The Short-horns.

Fig. 4. Jersey Bull.

The bulls are usually very different in character and disposition from the cows, and are much inclined tobecome restive and cross at the age of two or three years, unless their treatment is uniformly gentle and firm. The accompanyingfigurevery accurately represents one of the best animals of the race in the vicinity of Boston, which has been pronounced by good judges a model of a bull for a dairy breed.

The beautiful Jersey cow “Flirt,” figured onpage 26, received the first prize at the Fair of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture in 1857, which brought together the largest and finest collection of Jersey cattle ever made in this country. She is well-shaped, and a very superior dairy cow. Her dam, Flora, was very remarkable for the richness of her milk and the quantity of her butter, having made no less than five hundred and eleven pounds in one year, without extra feeding.

From what has been said it is evident that the Jersey is to be regarded as a dairy breed, and that almost exclusively. It is evident, too, that it would not be sought for large dairies kept for the supply of milk to cities; for, though the quality would gratify the customer, the quantity would not satisfy the owner. The place of the Jersey cow is rather in private establishments, where the supply of cream and butter is a sufficient object, or, in limited numbers, to add richness to the milk of large butter dairies. Even one or two good Jersey cows with a herd of fifteen or twenty, will make a great difference in the quality of the milk and butter of the whole establishment; and they would probably be profitable for this, if for no other object.

Other breeds are somewhat noted in Great Britain for their excellent dairy qualities, and among them might be named the Yorkshire and the Kerry; but they have never been introduced into this country to anyextent; or, if they ever were, no traces of them as a distinct breed can now be found here.

Fig. 5. Short-horn Cow

—No breed of horned cattle has commanded more universal admiration during the last half-century than the improved Short-horns, whose origin can be traced back for nearly a hundred years. According to the best authorities, the stock which formed the basis of improvement existed equally in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Northumberland, and counties adjoining; and the preëminence was accorded to Durham, which gave its name to the race, from the more correct principles of breeding which seem to have prevailed there.

There is a dispute among the most eminent breeders as to how far it owes its origin to early importations from Holland, whence many superior animals were brought for the purpose of improving the old long-horned breed. A large race of cattle had existed for many years on the western shores of the continent of Europe. At a very early date, as early as 1633, theywere imported from Denmark into New England in considerable numbers, and thus laid the foundation of a valuable stock in this country. They extended along the coast, it is said, through Holland to France. The dairy formed a prominent branch of farming at a very early date in Holland, and experience led to the greatest care in the choice and breeding of dairy stock. From these cattle many selections were made to cross over to the counties of York and Durham. The prevailing color of the large Dutch cattle was black and white, beautifully contrasted.

The cattle produced by these crosses a century ago were known under the name of “Dutch.” The cows selected for crossing with the early imported Dutch bulls were generally long-horned, large-boned, coarse animals, a fair type of which was found in the old “Holderness” breed of Yorkshire,—slow feeders, strong in the shoulder, defective in the fore quarter, and not very profitable for the butcher, their meat being “coarse to the palate and uninviting to the eye.” Their milking qualities were good, surpassing, probably, those of the improved short-horns. Whatever may be the truth with regard to these crosses, and however far they proved effective in creating or laying the foundation of the modern improved short-horns, the results of the efforts made in Yorkshire and some of the adjoining counties were never so satisfactory to the best judges as those of the breeders along the Tees, who selected animals with greater reference to fineness of bone and symmetry of form, and the animals they bred soon took the lead, and excited great emulation in improvement.

The famous bull “Hubback,” bred by Mr. Turner, of Hurworth, and subsequently owned by Mr. Colling, laid the foundation of the celebrity of the short-horns, and it is the pride of short-horn breeders to trace backto him. He was calved in 1777, and his descendants, Foljambe, Bolingbroke, Favorite, and Comet, permanently fixed the characteristics of the breed. Comet was so highly esteemed among breeders, that he sold at one thousand guineas, or over five thousand dollars. Hubback is thought by some to have been a pure short-horn, and by others a grade or mixture.

Many breeders had labored long previous to the brothers Charles and Robert Colling, especially on the old Teeswater short-horns; yet a large share of the credit of improving and establishing the reputation of the improved short-horns is generally accorded to the Collings. Certain it is that the spirit and discrimination with which they selected and bred soon became known, and a general interest was awakened in the breed at the time of the sale of Charles Colling’s herd, October 11, 1810. It was then that Mr. Bates, of Kirkleavington, purchased the celebrated heifer Duchess I., whose family sold, in 1850, after his decease, at an average of one hundred and sixteen pounds five shillings per head, including young calves. Many representatives of the Duchess family, which laid the foundation of Mr. Bates’ success as a breeder, have been brought to this country. They may, perhaps, be regarded as an exception to the modern improved short-horns, their milking qualities being generally very superior.

The sale referred to, and those of R. Colling’s herd, in 1818, and that of Lord Spencer, in 1846, as well as that of the Kirkleavington herd, in 1850, and especially that of the herd of Lord Ducie, two years later, are marked eras in the history of improved short-horns; and through these sales, and the universal enthusiasm awakened by them, the short-horns have become more widely spread ever Great Britain, and more generally fashionable, than any other breed. They have also been largelyintroduced into France by the government, for the improvement of the various French breeds by crossing, and into nearly every quarter of the civilized world.

Fig. 6. Short-horn Bull “Double Duke,” (14511⁄2Am. H. Book,)Owned by Harvest Club, Springfield.

Importations have been frequent and extensive into the United States within the last few years, and this famous breed is now pretty generally diffused over the country.

The use of the early-imported short-horn bulls and native cows led to the formation of many families of grades, some of them bred back to the sire, and others crossed high up, which have attained a very considerable local reputation in many sections. As instances of this, may be mentioned the Creampot stock, obtained by Col. Jaques from a short-horn bull, Cœlebs, and a superior native cow. A family of fine milkers still exists in Massachusetts, known by the name of the “Sukey breed,” supposed to have been derived from “Denton,” a very superior animal imported by Mr. Williams, of Northboro’, some forty years ago. Many of the best milkers of that section can be traced back tohim. The Patton stock, originally imported into Maryland and Virginia, in 1783, and thence to Kentucky, may be classed in the same category. A part of these were at first known as the “milk breed,” and others as the “beef breed:” the first short-horns, at that time good milkers, and the latter long-horns, of large size and coarse in the bone. In Kentucky they were all known as the Patton stock.

The high-bred short-horn is easily prepared for a show, and, as fat will cover faults, the temptation is often too great to be resisted; and hence it is common to see the finest animals rendered unfit for breeding purposes by over-feeding. The race is susceptible of breeding for the production of milk, as several families show, and great milkers have often been known among pure-bred animals; but it is more common to find it bred mainly for the butcher, and kept accordingly. It is, however, a well-known fact that the dairies of London are stocked chiefly with short-horns and Yorkshires, or high grades between them, which, after being milked as long as profitable, feed equal, or nearly so, to pure-bred short-horns.

