HERD TESTING.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3547, 7 October 1926, Page 4

HERD TESTING.

VALUE TO DAIRY FARMERS

HOW HERDS HAVE BEEN . .IMPROVED.

The keen competition at present existing throughout human enterprise is rendering it necessary to reduce the cost of production to the lowest possible point, consistent with quality. To the dairy farmer this means that lie must improve his herd by fixing each year successively higher standards of productivity which every member of the herd must reach, or else suffer rejection. In other words, since a poor cow costs as much to keep as a good one, the dairyman must in his own interests do two things—first he must weed out the “duffers” from his present herd, and secondly, he must lay the foundation of his future herd in heifers produced by mating his best cows with a purebred bull of good milking family and strain. In the early days of cheap labour and land, every kind of cow could pay her way even at the low prices paid for butter and cheese. The situation is now quite different: prices have advanced, but they have not kept pace with the advances cost of labour and land. It now takes a good cow! to go through the year and show a profit over her keep. If she fails she is a cull, and the farmer who tests his cows has a dislike for culls of any kind. The old saying, “a cow is a cow” may be true, but it is unsafe to follow these days. A cow is a cow, but some cows are “more cows”, than others. It is the difference in capacity and quality that makes the difference between profit and loss, and these differences are so great that if! is not safe to guess a cow’s production. It is strongly maintained • that herd testing—the periodical recording of the weight of each cow’s produce, together with a butterfat test from which data the production of the cow for that periodj is calculated —is the surest way of distinguthe workers from the drones of the herd. In advising the adoption of herd testing, one is frequently met with the question: “Is it necessary to test? I believe I know my good cows and poor ones without that trouble.” It would be interesting to find out just how far the dairyman's opinion coincides with the actual results. One case which has come under the notice of the Manawatu Herd Testing Association may be mentioned. One of its members has been dairy farming in the district for 28 years, and claimed to know a cow when he saw one (and in this connection his ability is not questioned alonglwitli that of any other man). However, he decided to have his herd tested this year, and after the scales and acid had gone through’his herd he found that two of his cows (which lie had just recently purchased, paying a high figure in each case) were not paying for their grass. Needless to say they are away to the works! When the Dalefield Herd Testing Association started the testing officers invited its members to give a list of eight of their best cows, placing them in order of merit. A few of the members entered into the spirit and supplied the details; and others thought) the action too risky. The results were very interesting. No member picked his eight best cows. The case of one herd may be quoted as an example. —The owners picked three of eight best unselected cows. The unselected gave 342.1, 327.6, 305.8, 300.41bs of fat, and the selected cows gave 272.8, 236.7, 255.31bs of fat. The highest yield cow, unselected, gave 342.11bs of fa# and the lowest yield cow, selected, 236.71bs of fat. Another owner selected as one of his best, a cow that gave 2691bs of fat, but did not select the one that gave 3001bs of fat.

Now this indicates that no dairy farmer is in a position to say that he knows how his cows should be placed unless they have been put to the trial of the scales and acid. Of course it is the application of what the test indicates should be done that raises average yield per cow. Culling out the duffer should proceed rigorously. It is quite possible, and has been probed in paelice, that many herds can be reduced by_a third, and yield as much protit as the original herd. Land is dear, feed is dear, and labour is dear, so that to keep and milk a poor cow for a season may easily cost more than her produce is worth. Her reject ion and distribution of her feed among the others thus results in greater profits. A case may be quoted which has come under the notice of the Manawatu Herd Testing Association in which a man with a herd of 24 cows has tested for. three years. At the end of the first season his average was 2501 b of fat per cow; at the end of the second year 3051 b of fat per cow, and at the end of the.third year 3741 b, including three two-year heifers of his own breed from the selected cows of his herd. Going back to the Dalefield Association, when it started the average yield per cow was 1931 b of fat as against 2171 b of fat eight years hence, an increase of 241bs of fat per cow. The 10,500 cows produced 252,OOOlbs more fat than would have been obtained on the original average. The value of this increase with buttcrfat at one shilling per lb is equal to £12,600, which surely has more than compensated for the cost of testing and the labour involved. The members of the Manawatu Herd Testing Association who are

this season testing about 10,500 cows, should be well paid for their labour, and the association should not only be an asset to the dairyfarmer, but to the country as a whole.