The words are as follows:—
Quand reverai-je en un jour,Tous les objets de mon amour,Nos clairs ruisseaux,Nos hameaux,Nos côteaux,Nos montagnes,Et l'ornament de nos montagnes,La si gentille Isabeau?Dans l'ombre d'un ormeau,Quand danserai-je au son du Chalameau?Quand reverai-je en un jour,Tous les objets de mon amour,Mon père,Ma mère,Mon frère,Ma soeur,Mes agneaux,Mes troupeaux,Ma bergère?
Quand reverai-je en un jour,Tous les objets de mon amour,Nos clairs ruisseaux,Nos hameaux,Nos côteaux,Nos montagnes,Et l'ornament de nos montagnes,La si gentille Isabeau?Dans l'ombre d'un ormeau,Quand danserai-je au son du Chalameau?Quand reverai-je en un jour,Tous les objets de mon amour,Mon père,Ma mère,Mon frère,Ma soeur,Mes agneaux,Mes troupeaux,Ma bergère?
When shall I return to the Land of the Mountains—The lakes and the Rhone that is lost in the earth—Our sweet little hamlets, our villages, fountains,The flour-clad rocks of the place of my birth?O when shall I see my old garden of flowers,Dear Emma, the sweetest of blooms in the glade,And the rich chestnut grove, where we pass'd the long hoursWith tabor and pipe, while we danced in the shade?When shall I revisit the land of the mountains,Where all the fond objects of memory meet:The cows that would follow my voice to the fountains,The lambs that I called to the shady retreat:My father, my mother, my sister, and brother;My all that was dear in this valley of tears;My palfrey grown old, but there's ne'er such another;My dear dog, still faithful, tho' stricken in years:The vesper bell tolling, the loud thunder rolling,The bees that humm'd round the tall vine-mantled tree:The smooth water's margin whereon we were strollingWhen evening painted its mirror for me?And shall I return to this scenery never?These objects of infantine glory and love,—O tell me, my dear Guardian Angel, that everFloats nigh me,—safe guide to the regions above.
When shall I return to the Land of the Mountains—The lakes and the Rhone that is lost in the earth—Our sweet little hamlets, our villages, fountains,The flour-clad rocks of the place of my birth?O when shall I see my old garden of flowers,Dear Emma, the sweetest of blooms in the glade,And the rich chestnut grove, where we pass'd the long hoursWith tabor and pipe, while we danced in the shade?When shall I revisit the land of the mountains,Where all the fond objects of memory meet:The cows that would follow my voice to the fountains,The lambs that I called to the shady retreat:My father, my mother, my sister, and brother;My all that was dear in this valley of tears;My palfrey grown old, but there's ne'er such another;My dear dog, still faithful, tho' stricken in years:The vesper bell tolling, the loud thunder rolling,The bees that humm'd round the tall vine-mantled tree:The smooth water's margin whereon we were strollingWhen evening painted its mirror for me?And shall I return to this scenery never?These objects of infantine glory and love,—O tell me, my dear Guardian Angel, that everFloats nigh me,—safe guide to the regions above.
Buffalo—Bos BubalusAsia, North Africa, and South Europe.Manilla BuffaloIsland of Manilla.Condore BuffaloIsland of Pulo Condore.Cape BuffaloSouth Africa.PegasseCongo, Angola, Central Africa.ArneeIndia and China.GaurIndia.American BisonNorth America.AurochsLithuania.YakTartary and Hindustan.Musk OxNorth America.Zamouse, or Bush CowGambia, Sierra Leone.BantengIsland of Java.GyallIndia.GayalIndia.Sanga, or Galla OxAbyssinia.Zebu—Brahmin OxSouthern Asia, Eastern Africa.Domestic OxGenerally diffused.
Partial to water and mud, swampy localities.Semi-aquatic in its habits,—sometimes called the Water Buffalo.Fond of wallowing in mire, and swims well.Lives much in the water, and feeds on aquatic plants.Ranges in mountain forests, and feeds on leaves and buds of trees.Migratory in its habits—fond of bathing in marshy swamps.Lives chiefly on the woody banks of rivers—feeds on bark of trees, lichens, and herbaceous plants.Feeds on the short herbage peculiar to the tops of mountains and bleak plains.Lives chiefly on rocky mountains.Delights in the deepest jungles—feeds on leaves and shoots of brushwood.Lives entirely on woody-mountains—feeds on shoots and shrubs.Half domesticated.Domesticated, and artificially fed.So completely domesticated, as to be subject to an endless variety of diseases, and generally requires medical attendance.
