KEEPING MILK RECORDS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2817, 11 March 1908, Page 20

KEEPING MILK RECORDS.

The following is the second portion of the lecture delivered by Mr John Speir* Newton, to the Glascrow and Wi&st of Scot' land Agricultural Discussion Society oa " Milk Record^": — The first society to keep milk records on| a co-operative basis was that of Vejeiv Tho average per cow for 12 herdd for the first two years was 670 gaft ions, the average for the eighth' yeajl being 730 gallons — an increase of 60 galf lons per cow all round. This at 8d per ga|£ lo«, would be 40s per cow of an increase^ Some of the herds had very much greatew increases than that, one in eight yearti rising fiom 477 gallons to 880 gallons; aii*

other from 574 gallons to 836 gallons ; and a third from 617 Dillons to 867 gallons. These three herds had, therefore, an average increase of 265 gallons per cow in eight years. A farmer in Sweden, who prided himself on having an extra good milking herd, joined ono of the milk record associations in 1897, and during the first year his herd of 70 had an average of 800 galions' of milk. He sold off 42 of his worst milkm? cows, and kept 28 of the very best, •which he mated with a bull out of a known heavy milking cow. In 1905 he had again a herd of 72 cows, a:l descended from these 28 selectee animals, which gave an average of 12:20 gallons in that year. One society in South Sweden, that of Vallakra, where Ayrshire* are in great request, increased its average per cow from 670 gallons of milk the first year to 876 gallons in its sixth year; and if any person can point out any other method by which increases such as these can be brought about, they should' make them public with as little delay as possible. The present show method has been in existence for about a hundred years, and if it is to be credited with even the smallest annual increase in that time, the cows must have been a very poor lot when the ?how began. It 6eems, however, from writings made 115 years ago by Fullarton, in his report on the agriculture of Ayrshire in x 793, Naismith in that of Lanarkshire, and Martin in that of Renfrewshire, all to the Board of Agriculture, and also by the ■writinsrs and paintings of the Ayrshire at and after 1809, when Harley started the f&mbue Willowbank dairy in West Nile street, Glasgow, that the Ayrshire was then giving very much the same milk as it gives to-day. It would appear, therefore, that as far as milking is concerned, the show method, as presently conducted, has not im- ' proved that part of the animal one whit, and many believe it has deteriorated under the system. Heoently, when in Holland, I met some of the breeders who have been most identified with the milk records in that country. Mr Kuperus, a tenant farmer, renting 105 acres of heavy clay land, has on this farm 35 cows and heifers, besides young atock, and these include 26 cows which in 1906 gave an average of 1044 gallons of 101b- milk of 3.52 per cent, butter fat, and he expects thafc this year the average for his cows will be fully more than that. One cow in this herd yielded 1865 gallons of milk in 329 deys, and another 6151b butter in 317 days. The following are some of the largest yield? which have been obtained from this •sierd: A cow seven years old gave 1475 gallons of 3.71 per cent, fat in 306 days ; a "daughter gave 957 gallons of 3.36 per cent. fat in 345 days; a cow seven years old gave 144" gallons of 3.39 per cent, fat in 357 days ; a cow seven years old gave 1408 gallons of 3.67 per cent, fat in 309 days. In. this herd testing bejsan in 1897, when the average for cows and heifers was 923 gallons- of milk, of 3.15 per cent, fat for 287 days in milk. In 1905 the average had increased to 1100 gallons of 3.52 per cent, of fat, for a milking period of 332 days. In this herd- not only has the milk increased, but. also the percentasre of fat and the period of lactation. The sire in use in the herd of Mr Kuperus at the present time is called Pearl 11, and his dam had the folio wii>? record : I

Tn 1899 she caived seven weeks too soon, and in 1905 she was sold before lactation was completed. Both by the sire and the dam the bull in use in this herd is, therefore, come of a good milking stock. This is particularly so when we consider the percentage of fat which these cows odve compared with the average of those of Holland. The result is that in the herd this ■year there are 12 heifers now two and a-half years old, and although they have not yet completed their period of l actation, 11 have given milk with a high percentage of fat, and one about the- average. An instance may be given in the opposite direction. Another farmer in Holland had six heifers "which ha J the following percentages of fat in their milk— viz., 2.77, 3.02, 2.71, 2.62, 2.96 and 2.54 per cent. The clams of all of these heifers are in the Herd Book, and m the whole heid there are only two cows whicn have had under 3 per cent, of fat. Tiie sire of the heifers X however, out of a cow which yielded milk with on average of only 2.39 per cent, of fat. The influence here is as strong in the wrong direction as it is in the other case in the proper on«, and both instances clearly show that fat m milk is entirely a matter of breeding, and not of feeding, as some people still believe. A FARMER IX CANADA heg&n in 1891 with eight cows. slw3 maw 1

