The Vinita weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1905, 1904-05-19
MILK AND HUMAN KINDNEss
the Yield - Cow May Depend afucb
Upon Her Preferences for
the MElker.

on the strength OF information de-
rived from the staif 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 a London paper Lst her be MIXED
by a favorlte mixer, then both guam
tity ard quality are all that can be de-
gired. On the other hand. II man or
maid be In disiavor. the COW yields less
mill. and OF poorer quality. There ex-
lists d 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, II
would seem. the farmer Is subjected to
vexatlons prosecutions for no better
cause than that the COW does not like the
milker Was the reason aesthetic or
moral? II the former, then one could
understand a song once popular
where are you going to, my pretty
maid2" 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 II Il
we're really the pretty mllkmaid's face
that pleased her cows Il might indeed
be a fortune. Alasl the explanation Is
much simpler and less sentimental
SIR. Dymond. f. l. C., and Mr. Bull, OF
the Essex Technical laboratories, made
a rigorous experiment on the farm OK
David Hodge. OF Widford Hail. near
Chelmsford. taking four COWS. and en-
ploylng four mixers. named respective
" Mrs. X. Fred, Joe and Jack-which
need not be taken as the actual names
and scrupulousiy registering the re-
suits. 0mittinE the other two. In whose
eases the differences were less marked,
q curve was made OF the yields procured
BY Fred and Jack, and Il forms an almost
perfectly regular zlgzag for each COW.
rising 10 the highest or falling 10 the
lowest precisely as Il referred 10 one OF
other of the mixers. Whereas the
favorlte 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 the animals With COW No
certain difference was shown. No. was
much more caprieious. 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
OF three pounds were retained In the
udder. and II 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 IL quality. II
the milking were always by the same
person the results would most probably
be fairly constant. but II is quite con-
ceivable that an animal might actually
show diminished freedom Of yield II
habitually treated roughly There Is
clearly a bovine psychology; there be
cows. like No ?. highly susceptible 10
gentle usage. and others, ike No. I. pos
sessing a phllosophic indifference to
Fred and Jack alike. Happy No. 4. II
Is 70 the farmers interest. as Mr.. Dy-
mond points out. 20 study these peculiar
tiles Of temperament. In these days even
'ows have nerves.