On commencing this Monograph of theGenus Bos, I entertained the confident expectation, that in the voluminous work of Cuvier's 'Animal Kingdom,' translated and enlarged by Griffith and others, I should find all that related to generic and specific distinction so clearly exhibited, and so systematically arranged, that I should have no hesitation in adopting the classification there set forth, and no difficulty in determining the place of any new species or variety. With this expectation I diligently studied that portion of Col. H. Smith's volume on the Ruminantia, which treat of theGenus Bos, and I here subjoin (verbatim) the generic and subgeneric characters there given of that Genus, by which it will be seen how far they fall short of the clearness and precision which are indispensable to a scientific work.
"Genus BOS.—Skull very strong, dense about the frontals, which are convex, nearly flat, or concave; horns invariably occupying the crest, projecting at first laterally; osseous nucleus throughout porous, even cellular; muzzleinvariably broad, naked, moist,black; ears,in general,middle sized; bodylong; legssolid; staturelarge."
Generic characters should be such as will apply to every species in the genus; they should likewise be such as willdistinguish the genus described from every other genus. From such observations as I have been enabled to make, the five last-mentioned characters do not appear to accord with either of these conditions.
1st. The muzzle is stated to beblack; but in the Yak, and in domestic cattle (as may be observed by any one), the muzzle is very frequentlywhite; and granting that it was invariably black, other genera of the ruminantia have the muzzle black: and therefore it cannot be said to be a distinguishing mark of theGenus Bos.
2d. The ears are stated to bein general middle-sized. To pass over the extreme vagueness of the terms "in general" and "middle-sized," I may state that having measured the ears of several species, I find them to be of all lengths, varying from 5 inches to nearly 18 inches. Such a term as "middle-sized" may be applied "in general" to the ears of a vast variety of animals; and therefore it cannot be appliedin particularto theGenus Bos.
3d. The body is said to belong. They are, indeed, of all lengths, from 4 ft. 6 in. to nearly 11 ft. Can the term long be equally applicable to animals of such different lengths?
4th. The legs are said to besolid. In some species the legs are very slender, as the Zebu, Manilla Buffalo, and Domestic Ox.
5th. The stature is said to belarge. From actual measurement I find the stature to vary from 2 ft. 8 in. to upwards of 6 ft.; the smaller species weighing not more than 100 lbs., the larger weighing as much as 2000 lbs. Can the term large be equally applicable to animals of such different sizes?
"Sub-genusI.—Bubalus.—Animals low in proportion to their bulk; limbs very solid; head large, forehead narrow, very strong, convex; chaffron straight; muzzle square, horns lying flat, or bending laterally with a certain direction to the rear; eyes large; ears mostly funnel-shaped; no hunch; a small dewlap;female udder with four mammæ;tail long; slender."
This sub-genus comprises Cape Buffalo, Pegasse, Arnee, Domestic Buffalo.
"Sub-genusII.—Bison.—Forehead slightly arched, much broader than high; horns placed before the salient line of the frontal crest; the plane of the occiput forming an obtuse angle with the forehead and semicircular in shape; fourteen or fifteen pairs of ribs; the shoulders rather elevated; thetail shorter; the legs more slender; the tongue blue; the hair soft and woolly."
This sub-genus comprises Aurochs, Gaur, American Bison, Yak, Gayal.
"Sub-genusIII.—Taurus.—Forehead square from the orbits to the occipital crest, somewhat concave, not convex, or arched as in the former; the horns rising from the sides of the salient edge or crest of the frontals; the plane of the occiput forming an acute angle with the frontal, and of quadrangular form; the curve of the horns outwards, upwards, and forwards; no mane; a deep dewlap;thirteen pairs of ribs;tail long;udder four teats in a square."
This sub-genus comprises the Urus and the Domestic Ox.
Subgeneric characters should be such as will clearly distinguish the animals of one sub-genus from those of another. But here we have set down, in the sub-genus Bubalus, taillong, slender; in the sub-genus Taurus, taillong; and although the epithet slender is not added in the latter case, yet in truth it ought to be, as the tail of Taurus is quite as slender as that of Bubalus.
The udder of Bubalus is said to have four mammæ; they are not stated to be in a square, but, on examination, I find they are so; the udder of Taurus has likewise four teats in a square.