It has been said, by very high authority, that “the short-horns improve every breed they cross with.”

The desirable characteristics of the short-horn bull may be summed up, according to the judgment of the best breeders, as follows: He should have a short but fine head, very broad across the eyes, tapering to the nose, with a nostril full and prominent; the nose itself should be of a rich flesh-color; eyes bright and mild; ears somewhat large and thin; horns slightly curved and rather flat, well set on a long, broad, muscular neck; chest wide, deep, and projecting; shoulders fine, oblique, well formed into the chine; fore legs short, with upper arm large and powerful; barrel round, deep,well ribbed home; hips wide and level; back straight from the withers to the setting on of the tail, but short from hip to chine; skin soft and velvety to the touch; moderately thick hair, plentiful, soft, and mossy. The cow has the same points in the main, but her head is finer, longer, and more tapering, neck thinner and lighter, and shoulders more narrow across the chine.

The astonishing precocity of the short-horns, their remarkable aptitude to fatten, the perfection of their forms, and the fineness of their bony structure, give them an advantage over most other races when the object of breeding is for the shambles. No animal of any other breed can so rapidly transform the stock of any section around him as the improved short-horn bull.

But it does not follow that the high-bred short-horns are unexceptionable even for beef. The very exaggeration, so to speak, of the qualities which make them so valuable for the improvement of other and less perfect races, may become a fault when wanted for the table. The very rapidity with which they increase in size is thought by some to prevent their meat from ripening up sufficiently before being hurried off to the butcher. The disproportion of the fatty to the muscular flesh, found in this to a greater extent than in races coming slower to maturity, makes the meat of the thorough-bred short-horn, in the estimation of some, both less agreeable to the taste and less profitable to the consumer, since the nitrogenous compounds, true sources of nutriment, are found in less quantity than in the meat of animals not so highly bred.

But the improved short-horn is justly unrivalled for symmetry of form and beauty. I have never seen a picture or an engraving of an animal which gave an adequate idea of the beauty of many specimens of this race, especially of the best bred in Kentucky and Ohio,where many excellent breeders, favored by a climate and pastures eminently adapted to bring the short-horn to perfection, have not only imported extensively from the best herds in England, but have themselves attained a degree of knowledge and skill equalled only by that of the most celebrated breeders in the native country of this improved race.

In sections where the climate is moist and the food abundant and rich, some families of the short-horns may be valuable for the dairy; but they are most frequently bred exclusively for beef in this country, and in sections where they have attained the highest perfection of form and beauty so little is thought of their milking qualities that they are often not milked at all, the calf being allowed to run with the dam.

Fig. 7. Imported Dutch Cow.

is a short-horned race of cattle, which, in the opinion of many, as I have already remarked, contributed largely, about a century ago, to build up the Durham or Teeswater stock. It has been bred withspecial reference to dairy qualities, and is eminently adapted to supply the wants of the dairy farmer.

Fig. 8. Imported Dutch Bull.

The cow,Fig. 7, was bred in North Holland, and imported by Winthrop W. Chenery, Esq., of Watertown, in 1857. The bull,Fig. 8, was also imported by Mr. Chenery at the same time, from near the Beemster, in the northerly part of Purmerend. Both animals are truthfully delineated, and give a correct idea of the points of the North Dutch cattle. For a more detailed description of this celebrated dairy race, seepages 51and301.

Fig. 9. Hereford Cow.

—The Hereford cattle derive their name from a county in the western part of England. Their general characteristics are a white face, sometimes mottled; white throat, the white generally extending back on the neck, and sometimes, though rarely, still further along on the back. The color of the rest of the body is red, generally dark, but sometimes light. Eighty years ago the best Hereford cattle were mottled or roan all over; and some of the best herds, down to acomparatively recent period, were either all mottled, or had the mottled or speckled face. The expression of the face is mild and lively; the forehead open, broad, and large; the eyes bright and full of vivacity; the horns glossy, slender, and spreading; the head small, though larger and not quite so clean as that of the Devons; the lower jaw fine; neck long and slender; chest deep; breast-bone large, prominent, and very muscular; the shoulder-blade light; shoulder full and soft; brisket and loins large; hips well developed, and on a level with the chine; hind quarters long and well filled in; buttocks on a level with the back, neither falling off nor raised above the hind quarters; tail slender, well set on; hair fine and soft; body round and full; carcass deep and well formed, or cylindrical; bone small; thigh short and well made; legs short and straight, and slender below the knee; as handlers very excellent, especially mellow to the touch on the back, the shoulder, and along the sides, the skin being soft, flexible, of medium thickness, rolling on the neck and thehips; hair bright; face almost bare, which is characteristic of pure-bred Herefords. They belong to the middle-horned division of the cattle of Great Britain, to which they are indigenous. They have been improved within the last century by careful selections, the first step to this end having been taken by Benjamin Tomkins, of Herefordshire, who began about 1766, with two cows possessing a remarkable tendency to take on fat. One of these was gray, and the other dark red, with a mottled or spotted face.

Taking these as a foundation, Mr. Tomkins went on to build up a large herd, from which he sold to other breeders, from time to time, till at his decease, in 1819, the whole herd was disposed of at auction—fifty-two animals, including twenty-two steers and two heifers, varying in age from calves to two-year-olds, bringing an aggregate of four thousand six hundred and seventy-three pounds, fourteen shillings, or four hundred and forty-five dollars, thirty-seven and a half cents, a head. A bull was sold to Lord Talbot for five hundred and eighty-eight pounds, while several cows brought from a thousand to twelve hundred dollars a head.

Hereford oxen are excellent animals, less active but stronger than the Devons, and very free and docile. The demand for Herefords for beef prevents their being much used for work in their native county, and the farmers there generally use horses instead of oxen. A recent writer in theFarmer’s Magazinemakes the following remarks on this head: “It is allowed on all hands, I believe, that the properties in which Herefords stand preëminent among the middle-sized breeds are in the production of oxen and their superiority of flesh. On these points there is little chance of their being excelled. It should, however, be borne in mind thatthe best oxen are not produced from the largest cows; nor is a superior quality of flesh, such as is considered very soft to the touch, with thin skin. It is the union of these two qualities which often characterizes the short-horns; but the Hereford breeders should endeavor to maintain a higher standard of excellence,—that for which the best of the breed have always been esteemed,—a moderately thick, mellow hide, with a well-apportioned combination of softness with elasticity. A sufficiency of hair is also desirable, and if accompanied with a disposition to curl moderately it is more in esteem: but that which has a harsh and wiry feel is objectionable.”

Fig. 10. Hereford Bull.

