The Carmarthen Weekly Reporter

Carmarthepshire Chamber of A gric allure. DISCUSSION OX THE QUESTION OF juLK PRODUCTION. "BELOW THE STANDARD" HONESTLY. A quarterly meeting of the Carmarthen- sh tire Chamber of Agriculture was held at the Half Moon Hotel, Carmarthen, on the 7th in,st., when the president (Mr D. H. Thoma-, Starling Park) occupied the chair, being sup- ported by General Sir James Hills-Jobnes, V.C., G.C.B., Dolucotlii; Professor C. Bryner Jones, LC. W., Aberystwith, Mr W. AV. Prosper, Capel Dewi (secretary), and a large number of members. Host and Hostess Davies had prepared an excellent dinner, and full justice having been done to the spread, The President gave the toast of the 'Ki.ng' which wias enthusiastically received. NEW MEMBERS. The President proposed the following new members, Mr W. H. Dempster, Cliff House, Laugharne Mr R. E..Jones, manager of the North and South Wales Bank, Carmarthen and Professor Bryner Jones, professor of Agriculture at the University College of Wales, Aberystwith. Mr J. W. Harries, PiJroath, Seconded, and the 'motion was car- ried unanimously. Professor C. Bryner Jones then addressed the members on some problems relrating; to MILK PRODUCTION. In the course of his remarks lie said that in Carmarthenshire there was a considerable j amount of dairy-farming which happened to make the subject of great interest to those present. Certain regulations regarding the sale of milk had been issued by the Board of Agriculture, and those regulations were re- garded by the fanner as obstacles in the way of his business. With that lie had noth- ing to do, but it was merely his intention to call their attention to some poinb on the general question of milk production, which which miight be of interest to the local far- mers nd the local authorities responsible for administering those regulations. In the first place all milk which was sold as such had to come up to a certain standard of quality and contaan 3 per cent of butter fat and 8t per cent. of sO'ull.s not fat. and any milk produce of the seller offering for sale' milk which did not come up to that standard was liable to a prosecution. There had been many cases of hardship in the law courts owing to the fact that there were certain circumstances which affected the composition of milk which were altogether beyond the farmer's control. He had knowledge of several instances where farmers had been unjustly prosecuted, but they must not think because lie said that that ho wished to lead an agitation against the magistratesl. That was outside his pro- vince, but lie wished to call their attention to some experiments which he and others had carried out. Milk might not be produced under all circumstances according to the dictates of certain, gentlemen who think they know a great deal about the subject. Amongst other causes which affect the quality of milk there were some under the. farmers' control and others not under his control. The breed of cows producing the milk had something to do with it, and that was, to some extent, under the farmers' control, but not so much as one might think. It was not an easy matter to change a new breed for a local breed. It took a great deal of time to do it. Then there was all the difference- in the world in the quality of the milk pro- ducer hv individual cows in a herd. Two cows in the same stall, and fed in exactly the same way—cows which had calved at the same time, and kept under identical condi- tions would gave milk which varied a good deal in composition from time to time. One cow would give milk up to the standard, and the other would give entirely different milk. Then there was another condition which affec ted the result very largely, and that was the questjon of climate, and he was afraid that far too little attention had been paid in ex- periments made to test the production of milk, to that question of climate. He had no doubt, after considerable experience in the North of England, that the climate affected milk to a greater extent than any- thing else. After a very cold night, when cows were out on grass, if they tested the milk on the following morning, they would find it was very frequently below the stand- ard. Over and over again had he come across cases of milk falling quite unexpectedly below the standard, with nothing to account for it except the drop in the temperature, and that was a matter the farmer had not and that was a matter the farmer had not under his control. It was difficult to know what to do in a question of that kind. Then there was the question of feeding, and that matter the farmer had almost entirely under his control, as far as winter food was con- cerned. He could not always modify the comipositioil of his pasture, or the composi- tion) of