The following, from the proceedings of the academy, shows that Guenon
did not make his system common property. The minutes of the academy,
under date of June 3, 1828, contains the following record: “Mr. Francis
Guenon, of Libourne, possessor of a method which he deems infallible for
judging, by mere visual examination, of the goodness of milch cows, and
the quantity of milk which each can yield, has solicited the Academy
to cause the efficaciousness of this method to be tested by repeated
experiments. The case presented by this request was one of a secret
method of judging, which the possessor was not willing to reveal. On the
other hand, it seemed difficult to admit that the external sign, whatever
it might be, by which Mr. Guenon judges, could always bear a proportional
relation to the quantity of milk yielded by a cow. Nevertheless, the
academy deemed it proper to appoint a committee charged with making the
examination. Trials have been made with care, and under precautions
necessary for precluding all collusion. The cows used for the purpose
belonged to three different herds, and amounted to thirty in number, and
the result has been to establish, to the satisfaction of the committee,
that Mr. Guenon really possesses great sagacity in this line. So long,
however, as his method shall be kept secret, it cannot be judged of, nor
rewarded by, the academy. Governed by these considerations, the academy,
having ascertained from Mr. Guenon that he is willing to submit to every
test that may be proposed, and to disclose his secret, upon receiving
a just indemnity, has referred him to the prefect, and has engaged to
recommend him to the favorable notice of that magistrate, who is ever
disposed to promote all that tends to improve it.”
From 1822 to 1827, it would seem that Guenon perfected and studied his
system, but it does not seem to have come promptly before the public,
until the agricultural society of Bordeaux took upon itself a careful
investigation of the whole system. From the detailed report of this
committee, appointed by this society to test the knowledge of Guenon, we
take the following as illustrating, not only the results reached by them,
but also the manner of conducting the examination:
“Every cow subjected to examination was separated from the
rest. What Mr. Guenon had to say in regard to her was taken
down in writing by one of the committee; and immediately after,
the proprietor, who had kept at a distance, was interrogated,
and such questions put to him as would tend to confirm or
disprove the judgment pronounced by Mr. Guenon. In this way we
have examined, in a most careful manner—note being taken of
every fact and every observation made by any one present—upward
of sixty cows and heifers, and we are bound to declare that
every statement made by Mr. Guenon, with respect to each of
them, whether it regarded the quantity of milk, or the time
during which the cow continued to give milk after being got
with calf, or finally, the quality of the milk as being more
or less creamy or serous, were confirmed, and its accuracy
established. The only discrepancies which occurred, were
some slight differences in regard to the _quantity_ of milk,
but these we afterward fully satisfied ourselves were caused
entirely by the food of the animal being more or less abundant.
“The result of this first test seems conclusive, but they
acquire new force from those of a second trial in which the
method was subjected to another test through M. Guenon and his
brother. Your committee, availing themselves of the presence
of the latter, caused the same cows to be examined by the
two brothers, but separately, so that after a cow had been
inspected, and her qualities as indicated by the signs in
question had been pronounced upon by one of the brothers, he
was made to withdraw; then the other brother, who had been
kept aloof, was called up, and desired to state the qualities
of the same animal. This mode of proceeding could not fail
to give rise to difference, to contradiction even, between
the judgments of the two brothers, unless their method was a
positive and sure one. Well, gentlemen, we must say it, this
last test was absolutely decisive. Not only did the judgment
of the two brothers accord perfectly together, but they were
in perfect accordance also with all that was said by the
proprietors in regard to the qualities, good or bad, of every
animal subject to this examination.”
On the 26th of May, 1837, a similar test was made by the agricultural
society of Aurillac, whose committee, in their report, use the following
language:
“Each cow was examined separately by M. Guenon, who wrote his
notes upon her, and delivered the paper closed to one of us.
Immediately after, another member of the committee questioned
the owner of the cow, or the person in charge of her, in regard
to her daily yield of milk, its quality, and the time during
which she continued to give milk after being got with calf.
The answers were taken down in writing, and then compared with
the notes written by M. Guenon. They were generally found to
accord, and proved to the satisfaction of your committee and of
every one present, all of whom attended with lively interest
to these proceedings, that M. Guenon possesses great sagacity
in judging of cattle, and that his method rests upon a sure
foundation.”
The Bordeaux committee added: “To the proprietors and to the lookers-on,
all this was very surprising for the examinations were as quickly made
as the results were certain. As to ourselves to whom the method was no
longer a secret, it was with renewed interest and astonishment that we
viewed the accuracy of the results. _This system we do not fear to say is
infallible._ We only regretted the whole society was not present.”
The committee further reported that Mr. Guenon had, after more than
twenty years observations and researches, discovered certain natural and
positive signs that were proof against all error, while the writers and
professors who have particularly occupied themselves with the bovine
race, can only indicate some vague signs for judging of the fitness of
cows for secreting milk. That this method is valuable, whether it tells
the yield of milk only, or indicates the improvement of breeds, which
are liable to deterioration from mismanagement in crossing, and that it
is applicable not to full-grown animals alone, but also to calves at as
early an age as three months. Thus it affords a sure means of forming a
judgment of full-grown animals, about which we might be misled on account
of their form and their parentage, and secures the improvement of herds
by enabling us to dispose of those calves which will not repay the cost
of rearing them. We shall thus no longer rear calves at great expense
for two or three years that should have been consigned to the butcher,
nor sell calves that would pay best to rear. If this system is pursued,
only cows and bulls of best quality will be kept, and in very few years
how great will be the improvement of our herds, and largely increased the
cheapest and best of all foods, milk, and the production of butter and
cheese.
The committee of the Agricultural Society of Bordeaux, therefore, decreed
Mr. Guenon a gold medal, made him a member of the society, ordered fifty
copies of his work, and distributed one thousand copies of their full
report among all the agricultural societies of France.
The next public test Mr. Guenon submitted his system to, was that by the
Agricultural Society of Aurillac, and that society reported that Mr.
Guenon examined the herd of their president, of one hundred cows, from
which were selected designedly, the best, the moderately good, and the
most indifferent of the establishment. Upon each, Mr. Guenon pronounced
with precision, and his decisions corresponded almost invariably with the
statements of the persons in charge. The only variations were very slight
ones, in regard to the quantity given. But this herd was fed unusually
high, and Guenon was totally unaccustomed to the usages of the country in
feeding cattle, and this caused him to pronounce the yield a little less
than it really was. A proof of his system, for he declares the yield will
vary according to the feed and management, which all observant farmers
know to be the case. Mr. Guenon examined some of the cows a second time,
and also the calves, and those calves he assigned to the first orders the
cowherds said were from their best cows, that gave a great deal of milk.
The notes of his reëxaminations corresponded exactly with his first
statements. The committee therefore awarded Mr. Guenon a gold medal, made
him a corresponding member, subscribed for twenty-five copies of his book
for each of the sub-societies, and distributed their report through all
the agricultural channels of France.
