HERD-TESTING.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1776, 14 June 1913, Page 14

HERD-TESTING.

ITS NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. HOW FARMERS ARE LOSING MONEY, Within recent years a great deal ha 9 been written about the dairy cow, especially of vh»' need of testing her producing abilities. This work is of national importance, and no apology is needed for returning to tho subject. The' high pricea now' ruling for land, tho enhanced vnluo of tho 6tock, and tho difficulty of Rearing and maintaining labour, renders tho problem of successful farming more difficult of solution as every year passes. It brings more clearly into view tho urgtnt necessity for tho man on tho laud to improve his general knowledge, and also for a mora advanced specialisation of the work upon which ho intends to depend principally for his income. Tho day of the pottering amateur farmer is at an end, and what is wanted now is the man who will, convert farming into a scientific profession. ■ No country in the world lias the same natural advivntagea for carrying on the dairying industry as New Zealand enjoys. Its fertile soil, tho extent of its annual rainfall, its rich natural pastures and .variable climate oombin 1 ? to make it an ideal land for this special class of farming. There is, however, a. compensating balanco which is found in the advanced i pricegiven for tho best grazing areas, and the over-increasing difficulty of obtaining competent farm labour. Such factors discount our nuttm-al advantages, and therefore it is essential that some determined effort ba made to put to practical uso the moans that are at hand to increaso tho production. Scientific testing, culling, and feeding of dairy cattle in New Zealand to-day offer tho widest field for progress that can bo found. It is .within the range- of possibility to more than double the value of our export of dairy produce without sup-plemt-nting the dairy herds of tho Dominion by ono cow moro than is fed and cared for at the present time. According to the latest returns available, tho valuA of dairy produco texnortcd is £3,816,972, whilo tho number of cows being milked- is 033,733. The average return tor butter-fat is as nearly as can be ascertained 1901b. nor cow, which, taken at a market value ot Is. lid. (a high' estimate), gives an average earn- ' ins power of £11 Is. Bd. for each cow. Turning again, to the official figures showing the average cost of production, it io found that' it costs the- owner £8 to feed, milk, and care for each individual cow. Deducting this amount from the gross receipts, £3 Is. Bd. remains to represent tho profit to tho farmer. When it is rouiicmbsred that numbers of individual cowa under official testing produco. 4001b. of butter-fat in the year,.and an-average-herd yield of 3001b. is not uncommon, tho Dominion avorago of 1901b. leaves muoh to be desired, Tlio Remedy. To remedy this discrepancy and weed out the great list of • unprofitable cows that constitute a direct loss to the owner, and 'materially affect tho general revenue, it is first necoss-ary to ascertain for certain which of tho cows are failing to pav their Way. There is only ono reliable way to (fiin Hie information required. That way is by the evidence provided -by tho scales and tester. Many dairymen claim to bo able lo gaugo a 'cow's value by tho evidence of the bucket. The work of cow-testing associitioius' has already dispelled that illusion. Not ono owner of the 20,000 cows that came under official supervision was able to select Ilia test or his worst cow, This being so, what hope have they to cull correctly? A great many objections are nuulo to' official or private testing on the grounds that tho work entails too much time at the'busiest part of the day. Yet in every-herd tliere aro some individual cows thai aro far below tho average standard. Others are not even paying for the cost of .their keep. These cows' aro milked- day after dav throughout tho season, and are t<s sponsible for much wasted time and effort. Testing will find these robber cows out. Can dairymen afford, in these days of high prices, to supply food and spend lima in milking an 'animal that returns only £0.,0r., X7,.,,ua,.agaiM.pne,,ilmtyields » return : of"from'-imS'M'-•£»?'-Plus is a plain business proposition thatxovcry dairyman should ask himself, .'.';•-

Cost of Production. 1 '■ Th# following figures, .tnkon'from an offloial table, projxirod Ijy tho odiccrs controllinK tlio Dairy Division,- show,.tho relation ttvfc cow bears to tlio.oost'-jr produdns buttor-fat: and profit. Thesbultorfnt i 9 bused' on a valuo of Is. M.-niin tda annual cost of keeping esioh cow nt U!8:— Lbs. CosUf Profit per , Total net fat production, lbs. fat. profit, per cow. d. 'd. 1 .£b. a. 160 12.0 .2 1 \G 8 200 9.G 1.1 3 IS * 2M 7.GS G. 32 ,6 11 8 300 fi.l 7.G 9 10 0 350 •' . S.«- -8.52. 12 8 G 400 " 1.3 9.2-• la--.« 8

It costs us moro to feed a. cow. producing 4001b. limn to ■ feed-. one.' giving • only half or one-third of.that'quantity.' lhis is what dairymen arc being urged to remedy. Calculating on tho number of oowa now being milked,'nn increased yield of but one pound of butter fat- ini tho year would mean a net gain of fSo.OOO per annum spreiul over tho whole. For every 281b. of butter-fat gained per cow the revcnuo would ba increased by a million pounds sterling. Assuming that it is easily possible by culling and proper feedirp to increase tho average production or butter-fat by 101b. per cow every, year until say 3501b. instead of 1901b. represents tho average production, would mean that a gain to the value of £350,000 per year' for twelve years without' tlio feeding or upkeep of one additional cow to the number now being milked. Speaking to a gathering of formers in Canterbury recently, the Dairy Commissioner, 3ft'. D. Cuddie, quoted the following figures to show tho wide variation that cau occur in herds:— Value Days. Average lbs. at Is. lb. Herd. in milk, butter-fat. £ s. d. Vol 218 253.78 12 13 0 No.' 2 ............ 217 . 148.10. 78 2 The difference being no less than £5 ss. 7d. The variations were wider still when individual cows were takon. A. member of uno association, foi insUince, prowl a •cow which had given 311 .Call), butter-fat in 180 days, and also one which gave only ,180.991b. butter-fat in days. Miothcr had a cow which gave 4091b. fat in. 209 davs, while another cow hart only given "22 851b. fat in 270 days. That .farmers could rapidly improvo upon tho yield, of their herds was. proved by tho following ° Averngo Average Value, of Ist year. 2nd year, increase, lbs. l'al. ' lbs. fat. £'s. d. m 395.37 255.13. 2 1!) 0 ,M 205.32 213.42 .11.8 1 (3) 209.49 257.33 27 10 The cost of testing was not high, arid some of tho larger associations in the ni.rth wore bsmg run at a cost of ,-s. pcT I cow peri annum, including everything, so tho expense could not be quoted as an argument against the system. ,' Mr. Cuddie, after dwelling upon , thfl ■importance of Iho use of purebred sires, pointed out that tho official Wing, of a breed provided an aid, a most vasuabo n.id, to the personal judgment of « ¥<J* • If sellers of stock had authentic recort.s of Ths yields of their cattle they aso would find it an aid lo «i« sale of llKir stock. Thfl Jersey and llolstoin Jlrwl Associations li.vl already gone in for sor,isoys, tho standards had been set as fol-Hult»*-fat. • , lbs. Two-year-old and under *~" 5 Three-year-old :;», l-ur-yeai->,ld 5».5 Mature cows >•>" Though those breeders paid ft niW""tial fee for all cows placed under the ,<!!>.. cinl test, a total oi 319 cows had been entered siiieo the schemo wa* starts in July, 1912.