DAIRY-HERD TESTING FOR YIELD.

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume XXX, Issue 5, 20 May 1925, Page 285

DAIRY-HERD TESTING FOR YIELD.

FACTORS INFLUENCING PRODUCTION

W. M. SINGLETON,

Director of the Dairy Division.

Dairy-farming to-day is increasingly a scientific business, and as such requires the employment of careful and accurate methods. The present is a period for close application. When land, labour, and farming requisites were cheap, dairy-farming could be carried' on without loss with far less skill than is the case to-day. Every factor is now of importance, and only those dairy-farmers who pay attention to detail and adopt scientific and businesslike practice can hope to succeed. The dairy industry has contributed very largely to New Zealand's fine standing as an agricultural country, and there is no larger scope for improving the industry than through the herd of the average dairyfactory supplier. HERD-DEVELOPMENT. Our dairy-farmers are continually confronted with the problem of herd-building. The dairyman acquires a farm and a herd, and plans by his labours to improve both and to work them to the maximum of efficiency. The personnel of the herd is ever changing, and even if a high average production is reached this has to be maintained. In building up the herd every step is important—-culling, buying, breeding. Added to these is the general management of the herd. Success under each of these headings calls for experience and skill, and in each and every case the milk-scales and the butterfat tester form the crux of the

problem, the key to the situation. Whether the farmer buys or culls or breeds, the amount of butterfat which each cow produces is the indicator of the way. Yet, despite this, there are still many dairymen who are content to leave their herds untested and to work in the dark. Last ' year's statistics showed that New Zealand had 1,312,589 cows in milk and dry. For the same season about 151,000 cows were tested twice or —this representing only 12 per cent, of the whole. Every dairy factory should have its. herd-testing association, and every cow in every herd should be tested for at least a season. WHAT INCREASED PRODUCTION MEANS. There is no need to stress the fact that the testing of the dairy herd for butterfat-yield is the only way to arrive at that information which enables the owner to distinguish the cows which he is supporting from those cows which are supporting him. At the same time there are still many who do not fully recognize what the difference between a low-yielding and a higher-yielding cow may mean. It can be put very simply and clearly in this way : One cow may be worth a butterfat-producer--twice as much as another, or even more than two cows, although there may not be a very marked difference between the annual production of the two cows. For .. instance, let it be assumed that 160 lb. butterfat just pays for the year's care and feed, &c., of a cow. Then, a cow which produces 162 lb. butterfat is worth twice as much as a cow yielding 161 lb., because, obviously, she returns twice as much profit over care and feed. Similarly, a 260-lb.-butterfat cow makes twice as much above expenses as one which produces 210 lb. ; or, she is equal to two cows each producing 210 lb. --that is, on the similar basis of 160 lb. butterfat returning exactly the cost of keeping and milking the cow. This means that a herd of, say, twenty cows with an average production of 260 lb. butterfat is as profitable as forty cows showing an average return of 210 lb. Carrying the argument still further, one may compare two farms of equal carrying-capacity and carrying an equal number of dairy cows, and assume that number to be forty. If the forty cows on one farm yield 210 lb. butterfat each, and those on the other farm 50 lb. more, or 260 lb., then the higher-producing herd yields 4,000 lb. more butterfat in actual profit for a practically similar outlay in feed and care. With butterfat at-is. 6d. per pound this means £300 per annum in money. Further, one cow producing only 100 lb. butterfat may nullify the profits on six cows each producing 170 lb. . Summed up, it means that many dairy-farmers are keeping two or even three inferior cows where one better one would yield them as much profit', at one-half or one-third of the expenditure and labour. Dairy-farmers will therefore see that every pound of fat added to the average production means a considerable increase in their profits. ' ' ■ BASIS FOR CULLING. The predominant principle in herd-testing is that the herd-owner may be supplied with more accurate data on .which to form , his judgment respecting. the individual members of 1 his herd from , the viewpoint of production. The minimum production on which the

