Quedito arroyo no corras, no

- . >

•

84

of t he cow ' s characteristics . ) The remaining twenty-four farmers

indicated that they knew varying percentages of their herds . ( Thirt een

indicated that they knew ninety per c ent or more whi l e two be li eved the s taff co ll ectively knew all co ws . )

The sixteen who replied that they knew all cows individually all

consi dered it was an advantage . Of the twenty-four \·rho d i d not , s even

felt it put t hem at no di sadvant age , whi l e the remaining sevent een con-

sidered they were at a disadvantage be cause of i t . Fourteen farmers claime d that s e lect ing in- season cows required le ss effort when one knew all cows indivi dually because of the reason s discuss ed earli er .

2£1

'l'welve claime d s uch knowledge was advant ageous as mi lking te chniques coul d b� modified according t o the indivi dual requirement s of each c o w .

Eleven not ed that i t was extremely useful from a sto ck health point of vi ew • They considered t hat a knowledge o f e ach cow ' s hab i t s meant

that any abnormal i t i e s due to poor health could be qui ckly detected and remedi ed . In this context , s ix farmers stated that they , be cause of being ab le to remember a parti cular animal ' s sus cept ibi lity to me tabo l i c and calving di sorders , were abl e to give s uch animals the necessary preferen\ ial treatment � Simi l arly two farmers used part icular cows as marker cm.; s for bloat . Other advantage s mentioned were first , general sto ck work . Such t asks as separating individual cows from t he herd for such things as preferent ial wint ering treatment , or for cul l ing , are more easi ly done if one knows each indivi dual animal . Second , herd tes ting . In a herringbone farm dairy , herd t e s ting i s made easier and quicker if one is abl e to recogni se indivi dual c m.,rs wi thout having to resort to reading each number . ( This c an b e t ime consuming if the animals are

branded on the rump , or ear tags are us ed as a means of i dent ifi cat ion . ) 'l'hird , int erest . On two farms , where there was a large number of cows

per milker , some knowle dge of individual - cows was c i t ed as a means of overcoming the boredom which was fel t to b e inherent in mi lking a large number of c oHs per milking unit .

Six of the s even farmers who felt no.t knowing every cow individually put t hem at no disadvantage explaine d that in their herds they knew only

the c ows which required individual at t ention . This they added was likely to be a very smal l percentage of their herds .

The data from Column 10 of Table A. l2 has been reorganised int o

. .

Tabl e 5 . 2.4. Tabl e 5 . 24 divides the s urvey farms into six clas s e s based 3 2 . See section 5 . 13 , 4 ) .

on herd size . The proportion of f armers in each o f the six classes who

indicated. they kne,.,. each cow individually is shown in Column

( 2 ) .

As the proportion shown in Column ( 2 ) tends to decline as one moves down the t able (i . e . as herd size increases) thi s supports the contention made earlier

22/

that as herd size increases , it becomes increasingly difficult to knO\v each cow indivi dually .

Table of Farmers Cow in the Herd

Indi t o Size

Hange of Proportion

Herd Size Answering Yes

(l)

(2)

0 _{- 99} 3/3 lOO - 149 _3/5 1 5 0 - 199 2/4 200 - 249 _3/6 2 j 0 - 299 2/9 ) 00 + _3/14 5 . 14 STO CK HEALTH

l) All farmers were asked. to describe the prevent ive and treatment methods they used. for a number of animal health problems , and. further · were asked to di s cuss any other animal health problem whi ch concerned

them . It \vas hoped this question would make apparent any major

differences between the survey farms in the incidence of the various • animal health problems and in the p revent ive methods adopted .

a) Bloat

Only one farmer did not undertake some method o f bloat \5revention (in the 1969/70 s eason). There appeared to

be l i t t le to sugges t that bioat differed in severity between the four groups of farms . There was however a considerable variation between farms in the preventive methods employed and in the quantities of materials used .

b

)

