St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1884-09-20
Size and Deceptive Appearances.


We remember once seeing two an
finals stand side by side in competition
for the prize offered for the best animal
In class of fat stock. They were a
big one and little one-so the by
ISLANDERS agreed to call them-and the
judicial preference was given to the lit
tie one. The decision was considered
to be one for quality against size.
The little animal was neatly
nodded, great through the chest, wide
between the forelegs, broad along the
back, deep-ribbed, short-legged, and
evenly covered with flesh OF the best
kind, while the larger animal, standing
several inches higher, had q great, pro-
tuberant breast, big ribs and hips, and
extraordinary length, with flesh laid on
In large heaps. Put on the weighing
machine the two proved equal within
the weight of a feather. The large.
loosely-built, open frame of the one:
and its heaving masses of flesh, had
filled the eye, impressing the idea OF
enormous size, while the closely-knit
frame of the other, with every
inch of space economical, had failed to
make that impression. When even
weights were announced, the incredulity
of many of the bystanders was perhaps
natural, but the many who were in
credulous had probably not done much
in testing the accuracy CT impressions
of the sight by the testimony of the
scales-they were not practical graziers.
But in this case, men even of consider
able practice were not quite prepared
for so even balance. If the butcher
bought by live weight at the same rate
per pound, here were two animals of
equal value; but the probability is that
the superior handling of the apparently
smaller animal would command trifie
extra. How would the case be with the
butchers customer, the consumer?
Whatever he paid, he would get plenty
of bone for his money, and perhaps
there would be some melting down in
his kitchen, and a proportion OF gristle
found when he carved. These two ami
mails. therefore, contradict the pre-
sumption that exists in favor of size es-
timated by the eye; the apparently
smaller was fully as large as the ap-
parently larger animal, if the quantity
of material and not the form in which
that material is piled up, constitute
size; and the material was unquestion-
ably of higher value than that of the
apparently larger animal. Rev. Henry
Berry, writing in the year 1880 on the
state of some of the improved breeds Of
cattle in England, refers to the danger
of the captivation of the eye by ''deep
aAd imposing stde-UieaO," and strongly
insists upon the necessity of Substance
or capacious11ess-in width first, and
afterwards in depth, as much as can be
obtained in the fore-quarters of a
Short-horn The soundness of the prin-
ciple is recognized by the supporters OF
other beef breeds. A hearty and pow
erful advocate of the Short horn, Mr..
Berry endeavored to impress upon the
Short-horn breeders of that day his own
belief, that great width and capacity OF
chest were absolutely essential to the
continued success OF the breed; and he
added, emphatically ''If the breed ever
fail, as others have done, / doubt not
this is the defect to which their want of
success will be chiefly owing" These
are words which bear repeating occa-
sionally; their truth is forced upon the
more observant Short-horn breeders of
the present day, and it may be, that as
Mr.. Berry's warning was effective in
his time and country, this reminder may
be not quite fruitless here to-day
National Lire Stock Journal.