■owner will determine his culling will necessarily depend on various factors, some of which may be stated as follows : (i.) Replacement : If he is keeping his herd up by purchasing he may adopt a more arbitrary standard, whereas if he is breeding heifers for replacement he has to consider the number of them available. (2.) The amount of feed available, which will largely depend on the character of his soil and quality of his pastures. (3.) On land higher in value than the average a higher production per cow is a general necessity. < ' ' IMPORTANCE OF THE HERD SIRE. There are two safe methods of building a dairy herd : one is to buy in cows of suitable type and authenticated yield ; the other is to begin with cows or heifers and a proven sire, or one backed by butterfat records, and to build gradually by culling out the low producers and breeding from the higher-yielding cows of suitable type. To continually buy in new stock requires more finance than many of our dairy-farmers can afford. Then again, few dairymen will sell their best cows unless they are past their prime, so that the purchaser is continually confronted with difficulties, and may sometimes find he is accumulating a herd of culls. The butterfat-record-sire method is perhaps a slower one, but is to be recommended. And, further, for quickest and most satisfactory results the sire should be a purebred. The certificate-of system of testing purebred dairy cows provides for a 365-day milking-period. C.O.R. testing has now been conducted in New Zealand for some thirteen years, and it is advocated that for grade and crossbred herds the sire be selected from C.O.R. dams. If it is proved that for several generations certain females can give outstanding yields, then it is a reasonable assumption that by mating a bull from such dams with ordinary herd cows the resultant offspring should be an improvement on their dams. When selecting the sire the pedigree should be studied from the point of view of production of ancestors on both sides of the family, and productions of recent members should be given more importance than those of several generations back. The length of time that C.O.R. testing has now been in existence in New Zealand enables selectors to obtain full information in many cases for several generations of pedigree. Next to production comes the question of type, and, although yield is of major importance, the selected sire should conform to accepted standards of true dairy type, and should possess the desirable characteristics of a herd sire. There is a tendency among dairymen to use a sire for a season or two and then sell or destroy him.. The true test of a sire is the quality of his daughters. If they are an improvement over their dams from the point of view-of production, and do not retrogress in type, then it may be accepted that the sire is a success. Not until the daughters bear living testimony to the inefficiency of the sire should he be destroyed.

The advantage of a purebred over a crossbred sire is considerable. Experiment has proved that with a purebred bull a breeder is likely to achieve more in two generations than in five generations with a grade bull three-quarters pure.

INFLUENCE of THE purebred dairy SIRE. As previously stated, the true test of a sire’s worth is the quality of his daughters. It is difficult to get herd-testing-association figures on this phase of the subject, as our records do not include any information with respect to pedigree. From our records, however, have been collected sixteen instances where both daughter and dam have association records, the daughters haying been sired by a purebred butterfat-record bull. Their sixteen daughters have improved on the average production of their dams by no less than 124-24 lb. butterfat. With two exceptions, each daughter has exceeded the production of her dam. These two daughters were two-year-olds one produced only 3 lb. of butterfat less than her dam, and the other 21 lb. less. Doubtless, at ages equal to that of the dam these two daughters would show a higher yield. The sixteen dams were sired by eleven different bulls, so that the examples are fair, and the improvement cannot be attributed to the influence of one or two outstanding dams. Moreover, only two sires are represented, so that it may safely be assumed that the improvement has come from the male side. Another example is the case of five different dams each from a different sire, and mated with a butterfat-record bull. These five dams, at an average age of 8 years 87 days at commencement of test, yielded an average of . 441-36 lb. butterfat. Their five daughters, each from the butterfat-record bull, yielded, at an average of 1 year 347 days, 624-77 lb. butterfat, an average increase of. 183-41 lb. The fact that the average production of the five dams was already very creditable, and that the average age of the daughters was low, makes this example an outstanding one. These figures are quoted from our C.O.R. returns to show what is possible if the right, sire is chosen. What is more, the success of this particular sire was a more or less natural expectation, owing to the information which his butterfat-record backing supplied. He was line-bred to an outstanding bull of the breed, and, ’apart from this, the other animals figuring in the pedigree were for several generations back of proved outstanding merit. LENGTH of milking-period. Statistics show that the average cow on association test in New Zealand milks about 230 days. It is safe to assume that the average lactation for all cows in the country is less. The writer has frequently expressed the opinion that the season of the average dairy cow in New Zealand is too short. Even on the basis of 230 days it means that there are more than four months in which our average dairy cow is doing nothing in butterfat-production. During that period she requires bodily maintenance, and general charges bearing on the cost of the cow’s keep continue much as during the milking-period. Two months' rest from milk-production should be sufficient. An endeavour should be made to obtain a type of dairy cow which will naturally milk a greater portion of the. season than is the case at present. It may be possible by means of forced feeding and extreme care to extend the lactation of the average cow now in our dairy herds, but if the butterfat so added to the seasonal total does not compensate for the time and' money expended, then the practice is