1 has 25. He weighs the milk of each cow twice daily, and tosts it for fat periodi- - call". B\ simply selling his poorest milkers fc and breeding from the best he has the fol-

In 1906 there was abortion in the herd. Tha cows of Mr Kuperus, previously referred to, gave milk of a quality very much like tho=e of his -neighbours when he began testing cighc years ago. His milk during the first year of testing averaged only 3.15 per cent of fat, but this has gradually risen till in 1904 it was 3.52 per cent. Each year's is as follows: 1897, 3.15 per cent.; 1898, 3.28 per cent. ; 1899, 3.39 per cent. ; 1900, 4.46 per cent. ; 1901, 3.47 per cent. ; 1902, 3.44- per cent. ; 1903, 3.50 per cent. ; 1904. 3.52 per cent. That is what one man has done, and although everyone may not be able to get. equal results, yet there should be no difficulty in making some improvement. Mr Kuperus is one of the largest exporters of Holland cattle to Canada and the States, and a few days ago shipped 52 head for Japan, and for his own stock he has been obtaining as many pounds as our best men are getting shillings. The most of Ayrshire breeders have a 6tock to begin with which, if equally selected, would give as much milk as those of Mr Kuperus, aad each of their cows may give 5 per cent, more fat. If, therefore, they grade up their stocks as he has done, there is little . doubt but that, though they may not have equal success, they will at least be able to make substantial progress. Another example on a more extended scale than that of a sinsrle farm is that of the Milk Record Society of Vallakra. During the first j'ear of its existence the average per cent, of fat in the milk was 3.09, while in its sixth year th^ average had increased to 3.21 per rent, of fat, notwithstanding- that the quantity of milk was 31 per cent, greater than it was six yearg_previously. Some 6ay that this is all very well, but in their opinion A MODERATE MILKING COW may be just as profitable as a heavy milking one, as, in addition to the extra food consumed, the depreciation on the cow is likely to be greater. In a district where I was giving a lecture on this subject a few years ago a well-known farmer said that he could not understand how one cow could produce more butter than another Oie was a. butter-maker) without eating a correspondingly greater quantity of food, as butter, any more than anything else, could not be produced out of nothing. I am not prepared to say how it occurs, but most people who keep cows know that, feed them as uni- ; formly as they like, there will be great differences in their yield of milk and butter. Food is a necessity of life, but it is not everything. It it were it might be argued thai because the editor of the Scottish Farmer and his office-boy dined off the same roast, and the boy probably ate more, he should be able to write as good an article as his chief. Milk cannot bo produced without food, but food alone is of little value when given to half-dry cows, as those I who attempt to produce milk by extra food from such animals will find to their cost. These are the class of cow 3in Canada called steer cows, of which, unfortunately, most count rie. nave too man3 r . From 1898 to 1903 D • Woll, of the Agricultural College of Wisconsin, the greatest authority of the present day on dairy matters, caused every separate article of food to be weighed which wa -> given to each of the college herd of from 35 to 38 cowa during that period. The milk was a^o all weighed and analysed. The herd was composed of selected specimens of each of the three or four principal dairy breeds. The results showed that, while one- cow yielded butter of the annual \alup of £20, alter payment had been made for all her food, the others dropped gradually down, till one actually produced £1 1 i( j ss value in butter than had been the cost, of fcod alone consumed by her during that; j ear In the other two years during which this cow was tested she gave a small profit. These results are the most comDlete of anything ever attempted in thi* direction, and conclusively prove that pedigree is of far gi eater importance than food in the production of milk or butter. At the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa, during the years 1901-2-3, all the food which four Ayrshires received was weighed, and the milk weighed and tested for fat, with the following results: I