With these testimonials, the highest that could be procured in France,
Mr. Guenon went on with the publication of his book, which had a wide
circulation in every department of France. And he was finally granted
a pension for life of three thousand francs a year by the French
government, after the National Assembly’s committee on agriculture had
given the system a thorough test. In the presence of fifty of the most
eminent agriculturists, M. Guenon made his examinations, and judged
correctly of all but one of the quantity, of all but one of the time,
and of all of the quality; and the committee reported the results were
altogether conclusive, and that his discovery had reached to the dignity
of a science. They also declared the daily production of milk in France
might be increased by several millions of pints daily, and that the
abundance and quality of milk in the dams must contribute largely to
the improvement of the progeny. They voted him the pension, and invited
him to deliver lectures in the different veterinary, agricultural, and
normal schools of the kingdom, and before the different agricultural
societies, as “the speediest and best means of spreading the knowledge
of this discovery,” and “to repair the time lost in ridicule, doubt, or
indifference—the inevitable preface to all under-takings beneficial to
humanity.”
In the foregoing account of Mr. Francis Guenon, it will be seen that,
by his indomitable perseverance in perfecting his system or method,
he raised himself from the ranks of a poor gardener’s boy to the
position of a great benefactor, and was presented with various medals
and decorations, and a large sum of money voted to him. Surely, such
a brilliant position must have been won entirely by merit, for he had
neither means nor influence to advance him into notice.
Of the Ovals.
The ovals on the udder are spoken of by Guenon, and our experience is
that they are always indicative of a good yield; particularly, when they
are uniform in size and position, and of fine, soft hair, descending on
the udder. But there is another set of marks, which the Pennsylvania
Guenon Commission have denominated thigh ovals, which are an invariable
indication of a good cow, particularly when she is otherwise well-marked.
Of these, Guenon does not speak. Eusebius H. Townsend and Chalkley Harvey
were the first to call attention to them, and Charles L. Sharpless has
written of them. Our own cow, which took the premium over all the Jersey
cows, at the fall exhibition, in 1878, of the Chester County Agricultural
Society, has them most extraordinarily developed. As she is a very
thorough example of this marking, we have had the likeness made of her
escutcheon, and request the reader’s attention to it.
Of the Bastards.
Guenon denominates those cows which give milk, much or little, so long
as they are not got with calf; but, when impregnated, begin to fall off
in their milk. The term he uses is _batard_, which means, in English,
bastard, spurious, of a mixed breed, mongrel. We should have preferred
to call them spurious cows, as the term bastard does not exactly express
the meaning we apply to that word; but, as it has before been translated
bastard, and is so known by many, we retain it.
The bastards are often the best looking cows; have finely developed
escutcheons, and many give a great deal of milk, some poor quality and
some rich; but, as soon as they are pregnant, they go dry very soon, or
fall off rapidly in their milk, while others give very little milk at
all. From their fine show, they deceive a great many, and Guenon cautions
buyers, as the most skillful will make mistakes. He has, however, given a
series of drawings, by which they can generally be discovered.
These bastards mostly conceive well, and the first time they are put to
the bull, they vary in the quality of milk they give like other cows. The
flow of milk is at its height during the first eight days after calving,
though of bad quality. It then diminishes a little, and keeps on at about
the same yield until she conceives again, when it diminishes again, more
or less rapidly.
To discover a bastard, consult the engravings which are given to each
class. To the first class, the Flanders, there are two kinds. The first,
which is the most common, has on each edge of the vertical escutcheon,
a feathery appearance, and where this is strongly marked by the down-
and up-growing hairs meeting, and they interlock and stand out from the
skin, and, besides, are harsh and wiry, and generally shiny, glistening,
and looking of lighter color, _beware of them_. The harsher, coarser
they are, the shorter time will the cow milk after getting with calf.
The second kind of bastards among the Flanders will have an oval on the
_vertical_ escutcheon, generally near the middle part, of about two to
three inches in length, by one and a half to two inches wide, on which
will be found coarse wiry hair, and the harsher it is, and the larger
the oval is, the sooner the cow will cease to milk. It may often be
discovered by the glistening appearance of the hair on it.
On all the other classes, the bastard marks consist of two oval patches
of hair, one on each side of the vulva; and the larger they are, the more
pointed in shape, and the coarser and more wiry the hair on them, the
sooner the cow will cease to milk.
The importance of learning the bastard marks is very great, as the buyer
can safely avoid them, and leave them to those less skilled. While he
may buy the less showy looking cow for much less money, and get a better
animal than the unskilled man will obtain even for the higher price.
All animals are more readily judged correctly, and the system can be
learned more easily, in summer than in winter, both on old and young;
for then the winter coat of hair is off, and the hair is shorter, and
the escutcheon is more easily perceived. The skin, also, is more natural
and soft, and the hair is usually not so harsh to the feel; and the cows
are cleaner, and all marks or blemishes more quickly seen.
How to Apply the System Practically.
We will now proceed to apply the foregoing rules and hints practically.
In doing so, we may repeat some that has been before said, but it will
only impress it the stronger in the mind of the learner.
This classification embraced all the kinds of cows known to Guenon, each
individual escutcheon corresponding with one of the orders of those
classes. The _class_, the _order_ and the _size_ of an animal indicate
her yield of milk, and this will always be found to correspond with her
escutcheon. Every cow has an escutcheon which can be recognized, and
according as it is free from blemish or imperfection, just in that degree
does she approach perfection in her class.
Guenon, in the last edition of his work, has altered and simplified
his classification somewhat, for he divided it into ten CLASSES, and
six ORDERS to each class. He maintained his three grades of size. But
our experience shows that the cows in this country do not vary so much
in size as they probably do in France, for there they have the little
Brittany cow, which is very small but good, and, of course, they have
also cows as large as our Durhams or the Holsteins. Only this, bear in
mind, that cows, as a general rule, all other things being equal, will
vary in their yield somewhat according to their size; and in judging cows
apply that rule, for it is part of Guenon’s system, and they will vary in
the quality according to the breed. Well, then, for practical purposes,
we need only study sixty _escutcheons_, that is ten different shapes
called _Classes_, and six grades to each of those shapes, more or less
perfect, which are called _Orders_. To these must be added ten more for
a _Bastard_ to each class. And it is really necessary to study perfectly
only the first four orders of each class and the _Bastard_ marks, as it
is not worth while to purchase or pay much attention to any cows lower in
the scale than the fourth order of any class. And to simplify it still
more, you will notice the thigh escutcheons of the first orders have all
nearly the same shovel shape, so that by remembering this you need only
study the vertical portions to readily place the animals in their proper
class.
The Escutcheon.
The escutcheon was so-called, we presume, from its similarity to the
shape of a shield or escutcheon, and on a first-class cow it will be very
like it, and somewhat like a round-pointed shovel. On this escutcheon,
the hair will generally be of a different color from that bordering
it, most generally rather darker, always shorter, and more nearly
resembling fur. This difference in color is produced by the UP-growing
hair contrasting with the DOWN-growing surrounding it. The hair of the
escutcheon should be short, soft, and fine; and the skin very soft, like
a kid glove, thin, and oleaginous. And if the cow gives good rich milk,
this skin will be of a rich, golden, or nankeen hue. Often where you
handle a skin of this character the hands will feel oily, and soiled with
rich dandruff.
