HOW TO SELECT COWS TEXT

speculations, and thus his valuable observations were for a time lost in the mist with which he enveloped them. Sufficient is already known of its value, at least, to lead us to the conclusion that it is worthy of more general knowledge. “A very extended observation has proved that, other conditions being equal, the modification of form presented by the escutcheon will lead to an estimation, not only of the quantity of milk which the animal will produce, but also of the time during which the cow will keep up the supply of milk. “Without going into detail upon this point, I may briefly state that the larger the extent of the escutcheon, the greater is the promise of milk, and also of its continuance, even after the cow is again in calf. A cow may have a small escutcheon, and yet be a good milker; but observation leads to the conclusion that, if she possessed a more fully developed escutcheon, she would have been a better milker. It may be considered a point of merit, not as deciding whether or not the cow is a good milker, but rather as an additional indication which may be taken into consideration in conjunction with other characteristic points. It is also desirable, in estimating the extent of the escutcheon, to make full allowance for the folds in the skin; otherwise, a large escutcheon may be taken for a small one. Besides the escutcheon, there are tufts of hair (epis) which have a certain degree of value when seen upon the udder of the cow.” “I presume there are many men who, although perhaps not caring a pin for an escutcheon, yet consider themselves fully capable of selecting a good milk cow. Now, although ignoring the escutcheon in their judgment, are they not apt, in selecting an ideal cow of any particular milk breed, to find a good escutcheon developed of one class or another? “Perhaps it may be asked, if the Guenon system is a true one, why are not the Short-Horns a great milk breed, for in them we often find very large and perfect escutcheons? “This question may be answered as follows: The Short-Horns were originally a good milking breed; but, having been made particularly a beef breed, the milking propensity or mammary system has in most families been changed or bred out. Notwithstanding this change, they may retain the escutcheon, not as a mark of quality, but as one of the characteristic marks of the breed. “All farmers are aware that a first-class milk cow may, by injudicious feed and treatment, especially as regards milking, become a second-class animal. Now, such a system, carried out generation after generation, must certainly degenerate a milk breed, however good their marks and quality. “Among the Short-Horns, probably the best milkers have good escutcheons; but an Ayrshire cow, with an inferior escutcheon, might be found to give more milk than a Short-Horn with a superior escutcheon, simply because one breed has been bred especially for beef, the other especially for milk. “To show how breeding for a purpose through many generations may ultimately change qualities, let us compare the Short-Horns with the Dutch or Holsteins. The early Short-Horns, or the Teeswater breed, as it was called, was of Dutch origin, or was certainly formed by crossing the native cattle of England with stock imported from Holland. This breed was originally considered remarkable for its milking qualities. “The Dutch breed, bred for generations for the especial purpose of milk, is to-day noted for large milkers, and among the cows may be found extraordinarily developed escutcheons. “The following extract, from a translation from the French of Magne on milk cows, is _apropos_, as showing the difference between characteristics of breeds and qualities of the animals: “A long, fine head, narrow towards the horns, and a slender chest are given by most writers as characteristics of a good milk cow. Now, in Flemish, Danish, Dutch, and Brittany cows the fineness of head and chest is a characteristic of these races and not the indication of particularly developed milking qualities, being met with alike in the good and bad milkers of those races; whilst in some of the Swiss breeds, and especially in those of St. Gervais, nearly all the cows, whether good or indifferent, possess a large head and heavy chest. The farmers of Ariege, while showing us some remarkably good cows, drew our attention to their strength of chest, ampleness of the dewlap, and the volume of the head: these characteristics of race they mistake for qualities, observing them in their best cows. On the other hand, it is to be remarked that cows with fine heads are often inferior milkers. If fineness of head were a true proof of mammillary activity, would not the cows of the Durham breed be amongst the best dairy animals in the world? This characteristic cannot, therefore, be considered absolutely appreciable, as much depends on the race to which a cow may belong. It is indicative of milk only, because it is a remarkable point in those races which have produced milk cows. Thus a characteristic of race has been mistaken for a sign of particular qualities.” “If, then, we should regard the escutcheon, as well as a fine head, one of the characteristics common in the Short-Horn, it is not necessary to consider it as an indication of any particularly developed quality. Although probably the best milkers would have this sign, yet it might be regarded as a latent sign of milking qualities which had been bred out by disuse. The only fair way to judge of the value of the escutcheon in determining milking qualities, is to consider its influence in the different breeds separately, not comparing one breed with another. In judging grade cows, characteristics and blood must have a certain influence on the judgment. The general type of the animal must be considered. “In the Ayrshire cow, we must regard the escutcheon, not as a special characteristic of the breed, but as one of the signs denoting quality. “If the time should come when it has become so universal a sign of quality as to be considered a characteristic of the breed, then we shall have approached much