In point of symmetry and beauty of form, the well-bred Herefords may be classed with the improved short-horns, though they arrive somewhat slower at maturity, and never attain such weight. Like the improved short-horns, they are chiefly bred for beef, and their beef is of the best quality in the English markets, commanding the highest price of any, except, perhaps, the West Highlanders.

In an experiment carefully tried in 1828, for the purpose of arriving at the comparative economy of the short-horns and Herefords, the latter gained less by nearly one fourth than the former, which had consumed more food. The six animals, three of each breed, were sold after being fed, in Smithfield market, the Herefords bringing less by only about five dollars than the short-horns, while the cost of food consumed by the latter was greater, and the original purchase greater than that of the former.

The short-horn produces more beef at the same age than the Hereford, but consumes more food in proportion. “In all the fairs of England,” says Hillyard, “except those of Herefordshire and the adjoining counties, short-horn heifers are more sought after and sell at higher prices than the Hereford; but it is not so with fat cattle, for, with the exception of Lincolnshire and some of the northern counties, they much prefer the Herefords. Then at Smithfield, where the quality of the beef passes its final judgment, the pound of Hereford beef pays better than the pound of short-horn beef. Short-horn beeves produce at the same age a greater weight, it is true, but they also consume more food. I can easily conceive why, in the magnificent pastures of Lincolnshire, and some of the northern counties of England, they may prefer the short-horns; and that is, that they may keep a less number on a given quantity of land, and only the short-horn could, under these conditions, produce a greater weight of beef per acre. It is very difficult to decide which of the two races in England (the two best in the world) is the most profitable for stock-raisers and for the community.” There are, even in Lincolnshire, many good feeders who prefer the Herefords to the short-horns. One of these, when visited the past season, had thirty head of cattlefeeding for the butcher, and only one short-horn. When asked the reason of this, he replied, “I am a farmer myself, and have to pay high rent, and I must feed the cattle that pay me best. Perhaps you think it would be more in fashion to cover my fields with short-horns; but I must look to the net profit, and I get much better with the Herefords. The short-horns are too full of fat and make too little tallow, and they consequently sell too low in the Smithfield market. Our Herefords are better, and they sell better.”

The Herefords are far less generally spread over England than the improved short-horns. They have seldom been bred for milk, as some families of the short-horns have; and it is not very unusual to find pure-bred cows incapable of supplying milk sufficient to nourish their calves. This system was pursued especially by Mr. Price, a skilful Hereford breeder, who sacrified everything to form, disregarding milking properties, breeding often from near relations, and thus fixing the fault incident to his system more or less permanently in the descendants of his stock.

The Herefords have been brought to this country, to some extent, and several fine herds exist in different sections; the earliest importations being those of Henry Clay, of Kentucky, in 1817. The figures of the two animals of this breed presented in this connection represent a bull and cow bred at the State Farm, in Massachusetts, and are good specimens of the breed.

The want of care and attention to the udder, soon after calving, especially if the cow be on luxuriant grass, often injures her milking properties exceedingly. The practice in the county of Hereford has generally been to let the calves suckle from four to six months, and bull-calves often run eight months with the cow. But their dairy qualities are perhaps as good as thoseof any cattle whose fattening properties have been so carefully developed; and, though it is probable that they could be bred for milk by proper care and attention, yet, as this change would be at the sacrifice of other qualities equally valuable, it would evidently be wiser to resort to other stock for the dairy.

Fig 11. Devon Cow.Owned by William Buckminster Esq., Framingham Mass.

—The last of the pure-bred races which it will be necessary to describe as prominent among our American cattle is the Devon, a middle-horned breed, now very generally distributed in some sections of the country.

This beautiful race of cattle dates further back than any well-established breed among us. It goes generally under the simple name of Devon; but the cattle of the southern part of the county, from which the race derives its name, differ somewhat from those of the northern, having a larger and coarser frame, and far less tendency to fatten, though their dairy qualities are superior.

The North Devons are remarkable for hardihood, symmetry, and beauty, and are generally bred for work and for beef rather than for the dairy. The head is fine and well set on; the horns of medium length, generally curved; color usually bright blood-red, but sometimes inclining to yellow; skin thin and orange-yellow; hair of medium length, soft and silky, making the animals remarkable as handlers; muzzle of the nose white; eyes full and mild; ears yellowish, or orange color inside, of moderate size; neck rather long, with little dewlap; shoulders oblique; legs small and straight, and feet in proportion; chest of good width; ribs round and expanded; loins of first-rate quality, long, wide, and fleshy; hips round, of medium width; rump level; tail full near the setting on, tapering to the tip; thighs of the bull and ox muscular and full, and high in the flank, though in the cow sometimes thought to be too light; the size medium, generally called small. The proportion of meat on the valuable parts is greater, and the offal less, than on most other breeds, while it is well settled that they consume less food in its production. The Devons are popular with the Smithfield butchers, and their beef is well marbled or grained.

As working oxen, the Devons perhaps excel all other races in quickness, docility, and beauty, and the ease with which they are matched. With a reasonable load, they are said to be equal to horses as walkers on the road, and when they are no longer wanted for work they fatten easily and turn well.

As milkers, they do not excel, perhaps they may be said not to equal, the other breeds, and they have a reputation of being decidedly below the average. In their native country the general average of a dairy is one pound of butter per day during the summer.

They are bred for beef and for work, and not for thedairy; and their yield of milk is small, though of a rich quality. I have, however, had occasion to examine several animals from the celebrated Patterson herd, which would have been remarkable as milkers even among good milking stock. They had not, to be sure, the beautiful symmetry of form and fineness of bone which characterize most of the modern and highly improved pure-bred North Devons, and had evidently been bred for many years with special reference to the development of the milking qualities, great care having been taken to use bulls and cows as breeders from the best milking stock, rather than of the finest forms. The use of bulls distinguished only for symmetry of form, and of a race deficient in milk-secreting qualities, will be sure to deteriorate, instead of improving, the stock for the dairy.

Fig. 12. Devon Bull.

On the whole, whatever may be our judgment of this breed, the faults of the North Devon cow can hardly be overlooked from our present point of view. The rotundity of form and compactness of frame, though they contribute to her remarkable beauty, constitute anobjection to her as a dairy cow, since it is generally thought that the peculiarity of form which disposes an animal to take on fat is somewhat incompatible with good milking qualities, and hence Youatt says: “For the dairy the North Devons must be acknowledged to be inferior to several other breeds. The milk is good, and yields more than the average proportion of cream and butter; but it is deficient in quantity.” He also maintains that its property as a milker could not be improved without probable or certain detriment to its grazing qualities.

