FARM NOTES.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 610, 22 February 1921, Page 5

FARM NOTES.

fViiLK AND BACTERIA. The necessity for keeping all dairy utensils scrupuously clean is being more than ever insisted upon os the result of the latest scientific researches into the cause of bacterial contents of milk. Different methods of cleaning have been tried, and show that the quantity variations of bacteria in milk arise as much from the method of cleaning as from the state of the shed in which the milking takes place. In one experiment, when all utensils commonly used for handling the milk at the milkingshed and in the dairy were thoroughly steamed, the milk had uniformly only about 5000 bacteria per cubic centimetre, but if the steaming was omitted, the bottled milk frequently contained several hundred thousand bacteria per cubic centimetre. The cans used for carrying milk are found to he a particularly prolific source of bacteria when they are washed at the dairy and returned to the farm without being thoroughly steamed and dried. The number of bacteria usually added to the milk by such cans was many times larger than the number that ordinarily get into the milk; the addition of a million bacteria per cubic centimetre of milk by such cans was not uncommon. It seemed to the experimenters that in an attempt to produce milk with low germ contact, too much stress had been laid on practices of minor importance, and the influence of utensils badly steamed and not dried had been commonly neglected. It was determined by a series of bacterial counts to what extent the condition of the milk was influenced by (1) the use of sterilised utensils, (2) the precaution of washing the udders and teats before milking, and (3) the reception of the milk in a smalltop pail, which is described as being of the ordinary type, but with a fixed top, having a small semi-circular opening; near the edge The results indicated that, with sterilised utensils, the bacterial numbers were 6306 per cubic centimetre, against 73,308 when they were not sterilised. With udder and teats washed, the average was 2154 ; unwashed, the average was 4525. By the use of a small top-pail, the numbers of bacteria were 750,000 per cubic centimetre, whereas with an ordinary pail the numbers were 1.200,000. These workers conclude the above three factors, together with keeping the milk at a low temperature, to he the most important points in the productoon of fresh milk with a low bacterial content.

DAIRYING. THE FRIESIAN AT HOME. NEW ZEALANDER VISITS HOLLAND. The impressions of Mr W. D. Hunt, of New Zealand, a weli-known breeder of Friesian cattle, who recently visited Holland, are interesting. He went over from London to Leeuwarcen, the capital of Freisland, in an aeroplane. When he arrived there he was met by the officials of the Friesian Association, and was introduced to judges of and other authorities of the breed. Mr Hunt says : “While at Leeuwarclcn ar.d Wick l was treated quite as an honoured guest, and every facility was placed in my way of learning all about the Friesian breed in its native country. In New Zealand our herds have been built up on original Friesland pure-bred stock, supported by Mr Grigg as far back as 1881, and supplemented by importations from America. The result has been something rather in the direction of a new breed. At Leeuwarden show—l saw 663 purebred animals. They were all bred to type. With the Dutch, type is everything. Further, their object appears to be to concentrate on a dual purpose cow—beef and milk. Our prime object is milk production. In Holland even the markings of the animals are held to be most impor-

tant in association with type. We, on the other hand, are not so particular about the quantity of black markings on a Friesian beast. We are working somewhat on American lines with our Friesians, specialising in milk production. The pure-bred Friesian animals’ records are not so good as ours, because the type is one of beef and milk. But there is far more uniformity in type seen in the cattle of Friesland than in those of New Zealand. The Dutch do not feed for milk, as we do ; there the cattle are forced a bit in the feeding. If this were not so, they would put up better records than they do. In England a somewhat similar policy was pursued, and there they got over Dutch judges for their shows of Friesians. But a change of view is now taking place, less attention is being paid to type in England, and more to milk production, as with us, and as with America and Canada. I should say the English-bred Friesian cattle are now about half-way between the original Dutch type of cattle and our own Friesians. Mr Hunt, while in North America, saw some of the best of the Friesians in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Brockville (Canada). He considered that the bes-t of the Freisians of America might beat the best of them in New Zealand but not by much. The conditions of the tests in America differed from those of New Zealand. There the tests are short-dated ; here it is held that it should last for 365 days. In New Zealand the animal on test must calve again not more than three months from the finishing of the test and they must have had a calf no more than 15 months before the test begins. It is different in America. There such restrictions do not exist ; and they may milk four times a day. “When you take these differences into account,” Mr Hunt added, “I think the very best cattle lit New Zealand are not so far behind the best in America or Canada.” Importing from Friesland and from England was impracticable at present, by reason of the prevalence of foot and mouth disease. This was very common all through Europe at present.