksbarg Holstein, registered and grade. Bernhcrstl, H arvey N., Green park Do. Bicknell, Harry J., Pottstown Holstein, registered. Bieler, Mrs. Howard, East Greenville Holstein, registered and grade. Black, Jonothan R., Millerstown Holstein, registered. Black, N. E., Alexander Guernsey, registered. Blackburn Farm, Sewickley Ayrshire, registered. Blackman, Frank, Wattsburg Holstein, registered and grad3. Blake, W. I., Mercer Jersey, registered. liolton Farms, Bristol Guernsey, registered. Boak, J. A., & Sons, New Castle Jersey, registered and grade. Bowell, Arthur, Thom])Son Holstein, registered. Bowen, Roy J^., Wellsboro Do, Bonson, C. William, Belleville . Holstein, registered and grade. Brackman, John, CaTiton Guernsey, registered. Bonson, J. Clinton, Milroy Holstein, registered and grade. 1080 PKNNSYLVANl A—Continued Bowen, Clark, Wellsboro Holstein, registered. Bradford, H. H., Lcwistown Do. Briggs, J. S., Yardley Guernsey, registered. Brion, Ed. W., Liberty Jersey, registered, grade, and mixed. Brown, H. D. & T. J., South Montrose Holstein, registered and grade. Brown, H. E., Fairfield {Sty^r'- Brown, Ray F., Mill Creek Holstein, registered and grade. Brownson, J. W., New Galilee Jersey, registered. Brubakcr, M. V., New Holland Holstein, registered. Buck, L. E., Ulysses Do. Blum, Walter, Milan ville Holstein, registered and grade. Brouse, Oscar, Miiflinburg Brown Swiss, registered. Bueckley, William, Cressona Jersey, registered. Bullers, A. J., Brook ville Guernsey, registered and grade. Burchard, S. C, Burchardville Jersey, registered. Burkett, H. W., & Son, T\^rone Guernsey, registered. Burrows, D. N., Pleasantville Holstein, registered and grade. Butler, D. R., Knoxville Guernsey, registered. Butler, George B., Wellsboro Guernsey, registered and grade. Buss, C. L., Montgomery Holstein, registered and grade. Camp Discharge Farm, Conshohocken Guernsey, registered. Canby, J. P., & Son, HulmerviUe {SylÄtTa'nd grade. Card, Noel, Lawrenceville Jersey, registered. Carter, Claud L., Rush Jersey, registered and grade. Cessna, 8. L., Bedford {HolsShl, registered. Clarion County Guernsey Association, Clarion. Guernsey, registered and grade. Cliffe, J. Howard, Ivyland Guernsey, registered. Cooper, Tom, & Son, Slippery Rock Jersey, registered and grade. Cope, F. R., Dimock Holstein, registered. County Home, Greensburg Do. Cox, T. R., Pulaski__ Guernsey, registered and grade. Coxe, Fred W., Everett_ Jersey, registered. Crissman, W. J., Lewistown Holstein, registered. Critchlou, Lee R., Harris ville Jersey, registered and grade. Culver, C. B., Laceyville Holstein, registered and grade. Delozier, J. M., Hollidaysburg Brown Swiss, registered. Deming, W. W., Millerton Jersey, registered. Dickey, R. N., Slippery Rock Guernsey, registered. Dinsmore, J. A., Washington Jersey, registered. Donaldson, R. M., Midway Ayrshire, registered. Doyle, Thomas, Dushore Holstein, registered and grade. Dreese, Palmer, McClure Holstem, registered. Dromgold, H. N., New Bloomfield Holstein, registered and grade. Dundee Farm, Sewickley Guernsey, registered. Edgar, C. F., Renfrew Do. Erdley, C. E., Lewisburg__- Holstein, registered. Erdley, W. J., Mifflinburg Do. Erdenheim Farm, Norristown Jersey, registered. Erk, George & Ed., Seelyville Do. Erk, Russell G., Prompton {HOÄ, registered. Esterline, S. F., Greenburg Jersey, registered and grade. Erdley, W. S., Lewisburg Holstein, registered. Eshelman, Allen, Everett Jersey, registered. Fairacres Farm, Sewickley Guernsey, registered. Fair view Farm, Cornwall Do. Farmhill Dairy, Sewickley Do. Fernheim Farm, Montrose Ayrshire, registered. Fettig, Karl L., Port Royal Holsteixi, registered. Fisher, P. U. & Son, Rummersfield Do. Fleming, R. H., Troy Do. Frey, May, Ottsville Jersey, registered. Garland, Carl W., Buffalo Mills {FetytregfsS?''

38143°—:í6 69 X 1081 PF:I\NSYLVANL\—C^üiUinucfl Garrison, W. E., Millerton Guernsey, registered. Gaut, J. C, Aiverton Holstein, registered and grade. Gearhard, C. G., Blairsville Do. George, Walter, Lenhartsville Holstein, registered. Glen Foerd Farm, Torresdale Ayrshire, registered. Gorham, Claud S., LeRaysville Jersey, registered. Gray, H. I., Honey Grove Holstein, registered. Gregory, H. J., Stl! Marys Do. Grazier, H. E., Warriors Mark Brown Swiss, registered. GrifTith Estate, Ebensbnrg Guernsey, registered. Grimms, W. S., Red Lion Holstein, registered. Groninger, H. E., Port Royal Do. Gross, E. S., Manchester Guernsey, registered and grade. Gross, Isaac, Pliimsteadville Holstein, registered. Gruber, J. W. N., Shippenville Guernsey, registered and grade. Halloween, Joseph W., Ivjdand Holstein, registered and grade. Hamme, J. J., Abbottstown Guernsey, registered. Hauck, Clvde, Clvmer Jersev, registered, Harrison, J. P., CenterviUe {SSeyA. Hasbrouck, W ill, Titusville Holstein, registered. Havens, Geo. S., New; Hope Guernsey, registered. Havenstein, W. F., Waymart Jersey, registered. Henderson, W. C., Petersburg Brown Swiss, registered and grade. Hopson, Fred, Wattsburg Holstein, grade. Hummer, A. K., Titusville Holstein, registered. Hummer, G. M., Titusville Jersey, registered. Hunsberger, Willis M., Plumsteadville Holstein, registered. Indiana County Home, Indiana Holstein, registered and grade. Inscho, J. H., Mansfield Holstein, registered. Irvin, Wm., Co., Big Run Guernsey, registered. Kane, Mrs. John Kent, Glenlocli Do/ Kaufman, Theo., Mifflintown Holstein, registered. Keen, Frank A., West Chester Do. Kimball, George & Son, Wattsburg Holstein, registered and grade. King, A. M., Mercer Jersey, registered. King, J. P. C., Summerville Holstein, registered. Koenig, John C. & Harry, Tarentum {auerM^V, grade. Koontz, C. E. & Son, Bedford Jersey, registered. Koontz, Stanley A., Bedford Do. Kost, Albert F., Carlisle Holstein, registered. Krall, Frank L. & Son, East Berlin Do. Kryder, T. C, Mill Hall Do. Leet, M. J. & Son, Coudersport Do. Lemon, J. M. & C. A., Saltsburg ffiS'ÄreT^ "' "■"'" Lent, Harry, Coudersport Holstein, registered and grade. Lichtenwalmer, P. G., Emaus Holstein, registered. Lloyd, Wm. M., Downingtown Jersey, registered. Luce, R. W. & L., Guys Mills Jersev, registered and grade. Markey, S. H., Loysburg Guernsey, registered, Mahle, Howard, Miola Guernsey, registered and grade. Marshall, R. D., Beyer Holstein, registered and grade. Martin, H. K., Goodville Do. Martin, J. W". & Son, Bessemer Jersey, registered. Mashaming Farms, Newton Ayrshire, registered. Masonic Home Farms, Eiizabethtown ' Do. Mattern, C. O., Osceola Mills Guernsev, registered. May, C. Allen, York Do."' Mayes, J. Will, How^ard Do. McCauley, W. M. & C. A., New Bethlehem.- Holstein, registered. McClelland Bros., Canonsburg Do. McClure, T. Furman, Port Royal Do. McCracken, A. L. & Sons, Charlcroi Jersev, registered and grade. McCurley, H. L., Enon Valley Do,

1082 PENNSYLVANIA-Contimied McDowell, G. G., Grove City Jersey, registered and grade. Mcllvane, Lawrence, Bentleyville Guernsey, registered. McMillen, W. C, Home Jersey, registered, grade, and mixed. Mercer County Home, Mercer Holstein, registered and grade. Mercer Sanitarium, Mercer {SÄt^e"' Milhelm Bros., Sharon {?er™g^raîfe^'^^^^^ ^'''^ ^'*^'^^' Mill Brook Farm, Mill Hall Holstein, registered. Miller, E. M., Towanda Holstein, registered and grade. Milligan, Ward R., Loysville Do. Mitchell, S. C, Lewistown Holstein, registered and grade. Moifat, John, New Alexandria Guernsey, registered and grade. Morgan, Wm., Wheelerville Holstein, registered and grade. Moheny, John, Punxsutawney {Ferse^ri^^^^^^ ^''"^ ^'^'^'' Morrison, A. W., Eighty Four Jersey, registered and grade. Morrow, D. A., Tyrone Guernsey, registered, Morrison, D. H., Van Guernsey, registered and grade. Mourey, J. J., Lewistown. Holstein, registered. Murphy, Harvey, Norristown Holstein, grade. Musser, C. A., Oakland Mills Holstein, registered and grade. Musser, R. E., Lewisburg Holstein, registered. Nicholson, S. L., Muncy Do. Norman, Albert, Liberty Jersey, registered. Oehrle, Frank, Hatboro Holstein, registered. Old Forge Farm, Spring Grove Ayrshire, registered. Oliver, H. Emmett, Honesdale Holstein, registered and grade. Oliver, T. H., Honesdale Do. Otto, Jvo v., Carlisle Do. Patton, J. S., Hartstown Holstein, registered and grade. Paulhamus, H. R., Cogan Station Holstein, registered. Paxison, Earl, Schuylkill Haven Holstein, registered and grade. Pearson, Wallace C., Downingtown Jersey, registered. Peffer, Clyde, Portersville Guernsey, registered, grade, and mixed. Pennsylvania Industrial School, Huntingdon. _ Holstein, registered. Penshurst Farm, Narberth A.yrshire, registered. Perry, F. Morris, Charleroi > Jersey, registered. Peters Brothers, Port Matilda Holstein, registered. Pew, J. W. (estate). Mercer Guernsey, registered. Polk State Hospital, Polk Holstein, registered. Pollock, C. C, Marion Center Jersey, registered and grade. Pruntsman, A. D., Millerstown Holstein, registered. Raab, Mrs. S. F. & Son, Dallastown Holstein, registered and grade. Rcitz, J. L., Lewisburg Do. Reitze, Wesley, Meadville Holstein, registered. Rhein, L. E., Pine Grove Jersey, registered. Rishel, W. F., Center Hall Holstein, registered. Robbins, W. J., Beach Lake Do, Robinson, Henry A., Seelyville Jersey, registered. Roseway Farms, Pàoli Do. Rude, W. E., Waymart Jersey, registered and grade. Rupp, Wm. H., Breinigsville Holstein, registered. Sage, E. H., Red Rock Guernsey, registered and grade. St. Vincent Archabby, Latrobe Holstein, registered and grade. Sampson, N. E., Volant Jersey, registered. Sampson, Ralph, Crooked Creek Holstein, registered and grade, Satterwaithe, Amos, Yardley Holstein, registered. Satterwaithe, Lewis, Newton Do. Satterthwaithe, M. C, Woodside Do. Schelman, Allen E., Everett Jersey, registered. Schott, Joseph H., Lebanon Holstein . registered. Schuylkill County Alms House, Scluiylkill Ayrshire, registered. Haven. Schwab, Mrs. Chas. M., Loretto Guernsey, registered.

1083 PENNSYLVANIA-Contiüucd Seanar, J. H., New Alexandria Holstein, registered and grade. Schultz, Wa^-ne, East Greenville Holstein, registered. Selber, J. W., McAlisterville flolstein, registered and grade. Shaffer, E, W., Titus ville Guernsey, registered and grade. Shaffer, Fred, Forks ville Holstein, grade. Sheard, Russell, Milan ville Holstein, registered and grade. Shook, Kay H., Sligo Guernsey, registered. Shfer, A.C., Lewisburg Holstein, registered. Smith, Carl F., McAlisterville Do. Smith, Ford, Mlllcrton Jersey, registered. Smith, G. C., Martinsburg Holstein, registered and grade. Smith, Philip W., New Hope Guernsey, registered and grade. Smith, Preston C, Martinsburg Holstein, registered and grade. Snedeker, Stephen, Way mart Jersey, registered and grade. Snyder, H. A., Montoursville Holstein, registered. Snyder, W. D., Coganstation Do. Snyder Bros., Liberty Holstein, registered and grade. Speeder, I. M., Li verm ore Guernsey, registered and grade. Speirs, James, Downingtown Jersey, registered and grade. Spencer, E. B.

1084 PEN N S YLV ANI A—Continued Zeigler, J. S., Lewisburg Holstein, registered and grade. Zimmermann, L. A., LehightoJi, R. 1 Holstein, registered. Zook & Son, Mifflintown Do.

SOUTH CAROLINA Caldwell, R. B., Cliestor Guernsey, registered. McCall, C. S., Bennettsvillc Do. Montgomery, V. M. (estate), Spartanburg Holstein, registered. Pedigreed Seed Co., Hartsvillc Guernsey, registered. South Carolina State Hospital, Columbia Holstein, registered. SOUTH DAKOTA Ibsen, J. B., Viborg Holstein, registered. Jesperson, N. C, Viborg Holstein, registered and grade. Oviatt, Thad, Huron Holstein, registered. South Dakota Penitentiary Farm, Sio\ix Falls. Do. State School and Home, Redfield Do. Yankton State Hospital, Yankton Do. TENNESSEE Fort, R. E., Nashville Jersey, registered. Knapp School of Country Ijfe, Nashville Holstein, registered. Waters, Henry, Greenvi^ood Jersey, registered. TEXAS

Maverick, J. S., San Antonio StyíréAd?'- Nixon, P. I., San Antonio : Do. Price Dairy Farm, Vinton Holstein, registered. Shelton Bros., Brown wood Jersey, registered. Soverign Camp W. O. W., San Antonio Do. Wipprccht, Carl, Bryan Do.

UTAH Knudscn, Heber & Sons, Provo Jersey, registered. Rasband Bros., Heber Do. Utah State Mental Hospital, Provo Holstein, registered. Utah State Industrial School, Ogden Do. VERMONT Allen, Ray, South Hero Guernsey, registered. Arms, W. C., Burhngton Jersey, registered and grade. Bicknell Hill Farm, Tunbridge Do. Bigelow, A. P., Middlesex Holstein, registered. Brandon State School, Brandon Do. Brigham Farm, St. Albans Jersey, registered. Brookside Farm, White River Junction Do. Burbank, John, Chelsea Do. De Vine, Ernest, Ferrisburg Guernsey, registered. Field, K. S., Vergenncs Do. Fisher, C. W., Vergennes Do. Gates Farm, North Hartland Jersey, registered and grade. Goodrich, W. I., West Danville Jersey, registered. Hager, W. C., Wallingford Ayrshire, registered. Hathorn, George B., White River Junction Holstein, registered. Howard Bros., White River Junction Jersey, registered and grade. Howe, L. W., Burlington Holstein, registered. Hutchinson Farm, Tunbridge Jersey, registered. Johnson, M. A., & Son, Middlebury Holstein, registered. Kiugsbury, A., Cavendish Guernsey, registered and grade. Kurri Hattin Home, Westminster Ayrshire, registered. Landon, C. H., New Haven Holstein, registered. Lexington Farms, Reading Jersey, registered. Luce, H. E. & W. J., South Pomfret Do.

