BETTER HERDS WANTED.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4386, 6 March 1922, Page 4

BETTER HERDS WANTED.

With the value ofi butter-fat dpwn thirty or forty per cent, as compared i with the last year or two dairy farmers are having it| in the most effecfive way—through their pockets—brought to their notice that in order to pay their, way they must keep her,ds which will, give a higher average of butter-fat per head than has been the customary return in the past (writes the “Franklin Times," Pukekohe). The latest available official estimate is that the average yield of’ butterefat per cow throughout the Dominion is about 1601 b per annum, while in Taranaki it is some 201 b higher. This return, however, referred to a season or two back ; possibly the average for Taranaki is now 200- , lb pei’ coav or a little over. But this | is not good enough; at two shillings | a pound it means a return of £2O per , cow ; at fifteenpence it means only j £l2 10s, a figure which will not pay the farmer. The farmer cannot regulate the price o|f dairy produce in the markets of the world ; he has to take what .the market offers. He can, however, increase his output per cow. A recent test carried out provides a striking object lesson. The returns covered 29 herds, a total of 697 cows. The average yield, of butter,-fat per cow for a period of four weeks during I October and November was 41.31'1ib in the Bell Block district and 31.621 b in 'the Mangorei district. The richer land in the Bell Block district ac-< counts for most of the difference, though more attention to the pastures in tflie Mangorie district would prob-’ ably raise the average there. The best herd in tihe Bell Block district gave an average of 51.221 b of butterr fat, the worst herd only 34.111 b, the best cow 721 b and the worst. 12.961 b. In the Mangorei district the' best herd’s yield was 41.991 b per cow, and that of the worst herd only 22.(231b, while the best and worst cows gave 63 521 b and 5.551 b, respectively. Averages are the safest guide, therefore we will deal, with them’ rather than with individual yields. The worst herd at Bell Block gave 34.111 b per cow, and it numbered 36 cows. If its yield had been equal! to the best herd’.s the owner would have drawn, at Is 3d per lb, £3B 10s more fob his month’s milk than he actually received. At Mangorei the worst herd gave only 22.231 b of butter-fat per cow. If the yield had been equal to that of the best herd the owner’s cheque tor the month, assuming the advance was Is 3d per lb, would have beep £5B better than he actually received. Now there is no insurmountable reason why the lowest return in each case should not equal the best, or at any rate tlhe average, which would have given a very much better cheque than was actually received. The first step towards improvement is systematic testing; the farmer must first ascertain which of his cows are lowering- the average by their poor returns. When he has ascertained this he can put the robbers out and take the first opportunity to substitute cows which will, raise the average. In a season or two he can secure a higher average return, and there is no reason why in a few seasons. he should not equal-the best herd in the district, unless he has a particularly poor farm which cannot be greatly improved. In New South Wales a select committee on agriculture recently submitted a report which acknowledged the fine work of the department of agriculture in its persistent advocacy of. better herds and the formation of herd-testing societies, and stated that “the key of the whole situation lies in the inferior nondescript dairy anima,l which reduces the averi age yield to such low figures (1201 b commercial butter). Mr Singleton has lately emphasised the same lesson in New Zealand, remarking that unless the cow-testing association members or dairy farmers, are inspired through the testing of their cows to br,eed better animals to take the place of culls the greatest lessons that cow-testing can give are largely lost. Only 15,480 cows out of the million the Dominion possesses have been systematically tested, and these gave last season an average of 0.9691 b of butter-ifat per I cow per day, or 206.421 b in a milking period of 215 days. Obviously it is to the farmer’s own interest to have his cows systematically tested. It involves some little trouble, in some cases perhaps a lot of trouble, but the introduction of a machine for automatically taking, the weight and a : testing sample of each cow’s milk while she is being milked reduces the trouble to a minimum.- The b.enei fit the Individual farmer niay derive from raising his average yield twen- , ty-flve per cent, only is so great that it is worth a little effort. The benefit to the Dominion of increasing its exportable surplus of dairy produ- e by 25 per cent. Would be enormous.

There is no reason why it should not be increased 50 per cent, in a few years without milking a single additional cow, and systematic testing is the first step towards attaining this most desirable end.