Thirteen pairs of ribs are set down as a distinguishing character of the sub-genus Taurus; but the Cape Buffalo, Domestic Buffalo, and the Manilla Buffalo (in the sub-genus Bubalus), and the Gaur (in the sub-genus Bison), all possess thirteen pairs of ribs.
In the sub-genus Bison the tail is said to beshorterthan the tail of Bubalus; but on subjecting them to the infallible test of feet and inches, I find the tails of the Aurochs, Gaur, Yak, and Gayal, to be decidedlylongerthan those of the Cape or the Manilla Buffalo.
The legs of Bisons are stated to be more slender than those of Buffaloes,—the reverse of this is the fact in the instances which I have had an opportunity of observing.
The details of a system of scientific classification should be precise, methodical, and consistent; but the method observed by Col. Smith, in describing the lengths of animals, can scarcely be called either precise or consistent; for example, he states:—
1st. That the Cape Buffalo is nine feet fromnose torootof tail.
2d. That the Gaur is twelve feet longto theendof tail.
3d. That the Aurochs is ten feet three inchesfrom nose to tail.
4th. That the Domestic Buffalo is eight feet six inches long,without mentioning either nose or tail.
In none of these cases can we be even proximately certain of the length of the animal.
In the first instance we may err to the amount of the length of the head; as it is not stated whether the measure was taken when the head was extended in a line with the back, or in a position at right angles with the back, or in any intermediate position.
The following outline will illustrate this:—
It is obvious that the length of a line from the nose to the tail will vary according to the different positions of the head of the animal.
In the second instance (taking it for granted that the measure was taken from the nose), the same difficulty exists with respect to the head, and another difficulty presents itself in our being left to guess the length of the tail, which might be eighteen inches, or it might be four feet.
In the third instance, the same difficulty exists with respect to the head, and the difficulty is further complicated by our being left to guess whether therootor theendof the tail is meant.
In the fourth we are completely "at sea."
The true value of these characteristic distinctions, definitions, or descriptions, are left to the appreciation of the judicious reader. Colonel Smith may doubtless be, what he has been styled, "an indefatigable naturalist," and "in general" an exact one; but in this special instance of theGenus Bos, his warmest admirers must allow that his accuracy and precision have not kept pace with his industry.
Hungarian Ox, Bos Taurus, from a specimen in the British Museum.Hungarian Ox, Bos Taurus, from a specimen in the British Museum.
The following very laboured attempt to arrange the various species ofGenus Bosinto groups, according to the Quinary or Circular System of M'Leay, is from the pen of Mr. Swainson—the precise and fastidious Swainson—who, from the number and boldness of his hypothetical views in every department of Zoology, may be truly regarded as the beau-ideal of a speculative naturalist—one of those, in short, so well described by Swift, "whose chief art in division hath been to grow fond of some proper mystical number, which their imaginations have rendered sacred to a degree, that they force common reason to find room for it in every part of nature;reducing,including, andadjusting, everygenusandspecieswithin that compass, by coupling some against their wills, and banishing others at any rate."
After describing the various members of the Bovine Family according to the Procrustean method of stretching and chopping, Mr. Swainson continues in his peculiarly dogmatic style "The types of form of theGenus Bos, above enumerated,we shall now demonstrateto be a natural group. We have seen that the first represented by theBos Scoticus, or Scotch Wild Ox, is an untameable savage race, which preserves, even in the domestication of a park, all that fierceness which the ancient writers attributed to the Wild Bulls of Britain and of the European Continent. Let those who imagine that theinfluence of civilization, of care, and of judicious treatment, will alter the natural instincts of animals, look to this as a palpable refutation of their doctrine. Where is that boasted power of man over nature? Where the fruits of long-continued efforts and fostering protection? TheBos Scoticusis as untameable now as it was centuries ago, simply for this reason, that it is in accordance with an unalterable law of nature; a law by which one type in every circular group is to represent the worst passions of mankind—fierceness, or cruelty, or horror. In theUruswe consequently have the type of the wild and untameableFeræamong quadrupeds, the eagles among birds, and the innumerable analogies which all the subordinate groups of these two great divisions present. Following this is the typical Ox—a god among the ancients, and that animal above all others, which, from its vital importance to man, we should naturally expect such a nation as the ancient Egyptians would exalt above all others. It is, in short, the typical perfection of the whole order of Ruminants, and