DAIRY HERDS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17692, 1 August 1919, Page 3

DAIRY HERDS

QUESTION OP TESTING.

SOME ILLUMINATING INFORMATION,

ADDRESS BY MR A. a ROSS,

Meetings wero held at Owaka Valley on Muuday night and at Tahatika Valloy 011 luesuay night for the purpose of considering tho advisability ot forming cow-test-mg associations. At Owaka a committeo was formed to organiso an association at once. At lahatika an interesting discussion arose on tho question of herd testing. Mr Dooley, who has boon tc&ting his cows for somo. time, gavo valuable information regarding his experience of testing, lie also stated that he had gone in for a pedigree bull without a milking record and iound, to his sorrow, that his herd' had deteriorated. ll© was, now convinced that every farmer must head his milking herd with a purebred sire showing a milking record on both the sire's and dam's side. -H Tahatika it was unanimously decided that a cow-testing association be formed. Several present wero appointed a committee to meet the Owaka Committee to form a strong commitee to organise a cow-testing association for' tho whole of the Owaka district, making Owaka the central testingstation. MR ROSS'S ADDRESS. The two meetings wero addressed by Mr A. C. ltoss, Otago dairy instructor, on the question oi the testing- of dairy hords. Mr Ross said there was 110 more important move that our dairymen could undertake to-day than the improving of their dairy herds. The basis ol the dairy industry was tho cow, and upon tho individual returns per cow depended the income of the dairy farmer. Considering tho very great importance of knowing which of t.ieir cows were paying and which wero not, it v-ao astonishing that so few farmers in tho soutii had adopted tho best principle in Connection with the improvement of their Miards. Cow-testing was not the cure all, but it enabled tho dairyman to act with better judgment. Tho first cow-testing association in New Zealand was established in tile North Island 111 1909, when 800 cows were tested. Ihe year after several associations were started in the North Island, with two in the South Island, when 4500 cows were under test. Last season there were somo ■ill associations or more in tho North Island where no fewer than 17,000 cows were tcstod, and it was pleasing to note that some of these associations were still carrying on their good work. / The association method of the testing of dairy herds as adopted by the Dairy Division at tho inception of this work, was well The accl \ ra< ?y °f work accomplished on association lines had been checked in two ways—viz., (a) Against the semi-official testing of such cows as happened to be tested in both methods during the same season; (b) against the factory returns.

, Evidence from both thesis sources went to snow that the association sysvem of testing individual cows in dairy herds was as accurate as was required for the purpose of if Association figures would probably bo found to exceed those of the factory by from sto 8 per cent. Such vatiations as did occur would be largely due to the fact that the association credited each cow with her yield from the date of calving, whereas usually tho milk produced during the first four days did not find its way to the factory. Milk used for household purposes and for feeding the calves, together with what milk was accidentally split throughout the year would account for tho remaining portion of the variation. The semi-official testing work bore satisfactory evidence to the fact that, provided the dairyman took his samples and weights carefully, the association method of testing would produce results which would compare most favourably with the semiofficial testing, where an independent Government testing officer checked the weights and took samples. DO DAIRYMEN KNOW THEIR BEST COWS? Association tests showed, that dairymen, as a whole, Knew far less about their individual cows than, they had reason to suppose. Dairymen often bought cows, with unsatisfactory results, and on© oow-testing association's members' experience was a criterion of many. This member, at the beginning of the season, purohased for £10 a cow which in 233 days produced only 961b of butter fat. Not only had testing evidenced injudicious buying, but it had also evidenced injudicious selling. A dairyman tested a cow once during the season and, being dissatisfied with the exceptionally low test, he sold her to "a neighbour. During tho succeeding Mason the neighbour had his herd tested on the usual plan, and was gratified to find that his reosut purchase produced 3961b of butter fat.

Quito a number of dairymen took too much notice of tho test, and did not consider how much butter fat thoir cows averaged, and one had only to note the different remarks made at the factories on tho mornings the test sheet for the fortnightly period is posted up. A farmer with a high test was often the envy of his neighbours, and to show how erroneous a high test really Was a farmer with a test giving 4 3 per Q3nt. of butter fat for every ICOlb of'milk was congratulating himself thai lie was the best at the factory, his butter fat for the month of November being 281b per cow. Another farmer who was rather envious of the high test, and considered his test of 4?? ™ low Slde > averaged 431b for the month. The man with the high test valued Ins cows on the test, raiher than on the pounds of butter fat. >Tho average test ?L, f °r season was 4.4 with 1831b of fat. This at Is 6d per lb meant A/14 per cow. Tho other man's herd averaged 3.7 with 2511b, representing £18 16s od. a difference of 631b. fat per cow or a difference of £4 14s 6d per cow for the season. Further proof that dairvmen did not know the respective merits of their cows was shown in the experience of ths division in asking members of various associations to select their eight best oows, and place them ill order of merit before the season's testing commenced. One man had placed a cow giving 1201b fat ahead of one producing 2401b, a difference of £9. Another man preferred a cow producing 2901b fat to one giving 5071b. The mistakes that were made by almost every dairyman in this connection should satisfy dairy farmers that the taking of the weights and regular monthly testings were essential to accurate knowledgo of the individuals of tho herd. AVERAGE YIELD f)F HERD AFTER CULLING. The improvement in the average yield of the herd which had been brought about by culling low producers was manifest, from the figures of all the associations. Durintr the second year of testing. 15 Herds produced 2681b of butter fat for the average cow, whereas, during the first year thp samo herds averaged only 2091b of butter fat, a difference of 591b of butter fat per cow for the 15 herds. Tn herds the division iiacl found a general increased yield ry> r average cow of as much as 761b of fat, lunther figures which indicated tho same conclusion were as follows:

The average in association (A) for tho firet year gave 1951b of fat, and for tho second year 2551b of fat Li association (B) the average cow for tho first- year produced 2051b of butter fat and in tho second year 2431b of butter

, In fC ) the average cow produeed 2091b of fat for the first year against 2571b for the second

fi F urc {i. ffavo am Pl« evidence of tho efficiency of culling cows wliich tho association indicated as inferior.

PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS HERDS. ilio variation in the production of various herds was , an< i in n wicks thliercnces were eiiown. A herd of 30 cows, witii an average milking period of 218 days, averaged 2531b of butterfat per cow, whereas another herd of 30 oows, with a lactation period averaging 217 { )av? produced only 1481b of fat. While such variations in the herds were striking, tho dilleronce in tho production of individual cows in the same herd was even more so. In one herd a cow, during her first 186 days, produced 3111b of fat, while another cow in the same herd milking 182 days, produced 1861b of fjit. In a second herd a cow muki;.g f>&9 days produced 4101b of f;tt v, as tonipatcd witli a heal mate, which milke . i/0 days and gave 2221b of butterfat. In ono cow-testing association tile 10 best herds averaged 2711b fat. The association average tor the same season wds 2001b fat giving a difforenco of 711b in favour of the average cow in tho 10 best herds. Three associations under the departmental control showed an increased yield during the second season of 16.561b fat per cow, or over '/ per cent.

To show what it meant in money to a district one of these three associations increased tho production of its average cow from 218.7711) 'at the first season to 241.561b fat for the following season, equal to 22.791b fat per cow. Tho factory supporting this association handled at the height of the sea-sou the milk from some 6786 cows. Tho mi" e:i-ed yield of the 583 association cows • r'. 22.70 th fat per cow amounted to 13.286.571b fat. worth, at _ls 6d per lb, £996 9s 9d. Had this same inorease obtained throughout

all the herds supplying this fatcorv it would havo meant in money £11,593 19 s " 6d. This amount would make a pretty handsome bonus for a factory fco pay out to its suppliers.

■'he difference inj tho production of individual cows was largely duo to tho variation in dairy temperament, and to this variation was attributed tho cost at which one typo of cow would produce butterfat as against a cow of a different type. Experiments which havo been carried on over a considerable time went to show that tho variation in coat of production was considerable botwoen- cows of dilt'emnt temperaments. Whilo cowa of true dairy type and temperament had undor certain conditions produced butterfat/at a feed cost of 6d per lb, the oost of producing butterfat with animals of tho milk and beof typo would bo 7d per lb, and of tho beof and milk typo 8d per lb, whereas tho beof typo could not produce buttorfat under a cost of 9d per lb. Thoso costs would bo higher proportionately to-day. These figures gave an indication of the necessity of specialising in tho dairy typo if butterfat was to be produced at tho lowest cost. Three tilings were necessary in dealing with cows—viz.. good breeding, good feeding, and kindly treatment.

From the figures given him that week of a certain factory in tho district, said tho speaker, showing the amount of produce manufactured from the number of cows supplying it, tho averago pounds of butter fat per cow did not como to 1401b. Oil his last visit, to the district ho could not help noting tho number of scrub bulls on the various farms. If these same suppliers continued to breed along those lines they would find their averages go still lower. Where a sire from a certificate of record cow was used the results were: — The Dam. Tho Daughter. Days. Fat. Days. Fat. 231 215.79 273 326.34 207 287.46 238 330.50 241 214.63 247 297.53 The semi-official testing had brought to light quite a number of high producing herds, so that their dairymen could, through inquiries, get in touch with those breeders if they were anxious to secure a purebred sire with milking records. 'Iho only sure way to improve the butter fat production was to select the heifers from tho best cows and mate them with a purebred bull with a milking record. When buying a bull they should ask for the production of butter fat of his dam and grand dam, • also the production of butter fat of the dam and grand dam of his sire. By getting a bull whose ancestors' record of fat was better than their best they were sure to raise tho production of thoir herd. To show the influence of a sire on progeny the following came under the notioo of the division. A cow, the best in the herd, had a record of 2811b butter fat; her daughter, by a scrub bull, was the worst, with 1381b. fat.

THE WORKING OF AN ASSOCIATION. 'ihe milk for four consecutive milkings was weighed and sampled by the farmer himself at_ about the same date every month during the whole milking season. The box oi bottles with the chart of weights, was then sent to the central station to be tested, and the fat computed for the 30 days on tho average of the two days weighed. The results were sent to the dairymen eaflh month, after having had the previous months' records added to it, so that it could be seen at once how much butter fat each oow had produced since the date of calving. The cost of the outfit, which included a set of scales, dipper, bottles with brass number, and a box with lock and duplicate key, was about Is per oow for 40 cows. The actual cost of testing and compiling records ran out afc about 2s per cow for tho season for 2(X)0 cows. It was not a question of would it pay to do it, or time to do it, or numerous other excuses used by the man who was doing well and did not want to lie disturbed. . Oow-testing enabled the dairyman to get right down to bedrock in herd improvement, and stopped one of the biggest leaks he had at present on the farm.