The Shape of the Escutcheon.
The Escutcheon varies in shape, and Guenon named his ten classes from
their shapes.
The first class, he called Flandrine or Flanders, because it is the best,
and he named it from the best cows he knew, those from Flanders, or the
Flemish breed, and they had more of this shaped escutcheon than any other
breed; a quiet but sure proof of the truth of his system.
The second class he called Flandrine à gauche, because although it had
the Flanders shape, it was on the _left_ flank, he called it therefore
the Left Flanders.
The third class are the Lisière, or The Selvage, from its appearance to a
selvage, or binding of a piece of cloth.
The fourth class are the Courbe-Ligne, or the Curveline, because their
escutcheon is lozenge-shaped, formed by a curved line which sides to the
right and left, and rises to about five or six centimeters from the vulva.
The fifth class he denominated Bicorne, or the Bicorn cow, because the
upper part of this escutcheon forks in two horns.
The sixth class, Double-Lisière, or Double Selvage, has an entirely
arbitrary name, and it is an odd freak of nature.
The seventh class is called Poitevine, or Demijohn, from a fancied
resemblance to some kinds of demijohns.
The eighth class is Equerrine, or Square-Escutcheon, as it is square at
the upward part.
The ninth class is the Limousine, as it was on a cow from that Province
that Guenon first saw this shaped escutcheon.
The tenth class is called Carrésine, or Horizontal, because the upward
part of the escutcheon is cut off squarely by a horizontal line.
To each of the above ten CLASSES, Guenon has placed six ORDERS, which are
variations of the escutcheon, formed by a reduced size and by various
imperfections. If the reader will remember always, that the first class
is better than the second class, and the second class better than the
third class, and so on down the scale, to the end of the classes, he
will have gained the first step in acquiring the system. Then the next
point to remember is similar, that is, that the first _order_ of every
_class_ is better than the second order of that class, and so on down the
scale of the orders, until the sixth. Then he must learn the different
shapes; first, the characteristic shape of each class, as represented by
the first order of that class, and connect with this, in his mind, the
number of quarts a first-class cow, in good feed and condition, should
give, as represented by that escutcheon, in her full flow of milk. Then
he can next learn the variations in size and shape from this pattern
escutcheon, and that will enable him to tell which order of her class
to put her in, and that will then inform him what quantity of milk she
will give, and how long she will give it when with calf. And we repeat
here, it is necessary only to acquire the knowledge of the first three or
four orders of each of the ten classes, as if the cow examined does not
come within those orders, she is not worth examining further nor keeping
longer, nor certainly worth purchasing. Then the learner must next
acquire a knowledge of the distinguishing marks which point out a Bastard
cow, for an account of which marks, see under that head.
Now all of this knowledge must, to put it into profit practically, be
supplemented by the careful examination of the hair and the skin, of the
escutcheon, and the udder: of the hair, whether it is short, fine, soft,
and furry; of the skin, whether it is soft and close-grained like a kid
glove, thin, oleaginous, and yellow or golden. For if the hair is harsh,
and long, particularly on the back part of the udder, it will shorten
the time of giving milk, and indicates a poorer quality. The more oily
or greasy to the feeling the skin of the udder and the perineum is, the
more it indicates good quality and richness of milk, for the oil or fat
is there, showing it is in the nature of that animal to give butyraceous
milk. So with the color of the skin, if it is golden it is indicative of
rich milk, and the majority think it will make a finer colored butter.
There is one point more in judging by the escutcheon, and that is its
size and position, and the general rule is, the higher up it is on the
thighs, and the broader it is on the thighs, together with the higher
and broader it is on the perineum, even up to the vulva, then the better
it is. Then remember the escutcheon has two principal parts, called
the thigh escutcheon and the vertical escutcheon; the thigh escutcheon
extends over the udder and the thighs; and the vertical is over the
perineum or that part of the posterior which extends from the udder up to
the tail and above the vulva.
If the thigh escutcheon is high and broad, therefore very large, and
extends far outward on to the thighs, it indicates a large flow of
milk. If the vertical or upper part is broad and smooth, it indicates a
prolonged flow of milk.
If the thigh or lower portion of the escutcheon is narrow, the flow will
be proportionally small. If the vertical or upper part is narrow and
irregular, it is unfavorable to a prolonged flow.
Chalkley Harvey says further of these marks: “Imperfections, that is
blemishes of form, occur in considerable variety on both large and small
escutcheons. They are all certain evidence of a diminished value of the
cow as a milker. A small and imperfect escutcheon on a good cow, is
something I have never yet seen. Any want of symmetry in the form of an
escutcheon is an imperfection. The two sides should be alike. A small but
perfect escutcheon may be better than a larger one that is imperfect. A
very good one is both large and perfect.
“Thus far we have considered the escutcheon in reference to its form and
size alone, and may now say, that the quantity of milk depends on these,
but its quality is indicated by other signs, which we find to a great
extent in the same place. It is too well known to require any assertion,
that some cows give a large quantity of very poor milk, and others an
equally large quantity of rich milk. It is equally well known that some
cows give but little milk, though they yield a good quantity of butter;
and I repeat, that the signs indicative of these differences of quality
are found in the escutcheon, and they are easily recognized. If the skin
in the escutcheon is soft and oily, and particularly if it is of a rich
yellow color, (though this is more easily seen by examining the end of
the tail,) suggestive of “gilt edged” butter, that cow will give good
milk. In such cases we will find her hair soft and short. There may be
some long hairs, too, but the undergrowth will be as mentioned, and often
has almost the quality of fur. But if, on the other hand, the skin is
white and dry, and the hair thin and harsh, the cow gives poor milk. If
her escutcheon is large and symmetrical, she may give a large quantity of
poor milk. The form and size of the escutcheon indicate _quantity_, the
skin and hair indicate _quality_. These signs are true also as applied
to bulls, being in such cases a proper guide in the selection of animals
to breed milkers from. My own experience and observation, which has been
considerable in the matter, convinces me that cows inherit their milking
qualities more from their sires than from their dams; and it is probable
that many who have been disappointed in heifers raised from some favorite
milkers, will be disposed to agree with me. If this be true, then the
Guenon method has an application that must prove valuable to those who
breed cows for dairy purposes. Another interesting fact is, that we can
discover all the signs on a calf, and are thereby enabled to select with
much certainty those that are fit for the dairy, and to reject those that
would be only a disappointment, if raised for that purpose. Of course, a
very small cow, with ever so good an escutcheon, cannot be expected to
give a very large quantity of milk, and might be inferior in that respect
to one having a less perfect one, where the animal is of greater size.
But in such cases, the small cow would give much more in proportion to
the cost of keeping. In all cases, therefore, the size should be taken
into account.
“There is a sign that may be mentioned here, (though it does not properly
belong to the Guenon system,) which is a very certain evidence that a
cow will give a large quantity of milk, though it expresses nothing in
relation to quality. It is the large size of the vein running forward
from the udder, on the belly, and just under the skin. This is called the
milk vein, and when it is very large and crooked, and enters the abdomen
through a hole that will allow the entrance of a man’s finger, it is, I
repeat, a sign that the cow will yield a large quantity of milk.
“The time that a cow will continue to milk after she is with calf, varies
in different cases—some ceasing almost as soon as pregnant, and others
milking up to calving. Generally the best milkers milk the longest. Hence
it follows, that a good escutcheon usually indicates continued flow as
well as large quantity. Those escutcheons that are not large at the base,
but that run up to the vulva symmetrical all the way, and pretty wide,
indicate a yield of milk up to the time of calving.”
[Illustration: A PERFECT COW—DUCHESS—Imported Jersey, belonging to Chas.
L. Sharpless.]
Our Mode of Judging Stock.
The beauty of the Guenon system is, that _it is an aid to all other modes
of selecting stock_, and therefore, it gives a decided advantage to the
person who understands it over the one who does not. For instance, let
two buyers go into a herd, and let them be equal judges of stock, one of
them will be very apt to buy a bastard, while the other one would very
positively leave her alone, simply because the latter has a knowledge
of the best and surest mode of all modes of judging stock. And this
knowledge does not prevent him from using his half a dozen other modes of
deciding its merits, but aids them. So, too, in selecting a bull for a
propagator, the believer in Guenon will select one with a good escutcheon
and a fine skin, while the other will decide almost entirely by the form.
And so with calves, the one who selects calves by the Guenon marks will
be pretty sure to have a dairy of productive cows, while the other will
have to dispose of some unprofitable ones. The one makes money, because
he is working intelligently with every light of science, while the other
is only _guessing_ pretty well.
We first look at a cow from the front, and see that she widens as she
gets back to her hips, or is wedge-shaped. Next we look at her side, and
we again see that she rises on her back and descends on the belly as
she goes back to the tail, or in other words she is wedge-shaped, too,
from this point of view. These two looks at her have enabled us to see
that she has a feminine appearance; that her head is small and neat in
proportion to her body, with a waxy small horn, a mild but large eye,
a broad muzzle, and that it is well set on her neck; that she has a
good chest, and large deep paunch, with large full ribs, fuller below
and joined to a rather high back bone; that is to say she has not the
breadth of back we look for in a beef animal. If the chine is double,
it indicates a cow above the average; if the chine is single, sometimes
we can lay our three fingers in three depressions in it at about the
middle of it, showing that she is a loose rangy cow, and fitted for her
work. Now we will look at her udder and see that it runs forward as level
as possible to the belly, and that it is large, with four good-sized,
well-shaped teats slightly strutting from each quarter. Now we gently
approach her, and pat her to gain her confidence, and get a chance to
feel her hide, her milk veins, and examine her escutcheon. If we find
her skin is thin, soft, and greasy, with short fine hair, with rather
a furry nature, and showing the skin yellow under it; that her udder
and her perineum have soft thin skin, with very short furry hair; that
her milk veins are large, zig-zag, and knotty, entering the body with
good-sized holes, and particularly if this vein is double, extending and
ramifying over the udder well back in prominent veins, and if the veins
extend over the perineum, we may then, with great confidence, look for a
large well-shaped and formed escutcheon, marked first class, order first,
by an oval on each side of the back of the udder, and perhaps two thigh
ovals or dips where the vertical escutcheon rises from the broad or thigh
escutcheon; and just to finish and find all points corroborating, we will
look on the vertical escutcheon for some spots of oily lemon colored
dandruff, and at the end of her neat, lightly made tail to find some
large yellow pieces of dandruff. We don’t like to see it dry and brown;
and as we step back from her, we just give a parting look to see that her
hips are rather large, bony, somewhat drooping, that her capacious udder
has room to project between her legs.
Then, we feel sure that a loose, open made cow, rather pointed, or sharp
and well-defined, and the contrary of what we would look for in a flesh
or beef producing animal; with a skin mellow and yellow, covered with
soft, fine hair, and the nearer it comes to the quality and color of a
first class Guernsey or Jersey cow, breeds which have for hundreds of
years been bred for butter making, then we repeat we know she must be a
good, rich milker and butter maker; for we never saw a thick, hard skin
cow, with coarse, long hair, that was a good butter maker, or fit for
anything but giving poor milk, _if_ a strong milker.
Our preference is for a medium sized cow, one that will dress five
hundred and fifty or six hundred pounds; and, as far as our observation
goes, a Jersey sire, with an Ayrshire dam, is the best cross for a milk
and butter cow, and the most profitable for the amount of food consumed;
though a Jersey or Guernsey sire to the milking stock of Durhams, or a
Holstein, or a large yielding native cow, will produce a better cow for
butter than the mother was.
To get thorough practice in valuing the escutcheon, take this book in
hand, and go into your dairy-yard; compare the escutcheon of each cow
with her picture in this book; see what it calls for time and quantity,
and then thoroughly test your cow; don’t guess at it, as most farmers
do; and make your own comparisons. Remember the size and class of the
escutcheon will give you _the quantity and time_; the skin and hair will
give you _the quality_; and always remembering the size of the cow, and
of what breed she is, for they must qualify your opinion somewhat.
Opinions of the System.
A writer in the _Country Gentleman_ of July 17, 1879, S. Hoxie, of
Whitestown, New York, so thoroughly expresses our experience and
convictions, that we are led to quote it:
“The writer has been acquainted with ‘the escutcheon theory’ ever since
about 1850. During this time he has been a practical dairyman in central
New York. At first he approached the study of the escutcheon as a
doubter. It seemed to him an absolute absurdity to claim a connection
between the growing of the hair and the production of milk, two functions
so entirely different.
“At first he examined the herd of cows which he helped milk every night
and morning, and was surprised to meet with so many proofs of the truth
of the theory. He then observed it upon other herds, and finally extended
his observations to various breeds under various circumstances. He was at
last compelled to come to the final conclusion that the theory, in the
main, was true, but that other points and conditions of the animal must
be understood in order invariably to reach a correct judgment:
“1. The breed modifies the quantity and quality of milk production. This
is so manifestly true that it needs no argument. A particular order
and class of escutcheon indicates a different quantity and a different
quality of milk on a Jersey than it indicates on an Ayrshire cow.
“2. The condition of care and feed to which different families of
the same breed have been accustomed during long periods modify milk
production, and must be taken into consideration. For instance, certain
families of Short-Horns have been cared for and fed through several
generations with the sole view of beef production; other families have
been trained to milk production. Escutcheons upon the former indicate far
less quantity of milk than upon the latter. Thus some families with very
fine escutcheons give very little milk. The escutcheons in such cases
no doubt indicate an original capacity that a few generations of proper
treatment might awaken and develop.
