THE COW-TESTING MOVEMENT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1473, 22 June 1912, Page 14

THE COW-TESTING MOVEMENT.

ITS .'ADVANTAGES DETAILED.

WORDS OF ADVICE TO TOE DAIRYMAN.

" HAVE YOUR HERO TESTED."

(BY ME, W. DEMPSTER, DAIRY INSTRUCTOR.)

The advantages of cow-testing were exhaustively dealt with by Mr. \Y. Dempster, Dairy Instructor, in a paper read at the Dairy '.'.Conference, held iu connection with tli a recent Waikato Show.

liefriro dairy factories started in New Zealand, said' Mr. Dempster, the method employed for- ascertaining the buttsr-pro-ducing qualities of a. cow were l'or the women, who then had' charge c.f the dairies, to set each cow's milk by itself, and churn the cream separately, so that at that time—thirty years ago-a fairly good:idea as to which was the best, cow could he obtained.. With the introduction- Of the dairy factory, the system of paying by the gallon irrespective of quality was adopted, the cow giving the most milk being the most payable one, and by this means tho:• dairy fanner knew ■which .was his most profitable cow. i Introduction of the Babcock Test. Twenty-one,'years ago,, the Babcock tester was introduced, but for the period of three yeafs its use to determine the commercial value of milk did not become general. For the last eighteen years . has been tho means'of determining tile value of milk between buyer and seller, and 'generally speaking since that time the farmer lias been unable to say with assurance which was the best of his good cows, ,as he really had to guess as to how far tho high-testing cow outweighed the heavymilker, and as to how (lie persistent milker'compared with them both. Too much notice of the test has been taken ;in the 1 past; the larger question of how much: butter-fat tho cows aver-

aged lias not been considered. A farmer with a shigli test has often been the envy of his iieighbours, and as a rule no farmer complains because his...test .is .low; it is because thero 'is a : higher 'oner 'To show how enoneous a high test really is —A farmer with a 4.3 test was congratulating himself that he was the best at the factory, liis butter-fat for the month of November being 281b. per cow. Another farmer who was rather envious of tho high test and-considered his test of 3.4 on the low side averaged 431b. for the month. Tho man with the high test valued his cows on tho test rather than on the pounds, of butter-fat. The average test, of his herd-for the season wa5.4.4 with 1881b. of butter fat ; the other man's herd .averaged 317, with difference of 631b., or ,£3 por head in favour of the low'.test. . .1 r

• Farmers Should Talk Butter-Fat. An up-to-date farmer shuuld not talktest; he should talk butter-fat. For a farmer to say that his average test for the season was 4.8 is meaningless. It j does not convey, to anyone tho idea as to what his herd has produced, He sliohld state tho pounds of butter-fat his cows- averaged. Butter-fat is what lie gets paid for, and butter-fat is what ho should talk when buying or selling a cow. It is easy for a farmer to know, tho'. average production v of.. butter-fat .of, his ■ herd, ho simply divides the total pounds of butter-fat paid for by the number. of cows milked for tho season. How inaiiy dairy farmers do it? The time has now come that a dairy farmer requires to. know more than the average production of his cows. It is now necessary for him to point to each cow in his herd, and to state exactly.how much butterfat she has produced. When the Department of Agriculture introduced the Testing Association, each of' the 100 members was asked to select his '.eight best cows, and place thcrn in order of merit, and while some made good Selections, not one placed his cows correctly. It had to be admitted that, the average farmer, while he selected good cows, did not select his best. One dairyman selected' 1 a cow which gave J7fllb. of fat, but missed one giving 11311b.—a difference of 1521b., 0r.J37.125. in money. Another farmer did riot'select a con - which gave aOilb. of fat, but selected one which gave 2S(ilb., a dilfercnco of 2111b., cr .£lO lis. ' 1 Tho point was further accentuated that this man did not select five of his best cows, and actually selected one when ho had 112 better. His average production per cow being 3611b., it is right to infer that this particular. farmer must have, been a good judge of a cow. Another dairyman had a cow. tested oi.ee, her test being 3.2,. which he considered too low for him. He did not select her, and\oifered her for sale for .£lO, which the prospective buyer; thought tuo much. .Tho cow proved to be. lji> best, and . returned him .CIS for the season. Short Tesis Misleading. To tost a cow once or twice is mis-

