INTERESTING DEBATE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 87, 3 October 1947, Page 5

INTERESTING DEBATE

Y.F.C. v FEDERATED FARMERS

HERD REPLACEMENT DISCUSSED

A crowd of over 50 assembled in the Church Hall at Edgecumbe on Monday night to hear the Rangitaiki Branch Federated Farmers and the Thornton Branch of the Y.F.C. debate the subject “That it is advisable to rear one’s own herd replacements on a 100 acre dairy farm.”

The teams were: Federated Farm- . ers (affirmative): Messrs. I: B. Gow, J. P. Caulfield and F. T. _Mayo. Y.F.C. (negative): Messrs. M. Law, I. Law and L. Broadmore. The Judge was Mr L. Buddie of Whakatane, the chairman Mr H. Robins and the timekeeper Mr E. R. Marryatt. Mr J. E. Bell, Fields ~ pervisor, Department of Agriculture, Auckland, was also present and spoke at the conclusion of the meeting!

The Debate

Opening the case for the affirmative Mr Gow stated the dictionary meaning of the word advisable was something that could be recommended. His team recommended the rearing of one’s own replacements. Until such time as science devised a machine capable of producing it the cow would be the means of making milk. A cow would wear out and the time came when the animal needed replacing. The best source of obtaining these replacements was from the cows themselves. A farmer

Tcnew his own cows and that eliminated part of the gamble. Science had removed much of the gamble associated with the herd sire. The speaker sdid that articles in many farm journals stressed how herds had been improved by a farmer first testing' to find the best cows in his herd and then, with the services of a proven herd sire, breeding from these selected animals his own herd replacements. No short term policy was of any use on 'a farm. One had to look to the future. In this the alternative to breeding one’s own "replacements v/as the annual “lucky dip” in the saleyards with the forlorn hope that the standard of the herd would be raised.

Farming was not merely a livelihood'but a life, and one of the greatest pleasures associated with this" was the annual ‘bursting of the bud’. The speaker also mentioned the appeal from Britain for increased dairy production. This was a duty which could not be neglected. 73 points.

Mr M. Law, opening the negative argument, said that his team would prove that the rearing of replacements was .uneconomical and therefore not advisable. They suggested milking to capacity and buying in selected heifers as herd replacements. Instead of 20 calves his team suggested milking an extra 10 cows and doing away with three pedigree bulls, using in place of the latter two grade animals. In a Jersey herd an Ayrshire grade sire would improve the weight of the calves thus giving a higher bobby calf return. The speaker gave a table of figures, obviously well prepared, showing that a farmer could save £1 6s 5d per acre by following the policy his team advocated. A farmer on town supply could save even more than this. Concluding his case Mr Law stated that the rearing of herd replacements was economically unsound. 70 points.

Mr Caulfield, second speaker for the affirmative, declared that it was advisable and economical to rear one’s own replacements. If farmers did not do this the dairy population ■could minish to vanishing point in a matter of a few years. There was already a downward trend, the number of dairy cows having dropped from 1,800,000 to 1,500,000 in the ;past four or five years. The annual

wastage in stock in. the Dominion was 20 per cent. On the average farm of the stated size, where production averaged 2401 b fat, at least 30 per cent, of the heifer calves were worth saving. He went on to give figures on the cost of rearing calves from birth to the stage when they came into profit. 63 points.'

Mr I. Law said that a number of calves, yearlings and two year olds considerably reduced the number of cows which could be carried on a farm. A 100 acre farm carrying replacements did not warrant the employing of extra labour with the result that the farmer was often overworked. If the young stock' were sold and an extra 10-15 cows put on such extra labour would be warranted.

The difficulty of finding a suitable sire, capable of improving the standard of the herd was also mentioned. The speaker quoted figures from the sire survey and merit register which showed that a farmer had 29 chances in 100 of obtaining a sire capable of improving the standard of his herd. The buying in of replacements saved time, money and effort. The animals took one year to prove themselves as against five years in the case of reared replacements. Three year olds could be converted into beef at the minimum of loss. He concluded with a statement that buying replacements from a reputable breeder was preferable to rearing them. 69 points.