1085 VERMONT—Continued Merrill, H. J., & Son, Williston Holstein, registered and grade. Mills, A., Florence Guernsey, registered and grade. Moore, Mrs. E. H., Pomfret Jersey, registered. Nelson, F. B., & Son, Salisbury Jersey, registered and grade. Palmer, R. W., Middlebury Jersey, registered. Perkins, Chas., Brattleboro Guernsey, registered. Phillips, J. A., Middlebury Holstein, registered. Ranney, R. H., Putney Jersey, registered and grade. Ramiey, W. F., Westminster t>o. Reed, C. L., Vergennes Guernsey, registered and grade. Salmon Bros., Glover Ayrshire, registered. Sheldon, G. & W., Jefferson ville Jersey, registered and grade. Simpson Farm, East Craftsbury Jersey, registered. Smith, A. L., & Son, Barre Guernsey, registered. Smith, Dana M., Lyndonville Jersev, registered and grade. Smith, G. W., Tunbridge Do. Somers, John, West Barnet Do. Thomas, O. A., Rutland Holstein, registered. Tucker, H., Tunbridge Jersey, registered. Up way Farm, South Woodstock Do. Vermont State Hospital Farm, Waterbury Holstein, registered. Whitcomb, W. D., Springfield Guernsey, registered and grade. White» Ralph W., Danville Jersey, registered and grade. VIIKH.VIA Andrews, Dr. J. S., Orange Jersey, registered. Civil, Otto, Midlothian Guernsey, registered. Clover Hill Farm, Manassas Jersey, registered and grade. Crowgey, L. J., Wytheville Holstein, registered. Greendale Stock Farm, Roanoko Holstein, registered and grade. Hill, R. F., Jr., Orange Jersey, registered and grade. Hillandale Farm, Purcell ville Guernsey, registered and grade. Hollins College, Hollins Holstein, registered. Kenilworth Farm, McLean Guernsey, registered. Lee, Dr. Geo. B., Burke Holstein, registered and grade. McComb Bros., Bluemont Do. McGee, James, Fredcricksburg Jersey, registered and grade. Middleton, Ben & Sons, Herndon : ^ Holstein,.registered and grade. Mistr, A^ & Sons, Richmond Guernsey, registered aiid grade. Moyer, Chas., Mattoax Holstein, registered and grade. Nelson, R. N., Sr., Richmond Jersev, registered and grade. Patrick, H. T. Rustburg Do. Pembcrton, Mrs. Eva, Richmond Holstein, registered and grade. Roller, J. S. & Paul, Timberville Jersey, registered and grade. Rowland, Wm., Warren ton Guernsey, registered. Salisbury, R. F., Fairfax, R 2 Do. Sands, D. C, Middleburg Do. Saunders & Myers, Leesburg __ Guernsey, regiwstered and grade. Taylor, J. P., Orange Holstein, registered.

WASlIlN-aTON" Allen, H. L., & Co., Du vail Jersey, registered and grade. Bass, Dan, Seattle Guernsey, registered and grade. Cedargreen, W. O., Snohomish Holstein, registered. Cloverñelds Farm, Olympia Jersey, registered and grade. Cooke, Walter, Shelton Jersey, registered. Durrah, F. A., Grays River Jersey, registered and grade. Fishback Bros., Chehalis Jersey, registered. Hughes, D. R., Yelm Guernsey,'registered and grade. Lilja, Victor, Stanwood Do. Porter, J. A., Custer Jersey, grade. Reilly, A. H., Waukon Holstein, registered. Scudder, Lucy R., Yakima Guernsey, registered and grade. Starr, Chas., Olympia, R. 1_ Jersey, registered. State Training School, Chehalis Holstein, grade. Stolt, George, Rochester Guernsey, registered and grade.

1086 WASHINGTON—Continued Taylor, J. H., Montcsano Jersey, registered. Taylor, Guy, R. 3, Olympia Jersey, registered and grade, Ticknor, R. B., Centralia Guernsey, registered and grade. Valley Gem Farm, Arlington Guernsey, registered. Waikiki Farm, Spokane Holstein, registered. Western State Hospital, Fort Steilacoom Do. Wivell, Chas. H., Shelton Jersey, registered. Youngquist, Emil, Mount Vernon Holstein, registered. Youngquist, J. W., Bow Do. WISCONSIN Baker, T. W., Waunakee Holstein, registered. Columbia County Asylum, Wyocena Do. Curtiss, W. W., Rio Do. Douglas County Asylum, Itasca Holstein, registered and grade. Dreger, Emil, R. F. D. 6, Madison Holstein, registered. Fowler, L. S., & Son, Bristol. Do. Friday, John, Oregon Do. GiUmore, R. J., Bristol Do. Hausman & Wilcox, Knapp Do. Jacobson, Anton, Menomonic Do. Jensen, Chris, Colfax Do. Jeune, John L., Rice Lake Do. Krusescher, Roy, Union Grove Do. Lutheran Home Farm, Stoughton Do. Nichols, Morris, R. 2, Stoughton Guernsey, registered. Pester, Clarence & John, Whitewater Holstein, registered. Peterson, G. L., & Son, Sharon Do. Rock County Farm, Jonesville Do. Steffanus, Philip, DeLavan Jersey, registered. Thacher, C. B., Clear Lake Guernsey, registered. Trumpy, Frank, Clarno Holstein, registered. Weber, Fred, Bloomer Do. Wild Brothers, Elmwood Guernsey, registered and grade. Wisconsin School for the Blind, Janesville Holstein, registered. Zimmerman, Sam, Belleville Do.

WYOMING State Farms, Archer Holstein, registiîred and grade.

College Herds Alabama Polytechnic Listittitc, Auburn Jersey. University of Arkansas, Fayettevillc Holstein and Jersey. University of Arizona, Tucson Do. University of California, Davis Do. Colorado State College of Agriculture, Fort Guernsey and Holstein. Collins. Connecticut State College, Storrs Ayrshire, Guernsey, Holstein, and Jersey. University of Delaware, Newark Holstein. University of Georgia, Athens Guernsey, Holstein, and Jersey. Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Jersey. Tifton. University of Idaho, Moscow Holstein. Agricultural Experiment Station, Purdue Uni- Holstein and Jersey. versity Lafayette, Ind. University of Illinois, Urbana Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Holstein, and Jersey. Iowa State College Ames Guernsey, Holstein, and Jersey. Kansas State College of Agriculture, Man- Ayrshire. hattan. Kentucky Experiment Station, Lexington Holstein and Jersey. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Do. Louisiana State Normal College, Natchitoches_ Jersey. North Ix)uisiana Experiment Station, Calhoun_ Do. Southwestern Louisiana Institute, Lafayette-_ Do.

1087 COLLEGE ITERDS-Contiiuied Maryland Experiment Station, College Park__ Ayrshire. Massachusetts State College, Amherst .__ Ayrshire, Guernsey, Holstein, Jersej', and Shorthorn. Upper Peninsula Experiment Station, Cha- Holstein. ham, Mich. Michigan State College, East Lansing Do. University of Minnesota, St. Paul Holstein and Jersey. Mississippi State College, State College Jersey. University of Missouri, Columbia Holstein and Jersey. Montana State College, Bozeman Do. University of Nebraska, Lincoln Holstein. University of Nebraska Experiment Station, Do. North Platte. Nebraska School of Agriculture, Curtis Do. University of New Hampshire, Durham Holstein. New Jersey Experiment Station, New Bruns- Holstein. wick. New Jersey Experiment Station, Sussex Do. New York Agricultural Experiment Station, Jersey. Geneva. New York Agricultural Experiment Station, Holstein. Cornell University, Ithaca. New Mexico College of Agriculture and Me- Do. chanic Arts, State College. North Carolina Department of Agriculture Jersey. (Coastal Plains), Raleigh North Carolina State College, Raleigh Do. North Dakota Agricultural College, Fargo Holstein. Trumbull County Experiment Station, Cort- Do. land, Ohio. Ohio Experiment Station, Wooster Jersey-. Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Col- Jersey, Ayrshire, and Holstein. lege, Stillwater. Oregon State College, CorvaJis Ayrshire, Holstein, and Jersey. Pennsylvania State College, State College Holstein. Rhode Island State College, Kingston Do. Clemson Agricultural College, Clem son Col- Guernsey, Holstein, and Jersey.. lege. South Dakota State College of Agriculture, Do. Brookings. University of Tennessee, Knoxville Holstein. Tennessee Polytechnic Institute, Cookeville__ Jersey. Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College, Holstein and Jersey. College Station. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Col- Jersey. lege Station. Utah State College, Logan Holstein and Jersey. Utah State Experiment Station, Logan Holstein. Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, Ayrshire, Guernsey, and Jersey. Burlington. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg Guernsey, Holstein, and Jersey. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Holstein. Blacksburg. West Virginia University, Morgantown Do. Washington State College, Pullman Do. Western Washington Experiment Station, Do. Puyallup. University of Wisconsin, Madison Do. University of Wyoming, Laramie Guernsey and Holstein. Pepartnaent of State Experiment Farms, Holstein. Afton, Wyo. Bureau of Dairy Industry Herds Bureau of Dairy Industry, Belts ville, Md., Huntley, Mont., and Woodward, Okla.

1088 Summaries of What the Survey Showed for Selected Herds in. Which Progress is Being Made in Breeding Superior Germ Plasmi for Producing AbiHty

Following are herd summaries for some of the herds in this survey that have shown progress in breeding superior germ plasm for producing ability. The herds have been grouped according to the number of proved sires, since it is recognized that the larger the number of sires used, the greater the chance of having used some sires that were not up to standard. It would also have been desirable to subdivide these groups according to the level of production. In some cases corrections wêre made for environmental conditions, in other cases not. Some were corrected from three milkings to twô, others from two milkings to three. Since sire ratings were made on the basis of percentages of increase or decrease, level of production does not enter into the picture except for the relation of the level of production of the dams to the average of the herd; but this, too, is expressed as a percentage. In studying these summaries, therefore, too much emphasis should not be put on the level of production. It is to be regretted that space does not permit the inclusion of a more detailed report on these herds, such, for instance, as the summary of each herd that is being sent to each cooperator. The letters in the columns headed percent, milk, and butterfat indicate the merit of the corresponding sires used in the herd. If it is a three-sire herd and under percent—reading from top to bottom—the letters E, G, G appear, this indicates that these three sires, in the order used in the herd, each possessed an inheritance for percentage of butterfat that was much higher than the average of the dams to which they were mated. If under milk the reading wâs P, G, E, it indicates that the first sire's inheritance for milk yield was below the level of the dams with W'hich he was mated but that the next two sires had an inheritance that was decidedly better than the dams to which they were mated. If in the coliimn for butterfat yield the three sires rated G, G, G, it wôuld indicate that these sires each possessed "an inheritance for butterfat yield that was considerably higher than the dams with w^hich they were mated. The greater the number of pairs for each sire the more reliable the rating should be. If there are any female lines of descent in the herd that carry crosses of. each of these three sires, good progress has been made in these strains toward fixing an inheritance higher than the level of the dams, under the environmental conditions that existed in the herd. If there are only two female lines of descent with two crosses of proved sires in the herd, it would indicate that in spite of the fact that three proved sires have been used, there are no female lines carrying the crosses of all three, and only a limited number of female lines with crosses of two of the three sires. In this case very little progress has been made in the herd in concentrating or piling up the superior inheritance possessed by the three sires. These female lines with twô crosses may or may not carry a cross of the sire that rated P for milk yield. If the number of pairs by not-proved sires is large in proportion to the number of pairs by meritorious proved sires, it may indicate that a considerable proportion of the germ plasm of the herd comes from those sires for w^hich no attempt w'as made to gage the inheritance because of the limited amount of data. The herd average gives an idea of the level of production in the herd under the existing environmental conditions. The environmental conditions are given a very limited description in the line with the caption Conditions. The line for Herd average includes the records of all animals tested in the herd. The average yield of the daughters of the last sire is given on the next line. In the lines giving number of female lines of descent with a given number of proved sires, the term "proved sires" means sires with the ratings given in the columns above, including tliose rated poor and undeterminable. The term "proved sire" as used here does not necessarily mean a meritorious sire. Proved sires in this report are sires with a sufficient number of daughter-dam pairs to justify evaluating their transmitting ability. On page 1013, under the methods of evaluating germ plasm for producing ability, the interpretation and significance of the herd analysis, as presented in this appendix, has been pointed out. On page 1028, in the discussion of the results of the survey, there is also information that has a bearing on the interpretation of these summaries. It would be well to repeat here that the letter E stands for Excellent, G for Good, F for Fair, P for Poor, U for Undetermined, and NP for Not Proved.

1089 15-SIRE HERO

JOHN R. SIBLEY, SPENCER, MASS., JERSEY

Rating of sires Pairs i of Production of— daugh- Per- Sire no. ters centage of and But- dams butter- Milk iat terfat

2 23 F F Spermfield Owl 57088, 3 . 27 F P P Interested Prince 5822-1. 4 ._. . 8 F P P Model's Oxford Lad Ö6518. 5 . _ - . U P P Fontaine's Duke 61709. G ..... 9 P F P The Owd's Double Grandson 80314. G P G F Owl's Temisia's Owl 94772. 9 IG P O F Sibley's Choice 83040. JO 13 P F Siblev's Interested Prince 108578. 11 14 P G G Oxford Lad's Progress 929IG. 12 5 F F G Imported Financial Bacon 139499. 13 10 P F F Sibley's Interested OwI134069. 15 70 a P i: Si^ermfield Owl's Progress 163331. ]ß . -- 10 E P F Grace Darling's Choice Owl 200111. 18 ó E P P Xenia's Prince 221324. 20 E P F Mildred's Owl 199194. 8, 14, 17, 19 lÓ NP NP NP Total 240 ___! Number of daughters better 142 105 11G than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd avcrafre of 303 cows 5.48 8,959 488 Average of daughters by last G.20 8,7G2 547 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 2 milkings. 1 female line with 6 successive crosses of proved sires. 6 female lines with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 15 female lines w^ith 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 29 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 61 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

11-SIRE HERD

MISSISSIPPI £-TATE COLLEGE, STATE COLLEGE, MISS., JERSEY

5 13 G P P Prospects Polo 53072. 6 ___._. 19 P G U Fox's Johnie O'Drearawold 68143. 7 10 P P P Fox Glove's Eminent 90277. 9 14 P E E Roycroft Eminent 103231. 12 It P F F Interested Prince's Owl 98117. 13 5 P F U Roxia's Polo Fox 127777. 15 17 F F F Osie's Pogis 230177. 18 22 G E E Pogis99th of Hood Farm 28th 138349. 19 15 G G Sarona's Oxford 18G208. 21 9 P P P Sophie's I. X, L. 244764. 22 _ .. G P P P Fairy Flag's Raleigh 267553. 1,2,3,4,8,10,11,14,16,17,20, 23 NP NP NP 23, 24. Total 173 Number of daughters better 83 92 87 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 180 cows 5.11 8,227 41G Average of daughters by last 5.2G G, 745 355 sire.

Conditions: Register of Merit, milkings not staled. 3 female lines w'ith 7 successive crosses of proved sires. 8 female lines with 6 successive crosses of proved sires. 11 female lines with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 11 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 28 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 9 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1090 10-SIRE HERD

PRICE'S DAIRY FARM, VINTON, TEX., HOLSTEIN

Rating of vSires Pairs of Production of— daugh- Per- ters cent- and age of But- dams butter- Milk terfat fat

1 23 F F F King Pontiac Joe Ilengerveld 144623. 2 . 52 F F F Prince Walker Pietertje Rhea. 3 54 O F G King Pietertje Ormsby Piebe 42nd. 4 _ () F P V Prince Walker Rhea 462544. 6 (5 (} G G Price America Ilengerveld 462543. 6 -- 19 (} P P Carnation Joe Segis Korndyke 514467. 7 _ () F C} E Fred Ollie Pontiac Segis 426007. 8 - _ . . 5 E P F Sir Pontiac Parthenea Ollie 514596. Jl 5 E P P Price Joe Ollie 610090. 12 7 E P P Price Joe Segis Holmes 610087. 10 . 1 NP NP NP Total 184 Number of daughters better 124 85 98 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd a verane 281 cows 3.42 17,315 591 Average of daughters by last 3.83 12,759 491 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 4 female lines of descent with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 13 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of i)roved sires. 53 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

9-SIRE HERDS

WINTERTHUR FARMS, HENRY F. BU PONT, WILMINGTON, DEL., HOLSTEIN

2 37 U F F Sir Inka Prilly Segis 80914. 3 8 U F Uneeda King Alcartra 182046. 4 82 G E King of the Ormsby's 178078. 5 16 F F Johanna King Segis 71904. 6 __ 31 F F Winterthur ])ess Burke Best 300()57. 7 _ _ _ 28 G E Winterthur Bess Ormsby Boast 300652. 8 . _._ 21 P P Winterthur Bess Ormsby Donsegis 400000. 9 . __.. 28 G G E Jemima Riverside Boast Ormsby Dad 406093. 10 _ _ __ _. 21 F G G Winterthur Bess Ormsby Great 500000.

