The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1904-01-01
MILK AND HUMAN KINDNESS.
The Yield Of a Cow May Depend Much
Upon Her Preference for
the Mixer.

i
On the strength of information de-
rived from the staff of the County Tech
nical college at Chelmsford, England, il
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 to deal,
says London paper. Let her be MIXED
by favorite milker, then both guam
tity and quality are all that can be de-
sired. On the other hand, If man or
maid be in disfayor, 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 8.5 per
cent. of the solids and many time, it
would seem, the farmer is subjected to
yexatious prosecutions for no better
cause than that the COW does not like the
mixer. Was the reason aesthetic or
moral? If the former, then one could
understand a song once popular
Where are you going to, my pretty
maid?" I'm going a-milking, sir, she
said" And when the gay Lothario who
put the query became mercenary and
asked, What is your fortune, my pretty
maid2" he received for answer: my
face is my fortune, sir, she said" Ifit|
were really the pretty milkmaid's face
that pleased her COWS it might indeed
be fortune. Alas! the explanation is
much simpler and less sentimental.
Mr. Dymond, F. l. c., and Mr.. Bull, of
the Essex 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
and scrupulously registering the re-
suits. Omitting the other two, in whose
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 one or
other of the mixers. Whereas the
favorite was honored with 1916 pounds
Of milk on one morning, his comrade on
the following day got only 1917 pounds
And this yield was uniform, but not
with all ths animals VitN COW No Ii
certain difference was shown, No wa
much more capricious, No. z was compar- /
ltively and No. 4 absolutely Indifferent
n other words, ths yield Of milk de- {
,ended on the temper Of the COW and
on the temper Of the mixer
When the susceptible animal was
reated with any kind of harshness two
# three pounds were retained in the
oder, and it is precisely these last few
ounds to be drawn that are richest il
at and solids. Hence the largest sup
lies were also the best in quality. II
he milking were always by the same
erson the results would most probably
e fairly constant, but it is quite con-
eivable that an animal might actually
how diminished freedom of yield if
abitually treated roughly There is
iearly bovine psychology; there be
1ws like No. O. highly susceptible to
entle usage, and others. like No. A. pos
sssing a philosophic Indifference to
red and Jack alike Happy No 4. 1t .
to the farmers interest as Mr. Dy-
ond points out, TO study these peculiar
les Of temperament In these days even
'ws have nerves. -