consequently represents theQuadrumanaamong quadrupeds, and theIncessoresamong birds. The third type is no less beautiful; but it cannot be illustrated without going into details which it is not our present intention to make public: suffice it, however, to say, that in the prominent hump upon the shoulders we have a perfect representation of the Camel, one of the most striking types of the order, while it reminds us at the same time of the Buffalo, the genusAcronatusamong the large Antelopes, and numerous other representations of the same form. The fourth type is ourBos Pusio: here we find the horns, when present, remarkably small, but in many cases absent; andthe size is diminutive to an extreme. These also are distinguishing marks of the groups it is to represent: theTenuirostresamong birds, and theGlires, or mice, among quadrupeds, are the smallest of their respective classes; and both are typically distinguished by wanting all appendages to the head, either in the form of crests or horns. The fifth type is, perhaps, the most extraordinary of all; it should represent not only the orderRasoresamong birds, but also theCamelopardalisamong ruminating quadrupeds. Hence we find that, in accordance with the first of these analogies, it is a peaceful domesticated race, and that it has horns of an unusually large size, even in its own group; while, at the same time, those horns have that peculiar structure which can only be traced in the Camelopardalis; they are covered with skin, which passes so imperceptibly to the horny state, that, as Captain Clapperton observes, "there is no exact demarcation where the one commences and the other ends." The five leading types of quadrupeds and birds being now represented, and in precisely the same order,we demonstratethe groups to be natural by the following table:—
GenusBOS—the Natural Types.1.Bos Scoticus.Fierce, untameable.Feræ.Raptores.2. ——Taurus.Pre-eminently typical.Primates.Incessores.3. ——Dermaceros.Appendages on the head greatly developedUngulata.Rasores.4. ——Pusio.Stature remarkably small.Glires.Grallatores.5. ——Thersites.Fore-part of the shoulders elevatedCetacea.Natatores.
In regard to the last type, the analogies can only betraced through the animals or types of other groups; but should the habits ofThersiteslead it to frequent the water (like the Buffaloes) more than any other species of true oxen—a supposition highly probable—the analogy to theCetaceaand theNatatoreswould be direct. When we find in all the other four types such a surprising representation of the same peculiarities, we are justified in believing that want of information alone prevents this analogy from being so complete as the others. These analogies, in point of fact, may be traced through the whole of the principal groups in this order, the most important, and the most numerous of ungulated animals." Our luminous classifier then triumphantly winds up:—"Having now demonstrated, in one of the very lowest groups of quadrupeds, the validity of those principles of natural classification we have so often illustrated," &c.
Let us not be confounded with high-sounding terms; let us rather endeavour to ascertain the meaning of them, if indeed they possess a meaning. Here we have, under the head of "GenusBos—the Natural Types"—(see p. 178), certain words arranged in regular columns, which, at a first glance, appear as though they were intended to bear some relation to each other. But let us ask the most ordinary observer, or the most profound observer, or the observer of any grade or shade between these two extremes, what resemblance—what relation—what analogy—can be discovered between an ordinary bull (Taurus) and a man, a monkey, or a bat (Primates); or between Taurus and theIncessores(Perching Birds)? Or between Buffaloes, whose horns are partially covered with skin (Dermaceros), and cocks and hens (Rasores)? Can any one say wherein consists the similarity between a dwarfZebu and a Mouse, or a Flamingo? Yet this is the material of which the columns are composed.
But one of the most unhappy of Mr. Swainson's speculations is that wherein he represents theBos Scoticus, or wild ox, as the type of "anuntameable savagerace, which preserves, even in the domestication of a park, all that fierceness which the ancient writers attributed to the wild bulls of Britain and the European continent. Let those who imagine that the influence of civilization, of care, and of judicious treatment, will alter the natural instinct of animals, look to this as a palpable refutation of their doctrine. [!] Where is that boasted power of man over nature? Where the fruits of long-continued efforts and fostering protection? [!!] TheBos Scoticusis as untameable now as it was centuries ago, simply for this reason, that it is in accordance with an unalterable law of nature; a law by which one type in every group is to represent the worst passions of mankind—fierceness, or cruelty, or horror." [!!!]
Who would for a moment imagine that all this grandiloquence is bestowed upon an animal, which is so far from being fierce and untameable, that young ones, taken and reared with ordinary cattle, become, even in the first generation, as tame as domestic animals? [See account of Chillingham White Cattle, p. 140.]
