THE FRIESIAN PROVED TO BE ON TOP.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 September 1918, Page 2

THE FRIESIAN PROVED TO BE ON TOP.

To the Editor. Sir.—l see in your issue of the sth iust., that Mr Ranford declares the results of semiofficial testing are an unfair method of.proving the respective merits of .the different breeds. For what other reason Is It carried out dui to show the merits of the-purebred cows of the Dominion? A breeder is not going to toe expense of entering a cow for test (jhjee guineas), besides the extra tabor required for feeding and weighing the milk, J*® is suro of obtaining a good record. There may bo soino Jersey breeders who do not feea their cows so well as others, but then there are Friesian breeders who do not feed to the full extent. Tho Friesian Tecord stands at 24,199 lbs of milk and 939 lbs of fat, while the Jersey Tecord is 11,000 odd lbs of Jpllk an( J 7G3 lbs of fat. What would the J,B,A. not give to be able to beat their opponents/ I don't think a few pouuds of concentrated food would stop them. Then he says it takes more than £5 to feed "those" cows. I said it took £5 to feed "a" cow, meaning tie animal fed under ordinary conditions. Surely, Sir, if those Friesian cows could, beat tiu? Jerseys by 66 lbs of fat under sfeml-oC.Ha conditions they could do it under oruu:..i> conditions. Good conditions favor the .lensey more, as she is a more delicate breed, then again, concentrated food would be more m her favor, as she has not the size to consume a -large enough quantity of ordinary grass accessary to put up Tecords. As for the extra number of Jerseys in the test, it is evident that they have had a better chance to Increase their numbers as well as their quality. The J.B.A. have printed 14 volumes of their herd book, while the F.B.A. have printed 7. thus being 7 years behind. I seo by the Ohio experiment, which he shows as proof, that the Jerseys produced 3.55 lbs of total solids on a total of 16.46 lb of digestible nutrients while the Holstelns gave 2<66 lbs of solids on a 13.92 lb ration. Now, Sir, I always thought the Holstoins were supposed to be the biggest eatets, and yet, according to that experiment, they were getting 3 lbs less than the Jerseys. A half-starved cow can not be expected to produce milk in proportion to her size as economically as a well-fed one can. Then he says per 1000 lbs of live weight the Jerseys consumed 18.2 per cent more digestible nutrients and produced 1.2 per cent more milk, 25.6 per cent more solids, and 59.3 per cent more fat than tho Holstelns. Why -were the Jerseys given 18.2 per cent more nutrients than the Holsteiji? Either Mr Ranford is so .sure of the Jerseys' supremacy as a producer that lie has credited them with eating the most and producing the most instead of the Holstelns, or else the "Black and Whites" were starved, and so could not do themselves justice. The Yankees havo tho name of being able to "fake" these soTt of tests. I see he says the average fat of the Jerseys is over 400 lbs. I said the average for 1917 was 389 lbs and I guess lam right. The Jersey cow may be the most economical producer of 200 lbs of fat without counting the value of tho skim milk, but for, say, 10,000 lbs of fat it would take 25 Jersey 3 against 21 Holstelns, and therefore the large cow would be the most economical

I see Mr Ranford has managed to name a dozen Jerseys that have given over 600 Ids of fat. I have not time to give the names of the 32 odd Frieslans thai have done the same but will give the records of a few of them and for comparison will give the Jersey figures in parentheses: 939 (T63), BG3 (730), 805 (685), 756 (663), 755 (650), 730 (626), 716 (624), 670 (617), 675 (616), 670 (625), 665 (604), G44 (600). He then quotes a con that gave 603 lbs at one year 346 days old. How about the Frteslan that gave 805 at 2 years 346 days. Under semi-official conditions the older cow would only bo required to give 34 lb extra fat than (ho younger one. Mr Kanford would be quite right in refusing an offer of 500 guineas for the best New Zealand Jersey if she could give 24,900 lbs of milk and 039 lbs of fat, but she can't. If one Jersey could do this sho would be considered such a rare specimen! of that breed that she would bo priceless, whereas Mr Donald probably thinks that he will set plenty more Frisians to do better than the one he sold did. I seo he has to go outside the Dominion for his £2OOO cow. A Priesian bull-calf was sold in America for £21,200. His dam gave 152 lbs of milk in 24 hours, 853 lbs In seven days (41 lbs of butter) and 12,899 lbs (505 lbs of butter) in 100 days. 1 guess she would throw away a good many pounds of solids on a but-ter-fat pay-out. Tilly Alcartra gave 123,351 lbs and 4,856 lbs of butter in five years continuous milking. Duchess Shylark Ormsby gave 1506 lbs of butter in a year. Out of 589 cows that have beaten 24 lbs of fat in a week 583 are Frieslans. I have not the records of tho world's aged cows, but Woodlands Bride (New Zealand bred) at 20 years of age gave 12,000 odd pounds of milk and 485 lbs of fat, I think, Sir, that considering the rapidity at which cows decline in production after they reach ten or twelve years of ago this is a far better record than the world's be3t Jersey put up. 'ln fact, a Jersey Would probably have enough to do to keep herself alive without producing milk if she managed to lire that long. But these high butter records don't show which is the more economical producer. Sir Kanford says the Jersey is the producer of butter-fat par excellence. Then I say that the Priesian is the economical producer of total solute par excellence, and as solids seem to be of as much value as fat it Is only fair that they should bo counted. Cheese contains about as much casein aud other solids as fat and therefore solids are of equal market value, Of course, all tho solids don't remain in the cheese, but then sugar of milk is made from the whey at some factories in New Zealand, and the present value of it is 7s a pound. Neither does all the fat remain in the cheese, as a glance at the amount of whey butter made at all the cheese factories will show.

By the way, Sir, liow is It that factories buy milk at about Is !>d per lb butter-fat, make a lot or it into butter and sell it for I/O? If solids increased with fat the fat pay-out would bu fair but official figures prove that they don't. In estimating the food requirements of an animal size or weight must be taken into account. A large animal will require, more food than a smaller one, but if (ho larger one produce value in proportion to ils extra weight then she is just as economical as the small one, in fact more so as it would take less animals to produce a largo amount. The average live weight of a Friestan cow would probably bo 1100 lbs, and as I showed that they produced J569 lbs of total solids in a year, it is evident that for every lb of live weight they gave 1,42 lb of total solids. The .Torseys' average weight would probably lie 800 lbs and as they gave 1023 lbs of total solids they produced 1.27 lbs to every lb of live weight Therefore the Friosiaiis are the most economical producer.

Before I close I would like a little word with Mr Freeth. In his last letter while comparing his figures with Mr Wright's he says'ln my table you will find one factory getting a 2.o'i yield from 3.59 a per cent milk, while another factory gets 2.64 from 4.03 milk' Now Sir, the average cheese has been found to contain 34 per cent, fat and 30 per cont casein and other solids, so if solids: increased with fat the 4 03 milk should ha.ve produced about 3 lba of cheese to 1 lb of fat instead of only 2 C 4 lbs And yet he says that meant a liouus of 44 for the Jerseys.

, ,„ ,' .; ',' r'-, it< U:- G. MUIR. Oaonul, lO.th September,. ........ P.S.—I see some Vptizzfeti::- person wants to know why he failed to do'anyigood with the Friesiaus. Let me refer vUlbt' to Mr Freeth ,-for that- article .on ''Wily Mp, Tall." Dad Graham again! '■•