Part 6

He says in another article “feeling the modesty that naturally attaches itself to benighted ignorance,” he “started out in the city in search of some one who was learned on these subjects.” He found “a professor in our medical institute,” “one of our most learned physicians,” and they proceed together to canvass Professors Magne and Arnold’s theories and facts about the formation of the escutcheon. The result of two such wise heads (or of “benighted ignorance”) coming together, was that neither of them ever heard of Professor Magne, and that his dictum was “opposed to all the teachings of physiology.” The learned professor knowing as much about a cow as he did of physiology. And it is such stuff as this which forms the arguments of Mr. Hardin. Professor Salmon in his essay on Contested Dairy Questions effectually settles these “learned” men.

We have devoted enough space to a writer, who finds it so easy to tear down, but is never able to build up, a doubting Thomas, whose only mode of judging a cow, he says is a crumple horn, a large udder, and to test the milk every Monday for one year. What an amount of money the farmers of America would lose annually if they followed his rules, and what an amount they would save by following Guenon’s rules!

The following valuable essay is from the _Country Gentleman_ of August 7, 1879:

Contested Dairy Questions.

By D. E. SALMON, _D. V. M._

Several of our prominent dairy writers have been lately discussing the more complicated questions of their department in a very energetic and decided, if not in a scrupulously exact manner. Now, if these questions are worth the time and space necessary for their presentation at length, they are certainly of sufficient importance to receive candid and perfectly truthful treatment; and, though these writers may not have intended to give wrong impressions, their teachings can hardly be considered, in several respects, as representing the present condition of knowledge on these points.

MAGNE’S THEORY OF THE ESCUTCHEON.—In Mr. Eastburn Reeder’s essay on the escutcheon—which is a valuable paper, though marred in the above respects—there is an attempt at scientific argument in order to ridicule the accepted value of the milk-mirror; and the assumed facts on which this argument is based, are presented in such a positive manner that they will probably be accepted, without further investigation, by the majority of readers unless contested at once. The writer has hesitated to do this in the hope that it would be done by some one else; but the truth is of too much consequence to allow the matter to pass entirely without notice.

The first point to which I will call attention is the attempt to dispute Magne’s opinion that the hair turns in the direction in which the arteries ramify, and that the reversed hair on the udder and adjacent parts indicates the termination of the arteries which supply the udder with blood. When these arteries are large, he holds, they extend through the udder upward and onward, ramifying on the skin beyond the udder, and giving the hair the peculiar appearance which distinguishes it from the rest of the surface. If these arteries are very small, they are not likely to extend much beyond the udder, and, hence, form a small escutcheon; consequently, a small escutcheon indicates a feeble supply of blood, and little material to make milk of.

Now how is this combatted? The first argument is that “when Mr. Hardin showed this paragraph to one of the most learned medical professors at Louisville, Kentucky, he at once wanted to know who this Magne was, and declared his name unknown in the annals of medical science.” What are we to think of such a statement as that? Magne—member of the French Academy of Medicine, formerly director of the Alfort Veterinary School and professor of Lyons—unknown in the annals of medicine!

We are then asked if the arteries are not the same in all cows, and are told that we might as well expect more bones or muscles as more arteries. If Mr. Reeder will turn to Chauveau’s Anatomy—one of the best authorities in the world—he will find, in general remarks on arteries, the following statement, which I translate, not having the English edition: “Arteries very often present variations in their deposition, which the surgeon should keep in mind. These variations ordinarily concern the number, the point of origin, and the volume of the vessels.” And if he will go through the list of arteries, he will find examples given of each of these variations.

Again, he asks, “how is it that the ramification of the arterial circulation _causes_ the hair to grow in one direction on one part of the cow’s body, and in the opposite on other parts?” Not a very difficult question, if we admit that arteries have such an effect, for they certainly do not all ramify in the same direction.

In a revised edition of the essay, subsequently published, some important points were added. Here we are told that “the arteries supplying the udder with blood are called the _mammary_ arteries, and their ramification _does not extend beyond the outer surface of the udder_. Further down the _aorta_, or main artery, another pair of arteries branches off, called the _femoral_ arteries. These supply the muscles of the thigh, or what we know as the _rounds of beef_, with blood, and ramify upon the portion of the escutcheon lying between them. Still further down, another pair of arteries, called the _gluteal_ arteries, leave the _aorta_, and are distributed through the pelvic region, and ramify upon the extreme upper portion of the escutcheon. Here we have at least three distinct systems of arteries ramifying upon the escutcheon, and _two_ of them most certainly have no connection with the milk secretion whatever.”