“3. The capacity and health of the digestive organs modifies the
quantity, and we also think the quality, of milk production. Cows with
large, healthy digestive organs will eat and properly digest more food,
and give good return at the pail, than one with opposite conditions of
the digestive organs. The former may sometimes give the larger quantity
of milk, though, indeed, possessed of the poorer escutcheon.
“4. The activity of the nervous system materially affects milk
production. This is often seen when the animal is unduly excited. The
quiet dispositioned cow that attends to feeding, and is not disturbed by
any excitement in the herd or in the surrounding fields, may have the
poorer escutcheon, yet give larger quantities of milk than the extremely
excitable cow, with the better escutcheon.
“Other conditions will suggest themselves to the observing and reflecting
man, that materially affect the quantity and quality of milk production.
“These modifying conditions do not disturb the true theory of the
escutcheon. _Other things being equal, the escutcheon is indicative
of the quantity and quality of milk._ Many are misled in estimating
the value of the escutcheon, because they have not the patience or the
capacity to observe the varying conditions. The escutcheon is of immense
practical value. It is easily seen the conditions of flesh do not
change it, and animals of all ages, above three months, may be examined
by it, and their milking qualities determined with a good degree of
accuracy. Other things being equal, the animal with the better escutcheon
will invariably make the butter maker. During nearly thirty years of
observation, the writer never observed a first class cow that had a
poor escutcheon. The escutcheon must be of great value to those who are
breeding, and endeavouring to improve thorough-bred cattle of the various
milking breeds. It offers a test that may be applied before milking
age, and it may be applied to males as well as females. _Though the
pedigree is ever so long, and though it contains many good ancestors, the
animal should be rejected from the breeding herd, unless it has a good
escutcheon._”
“One of the Farmers,” a regular correspondent of the _American
Agriculturist_, writes in the number for November, 1878:
“THE VALUE OF THE GUENON MILK MIRROR.—Taken with a good udder and
milk-veins, good digestive functions, and capacity for food, good health
and thrift, the Guenon milk mirror is a valuable indication of both the
quantity and duration of the flow of milk. This seems to be demonstrated
by the experience of thousands who have given the subject careful
study, and I have never yet met the man who ridiculed it, and called it
“folly,” who was able intelligently even to outline the prominent types.
The number of calves which do well or ill as milkers, very nearly as
indicated by their milk mirrors, is so large, that one of the principal
practical uses to which a knowledge of the Guenon system can be applied
is in selecting calves to raise, and, of course, to those who buy cows,
it comes equally well in use.”
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF BREEDERS OF DUTCH FRIESIAN CATTLE, composed
of some of the most practical and intelligent farmers of the dairy region
of central New York, have adopted a new set of rules for entry into
registry in their Herd Book, wisely making the performance at the pail
one of the necessary requirements. Thus, for a period of not more than
twelve months from date of calving, the cow under 2½ years of age must
give 6,000 lbs. of milk; over 2½, and under 3½, 7,000 lbs; over 3½, and
under 4½, 8,000 lbs; over 4½, 9,000 lbs; also, rule 8: No animal shall
be admitted to registry unless of the “milk form,” or of the “combined
milk and beef form,” of medium or of large size, without coarseness,
and if a female, having a well developed escutcheon, not below the 4th
order of the 1st class, the 3d orders of the 2d, 3d 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th,
and 8th classes, the 2d order of the 9th class, or the 1st order of the
10th class of the Pennsylvania Commission. With such a record, and with
such marks, no one need take the trouble to see the stock, but may safely
order it, knowing exactly what they are to receive.
George E. Waring, junior, says:
“If the escutcheon teaches anything it teaches _the duration
of the flow of milk_. This is its great value in connection
with the Jerseys—a race of small, rich, and _persistent_
milkers. It does indicate quantity, it is true, but not Dutch
quantity, nor Ayrshire quantity; only _Jersey_ quantity, which
is quite another affair. It indicates, in at least equal
degree, the continuance of the flow of milk. Indeed, this is
the great value of Guenon’s discovery. It is easy to judge of
the _present_ flow of milk in the case of any given cow, but,
so far as I know, there is nothing but the escutcheon to tell
us how long she will continue to milk after getting with calf.
If she has a _first class_ escutcheon, I think we are safe in
believing that she will hold out well in her milking. If she
has a very defective escutcheon, we may depend on her to fall
away very rapidly when a few months gone, and to shut down
entirely three or four months before calving.”
From an exhaustive and admirable treatise on the Ayrshire breed, by John
D. W. French, of North Andover, Mass., we make the following extracts
from his remarks on the Guenon system:
“Pabst, a German farmer of large experience, with a view
to simplify the method of Guenon, and render it of greater
practical value, made five divisions, or classes:—
1. Very good, or extraordinary.
2. Good, or good middling.
3. Middling, and little below middling.
4. Small.
5. Very bad milkers.
“Magne, the French writer, made a still further simplification,
by making four classes instead of five:—
1. The very good.
2. The good.
3. The medium.
4. The bad.
“In the first class he places cows, both parts of whose
milk-mirror, the mammary and the perinean, are large,
continuous, uniform, covering at least a great part of the
perineum, the udder, the inner surface of the thighs, and
extending more or less out upon the legs with no interruptions,
or, if any, small ones, oval in form, and situated on the
posterior face of the udder. Cows of this class are very rare.
They give, even when small in size, from ten to fourteen quarts
per day, and the largest size from eighteen to twenty-six
quarts a day, and even more. They continue in milk for a long
period.
“The second class is that of good cows, and to this belong
the best commonly found in the market. They have the mammary
part of the milk-mirror well developed, but the perinean part
contracted or wholly wanting. Small cows of this class give
from seven to ten or eleven quarts a day, and the largest from
thirteen to seventeen quarts.
“The third class consists of middling cows. When the
milk-mirror really presents only the lower or mammary part
slightly developed or indented, and the perinean part
contracted, narrow, and irregular, the cows are middling. Cows
of this class, according to size, give from three or four to
ten quarts per day.
“The fourth class is composed of bad cows. No veins are to
be seen either on the perineum or the udder, while those of
the belly are very slightly developed, and the mirrors are
ordinarily small. These cows give only a few quarts of milk a
day, and dry up a short time after calving.
“Mr. C. L. Flint, in his work on ‘Milch Cows,’ says:—
“These classifications, adopted by Pabst, Magne, and
others, appear to be far more simple and satisfactory than
the more complicated classification of Guenon. Without
pretending to judge with accuracy of the quantity, the
quality, or the duration which a particular size or form
of the mirror will indicate, they give to Guenon the full
credit of his important discovery, as a new and valuable
element in forming our judgment of the milking qualities
of a cow, and simply assert, with respect to the duration
of the flow of milk, that the mirror that indicates the
greatest quantity will also indicate the longest duration.