his hay, but he could regulate the amount of hay which he used, and also regu- late the supply of other foods which he used with hay, and so the question was under his control. There was an old Welsh proverb which said that the milk produced by a cow depended on the food supplied to the cow. That wias true, but not to the extent that many people imagined. He did not know whether he was preaching a new gospel when lie said that the milk was not entirely depen- dent on the food supplied. Cows might be underfed, and also over fed, and those were abnormal oonditions, and it appeared to him that there was a kind of happy medium be- tween over and under feeding, which was was always the best method to adopt. In- creasing the concentrated foods like cake and meal did just as much harm as if they re- duced it in quantity. Feeding was one of the conditions which affected the quantity and quality of milk which was greater than anything else under the farmers' control. Ho was afraid there was a considerable amount of niisundestanding; he might have 9 said, although he hardly liked to use the word, ignorance on the part of local authori- ties with respect to the oonditions which affected milk, and the experiments which had been carried out by a North of England College, had, lie was glad to say, been the means of opening the eyes of the authorities to a good many truths in the matter of milk production. Six months ago a case was dis- missed at the Sunderland police court on the results they were able to show after experi- menting with the object of testing the pro- duction of milk. He did not know whether that discussion would result in a better understanding between the magistrates and the farmers of this district, but the proba- bility was that the magistrates here and those responsible for administering the regu- lations were so much better equipped in knowledge in that part of the country as to make it unnecessary for him to add any- thing to what was already known. The experiments were carried out on a farm where a regular herd of GO or 70 cows wero kept, and it was arranged by the College and the County Council of -.Durham that the College authorities could go to the farm and select 10 cows out of the and free cows of the herd, and carry oiL anv experiments they might think fit. They divided the 10 cows into two lots and gave each different food. The first- experiment commenced in February, 1904, and as far as possible „ they always endeavoured to carry on their experi- ments over as long a period as possible. The objection justly made to many experiments was that they were not continued long enough to give the desired results. With reference to the question of foods, it was quite impossible after an experiment extend- ing over three weeks or a month to place any in it. In order to get over those difficulties they fed the cows for three months and milked them three times a day, and the milk was tested at each milkin(-, At the en dot three months the feeeding was reversed, and thus the experiment lasted six months, so that the results generally should be reliable. The preliminary experiment ex- tended over four weeks, the object being to eliminate the cows which, did not give regu- lar results. Some cows would give milk rich in butter fat one day and deficient in it the next day. They eliminated those cows, and selected ten cows which did not varv veiy ■much from day to day. After that had been done the experiment started. They had two lots of cows, the especial object of the ex- periment being to find out whether in the cows given a moderate amount of concen- trated food, cake and meal, there was; any advantage in increasing the supply or not. Lot 1 had eight pounds of cake and meal per day, and Lot 2 were given a ration of 121bs per day. This feeding was continued up to May 3rd, 1904, the concentrated food being given in addition to the hay, straw, and turnips. It was found at the end of the first experiment that Lot 1 gave on an average supply of milk per cow per day of 18.92 pints 1 with a percent-age of fat of 3.48, butter fat 0.8.) per l'h, and sonds not fat 9.10, the live weight gain, being 32 Ibs. Lot 2 gave an average of .,y of milk per .cow per day of 22.16 points with a percentage of fat of 3.16, butter fat 0.91 per ib, and solids not fat 8.32, the live weight gain being 62 lbs. They would notice there was a difference in the yield of milk between 1 and 2 of four pints per day, but in fat Lot 1 had the advantage. Obviously, by increasing the con- cent rated foods it was not possible to in- crease upon the amount of butter fat. It was not possible according to the experiment to improve the quality of the milk by in- creasing the quantity of cake and meal. The saime thing applied