FARMING AND COMMERCIAL

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1145, 5 June 1911, Page 8

FARMING AND COMMERCIAL

| INFLUENCE ON PASTURES,

| INTERESTING DAIRYING EXPERIj: ' • MENTH.

During the course of his experiments with pastures, at tho State Farm at Moumahaki, Mr. Priraroso M'C'onnell has wade special observations as to tho influence of fertilisers on tho milk-producing qualities-of pastures. Mr. M'Coimcll's report on the subject contains a. good deal which is of special interest to dairymen. It claims that it must be at once admitted that tho effect of an experiment 'to determine tho-influence of fertilisers on tho milk-producing qualities of pasituros cannot be otisily determined. A ■definite conclusion (he says) can only bo larrivctl nt after a considerable period ot time. Even then the average, rather than ithe actual result's, has to bo accepted. In Great Britain experiments of a simiiar nature have been carried out, and in one. item thev all agree-namely, that judicious manuring of pastures yields' a hand-, noma return in an increased flow ot milk. Of the difference between the manured and unmanured plot there is no -shadow ot doubt. It is when tho results of plots manured with different fertilisers arc compared that difficulty arise?. I hero is invariably an increase in tho flow ot miiK when the cows are removed from the unmanured to the manured plot, and an invariable decrease when removed from the imanured to the unmanured; but when removed from a manured plot to another ✓manured plot the difference is often so "Small as to be scarcely noticeable. It Votild seem that when the flow of milk is mcreased bv the ■ removal of the cows from the unmanured to the manured, l. ■is very difficult" to secure a further increase by removing tho cows to other manured plots." Before quoting further from Mr. M Coniiell's report, it is necessary to state that there were three experimental plots, and 'to give some particulars of them. INo. l was unmanured. It was grazed tor .1 dnv», the yield per cow per day was 221b., three months' yield per cow was s'Stb., and three months' yield on the supposition that 12 cows are milked was 63301b. On No. 2, the fertilisers per acre were—lOcwt. of ground unburnt" limestone. 2cwt. of superphosphate, and lor. of potash. The cost ner acre was .fills, bd.. and the cost" of the plot •£.") 9s. 10(1. It was ■razed for 3-1 days, the yield per cow per day was Mb., 3 months' yield per cow was 81Glb.. .3.months' yield on the sup-' position that 12 cows were milked was 97921b., the financial gain per cow for three months bv manuring (milk Gd. a gallon) was Bs. 7d.. and the total gam for 3 months (for 12 cows) .£5 3s. No. 3 received 3cwt. basic slag, lewt. kaimt. The cost per acre was os. Gd., and tho cost per plot .£3 Gs. 7d. It was grazed for 31 days, yielded 251b. per cow, yielded 8501b. per cow per plot for tho threo months, yielded 1(1,20011). as for 12 ■cows, the gain per cow for 3 months was 10s. Gld., and the total gain tor three . months was M Gs. Sd.

Mr. Jl'Connell proceed?: "In this series of trials, however, there- is nn appreciable gain by plot No. ;! over plot No. 2. The plots are each 3-f acres in extent. They ■are part of a paddock of 17 acres which lias been some years laid down in grass. .At the date when fertilisers were applied the grasses principally in evidence (in descending order) were: Chewing fescue, cocksfoot, Yorkshire fog, sweet vernal, crested dogsiail, and n fair proportion of clovers, principally white. The divisions afford each, plot an equal share of hi!/ nnd hollow, and good and bad soil. The ground (unburnt) limestone on No. 2 plot was applied a month previous to the sowing of the other fertilisers. The latter were sown on August 11, 1910. Weighing of the milk was commenced on October 1. and continued for three months. TVhcii changing tho cows from one plot to another, during t)io first three days oa-nny plot the milk ■ was not. weighed, so' that the effect from feeding on.the previous plot- should disappear. The three days on''which tho milk was not weighed aro credited with the average yield. The cows were pastured a few days on each' plot and ■ moved on to another.

."Twelve corns were grazed on tlie 9j ncres (three plots) chiving the whole of the three months. Of this number only six were tested, tho others not being, in K suitable stage for that purpose. The grass on each plot was grazed as equally as possible. It will bo seen from tlib following table that tho unmanured plot carried tho twelve cows a much shorter pariod than the manured plots, and yet, if anything, it was al.ways the barest. The.six cows tested were giving slightly over their average flow, and all were in calf, so that the periods of coming in season could not affect the yields of milk. The object of employing a greater number of cows than was tested was- to test the full grazing capacity of each plot. . . . .As the experiment :'s only in its infancy, it would be somewhat unfair to summarise on the above results. The experiment is at present at a standstill, as another is being carried out with various forage crops at tho request of the Eltham Partners' Union. Perhaps it would be still more interesting if an additional plot were fenced off and topdressed with a nitrogenous fertiliser. Ono point is perfectly clear—namely, that riaxic slag has almost immediate ri-suits— despite many opinions to the contrary. This fact is also abundantly proved in this year's root crop."

NEWS AND MOTES,