Without attempting to point out _all_ the errors of this description, we will once more refer to Chauveau to settle the more important points. The reader will find in that work that the _femoral_ arteries have a branch called the _pre-pubic_, which in turn has a branch called the _external pudic_, from which the _mammary_ artery branches. It will also be found that the mammary artery “sends several divisions to the tissue of the udder, and is prolonged between the thighs by a perineal branch, which terminates in the inferior commissure of the vulva, after having furnished glandular and _cutaneous_ divisions.” Turning to the description of the gluteal arteries, we find that they ramify in the gluteal muscles, which are at a considerable distance from the perineum, and that nothing is said of their going to the last named part.

Here, then, is complete and positive refutation of these arguments—not by mere statements of my own, but by the words of a standard work, of world-wide reputation, on the anatomy of these animals. Magne’s _facts_ are correct, then, whether his inferences are or not. _The same artery that supplies the udder with blood supplies the skin on which the escutcheon is formed; and, more than this, the artery ramifies in the direction in which the hair of the escutcheon grows._ Is there any connection between the two for all that? Who knows? A point or two to show that such a connection is not beyond the possible may still be in place.

Erasmus Wilson, who has made a specialty of the skin and its diseases, shows that the direction of the hairs on the anterior surface of the human body is, commencing at a point near the arm-pit, downwards and slightly inwards towards the umbilicus, and that below this point the direction is upwards and inwards; so that the umbilicus “is the center of convergence of four streams,” as he expresses it.

Now this disposition, complicated though it is, certainly resembles that of the arteries—the branches from the _axillary_ artery passing downwards and inwards, while the _epigastric_ arteries branch from the _femorals_ near the groin, and have a direction upwards and inwards. On the neck, the direction of the hair is upwards and backwards; in front of the ear, it is downwards and forwards; behind the ear, it is backwards—in each case following the arterial ramifications. In addition, Tisserant and others in France, who stand high as authorities, admit that the escutcheon continues to increase in relative surface till the second or third milking—that is, till the development of the udder, and, consequently, of the vessels supplying it have reached their highest point.

In some cases, it must be confessed, the correspondence in question apparently does not exist, but rather the opposite; and as the mammary artery has substantially the same distribution with horses as with cattle, we cannot see why the former should not be as plainly marked as the latter, if the direction of the hair depends on the direction of the arteries.

But, it may be asked, in what possible manner could the one condition influence the other? It must be remembered that physiology is still a growing science, and that there are many things yet to learn, so that it is still pardonable to confess ignorance. We know, however, that the cavity in the skin surrounding the hair (hair follicle) is set in an oblique direction, as well as the hair that emerges from it; the papilla at the bottom of this cavity must also be inclined, and it is this that, in all probability, decides the direction of the hair, as the growth of this takes place by additions of cells from the surface of the papilla. Now, each papilla, or elevation, has a vascular loop, or, as some say, a minute artery and vein, and one can easily imagine how the direction of this minute artery might influence the direction of the papillary summit, and, consequently, of the hair that grows from it.

I do not say that this is the proper explanation, but I suggest it as one way in which the correspondence might be accounted for. I do say, however, that the evidence brought to bear on this point by Mr. Reeder can have no influence in deciding the question, for the reason I have given.

Dr. Henry Stewart, the noted scientific and practical farmer and writer, said lately; “I have for some time past been studying the nature of the escutcheon physiogically and anatomically.” And he has “recently discovered a still more satisfactory connection between the milking capacity of a cow and the development of the escutcheon.”

“The milk-vein is an important mark of the deep-milking cow. But it is not the veins, but the arteries, which supply blood to the system, either for the production of tissue or the secretion of the milk. And yet the veins are important because they bear a direct relation to the arteries, being the return channels for the blood after it has fulfilled its functions; and so the larger supply of blood conveyed by the arteries requiring a vein of large capacity to return it, this vein is an ultimate indication of the vigor of the circulation of the lacteal organs. The main artery which supplies these organs is the subcutaneous abdominal [what Mr. S. says is commonly called the milk-vein.] This important artery supplies a large part of the posterior portion of the system, furnishing blood to the genital organs and the skin covering these and the adjacent parts. The subcutaneous abdominal artery is one of the two branches of the external pudic artery in the female, the other being the mammary artery. This last is very voluminous and distributes several main branches to the mammary glands and tissue, and also by a prolongation between the thighs, supplies the inferior commissure of the vulva and gives off many smaller branches, which spread into a network among the glandular tissue and the cutaneous structure. Here is the close connection, then, between the skin of the posterior part of the cow, from the lower point of the vulva down between the thighs and around the udder, and the udder itself. The same artery supplies all this portion of the skin, furnishes the subaceous glands and the hair follicles, and the whole cutaneous structure, and the hair also with blood, and also provides for the demands of the milk-secreting organs. A vigorous circulation through a voluminous arterial system ... gives a relatively vigorous milk secretion, and, as well, a growth of hair, which curls and forms the well-known peculiar structure of the escutcheon.”