Total 272 Number of daughters better 190 161 178 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average 397 cows 3.54 18, 538 657 Average of daughters by last 3.69 21,650 802 sire.

(Conditions: 2, 3, and 4 milkings corrected to 3 milkings. 4 female lines of descent with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 26 females line of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 80 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1091 9-SIliE HERDS—Continued PONTIAC STATE I^OSPITAL, PONTIAC, MICH., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of Per Production of— Sire no. daughters cent- Name of sire and age of But- dams butter- Milk fat terfat

3.. 5 F E E Bell Farm King Sylvia 297729. 4 8 F F F Lakewood Ona King Pet Canary 375949. 5 1 5 P F P Bell Farm Senator 408339 7 29 P F P Traverse Echo Sylvia Walker 456088. 8 _ 14 F E E Pontiac Butter Boy Eugene 476216. 10-__ 22 G F G Ppntiac Butter Boy Hengeveld 495889. 11 13 G G li Traverse Johanna Marathon Burke 540399. 12 9 P P P Traverse Sylvia Marathon 504401. 13-„ 10 F F F Decreanico Bess Burke ITartog 573267. 2, 6, 9-- 9 NP NP NP Total _ 122 Number of daughters better VA 72 72 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average, 190 cows__ 3.25 14,611 474 Averageof daughters by last sire. 3.35 14,086 489 Conditions: ScraiofTicial and herd test, 3 milkinp,s. 5 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 42 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. J. S. MAVERICK, SAN ANTONIO, TEX., JERSEY

4 6 E F G Eminent of Park Terrace 126808. 5 16 E E E Royal Majesty of Sunshine 143784. C 13 P U P Golden Jolly Oxford 116806. 7 33 P P P Oxford Golden Sunshine 184728. 8 22 F E E Achilles of Sunshine 208481. 9 _ - _ 20 F F G Sophie's Village Knight 232205. 10 7 P G F Sophie's Canyon of Foo 220222. 13 .- 6 G P P Sybil's Bay Boy 243804. 14 _ 7 F P P Sunshine Blonde 285825. 3,11,12,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 22 22 NP NP NP Total 152 Number of daughters better 83 76 74 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average, 198 cows 5.21 8,709 453 Averageof daughters by last sire. 5, 60 9. 394 618 Conditions: Milkings not given. 2 female lines with 6 successive crosses of proved sires. 4 female lines with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 23 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 61 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires, 37 female lines witli 2 successive crosses of proved sires. MICHIGAN REFORMATORY, IONIA, MICH., HOLSTEIN

2 .. 6 G E E King Segis Pontiac Canary 4th 175782. 3__._ 6 U , U F Aaggie Bonastine Lorena 247128. 4_. 7 G U F Echo Svlvia King Model 266177. 5 7 P p P King Sadie Vale Pontiac Veeman 278995. 7_ - -- 32 P F U Traverse Echo Svlvia Kaastra 343285. 8 -. 6 F F G Newberry llouwtje Segis Pontiac 404298. 10- 25 F G G Ormsby. Sensation 33rd 401108. 12 . 8 G P P Traverse Maratlion Netherland 522685. 14. 6 P P P Reforuiatory King Cadilae Model 515551. 1,6,9,11,13,15,16,17 ._. 14 NP NP NP Total 117 Number of daughters better 60 57 64 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 156 cows 3.28 15,784. 514 Averageof daugh ters bylast sire. 3. 16 13,353 421 Conditions: 3 and 4 milkings not adjusted. 8 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 26 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 50 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1092 8-SmK HERDS tJNIVERSITY OF IDAHO, MOSCOW, IDAHO, HOLSTEIN

Ratings of sires Pairs of Per Production of— daugh- Name of sire ters centage of and But- dams butter- Milk fat terfat

6 _... _. n F G G King Segis Matador Walker 172053. 7 10 U P P Friend Hengerveld Pontiac Aaggic 258625. 8„ 10 u E G Matador Violet Idaho 373447. 9 17 p E G King Piebe Pontiac Segis 174303. 10, lOA _ 9 P E E Idaho Violet Piebe 44268S. U- -. 6 F E E Hazelwood Ileilo Butter King 351070. 14 ]2 P G G Matador Segis Walker Lad 235887. 16 . 7 U G G Sir Adna Perfection 410177. 2, 3,4,5,13 8 NP NP NP Total - 90 Number of daughters better 38 57 51 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 97 cows 3.29 19, 421 630 Average of daughters by last 3.22 22, 916 736 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 1 female line with 6 successive crosses of proved sires. 2 female lines with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 12 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 24 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 35 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, COLLEGE STATION, TEX., JERSEY

2 _ 22 F G G Sophie's Experimenter 137652. 3 11 P G Owl-Interest Experimenter 138518. () 7 G G Grout's Masterman 240323. 7 11 E P P Dahlia's Royal Knight 208433. 8 13 P P P Sophie's Colonel 242169. 9 __. 15 F G G Experimentress' Knight 269318. 10 5 F F G L. C. Oxford's Experimenter 294419. 1] 7 P G G Experimentress' Lad 291225. 4, 5 - 5 NP NP NP Total 96 Number of daughters better 50 61 59 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 129 cows 5.35 6,301 337 Average of daughters by last 5.33 7,399 395 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings. 1 female line with 6 successive crosses of proved sires. 1 female line with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 10 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 27 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. PINEHURST FARMS, PINEHURST, N. C, AYRSHIRE

II_ _._ 36 G P P 0. T. B. Good 13550. HI 5 E P G Favorite Crusader 20934. IV 29 E F G Marshall Mischief 24633. V 7 P E G Pinehurst Premier 30119. VI 23 U U P Pinehurst Masterpiece 28692. VII 13 U P P Pinehurst Lord Mitchell 24963. viiL .__ 9 F F F Pinehurst King Pau 37716. IX . 9 G G G Penshurst William Tell 41263. I 0 NP NP NP Total J3l Number of daughters better 90 03 67 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 212 cows 4.23 8,941 376 Average of daughters by last 4.31 8,727 375 sire. Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 2 milkings. 9 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 31 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1093 8-SIRE HERDS—Continued LAPEER HOME AND TRAINING SCHOOL, LAPEER, MICII., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of Per- Production of— Siró no daugh- N^ainö of siró ters centage of and But- dams butter- Milk fat lerfat

1 6 G G E Traverse Colantha Ryma Lad 190296. 2.- . 8 P E E 3*ontiac Lai)ior Burke Ormsbv 247477. 3 0 F E E Traverse Homestead Prince Echo 360093. ^ 4 6 E G G Kalamazoo Pontiac Lad 403089. G. 9 F U F Traverse Lapier C'olantha 483077. 7 U F F G Reformatory Kaastra 492873. 8 U P P Pontiac Fayne Hengerveld 488552. 9 P P P Traverse Marathon Burke Walker 588188. 5 2 NP NP NP Total G8 Number of daughters better 36 34 33 thau dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 96 cows 3.32 13, 344 443 Average of daughters by last 3.30 12,2Ü7 405 sire. Conditions: 3 milkings. 8 female lines of descent with 4 successive crosses of proved bulls. 21 female lines of descent with 8 successive crosses of proved bulls. 13 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved bulls. NORFOLK STATE HOSPITAL, NORFOLK, NEBR., HOLSTEIN

2 8 G G E King Hartog Pontiac Boon 174249. 4 6 G G E Varsity Derby Bond 212002. 5 11 F E E Varsity Piebe La Valor 335128. 7 15 U F G U. Nebraska Count Ormsby Sultan 415212. ..< F - ■ F F Ü. Nebraska Count Ormsby Caesar 4152U. 10.. 15 F F F U. Nebraska King Gert 472479. 11_. 6 P P P N. P. Beauty Gerben Hengerveld 360809. 13 7 P P P U. Nebraska Segis Quinray 509124, 3,6,8, 12, 14_ 13 NP NP NP Total.. 100. Number of daughters better 58 57 59 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 126 cows 3.57 15,466 550 Average of daughters by last 3.35 16,300 542 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd-Improvement Association. 1 female line of descent with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 16 female lines of descent with 3 successi ve crosses of proved sires. 34 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, LINCOLN, NEBR., HOLSTEIN

8 6 F F F King Segis Hengerveld Vale 60344. 10 9 E G E King Derby Lincoln 153017. 13,25. 17 F P P King Piebe Pontiac Segis 174303. 16,22. 13 G Ü F Count Ormsby Segis Pontiac 338991. 19 6 E F F Matador Violet Idaho —. 20 12 F P P U. Neb. Klaver King 388329. 23 8 P P P King Segis Violet Posch Idaho 224391. 28 9 P F P U. Nebr. Matador Quantity 447735. 2,3,4, 5,6,7, 9,11,12,14,15,17, 34 NP NP NP 18, 24, 26, 27, 29. Total. 114 Number of daughters better 63 51 51 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 128 cows 3.62 17,807 645 Average of daughters by last 3.53 17.845 625 sire. Conditions: 2, 3, and 4 milkings adjusted to 3. 2 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 15 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 20 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1094 8-SíRE HERDS—Continued J. P. TAYLOR, ORANGE, VA., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire age of and But- dams butter- Milk fat terfat

5--. P P P King Pontiac Ormsby DeKol 81252. 8._. \) F y Major Butter Boy Korndyke 137803. 10_. F E E Jenningshurst Mutual Rag Apple 150090. 11 P G F Hollins irassett 22772. 13 F G (T D. C. D. P. Pontiac 381431. 14 .- F F F King Ormsby Ideal Beauty 382746. 16 F P P M. F. Sadie Vale Pontiac Joe 485600. 17 G U G M. F. Ormsby Rex Ideal 538638. 3, 4, 7, 15, 18- NP NP NP TotaL_ Number of daughters better 130 120 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 315 cows 3.44 11,626 398 Average of daughters by last 3.65 12, 750 465 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 365 days. 14 female lines with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 46 female lines with 4 successive crosses of i)roved sires. 62 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 48 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 7-SIRE HERDS VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, BLACKSBURG, VA., HOLSTEIN D 10 P E F Star Farm Johanna Lad 45225. F 17 P G F Virginia Korndyke Butter Boy 128445. G . 6 U F F V, P. I. Buckeye Pauline Korndyke 193742. H. Jl U E E Marathon Skylark Ormsby 312129. I 15 F F F Marathon Bess Burke 16th 375366. J 5 P G F Ormsby Sensation 45th 480493. K 16 (} P P Rosni DeKol Homestead Veeman 527154. C 2 NP NP NP Total 82 Number of daughters better 45 44 41 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 107 cows 3. 57 17, 557 622 Average of daughters by last 3.01 16,004 575 sire. Conditions: 3 and 4 milkings. 1 female line with 6 successive crosses of proved sires. 4 female lines with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 4 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 10 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 20 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

J. S. ANDREWS, ORANGE, VA , JERSEY 2 5 F F G Golden Spark of Montpelier 84576. 3 7 E P F Hawthorne's Prince 104887. 4 _ __ 5 E P G Darling's Fancy Lad 134091. 5 7 P G F Music's Torono 170406, 12 _ () F G E Pogis 99th of Hood Farm 54th 169653. 13 14 P F F Rosalie's Interested Owl 259500. 17 7 E P F Mary's Pogis of Andrewsia 308442. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, J8_.. 17 NP NP NP Total 68 Number of daughters better 40 27 41 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 84 cows 5.50 9, 672 539 Average of daughters by last 0.14 9, 473 585 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 3ö5 days. 2 female lines with 4 successive crosses of i)rovod sires. 4 female lines with 3 successive crosses of jiroved sires. 25 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1095 7-SIRE HERDS—Continued TEXAS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, COLLEGE STATION, TEX. HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of Productions- daugh- Per- Sire no \^íiTTio of sîrp ters cent- and age of But- dams butter- Milk fat terfat

2 10 U P P Texas Aaggie Korndyke 203846. 4 _ 7 P F F Jamaica King 160275. 5 _ n P F P Dutchland Aaggie Tidy Prince 2d 146528. 7— 12 P F U Nudine Tidy Prince 433729. 8 __ _ 11 F F F Grahamholni Dutchland Colantha 370759. 10 _ _ 9 P . lí G Nudine Princess Posch 548559 11 _ 16 G F F Jewel Blanche C^olantha Lad 515039 3, 6,9 -- 5 NP NP NP Total 81 Number of daughters better 40 46 45 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 109 cows 3.24 15,861 506 Average of daughters by last 3.27 16,881 550 «ire. Conditions: 3 milkings. 4 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. . 13 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 20 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. KALAMAZOO STATE HOSPITAL, KALAMAZOO, MICH., HOLSTEIN

1 11 E G E King Pontiac Burke Alcartra 203224 4 13 P G F Traverse Echo Ormsby Model 430587. 5 13 G U F Kalamazoo Pietertje Korndyke Lad 434862. 6 - 19 G E E Sir Pietertje Hengerveld Lad 493589. 8. 6 U E E Traverse Buckeye Marathon Burke 542138. 11 .._ _ 6 P E G Traverse Marathon Sylvia Burke 565365. 12 7 F E E Traverse Colantha Echo Burke 579495 2, 7, 9. 10_ 10 NP NP NP Total... 85 Number of daughters better 51 61 62 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 144 cows... .. 3.47 13,147 456 Average of daughters by last 3.56 17, Ü24 604 sire. Conditions: 3 milkings. 8 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 30 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. H. G. IIASKELL, "WILMINGTON, DEL., GUERNSEY

6 F E E Golden Searchlight of Hill-Gin Fiirm 79310. 9 E P P Merry Ne Phus Ultra of Hill-Gir^ 55746. : 6 U F P Longwater Guardsman 88297. 24 F F F Nora-nda 108708. 9- 6 E P P Golden Toro 106686. 10 9 P F F Longwater Mary's Royal 82716. 11 5 P E G Merry Top of Hill Girt 137474. 2, 3, 4_. 10' . NP NP NP Total. 75 Number of daughters better 46 45 41 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 101 cows 5. 17 12, 339 633 Average of daughters by last 5.27 14, 106 743 sire. Conditions: 3 milkings, advanced register. 1 female line of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 19 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sircb. 1096 6-SIRE HERDS CLARENCE SCHOONMAKER, OARDINER, N. Y., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters eent- Name of sire and ageof dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

2, 2A 20 0) E King Korndyke Sadie Vale 11th 134640. 3,3A . 12 a O Dot Ormsby Lad 229310. 4, 4A 15 p (} G Sir Kilbrac Korndyke Piebe 288513. 5,r)A 1 37 F F F Ormsby Sensation 49th 456462. 6,6A - 15 E F E Dutchland Payne Pietertje 565210. 8,8A 11 E P U EchohLirst Inka Matador 591037. 7, 2, 2a - - . .- 5 NP NP NP Total 115 Number of daughters better 65 66 55 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 126 cows 3.20 12,760 416 Average of daughters by last 3.30 13, 522 447 siie. 1 Not given. Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings, no correction. 3 female lines with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. ] 1 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 31 female 1 ines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 23female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, LAFAYETTE, IND., JERSEY

1 13 P E E Gorgeous Boy 67767. 3 8 P P P Estelle's Lad 75656. 5.. _ 11 U P P Sayda's Purdue Heir 142282. 6 11 F F G Fauvic's Juggler 205372. 7 E P F Forward's Masterman Mogul 272867 8 .- ,._ . 9 F E E Pride's Design Oxford 310968. 2,4 5 NP NP NP Total... 64 Number of daughters better 29 36 38 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 74 COWS--_ -_. 5.42 8,102 440 Average of daughters by last 5.67 12,322 693 sire. Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 3. 1 female line with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 6 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 6female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 18 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. MASSACHUSETTS STATE COLLEGE, AMUERST, ÄfASS., HOLSTEIN

6 U P P Prince Pietertje Maid 42033. 9 F G G Woodcrest Gordon Fayne 97208. 6 P F F Mt. Hermon Sir Colantha Witkop 186740.- 14 P F F, Mt. Hermon Sir Colantha Rupert 203655. 6 E G E Colantha Pietje Cornucopia Lad 427655. 7 E U F Sir Star Inka Superior 460430. 5,8,10, 11,12. 11 NP NP NP Total..- 59 Number of daughters better 33 30 28 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 68 cows 3.39 13, 835 473 Average of daughters by last 3.62 15.279 551 sire. Conditions: 2, 3, and 4 milkings corrected to 2. 12 female lines with 4 successive crosses of i)roved sires. 28 feamle linos with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 33 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

;í8143°—3(> 70 1097 6-SIRE HERDS—Continued BRIGHAM FARM, ST. ALBANS, VT., JERSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- Milk But- fat terfat

1 16 P E G Owl Interest Victor 166581. 2 _ ]8 P G G Sayda's King of Mendale 121724. 3 21 P Ü F Owl's Royal Temesian 213175. 4 11 F F F Spermfield Prince Interest 95697. 5 33 F P U Lucile's Golden Owl 251626. C - . 47 P F F K. T. Lass Lad 291790. Total -- 146 Number of daughters better 62 78 71 than dams. I'^ercent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 192 ccws—_ __ 5.34 7,684 406 Average of daughters by last 5.20 8,486 434 sire.