But the fairest test of its fitness for the dairy is to be found in the estimation in which distinguished Devon breeders themselves have held it in this respect. A scale of points of excellence in this breed was established, some time ago, by the best judges in England; and it has since been adopted, with but slight changes, in this country. These judges, naturally prejudiced in favor of the breed, if prejudiced at all, made this scale to embrace one hundred points, no animal to be regarded as perfect unless it excelled in all of them. Each part of the body was assigned its real value in the scale: a faultless head, for instance, was estimated at four; a deep, round chest, at fifteen, &c. If the animal was defective in any part, the number of points which represented the value of that part in the scale was to be deducted pro rata from the hundred, in determining its merits. But in this scale the cow is so lightly esteemed for the dairy, that the udder, the size and shape of which is of the utmost consequence in determining the capacity of the milch cow, is set down as worth onlyone point, while, in the same scale, the horns and ears are valued at two points each, and the color of the nose, and the expression of the eye, are valued at four points each. Supposing, therefore, thateach of these points were valued at one dollar, and a perfect North Devon cow was valued at one hundred dollars; then another cow of the same blood, and equal to the first in every respect except in her udder, which is such as to make it certain that she can never be capable of giving milk enough to nourish her calf, must be worth, according to the estimation of the best Devon breeders, ninety-nine dollars! It is safe, therefore, to say that an animal whose udder and lacteal glands are regarded, by those who best know her capacities and her merits, as of only one quarter part as much consequence as the color of her nose, or half as much as the shape and size of her horns, cannot be recommended for the dairy. The improved North Devon cow may be classed, in this respect, with the Hereford, neither of which has well-developed milk-vessels—a point of the utmost consequence to the practical dairyman.

The list of pure-bred races in America may be said to end here; for, though other and well-established breeds, like the long-horns, the Galloways, the Spanish, &c., have, at times, been imported, and have had some influence on our American stock, they have not been kept distinct to such an extent as to have become the prevailing stock of any particular section, so far as I am aware, and hence a notice of them properly comes in the next chapter.

We have dwelt thus far mainly upon the prominent breeds of cattle known among us, and especially those adapted to the dairy. But a large proportion—by far the largest proportion, indeed—cannot be included under any of the races alluded to.

The term breed, properly understood, applies only to animals of the same species, possessing, besides the general characteristics of that species, other characteristics peculiar to themselves, which they owe to the influence of soil, climate, nourishment, and habits of life to which they are subjected, and which they transmit with certainty to their progeny. The characteristics of certain breeds or families are so well marked, that if an individual supposed to belong to any one of them were to produce an offspring not possessing them, or possessing them only in part, with others not belonging to the breed, it would be just ground for suspecting a want of purity of blood.

If this definition of the term breed be correct, no grade animals, and no animals not possessing fixed peculiarities or characteristics which they share with all other animals of the class of which they are a type, and which they are capable of transmitting with certainty to their descendants, can be recognized by breeders as belonging to any one distinct race, breed, or family.

The term “native,” or “scrub,” is applied to a vast majority of our American cattle, which, though born on the soil, and thus in one sense natives, do not constitute a breed, race, or family, as properly understood by breeders. They do not possess characteristics peculiar to them all, which they transmit with any certainty to their offspring, either of form, size, color, milking or working properties. But, though an animal may be made up of a mixture of blood almost to infinity, it does not follow that for specific purposes, it may not, as an individual animal, be one of the best of the species. And for particular purposes individual animals might be selected from among those commonly called natives in New England, and scrubs at the West and South, equal, and perhaps superior, to any among the races produced by the most skilful breeding. There can be no impropriety in the use of the term “native,” therefore, when it is understood as descriptive of no known breed, but only as applied to the common stock of the country, which does not constitute a breed. But perhaps the whole class of animals commonly called “natives” would be better described as grades, since they are well known to have sprung from a great variety of cattle procured in different places and at different times on the continent of Europe, in England, and in the Spanish West Indies, brought together without any regard to fixed principles of breeding, but only from individual convenience, and by accident.

The first importations to this country were doubtless those taken to Virginia previous to 1609, though the exact date of their arrival is not known. Several cows were carried there from the West Indies in 1610, and the next year no less than one hundred arrived there from abroad.

The earliest cattle imported into the Plymouth colony,and undoubtedly the earliest introduced into New England, arrived in 1624. At the division of cattle which took place in 1627, three years after, one or two are distinctly described as black, or black and white, others as brindle, showing that there was no uniformity of color. Soon after this, a large number of cattle were brought over from England for the settlers at Salem. These importations formed the original stock of Massachusetts.

In 1625 the first importation was made into New York from Holland, by the Dutch West India Company, and the foundation was then laid for an exceedingly valuable race of animals, which subsequent importations from the same country, as well as from England, have greatly improved.

Dairy farming in some parts of Holland, it may be remarked in passing, became a highly important branch of industry at a very early date, and a large and valuable race of dairy cattle existed there long before the efforts of modern breeders began in England. The attention of farmers there is at the present time devoted especially to the dairy, and the manufacture of butter and cheese. They support themselves, to a considerable extent, upon this branch of farming; and hence it is held in the highest respect, and carried to a greater degree of exactness and perfection, perhaps, than in any other part of the world. They are especially particular in the breeding, keeping, and care of milch cows, as on them very much of their success depends. The principles on which they practise, in selecting a cow to breed from, are as follows: She should have, they say, considerable size—not less than four and a half or five feet girth, with a length of body corresponding; legs proportionally short; a finely-formed head, with a forehead or face somewhat concave; clear,large, mild, and sparkling eyes, yet with no expression of wildness; tolerably large and stout ears, standing out from the head; fine, well-curved horns; a rather short than long, thick, broad neck, well set against the chest and withers; the front part of the breast and the shoulders must be broad and fleshy; the low-hanging dewlap must be soft to the touch; the back and loins must be properly projected, somewhat broad, the bones not too sharp, but well covered with flesh; the animal should have long, curved ribs, which form a broad breast-bone; the body must be round and deep, but not sunken into a hanging belly; the rump must not be uneven, the hip-bones should not stand out too broad and spreading, but all the parts should be level and well filled up; a fine tail, set moderately high up and tolerably long, but slender, with a thick, bushy tuft of hair at the end, hanging down below the hocks; the legs must be short and low, but strong in the bony structure; the knees broad, with flexible joints; the muscles and sinews must be firm and sound, the hoofs broad and flat, and the position of the legs natural, not too close and crowded; the hide, covered with fine glossy hair, must be soft and mellow to the touch, and set loose upon the body. A large, rather long, white and loose udder, extending well back, with four long teats, serves also as a characteristic mark of a good milch cow. Large and prominent milk-veins must extend from the navel back to the udder; the belly of a good milch cow should not be too deep and hanging. The color of the North Dutch cattle is mostly variegated. Cows with only one color are no favorites. Red or black variegated, gray and blue variegated, roan, spotted and white variegated cows, are especially liked.

The annexedcutgives a correct idea of the cow most esteemed in Holland; the type of the race so noted forthe production of milk, and of the excellent round Dutch cheeses.

