The Pulaskian., 1917-07-20
MILK FLOW
 IS INCREASED
DIPPING DOES NOT REDUCE THE YlELD-TICkS TAKE TOLL FROM THE cows
 BLOOD.

"Dipping COWS to kill fever ticks actually increases milk yields, says the United States Department of Ag- riculture. 'This is proved in actual evneriments and in the results ob- tained in thousands of dairy herds the owners of which are thorough believ- CTS in tick eradication by the dipping vat methods Careful records prove that lightly infested cows produce 18.6 per cent less milk than free cows, while cows heavily infested produce on an average 42.4 per cent less milk tban similar COWS freed from ticks. This was established by records of yields kept over considerable periods for tickv herds before they were dipped and for the same herds after they were dipped.
 "A herd of 20 lightly ticked cows produced 29 quarts less milk per day, or a loss of $500 quarts in 200 days milking, than 20 tick-free cows of the same kind. Twenty heavily ticked cows produced 67 quarts per day less, or a loss of 13,400 quarts in 200 days' milking, than 20 tick-free cows of a similar breed. The monetary gain from dipping of the lightly in- fested herd would have been $280 a wear; from the heavily-ticked herd a dipping would have given increased profits of $660 year.
 Here is an actual record from dairy herd: A dairyman in heavily infested territory dipped his cattle. One week after dipping, his herd of 42 COWS gave 10 gallons of milk day more-an increase of 16.6 per cent from the start. The milk sold for S5 cents gallon, and he got $3.50 more per day from his herd from one dipping He had begun to feed the cows instead of the ticks
 Those who assert that dipping dl- minishes milk flow judge entirely from the milk production for two or three days immediately following the trip to the vat. It is natural that for two or three days after a milch animal has been driven few miles and gone through the excitement of dip ping, her milk flow will temporarily fall of slightly. The actual figures show that for two or three days there may be a reduction of an average or l06 per cent, or about 0.S of a quart for an S-quart COW. In three to i've days the temporary falling off dlsap- pears and if the dairyman would keep records over any long period he would find that getting rid of ticks was increasing his actual milk pro- duction from IS to 42 per cent.
 That dipping cows to get rid or cattle ticks must increase milk HOW can readily be reasoned out by any one who will approach the subject with an open mind and not let his pre- iudiees fight his pocketbook. COWS can make milk only from blood. it follows that the more blood ticks suck out from them the less maternal the cows will have to turn into milk When it is realized that the ticks on a heavily infested animal consume as much as 200 pounds of blood year, it can be seen that a heavily infest- ed COW will lose by the tick Toute large and important amount of milk making material. When it is realized that the COW can make blood to sup ply her milk glands only from the feed she consumes, it can be seen that the tick by sucking blood is wasting lot of good feed that ought to be going to increase milk production.
 "It is as unreasonable to estimate the effect of dipping on cows yield from the milk she gives for two days after she has been dipped as it would be for purchaser of a COW to expect that COW to give her full milk record the first day after she had been drlv- en to new farm and placed ln strange quarters. No sensible dairy man would send back a cow because she did not live up to the guaranteed record for a day or two after she had been shipped to his farm. All the de- partment asks of anyone is to use tdlr records. Experience with mil lions of cattle dipped proves concl'I- slVely that dipping increases material " and in no way diminishes the years milk yield or injures the cat tle."
 q