Conditions: 2 railkings. 16 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 37 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 29 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. C. A. MARK & SON, IOWA FALLS, IOWA, HOLSTEIN

2 5 E E E Prince Segls Topay 200462. 3 18 F E G Roadside Uramagel DeKol 283483. 4 _. - 9 E P P Sir Korndyke Ormsby Piebe Mercedes 3d 352280. 5 13 U G G Sir Walker Segis Oak 4th 439966. 6 5 P G F K. P. 0. P. Tidy 24th 427496. 7 7 F P P Sir Korndyke Ormsby Piebo Mercedes 25th 1668223. Total 57 Number of daughters better 29 36 32 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Ilerd average of 66 cows 3.52 17,886 628 Average of daughters by last 3.59 17,323 619 sire.

Conditions: 2 railkings corrected to 3. 4 female lines of descent with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 15 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 10 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA , DAVIS, CALIF., JERSEY

2 11 E E E Octavia's Rinda Lad 188257 3 26 P G F Pogis Torono Expérimenter 177266. 3a 5 P G U Pogis Torono Experimenter 177266. 4 19 F F G Rutger's Farn Napoleon 189646. 5 _ 6 F G E Gravity's Exile of Lusscroft 162551. 6_ 8 G F G Rinda Lad's St. Mawes Lad 201213. 3aa, 4a, 5a, 5aa, 7 . 8 NP NP NP Total.-__ 83

Number of daughters better 43 49 51 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 108 cows.. 5.59 7,554 417 Average of daughters by last 5.9 8, 499 504 sire.

Conditions: 2, 3, and 4 milkings, no correction. 4 feraalo lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 22 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1098 6-SIRE HERDS—Continued

MAYWOOD FAEMS, HEBIIOX, ILL., irOLSTETK

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Production of— Sire no. Per- Name of sire ters cent- and age of dams butler- Milk But- fat terfafc

4 7 F F Maywood Duke Pontiac Ilartog 317258. 5 __ 5 P P i[omestafa Oilie Shamrock 370453. 10 F P Kayewood Echo Sylvia Leed 402114. 9 9 F F Hollyhock Creation Segis Fobes 473008. 10 JO G F King Orrasby Field Piebe 569869. 11 __ 6 G G Sir Fobes Dorlisha Mercedes 618156. 2,3, 6,8 6 ."..." NP NP 1 Total 53 Number of daughters better 27 1 28 than dams.

Pounds Pounds ITerd average of 79 cows.— ._ 13, 057 471 Average of daughters by last 14,358 52 L sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 1 female 1 ine with 4 successive crosses of i)roved sires. 8 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 17 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. MYRON STRATTON HOME, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO., HOLSTEIN

4 - 8 P G F Sir Piebe Favne Burke 264474. 5 38 F E E Columbine Piebe Changeling 3rd 339930. 8 ._ 6 F U V Institute Netherland Konigen 487266, 9 10 F E E Stratton Sir Korndyke Rue 513426. 10 9 F P P Stratton Konigen Evermore 5472o8. 11 __ 6 P G F Forest Glen "Woodcraft Aaggie 503004. 2,3,6,6A, 7,7A, 7B, 8A, 12,13, 26 NP NP NP 14. 15, 10. Total 103 Number of daughters better 55 ,62 61 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 122 cows 3. 44 16, 302 662 Average of daughters by last 3.44 18,863 643 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 13 female lines with 3 successive crosses of i :oved sires. 42 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA, MO., HOLSTEIN

3 _._ 0 G P P Sir Kornd. Heng. DeKol 41266. 4 22 F G G King Fayne Ormsby 237602. 5 _ _ 5 G P F Sir Fonda Hengerveld Ormsby 365514. 6 7 G P P Grahamholm Colantha Sir Aaggie 457192. 7 _ . - . - - 5 P F U Grahamholm Colantha Duke 455570. 9._-_ 8 G G G Campus Aaggie Segis Sultan 686515. 2, 8 --- 8 NP NP NP TotaL_ 01 Number of daughters better 32 30 31 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 87 cows 3.38 18, 675 630 Average of daughters by last 3.56 20, 704 734 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 3 female lines of descent with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 13 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 15 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1099 6-SIRE HERDS—Continued

OREGON STATE COLLEGE, CORVALLIS, OREG., JERSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire 110. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

1 __ 10 F E E Golden Glow's Chief 61460. 2 8 G G G Maple Park Chief 75537. 3 _. 9 P P P Glow St. Mawes 150362, 4 8 F F G St. Mawes Grandson 189411. 6 _ - . ._ 10 E P P The Maori's Hector 211805. 11 10 P F F Sybil's Ashburn Prince 267890 5,7,8,10 _..- 8 NP NP NP Total 63 Number of daughters better 32 40 34 than dams. Percent Pounds Herd average of 72 cows 5.40 8,071

Average of daughters by last 5.38 8,304 «I sire. Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 2 milkings. 4 female lines with 7 successive crosses of proved sires. 3 female linCvS with 6 successive crosses of proved sires. 7 female lines with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 23 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 20 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 12 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 5-SIRE HERDS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, LAFAYETTE, IND., HOLSTEINS

5. _ 5 F E E King Segis Uengerveld 5th 126572. 7 8 F P P King Segis Commodore Perry 201857. 8— .._ 9 U E E Paul Fobes Butter King 251010. 9 - 11 E E E King Pietertje Ormsby Piebe 33d 355214. 12 6 E G E King Triune Rose Wayne Betta 588922. . 1, 2,3,4,6,10, 11-- . . 15 NP NP NP Total L- _. 54 Number of daughters better 39 36 39 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 59 cow^s _ 3.26 16,925 556 Average of daughters by last 3.65 19,574 721 sire. Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 3. 3 female lines with 5 successive crosses of proved sires 4 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires 7 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires 6 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. FAIRVIEW FARM, CORNWALL, PA., GUERNSEY

2 10 G E E Tops of Gold of Stockdale 52967. 4_ - - -. 30 G E E Flashara Superior 70439. 5 19 E F F Me Plus Ultra of Edgemere 64956. 8 10 P G G Fair View Athletic Prospector 151633. 10 - 9 F F F Tampa's Ultimus of Fairview 187074. 3, 7,9 8 NP NP NP Total 86 Number of daughters better 69 55 63 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 116 cows_- 4.86 9,130 440 Average of daughters by last 5.03 9,327 405 sire. Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings, not corrected, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 305 days. 4 female lines of descent with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 11 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 38 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1100 5-SlRE HERDS—Continued OTTO CIVIL, MIDLOTHIAN, VA., GUERNSEY

Hating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per Production oX— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dniris butter- Milk Tiut- fat terfat

2._._ 22 F F F High Point Glory Boy 42425. 3 - . ._ 21 F U F Nellie's April Secret 78131. 4 16 G P F Handsome Golden Charlie 75362. 5 6 G E E Saugerties Steadfast's Cavalier 112697. 7_ . 8 P G G Winston Farms Golden 124737. 6,8.. 8 NP NP NP Total 81 Number of daughters better 50 47 46 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 107 cows 4.94 11,214 554 Average of daughters by last 4.86 11,870 574 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 3. 2 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 18 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 51 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. MONTANA STATE COLLEGE, BOZEMAN, MONT., JERSEY

5 9 P F U Montana Torono 113658. 6 6 G G G Sophie 19 Tormentor 29th 163910. 7 5 P E G Oregon St. Mawes Doctor 169221. 9.._ 13 F F F Boise Queen's Silver Lad 231043. 10 _ . . 11 G G E Helen's St. Mawes Hopemeadow 292715. 2,3,4,11 _ _ . 6 NP NP NP Total 50

Number of daughters better 27 29 32 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 55 cows 5.49 8,268 454 Average of daughters by last 5.86 9,511 555 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 6 female lines of descent with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 12 female lines of descent with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 13 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 13 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. UTAH STATE COLLEGE, LOGAN, UTAH, HOLSTEIN

5.____ 6 G E E Pohtiac Pegassus 62878. 9 . - 10 E P F Edenwold Colantha Pietertje 151007. 10 5 P E G H&llywo'od Abbékerk Segis 388432. 12 6 P F P Galiah.oî Hollywood 2(1 411759. 13 7 F F F Sir Inka May 23rd 575503. 2, 3, 4. G. 7. 8.11- 11 NP NP NP

Total 45 Number of daughters better 25 24 26 than dams. Percent Pounds Herd average of 54 cows . 3.24 19, 277

Average of daughters by last 3. 23 20, 257 ill sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 3-niiikings 365 daj^s. 2 female lines w:ith 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 2 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 8 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1101 5-SIRE HPmDS—Continued TORRANCE STATE HOSPITAL, TORRANCE, PA., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of Per- Production of— Sire no. daugh- Name of sire ters cent- and age of But- dams butter- M i Hi. fat terfat

3 9 P E G King Segis Fayne The Great 2C5538. 4 32 P E E Bell Farm Retainer 355611. 5 __ __ 9 F G G Bell Farm Triumph 450762. 6 10 G F E Dagan Ormsby Getati 477272. 7 10 G G E Sir Pansy Piebe 517620. 2 0 NP NP NP Total 70 Number of daughters better 27 52 54 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 1Ü1 cows __ _. 3.29 12,243 391 Average of daughters by last 3.28 14,087 464 sire.

Conditions: 2milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 7 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 20 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 19 female lines with 2 successive crosses of i)roved sires. SCHAAF DAIRY, COLUMBUS, OHIO, HOLSTEIN

2 5 F P P Clyde Paul DeKol 6th 68020. 3 17 (} G (} Lothian Hengerveld DeKol Korndyke 97920. 4 32 U U U Meadow Holm Sir Edna Hartog 179849. 5 -- 15 G L^ G Prince Pontiac Hartog of Bexley 298042. 6 19 P F F Dicmere Sir OUie Polkadot Pontiac 521787. Total _.. 88 Number of daughters better 55 42 48 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 103 cows 3.43 13, 531 457 Average of daughters by last 3.45 14, 337 492 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 3. 1 female line with 6 successive crosses of proved sires. 2 female lines with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 9 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 15 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 26 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. D. G. MILLER & SONS FARM, EATON RAPIDS, MICH., HOLSTEIN

10 F F Island City Gusta Pride 406025. 5 G G Peacedale Ormsby Segis 377899. 28 P E E Blytheíield King Wayne Cornucopia 344001. 31 P E E King Pontiac Segis Fobes 538318. 11. 3^ E G Blytheíield Model King 581693. Total. 85 Number of daughters better 35 C5 62 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 115 cows 3.56 11,339 400 Average of daughters by last 3.48 13, 397 467 sire.

Conditions; 2 milkings. 1 female line of descent with 4 sucoeSvSive crosses of proved sires. 17 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 21 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1102 5-SIRE HERDS—Continued ILL. ALLEN & CO., ])rVALL, WASH., JERSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of Sire no. daugh- Per- Production of- - ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- Milk But- fat terfat

2 rJ V. a E Gertie's Stope Pogis 31st 87943. 3 9 F P P Violet's Laddie 106919. 4 29 E G E Susy's St. Mawes 2nd 155866. 0 n E F E Rinda Lad of Washington 229614. 10 20 F P Ü St. Mawes Prince Charming 266692. 5,6,7,8,11,12,15 14 NP NP NP Total 89

Number of daughters better 65 44 55 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 114 cows 5.50 8,316 ■ 458 Average of daughters by last 5.70 8,169 466 sire.

Conditions; 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 1 female line with ö successive crosses of proved sires. 1 female line with 5 successive crosses of proved sires. 9 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 23 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 25 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. SOUTH CAROLTXA STATE HOSPITAL, COLCMBÍA, S. C, HOLSTEIN

2 7 P E G Veeman Fobes Pietje Pontiac 338940. 6 20 F P P Sarcastic Hero I^ad 310535. - 10 5 i: F i: U. S. S. H. General Piebe Lad-542146. 11 30 F G G King Ormsby Segis Hunter 494955. 14 9 IJ F F Winterthur Boast Herald 496287. 3,4,5, 7,8,9, 12, 13 15 NP NP NP Total 86 Number of daughters better 47 52. 52 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 125 cows 3.37 18,873 634 Average of "daughters by last 3.29 20, 294 666 sire.

Conditions; Advanced registry, 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 3. 1 female line with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 6 female lines with 3 successive cros.ses of proved sires. 27 female 1 ines with 2 succe.ssive crosses of proved sires. SOCTH DAKOTA STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, BROOKTNGS, S. DAK., HOLSTEIN

2 8 P F Sir Cornucopia Prince 48663. 3 7 P P P King Colantha Clothilde 2nd 83763. 5 _ . 6 G F F Sir Korndyke Bess Piobe 159537. 10 17 G G E Sir Aaggie Colantha Korndyke 260390. 11 8 E U G Redfield Sir Johanna Piebe 554817. 1,4, 0, 7,8,9, 12 17 NP NP NP

Total 63

Number of daughters better 40 25 28 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 77 cows 3.40 13, 336 455 Average of daughters by last 3.78 13, 200 502 sire.

Conditions; 2 and 4 milkings, no correction. 2 female lines of descent with 4 successive crosses of i.)roved sires. 7 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 19 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1103 5-SIRE HERDS—Continued LARRO RESEARCH FARM, BEDFORD, MICH., HOLSTEIN

Ra ling of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Name of sire Sire no. ter's cent- and age of But- dams butter- Milk fat lerfat

2 ]8 P P King Netherland Rue Walker 335813. 5 _ _. 12 F E E Velvet Segis Ormsby Piebe 433546. () 11 F G G Laro Segis Lillith Champion 519369. 7 6 P E G Laro King Gelsche Korndyke 462473. 9 - ,. . 10 (} E E Ormsby Sensation 4136 429976. 3,4, 8, 10, 11 -- 12 NP NP NP Total 09

Number of daughters better 45 41 44 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 106 cows 3.29 12,247 403 Average of daughters by last 3.39 14,020 . 478 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 5 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 15 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

WESTERN PENITENTIARY, BELLEFONTE, PA., HOLSTEIN

2by7H -- 41 P E G Nittanyreale Aaggie Foyalsack 486534. 4 ._ 11 U E E Fayne Sack Sir Aaggie Pet 364374. 5 15 F (} E Korndyke Doxey Clothilda 455345. 6 16 U E E King Champion Jannek 18th 460879. 8 6 P E E Bouheur Wayne 3rd 524680. 3, 9, 10 11 NP NP NP Total 100 Number of daughters better 45 73 71 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 147 cows 3.42 14, 661 500 Average of daughters by last 3.21 19,573 628 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings, no correction. 1 female line with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 48 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

R. L. SHUFORD, NEWTON, N. C, JERSEY

2 5 P F P Biltmore's Torment 007G1. 4 _ . - 10 F P P Eminent the 10th 75753. 6 5 U G (} Eminent's Flying Fox 75266. 8,9 25 F G G Oakwood D's Fox 126834. 13 --_ 9 E F E Svbil's Jubilant Gamboge 226488. 1,3,5,7,10,11, 12 13 NP NP NP

Total t)7 Number of daughters better 39 33 35 than daras. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 07 cows 5.41 11,240 601 Average of daughters by last 5.75 13,088 751 sire.