nearer perfection than at present. “Admitting that the escutcheon theory is a failure, or at least that it has failed as a test-mark of milk, have we any other mark or series of marks that have invariably given better results? “Magne says, that in Flanders, a cow is considered a good milker, ‘especially when towards the middle of the spine the apophyses (or projections) are separated or scattered so as to leave a space between of about two finger-breadths,’ for the reason that, when the spine is thus formed, the haunches are better spread, and the thighs and croup larger. The other members of the body are also better developed, the basin is ampler, and the organs placed in this cavity, as well as the udder, are more voluminous. “Now, would our dairymen consider this a more certain indication of milk, than a good escutcheon? “Without regarding the escutcheon as an infallible sign of quality and quantity of milk, I believe it to be one of the best indications of milk, that nature has provided; but in the use of this system, we must consider:— 1. The breed. 2. The age. 3. The feed. 4. The treatment (present and past.) 5. The health. “A good, not to say a thorough, understanding of the Guenon system, cannot be obtained by casual observation, but only by the most painstaking examination of many animals, extending over a long period of time.” Objections to the System and to the Report of the Commission. M. Guenon in his Treatise on Milk Cows, does not give any positive reasons why the escutcheon is indicative of the yield. He rested content with the fact, that he had proved it so before many learned men, and risked his reputation upon publishing the facts. The system as far as we have been able to trace it, has always been verified by those who have _thoroughly studied it, and tested it by extended practice according to the rules of Guenon_. The principal cavilers against it, either admit they have not constantly pursued it, or show by their writings their lack of sufficient knowledge of it. The report of the Pennsylvania commission has incited several to write against the system. The principal paper produced was one read before a meeting of the State Board of Agriculture, by Eastburn Reeder, and which he had reprinted in several papers. Of this essay, it is sufficient to say, he showed he had not studied nor practiced the system thoroughly, and because he could not understand it and got befogged, he quoted a large mass of scientific matter to show the system could not be true. These attempts at argument are so quietly, but completely, set aside in the essay of Prof. D. E. Salmon, D. V. M., on Contested Dairy Questions, quoted below, that we shall not discuss them further. For we cannot any more tell _absolutely and positively_ why the escutcheon reveals what it does, than we can tell why a _black_ cow eating _green_ grass, converts _red_ blood into _white_ milk, than we can tell _why_ the green grass grows. In both questions at issue, we have certain facts and theories to guide our reason and judgment about them, but we know nothing _positive_, and because it is so, Mr. Reeder and Mr. Hardin won’t believe it is so or can be so. In addition to what Mons. Magne, the eminent French veterinarian, one of the most celebrated medical professors in France has written, Professor Arnold, of Rochester says, when indorsing what Magne writes: “The size of the escutcheon is regarded as the measure of the quantity of blood supplied to the milk-producing vessels, and are evidence of their capability of elaborating milk. In the same way, the veins take up the blood, and carry it back in the milk veins which pass through the bag and along the belly, and enter the body through one or more holes, on their way to the heart. The size of these milk veins, and the holes where they enter the body, vary with the escutcheon, and like it, give evidence of the quantity of venous blood passing away, from and through the udder, and they have the same significance with reference to quantity, as the supply of arterial blood and the size of the escutcheon.” Mr. Reeder also quotes the weights of cattle given by Guenon, and triumphantly exclaims, whoever saw such small cows in this country? Guenon distinctly quotes the weights, as net dead weight, or the animal deprived of its head and horns, its hide, entrails, and feet, and gives the excellent reason for it when he says: “If I had made the calculations for the animal on the hoof, the figures given by me would present a great difference, which would increase according to the amount of fat, sometimes to double the weight.” Unfortunately, Mr. Reeder did not know enough of Guenon’s facts to be aware of this clear statement, and supposed the weights were live weight. Again, he says the commission did not examine the stock correctly. _He_ would have looked at an animal, decided what escutcheon it had, or “to which class and order she belongs, and then append the figures of Guenon as the result. Any other mode of proceeding is not testing the Guenon system.” Here again his lack of knowledge of the system is shown; it would be exceedingly unjust to the reputation of Guenon, as he distinctly declares the size, the age, the breed, the treatment, the season, the period of gestation, &c., shall be fully considered. It is the judgment of just such men passed upon the system, which have tended to throw any doubt upon the merit of Guenon’s assertions. What would be thought of the judgment of such a person, if told by a physician to administer three things to a patient, and he gave but one, and the patient died, and he excused himself by saying, “you told me to give him medicine, and I gave it.” Then Mr. Reeder denies the value of the system for pointing out the best _feeders_. The cow which gives the most butter, and which this system will readily point out, will fatten the most rapidly when dried off; for the butyraceous particles, which go to make the butter, will be diverted from the milk and turn to fat on the animal. Mr. Reeder objects to the report of the commission, that they “in some cases failed to classify cows,” and “made incorrect classifications,” and “in some cases gave different results from Guenon,” and lastly “the terms employed to denote quantity, quality, and duration, are too vague, indefinite, and unsatisfactory.” In all these objections, Mr. R., it will be readily seen by any practicer of the system, shows his utter ignorance of the mode of applying it. Guenon says it is sometimes impossible to properly classify an animal, owing to the effects of a cross, or some freak of nature. In such cases they may be judged according to the escutcheon it the nearest resembles. This the commission did, but of course could not classify them. His judgment as to “incorrect classifications” we must pass by as of no account, he not being any more capable of that than the commission. The same may be said of “giving different results from Guenon.” That is entirely a matter of judgment. Guenon says, judge of the cow by various things and then the result will approximate the amount stated to each escutcheon. Mr. Reeder says the amount set down to each escutcheon is inflexible. We prefer to follow the skill of Guenon and not the ignorance of Reeder, as it was Guenon we were appointed to test. Finally, he objects to the terms employed to denote the significance of the escutcheon. The great difficulty of the commission was to find herds of which an accurate test of each animal had been made and kept. We believe not one farmer in one hundred thousand has such a record. Yet the commission are expected by such “infallible” advocates as Mr. R. to tell the exact character of each cow, and that record is to be set down alongside of the inaccurate record of the owner; and if they vary at all, the commission are the ones at fault. The very terms Mr. R. objects to were employed by us by special agreement with the owners, because they hesitated to say how many quarts or pounds each of their cows gave. But where there were such careful farmers as W. M. Large, M. Eastburn, J. Pyle, and M. Conard, who gave quarts, and the commission gave quarts, we would invite attention to the comparative reports as the best answer. And even in Mr. R.’s own case we ask comparison, for the reason why the commission are on most of his cows one or two quarts higher is easily accounted for, because we did not learn until after the examination that he was generally ranked by his neighbors a poor feeder, which would certainly make the difference. In the cases of such fine herds as those of S. J. Sharpless, Thomas M. Harvey, Thomas Gawthrop, and H. Preston, &c., the accounts were highly satisfactory to their owners and confirmed them in the merits of the system. For the same reasons we object to _his_ test of “the system in other herds” as any proof of the merits of Guenon, for it was his interpretation of the escutcheons that is given, and it would be very unfair to judge Guenon as interpreted by one who is not an expert. Mr. Hardin has written much against the system, but containing very little argument, and no valid objection. We will endeavor to sift out of the mass, any points made: He thought there should be one “non-believer” on the commission, so as to “make a fair and disinterested report.” What possible use he may have been is a mystery, except to cavil at what perhaps he did not understand. The commission simply put down what they interpreted the escutcheons to indicate, and the owner stated what he knew of his stock. The two accounts were brought together and compared. What more a non-believer could have done, we are at a loss to conceive. His process of examination was laid down thus: “To take down in writing _before you see the cows_, the owners’ and milkers’ opinions of all the cows to be tested.” “Make the owners and milkers, _out of hearing of each other_, tell you the name of the cow, her age, how much milk she gives when fresh, how much milk she gives a year, is her milk rich or poor; have you ever tested the milk by measure, or otherwise to determine the amount or its richness; what breed is she?” “Get a non-believer to make pencil sketches of each escutcheon.” “The Governor to appoint two more on the committee who are not believers.” Now, having laid out this programme, he does not say what was to be done with it. The inference was to be drawn, we suppose, that the many escutcheons were to be engraved, and the public were to draw their conclusions from them and the reports given by the owners and milkers, and see how Guenon would stand the test. And what were the believing or non-believing commissioners to do? Supervise the taking down of all this? How, at once, this shows Mr. Hardin to know little or nothing of the system! Like Mr. Reeder, he did not know that Guenon assigns many other things to be thought of to form a correct opinion! Was it more proof to be told by the owner all that any one could know about the cow, and then say that corresponds with the escutcheon? Or did it put the system to a severer test, to say to the owner, don’t tell me a word, and then proceed to tell him all about a cow you never saw, simply from examining her escutcheon? In one case, you are assisted to define the escutcheon by the knowledge given you. In the other case, you define the cow’s character by only the knowledge you can get from the escutcheon. No better proof can be given of Mr. Hardin’s lack of practical knowledge of the system. Another objection he makes, and repeats several times, as being a very strong one with him, is, why did not Guenon, and why do not the commissioners, go to work and buy up all the best cows and sell them at a profit, and thus get very rich. His cry is, why don’t they make plenty of money out of it, if it is so valuable? Simply, because neither of them are in that business, or care to be. But Mr. Harvey, a manager of the Delaware county almshouse, in one year from taking this position, changed the cows there, and increased the yield twofold from the same number of cows, and has bought and sold all the steers and cows on his large farm for many years solely by this system, and _has_ grown wealthy. 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