HERD-TESTING.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1613, 3 December 1912, Page 8

HERD-TESTING.

REVIEWED BY A DAIRY EXPERT. POINTS FROM LAST SEASON'S WORK. In an interesting review of the third season's cow-testing work, conducted by tho Dairy Produce Division of the Agricultural Department, tho Assistant-Dairy Commissioner, Mr. W. M. Singleton, says: During tha past season them were somo 541) i) cows.under test in the live associations being controlled by the Division. Three of tiieso associations had been under tho .Department's auspices during tho 1910-11 season, and for tho, 1912-13 season I they are boing continued as independent, sell-supporting associations. ■ The three associations under tho DeL'partinental control during the. two seasons evidonee, an increased yield during the second season, as regards the average cow, that is certainly It is not suggested that thero we're no factors contributing to this other than the. testing, but I do believo that testing must be credited with tho major portion of the increase. During tho season. iMO-11-.the average production of tho average .cow-of each of tliese associations was 219.741b. fat.- During tho 6eason 1911-12 it was .236.401b. fat, an increase ;of 16.661 W. fat' iier cow, or over 7 per cent. The value of this increaso in one year, with b'uttef-fat at only Is. per pound, is equal to over .£310(1 for the throo associations. ". With the present.number of cows producing milk to be manufactured into butter and cheese for export, an increase of 7 per cent., in yield would amouut to over .£287,000. ■ :,. : \, ;. ■...'■ Increased Production of Averago Cows. three associations WBrensed.the production of.its average cow from .218.771b.. iat ■ for the season. 1910-11 to ■241.561b. fat for. .the season 1911-12. This is equal to 22.7 Mb. fat per cow. . In this association there were nineteen members who were in during' the wholo of both seasons, and without exception their herds evidenced an increased production per average cow. This is a great record, and not every, association can hope to equal it. Neither could such a record bn es-i -pected- were all the suppliers to a factory .to-join such an association. , Not but that such', should be the cast), but it is well- known that the associations number amongst their members, with few exceptions, the most progressive dairymen of their districts. Tho factory supporting, this association handles, at the height of the'season, the milk of some .6788 enws. ■The-increased yield of the 583 association cows," at. 22.7911 v.fat per cow, amounts to '13,25&571b. fat, worth, at; Is. per pound, ■£G6£ 6s. 6d.. Had this same, increase obtained .throughout .all. the herds supplying this factory, the 'extra butter-fit sv.pplied would have amounted to 154,6531b., worth,' at Is. per pound, .£7732 13s. Tho increased yield of the average cow of this association amounts to over 10 per cont. of her yield for the season 1910-11. This is a higher'percentage than obtains with any .of the other ■ associations, and is ■probably accounted for'by the , fact that during .the second year this associnticn was almost, entirely supported .by firsts year members, who had culled effectively by intelligently -using their testing tiy cords. .-•'- ■■■■.-■ . Increased Yields in Individual Herds, 'The whdle is only equal to the sum'of its component parts, and while tho increased production of the average cow in the three associations is creditable, it has teen, shown that one association has far'surpassed that average. In the same way some individual herds in the associations '-far 1 outclass r the average -increase shown by tho best association's increased yield for the second season. '. In a review, such as this it is impossible to refer to all the creditable in. creases that are evidenced by tno figures. Only a few will receive attention. ;. Caso "A".—The owner had a herd of forty cows. The yield of the average cow inthe herd was as follows:—Season 1911-12— Pat, 309.311b. : For tho season 1!I1O-J1 the tat was 219.891b. The increased yield for the second season was 89.421b. for the average cow. The increase for forty cews is equal' to 3,576.81b. fat, or, at Is per .pound. .£l7B 16s.V9d. There was in this ■herd (Luring the first season a number of two-year-old heifers which were retained to the second season as; three-year-olds. A portion, of the increase credited to the average cow of the herd for the season is due to this natural increase; but not onethitd of the season's increase can be uc counted for. in this way. Intelligent cull--: ■i?" 2"' the basis of Records-at the end of ■tnelirst-season's testing must bo credited with a good deal of the average cow's increased yield during the second season. '

Intelligent Culling. ". .. ■ Case "B."-During the 1911-12 season »n?M°i H " ne r mil ,ked 40 cows, which averaged 80401b. of milk and 3181b. fat. Dunn" the 1910-11 season he milked 67 cowl, which averaged 58081b. milk and 2301b. fat oilV 11 d^r 1 " lg the s*™* l Kar ""as 22321b. milk containing 881b. fat. Sixtyseven, cows during the first season produced 10,4101b.,. fat and 40 cows during the second season produced 12,7201b. fat. J<or tlie trouble and expense attendant! on keeping, and milking.: the 27 extra cows the owner received the difference between 10,4101b. and 12,7201b.' fat, which equals •.28801b., or not quits 1001b. fat per cow. iheso 27 cows certainly gave, a larger yield than ..the. 1001b. fat,-but owing to their being- ot- tho'-plaee the remaining id cows did- not do so well. There are many instances in which the herd could bo cut down, by culling out the most inferior producers -without decreasing the net revenue. ■ This splendid increase of some 881b. iat per cow was accomplished almost : entirely by intelligent culling. Even during the past season the yield of 'the owner's overage cow was above that of the average cow of any of the cowtesting associations commencing that year. The owner had weighed the milk of his cows'at regular intervals before, his cowtesting association came into operation. His action in culling heavily evidences the :fact that he believes in using the pounds of fat rather than, the pounds of milk' as the determining factor. This 'dairyman has a registered purebred 'dairy bull, and from 'some of his. .best cows hopes to augment his herd with heifers which will ultimately increase the already splendid average yield. He has to add only nine cows equal to the average of 'his forty in order'to yield a greater total of butteivfat than his farm produced during the first season, when sixty-seven cows were, milked... It would require at least one milker more to milk sixty-seven cows than forty-nine, by hand. Thero is also a saving in other contingent expenses. Culling Again Effective. : Case "C."—ln the season 1910-11 the owner had . ninetj ,j eiglit cows, with an average production of 256.731b. of butterfat. On his joining his association for the season 1911-12 it was ascertained that he had culled fourteen cows! The average production ot these culled cows during 1910-11 was 47.051b. of milk, containing 109.7't1b. of bntter-fat. For the season. 1911-12, by means of this culling and replacing by other cows, the herd average for ninety-four was raised by 76481b. of milk,'containing 308.141b. of butter-fat, representing an' increase of 51.'411b. per cow. For the herd of ninety-four cows this increase would equal 4,832.541b. This owner -received 15.85 d. per lb. for his fat last season, so that the increase was worth to him at this rate .£309 Is. 7d. . The keeping of records for indicating the yiold of dairy cows is no fad; it is merely, putting the farm end of dairying on a business basis. Each cow is a department, and the financial statement must show that each department pays if it is to be retained. Dairymen not having their cows tested cannot use the best judgment in grading a herd up to an increased average yearly production.