undesirable. The length of lactation should be governed by the efficiency of the cow as a butterfat-producer. Progressive dairy-farmers recognize that a prolonged milking-period is the outcome of breeding and feeding for the longer lactation. Here again is driven home the importance of a herd sire chosen with regard to the results of the certificate-of-record testing, which provides for a 365-day production. If it is proved that for several generations certain females can maintain their production for a whole year, then it is a reasonable assumption that by mating a bull from such dams with ordinary herd cows the average term of profitable lactation will in time increase. Dairy-farmers should fully recognize that money spent in the purchase of a butterfat - record purebred sire is well invested. j. . DUAL VERSUS SPECIAL PURPOSE. While no cow can do her best in producing milk and butterfat without an ample supply of succulent feed and without kindly treatment, the greatest consideration is the inherent tendency of the individual cow. In the earlier days of dairying in New Zealand the popular cow was what was called the dual-purpose cow, the two purposes being the production of both butterfat and beef from the same animal. In the minds of dairymen the dual-purpose cow was a sort of wonder animal which combined the best qualities of the two types. Experience, however, has proved that dual purpose is often another name for no purpose, and that by attempting to develop each, it happens more often than not that both beef and butterfat are sacrificed. There is perhaps no greater menace to our dairy industry than the dual- or purpose cow. There are four types of cownamely, (1). beef type, (2) dual purpose inclined toward beef, (3) dual purpose inclined toward dairy, and (4) special-purpose dairy type. Professor Haecker, at the University of Minnesota, conducted experiments with reference to the cost of production by these various .types. Strict account was kept of the yield, and of all food . consumed by each individual cow. Although the figures are old and may not apply to-day in actual values, it is evident that in proportion they will be as true as ever. The figures representing the feed cost per pound of butterfat were reported as follows : Beef type, 8-756. ; dual purpose inclined to beef, 7-556. ; dual purpose inclined to dairy, 7-306. ; dairy type, 6-056. In every instance a cow of special-purpose dairy type produced a pound of butterfat at a lower feed cost than did any animal in the other three classes. It is apparent that some animals use their food for the production of milk, others devote the larger proportion to the production of beef, while others —-the dual purposemay produce neither beef nor milk at a profit. It requires a certain amount of food to maintain the body of a cow, and the surplus she eats beyond this goes to milk or beef, or both. The general conformation of the cow is often an indication of what may be expected from her in the way of production. There is an old argument that when a dual-purpose cow is done with she is worth a fair price to the butcher, whereas the finer-cut true dairy type will fetch very little. Fig. 1 shows a cow which on association test gave 3,268 lb. milk and 136-18 lb. butterfat. . Fig 2.

shows another cow which also on association test produced 8,658 lb. milk and 404-77 lb. fat. . The difference between these two yields is-268-59 lb., which, with butterfat at is. 6d. per pound, works out at a little over £20. And this was for one season only.

COMPARISON OF ASSOCIATION, C.O.R., AND FACTORY RETURNS.