For a more complete satisfaction of his thought, the reader is referred to Mr. Swainson's volume "On the Natural History and Classification of Quadrupeds," p. 274, where he has given us an incoherent abstract of Colonel Smith's article on theBovinæ, without, however, making the least attempt to verify the statements there recorded. The descriptions and characteristics areavowedly Colonel Smith's; but, in justice to the latter gentleman, it must be added, that the disquisitions on the circular succession of forms, and the analogical relations, are entirely Mr. Swainson's.
What constitutes a species? And how far do the limits of varieties extend? Cuvier, who is, perhaps, the best authority we can have upon this subject, in defining a species, says:—A species comprehends all the individuals which descend from each other or from a common parentage, and those which resemble them as much as they do each other.Thus, the different races which they have generated from them are considered as varieties but of one species. Our observations, therefore, respecting the differences between the ancestors and the descendants, are the only rules by which we can judge on this subject; all other considerations being merely hypothetical, and destitute of proof. Taking the wordvarietyin this limited sense, we observe that the differences which constitute this variety depend upon determinate circumstances, and that their extent increases in proportion to the intensity of the circumstances which occasion them.
Upon these principles it is obvious, that the most superficial characters are the most variable. Thus colour depends much upon light; thickness of hair upon heat;size upon abundance of food, &c. In wild animals, however, these varieties are greatly limited by the natural habits of the animal, which does not willingly migrate from the places where it finds, in sufficient quantity, what is necessary for the support of its species, and does not even extend its haunts to any great distances, unless it also finds all these circumstances conjoined. Thus, although the Wolf and the Fox inhabit all the climates from the torrid to the frigid zone, we hardly find any other differences among them, through the whole of that vast space, than a little more or less beauty in their furs. The more savage animals, especially the carnivorous, being confined within narrower limits, vary still less; and the only difference between the Hyæna of Persia and that of Morocco, consists in a thicker or a thinner mane.
Wild animals which subsist upon herbage, feel the influence of climate a little more extensively, because there is added to it the influence of food, both in regard to its abundance and its quality. Thus the Elephants of one forest are larger than those of another; their tusks also grow somewhat longer in places where their food may happen to be more favorable for the production of the substance of ivory. The same may take place in regard to the horns of Stags and Rein-deer. Besides, the species of herbivorous animals, in their wild state, seem more restrained from migrating and dispersing than the carnivorous species, being influenced both by climate, and by the kind of nourishment which they need.
We never see, in a wild state, intermediate productions between the Hare and the Rabbit, between the Stag and the Doe, or between the Martin and the Weasel. Human artifice contrives to produce all theseintermixtures of which the various species are susceptible, but which they would never produce if left to themselves.
The degrees of these variations are proportional to the intensity of the causes that produce them, namely, the slavery or subjection under which these animals are to man. They do not proceed far in half-domesticated species.
In the domesticated herbivorous quadrupeds, which man transports into all kinds of climates, and subjects to various kinds of management, both in regard to labour and nourishment, he procures certainly more considerable variations, but still they are all merely superficial: greater or less size; longer or shorter horns, or even the want of these entirely; a hump of fat, larger or smaller, on the shoulder; these form the chief differences among particular races of theBos Taurus, or domestic Black Cattle; and these differences continue long in such breeds as have been transported to great distances from the countries in which they were originally produced, when proper care is taken to prevent crossing.
Nature appears also to have guarded against the alterations of species which might proceed from mixture of breeds, by influencing the various species of animals with mutual aversion. Hence all the cunning and all the force that man is able to exert is necessary to accomplish such unions, even between species that have the nearest resemblance. And when the mule-breeds that are thus produced by these forced conjunctions happen to be fruitful, which is seldom the case, this fecundity never continues beyond a few generations, and would not probably proceed so far, without a continuance of the same causes which excited it at first.
This being the case, it is quite clear that the fact of two animals producing an intermediate race is no proof whatever of their specific identity; for it is well known, and has been already alluded to, that several animals. Birds as well as Mammalia, produce offspring, and are nevertheless distinct, both as it regards anatomical structure and external form.
Neither does it constitute the species identical if either or both the hybrids be even capable of fruitful intercourse with the original or parent species. Hamilton Smith goes so far as to say, that "if it even were proved that a prolific intermediate race exist, produced by the intermixture of both, it would not fully determine that both form only one original species: what forms a species, and what a variety, is as yet far from being well understood."
