REARING THE CALF.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 7, Issue 136, 15 February 1915, Page 2

REARING THE CALF.

There is no doubt but that the wel-1 fare cf both rno.t.her and offspring- is ' best secured by allowing nature’s i method to prevail" viz.:. Let the cow jbring up her cal,f but in these days ®l the cheese factory and creamery, it is i customary to remove the youngster at birth and bring it up cu the pail. In , large pedigree herds, especially in the beef breeds, it is quite customary to allow the cows to resr their calves by ■' suckling, but the dairy farmer cannot afford to follow this practice. As soon as it is born the calf should be placed in a pen and well rubbed with clean, dry straw to help to dry it. Some cf the first drawn milk of the ‘ cow is placed before the calf, and the calf’s head is gently placed in the bucket, and its nose pressed downwards until it touches the milk, the finger 1 tips being placed on the nose, just out of reach of the youngster sucking at, them. If the nose is kept in the milk, ] the calf, in its attempts to suck the fingers, will suck up the milk at the j same time. If this performance is repeated a few times, the youngster will soon commence to help itself without j any assistance or coaxing. On no account should the calf he allowed to suck the cow from the very first. No good purpose is served by allowing it to do so, and it only makes it harder to teach it to drink from a pail. Three meals a day is the usual allowance until the calf is two or three weeks old, during which time skim milk is gradually introduced to take the place of new milk, and at the end of two or three weeks the calf will not be receiving any whole milk. Every effort should be made to get the calf to eat other foods at an early date, and by the, time it is two months eld it should eat freely Cf crushed oats and bran, linseed meal, and good clover hay. If this solid food is gradually introduced the ealf will soon begin to look for it, and by the time it is weaned it will be quite able to exist without milk.—l. B. Henderson.

THE PRICE OF DEFEAT. WHAT LOSING NATIONS PAY. The Powers who suffer final defeat in the European War will have to pay a big price to their conquerors, for past history .has shewn that the huge expense of war invariably inspires a winning nation to demand huge compensation for the loss it has sustained in money, trade and men. According to Ambassador. Bernstorff, tbe Kaiser, if he conquers France, will extract from the country an indemnity ot £500,000,000; all the French colonies, including Morocco, Algeria, and Tunis, will become the property of Germany, and 3,000,000 rifles, 3000 guns, and 40,000 horses will be confiscated as spoils of war. Germans, however, are noted tor their excessive demands from the nations they defeat in war. Their recent war fine of £2.000,000 «u Antwerp is an example. At the time cf the Franco-Prussian war Bismarck endeavoured to obtain from France the huge indemnity of £250,000,000 sterling. ‘England made strong representations to Berlin, and succeeded in having this amount reduced to £200,000,*OOO payable in four years. France, however, handed over the last coin of the fine two years and seven • months after the conclusion of the war. but net until then were German troops moved from the

% Of recent years war has become an increasingly expensive /undertaking;, and for this reason modern victors are inclined to punish those they conquer more severely than has been the case in the past. Japan spent millions in winning the Russo-Japanese war, and made Russia pay heavily for it. The latter country, in addition to paying haevy fines, had to restore to the Japs the portion cf Manchuria it had occupied and to' give up Port Arthur.