1 Frs., 1899.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 147 
WORKING HORSES. 
Movcu unintentional cruelty is practised by those in charge of working horses 
during such extremely hot weather as has lately been experienced in this 
colony. ‘This is especially so in the case of plough horses. The animals are 
brought up at half-past 5 or 6 in the morning. They may have had 
a drink at the waterhole or trough, or they may not, for all the ploughman 
knows. They are given a feed of dry lucerne hay with or without any corn— 
probably without, corn being at so high a price. Then they are yoked up and 
worked throughout the whole morning up to midday without being allowed 
either spell or drink, for quite four hours, The ploughman has frequent 
occasion to quench his thirst from his waterbag, yet he never thinks that his 
cattle are equally thirsty. With a refinement of cruelty, this waterbag may 
sometimes be seen hung to one of the hames, and the unhappy horse that 
carries it is tantalised by the smell and gurgling of the water of which not a 
drop reaches his lips. 
Horses require water at frequent intervals. To let an animal drink its 
fill at 7 a.m. and then work till noon without any refreshment is cruelty. If 
men would but pause, and think of the effect of a drink on themselves, 
perhaps they would have more consideration for the patient horses. He 
feels thirsty after working for an hour, and he quenches his thirst by a good 
drink from the bag. Now, as he gets to work again, the violent exercise causes 
him to perspire freely, andit is not long before the loss by perspiration requires 
replenishing. Then he again has recourse to a “quencher.” Why, in the - 
name of humanity, can he not consider that the same causes produce the same 
effects on the horses? ‘There would be very little time lost if they were 
allowed a drink every two hours. They would work the better for it, 
and be less liable to internal disorders from overloading their stomachs with 
fluid at long intervals. It cannot be too strongly impressed upon all men in 
charge of horses that the animals like to drink little, but often. 
TREATMENT OF DAIRY COWS. 
Tr is not given to any but those who thoroughly understand the nature of 
the dairy cow to know how much actual cash loss those sustain who knock 
about their cows, screw their tails, set dogs on to them to frighten them into 
submission, and utter fiendish yells to make them ‘bail up.’ ere is an 
experiment made by a dairyman in America and its result :— 
IMPORTANCE OF GENTLE TREATMENT OF DATRY COWS, 
That dairy cows should receive gentle treatment is a fact that is well 
known to all who have any dealings with these, but the extent of the 
injury done by rough treatment is perhaps not fully known. The following 
experiment—certainly a novel one, which has its origin in America—shows 
very well the loss rough treatment may and does cause :—‘ He let the dogs into 
the yard with the cows, and then two men entered with sticks, shouting, 
causing the dogs to bark, and making pandemonium reign for a few minutes. 
The herd was then brought into the bails and milked, with the result that the 
yield of milk was very much less, and the test of butter fat showed a loss of 40 
per cent. as compared with the week previous. Supposing this herd gave 
300 lb. at a milking of 5 per cent, milk when treated kindly, the loss in 
weight, placed at a low figure, must have been in this case at least 5 per cent. 
of 15 lb., while the loss in butter fat of 40 per cent. would bring the test down 
to 8 per cent. At20 cents per lb., the 300 Ib. of milk, testing 5 per cent., 
would be worth 8 dollars, but after this racket with the dogs the net value 
would be only 1°74 dollars, or a loss of 1°26 dollars (about 5s. 3d.) From this 
it will be seen how sensitive a creature the cow is, and how easily she may be 
influenced in the quality and quantity of her milk. Though the above is an 
extreme case, there is a valuable lesson in it for every dairyman.” 