The association system of testing, as is well known, supplies an index to the season production of a cow. Milk weights, and samples are taken for two consecutive days in. each thirty days, and the production for each thirty-day period is calculated on the basis of proportion. It is essential that the monthly weighing and sampling should be conducted at equal periods throughout the whole season, otherwise the butterfat-production according to the association records may not. be as reliable as desirable. Careful weighing and sampling are also essential. Some dairy - farmers disparage the association testing because it does not agree with the factory returns. Before a fair comparison of the two is possible the returns should be for exactly the same period, and the total milk be from the same number of cows in each case. If proper and fair comparisons are made it will usually be found that the two will agree within satisfactory limits. Breeders of purebred dairy stock with the same cows under both C.O.R. and association test have a good opportunity of confirming the accuracy of the association system, and their opportunity of so doing is less fraught with difficulty. It has been found that, provided the weighing and sampling for the association returns are carefully and conscientiously carried out, results from the two methods will; usually . compare favourably. It may be . accepted without discussion that the C.O.R. system gives results as accurately as may be expected, and is therefore a suitable basis for comparison. . In comparison of association and ■ factory returns two examples may be selected from a number which have come under our notice. A herd of eighty - five cows in one association was credited with 12,909-5 lb. butterfat ; the factory returns showed 12,760-7 lb. for a corresponding period. A herd of forty-two cows over a period of four months showed a variation- of only 46-72 lb. butterfat between returns of association and factory, the association return being 5,468-66 lb. and that of the factory 5,421-94 lb. There are, as previously suggested, certain factors which make it unreasonable to expect association and factory returns to exactly agree. These may be stated as follows : (1.) Milk fed to calves and milk for household purposes. (2.) Loss of butterfat in separation. (3.) Loss of butterfat in transit of cream. (4.) Inaccurate sampling. (5.) General conditions, such as weather, feeding, &c. ; the association weights and samples may happen to be taken when the cows are producing normally, or when they are below normal, or when they are above normal; if the samples and weights are taken at an. abnormal period the returns for the whole thirty days are affected.. Speaking generally, although a comparison of returns, period by period, may not always give the agreement which might be desired, it is usually found that over the whole season the factory and association returns- —-taking into consideration these influencing factorswill compare satisfactorily.

In the following table are given the results for eighty-four cows which were tested under both association and C.O.R. system during the same lactation. In those cases where the cow was not on association test for the same period as she was under C.O.R. test the records

have been adjusted to the same number of days in milk, so as to make the comparison a fair one. Number ' Total • . ■ Percentage of Cows. Differences. Variation. lb.

laj

Eighty-four cows will be accepted as representative, and, as will be seen, the average variation from the C.O.R. is only 3-6 per cent. This must be considered adequate proof of the accuracy of the association system. EXAMPLES OF HERD-IMPROVEMENT. The mass of herd-testing-association returns received by the Dairy Division from year to year supplies a large number of examples of improvement in average herd yield. The four cases quoted in the following table are more or less typical.

As will, be seen, the most marked improvements are for herds B and D. It will be noticed, however, that, to begin with, the average production in each of these cases was considerably below that of A and C. Obviously in he ids A and C there was less room for improvement. When the average herd yield gets around the 300 lb. mark, improvement is slower and more difficult to maintain. IMPROVEMENT IN ASSOCIATION AVERAGES. Following are examples of improvement in production of average cow for associations as a whole. The figures cover the first four years’ work of two associations.

Association A. Cows. Days. Butterfat. First year .. .. •■43° 236 219-93 Second, year.. ' .. .. 297 233 231-13 Third year .. ... .. 618 . 258 261-45 Fourth year.. . .. .. 620 264 286-60 Association B. First year .. ... .. 265. 187 177-58 Second year.. ' .. • • .. 298 200 190-74 Third year . . . . ' . . 406 212 215-70 Fourth year.. . .. •• 266 214 232-37

