HOCKEY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 113, 4 July 1911, Page 5

HOCKEY.

a STRATFORD V. RAWER A. The following team will represent the Stratford Rocky Club in a match against Hawera, to he played in King Edward Park to-morrow (AVednesv i : —Tocker (2), Bowler, Curtis, Cameron, Evenss (‘2l, Coo. CriJtin. R. B. Anderson, .Hudson and Hamper,.

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY. WHERE KNOWLEDGE IS MONEY. In an address to the Factory Managers’ Conference in Sydney recently, Mr. O’Callaghan pointed out how simply cream contamination and deterioration ou the faun could be avoided if the farmer only knew the little tilings that disseminated deleterious germ life. On one exceptionally well-man-aged farm he recently visited on the Richmond River, the dairyman could not account for nis cream being graded second-class. He took every precaution in the way of cleanliness that his experience could suggest, and the dairy, milking bails, and surroundings were spick and span. Mr. O’Callaghan found that the cows had access to a drain from which they carried the germs of cream pollution. This was mentioned as a striking instanco of where a knowledge of how cream is contaminated by bacteria would have been most valuable. The purchase of 100 yards of wire to keep the cows from walking through the drain, said Mr. O’Callaghan, would have meant another Id per lb. on the butter output of the farm, by raising bacteria would have been most valuable. Mr. O’Callaghan also mentioned another Richmond River farmer who had a similar experience, and who honestly thought his premises were a model of cleanliness. This farmer, instead of cleaning out liis cow-yard daily, did so-twice a week, and the cows, walking through the droppings, conveyed a common form of bacteria to the milk which causa putrefaction in the cream. THE MILK STANDARD. A deputation representing the Northern Milk Vendors’ Association (Newcastle and Maitland districts) preferred a request to the ActingSecretary last week that the milk standard be amended in the direction cf reducing the percentage of butterfat from 3.2 to 2.8. ' In specifying 2.8' they probably thought that tho Government might be induced to meet them half-way, and reduce the stipulated butter-fat content to 3 per, cent (remarks tho Sydney “Daily Telegraph.”) Of that, however, there is very little likelihood, except it were made to apply to a certain part of the year. In England, it is to be noted, that tho Milk Trade Regulation Bill, which has been before Parliament, proposes to fix a butter-fat standard at 3 per cent, and dairymen have been protesting that this is too high, and that, if it becomes law, their industry will be ruined. But there is another aspect of the question. Is it not fair that the consuming public should got milk containing not less than 3.2 per cent butter-fat? That is not a high stand ird from a consumer’s point of view,

and as far as they are concerned it is very desirable that it should not bo less. At the same time it should not be beyond the reach of the dairyman to give it. There is not the slightest doubt that a great deal of milk is produced, especially mornings’ milk, that is below the standard, and it is an uncontrovertible fact that dairymen, may .sell perfectly pure milk and yet bo amenable to the law. In one sense this is an injustice, but at the same time the duty of the Government is 'to ensure for the public a milk supply of a desirable nutriment standard. The remedy is really in the hands of the dairymen. Tho deficiency is in their herds, and though It cannot bo obliterated in a day, it certainly can be remedied. This can be accomplished by culling ’the herds to a higher average standard, ar.d weeding out the low testers. Take, for instance, the biggest suburban dairy in the metropolitan area, eusdugsQV(Sr on the average. I’ho samples of milk from this dairy have never yet proved to be below 3.2, though it has .had to submit to the same rigid inspection that has found so many other dairymen and milk vendors wanting. The reason is that' the milk is kept up to the required standard by testing every cow’s milk, and discarding those that are not \ip to the mark in butter-fat. This question was dealt with the other day by Mr A. E, Sweaney, secretary of the Dairy Factory Managers’ Association, in his paper on testing dairy herds. His views are particularly applicable to the present request for a lower standard, especially as Mr Sweaney has ■ gone into this matter of cow-testing very thoroughly and practically during the past few years. In tho course of his remarks he said : . “Many dairymen are under the impression that if they can breed good milk-producing cattle they can make good testers out of them by liberal feeding,' but such is a very erroneous idea ; better results would accrue from 'breeding for quality and feeding for quantity. Tho ability of certain cows to produce rich milk is a characteristic Inherited through the Wood, hence the reason we find certain strains of blood remarkable for the production of milk containing a high percentage of fat, while other strains prove quite the reverse. Tho Jersey breed of cattle

are renowned for their characteristic richness of milk. Yet I have found certain strains to produce milk of exceedingly poor quality, which no amount of feeding of the richest of food could improve. Dairymen must not take it for granted that because they have a Jersey sire at the head of their herd they are improving the test of their future stock, for it may not bo so, as 1 have in mind an instance where a Jersey sire was used on a mixed herd for tnis express purpose,, hut the subsequent testing of the heifers as they came in proved their milk to be almost without execution poorer in quality than that of their respective dams, and was undoubtedly 7 due to a poor strain in the bull inherited from a poor testing mother, as his sirs was specially noted

for his progeny’s richness of milk. “There is no doubt in my mind that our dairy cattle are decidedly retrograding in this particular respect. Nearly every day you can pick up the ua pci's and sec cases of dairymen being prosecuted th.rough the quality of the milk not being up to the standard required by law, and in many cases substantial evidence is adduced to orovc that the milk is just of the nature as drawn from the cow. I have also tested many samples of milk h orn cows ot my own suppliers during the last season that were consideriblv below the standard in richness, md in some instances the butter-fat was only just half the percentage required legally. In 14,000 tests taken by me on the farms during my official testing duties a few years ago. t per vent. of the cows tested under 3.0 per cent., and this from the daily average of the mixed morning’s and evening’s milk. The question naturally irises: What is the cause of this retrogression ? And in my opinion it can he "casilv answered; For years east dairymen have been paying all their attention to quantity in their methods of breeding, without any commensurate regard as to nnality, probably with the erroneous idea that quality '*an he fed into tne milt. “The Babcock test and its application has .been more of a novelon our •b.ii v ‘farms than a practical guide, vet it is the onlv key to unlock the rate of one of the main avenues cs--1 initial to successful dairying.”