“My own attention was called to Guenon’s method of judging
cows some eight or ten years ago, and since that time I
have examined many hundreds, with a view to ascertain the
correctness of its main features, inquiring, at the same
time, after the views and opinions of the best breeders
and judges of stock, with regard to their experience and
judgment of its merits; and the result of my observations
has been that cows with the most perfectly developed
milk-mirrors or escutcheons are, with rare exceptions, the
best milkers of their breed, and that cows with small and
slightly developed mirrors are, in the majority of cases,
bad milkers.
“I say the best milkers of _their breed_, for I do
not believe that precisely the same sized and formed
milk-mirrors on a Hereford, or a Devon and an Ayrshire, or
a native, will indicate anything like the same or equal
milking properties. It will not do, in my opinion, to
disregard the general and well-known characteristics of the
breed, and rely wholly on the milk-mirror; but I think it
may be safely said that, as a general rule, the best marked
Hereford will turn out to be the best milker among the
Herefords, all of which are poor milkers; the best marked
Devon, the best among the Devons; and the best marked
Ayrshire, the best among the Ayrshires; that is, it will
not do to compare two animals of entirely distinct breeds
by the milk-mirrors alone, without regard to the fixed
habits and education, so to speak, of the breed or family
to which they belong.”
“In my own herd of Ayrshire cows, the largest milkers have
the best escutcheons, and these cows have, in most cases,
transmitted these marks to their descendants. On the other
hand, the cows with medium or poor escutcheons have rarely
transmitted to their calves better ones; but, generally, of the
same or lower class than the dams.
“BULLS.—Guenon’s second and hardly less important discovery
was that the bull had the same marks as the cow, only somewhat
shorter and narrower. Guenon bestows upon these marks the same
name, ‘milk-mirror,’ which may be justified, in as far as the
bull has greater influence upon the sustaining or obtaining of
an abundant yield of milk, as well as the improvement of the
breed.
“SOME TESTIMONY.—Mr. L. A. Hansen, of Bay St. Louis, writes, in
a letter to the _Country Gentleman_:
“I served my apprenticeship for three years on a dairy
farm with two hundred cows, performing all the labor
appertaining to a farm, the same as one of the hired men.
After this, for twenty years, I had dairies of from eighty
to one hundred and seventy cows. Living in the best dairy
country then known, and our butter commanding the very
highest market prices in London, England, (taking the
premium at a butter exhibition in London,) we considered it
the best policy to buy our cows instead of raising them,
and I consequently had to purchase from twenty to thirty
cows every year. Having adopted the Guenon system as a
helping guide in my purchases, I necessarily examined more
than a hundred cows annually, besides having under daily
observation my own cows and those of the neighboring dairy
farms. Thus, I had continual practice through a number of
years. The classifications of the professor, mentioned in
my former article, were, with very rare exceptions, right.
In the first two classes, they did not fail once; in the
lower classes, more frequently; but as the lower classes,
with their sub-division, are of no importance to the
dairyman—only the two first being fit for a dairy—the study
of them becomes unnecessary, and it is of little avail if
they are minutely correct.
“As nothing in this world is perfect, we cannot reasonably
expect the Guenon system to be without defects; but, as
already stated above, the imperfection is to be looked for
in that part which is immaterial for practical application.
Under all circumstances, _as far as my experience goes,
the Guenon theory will always remain a valuable guide in
selecting milk cows_.”
“Mr. L. S. Hardin writes, in a prize essay:
“Very few, if any, modern writers upon cattle have accepted
the complicated theory of Guenon, while no two of them
agree as to the extent in value of the escutcheon. As
a point of beauty, it should certainly be cultivated
in the herd. As to its practical value for indicating
the milking qualities of the cow, my experience is that
a finely-developed escutcheon is rarely seen on a poor
milker, while many excellent milkers have very small or
no escutcheons at all. In other words, its presence is a
good sign, while its absence is not necessarily a cause
for distrust. Milk-veins, as an indication for milking
capacity, are of about the same value as the escutcheon.”
“The editor of the _Jersey Bulletin_, in commenting on this,
says:
“We should be very glad to know of a cow, worthy to be
called an ‘excellent milker’—duration of the flow after
becoming pregnant being one of the tests—which has no
escutcheon at all, or a very small one. As at present
advised, we don’t believe she exists. Most old cow men
would say that, if the escutcheon is as valuable an
indication as the milk-veins, too much effort can hardly be
made to extend knowledge concerning it.”
“Henry Tanner, professor of agriculture, Queen’s College,
Birmingham, England, says, in a volume of prize essays of the
Highland and Agricultural Society:
“Some attention has also been given, within a few years,
to a discovery, made by Mons. Guenon, respecting ‘the
escutcheon,’ as it is termed. Like many other persons,
he was carried beyond the boundary of discretion in his
speculations, and thus his valuable observations were for
a time lost in the mist with which he enveloped them.
Sufficient is already known of its value, at least, to lead
us to the conclusion that it is worthy of more general
knowledge.
“A very extended observation has proved that, other
conditions being equal, the modification of form presented
by the escutcheon will lead to an estimation, not only of
the quantity of milk which the animal will produce, but
also of the time during which the cow will keep up the
supply of milk.
“Without going into detail upon this point, I may briefly
state that the larger the extent of the escutcheon,
the greater is the promise of milk, and also of its
continuance, even after the cow is again in calf. A cow
may have a small escutcheon, and yet be a good milker; but
observation leads to the conclusion that, if she possessed
a more fully developed escutcheon, she would have been a
better milker. It may be considered a point of merit, not
as deciding whether or not the cow is a good milker, but
rather as an additional indication which may be taken into
consideration in conjunction with other characteristic
points. It is also desirable, in estimating the extent of
the escutcheon, to make full allowance for the folds in
the skin; otherwise, a large escutcheon may be taken for a
small one. Besides the escutcheon, there are tufts of hair
(epis) which have a certain degree of value when seen upon
the udder of the cow.”
“I presume there are many men who, although perhaps not caring
a pin for an escutcheon, yet consider themselves fully capable
of selecting a good milk cow. Now, although ignoring the
escutcheon in their judgment, are they not apt, in selecting
an ideal cow of any particular milk breed, to find a good
escutcheon developed of one class or another?
“Perhaps it may be asked, if the Guenon system is a true one,
why are not the Short-Horns a great milk breed, for in them we
often find very large and perfect escutcheons?
“This question may be answered as follows: The Short-Horns
were originally a good milking breed; but, having been
made particularly a beef breed, the milking propensity or
mammary system has in most families been changed or bred out.
Notwithstanding this change, they may retain the escutcheon,
not as a mark of quality, but as one of the characteristic
marks of the breed.
“All farmers are aware that a first-class milk cow may, by
injudicious feed and treatment, especially as regards milking,
become a second-class animal. Now, such a system, carried out
generation after generation, must certainly degenerate a milk
breed, however good their marks and quality.
