Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-01-05
large rersus Small Cows.

Large versus Small Cows.
This question Of the relative profit accru-
ing from large and small cows, producing
an equal weight Of butter annually, con
tinues to attract attention among the farm
ers aud the agricultural editors. 1t would
appear that Mr. Douglas comedies, though
not in terms, substantially that small cows,
other things equal, are the most profitable.
But, uuquestionably, the subject needs more
thorough investigation, and we hope our az
ricultural colleges and experiment stations
may soon give us more light.
The Boston C,aiicaior, whioh copied our
article, and criticised it in the usual style OF
its editor comes at us again with another
article in which it is difficult to decide what
most to admire-its studied disngenuousness
of argument, or its muddlingo of facts. New
ertheless we will give it few brief para
graphs OF notice.
FuSi-We did not censure the editor of
the Cmticdior for not giving titles (Which
he may be conscientiously opposed to-
though his practice is not unilorm), but for
making as appear to conform TO his stand
ard, 10y erasing the Mr." from before gen
tlemcn's names in our article. We simply
asked him to quote us verbatim, if at ALL
.Second-In face of our remarks upon the
depressing influence Of low dairy produc-
ton ON our agricultural interests, and our
constant efforts to stimulate improvement,
this editor represents u.s. by insinuation and
argument, as favoing low product, and
asks us if we will answer the question, how
much is left from an annual money income
| per COW Of forty-scven dollars in one case,
and thirty-eight dollars in another; as
though we had claimed that p;oft could be
made from such cows, when in fact we
quoted Mr.. Me Allister 60 whose statement
he makes no reference) to show that nothing
would be left from even the higher Of the
two sums. And with the sublimity of viii
full misrepresentation Qor it is plainly
nothing else), he goes ON to say
"What we would encourage farmers to do is
to strive to breed and keep better cows-a doc
trino we have long taught in these columns and
shall continue to inculcate notwithstanding W,
may expose ourselves to the criticism Of our con
temporary and others Of his nix
ThHd-This hypercritical catechst then
again puts out his question, :" if the cow.
production of milk is in proportion to the
amount of food she consumes" and informs
us that by "consumes he means eats.
We reply-not altogether; yet a COW must
eat in order to produce milk. II she eats
largely, and assimaaies ceH (for there is
vast difference in the digestive powers of diff
ferent animals), then that assimilated foot
must reappear, first in vital action, and tn,
surplus either in milk, increase of weight
or in muscular work, Just in proportion a
And the richer this milk is in fat and casein
the higher il her rank in the scale of dair,
excellence. And this excellence reaches ii
highest point when to a large yield aud grea
richness of milk is added the power of per
petuating these qualities in her offspring
But all these desirable qualities may be Oh
scured by insufficient and improper feeding
and care, and very often are SO obscured
Indeed, a large proportion OF the COWS o
| Vermont fail TO show their true value TO
/ the dairy, in consequence of this insufficient
feeding. With better feed, our cows woulC
give more and richer milk, aud their female
offspring would average to be of better dairy
quality, generation after generation. Thil
improvement would be greatly fastened i
intelligent care IN breeding was superadded
All this we have urged and illustrated il
many articles, as our readers know yet this
Boston editor claims it all as his thunder,
and wants il TO be understood that he is 60
ing to stick to it, Notwithstanding he may
expose himself to our criticism
Since writing the above, we have noticed
in recent issue of the Country Gentleman
the following query and reply
Which is the heavier rich or poor milk-iu
other words which will weigh the most eight
quarts OF milk that will make one pound of but
ter or eight quarts that viii make one half pound
Of butter-the milk and cream to be treated III
each ease alike %. L. II. We believe the dilier
! ence Is 80 slight rs 10 deprive the weight OF any
value as test Of quality, but II any Of our read
efs have accurately experimental on the subject
we shall be glad to have the conclusions reached I
We note with interest this reply of the
| editor 10 the question Of g. l.. H., as in nc.
cordance with our views, based upon extern.
siye trials. And we would respectfully ask
the Country Gentleman 10 consider whether
the fact is so-that the richness or poorness
/ OF milk in cream aud cascin are not Indicated
| by its weight-whether this does not allow
OF weight being made available in testing
milk for water adulterati0n and whether
therefore, It is not so far in error when il
says, in another column Of the same issue
" Still 1t is fact, however unpaatable, that
as yet no process Of detecting water adul
teratons has been invented, which is within
reach of the consumer, and, as the 1drertise,
suggests, scientific dairymen would do well
to consider this fact"
We assure him that he is ia no danger OF
criticism from ms, on that point What we
have TO complain of IN him, is, chiefly, his ut.
ter Willingness Tor inability, 10 discuss any
subject with decent farness-a characters.
tic which brought out the following exceed
ingly just remarks from the editor of the
-Nep England Farmer, in a recent article;
Then there are two ways Of conducting a de.
bate one the lawyers style where each marty /,
bound 10 beat for the sake of beating, The other
where truth Is the object sought With the for
mer, We have not particle Of sympathy, and Il
Is because the CRhirotor, as II seems 10 US, la,
Inclined towards this method Of debate that NJ,
have never before replied 10 any Of It's criticism,
4 uuOu the editorial matter Ia our eniurs,.