leadin". or to assume that a, herd of cows with th" highest average production o! but'cr-l'ci' foi a month would be the h'v*' 1 - est, tor the season is equally misleading; as one. herd which averaged highest, for t«-c months was only, eighth for the Eeabod with 2521b„ as against 2i2lb. for tho

highest. .'ls it is with herds, so it is with individual cows. No. 1 cow produced for three months 1301b. of fat, as against 1131b. by .No. 2 cow in the same herd. No. 2 produced for tho season 2721b., as against No. 1 2031b.—a difference of 691b.,' or <£3 9s. in money. The peVsisteney of a milking cow must receive every ctnsiderat.ion, as some cows which produced over 3001b. did not give any more than No. lat llie highest. A daughter of No. 1 only produced 511b. of fat in 10f days. It 13 not difficult to imagino that a dairy fanner, might suppose a cow IMce No. 1 to bo his best cow as judged by her performance at tho height of the season, and that her calf,\ if a bull,, would be a good one; a bull from this cow would probably be oil a par with the daughter, and would perhaps for three years or so cause degeneration in the dairy herd, by his direct influence, anil for 'many more years by his indifferent influence. 'Cows of No. 1 typo aro considered the dual-purpose cow, and so soon as they becomo pregnant, or when the dry season commences, they go I beef alter having averaged from 1001b. to 2101b. of butter-fat. No farmer should take credit to himself if his cows go to beef; he could not help it if ho would; he has got the wrong class of cows. "While a dairy farmer whose herd averages him about 20011). of fat, is doing well, the point is, "Ifo.v much better could he do?" 'l'he average for the 4000 cows tested last vear was 2231b. of fat, tho highest being 3011b., and tile lowest 1771b., 1100 of the "4000 cows averaged 3001b. or over, 10 cows averaged 4001b. or over, and two of tliem

over 5001b. The highest averago for a single cow was 10581b. for 3G5 days.

Specialise in Dairy Breeds. To "get tho best results, it is necessary to specialise in dairy breeds; tho Danes have realised this, having started their first testing association 17 years ago. They rear only sutficient heifer calves from their best cows to renew their herds, but feed' tho calves well. They do not trouble about raising beef, and find i: pays better to rear pigs. They turn out three bacon pigs for each cow milked, and export 28,000,000 ki oners worth of bacon as against 55,000,000 kroners for butter. Our New Zealand farmers can do the same, as one farmer I ■ know this season has reared all his calves and f(KI two pigs per cow. Cows true in typo produce butter-fat at 25 per-cent, less than does the dual purpose cow'. '

At an experimental station in America, a trial was recently, made to see which breed of cattle would produce butter-fat the cheapest. Accurate records of yield of cows and fdod eaten by each cow were kept, and while it was found that cows of the different breeds ate. food almost in direct proportion, to. their live weight, the actual results were negative, as a cow would beat another of a different .breed, then th 6 order would be reversed, 'and so 011 right through, so that nothing definite could bo arrived at. Another experiment was made. Herds were selected by competent judges and divided into four classes on conformation alone, irrespective of breed:—First dairy type, second dual purpose with dairy points, third dual purpose with beef points, fourth beef type. As before, records of yield and food eaten weiy kept, when it was found that No. 1 produced buttor-fat at Cd„ No. 2 7d., No. 3 Sd., No. 4 9d. It jvas also found that when the cost of feed was the lowest the cost of butterfat production was the highest, as a cow looked after her body first. It was also proved that when the cost of feeding per day was the highest, the cost per lb. of butter-fat was tho lowest; and can bo explained that when a cow is truo in type if it cost Gil. per day to make her produce lib. of butter-fat, 4d. of the Gd. would l» required for the body. By increasing her food by 2d. she would possibly give an additional -lib., making in all 111b. for Sd..' as against lib. for Gd.

