MORE BUTTERFAT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 144, 20 June 1931, Page 8 (Supplement)

MORE BUTTERFAT

HERD-TESTING RESULTS CONVINCING FIGURES QUOTED. (Contributed.) Herd-testing was introduced into NT.Z. in 1909 by the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the suppliers of the Daleficld Dairy Company in the Wairarapa. Tho system of testing adopted was termed “Association Test,” the milk samples being taken by the mPkcrs, and sent to the factory for testing. During the 1909/10 season 815 cows were under t st. Steady progress was made and by tho 1913/14 season the number of cows under tost had increased to 25,000. The r ar period then intervened. In t 1 o 1921/22 season tho total had increased to 45.564. Following on ho slump of that season I tho Farmers’ Union in the Waikato ! decided on a more complete system of | testing. They adopted the “group” system, which had then been in vogue in Australia for a number of years. Under this system a number of herds usually 27. combine to form a group. A testing officer is appointed and ho visits each herd once a month. He personally weighs and samples *ho milk of each cow at night and r ’ain thA following morning. The samples aro tested by him at tho nearest factory, or, in some cases, on the farm. The test sheets aro usually sent to a central office for completion, nd are returned to the farmer a few days after the testing oncer’s visit. Owners of largo herds particularly found it almost impossible to carry out the Association test. Special gear was required, on account of machine milking. the ordinary shed routine was interfered with, and, in busy times, such as when haymaking, tho inclination was to drop testing for that parj tieular month. Tho group system rej medied these defects. The testing officer carries tho necessary gear to I fit all makes of i.iiiki t .chines, tnus i enabling him io take the weights and I samples from individual cows without i resorting to hand milking. All extra j work caused through testing is done | by him, an;.! the shed routine is not in- • terfered with. The group system has brought about a healthy rivalry between the herd owners in a district ’ not possible under the ’ ssociation test | where tho owners themselves were | taking the weights and samples. The I group system, with its comparatively ! accurate results, made it possible to build up a calf marking scheme which is already playing a very important part in tho building up of the dairying industry. Paved the Way. In effect, tho Association test paved the way for the group system as is definitely indicated in the following table:— Cows Tested.

The effect of J he development of herd testing is strikingly apparent in tho undermentioned table. It proves conclusively that the adoption of herd testing results in a longer milking season, in better milking, in better breeding, and in better management of tho pastures and of tho herd. An examination of tho fertiliser statistics will show the ever increasing quantities used during recent years.

It is interesting to note that the increase over tho first 16 years (1909/10 to 1925/26) amounted to 30.951b5. of butterfat per cow. For the past 4 years the increase has been 38.651b5. per cow, a really phenomenal improvement. The increase over the 20 year period has been approximately 701bs. Tho butterfat figures aro for all cows in milk and dry, the average for tested cows in the 1929/30 season was 253.611b5. per cow. Great Opportunity. These figures should convince the most sceptical of the great value of group herd testing. If tho industry in general would but concentrate on this great educational movem the rate of improvement during the past 4 ye rs could at least be and this Dominion could, in a very few years, be made the leading dairying country of the world. Each 101 b. increase in the Dominion’s average represents, at Is pe? lb., £770,000 more income for exactly tho same work and at practically no extra expenditure. Many farmers fail to realise the effect, of the increase in average per cow. On a 40 cow herd, a 101 b. increase represent £2O without increasing expenses. A 1001 b. increase (and many men have accomplished this over a 4 to 5 year period) - epresents, at Is per lb., £2OO. In many cases this increase would definitely place a farmer in a sound position. The increase in average per cow automatically reduces production costs. Where a farmer was paying his way on a 2001 b. herd average at Is 6d per lb.. (£l5 income per cow) he would still pay his way at Is per lb. if his herd average has been increased to 300 lbs. per cow. These times demand lower production costs, and the first stop necessary to definitely bring this about is the adoption of herd testing.

AssociaSeason. tion Group Total 1909-10 815 — 815 1921-22 45,564 — 45,564 1922-23 77,325 7,500 84,825 1923-24 108,070 43,144 151,214 1924-25 96,795 100,055 196,850 1925-26 64,549 105,227 169,776 1926-27 60,323 109,827 170/ 0 * 1927-28 59,520 164,610 224,130 1928-29 47,114 212,480 259,594 1929-30 41.04° 242,688 •Drought Year. 283,731

Cows in Milk or Dry at January 31. Season Total Per cent, testec Butterfat production I per cow 1909-10 583,163 .14 148.4$ 1921-22 1,137,055 4.00 174.97 1922-23 1,248,643 6.79 180.62 1923-24 1,312,588 11.52 174.10 1924-25 1,323,432 14.S7 182.09 1925-26 1,303,856 13.02 179.40 1926 27 1,303,225 13.05 198.50 * 1927-28 1,352,398 16-57 195.2'8 1928-29 1,371,063 18.93 210.84 1929-30 1,440,321 19.69 218.05 year.