Apart from the marked increase in average yield in each case will be noted the increase in length of average milking-period. High yield and long lactation, provided the cow herself is right, usually go hand-in-hand. By way of deduction it may be pointed out that in Association A the increase is about 66-67 lb. butterfat. Had the 430 cows on test in the first year averaged the same as the 620 on test in the fourth year, it would have meant an increased total yield of 28,668 lb. butterfat, which, at is. 6d. per pound, means £2,150. On a similar basis the Association B results work out at about £1,085. THE BUTTERFAT TEST. • Supplying a dairy factory often tends to emphasize in the minds of suppliers the percentage of butterfat in the milk supplied commonly called the “ test "—rather than the quantity of butterfat. Although the education which herd -testing has helped to develop has done much toward dispelling this tendency to think in terms of "test," one still finds many dairymen who are. apt to overstress the importance of the butterfat percentage. Unless the herd is used for supplying milk for human consumption, when a certain legal minimum of fat has to be adhered to, the “ test ” itself can be taken too seriously. And, after all, even dairy factories do not pay out on test, but on test multiplied by weight of milk - supplied — a very different matter. There is also a tendency, though less frequent, to stress milk-quantity ; this is not as common in New Zealand as in those countries where records are taken for yield of milk alone. ' ■ ' A good example of the inaccuracy of judging milk-production by test alone or quantity of milk alone is found in a study of the records of purebred cows under C.O.R. test in New Zealand. Taking all Friesians (413) in the two-year-old class which have gained certificates since the commencement of the C.O.R. system in 1912 to the end of 1923, it is found that the six highest-testing individuals averaged 4-74 per cent., and the six lowest only 2-79 per cent. Judging from the test alone the first mentioned were 69 per cent, better cows than the lower testers. On milk alone the higher testers yielded on the average 9,601-4 lb., and the lower group 16,012 lb. ; so that, judged on milk alone, the one group was approximately 67 per cent, better than the other. When one comes to butterfat, however, it is found that .the average production for the groups was 455-19 lb. for the six higher testers and 447-26 lb. for the lower-an actual difference in production of only 7-93 lb., or, on a percentage basis, i-8. Surely this speaks for itself. All things considered, therefore, it is not right to judge a cow by milk alone or by test alone. The only fair and accurate guide to the ability of the dairy cow is her season butterfat-yield. TEST VARIATION. Another phase of the test problem which plays a prominent part in the minds of persons interested is that of the variation in the percentage of butterfat in milk. This matter has been fully dealt with by special articles in the Journal, but a few general remarks may not be inappropriate here. The examples quoted are gleaned

from data of C.O.R. testing, under which system the milk-samples are both taken and tested by the Dairy Division’s fully qualified testing officers. The information is . perhaps all the more valuable because purebred cows are, as a class, better cared for than the individuals of an average dairy herd. We have known several instances of each of the following : (i.) Cowsgiving equal milk-weights for two consecutive days (with general conditions normal) and the same to show variations in test of 12 to18 points. (2.) Cows decreasing by 10-9 lb.'of milk and 24 points in test from one day to the next; . 5-4 lb. milk and 12 points in test ; and 2-5 lb. milk and 15 points in test. (3.) Cows increasing 3-8 lb. milk from one day to the next and increasing 11 points in test; 4-1 lb. milk and 8 points in test; 2 lb. milk and 22 points in test. (4.) During’ the menstruation period some cows have varied little, if any, in either milk or test; some have evidenced a decrease in. -yield while the test has remained unaffected ; some have, shown a normal milk-yield and a decrease in test; and in some cases both milk-yield and test have been affected. (5.) It has also been proved that a change of milker may affect both milk-yield and test, usually to disadvantage. It pays to have cows milked by the same milker at each milking. It therefore follows, as a general summing - up, that there is no definite rule governing a cow's test. Experience shows, however, that normal conditions, kindly and even treatment, and scrupulous care are well repaid. It is also obvious that when Unaccountable test-variations occur such should not be immediately attributed to carelessness, malice, or lack of ability on the part of the person carrying out the testing of the samples. . . FEEDING AND TREATMENT. The dairy' cow is a machine which will not give best results unlessit is fed with the right quantity .of the right material. It is possible to overfeed a cow with concentrates, in the same way as it is possible to overfeed a machine. The general tendency, however, is very much on the side of insufficient feeding. This may be the result of overstocking or merely lack of attention to this phase of the subject. If a cow is of the right type it is usually found that the larger eater is the heavier producer. After maintaining her body, the more surplus feed she will convert into milk and butterfat the less is the proportionate cost of the butterfat. It is better to permit twenty cows to yield 5,000 lb. of butterfat than to increase the herd to thirty cows and produce the same total, or more probably a reduced total, if the feed be only that quantity required by the twenty. Many of our dairymen are reducing their, profits by endeavouring to run more cows than their land can profitably carry. It is also a common practice to neglect dry cows, with the result that they freshen in poor condition. It pays to feed dry cows well. If they calve in poor condition they devote what should be their highest-yielding period to recovering the drain on the body occasioned by pregnancy and the act of calving and getting back into normal working condition. What is more, their whole season usually suffers, as often they do not pick up until their milk-flow is past its highest point for the season. On the other hand, if they , come in a little

