The Star.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LIII, Issue 9303, 20 March 1907, Page 4

The Star.

Delivered every evening by o'oiook in Hawera , Manaia, Normanby, Okalawa, Eltham, Manga* toki, Kaponga, Avatnna, Opunake, Otakeho, Manutahi, Alton, flnrleyvifle, Fatea, and Waveriey.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1907.

CULL THE ROBBER COW.

Just mow dairymen throughout the daafcriofc appear to be fully occupied over the butter versus cheese controversy, bub perhaips some attention; will be aooomded to some fmrtlher 'reference to an important feature of dairy herd economy — the robber cow. Her undesirable presence can- only be detected by a proper system of testing — a system which, considering its obvious advantages, does not appeatc to have been adopted as generally as might 'be expected. A farmer aib Linton, Mr Wattd, has supplied the Manawatu Evening Standard witsh some testing" statistics whicn, are of nmre than oiddnairy interest. They show very plainly what losses a farmer might be unconsciously incurring. Mr Ward has a bard of 30 cows, and for the purposes of the investigation as to their ■capabilities they were divided into three sections of ten each. The espeTimeinit was undertaken in January, the cheque faom the factory for that mouth being £42 3s lOd, working out at an average for the herd of £1 8s Id per cow. s A careful perusal of the table which is given below will Tesuit in much interesting information. For instance, it will show a difference of 12s 3d return between the lowest and best return of tihe individual cows, it shows that the cows with the .highest test aire not by any means the best in tihe herd, that distinction falling to a> cow with a test of 3.9, a igood test, but by no means out of the way. She, however, was tfoie biggest milker in the herd. In the information sent to our contemporary no details were given as to the dates of calving of the individual cows, which, of course,- has an important bearing upon the retuims as affecting each cow. With one exception, Mr Ward's cows, with a test of 4 or over, are comparatively small milkers, his best return being 10541b of milk for the month, with a test of 4.3. This works out at £1 9s s£d, veTy little behind the actual best \»w in the herd, test 3.9, milk 11831b, return £2 Os 4£d. The highest test cow, 4.8, only milked 8011b, and gave a return of £1 8s sd. Another cow with a test of 4.7 only gave 6811b of milk with a return of £1 7s sd. It would .be interesting to leara at a later date the result of Mr Ward's breeding with tibese two cows in the effort to improve their milking qualities, the Standard being of opinion improvement miust be sought the other way, namely, breed quality of milk by Jersey stock with deep milking cows. For instance, Mr Ward ihas a cow with a test of 3.2 which milked 10541b in the month; another 3.4, 10851b ; 3.6, 10541b of miik. A Jersey sire of undoubted butter strain should, and no doubt would, wonderfully improve the testing qualities of ptrogeny of these cows. Subjoined are the respective returns from each section : —

No. 1 SECTION. Month's Butter

Average per cow for month, £1 14s 4d. The above table presents in a very striking way the need for testing every herd. It affords a practical illustration which ie worth a heap of theoretical argument. W e do not know of many farmers in this district who investigate the profitableness of their cows as painstakingly as Mr Ward 6e?ms to have done. Still there are some and for the benefit of all engaged in tihe industry we would be glad to publish any similar set of figures if sen^ along. The importance of 'testing is very manifest, and/ it is dodbtless due to the fact that milking .time is already such a time of stress that milkers are aneluctant to add a-ny additional burden. Still the advantages seem to be so real that the extra, work and tame should be handsomely rewarded.

I / Milk Fat Value. Test lbs. lba. £ s d 32 713 22.816 0 19 11 3.5 681 22.940 10 0 3.0 306 24.180 10 1 3.8 621 23.598 10 6 3.5 724' 25.340 12 2 3 8 68V 25.878 12 6i 3.4 780 26.520 13 2 3.8 728 27.624 14 0 3.7 768 27.416 14 0 3.2 870 27.840 14 2 Average per oow for month, £1 2s. NO. 2 SECTION. ' 3.6 775 27.900 14 3 3.4 837 28.356 1 4 9£ 4.5 651 29.295 15 7 3.5 ' 837 29.295 15 7 4.2 750 31,500 1 7 6J 47 681 32.007 18 5 4.8 801 32.040 18 5 3.2 1054 33.728 19 5 4.4 771 33.824 1 9 6 3.7 961 35.557 1 11 0 Average per oow per month, £1 7s sd. NO. 3 SECTION. 4.2 837 35.154 1 11 6

►.8 i.4 kO 1.6 i.9 !7 1.0 \.Z 5.9 961 1085 916 1054 992 1069 692 1054 1183 36.518 36.890 ab.640 37.944 38.688 39.553 .59.630 45.322 46.137 1 11 11 1 12 0 1 12 0 1 13 2£ 1 13 * 1 14 7 1 14 8 1 19 5£ 2 0 41