to the solids not fat. The experiment came to an end on May 3rd, and the year was so advanced that it was impossible to conduct the second part of the experiment because the cows had to be turned out to grass, and the original object to change the rations was impossible. When the cows were tinned out on grass they con- tinued experimenting. They gave the i,, i ni heavier rations to Lot 1, and the medium rations to Lot 2, as. far as possible, making allowances for the grass, Lot 1 was given 811hs of concentrated food and Lot 2 only libs, exactly half. It was co-ntinluecl from June 1 to August 24, and the results were- that Lot 1 gave a. yield of milk per day per cow of 20.63 pints, with a percentage cf fat of 3.01, butter fat 0.93, solids not fat 8.99, and live weight gain being 110.21b. Lot 2 gave a yield per cow per day of 20.98 pints, fat 3.40, butter fat 0.92. solids not fat 8.82, the live weight gain being 72 Ibs. There was practically no difference in the yield, and the fat difference was in favour of Lot 2 which only received half the quantity of concentrated food. The quality of the milk was in favour of Lot 1, exactly as in the first experiment. Theoretically, one would not have expected those results if the yield of milk of good quality depended cn- tirtly upon the food given to the cows. Instead of Lot 1 giving actually les.* milk per day than Lot 2 it should have given more, because it received double the quan- tity of cake and meal. As regards the qual- ity cf the milk, taking butter fat alone, in the first experiment Lot 1 was decidedly the better, and in the second was still the better, but there was not sufficient difference in the result to warrant the conclusion that as far as those two experiments were concerned that the food supplied to the cows had very much effect upon the quality of the milk. They were not altogether satisfied with those results because they thought that carried out under different conditions the result might have been, different. The following winter they carried cut the experiment suffi- ciently early to reverse the rations before the cows were turned out oil grass. The cows selected for that experiment were bigger cows and they required more feeding. They started on November 1 and went on to Jan. 23. When the cows started Lot 1 was yield- ing 27.4 pints per day per cow, containing a percentage of 3.32 butter fat and average live weight being 1,134-lbs, and Lot 2 a milk yield of 27.6, butter fat 3.23, live weight 1,19-5. Lot 1 was given 81b s concentrated food per cow per day, and Lot 2 121'bs. At the end of 12 weeks the results were Lot 1 yielded 23.86 pints per cow per day, the per- centages being 3.28 of fat, 1.01 per Ib butter | fat, and 8.8 solids not fat, the loss in average live weight being 131bs. Lot 2 yielded of milk 26.43, percentages being fat 3.31, butter fat 1.13 per lb, so,l-ids not fat, 8.8, gain, in average live weight 2.5lbs. The loss of weight n Lot 1 was due to one of the cows losing something like 901bs for some inex- plicable reason. The advantage as far as yield was concerned was with Lot 2, same as in the, first experiment, but the advantage was not sufficient to cover the cost of the extra food. The difference was very small, and there was, therefore, no advantage in using it. Then, the rations were reversed with this result. Lot 1 yield of milk, 21.\ pints, percentages fat 3.50, butter fat 0.98 per lib, solids not fat, 8.9 average gain live weight 66 lbs. Lot 2, yield of milk 22.27 pints, fat 3.44, butter fat 1.01, solid not fats 8.8, loss in average live weight 9lhs. Many people when they found cows giving less milk increased the food, especially cake and meal. thinking thereby to increase the yield of milk, but according to that experiment it was only possible to increase the milk for a very short tiime, and then it went back vo what it was before. He did not think they could do much by the way of increasing the milk except just in the case of a cow which has calved. According to the experiment, 121bs of concentrated food was too much for a cow under normal conditions, and it could not be recommended. It appeared to be economical to give cows which had just calved the full allowance of 121bs pretty soon after calving and feed them for some' time in that way, and when the cow went off her milk it was well to cut down the ration, and graduate the food according to the milk which was given. Seeing that using the in- creased supply of cake and meal in the winter months did not have the desired effect it was decided to conduct an experiment with a view to finding out whether there was any great advantage in, giving cows a mixture of cake anil meal during the summer. It was the practice of dairy farmers whose land was the