Fig. 13. Dutch Dairy Cow.

In 1627, cattle were brought from Sweden to the settlements on the Delaware by the Swedish West India Company. In 1631, 1632, and 1633, several importations were made into New Hampshire by Capt. John Mason, who, with Gorges, procured the patent of large tracts of land in the vicinity of Piscataqua River, and immediately formed settlements there. The object of Mason was to carry on the manufacture of potash. For this purpose he employed the Danes; and it was in his voyages to and from Denmark that he procured many Danish cattle and horses, which were subsequently diffused over that whole region, and large numbers of which were driven to the vicinity of Boston and sold. These facts are authenticated by original documents and depositions now on file in the office of the Secretary of State of New Hampshire. The Danish cattle are there described as large and coarse, of a yellow color; and it is supposed that they were procured byMason as being best capable of enduring the severity of the climate and the hardships to which they were to be subjected. However this may have been, they very soon spread among the colonists of the Massachusetts Bay, and have undoubtedly left their marks on the stock of New England and the Middle States, which exist to some extent even to the present day, mixed in with an infinite multitude of crosses with the Devons, the Dutch cattle already alluded to, the black cattle of Spain and Wales, and the long-horn and the short-horn, most of which crosses were accidental, or due to local circumstances or individual convenience. Many of these cattle, the descendants of such crosses, are of a very high order of merit, but to what particular cross it is due it is impossible to say. They make generally hardy, strong, and docile oxen, easily broken to the yoke and quick to work, with a fair tendency to fatten when well fed; while the cows, though often ill-shaped, are sometimes remarkably good milkers, especially as regards the quantity they give.

I have very often heard the best judges of stock say that if they desired to select a dairy of cows for milk for sale, they would go around and select cows commonly called native, rather than resort to pure-bred animals of any of the established breeds, and that they believed they should find such a dairy the most profitable.

In color, the natives, made up as already indicated, are exceedingly various. The old Denmarks, which to a considerable extent laid the foundation of the stock of Maine and New Hampshire, were light yellow. The Dutch of New York and the Middle States were black and white; the Spanish and Welsh were generally black; the Devons, which are supposed to have laid the foundation of the stock of some of the states, were red. Crosses of the Denmark with the Spanish and Welshnaturally made a dark brindle. Crosses of the Denmark and Devon often made a lighter or yellowish brindle, while the more recent importations of Jerseys and short-horns have generally produced a beautiful spotted progeny. The deep red has long been a favorite color in New England; but the prejudice in its favor is fast giving way to more variegated colors.

But, though we have already an exceedingly valuable foundation for improvement, no one will pretend to deny that our cattle, as a whole, are susceptible of it in many respects. They possess neither the size, the symmetry, nor the early maturity, of the short-horns; they do not, as a general thing, possess the fineness of bone, the beauty of form and color, nor the activity, of the Devons or the Herefords; they do not possess that uniform richness of milk, united with generous quantity, of the Ayrshires, nor the surpassing richness of milk of the Jerseys; but, above all, they do not possess the power of transmitting the many good qualities which they often have to their offspring, which is a characteristic of all well-established breeds.

Equally certain is it, in the opinion of many good judges, that the dairy stock of New England has not been improved in its intrinsic good qualities during the last thirty or forty years. Cows of the very highest order as milkers were as frequently met with, they say, in 1825, as at the present time. Any increased product of our dairies they ascribe to improved care and feeding, rather than to improvement in the dairy qualities of the stock.

This may not be true of some other sections of the country, where the dairy has been a more special object of pursuit, and where the custom of raising the best male calves of the neighborhood, or those that came from the best dairy cows, and then of using onlythe best-formed bulls, has long prevailed. In this way some progress has, doubtless, been made.

There is an old adage among the dairy farmers of Ayrshire, that “The cow gives her milk by the mou’,” which was slightly varied from an old German proverb, that “The cow milks only through the throat.” It is fortunate, indeed, that wiser and more humane ideas prevail with regard to the care of stock of all kinds; for it is well known that the treatment the stock of the country received for the first two centuries after its settlement was often barbarous and cruel in the extreme, and that thousands perished, in the early history of the colonies, from exposure and starvation. Even within my own distinct recollection, it was thought, for miles around my native place, that cows and young stock should remain out of doors exposed to the cold winter days, to “toughen;” and that, too, by men who styled themselves “practical” farmers.

Mr. Henry Colman truly asserted, in 1841, that the general treatment of cows in New England would not be an inapt subject of presentment by a grand jury. There were, at that time, it is true, many honorable exceptions; but the assertion was strictly correct so far as it applied to the section of which I then had a personal knowledge. Judging from the anxiety manifested by those who enter superior milch cows for the premiums offered by agricultural societies to show that they have had nothing, or next to nothing, to eat, it is evident that the false ideas with regard to the feeding and treatment of this animal have not yet wholly disappeared. But, if little improvement has been made in our dairy stock except that produced by more liberal feeding, it simply shows that our efforts have not been made in the right direction.

The raising of cattle has now become a source ofprofit in many sections to a greater extent, at least, than formerly, and it becomes a matter of great practical importance to our farmers to take the proper steps to improve them. Indeed, the questions, what is the best breed, and what are the best crosses, and how shall I improve my stock, are now almost daily asked; and their practical solution would add many thousand dollars to the aggregate wealth of the farmers of the country, if they would all study their own interests. The time is gradually passing away when the intelligent practical farmer will be willing to put his cows to any mere “runt” of a bull, simply because his service may be had for twenty-five cents; for, even if the progeny is to go to the butcher, the calf sired by a pure-bred bull, particularly of a race distinguished for fineness of bone, symmetry of form, and early maturity, will bring a much higher price at the same age than the calf sired by a scrub. Blood has a money value, which will, sooner or later, be generally appreciated. The first and most important object of the farmer is to get the greatest money-return for his labor and his produce; and it is for his interest to obtain an animal—a calf, for instance—that will yield the largest profit on the outlay. If a calf, for which the original outlay was five dollars, will bring at the same age, and on the same keep, more real net profit than another, the original outlay for which was but twenty-five cents, it is certainly for the farmer’s interest to pay the larger original outlay, and have the superior animal. Setting all fancy aside, it is merely a question of dollars and cents; but one thing is certain, and that is, that the farmer cannot afford to keep poor stock. It eats as much, and requires nearly the same amount of care and attention, as stock of the best quality; while it is equally certain that stock of ever so good a quality, whether grade, “native,” orthorough-bred, will be sure to deteriorate and sink to the level of poor stock, by neglect and want of proper attention.

