TESTING AND CULLING.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 82, 3 April 1912, Page 3

TESTING AND CULLING.

A FE W SUGGESTIONS

So much has been written on this subject that'it is indeed a difficult mat-, ten to'tWeak new ground. We must, however, recognise that in spite oi all that has been written, in spite oi the experiences of those who have fully proved the soundness of their contentions, only a very small percentage of farmers have gone into the question systematically and heartily. It is quite true the farmers take an occasional test of a cow, often taken in a very crude manner, and seem content to allow that test to be the guide in determining that cow’s destiny.

It is true that many a cow will give excellent results for a short season, and so lull the dairy farmer into a sort of satisfied frame of mind, and which if closely observed would prove far inferior to many cows that whilst not quite so productive, for a short time, are far more consistent when a season’s work is finished; and yet are more or less condemned as being inferior producers. So many fanners grudge the time spent to find out what their individual cows are doing, but if they wish to become successful dairy farmers they must give it. A large number are ready to attribute the failure of their cows to the more easy, solution that the troubles arise from the greed of the factory proprietors or unscrupulous employees iwho for rcafeons only existing in the imagination of these farmers spend their time in plotting to rob them of the fruit of their labours. Sometimes they revert to very questionable experiments that although often proving quite the reverse to their expectations, occasionally satisfy them that something shady is being carried on, simply because they do not, or will not recognise that the dairy cow is one of the most perplexing animals that one has to deal with in this world.

Now if those farmers would only realise that the larger proportion of the cow, and the hotter prices for the product solve the question of the success to the factory, equally with the success to themselves, then they would once and for all time face the question of bringing about a better state of affairs than these crude unsatisfactory tests can give. Now a farmer should at first set himself a standard that he can speedily attain ; say, for argument, that any cow which will not produce LSOlhs fat must go out of the herd and be butchers’ meat. Having then found out the ones falling below this standard he then sets a standard of 2001hs, and each year sets a higher standard, bearing in mind the matter of younger cows or heifers that have not had time to reach their best point of production. To ga in these ends lie needs a register of the cows, and will weigh and record the milk say for four milkings of each month for the first three months, and take a fair composite

sample of these weighings. Ho can then miss a month or two, and then follow the cows through the latter portion of the season in a like manner. 'Now, if he takes two night milkings and two morning milkings of each cow each month and keeps them separate and then works his figures on the respective weighing and averages, he will get a truer result than if he mixed the two night and morning samples, and worked from that standpoint. If the latter method is adopted the farmer must recognise the probable result is really more than the cow is actually doing, though it will 1)0 quite sufficiently true to guide him as to his cow’s producing qualities. Jn the writer’s opinion the most satisfactory way to deal with the problem is to start a Cow Testing Association ; let all the dairy farmers of the district join, no matter who or what they supply with their milk, and it would be also a good plan if ; all the companies in a given radius agreed to, submit all their composite samples to the same independent tester, who must be a man approved of and be under the Control of the Department of Agriculture. Let a charge per cow be levied on the farmer, and a charge per annum according to the work required to be done be levied on the companies for testing the. weekly composite samples, and then let all farmers do their bsst to he guided by the results shown, and by culling out the wasters improve both their own and the factory’s welfare. It is also time that an Act was parsed preventing the sale of any cow shown to he a waster to any other farmer as a dairy cow. She should he branded with a Government brand, and either speyed or fattened. In any case a farmer would see the brand and then if he deliberately chose to buy her he would receive no sympathy if he kept her for milking purposes. He would be buying her with his eyes open, at any rate. Nowadays stock dealers go the rounds buying up odd cows that are little or no good, and when getting an accumulation of them sell them to the dairy farmers as a herd of milking cows. These wasters go on robbing the farmer and the country. Farmers themselves are no better advised; they sell one to another cows that are known by the seller to he absolute rotters. Any lying statement that will effect a sale is all considered smart business tactics, and as farmers who desire better things deserve some protection, and the Dominion’s interests are also involved, it is time something was done to stamp out an evil which is costing the country as many thousands as “black-leg” has cost it hundreds. Yet legislation was passed dealing with black-leg; why not legislation dealing with “robber cows ?”

The writer docs not consider the Government should continually spoonfeed "these associations. They should support themselves, hut should be under an Act of Parliament, and the man in charge be under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture, and paid by the Government out of the levies made on the farmers and companies (indirectly the farmers) Whilst I honestly think fair play is being given to farmers by the companies, and that no better results would result to them by the weekly composite samples being tested by an independent tester, it would at any rate show the farmer that he was getting a square deal, and results would be just as he made them by his attention to the breeding, culling, and care of the cows he milks.

Having now fairly covered the ground of matters needing the earnest consideration of the dairy farmer, I will bid them all “an revoir.” I trust my remarks may be taken in the same sincerity of spirit as has impelled their production. The thanks of the farmers if they feel them earned may be given to the proprietors of the Dannevirke Advocate, who have been good enough to publish them, and who with the writer wish them all the host of results in the years to come. J.B.V.