  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:
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:
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:
Table D.On an annual cost of keeping of fifty dollars, and price of butter at thirty-five cents:
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 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. The ten 200 pound butter cows, in ten years would pay a profit of $1,957 30. If the ten cows bred from them, by using the 400 pound butter bull, would make half as much again butter at the same cost, the general product would be increased by one half, and leave the sum to be deducted for keeping the same, for if the two year old 200 pound butter heifer could be raised for $30, so could the better bred one. The profit on each of them, deducting $54 18, cost of cow, will be $484 64—on the ten, $4,846 40, and on the 200 pound butter cows, the profits would be $1,957 30. The advantages reaped by the farmer who has the product for ten years of heifers bred by using the better bull, will be $2,889 10 more than on the 200 pound butter cows. If he paid for his bull $1,500, and the bull and all his cows died at twelve years old, the farmer would be as well off as he would have been to have used the 200 pound butter bull. But there is no necessity of paying $1,500 for a 400 pound butter bull. One hundred dollars will buy a Jersey bull, six weeks old, from a 400 pound butter family, and he will be old enough to use in twelve months. The $100 paid for him, at six per cent. compound interest, would amount to $191 61, in eleven years. The profit on ten butter cows making three hundred pounds over the ten cows making two hundred pounds in ten years, being $2,800, by deducting the $191 61 for the bull that produced them, (counting nothing for the 200 pound butter bull, for he is good-for-nothing,) the actual advantage reaped by the farmer with intelligence and enterprise enough to secure the better bull, in the ten years after his heifers come in, is over $2,500 on the butter alone. The animals are counted of no value when twelve years old, as the price got for those living beyond that age would average to pay only for the losses caused by accident to animals before reaching that age. These figures take no account of the skim-milk or buttermilk, for they are There must be no mistake made in procuring a Jersey bull calf. Although, as a breed, they are twice to three times as valuable for butter as common cows, yet any farmer who buys or uses a Jersey bull, because he is a Jersey bull, will sorely repent his venture. Buy a bull only from the very best families of Jerseys. They are cheaper than the gift of an average good one. The idea that it costs more to keep Jersey cows than common cows, or that Jersey cows will not take on flesh, for beef, as readily as other breeds, is true in one view, and very erroneous in another and more correct one. What a Jersey eats, beyond a limited amount, increases the quantity and richness of her milk, not her flesh, and the amount of flesh she carries is proportionally less for any extra feed, because it does not make flesh, but increases the butter globules in her milk. Again, any other breed can be readily dried off at any time, and being dry, or giving but little milk, and that of poor quality, they readily take on flesh, but a good Jersey is “dried off” with great difficulty, and herein she greatly excels all other breeds. Hundreds of Jerseys, milking twelve to sixteen quarts at their flush, hold out so evenly, that they will give many more quarts of milk, and of double the richness, in a year, than eighteen to twenty-four quart cows, of other families, that are dry several months of the year. It is the experience of every breeder of Jerseys that, being dry, they will take on flesh as fast, with a given quantity and quality of feed, as other breeds, not exclusively beef producers. They are not good for beef, simply because they are good for butter. From Jersey cows, a farmer in New England can make a pound of butter worth thirty-five cents, with a less quantity of food than they now use to make a pound and one half of beef worth nine cents. If farmers think there is some error in these statements, they will, like sensible men whose prosperity depends upon the result, sit down and figure out the results for themselves. Those who talk loudest against them, will hold on to a cow in their herd that has a little Jersey blood in her; and if they put a price on her, it will be from half as much again, to double that of the finer formed cow standing beside her, guiltless of having any Jersey blood in her veins. If there is an animal to be had any better than the bull any one is now using, it ought to be secured at once. So with cows, but by all means change at once for a better, any bull, however good. It is not claimed for any of the tables herewith presented, that they show absolutely the value of any cow to any farmer, but only that they are relatively correct. Every man who consults them, must make his own adjustments as to cost and receipts on any cow he owns. It is clear, that adding a very little to the cost of keeping, and deducting a very little from the price of butter, will show that any 200 pound butter cow brings her owner in debt, each year. Again, there are probably hundreds of cows kept for the dairy, that will not make two hundred pounds of butter in one year on the same feed Jersey Belle of Scituate, had when she made seven hundred and five pounds of butter in one year. It may be said that no allowance is made for any accidents to which a cow is liable—to abort, to have a calf die at birth, to injury, &c., and the thought is present that the loss on the poorer animal is not so much, in that case, as on the better; but the better is no more liable to such a case, and the loss is nearly the same proportionally. Table E.Showing the value of the progeny of a herd of 32 cows, that each make 300 pounds of butter annually, at the expiration of ten years, together with the value of the butter the progeny will have made during the ten years. Also showing the same on a herd of 32 cows, each making 200 pounds of butter annually. No account is taken of the bull calves, for they are worth nothing. No one can afford to use a bull, however good, if one is to be had that is any better.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
