BUTTER PRODUCTION.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIII, 19 November 1923, Page 5

BUTTER PRODUCTION.

DAIRY-HERD-TESTING ASSOCIATIONS. REVIEW OF OPERATIONS FOR 1922-23 SEASON. (By W. AL Singleton, Director of the Dairy Division.) Title herd-tiestiing matter published from time to time in the Journal has indicated the rapidly increasing popularity of the association system in the Dominion, the records of over 84,000 cows having been ascertained by this method during last season. We are now able to give, a summarised review of the 1922-23 season’s figures available. The season itself was a most remarkable one for pasture-growth, and probably more favorable in general than the 1921-22 period. The fact that .so large a number of herds were tested for the first time last season has somewhat decreased the ■association average yield as compared with the preceding year; but, all things considered, it must be accepted that the yield of the average cow under asfeixiation test in New Zealand is very creditable. For the 1922-23 season there were in operation 137 associations. fiftvteven of which, representing 34,558 cows, were controlled by officers of the Dairy Division. Of these fiftv-seven associations average yields for fifty-six have been compiled, the remaining association having failed to continue sufficiently long to warrant including its figures in th? present summaries. The following tabulated statement gives the position so far as associations conducted by Dairy Division officers are concerned: — Table I.—Summary of associations conducted by Dairy Division Officers (all cows in milk 100 days and over included) :—

cows per association 422 503 This shows an increase of six associations, 283 herds, and 7059 cows. It may be mentioned, however, that although there is an increase of only six associations, eleven new ones are represented, five of the old ones having been taken off the Division's hands. Table 2. —Averages of all cows in milk 100 days and over for associations conducted by Dairy Division Officers (56 associations. 1184 herds, 28,146 cows), 1922,13:— Pounds Days butterfat

Average daily production of butterfat per cow ... 1.0269 Comparing theite figures with the preceding year’s summary (Journal, August. 1922), it. is shown that the average production of butterfat has decreased by 7.341 b, and that there is a decrease of three days in the average number of days in milk. If, however, we add on three more days at 1.02691 b fat per day, or 3.081 b for the three days, the season’s decrease is only 4.261 b butterfat, and the percentage decrease in average butterfat per cow per day only 1.17. It has not been possible to collectcomplete date regarding the past season's average yield for privately conducted associations, but we have been able to gather figures for twenty-five associations, representing 22.537 cows. The figures are summarised in the following table, which, is keeping with figures quoted heinbefore, is based on all cows in mil'; I(>9 days and oevr:—• Pounds

Days butterfat Grand average of all cows 224 234.85 Highest association average ... 248 292.52 Lowest association average 170 159.40 Highest individual herd 290 490.30 Lowest individual herd 110 69.20 Highest individual cow * 739.41 Lowest individual cow- 120 f 44.00 Average daily production of butterfat per cow ... — 1.049 * Days in milk not given ; second cow 293 days, 668.811 b fat. tSecond lowest cow, 213 days. 52.31 b fat. It may be stated that, although all dairy companies interested in this work were circularised for information regarding cow-testing returns, we have been unable to procure figures for the remaining fifty-five groups, representing 26,901 cows. It has been ascertained that many associations fail to keep adequate records, merely figuring the returns and passing them on to the members, or else forwarding the sheets with the tests included, leaving the association member to do his own figuring. As the majority of dairy farmers have not the time or the facilities to do the work properly, tins method is by no means satisfactory, and 1 accounts in many instances for the gradual dwindling of interest and the 'final oeissa.tio.il of operations. Apart from this, it may be mentioned that much value can be obtained from periodic and annual summaries. We

would therefore urge the secretaries of privately conducted associations to compile these, as they not only form a valuable record for sul»equent comparison, but create interest among the members themselves. Any reasonable service wi irli tends to encourage interest among the association members should be adopted, for without interest and enthusiasm the movement cannot prosl - 1 ’- Combining tobies 2 and 3. it is found | that the 50,683 cows comprised showed an average production of 233.821 b of butterfat in 226 days. Fot the preceding season we were able to compile figures from 21.087 cows, the average production b:4ng 240.331 b. of butterfat in 230 days. There is shown, therefore, a small decrease in the production of the average cow in milk ICO d :y< mid over. Seeing, however, that th? 1922-

