COW TESTING

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 9 December 1920, Page 3

COW TESTING

ITS PRACTICE ADVOCATED

Strong argument in favour of systematic herd-testing are put forward by prominent dairymen at Tatuanui (says the Morrinsville Star). They cannot understand why it is the suppliers at the factory do not realise the value of herd-testing. The methods are simple, and the old excuse, " I haven't the time," they regard as foolish as the action of the ostrich, which imagines he can hide himself by burying his head in the sand. A glance at the herd tests, taken every ten days at the factory, discloses what must be conceded is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. Several herds register 3, 3.1 or 3.3, showing that many cows in their herds probably have a lower test than 3. "No man can regard himself as a competent dairy far.ner unless he tests his cows," remarked one speaker. Suppliers come to the factory and expresss dissatisfactioxi with their test. They are invited into the office to watch the manager take the test, and the methods are carefully explained to them. " Whatever butterfat is in the milk is shown in the test." the manager informs them, and when the test is low, he asks the supplier what steps he has taken to ensure that the individual cows are worth their keep. If a proper investigation were made, he was sure a large number of " duffers " would be found among the cows at Tatuanui. The manager said there was a farmer at Waharoa who bought in, not long ago, at £30 per acre. He has since been oflered £70 per acre for the farm. The farm is situated not far from the dried milk factory, and the farmer in question has been roaring his herd for years. The herd consists of high grade Jerseys, and they are the pick of tested cows. The farmer was offered £4 per head for his August calves when they were born. The factory manager said that another important requisite to competent dairying and high tests was yard inspection. Unless yards and machines were regularly inspected, and a high standard of cleanliness maintained, success cannot be hoped for. An instance was given of a Taranaki district where the returns showed a marked increase where the herds, yards and machines were under inspection, as compared with those noted where no attention was given to these points.

One farmer said cow-testing should be made compulsory by the Government and 'every cow that failed to yield 3.4 test should be branded with a Government mark, so that when a " duffer" was put into a saleyard, those present would bo given an indication as to its milk-pro-ducing value The farmer in question strongly condemned the methods of some farmers in putting their "culls" into the saleyards, showing a bulging udder, their purpose being to deceive others: There was too much of that sort of thing, he said, and it should be stopped. Concluding, the manager at Tatuanui said he was willing at all times to assist farmers test their cows. In fact, he was very keen to encourage testing, and he had made arrangement for competent voluntary assistance to meet any demand that might be made by the suppliers in the direction indicated. It was in the interests of suppliers, the factory and the district that the butterfat yield of the individual cow should be increased all round. Farmers should always remember it cost just as much to keep a high-test cow as a' " duffer," and it was better business to under-stock and keep a limited number ofgood cows than to risk overstocking in trying to keep as many cows as possible regardless of their butterfat producing capacity,