Turning out Cows in Winter.

Southland Times, Issue 19725, 27 January 1906, Page 4 (Supplement)

Turning out Cows in Winter.

Thu idea of exposing cowa to tho rigours of winter during the night-time is to most people suggestive of cruelty. Tiiu practice, however, lias’been frequently advocated, and the following observations on the subject by tho agricultural correspondent of tbo Yorkshire Post is not without interest : Tiie question of the purity of the milk supply lias given rise to many arguments and suggestions, as well as to considerable opposition on tho part of owners of herds to the introduction of any new practices. That tho health of live-stock largely depends on an outdoor life is quite true, but wo have to determine whether there is any malignant influence as regards health when cows are in the tielda in severe weather. There are few really practical examples of what fs possible worthy of quotation, but we may confidently refer to the practice, we may almost say demonstration, which has illustrated one phase of this subject on the farm of the Shnopshiro Agricultural College at Newport during the past four years. 1 .abour is involved in bringing in rows at night and taking them out in (lie morning, ns well as in providing food for consumption in stalls, apart altogether from the cost of that food. The first attempt to deal with the question was in 1901 when two lots of rows were pitted against each other, one lot being brought in and the other kept out. The actual test commenced on tliul November and was completed on 7th December. , covering a period of five weeks. The average yield per cow for the month had been 0401b of milk in I the case of the cows out, and 6771b produced- by the cows kept In, the former luting richer in fat, 3} per cent, against .■’) per cent. During the five weeks of the (■•si. however, tho cows kept out prod'tced more mill: than their rivals, while the fat in the milk reached 4£ per cent, against 3.H for tho others. Tho cows left out at night lost 3.21b per head of milk per week, while the cows kept in lost It.Gib. Similarly the cows kept out pained <ilb a head in live' weight and the others only lslb. In tho following year the herd was tested for four weeks in the same manner, and again the cows kept in produced a smaller yield of milk, together with n slightly increased percentage of fat ; indeed, the fat In both lots of milk was increased in quantity. The cows kept out lost per week per head 13Jtti of milk, and the cows kept in 26Jlb, while tho former gained 10.91b in weight end tho latter only 2.Sib, Thus for two successive years the cows which were kept out at night did very much better than those which were kept in, although the hitter received hay and straw at the cost oi Is 3d per head per week. In tho third year the test lasted five weeks. There wns again a marked increase in tho fat percentage, but the decrease in the milk yield was about the same in both lots, while there , was an average loss in live weight in each case of Sib. Practically the third year was a tie, except for the cost of tho food, which resulted in a balance in favour of the cows turned out. Last year there were two tests, lusting from sth November to 31st December. In November tbo thermometer fell below freezing point 12 times during the night, on one occasion showing .7 degrees ot frost, while in December it fell below 32 degrees on 19 nights. During the first period ot four weeks the cows kept out decreased lets in milk and gained more in fat and live weight than their rivals. During the second period the decrease in the milk yield was the same in each case ; the cows kept in gained very slightly more fat, but loss live weight ns compared with the animals turhed out. A GENERAL CONCLUSION.

Tests thus conducted in four distinct years must bo worthy of attention. Possibly there are parte of the country where the results would bo better or worse, in accordance with the climate, but il such results can -be achieved In Shropshire, there is no reason why they should not bo achieved elsewhere. It cows, ns appears to have been the case, can gain weight in' three years out of tour, when lett on the field, to a greater extent than cows brought in and fed, then it would seem that the practice is worthy of serious ; attention. If more and richer milk can be produced, and if, ■ us it would seem;* that milk is. cleancn and purer, a fresh‘ argument can he advanced in favour -of the system. Every ,one of practical experience is aware how next to impossible it fs • to maintain milking cows in a clean condition when lying in the stall and plastering themselves with manure, unless they arc dally washed and groomed. Undoubtedly this process of cleaning- dive-stock Is Costly mid troublesome, hut It has to be faced.

Those who are responsible for the public health, like those who consume perishable foods like milk, having become aware of what is common, con scarcely be expected to tolerate the conditions which exist on so many of our dairy farms. We glad-t ly exonerate those who are doing their vej-y best, and who so often succeed. Hut they are .in the minority.