THE VALUE OF TESTING.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 73, 13 August 1912, Page 4

THE VALUE OF TESTING.

Mr. J. Burgess, of Warea, lias rendered a valuable service to the dairymen of the Dominion in giving them the results of Ma experience in connection with herd* testing in the last ' niimber of the Journal- of ■ the Department of Agriculture. If' the lessons taught bv his experience were taken to heart by the'dairymen of this province, the returns would show immediately a substantial increase. Except' in a few cases, farmers have in the past been working on unsystematic lines, groping in the dark, not knowing which animals were ; profitable and which were "jobbers." The true position can be arrived at only by using the Babcock tester in conjunction with the scales. If the . tester establishes that the 3001b per wecik cow gives a 4.1 test, whereas the 3501b cow gives only a 3.2 test, it is obvious that the one which gives the lesser volume of milk is nevertheless the more pro-, fit-able cow, for she will return .12.31b5' of batter-fat per week, whilst thie bigger volume of milk cow will return, but 11.2 of butter-fat per Week—a pound less. And when the tester reveals that some cows give only 2.5, .or 2.0, or U, or. even a.s low as 0.5 per cent, of fat, the value , of this practice as showing that culling, ia necessary, and also what to .cull, is evident. 'To'show that these low fig-, ures are no exaggeration of. the unprofitable nature of some cows, the»same issue of the Journal gives figures relating to some cows—picked up in a saleyard—which were rejected after testing, two of which tested at the rate of only 0.4, while a third tested 0.5. And'the increasing use of the Babcock reveal® that this is not an isolated case, and that there is great need for the dairy farmer to find out, and cull out, the "robber cow." Mr. Burgess' article relates that, when he'first starred testing in 1906-7, his average production of butter-fat per cow for the season was 198Ibs. He promptly culled the worst, replaced them with bettor, and—wh,en will all dairymen do the'same'—bought a good bull of proved milking strain. The, result was that', the next year, 1907-8, there was an average'gain of 241bper cow, the average for .the season had risen .from ■l9Blb to 2221b, and the gain more than paying for the cost,, of testing. . Further culling followed, and the following--, season the average rose'to 2341b. Continuing his tests, and gradually building up •his herd with better cows, Mr. Burgess finished the 1910-11 season with an average yield of 2fillbs of fat per cow, or a gain of "031bs' per cow in six years. Had he gone oil as before without testing, he would thus be getting about £3 per cow per season less than he is now gettingi In other words, he is about £3 per cow better off now, which ia a consideration whether the herd be large or small. The cost of testing is small, and it does not interfere with, or'-delay, the wor.k of milking.' In'fact. Mr. fjurgess says: "One very soon begins to look on it as no task at all, but a'pleasant, and very profitable, way of employing time." Mr. Burgess gives many valuable hints m connection with the subject, which space will not permit us to. deal with, but two extracts may be given which will come home to all interested. He says: ",Tt may safely be assumed that no successful merchant long continues dealing in articles on which no profit is realised, but use# every effort to increase his trade in those which pay for handling, and the dairy farmer must work on the same lines if he too would be successful." And again: "Proper rearing of heifers, easy access to water, frequent changes of paddock*, a supply of succulent feed for dry weather, the provision of winter feed, and shelter from the cold wind, quiet handling, thorough milking, and a good bull, are all big factors in producing large returns, but without weighing and testing will fail to produce the result they should, and, in fact, bo to a large extent wasted."