·

I . .. ·

In the absence of a detai led s tu dy on the incidence of the various metabolic disorde rs in the h erds concerned , l i t t l e

c an b e sai d about the inc i dence of such disorders . The impre ssion gaine d by the author however was that the incidence of metabol i c di sorders di d not vary greatly

b etween the four groups of farms • For example , on six o f t h e Group I farms , some form o f prevent ive f o r grass

s taegers and acido s i s was fed in the 1969/70 s eason . Such a procedure was al so adopteu on four farms of each of the o ther three groups .

c

)

Mas t i t i s

All farmer s stated that they had some case s of ma s t i t i s each year . Again ·, in the absence o f a detailed study , i t i s

diffi cul t t o reach any valid conclusions on the severi ty of the problem in the various herds .

d

)

Faci al Eczema

Thi s a1)peared to be related more to locality than to herd size per s e . Only e leven farmers surveyed had , or int ended to , take p reventive measures during the 1969/70 season . e

)

Internal Parasi t e s

l1/

All farmers indicated that they normal ly undertook some drenching programme for calves . The. frequency of drenching and the material us ed varied considerably . The highest frequency of drenching was reco rded on fifteen farms where calves were drenched at three to four weekly int ervals from weaning until twe lve months of age . Of these two were Group I farms , three were Group II farms , five were Group III farms and f ive Group IV farms .

f

)

External Parasites

22./

On all but one farm � calves were sprayed for l i ce . On nine­ t een farms , calves were treated more than once , On twenty-

34 . Haemonchus placei , Oestestagia ostertgi , Trichos trongylus ax ei

(

i . e . stomach worms

)

, Dic tyo caulus vivip�rus

(

i . e . lungworm

)

. 35 . Damalima bovis , Linognathus vituli

(

i . e . lice

)

.

\-�

•

one farms , adult sto ck were spr�ye d as wel l .

g)

Other Animal Heal th Problems

Problems di scussed here appeared to be mainly district problems and not relat ed to herd size per se . Twenty-

two farmers had no comments t o make on thi s subj ect .

2 ) In o rder to obtain some indication of the farme rs ' opinions of the effect of animal numbers on s tock health problems , on al l farms in Groups II , Ill and IV , and on five farms in Group I , where the cows numbe r s exceeded 150 cows , the fol lowing que stion was asked . "Do you f e e l you have to pay more at tention t o stock heal th than say a

one man farm

(

milking 80 - lOO cows

)

woul d?"

Twelve repl i ed that calf rearing was more diffi cult with larger mobs of calve s . A great er incidence of scours , worms and i l l thrift

was t houGht to result . Two qual ified their statement s by saying calf

rearing was a problem only when Jersey calves were reare d . In their

opinion, there was little trouble wi th Friesian calves .

EiGht repl ied that herd size had s ome effect on animal condi tion •

This parti cularly applied to t he two year old heifers , a relatively high proportion of which , i t was said , ended thei r first lactation in com­ paratively poor condition .

Five' farmers indicat ed t hat it was more difficul t to no tice an animal suff ering from a di sorder in a larGer herd compared w i th a small herd , and consequently an animal suffering from a di sorder coul d remain undetected and untreat ed for a longer time .

('

rhi s i t was said necessi­ tat es the management on such farms spending more time obs erving the stock .

)

In t hi s context , two farmers not ed that they , on multi-labour uni t farms , were d ependent on the labour. to det ect , treat , and t ake steps to prevent the various disorders whi ch could arise . If the labour

adopted a lackadaisical att itude , serious animal health problems could ari s e . The problem it was said was accentuat ed in a double pit herring- bone farm dair.y . In such cases , there are in effect two herds as i t

i s thought that the individual cows t end to prefer a part i cular pit . A manager , if a ful l time mi lking unit , in such circumstances normally wou l d only see half the cows per milking. Disorders such as mastitis , it was considered coul d easily arise on multi-labour unit farms in such circumstances .

·.

-

Mr. D. c.

