Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-05-31
SIZE Of Dairy Cows.

size Of Dairy Cows.
On this topic, in reply to our query, Mr..
Hubbard, Of the Vermont Farmer says
"Tha, the size Of the cows giving equal yields
Of butter has something to do with the profits Of
the herd, cannot be denied Just what that infu-
ence is appears to be the question. II is argued
ON one side that so much food is required to build
up, sustain and noursh large frame, and that the
smaller the COW the better ON the other hand ii
is claimed that a very large frame is the best aud
the consumption Of food for supporting it is
ignored. 1t is usually conceded by those who
have no pet theory to sustain and no axe 10 grind
that extremes Of all kinds are to be avoided The
editor Of the Farmer believes that breed has SOME
thing TO do in determining the size that Is desira-
Die in a dairy COW. A Jersey as large ~ Short
horn would be oyergrown, having an abnormal
and unnatural development Of frame and probably
at the cost Of dairy qualities, which would be
stunted in building up the extraordinary carcass
while Shorthom COW no larger than an average
Jersey would inevitably be stunted and dwarfed,
and an object Of suspicion 1t would he a wonder
II in the pinehing Of her vital and digestive or
gans her tactical functions have not suffered 1t
follows, then that the question What Is the proper
sire depends to some extent upon the breed
Having, then, the shorthorn--or what is
equally good or better for the dairymen, the grade
shorthorn-or the much abused native COW, from
stock bred for the combined qualities Of milk beef
and labor, in which size is Of course potent fac
tor, the question arises: DO we lose ia the extra
cost Of keeping for the Of good average size Of
either Of these races over the cost Of keeping ami
mails Of smaller frames producing equal yields OF
hutter2 In answer To that we should say the no.
ton that cows consume food in proportion to
weight Is greatly exaggerated; when the dairy
man having large cows breeds iudiciously, raises
calves for cows for steers and for beef ~ we be.
lieve he should, the net profits Of the herd are
not 10 be computed alone from the number Of
pounds OF butter they yield. The size has an in
fuenco ON the net profit When judciously man
aged, good large medium size has GtrorpJle
influence on the net profits.
We do not think that anybody (surely not
we) has argued that 4" the smaller the COW
the better" Still less have We favored
stunted cows. What we have said has not
been in advocacy of either large or small
cows, as such, Tor the dairy.
But we have taken the yield of butter as
a basis, and then from that basis we have
raised a question which we do not pretend
to be able to decide namely, whether a GER
tain butter product being assumed, it is
cheaper to obtain that product from a large
COW or from small one. Mr. Hubbard
gives the opinion that it is better to get il
from "a good large medium cow" aud that
such size :" has favorable influence on the
net profits"
But as he has advanced no facts in sup
port OF this opinion, and as really no sniff
cient collection of facts Is in existence to
demonstrate the truth of this, or any other
opinion on the subject, the question can
hardly be regarded as settled
In starting the discussion, we aimed only
to arouse the minds of our readers to the
importance of this point, and its direct
bearings upon the profits of a butter dairy
We did not assume to settle it, nor did We
believe it could be settled, in the present
state OF knowledge in regard to it.
II is true, we did refer to am ascertained
fact in physics for an illustration-the fact
that in any machine the less force there i,
wasted in friction, the larger is the result OBJ
'ained from it in usefulw work. We yenturet
to compare the support of the frame of
COW to the friction Of machine, and to ash
whether, supposing an equal yield of butte
in each case, the greater friction, so TO speak
in the large COW, would not necesstate
larger supply of force in the form Of food
than in the small COW. We then went OF
to inquire whether the greater value of tn,
large COW "a a beef animal would in the en-,
pay for this continued excess of food. Thii
is really the question to be settled Som,
say that the beef will pay, while others sa,
that the small COW might be thrown to TIA,
crows at the end of her usefulness in Tia,
dairy, and yet leave profit to her Owner
larger than the profit on the large COW, Will
the beef counted in.
1t is only by the repeated tests Of actual
intelligent experience, that question nk,
this can he settled to the satisfaction o
farmers generally. We need careful
record Of the cost and income from numer
Gus herds OF large, 81 large medium" me
dium and small COWS, kept for butter, befor,
positive and satisfactory conclusion /,
reached, These records should be kept foi
series of eight or ten years, aud then tab
ulated and compared. Is there one singl,
herd in the state of Vermont, either Of larg,
or small cows, or medium cows, of which
such record has been kept, or Is likely tc
he kept Is it at all likely that sucl
records ever will be kept, except at expert
ment stations specially assigned to the work Z
The matter Of breeds, referred to by Mr.
Hubbard, is involved in the solution OF thi,
question, and hence fayoritism for this OF
that breed enters into it as disturbing in
huence in mems minds, acting to prevent an
impartial judgment in the absence Of de
cisive facts But with full aud perfect,
reliable record of exhaustive experiments
this fayoritism would have to yield to the
demonstratiye power Of facts Until We can
have these facts, the Shorthorn breeder will
naturally argue on one side, and the Jerse,
breeder on the other. This is natural. but
" 1t is not science"
West Point.
The Rural Ne'o Yocter-which, by the way
is tine only agricultural paper we are nc