How, then, are we to improve our stock? Not, surely, by that indiscriminate crossing, with a total disregard to all well-established principles, which has thus far marked our efforts generally with foreign stock, and which is one prominent reason why so little improvement has been made in our dairies; nor by leaving all the results to chance, when, by a careful and judicious selection, they may be within our own control. Two modes of improvement seem to suggest themselves to the mind of the breeder, either of which, apparently, promises good results. The first is, to select from among our native cattle the most perfect animals not known or suspected to be related to any of the well-established breeds, and to use them as breeders. This is a mode of improvement simple enough, if adopted and carried on with animals of any known breed; and, indeed, it is the only mode of improvement which preserves the purity of blood; but, to do it successfully, requires great experience, a good and sure eye for stock, a mind free from prejudice, and indefatigable patience and perseverance. It is absolutely necessary, also, to pay special attention to the calves thus produced; to furnish them at all times, summer and winter, with an abundant supply of nutritious food, and to regulate it according to their growth. Few men are to be found willing to undertake the herculean task of building up a new breed in this way from grade stock. An objection meets us at the very outset, which is that it would require a long series of years to arrive at any satisfactory results, from the fact that no two animals, made up, as our “native” cattle are, of such a variety of elements and crosses, could be found sufficiently alike to produce their kind. Theprinciple that like produces like may be perfectly true, and in the well-known breeds it is not difficult to find two animals that will be sure to transmit their own characteristics to their offspring; but, with two animals which cannot be classed with any breed, the defects of an ill-bred ancestry will be liable to appear through several generations, and thus thwart and disappoint the expectations of the breeder. The objection of time, and expense, and disappointment, attending this method, should have no weight, if there were no more speedy method of accomplishing equally desirable results.

The second mode is somewhat more feasible; and that is, to select animals from races already improved and well-nigh perfected, to cross with our cattle, using none but good specimens of pure-bred males, and selecting, if our object is to improve stock for the dairy, only such as belong to a race distinguished for dairy qualities; or, if resort is had to other breeds less remarkable for such qualities, such only as are descended from large and generous milkers. And here it may be remarked that these qualities do not belong to any one breed exclusively, though, as they depend mainly on structure and temperament, which are hereditary to a considerable extent, they are themselves transmissible. In almost every breed we can find individual good milkers which greatly surpass the average of the cows of the same race or family, and from such many suppose that good crosses may be expected. How often do we see farmers raising the calves of their best milking-cows simply because they are the best cows, without regard to the qualities of the bull, or to the progenitors of either parent; and how often are they disappointed, at the end of three or four years of labor and expense! Now, though a cow of a bad milking family, or of a breed not at all distinguished for dairy qualities, may turn out tobe an excellent milker, and all else that may be desirable in a cow, yet these qualities in her are accidental. They are not supposed to be transmissible with anything like the certainty which exists where they are the fixed and constant characteristics of the family. She is an exception to the rule of her race. A good calf from her, though not, of course, an impossibility, would be very much the result of chance. The resort to any but a distinguished breed of milkers cannot, therefore, be recommended, nor can we expect to improve our dairies by it. A disregard of this important matter has led to endless disappointment, and has done much to raise up unjust prejudices against the use of all improved stock on our native cows. As if we could expect nature to go out of her regular course to give us a good animal, when we have violated her laws!

The offspring of these crosses will be grades; but grades are often better for the practical purposes of the farmer than pure-bred animals. The skill of the breeder is especially manifest in the selection of animals to breed from, since both parents undoubtedly have a great influence in transmitting the milking qualities of the race. But this method of improvement requires less exact and critical knowledge than the first, from the fact that it is easier to appreciate the good points of an animal already perfected, or greatly improved, than to discover them in animals which it is our desire to improve, and which are inferior in form, possessing only the elements of a better stock. It has also an immense advantage, since results may be far more rapidly attained, and improvements effected which, by the first method,—that of creating or building up a race from the so-called natives, by judicious selections,—would be looked for in vain in the ordinary life of man. All grades are produced by this second method; but all grades are notequally good, nor equally well adapted to meet the farmer’s wants. It is desirable to know, then, what, on the whole, are the best and most profitable to the practical farmer.

We want cattle for distinct purposes, as for milk, beef, or labor. In a large majority of cases,—especially in the dairy districts, comprising the Middle and Eastern States, at least,—the farmer cares more for the milking qualities of his cows, especially for the quantity they give, than for their fitness for grazing, or aptness to fatten. These latter points become more important in the Western and some of the Southern States, where far greater attention is paid to breeding and to feeding, and where comparatively little attention is given to the productions of the dairy. A stock of cattle that might suit one farmer might be wholly unsuited to another; and in each particular case the breeder should have some special object in view, and select his animals with reference to it. But there are some general principles that apply to breeding everywhere, and which, in many cases, are not well understood.

It would not be desirable, even if it were possible, by crossing, to breed out all the general characteristics of many of our native cattle. They have many valuable qualities adapted to our climate and soil, and to the geological structure of the country; and these should be preserved, while we improve the points in which many of them are deficient, such as a want of precocity and aptitude to fatten, where it is an object to attain this quality, coarseness of bone, and lack of symmetry, which is often apparent, especially when the form of the animal does not indicate a near relation to some of the established breeds.

It’s a well-known fact that, in crossing, the producemost frequently takes after the male parent, especially, it is thought, in exterior form, in its organs of locomotion, such as the bones, the muscles, &c. Particularly is this the case when the male belongs to an old and well-established breed, and the female belongs to no known breed, and has no strongly-marked and fixed points. Put a Galloway bull, for instance, to a native cow, and the calf will, as a general rule, be hornless. Put a ram without horns to ewes with horns, and most of the lambs will be destitute of horns; that is, they take the characteristics of the father rather than the dam; and this rule holds good generally in breeding, though, like all other rules, it has, of course, its exceptions. Hence, if this position be correct, the first principle which the good sense of the farmer would dictate would be to select a bull from a breed most noted for the qualities he wishes to obtain in their greatest perfection, and especially if the cow is deficient in those qualities. A bull, for instance, of fine bone, and other good points in perfection, will make up for the deficiency of some of these points in the cow.

On the other hand, say the advocates of this doctrine, in the physiology of breeding the internal structure of the offspring, the organs of secretion, the mucous membranes, the respiratory organs, &c., are imparted chiefly by the dam. Hence it has sometimes been found that by taking a cow remarkable for milking properties, though deficient in many other points, as in the coarseness of bone and in early maturity, and putting to her a bull remarkable for symmetry of form and fineness of bone, the offspring has been superior to the cow in beauty of form and proportions, and has still retained the milking qualities of the dam. This principle, as already intimated, is questioned by some, whosay that the milking qualities, as well as the external form, &c., are transmitted through the male offspring.

