FARM AND DAIRY

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 121, 31 August 1910, Page 3

FARM AND DAIRY

COW-TESTING. THE DALEFIELD EXPERIMENT. Speaking at a gathering of dairy farmers at Kaupokonui, Mr. Cuddie, the Dairy Commissioner, referred to the formation | of the Dalefield Cow-testing Association, ' which had been istarted with about 800 cows. After one year's working it had been found that by figuring out the return for each, cow from the date of calving the average was 68001'bs of milk, the test a shade over 3.8, and butter-fat 262 lbs. Some milked nine or ten months and others dried off at seven or eight months. The average return of the latter was just on OOOOlbs of milk and 2271hs of ibutter-fat, whilst those in profit from eight to nine months gave 71001>bs of milk on the average and 2!)7Lbs of but-ter-fat. The longer the lactation period the higher the production in each case. There was a. number of two-year heifers, and: the average amount of butter-fat ■was l'94lbs, still it was found that the range was from 1081bs to 2681b5. Before the testing was started the farmers were asked to select their best ' eight cows—as if any dairyman could be ' relieil on to do so. One farmer had a cow that gave 3741bs of butter-fat, and had not thought it up to one that gave ! 21tilbs, the one giving 2161bs had been

selected by the farmer as one of the best. Another man had a cow that returned 3591b5, but liiid thought that a cow that gave 2401'bs Was a 'better. Was it not fair to assume that calves were being kept for dairying purposes from some ot those low-producing cows while the progeny of those giving the higher returns \\er6 'knocked on the head? Then svml- - thought that the cow giving most milk at the height of the season was the best. They.hjul ,on« cow giving 36%1bs a day at (lie Hush, and its butter-fal \va--1941b5. Another cow gave 311bs at the j flush, yet.ihad 3421bs of fat for the seaj fion, a d'i'fference of £7 7s with butterI fat at l<§ a it), On another farm one vow ; gave (M'/albs of milk, whilst her uutterI fat total was 2491bs foi 1 the geasori. Iri I the same herd was an animal that gftVg 46lbs at the Hush, but it returned of fat, a difference of £8 17s in value. It was only fair to assume that the majority of dairymen culled out the wrong aniinais. .

There had ibeen some culling going on at Dalefield; the farmers would not keep those cows proved to be duffers. In one herd of 18 cows the average for the season was 2741'bs of fat. Four of those (vnimals were culled, so that the average of the other 14 was 2911b5. If the four culled were replaced 'by heifers up to the herd, average there would be an increase in fat of leVitbs per cow. Another herd averaged 27 - 21bs of butter-fat, and if five were pulle'd Aria replaced similarly it would ..the Herd aferige lllbs per cow. He theft irigi&rieed a® eight-year-old cow that milked 28J? and gave 3401bs of butteV-fat, aigainst a st'e--yeasr-dld that milked 225 days and returned I9Qlbs.- At Is per lb butter-fat, one returned £l7 and the other £9 10s. Allowing the cost of keeping the cow, including labor, interest on shed, tinware, etc., provision for manuring, to be about £8 for a butter cow and £9 for a cheese cow, the first animal would have given a profit of £8 2s Id and the latter l'Os -sd. It would take fourteen cows of the poorer type to give as much profit as the one referred to. In another herd one cow gave 404 lbs of fat and another 1841ibs. After deducting the £9 for cost and keep, as previously, the returns would be £ll 4s Sd against 4s Gd. In that case it would take.- 50 cows of the poorer type to give the net profit of the one.

An outcome of the gathering was that an association with a start of twentytwo members was formed. Mr.Cuddie said his proposal was that farmers should undertake to weigh and take samples of their milk on two days, night .and, morning, in the month and forward these samples to the factory to be tested. • The time that this would occupy 1 would not ibe more than one minute or'i j minute and a-half per cow. This was only on two days a month, and was quite enough to figure out the individual value of each cow,;as had already been proved by experience. The dairy factory would be asked to supply steam and a room for testing. The Department would supply a man to do the testing and also figure out the returns every month. Each member would receive a statement showing the production of each individual cow monthly, so that at the end of the season they would know exactly what each cow had returned. He would like to emphasise the fact that the weighing and sampling must be done in reference to every cow that was milked by the members, or the returns would not be fair. He explained that each member would require a small outlay, on a bottle for each cow's milk, a small weighing machine, and a box to take the bottles to the factory in.