C. L. SHARPLESS ON THE ESCUTCHEON.

We extract from our book on “The Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney Cow,” some remarks on the escutcheon, by Charles L. Sharpless, of Philadelphia. We consider him one of the best judges, a most intelligent breeder, and he has paid the highest price ever given for a Jersey cow in this country. The portraits of Duchess, Rosa, Black Bess, Tiberia, and the bull, Comet of M., bear out our assertion.

“There is no point in judging a cow so little understood as the escutcheon. The conclusion of almost every one is, that her escutcheon is good, if there be a broad band of up-running hair from the udder to the vulva, and around it—see Fig. 1. These cows, with the broad vertical escutcheon, are nearly always parallel cows; that is, with bodies long, but not large, and with the under line parallel with the back. Their thighs are thin, and the thigh escutcheon shows on the inside of the thigh, rather than on its rear.

“Next comes the wedge-shaped cow, with the body shorter, but very large, deep in the flank, and very capacious. This form does not usually exhibit the broad vertical escutcheon, running up to the vulva, but with a broader thigh may exhibit a thigh escutcheon, which is preferable to the other, thus—see Fig. 2.

“In both vertical and thigh mirrors, where the hair runs down, intruding on the udder, (as low as above the dotted lines,) as in Figs. 3 and 4, it damages the escutcheon. If you find a cow with the hair all running down, and between the thighs—that is, with no up-running hair—stamp her as a cipher for milk-yielding.

“The artist has made the udders to Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4 the same size, while in reality they will vary according to the escutcheon.

“There are times when the udder of a cow, with an escutcheon like Fig. 4, will be enlarged by non-milking, for the purpose of deception. It is always safer to judge by the escutcheon, rather than by the large size of the udder.

“The escutcheons of the best cows—those yielding the most and continuing the longest—will be found to be those which conform to Fig. 2. [Mr. S. alludes to the selvage: one of the best, and common among the best cows. H.]

“The vertical escutcheon of Fig. 1, would not injure it; but if that ornamental feature has to be at the expense of the thigh escutcheon, Fig. 2 is best as it is.

“Whenever an escutcheon is accompanied by a curl on each hind-quarter of the udder, it indicates a yield of the highest order....

“So far we have noticed only the rear escutcheon, or that which represents the two hind-quarters of the udder. The two front-quarters are just as important, and should be capacious, and run well forward under the body—see A. If the udder, in front, be concave, or cut up as in B, indicating small capacity, it represents reduced yield.

“This front or level escutcheon is distinctly marked in the young heifer or bull, and can be seen by laying the animal on its back. The udder hair under the body all runs backward, commencing at the forward line of the escutcheon—see dotted lines in Figs. 6, 7, 8. This dividing line is very perceptible, from the fact that the hair in front of it all runs forward towards the head of the animal, while the escutcheon, or udder hair, all runs backward over the forward quarters of the udder, around and beyond the teats, and ceases at the markings of the rear escutcheon, on and between the thighs.

“The breadth and extent forward of this front escutcheon, indicates the capacity in the mature animal, of the front quarters of her udder. In some cases this front escutcheon will be found of twice the extent that it is in others, and is evidence of that much more yield. The dimensions on Figs. 6, 7, 8, are actual measurements—the first two of heifers, and the last of a bull. If Fig. 7 represents four quarts as the yield per day of the front quarters, Fig. 6 will represent eight, thus, if the rear yield is the same, say four quarts in each cow, the total yield of Fig. 6 will be twelve quarts, while that of Fig. 7 is but eight. This examination enables one to see the size of the teats and their distance apart, and to test the looseness and softness of the udder skin. It is marked precisely the same in bulls, see Fig. 8, and can be easily examined at any age between one and ten months.

“Udders of all shapes hold milk, and some homely ones hold a large quantity. B, C, D, and E, at a glance explain their deficiencies, both of shape, lack of capacity, and bad style of teats. In udder A, we have the perfect shape....

