Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1911. THE EVOLUTION OF DAIRYING.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVI, Issue XLVI, 20 October 1911, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1911. THE EVOLUTION OF DAIRYING.

THE ADVENT OF THE MILIvIJNL. MACHINE. A QUESTION that still exercises Lhe mind of the. dairy farmer, or tilie general farmer who adds dairying lo his other iiiidiuslries, is whether til© milking machine has come to -stay, a-nd whether its irl'timiato development will reduce labo'iir to a minimum and at the same time dn> no harm to the cows. The evidence being obtained: in Australia with r.ogard to the use of machines instead of 'hand-milking seems to point ini t.h>e direction oi' the abiding utility of the former. It must, bo .rem-.ambercd that industrial conditions ratlior than assured conviction. are forcing tho Australian dairy farmers into adopting the machine. Nevertheless, even those who are still doubtful witih regard to tlhe later effects of fmacbiaie-milKdng on dairy bows a.re admitting that no immediate harm, appears to bf done. The prejudice against ana-chines, however, -has not boon completely overcome even yet, .because so much still depends on the individual'

whose skill or iguOraHce- may be responsibly, for good or bad -resulits. |As many" milking machines have been; introduced in the Nelson district of lat-c; years, it may be of general' interest if some details of their use, under expert ex•perianee. 'were made public. The facte are culled from a paper on "Alaohine v. Hand-.Mil'king," read at tile: last Factory Ala lingers' Conference in Australia J»,y Ali\ J-/G-. M'Millari, formerly .Dairy Instructor at -the Hawkesbury College (NaS-.W-.). and now- Manager of the YVoilo'iVgbar Experiment Farm. It forms the 'be-sL statement of the case that has yet. be&n placed before the daily farmers of rsew South Wa.les, even though. Air. At'Alir.an's experience lore ad him to argue the case almost entirely for the machine. At tihe same time,, he voiced his opinion that, many improvements could lie made before the machine could be said to ibe perfect.

Air. Al'Mill'an pointed out a fact not generally known that the cow itself is often a factor to determine the effectiveness or otherwise of the machine. Some animals- will not give down their milk properly when the change from handmilkinig is first made, aikl they display idiosyncrasies, often dbserved when a change from one hand-milker to another, disturbs them. As a rule, however, machine-anilking ensures a freer giving down of milk than hand-milking. Mr. Al'Mili'.an struck the keynote when, he said, "to dbiain success with the machine, it is necessary .fen- the operator to use intelligence and to study the invividuality of the cow as regards temper and ease of milking. Some cows did not come up to their usual yield dairimg the first few days they were placed on the machines; tout in most instances they socn returned to the normal. In some cases tttiere was no difference in yield, and in many cases the cows would milk not only more quickly, but better, by machine than by hand once they become accustomed to it." It is important to note that, according to Air. McMillan's experience, cows suffered no pain or inconvenience from the machinemiliking process, and the shape of the udder is almost immaterial. The best results, however, seem to be obtained whe,n the teats are of normal size. Air. M'Mill'a.n says tlhat with smail-teated cows, the machine surpasses hand-milking. Thus, Ayrehires with small teats always milk more perfectly with the machine than iby hand. Heifers put on the machine at once and never hand-milked have given better results tlhan those that had been hand-milked for some time be•fore making the change. *** » ■ *

With regard to allegations that prolonged machine suction brought bldod, Air. M'MilTan said he had seen no such •bad effects, and there was no record at •the Hawkedbury College of-blood being drawn, though experimentally the ma--chihes had been kept on an abnormal length, of time. Another important issue, the effect of the machine on milk •secretion! after .continued use, is also dealt with by Mr. Al'iViilian". A great imany dairymen allege that 1 after an- exitanded' period of machine-milking the secretion is adversely affected. One user of the machine in Victoria, over a period of five years, Bays-he has had cows milk down to it for three, seasons, and then they had to he hand-milked for •a season, before they would settle down to ma(cQii.ne-milking again. At the Hawkesouiry College, however. there were cows that had been* milked continuously for five years by machines w|il'h!out any notrictaib'le effect on/ the quantity of the milk from year to year.. But there were individual cows which, owing to their peculiar temperament, were : unsatisfactory. It was iiicb found at the College, where the machines had been in uso for nearly years con'tanuously, .that the lengtlh' of the lactation period l was shortened; Ih fact, the •machine-milked cows continued-longer'in milk than the others, and were generally more difficult to dry off. Tlie percentage of fats and' other solids in the imilk drawn by the machines was as ibigh as that drawn by hand, as shown 'by weekly analysis. *****

Mr. iM'MiMan, dealing with the effect of the machines on the health of •t;he cow, and in relation to -the mammary glands, declared in his paper tlia.t no harm whatever was done at Hawkes'bury College. In fact, witlh a'ogard to mamimitis, 'hand'-milked cmvs suffered more than machine-milked animals, although in the ease of the former special ■precautions were .taken in washing, the udders"and the hands- with.,lyeol, etc. For example, at one period at tile College, there : were 35 simultaneous cases 1 of niammitis, and onily one cow that I 'was ■milked by machine -contracted t-lie' disease, although as soon as a case was noticed the animal,was isolated. Anothea' irreat advantage of the madhine, pointed out 'by Mr. McMillan, was that cows ihad! seldom been found suffering from sore teats. The machine, he said, had Vbeen condemned' on the ground that' t!ho (milk was of 'worse flavour and' ke'ap*iin.g than that obtained by hand. Jif properly cleaned, however, there was absolutely no ■dcimparison between ,the {keeping qualities of 'machine and. handdrawn milk, obtained under the cleanest conditions. . The machine milk had been proved to be very* much claaner. '"There was every reason to .'believe," ■'added' Mr. M'Millan, f'tbat Where ■cleanliness was practised a first-class dairy product could be obtained." Mr, M'Millan, went so far as ito say % that an ■evens better product was obtainablethan -with i<he under allied conditions. ' -.,...'. ,

; 'Finally, Mr. -M'Millan points out that tlhe chief caiuse'of failure: In maichinemilking is the improper cleansing of the machines, and fop jshows 'that,, other questions apart-, the labour-saving by the use of the machine -is enormous. Thus, with a double machine, one efficient man was able,y at Harwikes'bury to do 16 or i 8 tows an hours, and in the later stages of lactation. 20 ■t)o' 22 cows an hour. The usual method 'practised with a two-machine plant was to allow one man to attend to the machines and another man or boy to bai'2 u,p the cows, pr-ejpare them for the machines, and do the stripping. In this way tJhere was nothing to hinder a man' and l a boy from doing at least 66 to 70 cows in two. hours. Even as many as l 80 cows were 1 milked, by two operators. •To do the same number of eowe in the 'same time by hand would require four Imen, averaging about eight or nine cows an hour. The "last word" of advice given by Mr. M'Millan is that, to get the best results out of a machine, the owner O/f a dairy, or some one similarly (interested, should be in control, exeripisiing .personal supervision to the utauosfo extent possible.