Anderson , the Senior Veterinarian of the Rangit aiki Plains Dairy Company , was al so asked to give his impressions of the effect of animal numbers on stock health probl ems . As he personally vi s i t s four of the Group IV farms and one of the Group III farms and since the di strict is c haracteri s ed by a wide range of herd si zes , it was felt that the veterinarian in que s tion should be in a po s ition to

provide some mlthoritative answers . A summary of the int erview fo llows .

a

)

The re a1Jpears to be lit t le relationship be tween the incidence and s everity of b lo at and herd si ze .

b

)

There i s li ttle to sugges t there i s any relationship between herd size and the incidence of metabo lic dis­ orders .

(

Metabo lics however are not a great problem in this di strict .

)

c

)

It is more likely that larger h erds

(

i . e

�

herds of

300

cows or more

)

wi l l have mastitis pro blems . The

reason be ing that management is unlikely t o embark

I .

upon the same pro cedures as tho se adopted b;'{ farmers with smaller herds be cause of the seemingly vastness of the task .

.. ·

d

)

In the Rangitaiki Plains District , the larger herds to be less severely affected by facial eczema than the smal ler herds .

e

)

'l'he larger the number of calve s being reared the more

diffi cult the task . Initial ly , losses are likely to

be high but as calf rearers gain experience and their stockmanship improves , the loss e s t end to dr6p . A varie ty of methods are being used successfully to rear large numbers of calves .

f

)

Li ce coul d be more of a problem in larger herd because if one animal i s missed ,

(

which could occur more easi ly with a large number of animal s

)

, such an animal could act as a reservoir and reinfe ct the remainder .

g

)

Inferti lity

(

empty cows

)

woul d be the main animal health

problem in larger herds . This i s due mainly to diffi-

culti e s in the detection of in-season animals .

h ) '.rhere ap pears to b e lit t le Problem from "population diseases" . Population diseases include a wi de ·range of condit ions

including :

i ) Infectious respiratory conditions ( e. g. catarrh and enteritis ) ;

i i ) Stress condit ions ;

iii ) Infe ct ious abortion conditions ( e . g. l eptospirosis

and brucel losis ) .

5 . 1 5 D I �TANCES OF TRAVEL AND _{T IME AWAY FROM} PASTURES

Data were collected , for al l survey farms , on the longe st di stances the he rd had to walk from a grazing paddock to the mi lking s hed , the time the he rd normally took to walk such a distance and from this , in conjunct ion with mi lking time s and any other relevant data,

W

an est imate made of

the longe st time a CO\v would be avmy from pasture to be mi lked in any twenty-four hour period.

'fable 5 . 2 5 shO\vS the longes t di stances and the estimates of time · away from past ure for all survey farms . The figures ( shown in Co lumn

( 1 ) ) indi cate that the walking di stances , although in general be ing ereat er on the farms where larger herds were run , coul d , on specific

farms be cause of a favourable layout , be relatively low . 12, 25 , 2 6 an d 34 . )

( e. g. Farm _{Nos .}

No att empt was made to obtain information which woul d enable the average time the cows in each of the survey herds were away from pasture per day over the whol e season , or any parts of the s eason , to be cal culated . The co l lection of such information , i t was felt , woul d be t oo t ime­

consuming. Further it should be noted that the figure s s hown in Column ( 2 ) of Table 5 . 2 5 will relat e only to a smal l number of days during t he season , be cause of seasonal changes in the total milking t imes and the adoption on all survey farms of rot ational grazing practi ces .

}�om the tabl e , it i s apparent that with the exceptions of Farms Nos .

21./

1 , 2 , 3 ,

4 ,

11 , 18 , 2 1 there were no marked differences between t he

36 . In some cases , during the spring , t he herd was he ld in a holding paddock close to the she d for some t ime after milking in order to detect in-season cows for artificial breeding .

37 . On Farm Nos . 1 , 2 and 3 , t he longest time cows were away from pasture was less than

240

minute s . On Farm Nos .

4,

11 , 18 and 21 , the longest

·.

Table Dis tances of Travel and Maximum Times from Pasture

Faro Longest 'l1ime Away Farm Longest '11ime Away

No . Distance from No . Dis tance from

Chains Pasture Chains Pasture

I Minutes Minutes -..

