PRODUCING BUTTER-FAT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 287, 30 August 1919, Page 10

PRODUCING BUTTER-FAT

THE MAINTENANCE-RATION FACTOR. ; .. y: The trend in . most Advanced dairying districts in New Zealand, says Mr. W. AT. Singleton, Assistant Directpr of the Dairy. Division, writing in the '.'N.Z. Journal of Agriculture," appears to be quite definite!;- established towards the sperial-purgose dairy cow. This type is to be found in all the dairy breeds, but many a diiry farmer has not definitely come to the conclusion as to whether or not he should specialise on one line of endeavour in establishing his hord. Such a-dairyman may be in a better 1 position to clarify his thoughts after reasoning out the phase of the question considered herein. The continued testing of .dairy, lierde and of purebred daJfy cows' must ever tend in a general way to establish a, relationship betw'epn ,'form and function. It is not merely the production of one generation -that can decide such a point. To the constructive dairyman reproduction is a great consideration, and thf type of cow most likely to produce well and also reproduco heifers tliat~will be come large producers, must appeal mos strongly *to Tiim. ; According to various authorities 01 feeding there is little* difference m thi efficiency, of the digestion of different classes of dairy cows, and, speaking gen erally, the amount of digestible 'food required for maintenance of the hodyweight is in_direct proportion to tlie live ■weight oftfie animal.' IThe food ration

of . the dairy cow in milk , must include this maintenance ration, together with other food necessary 'for the, production (oi> the milk and its constituents. The requirements per 1001b. live weight and for each pouiitt of .milk of varying fatcontent. have been carefully worked out "by authorities and are of importance in figuring a trial ration for dairy cows. . : ■ If we. accept Haecker's figures that for each 1001b. of its live weight a dairy cow . requires per day 0.071b. of digestible pro■tTm, 0r721b. of digestible carbohydrates '.'and equivalent, or heating food, she will reqmro for a year to maintain each 1001b. of live weight 25.51b. of digestible protein and 263.81b. of digestible carbohy..'drate "equivalent.. ; -Comparing two cows of the same breed, the one cow; carrying 2001b, more fleslt the milking' season than a ,herd-mate of the special dairy type, it will'bo seen that, provided their butterfat yields are equal and their calves at birth, ;are worth the same money, the -heavier cow should be debited with ex- ; -tra feed-for maintenance v of her body. There' are. various ways of estimating thi*. ; The requirement for Jhis extra maintenance would, be met Dy some, 6501b. of ground maizo, worth to-day about Bs. 4d. If the yield were 2001b. of butter,fat this, would increase the'food cost by 6Jd. per pound of .butter-fat over that tif the special-plumose animal. j?ut in anotner way, this .requirement would, gearoely be met bv half a ton of oat hay,' •Many dairymen have had some experience in growing and can estimate its .value and tiie increase it would mean in the food cost of producing a . -pound of butter-fat. on a 2001b. yield. . ■•', These two calculations make the increased ; cost dependent 'on the price of maize.-and. oat hay respectively. In however, during most of the - year the heavier cow in question consumes grass tpc\maintaining, this extra 2001b. of-live-Weight.- According to authorities the food nutrients required for IOOOIb. of 3.7-per-cent.. milk, or 371b. of butter-fat, would scarcely maintain 2001b.. of live weight., Many daily fac- > tories are paying 2s. per pound for but- - ter-fat this season, and'the 371b. would therefore be worth «£3 14s. Since' the dairyman's return would have been increased by this • amount; and all tho other charges incidental to the^carrying- . on of his business require to be met in - any case, it seems fair to dobit the heavier cow with this amount of money. /If she produces 2001b. of butter-fat this would increase her feed oost ot, butterfat production by 4|d. per pouns. Usually dairy cows have not all the feed that will permit them to measure . up to their beet production, and it is fair to assume that special-purpose dairycows in milk would avail themselves of the feed that would produce the 371b. i of butter-fat mentioned. The 'heavier cow would square her account if her calf ■ sold each and every season, .after • • an equal cost of raising, at ,£3' 14s. more than the calf from the special-purposo dairy cow. ' -To a, dairyman striving to increase the production of his herd by bringing into that herd heifers sired by a registered purebred bull tho comparative value of the calves from his specialpurpose dairy cows and his beefy types is likely to appear in quite another light. ■ - There are animals'in each of the dairy breeds wMch carry more beef during their milking period than is commeiieurato witli economical-pro<hiotion. Tlio carrying pf excessive beef is not to bo misconstrued with a large dairy cow of the special-purposo. dairy type. It is usually the laTge-framed cow for her breed, bts of special-purposo dairy type, that will produce butter-fat at the lowest cost per pound, since she' can produce more milk and butter-fat than will be required to counter-balance her Increased maintenance ration. Whether ;the beefy type of dairy oow Tecoives her extra maintenance by ground • maize, ,oat hay, or pasturo grass during the -summer, supplemented by ordinary hay and . loots during: the winter, her extra food-cost por pound of buttor-fat must be a serious consideration to the thoughtful dairyman. High land values are tending to induce dairymen to study the cost of production mure and moro. The line of reasoning followed in th«so notes should induce more stufly on tlio . part of tlio dairyman in Now Zealand as to the type of cow in any of tho dairy breeds which he should seloct for the economical production of butter-fat. . UNSEEN LOSSES j . , MILLIONS IN BUTTEK-FAT. Bad cows cat good pastures for bad 'jretums. In mass tho losses by the feeding and milking of poor dairy cows arc startling, as shown by the following para- - , graph of the House of llepresentatives (Industries Committee's report;— r "Your committee has taken considerable evidence on the question of increasing the yield of butter-fat, and haa ■ found.that the average is, 1611b. per cow, which is far too low in a country so - favourably situated for dairying as New Zealand. When it is considered that there are 793,000 dairy cows in use, and

that an mcreased yield to 2001b. of but-ter-fat cow would produce about .£2,700,000 in extra money, the importance of the 6ubjeot can bo readily understood. This suggested increase of 391b. of butter-fat per cow is not unreasonable in view of tliq fact that the production per cow increased from 1421b. in '3910-11 to 1611b. in 1910-17, and that many herds ,'aTO at present producing 2001b.—indeed, somo produce 2501b.- and 3001b., and m exceptional cases 4Mb. . An.. increase of fat per cow would result in a reduction in the cost of production, and in tho opinion of the committee the utmost endeavour should be made to bring aboutsuch .increase. It was stated by u reliable'witness that it costs ,i! 3 12s. (kl. per annum to run the average cow, including capital'outlay and labour, which, if correct, on a production of 1611b. of butter-fat per cow, makes tho cost Is. B:3d. -per pound, while on 1801bi the cost Lis Is. 6d., and on 2201b. it.is Is; 2.8 d., which illustrates the point."