C'onditions: 3 milkings. 7 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 19 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1104 5-SIRE HERDS—Contiiiued UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA EXPERIMENT SUBSTATION, NORTH PLATTE, NEBR.. HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires ^ Pairs of Sire no. daugh- Per- Production of— ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- Milk But- fat terfat

8 5 F O E Varsity Derby Matador 234809. 9 If) L' F F Varsity Piebo La Vertex 302952. 15 9 G P F Count Ormsby Segis Pontiac 338994. 19 30 a U F N. P. Ilengerveld Topsy Count 479846. 21 10 p P P Sir Triune Pansy 24th 558807. 2,4,0,12,17,20 10 NP NP NP Total -- 60

Number of daughters better 31 27 26 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 75 cows 3.66 18,641 679 Average of daughters by last 3.51 17. 251 603 sire.

Conditions: 4 milkings, advanced register corrected to 3. ] 1 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 22 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved slies.

HENRY WATERS, (ÎREENWOOD, TENN., JERSEY

7 0 F F G Fox's Gray Owl 117253. 12 _ 5 U E E Owl Intprpst Rival 184749 13 7 P E F Faun's You'll Do 173021 15._. __ 12 U P LT Fairy Boy's Raleigh Boy 131418. 18-_ 12 G F O Imported Sanmel 304980. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,8, 9, 10,11,14,16, ]7. 17 NP NP NP Total 59

Number of daughters better 33 34 37 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 77 cows 5.54 9,708 541 Average of daughters by last 5.78 10, 653 6J1 sire.

Conditions: Register of merit sires 7,12, and 13; 2 and 3 milkings; 15 and 18, 3 milkings. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 8 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

VINELAND TRAINING SCHOOL, VINELAND, N. J., HOLSTEIN

2A 5 G F F Paul Pontiac Canary Nig De Kol 307627 3A-2B-UA . , 14 F F F Cálamo Waldorf 413040 4A-12A., 10 E E ReadsW Vale Sylvia Fayne 412727. 5A-15A 19 f E E Vineland Spririgwell Cálamo 526381. 7A-16A.. 11 U P P Forsgaté Model Perfection 576514. 6A, 8A, 13A, 14A 9 NP NP NP Total 08

Number of daughters better 40 40 40 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 90 cows 3.27 13, 748 448 Average of daugliters by last 3.35 12, 423 417 sire.

Conditions: Number of milkings not given. 9 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 19 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1105 4-SIRE HERDS

STATE FARMS, ARCHER, WYO., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- Milk liut- fat terfat

2 6 P E E Sir Arthur Paul Veeman 238796. 4 6 F E E Wyoming Pontiac Orrasby 276300. 1.0 ___ .. 13 F a G Brands Matador Watson 584791. 11 . _ 8 E P F Pride Friend Orrasby Homesteader 571261. 6,8,9,12 ___ 9 NP NP NP Total 42 Number of daughters better 28 29 31 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 62 cows 3.40 16,357 553 Average of daughters by last 3.69 16, 484 606 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 3 (factor 1.45) with adjustment for 305-day basis. 1 female line of descent with 4 successive crosses with proved sires. 5 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses with proved sires. 13 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses with proved sires.

B. FRANK COOPER, HANNIBAL, MO., JERSEY

7 G E E Western King's Fox 131640. 4 18 P G F Vixen's Oxford Bean 131638.. 5 119 F G G Gapon's Countess Lad 159969. 6 11 P F F Bonner Jap Baron 169139. 2,7.. _ _ 5 NP NP NP Total 60

Number of daughters better 31 36 35 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 77 cows 5.48 8,648 471 Average of daughters by last 5.44 9,501 514 sire.

17 daughters sold because of low production. Conditions: 2 milkings. 2 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 12 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires, 13 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, BATON ROUGE, LA., HOLSTEIN

3 ._ 6 F P P lowana Alcartra Fayne 159241. 6... 5 F G G Oakdale Spring DeKol 3d 274615. 10 -- . 33 G E E Oakdale Johanna DeKol 411027. 13 39 F G E Pabst Prilly Creator Prince 482742. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15 12 NP NP NP Total--- 95

Number of daughters better 60 64 71 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pound's Herd average of 116 cows... .- 3.46 13,980 485 Average of daughters by last 3.46 15, 056 527 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 4 female lines with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 9 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 26 female lines with 2 successive crosses of riroved sires.

1106 4-8IRE HERDS—Continued LOXO LANE FARM, MIDDLETOWN. CONN.. HOLSTEIN

Hating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Name of sire Sire no. ters cent- and age of dams butter- Milk Eut- fat terfat

3 7 F E E Mount Herman Sir Gladice 357106. 4, fi 23 P E G Mount Uerman Sir Kelvvn 438012. 5 9 a F U Osborndale North Star Champion 493526. 7 5 G E E Winterthur Dad Boast Leo 636559. 2 . 1 NP NP NP

Total 45 Number of daughters better 21 33 28 than dams. Percent Pound ft TIerd average of 60 cows 3.34 481 Average of daughters by last 3,38 609 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings, no correction. 11 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 17 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

WESTERN WASHINGTON' EXPERIMENT STATION, PUYALLUP, WASH., HOLSTEIN

2 5 F G G Segis Pontiac DeKol Burke 2d 152564. 4 - 7 P G G Piébe Hero 311689. 5 21 F (} G Steilacoom Prilly Ormsby Svlvia 407735.' 6 7 F F G Chinook Homestead Cal 561262. 3 2 NP NP NP Total _ 42

Number of daughters better ]8 24 26 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 59 cows..- _ - 3.24 12,490 404 Average of daughters by Inst 3.49 13, 340 466 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings, corrected lo 2. 6 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 9 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

H. T. PATRICK, RUSTBURG, VA., JERSEY

2 8 E E E Genteel John 191042, 3 14 G G E Pogis Orange Prince 238748. 4 7 F F F Sybil's Gypsy King 3d 224962. 5 - 11 G E E Pansy's Eminent Noblemaw 247728. 1 _ 2 NP NP NP

Total 42 Number of daughters better 30 30 32 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 76 cows .. 5.03 8,229 414 Average of daughters by last 5.34 8,889 470 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 2 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 22 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1107 4-SIRE Hl'JllDS—Continued

W. C. WILSON, HILLANDALE FARM, PURCELLVILLE, VA., GUERNSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Production of— Sire no. Per- Name of sire ters cent- and age of darns butter- Milk But- fat terfat

2 __. 5 G E Park's Gypsy Lad 537G8. 3 . _ . 7 F F F Ophir's Ultra Sun 121177. 4..._ 28 F F F Brownlie Monarch 139792. 5 G E E Majesty of ]>onibardy 161659.

Total 45 Number of daughters better 29 33 30 than darns. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 73 cows. . . 4.92 9,423 463 Average of daughters by last 5.08 10,881 552 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 2 females lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. ]3 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

J, W. LOVING, PUEBLO, COLO., GUERNSEY

2 _ 10 E U G College Regulator 79720. 3 9 P P P Mixter Warcîoud 100133. 5 „ 10 P E E St. Craix Warren 74815. 6 _ 10 F E E Charm's Valor 183830. 1, 4, 7, 8 .. 6 NP NP NP Total _ 45 Number of daughters better 24 1 25 26 than dams. Percent .Pounds Pounds Herd average of 67 cows 4.78 i 11.259 526 Average of daughters by last 4.80 13,405 619 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 3. 2 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 21 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

MASSACHUSETTS STATE COLLEGE, AMHERST, MASS., AYRSHIRE

2 5 F E E Alta Crest King of Beauty 2d 15033. 4 12 G P P Alta Crest Trailmaker 21765. 6 8 U F F Alta Crest Rintrleader 29112. 7 8 U F F Alta Crest Pathfinder 33325. 3, 8--- 2 NP NP NP

Total _ 35

Number of daughters better 21 17 17 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 53 cows 4.11 9,927 407 Average of daughters by last 4.06 11,044 450 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 1 female lino with 1 successive cross of proved sires, 6 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 10 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. no.s 4-SIRE HERDS—Continued

FABIUS FARMS (ARTHUR L. JONES), THREE RIVERS, MICH., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Production of— Sire no. Per- Name of sire ters cent- and age of dams butter- Milk Rut- fat terfat

i_ _ 16 G U F P*^bst Crpator AfiJor 4.'î75QQ 2 _ _ 17 P G F Pabst Frilly Creator Louise 517960. 3 16 G F G Count Veeman Segis Piebe 336756. 4 _ 7 F P F King Ormsby Ideal 613867. Total 56

Number of daughters better 41 28 32 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 83 cows 3.35 12,871 426 Average of daughters by last 3.36 13, 447 450 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 3 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of ijroved sires. 19 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

BLOSSOM: HILL FARM, LEBANON, N. J., HOLSTEIN

4a, 13a, 4b _._ 12 P F U King Pontiac Model Champion 304697. 5a, 16a, 6b— 7 G U F Blossom Hill King Echo 486337. 8a, 14a, 6b, and 8 46 P F F King Echo Pietje 346895. 10a, 15a, 3b, and 9b 46 F F F Triune King Valentine 488531. 2a, 3a, 6a, 7,9,11a, 12,13,14,15.. 13 NP NP NP Total 124

Number of daughters better 67 74 75 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 156 cows 3.31 16,129 532 Average of daughters by last 3.31 16, 422 544 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, corrected to 3. 7 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires 38 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires

POLK STATE HOSPITAL, POLK, PA., HOLSTEIN

2 5 E P E King Champion Jannjet 72882. 5 _ 30 U P P Brookside Waldorf Prince Abberkirk 339372. 6 _ 62 F U F Pabst Creator Amos 4.57546 8 67 G F G Sir Inka May 21, 561789. 3,4,7 5 NP NP NP Total 169

Number of daughters better 113 78 90 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 249 cows 3.51 13,464 472 Average of daughters by last 3. 66 14,071 513 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 34 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 107 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1109 4-SIRE HERDS—Continued

IONIA STATE HOSPITAL, IONIA, MICH., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Name of sire Sire no. ters cent- and age of dams butter- Milk But- fat terfat

1 11 F E E Newberry Belldora Aggie 404293. 3 _ 11 F U F Pontiac College Paul 507031. 4 15 F F a Traverse Echo Model Marathon 504402 5 5 a G G Keformatory King Aggie Ormsby 568009. 2. . - 4 NP NP NP Total 46 Number of daughters better 29 27 31 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Hprd avprace of 67 cows 3.39 16,885 570 Average of daughters by last 3.43 18,372 627 sire.

Conditionsr 3 milkings. 2 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 12 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

W. J. SMITH, SHEDS, N. Y., HOLSTEIN

4 14 G G E Browleigh Segis Spoiïard 384148. 5 6 F P P Premier Colantha Homestead Boy 516226. 6 7 F E E King Pontiac Walker Lyons Sylvia 456304. 7 11 G E G Trestleview Pontiac Echo 552916. 2 3, 8 - 5 NP NP NP Total 43 Number of daughters better 29 27 29 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 54 cows 3.45 11,362 393 Average of daughters by last 3.63 11,701 428 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 2 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 16 female lines of descent with 2 succcvssive crosses of proved sires.

JOHN S. AMES, LANGWATER FARM, NORTH. EASTON, MASS., GUERNSEY

2 — 22 G F G Langwater Steadfast 31672. 3 18 U F F Langwater Valiant 51868. 4 8 G P P Ijangwater Sheik 77112. 5 17 F F F Langwater Pharaoh 98719.

Total 65 Number of daughters better 40 36 36 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 106 cows 5.02 10,576 529 Average of daughters by last 5.02 10,913 548 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings advanced register corrected to 2. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 15 female lines with 2 sucessive crosses of proved sires.

1110 4-SIRE HERDS—Continued E. PARMALEE PRENTICE,MOUNT HOPE FARM,"VVILLrAMSTOWN,MASS.,GUERNSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

4 7 P F P Mount Hope Pride 65425. 5 9 P P P Murne Cowan's Governor of Mount Hope 52602. 6 5 P E E Itchen King 49803. 7.._ _. 12 P E E Noble Regent of Allen wood 44384. 2, 3, 8 6 NP NP NP Total 39 Number of daughters better 13 26 25 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 54 cows 4.96 8,881 436 Average of daughters by last 4.83 10, 738 516 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings corrected to 2. 1 female line with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 10 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

SAUNDERS & MYERS, LEESBURG, VA., GUERNSEY

1 16 F F F Marvern's May Rose King 23301. 4 _ 24 F F F Prides Raides of Rosemont 68317. 5 23 G E E Caunsett Pollv's Foremost 106864 6 6 G G E Foremost King of Lombardy 207808. 2,3 3 NP NP NP Total 72 Number of daughters better 46 41 45 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 131 cows 4.77 10, 239 487 Average of daughters by last 4.90 10, 607 511 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 3. 1 female line of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 17 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of i^roved sires.

J. A. PHILLIPS, MÍDDLEBURY, VT., HOLSTEIN

F King Pontiac Alban Hengervold 244229. 3.._ E P U Duke Pontiac H. K. 310211. 4... F F F Sir Segis DeKol Alartra 222171. 5.._ U G G King Sylvia Lyons Pontiac 499878. 1,6- NP NP NP Total. Number of daughters better 22 20 22 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 44 cows 3.53 9,802 343 Average of daughters by last 3.48 10,708 372 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, 305 days, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. ] female line of descent with 3 successive crosses of ]>roved sires. 17 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1111 4-SIRE HERD8

\JN'IVE]{SrTY OF AlUZONA, TUCSON, ARIZ., ]10LSTEIN

Hating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of - Sire 110. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

6 1 G K P F Idalio Matador C\)n(iueror 384967. 7 . _-- _ _ 11 E P F Gila King Ormsby P'ytje Mercedes. 8. _ 7 r P \: 440883. TJ. of A. Theresa Bell Matador Ormsby 9 6 F G G 454800. 2, 3, 4, 5 8 NP NP NP Maricopa Marathon Eden Duke 556450. Total 38 Niiinber of daughters better 29 17 J7 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Her

Conditions: 2, 3, and 4 milkings, corrected to 3. i female line wth 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 5 female lines vvth 2 successive crovsses of proved sires.

L. J. TENCKIKCK, TWIN FALLS, TDATIO, HOLSTEIN

F E E Lava Kock Sarcastic Aleartra 412711. P G G Gem State Colantha Fobes 506083. E K E Colantha McKinley Fobes 565293. 7 G G E Halton's Piebe Colantha Eolia 558640. 2, 4, 10_, NP NP NP ^rotal- Number of daugli1:ers hetter 16 I than dams. Percent.Pounds Pounds Herd average of 39 cows 3.58 10,728 004 Average of daughters by last 3. 73 18, 405 684 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 3. 5 female lines of descent with 2 successive cro.-^ses of proved sires.

KNAPP SCHOOL OF COUNTRY LIFE, NASIJVILLE, TENN., HOLSTEIN

8 9 (Î G E College King Cornucopia De Kol 349914. 9 5 F P P Knapp Butterboy Segis De Kol 527855. 10 8 (Î F G Knapp De Kol Ormsby Abbokerk 503070. 12 _ () G C} E Breezy Lane Countess Ormsby 624405. 2,3, 4, 5,6, 7, 11 12 NP NP NP Total 40 Number of daughters better 29 17 22 than dains. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 52 cows 3.38 16,677 Average of daughters by last 3.54 1^, 639 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. G female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires

1112 4-SIRE HERDS—Continued

NORTH DAKOTA PENITENTIARY, BISMARCK, N. DAK., HOLSTEINS

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

2 _-. 5 E P P Kota Governor Sunnvside Pontiac 465723. 3 7 G O E Dean Ormsby Mercedes 21st 533102. 4 . -.- - 6 U u F Sir Johanna Ormsby Marlono 255217. 5 9 E F E Bacon Colantha Zubrod 339742. 1, G 5 NP NP NP Total.. _ 32 Number of daughters better 23 14 20 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 75 cows 3.37 14, 583 488 Average daughters by last 3.02 15, 350 555 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkinçs, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 7 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

SYCAMORE FARMS, DOUGLASVILLE, PA., AYRSHIRE

3 5 G P F Shew Altin Maines Ideal 18078. 5 . 9 E F G Glen Fairse Governor 28478. 10 11 E O G Penshurst Advancer 35022. 11 10 E P F Penshurst Lindy 35953. 2,4,6,7,8,9 13 NP NP NP Total 48 Number of daughters better 41 24 28 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd averaiïe of 84 cows 4.19 11,107 405 Average of daughters by last 4.59 10, 731 491 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 5 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

NEBRASKA SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE, CURTIS, NEBR., HOLSTEIN

4 9 G E E King Gerben Lyons 196903. 7-— 10 G F F Varsity Riebe Aristocrat 302572. 9 7 G P P U. Nebraska King La Vim 458458. 15 0 P E E N. P. Clothilde Topsy King Ormsby 652463. 3, 5,6,8, 10, 11, 14, 10, 17,18... 22 NP NP NP Total 54 Number of daughters better 28 32 32 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 03 cows ._ .. 3.67 18,146 004 Average of daughters by last 3.60 21, 558 787 sire.

