LIVE STOCK AND THE FARM

Southland Times, Issue 22333, 26 May 1934, Page 12

LIVE STOCK AND THE FARM

(Conducted by VV. S. Allan, B. Agr. Sc.)

Items of Interest with a view to publicion in these columns will be accepted, id any inquiries accompanied by the ime and address of the inquirer, not icessarily for publication, will be answeri through these columns. TESTS WITH SHEEP. EFFECTS OF PHOSPHORUS DEFICIENCY. Tests have been conducted in Adeide by the Council for Scientific and idustrial Research to ascertain the aficts on the growth, well-being and reduction of wool, and skeletal dcveloment of sheep kept for a yean on a iet containing a minimum quantity of hosphorus, but not deficient in other rspects. The main experiment was with lambs x months old (groups A and C). and ith sheep one year old (groups B and i). The only difference in diet beveen the groups was that A and C jeeived adequate phosphorus, and B iid D a low phosphorus diet. The same quantity of concentrates as eaten by all the sheep. Consumpon of roughage by the animals on the >w phosphorus diet declined until at ie end of the experiment it had berime three-quarters of that of the annals receiving an adequate quantity f phosphorus. All the animals remained m good ealth throughout the experiment, but vo of those which received a ration eficient in phosphorus became incapble of sustained exercise. During the ear the gain in weight of the animals f the diet low in phosphorus was only ) per cent of that of the other group. One ewe on a diet with sufficient hosphorus and another which received isufficient phosphorus each raised a imb. The latter’s lamb weighed only 5 per cent, of that of the former at irth, but was healthy and vigorous, ,’hiie its skeleton was well-formed and lineralized. . There was no difference m the ,’eight or quality of the wool grown by imbs in the two groups. Lambs on iasture produced the same quantity of zool as the experimental lambs, but it /as of greater fibre thickness.

THE PIGGERY. milk for fattening. c CONTINUOUS FEEDING. t There are many breeders and feed- t ers of pigs who consider that without 0 an adequate supply of milk by-products c the pig industry can never be properly developed. However that may be—and 0 it is surprising.what good results have t been obtained from substitutes —there f is no doubt that milk must always be ], of great importance in pig husbandry. a Surplus milk is one of the 0 problems of an organized dairy f industry, and if some outlet can be B found for the butterfat quite a good re- r turn usually can be obtained for the re- t mainder of the milk by feeding to pigs. The great value of milk for pigs( de- a clares H. R. Davidson is the Farmer and c Stockbreeder) is closely associated with the type of stomach and digestive or- c gans, which are almost exactly the f same as those of a human being. In c nature the pig’s diet is a mixed one, c but the standard type of food fed to - pigs under domestic control consists of j. grains and the meals made from them, j These happen to be very deficient in r protein and lime, which, the omnivorous animal would obtain from the con— j sumption of small wild animals. ( In milk it so happens that there is { just exactly what the pig needs to sup- . plement its ration of grain. The pro- ( tein is not only high in amount, but is , both easily digested and of the type to j supply just what is wanted to such a . rapidly growing animal. The carbohydrate in milk is in the j form of sugar, which has the reverse j effect as such starchy feeds as maize, , and produces a hard white instead of a ( soft yellow fat. , Milk for pigs should preferably have , the cream removed from it. But, even if the whole milk is fed, the butterfat . has a high feeding value without having ■ much deleterious effect on the fat of ' the carcase. Finally, the minerals in ; milk are particularly valuable for their : quality and the ease with which they are digested. With such valuable supplementary feed as milk, therefore, it is important that the best possible use be made of it. Often, however, the supply , is irregular, and it is perhaps for this reason that milk has not the same reputation elsewhere as in Denmark, where a definite proportion of milk can be fed all the time. . . Where milk is fed in large.quantities for a short time and then withheld all the advantages are lost. Treatment of this kind, for one thing, leads to digestive disturbances, causing scouring or constipation, and it also interferes seriously with the appetite of the pigs. It is fortunate that sour milk is of equal or greater value than sweet milk because this permits of it being held for some time and issued out to the. stock in regular amounts. Even , if skim or separated milk is available in perfectly fresh condition, it is usually advisable to feed it soured. Otherwise, if milk were to. be fed sour even one day in a fortnight the change would lead to trouble. In | dition it is probable that the soured milk is more easily digested. Considering, however, how milk can 'best be used by the small or medium producer, we might do worse than examine the experience of Denmark. With a very considerable amount of separated milk and whey to deal with the Danes have spent a good deal oi thought in arriving at the best proportions to use in a mixed ration. Naturally, methods vary slightly, but, speaking generally, the proportions of irieal to milk which have been found most satisfactory have been: From weanmg to 1001 b live weight, 2 parts milk to 1 part meal; from 1001 b to 1401 b live weight; 14 parts milk to 1 part meal; from 1401 b to 2001 b live weight, 1 part milk to 1 part meal. . What interests me most is that the total amount of milk is standardized at approximately the same amount 6 4 1 b a head a day—while the meal ration rises as the pigs get heavier. Almost exactly the same arrangement prevails with the feeding of potatoes m Germany, where a small fixed amount oi grain and protein supplement is fed, while the amount of boiled potatoes >s increased according to the appetite, of the pigs, thus automatically balancing the ration all the way through. In the case of milk one could feed just over half a gallon per head per day, and allow increasing amounts of a simple meal ration as the appetite increased. With the above amounts of milk fed the food is rather too dry to mix easily, and so a certain amount of water can be added, but this is best restricted to a minimum. “In short,” concludes the writer,, my advice in connection with milk is as follows: Only feed in when you can guarantee the supply for some time. Always, if possible, have it pasteurized or boiled while it is sweet, but do not feed until it is sour. For young pigs, ’ feed two parts of milk to one of meal, altering this for finishing pigs to equal ! parts of both. When these main points ' are kept in mind, milk can be one of 1 the most useful feeds for pigs.” > — t EXPORT LAMBS. 1 quality praised. AUSTRALIAN FARMER’S VIEWS. I Mr A. Browning, one of the Australian farmers who recently toured New ZeaII land, on his return to Australia gave an address on his observations in the • Dominion. Among other things he said: - “After having met a number of lamo producers in both islands I am convinced that we have a .great deal to learn from New Zealand in the production and also the marketing of our lamb They pay more attention to ) their pastures. The carrying capacity r of some areas, particularly m the North Island, is astounding. They are more careful in selecting lambs for export. •’ Before leaving the property every lamb is handled on the back and tail. n “Although we are the leading sheep e country, better facilities are required in our yards for doing this work. Most of our selectors rely on appearance and frequently send second and third grade lambs that could be made into first grades with more feed. When these inferior lambs arrive at the works all the supervision on earth cannot make them 4 into prime carcasses. The standard of