best to give cows small allowances of cake and meal during the summer. They had some interesting results. In the summer of 1905 when the cows were turned out on grass. they gate Lot 1 an allowance of 41bs of cake and meal, and Lot 2 had nothing but grass. The coii-e, were, exactly the same when the experiment started, and the result of the first six weeks from June 21 to. August 1 was Lot. 1, average yield of milk per cow per day 25.66 pints, average percentages fat 3.52, solids not fat 8.54, average gain 71bs. Lot 2, average yield of milk 2-5.74 pints, average percentages fat 3.58, solids not "fat 8.52, average loss lllbs. Second six weeks, from August 2 to Sept 12, when 8lbs conceit- trated food was given to Lot 1, the results j were, average yield 22-58 pints, average per- cent ages fat 3.51, solids not fats 8.32, aver- age gain live weight 211s. Lot 2, yield of milk 21,83 pints, average percentage fat 3.56, solids not fat 8.52, loss in. average live weight nil. What appeared to be the case from that was that cows on grass in the summer, if toe grass was of average quality, did not require any cake or meal at all in a normal season. Whether that would apply to all parts of the country he could not say, but the North of England was a fairly cold district. It would anipear that up to the third week in August, if the grass was keep- ing fresh, there was very little advantage in using cake and meal, but from then on, when the cows were getting stale and nights getting cold, there was an advantage in using cake and meal, but whether they got sufficient increase in quality and quantity to pay them was another matter. In the sum- mer of 1906 they tried another experiment with ten cows divided into two lots of five each. For five weeks from June 19 to July 23, Lot 1 was given 41bs of concentrated food and the average yield per day per cow was 27.3 pints, percentages being fat 3.37, and solids not fat 8.71, and there was a loss in average live weight per cow of 171bs. In the case of Lot 2, who had no concentrated food, the average yield of milk was 27.7 pints, percentages fat 3.43, soiids not fat 8.81, and average gain in live weight per cow of oOlbs. It was a onost- remarkable thing that cows which wer e receiving cake and meal should have lost 1/lbs, and cows which received "C absolutely nothing but glass should have gained 51 bs. There was no reason why the cows should have lost anything, and although the figures might suggest mismanagement of the1 oxpei intent ho could assure them there wias nothing of the kind. Dairy cows would vary in weight enormously without anything to account for it at all. They went on giving milk of the same quantity and quality with- out anything noticeable in. the way of de- creasing weight. Of course, they might do, and then gain weight in the .;¡;ame way. From, July 24 to. August 27 they conducted another experiment with the cows, giving Lot 1 8lbs concentrated focd, and Lot 2 only grass. Result Lot 1, average yield of milk per cow 22.5 'Pin< percentages fat 3.39, solids not ft 8.69, average' loss in, live weight 57lbs. Lot 2, average yield of milk 21.7 pints, percentages fat 3.52, solids not fat 8.77, average loss in live weight 1411)- If they compared the figures they were almost identical, and it showed that towards the end of August and September when the nights were getting cold, and grass stale, there was an advantage in giving cake and meal, :but not sufficient to pay for the extra cost. He calculated at the tiime that the cost of the giass was 2,1 per cow per week, aim the cost of the concentrated toorl on tne average of 10 weeks, 2s per cow per weeii, so that the cost of the keep of Lot 1 was double I the cost- of Lot 2. There was practically no difference in the yield of milk and quality, A> that the 2s a week per cow was thrown i-vay. With ordinary average cows, and t)o,i,iiial co it did not pay io give Pake and meal. It might be advantageous t give thorn a little when fiist turned out on gi as- and again towards the encl of August, and it would proably help to keep up the quantity and quality, but it would not pay them financially. It might pay in the way of keeping the health of the cows up, and that was all. A farmer in South Shields was fined for selling milk deficient in fat, but it was only in the morning that the cow gave such milk. In the evennig her milk was well above the standard. He was not only fined, but the presiding magistrate advised him to go home and feed his cows better. Supposing he had acted upon the advice, it was perfectly obvious that his milk would not have improved at all, and he would have thrown al lthat money away which would have been doubly hard had he again been summoned far deficiency in fat. The differ- ence in the 