HERD-TESTING.

Otago Witness, Issue 3149, 22 July 1914, Page 16

HERD-TESTING.

A good deal has been written in agricultural papers of late in regard to the subject of herd-testing, and the success of the dairying industry is so intimately associated with the movement as to call tor no apology for further reference to it here. Probably nothing iff connection with the practice of dairying is of such vital importance to the dairy-farmer as an accurate knowledge of the yielding capacity of each cow in his herd. Dairy-farming, even under the most favourable conditions, is by no means the least arduous of the various branches of agriculture., but when based on a herd of unprofitable cows, the tremendous amount of capital, land, and labour expended that is not securing a proportional return, must readily be appreciated! Such waste of energy can only he avoided by the knowledge of the worth of each individual cow, but it should he remembered in this connection that one’s own judgment without reliable testing should not be wholly depended upon, as is frequently the case in arriving at such an estimate The records of various Herdtesting Associations have repeatedly proved the fallibility of the dairy-farmer's judgment, based" on observation alone, and that it is only by systematic testing that the relative merit of each unit in the herd can be accurately ascertained. The practice should commend itself from an economic standpoint, in that it clearly and accurately demonstrates to the farmer which of his cows are profitable and those which are not even, paying for their upkeep. When it is considered that these latter require the same feeding and management as their more profitable sisters, the need for their replacement by caws with a grater capacity at the milk bucket hardly requires emphasising as being a sound business proposition. The records periodically published of the various Herd-test-ing Associations in New Zealand and elsewhere prove indisputably the value of systematic testing, and have probably done more to promote some deep thinking among dairy-farmers than any other movement connected with the dairying industry. The writer has at hand some records which, though from the Codong Herdtesting Association, in New South Wales, are not without parallel in this-Dominion. The return shows that the yield of the 100 best cows was 595,2501 b of milk, representing 283.51 b of butter per head, while the 100 worst cows yielded 210,5301 b of milk, or 100.251 b of butter per head. The lowest yield of all was 26.71 b of butter in the year. The unevenness of the herds tested "is therefore strikingly apparent. Commenting on these figures, a Sydney journal says:—‘‘lt hardly seems possible that a farmer would waste feed on a cow returning him only 26.71 b of butter in a year, the yield of" the worst cow tested. Taking lOd as the value of butter (purely for the purposes of comparison) this cow gave a monetary return of £1 2s, 3d. Remerhbering that dairy farm land on the North Coast, is worth from £25 to £SO per acre, and rentals run from 30s to £2 per acre per annum, the loss that such an animal means is seen at once. It - is not paying for the space it occupies, nor the labour entailed in its care. Although not such extreme cases, the same can be said of the 100 worst cows tested. They yielded 210,5301 b of milk, which may be taken to represent about 100.251 b of butter per head, a monetary return (on the lOd basis) of £4 3s 6d per annum. At that figure under present conditions dairying does not pay—those 100 cows, like many others, are being maintained at a constant loss, They are the worst, of course, but they must represent a large proportion of the dairy cows of New South Wales. Apparently, their average yield was about 250 gallons of milk. The general average for’the State is put down officially at 3 /2 gallons, and it is therefore certain that there are thousands of 250-gallon cows in the dairy herds—thousands of cows returning £4 a year and less, and not paying for the grass they consume. On the other hand, the best cow returned nearly £2O per annum to its fortunate owner. Given a herd of equal capacity, dairying would be a splendid and attractive business, indeed. In Denmark, herds have been worked up to that average by regular testing, culling, and selection. But if we could reach the standard of the 100 best cows, the industry would attain a magnificent position, and the monetary returns from it be more than doubled. These 100 cows yielded 595,2901 b of milk, and taking that as equal to 28,3521 b of butter, these cows returned (on the lOd basis) about £l2 per annum, while the milk average was somewhere about the 700 gallons. Is there any need to impress the significance of these figures; do they not speak for themselves? Obviously the business of the dairy-farmer is to retain and breed from such cows, and get rid of cows of the 100 worst type. A herd of the £l2 pier annum cows means a very comfortable living ; a herd of the others means a dead loss’ and a herd of the two mixed —and that is what exists generally—mean a constant struggle, more or less unprofitable, according to the percentage of the £4 per annum cow. It must be agreed that a herd of 25 cows, returning £l2 per head per annum, is a better proposition than a herd of 50 averaging £8 per annum, and including at least 25 cows that are not paying their way. Even if the same area of »nd were used, reckoning

labour, interest on capital (or rental), the smaller herd will pay the best. But they would in practice only require half the area.’ 5 Systematic testing, then, in enabling the dairy-farmer to determine the wasters in his herd, can clearly be made a direct source' of profit. As one dairywho has profited by the practice, has said, “it is the essential to successful dairying.” A further benefit not to be lost sight of is the knowledge of the cows whose male progeny are most likely to prove prepotent. " The value of a bull from the dairy-farmer’s point of view clearly lies in his ability to transmit high milk and butter producing qualities to his offspring, and such ability is hardly likely to be inherited from “boarders.” . The importance of having a good bull at the head of the herd has been urged before in this journal, and not without reason when it is considered that less than 5 per cent, of New Zealand herds are headed by prepotent bulls. While it is gratifying to note the progress the practice of herdtesting is making; it is a matter for regret that it is not more generally adopted throughout the Dominion.