COW-TESTING ASSOCIATIONS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 35, 26 September 1911, Page 3

COW-TESTING ASSOCIATIONS.

ANNUAL SUMMARY. Jn his annual summary of the work done by the Dalolield, Kaupnkouui, Stratford, and Cambridge Cow-test-ing Associations, Mr W. M. Singleton, in the “Journal of the Dcp.utment of Agriculture” remarks:— “During the season under review, 1158 cows have been tested. All of these have not been found worthy of being kept as dairy cows until the end of the season, individual testyigslioets disclosing the fact that a certain amount of culling of tlie most inferior producers has been in progress throughout the season.' From the dairy-farmer’s viewpoint this is business; but from the standpoint of compilation of 'records, is it obvious that some records which would evidence most need for improved dairy cows are therefore not available.”

“The average cow, including all those in each association, hajs produced a yield of 576211). milk, testing 3.88 per cent., and containing 2211 b. fat. The best herds in each association are good producers, and the owners may justly foci proud of the yields of these herds. Other herds not gaining tins position are also a credit to their owners. There arc some cows, though, even in some of the good herds, that will not bo permitted to remain another season. Some meinbers having herds giving low yields have only lately established their herds, while others have recently taken up fjiirms in much need of improvement. Their records will be better in later years. Besides those two classes there are many meinbers with herds which can bo greatly improved, and the figures indicate that, taking the best producing herds as a standard, the majority of our dairy-farmers have a good deal ’of scope for the intelligent application of the principles of breeding, feeding, and management of dairy stock.”

“The testing of individual cows is having a) beneficial influence in that it is directing the attention of dairyfanners to the pounds of fat a cow produces rather than to the percentage. The percentage of fat in milk has received rather too much consideration from suppliers of milk to dly factories. More attention to the quantity of fat per coir pays better, and is worthy of every consideration. T 1 o members of . our cow-testing associations are probably not so prone to cri ticise'the percentage'of fat at the factory as arc some pti’er dairymen who take less interest in their individual cows. However, oven in our associa- : ti oll*3 ! we do not come in contact, with this jtdass us an exception. ' I have visaed two members in one district,' one of which was complaining of his test at the factory. His was tlje highest at the factory, and was averaging about -1.1 per cent for Nov. The other member’s herd : was- testing about 3.3 s I‘iJer cent, at the factory at the saib6 time, but no dissatisfaction was expressed by the qw.nor. His cows averaged him over 421 b of fat per cow for the current thirty-day period. The herd 'which was testing 4.1 per cent. was 1 averaging 271 b. fat for Iho same period. ’flic owner was valuing bis reputation as the possessor of a higbtesting herd more than lie valued the actual cash return. The average of the lower testing herd for the season is 67231 b, milk, testing 3.71 per cent., and yielding 251.4211). fat. The average cow of the high testing herd yielded 41931 b. milk, testing 4.2 per cent., and yielding 188.1511). fat. The difference, valued at Is per pound, is worth £3 3s. “We have known dairy-farmers to sample the milk of their cows but take no record of the weight. This sort of testing may he very fruitful in causing the farmer to do the wrong thing. As a rule, the high-testing cow will he thought most of when the weight of milk is not taken and the pounds of butter-fat not actually \ determined. We have heard farmers state that they would .not keep cows testing below 3.3 or 3.4 per cent. There are many mortgage-lifting cows which would ho culled out on such a standard. We give herein a record of a cow which evidences the folly'of this practice, and which illustrates the case regarding many cows, although possibly in a lesser degree:— 30-Day Period. Milk Fat lb. Test. Ih. 1 1755 3.0 52.65 2 1867 3.0 56.01' 3 1672 2.0 48.48 Total yield for season (202 days): Milk, i1,3051h.; fat, 366.4411). “As an instance of the necessity of taking quality and quantity into consideration, wo give the record ol two cows in the one herd, which evidences this very clearly. Many instances, although not so marked, are to ho found iu our records. A: 886811). milk, 265.571 b. fat; B: 53011 b. milk, 328.771 b. fat. “To obtain an accurate idea of the cow’s productive capacity, both the weight and quality must he recognised. If both weight and percentage of f;.,t cannot lie used, it is preferable to base a calculation on weight alone, provided the weighings are made sufficiently often and at regular intervals during the entire . lactation period. “Only the enthusiastic dairy-farmer will carry out a regular system when he has to do all the work himscll. It is much hotter for the average dairy-farmer to join an association for the purpose, since there is more incentive to regular u'ml systematic work. It will also he less expensive if the dairy farmer values his time. “At the beginning of the past season we asked the members ol iho new associations to select iu order of merit their eight host cows. One object of this request was to centralise’the attention of the owner on the results as they come to hand during the sevc;ou, and also that wo might know .something of the average dairy fann-

er’s knowledge of his herd prior to testing. The comparison of the owner’s selection with the yields of the individual cows for the season is interesting both from the dairy-farm-er’s viewpoint and our own. A few of them are as follows: “Xot selected—a cow giving 3461 b. fat; selected —a cow giving 21811). fat: difference—l2Blb. fat at Is per pound, or £6 Bs. Not selected—a cow giving 2441 b fat; selected-—a cow giving 1201 b fat: difference-—1241b. fat alt Is per pound, or £6 4s. Xot selected—a cow giving 2761 b. fat; selected—a Cow giving 1401 b. fat: difference—l36lb at Is per pound, or £6 16s. “Discussions with some of the members have been interesting, and have evidenced the fact that mistakes are made every year because of insufficient information. “Parmer A bad a cow which he thou was giving milk equal in richness to skim-milk. This cow was rather restive and nervous, and did not toko kindly to ordinary handling; consequently the farmer had decided to dispose of her and her yearling heifer. He said he would have received about £2 10s had lie sold this cow at that time. His first return from the cow-testing association gave the production of this cow as almost the best of his herd. He was surprised, but sensibly concluded that i “If she is as good, as that I will give her more attention,” and started milking her himself. In a short time, with kindly treatment, she was as quiet as other cows in the herd. At the time the story of this incident was related to us by the owner, 1).: stated that “,£ls will not buy that cow to-day.” Purth omore, her heifer, which he had Intended disposing of, was still in his poss -ssiou, and he hoped that she would yet give a good account of herself. .1 ue saving effected on this one eo more than c nnponsated the owner for his trouble with the season’s testing of tho whole herd. “We have heard of other cases similar to this. It is rair ta conclude there are many cases somewhat similar among oil) 1 association members of which we have not heard. We believe that tho extension of the association principle of testing dairy cows will continue to evidence such mistakes of judgment.” Mr Singleton gives the photograph of a Holstein cow which was offered for sale at the beginning of the season for £lO. The owner received results of first test after offering to sell, and before tho prospective buyer had inspected the cow. Result:- Cow was not then for sale. Yield: 10,3011 b. milk, containing 3681 b. fat.