Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

JUDGING A COW BY LOOKS

An Australian farmer thought so much of a cow that he paid a fancy price for her and brought her at considerable expense some miles to his farm.

He thought her the best cow in that district, and certainly by appearance site was a top-notcher. She was first tested six weeks after calving and gave one half pound of butter for the twenty-four hours milkings, the test being 1.9 per cent. fat. She was in good health and condition, and feed was plentiful. The following month she just exceeded a quarter of a pound of butter for the day. The third month’s test showed the day’s butter production to be under a quarter of a pound. She gave a fair .quantity of milk but there was too little fat in it. She was a ‘‘pig feeding” cow and was soon culled out. The same farmer bought in the sale yards a forward springer for £3. He described her as “miserable runt of a thing,” and he felt ashamed to have io look at her in ' his milking yard alongside his better looking cows. His object .n buying her was to milk her a lev months, dry her off, and' then, as he had plenty spare feed, fatten her and sell her to the butcher at a small profit.

The cow just previously described (1.9 per cent, test) was called Violet. J lie second one went under the name ol' Stinker. Those two names exactly described the owner’s (he considered himself no mean judge) opinion of the two animals. Wh(en the !herd came to be dipped on account of ticks, Violet was handled most carefully lest she should be knocked about, but Stinker was tumbled in just anyhow. y When the tester visited the farm, the poor scraggy runt yielded over a pound, of ...utter a day. The owner could not make it out, but next month the Babcock told the same tale, and so it continued for five mouths. But meantime the two cows had exchanged names and when the tick inspector came around to dip,- the “new Violet,” was handled with due care. It eventually turned out that this heifer was bred from stock noted for production, but had been stunted in groyvth. She had, however, inherited, the production capacity, and mated to a good bull has since bred some good milkers. "

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SNEWS19250807.2.14

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Shannon News, 7 August 1925, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
398

JUDGING A COW BY LOOKS Shannon News, 7 August 1925, Page 3

JUDGING A COW BY LOOKS Shannon News, 7 August 1925, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert