Part 11

_No. 2._—FLOYD.—Flanders, 1. Quantity, 18 quarts. Quality, very good. Milks up to her time.

This is a very correct description of my cows, Lily and Floyd.

M. E. CONARD.

The above examination of our herds of cows, some of which were covered by a large blanket, completely excluding from view every part of the animal except the escutcheon and back part of udder, subjected the commission to the severest test that could be applied; and agreeing, as their estimate of quality and quantity does, with our previously written reports, leads us to think that in the hands of experts it would be a valuable aid in judging the quality of dairy stock.

THOMAS GAWTHROP, EVERARD CONARD, HOWARD PRESTON, MARK HUGHES, _Committee_.

WEST GROVE, _11 month 7, 1878_.

The undersigned having been present at the examination of Thomas Gawthrop’s herd of dairy cows, by the Guenon commission, on the 2d day of 9 month, 1878, am free to say that, although most of the cows were blanketed from horns to tail, their estimate, in a great majority of them, very nearly corresponded with the owners account previously prepared.

M. E. CONARD.

WEST GROVE, PA., _11 month 7, 1878_.

Joseph Pyle would have signed had he been present at the examination. Expresses confidence in the system.

T. G.

Examination of J. & J. Darlington’s Cows, October 2d.

The commission visited the herds of Messrs. J. & J. Darlington, October 2, at Darlington station, on Westchester road, Delaware county. These gentlemen make the finest butter and get the largest price in the market. Their dairy is admirably arranged. They have farms of four hundred and eighty acres, and have a herd of one hundred and sixty-seven cows. They had selected about a fair sample of the herd in two lots of cows. The first lot, from No. 9 to 33, was on one farm, and those numbered from 1 to 14 on the other farm. These gentlemen kept no test of the quality of any cow’s milk, and have no exact record of the quantity given by any cow; but as they are experienced dairymen, and thoroughly practical men, they knew about what each cow was giving in milk, and about its general quality, and sufficient to pronounce the grade of each cow, whether first, second, or third class. Therefore, in their record they do not give the exact record, as the committee would have desired, so as to compare with their own estimates, but they give the general qualities of the cow, and the two records must be compared from that stand point. Another matter must be taken into consideration. The Messrs. Darlington are liberal feeders, which accounts partly for their rich, tasty butter, and tends to make their cows do full work. A standard of quarts for first, second, and third class, upon which to estimate the qualities of the cows, was agreed upon between the commission and Messrs. Darlington.

J. & J. DARLINGTON’S ACCOUNT. |GUENON COMMISSION’S ACCOUNT. | _No. 9._— |_No. 9._—Grade Durham.—Bicorn, second. Quantity, first. | Quantity, second. Time, six to eight weeks. | Quality, second. First-class cow. | Time, four to six weeks. | _No. 61._— |_No. 61._—Grade Durham.—Imperfect | Flanders, third. Quantity, second. | Quantity, second class. Time, six to eight weeks. | Quality, second class. Second class cow. | Time, two months. | _No. 4._— |_No. 4._—Grade Durham.—Flanders, third. Quantity, third. | Quantity, third. Time, four to six weeks. | Quality, second. Third class cow. | Dry one month. | _No. 1._— |_No. 1._—Grade Durham.—Flanders, sec’d. Quantity, first. | Quantity, second. Time, four to six weeks. | Quality, second. First-class cow. | Up to her time. | _No. 41._— |_No. 41._—Grade Durham.—Flanders. Quantity, first. | Quantity, first. Time, four to six weeks. | Quality, second. First-class cow. | Time, six weeks to two months. | _No. 22._— |_No. 22._—Grade Durham.—Flanders, 2d. Quantity, first. | Quantity, first. Time, four to six weeks. | Quality, first. First-class cow. | Up to time, say four to six weeks. | _No. 6._— |_No. 6._—Grade Durham.—Imperfect Quantity, third. | Flanders. Time, six to eight weeks. | Quantity, third. Third class cow. | Quality, second. | Dry eight to ten weeks. | _No. 7._— |_No. 7._—Grade.—Flanders, with bastard Quantity, second. | marks. Time, eight to ten weeks. | Quantity, second. Second class cow. | Quality, second. | Up to her time, six weeks. | Reëxamined, and shows bastard marks. | _No. 67._— |_No. 67._—Grade Durham.—Imperfect Quantity, first. | Flanders. Time, four to six weeks. | Quantity, first. First-class cow. | Quality, second. | Dry eight weeks. | _No. 19._— |_No. 19._—Grade.—Selvage, third. Quantity, third. | Quantity, third. Time, two to three weeks. | Quality, second. Third class cow. | Dry eight weeks. | _No. 32._— |_No. 32._—Durham.—Flanders, third, Quantity, third. | partly bastard. Time, two to three weeks. | Quantity, second. Third class cow. | Quality, second. | Dry eight weeks. | _No. 1._— |_No. 1._—Grade.—Flanders, third. Agrees with the commission. | Quantity, second. Second class cow. | Quality, second. Dry about two months. | Dry two months. | _No. 2._— |_No. 2._—Grade.—Flanders, second. Agrees with commission. | Quantity, first. First-class cow. | Quality, first. Dry four to six weeks. | Dry four to six weeks. | _No. 3._— |_No. 3._—Grade.—Imperfect Flanders. Second class cow. | Quantity, first. Dry about six weeks. | Quality, first. | Dry six weeks. | _No. 4._— |_No. 4._—Grade.—Flanders, second. Agrees with committee. | Quantity, second. Second class cow. | Quality, second. Large milker, but fails too | soon. | Dry from six to eight weeks. | Dry six to eight weeks. | _No. 5._— |_No. 5._—Grade, Durham. Large milker. | Quantity, second. First-class. | Quality, second. Dry six to eight weeks. | Dry eight to ten weeks. | _No. 6._— |_No. 6._—Grade.—Horizontal, first. Agrees with committee. | Quantity, second. Second class. | Quality, second. Dry three to four weeks. | Dry four to six weeks. | _No. 7._— |_No. 7._—Grade.—Curveline, second. First-class in every respect. | Quantity, second. Best in the herd. | Quality, third. Dry four to eight weeks. | Dry four to six weeks. | _No. 8._— |_No. 8._—Grade, Durham.—Horizontal, | first. Agrees with committee. | Quantity, second. Good second class. | Quality, second. Dry four to six weeks. | Dry four to six weeks. | _No. 9._— |_No. 9._—Grade.—Flanders, a Gauche. First-class. | Quantity, second. Dry four to six weeks. | Quality, second. | Dry six weeks. | _No. 10._— |_No. 10._—Grade.—Flanders, second. Agrees with commission’s. | Quantity, second. Second class. | Quality, second. Dry six to eight weeks. | Dry six weeks. | _No. 11._— |_No. 11._—Grade.—Double selvage.—Some First-class. | bastard marks. Dry about eight weeks. | Quantity, second. | Quality, second. | Dry ten to twelve weeks. | _No. 12._— |_No. 12._—Grade.—Imperfect Flanders. Agrees with commission’s. | Quantity, first. First-class. | Quality, second. Dry six to eight weeks. | Dry six weeks. | _No. 13._— |_No. 13._—Grade, Durham.—Flanders, | third. Agrees with commission. | Quantity, third. Third class. | Quality, third. Dry four to six weeks. | Dry six to eight weeks. | _No. 14._— |_No. 14._—Grade.—Flanders, second. Agrees with commission. | Quantity, first. First-class. | Quality, second. Dry two to three weeks. | Up to her time.

We were present at the examination of our stock by the Pennsylvania Guenon Commission, on October 2d, and have examined the accounts here rendered, with the original written opinions, and find them to correspond. The accounts were given by both parties without either knowing anything of the accounts of the other.

(Signed) J. & J. DARLINGTON.

Having given the results of their work, the commission would now leave the further solution of the problem to the practical dairymen of the State. They, of course, expect that not only their report, but also the correctness of the system, will be criticised; but if this criticism is conducted with a spirit of fairness, and with a view to obtain the truth, they fully believe the result will be favorable.

By direction of the commission.

WILLIS P. HAZARD, _Secretary_.

ADDENDA.

The appointment of a commission by Governor Hartranft, in 1878, to investigate and verify the theories of M. Guenon in judging and selecting milch cows, has resulted in much good to the agricultural community. The members of that commission, including Mr. George Blight, who acted upon a similar committee in 1853, thoroughly imbued with the accuracy of the system and the desire to extend its usefulness, have continued to explain this mode of selecting cows whenever an opportunity offered. This has been very frequent, and many hundred cows have been examined in public, and the system explained in every section of the country.

It is fortunate that all other modes of judging cows do not militate against M. Guenon’s views; they give the judge only a more certain mode, and, if he has had much practice, a nearly infallible one. There are some points which are in full unison with Guenon’s views, but do not appear in his work, and may be spoken of as follows:

1st. All bovine animals have on the skin of the back a _quirl in the hair_, which seems to be a sort of dividing line or point between the hair on the front of the animal and that on the hinder portion. This should be found in the center of the ridge of the animal, that is, equi-distant from the head as from the root of the tail, and should be well defined, but of short fine hair. Frequently it is to be seen on the shoulder; when there, coarse hair is generally the accompaniment, and with that, a thick or tough skin, and no great milking qualities, or if much milk is given, it is not for a long time, nor is the milk of rich quality. The heaviest milkers have this mark, usually on the middle of the back, and the richest, with short fine hair. In short, the nearer the middle of the back, and the smaller the quirl and the finer the hair, the most generally will the cow be the better milker and of the richest quality. This mark Mr. Blight and myself have been testing for a long time, and we feel now that we can recommend it as a very good additional point to judge from.

2d. The tail should be long and squarely placed on the animal at the root, and of thin fine quality, with a good curly or corkscrew switch, and the bone of the tail should extend fully down to the knee and as much below it as possible. The horns should be small, waxy, and crumpled inwards and downwards a little. If they are long, they should be thin and sometimes rather flat.

3d. Bulls; the same remarks apply to these. Their hind legs should resemble, as much as possible, those of the cow, with great length between the hoof and the first joint; this indicates their aptitude to beget heifer calves and good milkers.

4th. On raising calves, proper nourishment should be given; if stinted, the inferior parts develop to the injury of the better; the head and horns will be out of proportion to the rest of the body.

The Breeding and Value of well-selected Butter Cows.

We have frequently endeavored to show that one of the most important advantages of Guenon’s system is, that it enables every owner of cows to tell the good from the bad cows, and that by weeding out the poor ones, and raising the tone of his herd, he will increase his profits, and if every farmer in the State will do the same, the increased value of all herds, and the increased results in profits, would amount to many millions yearly.

Pertinent to this subject, Mr. J. H. Walker, of Worcester, Massachusetts, the owner of a very choice herd of Jerseys, embracing members of the Alphea, Victor, and Pansy families, has prepared an article on the BREEDING AND VALUE OF BUTTER COWS, which proves, by tables showing the net results of good and bad cows, the theory that good cows will pay better than poor ones as an investment. We digest his remarks as follows:

In New England, a pound of butter can be made for less money than a pound and a half of beef, taking the animals at birth or beginning with animals two years old.

Taking any good herd of Jersey cows, old and young, from the time the heifers first come in milk, and it will average to make two thirds as many pounds of butter per annum as any person in New England can make in pounds of beef, on any herd of any breed.

The beef is worth six to nine cents, and the butter from twenty to forty cents.

Furthermore, every farmer should know what the difference is in the actual value of the different cows he owns, rating their value upon the money he gets for their product.

An ordinary cow will make about two hundred pounds of butter a year. The tables are intended to show what the difference is in the value of different cows for producing butter, taking as a basis the payment of thirty dollars for a cow that will make two hundred pounds of butter per annum, and for different amounts up to six hundred pounds per annum, assuming that the cow will die at twelve years of age. The interest upon the first cost of the cow, and on her product for each year, is compounded at the rate of six per cent. per annum, up to the day it is assumed the cow will die, taking no account of the value of the stock bred from her.

As long as every business is done upon the basis of interest on investments, we must treat the question of values as applied to cows on that basis. This is the only way to accurately prove the difference in value between one cow and another.

Table A.

If the cow cost thirty dollars, the keeping per annum twenty-five dollars, and the butter sells for twenty-five cents a pound, the _profits_ on the cows will be as follows, viz:

Paying $30 00 for a 200 pound cow, he will get in ten years, $170 00 ” 189 97 ” 300 ” ” ” 235 03 ” 348 86 ” 400 ” ” ” 299 89 ” 504 39 ” 500 ” ” ” 363 11 ” 671 61 ” 600 ” ” ” 428 39

Table B.

_Including interest_ on all items, a farmer will make on each cow as follows, (made on a basis of twenty-five cents a pound for butter, and twenty-five dollars a year for keeping,) viz:

Paying $30 00 for a 200 pound cow, he will get in ten years, $195 73 ” 125 00 ” 300 ” ” ” 313 06 ” 250 00 ” 400 ” ” ” 374 15 ” 350 00 ” 500 ” ” ” 474 52 ” 450 00 ” 600 ” ” ” 595 91

Table C.

