DAIRY INDUSTRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21224, 2 July 1932, Page 17

DAIRY INDUSTRY.

INFLUENCE OF MILK TEST.

JERSEY ASSOCIATION'S COMMENT

'J lie president of ihc New Zealand Jer soy Cattle Breeders' Association, Mr. C. G. C. Dernier, writes in reference to the criticism recently made by Mr. J. P. Kalauglier, secretary of the New Zealand Friesian Association, of Mr. E. J. Fawcett's report regarding tho influence of milk test upon yield per acre. Mr. Derrncr states:—

" Mr. Faweett submitted a report as to (he influence of butter-fat test upon the yield per acre, basing tho conclusions he arrived at upon tho investigation he had conducted into tho records of 52,385 cows milked on 137,557 acres. He showed that as the butter-fat content of milk increased, so also did tho yield per acre increase. One of his tables, for instance, showed that the pay out per acre, based on butter-fat at lid per lb., was £6 Os 4d, in the case of milk testing 5.1-5.4 per cent., as against £4 Os Bd, in the casts of milk testing 3.5-3.8. The importance of the investigation conducted by Mr. Faweett can ho better realised when consideration is given to his statement that a material increase in the butter-fat test of the milk produced in Now Zealand would result in an increased output of dairy produce of 35 per cent. " Mr. Faweett conducted his investigations independent of breed interest, and with tho sole object of discovering how the dairy produce output of the Dominion could be increased. He submits his report —one of the most valuable in the national interests yet made public—and immediately draws down upon himself tho criticism of the low-testing breed interests. Mr. J. P. Kalauglier, organising secretary of the Friesian Association, attempts to reply to Mr. Faweett, but upon analysis the arguments he advances are not very convincing. Mr. Faweett, according to Mr. Kalauglier, is ' foolish ' for endeavouring to deal with tho question of high-test and low-test milk. Isolated v. General Examples. " In Ins attempt to cast discredit upon the economist's report, Mr. Kalaugher resorts to somewhat unusual lines of reasoning. He knows that Mr Fawcett's findings are based ori the returns of over 50.000 cows, yet he quotes the returns of a few isolated herds in an endeavour to refute the overwhelming evidence in favour of the higher-testing class of cattle. Everyone knows that there are good specimens ; n every breed. But it is the average that counts. No doubt Mr. Faweett found Friesian herds that were superior to Jersey herds, but on the average his findings were distinctly in favour of the higher-testing cattle. Mr. Kalaugher should be reminded of the old axiom that, ' The exception proves the rule.' "Without troubling to review all of Mr. Kalaugher's interpretations of Mr. Fawcett's report," proceeds Mr. Dermer, " I will hasten on to what ho himself terms, ' the climax.' for it is here that I propose to expose (ho whole fallacy of his contentions. What he evidently considers his trump card is based on the returns of 15 pedigree Friesian;. the property of the Piri Land Company, which produced far more cheese per acre than, according to Mr. Faweett, the average Friesian was capable of doing. Here we have 15 queens of the breed, carefully handled and fed for big records, and milked three times—not merely twice —a day. To quote their returns in an effort to disprove Mr. Fawcett's findings in respect of tho average production of 50,000 head is, of course, quite ridiculous. So, far from this being the climax of Mr. Kalaugher's case, I should regard it as rather an anti-climax. Many Factors. " Mr. Kalaugher asserts that there are many factors othci than high-testing milk governing production per acre, mentioning such obvious considerations as quality of the land, farm management, and the financial position of the dairyfarmer. No one would attempt to disagree with him in this, but the point he loses sight of is that the 50,000 cows whose returns were examined bv Mr. Faweett were managed under varying conditions, and that their yields can therefore- Lie taken as an average. " Mr. Kalaugher concludes his attack on Mr. Fawcett's report with a clever arrangement of figures designed to create the impression that, as the proportion of high-testing herds in tho Dominion increases, so does the buUcr-fat average per cuw decrease. Ho quotes returns to show that since tho 1929-30 season the average production per cow in New Zealand declined, but carefully omits to mention how, prior to that, the average was steadily increisod dua to the growing popularity of the higher-testing class of cattle. For the information of your readers, theso are the figures for 'lie lew preceding vears:—1923-24, 174.101b. fat; 192-4-25, 182.091b. fat; 1925-26, 179.401b. fat; 1926-27, 198.501b. fat; 1927-28, 195.381b. fat; 1928-29, 210.841b. fat; 1929-30, 218.051b. fat.

" That fact that tliero has been a declino since 1929-30 is clue, in a lesser degree, to unfavourable seasons, but mainly to the fact that there have been a greatly increased number of cows nrlked on practicnllv the same acreage, while a number of sbeepfarmers have supplemented their income by running a few cows on rough country,"where high dairy production could not be expected. Actually, the total dairy output of the Dominion ha s increased since 1929-30. and is still increasing. Mr. Kalaugher knows these facts as" well as T do, arid the wrong irnpres sioti which he seeks to create by Jialf-stat-ing the position only casts discredit upon his other contentions, and weakens his whole argument."