THE SPECIAL-PURPOSE COW.

Otago Witness, Issue 2427, 19 September 1900, Page 4

THE SPECIAL-P URPOSE COW.

The skill and indomitable perseverance with which the rent-paving farmers of -the "United Kingdom have brought into prominent notice the superiority of the "gene-ral-purpose cow"' over the "special-purpose cow,'' by their exclusive patronage and perpetuation of the milking families of the rival breeds of pure-brad cattle, is deserving of all praise. They have succeeded; in forcing the recognition of lave standard.

Now 'is the time to secure novelties for t\\& flower garden. Send at once to Nimjio an» HhAia, DuttsdiH, tox full parfcieulsssa.

positions which each of the leading breeds of purebred cattle occupies. — viz., milkers, j and between which, farmers, apart from I "fashion breeders," may discriminate as they deem necessary for the purpose they have in view. They have tne "beef-pro-ducer" and "the type of cow which milks liberallj'- as regards quantity, and at the same time produces a calf that will either follow the dam in the dairy or profitably occupy a place on the pasture or in the feeding shed," to choose from. There were, no doubt, many well-inten-tioned persons , who were quite contented with the conditions affecting cattle-breed-ing while the boom in prices of shorthorns and the craze for "line-breeding"' prevailed. In this way only it was maintained, could early maturity and profitable 'beef production be assured. Systematic in-and-in breeding was followed to an extreme, with the result that in the fashionable and most successful showyard herds the animals were feeble in constitution, rarely could a cow amongst them give sufficient milk to rear her calf satisfactorily, and the nunfber of barreners was ruinously disproportionate. There is no lack of authentic data upon which to base arguments , for arc! against the development of the special-purpose cow for beef production. In an article on "The Revival of the Butter Industry" of the United Kingdom, which he contributed to a recent number of the Journal of the Bath and West of England Society, a• Mr Jtifnest' Matthews .champions the -'"special-purpose cow", for dairying, and assails the dual-purpose cow patronised- by British dairy farmers. The . alleged- loss "of the butter , market he lays wholly to the charge of- the cow indicated -.-r-thafr is, tte type of cow that will fill the. pail, .breed a calf good, for the da:ryma.-! or' the. grazier, and fatten off rapidly J when dry. 'These cows Mr Matthews calls j "mediocrities," and should be got rid of "I to make way for the specia" -purpose sort, or else be themselves transfoimed by the gradual process of selection into the type of cow he 'favours. Evidently, the Channel Islands cattle are Mr Matthews' s favourite's.. The Jersey especielly he considers the ideal for British farmers if they are to recover the industry he suggests they have been sufficiently short-sighted to let slip from them, although he does not look "upon the c'a?e of the shorthorn, the representative general-purpose cow of the country, as altogether hopeless. "There is still a hope for the cosmopolitan animal if her supporters set about ' specialising ' her before she drifts farther from the cor- ' rect type." In a review of Mr Matthews' s paper, the Field, London, completely demolishes his arguments, and exposes the instability of the conditions on which they are based. "If butter production," says ths Field, "is to bs the central aim in the management of the farm holding, and all other considerations are to be made subservient to it, Mr Matthews is perfectly right in his advocacy of the specialist cow. Before the special-purpose cow can be accepted as the best class of animal j for the country in general, however, it is essential that there should be one pursuit which would be more worthy of the attention of farmers than all others, jointly or severally. Butter-making would require to remunerate the producer better tlian milk-selling and beef production carried on conjointly or independently, before it could be advisable for the farmer to adopt it 'in the exclusive manner suggested by Mr Matthews. And this is precisely what is not the case. Butter is about the least profitable article the English farmer can produce, and this sufficient fact, more than inability to combat the import trade, affords the true explanation of the situation which Mr Motthew.-< &o cordially deplores." Our contemporary acknowledges that by cultivating any one propensity to the exclusion of all others the owner will obviously obtain a better return of the one article he encourages, be it beef, milk, or butter, than would be procurable were the qualities of the animals preserved in their natural relationship. "It '.stands to reason."' the Field observer, ''that the cow which concentrates' all the food she consume* — in other A\ouls, all her energies — upon the prod action of one article of produce will yield more generously of that one article than can be expected of the animal which shown no such concentration of purpose. The Jersey is simply and solely a butter-producing cow. and, on an average, may suipa^s the sl'r.iilioiu mi that one capacity, became unli 11 io 1 ttle" butter-yielding is but one cf -ovum! uscicserved. As Mr Matthews >,b-.eivo", <\c shorthorn might, in course oi '>r . be .so altered as to livai or excel ;j< ' hannel Islands variety." In the nbsence of cut-nnrl dri< 1 -U'li?;tical evidence, it is possible to arm'p a! a fairly intelligible estimate of the value to the ordinary fanner of tho tvo types

of cows. On no conceivable ground can it be seen, as Mr Medthews asserts, that the advantage is on the side of the singlepurposo animal, particularly the special but-ter-producing cow. Unless, indeed, the producer is s,o situated that he can obtain from regular customers top retail rates for his fresh produce, butter-making has been found to bs about the last resort of the English dairy former. If curing and its transmission through circuitous channels are necessary, the pursuit will afford but a bare living. Cheese-making, in the great majority of caf.es, is preferable to butter-making, and therein the advantages are altogether in favour of the generalpurpose cow. If there is any system of dairying worthy of exclusive adoption, tliafc method obviously is the milk-selling business, for farmers can, by means of a little siirple combination, maintain 11 prices at a paying level. But the majority of farmers who adopt this jwrsuil as the one proved to be capable of yielding the best financial results, prefer to avoid the specialist, cow. "Mr Matthews's ' mediocrities ' are given the preference for the very sound reason that by giving the farmer two gocd strings to hi£ bow instead of one long since worn out, they render his business less risky and sensibly more profitable." By keeping a good class of "milkincf shorthorns" he obtains a liberal yield of milk, probably worth more than the produce of the specialist butter cow, while he has in addition a class- of calves valuable for grazing purposes. The production of high-class store cattle in this colony is, worthy of prominent consideration. The store" cattle market is likely to prove as reliable" as any other, and is. at least as " capable of attaining to a high level as the butter J market. ' So far as .present circumstances and nppearances will permit of an opinion being formed, the system of management which will answer best in the near future on the average dairy farms will consist in a combination of two or more pursuit.*. The breeding of a good class of store cattle is entitled to share Avith the system of dairying adopted the chief attention of the farmer.