Conditions: 2, 3, and 4 milkings corrected to 3. 1 female line with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 2 female lines with 3 succCvSsive crosses of proved sires. 17 females lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

38143°—iiO- -71 X 1113 4-SlRE HERDS—Continued L'TATT STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, LOGAN, UTAH, JERSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Production of- Sire no. Per- Name of sire ters cent- and age of dams butter- Milk But- fat terfat

4 __ 8 (} P P Marguerite's Noble Chief 100838. 8 __-__- 11 P E G Nan's Golden Raleigh 197737. 10 -- 0 (} G E St. Mawes Oxford Reuben 259231. 11 _ 5 P E E Ilelen's Oregon St. Mawes 262455. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12 10 NP NP NP Total 46 Number of daughters better 23 27 29 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 50 cows 5.30 8,247 438 Average of daughters by last 5.20 10,018 518 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, 305 days corrected to 305 days. 5 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

C. S. M'CALL, BENNETTSVILLE, S. C, GUERNSEY

5 . 0 G G Beauty's Raider of Waddington 41801. 6 _ 11 i: F Fern's Raider of Appin 64700. 9 12 F F Upland's General 79094. 12 8 CÎ P P Foremost's Golden IJoy 103080. 2, 4, 7,8, 10, 11 — 10 NP NP NP Total - . - 47 Number of daughters better 32 20 20 than daîris. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 73 cows-. 5.15 11,251 570 Average of daughters by last 5.49 10,002 539 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 3 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 8 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

3-SIRE HERDS

JAMES McGEE, FREDERICKSBURG, VA., JERSEY

2 _ _ _ U G G E Majesty's Admiral 172034. 4_ 14 F G Tripple Hood Farm Torono 270579. 5 . 17 G E E Sophie's Torono King George 277122. 1,3 _ 2 NP NP NP Total 44 Number of daughters better 27 34 37 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 00 cows 4.92 8,270 403 Average of daughters by lasr 5.21 9,541 495 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 4 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 12 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1114 3-ÖIliE HERDS—-Contirmod

HARRY ILIFF, INDEPENDENCE, OREG., JERSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of Sire no. daugh- Per- Production of— Name of sire ters cent- and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

1 5 E G E St. Mawes Lad 130501. 4 8 E P P The Maori 172121. 5.- _. 8 G F F Lilac's St. Mawos 266052. 2, 3, G, 7, 8 8 NP NP NP Total__ _ 29 Number of daughters better 24 13 17 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 34 cows 6.32 14,415 919 Average of daughters by last 6.40 14, 227 917 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 6 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 7 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

PAUL AND J. S. ROLLER, TIMBERVILLE, VA., JERSEY

3 _._ 5 G E E Penshurst Golden Boy 151182. 6 _ 7 E P F Fairview Farm Tormentor 174923. 9 _ 7 U F F Over The Top's Ace 261430. 2,4, 5, 7,8, 10, 11, 12- 12 NP NP NP Total -- 31 Number of daughters better 20 16 18 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 42 cows. _ 5.63 9,936 555 Average of daughters by last 6.90 10, 563 C18 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, 365 days. 1 female line of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 7 female line of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

LESII KELSEY & SON, HUNTINGTON, IND., GUERNSEY

] 12 F G E Maybelle's Crescent 78095. 2 15 E G E Burrow's Farm Polly Knight 99307. 3 12 G F G Highland's Ajax 100112. Total -- - 39 Number of daughters better 30 22 30 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 54 cows _ _ 4.93 9,042 444 Average of daughters by last 5.18 9,553 493 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 6 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 11 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1115 3-SIRE IIEllDS—Continucd

ADOLPH KNOTT, KILES, MICH., GUERNSEY

Eating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- Bnt- fat Milk terfat

2_ 7 G G E Milky Way's May King of Oronoko 708853. 3 9 F F F Jcthro of Niles 119634, Oct. 6,1925. 4 14 P G G Luxerin Endicott 109208. J, 5 6 NP NP NP Total 36 Number of daughters better 17 2Ö 25 than. dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 43 cows 4.94 8, 681 429 Average of daughters l)y hist 4.81 9,323 448 sire.

Conditions: 2milkings. 3 female lines of descent witli 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 10 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

0 SB ORNE FARMS, CANTON, N. C, GUERNSEY

1 6 G G G Lansdowne 18853. 4 .__ _.. 11 F G G Bonita's King of Grape Lawn 65740. 5 _.:: 19 P F F Millmount's Cavalier 97438. 2,3,6,7,8 15 NP NP NP Total 51 Number of daughters better 29 28 28 tiian dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 70 cows.-. 4.76 12, 273 581 Average of daughters by last 4.63 13, 048 604 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 3 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 7female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

GEORGE W. ARPS, DEFIANCE, OJHO, JERSEY

2 5 U G F Maplewood Double Prince 232581. 3 -- - -- 9 E U E .loans Heirloom of Purdue 250004. 4_ 8 F G G Defiance Henry Volunteer 332663. Total 22 Number of daughters better 16 13 15 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 31 cows.-- 5.35 8,942 479 Average of daughters by last 5.48 9,910 541 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 8 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 4 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. No NP sires.

1116 3-SIRE HERDS—Continued

J. W. McHENRY, GRAFTON, OHIO, R. 2, JERSEY

Rating of .sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- Milk Tiut- fat terfat

2.- 5 E P E Orioles Feru's Torono of S. N. F. 212889. 3 -. 21 G G E Cocotte Raleigh Reechfield 243567. 4 8 G F Foreword's Successor 289663. Total 34 Number of daugTiters bettor 28 18 24 than (lains. Percent Pounds Pounds ITerd average of 46 cows 5. 58 1, 668 431 Average of daughters by last 5.95 8,898 530 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Uerd Improvement Association and herd test. 4 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 6 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

CONNECTICUT REFORMATORY, CnESIRE, CONN., HOLSTEIN

Far Oaks Sir Iloraestead Darkness 263424. U F F North Star Noeltje Champion 43759S. P G F Pabst Sir Cornflower 563104. NP NP NP Total _, Number of daughters better than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 78 cows 3.83 12,655 484 Average of daughters by last 3.80 14,190 537 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 2. 7 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 20 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

T. J. ])EWEY, WESTFIELD, MASS., JERSEY

2 5 P E E Fauvic's Gipsy Boy 215108. 3 5 E E E Jolly Maid's Peter the Great 240801. 5 15 G P F Josephine's Abigal T^ad 289957. 4._. _ 2 NP NP NP

q\)tal 27

Number of daughters better 18 17 18 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 47 cows 5.21 7,960 412 Average of daughters by last 5.32 8, 036 426 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Diiiry Herd Improvement Association, 305 days. 1 female line of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 6 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1117 3-SIRE HERDS—Cüiitinucd

J. N. MARTIN, NEW PROVIDENCE, IOWA, JERSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of — Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

3 11 G P P Soi)hie's Tormentor's Floss Duke 216510. 4 7 P E E Hillside Pedro 25508. 5 . _ . _ 7 Ü E Smoky Pogis 318391. 2 2 NP NP NP Total. .._- 27 Number of daughters y.)ctter 13 17 18 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 41 cows 5.73 10,968 617 Average of daughters by last 5.79 13,097 750 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 2. 3 foTuale lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 9 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

L. RUSSELL BEARD, ITEBRON, ILL., HOLSTEIN

1 _ 8 17 P F Veeman Homesteiid Pontiac 403102. 2 33 F F G Admiral Ormsby Vale 414111. 4 24 U E E M. M. Canary Marathon 550391. 3 4 NP NP NP Total 69 Number of daughters better 39 40 42 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 108 cows 3.47 9,617 333 Average of daughters by last 3.43 11,359 387 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 23 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 4 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires.

PiriLIP STEFFANÜS, DELAVAN, WIS., JERSEY

1 - _ _ . 6 G G E Sophie's 19th's son 2d 109495. 3 __ . 6 F E E Vive Glowman's Lad 250781. 4 6 P F U Jolly Lassie Deacon 281294. 2„ . . 4 NP NP NP Total _ _. 22 Number of Daughters better 11 17 18 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 35 cows 5.41 7, 445 400 Average of daughters by last 4.89 8, 437 410 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, corrected to 305-day basis. 1 female line of descent with 3 suc(;essive crosses of proved sires. 5 female line of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1118 3-SIRE HERDS—Continued

EUGENE PfAM, VEKBANK, N. Y.. HOLSTEIN

Hating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per Sire no. Production of - ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- Milk But- fat terfat

3. _ 12 G G G Sir Johanna Jewel Gladi 372363. 4 2C P G G Blacres Marmaduke Ormsby 445333. K 15 F E E Winterthur Donsegis Bano Ideal Ö46752. 2 1 NP NP NP Total 54

Number of I^aughters better 28 38 34 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd averaee of 73 cows 3.25 11,177 3(53 Average of dangiitors by last 3.30 12, 389 408 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 4 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 18 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

GEORGE H. TIMMINS, WARE, ATASS., GUERNSEY

9 17 P E E Golden Belle's Royal 84292. 3 6 P F P Promise of Gold of Ware 87479. 4 . _ 10 G G E Langwater Hardwick 141685. 5 2 NP NP NP Total 35

Number of daughters better 15 28 28 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 54 cows 4.89 9, 557 469 Average of daughters by last 5.12 10, 497 537 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 3 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. C female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

FERNIIICIM FARM, MONTROSE, PA., AYRSHIRE

4 _ ._ - -- 8 P E G Kates Robin 20177 6 aîid 03'-' - 22 F U V Penshurst Sir Cuthbprt '277'22 7 7 U G E Penstate Sir Robert 34004. 2 and 21/2, 3, 5, 8,9 U NP NP NP Total 48

Number of daughters belter 2i 32 32 than dams.

Percent Pounds Pounds Herd avcrasfe of 62 cows 4.50 8,021 361 Average of daughters l)y last 4.57 8,917 407 sire.

Conditions: Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 2millcings, ?.05 days. 4 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 17 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1119 3-SIRE HERD—Continued

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, NEWARK, DEL., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of Sire no. daugh- Per- Production of— Name of sire ters cent- and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

2... 16 E U G Meadow Holm Ona Ormsby 230774. 4 - .- 24 P G F Winterthur King Ormsby Envoy 411070. 5. _ _ 9 P G G Winterthur Dad Boast Heboy 526862. 3__ 3 NP NP NP Total -- 52 Number of daughters better 24 30 33 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 70 cows 3.33 14,330 475 Average of daughters by lasi 3.26 16,311 532 sire.

Conditions: 2 to 4 milkings, corrected to 3. 4 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 15 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

HOMESTEAD FARMS, INC., STORMVILLE, N. Y., HOLSTEIN

G E E Nutmeg Colantha Sir Fayne 387085. P F F Count Paul Segis Posch 522060. G F G Korndyke Count Paul Segia Posch (504028. NP NP NP Total. 28 Number of daughters better 20 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 42 cows 3.41 10,684 363 Averagerage

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 8 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

HENRY W. TREAT, TALLMADGE, OHIO, GUERNSEY

2 7 F E E Waddington Bravo 99047. 3 9 F F G M il fords' Summit Raider 119824. 4 11 P F F Caumsett Indian 167796. Total -_ 27 Number of daughters better 14 J7 21 than dams. . Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 42 cows 5.10 8,656 434 Average of daughters by last 5.00 9,170 457 sire. .

Conditions: 2 milkings, Advanced Register and Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 1 female line with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 8 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1120 3-SIRE HERD—Continued

S. K. HEAD, HANNIBAL, MO., JERSEY

Hating of sires Pairs of daugh- Production of— Sire no. Per- Name of sire ters cent- and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

2,.__ _ 15 E P G Le Gros 102780 3 36 F a O You'll ÏDo Raleigh Oxford 169586. 4 13 E p G Le Gros Torono 214450. Total 64 Number of daughters better 45 33 38 than dams» Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 85 cows — 5.61 11,017 607 Average of daughters by last 6.21 11,022 682 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 365 days, . 1 female line with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 12 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 25 female lines wùth 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

LUCY R. SCUDDER, YAKIMA, WASH., GUERNSEY

3. 7 P G F Scotty of Scudder Ranch 135581. 4 - _ 7 U E E Fircrest LaFrance Royal 147632. 5 U u F U Fircrest La France Prince 140870. 2 _._ 1 NP NP NP Total 26 Number of daughters better 13 15 14 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 46 cows 4.98 8, 509 420 Average of daughters by last 4.91 8,677 422 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, 1 female line of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 7 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

R. B. CALDWELL, CHESTER, S. C, GUERNSEY

Governor II of Les Orantes (Imp.) 45452. 6 --. P F U Gallant Cavalier 83960. 9 P G U Imp, Betsey's Emblem 126428. 4, 5, 7, 8_. NP NP NP Total. 37

Number of daughters better 23 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 48 cows 5.18 11,798 605 Average of daughters by last 4.69 13,142 616 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 16 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1121 3-SIRE HERDS—Continued

E. C. ADAMS, BLUE SPRINGS, MO., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

2..._ 14 P G G King Walker Lyons Johanna 347164. 3 14 P F F Echo King Sylvia 267292. 4 5 ¥ F F Sir Aaggie DeKol Acme 42nd 469277. Total -- 33 Number of daughters better 13 22 20 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 97 cows 3. 54 16,881 595 Average of daughters by last 3.65 16, 255 587 sire.

Conditions: 2milkings corrected to 3. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 25 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

FRANK WOOD & SONS, PERRY, OHIO, JERSEY

2 9 P E G Oxford Ixia's Gamboge Boy 142439. 3 16 G P V Marie's Sybil Prince 263240. 4 15 P F F . Bowlina's Rhoderick Dhix 317914 Total-- 40 Number of daughters better 22 22 24 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 58 cows 5.29 8,018 421 Average of daughters by last 5.16 8,498 437 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 3 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 15 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

EDW. GRAVES, CONWAY, MASS., JERSEY

8- 9 F P F Goldie's Sophie's Tormentor 203144. 10 12 G V P Pogis of Sunny Dell Farm 249841 11- - . 6 P E G Madeline of Hillside's Boy 252846. 4, 5, 7, 9 _. 9 NP NP NP Total. 36 Number of daughters better 22 19 22 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 51 cows . 5.49 8,745 478 Average of daughters by last 5.28 9,967 523 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 1 female line of decent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 5 female lines of decent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1122 3-SIRE HERDS—Continued

WALTER FISHER, CRYSTAL FALLS, MICH., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

1 9 E F G Ryonwood King of Midway, 416847. 2 _ 12 F F F Pabst DeKol Creator Tobe 406995. 3 8 F F F Pabst Crusader Pontiac Duke 618734. TotaL_ 29 Number of daughters better 19 17 16 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 38 cows 3.69 10,911 403 Average of daughters by last 3.75 11,046 415 sire.

Conditions: 2ïnilkings. 2 female lines of decent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 15 female lines of decent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

n. L. SEVERE, PALMYRA, NEBR., HOLSTEIN

2 0 P F F King Yankee Pontiac Colantha 192424. 3 6 G U F King Scgis Gerben Ormsby Lincoln . 186986. 4 20 P F G N. P. Beauty Gerben Hengcrvcld 360809. 5, 6, 7 S NP NP NP Total 40 Number of daughters better 27 24 24 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 63 eow^s __ 3.46 13,487 466 Average of daughters by last 3.55 13,697 485 sire.