Reckoning the annual cost of keeping at thirty-five dollars, and butter at thirty cents a pound, _reckoning interest_ on her cost, and on all receipts from her, a farmer will make on each cow as follows, viz:

Paying $30 00 for a 200 pound cow, he will get in ten years, $182 87 ” 125 00 ” 300 ” ” ” 354 78 ” 250 00 ” 400 ” ” ” 483 49 ” 350 00 ” 500 ” ” ” 654 17 ” 450 00 ” 600 ” ” ” 811 59

Table D.

On an annual cost of keeping of fifty dollars, and price of butter at thirty-five cents:

Paying $30 00 for a 200 pound cow, he will get in ten years, $95 76 ” 125 00 ” 300 ” ” ” 318 39 ” 250 00 ” 400 ” ” ” 507 46 ” 350 00 ” 500 ” ” ” 744 20 ” 450 00 ” 600 ” ” ” 960 90

Assuming that each cow, costing at two years old the price named in the tables, will die at twelve years old, the actual value of cows to practical farmers, making annually the different amounts of butter named, is shown.

They show what the cow will make in the ten years, and also what a farmer can afford to pay for each cow making the different amounts of butter named. They show the different amounts the farmer, who buys one of each of the cows named, paying the prices named for each of the five, will make on each, provided no interest is reckoned on the price paid for the cow, or on the butter made from her, during ten years.

These figures are certainly startling to any one who has not taken the trouble to examine this subject, much more so to the farmer who never figures carefully, and does exactly as his father did before him, without regard to the altered circumstances that surround him.

The farmer who shakes his head wisely at his more enterprising neighbor, and insists that cows making as much butter as is mentioned in these five tables do not live and never did, should know that the thorough-bred Jersey cows, Jersey Belle of Scituate, of the Victor family, made 705 pounds of butter in twelve consecutive months; that Eurotas, of the Alphia family, made 778 pounds of butter between November 12, 1879, and October 15, 1880, and dropped a heifer calf on November 4, 1880; that Pansy, sired by Living Storm, dam Dolly 2d, sired by Emperor 2d, made in her four year old form 574 pounds of butter in one year; that imported Flora made 511 pounds of butter in fifty weeks; that Countess made 16 pounds of butter on grass only, when fourteen years old. These well-established facts no intelligent, fair-minded man now disputes, and it is confidently believed that many more Jerseys will make as much butter as have any of those mentioned.

The question which at once suggests itself to farmers who are not satisfied with their present animals, is that of capital. The answer is, “admitting the above figures to be correct, I have no capital to pay the high prices demanded for the best Jersey cows, and I must therefore forego that improvement of my herd, which I know I ought to make.” Let us see if this is so.

By any process of reasoning, the “bull is half the herd.” Each cow contributes to one calf each year half its qualities. The bull contributes to every calf produced in the herd half its qualities. Some horse-breeders will talk only of the excellences of the stallion. Some farmers will talk only of the excellences of the cows. Both are mistaken. The sire and the dam, each contribute to their offspring, on the average, exactly the same proportion of their excellences or defects.

Some bulls are so powerfully organized as to be able to stamp their qualities, good or bad, on nearly every one of their progeny, as are some cows; but these are the rare exceptions. Each contribute the same, as a rule. No scientific investigator of the breeding problem, or careful breeder, would any sooner select the offspring of a 600 pound butter cow, got by a bull from a 200 pound butter family, than he would a heifer got by a full brother to the 600 pound butter cow from a full sister to the 200 pound butter bull.

Using a bull from a 400 pound butter family, on heifers from a 200 pound butter family, is just as likely to produce heifers that will make from two hundred to four hundred pounds of butter annually, averaging a yield of three hundred pounds; as the using of a bull from a 200 pound butter family on cows of a 400 pound butter family, would be to reduce the yield of some of the heifers to two hundred pounds, and the average to three hundred pounds. The increasing the butter yield of the heifers from a herd of cows one half by using a bull on them from a family or breed that make twice as much, or the reverse, can be relied upon as certainly as any expected result in the most uncertain of all business, namely: that of breeding.

If these statements are correct, what had a farmer better pay for a bull from a 400 pound butter family, to use on his herd of ten 200 pound butter cows, rather than use a bull from a 200 pound butter family?

It may be said that the keeping would cost more, because the higher bred product must be kept better. There is some truth in this, but the better keeping would affect favorably the poorer animals as well, and whatever the extra feed would cost, it would carry the value of the average yield as much above the figures we are making, as the extra feed would cost.