Mr. James Dickson, an experienced breeder and drover, who views the subject from his own standpoint, says: “A great part of the art of breeding lies in the principle ofjudicious crossing; for it is only by attending properly to this that success is to be attained, and animals produced that shall yield the greatest amount of profit for the food they consume. All eminent breeders know full well that ill-bred animals are unprofitable both to the breeder and feeder. To carry out the system of crossing judiciously, certain breeds of cattle, sheep, pigs, &c., must be kept pure of their kind—males especially; indeed, as a general rule, no animal possessing spurious blood, or admixture with other breeds, should be used. The produce in almost all cases assimilates to the male parent; and I should say that in crossing the use of any males not pure-bred isinjudicious, and ought to be avoided.”

If, therefore, a cross is effected with satisfactory results, it should be continued by resorting to pure-bred bulls, and not by the use of any grade bulls thus obtained; for, though a grade bull may be a very fine animal, it has been found that he does not transmit his good qualities with anything like the certainty of a pure-bred one. The more desirable qualities are united in the bull, the better; but the special reason for the use of a pure-bred male in crossing is not so much that the particular individual selected has these qualities most perfectly developed in himself; as that they arehereditary in the breedto which he belongs. The moment the line is crossed, and the pedigree broken, uncertainty commences. Although the form of the grade bull may, in individual cases, be even superior to that of his pure-bred sire, yet there is less likelihood of histransmitting the qualities for which his breed is most noted; and when it is considered that during his life he may scatter his progeny over a considerable section of country, and thus affect the cattle of his whole neighborhood, attention to this becomes a matter of no small public importance.

This principle, so far as its application to breeding for the shambles is concerned, seems to me to be sound, and fully established by long experience and practice. Perhaps it is equally so, also, in breeding for the dairy. But it may be well to consider whether there are not other rational modes of judgment in the selection of animals for breeding with this specific object in view.

There is a difference of opinion with regard to the practical value of the system of classification and judgment of milch cows discovered and developed by Guénon: some being inclined to ridicule it, as absurd; others to adopt it implicitly, and follow it out in all its details; and others still—and among this class I generally find a very large number of the most sensible practical judges of stock—to admit that in the main it is correct, though they discredit the practicability of carrying it so far, and so minutely into detail, as its author did.

It may be remarked, at the outset, that the fact that the best of the signs of a great and good milker adopted by Guénon are generally found united with the best forms and marks almost universally admitted and practised upon by good judges, gives, at least, some plausibility to the system, while the importance of it, if it be correct, is sufficient to demand a careful examination. Every good judge of a milch cow, for instance, wants to see in her a small, fine head, with short and yellowish horns; a soft, delicate, and close coat of hair;a skin soft and flexible over the rump; broad, well-spread ribs, covered with a loose skin of medium thickness; a broad chest; a long, slender tail; straight hind legs; a large, regularly-formed udder, covered with short, close, silky hair; four teats of equal size and length, set wide apart; large, projecting lacteal veins, which run along under the belly from the udder towards the fore legs, forming a fork at the end, and finally losing themselves in a round cavity; and when these points, or any considerable number of them, are found united in a cow, she would be pronounced a good milker. An animal in which these signs are found would rarely fail of having a good “milk-mirror,” orescutcheon; on which Guénon, after many years of careful observation and experiment, came to lay particular stress; and on the basis of which he built up a system or theory so complicated as to be of little practical value compared with what it might have been had he seen fit to simplify it so as to bring it within the easy comprehension of the farmer. As one means of forming a judgment of the milking qualities, however, it must be regarded as very important, since it is unquestionably sustained by facts in a very large majority of cases.

The milk-mirror, or escutcheon, is formed by the hair above the udder, extending upwards between the thighs, growing in an opposite direction from that of other parts of the body. In well-formed mirrors, found only in cows which have the arteries which supply the milky glands large and fully developed, it ordinarily begins between the four teats in the middle, and ascends to the vulva, and sometimes even higher, the hair growing upwards. The direction of the hair is subordinate to that of the arteries; for the relation existing between the direction of the hair above the udder and theactivity of the milky glands is apparent on a careful examination of all the cases. When the lower part of the mirror is large and broad, with the hair growing from below upwards, and extending well out on the thighs, it indicates that the arteries which supply the milky glands, and which are situated just behind it, are large and capable of conveying much blood, and of giving great activity to the functions of secretion.

Now, in the bull, the arteries which correspond to the mammary or lacteal arteries of the cow are not so fully developed; and the escutcheons are smaller, shorter, and narrower. Guénon applied the same name, milk-mirror, to these marks in the bull; and the natural inference was, that there should exist a correspondence or similarity in the mirror of the bull and the cow which are coupled for the purpose of producing an offspring fit for the dairy,—that the mirror in the bull should be of the same class, or of a better class than that of the cow.

It is confidently asserted by the advocates of Guénon’s method, and with much show of reason, that the very large proportion of cows of bad or indifferent milking qualities, compared with the good, is owing to the mistakes in selecting bulls without reference to the proper marks or points. As to the transmission of the milk-mirror, it has been found in many cases that bulls sprung from cows with good mirrors had smaller and more heart-shaped mirrors, spreading out pretty broad upon the thighs. Pabst, a successful German breeder, says that he has used such bulls for three years, and that the milk-mirrors were transmitted in the majority of the male progeny, and in nearly every case very large and beautiful mirrors were given to the heifer-calves. A son of the bull with which he began was serving at the time of which he speaks, having a mirror more highly developed than his sire, and thefirst calves of his get had also very large milk-mirrors. The female offspring of the first bull of good milk-mirror promised first rate, though they had not then come in. His inference is, that in breeding from cows noted as milkers regard should be had to the form of the mirror on the bull, and the chance of his transmitting it. If any credit is due to this ingenious method, it may be laid down, as a principle in the selection of a bull to get dairy stock, that the one possessing the largest and best-developed milk-mirror is the best for the purpose, and will be most likely to get milkers of large quantity and continued flow. This method will be more fully developed in the chapter on theSelection of Milch Cows.

But, however careful we may be to select good milkers, and to breed from them with the hope of improvement, it is by no means easy to select such as are capable of transmitting their qualities to their offspring. This is rendered still more difficult by the fact that there is no known mark to indicate it, and we are left to use our own judgment; for, in the case of bulls, we are often obliged to give them up before their progeny have arrived at an age to show their qualities by actual trial. We are thrown back, therefore, upon their external marks. But, as M. Magne, a very sensible French writer, justly observes in his admirable little work (Choix des Vaches Latières, p. 86, Paris, 1857), the fixed characteristics which have existed in races for several generations will be transmitted with most certainty. Hence the importance, he says, of selecting milch cows from good breeds and good families, and especially, in breeding stock, of selecting carefully both male and female. The male designed to get dairy stock ought to possess the structure which, in the cow, indicates the greatest activity of the mammary glands, asfineness of form, mellowness of skin, large hind quarters, large and well-developed veins and escutcheon.

