WHICH IS YOUR BEST COW.

Shannon News, 9 April 1925, Page 4

WHICH IS YOUR BEST COW.

OWNERS' POOR JUDGMENT. THE VALUE OF TESTING. Kxperience has shown that very few dairy-farmers of the.legion who are not testing their herds can indicate the most and least profitable animals in their herds, says the Melbourne "Leader."' When ah officer of the South Australian Department of Agriculture started his work in connection with the 'Mount Gambler Association's herd test he asked each member of the association to indicate the two best and two worst cows in,his herd. In a recent report on the result of the year's test work he submits particulars which show that few indeed are the men who can" judge the value of dairy cows by appearance, or determine their production without the Babcock tester. The details supplied by the ollicer are: — Best Cow. —Out of 13 owners, only four were able to indicate their best cow. In two cases, cows indicated as best came second; in three cases, third; in one case, fifth; in another, sixth; hi another, eighth; and in another, tenth. Second Best Cow. —Out of 15 owners only two were able to point to their second best cow- - In two cases the cow indicated as best came second. In three cases cows indicated as second best came third; In one case, .fourth; in three cases,, fifth; in two cases, sixth; in cine'cases, seventh; and in another, fifteenth. Worst Cow.—Out pf 13 owners, only two were successful in indicating their worst \ cow; and in one instance the cow, indicated as worst turned out on test to be the best. Others varied within wide limits, the most glaring examples being: in a herd of 41 the owner's worst cow came 20th; dn another herd of 33 the owner's worst cow- came 11th; ih another herd of 30 the owner's worst cow came; 18th, etc..

Next. to Worst Cow.—Out of 12 owners only three were able to pick their next to worst cow; and in one case only jjid the worst cow cpme next to worst. Other selections showed a wide ran?e of variations.