It is, however, pretty generally agreed, that animals are of the same species, that is to say, have been derived from one common stock, when their offspring have the power,inter se, of indefinitely continuing their kind; and conversely, that animals of distinct species, or descendants of stocks originally different, cannot produce a mixed race which shall possess the capability of perpetuating itself.
To conclude, it must be obvious, that permanent anatomical differences are the only true criteria of distinctions of species.
The above figure was drawn from a stuffed specimen in the British Museum. In colour, shape, and texture of horns, and apparent want of dewlap, it bears some resemblance to the Gaur; but in the skeleton of the Gaur the sacrum consists offivevertebræ, and the tail ofnineteen; while in the skeleton of the Banteng, the sacrum consists of butfourvertebræ, and the tail ofeighteen.
It does not come within the scope of the present work to give the varieties of Domestic Cattle; for these the reader is referred to the many excellent works already published on the subject. It will be sufficient in this place to notice a few interesting facts—statistical, anecdotal, &c.—in relation to their domestic history.
The following remarkable fact, respecting the colour of the offspring being influenced by that of the external objects surrounding the Cow at the time of copulation, is stated by John Boswell, of Balmuto and Kingcaussie, in an essay upon the breeding of Live Stock, communicated to the Highland Society in 1825. He says:—"One of the most intelligent breeders I have ever met with in Scotland, Mr. Mustard, an extensive farmer on Sir James Carnegie's Estate in Angus, told me a singular fact, with regard to what I have now stated. One of his cows happened to come into season while pasturing on a field which was bounded by that of one of his neighbours, out of which field an Ox jumped, and went with the Cow, until she was brought home to the Bull. The Ox was white with black spots, and horned. Mr. Mustard had not a horned beast in his possession, nor one with any white on it. Nevertheless, the produce of the following spring was a black and white calf,with horns." Another fact, which shows the great care required in keeping pure this breed—(the Angus doddies)—is related of the Keillor Stock, where, two different seasons, a dairy cow of the Ayrshire breed, red and white, was allowed to pasture with the black doddies. In the first experiment, from pure black Bulls and Cows, there appearedthreered and white calves; and on the second trial,twoof the calves were of mixed colours. Since that time care has been taken to have almost every animal on the farm, down to the Pigs and Poultry of a black colour.
An ordinary Cow, and a Bull without horns, will produce a calf resembling the male in appearance and character, without horns and without that particular prominence of the transverse apophysis of the frontal bone. The milk of the female from this cross, also, proves the influence of the male: it has the peculiar qualities of the hornless breed—less abundant, containing less whey, but more cream and curd.
A Mr. Gordon relates the following singular instance of fecundity and early maturity in the Aberdeen Cattle. "On the 25th of Sept., 1805, a calf of five months old, of the small Aberdeenshire breed, happening to be put into an enclosure among other Cattle, admitted a male that was only one year old. In the month of June following, at the age of fourteen months, she brought forth a very fine calf, and in the Summer of 1807, another equally good. The first calf, after working inthe Winter, Spring, and Summer of 1809, was killed in January, 1810, and weighed 6cwt.3qrs.16lb.The second was killed December 16, 1810, aged three years six months, and weighed exactly 7cwt.; and on Dec. 30, 1807, the mother, after having brought up these calves, was killed at the age of two years and eight months, and weighed 4cwt.1qr.the four quarters, sinking the offal."
Cows are usually milked three times a day over the greatest part of Scotland, from the time of calving till the milk begins to dry up during the Winter season, when the Cows are for the most part in calf; nor is it found that they suffer by that practice in any degree: and it is the general opinion of all who adopt it, that nearly one third more milk is thus obtained than if they were milked only twice.
A Cow, mentioned by Dr. Anderson in his 'Recreations,' (vol. v, p. 309,) was milked three times a day for ten years running, during the space of nine months, at least, every year; and was never seen, during all that period, but in very excellent order, although she had no other feeding than was given to the rest of the Cows, some of which were very low every winter, when they gave no milk at all.
A farmer of the name of Watkinson had a Cow that, for seventeen years, gave him from ten to twenty quarts of milk every day; was in moderate condition when taken up, six months in fattening, and being then twenty years old, was sold for more than £18. Mr. John Holt, of Walton, in Lancashire, had a healthy Cow-calf presentedto him, whose dam was in her thirty-second year, and could not be said to have been properly out of milk for the preceding fifteen years.