Conditions: Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 2 and 3 milkings for sire 2, others 2 milkings. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 21 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

HERMAN PLANKENHORN, HYDE PARK, N. Y., HOLSTEIN

4 19 F F F King Jessie Echo 373960. 7 _ _ __ 15 F G G Echo King Netherland 529020. 8 15 F F F King Mutual Rose 6th 532053. 3, 5_._ __ - 3 NP NP NP Total _ 52 Number of daughters better 29 33 29 than dams. Percertt Pounds Pounds Herd average of 78 cows 3.40 10,493 356 Average of daughters by last 3.38 10, 740 362 sire.

Conditions: Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 2. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 29 female linos with 2 successive crosses of pro\'ed sires.

1123 3-SIIlE HERDS—Continued

MATT BIRKER, VINTON, IOWA, HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of Sire no. daugh- Per Production of— Name of sire ters cent- and age of dams butter- But- fat ]\lilk terfat

4 9 G P P Independence Lad K. P. 0. P. 430178. 5 6 F G E Oak Tritoma De Bries 497536. C 11 G F G Sir Bess Nora Lad 557997. 2,3,7 8 NP NP NP Total 34 Number of daughters better 23 14 20 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 46 cows 3.84 14,343 550 Average of daughters by last 4.12 15,138 622 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 3. 3 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 10 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

CLEMSON COLLEGE, CLEMSON COLLEGE, S. C, HOLSTEIN

2 16 E P P Sarcastic Hero Lad 310535. 5- _ 24 P F F Sir Colantha Ona Fayne 376935. 7 9 E F E King Paul Canary Ormsby 356096. 3,4,6 _ 8 NP KP NP Total _ 57 Number of daughters better 29 22 28 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 71 cows 3.44 18,162 622 Average of daughters by last 3.53 19,498 087 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 1 female line with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 10 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 10 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

RAUTH BROS., BOONVILLE, IND., GUERNSEY

1 7 G U F Hambro's Sweet Boy of Robinhood 49144. 2 - ._ 17 E F G Fruitland Winner of Georgeland 102994. 3 19 E P F Scottio of Georgeland 142976. Total 43 Number of daughters better 40 18 20 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 53 cows 4.89 8,566 420 Average of daughters by last 5.14 8,331 429 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. 1 female line w^ith 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 6 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 18 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1124 3-SIRE HERDS—Continued

CANTINE HOLLY VALLEY FARM, SAUGERTIES, N. Y., HOLSTEIN

Bating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

4 __. 5 E E E King Ormsby Ideal Duchess 423518. 6. 8 F F F De Kol Ormsby Dutchland Pontiac 550071. 7__ 5 U U U Colantha Boy Pontiac Segis 620890. 3, 5 2 NP NP NP TotaL_ 20 Number of daughters better 13 12 13 than dams. Percent Pounds Herd average of 39 cows 3.35 11, 530

Average of daughters by last 3.42 10,462 ill sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 2. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 7 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

H. D. ALLEBACn, TROPPE, PA., HOLSTEIN

4 5 P E E King Pontiac Segis Pandyke 279169. 5 5 F E G Meadow Holm Hartog Finderne 330042. 6 __ 6 G E E Sir Aaggie Segis Cornucopia 290976. 3,7,8,10 11 NP NP NP Total 27 Number of daughters better 16 18 18 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 34 cows 3.58 10,189 362 Average of daughters by last 3.71 11,933 443 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 305 days. 7 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

R. T. DAVIS, WEISER, IDAHO, HOLSTEIN

2 . 7 F P F Segis Colantha Erastus 320039. 3 11 G P F Teton Sir Segis 406805. 5— 7 F F G Carnation McKinley Ragapplc 183077. 1,4..__ _._ 6 NP NP NP Total. 31 Number of daughters better 21 15 16 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 42 cows 3.41 15,514 518 Average of daughters by last 3.50 15, 296 533 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 1 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 2 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

112Í 3-SIRE HERDS—Continued

A. P. BIGELOW, MIDDLESEX, VT., HOLSTEIN

liating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

3 _._ 17 G P F King Bess Burke Do Kol 408333. 7— ]8 F U F Marathon Pontiac Ormsby 407042. 10 . 17 F U ü Sir Pasch Ormsby 597083. 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,]] 14 NP NP NP Total C6 Number of daughters better 38 26 31 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 107 cows... _. 3.05 12,113 441 Average of daughters by last 3.73 12,176 463 sire.

Conditions: Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 2 and 3 mil kings corrected to 305 days. 8 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 17 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

R. E. FORT, NASHVILLE, TENN., JERSEY

9 6 F E E Gamboge's Royal Heritage 126140. 15 7 E F E Aristocratic Heritage 253112. 18 9 U G G Dreaming Sam 270308. 2,4, 5, 6, 7,10,11,13, 14,17,19.. 15 NP NP NP Total 37 Number of daughters better 24 23 30 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 75 cows .. 6.G5 10,841 613 Average of daughters by last 5.78 12, 290 701 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 7 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

CLOVERFIELDS FARM, ROUTE 5, OLY, WASH., JERSEY

3 12 U G G lota's St. Mawes Channel King 269881. 4 - 6 E U G Oxford Sweeps Robert 273233. 6_. __ 5 U E E Oxford's St. Mawes Lad 229831. 2.. 2 NP NP NP Total _ 25 Number of daughters better 15 15 18 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 50 cows 5.14 8,700 4-15 Average of daughters by iast 5.36 9,023 484 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings. Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 7 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1126 S-SIRE HERDS—Continued

B. J. GILLMORE, BRISTOL, WIS., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

2 8 E Ö E Carnation Echo Creator 330133. 4... 7 F U F King Cornucopia Boon Johanna 383151. 7 14 F E E Gray View Joe Jolianna 573290. 1, 3, 5, 6 6 NP NP NP Total. _; 35 Number of daughters better 24 22 24 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 66 cows 3.53 9,819 347 Average of daughters by last 3.59 11,419 409 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association; corrected to 305 days. 9 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

J. ÍI. SWANZEY, RIDOTT, ILL., HOLSTEIN

3. ._ 10 U E E mini Homestead Pietertje Pieb 3rd 456330. 4 __ _ 8 P F F Logan Side Hill Ormsby Fayne 491027 5 __ 5 G P F King Colantha Schuiling 572742. 1,2 6 NP NP NP Total 29 Number of daughters better 13 16 17 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 48 cows 3.44 11,394 389 Average of daughters by last 3.62 12,166 436 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 13 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

A. MISTR ¿f SONS, RICHMOND, VA., GUERNSEY

2 8 F F F Mowen's Prince King 66372. 3 ___ 29 F F G Winston Farm Gold Seeker 104962. 5 5 G F F Raider's Ivanhoe 159163. 4- . 3 NP NP NP Total-._ 45 Number of daughters better 27 26 29 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 77 cows 4.74 8,944 418 Average of daughters by last 4.72 9, 508 443 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association and advanced register. 9 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1127 3-SIllE HERDS—Continued

COLORADO STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE. FORT COLLINS, COLO., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- liut- fat Milk terfat

8 10 F F G Sir Ormsby Skylark Daffy Uneeda 303888. 9 C G G E Columbine Pietertje Korndyke 420155. 10._ _ ___ 7 F F G Triune Wayne Rose 547993. 2, 4, 6, 7,11, 12 11 NP NP NP Total 34 Number of daughters better 18 20 22 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 50 cows 3.39 17,817 602 Average of daughters by last 3.42 20,215 687 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 3 milkings, advanced register. 9 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

STATE INDUSTRIAL HOME, MUNCY, PA., HOLSTEIN

3 7 G K E King Ambrosia Korndyke Lyons 436616. 4 14 P F F Loyalmead King Pontiac Alcartra 479952 5 8 P G G Onaco Piebe Pontiac 556368. 2 2 NP NP NP Total 31 Number of daughters better 15 22 23 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 42 cows 3.47 13,614 471 Average of daughters by last 3.35 13,171 460 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings, no correction. 11 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

C. S. ROGARDUS, (CLINTON, ILL., GUERNSEY

1 6 F Cr Chene King of Walnut Ridge 87890. 2 _ 5 F Roekingham Pompus 126679. 3 6 G G Noble Boy of Roekingham 166831. Total 17 Number of daughters better 9 10 than dams. Pounds Pounds Herd average of 29 COWS- - __ 8,728 398 Average of daughters by last 9, 687 430 sire:

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 5 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. Percent of butterfat was not reported.

1128 3-SIRE HERDS—Continued QUAIL ROOST FARMS, ROUGEMONT, N. C, GUERNSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of Sire no. daugh- Per Production of— Name of sire ters cent- and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk teriat

11 ___ 9 E F G Mimosa's Cavalier 37588. III _ 9 G F G Caumsett Taxpayer 145444. IV 17 G U F High Point Prince Maxim 104016. Total 35 Number of daughters better 30 17 21 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 96 cows 5.32 12,367 657 Average of daughters by last 5.48 12,361 678 sire. Conditions: 3 milkings. 4 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. CHRIS YORDY, MORTON', ILL., GUERNSEY

1 5 E E Winner of East View 105080. 2 _ 6 F U Lilah's King Peter 135044. 3 5 E E Sedgley Rilma's Ultimas 177248. Total 16 Number of daughters better 12 11 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 25 cows _. 7,390 355 Average of daughters by last 7,939 389 sire. Conditions: Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 2 milkings. 8 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. TIOGA COUNTY FARM , WELLSBORO , PA., AYRSHIRE

5 10 P G F Glenn Foerd Tiogan 29893. 6 12 F E E Sycamore Caeron 37740. 7 6 G F G Pennstate Marion's David 32076. 3 . 4 NP NP NP Total 32 Number of daughters better 19 21 19 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 57 cows __ 3.90 6, 581 256 Average of daughters by last 3.95 6,967 278 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 305 days. 8 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. PEDIGREED SEED CO., HARTSVILLE, S. C, GUERNSEY

3 6 F E E Grapelawn May King 45483. 5 _ _ 21 F F F Amelia's Rose Gold of Ophir 80460. 8 5 P P P Coker Cavalier 111753. 2 4, 6, 7, 9 17 NP NP NP Total --- 49 » Number of daughters better 29 24 24 than dams. - - Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 76 cows 5.25 11,937 627 Average of daughters by last 5.31 11,594 617 sire. Conditions: 3 milkings. 1 female line with 3 successive crosses of proved sires, 4 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

38143°—aC 72 1129 2-SIRE HERDS F. B. WEMPE, FRANKFORT, KANS., JERSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams biitter- But- fat Milk terfat

1 _ 7 E E E Viola's You'll Do Butter King 192677. 2 9 G G E White Way Prince Eminent 257735. 3 3 NP NP NP Total 19

Number of daughters better 14 14 16 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 30 cows 5.45 9,699 530 Average of daughters by last 5.59 10, 483 583 sire. Conditions, 2 milkings. 5 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. DIETRICH & THORNTON, BREMEN, IND., GUERNSEY

1 _ 6 P E E Corixland's Confidence 85252. 3.._ 16 E U G Parks Roger 40034, 9 3 NP NP NP Total 25 Number of daughters better 18 16 18 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd averacre of 41 cow^s 5.33 8,679 459 Average of daughters by last ___ 5.71 8,779 498 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings. 7 female lines of descent wiih 2 successive crosses of proved sires. G. & W. SHELDON, JEFFERSONVILLE, VT., JERSEY

2 7 G E E Newton's Sayda's King 219460. 3 10 G G E R, F. S. Tormentor's Last 265421. 1,4 5 NP NP NP Total 22

Number of daughters better 18 13 16 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 28 cows______5.69 6,839 389 Average of daughters by last 5.83 7,376 429 sire. Conditions: Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 2 milkings, 305 days, 5 female lines of descent w'ith 2 successive crosses of proved sires. CASTLE HILL FARM, WHITINSVILLE, MASS., AYRSHIRE

16 F U F Glenford Violator 32529. 9 E E E Penshurst Double Champion 36852. 3 and 6.. 4 NP NP NP Total. 29 Number of daughters better 17 19 20 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 59 cows 3.89 9,820 382 Average of daughters hy last 4.08 11,822 484 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings. 6 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1130 2-SIRE HERDS—Continued

GEO. TIí:DEN & SON, ELKADER, IOWA, HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sîrp TÍO ters cent- Name of sîro and age of Tîut- dams butter- Milk fat terfat

2.___ _ 7 F E E King Piebe Wildare Norrine 442147. 3 12 F E E Walcowis Abbekirk Ollie 359873. 4 __ 3 NP NP NP Total - 22 Number of daughters better, 14 17 17 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 32 cows 3.46 16,086 555 Average of daughters by last 3.43 18, 219 623 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, corrected to 3. 3 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. A. E. WISLER, LEETONIA , OHIO, GUERNSEY

2 _ 6 G F G M ay seeker of Myria Maree Farm 101794. 3 - - - 0 P E E Franchester Dominant 155870. Total 12 Number of daughters better, 6 9 10 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 21 cows 5.25 7,706 397 Average of daughters by last 5.26 9,078 477 sire.

Conditions: Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 4 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. GEORGE STOLT, ROCHESTER, WASH., GUERNSEY

2 _ 7 E F G Hawthorne of Weedywold 56098. 3.. 5 F E E Gaylord of Highland Place 93127. 4,5 7 NP NP NP Total------19 Number of daughters better. 13 10 11 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 35 cows 4.80 9, 489 446 Average of daughters by last 4.52 11,810 533 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 5 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. F. B. BLACK, R. 6, MANSFIELD, OHIO, GUERNSEY

2 - 11 G E E Sunnyvale Sun 103167. 3. -. 8 P G G Chedio Laddie 139827. Total 19 Number of daughters better, 11 14 16 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 38 cows 4.72 12,834 604 Average of daughters by last 4.65 14, 514 674 sire.

Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 3. 4 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1131 2-SIRE HEKDS^Continued WALTER HENSE, SHEDD, OREO., JERSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of Sire no. daugh- Per- Production of— Name of sire ters cent- and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

3 5 G G E Marine's Lad of S. B. 141146. 5 6 G G G Maiden's Masterraan You'll do 279190. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 _. 7 NP NP NP Total 18 Number of daughters better 15 12 13 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 22 cows 5.38 8,978 488 Average of daughters by last 5.38 9,700 522 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings, 305 days. 5 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

IVORY KIMBALL, REHOBOTH, MASS., AYRSHIRE

4 6 E E E Vi's Bountiful Good Cheer 26792 5 _ 9 G E E Strathglass Schoolmaster 36009. 2 and 3 5 NP NP NP Total - _- - 20 Number of daughters better 13 14 14 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 27 cows _ -_ 4.05 9,443 382 Average of daughters by last 4.10 10,441 427 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 5 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

STEPHEN SABINE (WESTEIELD FARM), GRC )TON, MASS., GUERNSEY

4 6 E E E Roslyn's Warrior 50987. 5 - 7 G G G Royals Legislator 89309. 2, 3, C 7 NP NP NP Total 20 Number of daughters better 14 11 12 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 28 cows 4.75 9,346 443 Average of daughters by last 4.76 9,680 459 sire. Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 2. 11 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sh-es.

