NON-STRIPPING

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 8, Issue 52, 27 February 1945, Page 6

NON-STRIPPING

TESTS CONDUCTED

LITTLE DIFFERENCE SHOWN

In November and December 1941 .states, the New Zealand Dairy Board' annual report l'or 19-14 a surve; .. was made of approximately thirb herds where no hand stripping ha< been eanieid out for one or mon ' years. Visits were made to eacl I'iirm and a complete report of milk ing' machine, sliecl prac I ices and mastitus incidence wa, Compiled. Whilst the number o 3 herds- was relatively small some use - I'ul information particularly or ' milking machine efficiency, shec routine and the training of cattle to respond to this practicc was obtained. The production data indicated very little if any fall in outpul per cow as a result of no hand strip, ping whether analysed on the basis , of the same cows before and after the introduction of non-stripping ot 1 on a herd basis. In the two seasons since that data was published it has been possible to build up information on 26C herds > which have at some time during the past five seasons, abandoned in whole or in major part the) prac. ticc of hand stripping. An analysis was made of their average herd production per cow (over all available testing seasons) in the two periods so as to have general information on what is the effect over a large number of herds of the adoption of this practice. It Avas found that the average for all herds when comparing production before non-stripping' and after non-stripping 'showed a fall of only 41b of buttcrfat per coav per season 5 while the average herd numbers showed an increase of 1.8 cows thus ruling out the feed advantage that may have been gained had herd sizes been reduced. The only significant fall in production in all groups, tested Avas in one in Avhieh stripping was abandoned in the 1943-41. season and for which only one season's production! figures were available for comparison for the seasons in Avhieh hand 'stripping was practised. This showed a decrease of lOlb.s of fat per coav. The number of days in average length of lactation is much shorter in the season of' non-stripping and it is at the moment a matter for speculation whether herd management conditions' or some other factor had been responsible or whether in herds practising non-stripping for the first time there is a greater percentage of "failures" than alter at least one season's experience of nonstripping.

I r iirtiief tfUFfc FSnUUn* to &c carried out on some of the more fundamental problems of non-s-ti ipping ? particularly a study of tho behaviour of individual cows under such a change in milking procedure. This survey suffices at the ever to emphasise that under practical field conditions, a fairly large sample of farmers have demonstrated their ability to maintain herd levels of production without the necessity for hand stripping of cows. Mastitis Incidence The question is frequently raised as to whether mastitis is greater or less in herds, where the cows are not hand stripped. Without discussing the. theories for more or less mastitis as the case might be, we are able to quote the recorded cases of clinical mastitis for the herds tested.

1912-43 J All Herds ;; • 12.1% Non-stripped Herds .... 12.5% 1943-44 Ail Herds 11.8% Non-stripped Herds- .... 11.9% The data for two seasons of investigation is sliown because of the confirmatory nature of the detailed figures of the point that there appears. to be neither more nor less mastitis in the herds under nonstripping as compared with hand stripped herds. in this, the third year of collect-] ing field'data on mastitis incidence J the number of co-operating herds shows a gratifying increase of over 50 per cent., the total being 1919 herds. The collection of this held data makes available representative information on the extent and conditions of incidence of mastitis. 1-or this purpose it must be clearly understood that the. definition of mastitis is usetel in a limited field sense to include only the more obvious clinical cases. The herds under group test would probably constitute a slightly better than average sample, but rMs stated that the incidence figure whoreverTftTTited is likely to be a minimum. Only by using large numbt rs of heris in each comparison \< this met ho .1 of survey likely to prove satisfactory as a method of general definition.