“Among the Short-Horns, probably the best milkers have good
escutcheons; but an Ayrshire cow, with an inferior escutcheon,
might be found to give more milk than a Short-Horn with a
superior escutcheon, simply because one breed has been bred
especially for beef, the other especially for milk.
“To show how breeding for a purpose through many generations
may ultimately change qualities, let us compare the Short-Horns
with the Dutch or Holsteins. The early Short-Horns, or the
Teeswater breed, as it was called, was of Dutch origin, or
was certainly formed by crossing the native cattle of England
with stock imported from Holland. This breed was originally
considered remarkable for its milking qualities.
“The Dutch breed, bred for generations for the especial purpose
of milk, is to-day noted for large milkers, and among the cows
may be found extraordinarily developed escutcheons.
“The following extract, from a translation from the French of
Magne on milk cows, is _apropos_, as showing the difference
between characteristics of breeds and qualities of the animals:
“A long, fine head, narrow towards the horns, and a slender
chest are given by most writers as characteristics of a
good milk cow. Now, in Flemish, Danish, Dutch, and Brittany
cows the fineness of head and chest is a characteristic
of these races and not the indication of particularly
developed milking qualities, being met with alike in the
good and bad milkers of those races; whilst in some of
the Swiss breeds, and especially in those of St. Gervais,
nearly all the cows, whether good or indifferent, possess
a large head and heavy chest. The farmers of Ariege, while
showing us some remarkably good cows, drew our attention
to their strength of chest, ampleness of the dewlap, and
the volume of the head: these characteristics of race they
mistake for qualities, observing them in their best cows.
On the other hand, it is to be remarked that cows with fine
heads are often inferior milkers. If fineness of head were
a true proof of mammillary activity, would not the cows of
the Durham breed be amongst the best dairy animals in the
world? This characteristic cannot, therefore, be considered
absolutely appreciable, as much depends on the race to
which a cow may belong. It is indicative of milk only,
because it is a remarkable point in those races which have
produced milk cows. Thus a characteristic of race has been
mistaken for a sign of particular qualities.”
“If, then, we should regard the escutcheon, as well as a fine
head, one of the characteristics common in the Short-Horn,
it is not necessary to consider it as an indication of any
particularly developed quality. Although probably the best
milkers would have this sign, yet it might be regarded as
a latent sign of milking qualities which had been bred out
by disuse. The only fair way to judge of the value of the
escutcheon in determining milking qualities, is to consider its
influence in the different breeds separately, not comparing
one breed with another. In judging grade cows, characteristics
and blood must have a certain influence on the judgment. The
general type of the animal must be considered.
“In the Ayrshire cow, we must regard the escutcheon, not as a
special characteristic of the breed, but as one of the signs
denoting quality.
“If the time should come when it has become so universal a sign
of quality as to be considered a characteristic of the breed,
then we shall have approached much nearer perfection than at
present.
“Admitting that the escutcheon theory is a failure, or at least
that it has failed as a test-mark of milk, have we any other
mark or series of marks that have invariably given better
results?
“Magne says, that in Flanders, a cow is considered a good
milker, ‘especially when towards the middle of the spine the
apophyses (or projections) are separated or scattered so as
to leave a space between of about two finger-breadths,’ for
the reason that, when the spine is thus formed, the haunches
are better spread, and the thighs and croup larger. The other
members of the body are also better developed, the basin is
ampler, and the organs placed in this cavity, as well as the
udder, are more voluminous.
“Now, would our dairymen consider this a more certain
indication of milk, than a good escutcheon?
“Without regarding the escutcheon as an infallible sign of
quality and quantity of milk, I believe it to be one of the
best indications of milk, that nature has provided; but in the
use of this system, we must consider:—
1. The breed.
2. The age.
3. The feed.
4. The treatment (present and past.)
5. The health.
“A good, not to say a thorough, understanding of the Guenon
system, cannot be obtained by casual observation, but only by
the most painstaking examination of many animals, extending
over a long period of time.”
Objections to the System and to the Report of the Commission.
M. Guenon in his Treatise on Milk Cows, does not give any positive
reasons why the escutcheon is indicative of the yield. He rested content
with the fact, that he had proved it so before many learned men, and
risked his reputation upon publishing the facts. The system as far as we
have been able to trace it, has always been verified by those who have
_thoroughly studied it, and tested it by extended practice according to
the rules of Guenon_. The principal cavilers against it, either admit
they have not constantly pursued it, or show by their writings their lack
of sufficient knowledge of it. The report of the Pennsylvania commission
has incited several to write against the system. The principal paper
produced was one read before a meeting of the State Board of Agriculture,
by Eastburn Reeder, and which he had reprinted in several papers. Of
this essay, it is sufficient to say, he showed he had not studied nor
practiced the system thoroughly, and because he could not understand it
and got befogged, he quoted a large mass of scientific matter to show
the system could not be true. These attempts at argument are so quietly,
but completely, set aside in the essay of Prof. D. E. Salmon, D. V. M.,
on Contested Dairy Questions, quoted below, that we shall not discuss
them further. For we cannot any more tell _absolutely and positively_ why
the escutcheon reveals what it does, than we can tell why a _black_ cow
eating _green_ grass, converts _red_ blood into _white_ milk, than we can
tell _why_ the green grass grows. In both questions at issue, we have
certain facts and theories to guide our reason and judgment about them,
but we know nothing _positive_, and because it is so, Mr. Reeder and Mr.
Hardin won’t believe it is so or can be so.
In addition to what Mons. Magne, the eminent French veterinarian, one of
the most celebrated medical professors in France has written, Professor
Arnold, of Rochester says, when indorsing what Magne writes:
“The size of the escutcheon is regarded as the measure of the
quantity of blood supplied to the milk-producing vessels, and
are evidence of their capability of elaborating milk. In the
same way, the veins take up the blood, and carry it back in the
milk veins which pass through the bag and along the belly, and
enter the body through one or more holes, on their way to the
heart. The size of these milk veins, and the holes where they
enter the body, vary with the escutcheon, and like it, give
evidence of the quantity of venous blood passing away, from and
through the udder, and they have the same significance with
reference to quantity, as the supply of arterial blood and the
size of the escutcheon.”
Mr. Reeder also quotes the weights of cattle given by Guenon, and
triumphantly exclaims, whoever saw such small cows in this country?
Guenon distinctly quotes the weights, as net dead weight, or the animal
deprived of its head and horns, its hide, entrails, and feet, and gives
the excellent reason for it when he says: “If I had made the calculations
for the animal on the hoof, the figures given by me would present a
great difference, which would increase according to the amount of fat,
sometimes to double the weight.” Unfortunately, Mr. Reeder did not
know enough of Guenon’s facts to be aware of this clear statement, and
supposed the weights were live weight.
