Jouriial of Agriculture. [8 Feb., 1907. 



paratively small value to the dairy farmer unless it is backed up by a 

 record of the milk yield of his dam, and his sire's dam. A stud pedigree 

 is usually evidence that at least some attention has been given to the 

 characteristic points of that particular animals breed in the mating of its 

 progenitors, but, if there is added to this a record showing that, in con- 

 nexion with these matings, the production of milk or butter has been given 

 special consideration for even two generations previously, the animal con- 

 cerned should be of highlv increased value to the dairyman. The owner 

 of such a bull cannot afford to mate him lo unprofitable stock, hence a 

 further necessity of knowing the capabilities of each cow in the herd to the 

 end that, as the worst milkers are culled out, they can be replaced later 

 on bv heifers whose breeding is a fair criterion of what may be expected 

 from them. 



Lessons Furnished by Good Farms. 



Among the milk-farms of this Shire, those of ^Messrs. D. Syme, of 

 Killara, R. Blair, of Mooroolbark, VVhitlev and Smith of Lilydale, and 

 T. Mclntvre. of Yering, are woa-thy of special mention, as their returns 

 all demonstrate the attention that has been given to the improvement of 

 their stock, as compared with those of other farms of the district ; the 

 appearance of the cattle on each place is as much to their credit as is their 

 milk yield, they being of good even quality, and in good condition. Before 

 going intO' figures, it should be mentioned that the averages are from early 

 spring yields, when few of the cows were in full milk; still, as at that 

 period the selling value of the milk was considerably in advance of what 

 it is noAV, there would not be much variation in the cash returns. Indivi- 

 dually these four farms stand with but a fractional difference between 

 them ; and together, from a total of 340 cows, they show an average daily 

 production of i8f lbs. per cow. Looking do'wn mv list, the next highest 

 individual score is 16^ lbs., and, including this one, the next eight farms 

 together show an average return of 15 lbs. from a total of 656 cows. 

 Here is a difference of a full 3! lbs. per cow daily in favour of the 

 culled herds. If this point is carefullv looked into, it will be seen that 

 ct man with 80 cows, ginng i8f lbs. daily, will get the same total milk 

 return as one wit'h 100 cows, averaging 15 lbs., Sihowing very plainly that 

 one cow in every five on these latter farms (or even, it may be said, on all 

 the farms in the district, excepting those specified) is being kept at a dead 

 loss. This actual cash loss in labour and feed can be worked out best by 

 each farmer for himself. The difference in the A'alue of the dailv vield 

 between the two classes of stock, when totalled up for twelve months, will 

 represent a sum so large as to arrest attention and demand consideration 

 and remedy. Comparing the herds indicated, it will be found that 3f lbs. 

 extra dailv from each of a herd of 80 cows makes an increase of 

 210 gallons per week, which, estimated at 5d. per gallon, amounts to a 

 yearly sum of £,221 los., or a balance in favour of the culled herd of 

 £^2 1 6s. io|d. per cow ! Surely nothing can speak plainer than this in 

 support of the necessity of every dairyman keeping a strict record of each 

 cow's yield, and culling out the low yielders. It should te enough, at all 

 events, to show that this work is one of the best paving items on the farm. 

 When the benefits of the weeding out of poor stock are so apparent in 

 connexion, with large farms, how much more so must thev be to owners of 

 smaller farms, with more limited grazing areas, and to whom even one un- 

 profitable cow on the place must be a very serious drawback. In a herd 