'morning and evening milk they would frequently have noticed. The morn- ing milkillight contain from 2.7 to 2.5 per cent. fat, and in the evening it would con- tain 5 per cent, butter fat. They had a cow on the experimental farm which in the morn- ing gave milk containing only 1.57 per cent, butter fat, but in the evening the percentage of fat was increased to 7.16 per cent. Sup- posing somebody had been unfortunate to take the morning's milk into town to sell it, lie might have been summoned twice over. There was one thing which might be done to modify the composition of milk in that I respect, and that was to make the intervals between milking as short as possible. One of the reasonisi why the, morning milk was deficient in butter fat was the long interval between the evening and morning milkings. In many instances it was necessarily long. Then there was the question of water, and it was absolutely necessary that cows should be given fresh pure water, and it was one of the most important things in connection with milk production. He held a prelimin- ary trial with milk extending voer a week. They supplied the cows with water in pails and measured the water. They found the average was something over 4 gallons per day in the spring when they were receiving a moderate allowance of turnips. They then divided the cows into two lots, and they gave I one lot something under the average, and the other lot as much as they could drink; but the experiment came to an abrupt ter- mination through the cows receiving a short allowance of water when turned into the field, breaking through the hedge in search of water However, they proved one thing, that Hie more water the cows consumed the less milk they gave, and that was entirely contrary to the usual opinion. He had known people give cows, when their milk was runn- ing short, salt in order to make them drink, but he could assure them they were iloing the cows more hanm than good. It was a practice amongst some farmers to place boric cid in. the milk for the purpose of its preser- vation, but there was a penalty for using it. At Armstrong College, Newcastle on Tyne, they actually .gave some boric acid to see whether it would have any effect on the cows directly. Strange to say, it came through, and gave milk containing boric acid. Sup- posing an inspector took a sample of that milk, the fanner would have been fined; and it is quite possible for boric acid to be given to the cow without the fanner's know- ledge. There was one class of cattle food which frequently contained boric acid. Dur- ing the last two or three years a great deal of Bombay cotton cake had been used in that country. It was a comparatively new food, and a couple of years ago became very popu- lar. Bombay cake was produced from the Indian cotton seeds, and it was stored under such bad conditions that it soon became mildewed, and they had to sprinkle it with boric acid to preserve it. The, caike contained one per cent, boric acid, and if they fed their cows oni it, the milk produced might contain as much boric acid as to lead them into the police court. It was equally important that the local authorities, and all authorities which had anything to do with regulating the sale of milk, should also know it, in order that there should be more sympathetic rela- tions between the vendor, seller, and the authorities. It was surprising how very little knowledge there was in people who lived in towns, rearding milk. It was regarded as an artificial product which depended almost entirely on the method adopted by the far- mer to produce it, instead of as a natural product, which it was, and, therefore, a substance which they could not modify ex- cept in a very narrow limit, and the sooner the consumer and producer got accurate knowledge about the condition which re- ferred to milk, the better for both. The President thanked Professor Jones for his admirable paper, which was of so great importance, to all farmers. Mr Stephens, The Grove, thought milch I cows required more water than barren ones. The Rev A. Fullef Mills said that it was highly important that local authorities and magistrates should have an exhaustive know- ledge of the question, and it was perfectly clear that many of them were perfectly ignorant of the facts brought out that day, and a great many farmers had suffered in- justice at their hands through it. Ho trusted the experiments to be carried out at Aberystwith would be the means of enlighten ing them further. In Wales they clung to old traditions to such an extent that pro- gress was retarded, and he would like, to point out that the successful farmer was the farmer of ,modern ideas, Mr H. Jones-Davies, Glyneiddan, said that Caimartlieii was the predominating partner in the