Newport daily independent., 1904-09-01
MILK AND HUMAN KINDNESS
me Yield of Cow May Depend Muek Upon Her Preference for
 the Milker.


 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 COW yields may depend very much on her preference fos the persons with whom she has to dea.. says London caper. Let her be milked by Q favorite milker. then both quan- tity and quality are all that can be de- sired. On the other hand. If man or maid be in disfavof. 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, it 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 ono could understand song once popular Where are you going to. my pretty maid?" I'm going a-milking, sir, she said.@ And when the gay Lothario whs 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 1t might indeed be fortune. Alas! the explanation ia much simpler and less sentimental.
 MT. Dymond. F. I. C., and MT. Bull. oi the Essex Technical laboratories, made a rigorous experiment on the farm of David Hodge, of Widford Hall, nea1 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 1t forms an almost perfectly regular zigzag for each COW rising to the highest or falling to the lowest precisely as it referred to one ol other of the milkers. Whereas the favorite was honored with 18.46 pounds of milk on one morning, his comrade or the following day got only 15.17 pounds And this yield was uniform. but not with all the animals With COW No. a certain difference was shown, No. wal much more capricious, Mo- 3 was compar- atively and No. 1 absolutely indifferent In other words. the yield of milk de. pended on the temper of the COW ant apparently on the temper of the milker When the susceptible animal wa! treated with any kind of harshness twt or three pounds were retained in tt' udder, and 1t is precisely these last few pounds to be drawn that, are richest tr fat and solids. Hence the largest sup plies were also the best in quality. Il the milking were always by the saul person the results would most probabl! be fairly constant, but 1t is quite con
 ceivabIe that an animal might actual! show diminished freedom of yield i habitually treated roughly. There i
 clearly a bovine psychology; there b. cows, like No. 2, highly susceptible tt gentle usage. and others, like No. 4. pos sessing a philosophic indifference t Fred and Jack alike. Happy No. 4. l Is to the farmers interest, as MT. by mond points out, to study these peculiar
 tiles of temperament. In these days evel cows have nerves.