Mr F. T. Mayo thought the negative party’s imagination had completely dazzled their intellect. Was economy the only thing pertaining to a dairy farm, he asked. A farm was looked upon as a business and a. successful businessman must possess assurance of continuity. The best insurance of continuity was one’s own herd replacements-. Regarding the bull for increasing production he suggested that the animal be reared on the farin. At the rate of decrease which would follow the negative policy no cows left in New Zealand in ten years.

His opponents had stated that their bought in 2 year olds would prove themselves in one year. The speaker wished he had some which would do so. Any dairy farmer knew that it took much longer for a cow to prove herself. He suggested that their opinions had originated while feeding calves amidst the bad conditions they had mentioned.

Mr Mayo quoted the maxim “he who ( refuses to answer to the rudder must answer to the rocks.”

The rudder he meant by the sound policy of rearing one’s own herd replacements with personal attention and care and the rocks were described as the saleyards of regret, despair and disease. 56 points.

Mr Broadmore, third speaker for the negative, said the question could be viewed from three angles, time and labour, diseases and losses through contagious diseases. From the time the calf was born until it became a 2 year old it needed careful treatment if it was not to fall victim to the many diseases calves are subject to. It took three weeks •of the farmer’s working time, about one hour a day, to give proper attention to calves, and unless they received the proper care and attention they could not be expected to produce well when they were matured. Time and labour was spent in cleaning utensils, buckets etc. and when the animals finally were two year olds a certain number failed to come into profit. The cost of rearing one’s own was 10 per cent, higher than that of buying in as the negative team advocated. 71 points.

In his summing up Mr Law said that his team had stated they advocated buying in picked heifers as their replacements and not just any heifers.

The claim that in a fe\y years there would be no cows left in a few years if the negative policy were followed was exaggerated. The laws of supply and demand would adjust themselves. Specialists - would rear calves for marketing to the bigger farms. The speaker repeated his previous figures and again summarised the benefits to be derived from the buying in policy. 25 points.

Mr I. Gow, summarising for the affirmative, said that they had heard a demonstration of how hard it was to speak against one’s own convictions.

The question of better bobby calf returns was poor. Sending the calf of a cow which had done say 6001 b fat to the annual “slaughter of the innocents” in order to make perhaps £1 was suicidal.

Regarding picking heifers the speaker stated that the man who

had reared the animals was bound to keep the best for himself, leaving the tail end, including the offspring of the low producers, to the saleyards buyer. Regarding disease the speaker said it v/as well known that a certain immunity developed within herds. A. farmer buying in from outside was liable to have disease sweep through his whole herd.

The negative party had detailed all the difficulties associated with raising stock. Why then should a farmer entrust to someone else a job which he himself found hard? The only possible w'ay of raising a herd average from 2401 b to 4001 b was by obtaining proven sires and breeding from selected cows within the herd.

Despite a valiant effort, Mr Gow concluded, the opposition had not made their case. 40 points. Teamwork points awarded were 30 to each side.

Judge’s Remarks

In awarding his decision to the Young Farmers Mr L. Buddie said that it had been a very interesting evening. He considered that the winners had put a lot of vork into their preparation as was evident from the speeches which were “choc a block” full of meat. The affirmative team was ably led Mr Gow and his summary in particular was very good. Winners Congratulated

Mr Gow in congratulating the winners said he was glad the boys had won but he was glad also to see that they had won by only three points.

He said that as fathers his team was glad to see' that the younger generation could do a little better. There was a type of young man in the Y.F.C. that would not have been possible in their fathers’ day. The leader of the negative, Mr M. Law, thanked Mr Gow for his remarks and also for allowing the practice which the debate had been for his team.

A main reason for the suggestion of the debate was that the Y.F.C., represented by the young men, should have something in common with the older generation, represented by the Federated Farmers he said. ■. „ • ... -