WASTAGE ON FARMS. a CARELESSNESS AND IGNORANCE. J Someone has said that “it is the* little ® things in life that count.” Another 1 philosopher has expressed the same - thought in the aphorism, “Take care of the pennies and the pounds will take f . care of themselves.” . , ; “A stitch in time saves nine” is another familiar phrase which directs at- c tention to the importance of little £ things. Every harvest time there are losses of horses in the wheat growing a areas through the failure of farmers, a or their helpers, to prevent the animals a from gaining admission to bagged grain, r and such misfortunes have been the v more regrettable because, as a rule, t they could have been avoided by devoting a few minutes to the repair of a weakened gate, or the strengthening c on a slack fence. Unhappily, there is waste in every direction. It occurs in a thousand dif- 1 ferent ways, and, translated into terms { of hard cash, it must amount to an c enormous sum annually. Some of it, € admittedly, is more or less unavoidable, c but, unquestionably, the great bulk of c it could be prevented if only a little j more thought were displayed. c Broadly speaking, there are two c types of wastage. One is due to sheer carelessness and indifference with re- ) gard to actual expenditure and man- t agement generally. The othei’ is attributable to want of thought and ig- < norance. The latter, probably, accounts £ for the greater measure of loss in the ( aggregate. . 1 In this category must be included < lack of cleanliness. To tell the average j farmer that he is wanting in cleanliness 1 would be regarded as an affront cal- ] culated to lead to an assult upon the 1 person uttering the allegation, or, at least,- an action for libel. And yet it is beyond dispute that ; insufficient observance of the laws of ; hygiene, in one form or another, is j manifest on even the most up-to-date i properties, the owners of which pride . themselves upon their high standards . of efficiency. While many farmers are extremely particular in matters of personal cleanliness and in most of : their farm management, they overlook J certain details which involve them in considerable loss. . . 1 This especially applies to daily farm- ■ ing, wherein scrupulous cleanliness is of paramount importance, and one of the principal factors in the successful conduct of the operations. It has been asserted that certain suppliers are not supplying milk and cream of the highest standard and that, therefore, it is impossible to manufacture butter and cheese of the choicest grade. It is unlikely that anybody would suggest that the dairymen are _ wilfully dirty in their methods, but it is not improbable that an exhaustive and detailed survey would reveal many weaknesses and defects due to want of knowledge and thought. In no industry is greater care in every department so essential as it is in dairying, but in no othei’ industry is it so difficult to maintain hygienic conditions, or-is-it so easy to fail in one or more respects. The farmer must be constantly watchful and intensely alert if he is to secure the best results. For example, it often has been found that cream has been tainted, by fumes from petrol engines, or by dirty milking machines, separators and even by disinfectants used in washing the utensils. One of the chief sources of contamination, however, is dirt from the udders of cows. Lack of thorough cleanliness not only affects the quality of the milk and cream, but it also is reflected in the health and productiveness of the cows. Thousands of calves are lost every year through the complaint known as “scours,” which, almost invariably, is brought about, the veterinaiy authorities declare, through the utilization of dirty feeding vessels. While certain other diseases may not actually have their origin in the adoption of unhygienic methods, the spread of them is undoubtedly facilitated by such means. There is a popular impression that pigs are unclean animals, and that they actually revel in filth. That is entirely erroneous, but it is so deep-rooted that, in a very large number of cases, even on holdings where the degree of cleanliness is generally high, the pigs are treated with scant consideration. A big percentage of the losses which occur among pigs, and the greater part of the trouble experienced in getting them to fatten quickly, can be traced to the unsuitable accomodation provided for them, together with incorrect methods of feeding. Pigs—indeed, all classes of animals—are naturally clean in their habits, and it is a penny wise and pound foolish policy not to treat them accordingly. Where they are compelled to remain in objectionable surroundings they must ' inevitably suffer, to the detriment of i their owners. In these days of finan- ■ cial stringency there should be no avenue for wastage of any kind. Hence, it behoves every man on the land first of all, to subject his practices to the most minute examination, and then to take such steps as will remedy any defects, and ensure the maximum exploitation of every available source of income. The complaint is often heard that prices of primary products are so low that there is little of no encouragement 1 to the men on the land to exert them- " selves, but, on the contrary, that very ' fact should serve as a spur to be more critical, more thorough, and more ef- : ficient than when circumstances were 5 more favourable.

