HERD TESTING

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 10713, 4 December 1912, Page 6

HERD TESTING

RKVIKWKI) BY A DAIRY i-.X PERT.

POINTS KROM LAST SKASO.VS WORK.

In an interesting review of the third season's cow-testing work, conducted by the Dairy Produce Division of the Agricultural Department, the Assist-ant-Dairy Commissioner, Mr W. M. Singleton, says: During the past season there were* s«.me 5100 cow. mider test in tV live associations bring controlled l>y Uio Division'. Three of these associations had hoen under the Department'* auspires during the 1!>10-19L1 season, and for the 15)12-13 season they are being continued as independent, self-sup-

porting associations. The three associations under the Departmental control during the two seasons evidence an increased yield during the second «eason, as regards ■ the average cow, that is certainly very creditable. It is not suggested that there was no factors contributing to this other than the testing, but I do believe that testing nnvs-t J>e credited with the major portion of the increase. During the season 15)10-11 the average production of the average cow of each of these associations was 215).7-1 lb. fat. During the .season 1911-12 it was 2.'Ki.-lOH>. fat. an increase of 16.6011). ' Fat per cow, or over 7 per cent. The value of this increase in one year, with butter-fat at only I<i per pound, is equal to over .£3IOO for the three associations.

With the present number of «ws producing milk to lie manufactured into huttor and choose for export, an increase of 7 per cent, in yield would amount to over £2(i7,000. . TNCRKASKJ) PBODUCTrOX OF COWS.

One of thoso throe associations increased the production of its average cow from 215.77U). fat for the season 1010-1931 to ?4].sfiHi. fat for tho season 1911-12. This is equal to 22.7911). fat per cotr. In tin's association there arc nineteen members win were in during tlie whole of both seasons, and without exception their herds evidenced an increased production per average cow. This iy a great record, and not every association can hope to equal it. Neither could such a record be expected were all the suppliers to a factory to join such an association. Not but that .such should be the case but it is well-known that the associa. tion number amount their members with feu- exceptions, the most progressive dairymen of the districts. The factory supporting this association handles,,at the height of the soasf.n, the milk of some G7Bti cows. The increased yield of*the o£<3 association cows, at 22.791b. fat per cow, amounts to 13,286.071b. fat, worth, at Is. per pound, £661 6s 6d. Had tliia same increase, obtained throughout all tho herds supplying this factory, tho extra butter-fat supplied would have amounted to 154,67311)., worth, at Is per pound, £7732 13s. The increased yield of the average cow of tins association amounts to over 10 per cent, of her yield for tli-e season 1910-11. This is a higher' percentage than obtains with any of tho other associations, and is probably accounted for by tho fact that during the second year this association was almost entirely supported by first-year mem. hers, who had culled effectively by intelligently using their testing records INCREASED YIELD IX INDIVIDUAL HERDS. The whole is only equal to the sum of its component parts, and while the j increased production of the average cow in the three associations is creditable, it has been shown that one association has far surpassed that averago. In the same way some individual herds in the associations far outclass tho average increase shown by tlie best association's increased yield for the-second season., . ,' In a review such as this it is impossible to refer to all the creditable increases that are evidenced by the figures. Only a few will receive attention, j

Ca«o V-A".— The owner liad a herd of forty caws. . Tlie yield of the average cow in the herd was as follows : Season 1911-12—Fat,. 309,321b. For the season 1910-11 the fat was 219.89. II). The increased yield for the second seaano was 89.421b for the werage cow. The increase for forty cows. is equal to 3,570.81 b. fat, or 'at Is per pound, £l7B 16s 9d. Thero'was in this herd during the first season a number of two-year-old heifera which were retained for the second season as three-year-olds. A portion of the increase credited to the average cow of the herd for the season is duo to this natural increase; but not one-third of i the season's increase can he accounted I for in this way. Intelligent .culling ' on the basis of records at the end of I the first season's testing mmst he ' credited with a good deal of the average cow's increased yield during -the second season. IXTELLIGEXT OULLI SO.

Case "B."—During the 1911-12 season the owner milked -10 cows.

which averaged' 80401b. of milk and 3181b of fat. During the 1910-11 season he milked (37 cows, which averaged i 58081b. milk .and 2301b. fat. The in- I crease during the second yoar was | 223211*. milk containing 881b. fat. Six- | ty-sovoii cows (hiring the first season produced 10,4101b. fat and 10 cows during the second season produced 12,7201b. fat. For tlio trouble and expense* attendant on keeping and milking the 27 extra cows the owner received tho difference bevtwee.u 1-5,11.01b. and 12.7201b fat, which equals 26901b, or not quite 1001b. fat per cow. These .27 cows certainly gave a larger yield than the 1001b. fat, but owing to their being on the place the remaining 40 cows did not do so well. There are many instances in which the herd could be cut down by culling out tho most inferior producers without decreasing the net revenue. This splendid increase of sumo 881b. fat per cow was accomplished almost entirely hy intelligont culling. Even during the pa<t .season the. yield of the owner's average cow was above that of any of the average cow of any of the cow- , testing association?! commencing that year. The owner had weighed the milk of his cows at regular intervals before his cow-testing association came into operation. His action in culling heavily evidences the fact that ho believes in using tho pouneUi of fat rather than tho pounds of milk as the determining factor. This dairyman has a registered purebred dairy hull, and from some of his best cows hopes to augment his herd, with heifers which will ultimately increa?<;* the already splendid average yield. Ho has t) add only nine cows equal lo the average of his forty in order to yield a greater total of butter-fat than Ids farm produced during the first season, when sixty-seven cows were milked. It Mould require at least one milker more to milk sixty-seven cows than forty-nine, by hand. There is also a saving in other contingent, expenses.

CCLLIXCJ AGAIN' KKFKCTLVK. Case "C."—rn the sunson 15)1.0-11 the owner had ninety-eight cows, with :m average production of 256.731b. of butter-fat. On his joining his association for the .season 1911-I'..' it was ascertained that ho had culled fourteen, cows. The average production of these culled cows during 1910-11. way 47.0511). of milk, containing ■109.7411). of butter-fat. For the season 1911-12, by means of this culling and replacing by other cows, the herd average, for ninety-four was raised by 7(ilSlb. of milk, containing 308.111!!. of butter-fat, representing an increase of 51.411b. per cow. For the herd of ninety-four cows this incieas< would equal 4,832.541b. This owner received 15.35(1. per pound fov hi?) fat last season, so that the increase was worth to him at this rate £309 Is 7d. The keeping of records for indicating the yield of dairy cows is no fad ; it is merely putting the farm end of dairying on a business basis. Each, cow is a- department, and the financial statement must show ,that each department pays if it is to be retained. Dairymen not having their cows tested cannot use the best judgment in grading a lierd up to an increased avmige yearly production.-,