Newport daily independent., 1904-01-05
MILK AND HUMAN KINDNESS.
The Yield of a Cow May Depend Much Upon Her Preference for
 the MiIker.

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 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 fayorite milker, then both Quan- tity and quality are all that can -,su.slL1. sired. On the other hand, if man or maid be in disfavor, the COW yields less milk and of poorer quality. There ex- ists logical standard of quality-one which demands that the milk shall con- tain three per cent. of fat and S.5 per cent. of the solids, and many time, 1t would seem, the farmer is subjected to vexatious prosecutions for no better cause than that the COW does not like the milker. 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 maid?" he received for answer: My face is my fortune, sir, she said" If 1t were really the pretty milkmaid's face that pleased her cows it might indeed be fortune. Alasi the explanation is much simpler and less sentimental.
 MT Dymond, F. I. C.. and MT. 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 em- ploying four milkers, named respective ly Mrs. K, Fred Joe and Jack-which need not be taken as the actual names and scrupulously registering the re- suits. Quitting 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 it referred to one or other of the milkers. Whereas the favorite was honored with s18.46 pounds of milk on one morning, his comrade on the following day got only 15.17 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. was compar atively and No absolutely indifferent. In other words, the yield of milk de- pended on the temper of the COW and apparently on the temper of the milker. 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 SUD- plies were also the best in quality. If the milking were always by the same person the results would most probably be fairly constant, but it is quite con- ceivable that an animal might actually show diminished freedom of yield if 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. It is to the farmers interest, as MT. Dy mond points out, to study these peculiar ities of temperament. In these days even cows have nerves