Again, he says the commission did not examine the stock correctly. _He_
would have looked at an animal, decided what escutcheon it had, or “to
which class and order she belongs, and then append the figures of Guenon
as the result. Any other mode of proceeding is not testing the Guenon
system.” Here again his lack of knowledge of the system is shown; it
would be exceedingly unjust to the reputation of Guenon, as he distinctly
declares the size, the age, the breed, the treatment, the season, the
period of gestation, &c., shall be fully considered. It is the judgment
of just such men passed upon the system, which have tended to throw any
doubt upon the merit of Guenon’s assertions. What would be thought of the
judgment of such a person, if told by a physician to administer three
things to a patient, and he gave but one, and the patient died, and he
excused himself by saying, “you told me to give him medicine, and I gave
it.”
Then Mr. Reeder denies the value of the system for pointing out the best
_feeders_. The cow which gives the most butter, and which this system
will readily point out, will fatten the most rapidly when dried off; for
the butyraceous particles, which go to make the butter, will be diverted
from the milk and turn to fat on the animal.
Mr. Reeder objects to the report of the commission, that they “in some
cases failed to classify cows,” and “made incorrect classifications,”
and “in some cases gave different results from Guenon,” and lastly “the
terms employed to denote quantity, quality, and duration, are too vague,
indefinite, and unsatisfactory.” In all these objections, Mr. R., it will
be readily seen by any practicer of the system, shows his utter ignorance
of the mode of applying it.
Guenon says it is sometimes impossible to properly classify an animal,
owing to the effects of a cross, or some freak of nature. In such cases
they may be judged according to the escutcheon it the nearest resembles.
This the commission did, but of course could not classify them.
His judgment as to “incorrect classifications” we must pass by as of no
account, he not being any more capable of that than the commission.
The same may be said of “giving different results from Guenon.” That is
entirely a matter of judgment. Guenon says, judge of the cow by various
things and then the result will approximate the amount stated to each
escutcheon. Mr. Reeder says the amount set down to each escutcheon is
inflexible. We prefer to follow the skill of Guenon and not the ignorance
of Reeder, as it was Guenon we were appointed to test.
Finally, he objects to the terms employed to denote the significance
of the escutcheon. The great difficulty of the commission was to find
herds of which an accurate test of each animal had been made and kept.
We believe not one farmer in one hundred thousand has such a record. Yet
the commission are expected by such “infallible” advocates as Mr. R. to
tell the exact character of each cow, and that record is to be set down
alongside of the inaccurate record of the owner; and if they vary at all,
the commission are the ones at fault. The very terms Mr. R. objects to
were employed by us by special agreement with the owners, because they
hesitated to say how many quarts or pounds each of their cows gave. But
where there were such careful farmers as W. M. Large, M. Eastburn, J.
Pyle, and M. Conard, who gave quarts, and the commission gave quarts, we
would invite attention to the comparative reports as the best answer.
And even in Mr. R.’s own case we ask comparison, for the reason why the
commission are on most of his cows one or two quarts higher is easily
accounted for, because we did not learn until after the examination that
he was generally ranked by his neighbors a poor feeder, which would
certainly make the difference. In the cases of such fine herds as those
of S. J. Sharpless, Thomas M. Harvey, Thomas Gawthrop, and H. Preston,
&c., the accounts were highly satisfactory to their owners and confirmed
them in the merits of the system. For the same reasons we object to _his_
test of “the system in other herds” as any proof of the merits of Guenon,
for it was his interpretation of the escutcheons that is given, and it
would be very unfair to judge Guenon as interpreted by one who is not an
expert.
Mr. Hardin has written much against the system, but containing very
little argument, and no valid objection. We will endeavor to sift out of
the mass, any points made:
He thought there should be one “non-believer” on the commission, so as
to “make a fair and disinterested report.” What possible use he may have
been is a mystery, except to cavil at what perhaps he did not understand.
The commission simply put down what they interpreted the escutcheons
to indicate, and the owner stated what he knew of his stock. The two
accounts were brought together and compared. What more a non-believer
could have done, we are at a loss to conceive.
His process of examination was laid down thus: “To take down in writing
_before you see the cows_, the owners’ and milkers’ opinions of all the
cows to be tested.” “Make the owners and milkers, _out of hearing of each
other_, tell you the name of the cow, her age, how much milk she gives
when fresh, how much milk she gives a year, is her milk rich or poor;
have you ever tested the milk by measure, or otherwise to determine the
amount or its richness; what breed is she?” “Get a non-believer to make
pencil sketches of each escutcheon.” “The Governor to appoint two more on
the committee who are not believers.”
Now, having laid out this programme, he does not say what was to be
done with it. The inference was to be drawn, we suppose, that the many
escutcheons were to be engraved, and the public were to draw their
conclusions from them and the reports given by the owners and milkers,
and see how Guenon would stand the test. And what were the believing or
non-believing commissioners to do? Supervise the taking down of all this?
How, at once, this shows Mr. Hardin to know little or nothing of the
system! Like Mr. Reeder, he did not know that Guenon assigns many other
things to be thought of to form a correct opinion! Was it more proof to
be told by the owner all that any one could know about the cow, and then
say that corresponds with the escutcheon? Or did it put the system to a
severer test, to say to the owner, don’t tell me a word, and then proceed
to tell him all about a cow you never saw, simply from examining her
escutcheon? In one case, you are assisted to define the escutcheon by the
knowledge given you. In the other case, you define the cow’s character by
only the knowledge you can get from the escutcheon. No better proof can
be given of Mr. Hardin’s lack of practical knowledge of the system.
Another objection he makes, and repeats several times, as being a
very strong one with him, is, why did not Guenon, and why do not the
commissioners, go to work and buy up all the best cows and sell them at
a profit, and thus get very rich. His cry is, why don’t they make plenty
of money out of it, if it is so valuable? Simply, because neither of them
are in that business, or care to be. But Mr. Harvey, a manager of the
Delaware county almshouse, in one year from taking this position, changed
the cows there, and increased the yield twofold from the same number of
cows, and has bought and sold all the steers and cows on his large farm
for many years solely by this system, and _has_ grown wealthy.
He says in another article “feeling the modesty that naturally attaches
itself to benighted ignorance,” he “started out in the city in search of
some one who was learned on these subjects.” He found “a professor in
our medical institute,” “one of our most learned physicians,” and they
proceed together to canvass Professors Magne and Arnold’s theories and
facts about the formation of the escutcheon. The result of two such wise
heads (or of “benighted ignorance”) coming together, was that neither
of them ever heard of Professor Magne, and that his dictum was “opposed
to all the teachings of physiology.” The learned professor knowing as
much about a cow as he did of physiology. And it is such stuff as this
which forms the arguments of Mr. Hardin. Professor Salmon in his essay on
Contested Dairy Questions effectually settles these “learned” men.
We have devoted enough space to a writer, who finds it so easy to tear
down, but is never able to build up, a doubting Thomas, whose only mode
of judging a cow, he says is a crumple horn, a large udder, and to test
the milk every Monday for one year. What an amount of money the farmers
of America would lose annually if they followed his rules, and what an
amount they would save by following Guenon’s rules!
The following valuable essay is from the _Country Gentleman_ of August 7,
1879:
Contested Dairy Questions.