WATER FOR COWS

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21400, 16 February 1935, Page 19

WATER FOR COWS

INTUKDIBLE THIRST Some years ago "Straggler" was much interested en a North Island beef fattener's farm in the obvious thirst of his herd. The field on which Ihe bullocks were grazing was devoid of water, which was laid on by a temporary pipe from a windmill in another paddock. The daily average pumped to the troughs was 53 gallons a bullock. It was scorching weather. but the owner was staggered at me ouantity consumed. Possibly evaporation and loss accounted for a few gallons, but he was positive that the daily consumption exceeded 40 gallons a head. The incident is brought to mind by ii paragraph in the last issue to hand of the '-North British Agriculturist," Which states that a correspondence has been going on in a London paper on the question of the quantity of water a cow in milk may consume. Some of the evidence given may surprise people unfamiliar with the rationing of 3ive stock. One writer says a cow giving an average milk yield will drink in ' winter nine to 12 gallons of water ' daily and in summer 12 to 16 gallons; further that it has been proved that a cow in milk requires about five gallons of water for each gallon of milk yielded. Moreover, one cow in this man's herd drank more than 16 gallons, of water in the first 24 hours after calving. Another writer, giving his experience of feeding and watering cows in Canada found that during winter a cow giving five gallons of milk a day and fed principally on dry food would drink about 25 gallons of wsfpr in a day. Still another —a Bedfordshire farmer—slates that every cow takes eight +<> 10 gallons of water for her own bodily needs, and over and above this an extra three gallons of water are required for every gallon of milk produced. Thus a cow giving four gallons daily will be drinking the initial eisjht "to 10 gallons olus 12 gallons for the milk rrhe is giving. Water in the Milk All this leads one's thoughts right Into another lino of thought, observes the Scottish writer. One of our peculiar legal assumptions is that if milk is found to be under the officially recognised standard, it is to be at once taken for granted that the producer and seller has added water to it. Of course, if the producer brings definite proof that the milk is offered for sale as it came from the cow. he is entitled to a decree. But in view of the opinions and experiences we have quoted can we afford in the case of weak milk to jump immediately to the conclusion that the producer must be the culprit? What about the cow? Is she not herself as likely as not to be the real source of attempting to foist weak milk upon an unsuspecting public? May it not come to this, that many a cow puts too much water in her milk? In any case it should be an excellent defence for a prosecuted milk producer if he could table definite statistics proving the extreme "teetotalism" of his cow in the way of water consumption.