“Many think that the escutcheon of the bull is of but little moment, so that he is a good-looker. So far is this from being the case, that a bull, with a mirror like Fig. 4. or worse, will stamp his escutcheon on, and to that extent damage his daughters, out of cows with escutcheons as choice as Fig. 2. In this way the daughters of some of the best cows come very ordinary, while, if you use a bull marked like Fig. 2, he will make poor escutcheons better, and will improve the best. His injury or benefit will be doubled, according to the escutcheon markings under his body in front of his scrotum. Hence the importance of the dam of a bull being unexceptionable in her udder and escutcheon. Her qualities, inherited by her son, will be transmitted to his daughters.

[Mr. Sharpless’ bull Comet of M. is one of the finest Jersey bulls we ever saw, and his escutcheon is unexceptionable, being a perfect curveline, the one most commonly found on bulls.]

“While careful as to escutcheons, we must not neglect the other essential features of a good cow—the buckskin hide, the rich-colored skin, and the fine bone. Let the hair be soft and thickly set, and let the skin be mellow. This latter quality is easily determined by grasping between the thumb and forefinger the skin at the rear of the ribs, or the double thickness at the base of the flank that joins the stifle joint to the body, or that on the inside of the rump-bone at the setting-on of the tail. Let the teats be well apart; let them yield a full and free stream, and be large enough to fill the hand without the necessity in milking of pulling them between the thumb and forefingers. And let us ever keep in mind that the large yielder must be well fed.”

Those who condemn Jersey cows as small yielders of milk and butter, should listen to the story of “Rosa” as told by her owner, C. L. Sharpless. She is five years old, is solid creamy fawn, and, combined with great volume and bone, she is neat in the head and neck, and with fine legs. Her dam was a small mouse-colored cow, and her sire’s dam a small fawn-colored, neither of which would give over twelve quarts.

“We found we were making a good deal of butter, and as ‘Rosa’ looked superbly, we determined to test her butter quality. We fed her per day twenty pounds of hay, eight quarts of meal, and four quarts of carrots. The meal was a mixture of good wheat bran and cornmeal, in the proportion of four bushels of the former to one bushel of the latter. Her yield the first day was sixteen quarts, the second day fifteen and a half quarts, the third day sixteen quarts, and the next morning eight quarts; being in all seven milkings, or half the week. Her milk was kept separate; was skimmed after standing thirty-six hours, and made six and three fourths pounds of butter, or thirteen and a half pounds for the week.

“As you place Rosa and Duchess side by side there are some points of agreement and of difference that are of interest to notice. They are both wedge-shaped, with large body—Duchess the more bony, but Rosa with the greater rear volume, (broader hips, &c.) They both have neat heads and necks, and fine bone. Duchess is, in winter, smoke-color, with brilliant white, but not with black points. She has yellow hoofs and skin, and her udder is rich yellow. Rosa has yellow hoofs, and yellow inside her ears, but a pale skin and udder, and would be called a butter cow inferior to Duchess, and yet she has just proved herself one half pound greater. The color of it is the deepest—no coloring matter being used. This upsets the theory that a yellow skin is essential for deep-colored butter. Perhaps a safer way to put it is, that though a rich yellow skin is evidence of butter quality, yet equally good quality may come from a pale skin, provided the cow has yellow inside her ears.

“Again, as to vertical or rear escutcheons both these cows exhibit, the broad part diminishes as it rises, until, when within six to nine inches of the vulva, it is reduced to the breadth of not over an inch wide. Thus they agree in their rear escutcheons, and they agree also in udders of great capacity, these being deep and broad, and running well forward under the body.

“There is a point on which they differ. The hair on Duchess is soft and furry as a mole; that of Rosa is fairly fine, but still hair.

“So that in a word one can say soft hair, a large escutcheon, and a yellow skin are desirable, but there may be choice cows not conspicuous, for either.

“To show how we sometimes let our best animals slip, I will add that when Rosa was a heifer I was tempted to part with her for what seemed a great price—$500. In about two weeks she had a heifer calf, for which her owner was offered $150. When three years old she had a second heifer, which he sold for $180; and when four years old she had a third heifer calf, which he sold for $100. He then sold his place and all his stock, and I bought her at public sale for $375 for her beauty. Her pale skin deceived me as to her butter quality, and her, as I thought, deficient escutcheon misled me as to her large yield. She now, as a five-year old, has her fourth calf, which is a bull, and some two months old.

“In giving above her yield, I gave also her feed. Such is her constitution and appetite that I think she would have eaten half as much more, and in that way her yield might have been very much increased. It was good enough as it was, particularly as there have been choice cows so forced that, though the premium was won, the cow was lost. The winter yield, on dry feed, of sixteen quarts is considered equivalent to eighteen on grass.”