Perth Amboy evening news., 1903-12-28
MILK AND HUMAN KINDNESS.
The Yield of n Cow MayNepend Much
Upon Her Preference for
the Mixer.

On the strength of information de-
rived from the staff of the County Tech
nical college at Chelmsford, England, it
was affirmed the other day that the
amount of milk which a COW yields may
depend very much on her preference for
the persons with whom she has 10 deal,
says a London paper. LIST her be MIXED
by a f~avorite mixer, then both guam
tity and quality are al that can be de-
sired. On the other hand, if man or
maid be IN ~disfavor, the COW yields less
milk and Of poorer quality. There ex-
lists a logical standard of quality-one
which demands that the milk shall con-
tain three per cent. Of fat and SIS per
cent. Of the solids, and many a time, IL
would seem, the farmer is subjected to
vexatious prosecutions for no better
cause than that the Gov does not like the
mixer. Was the eason aesthetic or
moral? If the former, then one could
understand a song once popular
where are you going 10, my pretty
maid?" I'm going a-milking, sir. she
said" And when the gay Lothario who
put the query became m%ercenary and
asked. What is your fortune, my pretty
maid?' he received for answer: My
face is my fortune, sir, she said" If it
we're really the pretty milkmaid's face
that pleased her cows it might indeed
be a fortune. Alas! the explanation is
much simpler and less sentimental.
Mr.. Dymond, F. l. c., and Mr.. Bull, Of
the Es.ex Technical laboratories, made
a.. rigorous experiment on the farm of
David Hodge, of Widford Hall, near
Chelmsford, taking four cows, and en-
ploying four mixers, named respective
ly Mrs. K, Fred, Joe and Jack-which
need not be taken as the actual names
aad ~scrupulously registering the re-
suits. Omitting the other two, in whose
cases the differences were less marked,
a curve was made of the yields procured
by Fred and Jack, and it forms an almost
perfectly regular zigzag for each COW.
rising to the highest or falling to the
lowest precisely as 1t referred to Il or
other of the mixers. Whereas the
favorite was honored with 1916 pounds
of milk on one morning, his comraGe On
the following day got only 1917 pounds.
And this yield was uniform, but not
with all the animals. With cow No. l a
certain difference was shown, No. 2 was
much more capricious. No. 3 was ccmpar-
atively and No. 4 absolutely Indifferent.
In other words, the yield of milk de-
pended on the temper of the COW and
apparently on the temper of the mixer.
When the susceptible animal was
treated with any kind of harshness two
or three pounds were retained in the
udder, and it is precisely these last few
pounds to be drawn that are richest in
fat and solids. Hence the largest sup
plies were also the best in quality. II
the milking
person the results wog
be fairly constant, but it 1s&Euite con-
ceivable that an animal might actually
show diminished freedom Of yield il
habitually treated roughly. There is
clearly a bovine psychology; there be
cows, like No. 2. highly susceptible TO
gentle usage, and others. like No. 4. pos
sessing a philosophic indifference to
Fred and Jack alike. Happy No. 4. 1t
is to the farmers interest, as Mr.. Dy-
mond points out, to study these peculiar
tiles of temperament. In these days eve
cows have nerves.