A. J. HEMPLER, GARNAVILLO, IOWA, GUERNSEY

3,5 8 P E G Dean of Kosh Konang Place 81529. 4 __ 9 F E E Colonel Cinnamon 131334. 2 1 NP NP NP Total 18 Number of daughters better 12 16 15 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 32 cows 5.14 0,975 510 Average of daughters by last 5.30 10, 604 560 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings. 4 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1132 2-SIRE HERDS—Continucd s. M. MERRILL (ARGILLA FARMS), IPSWICH, MASS., GUERNSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of Sire no. daugh- Per- Production of— Name of sire ters cent- and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

2 10 U G G Langwater Sentinel 44805. 3_ 16 F G E Dolly's Foremost of High Rock 678827. 4, 5, 6 6 NP NP NP Total - 31 Number of daughters better 19 21 22 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 45 cows _ 5.53 10,079 550 Average of daughters by last 5.67 10,999 603 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings corrected to 2. 13 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. C. E. GRIFFITH, BIG CABIN, OKLA., HOLSTEIN

2._- 13 E G E Sir Johanna Bess Segis 187607. 5__. 10 E F G Mt. Riga Sir Piebe Segis Paul 547422. 3,4. 5 NP NP NP Total-, 28 Number of daughters better 26 18 21 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 50 cows 3.48 20,705 719 Average of daughters by last 3.68 20,997 770 sire. Conditions: 2, 3, and 4 milkings corrected to 3, 365 days. 5 female lines with 2 successive crosses of i)roved sires. EMIL PREGER, R. D. € , MADISON, WIS., HOLSTEIN

3, 4 11 G F F Prince Elba Ormsby Orchard View 401492. 5,6 21 G G E Sir Frisby OUie Ormsby 499889. Total 32 Number oi daughters better 26 22 23 than dams. Percent Pounds P(mnds Herd average of 47 cows 3.59 9, 659 347 Average of daughters by last 3.69 10, 568 389 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, corrected to 305 days. 2 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 17 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. H R. STEVENSON, SHAWNEETON, MO., JERSEY

3 7 G U F Sultan's Eli 167170 4-- 20 E G E Alermaid's Noble Forforshirfi 1879^1 2- 3 NP NP NP Total 30 Number of daughters better 22 19 22 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 40 cows 6.50 6,762 373 Average of daughters by last 5.84 7,123 416 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings, corrected for age and length of record. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 7 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1133 2-SIRE HERDS—Continued O. L. EEED, VKRGENNES, VT., GUERNSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of siró and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

1 27 G P F Rough wood Rondo 117829. 2 6 P E E Mount Hope Peveril 152261. Total 33 Number of daughters better 20 19 21 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 54 cows 4.84 6,729 323 Average of daughters by last 4.66 8,262 383 sire. Conditions: Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 2 milkings, 305 days. 5 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

UTAH STATE MENTAL HOSPITAL , PROVO, UTAH, HOLSTEIN

5 _ _. 14 F U F Goliah of Hollywood 55th 501656. 6 7 G E E Carnation Ormsby Valdessa 675525. 2, 3, 4 6 NP NP NP Total 27 Number of daughters better 17 14 15 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 54 cows 3.26 13,640 443 Average of daughters by last 3.36 14,475 4S6 sire. Conditions: 2 and 3 milkings corrected to 3, 305 days. 6 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

EMIL YOUNGQUIST, MOUNT VERNON, WASH., HOLSTEIN

2a - - 7 G F G La Connor Pontiac Segis 211875. 3a .- 6 E F G Cascade Sire Jessie Piebe 425924. 6a 4 NP NP NP Total 17 Number of daughters better 13 8 10 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 30 cows __ 3.30 17, 284 576 Average of daughters by last 3.47 19, 200 648 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 3. 4 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. MRS. JOHN KENT KANE, GLENLOCH, PA., GUERNSEY

3 and 7 9 E F G Idella Vorden's Hanam 164327. 5 and 51^ 21 E F G Brookmead's Masterpiece Shirley 136386. 2,4,6 - 5 NP NP NP Total 35 Number of daughters better than dams. 28 ■ 21 23

Herd average of 62 cows Percent Pounds Pounds Average of daughters by last 5.01 S, 491 422 sire. 5. 25 8,679 455 Conditions: 2 milkings. 4 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1134 2-SIRE HERDS—Continued L. H. MILLER, WATERLOO, IOWA, HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Millî torfat

2 6 F F a Cornucopia DeKol Creator, 481331. 4 14 G F G Tidy Sir Ormsby Piebe 539512. 3 4 NP NP NP Total 24 Number of daughters better 19 12 12 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 36 cows 3.69 15, 267 560 Average of daughters by last 3.79 16,460 621 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkiugs corrected to 3. 9 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. CHAUNCEY ROSE SCIIOOI , TERRE nAUTE, IND., HOLSTEIN

2 6 P F F Pabst Prilly Johanna King 418900. 3 ___ 6 G G E King Piebe 33rd 439779. Total 12 Nnmber of daughters better 6 6 8 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 19 cows 3.33 12,874 432 Average of daughters by last 3.49 14,501 506 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 3. 4 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE, ST. MARY-OF-THE-WOODS, IND., HOLSTEIN

3 M P G F King Piebe 24i;h 427882. 4 38 E G E Sunny Rose Piebe 573073. 1, 2 — 6 NP NP NP Total 38 Number of daughters better 21 22 22 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 74 cows 3.37 11,037 372 Average of daughters by last 3.62 12,114 439 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings. 9 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. E. V. STUART, LEES SUMMIT, MO., JERSEY

2 6 P E G Anaesthetic's Flying Fox 231226. 3 - 8 F G G Mermaids Golden Nobleman 273816 Total 14 Number of daughters better 5 10 9 than dams. Percent Pourtds Pounds 5.28 8,484 449 Average of daughters by last 5.34 8,798 473 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 365 days. 8 female lines with 2 successive crosses of prove«! sires.

1135 2-SIRE HERDS—Continued PHOENIX INDIAN SCHOOL, PHOENIX, ARIZ., HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

2__._ 18 Ö U P King Colantha Alcartra Prilly 451718. 3— _ 12 O F G Sir Inka May 12th 624279. 4 3 NP NP NP Total.. 33 Number of daughters better 24 20 21 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 61 cows... 3.16 16,112 504 Average of daughters by last 3.30 17,183 509 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 3. 6 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

TUDOR L. HOLCOMB, WEST GRAMBY, CONN., GUERNSEY

2 17 F G O Aphasia's Teddy R. of Hillstead 110641. 3 ___ 9 F U F Belle's Rose King of Hd. Fair 144221. 4-.-. _ 2 NP NP NP Total.__ 28 Number of daughters better 17 16 19 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 48 eows.-_ 4.78 8,792 419 Average of daughters by last 4.89 9.302 453 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 6 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. BERT LEAS, JR., GROVEPORT, OHIO, JERSEY

2... 6 P E G Roses Majesty Boy 203091. 3 _ 20 G F F Social Sybils Grandson of E. (^ 239394 Total.__ 26 Number of daughters better 16 15 lu than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 38 cows... 6.49 8,872 480 Average of daughters by last 5.59 9,018 604 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association and herd test. 3 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 10 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

L. S. FOWLER & SON , BRISTOL, WIS., HOLSTEIN

2 8 G F G ' King Cornucopia Boon Segis 439039. 3 8 P G F Prince Homestead Bess Pontian 'Í22Q70 1, 4, 5 _ 5 NP NP NP Total 21 Number of daughters better 8 12 14 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 30 cows 3.78 9, 705 367 Average of daughters by last 3.55 10,862 382 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, converted to 305 days. 4 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1136 2-SIRE HERDS—Continued E. W. nUEHS, CALEDONIA, MICH., GUERNSEY

Rating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

1 9 P G G Susie's Sir Launcelot of the Ridge, 64502. 3 14 F P F Cavalier of Oronoko 161503. 2 _ _ 1 NP NP NP Total 24 Number of daughters better 10 15 14 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 35 cows 4.99 9,064 450 Average of daughters by last 5.04 9,446 471 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 7 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of i^roved sires. SYD PENN, TROY, MD., JERSEY

2 , , - 17 F F G Troy Lad 210507. 3 8 P F F Financial Raleigh 0'Colman. Total. 25 Number of daughters better 15 16 15 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 39 cows _ 5.49 8, 585 470 A-verage of daughters by last 5.62 8,992 498 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings corrected to 365 days. 1 female line of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sire. 10 female line of descent with 2 successi ve crosses of proved sire. W. F. RANNEY, WESTMINSTER, VT., JERSEY

2 22 P E G Upwey's Owl's Elbert 219344. 3 _._ . _ 11 G U F Upwey Compound Owl's Vicar 316141. 1, 4 _ 2 NP NP NP Total _._ 35 Number of daughters better 13 23 23 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 46 cows 5.00 8,319 415 Average of daughters by last 6.11 8,601 440 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 305 days. 10 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. n. H. H OFFMA N, R. 5, ABILENE, KA NS., AYRSHIRE

2, 3 8 F G E Silver Good Gift 24428. 4 _-_ 22 G E E Alia Crest Play Safe 29851. 1 2 NP NP NP Total 32 Number of daughters better 21 21 22 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds 1 lerd average of 42 cows 3.84 7,705 292 Average of daughters by last 3.91 8,417 317 sire. Conditions: 2 milkings. 1 female line with 4 successive crosses of proved sires. 4female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 13 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1137 HERDS REPORTED AS GRADES

GARDNER STATE COLONY, GARDNER, MASS.: GRADE, HOLSTEIN

Rating of sires Pairs of Sire no. daugh- Per- Production of— Name of sire ter's cent- and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

2 12 P G F Prince Almira Mobel 240723. 3 7 G E E Dutchland Oreamello Korigen Duke 326672. 4 7 G G E Mount Herman Archibald Ando 438004. 5 14 F G G Mount Herman Archibald Butterbov 438013. 7 5 F G F Howcofit Korndyke Mobel 502209. 8 13 P U P Howcoflt Prince Mobel 517079. 9 5 F F G Prison Camp King Pietertje Alcartra 542485. 6 4 NP NP NP Total fi7 Number of daughters better 38 44 45 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 100 cows 3.71 11,825 438 Average of daughters by last 3.77 13,546 511 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings corrected to 2. 6 female lines of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 39 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

ALLEGHENY WORK HOUSE, BLAWNOX, PA.: GRADE, JERSEY

2 and 2A 5 U E E Oxford Napoleon 208823. 3 and 3A- 13 E P G No. 147. 4and4A 23 G E E No. 148. 6 5 P E G Workhouse Dreamer 328365. l}^i and 5 3 NP NP NP Total 49 Number of daughters better 32 33 39 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 76 cows 5. 45 7,] 04 386 Average of daughters by last 5.15 8,276 42S * sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 305 days. 10 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proi-ed sires. 32 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. J. W. N. GRUBER, SHIPPENVILLE, PA., GRADE GUERNSEY

2 9 E P G Cub (not registered). 4 7 P E G Tom (not registered). 6 24 F F G Thorton's White Light 125574. 3,7 -- 4 NP NP NP Total 44 Number of daughters better 31 21 29 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 67 cows _ _ 4.94 8,083 397 Average of daughters by last 5.08 8,747 443 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 305 days. 2 female lines with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 11 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires. 1138 HERDS REPORTED AS GRADES—Continued

HAGG BROS., REEDVILLE, OREG.: GRADE, JERSEY

Hating of sires Pairs of daugh- Per- Production of— Sire no. ters cent- Name of sire and age of dams butter- But- fat Milk terfat

3 30 E Madrid Tristram's St. Mawes 237485. 4 5 F E E Putman's Bull. 1, 2 4 NP NP NP Total __ 39 Number of daughters better 22 30 33 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 63 cows-_- 6.64 8,178 463 Average of daughters by last 5.74 9, 953 569 sire.

Conditions: 2 milkings, Dairy Herd Improvement Association. 4 female lines with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

JOHN GEINGER, TILLAMOOK, OREG.: GRADE, GUERNSEY

] 14 E G E Heroine's Walter of May Rose 73264. 2 9 E P Giant Oak Oregonian 130124. Total 23 Number of daughters better 21 12 16 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 33 cows— __ 4.82 12,514 594 Average of daughters by last 5.50 11,471 615 sire.

Conditions: Dairy Herd Improvement Association, 365 days. 1 female line of descent with 3 successive crosses of proved sires. 7 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

MASSACHUSETTS STATE PRISON, NORFORK, MASS.: GRADE, HOLSTEIN

22 U G E Duke Pearl Asiatic 444012. 8 E U G Count Colantha Ormsby Posch 553496. 5 F E E Middleton Sir Ormsby Pietertje 588676. 4 NP NP NP Total- 39 Number of daughters better 22 24 28 than dams. Percent Pounds Pounds Herd average of 65 cows 3.66 11,963 437 Average of daughters by last 3.60 14,660 528 sire.

Conditions: 3 milkings. 10 female lines of descent with 2 successive crosses of proved sires.

1139 Members of University and Experiment Station Staffs Who Arc Supervising and Conducting Breeding Work with Dairy Cattle and Those Who Are Conducting Biometrical or Other Genetic Studies

Alabama: J. C. Grimes, W. H. Eaton. Arizona: W. S. Cunningham, R. N. Davis. Arkansas: C. O. Jacobson. California: W. M. Regan, S. W. Mead, A. H. Folger. Colorado: G. E. Morton, J. O. Toliver. Connecticut: G. C. White, R. E. Johnson. Delaware: T. A. Baker, A. E. Tomhave. Florida: R. B. Becker, P. T. D. Arnold, C. H. Willoughby. Georgia: M. P. Jarnagin, F. R. Edwards, Z. A. Masscy. Idaho: D. L. Fourt. Illinois: W. L. Gaines, W. W. Yapp. Indiana: J. H. Hilton, J. W. Wilbur. Iowa: C. Y. Cannon, J. L. Lush, D. L. Espe, H. H. Kildee. Kansas: F. W. Atkeson, H. W. Cave, H. L. Ibsen. Kentucky: Fordyce Ely, H. B. Morrison. Louisiana: C. H. Staplîes, R. H. Lush. Maine: L. S. Corbett, H. W. Hall. Maryland: DeVoe Meade, L. W. Ingham. Massachusetts: V. A. Rice, C. H. Parsons. Michigan: E. L. Anthonv, G. E. Tavlor. Minnesota: J. B. Pitch, W. E. Petefsen, N. N. Allen. Mississippi: J. S. Moore. Missouri: A. C. Ragsdale, C. W. Turner, Samuel Brody. Montana: J. O. Tretsven. Nebraska: H. P. Davis, R. F. Morgan. Nevada: F. W. Wilson. New Hampshire: K. S. Morrow. New Jersey: J. W. Bartlett, H. H. Tucker, Fred Gauntt. New Mexico: O. C. Cunningham, L. H. Addington. New York (Ithaca): E. S. Harrison, E. S. Savage, S. A. AsdeU, New York (Geneva): A. C. Dahlberg. North Carohna: C. D. Grinnels, R. H. Ruffner, F. M. Haig. North Dakota: J. R. Dice. Ohio: S. M. Salisbury, C. C. Hayden. Oklahoma: Earl Weaver, A. H. Kuhlman, P. C. McGilliard. Oregon: P. M. Brandt, L R. Jones. Pennsylvania: A. A. Borland, A. L. Beam. Rhode Island: J. E. Ladd. South Carolina: J. P. LaMaster, E. C. Elting. South Dakota: T. M. Oison. Tennessee: C. E. Wylie, M. Jacob, S. A. Hinton. Texas: C. N. Shepardson, O. C. Copeland, W. R. Horlacher, B. L. Warwick. Utah: G. B. Caine. Vermont: H. B. ElUenberger, M. H. Campbell. Virginia: C. W. Holdaway, P. M. Reaves, A. D. Pratt. Washington: E. V. Ellington, J. C. Knott. West Virginia: H. O. Henderson, R. A. Ackerman, G. A. Bow^ling. Wisconsin: L. J. Cole, G. C. Humphrey, I. W. Riipel. Wyoming: H. S. Willard.

Workers at Other Institutions ^

Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station: W. G. White.^ Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station: L. A. Henke. Puerto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station: S. Basherov. A. J. C. C: Lynn Copeland.

1 Resigned. Workers who have published results of studies.

1140 Carnegie Institution: C. B. Davenport, A. T. Blakeslee. Chicago University: Sewall Wright. Harvard: W. E. Castle.2 Holstein-Friesian Association: E. E. Heizer, H. W. Norton, Jr. Johns Hopkins: Raymond Pearl. Mount Hope Farm: E. P. Prentice, H. D. Goodale. Oakhill Estate: A. A. Thompson. Pinehurst Farm: Leonard Tufts. Rockefeller Foundation: J. W. Go wen. Workers in the United States Department of Agriculture Washington, D. C: R. R. Graves, M. H. Fohrman, W. W. Swett, J. R. Dawson. J. C. McDowell, J. F. Kendrick. Beltsville, Md.: T. E. Woodward, C. J. Stauber, C. A. Matthews, F. W. Miller, T. W. Moseley. Field stations: Mandan, N. Dak.: A. L. Watt. Pontiac, S. C: E. W. Faires. Woodward, Okla.: A. G. Van Horn. Huntley, Mont.: D. V. Kopland. Jeanerette, La.: S. L. Cathcart. Hannibal, Mo.: C. W. Mcintyre. Lewisburg, Tenn.: J. A. Simms. Logan, Utah.: G. Q. Bateman.^ Puyallup, Wash.: R. E. Hodgson.-* 2 Retired. s Cooperative with Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, * Cooperative with Western Washington Agricultural Experiment Station.

1141