Jersey breeders in home of the breed

Press, 22 June 1979, Page 10

Jersey breeders in home of the breed

By ROY MCLOUGHLIN, writer and broadcaster.

1979 will almost certainly be remembered in Jersey in the Channel islands as the year of the cow.

Six hundred delegates from many countries descended on this small channel island for the World Jersey Cattle Bureau s conference, which is held once every' three years in various parts of the w’orld.

Australia. New Zealand, India, Canada, the United States. South Africa, Rhodesia and five European countries, including the United Kingdom and Ireland, were represented.

It was an international gathering, made all the more colourful by the wide brimmed stetson hats of the Americans and a graceful sari wom by a woman in the Indian delegation. Separate nationalities they might be, but they ail had one thing in mind — the Jersey breed and its future in a world where rising population figures demand a practical response to the problems of nutrition.

Visiting speakers, well known for their contributions to the science of agriculture, raised questions on breeding, rearing and marketing — some of them controversial and some perhaps contradictory’.

Dr Charles McDonald from South Africa, assistant general manager of the national artificial insemination co-operative, caused something of a sensation among breeders by saying that the Jersey cow of the future should be capable of producing more milk and was therefore likely to be a bigger anima). She would require a bigger udder and a bigger body to carry it. This seemed like a heresy to those who placed a value on the small size and elegant conformation of the Jersey.

But, all the same, farmers like to set new records in milk production and this might be one way of achieving higher yields. The Jersey already gives over 800 gallons a year on average and often much more. A local champion, Munifordia's Oxfordia the the 4th, twice produced yields of 2000 gallons, but this is exceptional. Whilst Dr McDonald spoke of more milk from bigger cows, Professor "Paddy” Cunningham reminded delegates that there was already too much milk. He was, of course, talking about the dairying situation in Europe. The professor reported that the authorities in Brussels were paying out £IOOM a year in taxpayers' money to subsidise the dairy industry.

Professor Cunningham thought that farmers in Europe should breed for more beef and less milk. As president of the Genetics Commission of the European Association for Animal Production, he noted that some breeders in the E.E.C. were importing American strains with the idea of increasing the size of their beef cattle. He gave a strong warning against this practice, stating that American animals had a lower carcase value.

Subsidies came in for attack from another speaker. Professor John C. Bowman. of the Centre for Animal Strategy. University of Reading. He said that the United Kingdom dairy

industry liked to consider itself as being efficient whilst conveniently forgetting that its level of income was dependent on Government milk subsidies, particularly for skim milk powder and butter. What be wanted to see was a more rational and profitable dairy industry, which could stand on its own feet. He gave two formulas for increasing farmers’ returns. Either they should reduce the output of byproducts and concentrate on liquid milk or, if the present, diversification was to continue, they should find new markets' for products such as skim milk and see to it that the sale price was economic. At present, governments were acquiring this waste product and giving it away in powder form to poor countries in the Third World. This might perhaps show an admirable sense of responsibility, but the fact was that some populations in underdeveloped countries could not use it because they lacked the necessary enzyme for digesting lactose' "A dairy industry which is heavily dependent on government subsidies without good cause,” said Professor Bowman, “is a burden which society need not suffer and which itself is certain to suffer a severe shock when subsidies are withdrawn.” A different way of dealing with nutritional problems in the Third World was described by Dr P. Mahadevan, senior officer in Rome of the Animal Health and Production

Division of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. He said that a developing society needed cereals and other energy giving foods, with an adequate resource base on which to build a dairy industry. As far as milk was concerned. good results had already appeared from experiments in crossing tropical cattle with the more productive animals of temperate climates. The Jersey, he said, already commanded pride of place where a premium was placed on high butterfat content and where the feed supply situation called for a smaller cow with a lower maintenance requirement. “The Jersey has been a major contributor to new breed development,” said Dr Mahadevan. “Two noteworthy examples are the Jamaica Hope and Australian Milking Zebu.” In 1962 when enough prospective sires became available a progeny testing programme was implemented in an environment where heat, humidity and inadequate winter feed were normal conditions. In Europe milk and butter has come in for criticism from some sections of the medical profession because of their supposed effect on the cholesterol level .of human blood. causing cardio vascular disease and aetherosclerosis. Research had now revealed this as a fallacy, said Dr A. NeimannSorensen, of Denmark’s National Institute of

Anunal Science. Changes in the cholesterol level were now known to be the result of other factors, such as lack of exercise and smoking. He said that milk was the natural food of the new born baby where the rate of growth was maximal. It contained almost every mineral and vitamin needed for human health, and Jersey milk was particularly rich in protein. “It will be possible,” be said, “to ensure the world population optimum nutrition through the consumption of vegetables and a half a litre of milk per day. This implies more than a doubling of the present milk production ... It is a political, economic and social challenge.” Breeding for a high milk yield depends on care in rearing young heifers, according to Professor Peter Wilson, of Reading University, chief agricultural adviser to 8.0.C.M. Silcock. He said that the starting point of maximum profitable yield was a healthy heifer calf with genetic potential. It was vital that in the first 12 hours of its life it received an adequate supply of colostrum. But some dams were lazy in their nursing and calves were sometimes disinclined to suckle. He said it was necessary to watch every cow and calf carefully soon after delivery so that suckling could be assisted or colostrum hand-fed if natural means failed. As many as 25 per

cent of new bom calves were short of this highly nutritious feed during the first day after birth and this accounted for their lack of immunity to bacterial diseases. When the calf left the cow it found itself in an artificial situation. It was then up to the farmer to give it individual attention and house it in warm, comfortable surroundings which were dry and free from draughts. Professor Wilson said that calf housing had been badly neglected on most farms with the result that many calves suffered from respiratory disease. If some delegates may have been reluctant to

accept criticism of the way they reared their calves, many others found Professor Wilson’s advice helpful and a pointer in the direction of better breeding prospects. A more caring attitude to animals was what the professor wanted and, as he said, a caring approach not only reflected society’s attitude to animals in general but was in line with the traditional tenets of good dairy husbandry. “If the cow is prepared to work for us in her mature years,” said Professor Wilson, “we must be prepared to work for her in her formative years of calfhood and adolescence.”

All in all, the conference gave delegates a reassuring view of the role of the Jersey in the future. One point emerged on which all the visitors agreed — that governments should cease pricing milk on bulk volume only and pay instead on the basis of its content of butterfat and protein. A new scale of payments in the United Kingdom seemed likely, they told me, and lobbying by Jersey owners in countries overseas was already having some effect. Quality in any product, whatever it was, always commanded an equitable price — so why not in the case of the best milk in the world?