JUDGING DAIRY CATTLE. ENGLISH AUTHORITY CRITICAL. • Go into any progressive dairy district and you will discover that there is now a more general appreciation of the importance of keeping high-producing cows than there was, say, 10 years, ago. For this we must thank the educational functions of the herd-testing movement. Part of the credit also must go to the depression, which, among other things, has stimulated interest in more efficient methods of dairy production. The present position of the dairy industry is such that it can no longer afford to adhere to old ideas and fashions unless they are economically sound. The future of dairy farming demands that we should strive to make our methods as efficient as possible. Methods and institutions must be examined in the light of their real usefulness. Apart from its value as a social function, and a pleasing spectacle, the agricultural show is an institution designed to encourage the improvement of the standard of livestock. It is generally claimed that, in this connection, a fair measure of success has been achieved. This is perfectly true, at any rate, for stock like beef cattle and pigs, where the physical characteristics are those of direct value. Is the claim justified for dairy cattle, whose value is not a visible thing? Some doubt whether it is. Prominent among those in England who have ventured to criticize established practices and established institutions, is Mr R. Boutflour, principal of the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester. Some years ago this authority evoked much criticism by condemning outright the then common practice of feeding unlimited quantities of roots to dairy cows. - Yet after the discussion had died down his ideas were accepted as sound, and have since been incorporated into farming practice. However, it appears as if his latest campaign—the condemnation of the agricultural show —is likely to arouse even more interest. Speaking to the Farmers’ Club recently he described the show ring as “little else than a glorified form of fortune-telling, where one or two fortune-tellers walking round a bunch of cows, pronounce upon their hidden mysteries.” “What humbug!” he exclaimed. Continuing, he said there were cows giving six to eight gallons 100 years ago. In fact, some dairies averaged five gallons. The first cow ever tested was that owned by a Mr Cramp, in 1805 io 1811. That animal averaged 1285 gallons of milk for six years. “If there was so much good material more than a century ago, what is the reason for the poor cows of to-day?” he asked. He blamed the standards set at our agricultural shows and the unscientific methods of pedigree breeders —and this, too, in a country where the breeding of livestock is supposed to have reached a high standard of perfection !