Buying a Bull. When a cow is true in type, extra feeding goes into the bucket, but if a' cow is not bred for milk it must go on her body, where nature intended it to go. We have, two distinct breeds of cattle—beef and dairy—and two distinct breeds of horses. Xo 'farmer would attempt to breed a horse that could draw laewt. and win a race, too, and no farmer should attempt to breed for both beef and milk. The only suro way to improve the butter-fat production is" to select tho heifers from the bnst cows and mate them with a purebred bull, with a milking record. When

Need For Good Feeding. Tho only sure way to improve a herd is by breeding, and the constant use of tho Babcock, as a breeder can liavo his judgment confirmed or o'.herwise. ' By keeping records lie can compare his heifers with their mothers as heifers, and thus individualise his cows. A man who buys to improve his herd is at the mercy of tho breeder, as lie can only get tho best for pale, which is very different from the best obtainable. ■

buying a bull, ask for the production of butler-fat of his dam, grand dam, and great grand dam, also the production of butter-fat of the dam and grand dam of hi? sire. Having obtained this information and found that the. cows all along the lino wcro good performers, you.

can then inquire about his pedigree. If his pedigree is pure and ilie performances of his ancestors good, buy him, that is the best you can do; but to liuy a bull simply because ho has a pedigree is like taking a leap in the dark. The bull may or may not improve llie herd. I would prefer io buy a bull got by a good sire, of approved butler-fat record, even if lie had not a pedigree,' than to buy a pedigree bull whose .'intesters were poor performers. It is the but-ter-fat you are after. .\s mentioned before, the average of -1000 cows tested tor the season was 22111b. of buller-l'at. The average of 41S cows tested in llie South of England was 1931b. of ljufter-fat for the season. Yet there is a bull whose pedigree is unimpeachal.de euming to NewZealand to improve our »l«ck, whose mother's record per day, if worked out for. the season, would only equal file above record. So that anyone buying a descendant of this imported bull is not likely to improve the butter-producing qualities of his stock, find no doubt some farmer will be congratulating himself that li-' has secured a bull, by So-and-So's imported bull, out of So-and-So's best cow, yet all the while ho could not say what the but-ter-fat records are on either side. 'J lie fact that his bull is by an imported bull out of a" good cow is sufiicient for him. It should not be. Ho should know the butter-fat production of his best cow, and buy a bull with a butler record. With a good cow and good bull, it is difficult enough to breed good ones, but whero the parents are indifferent is is possible. A bull iiillucnces about 30 animals on a farm yearly, as against the cows one; therefore 30 times the earo should be taken in his selection. Pedigree bulls with buffer-fat records are hard to get, but being so is the greatest argument in favour of cow testing; if cow-testing had not started, they never could be procured. I feel sure that in five' years' time no farmer will buy a bull 'unless he knows his butter-fat records. One instance that came under my notice is sufiicient to show the influenco of the bull. A ten-year-old, cow was the best in tho herd with 2811b., her daughter by a scrub hull was the worst with 1391b. Then another instance: Two farmers came to a district about the same time, both good farmers as far as tho feeding and handling of cows was concerned. One farmer 'with a mongrel bull averaged 2101b. of fat, the other who used a_ purebred bull averaged 2951b.—a difference of Bf>lb. per . cow, which taken at Is. per lb. is JM 55., equal to a difference of on 32 cows of JM3G on tho gross takings; but as it is the profit oyer expenses which the dairyman is working for, it must be ascertained what - is tho difference in the net return. It is fair to assume that it cost tho man with tho higher record no more to produce his butter-fat, but that it may have cost him les=, as lie had a more typical dairv cow. The cost of labour, rents, etc., vaiios-.in different localities, but a fair averaee to run a cow aud milk her is about 1-tOib. of fat; so that ono man had a net.profit.of ,£3 10s. per cow, and the other man .C 7 155.. and it would take one man 2} years to do what his neighbour had done i n 0110 season. It would take the man with tho lowest average six seasons to do what tho owner of the best herd had done ill one; if we select 32 cows out. of the best, herd, the number of cows in the lowest herd, it requires eight years to do what could be done in one.