It has also been argued that the large yield of some herds compared with others is entirely the result of extra feeding. Estimates of the foods used in the herds of the milk record societies since this work began in Scotland clearly show that the heaviest milking 1 herds, at least during the winter months, when the food is under control, are not those which consume most ' of it. In the spring months a good milk- '• ing herd will produce a gallon of milk at an i exoenditure of food of all kinds of from 3d '

to 4d per ga'lon, wink an indifferent ono will require from 5d to 6d. Wh.it is true of the herds becomes move pronounced in the individual cows, and the milk records show a considerable number of animals which have never paid for the food they have consumed. Cows to give records such as those I have referred to cannot be made by any system of feedingl; and extra food, while it may improve a poor one, will never turn it into even a moderately gocd one. Good cows, either for quantity or quality, must be bred : they cannot be produced by pimply giving the average cow an extra quantity of food. For commercial purpose* the wort}: of a cow in great part depends on the value of the milk or butter she is capable of producing over and above the cost of her food. There is not the shadow of a doubt as to the SUPERIORITY OF THE MILK • RECORD METHOD of selecting cows over the inspection one, as> has bsen abundantly proved by its success wherever given a reasonable trial. One argument against it is that the good cows of one year are not always those of the next and that pood milking cows have not always good milking daughters. Both statements have some truth in them, but it is very little. In one herd embraced in the milk records of 1903 the three best cows were also the three best the following year, whll? the two poorest milkers in each year were the same animals. On another farm, I out of the six best animals in 1903, five of them were among: the six best in 1904, ' while th-« sixth one had been sold. In thw instance also the cows which were worst in 1903 were also worst in 1904-. Co-onerative milk records, like everything under the sun, are not ibsolutely free of risk of error, but what I claim for them is that when the milk is weighed and tested every two or three weeks, and when the work is done by a neutral person, they are more reliable and are carried out at much loss cost than by ;inv other method yet suggested". Milk recoids so conducted have the further advantage of impressing a stranger more forcibly when carried out by a neutral person, under the supervision cf a committee, than where the work is done bs* the owner of the cows. That in itself i= no small advantage which should not be lost eight of. I contend that the principle of the work i& correct, and that the work itself is on tho right linos: and if it is faulty in details, let not only those who are in favour of the work, but aNo those who are asrainst it, obliterate the fault 8 and retain what is good. In the world there are many things faulty but reformers do not give up in difgust on that account and say that life is a failure because there are a few black sheep in the fold. Those who favour TIGHT VESSELS. PMALL TEATS, NARROW CHESTS, and turned-up horns argue that, if milk records are to bo slavishly followed, all , beauty of form will disappear. The symmetrical body of the Ayrshire, which has been the result of geneiations of careful breeding, they say. may become actually ugl3, an-1 the rapacious, level, square, and weli-proportioned udder, as found in the best specimens of the breed, will become a mere bat; trailing on the ground, with teals stuck on anyway. All that I can say is that the cows of Denmark. Holland, and some of those of Canada, which have been tested for years, show no svmptome of such a tendency, and photographs which I ha^e of the leading Ayrshire at the recent Chicago Exhibition show neither tight voxels behind, flat soles, nor small teats, but big, wice, long udders, not fafc under, but rather circular, or, as Fullarfon describes it in 179.i "like a flat Foup-plate," with large teat 3 evenly spaced. The only change which has happened since then is in the value of the animals having good records, w hich have increased enormously, the mere mention of which would make Ayrshire owners' teeth water. lam not much given to prophesy, ' as it is a risky business even when you are supnesed to know, but I venture to pred:ct that in th-e near future, cows having good milk records will bring prices hitherto ! unhtart' of, and even undreamt of.

Milk in Per cent Age Days la "Year. gallons, of fat. years. milk. 1.898 914 3.64 2 331 1899 1059 3.68 3 297 1900 1106 3.73 4 293 1901 1221 3.72 5 255 1902 1387 3 79 6 307 •1903 1475 3.71 7 306 1904 1445 3.76 8 330 1905 1453 3.G5 9 343 -1906 1425 3.67 10 309 The sire of Pearl II was out of a coy which had the following record : — Milk in Per cent. Age Days in Year. gallons, of fat. years. milk. 1897 977 3.53 3 301 1898 116JT 3.57 4 318 1839 1026 3.89 5 298 1900 1338 3.65 6 286 1901 1276 3.65 7 330 1902 1203 3.54 8 276 1903 1371 3.52 3 2SB 1904 1422 3.49 10 352 1905 959 3.25 11 192

!ov. i*i£ returns per cow: 2\o of Year. cows. 1891 .. .. 8 .. 1893 .. .. 10 .. 1897 . ..15 1900 „ .. 18 .. 1903 . .. 23 ..t 1906 .. .. 25 .. Average return per cow. JE3 14 0 12 3 0 10 12 0 12 15 0 19 10 0 16 10 0

Year. 1901 1802 1903 ct.g O "3 <>* £15-35 16-48 17-70 n *>m £ 008 £*95 S-12 S-37 Is!I s ! §?& ». X o fti, £8.40 8-28 9-33 O TO aoS .2 .2^ £^° 45-3 49.3 47 3