COMPULSORY HERD TESTING

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 14 April 1928, Page 5

COMPULSORY HERD TESTING

m THE INTERESTS OF FARMERS AND COMMUNITY

WHY NOT? Generally speaking, the employment "l compulsion in respect in the adoption of any special method of farming would not receive my advocacy, for history proves that the greatest advance has heen made hy men who have strayed from the beaten track cf custom, and through experiment and personal initiative-, devised new and better ways of doing tilings, writes "Sundowner" in the Auckland "Star. Farmers, unfortunately, can only claim a very few of these progressive spirits in their ranks l . .Such men as Hubert Bakewell, Hales, Vouatt and a lew other breeders a hundred years ago, ar.J 'wine, perhaps not so well known to-day. Usually the farmer taboos any innovation in farming practice, even when it has been proved to the hilt. and it has ronseq\iently been found necessary at various lime? to apply compulsion that the public welfare might. be safeguatded. INSTANCES OF t OMPLLSTOX

Compulsory dipping of sheep is one oi many instances of ilii--: compulsory grading of butter and inspection of dairies arc others, and it has recently been seriously suggested that dehorning ■ attic and tile use of purebred bulls on dairy herds be made compulsory. It is no ileparture from established custom, therefore, if I suggest that, in my opinion, compulsory herd testing is far more deserving of serious eimsideration than either of the above. In every instance where herd testing has been voluntarily undertaken an immense- increase in the output of the tested herds has taken place in the course oi two or three years. Those farmers who have been induced to thoroughly try it out are linn .supporters of regular held testing. All dairy factory otlicinls. who are in a unique position to compare the returns from tested and untested herds, are convinced that there is no quicker or surer method of increasing the" output from the dairy farm. The interested Government otlicials are such firm believers in it that ii very considerable amount was> recently granted from the general taxpayer's money to cheapen the cost of testing, and induce the dairy farmer to have his cows tested in his own interest. In spite of all this conclusive evidence that herd testing is the surest and quickest way of improving big income. only a comparatively small number of our Dominion's farmers can be induced to even give it a trial, let- alone pern*vere with testing until practical results can reasonably be expected.

THE I'ARMER'S STEWARDSHIP Even more than ether sections of the community in New Zealand the. farmer has a duty to the country. He has sole control over our most valuable asset, the land, and it is undoubtedly his duly lo make thai land produce the maxinit << which it i"s capable. If he lad.- lo adopl proved methods cf increasing the pro ductivetiess. whether it be through ignorance or hick of interest, he should be compelled by law to do so, so long as the expense of the undertaking has not to be borne by himself alone. Increased butt'erf'at and milk production is of sufficient importance to this country to warrant the passing of special legislation appointing officers and machinery to test every commercial dairy herd in the Dominion at frequent and regular intervals. The summarised result of these testings might. with advantage. be published in a periodical circulating amongst dairy farmers, and each farmer could also have those rows pointed out to him which were not paying for their keep. or which were the' least profitable in the herd.

The present Government charge for testing would certainly not be too much to ask from the dairy farmer under compulsory testing, and this sum, combined with a substantial subsidy from the Government, should covet working expenses. MIXOR ADVANTAGES There is little doubt that were it pait of the scheme that every second calver or over winch failed to produce say 2001 b of butterfat or more should be distinctively branded as such the r.wjier would take an early opportunity of fattening her off for the butcher. It is improbable that any compulsion woivld be necessary to induce the farmer lo get rid of branded cows. Oilicial records of the productiveness and age of every tested cow might be available to any buyer on payment of a small fee, and tin*-, in itself "would be a guarantee of snecen.,- to farmers buying land and

starting dairying in a new district. One of the chief virtues of compulsory herd testing would be that the hniiefieinl results of knowing exactly vvlint each cow was retuniing would he forced oti the. owner, and From that, it is hoped, would develop an interest in his- animals which would lend to better hulls being used for breeding, and better feeding for production being studied. it is not considered a hardship by the sheepfarmcr that lie is compelled, at his own expense, to dip his sheep every year. He knows that this is in his own and the whole country's interests. Tlie man with tubercular cows submits willingly to their being destroyed and leceivmg probably less than half their value as compensation. It is at least as important that the man who is cum boring bis gixnl ground with useless and unprofitable, animals, should be com pelled to know it. and. knowing it. not be ill a position to pass them on to wreck the prospects of some unsuspecting buyer.