Present-day English cows last about two and a-half years in a dairy and give on the average 650 gallons a year, or 1700 gallons in a lifetime—“the amount a good animal should give in a year,” as he put it. Mr Boutflour declared that unscientific breeding methods began since dairy bulls were exhibited with beef bulls, ■ to be judged on their appearance. “For ■ 150 years dairy cattle in England and in many other countries have been shown fat, like beef cattle. Breeders of dairy cattle have thus been led to select breeding stock with milk in- their pedigree and beef in their appearance—the resulting offspring being some beefy with a little milk, some milky with a little beef, some fair in both, some bad in both, and very few, indeed, good in both.” He condemned dual-purpose cattle. This kind of breeding, he asserted, had led to the production of two classes of animals with a breed, those that produced milk and those that produced beef. It was rare that one found both characteristics in one animal. In fact, he accused breeders of attempting to produce a “physiological freak”—an animal which would fatten itself m all parts, and which would conveniently omit to fatten the udder. “A dual-purpose cow provides you with meat and milk,” he said, “but she can be eaten only once, while a good cow should be milked 5000 times. A good cow should give 10,000 gallons of milk in a lifetime, worth £4OO to £5OO. When she is ready to be eaten, if she is fit for that purpose, she should be worth £l5. If the animal is a dairy type, she might still be worth £B. “So in breeding for dual purposes you are breeding for two factors—£soo worth of milk and £7 for extra beef. Therefore the factor for milk has 70 times the value of any possible return you may get for the extra beef. Yet the striving for the £7 has been the governing factor in the selection of our national dairy cattle for 150 years.” “Our agricultural shows have done definite harm by fostering the judgment of dairy cows by appearance; anyone with any common sense knows that a dairy bull cannot be sincerely judged that way. The two factors that are important in a cow, namely, the power to milk and the power to live, are by means fixed. One can buy longpedigree cows that will give large yields; one can also buy similarly bred animals that are poor cows. “The power to live never seems to be taken into consideration at all. In no pedigree does one find the number of years the animals have lived mentioned, nor what they died of! The methods the breedei- has adopted have been against the building up of constitution; first, because he followed the example, of the beef breeder in going for early maturity, forgetting that the beef man was out to produce an animal that would not be given a chance of living more than two or three years. Surely he would have realized that all animals that mature early die young! “Second, the breeders have used mostly young bulls and from animals that put on flesh in youth. Youth and flesh are not an indication of constitution. Thirdly, a premium has been put on youth—only young cows win at English shows—and if one inquires the reason why, the answer is: ‘Surely you must give something for youth in an animal.’ Frankly, I do not know why, for I never knew a cow born without it.” Mr Boutfloui’ quoted Chaddesley Hedge Rose 2nd, the “best producing cow in the country, which has been to the Royal Show five times in succession and each year has done nearly 1001 b ot 4 per cent milk, and an average cf ' about £20,0001b. between each show. ’ Yet she has never been awarded a prize . while each year there have been placed . above her champion cows and first- , prize cows which were inferior in every way to Hedge Rose. “Fancy placing a high-yielding cow in a low position because she has smut on her nose or a wrong colour on the \ tip of her horn, or suffers from the • very serious offence of having the root ' of her tail cocked up half an inch. Then, . fancy finding at the top of the class ; cows having all these things right, and, in addition, having square udders pro- [ bably full of flesh—described to you, . nevertheless, as cows that fill the eye - every time—which, indeed, is often all they ever will fill. J “Quite recently I saw one of the 1 latter type sold for £35 more than any t animal would bring at a sale of good . dairy cows. She had never exceeded 400 gallons a year. Why do some people > pay £BO for 15cwt. of cow beef? “The ! only answer is the education they re- . ceive at the agricultural shows.” t To-day they had in England, Mr . Boutflour continued,, no successful . breeders of dairy cattle, the judgr ment of dairy cattle, by appearance and fetish for type, insincere standards

at the shows, an almost incomplete ignorance of scientific breeding by breeders, a belief that constitution was represented by beef, an inheritance of a lot of poor milking cows, divisible into classes—non-pedigree and pedigree—both being equally the product of unscientific and mistaken, breeding methods of the past. The question he asked was whether the breeders of English dairy cattle would be willing and able to free themselves from the influence of old habits. “If they will,” he said, “the requirements for success are few and simple. There must be a sincere standard of excellence in breeding for dairy qualities. Proved sires must be used. The Mount Hope bull index system is of more value than the milk record of the cow. The trouble in the past was they could not distinguish between the bulls that begat good daughters and those that begat poor ones. That difficulty does not occur to-day.” SCOURS IN PIGS AND CALVES. Discussing the occurrence and treatment of scours in young pigs, an English breeder states: —“Every litter I had started to scour when about three weeks old, almost to a day, and would begin to go back in condition. I gave each piglet a teaspoonful of castor oil, and unless the trouble abated within two or three days, I would give them another teaspoonful, but I scarcely ever had to dose them the second time.” Referring to scours in calves, another breeder observes:—“l strongly advise anyone having a calf suffering from scour to try the following treatment: Stew Joz gentian root and loz camomile in a pint of water for about two hours, until about as strong as ordinary tea. Make the solution up to a pint and give the calf half of it in the morning and the other half at night, shortly after its meal.”