Aberystwith experimental farm. Pro- fessor Bryner Jones's lecture had been en- tirely "new theology" to him. He thought quite differently with regard to milk pro- duction., but no doubt from the experiments carried out at Armstrong College, it was quite correct. He local authorities would take into consideration the facts pointed out. Mt. J. W. Harries, Pilroath, said that he believed a supply of concentrated food kept on, the flow of milk. In the dry summer of 1893, when grass was scarce, he gave 15 or 20 of his cows cotton cake and bran, and although the supply fell off something, the percentage of butter fat was grand. He. did not give cake in the summer time when the grass was rich and plentiful but he believed cows required most water when they gave most milk. He advised farmers to give their j cows clean water, and not Jet them run to a dirty old pond, containing water not fit to drink. He believed it ta-iiitea- the milk. Mr Hopkin Jones, agricultural lecturer at Bangor College, thought farmers were too apt to look upon experimental farms with suspicion, and he hoped the feeling would soon be They should look upon the farm at Aberystwith as their own, be- cause on it could be tried experiments for their benefit, whic hthey could not do on. their own, farms. He thought farmers should be careful to breed front the cows yielding the largest supplies of milk. Nowa- days farmers had a fancy for a certain cow and bred from her regardless of what quan- tity of milk she gave. Many cov.-s yielded under 300 gallons of milk a yoar) and these cows did not pay for their keep. The President congratulated Professor C. Bryner Jones on his very excellent and im- portant paper. What they had been to-d Were facts, and they should accept them as such until they could prove, to the contrary. There was not the slightest doubt they would bo having a great deal of trotible with local authorities with regard to their milk. Last year he saw a report in which a veterinary inspector of that county said that 30 per cent, of the cows supplying milk to a town not 20 .miles from Carmarthen were suffering from tuberculosis. Now, how the dickens could he say that. What right bad he to say such a thing? How inanv cows kept for dairy purposes in the county had he tested for tuberculosis. Sweeping assertions like that made by persons in authority did the farmer a great "deal of harm. Sir James Hids-Johnes had asked him to, mention that lie thought it would be a very good thing if the facts that the lecturer had placed before them were sent to the Board of Agriculture, and probably they would instruct the local authority as to their ixiwers in the matter. He (the President) thought that as farmers they were sure to get into trouble, and the, sooner they joined together to agitate t;) stop that kind of thing the bettor. He would like very much to see in that county a Dairy Association. There were a great many farmers in the county sending their milk by train to populous centres, and he 11 would like, to see an association formed on { the lines of the co-operative society which They would be ble to fight the cases so mucll bettet, aii(I get their rights. Professor Bryner Jones said that as far as clic. iilt of the trial at Armstrong Ceitaffie went to :-how, the cows which gave less milk drank most water. Whether that was pecu- liar he could not say. If farmers bred from their-best imilkei's he thought the dairy herd in this country could be considerably im- proved. The Board of Agriculture had in their possession a very considerable amount of evidonce with regard to the composition ( of milk, which they did not possess when they issued a new order to magistrates calling their attention to the experiments, and stating that prosecutions should not be undertaken without making a very careful inquiiy into the circumstances under which the milk war produced. He believed most thoroughly in dairy associations. On the proposition of the President, a hearty vote, of thanks was accorded to Pro- fessor Jones for his interesting paper. THE RAFFLE. The raffle resulted as follows Plough, Mr Howell Jones, Warwcnallt; tarpaulin, 111- Stephens, Coedybrain; pig trough, Mr W. H. Jones, Bangor; Mr D. H. Davics, Werndrefi; grind stone, Mr Thos. Davies, Quay, Carmarthen; Mr John Lewis, Olo- mendy; cart rope, Rev A. Fuller Mills, Rev D. Evans, Lllangumior; stable brush, Mr J. Jones, Cwmoernant; Mr W. W. Prosser, Ca.pel Dewi; Mr E. Stephens, The Grove; Mr D. Hinds, Cwnin; -vii- W. J. Wallis- Jones, Pencader; Mr T. S. Thomas, Danyir- a.llt; trashing fork, Mr John Thomas, Poste- isaf; -Mr Herbert Davies, Half Moon Hotel, Carmarthen Mr H. Jones Davies, Glyn- eiddan Mr John Bowen, Penfforddlas; Mr David Moses, Maesllan; Mr Wm. Jones, Rotten Pill.