( 1 )

( 2 )

( l )

( 2 )

1

)0

210

22

45

310

2

30

240

23

75

3 5 0

3

50

230

24

60

3 20

4

64

450

25

40

270

5

60

360

26

40

370

6

25

360

27

60

3 20

7

60

)60

28

80

345

..

8

1:30

3 20

29

80

390

9

80

315

)0

80

3 20

10

50

3 55

31

lOO

330

11

68

485

32

80

33 5

12

56

360

33

lOO

360

1 )

) 2

280

34

40

31 5

14

70

300

35

60

375

15

lOO

360

)6

70

3 50

16

60

270

37

80

395

17

60

360

38

80

3 30

18

40

415

39

80

380

19

20

375

40

80

340

20

60

390

41

80

3 50

2 1

1oo·

450

NOTES : i) The figures shown in Column ( l ) are in -some cases estimate s rather than exact measurement s .

i i ) The figur e s shown in Column

( 2 )

refer in all but two cases to the last cow or group of cows . ( Two farmers indicated. that all cows were held in a holding paddock after milking before being allowed to return to grazing. )

· .

survey farms in terms of figures shown in Column ( 2 ) . The relatively short . times recorded on Farms Nos . 1 , 2 and 3 were the result of relatively short milking times and the short dis tances the herd had to t ravel . ''The comparative ly long times observed in the case of Farm Nos .

4 ,

11 , 18 and 21 ap�ear t o be due to :

a) An extremely long milking time ( Farm Nos .

4,

11 , 18 and 2 1 ) . (It· should be noted t hat the ratio of cows per milking

unit was extremely high on Farm Nos ll and 21 . )

b ) A rigid twenty-four hour grazing rotation (Farm Nos .

4

and 18) . c ) A relatively s low droving t ime ( Farm Nos .

4 ,

18 and 2 1 ) .

d) A relatively long walking distance ( Farm Nos . 11 and 2 1 ) .

5 . 16 PECUNIAHY ECONOHIES

On all farms in Groups II , III and IV and on the five farms in Group

I whe re the herd nwnbers exceeded 150 cows , thre e que s t ions concerning

pecuniary e conomie s were aske d .

1 ) Contract Services

The fi rst que stion '"as concerned with contract servi ce s . The question was "Do you feel you ge t p referential s ervice from contractors over a one man farm (of 80 - 1 00 cows ) in :

a)

b )

Ge tting the j ob done ;

'fhe rates you pay;

Of the thirty-four farmers who were asked t he que stion , only three indicat e d t hat the rat es they paid for contractural services dif

f

ered from tho se they felt applied to a one man farm . Of the three , one

( Farm No . 3 0 ) had been able t o negot iate a ten per cent reduction in fertiliser spreading rates . Anothe r ( Farm No . 31 ) regularly called t enders for haymaking ( i . e . mowing, raking, baling and c arting) and by accepting the lowest t ender , believed there was a price reduction of f ive c ents per bal e . The t hird ( Farm No . 8) indicat ed that he , with two other farms , was able to collectively bargain for reductions in certain con­ tractural services . Five farmers while answering the que st ion commented that a more likely source of cost reductions for contractural services

was from prompt payment . Thirteen of the thirty-four farmers indicated

that they b elieved contractors gave them some preferential t reatment , particularly topdressing and haybaling contractors . One farmer, who was

. __ _,

•

. .

also a haybaling contractor hims e lf , indicat ed that he p referred t o deal with larger cl ient s .

I t should b e not ed that t h e use made by contractors in general tended t o decline from Group I t o Group IV. In this c o ntext , s even farmer:,; indicat ed t hat they sel dom used cont ractors , and t he work for whi ch t h ey employed cont racto rs was usually of a non-urgent nature , such as he d&e - cutt ing and drain c leaning and so preferential treatment from

In document Revista del Instituto de Musicología "Carlos Vega" Año XXIII, Nº 23, 2009 (número completo) (página 72-95)