YIELD PER ACRE

Waipa Post, Volume 45, Issue 3213, 6 August 1932, Page 7

YIELD PER ACRE

INFLUENCE OP MILK TEST. REPORT BY FARM ECONOMIST JERSEY ASSOCIATION'S VIEWPOINT. The president of the New Zealand Jersey Cattle Breeders' Association, Mr C. G. C. Dermer, writes in reference to the criticism recently made by Mr J. P. Kalaugher, secretary of the New Zealand Friesian Association, of Mr E. J. Fawcett's report regarding the influence of milk test upon yield per acre. Mr Dermer states, inter alia:—

"Recently Mr E. J. Fawcett, farm economist to the Department of Agriculture, submitted a report as to the influence of butter-fat test upon the yield per acre, basing the cone usions he arrived at upon the thorough investigation he had conducted into the records of 52,385 cows milked on 137,557 acres. He showed that as the butter-fat content of milk increased, so also did the yield per acre increase; oz', in other words, that higher testing cattle were more economical producers than the lower-testing ones. One of his ,tables, for instance showed that teh pay-out per acre, based on butter-fat at lid per lb, was £6 Os 4d in the case of milk testing 5.1 to 5.4 per cent, as against £4 Os 8d in the case of milk testing 3.5 to 3.8. The importance of the very thorough investigation conducted by Mr Fawcett can be better realised when consideration is given to his statement that a material increase in the butter-fat test of the milk produced in New Zealand would result in an increased output of dairy produce of 35 per cent. "Mr Fawcett conducted his investigations independent of any breed interests, with the sole object of discovering how the dairy produce output of the Dominion could be increased. He tables his report—one of the most valuable in the national interests yet made public—and immediately draws down upon himself the criticism —and one might almost say censure— of the low-testing breed interests, to whom the results of his investigations are scarcely palatable. Mr J. P. Kalaugher, organising secretary of the Friesian Association, attempts to reply to Mr Fawcett, but upon analysis the arguments he advances are not very convincing. Mr Fawcett, according to Mr Kalaugher, is ( foolish' for endeavouring to deal with the question of high-test and low-test milk. If a man, seized with a sense of his true responsibilities, is to be termed foolish for conducting an investigation as i to how primary production can be increased, then things are surely coming to a pretty pass. "In his attempt to cast discredit upon the economist's report, Mr Ka-

laugher resorts to somewhat unusual lines of reasoning l . He knows full well that Mr Fawcett's findings are based on the returns of over 50,000 cows, yet he quotes the returns of a few isolated herds in an endeavour to refute the overwhelming evidence in favour of the higher-testing class of cattle. Everyone knows that there are good specimens in every breed, but it is the average that counts. No doubt Mr Fawcett found Friesian herds that were superior to Jersey herds, but on the average the findings were distinctly in favour of the higher testing class of cattle. Mr Kalaugher should be reminded of the old axiom that' the exception proves the rule.' •' " Without troubling to review all of Mr Kalaugher's ingenious interpretations of Mr Fawcett's report," proceeds Mr Dermer, "I will hasten on to what he himself terms ' the climax,' for it is here that I propose to expose the whole fallacy of his contentions. What he evidently considers his trump card is based on the returns of fifteen pedigree Friesiahs, the property of the Piri Land Company, which produced far more cheese per acre than, according to Mr Fawcett, the average Friesian was capable of doing. Here we have fifteen queens of the breed carefully handled and fed for big records, and milked three times—not merely twice—a day. To quote their returns in an effort to disprove Mr Fawcett's findings m respect of the average production of 50,000 head is, of course, quite ridiculous. So, far from this being the climax of Mr Kalaugher's case, I should regard it as rather an anti-climax. " Mr Kalaugher asserts that there are many factors other than high-test-ing milk governing production per acre, mentioning such obvious considerations as quality of the land, farm management, and the financial position of the dairy farmer. No one would, of course, attempt to disagree with him in this, but the point that he loses sight of is that the 50,000 cows whose returns were examined by Mr Fawcett were managed under varying conditions, and that their yields can therefore be taken as an average. And again, I repeat, it is the average, ndt the records of a selected few, with which we are concerned.

" Mr Kalaugher concludes his attack on Mr Fawcett's report with a clever arrangement of figures desighed to create the impression that, as the proportion of high-testing

herds in the Dominion increases so does the butter-fat average per cow decrease. He quotes returns to show that since the 1929-30 season the average production per cow in New Zealand decuned, but carefully omits to mention how, prior to that, the average was steadily increased due to the growing popularity of the higher-test-ing class of cattle. For „ne information of your readers, these are the figures for the few preceding years: 1923-24, 174.10 lbs fat; 1924-25, 182.09 xbs fat; 1925-26, 179.40 lbs fat; 192627, 198.50 lbs fat; 1927-28, 195.38 lbs fat; 1928-29, 210.84 lbs fat; 1929-30, 218.05 lbs fat. " The fact that there has been a decline since 1929-30 is due, in a lesser degree, to unfavourable seasons, but mainly to the fact that there have been a greatly-increased number of cows milked on practically the same acreage, while a number of sheepfarmers have supplemented their income by running a few cows on rough country, where high dairy production could not be expected. Actually the total dairy output of the Dominion has increased since 1929-30, and is stiil increasing. Mr Kalaugher knows these facts as well as I do, and the wrong impression which he seeks to erealte by half stating the position only casts discredit upon his other contentions and weakens his whole argument."