heavy in flesh the body is able to counteract the strain of freshening, and not only is the milk-yield and test improved, but the maximum milk -flow is maintained for a longer period and the length of the lactation increased. Cows require even and kindly treatment. The ideal dairy-farmer does more than treat his cows sympathetically. Cruelty has been proved to affect both milk and test to the detriment, of the factory return. Continued cruelty will shorten the lactation period—-the owner is fined in pounds, shillings, and pence for every unkind act. The dairy cow is highly strung and sensitive, and these characteristics are more pronounced in the more refined and better-class animal. Speaking broadly, the cow gives what she receives. In return for proper feeding and kindly treatment she will give the best that is in her. Cruelty and lack of feed and care will kill those qualities which make her worth while as a dairy cow. CONCLUSION. Systematic herd-testing is a path which tends towards monetary success, but there is more in it than that. There is an educational value. The true dairy-farmer is a student and a breeder. The continual study cf records and the increasing application and result of breeding-principle and experiment tend to broaden his intellect and make him methodical, painstaking, and quicker to recognize efficiency. It is gratifying to note from the steadily increasing number of herd-testing associations in this country that the great value of herdtesting, and all the term means, is making its importance realized. The writer desires to cordially acknowledge. the co-operation of Mr. H. G. Philpott, of the Dairy Division headquarters staff, in the preparation of the foregoing article.

Grading up of Sheep Flocks. — the course of his recent report on the conditions and practice of sheep-farming in the Falkland Islands Mr. Hugh Munro, of the New Zealand Department of Agriculture, remarks : “ When grading up from nondescript flocks it is a mistake to purchase high-priced rams to start with. In this country (Falkland Islands) I have seen rams which cost in England from 7)40 to mated with very ordinary ewes of very mixed breeding, and I am informed that others costing up to each have been imported and used in the same manner. Infinitely better value would be obtained by purchasing purebred flock rams at about /io each (New Zealand price), for the reason that, when mated with this class of ewe, they 'will give equally good results and more can be imported for the money. There is no short-cut to the improvement of a nondescript flock. They must be graded up by each successive generation becoming better than the preceding one, by careful selection of the breeding-ewes, and the use of purebred rams of a higher standard of quality than the ewes.” i

Hay stacking Precaution. — farmer was killed recently in Taranaki during haymaking operations by the fall of the heavy centre pole of a stacker, through one of the guy-rope pegs pulling out of the ground. Evidence showed that the peg had been driven in about 1 ft. Although this followed the usual practice in the district, the occurrence Indicates the necessity for great care in staying stacker poles, and that a greater depth than 1 ft. is requisite for pegs or stakes, according to conditions of soil, &c. The Coroner’s jury recorded their opinion, in fact, that posts should be used instead of pegs.

UO tri> Member. Number of Cows. First Season. t-4 tO 10 tO U.O O Member. Number of Cows. First Season. 270 206 226 Average Days. Average Fat. M 10 10 to 00 H CO O £ 6 CO Cn <r ’ o O H< to "to ”o Number of Cows. Second Season. to to to to to co co o o oo o Average Days. Average Fat. 10 Co Co Co H o H< -c £ CO CO {£) CO * 0-4 X t: t; Number of Cows. 1 Third Season. to to to to co co O to H Average Days. to CO Co co COCO w UJ c? cJi oj to Ch CO O Cn Average Fat. Cn <O Cn O Co o 00 co 6 -4 H ' o co to Second over First. Season Increases of Butterfat. OJ 10 H H 0 h Cn 0 cA tG ci 4 k0 CO W M Third over Second. CO Ch O "C 1 £? kO 10 Cn • O 00 -0 co Third over First. Average Days. Average Fat. 197 to to 6 Ln GO io "0 Number of Cows. Second Season. to O to to 00 to O . AverageDays. GO O H £ Go Average Fat. OkO4 4 * "h O . Number Cows. Third Season. to toCO 4 Average Days. O to GO GO q! Ln -4 G Ln 10 O Ln Average Ln O gj 6 -4 Co iO 4 Secondover Season Increases of Butterfat. First. 9 m . gA t3uS4 Thirdover Second. O 4 •°" to M O Co Thirdover First.