Yorkshire Cows, which are those chiefly used in the London Dairies, give a very great quantity of milk. It is by no means uncommon for them, in the beginning of the Summer, to yield thirty quarts a day; there are rare instances of giving thirty-six quarts; but the average measure may be estimated at twenty-two or twenty-four quarts.
Alderney Cow, after Howitt.Alderney Cow, after Howitt.
The Alderney Cow, considering its voracious appetite, yields very little milk; that milk, however, is of an extraordinary excellent quality, and gives more butter than can be obtained from the milk of any other cow. John Lawrence states that an Alderney Cow that had strayedon the premises of a friend of his, and remained there three weeks, made 19 lbs. of butter each week; and the fact was held so extraordinary, as to be thought worthy of a memorandum in the parish books. The milk of the Alderney Cow fits her for the situation in which she is usually placed, and where the excellence of the article is regarded, and not the expense.
Lord Hampden, of Glynde, had a cow which in the height of the season yielded ten pounds of butter and twelve pounds of cheese every week, and yet her quantity of milk rarely exceeded five gallons per day. The next year the same cow gave nine pounds and a half of butter per week for several weeks, and then for the rest of the summer between eight and nine pounds per week; and until the hard frost set in, seven pounds; and four pounds per week during the frost. Yet as a proof of the quality of the milk, she at no time gave more than five gallons in the day. To this may be added that, "four or five years before, the same person had a fine black Sussex Cow from Lord Gage, which also gave, in the height of the season, five gallons per day, but no more than five pounds of butter were ever made from it." This is accounted for in a singular way; for there is a common opinion in the east of Sussex, that "the milk of a black cow never gives so much butter as that of a red one."
In treating of Rabies, Youatt says:—"When a rabid or mad dog is wandering about, labouring under an irrepressible disposition to bite, he seeks out first of all his own species; but if his road lies by a herd of cattle, hewill attack the nearest to him; and if he meet with much resistance, he will set upon the whole herd, and bite as many as he can.... If the disease is to appear at all, it will be about the expiration of thefifth week, although there will be no absolute security in less than the double number of months," After making these remarks, our author reasons himself into the sapient conclusion, that the poison in all rabid animals resides in the saliva, and does not affect any other secretion. "The knowledge that the virus is confined to the saliva," he opines, "will settle a matter that has been the cause of considerable uneasiness. A cow has been observed to be ailing for a day or two, but she has been milked as usual; her milk has been mingled with the rest, and has been used for domestic purposes, as heretofore. She is at length discovered to be rabid. Is the family safe? Can the milk of a rabid cow be drunk with impunity? Yes, perfectly so, for the poison is confined to the saliva. The livers of hundreds of rabid dogs have been eaten in days of ignorance, dressed in all manners of ways, but usually fried as nicely as possible, as a preventive against madness. Some miscreants have sent the flesh of rabid cattle to the market, andit has been eaten without harm; and so, although not very pleasant to think about,the milk of the rabid cow may be drunk without the slightest danger."
Is it, indeed, possible for any of the secretions of an animal to be in a healthy state, and fit for human food, after it has had the virus of a rabid dog circulating in its system for at leastfive weeks? Furthermore, is it consistent in Mr. Youatt to call thosemiscreantswho send the flesh of rabid cattle to market, when he acknowledges,in the same breathy that it can be eaten without harm?
According to Mr. Youatt's philosophy, a cow in a rabid state is actually as good as a cow in a healthy state; for its milk may be drunk with impunity—the family isperfectly safewho uses it for domestic purposes; and, moreover,the flesh of rabid cattle may be eaten without harm. What more can be predicated of cattle in the purest state of health?
The number of cattle in Great Britain was estimated by Youatt (1838) at upwards of eight millions. 160,000 head of cattle are annually sold in Smithfield alone, without including calves, or thedead market, i.e., the carcases, sent up from various parts of the country. 1,200,000 sheep, 36,000 pigs, and 18,000 calves, are also sent to Smithfield in the course of a year.
A tenth part of the sheep and lambs die annually of disease (more than 4,000,000 perished by the rot alone in the winter of 1829-30), and at least a fifteenth part of the neat cattle are destroyed by inflammatory fever and milk fever, red water, hoose, and diarrhœa.
If a tithe of the sheep and lambs, and a fifteenth of the neat cattledie of disease, what proportion areslaughtered and sent to market in the earlier stages of disease; and, in fact, in all the stages antecedent to those which are the immediate cause of death?