THE AGRICULTURAL NEWS. 



How Ticks 

 Reduce the Milk Yield 



An Important Matter for Owners of Dairy Herds 



VMt foBewtng information h laktn from Farmers' !B»ll'tin, No. 639, istaei- officially by the "Dcparlment of Agriculture of the VnileJ States. 



The actnal amount of hum which ticks do to cattle is no longer a matter of mere conjecture. But the need of definite knowledge on thi> subject 

 led dw DefMitmcDt to coodoct some experiiaenis on the effect of the tick on milk production and on the body weights of dairy catde. 



RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS 



Forty cows were cimded into 2 lots of 20. each of which was producing practically the same amount of millc« and was given the same feed and 

 care fctf an average of 152 days, doring the season most favourable to the development of ticks. 



One of the lots in each csperiacot wis aUowed to become infested with ticks, while another was kept free from them — in one case by spraying 

 and in another by dippii^. 



The main results of the experiment were as follows : 



1. Cows carrying ticks did not hold up so well in milk flow as cows kept free from ticks, and did not increase their How of milk when the 



feed was increased, as did the tick-free cows. 



2. At the close of the experiment the cows lightly infested with ticks were pr<siucing 181' '^^^ "^>'^ ^a" ^e cows kept free from ticks, 



practically 1^ pints less per cow per day. [ 



3. At the end of the experiments the cows heavily infested with ticks were producing 42.4% less milk than the lick free cows, or nearly 



one-half gallon less per head per day. 



4* During the experiment period of one of the tests, which included 20 cows, the heavily infested cows lost an average of 9.3 pounds in; 

 weight, while the tick free cows gained an average of 44.2 pounds, although both were fed alike. 



THE COST OF FEE DING TICKS 



I 



If • pen keeper or dairyman with 20 cows, each producing 8 quarts of milk a day, should let them become lightly infested with ticks, the milk ■ 

 production would be decreased to the extent of 1^ quarts a day for each cow. ! 



At as low an estimate of 20 cents, a gallon or 5 cents, a quart, this would amount to 7v cents, or ^ 1 .50 for the entire herd of 20 cows each day. > 



If the tick infestation were heavy the reduction in the milk yield would be 3.3 quarts a day for each cow, equal to 17 cents, in milk values. 



This would amoant to $ 3.40 a day for the herd of 20 cows. 



The following is an actual experience of a dairyman in a very heavily tick infested territory, which strikingly illustrates how heavy is the 

 cost of feeding ticks. 



Laic in tile season when hb cows were covered with ticks, the cattle were dipped and the ticks killed. One week aher dipping the 42 cows 

 in his herd gave 10 galloiu of milk more than before dipping. This was an increase of 16.6 « and as the milk was bringing 33 cent*, a 

 (aBon tlie esira 10 galfecu WH* woitli f 3.50. f-ience, as a result of being freed from tick^ by dipping, the same 42 cows, on the same ttei, 

 pmdacad cm mBi mtamt t» JatWli tfae dairyman's profits by $3.50 per day, or ? 1277.50 per annum. 



IT COSTS MORE TO FEED TICKS THAN TO KILL THEM 





-_. wiQ woA together the ticks can be eradicated. Complete eradication, and not mereif wppre 

 Hm <iippiag tank, or spraying machine, nukes the work easy, effective and practical. 



.*eMtm i 



COOPER'S CATTLE TICK DIP 

 Hm ncmotd th* official approoul of tht faihsmng Cam nl r i mi 

 Mm of South Africa Narthern Rhodesia. Brazil, BuaMaai, 



Nyasaiaod, Swazilaid, Soolhcrn fikodesU. Madagascar, 

 0rltl(;h East Africa, German East Africa, Pertagocae Eaat Africa, 

 ^rtujuese West Africa, Ejypt. Artentine Republic, QaeciMlMt, 



United States of America, New Sautb Walei, 



Northern Territory of Aottralia. 



M.n f-: rers : V/ILLIAM COOPER & 



tKAi^Ji,.S' TaroBto. CLic^^u. Sydney, HeikMiM, Aarkhad. Bwaet Aim, Voatc Vidcc, Ponta Aroiaa, East Lrada^ Odiaw. 



WEST INDIAN AGENTS ; 



arr.KITTS: 5. L. H«Ts(«r4 &Ce. ANTIGUA: Bennett, Br. »•" * Ca. 



JAMAICA: D. Henderson & Co., Kingston. 



QKENADA: Thomson. Hankev & Co. 



BARBADOS: Barbados Co-operative Cotton Co.. Ltd. 



BAHAMAS: W. N. Twynam, Nassau. 



TRINIDAD: T. Oeddes Urant. Port ol Spain. 



BRITISH GUIANA: Sandbach, Parker & Co. 



Vr. VIMCBNT: Carta A Co., KinKstown. NEVIS: 5. D. Mnlone. 



BANISH WEST INDIES: A. Sclimleg:elaw, St. Croix. 



■•NTAERKAT: W. Ucwellyn Wall. DOMINICA: Han. H. A. Framptoo. 



3T. LUCIA: Barnard Sons * C*., Castries. ^ 



NEPHEWS, Berkhamsted, England. 