But with all the breeding it is impossible for a mail to improve his record much unless the cows are well fed, and I would advifo no man to go iu for more expensive cattle until he is feeding the ones he has got both when in milk and m the oil season. There are too many cows that just struggle through the winter with their lives; it cannot be expected that a cow will produce butter-fat if she has to put on flesh, in such 'a ewe the owner must be the loser. There is p.only of scope for a farmer who half starves liis cows in the winter to improve his records without breeding. AVeve he to go in for purebreds, the results would be disastrous; purebreds cannot starve so well as mongrels. Cows should come in in such a condition that the surplus feed is converted into milk; i cow is then ready to give a return right olt the mark. Interesting results were obtained at one of the associations which showed 'the vluo of a little supplementary feed. A herd of cows was divided as evenly as possible. Herd A, which received no supplementary feed, decreased in 120 days 5141b. in butter fat; herd B. which received a little green maize, returned for the period JM2 ISs. more tluui did herd A.

Oluiet Handling Essential. Another important feature in tiie production of butter-fat is the quiet handling of the cows. Cows require to be handled more carefully than a mob of bullocks; the roughness dis-playcil by some dairy farmer.-; iu the handling of Hie cows would lend one to suppose that tho owiier would be more of a success as a bullock driver. No herd of cows, even if the type was good, a,'.id well fed, v.-ould Rive the best results unless quietly handled. On visiting the farms where the best results were obtained, this is very noticeable. , With the high price of land and labour, nnd a better class of cow, it is now more imperative that the dairy farmer should place himself in a position to cope with the outbreak of any contagious disease, because it must l>e 'admitted that diseases in dairy cows are more prevalent than formerly, and that the yards and sheds are becoming more germ-laden each year, and many good herds have been ruined through the contracting of a disease, w'hicli to a great degree could have been prevented from running right through a herd, had the surroundings been in a more sanitary state. What chance has anyone to. combat' a disease if lie has no drainage in his shed, or his cows arc standing knee deep in mud? Ho can do nothing but let tho disease run its course, then he is not dono with it, as the filth in the yard is a suitable breeding ground, and tho germs may lie dormant for. any length of time only to appear again when the dairyman may least expect them. The easiest way to have a herd free from disease is to have clean surroundings. A concrete floor in the shed and yard is a cheap insurance against th 6 spread of disease.

Weeding Out, and Replacing the Culls. The culling out of the low butter-pro-ducing cows is considered by some to bo the main object of having their herds tested, but where 'herd-testing is done, culling follows as a liatuarl sequence, therefore it is unnecessary to say anything on that point. The main point is. "Jlow I to replaco those culled in the cheapest and most permanent way, with better ones." The answer is to breed your own. Have. * your cows tested. I do not mean for one season, as a cow which is good for one season only is not good enough !to breed from. But test to place your- ' self in the position that you ran point to ; a cow, and say how much sihe has pro- ■ dnced since yon ha*'e owned her; cows ! have their good and bad seasons. Cine I that is consistently good is the on'o to \ breed from, liy getting a bull whose an- | cestors' record of butter-fat is better than ' your best, you are sure to raise the average production of your herd. Every dairyman who has the welfare of the industry at heart, and who wishes lo increase flie production of his herd, and thus leave the industry a little more advanced than wh.cn he started, could not do betteT than have his herd tested.