A cow of a race or family not noted as milkers may chance to be an excellent milker, and this is enough, if we do not desire to breed from her; but she would not transmit her exceptional qualities like a cow of which these qualities were the fixed characteristics, constant and transmissible in the breed. These considerations apply also, as already said, in the choice of a bull. The attention of practical men has been so much directed to the best points of good cows, of late years, that it becomes necessary to study to propagate these, if the breeder desires to find buyers for his stock. The buyer judges more from external signs than from the intrinsic qualities of the cow, with which he may not be acquainted.

To explain the variations in the transmission of milking qualities, we should bear in mind that these qualities are not found in wild cows, and that they are developed only when man can, by a particular course of treatment, as by the act of milking, the separation of the sexes, etc., cause certain natural powers to act with greater strength than others; that they incline to disappear as soon as these powers, the nature of the soil, the peculiarities of climate, the properties of plants, and the temperament of the cows, are permitted to act according to the original plan of creation; so that the variations which we consider as sports of nature are incontestible proofs of the uniformity of her works.

It is only by observing animals carefully, by noting accurately their good qualities and their faults, by watching the circumstances in which individuals are produced, raised, and kept, that we can account for what seems to us a sport or caprice of nature. We can then tell, first, how the same bull and cow have producedthree calves with different properties; and, secondly, trace out the rules which we are to follow, to be almost uniformly successful in obtaining stock of the best quality.

Experience shows that the qualities which are transmitted with most certainty depend on the most important organs of life; and so, in the forms of the viscera and the skeleton, variations are rare, not only in breeds of the same species, but in different species of the same genera.

Moreover, in cases where the transmission of properties is so uncertain as to seem the result of caprice in nature, these properties are formed by superficial organs,—by the skin, the horns, the state of the hair, etc.

But it is in qualities which are, in a measure, artificial, qualities produced by domestication, and often more injurious than useful to the health of animals, that variations most commonly occur. These change not only with the breed of one species, but with the different individuals of the same breed, of the same half-breed, and often of the same family.

Bearing these elementary principles of natural history and physiology in mind, we shall comprehend how cows and bulls well marked in regard to escutcheons have produced stock which did not resemble them. M. Lefebvre Sainte Marie asserts that the influence of the escutcheons is very feeble in the act of reproduction.

In this view, the escutcheon is almost nothing in itself. It depends on the state of the hair, on one of the most fleeting of peculiarities, on that which is least hereditary in animals. It has no value as a mark of good getters of stock, unless it is supported by marks superior to it from their stability,—a larger skeleton, double loins, a wide rump, highly-developed blood-vessels,—unlessit is united with a spacious chest, round ribs, large lungs, and a strong constitution.

The more complete the correspondence between these marks, the more the milking quality is connected with the general condition of the animal, the greater the chances of transmission; and when, with a view to breeding, we shall choose only animals having the two-fold character of general vigor of constitution and activity of the mammary system, and place the progeny under favorable circumstances, the qualities will rarely prove defective. Thus far the conclusions of Magne.

Another well-known fact in natural history is, that the size of animals depends very much upon the fertility of the region they inhabit. Where food is abundant and nutritious, they increase in size in proportion to the quantity and quality; and this size, under the same circumstances, will run through generations, unless interrupted by artificial means. So, if the food is more difficult to obtain, and the pastures are short, the pliancy of the animal organization is such that it naturally becomes adapted to it, and the animal is of smaller size; and hence Mr. Cline observes that “the general mistake in crossing has arisen from an attempt to increase the size of a native race of animals, being a fruitless effort to counteract the laws of nature.” Mr. Cline also says, in his treatise “On the Form of Animals:” “Experience has proved that crossing has only succeeded in an eminent degree in those instances in which the females were larger than the usual proportion of females to males; and that it has generally failed when the males were disproportionally large. When the male is much larger than the female, the offspring is generally of an imperfect form; if the female be proportionally larger than the male, the offspring is generally of an improved form. For instance, if awell-formed large ram be put to ewes proportionally smaller, the lambs will not be so well shaped as their parents; but, if a small ram be put to larger ewes, the lambs will be of an improved form.” “The improvement depends on the principle that the power of the female to supply her offspring with nourishment is in proportion to her size, and to the power of nourishing herself from the excellence of her constitution; as larger animals eat more, the larger female may afford most nourishment to her young.”

This should, I am inclined to think, be regarded as another principle of breeding,—that, when improvement in form is desired, the size of the female selected should be proportionally larger than the male; though Lord Spencer, a successful breeder, strongly contested it, and Mr. Dickson, an excellent judge of stock, advised the attempt to build up a new breed by selecting some Zetland cows, a very diminutive breed of Scotch cattle, of good symmetry, points, and handling, and a high-bred West Highland bull to put to them. “The produce would probably be,” says he, “a neat, handsome little animal, of a medium size, between the two breeds. The shaggy hide, long horns, symmetry, and fine points, of the West Highlanders, would be imparted to this cross, which would not only be a good feeder and very hardy, but the beef of superior quality. The great point would, of course, be the proper selection of breeding animals. The next step towards improving this would be the crossing of these crosses with a pure Hereford bull, which would improve the size, and impart still finer points, more substance, with greater aptitude to fatten. By combining those favorite breeds, the produce would, in all probability, be very superior, not only attaining to good weights, but feeding well, and arriving at maturity at an early age. The breeder must not besatisfied and rest here, but go a point further, and cross the heifers of the third cross with a short-horn bull.” These successive steps imply the use of a bull of larger breed, though not necessarily, perhaps, proportionally larger than the cow, in any individual case.

This, it will be perceived, is a case of breeding with less reference to the milking or dairy qualities than the grazing. Great milkers are found of all shapes, and the chief object of improving their form is to improve their feeding qualities, or, in other words, to unite, as far as possible, the somewhat incompatible properties of grazing and milking. Graceful, well-rounded, and compact forms, which constitute beauty in the eyes of the grazier, as well as in the estimation of those not accustomed to consider the intrinsic qualities of an animal, or not capable of appreciating them in a milch cow, will very rarely be found united, to any considerable extent, with active mammary glands or milk vessels. The best milkers often look coarse and flabby; for, even if their bony structure is good and symmetrical, they will appear, especially when in milk, to have large, raw bones and sharp points, particularly if they are largely developed in the hind quarters, which is most frequently the case, as is strikingly seen in the form of theOakes cow, a native animal, the most celebrated of her time, in Massachusetts, and winner of the first premium at the State Fair of 1816.

She yielded in that year no less than four hundred and sixty-seven and a quarter pounds of butter from May 15th to December 20th, at which time she was giving over eight quarts of milk, beer measure, a day. The weight of her milk in the height of the season, in June, was but forty-four and a half pounds; not so great as that of some cows of the present day, on far less feed in proportion to their size. Many cows canbe named in New England, at the present time, whose yield, under the most favorable circumstances, exceeds fifty pounds a day, and some, whose yield will be fifty-five pounds, on less feed than the Oakes cow had.

Back to Index Next