DAIRY STOCK UNDERFED

Taranaki Daily News, 11 October 1928, Page 3

DAIRY STOCK UNDERFED

EYES SUNKEN INTO HEADS EGMONT ROAD FARMER CONVICTED BENCH HINTS AT IMPRISONMENT. For allowing dairy cattle to be kept on one of his farms on the Egmont Road in a starving condition Charlas Colson, who was proceeded against by the local branch of the S.P.C.A., was convicted by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., in the Police Court at New Plymouth, and flnod £5, with costa and witnesses expenses amounting to £0 16a. Though evidence was brought by other farmers in support of defendant’s explanation that the cattle were not starved, the magistrate said he could not disbelieve the evidence of the inspector and constable and the veterinary surgeon, and nothing had been brought to controvert it and an impudent attempt had been made by one of the witnesses for the defence, Upson, to say they were all mistaken. Farmers must realise that they had got to look after their stock, and if fines did not make them realise that then some person would find himself doing a term in New Plymouth gaol breaking stones. He epoke plainly and straightforwardly because he wanted people to understand that it was a serious matter. On behalf of the society Mr. R. H. Quilliam explained that the defendant had two farms on Egmont Road, one of 114 acres managed by a Mr. Fever, and the other of 156 acres managed by Mr. Dravitski. The first farm did not enter into these proceedings. On the Dravitski farm the deefndant carried 56 cows, 3 bulls, 4 horses, 80 sheep and lambs, and 20 goats on the date in question. It was described as thirdclass land, and on account of having sheep and goats on the land there was no grass for dairy cows. In consequence of a complaint received the inspector and Constable Small paid a visit to Colson’s farm and found the stock in a very poor condition, and they considered they were being starved. On the following d<.y they went out again with Mr. Wood, veterinary surgeon, and as a result of his inspection these proceedings had been brought. “PRACTICALLY SKIN AND BONE.” Inspector B. Tippins said that when he visited the farm on September 5 the stock was in terrible condition, especially the cows. The land was of the poorer quality and there was no feed for cows. There was a little ensilage and turnips, the latter being used for the two farms. Ha described the cows as ■practically skin and bone and their eyes were sunken right into their heads. His opinion was that the cows were not getting sufficient food. The defendant admitted the cows were poor, and he would have to send away to Canterbury for some food. He stated he had two tons of hay at the beginning of August. That quantity of hay would last the cows on the two farms about a week, if they were fed properly. Evidence supplementing that of the inspector was given by Constable Small, who said that Dravitski had admitted the cattle were starved. Cross examined by Mr. A. C. Lawrey, who represented defendant, witness said there was no grass on the land for the cows to eat. He thought at that time of the year the farm would carry about a sheep and a half to the acre, without other stock. The turnips were not a good crop. Stock on the neighbouring farms were in splendid condition.

Robt. B. Wood, veterinary surgeon, who visited the two farms of defendant, said the cows on Dravitski’* farm were in a very poor condition. He convinced himself they were not suffering from disease, and was satisfied that they were not getting sufficient food. To Mr. Lawrey: It would be hard to get cows in a good condition by September if they were in poor condition when they calved, say, in July. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT. The defendant said there were about about 36 milking cows which he ran on 80 acres. He purchased 26 of the cows in July and they were in very low condition. Dravitski had the care of these cows and they received four large sledge loads of food' per day—two of ensilage and two of turnips. He had about 80 tons of ensilage and 2‘/2 acres of turnips going about 25 tons to the acre. Prior to September he purchased two tons of hay. The grass was coming away nicely on the paddocks. He had lost no cows, and the four calves which he sold realised £4 5s each. John Hall and Ernest A. Upson, farmers, of Hillsborough, did not consider the cattle were starved. Upson thought tho stock were in very fair condition and ' were no worse than others in the district. He believed Dravitski was a good farmer and knew his job. He yiought the witnesses for the prosecution were all mistaken. Mr. Tippins was capable of anything. Frank Joseph Dravitski, manager of defendant’s farm, said that prior to September 5 the cows got two loads of ensilage andtwo loads of turnips every day. Ho was satisfied with the amount of food the cows were getting and said they were not starving. The land had been well manured and the grass was growing well. , Mr. Lawrey submitted that the prosecution had not discharged the onus of proving that the defendant had neglected to give his stock sufficient food. The case was not one of thoae in which stock had been left to starve. Mr. Quillinm said it was an extraordinary thing that in cases of this kind, especially against farmers, the society found it very difficult to get evidence for a prosecution, and notwithstanding any evidence that might be brought, farmers could be found who would come into court and try and explain away the evidence of the inspector and a police officer and a man of the standing of Mr. Wood. It seemed as though neighbourly love was stronger than their love for animaltt.