23 figures are for more than double the number of cows, representing rfnny new herds, this decrease carries little significance. It will be apparent from then two tables that the inclusion this year of a. summary of results from twentyfive privately controlled associations has not detrimentally affected the grand average, ns the averages of tables 2 and 3 are practically equal; in fact, the average for talile 3 is the higher of the two. . Now. while the average yield of cows in milk 10(1 days and over may indicate what the average cow under association test actua ly produced, it is not altogetlier a lair indication of what tlm average dairy cow is callable of prixltK'ing. because cows culled in the early stages of thi ir testing-period, and animals sold, or withdrawn through sickness or other causes, are included. We therefore consider that 210 days is nearer the average normal lactation period, and have accordingl included all records available for this duration in the lollowing table 4. This represents only associations controlled by the Dairy Division, as we were unable to procure from privately conducted associations summaries of this nature. — Averages of all cows in milk 210 days and over, for associations conducted by Daily Division officers (56 associations. 970 herds, 18,747 cows), 1922-23.—

cow 1.0355 For purposes of comparison it may be mentioned that for the season 192122 there were included in a similar summary 9101 cows, averaging 271.48 lb butterfat in 261 days. This year’s figures from 18,747 cows show a decrease of 4.381 b butterfat and 3 days, but, considering the greatly increased number of cows, this may be regarded as almost negligible. Comparing those associations wlucli were in operation during both the two last seasons and for which summaries on the 210-day-and-over basis were prepared, it w'as found that twenty out of a total of thirty-two show an increase tor last season over the preceding, while the remaining twelve show a decrease. The largest increase was one of 54.761 b butterfat on an average yield of 228.701 b, which represents 24 per cent., the average days being practically the same. The largest decrease was one of 82.621 b on 326.22 lb, or 25.3 per cent. This was probably due to the number of days being less, and to the fact that main new herds had joined the association, v,inle.

some of the old ones had fallen out. It must also be kept in mind that. 326>221b butterfat is a high average, and is therefore more susceptible to seasonal and other influences. This case is typical of the twelve associations which showed decreases, since, all had been running for four or more years, with the exception of three, which had been in operation for three years, the decreases for the latter three being small. It has been noticed that after the third or fourth year of continuous operation association averages will often be found to goback somewhat This may be accounted for by the tact that after three or four years of testing, with its resultant culling and selection, the average production of a herd reaches that stage where further increase is difficult, and where feed. care, and general conditions bear a marked influence. About this stage also we find that the personnel of the older-established associations changes, many of the original members 1 discontinuing—for a time at least, This also tends to decrease the average, which jn due coiyso will, as the restlil of culling and selection in the newer herds, rise again, ft is this changing of members which makes it difficult by means of figures relating to association averages to truly show what improvement has been effected, the newer herds nullifying the increases in the older.

Comparing the same thirty-two associations referred to previously, it has been found that a s between the two past seasons there is an increase of 1.8 per cent., the average'production having risen from 2711 b butterfat in 261 days to 275.871 b in 263 davs, tne number of cows being 8140 and 7899 respectively. To obtain the true course of an association’s activities ,however, it would be necessary to compare the same herds, rather than the same association. from season to season. Could this he done we feel confident the figures would show a larger increase. It has been estimated that the average dairy cow in New Zealand yields approximately 168.421 b of butterfat per season, while the records available, which are for .50,683 cows, show that the average cow under association test, and m milk 100 days and over, produced during the past season 233.821 b butterfat. We recognis. that, the majority of the herd-testing as scciation members are the more progressive dairy-farmers, but we believe, that if every dairy-farmer would test his cows, and study his records and ;.< i.

on them, it is reasonable to expect that, the whole of our dairy cows could he> brought to the "'..rage production of those tested. Ibe difference in yield is roundly tUilb butterfat, and there are 1,248,613 dairy cows in the Dominion. Taking the value of butterfat at Is (id per pound, this represents, on an average production of 168.421 b butterfat. £15.772.234. whereas on 233>21b ii equals £21,896.82“. a du ference oi no less than £6,124,594. The opening up of new land for dairying absorbs a large proportion of our poon r cows, but it may now bo expected that each year, with mnro intensive dairying, there will be mor» scope for the selection of the better dairy cow. and when testing become* more nearly general the euU-cov. problem should largely sell] itse.i. I'h.v association testing-system will therefore lie a much more powerful instrument than formerly for the improvement of our dairy herds.

1921-22 1922-23 A umber of associations 50 56 Number of herds 901 1,184 Number of cows ... ... 21.087 28.146 Average number of herds per association IS 21 Average number of cows per herd i 23 21 Average number of

Grand average of al] COWS 097 232.99 Highest association average 7 31 I 17 Lowest association average 21 1 167 79 Highest individual herd 321 .518.93 Lowest individual herd 1 11 64.06 Highest individual cow 296 660.83 Lowest individual cow 10.5 26.22

Days Lbs. Butterfat Grand average of all cows 267.10 Highest association average 276 321.66 Lowest association average 246 192.89 Highest individual herd ... 324 518.93 Lowest i n d i - vidual herd ... 236 87.10 Highest i u d i - vidual cow 296 660.83 Lowest i n d i - vidua) cow 214 47.90 Average d a i 1 v production of butterfat per