RECIPROCITY IN DAIRYING.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 14307, 19 March 1912, Page 3

RECIPROCITY IN DAIRYING.

TALKS "WITH FACTORY MANAGERS. HINTS FOR SUPPLIERS. By W.W.D. No. 3. In the two previous articles the writer has endeavoured to throw some ' light upon dairying matters from the factory manager's point of view, and ho is hero enabled to give, the results of some further conversations which he has recently had with the managers of butter factories. j HOME SEPARATION. | "I am of the opinion," said a factory ! i boss "that home separation is bound j to come sooner or later. It has its ' advantages, and it has its disadvantages as well. Theoretically there is no reason why it should not be an excellent idea, but I am afraid that it will he found wanting when put to th e test. I think that if homo separation docs be- j come practically universal it will menn •' a lowering of the grade of the whole' butter output of the Dominion. It { should not do so, certainly, but I fancy j that it will, unless the nature of the ; dairy farmer undergoes a radical change from what it is ah present on an aver- ! ago- If the farmer who home separates takes all the precautions regarding his milk and cream that are necessary, and ■ sees that it is delivered at the factory ' in the best condition, then there would be little to be said about the system, : but judging from his present conduct with regard to_ the milk delivered to creameries, which will staiid a lot ot improvement, I think that the system; of homo separation will lead to a gene-j

ml deterioration of the Dominion's now high-class article." MORE ABOUT COW TESTING. "It is a marvel to mc how it is tbatno amount of taking scorns to get tlio (act into the dairy tanner's head that j hi- j-houM toot l.i.s cows. They will nckn'nvled<ii». that it is a good thing, !>nt they don't d»> it! J have been over twenty years iii the dairy business now. i ami ]nm> hati tho opportunity of makI iiiuc tests of cow's miik during that period, and it is my ciuiditl opinion that tho iivorrige larnifr's cows aro no l>clt<.:\ , from :> producing point oi view, now tliau they were then. I da not j roier to thcs«» progressive men who I have gone in lor breeding up good cat- ' I tie, such ar> Jerseys, Ajrshirt-s. .Short- 1 horns, and Holsteias hut to the- ordinary faniuT who milks tho ordinary j more or les,s pu;v br.nl cow. Some lew ] j of these niongiels arc very good indeed j : 'it the pail, the majority are just mode- j j rate, while- far too large a numbfr arc I wasters that possibly just pay their ! way and possibly ,area dead loss. The] I general run of dairy farmers seem to j consider that any oid l>ull is. good I enough to got their, cows in calf, and 1 probably ho is, but, a real dairy farmer would look a bit further forward man 1 the tin years or so th:it is tho life ot ! a. cow. Tho cow may be all right, but j what about the progeny—the heifers Unit are to'he the cows of the future!' ! Their productive capabilities will be sheer luck: they might bo better than iheir dams, but the odds arc that thoy j won't, in fact they will probably be j I worse. I think that ii during the last j twenty years :i systematic effort bail been made by j'.ll dairy farmers to bet- 1 ! tcr tho quality of their cows, whether I purebred or mongrels, then there is little reason to dutibt that the Dominion's output of dairy products would Ibo half as much again as it is .now, and from the same number of cows, too. As h is, some men got bigger cheques from 0 herd of fifteen cows than another man will from thirty, nnd it does not need a Solomon to see that it is less trouble and expense to feed, milk, and look after fifteen good cows, rather than double the number of wasters. Within 'the past few days one of our suppliers got his cheque* from tho factory, and the amount worked out at fifteen-shillings per cow; another supplier's cheque worked out at forty-two shillings per cow. And the first mail is going about growling and grumbling, and wondering what is the matter! EVERY FARMER .SHOULD TEST. "Personally I think that every farmer should test his own cows. 1 think this practice would bo better than the formation of cow-testing associations, awl J cannot imagine a farmer going stumbling along, quite in tho dark as to thp capabilities of bis cows, and not knowing whether they are paying nim or not. It has been demonstrated plenty of times that you cannot.iudge a dairy cow on her conformation alone, j She may look a beauty and be a 'rob- [ ber, , or, conversely, she may look a poor, useless old thing and be' found to bo the best cow in tho herd. This is not just a fairy tale, it is the unadorned truth ._ The use- of the tester and the weighing machine will settle questions of thus sort. The weighing machine /nusfc be used in conjunction with the tester, or incorrect ideas of a cow's capabilities may be formed. For instance, a cow may give; a very high test indeed, but a very small quantity ol milk, and it may be found that, from n commercial point of view, that a cowgiving a large quantity of milk with a low test is actually bringing in more' »»r>tiey. If a definite system -is" used, a farmer will net find that the keeping of records, and making tests, involves niuch extra labour. It is very interesting work and well worth while. School children can and do carry.out testing operations with success, and there seems no reason why a man of ordinary intelligence could not do so too. If all farmers kept records of their cows, how very much easier it would be for them to disposo of any animals they wanted to. The prospective buyer would bo able to determine the capabilities of tho covV, and a reasonably good -1 animal would not hang fire long, even though her personal appearance ;was all against her. This cuts both ways, though, and tho farmer would no doubt find it difficult to got quit of a cow with a poor record, even though she looked a beauty. This might perhaps lead to the faking of records by unscrupulous men, but the factory tests would act as a kind of check upon such practices. 1 would liko to see all bad cows fattened tor tho butcher, and gradually the herds of tlie Dominion would grow better and better in quality. All the samo I would not like to condemn a cow on a single test or so. So many circumritances can caaso a temporary' falling off in a cow's productiveness, that it would not bo really safe to cull her unless she had had a fair trial. By tho way, talking about testing, some suppliers who are not satisfied with their factory's testing, will send samples of milk to another factory to get tested. This is an indefensible practice, and -1 liave made a strict rule never to test milk sent by a supplier of another company. I believo no factory will willingly do such a thing, as it leads to no Mid of unpleasantness, but sometimes a man will send a sample of milk and state that ho is not a supplier to any other factory, and then one gets let in. RUSTY AND DIRTY CANS. "I cannot lay too much stress upon the subject of cleanliness. Very often, at this season of tho year, when harvesting is in full swing and tho milk flow aTso at its best, a good deal of neglect of cans and utensils takes place. It is no uso using cold water to wash out milk cans; a clean can looks clean fo r a few times after washing in cold water, but gradually a film of greasy matter collects, and very often one may scrape out a quantity of cheesy stuir from tTio corners of milk cans. It is obvious that milk.-which is always apt To deteriorate rapidly under the best conditions, will go off colour very much quicker in a dirty can, and tho best ot milk will bo bad flavoured if great attention is not paid to cleanliness. Boiling hot water should always be used for cleaning purposes, and plenty of elbow is the only greaso that is permissible. Some suppliers of an economical turn of mind will go on using cans tfiat Tiavp started to rust. Such cans should be scrapped and new ones bought. It is possible that they might be re-tinned, but I doubt if the practice would bo satisfactory. It would be Letter to got a now can."